1 2011-04-20 00:00:02 <lfm_> sigh
   2 2011-04-20 00:00:02 <luke-jr> or you can just use bitcoin laundry
   3 2011-04-20 00:00:13 <ByteCoin> gis: reqires active webpage
   4 2011-04-20 00:00:16 <gjs278> lol
   5 2011-04-20 00:00:26 <BlueMatt> gjs278: the point is they want to distribute ONE address everywhere and still have donations untraceable
   6 2011-04-20 00:00:33 <gjs278> gotcha
   7 2011-04-20 00:00:41 <ByteCoin> BlueMatt: You got it...
   8 2011-04-20 00:00:47 <BlueMatt> which is a ton easier for them
   9 2011-04-20 00:01:23 <ByteCoin> BlueMatt: What part of the explanation did you find most useful?
  10 2011-04-20 00:01:23 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: any comments on luke-jr's code?
  11 2011-04-20 00:01:39 <BlueMatt> ByteCoin: if you want to write it up, just do the wikileaks example
  12 2011-04-20 00:01:43 <ByteCoin> Ok
  13 2011-04-20 00:01:56 <lfm_> ok pgp email it too much trouble but he needs a new protocl implemented with multiple unreveiwed steps to solve it his way. ok sure, ill get right on it
  14 2011-04-20 00:01:56 <BlueMatt> make it clear they want to distribute ONE address publicly for everyone
  15 2011-04-20 00:02:16 <gjs278> how easy is it to change the protocol
  16 2011-04-20 00:02:21 <ByteCoin> BlueMatt: Ok
  17 2011-04-20 00:02:23 <luke-jr> gjs278: basically impossible
  18 2011-04-20 00:02:27 <gjs278> that's what I figured
  19 2011-04-20 00:02:30 <ByteCoin> gisL No protocol change required
  20 2011-04-20 00:02:33 <BlueMatt> lfm_: this doesnt change protocol
  21 2011-04-20 00:02:34 <gjs278> oh ok
  22 2011-04-20 00:02:52 <ByteCoin> Completely invisible to everyone else
  23 2011-04-20 00:03:08 <BlueMatt> lfm_: and I dont think he ever said he wanted it in mainline, its just an idea and wikileaks could distribute a program which generated the destination address
  24 2011-04-20 00:03:12 <lfm_> BlueMatt: no it is a complete new protocol on top of existing ones as I see it
  25 2011-04-20 00:03:19 <BlueMatt> lfm_: no its not
  26 2011-04-20 00:03:22 <ByteCoin> No. I want it mainline
  27 2011-04-20 00:03:29 <ByteCoin> It will be there eventually
  28 2011-04-20 00:03:35 <ByteCoin> The idea is too good to die
  29 2011-04-20 00:03:36 <BlueMatt> ByteCoin: well now that I disagree with
  30 2011-04-20 00:03:37 <lfm_> ByteCoin: absolutly no chance
  31 2011-04-20 00:03:39 <gjs278> would my client be able to handle the transactions without updating
  32 2011-04-20 00:03:42 <ByteCoin> I just want to hurry it
  33 2011-04-20 00:03:43 <gjs278> that's all I care about
  34 2011-04-20 00:03:48 <ByteCoin> gis: yes
  35 2011-04-20 00:03:50 <chef_> POKER anyone?
  36 2011-04-20 00:04:04 <gjs278> dude chef_ poker is illegal go get that terrorist shit out of here
  37 2011-04-20 00:04:04 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Quit: bitcoinbulletin)
  38 2011-04-20 00:04:12 <ByteCoin> gis: Depends what you mean by "handel"
  39 2011-04-20 00:04:21 <BlueMatt> lfm_: read it more carefully, its just a DHE which is designed so that the end secret is a bitcoin pub/priv key pair
  40 2011-04-20 00:04:22 <ByteCoin> You can relay them
  41 2011-04-20 00:04:24 <gjs278> will I have to update to confirm the blocks
  42 2011-04-20 00:04:36 <ByteCoin> confirm?
  43 2011-04-20 00:04:36 <BlueMatt> gjs278: no
  44 2011-04-20 00:04:37 <chef_> lol
  45 2011-04-20 00:04:42 <gjs278> cool
  46 2011-04-20 00:04:44 <BlueMatt> there are no changes to the protocol or way it works
  47 2011-04-20 00:04:56 <ByteCoin> DHE?
  48 2011-04-20 00:05:07 <ByteCoin> Diffie Helman ?
  49 2011-04-20 00:05:09 <BlueMatt> Diffie hellman exchange
  50 2011-04-20 00:05:14 <ByteCoin> Cools
  51 2011-04-20 00:05:14 Omni has quit (AFK!~hopper@pdpc/supporter/professional/omnifarious|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  52 2011-04-20 00:05:15 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: <shrug>
  53 2011-04-20 00:05:27 <gjs278> not every feature needs to be in bitcoind
  54 2011-04-20 00:05:27 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I don't know a URL handler from Shinola
  55 2011-04-20 00:05:46 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: shinola?
  56 2011-04-20 00:05:54 <gjs278> I just want it to be able to send/receive/confirm blocks
  57 2011-04-20 00:05:58 <lfm_> ByteCoin: you do know that we can send coins to nodes that are not currently online dont you?
  58 2011-04-20 00:06:04 <lulzplzkthx> Who is Michael Hacker?
  59 2011-04-20 00:06:08 <BlueMatt> lfm_: no where near the point
  60 2011-04-20 00:06:10 <gjs278> I am Michael Hacker
  61 2011-04-20 00:06:13 <gjs278> ask me anything
  62 2011-04-20 00:06:17 <ByteCoin> lfm: Not sure what you mean....
  63 2011-04-20 00:06:21 <BlueMatt> I am Michael Hacker
  64 2011-04-20 00:06:33 <ByteCoin> No. I'm Michael Hacker
  65 2011-04-20 00:06:42 <lfm_> I'm not
  66 2011-04-20 00:06:50 <jgarzik> I might be
  67 2011-04-20 00:06:51 <gjs278> in death, you will have a name
  68 2011-04-20 00:06:56 <gjs278> that name is Michael Hacker
  69 2011-04-20 00:07:03 <chef_> my name actually is michael hacker
  70 2011-04-20 00:07:16 <jgarzik> _my_ name actually is michael hacker
  71 2011-04-20 00:07:19 theorb has joined
  72 2011-04-20 00:07:19 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  73 2011-04-20 00:07:22 <lulzplzkthx> XD
  74 2011-04-20 00:07:24 <lfm_> (Only the real michael Hacker would deny he was Micael Hacker)
  75 2011-04-20 00:07:34 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  76 2011-04-20 00:07:37 <gjs278> lfm_ is in fact the real Michael Hacker
  77 2011-04-20 00:07:48 <chef_> or maybe he'd make a comment like "(Only the real michael Hacker would deny he was Micael Hacker)"
  78 2011-04-20 00:07:49 BlueMatt is now known as MichaelHacker
  79 2011-04-20 00:07:50 <RenaKunisaki> I AM SPARTACUS
  80 2011-04-20 00:07:53 <MichaelHacker> or am i?
  81 2011-04-20 00:07:54 <RenaKunisaki> I mean Micheal
  82 2011-04-20 00:08:00 <gjs278> the real Michael Hacker would purposely typo his name to make it appear like he doesn't type it often
  83 2011-04-20 00:08:08 MichaelHacker is now known as BlueMatt
  84 2011-04-20 00:08:14 ByteCoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  85 2011-04-20 00:08:27 <gjs278> the nsa shutdown bytecoin
  86 2011-04-20 00:08:32 ByteCoin has joined
  87 2011-04-20 00:08:34 <BlueMatt> the original question was for michael not micheal
  88 2011-04-20 00:08:45 <chef_> omg, micheal hacker is over at betco.in, everyone go over there!
  89 2011-04-20 00:08:56 <jgarzik> http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=michael+hacker&t=1000&a=n
  90 2011-04-20 00:08:59 <jgarzik> cereal ham hick
  91 2011-04-20 00:09:02 <gjs278> My Cool Hacker
  92 2011-04-20 00:09:24 <gjs278> My cool hacker friend sent me a few bitcoins.
  93 2011-04-20 00:10:06 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok just wanted to know if you cared about the addition of a second binary just to handle URIs.
  94 2011-04-20 00:10:45 <gjs278> every dep that gets added into bitcoind rages me
  95 2011-04-20 00:10:49 <gjs278> does it have any deps
  96 2011-04-20 00:10:50 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: a second *small* binary :P
  97 2011-04-20 00:10:59 <luke-jr> gjs278: no new deps
  98 2011-04-20 00:11:02 <gjs278> cool
  99 2011-04-20 00:11:07 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
 100 2011-04-20 00:11:09 <gribble> Current Blocks: 119203 | Current Difficulty: 92347.59095209 | Next Difficulty At Block: 120959 | Next Difficulty In: 1756 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 8 hours, 40 minutes, and 4 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 99499.63535271
 101 2011-04-20 00:11:13 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: no opinion.  if the community thinks it is a pressing need, and this is not just a luke-jr protocol with user_count==1, then sure.
 102 2011-04-20 00:11:15 <midnightmagic> woo!
 103 2011-04-20 00:11:23 Netsniper has joined
 104 2011-04-20 00:11:31 <luke-jr> jgarzik: every other client AFAIK supports it, and sirius put up a bounty for it
 105 2011-04-20 00:11:34 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calcd 585000 [bc,estimate]
 106 2011-04-20 00:11:34 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 585000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 99499.63535271, is 1 week, 1 day, 10 hours, 55 minutes, and 8 seconds
 107 2011-04-20 00:11:34 <gjs278> it's a cleverly encoded backdoor
 108 2011-04-20 00:11:40 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no surprisingly, for once, luke used a standard protocol
 109 2011-04-20 00:11:50 stonetz has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 110 2011-04-20 00:12:43 <gjs278> can the uri send a coin amount to an address
 111 2011-04-20 00:12:49 <luke-jr> gjs278: yes
 112 2011-04-20 00:12:54 <gjs278> how does it prompt you to confirm
 113 2011-04-20 00:13:00 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme
 114 2011-04-20 00:13:09 <luke-jr> gjs278: it just opens the standard Send dialog, pre-filled
 115 2011-04-20 00:13:13 <gjs278> oh ok
 116 2011-04-20 00:13:22 * tcatm likes the bitcoinuri patch
 117 2011-04-20 00:13:43 <gjs278> pretty sure you noobs are supposed to be using bitcoin://
 118 2011-04-20 00:13:47 <luke-jr> gjs278: nope
 119 2011-04-20 00:13:51 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 120 2011-04-20 00:13:54 <luke-jr> // is for hierarchial paths
 121 2011-04-20 00:14:00 <luke-jr> and URL, not URNs
 122 2011-04-20 00:14:08 <luke-jr> gjs278: think mailto:
 123 2011-04-20 00:14:21 <gjs278> that works better then
 124 2011-04-20 00:14:27 <gjs278> I was thinking irc:// before
 125 2011-04-20 00:14:42 <luke-jr> IRC is a URL, even if not a path ☺
 126 2011-04-20 00:14:53 DukeOfURL has joined
 127 2011-04-20 00:15:05 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I'm suspicious... the URI_Scheme wiki page mentions tonal.
 128 2011-04-20 00:15:14 <Kiba> lol
 129 2011-04-20 00:15:18 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: not interested in adding tonal support
 130 2011-04-20 00:15:39 <tcatm> it accepts normal decimal amounts
 131 2011-04-20 00:15:40 <luke-jr> jgarzik: in the context of "… nor Tonal…"
 132 2011-04-20 00:15:42 dbitcoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 133 2011-04-20 00:16:25 <jgarzik> tcatm: _only_ normal decimal amounts?  otherwise, we are adding support for tonal.
 134 2011-04-20 00:16:32 <tcatm> for a merge we could just remove the tonal stuff..
 135 2011-04-20 00:16:40 ezl has joined
 136 2011-04-20 00:17:02 <luke-jr> tcatm: there isn't any tonal stuff to remove
 137 2011-04-20 00:17:26 <tcatm> exponent stuff, hex support
 138 2011-04-20 00:17:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: nope upon reading his patch you are right, he does have tonal support (however it can be easily removed)
 139 2011-04-20 00:17:39 <BlueMatt> which it would be for merge
 140 2011-04-20 00:17:42 <luke-jr> tcatm: removing that would mean it's non-compliant.
 141 2011-04-20 00:17:47 <tcatm> I'd like to remove that from the URI_Scheme spec, too ;)
 142 2011-04-20 00:17:52 <jgarzik> tcatm: yes
 143 2011-04-20 00:17:59 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 144 2011-04-20 00:18:02 <luke-jr> tcatm: well, you're a troll; what to expect?
 145 2011-04-20 00:18:08 <gjs278> I don't know what tonal is but I want it
 146 2011-04-20 00:18:18 <luke-jr> lol
 147 2011-04-20 00:18:24 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: IMHO, it just complicates the protocol unnecessarily
 148 2011-04-20 00:18:29 <BlueMatt> (for one user)
 149 2011-04-20 00:18:36 <Cusipzzz> gjs278: you dont want tonal, trust us.
 150 2011-04-20 00:18:44 <gjs278> more tonal required
 151 2011-04-20 00:18:46 <jgarzik> no objection, once proposal has been cleaned of tonal crap
 152 2011-04-20 00:18:58 <jgarzik> if wiki retains tonal mention, import text spec into git tree
 153 2011-04-20 00:19:06 gen has joined
 154 2011-04-20 00:19:09 <BlueMatt> well we have to get luke-jr to MIT it first...
 155 2011-04-20 00:19:18 <tcatm> that's easy. send him 49 BTC
 156 2011-04-20 00:19:28 <BlueMatt> tcatm: his address:
 157 2011-04-20 00:19:30 <jgarzik> 49 TBTC
 158 2011-04-20 00:19:36 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it was originally a flat decimal integer, but someone complained
 159 2011-04-20 00:19:38 <BlueMatt> 19ut7h2sp9jKf5dpnK36FCPGu8L1cHnPSE
 160 2011-04-20 00:19:38 dbitcoin has joined
 161 2011-04-20 00:19:42 <lulzplzkthx> Hurry up and find me a block guys! :3
 162 2011-04-20 00:19:48 <gjs278> http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/7378752/We-need-more-tonal.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Warcraft-3-Quote
 163 2011-04-20 00:19:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: might it have been you?
 164 2011-04-20 00:19:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nope
 165 2011-04-20 00:19:58 sneak has joined
 166 2011-04-20 00:20:21 <luke-jr> gjs278: http://books.google.com/books?id=TyFRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15&dq=Tonal+System+sixteen&hl=en&ei=6yWuTbr-JJGH0QGnlrG1Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA
 167 2011-04-20 00:20:25 sneak is now known as Guest78070
 168 2011-04-20 00:20:25 <jgarzik> gjs278: har :)
 169 2011-04-20 00:20:41 <BlueMatt> well I still see no reason for tonal in the uri spec, also I see no reason for it not to be decimals instead of the whole power thing
 170 2011-04-20 00:20:52 <gjs278> Construct additional tonal
 171 2011-04-20 00:21:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I see no reason to change what is working and supported by every other client
 172 2011-04-20 00:21:23 <BlueMatt> No I agree, its much too late
 173 2011-04-20 00:21:29 <tcatm> js-remote is broken. it doesn't support tonal
 174 2011-04-20 00:21:35 <BlueMatt> just see no reason for the change in the first place
 175 2011-04-20 00:21:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: someone didn't like simple. I forget who, and my logs are on another disk
 176 2011-04-20 00:21:50 <gjs278> tell me where the js-remote channel is located, I'll convince them to add tonal
 177 2011-04-20 00:21:54 <BlueMatt> tcatm: well if someone give luke 49 btc, I think the majority of 2 clients makes non-tonal the standard ;)
 178 2011-04-20 00:22:01 <tcatm> gjs278: good luck :P
 179 2011-04-20 00:22:04 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: 2 isn't a majority.
 180 2011-04-20 00:22:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: how many clients are there?
 181 2011-04-20 00:22:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: at least 4 or 5
 182 2011-04-20 00:22:21 <jgarzik> "every other client" -- meaning bitcoin client?
 183 2011-04-20 00:22:24 <luke-jr> gjs278: tcatm == js-remote
 184 2011-04-20 00:22:24 <BlueMatt> specifically which support URI:
 185 2011-04-20 00:22:35 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes
 186 2011-04-20 00:22:37 <jgarzik> not really.  there is 1 bitcoin client with full functionality, and bunch of a half-functional ones.
 187 2011-04-20 00:22:49 <BlueMatt> there is spesmilo, bitcoin, js-remote, what else?
 188 2011-04-20 00:22:58 <luke-jr> jgarzik: one monolithic monster, you mean
 189 2011-04-20 00:23:00 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: still uri support is in the remote level
 190 2011-04-20 00:23:02 <gjs278> I'm going to lobby millions to congress so that they pass a law requiring all uri schemes for bitcoin to support tonal
 191 2011-04-20 00:23:05 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: some C# one, Android
 192 2011-04-20 00:23:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: do those support tonal?
 193 2011-04-20 00:23:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes
 194 2011-04-20 00:23:35 <luke-jr> the C# one has 3 number systems, even
 195 2011-04-20 00:23:51 <luke-jr> well, unit systems anyhow
 196 2011-04-20 00:23:58 <luke-jr> "Scientific Satoshis"…
 197 2011-04-20 00:24:10 <BlueMatt> wtf is a scientific satoshi?
 198 2011-04-20 00:24:15 <luke-jr> which is basically N.NNNNe+N Satoshis
 199 2011-04-20 00:24:22 <luke-jr> IIRC
 200 2011-04-20 00:24:42 <luke-jr> been a month or two since I looked at the code
 201 2011-04-20 00:24:45 <luke-jr> and I don't use C# stuff
 202 2011-04-20 00:24:48 <jgarzik> Tonal is not user friendly, and will only confuse Aunt Tillie, who should never have to see the word "tonal" nor figure out what it means.
 203 2011-04-20 00:25:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what android client?
 204 2011-04-20 00:25:15 <luke-jr> jgarzik: my patch doesn't do anything for Tonal in wxBitcoin, so stop whining
 205 2011-04-20 00:25:20 taco_the_paco has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 206 2011-04-20 00:25:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there's two IIRC, didn't look much into them
 207 2011-04-20 00:25:29 <jgarzik> luke-jr: disagree
 208 2011-04-20 00:25:30 <gjs278> not enough tonal support in that case
 209 2011-04-20 00:25:40 CodePHP has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 4.0/20110318052756])
 210 2011-04-20 00:25:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I still agree with jgarzik that tonal support shouldnt be in the backend, its up to the frontend to support it
 211 2011-04-20 00:25:56 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it's not.
 212 2011-04-20 00:25:59 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I also agree.
 213 2011-04-20 00:26:02 <BlueMatt> for such a minimal feature
 214 2011-04-20 00:26:26 robotarmy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 215 2011-04-20 00:26:29 <lulzplzkthx> MyBitcoin + whoever's creating blocks hates me. I've been waiting for my payment at least 3 blocks. >_>
 216 2011-04-20 00:26:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: putting it in the uri spec is the backend (for loose interpretations of backend)
 217 2011-04-20 00:26:33 <lulzplzkthx> And it's only .08
 218 2011-04-20 00:26:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: there is nothing Tonal in the URI spec
 219 2011-04-20 00:26:47 <gjs278> I'm on the phone with Nakamoto, he's telling me we need to freeze the blockchain until full tonal support is added
 220 2011-04-20 00:27:05 <luke-jr> gjs278: the blockchain has 'full tonal support'
 221 2011-04-20 00:27:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: wait, WHAT the whole x vs X thing?
 222 2011-04-20 00:27:10 <Cusipzzz> feature..i lol'd. it's a joke..where's the roman numeral support?
 223 2011-04-20 00:27:15 <jgarzik> luke-jr: URI_Scheme wiki page mentions tonal.  that needs to be removed.
 224 2011-04-20 00:27:30 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no, it doesn't. it mentions Tonal because it doesn't use it.
 225 2011-04-20 00:27:33 <gjs278> luke-jr he says not good enough
 226 2011-04-20 00:27:39 <luke-jr> gjs278: too bad, he has no control :P
 227 2011-04-20 00:27:48 <luke-jr> most he can do is spam us
 228 2011-04-20 00:27:53 <tcatm> I'll remove hex/exponent stuff from the wiki if no one (except luke-jr) objects...
 229 2011-04-20 00:28:00 <gjs278> I object
 230 2011-04-20 00:28:09 <BlueMatt> another question why the fuck is the spec for tonal in uri x400 == 400 tonal BTC whereas 20X8 == 20 BTC?
 231 2011-04-20 00:28:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: x400 is invalid
 232 2011-04-20 00:28:30 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: if it says that anywhere, it's a bug
 233 2011-04-20 00:28:33 <BlueMatt> tcatm: I think at this point exponent stuff should stay, its already implemented
 234 2011-04-20 00:28:37 <BlueMatt> luke-jr:
 235 2011-04-20 00:28:53 <luke-jr> aha, I see it
 236 2011-04-20 00:28:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: exponent is not standard behavior at all
 237 2011-04-20 00:29:03 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: you don't enter exponents into an ATM
 238 2011-04-20 00:29:13 <gjs278> I use my own atm client
 239 2011-04-20 00:29:18 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: it defaults to the standard BTC if you exclude exponents
 240 2011-04-20 00:29:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: though I agree it shouldnt have been implemented to begin with
 241 2011-04-20 00:29:37 <BlueMatt> but now that its there and used, no point going back
 242 2011-04-20 00:29:51 <tcatm> who uses exponents?
 243 2011-04-20 00:29:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: it's not used in the main bitcoin client, nor anywhere with actual _userbase_
 244 2011-04-20 00:30:29 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: technically, without Xn, it's invalid/undefined still, so we could change it to raw units easily
 245 2011-04-20 00:30:30 <BlueMatt> again, I agree it should never have been added...however it is supported by existing clients and IMHO should stay
 246 2011-04-20 00:30:35 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: no major bitcoin website supports anything but decimal
 247 2011-04-20 00:30:52 * tcatm is not even sure if js-remote supports it
 248 2011-04-20 00:31:00 <BlueMatt> though I suppose the fact that the uri spec is used exactly nowhere means you can change it to whatever you want
 249 2011-04-20 00:31:05 <BlueMatt> tcatm: IIRC it does
 250 2011-04-20 00:31:13 <tcatm> yep, works
 251 2011-04-20 00:31:20 <jgarzik> nope.  being supported in odd duck clients in odd duck situations is not justification.  thankfully we can and will excise user-unfriendly stuff like that.
 252 2011-04-20 00:31:32 <jgarzik> that crap just complicates _parsing_ of a bitcoin URI, down the road.
 253 2011-04-20 00:31:45 <gjs278> I'd use js-remote, but I heard from a friend it doesn't support tonal...
 254 2011-04-20 00:31:45 <tcatm> but then again, what's wrong with a new revision of the spec without exponents?
 255 2011-04-20 00:31:47 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ok good point I have no objections to its removal
 256 2011-04-20 00:32:07 <luke-jr> if there's no further objection, I'll go ahead and remove it
 257 2011-04-20 00:32:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you mean tonal and exponents?
 258 2011-04-20 00:32:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: hexadecimal and exponents
 259 2011-04-20 00:32:36 <jgarzik> back-compat does not -start- until a major browser is using bitcoin: URIs.  Right now, we still have the freedom to get things right.
 260 2011-04-20 00:32:46 <BlueMatt> lastly, why are luke-jr's public addresses on the wiki? shouldnt it be the example invalid address from the client?
 261 2011-04-20 00:33:01 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ok I thin no one objects
 262 2011-04-20 00:33:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: are they? I think it's someone else's
 263 2011-04-20 00:33:14 <BlueMatt> oh, well either way needs fixed
 264 2011-04-20 00:33:17 <tcatm> could be my address
 265 2011-04-20 00:33:44 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: what's the example address?
 266 2011-04-20 00:33:53 <tcatm> maybe use a testnet address?
 267 2011-04-20 00:33:54 <gjs278> after reading this paper I'm having tonal vision. my brain no longer reads numbers in any other format correctly.
 268 2011-04-20 00:33:57 <BlueMatt> 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L
 269 2011-04-20 00:33:58 Diablo-D3 has joined
 270 2011-04-20 00:34:54 <gjs278> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?action=printpage;topic=3645.0 is on here
 271 2011-04-20 00:34:55  has joined
 272 2011-04-20 00:34:58 <gjs278> 1NS that is
 273 2011-04-20 00:35:22 <BlueMatt> or what I pasted
 274 2011-04-20 00:35:23 <jgarzik> could use the address of a charity
 275 2011-04-20 00:35:34 <tcatm> faucet?
 276 2011-04-20 00:36:03 <tcatm> or even a different address for every example
 277 2011-04-20 00:36:22 <gjs278> 1FAKEADDRESSFAKEADDRESSL
 278 2011-04-20 00:37:40 sabalaba has joined
 279 2011-04-20 00:37:53 <gjs278> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Tonal
 280 2011-04-20 00:38:03 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 281 2011-04-20 00:38:27 <luke-jr> done breaking basically every bitcoin client… and replacing addresses with example
 282 2011-04-20 00:38:44 <tcatm> jgarzik: btw, any comments on my bitcoin-cli idea?
 283 2011-04-20 00:39:03 <gjs278> can bitcoind send coins without relying on the prompt
 284 2011-04-20 00:39:16 <gjs278> I thought it was bitcoin-cli for all intents
 285 2011-04-20 00:39:41 <jgarzik> tcatm: a "bitcoin shell" (similar to what happens for mysql, when you run "mysql $DB" at prompt) makes sense
 286 2011-04-20 00:39:50 <jgarzik> tcatm: so that part I liked
 287 2011-04-20 00:40:02 <BlueMatt> I agree, should be simple to do ie just an rpc client shell
 288 2011-04-20 00:40:14 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 289 2011-04-20 00:40:43 <BlueMatt> I'm off, just realized its 2:30 AM
 290 2011-04-20 00:40:49 <jgarzik> tcatm: a "bitcoin shell" also means you can cat(1) bitscripts:  cat foo.txt | bitcoin-shell
 291 2011-04-20 00:40:57 <tcatm> yep
 292 2011-04-20 00:41:15 <tcatm> gn BlueMatt
 293 2011-04-20 00:41:22 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 294 2011-04-20 00:41:48 <tcatm> I also want it on stdio in case the daemon doesn't fork so GUIs can have a private RPC channel.
 295 2011-04-20 00:42:16 <jgarzik> tcatm: make it behave like mysql(1):  if tty present, use readline.  if no tty (pipe), stdio.
 296 2011-04-20 00:42:23 <tcatm> yep
 297 2011-04-20 00:42:26 <luke-jr> tcatm: that overlooks the insane expectation for GUIs to poll
 298 2011-04-20 00:42:32 <tcatm> or rather libedit. readline is GPL :/
 299 2011-04-20 00:42:47 <gjs278> use it and distribute it however you want
 300 2011-04-20 00:42:55 <gjs278> gpl people are sissies, they wont' sue
 301 2011-04-20 00:43:12 <tcatm> luke-jr: with stdio RPC the daemon could push or even ask for confirmation (tx requires fee. send?)
 302 2011-04-20 00:43:39 <jgarzik> tcatm: it's not LGPL? that's lame.
 303 2011-04-20 00:43:39 <luke-jr> tcatm: sure, but it doesn't fix the real problems
 304 2011-04-20 00:44:12 <tcatm> jgarzik: yep, even the wiki article mentions it as a problem but libedit seems to be a nice BSD drop-in replacement
 305 2011-04-20 00:44:43 <tcatm> luke-jr: it's a step towards fixing the real problems
 306 2011-04-20 00:44:51 taco_the_paco has joined
 307 2011-04-20 00:44:51 taco_the_paco has quit (Changing host)
 308 2011-04-20 00:44:51 taco_the_paco has joined
 309 2011-04-20 00:45:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: not really
 310 2011-04-20 00:47:49 tenach_ has joined
 311 2011-04-20 00:47:58 <gjs278> I've compile modified versions of firefox and distrbuted the binaries without changing the branding
 312 2011-04-20 00:48:06 <gjs278> send me to jail
 313 2011-04-20 00:48:13 tenach_ is now known as tenach
 314 2011-04-20 00:50:27 ByteCoin has left ()
 315 2011-04-20 00:51:48 <lfm_> do not pass go
 316 2011-04-20 00:52:03 <lfm_> do not collect 200 btc
 317 2011-04-20 00:52:23 <gjs278> I want to play monopoly with inflation
 318 2011-04-20 00:52:37 <tcatm> luke-jr: URI scheme. are you sure we decided to use baseunits?
 319 2011-04-20 00:52:56 <grbgout> gjs278: you missed a -daemon discussion.
 320 2011-04-20 00:52:57 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bitcoinuri * r343b432db007 bitcoind-personal/ (makefile.unix wxipcclient.cpp wxipcserver.cpp): Boost-based IPC for bitcoin: URI support http://tinyurl.com/42z3yh5
 321 2011-04-20 00:53:00 <gjs278> I saw
 322 2011-04-20 00:53:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: what else?
 323 2011-04-20 00:53:13 <tcatm> decimals
 324 2011-04-20 00:53:15 <luke-jr> tcatm: there's low-level and high-level.
 325 2011-04-20 00:53:16 <gjs278> if the conclusion wasn't default to -daemon then someone dropped the ball on that one
 326 2011-04-20 00:53:28 <luke-jr> tcatm: don't be ridiculous
 327 2011-04-20 00:55:04 <tcatm> now you broke *every* existing uri scheme implementation
 328 2011-04-20 00:55:27 <gjs278> someone else broke every existing bitcoind example by forcing -daemon
 329 2011-04-20 00:55:28 <grbgout> gjs278: could be, but we didn't have you there to get our backs!
 330 2011-04-20 00:55:33 <gjs278> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/PHP_developer_intro
 331 2011-04-20 00:55:34 <gjs278> like that page
 332 2011-04-20 00:55:37 <gjs278> completely inaccurate now
 333 2011-04-20 00:55:45 <gjs278> $ ./bitcoind
 334 2011-04-20 00:55:46 <gjs278> # wait a few seconds for it to start up
 335 2011-04-20 00:55:52 <gjs278> wait your whole life
 336 2011-04-20 00:55:54 <luke-jr> tcatm: uhm, that was the discussion. go back and re-read.
 337 2011-04-20 00:56:23 <tcatm> gjs278: it says beta (not as in web 2.0 beta, but as in "behaviour might change frequently") almost everywhere
 338 2011-04-20 00:56:38 <luke-jr> non-breaking would mean going back to how it was for the last 4 months or so
 339 2011-04-20 00:56:42 <gjs278> grbgout I had jury duty, but if I had known there was going to be a -daemon discussion, I would have put myself at contempt of court risk
 340 2011-04-20 00:56:52 <grbgout> haha
 341 2011-04-20 00:57:02 <jgarzik> any URI scheme that does not support "50.00" representing 50 bitcoins is stillborn
 342 2011-04-20 00:57:16  is now known as Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-76-252-35-118.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Netsniper
 343 2011-04-20 00:57:24 <jgarzik> no tonal, no basecoins, no ubtc, none of that silliness.
 344 2011-04-20 00:57:26 <gjs278> it says beta that doesn't mean we have to take out defaulting to -daemon
 345 2011-04-20 00:57:39 <luke-jr> jgarzik: hopefully sirius will sensibly trump you then
 346 2011-04-20 00:57:56 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr * r77293fa006ed spesmilo/send.py: adjust bitcoin: URI handling to support simpler low-level format in addition to older high-level format http://tinyurl.com/3unsmv9
 347 2011-04-20 00:57:58 <jgarzik> luke-jr: sorry, that's incompatible with the main client
 348 2011-04-20 00:58:00 <luke-jr> jgarzik: JSON-RPC has that bug, and there is a general consensus that it was a mistake.
 349 2011-04-20 00:58:07 <jgarzik> uh huh
 350 2011-04-20 00:58:20 <grbgout> Well, I'm going to give this 585W a try.  Hopefully I'll be back soon.
 351 2011-04-20 00:58:24 <luke-jr> jgarzik: the original client has always used raw units for low-level stuff
 352 2011-04-20 00:58:35 grbgout has quit (Quit: *fingers crossed*)
 353 2011-04-20 00:58:55 <tcatm> we can get the baseunit stuff right once amounts < 0.0001 BTC are common
 354 2011-04-20 00:59:38 <jgarzik> people, Normal Humans are going to be creating URIs.  They will use the same numbers that they type into mybitcoin.com, mtgox.com, bitcoin GUI or bitcoin JSON-RPC.
 355 2011-04-20 01:00:11 <luke-jr> then we can go back to high-level like it was before
 356 2011-04-20 01:00:55 <luke-jr> make up your mind and quit trying to troll
 357 2011-04-20 01:01:00 <jgarzik> 50 BTC must be "50" or "50.0", not 500000000.
 358 2011-04-20 01:01:46 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I have been 100% consistent on this
 359 2011-04-20 01:01:53 gen has quit (Quit: leaving)
 360 2011-04-20 01:02:30 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no, before you complained it was too high-level, now you're complaining it's not high-level
 361 2011-04-20 01:02:39 DukeOfURL has joined
 362 2011-04-20 01:02:44 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 363 2011-04-20 01:02:53 <tcatm> make it mid-level and use decimals like RPC does
 364 2011-04-20 01:02:53 <gjs278> I say it U - R - L
 365 2011-04-20 01:02:54 <jgarzik> luke-jr: before, I complained that it included tonal, hex and other unnecessary details
 366 2011-04-20 01:02:55 <gjs278> never earl
 367 2011-04-20 01:03:14 <luke-jr> jgarzik: it never included tonal
 368 2011-04-20 01:03:24 <luke-jr> and those 'details' are just as necessary as your '50' bs
 369 2011-04-20 01:04:35 <mizerydearia> luke-jr, except I wasn't crazy and I wasn't drunk.
 370 2011-04-20 01:08:26 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: my memory exaggerates then :P
 371 2011-04-20 01:11:35 <[Tycho]> I support the 50 and 50.0 :)
 372 2011-04-20 01:11:44 <[Tycho]> 50.00 is also fine
 373 2011-04-20 01:12:12 <luke-jr> fine, back to high-level
 374 2011-04-20 01:12:28 <gjs278> [Tycho] I'm back to leeching on your pool
 375 2011-04-20 01:12:39 <gjs278> I'm 2 blocks found, 105 coins paid out B)
 376 2011-04-20 01:12:52 <[Tycho]> Perfectly fits :)
 377 2011-04-20 01:12:57 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bitcoinuri * r7eb88f0cb6af bitcoind-personal/ (makefile.unix wxipcclient.cpp wxipcserver.cpp): Boost-based IPC for bitcoin: URI support http://tinyurl.com/3z4d86u
 378 2011-04-20 01:13:25 <netxshare> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4618.0 - is there a reason they want to use the opensource drivers and not have to use the Stream2.1sdk?
 379 2011-04-20 01:13:46 <luke-jr> netxshare: the same reason people use Linux, duh
 380 2011-04-20 01:13:47 <tcatm> luke-jr: make it decimals without exponent/hex so we finally have an URI scheme most devs agree on
 381 2011-04-20 01:14:04 <luke-jr> tcatm: quit trolling.
 382 2011-04-20 01:15:48 * BurtyB would call his 125BTC and 1 block found more of a leech - I need better luck
 383 2011-04-20 01:16:12 * luke-jr notes everyone was excitedly happy with URI support until the trolls creeped out.
 384 2011-04-20 01:16:45 Stellar has joined
 385 2011-04-20 01:17:07 <tcatm> well, leave the wiki as it is and we'll merge a decimal only version with the new spec into GIT
 386 2011-04-20 01:17:11 Stellar is now known as Guest11329
 387 2011-04-20 01:17:13 <netxshare> luke-jr: so if it used the sdk they would not want it
 388 2011-04-20 01:17:22 <luke-jr> netxshare: correct
 389 2011-04-20 01:17:33 <netxshare> what about CAL++
 390 2011-04-20 01:17:44 <gjs278> if it used the sdk that would still be a good start. it wouldn't win the bounty but I would definitely use it
 391 2011-04-20 01:17:49 <netxshare> ill have to look into it
 392 2011-04-20 01:18:04 <luke-jr> tcatm: keep alienating people and you'll lose your market share eventually
 393 2011-04-20 01:18:16 <netxshare> I don't see why if I compile it in IL I can''t get it to run on those drivers too
 394 2011-04-20 01:18:26 <netxshare> are the opensource ones better luke?
 395 2011-04-20 01:18:33 <luke-jr> netxshare: they're free
 396 2011-04-20 01:18:34 <netxshare> I have not used ati card in a very long time
 397 2011-04-20 01:18:35 Guest11329 has quit (Client Quit)
 398 2011-04-20 01:18:40 <gjs278> everything open source is better, question is invalid
 399 2011-04-20 01:18:42 <netxshare> ati's are not?
 400 2011-04-20 01:21:51 <luke-jr> netxshare: if it isn't open source, it isn't free
 401 2011-04-20 01:22:07 <AAA_awright> Git isn't an acronym :p
 402 2011-04-20 01:23:34 <netxshare> okay
 403 2011-04-20 01:24:03 <luke-jr> netxshare: read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
 404 2011-04-20 01:25:19 <tcatm> luke-jr: btw, could you fix your patch? see coding.txt
 405 2011-04-20 01:25:43 <netxshare> I understood
 406 2011-04-20 01:25:47 <netxshare> free as in not open
 407 2011-04-20 01:25:53 <luke-jr> …
 408 2011-04-20 01:26:17 <luke-jr> tcatm: what specifically? I went out of my way to match the coding style
 409 2011-04-20 01:26:27 <netxshare> the ati drivers are bins only correct
 410 2011-04-20 01:26:44 <tcatm> luke-jr: variable names
 411 2011-04-20 01:26:51 <luke-jr> oh
 412 2011-04-20 01:26:53 <luke-jr> that
 413 2011-04-20 01:26:59 <tcatm> i.e. pszAddress, nAmount
 414 2011-04-20 01:27:08 <luke-jr> sure, gimme a minute
 415 2011-04-20 01:27:10 <tcatm> or sAddress
 416 2011-04-20 01:27:36 <tcatm> actually it should be strAddress
 417 2011-04-20 01:27:47 <luke-jr> tcatm: is it ok that I used standard int64_t rather than the non-standard int64 typedef?
 418 2011-04-20 01:28:01 <gjs278> use int64_tonal
 419 2011-04-20 01:28:07 <luke-jr> …
 420 2011-04-20 01:28:31 <tcatm> luke-jr: the code uses int64 everywhere so you should, too
 421 2011-04-20 01:28:46 <luke-jr> tcatm: I was hoping to set a higher standard for code quality ;)
 422 2011-04-20 01:29:07 Stellar has joined
 423 2011-04-20 01:29:32 Teslah has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 424 2011-04-20 01:29:35 Kicchiri has joined
 425 2011-04-20 01:29:35 ForceDestroyer has quit (Disconnected by services)
 426 2011-04-20 01:29:37 <tcatm> luke-jr: make a seperate patch that changes util.h
 427 2011-04-20 01:29:39 <[Tycho]> Who is the author of bitcoinwatch ? Same as bitcoincharts or not ?
 428 2011-04-20 01:29:41 <AAA_awright> What's the difference?
 429 2011-04-20 01:29:43 <AAA_awright> It's a NUMBER
 430 2011-04-20 01:29:48 <AAA_awright> Not a numeral representation
 431 2011-04-20 01:29:54 <luke-jr> …
 432 2011-04-20 01:30:04 <tcatm> [Tycho]: me
 433 2011-04-20 01:30:21 Stellar has quit (2!~Stellar@110.137.123.54|Client Quit)
 434 2011-04-20 01:30:24 <[Tycho]> tcatm, both sites are yours ?
 435 2011-04-20 01:30:26 <tcatm> yep
 436 2011-04-20 01:30:29 <[Tycho]> Ok.
 437 2011-04-20 01:30:51 Stellar has joined
 438 2011-04-20 01:33:39 <AAA_awright> Can I propose the unit aBTC to mean atomic bitcoin units?
 439 2011-04-20 01:34:07 <gjs278> you can technically propose anything
 440 2011-04-20 01:34:09 <tcatm> doesn't sound like a good idea...
 441 2011-04-20 01:34:33 <tcatm> there's nothing preventing us from making even smaller units.
 442 2011-04-20 01:34:48 <gjs278> pBTC for proton bitcoin units
 443 2011-04-20 01:35:00 <luke-jr> tcatm: is 'using namespace' allowed?
 444 2011-04-20 01:35:20 <tcatm> luke-jr: sure
 445 2011-04-20 01:35:23 <luke-jr> tcatm: depends on who "us" is
 446 2011-04-20 01:36:57 <luke-jr> tcatm: what prefix do I use for char_separator<char>?
 447 2011-04-20 01:37:07 <luke-jr> and tokenizer
 448 2011-04-20 01:37:24 <tcatm> I'm not sure... is it a pointer to a 0-string?
 449 2011-04-20 01:37:28 <AAA_awright> tcatm: I was going to propose 64aBTC but why not just leave that for later versions
 450 2011-04-20 01:37:42 <AAA_awright> If we expand later, let's add it then... 128aBTC
 451 2011-04-20 01:37:42 <luke-jr> tcatm: it's some kind of object
 452 2011-04-20 01:38:40 <AAA_awright> It is 64 bits, right? The BTC cap is 0.878416384 of a 64 bit integer
 453 2011-04-20 01:39:04 <luke-jr> …
 454 2011-04-20 01:39:17 <tcatm> luke-jr: is it a vector?
 455 2011-04-20 01:39:30 <luke-jr> tcatm: I don't know the internals.
 456 2011-04-20 01:40:00 <luke-jr> how about message_queue?
 457 2011-04-20 01:40:57 <tcatm> same.. no idea yet. maybe invent a new type? like mq and sep?
 458 2011-04-20 01:43:25 isilion has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 459 2011-04-20 01:44:26 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 460 2011-04-20 01:46:21 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
 461 2011-04-20 01:46:23 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.1979,"low":1.15,"vol":11960,"buy":1.1801,"sell":1.1928,"last":1.1928}}
 462 2011-04-20 01:48:26 * tcatm just discovered ctrl+r in bash
 463 2011-04-20 01:49:06 <Kiba> reverse search
 464 2011-04-20 01:49:07 <gjs278> fool
 465 2011-04-20 01:49:28 <gjs278> now figure out how to make it go the other way in case you skip your match]
 466 2011-04-20 01:49:35 <gjs278> because that will be the second thing you do
 467 2011-04-20 01:51:22 <lulzplzkthx> Hmm
 468 2011-04-20 01:51:37 <lulzplzkthx> What stops a block-finder from awarding themself 100 BTC instead of 50?
 469 2011-04-20 01:51:53 <dirtyfil1hy> the rest of the network
 470 2011-04-20 01:51:55 <tcatm> I won't accept his block.
 471 2011-04-20 01:52:19 <tcatm> Same for most bitcoin users.
 472 2011-04-20 01:53:33 <lulzplzkthx> Ah.
 473 2011-04-20 01:54:15 dissipate_ has joined
 474 2011-04-20 01:54:26 B0g4r7 has joined
 475 2011-04-20 01:54:42 tenach has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 476 2011-04-20 01:55:24  has joined
 477 2011-04-20 01:58:32 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 478 2011-04-20 01:58:58 <luke-jr> PgUp/PgDown work better than Ctrl-R IMO
 479 2011-04-20 01:59:36 <luke-jr> though I think Fedora/Debian have it commented out :/
 480 2011-04-20 01:59:44  has quit (Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-76-251-239-6.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 481 2011-04-20 02:00:07  has joined
 482 2011-04-20 02:00:10 <tcatm> pgup/pgdown keys are too far away :)
 483 2011-04-20 02:00:50 <luke-jr> not on my Tonal keyboard!
 484 2011-04-20 02:00:52 * luke-jr ducks
 485 2011-04-20 02:01:26 * lulzplzkthx groans, and then smiles at luke-jr.
 486 2011-04-20 02:01:44 <luke-jr> lulzplzkthx: http://luke.dashjr.org/education/tonal/keyboard/dvorak-tonal.png
 487 2011-04-20 02:02:08 <luke-jr> oh. that doesn't include the pgup/dn area
 488 2011-04-20 02:02:13 <lulzplzkthx> I groaned at your (or what I assumed to be) pun.
 489 2011-04-20 02:02:13 <luke-jr> oh well
 490 2011-04-20 02:02:23 <lulzplzkthx> pgup/pgdown usually are outside the scope of a keyboard.
 491 2011-04-20 02:02:27 <lulzplzkthx> They are "extra" keys.
 492 2011-04-20 02:02:30 Netsniper has joined
 493 2011-04-20 02:02:42 <lulzplzkthx> Netsniper: don't snipe the net, it never did anything to you.
 494 2011-04-20 02:03:00 tenach has joined
 495 2011-04-20 02:03:01 tenach has quit (Changing host)
 496 2011-04-20 02:03:01 tenach has joined
 497 2011-04-20 02:03:01 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bitcoinuri * r88bc4c0411a3 bitcoind-personal/ (makefile.unix wxipcclient.cpp wxipcserver.cpp): Boost-based IPC for bitcoin: URI support http://tinyurl.com/3fx89uh
 498 2011-04-20 02:03:18 bitcoin_bonus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 499 2011-04-20 02:04:08 <Netsniper> ok
 500 2011-04-20 02:04:12  has quit (Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-69-208-129-210.dsl.ipltin.ameritech.net|Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 501 2011-04-20 02:06:48 DukeOfURL has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
 502 2011-04-20 02:07:09 andrew12 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 503 2011-04-20 02:07:15 andrew12 has joined
 504 2011-04-20 02:07:17 EPiSKiNG has joined
 505 2011-04-20 02:08:02 jeremydei has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 506 2011-04-20 02:08:23 wnight has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 507 2011-04-20 02:08:43 wnight has joined
 508 2011-04-20 02:10:42 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 509 2011-04-20 02:18:15 redengin has joined
 510 2011-04-20 02:21:42 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 511 2011-04-20 02:22:38 ForceDestroyer has joined
 512 2011-04-20 02:23:05 Kicchiri has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 513 2011-04-20 02:24:11 <netxshare> I keep falling asleep at my desk
 514 2011-04-20 02:24:12 <netxshare> :x
 515 2011-04-20 02:28:05 <eternal1> i just read the bitdns thead ... this is awesome
 516 2011-04-20 02:32:24 Guest7373 has joined
 517 2011-04-20 02:32:38 wolfspraul has joined
 518 2011-04-20 02:37:22 tenach_ has joined
 519 2011-04-20 02:37:29 ThaJoker has joined
 520 2011-04-20 02:37:30 tenach has quit (Disconnected by services)
 521 2011-04-20 02:37:35 tenach_ has quit (Client Quit)
 522 2011-04-20 02:37:57 tenach has joined
 523 2011-04-20 02:39:04 mologie2 has joined
 524 2011-04-20 02:39:11 chef_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 525 2011-04-20 02:39:17 mologie2 has quit (Client Quit)
 526 2011-04-20 02:41:06 mologie has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 527 2011-04-20 02:42:01 sabalaba has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 528 2011-04-20 02:43:04 ThaJoker has left ()
 529 2011-04-20 02:50:55  has joined
 530 2011-04-20 02:52:48 Netsniper has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 531 2011-04-20 02:55:34 Guest7373 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 532 2011-04-20 02:55:43 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 533 2011-04-20 02:57:05 dbitcoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 534 2011-04-20 02:57:14 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 535 2011-04-20 03:00:43 redengin has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
 536 2011-04-20 03:01:45 DavidSJ has joined
 537 2011-04-20 03:01:47 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 538 2011-04-20 03:02:26 Stellar has quit (Quit: w00t)
 539 2011-04-20 03:05:26 _Netsniper_ has joined
 540 2011-04-20 03:05:26  has quit (Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-69-208-130-217.dsl.ipltin.ameritech.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 541 2011-04-20 03:06:02 _Netsniper_ has quit (Client Quit)
 542 2011-04-20 03:06:32 chef_ has joined
 543 2011-04-20 03:06:43 <chef_> hey everyone
 544 2011-04-20 03:06:58 <chef_> low stakes action at betco.in... anybody in?
 545 2011-04-20 03:07:42 <chef_> lol
 546 2011-04-20 03:07:42 <luke-jr> chef_: you teaching how to play?
 547 2011-04-20 03:07:45 notas has joined
 548 2011-04-20 03:07:56 <luke-jr> ;)
 549 2011-04-20 03:08:00 <chef_> teaching? um sort of..
 550 2011-04-20 03:08:01 <chef_> lol
 551 2011-04-20 03:08:23 <luke-jr> the hard way :p
 552 2011-04-20 03:08:38 <chef_> ya, you in for a class?
 553 2011-04-20 03:08:51 notas has left ()
 554 2011-04-20 03:08:55 <chef_> i thought this room was always croded, it looks empty now..
 555 2011-04-20 03:08:56 <luke-jr> no thanks, but maybe I'll convince my brother to play for me ;)
 556 2011-04-20 03:08:59 Sedo has joined
 557 2011-04-20 03:09:19 notas has joined
 558 2011-04-20 03:09:20 <chef_> haha, it is very easy to use and sign up, just a little laggy sometimes.
 559 2011-04-20 03:09:45 <luke-jr> chef_: http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/chris-dombrowski.htm
 560 2011-04-20 03:09:54 <luke-jr> chef_: not sure he'd play for low stakes tho
 561 2011-04-20 03:10:21 <chef_> thats your brother?
 562 2011-04-20 03:10:24 <luke-jr> yeah
 563 2011-04-20 03:10:35 <chef_> my brother plays pro too, but not high profile, internet
 564 2011-04-20 03:10:45 <chef_> not now though bc big sites are shut down..
 565 2011-04-20 03:11:28 DavidSJ has quit (Quit: DavidSJ)
 566 2011-04-20 03:11:43 <luke-jr> yeah, my brother is talking about thinking about going back to college -.-
 567 2011-04-20 03:12:24 <chef_> hey, g2g someone showed up at the poker room
 568 2011-04-20 03:12:28 <chef_> take it easy
 569 2011-04-20 03:13:38 sacarlson has joined
 570 2011-04-20 03:14:02 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 571 2011-04-20 03:14:31 xlogik has joined
 572 2011-04-20 03:20:06 hubb has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 573 2011-04-20 03:21:51 Sedo has quit ()
 574 2011-04-20 03:22:13 <chef_> sacarlson, poker?
 575 2011-04-20 03:22:45 <sacarlson> chef_: what want to play?
 576 2011-04-20 03:23:06 <chef_> yeah, im in the 2c/4c
 577 2011-04-20 03:23:36 <sacarlson> chef_:  oh is that the bitco site?
 578 2011-04-20 03:23:57 <chef_> oh, right i recognized your name, but didn't realize we played at th
 579 2011-04-20 03:24:10 <chef_> nm.. the stakes issue..
 580 2011-04-20 03:24:40 <sacarlson> ya I like to start small and just keep betting only my winnings
 581 2011-04-20 03:24:56 <chef_> right
 582 2011-04-20 03:25:17 <sacarlson> chef_: but thanks for the offer,  when I'm rich I'll play you
 583 2011-04-20 03:25:55 <chef_> lol
 584 2011-04-20 03:25:56 <chef_> ya
 585 2011-04-20 03:30:18 grbgout has joined
 586 2011-04-20 03:34:00 <luke-jr> chef_: btw, know what his secret is to being so good at poker?
 587 2011-04-20 03:34:06 <luke-jr> that's right, HE USES TONAL
 588 2011-04-20 03:34:09 <luke-jr> >.>
 589 2011-04-20 03:36:37 fimp has joined
 590 2011-04-20 03:39:46 <Kiba> ain't going to reach 400 unique visitors today
 591 2011-04-20 03:40:11 <noagendamarket> I havent tweeted it today either :)-
 592 2011-04-20 03:41:36 mmoya has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 593 2011-04-20 03:43:52 <sacarlson> ok I tried a patch I found for changing the listen address from the config file but it was too old,  before I write my own is there a patch for this that will work from a recent git clone?
 594 2011-04-20 03:44:37 <Kiba> noagendamarket: at least I accomplish a major goal...
 595 2011-04-20 03:45:01 * Kiba pulls out all the stop to promote his site
 596 2011-04-20 03:46:43 <luke-jr> Kiba: what site?
 597 2011-04-20 03:46:52 <Kiba> bitcoinweekly
 598 2011-04-20 03:46:54 <sacarlson> opps that the listen port not address so you can change the port number from 8333 or 18333 to something else
 599 2011-04-20 03:46:59 <Kiba> I did all I could to promote my site
 600 2011-04-20 03:47:21 <Kiba> submitted to witcoin, update the forum thread on bitcoinweekly, tweet it
 601 2011-04-20 03:47:27 <Kiba> submit it to hacker news
 602 2011-04-20 03:47:29 <luke-jr> except I still don't knwo teh URI
 603 2011-04-20 03:48:02 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
 604 2011-04-20 03:48:02 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.1979,"low":1.15,"vol":13280,"buy":1.173,"sell":1.1801,"last":1.173}}
 605 2011-04-20 03:48:31 tabsa has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 606 2011-04-20 03:50:56 <noagendamarket> you know witcoinrss automatically tweets everything submitted dont you?
 607 2011-04-20 03:52:25 robotarmy has joined
 608 2011-04-20 03:53:30 <Kiba> noagendamarket: yeah
 609 2011-04-20 03:53:32 <Kiba> I know
 610 2011-04-20 03:53:43 * Kiba even follows it
 611 2011-04-20 03:58:30 LtBrenton has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 612 2011-04-20 03:58:57 LtBrenton has joined
 613 2011-04-20 03:59:40 ezl has joined
 614 2011-04-20 03:59:54 CyanDynamo1 has joined
 615 2011-04-20 04:04:32 * Kiba starts work on an article about namecoin
 616 2011-04-20 04:07:14 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 617 2011-04-20 04:07:52 fimp has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 618 2011-04-20 04:08:25 <doublec> I wonder if namecoin will get any usage
 619 2011-04-20 04:08:31 Validus has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
 620 2011-04-20 04:08:32 grbgout has quit (Quit: leaving)
 621 2011-04-20 04:08:55 <appamatto> what is namecoin?
 622 2011-04-20 04:09:16 <doublec> appamatto: a bitcoin fork for dns
 623 2011-04-20 04:09:19 <doublec> appamatto: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6017.0
 624 2011-04-20 04:09:26 <appamatto> hehe
 625 2011-04-20 04:09:36 <appamatto> Nice! So it finally got implemented?
 626 2011-04-20 04:09:47 <doublec> I'm running a namecoin node but haven't generated anything
 627 2011-04-20 04:10:00 <lfm_> yes, yjay is the proper reaction, yo laugh
 628 2011-04-20 04:10:17 <appamatto> So it's on a separate chain?
 629 2011-04-20 04:10:19 <doublec> there's no facility to actually use the names afaik (ie. no browser plugins, dns mapping, etc)
 630 2011-04-20 04:10:22 <doublec> appamatto: yes
 631 2011-04-20 04:10:27 <appamatto> wow
 632 2011-04-20 04:10:38 <appamatto> well, good idea to get in early
 633 2011-04-20 04:10:43 <doublec> it's effectively a seperate currency I guess
 634 2011-04-20 04:10:50 <doublec> people will pay bitcoins for namecoins
 635 2011-04-20 04:10:53 <appamatto> while your cpu cycles still mean something :p
 636 2011-04-20 04:11:05 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 637 2011-04-20 04:12:35 <Kiba> so, people will be generating namecoins in addition to bitcoin
 638 2011-04-20 04:12:51 <Kiba> if it take off, it will basically....
 639 2011-04-20 04:13:23 <Kiba> make the value of bitcoin goes up
 640 2011-04-20 04:13:29 <Kiba> and the bitcoin critics will be like
 641 2011-04-20 04:13:35 <Kiba> O_O O_O O_O O_O
 642 2011-04-20 04:14:03 <Kiba> and the government will be like ;_; ;_; ;_; ;_;
 643 2011-04-20 04:14:12 <doublec> finally we can say "yes, bitcoins can be used to buy real things"
 644 2011-04-20 04:14:18 <lfm_> thats your prediction eh?
 645 2011-04-20 04:14:18 <doublec> "what things" they'll ask
 646 2011-04-20 04:14:27 <doublec> "namecoins, a virtual currency" we'll answer...
 647 2011-04-20 04:14:36 <tcatm> namecoin should use the method satoshi suggest so miners could work for both chains :/
 648 2011-04-20 04:14:39 <Kiba> namecoins will be the killer app of  bitcoin
 649 2011-04-20 04:14:44 <Kiba> tcatm: that's planned
 650 2011-04-20 04:15:10 <Blitzboom> what about that dns system peter sunde announced?
 651 2011-04-20 04:15:18 <Blitzboom> is bitcoin superior?
 652 2011-04-20 04:15:29 <Kiba> bitcoin will b e superior and upsurp everything!
 653 2011-04-20 04:15:36 dissipate_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 654 2011-04-20 04:15:38 <gjs278> namecoin will most definitely not be superior
 655 2011-04-20 04:15:40 <Blitzboom> can we stay objective? thanks
 656 2011-04-20 04:15:48 <Kiba> did peter sunde got a working decentralized registration system going?
 657 2011-04-20 04:15:52 <Kiba> if not, namecoin will win
 658 2011-04-20 04:16:11 <Blitzboom> well, let’s see
 659 2011-04-20 04:16:19 sacarlson has joined
 660 2011-04-20 04:17:45 <Kiba> anyway
 661 2011-04-20 04:17:50 <Kiba> it will make miners profitable
 662 2011-04-20 04:17:53 <Kiba> there's one more thing to sell
 663 2011-04-20 04:17:55 <Kiba> namecoins
 664 2011-04-20 04:18:15 <lfm_> huh? you think miners arnt profitable?
 665 2011-04-20 04:18:46 <gjs278> >Initially, two name spaces are defined - DNS and personal.  The DNS name space is targetted towards a new distributed TLD, possibly .bit.
 666 2011-04-20 04:18:54 <gjs278> so .bit doesn't exist yet
 667 2011-04-20 04:19:05 <doublec> what's the personal namespace for?
 668 2011-04-20 04:19:15 grbgout has joined
 669 2011-04-20 04:19:27 <Kiba> maybe it's a way to send bitcoin to
 670 2011-04-20 04:19:45 <gjs278> in all seriousness, you guys do realize it costs at least half a million dollars to buy a tld, and no they're not accepting bitcoins as payment
 671 2011-04-20 04:20:10 <gjs278> so you could only use it on machines already connected to this network
 672 2011-04-20 04:20:19 <gjs278> so... not much of a use if nobody outside can get it
 673 2011-04-20 04:20:48 <Kiba> you need a chromium plugin
 674 2011-04-20 04:20:50 <lfm_> gateways cab be built
 675 2011-04-20 04:20:54 <Kiba> or a firefox plugin
 676 2011-04-20 04:20:57 <Kiba> or something like that
 677 2011-04-20 04:22:04 notas has left ()
 678 2011-04-20 04:22:04 JaredW has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 679 2011-04-20 04:22:35 <lfm_> gjs278: but ya, from this point of view it looks like an exercise in futility
 680 2011-04-20 04:23:29 <tcatm> nothing prevents one from editing resolv.conf
 681 2011-04-20 04:23:30 <chef_> 2 players at betco.in
 682 2011-04-20 04:23:45 ezl has joined
 683 2011-04-20 04:23:51 <gjs278> my phone doesn't have a resolv.conf
 684 2011-04-20 04:23:56 <grbgout> lfm_: hey, I took a quick look at your bashhashminer code yesterday, and I liked what I saw.  Any updates?
 685 2011-04-20 04:24:11 <lfm_> gjs278: you sure?
 686 2011-04-20 04:24:20 <gjs278> not one that I can access
 687 2011-04-20 04:24:47 <lfm_> grbgout: Nothing serious
 688 2011-04-20 04:25:28 <grbgout> lfm_: have you tested and confirmed its functionality?  Oh, gavin was in here yesterday and posted an awesome link to testnet-in-a-box
 689 2011-04-20 04:25:47 <tcatm> gjs278: that's a defect. I'd return the phone or demand that be fixed.
 690 2011-04-20 04:25:53 <gjs278> lol
 691 2011-04-20 04:25:55 <grbgout> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/testnet-in-a-box/
 692 2011-04-20 04:25:56 <chef_> 3 now, betco.in
 693 2011-04-20 04:26:01 <gjs278> yeah guys I couldn't access .bit domains, please take my phone back
 694 2011-04-20 04:26:07 <gjs278> I'd sound like a jackass
 695 2011-04-20 04:26:35 <lfm_> grbgout: Ya Im still not sure it doesnt need some byteswapping or something in places. I have got it to produce on testnet or anything
 696 2011-04-20 04:26:50 <lfm_> have not ogt
 697 2011-04-20 04:26:58 <lfm_> have not got
 698 2011-04-20 04:27:16 <grbgout> Oh? Hmm.  Well, I'll tinker with it in time.  It's very succinct.  I like that.
 699 2011-04-20 04:27:27 <grbgout> reminds me of suckless.org
 700 2011-04-20 04:27:29 <lfm_> ya, no frills
 701 2011-04-20 04:27:33 <tcatm> every IP capable device I ever had access to at least offered: ip, netmask, gateway, dns1, dns2, searchdomain. these are basic features.
 702 2011-04-20 04:27:34 <grbgout> no need ;)
 703 2011-04-20 04:28:34 <Blitzboom> lol at mainstream economists: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/the-economics-of-bitcoin.html
 704 2011-04-20 04:28:48 <Blitzboom> professor at a university and blogging such stupidity
 705 2011-04-20 04:29:12 <Blitzboom> "privately created fiat currency"
 706 2011-04-20 04:29:15 <Blitzboom> hilarious
 707 2011-04-20 04:29:27 mmoya has joined
 708 2011-04-20 04:30:02 <Blitzboom> i’m glad they don’t understand. i don’t want them to profit from a potential rise of bitcoin
 709 2011-04-20 04:30:44 <noagendamarket> I need to add that to the fake news section of witcoin
 710 2011-04-20 04:30:48 <noagendamarket> its that funny
 711 2011-04-20 04:30:55 <Blitzboom> "Eventually the anonymity scheme, in some form or another, will be available without the fiat currency"
 712 2011-04-20 04:31:07 <noagendamarket> wtf dpes that even mean?
 713 2011-04-20 04:31:18 <Blitzboom> it means anonymity with a centralized system
 714 2011-04-20 04:31:27 <Kiba> ok...
 715 2011-04-20 04:31:35 * Kiba doesn't think that much is possible
 716 2011-04-20 04:31:43 <Blitzboom> of course it’s not
 717 2011-04-20 04:31:47 <Blitzboom> all centralized systems failed
 718 2011-04-20 04:32:11 <Kiba> so an economist got owned  by his own economic stupdity
 719 2011-04-20 04:32:28 <Blitzboom> no, he got owned by the authority he adores
 720 2011-04-20 04:32:34 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
 721 2011-04-20 04:32:35 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.1979,"low":1.15,"vol":13162,"buy":1.173,"sell":1.175,"last":1.1801}}
 722 2011-04-20 04:32:37 <purplezky> that's why i am continuing work on a decentralized bitdns ;)
 723 2011-04-20 04:32:53 <Blitzboom> they have to categorize everything
 724 2011-04-20 04:33:00 <Blitzboom> person/state x issues y
 725 2011-04-20 04:33:14 <Blitzboom> and when they can’t "I’ll still admit to some confusion"
 726 2011-04-20 04:33:52 <Kiba> it will take at least ten years before critics shut the hell up
 727 2011-04-20 04:34:10 <Kiba> and by then, bitcoin will either succed or die
 728 2011-04-20 04:34:14 dbitcoin has joined
 729 2011-04-20 04:34:39 <Blitzboom> i don’t believe bitcoin will die
 730 2011-04-20 04:34:46 <Blitzboom> it’s already found its uses
 731 2011-04-20 04:35:18 <Blitzboom> the question is: niche or mainstream?
 732 2011-04-20 04:35:48 <gjs278> it'll be as mainstream as the sacagawea dollar
 733 2011-04-20 04:36:23 x6763 has joined
 734 2011-04-20 04:42:22 <noagendamarket> I take it as a good sign that an "influential economist" doesnt understand bitcoin
 735 2011-04-20 04:42:33 <noagendamarket> because no 2 of them can agree on anything
 736 2011-04-20 04:42:35 <noagendamarket> lol
 737 2011-04-20 04:43:30 <Blitzboom> economics = bullshit
 738 2011-04-20 04:43:33 <Blitzboom> use common sense
 739 2011-04-20 04:45:32 <noagendamarket> its akin to witchcraft
 740 2011-04-20 04:45:59 * purplezky likes witchcraft more than economics
 741 2011-04-20 04:46:13 <noagendamarket> warren buffett isnt an economist....
 742 2011-04-20 04:46:18 <noagendamarket> enough said
 743 2011-04-20 04:46:20 <noagendamarket> :)
 744 2011-04-20 04:48:15 <noagendamarket>  "Cowen argues that free markets change culture for the better, "   hmm he left out that part of the bitcoin story altogether.
 745 2011-04-20 04:48:50 <noagendamarket> so really he loves regulation
 746 2011-04-20 04:49:00 danlucraft has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 747 2011-04-20 04:53:22 <Kiba> doesn't take the time to engage and learn about bitcoin
 748 2011-04-20 04:53:27 <Kiba> Jon Matonis did
 749 2011-04-20 04:53:40 <Kiba> so he made idiotic analysis
 750 2011-04-20 04:53:59 <Kiba> man
 751 2011-04-20 04:54:10 <Kiba> bitcoin is sure going mainstream
 752 2011-04-20 04:54:21 <Kiba> and we're the lucky early adopter that get to see all the actions
 753 2011-04-20 04:54:31 JaredW has joined
 754 2011-04-20 04:54:48 <Kiba> ya have any idea how many books, musics, and articles are there?
 755 2011-04-20 04:55:02 <Kiba> and we're like cutting through them and getting more popular
 756 2011-04-20 04:58:16 tenach has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 757 2011-04-20 05:00:08 <noagendamarket> hes more like a troll in that case
 758 2011-04-20 05:01:06 <Kiba> look on the bright side: we're getting noticed
 759 2011-04-20 05:01:07 <lulzplzkthx> When I explain to people about Bitcoin, they often ask how many people use Bitcoin (hundreds? thousands? millions?) What can I tell them?
 760 2011-04-20 05:01:17 <Kiba> thousands, probably
 761 2011-04-20 05:01:19 <Kiba> but we don't know
 762 2011-04-20 05:01:30 <lulzplzkthx> Okay.
 763 2011-04-20 05:01:36 robotarmy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 764 2011-04-20 05:01:55 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 765 2011-04-20 05:02:46 <Diablo-D3> lulzplzkthx: thousands
 766 2011-04-20 05:02:52 <Diablo-D3> but thats about all we know
 767 2011-04-20 05:03:00 <Diablo-D3> it could be millions
 768 2011-04-20 05:03:10 <gjs278> how much you want to bet on that one
 769 2011-04-20 05:03:11 <Diablo-D3> but none of us have a big enough view of the network to EVER find out
 770 2011-04-20 05:03:20 <Diablo-D3> but Im very sure we've crossed the thousand user mark
 771 2011-04-20 05:03:59 <lulzplzkthx> kk
 772 2011-04-20 05:04:05 <Blitzboom> we have 3.5k nodes in the network
 773 2011-04-20 05:04:05 <lulzplzkthx> Also, how many possible addresses are there?
 774 2011-04-20 05:04:08 <lulzplzkthx> 3 trillion?
 775 2011-04-20 05:04:19 <Blitzboom> and we have 7k forum users
 776 2011-04-20 05:04:24 <Blitzboom> and over 1k silk road users
 777 2011-04-20 05:04:35 <Blitzboom> so i do think we have over 10k users now
 778 2011-04-20 05:05:48 DavidSJ has joined
 779 2011-04-20 05:05:51 <lulzplzkthx> over 1k silk road users?
 780 2011-04-20 05:05:55 <Blitzboom> lulzplzkthx: i only know it’s more than atoms in the world
 781 2011-04-20 05:05:55 <lulzplzkthx> seriously?!
 782 2011-04-20 05:05:59 <lulzplzkthx> that's like a tenth of all users.
 783 2011-04-20 05:06:00 <lulzplzkthx> damn.
 784 2011-04-20 05:06:12 tenach has joined
 785 2011-04-20 05:06:12 tenach has quit (Changing host)
 786 2011-04-20 05:06:12 tenach has joined
 787 2011-04-20 05:07:47 hackNstuff has joined
 788 2011-04-20 05:08:16 <hackNstuff> greetings, what's happening in the BTC world?
 789 2011-04-20 05:10:12 <JFK911> difficulty went up.  pointless to mine :(
 790 2011-04-20 05:10:14 <gjs278> the bitcoin client only has 3200 downloads on sourceforge
 791 2011-04-20 05:10:30 <gjs278> for windows
 792 2011-04-20 05:10:33 skyewm has joined
 793 2011-04-20 05:10:45 <gjs278> mac is 1200
 794 2011-04-20 05:11:01 <gjs278> linux 1600
 795 2011-04-20 05:11:20 <lulzplzkthx> some might use git only
 796 2011-04-20 05:11:25 <lulzplzkthx> or their package manager
 797 2011-04-20 05:11:26 <gjs278> yeah
 798 2011-04-20 05:11:28 <gjs278> not more than 1600
 799 2011-04-20 05:11:29 <lulzplzkthx> such as aptitude or pacman
 800 2011-04-20 05:11:58 <gjs278> those package managers would probably download from sourceforge if they're using the binaries
 801 2011-04-20 05:12:13 <gjs278> actually nevermind
 802 2011-04-20 05:12:25 <gjs278> they'd just make their own .deb and host it
 803 2011-04-20 05:13:02 <gjs278> I don't even know who packages bitcoin officially
 804 2011-04-20 05:13:19 <lulzplzkthx> exactly, they'd host it themselves
 805 2011-04-20 05:13:54 <gjs278> still not really a significant amount of people
 806 2011-04-20 05:14:51 hackNstuff has left ()
 807 2011-04-20 05:16:56 Stellar has joined
 808 2011-04-20 05:18:02 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 809 2011-04-20 05:18:44 sacarlson has joined
 810 2011-04-20 05:19:00 xlogik has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 811 2011-04-20 05:24:10 Netsniper has joined
 812 2011-04-20 05:44:34 <manveru> well, i'm using the bitcoin-bin from AUR, that downloads directly from SF
 813 2011-04-20 05:46:35 <B0g4r7> My downloads all came from sourceforge.
 814 2011-04-20 05:46:41 <B0g4r7> And I've downloaded it 3 times.
 815 2011-04-20 05:47:18 <manveru> there seem to be around 80 votes for the bitcoin packages in archlinux... not a whole lot on average
 816 2011-04-20 05:47:22 <B0g4r7> Was that download figure for all versions or just the current one?
 817 2011-04-20 05:48:13 <manveru> something like libpng 1.2 has over 1800 votes :P
 818 2011-04-20 05:51:32 Stellar has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 819 2011-04-20 05:52:42 <B0g4r7> Uhh...yeah, that figure of 3200 downloads was just for 0.30.2, and just downloads within the past week.
 820 2011-04-20 05:52:57 Stellar has joined
 821 2011-04-20 05:53:02 Stellar has quit (Changing host)
 822 2011-04-20 05:53:02 Stellar has joined
 823 2011-04-20 05:53:09 <B0g4r7> The total number of downloads for all versions for all platforms is 120,674.
 824 2011-04-20 05:53:14 <B0g4r7> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/stats/timeline?dates=2008-04-13+to+2011-04-20
 825 2011-04-20 05:54:02 dissipate_ has joined
 826 2011-04-20 06:01:59 <chef_> hey guys, im playin cards and i just thought of a fee-less bitcoin transfer that is instant. intentional loss in a bitcoin card room. no limit, pick your price.
 827 2011-04-20 06:03:57 Kicchiri has joined
 828 2011-04-20 06:03:57 ForceDestroyer has quit (Disconnected by services)
 829 2011-04-20 06:04:38 WakiMiko_ has joined
 830 2011-04-20 06:06:05 <chef_> hey guys, im playin cards and i just thought of a fee-less bitcoin transfer that is instant. intentional loss in a bitcoin card room. no limit, pick your price.
 831 2011-04-20 06:07:03 <witten> huh?
 832 2011-04-20 06:07:29 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 833 2011-04-20 06:08:23 <chef_> right now, if i wanted to send you coins, id either have to pay a fee or wait 20 or 30 for you to get them
 834 2011-04-20 06:09:00 <chef_> but in a poker room i could just lose the money to you on purpose
 835 2011-04-20 06:09:33 <witten> I hope you're joking :)
 836 2011-04-20 06:10:02 <chef_> na, it would work fine one hand is all
 837 2011-04-20 06:10:06 <chef_> no limit
 838 2011-04-20 06:11:00 Beremat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 839 2011-04-20 06:19:11 Beremat has joined
 840 2011-04-20 06:20:54 <sacarlson> chef_: did you forget you need to deposit the money in the account of the game first before you can play?
 841 2011-04-20 06:23:55 sethsethseth_ has joined
 842 2011-04-20 06:24:14 <sacarlson> ok last chance for anyone that knows of a branch in bitcoind that provides changing the listen port from 18333 to another number by adding an option in bitcoin.config,
 843 2011-04-20 06:27:19 sethsethseth has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 844 2011-04-20 06:27:59 <sacarlson> ok I'll have to write one after I eat breakfast then
 845 2011-04-20 06:29:09 LightRider has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 846 2011-04-20 06:33:17 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 847 2011-04-20 06:54:46 marlowe_ has joined
 848 2011-04-20 06:56:13 dbitcoin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 849 2011-04-20 06:57:40 marlowe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 850 2011-04-20 07:07:35 DavidSJ has quit (Quit: DavidSJ)
 851 2011-04-20 07:08:16 Tarlusk has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 852 2011-04-20 07:17:14 d4de has joined
 853 2011-04-20 07:30:33 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 854 2011-04-20 07:32:10 Stellar has joined
 855 2011-04-20 07:40:34 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 856 2011-04-20 07:41:45 MBS has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 857 2011-04-20 07:47:51 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 858 2011-04-20 07:56:02 MBS has joined
 859 2011-04-20 08:01:20 Guest78070 is now known as sneak
 860 2011-04-20 08:01:49 sneak is now known as Guest2383
 861 2011-04-20 08:04:40 Guest2383 is now known as sneak
 862 2011-04-20 08:04:43 sneak has quit (Changing host)
 863 2011-04-20 08:04:43 sneak has joined
 864 2011-04-20 08:06:19 TD_ has joined
 865 2011-04-20 08:08:35 slush has joined
 866 2011-04-20 08:08:46 TD_ has quit (Client Quit)
 867 2011-04-20 08:09:20 TD_ has joined
 868 2011-04-20 08:11:06 danbri has joined
 869 2011-04-20 08:12:27 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
 870 2011-04-20 08:12:28 <gribble> 119244
 871 2011-04-20 08:15:50 danbri_ has joined
 872 2011-04-20 08:16:33 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 873 2011-04-20 08:16:58 <jaromil> sacarlson: good call
 874 2011-04-20 08:17:10 danbri_ is now known as danbri
 875 2011-04-20 08:18:21 rezster has joined
 876 2011-04-20 08:19:02 larsivi has joined
 877 2011-04-20 08:19:15 rezster has left ()
 878 2011-04-20 08:19:57 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 879 2011-04-20 08:23:55 <sacarlson> jaromil: what call might that be?
 880 2011-04-20 08:24:05 luke-jr has joined
 881 2011-04-20 08:27:32 larsivi has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 882 2011-04-20 08:27:59 aoeuue has joined
 883 2011-04-20 08:41:05 tenach has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 884 2011-04-20 08:48:02 <curiosit1squared> hello
 885 2011-04-20 08:48:09 zhalox has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 886 2011-04-20 08:48:09 <curiosit1squared> is any one?
 887 2011-04-20 08:49:10 dissipate_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 888 2011-04-20 08:55:01 <jaromil> anyone that knows of a branch in bitcoind that provides changing the listen port from 18333 to another number by adding an option in bitcoin.config
 889 2011-04-20 08:55:34 <jaromil> sacarlson: ur message at 8:20
 890 2011-04-20 08:56:05 <jaromil> i hope your breakfast was good
 891 2011-04-20 08:56:08 <curiosit1squared> is btcbubble a scam?
 892 2011-04-20 08:56:14 <curiosit1squared> ?
 893 2011-04-20 08:56:41 <curiosit1squared> did I miss something? breakfast chat?
 894 2011-04-20 09:03:52 <jeremias> stock market is a scam
 895 2011-04-20 09:03:58 <jeremias> and huge bubble, lol
 896 2011-04-20 09:04:18 <Blitzboom> ?
 897 2011-04-20 09:04:26 <noagendamarket> in what way is the stock market a scam ?
 898 2011-04-20 09:05:00 <jeremias> nah, just babbling
 899 2011-04-20 09:05:06 <noagendamarket> thats a big statement
 900 2011-04-20 09:05:13 <jeremias> but btcbubble is ponzi scheme as it advertises itself
 901 2011-04-20 09:05:23 <jeremias> so you will only win money if you are early in the game
 902 2011-04-20 09:05:49 <noagendamarket> of course
 903 2011-04-20 09:06:18 <sipa> early adopters took a risk, and may win money indeed (if they didn't sell it before it got big,, that is)
 904 2011-04-20 09:06:28 <sipa> but the intent is or never was to make money
 905 2011-04-20 09:06:34 <sipa> it's an exchange medium
 906 2011-04-20 09:06:49 <sipa> s/is or never was/never is or was/
 907 2011-04-20 09:07:15 <curiosit1squared>  error: Operation
 908 2011-04-20 09:07:15 <curiosit1squared>           timed out]
 909 2011-04-20 09:08:33 <noagendamarket> 404:scam not found
 910 2011-04-20 09:08:51 <curiosit1squared> that was an error.
 911 2011-04-20 09:08:54 <curiosit1squared> lol
 912 2011-04-20 09:09:18 nguyen has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 913 2011-04-20 09:09:32 <curiosit1squared> sipa
 914 2011-04-20 09:09:50 <curiosit1squared> stupid question.
 915 2011-04-20 09:10:07 <curiosit1squared> this math guy is a bit drunk but been trying tofigure this out for about a month.
 916 2011-04-20 09:10:16 <curiosit1squared> how big could the block chain really get.
 917 2011-04-20 09:10:43 <[Noodles]> really big
 918 2011-04-20 09:10:52 <sipa> +infinity
 919 2011-04-20 09:10:55 <sipa> actually, no
 920 2011-04-20 09:10:56 <jrabbit> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm?utm_source&utm_medium&utm_campaign oh shit
 921 2011-04-20 09:10:57 <curiosit1squared> the sotoshi paper is a bit weak on the details of the merkel tree
 922 2011-04-20 09:11:11 <jrabbit> curiosit1squared: theres awiki article on it
 923 2011-04-20 09:11:15 <sipa> there is a limit on how big it can get after pruning
 924 2011-04-20 09:11:15 <curiosit1squared> It explains the details of how to implement it.
 925 2011-04-20 09:11:17 <jrabbit> (merkle trees)
 926 2011-04-20 09:11:37 <curiosit1squared> and the math demonstrates the O(n)
 927 2011-04-20 09:12:33 <curiosit1squared> but even factoring has been showen to be polynomial, but with a polynomial of order 13 it's still practically NP.
 928 2011-04-20 09:12:35 <sipa> 466 petabytes would be about the limit, i think :)
 929 2011-04-20 09:12:40 <curiosit1squared> :)
 930 2011-04-20 09:12:53 <sipa> excluding the size of the block headers
 931 2011-04-20 09:13:05 <jrabbit> lol order 13 polynomial lol
 932 2011-04-20 09:13:05 <curiosit1squared> ... not sure I'm asking this right.
 933 2011-04-20 09:13:17 <[Noodles]> it's not THAT big, is it? ^_^
 934 2011-04-20 09:14:01 rli has joined
 935 2011-04-20 09:14:03 <curiosit1squared> (I might have the detalis wrong but it's been a while since the slash dot article, but I tried to under stand it and all I got was they demonstrated it wasn't NP, it was only NP for practical purposes.)
 936 2011-04-20 09:14:21 <gjs278> np is equal to p
 937 2011-04-20 09:14:28 <curiosit1squared> prove it.
 938 2011-04-20 09:14:28 <gjs278> I already proved it a bit ago, check your logs
 939 2011-04-20 09:14:34 <gjs278> ok
 940 2011-04-20 09:14:40 <gjs278> p is equal to 0
 941 2011-04-20 09:14:51 <curiosit1squared> :P
 942 2011-04-20 09:15:01 <sipa> obviously p=1
 943 2011-04-20 09:15:10 <sipa> and n=1 too
 944 2011-04-20 09:15:15 <gjs278> my bad
 945 2011-04-20 09:15:34 <curiosit1squared> and the difficulty is currently 8.
 946 2011-04-20 09:15:39 <curiosit1squared> sideways.
 947 2011-04-20 09:15:44 <curiosit1squared> countable.
 948 2011-04-20 09:16:06 <curiosit1squared> bounded by an uncountable limit.
 949 2011-04-20 09:17:04 <sipa> 8?
 950 2011-04-20 09:17:20 <sipa> the difficulty is bounded
 951 2011-04-20 09:17:39 <sipa> max 26959535291011309493156476344735034713491124765906602455517318324002 :)
 952 2011-04-20 09:17:48 <curiosit1squared> I fail to see the point, if you're making if you're making a pracitacal one. If you're just talking mathematical cardinatilyt, I'm smiling, chuckling, getting it and possibly missing it. (sideways 8 = inifinity.)
 953 2011-04-20 09:17:54 <curiosit1squared> ? that's the max.
 954 2011-04-20 09:17:56 <curiosit1squared> ?
 955 2011-04-20 09:18:06 <curiosit1squared> it's not all 00000000's?
 956 2011-04-20 09:18:24 <curiosit1squared> back to the prototal wiki.
 957 2011-04-20 09:18:44 <sipa> difficulty D = target is 2^208*65535/D
 958 2011-04-20 09:19:12 <curiosit1squared> and a hash has to be less than that?
 959 2011-04-20 09:19:15 <curiosit1squared> or greater?
 960 2011-04-20 09:19:16 <sipa> indeed
 961 2011-04-20 09:19:21 <sipa> less or equal
 962 2011-04-20 09:19:30 <sipa> if you get the target to 0, you're effectively asking the break double sha256
 963 2011-04-20 09:19:40 <curiosit1squared> so for inf D it's all 0's.
 964 2011-04-20 09:19:43 <curiosit1squared> ohh..
 965 2011-04-20 09:19:55 <curiosit1squared> you said difficulty is bounded. :)
 966 2011-04-20 09:20:03 <sipa> it is
 967 2011-04-20 09:20:08 <sipa> target is an integer
 968 2011-04-20 09:20:17 <curiosit1squared> I just have to figure out how to test that many hashes instantly.
 969 2011-04-20 09:20:29 <curiosit1squared> and all you're base are belong to me. :)
 970 2011-04-20 09:21:18 <curiosit1squared> seriously, though. One thing I can't do the math on is how BTC get recombined.
 971 2011-04-20 09:21:36 <curiosit1squared> say hypothetically everyone on earth were using btc  for all their transactions.
 972 2011-04-20 09:22:06 <curiosit1squared> 6*10 billion people doing 20 -100 transactions / day
 973 2011-04-20 09:22:17 <curiosit1squared> how fast would the block chain grow
 974 2011-04-20 09:22:29 <curiosit1squared> and wond the merkel trees be able to prune faste enough?
 975 2011-04-20 09:22:47 <ArtForz> completely unrealistic scenario, so who gives a fuck?
 976 2011-04-20 09:23:40 <curiosit1squared> hey its mstp Forz himself. :)
 977 2011-04-20 09:23:50 <curiosit1squared> ok. time to show some respect.
 978 2011-04-20 09:24:14 <curiosit1squared> btw. sipa, if I've been rude, please forgive. I very much respect.
 979 2011-04-20 09:24:51 <curiosit1squared> ArtForz, I'm considering the ASIC route.
 980 2011-04-20 09:25:09 <ersi> derp.
 981 2011-04-20 09:25:32 <ArtForz> nice
 982 2011-04-20 09:25:57 <curiosit1squared> And btw, repect. If only for you're comment 70mhash/s? good?
 983 2011-04-20 09:26:24 <sipa> 70Mhash/s?
 984 2011-04-20 09:26:29 <sipa> that's almost worthless
 985 2011-04-20 09:26:35 <ArtForz> well, it is kinda slow for a that expensive/big fpga
 986 2011-04-20 09:27:19 <ArtForz> 70Mh/s on a $380 cyclone iii
 987 2011-04-20 09:28:44 <ArtForz> I got about there with a completely straightforward design without really trying to push it
 988 2011-04-20 09:29:17 <curiosit1squared> Good?
 989 2011-04-20 09:29:17 <curiosit1squared> I've gotten 70Mh/s with a Spartan6 LX 150-3, $180 @ 1ea.
 990 2011-04-20 09:29:17 <curiosit1squared> he gets the same from a CycloneIII 120-C8, $380 @ 1ea.
 991 2011-04-20 09:29:21 <curiosit1squared> and expects about the same from a CycloneIV-E 115-C8, $310 @ 1ea.
 992 2011-04-20 09:29:29 <curiosit1squared> sorry quoting ArtForz
 993 2011-04-20 09:29:35 <ArtForz> yep
 994 2011-04-20 09:30:20 <curiosit1squared> Anyway, I've done a pretty thorough model on the GPU situation for how high the dificulty could go with people buying GPU's.
 995 2011-04-20 09:30:41 <ArtForz> depends on market price
 996 2011-04-20 09:30:55 <curiosit1squared> More specifically people using GPU's that they got for free because they bought them for gaming.
 997 2011-04-20 09:31:26 <curiosit1squared> but I'm having a hell of a time estimating pratical dificulty with people like you building asics.
 998 2011-04-20 09:32:51 <curiosit1squared> So I'd like to ask what it would cost you to built 100 ghash/s now that you have the structred asic's up front cost done... but I'll understand if you feel inclined not to answer.
 999 2011-04-20 09:33:39 <curiosit1squared> I'm also curious what you're current hash rate is now that you're structured asic's are presumably delivered.
1000 2011-04-20 09:33:53 <ArtForz> 100gh/s? thats 500 chips so i can get a decent discount on other stuff... about $130k
1001 2011-04-20 09:34:37 <ArtForz> currently ~ 38Gh/s, about half of that from asics
1002 2011-04-20 09:34:53 <ArtForz> got another 20Gh/s coming in in ~2 weeks
1003 2011-04-20 09:34:55 tabsa has joined
1004 2011-04-20 09:37:32 <curiosit1squared> do you know what difficulty you would be priced out?
1005 2011-04-20 09:38:30 rli has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1006 2011-04-20 09:38:44 rli has joined
1007 2011-04-20 09:40:01 <ArtForz> well, considering the hardware as sunk cost... about 5M @ $1/btc
1008 2011-04-20 09:40:10 <Diablo-D3> heh
1009 2011-04-20 09:40:22 <noagendamarket> lol
1010 2011-04-20 09:40:24 <curiosit1squared> ArtFrorz, interesting. My 3.2 ghashes cost me only 2k. I expected that with you're sunk costs paid you'd have a much better ratio.
1011 2011-04-20 09:40:32 <curiosit1squared> ?
1012 2011-04-20 09:40:44 <ArtForz> err... your power is free?
1013 2011-04-20 09:41:00 <curiosit1squared> close.
1014 2011-04-20 09:41:14 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1015 2011-04-20 09:41:28 chef_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1016 2011-04-20 09:41:45 <curiosit1squared> I calculating up front cost because while power is  constant I group it with difficulty on my calculations.
1017 2011-04-20 09:41:50 <ArtForz> huh?
1018 2011-04-20 09:42:33 <curiosit1squared> if difficulty continues at 2% per day I'll be out in august.
1019 2011-04-20 09:42:42 <curiosit1squared> because of power.
1020 2011-04-20 09:43:05 <gjs278> move to phoenix
1021 2011-04-20 09:43:09 <ArtForz> sounds about right
1022 2011-04-20 09:43:52 slush has joined
1023 2011-04-20 09:43:53 <curiosit1squared> How high would difficulty have to be before you're hardware would no longer be profitable to operate?
1024 2011-04-20 09:44:21 <curiosit1squared> anotehr question, perhaps larger and philosophical, is how much of the network would you be comfortable being?
1025 2011-04-20 09:45:21 <curiosit1squared> If someone makes an ASIC, for real, their number would be 10x to 100x yours and they would mine very nearly 90%.... with a sunc cost around 10 million, or are my numbers bullshit?
1026 2011-04-20 09:45:31 <ArtForz> nope, soudns about right
1027 2011-04-20 09:46:12 <ArtForz> thats pretty much assuming designer time is free
1028 2011-04-20 09:47:41 <curiosit1squared> Are you not answering the previous 2 questions? I'm cool if you don't want to answer.
1029 2011-04-20 09:47:51 <ArtForz> ?
1030 2011-04-20 09:48:07 <curiosit1squared> 02:40 < curiosit1squared> How high would difficulty have to be before you're hardware would no longer be profitable to operate?
1031 2011-04-20 09:48:11 <curiosit1squared> 02:40 < curiosit1squared> anotehr question, perhaps larger and philosophical, is how much of the network would you be comfortable being?
1032 2011-04-20 09:48:29 <ArtForz> well, running cost per Ghps per year is about $100 including power,cooling,net,maintenance,replacement fans, the rest of the hardware should well outlast its usefullness
1033 2011-04-20 09:49:04 <Blitzboom> wow
1034 2011-04-20 09:49:13 <gjs278> how many amps do you pay for
1035 2011-04-20 09:50:13 <curiosit1squared> do we know for sure that satoshi is ok?
1036 2011-04-20 09:50:26 <curiosit1squared> he's been gone for a while
1037 2011-04-20 09:51:04 <sipa> i've seen a mail from him a month ago
1038 2011-04-20 09:51:09 <ArtForz> and for how much % of total network... I'll probably stop at 33% or so
1039 2011-04-20 09:51:49 <ArtForz> doesnt make much sense to scale much beyond that as you're effictively competing with yourself
1040 2011-04-20 09:51:53 <curiosit1squared> sipa, do you know if anyone knows his actual identity? Or if any governments have fucked with him?
1041 2011-04-20 09:52:10 <gjs278> ArtForz you are paying for the amps right
1042 2011-04-20 09:52:15 <ArtForz> yep
1043 2011-04-20 09:52:20 <gjs278> how many do you require
1044 2011-04-20 09:52:46 TDX_ is now known as TD[work]
1045 2011-04-20 09:53:15 <TD[work]> sipa: i got a mail from him just now. he is still around.
1046 2011-04-20 09:53:28 <ArtForz> about 1.5A @ 230 peak
1047 2011-04-20 09:53:35 <gjs278> gotcha
1048 2011-04-20 09:53:35 <ArtForz> for a 6.4Ghps box
1049 2011-04-20 09:54:42 <curiosit1squared> TD[work]: is he digging under even more as BTC get more popular?
1050 2011-04-20 09:55:00 <curiosit1squared> 230 peak? amps?
1051 2011-04-20 09:55:18 <gjs278> if he did 230 amps there would be a hole in the ground
1052 2011-04-20 09:55:26 <ArtForz> ?
1053 2011-04-20 09:55:31 <jrabbit> curiosit1squared: Underground empire built on btc?
1054 2011-04-20 09:55:40 <ArtForz> 1.5 amps at 230v
1055 2011-04-20 09:55:44 <curiosit1squared> oh.
1056 2011-04-20 09:55:49 <curiosit1squared> 230 v?
1057 2011-04-20 09:55:49 <Diablo-D3> 230 amps lol
1058 2011-04-20 09:55:55 <TD[work]> curiosit1squared: I think he's just busy
1059 2011-04-20 09:55:55 <curiosit1squared> what sort of power do you take.
1060 2011-04-20 09:55:57 <TD[work]> i might ask him though
1061 2011-04-20 09:56:01 <curiosit1squared> ok. stupid questions.
1062 2011-04-20 09:56:04 <curiosit1squared> :)
1063 2011-04-20 09:56:12 <ArtForz> and thats peak
1064 2011-04-20 09:56:24 <Diablo-D3> you know what would be hilarious
1065 2011-04-20 09:56:28 <Diablo-D3> if I was satoshi
1066 2011-04-20 09:56:38 <curiosit1squared> i'm not laughing.
1067 2011-04-20 09:56:42 <gjs278> that would be cool
1068 2011-04-20 09:56:44 <Diablo-D3> I mean, think about it, no one would EVERRR KNOOOWWW
1069 2011-04-20 09:56:49 <Diablo-D3> and I'd be the last person to suspect
1070 2011-04-20 09:56:50 <curiosit1squared> right.
1071 2011-04-20 09:57:16 <gjs278> the real satoshi is swimming in his pool of bitcoins
1072 2011-04-20 09:57:17 <curiosit1squared> except it would be very not satoshi of you.
1073 2011-04-20 09:57:20 <jrabbit> Diablo-D3: better turn yourself in just in case.
1074 2011-04-20 09:57:24 <ArtForz> as the fans are up to ~20% of total power, env temp plays a huge role
1075 2011-04-20 09:57:38 <curiosit1squared> he's bad asser than you.
1076 2011-04-20 09:57:45 <Diablo-D3> the government doesnt give a fuck about bitcoin btw
1077 2011-04-20 09:57:49 <Diablo-D3> its not a currency
1078 2011-04-20 09:57:56 <Diablo-D3> you cant really own it
1079 2011-04-20 09:57:59 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt exist
1080 2011-04-20 09:58:02 <curiosit1squared> Diablo-D3: you in the US?
1081 2011-04-20 09:58:10 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: yes. wait, no. maybe?
1082 2011-04-20 09:58:13 <jrabbit> Diablo-D3: SCOTUS doesn't know what SMS is... I wouldn't think that matters
1083 2011-04-20 09:58:39 <gjs278> move to colorado
1084 2011-04-20 09:58:44 <curiosit1squared> ArtForz: do you get PM's?
1085 2011-04-20 09:58:49 <Diablo-D3> its no more illegal to own bitcoins than it is gold
1086 2011-04-20 09:58:52 <Diablo-D3> _its not money_
1087 2011-04-20 09:58:55 <Diablo-D3> nor can it ever be money
1088 2011-04-20 09:59:32 <curiosit1squared> Diablo-D3 attemts to prove he's not satoshi.
1089 2011-04-20 10:00:09 <Diablo-D3> dude, if I was satoshi, I'd be too fucking busy having sex with hot women
1090 2011-04-20 10:00:19 <gjs278> yeah
1091 2011-04-20 10:00:24 <gjs278> everyone wants his tiny asian pen0r
1092 2011-04-20 10:00:32 <Diablo-D3> yeah thats another thing
1093 2011-04-20 10:00:35 <Diablo-D3> I could never be satoshi
1094 2011-04-20 10:00:38 <Diablo-D3> my dick is too big
1095 2011-04-20 10:00:43 <curiosit1squared> the first time the DOJ tries to shut down a BTC accepting business, rich person getting a divorce with massive BTC, BTC poker site or other large BTC account we're going to be in for a ride.
1096 2011-04-20 10:00:55 <TD[work]> nobody knows anything about Satoshi, including whether he is a man or woman. we all just assume he's a man.
1097 2011-04-20 10:00:57 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: why? its a stored value implement.
1098 2011-04-20 10:01:04 <jrabbit> http://wondermark.com/720/ :>
1099 2011-04-20 10:01:04 <mizerydearia> http://bitcoin.witcoin.com/p/1212/DYNDY---writing-more-philosophical-and-economical-considerations-about-bitcoin
1100 2011-04-20 10:01:08 <sipa> "Hey baby, wanna see my hard drive with private keys to access over a million virtual credits of a currency i invented???" <-- that'd sure work
1101 2011-04-20 10:01:16 <Diablo-D3> its no different than people getting divorced over gold
1102 2011-04-20 10:01:19 <Diablo-D3> er, with gold involved
1103 2011-04-20 10:01:29 <Diablo-D3> or businesses that deal in gold
1104 2011-04-20 10:01:32 <Diablo-D3> gold isnt money
1105 2011-04-20 10:01:41 <Diablo-D3> I mean, fuck, that shits even MINTED as COINS
1106 2011-04-20 10:01:44 <Diablo-D3> in gold-like ways
1107 2011-04-20 10:01:48 <Diablo-D3> er
1108 2011-04-20 10:01:56 <Diablo-D3> in currency-like ways
1109 2011-04-20 10:02:04 <sipa> TD[work]: actually, including whether it is a person or an organisation
1110 2011-04-20 10:02:05 <Diablo-D3> and the government doesnt, and cant, do shit
1111 2011-04-20 10:02:06 <curiosit1squared> Maybe I missed something but buying gold doesn't protect you much in a divorce settlement.
1112 2011-04-20 10:02:07 <Diablo-D3> also
1113 2011-04-20 10:02:08 <gjs278> how many bitcoins does satoshi have
1114 2011-04-20 10:02:11 <curiosit1squared> bitcoins coult.
1115 2011-04-20 10:02:13 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: exactly.
1116 2011-04-20 10:02:20 <Diablo-D3> its stored value implements.
1117 2011-04-20 10:02:27 <Diablo-D3> its just another part of property that is divvied up
1118 2011-04-20 10:02:28 <sipa> gjs278: more than enough :)
1119 2011-04-20 10:02:43 <gjs278> 1) invent currency
1120 2011-04-20 10:02:44 <Diablo-D3> I mean like
1121 2011-04-20 10:02:47 <Diablo-D3> look at credit cards
1122 2011-04-20 10:02:49 <gjs278> 2) generate a shitton easily
1123 2011-04-20 10:02:51 <gjs278> 3) wait
1124 2011-04-20 10:02:57 <gjs278> 4) join channel as Diablo-D3
1125 2011-04-20 10:02:58 <Diablo-D3> if you make btc illegal, you just made credit cards illegal too
1126 2011-04-20 10:03:01 <curiosit1squared> sipa, do you know what his address ees are?
1127 2011-04-20 10:03:02 <gjs278> 5) profit
1128 2011-04-20 10:03:11 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: that would make me the largest troll in the history of the universe
1129 2011-04-20 10:03:19 <gjs278> also the richest troll
1130 2011-04-20 10:03:20 <noagendamarket> lol
1131 2011-04-20 10:03:23 <TD[work]> sipa: well, he writes like a person, and it's hard to imagine what kind of organization would create bitcoin
1132 2011-04-20 10:03:31 <TD[work]> even google is not quite that far out :-)
1133 2011-04-20 10:03:33 * Diablo-D3 has trollface.jpg etched into the moon
1134 2011-04-20 10:03:54 <curiosit1squared> ArtForz: you still here?
1135 2011-04-20 10:04:05 <gjs278> bitcoins were invented by terrorists to acheieve funding once the us shutdown the opium fields
1136 2011-04-20 10:04:09 <gjs278> congrats guys
1137 2011-04-20 10:04:13 <curiosit1squared> 02:40 < curiosit1squared> How high would difficulty have to be before you're hardware would no longer be profitable to operate?
1138 2011-04-20 10:04:13 <Diablo-D3> no man
1139 2011-04-20 10:04:16 <curiosit1squared> 02:40 < curiosit1squared> anotehr question, perhaps larger and philosophical, is how much of the network would you be comfortable being?
1140 2011-04-20 10:04:21 <curiosit1squared> sorry.
1141 2011-04-20 10:04:24 <curiosit1squared>  that was accident.
1142 2011-04-20 10:04:29 <gjs278> bitcoins were invented so japan could get enough money to finally defeat godzilla
1143 2011-04-20 10:04:35 <Diablo-D3> bitcoins was created by skynet as a way to stave off judgement day
1144 2011-04-20 10:04:47 <curiosit1squared> whatevs.
1145 2011-04-20 10:04:48 <Diablo-D3> seeing as we're still here, it worked.
1146 2011-04-20 10:05:02 <Diablo-D3> (judgement day started almost 24 hours ago)
1147 2011-04-20 10:05:04 <curiosit1squared> btc were invented so I could buy porn and my mom wouldn't know when she reads my cc statment. :P
1148 2011-04-20 10:05:08 <gjs278> bitcoins is nothing more than a project to find a sha256 hash that hashes into itself
1149 2011-04-20 10:05:12 <gjs278> once that happens, project is over
1150 2011-04-20 10:05:23 <curiosit1squared> satoshi had some one handed priorities.
1151 2011-04-20 10:06:03 <curiosit1squared> gjs278: what's the probability that such a hash exists?
1152 2011-04-20 10:06:07 <curiosit1squared> near 1?
1153 2011-04-20 10:06:10 <curiosit1squared> I think it is.
1154 2011-04-20 10:06:15 <gjs278> it exists
1155 2011-04-20 10:06:16 <curiosit1squared> it's virtually 1.
1156 2011-04-20 10:06:29 <gjs278> I fount it yesterday but forgot to write it down
1157 2011-04-20 10:06:49 <curiosit1squared> and it's most probable chance of being found is probably a btc client that doesn't even notice.
1158 2011-04-20 10:06:54 * curiosit1squared goes to sleep.
1159 2011-04-20 10:07:23 trifon_ is now known as trifon
1160 2011-04-20 10:07:27 <curiosit1squared> ahh. the stories I could tell if I didn't want to lose my quasi anonymity.
1161 2011-04-20 10:07:45 <curiosit1squared> fuck it.
1162 2011-04-20 10:08:50 * curiosit1squared changes mind. stupid stories from young nerd vanity days.
1163 2011-04-20 10:09:09 <sipa> TD[work]: sure, i assume he's a person too, but we don't know
1164 2011-04-20 10:09:19 <curiosit1squared> satoshi?
1165 2011-04-20 10:09:38 <curiosit1squared> as opposed to an organization?
1166 2011-04-20 10:09:42 <sipa> yes
1167 2011-04-20 10:09:54 <curiosit1squared> if he's an organization, I'm even more impressed.
1168 2011-04-20 10:10:06 <gjs278> he's nsa
1169 2011-04-20 10:10:09 <curiosit1squared> the only organization I know that could create him is the NSA.
1170 2011-04-20 10:10:11 <curiosit1squared> :)
1171 2011-04-20 10:10:30 <curiosit1squared> when I started learning about him I went WOAH.
1172 2011-04-20 10:10:33 <curiosit1squared> then WOAH.
1173 2011-04-20 10:10:35 <gjs278> bitcoin is just a check to see if sha256 can be broken
1174 2011-04-20 10:10:36 <curiosit1squared> then WOAH.
1175 2011-04-20 10:10:58 <curiosit1squared> he's the most non existent important person I've even heard of.
1176 2011-04-20 10:12:34 <curiosit1squared> sipa, you never answered my question about the block chain.
1177 2011-04-20 10:12:40 <sipa> which one?
1178 2011-04-20 10:13:25 <curiosit1squared> if 6 bdllden ised it every day, for 20 transactions average, how fast would it grow with perfect pruning in the merkel trees.
1179 2011-04-20 10:13:27 <gjs278> what's the backdoor key
1180 2011-04-20 10:13:42 <curiosit1squared> Or at least the expected value of the growth.
1181 2011-04-20 10:13:49 <curiosit1squared> that's more importand than the maximum.
1182 2011-04-20 10:14:08 <curiosit1squared> because worst case is just silly.
1183 2011-04-20 10:14:30 <curiosit1squared> I've tried to firure it out but it's not obvious.
1184 2011-04-20 10:14:59 <sipa> depends on a lot of factoras
1185 2011-04-20 10:15:06 larsivi has joined
1186 2011-04-20 10:15:14 <curiosit1squared> I think someone said "infinet" or "fucking huge"
1187 2011-04-20 10:15:17 <curiosit1squared> yeah...
1188 2011-04-20 10:15:36 <curiosit1squared> but the wiki is weak on real details.
1189 2011-04-20 10:15:36 <Diablo-D3> infinite goddamnit
1190 2011-04-20 10:16:02 <curiosit1squared> the expected value is infinite?
1191 2011-04-20 10:16:10 <curiosit1squared> I don't buy that.
1192 2011-04-20 10:16:17 <sipa> it stops at the point where every txout has a value of 1 microcent
1193 2011-04-20 10:16:21 <curiosit1squared> it's related to the poisson process.
1194 2011-04-20 10:16:26 <sipa> because then no more splitting can occur
1195 2011-04-20 10:16:36 npouillard has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1196 2011-04-20 10:16:39 Zarutian has joined
1197 2011-04-20 10:16:43 <sipa> curiosit1squared: block creation is a poisson process, transactions aren't
1198 2011-04-20 10:17:21 <curiosit1squared> block creation is a pure poisson process.
1199 2011-04-20 10:17:39 <curiosit1squared> transactins over a finite period are.
1200 2011-04-20 10:17:44 <curiosit1squared> over the long hual
1201 2011-04-20 10:18:17 <curiosit1squared> they are a poisson process under exponential ... or some other modifier that's why I call.ed them related.
1202 2011-04-20 10:18:21 <curiosit1squared> but I can't pin it down.
1203 2011-04-20 10:18:42 <curiosit1squared> Diablo-D3: what is infinite
1204 2011-04-20 10:18:51 <curiosit1squared> 1 block = my hard disk gone?
1205 2011-04-20 10:19:00 <Diablo-D3> what is infinite? my dick.
1206 2011-04-20 10:19:13 <Diablo-D3> scientists do not have words to describe how big my dick is.
1207 2011-04-20 10:20:47 * jaromil observes the enormity of Diablo's cilinder of craziness
1208 2011-04-20 10:21:10 <gjs278> his dick will reach maximum size in 2140
1209 2011-04-20 10:21:22 <jaromil> its incredible, i can see pulsating veins of the size of my arm
1210 2011-04-20 10:21:25 <curiosit1squared> you must have a very small one. I assure you the're exist atoms which I interact with that are not a molecular portion of your penis. However, 1/(any measure of you're penis) is very likely to be infinite and I would understand you're confusion in said conundrum but this really is a waste of ascii.... it's a limited resource you know....)
1211 2011-04-20 10:21:40 <gjs278> my dick is huge
1212 2011-04-20 10:21:41 srb123 has joined
1213 2011-04-20 10:21:44 npouillard has joined
1214 2011-04-20 10:22:01 <curiosit1squared> gjs278: in negative exponents.
1215 2011-04-20 10:22:10 <gjs278> np = p where p is equal to my dick
1216 2011-04-20 10:22:46 <curiosit1squared> not penis? You just down graded yourself to an anus, tain, balls and a "not penis?"
1217 2011-04-20 10:23:10 <curiosit1squared> that's worse than being gay, trans strait or anything.
1218 2011-04-20 10:23:18 <Diablo-D3> hes... negative.
1219 2011-04-20 10:23:21 <curiosit1squared> How do you get off? Affication?
1220 2011-04-20 10:23:28 <Diablo-D3> my god
1221 2011-04-20 10:23:31 <Diablo-D3> hes turned into a woman!
1222 2011-04-20 10:23:33 slothbag1 has joined
1223 2011-04-20 10:24:01 <gjs278> http://i.imgur.com/UtaNJ.png this is me just chilling not erect or anything tho
1224 2011-04-20 10:24:05 <curiosit1squared> btw, Diablo-D3, should I really get better results with you're miner in windows 7?
1225 2011-04-20 10:24:11 <curiosit1squared> Because I don't.
1226 2011-04-20 10:24:35 <curiosit1squared> I spent several hours yesterday trying to figure out what happened to you're -v option.
1227 2011-04-20 10:24:46 <curiosit1squared> and I never resolved it.
1228 2011-04-20 10:24:49 <gjs278> tbh it's really a pain to uncoil my dick
1229 2011-04-20 10:24:51 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: I removed it because it doesnt make it faster.
1230 2011-04-20 10:24:58 Lazymeerkat has joined
1231 2011-04-20 10:25:10 <curiosit1squared> but I get a lot more with polcpbm so I quit trying.
1232 2011-04-20 10:25:13 <curiosit1squared> around 20%
1233 2011-04-20 10:25:19 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: what driver and sdk?
1234 2011-04-20 10:25:34 <curiosit1squared> win 7 pro.
1235 2011-04-20 10:25:37 <curiosit1squared> 11.4
1236 2011-04-20 10:25:50 <Diablo-D3> I assume 2.4 then
1237 2011-04-20 10:25:57 <Diablo-D3> what video card?
1238 2011-04-20 10:26:08 <curiosit1squared> 5870
1239 2011-04-20 10:26:12 <curiosit1squared> 2 of them
1240 2011-04-20 10:26:22 <Diablo-D3> huh, why arent you using 10.9 through 10.11 + sdk 2.1 then?
1241 2011-04-20 10:26:24 <gjs278> what's your hash rate
1242 2011-04-20 10:26:37 <Diablo-D3> you're losing about 15% by using the wrong driver and sdk
1243 2011-04-20 10:26:55 <curiosit1squared> 15%?
1244 2011-04-20 10:26:57 <curiosit1squared> jesus.
1245 2011-04-20 10:26:58 <curiosit1squared> ;9
1246 2011-04-20 10:26:59 <curiosit1squared> :(
1247 2011-04-20 10:27:05 <curiosit1squared> I thought it was around 2%
1248 2011-04-20 10:27:24 <Diablo-D3> 2.4 is the fastest of the three that came after 2.1
1249 2011-04-20 10:27:26 <Diablo-D3> its still slow.
1250 2011-04-20 10:27:38 <curiosit1squared> running at 900 mhz
1251 2011-04-20 10:27:39 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: btw, try toying with -w and -z
1252 2011-04-20 10:27:47 <curiosit1squared> -z?
1253 2011-04-20 10:27:52 <curiosit1squared> I messed with -w
1254 2011-04-20 10:27:56 <Diablo-D3> kernel loop size
1255 2011-04-20 10:28:01 <curiosit1squared> tried 64 128 and 256
1256 2011-04-20 10:28:05 <Diablo-D3> try -z 0
1257 2011-04-20 10:28:16 <curiosit1squared> I have onboard nvidia 790 sli
1258 2011-04-20 10:28:19 <Diablo-D3> Im trying to figure out if >2.1 is just retarded
1259 2011-04-20 10:28:20 <curiosit1squared> that's enabled.
1260 2011-04-20 10:28:36 <gjs278> I just went back to 2.1
1261 2011-04-20 10:28:41 <curiosit1squared> I want to say I have 2.4
1262 2011-04-20 10:28:41 <gjs278> I jumped easily 15mhash
1263 2011-04-20 10:28:49 <curiosit1squared> I insalled the beta yesterday.
1264 2011-04-20 10:28:56 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: 11.4 installs 2.4.
1265 2011-04-20 10:29:00 <curiosit1squared> yeah.
1266 2011-04-20 10:29:10 <curiosit1squared> I'm getting 230 average on poclbm
1267 2011-04-20 10:29:14 <curiosit1squared> on each card
1268 2011-04-20 10:29:19 <gjs278> wtf
1269 2011-04-20 10:29:20 <gjs278> 230
1270 2011-04-20 10:29:23 <gjs278> on a 5870
1271 2011-04-20 10:29:25 <Diablo-D3> 230? wtf?
1272 2011-04-20 10:29:27 <Diablo-D3> thats slow
1273 2011-04-20 10:29:30 <gjs278> son I am disappoint
1274 2011-04-20 10:29:33 <Diablo-D3> should be above 300
1275 2011-04-20 10:29:35 <curiosit1squared> typo
1276 2011-04-20 10:29:38 <gjs278> should be 350
1277 2011-04-20 10:29:42 <gjs278> at least 330
1278 2011-04-20 10:29:50 <curiosit1squared> 330
1279 2011-04-20 10:29:51 <curiosit1squared> yeah
1280 2011-04-20 10:29:57 <curiosit1squared> 330 on each.
1281 2011-04-20 10:29:59 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: then you should get at least 660 with mine.
1282 2011-04-20 10:30:13 <curiosit1squared> never got over 610 with yours
1283 2011-04-20 10:30:22 <Diablo-D3> try with -z0
1284 2011-04-20 10:30:24 <gjs278> I downed myself to 2.1 just now, what driver version should I shoot for
1285 2011-04-20 10:30:28 <curiosit1squared> played with -w and let run a while
1286 2011-04-20 10:30:37 <curiosit1squared> hmm.
1287 2011-04-20 10:30:40 <gjs278> 11.3 has no cpu use but who knows
1288 2011-04-20 10:30:42 <curiosit1squared> I'll give 10.9 a try
1289 2011-04-20 10:30:53 <curiosit1squared> I have horrible cpu usage.
1290 2011-04-20 10:30:55 <Diablo-D3> curiosit1squared: also, you do realize, thats only a 7.6% difference ;)
1291 2011-04-20 10:31:02 <curiosit1squared> yeah,
1292 2011-04-20 10:31:12 <curiosit1squared> that's why I'm not too fussy about it.
1293 2011-04-20 10:31:22 <curiosit1squared> I'm more interested in the cpu usage.
1294 2011-04-20 10:31:23 <Diablo-D3> but yeah
1295 2011-04-20 10:31:33 <curiosit1squared> I've fried 4 power supplies mining btc.
1296 2011-04-20 10:31:34 <Diablo-D3> Im wondering if its not handling loops right naymore
1297 2011-04-20 10:31:38 <Diablo-D3> 4?
1298 2011-04-20 10:31:39 <Diablo-D3> wtf dude
1299 2011-04-20 10:31:42 <curiosit1squared> (all cost 19%
1300 2011-04-20 10:31:42 <Diablo-D3> quit buying shit PSUs
1301 2011-04-20 10:31:44 <curiosit1squared> $
1302 2011-04-20 10:31:47 <curiosit1squared> :)
1303 2011-04-20 10:31:53 <curiosit1squared> good ones cost a lot more.
1304 2011-04-20 10:31:55 <Diablo-D3> you're lucky it didnt fry your machine
1305 2011-04-20 10:31:59 <gjs278> wtf
1306 2011-04-20 10:32:00 <curiosit1squared> really?
1307 2011-04-20 10:32:01 <gjs278> dude
1308 2011-04-20 10:32:02 <Diablo-D3> and yes, psus popping CAN damage hardware
1309 2011-04-20 10:32:07 <gjs278> how did you fry 4 of them
1310 2011-04-20 10:32:09 <Diablo-D3> it happens about half the time with shit psus
1311 2011-04-20 10:32:14 <gjs278> buy a corsair power supply now
1312 2011-04-20 10:32:15 <curiosit1squared> I've never fried a mobo.
1313 2011-04-20 10:32:15 <gjs278> or something
1314 2011-04-20 10:32:17 <gjs278> holy crap
1315 2011-04-20 10:32:22 <curiosit1squared> :)
1316 2011-04-20 10:32:26 <curiosit1squared> ROFLOL
1317 2011-04-20 10:32:28 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: no
1318 2011-04-20 10:32:32 <gjs278> idc how much you saved on those 4 power supplies
1319 2011-04-20 10:32:39 <gjs278> it wasnt worthit
1320 2011-04-20 10:32:42 TheAncientGoat has joined
1321 2011-04-20 10:32:43 <gjs278> what brand
1322 2011-04-20 10:32:47 <Diablo-D3> he needs a pc power silencer I or a nxzt hale 90
1323 2011-04-20 10:32:51 <curiosit1squared> some newegg POS
1324 2011-04-20 10:33:01 <gjs278> do you think corsair is bad tho
1325 2011-04-20 10:33:05 <gjs278> or just overpriced
1326 2011-04-20 10:33:12 <curiosit1squared> I found some in a box today that were better than the ones I bought.
1327 2011-04-20 10:33:30 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: corsair only has one good series
1328 2011-04-20 10:33:32 <Diablo-D3> the rest are kind of crap
1329 2011-04-20 10:33:36 <gjs278> which series
1330 2011-04-20 10:33:47 <gjs278> I have a corsair but now I don't know if it's crap
1331 2011-04-20 10:33:55 <Diablo-D3> ax series
1332 2011-04-20 10:34:22 <gjs278> I have one of these not sure which one http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=corsair+850&x=0&y=0
1333 2011-04-20 10:34:25 <Diablo-D3> but like, why bother
1334 2011-04-20 10:34:26 <gjs278> but it was a corsair 850w
1335 2011-04-20 10:34:35 <Diablo-D3> tx sucks
1336 2011-04-20 10:34:40 <curiosit1squared> if I could convince people to buy btc what's the best way to make a small fee on it?
1337 2011-04-20 10:34:45 <Diablo-D3> it goes ax, hx, tx, and another one
1338 2011-04-20 10:35:02 <curiosit1squared> like if I could convince a few people to buy a few k of btc.
1339 2011-04-20 10:35:08 <gjs278> are tx just unreliable
1340 2011-04-20 10:35:13 <gjs278> what's their flaw
1341 2011-04-20 10:35:16 <Diablo-D3> also
1342 2011-04-20 10:35:18 <Diablo-D3> that price is lol
1343 2011-04-20 10:35:21 <gjs278> yes
1344 2011-04-20 10:35:23 <gjs278> that price is lol
1345 2011-04-20 10:35:28 <Diablo-D3> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703030&cm_re=pc_power_silencer-_-17-703-030-_-Product
1346 2011-04-20 10:35:28 <gjs278> I did not pay that price I can assure you
1347 2011-04-20 10:35:36 <Diablo-D3> silencer Is are the best PSUs ever made
1348 2011-04-20 10:35:40 <Diablo-D3> you cant beat them
1349 2011-04-20 10:35:49 <gjs278> I will keep this in mind
1350 2011-04-20 10:35:50 <Diablo-D3> they just dont fucking make them anymore
1351 2011-04-20 10:35:57 <Diablo-D3> whatevers in stock is pretty much it
1352 2011-04-20 10:36:01 <gjs278> just like scythe fans
1353 2011-04-20 10:36:05 <gjs278> for ap-14's
1354 2011-04-20 10:36:07 <gjs278> and ap-15s
1355 2011-04-20 10:36:13 <curiosit1squared> cause, I've figured out a way to do it for a few hundred (statistically expected value) but I don't know how to make a referal fee even though it would be worth it to the purchasers)
1356 2011-04-20 10:36:16 <Diablo-D3> nxzt had hale 90s
1357 2011-04-20 10:36:20 <Diablo-D3> but apparently those are going out as well
1358 2011-04-20 10:36:25 <gjs278> it's a sick joke running shop to shop seeing ap-15's sold out instantly
1359 2011-04-20 10:36:38 <gjs278> I want my super japanese fan now
1360 2011-04-20 10:36:50 <gjs278> btc creator bought them all
1361 2011-04-20 10:37:31 <Diablo-D3> heh
1362 2011-04-20 10:37:50 <Diablo-D3> I use scythe s-fdb fans
1363 2011-04-20 10:38:11 <curiosit1squared> I read that ArtForz said someone is mining 2x as much as he is.
1364 2011-04-20 10:38:19 <curiosit1squared> Does anyone know what he's refering two?
1365 2011-04-20 10:38:25 <gjs278> my dick
1366 2011-04-20 10:38:52 <gjs278> I was going to scythe s-fdb
1367 2011-04-20 10:39:02 <gjs278> because I had a 20% off fans for newegg
1368 2011-04-20 10:39:05 <gjs278> and save me that $1
1369 2011-04-20 10:39:15 <gjs278> then I found ap-14's and my life changed
1370 2011-04-20 10:41:17 BlueMatt has joined
1371 2011-04-20 10:41:30 <Diablo-D3> I dont get the point of those
1372 2011-04-20 10:41:34 <Diablo-D3> they cant be that silent
1373 2011-04-20 10:41:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: why was the uri spec reverted?
1374 2011-04-20 10:42:26 <gjs278> BlueMatt not enough tonal support
1375 2011-04-20 10:42:40 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1376 2011-04-20 10:42:44 <BlueMatt> specifically the exponent stuff
1377 2011-04-20 10:43:32 <gjs278> Diablo-D3 they are pretty silent but it's not like my case fans were that loud to begin with
1378 2011-04-20 10:43:58 <gjs278> it's mainly so you can tell people how japanese your computer is
1379 2011-04-20 10:46:31 noot has joined
1380 2011-04-20 10:47:13 noot has quit (Client Quit)
1381 2011-04-20 10:48:35 <curiosit1squared> Have any btc sold over 1.2 yet?
1382 2011-04-20 10:48:49 <BlueMatt> curiosit1squared: not on mtgox, on bcm yes
1383 2011-04-20 10:48:53 <lfm_> ;;bc,mtgox
1384 2011-04-20 10:48:55 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.1979,"low":1.13,"vol":20068,"buy":1.1401,"sell":1.1688,"last":1.161}}
1385 2011-04-20 10:51:29 <curiosit1squared> they really hit 1.50 on bcm
1386 2011-04-20 10:51:33 <curiosit1squared> wtf
1387 2011-04-20 10:51:47 <curiosit1squared> sort of buying spree was happening the other day
1388 2011-04-20 10:52:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik luke-jr tcatm ok, I'm sorry but AFAICT by reading the logs from last night the agreement was to remove tonal/hex support and all the exponent crap from the URI spec and make everything standard decimals, why was nothing changed?
1389 2011-04-20 10:52:49 <BlueMatt> wtf?
1390 2011-04-20 10:53:09 <gjs278> umm tonal support is definitely necessary
1391 2011-04-20 10:53:16 <gjs278> I've got tonal vision
1392 2011-04-20 10:53:22 <BlueMatt> gjs278: stop trolling
1393 2011-04-20 10:53:38 <gjs278>  /join #tonal
1394 2011-04-20 10:53:56 <lfm_> gjs278: <- is drunk I think
1395 2011-04-20 10:54:15 <gjs278> if you check wikipedia, luke-jr is arguing about tonal support on the bitcoin discussion page
1396 2011-04-20 10:54:35 <curiosit1squared> -
1397 2011-04-20 10:55:00 <gjs278> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABitcoin#Tonal
1398 2011-04-20 10:55:18 <curiosit1squared> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABitcoin#Tonal
1399 2011-04-20 10:55:20 <gjs278> While the majority admittedly use the Decimal/SI notation/units, there is no reason to oppress the minority who choose to use Tonal.
1400 2011-04-20 10:55:31 <gjs278> BlueMatt are you trying to oppress the minorities
1401 2011-04-20 10:56:14 <lfm_> yup
1402 2011-04-20 10:58:36 <gjs278> bitcoins is supposed to be about helping solve world oppression, I don't feel right supporting a project that oppresses the tonal community
1403 2011-04-20 10:59:04 <Diablo-D3> wtf is tonal anyhow
1404 2011-04-20 10:59:09 <gjs278> lol I have no idea
1405 2011-04-20 10:59:27 <iera> then you are trolling
1406 2011-04-20 10:59:47 <gjs278> I didn't know what martin luther king meant when he had a dream, but I marched with him anyways
1407 2011-04-20 10:59:51 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: its a system of units based on hex with different notation and a bunch of other crap
1408 2011-04-20 11:00:11 <BlueMatt> Diablo-D3: its total user count == one == luke-jr
1409 2011-04-20 11:00:13 <Diablo-D3> that sounds stupid
1410 2011-04-20 11:00:16 <Diablo-D3> ahh
1411 2011-04-20 11:00:17 <Diablo-D3> it IS stupid
1412 2011-04-20 11:00:22 <gjs278> I think 10 is equal to 16 or something
1413 2011-04-20 11:00:37 <BlueMatt> no one Tonal BTC is equal to like 0.001434656456 btc
1414 2011-04-20 11:00:40 <BlueMatt> or some other crap
1415 2011-04-20 11:00:42 <gjs278> oh ok
1416 2011-04-20 11:00:54 <sirius> bong-bitcoin is my favorite :)
1417 2011-04-20 11:01:19 <sipa> 0.00065536 BTC, iirc
1418 2011-04-20 11:01:21 * BurtyB doesnt see any advantage of tonal
1419 2011-04-20 11:01:52 <BlueMatt> BurtyB: no one but luke does afaik
1420 2011-04-20 11:01:59 <gjs278> can we make it parse text, I want to be able to type "fifty bitcoins" and have it figure it out
1421 2011-04-20 11:03:08 <curiosit1squared> as someone who proudly has the hexidecimal multiplicatoin table as a poster on his wall, I empole anyone who can to get all mention of tonal out of current use
1422 2011-04-20 11:03:08 Cusipzzz has joined
1423 2011-04-20 11:03:14 <curiosit1squared> and deplore it's usage.
1424 2011-04-20 11:03:34 <gjs278> now I'm not sure
1425 2011-04-20 11:03:35 <gjs278> but
1426 2011-04-20 11:03:37 <gjs278> 7?? Timander 4 at 1.8?T
1427 2011-04-20 11:03:45 <gjs278> I think he tried signing a wikipedia post in tonal
1428 2011-04-20 11:03:51 <curiosit1squared> I've memorized over 300 digits of PI and tried my damdest at memorizing the hexidecimal multiplication table and it's not worth it.
1429 2011-04-20 11:04:23 <sipa> where is the second 0?
1430 2011-04-20 11:04:30 <gjs278> a unicode box
1431 2011-04-20 11:04:33 <curiosit1squared> I also ran across an article by luke-jr and was flummoxed by his use of TBC
1432 2011-04-20 11:04:41 <curiosit1squared> now I see it's tonal bitccoins
1433 2011-04-20 11:05:24 <curiosit1squared> he's opperating a bitcoin client that accepts transactions for as small as 10^-8 total bitcoins/KB * transaction size.
1434 2011-04-20 11:05:53 <gjs278> I want my client to be able to send .00001 so I can flood the network with pointless transfers
1435 2011-04-20 11:06:07 <curiosit1squared> ok. pice out my fellows.
1436 2011-04-20 11:06:10 <curiosit1squared> ?
1437 2011-04-20 11:06:20 <curiosit1squared> hmm
1438 2011-04-20 11:07:04 <curiosit1squared> what stops me from generating a block with tons and tons of transactions all from myself to myself with transaction feels tomyself that's like 100mb?
1439 2011-04-20 11:07:12 <curiosit1squared> if I'm generating a block a day
1440 2011-04-20 11:07:24 <curiosit1squared> that would qucilky fuck things for everyone
1441 2011-04-20 11:08:12 <curiosit1squared> and it wouldn't be hard to generate blocks harder
1442 2011-04-20 11:08:21 <curiosit1squared> fuxoring things even faster.
1443 2011-04-20 11:08:25 <eps2> do it
1444 2011-04-20 11:08:30 <curiosit1squared> ?
1445 2011-04-20 11:08:36 <curiosit1squared> I don't want to fuxor things.
1446 2011-04-20 11:08:51 <eps2> if you don't someone else will
1447 2011-04-20 11:08:58 <curiosit1squared> I mean technically, is there something that stopes a miner from generating huge blocks?
1448 2011-04-20 11:09:01 <ArtForz> static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
1449 2011-04-20 11:09:22 <curiosit1squared> 1mb?
1450 2011-04-20 11:09:27 <curiosit1squared> ok.
1451 2011-04-20 11:09:34 <curiosit1squared> You're back.
1452 2011-04-20 11:09:35 <curiosit1squared> :)
1453 2011-04-20 11:09:40 <ArtForz> yea
1454 2011-04-20 11:09:49 <curiosit1squared> You get pm's?
1455 2011-04-20 11:09:54 <ArtForz> nope
1456 2011-04-20 11:10:27 <curiosit1squared> you can't or you're client doesn't accpet them?
1457 2011-04-20 11:10:42 <ArtForz> whitelist in client
1458 2011-04-20 11:10:45 Lazymeerkat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1459 2011-04-20 11:11:04 <curiosit1squared> would you add me for a minute?
1460 2011-04-20 11:11:08 <ArtForz> sec
1461 2011-04-20 11:11:21 <ArtForz> added
1462 2011-04-20 11:11:25 Lazymeerkat has joined
1463 2011-04-20 11:12:33 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1464 2011-04-20 11:15:03 <da2ce7> ,,bc,stats
1465 2011-04-20 11:15:04 <gribble> Current Blocks: 119256 | Current Difficulty: 92347.59095209 | Next Difficulty At Block: 120959 | Next Difficulty In: 1703 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 15 hours, 6 minutes, and 10 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 94169.92106647
1466 2011-04-20 11:16:14 purpleposeidon has joined
1467 2011-04-20 11:18:52 slothbag1 has left ()
1468 2011-04-20 11:23:39 srb123 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1469 2011-04-20 11:25:33 <B0g4r7> new difficultay
1470 2011-04-20 11:26:01 funkenstein has joined
1471 2011-04-20 11:26:22 <B0g4r7> Wow, I picked up some fees on this block.
1472 2011-04-20 11:26:26 <noagendamarket> :0 it was 97000
1473 2011-04-20 11:26:47 GlitchNZ has joined
1474 2011-04-20 11:26:49 <B0g4r7> http://blockexplorer.com/b/119210
1475 2011-04-20 11:27:03 <sipa> difficulty was never higher than the current one
1476 2011-04-20 11:27:36 <GlitchNZ> hey peeps - i have a few questions about the bitcoind api if anyone is willing to help
1477 2011-04-20 11:27:37 Big_Brother has joined
1478 2011-04-20 11:27:52 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: ask a question, dont ask to ask ;)
1479 2011-04-20 11:27:54 <GlitchNZ> RE: sendfrom <fromaccount> <tobitcoinaddress> <amount> [minconf=1] [comment] [comment-to]
1480 2011-04-20 11:28:15 <GlitchNZ> ive searched everywhere but I cant find how the minconf optional argument affects this call
1481 2011-04-20 11:28:16 <Big_Brother> by default, poclbm uses only one GPU, right?
1482 2011-04-20 11:28:32 <sipa> GlitchNZ: it only uses outputs that have at least that number of confirmations
1483 2011-04-20 11:28:38 <B0g4r7> Big_Brothe: Correct
1484 2011-04-20 11:29:10 <Big_Brother> how can i make it use both ?
1485 2011-04-20 11:29:11 <GlitchNZ> so if i have an account that has only one depoist with 3 confirmations, and i set minconf to 4 it will fail?
1486 2011-04-20 11:29:20 <sipa> it should
1487 2011-04-20 11:29:26 <GlitchNZ> right ok
1488 2011-04-20 11:29:34 <B0g4r7> Big_Brothe: Run 2 instances.
1489 2011-04-20 11:29:48 * GlitchNZ is working on swishy ajax website http://bitcoin.noldus.geek.nz/index.php comments welcome
1490 2011-04-20 11:30:25 <GlitchNZ> next question: how many confirmations is considered "safe" and why? i notice bitcoin UI seems to like 6
1491 2011-04-20 11:30:41 <sipa> read satoshi's paper :)
1492 2011-04-20 11:30:56 <GlitchNZ> any chance for a condensed version?
1493 2011-04-20 11:30:58 <sipa> block chain splits of 1 have occured already
1494 2011-04-20 11:31:04 <sipa> of 2 maybe, not sure
1495 2011-04-20 11:31:11 <sipa> 6 is statistically very unlikely
1496 2011-04-20 11:31:28 <funkenstein> hey btcers question about blockexplorer:  why always so many "from" addresses ?
1497 2011-04-20 11:31:48 <sipa> funkenstein: ?
1498 2011-04-20 11:32:19 <GlitchNZ> does bitcoind keep a track of 'failed deposits'?
1499 2011-04-20 11:32:20 <funkenstein> eg B0g4r7's link..
1500 2011-04-20 11:32:53 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: if you mean double-spent deposits, sort of, they just sit around as 0 confirmations forever
1501 2011-04-20 11:33:31 <B0g4r7> funkenstei: I guess a lot of small transactions were used as fund sources to make a larger one there.
1502 2011-04-20 11:33:44 Big_Brother has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1503 2011-04-20 11:34:14 <GlitchNZ> Blumatt - thanks, although I am assuming '6' is safe because they could get up to 5 before they stagnate
1504 2011-04-20 11:34:32 <sipa> GlitchNZ: you can you tab to complete one's nickname
1505 2011-04-20 11:34:34 FabianB_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1506 2011-04-20 11:35:11 <B0g4r7> I don't understand why the same source address is used repeatedly though.
1507 2011-04-20 11:35:16 <B0g4r7> Maybe a test of some kind.
1508 2011-04-20 11:35:23 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: a confirmation only technically happens once, thereafter each new block simply makes it harder to reverse the tx hence it is counted as more confirmations
1509 2011-04-20 11:35:38 <BlueMatt> so it cant 'stagnate' after anything
1510 2011-04-20 11:35:41 <GlitchNZ> ahhh i see
1511 2011-04-20 11:35:44 <BlueMatt> only if there is a block chain split
1512 2011-04-20 11:36:23 <GlitchNZ> thanks for answering what are probably silly questions - I only heard about bitcoin 2 days ago
1513 2011-04-20 11:36:36 FabianB has joined
1514 2011-04-20 11:36:50 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: there are a couple good interview/podcasts explaining bitcoin which you might want to watch/listen to
1515 2011-04-20 11:36:56 <funkenstein> looks a bit dodgy to my untrained eye Bog4r7 ..
1516 2011-04-20 11:37:02 <sipa> it's not
1517 2011-04-20 11:37:10 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1518 2011-04-20 11:37:10 <sipa> B0g4r7: you need a transaction input per transaction output
1519 2011-04-20 11:37:18 <Diablo-D3> so
1520 2011-04-20 11:37:21 <sipa> so if you have 10 transactions to a single address
1521 2011-04-20 11:37:26 <Diablo-D3> I think Ive figured out satoshi's identity
1522 2011-04-20 11:37:29 <GlitchNZ> so it really would be just about impossible for an indiviual to delibratly cause a block chain split
1523 2011-04-20 11:37:31 <Diablo-D3> the jesus christ reborn.
1524 2011-04-20 11:37:39 <sipa> and want to use all those at the same time in a single transaction, it will need 10 inputs
1525 2011-04-20 11:37:40 <Diablo-D3> the king of kings, the lord of men
1526 2011-04-20 11:37:48 <sipa> and those 10 inputs will all have the same source address
1527 2011-04-20 11:37:53 <B0g4r7> sipa, but there are multiples from and to the same address pairs.
1528 2011-04-20 11:37:55 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: never bothered to listen to this one myself, but Ive heard its really good: http://omegataupodcast.net/2011/03/59-bitcoin-a-digital-decentralized-currency/
1529 2011-04-20 11:38:10 <B0g4r7> Quite a few.
1530 2011-04-20 11:38:12 <iera> yep i heard it, was good
1531 2011-04-20 11:38:17 <sipa> B0g4r7: ?
1532 2011-04-20 11:38:24 <B0g4r7> Look at the block.
1533 2011-04-20 11:38:29 <sipa> read what i wrote
1534 2011-04-20 11:39:56 <B0g4r7> There are like 50 instances of 0.01 BTC from 1MVh56BXYAkANHipwPRgdiBCYYo7smoRAP to 1GSJmzsjY8jhRxTtWZMkHK933rW2tQ3bWs all in one transaction.
1535 2011-04-20 11:40:36 <sipa> well, if there were 50 separate transactions to 1MVh56BXYAkANHipwPRgdiBCYYo7smoRAP of 0.01 BTC each
1536 2011-04-20 11:40:41 <B0g4r7> I could understand if there were many for to 1GSJmzsjY8jhRxTtWZMkHK933rW2tQ3bWs, each from a different source transaction...
1537 2011-04-20 11:40:43 <Diablo-D3> and theres about 1000 instances of xel to me over a 35 hour period.
1538 2011-04-20 11:40:56 <sipa> and you need those 0.5 BTC source for a transaction to 1GSJmzsjY8jhRxTtWZMkHK933rW2tQ3bWs
1539 2011-04-20 11:41:04 <sipa> you would need 50 separate inputs
1540 2011-04-20 11:41:12 <sipa> and they would all use 1MVh56BXYAkANHipwPRgdiBCYYo7smoRAP as source
1541 2011-04-20 11:41:16 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1542 2011-04-20 11:42:04 <B0g4r7> heh...I still don't get it.
1543 2011-04-20 11:42:50 <sipa> a transaction always consumes particular outputs of particular transactions
1544 2011-04-20 11:42:57 <B0g4r7> What I'm saying is there are like 50 records of 0.01 BTC, all going from and to the same address (pair), all within a single transaction.
1545 2011-04-20 11:43:12 <Diablo-D3> thats dumb.
1546 2011-04-20 11:43:15 <sipa> don't reason in terms of "from one address to another address"
1547 2011-04-20 11:43:18 <B0g4r7> Why not just use a single record for the whole 0.50?
1548 2011-04-20 11:43:22 <sipa> you can't
1549 2011-04-20 11:43:30 <sipa> each input must refer to a specific output!
1550 2011-04-20 11:43:37 <sipa> if those outputs were separate transactions
1551 2011-04-20 11:43:42 <sipa> the inputs are separate as well
1552 2011-04-20 11:43:44 <noagendamarket> someone might be testing a double sopend attack on a 0/unconfirmed service
1553 2011-04-20 11:43:55 <B0g4r7> But it's all in one tx.
1554 2011-04-20 11:43:57 <sipa> bitcoin does NOT work in terms of transfers from one address to another
1555 2011-04-20 11:44:13 <sipa> B0g4r7: i'm talking about the transactions that put those 0.01 BTC's there
1556 2011-04-20 11:44:24 <sipa> if that's more than one, you can't consume it all in one input
1557 2011-04-20 11:44:38 <sipa> since the input needs to refer to the output that put it there
1558 2011-04-20 11:44:47 <B0g4r7> Yeah, but wouldn't they all get "put" into different source "addresses" then?
1559 2011-04-20 11:44:56 <sipa> look
1560 2011-04-20 11:44:59 <sipa> you create an address
1561 2011-04-20 11:45:07 <sipa> call it 1bc
1562 2011-04-20 11:45:09 <sipa> it's empty
1563 2011-04-20 11:45:13 <B0g4r7> oh...
1564 2011-04-20 11:45:14 <sipa> i send 1 BTC there
1565 2011-04-20 11:45:26 BurtyB has joined
1566 2011-04-20 11:45:26 <sipa> in tx txA
1567 2011-04-20 11:45:28 <B0g4r7> Yes, I see, that single address can receive many times.
1568 2011-04-20 11:45:43 <B0g4r7> And each reception is still recorded seperately...
1569 2011-04-20 11:45:44 <sipa> now, send 2 BTC there, in tx txB
1570 2011-04-20 11:46:03 <sipa> you now have two outputs, txA:0 and txB:0, that provide funds to 1bc
1571 2011-04-20 11:46:15 <sipa> if you want to send 2.5 BTC somewhere
1572 2011-04-20 11:46:40 <sipa> you'll refer to txA:0 and txB:0, and create a 2.5 BTC output to somewhere, and a 0.5 BTC output to yourself
1573 2011-04-20 11:46:46 <B0g4r7> There must be something besides the destination address that uniquely identifies the transaction.
1574 2011-04-20 11:46:47 <sipa> but it WILL have two inputs
1575 2011-04-20 11:46:56 <sipa> B0g4r7: the transaction itself
1576 2011-04-20 11:47:05 <sipa> as i told you, bitcoin does not reason in terms of addresses
1577 2011-04-20 11:47:10 <sipa> those are just the access control
1578 2011-04-20 11:47:23 <B0g4r7> Something that is not shown in blockexplorer, the way I'm looking at it now.
1579 2011-04-20 11:47:23 <sipa> but bitcoin has no notion of the total funds available to an address
1580 2011-04-20 11:47:30 <sipa> everything is shown
1581 2011-04-20 11:47:39 <sipa> ah, no, not there
1582 2011-04-20 11:47:45 <sipa> go into the transaction itself
1583 2011-04-20 11:47:54 <funkenstein> is this related to:  "Every time a transaction is sent, some bitcoins are usually sent back to yourself at a new address (not included in the Bitcoin UI)"
1584 2011-04-20 11:48:05 <sipa> you'll see that the "previous output (index)" is different
1585 2011-04-20 11:48:30 <sipa> funkenstein: yes, those are called change addresses
1586 2011-04-20 11:49:30 <B0g4r7> In any case, I sure picked up a lot of fees on that block.
1587 2011-04-20 11:49:47 <sipa> wow 2.22 BTC in fees, indeed
1588 2011-04-20 11:50:39 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1589 2011-04-20 11:51:36 <sipa> @later tell theymos maybe an idea for blockexplorer, in the block view sum the from and to amounts together per address
1590 2011-04-20 11:51:40 <sipa> ;;later tell theymos maybe an idea for blockexplorer, in the block view sum the from and to amounts together per address
1591 2011-04-20 11:51:41 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
1592 2011-04-20 11:52:01 <funkenstein> thanks peeps, still learning :D
1593 2011-04-20 11:52:47 <B0g4r7> Sounds like a good idea.
1594 2011-04-20 11:52:59 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1595 2011-04-20 11:53:16 <B0g4r7> Looks like someone gets a lot of micropayments.  I wonder if that's pool payouts or what.
1596 2011-04-20 11:53:26 <B0g4r7> Or more than one someone.
1597 2011-04-20 11:54:22 danbri has joined
1598 2011-04-20 11:57:50 <funkenstein> example transaction: number of inputs 459 number of outputs 1  is that normal ?
1599 2011-04-20 11:58:50 DukeOfURL has joined
1600 2011-04-20 11:59:36 <Xunie> The bitcoin boomdeyada! http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6173.0
1601 2011-04-20 12:01:51 <GlitchNZ> n1 xunie
1602 2011-04-20 12:02:11 <LtBrenton> epic
1603 2011-04-20 12:02:38 <sipa> funkenstein: if you have a lot of small coins in your wallet, and need to do a big payment, sure
1604 2011-04-20 12:02:38 <LtBrenton> i think i'ma record a video of that XD
1605 2011-04-20 12:02:58 <LtBrenton> Xunie, mind if I sing that and throw it on youtube? :P
1606 2011-04-20 12:03:22 <Xunie> LtBrenton, hell no!
1607 2011-04-20 12:03:23 <Xunie> Do it!
1608 2011-04-20 12:03:29 <LtBrenton> alright
1609 2011-04-20 12:03:35 <LtBrenton> will do around US lunchtime
1610 2011-04-20 12:03:35 <Xunie> You gotta let people participate in it!
1611 2011-04-20 12:03:45 <LtBrenton> about to catch the NYSE opening
1612 2011-04-20 12:04:12 <LtBrenton> opening bell ANY MINUTE, let's get this shit rolling >:D
1613 2011-04-20 12:05:03 <LtBrenton> ...>:U mofo
1614 2011-04-20 12:05:11 <LtBrenton> who opens a stock market at 10:30am >_<
1615 2011-04-20 12:05:41 <Xunie> The Americans do. :P
1616 2011-04-20 12:06:06 <LtBrenton> ...ok, i have an hour 30 to kill then XD
1617 2011-04-20 12:07:00 funkenstein has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1618 2011-04-20 12:11:35 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1619 2011-04-20 12:16:39 larsivi has joined
1620 2011-04-20 12:20:03 agricocb has joined
1621 2011-04-20 12:20:16 devon_hillard has joined
1622 2011-04-20 12:20:19 Speeder has joined
1623 2011-04-20 12:20:34 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1624 2011-04-20 12:28:18 <GlitchNZ> sendfrom doesn't seem to like a minconf of 0
1625 2011-04-20 12:28:40 <sipa> define "like" ?
1626 2011-04-20 12:28:59 <GlitchNZ> well, my php throws a hissy fit which usually means its invalid
1627 2011-04-20 12:29:49 * GlitchNZ is one of those programmers that thinks his programs have emotions.
1628 2011-04-20 12:30:52 ByteCoin has joined
1629 2011-04-20 12:36:18 bitcoiner has joined
1630 2011-04-20 12:42:36 RazielZ has joined
1631 2011-04-20 12:43:05 eternal1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1632 2011-04-20 12:43:08 marlowe_ is now known as marlowe
1633 2011-04-20 12:51:06 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1634 2011-04-20 12:52:05 mologie has joined
1635 2011-04-20 12:52:50 <idnar> GlitchNZ: you must be a smalltalk programmer ;)
1636 2011-04-20 12:52:58 bitcoiner has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1637 2011-04-20 12:56:23 <GlitchNZ> should it take more than 40 minutes to get a single confirmation?
1638 2011-04-20 12:56:36 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: no
1639 2011-04-20 12:56:58 <BlueMatt> GlitchNZ: is it on the list at http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
1640 2011-04-20 12:57:28 BurtyB has joined
1641 2011-04-20 12:57:42 <GlitchNZ> thats the interesint part - i can find it there but not here http://blockexplorer.com/block
1642 2011-04-20 12:58:49 <GlitchNZ> look at address 1AEzmDceCbTAJAuomM4nRPuqMxzAHSJXae
1643 2011-04-20 12:59:14 <BlueMatt> itl probably get in eventually
1644 2011-04-20 12:59:55 stonetz has joined
1645 2011-04-20 13:00:43 <GlitchNZ> one would hope so
1646 2011-04-20 13:00:55 <GlitchNZ> what can cause delays?
1647 2011-04-20 13:04:14 stonetz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1648 2011-04-20 13:04:30 gp5st has joined
1649 2011-04-20 13:06:44 <lfm_> traffic is prioritized based on severa; criteria
1650 2011-04-20 13:07:59 danbri_ has joined
1651 2011-04-20 13:10:06 <GlitchNZ> does paying a fee generally give much better service?
1652 2011-04-20 13:10:21 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1653 2011-04-20 13:10:47 <Xunie> GlitchNZ, I say. That is a trollworthy question you have there, kind sir.
1654 2011-04-20 13:11:04 <GlitchNZ> hehe
1655 2011-04-20 13:11:18 <lfm_> fees are one of the criteria, yes
1656 2011-04-20 13:11:30 <GlitchNZ> well i read the paper but it didn't really go into fees all that much
1657 2011-04-20 13:14:02 <lfm_> that address has 1.21 btc to it then from it
1658 2011-04-20 13:15:47 <lfm_> Block #119266 2011-04-20 12:34:59 and Block #119261 2011-04-20 11:57:23
1659 2011-04-20 13:15:57 <jaromil> maybe worth mentioning here, plz don't take it as spam, we are trying to write informed and human readable text about bitcoin:
1660 2011-04-20 13:16:05 <lfm_> UTC times
1661 2011-04-20 13:16:06 <jaromil>  http://bitcoin.witcoin.com/p/1212/DYNDY---writing-more-philosophical-and-economical-considerations-about-bitcoin
1662 2011-04-20 13:16:23 <jaromil> you can express your appreciation and support the effort via witcoin
1663 2011-04-20 13:16:37 <jaromil> and support the making of the first book publication funded by bitcoins :D (to which you are also welcome to contribute)
1664 2011-04-20 13:16:45 <noagendamarket> jaromil you can also add a bitcoin to the thread
1665 2011-04-20 13:16:52 <noagendamarket> an address I mean
1666 2011-04-20 13:17:06 <noagendamarket> just for people who like to remain anonymous
1667 2011-04-20 13:17:10 <jaromil> ack, you mean to donate directly? ah! yes!
1668 2011-04-20 13:17:16 <noagendamarket> yes of course
1669 2011-04-20 13:17:27 <noagendamarket> or a link to the block explorer
1670 2011-04-20 13:17:30 Daviey has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1671 2011-04-20 13:17:43 <lfm_> ;;bc,blocks
1672 2011-04-20 13:17:44 <gribble> 119269
1673 2011-04-20 13:18:00 <GlitchNZ> lfm_ yes i'm doing these transactions mostly to test software - although reading the wiki tends to indicate that this may be a reason for the slow confirmations
1674 2011-04-20 13:18:22 <lfm_> GlitchNZ: so it went tru at least 3 blocks ago and should show 3 confirmations
1675 2011-04-20 13:18:55 <GlitchNZ> -1.21 showing 9 confirmations
1676 2011-04-20 13:19:31 <jaromil> ah the block explorer shows how much was donated then! kewl
1677 2011-04-20 13:19:33 <lfm_> GlitchNZ: ya if you are doing a lot of transactions with the same small amounts moving back and forth, that gets flagged as low priority
1678 2011-04-20 13:21:35 <GlitchNZ> I am referring to the transaction for 0.01 - finally just got 1 confirmation
1679 2011-04-20 13:22:22 <GlitchNZ> 70 minutes for 1 confirmatio n:(
1680 2011-04-20 13:22:27 <GlitchNZ> makes developing very slow
1681 2011-04-20 13:22:38 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
1682 2011-04-20 13:25:21 <lfm_> might be quicker on testnet, not sure
1683 2011-04-20 13:26:16 <GlitchNZ> interesting
1684 2011-04-20 13:26:33 <BlueMatt> noone mines on testnet, you probably wont get anything there
1685 2011-04-20 13:26:59 <GlitchNZ> either its a great big coinkydink or, when i try to send funds with a txfee that is dependant on prefious tx that dont have a fee - all the previous tx's get bumped up a bit
1686 2011-04-20 13:27:42 <UukGoblin> what does theymos mean here https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2077.msg26894#msg26894 about network forgetting transactions? aren't they stored forever in blocks?
1687 2011-04-20 13:28:44 <lfm_> GlitchNZ: thats probably right, im not sure about the details at that level
1688 2011-04-20 13:29:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nobody was happy with a low-level spec
1689 2011-04-20 13:29:14 <GlitchNZ> well, im guessing that block really cant accept a fee-laden transaction unless all the transactions it depends upon are also accepted
1690 2011-04-20 13:30:24 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no I mean skip exponents and just leave them as regular btc values
1691 2011-04-20 13:30:24 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, that's broken by design
1692 2011-04-20 13:30:25 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: not really
1693 2011-04-20 13:30:25 <lfm_> on the other hand if you have even a moderate gpu you can mine for yourself on testnet quite quickly
1694 2011-04-20 13:30:41 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's not low-level, it's high-level and inherently biased
1695 2011-04-20 13:31:00 <BlueMatt> ...?
1696 2011-04-20 13:31:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: nothing low-level should use BTC
1697 2011-04-20 13:31:21 <lfm_> inherently biased against tonal? haha
1698 2011-04-20 13:31:34 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: uri spec isnt really that low-level, users will be writing them
1699 2011-04-20 13:31:36 <luke-jr> nor does presently, except JSON-RPC which almost everyone agrees is flawed in this respect
1700 2011-04-20 13:31:50 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ok, then it's fine as-is
1701 2011-04-20 13:32:01 <BlueMatt> difference is, users dont write in json/wallet protocol
1702 2011-04-20 13:32:11 <BlueMatt> with uri, users need to be able to easily write and read them
1703 2011-04-20 13:32:15 <BlueMatt> well maybe not so much read
1704 2011-04-20 13:32:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: then it's fine as-is.
1705 2011-04-20 13:32:29 <BlueMatt> but easily write them, hence having exponents is pointless and overcomplicated
1706 2011-04-20 13:32:45 <AAA_awright> exponents is pointless and overcomplicated I second this motion
1707 2011-04-20 13:32:51 <luke-jr> no, because URIs need to also be future-compatible
1708 2011-04-20 13:32:56 <BlueMatt> also hex/tonal support is also pointless and overcomplicated
1709 2011-04-20 13:33:11 <AAA_awright> Yes, all the RFCs in existance ever use decimal
1710 2011-04-20 13:33:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no, it's absolutely required for users to easily write them
1711 2011-04-20 13:33:27 <AAA_awright> Maybe base64 encoding
1712 2011-04-20 13:33:53 <AAA_awright> and discouting ipv6 addresses which are just bizzare anyways
1713 2011-04-20 13:33:53 <lfm_> for "users" to easily write stuff you use decimal
1714 2011-04-20 13:33:58 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: at no point will BTC ever be redefined it would cause too much confusion, there may very well be a new unit, but BTC will remain e8
1715 2011-04-20 13:34:03 <luke-jr> lfm_: only for decimal users
1716 2011-04-20 13:34:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no one uses tonal
1717 2011-04-20 13:34:11 <lfm_> yes users
1718 2011-04-20 13:34:32 <sipa> the monetary unit is BTC, the representational unit is microcent
1719 2011-04-20 13:34:35 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Anyone who is going to use base 16 is going to use hexadecimal... and as if it matters, it's the same *number*
1720 2011-04-20 13:34:38 <lfm_> no one uses hex either
1721 2011-04-20 13:34:51 <luke-jr> lfm_: you're clueless obviously
1722 2011-04-20 13:35:10 <lfm_> yup clueless user that only wants to use decimal
1723 2011-04-20 13:35:21 <luke-jr> lfm_: so use decimal and leave us tonal users alone
1724 2011-04-20 13:35:36 <ArtForz> us? who's the other guy?
1725 2011-04-20 13:35:58 <luke-jr> ArtForz: why would I disclose names? so the trolls can target the other users too?
1726 2011-04-20 13:36:05 <lfm_> plural? so far as I have heard there is like one family in the whole world who want to use tonal
1727 2011-04-20 13:36:07 <luke-jr> besides, there'd be too many to list
1728 2011-04-20 13:36:25 <sipa> doesn't matter
1729 2011-04-20 13:36:43 <ArtForz> yes, so many you can't even count em in base 1
1730 2011-04-20 13:36:43 <sipa> anyone is free to use his/her own units derived from BTC, as long as they don't call it BTC, i'd say
1731 2011-04-20 13:37:10 <AAA_awright> sipa: That's been the idea? BTC is a certain amount of atomic bitcoin units
1732 2011-04-20 13:37:30 <AAA_awright> I've proposed aBTC on this channel to represent the atomic units in a 64-bit storage container
1733 2011-04-20 13:37:45 <BlueMatt> sipa: go read the discussion from last night
1734 2011-04-20 13:37:50 <lfm_> so isnt 0.00000001 btc still the atomic unit?
1735 2011-04-20 13:37:54 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1736 2011-04-20 13:37:57 <BlueMatt> arg have to go mess with breakers, hence losing internet, be back eventually
1737 2011-04-20 13:38:00 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: I have no objection to aBTC, although the term "Satoshi" currently prevails for that
1738 2011-04-20 13:38:08 Daviey has joined
1739 2011-04-20 13:38:12 <AAA_awright> lfm_: Something like that?
1740 2011-04-20 13:38:13 <sipa> i hate the term satoshi
1741 2011-04-20 13:38:29 <AAA_awright> I thought that was a developer
1742 2011-04-20 13:38:33 <luke-jr> sipa: so get behind AAA_awright's proposal I guess :P
1743 2011-04-20 13:38:35 Kiba` has joined
1744 2011-04-20 13:39:09 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Whoever came up with that needs to know units named after people are never capitalized, but the abbreviation is
1745 2011-04-20 13:39:19 <luke-jr> actually, I would suggest abbreviating it 'aBC' or such, as 'BTC' infers a decimal division
1746 2011-04-20 13:39:40 <AAA_awright> that's cacht
1747 2011-04-20 13:39:42 <AAA_awright> *cachy
1748 2011-04-20 13:39:53 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1749 2011-04-20 13:40:08 <lfm_> do you really need a separate name for 1e-8 btc
1750 2011-04-20 13:40:17 <sipa> (bitcoin) microcent
1751 2011-04-20 13:40:35 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1752 2011-04-20 13:41:09 <luke-jr> sipa: if you're going to do it that way, at least stick to standard SI: micro-centi-bitcoin (ucBTC)
1753 2011-04-20 13:41:36 <sipa> or deka-nano-bitcoin (dnBTC)
1754 2011-04-20 13:41:36 <Kiba`> satoshi
1755 2011-04-20 13:41:56 <luke-jr> sipa: not sure SI allows that combination? O.o
1756 2011-04-20 13:42:12 <lfm_> thats the thing about standards, there are so many to choose from
1757 2011-04-20 13:42:16 <AAA_awright> lfm_: Considering that the BTC is defined in terms of this unit, yes
1758 2011-04-20 13:42:26 <sipa> i'm not sure SI allows any combination of prefixes, actually
1759 2011-04-20 13:42:59 <AAA_awright> sipa: I don't *think* there's a technical limitation but that might be true
1760 2011-04-20 13:43:07 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1761 2011-04-20 13:43:15 <sipa> ah, the non-power-of-1000 prefixes aren't official even
1762 2011-04-20 13:43:27 <luke-jr> sipa: o rly?
1763 2011-04-20 13:44:03 <lfm_> so it becomes 10 nano bitcoins which would just be more confusing
1764 2011-04-20 13:44:04 <AAA_awright> sipa: centi, deci, deka, uhwhatsitsname
1765 2011-04-20 13:44:14 <AAA_awright> That's not official?
1766 2011-04-20 13:44:51 <sipa> hecto
1767 2011-04-20 13:45:23 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Actually I might like the satoshi better, if Bitcoin is a runaway success why not immortalize the guy, eh?
1768 2011-04-20 13:45:26 <sipa> Double prefixes such as those formerly used in micromicrofarads (picofarads), hectokilometres (100 kilometres), and millimicrons or micromillimetres (both nanometres) were disallowed with the introduction of the SI.
1769 2011-04-20 13:45:33 <sipa> -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
1770 2011-04-20 13:45:36 <luke-jr> always amazes me how the decimal/SI idolizers don't even know their own units
1771 2011-04-20 13:45:53 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: No one ever uses 10x and 100x
1772 2011-04-20 13:45:59 <noagendamarket> the satoshi seems to be the standard :)
1773 2011-04-20 13:46:26 <AAA_awright> I couldn't tell you how many decimal places an exponent>7 is in *any* base
1774 2011-04-20 13:46:34 <lfm_> or just microcent and to heck with conforming
1775 2011-04-20 13:46:35 <AAA_awright> yoctowhat?
1776 2011-04-20 13:47:06 <AAA_awright> etc
1777 2011-04-20 13:47:27 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: you don't know 'giga' or 'tera'?
1778 2011-04-20 13:47:41 <AAA_awright> 1000 more than a mega?
1779 2011-04-20 13:47:46 <AAA_awright> and 1000 more than a giga?
1780 2011-04-20 13:47:52 <sipa> mega, giga, tera, peta, exa
1781 2011-04-20 13:47:53 <AAA_awright> Yeah billion and trillion
1782 2011-04-20 13:47:55 <lfm_> or is it 1024
1783 2011-04-20 13:48:00 <luke-jr> giga is exponent 9
1784 2011-04-20 13:48:03 <luke-jr> tera is exponent 12
1785 2011-04-20 13:48:12 <sipa> peta is 10^15, exa is 10^18
1786 2011-04-20 13:48:13 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: I should have said<-7
1787 2011-04-20 13:48:23 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: mega is 6
1788 2011-04-20 13:48:25 <luke-jr> kilo is 3
1789 2011-04-20 13:48:41 <AAA_awright> But zetta and yotta confuse me nonetheless
1790 2011-04-20 13:48:43 <lfm_> trick question, how many bytes on a 1.44 "megabyte" floppy?
1791 2011-04-20 13:48:54 <sipa> 1457664
1792 2011-04-20 13:48:56 <sipa> iirc
1793 2011-04-20 13:49:01 Pander has joined
1794 2011-04-20 13:49:02 <ArtForz> 1.44 * 1000 * 1024
1795 2011-04-20 13:49:05 <lfm_> 1.44 * 1000 * 1024
1796 2011-04-20 13:49:05 <sipa> 1474560
1797 2011-04-20 13:49:19 <[Tycho]> http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/apple-location-tracking.html
1798 2011-04-20 13:49:25 <AAA_awright> Yea MiB-MB confusion
1799 2011-04-20 13:49:26 <lfm_> so thats a third usage of mega
1800 2011-04-20 13:49:44 jroot has joined
1801 2011-04-20 13:49:53 <sipa> oh there were 2847 usable sectors after formatting
1802 2011-04-20 13:50:02 <sipa> 1457664 bytes :)
1803 2011-04-20 13:50:22 <Pander> hi all, how do you automatically start xorg (xinit/startx) on a server installation (with monitor attached). simple script somewhere in /etc/init.d/ ?
1804 2011-04-20 13:50:24 <ArtForz> depends on the format used
1805 2011-04-20 13:50:28 <sipa> of course
1806 2011-04-20 13:50:36 <luke-jr> just more evidence how humans shy away from decimal units when they can ;)
1807 2011-04-20 13:50:39 <ArtForz> raw capacity is more like 2MB
1808 2011-04-20 13:51:02 <lfm_> pander usually gdm or kdm or xdm
1809 2011-04-20 13:51:51 <ArtForz> stadnard is iirc 80 tracks, 2 heads, 18 sectors/track = 2880 512B sectors = 1474560 bytes
1810 2011-04-20 13:52:04 <Pander> lfm_: I have only 300 packages installed in 1GB on ubuntu, so kdm is not available.
1811 2011-04-20 13:52:21 <Pander> I don't use x so i don't care what it starts
1812 2011-04-20 13:52:24 roconnor has joined
1813 2011-04-20 13:53:04 <roconnor> It is fine to run make clean to remove cryptoobjs/objs/*.o before building bitcoin from source?
1814 2011-04-20 13:53:29 <lfm_> roconnor: ya
1815 2011-04-20 13:53:30 <roconnor> cryptopp/objs/*.o
1816 2011-04-20 13:53:41 <ArtForz> max with most controllers is 83 tracks and 21 sectors
1817 2011-04-20 13:53:47 <roconnor> lfm_: thanks
1818 2011-04-20 13:54:02 <ArtForz> = 1743 KiB
1819 2011-04-20 13:54:36 GlitchNZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1820 2011-04-20 13:54:37 <lfm_> /dev/fd0u1760
1821 2011-04-20 13:55:08 <ArtForz> thats 80*22
1822 2011-04-20 13:55:17 <ArtForz> can get problematic with some controllers
1823 2011-04-20 13:55:45 <lfm_> oh there is  /dev/fd0u1743 too
1824 2011-04-20 13:55:56 <ArtForz> yeah, lots of fun
1825 2011-04-20 13:56:57 <ArtForz> some controller/drive combos you can push to ~2MB by increasing bit rate, but some controllers really don't like reading that
1826 2011-04-20 13:57:20 <Diablo-D3> wtf are we doing here?
1827 2011-04-20 13:57:33 <lfm_> prolly some floppies dont like magnitizing at that density too
1828 2011-04-20 13:57:53 jroot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1829 2011-04-20 13:57:56 <ArtForz> dunno about long-term, but for a few days/weeks it worked fine
1830 2011-04-20 13:58:19 <lfm_> but do you use "cheap" floppies?
1831 2011-04-20 13:58:34 jroot has joined
1832 2011-04-20 13:58:34 <ArtForz> haven't used a floppy in like a decade
1833 2011-04-20 13:58:35 <luke-jr> get an Amiga controller and you can do more crazy stuff
1834 2011-04-20 13:58:46 <luke-jr> my motherboard doesn't have a floppy controller
1835 2011-04-20 13:58:49 <lfm_> I think that was the brand name on the package
1836 2011-04-20 13:58:52 <ArtForz> catweasel ftw
1837 2011-04-20 13:59:04 <ArtForz> I helped design a floppy duplicator back in the stone age
1838 2011-04-20 13:59:26 * noagendamarket recommends viagra for your floppy 
1839 2011-04-20 13:59:32 <lfm_> and "woz" encoding?
1840 2011-04-20 14:00:23 <ArtForz> which one?
1841 2011-04-20 14:00:50 <lfm_> Apple's floppy named after guess who
1842 2011-04-20 14:00:54 <ArtForz> gcr 8/5 ?
1843 2011-04-20 14:01:30 <ArtForz> or 8/6
1844 2011-04-20 14:01:41 <lfm_> i think it was dumber than that
1845 2011-04-20 14:02:21 <ArtForz> I presonally liked commodores 5/4 encoding better
1846 2011-04-20 14:02:22 Kiba` is now known as kiba
1847 2011-04-20 14:03:14 <ArtForz> non-power-of-2 bits/code was a lot trickier to code/decode
1848 2011-04-20 14:04:07 <ArtForz> was used from the early CBMs up to 1571 and friends
1849 2011-04-20 14:05:55 bitcoiner has joined
1850 2011-04-20 14:06:15 <mizerydearia> How do I run two instances of bitcoin using different ports?  "Bitcoin: Unable to bind to port 8333 on this computer.  Bitcoin is probably already running."
1851 2011-04-20 14:06:28 <mizerydearia> -rpcport switch is different than I expected.
1852 2011-04-20 14:06:35 <mizerydearia> Both instances with -server switch
1853 2011-04-20 14:06:43 <lfm_> there were some really fringe floppies that would just use a serial port with start/stop bits and everything instead of a proper floppy controller
1854 2011-04-20 14:07:29 glassresistor has joined
1855 2011-04-20 14:07:29 glassresistor has quit (Changing host)
1856 2011-04-20 14:07:29 glassresistor has joined
1857 2011-04-20 14:12:30 Pander has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110323143040])
1858 2011-04-20 14:14:39 DukeOfURL has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
1859 2011-04-20 14:22:23 <Xunie> fe
1860 2011-04-20 14:22:32 <Xunie> ^ Oops.
1861 2011-04-20 14:22:33 gp5st has left ()
1862 2011-04-20 14:25:48 altamic has joined
1863 2011-04-20 14:28:39 <mizerydearia> doublec, hiya, have any blocks been generated on namecoin p2p network?
1864 2011-04-20 14:29:17 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, Do you know if your miner is compatible with namecoin?
1865 2011-04-20 14:30:11 <mizerydearia> btw, for anyone that is interested in discussing specifically about it, join #namecoin.
1866 2011-04-20 14:32:14 berkes has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1867 2011-04-20 14:42:20 rli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1868 2011-04-20 14:42:45 rli has joined
1869 2011-04-20 14:45:47 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: I would assume so
1870 2011-04-20 14:46:26 tabsa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1871 2011-04-20 14:46:55 AmpEater has joined
1872 2011-04-20 14:47:15 <mizerydearia> hmm, Is namecoin blockchain even functional?  I still see 0 blockcount.
1873 2011-04-20 14:47:47 AmpEater has quit (Client Quit)
1874 2011-04-20 14:47:57 AmpEater has joined
1875 2011-04-20 14:48:10 <Diablo-D3> mizerydearia: does namecoin output standard getwork shit?
1876 2011-04-20 14:49:15 bitcoiner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
1877 2011-04-20 14:49:15 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, http://pastebin.com/W3Pck7b4
1878 2011-04-20 14:50:21 <Diablo-D3> give me the output of getwork
1879 2011-04-20 14:52:08 <sipa> quite sure they didn't change getwork
1880 2011-04-20 14:52:18 <Diablo-D3> yeah I dont think they did either
1881 2011-04-20 14:52:27 <Diablo-D3> as long as the block size is the right length, shit works
1882 2011-04-20 14:52:30 <mizerydearia> Diablo-D3, namecoind getwork      error: {"code":-10,"message":"Bitcoin is downloading blocks..."}
1883 2011-04-20 14:52:37 <Diablo-D3> ....
1884 2011-04-20 14:52:40 * Diablo-D3 smacks mizerydearia 
1885 2011-04-20 14:52:41 <mizerydearia> I'm confused still
1886 2011-04-20 14:52:49 <mizerydearia> I have 13 connections but 0 blocks
1887 2011-04-20 14:52:53 <Diablo-D3> nice
1888 2011-04-20 14:53:04 <sipa> maybe there just aren't any blocks at all?
1889 2011-04-20 14:53:10 <mizerydearia> I would imagine some blocks were generated by now.
1890 2011-04-20 14:53:15 taco_the_paco has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1891 2011-04-20 14:53:22 <sipa> maybe they all get that message when they try to mine :D
1892 2011-04-20 14:53:24 <mizerydearia> I think the code is a bit buggy maybe
1893 2011-04-20 14:53:47 <sipa> the original bitcoin client has a check that at least a certain block number needs to be reached before mining can start
1894 2011-04-20 14:53:53 <sipa> if they didn't remove that check :p
1895 2011-04-20 14:53:54 <mizerydearia> I setgenerate to true
1896 2011-04-20 14:54:00 <mizerydearia> but hashespersec is 0
1897 2011-04-20 14:54:03 <sipa> of course
1898 2011-04-20 14:54:08 <sipa> it thinks it's still downloading blocks...
1899 2011-04-20 14:54:15 <mizerydearia> =/
1900 2011-04-20 14:54:20 <mizerydearia> right
1901 2011-04-20 14:54:22 <mizerydearia> that makes sense
1902 2011-04-20 14:54:30 <mizerydearia> the developer forgot to remove that check ^_^
1903 2011-04-20 14:55:03 <sipa> first line of IsInitialBlockDownload
1904 2011-04-20 14:55:05 <sipa> in main.cpp
1905 2011-04-20 14:55:11 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1906 2011-04-20 14:55:28 danbri_ is now known as danbri
1907 2011-04-20 14:55:35 <sipa> why do i even help, i think namecoin is a ridiculous idea :)
1908 2011-04-20 14:55:41 <mizerydearia> oh?
1909 2011-04-20 14:55:48 <mizerydearia> how so?
1910 2011-04-20 14:56:23 <sipa> it's not a limited resource
1911 2011-04-20 14:56:28 <sipa> and it's not independent
1912 2011-04-20 14:56:56 <kiba> hmm?
1913 2011-04-20 14:59:20 <mizerydearia> bitcoin:     if (pindexBest == NULL || (!fTestNet && nBestHeight < 118000))
1914 2011-04-20 14:59:23 <mizerydearia> namecoin:    if (pindexBest == NULL || nBestHeight < hooks->LockinHeight())
1915 2011-04-20 15:00:10 <purplezky> sipa, it shouldn't be a limited resource, it should just have a certain cost associated to stop spam registrations
1916 2011-04-20 15:00:29 <mizerydearia> hook.h:    virtual int LockinHeight() = 0;
1917 2011-04-20 15:00:58 <purplezky> i'm writing a distributed version of bitdns and i think you shouldn't limit registrations by blocks or time
1918 2011-04-20 15:01:10 chef_ has joined
1919 2011-04-20 15:01:29 <purplezky> but i agree that namecoin is a silly idea
1920 2011-04-20 15:01:33 <chef_> anyone down for some betco.in poker?
1921 2011-04-20 15:02:22 <kiba> why is it a silly idea?
1922 2011-04-20 15:02:26 berkes has joined
1923 2011-04-20 15:02:39 <sethsethseth_> ya i'll play poker with ya
1924 2011-04-20 15:02:46 <purplezky> it's a seperate block chain, registrations require finding blocks
1925 2011-04-20 15:02:53 <purplezky> it's centralized
1926 2011-04-20 15:02:53 <chef_> sweet, im over there allready
1927 2011-04-20 15:02:59 <sipa> it's centralized?
1928 2011-04-20 15:03:00 <sipa> :o
1929 2011-04-20 15:03:14 <sipa> i'd think that's the one thing that's right about it
1930 2011-04-20 15:03:21 <sipa> if it was centralized, just use dns?
1931 2011-04-20 15:03:27 <MBS> so what exactly the point of it
1932 2011-04-20 15:03:38 <MBS> *is the point
1933 2011-04-20 15:03:43 <mizerydearia> namecoin is centralized?
1934 2011-04-20 15:03:52 <mizerydearia> I thought it was p2p
1935 2011-04-20 15:03:54 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1936 2011-04-20 15:04:39 rly has joined
1937 2011-04-20 15:05:02 <MBS> so does namecoin get dns updates from all dns servers?
1938 2011-04-20 15:05:10 <MBS> or just from people that use namecoin?
1939 2011-04-20 15:06:14 <kiba> namecoin is decentralized
1940 2011-04-20 15:06:15 <rly> Does the Python miner store the found block on disk somewhere before it tries to send it to bitcoind?
1941 2011-04-20 15:06:28 <rly> It just says Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC here.
1942 2011-04-20 15:06:49 <rly> It is a local connection, how did they manage to not make it work?
1943 2011-04-20 15:07:10 <purplezky> i am sorry it's not centralized
1944 2011-04-20 15:07:29 gavinandresen has joined
1945 2011-04-20 15:07:38 <sipa> kiba: namecoin functions by itself as a dns server, using the namecoin block chain as source?
1946 2011-04-20 15:07:55 <kiba> don't think so
1947 2011-04-20 15:08:01 <kiba> it's just a registration methink
1948 2011-04-20 15:08:52 <purplezky> anyhow i think it shouldn't be a seperate blockchain, that's why i am implementing it directly on top of the bitcoin block chain, invisible for regular bitcoin users
1949 2011-04-20 15:09:05 <sipa> purplezky: how?
1950 2011-04-20 15:09:05 <purplezky> i think name registration fees should go to the miner
1951 2011-04-20 15:09:30 <purplezky> i'm encoding dns host records in coins
1952 2011-04-20 15:09:39 <kiba> purplezky: if it is not, than it will simply clog up the bitcoin blockchain
1953 2011-04-20 15:09:49 stonetz has joined
1954 2011-04-20 15:10:00 <purplezky> the blockchain can handle it
1955 2011-04-20 15:10:10 <purplezky> it reduces with merkle hashes
1956 2011-04-20 15:10:29 <purplezky> only the bitdnsd will keep track of the dns records
1957 2011-04-20 15:10:35 <purplezky> regular clients do not need it
1958 2011-04-20 15:12:39 <purplezky> if anything it will increase popularity for mining again, because domain registration fees will add up to more than 50 BTC eventually
1959 2011-04-20 15:12:58 <purplezky> thus it will only increase security
1960 2011-04-20 15:14:27 <MBS> wait, does it do normal dns, or does it do dns for custom domains like .coin ?
1961 2011-04-20 15:15:28 <TD[work]> purplezky: that approach was already vetoed by satoshi
1962 2011-04-20 15:15:31 <TD[work]> so please don't do that
1963 2011-04-20 15:15:41 <TD[work]> make a separate chain then implement satoshis suggestion for sharing miners
1964 2011-04-20 15:15:42 <AAA_awright> Please don't do what?
1965 2011-04-20 15:15:45 mologie has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1966 2011-04-20 15:15:52 <TD[work]> if  you aren't capable of doing that work, don't do it at all and wait for somebody else who will do it correctly
1967 2011-04-20 15:16:08 <purplezky> it will act like a normal dns server, but maybe a mandatory postfix is good to not have phishers buy up domains
1968 2011-04-20 15:16:43 <purplezky> TD[work]: why has it been vetoed by Satoshi, it does not strain the network, because it will attract miners
1969 2011-04-20 15:17:05 <purplezky> i am against seperate block chains
1970 2011-04-20 15:17:17 <rly> A veto doesn't really mean much. Does it?
1971 2011-04-20 15:17:18 <AAA_awright> I wasn't aware satoshi had veto power over what people send to the network
1972 2011-04-20 15:17:26 <TD[work]> read the original bitdns threads on the forum. it was vetoed because cramming every distributed consensus into a single chain does not scale. miners can be shared between different block chains without issue, if some things are tweaked and code implemented
1973 2011-04-20 15:17:31 <AAA_awright> purplezky: In any event I'm inclined to agree
1974 2011-04-20 15:18:02 <noagendamarket> he already said how it could be done
1975 2011-04-20 15:18:13 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: I don't see how miners could be shared, they need to compute problems for different paramaters, namely, the previous block
1976 2011-04-20 15:18:33 <rly> That said, not following the informed opinion of someone who designed the system might be a bit of a dickhead.
1977 2011-04-20 15:18:35 <AAA_awright> er, computer solutions to different problems with different paramaters
1978 2011-04-20 15:18:38 <noagendamarket> you can have miners mining separate blockchains at once
1979 2011-04-20 15:18:44 <rly> er dickheady
1980 2011-04-20 15:18:53 <noagendamarket> agreed
1981 2011-04-20 15:19:11 <noagendamarket> fill th eblockchain with viagra ads
1982 2011-04-20 15:19:14 <purplezky> i will take a close look at Satoshi's arguments then develop a solution that solves those then
1983 2011-04-20 15:19:15 <noagendamarket> lol
1984 2011-04-20 15:19:34 <TD[work]> AAA_awright: read satoshis contributions to that thread
1985 2011-04-20 15:19:38 <TD[work]> he explains how to do it
1986 2011-04-20 15:19:41 <purplezky> if it costs money it won't be used for viagra ads
1987 2011-04-20 15:19:44 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1988 2011-04-20 15:19:45 <AAA_awright> Which thread
1989 2011-04-20 15:20:16 <AAA_awright> I was just in ##dns-p2p discussing the allocation problem vs. the ownership problem
1990 2011-04-20 15:20:23 <AAA_awright> actually, so this is interesting
1991 2011-04-20 15:20:45 <TD[work]> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696
1992 2011-04-20 15:20:46 <purplezky> ownership is for the first allocator, he can publish public key together with domain details
1993 2011-04-20 15:21:06 <purplezky> then you can sell the domain by signing a domain relocation
1994 2011-04-20 15:21:07 berkes has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1995 2011-04-20 15:21:07 <TD[work]> but for what it's worth, I don't understand why people are so intent on replacing DNS
1996 2011-04-20 15:21:08 <TD[work]> DNS works fine
1997 2011-04-20 15:21:31 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: No it doesn't
1998 2011-04-20 15:21:33 <TD[work]> here is the second part of satoshis plan: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.msg28715#msg28715
1999 2011-04-20 15:21:39 <iera> not really, look at the domain seizures recently in the us
2000 2011-04-20 15:21:49 chef_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2001 2011-04-20 15:21:51 <TD[work]> so what? those sites can move to some other TLD. problem solved.
2002 2011-04-20 15:21:53 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: You can't own a domain if it's pulled from under your feet by GoDaddy or the FBI alike
2003 2011-04-20 15:22:07 <TD[work]> when wikileaks was forced out of .org, they just moved to .ch
2004 2011-04-20 15:22:08 <iera> no, if you have mail adresses on the domain for example
2005 2011-04-20 15:22:19 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: See, the recent poker seizures, http://www.anontalk.se/The_rotten_and_corrupt_Domain_Name_System
2006 2011-04-20 15:22:21 <iera> not everything is the web
2007 2011-04-20 15:22:28 <rly> AAA_awright: by that definition you cannot own anything.
2008 2011-04-20 15:22:30 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: You shouldn't have to move domains. Ever.
2009 2011-04-20 15:22:35 <TD[work]> then the mails will bounce and the senders will find the new domain, resend
2010 2011-04-20 15:22:45 <AAA_awright> rly: How so?
2011 2011-04-20 15:22:47 kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2012 2011-04-20 15:22:58 <iera> TD[work]: how will they find the new domain?
2013 2011-04-20 15:23:14 <TD[work]> web search. word of mouth. announcements by the organization they are moving. all kinds of ways.
2014 2011-04-20 15:23:14 <mizerydearia> ah, my debug.log for namecoin is being filled with "IRC got who"
2015 2011-04-20 15:23:17 <iera> TD[work]: think of automated responders and stuff, if some of your infra relies on mail you are fucked
2016 2011-04-20 15:23:18 <AAA_awright> rly: Currently the registrar is the legal and technical owner, actually, as far as I know, you just rent it
2017 2011-04-20 15:23:21 <TD[work]> experience has shown this to be a non-issue in practice.
2018 2011-04-20 15:23:35 <TD[work]> sites get kicked out of one part of the internet and move to another
2019 2011-04-20 15:23:40 <rly> AAA_awright: take a house. The army can take it whenever they want.
2020 2011-04-20 15:23:50 <TD[work]> if you run a site that gets kicked out of everywhere, Tor can provide you a permanent name that integrates with the existing infrastructure
2021 2011-04-20 15:23:52 <AAA_awright> rly: That's not legitimate
2022 2011-04-20 15:23:53 <TD[work]> all users have to do is run a nice GUI
2023 2011-04-20 15:23:59 <TD[work]> you get location anonymity as a bonus
2024 2011-04-20 15:24:13 <iera> TD[work]: wont happen, tor will never be widespread enough
2025 2011-04-20 15:24:29 <TD[work]> and you think bitdns will be different because ?
2026 2011-04-20 15:24:40 <AAA_awright> And in any event Tor is a hack it doesn't resolve to an IP address (is that right?)
2027 2011-04-20 15:24:46 <iera> no, i dont know what bitdns does
2028 2011-04-20 15:24:52 <rly> AAA_awright: lots of stuff is not legitimate.
2029 2011-04-20 15:24:54 <TD[work]> .onion names resolve to a local proxy
2030 2011-04-20 15:24:56 <iera> i just dont like the normal dns, dont know if there is a good solution though
2031 2011-04-20 15:25:09 <TD[work]> but from a users perspective it's not hard to set up. you just install a couple of programs and you're away, same as bitdns would be.
2032 2011-04-20 15:25:19 trifon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2033 2011-04-20 15:25:20 <AAA_awright> rly: That doesn't make any of it legitimate
2034 2011-04-20 15:25:25 <TD[work]> bitdns/namecoin would be a distributed naming system. DNS is already distributed.
2035 2011-04-20 15:25:26 <AAA_awright> Of course?
2036 2011-04-20 15:25:31 <TD[work]> and with the DNSSEC extensions it can also be secure.
2037 2011-04-20 15:25:38 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: Decentralized not distributed
2038 2011-04-20 15:25:44 <TD[work]> if you want a TLD that never kicks anyone out of doing anything illegal, just create your own.
2039 2011-04-20 15:25:49 <TD[work]> ok, decentralized then
2040 2011-04-20 15:25:53 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: And ##dns-p2p is in fact peer-to-peer
2041 2011-04-20 15:25:55 trifon has joined
2042 2011-04-20 15:25:55 <rly> AAA_awright: legitimacy is just an encoding of rules to remind you of those really having control over 'your' assets.
2043 2011-04-20 15:25:59 <AAA_awright> That's even farther
2044 2011-04-20 15:26:16 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: Or at least will be :-/
2045 2011-04-20 15:26:21 <gasteve> btw, is the bitDNS registration only for top level domain names?  I'd think it wouldn't need to handle any sub-domains at all (those subdomains could devise whatever mechanism they wanted to further subdivide) ...in this way, you wouldn't have names like "bitcoin.org" registered, you would only have "bitcoin"  (you could eliminate the whole ".com" suffix thing altogether)...obviously, you would want to avoid clashes with the existing TLD names f
2046 2011-04-20 15:26:21 <gasteve> other popular DNS registration systems
2047 2011-04-20 15:26:25 <AAA_awright> rly: I'm not following
2048 2011-04-20 15:26:33 <iera> TD[work]: own tld costs a horrible amount of money and it may not be approved
2049 2011-04-20 15:26:54 <sipa> iera: that's a problem with the currently accepted infrastructure
2050 2011-04-20 15:26:59 <sipa> not the DNS system itself
2051 2011-04-20 15:27:01 <rly> AAA_awright: try to stop paying taxes and you will understand what I mean.
2052 2011-04-20 15:27:07 <sipa> you can run your own root servers if you like
2053 2011-04-20 15:27:13 <iera> sipa: ok but that goes hand-in-hand
2054 2011-04-20 15:27:17 <sipa> which will be very similar to bitdns/namecoin/...
2055 2011-04-20 15:27:20 <TD[work]> it doesn't cost anything if you add a bit of software to your local computer, which is what you'd have to do with bitdns anyway
2056 2011-04-20 15:27:42 <AAA_awright> rly: Uh what's your point
2057 2011-04-20 15:27:58 <TD[work]> but in practice, all you need to do is run your site in a part of the world where what you're doing is legal
2058 2011-04-20 15:27:58 <AAA_awright> rly: Taxes are not legitimate, and? Is that news?
2059 2011-04-20 15:27:59 <rly> AAA_awright: the point is that without real power, you cannot own anything.
2060 2011-04-20 15:28:06 <TD[work]> WikiLeaks is legal in Switzerland so they use .ch, problem solved
2061 2011-04-20 15:28:17 <TD[work]> and they weren't being harassed by USG anyway but rather by DoS attacks
2062 2011-04-20 15:28:21 <AAA_awright> I mean, cue the Fox News Alert! Really?
2063 2011-04-20 15:28:22 <rly> AAA_awright: it is just a temporary privilege.
2064 2011-04-20 15:28:34 <TD[work]> online poker sites are illegal in the USA so they move to have .fr extensions or whatever, depending on where they are based
2065 2011-04-20 15:28:48 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: You should not have to do that.
2066 2011-04-20 15:28:56 <TD[work]> sites that are illegal everywhere need to use Tor anyway, if they want to survive
2067 2011-04-20 15:28:58 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: It's a failure of everything the DNS system is there fore.
2068 2011-04-20 15:29:02 <rly> Online poker sites are illegal, because they compete with the government.
2069 2011-04-20 15:29:05 <AAA_awright> *for.
2070 2011-04-20 15:29:08 <TD[work]> this is why i'm skeptical about trying to use bitcoin as a DNS replacement.
2071 2011-04-20 15:29:21 <iera> TD[work]: well if you have some infra running its not that easy, at least for a private person running a few things its a big amount of effort to move everything
2072 2011-04-20 15:29:32 <TD[work]> no it's not. DNS is a way to recursively delegate control of a namespace, which is exactly what it does. don't like the policies the USA has for their parts of the namespace? use a different part
2073 2011-04-20 15:29:41 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: It's a hassle to keep and maintain a domain name, I'm under hostage from GoDaddy myself right now, they have a 60-day hold on transfers on my domain
2074 2011-04-20 15:30:06 <TD[work]> again, you don't have to use GoDaddy
2075 2011-04-20 15:30:08 <rly> All these distributed systems have added value in that they remove centralized systems of control.
2076 2011-04-20 15:30:20 <AAA_awright> TD[work]: NOR AM I TRYING TO BUT I LITERALLY AM STUCK WITH THEM
2077 2011-04-20 15:30:26 <BurtyB> AAA_awright that's most likely not godaddys fault
2078 2011-04-20 15:30:33 <iera> TD[work]: and for services like mail, jabber etc which rely on dns somehow you cant really move it
2079 2011-04-20 15:30:38 <sipa> just run your own dns server :)
2080 2011-04-20 15:30:50 <rly> They are just a bit less efficient, which might be of practical concern.
2081 2011-04-20 15:30:53 <AAA_awright> BurtyB: Yes, yes it is.
2082 2011-04-20 15:31:34 <BurtyB> AAA_awright really? most transfer rules are not set by the registrar
2083 2011-04-20 15:31:41 <AAA_awright> I would normally not care to get into specifics but they placed it when they had to fix a bug in their system on how they stored WHOIS information
2084 2011-04-20 15:32:01 <AAA_awright> And against policy
2085 2011-04-20 15:32:27 <BurtyB> what tld?
2086 2011-04-20 15:32:36 TD_ has quit (Quit: TD_)
2087 2011-04-20 15:32:40 <AAA_awright> net?
2088 2011-04-20 15:33:28 <AAA_awright> Who posted the link to Satoshi
2089 2011-04-20 15:33:40 <AAA_awright> That's an idea I had, it doesn't work because you're hashing different initial conditions
2090 2011-04-20 15:34:20 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2091 2011-04-20 15:35:32 <AAA_awright> echelon: What kind of person are you get into ##dns-p2p and stay there or don't enter at all
2092 2011-04-20 15:35:43 <AAA_awright> At least stay long enough to see what kind of activity it gets
2093 2011-04-20 15:35:57 <gavinandresen> Maybe related to bitdns:  http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6178
2094 2011-04-20 15:36:09 <echelon> it looked like a joke
2095 2011-04-20 15:36:39 TD[work] is now known as TD
2096 2011-04-20 15:36:46 <jaromil> nice one
2097 2011-04-20 15:36:53 <TD> does anyone know how to combine multiple commits together in github into a single patch via the web ?
2098 2011-04-20 15:37:15 <TD> somebody is sending me patches as links to github pages. his final patch is actually the combination of two commits .... pain :(
2099 2011-04-20 15:38:17 <gasteve> I think there's a need in bitdns to standardize a way for miners to pick up bids for new registrations and include them in a block (and collect the fee from the bidder)...I imagine it going something like this: miner connects to an exchange, collects the 50 highest paying bids for new domain registrations, starts mining, creates block successfully, after a few confirmations, the exchange transfers the funds to the miner
2100 2011-04-20 15:38:30 <jaromil> TD: clone locally and then git rebase -i and squash the commits
2101 2011-04-20 15:38:32 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2102 2011-04-20 15:38:35 gp5st has joined
2103 2011-04-20 15:38:40 <TD> yeah, i was hoping there was a way without using git itself
2104 2011-04-20 15:38:43 <jaromil> if you want to produce a git patch then use git format-patch
2105 2011-04-20 15:38:48 <TD> i just applied both one at a time by hand
2106 2011-04-20 15:38:48 <jaromil> not that i know of
2107 2011-04-20 15:39:02 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2108 2011-04-20 15:39:13 <TD> gavinandresen: ah great!
2109 2011-04-20 15:39:14 da2ce7 has joined
2110 2011-04-20 15:39:30 <TD> gavinandresen: maybe allow tx replacement as well? i was talking to satoshi today about nLockTime
2111 2011-04-20 15:39:46 <gasteve> bitdns: (otherwise, you would have to put in some kind of fee into name transactions (including new registrations) and then the bitdns block chain would be unnecessarily tied to some currency (like bitcoin)
2112 2011-04-20 15:40:38 <gp5st> gasteve: you can convert between currency. in my proposal only an hmac was stored in the transaction, and that hmac allowed verification of the record stored elsewhere
2113 2011-04-20 15:40:48 <gp5st> i was given a lot of heat about the idea and abandoned it
2114 2011-04-20 15:41:26 <AAA_awright> TD: Git requires a patch series. One patch = one commit
2115 2011-04-20 15:41:41 <gp5st> it was elegant and simple, but it was felt that 1) shouldn't store ANY info not about the tx in the  btc chain and 2)that the dns transactions might overtake financial transactions since they would be more lucrative
2116 2011-04-20 15:41:41 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2117 2011-04-20 15:41:51 <AAA_awright> I think you can git diff oldrev..newrev
2118 2011-04-20 15:42:06 <AAA_awright> That creates a single patch, but it's applied as a single commit
2119 2011-04-20 15:42:12 trifon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2120 2011-04-20 15:42:46 <TD> yeah i don't use git at all. i was trying to extract this branch from github in unified patch format
2121 2011-04-20 15:42:51 <TD> there's a magic url extension you can use
2122 2011-04-20 15:42:59 trifon has joined
2123 2011-04-20 15:43:02 <gasteve> actually, I guess you need some way to pay a transaction fee for the name transfers as well...so, if you have that mechanism, then you automatically have a bidding mechanism for new registrations (since there are a limited number of new registrations, people would need to make their bid for a new registration high enough to ensure that miners pick it up as one of the top 50 to include in their block)
2124 2011-04-20 15:43:25 berkes has joined
2125 2011-04-20 15:43:47 <gp5st> gasteve: no, the block minter doesn't know what the name is
2126 2011-04-20 15:44:03 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Pieter Wuille master * r8857aeb / main.cpp : Monitor incoming transactions for spends by (a copy of) your own wallet - http://bit.ly/hiez72
2127 2011-04-20 15:44:04 <gp5st> just that someone is doing a tx that they get money for that has some data attached to it
2128 2011-04-20 15:44:04 <gasteve> huh?
2129 2011-04-20 15:44:25 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2130 2011-04-20 15:45:09 berkes has joined
2131 2011-04-20 15:45:13 <gasteve> (and btw, I think it's a great idea of Satoshi to be able to make it possible to mine for bitcoins and bitdns simultaneously)
2132 2011-04-20 15:45:37 <gp5st> i thought everyone hated the idea of using btc for this
2133 2011-04-20 15:45:56 <gp5st> eveyone told me it would undermind financial transactions because dns transactions would be much more lucrative
2134 2011-04-20 15:46:11 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2135 2011-04-20 15:46:21 <gp5st> and i thought there was an offical proposal to limit transactions to certain types of scripts (that don't contain data)
2136 2011-04-20 15:47:00 berkes has joined
2137 2011-04-20 15:48:10 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2138 2011-04-20 15:48:28 <eps2> i think dns on bitcoin has lots of problems
2139 2011-04-20 15:48:46 <gp5st> eps2: that provides us with a lot of insight;)
2140 2011-04-20 15:48:52 berkes has joined
2141 2011-04-20 15:49:14 <gasteve> all I was trying to say is that you need some way for people to bid on new name registrations to that miners could pick the top bidders to include in their blocks (otherwise, the miners would have to implement something custom to allow people to buy registrations through them directly) ...presumably you have to have some mechanism to include a transaction fee for bitDNS name transfers (like bitcoin has a transaction fee)...so, the transaction fe
2142 2011-04-20 15:49:15 <gasteve> would be the bidding mechanism...someone just creates a new registration transaction, assigns a fee, and broadcasts it to the network for miners to pick up
2143 2011-04-20 15:49:25 <eps2> well i guess all the problems are related to allowing anyone to register a domain name but at the same time deterring spam
2144 2011-04-20 15:49:35 <eps2> but yeah i guess i could be more constructive
2145 2011-04-20 15:49:40 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2146 2011-04-20 15:49:41 <gp5st> gasteve: no, i hate the idea of bidding, the miner will not know the name of the domain in my system
2147 2011-04-20 15:49:54 <gasteve> I don't understand that
2148 2011-04-20 15:50:02 <gp5st> eps2: my solution was to pay the miner, having a high price for the block
2149 2011-04-20 15:50:10 <gp5st> eps2: there are some probelsm with that
2150 2011-04-20 15:50:12 berkes has joined
2151 2011-04-20 15:50:23 <gp5st> namely financial tx are now of less value
2152 2011-04-20 15:50:43 <gasteve> I don't understand the issue with bidding...early on, it will be practically free to register new names
2153 2011-04-20 15:50:44 <gp5st> and that there needs to be some way to set the price for a domain that isn't hard set into the system
2154 2011-04-20 15:50:51 <eps2> i definitely think bitdns should be seperate from bitcoin
2155 2011-04-20 15:51:02 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2156 2011-04-20 15:51:11 <gasteve> no question that bitdns should be separate
2157 2011-04-20 15:51:12 <gp5st> eps2: all i wanted was an hmac in the tx:-\
2158 2011-04-20 15:51:26 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r52 /trunk/ (2 files in 2 dirs):
2159 2011-04-20 15:51:26 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: Add a function/some tests for string to nanocoin conversions and vice-versa, along with a TODO to clean this whole thing up. Patch from Thilo Planz.
2160 2011-04-20 15:51:26 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: Fixes issue 1.
2161 2011-04-20 15:51:31 <gp5st> gasteve: how do you mean for it to be seperate
2162 2011-04-20 15:51:33 berkes has joined
2163 2011-04-20 15:51:41 <gasteve> but, you do need a mechanism for a transaction fee associated with bitdns transactions
2164 2011-04-20 15:51:42 <eps2> not the same blockchain
2165 2011-04-20 15:51:52 <gasteve> right, separate block chains
2166 2011-04-20 15:52:06 <gp5st> gasteve: why should anyone mine it?
2167 2011-04-20 15:52:18 <eps2> exactly
2168 2011-04-20 15:52:20 bk128 has joined
2169 2011-04-20 15:52:21 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2170 2011-04-20 15:52:36 <gasteve> well, for the same reason people mine bitcoins
2171 2011-04-20 15:52:42 <gasteve> to earn money
2172 2011-04-20 15:52:43 <gp5st> which is why i wanted to use bitcoins to store a receipt essentially of the purchase of the domain, but that has it's own issues
2173 2011-04-20 15:52:53 <gp5st> gasteve: why do you get money? and from here?
2174 2011-04-20 15:52:56 berkes has joined
2175 2011-04-20 15:53:06 <luke-jr> domain names need regulation
2176 2011-04-20 15:53:21 <eps2> luke-jr, debatable...
2177 2011-04-20 15:53:24 <gp5st> luke-jr: what?
2178 2011-04-20 15:53:30 <luke-jr> eps2: not really
2179 2011-04-20 15:53:30 <gp5st> no, they don't
2180 2011-04-20 15:53:30 <gasteve> that's what I'm saying, this block chain is different in that it needs to use an external system for the fees
2181 2011-04-20 15:53:40 <gasteve> (which could be bitcoins)
2182 2011-04-20 15:53:45 <gp5st> but if fees are in another sytem
2183 2011-04-20 15:53:48 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2184 2011-04-20 15:53:56 <gp5st> there is no need for the block chain for bitdns
2185 2011-04-20 15:54:05 <gp5st> just a lookup assoiated with the tx to pay for the domain
2186 2011-04-20 15:54:13 bk128 has quit (Client Quit)
2187 2011-04-20 15:54:15 <eps2> luke-jr it depends on exactly which problem you are trying to solve
2188 2011-04-20 15:54:19 <gp5st> which is essentially what i was doing
2189 2011-04-20 15:54:21 <luke-jr> eps2: how else would you enforce trademarks and court orders?
2190 2011-04-20 15:54:22 berkes has joined
2191 2011-04-20 15:54:30 <gasteve> gp5st: that's an interesting thought
2192 2011-04-20 15:54:42 <gp5st> luke-jr: not dns' prolems? that's what the courts are for
2193 2011-04-20 15:54:42 <eps2> luke-jr why would i want to?
2194 2011-04-20 15:55:02 <luke-jr> gp5st: courts need the ability to regulate the DNS to do that
2195 2011-04-20 15:55:10 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2196 2011-04-20 15:55:15 <gp5st> no, tehy need to regulate the people owning the domain
2197 2011-04-20 15:55:34 <luke-jr> hmm, maybe
2198 2011-04-20 15:55:42 berkes has joined
2199 2011-04-20 15:55:47 <gp5st> man, my typing is really off today
2200 2011-04-20 15:56:03 <luke-jr> but I'm thinking of, for example, an 'ebay.bit' with phishing
2201 2011-04-20 15:56:26 <luke-jr> how could a court handle that without at least the ability to figure out who is controlling it?
2202 2011-04-20 15:56:26 <gp5st> luke-jr: what stops someone from doing ebay.xxx
2203 2011-04-20 15:56:36 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2204 2011-04-20 15:56:40 <luke-jr> gp5st: domain regulation
2205 2011-04-20 15:56:43 <gp5st> or ebay.tv when .tv was brand new
2206 2011-04-20 15:56:47 <gp5st> what's that even mean
2207 2011-04-20 15:56:50 <eps2> dns is a big problem, if we could come up with a system that wasn't susceptible to MITM attacks that would be a major achievement
2208 2011-04-20 15:56:55 <luke-jr> gp5st: ebay sues, wins, gets awarded the domain
2209 2011-04-20 15:57:01 <gp5st> sues who?
2210 2011-04-20 15:57:03 <luke-jr> or, if phishing, prosecutors prosecute
2211 2011-04-20 15:57:10 berkes has joined
2212 2011-04-20 15:57:14 <gasteve> even if you used bitcoin transactions as proof of payment, you still need a ledger that tracks the ability of someone to transfer a domain...and you need a system to bring new domain registrations into existence...so, you still need something like the bitcoin block chain for that
2213 2011-04-20 15:57:14 <luke-jr> gp5st: present domain registrations are not anonymous
2214 2011-04-20 15:57:41 <gp5st> so, lets assume i have mydomain.com and it's copywrited in the us only and the us has no treatines with anyone. someone busy mydomain.de, what happens?
2215 2011-04-20 15:57:46 <gasteve> you just have to work out how the fees for the name transactions would work
2216 2011-04-20 15:57:50 <gp5st> i can't sue in geremany over a us copywrite
2217 2011-04-20 15:58:04 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2218 2011-04-20 15:58:12 <luke-jr> gp5st: trademark is not copyrihgt
2219 2011-04-20 15:58:25 <luke-jr> and there is no such thing as 'copywrite'
2220 2011-04-20 15:58:32 <gp5st> ugh
2221 2011-04-20 15:58:38 berkes has joined
2222 2011-04-20 15:58:40 <gp5st> why can't i type of spell today
2223 2011-04-20 15:58:42 <gp5st> i know that
2224 2011-04-20 15:58:44 <luke-jr> :P
2225 2011-04-20 15:58:50 <gp5st> it's the same idea with a trademark
2226 2011-04-20 15:59:11 <luke-jr> gp5st: ok
2227 2011-04-20 15:59:23 <gp5st> gasteve: well, i mean everyone could have a copy or light client of the whole db or a dht or something
2228 2011-04-20 15:59:29 <luke-jr> this looks like it comes down to a flaw in the bitcoin system itself
2229 2011-04-20 15:59:32 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2230 2011-04-20 15:59:47 <luke-jr> specifically, you have to either accept all transactions the network considers valid, or none
2231 2011-04-20 15:59:56 <gasteve> ahh...copyrights are a totally separate issue...someone is always able to use the legal system for someone else to cough up a domain...even with bitDNS...bitDNS is just a decentralized mechanism to handle registrations, and that's a vast improvement over the current system of root name servers
2232 2011-04-20 16:00:02 berkes has joined
2233 2011-04-20 16:00:02 <gp5st> but i envisioned a system for putting info into it, but that dns record had the private key used for the hmac and the bitcoins tx id
2234 2011-04-20 16:00:41 <gp5st> if you were giving the domain to someone else, you would have to give them the key used to sign the domain and they would have to change the key and signature on it
2235 2011-04-20 16:00:52 <gp5st> no no
2236 2011-04-20 16:00:53 <gp5st> sorry
2237 2011-04-20 16:00:56 berkes has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
2238 2011-04-20 16:01:07 <gp5st> another btc transaction with another receipt in it as data
2239 2011-04-20 16:01:17 <gp5st> then the new person can recreate the record
2240 2011-04-20 16:01:27 rli has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2241 2011-04-20 16:01:27 <luke-jr> if bitcoin was a more truly distributed system, rather than a centralized block chain, it would be possible for governments to have master keys accepted by their citizens and treatised nations
2242 2011-04-20 16:01:28 berkes has joined
2243 2011-04-20 16:01:37 <gasteve> the only thing you need in the registration (and hence block chain) is an ip address where to get more information
2244 2011-04-20 16:01:45 <luke-jr> and their effects only valid within those nations
2245 2011-04-20 16:01:53 <gp5st> gasteve: no need for a block chain
2246 2011-04-20 16:02:15 <gasteve> luke-jr: are you just trolling?
2247 2011-04-20 16:02:19 <gp5st> luke-jr: you're not going to convince me because i think you're wrong and we have fundamentally different views
2248 2011-04-20 16:02:25 <luke-jr> gasteve: totally serious
2249 2011-04-20 16:02:38 <gp5st> so unless someone else wants to argue with you please drop this so we can discuss this dns system
2250 2011-04-20 16:02:53 <gasteve> I don't understand in what sense bitcoins have a "centralized block chain"
2251 2011-04-20 16:02:55 <gp5st> gasteve: i still don't see a need for a seconddary block chain
2252 2011-04-20 16:03:10 <gp5st> though that doesn't mean there can't be one
2253 2011-04-20 16:03:11 <purplezky> i'm glad people agree that one block chain is enough :)
2254 2011-04-20 16:03:20 <luke-jr> gasteve: there is a single "king" block chain, and cannot be multiple
2255 2011-04-20 16:03:40 <gp5st> luke-jr: there can be multiple. i can start a new one right now
2256 2011-04-20 16:03:47 <gp5st> it's worthless unless people get behind it though
2257 2011-04-20 16:03:48 <luke-jr> gp5st: but it wouldn't be compatible
2258 2011-04-20 16:03:50 <gasteve> gp5st: you need a block chain to record a new name registration or the change of an existing registration to a new ip address
2259 2011-04-20 16:03:51 <gp5st> so?
2260 2011-04-20 16:04:00 <luke-jr> I'm talking compared to a block chain that forks and merges
2261 2011-04-20 16:04:07 <gp5st> gasteve: just use a distributed datastore
2262 2011-04-20 16:04:10 <gp5st> no need for a chain
2263 2011-04-20 16:04:12 <purplezky> since domains cost money, encoding them in money makes sense
2264 2011-04-20 16:04:23 <gp5st> teh records link back tot he btc block and tx
2265 2011-04-20 16:04:46 <gp5st> purplezky: the bigquestion was what to charge for a domain
2266 2011-04-20 16:04:50 <gasteve> gp5st: it's not a problem if data stores...it's a problem of centralized control that you're trying to solve
2267 2011-04-20 16:04:51 <luke-jr> (and therefore faster)
2268 2011-04-20 16:05:14 <gp5st> the other issue was i thought the communiy here really hated my idea of encoding an hmac in the tx and having a class of tx that are really lucrative
2269 2011-04-20 16:05:22 <gp5st> those were the two big obsitals last time i tried this
2270 2011-04-20 16:05:25 AmpEater has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2271 2011-04-20 16:05:31 <gp5st> otherwise i think i could write out specs for a working system tonight
2272 2011-04-20 16:05:34 <AAA_awright> gasteve: I don't know what Satoshi is even talking about, you CAN'T mine multiple chains in parallel
2273 2011-04-20 16:05:37 <purplezky> my idea is simple: the transaction with the highest transaction fees in a block for registering a certain domain wins. so no fixed cost for registering a domain
2274 2011-04-20 16:06:03 <gp5st> gasteve: distributed data store
2275 2011-04-20 16:06:12 <gp5st> hashtable or multiple git repos or something
2276 2011-04-20 16:06:53 <gp5st> purplezky: i don't like the idea of letting others know the domain you're buying in the block chain. 1) it takes up space, 2) it's not a fair auction since i can't counterbid
2277 2011-04-20 16:06:59 <purplezky> i think as long as it has transaction fees, it's ethical to encode in a transaction
2278 2011-04-20 16:07:09 <luke-jr> hmm
2279 2011-04-20 16:07:10 <gp5st> i see it as a receipt, nothing more
2280 2011-04-20 16:07:16 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r344888a / license.txt : Update date in license.txt - http://bit.ly/hsoruq
2281 2011-04-20 16:07:18 <luke-jr> I guess the problem DOES have a bitcoin-compatible solution after all
2282 2011-04-20 16:07:27 <gasteve> gp5st: we're not trying to solve a data storage problem
2283 2011-04-20 16:07:38 <AAA_awright> (I am)
2284 2011-04-20 16:07:47 <luke-jr> NationX can simply require citizens to include their court-key as an *alternative*
2285 2011-04-20 16:07:48 <gp5st> gasteve: we're not. you're right. there are many exceltent dht's out there:) and git is pretty nice too
2286 2011-04-20 16:07:58 <AAA_awright> gasteve: Are you familiar with my terms, the allocation problem and the ownership problem?
2287 2011-04-20 16:08:27 <sethsethseth_> http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/x/mtgox/
2288 2011-04-20 16:08:30 <sethsethseth_> this doesnt work anymore
2289 2011-04-20 16:08:44 <sethsethseth_> is there one that does now?
2290 2011-04-20 16:09:27 <gasteve> AAA_awright: I haven't read the full 19 pages of comments on the bitDNS proposal, but I guess you mean the creation of new registrations and the transfer of registrations respectively
2291 2011-04-20 16:09:40 <sethsethseth_> basically same as mtgox trade depth chart but more readable and live updating
2292 2011-04-20 16:09:40 <gp5st> gasteve: we're a different group
2293 2011-04-20 16:09:40 <AAA_awright> No, here http://dnsp2p.gp5st.com/w/index.php?title=Allocation_problem http://dnsp2p.gp5st.com/w/index.php?title=Ownership_problem
2294 2011-04-20 16:09:45 <gp5st> nothing to do with bitdns at all
2295 2011-04-20 16:09:47 <gp5st> actually
2296 2011-04-20 16:09:49 mologie has joined
2297 2011-04-20 16:10:11 <gp5st> my biggest concern is all the miners mining dns blocks since they are lucrative and ignoring most if not all fiancial transactions since they are not as lucrative
2298 2011-04-20 16:10:39 <midnightmagic> AAA_awright: yes you can
2299 2011-04-20 16:10:43 <AAA_awright> gasteve: We'll take a good solution to one of the problems if we can find it, but the ultimate goal is (1) a complete solution that solves both identified problems, and (2) is completely p2p with no need for centralized authorities, even to allocate domains
2300 2011-04-20 16:11:16 <AAA_awright> midnightmagic: Parallel mining? The blocks you're generating are solving entirely different problems
2301 2011-04-20 16:11:35 <midnightmagic> they don't have to.
2302 2011-04-20 16:11:50 x6763 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2303 2011-04-20 16:11:52 <midnightmagic> the only difference need be the difficulty factor.
2304 2011-04-20 16:12:09 <AAA_awright> Presently they do, the problem you're solving is based on the previous block
2305 2011-04-20 16:12:35 <AAA_awright> You're searching for a random number whose HASH(CONCAT(prevblock, number)) <= target
2306 2011-04-20 16:12:38 <midnightmagic> bitdns as contemplated by satoshi in the forum simply combines the solutions
2307 2011-04-20 16:12:49 <gp5st> how do we deal with the last issue i bought up? i find this to be the most damning issue with my proposal
2308 2011-04-20 16:13:07 <gp5st> i don't want to kill bitcoins by doing this. it still needs to process financial tx
2309 2011-04-20 16:13:34 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: HASH(CONCAT(prevBitcoinBlock, prevBitDNSblock, number)) <= lowerBitDNSTarget
2310 2011-04-20 16:13:57 Lartza has joined
2311 2011-04-20 16:14:14 <luke-jr> maybe
2312 2011-04-20 16:14:30 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: You might be able to show that's just as efficent as dividing your time evenly
2313 2011-04-20 16:14:34 <AAA_awright> between the two problems
2314 2011-04-20 16:14:54 <AAA_awright> It would have to insert data from other chains whatever the solution is, if any
2315 2011-04-20 16:14:54 <luke-jr> or perhaps, just include BitDNS merkle root in the Coinbase for Bitcoin
2316 2011-04-20 16:15:22 x6763 has joined
2317 2011-04-20 16:15:55 <luke-jr> or encode BitDNS merkle root in a transaction (first one to get into a Bitcoin block wins)
2318 2011-04-20 16:16:43 <gp5st> i really need to work
2319 2011-04-20 16:16:53 <gp5st> just pm or @ me if i'm needed in a conversation
2320 2011-04-20 16:17:15 <gasteve> I'll read a bit, I don't have much more time to discuss (need to get work done) ...here are three thoughts though: 1) proof of work most likely needs to be a part of the solution, 2) there needs to be a payment system that somehow rewards the work done, 3) you only really need to be concerned with TLDs (no need to mimic the current .com, .net, etc ...you could just have "google" or "facebook" as top level domains)
2321 2011-04-20 16:17:18 <gp5st> maybe i'll write up a stronger layout of my idea and present it tomorrow
2322 2011-04-20 16:17:32 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
2323 2011-04-20 16:17:34 <gribble> Current Blocks: 119290 | Current Difficulty: 92347.59095209 | Next Difficulty At Block: 120959 | Next Difficulty In: 1669 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 94961.12496683
2324 2011-04-20 16:18:04 <AAA_awright> gasteve: Proof of work... Which problem are you solving here
2325 2011-04-20 16:18:12 <gasteve> and 4) you only need to record the top level domains and use the DNS system as it currently works to resolve the subdomains
2326 2011-04-20 16:18:38 <luke-jr> gasteve: TLD would be .bit obvious
2327 2011-04-20 16:18:40 <gasteve> proof of work is key to having a de-centralized registration system
2328 2011-04-20 16:18:51 <netxshare> how many connections does the bitcoin client make?
2329 2011-04-20 16:18:57 <luke-jr> netxshare: 8
2330 2011-04-20 16:19:01 <netxshare> currently my friend is at 10
2331 2011-04-20 16:19:06 <netxshare> I thought the limit was 8
2332 2011-04-20 16:19:06 amiller has joined
2333 2011-04-20 16:19:08 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2334 2011-04-20 16:19:11 <gp5st> netxshare: it depends on how social it is
2335 2011-04-20 16:19:12 <AAA_awright> gasteve: But it would not be needed for proving ownership once ownership is established
2336 2011-04-20 16:19:13 <luke-jr> netxshare: incoming
2337 2011-04-20 16:19:38 <gasteve> luke-jr: ok...but the registrations would all just be "google" or "facebook" ...and the .bit could be added on to wedge into the current DNS structure (then you could seek to get ".bit" officially added to the root servers of the current DNS system)
2338 2011-04-20 16:20:08 <netxshare> okay
2339 2011-04-20 16:20:10 <netxshare> thanks
2340 2011-04-20 16:20:14 <luke-jr> the only way .bit could ever be merged with the current DNS system is gateways
2341 2011-04-20 16:20:53 <BurtyB> just start taking donations until you get to the $100k or whatever it is ;)
2342 2011-04-20 16:21:13 <gasteve> AAA_awright: that's correct, that's the same with bitcoin...once blocks are created, there's no further proof of work required, you just look at the block chain to see what accounts have what bitcoins
2343 2011-04-20 16:21:44 <AAA_awright> mmm I'm talking no block chain at all
2344 2011-04-20 16:21:49 <AAA_awright> Not even no generation
2345 2011-04-20 16:22:04 <AAA_awright> If we wiped the block chain completely
2346 2011-04-20 16:22:22 <AAA_awright> And then said for the sake of argument "These are all the domain names in existance"
2347 2011-04-20 16:22:48 <AAA_awright> Could we still resolve domain names, prove ownership, and have owners edit records, and transfer ownership?
2348 2011-04-20 16:22:53 <gasteve> well, you'll have to point me to a description of how it works ...it's hard for me to imagine how a decentralized system would work without proof of work
2349 2011-04-20 16:23:03 <AAA_awright> http://dnsp2p.gp5st.com/w/index.php?title=Ownership_problem
2350 2011-04-20 16:23:20 <AAA_awright> Can we solve the ownership problem without proof of work
2351 2011-04-20 16:23:22 <AAA_awright> Yes, we can.
2352 2011-04-20 16:23:31 <AAA_awright> Or can we?
2353 2011-04-20 16:23:41 <AAA_awright> Actually yes, you can.
2354 2011-04-20 16:24:07 <AAA_awright> Completely ignoring creating new domain names, you don't need a block chain. You only need it to resolve initial ownership of domains
2355 2011-04-20 16:24:22 <AAA_awright> That's my theory
2356 2011-04-20 16:24:44 <AAA_awright> If that theoy is correct, we can build the DNS resolver without ever involving Bitcoin
2357 2011-04-20 16:24:54 <AAA_awright> We wouldn't be able to publish new domain names
2358 2011-04-20 16:24:56 <AAA_awright> But it's a start
2359 2011-04-20 16:25:02 <gasteve> I would need to digest it more, but on first glance, there's nothing about what's written on that page that is decentralized
2360 2011-04-20 16:25:33 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
2361 2011-04-20 16:25:34 <gribble> 119291
2362 2011-04-20 16:25:39 <AAA_awright> Only the stuff under "Decentralized solutions", gasteve
2363 2011-04-20 16:25:45 <AAA_awright> Which is all of them but one
2364 2011-04-20 16:26:52 <gasteve> exactly, I mean, none of those solutions create a decentralized authority for the assignment of names
2365 2011-04-20 16:27:22 <AAA_awright> gasteve: That's because that's the allocation problem, not the ownership problem
2366 2011-04-20 16:27:30 <AAA_awright> "When a client requests DNS records for a domain, it needs to be able to prove that those records are the very latest published by the owner of the domain. This is called the ownership problem."
2367 2011-04-20 16:27:42 <purplezky> you don't need authority to assign names, you just need a convention to assign names
2368 2011-04-20 16:28:10 <gasteve> purplezky: that's not correct
2369 2011-04-20 16:28:24 <AAA_awright> "The Allocation problem is the problem of how to best allocate domain names in a fair manner, which is to say, to owners who most urgently demand it. With the current centrally managed Domain Name System, DNS names are (effectively) owned, they are maintained with a small fee to a DNS provider, and within this condition, may be kept for as long as the owner wishes, or sold to whoever the owner wishes.
2370 2011-04-20 16:28:24 <AAA_awright> An ideal allocative mechanism must be able to re-allocate any domain name that is wanted by many people, if the owner has abandoned the property or no longer wants it, as well as registering previously unwanted domains."
2371 2011-04-20 16:29:18 <gasteve> clients need to recognize a decentralized authority (the bitcoin clients recognize a decentralized authority that establishes the true, network agreed upon, block chain)
2372 2011-04-20 16:29:22 <AAA_awright> Lemme modify that I have a better description now
2373 2011-04-20 16:29:41 <AAA_awright> AcubedyIGmA0P6QJEJ7KVW6NRW
2374 2011-04-20 16:29:49 <AAA_awright> hmm
2375 2011-04-20 16:29:51 <purplezky> the allocation problem shouldn't be tackled, because it would cause people who forget to renew end up with no domain
2376 2011-04-20 16:30:11 <purplezky> only ownership problem is important to me
2377 2011-04-20 16:30:29 <purplezky> no expiration, only transfer of domains
2378 2011-04-20 16:30:37 <gasteve> I would suggest focusing just on the allocation and transfer of ownership problems first...have a way for a p2p network to agree upon a single, recognized set of TLD information
2379 2011-04-20 16:31:22 <sipa> is there a #bitcoin-dns or something? :)
2380 2011-04-20 16:31:30 <gp5st> no, there is ##dns-p2
2381 2011-04-20 16:31:34 <purplezky> #bit-dns
2382 2011-04-20 16:31:35 <gp5st> dnsp2p
2383 2011-04-20 16:31:36 <gp5st> sorry
2384 2011-04-20 16:31:49 <gp5st> well, i mean there might be, i come from that one though:-p
2385 2011-04-20 16:31:51 <gp5st> ug
2386 2011-04-20 16:31:58 <gasteve> once you've solved that, you've solved the most tricky part of the problem...implementing a mechanism to ensure a client uses the most up to date info and that a client verifies authenticity of the information is the easy part
2387 2011-04-20 16:32:00 <gp5st> ##dns-p2p why can't i type
2388 2011-04-20 16:32:45 <gasteve> need to step out
2389 2011-04-20 16:33:32 berkes has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2390 2011-04-20 16:33:34 <purplezky> AAA_awright: the allocation problem can't be solved either for lost bitcoins
2391 2011-04-20 16:33:54 <purplezky> you never know if they are stored or lost
2392 2011-04-20 16:34:06 <gp5st> i don't think we should worry about people losing their keys or not renewing
2393 2011-04-20 16:34:11 <gp5st> that's outside of our domain
2394 2011-04-20 16:34:15 <gp5st> (pun intented)
2395 2011-04-20 16:35:16 <luke-jr> could simply design a network that expires all domains after a year
2396 2011-04-20 16:35:23 <luke-jr> if you want to keep it, you transfer it to a new key
2397 2011-04-20 16:35:38 <gp5st> yes, we're not talking about that, though
2398 2011-04-20 16:35:41 <gp5st> that is the plan
2399 2011-04-20 16:35:57 <luke-jr> and make sure resolvers stop working a month before they expire
2400 2011-04-20 16:36:11 <luke-jr> so you have time to notice "oops"
2401 2011-04-20 16:36:25 <gp5st> that's debatable
2402 2011-04-20 16:36:38 <gp5st> i still have my concerned about what this will do to btc
2403 2011-04-20 16:36:48 johnlockwood__ has joined
2404 2011-04-20 16:37:20 johnlockwood has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2405 2011-04-20 16:37:21 johnlockwood__ is now known as johnlockwood
2406 2011-04-20 16:37:32 <luke-jr> IMO, bitcoins could use such an expiracy too
2407 2011-04-20 16:37:50 <gp5st> why
2408 2011-04-20 16:37:53 <gp5st> money doesn't expire
2409 2011-04-20 16:38:01 <luke-jr> if not transferred for 10 years, it's fair game for blocks
2410 2011-04-20 16:38:07 <luke-jr> gp5st: because people lose it
2411 2011-04-20 16:38:20 <luke-jr> s/for blocks/for anyone/
2412 2011-04-20 16:38:24 <gp5st> but there are only so many bitcoins
2413 2011-04-20 16:38:29 <luke-jr> exactly why
2414 2011-04-20 16:38:41 <gp5st> because that's the design of the system
2415 2011-04-20 16:38:45 <gp5st> and part of why it even works
2416 2011-04-20 16:38:50 <luke-jr> …
2417 2011-04-20 16:38:57 <luke-jr> losing bitcoins is not part of the design
2418 2011-04-20 16:38:58 <luke-jr> it's an accident
2419 2011-04-20 16:39:01 <devrandom_> since bitcoins are finely divisible, it doesn't make sense to worry about unused coins
2420 2011-04-20 16:39:08 <luke-jr> devrandom_: not that finely
2421 2011-04-20 16:39:20 <gp5st> but here are only so many bitcoins
2422 2011-04-20 16:39:24 <gp5st> and what does lost mean
2423 2011-04-20 16:39:29 <gp5st> if i don't use it in 5 years and come back
2424 2011-04-20 16:39:32 <luke-jr> gp5st: it means nobody has the key to spend them
2425 2011-04-20 16:39:33 <iera> we just could divide them more finely in the future?
2426 2011-04-20 16:39:33 <gp5st> my money shouldn't be invalid
2427 2011-04-20 16:39:36 <luke-jr> or perhaps it's impossible to spend them
2428 2011-04-20 16:39:42 <gp5st> how do you know who doesn't have a key?
2429 2011-04-20 16:39:42 <luke-jr> iera: no, we can't
2430 2011-04-20 16:39:48 <gp5st> i could ahve a key and just not use them
2431 2011-04-20 16:39:48 <luke-jr> gp5st: you don't need to
2432 2011-04-20 16:39:53 <iera> luke-jr: hm ok... i dont get why not
2433 2011-04-20 16:40:01 <luke-jr> iera: technically impractical
2434 2011-04-20 16:40:02 <gp5st> i'm lost
2435 2011-04-20 16:40:09 <gp5st> what does it mean to be lost
2436 2011-04-20 16:40:10 <iera> luke-jr: impractical or impossible?
2437 2011-04-20 16:40:13 <gp5st> not used in so long?
2438 2011-04-20 16:40:19 <devrandom_> there are 5000 trillion "satoshis" (1e-8 bitcoins - the smallest increment)
2439 2011-04-20 16:40:26 <luke-jr> iera: impractical. over 50% of all bitcoin users would need to upgrade, and force the other 49%
2440 2011-04-20 16:40:35 <luke-jr> devrandom_: that's not much
2441 2011-04-20 16:40:52 <devrandom_> I doubt that more than 10% would be lost over the next 50 years
2442 2011-04-20 16:41:02 <iera> luke-jr: well if we just add it to specification and all clients, people will of course upgrade and nobody has an disavantage or not?
2443 2011-04-20 16:41:06 <devrandom_> people are not that careless with their money
2444 2011-04-20 16:41:14 <iera> luke-jr: you probably will want to have the newest software anyway
2445 2011-04-20 16:41:20 <luke-jr> devrandom_: probably 10% has already been lost
2446 2011-04-20 16:41:31 <gp5st> not lost
2447 2011-04-20 16:41:33 <gp5st> just unused
2448 2011-04-20 16:41:41 f3n has quit ()
2449 2011-04-20 16:41:45 <iera> gp5st: esentially lost, they never can be spent
2450 2011-04-20 16:41:52 <iera> gp5st: if you loose the private key
2451 2011-04-20 16:42:10 <devrandom_> even if 90% is lost over time, that's still 500 trillion satoshis
2452 2011-04-20 16:43:16 <CIA-89> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r53 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/DiskBlockStore.java: Use BufferedInputStream in DiskBlockStore. Fixes issue 14.
2453 2011-04-20 16:43:49 <iera> luke-jr: i really dont see if thats impractical, we will probably all agree that we need more divisibal money if the time comes and nobody has a disadvantage of that... but maybe i missed something
2454 2011-04-20 16:44:38 <iera> i mean its the same with ipv4 :p
2455 2011-04-20 16:46:12 <gasteve> oh...one other thing...here's how you can simultaneously mine for multiple block chains...all you need is a mechanism to allow a payload in a block  ...the payload would contain a hash of a block for a second block chain ...the clients for the second block chain know how to pull out just the payload of the first block chain and compute the hash for blocks in the first block chain...miners create valid block for both chains (sticking the hash of
2456 2011-04-20 16:46:12 <gasteve> block for the second into the payload of the first) ...they compute one hash...if it satisfied either chain's difficulty, it gets announced to that chain (or both chains)  ...the downside of this approach is that the second chain has more data to process ...an even better approach is have a super block that is nothing but a nonce and a list of chain ids+block hashes ...the clients for all the chains would enforce their difficulty on the hashes
2457 2011-04-20 16:46:12 <gasteve> computed for this super block and only care about their block contained within that concerns their block chain
2458 2011-04-20 16:46:22 <AAA_awright> The smallest unit most people use is cents, some people use thousandths like the $.99 store now ("Tiny price hike") and gas stations of course... So let's multiply M3 by 1000
2459 2011-04-20 16:46:25 fimp has joined
2460 2011-04-20 16:46:33 <gasteve> (not sure if that's what Satoshi was proposing or not)
2461 2011-04-20 16:47:39 <AAA_awright> 11 thousand billion, times another thousand
2462 2011-04-20 16:47:53 <TD> gasteve: yes pretty much
2463 2011-04-20 16:48:18 <TD> purplezky: nobody agrees that stuff non-coin related stuff into the main chain is a good idea. the way to solve this properly has already been explained.
2464 2011-04-20 16:48:24 <AAA_awright> Fits well within the 0.8*64 bit integer Bitcoin uses
2465 2011-04-20 16:48:33 <AAA_awright> But might be just barely not enough
2466 2011-04-20 16:48:33 <luke-jr> iera: IPv6 isn't compatible with IPv4
2467 2011-04-20 16:48:40 <TD> the root hash of a secondary merkle tree can be placed in the scriptSig of the coinbase transaction in a bitcoin block
2468 2011-04-20 16:48:45 <devrandom_> oops, I misspoke earlier, that's 21,000 trillion satoshis in the long term
2469 2011-04-20 16:48:54 <gasteve> the chain id could even be positional if all of the chains using it agreed on the positions of the hashes of their respective blocks
2470 2011-04-20 16:49:00 <TD> if you are mining exclusively on bitdns the bitcoin format block does not need to have any transactions or even be valid. it's there purely for compatibility.
2471 2011-04-20 16:49:15 <iera> luke-jr: right, but we could make it much easier, just add a new information to the protocol if its the new encoding for value or the old
2472 2011-04-20 16:49:18 <gasteve> TD precisely
2473 2011-04-20 16:49:18 <AAA_awright> Actually no, it's about 1000 times what we need for all of M3
2474 2011-04-20 16:49:27 <purplezky> TD: i only read that Satoshi doubts if it would scale, so if i find a way it would scale
2475 2011-04-20 16:49:28 <AAA_awright> And we don't even need all of M3
2476 2011-04-20 16:49:29 <TD> if you are mining both then when the DNS chain updates, you recalculate the current DNS block and put the hash into the scriptSig of your current BitCoin block, and keep crunching.
2477 2011-04-20 16:49:39 <luke-jr> anyhow, I would suggest a new script op to nullify the spend-script, allowing one to spend coins that have gone unclaimed for 5-10 years
2478 2011-04-20 16:49:55 <TD> you then define the contents of your DNS chain however you want
2479 2011-04-20 16:50:01 <TD> it does not need to have the same transactions/value/script format
2480 2011-04-20 16:50:08 <luke-jr> iera: perhaps. easier done now than later tho
2481 2011-04-20 16:50:41 <iera> luke-jr: i would be strict against that, what if someone forgot about his coins, rediscoveres and suddenly they are gone? i would be really angry
2482 2011-04-20 16:50:45 <TD> gasteve: yes. it scales better with a merkle tree. how to make that self organizing is an interesting problem. perhaps it's easier to just have some kind of informal agreements
2483 2011-04-20 16:51:05 <AAA_awright> I have an idea... What if the DNS chain only generated public/private key pairs, and once a pair was generated, you could register whatever domain you wanted? That would establish a line of who gets first pick of domain name... maybe
2484 2011-04-20 16:51:07 <gasteve> TD: yes, the creation of blocks for either chain is still completely independent...seems quite elegant
2485 2011-04-20 16:51:17 jrabbit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2486 2011-04-20 16:51:19 <iera> luke-jr: yeah best is we do a spec for later improvements now so in a few years everybody will have it in the implementation running
2487 2011-04-20 16:51:29 <luke-jr> iera: that's why 5-10 years
2488 2011-04-20 16:51:32 <AAA_awright> But gp5st would raise the issue you can't counterbid
2489 2011-04-20 16:52:00 <iera> luke-jr: hm still with 5 years.. dont know i wouldnt like it i think
2490 2011-04-20 16:52:08 <gp5st> yeah, no bidding. you buy it outright
2491 2011-04-20 16:52:44 <gp5st> that's why i want the hmac in the dns chain: no one knows that you're buying. i kind of want it to function as a receipt and as a scheme that could be used for other things too
2492 2011-04-20 16:53:26 Lazymeerkat has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2493 2011-04-20 16:53:49 <gasteve> there would probably only be a handful of block chains...so you only need the client code for each of the block chains to agree on a position...if that got out of hand (lots of new block chains) you could later tack a dictionary structure onto the end, or a merkle tree or something...but you're not boxed in if you simply say that the bitcoin block is field #1, bitdns is field #2, and so on...everything afterward is just the nonce as far as the c
2494 2011-04-20 16:53:49 <gasteve> are concerned and wouldn't prohibit new chains from being added later
2495 2011-04-20 16:54:43 <luke-jr> iera: maybe allow respending in 10 years, and configure all clients to silently "renew" coins after 5
2496 2011-04-20 16:54:54 <gasteve> (I need to go and read more about the bitX proposals)
2497 2011-04-20 16:56:24 <x6763> luke-jr: your proposal means that there would be an increase in transactions, and people would be paying transaction fees just to keep bitcoins they already own...i don't like the idea at all...just let people lose their coins and the value of the rest of the coins will adjust
2498 2011-04-20 16:56:48 ezl has joined
2499 2011-04-20 16:57:04 <TD> gasteve: yes. positional is simpler for sure.
2500 2011-04-20 16:58:09 <TD> purplezky: the actual implementation wouldn't be that hard. you'd add an RPC to the bitcoin software for setting the secondary merkle root, which would just add a data block to the coinbase scriptSig. then you'd write your DNS software that used similar code to BitCoin for handling a block chain, but runs entirely separately. you could remove everything related to transactions.
2501 2011-04-20 16:58:21 <TD> or, more likely, define your own transaction format entirely.
2502 2011-04-20 16:58:28 <TD> without scripts, values, etc.
2503 2011-04-20 16:58:33 <TD> for precisely whatever your DNS system needs
2504 2011-04-20 16:58:41 <gasteve> there is one aspect of this that I don't like and it's an economic issue...if you simultaneously mine for multiple block chains, you suddenly have less incentive to not mine bitcoins when bitcoins become unprofitable...that might result in the relationshipe between bitcoin difficulty and price to break down...and I don't think that would be good
2505 2011-04-20 16:59:01 danbri has joined
2506 2011-04-20 16:59:04 <gp5st> gasteve: this is what i've been saying
2507 2011-04-20 16:59:05 <TD> then to mine on both bitcoin and dns, you start a regular bitcoind, attach some mining workers, then run your own bitdnsd and point it at your bitcoin node
2508 2011-04-20 16:59:18 <gp5st> that dns tx would take a front seat to financial ones
2509 2011-04-20 16:59:28 <gasteve> if, instead you had to choose between the bitDNS and bitcoin block chains, then you can choose to mine for the most profitable one at any given time
2510 2011-04-20 16:59:30 <luke-jr> x6763: good point
2511 2011-04-20 16:59:34 <purplezky> mining for domain names seems silly, you should be able to buy more than 50 domains every 10 minutes
2512 2011-04-20 16:59:55 <TD> gasteve: only assuming there is lots of profit to be had from the DNS chains, which I really doubt.
2513 2011-04-20 17:00:22 <TD> purplezky: your own chain can have whatever difficulty targets and propagation times it likes. pick 1 minute if you like. or any other rules.
2514 2011-04-20 17:00:30 <gasteve> TD: yes, but bitDNS is likely not going to be the only other system where block chains are used
2515 2011-04-20 17:00:45 <TD> that's fine. who says there has to be a relationship between difficulty and price anyway?
2516 2011-04-20 17:00:49 <gp5st> i still don't understand the dns chain
2517 2011-04-20 17:00:54 <gp5st> it doesn't seem nessecary
2518 2011-04-20 17:01:03 <gasteve> TD: I think it's a very important aspect of bitcoins actually
2519 2011-04-20 17:01:03 <TD> gp5st: why not ?
2520 2011-04-20 17:01:38 <ArtForz> TD: agreed
2521 2011-04-20 17:01:54 <purplezky> TD: why are you so afraid of having something encoded in the main bitcoin chain ? is it about scalability or about liability ?
2522 2011-04-20 17:02:06 <TD> gasteve: look at it another way. why does there have to be any profit motive at all in such a DNS system? the mining is provided "free" by the bitcoin guys. you can create scarcity in any way you like.
2523 2011-04-20 17:02:35 <gp5st> TD: because i don't know why you would? it seems like a lot of hassle
2524 2011-04-20 17:02:50 <TD> purplezky: it's about correct systems design. nobody working on bitcoin thinks it's a good idea to distort random crap until it looks like a financial transaction. the only people who think that's a great idea are people who are determined to create a DNS system with as little work as possible.
2525 2011-04-20 17:02:54 <B0g4r7> Mining won't rpoduce BTC for "free" forever.
2526 2011-04-20 17:03:10 <TD> purplezky: that's like saying what a great idea it'd be to distribute torrents as web pages encoded to look like english text!
2527 2011-04-20 17:03:20 <B0g4r7> heh
2528 2011-04-20 17:03:22 <B0g4r7> See usenet.
2529 2011-04-20 17:03:23 <B0g4r7> :)
2530 2011-04-20 17:03:37 <ArtForz> mining doesn't affect the rate of bitcoin creation, so what "drawback" is there if you have more hashrate than what could be financed from bitcoin mining alone? other than increased resistance to attack?
2531 2011-04-20 17:03:42 <TD> it makes sense only for somebody trying to distribute movies without being caught. for everyone else .... search engines, users who accidentally navigate there, people trying to extract knowledge from the web, it's crap that gets in the way
2532 2011-04-20 17:04:13 <TD> it's not even that hard to do things correctly
2533 2011-04-20 17:04:16 <TD> so why not do it ?
2534 2011-04-20 17:04:44 jrabbit has joined
2535 2011-04-20 17:04:44 <B0g4r7> Sounds like you're thinking similarly to an idea I was on a while back.
2536 2011-04-20 17:04:56 <B0g4r7> One for a distributed filesystem.
2537 2011-04-20 17:04:58 <ArtForz> this way of including other service chains doesn't increase block size by much
2538 2011-04-20 17:05:00 <gp5st> TD: i don't want to do it with as little work as possible. I ant to do it in the sanest way possible. I found just putting a receipt, an hmac in this case, in the tx for the item bought was most sane
2539 2011-04-20 17:05:14 <B0g4r7> One where you can pay BTC in exchange for gauranteed replication of your content.
2540 2011-04-20 17:05:32 <topi`> wtf?? anybody know about slush's pool inner workings?
2541 2011-04-20 17:05:41 <purplezky> starting up a new net without financial incentive for its usage is just too hard
2542 2011-04-20 17:05:54 <topi`> look at the block solved at 2011-04-20 13:39:21 (from the statistics page)... it shows as Block 0!
2543 2011-04-20 17:06:07 <topi`> surrounded by 119271 and 119273
2544 2011-04-20 17:06:10 <topi`> odd.
2545 2011-04-20 17:06:15 <gasteve> well, as for bitDNS not being profitable, I was just trying to register a domain name a few days ago and the one's I really wanted were in excess of $50k
2546 2011-04-20 17:06:46 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2547 2011-04-20 17:06:48 <ArtForz> probably a db error on slushs site
2548 2011-04-20 17:06:50 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2549 2011-04-20 17:07:06 <gasteve> so, there you go..there's the market for names in the current DNS system...if you come up with a system that is better than the current DNS system and people adopt it ...I can promise you, it will be profitable to mine bitDNS
2550 2011-04-20 17:07:06 <TD> gasteve: what makes you think it'd cost less in a different dns system? price of a name is a function of supply/demand not how the data is moved around
2551 2011-04-20 17:07:12 <gp5st> gasteve: i'm worried about dns tx being too profitable and overtaking financial tx
2552 2011-04-20 17:07:14 <topi`> yep, it also shows up as "confirmed" which I do not believe.
2553 2011-04-20 17:07:15 <B0g4r7> Was that the block on which difficulty was readjusted?
2554 2011-04-20 17:07:23 <TD> purplezky: what do you mean "financial incentive for usage"? what type of usage?
2555 2011-04-20 17:07:33 <ArtForz> topi`: it's probably because it's all-0
2556 2011-04-20 17:07:46 <TD> maybe i'm misunderstanding. no financial incentive is needed for mining. you just have to convince miners with lots of hash power it's a good idea to run your software alongside bitcoin.
2557 2011-04-20 17:07:49 <purplezky> nobody will mine on a seperate chain if the difficulty goes up just ot register a few names
2558 2011-04-20 17:08:24 <TD> why would anyone need to mine in order to register names?
2559 2011-04-20 17:08:29 <witten> TD: there's the opportunity cost of not using that hash power to generate bitcoins though
2560 2011-04-20 17:08:37 <purplezky> that was the namecoind idea
2561 2011-04-20 17:08:56 <TD> witten: no. that's the whole point of what we're discussing. your hash power works on both bitcoin and dnscoin simultaneously. it is "free" to work on dns chains.
2562 2011-04-20 17:09:06 <ArtForz> which is why satoshi came up with the whole "chains linked to bitcoin PoWs" thing
2563 2011-04-20 17:09:13 <TD> purplezky: yes, namecoin is just an entirely separate network. it doesn't share mining power. it could do though.
2564 2011-04-20 17:09:14 <purplezky> i do like the receipt in a tx though, it's not really encoding data only references in the tx
2565 2011-04-20 17:09:34 <purplezky> it stays a financial transaction
2566 2011-04-20 17:09:36 <witten> TD: it's not free, but it's cheap. even another if-branch in the code costs something if run over and over
2567 2011-04-20 17:09:57 <netxshare> ;;bc,gen 600000
2568 2011-04-20 17:09:58 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 92347.59095209 , is 6.53505979018 BTC per day and 0.272294157924 BTC per hour.
2569 2011-04-20 17:10:09 <TD> witten: no it doesn't change the cost of hashing at all. you have to run a separate daemon that talks to a separate network, but that's cheap unless there are like thousands of name registrations per second or something.
2570 2011-04-20 17:10:19 <ArtForz> yep
2571 2011-04-20 17:10:29 <gasteve> ArtForz: what is that "chains linked to bitcoin PoWs" thing?  is there a reference?
2572 2011-04-20 17:10:36 <TD> the extra overhead is on the order of what it costs to run bitcoind today with no mining active.
2573 2011-04-20 17:10:39 <gp5st> purplezky: thanks:) i just don't see the need to have a serpate block chain for every use of the idea. just a receipt in the main chain to reference whatever project wants to use it
2574 2011-04-20 17:10:42 <TD> gasteve: he means the system you just described.
2575 2011-04-20 17:10:50 <ArtForz> somewhere on the forum iirc, back at the first big bitdns discussion
2576 2011-04-20 17:10:53 <TD> gasteve: secondary chain hash in the coinbase tx scriptSig
2577 2011-04-20 17:11:03 <gasteve> ah
2578 2011-04-20 17:11:14 <witten> TD: if (hash < foo) { do this; } else if (hash < bar) { do that; }
2579 2011-04-20 17:11:20 <ArtForz> well, satoshi never exactly said *how* it would work, but I'd guess that would work
2580 2011-04-20 17:11:25 <netxshare> is 2.2 - 2.4 the only sdk that supports the 6990?
2581 2011-04-20 17:11:46 dbitcoin has joined
2582 2011-04-20 17:11:53 <ArtForz> witten: you realize hashing and hash finechecking run independently on any sane miner?
2583 2011-04-20 17:12:02 <gasteve> so, maybe it is a good idea to be able to hash simultaneously...if one chain becomes immensely more profitable than another chain, I suppose if you couldn't mine concurrently, you wouldn't and that might hurt bitcoin
2584 2011-04-20 17:12:10 <witten> ArtForz: no, I don't :)
2585 2011-04-20 17:12:22 <gasteve> (or hinder new chains that aren't very profitable yet)
2586 2011-04-20 17:13:12 <TD> ArtForz: yeah i talked with him about it via private mail. he mentioned the scriptSig as a place you can stash stuff in a block.
2587 2011-04-20 17:13:35 <TD> ArtForz: he seemed very keen on the use of a secondary merkle tree as well. though just reserving positions like gasteve said would work too as long as there weren't thousands of extra chains
2588 2011-04-20 17:13:41 <TD> no clue if that's a safe assumption or not
2589 2011-04-20 17:13:43 <B0g4r7> scriptSig == "comments field"?
2590 2011-04-20 17:14:04 <gp5st> purplezky: just trying to think of other uses for forward receipts though. i could attach the sha or hmac of your sig on an invoice you sent me, i guess
2591 2011-04-20 17:14:21 <TD> B0g4r7: only for the coinbase tx and even then there are size limits. storing a hash there is ok. storing lots more than that - not so much.
2592 2011-04-20 17:14:31 <netxshare> ArtForz: Will using CAL++ over OpenCL make a large enough difference in speed?
2593 2011-04-20 17:14:53 <ArtForz> depends on how large large enough is
2594 2011-04-20 17:15:09 <ArtForz> 4-5% is pretty easy
2595 2011-04-20 17:15:34 <AAA_awright> Why not deposit a certain amount of BTC (however much you're willing to pay for a domain) into the key that owns the domain you want
2596 2011-04-20 17:15:40 <netxshare> then I compile the kernel from cal into IL and tweak it some more
2597 2011-04-20 17:15:50 <netxshare> if there was anything I could change
2598 2011-04-20 17:15:59 <gasteve> need to think about the economics of mining concurrently vs separately
2599 2011-04-20 17:16:10 <AAA_awright> Is there any way to reverse a BitCoin transaction with scripts?
2600 2011-04-20 17:16:12 <AAA_awright> Or cancel it?
2601 2011-04-20 17:16:19 <TD> no. if there was it'd be possible to fork the block chain at will.
2602 2011-04-20 17:16:24 <purplezky> AAA_awright: nope
2603 2011-04-20 17:16:25 <ArtForz> AAA_awright: nope
2604 2011-04-20 17:16:29 <ArtForz> lol
2605 2011-04-20 17:16:31 <AAA_awright> What's scripting for?
2606 2011-04-20 17:16:42 <TD> with a minor change to the client, you can modify a transaction before it commits to a block (nLockTime)
2607 2011-04-20 17:16:47 <AAA_awright> I guessed that was conditional payment
2608 2011-04-20 17:16:49 <ArtForz> for example trasnactions requiring n-of-m signatures to spend
2609 2011-04-20 17:16:50 <TD> it makes many things possible
2610 2011-04-20 17:16:55 <TD> distributed contracts
2611 2011-04-20 17:17:04 <TD> other things .... yep like ArtForz says
2612 2011-04-20 17:17:15 <AAA_awright> purplezky ArtForz: Not reversing a payment already made, but conditionally finalizing a transaction i.e. making it available in the recipiant's account
2613 2011-04-20 17:17:39 <gasteve> AAA_awright: you can do anything you want with your transactions and the block chain...but good luck trying to get anyone else to recognize them ;)
2614 2011-04-20 17:17:50 <purplezky> AAA_awright: like scheduling a transaction which needs later confirmation ?
2615 2011-04-20 17:18:00 <AAA_awright> Something like that purplezky, maybe
2616 2011-04-20 17:18:07 <AAA_awright> I'm thinking a distributed auction
2617 2011-04-20 17:18:18 <x6763>     "errors" : ""
2618 2011-04-20 17:18:18 <x6763> }
2619 2011-04-20 17:18:18 <purplezky> that's what TD is describing
2620 2011-04-20 17:18:20 <TD> AAA_awright, purplezky: i think you guys should write a design doc for what you want to do and get it reviewed by the bitcoin community. you can lay the groundwork for extending the technology not just to dns but other applications as well. i'm sure people would be happy to help you figure out the right design if you want to do things properly.
2621 2011-04-20 17:18:22 <AAA_awright> So multiple people can send payment, but the recipiant can only choose one to accept
2622 2011-04-20 17:18:23 <x6763> oops
2623 2011-04-20 17:18:29 <AAA_awright> Which should always be the highest bidder
2624 2011-04-20 17:18:38 <AAA_awright> Is that possible somehow?
2625 2011-04-20 17:18:58 <AAA_awright> *recipient
2626 2011-04-20 17:19:01 <TD> you can do things like that with a combination of multi-sig checking, the SIGHASH flags and nLockTime
2627 2011-04-20 17:19:29 <TD> however some of those features are disabled on the production network - partly because of people trying to stuff crap into the bitcoin block chain (this is why we now have IsStandard)
2628 2011-04-20 17:19:35 <TD> so they'd have to be reactivated first.
2629 2011-04-20 17:19:36 <AAA_awright> I'm not aware of nLockTime
2630 2011-04-20 17:19:51 <TD> it's poorly documented and currently disabled anyway
2631 2011-04-20 17:20:01 <AAA_awright> Figures
2632 2011-04-20 17:20:12 <iera> luke-jr: hm im still against it, i like the idea of locking your private key away and grabbing it out later to pay a house or something, imagine if have coins worth of 100.000$, you dont want to have them online
2633 2011-04-20 17:20:13 <gp5st> sorry, what is AAA_awright proposing?
2634 2011-04-20 17:20:21 <TD> i'm planning on writing some docs about this and the distributed contracts, after i finish learning about it from satoshi
2635 2011-04-20 17:20:22 <AAA_awright> gp5st: A distributed auction, for any purpose'
2636 2011-04-20 17:20:30 <gp5st> oh
2637 2011-04-20 17:20:32 <luke-jr> iera: another strong point
2638 2011-04-20 17:20:39 <TD> he's still teaching me how to design these things
2639 2011-04-20 17:20:49 <gp5st> hows that solve the dns problem:-p
2640 2011-04-20 17:21:28 <AAA_awright> gp5st: Also, a prediction market, where you can buy shares for or against an event, and then when the event does or does not happen, a central authority releases the key for one or the other that makes that conditional currency worth Bitcoin
2641 2011-04-20 17:21:33 <AAA_awright> That's a bit more complex
2642 2011-04-20 17:21:42 <gp5st> should there be an action built into the currency?
2643 2011-04-20 17:21:58 <TD> scripting allows for some of these things
2644 2011-04-20 17:22:10 <witten> TD: oh so he exists? :)
2645 2011-04-20 17:22:15 <TD> he does indeed exist
2646 2011-04-20 17:22:21 <purplezky> how do miners decide to include or not include a transaction in a new block ?
2647 2011-04-20 17:22:33 <purplezky> is there a default convention ?
2648 2011-04-20 17:22:40 <TD> there are lots of checks. the code is authoritative. but basically it must have sufficient fees and must be of standard form.
2649 2011-04-20 17:23:00 <purplezky> k will check the code
2650 2011-04-20 17:23:07 <TD> other checks are mostly ensuring it's formatted correctly, is not trying to spend non-existent coins etc. what you'd expect.
2651 2011-04-20 17:23:35 <TD> you can only use a few types of script currently. if you want to add more, you have to convince gavin it's worth having and then he'll add it to the list of standard script types.
2652 2011-04-20 17:23:45 <TD> as miners upgrade, those transactions will start being accepted into blocks
2653 2011-04-20 17:23:54 <TD> users don't have to upgrade. just miners.
2654 2011-04-20 17:24:03 <witten> TD: multi-signature-requiring transactions would be very useful in scripting
2655 2011-04-20 17:24:06 <TD> so it's a good way to regulate what can be done with the network
2656 2011-04-20 17:24:18 Speeder has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2657 2011-04-20 17:24:20 <TD> witten: that can be done in several ways
2658 2011-04-20 17:24:30 witten has left ("Client exiting")
2659 2011-04-20 17:24:39 witten has joined
2660 2011-04-20 17:25:05 <witten> TD: but it can't be done with the existing scripting, because several ops are disabled?
2661 2011-04-20 17:25:30 <TD> some ops are disabled but no critical ones for most applications. you'd just need to find a miner willing to incorporate your non-standard transactions.
2662 2011-04-20 17:25:40 <TD> once a tx is in a block any script will run
2663 2011-04-20 17:25:52 <TD> as long as it doesn't use a disabled opcode. but there aren't many of them.
2664 2011-04-20 17:26:04 <TD> they're disabled only for security reasons. at some point they might be re-enabled.
2665 2011-04-20 17:26:08 <gp5st> hmm
2666 2011-04-20 17:26:31 <purplezky> interesting
2667 2011-04-20 17:26:40 phantomcircuit has joined
2668 2011-04-20 17:26:48 <purplezky> thanks for sharing
2669 2011-04-20 17:26:51 <gp5st> couldn't someone incorp a multi sig block without allt eh sigs, call it true and finalize it and add it to the chain and it owuld be accepted if the other clients don't validate it?
2670 2011-04-20 17:27:16 <TD> other clients do validate it. IsStandard() also controls relaying. it exists to stop people like purplezky who want to do unintended stuff, by the way.
2671 2011-04-20 17:27:24 <TD> it's still possible to abuse bitcoin but much harder than before.
2672 2011-04-20 17:27:42 <TD> obviously other chains would have different rules or even no standardization checks at all (indeed, maybe no scripts)
2673 2011-04-20 17:27:45 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2674 2011-04-20 17:27:51 <TD> so it wouldn't be an issue there
2675 2011-04-20 17:28:05 Vaerros has joined
2676 2011-04-20 17:28:16 skyewm has joined
2677 2011-04-20 17:28:30 Vaerros has left ()
2678 2011-04-20 17:28:39 <phantomcircuit> so googles map tiles secret?
2679 2011-04-20 17:28:55 <phantomcircuit> tons of ip addressing to avoid browsers restricting pipelinign
2680 2011-04-20 17:28:59 <phantomcircuit> :|
2681 2011-04-20 17:29:08 <witten> so what ops would be required for multi-sig? OP_AND?
2682 2011-04-20 17:29:16 <TD> not exactly a secret phantomcircuit :) all map sites do that
2683 2011-04-20 17:29:27 <phantomcircuit> TD, yeah well i just realized it
2684 2011-04-20 17:29:28 <TD> witten: the helpfully named OP_CHECKMULTISIG
2685 2011-04-20 17:29:47 <phantomcircuit> TD, tells me that a normal browser session could do the exact same thing
2686 2011-04-20 17:30:06 <witten> TD: nice.. so most miners don't support that even though it's enabled in the standard code?
2687 2011-04-20 17:30:09 <TD> yes and many websites do. check out images.google.com or flickr etc
2688 2011-04-20 17:30:14 <TD> anywhere you need to load lots of images quickly does it
2689 2011-04-20 17:30:39 <TD> witten: all nodes can run it and understand the results. however nodes will refuse to relay these transactions and miners won't include them into blocks, unless the code was modified.
2690 2011-04-20 17:30:47 <TD> exception (since today), the testnet will accept any kind of transaction
2691 2011-04-20 17:30:53 <TD> i mean any kind of script
2692 2011-04-20 17:30:57 <TD> the IsStandard() checks are disabled there
2693 2011-04-20 17:31:09 <witten> ah okay
2694 2011-04-20 17:31:15 <TD> so you can experiment with new types of tx on the testnet and once you have working demos it can be enabled on the main network
2695 2011-04-20 17:31:43 <purplezky> hmm my transactions are accepted by bitcoind, they pass isStandard but somehow don't end up being included in a block by the miners on testnet
2696 2011-04-20 17:32:17 <TD> there aren't many miners on testnet. it might just take a while.
2697 2011-04-20 17:32:24 <TD> or you may be failing some other check - look at the debug logs.
2698 2011-04-20 17:32:35 <purplezky> well not a check at my end
2699 2011-04-20 17:32:54 <TD> bear in mind if your non-financial transactions can be identified in some way, and your thing takes off, probably some new checks would be added to exclude them. you really do need your own chain.
2700 2011-04-20 17:32:59 <purplezky> but i am running the latest code, maybe there are other checks in the miner runnign a previous version
2701 2011-04-20 17:33:58 <purplezky> can anyone see tx c2a49fe9500ea31ae534a83fe60ce0ee240f8ea08135d26cae3d2aea813fbf9d on testnet ?
2702 2011-04-20 17:35:32 <purplezky> if i look at the transactions on testnet it seems there are only 2 transactions included for today on the testnet and they aren't mine
2703 2011-04-20 17:36:13 <purplezky> or is the blockexplorer giving a skewed view ?
2704 2011-04-20 17:36:22 Lartza has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2705 2011-04-20 17:37:15 edgarallanpoe has joined
2706 2011-04-20 17:39:17 <gp5st> how large is an average tx?
2707 2011-04-20 17:40:46 edgarallanpoe is now known as ezl
2708 2011-04-20 17:42:11 aoeuue has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2709 2011-04-20 17:44:38 <sethsethseth_> is there some site that live updates mtgox exchange rates?
2710 2011-04-20 17:45:55 <tcoppi> http://bitcoincharts.com
2711 2011-04-20 17:46:12 <purplezky> http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/mtgoxUSD.html
2712 2011-04-20 17:48:08 m00p has joined
2713 2011-04-20 17:49:03 <TD> wow, bitdollar is pretty nuts
2714 2011-04-20 17:49:07 <TD> he really did reimplement the whole thing
2715 2011-04-20 17:49:45 <TD> hrm ok maybe not
2716 2011-04-20 17:49:50 <ArtForz> ?
2717 2011-04-20 17:50:09 <gavinandresen> ?
2718 2011-04-20 17:50:24 <TD> that's still a ton of code
2719 2011-04-20 17:50:33 <TD> http://www.bitdollar.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2
2720 2011-04-20 17:50:48 <TD> check out chain.cpp!
2721 2011-04-20 17:50:59 sethsethseth has joined
2722 2011-04-20 17:52:28 sethsethseth__ has joined
2723 2011-04-20 17:52:59 sethsethseth_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2724 2011-04-20 17:53:02 <TD> it doesn't implement the scripting language
2725 2011-04-20 17:53:11 <TD> looks kind of like bitcoinj actually, but in c++
2726 2011-04-20 17:53:17 <purplezky> hmm but it does use bitcoin namespace
2727 2011-04-20 17:53:18 TD has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2728 2011-04-20 17:53:41 TD has joined
2729 2011-04-20 17:53:46 <gavinandresen> Very cool.
2730 2011-04-20 17:54:32 <ezl> what IS bitdollar?
2731 2011-04-20 17:54:53 <gavinandresen> looks like a qt re-implementation of bitcoin
2732 2011-04-20 17:54:57 <TD> yeah
2733 2011-04-20 17:54:59 <purplezky> it seem to be a bitcoin clone even the source is located in a "/src/bitcoin/"
2734 2011-04-20 17:55:02 <TD> at least parts of it
2735 2011-04-20 17:55:13 <TD> looks like it has an encrypted wallet too
2736 2011-04-20 17:55:52 sethsethseth has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2737 2011-04-20 17:58:02 <topi`> who's the author and what's his motivation?
2738 2011-04-20 17:58:14 <TD> it has no unit tests though :(
2739 2011-04-20 17:58:21 <TD>  * Bitdollar - P2P currency client
2740 2011-04-20 17:58:22 <TD>  * by Thomas Le Beller <tom@bitdollar.org>
2741 2011-04-20 17:59:02 <TD> just building a better client i guess
2742 2011-04-20 17:59:45 <B0g4r7> bitdollar lol
2743 2011-04-20 17:59:54 <B0g4r7> That doesn't roll off the tongue one bit.
2744 2011-04-20 18:00:00 <B0g4r7> (no pun intended)
2745 2011-04-20 18:00:05 Speeder has joined
2746 2011-04-20 18:00:45 <gavinandresen> hmm, I don't see -testnet support in it...
2747 2011-04-20 18:00:50 <TD> indeed
2748 2011-04-20 18:01:05 <TD> it looks like he made a basic attempt at mining
2749 2011-04-20 18:01:08 <TD> but with very incomplete code
2750 2011-04-20 18:01:49 <TD> anyway, home time
2751 2011-04-20 18:01:55 TD is now known as TD[gone]
2752 2011-04-20 18:04:51 Construct has joined
2753 2011-04-20 18:06:46 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2754 2011-04-20 18:08:36 sabalaba has joined
2755 2011-04-20 18:09:58 Jkessler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2756 2011-04-20 18:10:06 Jkessler has joined
2757 2011-04-20 18:10:42 amiller has joined
2758 2011-04-20 18:14:40 BlueMatt has joined
2759 2011-04-20 18:15:24 tenach has joined
2760 2011-04-20 18:15:24 tenach has quit (Changing host)
2761 2011-04-20 18:15:24 tenach has joined
2762 2011-04-20 18:15:57 larsivi has joined
2763 2011-04-20 18:19:07 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2764 2011-04-20 18:22:01 Lazymeerkat has joined
2765 2011-04-20 18:27:56  has joined
2766 2011-04-20 18:29:31 trifon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2767 2011-04-20 18:30:03 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2768 2011-04-20 18:32:57 Lobster_Man has joined
2769 2011-04-20 18:33:25 LobsterMan has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2770 2011-04-20 18:33:41  has quit (Netsniper|!~kvirc@adsl-69-208-129-251.dsl.ipltin.ameritech.net|Quit: Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. -Emma Goldman)
2771 2011-04-20 18:34:16 skreuzer has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2772 2011-04-20 18:36:11 skeledrew has joined
2773 2011-04-20 18:37:42 Zkek has joined
2774 2011-04-20 18:39:25 skreuzer has joined
2775 2011-04-20 18:41:01 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2776 2011-04-20 18:41:44 <sethsethseth__> wait what is this bitdollar thing
2777 2011-04-20 18:41:54 <sethsethseth__> i dont see a thread about it on bitcoin forum
2778 2011-04-20 18:42:18 <skreuzer> with the bitcoin rpc api, is there any way to see the sending address of a transaction?
2779 2011-04-20 18:42:52 <purplezky> sethsethseth__: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6111.0
2780 2011-04-20 18:43:02 <tcatm> skreuzer: nope
2781 2011-04-20 18:43:25 <BlueMatt> purplezky: and what is it?
2782 2011-04-20 18:44:09 <purplezky> BlueMatt: somebody rewrote a basic bitcoin client in qt
2783 2011-04-20 18:44:30 <skreuzer> tcatm: is there any way i can retrieve that information?
2784 2011-04-20 18:44:40 <BlueMatt> purplezky: nice
2785 2011-04-20 18:45:58 <tcatm> skreuzer: not really..
2786 2011-04-20 18:46:02 skeledrew has joined
2787 2011-04-20 18:46:38 <tcatm> skreuzer: depends on what you want to do with that information. usually, it's not very useful as the sending address is chosen randomly
2788 2011-04-20 18:46:42 <purplezky> skreuzer: you can lookup where the coins used for input have been received before that
2789 2011-04-20 18:47:09 <skreuzer> well, what i am interested in doing is have an account that I receive in
2790 2011-04-20 18:47:15 <BlueMatt> blockexplorer if you want to do it manually, scripted well have fun
2791 2011-04-20 18:47:30 <skreuzer> and when someone sends btc to that account, i would like to be able to retrieve the senders address
2792 2011-04-20 18:47:32 <purplezky> but that is not the sendind address
2793 2011-04-20 18:47:58 <purplezky> skreuzer: create an address for each sender
2794 2011-04-20 18:48:04 <purplezky> then you can discern them
2795 2011-04-20 18:49:58 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rca58848 / (setup.nsi doc/README doc/README_windows.txt):
2796 2011-04-20 18:49:58 <CIA-89> bitcoin: More 0.3.21 release prep
2797 2011-04-20 18:49:58 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Bump version number in Windows installer file
2798 2011-04-20 18:49:58 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Update READMEs. - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ca5884873e36e5ca7453052a34ddea3691b95694
2799 2011-04-20 18:51:27 skyewm has joined
2800 2011-04-20 18:52:21 <gat3way> OK looks like a new opensource miner will soon be available :)
2801 2011-04-20 18:52:23 <gat3way> http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5875/miner1.png
2802 2011-04-20 18:53:16 <sethsethseth__> whats new in 3.21?
2803 2011-04-20 18:53:21 <netxshare> URI?
2804 2011-04-20 18:53:41 <BlueMatt> netxshare: not yet
2805 2011-04-20 18:53:46 <BlueMatt> probably not till .22
2806 2011-04-20 18:53:57 <BlueMatt> sethsethseth__: upnp, copy-wallet sanity checks
2807 2011-04-20 18:53:59 <netxshare> oh
2808 2011-04-20 18:54:22 <BlueMatt> some other fixes, check the commit logs
2809 2011-04-20 18:55:06 <netxshare> wonder if they will add a update feature to bitcoin itself
2810 2011-04-20 18:55:09 <BlueMatt> gat3way: http://sourceforge.net/projects/hashkill/
2811 2011-04-20 18:55:38 skeledrew1 has joined
2812 2011-04-20 18:55:53 <BlueMatt> netxshare: you mean auto-update, then no
2813 2011-04-20 18:55:56 <gat3way> yeah, I am developing that buggy shit
2814 2011-04-20 18:56:24 <BlueMatt> gat3way: oh, you are developing it...ok
2815 2011-04-20 18:56:34 <netxshare> no, just a notify that there is a new version
2816 2011-04-20 18:56:49 <netxshare> or a then to check if there is a new version
2817 2011-04-20 18:56:56 <netxshare> or a thing*
2818 2011-04-20 18:57:01 <purplezky> sethsethseth__: : high precision transactions :)
2819 2011-04-20 18:57:03 <BlueMatt> netxshare: no, there is no such commit/feature/pull/patch afaik
2820 2011-04-20 18:58:03 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2821 2011-04-20 18:58:06 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2822 2011-04-20 18:58:40 danbri has joined
2823 2011-04-20 19:01:56 taco_the_paco has joined
2824 2011-04-20 19:03:28 TD has joined
2825 2011-04-20 19:04:42 EPiSKiNG has quit ()
2826 2011-04-20 19:04:49 <gat3way> btw is there some effort to standartize the user info JSON API for pools?
2827 2011-04-20 19:04:58 <gat3way> looks like each pool implements it its own way
2828 2011-04-20 19:05:53 <gat3way> there is no universal way to get my earnings that works for all pools
2829 2011-04-20 19:06:40 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bitcoinuri * rd32bebafd41f bitcoind-personal/ (makefile.unix wxipcclient.cpp wxipcserver.cpp): Boost-based IPC for bitcoin: URI support http://tinyurl.com/4xoh9xs
2830 2011-04-20 19:07:45 <netxshare> rpc-miner would just dump the data from the link you put in
2831 2011-04-20 19:09:30 <gat3way> it is correct, however
2832 2011-04-20 19:10:02 <sethsethseth__> is there an installer for 3.21?
2833 2011-04-20 19:10:05 <gat3way> for example with mining.bitcoin.cz you have a token id
2834 2011-04-20 19:10:11 <netxshare> yeah
2835 2011-04-20 19:10:42 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2836 2011-04-20 19:10:47 <netxshare> poclbm-gui has each pool setup where it asks for username/password or other info
2837 2011-04-20 19:11:01 <netxshare> for example that pool has data displayed on earnings on it
2838 2011-04-20 19:11:08 <netxshare> but it asks for the token
2839 2011-04-20 19:11:21 molecular has joined
2840 2011-04-20 19:11:30 <BlueMatt> sethsethseth__: just on win32
2841 2011-04-20 19:11:39 <B0g4r7> Do you guys think an AS3 library to interface with the bitcoin JSON API would be a useful thing?
2842 2011-04-20 19:11:40 <netxshare> a set standard would be nice, but I do not see that going down unless there is a open source pool
2843 2011-04-20 19:12:00 <netxshare> at least open source backend I should say
2844 2011-04-20 19:12:47 <netxshare> I liked the user on the forums idea of dropping json and using TCP
2845 2011-04-20 19:12:52 <netxshare> he wrote a server and everything for it
2846 2011-04-20 19:13:15 <B0g4r7> Uh, aren't those prococols on different layers?
2847 2011-04-20 19:13:31 <BlueMatt> json uses tcp
2848 2011-04-20 19:13:33 <BlueMatt> and http
2849 2011-04-20 19:13:33 <B0g4r7> The existing JSON interface goes over a TCP connection.
2850 2011-04-20 19:13:56 <netxshare> yeah but it is using HTTP
2851 2011-04-20 19:14:06 <B0g4r7> yes
2852 2011-04-20 19:14:21 <netxshare> so it's sending a ton of extra data
2853 2011-04-20 19:14:32 <BlueMatt> not that much
2854 2011-04-20 19:14:32 <B0g4r7> Not a ton really.
2855 2011-04-20 19:14:35 <BlueMatt> plus that isnt the problem
2856 2011-04-20 19:14:55 <BlueMatt> the problem is the general structure of polling, which it shouldnt really be doing for mining
2857 2011-04-20 19:15:03 <BlueMatt> also, netxshare care to provide a link?
2858 2011-04-20 19:15:13 <netxshare> yeah looking for it now
2859 2011-04-20 19:15:40 <netxshare> it's a good post
2860 2011-04-20 19:16:10 <BlueMatt> was it luke-jr's?
2861 2011-04-20 19:16:15 <netxshare> no
2862 2011-04-20 19:16:19 <netxshare> I don't think so
2863 2011-04-20 19:16:39 <netxshare> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3493.0
2864 2011-04-20 19:17:17 <netxshare> it's old
2865 2011-04-20 19:17:26 <BlueMatt> oh thats just pools though
2866 2011-04-20 19:17:49 <BlueMatt> "This is not intended to replace JSON-RPC API, but to supplement it for specific use cases."
2867 2011-04-20 19:18:12 <netxshare> yeah
2868 2011-04-20 19:18:14 <netxshare> that's all I wanted
2869 2011-04-20 19:18:30 <netxshare> using it for json for a pool
2870 2011-04-20 19:18:31 <BlueMatt> its just for mining and there have been some changes already there
2871 2011-04-20 19:18:35 <netxshare> is a lot of extra bw
2872 2011-04-20 19:18:41 <netxshare> when you have 400-500 users
2873 2011-04-20 19:18:41 <B0g4r7> I am all in favor of using compression on the the HTTP message body, as allowed by HTTP.
2874 2011-04-20 19:18:43 <BlueMatt> there is already long-pooling which miners do
2875 2011-04-20 19:18:57 <BlueMatt> netxshare: not, still not a log of bw
2876 2011-04-20 19:19:07 <BlueMatt> the problem is load not bw
2877 2011-04-20 19:19:23 <BlueMatt> which is largely dealt with by long-polling
2878 2011-04-20 19:19:44 <netxshare> load would be a huge issue as well
2879 2011-04-20 19:19:55 <B0g4r7> Really what uses the most bw is "nervous" miners that request a new work unit every 5 seconds in fear of working on a stale one.
2880 2011-04-20 19:19:56 taco_the_paco has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2881 2011-04-20 19:20:06 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2882 2011-04-20 19:20:09 <BlueMatt> no miners do that
2883 2011-04-20 19:20:15 <netxshare> dang
2884 2011-04-20 19:20:17 <BlueMatt> unless it is specifically modified for that reason
2885 2011-04-20 19:20:31 <B0g4r7> I installed the new poclbm and bitcoind with that "long polling" feature, and it still makes a request every 5 seconds.
2886 2011-04-20 19:20:51 <BlueMatt> "mostly dealt with" not fixed
2887 2011-04-20 19:20:55 <BlueMatt> it could still be made better
2888 2011-04-20 19:21:02 m00p has joined
2889 2011-04-20 19:21:10 <gat3way> I have a question
2890 2011-04-20 19:21:19 <gat3way> supposedly I have 4 GPUs
2891 2011-04-20 19:21:23 <BlueMatt> gat3way: I have many questions
2892 2011-04-20 19:21:37 <netxshare> you don't know if you do?
2893 2011-04-20 19:21:38 <B0g4r7> IOW, there are abunduant opportunities for optimizing bandwidth consumption without abandoning standards.
2894 2011-04-20 19:22:12 <gat3way> does it matter if I divide the keyspace and work over a single getwork block
2895 2011-04-20 19:23:29 <gat3way> or issue getworks independently per gpu
2896 2011-04-20 19:23:38 <BlueMatt> gat3way: shouldnt matter
2897 2011-04-20 19:24:01 <B0g4r7> Do you plan to "use up nonce" on each work unit?
2898 2011-04-20 19:24:12 <gat3way> the blocks contain something like a timestamp I guess so chances are that they would work over the same dataset actually?
2899 2011-04-20 19:24:39 <gat3way> or I am wrong on that
2900 2011-04-20 19:24:53 <BlueMatt> what do you mean?
2901 2011-04-20 19:24:55 <B0g4r7> If you do, it wouldn't really hurt anything to get a work unit per thread.
2902 2011-04-20 19:25:32 <gat3way> actually I don't really know what the first 3 words in the first hash operations are and how exactly are they generated, I take them for granted
2903 2011-04-20 19:25:35 <BlueMatt> it doesnt really matter what you do, either way it works.  As long as you search all nonces
2904 2011-04-20 19:25:43 <gat3way> ok thanks
2905 2011-04-20 19:26:10 <BlueMatt> if you dont, then better to get one getwork across all threads to make less getworks in total
2906 2011-04-20 19:26:16 <B0g4r7> I would also recommend maintaining a 1-deep buffer of new work units, so that you can immediately feed it to the thread when it's ready for one.
2907 2011-04-20 19:26:29 <netxshare> BlueMatt: I have not tired this yet, but I should be able to put a livecd/usb and run it with out a harddrive right?
2908 2011-04-20 19:26:33 <gat3way> B0g4r7: I am considering that as well
2909 2011-04-20 19:26:34 <B0g4r7> Rather than making the miner thread wait on the network operation to fetch a new unit.
2910 2011-04-20 19:27:20 <BlueMatt> netxshare: run what?
2911 2011-04-20 19:27:33 <netxshare> linuxdistro
2912 2011-04-20 19:27:34 <B0g4r7> Of course any time "long polling" indicates a new block, all operations can cease and new work units be fetched.
2913 2011-04-20 19:27:36 <netxshare> on a live cd
2914 2011-04-20 19:27:39 <BlueMatt> yea of course
2915 2011-04-20 19:27:44 <netxshare> that's what I thought
2916 2011-04-20 19:27:57 <BlueMatt> what did that have to do with the previous discussion?
2917 2011-04-20 19:27:59 <B0g4r7> netxshare, sure.
2918 2011-04-20 19:28:00 <netxshare> did not for see a issue
2919 2011-04-20 19:28:03 <BlueMatt> or was that just a random question
2920 2011-04-20 19:28:10 <netxshare> random question
2921 2011-04-20 19:28:14 <BlueMatt> oh, ok
2922 2011-04-20 19:28:26 <netxshare> I figured it would be cheaper to use a usb key
2923 2011-04-20 19:28:30 <netxshare> no cdrom/hard drive
2924 2011-04-20 19:28:33 <B0g4r7> Are you gonna run that distro on PCs ate Wal-Mart?
2925 2011-04-20 19:28:36 <netxshare> for my mining rigs
2926 2011-04-20 19:28:38 <B0g4r7> And the Apple Store
2927 2011-04-20 19:28:39 <B0g4r7> lol
2928 2011-04-20 19:28:51 <BlueMatt> not gonna get very far there
2929 2011-04-20 19:28:59 <B0g4r7> What would be slick is a "net install" for an existing Live distro.
2930 2011-04-20 19:29:03 <netxshare> yeah
2931 2011-04-20 19:29:04 <netxshare> pxe
2932 2011-04-20 19:29:07 <netxshare> that's my other idea
2933 2011-04-20 19:29:12 <netxshare> but
2934 2011-04-20 19:29:14 <netxshare> need a drive
2935 2011-04-20 19:29:22 <BlueMatt> though you can get linux distros where you can run from ram so boot off usb stick and run without the stick in
2936 2011-04-20 19:29:34 <netxshare> yeah
2937 2011-04-20 19:29:37 <B0g4r7> So you can boot a stock Live CD, and then "wget http://mydomain/install_bc.sh; sh install_bs.sh"
2938 2011-04-20 19:29:50 <B0g4r7> No custom boot media needed.
2939 2011-04-20 19:29:50 <netxshare> then have them auto run a script to run a miner
2940 2011-04-20 19:29:53 <BlueMatt> or persistent distro
2941 2011-04-20 19:29:56 <netxshare> which will connect to my pool server
2942 2011-04-20 19:30:29 <BlueMatt> make a persistent flash drive copy which has miner.sh set to startup and load it into ram :)
2943 2011-04-20 19:30:50 <netxshare> that's the goal
2944 2011-04-20 19:31:00 <netxshare> do everything on boot in ram
2945 2011-04-20 19:31:10 <BlueMatt> simple enough
2946 2011-04-20 19:31:18 <netxshare> yeah
2947 2011-04-20 19:31:26 <netxshare> and dumb down the packages
2948 2011-04-20 19:31:30 <netxshare> so it only has what I need
2949 2011-04-20 19:31:36 <BlueMatt> dsl
2950 2011-04-20 19:31:38 <netxshare> yep
2951 2011-04-20 19:31:43 <netxshare> damn small :D
2952 2011-04-20 19:31:55 sethsethseth__ has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
2953 2011-04-20 19:32:06 <netxshare> no reason for x11
2954 2011-04-20 19:32:17 <netxshare> it should run with out it
2955 2011-04-20 19:32:18 <BlueMatt> no, gpu miners
2956 2011-04-20 19:32:25 <BlueMatt> you should run those too
2957 2011-04-20 19:32:45 <BlueMatt> esp if you are looking at apple-store like machines which have some nice gpus
2958 2011-04-20 19:32:50 <BlueMatt> or best buys etc
2959 2011-04-20 19:32:57 <netxshare> I am not running at stores
2960 2011-04-20 19:33:00 <BlueMatt> also, getting a mac to boot off a flashdrive is not easy...
2961 2011-04-20 19:33:02 <netxshare> I am building 12 rigs
2962 2011-04-20 19:33:08 <BlueMatt> oh
2963 2011-04-20 19:33:09 <BlueMatt> ok
2964 2011-04-20 19:33:16 <BlueMatt> then you are doing gpu mining right?
2965 2011-04-20 19:33:20 <netxshare> yeah
2966 2011-04-20 19:33:30 <BlueMatt> so you need x11
2967 2011-04-20 19:33:36 <netxshare> the server
2968 2011-04-20 19:33:46 <netxshare> I don't need the display running
2969 2011-04-20 19:34:07 <netxshare> or do I?
2970 2011-04-20 19:34:12 <netxshare> I have not tried mining on linux yet
2971 2011-04-20 19:34:20 <BlueMatt> no the ati/nvidia drivers need a valid DISPLAY for mining
2972 2011-04-20 19:34:25 <netxshare> ah
2973 2011-04-20 19:34:27 <netxshare> oh okay
2974 2011-04-20 19:34:30 <netxshare> not that big of a deal
2975 2011-04-20 19:34:34 <BlueMatt> not a real requirement, but the drivers suck like that
2976 2011-04-20 19:35:46 <netxshare> newegg is still out of the xfx 6990
2977 2011-04-20 19:36:11 <netxshare> oh yeah how much ram you think I should put in each system
2978 2011-04-20 19:36:13 <netxshare> 4gb enough
2979 2011-04-20 19:36:21 <B0g4r7> Do you need a physical display attached?
2980 2011-04-20 19:36:24 <BlueMatt> 2gb enough
2981 2011-04-20 19:36:27 <BlueMatt> 1gb is fine too
2982 2011-04-20 19:36:27 <netxshare> oh nice
2983 2011-04-20 19:36:44 <BlueMatt> just need enough to load dsl into mem
2984 2011-04-20 19:36:51 <netxshare> yeah
2985 2011-04-20 19:36:58 <BlueMatt> which is almost nothing
2986 2011-04-20 19:37:05 <BlueMatt> it is, after all, damn small
2987 2011-04-20 19:37:31 <B0g4r7> Yeah, I don't see why these things couldn't run on even 64MB of ram or less.
2988 2011-04-20 19:37:41 sabalaba has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2989 2011-04-20 19:37:44 <B0g4r7> That used to be a lot.
2990 2011-04-20 19:38:04 <BlueMatt> you could if he didnt want to run dsl from ram
2991 2011-04-20 19:38:12 <B0g4r7> oh
2992 2011-04-20 19:38:17 <netxshare> it's cheaper not need a hard drive
2993 2011-04-20 19:38:23 <B0g4r7> Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
2994 2011-04-20 19:38:37 <netxshare> I thought about the PXE
2995 2011-04-20 19:38:37 <B0g4r7> The block chain is gonna use a few hundred megs.
2996 2011-04-20 19:38:45 <netxshare> I have done that before
2997 2011-04-20 19:38:59 <BlueMatt> I hope he is using rpc clients to a central bitcoind
2998 2011-04-20 19:39:00 <B0g4r7> ...I guess it wouldn't need to download the chain tho if it's just a miner.
2999 2011-04-20 19:39:00 <netxshare> 5 computers boot same image off pxe
3000 2011-04-20 19:39:12 <BlueMatt> could do that
3001 2011-04-20 19:39:14 <netxshare> yes
3002 2011-04-20 19:39:27 <netxshare> I am not using bitcoind on each system
3003 2011-04-20 19:39:29 <netxshare> just 1 main one
3004 2011-04-20 19:39:37 <netxshare> which will have a harddrive
3005 2011-04-20 19:39:41 <netxshare> and autoback up of the wallet
3006 2011-04-20 19:39:41 <BlueMatt> that is the way to do it
3007 2011-04-20 19:39:49 EPiSKiNG has joined
3008 2011-04-20 19:40:10 <netxshare> this will also reduce the amount of internet traffic I use
3009 2011-04-20 19:40:14 <netxshare> for bitcoin
3010 2011-04-20 19:40:28 <BlueMatt> better for the network
3011 2011-04-20 19:40:39 <BlueMatt> that is, less clients who dont have proper port forwarding
3012 2011-04-20 19:40:47 <netxshare> yeah
3013 2011-04-20 19:41:13 <netxshare> still debating the 6990 vs 5970
3014 2011-04-20 19:41:21 <netxshare> it seems better to still go 5970s used
3015 2011-04-20 19:41:36 <netxshare> just hard to find and have to risk of an issue with a used card
3016 2011-04-20 19:42:04 <EPiSKiNG> i'm not a big fan of the 5970
3017 2011-04-20 19:42:08 <netxshare> why is that?
3018 2011-04-20 19:42:09 <EPiSKiNG> i'd rather get 2 5870s
3019 2011-04-20 19:42:14 <EPiSKiNG> they're finicky
3020 2011-04-20 19:42:23 <netxshare> what does 1 5870 do?
3021 2011-04-20 19:42:27 <EPiSKiNG> do you guys remember the old ATI Rage Fury MAXX?
3022 2011-04-20 19:42:28 <netxshare> hash wise
3023 2011-04-20 19:42:32 <EPiSKiNG> 2 GPU card back in the day
3024 2011-04-20 19:42:38 <EPiSKiNG> riddled with problems
3025 2011-04-20 19:42:44 <netxshare> I vagly remember it
3026 2011-04-20 19:42:56 <EPiSKiNG> Like, on one of my 5970, one of the GPUs wont overclock
3027 2011-04-20 19:42:59 <EPiSKiNG> the other 3 will
3028 2011-04-20 19:43:04 <EPiSKiNG> but the 4th one just never changes
3029 2011-04-20 19:43:07 <netxshare> ouch
3030 2011-04-20 19:43:18 <EPiSKiNG> my 5870 gets ~370MH/s
3031 2011-04-20 19:43:22 <EPiSKiNG> overclocked
3032 2011-04-20 19:43:35 <EPiSKiNG> and I had problems getting the crossfire thing enabled
3033 2011-04-20 19:43:55 <EPiSKiNG> the 5970 only works with gui-miner when i have crossfire enabled
3034 2011-04-20 19:43:56 <netxshare> well I dont think I need crossfire
3035 2011-04-20 19:44:14 <netxshare> they should mine with out it
3036 2011-04-20 19:44:22 <EPiSKiNG> the 5970 itself is a crossfire device
3037 2011-04-20 19:44:30 <EPiSKiNG> it's basicly 2 5870s in one card
3038 2011-04-20 19:44:51 <EPiSKiNG> and 2 5870s cost less then 1 5970
3039 2011-04-20 19:45:03 <netxshare> well
3040 2011-04-20 19:45:05 <netxshare> at that route
3041 2011-04-20 19:45:10 <netxshare> I think going 6970's
3042 2011-04-20 19:45:11 <netxshare> is cheaper
3043 2011-04-20 19:45:17 <EPiSKiNG> yeah, that may be true
3044 2011-04-20 19:45:24 <EPiSKiNG> i haven't looked into the 6 series
3045 2011-04-20 19:45:37 <netxshare> but I am only putting 2 cards per system
3046 2011-04-20 19:45:44 <netxshare> it seems to be cheaper that way
3047 2011-04-20 19:46:01 <EPiSKiNG> if i were doing it again, i'd get a huge atx case
3048 2011-04-20 19:46:11 <EPiSKiNG> with one of those mobos that will support 4 GPUs
3049 2011-04-20 19:46:21 <netxshare> I have these retail store display cases
3050 2011-04-20 19:46:28 <netxshare> that would fit like six systems in
3051 2011-04-20 19:46:37 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3052 2011-04-20 19:46:43 <EPiSKiNG> ??  got a photo?
3053 2011-04-20 19:46:52 <netxshare> not off hand
3054 2011-04-20 19:47:15 <netxshare> it's basicly a tall box made of wood and glass
3055 2011-04-20 19:47:18 eternal1 has joined
3056 2011-04-20 19:47:19 <EPiSKiNG> oh
3057 2011-04-20 19:47:28 <netxshare> setup some fans on it
3058 2011-04-20 19:47:30 <netxshare> and bam done
3059 2011-04-20 19:47:36 <EPiSKiNG> like http://www.achievedisplay.com/prodimages/display-case-DWSGCX4.gif
3060 2011-04-20 19:47:46 <netxshare> kinda
3061 2011-04-20 19:47:56 <EPiSKiNG> that's cool
3062 2011-04-20 19:48:07 <EPiSKiNG> what are you gonna do for power?
3063 2011-04-20 19:48:20 <EPiSKiNG> brb
3064 2011-04-20 19:48:34 <netxshare> buy some 1000watt psus
3065 2011-04-20 19:48:58 <ArtForz> for dual 6970s? overkill much?
3066 2011-04-20 19:49:31 <netxshare> for those yes
3067 2011-04-20 19:49:32 <netxshare> but
3068 2011-04-20 19:49:37 <netxshare> 6990s or 5970s?
3069 2011-04-20 19:50:00 <ArtForz> yeah, for 6990s definitely a good idea
3070 2011-04-20 19:50:31 <netxshare> I am not sure what the 5970 really uses
3071 2011-04-20 19:50:38 <ArtForz> not too much
3072 2011-04-20 19:50:52 <netxshare> 850watt for two would do it?
3073 2011-04-20 19:51:19 <ArtForz> 5970 ~290W OCed at stock V
3074 2011-04-20 19:51:40 <netxshare> nvidia cards must just use a ton of power
3075 2011-04-20 19:51:48 <netxshare> I think my 570 uses 400w
3076 2011-04-20 19:51:57 Speeder has quit (Quit: Speeder)
3077 2011-04-20 19:52:36 <ArtForz> yeah, especially the highly oced 570s are power hogs
3078 2011-04-20 19:52:58 <netxshare> yeah
3079 2011-04-20 19:53:04 <netxshare> I have the evga superclocked
3080 2011-04-20 19:53:20 <ArtForz> yeah, those are north of a stock 580
3081 2011-04-20 19:53:52 <netxshare> it does great
3082 2011-04-20 19:54:00 <netxshare> it's not far off from the 580
3083 2011-04-20 19:54:04 <netxshare> and much cheaper
3084 2011-04-20 19:54:11 <ArtForz> yep
3085 2011-04-20 19:54:12 <doublec> mizerydearia: blocks have been generated, yes
3086 2011-04-20 19:54:28 <doublec> mizerydearia: I see about 1-2 blocks an hour being created
3087 2011-04-20 19:54:44 <ArtForz> the 2nd bin GPUs usually have really good price/perf
3088 2011-04-20 19:55:42 <netxshare> Mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130290 CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103903 Ram: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148150 = miner system
3089 2011-04-20 19:55:49 <netxshare> that's a build I am looking at right now
3090 2011-04-20 19:55:55 <netxshare> I am not sure about the motherboard tho
3091 2011-04-20 19:56:28 <netxshare> I just selected it because it was cheap
3092 2011-04-20 19:56:35 <ArtForz> kinda expensive, those were on sale for like $60 a while ago
3093 2011-04-20 19:56:46 gat3way has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3094 2011-04-20 19:56:53 zyb has joined
3095 2011-04-20 19:57:02 <netxshare> the other option was ASRock
3096 2011-04-20 19:57:07 <ArtForz> eww
3097 2011-04-20 19:57:09 <netxshare> yeah
3098 2011-04-20 19:57:43 <ArtForz> oh, and one thing, lots of board BIOSes of boards with onboard GPUs can't deal with 2 dual-gpu cards
3099 2011-04-20 19:57:54 <ArtForz> for cpu I'd just use the sempron 140
3100 2011-04-20 19:58:28 <netxshare> okay
3101 2011-04-20 19:58:38 <ArtForz> cheap and fast enough
3102 2011-04-20 19:58:45 <netxshare> that's crappy
3103 2011-04-20 19:58:48 <netxshare> about the bios
3104 2011-04-20 19:58:56 <ArtForz> yeah
3105 2011-04-20 19:59:17 <ArtForz> single dual gpu card works fine, dual + single works, too, single+dual - nope, dual+dual - nope
3106 2011-04-20 19:59:24 <B0g4r7> I have a 1200w for 2 5970s.
3107 2011-04-20 19:59:34 <B0g4r7> The system draws about 630w from the wall.
3108 2011-04-20 19:59:42 <B0g4r7> I'm gonna add a third 5970 soon.
3109 2011-04-20 19:59:46 <netxshare> now that's a huge psu
3110 2011-04-20 20:00:01 <B0g4r7> Yeah, it even comes with a special power cable with a bigger connector.
3111 2011-04-20 20:00:20 <midnightmagic> is that a corsair? i'm really loving corsair lately
3112 2011-04-20 20:00:28 <B0g4r7> Antec.
3113 2011-04-20 20:00:30 <netxshare> maybe I should look at the forums and see what motherboards people have used
3114 2011-04-20 20:00:39 <netxshare> the only problem is a lot of them are not made any more
3115 2011-04-20 20:00:40 <netxshare> lol
3116 2011-04-20 20:00:44 <ArtForz> iirc theres a vid of a crazy guy running quad 5970s on a antec quattro 1200
3117 2011-04-20 20:01:06 <B0g4r7> I'm gonna have to run the MB tray outside of the case to have room for the third card.
3118 2011-04-20 20:01:28 <netxshare> why does windows not support more then 4 gpu's?
3119 2011-04-20 20:01:34 khalahan has joined
3120 2011-04-20 20:01:39 <ArtForz> ATI drivers
3121 2011-04-20 20:01:50 <netxshare> but in linux they support 8?
3122 2011-04-20 20:01:51 <B0g4r7> I think you can mine on more than 4 in Windows.
3123 2011-04-20 20:01:52 <ArtForz> yep
3124 2011-04-20 20:02:00 <B0g4r7> It just won't use more than 4 for gaming/
3125 2011-04-20 20:02:06 <purplezky> so they use 2 bits to address the gpu lol
3126 2011-04-20 20:02:07 <netxshare> are you using the open source ones or the ones from ATI?
3127 2011-04-20 20:02:08 <ArtForz> well, iirc a few ppl tried it, no go
3128 2011-04-20 20:02:18 <B0g4r7> ohya?
3129 2011-04-20 20:02:26 <B0g4r7> I guess I'll be finding out firsthand soon.
3130 2011-04-20 20:02:32 <ArtForz> yep
3131 2011-04-20 20:02:48 <ArtForz> mrb tried 10 gpus on linux, segfaulted
3132 2011-04-20 20:02:54 <netxshare> haha
3133 2011-04-20 20:02:54 <ArtForz> 8 works
3134 2011-04-20 20:02:58 <B0g4r7> heh
3135 2011-04-20 20:03:09 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3136 2011-04-20 20:03:09 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3137 2011-04-20 20:03:14 <netxshare> did you see that cell phone ease dropping system
3138 2011-04-20 20:03:17 <netxshare> with like 480 gpus
3139 2011-04-20 20:03:20 <B0g4r7> Ppl really should consider scalability a bit more IMO.
3140 2011-04-20 20:03:29 <ArtForz> why?
3141 2011-04-20 20:03:42 <ArtForz> scalability = add more cheap boxes
3142 2011-04-20 20:03:55 <midnightmagic> that's how google scales.
3143 2011-04-20 20:03:56 <ArtForz> pretty damn scalable, ask google ;)
3144 2011-04-20 20:04:05 <midnightmagic> \o
3145 2011-04-20 20:04:10 gat3way has joined
3146 2011-04-20 20:04:22 <netxshare> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138290 ooo biostar
3147 2011-04-20 20:04:23 <ArtForz> it's not like we need a fast interconnect or anything
3148 2011-04-20 20:04:23 <netxshare> !
3149 2011-04-20 20:04:31 <B0g4r7> Meh, there's no reason things should crash just because you have 6 gpus instead of 4, or 10 instead of 8.
3150 2011-04-20 20:05:00 <netxshare> wrong one
3151 2011-04-20 20:05:01 <B0g4r7> Sure, you can add more boxes.
3152 2011-04-20 20:05:50 <netxshare> I wonder if I would have better luck with a bios if it supproted 3 pciex
3153 2011-04-20 20:05:53 <netxshare> 16
3154 2011-04-20 20:07:30 <ArtForz> well, I suspect at least with linux you could "cheat" to have pretty much infinite GPUs in a single system
3155 2011-04-20 20:07:44 <ArtForz> VM w/ PCI passthrough
3156 2011-04-20 20:07:50 <netxshare> well it seems 69 is as cheap as it comes
3157 2011-04-20 20:08:13 <midnightmagic> EPiSKiNG: having done both the big-box/4 GPU and the "just sitting there on my desk with guts everywhere" on a dozen occasions now, I can tell you I will *never* do big-box ever again, for anything.
3158 2011-04-20 20:09:51 * netxshare will use a box fan to cool his gpus
3159 2011-04-20 20:09:59 amiller has joined
3160 2011-04-20 20:10:09 <netxshare> one on the top of the box
3161 2011-04-20 20:10:11 <netxshare> one on the side
3162 2011-04-20 20:10:15 <netxshare> suck in suck out
3163 2011-04-20 20:11:25 <midnightmagic> netxshare: vtx600 from here http://www.atmosphere.com/ is a really good fan, and only 120W. :-D
3164 2011-04-20 20:11:58 <midnightmagic> plus you can piggyback on the volume sales that .. "hydroponics" enthusiasts generate.
3165 2011-04-20 20:12:55 <netxshare> lol
3166 2011-04-20 20:13:28 <netxshare> anyone have a SSD
3167 2011-04-20 20:13:30 m00p has joined
3168 2011-04-20 20:13:59 <gjs278> netxshare I do
3169 2011-04-20 20:14:04 <netxshare> which one?
3170 2011-04-20 20:14:05 <gjs278> I have two f40's in raid0
3171 2011-04-20 20:14:09 <gjs278> corsair f40's
3172 2011-04-20 20:14:13 <midnightmagic> yeah I laughed too when I went into the store and told them what I wanted, and they replied with, "Well, wait, how many lights?" I had no idea at first what the hell they were talking about.
3173 2011-04-20 20:14:23 <netxshare> I forget which one I have
3174 2011-04-20 20:14:27 <netxshare> c300 128gb
3175 2011-04-20 20:14:29 <netxshare> that's it
3176 2011-04-20 20:14:34 <netxshare> I think
3177 2011-04-20 20:14:37 <netxshare> do you like yours?
3178 2011-04-20 20:14:40 <gjs278> yes
3179 2011-04-20 20:14:48 <gjs278> I don't use that much space at all
3180 2011-04-20 20:14:51 <gjs278> so all I care about is speed
3181 2011-04-20 20:14:55 <netxshare> mine is almost full
3182 2011-04-20 20:14:56 <netxshare> but
3183 2011-04-20 20:15:04 <netxshare> I installed a shit ton of games on it
3184 2011-04-20 20:15:06 <gjs278> I only have 80gb and I have windows and linux installed
3185 2011-04-20 20:15:07 <gjs278> yeah
3186 2011-04-20 20:15:10 <gjs278> games are killer
3187 2011-04-20 20:15:24 <netxshare> plus msvc2010 and msvc2008
3188 2011-04-20 20:15:27 <gjs278> when corsair releases force gt's at 40gb or 64gb, I'm going to raid 3 of them
3189 2011-04-20 20:15:32 <netxshare> only reason I had to get msvc2008
3190 2011-04-20 20:15:32 <gjs278> that will be enough space for me
3191 2011-04-20 20:15:42 <netxshare> is nvidia's compiler does not support 2010
3192 2011-04-20 20:15:44 <netxshare> but
3193 2011-04-20 20:15:45 <gjs278> lol
3194 2011-04-20 20:15:58 <netxshare> their new msvc ide addon does not support 08
3195 2011-04-20 20:16:03 <netxshare> so you have to use 2010
3196 2011-04-20 20:16:13 <netxshare> if you want to debug with their neat addon
3197 2011-04-20 20:19:14 <gjs278> netxshare what are you using for your controller
3198 2011-04-20 20:19:24 <gjs278> marvell controller?
3199 2011-04-20 20:22:10 xlogik has joined
3200 2011-04-20 20:23:11 eao has joined
3201 2011-04-20 20:25:06 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3202 2011-04-20 20:26:04 B0g4r7 has joined
3203 2011-04-20 20:29:22 lyspooner has joined
3204 2011-04-20 20:32:34 jroot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3205 2011-04-20 20:34:50 octarine has joined
3206 2011-04-20 20:35:19 <netxshare> oh
3207 2011-04-20 20:35:49 <netxshare> yeah I use um marvell 3.0
3208 2011-04-20 20:35:55 <netxshare> and the windows drivers
3209 2011-04-20 20:36:08 <netxshare> installing the marvell drivers pisses the drive off
3210 2011-04-20 20:36:34 ezl has joined
3211 2011-04-20 20:37:41 <gjs278> marvell controller is crap
3212 2011-04-20 20:37:47 <gjs278> it gets bottlenecked by raid0
3213 2011-04-20 20:38:08 <gjs278> with just sata 2 drives even
3214 2011-04-20 20:42:42 <lulzplzkthx> Does anyone know of an address I can access to get the time the last block was generated?
3215 2011-04-20 20:43:38 JStoker has quit (Quit: JStoker is gone :()
3216 2011-04-20 20:43:54 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: don't do that.
3217 2011-04-20 20:44:06 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I would have to agree with gavin that it is better that way
3218 2011-04-20 20:44:13 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it is non-complaint
3219 2011-04-20 20:44:20 <BlueMatt> oh you mean removing the tonal stuff?
3220 2011-04-20 20:44:24 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: and as I said, I expect to make all changes pre-merge
3221 2011-04-20 20:44:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what specifically are you referring to?
3222 2011-04-20 20:44:50 <purplezky> lulzplzkthx: to get the latest block number use http://blockexplorer.com/q/getblockcount
3223 2011-04-20 20:45:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: my change is to be merged to mainline as-is only, no changes until it's merged
3224 2011-04-20 20:45:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: what?
3225 2011-04-20 20:45:19 <purplezky> lulzplzkthx: to get time of a block use http://blockexplorer.com/b/$blocknumber
3226 2011-04-20 20:45:27 <BlueMatt> its mit youve lost the option to try that
3227 2011-04-20 20:45:29 bitcoiner has joined
3228 2011-04-20 20:45:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: not exactly.
3229 2011-04-20 20:46:11 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: anyway, which change are you talking about
3230 2011-04-20 20:46:16 <BlueMatt> there are about 3 I'm trying to do
3231 2011-04-20 20:46:24 <BlueMatt> and I'd love to discuss the change you object to
3232 2011-04-20 20:46:57 <luke-jr> anything that breaks compatibility
3233 2011-04-20 20:47:09 <BlueMatt> so you mean removing hex/tonal support?
3234 2011-04-20 20:47:24 <BlueMatt> because that is all I'm changing wrt the actual handling
3235 2011-04-20 20:47:35 <luke-jr> there is no tonal support, but hex is required
3236 2011-04-20 20:47:45 <BlueMatt> is hex != tonal?
3237 2011-04-20 20:47:50 <luke-jr> I intentionally didn't even propose tonal support back when the URI spec was being done
3238 2011-04-20 20:47:53 <luke-jr> hex != tonal
3239 2011-04-20 20:48:04 <BlueMatt> then what is the purpose of hex?
3240 2011-04-20 20:48:33 <gavinandresen> so we can send people 0xdead.beef bitcoins, of course
3241 2011-04-20 20:49:12 <luke-jr> so it's at least not a huge pain, and make them unnecessarily confusing, to convert TBC or other base-16 sizes to URIs
3242 2011-04-20 20:49:41 theymos has joined
3243 2011-04-20 20:50:01 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: why force people to write 73728 instead of x12X3 ?
3244 2011-04-20 20:50:05 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: IIRC jgarzik specifically opposed that and as do I.  There is no point, it is simply overcomplicating a standard which should remain fairly simple
3245 2011-04-20 20:50:26 <BlueMatt> how many people pay in hex?
3246 2011-04-20 20:50:32 <BlueMatt> or request money in hex?
3247 2011-04-20 20:50:38 * purplezky raises hand
3248 2011-04-20 20:50:39 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it should either be high-level or low-level, and high-level means hex support
3249 2011-04-20 20:50:41 <tcatm> Didn't we decide to use plain decimals/double just like JSON-RPC does yesterday?
3250 2011-04-20 20:50:51 <luke-jr> tcatm: no, you trolled, that's all
3251 2011-04-20 20:50:53 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: high-level != hex
3252 2011-04-20 20:50:55 <gjs278> we decided on full tonal support yesterday
3253 2011-04-20 20:50:55 <theymos> UukGoblin: The protocol allows for spent transactions to be forgotten by the entire network. It's not safe to rely on very old spent transactions to still be available.
3254 2011-04-20 20:51:15 <BlueMatt> tcatm: yea but then luke-jr changed what that means and then people rejected
3255 2011-04-20 20:51:28 <BlueMatt> gjs278: stop trolling
3256 2011-04-20 20:51:34 <gjs278> BlueMatt: stop raging
3257 2011-04-20 20:51:36 <jgarzik> nobody types hex values into mtgox.com, mybitcoin.com, or the bitcoin GUI
3258 2011-04-20 20:51:45 <purplezky> themos: define "very old"
3259 2011-04-20 20:51:51 <gavinandresen> ... and showing hex values would open up big opportunities for scammers
3260 2011-04-20 20:51:58 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I wasn't aware Bitcoin was a centralised monopoly
3261 2011-04-20 20:52:14 <gjs278> you guys are retarded. if you don't want tonal or hex support, take it out and merge it. you're the ones with git access. do as you want.
3262 2011-04-20 20:52:23 <gjs278> if someone's patch isn't perfect then patch the patch and tell him to fork off
3263 2011-04-20 20:52:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no its a democracy, currently only you want hex
3264 2011-04-20 20:52:46 <BlueMatt> gjs278: I am, however I'd like to discuss the issue before simply rejecting it entirely
3265 2011-04-20 20:52:54 <BlueMatt> gjs278: he might have a good reason to include it
3266 2011-04-20 20:52:58 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: an oppressive democracy will eventually fail
3267 2011-04-20 20:53:02 <gjs278> I think we've heard his reasons
3268 2011-04-20 20:53:06 <gjs278> so either it will be in or it won't
3269 2011-04-20 20:53:11 <gjs278> there's nothing left to discuss
3270 2011-04-20 20:53:19 <gjs278> he wants to pay in hex, you guys don't want to bother with it
3271 2011-04-20 20:53:28 <purplezky> what is the metric to figure out if a "very old" spent transaction will still be available ?
3272 2011-04-20 20:54:20 <jgarzik> purplezky: metric?  transactions are available or not, spent or not.  Binary conditions.
3273 2011-04-20 20:54:26 <ArtForz> if it's already spent... who cares?
3274 2011-04-20 20:54:32 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: unlike clients, a URI scheme needs to be compatible across ALL uses
3275 2011-04-20 20:54:34 <purplezky>  <@theymos> UukGoblin: The protocol allows for spent transactions to be forgotten by the entire network. It's not safe to rely on very old spent transactions to still be available.
3276 2011-04-20 20:54:56 <jgarzik> correct
3277 2011-04-20 20:55:04 <theymos> purplezky: It's not defined yet. Probably not more recent than 1000 blocks. It must be at a point where a reorg is guaranteed not to happen.
3278 2011-04-20 20:55:11 <lfm_> purpleyou mean how far back do we think we have to save all the details?
3279 2011-04-20 20:55:17 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: wxBitcoin can remain Decimal-only if the maintainers want, but not supporting all uses is a bug
3280 2011-04-20 20:55:31 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I agree, however I don't think it is as big a deal to convert hex into decimal
3281 2011-04-20 20:55:42 <purplezky> right now if i start up a client with no database it downloads every single transaction
3282 2011-04-20 20:55:51 <lfm_> theymos: yes Id say a day or two
3283 2011-04-20 20:55:55 <luke-jr> it's one thing to say "use another client", it's another to say "don't use URIs at all" or "only we get sensible URIs"
3284 2011-04-20 20:56:12 <purplezky> so eventually we will lose the money trail after 1000 blocks
3285 2011-04-20 20:56:13 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: Honestly, I dont feel THAT strongly either way, I just want to see URI in the client.  If it makes you happy and it will get merged I will accept hex in URI, I just don't think it should be
3286 2011-04-20 20:56:16 <theymos> lfm_: That's probably not long enough. The network could split for more than a day.
3287 2011-04-20 20:56:17 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I respect your energy to debate luke-jr, but he's really a vocal minority of one.  What gjs278 is basically true...
3288 2011-04-20 20:56:39 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: you just have to develop a luke-jr filter for the brain, otherwise you'll go nuts :)
3289 2011-04-20 20:56:41 <BlueMatt> anyway, jgarzik makes a good point, convince him
3290 2011-04-20 20:56:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: what point is that?
3291 2011-04-20 20:57:27 <luke-jr> the only argument I've seen from jgarzik/tcatm is "I want to make it easy for me, but don't care about anyone else who differs from me" more or less
3292 2011-04-20 20:57:36 <luke-jr> pure bigotry
3293 2011-04-20 20:57:41 <ArtForz> boo. fucking. hoo.
3294 2011-04-20 20:57:41 <netxshare> yeah the marvell controller was rushed to sell motherboards
3295 2011-04-20 20:57:46 <gjs278> yep
3296 2011-04-20 20:57:46 Lazymeerkat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3297 2011-04-20 20:57:48 <gjs278> it sucks
3298 2011-04-20 20:57:51 <netxshare> indeed
3299 2011-04-20 20:57:56 <theymos> sipa: I don't want to just give the summed value for an address, since that would remove some information. Maybe I'll see if I can list "(1000 total in this transaction)" after each address without making the page look messy.
3300 2011-04-20 20:57:58 <gjs278> I bought an lsi card
3301 2011-04-20 20:57:59 <netxshare> but I get better speeds with my c300
3302 2011-04-20 20:58:04 <gjs278> but I'm waiting for better sata 3 drives to be out
3303 2011-04-20 20:58:19 <netxshare> tney any on sata 2
3304 2011-04-20 20:58:20 <gjs278> and don't want to pay $300 for a 128 drive, I'd much rather have 40's or 64's
3305 2011-04-20 20:58:21 <lfm_> is it bigotry to refuse to let a single person dictate to the rest?
3306 2011-04-20 20:58:22 <netxshare> then any*
3307 2011-04-20 20:58:29 <gjs278> oh definiely
3308 2011-04-20 20:58:31 <gjs278> except
3309 2011-04-20 20:58:33 <netxshare> I got my c300 for like the price of the 64gb
3310 2011-04-20 20:58:35 <gjs278> your write speed is garbage
3311 2011-04-20 20:58:41 <gjs278> that's the only downside
3312 2011-04-20 20:58:41 <netxshare> oh yes my write is bad
3313 2011-04-20 20:58:43 <netxshare> but
3314 2011-04-20 20:58:54 <netxshare> I don't really write that much
3315 2011-04-20 20:58:59 <netxshare> and it's still better then a normal hd
3316 2011-04-20 20:59:00 <gjs278> I've seen my reads hit 510mb/s
3317 2011-04-20 20:59:06 <luke-jr> lfm_: it's bigotry to oppress a minority simply because you don't care about what they do
3318 2011-04-20 20:59:14 <gjs278> on iotop, no caching from the controller
3319 2011-04-20 20:59:25 <lfm_> is it bigotry to ignore an idiot
3320 2011-04-20 20:59:33 <ArtForz> why is it? did the claim to listen to all whims of any minority?
3321 2011-04-20 20:59:33 <luke-jr> lfm_: I'm not asking everyone to use tonal. Just to not make it difficult for me to decide to use it.
3322 2011-04-20 20:59:39 <EPiSKiNG> how do i backup my bitcoin wallet in windows 7 x64?
3323 2011-04-20 20:59:43 <EPiSKiNG> please PM me
3324 2011-04-20 20:59:44 <gjs278> copy it
3325 2011-04-20 20:59:54 <EPiSKiNG> just save the program folder?
3326 2011-04-20 20:59:55 <gjs278> it's called wallet.dat, just copy it somewhere
3327 2011-04-20 20:59:56 <netxshare> wallet.dat copy
3328 2011-04-20 20:59:59 <EPiSKiNG> ok
3329 2011-04-20 21:00:03 <luke-jr> lfm_: the current spec works fine for everyone, decimal users, tonal users, decimal users in 100 years even
3330 2011-04-20 21:00:11 <lfm_> your just asking us to support your solo ideas of what is needed when no one agrees
3331 2011-04-20 21:00:13 <luke-jr> well, I guess it doesn't work nicely for dozenal users
3332 2011-04-20 21:00:27 <luke-jr> but there's no dozenal bitcoin units yet
3333 2011-04-20 21:00:49 <gjs278> I won't support the uri scheme until it supports "a couple of bitcoins" as a valid transaction value
3334 2011-04-20 21:00:58 <theymos> How are values specified in your URI proposal?
3335 2011-04-20 21:00:58 <luke-jr> gjs278: it does.
3336 2011-04-20 21:01:05 <gjs278> awesome
3337 2011-04-20 21:01:16 <luke-jr> theymos: for 2 BTC, 2X8
3338 2011-04-20 21:01:28 <luke-jr> for 2 mBTC (not far off), 2X5
3339 2011-04-20 21:01:43 <gjs278> would just "2" work
3340 2011-04-20 21:01:44 <theymos> I don't like having the "X8" mandatory.
3341 2011-04-20 21:01:46 <gjs278> or "2.00"
3342 2011-04-20 21:01:57 <luke-jr> theymos: also, this isn't "my URI proposal" so much as "the standard URI format for the last 3 months and implemented in every client except wx":
3343 2011-04-20 21:02:26 <jgarzik> the "standard" of luke-jr declares it to be so.
3344 2011-04-20 21:02:26 <luke-jr> gjs278: it would be invalid currently, but would be interpreted as 2 BTC
3345 2011-04-20 21:02:57 <gjs278> what about "2.05" would that be 2.05 bitcoins or is that invalid
3346 2011-04-20 21:03:18 <ByteCoin> Do we have a gavinandresen lurking at the moment?
3347 2011-04-20 21:03:19 <luke-jr> to omit "X8" would work in all conforming clients
3348 2011-04-20 21:03:26 <luke-jr> to make it "valid" would be a slight rewording of the spec
3349 2011-04-20 21:03:32 * gavinandresen lurks
3350 2011-04-20 21:03:41 <theymos> I don't know why we can't just stick with assuming current BTC amounts. This amount will *always* be accurately called BTC. Smaller units will be named something else.
3351 2011-04-20 21:03:57 <netxshare> = 1.21 BTC in last 24h
3352 2011-04-20 21:03:58 <netxshare> rofl
3353 2011-04-20 21:04:08 <gjs278> I'm at 2.93 for last 24
3354 2011-04-20 21:04:11 <luke-jr> theymos: except people *won't* always be using BTC when they talk money
3355 2011-04-20 21:04:13 <lfm_> and if your proposal is accepted then all clients would have to support this stupididty forever
3356 2011-04-20 21:04:13 <gjs278> too many people went to deepbit
3357 2011-04-20 21:04:31 <luke-jr> lfm_: it's already accepted, basically.
3358 2011-04-20 21:04:31 <netxshare> you don't like deepbit?
3359 2011-04-20 21:04:36 <gjs278> no I love deepbit
3360 2011-04-20 21:04:37 <jgarzik> luke-jr: bullshit
3361 2011-04-20 21:04:38 <lfm_> bs
3362 2011-04-20 21:04:40 <gjs278> but I hate that everyone flooded it
3363 2011-04-20 21:04:41 <ArtForz> luke-jr: by you. and... you. woohoo.
3364 2011-04-20 21:04:45 <ByteCoin> gavin: I was wondering if you'd looked at my post on fully anonymous transactions with message passing?
3365 2011-04-20 21:04:47 <ByteCoin> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=5965
3366 2011-04-20 21:04:50 <theymos> luke-jr: People don't talk in URIs... Their client will handle it. If anyone needs to read the URI, the real value will be completely apparent.
3367 2011-04-20 21:05:17 <luke-jr> ArtForz: by every client except wx
3368 2011-04-20 21:05:25 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin:  I skimmed it, but I haven't thought hard about it.
3369 2011-04-20 21:05:29 <ArtForz> so...  yours.
3370 2011-04-20 21:05:37 <luke-jr> jgarzik apparently likes to exercise monopolistic power
3371 2011-04-20 21:05:43 <gjs278> wx is the official project client, if it happens there, it basically becomes the standard
3372 2011-04-20 21:05:44 <lfm_> luke-jr: every client except the only one that matters
3373 2011-04-20 21:05:48 <luke-jr> ArtForz: at least 3 clients
3374 2011-04-20 21:05:52 <ArtForz> name em
3375 2011-04-20 21:06:04 <netxshare> I thought there was only one fully working bitcoin client
3376 2011-04-20 21:06:06 <luke-jr> gjs278: there is no such thing as official in a distributed project
3377 2011-04-20 21:06:21 <ByteCoin> gavin: Ok. Fair enough.
3378 2011-04-20 21:06:26 <luke-jr> ArtForz: I don't recall their names.
3379 2011-04-20 21:06:28 <jgarzik> theymos: humans will be creating URIs and sticking them into their webpages.  Your average human, if they know bitcoin at all, knows "1.00 BTC"  We don't need hex or tonal or anything else there to complicate matters.  It will be difficult enough as it is, just getting bitcoin URI support out there.
3380 2011-04-20 21:06:49 <ArtForz> and 39857734 clients support the proposed protocol without crap, can't rmemeber in what universe though...
3381 2011-04-20 21:06:56 <luke-jr> jgarzik: then your average human can just put "1.00"
3382 2011-04-20 21:06:57 <theymos> jgarzik: I agree.
3383 2011-04-20 21:07:22 <netxshare> I figured it would just be bitcoin:address amount BTC
3384 2011-04-20 21:07:24 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no reason to go out of the way to make it harder for the non-average (or FUTURE average) human
3385 2011-04-20 21:07:32 <ArtForz> yes, there is
3386 2011-04-20 21:07:44 <jgarzik> luke-jr: complexity for luke-jr's sake is a mistake.
3387 2011-04-20 21:07:48 <ArtForz> unneeded complexity is bad
3388 2011-04-20 21:07:48 <luke-jr> ArtForz: if you only want "average" people to adopt it
3389 2011-04-20 21:07:48 <gjs278> when robots are using bitcoins, they don't speak in decimal. we have to make the uri friendly to the bots
3390 2011-04-20 21:07:52 <jgarzik> ding
3391 2011-04-20 21:07:56 <lfm_> and new clients shouldnt have to learn luke-jr's tonal philosophy to support uris
3392 2011-04-20 21:08:10 <luke-jr> lfm_: they don't, none of this is tonal-related
3393 2011-04-20 21:08:21 <lfm_> well then it isnt needed
3394 2011-04-20 21:08:24 <jgarzik> overengineering for the future is bad.  it's tough enough getting support for features most agree we need/want ;-)
3395 2011-04-20 21:08:31 <ArtForz> no, base16 totally isn't tonal related *headdesk*
3396 2011-04-20 21:08:31 <ByteCoin> Agreeed
3397 2011-04-20 21:08:35 <theymos> 1 BTC will always equal 1 BTC, so no need for "X8" stuff. The spec can always be changed to support that stuff, anyway. Have the current implementation ignore values with non-numeric characters.
3398 2011-04-20 21:08:45 <jgarzik> agree
3399 2011-04-20 21:08:46 <ByteCoin> Keep it simple
3400 2011-04-20 21:09:03 <jgarzik> theymos: except period :)
3401 2011-04-20 21:09:07 <gjs278> someone should just merge decimal and whole value support, put on sunglasses and play this gif: http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/052/812/original/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif
3402 2011-04-20 21:09:19 <lfm_> no way it should be entrenched in a standard
3403 2011-04-20 21:10:19 <netxshare> it will be annoying if not every client supports bitcoin: all those annoying popups looking for bitcoin:
3404 2011-04-20 21:10:23 <luke-jr> it should *really* be 'atomic' units
3405 2011-04-20 21:10:58 <lfm_> 0.00000001 IS ATOMIC if you know how to program properly
3406 2011-04-20 21:11:06 <gjs278> netxshare it would be just about as annoying as when every client didnt support aim: addresses. I got over it
3407 2011-04-20 21:11:14 <luke-jr> lfm_: get a clue
3408 2011-04-20 21:11:28 <netxshare> there was a aim:
3409 2011-04-20 21:11:28 <ByteCoin> I believe lfm has a clue
3410 2011-04-20 21:11:32 <gjs278> yeah
3411 2011-04-20 21:11:40 <gjs278> you could use it to start a message with someone
3412 2011-04-20 21:11:42 <lfm_> luke-jr: the clue train is obviously lost in your territory
3413 2011-04-20 21:12:20 <netxshare> I have seen URI buffer overflow!
3414 2011-04-20 21:12:25 <ByteCoin> Let's keep things positive eh?
3415 2011-04-20 21:13:07 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: this whole "discussion" is about them trolling Tonal users and making things intentionally difficult for something that has been standard for 3 months already
3416 2011-04-20 21:13:07 <netxshare> I don't use a mail client so every email on the net that has mailto:
3417 2011-04-20 21:13:12 <lfm_> luke just because there is a "." in there does not mean you must use floating arithmetic to handle it
3418 2011-04-20 21:13:14 <netxshare> is annoying to copy and paste
3419 2011-04-20 21:13:28 <ArtForz> tonal *user*. singular.
3420 2011-04-20 21:13:34 <luke-jr> ArtForz: not singular, fool
3421 2011-04-20 21:13:37 <mtrlt> :D
3422 2011-04-20 21:13:49 <lfm_> luke-jr: yet you are alone
3423 2011-04-20 21:13:50 <ArtForz> okay, so luke-jr and his 20 million imaginary friends
3424 2011-04-20 21:13:54 <luke-jr> ArtForz: just because everyone isn't exactly like you doesn't mean they only exist when they talk to you
3425 2011-04-20 21:14:05 <ArtForz> okay, so luke-jr and his 20 million imaginary mute friends
3426 2011-04-20 21:14:07 <ByteCoin> ljr: I don't know much about tonal but let's just clear up something.... you are a proponent of its use?
3427 2011-04-20 21:14:09 <luke-jr> lfm_: I am alone *in here* because I am the only one who puts up with your BS
3428 2011-04-20 21:14:21 <luke-jr> lfm_: why would anyone else bother with Bitcoin when everyone just trolls?
3429 2011-04-20 21:14:31 fimp has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3430 2011-04-20 21:14:32 <mtrlt> everyone should just learn lojban
3431 2011-04-20 21:14:48 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: sure, but in this case, I just want to be able to use it. I don't want to insist anyone else use it.
3432 2011-04-20 21:15:23 <ArtForz> yet you insist every client dev forever has to implement that crap
3433 2011-04-20 21:15:47 <mtrlt> luke-jr: but if you want to use it, everyone must understand it :/
3434 2011-04-20 21:15:51 <luke-jr> mtrlt: not true
3435 2011-04-20 21:16:14 <luke-jr> mtrlt: it will load up in the wx client as a normal Send dialog showing the Decimal equivalent
3436 2011-04-20 21:16:33 <luke-jr> (unless they add Tonal support in the future, which seems unlikely and is another issue entirely)
3437 2011-04-20 21:16:48 legion050 has joined
3438 2011-04-20 21:17:03 <mtrlt> but if you're trying to negotiate a price with someone then you have to use the same system as the other party
3439 2011-04-20 21:17:05 <ByteCoin> luke-jr: There are many painfully wrongheaded things about Bitcoin that I'd love to change but you have to respect the weight of the community opinion if you want to participate.
3440 2011-04-20 21:17:13 <ezl> how often does alternate exchanges come up as a conversation topic in here?
3441 2011-04-20 21:17:19 xlogik has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3442 2011-04-20 21:17:30 <luke-jr> mtrlt: this is for links…
3443 2011-04-20 21:17:39 <purplezky> shouldn't the base client be exactly that: "base" client, and anyone else can publish their forked "hex" or "tonal" versions ?
3444 2011-04-20 21:17:53 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: the problem is, I want to promote Bitcoin
3445 2011-04-20 21:17:54 JStoker has joined
3446 2011-04-20 21:17:59 <netxshare> but then you would have so many people using different URI's
3447 2011-04-20 21:18:00 <ByteCoin> luke-jr: Let's face it, if you're right then everyone will come round to your point of view eventually
3448 2011-04-20 21:18:06 <netxshare> and every client would have to support them all
3449 2011-04-20 21:18:11 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: I can sell it to other Tonal users if it makes currency exchange in Tonal sensible.
3450 2011-04-20 21:18:26 <mtrlt> now how many people use tonal?
3451 2011-04-20 21:18:27 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: LOL, that never happens
3452 2011-04-20 21:18:47 <mtrlt> thousands?
3453 2011-04-20 21:18:48 <luke-jr> mtrlt: dunno, include it on the next census. don't think anyone's counted
3454 2011-04-20 21:18:56 <mtrlt> i'd bet it's tens :P
3455 2011-04-20 21:19:07 <ArtForz> and that's everyone elses fault. right.
3456 2011-04-20 21:19:11 <lyspooner> i'd bet it's do-dens
3457 2011-04-20 21:19:15 <ByteCoin> luke-jr: Cultivate patience. How many tonal users are there? Could it be an incentive for Tonal support?
3458 2011-04-20 21:19:27 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: thanks for remembering the features I'd forgotten on the 0.3.21 forum thread
3459 2011-04-20 21:19:40 <lfm_> mtrlt: no one really does, luke-jr thinks he should but he cant really use it either till he convinces someone else to use it with him
3460 2011-04-20 21:19:52 <ArtForz> lol
3461 2011-04-20 21:19:53 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3462 2011-04-20 21:19:57 <gavinandresen> Oh, and speaking of forum threads:  what does everybody think of maybe moving most dev discussion to a mailing list instead of forums?
3463 2011-04-20 21:19:58 <mtrlt> plausible :P
3464 2011-04-20 21:19:59 <legion050> personally i'd love to learn hex in a away to understand it more. but im not sure i'd make it my base way of using numbers with others
3465 2011-04-20 21:20:01 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: a minority, so they don't care.
3466 2011-04-20 21:20:06 <gjs278> I hate mailinglists
3467 2011-04-20 21:20:18 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I prefer NNTP first, mailing list second, then forums :P
3468 2011-04-20 21:20:20 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: git log --no-merges v0.3.20..
3469 2011-04-20 21:20:26 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: or even: git shortlog --no-merges v0.3.20..
3470 2011-04-20 21:20:38 <luke-jr> mtrlt: less than Dozenal, I think.
3471 2011-04-20 21:20:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: 'git shortlog' is great for making release summaries
3472 2011-04-20 21:20:49 <ByteCoin> gavin: I'm assuming that the subtext here is dealing with the signal-to-noise ratio?
3473 2011-04-20 21:20:54 <gjs278> forums I can edit my posts. I can't edit a post on a mailing list unless there's some kind of witchcraft I need to know about
3474 2011-04-20 21:20:56 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: if it's short enough, Linus just posts that, rather than write anything ;-)
3475 2011-04-20 21:21:11 <gavinandresen> jgarzik:  nice, I'll have to try hard to remember.
3476 2011-04-20 21:21:12 <jgarzik> why write, when you can automate?  :)
3477 2011-04-20 21:21:16 <legion050> what makes mailing lists better than forums?
3478 2011-04-20 21:21:27 <gjs278> keeps out the faucking noobs for one
3479 2011-04-20 21:21:33 <jgarzik> legion050: 4chan peeps don't understand email?
3480 2011-04-20 21:21:34 * jgarzik runs
3481 2011-04-20 21:21:37 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin:  yeah, mailing list tends to require a little more committment, there might be less drive-by-commenting....
3482 2011-04-20 21:21:48 <lfm_> and nntp is gone the way of the dodo bird
3483 2011-04-20 21:21:56 <legion050> jgarzik. ah I see
3484 2011-04-20 21:21:58 <gjs278> put a captcha up that requires you to solve it using tonal to access the dev forums
3485 2011-04-20 21:22:05 <jgarzik> gjs278: rofl
3486 2011-04-20 21:22:07 <ArtForz> lol
3487 2011-04-20 21:22:09 <ByteCoin> More flamewars on email probably though... seems to work that way.
3488 2011-04-20 21:22:22 <luke-jr> lfm_: unfortunately. it fits the purpose so well, though.
3489 2011-04-20 21:22:26 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: more noise than the bitcoin forum?  ;-)
3490 2011-04-20 21:22:45 <gavinandresen> I don't have a strong forum versus mailing list preference.
3491 2011-04-20 21:22:50 <luke-jr> I find mailing lists too tempting to read and reply to every message ;p
3492 2011-04-20 21:23:00 <ByteCoin> I think one of the problems with the forum is that a user's "obvious" reputation is linked to the number of posts.
3493 2011-04-20 21:23:05 <ByteCoin> Incentive to spam
3494 2011-04-20 21:23:07 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: in general?  I prefer mailing lists.  for bitcoin?  no strong preference, either.
3495 2011-04-20 21:23:15 <BlueMatt> I prefer anything that keeps volume down, which probably means mailing list
3496 2011-04-20 21:23:22 <ByteCoin> Break that link and things may get better.
3497 2011-04-20 21:23:24 <netxshare> what is the bitcoin mailing list?
3498 2011-04-20 21:23:26 <theymos> I prefer forums.
3499 2011-04-20 21:23:40 <mtrlt> i prefer IRC <3
3500 2011-04-20 21:23:42 <BlueMatt> netxshare: there isnt one
3501 2011-04-20 21:23:44 <netxshare> oh
3502 2011-04-20 21:23:50 <gavinandresen> path of least resistance is to stick with forums, so......
3503 2011-04-20 21:23:53 <gjs278> I highly prefer forums, easier to browse. the threaded view is easy to navigate, you can do it with just your browser
3504 2011-04-20 21:23:55 <netxshare> I was going to say, I did not see one
3505 2011-04-20 21:24:10 <tcatm> Can we have a forum -> mailinglist gateway? :)
3506 2011-04-20 21:24:28 <BlueMatt> tcatm: that defeats the purpose of the mailing list
3507 2011-04-20 21:24:34 <gjs278> mark your post with ##MAILINGLIST## and I'll have a bot scrape them
3508 2011-04-20 21:24:34 skyewm has joined
3509 2011-04-20 21:24:37 <luke-jr> once upon a time, I wrote software that provided NNTP, Mailing list, and forum interfaces :P
3510 2011-04-20 21:24:45 <luke-jr> I doubt it would be up to today's forum standards tho
3511 2011-04-20 21:25:01 <jgarzik> let's gateway the forum->email traffic to an NNTP server, because news readers are just so superior
3512 2011-04-20 21:25:07 <gjs278> yeah
3513 2011-04-20 21:25:12 <ByteCoin> It would be nice if the forum had the option of not showing posts unless someone you respect has upvoted them. I know that theymos reads EVERYTHING
3514 2011-04-20 21:25:16 <gjs278> take this discussion to alt.binary.bitcoin.uri.tonal
3515 2011-04-20 21:25:19 <tcatm> features of mailinglist: local search, easy to copy and tag messages, real threading and a lot more
3516 2011-04-20 21:25:21 <iera> there is a new software for this
3517 2011-04-20 21:25:25 <iera> its called syncom
3518 2011-04-20 21:25:50 <iera> syncs forum, nntp and ml iirc
3519 2011-04-20 21:26:20 <iera> developed my members of the german pirate party
3520 2011-04-20 21:26:33 <theymos> I really wish the forum showed the "(new)" links on all topics. It's hard to read everything when you have to keep searching for the last post you read.
3521 2011-04-20 21:26:37 <iera> https://github.com/shirk/SynFU
3522 2011-04-20 21:27:02 <iera> if you are interested in it i could help to set it up
3523 2011-04-20 21:27:15 <iera> but does only work with phpbb so far iirc
3524 2011-04-20 21:27:48 <luke-jr> that's funny, my software basically emulated a SQL interface for phpBB XD
3525 2011-04-20 21:28:08 <iera> hehe yeah i think syncom works in a similar way
3526 2011-04-20 21:28:28 * jgarzik cranks the Ennio Morricone on the boom box
3527 2011-04-20 21:28:31 <jgarzik> thumpin'
3528 2011-04-20 21:28:34 <iera> but well with this smf its a bit of work
3529 2011-04-20 21:28:40 <ByteCoin> It's an improvement that the forum has split off mining as a separate topic. That one lot I don't have to read!
3530 2011-04-20 21:28:55 <theymos> I don't read that section, either.
3531 2011-04-20 21:29:13 <iera> i agree that nntp is best :p
3532 2011-04-20 21:29:18 glassresistor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3533 2011-04-20 21:29:30 <iera> forums are nntp poorly reinvented
3534 2011-04-20 21:29:41 <theymos> I wouldn't mind NNTP. That'd really keep the newbies out!
3535 2011-04-20 21:29:52 <iera> and NO big forum today has an api imagine that
3536 2011-04-20 21:29:56 <iera> its ridiculous
3537 2011-04-20 21:30:05 <ByteCoin> I'd die of nostalgia with NNTP though...
3538 2011-04-20 21:30:10 <luke-jr> lol
3539 2011-04-20 21:30:17 <midnightmagic> too bad innd sucks so hard.
3540 2011-04-20 21:30:44 <iera> but yeah... if someone wants to hack on smf ill set up the rest :p
3541 2011-04-20 21:30:56 <midnightmagic> i love smf.
3542 2011-04-20 21:31:11 <iera> no, forum sucks by definition
3543 2011-04-20 21:31:13 <ByteCoin> Also the nonlinearity of threading makes it difficult to follow. I don't find that the forum's enforced linearity of topic restricting.
3544 2011-04-20 21:31:30 <BlueMatt> we need forum nazi mods
3545 2011-04-20 21:31:43 <ByteCoin> That might sour the tone
3546 2011-04-20 21:31:51 <BlueMatt> ;)
3547 2011-04-20 21:31:54 <iera> midnightmagic: then write an api :p
3548 2011-04-20 21:31:55 <ByteCoin> At the moment there's no elite
3549 2011-04-20 21:32:04 <ByteCoin> or at least it's not explicit
3550 2011-04-20 21:32:13 <midnightmagic> iera: I love it, doesn't mean I don't hate it too..
3551 2011-04-20 21:32:18 <iera> midnightmagic: heh
3552 2011-04-20 21:33:16 DukeOfURL has joined
3553 2011-04-20 21:35:18 skreuzer has quit (Quit: skreuzer)
3554 2011-04-20 21:35:38 <jgarzik> IMO, the creator of a forum thread should be able to moderate their own thread.  That includes being able to hide (not delete) any post they wish.
3555 2011-04-20 21:36:04 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: that would be too inconsistent IMHO
3556 2011-04-20 21:36:07 <theymos> That would be abused.
3557 2011-04-20 21:36:08 <ByteCoin> You'd get a parallel thread with all the vitriol
3558 2011-04-20 21:36:57 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: yes -- which is what already happens today anyway
3559 2011-04-20 21:37:06 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: see the bitcoinpool.com (and my open thread)
3560 2011-04-20 21:37:19 <ByteCoin> It happens today? What's the incentive for starting a new thread?
3561 2011-04-20 21:37:40 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3562 2011-04-20 21:37:45 <ByteCoin> Oh you mean not in the forum
3563 2011-04-20 21:37:46 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: bitcoinpool.com operators disliked all the criticism of their psuedo-scientific ideas, so they locked the thread
3564 2011-04-20 21:37:59 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: I created an unlocked thread in response :)
3565 2011-04-20 21:38:35 <ByteCoin> Is there some non-abusive reason for locking?
3566 2011-04-20 21:39:11 <jgarzik> ByteCoin: well, on a more benign level, just like moderated, announce-only mailing lists, I think there is plenty of utility in a moderated thread.  No point in moving to another forum.
3567 2011-04-20 21:39:19 <jgarzik> such mailing lists are very common in open source
3568 2011-04-20 21:39:26 <theymos> If the OP states that the topic is to be moderated stricly or using special rules, I would be more inclined to delete posts that don't follow the rules in that topic.
3569 2011-04-20 21:39:44 <jgarzik> theymos: yes, the thread creator must state that explicitly
3570 2011-04-20 21:40:10 <iera> luke-jr: there is also a forum software which has nntp backend if youre interested: https://github.com/jungepiraten/nntpboard
3571 2011-04-20 21:40:30 <jgarzik> theymos: I was thinking that the ability to hide posts would be nice, because (a) that implies anyone can unhide a post the moderator disagreed with, and (b) people who wished could turn off 'post hiding' entirely
3572 2011-04-20 21:40:54 <jgarzik> give everyone involved a choice
3573 2011-04-20 21:41:02 <topi`> jgarzik: I noticed you had commented on the Marginal Revolution on Bitcoin economics. I, too, thought that his article is somehow biased or he just doesn't do any research
3574 2011-04-20 21:41:17 <jgarzik> topi`: yep
3575 2011-04-20 21:41:18 <ByteCoin> If hiding functionality were implemented I'd hide all posts unless certain people had marked them as interesting
3576 2011-04-20 21:41:56 <iera> topi`: the one who referenced the time article?
3577 2011-04-20 21:42:49 <topi`> jgarzik: I think the main thing that makes collusion impossible, is not the fact that nobody wants to devaluate the currencu, but the fact that it is open source and ppl can see if somebody makes malicious (i.e. changing the protocol) changes
3578 2011-04-20 21:43:22 <topi`> there *will* always be those paranoid ppl who are monitoring every slight change to the most popular clients
3579 2011-04-20 21:44:21 <lyspooner> jgarzik: tyler missed the forest because he wasn't looking at the trees properly
3580 2011-04-20 21:46:46 <gavinandresen> I posted a comment on Tyler's follow-up bitcoin post RE: bitcoins as a store of value
3581 2011-04-20 21:47:41 <lyspooner> i posted a Bitcoin/Diamond swap proposal on the same thread, hasn't showed up yet
3582 2011-04-20 21:48:46 <lyspooner> ooh, there it is
3583 2011-04-20 21:51:21 <iera> better buy yttrium, the stuff which is needed for lcds and is very rare, or neodym
3584 2011-04-20 21:51:49 <topi`> so far, most criticism towards bitcoin has been aimed at proving that "the protocol can't work in the long run"
3585 2011-04-20 21:52:05 <topi`> like the collusion problem (or whatever)
3586 2011-04-20 21:54:35 <topi`> I guess what's left for us (as advocats of bitcoin) is to prove the rest of the world that in real-life situations, the bitcoin protocol is solid and suffers from none
3587 2011-04-20 21:56:27 <luke-jr> topi`: not that easy
3588 2011-04-20 21:56:38 <iera> we have to get more implementations imho
3589 2011-04-20 21:56:47 <luke-jr> topi`: there also needs to be a REASON for people to switch
3590 2011-04-20 21:56:53 <luke-jr> it's not "why not?", it's "why?"
3591 2011-04-20 21:56:59 <lulzplzkthx> Thanks purplezky
3592 2011-04-20 21:57:12 <iera> luke-jr: well we can start with thinks like wikileaks donations
3593 2011-04-20 21:57:18 <luke-jr> iera: legitimate reasons
3594 2011-04-20 21:57:39 <iera> then as paypal replacement somehow, to pay stuff online on ebay
3595 2011-04-20 21:57:47 <luke-jr> PayPal works fine for most people
3596 2011-04-20 21:57:51 <luke-jr> and ebay owns them
3597 2011-04-20 21:58:00 <iera> right but it costs money
3598 2011-04-20 21:58:01 <lulzplzkthx> iera: Yah, eBay wouldn't switch.
3599 2011-04-20 21:58:03 <iera> bitcoin doesnt
3600 2011-04-20 21:58:06 <luke-jr> iera: not to most people
3601 2011-04-20 21:58:19 <luke-jr> also, bitcoin DOES
3602 2011-04-20 21:58:22 <iera> hm ok ebay is a bad example actually
3603 2011-04-20 21:58:23 <gjs278> bitcoin still has at least a 1% conversion fee
3604 2011-04-20 21:58:24 <DukeOfURL> what is the transaction rate at PP, and what if we had that many transactions in the mesh?
3605 2011-04-20 21:58:39 <iera> ok
3606 2011-04-20 21:58:41 <gjs278> I'm pretty sure paypal does like 15% of every online payment
3607 2011-04-20 21:58:45 <lulzplzkthx> gjs278: it's optional.
3608 2011-04-20 21:58:46 <lulzplzkthx> isn't it?
3609 2011-04-20 21:58:49 <BlueMatt> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
3610 2011-04-20 21:58:53 <gjs278> I mean for converting money to bitcoins
3611 2011-04-20 21:58:54 <lulzplzkthx> err
3612 2011-04-20 21:58:58 <lulzplzkthx> Oh, okah.
3613 2011-04-20 21:58:58 <BlueMatt> DukeOfURL: ^^
3614 2011-04-20 21:59:01 <luke-jr> gjs278: wtf?
3615 2011-04-20 21:59:12 <gjs278> the paypal or the 1%
3616 2011-04-20 21:59:25 <iera> luke-jr: ok i think all sort of donations are really the first thing we could get
3617 2011-04-20 21:59:31 <DukeOfURL> if bitcoin takes off (and I hope it does), what will the network activity be at each node?
3618 2011-04-20 21:59:35 skyewm has joined
3619 2011-04-20 21:59:59 tripper has joined
3620 2011-04-20 22:00:03 <gjs278> PayPal's total payment volume, the total value of transactions, was US$ 60 billion in 2008, an increase of 27 percent over the previous year,[29] and US$ 71 billion in 2009, an increase of 19 percent over the previous year.[30] The company continues to focus on international growth and growth of its Merchant Services division, providing e-payments for retailers off eBay.
3621 2011-04-20 22:00:40 <luke-jr> iera: people can donate with check, cash, or PayPal
3622 2011-04-20 22:00:50 <tripper> what is the quickest/simplest way to purchase bitcoins?
3623 2011-04-20 22:00:55 <lulzplzkthx> Can we please lift the tps restrictions now?
3624 2011-04-20 22:01:13 <gjs278> http://coincard.ndrix.com/page/prices this is pretty easy service I use
3625 2011-04-20 22:01:17 <gjs278> because it can do paypal
3626 2011-04-20 22:01:21 <iera> luke-jr: but paypal freezes accounts all the time, i know 3 people personally whoes accounts were frozen and they just used it on ebay
3627 2011-04-20 22:01:36 <gjs278> bitcoins don't have chargebacks
3628 2011-04-20 22:01:38 <gjs278> so
3629 2011-04-20 22:01:42 <gjs278> you have to figure your balance
3630 2011-04-20 22:01:55 <luke-jr> iera: they're a minority
3631 2011-04-20 22:01:55 <theymos> DukeOfURL: Almost nothing for normal clients, eventually a few Gbps for backbone nodes.
3632 2011-04-20 22:02:00 <gjs278> paypal you have chargebacks that may or may not work and they may or may not freeze your account for months
3633 2011-04-20 22:02:02 <iera> luke-jr: check doesnt exist in germany, usa no idea
3634 2011-04-20 22:02:41 tripper has quit (Client Quit)
3635 2011-04-20 22:02:52 <rly> theymos: normal clients? Aren't there only servers?
3636 2011-04-20 22:02:54 <gjs278> bitcoins you can lose all of your coins by being careless with your wallet.dat, you can't be frozen, you can't chargeback
3637 2011-04-20 22:03:16 <gjs278> you also can't be chargebacked, which is an advantage for sellers
3638 2011-04-20 22:03:25 <gjs278> so they dont' get scammed by buyers trying to claim they didnt get the product
3639 2011-04-20 22:03:30 <iera> luke-jr: or what could be done is a client-side flattr replacement
3640 2011-04-20 22:03:30 <rly> theymos: on average you need to be able to process 20 transactions per second.
3641 2011-04-20 22:03:46 DukeOfURL has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
3642 2011-04-20 22:03:52 <theymos> rly: In the future there will be a distinction between normal "leaf" clients and backbone "hub" nodes.
3643 2011-04-20 22:04:10 <rly> theymos: where is this future described?
3644 2011-04-20 22:04:20 <rly> theymos: or is that just your business idea? ;)
3645 2011-04-20 22:04:31 <theymos> It's mentioned in the Bitcoin paper.
3646 2011-04-20 22:04:40 <theymos> There are many posts about it on the forum
3647 2011-04-20 22:04:49 <gavinandresen> rly:  I've got an old teacup that clearly shows exactly what will happen.  Backed up 100% by my crystal ball.
3648 2011-04-20 22:04:58 <iera> luke-jr: also for micropayments, paypal, cash and check are unusable
3649 2011-04-20 22:05:07 <rly> It seems rather pointless to setup a system being all distributed, which ends up with the same amount of centralized locations in 10 years.
3650 2011-04-20 22:05:17 <gjs278> well
3651 2011-04-20 22:05:23 <gjs278> anyone can be a centralized location though
3652 2011-04-20 22:05:29 skyewm has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3653 2011-04-20 22:05:38 <iera> perhaps we should concentrate on micropayments
3654 2011-04-20 22:05:41 <gjs278> in 10 years, your hardware might just be good enough to keep up easily
3655 2011-04-20 22:05:43 <gavinandresen> rly:  It'll be less centralized.  If bandwidth and CPUs and disk space keep up with bitcoin transaction growth, then it might not have to happen at all.
3656 2011-04-20 22:05:52 <rly> "anyone" that can afford 10+ million dollar hardware.
3657 2011-04-20 22:05:56 <gjs278> lol
3658 2011-04-20 22:06:01 <rly> I.e., not that many people.
3659 2011-04-20 22:06:03 <gavinandresen> ... although I can't imagine wireless devices having enough bandwidth
3660 2011-04-20 22:06:03 <gjs278> 10 million hardware of today
3661 2011-04-20 22:06:05 <gjs278> is like
3662 2011-04-20 22:06:11 <gjs278> $1000 of hardware in 10 years
3663 2011-04-20 22:06:28 <rly> gjs278: I would love to hold you to that. :)
3664 2011-04-20 22:06:39 <gjs278> in 10 years, I'm going to have at least 128 cores
3665 2011-04-20 22:06:40 gp5st has left ()
3666 2011-04-20 22:06:46 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3667 2011-04-20 22:06:56 <gjs278> and it will still take me hours to compile open office
3668 2011-04-20 22:06:57 <iera> lol in 2001 i had an athlon 1ghz iirc
3669 2011-04-20 22:06:58 <topi`> luke-jr: I think "switching" is a strong word, implying that they should abandon the national currency altogether. I think the national currency and bitcoin can coexist pretty well, they serve different purposes
3670 2011-04-20 22:07:07 <rly> But you won't have a 500GHz machine.
3671 2011-04-20 22:07:15 <gjs278> idc
3672 2011-04-20 22:07:27 <rly> Nor will you have memory being 1000 times faster.
3673 2011-04-20 22:07:31 <gjs278> my memory
3674 2011-04-20 22:07:33 <gjs278> is insanely fast
3675 2011-04-20 22:07:40 <gjs278> try and bottleneck my memory
3676 2011-04-20 22:07:41 <rly> Or even 1000 times the bandwidth.
3677 2011-04-20 22:07:42 <theymos> I doubt that even "advanced" users will be able to run full nodes if Bitcoin reaches VISA-level usage.
3678 2011-04-20 22:08:07 <rly> I do not see the hardware revolution happening that you envision.
3679 2011-04-20 22:08:21 <gjs278> I will have 128 cores in 10 years
3680 2011-04-20 22:08:27 <rly> We might have 10000 cores, sure. (people design such systems)
3681 2011-04-20 22:08:47 <rly> That doesn't mean that all the other infrastructure is ready and/or economically viable.
3682 2011-04-20 22:08:55 <gjs278> like what
3683 2011-04-20 22:08:57 <theymos> Some centralization is good, anyway. It allows the network to respond more quickly to attacks.
3684 2011-04-20 22:09:17 <gjs278> you need a really fast cpu. disk space to hold the blockchain, and a network connection
3685 2011-04-20 22:09:50 <rly> I suppose the value of a Bitcoin depends on whether or not it can support a global network.
3686 2011-04-20 22:10:28 <topi`> well, we can still run local bitcoin networks :)
3687 2011-04-20 22:10:48 <rly> topi`: you mean a small community with their own block chain?
3688 2011-04-20 22:10:59 <topi`> yes, like a small country.
3689 2011-04-20 22:11:09 <rly> I suppose you could have a Manhatten Block chain, etc.
3690 2011-04-20 22:11:16 <rly> er Manhattan
3691 2011-04-20 22:11:43 <rly> That would be a workable way, but bootstrapping all those systems seems unlikely.
3692 2011-04-20 22:11:44 <CIA-89> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r64ad448 / (main.cpp ui.cpp): Better wording for transaction fee notification messages - http://bit.ly/hnv7ld
3693 2011-04-20 22:11:55 <ByteCoin> Bitcoin can't support VISA level usage but it's not a problem. The future bitcoin will cope having learned the lessons from the current implementation
3694 2011-04-20 22:11:57 <gjs278> not worthy of a cia bot mention
3695 2011-04-20 22:11:57 <rly> People will prefer the 'real' Bitcoin chain.
3696 2011-04-20 22:12:39 <iera> luke-jr: hm right.. i thought about that and think micropaypment would be a good way to go, iirc there is no current system which handles micropayments well
3697 2011-04-20 22:13:03 <theymos> ByteCoin: The scalability wiki page says that it can handle it.
3698 2011-04-20 22:13:18 <ByteCoin> theymos: Will read...
3699 2011-04-20 22:13:51 <theymos> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability It's written by [mike], so I tend to believe it.
3700 2011-04-20 22:16:19 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
3701 2011-04-20 22:16:36 <topi`> rly: bootstrapping is expensive, and right now it has taken 2 years to bootstrap the very first Bitcoin network, and it still hasn't completely catched on
3702 2011-04-20 22:18:40 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.6.16/20110319135224])
3703 2011-04-20 22:19:50 <ByteCoin> theymos: Have read. Seems reasonable-ish... 4000 transactions per second at .5k per transaction is still 2MB per second. That's a lot of hard disk...
3704 2011-04-20 22:20:45 eternal1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3705 2011-04-20 22:21:13 <theymos> The amount of data that needs to be stored in RAM might be reduced by archiving/deleting spent transactions.
3706 2011-04-20 22:21:30 <ByteCoin> I think that the high hard disk usage is not necessary and future bitcoin will not record ALL transactions. I don't think that hash tree stubbing is a good enough answer when better exist
3707 2011-04-20 22:22:12 <ByteCoin> theymos: Absolutely. I'm not anticipaing a HUGE amount of ram is needed
3708 2011-04-20 22:23:14 <ByteCoin> As soon as a block arrives, all the trasnsactions flushed to disk
3709 2011-04-20 22:24:08 <ByteCoin> Potentially lots of seeking around on the disks to verify transactions with the current scheme.
3710 2011-04-20 22:24:46 <ByteCoin> Might have to introduce an incentive to spend old transasctions to allow old blocks to be discarded.
3711 2011-04-20 22:25:01 <theymos> All unspent transactions would be stored in RAM.
3712 2011-04-20 22:25:44 <ByteCoin> All
3713 2011-04-20 22:25:49 <ByteCoin> ?
3714 2011-04-20 22:25:55 <ByteCoin> Surely more intelligent
3715 2011-04-20 22:26:11 <theymos> Yeah; maybe not the really old ones.
3716 2011-04-20 22:26:11 <ByteCoin> Ok. I take your point
3717 2011-04-20 22:26:51 <ByteCoin> Hmm... all unspent transactions stored in ram.. sounds a bit like "balance sheets"!
3718 2011-04-20 22:27:00 <ByteCoin> ;-)
3719 2011-04-20 22:27:53 <ByteCoin> Should have been designed that way to start with....
3720 2011-04-20 22:28:10 <theymos> That is how it's designed... Bitcoin can support it.
3721 2011-04-20 22:29:44 <topi`> we would need to somehow simulate many different scenarios of potential takeovers of the bitcoin network (i.e. forcing a split in the chain)
3722 2011-04-20 22:29:56 <topi`> then, a statistical analysis could be performed on the feasibility of those kinds of attacks
3723 2011-04-20 22:30:06 <iera> yeah that would be really great
3724 2011-04-20 22:30:53 <ByteCoin> Fair enough. A competitor may appear that can support higher transaction rates with a lower infrastructure requirement, a lower bandwidth and lower confirmation time... it would be interesting to see whether its technical superiority would mean it took over.
3725 2011-04-20 22:31:36 <ByteCoin> Also it would be properly anonymous
3726 2011-04-20 22:32:23 <ByteCoin> topi: Have already simulated some attack types. Don't think that bitcoin will fail due to attacks per se.
3727 2011-04-20 22:34:35 lulzplzkthx has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3728 2011-04-20 22:35:04 <ByteCoin> theymos: I just read your comment properly. Yes I guess it is supported so it's adequate the way it is..
3729 2011-04-20 22:35:16 <netxshare> wooo hoo
3730 2011-04-20 22:35:20 lulzplzkthx has joined
3731 2011-04-20 22:35:20 <midnightmagic> huh. how do I tell bitcoind to stop using a socks proxy?
3732 2011-04-20 22:35:21 <netxshare> I have earned 2.70 btc
3733 2011-04-20 22:36:45 xlogik has joined
3734 2011-04-20 22:37:10 <netxshare> taken me far to long
3735 2011-04-20 22:38:47 <gjs278> imagine how big my hard drive will be in 10 years
3736 2011-04-20 22:38:49 stamit has joined
3737 2011-04-20 22:38:52 <gjs278> it will probably be as big as my dick
3738 2011-04-20 22:39:02 stamit has left ()
3739 2011-04-20 22:39:02 <gjs278> as expressed in terabytes
3740 2011-04-20 22:39:37 noagendamarket has joined
3741 2011-04-20 22:40:14 <midnightmagic> fUseProxy is set in the wallet.dat file. now how do I unset it?
3742 2011-04-20 22:40:17 zyb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3743 2011-04-20 22:40:41 <theymos> Does -proxy=0 work?
3744 2011-04-20 22:41:06 <midnightmagic> invalid proxy address..
3745 2011-04-20 22:41:12 <midnightmagic> let's see if it changes runtime
3746 2011-04-20 22:42:05 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/1ffb4c3c2ec28dae01b703e9b5086e3f73ce8ae4
3747 2011-04-20 22:42:13 <BlueMatt> ^ URI Support
3748 2011-04-20 22:42:18 <BlueMatt> comments?
3749 2011-04-20 22:42:49 <BlueMatt> still needs windows installer support before merge request, but I thought I'd ask
3750 2011-04-20 22:43:05 <BlueMatt> no tonal support, but that can be easily changed if people disagree with jgarzik
3751 2011-04-20 22:43:38 <[Tycho]> :)
3752 2011-04-20 22:43:41 <midnightmagic> dammit..  -proxy=0 fails..
3753 2011-04-20 22:44:55 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/9dff5cc9bfa17d354e6bbe1168f007c8c4ce80bc
3754 2011-04-20 22:44:56 <BlueMatt> there
3755 2011-04-20 22:45:45 xlogik has quit (Read error: No route to host)
3756 2011-04-20 22:46:10 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3757 2011-04-20 22:46:28 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I asked that not be done
3758 2011-04-20 22:46:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: great, if the community disagrees Ill change it back
3759 2011-04-20 22:46:52 <BlueMatt> which some do, it remains to be seen
3760 2011-04-20 22:47:02 * [Tycho] agrees as community :)
3761 2011-04-20 22:47:37 * BlueMatt withdraws his vote against hex support, he doesnt really care anymore, just wants to see URI support merged
3762 2011-04-20 22:48:06 <[Tycho]> Does it supports normal numbers now, like 50.02 ?
3763 2011-04-20 22:48:14 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: mine did
3764 2011-04-20 22:48:17 <BlueMatt> yes
3765 2011-04-20 22:48:19 <BlueMatt> well should
3766 2011-04-20 22:48:32 jrabbit has quit (Quit: Reconnecting)
3767 2011-04-20 22:48:41 jrabbit has joined
3768 2011-04-20 22:48:45 <tcatm> Can we merge wxipcclient into the bitcoin binary as gavin suggested?
3769 2011-04-20 22:48:46 <BlueMatt> I make no guarantees about it compiling until I submit a pull request
3770 2011-04-20 22:48:52 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
3771 2011-04-20 22:48:53 <BlueMatt> tcatm: done
3772 2011-04-20 22:48:56 <tcatm> cool
3773 2011-04-20 22:49:00 <[Tycho]> I like normal numbers :)
3774 2011-04-20 22:49:04 <luke-jr> tcatm: there was argument over that idea
3775 2011-04-20 22:49:05 <BurtyB> :)
3776 2011-04-20 22:49:25 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: compiles or not, I must say this code is terrible
3777 2011-04-20 22:49:34 <midnightmagic> seriously? there's no way to wipe a proxy out of wallet.dat without resorting to a raw db editor?
3778 2011-04-20 22:49:34 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I agree, it is
3779 2011-04-20 22:49:44 sgornick has joined
3780 2011-04-20 22:49:52 <BlueMatt> but it works and its not too terrible, only very bad
3781 2011-04-20 22:50:22 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: also, what do you mean "done"? I don't see code to make bitcoinuri start bitcoin if it's not running
3782 2011-04-20 22:50:36 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: there is no bitcoinuri
3783 2011-04-20 22:50:49 <BlueMatt> its in bitcoin hence it starts bitcoin when it doesnt fail
3784 2011-04-20 22:50:53 <ByteCoin> Either you haven't seen much production code or I've been working in the wrong companies....
3785 2011-04-20 22:51:02 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: wow, so you just slowed it down like 100 times
3786 2011-04-20 22:51:18 <BlueMatt> slowed what down? you mean by not using bitcoinuri?
3787 2011-04-20 22:51:21 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: I'm not saying "production code" is usually decent
3788 2011-04-20 22:51:34 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: loading bitcoin is going to take far longer than bitcoinuri
3789 2011-04-20 22:51:48 <BlueMatt> ByteCoin: doesnt matter what production is, ours should be better ;)
3790 2011-04-20 22:52:06 <luke-jr> in fact, I'm tempted to make bitcoinuri only load the wx libraries if it actually needs them
3791 2011-04-20 22:52:08 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yes, but it is the standard for 99.9% of programs and is by no means that slow
3792 2011-04-20 22:52:09 <JFK911> rumor has it that a bitcoin mining computer is what lit texas on fire.  any truth to this?
3793 2011-04-20 22:52:14 <luke-jr> but if we end up spawning bitcoin.exe, then there's no need for them ever
3794 2011-04-20 22:52:15 <ByteCoin> Agreed. I just wouldn't be throwing around "terrible"
3795 2011-04-20 22:52:36 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: well, it IS terrible :P
3796 2011-04-20 22:52:38 <BlueMatt> ByteCoin: ok, my code isnt ideal
3797 2011-04-20 22:52:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: no need for what ever?
3798 2011-04-20 22:53:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: no need for bitcoinuri to link to wx, if it never displays an error
3799 2011-04-20 22:53:06 <BlueMatt> also, bitcoinrpc in its original version still works, you can gladly compile it and use it yourself
3800 2011-04-20 22:53:08 <luke-jr> making it even lighter
3801 2011-04-20 22:53:10 <ByteCoin> luke-jr: Point us to some of your code that you think is good
3802 2011-04-20 22:53:29 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: that same patch, before BlueMatt messed it up
3803 2011-04-20 22:53:48 <ByteCoin> : will look
3804 2011-04-20 22:53:48 <luke-jr> ByteCoin: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/d32bebafd41fac885055274ebf6142b960d1345e
3805 2011-04-20 22:54:01 <gavinandresen> loading two copies of the same executable will always be faster than loading two different executables, on any reasonable OS, anyway
3806 2011-04-20 22:54:20 <luke-jr> note the only reason I'm using int64 instead of the standard int64_t, is to fit the "coding style" of wxBitcoin
3807 2011-04-20 22:54:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: hmm, didn't think of it from that perspective; do OS not relink them?
3808 2011-04-20 22:55:13 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: any reasonable OS will notice all the executable pages are already in memory, already marked copy-on-write
3809 2011-04-20 22:55:30 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm not talking about the data loaded from disk…
3810 2011-04-20 22:55:47 <luke-jr> building the dynamic symbol table stuff
3811 2011-04-20 22:55:49 <luke-jr> that
3812 2011-04-20 22:56:31 mologie has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
3813 2011-04-20 22:57:24 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  I dunno, I can't imagine that takes more than a fraction of a second if everything is already in memory
3814 2011-04-20 22:57:43 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: usually that takes more time than loading the data into memory, I think
3815 2011-04-20 22:57:56 <gavinandresen> ah, the Forbes article is out....
3816 2011-04-20 22:58:06 <BlueMatt> forbes on bitcoin?
3817 2011-04-20 22:58:14 <iera> everything that happens in the memory should be reasonably fast
3818 2011-04-20 22:58:23 <gavinandresen> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0509/technology-psilocybin-bitcoins-gavin-andresen-crypto-currency.html
3819 2011-04-20 22:58:32 <BlueMatt> holy shit
3820 2011-04-20 22:58:40 <theymos> Is that going to be in the real magazine?
3821 2011-04-20 22:58:56 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: nice pic
3822 2011-04-20 22:58:58 <khalahan> start a second bitcoin instance, and say us if the error message is slow to appear (not for me)
3823 2011-04-20 22:59:02 <iera> lol nice picture
3824 2011-04-20 22:59:25 <gavinandresen> they sent a photographer out here from Boston...
3825 2011-04-20 22:59:45 prax has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3826 2011-04-20 22:59:49 <netxshare> bleh
3827 2011-04-20 23:00:01 <netxshare> I need to write pool software
3828 2011-04-20 23:00:04 <netxshare> but I am lazy
3829 2011-04-20 23:00:14 <luke-jr> aha, that explains it all
3830 2011-04-20 23:00:16 <luke-jr> gavinandresen is a Mac user
3831 2011-04-20 23:00:57 <iera> hehe
3832 2011-04-20 23:00:57 <luke-jr> of course he'd be against choice and anything that isn't some kind of monopoly
3833 2011-04-20 23:01:01 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: wait, you develop bitcoin on a mac? damn I'm impressed you got bitcoin to compile on there
3834 2011-04-20 23:01:05 <gjs278> catch (interprocess_exception &ex) {
3835 2011-04-20 23:01:06 <gjs278> ha ha
3836 2011-04-20 23:01:08 <gjs278> it says SEX
3837 2011-04-20 23:01:16 <luke-jr> …
3838 2011-04-20 23:01:17 stonetz has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3839 2011-04-20 23:01:25 * BlueMatt facepalm
3840 2011-04-20 23:01:54 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I spend all my time inside emacs and use bitcoind (hardly ever run the GUI)
3841 2011-04-20 23:02:02 <luke-jr> LOL
3842 2011-04-20 23:02:31 <iera> do you already have an emacs mode for bitcoin?
3843 2011-04-20 23:03:15 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: hm, took me quite a while to get bitcoin to compile on mac (I suppose it might have to do with my 3-year-old macbook but still)
3844 2011-04-20 23:03:19 <ByteCoin> gavin: Are you happy with the article metaphorically sticking its fingers up at the feds etc...
3845 2011-04-20 23:03:41 <BurtyB> iera and people think it takes too long to load now? ;)
3846 2011-04-20 23:03:54 <gjs278> project needs more autoconf
3847 2011-04-20 23:04:06 <ByteCoin> I'm not sure you need that sort of attention
3848 2011-04-20 23:04:19 <iera> BurtyB: emacs? :p no idea
3849 2011-04-20 23:04:26 <BlueMatt> Also, has anyone but me noticed on osx and win7 when you compile bitcoin-gui you get odd issues with the background of the bar which contains the send and address book buttons not redrawing itself right?
3850 2011-04-20 23:04:42 <gjs278> I noticed an issue where I've never seen the bitcoin system tray icon
3851 2011-04-20 23:04:47 <gjs278> on lolnix
3852 2011-04-20 23:04:56 <ByteCoin> You are aware of the distate that administrations have for competing currencies.
3853 2011-04-20 23:05:25 <gavinandresen> ByteCoin:  I'm OK with that-- I think lots of people are unhappy with bankers and the Fed.  What do you think?
3854 2011-04-20 23:05:48 <gjs278> you should have burned ron paul dollars to really put the point across
3855 2011-04-20 23:06:00 <ByteCoin> I'm more used to paying attention to what people DO rather than what they say.
3856 2011-04-20 23:06:11 <gavinandresen> Oh, "they" are already paying attention.  I committed a couple of days ago to give a presentation down in DC to some of "them"
3857 2011-04-20 23:06:17 <ByteCoin> Their actions (or lack thereof) imply that they don't care.
3858 2011-04-20 23:06:19 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: I dont mind it in theory, but the way it is written is a bit much IMHO
3859 2011-04-20 23:06:39 <iera> gavinandresen: oh nice, did you get interesting questions?
3860 2011-04-20 23:07:18 <gjs278> HOW CAN WE TAX BITCOINS
3861 2011-04-20 23:07:38 <gavinandresen> iera:  the presentation down in DC?  It'll happen this summer.
3862 2011-04-20 23:07:42 <BurtyB> same as any other transaction imo
3863 2011-04-20 23:07:52 <gavinandresen> (at CIA headquarters... no, I'm not making that up)
3864 2011-04-20 23:07:52 <iera> gavinandresen: ah... misread, i thought it already took place
3865 2011-04-20 23:08:00 <luke-jr> gjs278: the State already taxes bitcoins, the same way they tax cash
3866 2011-04-20 23:08:28 <lfm_> gavinandresen: i hope they pay you
3867 2011-04-20 23:08:36 <gjs278> who's going to be dumb enough to report bitcoins on their taxes
3868 2011-04-20 23:09:21 <BurtyB> gjs278 anyone who is law abiding?
3869 2011-04-20 23:09:33 <luke-jr> gjs278: all law abiding citizens.
3870 2011-04-20 23:09:35 <gjs278> do you pay sales tax on the stuff you buy online
3871 2011-04-20 23:09:40 <gjs278> do you
3872 2011-04-20 23:09:47 <iera> the shop does?
3873 2011-04-20 23:09:48 <luke-jr> gjs278: if the law says I have to
3874 2011-04-20 23:09:51 <gjs278> ok
3875 2011-04-20 23:09:53 <gjs278> the law does though
3876 2011-04-20 23:10:06 <luke-jr> gjs278: only for local stores
3877 2011-04-20 23:10:09 <luke-jr> eg, TigerDirect
3878 2011-04-20 23:10:20 <BurtyB> gjs278  in the UK it's collected by the seller so yes (and since I run a VAT reg company I collected taxes there)
3879 2011-04-20 23:10:21 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ok, after having read all of it it is pretty good, its just the picture and first couple paragraphs seem a bit much for me, but it does serve well to get attention which I suppose is what we need
3880 2011-04-20 23:10:26 <gjs278> for illinois you have to pay it for any store
3881 2011-04-20 23:10:33 <gjs278> they don't have to collect it
3882 2011-04-20 23:10:35 <gjs278> but you have to report it
3883 2011-04-20 23:11:30 <luke-jr> I don't like in Illinois.
3884 2011-04-20 23:11:33 <gjs278> it's the use (jews) tax
3885 2011-04-20 23:11:41 <luke-jr> …
3886 2011-04-20 23:12:27 <gavinandresen> back later y'all
3887 2011-04-20 23:12:35 <BlueMatt> cya
3888 2011-04-20 23:13:02 <khalahan> bye
3889 2011-04-20 23:13:42 DukeOfURL has joined
3890 2011-04-20 23:13:46 <midnightmagic> so..  no way to wipe out/unset proxy settings in a wallet file.
3891 2011-04-20 23:14:12 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: tried setting it to ''
3892 2011-04-20 23:14:14 <luke-jr> ?
3893 2011-04-20 23:14:29 marlowe has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
3894 2011-04-20 23:14:33 <midnightmagic> invalid proxies, including 127.0.0.1:NNNN, revert back to the last working proxy.
3895 2011-04-20 23:14:46 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: there is a checkbox in the options dialog...
3896 2011-04-20 23:14:47 <midnightmagic> i can't shut that proxy down or else a crapload of other stuff suddenly stops working.
3897 2011-04-20 23:14:54 <BlueMatt> in cli, probably not
3898 2011-04-20 23:14:54 <midnightmagic> I'm using the bitcoind headless.
3899 2011-04-20 23:15:03 <midnightmagic> one more thing you can do in a gui and not the cli.
3900 2011-04-20 23:15:04 marlowe has joined
3901 2011-04-20 23:15:07 <BlueMatt> unless you want to compile your own version (though you are right it should be fixed)
3902 2011-04-20 23:15:33 <midnightmagic> i just wiped out my wallet.dat instead. it had a bunch of pointless stale crap in it anyway.
3903 2011-04-20 23:15:46 <BlueMatt> ie on init.cpp add fUseProxy = false in if (!addrProxy.IsValid()) in the block if (mapArgs.count("-proxy"))
3904 2011-04-20 23:15:55 <luke-jr> hmm
3905 2011-04-20 23:15:57 <BlueMatt> though it should be fixed
3906 2011-04-20 23:16:00 <luke-jr> anyone have a server with a crap-ton of memory?
3907 2011-04-20 23:16:04 <BlueMatt> one liner too
3908 2011-04-20 23:16:07 <midnightmagic> define crap-ton
3909 2011-04-20 23:16:09 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: why?
3910 2011-04-20 23:16:15 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: many times 8 GB
3911 2011-04-20 23:16:24 <BlueMatt> nope, that I dont have
3912 2011-04-20 23:16:31 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: to render a map of all bitcoin addresses and where they transfer funds :D
3913 2011-04-20 23:16:44 <BlueMatt> that might take a while
3914 2011-04-20 23:16:47 <luke-jr> yeah
3915 2011-04-20 23:16:49 <luke-jr> and I run out of memory
3916 2011-04-20 23:16:50 <iera> cant you optimize that algo?
3917 2011-04-20 23:16:54 <BlueMatt> ouch
3918 2011-04-20 23:16:58 <luke-jr> iera: no idea
3919 2011-04-20 23:17:08 <luke-jr> I just make the tiny 10 MB .dot file
3920 2011-04-20 23:17:09 <luke-jr> :p
3921 2011-04-20 23:17:10 <BlueMatt> you should be able to pull that off in way less than 8GB
3922 2011-04-20 23:17:14 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: that would mean a fork..
3923 2011-04-20 23:17:20 <iera> ah lol
3924 2011-04-20 23:17:32 <BlueMatt> midnightmagic: I was mainly saying it needs to have a pull request
3925 2011-04-20 23:17:36 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I suspect the output image might end up larger than 8 GB uncompressed :|
3926 2011-04-20 23:17:38 <BlueMatt> go write one
3927 2011-04-20 23:17:45 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: oh...damn
3928 2011-04-20 23:17:45 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: Ah. I have a machine with 16GB on my desktop. and I have access to a machine with 512GB, but that one is not for random use.
3929 2011-04-20 23:18:06 <iera> thats no "random use" :D
3930 2011-04-20 23:18:16 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I wouldn't know how to write such a program
3931 2011-04-20 23:18:21 <iera> luke-jr: but what do you mean with "where"
3932 2011-04-20 23:18:32 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3933 2011-04-20 23:18:40 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I meant that to midnightmagic sorry
3934 2011-04-20 23:18:40 <luke-jr> iera: ?
3935 2011-04-20 23:19:07 <luke-jr> actually, I suppose a more strict timeline-like view might be possible
3936 2011-04-20 23:19:12 <iera> luke-jr: "where they transfer funds" i dont get that, do you mean the chain?
3937 2011-04-20 23:19:16 * BurtyB has a box with 24GB
3938 2011-04-20 23:19:19 <iera> how the money flows
3939 2011-04-20 23:19:20 <luke-jr> iera: it's based on the chain
3940 2011-04-20 23:19:31 <luke-jr> each address has a square
3941 2011-04-20 23:19:32 <netxshare> nice
3942 2011-04-20 23:19:33 <iera> right but i mean the origin of 50 btc and then so on
3943 2011-04-20 23:19:36 <luke-jr> each transaction has an oval
3944 2011-04-20 23:19:44 <luke-jr> lines connect addresses to transactions
3945 2011-04-20 23:19:45 <netxshare> a usenet service that takes bitcoin
3946 2011-04-20 23:19:53 <netxshare> 50 connections
3947 2011-04-20 23:19:57 <iera> ah
3948 2011-04-20 23:20:02 <luke-jr> Graphviz takes that data and renders it in a sensible way
3949 2011-04-20 23:20:07 <netxshare> to bad it's 20 for a month
3950 2011-04-20 23:20:13 <netxshare> I pay 11 a month
3951 2011-04-20 23:20:48 <iera> hm ok, altering graphviz is not that easy probably
3952 2011-04-20 23:21:00 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3953 2011-04-20 23:25:08 <BlueMatt> someone should start a forum thread/vote on how names should be mapped to addresses (dns, https, custom protocol, how, where, what, why, etc) there are already several competing implementations
3954 2011-04-20 23:25:36 <gjs278> going to vote for dns
3955 2011-04-20 23:25:48 <BlueMatt> dns is too insecure
3956 2011-04-20 23:25:55 <gjs278> fake dns
3957 2011-04-20 23:26:02 <BlueMatt> but it needs discussed, hence a forum thread is needed
3958 2011-04-20 23:26:05 <gjs278> like .bit addresses through people's host files
3959 2011-04-20 23:26:12 <gjs278> oh I'm saving the discussion
3960 2011-04-20 23:26:15 <gjs278> for that forum thread
3961 2011-04-20 23:26:23 <BlueMatt> please make it ;)
3962 2011-04-20 23:26:24 <gjs278> but you tried counterpointing me
3963 2011-04-20 23:26:29 <gjs278> I don't know the rest
3964 2011-04-20 23:26:39 <gjs278> plus I don't have the exclusive BlueMatt reputation
3965 2011-04-20 23:26:41 <iera> why do we need names?
3966 2011-04-20 23:26:47 <gjs278> in death, we all have a name
3967 2011-04-20 23:26:52 <gjs278> his name was robert paulson
3968 2011-04-20 23:26:57 <BlueMatt> gjs278: reputation? bleh there is no reputation in bitcoin
3969 2011-04-20 23:27:05 <gjs278> more people know you
3970 2011-04-20 23:27:12 <iera> ill think about death when im dead
3971 2011-04-20 23:27:13 <gjs278> they'll see your name and jump to the thread
3972 2011-04-20 23:27:17 <BlueMatt> iera: much easier to remember, share, etc
3973 2011-04-20 23:27:35 <gjs278> I'm registering tonal.bit the second this dns is up
3974 2011-04-20 23:27:39 <BlueMatt> but if you dont think they should be added, please discuss on the soon-to-be-made-by-gjs278 forum thread
3975 2011-04-20 23:27:48 <iera> k
3976 2011-04-20 23:27:55 <gjs278> I have to go eat but if it's not made by then I guess I'll do it
3977 2011-04-20 23:32:02 redMBA has joined
3978 2011-04-20 23:32:46 eternal1 has joined
3979 2011-04-20 23:32:59 xlogik has joined
3980 2011-04-20 23:34:02 ezl has joined
3981 2011-04-20 23:39:06 <BlueMatt> anyone know of a website with a bitcoin link which I can use to test?
3982 2011-04-20 23:39:24 <tcatm> http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote
3983 2011-04-20 23:39:28 <iera> just create a html document with one?
3984 2011-04-20 23:39:38 <tcatm> shall I make them clickable?
3985 2011-04-20 23:39:39 <BlueMatt> iera: Im too lazy
3986 2011-04-20 23:39:45 <BlueMatt> tcatm: yes
3987 2011-04-20 23:40:37 <gjs278> you could have also typed the address into your bar
3988 2011-04-20 23:40:57 <BlueMatt> good point
3989 2011-04-20 23:41:27 <iera> tcatm: nice interface btw
3990 2011-04-20 23:41:29 sabalaba has joined
3991 2011-04-20 23:41:36 <tcatm> iera: thx
3992 2011-04-20 23:42:03 Kiba has joined
3993 2011-04-20 23:42:58 x6763 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3994 2011-04-20 23:45:05 x6763 has joined
3995 2011-04-20 23:45:37 <BlueMatt> http://i51.tinypic.com/15cyccw.png
3996 2011-04-20 23:45:45 <BlueMatt> :)
3997 2011-04-20 23:46:00 <iera> cool
3998 2011-04-20 23:46:02 <gjs278> haha
3999 2011-04-20 23:46:04 <gjs278> it has the //
4000 2011-04-20 23:46:27 <BlueMatt> I typed it in with the //, but it works either way
4001 2011-04-20 23:46:36 <BlueMatt> it has 2 security popups first though, kinda anoying
4002 2011-04-20 23:46:57 <BlueMatt> both have the "never show me this for bitcoin: again" though
4003 2011-04-20 23:47:22 <tcatm> BlueMatt: sample urls are clickable
4004 2011-04-20 23:47:53 <BlueMatt> tcatm: they work :)
4005 2011-04-20 23:47:57 <tcatm> great
4006 2011-04-20 23:48:16 <BlueMatt> now I just have to get it into the installer and Ill send off the pull request
4007 2011-04-20 23:48:28 <BlueMatt> (well after deciding on the whole hex/tonal debate)
4008 2011-04-20 23:48:35 Diablo-D3 has joined
4009 2011-04-20 23:49:54 <tcatm> I wish I just went with simple decimals when I wrote js-remote
4010 2011-04-20 23:50:20 <BlueMatt> ?
4011 2011-04-20 23:50:28 <iera> is there anyone supporting tonal except luke? :p
4012 2011-04-20 23:50:37 <BlueMatt> iera: AFAIK, no
4013 2011-04-20 23:50:47 <BlueMatt> but in terms of uri protocol, yes
4014 2011-04-20 23:50:58 <BlueMatt> several people have said they dont see anything wrong with including it
4015 2011-04-20 23:51:10 <iera> ok
4016 2011-04-20 23:51:11 <tcatm> I asked for advice on the URI scheme instead of just implementing it. That's why the tonal stuff is there.
4017 2011-04-20 23:51:24 <BlueMatt> tcatm: you have tonal in js-remote?
4018 2011-04-20 23:51:47 ezl has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
4019 2011-04-20 23:51:50 <tcatm> I asked luke to write code if he wanted tonal support so I copy&pasted his javascript parser
4020 2011-04-20 23:51:52 <BlueMatt> well the whole exponent stuff I have to say has a reason, though I think it would be better to ignore it (which users can)
4021 2011-04-20 23:52:20 <BlueMatt> tcatm: well its up to jgarzik and gavinandresen if they want hex/tonal in the bitcoin-mainline
4022 2011-04-20 23:52:30 <jgarzik> it's up to the community
4023 2011-04-20 23:52:34 <Diablo-D3> why do epople keep talking about tonal
4024 2011-04-20 23:52:35 <Diablo-D3> its stupid
4025 2011-04-20 23:52:35 <tcatm> yep. luke insisted on base units by default but luckily I convinced him to accept 1e8 as default
4026 2011-04-20 23:52:39 <BlueMatt> and I dont think js-remote supports it has anything to do with anyone's decision
4027 2011-04-20 23:52:41 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no u
4028 2011-04-20 23:52:51 <lfm_> BlueMatt: what reason? (besides tonal stuff)
4029 2011-04-20 23:53:09 <BlueMatt> lfm_: for hex? just tonal afaik
4030 2011-04-20 23:53:09 <Diablo-D3> people dont count in hexes
4031 2011-04-20 23:53:13 <Diablo-D3> they count in decimal
4032 2011-04-20 23:53:19 <Diablo-D3> its utterly useless
4033 2011-04-20 23:53:34 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: you mean YOU count in decimal
4034 2011-04-20 23:53:37 <jgarzik> URI_Scheme wiki still lists hex and TBC in the examples
4035 2011-04-20 23:53:38 <luke-jr> because you're an idiot
4036 2011-04-20 23:53:39 <tcatm> Now if someone insisted on using number systems based on pi or sqrt(2) such discussions might actually be interesting....
4037 2011-04-20 23:54:09 <sipa> actually, using phi ((sqrt(5)+1)/2) as number base is very interesting :)
4038 2011-04-20 23:54:18 <luke-jr> jgarzik: as it should
4039 2011-04-20 23:54:45 <jgarzik> and luke-jr does not represent a community
4040 2011-04-20 23:54:50 <jrabbit> How about "one, two, a lot"
4041 2011-04-20 23:54:50 <jgarzik> (plural)
4042 2011-04-20 23:54:51 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: it was written by luke-jr, whatever gets merged into bitcoin-mainline will probably change what the wiki says
4043 2011-04-20 23:55:08 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: and then luke-jr will change it right back
4044 2011-04-20 23:55:21 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: as he's done in the past with other wiki pages
4045 2011-04-20 23:55:25 <luke-jr> jgarzik: neither do you then
4046 2011-04-20 23:55:56 <BlueMatt> lets not argue here, Ill put up a vote on the forum thread when I make the pull request
4047 2011-04-20 23:56:11 <iera> luke-jr: do you have evidence how many people actually count in hex? a statistic or something?
4048 2011-04-20 23:56:39 <tcatm> mhm what about this? 1) add simple decimal support without exponent 2) make two pull requests, one that adds hex, one that adds exponent
4049 2011-04-20 23:56:47 <luke-jr> iera: I don't run the census.
4050 2011-04-20 23:57:17 <BlueMatt> tcatm: too lazy, Ill make one pull request and put the tonal issue to a vote on the forums and change the pull request to match the result
4051 2011-04-20 23:57:23 <luke-jr> tcatm: how about just merge the whole thing and just use the part you want to
4052 2011-04-20 23:57:28 <iera> luke-jr: well perhaps you would be intersted in that, i would if i would do
4053 2011-04-20 23:57:41 <luke-jr> tcatm: and stop telling other people how they can count
4054 2011-04-20 23:57:57 <BlueMatt> anyone know anything about the nsis installer format wrt registry key writing?
4055 2011-04-20 23:58:16 <luke-jr> iera: http://www.google.com/search?q=count+hexadecimal About 1,460,000 results
4056 2011-04-20 23:58:45 <Kiba> hmm
4057 2011-04-20 23:59:18 <iera> well ok
4058 2011-04-20 23:59:33 <luke-jr> iera: 238,000 for 'count tonal nystrom'
4059 2011-04-20 23:59:37 <ByteCoin> theymos - you here?
4060 2011-04-20 23:59:51 <luke-jr> 10,200,000 for 'count decimal'