1 2011-07-11 00:00:21 <jrmithdobbs> i don't get the point
   2 2011-07-11 00:01:20 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: What is the disadvantage? Come on. The disadvantage is that it's distributed but not decentralized.  If you're worried about secondary chains getting easily reversed, why not bind them to bitcoin via the alternative chains stuff?
   3 2011-07-11 00:01:24 <jrmithdobbs> seems like it just decentralizes a centralized system for no reason
   4 2011-07-11 00:01:35 <jrmithdobbs> err centralrizes a decentralized system i mean
   5 2011-07-11 00:01:48 Blitzboom_ has joined
   6 2011-07-11 00:02:08 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: yea, a proper implementation of a second chain would work much better than that
   7 2011-07-11 00:02:22 sanchaz has joined
   8 2011-07-11 00:02:55 <gmaxwell> Well, it's not for no reason. I mean— there are problems with small bitcoins.. basically the bitcoin security model only works if there is only one hashchain, or just a few nearly equally sized ones.
   9 2011-07-11 00:03:06 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  10 2011-07-11 00:03:10 <gmaxwell> But binding to the bitcoin chain solves that neatly.
  11 2011-07-11 00:03:43 Blitzboom has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  12 2011-07-11 00:03:45 <gmaxwell> (I say it doesn't work for small chains because bitcoin itself creates a huge pool of people who can easily take over your small chain on a whim)
  13 2011-07-11 00:04:06 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I'm totaly up for that bind them to bitcoin via the alternative chains as stated above in Multicoin I accept all alternatives including that.  when the code for that is avalable it will be included
  14 2011-07-11 00:04:08 <jrmithdobbs> also i think your reference to https://sites.google.com/site/remotekeyencrypt/home is misguided and doesn't understand the point of that
  15 2011-07-11 00:04:52 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: if you're up with that then why the whitelist of keys for "authorized" miners at all?
  16 2011-07-11 00:05:00 <jrmithdobbs> s/with/for/
  17 2011-07-11 00:06:17 theorb has joined
  18 2011-07-11 00:06:55 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  19 2011-07-11 00:07:04 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: because we don't have eather one and I thought this might be a posible green solution
  20 2011-07-11 00:07:10 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  21 2011-07-11 00:07:48 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: using that online key storage thing just further centralizes the system and adds more seisure points for external entities that could break the entire thing
  22 2011-07-11 00:07:52 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: and as far as  https://sites.google.com/site/remotekeyencrypt/home  what doesn't he have a point of?
  23 2011-07-11 00:08:34 <jrmithdobbs> also that guy's implementation is horrible. only using 16 bytes of entropy for the passphrase? when it's not being entered by the user there's no reason not to make that 256-512bit random number
  24 2011-07-11 00:08:35 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: I'm sure it not as secure as bitcoin but it's better than testnet
  25 2011-07-11 00:09:00 <jrmithdobbs> actually it's less entropy than that because it's all typeable chars
  26 2011-07-11 00:09:06 <jrmithdobbs> that guy doesn't seem to understand luks/dm_crypt
  27 2011-07-11 00:09:18 <gmaxwell> It's not really a question about security. A closed mining system is _more_ secure, given the right assumptions.
  28 2011-07-11 00:09:40 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: ok adding 256 - 1024 wouldn't be too hard
  29 2011-07-11 00:09:40 <jrmithdobbs> he also caches the password on local disk from what I can see so there are several attack vectors that make the whole thing worthless
  30 2011-07-11 00:10:16 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: there's no advantage to using that system over just usbkey loaded keys that are only inserted on boot tbqh
  31 2011-07-11 00:10:20 <gmaxwell> But the assumptions are that you trust the closed miners to act in your interest instead of someone elses. ::shrugs::
  32 2011-07-11 00:10:23 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: for this application
  33 2011-07-11 00:10:57 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: his stuff is more for say, corp laptops etc
  34 2011-07-11 00:10:59 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: this would be more used for remote systems where there was no operator
  35 2011-07-11 00:11:13 <jrmithdobbs> (though it wouldn't work well for that either since things like that aren't gauranteed a net connection on boot)
  36 2011-07-11 00:11:17 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  37 2011-07-11 00:11:33 dbitcoin has joined
  38 2011-07-11 00:11:59 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: as I see it the miners would be at remote places all over the world so if one was captured it would require to be auto encrypted
  39 2011-07-11 00:12:21 <gmaxwell> I think both of you are off in the weeds now.
  40 2011-07-11 00:12:41 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  41 2011-07-11 00:13:00 EPiSKiNG- has joined
  42 2011-07-11 00:13:01 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm just critiquing that guy's implementation for this use, it doesn't really have anything to do with the concept he's proposing
  43 2011-07-11 00:13:08 _nomit has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  44 2011-07-11 00:13:16 Kiba` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  45 2011-07-11 00:13:19 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: it's only the section of data that is encrypted not the whole system.  if the system didn't have an internet conection at boot the data wouldn't be needed
  46 2011-07-11 00:13:40 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: right but it needs to be the whole system to be effective for your goals
  47 2011-07-11 00:13:54 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: Yea, right, its minutia. But I do agree with you, see also power intercepting UPSes and cold boot attack.
  48 2011-07-11 00:13:56 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: that's ok all feedback is good
  49 2011-07-11 00:14:06 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: otherwise, what happens when your provider pulls the box down, grabs the scripts to get the keys, then pulls the key to their own machine
  50 2011-07-11 00:14:15 suriv has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  51 2011-07-11 00:14:15 <jrmithdobbs> now they have the keys and can grab the data any time they want
  52 2011-07-11 00:14:46 <lfm> you can mine to a public key not at the site
  53 2011-07-11 00:14:58 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: physical security is *hard* when you don't control physical access
  54 2011-07-11 00:15:02 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: next to impossible
  55 2011-07-11 00:15:23 kermit has joined
  56 2011-07-11 00:15:25 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
  57 2011-07-11 00:15:32 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: even if they finaly got the key for the miner it's only one of the keys and you could just disable that miner from the key list
  58 2011-07-11 00:15:38 <gmaxwell> lfm: yea, taking funds isn't the issue here. The key being protected is the one which signs a block to prove it was created by a licensed entity.
  59 2011-07-11 00:15:57 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: ya but the data is all compromised and the key could be used for malicious purposes before it was noticed to be compromised
  60 2011-07-11 00:16:00 <jrmithdobbs> etc
  61 2011-07-11 00:16:18 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: and there are more fun ways (mitm) a provider could grab the key without you ever noticing
  62 2011-07-11 00:16:37 Beremat has joined
  63 2011-07-11 00:16:45 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: the data was always open as it is in bitcoin only not anyone could become a miner
  64 2011-07-11 00:16:58 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: yea, but then you get into fun syncing races (the byzantine generals problem that bitcoin was designed to solve without centeral control) or nasty splits.
  65 2011-07-11 00:17:00 <lfm> sounds like you are talking about a central licence issuer, who wants that?
  66 2011-07-11 00:17:13 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: basically
  67 2011-07-11 00:17:31 kermit has joined
  68 2011-07-11 00:17:34 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
  69 2011-07-11 00:17:58 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: even if the got the key it would still have some security already as you in bitcoin don't even have lic mining and your already secure
  70 2011-07-11 00:18:02 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: In any case, once you have the licensed miners you can dispense with the proof of work entirely. Then you won't even have a superficial resemblance to bitcoin.
  71 2011-07-11 00:18:34 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: maybe not
  72 2011-07-11 00:18:38 kermit has joined
  73 2011-07-11 00:18:39 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: That security property of bitcoin depends on lots and lots of people mining with lots of hash power. Why would that hashpower even exist for something with closed mining.
  74 2011-07-11 00:18:41 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
  75 2011-07-11 00:18:42 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: they take the key and put it on a machine with 1-2Thash/s ... security of entire chain gone
  76 2011-07-11 00:18:49 <lfm> just have licenced time stamp issuer(s)
  77 2011-07-11 00:18:51 nomit has joined
  78 2011-07-11 00:19:06 <gmaxwell> lfm: yup.
  79 2011-07-11 00:19:21 <gmaxwell> lfm: basically what the root CAs are.
  80 2011-07-11 00:19:51 stuhood has joined
  81 2011-07-11 00:20:02 stuhood has left ()
  82 2011-07-11 00:20:33 <sacarlson> lrm: ya I like that, that's about what they would be I guess lic time stamps
  83 2011-07-11 00:21:07 <lfm> no need to burn up all that power
  84 2011-07-11 00:21:31 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  85 2011-07-11 00:21:39 kermit has joined
  86 2011-07-11 00:21:41 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
  87 2011-07-11 00:21:50 <sacarlson> lfm: no as I noted I thought 300kh/sec would be more than enuf with 2 - 3 redundant miners on a small net
  88 2011-07-11 00:22:05 <gmaxwell> 0 H/s is enough.
  89 2011-07-11 00:22:09 <gmaxwell> 300kh/s is pointless.
  90 2011-07-11 00:22:13 <lfm> 1 hash/ 10 mins would be enuf
  91 2011-07-11 00:22:15 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: cool
  92 2011-07-11 00:22:58 kermit has joined
  93 2011-07-11 00:23:00 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
  94 2011-07-11 00:23:07 <sacarlson> lfm: ya I think your right so why not make it faster then
  95 2011-07-11 00:23:25 vigilyn has joined
  96 2011-07-11 00:23:28 <lfm> waste of electricity
  97 2011-07-11 00:23:34 <gmaxwell> 300kh/s is nowhere near enough to gain you any hashpower security. Your security comes from the control of the miners. Which is fine— it's a distributed centrally controlled system and there are a great many of them out there, nothing wrong with that.
  98 2011-07-11 00:24:05 <sacarlson> lfm: I mean why not timestamp in a sence 1 time per minit?
  99 2011-07-11 00:24:07 kermit has joined
 100 2011-07-11 00:24:09 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 101 2011-07-11 00:24:18 <sacarlson> lfm: or 10 time per minit
 102 2011-07-11 00:24:22 <moa7> nothing wrong .... except it is centrally controlled
 103 2011-07-11 00:24:34 <lfm> sacarlson: my point is you only need 1 hash per timestamp
 104 2011-07-11 00:24:34 <gmaxwell> well, you need it to be slower than the communication delay between miners or you'll constantly split.
 105 2011-07-11 00:25:01 <gmaxwell> (unless you also add some logic so that nodes agree in advance who will create which block)
 106 2011-07-11 00:25:01 <sacarlson> lfm: ya I got that
 107 2011-07-11 00:25:51 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: oh ya back to 10 minits then
 108 2011-07-11 00:26:04 <lfm> their proof of work can be sleep(600) or whatever you want it to be
 109 2011-07-11 00:26:18 <gmaxwell> well, 1 minute is probably okay. Or, as I said, add some rule where the miners agree which miners will produce which blocks.
 110 2011-07-11 00:26:49 sanchaz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 111 2011-07-11 00:26:57 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: unless a miner fails then the next in line would continue in the loop
 112 2011-07-11 00:27:22 <lfm> ya just sync them so 10 miners take turns and allow a missed turn to just get taken by the next one
 113 2011-07-11 00:27:30 kish_ has joined
 114 2011-07-11 00:28:02 <sacarlson> lfm: well shit this would require an entire rewrite.  I don't have time for that
 115 2011-07-11 00:28:21 <gmaxwell> It's not bitcoin at all— which is fine. Things which aren't bitcoin ought to exist too. :)
 116 2011-07-11 00:28:33 <sacarlson> I thought this would just be a simple change.
 117 2011-07-11 00:28:42 <lfm> hradly, put a sleep in the mining loop and reduce the difficulty to 0.00000001
 118 2011-07-11 00:28:49 <gmaxwell> It's pretty pointless as a simple change.
 119 2011-07-11 00:29:02 <sacarlson> lfm: ok that sounds easy enuf
 120 2011-07-11 00:29:11 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: didn't realise you were the one that wrote that POC for the luks stuff you linked to
 121 2011-07-11 00:29:35 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: ya I wrote that too that's ok
 122 2011-07-11 00:29:43 <lfm> sacarlson: your work would be makeing the licences stick and unavoidable
 123 2011-07-11 00:29:47 sanchaz has joined
 124 2011-07-11 00:30:12 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: it's seriously awful, no offense
 125 2011-07-11 00:30:17 <sacarlson> lfm: lecences stick?
 126 2011-07-11 00:30:26 kish has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 127 2011-07-11 00:30:29 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: none taken
 128 2011-07-11 00:30:34 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: would take one subponea to google to compromise the entire system
 129 2011-07-11 00:31:04 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: and some social engineering of the owners of the encrypted machines or the people controlling their physical location
 130 2011-07-11 00:31:47 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: or a remote code execution exploit on the encrypted machines that got triggered while powered on
 131 2011-07-11 00:31:50 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: to start they would have to know where the key was when the FBI breaks in and find the computer then they would look at it and find they need some key that's online and now already gone
 132 2011-07-11 00:31:58 kermit has joined
 133 2011-07-11 00:32:02 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 134 2011-07-11 00:33:52 kermit has joined
 135 2011-07-11 00:33:54 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 136 2011-07-11 00:35:02 kermit has joined
 137 2011-07-11 00:36:55 sgstair has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 138 2011-07-11 00:37:26 sgstair has joined
 139 2011-07-11 00:37:41 <lfm> trigger the remote debugging tpm mode
 140 2011-07-11 00:37:45 <luke-jr> [20:28:21] <ljrbot> Txn 5d1d36694288c64781720732f1cf3eaaa8739148d26f3773e07c5ffe4c0cd59f: 1MFpzuUF5S4FKgjUFS9F5oWUY2xWANyJiM 0.01 BTC, 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 0 TBC, 11111111111111111111BZbvjr 0 TBC
 141 2011-07-11 00:37:48 <luke-jr> someone's playing games again
 142 2011-07-11 00:38:48 <lfm> those are the zero and 1 keys
 143 2011-07-11 00:38:59 <jrmithdobbs> so stop accepting stupid txns with stupid low fees and asking for it?
 144 2011-07-11 00:39:44 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 145 2011-07-11 00:40:39 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: Eligius won't accept that. But everyone else will.
 146 2011-07-11 00:40:41 sanchaz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 147 2011-07-11 00:40:58 <lfm> no one has accepted it yet
 148 2011-07-11 00:41:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: why won't you accept it?
 149 2011-07-11 00:41:44 slux has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 150 2011-07-11 00:42:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Eligius would consider it spam
 151 2011-07-11 00:42:20 <gmaxwell> Because?
 152 2011-07-11 00:42:22 <luke-jr> 0-amount outputs are a no-no
 153 2011-07-11 00:42:27 <gmaxwell> Good.
 154 2011-07-11 00:42:29 tower has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 155 2011-07-11 00:42:48 <gmaxwell> Do you also consider all-fee transactions (no outputs) to be spam?
 156 2011-07-11 00:42:55 puhc has left ("Leaving")
 157 2011-07-11 00:42:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: is that even possible? O.o
 158 2011-07-11 00:43:00 <sacarlson> luke-jr: didn't it provide a fee?
 159 2011-07-11 00:43:09 <luke-jr> sacarlson: yes, but Eligius is extra-hostile to spam
 160 2011-07-11 00:43:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I thought it was, perhaps not.
 161 2011-07-11 00:43:35 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I suspect that might get by; didn't realize it was possible
 162 2011-07-11 00:43:36 <lfm> should depend how big the fee is
 163 2011-07-11 00:44:09 <luke-jr> Eligius would expect 0.01048576 BTC fee for 0-amount outputs
 164 2011-07-11 00:44:26 <gmaxwell> The default relay rules probably shouldn't forward txn with 0 values outputs, or no outputs at all. Regardless of the miners being willing to mine it. It's not in users interests to support using the chain for data storage.
 165 2011-07-11 00:44:30 <luke-jr> I wonder why the other miners aren't accepting it
 166 2011-07-11 00:44:44 <sacarlson> luke-jr well I guess you can send .01 to your self what's the difference?
 167 2011-07-11 00:45:01 <luke-jr> sacarlson: …
 168 2011-07-11 00:45:28 <sacarlson> luke-jr: or does sending to your self not get into the blocks?
 169 2011-07-11 00:45:41 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: You can, but just because people can spam in a way you can't detect that doesn't mean the network should support the spam it can detect.
 170 2011-07-11 00:45:48 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 171 2011-07-11 00:46:00 <luke-jr> sacarlson: sending to yourself doesn't encode data
 172 2011-07-11 00:46:11 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 173 2011-07-11 00:46:13 <lfm> luke-jr huh?
 174 2011-07-11 00:46:19 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ok that makes sence
 175 2011-07-11 00:46:26 <gmaxwell> lfm: you can pack data into the destination address.
 176 2011-07-11 00:46:42 suriv has joined
 177 2011-07-11 00:46:44 <lfm> you can pack data into the amount if you send to yourself
 178 2011-07-11 00:46:47 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it would be better to allow spammy transactions but only ones that can easily be pruned.
 179 2011-07-11 00:47:08 <gmaxwell> Then at least people who are dedicated to spamming will at least get themselves pruned eventually.
 180 2011-07-11 00:47:10 <lfm> not as much of course
 181 2011-07-11 00:47:26 again has joined
 182 2011-07-11 00:47:48 <gmaxwell> E.g. those zero value txns could probably be pruned, no?
 183 2011-07-11 00:48:30 <sacarlson> people keep telling me I should bind new chains into bitcoin instead of some of my other methods,  Whould that not be seen as spam as well?
 184 2011-07-11 00:48:53 <lfm> sacarlson: it would
 185 2011-07-11 00:49:16 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: They should be bound in using a single binding hash in the coinbase. So then the load on bitcoin doesn't grow the more things are bound.
 186 2011-07-11 00:49:35 <sacarlson> lfm: so it seems I have pushes in two directions here one says the don't want data push in and others say we should only have one real chain
 187 2011-07-11 00:49:41 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, it wouldnt
 188 2011-07-11 00:50:03 <BlueMatt> as it generates no extra space, txes, nothing
 189 2011-07-11 00:50:06 <BlueMatt> just a different coinbase
 190 2011-07-11 00:50:32 <gmaxwell> I don't think anyone would cry about ~32 bytes being added to every block in order to support an infinite number of possible alternative chains.
 191 2011-07-11 00:50:54 <sacarlson> BlueMatt oh and that transaction above takes alot of space?
 192 2011-07-11 00:51:23 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: well the point is you dont do any extra txes, if you do txes then you lose the advantage
 193 2011-07-11 00:51:48 <BlueMatt> if you do it in txes, then they can get accepted by non-extra-chain-miners and you lose the whole point
 194 2011-07-11 00:52:04 <BlueMatt> if you do it in coinbase, the miners have to consciously put it in
 195 2011-07-11 00:52:23 again has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 196 2011-07-11 00:52:23 suriv has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 197 2011-07-11 00:52:42 <lfm> sacarlson: you can have other chains all you want, just dont try to root it in our chain piggybacking on our resources.
 198 2011-07-11 00:52:56 <gmaxwell> it's also not a question of a _lot_ of space, it's that its O(n) space.  Every bit of non-bitcoin data added to the chain adds about 265 bytes * bitcoin_nodes storage requirements to all users.  If you put the data in a secondary chain then you only need one piece of data in the coinbase to bind the chains.
 199 2011-07-11 00:53:25 <BlueMatt> lfm: wtf???that should be encouraged
 200 2011-07-11 00:53:30 <gmaxwell> yea.
 201 2011-07-11 00:53:33 tower has joined
 202 2011-07-11 00:54:06 <doublec> lfm: if someone creates an alternative chain that becomes insanely popular for miners - would you prefer it to be piggybacked on the bitcoin chain or not?
 203 2011-07-11 00:54:31 <gmaxwell> Though it should be encouraged via using a single merkle root for all alternatives, not O(chains).
 204 2011-07-11 00:55:09 <BlueMatt> thats the only secure way to do it
 205 2011-07-11 00:55:15 <BlueMatt> the only way that actually adds something
 206 2011-07-11 00:55:46 <gmaxwell> doublec: what was namecoin's peak hashrate?
 207 2011-07-11 00:55:56 <doublec> 950 ghash/s
 208 2011-07-11 00:56:04 <lfm> why cant they just make their own genesis block and stay outa our data?
 209 2011-07-11 00:56:16 <BlueMatt> lfm: ...really?
 210 2011-07-11 00:56:24 <doublec> lfm: because if it becomes popular, it weakens bitcoins chain
 211 2011-07-11 00:56:30 <doublec> lfm: when all the miners leave for it
 212 2011-07-11 00:56:43 <gmaxwell> lfm: should have their own genesis block, sure. I don't think you're aware of the possiblity of binding altenative chains?
 213 2011-07-11 00:57:03 <doublec> even namecoin, which is not popular, hit 950 ghash/s. That's 950 ghash not going into bitcoin.
 214 2011-07-11 00:57:39 <gmaxwell> The notion is that bitcoin miners could add a single hash to their coinbase, which represents the root of a merkle tree for committments to alternative chains (namecoin, etc). So that people who are interested in namecoin will mine bitcoin.  "United we stand"
 215 2011-07-11 00:57:39 <sacarlson> BlueMatt ok I'm up on this bind chain method you seem to be peaching with at least some acceptance , is there code examples yet of such an iplementation?
 216 2011-07-11 00:58:02 <denisx> doublec: strange point of view, how many TH/s do you think are wasted because kids are playing 3d shooters?
 217 2011-07-11 00:58:04 sanchaz has joined
 218 2011-07-11 00:58:30 <gmaxwell> denisx: 3d shooters are incompatible. Alternative chains are not.
 219 2011-07-11 00:59:24 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: nope, its never been done, but TD wrote a good implementation how-to on the forum a while back
 220 2011-07-11 00:59:29 <BlueMatt> quite a long time ago actually
 221 2011-07-11 00:59:38 <lfm> and if bitcoin crashes and burns they will go down with us?
 222 2011-07-11 00:59:43 <gmaxwell> lfm: another way of looking at it is this: people are going to want to do other things: names, data timestamping, etc. If they can do it in alternative chains that have nearly zero negative impact on bitcoin: Great. If they stuff it all into bitcoin we can hardly stop them.
 223 2011-07-11 00:59:44 <jrmithdobbs> it requires bribing miners though
 224 2011-07-11 00:59:56 <jrmithdobbs> so i'd be surprised if anyone ever actually does it
 225 2011-07-11 01:00:11 <jrmithdobbs> seeing as that basically means getting tycho to cooperate with something
 226 2011-07-11 01:00:17 <jrmithdobbs> which is impossible
 227 2011-07-11 01:00:18 <gmaxwell> lfm: which is why its good for us. They'll prop up bitcoin even if interest in bitcoin alone goes down and doesn't support the mining required to keep it secure.
 228 2011-07-11 01:00:23 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: not at all true
 229 2011-07-11 01:00:40 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: you need the cooperation of someone who can get your data into the chain
 230 2011-07-11 01:00:44 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: its a fairly small cost to them (actually not really any cost)
 231 2011-07-11 01:00:56 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: and following fee rules is zero cost
 232 2011-07-11 01:00:57 <BlueMatt> so you give them 1 btc and Im sure they wouldnt mind
 233 2011-07-11 01:01:05 <jrmithdobbs> yet tycho wont cooperate with that
 234 2011-07-11 01:01:11 <BlueMatt> fee rules?
 235 2011-07-11 01:01:20 <jrmithdobbs> the anti-spam stuff
 236 2011-07-11 01:01:30 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: jrmithdobbs: see this is what I got last time, have to bribe miners to get it to work.  sounds like I might stay on the path of lic mining as a backup method
 237 2011-07-11 01:01:30 <BlueMatt> no, that means he gets more money if he changes that
 238 2011-07-11 01:01:35 <BlueMatt> that is not at all zero-cost
 239 2011-07-11 01:01:59 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it's zero expenditure to him, is what i mean, yes it means he'd get more money
 240 2011-07-11 01:02:06 <jrmithdobbs> yet he wont
 241 2011-07-11 01:02:07 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: I really dont think it would be hard to do, a big pool or two and boom, good to go
 242 2011-07-11 01:02:09 <jrmithdobbs> that's all i was saying
 243 2011-07-11 01:02:22 <sipa> maybe others will
 244 2011-07-11 01:02:44 <sipa> and if there is a large interest in getting confirmations in this alt chain, people will be willing to pay for it as well
 245 2011-07-11 01:02:47 sanchaz has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 246 2011-07-11 01:02:49 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: what??? he wont drop the fee rules meaning he wont accept the (potential) loss of more fees? how is that a bad decision?
 247 2011-07-11 01:03:03 <jrmithdobbs> could probably convince luke, so long as you paid him in TBC
 248 2011-07-11 01:03:04 <jrmithdobbs> lol
 249 2011-07-11 01:03:08 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: lol
 250 2011-07-11 01:03:14 <BlueMatt> lol, yep
 251 2011-07-11 01:03:18 d4de has joined
 252 2011-07-11 01:03:19 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 253 2011-07-11 01:03:19 d4de has joined
 254 2011-07-11 01:03:19 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: well maybe with the treate of other alternatives like lic mining and that will motivate the bitcoin miners to accept it
 255 2011-07-11 01:03:29 <sacarlson> threat
 256 2011-07-11 01:03:29 <BlueMatt> lic?
 257 2011-07-11 01:03:34 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: search his comments in the logs re: fees. he doesn't "get it"
 258 2011-07-11 01:03:43 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i didn't say it made senes.
 259 2011-07-11 01:03:45 <jrmithdobbs> sense
 260 2011-07-11 01:03:56 <sacarlson> BlueMatt Licences mining
 261 2011-07-11 01:04:07 <BlueMatt> if hes doing the right thing, why would he change is my question, even if he doesnt seem to "get it"?
 262 2011-07-11 01:04:30 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: well that really defeats the purpose of bitcoin and at that point, a completely different system has many more advantages
 263 2011-07-11 01:04:34 <doublec> BlueMatt: lic mining http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg347203#msg347203
 264 2011-07-11 01:05:13 <BlueMatt> that could be much better implemented using a more traditional method
 265 2011-07-11 01:05:21 <BlueMatt> and you dont have to waste as much power, which is always a plus
 266 2011-07-11 01:05:30 jackmcbarn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 267 2011-07-11 01:05:41 <BlueMatt> ie a set of nodes which vote on txes and users can get the results
 268 2011-07-11 01:05:44 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: welcome to 30 minuts ago. :)
 269 2011-07-11 01:05:51 <BlueMatt> ah, well sorry
 270 2011-07-11 01:05:53 <gmaxwell> s/minuts/minutes
 271 2011-07-11 01:06:05 <gmaxwell> Yea, I said the same thing. It's good that he's heaing it from multiple angles.
 272 2011-07-11 01:06:07 <sacarlson> BlueMatt ya they were explaining to me I could slow the hash/s down to realy slow numbers
 273 2011-07-11 01:06:27 <BlueMatt> or dont do mining at all...
 274 2011-07-11 01:06:55 <BlueMatt> though mining does have some advantages, but you could do crypto signed blocks instead of mined blocks
 275 2011-07-11 01:07:00 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: well I don't know how that would work
 276 2011-07-11 01:07:11 MrSambal has joined
 277 2011-07-11 01:07:24 <BlueMatt> that way, no crazy c/gpu usage and you get the same advantages
 278 2011-07-11 01:07:38 MrSambal has quit (Client Quit)
 279 2011-07-11 01:07:39 kermit has joined
 280 2011-07-11 01:08:08 <BlueMatt> if you already have a set of pubkeys you trust in each client, then the servers can just say, oh its been ~10 minutes since the last block, package up a set of txes, call it a block and each server can sign it themselves
 281 2011-07-11 01:08:16 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I think that was more on the line of what I would be using it for in for example all preminted coin with no more mining production
 282 2011-07-11 01:08:17 <lfm> the last zero ouput was July 2
 283 2011-07-11 01:08:18 Leo_II1 has joined
 284 2011-07-11 01:08:21 <BlueMatt> same result
 285 2011-07-11 01:08:52 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: oh you want production too...well why?
 286 2011-07-11 01:09:06 <BlueMatt> production is mostly pointless if you limit it to just a set of people anyway
 287 2011-07-11 01:09:21 <sacarlson> BlueMatt no the lack of continue production , just basicly time stamped transactions
 288 2011-07-11 01:09:26 Leo_II has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 289 2011-07-11 01:09:28 <BlueMatt> its designed to incentivize miners, but you dont need miners
 290 2011-07-11 01:09:47 <BlueMatt> in this system, there is no reason to allocate coins per block
 291 2011-07-11 01:09:57 <lfm> fees?
 292 2011-07-11 01:10:02 <BlueMatt> no reason
 293 2011-07-11 01:10:14 <BlueMatt> though you can split fees between central servers if you want
 294 2011-07-11 01:10:40 <BlueMatt> I mean really, you are just doing a bank with multiple parties signing off on the validity of the transactions
 295 2011-07-11 01:10:52 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: well the miners in this case are just distibuted time keepers.  yes fees could or would be collected by mining blocks as to pay for the infrastructure to keep it operating
 296 2011-07-11 01:10:54 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: no, you misunderstood what i was saying, basically he refuses to upgrade from .3.20 and keeps suggesting to his users to use it
 297 2011-07-11 01:11:02 <jrmithdobbs> last i heard, at least
 298 2011-07-11 01:11:15 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: tycho?
 299 2011-07-11 01:11:20 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 300 2011-07-11 01:11:27 <jrmithdobbs> because of the fee rule changes
 301 2011-07-11 01:11:28 <BlueMatt> wow that is stupid...why? the fee thing?
 302 2011-07-11 01:11:32 <BlueMatt> oh god...
 303 2011-07-11 01:11:33 <jrmithdobbs> yup.
 304 2011-07-11 01:11:36 <jrmithdobbs> yup.
 305 2011-07-11 01:11:38 <BlueMatt> another one of those people...
 306 2011-07-11 01:12:01 <lfm> someone could patch a newer version for him
 307 2011-07-11 01:12:01 <BlueMatt> we aught to just shut down the irc server and let them all die
 308 2011-07-11 01:12:17 <BlueMatt> lfm: I did it really cleanly with some more cool features a while ago...
 309 2011-07-11 01:12:22 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 310 2011-07-11 01:12:23 <BlueMatt> but its a terrible idea...
 311 2011-07-11 01:12:24 <sacarlson> (08:07:56 AM) BlueMatt: I mean really, you are just doing a bank with multiple parties signing off on the validity of the transactions,"  yes that's about it
 312 2011-07-11 01:12:31 <BlueMatt> and Ive seen that patch like 20 times...
 313 2011-07-11 01:12:47 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: so you in no way need miners at all, no pow is required
 314 2011-07-11 01:12:50 <BlueMatt> just crypto sigs
 315 2011-07-11 01:13:03 <BlueMatt> in fact, you dont even need blocks
 316 2011-07-11 01:13:27 <lfm> sacarlson: so basiclly you dont want all the overhead of bitcoin
 317 2011-07-11 01:13:38 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I guess not just time keepers and recorders and nodes of comunication
 318 2011-07-11 01:13:40 <jrmithdobbs> you basically don't need bitcoin
 319 2011-07-11 01:13:46 <jrmithdobbs> it's completely unrelated
 320 2011-07-11 01:14:14 <BlueMatt> yep, bitcoin is a solution to a specific problem, your problem is significantly different and the solution doesnt apply
 321 2011-07-11 01:14:43 <BlueMatt> anyway...
 322 2011-07-11 01:14:46 * BlueMatt -> bed
 323 2011-07-11 01:14:50 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I think you could be right, but it's fun to play with
 324 2011-07-11 01:15:14 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 325 2011-07-11 01:15:18 <gmaxwell> And as I said, nothign wrong with being not-bitcoin. Many things are, in fact, not bitcoin. :)
 326 2011-07-11 01:15:53 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 327 2011-07-11 01:16:06 <lfm> hehe
 328 2011-07-11 01:17:10 B0g4r7 has joined
 329 2011-07-11 01:17:38 awayman is now known as wtfman
 330 2011-07-11 01:18:01 wtfman is now known as awayman
 331 2011-07-11 01:19:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: re- shutting off IRC — when I restart my connects-to-many-IRC-channels-high-inbound-limit node after it's been up for 24 hours, it instantly gets about 500 to 1000 new connections (at night vs at peak). This suggests to me that nodes aren't successfully finding it absent the IRC join message.
 332 2011-07-11 01:20:12 <gmaxwell> Perhaps shutting off IRC actually wouldn't break things worse, since stable nodes don't tend to rejoin already, but I'm not sure about that.
 333 2011-07-11 01:20:28 <BitcoinForNewegg> is kris the owner of gbyte.dk active in IRC?
 334 2011-07-11 01:20:37 <B0g4r7> ;;bc,blocks
 335 2011-07-11 01:20:38 <gribble> 135684
 336 2011-07-11 01:20:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: well it was a joke...but actually it probably coundnt hurt
 337 2011-07-11 01:20:59 wolfspraul has joined
 338 2011-07-11 01:21:04 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: irc is designed as a bootstrap method, not active get more nodes method
 339 2011-07-11 01:21:16 <BlueMatt> but its actually quite bad as a bootstrap method
 340 2011-07-11 01:21:34 <gmaxwell> Right but if already bootstrapped nodes aren't finding me when they need more nodes, then we've got a problem.
 341 2011-07-11 01:21:49 <BlueMatt> well those are old nodes connected to old nodes
 342 2011-07-11 01:21:52 <gmaxwell> A problem IRC might be hiding somewhat since it does a little bit of "get more nodes" by accident.
 343 2011-07-11 01:21:58 <BlueMatt> so they get disconnected and need more connections
 344 2011-07-11 01:22:08 <BlueMatt> Id guess thats the problem
 345 2011-07-11 01:22:19 <BlueMatt> often disconnections and thus always need more nodes
 346 2011-07-11 01:22:34 <B0g4r7> Is there something afoot that would be causing me to get 0 connections?
 347 2011-07-11 01:22:39 <gmaxwell> Well, thats true, though .24 helps that a lot so it might go away.
 348 2011-07-11 01:22:46 <BlueMatt> B0g4r7: on .24?
 349 2011-07-11 01:22:56 <gmaxwell> B0g4r7: what version of the software? And how long?
 350 2011-07-11 01:22:56 <B0g4r7> older
 351 2011-07-11 01:22:58 sanchaz has joined
 352 2011-07-11 01:23:02 <BlueMatt> B0g4r7: upgrade
 353 2011-07-11 01:23:02 <B0g4r7> and beginning today.
 354 2011-07-11 01:23:04 <gmaxwell> How older? It matters.
 355 2011-07-11 01:23:23 <B0g4r7> 0.3.21 on the OS X system.
 356 2011-07-11 01:23:26 <gmaxwell> ha yea.
 357 2011-07-11 01:23:28 <BlueMatt> lol, upgrade
 358 2011-07-11 01:23:36 <gmaxwell> Well, that still has the connect timeout bug.
 359 2011-07-11 01:23:39 <B0g4r7> ...same on Win.
 360 2011-07-11 01:23:48 <BlueMatt> its been fixed mostly in 0.3.23 and further in 0.3.24
 361 2011-07-11 01:23:50 <lfm> ya get newer version
 362 2011-07-11 01:23:50 <B0g4r7> downloading...
 363 2011-07-11 01:24:03 <jrmithdobbs> B0g4r7: upgrade, there are fixes that have gone in to adress several things that'd cause that
 364 2011-07-11 01:24:18 <gmaxwell> Well the .24 fix mostly requires _other_ people to be running .24.  But the fixes in .23 are very helpful to you.
 365 2011-07-11 01:24:43 <B0g4r7> Looks like .23 is the latest I can get for OS X.
 366 2011-07-11 01:24:59 <B0g4r7> I'll get that and .24 on the win system.
 367 2011-07-11 01:25:36 kermit has joined
 368 2011-07-11 01:25:44 <gmaxwell> I kinda wish we hadn't removed sendtoip.
 369 2011-07-11 01:26:07 <gmaxwell> If we still had it we could implement a lottery using it: nodes which are healthy, listening, and running current code might win. :)
 370 2011-07-11 01:26:42 <doublec> heh, good idea
 371 2011-07-11 01:26:57 <gmaxwell> Then people would be more interested in staying current. :) If you're not you won't win the lottery.
 372 2011-07-11 01:27:48 <Wuked1> "a patch that issues keep alive packets on the Long Poll connections from pushpool." - anyone know where I can find this patch ?
 373 2011-07-11 01:27:55 <Wuked1> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7760.msg349089#msg349089
 374 2011-07-11 01:28:29 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 375 2011-07-11 01:28:34 <gmaxwell> doublec: I guess we could add a field to the version messages to allow a node to signal a tipjar address.
 376 2011-07-11 01:29:06 <gmaxwell> Not as much complexity as sendtoip.
 377 2011-07-11 01:29:16 <gmaxwell> (or as much of a privacy problem)
 378 2011-07-11 01:29:45 <gmaxwell> meh, I guess its mostly the same privacy problem.
 379 2011-07-11 01:30:57 spm_Draget has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 380 2011-07-11 01:31:38 <gmaxwell> I like this "run a healthy listening node, and you might win the lottery" idea... but how to do it without creating a privacy problem. Hmph.
 381 2011-07-11 01:32:11 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: just to close this before I go to bed, yes irc should be disabled and asap, but that cant happen until we have many more, diverse, and stable dnsseeds
 382 2011-07-11 01:32:25 <BlueMatt> so...it probably wont happen anytime soon
 383 2011-07-11 01:32:29 huk has joined
 384 2011-07-11 01:32:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: the only way to not make it a privacy issues requires always returning the same address, which keeps it from being a good health check
 385 2011-07-11 01:32:54 <gmaxwell> right. Well, and I think until we're confident that doing it won't expose other bugs. (e.g. I think addr.dat pruning needs to happen first)
 386 2011-07-11 01:33:07 <BlueMatt> well that would help too
 387 2011-07-11 01:33:17 <BlueMatt> in any case, goodnight
 388 2011-07-11 01:33:21 <gmaxwell> Night.
 389 2011-07-11 01:34:50 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: so the sendtoip functionality is, in general, a privacy problem because I can send 0.01 btc to every IP I see. Then I wait until it gets spent as part of another txn, and then I've deanonymized any spending address used with it, and any linked to that one.
 390 2011-07-11 01:35:29 <gmaxwell> And that problem exists equally if the address is fresh every time, or if its static.
 391 2011-07-11 01:36:23 cuqa has joined
 392 2011-07-11 01:36:26 <cuqa> hi
 393 2011-07-11 01:37:48 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ah, hadn't thought about that
 394 2011-07-11 01:37:49 <cuqa> i just compiled bitcoind on kubuntu and uploaded it to another computer. when I tried to run it there it said ./bitcoind: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found (required by ./bitcoind)
 395 2011-07-11 01:38:10 <cuqa> what did I do wrong
 396 2011-07-11 01:38:31 <jrmithdobbs> you compiled against a newer glibc than you have on the other machine
 397 2011-07-11 01:39:55 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 398 2011-07-11 01:40:11 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 399 2011-07-11 01:40:39 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I only thought about that because I wanted to whine about the removal of sendtoip. I liked the idea of sendtoip... ::shrugs:: it would be less bad if bitcoin's coin selection weren't so promiscious. E.g. if it could know "these inputs are linked to my IP, don't comingle with ones that aren't"... but that probably burdens users too much.
 400 2011-07-11 01:40:44 <cuqa> mh, so its probably easier to compile it on the other system
 401 2011-07-11 01:41:53 <forrestv> there needs to be a way to get a pubkey via the rpc interface
 402 2011-07-11 01:42:12 <forrestv> ip transactions were the one way to get a pubkey out of a bitcoind
 403 2011-07-11 01:43:24 garyDemilo has joined
 404 2011-07-11 01:44:46 <gmaxwell> forrestv: why would you care to have that?
 405 2011-07-11 01:44:52 Cusipzzz has joined
 406 2011-07-11 01:45:14 <forrestv> gmaxwell, pool daemons
 407 2011-07-11 01:45:47 <gmaxwell> You're not making a good case there. I sure as hell don't want to support any pool daemon that can't process transactions!
 408 2011-07-11 01:46:15 <forrestv> gmaxwell, um ... how does the pool daemon get a new pubkey to generate to ... ?
 409 2011-07-11 01:46:21 <forrestv> has nothing to do with processing
 410 2011-07-11 01:46:22 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 411 2011-07-11 01:46:24 <jrmithdobbs> forrestv: the showwallet import/export stuff will let you get the privkey which can be used to derive a pubkey
 412 2011-07-11 01:46:24 <gmaxwell> ....
 413 2011-07-11 01:46:30 <jrmithdobbs> forrestv: so, wait for .4
 414 2011-07-11 01:46:45 <gmaxwell> forrestv: The pool daemon asks bitcoin for work. If it's not asking bitcoin for work it can't process transactions.
 415 2011-07-11 01:47:03 <forrestv> gmaxwell, ah. not my pool daemon!
 416 2011-07-11 01:47:46 <gmaxwell> You ought to explain, because I currently think you're full of shit. :)
 417 2011-07-11 01:47:56 <forrestv> gmaxwell, ... http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0
 418 2011-07-11 01:48:37 <gmaxwell> Ah. hmph. I apologize.
 419 2011-07-11 01:48:57 <forrestv> you had replied to the thread.. hah
 420 2011-07-11 01:49:19 <gmaxwell> Yea, I totally wasn't thinking of that usecase.
 421 2011-07-11 01:50:19 <gmaxwell> Since the payout address is naturally and cheaply added at the same time the rest of the root is calculated there would be no reason to need it externally unless you aren't processing txns, or ... are doing your p2pool stuff. :) Sorry.
 422 2011-07-11 01:50:45 <gmaxwell> I'm getting a bit hair-trigger over people asking for help to do anti-social things. :)
 423 2011-07-11 01:52:03 <forrestv> oh, hahaha
 424 2011-07-11 01:53:57 <gmaxwell> forrestv: in any case, why are you paying to public keys? Pay to addresses.
 425 2011-07-11 01:54:16 <forrestv> gmaxwell, public key txs take less space to claim
 426 2011-07-11 01:54:19 <gmaxwell> Luke's coinbaser patch does this just file.
 427 2011-07-11 01:54:28 <gmaxwell> Yes, but you're going to have up to 600 in a block, right?
 428 2011-07-11 01:54:32 <forrestv> um
 429 2011-07-11 01:54:37 <forrestv> i'm changing things a bit.
 430 2011-07-11 01:54:50 <gmaxwell> At that point saving space in the block probably takes priority...
 431 2011-07-11 01:55:03 <forrestv> it's going to be in the chain sooner or later
 432 2011-07-11 01:55:04 HardDisk_WP has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 433 2011-07-11 01:55:06 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 434 2011-07-11 01:55:24 <forrestv> also, a lot of the payments will probably be shared - going to the same pubkey
 435 2011-07-11 01:55:44 <forrestv> it combines those intelligently :p
 436 2011-07-11 01:57:03 joepie91 has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 437 2011-07-11 01:57:37 joepie91 has joined
 438 2011-07-11 02:04:33 moa7 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 439 2011-07-11 02:07:00 sanchaz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 440 2011-07-11 02:07:34 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
 441 2011-07-11 02:08:10 HardDisk_WP has joined
 442 2011-07-11 02:08:11 HardDisk_WP has quit (Changing host)
 443 2011-07-11 02:08:11 HardDisk_WP has joined
 444 2011-07-11 02:08:52 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 445 2011-07-11 02:13:38 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 446 2011-07-11 02:13:52 [7] has joined
 447 2011-07-11 02:14:27 cuqa has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
 448 2011-07-11 02:18:13 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
 449 2011-07-11 02:18:24 ivan has joined
 450 2011-07-11 02:18:38 phaedrus487 has quit (Quit: phaedrus487)
 451 2011-07-11 02:19:42 Herodes has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 452 2011-07-11 02:24:11 Zarutian has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 453 2011-07-11 02:29:04 Zarutian has joined
 454 2011-07-11 02:33:39 Kiba has joined
 455 2011-07-11 02:33:42 kermit has joined
 456 2011-07-11 02:33:44 kermit has quit (Excess Flood)
 457 2011-07-11 02:36:16 <Kiba> yo
 458 2011-07-11 02:36:24 <lfm> hi
 459 2011-07-11 02:38:59 <Kiba> a new Bitcoin Weekly t-shirt is coming out
 460 2011-07-11 02:40:46 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 461 2011-07-11 02:43:08 x6763 has joined
 462 2011-07-11 02:43:57 kermit has joined
 463 2011-07-11 02:44:17 Clipse-b has joined
 464 2011-07-11 02:44:23 pyro_ has joined
 465 2011-07-11 02:46:42 pyro__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 466 2011-07-11 02:46:49 skeledrew has joined
 467 2011-07-11 02:47:29 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 468 2011-07-11 02:55:53 wardearia has joined
 469 2011-07-11 03:05:13 pixglen has joined
 470 2011-07-11 03:10:55 Tim-7967 has joined
 471 2011-07-11 03:10:55 Tim-7967 has quit (Changing host)
 472 2011-07-11 03:10:55 Tim-7967 has joined
 473 2011-07-11 03:13:48 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 474 2011-07-11 03:13:48 nus has joined
 475 2011-07-11 03:13:48 nus has quit (Changing host)
 476 2011-07-11 03:13:48 nus has joined
 477 2011-07-11 03:28:24 gjs278 has joined
 478 2011-07-11 03:41:30 Thracky has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 479 2011-07-11 03:48:11 somuchwin2 has joined
 480 2011-07-11 03:48:51 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 481 2011-07-11 03:52:41 Thracky has joined
 482 2011-07-11 03:55:55 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 483 2011-07-11 03:56:12 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 484 2011-07-11 04:02:11 glitch-mod has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 485 2011-07-11 04:04:51 Fairuser is now known as Fairuser|AFK
 486 2011-07-11 04:05:09 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 487 2011-07-11 04:06:48 blueadept has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 488 2011-07-11 04:07:51 egecko_ has joined
 489 2011-07-11 04:08:35 Teslah has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 490 2011-07-11 04:08:45 blueadept has joined
 491 2011-07-11 04:09:50 f33x has joined
 492 2011-07-11 04:10:26 egecko has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 493 2011-07-11 04:11:50 sacarlson has joined
 494 2011-07-11 04:16:08 <osmosis> anyone take ING P2P ?
 495 2011-07-11 04:19:32 magn3ts has joined
 496 2011-07-11 04:20:30 <jgarzik> osmosis: #bitcoin-otc / #bitcoin-pit
 497 2011-07-11 04:21:39 cuddlefish has joined
 498 2011-07-11 04:23:05 <osmosis> yah, sorry
 499 2011-07-11 04:23:31 AStove has joined
 500 2011-07-11 04:24:26 Tim-7967 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 501 2011-07-11 04:25:49 koleg has joined
 502 2011-07-11 04:26:10 atlas_ has joined
 503 2011-07-11 04:26:54 jaromil has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 504 2011-07-11 04:30:08 jaromil has joined
 505 2011-07-11 04:30:12 copumpkin is now known as Phillipa
 506 2011-07-11 04:30:19 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-106-201-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
 507 2011-07-11 04:30:42 Phillipa is now known as Guest28613
 508 2011-07-11 04:35:17 thefinn93_ has joined
 509 2011-07-11 04:35:39 Guest28613 is now known as copumpkin
 510 2011-07-11 04:36:56 infinitevs has joined
 511 2011-07-11 04:37:37 infinitevs has quit (Client Quit)
 512 2011-07-11 04:38:07 Tim-7967 has joined
 513 2011-07-11 04:38:20 infinitevs has joined
 514 2011-07-11 04:41:31 dvide has joined
 515 2011-07-11 04:41:41 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
 516 2011-07-11 04:41:48 markio has quit ()
 517 2011-07-11 04:44:12 atlas_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 518 2011-07-11 04:44:40 blueadept has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 519 2011-07-11 04:47:31 stuhood has joined
 520 2011-07-11 04:49:42 moa7 has joined
 521 2011-07-11 04:50:15 stuhood has left ()
 522 2011-07-11 04:55:44 atlas_ has joined
 523 2011-07-11 04:58:46 Clipse-b has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 524 2011-07-11 04:59:09 wasabi1 has joined
 525 2011-07-11 04:59:25 wasabi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 526 2011-07-11 05:02:13 nefario has joined
 527 2011-07-11 05:19:29 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 528 2011-07-11 05:22:25 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 529 2011-07-11 05:25:33 AStove has quit ()
 530 2011-07-11 05:42:12 f33x has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 531 2011-07-11 05:43:29 f33x has joined
 532 2011-07-11 05:45:21 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 533 2011-07-11 05:51:06 devon_hillard has joined
 534 2011-07-11 05:56:30 sgornick has joined
 535 2011-07-11 06:03:45 shawn-p has quit (Disconnected by services)
 536 2011-07-11 06:03:55 skEwb has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 537 2011-07-11 06:07:09 Blitzboom_ is now known as Blitzboom
 538 2011-07-11 06:07:27 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
 539 2011-07-11 06:07:27 Blitzboom has joined
 540 2011-07-11 06:12:37 atlas_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 541 2011-07-11 06:21:23 Gonzago has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 542 2011-07-11 06:28:31 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 543 2011-07-11 06:28:59 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 544 2011-07-11 06:39:19 again has joined
 545 2011-07-11 06:41:06 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 546 2011-07-11 06:42:00 f33x has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 547 2011-07-11 06:48:02 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 548 2011-07-11 06:48:15 rlifchitz has joined
 549 2011-07-11 06:48:15 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
 550 2011-07-11 06:48:15 rlifchitz has joined
 551 2011-07-11 06:59:07 hahuang65 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 552 2011-07-11 07:03:19 hahuang65 has joined
 553 2011-07-11 07:04:38 Beccara has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 554 2011-07-11 07:04:43 wirehead has joined
 555 2011-07-11 07:06:42 E-sense has joined
 556 2011-07-11 07:09:24 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 557 2011-07-11 07:21:48 pyro_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 558 2011-07-11 07:23:08 pyro_ has joined
 559 2011-07-11 07:24:20 reflect_ has joined
 560 2011-07-11 07:25:16 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 561 2011-07-11 07:25:42 Clipse has joined
 562 2011-07-11 07:26:02 Beremat has joined
 563 2011-07-11 07:32:07 redhatzero has joined
 564 2011-07-11 07:38:18 mekel_ has joined
 565 2011-07-11 07:38:36 <mekel_> anyone use diablo miner nowadays>
 566 2011-07-11 07:39:08 <Diablo-D3> uh, pretty much everybody
 567 2011-07-11 07:39:14 <mekel_> lol
 568 2011-07-11 07:39:45 <mekel_> i just updated to ur newer software.. i hadnt messed with it in so long. i went from 235 m/hashs to 310
 569 2011-07-11 07:40:13 <Diablo-D3> yeah, you should update frequently
 570 2011-07-11 07:40:22 <mekel_> clearly
 571 2011-07-11 07:40:35 <mekel_> altho im new to this rejected/accepted blocks
 572 2011-07-11 07:40:44 <mekel_> im assuming a rejected block isnt worth anything?
 573 2011-07-11 07:41:15 <Diablo-D3> the pool rejected it and it didnt count
 574 2011-07-11 07:41:31 <mekel_> damn so thats wasted gpu time..
 575 2011-07-11 07:41:38 <mekel_> im getting literally almost half rejected
 576 2011-07-11 07:42:45 <mekel_> would u consider that average?
 577 2011-07-11 07:42:56 <Diablo-D3> uh, no
 578 2011-07-11 07:42:59 <Diablo-D3> what pool are you on?
 579 2011-07-11 07:43:14 <mekel_> slushs
 580 2011-07-11 07:43:19 <mekel_> api2.mining.cz
 581 2011-07-11 07:43:22 <Diablo-D3> dont use slushes.
 582 2011-07-11 07:43:28 <mekel_> relly?
 583 2011-07-11 07:43:36 <mekel_> sad face
 584 2011-07-11 07:43:39 <mekel_> hes been my fav
 585 2011-07-11 07:43:50 <Diablo-D3> he wont fix his pool to deal with the fact diablominer is awesome
 586 2011-07-11 07:43:56 <mekel_> lmao
 587 2011-07-11 07:44:06 <redhatzero> ^^
 588 2011-07-11 07:44:15 <mekel_> do u  hav an unbiased opinion on what pool works best with ur miner
 589 2011-07-11 07:45:07 <Diablo-D3> eligius seems to suck the least
 590 2011-07-11 07:45:11 Glyph-sheep has left ()
 591 2011-07-11 07:45:27 <mekel_> ill check it out, thx chief
 592 2011-07-11 07:45:29 <phedny> Diablo-D3: hmm.. can you explain what's the cause of the mismatch between DM and Slushes?
 593 2011-07-11 07:45:34 Fireball has joined
 594 2011-07-11 07:45:34 Fireball has quit (Changing host)
 595 2011-07-11 07:45:34 Fireball has joined
 596 2011-07-11 07:45:48 <redhatzero> diablo, what's broken on slush?
 597 2011-07-11 07:46:22 <Diablo-D3> his pool has obsessive ntime checking
 598 2011-07-11 07:46:23 <slush> redhatzero: my pool reject shares with moved ntime
 599 2011-07-11 07:46:35 <Diablo-D3> but dont worry, Im going to soon "fix" it
 600 2011-07-11 07:46:47 <Diablo-D3> multiple pool support.
 601 2011-07-11 07:47:09 <mekel_> leet
 602 2011-07-11 07:47:30 <mekel_> that sux slush i hav to switch off ur pool though
 603 2011-07-11 07:47:39 <slush> ok
 604 2011-07-11 07:47:40 <mekel_> <3 ur pool
 605 2011-07-11 07:48:02 <slush> that change on diablo side is backward incompatible
 606 2011-07-11 07:48:14 <Diablo-D3> you know, adding multipool support was easier than I thought
 607 2011-07-11 07:48:29 <redhatzero> ah, i see thanks..
 608 2011-07-11 07:49:21 <mekel_> on eligius.. for "address" is it meaning my wallet id?
 609 2011-07-11 07:49:27 <Diablo-D3> yes
 610 2011-07-11 07:49:35 <mekel_> k
 611 2011-07-11 07:55:14 garyDemilo has quit ()
 612 2011-07-11 07:56:46 <mekel_> ok
 613 2011-07-11 07:56:50 <mekel_> up and mining on eligius
 614 2011-07-11 07:56:52 <mekel_> thanks
 615 2011-07-11 07:58:08 <reflect_> I'm mining 10 coins an hour
 616 2011-07-11 07:58:39 <mekel_> well
 617 2011-07-11 07:58:46 <mekel_> u should b realtively wealthy then
 618 2011-07-11 07:58:50 <mekel_> with current btc prices
 619 2011-07-11 07:58:57 <mekel_> relatively*
 620 2011-07-11 07:59:39 <mekel_> at current prices, mining 24/7
 621 2011-07-11 07:59:51 <mekel_> thats 1.26 million usd annually..
 622 2011-07-11 07:59:52 <slush> only 10 coins per hour? phew
 623 2011-07-11 07:59:55 MJD has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 624 2011-07-11 08:01:11 <reflect_> mekel_: correct
 625 2011-07-11 08:01:17 <mekel_> what cards are u running reflect
 626 2011-07-11 08:01:54 <mekel_> my little brother is hashing 270m/hashes with his cheapy 5830's
 627 2011-07-11 08:02:09 <mekel_> its sad cuz i have the 5950 and i am hashing 310
 628 2011-07-11 08:02:30 forrestv has quit (Quit: Coyote finally caught me)
 629 2011-07-11 08:02:31 <reflect_> 20 ps3s
 630 2011-07-11 08:02:39 <mekel_> what card is in a ps3
 631 2011-07-11 08:02:43 <mekel_> and that
 632 2011-07-11 08:02:49 <mekel_> is a brilliant idea..
 633 2011-07-11 08:02:49 <reflect_> and 4 mining rigs with 5870s
 634 2011-07-11 08:02:58 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 635 2011-07-11 08:03:06 <mekel_> how many hashes does a single ps3 pull in?
 636 2011-07-11 08:03:08 <reflect_> + 10 of my friends corssfire 5950 rigs
 637 2011-07-11 08:03:13 <reflect_> like 300
 638 2011-07-11 08:03:25 <mekel_> not bad
 639 2011-07-11 08:03:28 <mekel_> what miner do u run
 640 2011-07-11 08:03:39 slux has joined
 641 2011-07-11 08:03:41 <reflect_> python
 642 2011-07-11 08:03:43 <reflect_> pocdlbm
 643 2011-07-11 08:03:52 <reflect_> modified to run on ps3
 644 2011-07-11 08:04:02 <mekel_> i see
 645 2011-07-11 08:04:10 <reflect_> also my friend runs a cpu mining farm with about 200 old shit rigs
 646 2011-07-11 08:04:16 <reflect_> each doing 1mhash/sec
 647 2011-07-11 08:04:21 MetaV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 648 2011-07-11 08:04:25 <mekel_> is that effecient with electricity?
 649 2011-07-11 08:04:28 <reflect_> nope
 650 2011-07-11 08:04:29 MetaV has joined
 651 2011-07-11 08:04:38 <mekel_> lol
 652 2011-07-11 08:05:19 <molecular> mekel_, a ps3 does around 20-26 mhash/s according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison, so I call bs on reflect_ "mining 10 coins per hour" using "20 ps3s"
 653 2011-07-11 08:05:41 <reflect_> molecular: firstly, wrong, secondly, 20 ps3s, 4 4870 mining rigs and 10 5950 mining rigs
 654 2011-07-11 08:05:42 <redhatzero> molecular, but he's not only using the ps3
 655 2011-07-11 08:06:03 <molecular> reflect_, what's the total hashing speed you got there
 656 2011-07-11 08:06:06 <reflect_> molecular: a ps3 may do 26 mhash/s using something shit
 657 2011-07-11 08:06:20 <reflect_> it does like 200 using a good miner
 658 2011-07-11 08:06:43 <molecular> really? that's pretty awesome taken the power consumption
 659 2011-07-11 08:06:58 <mtrlt> 200MH/s on a ps3?
 660 2011-07-11 08:07:01 <reflect_> power consumption is huge for all my rigs
 661 2011-07-11 08:07:16 <molecular> how much power does a ps3 draw mining at 200mh/s
 662 2011-07-11 08:07:18 <reflect_> since i have about 35 in total + 200 shit cpu miners I pay easily $1000 a week in electricity
 663 2011-07-11 08:07:18 <mtrlt> i'd like to see some evidence :p
 664 2011-07-11 08:07:35 <mekel_> pic!
 665 2011-07-11 08:08:00 MJD has joined
 666 2011-07-11 08:08:01 <reflect_> and my friends set up of 25 crossfire 5870 rigs is quite beast
 667 2011-07-11 08:08:03 <reflect_> we share that too
 668 2011-07-11 08:08:12 <mekel_> where do u store all this
 669 2011-07-11 08:08:18 <reflect_> I have a warehouse
 670 2011-07-11 08:08:22 <reflect_> hooked up to lots of electricity
 671 2011-07-11 08:08:43 cuddlefish has quit (Quit: leaving)
 672 2011-07-11 08:09:18 <reflect_> total cost of all the rigs was about 100k
 673 2011-07-11 08:09:45 <molecular> reflect_, I don't believe a ps3 can do 200mhash/s
 674 2011-07-11 08:09:50 <molecular> can you point me to some evidence?
 675 2011-07-11 08:09:51 <mekel_> O_O
 676 2011-07-11 08:10:04 <mekel_> 100 grand for 25 ps3's and 4 pc's?
 677 2011-07-11 08:10:27 <reflect_> mekel_: 20 ps3s, about 50 pcs most of them crossfire 5870s incl my friends
 678 2011-07-11 08:10:30 <reflect_> and then 200 cpu miners
 679 2011-07-11 08:10:36 <sipa> why do you leave the cpus running, if you pay power yourself?
 680 2011-07-11 08:10:43 <reflect_> well
 681 2011-07-11 08:10:45 <reflect_> they do like
 682 2011-07-11 08:10:47 <reflect_> 1000mhashes
 683 2011-07-11 08:10:49 <reflect_> together
 684 2011-07-11 08:10:52 <reflect_> so it's useful
 685 2011-07-11 08:10:55 <sipa> so?
 686 2011-07-11 08:10:59 <mekel_> u should sell them
 687 2011-07-11 08:11:02 <mekel_> and reinvest in more gpus
 688 2011-07-11 08:11:06 <sipa> buying btc is cheaper
 689 2011-07-11 08:11:14 <reflect_> is it cheaper than 1.2 mil a year i make
 690 2011-07-11 08:11:14 <reflect_> bro
 691 2011-07-11 08:11:15 <sipa> than letting them run
 692 2011-07-11 08:11:26 <reflect_> no
 693 2011-07-11 08:11:27 <reflect_> they make
 694 2011-07-11 08:11:28 <reflect_> like
 695 2011-07-11 08:11:30 <reflect_> a little over
 696 2011-07-11 08:11:31 <reflect_> what they cost
 697 2011-07-11 08:11:34 <reflect_> in electricity
 698 2011-07-11 08:11:43 <sipa> right
 699 2011-07-11 08:11:53 <mekel_> how much r u charged for electricity
 700 2011-07-11 08:12:05 <reflect_> they make like $15k anually and cost about $13k
 701 2011-07-11 08:12:10 <reflect_> $52k annually
 702 2011-07-11 08:12:23 <sipa> the cpus alone?
 703 2011-07-11 08:12:28 <reflect_> no
 704 2011-07-11 08:12:29 <reflect_> all
 705 2011-07-11 08:12:31 <reflect_> combined
 706 2011-07-11 08:12:36 <sipa> sigh
 707 2011-07-11 08:12:51 <reflect_> i remember the days
 708 2011-07-11 08:12:53 <reflect_> early days
 709 2011-07-11 08:12:53 <reflect_> of btc
 710 2011-07-11 08:13:02 <mekel_> dude i remembr a couple months ago
 711 2011-07-11 08:13:04 <reflect_> when i was mining with a cpu browser miner getting 2-3 coins per day
 712 2011-07-11 08:13:06 <mekel_> when it was 90 cents a coin
 713 2011-07-11 08:13:23 <reflect_> ya
 714 2011-07-11 08:13:24 <reflect_> funny days
 715 2011-07-11 08:13:27 <mekel_> i wish
 716 2011-07-11 08:13:28 <reflect_> really took off
 717 2011-07-11 08:13:28 <reflect_> recently
 718 2011-07-11 08:13:29 <mekel_> i wish
 719 2011-07-11 08:13:32 <mekel_> i wish wish wish
 720 2011-07-11 08:13:34 * sipa bought his first btc at $0.29
 721 2011-07-11 08:13:38 <mekel_> i had bought lik 500 dollars worth of them
 722 2011-07-11 08:13:38 f33x has joined
 723 2011-07-11 08:13:43 * phedny @ $2.something
 724 2011-07-11 08:14:02 <mekel_> my cousin daniel had 750, and he sold all of them at 3.47
 725 2011-07-11 08:14:09 <reflect_> LOL
 726 2011-07-11 08:14:14 <reflect_> crazy kid
 727 2011-07-11 08:14:18 <mekel_> not a bad 3grand tho
 728 2011-07-11 08:14:21 <mekel_> for doing nothing
 729 2011-07-11 08:14:25 <reflect_> I had knew a guy who had like $5k of them in the beginning
 730 2011-07-11 08:14:34 <reflect_> sold them for $50c ea
 731 2011-07-11 08:14:35 <reflect_> $2.5 k
 732 2011-07-11 08:14:38 <moa7> not nothing ... opportunity cost
 733 2011-07-11 08:14:47 <reflect_> would be worth
 734 2011-07-11 08:14:49 <reflect_> like
 735 2011-07-11 08:14:49 <reflect_> 70k
 736 2011-07-11 08:14:49 <mekel_> obviously not nothingg
 737 2011-07-11 08:14:50 <reflect_> today
 738 2011-07-11 08:14:58 <mekel_> that was more of a figure of speach
 739 2011-07-11 08:15:02 <mekel_> speech
 740 2011-07-11 08:15:08 <moa7> could have bought at 30 and be stewing right now
 741 2011-07-11 08:15:23 <mekel_> yep
 742 2011-07-11 08:16:04 MetaV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 743 2011-07-11 08:18:59 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 744 2011-07-11 08:19:36 AnatolV has joined
 745 2011-07-11 08:22:03 prof7bit has quit (Quit: erection reset by beer)
 746 2011-07-11 08:22:42 <reflect_> a buddy of mine is cpu mining with like 20 old rigs
 747 2011-07-11 08:22:49 <reflect_> getting 22mhash/se
 748 2011-07-11 08:22:50 <reflect_> c
 749 2011-07-11 08:23:03 <reflect_> making like 0.1 btc a day
 750 2011-07-11 08:23:34 <reflect_> i just give him 50  btc every now and then
 751 2011-07-11 08:23:35 stuhood1 has joined
 752 2011-07-11 08:23:37 <reflect_> because i feel sorry for him
 753 2011-07-11 08:24:02 datagutt has joined
 754 2011-07-11 08:24:49 <nus> ;;bc,gen 373000000
 755 2011-07-11 08:24:50 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 373000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 1563027.9961162 , is 240.030240591 BTC per day and 10.0012600246 BTC per hour.
 756 2011-07-11 08:24:59 cuddlefish has joined
 757 2011-07-11 08:27:11 stuhood1 has left ()
 758 2011-07-11 08:28:21 <reflect_> that's me
 759 2011-07-11 08:28:27 <reflect_> 10 btc an hour or so
 760 2011-07-11 08:28:28 <reflect_> ;;bc, gen 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
 761 2011-07-11 08:28:29 <gribble> Error: "bc," is not a valid command.
 762 2011-07-11 08:28:44 <reflect_> ;;bc,gen 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
 763 2011-07-11 08:28:46 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 Khps, given current difficulty of 1563027.9961162 , is 643512709359090348976314576765830175066954470366399759242213109616210621882050636017510868058112 BTC per day and (1 more message)
 764 2011-07-11 08:28:59 <cuddlefish> who wants some free FTP backup space? It's from a trojan's wallet upload directory
 765 2011-07-11 08:29:04 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 766 2011-07-11 08:29:16 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 767 2011-07-11 08:29:18 <reflect_> cuddlefish: ill give you 200 btc for 100 gb upload space
 768 2011-07-11 08:29:36 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 769 2011-07-11 08:29:38 <cuddlefish> don't know how much is on there
 770 2011-07-11 08:29:44 <cuddlefish> probably just a crap webhosting account
 771 2011-07-11 08:29:46 <cuddlefish> FTP: 213.202.225.44. User: user110258. Password: wirklich
 772 2011-07-11 08:29:49 <cuddlefish> have at you
 773 2011-07-11 08:30:06 <reflect_> kk
 774 2011-07-11 08:30:17 <cuddlefish> and as a bonus feature, wallet.dats turn up there ocassionally
 775 2011-07-11 08:31:35 wardearia has joined
 776 2011-07-11 08:37:27 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 777 2011-07-11 08:41:58 nefario has left ()
 778 2011-07-11 08:42:23 Fireball has quit (Quit: ROS is the power.)
 779 2011-07-11 08:47:58 Akinava is now known as Akinava|away
 780 2011-07-11 08:50:20 Rabbit67890 has joined
 781 2011-07-11 08:53:57 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 782 2011-07-11 08:58:30 suriv has joined
 783 2011-07-11 09:01:07 EPiSKiNG- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 784 2011-07-11 09:01:30 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 785 2011-07-11 09:01:35 thefinn93_ has quit (Quit: BAI)
 786 2011-07-11 09:02:45 d4de has joined
 787 2011-07-11 09:02:45 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 788 2011-07-11 09:02:45 d4de has joined
 789 2011-07-11 09:03:01 mekel_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 790 2011-07-11 09:13:20 thefinn93 has quit (Quit: BAI)
 791 2011-07-11 09:14:12 <briareus> really
 792 2011-07-11 09:15:39 <briareus> why offer that?
 793 2011-07-11 09:16:53 <sipa> offer what?
 794 2011-07-11 09:17:11 noagendamarket has joined
 795 2011-07-11 09:17:20 noagenda_ has joined
 796 2011-07-11 09:17:27 noagenda_ has quit (Changing host)
 797 2011-07-11 09:17:27 noagenda_ has joined
 798 2011-07-11 09:17:40 <briareus> the login there
 799 2011-07-11 09:23:28 noagenda_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 800 2011-07-11 09:24:03 Beccara has joined
 801 2011-07-11 09:24:56 slush1 has joined
 802 2011-07-11 09:27:36 MetaV has joined
 803 2011-07-11 09:30:42 <Diablo-D3> does anyone have a url for the the x-roll-ntime spec?
 804 2011-07-11 09:33:35 [1]Rabbit67890 has joined
 805 2011-07-11 09:33:41 Raccoon` has joined
 806 2011-07-11 09:33:44 <Blitzboom> i think bitcoin is communism because the majority decides
 807 2011-07-11 09:33:57 <Diablo-D3> then FOSS is communism
 808 2011-07-11 09:34:03 Qatz has joined
 809 2011-07-11 09:34:09 skeledrew1 has joined
 810 2011-07-11 09:34:10 * Diablo-D3 goes back to reading the free software manifesto
 811 2011-07-11 09:35:18 yellowhat_ has joined
 812 2011-07-11 09:35:47 mologie_ has joined
 813 2011-07-11 09:36:03 <Blitzboom> it’s also fascism/populism because everyone just agreed with satoshi’s premises
 814 2011-07-11 09:36:06 somuchwin has joined
 815 2011-07-11 09:36:15 Akinava is now known as away!~lis@pff.eltel.net|Akinava
 816 2011-07-11 09:36:19 <Blitzboom> people who disagree are met with hostility
 817 2011-07-11 09:36:34 Gekz__ has joined
 818 2011-07-11 09:36:36 [1]Rabbit67890 has quit (Client Quit)
 819 2011-07-11 09:36:45 topace_ has joined
 820 2011-07-11 09:36:56 Clipse-b has joined
 821 2011-07-11 09:37:19 <molecular> I don't think in communism, the majority decides.
 822 2011-07-11 09:37:33 <molecular> it's "central planning"
 823 2011-07-11 09:38:03 sshc_ has joined
 824 2011-07-11 09:38:05 asm_ has joined
 825 2011-07-11 09:38:10 <Blitzboom> communism aimed for a classless and stateless society
 826 2011-07-11 09:38:10 nealmcb_ has joined
 827 2011-07-11 09:38:10 alexbobp_ has joined
 828 2011-07-11 09:38:14 Dagger3 has joined
 829 2011-07-11 09:38:23 <Blitzboom> p2p is communism because all clients are equal
 830 2011-07-11 09:38:33 malaimo_ has joined
 831 2011-07-11 09:38:33 _tuoppi has joined
 832 2011-07-11 09:38:35 <Blitzboom> all nodes
 833 2011-07-11 09:38:50 npouilla1d has joined
 834 2011-07-11 09:39:00 Sthebig_ has joined
 835 2011-07-11 09:39:06 erska_ has joined
 836 2011-07-11 09:39:44 madveru has joined
 837 2011-07-11 09:39:50 [1]Rabbit67890 has joined
 838 2011-07-11 09:40:09 <Blitzboom> mining pools are feudalism because the peasants are mining for their lords
 839 2011-07-11 09:40:13 Rabbit67890 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 840 2011-07-11 09:40:18 phantomcircuit_ has joined
 841 2011-07-11 09:40:28 [1]Rabbit67890 is now known as Rabbit67890
 842 2011-07-11 09:40:56 slush2 has joined
 843 2011-07-11 09:41:52 pixglen_ has joined
 844 2011-07-11 09:42:16 <upb> hahahhaa
 845 2011-07-11 09:42:47 pumpkin has joined
 846 2011-07-11 09:42:48 alexbobp has quit (Disconnected by services)
 847 2011-07-11 09:42:52 alexbobp_ is now known as alexbobp
 848 2011-07-11 09:43:02 BTCTrader has joined
 849 2011-07-11 09:43:15 pixglen_ is now known as pixglen
 850 2011-07-11 09:43:15 madveru is now known as manveru
 851 2011-07-11 09:43:15 Sthebig_ is now known as Sthebig
 852 2011-07-11 09:43:15 mologie_ is now known as mologie
 853 2011-07-11 09:43:20 Raccoon` is now known as Raccoon
 854 2011-07-11 09:43:20 Nicksasa_ is now known as Nicksasa
 855 2011-07-11 09:44:28 Ramokk has joined
 856 2011-07-11 09:47:16 gmaxwell has joined
 857 2011-07-11 09:49:10 18WAAVDOB has joined
 858 2011-07-11 09:49:31 soap has joined
 859 2011-07-11 09:49:41 Rabbit67890 is now known as [1]Rabbit67890
 860 2011-07-11 09:50:00 [1]Rabbit67890 is now known as Rabbit67890
 861 2011-07-11 09:50:02 Leo_II has joined
 862 2011-07-11 09:52:34 AlonzoTG has joined
 863 2011-07-11 09:52:46 wardearia has joined
 864 2011-07-11 09:52:54 spm_Draget has joined
 865 2011-07-11 09:52:55 phantomcircuit_ has quit (Quit: Clever quit message!)
 866 2011-07-11 09:53:02 ElectRo` has joined
 867 2011-07-11 09:53:39 cuddlefish has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 868 2011-07-11 09:56:03 Kobier has joined
 869 2011-07-11 09:56:17 again has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 870 2011-07-11 09:57:04 huk has quit ()
 871 2011-07-11 09:57:19 phantomcircuit has joined
 872 2011-07-11 09:57:33 phantomcircuit has quit (Client Quit)
 873 2011-07-11 09:58:33 phantomcircuit has joined
 874 2011-07-11 10:00:05 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 875 2011-07-11 10:01:19 again has joined
 876 2011-07-11 10:02:53 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 5:59:43 AM] DEBUG: mining.eligius.st: Enabling long poll support
 877 2011-07-11 10:02:53 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 5:59:43 AM] DEBUG: mining.eligius.st: Enabling roll ntime support
 878 2011-07-11 10:02:53 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 5:59:43 AM] DEBUG: pit.deepbit.net: Enabling long poll support
 879 2011-07-11 10:03:06 <Diablo-D3> there it actually detects if the pool sucks or not
 880 2011-07-11 10:03:45 <redhatzero> that's debug output from your miner?
 881 2011-07-11 10:04:00 again is now known as tower
 882 2011-07-11 10:04:10 zapnap has joined
 883 2011-07-11 10:04:50 <Namegduf> Diablo-D3: Messages do not include the word "sucks"
 884 2011-07-11 10:04:54 <Namegduf> Please add for clarity
 885 2011-07-11 10:05:37 <Rabbit67890> ^^
 886 2011-07-11 10:06:35 <Diablo-D3> I need to remember my slushpool login
 887 2011-07-11 10:07:13 BlueMatt has joined
 888 2011-07-11 10:11:44 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 889 2011-07-11 10:19:06 Nexus7 has joined
 890 2011-07-11 10:20:10 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 6:17:03 AM] DEBUG: Attempt 1 from Cypress (#1)
 891 2011-07-11 10:20:10 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 6:17:03 AM] mining.eligius.st accepted block 1 from Cypress (#1)
 892 2011-07-11 10:20:10 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 6:17:08 AM] DEBUG: Attempt 2 from Cypress (#1)
 893 2011-07-11 10:20:10 <Diablo-D3> [7/11/11 6:17:09 AM] pit.deepbit.net accepted block 2 from Cypress (#1)
 894 2011-07-11 10:20:11 <Diablo-D3> ehehehehe
 895 2011-07-11 10:20:12 <Diablo-D3> it works
 896 2011-07-11 10:28:25 <BlueMatt> multi-pool miner?
 897 2011-07-11 10:29:19 Beccara_ has joined
 898 2011-07-11 10:30:43 Beccara has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 899 2011-07-11 10:31:38 AnatolV_ has joined
 900 2011-07-11 10:31:47 AnatolV has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 901 2011-07-11 10:32:49 18WAAVDOB has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 902 2011-07-11 10:34:24 tildeleb has quit (Quit: tildeleb)
 903 2011-07-11 10:35:52 KBme has quit (Quit: KBme kthxbye)
 904 2011-07-11 10:36:51 KBme has joined
 905 2011-07-11 10:37:14 luke-jr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 906 2011-07-11 10:37:37 Wuked1 has left ()
 907 2011-07-11 10:38:01 cdecker has joined
 908 2011-07-11 10:38:01 luke-jr has joined
 909 2011-07-11 10:38:10 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 910 2011-07-11 10:39:10 luke-jr has joined
 911 2011-07-11 10:42:55 <lfm> mtgox getting ddos again?
 912 2011-07-11 10:43:12 awayman is now known as wtfman
 913 2011-07-11 10:44:11 Nicksasa_ has joined
 914 2011-07-11 10:46:17 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 915 2011-07-11 10:46:54 E-sense has joined
 916 2011-07-11 10:48:13 <f33x> w
 917 2011-07-11 10:48:36 AAA_awright_ has joined
 918 2011-07-11 10:48:43 Beccara_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 919 2011-07-11 10:48:52 Beccara has joined
 920 2011-07-11 10:49:04 coderrr has joined
 921 2011-07-11 10:52:28 AAA_awright has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 922 2011-07-11 11:01:20 moa7 has left ()
 923 2011-07-11 11:03:56 zapnap_ has joined
 924 2011-07-11 11:06:57 zapnap has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 925 2011-07-11 11:08:56 Beccara has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 926 2011-07-11 11:14:20 <kreal-> so
 927 2011-07-11 11:14:28 torsthaldo has joined
 928 2011-07-11 11:14:50 <kreal-> Do you think it would give anything to run bitcoind, pushpoold and so on in a ram drive enviroment?
 929 2011-07-11 11:16:33 <lfm> give ?
 930 2011-07-11 11:16:40 <kreal-> performance wise.
 931 2011-07-11 11:16:55 <kreal-> just playing.
 932 2011-07-11 11:17:12 <lfm> not much, maybe a little
 933 2011-07-11 11:17:30 <kreal-> it has 8gb ram to play with.
 934 2011-07-11 11:17:35 <kreal-> 500mb for the ram drive.
 935 2011-07-11 11:17:47 <BlueMatt> bitcoin maybe
 936 2011-07-11 11:17:56 <BlueMatt> probably not much though
 937 2011-07-11 11:18:00 <kreal-> nah
 938 2011-07-11 11:18:05 <kreal-> but its very ram hungry.
 939 2011-07-11 11:18:10 <BlueMatt> it helps a lot when first downloading the chain
 940 2011-07-11 11:18:14 <BlueMatt> but after that...
 941 2011-07-11 11:18:17 <lfm> make sure you have wallet backups, maybe the whole datadir backup in case of powr fails
 942 2011-07-11 11:18:41 <kreal-> I rsync the folder.
 943 2011-07-11 11:18:52 <BlueMatt> no, use backupwallet rpc command
 944 2011-07-11 11:18:59 <kreal-> hmm
 945 2011-07-11 11:19:07 <BlueMatt> rsync might copy the db in an inconsistent state
 946 2011-07-11 11:19:10 <lfm> or only rsync when bitcoin(d) is not running
 947 2011-07-11 11:19:15 <BlueMatt> all the files but the wallet dont matter
 948 2011-07-11 11:19:21 <kreal-> yes.
 949 2011-07-11 11:21:09 <BlueMatt> lol, you know xkcd just invented a new erotic fan fiction with today's comic...
 950 2011-07-11 11:24:35 <kreal-> anyhow just an idea.
 951 2011-07-11 11:25:09 <BlueMatt> I do it all the time when testneting to get the chain quicker, but for a node with real coins...probably not good
 952 2011-07-11 11:25:21 <kreal-> probably not.
 953 2011-07-11 11:30:28 <minus> <cuddlefish> [10:26:13] who wants some free FTP backup space? It's from a trojan's wallet upload directory ← does anyone actually fall for these?
 954 2011-07-11 11:30:44 <BlueMatt> minus: yes
 955 2011-07-11 11:31:12 <Xunie> minus, yes, else they wouldn't exist.
 956 2011-07-11 11:31:16 <sacarlson> I plan to follow and have added a copy to my release of Multicoin for this new address version spec http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20110707111557.GA5231%40ulyssis.org&forum_name=bitcoin-development
 957 2011-07-11 11:31:20 <minus> well as long as there's people having fun with trojan FTPs it's fine i guess
 958 2011-07-11 11:31:24 slux has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 959 2011-07-11 11:32:49 <sacarlson> if I understand the spec as far as I need for alternate blocks would be to make sure that my address are over equal or grater than 16 and not 111, is this correct?
 960 2011-07-11 11:34:01 <sacarlson> a no responce will be considered a yes
 961 2011-07-11 11:34:09 <MrSam> :P
 962 2011-07-11 11:38:31 <sipa> sacarlson: according to my proposal, you're free to choose anything that has bit 16 set
 963 2011-07-11 11:38:49 <sacarlson> sipa: cool will do
 964 2011-07-11 11:38:59 <sipa> so there are 128 numbers to choose from
 965 2011-07-11 11:39:03 <sacarlson> sipa: sound like a good idea to me
 966 2011-07-11 11:39:17 <sacarlson> sipa: plus the extended
 967 2011-07-11 11:39:56 <sipa> ?
 968 2011-07-11 11:40:32 <sacarlson> sipa: ** 224 = extended data class, another "data class" byte follows
 969 2011-07-11 11:40:36 veerboot has joined
 970 2011-07-11 11:41:04 <sipa> sacarlson: yes, if you're talking about data that is useful in the main bitcoin chain, but is not an address or key
 971 2011-07-11 11:41:10 <sacarlson> so if the code for 224 then another byte is added to provide 64k
 972 2011-07-11 11:41:38 <sipa> less, actually, since the first is always 224
 973 2011-07-11 11:42:25 <sacarlson> sipa: well then I will random pick one of the alternate address as an extended code to provide for expansion
 974 2011-07-11 11:42:39 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r63d5dbb / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Multiple pool support, use commas - http://bit.ly/reapOO https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/63d5dbb9732c6253cde2ae962aa2ae456f4ce02f
 975 2011-07-11 11:42:52 <sipa> sure, you can define extensions within the private range as well
 976 2011-07-11 11:44:04 <sacarlson> sipa: oh you defin private if bit 5 is set?
 977 2011-07-11 11:44:16 <sacarlson> sipa: as you call it 16
 978 2011-07-11 11:44:27 freewil has joined
 979 2011-07-11 11:45:03 <sacarlson> opps brain fart  ** 128 = private key
 980 2011-07-11 11:45:23 shLONG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 981 2011-07-11 11:46:02 <sacarlson> so binary 10000000
 982 2011-07-11 11:46:03 <sipa> valid "private" version numbers would be: 16-31, 48-63, 144-159, 176-191, ...
 983 2011-07-11 11:46:20 <sipa> (nVersion & 0x10) should be nonzero
 984 2011-07-11 11:47:18 <sacarlson> ok so my present selected 243 is a 11110011 that falls into the private class
 985 2011-07-11 11:47:37 slux has joined
 986 2011-07-11 11:47:48 liltoe has quit (Quit: wee wee wee)
 987 2011-07-11 11:47:55 <sipa> indeed
 988 2011-07-11 11:48:56 <sacarlson> sipa: I guess that I'm safe to play there then for now and figure out an extended spec at some later time
 989 2011-07-11 11:49:09 zapnap_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 990 2011-07-11 11:49:21 <sipa> sure
 991 2011-07-11 11:49:36 zapnap has joined
 992 2011-07-11 11:49:43 <sacarlson> sipa: ok thank you sir
 993 2011-07-11 11:50:04 <sipa> don't call me that
 994 2011-07-11 11:50:07 <sipa> :)
 995 2011-07-11 11:50:24 <sacarlson> sipa: oh grate one
 996 2011-07-11 11:50:46 <sacarlson> sipa: just kiding
 997 2011-07-11 11:50:49 <sipa> ok, that's fine, as long as it's not spelled 'great'
 998 2011-07-11 11:51:25 <sacarlson> sipa: no I'm not a great speller I'm a grate grate speller
 999 2011-07-11 11:52:52 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1000 2011-07-11 11:54:10 o_0oo has joined
1001 2011-07-11 11:56:58 Speeder has joined
1002 2011-07-11 12:00:47 <sacarlson> sipa: oh I think I have a better understanding of ** 224 = extended data class so with this we are still only define at most 510 address
1003 2011-07-11 12:01:44 <sipa> depends, but the 'extended' thing is not really well specified now
1004 2011-07-11 12:01:57 <sacarlson> sipa: ok
1005 2011-07-11 12:02:13 <sipa> you could say that when both data class is 224, and version is 14, you get 2 extra bytes
1006 2011-07-11 12:02:53 <sacarlson> sipa: ya extended extended
1007 2011-07-11 12:04:01 Clipse-b has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1008 2011-07-11 12:04:30 slush has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1009 2011-07-11 12:06:09 <sacarlson> sipa: and to make it almost  infinite 224 and version is 15 your next is byte could be number of extra bytes to add
1010 2011-07-11 12:06:40 <sipa> haha, possibly
1011 2011-07-11 12:07:14 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1012 2011-07-11 12:07:19 <sacarlson> ok I'll stick that in my docs page of multicoin to make sure people don't think there will be a finite number
1013 2011-07-11 12:07:25 <lfm> http://xkcd.com/743/
1014 2011-07-11 12:10:56 BlueMattBot has joined
1015 2011-07-11 12:14:53 <upb> lol multicoin
1016 2011-07-11 12:15:58 pyro_ has quit (Disconnected by services)
1017 2011-07-11 12:16:37 pyro__ has joined
1018 2011-07-11 12:17:09 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1019 2011-07-11 12:18:06 <sacarlson> upb: ya I got my multicoin-qt working now too with qt gui base
1020 2011-07-11 12:19:21 <manveru> multicoin?
1021 2011-07-11 12:19:39 eternal1 has joined
1022 2011-07-11 12:19:41 eternal1 has quit (Client Quit)
1023 2011-07-11 12:22:09 <sacarlson> manveru: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.0 https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin-qt
1024 2011-07-11 12:22:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1025 2011-07-11 12:23:34 Gekz__ is now known as Gekz
1026 2011-07-11 12:23:45 Gekz has quit (Changing host)
1027 2011-07-11 12:23:45 Gekz has joined
1028 2011-07-11 12:23:50 da2ce7 has joined
1029 2011-07-11 12:23:51 da2ce7 has quit (Excess Flood)
1030 2011-07-11 12:24:14 da2ce7 has joined
1031 2011-07-11 12:24:19 erus` has joined
1032 2011-07-11 12:31:30 mmoya has joined
1033 2011-07-11 12:33:28 wtfman is now known as awayman
1034 2011-07-11 12:34:47 Nexus7 has quit ()
1035 2011-07-11 12:37:23 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1036 2011-07-11 12:38:13 awayman is now known as wtfman
1037 2011-07-11 12:38:29 anatoly_l has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1038 2011-07-11 12:40:20 K0lky has joined
1039 2011-07-11 12:40:42 Kolky has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1040 2011-07-11 12:40:44 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1041 2011-07-11 12:41:17 da2ce7 has joined
1042 2011-07-11 12:43:17 slush has joined
1043 2011-07-11 12:45:53 <phungus> does bitcoin using proxy take into account possible latencies? I think I've noticed that since I enabled the proxy config, my hashing stops for around 20-30 seconds with Connection problems.
1044 2011-07-11 12:46:00 <phungus> maybe no way to pre-fetch the next work
1045 2011-07-11 12:46:16 <phungus> I only noticed because my GPU fan got quieter all of a sudden. :-)
1046 2011-07-11 12:46:44 <phungus> price to pay for TOR anonymity?
1047 2011-07-11 12:49:51 <sipa> you're talking about bitcoin or about miners?
1048 2011-07-11 12:51:47 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1049 2011-07-11 12:52:11 <cdecker> Why would you mine through TOR?
1050 2011-07-11 12:52:12 agricocb has joined
1051 2011-07-11 12:52:26 <lfm> tor adds latency so ya it might pause when getting work
1052 2011-07-11 12:52:47 Kiba has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1053 2011-07-11 12:53:58 ar4s has joined
1054 2011-07-11 12:54:25 <lfm> phungus: cdecker has a point tho, I dont see why youd use tor for that
1055 2011-07-11 12:54:52 <Eliel_> phungus: if you really insist on using a proxy like that, running 2 or more miners at the same time might reduce the problem. Hopefully enough.
1056 2011-07-11 12:54:54 <phungus> no, not mining
1057 2011-07-11 12:54:57 <phungus> hmm
1058 2011-07-11 12:55:05 <phungus> you know, I just confused the two
1059 2011-07-11 12:55:14 <phungus> guiminer/bitcoin client, sorry
1060 2011-07-11 12:55:32 <phungus> was weird, both btcguild and deepbit connections went down for 30seconds but everything else was fine
1061 2011-07-11 12:56:06 <phungus> I changed my actual client to use TOR but I don't mine with it. it's early for me. :-)
1062 2011-07-11 12:57:14 <lfm> ok, ya pool servers might have problems for any number of reasons
1063 2011-07-11 12:58:01 <phungus> yeah, I just don't know why they both went down at the same time
1064 2011-07-11 12:58:35 <phungus> my ssh connections were all working, internet fine, web surfing was fine. :-)
1065 2011-07-11 12:58:44 <lfm> maybe both are being ddosed by the same bad guy
1066 2011-07-11 12:58:51 <phungus> yik if so
1067 2011-07-11 12:58:58 cdecker has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1068 2011-07-11 12:59:14 <phungus> they came back up within 30 sec to a minute
1069 2011-07-11 12:59:23 <lfm> only a test run?
1070 2011-07-11 12:59:32 TD has joined
1071 2011-07-11 12:59:33 <phungus> I don't know, been mining this way fine for weeks
1072 2011-07-11 12:59:56 <phungus> was just really strange to hear my fans go quiet all of a sudden. :-)
1073 2011-07-11 13:00:04 <lfm> worry if it happens again
1074 2011-07-11 13:00:08 <phungus> yup
1075 2011-07-11 13:00:11 <phungus> thx
1076 2011-07-11 13:04:09 TheAncientGoat has joined
1077 2011-07-11 13:04:36 torsthaldo_ has joined
1078 2011-07-11 13:06:17 atlas_ has joined
1079 2011-07-11 13:06:21 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1080 2011-07-11 13:06:33 atlas_ has quit (Client Quit)
1081 2011-07-11 13:06:47 b4epoche has joined
1082 2011-07-11 13:07:27 b4epoche_ has joined
1083 2011-07-11 13:08:20 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1084 2011-07-11 13:10:13 again has joined
1085 2011-07-11 13:10:28 <phungus> shit, there it went again
1086 2011-07-11 13:10:32 <phungus> just now
1087 2011-07-11 13:10:45 <phungus> Connection problems to both deepbit and btc
1088 2011-07-11 13:11:12 <kinlo> there are other pools :)
1089 2011-07-11 13:11:19 <phungus> yeah I know
1090 2011-07-11 13:11:32 <phungus> but this is strange that two of the biggest would go down at the exact same time
1091 2011-07-11 13:11:49 <kinlo> did you test the others too then?
1092 2011-07-11 13:12:08 <phungus> no, not yet
1093 2011-07-11 13:12:23 <phungus> hmm, btc web page is up but they say occassional problems with equipment
1094 2011-07-11 13:12:30 <phungus> deepbit.net is timing out over the web though
1095 2011-07-11 13:12:36 [7] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1096 2011-07-11 13:12:41 <phungus> maybe they are both being DDOS'd
1097 2011-07-11 13:12:45 <phungus> that sux
1098 2011-07-11 13:12:54 <phungus> yah time to find a new pool. :-)
1099 2011-07-11 13:13:28 ^1bitc0inplz has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1100 2011-07-11 13:14:33 glassresistor has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1101 2011-07-11 13:15:12 atlas_ has joined
1102 2011-07-11 13:15:14 <phungus> and now Deepbit is coming back up
1103 2011-07-11 13:15:47 <reflect_> I make 10 btc an hour
1104 2011-07-11 13:15:54 atlas_ is now known as DanDruff
1105 2011-07-11 13:15:57 DanDruff has quit (Client Quit)
1106 2011-07-11 13:16:01 f33x has quit (Quit: f33x)
1107 2011-07-11 13:16:09 <reflect_> guys
1108 2011-07-11 13:16:17 DanDruff has joined
1109 2011-07-11 13:16:52 TheSeven has joined
1110 2011-07-11 13:18:33 <sacarlson> does John Tobey hang out here or anyone ever use bitcoin-abe?
1111 2011-07-11 13:19:07 ^1bitc0inplz has joined
1112 2011-07-11 13:19:27 minimoose has joined
1113 2011-07-11 13:22:52 zapnap has joined
1114 2011-07-11 13:24:25 kermit has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1115 2011-07-11 13:25:07 kermit has joined
1116 2011-07-11 13:26:02 dobalina has joined
1117 2011-07-11 13:26:58 superman2013 has joined
1118 2011-07-11 13:27:05 <pakiaries> hi
1119 2011-07-11 13:27:17 superman2013 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1120 2011-07-11 13:30:06 zapnap has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1121 2011-07-11 13:31:16 zapnap has joined
1122 2011-07-11 13:31:45 <sipa> BlueMatt: showwallet is rebased against newenc+cbitcoinaddress now
1123 2011-07-11 13:32:37 ^1bitc0inplz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1124 2011-07-11 13:32:57 ^1bitc0inplz has joined
1125 2011-07-11 13:33:45 <sipa> no check for encryption though, and haven't tested it
1126 2011-07-11 13:33:56 superman2016 has joined
1127 2011-07-11 13:34:00 <sipa> i suppose it will just fail to include "sec" fields in a dump, if the wallet is locked
1128 2011-07-11 13:34:52 <pakiaries> Hi
1129 2011-07-11 13:35:05 DanDruff has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1130 2011-07-11 13:35:05 DanDruff_ has joined
1131 2011-07-11 13:35:45 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rbc698ab / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Yeah, its not like you've written stupid code before too - http://bit.ly/puUE2K https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/bc698abfa186705538f34b49ecdbdf363390fb6c
1132 2011-07-11 13:38:41 <pakiaries> repaired
1133 2011-07-11 13:39:53 <phantomcircuit> i just realized something
1134 2011-07-11 13:40:46 <phantomcircuit> on mtgox you can place a buy with 5 places after the decimal
1135 2011-07-11 13:40:55 <phantomcircuit> and your account balance is stored with 5 places after the decimal
1136 2011-07-11 13:41:09 <phantomcircuit> so there is necessarily rounding occurring in the order fulfillment
1137 2011-07-11 13:41:10 <Diablo-D3> it is now, yes
1138 2011-07-11 13:41:18 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: yup
1139 2011-07-11 13:41:23 <phantomcircuit> that's retarded
1140 2011-07-11 13:41:24 <Diablo-D3> but it always rounds in a way that makes tux money
1141 2011-07-11 13:41:34 <sipa> phantomcircuit: how would you do it?
1142 2011-07-11 13:41:40 <Diablo-D3> sipa: are you retarded?
1143 2011-07-11 13:41:40 <sipa> store everything using exact fractions?
1144 2011-07-11 13:41:50 <Diablo-D3> BTC is an integer currency.
1145 2011-07-11 13:41:52 <Diablo-D3> no floats.
1146 2011-07-11 13:42:06 <infinitevs> lol
1147 2011-07-11 13:42:07 <sipa> there are divisions going on when you do a trade
1148 2011-07-11 13:42:21 <phantomcircuit> sipa, store balances with twice the prevision allowed in orders
1149 2011-07-11 13:42:44 <phantomcircuit> it makes a small amount of your balance un-tradeable, but never rounds
1150 2011-07-11 13:43:08 somuchwin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1151 2011-07-11 13:43:25 <sipa> you can do that for either BTC or USD, but not both
1152 2011-07-11 13:43:31 glassresistor has joined
1153 2011-07-11 13:43:39 <BlueMatt> sipa: very nice, now we just need a bit more ack on newenc and can get started on the pull-mania
1154 2011-07-11 13:43:40 <infinitevs> what
1155 2011-07-11 13:43:49 <sipa> phantomcircuit: wait, i'm not sure
1156 2011-07-11 13:44:28 <phantomcircuit> sipa, you can do that for either of them
1157 2011-07-11 13:44:30 <sipa> BlueMatt: just look at the commit list of pull req 220 (now closed)
1158 2011-07-11 13:44:53 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rd1022aa / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Fix up the X-Switch-To code - http://bit.ly/qMuNow https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/d1022aad1c69ec1aad059737bce6b99a52181a6b
1159 2011-07-11 13:45:03 <phantomcircuit> sipa, lets say i store balances with 8 places after the decimal and only allow trades with 4
1160 2011-07-11 13:45:14 <phantomcircuit> i would never have to round anything ever
1161 2011-07-11 13:46:13 <sipa> you need another 4 decimals for mtgox's *0.9935
1162 2011-07-11 13:46:30 <sipa> but i guess you're right
1163 2011-07-11 13:47:04 <phantomcircuit> yeah the problem is that the precision of the balance has to be the precision of the orders ^2
1164 2011-07-11 13:47:31 Stellar has joined
1165 2011-07-11 13:47:53 <sipa> it needs to be precision of the amount + precision of the exchange rate + 4 :)
1166 2011-07-11 13:48:05 <sipa> (precision being a number of digits)
1167 2011-07-11 13:48:39 <BlueMatt> sipa: nice
1168 2011-07-11 13:48:43 pumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1169 2011-07-11 13:49:06 <phantomcircuit> sipa, +4?
1170 2011-07-11 13:49:09 copumpkin has joined
1171 2011-07-11 13:49:12 <phantomcircuit> sipa, why +4
1172 2011-07-11 13:49:13 DanDruff_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1173 2011-07-11 13:50:03 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1174 2011-07-11 13:50:05 <sipa> phantomcircuit: for the fee
1175 2011-07-11 13:50:11 <phantomcircuit> oh
1176 2011-07-11 13:50:19 <phantomcircuit> hadn't thought of that at all
1177 2011-07-11 13:50:44 TD has joined
1178 2011-07-11 13:52:04 <sipa> BlueMatt: i'm still not sure how to deal with encrypted wallets, though
1179 2011-07-11 13:52:20 <sipa> i like to keep the dump format free from implementation-specific things
1180 2011-07-11 13:52:41 <phantomcircuit> for($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
1181 2011-07-11 13:52:42 <phantomcircuit> crap
1182 2011-07-11 13:52:47 <phantomcircuit> that's a big off by 1 error
1183 2011-07-11 13:53:22 <BlueMatt> sipa: well either unlock the wallet, or new implementation to dump them in encrypted forms...
1184 2011-07-11 13:53:28 <BlueMatt> personally, I prefer encrypted dumps
1185 2011-07-11 13:53:47 <sipa> i see the use for encrypted dumps
1186 2011-07-11 13:54:13 <BlueMatt> people can just as easily write the password on the paper...
1187 2011-07-11 13:54:20 <sipa> but i don't like including a very implementation-specific thing
1188 2011-07-11 13:54:33 <sipa> and the encryption is very specific
1189 2011-07-11 13:54:46 <BlueMatt> ...true
1190 2011-07-11 13:55:07 <BlueMatt> well its not hard to include the derivation method parameters in the dump of the master key
1191 2011-07-11 13:55:27 <sipa> for now: meh
1192 2011-07-11 13:55:37 <dsockwell> how will encrypted wallets affect headless installations?
1193 2011-07-11 13:55:56 <sipa> dsockwell: there are rpc calls for unlocking
1194 2011-07-11 13:56:12 <dsockwell> ok
1195 2011-07-11 13:56:29 <BlueMatt> my idea of a dump is effectively just what bitcointools outputs in a much better format...
1196 2011-07-11 13:56:41 <sipa> indeed
1197 2011-07-11 13:56:52 <dsockwell> any progress on the i/o monstrosity?
1198 2011-07-11 13:56:56 <sipa> ?
1199 2011-07-11 13:57:27 <dsockwell> am i interrupting?  sorry.
1200 2011-07-11 13:57:36 <sipa> no, please ask
1201 2011-07-11 13:57:44 <BlueMatt> well theres an addr.dat fix which should help a ton
1202 2011-07-11 13:57:57 <dsockwell> ok, i've noticed that big wallets produce lots of sync writes
1203 2011-07-11 13:58:11 <dsockwell> not sure if i'm still using the newest version
1204 2011-07-11 13:58:20 <BlueMatt> 0.3.24?
1205 2011-07-11 13:58:30 <sipa> that fix isn't merged yet
1206 2011-07-11 13:58:34 <dsockwell> but i measured a wallet with 7k addresses doing 200k i/o operations when pulling transactions via rpc
1207 2011-07-11 13:58:35 <BlueMatt> dont think theres much in terms of fixes yet
1208 2011-07-11 13:58:40 DanDruff has joined
1209 2011-07-11 13:58:53 <dsockwell> with enough sync writes to hang my server
1210 2011-07-11 13:59:10 DanDruff has left ()
1211 2011-07-11 13:59:20 <dsockwell> so my solution has been to throw it in a ramdisk and wait for a fix
1212 2011-07-11 14:00:33 mmoya has joined
1213 2011-07-11 14:00:59 <dsockwell> and that can be made to work out fine, even for production, but still
1214 2011-07-11 14:01:35 <sipa> also, the fix is for the ip addresses db, right?
1215 2011-07-11 14:01:39 <sipa> not for wallets
1216 2011-07-11 14:01:43 <BlueMatt> yea, more are needed
1217 2011-07-11 14:01:52 <BlueMatt> though wallet shouldnt be doing much
1218 2011-07-11 14:02:50 TheZimm has joined
1219 2011-07-11 14:06:14 WombatFarmer has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1220 2011-07-11 14:08:02 <dsockwell> i didn't measure exactly what files the i/o was targeting, so i can't say it was wallet itself, I only presumed so because of the large transaction number
1221 2011-07-11 14:08:48 <BlueMatt> probably addr and blocks
1222 2011-07-11 14:10:58 superman2016 has quit (Quit: Quiting)
1223 2011-07-11 14:11:11 pakiaries has left ()
1224 2011-07-11 14:11:44 <lfm> dsockwell: get a ssd
1225 2011-07-11 14:11:46 superman2016 has joined
1226 2011-07-11 14:11:58 <dsockwell> lfm: wasnt' helpful the last time you said that
1227 2011-07-11 14:12:11 <dsockwell> either
1228 2011-07-11 14:12:25 <lfm> oh you tried it?
1229 2011-07-11 14:12:36 <BlueMatt> lfm: get an ssd isnt a reasonable answer
1230 2011-07-11 14:12:40 <BlueMatt> or requirement to run the client
1231 2011-07-11 14:12:43 <dsockwell> no i didnt', i'm not going to shell out for hardware just because of inefficient software
1232 2011-07-11 14:12:59 <dsockwell> besides, i mention I already crammed it in a tmpfs
1233 2011-07-11 14:13:07 <dsockwell> which works fine
1234 2011-07-11 14:15:25 <lfm> wasnt trying to say it was a requirement, just that it would speed things up.
1235 2011-07-11 14:16:00 <BlueMatt> which is an unreasonable answer to any tech support question
1236 2011-07-11 14:16:04 <dsockwell> that's the definition of throwing hardware at a software problem, though, isn't it?
1237 2011-07-11 14:16:46 <lfm> Sorry, it is unreasonable to make a suggestion which would speed things up when the complaint seems to be that they are slow?
1238 2011-07-11 14:16:53 WildSoil has joined
1239 2011-07-11 14:16:59 <WildSoil> tfm is down ?
1240 2011-07-11 14:17:15 <dsockwell> anyway i should reiterate that it isn't a crisis for me and I was just curious.
1241 2011-07-11 14:19:05 <lfm> and I am also sorry that I forgot I already made the suggestion, my memory aint what it used to be
1242 2011-07-11 14:20:06 <TD> dsockwell: i think that will be the addr.dat file
1243 2011-07-11 14:20:12 <TD> you could try merging the fix and see if it helps
1244 2011-07-11 14:21:29 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1245 2011-07-11 14:25:35 <lfm> how long a period was the 200k i/o ops?
1246 2011-07-11 14:26:24 <dsockwell> it was 200k i/o
1247 2011-07-11 14:26:32 <dsockwell> so on my disks about 200 seconds
1248 2011-07-11 14:26:46 <dsockwell> every time i asked for transactions
1249 2011-07-11 14:26:55 NickelBot has joined
1250 2011-07-11 14:27:07 <devon_hillard> ok, is anyone actually making a profit from GPU mining? :)
1251 2011-07-11 14:27:15 <WildSoil> yes me
1252 2011-07-11 14:27:20 <WildSoil> 1 dollar in month
1253 2011-07-11 14:27:25 <devon_hillard> what does electricity cost you?
1254 2011-07-11 14:27:33 <WildSoil> dunno
1255 2011-07-11 14:27:46 <WakiMiko> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86wrsiR79M i lold
1256 2011-07-11 14:27:56 <devon_hillard> it doesn't count if you use 'free' electricity
1257 2011-07-11 14:27:59 <lfm> devon_hillard: I dont think I am since the price dropped
1258 2011-07-11 14:28:02 <WakiMiko> also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUH0JpLWKuI
1259 2011-07-11 14:28:08 <TD> dsockwell: ok that sounds bogus
1260 2011-07-11 14:28:16 Gonzago has joined
1261 2011-07-11 14:28:17 <TD> dsockwell: how big is the wallet?
1262 2011-07-11 14:28:20 superman2016 has quit ()
1263 2011-07-11 14:28:32 <dsockwell> it was about 7k-10k addresses
1264 2011-07-11 14:28:47 <TD> with many transactions associated with each ?
1265 2011-07-11 14:28:52 <dsockwell> no, just one
1266 2011-07-11 14:28:56 <dsockwell> or two
1267 2011-07-11 14:29:32 <dsockwell> also it was testnet if that means anything
1268 2011-07-11 14:30:04 <devon_hillard> ;bc,calc 65000
1269 2011-07-11 14:30:06 <lfm> ok ya testnet should have a lot less activity on addr.dat
1270 2011-07-11 14:30:34 superman2016 has joined
1271 2011-07-11 14:30:36 <superman2016> hi
1272 2011-07-11 14:30:42 <lfm> hi
1273 2011-07-11 14:30:43 superman2016 has left ()
1274 2011-07-11 14:31:10 superman2016 has joined
1275 2011-07-11 14:35:40 <lfm> dsockwell: so wallet.dat is about 10mb?
1276 2011-07-11 14:37:36 istat has joined
1277 2011-07-11 14:38:35 anatoly_l has joined
1278 2011-07-11 14:47:27 <Graet> devon_hillard i am and electricity cost me 10caud /Kw/h off peak and 21c onpeak
1279 2011-07-11 14:50:32 cacheson has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1280 2011-07-11 14:50:56 <lfm> graet what gpu are you using?
1281 2011-07-11 14:51:13 <Graet> 11 x 6950 and a 6870
1282 2011-07-11 14:51:45 Akinava is now known as Akinava|away
1283 2011-07-11 14:55:54 cacheson has joined
1284 2011-07-11 14:56:45 superman2016 has quit ()
1285 2011-07-11 14:57:09 superman2013 has joined
1286 2011-07-11 14:58:08 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
1287 2011-07-11 14:58:11 superman2013 has quit (Client Quit)
1288 2011-07-11 14:58:46 yankee has joined
1289 2011-07-11 14:59:14 again is now known as tower
1290 2011-07-11 15:00:32 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1291 2011-07-11 15:00:49 WildSoil has quit ()
1292 2011-07-11 15:02:14 Breign has joined
1293 2011-07-11 15:02:35 WakiMiko_ has joined
1294 2011-07-11 15:03:19 ar4s has quit (Quit: ar4s)
1295 2011-07-11 15:03:23 Teslah has joined
1296 2011-07-11 15:05:23 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1297 2011-07-11 15:05:28 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1298 2011-07-11 15:05:37 superman2013 has joined
1299 2011-07-11 15:05:51 superman2013 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1300 2011-07-11 15:06:17 AnatolV_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1301 2011-07-11 15:06:54 yankee has quit ()
1302 2011-07-11 15:07:22 superman2016 has joined
1303 2011-07-11 15:13:19 brunner has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1304 2011-07-11 15:14:03 brunner has joined
1305 2011-07-11 15:16:28 datagutt has joined
1306 2011-07-11 15:23:21 superman2016 has quit ()
1307 2011-07-11 15:23:41 superman2013 has joined
1308 2011-07-11 15:23:50 superman2016 has joined
1309 2011-07-11 15:24:26 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1310 2011-07-11 15:24:45 <luke-jr> jgarzik: cpuminer should probably disable scantime or change its default when LP is supported IMO
1311 2011-07-11 15:24:48 superman2016 has quit (Client Quit)
1312 2011-07-11 15:25:13 anatoly_l has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1313 2011-07-11 15:25:29 superman2013 has quit (Client Quit)
1314 2011-07-11 15:25:57 pakiaries has joined
1315 2011-07-11 15:26:30 superman2013 has joined
1316 2011-07-11 15:26:36 <pakiaries> hello
1317 2011-07-11 15:26:44 superman2013 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1318 2011-07-11 15:27:21 BlueHelix has joined
1319 2011-07-11 15:27:34 <BlueHelix> what can I do to get updated from sourceforge when there is a new release ? is there any RSS ?
1320 2011-07-11 15:27:52 topace has joined
1321 2011-07-11 15:28:39 MartianW has joined
1322 2011-07-11 15:28:49 JackStorm has joined
1323 2011-07-11 15:33:08 MartianW has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1324 2011-07-11 15:35:39 BlueHelix has left ()
1325 2011-07-11 15:38:49 superman2013 has joined
1326 2011-07-11 15:38:49 superman2013 has quit (Excess Flood)
1327 2011-07-11 15:39:14 o_0oo has quit ()
1328 2011-07-11 15:39:37 unclemantis has joined
1329 2011-07-11 15:40:06 superman2012 has joined
1330 2011-07-11 15:40:11 <pakiaries> hi
1331 2011-07-11 15:40:38 vigilyn has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1332 2011-07-11 15:40:52 topace has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1333 2011-07-11 15:41:49 topace has joined
1334 2011-07-11 15:42:10 vigilyn has joined
1335 2011-07-11 15:42:46 luke-jr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1336 2011-07-11 15:42:58 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1337 2011-07-11 15:47:09 superman2012 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1338 2011-07-11 15:47:47 luke-jr has joined
1339 2011-07-11 15:48:30 flok has joined
1340 2011-07-11 15:50:26 p0s has joined
1341 2011-07-11 15:50:41 superman2012 has joined
1342 2011-07-11 15:50:47 <pakiaries> hello
1343 2011-07-11 15:51:03 <pakiaries> hi
1344 2011-07-11 15:52:45 Qatz is now known as DaQatz
1345 2011-07-11 15:53:18 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1346 2011-07-11 15:54:41 <pakiaries> .
1347 2011-07-11 15:57:05 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-106-201-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
1348 2011-07-11 15:58:45 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1349 2011-07-11 16:01:55 Titeuf_87 has joined
1350 2011-07-11 16:07:08 WombatFarmer has joined
1351 2011-07-11 16:10:00 superman2012 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1352 2011-07-11 16:16:30 Ramen has joined
1353 2011-07-11 16:16:38 <Ramen> ;;bc,stats
1354 2011-07-11 16:16:41 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135786 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1301 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 19 minutes, and 42 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1613890.01506010
1355 2011-07-11 16:20:22 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1356 2011-07-11 16:22:09 klikklak_ has joined
1357 2011-07-11 16:23:04 traviscj_ has joined
1358 2011-07-11 16:23:14 <klikklak_> any fpga people around? is there any existing code communicating over jtag? ie. there is pyfpgaminer, but that uses serial. I'd like to see if it can be made for jtag
1359 2011-07-11 16:26:20 traviscj has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1360 2011-07-11 16:28:10 traviscj_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1361 2011-07-11 16:29:54 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1362 2011-07-11 16:30:35 gmaxwell has quit (Changing host)
1363 2011-07-11 16:30:35 gmaxwell has joined
1364 2011-07-11 16:36:51 Sacrotes has joined
1365 2011-07-11 16:37:27 <Sacrotes> Any of you guys got a work around for db-5.2?
1366 2011-07-11 16:37:49 superman2016 has joined
1367 2011-07-11 16:38:17 superman2016 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1368 2011-07-11 16:38:43 erus` has joined
1369 2011-07-11 16:39:00 infinitevs is now known as infinitev
1370 2011-07-11 16:40:19 superman2015 has joined
1371 2011-07-11 16:40:22 <pakiaries> hello
1372 2011-07-11 16:40:22 <superman2015> hello
1373 2011-07-11 16:40:33 <Sacrotes> Er.. Hey
1374 2011-07-11 16:40:33 <superman2015> hello
1375 2011-07-11 16:40:40 superman2015 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1376 2011-07-11 16:40:46 <infinitev> lol
1377 2011-07-11 16:41:20 upb has quit (Changing host)
1378 2011-07-11 16:41:20 upb has joined
1379 2011-07-11 16:41:26 <luke-jr> I hate this 100-depth minimum to spend coinbase outputs -.-
1380 2011-07-11 16:41:27 clarkbox has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1381 2011-07-11 16:42:09 pakiaries has quit ()
1382 2011-07-11 16:42:34 superman2016 has joined
1383 2011-07-11 16:43:31 ThomasV has joined
1384 2011-07-11 16:43:58 superman2016 has quit (Client Quit)
1385 2011-07-11 16:44:17 pakimon has joined
1386 2011-07-11 16:44:32 superman2016 has joined
1387 2011-07-11 16:44:32 <superman2016> /msg nickserv identify superman2016 Bunder99
1388 2011-07-11 16:44:49 superman2016 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1389 2011-07-11 16:44:52 pakimon has left ()
1390 2011-07-11 16:46:29 glassresistor has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1391 2011-07-11 16:46:40 AStove has joined
1392 2011-07-11 16:47:06 koleg has joined
1393 2011-07-11 16:48:23 maikmerten has joined
1394 2011-07-11 16:48:57 <Sacrotes> And now we have you pass..
1395 2011-07-11 16:49:09 dedeibel has joined
1396 2011-07-11 16:49:21 <copumpkin> a good one, too
1397 2011-07-11 16:49:29 slux has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1398 2011-07-11 16:49:36 <BlueMatt> hes not here btw
1399 2011-07-11 16:49:36 <Sacrotes> Seems the official bitcoin client is linked to db-5.1 He has an account on roblox..
1400 2011-07-11 16:49:41 <Sacrotes> Damn :(
1401 2011-07-11 16:50:07 <Sacrotes> Myspace..
1402 2011-07-11 16:50:15 <Sacrotes> http://www.myspace.com/superman2016
1403 2011-07-11 16:50:20 <copumpkin> I know
1404 2011-07-11 16:50:24 <Sacrotes> I wonder if that's him.
1405 2011-07-11 16:50:33 <copumpkin> try logging in and see, duh
1406 2011-07-11 16:50:45 <Sacrotes> It takes an email..
1407 2011-07-11 16:51:29 Teslah has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1408 2011-07-11 16:51:29 traviscj has joined
1409 2011-07-11 16:52:56 rethaw has joined
1410 2011-07-11 16:53:06 pakimon has joined
1411 2011-07-11 16:53:26 superman2016 has joined
1412 2011-07-11 16:53:26 * superman2016 /msg nickserv identify superman2016 Pulse_78
1413 2011-07-11 16:53:48 <Daviey> nice.
1414 2011-07-11 16:53:50 pakimon has quit (Client Quit)
1415 2011-07-11 16:54:15 superman2016 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1416 2011-07-11 16:55:53 scott` has joined
1417 2011-07-11 16:56:03 <Sacrotes> .. Superman. I can see you
1418 2011-07-11 16:56:09 <Sacrotes> He's gone again
1419 2011-07-11 16:56:10 <Sacrotes> Right
1420 2011-07-11 16:56:19 scott` is now known as Guest65312
1421 2011-07-11 16:56:43 glassresistor has joined
1422 2011-07-11 16:56:43 glassresistor has quit (Changing host)
1423 2011-07-11 16:56:43 glassresistor has joined
1424 2011-07-11 16:56:59 marvin_ has joined
1425 2011-07-11 16:57:08 <marvin_> ;;bc,stats
1426 2011-07-11 16:57:12 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135786 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1301 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 19 minutes, and 42 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1613890.01506010
1427 2011-07-11 16:57:38 marvin_ has quit (Client Quit)
1428 2011-07-11 16:58:15 Clipse has joined
1429 2011-07-11 17:01:02 brunner has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1430 2011-07-11 17:01:21 <upb> is the guy who makes http://mtgoxlive.com/orders?volumeon here ?
1431 2011-07-11 17:01:30 <upb> i wonder wwhy the depth is lagging
1432 2011-07-11 17:01:42 <upb> showing 1k @ 14.25 atm
1433 2011-07-11 17:02:31 <upb> comboy: are you using the cached depth stuff ? i believe they fixed depth websocket
1434 2011-07-11 17:04:01 huk has joined
1435 2011-07-11 17:04:22 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1436 2011-07-11 17:05:49 brunner has joined
1437 2011-07-11 17:06:53 Teslah has joined
1438 2011-07-11 17:06:54 TheAncientGoat has joined
1439 2011-07-11 17:06:57 freakazoid has joined
1440 2011-07-11 17:07:11 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1441 2011-07-11 17:07:13 Joric has joined
1442 2011-07-11 17:08:23 blueadept has joined
1443 2011-07-11 17:08:40 <jgarzik> luke-jr: cpuminer already does that
1444 2011-07-11 17:09:04 <luke-jr> jgarzik: oh, I couldn't find it in the code…
1445 2011-07-11 17:10:33 <luke-jr> jgarzik: would you accept patches to support X-Roll-Ntime and noncerange?
1446 2011-07-11 17:10:43 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1447 2011-07-11 17:11:08 Blitzboom has joined
1448 2011-07-11 17:11:08 Blitzboom has quit (Changing host)
1449 2011-07-11 17:11:08 Blitzboom has joined
1450 2011-07-11 17:11:10 tildeleb has joined
1451 2011-07-11 17:11:35 <nanotube> luke-jr: what's the incremenal cost in bytes of expanding the coinbase transaction from X to X+1 outputs?
1452 2011-07-11 17:12:32 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes
1453 2011-07-11 17:13:01 <luke-jr> nanotube: less than using a separate sendmany
1454 2011-07-11 17:13:16 <lfm> nanotube: I think its about 50-60 bytes
1455 2011-07-11 17:13:57 <knotwork> Does any code actually *check* how many coins miners are giving themselves in the coinbase transactions?
1456 2011-07-11 17:14:13 <lfm> knotwork: yes
1457 2011-07-11 17:14:14 <nanotube> luke-jr: lfm: thanks
1458 2011-07-11 17:14:23 clarkbox has joined
1459 2011-07-11 17:14:31 <nanotube> knotwork: if it didn't, we'd have a few bitcoin billionaires already :D
1460 2011-07-11 17:14:55 <knotwork> Interesting because Unthinkingbit's try at making groupcoin-qt was creating errors instead of valid coinbase transactions
1461 2011-07-11 17:15:17 <knotwork> yet was able to just keep mining them endlessly without ever realising no one was getting any coins
1462 2011-07-11 17:15:37 <knotwork> I guess he must have hacked out whatever was meant to be checking the number of coins
1463 2011-07-11 17:16:09 <knotwork> or, bitcoin-qt itself already had hacked that out before he forked it to start trying to make groupcoin-qt from it
1464 2011-07-11 17:16:38 <lfm> knotwork: could be the code doesnt check block it made itself since it trusts itself to make good blocks. The other nodes definatly check tho and would reject bad ones
1465 2011-07-11 17:17:23 <knotwork> I had to run at least two instances to make it mine at all. they obviously didnt check each others blocks
1466 2011-07-11 17:17:32 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1467 2011-07-11 17:17:38 <knotwork> not for error in coinbase transaction anyway
1468 2011-07-11 17:17:41 TheAncientGoat has joined
1469 2011-07-11 17:17:57 <knotwork> unless in fact the code for checking made identical error so was actually checking the error was there
1470 2011-07-11 17:18:45 <lfm> knotwork: Really? Ya, run one node with standard code
1471 2011-07-11 17:18:49 <luke-jr> knotwork: it only fails if they give themselves TOO MANY
1472 2011-07-11 17:19:02 <luke-jr> knotwork: it allows you to make a block with too few
1473 2011-07-11 17:19:18 RenaKunisaki has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1474 2011-07-11 17:19:23 <knotwork> aha well cannot stop people throwing away coins I guess so if they want to give themselves none thats fine
1475 2011-07-11 17:20:15 RenaKunisaki has joined
1476 2011-07-11 17:20:47 osmosis has joined
1477 2011-07-11 17:20:54 <luke-jr> midnightmagic was silly and generated 4999999999
1478 2011-07-11 17:20:58 <luke-jr> on mainnet
1479 2011-07-11 17:21:06 RenaKunisaki has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1480 2011-07-11 17:21:32 SecretSJ has joined
1481 2011-07-11 17:21:33 RenaKunisaki has joined
1482 2011-07-11 17:22:33 erus`_ has joined
1483 2011-07-11 17:23:51 TheAncientGoat has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1484 2011-07-11 17:24:38 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1485 2011-07-11 17:24:39 erus`_ is now known as erus`
1486 2011-07-11 17:27:40 slux has joined
1487 2011-07-11 17:28:44 redhatzero has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1488 2011-07-11 17:28:49 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1489 2011-07-11 17:30:26 anatoly_l has joined
1490 2011-07-11 17:35:12 p0s- has joined
1491 2011-07-11 17:36:00 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1492 2011-07-11 17:38:05 koleg has joined
1493 2011-07-11 17:39:35 kluge has quit (Quit: ....)
1494 2011-07-11 17:40:42 p0s-- has joined
1495 2011-07-11 17:40:57 koleg has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1496 2011-07-11 17:41:08 p0s- has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1497 2011-07-11 17:42:09 sshc_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1498 2011-07-11 17:42:25 E-sense has joined
1499 2011-07-11 17:44:01 spm_Draget has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1500 2011-07-11 17:44:26 spm_Draget has joined
1501 2011-07-11 17:45:22 superman2016 has joined
1502 2011-07-11 17:46:35 tildeleb has quit (Quit: tildeleb)
1503 2011-07-11 17:48:32 nus- has joined
1504 2011-07-11 17:48:39 nus has quit (Disconnected by services)
1505 2011-07-11 17:48:45 nus- is now known as nus
1506 2011-07-11 17:49:56 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1507 2011-07-11 17:50:00 conjre has joined
1508 2011-07-11 17:51:46 pusle has joined
1509 2011-07-11 17:51:49 spm_Draget has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1510 2011-07-11 17:52:10 spm_Draget has joined
1511 2011-07-11 17:52:17 * diki was insta raped
1512 2011-07-11 17:53:59 reflect_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1513 2011-07-11 17:56:26 reflect_ has joined
1514 2011-07-11 17:56:44 reflect_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1515 2011-07-11 17:58:30 superman2016 has quit ()
1516 2011-07-11 17:58:51 pakimon has joined
1517 2011-07-11 18:02:29 forrestv has joined
1518 2011-07-11 18:04:54 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1519 2011-07-11 18:06:10 maikmerten has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1520 2011-07-11 18:06:56 superman2016 has joined
1521 2011-07-11 18:08:04 wtfman has left ()
1522 2011-07-11 18:08:15 superman2016 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1523 2011-07-11 18:08:25 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1524 2011-07-11 18:09:00 Joric has joined
1525 2011-07-11 18:09:00 Joric has quit (Changing host)
1526 2011-07-11 18:09:00 Joric has joined
1527 2011-07-11 18:11:32 magn3ts has joined
1528 2011-07-11 18:12:11 karnac has joined
1529 2011-07-11 18:12:39 denisx has joined
1530 2011-07-11 18:13:24 bittwist has joined
1531 2011-07-11 18:15:20 Joric has quit ()
1532 2011-07-11 18:15:20 brunner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1533 2011-07-11 18:16:22 brunner has joined
1534 2011-07-11 18:17:26 p0s-- is now known as p0s
1535 2011-07-11 18:18:17 jostmey has joined
1536 2011-07-11 18:19:43 istat has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1537 2011-07-11 18:20:46 wirehead has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1538 2011-07-11 18:21:01 shLONG has joined
1539 2011-07-11 18:21:27 shLONG has quit (Client Quit)
1540 2011-07-11 18:21:55 shLONG has joined
1541 2011-07-11 18:22:10 enquirer has joined
1542 2011-07-11 18:29:44 wirehead has joined
1543 2011-07-11 18:31:29 ThomasV has joined
1544 2011-07-11 18:32:00 DontMindMe has joined
1545 2011-07-11 18:34:18 koleg has joined
1546 2011-07-11 18:34:18 koleg has quit (work!~kvirc@89.151.191.66|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1547 2011-07-11 18:35:24 kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1548 2011-07-11 18:38:15 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1549 2011-07-11 18:41:58 again has joined
1550 2011-07-11 18:44:28 again is now known as tower
1551 2011-07-11 18:49:48 Guest65312 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1552 2011-07-11 18:51:48 kreal- has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1553 2011-07-11 18:53:31 superman2016 has joined
1554 2011-07-11 18:53:35 TD_ has joined
1555 2011-07-11 18:53:36 <pakimon> hello
1556 2011-07-11 18:55:35 osmosis has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1557 2011-07-11 18:57:27 Evious has joined
1558 2011-07-11 18:57:31 <kinlo> if someone would do a transaction, they send the public key of their bitcoin key together with the signature, prooving that they have the private key in the transaction, to proove that they are authorized to to this transaction.  If someone else would then do a second transaction with a different public key (which hashes to the same bitcoin address), what will the btc-client do upon a new public key?
1559 2011-07-11 18:57:58 TheZimm has joined
1560 2011-07-11 18:57:59 <pakimon> hello
1561 2011-07-11 18:58:13 TK_ has joined
1562 2011-07-11 18:58:14 mosimo has joined
1563 2011-07-11 18:58:36 TK_ has left ()
1564 2011-07-11 18:58:38 vorlov has joined
1565 2011-07-11 18:59:12 kreal- has joined
1566 2011-07-11 19:00:58 <luke-jr> kinlo: that's a collision, which Bitcoin assumes is impossible
1567 2011-07-11 19:01:21 <luke-jr> kinlo: if you start getting collisions, the block chain implodes :P
1568 2011-07-11 19:01:47 <gmaxwell> kinlo: It would just work with the current code, I believe. They'd both just be taken to be valid.
1569 2011-07-11 19:02:24 <gmaxwell> It doesn't 'remember' the public key in any meaningful way— it's either in the input, or it's in the transaction spending the input.
1570 2011-07-11 19:02:47 <BlueMatt> well unless they are both solving the same txout
1571 2011-07-11 19:04:47 koleg has quit (2!kvirc@79.133.152.32|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1572 2011-07-11 19:05:25 <gmaxwell> Well sure, but the first one would just win there. No? I think it would just be the same as a normal double spend.
1573 2011-07-11 19:06:06 <BlueMatt> yep
1574 2011-07-11 19:06:26 RBecker has joined
1575 2011-07-11 19:06:33 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1576 2011-07-11 19:06:33 talso has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1577 2011-07-11 19:06:44 kreal- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1578 2011-07-11 19:06:47 theorb has joined
1579 2011-07-11 19:06:48 <kinlo> ofcourse it is just an hypotethical question, as collisions are normally never going to happen
1580 2011-07-11 19:07:35 <BlueMatt> well in this particular case, it doesnt really matter
1581 2011-07-11 19:07:56 talso has joined
1582 2011-07-11 19:07:59 <kinlo> sure, if you have this kind of bad luck, then you just have bad luck :)
1583 2011-07-11 19:07:59 <gmaxwell> Right, nothing breaks except perhaps the wealth of the person the collision allows you to rob.
1584 2011-07-11 19:08:08 kreal- has joined
1585 2011-07-11 19:08:23 theorbtwo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1586 2011-07-11 19:08:37 <gmaxwell> And if someone comes up with some way of producing pairs of colliding keys at will, (but not colliding anyone else) then I think nothing breaks.
1587 2011-07-11 19:08:38 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
1588 2011-07-11 19:08:54 conjre has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1589 2011-07-11 19:09:40 anatoly_l has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1590 2011-07-11 19:12:07 <kreal-> whats the testnet block size ?
1591 2011-07-11 19:12:22 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1592 2011-07-11 19:12:32 <kinlo> block size?  it's like the regular network: depends on the transactions
1593 2011-07-11 19:12:46 <kinlo> you mean difficulty?
1594 2011-07-11 19:12:51 RBecker has quit (Laptop!~Ryan@unaffiliated/rbecker|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1595 2011-07-11 19:12:54 <kreal-> so 135798  ?
1596 2011-07-11 19:12:56 Fairuser is now known as AFK!~Fairuser@static-50-53-33-113.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net|Fairuser
1597 2011-07-11 19:13:02 <kinlo> ?
1598 2011-07-11 19:13:10 <kreal-> block count*
1599 2011-07-11 19:13:14 <kinlo> ah block count
1600 2011-07-11 19:13:16 Ryan has joined
1601 2011-07-11 19:13:20 <kinlo> lemme look that up for you
1602 2011-07-11 19:13:27 <kreal-> where would you do that?
1603 2011-07-11 19:13:40 Fairuser is now known as goldy1
1604 2011-07-11 19:14:07 <kinlo> about 30K
1605 2011-07-11 19:14:25 liltoe has joined
1606 2011-07-11 19:14:26 dedeibel has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1607 2011-07-11 19:14:28 <kinlo> my test client hasn't downloaded latest blocks so I can't give acurate number
1608 2011-07-11 19:14:33 goldy1 is now known as Fairuser
1609 2011-07-11 19:14:38 <kreal-> do 52696 sound about right?
1610 2011-07-11 19:14:45 <kinlo> nah
1611 2011-07-11 19:14:49 <kinlo> too much
1612 2011-07-11 19:15:01 <kinlo>     "blocks" : 30491,
1613 2011-07-11 19:15:01 <kinlo>     "connections" : 8,
1614 2011-07-11 19:15:03 <kreal-> 30491
1615 2011-07-11 19:15:06 <kreal-> youre right$
1616 2011-07-11 19:15:07 <kreal-> thanks.
1617 2011-07-11 19:15:11 jwalck has joined
1618 2011-07-11 19:15:14 jwalck is now known as jaywalk
1619 2011-07-11 19:15:51 <kinlo> but nobody mines at testnet so the number doesn't increase that much
1620 2011-07-11 19:16:06 <kreal-> ok
1621 2011-07-11 19:16:44 manifold_ has joined
1622 2011-07-11 19:19:10 <kreal-> im building something wonderfull :)
1623 2011-07-11 19:20:11 <kinlo> what? :)
1624 2011-07-11 19:20:20 <kreal-> a secret for now sorry.
1625 2011-07-11 19:21:02 <kinlo> it's not really a secret if you tell something
1626 2011-07-11 19:21:10 <kreal-> ok
1627 2011-07-11 19:21:10 <kinlo> and if you tell something, you must tell more :p
1628 2011-07-11 19:21:30 <kreal-> it involves bitcoins
1629 2011-07-11 19:21:31 gjs278 has joined
1630 2011-07-11 19:22:42 scott` has joined
1631 2011-07-11 19:23:07 <kinlo> no
1632 2011-07-11 19:23:08 scott` is now known as Guest10570
1633 2011-07-11 19:23:13 <kinlo> you're lying
1634 2011-07-11 19:23:23 <kinlo> you're working on a project related to bitcoins????
1635 2011-07-11 19:23:36 <kinlo> I can't believe it!
1636 2011-07-11 19:23:37 <kinlo> :p
1637 2011-07-11 19:23:51 <kreal-> I kid you not.
1638 2011-07-11 19:24:05 <kinlo> :)
1639 2011-07-11 19:25:03 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
1640 2011-07-11 19:25:03 <gribble> 135793
1641 2011-07-11 19:25:22 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1642 2011-07-11 19:25:24 <sipa> eh, i'm at 135799
1643 2011-07-11 19:25:53 <kinlo> so am I
1644 2011-07-11 19:25:53 phatsphere has joined
1645 2011-07-11 19:25:58 <kinlo> gribble is behind
1646 2011-07-11 19:25:59 <ThomasV> kreal-: it involves the same kind of bitcoins as in satoshi's paper ?
1647 2011-07-11 19:27:04 <sipa> anyone know how to split a commit in two in git?
1648 2011-07-11 19:27:31 <kinlo> is it your last commit?
1649 2011-07-11 19:27:39 <kinlo> or did you do commits on top of it?
1650 2011-07-11 19:27:50 <sipa> oh, i just found the section "splitting commits" in man git-rebase
1651 2011-07-11 19:28:13 <kinlo> if it's your last commit it is easyer
1652 2011-07-11 19:28:30 <kinlo> is blockexplorer down?
1653 2011-07-11 19:28:33 <sipa> it is, actually
1654 2011-07-11 19:28:43 <kinlo> sipa: type git reset --soft HEAD^
1655 2011-07-11 19:28:51 <kinlo> that undoes the last commit
1656 2011-07-11 19:29:31 <kinlo> but only the 'commit' part, so the changes you have staged to do that commit become again staged as if you would have typed everything except the final git commit
1657 2011-07-11 19:29:41 <sipa> yes, i see
1658 2011-07-11 19:29:41 <Ramen> ;;bc,stats
1659 2011-07-11 19:29:45 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135793 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1294 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 54 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1607018.66395394
1660 2011-07-11 19:29:55 <sipa> comparable to what is described on that man page, only not within a rebase
1661 2011-07-11 19:30:06 <sipa> reset the HEAD, but leave the working tree the same
1662 2011-07-11 19:30:14 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1663 2011-07-11 19:30:14 <sipa> thanks
1664 2011-07-11 19:33:14 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1665 2011-07-11 19:36:07 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: has Gavin reappeared, and commented on wallet enc?
1666 2011-07-11 19:36:36 <sipa> not afaik
1667 2011-07-11 19:36:41 karnac has joined
1668 2011-07-11 19:37:12 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
1669 2011-07-11 19:37:23 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no
1670 2011-07-11 19:37:55 <TD_> jgarzik: any idea where gavin is? he seems to have retreated from bitcoin lately
1671 2011-07-11 19:38:03 TD_ is now known as TD
1672 2011-07-11 19:38:13 <BlueMatt> Australia
1673 2011-07-11 19:38:15 <jgarzik> TD: month-long trip to Australia
1674 2011-07-11 19:38:18 <TD> oh, wow
1675 2011-07-11 19:38:19 <TD> nice
1676 2011-07-11 19:38:31 <jgarzik> TD: said Internet would be spotty for a few days, then would be back online with reliable internet
1677 2011-07-11 19:38:46 <BlueMatt> s/a few days/a week or so/
1678 2011-07-11 19:38:49 <sipa> until wednesday, iirc
1679 2011-07-11 19:38:50 <BlueMatt> (IIRC)
1680 2011-07-11 19:39:16 <sipa> he was planning to work on the test framework
1681 2011-07-11 19:39:31 <BlueMatt> and the headers-only branch
1682 2011-07-11 19:40:16 <sipa> jgarzik: what's your opinion about anti-compatibility with bitcoin versions not supporting wallet encryption?
1683 2011-07-11 19:41:02 <senseles> it would be really cool if the program supported at least some basic form of encryption for the wallet
1684 2011-07-11 19:41:06 <senseles> maybe optional
1685 2011-07-11 19:41:13 <senseles> allow users to enter a password when they run the program
1686 2011-07-11 19:41:14 gjs278 has joined
1687 2011-07-11 19:41:29 peterhil has quit (Quit: Must not waste too much time here...)
1688 2011-07-11 19:41:30 <jgarzik> sipa: you mean BlueMatt's latest patch, to intentionally corrupt and crash wallets?
1689 2011-07-11 19:41:50 <sipa> jgarzik: well just, there are two options: either matt's fix now, or rename wallets
1690 2011-07-11 19:42:05 <BlueMatt> or nothing, but thats bad too
1691 2011-07-11 19:42:12 <BlueMatt> worse than the two
1692 2011-07-11 19:42:35 <sipa> nothing: wallet gets into mixed state, confuses user, no automated recovery
1693 2011-07-11 19:42:38 <jgarzik> sipa: at the moment, I like the "corrupt old wallet" option...  renaming is a bit of a pain with bdb
1694 2011-07-11 19:42:58 <sipa> matt's fix: confuse user, but wallet is never harmed
1695 2011-07-11 19:43:06 <sipa> indeed
1696 2011-07-11 19:43:39 <BlueMatt> well all of the fixes confuse the user
1697 2011-07-11 19:43:39 manifold_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1698 2011-07-11 19:44:04 <sipa> jgarzik: so, ACK for encryption?
1699 2011-07-11 19:44:37 <jgarzik> sipa: I want to see what is Gavin's opinion, and read the code a bit more first
1700 2011-07-11 19:44:59 <sipa> ok, sure
1701 2011-07-11 19:46:13 <sipa> last i heard, gavin liked the wallet renaming idea, but that was before the possibility of "safe corruption" was known
1702 2011-07-11 19:48:39 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: has anyone run the stats on uptake of 0.3.24?
1703 2011-07-11 19:48:45 * jgarzik was wondering if the network is improving
1704 2011-07-11 19:48:47 <jgarzik> gmaxwell?
1705 2011-07-11 19:49:01 <BlueMatt> I have them...let me go check
1706 2011-07-11 19:49:16 <BlueMatt> last I checked it wasnt good
1707 2011-07-11 19:49:38 <gmaxwell> lets see.. my high connection node has
1708 2011-07-11 19:49:39 <gmaxwell>     "connections" : 563,
1709 2011-07-11 19:49:44 <BlueMatt> kinda think alert might be necessary...
1710 2011-07-11 19:49:49 <gmaxwell> lemme restart it and see how big a flash mob I get.
1711 2011-07-11 19:49:57 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1712 2011-07-11 19:50:06 <Blitzboom> does anyone besides satoshi have an alert key?
1713 2011-07-11 19:50:06 Speeder has quit (Quit: Speeder)
1714 2011-07-11 19:50:13 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: gavin
1715 2011-07-11 19:50:27 <Blitzboom> also, how does an alert look like?
1716 2011-07-11 19:50:28 <BlueMatt> 32400	254, 32300	2458, 32200	295, 32100	712, 32002	153, 31900	98
1717 2011-07-11 19:50:34 <Blitzboom> pop up in bitcoin with msg?
1718 2011-07-11 19:51:09 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: its in the status bar
1719 2011-07-11 19:51:24 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: and can also put you in safe mode which prevents sending
1720 2011-07-11 19:51:28 <BlueMatt> and a ton of stuff
1721 2011-07-11 19:51:34 <BlueMatt> check rpc.cpp for allowedinsafemode
1722 2011-07-11 19:51:35 <Blitzboom> WTF
1723 2011-07-11 19:51:37 <WakiMiko_> steal your wallet, etc.
1724 2011-07-11 19:51:37 <gmaxwell> At the moment I'd be kind of disinclined for an alert. There are a number of other improvements we could get in during the next month...
1725 2011-07-11 19:51:39 <Blitzboom> that worries me
1726 2011-07-11 19:51:44 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm seeing 80+ on mine since i put the block download fix in place
1727 2011-07-11 19:51:48 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: you can override alerts
1728 2011-07-11 19:51:51 <jrmithdobbs> without any other code fixes
1729 2011-07-11 19:52:02 <BlueMatt> yes
1730 2011-07-11 19:52:06 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: yea, well, mine gets more because its uncapped and joins all the irc channels.
1731 2011-07-11 19:52:07 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but it's still just .23 + block download fix cause i'm lazy
1732 2011-07-11 19:52:09 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: how?
1733 2011-07-11 19:52:15 <BlueMatt> its like -overridealert or something, dont remember the exact thing
1734 2011-07-11 19:52:24 <gmaxwell>     "connections" : 1000,
1735 2011-07-11 19:52:31 <Blitzboom> still it is spooky
1736 2011-07-11 19:52:31 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: right, i'm saying it's looking better than it did
1737 2011-07-11 19:52:40 manifold has joined
1738 2011-07-11 19:52:41 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: yea, but very neccessary
1739 2011-07-11 19:52:47 <Blitzboom> but i guess i trust satoshi/gavin for now
1740 2011-07-11 19:52:51 <jrmithdobbs> used to hover around 20-30 until the block download fix
1741 2011-07-11 19:53:01 <gmaxwell> Yea, so restarting (and thus triggering an IRC join) is still getting me a flash mob. Which I think indicate that there are a lot of nodes hurting for connections still.
1742 2011-07-11 19:53:01 <jrmithdobbs> Blitzboom: satoshi is gone so w/e
1743 2011-07-11 19:53:17 <Blitzboom> jrmithdobbs: lol, as if he would just "forget" about bitcoin
1744 2011-07-11 19:53:51 AStove has quit ()
1745 2011-07-11 19:55:15 <Blitzboom> i’m still mad that he has never explained why he chose the seemingly arbitrary constants in bitcoin
1746 2011-07-11 19:55:39 <Blitzboom> why the fuck would you not mention that when introducing a new monetary system?
1747 2011-07-11 19:55:47 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: meh. There aren't really any that matter that aren't explained.
1748 2011-07-11 19:56:09 <Blitzboom> blocks every 10 minutes, the distribution curve?
1749 2011-07-11 19:56:13 <gmaxwell> er.....
1750 2011-07-11 19:56:15 <b4epoche> satoshi is clearly an academic...
1751 2011-07-11 19:56:22 <gmaxwell> The block timing was explained.
1752 2011-07-11 19:56:36 <Blitzboom> it was explained why 10 and not 20 minutes?
1753 2011-07-11 19:56:44 <Blitzboom> why retarget every 2016 blocks?
1754 2011-07-11 19:56:45 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: where did you get that idea?
1755 2011-07-11 19:56:48 <Blitzboom> why maximum 4x?
1756 2011-07-11 19:56:51 <jgarzik> the currency distribution is IMO largely satoshi's taste
1757 2011-07-11 19:57:01 <jgarzik> 21M, 50/25/12.5/...
1758 2011-07-11 19:57:06 <b4epoche> BlueMatt:  because I can identify with him ;-)
1759 2011-07-11 19:57:10 <TD> Blitzboom: he did explain them
1760 2011-07-11 19:57:13 <gmaxwell> Yea, distribution was "to simulate exploitation of a natural resource" which is kinda handwavy.
1761 2011-07-11 19:57:16 <Blitzboom> TD: source?
1762 2011-07-11 19:57:18 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: that doesnt exactly mean much...
1763 2011-07-11 19:57:21 <TD> various emails and forum posts
1764 2011-07-11 19:57:34 <Blitzboom> i have searched, and not found it
1765 2011-07-11 19:57:38 <TD> some of them were private
1766 2011-07-11 19:57:45 <b4epoche> BlueMatt:  sure, but I think all signs point to it...
1767 2011-07-11 19:57:48 <TD> but feel free to ask and i'll dig up a quote for you
1768 2011-07-11 19:57:54 <b4epoche> he clearly had 'free time'
1769 2011-07-11 19:58:00 <gmaxwell> The timing was in fact explained, on the cryptography list. There is an tradeoff between network speed and resistance to splits given a particular communications latency.
1770 2011-07-11 19:58:15 <TD> the constants were educated guesses
1771 2011-07-11 19:58:17 <jgarzik> ever-decreasing currency distribution makes sense; it weans people off the block rewards slowly
1772 2011-07-11 19:58:19 <TD> based on various factors
1773 2011-07-11 19:58:23 <gmaxwell> He was debating 5 vs 10 minutes. No one bothered to even comment on that bit of his initial proposal, he eventually went with 10.
1774 2011-07-11 19:58:42 <b4epoche> probably made safe estimates
1775 2011-07-11 19:59:35 <gmaxwell> The limit of the distribution doesn't have any economic significance. It needs to fit in 64 bits at the minimum granularity, but thats about all that really matters for the technical implications of the limit.
1776 2011-07-11 19:59:48 <b4epoche> did he run a private chain before making things public?
1777 2011-07-11 20:00:08 <Blitzboom> that thought never occured to me
1778 2011-07-11 20:00:08 <BlueMatt> no doubt ran many
1779 2011-07-11 20:00:15 <gmaxwell> Considering that he made the system public within a couple days of the timestamp on the genesis block: duh.
1780 2011-07-11 20:00:18 erus` has joined
1781 2011-07-11 20:00:21 <Blitzboom> that bitcoin possibley was(0t first
1782 2011-07-11 20:00:23 <gmaxwell> Otherwise he couldn't have tested it. :)
1783 2011-07-11 20:00:23 <b4epoche> I'm just surprised that he was able to foresee all the issues he did
1784 2011-07-11 20:00:39 <gmaxwell> b4epoche: he clearly worked on it for years.
1785 2011-07-11 20:00:46 <TD> he spent a couple of years working on it before release
1786 2011-07-11 20:00:54 <b4epoche> but I'm wondering if he had 'others' test too
1787 2011-07-11 20:01:33 <b4epoche> like a small group of beta testers
1788 2011-07-11 20:01:39 <TD> i doubt it
1789 2011-07-11 20:01:40 <gmaxwell> Perhaps, though no one ever mentioned it that I've seen. It doesn't matter, since we know e.g. that the real blockchain started at the time of the public release. So there wasn't any cheating.
1790 2011-07-11 20:01:46 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: "Yea, distribution was "to simulate exploitation of a natural resource" which is kinda handwavy."
1791 2011-07-11 20:02:20 <Blitzboom> well, that’s a bad simulation in one way: if satoshi was the first gold miner, then it makes no sense that in 2011, with hughe goldmines, we still get the same 50 BTC per block
1792 2011-07-11 20:02:33 <b4epoche> gmaxwell:  yea, I'm not wondering about cheating.  just amazed that he covered so many bases.
1793 2011-07-11 20:02:41 zomtec has joined
1794 2011-07-11 20:02:50 <Blitzboom> you go out with your pickaxe and get the same reward as everyone a few years later, lol
1795 2011-07-11 20:02:53 <gmaxwell> Well, the declined had to be exponential or you wouldn't get a finite limit without fixing the granularity forever.
1796 2011-07-11 20:03:05 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: sure you do, until the "surface gold" is all found.
1797 2011-07-11 20:03:10 <TD> here's a quote from satoshi on the matter
1798 2011-07-11 20:03:15 <TD> My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess.  It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it's locked in and we're stuck with it.  I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that's very hard.
1799 2011-07-11 20:03:18 <b4epoche> low hanging fruit is gone
1800 2011-07-11 20:03:23 <TD>  I ended up picking something in the middle.  If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it'll be worth less per unit than existing currencies.  If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there's only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit.
1801 2011-07-11 20:03:27 <TD> Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000.  There's plenty of granularity if typical prices become small.  For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it's now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1.
1802 2011-07-11 20:03:35 anarchyx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1803 2011-07-11 20:04:12 <Blitzboom> educated guesses, eh
1804 2011-07-11 20:04:27 <b4epoche> what else could he have done?
1805 2011-07-11 20:04:30 manifold has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1806 2011-07-11 20:04:34 <freakazoid> stupid guesses.
1807 2011-07-11 20:04:40 <gmaxwell> Asked Blitzboom for his personal opinion, obviously. :)
1808 2011-07-11 20:04:45 <BlueMatt> his guesses seem to be very well educated...
1809 2011-07-11 20:04:50 <Blitzboom> i agree
1810 2011-07-11 20:04:55 <BlueMatt> so, Im not concerned
1811 2011-07-11 20:05:07 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1812 2011-07-11 20:05:27 <redshark1802> i have to throw in an other question: what happens after all blocks are mined with transactions?
1813 2011-07-11 20:05:36 <gmaxwell> redshark1802: "all" ?
1814 2011-07-11 20:05:42 <gmaxwell> There is no "all".
1815 2011-07-11 20:06:02 manifold_ has joined
1816 2011-07-11 20:06:05 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: "sure you do, until the "surface gold" is all found." yes, but it doesn’t work that way with bitcoin
1817 2011-07-11 20:06:14 <gmaxwell> The total number of bitcoins arises as the limit of a geometric series, not from there being a finite number of blocks or anything like that.
1818 2011-07-11 20:06:16 <Blitzboom> the supply is artificially unelastic
1819 2011-07-11 20:06:21 <redshark1802> ah okay, 21million btc are limited but after that you would still mine the blocks for the transaction fees
1820 2011-07-11 20:06:21 <Blitzboom> gold’s supply is pretty elastic
1821 2011-07-11 20:06:44 <Blitzboom> so in that sense, bitcoin is unlike a ressource imo
1822 2011-07-11 20:07:01 <pusle> gold isn't perfect, bitcoin improves upon it ;)
1823 2011-07-11 20:07:06 M4v3R has joined
1824 2011-07-11 20:07:06 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: fair point, but the system security depends on the production rate being somewhat fixed.
1825 2011-07-11 20:07:09 <Blitzboom> you could argue that
1826 2011-07-11 20:07:15 <b4epoche> what would you rather have?  a random payout for mining?
1827 2011-07-11 20:07:36 <gmaxwell> (also, the inelasticity makes it more stable. Thus the 'improves on gold', I suppose)
1828 2011-07-11 20:07:42 <Blitzboom> probably would have preferred an S-curve
1829 2011-07-11 20:07:47 <b4epoche> I think oil is a better analogy
1830 2011-07-11 20:07:56 <Blitzboom> but that would have required an educated guess of adoption, too
1831 2011-07-11 20:08:10 <b4epoche> oohh...  a nice arctan ftw!
1832 2011-07-11 20:08:26 <sipa> an S-curve would definitely have been more realistic
1833 2011-07-11 20:08:30 <sipa> but a lot harder to tune
1834 2011-07-11 20:08:35 skeledrew has joined
1835 2011-07-11 20:08:41 <sipa> it's hard to know when the "mass adoption" starts, if ever
1836 2011-07-11 20:08:42 <gmaxwell> It would have seriously reduced the early adoption incentive. Also— we've arguable had an s-curve anyways, once you apply the exchange rate.
1837 2011-07-11 20:08:49 <Blitzboom> sipa: yup. would have needed an accurate guess probably …
1838 2011-07-11 20:09:00 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: not really
1839 2011-07-11 20:09:04 M4v3R has left ()
1840 2011-07-11 20:09:08 <sipa> TD: do you have any idea or guess as to why he disappeared?
1841 2011-07-11 20:09:12 <Blitzboom> i argue that the earliest adopters didn’t care for the monetary incentives
1842 2011-07-11 20:09:13 <TD> satoshi?
1843 2011-07-11 20:09:15 <sipa> yes
1844 2011-07-11 20:09:16 <Blitzboom> but rather the later ones
1845 2011-07-11 20:09:20 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: Why mine now when mining later will produce a lot more coins due to some programmed s-curve.
1846 2011-07-11 20:09:21 <Blitzboom> TD: thanks for posting this
1847 2011-07-11 20:09:48 <TD> the explanation he gave me was a brush-off. i have some strong hunches though.
1848 2011-07-11 20:10:00 <sipa> he was "busy" ?
1849 2011-07-11 20:10:02 Guest10570 has quit (Quit: Guest10570)
1850 2011-07-11 20:10:09 <TD> his wording was that he'd "moved on to other things"
1851 2011-07-11 20:10:11 <b4epoche> academics have about a 3-5 year attention span ;-)
1852 2011-07-11 20:10:25 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: The very first response to the public announcement was Hal doing some back of the envelope calculation about the reward if bitcoin is successful. People always cared about monetary incentives.
1853 2011-07-11 20:10:26 <TD> i think satoshi understood the risks inherent in the project
1854 2011-07-11 20:10:26 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: because you want to support the network?
1855 2011-07-11 20:10:31 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1856 2011-07-11 20:10:36 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: yes, i have read that
1857 2011-07-11 20:10:36 <TD> and was not a man (or woman) who liked the idea of being famous
1858 2011-07-11 20:10:42 <TD> or getting legal attention
1859 2011-07-11 20:10:42 <Blitzboom> hal was apparently the first speculator
1860 2011-07-11 20:11:02 <sipa> TD: his disappearance seems to coincide with bitcoin becoming somewhat popular
1861 2011-07-11 20:11:07 TheZimm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1862 2011-07-11 20:11:10 <TD> after people started encouraging wikileaks to accept bitcoins, i think he probably decided it was time to leave
1863 2011-07-11 20:11:20 <sipa> indeed
1864 2011-07-11 20:11:23 <Blitzboom> probably …
1865 2011-07-11 20:11:24 <gmaxwell> sipa: in many cases the founder of a project becomes a boat anchor that stifles it from moving forward.
1866 2011-07-11 20:11:38 <sipa> yes, but still
1867 2011-07-11 20:11:43 <TD> i think he felt like he couldn't take bitcoin to the next level, and he'd found someone in gavin who would be able to lead it
1868 2011-07-11 20:11:55 <TD> he told me he felt the project was in good hands now
1869 2011-07-11 20:11:58 <gmaxwell> (google founder's disease)
1870 2011-07-11 20:12:01 <luke-jr> sipa: mass adoption starts when we can buy Bitbills at Walmart :p
1871 2011-07-11 20:12:23 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: i honestly think it may have been his phd dissertation or similar
1872 2011-07-11 20:12:32 <TD> i don't think so
1873 2011-07-11 20:12:41 <b4epoche> what is Gavin's background?
1874 2011-07-11 20:12:45 <TD> it was most likely a personal side project. that's why it took years
1875 2011-07-11 20:12:46 ThomasV has joined
1876 2011-07-11 20:12:50 <b4epoche> he got a CV posted somewhere?
1877 2011-07-11 20:12:52 <TD> he used to work for SGI, i think.
1878 2011-07-11 20:13:01 <TD> but in case you're wondering, i don't think gavin is satoshi ;)
1879 2011-07-11 20:13:41 <b4epoche> yea, jrmithdobbs, not a dissertation.  but I do think he is a (tenured) academic.
1880 2011-07-11 20:13:45 <gmaxwell> This obession about satoshi is perfect evidene as to why it's better than he's not around.
1881 2011-07-11 20:13:53 <jrmithdobbs> nah he's insulted satoshi's code too much publically to be satoshi
1882 2011-07-11 20:13:54 <jrmithdobbs> heh
1883 2011-07-11 20:13:56 <b4epoche> TD:  no, that's not what I was getting at
1884 2011-07-11 20:13:56 TheZimm has joined
1885 2011-07-11 20:14:05 mosimo has joined
1886 2011-07-11 20:14:15 <TD> i wouldn't describe it as an obsession with satoshi
1887 2011-07-11 20:14:20 <TD> more curiousity about who he is and where he went
1888 2011-07-11 20:14:28 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: he wouldn’t have been that much of a mystery
1889 2011-07-11 20:14:29 <TD> it's natural. most projects don't have such a story.
1890 2011-07-11 20:14:34 manifold_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1891 2011-07-11 20:14:36 <b4epoche> there's probably more of an obsession with him disappearing
1892 2011-07-11 20:14:37 <Blitzboom> TD: lol. indeed
1893 2011-07-11 20:14:38 <sipa> well, the fact that he is gone does cause him to become some legend
1894 2011-07-11 20:14:42 <jrmithdobbs> i just want to know why he thought variable len ints that only go up to 64bits was a good idea
1895 2011-07-11 20:14:49 <jrmithdobbs> that's about my only interest in satoshi tbqh
1896 2011-07-11 20:14:56 <gmaxwell> Eh, he was legend before he was gone.
1897 2011-07-11 20:14:56 <sipa> jrmithdobbs: haha
1898 2011-07-11 20:15:24 <jrmithdobbs> and why he thought a little endian wire protocol was a good idea
1899 2011-07-11 20:15:25 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: it's not bad in fact. I can speak from expirence that unbounded var ints often lead to stupid overflows.
1900 2011-07-11 20:15:27 <jrmithdobbs> so i guess two things
1901 2011-07-11 20:15:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya but if the bounding is 64bit there's little advantage to them being variable in the first place
1902 2011-07-11 20:16:08 <jrmithdobbs> might as well just made them all 64bit ;p
1903 2011-07-11 20:16:12 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: 8x reduction in size when the most common case is <255?
1904 2011-07-11 20:16:30 <jrmithdobbs> 8x reduction in size on the smallest field in the packet?
1905 2011-07-11 20:16:39 <b4epoche> I'm going to argue that bitcoin is a great consequence of the tenure process ;-)
1906 2011-07-11 20:16:58 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: reduces transaction sizes aby about 5%
1907 2011-07-11 20:17:11 <TD> it makes sense when you consider the context
1908 2011-07-11 20:17:21 <TD> satoshi was very concerned about storage costs when he first designed it
1909 2011-07-11 20:17:35 <TD> later, he came to believe he may have been too worried about that, as other people didn't seem to care about it as much as he did
1910 2011-07-11 20:17:47 <TD> varints make sense when minimizing chain size is seen as very important
1911 2011-07-11 20:18:05 <TD> another quote:
1912 2011-07-11 20:18:07 <TD> At the time, I was concerned whether the bandwidth and storage sizes would be practical even with ECDSA.  RSA's huge keys were out of the question.  Storage and bandwidth seemed tighter back then.  I felt the size was either only just becoming practical, or would be soon.  When I presented it, I was surprised nobody else was concerned about size, though I was also surprised how many issues they argued, and more surprised that every single on
1913 2011-07-11 20:18:07 <TD> thought of and solved.
1914 2011-07-11 20:18:16 NickelBot has joined
1915 2011-07-11 20:18:34 <TD> satoshi foresaw a lot, but he is no hari seldon
1916 2011-07-11 20:18:44 <TD> many things worked out differently than he expected, and bitcoin is only a few years old
1917 2011-07-11 20:19:01 <Blitzboom> examples?
1918 2011-07-11 20:19:32 <sipa> i am not sure that in the long term storage costs won;t become the prime factor again
1919 2011-07-11 20:19:48 <b4epoche> what do people think his primary expertise was?  I'm guess economics (broadly)
1920 2011-07-11 20:19:50 <phantomcircuit> also it should be noted that compressing the block chain gets you almost nothing currently
1921 2011-07-11 20:19:55 <phantomcircuit> which says something about the bytecode
1922 2011-07-11 20:19:59 <Blitzboom> b4epoche: mathematics
1923 2011-07-11 20:20:15 <b4epoche> Blitzboom:  definitely not
1924 2011-07-11 20:20:18 <TD> he did not foresee the concentration of power into the hands of mining pools. he did realize "specialists with multiple gpus" would mine, but thought it was many years away
1925 2011-07-11 20:20:19 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: Ogg uses a varint scheme to encode packet sizes (because e.g. most vorbis packets are <200 bytes but e.g. a video frame could be a gigabyte, so the packet size coding is quite important to overhead).  The ogg scheme is code(len){if size<255 write(size); else {write(255);code(len-255)}.
1926 2011-07-11 20:20:23 <jrmithdobbs> it's odd that he was so concerned about size but went with base58 instead of base64
1927 2011-07-11 20:20:26 <TD> so he sort of anticipated ArtForz
1928 2011-07-11 20:20:31 <TD> ;;seen ArtForz
1929 2011-07-11 20:20:31 <gribble> ArtForz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 3 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 1 minute, and 26 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
1930 2011-07-11 20:20:36 <TD> lol
1931 2011-07-11 20:20:43 <TD> i wonder where Art is these days
1932 2011-07-11 20:20:57 <TD> maybe now he can't dominate mining anymore he lost interest
1933 2011-07-11 20:20:59 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, base58 is for addresses only though, for which size is irrelevant, no?
1934 2011-07-11 20:21:00 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: and just about every independant implementation of ogg ends up with some kind of integer overflow in decoding packet lengths, without fail... even though the test vectors have files that intentionally overflow it.
1935 2011-07-11 20:21:01 <jrmithdobbs> base58 is ~140% size of original data after encode where base64 is ~137.5%
1936 2011-07-11 20:21:15 <Blitzboom> actually, satoshi wanted to get out of beta: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=217.msg1803#msg1803
1937 2011-07-11 20:21:33 <Blitzboom> that’s more than one year ago
1938 2011-07-11 20:21:43 <jrmithdobbs> TD: or maybe he's on an island in the caribean sipping tequila
1939 2011-07-11 20:21:46 <jrmithdobbs> /rum
1940 2011-07-11 20:21:49 <TD> possibly :)
1941 2011-07-11 20:22:06 Zarutian has joined
1942 2011-07-11 20:22:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i wasn't saying they should be infinitely expandable just that 64bit seems like a rather low cap
1943 2011-07-11 20:23:01 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: do you think satoshi is a "cryptoanarchist"?
1944 2011-07-11 20:23:02 <gmaxwell> 64 bit is the highest you can go without triggering overflow bugs in stupid implementations, however.
1945 2011-07-11 20:23:12 <jrmithdobbs> fair enough
1946 2011-07-11 20:23:22 <Blitzboom> some of his writings point that way …
1947 2011-07-11 20:23:41 <TD> doubt it
1948 2011-07-11 20:23:48 <gmaxwell> Eh, depends on how you define "cryptoanarchist". He seemed less intense than many people I would call that for sure!
1949 2011-07-11 20:23:52 <b4epoche> I'm guessing cryptography was a hobby of his, not his main expertise
1950 2011-07-11 20:24:01 <TD> he always seemed more concerned about monetary policy than size of government
1951 2011-07-11 20:24:20 <sipa> though he did value anonimity/privacy high
1952 2011-07-11 20:24:30 <TD> yeah, i don't think he was a cryptographer. his choice of secp256k1 was arbitrary
1953 2011-07-11 20:24:33 <Blitzboom> "but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years."
1954 2011-07-11 20:24:37 <gmaxwell> Offering a decentralized currency doesn't even make you a libertarian much less a cryptoanarchist. :)
1955 2011-07-11 20:24:39 <TD> and he repeatedly stated EC keys couldn't encrypt (not true)
1956 2011-07-11 20:24:49 <midnightmagic> <luke-jr> midnightmagic was silly and generated 4999999999
1957 2011-07-11 20:24:54 <sipa> TD: technically, they don't
1958 2011-07-11 20:24:54 <midnightmagic> ಠ_ಠ
1959 2011-07-11 20:24:55 <Blitzboom> "we"
1960 2011-07-11 20:24:57 <Blitzboom> who is we?
1961 2011-07-11 20:25:17 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: that wasn't you?
1962 2011-07-11 20:25:59 <TD> sipa: EC-IES seems to fit the description
1963 2011-07-11 20:26:01 <jrmithdobbs> Blitzboom: i think he explicitly avoided commenting on the subject to avoid associating bitcoin with that antisocial label
1964 2011-07-11 20:26:10 <gmaxwell> I'd put him closer on the the spectrum of "cryptoanarchist" to Hal Finney, whos had very tempered views on cryptoanarchy.
1965 2011-07-11 20:26:29 <sipa> TD: that's using DH on top of EC to obtain a common symmetric key, used for AES
1966 2011-07-11 20:26:46 <TD> yes
1967 2011-07-11 20:26:57 <Blitzboom> jrmithdobbs: yeah, probably he wanted the project to be as apolitical as possible
1968 2011-07-11 20:27:01 <TD> the end result is you start with keys and end with ciphertext
1969 2011-07-11 20:27:03 Bachfischer has joined
1970 2011-07-11 20:27:08 <Blitzboom> and secretively agrees with everything posted on the forums :P
1971 2011-07-11 20:27:16 <jrmithdobbs> i doubt that
1972 2011-07-11 20:27:26 <jrmithdobbs> noone sane does
1973 2011-07-11 20:27:27 <sipa> TD: yeah, it's a matter of perspective i guess - though imho the encryption is just AES there :)
1974 2011-07-11 20:27:39 <gmaxwell> TD you can use any authentication scheme to encrypt, in any case.
1975 2011-07-11 20:27:43 <midnightmagic> jrmithdobbs: it's not that oddd that he went with base58. there are letters that look like numbers in there and it states right there that's the reason he omitted those ones.
1976 2011-07-11 20:28:05 <gmaxwell> Just authentcate messages 1 bit at a time, and always send a opposite bit which will fail to authenticate. :)
1977 2011-07-11 20:28:24 <Blitzboom> satoshi must have had some knowledge of austrian economics though
1978 2011-07-11 20:28:40 <jrmithdobbs> midnightmagic: i'm aware of the justification, just saying that that choice undoes most of the savings from varints
1979 2011-07-11 20:28:40 <sipa> anyway, what does somewhat surprise me is that he choose openssl's default encodings for keys/signatures everywhere, while being so concerned about the size of the chain
1980 2011-07-11 20:28:49 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: it didn't eliminate letters that look like numbers, it elimiated one of each easily confused pairs.
1981 2011-07-11 20:28:52 <Blitzboom> i don’t think you could ever expect bitcoin to work as money otherwise
1982 2011-07-11 20:29:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: well, e.g. using point compression would have run into certicom's patents.
1983 2011-07-11 20:29:20 <TD> sipa: i think he may have just not realized it was possible to optimize that.
1984 2011-07-11 20:29:32 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: right, that.
1985 2011-07-11 20:29:37 <gmaxwell> So even if he knew optimizations were possible he may have had no clue which were patented.
1986 2011-07-11 20:29:39 <sipa> TD: in that case, he's definitely no cryptographer :)
1987 2011-07-11 20:29:46 <b4epoche> "austrian economics"?
1988 2011-07-11 20:29:46 <TD> like i said, he isn't
1989 2011-07-11 20:29:48 <TD> or wasn't
1990 2011-07-11 20:29:51 <sipa> yes
1991 2011-07-11 20:29:57 <sipa> b4epoche: google it
1992 2011-07-11 20:30:07 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: that was me. Not so silly. It's creative, and it took 120k blocks for it to be done, which I don't understand.
1993 2011-07-11 20:30:26 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: lolbertarians
1994 2011-07-11 20:30:29 <TD> I must admit, this project was 2 years of development before release, and I could only spend so much time on each of the many issues.  I found guidance on the recommended size for SHA and RSA, but nothing on ECDSA which was relatively new.  I took the recommended key size for RSA and converted to equivalent key size for ECDSA, but then increased it so the whole app could be said to be 256-bit security.  I didn't find anything to recommend a
1995 2011-07-11 20:30:29 <TD> picked one.
1996 2011-07-11 20:30:32 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: is the tldr version
1997 2011-07-11 20:30:52 <TD> ie, he did not start out with a background in ecomonics
1998 2011-07-11 20:30:53 <TD> er
1999 2011-07-11 20:30:54 <TD> sorry
2000 2011-07-11 20:30:56 <TD> cryptography
2001 2011-07-11 20:31:00 <sipa> indeed
2002 2011-07-11 20:31:01 <TD> he learned what he needed as he went along
2003 2011-07-11 20:31:09 <TD> in his position i would also have avoided "optimizing" openssls output
2004 2011-07-11 20:31:14 <TD> too easy to make a mistake
2005 2011-07-11 20:31:15 <sipa> probably
2006 2011-07-11 20:31:22 <b4epoche> I suspect he was a 'mathematical economist'
2007 2011-07-11 20:31:52 <gmaxwell> In any case, at some point there will need to be a version 2 block and any little niggles worth fixing could be fixed then.
2008 2011-07-11 20:32:14 <b4epoche> niggles?  that doesn't sound good...
2009 2011-07-11 20:32:22 <freakazoid> geez
2010 2011-07-11 20:32:26 <freakazoid> you probably think niggardly is bad too
2011 2011-07-11 20:32:29 <jrmithdobbs> also the fact that these are the main critiscims is a pretty strong testeament to his design
2012 2011-07-11 20:32:45 danbri has joined
2013 2011-07-11 20:32:45 <b4epoche> I'm just saying, I'd avoid that word
2014 2011-07-11 20:32:46 <jrmithdobbs> testament
2015 2011-07-11 20:33:02 <gmaxwell> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggles
2016 2011-07-11 20:33:06 Tim-7967 has left ("Leaving")
2017 2011-07-11 20:33:17 <gmaxwell> E.g. things like the key format.
2018 2011-07-11 20:33:35 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2019 2011-07-11 20:33:54 <mtrlt> b4epoche: because...?
2020 2011-07-11 20:34:13 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: the root is still nigger whether virginia woolf used it or not ;p
2021 2011-07-11 20:34:14 <b4epoche> anyway, nowadays, I would certainly avoid it, regardless of the history
2022 2011-07-11 20:34:37 <jrmithdobbs> (not that i care)
2023 2011-07-11 20:34:39 <nanotube> b4epoche: ,,(dict niggle)
2024 2011-07-11 20:34:40 <gribble> wn: niggle v 1: worry unnecessarily or excessively; "don't fuss too much over the grandchildren--they are quite big now" [syn: {fuss}, {fret}] 2: argue over petty things; "Let's not quibble over pennies" [syn: {quibble}, {pettifog}, {bicker}, {squabble}, {brabble}]
2025 2011-07-11 20:35:06 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, of course you mean nagger right?
2026 2011-07-11 20:35:08 <b4epoche> yes, I'm aware of the true definition...
2027 2011-07-11 20:35:39 <mtrlt> being touchy about words is really stupid
2028 2011-07-11 20:35:43 <b4epoche> just like a lot of other words have 'original' definitions...
2029 2011-07-11 20:35:45 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: nope
2030 2011-07-11 20:35:50 <mtrlt> just because it has "nig" doesn't make it bad
2031 2011-07-11 20:35:55 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, south park reference
2032 2011-07-11 20:35:59 <gmaxwell> There is one interesting weakness that someone raised on the forum that has economic impact:  As more coins are lost there is increasing uncertanty that huge troves of 'lost' coins may awaken and smash the economy. This becomes especially acute once ECDSA becomes crackable and inputs which have not be upgraded to whatever comes next
2033 2011-07-11 20:36:00 <phantomcircuit> WHHOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH
2034 2011-07-11 20:36:07 <gmaxwell> become subject to being discovered.
2035 2011-07-11 20:36:21 <nanotube> b4epoche: i'm not aware of any others for the word 'niggle'...
2036 2011-07-11 20:36:26 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: ya that show stopped being funny once they started preaching sorry
2037 2011-07-11 20:36:39 <phantomcircuit> pretty old episode iirc
2038 2011-07-11 20:36:51 <b4epoche> I'm not saying it's 'bad' just saying there's no way I'd use it in public
2039 2011-07-11 20:36:54 <mtrlt> b4epoche: just to get clear. should i not use the word "funk" because it resembles "fuck"?
2040 2011-07-11 20:37:05 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: TAKIN IT BACK
2041 2011-07-11 20:37:10 <mtrlt> s/should i/would you/
2042 2011-07-11 20:37:13 <dsockwell> what about niggard?
2043 2011-07-11 20:37:22 <nanotube> well, we all have our little quibbles about words. let's leave b4epoche to his ;)
2044 2011-07-11 20:37:24 <dsockwell> or nignog?
2045 2011-07-11 20:37:24 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: PORCH MONKIES 4 LYFE
2046 2011-07-11 20:37:32 <IO-> So if a group of pushpoold servers are load balanced, and a group of bitcoind servers are load balanced, when a valid block is found it will be on the bitcoind host that submitted the valid work, correct?
2047 2011-07-11 20:37:33 <mtrlt> dsockwell: anything with nig.
2048 2011-07-11 20:37:38 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: that’s pretty much the same issue as hoarded coins from 2009 and 2010
2049 2011-07-11 20:37:48 anarchyx has joined
2050 2011-07-11 20:37:49 <Blitzboom> and it’s a non-issue, long term
2051 2011-07-11 20:37:51 Bachfischer has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
2052 2011-07-11 20:38:00 <b4epoche> all I said was that /I/ would avoid using it because it doesn't /sound/ good
2053 2011-07-11 20:38:04 anarchyx has quit (Changing host)
2054 2011-07-11 20:38:04 anarchyx has joined
2055 2011-07-11 20:38:08 erus`_ has joined
2056 2011-07-11 20:38:09 <nanotube> gmaxwell: same as troves of lost gold? ;)
2057 2011-07-11 20:38:25 <b4epoche> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fag?show=0&t=1310416407
2058 2011-07-11 20:38:38 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: it'll be interesting how that plays out but i don't think it's a huge concern
2059 2011-07-11 20:38:50 <Blitzboom> i think it’s a silly concern to have
2060 2011-07-11 20:39:12 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: eh, I don't think it's a non-issue at all. If through deflation we've reached a point where e.g. 1 BTC = 2011-$1billion in value and someone cracks a ECC key that has 100,000K lost coins, that would pretty much be an economic catastrophe.
2061 2011-07-11 20:39:15 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: at least, i think satoshi deciding to flood the market with 2009-2010 coins is a more valid concern
2062 2011-07-11 20:39:16 <mtrlt> oooh that url had "fag"
2063 2011-07-11 20:39:18 <Blitzboom> if you are worried about price stability, you should probably be more wary of satoshi’s coins …
2064 2011-07-11 20:39:28 <Blitzboom> or knightmdb’s, who has 375k
2065 2011-07-11 20:39:58 <midnightmagic> lol I have OED access still. sweet!
2066 2011-07-11 20:39:59 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: that’s technical, i was just speaking of lost wallet.dats
2067 2011-07-11 20:40:09 <gmaxwell> E.g. some random smart dude with a quantum computer suddenly becomes richer than the whole mars colony overnight. That would not be good™.
2068 2011-07-11 20:40:18 <Blitzboom> because economically, that’d be the same as finding a bunch of gold
2069 2011-07-11 20:40:18 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: the _loss_ isn't a problem, I fully agree.
2070 2011-07-11 20:40:27 <Blitzboom> and actually that does happen
2071 2011-07-11 20:40:29 <jrmithdobbs> i see what you're getting at
2072 2011-07-11 20:40:47 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: instant random redistribution of wealth could be interesting
2073 2011-07-11 20:40:49 <gmaxwell> Well it's not, because there are better understood limits on the amount of unfound gold.
2074 2011-07-11 20:40:53 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: i don’t have much clue, but wouldn’t we switch beforehand to another protocol?
2075 2011-07-11 20:40:54 <jrmithdobbs> well, not entirely random
2076 2011-07-11 20:41:01 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2077 2011-07-11 20:41:13 erus`_ is now known as erus`
2078 2011-07-11 20:41:14 <Blitzboom> of course, the monetary incentive would be huge to try it …
2079 2011-07-11 20:41:20 <gmaxwell> E.g. we know the composition of the earth, etc. So we can state with high confidence how much unearthed gold there is.
2080 2011-07-11 20:41:22 <Blitzboom> (if bitcoin becomes big)
2081 2011-07-11 20:41:33 <gmaxwell> In any case, this could be easily fixed when we upgrade crypto eventually:
2082 2011-07-11 20:41:43 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: except for already lost coins
2083 2011-07-11 20:41:45 <jrmithdobbs> of course
2084 2011-07-11 20:41:54 jostmey has left ()
2085 2011-07-11 20:42:08 <midnightmagic> does NOT have the same root as the N-word.
2086 2011-07-11 20:42:08 <b4epoche> what's the problem with scavenging?
2087 2011-07-11 20:42:12 <iz> i was thinking about lost coins also..  would it be possible for lost coins to eventually be "reclaimed" by making unrecieved transactions eventually expire like.. after several years
2088 2011-07-11 20:42:15 <gmaxwell> Make any inputs that aren't respent within X blocks of the upgrade (where X=several years) no longer spendable.
2089 2011-07-11 20:42:34 <iz> like.. in blocks that are at least X blocks old
2090 2011-07-11 20:42:35 <gmaxwell> iz: you don't have to reclam them. Just make them expire.
2091 2011-07-11 20:42:41 <gmaxwell> So you know they aren't coming back.
2092 2011-07-11 20:42:41 <Blitzboom> iz: demurrage?
2093 2011-07-11 20:42:42 <iz> yeah, that's what i mean
2094 2011-07-11 20:43:02 <iz> hence the quotes on recliamed
2095 2011-07-11 20:43:05 <mtrlt> gmaxwell: so if i want to save money, i have to shuffle the already-saved money around all the time? :p
2096 2011-07-11 20:43:09 <midnightmagic> who knows what coins are actually lost?
2097 2011-07-11 20:43:11 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: do you think there'll be enough lost coins to make that an issue?
2098 2011-07-11 20:43:20 <gmaxwell> mtrlt: well, perhaps once per decade. Which isn't so bad.
2099 2011-07-11 20:43:23 <mtrlt> okay, once every few years but anyway it'll be easy to forget that
2100 2011-07-11 20:43:29 <nanotube> <gmaxwell> E.g. some random smart dude with a quantum computer suddenly becomes richer than the whole mars colony overnight. That would not be good™. <-- screw that, why worry about it if we have a fsckin MARS COLONY! you're missing the big picture :)
2101 2011-07-11 20:43:34 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: there probably already are.
2102 2011-07-11 20:43:50 <b4epoche> it's like the once-per-year old bicycle purge on campus ;-)
2103 2011-07-11 20:43:59 <iz> midnightmagic: well, if it's sitting in a confirmed transaction but has never been claimed for like.. X years (or X blocks).. then it's probably lost
2104 2011-07-11 20:44:05 <gmaxwell> nanotube: How do you think we got the mars colony? Tech heads saved bitcoins now and spent once it became the world currency. :)
2105 2011-07-11 20:44:18 <nanotube> gmaxwell: hehe well then it's all good :)
2106 2011-07-11 20:44:30 <midnightmagic> iz: I don't follow. You mean "redeemed" in the blockexplorer sense? perhaps it's just someone waiting long-term?
2107 2011-07-11 20:44:32 <Blitzboom> unfortunately, you guys probably suck at hoarding :P
2108 2011-07-11 20:44:40 <gmaxwell> The point being that crypto cracking and crypto upgrades gives a natural and _essential_ reason to expire old inputs.
2109 2011-07-11 20:44:48 <mtrlt> true.
2110 2011-07-11 20:45:11 <nanotube> gmaxwell: why expire them? just let the 'new miners' mine the already-mined coins
2111 2011-07-11 20:45:18 <nanotube> gmaxwell: it'll be just like sunken treasure recoverors
2112 2011-07-11 20:45:19 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: that solution also assumes that the crypto upgrade occurs before a major weakness in ecdsa (actually, really, the "weakness" could just be an overly efficient ripemd160/sha256 implementation)
2113 2011-07-11 20:45:23 <gmaxwell> I think there won't be any controversy about expiring old crypto inputs.  The controversy would be over keeping the expiration system going.
2114 2011-07-11 20:45:24 <nanotube> recovering already-mined gold
2115 2011-07-11 20:45:36 <iz> midnightmagic: yeah, in the blockexplorer sense.. and yeah, it could be someone waiting long-term.. but like. 10 years is maybe long enough.. and if ppl want to use transactions like that, they would just have to remember to actually redeem their transactions after X time
2116 2011-07-11 20:45:49 <nanotube> obviously initially, cracking the crypto will take a lot of resources
2117 2011-07-11 20:45:58 <Blitzboom> it sounds like gmaxwell is concerned about price stability
2118 2011-07-11 20:45:58 <nanotube> so people will just invest in hardware to crack the crypto on old inputs to claim the coins
2119 2011-07-11 20:46:01 <gmaxwell> nanotube: because that redistributes wealth to miners, its not at all economically neutral, so I doubt people would support it.
2120 2011-07-11 20:46:05 <nanotube> free market solves the problems.
2121 2011-07-11 20:46:09 <iz> also.. if there are unredeemed transactions in blocks.. doesn't that also mean that the transaction tree can't be pruned?
2122 2011-07-11 20:46:15 <Blitzboom> which sounds ironic to me, because i think there are greater risks from satoshi and other early miners
2123 2011-07-11 20:46:33 <jrmithdobbs> iz: yes to some extent
2124 2011-07-11 20:46:43 <gmaxwell> nanotube: it would also be tricky to forumulate without creating weird games (like declining to mine near to timeout txn so that their inputs expire)
2125 2011-07-11 20:46:51 Pinion has joined
2126 2011-07-11 20:46:58 <iz> so that's yet another legit reason to consider having long-standing unredeemed transactions to eventually expire
2127 2011-07-11 20:47:16 <gmaxwell> nanotube: it's also distorting, e.g. you'd be inflating the value of mining randomly over its actual value.
2128 2011-07-11 20:47:21 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: the idea that old money could be lost without spending it and therefore revealing information about its source or organization will probably make a lot of people angry.
2129 2011-07-11 20:47:27 Sickness\ is now known as plus_m
2130 2011-07-11 20:47:37 plus_m is now known as Sickness\
2131 2011-07-11 20:47:38 <nanotube> gmaxwell: just leaving them there would be easy to formulate, in contrast. :)
2132 2011-07-11 20:47:52 <nanotube> if ecdsa comes within the realm of easy crackability
2133 2011-07-11 20:48:00 <Blitzboom> again, i think it’s an economical non-issue
2134 2011-07-11 20:48:03 <nanotube> there will be a shift to new crypto after, say, blockX
2135 2011-07-11 20:48:05 <nanotube> etc.
2136 2011-07-11 20:48:06 <Blitzboom> supply and demand etc.
2137 2011-07-11 20:48:06 <jrmithdobbs> it's not really an issue of ecdsa being easily crackable
2138 2011-07-11 20:48:23 <jrmithdobbs> it's an issue of deriving the public keys becoming trivial
2139 2011-07-11 20:48:28 <nanotube> anyone who doesn't spend his old coins to new crypto until the stuff becomes crackable with home-hardware, stands to lose them to ecdsa-cracker-miners.
2140 2011-07-11 20:48:29 <jrmithdobbs> the encoded public keys
2141 2011-07-11 20:48:33 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: yes, but a long window is not much burden and it will be mandatory due to crypto weaknesses eventually (if you don't respend you'll lose it when someone cracks your keys)
2142 2011-07-11 20:48:45 <b4epoche> so what happens when my great-great-granddaughter stumbles upon my stash of bitbills?
2143 2011-07-11 20:48:45 <jrmithdobbs> of the specific curve we are using
2144 2011-07-11 20:49:05 <gmaxwell> nanotube: right but the choce is {give to miners, make vanish forever} the latter is far more economically neutral.
2145 2011-07-11 20:49:12 <b4epoche> that I conveniently buried in the back yard next to the dead cat?
2146 2011-07-11 20:49:18 <Blitzboom> actually i’d find demurrage interesting for other reasons
2147 2011-07-11 20:49:29 <Blitzboom> because you could pay the miners with it rather than transaction fees
2148 2011-07-11 20:49:40 <Blitzboom> and have tiny anti-spam ones
2149 2011-07-11 20:49:42 <jrmithdobbs> why would you pay miners with it?
2150 2011-07-11 20:49:48 <Evious> b4epoche, who cares, they can resurrect pets at that point. Your cat will live again!
2151 2011-07-11 20:50:00 <jrmithdobbs> there's no advantage to doing so
2152 2011-07-11 20:50:06 <jrmithdobbs> and several disadvantages
2153 2011-07-11 20:50:10 <gmaxwell> or really {let ecdsa crackers take it, give to miners, make vanish forever if not respent} and the last is the most economicall neutral by far
2154 2011-07-11 20:50:14 <Blitzboom> jrmithdobbs: there is: lower transaction fees
2155 2011-07-11 20:50:22 <Blitzboom> in the future, that would be …
2156 2011-07-11 20:50:36 <nanotube> gmaxwell: i think the former is economically neutral as well. inasmuch as it "doesn't try to legislate the economy" :)
2157 2011-07-11 20:50:36 <b4epoche> just distribute them to everyone!  eh, well, that's the same as destroying them...
2158 2011-07-11 20:50:50 <Blitzboom> b4epoche: not psychologically
2159 2011-07-11 20:50:54 <Blitzboom> :D
2160 2011-07-11 20:51:03 <jrmithdobbs> Blitzboom: it'd just be a boom/bust situation, doing that will just artificially deflate value for a given time
2161 2011-07-11 20:51:06 <Blitzboom> that’s why i would like to start using mBTC
2162 2011-07-11 20:51:10 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: it's basically impossible to have any programmed scheme of that not be super economically distorting. What happens if 1 BTC is worth a billion and it starts adding 10BTC reward as lost coin recovery. People will start building dysonspheres to capture the suns total output for mining. :)
2163 2011-07-11 20:51:25 <knotwork> what happens to chain and to wallets when ADDRESSVERSION changes?
2164 2011-07-11 20:51:26 <nanotube> gmaxwell: btw, by 'give to miners' i mean, to the ecdsa-crackers who become a new breed of miners for a while. not the regular miners.
2165 2011-07-11 20:51:28 <gmaxwell> nanotube: ^ thats why its not neutral.
2166 2011-07-11 20:51:36 <nanotube> since the former would happen naturally, while the latter would have to be 'made'
2167 2011-07-11 20:51:40 <knotwork> I had been using -testnet portion of code to run alternate currencies,
2168 2011-07-11 20:51:44 <nanotube> the former is the 'neutral' strategy
2169 2011-07-11 20:51:50 <b4epoche> doesn't it piss folks off that this rich 'holes with tons of money can build submarines and find sunken treasure?
2170 2011-07-11 20:52:00 <jrmithdobbs> knotwork: they'll be invalid
2171 2011-07-11 20:52:01 klikklak has joined
2172 2011-07-11 20:52:03 <knotwork> then one day -testnet started using a different ADDRESSVERSION or something like that?
2173 2011-07-11 20:52:12 <gmaxwell> nanotube: it's only neutral in a perverted sense. Yes, its a "natural" flaw of the system, but it's not a reward that would exist absent some accident of bitcoin design.
2174 2011-07-11 20:52:15 <nanotube> b4epoche: hehe indeed. :)
2175 2011-07-11 20:52:22 <Blitzboom> b4epoche: it generally pisses me off when i see someone richer than me
2176 2011-07-11 20:52:40 <knotwork> now my wallets that had money in many different accounts have all their money only in the "" account
2177 2011-07-11 20:53:02 <knotwork> the actual key/number behind addresses doesnt change, right?
2178 2011-07-11 20:53:11 klikklak_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2179 2011-07-11 20:53:17 <nanotube> gmaxwell: the fact that crypto gets improved over time is not an accident. :) but anyway... we'll kill that bird when we get to it. :)
2180 2011-07-11 20:53:19 <gmaxwell> nanotube: and so the bitcoin economy would forever be saddled with the friction of that possible event.  e.g. "supply and demand dicatates that a spaceship should cost 0.01 BTC, but because someone might show up with a zillion lost coins tomorrow, I want to charge more"
2181 2011-07-11 20:53:28 <knotwork> different ADDRESSVERSION simply displays the keys with different prefix but key ios the same?
2182 2011-07-11 20:54:05 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yes, I agree it will be addressed.
2183 2011-07-11 20:54:06 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: hmm indeed, it could lower the value of bitcoins
2184 2011-07-11 20:54:15 <Blitzboom> BUT
2185 2011-07-11 20:54:22 <Blitzboom> we could address that issue with propaganda and distortion
2186 2011-07-11 20:54:41 <gmaxwell> Or we could address that by fixing the system as part of the eventual crypto upgrade.
2187 2011-07-11 20:54:43 <Blitzboom> it’s human psychology after all
2188 2011-07-11 20:55:02 <nanotube> gmaxwell: something to think about :)
2189 2011-07-11 20:55:06 <gmaxwell> In any case, I just brought that up as an example of something that probably needs to be changed which is mostly but not completely economically neutral.
2190 2011-07-11 20:55:19 <knotwork> nanotech could come up with nanofabricators tommorrow that will make growing automobiles as easy as growing pot so I want to charge more for automobiles...
2191 2011-07-11 20:55:35 <gmaxwell> (whereas I think people flapping their lips about obviously non-neutral things like changing the payout schedule are all complete idiots)
2192 2011-07-11 20:55:42 <Blitzboom> knotwork: how high is the probability for this?
2193 2011-07-11 20:56:06 <knotwork> not sure, the relevant nanotech might be classified currently
2194 2011-07-11 20:56:14 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: agreed. if we want another curve, we’ll need another currency
2195 2011-07-11 20:56:18 <gmaxwell> knotwork: that would make you charge less for automobiles, fwiw. :)
2196 2011-07-11 20:56:50 <b4epoche_> yea, and any argument that resorts to conspiracy theory is not good
2197 2011-07-11 20:56:55 <Blitzboom> i’m going to bring up this argument next time i buy a car
2198 2011-07-11 20:56:59 <nanotube> gmaxwell: haha indeed. (re charge less)
2199 2011-07-11 20:57:19 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: yea, any obviously-not-neutral change, if somehow sucessful at all, would totally ruin confidence in the system. Even if the economic decisions in bitcoin are bad at least you can trust that they are invariants.
2200 2011-07-11 20:57:54 <knotwork> ah so its more like the fed might print more money tommorrow so I want to charge more for what I sell now?
2201 2011-07-11 20:58:01 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: see, this is why i worry about the curve which is leaned in an EXTREME manner towoards early comers
2202 2011-07-11 20:58:09 <gmaxwell> knotwork: bingo, and people do that.
2203 2011-07-11 20:58:23 <Blitzboom> i fear that people coming after us will just not accept it and decide to change it
2204 2011-07-11 20:58:32 <knotwork> well they should print faster so I can charge even more! hahaha
2205 2011-07-11 20:58:47 <Blitzboom> there is a tradeoff between the monetary incentive and the perceived legitimacy of the adopters
2206 2011-07-11 20:59:05 <Blitzboom> if the monetary incentive is too high, it would make you worse off
2207 2011-07-11 20:59:11 <Blitzboom> could*
2208 2011-07-11 20:59:33 <Blitzboom> i am not sure i can defend this system as is
2209 2011-07-11 20:59:36 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: well, they should also reconize that the core value in the system really comes from it being invariant.
2210 2011-07-11 20:59:50 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: they do not recognize
2211 2011-07-11 20:59:58 <gmaxwell> People do once they think about it a bit.
2212 2011-07-11 21:00:00 <Blitzboom> that’s why bitcoin was needed in the first place
2213 2011-07-11 21:00:00 <knotwork> how aobut trying a chain whose curve is derived from difficulty? put log(difficulty) coins in each block or something
2214 2011-07-11 21:00:34 <Blitzboom> knotwork: interesting idea …
2215 2011-07-11 21:00:47 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: prior to bitcoin it was far from clear that it was possible to create a mostly invariant system. The best you could get is a _promise_ by some big entity, and they're all terrible about keeping promises.
2216 2011-07-11 21:00:48 <knotwork> time to start up LOGcoins maybe
2217 2011-07-11 21:01:13 <knotwork> new from the Canadian beavers, LOGcoins! Be an Early Adopter now!
2218 2011-07-11 21:01:32 <gmaxwell> knotwork: er, that makes the supply of coins difficult to predict.
2219 2011-07-11 21:01:52 <knotwork> be a professional oracle! sell logcoin predictions!
2220 2011-07-11 21:02:02 <gmaxwell> worse, it sets up competative interests, e.g. coin holders should hire ninjas to smash the gpus of big miners.
2221 2011-07-11 21:02:12 <knotwork> awesome!
2222 2011-07-11 21:02:20 <gmaxwell> Vs now smashing miners is only, at most, interesting to other miners.
2223 2011-07-11 21:02:24 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: you don’t distribute 50% of a currency in the first four years and expect the whole world to accept it
2224 2011-07-11 21:02:30 <Blitzboom> i think that’s a joke
2225 2011-07-11 21:02:33 <knotwork> Grand Vandalism GPU, the LOGcash game! In 3D!
2226 2011-07-11 21:03:07 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: they would have to pay a premium to us for using bitcoin
2227 2011-07-11 21:03:40 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: thats still more egalitarian than all the other currencies. Go look at the wealth disparity out there. Bitcoin would have been far better off if not for the early rise of the gpus, it's probably no worse none the less.
2228 2011-07-11 21:03:47 <nanotube> Blitzboom: you don't provide no benefit to early adopters and expect anyone (much less the whole world) to adopt it. :P
2229 2011-07-11 21:04:16 <Blitzboom> nanotube: but you do get my point?
2230 2011-07-11 21:04:20 <knotwork> the total supply of coins could still be arbitrary. i(total>=21m? 0 : log(difficulty))
2231 2011-07-11 21:04:28 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: moreover, it's not like the initial holders are all keeping it, it's moving around and spreading out. Who cares about the actual coins when the eventual value won't be maximized until the far future.
2232 2011-07-11 21:04:50 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: yeah, i personally think bitcoin is more legitimate than any other currency
2233 2011-07-11 21:04:54 <nanotube> Blitzboom: i get it, but i don't agree with it. :) people have no problem adopting say, usd, even though most of the benefit from the issue of new usd goes to big bankers who're 'close to the tap'
2234 2011-07-11 21:05:06 <Blitzboom> it’s been publically announced since it’s inception and anyone could have participated
2235 2011-07-11 21:05:13 <nanotube> though it does help that the govt has guns to force you to adopt it.
2236 2011-07-11 21:05:32 <gmaxwell> E.g. some early adopter had 10k btc and he bought a pizza with it. :) Someday 10kbtc might buy a spaceship. ... someday far later later it might buy a planet.
2237 2011-07-11 21:05:37 <Blitzboom> i just fear that the monetary incentive of bitcoin may be overkill
2238 2011-07-11 21:05:44 <Blitzboom> there is marginal utility in that too, nanotube
2239 2011-07-11 21:05:59 <Blitzboom> what’s the difference between getting 1% or 0.1% BTC?
2240 2011-07-11 21:06:07 <gmaxwell> so part of the point of making the initial distribution happen fast is that it gets it over with before the coins gain _real_ value.
2241 2011-07-11 21:06:09 <wirehead> someday it might only afford a pizza again
2242 2011-07-11 21:06:52 <nanotube> Blitzboom: well, it remains to be seen... so why don't we sit back, relax, and see? (and start a few bitcoin-accepting businesses while we sit) :)
2243 2011-07-11 21:06:59 <gmaxwell> wirehead: Yep. Well, thats why people are only paying $14/BTC now. :)
2244 2011-07-11 21:07:09 <gmaxwell> nanotube+++
2245 2011-07-11 21:07:09 osmosis has joined
2246 2011-07-11 21:07:12 redshark1802 has left ("Verlassend")
2247 2011-07-11 21:07:43 <Blitzboom> well, if you care about the value of your coins, you should care about bitcoin’s perception
2248 2011-07-11 21:08:06 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: right, but games to improve the percieved value that ruin the actual value are right-out. Alas.
2249 2011-07-11 21:08:15 <diki> can a block be solved by a negative nonce?
2250 2011-07-11 21:08:53 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: my point is, i cannot explain anyone why it is a tremendous risk to run an app for a few weeks
2251 2011-07-11 21:09:11 <Blitzboom> like folding@home
2252 2011-07-11 21:09:35 Ryan has quit (Desktop!~Ryan@64.253.2.80.dyn-cm-pool72.pool.hargray.net|Quit: You care. You're there for me. You love me so much, and I never want to let it go. You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
2253 2011-07-11 21:09:42 <Blitzboom> some people may view it as "illegitimate"
2254 2011-07-11 21:10:05 <Blitzboom> hopefully not the majority
2255 2011-07-11 21:10:13 <Blitzboom> that would suck with bitcoin :P
2256 2011-07-11 21:10:57 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: well, people need to be educated. Bitcoin may _fail_ but there is nothing currently illegitimate about it.  I like to use beaniebabies as a comparison point.
2257 2011-07-11 21:11:47 <gmaxwell> I found that a self depricating explination, e.g. comparing bitcoin to beaniebabies or something else worthless that people have valued, works pretty well.  Most people want to believe in bitcoin anyways, at least once they're past their initial objections.
2258 2011-07-11 21:12:38 <Blitzboom> hmmm
2259 2011-07-11 21:13:05 <Blitzboom> i don’t know the story about those. they were worthless at first and then gained huge value?
2260 2011-07-11 21:13:25 <Blitzboom> due to scarcity
2261 2011-07-11 21:13:26 <gmaxwell> E.g. there is nothing illegitimate about making/buying/selling beaniebabies, even though they are stupid. If people value them, they value them. And unlike beaniebabies bitcoins are easily transfered, predictable and controlled in supply, etc.
2262 2011-07-11 21:13:26 <knotwork> diki the bits are interpreted as unsigned integer, which representation of sign do you have in mind, maybe all of them use the high bits so wont work due to too low a difficulty
2263 2011-07-11 21:13:27 <nanotube> diki: a nonce is just a 32bit value. so whether you put in a 'negative number' using some encoding, or not, is irrelevant.
2264 2011-07-11 21:13:52 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: yes. It was a normal toy, people started collecting them, they became scarcity and the maker was smart enough to not disrupt the scarcity.
2265 2011-07-11 21:14:12 <gmaxwell> s/scarcity/scarce/
2266 2011-07-11 21:14:29 <Blitzboom> but who gets something for free here?
2267 2011-07-11 21:14:52 <Blitzboom> (yes yes, technically bitcoins even with cpu times were not free, but practically)
2268 2011-07-11 21:15:12 glassresistor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2269 2011-07-11 21:15:13 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2270 2011-07-11 21:15:22 <Blitzboom> the beanie babies are a product manufactured
2271 2011-07-11 21:15:30 <knotwork> SO are bitcoins
2272 2011-07-11 21:15:31 <gmaxwell> In the case of beniebabies the early adopters and the maker of benybabies. Not free, but very very cheap. Likewise with bitcoins. Not just CPU time but your own time is not free.
2273 2011-07-11 21:15:32 <nanotube> electricity isn't free
2274 2011-07-11 21:15:43 <Blitzboom> nanotube: i said practically
2275 2011-07-11 21:15:52 <Blitzboom> if you leave your PC on anyway, what is the cost in the CPU time?
2276 2011-07-11 21:16:06 <nanotube> Blitzboom: probably about an incremental 80-100W
2277 2011-07-11 21:16:34 <gmaxwell> I ran bitcoin fairly early on, but I've since lost whatever coins I generated. I figured it wasn't worth my time to keep paying attention to it, and after some computer upgrade or another I didn't keep it going. ::shrugs::
2278 2011-07-11 21:16:46 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: ok, i guess the comparison is valid
2279 2011-07-11 21:16:48 <knotwork> The solution to complaints about early adopters is simple: go right now quick before it is too late and become an early adopter of today's new blockchain
2280 2011-07-11 21:17:02 <gmaxwell> It wasn't an accident. I had other things to do with my time and didn't think the risk of bitcoin becoming successful was a net win vs the time and effort expended to keep up with it.
2281 2011-07-11 21:17:11 <nanotube> the point is, you get something for cheap before anyone thinks it has value... then it gains a lot of value... you just made money 'for free'. such is life.
2282 2011-07-11 21:17:16 <knotwork> today that is GRouPcoin, in days to come nitNickeLs and more will also become open to adopters
2283 2011-07-11 21:17:24 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: formatted your drive?
2284 2011-07-11 21:17:50 james__ has joined
2285 2011-07-11 21:17:50 james__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2286 2011-07-11 21:17:53 topace_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2287 2011-07-11 21:17:59 <nanotube> gmaxwell: could probably still try to recover the keys, if you have the disk
2288 2011-07-11 21:18:13 <Blitzboom> good idea
2289 2011-07-11 21:18:24 topace_ has joined
2290 2011-07-11 21:18:26 <Blitzboom> nanotube: but it will disrupt the market!!!!!!!!
2291 2011-07-11 21:18:28 <Blitzboom> :D
2292 2011-07-11 21:18:35 <gmaxwell> Most likely. I have a literally have a storage tub full of disks. I checked a couple. But its more likely that it got wiped.
2293 2011-07-11 21:18:36 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: wait, are beanie babies worth money?
2294 2011-07-11 21:18:53 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: they have been, at various points in time. I don't know about now.
2295 2011-07-11 21:18:54 <nanotube> Blitzboom: haha indeed. gmaxwell don't recover the keys - because that would dump a lot of fresh coin supply and disrupt the market! :)
2296 2011-07-11 21:19:25 <gmaxwell> well, at this point it would hardly matter.
2297 2011-07-11 21:19:46 <gmaxwell> In any case, I don't think my odds are good. Of course, any disk I discard I'll scan for private keys first.
2298 2011-07-11 21:20:00 <jrmithdobbs> holy shit, some of them are quite valuable
2299 2011-07-11 21:20:07 Sacrotes has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2300 2011-07-11 21:20:15 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: quick, mine some beaniebabies! :)
2301 2011-07-11 21:20:19 <Blitzboom> jrmithdobbs: how much for the most expensive one?
2302 2011-07-11 21:20:47 <jrmithdobbs> saw one that's ~$1500
2303 2011-07-11 21:21:01 <jrmithdobbs> and i know where one of those is sitting
2304 2011-07-11 21:21:08 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: i hope you’ll find them, despite the inflation it would bring
2305 2011-07-11 21:21:09 <nanotube> gmaxwell: i make fun, that said it's something to think about what to do re coins on old keys when the crypto goes poof. i'm not attached to either approach, was just hashing it out. :)
2306 2011-07-11 21:21:29 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: nice :)
2307 2011-07-11 21:21:29 <gmaxwell> http://cgi.ebay.com/1997-retaired-princess-beanie-baby-w-matching-princess-/250848867142?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a67c1f346
2308 2011-07-11 21:21:31 <Blitzboom> if there’s one thing i hate more than early adopters profitting
2309 2011-07-11 21:21:36 <Blitzboom> it’s early adopters not profitting
2310 2011-07-11 21:21:47 <nanotube> Blitzboom: haha
2311 2011-07-11 21:21:57 <nanotube> especially if you're one of them, eh? :)
2312 2011-07-11 21:22:12 <Blitzboom> not early enough, nanotube
2313 2011-07-11 21:22:14 <jrmithdobbs> Mystic, (Unicorn fine mane)                        $250.00-$275.00
2314 2011-07-11 21:22:16 <Blitzboom> not early enough :P
2315 2011-07-11 21:22:16 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: I figure it's probably only a few hundred. I only had it running on one system IIRC, my internet gateway box.
2316 2011-07-11 21:22:17 <jrmithdobbs> holy shit
2317 2011-07-11 21:22:20 <jrmithdobbs> i have one of those in my colset
2318 2011-07-11 21:22:22 <jrmithdobbs> lol
2319 2011-07-11 21:22:42 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: ok, that’s something i could sleep with
2320 2011-07-11 21:22:47 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: you didn't see my link to the two million dollar beanie baby pair?
2321 2011-07-11 21:23:09 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: hehe it's like finding an old bitcoir wallet full of coins that you forgot you had, eh? :)
2322 2011-07-11 21:23:10 <Blitzboom> something i could not even live with is losing 25k BTC on windows though
2323 2011-07-11 21:23:17 <b4epoche_> bitcoin is screwed:  http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/11/british-researchers-design-a-million-chip-neural-network-1-100-a/
2324 2011-07-11 21:23:30 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: is that for real?
2325 2011-07-11 21:23:39 f33x has joined
2326 2011-07-11 21:23:41 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: cause my aunt has one of those
2327 2011-07-11 21:23:46 <jrmithdobbs> lol
2328 2011-07-11 21:23:48 <b4epoche_> a million arm
2329 2011-07-11 21:24:09 <nanotube> b4epoche_: goal: mimicking human brain. bitcoin's safe. whew! :)
2330 2011-07-11 21:24:15 <jrmithdobbs> crap, now i have to go through my closet
2331 2011-07-11 21:24:21 <nanotube> human brains suck at calculating sha256 :)
2332 2011-07-11 21:24:30 <kreal-> can I get someone to send me like 20 bitcoin to mgGM2dcZ19Hr6pkyRnDNT9zY7G5FTY2VQ3  testnet ?
2333 2011-07-11 21:24:36 <b4epoche_> but not if that was all it was trained to do
2334 2011-07-11 21:24:41 <OneTimePad> testnet faucet?
2335 2011-07-11 21:24:42 <nanotube> Blitzboom: well first, you'd have to live with being on windows lol. :)
2336 2011-07-11 21:24:58 <jrmithdobbs> wow, i apparently have a couple grand in stuffed animals in my closet wtf
2337 2011-07-11 21:25:08 <Blitzboom> nanotube: pff
2338 2011-07-11 21:25:09 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: it's like finding old wallets!
2339 2011-07-11 21:25:11 <nanotube> b4epoche_: if we take a human baby and raise him from a very early age to do nothing but calculate sha256... he'd still suck at it. :)
2340 2011-07-11 21:25:11 <erus`> beany babies wtf
2341 2011-07-11 21:25:12 <kreal-> I'm giving away 0.11 per visit:   :)
2342 2011-07-11 21:25:19 <kreal-> OneTimePad:
2343 2011-07-11 21:25:22 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: only they aren't empty! lol
2344 2011-07-11 21:25:31 marvin_ has joined
2345 2011-07-11 21:25:41 <erus`> haha
2346 2011-07-11 21:25:42 <marvin_> ;;bc,stats
2347 2011-07-11 21:25:45 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135798 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1289 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes, and 14 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1603861.02805128
2348 2011-07-11 21:25:58 marvin_ has left ()
2349 2011-07-11 21:26:02 <b4epoche> nanotube:  yes, I realize that...  but a neural net doesn't have to worry about eating, breathing, etc.
2350 2011-07-11 21:26:04 <nanotube> b4epoche_: that said, that was tongue in cheek. i bet a million arm cpus could be pretty fast at it. :)
2351 2011-07-11 21:26:08 <erus`> jrmithdobbs: make a video of burning it
2352 2011-07-11 21:26:11 <nanotube> b4epoche: ^ :)
2353 2011-07-11 21:26:14 <kreal-> nevermind 0.11 should do just fine.
2354 2011-07-11 21:26:16 <erus`> troll all the collectors
2355 2011-07-11 21:26:25 <Blitzboom> i want a communistcoin with built-in slow redistribution
2356 2011-07-11 21:26:30 * b4epoche heads home before the rain comes
2357 2011-07-11 21:26:36 <OneTimePad> kreal: ahh the good old days. I remember when the testnet faucet handed out 500 at a time. 0.11 isn't very much.
2358 2011-07-11 21:26:41 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: so yea, at least I've found that most people are aware of the beniebaby craze (perhaps you're too young to have looked at it with dismay when it happened? :) ), and the comparison to bitcoin at least addresses concerns about legitimacy.
2359 2011-07-11 21:26:45 <erus`> i want anarchist coin
2360 2011-07-11 21:26:50 <Blitzboom> but it can’t work, as private keys are not bound to identity :(
2361 2011-07-11 21:27:03 <nanotube> Blitzboom: communist coin: hands out coins not according to your hashing ability, but according to your needs. :)
2362 2011-07-11 21:27:03 f33x has quit (Client Quit)
2363 2011-07-11 21:27:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: nah i always thought it was stupid but got them as gifts from my mom/crazy aunt
2364 2011-07-11 21:27:12 <erus`> haha
2365 2011-07-11 21:27:22 <kreal-> OneTimePad: well i trowed 4ghash at testnet and got 50 bitcoins in 10 seconds, but I forgot I need to wait for 120 confirmations :)
2366 2011-07-11 21:27:26 <Blitzboom> nanotube: ahahaha. yeah, you’d have to fill a survey within the bitcoin client
2367 2011-07-11 21:27:34 <Blitzboom> then the network decides
2368 2011-07-11 21:27:38 <nanotube> haha yea.
2369 2011-07-11 21:27:40 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: had no idea people still paid money for this trash
2370 2011-07-11 21:27:47 <nanotube> Blitzboom: the block chain would store all the sob stories
2371 2011-07-11 21:27:48 <nanotube> :)
2372 2011-07-11 21:27:57 <jrmithdobbs> now if only i can find a way to sell them for bitcoins
2373 2011-07-11 21:27:58 <nanotube> jrmithdobbs: well while they are... sell sell sell. :)
2374 2011-07-11 21:28:00 <OneTimePad> kreal: Nice. So throw 4 more ghash at it for a few hundred seconds and get yourself the 120 confirmations.
2375 2011-07-11 21:28:09 <Blitzboom> btw, you guys know that pools are fascist?
2376 2011-07-11 21:28:10 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2377 2011-07-11 21:28:11 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
2378 2011-07-11 21:28:14 <Blitzboom> you all are mining for a führer
2379 2011-07-11 21:28:21 <jrmithdobbs> Blitzboom: kgb actually
2380 2011-07-11 21:29:03 <Blitzboom> are there communist pools out there yet?
2381 2011-07-11 21:29:04 <Evious> Ein Schwimmbad
2382 2011-07-11 21:29:16 <nanotube> kreal-: put in a buy order for testnet coins ;)
2383 2011-07-11 21:29:18 <jrmithdobbs> i've already said too much
2384 2011-07-11 21:29:19 <Blitzboom> where everyone gets the same payout
2385 2011-07-11 21:29:26 <nanotube> Blitzboom: lol
2386 2011-07-11 21:29:28 <gmaxwell> someone posted begging for the existance of one on the forum.
2387 2011-07-11 21:29:31 <kreal-> nanotube: hah good one.
2388 2011-07-11 21:29:38 <gmaxwell> I couldn't tell if they were stupid or trolling.
2389 2011-07-11 21:29:42 <kreal-> at $14 right
2390 2011-07-11 21:29:48 <nanotube> kreal-: hey, mainnet coins were handed out for free once, too. :)
2391 2011-07-11 21:29:52 <nanotube> kreal-: no no not 14
2392 2011-07-11 21:29:56 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: is trolling not stupid?
2393 2011-07-11 21:29:56 <kreal-> :)
2394 2011-07-11 21:30:05 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: different kinds of stupid at least.
2395 2011-07-11 21:30:10 <gmaxwell> One is curable.
2396 2011-07-11 21:30:16 <nanotube> kreal-: .003 usd/testnetcoin :) or something to that effect. like the first bitcoin trades :)
2397 2011-07-11 21:30:55 <IO-> is there a doc out there on how to use the testnet with pushpool to test a new pool?
2398 2011-07-11 21:31:10 <kreal-> IO-: dont think so
2399 2011-07-11 21:31:13 <kreal-> but follow for mainnet
2400 2011-07-11 21:31:19 <kreal-> and just do testnet=1 ?
2401 2011-07-11 21:31:22 <kreal-> thats what I just did.
2402 2011-07-11 21:31:27 <nanotube> Blitzboom: gmaxwell: actually, a communist pool would be an interesting experiment. start a normal pool. then have it go communist, and time it on a stop watch to see how fast all the miners abandon it. :)
2403 2011-07-11 21:31:36 <kreal-> tough I have like setup 6 pools now, so I have it on my fingers :)
2404 2011-07-11 21:31:58 <Blitzboom> nanotube: a true communist pool would not allow the miners to do so
2405 2011-07-11 21:32:09 <IO-> so when bitcoind is on the testnet and pushpoold is pointing to it you get valid blocks so you can test the whole process?
2406 2011-07-11 21:32:10 <Blitzboom> they can’t just leave the border
2407 2011-07-11 21:32:18 <kreal-> IO-: yes
2408 2011-07-11 21:32:18 <nanotube> Blitzboom: lol i was just about to say - to make experiment more realistic, send people with guns to all miner homes, to prevent them from switching pools.
2409 2011-07-11 21:32:21 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
2410 2011-07-11 21:32:42 <IO-> and when you reset bitcoind off testnet the wallet is just zero'd ?
2411 2011-07-11 21:32:58 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2412 2011-07-11 21:32:59 <nanotube> IO-: you use a separate wallet for testnet and mainnet.
2413 2011-07-11 21:33:01 <kreal-> its all in a seperate folder called testnet.
2414 2011-07-11 21:33:08 <Blitzboom> "i swear, i’ve seen him on mining on deepbit!"
2415 2011-07-11 21:33:16 <IO-> awesome
2416 2011-07-11 21:33:19 <kreal-> oh yeah and IO- buy my pool script...
2417 2011-07-11 21:34:10 <IO-> link
2418 2011-07-11 21:34:10 Maged has joined
2419 2011-07-11 21:34:16 <kreal-> gbyte.dk/purchase
2420 2011-07-11 21:34:57 <nanotube> kreal-: i'll sell you 20 testnetbtc for 0.1 mainnetbtc total. (i'd give them to you for free... but i can't be arsed to fire up the client and catch up on the testnet chain... and also i want to establish a market for testnetcoins :D )
2421 2011-07-11 21:34:58 <IO-> web frontend to the sql backend of pushpool ?
2422 2011-07-11 21:35:24 <kreal-> IO-: I would say extended pushpool sql scheme?
2423 2011-07-11 21:35:27 <Blitzboom> nanotube: meh, i thought testnet is reset often
2424 2011-07-11 21:35:31 <kreal-> or build around pushpool
2425 2011-07-11 21:35:38 <Blitzboom> can’t have a long-term market with such a currency
2426 2011-07-11 21:35:41 <nanotube> Blitzboom: only once, so far. :)
2427 2011-07-11 21:35:44 <kreal-> nanotube: deal.
2428 2011-07-11 21:35:52 <Blitzboom> really? interesting
2429 2011-07-11 21:35:54 <kreal-> need a few to test something im building
2430 2011-07-11 21:36:07 <nanotube> kreal-: ok, give me some time to fire up and catch up on the chain ;)
2431 2011-07-11 21:36:12 <Blitzboom> nanotube: we should definitely have a testnet/BTC exchange
2432 2011-07-11 21:36:34 pumpkin has joined
2433 2011-07-11 21:36:42 <Blitzboom> i really want to see what happens
2434 2011-07-11 21:37:00 <Blitzboom> what’s the difficulty on testnet? :D
2435 2011-07-11 21:37:16 <kreal-> 502.92155041
2436 2011-07-11 21:37:37 <Blitzboom> thx, got it on blockexplorer
2437 2011-07-11 21:37:50 <Blitzboom> why not mine a bunch for fun?
2438 2011-07-11 21:38:52 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2439 2011-07-11 21:39:02 <kreal-> meh
2440 2011-07-11 21:39:10 danbri has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2441 2011-07-11 21:39:13 <kreal-> two blocks on testnet
2442 2011-07-11 21:39:17 <kreal-> im rich
2443 2011-07-11 21:39:47 * gmaxwell splits the chain and takes all of kreal-'s monies.
2444 2011-07-11 21:39:53 <kinlo> heh
2445 2011-07-11 21:40:20 <Blitzboom> someday, someone will make a TNC/BTC exchange
2446 2011-07-11 21:40:34 <nanotube> Blitzboom: already exists on OTC :)
2447 2011-07-11 21:40:40 pumpkin has quit (Client Quit)
2448 2011-07-11 21:40:40 <ThomasV> how much are tncs ?
2449 2011-07-11 21:40:43 <nanotube> it is the exchange fro everything hehe
2450 2011-07-11 21:40:49 <Blitzboom> nanotube: those suck at determining supply and demand
2451 2011-07-11 21:40:52 <Blitzboom> :P
2452 2011-07-11 21:41:29 <gmaxwell> Once people start trading testnet coins for real value the developers will break the testnet chain again.
2453 2011-07-11 21:41:49 <gmaxwell> This was done before, and I expect it will keep happening, otherwise testnet stops being useful for testing if its hard to get coins.
2454 2011-07-11 21:42:00 <nanotube> Blitzboom: true :)
2455 2011-07-11 21:42:04 <Blitzboom> why would they do that?
2456 2011-07-11 21:42:16 <Blitzboom> that’s fascist
2457 2011-07-11 21:42:28 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2458 2011-07-11 21:42:29 <nanotube> ThomasV: just sold some for .005 btc each ;)
2459 2011-07-11 21:42:33 <Blitzboom> and how do they break the testnet anyway? gain majority?
2460 2011-07-11 21:42:40 <gmaxwell> It's testnet. Run a fork of the old version if you don't like it.
2461 2011-07-11 21:42:41 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: pretty hilarious, apparently my sister gave all those to her (very young) children
2462 2011-07-11 21:42:51 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: the baby is chewing on one worth ~$50 as we speak lol
2463 2011-07-11 21:42:53 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: swap the genesis block in the software.
2464 2011-07-11 21:42:54 <ThomasV> nanotube: that's a lot
2465 2011-07-11 21:43:49 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2466 2011-07-11 21:43:52 <nanotube> Blitzboom: they just stick a new genesis block into the mainline client. and 'by default' most people upgrade.
2467 2011-07-11 21:44:03 <nanotube> Blitzboom: it's of course still possible to stay on the old chain
2468 2011-07-11 21:44:11 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
2469 2011-07-11 21:44:14 <Blitzboom> pricks
2470 2011-07-11 21:44:28 <Blitzboom> why don’t they just mine a few k and stfu?
2471 2011-07-11 21:45:02 <Blitzboom> or buy them :D
2472 2011-07-11 21:45:05 <gmaxwell> besides, the value is a joke regardless. I could remine all of testnet in a few days if I wanted to blow a bunch of btc breaking it.
2473 2011-07-11 21:45:11 Pinion has quit (Quit: Has quit)
2474 2011-07-11 21:45:17 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and her other son has destroyed one worth ~$300
2475 2011-07-11 21:45:25 <jrmithdobbs> why do people pay for these things are they retarded?
2476 2011-07-11 21:45:34 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: because then it becomes hard to test. Say you want to to test something that requires mining because your test involves a non-standard transaction.
2477 2011-07-11 21:45:45 <Blitzboom> ah
2478 2011-07-11 21:45:48 <gmaxwell> It's fking retarded if you have to expend $$$$ in lost bitcoin mining just to get a test block.
2479 2011-07-11 21:46:07 <Blitzboom> jrmithdobbs: LOL
2480 2011-07-11 21:46:16 <gmaxwell> Also, many developers don't have a ton of mining hardware even if they wanted to do that, so they'd have to find some miner to buy time from.
2481 2011-07-11 21:46:28 <gmaxwell> It's in our best interest that testing be as cheap as possible, thats why its testnet.
2482 2011-07-11 21:46:45 <Blitzboom> yes, you’re right
2483 2011-07-11 21:47:29 <gmaxwell> You could, of course, keep a fork running. But why not just start your own fork if you're in that game? :)
2484 2011-07-11 21:47:30 b4epoche_ has joined
2485 2011-07-11 21:47:31 <phantomcircuit> it's actually too high difficulty now
2486 2011-07-11 21:47:35 <phantomcircuit> i vote it be reset
2487 2011-07-11 21:47:36 <gmaxwell> Agreed.
2488 2011-07-11 21:47:58 <kinlo> how does the difficulty on the testnet works?
2489 2011-07-11 21:48:11 <kinlo> it is not recalculated like on the real net?
2490 2011-07-11 21:48:12 <phantomcircuit> same as normal net
2491 2011-07-11 21:48:20 <phantomcircuit> just gets restarted when it's too high
2492 2011-07-11 21:48:33 <kinlo> so someone was mining like hell causing the high difficulty?
2493 2011-07-11 21:48:57 <kinlo> because I was assuming that the number of blocks was not increased...
2494 2011-07-11 21:49:00 <phantomcircuit> yeah and afaict it was less than 2k blocks ago
2495 2011-07-11 21:49:07 <phantomcircuit> so they just like jacked it up and left
2496 2011-07-11 21:49:08 <phantomcircuit> for lulz
2497 2011-07-11 21:49:09 <kinlo> how do you restart the testnet?
2498 2011-07-11 21:49:18 <gmaxwell> By changing the genesis block in the software.
2499 2011-07-11 21:49:22 <phantomcircuit> kinlo, replace the genesis block in the mainline client
2500 2011-07-11 21:49:25 <phantomcircuit> magic
2501 2011-07-11 21:49:26 <phantomcircuit> lol
2502 2011-07-11 21:49:40 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: Perhaps with the .4 release.
2503 2011-07-11 21:49:54 <kinlo> so that means testnet only gets recreated each software release?
2504 2011-07-11 21:50:00 <gmaxwell> but yea, I think it should be reset too.
2505 2011-07-11 21:50:12 <knotwork> testnet is way to high difficulty to bother with considering they delete your coins periodically.
2506 2011-07-11 21:50:12 <gmaxwell> kinlo: not even each software release but "every once in a while"
2507 2011-07-11 21:50:24 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i think some logic to reset it regularly should be added actually
2508 2011-07-11 21:50:25 <kinlo> lemme rephrase
2509 2011-07-11 21:50:30 <knotwork> groupcoin is only difficulty 12.33333 currently, easier to play/test with that
2510 2011-07-11 21:50:36 <kinlo> so that means testnet can only be recreated each software release?
2511 2011-07-11 21:50:41 <phantomcircuit> like reset the genesis block in a deterministic way ever 4k blocks or something
2512 2011-07-11 21:50:47 <phantomcircuit> it would be fairly easy to do i think
2513 2011-07-11 21:50:53 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: well if you made it connect to the main chain it could use the main chain to trigger it.
2514 2011-07-11 21:50:57 <knotwork> and groupcoin's testnet is probably only diffculty 1
2515 2011-07-11 21:51:09 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: use the main chain to get a magic cookie for the new testnet genesis.
2516 2011-07-11 21:51:14 <kinlo> wouldn't it be nice to, instead of using testnet=1 in the config file, to put testnet=XXXX and put the XXX in the genesis block?
2517 2011-07-11 21:51:24 <kinlo> then you would create as many testnets as needed
2518 2011-07-11 21:51:31 <gmaxwell> kinlo: no, because we don't want to encourage people to trade on the damn things.
2519 2011-07-11 21:51:49 <kinlo> right
2520 2011-07-11 21:51:54 <kinlo> it must stay a testnet :)
2521 2011-07-11 21:52:08 <kinlo> I think I do have some 100 BTC there :)
2522 2011-07-11 21:52:10 <gmaxwell> if you make it easy to subscribe to an old one, people may decide to stick with that one and continue trading on it.
2523 2011-07-11 21:52:13 <knotwork> I could add TST to nickelbot's portfolio of currencies it OTC trades but they just seemed not worth using at all
2524 2011-07-11 21:52:18 <kinlo> Let me see if mtgox accepts those :p
2525 2011-07-11 21:53:11 <kinlo> well, last time I wanted to test some software I needed more then one hour with 300Mh/s for 2 blocks :(
2526 2011-07-11 21:53:20 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: e.g. testnet genesis contains a hash of the current bitcoin highest block %16384's hash.
2527 2011-07-11 21:53:25 <kinlo> cpumining should be possible on testnet
2528 2011-07-11 21:54:11 <kinlo> and create a testnet that gets automatically reset every 2 months or so?
2529 2011-07-11 21:54:34 <Blitzboom> why not just make hyperinflationary testnet?
2530 2011-07-11 21:54:36 <kinlo> divide currenttime by some magic and use that in the genesis
2531 2011-07-11 21:54:40 <gmaxwell> hm actually 16384 is too high, 4096 (~28 days) might be better.
2532 2011-07-11 21:54:49 <Blitzboom> or force the difficulty to 1 forever
2533 2011-07-11 21:54:56 pusle has quit ()
2534 2011-07-11 21:55:02 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: that would make it behave less like bitcoin, might hurt some testing.
2535 2011-07-11 21:55:05 <kinlo> nah, the difficulty should be higher then 1 imho
2536 2011-07-11 21:55:37 <kinlo> reset *every* release would be perhaps the best solution
2537 2011-07-11 21:55:51 Joric has joined
2538 2011-07-11 21:56:00 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, manipulating the difficulty calculation is a legitimate thing to test
2539 2011-07-11 21:56:09 <Blitzboom> hm
2540 2011-07-11 21:56:29 <gmaxwell> yea, just resetting every release might be better.
2541 2011-07-11 21:57:00 <gmaxwell> just put the version string in the testnet genesis.
2542 2011-07-11 21:57:23 <gmaxwell> In any case, it's only been mindly annoying.
2543 2011-07-11 21:57:36 <gmaxwell> We currently don't have enough testing for it to be a big issue, but thats a problem by itself.
2544 2011-07-11 21:58:26 <jrmithdobbs> easier to setup your own testnet to test
2545 2011-07-11 21:58:27 <jrmithdobbs> tbqh
2546 2011-07-11 21:58:39 <jrmithdobbs> just sucks for perf
2547 2011-07-11 21:58:44 <gmaxwell> Well, having to run two nodes ia a burden.
2548 2011-07-11 21:58:53 <gmaxwell> Esp since the code wants them on seperate IPs.
2549 2011-07-11 21:59:03 <gmaxwell> (e.g. if you want to test the connection logic)
2550 2011-07-11 21:59:04 <jrmithdobbs> two vms
2551 2011-07-11 21:59:12 <jrmithdobbs> but ya
2552 2011-07-11 21:59:12 <jgarzik> depends on the tests.  testnet-in-a-box type setup works great, for plenty of things that I need to test
2553 2011-07-11 21:59:16 <gmaxwell> yea, thus "burden" rather than impossiblitiy.
2554 2011-07-11 21:59:37 <jgarzik> automated tests will likely look a lot like testnet-in-a-box
2555 2011-07-11 22:00:07 spm_Draget has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2556 2011-07-11 22:00:26 <jgarzik> on another subject, I'm not yet convinced we need to use the 'alert' feature
2557 2011-07-11 22:00:39 * jgarzik wonders where sirius-m is, though
2558 2011-07-11 22:00:55 <jgarzik> bitcointalk.org has been in his possession for a little while now.  need to move the forums off *.bitcoin.org
2559 2011-07-11 22:00:57 <jrmithdobbs> for what?
2560 2011-07-11 22:01:06 <gmaxwell> There is clearly some lack of health in the network, but its far from clear to me that the lack of health is currently fixed.
2561 2011-07-11 22:01:07 <jrmithdobbs> re: alert
2562 2011-07-11 22:01:27 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: it was suggested to use it to encourage people to upgrade.
2563 2011-07-11 22:01:40 <Happy0> http://ragefac.es/43 <== my face when i posted a thread about an android bitcoin client RPC client, and 70 people viewed but didn't reply =p
2564 2011-07-11 22:01:48 eoss has joined
2565 2011-07-11 22:02:04 <Happy0> but i guess that's how forum posts always go
2566 2011-07-11 22:02:08 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: 12:47 <@BlueMatt> 32400I254, 32300I2458, 32200I295, 32100I712, 32002I153, 31900I98
2567 2011-07-11 22:02:09 <Happy0> hundreds of views, like... 2 replies
2568 2011-07-11 22:02:29 <justmoon> Happy0, what thread?
2569 2011-07-11 22:02:33 WombatFarmer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2570 2011-07-11 22:02:41 <Happy0> justmoon: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=27925.0
2571 2011-07-11 22:02:53 <Happy0> =p
2572 2011-07-11 22:02:55 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no, I agree not yet, though if we dont get adoption in the next week or so, maybe
2573 2011-07-11 22:03:08 <jrmithdobbs> notice recruiters: if you call me in the middle of the work day and interupt my music i am not going to answer your damned call
2574 2011-07-11 22:03:08 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: So, e.g. if the lack of health we're seeing now were entirely fixed in .24 I might support using alert, because the uptake hasn't been great.
2575 2011-07-11 22:03:12 <jrmithdobbs> those fuckers are persistant
2576 2011-07-11 22:03:19 <justmoon> Happy0, how is this different/better than http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/
2577 2011-07-11 22:03:23 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ah
2578 2011-07-11 22:03:30 <jgarzik> forum admins are basically MIA :(
2579 2011-07-11 22:03:40 <jgarzik> can't even get a simple '0.3.24 is released' announcement up there
2580 2011-07-11 22:03:41 <gmaxwell> But I am not at all confident that .24 fixes all the issues that currently matter.
2581 2011-07-11 22:03:54 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: which issues remain open, in your opinion?
2582 2011-07-11 22:04:04 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ...that are currently being felt by users
2583 2011-07-11 22:04:46 <Happy0> justmoon: i wasn't aware of that one... but i became aware of one called 'bitcoiner' half way through making it. i guess mines is marginally better in that it has an 'address manager' feature =p
2584 2011-07-11 22:04:51 <Happy0> well, not better
2585 2011-07-11 22:04:51 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I still think something is busted with peer selection, because, e.g. when I rejoin my 25-channels node to IRC I'll jump instantly to 1000 connections from 500, which suggests to me that there are a lot of clients hurting for connections which suddenly pick me because of my recent join.
2586 2011-07-11 22:04:52 <Happy0> different
2587 2011-07-11 22:05:19 <justmoon> Happy0, it's also native, which has it's advantages definitely
2588 2011-07-11 22:05:33 <justmoon> Happy0, source code public? license?
2589 2011-07-11 22:05:56 <Happy0> justmoon: i'm kind of embarressed about my source code (this is the first android thing i've made), but maybe i should make it open source regardless
2590 2011-07-11 22:06:02 <Happy0> that's actually my only reason for not doing so
2591 2011-07-11 22:06:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: but since I can't actually _test_ the network wide effects of peer selection, without a big vm based testing setup, I'm kinda clueless about the correct fix.
2592 2011-07-11 22:06:17 <gmaxwell> (and I've been too lazy/busy to build such a testing rig)
2593 2011-07-11 22:06:19 <Happy0> it might be helpful to someone...
2594 2011-07-11 22:06:20 <justmoon> Happy0, yeah, grow balls, publish source is what I always say
2595 2011-07-11 22:06:25 <Happy0> lmao
2596 2011-07-11 22:06:30 <Happy0> oh god...
2597 2011-07-11 22:06:36 <BlueMatt> Happy0: you think your code is bad...
2598 2011-07-11 22:06:36 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: maybe it's not just peer selection, but simple, desperate need of usable port-8333 nodes?
2599 2011-07-11 22:06:39 <Happy0> i'm blushing at the thought
2600 2011-07-11 22:06:47 <Happy0> it's not bad... it's just untidy
2601 2011-07-11 22:06:48 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I still dont get where that is coming from...are the nodes that swarm you pre 0.3.24?
2602 2011-07-11 22:06:59 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i think the irc channel split caused more damage than we realised tbqh
2603 2011-07-11 22:07:00 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: because, while I do agree that peer selection isn't great, it does not seem like it would produce that behavior just described
2604 2011-07-11 22:07:02 <justmoon> Happy0, also look at original client's source and you'll feel much better
2605 2011-07-11 22:07:08 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2606 2011-07-11 22:07:13 <Happy0> hahaha, cheers justmoon, but i'm unconvinced =p
2607 2011-07-11 22:07:20 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: can you be more specific?
2608 2011-07-11 22:07:28 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I'm sure thats a factor. However, the fact that it goes from 500 (e.g. desperate need) to 1000 on rejoin implicates more than just need.
2609 2011-07-11 22:07:40 <gmaxwell> If it were _just_ need I wouldn't get a huge jump when I reconnect.
2610 2011-07-11 22:07:42 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: gmaxwell's numbers are based off a client that joins all of the irc channels
2611 2011-07-11 22:07:50 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: not all, 25 of them.
2612 2011-07-11 22:08:00 <jrmithdobbs> as many as lfnet allows*
2613 2011-07-11 22:08:22 <Joric> i'm trying to import private key using bitcointools, privatekey in bitcointools is 280 bytes, why it's so long? importprivkey in showwallet needs only 32 bytes key
2614 2011-07-11 22:08:39 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: .24 doesn't matter, I think. The flooding fix needs to be on established nodes who won't be hurting for outbounds, in order to help new nodes.
2615 2011-07-11 22:08:52 <Joric> e.g. http://pastebin.com/81RAA2LP
2616 2011-07-11 22:08:56 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: e.g. the other 2400 nodes being on .24 would help the swarming users, whatever version they are.
2617 2011-07-11 22:09:03 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: no, Im asking if the nodes that are so desperate are on .24 or not?
2618 2011-07-11 22:09:15 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ie if they are on .24, then there is a problem with dnsseed
2619 2011-07-11 22:09:19 <BlueMatt> otherwise, ok
2620 2011-07-11 22:09:21 <gmaxwell> ohhh.
2621 2011-07-11 22:09:37 <gmaxwell> Fair enough, lemme see if I'm logging that.
2622 2011-07-11 22:09:52 <jrmithdobbs> also at least one of the .23 nodes you're reporting has the block send fix (mine) and just never upgraded to .24 proper
2623 2011-07-11 22:10:12 <jrmithdobbs> cause i've been busy ;p
2624 2011-07-11 22:10:12 eternal1 has joined
2625 2011-07-11 22:10:16 <sipa> Joric: because bitcoin uses openssl's horribly inefficient serialized format for private keys
2626 2011-07-11 22:10:31 <sipa> Joric: that includes all field and curve parameters, as well as a copy of the public key
2627 2011-07-11 22:10:58 <gmaxwell> okay..       1 version message: version 310
2628 2011-07-11 22:10:58 <gmaxwell>       1 version message: version 31306
2629 2011-07-11 22:10:58 <gmaxwell>       2 version message: version 312
2630 2011-07-11 22:10:58 <gmaxwell>       2 version message: version 31300
2631 2011-07-11 22:10:58 <gmaxwell>       2 version message: version 31500
2632 2011-07-11 22:11:00 <gmaxwell>       2 version message: version 32000
2633 2011-07-11 22:11:02 <gmaxwell>       4 version message: version 31700
2634 2011-07-11 22:11:05 <gmaxwell>       4 version message: version 32400
2635 2011-07-11 22:11:08 <gmaxwell>       5 version message: version 31800
2636 2011-07-11 22:11:09 <Happy0> justmoon: is google code acceptable for open source... or is it frowned upon or something? everyone around here seems to use github :P
2637 2011-07-11 22:11:10 <gmaxwell>      19 version message: version 32200
2638 2011-07-11 22:11:12 <Joric> sipa, how do you import them?
2639 2011-07-11 22:11:12 <gmaxwell>      24 version message: version 32001
2640 2011-07-11 22:11:15 <gmaxwell>      64 version message: version 31900
2641 2011-07-11 22:11:15 <Happy0> i'm used to subversion...
2642 2011-07-11 22:11:17 <gmaxwell>      73 version message: version 32300
2643 2011-07-11 22:11:20 <gmaxwell>     147 version message: version 32002
2644 2011-07-11 22:11:23 <gmaxwell>     659 version message: version 32100
2645 2011-07-11 22:11:25 <gmaxwell> er sorry for the flood there.
2646 2011-07-11 22:11:27 <BlueMatt> oh god
2647 2011-07-11 22:11:27 <gmaxwell> (I join #bitcoin too)
2648 2011-07-11 22:12:00 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, .23 and before nodes are stupid
2649 2011-07-11 22:12:05 <justmoon> Happy0, not frowned upon, use whatever you prefer - on a personal note, I really love github, so I would encourage anyone to try it :)
2650 2011-07-11 22:12:12 <gmaxwell> yea.. well.. they get hung up on down hosts.
2651 2011-07-11 22:12:16 <BlueMatt> I dont like that even 4 .24 are joining though...
2652 2011-07-11 22:12:25 <BlueMatt> sorry, not .23, just before
2653 2011-07-11 22:12:31 <gmaxwell> Hm. I could make graphs of versions over time from my logs.
2654 2011-07-11 22:12:39 <sipa> Joric: import what, the 279 byte keys, or the 32 byte ones?
2655 2011-07-11 22:12:45 <gmaxwell> I have ~2 second resolution timestamps in them...
2656 2011-07-11 22:12:48 <Joric> 32 byte ones
2657 2011-07-11 22:13:07 <kreal-> ;;gpg eauth kreal-
2658 2011-07-11 22:13:08 <gribble> Request successful for user kreal-, hostmask kreal-!~kris@ip1.c70.frb232.cust.comxnet.dk. Get your encrypted OTP from http://bitcoin-otc.com/otps/0F19C723A191DD05
2659 2011-07-11 22:13:17 <sipa> Joric: in my showwallet branch there is code that rebuilds a CKey based on just the private parameter (the 32 byte thing)
2660 2011-07-11 22:13:20 <BlueMatt> kreal-: can you auth in privmsg with gribble instead?
2661 2011-07-11 22:13:33 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well, I guess its good news that it's .21 nodes which are starved.
2662 2011-07-11 22:13:42 <BlueMatt> absolutely
2663 2011-07-11 22:13:55 <gmaxwell> How has the UPNP feedback been, is it actually working for people?
2664 2011-07-11 22:14:20 <BlueMatt> had only one report that it failed on their router as their router implemented the standard very clearly wrongly...
2665 2011-07-11 22:14:22 bushing has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2666 2011-07-11 22:14:24 <BlueMatt> not something we can fix though
2667 2011-07-11 22:14:24 <gmaxwell> it's also good news that basically none of the nodes connecting to me are .24 ... I'm assuming that I'm listed in dnsseed.
2668 2011-07-11 22:14:29 <nanotube> BlueMatt: hehe bitcoin 3.21 is the ie6 of bitcoin
2669 2011-07-11 22:14:32 <BlueMatt> other than that, its good that there appears to be no reports
2670 2011-07-11 22:14:32 <knotwork> my router doesnt work with the UPNP
2671 2011-07-11 22:14:39 <BlueMatt> nanotube: yea, tell me about it...
2672 2011-07-11 22:14:50 <sipa> Joric: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/acd6501610817eee0bd1c8ea9c591f043affbaec#diff-2
2673 2011-07-11 22:14:51 <kreal-> BlueMatt: sure.
2674 2011-07-11 22:14:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: can you check if 71.191.197.79 is in dnsseed?
2675 2011-07-11 22:15:21 <Joric> sipa, ok, btw i just made a json serialization in a showwallet format, are there any standards on a text-based wallet?
2676 2011-07-11 22:15:41 <comboy> upb: I'm using depth from the websocket, but only for depth changes, this cumulative chart is still 10mins shot, I guess I'll fix is so that latest shot is always up to date
2677 2011-07-11 22:16:06 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: it is
2678 2011-07-11 22:16:07 <sipa> Joric: the format of the json produced by dumpwallet is described in the forum post about it, i believe
2679 2011-07-11 22:16:15 <sipa> Joric: but it's hardly a standard
2680 2011-07-11 22:16:31 <gmaxwell> fantastic, that suggests to me that dnsseed is working: .24 nodes aren't connecting to me in droves...
2681 2011-07-11 22:16:55 <gmaxwell> e.g. 73 .23 nodes vs 4 .24 nodes.
2682 2011-07-11 22:17:10 <nanotube> gmaxwell: indeed
2683 2011-07-11 22:17:17 <BlueMatt> hmm...actually its marked as not accepting incoming connections
2684 2011-07-11 22:17:20 <gmaxwell> Is there some tool handy which will dump addr.dat?
2685 2011-07-11 22:17:22 <Joric> yeah, it's not very consistent, it's probably should be closer to the db structure
2686 2011-07-11 22:17:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: ha.
2687 2011-07-11 22:17:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: bitcointools will do that
2688 2011-07-11 22:17:38 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: darn. well it is, might have been unlucky timing.
2689 2011-07-11 22:17:41 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: in fact, its marked as never having accepted an incoming connection
2690 2011-07-11 22:17:48 <gmaxwell> oh
2691 2011-07-11 22:17:58 <gmaxwell> well thats ... suggesting brokenness.
2692 2011-07-11 22:18:03 <BlueMatt> hopefully that is this elusive bug Ive potentially been seeing
2693 2011-07-11 22:18:16 <gmaxwell> Since I have hundreds of connections that attest otherwise. :)
2694 2011-07-11 22:18:23 <BlueMatt> yea, clearly my bug
2695 2011-07-11 22:18:40 <sipa> which bug?
2696 2011-07-11 22:18:46 klikklak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2697 2011-07-11 22:18:51 <gmaxwell> sipa: it doesn't think a node of mine is listening.
2698 2011-07-11 22:19:09 again has joined
2699 2011-07-11 22:19:27 again is now known as tower
2700 2011-07-11 22:19:41 Tritonio has joined
2701 2011-07-11 22:19:43 <kreal-> I guess you cannot have @ and . in bitcoind account name
2702 2011-07-11 22:20:15 <sipa> not sure why not
2703 2011-07-11 22:20:26 Glasswalker has joined
2704 2011-07-11 22:20:33 <kreal-> just says error: type mismatch
2705 2011-07-11 22:20:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: I had the feeling a similar bug might exist since .24 came out...
2706 2011-07-11 22:20:42 <BlueMatt> now I know for sure...
2707 2011-07-11 22:21:18 Taveren93HGK has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2708 2011-07-11 22:21:21 <kreal-> nevermind
2709 2011-07-11 22:21:23 <kreal-> me getting tired.
2710 2011-07-11 22:21:32 Taveren93HGK has joined
2711 2011-07-11 22:22:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: if you'd like me to make any packet captures here, lemme know.
2712 2011-07-11 22:22:23 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I will, Im just tracing it for now...
2713 2011-07-11 22:22:37 Tritonio has quit (Client Quit)
2714 2011-07-11 22:22:58 AAA_awright_ is now known as AAA_awright
2715 2011-07-11 22:23:41 klikklak has joined
2716 2011-07-11 22:26:02 <Joric> btw i wrote to manufacturers of my router - they've used wrong URLBase in UPNP description xml, they've fixed that and uploaded a new firmware _today_ :)
2717 2011-07-11 22:26:27 <sipa> nice
2718 2011-07-11 22:26:58 <Joric> it would never happen if you were using new miniupnc that doesn't use URLBase
2719 2011-07-11 22:27:02 * jgarzik updates bitseed.xf2.org (a static list, alas)
2720 2011-07-11 22:27:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I show a ICMP pool-71-191-197-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net tcp port 8333 unreachable, length 155
2721 2011-07-11 22:27:39 <BlueMatt> you sure that ip is right?
2722 2011-07-11 22:27:47 <MrSam> :)
2723 2011-07-11 22:27:57 josephholsten has joined
2724 2011-07-11 22:27:58 josephholsten has quit (Excess Flood)
2725 2011-07-11 22:28:02 <BlueMatt> ForceMajeure: nice, what mfgr is that?
2726 2011-07-11 22:28:12 <BlueMatt> Joric: ^
2727 2011-07-11 22:28:16 <BlueMatt> not sure how I did that...
2728 2011-07-11 22:28:18 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: WFM, maybe it's just ICMP filtering.  try 'telnet pool-71-191-197-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net 8333'
2729 2011-07-11 22:28:46 <BlueMatt> actually, that works too...
2730 2011-07-11 22:29:06 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I can connect to it fine from a couple of hosts randomly on the internet.
2731 2011-07-11 22:29:19 <Joric> BlueMatt, acorp, wive-ng-dsl
2732 2011-07-11 22:30:31 <b4epoche_> telnet works
2733 2011-07-11 22:30:32 <Joric> URLBase is deprecated since upnp 1.1, and not recommended since 1.0, unfortunately miniupnpc author removed it just a few months ago, and you're using old version
2734 2011-07-11 22:30:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea nc works fine...
2735 2011-07-11 22:30:41 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: what gadgetry do you use to test node liveness, for your DNS seed?
2736 2011-07-11 22:30:55 <BlueMatt> its php, but wait...wtf one sec
2737 2011-07-11 22:31:01 klikklak_ has joined
2738 2011-07-11 22:31:26 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I don't have anything weird running that I can think would cause that.
2739 2011-07-11 22:31:27 * jgarzik was thinking about using ArtForz' half-a-node as a base, to listen for addresses, test them, then shove them into a database
2740 2011-07-11 22:31:31 <jgarzik> for dnsseed
2741 2011-07-11 22:31:44 <BlueMatt> I do something like that, though not even listen
2742 2011-07-11 22:31:52 <BlueMatt> just connect, get addresses, disconnect
2743 2011-07-11 22:32:28 klikklak has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2744 2011-07-11 22:32:44 <diki> ;;bc,stats
2745 2011-07-11 22:32:46 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135801 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1286 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours, 2 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1598077.42980853
2746 2011-07-11 22:32:57 <BlueMatt> ok, this is just wild...
2747 2011-07-11 22:33:07 <BlueMatt> php clearly connected fine and was able to send the version packet
2748 2011-07-11 22:33:17 <diki> heehaw
2749 2011-07-11 22:33:21 <BlueMatt> though acks are mysteriously missing
2750 2011-07-11 22:33:36 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: verack, or tcp ack?
2751 2011-07-11 22:33:47 <BlueMatt> tcp ack
2752 2011-07-11 22:33:51 <gmaxwell> I still think there should be some mechanism which healthy nodes use to inform the DNSseeds of their existance.. could just be a UDP packet sent every 24 hours to a random dns seed any time the node has been up for a few hours and has had inbound connections.
2753 2011-07-11 22:34:09 <BlueMatt> meh, I dont think thats so worth it
2754 2011-07-11 22:34:27 <gmaxwell> Er, you can't connect and exchange data if there are no acks at all! :)
2755 2011-07-11 22:34:43 mosimo has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
2756 2011-07-11 22:34:44 <Joric> you may check your UPNP router - http://router:49152/rootDesc.xml - if URLBase points to a wrong address then bitcoin client is pretty much fucked
2757 2011-07-11 22:34:45 <BlueMatt> I think tcpdump is fucked up...
2758 2011-07-11 22:35:04 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: using -n? otherwise the dns lookups can make things goofy.
2759 2011-07-11 22:35:04 <Joric> i guess there's a ton of such routers
2760 2011-07-11 22:35:14 <BlueMatt> no, I get tcp handshake fine the acks in there as well...
2761 2011-07-11 22:35:34 <gmaxwell> Joric: I'm not using UPNP.
2762 2011-07-11 22:35:43 <BlueMatt> but after the initial handshake, no acks...
2763 2011-07-11 22:36:08 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: what IP are you testing from? (so I can capture here)
2764 2011-07-11 22:36:21 <BlueMatt> should be 188.138.99.157
2765 2011-07-11 22:37:34 <BlueMatt> I get my S, S., . then I keepsending data and get nothing...
2766 2011-07-11 22:38:05 <BlueMatt> until eventually a icmp port unreachable
2767 2011-07-11 22:40:16 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2768 2011-07-11 22:40:36 RobinPKR has joined
2769 2011-07-11 22:40:52 HashKat has joined
2770 2011-07-11 22:41:44 <BlueMatt> maybe my host doesnt like scans...
2771 2011-07-11 22:42:55 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2772 2011-07-11 22:43:05 <gmaxwell> Do you ever see the Fin-psh  response from me?
2773 2011-07-11 22:43:15 <BlueMatt> no
2774 2011-07-11 22:43:25 <BlueMatt> yea, has to be my host...
2775 2011-07-11 22:43:32 <gmaxwell> Yea, I'm sending it out.
2776 2011-07-11 22:44:01 <BlueMatt> absolutely the only packet I get is the syn ack and then a icmp tcp port 8333 unreachable
2777 2011-07-11 22:44:13 <gmaxwell> I end up generating the unreachable after you continue to send me data for the port once I've closed it.
2778 2011-07-11 22:44:15 <BlueMatt> claiming to be from you though, which is the odd part
2779 2011-07-11 22:44:20 <BlueMatt> oh, ok
2780 2011-07-11 22:44:44 denisx has joined
2781 2011-07-11 22:45:05 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: here is an example snippit: http://pastebin.com/jLckEb7Q
2782 2011-07-11 22:45:31 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2783 2011-07-11 22:45:48 phatsphere has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2784 2011-07-11 22:45:51 <BlueMatt> yea, I get none of that...
2785 2011-07-11 22:46:02 <BlueMatt> alright, has to be one of the routers on my end...
2786 2011-07-11 22:46:06 <gmaxwell> e.g. I keep repeating S 2025991629:2025991629(0) ack 4264257208  so yea, thats what you're not getting.
2787 2011-07-11 22:46:09 <BlueMatt> Ill ask upstream...
2788 2011-07-11 22:46:27 <gmaxwell> maybe something near you doesn't like some of the tcpoptions I'm sending?
2789 2011-07-11 22:46:41 <BlueMatt> can you tcpdump -nvvX
2790 2011-07-11 22:46:54 <BlueMatt> one last time so its just the result of one connection
2791 2011-07-11 22:47:10 <BlueMatt> ok?
2792 2011-07-11 22:47:20 <gmaxwell> okay
2793 2011-07-11 22:47:34 KBme has joined
2794 2011-07-11 22:47:55 <kreal-> hmm another question.
2795 2011-07-11 22:48:00 <kreal-> what is the length of listtransactions
2796 2011-07-11 22:48:09 <kreal-> 10 or something
2797 2011-07-11 22:48:21 <gmaxwell> by default, there is a argument
2798 2011-07-11 22:48:32 <kreal-> nice
2799 2011-07-11 22:48:34 <kreal-> thanks
2800 2011-07-11 22:49:02 osmosis has joined
2801 2011-07-11 22:49:08 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, theres the icmp
2802 2011-07-11 22:49:18 <kreal-> gmaxwell: yes I need to open my eyes....
2803 2011-07-11 22:49:25 <kreal-> right there infront of me.
2804 2011-07-11 22:50:56 <BlueMatt> the odd thing is, sometimes it works perfectly, and others not so much...
2805 2011-07-11 22:51:13 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: http://pastebin.com/sD0Mxn4j
2806 2011-07-11 22:51:43 <gmaxwell> hm. mtu bottleneck?
2807 2011-07-11 22:51:51 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2808 2011-07-11 22:52:06 <BlueMatt> no, cant be, none of these packets are long
2809 2011-07-11 22:52:37 <gmaxwell> oh dur. yea.
2810 2011-07-11 22:52:44 anarchyx has quit (Quit: The computer fell asleep)
2811 2011-07-11 22:53:39 <gmaxwell> we're 1500 bytes clean regardless.
2812 2011-07-11 22:53:53 <BlueMatt> yea even 1400 if its hitting some odd ppp
2813 2011-07-11 22:54:47 moa7 has joined
2814 2011-07-11 22:55:03 <gmaxwell> in that trace, which is the first packet of mine you don't get?
2815 2011-07-11 22:56:17 <BlueMatt> the first non-syn ack
2816 2011-07-11 22:56:18 <BlueMatt> 18:41:31.603064
2817 2011-07-11 22:57:14 <gmaxwell> yea, so perhaps some upstream piece of awfulness is gobbling up connections with sack or window scaling?
2818 2011-07-11 22:57:20 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2819 2011-07-11 22:57:30 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2820 2011-07-11 22:57:53 <BlueMatt> yea, most likely...though wtf? it appears its also inventing packets on my behalf...
2821 2011-07-11 22:58:09 klikklak_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2822 2011-07-11 22:58:30 <BlueMatt> the *only* packets I ever send are syn, synack, push version message, fin, and fin with push version message
2823 2011-07-11 22:58:55 <BlueMatt> I never sent 18:41:33.223612
2824 2011-07-11 22:58:58 <gmaxwell> Oh... well the other ones are just all retransmits I think?
2825 2011-07-11 22:59:14 <BlueMatt> no, retransmits are the like 5 pushes
2826 2011-07-11 22:59:32 <gmaxwell> the hell. What is that packet?
2827 2011-07-11 22:59:37 <BlueMatt> nfc
2828 2011-07-11 22:59:51 <gmaxwell> it's just an ack with no payload I guess?
2829 2011-07-11 22:59:52 <BlueMatt> clearly my router wants to fin
2830 2011-07-11 22:59:56 <BlueMatt> no, its a fin
2831 2011-07-11 23:00:10 <gmaxwell> oh, missed the flags.
2832 2011-07-11 23:00:10 <BlueMatt> so yea, a router along the way is deciding to fin instead of rst
2833 2011-07-11 23:00:19 <BlueMatt> thats the wrong way....
2834 2011-07-11 23:00:29 <BlueMatt> this is one messed up upstream router...
2835 2011-07-11 23:00:30 <gmaxwell> Yea, so it's cross with my connection so it's ineptly trying to shut it down.
2836 2011-07-11 23:00:34 KBme has joined
2837 2011-07-11 23:00:35 <BlueMatt> I suppose it must be ddos prevention...
2838 2011-07-11 23:00:53 <gmaxwell> Want me to try disabling sack/windows scaling?
2839 2011-07-11 23:00:55 <BlueMatt> instead of rsting and taking 1 cpu cycle on my end, it fins...
2840 2011-07-11 23:01:07 <BlueMatt> no, its clearly a misbehaving router
2841 2011-07-11 23:01:17 <BlueMatt> Ill contact upstream until it gets resolved
2842 2011-07-11 23:01:32 <gmaxwell> Sure, but it would be useful to know if that was the cause.
2843 2011-07-11 23:01:46 <BlueMatt> though it seems to work for many hours at a time, so the data should be ok
2844 2011-07-11 23:01:57 <BlueMatt> ie stuff got from dnsseed is still valid
2845 2011-07-11 23:02:00 klikklak has joined
2846 2011-07-11 23:02:11 <gmaxwell> well, you never had a good probe from me.
2847 2011-07-11 23:02:13 <BlueMatt> na, Im sure someone upstream will know instantly
2848 2011-07-11 23:02:56 Teslah has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2849 2011-07-11 23:03:19 <BlueMatt> its not like someone installs such a router without knowing
2850 2011-07-11 23:03:57 <gmaxwell> You have more faith in people than I do.
2851 2011-07-11 23:04:20 <BlueMatt> its a datacenter, they cant be that incompetent...
2852 2011-07-11 23:04:25 <gmaxwell> In any case, I've disabled sack/window scaling/ and timestamps, just because I _know_ there are other sites out there which are broken wrt these options.
2853 2011-07-11 23:04:45 <gmaxwell> And I'm not doing anything from this host which would really benefit from them.
2854 2011-07-11 23:04:50 <BlueMatt> well it still doesnt work...
2855 2011-07-11 23:05:12 again has joined
2856 2011-07-11 23:05:27 <gmaxwell> oh awesome. do it again so that I can see that it's actually off?
2857 2011-07-11 23:05:38 <BlueMatt> there
2858 2011-07-11 23:05:57 f33x has joined
2859 2011-07-11 23:06:35 <gmaxwell> yea.. no options.
2860 2011-07-11 23:06:40 <gmaxwell> and still busted? cooool.
2861 2011-07-11 23:06:57 <BlueMatt> yep, has to be some crazed ddos/spam/etc protection on a router somewhere
2862 2011-07-11 23:07:07 <BlueMatt> hopefully we can just get it disabled on port 8333 outgoing...
2863 2011-07-11 23:07:10 <gmaxwell> go go end to end principle.
2864 2011-07-11 23:08:29 Transformer has joined
2865 2011-07-11 23:08:59 jarpiain has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2866 2011-07-11 23:09:10 zibbo has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2867 2011-07-11 23:09:11 again is now known as tower
2868 2011-07-11 23:09:35 Sami345 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2869 2011-07-11 23:10:24 Breign has quit ()
2870 2011-07-11 23:10:51 eternal1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2871 2011-07-11 23:11:33 Transformer has left ()
2872 2011-07-11 23:11:37 <gmaxwell> ohh.. looking back in my older debug logs (e.g. ones that had been running for days rather than a few hours) I see lots more .23 connections than .21
2873 2011-07-11 23:11:54 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
2874 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <gmaxwell>     143 version message: version 31900
2875 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <gmaxwell>     322 version message: version 32002
2876 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <gmaxwell>     686 version message: version 32400
2877 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <gmaxwell>     858 version message: version 32200
2878 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <gmaxwell>    1551 version message: version 32100
2879 2011-07-11 23:12:00 <BlueMatt> makes sense, they do connect more rapidly
2880 2011-07-11 23:12:02 <gmaxwell>    8367 version message: version 32300
2881 2011-07-11 23:12:12 <gmaxwell> Ah, yes. I guess so.
2882 2011-07-11 23:12:58 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
2883 2011-07-11 23:13:35 KBme has quit (Quit: KBme kthxbye)
2884 2011-07-11 23:14:34 <forrestv> how long does an initial headers-only download take?
2885 2011-07-11 23:14:57 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2886 2011-07-11 23:15:04 KBme has joined
2887 2011-07-11 23:15:05 denisx has joined
2888 2011-07-11 23:15:18 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2889 2011-07-11 23:15:24 denisx has joined
2890 2011-07-11 23:15:54 jarpiain has joined
2891 2011-07-11 23:16:20 jarpiain is now known as Guest58652
2892 2011-07-11 23:16:23 Sami345 has joined
2893 2011-07-11 23:16:54 zibbo has joined
2894 2011-07-11 23:19:31 <gmaxwell> hehe
2895 2011-07-11 23:19:32 <gmaxwell>       1 version message: version -732422358
2896 2011-07-11 23:19:37 <gmaxwell>       1 version message: version -226024274
2897 2011-07-11 23:19:40 <gmaxwell>       1 version message: version -1450521225
2898 2011-07-11 23:19:43 <BlueMatt> yea, Ive seen a few of those...
2899 2011-07-11 23:19:53 <BlueMatt> but its been a while
2900 2011-07-11 23:21:03 eternal1 has joined
2901 2011-07-11 23:22:33 <gmaxwell> Thats from a log covering 8 days ending on saturday.
2902 2011-07-11 23:22:43 <BlueMatt> yea sounds right
2903 2011-07-11 23:23:04 <gmaxwell>    1921 version message: version 32002
2904 2011-07-11 23:23:07 <gmaxwell> What the heck is that?
2905 2011-07-11 23:23:18 <BlueMatt> 3.20.2
2906 2011-07-11 23:23:45 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2907 2011-07-11 23:26:02 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2908 2011-07-11 23:26:52 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2909 2011-07-11 23:28:11 theorbtwo has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2910 2011-07-11 23:28:51 somuchwin has joined
2911 2011-07-11 23:29:04 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2912 2011-07-11 23:29:04 theorbtwo has joined
2913 2011-07-11 23:29:11 skeledrew has joined
2914 2011-07-11 23:29:12 denisx has joined
2915 2011-07-11 23:29:26 <sipa> forrestv: headers only is not yet implemented in the default client
2916 2011-07-11 23:29:54 <forrestv> sipa, i realize that
2917 2011-07-11 23:30:04 <forrestv> how long would it take?
2918 2011-07-11 23:30:06 <gmaxwell> Then what does your question mean?
2919 2011-07-11 23:30:21 <gmaxwell> How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?
2920 2011-07-11 23:30:30 <forrestv> none, angles can't dance
2921 2011-07-11 23:30:49 <gmaxwell> Or angels?
2922 2011-07-11 23:30:53 <gmaxwell> :)
2923 2011-07-11 23:30:54 <sipa> it's 80 bytes * block count
2924 2011-07-11 23:31:04 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
2925 2011-07-11 23:31:05 <gribble> 135828
2926 2011-07-11 23:31:27 <forrestv> so .. 11MB
2927 2011-07-11 23:31:34 <gmaxwell> It could be compressed too! :)
2928 2011-07-11 23:31:52 dvide has quit ()
2929 2011-07-11 23:31:55 <gmaxwell> version / timestamp/ and prev have low entropy. :)
2930 2011-07-11 23:32:26 <forrestv> yeah ... don't store previous_hash because that can be inferred, ignore version, store timestamps as deltas, and compute bits yourself
2931 2011-07-11 23:33:55 karnac has joined
2932 2011-07-11 23:35:05 <gmaxwell> yea, getting it to half size would be no big deal.
2933 2011-07-11 23:35:44 KBme has joined
2934 2011-07-11 23:37:45 <diki> haha threads are fun
2935 2011-07-11 23:38:00 <BlueMatt> KBme: really? 666:666:666:666:666?
2936 2011-07-11 23:38:01 <diki> i modified the miner to request new work with the press of a key from the keyboard
2937 2011-07-11 23:38:03 <diki> fun
2938 2011-07-11 23:39:29 <BlueMatt> [OT] poll: what linux distro should one switch to for a new computer?
2939 2011-07-11 23:39:43 <diki> linuxcoin\
2940 2011-07-11 23:39:46 paperchasser has joined
2941 2011-07-11 23:40:14 Kiba has joined
2942 2011-07-11 23:41:52 paperchasser has quit (Client Quit)
2943 2011-07-11 23:42:25 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2944 2011-07-11 23:43:06 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2945 2011-07-11 23:43:11 Cusipzzz has joined
2946 2011-07-11 23:43:40 erus` has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 5.0/20110615151330])
2947 2011-07-11 23:43:44 KBme has joined
2948 2011-07-11 23:43:49 <diki> now, my next job would be to....make each thread work on the same work, but with precomputed max_nonce for every thread to try
2949 2011-07-11 23:43:58 <diki> so they dont try previously tried nonces
2950 2011-07-11 23:46:00 <jgarzik> diki: no miner tries previously tried nonces
2951 2011-07-11 23:47:36 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: Lost cause.
2952 2011-07-11 23:49:44 <diki> gmax:you're also a lost cause, reason is, i'm not in america or wherever you are
2953 2011-07-11 23:50:02 <diki> jgarzik:i proposed a new method for cpu mining
2954 2011-07-11 23:50:20 <diki> each thread working on the same working, by splitting the nonces to try
2955 2011-07-11 23:50:29 <diki> s/woking/work
2956 2011-07-11 23:50:53 <diki> currently, every thread = new work
2957 2011-07-11 23:52:49 <diki> since cpus are slow they dont even have the time to try out all the 4 billion and something nonces, but with each thread working on the same WU...there's atleast a small possibity they can
2958 2011-07-11 23:53:25 <BlueMatt> but...why?
2959 2011-07-11 23:53:46 <AlonzoTG> om
2960 2011-07-11 23:53:46 <diki> just because :)
2961 2011-07-11 23:53:47 minimoose has joined
2962 2011-07-11 23:54:09 <diki> you are basically asking why is Diapolo optimizing the kernel
2963 2011-07-11 23:54:12 Ramen has left ()
2964 2011-07-11 23:54:13 * AlonzoTG is giving himself a headache trying to work out all the class responsibilities and interactions in his daemon....
2965 2011-07-11 23:54:15 <[Tycho]> Oh, "efficiency" again ? :)
2966 2011-07-11 23:54:25 <BlueMatt> no, quite the opposite
2967 2011-07-11 23:54:36 <BlueMatt> AlonzoTG: you mean in the Bitcoin daemon?
2968 2011-07-11 23:54:45 <diki> why is it quite the opposite?
2969 2011-07-11 23:54:45 <AlonzoTG> yeah, my version thereof.
2970 2011-07-11 23:54:49 <[Tycho]> I mean, he wants more shares per same getworks.
2971 2011-07-11 23:54:50 <Joric> diki, try backwards
2972 2011-07-11 23:54:54 <diki> no room for improvement?
2973 2011-07-11 23:55:03 <BlueMatt> the point is its not an improvement
2974 2011-07-11 23:55:11 <diki> wrong tycho
2975 2011-07-11 23:55:12 Lexa has quit (Quit: Lexa)
2976 2011-07-11 23:55:16 <BlueMatt> its just a difference
2977 2011-07-11 23:55:31 <sipa> it does decrease the required number of getworks
2978 2011-07-11 23:55:39 <diki> currently cgminer reaches about a few million nonces before it requests new work
2979 2011-07-11 23:55:40 <sipa> for slow miners
2980 2011-07-11 23:55:58 <diki> it can't even reach a billion nonces, and each thread requests new work
2981 2011-07-11 23:56:00 <Joric> if it only was a normal distribution but it's linear
2982 2011-07-11 23:56:02 <jgarzik> sipa: yes, that is bitcoinpool's much-vaunted "efficiency" :)
2983 2011-07-11 23:56:10 <BlueMatt> yes, but in a proper miner, number of getworks doesnt matter.
2984 2011-07-11 23:56:16 <sipa> right
2985 2011-07-11 23:56:19 <jgarzik> yep
2986 2011-07-11 23:56:20 <diki> you are missing the point
2987 2011-07-11 23:56:31 <BlueMatt> or there is no point...
2988 2011-07-11 23:56:34 <diki> the cpu is slow, it cannot try every nonce.
2989 2011-07-11 23:56:42 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: yep
2990 2011-07-11 23:56:47 <diki> however if each thread splits the nonces to try
2991 2011-07-11 23:56:52 <diki> then maybe it could
2992 2011-07-11 23:57:01 <sipa> so?
2993 2011-07-11 23:57:08 <BlueMatt> " the UN have named North Korea chair of the Conference on Disarmament"...wait...WTF????
2994 2011-07-11 23:57:10 <jgarzik> diki: that does not increase your income
2995 2011-07-11 23:57:20 <diki> that is not the intention
2996 2011-07-11 23:57:23 <sipa> there are an ifinite number of hashes to try
2997 2011-07-11 23:57:29 <diki> it's just that the cpu wont waste time
2998 2011-07-11 23:57:42 <sipa> waste.time doing what?
2999 2011-07-11 23:57:43 <Joric> diki, do threads make cpu faster? :)
3000 2011-07-11 23:57:52 <diki> sipa:bitcoin's wiki says around 4-5 billion nonces
3001 2011-07-11 23:58:10 KBme has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
3002 2011-07-11 23:58:18 <sipa> per getwork, yes
3003 2011-07-11 23:58:22 <diki> right
3004 2011-07-11 23:58:39 <moa7> sipa:really infinite
3005 2011-07-11 23:58:42 <diki> BUT the cpu is slow...before it tries ALL them nonces, it either get's a longpoll or requests new work
3006 2011-07-11 23:58:52 <sipa> so?
3007 2011-07-11 23:59:07 <moa7> what type of infinite?
3008 2011-07-11 23:59:12 <diki> so instead of X threads = X getworks, X threads = 1 work and split the nonces to try by the number of cpu threads
3009 2011-07-11 23:59:18 <sipa> moa7: aleph 0
3010 2011-07-11 23:59:36 <sipa> diki: yes that is correct
3011 2011-07-11 23:59:48 <sipa> but still... what will it help?