1 2011-06-06 00:01:48 kika_ has joined
2 2011-06-06 00:03:03 Guest49632 has joined
3 2011-06-06 00:03:11 upb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
4 2011-06-06 00:03:25 upb has joined
5 2011-06-06 00:04:43 kika_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
6 2011-06-06 00:06:24 backwardation25 has joined
7 2011-06-06 00:06:41 brunner has joined
8 2011-06-06 00:07:24 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
9 2011-06-06 00:08:51 <gmaxwell> Matson: he's undermining himself by making incorrect statements in the first paragraph.
10 2011-06-06 00:09:05 hereforfun has joined
11 2011-06-06 00:09:51 <gmaxwell> e.g. the belief that the system doesn't allow anyone to forget old transactions.
12 2011-06-06 00:11:25 theorb has joined
13 2011-06-06 00:11:29 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
14 2011-06-06 00:11:34 <gmaxwell> Mostly he's taking issue with the well advertised properities.
15 2011-06-06 00:11:35 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
16 2011-06-06 00:11:39 Juffo-Wup has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
17 2011-06-06 00:11:57 <ArtForzZz> yep
18 2011-06-06 00:12:08 <ArtForzZz> same stuff we've seen plenty times before
19 2011-06-06 00:12:13 <gmaxwell> E.g. that txn aren't secured against reversal by a well funded (or otherwise high cpu power) attacker unless you wait.
20 2011-06-06 00:12:29 <gmaxwell> You might not like that, but thats how bitcoin is. If you don't like it, pay someone to insure your transactions.
21 2011-06-06 00:13:42 mmoya has joined
22 2011-06-06 00:15:52 <gmaxwell> I think I've met this guy before, actually.
23 2011-06-06 00:16:52 brunner has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
24 2011-06-06 00:18:29 <fizario> yeah thats a problem.. insuring is all but nigh impossible
25 2011-06-06 00:18:40 <fizario> if youre talking about instantaneous transactions
26 2011-06-06 00:18:46 agricocb has joined
27 2011-06-06 00:18:51 <gmaxwell> Matson: ad hominem isn't my preferred approach, but you should also look at his list of publications.
28 2011-06-06 00:19:06 mmoya has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
29 2011-06-06 00:19:07 <fizario> normal transactions are insured well enough if you assume the majority of the network isn't evil
30 2011-06-06 00:19:21 <gmaxwell> fizario: I don't think it is at all. To run an insurance service you get your vendors to send you feeds of txns that you accept or reject
31 2011-06-06 00:19:52 <gmaxwell> fizario: and you monitor the network behavior to make sure a candidate txn is well distributed to miners and in their work queues, and that the network looks healthy and unsplit.
32 2011-06-06 00:20:04 <fizario> right.. and if you accept a tx, the guy can easily double-spend back to himself right after you return "ACCEPT" back to the merchant
33 2011-06-06 00:20:15 <gmaxwell> fizario: then you weigh the odds of the attack vs the value of the txn and make a decision.
34 2011-06-06 00:20:27 Clarence has quit ()
35 2011-06-06 00:20:30 <fizario> it would backfire 50% of the time (unless you had some special arrangement with miners to give priority to your approved transactions)
36 2011-06-06 00:20:34 <gmaxwell> fizario: he can't unless he can overpower the network.
37 2011-06-06 00:20:47 <gmaxwell> fizario: the won't accept his transaction once they know about the first one.
38 2011-06-06 00:20:49 Teslah has joined
39 2011-06-06 00:20:54 <fizario> im talking about instantaneous transactions, like credit card approvals.. not confirmation insurance
40 2011-06-06 00:20:56 <gmaxwell> (his second txn I mean)
41 2011-06-06 00:21:14 <gmaxwell> fizario: So am I.
42 2011-06-06 00:21:15 <fizario> the tx takes time to propagate. half the network will think the second tx is first
43 2011-06-06 00:21:53 <gmaxwell> fizario: the txn takes fractions of a second to propage in most instances. The insurance service makes sure the big miners have accepted it. (through topology and agreements)
44 2011-06-06 00:22:16 <fizario> agreements...
45 2011-06-06 00:22:23 <gmaxwell> fizario: this can give second to subsecond validation like a credit card.
46 2011-06-06 00:22:29 <fizario> that is another layer on top of the protocol
47 2011-06-06 00:22:29 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Testset build #14: ABORTED in 15 sec: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin-Testset/14/
48 2011-06-06 00:22:46 <gmaxwell> fizario: It will be part of the whole ecosystem.
49 2011-06-06 00:23:04 Guest49632 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
50 2011-06-06 00:23:07 <gmaxwell> fizario: just like anti-counterfeiting is a part of the cash ecosystem.
51 2011-06-06 00:23:09 <fizario> of course if the miners agree to give priority to transactions you've approved youre fine. but what happens when the double-spender puts a high fee on the second tx? now miners have an incentive to screw the approver and anonymously create a new block to take the fee
52 2011-06-06 00:23:09 Guest49632 has joined
53 2011-06-06 00:23:58 <sipa> the insurance company may make a deal with some large miners to directly submit txn to them
54 2011-06-06 00:24:15 keebus has joined
55 2011-06-06 00:24:17 <keebus> hello
56 2011-06-06 00:24:29 <sipa> effectively getting a "ack, i will put this tx in a block soon" or a "nak, i have a conflicting tx already"
57 2011-06-06 00:24:35 <fizario> right, and then the miner decides to take the fee on the scam transaction (but submits the block anonymously of course)
58 2011-06-06 00:24:36 <gmaxwell> fizario: they could present the double spend to the insurance company to get a price match on it. I suppose. ;)
59 2011-06-06 00:24:58 <keebus> hi guys I've got a question: is the size of a proof-of-work based on the number of blocks or on the number of total transactions?
60 2011-06-06 00:25:11 <sipa> keebus: not directly
61 2011-06-06 00:25:16 <gmaxwell> fizario: In any case, it's just a system of weighing risks. People will insure your car against theft, even though it can still be stolen.
62 2011-06-06 00:25:26 <sipa> keebus: wait, what is "size" of the proof of work?
63 2011-06-06 00:25:37 <gmaxwell> fizario: the system just has to make it sufficiently unlikely and then you can attach a price to eating the risk.
64 2011-06-06 00:25:39 <gjs278> http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin-Testset/14/console
65 2011-06-06 00:25:43 <keebus> sipa: I read that the longest block chain is accepted
66 2011-06-06 00:25:46 <gjs278> that is the worst console notification I've ever seen
67 2011-06-06 00:25:49 <sipa> keebus: yes
68 2011-06-06 00:25:50 <fizario> sure.. but in this case the risk is unlimited (anyone can submit a second tx to himself with a high fee automatically hoping it will get included in the block)
69 2011-06-06 00:25:59 <ArtForzZz> fizario: wrong
70 2011-06-06 00:26:01 <keebus> but the "length" of a block chain depends on the number of blocks within it or of transactions?
71 2011-06-06 00:26:03 <sipa> keebus: and a block carries a proof of work
72 2011-06-06 00:26:35 <sipa> keebus: "length" of the block chain here is defined as the sum of the expected number of hashes done for all blocks
73 2011-06-06 00:26:37 <fizario> ArtForzZz: you have a magical way to give priority to a particular tx over another ?
74 2011-06-06 00:26:39 <gmaxwell> fizario: it's not unlimited. nodes won't forward the conflicting txn, and e.g. if the fee must be higher than the value of the txn the attacker wins nothing.
75 2011-06-06 00:26:48 <sipa> keebus: so it is unrelated to whether or not there are txn in there
76 2011-06-06 00:26:52 <ArtForzZz> yep
77 2011-06-06 00:27:03 <fizario> the fee just has to be large enough for the miner to decide its better to grab the fee
78 2011-06-06 00:27:17 <keebus> sipa: mmh let me reformulate the question: does the system in any way prefer blocks with more transactions within than blocks with only a few of them?
79 2011-06-06 00:27:20 <gmaxwell> fizario: also, the insurance company can afford to lose sometimes, most transactions being honest funds the rare successful losses.
80 2011-06-06 00:27:25 <sipa> keebus: no
81 2011-06-06 00:27:42 <ArtForzZz> and of course that assumes the "honest" miners use the current validity rules
82 2011-06-06 00:27:43 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
83 2011-06-06 00:28:02 <gmaxwell> fizario: and risk other miners under an alternative contract being unwilling to extend his theieving block, which may not be the case in the future.
84 2011-06-06 00:28:05 <fizario> insurance companies do not insure something when theres moral hazard involved.. ppl dont want to have their car stolen (because they wont get full price back with the deductible, time, exclusions etc)
85 2011-06-06 00:28:10 <linda> nn svensk
86 2011-06-06 00:28:22 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: yup
87 2011-06-06 00:28:29 <gmaxwell> fizario: vendors don't want their txn reverted!
88 2011-06-06 00:28:30 <keebus> sipa: so when a server node receives a new transaction, it could stop "listening to transactions" and only work on a new block that has its 50 btc trans. and only one received instead of continuously adding the incoming ones.
89 2011-06-06 00:28:35 <fizario> but buyers can easily inject a tx the moment an earlier tx is "approved"
90 2011-06-06 00:28:44 <ArtForzZz> no they cant
91 2011-06-06 00:28:52 linda has quit (Quit: Page closed)
92 2011-06-06 00:28:58 <ArtForzZz> by then the approved tx has already spread to a majority of the network
93 2011-06-06 00:29:21 <gmaxwell> and the network will not forward the conflicting transaction. Miners will not mine it, unless they are dishonest miners.
94 2011-06-06 00:29:22 <sipa> keebus: yes
95 2011-06-06 00:29:22 <fizario> ArtForzZz: timing.. a cc processor can return a response within a few microseconds. that is not enough time for a tx to propagtte
96 2011-06-06 00:29:41 <sipa> it would need a few seconds to get reasonable certainty
97 2011-06-06 00:29:56 <fizario> miners will have an incentive (high fees on the scam tx) to be dishonest and no one would catch them. ulike other dishonest behavior
98 2011-06-06 00:29:57 <ArtForzZz> okay, what application needs microsecond approvals?
99 2011-06-06 00:30:03 <gmaxwell> And if I can show a mining operation is conspiring with fraudsters, I can drag their asses to court and get their mining gear. :) Too risky, even if they're trying to be anonymous.
100 2011-06-06 00:30:19 <gmaxwell> Credit cards don't provide microsecond approvals.
101 2011-06-06 00:30:23 <keebus> sipa: so what's the point of "caring" about other incoming transactions? :)
102 2011-06-06 00:30:30 <ArtForzZz> nope, more like several seconds
103 2011-06-06 00:30:35 <sipa> keebus: they have fees you like?
104 2011-06-06 00:30:52 Kiba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
105 2011-06-06 00:30:54 <sipa> which the next block's miner will take if you don't
106 2011-06-06 00:31:16 <fizario> whats to stop a miner from simply including the bogus tx if it contains a huge fee of say 1000 btc?
107 2011-06-06 00:31:18 <keebus> sipa: alright that's what I thought. So basically you want to collect as many transactions as possible within the block you're solving..
108 2011-06-06 00:31:28 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
109 2011-06-06 00:31:28 <gmaxwell> fizario: the entire network validates the blocks.
110 2011-06-06 00:31:29 <sipa> more or less
111 2011-06-06 00:31:29 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
112 2011-06-06 00:31:29 <fizario> the incentives do not favor honesty in this case
113 2011-06-06 00:31:30 Kiba has joined
114 2011-06-06 00:31:35 <fizario> gmaxwell: the block would be valid
115 2011-06-06 00:31:37 <gmaxwell> fizario: a psycho block will just be dropped by everyone.
116 2011-06-06 00:31:49 <gmaxwell> fizario: well then you didn't define bogus.
117 2011-06-06 00:32:01 <fizario> not bogus, but the scam tx
118 2011-06-06 00:32:15 <ArtForzZz> fizario: that depends on what the large miners define as a "valid" block
119 2011-06-06 00:32:28 <fizario> i buy a tv from amazon ($100). then i pay it back to myself once they get instant "approval" with a $25 fee to the miner!
120 2011-06-06 00:32:30 mmoya has joined
121 2011-06-06 00:32:43 <gmaxwell> The fact that if he gets caught his assets will be taken in the resulting civil suit? The fact that other miners may opt not to extend his fraud-block?
122 2011-06-06 00:32:44 <keebus> sipa: is it possible for the same transaction to appear twice within the block chain?
123 2011-06-06 00:32:50 <sipa> no
124 2011-06-06 00:32:58 <ArtForzZz> if you can get > 50% of mining power to consider any block containing a tx conflicting with a insured tx as invalid... there goes your attack
125 2011-06-06 00:32:59 <sipa> that would be a double spend
126 2011-06-06 00:33:03 <ArtForzZz> yep
127 2011-06-06 00:33:15 <fizario> theres nothing in the client or protocol now that rejects a block because it contains a tx that was propagated a second after the first one...
128 2011-06-06 00:33:31 <fizario> its not a double spend - its an attack on the false assurance provided by "instant approval"
129 2011-06-06 00:33:32 <ArtForzZz> and nobody can change that. ever. right?
130 2011-06-06 00:33:57 <ArtForzZz> wrong
131 2011-06-06 00:33:57 <gmaxwell> The client doesn't need to reject it, the other miners are enough.
132 2011-06-06 00:34:02 <ArtForzZz> it is a double spend. by definition.
133 2011-06-06 00:34:02 <keebus> fizario: exactly
134 2011-06-06 00:34:30 <ArtForzZz> just because it's not in a block yet doesnt make it less of a double spend
135 2011-06-06 00:34:38 Kurtov has quit (Quit: Leaving)
136 2011-06-06 00:34:41 <fizario> ArtForzZz: right it is a double spend. but the outcome is completely *undefined* by the protocol and miners have an incentive to facilitate the scam (they get a ginormous fee)
137 2011-06-06 00:34:41 <gmaxwell> fizario: and ... you're going to spend 1000 btc to double spend, fantastic. Great, so all txn under 1000 btc are trivally insured. Bigger ones will need to wait. :)
138 2011-06-06 00:34:58 <ArtForzZz> yep
139 2011-06-06 00:35:06 <ArtForzZz> theres a rather large risk to the miner involved
140 2011-06-06 00:35:27 <fizario> how would the miner get caught if he uses a sham/anonymous node to post the new block?
141 2011-06-06 00:35:40 <gmaxwell> fizario: they don'tâ because they'll risk getting sued for facilitating the fraud, and getting rejected by the other miners that didn't get paid. And this only works for huge txn. I didn't say insurance get you fast confirmation for all txn.
142 2011-06-06 00:35:41 <fizario> he would just say - oops some unknown miner got the block - better luck next time!
143 2011-06-06 00:35:48 <keebus> in the scenario node N0 finds a new block with transactions A B C then little after node N1 finds a new block (it was working on before N0 published his) with transactions B C D E F
144 2011-06-06 00:36:02 <keebus> how do things go in reality?
145 2011-06-06 00:36:12 <fizario> gmaxwell: with everything automated i dont see how anyone could detect it
146 2011-06-06 00:36:13 <gmaxwell> fizario: same way people get caught commiting other fraud. They screw up... or they do it enough times that people back track it.
147 2011-06-06 00:36:13 EPiSKiNG- has joined
148 2011-06-06 00:36:15 <ArtForzZz> and it assumes that miners wont have an external incentive to fork the chain when such a tx enters the chain
149 2011-06-06 00:36:25 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: yup.
150 2011-06-06 00:36:48 <gmaxwell> fizario: the network has recovered from screwed up mined transactions in the past that required forking at a lower level.
151 2011-06-06 00:37:07 <fizario> ArtForzZz: that would require a lot more coordination than exists now
152 2011-06-06 00:37:26 <ArtForzZz> yes, between the insurance company and 2 or 3 pools
153 2011-06-06 00:37:33 <ArtForzZz> totally infeasible.
154 2011-06-06 00:37:37 <gmaxwell> hahah
155 2011-06-06 00:38:01 Kurtov has joined
156 2011-06-06 00:38:03 <gmaxwell> fizario: bitcoin POS requires WAY more nonexisting infrastructure than exists now.
157 2011-06-06 00:38:07 glicth-mod has joined
158 2011-06-06 00:38:26 <gmaxwell> er WAY more infrastructure
159 2011-06-06 00:38:29 <fizario> its perfectly feasible - its no longer a decentralized system in that case. the stability depends on a handful of ppl deciding which transactions are good and bad
160 2011-06-06 00:38:35 <ArtForzZz> yep
161 2011-06-06 00:38:41 <ArtForzZz> which is exactly what it is now
162 2011-06-06 00:38:53 <gmaxwell> It's "less decentralized" but not no longer decentralized.
163 2011-06-06 00:39:01 <fizario> except now there isnt a huge economic incentive to discrminate much (tho some pools are rejecting low-fee tx)
164 2011-06-06 00:39:02 <keebus> by the way it's a few days I've been studying the way bitcoin works internally. I must say you authors have my complete respect.
165 2011-06-06 00:39:06 <sipa> decentralized only means there is no required central control, and there isn't
166 2011-06-06 00:39:33 <sipa> keebus: most of it was done by satoshi before the system was public
167 2011-06-06 00:39:34 <gmaxwell> Right, I assume miners will only do the anti-reversal mining for things that actually look like reversals to them too.
168 2011-06-06 00:39:57 <fizario> what happens if a few miners and insurance cos draw up rules and regs on which tx are good? now they are subject to legal regimes, control by LE, rejecting suspicious drug tx etc. its re-creating the existing credit card network
169 2011-06-06 00:40:19 <gmaxwell> fizario: you're already subject to control by law enforcement if you live in the civilized world.
170 2011-06-06 00:40:38 <sipa> only miners do not know what the tx's on the network do
171 2011-06-06 00:40:46 <fizario> you are subject to centralized enforcement of rules
172 2011-06-06 00:40:52 <ArtForzZz> if > 50% of hashrate decides tomorrrow that blocks containing certain tx, good luck getting em into the chain.
173 2011-06-06 00:40:56 <keebus> I'm really enchanted by the truly genial technical soutions found. I'm an engineer at Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy and I'm trying to make up a sort of group of geeks in the official unix group lab of my university, trying to spread the word as much as we can.
174 2011-06-06 00:41:05 <gmaxwell> fizario: the agreement only has to be, "I'll ask you if a TXN is in your queue already, and if you say yet, you'll agree not to extend a block that reverses it" whoptie do.
175 2011-06-06 00:41:43 <fizario> gmaxwell: right, but miners still have an incentive to bail on that when high fees are involved
176 2011-06-06 00:41:50 <fizario> it would be impossible to detect
177 2011-06-06 00:41:55 <ArtForzZz> proof?
178 2011-06-06 00:41:58 <keebus> I want to understand the way bitcoin works because I want to be able to face the N skeptical questions that automatically arise. so thanks for the support :)
179 2011-06-06 00:42:05 <ArtForzZz> impossible is impossible.
180 2011-06-06 00:42:05 <gmaxwell> fizario: then you don't insure high fee transactions. It's not impossible to detect, it's hard. But there is risk.
181 2011-06-06 00:42:10 <fizario> an insurance co would be wiped out by the first heist
182 2011-06-06 00:42:21 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: for example pools end up disclosing the headers of the blocks they mine.
183 2011-06-06 00:42:23 <keebus> (that other people ask me when I introduce them to bc)
184 2011-06-06 00:42:25 <gmaxwell> er fizario
185 2011-06-06 00:42:40 <fizario> right pools would leave some trace, but a gpu farmer wouldnt
186 2011-06-06 00:42:58 <gmaxwell> fizario: sure you leave traces. The blocks show up first from somewhere.
187 2011-06-06 00:43:09 <ArtForzZz> but, tor!
188 2011-06-06 00:43:10 <fizario> random node on a chinese IP
189 2011-06-06 00:43:12 <gmaxwell> You can't exactly use a high latency mix network to successfully announce blocks.
190 2011-06-06 00:43:16 <ArtForzZz> yep ;)
191 2011-06-06 00:43:41 <gmaxwell> fizario: people behind chinese IPs have been tracked down before. It doesn't have to be easy to be a RISK.
192 2011-06-06 00:43:54 <ArtForzZz> you'd need rather large sums to make that work
193 2011-06-06 00:43:59 <gmaxwell> And if someone has $50k in fast hardware why would they take stupid and unethical risks like that?
194 2011-06-06 00:44:06 <ArtForzZz> and those usually don't need instant confirmations...
195 2011-06-06 00:44:14 <fizario> its easy to hide behind a few proxies. LE isn't going to track anyone down for a $100K cyberheist
196 2011-06-06 00:44:17 <gmaxwell> only if the bribe was very big would it be worth it.
197 2011-06-06 00:44:49 <gmaxwell> funny .. old friend of mine is in jail right now for a less than 100k 'cyberheist'. ::shrugs::
198 2011-06-06 00:45:28 <fizario> well in the end it boils down to the power to define acceptable transactions being in the hands of a few ppl
199 2011-06-06 00:45:43 <gmaxwell> no, not really.
200 2011-06-06 00:45:48 <fizario> that is not ideal, since they are a central point of failure LE can coerce/make deals with
201 2011-06-06 00:46:01 <ArtForzZz> yup
202 2011-06-06 00:46:11 <gmaxwell> Miners refusing to extend blocks that reverse txn they've already seen would be pretty powerful and isn't "central control"
203 2011-06-06 00:46:44 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: yep, should work pretty well if majority of miners are long-running
204 2011-06-06 00:46:46 <fizario> gmaxwell: that would be another avenue to ddos.. purposefully send out conflicting tx to stymie the network on each block
205 2011-06-06 00:46:53 <ArtForzZz> thats not really bitcoin anymore, but I think it shoudl work
206 2011-06-06 00:48:06 <gmaxwell> fizario: yea, that would take more thought on how to make it work.
207 2011-06-06 00:48:22 BlueMattBot has joined
208 2011-06-06 00:48:27 <gmaxwell> fizario: you're still stuck in the situation where this is only viable for high value txn, which you can almost always simply wait for.
209 2011-06-06 00:48:31 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
210 2011-06-06 00:48:31 <ArtForzZz> well, you'd need to reach consensus on which came first...
211 2011-06-06 00:48:43 <ArtForzZz> hmmm... how about using a proof-of-work chain ?
212 2011-06-06 00:48:44 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
213 2011-06-06 00:48:49 <gmaxwell> Yo Dawg.
214 2011-06-06 00:48:50 <fizario> haha ArtForzZz
215 2011-06-06 00:49:07 <ArtForzZz> yup, chains all the way down *g*
216 2011-06-06 00:49:19 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: other consensus tools work if you can trust the involved parties.
217 2011-06-06 00:49:36 dr_win has joined
218 2011-06-06 00:49:37 sethsethseth___ has joined
219 2011-06-06 00:49:49 <gmaxwell> There isn't anything that horrible about using big-miner-web-of-trust to coordinate something like that, even though it isn't very bitcoin.
220 2011-06-06 00:49:53 <fizario> let the last 50 successful miners vote on which tx is better
221 2011-06-06 00:49:55 legion050 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
222 2011-06-06 00:50:04 <gmaxwell> fizario: ohhh hey, I like that.
223 2011-06-06 00:50:17 <ArtForzZz> hmmm... that sounds quite feasible
224 2011-06-06 00:50:19 [Tycho] has joined
225 2011-06-06 00:50:33 <gmaxwell> means you'd need a sustained attack and not just a burst.
226 2011-06-06 00:50:40 <ArtForzZz> yep
227 2011-06-06 00:50:41 <gmaxwell> Which means a monitoring service could notice it.
228 2011-06-06 00:50:49 sethsethseth____ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
229 2011-06-06 00:51:11 <ArtForzZz> and it wouldnt even be *hard*
230 2011-06-06 00:51:47 <ArtForzZz> theres probably five dozen corner cases to avoid, but it sounds feasible
231 2011-06-06 00:52:02 <gmaxwell> You could also not bother with it for low value txn, I suppose. Since those are already protected by virtue of being unappealing targets.
232 2011-06-06 00:53:39 legion050 has joined
233 2011-06-06 00:53:40 Lambdanaut has joined
234 2011-06-06 00:53:46 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
235 2011-06-06 00:53:51 tonik has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
236 2011-06-06 00:54:14 Teslah has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
237 2011-06-06 00:54:19 keebus has quit (Quit: Page closed)
238 2011-06-06 00:54:41 <fizario> if the vote isn't overwhelmingly for one tx you could scratch them both...
239 2011-06-06 00:55:02 <ArtForzZz> yup
240 2011-06-06 00:55:08 <gmaxwell> Or delay them until it is.
241 2011-06-06 00:55:12 <fizario> so the insurance company is really making a bet on the resiliency and propagation time (and that a majority of miners have no financial interest in the particular tx)
242 2011-06-06 00:55:29 <gmaxwell> Right, which sounds like a good bet almost all the time.
243 2011-06-06 00:55:38 <gmaxwell> So the insurance should be pretty inexpensive.
244 2011-06-06 00:56:02 <gmaxwell> Especially since it's mostly needed for low value txn that aren't worth reversing.
245 2011-06-06 00:56:09 <fizario> yeah
246 2011-06-06 00:57:11 BlueMatt has joined
247 2011-06-06 00:57:38 <gmaxwell> Also for high value txn there are other ways to secure them. E.g. having a strong confirmation of the buyer's identity allows you to wait less long.
248 2011-06-06 00:58:43 <gmaxwell> Or get a "cashier's check"
249 2011-06-06 00:58:50 Kiba has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
250 2011-06-06 00:59:53 <gmaxwell> (e.g. you can create a transaction which can only be released with the help of a third party in advance of the sale, and use that to pay for the sale)
251 2011-06-06 01:00:02 <fizario> indeed
252 2011-06-06 01:01:00 <edcba> fucking diablominer
253 2011-06-06 01:01:06 <edcba> i borked my session with it
254 2011-06-06 01:02:55 <fizario> do nodes send back a "BAD_TX" if they get a conflicting tx now?
255 2011-06-06 01:03:09 <sipa> no
256 2011-06-06 01:03:39 kermit has joined
257 2011-06-06 01:03:54 <sipa> but i think it's possible to ask a node for a particular tx, and they will only give it if they have it in their pool
258 2011-06-06 01:04:42 <fizario> it would take up network if a person tried to double-spend a shitload of coin.. but it would let ppl wait as long theyre comfortable before assuming the tx they got has priority...
259 2011-06-06 01:06:36 <fizario> i would probably accept btc after like 20 seconds if i knew some honest node out there would relay back a "BAD_TX" message to me when they get a double-spend
260 2011-06-06 01:07:36 <fizario> then youre just trusting the miners not to selectively let dbl spends in, but for small amounts it would be pointless for them
261 2011-06-06 01:07:58 <gmaxwell> Hm. yea, getting a NAK would be nice.
262 2011-06-06 01:08:19 gasteve has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
263 2011-06-06 01:08:36 <gmaxwell> It's also most of the protocol a basic insurance service would need. (they'd just talk to more nodes than you, and generally monitor bitcoin health)
264 2011-06-06 01:09:35 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
265 2011-06-06 01:09:35 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Testset build #15: FIXED in 47 min: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin-Testset/15/
266 2011-06-06 01:10:04 <fizario> it would be funny if the protocol allowed the evildoer's coin to be re-appropriated.. whoever publishes evidence of a double-spend attempt is transferred the coins
267 2011-06-06 01:10:17 <fizario> TALK ABOUT OVERDRAFT FEE! badumpa
268 2011-06-06 01:13:04 <gmaxwell> fizario: that would be great except the person who got screwed in the reversal would really like that coinâ¦
269 2011-06-06 01:14:20 <fizario> gmaxwell: true.. maybe the guy who got screwed has to pay a tiny fee on the order of the tx fee in the event of a dbl spend to incentivize fraud reporting. "cost of doing business"
270 2011-06-06 01:14:53 <fizario> the miners would figure out which really had priority and a fraud handling fee is outputted to whoever detected it first or something
271 2011-06-06 01:16:49 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
272 2011-06-06 01:18:15 vitaminD has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
273 2011-06-06 01:18:16 Lambdanaut has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
274 2011-06-06 01:19:21 <fizario> youd need insurance on mid-size tx, but for cabfare or groceries relying on the network propagation time would be enough.. you could also have distant keep-alive pulses - beacons that let you know you're still in the broader network, but thats another layer of assurance
275 2011-06-06 01:25:33 bahk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
276 2011-06-06 01:26:48 x6763 has joined
277 2011-06-06 01:27:27 <lebish> is theymos ever around in chat?
278 2011-06-06 01:27:51 <forrestv> yes
279 2011-06-06 01:39:27 RenaKunisaki has joined
280 2011-06-06 01:40:02 WakiMiko has joined
281 2011-06-06 01:40:59 gasteve has joined
282 2011-06-06 01:45:58 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
283 2011-06-06 01:47:25 eao has joined
284 2011-06-06 01:52:49 metonymous_ has joined
285 2011-06-06 02:00:42 ForceMajeure has joined
286 2011-06-06 02:00:47 dharmapolice has joined
287 2011-06-06 02:01:28 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
288 2011-06-06 02:02:13 Backburn has quit ()
289 2011-06-06 02:02:18 <dharmapolice> Hi, I was wondering if someone could tell me if it's usual for pushpool to be running tcp6? I'm getting 500 errors between bitcoind and pushpoold and having trouble figuring out the cause.
290 2011-06-06 02:02:37 pnicholson has joined
291 2011-06-06 02:02:48 <metonymous_> i've only used ipv4
292 2011-06-06 02:03:56 <metonymous_> chech ur /var/log/messages
293 2011-06-06 02:03:58 <dharmapolice> I wasn't doing this intentionally, but when running netstat -anp | grep 833 I get bitcoin running ipv4 and pushpoold as ipv6. I can't figure out how to force ipv4.
294 2011-06-06 02:04:00 somecoiner has joined
295 2011-06-06 02:04:06 Teslah has joined
296 2011-06-06 02:04:09 <metonymous_> weird
297 2011-06-06 02:04:56 <forrestv> why aren't there any opcodes for scripts to get information about the outside world?
298 2011-06-06 02:05:03 <forrestv> like current block height, last timestamp...
299 2011-06-06 02:05:17 <io_error> forrestv: Nobody's thought them necessary?
300 2011-06-06 02:05:34 <io_error> Though I could have sworn there was one for time, somewhere
301 2011-06-06 02:05:37 <metonymous_> opcodes?
302 2011-06-06 02:06:54 <metonymous_> dharmapolice, perhaps u can compile it without v6 support?
303 2011-06-06 02:09:01 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day)
304 2011-06-06 02:09:09 <forrestv> io_error, but they thought that sha-1, and all kinds of arithmetic and string manipulation...
305 2011-06-06 02:09:17 <forrestv> [were necessary]
306 2011-06-06 02:09:35 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
307 2011-06-06 02:09:48 <bd_> forrestv: The idea is transactions should either succeed or not succeed; it's not "succeed depending on X conditions"
308 2011-06-06 02:10:02 <bd_> this ensures the entire network always agrees on whether the txn completed or not
309 2011-06-06 02:10:21 <dharmapolice> metonymous_: I'll try.
310 2011-06-06 02:10:31 Guest49632 is now known as Netsniper
311 2011-06-06 02:10:58 da2ce7 has joined
312 2011-06-06 02:11:05 skeledrew has joined
313 2011-06-06 02:11:10 <forrestv> bd_, the things i said should be global - block height would be the block the txn got included in
314 2011-06-06 02:11:17 <forrestv> along with timestamp
315 2011-06-06 02:12:04 <bd_> forrestv: Now you don't know whether to commit it or not until you see what block it's going in, though. This complicates things for miners significantly; they need to reevaulate EVERY failed transaction every time they start processing a new block
316 2011-06-06 02:12:35 <bd_> And, really, why would this even be necessary?
317 2011-06-06 02:12:47 <io_error> bd_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts
318 2011-06-06 02:13:57 littlebittyhat has joined
319 2011-06-06 02:14:27 <forrestv> bd_, yeah, contracts.
320 2011-06-06 02:14:33 <bd_> io_error: anything based on realtime in bitcoin transactions will have problems with clock drift. There are limits on it, sure, but there's still a bit of leeway. This can cause disagreement on whether a transaction (and by extension, a block) is valid
321 2011-06-06 02:14:48 <forrestv> base it on a timestamp included in a block
322 2011-06-06 02:15:04 Incitatus has joined
323 2011-06-06 02:15:05 <bd_> Additionally, if it's implemented as a signature op, then there's no real way to analyze when the transaction will become valid. This means each miner has to simply re-evaluate every rejected txn at every block
324 2011-06-06 02:15:36 noagendamarket has joined
325 2011-06-06 02:15:39 <bd_> Finally, implementing such an op at this point would fork the network
326 2011-06-06 02:15:43 <io_error> bd_: sure, I know the timestamp is approximate. But supposing you wanted to say, this transaction is not valid before block 135000?
327 2011-06-06 02:17:18 <bd_> io_error: Well, I guess you'd need an escrow system, right now
328 2011-06-06 02:17:24 dermoth has joined
329 2011-06-06 02:18:44 Incitatus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
330 2011-06-06 02:18:44 Jefff2 has joined
331 2011-06-06 02:18:44 <Matson> charles schumer, NY "It's an online form of money laundering used to disguise the source of money, and to disguise who's both selling and buying"
332 2011-06-06 02:18:44 AAA_awright_ has joined
333 2011-06-06 02:18:44 <Matson> http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Schumer-Calls-on-Feds-to-Shut-Down-Online-Drug-Marketplace-123187958.html
334 2011-06-06 02:18:49 Incitatus has joined
335 2011-06-06 02:18:53 ivan has quit (Excess Flood)
336 2011-06-06 02:19:49 AAA_awright has quit (Disconnected by services)
337 2011-06-06 02:19:57 ivan has joined
338 2011-06-06 02:19:59 <fizario> lol schumer is probably a dope fiend
339 2011-06-06 02:20:01 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
340 2011-06-06 02:20:07 <somecoiner> did 0.3.23 make it out this morning?
341 2011-06-06 02:21:28 <somecoiner> fizario: Actually, he has dual citizenship... talk about money laundering.
342 2011-06-06 02:21:42 <fizario> interesting
343 2011-06-06 02:21:52 pnicholson has joined
344 2011-06-06 02:22:10 Jefff has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
345 2011-06-06 02:23:56 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
346 2011-06-06 02:30:09 mrenouf has quit (Quit: Leaving)
347 2011-06-06 02:31:43 <OneFixt> jgarzik: ping
348 2011-06-06 02:32:49 Lachesis has joined
349 2011-06-06 02:34:22 bitzap has joined
350 2011-06-06 02:35:07 Ramokk has joined
351 2011-06-06 02:36:49 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
352 2011-06-06 02:36:55 TheSeven has joined
353 2011-06-06 02:37:51 <jgarzik> OneFixt: pong
354 2011-06-06 02:38:33 <OneFixt> jgarzik: i installed 0.3.22 but now cannot connect through rpc to getwork
355 2011-06-06 02:38:53 <OneFixt> have you seen encountered that issue?
356 2011-06-06 02:39:01 <jgarzik> OneFixt: no
357 2011-06-06 02:39:16 <luke-jr> jgarzik: it would be neat to get someone on public record offering to provide assitance to law enforcement in tracking down drug dealers using Bitcoin ;)
358 2011-06-06 02:39:16 <OneFixt> thanks, must be just me
359 2011-06-06 02:39:40 <luke-jr> jgarzik: someone pro-bitcoin, I mean
360 2011-06-06 02:40:20 <metonymous_> OneFixt - i found i had to add -server for 0.3.22 and not for 0.3.21
361 2011-06-06 02:40:29 <luke-jr> I'm not high-profile enough, nor qualified⦠:p
362 2011-06-06 02:40:38 <luke-jr> metonymous_: for bitcoind?
363 2011-06-06 02:40:45 <OneFixt> thanks, i'm running with -server
364 2011-06-06 02:40:54 <metonymous_> um, i'd have to recheck
365 2011-06-06 02:40:59 <metonymous_> i just added it to all my scripts
366 2011-06-06 02:41:16 <metonymous_> and it seemed to take a LONG time to boot 0.3.22 for its first boot
367 2011-06-06 02:41:27 littlebittyhat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
368 2011-06-06 02:42:22 <somecoiner> metonymous_: does it spin for a minute with IO load before it becomes active?
369 2011-06-06 02:42:30 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
370 2011-06-06 02:42:31 <metonymous_> mine did yes
371 2011-06-06 02:42:38 <metonymous_> probably rescannign the block chain or something
372 2011-06-06 02:42:57 <somecoiner> 0.3.21 almost always did for me, but 0.3.22 seems better (Linux x86_64)
373 2011-06-06 02:43:20 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I think speaking at the CIA says volumes
374 2011-06-06 02:43:44 <luke-jr> jgarzik: CIA doesn't hunt drug dealers, do they?
375 2011-06-06 02:43:48 <metonymous_> ahhh, i was running rc6, wonder if there are diferences, just switcehd
376 2011-06-06 02:43:50 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes
377 2011-06-06 02:43:57 <luke-jr> oh
378 2011-06-06 02:44:00 <luke-jr> cool :D
379 2011-06-06 02:44:24 <metonymous_> spinlocked cpu for about 20 seconds on boot
380 2011-06-06 02:45:25 dharmapolice has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
381 2011-06-06 02:45:28 <somecoiner> can you strace it when you start it?
382 2011-06-06 02:47:40 alex__ is now known as underscor
383 2011-06-06 02:47:56 vorlov has joined
384 2011-06-06 02:49:01 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: have you tested what happens with importwallet/key if you import keys that already exist in the current wallet?
385 2011-06-06 02:49:42 <metonymous_> bitcoin is reporting that it's working in safe mode
386 2011-06-06 02:51:03 <somecoiner> what does that imply?
387 2011-06-06 02:51:12 Teslah has quit (Quit: Leaving)
388 2011-06-06 02:51:35 Teslah has joined
389 2011-06-06 02:51:59 user102 has joined
390 2011-06-06 02:52:37 RenaKunisaki has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
391 2011-06-06 02:53:37 <somecoiner> "Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain."
392 2011-06-06 02:53:54 <metonymous_> what should i do?
393 2011-06-06 02:54:15 kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
394 2011-06-06 02:54:27 <metonymous_> afe mode: WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade.
395 2011-06-06 02:54:35 <metonymous_> perhaps it's the latter?
396 2011-06-06 02:54:41 <metonymous_> not a nice message though
397 2011-06-06 02:54:45 <metonymous_> my RPC has died
398 2011-06-06 02:54:50 <somecoiner> hom wany connectinos do you currently have?
399 2011-06-06 02:55:03 <metonymous_> i had 12 before it refused to onnecto
400 2011-06-06 02:55:05 <metonymous_> i'll ahve a look
401 2011-06-06 02:55:10 <omes> how exactly is bitcoin decentralized?
402 2011-06-06 02:55:14 <metonymous_> 10
403 2011-06-06 02:55:16 <omes> how do you know who to peer with?
404 2011-06-06 02:55:21 <metonymous_> omes no central authority
405 2011-06-06 02:55:26 <metonymous_> omes, it uses IRC at the moment
406 2011-06-06 02:55:33 <metonymous_> and a list of known "supernodes"
407 2011-06-06 02:55:35 <metonymous_> but they hope to chang ethat
408 2011-06-06 02:55:49 <metonymous_> {
409 2011-06-06 02:55:49 <metonymous_> "version" : 32200,
410 2011-06-06 02:55:49 <metonymous_> "balance" : 0.00000000,
411 2011-06-06 02:55:49 <metonymous_> "blocks" : 128822,
412 2011-06-06 02:55:49 <metonymous_> "connections" : 10,
413 2011-06-06 02:55:50 <metonymous_> "proxy" : "",
414 2011-06-06 02:55:51 <metonymous_> "generate" : false,
415 2011-06-06 02:55:51 <somecoiner> metonymous_: it would be connecting to the new numbered boards, right?
416 2011-06-06 02:55:53 <metonymous_> "genproclimit" : -1,
417 2011-06-06 02:55:57 <metonymous_> "difficulty" : 434877.04552763,
418 2011-06-06 02:55:58 <omes> metonymous_: how do you connect over irc?
419 2011-06-06 02:55:59 <metonymous_> "hashespersec" : 0,
420 2011-06-06 02:56:01 <metonymous_> "testnet" : false,
421 2011-06-06 02:56:03 <metonymous_> "keypoololdest" : 1306774292,
422 2011-06-06 02:56:05 <metonymous_> "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
423 2011-06-06 02:56:07 <metonymous_> "errors" : "WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."
424 2011-06-06 02:56:10 <metonymous_> }
425 2011-06-06 02:56:12 <metonymous_> it connects to a channel where IPs are listed
426 2011-06-06 02:56:14 <omes> hard coded IPs or hostname?
427 2011-06-06 02:56:14 <metonymous_> afaik
428 2011-06-06 02:56:16 <metonymous_> and u lodge ur ip there
429 2011-06-06 02:56:18 <metonymous_> dunno
430 2011-06-06 02:56:46 <omes> it seems quite easy to shut this down...
431 2011-06-06 02:57:00 <omes> the supernodes that is
432 2011-06-06 02:57:05 <metonymous_> and the IRC
433 2011-06-06 02:57:09 <metonymous_> but the network will remain
434 2011-06-06 02:57:13 <metonymous_> just new clients won't connect
435 2011-06-06 02:57:21 <metonymous_> until someone works out a plan
436 2011-06-06 02:57:22 wolfspraul has joined
437 2011-06-06 02:57:29 <metonymous_> or makes a new binary, with a new channel, new supernodes
438 2011-06-06 02:57:39 <luke-jr> jgarzik: can you recommend anyone to lead the effort? there's a small group joining up in #bitcoin-forensics interested in the idea :D
439 2011-06-06 02:57:54 <omes> metonymous_: hmmm
440 2011-06-06 02:58:46 <Nesetalis> so.. friend is trying to run m0mchil's poclbm miner.. and the damn thing is saying it it cant load a pyopencl module.. File "pyopencl\_cl.pyo", line 10, in __load \n ImportError: DLL load failed: The specified module could not be found.
441 2011-06-06 02:58:49 <Nesetalis> however she has the latest drivers
442 2011-06-06 02:59:33 <metonymous_> ok, my current evaluation is that rc6 is more stable than final
443 2011-06-06 02:59:34 <Nesetalis> is there something else shes missing?
444 2011-06-06 02:59:46 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
445 2011-06-06 03:00:23 kermit has joined
446 2011-06-06 03:03:18 nazgulnarsil has joined
447 2011-06-06 03:04:05 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: you should delete your copy of the blockchain, then you should launch with -dnsseed
448 2011-06-06 03:05:18 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: assuming you're running >=321
449 2011-06-06 03:06:54 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
450 2011-06-06 03:07:46 mmoya has joined
451 2011-06-06 03:08:13 <phantomcircuit> ;;seen MagicalTux
452 2011-06-06 03:08:13 <gribble> MagicalTux was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 12 hours, 55 minutes, and 28 seconds ago: <MagicalTux> Cusipzzz: I do not even know what 1099s is
453 2011-06-06 03:08:51 <somecoiner> lol
454 2011-06-06 03:08:53 <Cusipzzz> lol, I got pinged for that.
455 2011-06-06 03:09:35 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
456 2011-06-06 03:10:42 RenaKunisaki has joined
457 2011-06-06 03:11:30 tinyhat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
458 2011-06-06 03:11:42 <gjs278> http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9121/screenshotrnb.png why the hell is bitcoind writing so much
459 2011-06-06 03:12:00 <gjs278> answer
460 2011-06-06 03:12:01 <gjs278> debug.log
461 2011-06-06 03:12:15 <phantomcircuit> yeah debug.log is kind of silly in it's verbosity
462 2011-06-06 03:12:37 <somecoiner> is there a no logging flag?
463 2011-06-06 03:13:15 <gjs278> not that I can see
464 2011-06-06 03:13:30 <gjs278> I'm turning it off in my bitcoind though
465 2011-06-06 03:14:04 <gjs278> util.cpp: // Scroll debug.log if it's getting too big
466 2011-06-06 03:14:05 <gjs278> lol
467 2011-06-06 03:14:33 <phantomcircuit> yeha i love that
468 2011-06-06 03:14:38 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
469 2011-06-06 03:14:41 <phantomcircuit> it writes like 50 \n
470 2011-06-06 03:14:42 slush1 has joined
471 2011-06-06 03:15:56 <metonymous_> how do i unsafe mode bitcoin
472 2011-06-06 03:16:26 <somecoiner> looks like the flag was removed for safe mode in 0.3.19 ?
473 2011-06-06 03:17:09 sgornick has joined
474 2011-06-06 03:17:10 <metonymous_> then i'm confused
475 2011-06-06 03:17:22 <somecoiner> the flag to restrict safe mode, that is
476 2011-06-06 03:17:29 <metonymous_> Tptp&tf.
477 2011-06-06 03:17:33 <metonymous_> keyboard fail
478 2011-06-06 03:17:43 <metonymous_> time to change that passphrase again
479 2011-06-06 03:18:03 Sugarnube has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
480 2011-06-06 03:20:21 <metonymous_> ffs
481 2011-06-06 03:20:32 <metonymous_> fine, lets just hope bitcoin network works it self out
482 2011-06-06 03:20:38 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: i told you
483 2011-06-06 03:20:42 <gjs278> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jun 5 22:10 debug.log
484 2011-06-06 03:20:44 <gjs278> good
485 2011-06-06 03:20:46 <gjs278> and stay that way
486 2011-06-06 03:20:46 <jrmithdobbs> 21:56 < jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: you should delete your copy of the blockchain, then you should launch with -dnsseed
487 2011-06-06 03:20:48 <metonymous_> u id?
488 2011-06-06 03:20:53 <metonymous_> oh
489 2011-06-06 03:20:55 quellhorst has joined
490 2011-06-06 03:20:58 <metonymous_> sorry, i missed that msg
491 2011-06-06 03:20:59 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: you need to delete addr.dat as well
492 2011-06-06 03:21:04 <jrmithdobbs> or it'll ignore the seed
493 2011-06-06 03:21:35 <metonymous_> which file is the blockchain?
494 2011-06-06 03:21:51 <metonymous_> blkindex
495 2011-06-06 03:21:53 <metonymous_> blk0001
496 2011-06-06 03:23:08 pnicholson has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
497 2011-06-06 03:24:32 <metonymous_> thankyou jrmithdobbs
498 2011-06-06 03:24:43 <metonymous_> what did you mean by "ignore the seed"
499 2011-06-06 03:25:10 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: once your client is bootstrapped (eg, has been connected even if you were connected to an island like you just were) it prefers previous known peers
500 2011-06-06 03:25:21 <jrmithdobbs> metonymous_: fixes for that will be in 3.23 i think
501 2011-06-06 03:25:49 <metonymous_> so my nodes i connected to weren't connected to the rest of the network?
502 2011-06-06 03:27:51 <jrmithdobbs> ya
503 2011-06-06 03:28:02 <jrmithdobbs> there's a bug that's become a bigger problem because of all the new users recently
504 2011-06-06 03:28:09 <metonymous_> those poor miners
505 2011-06-06 03:28:13 <metonymous_> hoppefully they find me again
506 2011-06-06 03:28:14 backwardation25 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
507 2011-06-06 03:28:17 <metonymous_> and get my list of nodes
508 2011-06-06 03:28:23 <jrmithdobbs> such a large portion don't have 8333 forwarded and when you connect() it uses the OS default timeout
509 2011-06-06 03:28:34 <jrmithdobbs> which is between 10 minutes and forever depending on the platform
510 2011-06-06 03:28:52 <jrmithdobbs> so you could sit there on an islanded chunk of the network for days and not see a real peer
511 2011-06-06 03:29:03 <metonymous_> that's really sad
512 2011-06-06 03:29:15 <lfm> hehe
513 2011-06-06 03:29:18 <metonymous_> it needs something like dns
514 2011-06-06 03:29:26 <metonymous_> so u can change the ip
515 2011-06-06 03:29:32 <metonymous_> while the hostname stays the same
516 2011-06-06 03:29:35 <jrmithdobbs> nah it mostly needs connect() to timeout
517 2011-06-06 03:29:40 <metonymous_> oh
518 2011-06-06 03:29:43 <jrmithdobbs> and like i said, that'll be fixed in 3.23 pretty sure
519 2011-06-06 03:29:47 <metonymous_> so it goes back to the irc?
520 2011-06-06 03:30:13 <jrmithdobbs> right, when it times out properly it's annoying but it's 10-90 seconds annoying, not 10-90 hours
521 2011-06-06 03:30:30 Twoheaded has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
522 2011-06-06 03:32:08 <metonymous_> well.. that upgrade was painful :(
523 2011-06-06 03:32:18 <metonymous_> next time i'll do the "staging" deployment
524 2011-06-06 03:33:10 <jrmithdobbs> /away IM RICH BITCH
525 2011-06-06 03:33:13 <jrmithdobbs> erm
526 2011-06-06 03:33:16 <metonymous_> hehe
527 2011-06-06 03:33:31 <jrmithdobbs> time to watch some season 1 chappelle ;P
528 2011-06-06 03:34:31 slush has joined
529 2011-06-06 03:35:00 * metonymous_ ponders what to do with 6000 namecoins
530 2011-06-06 03:35:04 slush1 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
531 2011-06-06 03:35:07 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
532 2011-06-06 03:35:31 metonymous_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
533 2011-06-06 03:36:12 Twoheaded has joined
534 2011-06-06 03:43:43 gsathya has joined
535 2011-06-06 03:45:15 Astrohacker has joined
536 2011-06-06 03:45:18 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, hello.
537 2011-06-06 03:45:35 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: hello
538 2011-06-06 03:45:43 tcoppi has joined
539 2011-06-06 03:46:06 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, what do you think about implementing one more protocol kludge ?
540 2011-06-06 03:46:26 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: uh oh :)
541 2011-06-06 03:46:33 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: what's that?
542 2011-06-06 03:47:14 <[Tycho]> I would send only the data field if miner client sends X-Light-Version: 1 header along the getwork request.
543 2011-06-06 03:47:37 <[Tycho]> It's not really an issue with CPU miners, but anyway.
544 2011-06-06 03:47:48 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: create a mask, e.g. "X-Bitcoin-Exclude: data"
545 2011-06-06 03:47:57 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: create a mask, e.g. "X-Bitcoin-Exclude: midstate, target"
546 2011-06-06 03:48:16 karnac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
547 2011-06-06 03:48:34 karnac has joined
548 2011-06-06 03:49:35 <jgarzik> or X-Bitcoin-Include
549 2011-06-06 03:49:37 <[Tycho]> Considering the total hashrate, lots of bandwidth is wasted due to redundant fields.
550 2011-06-06 03:50:50 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: so basically, any mechanism that permits selection of data fields is preferred. X-Light-Version:1 is too inflexible
551 2011-06-06 03:51:00 <[Tycho]> Good point.
552 2011-06-06 03:51:25 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: 'X-Bitcoin-Include: data' should accomplish your goal
553 2011-06-06 03:51:54 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: some miners may prefer 'X-Bitcoin-Include: data, midstate'
554 2011-06-06 03:52:09 <jgarzik> with a pool, target and hash1 are usually not necessary
555 2011-06-06 03:52:18 <[Tycho]> Ok, i'll try to write some kind of extension description.
556 2011-06-06 03:52:22 <Diablo-D3> uh
557 2011-06-06 03:52:23 <Diablo-D3> what?
558 2011-06-06 03:52:30 darbsllim has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
559 2011-06-06 03:52:35 <[Tycho]> Oh, another miner author, great :)
560 2011-06-06 03:52:44 <Diablo-D3> stop adding stupid shit goddamned.
561 2011-06-06 03:52:53 <[Tycho]> I just started !
562 2011-06-06 03:53:00 <gjs278> add more
563 2011-06-06 03:53:05 <gjs278> anything to give me more shares
564 2011-06-06 03:53:06 <gjs278> add it
565 2011-06-06 03:53:13 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt give you more shares!
566 2011-06-06 03:53:20 <gjs278> ok
567 2011-06-06 03:53:23 <gjs278> don't add it
568 2011-06-06 03:53:31 <Diablo-D3> the getwork response includes everything you need to mine
569 2011-06-06 03:53:47 <[Tycho]> Acually more than that.
570 2011-06-06 03:53:50 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: BTW, have you tested 'getwork' RPC on 0.3.22-rc or 0.3.22-final?
571 2011-06-06 03:54:02 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: it contains three things
572 2011-06-06 03:54:09 <jgarzik> slush: ^^ same question
573 2011-06-06 03:54:19 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, i don't think so. Is there something interesting ?
574 2011-06-06 03:54:22 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
575 2011-06-06 03:54:26 <Diablo-D3> data, midstate, and target
576 2011-06-06 03:54:34 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I might have, why?
577 2011-06-06 03:54:54 <[Tycho]> I heard that those new versions are less stable.
578 2011-06-06 03:55:03 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: yes, lowering TX fees greatly
579 2011-06-06 03:55:18 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: now, out of those three, what could you possibly remove?
580 2011-06-06 03:55:28 <jgarzik> luke-jr: just looking for positive/negative feedback on field deployments for pools
581 2011-06-06 03:55:28 <[Tycho]> Diablo-D3, target
582 2011-06-06 03:55:32 <Diablo-D3> need target.
583 2011-06-06 03:55:38 <luke-jr> jgarzik: do you want my rev id?
584 2011-06-06 03:55:41 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: bug reports welcome...
585 2011-06-06 03:55:45 darbsllim has joined
586 2011-06-06 03:55:50 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: you cant remove it otherwise how does the miner know what to look for?
587 2011-06-06 03:55:57 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, but how the TX fees is related to pool use ?
588 2011-06-06 03:56:20 <[Tycho]> Diablo-D3, it can request one full work and then just the data field in next getworks.
589 2011-06-06 03:56:31 <Diablo-D3> thats stupid
590 2011-06-06 03:56:35 <[Tycho]> Also it may assume that difficulty 1 is default.
591 2011-06-06 03:56:36 <Diablo-D3> it also makes miners more complex
592 2011-06-06 03:56:41 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: miners with older code may refuse to relay or mine TX's with the newer fees
593 2011-06-06 03:56:42 <Diablo-D3> yes, but WHICH difficulty 1?
594 2011-06-06 03:56:43 <[Tycho]> Is optional/
595 2011-06-06 03:56:45 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: optionally
596 2011-06-06 03:56:48 <Diablo-D3> some pools are fucktarded and do H==0.
597 2011-06-06 03:56:59 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: 0.01 is too expensive
598 2011-06-06 03:57:19 <Diablo-D3> Im glad everyone is going to be using my pool when I get it finished
599 2011-06-06 03:57:19 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, my pool accepts free TXs. Sometimes lots of them.
600 2011-06-06 03:57:22 <Diablo-D3> none of this retarded shit.
601 2011-06-06 03:57:29 * luke-jr facepalms
602 2011-06-06 03:57:43 fimp has joined
603 2011-06-06 03:57:43 <Diablo-D3> no more pushpool, no more deepbit domination
604 2011-06-06 03:57:43 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: it would be really nice to have agreement on fees
605 2011-06-06 03:57:52 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: otherwise it is chaotic for users
606 2011-06-06 03:58:04 <luke-jr> jgarzik: Eligius has always accepted the new fees ;)
607 2011-06-06 03:58:06 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: do you accept unlimited free txn? (e.g. when the block goes over 4k?)
608 2011-06-06 03:58:18 <[Tycho]> Usually I include 4-200 Kbs of free txses. Should be around 100k ATM.
609 2011-06-06 03:58:47 quellhorst has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
610 2011-06-06 03:58:50 <[Tycho]> I set it looking at current situation.
611 2011-06-06 03:58:50 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: and how does your node handle fees? are TX priority boosted, as block fills up, if fee paid?
612 2011-06-06 03:58:52 Netsniper has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
613 2011-06-06 03:58:59 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: in any case, the change just increases what counts as paid from thing with at least 0.01 in fees to 0.0005 which is more aligned with the current exchange rates.
614 2011-06-06 03:59:21 Netsniper has joined
615 2011-06-06 03:59:42 <Diablo-D3> why not just sort by (tx fee, btc amount)?
616 2011-06-06 03:59:57 <[Tycho]> I don't remember if I changed the priority part. Usually my blocks never are up to the capacity.
617 2011-06-06 04:00:41 <[Tycho]> The only time when some of them were full is the flood a couple of months ago.
618 2011-06-06 04:00:49 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: because priority is a better metric than btc amount.
619 2011-06-06 04:01:06 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: can you post a clear statement on your pool's fee behavior?
620 2011-06-06 04:01:23 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I listed two columns there, dude.
621 2011-06-06 04:01:27 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: this is a big issue for bitcoin users, as you have a very large % of hash power
622 2011-06-06 04:01:34 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: it includes the value, the age, and the tx_data size which hits every major DOS angle.
623 2011-06-06 04:01:46 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: and I'm saying your second column sucks. :)
624 2011-06-06 04:01:52 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: but if Im a pool, I only care about tx fees
625 2011-06-06 04:01:55 <Diablo-D3> I want as much as possible
626 2011-06-06 04:02:06 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: sure, so do (fee, priority)
627 2011-06-06 04:02:17 <Diablo-D3> yes, but priority sounds a lot like what I just said
628 2011-06-06 04:02:20 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, I did a forum post about it. I will support free txses as long as it don't gets in the way of mining.
629 2011-06-06 04:02:24 <Diablo-D3> (fee, btc amount)
630 2011-06-06 04:02:32 <[Tycho]> I like free TXses.
631 2011-06-06 04:02:46 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: priority is not btc amount. priority includes the value, the age, and the tx_data size which hits every major DOS angle.
632 2011-06-06 04:02:51 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: can you be more specific about what happens when a user pays a fee?
633 2011-06-06 04:02:55 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you said that.
634 2011-06-06 04:03:01 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: but heres the big issue
635 2011-06-06 04:03:03 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: Indeed.
636 2011-06-06 04:03:06 <Diablo-D3> does bitcoin, by default, do this?
637 2011-06-06 04:03:13 <[Tycho]> I know that system will use fees instead of generation bonus, but this is not needed yet.
638 2011-06-06 04:03:13 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: Yes.
639 2011-06-06 04:03:18 <Diablo-D3> shits fine then
640 2011-06-06 04:03:36 <Diablo-D3> also
641 2011-06-06 04:03:38 <Diablo-D3> it needs one more rool
642 2011-06-06 04:03:52 <Diablo-D3> since we're pools
643 2011-06-06 04:03:57 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, I'm getting this fee. Are you asking if it's divided amongst pool users ?
644 2011-06-06 04:04:01 <Diablo-D3> prioritize our own no-fee tx above all
645 2011-06-06 04:04:16 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: no, the behavior bitcoin users will receive from your miner, when paying a fee.
646 2011-06-06 04:04:59 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, I'll check it. Last time I touched this code was during the flood.
647 2011-06-06 04:05:17 <phantomcircuit> THE GREAT FLOOD
648 2011-06-06 04:05:57 <[Tycho]> "<jgarzik> [Tycho]: it would be really nice to have agreement on fees" - what's your idea about this ?
649 2011-06-06 04:06:16 somecoiner has left ()
650 2011-06-06 04:06:43 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
651 2011-06-06 04:06:45 <Diablo-D3> hey [Tycho]
652 2011-06-06 04:06:54 <Diablo-D3> does bitcoin prioritize our own tx above all?
653 2011-06-06 04:07:47 <[Tycho]> Sometimes.
654 2011-06-06 04:07:53 noagendamarket has joined
655 2011-06-06 04:08:05 <[Tycho]> Are you talking about stock bitcoind or my customized one ?
656 2011-06-06 04:08:14 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: It's useful for bitcoin users to know if they set fee X for txn Y they'll get behavior Z. Since there are many different non-disclosed polices for this, it's hard to give a concrete answer.
657 2011-06-06 04:08:15 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: we are seeking consensus on the forums for a TX fee schedule that is supported by miners and clients both
658 2011-06-06 04:08:21 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: stock
659 2011-06-06 04:08:30 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: otherwise it is inconsistent message and behavior for users
660 2011-06-06 04:08:31 <[Tycho]> Diablo-D3, i think that it doesn't.
661 2011-06-06 04:08:38 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: thats dangerous for pool users
662 2011-06-06 04:08:51 <Diablo-D3> because the pool would be stalling on payouts
663 2011-06-06 04:09:07 <[Tycho]> But i'm not using the stock one.
664 2011-06-06 04:09:14 <Diablo-D3> my users would be
665 2011-06-06 04:09:38 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, it would be cool if users could cancel the transactions and try again with another fee value. But this can't be made easy :(
666 2011-06-06 04:09:50 <Diablo-D3> well no
667 2011-06-06 04:09:56 <Diablo-D3> you should be able to list, say, a max fee
668 2011-06-06 04:10:08 <Diablo-D3> and get the excess back in change
669 2011-06-06 04:10:30 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: sure it can. 1) expire TX from cache after 144 blocks, 2) client stops resending when they wish, if TX continues not to be confirmed
670 2011-06-06 04:10:49 <[Tycho]> 144 is not that fast :)
671 2011-06-06 04:10:51 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: Better would be just spending the unconfirmed coin in a TX with a fee, and letting that fee pay for the prior txn too.
672 2011-06-06 04:11:04 <gmaxwell> (not exactly a replacement, but more generally useful)
673 2011-06-06 04:11:42 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: so we live with the network we have today... where clients will not even relay some transactions without fees
674 2011-06-06 04:11:52 <gmaxwell> In a lot of cases the inputs would be different if the fee was different, so I don't see it being easy e.g. to catch a replacement txn and handle it correctly.
675 2011-06-06 04:12:25 <[Tycho]> jgarzik, I understand the idea about the consensus. I'll think about it. Currently I'm trying to make all free TXes deliverable.
676 2011-06-06 04:13:33 <Diablo-D3> you know whats sad?
677 2011-06-06 04:13:38 <Diablo-D3> my pool software is better than deepbits :D
678 2011-06-06 04:13:59 <phantomcircuit> you know what's sad?
679 2011-06-06 04:14:02 <phantomcircuit> tvtorrents.com is down
680 2011-06-06 04:14:08 <neopallium> what if miners published (to the network) the minimal TX fee that they will accept, then the bitcoin client can display a recommended minimal TX fee, based on how likely the TX will be accepted.
681 2011-06-06 04:14:36 quellhorst has joined
682 2011-06-06 04:14:58 <phantomcircuit> neopallium, how you you know it's only from miners?
683 2011-06-06 04:15:01 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: just use eztv.it instead
684 2011-06-06 04:15:12 <MasterChief> phantomcircuit ;_;
685 2011-06-06 04:15:16 <phantomcircuit> i dont like them
686 2011-06-06 04:15:20 PirateMarmalade has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
687 2011-06-06 04:15:23 <phantomcircuit> shits always slow
688 2011-06-06 04:15:32 <phantomcircuit> hey wtf that doesn't work wither
689 2011-06-06 04:15:48 <[Tycho]> neopallium, the transaction may not be relayed to the miners.
690 2011-06-06 04:15:52 PirateMarmalade has joined
691 2011-06-06 04:16:02 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, ZOMG IS THE WORLD ENDING
692 2011-06-06 04:17:00 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: oh?
693 2011-06-06 04:17:47 <io_error> isohunt.com
694 2011-06-06 04:17:58 <gmaxwell> neopallium: Client could make a guess based on the last 144 blocks though.
695 2011-06-06 04:18:01 <phantomcircuit> also the pirate bay tracker is never fucking up but is on all the torrents
696 2011-06-06 04:18:06 <phantomcircuit> it's annoying as all hell
697 2011-06-06 04:18:46 <neopallium> the miners/block generators can include there min. fee value in the blocks they generate.
698 2011-06-06 04:19:10 <neopallium> then the client can get those hints from the last x blocks.
699 2011-06-06 04:19:17 <gmaxwell> neopallium: doesn't matter if the TXN is never forwarded to them.
700 2011-06-06 04:19:24 <phantomcircuit> Error 137 (net::ERR_NAME_RESOLUTION_FAILED): Unknown error.
701 2011-06-06 04:19:26 <phantomcircuit> argh
702 2011-06-06 04:19:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that idea has flaws too
703 2011-06-06 04:19:48 Silverpike has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
704 2011-06-06 04:19:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: how can the client tell if the txn with a lower fee has an off-network contract with the miner?
705 2011-06-06 04:20:00 <gmaxwell> neopallium: instead the clients should just observe what makes it into blocks, then make a reasonable guess. But as luke-jr is about to say, miners giving free passes to some users screws that up
706 2011-06-06 04:20:23 <neopallium> I am just thinking of ways for the network to self stabilize on an accepted TX fee range.
707 2011-06-06 04:20:39 pyros1 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
708 2011-06-06 04:20:42 pnicholson has joined
709 2011-06-06 04:20:48 <gmaxwell> or the users in the mined blocks used an alternative transport to reach the miner rather than the public p2p net.
710 2011-06-06 04:20:50 <fizario> fees can be paid out on a sliding scale based on how fast tx are being processed... gives an incentive to process them quickly :) of course that requires some sort of vote to determine performance... (or a third-party managed fund)
711 2011-06-06 04:20:51 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
712 2011-06-06 04:20:53 <gribble> Current Blocks: 128927 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 96 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 11 hours, 8 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 557933.99072592
713 2011-06-06 04:21:06 <phantomcircuit> lol wtf dns is blocked
714 2011-06-06 04:21:25 <jgarzik> you left out omg, bbq and ponies
715 2011-06-06 04:21:29 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: ISPs luv you using their special dns with search redirection.
716 2011-06-06 04:21:42 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, it worked yesterday
717 2011-06-06 04:21:44 <phantomcircuit> :/
718 2011-06-06 04:21:49 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: perhaps what might work is, based on the user's choice, automatically increasing the fee as it gets ignored
719 2011-06-06 04:21:52 Gekz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
720 2011-06-06 04:21:55 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: to avoid that I've done DNS to recursive resolvers over v6 in the past. (until I could change ISPs)
721 2011-06-06 04:21:55 <slush> jgarzik, shortly, because I'm hurry: I use stock settings for fees, didn't tested .22 yet, but affraid that it will broke some performance patches I've applied for block generation.
722 2011-06-06 04:22:14 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's hard to replace the transaction.
723 2011-06-06 04:22:24 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: dunno, they have versions already
724 2011-06-06 04:22:27 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, cant setup ipv6 the router is in polish lol
725 2011-06-06 04:22:28 fimp has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
726 2011-06-06 04:22:29 <jgarzik> slush: any chance those patches can go into upstream?
727 2011-06-06 04:22:32 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: HAHA
728 2011-06-06 04:22:33 <neopallium> what is the new min. fee in the latest bitcoin client code? (the official one)
729 2011-06-06 04:22:35 <luke-jr> so tx "A" v2 supercedes tx "A" v1
730 2011-06-06 04:22:46 <gmaxwell> neopallium: it's not a "min fee".
731 2011-06-06 04:23:03 <slush> jgarzik: they are published by m0mchil on forum. But it is considered as ugly patch rather than 'final solution'
732 2011-06-06 04:23:10 <gmaxwell> neopallium: it's a "min fee for very low priority txn" and it's 0.0005 (vs 0.01)
733 2011-06-06 04:23:13 <jgarzik> neopallium: 0.3.22 relays/mines the 0.0005 BTC
734 2011-06-06 04:23:24 <fizario> then miners have an incentive to wait for the user to up his fee till its worthy enough...
735 2011-06-06 04:23:25 <jgarzik> neopallium: free TX's are still free
736 2011-06-06 04:23:34 hereforfun has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
737 2011-06-06 04:23:57 DrDeke has joined
738 2011-06-06 04:23:58 Gekz has joined
739 2011-06-06 04:23:58 Gekz has quit (Changing host)
740 2011-06-06 04:23:58 Gekz has joined
741 2011-06-06 04:23:59 <jgarzik> fizario: miners also have an incentive to provide a useful network for users
742 2011-06-06 04:24:16 DrDeke is now known as Juffo-Wup
743 2011-06-06 04:24:17 <fizario> jgarzik: true.. while maximally benefitting themselves with the most fees possible hehe
744 2011-06-06 04:24:18 dr_win has joined
745 2011-06-06 04:24:19 <neopallium> ah, I though some clients on the network where rejecting TXs that had no fee (i.e. free)
746 2011-06-06 04:24:19 <slush> jgarzik: it is about making getwork non-blocking while processing new txes
747 2011-06-06 04:24:20 <gmaxwell> It kinda sucks that new users almost always have a very low priority txn as their first txn... and also have little enough bitcoin that a fee sounds high.
748 2011-06-06 04:24:36 <phantomcircuit> neopallium, there are
749 2011-06-06 04:24:45 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: yes
750 2011-06-06 04:25:09 <jgarzik> neopallium: if the value is below 0.01, most clients/miners will not relay without a fee
751 2011-06-06 04:25:14 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, zomg the world is endinng the .it dns servers appear to be fucked
752 2011-06-06 04:25:16 <phantomcircuit> lololol
753 2011-06-06 04:25:16 pnicholson has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
754 2011-06-06 04:25:44 <Diablo-D3> .... goddamnit italy
755 2011-06-06 04:25:53 <phantomcircuit> oh it's the eztv.se servers
756 2011-06-06 04:26:07 <neopallium> clients that relay TXs get part of the fee? I though the fee only went to the miners/pools
757 2011-06-06 04:26:15 <gmaxwell> Also, I suspect that there is some bug in the priority calculation in .21 ... some random person in #bitcoin had to wait >>12 hours (I think they eventually sent at about 26) to send a simple 1BTC transaction (1 in, 1 out) with no fee.
758 2011-06-06 04:26:32 <gmaxwell> neopallium: the relay behavior is to stop network flooding, not to provide income.
759 2011-06-06 04:26:35 pnicholson has joined
760 2011-06-06 04:26:44 <neopallium> ok
761 2011-06-06 04:27:02 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: yeah apparently its up and down lately
762 2011-06-06 04:27:54 PirateMarmalade has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
763 2011-06-06 04:27:54 <phantomcircuit> I NEED MY AMERICAN TV
764 2011-06-06 04:28:00 <phantomcircuit> lol
765 2011-06-06 04:28:16 PirateMarmalade has joined
766 2011-06-06 04:28:22 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
767 2011-06-06 04:30:07 <fizario> is there a list rating miners based on what % of tx were left out the block
768 2011-06-06 04:30:59 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: you have any idea the significance behind the magic numbers in EncodeBase58() in base58.h ?
769 2011-06-06 04:31:14 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: str.reserve((pend - pbegin) * 138 / 100 + 1);
770 2011-06-06 04:32:18 <jrmithdobbs> +1 is for '\0', pend -pbegin is the length of the original little endian unsigned char storage, but wtf does * 138/100 come from?
771 2011-06-06 04:32:40 henchan has joined
772 2011-06-06 04:32:46 <jrmithdobbs> or anyone, for that matter
773 2011-06-06 04:33:32 <gmaxwell> fizario: considering that you can't tell who mind what blockâ no.
774 2011-06-06 04:33:54 <fizario> another way is to make it a lottery - each free tx is a lottery ticket whose payout is revealed in +5 blocks... (deterministically, but hard to predict).. this gives miners a huge incentive to include as many tx as possible to win the lottery :)
775 2011-06-06 04:33:57 <gmaxwell> fizario: (I mean, you can sometimes tell eligius blocks are obvious, and BTC guild links to all theirs in public)...
776 2011-06-06 04:34:44 JRWR has quit ()
777 2011-06-06 04:34:56 <gmaxwell> fizario: That not great either. What happens when I start spamming the network with thousands of dust-sized txns an hour. ... and then all mined blocks are 1MB...
778 2011-06-06 04:35:04 Xenland has joined
779 2011-06-06 04:35:16 Silverpike has joined
780 2011-06-06 04:35:37 simkiss has quit (Quit: simkiss)
781 2011-06-06 04:35:43 <fizario> yes, you would need to have it be based on the ratio of free to paid or something
782 2011-06-06 04:35:49 <gmaxwell> fizario: also, depending on how you did the lottery, miners would dustspam themselves.
783 2011-06-06 04:35:50 <fizario> or take a vote of all miners in history
784 2011-06-06 04:35:55 <jrmithdobbs> no voting
785 2011-06-06 04:35:59 <jrmithdobbs> voting is bad
786 2011-06-06 04:36:11 <gmaxwell> voting = sybil attacks, generally
787 2011-06-06 04:36:26 bitzap has left ()
788 2011-06-06 04:36:31 <gmaxwell> plus voting power is non-linear when the participants are weighed.
789 2011-06-06 04:36:33 <fizario> if the voters are only succesful miners, they represent actual computation
790 2011-06-06 04:36:46 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
791 2011-06-06 04:37:04 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: that's even worse
792 2011-06-06 04:37:19 <jrmithdobbs> now you're encouraging consilidation on a large scale
793 2011-06-06 04:37:26 <gmaxwell> fizario: dunno why you're so concerned with free transactions.
794 2011-06-06 04:37:36 <ezl> what timezone are mtgox timestamps in?
795 2011-06-06 04:37:45 <fizario> not consolidation, just maximizing the # of tx performance monitors
796 2011-06-06 04:38:03 <jrmithdobbs> ezl: utc
797 2011-06-06 04:38:24 amid_hasan has joined
798 2011-06-06 04:38:39 pyros1 has joined
799 2011-06-06 04:38:45 <fizario> if you incentivize tx throughput, everyone prospers
800 2011-06-06 04:39:23 <gmaxwell> Then it's incentivized already.
801 2011-06-06 04:39:25 <ezl> thanks jrmithdobbs
802 2011-06-06 04:39:31 <gmaxwell> Becuase bitcoin prospering helps everyone involved.
803 2011-06-06 04:40:06 <gmaxwell> fizario: you're ignoring the fact that free txn can easily be dustspam. It has been in the past when it wasn't handled as well as it is now.
804 2011-06-06 04:40:13 <fizario> right.. but already pools are pushing back declaring theyll only accept certain fee levels. they will try to negotiate the highest tx's possible by penalizing "free-loaders"
805 2011-06-06 04:40:21 <fizario> or low-bidders
806 2011-06-06 04:40:27 <gmaxwell> fizario: No, you're misunderstanding what pools are doing
807 2011-06-06 04:40:30 <amid_hasan> hello
808 2011-06-06 04:40:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr isn't making bank on a fee of 0.00004096
809 2011-06-06 04:41:17 <gmaxwell> fizario: the reason for imposing a fee is so that non-spammers identify themselves in advance of spam existing.
810 2011-06-06 04:41:21 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: did you not read the paper? incentivizing txn inclusion through fees is the point of the system
811 2011-06-06 04:41:39 <jrmithdobbs> well, one of them
812 2011-06-06 04:41:41 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: in advance? spam has been clogging the network for months
813 2011-06-06 04:42:10 <fizario> jrmithdobbs: fees on individual tx isn't the only way to do it. the goal is total tx throughput.
814 2011-06-06 04:42:19 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Yes, and yet people still aren't paying fees to get ahead of it. Which is their own weird ass choice.
815 2011-06-06 04:42:32 <gmaxwell> fizario: throughput is not goodput
816 2011-06-06 04:42:59 <fizario> game theory predicts miners will price discriminate: at each round a small % of users (lowest percentile say) will be excluded until they increase their fees
817 2011-06-06 04:43:00 <gmaxwell> Making all blocks maximum size with junk txn would be maximal throughput. but it would be terrible for bitcoin.
818 2011-06-06 04:43:03 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: and large mining ops are always going to prioritize txns with fees
819 2011-06-06 04:43:25 johnnympereira5 has joined
820 2011-06-06 04:44:32 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: the largest mining op right now is all about free TX's, scroll up.
821 2011-06-06 04:44:44 <gmaxwell> He did say prioritize.
822 2011-06-06 04:44:48 <fizario> right the way to avoid spam free tx is to look at the median ratio of fee to non-fee and penalize deviations that are discriminatory
823 2011-06-06 04:44:56 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i said prioritize. not ignore free txns
824 2011-06-06 04:45:04 <gmaxwell> fizario: Parse failure.
825 2011-06-06 04:46:45 henchan has left ()
826 2011-06-06 04:47:54 has joined
827 2011-06-06 04:48:44 somecoiner has joined
828 2011-06-06 04:49:47 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
829 2011-06-06 04:50:13 Optimo has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
830 2011-06-06 04:51:07 johnnympereira5 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
831 2011-06-06 04:52:43 <amid_hasan> is there a way to install bitcoin on the BlackBerry PlayBook?:
832 2011-06-06 04:52:56 <lfm> amid_hasan: no
833 2011-06-06 04:53:06 <amid_hasan> lfm: why not. isn't it open-sourced?
834 2011-06-06 04:53:21 <jrmithdobbs> so port it
835 2011-06-06 04:53:24 <lfm> amid_hasan: ya but its not proted to it yet
836 2011-06-06 04:53:29 <lfm> ported
837 2011-06-06 04:53:30 <jrmithdobbs> so you and the 5 other people with them and no email can do something useful
838 2011-06-06 04:53:38 <fizario> you can use mybitcoin or rpc to your server
839 2011-06-06 04:53:43 <amid_hasan> what do you mean by no email?
840 2011-06-06 04:54:09 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: blackberry invented email you know
841 2011-06-06 04:54:46 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: pretty ironic
842 2011-06-06 04:54:59 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
843 2011-06-06 04:55:00 <fizario> gmaxwell: there are ways around it... in the first case successful miners vote on how many tx were left out. compare to previous blocks. then fees are paid out to scale based on that metric.. or you just have miners fork when they detect too many blocks being left out
844 2011-06-06 04:55:03 is now known as Netsniper|!~se@adsl-76-240-207-5.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Netsniper
845 2011-06-06 04:55:17 <amid_hasan> jrmithdobbs: your comment about playbook not having email is just ill-researched
846 2011-06-06 04:55:24 <amid_hasan> i send email from the device daily
847 2011-06-06 04:55:40 <fizario> then theres no incentive to discriminate against certain tx.. however, if there arent enough fees, no one will mine, so users will still pay fees
848 2011-06-06 04:55:42 <lfm> fizario: huh?
849 2011-06-06 04:55:42 <gmaxwell> fizario: great, so I generate 1000 txn per minute in spam, and the network forks against anyone smart enough to ignore my attack
850 2011-06-06 04:55:47 <jrmithdobbs> a company famous for their (shitty half-assed but only thing available at the time) push email requiring you to have a second device paired with it to use email is just hilarious
851 2011-06-06 04:55:51 * gmaxwell gives fizario a dunce cap
852 2011-06-06 04:56:05 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: voting is retarded
853 2011-06-06 04:56:05 <amid_hasan> and i also have a phone which takes in email. don't understand why i need to be checking the same email on 50 devices??
854 2011-06-06 04:56:42 <fizario> gmaxwell: lol no, the miners still agree on minimum throughput required. they wouldnt require gigabytes of tx
855 2011-06-06 04:56:48 <amid_hasan> do you check your email on your iphone/ipad, and stare at your ipad for 14 hours a day?
856 2011-06-06 04:57:08 <gmaxwell> fizario: I don't know why you think _zero_ fee txns are especially desirable. They're useful for making the system friendly to newbies, but thats about it.
857 2011-06-06 04:57:13 Lachesis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
858 2011-06-06 04:57:14 <gmaxwell> fizario: okay, thats almost sounding reasonable.
859 2011-06-06 04:57:22 amid_hasan has left ()
860 2011-06-06 04:57:27 <lfm> gmaxwell: same as email
861 2011-06-06 04:57:32 <gmaxwell> fizario: but it's all unneeded as soon as there is any fee at all.
862 2011-06-06 04:57:40 <gmaxwell> lfm: email is increasingly useless because of spam
863 2011-06-06 04:57:56 <gmaxwell> lfm: and the spam filtering is often as bad as the illness it cures.
864 2011-06-06 04:58:27 <lfm> spam email has been nearly constant for years, not increasing
865 2011-06-06 04:58:39 Optimo has joined
866 2011-06-06 04:58:49 <fizario> there are some restaurants where you pay what you can afford.. surprisingly they still make good profit. in a world where you pay whatever fee you can lots of ppl can do free frictionless tx, but still enough ppl pay to keep the system alive (if no one pays, system failure ensues, so the most committed users will still have it in their interest to use fees)
867 2011-06-06 04:59:41 <lfm> fizario: and so long as txn with fees get priority it should work no prob
868 2011-06-06 05:00:20 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: you're fixing a non-existant problem
869 2011-06-06 05:00:33 <fizario> indeed. just worried about strategic discrimination against the lowest fees - a way to coerce them into paying more
870 2011-06-06 05:00:41 <jrmithdobbs> well, you'd actually be making the problem you're arguing against a bigger one, but i'm bored of this discussion
871 2011-06-06 05:00:46 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
872 2011-06-06 05:00:46 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":18.3987,"low":16.2,"vol":25818,"buy":17.868,"sell":17.999,"last":17.8672}}
873 2011-06-06 05:01:19 <gmaxwell> fizario: well, I've worried about it to. But right now its a non-issue because all miners want bitcoin to be successful
874 2011-06-06 05:01:21 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
875 2011-06-06 05:01:29 <gmaxwell> fizario: and nickle and diming people on fees won't get it there
876 2011-06-06 05:01:35 <fizario> indeed
877 2011-06-06 05:01:44 <jrmithdobbs> fizario: this is a commodity/currency system. not a charity?!
878 2011-06-06 05:01:56 <gmaxwell> fizario: it'll be a different question if/when bitcoin's success looks upstoppable.
879 2011-06-06 05:01:58 <fizario> haha.. welcome comrade
880 2011-06-06 05:02:20 <lfm> and without any special changes there are more and more fees in the blocks every day it seems
881 2011-06-06 05:02:28 bk128 has joined
882 2011-06-06 05:02:52 karnac_ has joined
883 2011-06-06 05:02:52 <gmaxwell> lfm: don't be so happy. This is mostly per-KB fees from bloated txn.
884 2011-06-06 05:02:53 Backburn has joined
885 2011-06-06 05:03:04 <lfm> works for me
886 2011-06-06 05:03:07 <gmaxwell> lfm: people paying 70 BC out of mostly >0.1 inputs. :-/
887 2011-06-06 05:03:09 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
888 2011-06-06 05:03:11 <jrmithdobbs> and people getting annoyed with the p2p network latency
889 2011-06-06 05:03:13 <jrmithdobbs> heh
890 2011-06-06 05:03:13 <gmaxwell> s/BC/BTC/
891 2011-06-06 05:03:53 <lfm> it is as it should be. free txn may take longer (ie overnight)
892 2011-06-06 05:04:08 <gmaxwell> It's hard to educate joe-miner that they actually want to increase the minimum payouts on the pools they use.
893 2011-06-06 05:04:31 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
894 2011-06-06 05:04:59 <lfm> gmaxwell: ya the pool admins should take a hard line on that and pay out no more than daily
895 2011-06-06 05:06:04 karnac has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
896 2011-06-06 05:06:04 Sylph has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
897 2011-06-06 05:06:13 <gmaxwell> Eligius does 1BTC threshold (and only when it finds a block). I think BTCGuild will be changing to maximum once/day, I think. So some do.
898 2011-06-06 05:06:27 Sylph has joined
899 2011-06-06 05:06:45 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
900 2011-06-06 05:07:43 amid_hasan has joined
901 2011-06-06 05:07:47 <amid_hasan> what language is the source in?
902 2011-06-06 05:08:24 osmosis has joined
903 2011-06-06 05:08:33 <lfm> amid c++
904 2011-06-06 05:09:39 <amid_hasan> can I port to a web language?
905 2011-06-06 05:09:47 <jrmithdobbs> go for it
906 2011-06-06 05:09:53 <lfm> you can do whatever you want
907 2011-06-06 05:10:15 <amid_hasan> server side, where should i host?
908 2011-06-06 05:10:38 <lfm> doesnt really matter to us
909 2011-06-06 05:10:43 RAM2012 has joined
910 2011-06-06 05:10:46 <jrmithdobbs> you should probably get the code working before you worry about that
911 2011-06-06 05:10:51 manifold_ has joined
912 2011-06-06 05:11:39 <lfm> do a host with a ati/amd gpu and then you could also mine on it
913 2011-06-06 05:12:07 <fizario> by the way, users can revolt against dictatorial miners by adding all pending tx as dependencies of their tx (through some new script or sorted-input hash). to be included in the block, all the referenced tx's have to be included as well. those who pay fees will have an incentive to do it, since they know theyll want to use free tx later and want to keep fees at equilibrium
914 2011-06-06 05:12:10 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
915 2011-06-06 05:12:25 redengin has joined
916 2011-06-06 05:13:04 amid_hasan has left ()
917 2011-06-06 05:13:14 <lfm> fizario: ya, it would require custom clients to generate such txns since the standard client doesnt allow you to choose what btc input go into yourtxn
918 2011-06-06 05:13:23 <gmaxwell> fizario: you can't use someone elses txn as a dependency.
919 2011-06-06 05:13:33 <gmaxwell> And the miners should be smart enough to groom up dependencies.
920 2011-06-06 05:13:49 <gmaxwell> If someone sends me a free txn that gets stuck, I should be able to unstick it by spending it with a reasonable fee.
921 2011-06-06 05:14:11 <fizario> rite.. not currently. requires a new script that says: "must appear in a block with these 5 tx". if you pick the 5 at random, the superset would be most of the pending tx
922 2011-06-06 05:14:12 <lfm> dependancies generally will just lower you priority anyway, not raise it I think
923 2011-06-06 05:14:19 johnlockwood has quit (Quit: johnlockwood)
924 2011-06-06 05:14:38 redengin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
925 2011-06-06 05:14:41 <gmaxwell> lfm: it would let someone else pay the fee for some other txn.
926 2011-06-06 05:15:13 <gmaxwell> fizario: not 'in a block with' but confirmed with/after, no?
927 2011-06-06 05:15:16 <fizario> the miner wouldnt object to the free-loaders, since it wants the tx fee on the leader tx
928 2011-06-06 05:15:31 <lfm> I dunno if a miner would raise the priority of a free txn in order to claim a fee on a txn that is dependant on the free one.
929 2011-06-06 05:15:33 <fizario> gmaxwell: yeah - those tx must exist before this one pays a fee
930 2011-06-06 05:15:36 sacarlson has joined
931 2011-06-06 05:15:39 manifold_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
932 2011-06-06 05:15:48 <gmaxwell> It would be nice if someone would fix the dependency grooming for the normal stuff with those crazy dependant txn.
933 2011-06-06 05:15:59 <gmaxwell> lfm: why not?
934 2011-06-06 05:16:04 dbitcoin has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
935 2011-06-06 05:16:11 johnlockwood has joined
936 2011-06-06 05:16:14 <gmaxwell> lfm: Just treat them as one big txn and apply the same fee rules.
937 2011-06-06 05:16:26 <lfm> gmaxwell: dunno it just could get counter productive
938 2011-06-06 05:16:42 <gmaxwell> lfm: it's actually important (ignoring fizario's weird third party ones)
939 2011-06-06 05:16:47 <fizario> at btc=$100 there will be a lot more optimization happening hehe
940 2011-06-06 05:16:56 <lfm> maybe, seems like its getting too complex then
941 2011-06-06 05:17:05 <gmaxwell> lfm: right now an unconfirmed txn in your wallet can screw up a txn you send even with nice fees.
942 2011-06-06 05:17:37 <gmaxwell> lfm: I've posted some examples of this where txn with biiigg fees took days because there was a stupid unconfirmed 0.01 used as an input.
943 2011-06-06 05:17:54 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
944 2011-06-06 05:18:02 <lfm> gmaxwell: ya, that would need smarter miners to dig for those fees
945 2011-06-06 05:18:37 <gmaxwell> little worse when the smart miner may not have even heard of the parent txn because of forwarding rules though, alas.
946 2011-06-06 05:18:47 <lfm> and a spammer could send 1000s of txn then with just a small fee
947 2011-06-06 05:19:24 <gmaxwell> lfm: nah, apply the same aggregate fee rules. XX per KB with a floor of 1KB per involved TXN, for example
948 2011-06-06 05:19:33 <gmaxwell> so it's never cheaper to do it that way.
949 2011-06-06 05:20:03 <lfm> yup, just seems like it complex enuf that it will be buggy no matter how you do it
950 2011-06-06 05:21:38 bk128 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
951 2011-06-06 05:21:58 bk128 has joined
952 2011-06-06 05:22:51 bk128_ has joined
953 2011-06-06 05:22:51 bk128_ has quit (Changing host)
954 2011-06-06 05:22:51 bk128_ has joined
955 2011-06-06 05:26:10 bk128 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
956 2011-06-06 05:26:10 bk128_ is now known as bk128
957 2011-06-06 05:27:07 <anarchyx> guys at which point will you sell half your stach and retire?
958 2011-06-06 05:27:13 <anarchyx> stash*
959 2011-06-06 05:27:45 <anarchyx> im thinking $10 million usd :)
960 2011-06-06 05:28:11 bitcoinbulletin has joined
961 2011-06-06 05:28:14 <cacheson> anarchyx: you have that many coins?
962 2011-06-06 05:28:19 <lfm> anarchyx: if your gonna hold out that long youll prolly end up with nothin
963 2011-06-06 05:28:36 <anarchyx> lfm: you dont believe in it?
964 2011-06-06 05:29:07 <lfm> classic bubble, it will pop and most likely before most of us are millionairs
965 2011-06-06 05:29:51 <anarchyx> i dont think its a bubble
966 2011-06-06 05:30:01 <anarchyx> its a viable alternative currency
967 2011-06-06 05:30:04 <lfm> hahaha, ok you just keep dreaming
968 2011-06-06 05:30:06 <anarchyx> people are buying in
969 2011-06-06 05:30:23 <cacheson> if bitcoin becomes successful as a currency, I could see $1000 per coin a couple years down the line... but that still means you need 10,000 coins for your target
970 2011-06-06 05:30:37 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
971 2011-06-06 05:30:39 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
972 2011-06-06 05:30:48 <lfm> just 1000 btc
973 2011-06-06 05:30:59 <lfm> oh 10 million ya
974 2011-06-06 05:31:00 <cacheson> lfm: that'd be $1 million
975 2011-06-06 05:31:01 <cacheson> heh
976 2011-06-06 05:31:06 Validus has joined
977 2011-06-06 05:31:35 <lfm> I am thinking anarchyx doesnt have 10,000 btc
978 2011-06-06 05:32:32 <anarchyx> lfm: have you been here a long time?
979 2011-06-06 05:32:41 <lfm> almost 1 year now
980 2011-06-06 05:32:49 <anarchyx> i hope you have 10k then :)
981 2011-06-06 05:33:09 <lfm> I dont think I would have 10,000 btc even if I never sold any
982 2011-06-06 05:33:19 <anarchyx> but i guess you will sell out before it hits 1k
983 2011-06-06 05:33:33 <anarchyx> how come? sept-dec period was golden to mine with gpu
984 2011-06-06 05:33:36 <anarchyx> very easy to get it
985 2011-06-06 05:33:50 <lfm> ya, I never had a decent gpu at the time
986 2011-06-06 05:34:22 Terrance has quit ()
987 2011-06-06 05:35:29 karnac_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
988 2011-06-06 05:37:43 <anarchyx> but yeah i definitely see it hitting $100 soon
989 2011-06-06 05:37:53 <anarchyx> its at the process of becoming mainstream news
990 2011-06-06 05:38:05 <anarchyx> after that who knows
991 2011-06-06 05:38:32 <lfm> thats the thing about bubbles, they almost always go up some more before they crash, but they always crash.
992 2011-06-06 05:39:02 Xunie has joined
993 2011-06-06 05:40:06 <anarchyx> what do you think is its 'real price' then, if you say its a bubble
994 2011-06-06 05:40:30 <lfm> very hard to tell, maybe about $1
995 2011-06-06 05:40:39 <anarchyx> what do you determine it on?
996 2011-06-06 05:41:31 <lfm> hand waving, seat of the pants, gut feeling, take your pick
997 2011-06-06 05:42:28 <anarchyx> for me historically it always seemed to be (electricity+hardware investment paid off in a year) x 3
998 2011-06-06 05:42:52 <anarchyx> or something like that
999 2011-06-06 05:43:16 <anarchyx> difficulty included in that calculation
1000 2011-06-06 05:43:20 <lfm> interesting, so what does that formula give you?
1001 2011-06-06 05:43:54 <anarchyx> i dont know, i remember wanting to buy for 10 cents when it was 30 cents
1002 2011-06-06 05:43:59 <Niedar> bitcoin value isnt related to mining at all
1003 2011-06-06 05:44:01 <anarchyx> cause that was my value at the time
1004 2011-06-06 05:44:17 gsathya has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1005 2011-06-06 05:44:27 <anarchyx> Niedar: well at one point it wont be anymore, but its definitely been influenced by it
1006 2011-06-06 05:45:08 <lfm> Niedar: it kinda is since the basic supply of bitcoin comes from the miners. you're right tho in the sens that the current market seems to be driven by speculation
1007 2011-06-06 05:45:23 stuhood has joined
1008 2011-06-06 05:45:49 <anarchyx> when mining becomes close to no longer being worth it, you see miners drop off, less supply, and prices go up
1009 2011-06-06 05:45:56 <Niedar> Well yeah I guess supply factors into the equation and miners create more supply but the major factor is what people are willing to pay for them
1010 2011-06-06 05:46:29 <Niedar> yeah but the supply only drops for a little while once the difficulty readjusts
1011 2011-06-06 05:46:33 <Niedar> its back to the same supply
1012 2011-06-06 05:46:45 <anarchyx> because its worth it again to mine
1013 2011-06-06 05:46:48 <anarchyx> since price went up
1014 2011-06-06 05:47:51 sanity has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1015 2011-06-06 05:47:54 MemoryException has joined
1016 2011-06-06 05:47:56 <Niedar> well whether the price goes up again, when less people are mining the difficulty will eventually drop and try and normalize the amount of bitcoins being created to 50 every 10 minutes
1017 2011-06-06 05:48:33 <anarchyx> yeah but if price goes up so do the miners - why wouldnt they invest in more equipment?
1018 2011-06-06 05:49:02 <Niedar> my point is that the supply should be around the same no matter what
1019 2011-06-06 05:49:10 stuhood has left ()
1020 2011-06-06 05:49:38 stuhood has joined
1021 2011-06-06 05:49:43 <anarchyx> ok i understand
1022 2011-06-06 05:49:59 stuhood has left ()
1023 2011-06-06 05:50:56 <anarchyx> either way ill let you know when i hit my 10 million, but i think artforz will be there before me ;)
1024 2011-06-06 05:53:11 sanity has joined
1025 2011-06-06 05:56:32 theymos has joined
1026 2011-06-06 05:56:32 dissipate has joined
1027 2011-06-06 05:57:40 <jgarzik> theymos: how's blockexplorer.com holding up, under the weight of all the new traffic? :)
1028 2011-06-06 05:58:16 <theymos> It seems to be doing well. Sometimes it is a little slow, but I've seen no serious problems.
1029 2011-06-06 05:59:38 dbitcoin has joined
1030 2011-06-06 06:01:41 <theymos> It has a computer all to itself (sitting behind me), so CPU/memory should be alright for a while. AT&T recently started bandwidth caps, though, so I might have to move it elsewhere if it starts taking up too much bandwidth.
1031 2011-06-06 06:03:27 MemoryException has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1032 2011-06-06 06:04:13 Netsniper has joined
1033 2011-06-06 06:06:37 nazgulnarsil has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1034 2011-06-06 06:07:52 ferrouswheel has joined
1035 2011-06-06 06:08:50 Gekz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1036 2011-06-06 06:09:39 <ferrouswheel> I saw in some old logs that someone asked about starting a bitcoin client in erlang. Anybody have any updates on that? Am keen to start work on one but don't want to duplicate effort unnecessarily...
1037 2011-06-06 06:10:06 tcoppi has joined
1038 2011-06-06 06:10:59 Gekz has joined
1039 2011-06-06 06:10:59 Gekz has quit (Changing host)
1040 2011-06-06 06:10:59 Gekz has joined
1041 2011-06-06 06:10:59 <nanotube> ferrouswheel: search the forums... and the google. if it's not there... you're on your own. :)
1042 2011-06-06 06:12:07 Stabaho has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1043 2011-06-06 06:12:43 <ferrouswheel> nanotube: nothing else on google or the forum that i've seen. sometimes these things don't get broadly announced until there is something to show though ;-)
1044 2011-06-06 06:13:17 <ferrouswheel> guess I'll dive in to it myself
1045 2011-06-06 06:14:40 <nanotube> ferrouswheel: good luck :)
1046 2011-06-06 06:15:04 has joined
1047 2011-06-06 06:17:13 Cablesaurus has joined
1048 2011-06-06 06:17:23 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1049 2011-06-06 06:17:23 Cablesaurus has joined
1050 2011-06-06 06:17:52 Netsniper has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1051 2011-06-06 06:18:51 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1052 2011-06-06 06:19:11 has quit (Netsniper|!~se@adsl-76-240-206-175.dsl.ipltin.sbcglobal.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1053 2011-06-06 06:19:14 _Netsniper_ has joined
1054 2011-06-06 06:21:05 _Netsniper_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1055 2011-06-06 06:21:20 _Netsniper_ has joined
1056 2011-06-06 06:23:06 lightcode has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1057 2011-06-06 06:23:26 lightcode has joined
1058 2011-06-06 06:25:26 sethsethseth____ has joined
1059 2011-06-06 06:26:25 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1060 2011-06-06 06:26:36 osmosis has joined
1061 2011-06-06 06:27:36 sethsethseth___ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1062 2011-06-06 06:27:47 sethsethseth___ has joined
1063 2011-06-06 06:27:59 lightcode has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1064 2011-06-06 06:29:56 sethsethseth____ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1065 2011-06-06 06:36:02 user102 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1066 2011-06-06 06:39:17 bitcoiner has joined
1067 2011-06-06 06:40:40 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1068 2011-06-06 06:40:45 npt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1069 2011-06-06 06:41:16 Phoebus has joined
1070 2011-06-06 06:42:35 bitcoiner has quit (Client Quit)
1071 2011-06-06 06:48:13 zyb has joined
1072 2011-06-06 06:54:27 wistiu has joined
1073 2011-06-06 06:56:03 <wistiu> lorgaborga
1074 2011-06-06 06:56:13 nefario has joined
1075 2011-06-06 07:00:43 larsivi has joined
1076 2011-06-06 07:00:43 x5x`brb is now known as x5x
1077 2011-06-06 07:01:37 RenaKunisaki has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1078 2011-06-06 07:02:14 RenaKunisaki has joined
1079 2011-06-06 07:02:32 devon_hillard has joined
1080 2011-06-06 07:13:21 ne555 has quit (Quit: leaving)
1081 2011-06-06 07:13:43 mtve has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1082 2011-06-06 07:15:20 roconnor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1083 2011-06-06 07:16:02 Prof_BiG_BanG has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1084 2011-06-06 07:17:36 mtve has joined
1085 2011-06-06 07:18:07 andrew12 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1086 2011-06-06 07:19:42 andrew12 has joined
1087 2011-06-06 07:20:04 magiik has quit (Quit: leaving)
1088 2011-06-06 07:20:04 peck has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1089 2011-06-06 07:21:59 Akinava has joined
1090 2011-06-06 07:22:25 d1234_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1091 2011-06-06 07:24:19 brunner has joined
1092 2011-06-06 07:26:43 perol has joined
1093 2011-06-06 07:27:04 Prof_BiG_BanG has joined
1094 2011-06-06 07:28:16 peck has joined
1095 2011-06-06 07:29:26 Rolz73 has joined
1096 2011-06-06 07:29:32 Keefe is now known as keefe
1097 2011-06-06 07:29:36 keefe is now known as Keefe
1098 2011-06-06 07:30:15 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1099 2011-06-06 07:32:40 Kurtov has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1100 2011-06-06 07:33:47 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1101 2011-06-06 07:37:01 GermainAdrian has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1102 2011-06-06 07:38:43 TomyBoy3G has quit ()
1103 2011-06-06 07:38:50 noagendamarket has joined
1104 2011-06-06 07:41:52 gsathya has joined
1105 2011-06-06 07:43:00 gsathya has left ()
1106 2011-06-06 07:43:04 somecoiner has left ()
1107 2011-06-06 07:43:31 gsathya has joined
1108 2011-06-06 07:44:12 TommyBoy3G has joined
1109 2011-06-06 07:44:36 AStove has joined
1110 2011-06-06 07:46:32 tonik has joined
1111 2011-06-06 07:47:34 wistiu has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1112 2011-06-06 07:48:41 Kurtov has joined
1113 2011-06-06 07:49:48 Rolz73 has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
1114 2011-06-06 07:50:30 <lfm> ls
1115 2011-06-06 07:51:04 Validus has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
1116 2011-06-06 07:52:08 <blueCmd> jgarzik: is it possible to re-open a merge request for reconsideration?
1117 2011-06-06 07:52:17 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1118 2011-06-06 07:52:19 <blueCmd> pull request*
1119 2011-06-06 07:52:52 <blueCmd> I commented on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/63
1120 2011-06-06 07:53:09 larsivi_ has joined
1121 2011-06-06 07:53:11 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1122 2011-06-06 07:54:22 brunner has joined
1123 2011-06-06 07:54:25 brunner has quit (Client Quit)
1124 2011-06-06 08:01:04 sabalaba has joined
1125 2011-06-06 08:03:08 Phoebus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1126 2011-06-06 08:03:22 RazielZ has joined
1127 2011-06-06 08:04:19 Incitatus has joined
1128 2011-06-06 08:04:39 thermal has quit (Excess Flood)
1129 2011-06-06 08:05:47 larsivi_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1130 2011-06-06 08:06:13 thermal has joined
1131 2011-06-06 08:08:11 d1234 has joined
1132 2011-06-06 08:09:11 GarrettB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1133 2011-06-06 08:10:29 gjs278 has joined
1134 2011-06-06 08:10:48 perol has quit (Quit: 离å¼)
1135 2011-06-06 08:11:04 <gjs278> buying MTGOXUSD to PPUSD, looking for 1.00:1.02
1136 2011-06-06 08:11:18 <gjs278> with PPUSD*
1137 2011-06-06 08:11:41 <gjs278> lol wrong channel
1138 2011-06-06 08:12:05 sabalaba has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1139 2011-06-06 08:16:05 larsivi has joined
1140 2011-06-06 08:18:19 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1141 2011-06-06 08:20:32 Clarence has joined
1142 2011-06-06 08:27:10 <Diablo-D3> heh
1143 2011-06-06 08:27:12 <Diablo-D3> and now
1144 2011-06-06 08:27:23 <Diablo-D3> satoshi is fictional
1145 2011-06-06 08:27:28 <Diablo-D3> with one single message board post
1146 2011-06-06 08:27:38 <gjs278> satoshi is just a pokemon joke
1147 2011-06-06 08:27:43 <gjs278> that is ash's name
1148 2011-06-06 08:27:45 <gjs278> in japan
1149 2011-06-06 08:27:46 <gjs278> that's it
1150 2011-06-06 08:27:50 larsivi has joined
1151 2011-06-06 08:28:02 <Diablo-D3> gjs278: yeah but btc, gotta collect them all
1152 2011-06-06 08:28:21 <gjs278> satoshi already has them all
1153 2011-06-06 08:28:25 <gjs278> that's the goal of the project
1154 2011-06-06 08:28:30 <gjs278> create cryptocurrency
1155 2011-06-06 08:28:33 <gjs278> generate a bunch of coins
1156 2011-06-06 08:28:36 <gjs278> sell them at $18
1157 2011-06-06 08:29:25 AnatolV has joined
1158 2011-06-06 08:30:12 <Diablo-D3> $18?
1159 2011-06-06 08:30:14 <Diablo-D3> fuck dude
1160 2011-06-06 08:30:15 <Diablo-D3> $1000
1161 2011-06-06 08:31:03 <gjs278> you're right
1162 2011-06-06 08:32:31 retinal has quit (Quit: and off I go.)
1163 2011-06-06 08:32:35 d1g1t4l has joined
1164 2011-06-06 08:38:49 wolfspraul has joined
1165 2011-06-06 08:41:29 eoss has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1166 2011-06-06 08:45:17 <Diablo-D3> seriously
1167 2011-06-06 08:45:32 <Diablo-D3> fuck actual valuation
1168 2011-06-06 08:46:44 XX01XX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1169 2011-06-06 08:46:49 nutcase has joined
1170 2011-06-06 08:47:06 XX01XX has joined
1171 2011-06-06 08:48:20 praetoriansentry has left ()
1172 2011-06-06 08:49:01 slush has joined
1173 2011-06-06 08:51:23 sethsethseth___ has quit (Quit: ~ Trillian Astra - www.trillian.im ~)
1174 2011-06-06 08:52:55 <Clarence> has anybody valued bitcoins using actual math and stuff?
1175 2011-06-06 08:55:04 XX01XX has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1176 2011-06-06 08:55:08 <lfm> Clarence: what do you mean?
1177 2011-06-06 08:55:25 XX01XX has joined
1178 2011-06-06 08:55:38 <gjs278> Clarence I have valued bitcoins using stuff, but no math
1179 2011-06-06 08:55:49 <Clarence> like financial valuation.. so I know if it's worth it to buy or not
1180 2011-06-06 08:56:09 <io_error> Clarence: If they're below $1m then buy
1181 2011-06-06 08:56:14 <lfm> Clarence: I dont know how youd do that
1182 2011-06-06 08:57:02 <Clarence> is anybody here vocal about saying it's overpriced?
1183 2011-06-06 08:57:30 <lfm> Clarence: I keep trying to tell people it is a bubble and is gonna crash but not many listen
1184 2011-06-06 08:57:41 <Clarence> seriously?
1185 2011-06-06 08:57:51 <lfm> ya
1186 2011-06-06 08:57:55 <io_error> Clarence: Never invest more than you can afford to lose.
1187 2011-06-06 08:58:05 <Clarence> is it not likly to reach 40 before it crashes?
1188 2011-06-06 08:58:07 <gjs278> lfm what do you think the pop point is
1189 2011-06-06 08:58:14 <gjs278> and how low do you think it will go in value
1190 2011-06-06 08:58:24 <lfm> io_error: thats like saying never give me more that you can afford to lose! hehe
1191 2011-06-06 08:58:41 <io_error> lfm: You need to stop playing so much poker, you suck at it :P
1192 2011-06-06 08:59:10 <lfm> pop point? never heard that term before. I assume you think I can predict WHEN it will crash, sorry I cant
1193 2011-06-06 08:59:29 <gjs278> I'm just asking for your guess
1194 2011-06-06 08:59:36 <gjs278> of what value the coins will reach max
1195 2011-06-06 08:59:43 <ferrouswheel> blueCmd, jgarzik: was that ever resolved? If that issue with client versioning tied to protocol version is still true, then I really have to reconsider whether it's worth trying to add diversity to the bitcoin ecosystem by starting another client.
1196 2011-06-06 08:59:50 <io_error> Clarence: We're changing the world here. You are witnessing history in the making. None of us can predict whether Bitcoin will succeed or fail, though we're sure as hell working toward success.
1197 2011-06-06 09:00:13 <lfm> gjs278: well I used to think it would be $1, then I thot it might be $10, now I am less certain
1198 2011-06-06 09:00:22 <gjs278> lfm I was freaking out at 1.95
1199 2011-06-06 09:00:24 Lethe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1200 2011-06-06 09:00:29 <gjs278> thinking I had gotten deal of the century
1201 2011-06-06 09:00:30 <Clarence> if, for instance, there's greater than 50% of it reaching 40, then i'll set sell at 40% and it will be EV+
1202 2011-06-06 09:00:40 <io_error> I used to think it would be $100, then $1000, now I think it will exceed $100,000
1203 2011-06-06 09:00:52 Lethe has joined
1204 2011-06-06 09:01:08 <Clarence> I want to hear lfm tho
1205 2011-06-06 09:01:31 <lfm> well, I figure it will keep going up till it doesnt.
1206 2011-06-06 09:01:50 <gjs278> I think 35
1207 2011-06-06 09:01:51 <io_error> Clarence: I'll happily tell you that there are a few ways Bitcoin can fail. Some are technical, some are political.
1208 2011-06-06 09:01:58 <gjs278> thats the most I can ever see a coin being in the next year
1209 2011-06-06 09:02:14 <io_error> gjs278: Most people didn't think we'd see $20 by the end of THIS year
1210 2011-06-06 09:02:19 <gjs278> well
1211 2011-06-06 09:02:29 Hadaka has joined
1212 2011-06-06 09:02:29 <Clarence> io-error people are only buying it to sell in the future.. not as currency
1213 2011-06-06 09:02:34 <gjs278> yes
1214 2011-06-06 09:02:36 <lfm> gjs278: wow, thats getting warm now then
1215 2011-06-06 09:02:36 <gjs278> that
1216 2011-06-06 09:02:48 <gjs278> lfm my whole thing is that everyone is just holding onto their coins
1217 2011-06-06 09:02:56 <Hadaka> hello - I've got a bunch of technical questions about bitcoin - I'll start with the first: are transactions with nSequence < MAX_INT still supported?
1218 2011-06-06 09:02:56 <io_error> Clarence: I dunno, Silk Road is doing a pretty brisk business :)
1219 2011-06-06 09:02:57 <gjs278> and refusing to sell unless they make money off of it above exchange
1220 2011-06-06 09:03:01 atterall has joined
1221 2011-06-06 09:03:07 jivvz has joined
1222 2011-06-06 09:03:07 <gjs278> and that's going to dry up soon
1223 2011-06-06 09:03:13 <Clarence> it's being debased at $140,000 a day at these prices
1224 2011-06-06 09:03:16 <gjs278> I am purchasing something today with straight bitcoins
1225 2011-06-06 09:03:19 <gjs278> I am doing my part
1226 2011-06-06 09:03:23 <gjs278> to keep this economy moving
1227 2011-06-06 09:03:44 <gjs278> will that person cash out the bitcoins the second I send them? probably
1228 2011-06-06 09:04:02 <io_error> gjs278: And whoever gets them will just go to SIlk Road :)
1229 2011-06-06 09:04:14 <gjs278> he'll be getting high off of freedom
1230 2011-06-06 09:04:32 <gjs278> I feel about bitcoins right now like hank hill feels about propane
1231 2011-06-06 09:04:34 <Hadaka> what about nLockTime? do the current clients support it?
1232 2011-06-06 09:05:06 <Clarence> after it peaks it will have to compete on it's own merit as a currency otherwise it's headed to 0
1233 2011-06-06 09:05:39 <io_error> Clarence: We know that too :)
1234 2011-06-06 09:05:58 <lfm> gjs278: mining cashout actually
1235 2011-06-06 09:06:23 <gjs278> I dumped mine at $13
1236 2011-06-06 09:06:27 <gjs278> no regrets
1237 2011-06-06 09:06:43 <gjs278> there was a kid poking the bubble with a needle he just got lucky
1238 2011-06-06 09:06:49 <lfm> gjs278: I still have some I guess I take a bit further
1239 2011-06-06 09:07:23 <Hadaka> also, is there a reason why the signed transaction does not include the sum of the incoming transactions?
1240 2011-06-06 09:07:46 <lfm> Hadaka: maybe due to fees
1241 2011-06-06 09:08:19 <io_error> If the outputs are less than the inputs, the remainder is the fee
1242 2011-06-06 09:08:36 <Hadaka> lfm: yeah, I get the fact that fees are calculated as incoming minus outgoing
1243 2011-06-06 09:08:59 sipa has left ()
1244 2011-06-06 09:09:03 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
1245 2011-06-06 09:09:04 spq_ has joined
1246 2011-06-06 09:09:06 <gribble> Current Blocks: 128978 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 45 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 hours, 6 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 562180.61168809
1247 2011-06-06 09:09:54 <spq_> hey there, i have a question about bitcoin - not really dev specific - are older bitcoins(with a long history) less worth? (because they require much data to be transferred)
1248 2011-06-06 09:09:56 <Hadaka> lfm: but that's just the thing - if I'm signing a transaction id, and can't be *100%* sure what it is - I might accidentally send large sums of money as fees without meaning it
1249 2011-06-06 09:10:19 <Clarence> gjs278.. are you going to hold any btc at all?
1250 2011-06-06 09:10:26 <lfm> Hadaka: why arnt you certain?
1251 2011-06-06 09:10:29 <gjs278> I have 20 right now that I'm about to trade with
1252 2011-06-06 09:10:38 <magnetron> spq_: no.
1253 2011-06-06 09:10:44 <io_error> spq_: Nope, the original 50 bitcoins is worth the same as a new 50 bitcoins
1254 2011-06-06 09:10:51 <Hadaka> lfm: I'm thinking about use cases where the client doesn't have the full block history available to confirm every signature etc.
1255 2011-06-06 09:11:20 enki has joined
1256 2011-06-06 09:11:38 <lfm> Hadaka: oh, well you need at least all the unspent txns outstanding. You can only safely forget "spent" txns
1257 2011-06-06 09:11:42 <spq_> wont you have to transfer the whole history of all bitcoin pieces you combine to one bitcoin?
1258 2011-06-06 09:12:32 <Hadaka> lfm: well, actually I'm thinking more about the use case where the software that does signing isn't really connected to any part of the bitcoin network
1259 2011-06-06 09:12:52 <spq_> (in the case where you have some(lets say 100 - 0.1 each) small bitcoin fragments which are together 1btc - and now you send them to anyone - what do you have to transfer?
1260 2011-06-06 09:12:55 <lfm> Hadaka: ok well I dont know how youd do that then
1261 2011-06-06 09:12:57 Lethe^ has joined
1262 2011-06-06 09:13:15 <io_error> spq_: You would have to transmit all of the 0.1 btc pieces you want to use
1263 2011-06-06 09:13:43 <Hadaka> well, my original question stands - was there a specific reason why the signed transaction doesn't explicitly list the sums of the source transactions - or was it just a quirk of implementation?
1264 2011-06-06 09:13:47 <lfm> Hadaka: you should be able to request txns by their hash from a full node I think
1265 2011-06-06 09:13:52 <io_error> spq_: It's also unwise to get lots of small payments if you can avoid it, since that would then become a large transaction and have fees applied
1266 2011-06-06 09:14:13 <io_error> Hadaka: To conserve space, probably. They can always be looked up.
1267 2011-06-06 09:14:48 <spq_> yea - seen that, received some small payments from a bitcoin pool - had to use an older btc software version to transfer them without fees
1268 2011-06-06 09:14:51 <Hadaka> lfm: I still need some way to make sure the info the node is giving me is correct - which is hard
1269 2011-06-06 09:15:18 <io_error> spq_: Right, it's cheaper to spend 10 1BTC coins than to spend 100 0.1BTC coins since the latter would be a much larger (in size) transaction
1270 2011-06-06 09:15:33 <spq_> but thats exactly the point it gets unattractive to process those complexer bitcoins
1271 2011-06-06 09:15:35 <theymos> You always need to look up the prev_out for verification, so there's no point in listing the value.
1272 2011-06-06 09:15:39 <lfm> Hadaka: yup itd be hard. I think you need to retreive full copies of the input txns
1273 2011-06-06 09:15:50 Lethe has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1274 2011-06-06 09:15:50 Lethe^ is now known as Lethe
1275 2011-06-06 09:15:54 <io_error> spq_: That's why they require larger fees
1276 2011-06-06 09:16:03 <magnetron> spq_: you can join several small inputs together and they're suddenly a large chunk again
1277 2011-06-06 09:16:30 <Hadaka> io_error: I guess the size argument could've been the definitive one...
1278 2011-06-06 09:16:33 <spq_> are they again space efficient then?
1279 2011-06-06 09:16:40 <magnetron> spq_: yesö
1280 2011-06-06 09:16:44 <magnetron> yes.
1281 2011-06-06 09:16:46 <lfm> io_error: you should be able to combine a few at a time in a series of steps and still avoid fees
1282 2011-06-06 09:16:49 <magnetron> fucking keyboards
1283 2011-06-06 09:17:24 <io_error> lfm: Yes, you could, if you were careful. And willing to wait a day or two for the inputs to mature
1284 2011-06-06 09:17:49 <lfm> ya, if you're realy really cheap! grin
1285 2011-06-06 09:18:08 <magnetron> io_error: wait "a day or two" why would that long time be needed
1286 2011-06-06 09:18:16 <spq_> why doesnt the btc software first combine the btc's and then send them when they are small again?
1287 2011-06-06 09:18:24 <io_error> magnetron: Older inputs have a higher priority depending on how long they've aged
1288 2011-06-06 09:18:28 <magnetron> spq_: combine == sending
1289 2011-06-06 09:18:31 <spq_> okay
1290 2011-06-06 09:19:06 <lfm> spq_: huh? every step needs to be in the block chain that is distributed to all the nodes
1291 2011-06-06 09:20:03 <manveru> what do you mean with "transaction size" ?
1292 2011-06-06 09:20:15 <manveru> any place i can read about that?
1293 2011-06-06 09:20:22 <Hadaka> bummer, 8 bytes per input more in a transaction and things could've been a lot simpler - and I guess there's no backward compatible way of adding those...
1294 2011-06-06 09:20:24 <io_error> manveru: The number of bytes the transaction data uses
1295 2011-06-06 09:20:37 <spq_> okay, the receiver now got 1btc in much pieces - when he sends this btc - it is a small transaction again?
1296 2011-06-06 09:20:55 <theymos> Hadaka: What are you trying to do?
1297 2011-06-06 09:21:08 <magnetron> spq_: please rephrase the question
1298 2011-06-06 09:21:11 <io_error> spq_: Right. When you send a bunch of bitcoins to somebody, the processor (miner) destroys all the coins and makes new ones with the combined values
1299 2011-06-06 09:21:12 <lfm> manveru: its kinda hard to see from the user level. It is the number of bytes needed to perform the transaction requested. it depends mainly how many input transactions there are for it
1300 2011-06-06 09:21:22 <spq_> ah okay
1301 2011-06-06 09:21:50 <manveru> hm
1302 2011-06-06 09:21:59 <Hadaka> theymos: I'd like to have safe "offline" signing for a transaction - that the entire transaction could be viewed and verified in simple format and then the user can choose to accept it or not
1303 2011-06-06 09:22:03 <io_error> spq_: So for example if I have a 0.57BTC coin and a 0.43BTC coin, and I want to send somebody 0.75BTC, my two coins get destroyed, and a new 0.75BTC coin goes to my recipient, and a new 0.25BTC coin comes back to me
1304 2011-06-06 09:22:21 <manveru> so if someone sends me 100 btc in a transaction, i can spend that without fees, but if if get 100x1 btc, i have to pay?
1305 2011-06-06 09:22:42 <lfm> io_error: yup the new 0.25 is your "change"
1306 2011-06-06 09:22:53 <io_error> manveru: If you spend 100 inputs all at once, then it will be a giant transaction and you'll have to pay some fees on it
1307 2011-06-06 09:22:59 <magnetron> Hadaka: if that's what you want, it's not bitcoins anymore
1308 2011-06-06 09:23:08 <spq_> how much inputs(btc fragments) am i allowed to send without paying a fee?
1309 2011-06-06 09:23:19 <manveru> hum
1310 2011-06-06 09:23:36 <io_error> spq_: At a guess I'd say 4 or 5, though I don't remember exactly right now
1311 2011-06-06 09:23:39 <Hadaka> theymos: verifying destination addresses is always a problem, but it's a simple and a known one - but verifying that the source coins are actually of the size I think they are would require having authentic transactino history...
1312 2011-06-06 09:23:47 <manveru> so, first i should combine those transactions by doing a loop that sends them to myself to combine them without fees?
1313 2011-06-06 09:23:54 <Hadaka> magnetron: why not? just the signing process is offline, everything else is as is
1314 2011-06-06 09:24:25 knotwork__ is now known as knotwork
1315 2011-06-06 09:24:29 <lfm> manveru: ya, its not very intuitive for the user but thats what they are doing currently. it is a "policy" that is subject to change from version to version and so it will probably change again in the future
1316 2011-06-06 09:24:45 <theymos> Hadaka: The signer can just be given the previous transaction. It's not too hard. You don't have to do any verification other than the hash, which is easy.
1317 2011-06-06 09:24:46 <magnetron> Hadaka: bitcoins only exist in the distributed block chain, and if you don't have access to it (you're "offline") you don't know anything about the bitcoins at all.
1318 2011-06-06 09:25:14 <Hadaka> theymos: but how does the signer know the previous transaction is valid and accepted? anybody can create a transaction and hash it?
1319 2011-06-06 09:25:20 <io_error> manveru: Yes, you can do that. Or you can just pay the fees. :)
1320 2011-06-06 09:25:23 <spq_> ok that means i can combine the btc's in my wallet 4 at a time(if that number is right) and by that make the btcs bigger again
1321 2011-06-06 09:25:43 <lfm> magnetron: well you maybe have an old bl9ock chain up to the point you were last online
1322 2011-06-06 09:25:49 <manveru> wouldn't it be better if i could set up my own miner that only handles my own transactions for free?
1323 2011-06-06 09:25:50 <Hadaka> magnetron: the point isn't that nobody would have access to the distributed block chain - just that the device that's doing the signing does not, and can't trust anyone else
1324 2011-06-06 09:26:02 <io_error> manveru: You could do that too :)
1325 2011-06-06 09:26:07 <magnetron> lfm: yes, and that is still not useful for saying stuff about the current state
1326 2011-06-06 09:26:13 <manveru> is that technically possible?
1327 2011-06-06 09:26:19 <lfm> manveru: you could but it might take a long time for you to find a block
1328 2011-06-06 09:27:13 <io_error> I don't really have much problem with the fees, it's a lot less than PayPal!
1329 2011-06-06 09:27:21 <lfm> magnetron: i know I know, it is not nice and it is activley being debated. just we are kinda stuck with it for now
1330 2011-06-06 09:27:30 <manveru> io_error: for now
1331 2011-06-06 09:27:32 <magnetron> manveru: smart mining pools always include their own transactions in the blocks they mine
1332 2011-06-06 09:27:42 <manveru> when i started bitcoin people said that transfers are free :P
1333 2011-06-06 09:27:51 <io_error> manveru: The fees also will be reduced further in the next version of bitcoin
1334 2011-06-06 09:28:19 <lfm> there should be a new version within a day or two
1335 2011-06-06 09:28:21 redox678 has joined
1336 2011-06-06 09:28:25 <theymos> Hadaka: The hash can only represent one piece of data, so you'll know the output values. It doesn't matter whether these are accepted or not. The values are guaranteed to be accurate.
1337 2011-06-06 09:28:32 <io_error> I think they are just waiting on the major pools to update
1338 2011-06-06 09:29:23 x5x is now known as x5x`brb
1339 2011-06-06 09:29:45 <Hadaka> theymos: but if the hash isn't signed, how do I know it's a hash for a real transaction instead of a fake one?
1340 2011-06-06 09:30:30 <theymos> Hadaka: Why do you care? You wanted output values: these are guaranteed to be the correct values for the inputs you're signing.
1341 2011-06-06 09:30:48 <lfm> Hadaka: if it is burried a ways in the block chain you can start to have confidence in it
1342 2011-06-06 09:31:15 <theymos> It doesn't matter whether it's in a block, or even if it's a valid script. You know the values.
1343 2011-06-06 09:31:25 <lfm> Hadaka: the depth level you want to trust is up to you
1344 2011-06-06 09:31:41 <magnetron> Feature request: randomized inbound ports
1345 2011-06-06 09:32:01 <magnetron> to prevent silly bitcoin-style blocked ports
1346 2011-06-06 09:32:13 <magnetron> i mean bitttorrent-style
1347 2011-06-06 09:32:18 <Hadaka> theymos: okay - case in point - my signing software gets an input transaction to be signed - that references my own coins - and outputs 1 BTC to some public key - if I sign this, and the coin that is in the input is of the size of 1 BTC, everything is fine - but if it is the coin of my life savings, 1000 BTC - I am accidentally signing 999 BTC as transaction fees
1348 2011-06-06 09:32:34 <Hadaka> lfm: yeah, understood - but that requires the block chain to verify
1349 2011-06-06 09:32:50 <theymos> Hadaka: Right. But you're sent the previous transactions for the inputs, so you know the input values.
1350 2011-06-06 09:33:19 <lfm> Hadaka: ya, you need to know the values of the inputs of course, so you have to look up those transactions
1351 2011-06-06 09:33:27 <manveru> magnetron: second that
1352 2011-06-06 09:34:04 <lfm> Hadaka: or have them recorded in a wallet file you can trust
1353 2011-06-06 09:34:04 d1234 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1354 2011-06-06 09:34:47 <Hadaka> theymos: but how do I know the previous transactions are real? if they are not real, they might accidentally be one of the saving transactions I have?
1355 2011-06-06 09:35:10 <lfm> Hadaka: well DONT DO THAT!
1356 2011-06-06 09:35:17 <io_error> Hadaka: You send the balance back to a new address of your own
1357 2011-06-06 09:35:26 magictaco has joined
1358 2011-06-06 09:35:41 <theymos> Hadaka: Why do you care whether it's real? If not, you'll just sign an invalid transaction.
1359 2011-06-06 09:36:45 <lfm> Hadaka: if you dont have the whole block chain to examine you will HAVE TO TRUST YOUR SERVER
1360 2011-06-06 09:38:13 pierre` has joined
1361 2011-06-06 09:38:16 <Hadaka> io_error: but how do I know how much balance to send back to a new address of my own, if I can't be sure of the source transactions
1362 2011-06-06 09:38:48 <Hadaka> theymos: okay, I don't mean fake as in completely made up, I mean fake as in somebody substitutes some other valid transaction of mine which has a different size
1363 2011-06-06 09:39:35 <lfm> Hadaka: well of course you have to be sure. you have to have a trustworth way to confirm them. either trustworth data in your wallet or a trustworthy server you can query
1364 2011-06-06 09:39:45 <theymos> You KNOW the size from the transactions they give you. They can't fake it.
1365 2011-06-06 09:39:52 <Hadaka> lfm: yeah, I get your point - but this problem in trust could be sort of avoided if the sums of the source transactions were recorded
1366 2011-06-06 09:40:26 <lfm> Hadaka: ok so record them for yourself in your wallet file
1367 2011-06-06 09:41:16 <Hadaka> yeah, in the current system an offline signer can't really work unless it has a trusted list of unspent transactions that it can check to get the sums...
1368 2011-06-06 09:41:30 <lfm> exactly
1369 2011-06-06 09:41:37 <theymos> They're giving you old transactions for inputs: "tx A, output: 250 BTC", "tx B, output: 100 BTC". Plus a new transaction for signing: "input A & B". Just sum the output values from the old transactions provided.
1370 2011-06-06 09:42:30 <theymos> If they fail to give you a required output, it's obvious and invalid. If the inputs are made up, the hash is invalid (which you'll verify) or the transaction is invalid.
1371 2011-06-06 09:42:31 <io_error> Hadaka: Are you saying you want something that will sign transactions that has absolutely no idea how much money is available to spend and has never seen the transactions?
1372 2011-06-06 09:43:01 dissipate has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1373 2011-06-06 09:43:13 <Hadaka> theymos: hmmh... yeah, actually you are correct... hashes are preimage resistant after all...
1374 2011-06-06 09:43:18 <lfm> Hadaka: it amounts to keeping a full copy of the input txns anyway really since you need to hash them to put their hash in the input fields
1375 2011-06-06 09:44:20 <Hadaka> theymos: thanks for persisting with me :)
1376 2011-06-06 09:44:34 <theymos> np
1377 2011-06-06 09:46:09 <Hadaka> io_error: more or less yes - the less code involved with signing, the better
1378 2011-06-06 09:46:24 <io_error> Hadaka: What in the world are you trying to build?
1379 2011-06-06 09:47:03 <lfm> sounds like some phone app or something eh
1380 2011-06-06 09:48:13 <Hadaka> io_error: I consider keeping unencrypted (or unencrypted to root access on a machine) private keys on a user machine pretty insane - I mean, I would *never* do that for a GPG signing key, and bitcoin wallets are even more important
1381 2011-06-06 09:48:34 <Hadaka> io_error: passphrase encryption helps, but ideally the private key should not even be present on the user machine
1382 2011-06-06 09:49:13 <Hadaka> io_error: and the only reason the private key is ever needed is to sign (authorize) new money transfers
1383 2011-06-06 09:49:25 <lfm> huh? you mean it should be in a dongle or something? you can do that too if you want pretty easy
1384 2011-06-06 09:50:02 ArtForzZz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1385 2011-06-06 09:50:18 <Hadaka> io_error: so the actual signing operation should be isolated as completely from other parts of the system to minimize exploit potential - which would pretty much mean giving in an unsigned transaction, and outputting a signed transaction - and hopefully requiring no long-term storage of blocks, transactions, or anything else
1386 2011-06-06 09:51:05 <lfm> Hadaka: oh you want bank vault level security? thats a whole different application
1387 2011-06-06 09:51:12 d1234 has joined
1388 2011-06-06 09:52:16 <Hadaka> lfm: is bitcoin security lacking for that kind of security? I don't mean the wallet implementations, I mean all the other stuff, generating blocks etc.
1389 2011-06-06 09:52:28 <theymos> Doing the signing in a smart card is a good idea. This would be much easier for most people to understand, and it's more secure. "Your money == this card."
1390 2011-06-06 09:53:04 <lfm> Hadaka: well obviously the current clients dont spearate things out like that. If you want it you can implement it for your self tho
1391 2011-06-06 09:53:04 <Hadaka> signing in a smart card is problematic because a smart card does not have a display, so you need to trust the machine you stick the smart card in to
1392 2011-06-06 09:53:23 nazgulnarsil has joined
1393 2011-06-06 09:53:23 ericmock_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1394 2011-06-06 09:53:27 <Hadaka> lfm: well, that's what I'm investigating, hence my questions
1395 2011-06-06 09:54:30 ericmock_ has joined
1396 2011-06-06 09:54:40 <lfm> Hadaka: ok so yes, to sign a txn you would want complete copies of all the input txns used.
1397 2011-06-06 09:55:12 <Hadaka> but yeah, I got my answer on that - given in a list of "in" transactions (the full transaction objects) and the transaction to be signed - the signature can be created safely creating either an invalid transaction or a valid transaction that is exactly like expected
1398 2011-06-06 09:55:22 <Hadaka> lfm: right
1399 2011-06-06 09:55:31 <lfm> cuz the txn ref is a hash of the input txn (plus the index of the output number)
1400 2011-06-06 09:55:48 <Hadaka> and the important thing to verify is to hash the input transactions and see if the hashes match the inputs in the transaction to be signed
1401 2011-06-06 09:56:13 <lfm> yup and at the same time then you can check the input values
1402 2011-06-06 09:57:58 <Hadaka> okay so back to my other questions - is lock_time respected by bitcoin clients these days? what about sequence?
1403 2011-06-06 09:58:15 <lfm> Id say avoid those
1404 2011-06-06 09:58:55 <Hadaka> and are the two common scripts generated by bitcoin clients nowadays the only accepted ones?
1405 2011-06-06 09:58:56 <lfm> implementation could be spotty. they are really kinda just reserved for future use
1406 2011-06-06 09:58:57 <theymos> lockTime is respected. sequence is allowed, but it currently doesn't do anything.
1407 2011-06-06 09:59:04 blueadept has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1408 2011-06-06 09:59:21 <theymos> Other scripts are allowed in blocks, but are not included by stock Bitcoin miners.
1409 2011-06-06 09:59:45 <Hadaka> so, for example, allt he stuff here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts doesn't really exist in bitcoin, but is just something that could someday be done?
1410 2011-06-06 09:59:55 <theymos> It can be done now.
1411 2011-06-06 10:00:11 <Hadaka> but if the stock miners will not include those transactions, how would they ever be valid?
1412 2011-06-06 10:00:18 <lfm> well ya safest to just avoid it
1413 2011-06-06 10:00:27 <gjs278> right now, if you send a coin to someone
1414 2011-06-06 10:00:32 <Hadaka> or are there enough miners on the network that allow such scripts that the transaction could be valid, in say, a day?
1415 2011-06-06 10:00:33 <gjs278> and they don't want to live up to their end of the bargain
1416 2011-06-06 10:00:36 <gjs278> you're basically screwed
1417 2011-06-06 10:00:49 <lfm> Hadaka: the only way to use em is if you can mine them yourself with special miners
1418 2011-06-06 10:00:57 <theymos> Hadaka: Eligius does, so it should take only a few hours.
1419 2011-06-06 10:01:18 <lfm> easy if you have your own tame pool! hehe
1420 2011-06-06 10:01:25 <theymos> The host computer for the card thing will be able to cancel unconfirmed transactions by creating conflicting transactions.
1421 2011-06-06 10:01:31 Clarence has quit ()
1422 2011-06-06 10:02:09 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1423 2011-06-06 10:02:17 <lfm> theymos: the host might not have the private keys tho
1424 2011-06-06 10:02:21 <Hadaka> hmmh, I wonder how much does it cost to mine a block in Amazon EC2 these days...
1425 2011-06-06 10:02:49 <lfm> Hadaka: amazon charges more than you can make
1426 2011-06-06 10:03:19 <theymos> lfm: For the next transaction, it will just ask the card to spend inputs that have already been spent (all in one, even). Only a minor annoyace, but a possible attack.
1427 2011-06-06 10:03:28 <Hadaka> lfm: I know that, I was just wondering if the cost was too high even for testing custom scripts...
1428 2011-06-06 10:03:41 <theymos> Non-standard transactions are allowed on testnet.
1429 2011-06-06 10:03:45 <gjs278> they charge more than you can make, but if you did it awhile ago, you could have genned a bunch of coins and then sold them later at 18x the value
1430 2011-06-06 10:03:55 <gjs278> thats the only scenario is makes sense
1431 2011-06-06 10:03:56 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1432 2011-06-06 10:03:58 <gjs278> if you can see the future
1433 2011-06-06 10:03:59 <Hadaka> theymos: ah
1434 2011-06-06 10:04:00 <gjs278> then it was the way to go
1435 2011-06-06 10:04:57 <eps1> ;;bc,stats
1436 2011-06-06 10:04:59 <gribble> Current Blocks: 128991 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 32 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 3 hours, 36 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 563493.28036112
1437 2011-06-06 10:06:09 caedes has joined
1438 2011-06-06 10:06:09 caedes has quit (Changing host)
1439 2011-06-06 10:06:09 caedes has joined
1440 2011-06-06 10:08:10 nazgulnarsil has left ()
1441 2011-06-06 10:11:02 <Hadaka> hmh, if my calculations aren't totally off the mark, I'd say around $5000 to get a block off of Amazon EC2
1442 2011-06-06 10:12:14 <MasterChief> lolwut
1443 2011-06-06 10:12:26 <theymos> vs less than a cent to pay for Eligius to include a non-standard transaction.
1444 2011-06-06 10:14:29 <Hadaka> difficulty * 2^32 / hashrate / 1 hour * price of 1 hour = (((434882.7217497*(2^32))/(205.6*1000*1000))/60/60)*2.1 = ~5300
1445 2011-06-06 10:15:29 <MasterChief> ec2 runs on tesla cards right
1446 2011-06-06 10:16:01 <Hadaka> MasterChief: so the pages say
1447 2011-06-06 10:17:01 <MasterChief> would it be economical to use ec2 to mine if they used radeons?
1448 2011-06-06 10:18:11 <blueCmd> ferrouswheel: no, it was never resolved.
1449 2011-06-06 10:19:24 IncitatusOnWater has joined
1450 2011-06-06 10:20:58 <blueCmd> ferrouswheel: please comment on the pull request to make this happen, we need all the support we can get I think.
1451 2011-06-06 10:21:12 BlueMattBot has joined
1452 2011-06-06 10:21:30 <enki> MasterChief: start a EBMC instead - the elastic bitcoin mining cloud
1453 2011-06-06 10:21:47 <enki> ppl can buy your mining machines ;)
1454 2011-06-06 10:21:59 <enki> or do mining as a service
1455 2011-06-06 10:21:59 BlueMatt has joined
1456 2011-06-06 10:22:24 <lfm> enki: that makes no sense really, just mine for yourself
1457 2011-06-06 10:22:27 <io_error> MasterChief: If they used AMD GPUs, we'd all be mining on Amazon EC2
1458 2011-06-06 10:22:36 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1459 2011-06-06 10:22:37 <MasterChief> hmm
1460 2011-06-06 10:22:56 <io_error> Well, maybe not.
1461 2011-06-06 10:22:58 <MasterChief> io_error but wouldent they make more money mining for themselvs then
1462 2011-06-06 10:23:08 * io_error does some quick back of napkin math
1463 2011-06-06 10:23:18 <Hadaka> MasterChief: theoretically at least - AMD can be 5 times more effective than nvidia, and 50 BTC will probably cost $1000 in a bit
1464 2011-06-06 10:23:39 redox678 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1465 2011-06-06 10:23:45 <lfm> MasterChief: they would need to increase their rates till it was uneconomical
1466 2011-06-06 10:24:22 <io_error> MasterChief: OK, one of their compute units costs $50/day to run, two 5850s gets me about 1.5BTC at current difficulty, and the exchange rate is... Nope, even if they used AMD GPUs it still wouldn't work
1467 2011-06-06 10:24:28 <Hadaka> erm - would they care about the price of bitcoin, really? it may tank the next day - I don't think it would affect their rates at all
1468 2011-06-06 10:25:02 <lfm> miners would buy up all their capacity
1469 2011-06-06 10:25:34 <io_error> Now if it were two 6990s, and you only did spot pricing, then it could POSSIBLY work
1470 2011-06-06 10:25:57 <MasterChief> so in conclusion amazon ec2 is terribly overpriced
1471 2011-06-06 10:26:07 <Hadaka> I think amazon ec2 doing AMD would bring the price of bitcoins down rather than affect their pricing - or probably just get a lot more people mining which would bring difficulty up
1472 2011-06-06 10:26:10 <io_error> MasterChief: For Bitcoin, yes. For the stuff it was intended for, no
1473 2011-06-06 10:28:11 <MasterChief> a company like amazon mining is sort of the nightmare scenario for bitcoin though
1474 2011-06-06 10:28:12 marlowe has quit (Quit: leaving)
1475 2011-06-06 10:28:30 <MasterChief> its damn lucky they use tesla
1476 2011-06-06 10:29:10 jivvz has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1477 2011-06-06 10:30:45 <Hadaka> it's highly unlikely a company like amazon would care about bitcoin enough to mine themselves - and if users of amazon ec2 would mine there, that would only bring the price of bitcoins lower than the cost of mining (either through lowering of prices or increase in difficulty)
1478 2011-06-06 10:31:58 <MasterChief> imagine if everyone paid amazon to mine for them
1479 2011-06-06 10:32:17 <MasterChief> one day one of these senators makes a phone call and it goes dark
1480 2011-06-06 10:32:24 <ferrouswheel> blueCmd: done.
1481 2011-06-06 10:32:53 <MasterChief> meanwhile the CIA or whatever turns on a fairly smallish fpga farm with modded clients to sit with thier thumb up thier ass forever
1482 2011-06-06 10:33:08 <MasterChief> and we lost the network and need to make a new one
1483 2011-06-06 10:36:22 <noagendamarket> they might create their own network
1484 2011-06-06 10:36:31 <noagendamarket> and make bitcoin illegal
1485 2011-06-06 10:36:41 <gmaxwell> MasterChief: a 'fairly smallish' fpga farm wouldn't do much.
1486 2011-06-06 10:36:46 <noagendamarket> so people have to use govcoins
1487 2011-06-06 10:36:48 <noagendamarket> lol
1488 2011-06-06 10:36:56 <gmaxwell> MasterChief: we have bitcoin miners already with fpga farms...
1489 2011-06-06 10:37:15 <gjs278> if you're going fpga you have more faith in the coins than I do
1490 2011-06-06 10:37:28 <noagendamarket> so what about poiting the bitcoin network at the federal reserve if they try to act against bitcoin ?
1491 2011-06-06 10:37:33 <noagendamarket> :)
1492 2011-06-06 10:37:39 <gjs278> nope
1493 2011-06-06 10:37:49 <gjs278> the government is too ineffective to attack bitcoins
1494 2011-06-06 10:37:54 <noagendamarket> hahah
1495 2011-06-06 10:37:57 <gjs278> it would take them years to actually get their act togetehr and do something
1496 2011-06-06 10:38:07 <Hadaka> if you are going ASIC, then you have more faith in the coins than I do ;)
1497 2011-06-06 10:38:09 <enki> should ave named them obamacoins, so he feels flattered and acts protective
1498 2011-06-06 10:38:16 <gjs278> well
1499 2011-06-06 10:38:17 <noagendamarket> lawl
1500 2011-06-06 10:38:19 <gjs278> ron paul bucks
1501 2011-06-06 10:38:23 <gjs278> got taken out pretty fast
1502 2011-06-06 10:38:38 <MasterChief> gmaxwell consider this alternate reality where 90% of the network was on ec2 due to economics
1503 2011-06-06 10:39:09 <gjs278> consider the alternate reality where I am talking to the real Master Chief from Halo
1504 2011-06-06 10:39:19 <gjs278> and fucking aliens are swarming the earth and blowing up everything I lived for
1505 2011-06-06 10:39:20 <MasterChief> implying youre not
1506 2011-06-06 10:39:22 <noagendamarket> more likely to take down bitbills imo
1507 2011-06-06 10:39:25 <gjs278> how much do you care about bitcoins now
1508 2011-06-06 10:39:29 <noagendamarket> since its physical
1509 2011-06-06 10:39:30 <gjs278> now that you have to save the world
1510 2011-06-06 10:39:34 <gjs278> from the covenant
1511 2011-06-06 10:39:38 <gmaxwell> This should all probably go to #bitcoin-politics
1512 2011-06-06 10:39:44 <gjs278> the halo stuff?
1513 2011-06-06 10:39:48 <MasterChief> pff that was 2007 i trade bitcoins now
1514 2011-06-06 10:40:30 <MasterChief> yeah bitbills dude is fucked
1515 2011-06-06 10:40:32 <gjs278> also I will challenge the next man in #bitcoin-duels if they tell me where my discussion should go
1516 2011-06-06 10:40:40 <gjs278> I have too many tabs open for this already
1517 2011-06-06 10:40:44 <MasterChief> he better pack the ky where hes heading unfortunately
1518 2011-06-06 10:40:49 <gjs278> it's starting to cutoff names now ;_;
1519 2011-06-06 10:41:33 <lfm> gjs278: your discussion should go to #bitcoin-duels
1520 2011-06-06 10:41:43 <gjs278> pistols at dawn lfm
1521 2011-06-06 10:41:47 <gjs278> see you there
1522 2011-06-06 10:41:56 <blueCmd> ferrouswheel: thank you
1523 2011-06-06 10:41:58 <gjs278> er I mean
1524 2011-06-06 10:42:09 <gjs278> you didn't actually join the channel
1525 2011-06-06 10:42:10 <ferrouswheel> blueCmd: which client do you work on?
1526 2011-06-06 10:42:13 <gjs278> so I am telling you here
1527 2011-06-06 10:42:21 PirateMarmalade has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1528 2011-06-06 10:42:37 PirateMarmalade has joined
1529 2011-06-06 10:42:38 <lfm> gjs278: my dawn or your dawn, and what direction should I aim to aim at you?
1530 2011-06-06 10:42:57 <blueCmd> ferrouswheel: well, none currently but I will probably join bitcoin-alt or some python alternative later on. currently I'm working on the wireshark dissector so it's still in my intrests.
1531 2011-06-06 10:43:01 <gjs278> well
1532 2011-06-06 10:43:04 <gjs278> my dawn is in 15 minutes
1533 2011-06-06 10:43:19 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1534 2011-06-06 10:43:46 <gjs278> I'll figure out the details later
1535 2011-06-06 10:43:52 <lfm> kk
1536 2011-06-06 10:44:37 <ferrouswheel> blueCmd: cool. I'm researching building an erlang client (even though I love Python, Erlang seems more appropriate and robust for infrastructural networks)
1537 2011-06-06 10:45:27 <blueCmd> ah, cool! i will be watching that one :-)
1538 2011-06-06 10:45:38 <blueCmd> i never used erlang but i hear it's the shizzle.
1539 2011-06-06 10:54:01 Nicksasa is now known as Sleep!~Nicksasa@178-117-211-223.access.telenet.be|Nicksasa
1540 2011-06-06 10:56:20 larsivi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1541 2011-06-06 10:59:13 IncitatusOnWater has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1542 2011-06-06 11:00:26 larsivi has joined
1543 2011-06-06 11:09:18 Titeuf_87 has joined
1544 2011-06-06 11:10:21 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ping
1545 2011-06-06 11:13:00 Incitatus has joined
1546 2011-06-06 11:17:07 littlebittyhat has joined
1547 2011-06-06 11:19:20 jivvz has joined
1548 2011-06-06 11:19:59 Akinava has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1549 2011-06-06 11:20:27 Akinava has joined
1550 2011-06-06 11:22:26 littlebittyhat has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
1551 2011-06-06 11:26:00 littlebittyhat has joined
1552 2011-06-06 11:28:17 DontMindMe has joined
1553 2011-06-06 11:30:48 tinyhat has joined
1554 2011-06-06 11:31:35 Clarence has joined
1555 2011-06-06 11:33:16 IncitatusOnWater has joined
1556 2011-06-06 11:33:24 <diki> for some reason blkmond isnt working
1557 2011-06-06 11:33:42 Gekz has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1558 2011-06-06 11:34:17 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1559 2011-06-06 11:38:19 bnzdg has joined
1560 2011-06-06 11:39:19 <diki> yeah...i wonder why it isnt working
1561 2011-06-06 11:39:23 <diki> port is ok, server is ok
1562 2011-06-06 11:39:26 <diki> it just doent work
1563 2011-06-06 11:39:32 Gekz has joined
1564 2011-06-06 11:41:53 Clarence has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1565 2011-06-06 11:41:57 littlebittyhat has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
1566 2011-06-06 11:43:02 x5x`brb is now known as x5x
1567 2011-06-06 11:43:09 xilrian has joined
1568 2011-06-06 11:50:04 Speeder has joined
1569 2011-06-06 11:52:09 tinyhat has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1570 2011-06-06 11:59:46 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1571 2011-06-06 12:01:07 DukeOfURL has joined
1572 2011-06-06 12:01:32 <diki> ;;bc,calc 290000
1573 2011-06-06 12:01:50 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 290000 Khps, given current difficulty of 434882.7217497 , is 10 weeks, 4 days, 13 hours, 5 minutes, and 14 seconds
1574 2011-06-06 12:02:21 sabalaba has joined
1575 2011-06-06 12:03:44 <diki> ;;bc,calcd 290000 565745.57875606
1576 2011-06-06 12:03:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 290000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 565745.57875606, is 13 weeks, 5 days, 23 hours, 27 minutes, and 3 seconds
1577 2011-06-06 12:05:03 sabalaba has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1578 2011-06-06 12:05:06 <blueCmd> regarding the new IRC bootstraping - how are we solving the paritioning that it logically creates?
1579 2011-06-06 12:05:26 <diki> what does irc have to do with partitions??
1580 2011-06-06 12:05:32 <lfm> huh?
1581 2011-06-06 12:05:40 <blueCmd> i mean, if 6 clients randomize to join #bitcoin00 - they will bootstrap to eachother and never know anything about the nodes in #bitcoin01
1582 2011-06-06 12:05:53 <blueCmd> diki: parition as in data set parition
1583 2011-06-06 12:06:05 <diki> oh, i read parTition
1584 2011-06-06 12:06:19 <blueCmd> that is what i meant :-)
1585 2011-06-06 12:06:22 <blueCmd> i misspelled
1586 2011-06-06 12:06:25 <blueCmd> partition*
1587 2011-06-06 12:06:40 <blueCmd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(database) like so
1588 2011-06-06 12:06:43 TommyBoy3G has quit ()
1589 2011-06-06 12:06:46 BlueMattBot has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1590 2011-06-06 12:07:41 <lfm> where is this 00 01 stuff explained?
1591 2011-06-06 12:07:56 <blueCmd> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9240.0 i suppose
1592 2011-06-06 12:08:48 TommyBoy3G has joined
1593 2011-06-06 12:09:32 Breign has joined
1594 2011-06-06 12:10:15 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1595 2011-06-06 12:11:31 <blueCmd> jgarzik: poke :-)
1596 2011-06-06 12:13:16 <lfm> the separate irc channels does sound like a bad idea to me
1597 2011-06-06 12:14:09 <blueCmd> it seems to have been committed without being discussed if i read github correctly
1598 2011-06-06 12:15:24 <lfm> and seems to ignore other fixes such as the faster timeouts on connects which may be addressing the same problem from another direction
1599 2011-06-06 12:15:35 <diki> d-day soon
1600 2011-06-06 12:15:57 num1-mac has joined
1601 2011-06-06 12:16:20 <gmaxwell> man if it just joined two random channels it would prevent partitioning.
1602 2011-06-06 12:16:33 <lfm> it seems some people are blaming the slow timeouts on irc for some reason
1603 2011-06-06 12:16:38 <blueCmd> gmaxwell: yepp
1604 2011-06-06 12:16:58 <gmaxwell> lfm: it's a common default reaction
1605 2011-06-06 12:17:35 <gmaxwell> e.g. there have been a couple people who come into #bitcoin asking "how do you make it not use IRC?" and after a dozen questions I find it's because they're sitting at 0 connected.
1606 2011-06-06 12:18:26 gsathya has quit (Quit: gsathya)
1607 2011-06-06 12:18:32 <lfm> well sending them to a bitcoin01 ghetto might help! (not)
1608 2011-06-06 12:20:00 karnac has joined
1609 2011-06-06 12:20:05 <lfm> would the irc code in bitcoin still work right if it was on two channels at once?
1610 2011-06-06 12:20:08 <gmaxwell> we already appear to be getting some occasional partitions of the network without the ghettos... so yea, this will be fun.
1611 2011-06-06 12:20:41 <gmaxwell> lfm: I've not looked at itâ but having written other crap that talks IRC I'd say there was at least a 50% odds that it wouldn't even notice it was in two at once.
1612 2011-06-06 12:23:12 storrgie has joined
1613 2011-06-06 12:27:59 littlebittyhat has joined
1614 2011-06-06 12:28:04 ittybittyhat has joined
1615 2011-06-06 12:28:31 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, the entire network is partitioned, a lot of nodes dont have a complete block chain
1616 2011-06-06 12:28:46 <phantomcircuit> anybody interested in a double spend network isolation attack would have no problem pulling it off
1617 2011-06-06 12:29:20 <magnetron> phantomcircuit: why doesn't bitcoin use a distance metric like kademlia to avoid partitioning
1618 2011-06-06 12:29:51 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stat
1619 2011-06-06 12:29:52 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
1620 2011-06-06 12:30:01 <gmaxwell> magnetron: you haven't looked at the p2p code have you?
1621 2011-06-06 12:30:48 <gribble> Error: "bc,stat" is not a valid command.
1622 2011-06-06 12:30:48 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129023 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 0 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 567269.53016242
1623 2011-06-06 12:30:51 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: dnsseed would drastically helpâ especially since the populating software could check nodes for the blockchain before including them, preventing anyone from seeding off an island.
1624 2011-06-06 12:32:49 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, mostly the problem is that people are connected to 1 or maybe 2 nodes at max
1625 2011-06-06 12:33:07 m00p has joined
1626 2011-06-06 12:33:49 <BCBot> Stats: http://bit.ly/bitcoin-irc-stats
1627 2011-06-06 12:34:13 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,stats
1628 2011-06-06 12:34:41 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129024 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 2015 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 23 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 2269081.63275582
1629 2011-06-06 12:35:44 <lfm> magnetron: what makes you think bitcoin doesnot use a distance metric?
1630 2011-06-06 12:36:17 <magnetron> lfm: the partitioning
1631 2011-06-06 12:37:04 <lfm> thats something else. usually cuz nodes are having trouble finding other nodes at all
1632 2011-06-06 12:38:52 ittybittyhat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1633 2011-06-06 12:39:29 littlebittyhat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1634 2011-06-06 12:40:13 <theorbtwo> It seems like a simple check on the probablity of this new IRC thing creating partitions would be to, after getting a connection off of a given IRC channel, stop using that one, and connect to a different random channel and try to get another connection.
1635 2011-06-06 12:40:19 Xanie has joined
1636 2011-06-06 12:41:00 <lfm> theorbtwo: yup, that could work too.
1637 2011-06-06 12:41:36 <theorbtwo> I'd also say that the clients should try to maintain at least three connections.
1638 2011-06-06 12:41:47 agricocb has joined
1639 2011-06-06 12:42:04 <theorbtwo> Hm. Of course, mine has three connections, which suggests that they already do.
1640 2011-06-06 12:42:11 <lfm> the old problem persists tho, it seems a lot of nodes are behind NAT walls without port forwarded so the irc notices for them ure useless
1641 2011-06-06 12:42:19 uppe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1642 2011-06-06 12:42:38 uppe has joined
1643 2011-06-06 12:43:08 <theorbtwo> lfm: Well, incomming connections for them are. They can do outgoing connections. upnp support would help, along with checking for what IP the IRC server thinks they have.
1644 2011-06-06 12:43:10 <lfm> theorbtwo: I think the default is to try to maintain 8 connections. if you have less, you havnt waited long enuf yet
1645 2011-06-06 12:43:14 <theorbtwo> (Again, if they don't already.)
1646 2011-06-06 12:43:44 <lfm> upnp is supported, just not on by default (and was not supported in older versions)
1647 2011-06-06 12:44:09 <theorbtwo> lfm: It's been up for quite some time.
1648 2011-06-06 12:44:19 <lfm> how many days?
1649 2011-06-06 12:44:29 <theorbtwo> Er, around 0.5 days.
1650 2011-06-06 12:44:35 x5x is now known as x5x`brb
1651 2011-06-06 12:44:38 <lfm> OK, WAIT SOME MORE
1652 2011-06-06 12:44:48 <lfm> sorry dam capslock
1653 2011-06-06 12:45:24 <blueCmd> 3 connections?
1654 2011-06-06 12:45:43 <blueCmd> i have 31
1655 2011-06-06 12:45:45 * theorbtwo upgrades instead.
1656 2011-06-06 12:45:56 <blueCmd> i had 67 the other day
1657 2011-06-06 12:46:02 <lfm> I have 76
1658 2011-06-06 12:46:13 agd has joined
1659 2011-06-06 12:46:22 <lfm> but more than 8 means you handle incomming connects
1660 2011-06-06 12:46:24 x5x`brb is now known as x5x
1661 2011-06-06 12:46:35 <blueCmd> anyhow, regarding the distance vector thing - I suppose that is where the nLocalHostNonce is for, but it is not really implemented more than a failsafe to not connect to oneself.
1662 2011-06-06 12:46:36 <theorbtwo> 3 seems like a minimum for an operating network is what I was trying to say.
1663 2011-06-06 12:46:47 simkiss has joined
1664 2011-06-06 12:48:11 <lfm> well, ya 3 gives you a chance at a well connected net, 2 might work too but 8 seems like a good idea
1665 2011-06-06 12:48:20 <diki> found a block(not me)
1666 2011-06-06 12:49:17 <theorbtwo> It sounds like the best ways of fixing things are shorter timeouts and upnp by default.
1667 2011-06-06 12:49:45 <theorbtwo> If upnp by default isn't wanted for security reasons, then ask on first startup.
1668 2011-06-06 12:50:36 <lfm> the thing is it seems the nodes that handle incoming are becomeing hubs for the net like a central net of humbs with the ones which have no incoming as a swarm of fringe nodes which seem to have some problems
1669 2011-06-06 12:51:08 Xanie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1670 2011-06-06 12:51:14 <blueCmd> call me old fashioned but I could really go for a mailinglist for discussing all these things, it feels like a lot of good ideas but it will probably just end up in a log somewhere
1671 2011-06-06 12:51:22 Xanie has joined
1672 2011-06-06 12:51:33 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: not spending 99% of time trying to connect to non-listening nodes might be nice too.
1673 2011-06-06 12:52:19 <theorbtwo> blueCmd: I rather agree.
1674 2011-06-06 12:52:21 <Speeder> how I crete a LinearLayot.LayoutParameters ?
1675 2011-06-06 12:52:53 <lfm> Speeder: huh? is that something/anything to do with bitcoin?
1676 2011-06-06 12:52:59 <Speeder> ooops
1677 2011-06-06 12:53:00 <theorbtwo> gmaxwell: Well, that's what upnp-by-default is for, to increase the percent of listening nodes.
1678 2011-06-06 12:53:00 <Speeder> wrong channel
1679 2011-06-06 12:53:04 uppe has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1680 2011-06-06 12:53:06 <lfm> hehe ok
1681 2011-06-06 12:53:13 eppu has joined
1682 2011-06-06 12:53:20 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: how about just having non-listeners identified. :)
1683 2011-06-06 12:53:30 <Speeder> lfm: android-dev has the same amount of characters, and on my client is just above the bitcoin-dev channel
1684 2011-06-06 12:53:35 <Speeder> :P
1685 2011-06-06 12:53:36 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: UPNP would be a big improvement too of course, but its far from universal.
1686 2011-06-06 12:54:04 <lfm> theorbtwo: upnp is considered an evil security loophole menace by some tho such that it should not be on by default
1687 2011-06-06 12:54:36 <theorbtwo> lfm: If you consider it an evil security loophole, then you should turn it off on your router.
1688 2011-06-06 12:54:40 <gmaxwell> I posed about some of the boostrapping issues: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11126.msg158368#msg158368
1689 2011-06-06 12:54:41 <magnetron> lfm: that minority has already disabled upnp in the ROUTER
1690 2011-06-06 12:54:51 <lfm> theorbtwo: yup
1691 2011-06-06 12:54:57 <theorbtwo> But like I said, if you don't ant to make it on-by-default, then pop up a dialog box on first ues.
1692 2011-06-06 12:55:54 <lfm> do you think newbie users know what upnp is or does? do they know the risks and benifits of it?
1693 2011-06-06 12:56:05 <blueCmd> phantomcircuit: btw, did you stop developing bitcoin-alt ?
1694 2011-06-06 12:56:33 <Gekz> what is bitcoin-alt
1695 2011-06-06 12:57:12 <theorbtwo> lfm: Of course I don't. Thus, a dialog box with "we recommend that you turn on upnp by clicking the 'yes' button".
1696 2011-06-06 12:57:34 <blueCmd> Gekz: python implementation instead of the original client
1697 2011-06-06 12:57:46 <gmaxwell> lfm: come on, UPNP can't look more evil than invisibly connecting to IRC.
1698 2011-06-06 12:59:01 <magnetron> having UPnP enabled by default is the most reasonable. no point in having UPnP support if we make it harder to enable than port forwarding in the router
1699 2011-06-06 12:59:36 <lfm> magnetron: you think a command line switch is harder that router config?
1700 2011-06-06 12:59:42 <magnetron> lfm: yes.
1701 2011-06-06 12:59:52 <lfm> hehe you must be a mswin wonk
1702 2011-06-06 12:59:59 <Gekz> blueCmd: ah cool
1703 2011-06-06 13:00:00 <Gekz> I heard it didn't get far.
1704 2011-06-06 13:00:02 <theorbtwo> Depends on your router. That said, the gui clients have it in a checkbox under settings.
1705 2011-06-06 13:00:04 <magnetron> no. but i realize most users have windows.
1706 2011-06-06 13:00:14 zyb_ has joined
1707 2011-06-06 13:00:30 <theorbtwo> It is not, however, on by defualt, or in a terribly prominent location.
1708 2011-06-06 13:00:47 <blueCmd> Gekz: well, it looks promising, the scripting subsystem is lacking what I can see but otherwise it should be able to work as a first real alternative client
1709 2011-06-06 13:01:08 <blueCmd> magnetron: lfm: what about a popup the first time it is launched?
1710 2011-06-06 13:01:17 <blueCmd> i think that is what uTorrent does
1711 2011-06-06 13:01:26 <Gekz> blueCmd: link?
1712 2011-06-06 13:01:30 <blueCmd> "Hey you! Do you want us to try and autoconfigure your router" or something
1713 2011-06-06 13:01:40 <blueCmd> Gekz: https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt
1714 2011-06-06 13:01:56 <magnetron> blueCmd: i'm more in favor of sane defaults than multitudes of popups
1715 2011-06-06 13:02:00 <afed> government is going to shutdown bitcoin and jail all of us
1716 2011-06-06 13:02:04 <afed> due to drugs
1717 2011-06-06 13:02:10 <lfm> blueCmd: I think its fine as it is with it off by default and you should know hat you are doing to turn it on.
1718 2011-06-06 13:02:46 dedeibel has joined
1719 2011-06-06 13:02:46 <magnetron> i think it's reasonable to switch on by default and disable if you think it's a huge security risk to have the bitcoin port open
1720 2011-06-06 13:02:48 karnac has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1721 2011-06-06 13:02:54 <lfm> afed: what drugs?
1722 2011-06-06 13:03:09 <blueCmd> afed: your goverment perhaps, but this is a global thing, i'll love seing them try
1723 2011-06-06 13:03:13 <lizthegrey> Gekz: I am nervous about the lack of a license on that code
1724 2011-06-06 13:03:19 <afed> blueCmd: true enough
1725 2011-06-06 13:03:22 <lizthegrey> I asked what license was used for bitcoin-alt and did not receive a response.
1726 2011-06-06 13:03:38 zyb has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1727 2011-06-06 13:03:52 <afed> blueCmd: really they're impotent against a torified site like silkroad or a p2p network like bitcoin
1728 2011-06-06 13:03:54 <blueCmd> lizthegrey: let's just poke phantomcircuit until he respons then :-)
1729 2011-06-06 13:04:13 <lizthegrey> blueCmd: agreed.
1730 2011-06-06 13:04:14 <afed> blueCmd: best they could do is outlaw financial transactions like the way they did with online gambling
1731 2011-06-06 13:04:30 <blueCmd> afed: yep, what probably will happen is a lot of preasure on tor "SHut down the tor project!" and such
1732 2011-06-06 13:04:36 <magnetron> yeah the US internet censorship on foreign casino sites was hilarious
1733 2011-06-06 13:04:52 IncitatusOnWater has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1734 2011-06-06 13:04:53 <afed> well tor is another p2p you can't shut down
1735 2011-06-06 13:04:56 <afed> only put pressure on nodes
1736 2011-06-06 13:04:59 <afed> but the government uses tor
1737 2011-06-06 13:05:27 <lfm> magnetron: you think those casinos thoght it was funny? did they not lose any business?
1738 2011-06-06 13:06:00 karnac has joined
1739 2011-06-06 13:06:58 <magnetron> lfm: i think it was funny how they bitch about censorship in china when they do the same in USA
1740 2011-06-06 13:07:02 datagutt has joined
1741 2011-06-06 13:07:14 vorlov has joined
1742 2011-06-06 13:07:17 <blueCmd> afed: they will just try to fill the tubes.
1743 2011-06-06 13:07:20 <afed> not censorship, any american is free to visit an internet casino
1744 2011-06-06 13:07:35 <magnetron> afed: yes, after the WTO forced USA to stop the censorship
1745 2011-06-06 13:07:36 <blueCmd> after all, it's not like they can drive away with the internet truck
1746 2011-06-06 13:07:36 <afed> its just that all banks in america are forbidding from processing their transactions
1747 2011-06-06 13:07:45 <lfm> magnetron: ah ya I see your point, their "freedom" is getting thinner every day
1748 2011-06-06 13:07:56 <noagendamarket> people outside the us consider them a joke
1749 2011-06-06 13:09:24 <lfm> its just cuz the traditional casinos are politiclly powerfull, bankrolling election campains and stuff.
1750 2011-06-06 13:09:50 <afed> and the internet casinos don't pay tax themselves or report gamblers' winnings to the irs
1751 2011-06-06 13:10:09 skeledrew1 has joined
1752 2011-06-06 13:10:41 <magnetron> afed: they're not american casinos, they don't owe U.S. taxes
1753 2011-06-06 13:11:07 <Gekz> PROTECT IP Act.
1754 2011-06-06 13:11:08 <Gekz> enjoy
1755 2011-06-06 13:11:26 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1756 2011-06-06 13:12:28 lightcode has joined
1757 2011-06-06 13:15:04 Incitatus has joined
1758 2011-06-06 13:15:24 Incitatus has quit (Client Quit)
1759 2011-06-06 13:15:42 vigilyn has joined
1760 2011-06-06 13:16:01 Incitatus has joined
1761 2011-06-06 13:19:11 Xanie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1762 2011-06-06 13:19:24 Xanie has joined
1763 2011-06-06 13:20:11 Mononofu has joined
1764 2011-06-06 13:23:09 vigilyn2 has joined
1765 2011-06-06 13:23:51 <afed> the only thing i don't like about bitcoin is that it doesn't kill hipsters
1766 2011-06-06 13:24:18 <afed> instead of GPUs, bitcoins should be generated by chaining hipsters up in your basement and hooking electrical cables to them
1767 2011-06-06 13:24:30 jaybny has joined
1768 2011-06-06 13:24:35 zombiedude has joined
1769 2011-06-06 13:24:53 <jaybny> any info on websockets API for orders in Mtgox?
1770 2011-06-06 13:24:59 johnnympereira5 has joined
1771 2011-06-06 13:25:24 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
1772 2011-06-06 13:26:10 <vegard> please correct me if I'm wrong. isn't it actually possible to have two keypairs for the same address?
1773 2011-06-06 13:26:13 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1774 2011-06-06 13:26:18 vigilyn2 is now known as vigilyn
1775 2011-06-06 13:26:26 mu_ has joined
1776 2011-06-06 13:26:32 <vegard> if the two public keys hash to the same sha256 or ripemd160
1777 2011-06-06 13:26:46 mu_ has left ()
1778 2011-06-06 13:27:04 <vegard> (never mind the probability of this occurring; I'm asking whether it's possible in theory)
1779 2011-06-06 13:27:18 <magictaco> yes
1780 2011-06-06 13:28:47 <vegard> but one keypair could never spend money that was received by the other if the keys are actually different, because it would most likely not be able to redeem the transaction output, correct?
1781 2011-06-06 13:28:59 <vegard> s/never/probably not/
1782 2011-06-06 13:29:46 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1783 2011-06-06 13:29:48 <magictaco> only one would be able to sign the transaction?
1784 2011-06-06 13:29:57 <vegard> yeah
1785 2011-06-06 13:30:07 TomyBoy3G has joined
1786 2011-06-06 13:30:10 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1787 2011-06-06 13:31:20 zombiedude has left ()
1788 2011-06-06 13:33:02 davep has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1789 2011-06-06 13:33:22 davep has joined
1790 2011-06-06 13:34:33 TommyBoy3G has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1791 2011-06-06 13:37:26 normanrichards has joined
1792 2011-06-06 13:38:49 <vegard> otoh, that doesn't really make sense either, because I could generate an address now, give it to you, and you could transfer coins to it without ever seeing the public key
1793 2011-06-06 13:40:50 <BlueMatt> god to handle a url in osx in anything but their native stuff, you have to make a helper wrapper...wtf
1794 2011-06-06 13:41:07 <BlueMatt> why cant they do the same thing as every other os and just call app url
1795 2011-06-06 13:41:15 <BlueMatt> instead of some fancy shitty passing url api
1796 2011-06-06 13:41:15 <magictaco> vegard: no idea. you will have to check the spec
1797 2011-06-06 13:41:37 marcin__ has joined
1798 2011-06-06 13:42:40 karnac has joined
1799 2011-06-06 13:43:55 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
1800 2011-06-06 13:44:00 cosurgi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1801 2011-06-06 13:48:35 theorb has joined
1802 2011-06-06 13:49:13 torsthaldo_ has joined
1803 2011-06-06 13:50:26 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1804 2011-06-06 13:50:30 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1805 2011-06-06 13:50:48 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1806 2011-06-06 13:51:28 molecular has joined
1807 2011-06-06 13:51:29 skeledrew has joined
1808 2011-06-06 13:51:52 blzp has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1809 2011-06-06 13:52:03 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1810 2011-06-06 13:52:19 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1811 2011-06-06 13:53:03 Kurtov has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1812 2011-06-06 13:53:08 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1813 2011-06-06 13:54:46 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1814 2011-06-06 13:56:25 DukeOfURL has joined
1815 2011-06-06 13:57:53 <vegard> yeah, right, so it's sufficient to have a keypair where the public key hashes to the address in order to spend coins at an address
1816 2011-06-06 13:58:57 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1817 2011-06-06 13:59:14 Incitatus has joined
1818 2011-06-06 14:00:15 <vegard> I guess that means that RIPEMD160 is the "weakest" link, since you need to generate/hash only 2^160 keypairs in order to find a keypair which has a given address
1819 2011-06-06 14:00:26 <vegard> (on average)
1820 2011-06-06 14:01:08 <quellhorst> whats the best value video card for mining now?
1821 2011-06-06 14:02:14 <ersi> quellhorst: Intel GMA 900 chipset, of course!
1822 2011-06-06 14:02:42 <quellhorst> lies
1823 2011-06-06 14:03:19 <diki> the cake is not a lie
1824 2011-06-06 14:03:37 <blueCmd> quellhorst: 6990 i think
1825 2011-06-06 14:03:38 vigilyn2 has joined
1826 2011-06-06 14:03:43 <blueCmd> ah best value
1827 2011-06-06 14:03:44 <blueCmd> sorry
1828 2011-06-06 14:04:18 luke-jr has joined
1829 2011-06-06 14:04:41 <phantomcircuit> vegard, yeah you're correct about RIPEMD160, it would have been much better to use multiple hashes concurrently instead of stacked
1830 2011-06-06 14:04:43 <phantomcircuit> but oh well
1831 2011-06-06 14:05:18 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1832 2011-06-06 14:05:57 <vegard> I don't think that improves security either
1833 2011-06-06 14:06:18 <vegard> well. hm. I don't know.
1834 2011-06-06 14:06:44 <phantomcircuit> vegard, yes it does
1835 2011-06-06 14:07:20 <vegard> why not just use the public key as an address?
1836 2011-06-06 14:07:39 <vegard> oh, wait, the public key is only 65 bits. that's way too small
1837 2011-06-06 14:08:09 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1838 2011-06-06 14:10:00 karnac has joined
1839 2011-06-06 14:12:21 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1840 2011-06-06 14:12:25 ar4s has joined
1841 2011-06-06 14:13:11 agd has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1842 2011-06-06 14:13:16 kermit has joined
1843 2011-06-06 14:13:17 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1844 2011-06-06 14:13:34 _storrgie_ has joined
1845 2011-06-06 14:15:06 slush has joined
1846 2011-06-06 14:15:28 <gmaxwell> vegard: er? the public key is 256 bits.
1847 2011-06-06 14:15:44 <gmaxwell> the hashing reduces the address length.
1848 2011-06-06 14:15:57 kermit has quit (Client Quit)
1849 2011-06-06 14:16:08 kermit has joined
1850 2011-06-06 14:16:14 <gmaxwell> It also, in some cases, provides some small increased resistance to ECDSA compromises. (but the length is the main purpose)
1851 2011-06-06 14:16:35 <gmaxwell> 06:52 < vegard> I guess that means that RIPEMD160 is the "weakest" link, since you need to generate/hash only 2^160 keypairs in order to find a keypair which has a given address
1852 2011-06-06 14:17:01 <gmaxwell> not quite: you also need a private key for that collision.
1853 2011-06-06 14:17:03 <vegard> ah, so the 65 in key.h is bytes, not bits?
1854 2011-06-06 14:17:18 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1855 2011-06-06 14:17:23 <gmaxwell> vegard: it's probably bytes for the hex representation + \0
1856 2011-06-06 14:17:53 <blueCmd> phantomcircuit: i answered the issue report
1857 2011-06-06 14:18:37 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: any ETA on 0.4?
1858 2011-06-06 14:18:51 <Blitzboom> wallet encryption is most urgent now :S
1859 2011-06-06 14:20:01 <BlueMatt> not really, 0.3.23 first, to get connect timeout done...then fee stuff, then maybe wallet class+crypto (crypto still needs rebased ...)
1860 2011-06-06 14:20:04 <gmaxwell> vegard: Also 'just 2^160' made me laugh. rough calculations show that simply incrementing a physical-limit efficient counter on a non-reversable classical computer 2^128 times would take something like 240 MT of energy (a much better unit than joules)
1861 2011-06-06 14:20:21 <BlueMatt> I think the codename of 0.4.0 being el Dorado is appropriate
1862 2011-06-06 14:20:31 <gmaxwell> vegard: anything at 128 bit security is effectively uncrackable unless you can get the security lower through a compromise, QC, etc.
1863 2011-06-06 14:20:44 mmoya has joined
1864 2011-06-06 14:20:47 <vegard> gmaxwell: yeah, heh, I know
1865 2011-06-06 14:21:14 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: because it will turn everyone's wallets into lost cities of gold?
1866 2011-06-06 14:21:24 <BlueMatt> lol...not quite...
1867 2011-06-06 14:21:25 ar4s has quit (Quit: zZzZZz)
1868 2011-06-06 14:21:30 <vegard> gmaxwell: I just meant that there's quite a difference between 160 and 256...
1869 2011-06-06 14:21:43 <vegard> 16:09 < gmaxwell> not quite: you also need a private key for that collision.
1870 2011-06-06 14:22:22 <gmaxwell> vegard: e.g. if you use a weakness of RIPEMD160 to get collisions, rather than doing 2^160 ecc+sha256+ripemd160 of course. :)
1871 2011-06-06 14:22:46 <vegard> so you can generate 2^160 distinct key*pairs*, but that won't give 2^160 distinct public keys, is that what you're saying?
1872 2011-06-06 14:23:00 ar4s has joined
1873 2011-06-06 14:23:32 <magnetron> correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't increasing difficulty also mean increasing probability for block hash collision?
1874 2011-06-06 14:24:19 <gmaxwell> vegard: thats probably true to, but not important. My thinking was that you're not going to do 2^160 of anything, instead you'd do some yet unknown 2^60 attack on ripemd160 but then be stuck.
1875 2011-06-06 14:24:30 <edcba> yes magnetron
1876 2011-06-06 14:24:42 <gmaxwell> magnetron: though not in any really meaningful sense.
1877 2011-06-06 14:24:45 bk128 has joined
1878 2011-06-06 14:25:13 <vegard> gmaxwell: right, ok. I was thinking about brute force with 2^160 attempts
1879 2011-06-06 14:25:22 dvide has quit ()
1880 2011-06-06 14:25:49 <gmaxwell> though it vegard 2^159 on average! :) but hey, if you've got a whole spare universe to compute this, whats a factor of two? ;)
1881 2011-06-06 14:25:53 <quellhorst> where can i get extension cables for GPUs?
1882 2011-06-06 14:26:19 <edcba> extennsionn ?
1883 2011-06-06 14:26:24 <vegard> heh
1884 2011-06-06 14:26:29 <gmaxwell> quellhorst: #bitcoin-mining is where you should ask
1885 2011-06-06 14:27:02 ar4s has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1886 2011-06-06 14:27:25 <magnetron> yeah, also, how computation intensive is it to generate a private/public key pair with the corresponding bitcoin address? also, if i know a bitcoind address, can i easily get the public key for that address?
1887 2011-06-06 14:27:45 <magnetron> s/bitcoind/bitcoin/
1888 2011-06-06 14:28:08 <phantomcircuit> the address IS the public key
1889 2011-06-06 14:28:12 <magnetron> ok.
1890 2011-06-06 14:28:13 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1891 2011-06-06 14:28:15 <magnetron> fine.
1892 2011-06-06 14:28:32 <magnetron> so the public key is 160 bits?
1893 2011-06-06 14:28:38 <edcba> magnetron: as hard as breaking the ddouble sha
1894 2011-06-06 14:28:48 ar4s has joined
1895 2011-06-06 14:29:16 <gmaxwell> magnetron: The public key is 256 bits.
1896 2011-06-06 14:29:35 <gmaxwell> You can't just 'get' the public key.
1897 2011-06-06 14:29:36 <vegard> are you sure it's not 512?
1898 2011-06-06 14:30:01 <magnetron> gmaxwell: so phantomcircuit was incorrect?
1899 2011-06-06 14:30:03 <gmaxwell> vegard: I thought it was but I went and looked at once and it was 64 hex characters.
1900 2011-06-06 14:30:28 <gmaxwell> The address is _not_ the public key. phantomcircuit was not specific enough and or incorrect.
1901 2011-06-06 14:30:45 <edcba> pk != addr
1902 2011-06-06 14:30:47 <gmaxwell> The address is the RIPEMD160(SHA256(publickey))
1903 2011-06-06 14:30:57 pnicholson has joined
1904 2011-06-06 14:31:06 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, oh really?
1905 2011-06-06 14:31:14 <phantomcircuit> meh
1906 2011-06-06 14:31:16 <gmaxwell> If someone has never sent from an address then only they know the public key. (except for generated blocks because they just use the public key)
1907 2011-06-06 14:31:16 <phantomcircuit> close enough
1908 2011-06-06 14:31:28 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1909 2011-06-06 14:31:39 <phantomcircuit> sometimes i feel like satoshi just threw more primatives at the problem
1910 2011-06-06 14:31:40 ar4s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1911 2011-06-06 14:31:53 <gmaxwell> This also means that if you have an attack on ECC which works but is still slow, it's only usable against reused addresses in bitcoin.
1912 2011-06-06 14:31:59 <blueCmd> phantomcircuit: i answered you on https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/issues/2
1913 2011-06-06 14:32:10 <phantomcircuit> blueCmd, i saw im thinking about it
1914 2011-06-06 14:32:12 <magnetron> ok. so my questions remain: 1. how hard is it to generate a keypair? 2. how large are the keys 3. where can i find the public keys for a given bitcoin address
1915 2011-06-06 14:32:13 ar4s has joined
1916 2011-06-06 14:32:17 <blueCmd> phantomcircuit: ah right, good :-)
1917 2011-06-06 14:33:14 <vegard> magnetron: #3: the public key is provided by the one who sends from an address corresponding to the public key (if I understood correctly)
1918 2011-06-06 14:33:16 <gmaxwell> magnetron: It's not that hard. It requires an ecc private->public operation which is compariable in complexity to a signing, plus the two hashes. 2. 256 bits, the address is 160 bits plus 32bits of 'checksum', 3. You can only find one if the address has spent money.
1919 2011-06-06 14:33:34 <gmaxwell> vegard is correct. When you spend you provide your public key and a signature.
1920 2011-06-06 14:33:53 <gmaxwell> The network makes sure the public key and address match up, and that the signature is valid.
1921 2011-06-06 14:34:54 <gmaxwell> Generate txn normally include the public key directly though. Dunno why. At least it means that those code paths (spending from something with the public key already in it) are tested. :)
1922 2011-06-06 14:35:17 <vegard> in other words, any keypair will do as long as the RIPEMD160(SHA256(pubkey)) matches the address you're spending from
1923 2011-06-06 14:35:57 <gmaxwell> vegard: yes, for normal transactions (see generate comment above). You actually have to have the keypair though.
1924 2011-06-06 14:36:15 <gmaxwell> E.g. just having the public part due to some attack on RIPEMD160+SHA256 isn't enough.
1925 2011-06-06 14:37:06 <vegard> yep. and finding private from public is computationally difficult.
1926 2011-06-06 14:37:59 dedeibel has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1927 2011-06-06 14:38:05 <edcba> anyway easiest way would attack ecc
1928 2011-06-06 14:38:13 ar4s has quit (Quit: ar4s)
1929 2011-06-06 14:38:22 <gmaxwell> edcba: except you don't have the public key from addresses which haven't spent! :)
1930 2011-06-06 14:38:46 <edcba> indeed
1931 2011-06-06 14:39:06 _Netsniper_ is now known as Netsniper
1932 2011-06-06 14:39:17 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1933 2011-06-06 14:39:37 <vegard> in other words, good hygiene would be to empty every address every time you spend from it? (i.e. move the rest that you don't want to spend to a new address)
1934 2011-06-06 14:39:38 <magnetron> what i want to know is, what is the expected time to find a collision between a 5850 generating keypairs and all the bitcoin adresses with money
1935 2011-06-06 14:39:46 karnac has joined
1936 2011-06-06 14:39:48 <edcba> so if you recycle every key at each tx...
1937 2011-06-06 14:39:48 <Matson> has there been any discussion about a community standard (obviously not enforcable) where pool operators and pool recomendations pick and hold a maximum percentage of the total hash pool?
1938 2011-06-06 14:39:54 <gmaxwell> vegard: only if you're worried about surprise ecc attacks.
1939 2011-06-06 14:40:05 pusle has joined
1940 2011-06-06 14:40:23 <Matson> it seems now the number is 50%, so no operator wants to go above 50% becuase they could lead a serious attack
1941 2011-06-06 14:40:39 Phoebus has joined
1942 2011-06-06 14:40:48 <Matson> but I think the community needs to quickly adopt another number, I'd rec. 16%
1943 2011-06-06 14:40:57 <gmaxwell> Matson: Or because external forces will correct them...
1944 2011-06-06 14:41:05 <Matson> at 16, it would take more then 3 pools to collude in an attack
1945 2011-06-06 14:41:19 <Matson> correct, or coopt?
1946 2011-06-06 14:42:03 <vegard> magnetron: at the current difficulty finding a block is about 2^52 operations, but brute forcing an address takes 2^160
1947 2011-06-06 14:42:07 <Matson> if the pool sizes are 48,30,10,10 - and the 48 and 30 pools are both pipe-wrench hacked, then the whole system is vulnerable
1948 2011-06-06 14:42:09 <magictaco> or just 1 windows virus
1949 2011-06-06 14:42:28 <gmaxwell> Matson: pools near 50% have been getting DOS attacked. It's not a crazy idea to think that this might be a bit of a black hat adhoc community response.
1950 2011-06-06 14:42:56 <gmaxwell> vegard: the C in finding a block is much lower than the addresses too.
1951 2011-06-06 14:43:02 marcin__ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1952 2011-06-06 14:43:06 <magnetron> vegard: yes, bruteforcing a SPECIFIC address is 2^160
1953 2011-06-06 14:43:20 <Matson> gmaxwell: yes, that's great to prevent anyone from having >50%
1954 2011-06-06 14:43:26 <vegard> magnetron: yes.
1955 2011-06-06 14:43:37 <gmaxwell> magnetron: so divide by 100,000,000 it doesn't make much difference.
1956 2011-06-06 14:44:03 <Matson> but it's a situation teetering on failure. the pool operators and the comunity standards would engender significant trust if no pool were > 16%
1957 2011-06-06 14:44:43 <Matson> because 16*3 is still <50% - it would take 4 or more together to bring down the ecosystem
1958 2011-06-06 14:45:30 <gmaxwell> Matson: well, so lots of people have cried for community correction
1959 2011-06-06 14:45:57 <Matson> corrections in general, or are you referring to pool practices?
1960 2011-06-06 14:45:58 xilrian has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1961 2011-06-06 14:46:03 <gmaxwell> And people respond "the community will correct!" .. and then they go back to using deepbit. ::shrugs:: I think most people mining don't give a darn about the health of bitcoin.
1962 2011-06-06 14:46:29 Kiba has joined
1963 2011-06-06 14:46:35 <gmaxwell> Moreover, there appears to be a common misunderstanding of mining that causes people to think it's a great bit race and that they enjoy some enormous advantage by being on the biggest team.
1964 2011-06-06 14:46:45 <pusle> but why do the big miners join pools ? they find blocks on their own in resonable amounts of time anyway..
1965 2011-06-06 14:46:45 <Matson> anyone mining for real has at least $1000 rig in the game, so they need to be educated
1966 2011-06-06 14:47:01 <magnetron> Matson: lol no
1967 2011-06-06 14:47:20 <magnetron> Matson: no education needed, you said so yourself. only need $1000
1968 2011-06-06 14:47:50 <enki> deepbit is too big to fail
1969 2011-06-06 14:47:51 <gmaxwell> pusle: hell, not only do they join pools, they join the biggest one and pick the PPS option with the ~10% fee.
1970 2011-06-06 14:48:05 <pusle> over a long time, solo mining will net them more profits too
1971 2011-06-06 14:48:15 <pusle> I can understand cpu miners joining pools
1972 2011-06-06 14:48:23 <Matson> in reality, any community limit would need to be understood and self enforced by pool operators
1973 2011-06-06 14:48:46 <Matson> supported by educating new miners why pools stop accepting new users over 16%
1974 2011-06-06 14:49:04 m00p has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1975 2011-06-06 14:49:10 <gmaxwell> Matson: so suggestions were made to deepbit that they self regulate e.g. by increasing their fees. And they indicated disinterest.
1976 2011-06-06 14:49:12 <Matson> if the pool operators do this, it will make their own businesses much more secure
1977 2011-06-06 14:49:18 <pusle> or rather educate the miners about mining solo will give them moar money over time
1978 2011-06-06 14:49:33 <pusle> perhaps that's the problem? most think it's a race
1979 2011-06-06 14:49:34 <magnetron> won't people move to btcguild and reduce the size of deepbit?
1980 2011-06-06 14:49:38 <vegard> so, um, let's start a new pool?
1981 2011-06-06 14:49:43 <gmaxwell> pusle: thats at least part of it.
1982 2011-06-06 14:49:50 <pusle> gotta be
1983 2011-06-06 14:50:11 <enki> btcguild needs better branding
1984 2011-06-06 14:50:15 <pusle> with miners who got like 2GHash/s on their own, solo is the best choice
1985 2011-06-06 14:50:16 <enki> the name sucks
1986 2011-06-06 14:50:27 <Matson> running a pool is a business, starting up new pools willy nilly doesn't solve the instability problem from pools being copted in an attack
1987 2011-06-06 14:50:28 <gmaxwell> funny thing: btcguild's size wen't up a TON after they got those embeddable images for signatures.
1988 2011-06-06 14:50:32 edcba has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1989 2011-06-06 14:50:43 ar4s has joined
1990 2011-06-06 14:50:53 <gmaxwell> enki: I believe btcguild is over Matson's 16% number already.
1991 2011-06-06 14:51:11 <Matson> where is that pie chart of hash percentages?
1992 2011-06-06 14:51:20 <pusle> but like, is this a systemic flaw?
1993 2011-06-06 14:51:26 <gmaxwell> The only pool operator I've heard thinking about "what happens when I get too big" is luke-jr, and he's not currently at risk of that.
1994 2011-06-06 14:51:29 <pusle> or is it just coz bitcoin is still just a baby
1995 2011-06-06 14:51:34 <gmaxwell> Matson: the pie chart is useless atm
1996 2011-06-06 14:51:35 octarine has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1997 2011-06-06 14:51:46 <gmaxwell> Matson: it always goes wonky after a difficulty adjustment.
1998 2011-06-06 14:51:54 octarine has joined
1999 2011-06-06 14:52:09 <Matson> ok it's on http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/
2000 2011-06-06 14:52:09 <gmaxwell> pusle: it's not a sane systemic flaw.
2001 2011-06-06 14:52:12 <diki> in all of internetz, there is no fucking simple example of how to read a file in C
2002 2011-06-06 14:52:18 <gmaxwell> pusle: there is no rational reason for this much consolidation.
2003 2011-06-06 14:52:22 <diki> the internetz failed me
2004 2011-06-06 14:52:37 <gmaxwell> diki: fscanf google it
2005 2011-06-06 14:52:44 <pusle> maybe when bitcoin becomes larger, it will no longer be a problem
2006 2011-06-06 14:52:57 skeledrew1 has joined
2007 2011-06-06 14:53:00 <pusle> but I'm not convinced 100%
2008 2011-06-06 14:53:07 <gmaxwell> I'm doubtful.
2009 2011-06-06 14:53:23 <Matson> pusle: no, colluding hash pool attacks are the one thing that are a problem
2010 2011-06-06 14:53:45 <gmaxwell> It's one of the few non-trivial assumptions in the bitcoin model.
2011 2011-06-06 14:53:59 <Matson> and won't go away unless the pools limit their size, and spread out hash distribution to serveral independent parties
2012 2011-06-06 14:54:00 <pusle> exactly, it's almost impossible to predict before you try
2013 2011-06-06 14:54:08 <phantomcircuit> diki, FILE f = fopen("diki.txt","br");
2014 2011-06-06 14:54:12 <gmaxwell> The honest nodes must have more hash power than any colluding group of dishonest ones.
2015 2011-06-06 14:54:14 <pusle> and small scale problems might be very different from large scale
2016 2011-06-06 14:54:17 <diki> is f the contents?
2017 2011-06-06 14:54:44 <Matson> gmaxwell: yes, but honest nodes in a pool are getting their hases from central system, correct?
2018 2011-06-06 14:54:56 <Matson> er hashes
2019 2011-06-06 14:54:57 <gmaxwell> Matson: pooled miners aren't nodes.
2020 2011-06-06 14:55:04 <gmaxwell> They can't even tell what they're working on.
2021 2011-06-06 14:55:14 <phantomcircuit> diki, fread
2022 2011-06-06 14:55:17 <gmaxwell> They're just computing power for someone else.
2023 2011-06-06 14:55:18 <phantomcircuit> diki, man fread
2024 2011-06-06 14:55:19 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2025 2011-06-06 14:55:27 <Matson> maybe I'm missing something about how pools operate, but
2026 2011-06-06 14:55:51 <pusle> the security of bitcoin shouldnt be based on morality and honesty
2027 2011-06-06 14:56:09 <gmaxwell> pusle: I'm using a domain specific version of honest here. :)
2028 2011-06-06 14:56:24 <gmaxwell> All systems depend on /someone/ following the rules.
2029 2011-06-06 14:56:37 <pusle> hehe
2030 2011-06-06 14:56:44 <pusle> yes, but you get my point
2031 2011-06-06 14:56:47 octarine has left ()
2032 2011-06-06 14:56:48 <Matson> gmaxwell: what exactly to miners get from the pool?
2033 2011-06-06 14:56:53 <pusle> education of the public etc...
2034 2011-06-06 14:56:55 <gmaxwell> Matson: block header
2035 2011-06-06 14:57:13 <gmaxwell> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
2036 2011-06-06 14:57:14 <pusle> "be nice, do not collude" campaigns ... err
2037 2011-06-06 14:57:14 <Matson> blocks are available from other nodes I thought
2038 2011-06-06 14:57:23 magnetron has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2039 2011-06-06 14:57:28 magnetron has joined
2040 2011-06-06 14:57:32 <pusle> don't drink and join pools :x
2041 2011-06-06 14:57:34 TbbW has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2042 2011-06-06 14:57:39 <gmaxwell> Matson: they get the header of a not yet solved block.
2043 2011-06-06 14:57:44 <gmaxwell> Matson: and they work on solving it.
2044 2011-06-06 14:58:00 <Matson> right
2045 2011-06-06 14:58:09 <gmaxwell> the underlying block is not available.
2046 2011-06-06 14:58:15 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
2047 2011-06-06 14:58:16 weinerk has left ("Killed buffer")
2048 2011-06-06 14:58:20 <Matson> so, a pool operator could in theory start creating false blocks, and get his whole pool to solve it
2049 2011-06-06 14:58:25 <gmaxwell> If they solve it the pool will publish it later.
2050 2011-06-06 14:58:38 <gmaxwell> Matson: Well false isn't a great word.
2051 2011-06-06 14:58:52 <Matson> false = includes fraudulent transactions
2052 2011-06-06 14:59:06 <gmaxwell> E.g. if a block violates the explicit rules (awards the pool 1000000 BTC, for example) all the rest of the nodes will ignore it. A waste of time.
2053 2011-06-06 14:59:31 <gmaxwell> But sure, a block that is part of a reversal and respend attack.
2054 2011-06-06 14:59:52 <Matson> right but in this case I'm looking at the poosbility that the top 2 pools are intentionall or unknowingly colluding to bring down the ecosystem
2055 2011-06-06 15:00:02 <gmaxwell> (Btw, I'm going to start saying "reversal and respend" instead of double-spend, because the latter is misleading since the attack doesn't inflate the bitcoin in existance)
2056 2011-06-06 15:00:02 <pusle> is it possible to harness the verification power of the network. all the ppl running the client..
2057 2011-06-06 15:00:05 <Matson> the "rest of the nodes" could be like 20 or 30% of the cpu power
2058 2011-06-06 15:00:21 <pusle> lots of nodes will spot the fake transactions
2059 2011-06-06 15:00:35 TbbW has joined
2060 2011-06-06 15:00:41 <gmaxwell> ... The problem here is that this whole activity is what DECIDES what fake is.
2061 2011-06-06 15:01:06 <pusle> yes, but majority hashing power, vs majority verification "power"
2062 2011-06-06 15:01:10 <gmaxwell> It's not really "fake", the mining is what creates the official historical record of which txn came first.
2063 2011-06-06 15:01:10 <Matson> gmaxwell: yes, I understand that
2064 2011-06-06 15:01:26 <pusle> but problem is to verify the nodes are not fake/identity problem
2065 2011-06-06 15:01:46 <gmaxwell> Right, which is exactly why the hash pow chain was invented: to stop the cheap sybil attack.
2066 2011-06-06 15:02:03 <gmaxwell> otherwise nodes would just vote or something like that.
2067 2011-06-06 15:02:12 <pusle> mhm
2068 2011-06-06 15:02:38 <pusle> but like, if idealism is needed. Then it's better to make regular ppl competitive
2069 2011-06-06 15:02:46 <pusle> some branchy memory hungry motherfucker of a hash algo
2070 2011-06-06 15:03:10 jindel has left ()
2071 2011-06-06 15:03:53 <Matson> gmaxwell: is it possible, if the two top pool operators colluded (say they had 48 and 30% of the computing power in their pools) to create blocks and verify them with fraudulent transactions?
2072 2011-06-06 15:04:18 <Matson> I think the answer to that is yes they could
2073 2011-06-06 15:04:34 PSUdaemon has quit (Quit: Changing server)
2074 2011-06-06 15:04:51 <gmaxwell> You're not being specific enough again. :)
2075 2011-06-06 15:04:56 <Matson> and the other nodes, with 22% of the omputing power would ignore them as incorrect
2076 2011-06-06 15:05:03 <Matson> ok
2077 2011-06-06 15:05:21 <gmaxwell> pusle: i suggested that before (scrypt!) but art pointed out that doing that makes botnets the winners. They aren't anymore.
2078 2011-06-06 15:05:51 <pusle> nice
2079 2011-06-06 15:05:56 <pusle> so lets have both?
2080 2011-06-06 15:06:00 <gmaxwell> The distributed verification means that the only things naughty miners can really do are reverse&respend and DOS and thats about it.
2081 2011-06-06 15:06:12 <pusle> tx aren't valid unless they are in both chains
2082 2011-06-06 15:06:32 Xanie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2083 2011-06-06 15:06:35 pedofly has joined
2084 2011-06-06 15:06:36 <pusle> so then you need a big botnet AND lots of cooperation with pools
2085 2011-06-06 15:06:43 <Matson> ah, and people would immediately see the reversals
2086 2011-06-06 15:06:57 <pusle> and if millions of ppl run the bitcoin client, no botnet in the world can take over
2087 2011-06-06 15:07:02 <gmaxwell> Yes, reverse and respend is a fairly public attack.
2088 2011-06-06 15:07:11 <gmaxwell> pusle: million node botnet! :)
2089 2011-06-06 15:07:31 <pusle> haha, lets hope home computer securty improves rather then grows worse ;)
2090 2011-06-06 15:07:46 <pusle> I for sure know that when my parents generation die out, it WILL get better :P
2091 2011-06-06 15:07:53 <gmaxwell> I mean, there have already been multimillion node botnets according to the press.
2092 2011-06-06 15:08:09 <gmaxwell> pusle: you kidding? 13 year olds install anything that bounces.
2093 2011-06-06 15:08:09 <pusle> that's rare
2094 2011-06-06 15:08:26 <pusle> but sure
2095 2011-06-06 15:08:32 <pusle> it's not bulletproof
2096 2011-06-06 15:08:37 <pusle> I just think 2 is better than one
2097 2011-06-06 15:08:45 <pusle> more stuff need to happen at once to break it
2098 2011-06-06 15:08:52 <gmaxwell> 2 is 2x the DOS vulnerability.
2099 2011-06-06 15:09:20 <pusle> uhm is that a problem?
2100 2011-06-06 15:09:30 <gmaxwell> Keep in mindâ reverse and respend is easily defended against locally by sitting on TXN.
2101 2011-06-06 15:09:31 <pusle> you'd have to dos thousands of individual lines
2102 2011-06-06 15:09:51 <Matson> gmaxwell: "sitting on TXN" what's this?
2103 2011-06-06 15:10:21 <gmaxwell> Matson: waiting for many confirmations before doing something you might regret (handing over the keys to a car, for example)
2104 2011-06-06 15:10:22 RogueAdmin has joined
2105 2011-06-06 15:11:11 <pusle> any ideas for a 3rd chain method?
2106 2011-06-06 15:11:17 <Matson> hmmm
2107 2011-06-06 15:11:28 <pusle> and perhaps throw a facebook web of thrust on top just for kicks :P
2108 2011-06-06 15:11:39 <Matson> confirmation happens only after the block is solved, correct?
2109 2011-06-06 15:12:17 darkmethod has joined
2110 2011-06-06 15:12:28 <gmaxwell> Matson: confirmations is the number of blocks which bury the transaction in the blockchain.
2111 2011-06-06 15:12:48 <Matson> oh
2112 2011-06-06 15:13:03 <Matson> at about 1 every 10 mins
2113 2011-06-06 15:13:12 <gmaxwell> On the long term average.
2114 2011-06-06 15:13:32 <luke-jr> Matson: once it gets accepted into a block
2115 2011-06-06 15:13:39 <Matson> yup
2116 2011-06-06 15:14:13 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2117 2011-06-06 15:14:22 <pusle> what if you had like groups (maybe trusted, via friends list etc) who make mini-blocks
2118 2011-06-06 15:14:26 <pusle> not so hard as the regular block
2119 2011-06-06 15:14:34 <pusle> then a number of these blocks
2120 2011-06-06 15:14:35 <pusle> gotta agree
2121 2011-06-06 15:14:41 <pusle> then they are hashed into a big boy block
2122 2011-06-06 15:14:44 <pusle> hard one
2123 2011-06-06 15:14:59 <pusle> maybe stupid, maybe not
2124 2011-06-06 15:15:15 <magnetron> sounds like a hash tree
2125 2011-06-06 15:15:45 gsathya has joined
2126 2011-06-06 15:15:56 cosurgi has joined
2127 2011-06-06 15:16:09 <pusle> this would get semi confirmations to go faster ( the easy blocks)
2128 2011-06-06 15:16:23 <pusle> but would it overall be more safe..
2129 2011-06-06 15:16:27 * pusle thinks hard
2130 2011-06-06 15:16:32 <pusle> *phew*
2131 2011-06-06 15:17:11 <pusle> some other "work" perhaps
2132 2011-06-06 15:17:21 <gmaxwell> Soâ none of this is changing any time soon.
2133 2011-06-06 15:17:36 <gmaxwell> Why not put your mental effort into something more near term productive?
2134 2011-06-06 15:17:38 <Matson> pusle: gmaxwell thanks for the discussion
2135 2011-06-06 15:17:43 <jgarzik> blueCmd: pong
2136 2011-06-06 15:17:45 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: pong
2137 2011-06-06 15:18:10 <gmaxwell> perhaps figure out how to create a good testing framework to validate the correctness and security of the deactivated script opcodes? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script
2138 2011-06-06 15:18:54 <pusle> Rome wasn't buildt in a day
2139 2011-06-06 15:19:01 <pusle> if enough ppl throw ideas around
2140 2011-06-06 15:19:09 <pusle> and ppl see something like bitcoin actually can work
2141 2011-06-06 15:19:17 <pusle> then eventually we'll get there :)
2142 2011-06-06 15:19:43 AgoristRadio__ has joined
2143 2011-06-06 15:19:59 AgoristRadio__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2144 2011-06-06 15:20:06 AgoristRadio has joined
2145 2011-06-06 15:20:10 <ZOP> OK SO.
2146 2011-06-06 15:20:16 slush has joined
2147 2011-06-06 15:20:29 DukeOfURL has joined
2148 2011-06-06 15:20:59 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, well you cant prove that, but you can get close
2149 2011-06-06 15:21:47 <ZOP> I've done some patches to bitcoind to get generated block to fill out the account and emit the address in the 'all transactions list' and that gets it to increase balances on listaccounts...
2150 2011-06-06 15:22:08 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: some of them can be proven for some definition of proven. Many can be exhaustively tested, I think.
2151 2011-06-06 15:22:18 <Matson> http://bitcoin.org/ lists 0.3.21, this room lists Latest version: 0.3.22
2152 2011-06-06 15:22:18 <ZOP> however I have to get a client up on testnet and hopefully get some generated blocks into it so I can see what my changes do with generated blocks.
2153 2011-06-06 15:22:44 <ZOP> I also have to make a tweak to make the changes work correctly for when a specific account is requested to be listed, but thats fairly easy.
2154 2011-06-06 15:23:45 <phantomcircuit> Matson, neither of which is completely accurate
2155 2011-06-06 15:24:07 <BlueMatt> Matson: 0.3.22 is latest, 0.3.21 is latest for mac
2156 2011-06-06 15:24:19 <phantomcircuit> nah bro git trunk build is latest
2157 2011-06-06 15:24:21 <phantomcircuit> xD
2158 2011-06-06 15:24:35 <diki> well...failed
2159 2011-06-06 15:24:45 <BlueMatt> lol at the rate at which git head fails...
2160 2011-06-06 15:25:00 <diki> i wanted to make puspoold read the target from a file not needing to change the source...
2161 2011-06-06 15:25:02 <diki> but i failed
2162 2011-06-06 15:25:24 <blueCmd> jgarzik: ah hello! i was wondering about the old pull request regarding protcol version seperation
2163 2011-06-06 15:25:35 AnatolV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2164 2011-06-06 15:25:42 <blueCmd> if it would be possible to reconsider that one
2165 2011-06-06 15:25:49 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I really dont want to re-ignite the mailing list debate...but...if its just a checkbox on sf...
2166 2011-06-06 15:26:09 <jgarzik> blueCmd: best place for discussion is the pull request and/or forums
2167 2011-06-06 15:26:18 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: what mailing list debate?
2168 2011-06-06 15:27:02 <BlueMatt> the, do we move development discussion off the overcrowded-with-noob-questions to a mainling list
2169 2011-06-06 15:28:37 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I prefer email lists, but you'd need to poll other devs
2170 2011-06-06 15:28:54 <blueCmd> jgarzik: I did comment on the pull request
2171 2011-06-06 15:29:08 <BlueMatt> well I was just thinking with some emails that have been going around...most of them can, and should, be public
2172 2011-06-06 15:29:19 <BlueMatt> tcatm: what do you think?
2173 2011-06-06 15:29:28 <BlueMatt> sipa seemed to agree when I asked him last night
2174 2011-06-06 15:29:46 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2175 2011-06-06 15:30:04 caedes has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2176 2011-06-06 15:30:45 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, i vote mailing list
2177 2011-06-06 15:31:09 * BlueMatt needs to go check his logs as there were one or two who were very strongly against...
2178 2011-06-06 15:33:08 <phantomcircuit> some people just dont feel the 80s vibe of mailing lists
2179 2011-06-06 15:33:23 <BlueMatt> irc has the same vibe though...
2180 2011-06-06 15:34:07 <phantomcircuit> psh
2181 2011-06-06 15:34:34 <luke-jr> NNTP will keep n00bs out the best :P
2182 2011-06-06 15:34:39 hereforfun has joined
2183 2011-06-06 15:35:02 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I agree
2184 2011-06-06 15:36:38 <d1234> ;;help
2185 2011-06-06 15:36:39 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
2186 2011-06-06 15:37:34 <JFK911> !facts
2187 2011-06-06 15:37:38 <JFK911> ;;facts
2188 2011-06-06 15:37:38 <gribble> To see a nice sortable web view of all factoids, click here: http://gribble.dreamhosters.com/viewfactoids.php?db=%23bitcoin-dev || To see a list of the most popular factoids, run !rank || To search factoids, run !factoids search <yoursearchterm>
2189 2011-06-06 15:37:39 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: since you're around, ping regarding license status of bitcoin-alt?
2190 2011-06-06 15:37:52 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, im thinking about it
2191 2011-06-06 15:38:02 <lizthegrey> I vote mailing list, incidentally. it's a hallmark of a well-run open source project :)
2192 2011-06-06 15:38:11 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: thanks :) - much appreciated!
2193 2011-06-06 15:38:15 <BlueMatt> gjs278 hated them, theymos said he prefers forums... but the logs seem to indicate that the vast majority would like/not mind the change
2194 2011-06-06 15:38:27 <BlueMatt> and since afaict, it should just be a couple boxes to check on sf...
2195 2011-06-06 15:39:16 <lizthegrey> blueCmd: protocol version spec++, incidentally.
2196 2011-06-06 15:39:46 <blueCmd> lizthegrey: hm?
2197 2011-06-06 15:40:24 <lizthegrey> blueCmd: I support the protocol version and C++ client version separation idea.
2198 2011-06-06 15:40:36 <blueCmd> lizthegrey: yeah, me too
2199 2011-06-06 15:42:05 <pusle> is it easy to fake a tracert?
2200 2011-06-06 15:42:10 <pusle> traceroute
2201 2011-06-06 15:42:13 <molecular> slush, congrats for being on tv. I'm guessing the piece is rather positive toward bitcoin?
2202 2011-06-06 15:42:23 <slush> hi, thanks :)
2203 2011-06-06 15:42:31 <slush> Yes, I think that result is positive
2204 2011-06-06 15:42:41 <molecular> I heard "clondike", lol
2205 2011-06-06 15:42:48 <slush> :-D yes
2206 2011-06-06 15:42:56 <slush> molecular: where did you find it?
2207 2011-06-06 15:43:10 <molecular> did you influence them beforehand (talk to them a lot) or did they have other "informants"
2208 2011-06-06 15:43:23 magictaco has left ()
2209 2011-06-06 15:43:26 <slush> that journalist talked with me for some time
2210 2011-06-06 15:43:30 <molecular> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1958.540
2211 2011-06-06 15:43:59 TD has joined
2212 2011-06-06 15:44:04 <molecular> I had a "journalist experience" myself (der spiegel online, german news). quite interesting. funny feeling to be quoted... how is it to see yourself on tv?
2213 2011-06-06 15:44:05 <TD> good afternoon
2214 2011-06-06 15:44:13 <slush> and discussed few things. There are few glitches which are not absolutely correct, but it was for common people
2215 2011-06-06 15:44:15 <slush> so I think it was ok
2216 2011-06-06 15:44:17 <diki> !facts
2217 2011-06-06 15:44:22 <diki> Chuck Norris doesnt have a reflection; there is only one Chuck Norris
2218 2011-06-06 15:44:27 <pusle> lol
2219 2011-06-06 15:44:57 <molecular> slush, same here. the target folk was "normal people", so some things have to be "boiled down", which unfortunately means "incorrect"
2220 2011-06-06 15:45:05 p0s has joined
2221 2011-06-06 15:45:13 <slush> yep
2222 2011-06-06 15:45:23 <slush> but it definitely rised the wave of interest
2223 2011-06-06 15:45:41 <slush> I did many emails today, also my friends are now willing to buy few bitcoins :)
2224 2011-06-06 15:45:47 <molecular> it's pretty much the first "real tv" appearance of bitcoin, isn't it?Ã
2225 2011-06-06 15:45:58 <slush> I don't know, maybe :)
2226 2011-06-06 15:46:12 <slush> it was on czech tv in prime time, so it is pretty good hit
2227 2011-06-06 15:46:16 <TD> bitcoin was on tv ?
2228 2011-06-06 15:46:17 <slush> of course, it is just czech tv :)
2229 2011-06-06 15:46:34 <molecular> yeah, I'm getting a lot of request from people that want to trade cash for coins lately (since the article in spiegel online)
2230 2011-06-06 15:46:37 <Graet> nice!
2231 2011-06-06 15:47:19 <jgarzik> TD: thanks for commenting on my leaf/supernode proposal
2232 2011-06-06 15:47:31 <TD> going to implement it ?
2233 2011-06-06 15:47:36 <molecular> http://www.ct24.cz/vysilani/2011/06/05/211411058050022-20:00-horizont-ct24/ <- czech tv, bitcoin around 14:00
2234 2011-06-06 15:47:39 <jgarzik> TD: yes
2235 2011-06-06 15:47:42 <TD> nice
2236 2011-06-06 15:47:52 <jgarzik> TD: assuming no major community objections etc.
2237 2011-06-06 15:47:55 <TD> molecular: what do they say ?
2238 2011-06-06 15:48:04 <blueCmd> jgarzik: where can i read about it?
2239 2011-06-06 15:48:05 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: ^^
2240 2011-06-06 15:48:10 <TD> jgarzik: well something has to be done about the startup time problem. it seems like an obvious improvement to me
2241 2011-06-06 15:48:35 <jgarzik> blueCmd: [RFC] Separating leaf nodes and supernodes - http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12286.0
2242 2011-06-06 15:48:45 <blueCmd> ah right, i think i commented there
2243 2011-06-06 15:48:48 <molecular> TD, I don't know, cause I don't speak the language. all I understood was "satoshi nakamoto - genious" and "clondike"
2244 2011-06-06 15:49:01 <jgarzik> klondike bar
2245 2011-06-06 15:49:02 <TD> heh
2246 2011-06-06 15:49:12 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I have no objections, in fact I quite like the idea, I just have questions about how the advertising would work in a very good way with old nodes, etc
2247 2011-06-06 15:49:22 <BlueMatt> though TD's post kind of broke all my objections so...
2248 2011-06-06 15:49:38 * TD isn't 100% sure about what he wrote
2249 2011-06-06 15:49:39 <blueCmd> jgarzik: speaking of which, did you see my comment about the IRC partitioning issue?
2250 2011-06-06 15:49:41 <TD> i checked the code, i think it's right
2251 2011-06-06 15:49:45 <slush> molecular: btw I give 1BTC bitbill to that journalist. She was pretty excited with that :-D
2252 2011-06-06 15:49:56 <JFK911> hahaha
2253 2011-06-06 15:49:57 <slush> molecular: she didn't know that bitcoins can be printed
2254 2011-06-06 15:50:01 <blueCmd> jgarzik: i am afraid that using the random channels the network will easily be divided in partitions
2255 2011-06-06 15:50:40 <jgarzik> blueCmd: I don't think that's a big concern, and with DNS seeding even less so. Remember that IRC is _bootstrapping_ and not peer exchange.
2256 2011-06-06 15:50:41 <MacRohard> blueCmd, the clients will join a different channel each time.. it won't really get partitioned.
2257 2011-06-06 15:50:57 <pusle> perhaps some firewall hole punching would be nice at some point?
2258 2011-06-06 15:51:10 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2259 2011-06-06 15:51:15 <MacRohard> pusle, use teredo maybe ;)
2260 2011-06-06 15:51:27 * pusle is a n00b
2261 2011-06-06 15:51:41 <pusle> but doesnt torrent use it rather effectively now?
2262 2011-06-06 15:51:46 <blueCmd> MacRohard: well, the clients that join #bitcoin00 will only know about eachother right? or are the peers saved until next restart?
2263 2011-06-06 15:51:56 <MacRohard> blueCmd, no
2264 2011-06-06 15:52:12 <MacRohard> blueCmd, some of the nodes on #bitcoin00 will already know all the other nodes
2265 2011-06-06 15:52:17 <blueCmd> why?
2266 2011-06-06 15:52:20 BitVector has joined
2267 2011-06-06 15:52:22 <blueCmd> or, how come?
2268 2011-06-06 15:52:33 <jgarzik> blueCmd: see what I just wrote to you
2269 2011-06-06 15:52:39 <MacRohard> blueCmd, because they cache them in addr.dat between runs and exchange them with their connecgted peers.
2270 2011-06-06 15:52:49 devrandom has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2271 2011-06-06 15:53:31 TD has joined
2272 2011-06-06 15:53:35 <gmaxwell> "We may easily add other conditions to being a supernode" < having the chain up to the first checkpoint in the codeâ makes sure the node isn't isolated when it goes super to prevent the nucleation of islands. ?
2273 2011-06-06 15:53:36 <blueCmd> well, this sort of assumes that all channels will be filled with clients that have been running when this is patched, no?
2274 2011-06-06 15:53:51 <MacRohard> blueCmd, they will be.
2275 2011-06-06 15:53:56 midnightmagic has quit (Excess Flood)
2276 2011-06-06 15:54:09 <molecular> slush: cool going with the bitbill, probably made it more tangible for her ;)
2277 2011-06-06 15:54:11 midnightmagic has joined
2278 2011-06-06 15:54:11 midnightmagic has quit (Excess Flood)
2279 2011-06-06 15:54:12 <blueCmd> i hope so :-) oh well, lets see how that works out.
2280 2011-06-06 15:54:42 midnightmagic has joined
2281 2011-06-06 15:54:42 midnightmagic has quit (Excess Flood)
2282 2011-06-06 15:54:54 <pusle> would it be possible to include the ip trace + wallet of the block winner inside the block, so next X blocks will not be granted to the same "location"
2283 2011-06-06 15:55:04 <pusle> making it harder for pools
2284 2011-06-06 15:55:11 midnightmagic has joined
2285 2011-06-06 15:55:19 <slush> molecular: yes, she was excited with project itself, too
2286 2011-06-06 15:55:32 <slush> but she didn't completely get how it works ;)
2287 2011-06-06 15:55:33 devrandom has joined
2288 2011-06-06 15:55:38 eppu is now known as uppe
2289 2011-06-06 15:56:01 marlowe has joined
2290 2011-06-06 15:56:31 <Matson> phantomcircuit: BlueMatt: thanks, back
2291 2011-06-06 15:57:43 <molecular> slush, had to do quite some explaining to the "spiegel" guy, too. he thought I could give him the coins he wanted to buy on a stick (which is possible, but that would've confused him too much). after about 20 minutes of looking at blockexplorer.com he understood wtf is going on ;)
2292 2011-06-06 15:57:44 edcba has joined
2293 2011-06-06 15:57:49 uppe is now known as Uppe
2294 2011-06-06 15:58:26 Uppe is now known as uppe
2295 2011-06-06 15:59:25 d1234 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2296 2011-06-06 16:00:07 <lizthegrey> blueCmd: it could also be possible for each client to join more than one irc channel, no?
2297 2011-06-06 16:00:58 <slush> molecular: you had good chance with blockexplorer. I had 20 minutes outside on that square where we made an interview and then 15 minutes later on phone :)
2298 2011-06-06 16:01:15 z310 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2299 2011-06-06 16:01:42 <blueCmd> lizthegrey: yes, that is what I would like to see
2300 2011-06-06 16:02:33 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
2301 2011-06-06 16:05:38 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2302 2011-06-06 16:09:14 sytse has joined
2303 2011-06-06 16:09:45 vorlov has joined
2304 2011-06-06 16:13:38 BitVector has quit (Quit: .)
2305 2011-06-06 16:13:42 Ramen has joined
2306 2011-06-06 16:13:51 ar4s has quit (Quit: zZzZZz)
2307 2011-06-06 16:14:34 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2308 2011-06-06 16:16:05 wolfspraul has joined
2309 2011-06-06 16:16:32 TheAncientGoat has joined
2310 2011-06-06 16:17:03 wolfspraul has quit (Client Quit)
2311 2011-06-06 16:17:19 ar4s has joined
2312 2011-06-06 16:18:09 <TheAncientGoat> Hah, I bought a magazine with a 5 page front cover story on Bitcoin
2313 2011-06-06 16:18:17 <mtrlt> :)
2314 2011-06-06 16:18:18 <mtrlt> awesome
2315 2011-06-06 16:18:41 <pusle> stoners weekly? :P
2316 2011-06-06 16:18:49 <[Tycho]> Show your proofpics :)
2317 2011-06-06 16:20:20 ar4s has quit (Client Quit)
2318 2011-06-06 16:20:31 cenuij has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2319 2011-06-06 16:20:31 <ZOP> PoW or it didn't happen! ...? :D
2320 2011-06-06 16:20:59 <TheAncientGoat> Fin Week
2321 2011-06-06 16:21:05 <TheAncientGoat> Will take a screen of the frontpage
2322 2011-06-06 16:21:45 <OneFixt> TheAncientGoat: holy CRAP that's amazing
2323 2011-06-06 16:22:18 ar4s has joined
2324 2011-06-06 16:22:19 <TheAncientGoat> South African mag though, so kind of useless :P
2325 2011-06-06 16:22:22 johnnympereira5 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2326 2011-06-06 16:22:40 <OneFixt> TheAncientGoat: except that south africa uses mobile payments a whole lot, so that's great for bitcoin
2327 2011-06-06 16:23:33 <OneFixt> http://www.fin24.com/Finweek/
2328 2011-06-06 16:24:07 <TheAncientGoat> http://i.imgur.com/pVAXB.png
2329 2011-06-06 16:24:09 <TheAncientGoat> Yeah
2330 2011-06-06 16:24:20 <TheAncientGoat> Damn, should have used that bitcoin upload service :P
2331 2011-06-06 16:24:27 <OneFixt> lol
2332 2011-06-06 16:24:48 <TheAncientGoat> See, this is why I have no more bitcoins :(
2333 2011-06-06 16:25:14 <TheAncientGoat> OneFixt: Good point though, SA does have lots of mobile payment systems
2334 2011-06-06 16:25:38 <fizario> coins that aren't moved in X years are marked as lost ?
2335 2011-06-06 16:25:45 <TheAncientGoat> However, good luck writing a bitcoin client for ancient nokia phones
2336 2011-06-06 16:26:02 <TheAncientGoat> Then again, it can be a remote service
2337 2011-06-06 16:26:06 <fizario> TheAncientGoat: yeah it would have to be sms based
2338 2011-06-06 16:26:29 <OneFixt> i'm sure people are already working on it
2339 2011-06-06 16:27:59 caedes has joined
2340 2011-06-06 16:28:00 caedes has quit (Changing host)
2341 2011-06-06 16:28:00 caedes has joined
2342 2011-06-06 16:29:00 zyb_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2343 2011-06-06 16:29:44 <vegard> seems like there's a banking strike coming up in norway
2344 2011-06-06 16:30:09 <vegard> sounds like an opportunity to advertise, doesn't it?
2345 2011-06-06 16:30:13 <fizario> really? are they demanding billion-dollar salaries..
2346 2011-06-06 16:30:57 z310 has joined
2347 2011-06-06 16:31:49 ar4s has quit (Quit: zZzZZz)
2348 2011-06-06 16:33:10 <ersi> fizario: Um, no? They're just regular coins, sitting in someones lost wallet
2349 2011-06-06 16:34:36 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2350 2011-06-06 16:36:18 <fizario> ersi: oh it wouldnt be a big deal to expire them out after some time. "use em or lose em". that would put an end to the oh no coins are getting lost! meme
2351 2011-06-06 16:37:08 ar4s has joined
2352 2011-06-06 16:37:42 ar4s has quit (Client Quit)
2353 2011-06-06 16:39:21 <ersi> fizario: Why would you propose doing that? I find that silly
2354 2011-06-06 16:39:22 ar4s has joined
2355 2011-06-06 16:39:25 pedofly has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2356 2011-06-06 16:39:43 <vegard> couldn't you just make sure to transfer them to new addresses every once in a while?
2357 2011-06-06 16:40:11 pedofly has joined
2358 2011-06-06 16:40:29 eao has joined
2359 2011-06-06 16:40:34 <ersi> Why the need, at all for that kind of property?
2360 2011-06-06 16:41:41 <fizario> to smooth out the effect of deflation from lost coins
2361 2011-06-06 16:41:52 nefario has left ()
2362 2011-06-06 16:41:57 <Optimo> it's going to be less than 1% ever
2363 2011-06-06 16:42:01 <Optimo> not a big deal
2364 2011-06-06 16:42:24 kizoku has quit (Quit: leaving)
2365 2011-06-06 16:43:05 d1g1t4l has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2366 2011-06-06 16:43:57 d1g1t4l has joined
2367 2011-06-06 16:44:33 ar4s has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2368 2011-06-06 16:44:50 Herodes_ has joined
2369 2011-06-06 16:45:15 dedeibel has joined
2370 2011-06-06 16:45:49 a5an0 has joined
2371 2011-06-06 16:51:27 Mononofu has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2372 2011-06-06 16:52:00 brunner has joined
2373 2011-06-06 16:52:27 skeledrew has joined
2374 2011-06-06 16:54:07 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2375 2011-06-06 16:54:41 Prof_BiG_BanG has quit (Changing host)
2376 2011-06-06 16:54:41 Prof_BiG_BanG has joined
2377 2011-06-06 16:55:18 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2378 2011-06-06 16:56:11 littlehat has joined
2379 2011-06-06 16:57:10 <lizthegrey> whoa, mystery miner is back allegedly
2380 2011-06-06 16:57:26 <lizthegrey> look at http://bitcoinwatch.com/
2381 2011-06-06 16:57:33 <lizthegrey> something as large as all of deepbit just came online
2382 2011-06-06 16:58:24 <pusle> fpga cluster?
2383 2011-06-06 16:58:34 <mtrlt> takeover
2384 2011-06-06 16:59:41 gasteve has joined
2385 2011-06-06 16:59:43 <gmaxwell> bitcoinwatch's numbers are always screwed up after a difficulty change.
2386 2011-06-06 16:59:50 <gmaxwell> I think they reset their rolling average.
2387 2011-06-06 16:59:51 <blueCmd> lizthegrey: how is that calculated?
2388 2011-06-06 17:00:01 <gmaxwell> There was some increase, but it was almost 24 hours ago.
2389 2011-06-06 17:00:12 <gmaxwell> (and a lot of it was actually deepbit)
2390 2011-06-06 17:00:36 <gmaxwell> the sipa.be graphs are better: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-2k.png
2391 2011-06-06 17:01:09 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
2392 2011-06-06 17:01:11 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129059 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 1980 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 36 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 775164.48126835
2393 2011-06-06 17:01:20 littlehat has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
2394 2011-06-06 17:02:42 * fizario installs bitcoin
2395 2011-06-06 17:05:40 jgarzik has joined
2396 2011-06-06 17:05:47 gps_ has joined
2397 2011-06-06 17:06:19 Mononofu has joined
2398 2011-06-06 17:06:32 <lizthegrey> oh, did difficulty just change?
2399 2011-06-06 17:06:36 <lizthegrey> nevermind :)
2400 2011-06-06 17:06:38 <lizthegrey> my apologies!
2401 2011-06-06 17:09:11 B0g4r7 has joined
2402 2011-06-06 17:09:17 blueadept has joined
2403 2011-06-06 17:09:21 RogueAdmin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2404 2011-06-06 17:09:43 littlehat has joined
2405 2011-06-06 17:10:16 blueadept has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2406 2011-06-06 17:11:06 manifold has joined
2407 2011-06-06 17:12:19 ali1234 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2408 2011-06-06 17:13:23 blueadept has joined
2409 2011-06-06 17:13:51 stuhood has joined
2410 2011-06-06 17:14:19 littlehat has quit (Client Quit)
2411 2011-06-06 17:14:32 Yahovah has joined
2412 2011-06-06 17:17:21 nazgulnarsil has joined
2413 2011-06-06 17:17:23 fiverawr has joined
2414 2011-06-06 17:18:36 manifold has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2415 2011-06-06 17:21:30 gsathya has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2416 2011-06-06 17:22:28 <lizthegrey> hmm. so it's been pointed out to me that any malicious pool operator that wishes to harm a smaller pool
2417 2011-06-06 17:22:40 pedofly has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2418 2011-06-06 17:22:49 <lizthegrey> can send a bunch of hashing power at the pool but withhold valid solutions to the real difficulty
2419 2011-06-06 17:22:59 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2420 2011-06-06 17:23:06 <lizthegrey> causing share counts to inflate and devaluing everyone else's shares
2421 2011-06-06 17:23:14 pedofly has joined
2422 2011-06-06 17:23:17 luke-jr has joined
2423 2011-06-06 17:23:18 larsivi has joined
2424 2011-06-06 17:23:34 <lizthegrey> while I think that's destructive behavior since it would be more profitable to just mine for oneself
2425 2011-06-06 17:23:37 <midnightmagic> except nobody in his pre-existing pool gets paid then
2426 2011-06-06 17:23:47 <midnightmagic> and they leave because their results begin disappearing
2427 2011-06-06 17:24:01 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: how do you feel about a pull request that just updates some comments in the code? specifically relating to the str -> bignum conversion and the base58 code ... i figured out what some magic-seeming values are and they really should be put in the comments
2428 2011-06-06 17:24:03 <midnightmagic> so it would hurt them both
2429 2011-06-06 17:24:14 <lizthegrey> okay, fine, someone who controls a bunch of compute power, not necessarily a pool
2430 2011-06-06 17:24:24 <lizthegrey> or someone who is willing to pay his own pool's miners out of pocket
2431 2011-06-06 17:24:42 <midnightmagic> so people leave the pool. so?
2432 2011-06-06 17:24:44 <lizthegrey> (this is the case of someone who is actively malicious and not wanting a new competitor to start and is willing to expend money to stop it)
2433 2011-06-06 17:24:53 <midnightmagic> but it should be detectable at that level.
2434 2011-06-06 17:24:56 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: as long as they are correct and helpful, comments are always welcome. an easy merge, too.
2435 2011-06-06 17:25:01 <lizthegrey> people won't leave the pool if they are still being paid though.
2436 2011-06-06 17:25:08 <lizthegrey> and it's impossible to prove that this is happening.
2437 2011-06-06 17:25:12 <midnightmagic> "this guy is doing major hashing, but no solutions are forthcoming." long-term, that's detectable
2438 2011-06-06 17:25:28 <jgarzik> indistinguishable from bad luck, though ;-)
2439 2011-06-06 17:25:29 <midnightmagic> incorrect, since pools ostensibly publish their hashrate.
2440 2011-06-06 17:25:34 <lizthegrey> yeah, indistinguishable from bad luck
2441 2011-06-06 17:25:45 <lizthegrey> and with a distributed design you couldn't easily ban them from the network
2442 2011-06-06 17:25:55 <midnightmagic> not so. at a certain point it becomes vanishingly improbable. a pool operator won't tolerate vanishinly improbable.
2443 2011-06-06 17:26:05 <lizthegrey> how do you block them though?
2444 2011-06-06 17:26:08 <midnightmagic> you can ban a username.
2445 2011-06-06 17:26:17 <lizthegrey> what if they register a bunch of usernames though?
2446 2011-06-06 17:26:29 <lizthegrey> (or use a variety of different payment addresses, say, in the case of eligius?)
2447 2011-06-06 17:26:36 <lizthegrey> (in a scheme that has no registration)
2448 2011-06-06 17:26:41 <midnightmagic> it kinda doesn't matter, since that kind of effort is self-destructive. eventually it'll stop.
2449 2011-06-06 17:26:47 <lizthegrey> that's my hope too
2450 2011-06-06 17:26:52 <lizthegrey> but I am having trouble proving it.
2451 2011-06-06 17:26:59 <midnightmagic> it kinda doesn't matter anyway, since pool-mining is taking a chance.
2452 2011-06-06 17:27:35 p0s has joined
2453 2011-06-06 17:28:39 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: ya they're correct, took me forever to track down in the openssl docs and some base64/58 specs
2454 2011-06-06 17:29:37 <lizthegrey> someone proposed some kind of scheme where people calculate shares that they don't know if are winners, and send them to the pool
2455 2011-06-06 17:29:41 <phantomcircuit> ;;seen MagicalTux
2456 2011-06-06 17:29:41 <gribble> MagicalTux was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 3 hours, 16 minutes, and 52 seconds ago: <MagicalTux> Cusipzzz: I do not even know what 1099s is
2457 2011-06-06 17:29:48 <phantomcircuit> lol
2458 2011-06-06 17:29:55 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, you didn't respond to my email :(
2459 2011-06-06 17:30:00 <phantomcircuit> ^ sad face
2460 2011-06-06 17:30:04 <jgarzik> BBC interview: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1958.msg175504#msg175504
2461 2011-06-06 17:30:13 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: his inbox is >300 at last count
2462 2011-06-06 17:30:23 <x5x> hes busy spending his money
2463 2011-06-06 17:30:30 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol sounds like he needs to hire an assistant
2464 2011-06-06 17:30:36 <phantomcircuit> or an accountant or something
2465 2011-06-06 17:31:04 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: he is
2466 2011-06-06 17:31:19 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: of course, you gotta hire somebody you can trust with the private infos of a million bitcoin investors
2467 2011-06-06 17:31:38 <phantomcircuit> true
2468 2011-06-06 17:31:40 <lizthegrey> with some kind of obfuscation that clients can't reverse but that the pool operator can
2469 2011-06-06 17:31:44 <lizthegrey> but it seemed implausible
2470 2011-06-06 17:31:59 <phantomcircuit> personally i would just get a ton of insurance and hire people who seemed reasonable
2471 2011-06-06 17:33:17 sipa has joined
2472 2011-06-06 17:33:26 ar4s has joined
2473 2011-06-06 17:33:59 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: btw, you're not the first to raise this
2474 2011-06-06 17:34:20 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: re: flooding pools with bad shares and a few other similar-style attacks
2475 2011-06-06 17:34:46 John___ has joined
2476 2011-06-06 17:34:46 <mtrlt> where can i find the specifications for long polling?
2477 2011-06-06 17:34:55 <mtrlt> google isn't being particularly useful :p
2478 2011-06-06 17:34:55 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: it's a real issue but it's not in anyone's interest to be doing is the short of it
2479 2011-06-06 17:35:18 <gjs278> how does he not know what a 1099 is
2480 2011-06-06 17:35:24 <gjs278> what country is he from
2481 2011-06-06 17:35:53 takahiro has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
2482 2011-06-06 17:35:57 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, france
2483 2011-06-06 17:35:59 <lizthegrey> jrmithdobbs: I know. someone raised it as a concern for my distributed pool scheme
2484 2011-06-06 17:36:00 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: it gets more fun when you think of it from a slightly different angle though
2485 2011-06-06 17:36:03 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, living in japan
2486 2011-06-06 17:36:09 <lizthegrey> and my answer was basically "I can't defend against that, but neither can anyone else"
2487 2011-06-06 17:36:10 <gjs278> wapanese
2488 2011-06-06 17:36:16 dukeleto has joined
2489 2011-06-06 17:36:22 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: say one big pool operator decides they want to discredit their competition
2490 2011-06-06 17:36:34 <mtrlt> okay, found it.
2491 2011-06-06 17:36:47 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: they silently redirect a portion of their users to said competitor
2492 2011-06-06 17:36:51 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: filter out good answers
2493 2011-06-06 17:37:10 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: the "attacking" pool still gets the payouts from the victim pool, and in the process makes it look like they're cheating
2494 2011-06-06 17:37:14 <lizthegrey> jrmithdobbs: yup. the defense against that is what eligius is doing, which is making all getwork answers available
2495 2011-06-06 17:37:28 <lizthegrey> and what I plan to do - anyone can verify the entire pool's getwork
2496 2011-06-06 17:38:10 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: ya that's one method of handling it, but that still doesn't handle the case where the extra useless redirected users could overload infrastructure on the competitor pool
2497 2011-06-06 17:38:38 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: which is a real issue with how easy it is to knock over bitcoind in certain scenarios atm
2498 2011-06-06 17:38:53 <jrmithdobbs> or at least make it unresponsive to rpc
2499 2011-06-06 17:39:02 <lizthegrey> jrmithdobbs: yup, that's the advantage of dbitpool :) - no central bitcoind to knock over.
2500 2011-06-06 17:39:16 <John___> Hi, if I'm trying to reach a user here I should just click query and wait? Thx
2501 2011-06-06 17:39:54 <pusle> you gotta say something
2502 2011-06-06 17:40:00 <John___> Right
2503 2011-06-06 17:40:34 <lizthegrey> you could try to attack the DHT nodes, but I'm planning to design them to be robust to that kind of thing, and you'd have to knock a majority of them offline since DHTs are self-balancing/healing.
2504 2011-06-06 17:40:35 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
2505 2011-06-06 17:40:44 <pusle> could payout be prevented, to like every 5th block. So anything above 20% of the total is useless for a pool
2506 2011-06-06 17:41:02 <pusle> example
2507 2011-06-06 17:41:12 maikmerten has joined
2508 2011-06-06 17:41:55 fimp has joined
2509 2011-06-06 17:41:59 fpgaminer has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2510 2011-06-06 17:42:39 uzyn has joined
2511 2011-06-06 17:43:05 nazgulnarsil has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2512 2011-06-06 17:46:19 <lizthegrey> pusle: if that was directed at me, that's not a viable solution. people can always Sibyl attack you and then there wouldn't be a single chunk of suspicious traffic >20% of the pool
2513 2011-06-06 17:46:29 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: lol just merged master to make those changes and someone recently TOOK OUT the one (semi-helpful) comment on one of the sections i was talking about
2514 2011-06-06 17:49:19 vorlov has joined
2515 2011-06-06 17:49:20 <pusle> lizthegrey: I meant in general
2516 2011-06-06 17:49:32 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, it's possible to mitigate against sybil attacks
2517 2011-06-06 17:49:48 <gmaxwell> so much for DNS seed alone.. started up a new node with a public listening port. irc=0, and dnsseed set... it's spend the last 20 minutes (so far) with 0 connections, suck with a single SYN_SENT socket going out.
2518 2011-06-06 17:49:58 <pusle> pools are good for increasing total hash rate of the network, to stand against goverments etc
2519 2011-06-06 17:50:01 <pusle> but bad if they grow too big
2520 2011-06-06 17:50:21 <pusle> can't be that easy to fake a traceroute either
2521 2011-06-06 17:50:59 <gmaxwell> pusle: governments don't need expensive technical attacks. They make things unlawful and put people in jail. If you wanted to spend some millions shutting down bitcoin you'd spend it on TV adds, not hashing chips.
2522 2011-06-06 17:51:07 dr_win has joined
2523 2011-06-06 17:51:23 <John___> Hi gmaxwell, how does the default network-seeding work? (noob)
2524 2011-06-06 17:51:50 <John___> Don't you have to trust someone to get started?
2525 2011-06-06 17:52:10 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: yes, I have some ideas around using the existing proofs of work from the bitcoin mining everyone participating in the pool will be doing anyways to prevent sibyl attacks
2526 2011-06-06 17:52:10 <gmaxwell> John___: no.
2527 2011-06-06 17:52:40 <gmaxwell> John___: the normal behavio is to connect to IRC for introductions. There doesn't need to be any trust outside of trusting the client software itself.
2528 2011-06-06 17:53:59 <John___> @TV ads: Chucky Schumer just came out hard against Silk Road :D
2529 2011-06-06 17:54:14 <pusle> gmaxwell: putting the smartest % of the population in jail will bring down the government eventually
2530 2011-06-06 17:54:25 Mechatronic has joined
2531 2011-06-06 17:54:30 <pusle> I sure would not give a shit xD
2532 2011-06-06 17:54:39 <pusle> or rather, I'd get pissed
2533 2011-06-06 17:54:47 <gmaxwell> pusle: you put like two people in jail and everyone else runs like ants.
2534 2011-06-06 17:54:49 <pusle> and you don't want pissed off ppl with skills
2535 2011-06-06 17:55:29 <pusle> it only works up to a point
2536 2011-06-06 17:55:35 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, that's completely unnecessary, you simply need to be connected to more peers and hop from one to another quicker
2537 2011-06-06 17:55:59 <John___> gmaxwell, what IRC, e.g., if this one, then aren't we trusting the freenode foundation?
2538 2011-06-06 17:56:15 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
2539 2011-06-06 17:56:40 <gmaxwell> John___: lsirc (it's run by various bitcoin related people). There isn't trust there. Except vulnerablity to DOS attack.
2540 2011-06-06 17:56:55 uzyn has left ()
2541 2011-06-06 17:56:57 <gmaxwell> John___: the nodes can also be seeded over DNS. But thats not enabled by default yet.
2542 2011-06-06 17:57:12 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: okay, where is your connect patch.. cause this is clearly worthless without it. :)
2543 2011-06-06 17:57:38 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i built binaries too
2544 2011-06-06 17:57:39 <phantomcircuit> hehe
2545 2011-06-06 17:57:49 <phantomcircuit> lol i branded my build
2546 2011-06-06 17:58:01 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: well I don't want your binaries. I just want the patch. :)
2547 2011-06-06 17:58:35 <phantomcircuit> i actually mixed the branding into the patch i need to fix that one sec
2548 2011-06-06 17:58:42 <sipa> phantomcircuit: you agree with this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/300 ?
2549 2011-06-06 17:59:29 <John___> LOL @Google: "Your search - lsirc bitcoin - did not match any documents."
2550 2011-06-06 18:00:24 <gmaxwell> gah, can't type. lfirc. irc.lfnet.org
2551 2011-06-06 18:00:38 <John___> :D
2552 2011-06-06 18:01:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: re: dynamically increasing timeout...doesnt that defeat the purpose of connect timeout?
2553 2011-06-06 18:02:16 <sipa> BlueMatt: how so?
2554 2011-06-06 18:02:33 hereforfun has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2555 2011-06-06 18:02:49 <BlueMatt> well if the problem is your list of nodes is so full of crap it takes a while, increasing timeout when its taking a while makes it take longer...
2556 2011-06-06 18:03:18 <sipa> true, it's just moving the problem
2557 2011-06-06 18:03:43 <sipa> if you expect 1/10 advertized nodes to be reachable, you should only increase timeout after +- N timeouts
2558 2011-06-06 18:03:49 <sipa> eh, 1/N
2559 2011-06-06 18:03:57 <sipa> the problem is knowing what is N
2560 2011-06-06 18:05:04 <BlueMatt> yep
2561 2011-06-06 18:05:19 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: just added a comment
2562 2011-06-06 18:05:25 <gmaxwell> I fail at github. I expected to be able to just fetch the sipa fork and cherrypick that revision but ... no.
2563 2011-06-06 18:05:29 <phantomcircuit> sipa, , int nTimeout=5000); Sleep(1), that's 50 seconds :X
2564 2011-06-06 18:05:32 <phantomcircuit> er
2565 2011-06-06 18:05:34 <phantomcircuit> Sleep(10)
2566 2011-06-06 18:05:52 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: just make it a commandline option to override, 5s is more than sane for most scenarios
2567 2011-06-06 18:05:58 <sipa> phantomcircuit: nCounter += 10
2568 2011-06-06 18:06:03 <jrmithdobbs> maybe bump it to 10
2569 2011-06-06 18:06:10 <phantomcircuit> oh
2570 2011-06-06 18:06:15 <phantomcircuit> sipa, missed that
2571 2011-06-06 18:06:28 stuhood has left ()
2572 2011-06-06 18:06:33 <sipa> well, actually, there's no need to have it increase linearly
2573 2011-06-06 18:06:56 <jrmithdobbs> maybe try increasing if it exhausts the entire addr.dat?
2574 2011-06-06 18:07:13 <jrmithdobbs> as a last ditch effort to get a successful connect()
2575 2011-06-06 18:07:14 <gmaxwell> I don't think there is much reason to have timeouts >2 minutes.
2576 2011-06-06 18:07:30 <sipa> gmaxwell: absolutely agree
2577 2011-06-06 18:07:37 <sipa> unless they're done asynchonously
2578 2011-06-06 18:07:42 <sipa> or at least in parallel
2579 2011-06-06 18:07:54 <gmaxwell> Well if e.g. the RTT is >2 minutes tcp won't work right.
2580 2011-06-06 18:08:00 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
2581 2011-06-06 18:08:58 <sipa> anyway, i think the easiest solution is indeed a command line switch
2582 2011-06-06 18:09:04 maikmerten has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2583 2011-06-06 18:09:08 <jrmithdobbs> and if your path is so latent you cant get a synack in 30s you probably don't have the throughput to be running bitcoind anyways
2584 2011-06-06 18:09:16 <phantomcircuit> sipa, looks good
2585 2011-06-06 18:09:44 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yes it does, just very poorly
2586 2011-06-06 18:09:58 TheAncientGoat has quit ()
2587 2011-06-06 18:10:17 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, once it's up bitcoind uses practically no bandwidth
2588 2011-06-06 18:10:23 TheAncientGoat has joined
2589 2011-06-06 18:12:32 hereforfun has joined
2590 2011-06-06 18:12:34 <gjs278> yes but why the fuck does it use so much disk write
2591 2011-06-06 18:12:46 <jrmithdobbs> bdb craziness
2592 2011-06-06 18:12:55 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: assuming you can get the blockchain
2593 2011-06-06 18:13:10 <gjs278> 7195 be/4 root 0.00 B 656.00 K 0.00 % 0.02 % bitcoind -pid=/var/run/bitcoind.pid -datadir=/root/.bitcoin
2594 2011-06-06 18:13:12 <gjs278> 7198 be/4 root 0.00 B 1180.00 K 0.00 % 0.01 % bitcoind -pid=/var/run/bitcoind.pid -datadir=/root/.bitcoin
2595 2011-06-06 18:13:13 <gjs278> that was 20 seconds
2596 2011-06-06 18:13:16 <gjs278> why
2597 2011-06-06 18:13:24 <midnightmagic> another root user huh
2598 2011-06-06 18:13:27 <gjs278> yes
2599 2011-06-06 18:13:34 <ersi> Running programs as root
2600 2011-06-06 18:13:36 <ersi> LIKE A BOSS
2601 2011-06-06 18:13:39 <gjs278> exactly
2602 2011-06-06 18:13:43 <midnightmagic> you should go tell the people in #bash you do that.
2603 2011-06-06 18:13:44 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
2604 2011-06-06 18:13:47 <gjs278> writing 1.7mb to my disk
2605 2011-06-06 18:13:49 <gjs278> every 20 seconds
2606 2011-06-06 18:13:50 <gjs278> like a boss
2607 2011-06-06 18:14:02 <phantomcircuit> it's probably swap
2608 2011-06-06 18:14:03 <phantomcircuit> lol
2609 2011-06-06 18:14:14 <gmaxwell> okay.. 45 minutes.. no connections. Applied patch...
2610 2011-06-06 18:14:15 <ersi> taking a dump on your drive occationally, like a boss
2611 2011-06-06 18:14:18 <ersi> :p
2612 2011-06-06 18:14:26 <gjs278> my swap usage is 0/2.0gb
2613 2011-06-06 18:14:36 <jrmithdobbs> how is /root even big enough to hold the blockchain?
2614 2011-06-06 18:14:40 <jrmithdobbs> your system sucks and i hate you
2615 2011-06-06 18:14:43 <gjs278> no
2616 2011-06-06 18:14:45 <gjs278> my system is /
2617 2011-06-06 18:14:49 <jrmithdobbs> your system sucks and i hate you
2618 2011-06-06 18:14:53 <gjs278> splitting your partitions is for people
2619 2011-06-06 18:14:56 <gjs278> who can't make a decision
2620 2011-06-06 18:15:01 <gjs278> to stick with a distro
2621 2011-06-06 18:15:07 <jrmithdobbs> haha no
2622 2011-06-06 18:15:35 <jrmithdobbs> it's for people that don't want stupid crazy fs fuckups on /var and /home making a machine unbootable
2623 2011-06-06 18:15:39 <gmaxwell> wtf is with dnsseed.. basically none of these hosts answer.
2624 2011-06-06 18:15:43 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, sudo useradd -s /sbin/nologin bitcoind
2625 2011-06-06 18:15:47 <gjs278> every night a 4.6gb backup of my xfsdump goes out to another machine
2626 2011-06-06 18:15:59 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, would you like my keepalive.py script
2627 2011-06-06 18:16:05 <gjs278> I use monit at the moment
2628 2011-06-06 18:16:06 <phantomcircuit> it's ugly as hell
2629 2011-06-06 18:16:08 edgarallanpoe has joined
2630 2011-06-06 18:16:10 <gjs278> it works really well
2631 2011-06-06 18:16:18 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: that'll take at least an hour to restore, when you could do it online if your shit was split up propery
2632 2011-06-06 18:16:24 <gjs278> uhh
2633 2011-06-06 18:16:26 <gjs278> an hour to restore
2634 2011-06-06 18:16:27 <gjs278> no
2635 2011-06-06 18:16:31 <gjs278> like 10 minutes
2636 2011-06-06 18:16:37 <gjs278> I can do it from the gparted cd
2637 2011-06-06 18:16:46 trumpete has joined
2638 2011-06-06 18:16:54 <gmaxwell> awesome. dnsseed failed. With the connect patch it managed to crank through a whole bunch of hosts... none answered now it's just sitting there not trying to connect to anything
2639 2011-06-06 18:17:01 <jrmithdobbs> hour including the time to login to the remote management/physically touch the machine plus booting from alt media to do the restore
2640 2011-06-06 18:17:06 <gjs278> no
2641 2011-06-06 18:17:19 <gjs278> I'll do one today and clock myself
2642 2011-06-06 18:17:36 <jrmithdobbs> well, i guess if you like wasting time on figuring out logistics for restore scenarios that shouldn't ever be occurring
2643 2011-06-06 18:17:39 <jrmithdobbs> that's acceptable
2644 2011-06-06 18:17:42 <gjs278> gparted takes like a minute to boot
2645 2011-06-06 18:17:43 <jrmithdobbs> but still stupid and i hate you
2646 2011-06-06 18:17:46 <gjs278> and then I do
2647 2011-06-06 18:17:53 <gjs278> a grab from the server holding the xfsdumps
2648 2011-06-06 18:17:55 <jrmithdobbs> <3
2649 2011-06-06 18:17:57 <gjs278> and then I xfsrestore
2650 2011-06-06 18:18:17 <gjs278> I've had to do itone time when my raid0 went out
2651 2011-06-06 18:18:17 gribble has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2652 2011-06-06 18:18:31 <jrmithdobbs> hope your wallet didn't have any change that required keypool growth in the mean time ;P
2653 2011-06-06 18:18:47 <gjs278> well
2654 2011-06-06 18:18:50 <gjs278> I have my wallet.dat
2655 2011-06-06 18:18:55 <gjs278> from everyday
2656 2011-06-06 18:18:58 <gjs278> not really an issue
2657 2011-06-06 18:19:26 hereforfun has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2658 2011-06-06 18:19:32 <gjs278> so my latest wallet back is 23 hours old at the latest, I'm probably better off than a lot of people in that regard
2659 2011-06-06 18:19:48 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: this really needs to make connection attempts in parallel.
2660 2011-06-06 18:21:15 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, it's not worth it for the time being, especially since most residential routers can only handle 1024 concurrent connections simultaneously
2661 2011-06-06 18:21:25 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: not a common issue. still an issue
2662 2011-06-06 18:21:26 <BCBot> Stats: http://bit.ly/bitcoin-irc-stats
2663 2011-06-06 18:21:31 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: making 8 in parallel would be a big improvement.
2664 2011-06-06 18:21:51 RogueAdmin has joined
2665 2011-06-06 18:22:00 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: also you assume there were no timing issues where your wallet is in an undefined state at the time of the backup, you could very well be going back 24-72 hours
2666 2011-06-06 18:22:04 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, sure and would require changing a metric fuck ton of code
2667 2011-06-06 18:22:09 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, knock yourself out :P
2668 2011-06-06 18:22:21 <gmaxwell> welp failed with irc too.
2669 2011-06-06 18:23:01 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i assume you're on linux
2670 2011-06-06 18:23:09 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: Indeed.
2671 2011-06-06 18:23:13 <vegard> is there a place where I can find out more about the plans for pruning the block chain?
2672 2011-06-06 18:23:25 <sipa> vegard: afaik there are no such plans
2673 2011-06-06 18:23:26 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/300
2674 2011-06-06 18:23:28 <jrmithdobbs> vegard: there aren't any real plans yet
2675 2011-06-06 18:23:34 <jrmithdobbs> vegard: just discussion of possibilities
2676 2011-06-06 18:23:35 slush has joined
2677 2011-06-06 18:23:39 <sipa> it's well known what the possibilities are
2678 2011-06-06 18:23:48 <jrmithdobbs> right
2679 2011-06-06 18:24:01 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yes, I'm running the connect timeout patch now from sipa's branch.
2680 2011-06-06 18:24:08 edgarallanpoe has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2681 2011-06-06 18:24:10 <vegard> that's just satoshi's paper, then?
2682 2011-06-06 18:24:15 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah isn't it loverly
2683 2011-06-06 18:24:30 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: with that it cycles through about 50 addresses fairly quickly then goes idle when they've all failed to connect.
2684 2011-06-06 18:24:53 <phantomcircuit> you much be running out of nodes to try
2685 2011-06-06 18:25:17 <gmaxwell> Yep. Dnsseed and irc both did that. And indeed, I'm trying them from another network and they aren't listening.
2686 2011-06-06 18:25:28 <blueCmd> ah, the dissector 1.0 is complete!
2687 2011-06-06 18:25:34 <sipa> blueCmd: nice!
2688 2011-06-06 18:25:34 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Doug Huff master * ra9d3af8 / (src/base58.h src/bignum.h): Demystify a few magic numbers. - http://bit.ly/kenKRp
2689 2011-06-06 18:25:35 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * r04bc3f0 / (src/base58.h src/bignum.h):
2690 2011-06-06 18:25:35 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Merge pull request #303 from jrmithdobbs/demystify-magic-numbers
2691 2011-06-06 18:25:35 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Demystify a few magic numbers. - http://bit.ly/mpAAQy
2692 2011-06-06 18:26:14 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2693 2011-06-06 18:26:22 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: the fact that it just âgives up when it runs out is kinda sad.
2694 2011-06-06 18:26:43 <gmaxwell> I assume if I keep restarting the daemon it'll eventually hit an IRC channel with a working node in it.
2695 2011-06-06 18:26:55 <lizthegrey> uhh, is Gavin's statement correct that mtgox follows all AML regulations?
2696 2011-06-06 18:27:02 <lizthegrey> I've never been asked to provide a copy of my ID to mtgox
2697 2011-06-06 18:27:22 <lizthegrey> dwolla knows who I am I in theory though, and mtgox uses dwolla
2698 2011-06-06 18:27:37 <sipa> i believe they are legal by limiting the amount one can withdraw per day
2699 2011-06-06 18:28:06 platapus has joined
2700 2011-06-06 18:28:20 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, AML?
2701 2011-06-06 18:28:21 platapus is now known as johnk
2702 2011-06-06 18:28:37 johnk is now known as johnsa
2703 2011-06-06 18:28:40 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: anti-money-laundering
2704 2011-06-06 18:28:44 <phantomcircuit> oh
2705 2011-06-06 18:28:50 <phantomcircuit> kyc
2706 2011-06-06 18:28:50 <lizthegrey> http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/2011/06/but-you-can-use-it-to-buy-drugs.html asserts that mtgox follows all regulations
2707 2011-06-06 18:28:56 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, ps it's called kyc
2708 2011-06-06 18:29:15 <phantomcircuit> know your client
2709 2011-06-06 18:29:17 <johnsa> Is that gavin as in the lead developer?
2710 2011-06-06 18:29:26 <sipa> yes
2711 2011-06-06 18:29:31 <phantomcircuit> customer?
2712 2011-06-06 18:29:43 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: besides KYC, there's also CTR and SAR though
2713 2011-06-06 18:29:53 <lizthegrey> (currency transaction reports and suspicious activity reports)
2714 2011-06-06 18:30:31 <gjs278> KYC is kill your cat
2715 2011-06-06 18:31:40 bk128 has joined
2716 2011-06-06 18:31:56 <sipa> kentucky yellow chicken
2717 2011-06-06 18:32:38 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, yes he's below the level for all of those and he cannot identify suspicious activity
2718 2011-06-06 18:34:02 smash has joined
2719 2011-06-06 18:34:07 <lizthegrey> phantomcircuit: that's vulnerable to a class of attacks where someone sets up a number of different mtgox accounts
2720 2011-06-06 18:34:18 <lizthegrey> and transfers using each mtgox account amounts of money below the threshold
2721 2011-06-06 18:34:46 <lizthegrey> (but so might traditional banking to be fair)
2722 2011-06-06 18:35:03 <lizthegrey> but like it or not, there will be heavy-handed enforcement on bitcoin and light-handed enforcement on traditional banking
2723 2011-06-06 18:35:07 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, yes it is, however that's not legally an issue
2724 2011-06-06 18:35:17 <jrmithdobbs> lizthegrey: well since he's in japan kyc doesn't apply to my understanding
2725 2011-06-06 18:35:21 <phantomcircuit> although i believe internal transfers count towards the limits
2726 2011-06-06 18:35:45 zamgo has joined
2727 2011-06-06 18:35:48 <jrmithdobbs> and it's not on the processor to identify well-performed fraud that obscures the fact that two separate "people" are really the same
2728 2011-06-06 18:35:54 <jrmithdobbs> even when KYC applies
2729 2011-06-06 18:36:03 <jrmithdobbs> to my understanding iinal etc
2730 2011-06-06 18:36:04 smash has left ()
2731 2011-06-06 18:36:35 <jgarzik> hmmmm
2732 2011-06-06 18:36:45 gavinandresen has joined
2733 2011-06-06 18:36:50 <jgarzik> we need to find a couple volunteers to login to lfnet manually
2734 2011-06-06 18:36:58 <jgarzik> login to -all- IRC channels
2735 2011-06-06 18:37:03 <jrmithdobbs> why
2736 2011-06-06 18:37:08 <jgarzik> and encode their nick properly, acting as seed nodes
2737 2011-06-06 18:37:09 <gjs278> jgarzik
2738 2011-06-06 18:37:10 <gjs278> I will do it
2739 2011-06-06 18:37:19 <gmaxwell> This is what I was planning on doing.
2740 2011-06-06 18:37:21 <gjs278> tell me what I have to do
2741 2011-06-06 18:37:26 altamic has joined
2742 2011-06-06 18:37:27 <jrmithdobbs> oh, ya, that irc chan split is fucking things up since people started upgrading?
2743 2011-06-06 18:37:27 <phantomcircuit> wtf
2744 2011-06-06 18:37:28 <gmaxwell> But I can't get a freeking connection to the network.
2745 2011-06-06 18:37:33 <gps_> i can help. just login once or are we looking for something?
2746 2011-06-06 18:37:34 <phantomcircuit> who did the random channels patch?
2747 2011-06-06 18:37:35 <gmaxwell> It's a two line change to connect to all channels.
2748 2011-06-06 18:37:43 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: use the IP built into bitcoin
2749 2011-06-06 18:37:46 <jgarzik> gjs278:
2750 2011-06-06 18:37:56 <jgarzik> 1) choose nick that points to a live, incoming-supported node
2751 2011-06-06 18:38:03 <jgarzik> 2) login to #bitcoin00 - #bitcoin99 with that nick
2752 2011-06-06 18:38:05 <jgarzik> that's it
2753 2011-06-06 18:38:10 <gjs278> ok
2754 2011-06-06 18:38:15 <gps_> sample. i'll do it. i have 8333 open
2755 2011-06-06 18:38:19 <sipa> easiest is probably to patch it to connect to all channels instead of just one
2756 2011-06-06 18:38:22 <gmaxwell> Someone give me a working noe please?
2757 2011-06-06 18:38:22 <sipa> no?
2758 2011-06-06 18:38:23 <gjs278> I have 8333 open as well
2759 2011-06-06 18:38:31 <jgarzik> sipa: yep
2760 2011-06-06 18:38:41 <phantomcircuit> why are there multiple channels anyways?
2761 2011-06-06 18:38:49 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: single channel overflowed
2762 2011-06-06 18:38:51 <gjs278> yes what gmaxwell said, I need to know the node I should go for
2763 2011-06-06 18:38:51 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: ircd limits
2764 2011-06-06 18:38:54 <phantomcircuit> rofl
2765 2011-06-06 18:39:02 <phantomcircuit> so the solution was multiple channels?
2766 2011-06-06 18:39:04 <phantomcircuit> fail
2767 2011-06-06 18:39:10 <phantomcircuit> who runs the server?
2768 2011-06-06 18:39:11 <gjs278> it works slightly
2769 2011-06-06 18:39:14 <gps_> is there a patched bitcoin client I can run instead that connects to all of them? That sounds a lot easier
2770 2011-06-06 18:39:17 <phantomcircuit> who runs the ircd
2771 2011-06-06 18:39:29 <jrmithdobbs> it works, there's just not enough good nodes in all the channels atm
2772 2011-06-06 18:39:30 <gjs278> we hit the 32-bit limit on integers with our massive irc usage
2773 2011-06-06 18:39:36 <jgarzik> heh
2774 2011-06-06 18:39:40 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
2775 2011-06-06 18:40:13 <jgarzik> I'll see if I can whip up a patch, if others can test it
2776 2011-06-06 18:40:50 <gmaxwell> for(channel_number=0;channel_number<100;channel_number++){
2777 2011-06-06 18:40:56 <gmaxwell> }
2778 2011-06-06 18:40:59 <gjs278> dude
2779 2011-06-06 18:41:02 <gmaxwell> around the JOIN/WHO
2780 2011-06-06 18:41:02 <gjs278> it's #bitcoin00
2781 2011-06-06 18:41:08 <gjs278> you need to sprintf that shit
2782 2011-06-06 18:41:15 <gmaxwell> ... the code already does.
2783 2011-06-06 18:41:25 <gjs278> that will save time then
2784 2011-06-06 18:41:49 <jgarzik> yep
2785 2011-06-06 18:41:56 <jgarzik> trivial patch
2786 2011-06-06 18:42:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: it's a 3 line change with code style rules
2787 2011-06-06 18:42:51 <gmaxwell> I'm running it ... but my node is braindead, so it's not useful yet.
2788 2011-06-06 18:43:00 gps__ has joined
2789 2011-06-06 18:43:09 <jrmithdobbs> http://home.jrbobdobbs.org/mith/irc.patch.txt
2790 2011-06-06 18:43:10 <phantomcircuit> who runs the ircd
2791 2011-06-06 18:43:50 <jgarzik> http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-all-irc
2792 2011-06-06 18:44:00 <gjs278> oh man
2793 2011-06-06 18:44:03 <gjs278> are we having a contest
2794 2011-06-06 18:44:05 <phantomcircuit> dualing patches
2795 2011-06-06 18:44:05 <jgarzik> only run this if you have working incoming 8333
2796 2011-06-06 18:44:06 <gjs278> to see who can do it in less
2797 2011-06-06 18:44:15 <gjs278> I do (I think)
2798 2011-06-06 18:44:18 <gjs278> is there a way to test for sure
2799 2011-06-06 18:44:25 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: you cant, lfnet limits you to max 25 chans at a time
2800 2011-06-06 18:44:31 <jrmithdobbs> oh i forgot to comment out the random one anyways
2801 2011-06-06 18:44:32 <jrmithdobbs> haha
2802 2011-06-06 18:44:37 <gps__> jgarzik - a windows binary and it will be up in a few seconds
2803 2011-06-06 18:44:49 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: hrm
2804 2011-06-06 18:45:08 <gjs278> it needs to pick 25 channels based on rand(1,4) hopefully we get lucky
2805 2011-06-06 18:45:09 <BlueMatt> (I tried the exact same thing when irc change was made...)
2806 2011-06-06 18:45:10 intractable has joined
2807 2011-06-06 18:45:17 vigilyn has joined
2808 2011-06-06 18:45:32 <jrmithdobbs> that's a problem
2809 2011-06-06 18:45:40 <gmaxwell> Can someone please tell me the address of a freeking working node?
2810 2011-06-06 18:45:47 gps_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2811 2011-06-06 18:45:47 atterall has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2812 2011-06-06 18:45:50 <BlueMatt> `dig +short bluematt.me`
2813 2011-06-06 18:46:00 <gjs278> don't have dig installed, alternate command plox
2814 2011-06-06 18:46:00 <BlueMatt> that should be up
2815 2011-06-06 18:46:09 <BlueMatt> how the hell do you not have dig?
2816 2011-06-06 18:46:13 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: can't connect to it.
2817 2011-06-06 18:46:17 <BlueMatt> 87.155.80.60
2818 2011-06-06 18:46:21 <gjs278> there we go
2819 2011-06-06 18:46:29 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: /msg
2820 2011-06-06 18:46:30 <BlueMatt> huh? no it should be up
2821 2011-06-06 18:46:53 <gjs278> [13:38] [Info] Looking for server 87.155.80.60:8333...
2822 2011-06-06 18:46:54 <gjs278> [13:38] [Info] Server found, connecting...
2823 2011-06-06 18:47:01 <gjs278> am I doing this rite
2824 2011-06-06 18:47:08 d1234 has joined
2825 2011-06-06 18:47:16 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2826 2011-06-06 18:47:16 vigilyn2 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
2827 2011-06-06 18:47:20 TheKid_ has joined
2828 2011-06-06 18:48:23 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, gentoo doesn't have shit installed by default
2829 2011-06-06 18:48:32 <phantomcircuit> you have bash emerge and iproute2
2830 2011-06-06 18:48:35 <phantomcircuit> basically
2831 2011-06-06 18:48:37 <jgarzik> http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-all-irc updated to pick a random 25-channel swath
2832 2011-06-06 18:48:41 <gjs278> have to emerge vim even
2833 2011-06-06 18:48:48 <gjs278> having to use nano for those 5 seconds
2834 2011-06-06 18:48:49 <gjs278> is horrible
2835 2011-06-06 18:48:52 <BlueMatt> damn, what a shitty os
2836 2011-06-06 18:49:02 <gjs278> no
2837 2011-06-06 18:49:04 <gjs278> not shitty
2838 2011-06-06 18:49:13 <gjs278> not having dig installed is solved in 2 seconds
2839 2011-06-06 18:49:15 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, eselect profile set uh the gnome number one
2840 2011-06-06 18:49:19 <phantomcircuit> emerge -ujDN system world
2841 2011-06-06 18:49:22 <phantomcircuit> magic full system
2842 2011-06-06 18:49:24 <phantomcircuit> in about 12 hours
2843 2011-06-06 18:49:34 <BlueMatt> as I said, what a shitty os
2844 2011-06-06 18:49:36 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
2845 2011-06-06 18:49:37 <gjs278> no
2846 2011-06-06 18:49:46 <vegard> I joined 25 channels now. port is open
2847 2011-06-06 18:49:47 <BlueMatt> yes
2848 2011-06-06 18:49:48 <gjs278> it was 12 hours maybe on a pentium D
2849 2011-06-06 18:50:01 Insti has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2850 2011-06-06 18:50:14 <gjs278> but that's using the gnome default so once you have gnome it's all over
2851 2011-06-06 18:50:15 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, takes about 12 hours to emerge a gnome profile system, emerging gnome separate takes much less time
2852 2011-06-06 18:50:27 <gjs278> I know what you mean
2853 2011-06-06 18:50:37 <gjs278> I just don't think it would take 12 hours on anything recent
2854 2011-06-06 18:50:49 <vegard> just got about 2000 AddAddress() in debug.log :-P
2855 2011-06-06 18:51:03 <gmaxwell> omg working
2856 2011-06-06 18:51:06 nevezen has joined
2857 2011-06-06 18:51:09 <gjs278> gmaxwell what did you do
2858 2011-06-06 18:51:13 <gjs278> I'm still trying to get this
2859 2011-06-06 18:51:19 <BlueMatt> also, if you want a list of up-nodes `dig +short @ns1.bluematt.me dnsseed.bitcoin.bit`
2860 2011-06-06 18:51:24 <BlueMatt> though you need ipv6 for that
2861 2011-06-06 18:51:25 <phantomcircuit> gjs278, core i3 8GB of ram it took 8 hours
2862 2011-06-06 18:51:32 <gjs278> is that your atom
2863 2011-06-06 18:51:41 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: your dnsseed is spitting out some bad nodes too atm i think gmaxwell was saying
2864 2011-06-06 18:51:42 <gjs278> also ew you actually run that
2865 2011-06-06 18:51:52 <jrmithdobbs> at least, if taht's one of the servers that's in the code by default
2866 2011-06-06 18:51:53 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: not a chance
2867 2011-06-06 18:52:06 <BlueMatt> nope its not
2868 2011-06-06 18:52:08 <jrmithdobbs> oh ok
2869 2011-06-06 18:52:16 <BlueMatt> its not a very reliable connection so its not
2870 2011-06-06 18:52:26 <BlueMatt> but if you have the chance to grab it...its great
2871 2011-06-06 18:52:50 <jrmithdobbs> also, if the damned argument parsing was getopt instead of the craziness that it is i'd have already patched an optional arg for the dns zone to -dnsseed
2872 2011-06-06 18:53:02 <jrmithdobbs> heh
2873 2011-06-06 18:53:38 <BlueMatt> the argument parsing api in bitcoin is actually quite nice
2874 2011-06-06 18:53:45 <jrmithdobbs> disagree
2875 2011-06-06 18:53:50 <BlueMatt> its not a good idea to recreate our own, but it works really well
2876 2011-06-06 18:53:50 <jrmithdobbs> it's a reinvention of the wheel
2877 2011-06-06 18:53:57 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: I disagree with your disagreement :)
2878 2011-06-06 18:54:01 <gjs278> BlueMatt you lied, you are ip 87.155.81.72
2879 2011-06-06 18:54:06 d-snp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2880 2011-06-06 18:54:09 <jrmithdobbs> it's better than several others I've seen but nice is taking it a bit far
2881 2011-06-06 18:54:19 <BlueMatt> gjs278: oh, you are right...sorry thats the ip
2882 2011-06-06 18:54:22 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2883 2011-06-06 18:54:28 <gmaxwell> okay.. I'm up to 8 inbounds now..
2884 2011-06-06 18:54:41 <vegard> I also have 8. is it a limit in the client?
2885 2011-06-06 18:54:43 <gmaxwell> and I think I'm in all the channels.. (guess I should go look)
2886 2011-06-06 18:54:48 <gjs278> well
2887 2011-06-06 18:54:51 <gjs278> you're in 25 of them
2888 2011-06-06 18:54:54 <jgarzik> vegard: there is a limit on outbound, not inbound
2889 2011-06-06 18:54:56 <gmaxwell> 9...
2890 2011-06-06 18:54:56 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
2891 2011-06-06 18:55:07 <gmaxwell> 10...
2892 2011-06-06 18:55:14 <jgarzik> thanks, volunteers... that was fast :)
2893 2011-06-06 18:55:17 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2894 2011-06-06 18:55:18 _storrgie_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2895 2011-06-06 18:55:31 <sipa> wow, i effectively managed to connect with a 1ms connection timeout
2896 2011-06-06 18:55:36 <jrmithdobbs> looks like .23 needs a -supernode that brings up 4 irc connections ;P
2897 2011-06-06 18:55:46 <a5an0> I'd like to contribute to bitcoin's development. Is there a tracker somewhere or something? Whats the best way to contribute (provided bitcoin is looking for contributers)
2898 2011-06-06 18:55:55 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: inbound is limited to 125-8 or -maxconnections-8
2899 2011-06-06 18:56:01 <jgarzik> a5an0: github/bitcoin/
2900 2011-06-06 18:56:09 <gmaxwell> okay, I set maxconnections to 1024...
2901 2011-06-06 18:56:19 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: connect returns after the synack so not too surprising
2902 2011-06-06 18:56:19 <gjs278> lol
2903 2011-06-06 18:56:21 <gmaxwell> so this should build up...
2904 2011-06-06 18:56:22 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: oh yeah... I forgot about that because I always patch it out
2905 2011-06-06 18:56:41 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: 1ms is really fast :)
2906 2011-06-06 18:56:46 <a5an0> jgarzik: thanks!
2907 2011-06-06 18:56:55 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: you found a neighbor
2908 2011-06-06 18:56:59 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: go say hi ;P
2909 2011-06-06 18:57:01 <sipa> let's check the IP
2910 2011-06-06 18:57:27 <gmaxwell> more like the OS is rounding a 1ms timeout to 10ms.
2911 2011-06-06 18:57:33 <jrmithdobbs> that too
2912 2011-06-06 18:57:36 <jrmithdobbs> but still
2913 2011-06-06 18:57:38 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: :)
2914 2011-06-06 18:58:13 <gmaxwell> we should probably make the clients connect to two random irc channels.
2915 2011-06-06 18:58:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm stupid ... it sleeps in multiples of 10ms :)
2916 2011-06-06 18:58:27 <gps__> There is no one in any of the irc channels 00-99
2917 2011-06-06 18:58:31 <jrmithdobbs> <10ms anywhere actually on the internet is pretty surprising, it's 15-17ms on a known-good route between me and my colo'ed box .. well 11-12ms without the vpn
2918 2011-06-06 18:58:32 <gmaxwell> or two if they think they're listening, once that code is up...
2919 2011-06-06 18:58:41 <jgarzik> gps__: that's being fixed as we speak
2920 2011-06-06 18:58:42 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I'm ~10ms to lots of stuff.
2921 2011-06-06 18:59:03 <gjs278> I'm 9ms from speedtest
2922 2011-06-06 18:59:13 <gps__> jgarzik - what should my name be formatted as to point to my ip? I am just joining them manually unless there is a patched windows binary
2923 2011-06-06 18:59:25 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: from home? nice
2924 2011-06-06 18:59:39 <jgarzik> gps__: it is a bit difficult to describe without simply pointing you to source code
2925 2011-06-06 18:59:40 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: go go northern va. Center of the internet pretty much.
2926 2011-06-06 18:59:44 torsthaldo_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2927 2011-06-06 18:59:49 Kiba has quit (Read error: No route to host)
2928 2011-06-06 18:59:58 <gps__> okay, that's fine.
2929 2011-06-06 19:00:06 <jrmithdobbs> i'm generally <20ms from anything in texas and that's good enough for me considering the backbone south of dallas is shit
2930 2011-06-06 19:00:19 <jrmithdobbs> and i'm not moving back to dallas! ;P
2931 2011-06-06 19:00:44 Kiba has joined
2932 2011-06-06 19:01:27 chmod755 has joined
2933 2011-06-06 19:01:35 <gmaxwell> so... does this irc server do some kind of crazy /who limiting?
2934 2011-06-06 19:02:30 <gavinandresen> My client is in now in channels 28 through 52 (couldn't resist hacking the patch to start at a random channel...)
2935 2011-06-06 19:03:49 <chmod755> gavinandresen: hey. you are still alive?
2936 2011-06-06 19:04:04 <gavinandresen> last time I checked
2937 2011-06-06 19:04:05 edgarallanpoe has joined
2938 2011-06-06 19:05:05 <jgarzik> chmod644
2939 2011-06-06 19:05:23 <gavinandresen> chmod 600 is more secure
2940 2011-06-06 19:06:09 <chmod755> chmod 007 :P
2941 2011-06-06 19:06:09 <sipa> chmod 000 wins
2942 2011-06-06 19:08:20 <gjs278> chmod 000 /bin/chmod
2943 2011-06-06 19:08:23 <gjs278> now you're really secure
2944 2011-06-06 19:08:26 <Marcel> HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|pull the plug
2945 2011-06-06 19:08:33 nanotube has joined
2946 2011-06-06 19:08:33 nanotube has quit (Changing host)
2947 2011-06-06 19:08:33 nanotube has joined
2948 2011-06-06 19:08:34 <chmod755> friends call me rwxr-xr-x
2949 2011-06-06 19:08:52 <sipa> ok, i implemented a -timeout option
2950 2011-06-06 19:08:58 <sipa> in the connecttimeout patch
2951 2011-06-06 19:09:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: and higher default for tor?
2952 2011-06-06 19:09:27 <sipa> BlueMatt: i think tor users are smart enough to use a command line option
2953 2011-06-06 19:09:34 MartianW has joined
2954 2011-06-06 19:09:43 <BlueMatt> doesnt mean we shouldnt help them
2955 2011-06-06 19:10:04 <sipa> yes, but a 20s delay is too high imho for the common user
2956 2011-06-06 19:10:12 <sipa> that's only 3 attempts per minute
2957 2011-06-06 19:10:14 fimp has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2958 2011-06-06 19:10:51 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2959 2011-06-06 19:10:51 <BlueMatt> net.cpp guesses at an fTor based on fProxy and port of proxy
2960 2011-06-06 19:11:06 <jgarzik> honestly, I wouldn't worry about timeouts so much
2961 2011-06-06 19:11:17 <jgarzik> ideally we should launch a connection or two per second, non-blocking
2962 2011-06-06 19:11:19 <Raccoon> q: what is the exact time of bitcoin epoc UTC?
2963 2011-06-06 19:11:22 <jgarzik> until something useful occurs
2964 2011-06-06 19:11:33 <jgarzik> net.cpp should be able to do that, it already select(2)s
2965 2011-06-06 19:11:35 <BlueMatt> I agree, want to implement it?
2966 2011-06-06 19:11:36 <sipa> jgarzik: that'd be the real solution
2967 2011-06-06 19:11:40 johnnympereira5 has joined
2968 2011-06-06 19:11:42 <Raccoon> let me rephrase. what is the time of genesis block?
2969 2011-06-06 19:11:45 <io_error> Raccoon: 12
2970 2011-06-06 19:11:48 <jgarzik> Raccoon: 4:30
2971 2011-06-06 19:11:49 <io_error> Raccoon: 1231006505
2972 2011-06-06 19:11:51 <BlueMatt> 42
2973 2011-06-06 19:12:14 <gjs278> Jan 1, 1970
2974 2011-06-06 19:12:16 <Raccoon> Sat Jan 03 18:15:05 2009 ?
2975 2011-06-06 19:12:29 <BlueMatt> or equivalent
2976 2011-06-06 19:12:33 gribble has joined
2977 2011-06-06 19:12:42 <Raccoon> is that right io_error?
2978 2011-06-06 19:12:53 jaybny has left ()
2979 2011-06-06 19:12:53 <BlueMatt> looks right
2980 2011-06-06 19:13:11 <Raccoon> thanks.
2981 2011-06-06 19:13:28 <jgarzik> outside of the CBS interview tomorrow via skype (on a panel with some journalists and actor Kevin Pollack), gonna be busy with work this week
2982 2011-06-06 19:13:39 <BlueMatt> oooo
2983 2011-06-06 19:13:45 <jgarzik> I nominate sipa and BlueMatt to do the real work, while gavin and I sit back and sip Corona
2984 2011-06-06 19:14:03 <BlueMatt> Im leaving for portugal in a couple days...
2985 2011-06-06 19:14:08 <Raccoon> jgarzik: bitcoin interview?
2986 2011-06-06 19:14:11 <jgarzik> yep
2987 2011-06-06 19:14:15 <Raccoon> nifty.
2988 2011-06-06 19:14:19 <sipa> nice
2989 2011-06-06 19:14:19 <Raccoon> do record it
2990 2011-06-06 19:14:25 TheKid_ has quit (Quit: TheKid_)
2991 2011-06-06 19:14:25 <BlueMatt> I nominate sipa
2992 2011-06-06 19:14:27 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: that should be fun
2993 2011-06-06 19:14:32 <io_error> Raccoon: That's what bitcoind told me
2994 2011-06-06 19:14:42 <io_error> jgarzik: Did you say CBS?
2995 2011-06-06 19:14:47 <jgarzik> the CBS interview is from the same newsroom that produced this piece: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20068460-10391715.html
2996 2011-06-06 19:14:51 <jgarzik> so gonna be on my guard ;)
2997 2011-06-06 19:15:07 <Raccoon> first rule of talking to the press... don't talk to the press. :p
2998 2011-06-06 19:15:28 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
2999 2011-06-06 19:15:33 <gmaxwell> Give them some good soundbytes or they'll invent ones.
3000 2011-06-06 19:15:42 Marcel has joined
3001 2011-06-06 19:15:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: i've other things to do, i'll implement something when i feel like doing so and see something useful, but i won't promise anything
3002 2011-06-06 19:15:46 <gjs278> George Bush doesn't care about bitcoins.
3003 2011-06-06 19:16:04 <Raccoon> but at very least speak in 100% confidence, never 'um' and gloss over any trap questions as if you didn't catch the negative implication
3004 2011-06-06 19:16:11 <BlueMatt> sipa: it was sarcastic...its not like anyone has time to spend that much time on bitcoin
3005 2011-06-06 19:16:22 <jgarzik> my "pretty damned dumb" comment was pasted and tweeted and copied far and wide. journalists freakin' love it when you curse.
3006 2011-06-06 19:16:28 samfisher has joined
3007 2011-06-06 19:16:39 <Raccoon> link?
3008 2011-06-06 19:16:45 <BlueMatt> then say something really important and throw in a random curse work ;)
3009 2011-06-06 19:16:49 <jgarzik> ;)
3010 2011-06-06 19:16:58 <samfisher> gonna ask here too
3011 2011-06-06 19:16:58 <gjs278> George Bush doesn't fuckng care about bitcoins.
3012 2011-06-06 19:17:00 <gjs278> do that
3013 2011-06-06 19:17:03 <samfisher> is someone here passionate for railroading? or small, rare models?
3014 2011-06-06 19:17:15 <jgarzik> samfisher: #bitcoin-otc
3015 2011-06-06 19:17:19 <samfisher> ok
3016 2011-06-06 19:17:26 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
3017 2011-06-06 19:17:33 <gjs278> samfisher #bitcoin-splintercell
3018 2011-06-06 19:17:50 <jgarzik> I say 'um' way too often: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00gy4hb/The_World_Today_03_06_2011 (43 min, 40 sec into bcast)
3019 2011-06-06 19:17:51 <gjs278> WTB: nightvision goggles, must have good rating
3020 2011-06-06 19:17:57 Marcel has joined
3021 2011-06-06 19:18:04 <samfisher> gjs278: i'm in
3022 2011-06-06 19:18:11 <gjs278> I'm in too
3023 2011-06-06 19:18:28 <Raccoon> yeah, 'um' is a BAD word.
3024 2011-06-06 19:18:33 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
3025 2011-06-06 19:18:33 jgarzik has joined
3026 2011-06-06 19:18:37 <samfisher> gjs278: can't see ya. new cloak?
3027 2011-06-06 19:18:38 <Raccoon> at the very most, say "hrmmmm"
3028 2011-06-06 19:18:43 <gjs278> yeah
3029 2011-06-06 19:18:44 cenuij has joined
3030 2011-06-06 19:18:44 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
3031 2011-06-06 19:18:44 cenuij has joined
3032 2011-06-06 19:18:46 <gjs278> but I'm there
3033 2011-06-06 19:19:10 <Raccoon> "hrmmm" is more contemplative
3034 2011-06-06 19:19:19 fimp has joined
3035 2011-06-06 19:19:23 <Raccoon> "well, let me think"
3036 2011-06-06 19:20:13 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: WTB: WMD - btc only txn - must be ok with 0 confirmations before delivery
3037 2011-06-06 19:20:20 Titeuf_87_ has joined
3038 2011-06-06 19:20:24 <jrmithdobbs> oh shi
3039 2011-06-06 19:20:28 <jrmithdobbs> ;P
3040 2011-06-06 19:20:39 <gjs278> WTB: Sticky Shocker, must ship quickly
3041 2011-06-06 19:20:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: who is Jeffrey Coleman, again? emanspater(sp?) ?
3042 2011-06-06 19:21:00 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: yup, emansipator
3043 2011-06-06 19:21:03 <gjs278> jrmithdobbs if I could buy an sc-20k with bitcoins, I would do it
3044 2011-06-06 19:21:14 lumos has joined
3045 2011-06-06 19:21:24 <BlueMatt> hmmmm...damn might have to revert the static-link ossl stuff...
3046 2011-06-06 19:21:35 <sipa> why?
3047 2011-06-06 19:21:37 <jrmithdobbs> ?
3048 2011-06-06 19:21:56 <BlueMatt> it might be causing the 100% cpu bug on getwork
3049 2011-06-06 19:22:11 <BlueMatt> which I finally was able to reproduce...after release
3050 2011-06-06 19:22:16 <gjs278> jrmithdobbs it's the main weapon from splinter cell
3051 2011-06-06 19:22:30 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: what platforms are affected?
3052 2011-06-06 19:22:33 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: oh that ? was in re: BlueMatt ;P
3053 2011-06-06 19:22:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: only win
3054 2011-06-06 19:22:36 <gjs278> oh ok
3055 2011-06-06 19:22:37 <Raccoon> could someone list all of the bitcoin 'magic numbers'?
3056 2011-06-06 19:22:42 <gjs278> 7
3057 2011-06-06 19:22:44 <gjs278> 34
3058 2011-06-06 19:22:46 <gjs278> 9
3059 2011-06-06 19:22:48 <gjs278> 290
3060 2011-06-06 19:22:49 <Raccoon> ...
3061 2011-06-06 19:23:00 <jgarzik> Raccoon: check the forums, there was a post less than 24h ago listing all of them
3062 2011-06-06 19:23:07 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: who would run anything actually getting getwork requests on win anyway?
3063 2011-06-06 19:23:08 <Raccoon> awesome. which site?
3064 2011-06-06 19:23:10 <jrmithdobbs> heh
3065 2011-06-06 19:23:12 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: but it still needs more testing, Ill have it fixed by 0.3.23
3066 2011-06-06 19:23:19 <BCBot> Stats: http://bit.ly/bitcoin-irc-stats
3067 2011-06-06 19:23:23 <samfisher> when we will use milibitcoins?
3068 2011-06-06 19:23:31 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: can you post a "release note" or somesuch, to the forums?
3069 2011-06-06 19:23:32 Titeuf_87 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3070 2011-06-06 19:23:41 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: hmm
3071 2011-06-06 19:23:43 <samfisher> my shop has relatively low priced products and i'm tired of having 0.214 btc
3072 2011-06-06 19:23:52 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: well there have been several complaints, but Ill go post something when Ive got it 100% tracked down
3073 2011-06-06 19:24:06 <jrmithdobbs> Raccoon: if you find said magic number post could you link me?
3074 2011-06-06 19:24:16 <BlueMatt> (it also happens on -nolisten so Im not sure yet)
3075 2011-06-06 19:24:56 <jrmithdobbs> gots to get the pork roast going, mmmm carnitas
3076 2011-06-06 19:25:10 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs, Raccoon: magic numbers http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4278.msg175826#msg175826
3077 2011-06-06 19:26:08 <jgarzik> OSI Seven-layer model vs. Taco Bell seven-layer burrito: http://pablotron.org/files/7_layer_burrito.html
3078 2011-06-06 19:26:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: lol
3079 2011-06-06 19:27:37 <Raccoon> thanks jgarzik
3080 2011-06-06 19:28:15 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: that is the awesomest thing i've seen in a while
3081 2011-06-06 19:29:01 MasterChief has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3082 2011-06-06 19:30:15 <Raccoon> huh.
3083 2011-06-06 19:30:16 <Raccoon> DIFFICULTY_TIMESPAN = 14 * 24 * 60 * 60;
3084 2011-06-06 19:30:41 <Raccoon> i thought difficulty timespan only 'averaged' 14 days, but was actually based on n-block interval
3085 2011-06-06 19:31:22 <io_error> Raccoon: It is.
3086 2011-06-06 19:31:32 <mtrlt> yea it averages every 2016 blocks
3087 2011-06-06 19:31:36 <Raccoon> strange for that constant to be measured in seconds
3088 2011-06-06 19:31:39 <mtrlt> which is 14 days if the diff isn't changing
3089 2011-06-06 19:31:40 <Raccoon> ok
3090 2011-06-06 19:31:55 <io_error> Raccoon: Not at all. If you are trying to get 2016 blocks every two weeks, you need a measurement of two weeks to compare with.
3091 2011-06-06 19:31:59 <Raccoon> i didn't see 2016 defined
3092 2011-06-06 19:32:02 <mtrlt> hmm
3093 2011-06-06 19:32:03 <mtrlt> weird
3094 2011-06-06 19:32:05 <Raccoon> that's one of the magic numbers i was looking for
3095 2011-06-06 19:32:17 <mtrlt> Raccoon: yea read what io_error says :p
3096 2011-06-06 19:32:42 <Raccoon> io_error: ah, i see what you're saying.
3097 2011-06-06 19:32:51 <Raccoon> but still odd that 2016 isn't defined (that i see?)
3098 2011-06-06 19:33:18 <io_error> Raccoon: No, it isn't
3099 2011-06-06 19:33:28 <io_error> const int64 nTargetTimespan = 14 * 24 * 60 * 60; // two weeks
3100 2011-06-06 19:33:29 <io_error> const int64 nTargetSpacing = 10 * 60;
3101 2011-06-06 19:34:21 <io_error> Divide those two numbers and see what you get. :)
3102 2011-06-06 19:34:38 <Raccoon> what are the magic numbers pertaining to block reward amt?
3103 2011-06-06 19:35:14 PirateMarmalade has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3104 2011-06-06 19:38:25 <jrmithdobbs> Raccoon: meaning?
3105 2011-06-06 19:39:01 <sipa> Raccoon: 210000 ?
3106 2011-06-06 19:39:03 <Raccoon> the expression that dictates the reward's halfing value
3107 2011-06-06 19:39:23 <sipa> reward = 50*COIN >> (height / 210000)
3108 2011-06-06 19:39:52 <sipa> or mathematically, 50.00 / 2**int(height/210000)
3109 2011-06-06 19:40:11 <gjs278> wow
3110 2011-06-06 19:40:20 <gjs278> demoted
3111 2011-06-06 19:40:34 <Raccoon> is there anything 210000 is derived from?
3112 2011-06-06 19:40:53 <gjs278> magic number to reach 21 million in 2140
3113 2011-06-06 19:40:58 <Raccoon> ok
3114 2011-06-06 19:41:26 <sipa> i think it's to match the idea "halving every 4 years"
3115 2011-06-06 19:41:40 samfisher has quit (Quit: exit error code 434)
3116 2011-06-06 19:41:51 <Raccoon> ah, thanks.
3117 2011-06-06 19:43:01 <Raccoon> if there isn't already an article, i think i'd like to make one that simply outlines these values
3118 2011-06-06 19:43:13 <Raccoon> with links to jump to those concept pages
3119 2011-06-06 19:44:08 Tycale has joined
3120 2011-06-06 19:46:44 d-snp has joined
3121 2011-06-06 19:47:40 eoss has joined
3122 2011-06-06 19:50:51 bnzdg has quit (Quit: bnzdg)
3123 2011-06-06 19:53:26 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3124 2011-06-06 19:54:04 <jgarzik> Raccoon: sounds like a great resource. you should do that, and put it on the wiki
3125 2011-06-06 19:55:29 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3126 2011-06-06 19:56:10 sgornick has joined
3127 2011-06-06 19:56:23 edgarallanpoe has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3128 2011-06-06 19:57:07 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
3129 2011-06-06 19:57:16 Marcel has joined
3130 2011-06-06 19:57:32 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
3131 2011-06-06 19:57:44 Speeder has quit (Quit: Speeder)
3132 2011-06-06 19:58:26 Marcel has joined
3133 2011-06-06 19:58:41 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
3134 2011-06-06 19:58:42 <Raccoon> that's where i intended; the wiki
3135 2011-06-06 19:59:07 chmod755 has left ("Leaving.")
3136 2011-06-06 19:59:21 <Raccoon> know a good wiki article we could use. one that lists media articles/links
3137 2011-06-06 19:59:51 Marcel has joined
3138 2011-06-06 20:01:08 TD has joined
3139 2011-06-06 20:02:41 <gmaxwell> Can the irc network be adjusted so I can get my seednode into all 100 channels? I feel a bit uneasy about the chance that we might be missing a channel or two.
3140 2011-06-06 20:03:32 Workbench has joined
3141 2011-06-06 20:03:43 gribble has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3142 2011-06-06 20:04:13 <Workbench> senario.... ran bitcoin as server on one box then connected using 2 other boxes using guiminer
3143 2011-06-06 20:04:20 <Workbench> guiminer connects on one box
3144 2011-06-06 20:04:22 <Workbench> but not the other
3145 2011-06-06 20:04:31 <Workbench> any tips on what to look for
3146 2011-06-06 20:04:32 <Workbench> ?
3147 2011-06-06 20:04:35 <gmaxwell> hehhe.. 921 inbound connecitons now.
3148 2011-06-06 20:05:01 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: how? i could never get more than ~300-400 and that was patching out the outbound connect limit
3149 2011-06-06 20:05:02 <TomyBoy3G> do we have some open source script for bitcoin exchange hub?
3150 2011-06-06 20:05:12 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: magic magic magic. ;)
3151 2011-06-06 20:05:25 <Workbench> the server and the comp that connects are running win xp x64 and 2k3 x64.... the one that doesn't connect is win7
3152 2011-06-06 20:07:17 <vegard> gmaxwell: I only have 29 :-/
3153 2011-06-06 20:07:29 lyspooner has joined
3154 2011-06-06 20:07:53 piti has joined
3155 2011-06-06 20:08:34 gribble has joined
3156 2011-06-06 20:09:06 <vegard> I'm on 2, 12, 13, 18, 23, 34, 35, 38, 39, 45, 55, 59, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 79, 87, 91, 94, 97
3157 2011-06-06 20:10:27 Marcel has left (HSD!~Marcel|HS@router2.hsdev.com|)
3158 2011-06-06 20:11:13 fckStick has joined
3159 2011-06-06 20:11:24 x5x is now known as x5x`brb
3160 2011-06-06 20:11:24 DrewSJ has joined
3161 2011-06-06 20:11:36 karnac has joined
3162 2011-06-06 20:12:19 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
3163 2011-06-06 20:12:51 marlowe has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
3164 2011-06-06 20:13:42 x5x`brb is now known as x5x
3165 2011-06-06 20:14:44 NickelBot has joined
3166 2011-06-06 20:15:34 <gmaxwell> vegard: well, I've been in all of them at least once, including #bitcoin, so I assume that some nodes in each of them remember me.
3167 2011-06-06 20:16:02 <blueCmd> so the .22 client joins multiple channels?
3168 2011-06-06 20:16:12 <sipa> no, just one
3169 2011-06-06 20:16:13 <gmaxwell> If we can't get rid of the channel count limit, I'll probably eventually change to slowly hopping between channels.
3170 2011-06-06 20:16:46 <gmaxwell> blueCmd: we're running hacked up clients in order to make sure the channels have good seeds.
3171 2011-06-06 20:16:59 <blueCmd> gmaxwell: ah nice
3172 2011-06-06 20:17:22 <blueCmd> i had a worry that the split would cause network partitions, but that will ensure that that doesn't happen
3173 2011-06-06 20:18:18 <gmaxwell> blueCmd: it would be better to get all clients that know they are listening to join 2 or three at random, thus preventing splits... but that requires knowing that you are listening. :)
3174 2011-06-06 20:18:27 <gmaxwell> Joining multiple channels is utterly trivial.
3175 2011-06-06 20:19:22 <blueCmd> gmaxwell: I was thinking about that, one single non-RFC1918 incoming connection - wouldn't that be enough to know that you are reachable?
3176 2011-06-06 20:19:47 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3177 2011-06-06 20:19:55 <gmaxwell> blueCmd: jgarzik posted on this this morning.
3178 2011-06-06 20:20:06 <gmaxwell> Basically that along with a "please try connecting to me" message.
3179 2011-06-06 20:20:17 <blueCmd> well, is that really needed?
3180 2011-06-06 20:20:25 <blueCmd> just wait until someone connects to you
3181 2011-06-06 20:20:35 <gmaxwell> well yes, if you don't claim to be listening, no one may ever connect to you.
3182 2011-06-06 20:21:10 <blueCmd> ah well, as long as the message is documented i suppose.
3183 2011-06-06 20:21:26 <Raccoon> hmm. i have a purely arbitrary question.
3184 2011-06-06 20:22:07 pogden has joined
3185 2011-06-06 20:22:10 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3a3pre)
3186 2011-06-06 20:22:14 <Raccoon> which is most appealing. a pinwheel fan that slopes down in the direction of clockwise, or counter-clockwise? such that the raised edge is facing counter-clockwise, or clockwise (respectively)
3187 2011-06-06 20:23:27 skeledrew has joined
3188 2011-06-06 20:23:52 <Raccoon> pinwheel/escher staircase
3189 2011-06-06 20:25:13 <blueCmd> gmaxwell: that message, would that need to be in the bitcoin protocol? I think that it would be possible to implement using IRC to trigger and incoming and thus not require a change. Do you have a link to jgarziks idea? maybe this is already all thought of.
3190 2011-06-06 20:26:19 weinerk has joined
3191 2011-06-06 20:26:24 <Blitzboom> wie wärâs mit â¥
3192 2011-06-06 20:26:44 <Blitzboom> ein herz als symbol würde den ganzen drogen/terrorist/hacker-unfug ausradieren
3193 2011-06-06 20:27:16 <Blitzboom> oops, wrong channel
3194 2011-06-06 20:28:44 <amiller> has anyone used clearcoin recently? it seems to be taking a lot longer to show confirmations
3195 2011-06-06 20:29:13 <gmaxwell> blueCmd: it would be in the bitcoin protocol. This is mostly independant of IRC.
3196 2011-06-06 20:29:25 <gmaxwell> blueCmd: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12286.0
3197 2011-06-06 20:30:18 <gmaxwell> you've postd thereâ¦
3198 2011-06-06 20:30:50 pierre` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3199 2011-06-06 20:30:54 pierre` has joined
3200 2011-06-06 20:30:56 <blueCmd> yep, and now I see i posted the same as the original post
3201 2011-06-06 20:30:59 Eremes has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3202 2011-06-06 20:30:59 <blueCmd> how douche of e
3203 2011-06-06 20:31:01 <blueCmd> me*
3204 2011-06-06 20:31:47 knotwork_ has joined
3205 2011-06-06 20:31:56 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3206 2011-06-06 20:33:04 Eremes has joined
3207 2011-06-06 20:33:35 <blueCmd> gmaxwell: there are so many RFCs cirtulating in the dev forum that it is hard to keep track of them
3208 2011-06-06 20:34:38 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3209 2011-06-06 20:34:44 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
3210 2011-06-06 20:39:43 NickelBot has joined
3211 2011-06-06 20:45:27 skeledrew has joined
3212 2011-06-06 20:45:34 <lizthegrey> jgarzik: thank you for being awesome about fending off the extreme cryptoanarchists :)
3213 2011-06-06 20:45:58 <jrmithdobbs> ?
3214 2011-06-06 20:46:30 zxer has joined
3215 2011-06-06 20:46:54 Breign has quit ()
3216 2011-06-06 20:46:56 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya the connect back message is the best long-term solution
3217 2011-06-06 20:48:09 <jrmithdobbs> also
3218 2011-06-06 20:48:14 <jrmithdobbs> addr.dat needs to get pruned
3219 2011-06-06 20:50:16 denisx has joined
3220 2011-06-06 20:50:23 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
3221 2011-06-06 20:50:23 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":19.23,"low":16.332,"vol":53566,"buy":18.5002,"sell":18.6994,"last":18.5001}}
3222 2011-06-06 20:50:26 <edcba> wtf
3223 2011-06-06 20:50:43 <denisx> so, I have 200 BTC on testnet, anyone wants some?
3224 2011-06-06 20:50:51 <gjs278> give it to the testnet faucet
3225 2011-06-06 20:50:54 <edcba> was reading lulsec news when i saw they mention 400 $ @ 17.10...
3226 2011-06-06 20:51:15 <edcba> that jumped pretty fast
3227 2011-06-06 20:51:27 gps__ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3228 2011-06-06 20:51:32 <denisx> gjs278: he has 10000 BTC already
3229 2011-06-06 20:51:34 <edcba> wtf happened ?
3230 2011-06-06 20:51:40 RAM2012 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3231 2011-06-06 20:51:43 <iz> it's been between 14-19 all weekend
3232 2011-06-06 20:52:01 <zamgo> denisx: sure mk7cvYXr7gUiwHvuiqJgskbPFWQ45z5wsi
3233 2011-06-06 20:52:25 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
3234 2011-06-06 20:52:28 <zamgo> but who knows when the next testnet "reorg" will be
3235 2011-06-06 20:52:59 <sytse> whoo, looks like $1mln in 24h could very well be broken somewhere in the next 3 hours on mtgox, also meaning that we're going to see the first 00h-00h GMT day of $1mln in trade volume \o/
3236 2011-06-06 20:53:36 <denisx> what is comment-to ?
3237 2011-06-06 20:54:16 <sytse> it's going to be close though
3238 2011-06-06 20:54:17 MartianW has quit (Quit: Bye all.)
3239 2011-06-06 20:54:24 <denisx> zamgo: ok, I send you 50 BTC
3240 2011-06-06 20:55:21 <zamgo> thanks
3241 2011-06-06 20:55:30 Raccoon` has joined
3242 2011-06-06 20:55:30 <zamgo> my test with android bitcoin-wallet failed, but your send worked
3243 2011-06-06 20:56:41 d1234 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3244 2011-06-06 20:58:07 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3245 2011-06-06 20:58:20 Raccoon has joined
3246 2011-06-06 20:59:18 tonik has quit (Quit: q)
3247 2011-06-06 20:59:27 Mononofu has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3248 2011-06-06 21:00:35 johnnympereira5 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3249 2011-06-06 21:00:43 karnac has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3250 2011-06-06 21:01:04 Raccoon` has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3251 2011-06-06 21:02:58 littlehat has joined
3252 2011-06-06 21:04:32 RAM2012 has joined
3253 2011-06-06 21:05:52 skeledrew1 has joined
3254 2011-06-06 21:06:41 John___ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
3255 2011-06-06 21:07:02 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3256 2011-06-06 21:07:54 <denisx> zamgo: do you have the BTC already?
3257 2011-06-06 21:09:48 <spq_> what does the difficulty express exactly? (in a technical way)
3258 2011-06-06 21:09:51 lulzplzkthx has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
3259 2011-06-06 21:10:06 <zamgo> how many 0's in the target
3260 2011-06-06 21:10:13 <jrmithdobbs> spq_: how low the hash must be to win the lotto
3261 2011-06-06 21:10:14 lulzplzkthx has joined
3262 2011-06-06 21:10:44 <spq_> why is it a number with 8 decimal digits? :)
3263 2011-06-06 21:10:52 <gmaxwell> spq_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
3264 2011-06-06 21:11:23 <spq_> ah okay thanks
3265 2011-06-06 21:13:58 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3266 2011-06-06 21:14:32 <midnightmagic> uh. if ADLODParameters says there is 3 performance levels on my card, why does ADLODPerformanceLevels only have aLevel[1] ?
3267 2011-06-06 21:15:13 sethsethseth___ has joined
3268 2011-06-06 21:15:28 <midnightmagic> http://pastebin.com/9AJ28KPu <-- this person appears to have run into the same issue, and has commented out two attempts at increasing the size of aLevels
3269 2011-06-06 21:16:28 skeledrew has joined
3270 2011-06-06 21:17:57 roconnor has joined
3271 2011-06-06 21:18:18 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3272 2011-06-06 21:19:21 littlehat has quit (Quit: AndroIRC)
3273 2011-06-06 21:19:46 <midnightmagic> because it looks a lot like ADL_Overdrive5_ODPerformanceLevels_Get is overwriting my stack.
3274 2011-06-06 21:20:20 fimp has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3275 2011-06-06 21:24:37 ericmock_ is now known as ericmock
3276 2011-06-06 21:26:39 d1234 has joined
3277 2011-06-06 21:27:57 <midnightmagic> or not..
3278 2011-06-06 21:28:21 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3279 2011-06-06 21:28:24 d1g1t4l has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3280 2011-06-06 21:29:47 lightcode has quit ()
3281 2011-06-06 21:29:50 <lfm> spq_: you are right tho the precision of the difficulty is exagerated quite often
3282 2011-06-06 21:31:42 <lfm> midnightmagic: possibly for people who run mining on a active workstation, the display needs a higher priority
3283 2011-06-06 21:32:27 Phoebus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3284 2011-06-06 21:33:26 cboy has quit ()
3285 2011-06-06 21:33:40 Diablo-D3 has joined
3286 2011-06-06 21:35:24 <lfm> midnightmagic: nm, ignore me
3287 2011-06-06 21:36:19 <TomyBoy3G> then the new version of software will be out? its to much to pay 0.01 fee
3288 2011-06-06 21:36:48 <lfm> TomyBoy3G: use an older version?
3289 2011-06-06 21:37:14 <TomyBoy3G> 0.3.21-beta
3290 2011-06-06 21:37:17 <blueCmd> TomyBoy3G: i thought it was out?
3291 2011-06-06 21:37:28 <blueCmd> i'm running 0.3.22
3292 2011-06-06 21:37:49 <TomyBoy3G> where i need to download? on bitcoin.org it is still old one
3293 2011-06-06 21:37:57 <lfm> bitcoin.org not updated yet?
3294 2011-06-06 21:38:03 <blueCmd> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.22
3295 2011-06-06 21:38:04 <sipa> sirius: please update the website!
3296 2011-06-06 21:38:05 <TomyBoy3G> noo
3297 2011-06-06 21:38:17 <TomyBoy3G> ok, thank you
3298 2011-06-06 21:39:08 pusle has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3299 2011-06-06 21:39:45 <blueCmd> BlueMatt: did you reach some sort of concensus about a mailinglist?
3300 2011-06-06 21:41:45 <BlueMatt> blueCmd: its up to jgarzik and gavin
3301 2011-06-06 21:41:48 <BlueMatt> they hold the keys to sf
3302 2011-06-06 21:42:18 <blueCmd> ah right
3303 2011-06-06 21:42:49 <TomyBoy3G> ok works nice.. u really need to update bitcoin.org
3304 2011-06-06 21:42:55 <TomyBoy3G> a lot of pplz use old one
3305 2011-06-06 21:42:57 <gmaxwell> I think the irc split channel will interact poorly with this too:
3306 2011-06-06 21:42:57 <gmaxwell> // If we have IRC, we'll be notified when they first come online,
3307 2011-06-06 21:42:57 <gmaxwell> // and again every 24 hours by the refresh broadcast.
3308 2011-06-06 21:43:22 <gmaxwell> ^ it looks like it's expecting IRC visiblity to keep track of which remembered nodes are still alive.
3309 2011-06-06 21:43:34 <sytse> \o/
3310 2011-06-06 21:43:40 <sytse> this seems like a momentous day
3311 2011-06-06 21:43:44 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: thats nonsensical
3312 2011-06-06 21:43:45 <gmaxwell> I think this bit of code makes the multiple channels more likely to cause patitions in yet another way.
3313 2011-06-06 21:43:51 <sytse> having first exceeded $1mln in trade volume on mtgox
3314 2011-06-06 21:44:10 <sytse> (it just happened in the last half hour)
3315 2011-06-06 21:44:17 <midnightmagic> lfm: do you have a custom ADL program which sets mem/engine speeds for your card?
3316 2011-06-06 21:44:22 <blueCmd> what does $1min mean?
3317 2011-06-06 21:44:22 <fizario> whoa
3318 2011-06-06 21:44:27 <lfm> gmaxwell: can we make some nodes monitor all or large chunks of the split channels?
3319 2011-06-06 21:44:32 <magnetron> blueCmd: mln
3320 2011-06-06 21:44:38 <sytse> blueCmd: one million dollars
3321 2011-06-06 21:44:43 <magnetron> blueCmd: not min
3322 2011-06-06 21:44:43 <Diablo-D3> how about not use IRC to monitor anything
3323 2011-06-06 21:44:44 <sytse> in 24 hours
3324 2011-06-06 21:44:46 <blueCmd> aah
3325 2011-06-06 21:44:49 <blueCmd> cool!
3326 2011-06-06 21:44:49 <Diablo-D3> since that code should be removed anyhow
3327 2011-06-06 21:44:51 <gmaxwell> lfm: I'm already running a node in ~24 channels. There appears to be a channel join limit on the irc network.
3328 2011-06-06 21:45:03 <fizario> bitocin volume says 55890.. is that in btc or usd
3329 2011-06-06 21:45:07 <sipa> fizario: BTC
3330 2011-06-06 21:45:13 <BlueMatt> arg windows needs better debug tools, how the hell am I supposed to diagnose this damn cpu bug
3331 2011-06-06 21:45:13 <Diablo-D3> fizario: orders.
3332 2011-06-06 21:45:15 <gmaxwell> lfm: you missed earlier where I posted some code and several people did this.
3333 2011-06-06 21:45:16 <fizario> oh....that changes it quite a bit
3334 2011-06-06 21:45:20 <lfm> gmaxwell: you want me to run another 24?
3335 2011-06-06 21:45:31 <midnightmagic> BlueMatt: AMD has some really nifty CPU/GPU tools
3336 2011-06-06 21:45:32 <gmaxwell> lfm: you should.
3337 2011-06-06 21:45:33 <sytse> also funny how it shows up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-valued_currency_unit these days
3338 2011-06-06 21:45:38 Matson has left ()
3339 2011-06-06 21:45:45 <lfm> gmaxwell: how do I do it
3340 2011-06-06 21:46:33 <sipa> Diablo-D3: i though it was the 24-hour moving window total sum of number of bitcoins sold
3341 2011-06-06 21:46:49 <sytse> (btw, also we have an actual huge billboard advertising that a site accepts bitcoin)
3342 2011-06-06 21:46:59 x5x is now known as x5x`brb
3343 2011-06-06 21:47:20 x5x`brb is now known as x5x
3344 2011-06-06 21:47:25 <gmaxwell> lfm: http://pastebin.com/yrpq6A93 in the relevant spot works fine.
3345 2011-06-06 21:47:32 <lfm> sytse: do you have a picure of that?
3346 2011-06-06 21:47:33 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3347 2011-06-06 21:47:34 <sytse> 23:36:28 < blueCmd> what does $1min mean?
3348 2011-06-06 21:47:36 <sytse> uh
3349 2011-06-06 21:47:41 <sytse> lfm: http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/06/bitcoins-four-hurdles-part-two-transactions/
3350 2011-06-06 21:48:01 <sytse> clicko...
3351 2011-06-06 21:48:56 <sytse> (and yes, that's the blog of a former european political party leader)
3352 2011-06-06 21:49:09 <lfm> gmaxwell: "relevant spot" eh? ok Ill try
3353 2011-06-06 21:49:24 <blueCmd> sytse: sweden <3
3354 2011-06-06 21:49:30 trumpete has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3355 2011-06-06 21:49:30 kiwiMINER has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3356 2011-06-06 21:49:32 <sytse> :)
3357 2011-06-06 21:49:44 NickelBot has joined
3358 2011-06-06 21:50:07 <sytse> blueCmd: that billboard must be in california though
3359 2011-06-06 21:50:18 <blueCmd> yepp, it was on reddit a while ago
3360 2011-06-06 21:50:39 <sytse> ah, they even advertised it on the forum beforehand http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7961.0
3361 2011-06-06 21:51:16 <lfm> gmaxwell: ok got it, cross my fingers
3362 2011-06-06 21:52:01 johnsa has left ()
3363 2011-06-06 21:55:18 pnicholson has quit (Quit: pnicholson)
3364 2011-06-06 21:57:04 <lfm> that billboard is pretty cool!
3365 2011-06-06 21:57:12 zxer has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3366 2011-06-06 21:58:18 <fizario> whats the avg. tx fee now?
3367 2011-06-06 21:59:59 simkiss has quit (Quit: simkiss)
3368 2011-06-06 22:01:54 tomcat9 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3369 2011-06-06 22:02:14 ville-_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3370 2011-06-06 22:02:31 \Sickness\ is now known as \Sick\
3371 2011-06-06 22:02:40 tomcat9 has joined
3372 2011-06-06 22:02:55 blzp has joined
3373 2011-06-06 22:03:15 <diki> the forum is loading sluggishly
3374 2011-06-06 22:03:18 <diki> reason?
3375 2011-06-06 22:04:29 ville- has joined
3376 2011-06-06 22:04:46 \Sick\ is now known as Guest96416
3377 2011-06-06 22:05:09 <zamgo> congestion on the superinformation highway
3378 2011-06-06 22:05:34 robin has joined
3379 2011-06-06 22:05:41 <lfm> hmm, I wonder how superinformation differs from the regular stuff! grin
3380 2011-06-06 22:06:13 Guest96416 is now known as RobinSimon
3381 2011-06-06 22:06:43 RobinSimon is now known as Sickness\
3382 2011-06-06 22:07:32 nevezen has left ()
3383 2011-06-06 22:08:47 <sytse> lfm: it's radioactive
3384 2011-06-06 22:09:04 <sytse> and will mutate your mind when you immerse yourself in it
3385 2011-06-06 22:09:47 eternal1 has joined
3386 2011-06-06 22:09:54 <diki> gamma-much>
3387 2011-06-06 22:09:59 <diki> *?
3388 2011-06-06 22:10:01 <lfm> sounds like fun, I want some of this superinformation
3389 2011-06-06 22:12:24 <gmaxwell> fizario: it was 0.07 when I measured on 100 or so blocks a few days ago.
3390 2011-06-06 22:14:46 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: IceChat - Its what Cool People use)
3391 2011-06-06 22:15:23 joepie96 is now known as joepie91
3392 2011-06-06 22:15:26 Herodes_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3393 2011-06-06 22:16:30 h00d has joined
3394 2011-06-06 22:18:03 <jrmithdobbs> diki: tubes: clogged
3395 2011-06-06 22:18:08 agent-x has joined
3396 2011-06-06 22:18:11 <jrmithdobbs> possibly ran over by dump trick
3397 2011-06-06 22:18:12 karnac has joined
3398 2011-06-06 22:18:15 <jrmithdobbs> s/trick/truck/
3399 2011-06-06 22:18:36 <lfm> ah! damned dump trucks again!
3400 2011-06-06 22:18:53 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
3401 2011-06-06 22:18:56 <jrmithdobbs> that guy is still in office is the sad part :(
3402 2011-06-06 22:19:04 Jkessler has joined
3403 2011-06-06 22:19:41 <lfm> I think thats the third bitcoin.org server run over by a dump truck
3404 2011-06-06 22:20:35 <TomyBoy3G> update bitcoin.org
3405 2011-06-06 22:22:18 necrodearia has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3406 2011-06-06 22:24:04 zamgo has left ()
3407 2011-06-06 22:25:52 mosimo has joined
3408 2011-06-06 22:26:17 feydr has joined
3409 2011-06-06 22:27:04 robin has left ()
3410 2011-06-06 22:27:35 cenuij has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3411 2011-06-06 22:29:23 <diki> +1
3412 2011-06-06 22:29:32 <diki> it's very....static
3413 2011-06-06 22:33:47 Jere_Jones has joined
3414 2011-06-06 22:35:02 octarine has joined
3415 2011-06-06 22:35:10 octarine has left ()
3416 2011-06-06 22:37:03 <sirius> updated
3417 2011-06-06 22:37:13 <TomyBoy3G> cool
3418 2011-06-06 22:38:43 bk128 has quit (Quit: bk128)
3419 2011-06-06 22:40:52 skeledrew1 has joined
3420 2011-06-06 22:42:14 agent-x has left ()
3421 2011-06-06 22:42:54 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3422 2011-06-06 22:42:55 zooko has joined
3423 2011-06-06 22:45:34 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 3.6.17/20110420140830])
3424 2011-06-06 22:49:05 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3425 2011-06-06 22:49:07 <midnightmagic> for what it's worth, ADL_Overdrive5_ODPerformanceLevels_Get will happily overwrite your basic ADLODPerformanceLevels structure well past its end, which is I guess what it's documented to do; you can't just statically allocate that particular struct, you have to do it dynamically.
3426 2011-06-06 22:51:48 normanrichards has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
3427 2011-06-06 22:52:01 necrodearia has joined
3428 2011-06-06 22:54:03 kermit has joined
3429 2011-06-06 22:54:30 Jkessler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3430 2011-06-06 22:54:40 Jkessler has joined
3431 2011-06-06 22:54:53 inductor has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
3432 2011-06-06 22:55:02 Jkessler has quit (Changing host)
3433 2011-06-06 22:55:02 Jkessler has joined
3434 2011-06-06 22:55:08 inductor has joined
3435 2011-06-06 22:57:02 <BlueMatt> ok, one of two cpu usage bugs fixed :)
3436 2011-06-06 22:57:22 necrodearia has quit (Excess Flood)
3437 2011-06-06 22:57:56 JRWR has joined
3438 2011-06-06 22:58:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: what was the problem?
3439 2011-06-06 22:58:08 cenuij has joined
3440 2011-06-06 22:58:08 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
3441 2011-06-06 22:58:08 cenuij has joined
3442 2011-06-06 22:59:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: well the first that I saw on accident was in ThreadSocketHandler an infinite for loop when you have no sockets (-nolisten + -connect=0.0.0.0) net.cpp:815
3443 2011-06-06 22:59:43 necrodearia has joined
3444 2011-06-06 22:59:43 <BlueMatt> as hSocketMax gets set to -1, so loop never ends
3445 2011-06-06 22:59:57 <BlueMatt> now back to the original one Im still trying to iron out...
3446 2011-06-06 23:00:28 Lachesis has joined
3447 2011-06-06 23:00:31 <sipa> nice catch
3448 2011-06-06 23:01:02 <BlueMatt> (though it now fills my debug.log with "socket select error..." but atleast I only use 0.06% cpu)
3449 2011-06-06 23:01:23 BeastD9 has joined
3450 2011-06-06 23:02:59 JRWR has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3451 2011-06-06 23:03:05 spq_ is now known as spq
3452 2011-06-06 23:03:51 <spq> how can i run a second instance of the windows bitcoin client for the testnet?
3453 2011-06-06 23:04:04 <gmaxwell> error: {"code":-1,"message":"Db::open: Too many open files"} < woops
3454 2011-06-06 23:04:19 <gjs278> lol
3455 2011-06-06 23:04:21 <BlueMatt> spq: -nolisten -datadir=...
3456 2011-06-06 23:04:24 <gjs278> gmaxwell how'd you get that
3457 2011-06-06 23:04:31 <BlueMatt> spq: and -conenct=proper node
3458 2011-06-06 23:04:31 <gmaxwell> gjs278: >1000 connections.
3459 2011-06-06 23:04:34 <gjs278> wow
3460 2011-06-06 23:04:38 <gjs278> hmm
3461 2011-06-06 23:04:39 <spq> nolisten will stwitch to testnet mode?
3462 2011-06-06 23:04:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: damn
3463 2011-06-06 23:04:51 <spq> that datadir arg makes sense
3464 2011-06-06 23:04:55 <BlueMatt> spq: oh you mean just one mainnet and one testnet
3465 2011-06-06 23:04:56 <gmaxwell> I'm not ulimited, so where is that coming from?
3466 2011-06-06 23:04:58 <gjs278> I don't get the error message though, why does it return that for just having connections open
3467 2011-06-06 23:05:00 <spq> yes
3468 2011-06-06 23:05:01 <BlueMatt> spq: then just -testnet should work
3469 2011-06-06 23:05:08 <gjs278> seems weird
3470 2011-06-06 23:05:17 <spq> without datadir and without nolisten?
3471 2011-06-06 23:05:28 MasterChief has joined
3472 2011-06-06 23:05:33 <BlueMatt> spq: should work
3473 2011-06-06 23:05:33 <gmaxwell> looks like there is a 1024 FD limit.. but I'm not sure where thats coming from.
3474 2011-06-06 23:05:54 <gmaxwell> doh, I raised them on the wrong host.
3475 2011-06-06 23:06:01 <spq> ulimit?
3476 2011-06-06 23:06:17 eao has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3477 2011-06-06 23:06:32 <gjs278> spq it means he can limit the process to only have to much hard drive access
3478 2011-06-06 23:07:16 <gmaxwell> yea, ulimits
3479 2011-06-06 23:07:17 <spq> well ulimit does not control the max. hdd activity
3480 2011-06-06 23:07:40 <spq> it controls ressource count limits - not usage of those ressources
3481 2011-06-06 23:07:46 <gjs278> exactly
3482 2011-06-06 23:07:59 <spq> k :)
3483 2011-06-06 23:08:02 <gjs278> and he may have hit the limit by doing 1024 connections to it of people trying to read the blockchain from him
3484 2011-06-06 23:08:15 <gjs278> but of course
3485 2011-06-06 23:08:18 <gjs278> he isn't ulimited
3486 2011-06-06 23:08:22 Xenland has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3487 2011-06-06 23:08:50 <spq> yes - i just wanted to give a tip - where that limit could come from - not ask what that ulimit stuff is :)
3488 2011-06-06 23:09:04 <gjs278> oh ok
3489 2011-06-06 23:09:12 <gjs278> he mentioned ulimits above you so I figured you were asking
3490 2011-06-06 23:09:17 <gmaxwell> well, I was stupid. I raised them but on the wrong host.
3491 2011-06-06 23:09:22 <gjs278> lol
3492 2011-06-06 23:09:28 <gmaxwell> lets see if that corrupted the database...
3493 2011-06-06 23:09:45 <gjs278> probably not if they were only reading
3494 2011-06-06 23:09:56 <gjs278> but this is bdb
3495 2011-06-06 23:09:57 simkiss has joined
3496 2011-06-06 23:09:59 <gjs278> first sign of problem
3497 2011-06-06 23:10:00 <gjs278> corrupt away
3498 2011-06-06 23:10:08 <gmaxwell> yup
3499 2011-06-06 23:10:20 <gmaxwell> I got a cool error when I killed the daemon.
3500 2011-06-06 23:10:35 <gmaxwell> ************************
3501 2011-06-06 23:10:35 <gmaxwell> EXCEPTION: 11DbException
3502 2011-06-06 23:10:35 <gmaxwell> DbEnv::close: Invalid argument
3503 2011-06-06 23:10:37 <gjs278> lol
3504 2011-06-06 23:10:38 <gjs278> oh god
3505 2011-06-06 23:10:43 <gjs278> enjoy your corruption
3506 2011-06-06 23:10:46 <gmaxwell> seens to be okay.
3507 2011-06-06 23:10:55 nefario has joined
3508 2011-06-06 23:10:58 nefario has quit (Client Quit)
3509 2011-06-06 23:11:11 <lfm> something doing double close()?
3510 2011-06-06 23:11:24 <gmaxwell> well, closing something that wasn't open because the open failed?
3511 2011-06-06 23:11:28 <BlueMatt> wouldnt be surprised
3512 2011-06-06 23:11:37 <gjs278> bdb doesn't even have to open the file to corrupt it
3513 2011-06-06 23:11:47 cenuij has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3514 2011-06-06 23:11:50 <gmaxwell> Doesn't prevent it from corrupting something else!
3515 2011-06-06 23:11:53 <lfm> gjs278: hehe
3516 2011-06-06 23:12:02 <gmaxwell> but it looks fine.
3517 2011-06-06 23:12:16 uppe has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3518 2011-06-06 23:12:24 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3519 2011-06-06 23:12:31 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
3520 2011-06-06 23:12:40 <gjs278> mine got blown away once due to kernel panic from ati-drivers
3521 2011-06-06 23:12:44 <gjs278> I guess that write never finished
3522 2011-06-06 23:13:13 <gjs278> it's completely my fault, I should have known better than to accidentally move my mouse to the right of the screen
3523 2011-06-06 23:13:20 cenuij has joined
3524 2011-06-06 23:13:20 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
3525 2011-06-06 23:13:20 cenuij has joined
3526 2011-06-06 23:15:08 <gmaxwell> This is what you get for using a computer with a mouse.
3527 2011-06-06 23:16:16 uppe has joined
3528 2011-06-06 23:17:35 Kolky has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3529 2011-06-06 23:18:12 <lfm> I agree vt100s forever
3530 2011-06-06 23:18:29 [Tycho] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3531 2011-06-06 23:18:29 [Tycho] has joined
3532 2011-06-06 23:20:08 eoss has joined
3533 2011-06-06 23:22:37 <spq> hm, the windows bitcoin app cant be started multiple times - i had to trick the no-multiple-instances code
3534 2011-06-06 23:22:45 lightcode has joined
3535 2011-06-06 23:23:02 cacheson has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
3536 2011-06-06 23:23:09 <BlueMatt> should just -nolisten and -datadir and it should be able to open multiple times
3537 2011-06-06 23:23:51 fahadsadah has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
3538 2011-06-06 23:24:44 AStove has quit ()
3539 2011-06-06 23:25:31 <rlifchitz> ;;bc,stats
3540 2011-06-06 23:25:32 cacheson has joined
3541 2011-06-06 23:25:33 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129104 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 1935 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 20 hours, 41 minutes, and 15 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 711062.19450536
3542 2011-06-06 23:25:50 * BlueMatt remembers when we hit 10k diff
3543 2011-06-06 23:26:48 lightcode has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
3544 2011-06-06 23:26:53 MilagrosMarriner has joined
3545 2011-06-06 23:26:53 zooko has joined
3546 2011-06-06 23:27:10 lightcode has joined
3547 2011-06-06 23:28:57 <MilagrosMarriner> hey guys, how close are we from getting millicoins into the client?
3548 2011-06-06 23:29:21 <BlueMatt> millicoins?
3549 2011-06-06 23:29:23 <jgarzik> MilagrosMarriner: you mean UBC? http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10049.0
3550 2011-06-06 23:29:25 <jgarzik> micro-bitcoins
3551 2011-06-06 23:29:48 a5an0 has quit (Quit: leaving)
3552 2011-06-06 23:29:50 <Backburn> ;;bc,gen 5432000
3553 2011-06-06 23:29:51 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 5432000 Khps, given current difficulty of 567358.22457067 , is 9.63000010702 BTC per day and 0.401250004459 BTC per hour.
3554 2011-06-06 23:29:52 <MilagrosMarriner> oh right
3555 2011-06-06 23:29:54 <MilagrosMarriner> I see
3556 2011-06-06 23:30:45 <Backburn> ;;bc,gend 711062 5432000
3557 2011-06-06 23:30:45 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 711062 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 5432000, is 0.131665379226 BTC per day and 0.00548605746775 BTC per hour.
3558 2011-06-06 23:31:07 <Backburn> ;;bc,gend 5432000 711062
3559 2011-06-06 23:31:07 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 5432000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 711062, is 7.68380220478 BTC per day and 0.320158425199 BTC per hour.
3560 2011-06-06 23:31:16 <Backburn> heh much better :O
3561 2011-06-06 23:32:05 Kolky has joined
3562 2011-06-06 23:33:03 <MilagrosMarriner> I think in the near term we will have the need for millicoins and not microcoins
3563 2011-06-06 23:33:15 <lfm> ;;bc,gend 360000 [bc,estimate]
3564 2011-06-06 23:33:15 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 360000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 711062.19450536, is 0.50923564747 BTC per day and 0.0212181519779 BTC per hour.
3565 2011-06-06 23:33:30 <MilagrosMarriner> at least the client needs to enable smaller fractions
3566 2011-06-06 23:33:40 <MilagrosMarriner> I'm sure you are working on it
3567 2011-06-06 23:33:43 <BlueMatt> it currently lets use you use as small as you want
3568 2011-06-06 23:33:49 <BlueMatt> up to 8 decimal places
3569 2011-06-06 23:33:51 backwardation25 has joined
3570 2011-06-06 23:33:53 <BlueMatt> which is the max we can ever go
3571 2011-06-06 23:33:58 <MilagrosMarriner> sorry then
3572 2011-06-06 23:34:11 <lfm> thats ok, its a common point
3573 2011-06-06 23:34:46 <MilagrosMarriner> so I'm a C# developer
3574 2011-06-06 23:35:09 <MilagrosMarriner> I was wondering
3575 2011-06-06 23:35:22 <lfm> MilagrosMarriner: thats ok, I'm sure you will get better some day
3576 2011-06-06 23:35:27 <MilagrosMarriner> =)
3577 2011-06-06 23:35:32 <MilagrosMarriner> if a C# client would contribute at all
3578 2011-06-06 23:35:38 <MilagrosMarriner> to the community
3579 2011-06-06 23:36:29 fancycakes has joined
3580 2011-06-06 23:36:34 BeastD9 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3581 2011-06-06 23:36:43 <lfm> MilagrosMarriner: a full client would be a massive project. you might wanna look for some smaller way to contribute. Im not sure what advantages C# would have over the current c++
3582 2011-06-06 23:37:24 d1234_ has joined
3583 2011-06-06 23:37:34 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3584 2011-06-06 23:37:39 <MilagrosMarriner> lfm: I don't see any advantages, but having multiple implementations could be an advantage
3585 2011-06-06 23:37:44 <BlueMatt> iirc MagicalTux was going to work on a C# client, but got sidetracked with running mtgox
3586 2011-06-06 23:38:10 <lfm> yes, there are other people working on python versions and java versions.
3587 2011-06-06 23:38:11 Nicksasa has joined
3588 2011-06-06 23:38:19 toffoo has quit ()
3589 2011-06-06 23:38:26 <MilagrosMarriner> lfm: is there any mobile development?
3590 2011-06-06 23:38:31 <BlueMatt> some
3591 2011-06-06 23:38:45 <BlueMatt> there is an android app, not sure how far it is though
3592 2011-06-06 23:38:48 <lfm> ya i think some people are trying to do some phone stuff
3593 2011-06-06 23:39:06 <MilagrosMarriner> lfm: I want an android miner
3594 2011-06-06 23:39:09 <MilagrosMarriner> jk
3595 2011-06-06 23:39:46 <lfm> it seems a full client isnt really suitable for on a phone due to data volumes for comunications and storage
3596 2011-06-06 23:39:54 d1234 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3597 2011-06-06 23:39:59 <MilagrosMarriner> just a wallet then
3598 2011-06-06 23:40:41 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3599 2011-06-06 23:40:45 <lfm> it seems more likely you would need to cooperate with a trusted server
3600 2011-06-06 23:40:46 <lizthegrey> there's been some bitcoinj development geared towards more efficiently storing the block chain
3601 2011-06-06 23:41:01 [Tycho] has quit (Changing host)
3602 2011-06-06 23:41:01 [Tycho] has joined
3603 2011-06-06 23:41:05 <midnightmagic> are they stemming off old tx yet?
3604 2011-06-06 23:41:16 <lizthegrey> http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/detail?r=89
3605 2011-06-06 23:41:16 <midnightmagic> they.. "we" I guess.
3606 2011-06-06 23:41:54 <lfm> ya, theres still a few problems with the design for pruning stale txns
3607 2011-06-06 23:41:55 <midnightmagic> that's just pushing stuff the current software leaves in RAM, out onto disk.
3608 2011-06-06 23:42:06 <gjs278> when I fork a project, how do I get the changes from the parent project that I forked from
3609 2011-06-06 23:42:21 <midnightmagic> merge?
3610 2011-06-06 23:42:21 <gjs278> I'm done with this fork for now but it's from awhile back
3611 2011-06-06 23:42:29 <midnightmagic> ah, rebase.
3612 2011-06-06 23:42:39 Jkessler has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
3613 2011-06-06 23:42:47 Jkessler has joined
3614 2011-06-06 23:42:54 Jkessler has quit (Changing host)
3615 2011-06-06 23:42:54 Jkessler has joined
3616 2011-06-06 23:43:07 dedeibel has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3617 2011-06-06 23:43:22 fancycakes has left ()
3618 2011-06-06 23:44:04 <lizthegrey> does http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12805.0 fall under the 'illegal goods' clause and thus ought to be bumped from the forums?
3619 2011-06-06 23:44:05 <MagicalTux> BlueMatt: on a Qt client, not C#
3620 2011-06-06 23:44:21 <BlueMatt> oh, ok well we have one of those now ;)
3621 2011-06-06 23:44:26 <BlueMatt> (well hopefully soon)
3622 2011-06-06 23:44:58 Cusipzzz has joined
3623 2011-06-06 23:45:44 zeshoem has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
3624 2011-06-06 23:45:46 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
3625 2011-06-06 23:45:49 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok found the other cpu bug, and its not in bitcoin...when you set CRYPTOPP...ASM_AVAILABLE it will either segfault or 100% cpu in SHA256::Transform in sha.cpp
3626 2011-06-06 23:46:11 <BlueMatt> which is really not good, because it works when compile natively from win32....
3627 2011-06-06 23:46:22 ar4s has quit (Quit: zZzZZz)
3628 2011-06-06 23:47:09 <gjs278> delete
3629 2011-06-06 23:47:21 <lfm> lizthegrey: reverse engineering software is not illegal in most places even USA it may be a breach of contract (shrink wrap licence) but not per se illegal
3630 2011-06-06 23:47:32 <BlueMatt> ok wtf...it looks like cryptopp is setting that automatically...god damn it
3631 2011-06-06 23:50:14 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
3632 2011-06-06 23:50:37 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, weirdness
3633 2011-06-06 23:52:21 Jkessler has quit ()
3634 2011-06-06 23:52:22 <BlueMatt> very much so
3635 2011-06-06 23:53:19 <BlueMatt> ah thats default, works with forced DISABLE_ASM...dur
3636 2011-06-06 23:53:41 <BlueMatt> still, why does it not work...
3637 2011-06-06 23:55:38 <gjs278> BlueMatt please while you are in the code add an option to turn off debug.log if it doesnt exist
3638 2011-06-06 23:55:41 <BlueMatt> must be the wrong defines...
3639 2011-06-06 23:55:43 lumos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
3640 2011-06-06 23:55:47 <BlueMatt> dies in X86_SHA256_HashBlocks
3641 2011-06-06 23:58:21 <gjs278> also for some damn reason pid files don't get created for me anymore on the latest version...
3642 2011-06-06 23:58:24 <gjs278> no idea what that is about
3643 2011-06-06 23:59:00 osmosis has joined