1 2011-07-17 00:00:00 <WakiMiko> Akiron: "make bitcoind" to compile bitcoind
2 2011-07-17 00:00:23 <jgarzik> Akiron: Max OSX binary is right there on the home page
3 2011-07-17 00:00:37 <b4epoche> http://heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/mac-build/Bitcoin-MacOSBuildInstructions.pdf
4 2011-07-17 00:01:00 <Akiron> jgarzik: hmmm... can you you run the GUI version at the command line like bitcoind?
5 2011-07-17 00:01:07 <b4epoche> yes
6 2011-07-17 00:01:12 <jgarzik> yep
7 2011-07-17 00:01:37 <Akiron> i see
8 2011-07-17 00:01:41 <b4epoche> that pdf explains it...
9 2011-07-17 00:02:00 <b4epoche> you can save some time by install some of the things via macports
10 2011-07-17 00:02:17 <Akiron> well, i kind of want to poke around on the internals
11 2011-07-17 00:02:30 <b4epoche> no, I'm talking about the dependencies
12 2011-07-17 00:02:40 <Akiron> would it be better to do that in linux?
13 2011-07-17 00:02:40 <b4epoche> Wx, BDB, Boost, etc
14 2011-07-17 00:02:51 <moa7> wxwidgets deps. is biggest difference between bitcoin and bitcoind
15 2011-07-17 00:02:57 <b4epoche> I don't think it makes much difference, linux or osx
16 2011-07-17 00:03:48 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
17 2011-07-17 00:03:56 <b4epoche> I suppose on osx you need to make sure all the linked libs are 32- or 64-bit or both...
18 2011-07-17 00:04:01 wirehead has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
19 2011-07-17 00:04:08 <b4epoche> although I suppose that might be a linux issue too
20 2011-07-17 00:04:40 <jgarzik> Akiron: getting proper deps is probably easier in linux, than OSX or windows
21 2011-07-17 00:04:47 <jgarzik> everything pre-built properly
22 2011-07-17 00:05:06 skeledrew has joined
23 2011-07-17 00:05:19 <b4epoche> hmm... I suppose I should host some pre-built dependencies for osx
24 2011-07-17 00:05:21 Pathin has joined
25 2011-07-17 00:05:27 <Akiron> jgarzik: ok, maybe that's what i'll do, i've compiled in linux before, Mac OS X is my primary now, but I just don't know how to build on it
26 2011-07-17 00:05:36 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
27 2011-07-17 00:05:47 <b4epoche> Akiron: you have Xcode installed?
28 2011-07-17 00:05:56 <Akiron> b4epoche: yeah
29 2011-07-17 00:06:03 WildSoil has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
30 2011-07-17 00:06:09 <b4epoche> basically, compiling from the command line is like any other unix
31 2011-07-17 00:06:51 theorb has joined
32 2011-07-17 00:07:12 <Akiron> cool, thanks all
33 2011-07-17 00:07:15 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
34 2011-07-17 00:07:21 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
35 2011-07-17 00:07:23 <b4epoche> it's basically all about making sure the compiler knows where the headers are and the linker knows where the libs are
36 2011-07-17 00:07:51 <Akiron> my hope is to play around with a blockchain idea where the miners set the amount of coins that will mature in future blocks
37 2011-07-17 00:07:56 Pathin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
38 2011-07-17 00:08:32 <b4epoche> the bitcoin code is a real mess ;-)
39 2011-07-17 00:08:54 <b4epoche> if you want to understand 'bitcoin internals' you might look at bitcoinj (java)
40 2011-07-17 00:09:06 <b4epoche> which is /very/ well commented
41 2011-07-17 00:09:58 skeledrew1 has joined
42 2011-07-17 00:10:43 <Akiron> so far it seems like all it would take is a small addition to the coinbase script and code to check the blocks, etc.
43 2011-07-17 00:10:58 freakazoid has joined
44 2011-07-17 00:11:00 <jgarzik> Akiron: all bitcoin clients validate the content of a block
45 2011-07-17 00:11:03 <Akiron> b4epoche: where's that hosted?
46 2011-07-17 00:11:08 <b4epoche> Google
47 2011-07-17 00:11:12 <jgarzik> Akiron: so your network would need to figure out how to do that
48 2011-07-17 00:11:13 <b4epoche> http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java
49 2011-07-17 00:11:25 <jgarzik> bitcoinj is not a full client w/ mining
50 2011-07-17 00:11:38 wirehead has joined
51 2011-07-17 00:11:41 <Akiron> b4epoche: thanks
52 2011-07-17 00:11:44 <jgarzik> bitcoinj is an SPV client (simplified payment verification)
53 2011-07-17 00:11:46 Pathin has joined
54 2011-07-17 00:11:51 <jgarzik> quite different from a full bitcoin node
55 2011-07-17 00:12:25 <b4epoche> is there really any better way to understand the implementation than the copious comments in bitcoinj?
56 2011-07-17 00:12:48 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
57 2011-07-17 00:12:50 <Akiron> jgarzik: yeah, i'm aware of the validation, although i'm still trying to figure out all the stuff i will break if i change the coinbase
58 2011-07-17 00:12:59 <b4epoche> there's a pretty big leap from the paper to the code, and I've not found a verbose description of the implementation
59 2011-07-17 00:13:15 <Akiron> like checks on coinbase size, or the IsCoinBase(), etc.
60 2011-07-17 00:15:18 moa7 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
61 2011-07-17 00:15:28 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
62 2011-07-17 00:21:46 jav__ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
63 2011-07-17 00:23:01 AStove has quit ()
64 2011-07-17 00:23:35 bitcoinbulletin has joined
65 2011-07-17 00:24:45 asuk has joined
66 2011-07-17 00:24:54 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: can you go ahead and delink the current forum?
67 2011-07-17 00:24:59 ar4s has joined
68 2011-07-17 00:25:00 <BlueMatt> that would probably be wise, I think
69 2011-07-17 00:25:29 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I can
70 2011-07-17 00:25:44 <BlueMatt> while you are at it, why is genjix still listed as a project developer?
71 2011-07-17 00:25:57 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: but I won't, without buy-in from Gavin etc. That's not really a decision one person should make.
72 2011-07-17 00:26:05 <BlueMatt> me thinks the people with commit access, and only those people should be listed there
73 2011-07-17 00:26:17 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: genjix is listed because he whined to sirius
74 2011-07-17 00:26:22 * luke-jr thinks it's retarded that bitcoin.org should focus on one project
75 2011-07-17 00:26:35 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: I was under the impression gavin/etc had already responded positively to the move and had agreed with the delisting
76 2011-07-17 00:26:46 <luke-jr> why is there a list of people in the first place?
77 2011-07-17 00:27:00 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: Im sorry, but hes not a project dev as much as Im not a project dev or anyone else, being listed there is really pointless
78 2011-07-17 00:27:15 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: those are the people with commit access and who people should know they can contact
79 2011-07-17 00:27:20 <BlueMatt> eg a security vuln etc
80 2011-07-17 00:27:30 <BlueMatt> those are the people who develop on the project
81 2011-07-17 00:27:43 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: lots of people have commit access and develop bitcoin software who aren't on there
82 2011-07-17 00:27:55 <luke-jr> the Satoshi Client != Bitcoin
83 2011-07-17 00:28:22 <jgarzik> hehe, what a great time to disappear for baby bedtime (~30-90 min)
84 2011-07-17 00:28:25 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: true, but as long as bitcoin.org has dl links to the satoshi client/etc those are the devs...
85 2011-07-17 00:28:27 <b4epoche> luke-jr: you want to be the one to go down when people start losing money?
86 2011-07-17 00:28:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes, gavin did say that he agreed that forum should be delinked
87 2011-07-17 00:28:39 * jgarzik predicts BlueMatt and luke-jr will go back and forth uselessly on this for that length of time...
88 2011-07-17 00:28:49 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: na, Im done discussing that part
89 2011-07-17 00:28:50 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: give me a link showing that...
90 2011-07-17 00:28:56 * jgarzik -> poof
91 2011-07-17 00:28:58 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: in previous email
92 2011-07-17 00:29:00 <BlueMatt> not in mailing list
93 2011-07-17 00:29:10 <BlueMatt> you were ccd
94 2011-07-17 00:29:54 skeledrew1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
95 2011-07-17 00:30:16 <Akiron> BlueMatt: why de-link the forum? too crazy?
96 2011-07-17 00:30:21 <BlueMatt> yep
97 2011-07-17 00:30:23 <luke-jr> b4epoche: hmm?
98 2011-07-17 00:30:28 <BlueMatt> too much legal risk/etc
99 2011-07-17 00:30:43 <coderrr> taht forum should be dropped on a remote island and bombed
100 2011-07-17 00:30:51 <Akiron> i thought it was supposedly moving to weusecoins anyway
101 2011-07-17 00:31:02 <luke-jr> Akiron: the forum mods support illegal crap
102 2011-07-17 00:31:06 <BlueMatt> it is being moved to bitcointalk.org iirc
103 2011-07-17 00:31:21 <BlueMatt> ie no longer "the official bitcoin forum"
104 2011-07-17 00:31:52 <Akiron> BlueMatt: yeah, probably for the best
105 2011-07-17 00:32:20 <Akiron> bitcoin is too large for one forum anyway
106 2011-07-17 00:32:26 <Akiron> real growing pains over there
107 2011-07-17 00:32:38 <BlueMatt> well it really just needs sane mods
108 2011-07-17 00:32:50 <BlueMatt> but no one wants to spend the time modding that beast
109 2011-07-17 00:33:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: it *could* be split up :P
110 2011-07-17 00:33:18 <luke-jr> eg, I could handle moderating Spesmilo & Eligius subforums
111 2011-07-17 00:33:40 <BlueMatt> if we had the mods to mod everything strictly...
112 2011-07-17 00:33:54 <BlueMatt> but having one subforum moded carefully and not the rest...
113 2011-07-17 00:33:56 <jrmithdobbs> but that's the whole problem
114 2011-07-17 00:34:00 <jrmithdobbs> the mods don't give a fuck
115 2011-07-17 00:34:00 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: that's why I said split up.
116 2011-07-17 00:34:09 <luke-jr> less work for people to do
117 2011-07-17 00:34:12 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: hence why we need new mods
118 2011-07-17 00:34:14 <jrmithdobbs> and don't understand that harsh moderation is needed in a forum like that
119 2011-07-17 00:34:14 <luke-jr> they just deal with their own subforum
120 2011-07-17 00:34:16 <BlueMatt> or more mods
121 2011-07-17 00:34:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: meh, I dont really care personally, I just want that crap marked unofficial
122 2011-07-17 00:34:47 <jrmithdobbs> the bitcoin "community" is a joke at this point, at least, that which manifests itself on the forums
123 2011-07-17 00:36:05 <jrmithdobbs> bunch of 13yo internet dickwavers or lolbertarians (which are pretty much the same thing for the purposes of this discussion)
124 2011-07-17 00:36:28 * coderrr waves his dick at jrmithdobbs
125 2011-07-17 00:36:55 <coderrr> i agree the problem is the community not the forum or mods
126 2011-07-17 00:37:00 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: here is gavin's full quote, though not direct here, Id say it pretty clearly gets the point across: "I vote for the forums to get moved.
127 2011-07-17 00:37:00 <BlueMatt> In the spirit of being decentralized, I think the bitcoin.org home page should link to google search results instead of directly to particular web sites. Instead of "The Bitcoin Wiki" the link should be "These are the most popular (as ranked by Mr. Google) bitcoin-related wikis.""
128 2011-07-17 00:37:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: tcatm comments?
129 2011-07-17 00:37:16 <jrmithdobbs> i vote that they get killed
130 2011-07-17 00:37:33 <jrmithdobbs> no need to give those asshats a place to voice their retardation and make bitcoin as a whole look bad
131 2011-07-17 00:37:36 <b4epoche> someone needs to run a commercial bitcoin forum so there's an incentive to keep it 'nice'
132 2011-07-17 00:37:45 <b4epoche> and full of Flash ads ;-)
133 2011-07-17 00:38:14 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: actually, if you still have access to the management account for forum.bitcointalk.org, you could point it to 174.143.149.98 and get that working now anyway...
134 2011-07-17 00:39:41 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: and lastly, you need to get yourself a better registrar ;)
135 2011-07-17 00:39:47 <cacheson> oh hey, my favorite topic
136 2011-07-17 00:40:38 <cacheson> jrmithdobbs: I feel like having a nice place for them to waste their time might be a good way to keep them out of trouble, as long as it stays off the first page of google results for "bitcoin"
137 2011-07-17 00:42:09 <jrmithdobbs> cacheson: i vote forum.bitcoin.org be changed to just redirect to reddit.com/lolbertarians
138 2011-07-17 00:42:37 <b4epoche> I think we need to get TD to manipulate PageRank for us
139 2011-07-17 00:43:04 <jjjx> BlueMatt: That's a terrible idea (Gavin's -- sorry gav!)
140 2011-07-17 00:43:10 ar4s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
141 2011-07-17 00:43:25 <BlueMatt> jjjx: so you think the forum needs to stay on *.bitcoin.org?
142 2011-07-17 00:43:30 ar4s has joined
143 2011-07-17 00:43:39 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Throwing ease-of-use and basic UX right out the window.
144 2011-07-17 00:43:46 <BlueMatt> thats not the point
145 2011-07-17 00:43:47 ar4s has quit (Client Quit)
146 2011-07-17 00:43:48 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Don't really have an opinion about that.
147 2011-07-17 00:44:06 <jrmithdobbs> jjjx: the forum has little to nothing to do with the bitcoin software, is the basic point
148 2011-07-17 00:44:08 <BlueMatt> the point is that forum portrays a terrible, terrible view of the community
149 2011-07-17 00:44:18 <BlueMatt> and has become somewhat of a legal risk too
150 2011-07-17 00:44:22 <jjjx> BlueMatt: I'm just talking about this: "In the spirit of being decentralized, I think the bitcoin.org home page should link to google search results instead of directly to particular web sites. Instead of "The Bitcoin Wiki" the link should be "These are the most popular (as r
151 2011-07-17 00:44:27 <jjjx> anked by Mr. Google) bitcoin-related wikis.""
152 2011-07-17 00:44:37 <BlueMatt> yea, I dont strictly agree with that either
153 2011-07-17 00:44:49 <jjjx> The forum does indeed suck majorly
154 2011-07-17 00:44:51 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: referring to all the 'lol you know that silk place with the road stuff thats where you go' type posts? ;p
155 2011-07-17 00:44:54 <jjjx> (And why is that?)
156 2011-07-17 00:45:24 <jrmithdobbs> i think the wiki should actually be moved to an official provided wiki from sourceforge instead of being covertly run by one of the exchanges
157 2011-07-17 00:45:25 <jjjx> Maybe a better move would be getting some moderators.
158 2011-07-17 00:45:26 <BlueMatt> though bitcoin wiki is also unofficial and no dev has time to mod that either
159 2011-07-17 00:45:28 <jrmithdobbs> too much potential for abuse there
160 2011-07-17 00:45:41 <BlueMatt> jjjx: well currently we have no volunteers
161 2011-07-17 00:45:51 <jjjx> I'm sure there's someone who could be incentivized by a BTC-rich individual, to do this work.
162 2011-07-17 00:45:57 <jjjx> People just need to ask.
163 2011-07-17 00:46:07 <BlueMatt> thats the point though
164 2011-07-17 00:46:19 <BlueMatt> no one wants a mod who is paid to do that, that just gives shitty mods who think they are god
165 2011-07-17 00:46:25 <jrmithdobbs> jjjx: the thing is, something like 80%+ of current posts should be deleted almost immediately
166 2011-07-17 00:46:31 <jjjx> jrmithdobbs: This is true
167 2011-07-17 00:46:37 <jjjx> BlueMatt: I don't know if it HAS to be that way.
168 2011-07-17 00:46:39 <jrmithdobbs> jjjx: which is going to lead to huge backlash about 'lol censorship'
169 2011-07-17 00:46:48 <jjjx> BlueMatt: I mean, the internet industry(tm) pays moderators all the time.
170 2011-07-17 00:46:58 <cacheson> so who here isn't on the bitcoin stack exchange site yet?
171 2011-07-17 00:47:01 <BlueMatt> who has a ton of money to throw around?
172 2011-07-17 00:47:03 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Most every company has a community manager, and that's part of their job.
173 2011-07-17 00:47:24 <b4epoche> seriously, why not a commercial site(s)
174 2011-07-17 00:47:26 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Let's talk to one of those guys with 100,000+ BTC. Ask them if they will pay someone 5BTC/day to do the work
175 2011-07-17 00:47:36 <BlueMatt> jjjx: no one has that and is willing to give it up
176 2011-07-17 00:47:39 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Or less.
177 2011-07-17 00:47:42 <BlueMatt> also, anyone who does have that wont admit it
178 2011-07-17 00:47:50 <b4epoche> actually, I'm surprised there isn't a big enough community to support a commercial forum
179 2011-07-17 00:47:53 <jjjx> Nonsense, there's even a "most rich" thread ON THE FORUM :-)
180 2011-07-17 00:47:57 <BlueMatt> no bitcoin dev has that kind of money
181 2011-07-17 00:48:12 <jjjx> Probably several of them.
182 2011-07-17 00:48:19 <BlueMatt> those who have that kind of btc are the early adopters who are just community members
183 2011-07-17 00:48:23 <BlueMatt> those guys arent gonna give it up
184 2011-07-17 00:48:26 <jjjx> What this community seriously lacks is social cohesion.
185 2011-07-17 00:48:27 <BlueMatt> well, I cant speak for tcatm
186 2011-07-17 00:48:39 <BlueMatt> but I know none of the other devs have that kind of btc
187 2011-07-17 00:48:51 <jjjx> BlueMatt: It's an assumption, purely. I am also assuming that they could be talked into it.
188 2011-07-17 00:48:59 <jjjx> BlueMatt: After all, better forums are better for the whole of BTC.
189 2011-07-17 00:49:08 <b4epoche> seriously, I think you should look to the iOS jailbreak community for 'guidance'
190 2011-07-17 00:49:14 <BlueMatt> in any case, most of the idiots on the forums dont agree with more modding anyway
191 2011-07-17 00:49:18 <jjjx> b4epoche: Tell me more?
192 2011-07-17 00:49:28 <b4epoche> I see a lot of the same issues.
193 2011-07-17 00:49:38 <jjjx> BlueMatt: It doesn't really matter what they agree with or don't agree with; who 'runs' those forums?
194 2011-07-17 00:49:50 <jjjx> b4epoche: And how did they deal with it?
195 2011-07-17 00:50:11 <b4epoche> fighting perception (that jailbreaking is just for pirating apps), fight crap (the hundreds of themes, ringtones clogging the repos)
196 2011-07-17 00:50:14 <jjjx> This is actually one point where I agree with BlueMatt and b4epoche's more conservative stance: Fuck the noise-makers; it just makes the whole community look like lunatics.
197 2011-07-17 00:50:26 <jjjx> b4epoche: They've had a longer run than we have, honestly.
198 2011-07-17 00:50:37 <b4epoche> jjjx: that's the point
199 2011-07-17 00:50:40 <BlueMatt> well if you can scrape together a mod team great, until then the forums are being moved and marked unofficial
200 2011-07-17 00:50:50 <b4epoche> they've faced these issues for a long time and the community is more mature
201 2011-07-17 00:50:53 <jjjx> BlueMatt: Who actually hosts/owns the forums?
202 2011-07-17 00:50:58 <b4epoche> but still very 'immature' too
203 2011-07-17 00:51:04 <BlueMatt> sirius
204 2011-07-17 00:51:09 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: think he's mostly referring to heavily moderating all the public-facing channels (eg, bitcoin.org, distance from the forums, ban the idiots talking about botnets/abuse of corp resources on irc, etc etc)
205 2011-07-17 00:51:13 <jjjx> And he's down for getting rid of them, or ?
206 2011-07-17 00:51:28 <BlueMatt> I agree, but until we get a mod team...
207 2011-07-17 00:51:37 <BlueMatt> yes, he said hes fine with it
208 2011-07-17 00:51:43 <BlueMatt> though he has been mia for some time now
209 2011-07-17 00:51:49 <jjjx> jrmithdobbs: Exactly. I'd also like to see posts like "SELL SELL SELL!!!!!111" not be able to reach some top-line status and then get tweeted out to 100,000 people automatically.
210 2011-07-17 00:52:49 <b4epoche> the big difference between the communities is that people in the jailbreak community don't seem to be ashamed to say they're in it to make some money
211 2011-07-17 00:52:56 <jjjx> Guys, consider this point I made about this community lacking social cohesion. What I mean is that the 'leaders' in the community -- and sorry, there are some -- need to start identifying each other, and the resources they imply. And start to organize it for something equivalent to the greater good.
212 2011-07-17 00:53:39 <BlueMatt> wow great example from the forums posted seconds ago: "The fact is law enforcement rarely has anything to do with the Law anymore in the US."
213 2011-07-17 00:53:46 <jjjx> Those dudes who are 100,000+ BTC-rich... Well, they're millionaires. But they sure won't be if BTC 'fails'.
214 2011-07-17 00:53:48 <BlueMatt> luatics is a good word here
215 2011-07-17 00:53:53 <jjjx> They have every reason to support these kinds of efforts.
216 2011-07-17 00:54:04 <jjjx> It's just a matter of coming up with a plan.
217 2011-07-17 00:54:12 <BlueMatt> a plan has been made
218 2011-07-17 00:54:16 <BlueMatt> divorce from the forums
219 2011-07-17 00:54:20 <jjjx> Sigh. :-)
220 2011-07-17 00:54:24 <BlueMatt> if you disagree, find a mod team
221 2011-07-17 00:54:24 <b4epoche> jjjx: I agree... and am surprised they aren't doing more to secure their fortunes
222 2011-07-17 00:54:46 <jjjx> b4epoche: It's possible that they simply haven't been asked, judging from the knee-jerk reactions I am reading here.
223 2011-07-17 00:55:14 <jjjx> b4epoche: I have no doubt that these guys are solicited with idiotic ideas all the time... But perhaps something like a round table should be organized. Could even be done on IRC.
224 2011-07-17 00:55:29 <b4epoche> paying some devs to focus on the core code, etc., would help things a lot
225 2011-07-17 00:55:32 <jjjx> b4epoche: Private, invite-only -- get the richest BTCers and the key devs in a room together, and hash this shit out.
226 2011-07-17 00:55:33 <BlueMatt> this has been in the plans for like a month now...
227 2011-07-17 00:55:39 <BlueMatt> not much of a knee jerk
228 2011-07-17 00:55:47 <jjjx> BlueMatt: I'm sorry, I shouldn't say it that way.
229 2011-07-17 00:56:01 <BlueMatt> actually 5 weeks
230 2011-07-17 00:56:01 <copumpkin> btc con
231 2011-07-17 00:56:02 <jjjx> BlueMatt: But I was referring more to you saying "none of those guys would..."
232 2011-07-17 00:56:08 <b4epoche> but will the 'rich' even identify themselves?
233 2011-07-17 00:56:35 <jjjx> b4epoche: Many of them can be contacted on the forums. And also we can put 'posters' out -- "if you are one of these guys, we are organizing this roundtable, please contact so-and-so"
234 2011-07-17 00:56:36 <b4epoche> maybe MagicalTux could work as an intermediary
235 2011-07-17 00:56:39 <jjjx> They will come. Some of them.
236 2011-07-17 00:56:42 <jjjx> b4epoche: That's a great idae.
237 2011-07-17 00:56:43 <jjjx> +idea
238 2011-07-17 00:56:49 <jjjx> A REALLY great idea.
239 2011-07-17 00:57:03 <b4epoche> I'd think he knows both sides, eh?
240 2011-07-17 00:57:11 <jjjx> That's right.
241 2011-07-17 00:57:15 Pathin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
242 2011-07-17 00:57:18 <jjjx> And how to contact them. :-)
243 2011-07-17 00:57:34 <jjjx> That's actually probably the best way to reach out to those guys.
244 2011-07-17 00:57:52 RenaKunisaki has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
245 2011-07-17 00:58:10 <MagicalTux> yeah
246 2011-07-17 00:58:24 <jjjx> Probably some code will need to be written. Some tool to disperse payments to BTC 'employees' automatically, so those rich guys don't have to deal with it manually.
247 2011-07-17 00:58:25 <coderrr> yea i concur, good idea, mobilize the people w the biggest desire for BTC to succeed
248 2011-07-17 00:58:25 <MagicalTux> some of them asked me how they could contribute to bitcoin, too
249 2011-07-17 00:58:27 <jjjx> But they just put it in.
250 2011-07-17 00:58:33 <jjjx> MagicalTux: Oh, see. This is perfect.
251 2011-07-17 00:58:45 RenaKunisaki has joined
252 2011-07-17 00:58:48 <b4epoche> for example, the guy that runs http://modmyi.com/ is really nice....
253 2011-07-17 00:59:01 <jjjx> MagicalTux: Would you be willing to help organize this?
254 2011-07-17 00:59:08 <b4epoche> makes a living off the site, which isn't overly cluttered with ads
255 2011-07-17 00:59:39 <MagicalTux> jjjx: that could be possible, I'd need you to email me something more formal with details of how you see that to admin@mtgox.com
256 2011-07-17 00:59:41 <copumpkin> b4epoche: the dev team is explicitly against making money though!
257 2011-07-17 00:59:42 <copumpkin> :P
258 2011-07-17 00:59:47 <copumpkin> you can see that by how poor I am
259 2011-07-17 00:59:52 <jjjx> jjjx: I will do that, seriously.
260 2011-07-17 01:00:02 <copumpkin> jjjx: speaking to ourselves, are we?
261 2011-07-17 01:00:03 <b4epoche> copumpkin: yea, I know... but not sure why that is
262 2011-07-17 01:00:14 <jjjx> haha
263 2011-07-17 01:00:16 <jjjx> ;-)
264 2011-07-17 01:00:17 <copumpkin> b4epoche: we tried splitting donations at the beginning and it caused lots of drama
265 2011-07-17 01:00:23 <copumpkin> so we decided not to deal with it
266 2011-07-17 01:00:24 <jjjx> Obviously that was to MagicalTux
267 2011-07-17 01:00:51 <jjjx> Listen guys, I think you need not worry about split decisions. If there are enough people to *support some projects* that are worthy -- then great.
268 2011-07-17 01:00:53 <b4epoche> copumpkin: ah... but then it's pretty damn chaotic
269 2011-07-17 01:01:03 <jjjx> People who dissent or don't want to follow through, can do their own thing. There's enough room in the Bitcoin world for everyone.
270 2011-07-17 01:01:09 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
271 2011-07-17 01:01:12 <copumpkin> b4epoche: people come and go, and become more and less active with time. Splitting equally ignores that some people just idle on the sidelines for most of the time (like me right now), but splitting unequally opens you up to tons of drama
272 2011-07-17 01:01:24 <copumpkin> with people feeling they contributed more than they did
273 2011-07-17 01:01:30 <copumpkin> or than others think they did
274 2011-07-17 01:01:42 <b4epoche> copumpkin: oh, I can certainly understand that... and witnessed some of the bickering
275 2011-07-17 01:01:55 <b4epoche> Brancipater, e.g.
276 2011-07-17 01:01:57 <copumpkin> :P
277 2011-07-17 01:01:58 <copumpkin> yeah
278 2011-07-17 01:02:01 <coderrr> yea, unequal splits are asking for trouble
279 2011-07-17 01:02:03 <copumpkin> lots of bickering with money
280 2011-07-17 01:02:05 zeropointo has quit (Quit: leaving)
281 2011-07-17 01:02:19 <copumpkin> I think we're still a pretty good team because we didn't bring money into it
282 2011-07-17 01:02:31 <copumpkin> if we had, I'm sure we'd have split up a lot more ages ago
283 2011-07-17 01:02:41 <b4epoche> but I worry leaving things up to hobbyists
284 2011-07-17 01:02:51 <copumpkin> but it's frustrating to see the kinds of money that people who do accept donations make
285 2011-07-17 01:02:53 <copumpkin> or ads
286 2011-07-17 01:02:55 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
287 2011-07-17 01:03:10 <copumpkin> the dev blog would make craploads with adwords
288 2011-07-17 01:03:21 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
289 2011-07-17 01:03:42 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
290 2011-07-17 01:04:02 <b4epoche> but I would say some money split is better than none...
291 2011-07-17 01:04:23 luke-jr has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
292 2011-07-17 01:04:45 MC-Eeepc has joined
293 2011-07-17 01:04:55 <b4epoche> I remember when a lot of folks were really worried that there would be no more jailbreaks (seemed like a transition time) and all the money makers start freaking out
294 2011-07-17 01:05:30 <copumpkin> according to one calculator, we'd be making close to $1k a day on adsense
295 2011-07-17 01:05:33 * copumpkin sighs
296 2011-07-17 01:05:38 <copumpkin> :P
297 2011-07-17 01:05:38 <jjjx> b4epoche: I think the analogy is very interesting.
298 2011-07-17 01:05:43 <jjjx> copumpkin: Is that right? Wow.
299 2011-07-17 01:05:51 <copumpkin> it gets a lot of traffic
300 2011-07-17 01:05:58 <copumpkin> even now that we're less active
301 2011-07-17 01:06:10 <copumpkin> we still get 50-100k impressions a day
302 2011-07-17 01:06:43 phedny has joined
303 2011-07-17 01:06:50 <b4epoche> there could be share vote at the end of every month... some people will still be upset but at least it's democratic
304 2011-07-17 01:06:52 brunner has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
305 2011-07-17 01:06:54 <copumpkin> we've had million-impression days
306 2011-07-17 01:07:15 <BlueMatt> what are we on about?
307 2011-07-17 01:07:16 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
308 2011-07-17 01:07:21 <copumpkin> money not earned
309 2011-07-17 01:07:22 <copumpkin> :)
310 2011-07-17 01:07:30 <b4epoche> jailbreak-bitcoin analogy
311 2011-07-17 01:07:33 <BlueMatt> more put ads on the forum stuff?
312 2011-07-17 01:07:51 <b4epoche> like you copumpkin, now that you aren't a student, what's your interest in hacking iOS?
313 2011-07-17 01:08:02 <devrandom> ;;later tell BlueMatt have a mingw build with boost and wx separate. https://github.com/devrandom/wxWidgets-release https://github.com/devrandom/boost-release https://github.com/devrandom/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/gitian-win32.yml
314 2011-07-17 01:08:03 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
315 2011-07-17 01:08:14 <coderrr> copumpkin, thats forum.bitcoin.org?
316 2011-07-17 01:08:19 <BlueMatt> devrandom: awsome
317 2011-07-17 01:08:26 <copumpkin> coderrr: nah, blog.iphone-dev.org
318 2011-07-17 01:08:29 <coderrr> ahh
319 2011-07-17 01:08:36 <copumpkin> b4epoche: I don't touch iOS anymore. Haven't in years :)
320 2011-07-17 01:08:51 <copumpkin> I stopped doing jailbreak stuff back in 3.*
321 2011-07-17 01:08:57 <devrandom> BlueMatt: oh, hi. the deps are deterministic, but not bitcoin.exe
322 2011-07-17 01:09:09 glitch-mod has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
323 2011-07-17 01:09:15 <b4epoche> it seems like people get busy (i.e. grow up) and then drop out
324 2011-07-17 01:09:25 Pathin has joined
325 2011-07-17 01:09:33 <BlueMatt> devrandom: really, that seems...odd
326 2011-07-17 01:09:53 <devrandom> I think there's a timestamp in the .exe header
327 2011-07-17 01:09:57 <BlueMatt> devrandom: do you have time to do it, or should I put it on the to-do?
328 2011-07-17 01:09:58 <devrandom> I didn't dig yet
329 2011-07-17 01:10:10 <devrandom> to-do
330 2011-07-17 01:10:21 <BlueMatt> ok, will do
331 2011-07-17 01:10:41 <copumpkin> b4epoche: oh, I lost interest even while I was in school
332 2011-07-17 01:10:45 <copumpkin> I got pulled into abstract math
333 2011-07-17 01:10:52 <BlueMatt> thanks for doing wx and boost though, will be really, really useful
334 2011-07-17 01:10:53 <copumpkin> had never done much math before a couple of years ago
335 2011-07-17 01:10:59 <copumpkin> then got completely addicted
336 2011-07-17 01:11:02 <copumpkin> and lost most interest in reversing
337 2011-07-17 01:11:04 Beremat has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
338 2011-07-17 01:11:05 <b4epoche> oh, yea, when you became /co/pumpkin
339 2011-07-17 01:11:08 <copumpkin> :)
340 2011-07-17 01:11:08 glitch-mod has joined
341 2011-07-17 01:11:49 <gmaxwell> One thing to do with adwords income would be to use it to buy btc at market rates, thus feeding forward the market, and then put the coin to things like the faucet which help promote btc usage.
342 2011-07-17 01:11:51 Beremat has joined
343 2011-07-17 01:12:07 <b4epoche> +!
344 2011-07-17 01:12:14 <devrandom> BlueMatt: I think it will build in 10 min on 4 cores
345 2011-07-17 01:12:27 <cacheson> gmaxwell: ooh, good idea
346 2011-07-17 01:12:35 <devrandom> BlueMatt: no problem
347 2011-07-17 01:12:47 <copumpkin> the downside to ads is that they're so ugly :P
348 2011-07-17 01:12:57 <BlueMatt> devrandom: damn, yea building anything on 2 cores take a long time, boost take a long time with any number of cores...
349 2011-07-17 01:13:25 <gmaxwell> In fact, if some the rolling average of the ask price was used, the adwords income would stablize the market against downward motion if there was enough of it.
350 2011-07-17 01:13:53 <copumpkin> what kind of traffic does the site get?
351 2011-07-17 01:14:35 <coderrr> gmaxwell, you mean adsense ?
352 2011-07-17 01:14:55 <devrandom> BlueMatt: errr... about boost, I think the major part of the slowness was building 4 variants. I reduced it to 1.
353 2011-07-17 01:15:04 <gmaxwell> coderrr: Yea, well, same service. Silly that they use different names for buying/selling on it.
354 2011-07-17 01:15:15 <coderrr> haha yea, its confusing
355 2011-07-17 01:15:29 <BlueMatt> devrandom: oh...well in any case, thanks for dealing with that
356 2011-07-17 01:15:49 <coderrr> yea thats a pretty cool idea, gmaxwell, what site were you talkign about putting the ads on, the forum ?
357 2011-07-17 01:16:15 <b4epoche> yea, make the forum a 'commercial' site
358 2011-07-17 01:16:22 <devrandom> BlueMatt: sure
359 2011-07-17 01:16:26 <b4epoche> with maybe some token pay for mods
360 2011-07-17 01:16:44 <BlueMatt> devrandom: now I promise Ill do nsis post-hook gitian stuff tomorrow...
361 2011-07-17 01:17:21 freewil has left ()
362 2011-07-17 01:17:23 <gmaxwell> coderrr: Well, people were talking about the devel blog above, but the suggestion was a generic one.
363 2011-07-17 01:17:46 mmoya has joined
364 2011-07-17 01:17:48 <devrandom> BlueMatt: not sure what that entails... are you going to check sigs?
365 2011-07-17 01:18:06 <coderrr> right
366 2011-07-17 01:18:30 <BlueMatt> devrandom: yea, it would call the gitian download script form a nice nsis installer and check the sigs, etc
367 2011-07-17 01:18:48 <BlueMatt> devrandom: that way you still get a nice install gui but get to use gitian to ensure gitian stuff
368 2011-07-17 01:19:05 Zagitta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
369 2011-07-17 01:19:09 <devrandom> BlueMatt: nice... I guess you'd need pgp
370 2011-07-17 01:19:14 <BlueMatt> admittedly its not entirely secure, but it does allow future stuff...
371 2011-07-17 01:19:31 <BlueMatt> update wrapper guis is the ultimate goal
372 2011-07-17 01:20:08 Zagitta has joined
373 2011-07-17 01:20:27 <devrandom> BlueMatt: will it be bitcoin specific, or can the gitian project adopt that?
374 2011-07-17 01:20:36 <BlueMatt> well I suppose it would be generic
375 2011-07-17 01:21:12 <BlueMatt> if I get around to id, Id like to mod the gitian-downloader script to have a gui like pythonwx or something
376 2011-07-17 01:21:23 moa7 has joined
377 2011-07-17 01:21:35 <devrandom> that would be great
378 2011-07-17 01:22:01 <BlueMatt> its just a question of finding time, but thats the ultimate goal of where Id personally like to see gitian go wrt bitcoin
379 2011-07-17 01:22:34 <devrandom> so the UI will pop up automatically somehow if there's an update?
380 2011-07-17 01:22:40 <BlueMatt> well hopefully
381 2011-07-17 01:23:34 <BlueMatt> but first nsis stuff so that it will install the necessary gitian stuff
382 2011-07-17 01:25:04 <Zagitta> I'd be willing to help with that distributed building if need be :)
383 2011-07-17 01:31:35 <devrandom> Zagitta: if you are interested, look at https://github.com/devrandom - gitian-builder and *-release repostories
384 2011-07-17 01:33:35 <BlueMatt> anyway, good night for now, Ill try to get some work done tomorrow and see what I can do :)
385 2011-07-17 01:38:47 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
386 2011-07-17 01:39:52 Diablo-D3 has joined
387 2011-07-17 01:46:32 <jjjx> Who was it that said in here earlier, that bitcoin.org could make $1000/day with Google AdSense?
388 2011-07-17 01:46:32 Gonzago has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
389 2011-07-17 01:46:46 <jjjx> Was that copumpkin ?
390 2011-07-17 01:46:54 <copumpkin> no, I didn't say that
391 2011-07-17 01:47:02 <copumpkin> I said that my group's website would be :)
392 2011-07-17 01:47:18 <copumpkin> but if bitcoin.org gets lots of visitors, it could make some decent money
393 2011-07-17 01:48:03 <jjjx> copumpkin: Your group's website? Is ... ?
394 2011-07-17 01:48:08 <copumpkin> blog.iphone-dev.org
395 2011-07-17 01:49:32 <jjjx> copumpkin: Ah, OK. Do you think it would be possible to do a sort-of 'audit' of bitcoin.org's adsense potential?
396 2011-07-17 01:49:50 <copumpkin> you really just need to look at the kind of numbers on the stats on the website
397 2011-07-17 01:52:35 <jjjx> copumpkin: Alright, I'll check into it.
398 2011-07-17 01:52:43 <Zagitta> devrandom: VMBuilder.exception.VMBuilderUserError: amd64 is not a valid architecture. Valid architectures are: i386 lpia
399 2011-07-17 01:53:39 dr_win has joined
400 2011-07-17 01:56:25 unclemantis has joined
401 2011-07-17 02:03:26 <bliket_> whats a good os to run bitcoind on?
402 2011-07-17 02:03:58 <jrmithdobbs> reactos
403 2011-07-17 02:04:52 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
404 2011-07-17 02:05:26 accel_ has joined
405 2011-07-17 02:05:30 <accel_> http://www.bitcoindeals.com/ <- is fucking brilliant, especially if they do a 10-50% markup. Anyone ineterested in joining this market? I'm thinking bitcoin-escorts or bitcoin-order-bride or bitcoin-drugs
406 2011-07-17 02:08:32 <jjjx> accel_: Wow that IS a nice site.
407 2011-07-17 02:08:46 <jjjx> accel_: Except it doesn't do anything :-)
408 2011-07-17 02:08:51 <jjjx> accel_: But very promising looking!
409 2011-07-17 02:09:04 <accel_> yeah, the deals tag
410 2011-07-17 02:09:06 <accel_> looks like best buy
411 2011-07-17 02:09:22 <accel_> and ir you look at the background, there's cameras, cabinets
412 2011-07-17 02:09:24 <accel_> movies,
413 2011-07-17 02:09:27 <accel_> even PowerPoint 2007!
414 2011-07-17 02:09:32 <jjjx> Glad to see more pro-level stuff like this popping up
415 2011-07-17 02:09:34 noagendamarket has joined
416 2011-07-17 02:09:53 <b4epoche> great... I refuse to fall into the Twitter trap
417 2011-07-17 02:10:27 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
418 2011-07-17 02:10:39 TheSeven has joined
419 2011-07-17 02:11:06 <b4epoche> and brilliant, the whole damn page is a jpg
420 2011-07-17 02:11:28 <b4epoche> coming_soon6.jpg
421 2011-07-17 02:11:45 * b4epoche wonders how many more coming_soonX.jpg's there will be
422 2011-07-17 02:14:23 luke-jr has joined
423 2011-07-17 02:15:27 caedes has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
424 2011-07-17 02:16:59 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
425 2011-07-17 02:23:33 Gonzago has joined
426 2011-07-17 02:23:55 <jjjx> b4epoche: Be optimistic. :-)
427 2011-07-17 02:24:15 <jjjx> b4epoche: Really, I think the people putting work into these things should be praised, whatever the state its in.
428 2011-07-17 02:24:45 <jjjx> b4epoche: I grant you that a lot of broken promises aren't really ideal, but positivity is at least more motivational. ;-)
429 2011-07-17 02:24:47 <b4epoche> yea, I do hope it succeeds... and if exchange rate stabilizes I think it might
430 2011-07-17 02:25:04 <jjjx> b4epoche: Speaking of which, what's to these rumors that 'bots' are keeping the exchange rate stable?
431 2011-07-17 02:25:18 <b4epoche> I have no idea
432 2011-07-17 02:26:03 <b4epoche> they're talking about it in #mtgox
433 2011-07-17 02:26:14 eoss has joined
434 2011-07-17 02:26:30 klikklak_ is now known as klikklak
435 2011-07-17 02:26:38 <jjjx> Heh, I didn't even know that channel existed.
436 2011-07-17 02:26:39 <pasky> is it normal that bitcoind (latest git) generates massive amount of write I/O? (in the order of 1MiB/s)
437 2011-07-17 02:26:53 <pasky> it started behaving like this at a certain point about a week ago
438 2011-07-17 02:28:19 Sylph has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
439 2011-07-17 02:29:05 <jrmithdobbs> how secure is aes256/aes512 for ondisk encryption assuming the keys are stored well?
440 2011-07-17 02:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> using xts or essiv
441 2011-07-17 02:31:27 stuhood has joined
442 2011-07-17 02:31:40 stuhood has left ()
443 2011-07-17 02:32:34 dvide has quit ()
444 2011-07-17 02:32:39 accel_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
445 2011-07-17 02:33:43 <gmaxwell> There is no aes 512.. :)
446 2011-07-17 02:34:49 mrb_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
447 2011-07-17 02:35:01 andyfletcher has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
448 2011-07-17 02:35:06 mrb_ has joined
449 2011-07-17 02:36:54 <jrmithdobbs> was refering to key size
450 2011-07-17 02:39:36 <jrmithdobbs> err could have sworn aes 256 could use a 512bit key
451 2011-07-17 02:40:36 osmosis has joined
452 2011-07-17 02:40:49 <jrmithdobbs> i'll go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard and stfu ;p
453 2011-07-17 02:40:59 <bliket_> if the difficulty were just 1, would we be getting a block each time we get a share?
454 2011-07-17 02:41:15 <denisx> bliket_: mostly
455 2011-07-17 02:41:24 <bliket_> nice
456 2011-07-17 02:41:58 caedes has joined
457 2011-07-17 02:41:59 caedes has quit (Changing host)
458 2011-07-17 02:41:59 caedes has joined
459 2011-07-17 02:42:23 moa7 has left ()
460 2011-07-17 02:43:47 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
461 2011-07-17 02:44:11 Kiba` has joined
462 2011-07-17 02:44:41 gim has quit (Quit: Leaving)
463 2011-07-17 02:45:21 Kiba has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
464 2011-07-17 02:46:05 caedes has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
465 2011-07-17 02:48:31 andyfletcher has joined
466 2011-07-17 02:50:19 idnar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
467 2011-07-17 02:50:29 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: so what can be done to minimize exposure to the aes key schedule attacks
468 2011-07-17 02:50:32 <diki> amd cal is a native language right?
469 2011-07-17 02:50:37 <diki> it should work on every amd card?
470 2011-07-17 02:50:44 <diki> even those that dont support opencl?
471 2011-07-17 02:50:46 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: or is there something better to use as a block cipher that'll work with dm_crypt?
472 2011-07-17 02:51:24 darksk1ez has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
473 2011-07-17 02:51:55 idnar has joined
474 2011-07-17 02:52:10 niekie_ has joined
475 2011-07-17 02:52:24 eoss has joined
476 2011-07-17 02:53:05 <diki> right guys?
477 2011-07-17 02:53:24 niekie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
478 2011-07-17 02:53:50 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: dmcrypt supports every cipher in linux. So e.g. you can use twofish.
479 2011-07-17 02:53:52 caedes has joined
480 2011-07-17 02:53:52 caedes has quit (Changing host)
481 2011-07-17 02:53:53 caedes has joined
482 2011-07-17 02:53:59 darksk1ez has joined
483 2011-07-17 02:54:14 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya i can't find anything that clearly lays out the pros/cons of the options
484 2011-07-17 02:54:58 eoss has quit (Client Quit)
485 2011-07-17 02:55:04 <Zagitta> /me pats diki on the head
486 2011-07-17 02:55:12 <Zagitta> :<
487 2011-07-17 02:55:30 * Zagitta pats diki on the head
488 2011-07-17 02:55:32 <gmaxwell> well, AES is the most widely attacked. the AES128 + keyed IV doesn't have any severe relevant known weaknesses...
489 2011-07-17 02:55:32 <diki> do all amd cards support amd cal?
490 2011-07-17 02:55:57 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: what about aes128/256-xts
491 2011-07-17 02:55:58 <gmaxwell> It's also quite fast on the right hardware
492 2011-07-17 02:56:53 <b4epoche> diki: my better would be no
493 2011-07-17 02:57:00 <b4epoche> s/better/bet
494 2011-07-17 02:57:10 <gmaxwell> I personally use aes128 + lrw, which has 256 bits of keying material.
495 2011-07-17 02:57:11 <b4epoche> since /all/ is a strong word
496 2011-07-17 02:57:31 <diki> cause ufasoft claims that his miner will use it, if opencl is not present
497 2011-07-17 02:57:50 <jrmithdobbs> i understand why cbc is bad
498 2011-07-17 02:58:01 <diki> i'll have to try it
499 2011-07-17 02:58:19 <gmaxwell> well, it's only bad because there is no good source of random IVs. :)
500 2011-07-17 02:58:35 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: do you go with aes128 vs 256 because of the key scheduling ?
501 2011-07-17 02:58:39 <cjdelisle> cbc is not bad as much as it is pointless
502 2011-07-17 02:58:54 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i was referring more to the watermarking attacks
503 2011-07-17 02:59:31 <jrmithdobbs> though, in this particular application only authenticated authorized users will have write access in the first place (with both authen/author being done with proven strong crypto methods to begin with)
504 2011-07-17 02:59:32 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: er.. it's not pointless. ECB is quite insecure.
505 2011-07-17 03:00:01 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: yes of course ecb is a horror. Counters are much better than cbc though since they are random access.
506 2011-07-17 03:00:02 skeledrew has joined
507 2011-07-17 03:00:09 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: cbc is fine if you have good random IVs unavailable to the attacker., but you don't for disk encryption.
508 2011-07-17 03:00:32 <diki> zomg
509 2011-07-17 03:00:45 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: the counterness of cbc with sector IVs is what results in watermarking attacks on disk encryptionâ¦
510 2011-07-17 03:00:45 <diki> cal is supported by all cards above hd2ki
511 2011-07-17 03:01:04 <gmaxwell> and disks aren't random access below the sector level regardless.
512 2011-07-17 03:01:18 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
513 2011-07-17 03:01:32 <cjdelisle> hmm I wasn't talking as much about disk crypto as crypto in general
514 2011-07-17 03:01:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: right, i'm talking specifically in relation to block device encryption though ;p
515 2011-07-17 03:02:04 <diki> it might actually work
516 2011-07-17 03:02:06 <gmaxwell> in general, counter modes expose known ciphertext attacks better than non-counter modes.
517 2011-07-17 03:02:10 <diki> i have an igp and a 3650 waiting to be used
518 2011-07-17 03:03:04 <Zagitta> diki: would probably give shitty hash rates though
519 2011-07-17 03:03:19 <diki> yeah
520 2011-07-17 03:03:21 <diki> he said that
521 2011-07-17 03:03:28 skeledrew has joined
522 2011-07-17 03:03:33 <diki> but the important part is i can use all my gpus now
523 2011-07-17 03:03:40 <diki> but first gotta test if it does work
524 2011-07-17 03:03:52 <diki> gotta disconnect for a bit
525 2011-07-17 03:04:20 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: in any case, if your threat model includes people who can crack AES128 and are willing to admit it, then I have no advice for you!
526 2011-07-17 03:05:08 <gmaxwell> well, some, in that case I'd nest AES128 + something else (perhaps twofish or serpent) with _unrelated keys_.
527 2011-07-17 03:05:19 <JFK911> skipjack
528 2011-07-17 03:07:03 diki has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
529 2011-07-17 03:07:27 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm more worried about something that will have some longevity, eg, at the rate issues with aes are being found lately i think it's realistic to say it could be fundamentally broken at full 14+ rounds within the next 10 years
530 2011-07-17 03:10:01 <devrandom> Zagitta: you need a 64 bit machine with svm instructions and svm enabled in the bios
531 2011-07-17 03:10:52 <Zagitta> devrandom: ah, i think we're out of luck then
532 2011-07-17 03:11:04 <devrandom> oh well :-|
533 2011-07-17 03:11:54 <Zagitta> the machine is 64bit but is currently installed with 32bit... haven't seen any virtualization options in the bios though
534 2011-07-17 03:11:57 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: well, thats one reason I use LRW.
535 2011-07-17 03:12:07 <devrandom> Zagitta: I think you still can build the 32 bit stuff, including windows
536 2011-07-17 03:12:43 <devrandom> Zagitta: you'll need to adjusts the architectures list for the linux builds to remove amd64
537 2011-07-17 03:13:04 <cjdelisle> I am a big fan of salsa20 because you can write it on a napkin and it's reasonably easy to comprehend what makes it strong.
538 2011-07-17 03:13:07 <Zagitta> devrandom: I'll have a look at that at some point
539 2011-07-17 03:13:22 zeropointo has joined
540 2011-07-17 03:13:29 wolfspraul has joined
541 2011-07-17 03:13:40 <cjdelisle> ofc with salsa20 if you break the rules, even a little, you are sunk.
542 2011-07-17 03:13:42 <Zagitta> anyone that can help me a bit with the merkle root? because the example given in BitcoinJ confused me a bit: http://pastebin.com/DtgXaGwQ
543 2011-07-17 03:14:23 TheZimm has joined
544 2011-07-17 03:14:47 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: lrw effectively encrypts the block before and after with a simple stream cipher whos strength comes from the difficulty of inverting multiplication in a finite field.
545 2011-07-17 03:14:49 <noagendamarket> http://youtu.be/2zwR5iKJh5E nice
546 2011-07-17 03:15:18 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
547 2011-07-17 03:16:40 karnac has joined
548 2011-07-17 03:16:49 <Zagitta> noagendamarket: when does the core 2 duo part start? xD that's the only part im interested in
549 2011-07-17 03:17:35 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
550 2011-07-17 03:22:37 Sylph has joined
551 2011-07-17 03:25:35 Zagitta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
552 2011-07-17 03:27:00 MobiusL has joined
553 2011-07-17 03:28:09 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
554 2011-07-17 03:29:19 Lachesis has joined
555 2011-07-17 03:29:55 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
556 2011-07-17 03:30:12 ivan has joined
557 2011-07-17 03:34:47 kermit has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
558 2011-07-17 03:36:34 diki has joined
559 2011-07-17 03:37:01 diki is now known as Guest17379
560 2011-07-17 03:39:24 kermit has joined
561 2011-07-17 03:44:13 luke-jr has joined
562 2011-07-17 03:44:51 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
563 2011-07-17 03:53:55 JRWR has quit ()
564 2011-07-17 03:54:25 puhc has joined
565 2011-07-17 03:54:48 somuchwin has joined
566 2011-07-17 03:54:58 somuchwin2 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
567 2011-07-17 03:58:30 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
568 2011-07-17 04:00:38 Teslah has joined
569 2011-07-17 04:04:22 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ah, figured out the 512bit key confusion
570 2011-07-17 04:04:31 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: with xts you need 2x the keying material
571 2011-07-17 04:08:44 sacarlson has joined
572 2011-07-17 04:11:34 JRWR has joined
573 2011-07-17 04:11:34 JRWR has quit (Changing host)
574 2011-07-17 04:11:34 JRWR has joined
575 2011-07-17 04:11:42 MC-Eeepc has joined
576 2011-07-17 04:13:07 Pathin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
577 2011-07-17 04:14:48 Gonzago has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
578 2011-07-17 04:15:48 Pathin has joined
579 2011-07-17 04:17:49 JordanCastroKnow has joined
580 2011-07-17 04:18:24 Guest17379 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
581 2011-07-17 04:23:00 Xenland has joined
582 2011-07-17 04:25:41 Xenland has quit (Client Quit)
583 2011-07-17 04:28:31 zamgo has joined
584 2011-07-17 04:33:36 zamgo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
585 2011-07-17 04:38:32 Gonzago has joined
586 2011-07-17 04:38:52 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
587 2011-07-17 04:40:31 conjre has joined
588 2011-07-17 04:41:12 zamgo has joined
589 2011-07-17 04:41:23 zamgo is now known as Guest49167
590 2011-07-17 04:42:47 Guest49167 is now known as zamgo_
591 2011-07-17 04:47:26 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
592 2011-07-17 04:48:11 MC-Eeepc has joined
593 2011-07-17 04:50:10 zamgo_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
594 2011-07-17 04:57:15 kreal- has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
595 2011-07-17 04:58:13 koleg has joined
596 2011-07-17 05:00:41 Teslah has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
597 2011-07-17 05:06:45 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
598 2011-07-17 05:07:07 da2ce7 has joined
599 2011-07-17 05:07:09 da2ce7 has quit (Excess Flood)
600 2011-07-17 05:07:35 da2ce7 has joined
601 2011-07-17 05:10:40 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
602 2011-07-17 05:11:31 MC-Eeepc has joined
603 2011-07-17 05:18:04 bliket_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
604 2011-07-17 05:24:07 Folklore has joined
605 2011-07-17 05:26:12 <riush> how is the bitcoin address of a generation address determined / why does scriptPubKey.getBitcoinAddress not return any?
606 2011-07-17 05:26:28 <riush> s/generation address/generation transaction/
607 2011-07-17 05:36:31 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
608 2011-07-17 05:37:11 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
609 2011-07-17 05:38:08 Folklore has quit (Quit: yaya heh)
610 2011-07-17 05:39:56 <lfm> riush: for a coinbase 50BTC generate the address is a new key generated randomly (actually selected from the list of pregenerated random addresses)
611 2011-07-17 05:40:57 <lfm> lfm: some pools might have different ways of doing it tho
612 2011-07-17 05:41:11 <riush> yeah, but i mean, how does blockexplorer know it?
613 2011-07-17 05:41:59 <lfm> riush: oh block explorer gets the address from the public key in the "output" script.
614 2011-07-17 05:42:56 <riush> ok, thats what i thought.. but why does scriptPubKey.getBitcoinAddress() not return it?
615 2011-07-17 05:43:18 <lfm> Im not sure what that function is
616 2011-07-17 05:44:03 <riush> for normal transactions, that gives me the address.. (in the standard client)
617 2011-07-17 05:44:22 <riush> how would i go about decoding the output script myself?
618 2011-07-17 05:45:24 <lfm> there are only a few "op codes" used in the scripts. they shouldnt be too hard to find them and get the key data out of the script
619 2011-07-17 05:47:42 <riush> ok then i'll dig into that.. thanks lfm :)
620 2011-07-17 05:47:44 <lfm> like for a regular coinbase key script you have a script 67 bytes long. the public key starts at byte 2 and is 65 bytes long I beleive
621 2011-07-17 05:48:08 <lfm> the second byte, byte {1} actually
622 2011-07-17 05:48:20 <riush> ah
623 2011-07-17 05:48:40 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
624 2011-07-17 05:49:17 <jrmithdobbs> nice. the new atoms can write ~30MB/s across usb2 using aes-xts-benbi (aes256)
625 2011-07-17 05:51:11 spirals has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
626 2011-07-17 05:52:46 <unclemantis> offtopic. Anyone know where I can buy tungsten metal?
627 2011-07-17 05:56:04 <senseles> google ~
628 2011-07-17 05:56:25 <senseles> you should be able to get a tungsten bar similar to gold or silver
629 2011-07-17 05:56:37 JRWR has quit ()
630 2011-07-17 05:56:46 <lfm> http://www.metalsupermarkets.com/
631 2011-07-17 05:56:58 <senseles> http://compare.ebay.com/like/170576282682?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&_lwgsi=y
632 2011-07-17 05:57:01 <unclemantis> been having a little trouble finding
633 2011-07-17 05:57:03 <senseles> few 100lbs of tungsten there
634 2011-07-17 05:57:20 <lfm> they dont say they have tungsten tho
635 2011-07-17 05:57:29 <unclemantis> hmm these guys do metal cuts.
636 2011-07-17 05:57:43 <unclemantis> i don't see tungsten
637 2011-07-17 05:58:16 <unclemantis> looking for .999 percent tungsten or as pure as i can get
638 2011-07-17 05:58:39 <unclemantis> tungsten's melting point is the reason i am after pure tungsten
639 2011-07-17 05:59:04 <unclemantis> i don't want a tungsten ring
640 2011-07-17 05:59:11 <unclemantis> even thought they do look pretty bad add
641 2011-07-17 05:59:12 <unclemantis> ass
642 2011-07-17 05:59:52 <lfm> you want filament?
643 2011-07-17 06:00:17 <unclemantis> i want it in sheets
644 2011-07-17 06:00:35 <nanotube> out of curiosity.. what do you want with it? :)
645 2011-07-17 06:00:54 <unclemantis> nanotube i am still on my kick about an offline wallet for the appocolipse
646 2011-07-17 06:01:00 briareus has joined
647 2011-07-17 06:01:35 <nanotube> ah hehe nice
648 2011-07-17 06:01:38 <unclemantis> and tungsten has the highest melting point
649 2011-07-17 06:02:10 <nanotube> i think possibly by the time you get to container melting point, whatever the metal is, the usb stick inside is gonna be toast anyway
650 2011-07-17 06:02:25 <lfm> http://www.tungsten.com/mtsprod.html
651 2011-07-17 06:02:26 <nanotube> unless you plan to engrave uuencoded keys on stone tablets...
652 2011-07-17 06:02:30 <unclemantis> who said anything about storing information on a usb stick
653 2011-07-17 06:02:43 <nanotube> what do you plan to store inside, then? :)
654 2011-07-17 06:03:00 <unclemantis> i plan on engraving keys into the metal
655 2011-07-17 06:03:30 <senseles> why does it need to be tungsten?
656 2011-07-17 06:03:32 <lfm> are you like some sorta survivalist?
657 2011-07-17 06:03:40 <senseles> cant you just stick a chip on a 1$ plastic card?
658 2011-07-17 06:03:59 <unclemantis> lfm no just bipolar and this is my THING right now
659 2011-07-17 06:04:15 <lfm> and how you gonna preserve the computer net needed to use the keys?
660 2011-07-17 06:04:34 <senseles> lfm: i actually had an idea about that
661 2011-07-17 06:04:36 molecular has joined
662 2011-07-17 06:04:39 <senseles> 50,000$ cubesat
663 2011-07-17 06:04:44 <nanotube> unclemantis: hehe nice
664 2011-07-17 06:04:50 <unclemantis> lfm the transactions are already on the block
665 2011-07-17 06:04:58 <jrmithdobbs> now if i can just figure out how to turn off the shitty power management shit in the AR9285 driver
666 2011-07-17 06:05:02 <unclemantis> this is a long term solution
667 2011-07-17 06:05:53 spirals has joined
668 2011-07-17 06:05:56 <lfm> still sounds nuts but dont let me bother you
669 2011-07-17 06:06:04 <unclemantis> lfm i won't :)
670 2011-07-17 06:06:18 <unclemantis> bugs the shit out of my wife though
671 2011-07-17 06:06:39 <unclemantis> i am sorting pennies right now for copper content to stock pile until the melt ban is lifted
672 2011-07-17 06:06:45 * unclemantis is way out there :)
673 2011-07-17 06:07:25 * unclemantis looking at http://www.tungsten.com/mtsprod.html
674 2011-07-17 06:07:32 <cjdelisle> I was thinking it makes sense to make things out of pennies.
675 2011-07-17 06:07:38 <cjdelisle> faraday cage?
676 2011-07-17 06:07:48 <lfm> isnt it easier to just melt em all together and refine the result as needed?
677 2011-07-17 06:07:49 <cjdelisle> Anything you need copper/nickel whatever it is
678 2011-07-17 06:07:58 <unclemantis> now here we go
679 2011-07-17 06:08:16 <unclemantis> pure tungsten disks at $45 a pound
680 2011-07-17 06:08:45 <unclemantis> cjdelisle the copper is for the exchange rate
681 2011-07-17 06:08:58 <unclemantis> my solution requires no batteries
682 2011-07-17 06:09:18 <cjdelisle> yea but since they don't want you melting it, make something out of it that you would othewise use copper for?
683 2011-07-17 06:09:30 <unclemantis> true
684 2011-07-17 06:09:43 <unclemantis> or i could still stock pile until they lift the ban
685 2011-07-17 06:09:58 <unclemantis> right now a 100 percent copper penny is worth about 4 cents
686 2011-07-17 06:10:00 <lfm> sew em into armored vests
687 2011-07-17 06:10:13 <cjdelisle> or just stockpile for the fun of it, just to be a pain in the ass :)
688 2011-07-17 06:10:14 <unclemantis> there ya go
689 2011-07-17 06:10:25 <unclemantis> cjdelisle just to piss off the wife :)
690 2011-07-17 06:10:44 <cjdelisle> oh did you see my idea for a miner hot water heater?
691 2011-07-17 06:10:58 <unclemantis> wha? now that is a cool idea
692 2011-07-17 06:11:00 <unclemantis> i mean HOT
693 2011-07-17 06:11:23 <cjdelisle> Buy an old hot water heater with burned out elements, hell bum it off someone or hang around the dump
694 2011-07-17 06:11:44 <cjdelisle> hook it up to a heat exchanger to your collant loop for your mining rig
695 2011-07-17 06:11:51 <XX01XX> haha
696 2011-07-17 06:12:10 <cjdelisle> get water up to ~100 and then the real hot water heater only has to do the last 70 degrees.
697 2011-07-17 06:12:32 <cjdelisle> with tap water at about 50 you get half your hot water heated by your miner
698 2011-07-17 06:12:48 <XX01XX> I don't think they put out enough heat.
699 2011-07-17 06:12:58 <cjdelisle> Instant sell with the wife because you will *have* to take long showers to use all of the energy.
700 2011-07-17 06:13:16 SanguineRose has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
701 2011-07-17 06:13:16 <cjdelisle> avg hot water heater uses around 18 amps on average which is 4000 watts.
702 2011-07-17 06:13:39 <wirehead> additional requirements: degree in mechanical engineering, friendly landlord,
703 2011-07-17 06:13:46 <lfm> cjdelisle: is that 220 volt system?
704 2011-07-17 06:13:51 <cjdelisle> yea
705 2011-07-17 06:13:57 <cjdelisle> did I fail @ math?
706 2011-07-17 06:14:08 <lfm> no just id be different for 110
707 2011-07-17 06:14:36 <cjdelisle> yea, 18@240=4320
708 2011-07-17 06:14:47 <unclemantis> i emailed a quote
709 2011-07-17 06:14:55 <lfm> dont forget rms conversion
710 2011-07-17 06:14:57 <XX01XX> power factor, but I'd buy 4000.
711 2011-07-17 06:15:17 <cjdelisle> yea which is why anyone who is serious about mining should be using 240v stuff exclusively
712 2011-07-17 06:15:22 <XX01XX> What do these mining rigs draw?
713 2011-07-17 06:15:37 <lfm> XX01XX: as much as you want
714 2011-07-17 06:15:42 <XX01XX> haha
715 2011-07-17 06:15:51 <cjdelisle> I see 1200 watt psu boxes on some, I think a 5970 uses about 300
716 2011-07-17 06:15:57 <lfm> XX01XX: depends how many gpu you put in them
717 2011-07-17 06:15:58 <unclemantis> bitcoin is at 13.52 right now. Good. The inflation is going down!
718 2011-07-17 06:16:03 <unclemantis> stupid noobs
719 2011-07-17 06:16:05 <unclemantis> :P
720 2011-07-17 06:16:09 <lfm> dual 1000 wat psus
721 2011-07-17 06:16:29 caedes has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
722 2011-07-17 06:16:31 <XX01XX> a 1000W PSU isn't necessarily going to supply 1000Wth
723 2011-07-17 06:16:42 <XX01XX> at least not to a piped cooling rig.
724 2011-07-17 06:16:48 <cjdelisle> moar inflation, moar inflation!! wallstreet forex noob plz short btc, I want your shirt ;)
725 2011-07-17 06:16:49 <jrmithdobbs> i can't find a sane reason for some of those crazy 2x1kW psu rigs
726 2011-07-17 06:16:55 <lfm> XX01XX: yes of course
727 2011-07-17 06:17:03 <jrmithdobbs> unless you have 8x gpus it's a waste
728 2011-07-17 06:17:06 <jrmithdobbs> because you can't do math
729 2011-07-17 06:17:11 <cjdelisle> /nod
730 2011-07-17 06:17:22 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: put 6 5970 in one system?
731 2011-07-17 06:17:30 <jrmithdobbs> srsly, i ran 4x5850s off a *good* 750W
732 2011-07-17 06:17:32 <jrmithdobbs> stably
733 2011-07-17 06:17:42 <wirehead> overclocking can almost double the wattage draw
734 2011-07-17 06:17:54 <jrmithdobbs> overclocked to the point the cards were capable of
735 2011-07-17 06:18:07 joepie91 has joined
736 2011-07-17 06:18:10 <jrmithdobbs> underclocking the ram takes care of the extra power used by the gpu overclock
737 2011-07-17 06:18:13 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
738 2011-07-17 06:18:14 <XX01XX> And thermal stress would probably be not good if you shock the system from 100F to 50F
739 2011-07-17 06:18:14 <cjdelisle> also psus put out a lot of heat so getting a water block onto the rectifer would help that
740 2011-07-17 06:18:33 <lfm> some motherboards have 7 pcie slots, you can maybe use them all with enuf risers and stuff
741 2011-07-17 06:18:40 <jrmithdobbs> i've had like 20 people tell me the system i just described is impossible yet i ran 4 of 'em for ~30 days
742 2011-07-17 06:18:44 <wirehead> jrmithdobbs, do you have loadmeter readings to that effect
743 2011-07-17 06:18:57 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: ghetto load reads
744 2011-07-17 06:19:10 <cjdelisle> the coolant loop should be seperate from the domestic hot water so with an electric valve you could prevent thermal shock
745 2011-07-17 06:19:15 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: without the ram underclock, 3 nodes on one 120 tripped the breaker
746 2011-07-17 06:19:26 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: with the ram underclock, 3 nodes did not trip the breaker ;p
747 2011-07-17 06:19:31 <XX01XX> Then you're not getting the level of heat transfer you could.
748 2011-07-17 06:19:34 <wirehead> very sciency
749 2011-07-17 06:20:00 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: ya you need two circuits unless you have a high power circuit
750 2011-07-17 06:20:03 <jrmithdobbs> ya i didn't have a pdu that would measure or a kill-a-watt or similar handy at the time i was running that shit
751 2011-07-17 06:20:35 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: ya, you can basically run 2 nodes on one 120 safely
752 2011-07-17 06:20:42 <jrmithdobbs> 3 if you tweak it to hell
753 2011-07-17 06:20:50 <cjdelisle> even if it's only 30% efficient, it has all night to build up a tank of hot water.
754 2011-07-17 06:20:55 <jrmithdobbs> but then
755 2011-07-17 06:21:16 <XX01XX> I suppose any waste heat you capture is an efficiency gain, so it doesn't really matter.
756 2011-07-17 06:21:17 <jrmithdobbs> all the tards that call me out saying i'm lieing also did stupid shit like had overpowered cpus and put spinning disks in their mining rigs
757 2011-07-17 06:21:18 <wirehead> that hot water idea sounds useful
758 2011-07-17 06:21:21 <jrmithdobbs> which NEVER made sense to me
759 2011-07-17 06:21:36 <jrmithdobbs> i was also able to cool the things with nothing but stock fans, proper airflow in the case, and duct tape
760 2011-07-17 06:21:48 <jrmithdobbs> combined with a correct hot/cold aisle setup
761 2011-07-17 06:21:56 <lfm> then when the tank is full what? stop the water or dump it?
762 2011-07-17 06:22:05 <jrmithdobbs> in a room that was 08F ambient temp every gpu ran <72C
763 2011-07-17 06:22:06 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
764 2011-07-17 06:22:10 <jrmithdobbs> 80F
765 2011-07-17 06:22:30 <cjdelisle> you need a water/air radiator to dump heat, otherwise you'd risk damaging the components
766 2011-07-17 06:22:30 <wirehead> I figure that a live usb os with underclocked ram and cpu will cut the wattage overhead as far as is reasonable
767 2011-07-17 06:22:31 gjs278 has joined
768 2011-07-17 06:22:44 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: no you don't, you just need to exhaust it properly
769 2011-07-17 06:22:49 <wirehead> no sata or ide drives
770 2011-07-17 06:23:01 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: fuck usb
771 2011-07-17 06:23:07 <wirehead> why
772 2011-07-17 06:23:09 <jrmithdobbs> my nodes had no local storage
773 2011-07-17 06:23:10 <jrmithdobbs> period
774 2011-07-17 06:23:15 <jrmithdobbs> ram is cheap as fuck
775 2011-07-17 06:23:19 <cjdelisle> sure but if you're not around then what? It just gets hotter and hotter until something fails?
776 2011-07-17 06:23:23 <lfm> usb seems wrong, direct sata seems better
777 2011-07-17 06:23:36 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: sata uses more power
778 2011-07-17 06:23:50 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: huh?
779 2011-07-17 06:23:53 <wirehead> just use some throwaway 4gb drive that is expected to fail
780 2011-07-17 06:24:01 <wirehead> only needs to run the miners
781 2011-07-17 06:24:04 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: or just network boot like a man
782 2011-07-17 06:24:23 <jrmithdobbs> shit
783 2011-07-17 06:24:28 <cjdelisle> jrmithdobbs: You need an emergency dump just in case you don't use any hot water and the system gets too much energy and starts to overheat
784 2011-07-17 06:24:42 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: why the fuck do you need water cooling at all?
785 2011-07-17 06:24:51 <cjdelisle> scroll up?
786 2011-07-17 06:24:51 <jrmithdobbs> (you don't)
787 2011-07-17 06:25:02 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: ya you're talking theorhetical horseshit
788 2011-07-17 06:25:11 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: i'm talking actual applied examples
789 2011-07-17 06:25:13 <lfm> he thinks he can cut his water heating bill
790 2011-07-17 06:25:22 <cjdelisle> I have that setup here. It just uses a wood stove instead of a mining rig.
791 2011-07-17 06:25:38 <lfm> wood is hella inefficient
792 2011-07-17 06:25:50 <cjdelisle> s/inefficient/free/
793 2011-07-17 06:26:06 <jrmithdobbs> no it's not
794 2011-07-17 06:26:18 <cjdelisle> tell the tree that
795 2011-07-17 06:26:40 <jrmithdobbs> can't since you cut them down and have to replant
796 2011-07-17 06:26:42 <jrmithdobbs> making it not free
797 2011-07-17 06:26:54 <cjdelisle> "theorhetical horseshit"
798 2011-07-17 06:27:04 <jrmithdobbs> wood burning stove is free like oil is free
799 2011-07-17 06:27:19 <cjdelisle> show me where I can get free oil
800 2011-07-17 06:27:27 <lfm> theory is the same as practise in theory, in parctise it isn't.
801 2011-07-17 06:28:09 <lfm> try to work thru the typos
802 2011-07-17 06:28:22 <cjdelisle> wait. wtf am I doing arguing about efficiency with someone who thinks it's a better deal to use oil than wood.
803 2011-07-17 06:28:26 <cjdelisle> I have stuff to do.
804 2011-07-17 06:28:36 <lfm> who said oil?
805 2011-07-17 06:28:41 <jrmithdobbs> yes because that's exactly what i said
806 2011-07-17 06:28:47 <jrmithdobbs> tard
807 2011-07-17 06:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: he's referring to this: 01:23 < jrmithdobbs> wood burning stove is free like oil is free
808 2011-07-17 06:29:58 <lfm> ok, ya, he is confusing efficiency with cost. poor deluded soul! grin
809 2011-07-17 06:30:20 joepie91 has quit (laptop!~joepie91@f131242.upc-f.chello.nl|Quit: joepie91|laptop)
810 2011-07-17 06:32:25 <jrmithdobbs> jesus this wifi driver is crap
811 2011-07-17 06:32:33 <jrmithdobbs> there has got to be a way to turn off this powersave crap
812 2011-07-17 06:32:35 joepie91 has joined
813 2011-07-17 06:32:39 <lfm> If I put in a wood furnace for my house Id prolly need to buy a stack of wood bigger than my house for the winter and itd prolly cost more than my house
814 2011-07-17 06:34:37 <jrmithdobbs> i must say
815 2011-07-17 06:34:49 <jrmithdobbs> klonipin + good green tea is deliciously relaxing
816 2011-07-17 06:35:15 <jrmithdobbs> klonopin
817 2011-07-17 06:37:33 <jrmithdobbs> this is crazy, is there some secret to the ath9k driver that i'm missing?
818 2011-07-17 06:37:48 <jrmithdobbs> like some option to turn off power save crap?
819 2011-07-17 06:38:08 <jrmithdobbs> so long as it's got constant net activity it works great, but the moment activity drops off it starts getting ping timeouts and shit
820 2011-07-17 06:38:19 <jrmithdobbs> annoying as fuck on a latency-sensitive connection (ssh)
821 2011-07-17 06:41:34 <lfm> just run a ping constantly?
822 2011-07-17 06:44:06 <jrmithdobbs> iwconfig wlan0 power off
823 2011-07-17 06:44:08 <jrmithdobbs> bam
824 2011-07-17 06:44:11 <jrmithdobbs> problem solved
825 2011-07-17 06:44:19 <lfm> cool
826 2011-07-17 06:44:31 <jrmithdobbs> been like 8 years since i fucked with wifi in linux
827 2011-07-17 06:44:32 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
828 2011-07-17 06:45:06 conjre has quit (Quit: Leaving)
829 2011-07-17 06:47:05 unclemantis has quit ()
830 2011-07-17 06:52:01 RazielZ has joined
831 2011-07-17 06:55:57 Beccara has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
832 2011-07-17 07:02:01 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
833 2011-07-17 07:03:05 kolbsoft has joined
834 2011-07-17 07:03:16 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
835 2011-07-17 07:06:32 kolbsoft has left ()
836 2011-07-17 07:06:44 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
837 2011-07-17 07:06:47 <knotwork> does AddressToHash160 turn an address into a "pubKey" ? if not, what does?
838 2011-07-17 07:07:46 Gonzago has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
839 2011-07-17 07:09:12 <Eliel_> knotwork: Hash160ToAddress does
840 2011-07-17 07:10:23 <knotwork> so a pubKey is actually an address?
841 2011-07-17 07:10:42 <jrmithdobbs> no
842 2011-07-17 07:10:51 <jrmithdobbs> an address can be derived from a pubkey
843 2011-07-17 07:11:10 <knotwork> but not vice-versa?
844 2011-07-17 07:11:23 <jrmithdobbs> correct. ripemd160 is a oneway hash
845 2011-07-17 07:11:31 <lfm> the hash of the pubkey can be dirived from the address, not the key itself
846 2011-07-17 07:11:39 justmoon has joined
847 2011-07-17 07:12:24 <knotwork> and for a coinbase transaction you need the pubKey, not address nor hash of pubkey?
848 2011-07-17 07:12:36 <lfm> you just need the hash
849 2011-07-17 07:13:05 <lfm> use the addr script instead of the key script
850 2011-07-17 07:13:45 <knotwork> we tried that but addr script expects to refer to outputs of previous transactions
851 2011-07-17 07:13:46 b4epoche has joined
852 2011-07-17 07:14:02 <lfm> there are two types of output scripts. the coinbase normally uses the key script but you could use the addr script if you prefer
853 2011-07-17 07:14:37 <lfm> knotwork: use the output script, not the input script
854 2011-07-17 07:14:38 <knotwork> we are trying to give some of the coins to the miner and some to a list of beneficiaries whose addresses we have
855 2011-07-17 07:14:59 brunner has joined
856 2011-07-17 07:16:49 EPiSKiNG- has joined
857 2011-07-17 07:17:00 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
858 2011-07-17 07:17:23 <lfm> yup, you should be able to use a sendmany type set of outputs
859 2011-07-17 07:17:59 <lfm> they can be mixed send to addr and send to ket outputs
860 2011-07-17 07:18:06 <lfm> ket->key
861 2011-07-17 07:19:27 <knotwork> we had txout.scriptPubKey << OP_DUP << OP_HASH160 << hash160 << OP_EQUALVERIFY << OP_CHECKSIG;
862 2011-07-17 07:19:52 <knotwork> where the hash160 as got by AddressToHash160
863 2011-07-17 07:20:28 <lfm> for an example look at block #136661 in the block explorer
864 2011-07-17 07:20:49 <lfm> knotwork: ya, the hash is hash160
865 2011-07-17 07:21:50 * Kiba` works all night to improve bitcoinweekly's looks
866 2011-07-17 07:21:55 <Kiba`> http://bitcoinweekly.com/
867 2011-07-17 07:22:40 <lfm> the hash160 type output is what I call a addr output since you can easily convert back and forth addr from/to hash160
868 2011-07-17 07:22:56 brunner has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
869 2011-07-17 07:23:44 <lfm> the key type is different since you can only convert key to hash160, not back
870 2011-07-17 07:24:33 <knotwork> ok but we can take someone's bitcoin donation address and convert that into whatever ADDRESSVERSION
871 2011-07-17 07:24:50 <knotwork> an alternate chain uses, and it will still work using their key?
872 2011-07-17 07:25:05 alystair has joined
873 2011-07-17 07:25:21 <knotwork> since the ADDRESSVERSION is basically cosmetic?
874 2011-07-17 07:27:03 * Kiba` can't sleep
875 2011-07-17 07:27:04 <lfm> an alternate chain should have its own addressversion. most keys would only be used on one chain
876 2011-07-17 07:27:07 <Kiba`> but write code!
877 2011-07-17 07:27:45 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
878 2011-07-17 07:28:00 <lfm> but if the wrong addressversion was on an address you could ignore it if the user wanted to force it
879 2011-07-17 07:31:40 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
880 2011-07-17 07:33:06 <lfm> knotwork: its probably not a good idea to routinly use keys on more than one chain.
881 2011-07-17 07:33:35 <knotwork> no but Unthinkingbit wants groupcoin/devcoin to autodonate to developers
882 2011-07-17 07:33:54 <knotwork> and he only has their bitcoin donation addresses and cannot maybe get hold of all of them to get them
883 2011-07-17 07:34:05 <knotwork> to get themselves each a groupcoin donation address
884 2011-07-17 07:34:33 <knotwork> I would think if I had an address that started with "markmetson" or "knotwork" I'd want to use it on all chains
885 2011-07-17 07:34:52 <lfm> knotwork: well its a pain in the but to move keys around between wallets and I think its kinda dangerous too.
886 2011-07-17 07:35:17 <knotwork> yeah
887 2011-07-17 07:35:42 <lfm> and you surely should not use a wallet on more than one chain Id think. the accounting would get all meesed up Id think
888 2011-07-17 07:36:49 AStove has joined
889 2011-07-17 07:37:15 <lfm> knotwork: what do you mean key that started with "..."? you doing one of those custom key generators?
890 2011-07-17 07:37:42 <knotwork> well if I did, those wouod be so hard to find I would want to use tem everywhere
891 2011-07-17 07:37:45 <lfm> and bitcoin keys start with "1"
892 2011-07-17 07:38:07 <knotwork> yeah but testnet can start with m
893 2011-07-17 07:39:26 <knotwork> using txout.scriptPubKey << OP_DUP << OP_HASH160 << hash160 << OP_EQUALVERIFY << OP_CHECKSIG; produces an error
894 2011-07-17 07:39:28 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
895 2011-07-17 07:39:44 <lfm> so if you had a tesnet key that started with "markmetson" and moved it to bitcoin then it would look totally different
896 2011-07-17 07:39:51 <knotwork> the block shows an error as that txout
897 2011-07-17 07:40:02 <lfm> what block?
898 2011-07-17 07:40:12 <knotwork> in testing, watching the log
899 2011-07-17 07:40:26 <knotwork> running two machines with -connect so they only talk to each other
900 2011-07-17 07:40:37 <lfm> did you do it like block 136661?
901 2011-07-17 07:41:16 <knotwork> is there a way I can get blockexplorer to show me what the code for that would have looked like?
902 2011-07-17 07:41:41 <lfm> yah, there is a "raw block" button
903 2011-07-17 07:41:45 <knotwork> by default it shows me a list of outputs not how one woudl code them
904 2011-07-17 07:43:29 alystair has left ()
905 2011-07-17 07:44:25 <knotwork> hmm its doing it the same way
906 2011-07-17 07:44:57 ahbritto_ has joined
907 2011-07-17 07:46:47 Fnar has joined
908 2011-07-17 07:52:41 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-106-201-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
909 2011-07-17 07:58:00 koleg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
910 2011-07-17 07:59:08 koleg has joined
911 2011-07-17 08:02:15 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
912 2011-07-17 08:07:32 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
913 2011-07-17 08:18:25 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
914 2011-07-17 08:20:13 maikmerten has joined
915 2011-07-17 08:24:11 Fireball has joined
916 2011-07-17 08:25:22 Pinion has joined
917 2011-07-17 08:33:44 kreal- has joined
918 2011-07-17 08:37:26 Cablesaurus has joined
919 2011-07-17 08:37:26 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
920 2011-07-17 08:37:26 Cablesaurus has joined
921 2011-07-17 08:40:11 datagutt has joined
922 2011-07-17 08:41:16 hachque has joined
923 2011-07-17 08:43:09 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
924 2011-07-17 08:43:20 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
925 2011-07-17 08:47:03 Pinion has quit (Quit: Has quit)
926 2011-07-17 08:54:02 Clipse has joined
927 2011-07-17 08:56:20 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r5d66fbf / (lib/connection.js lib/peermanager.js): Fix block chain download from open network. ... https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/5d66fbfc5468be0a924908ee55445c394d26c15a
928 2011-07-17 08:56:20 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rb9ef9ec / (6 files in 4 dirs): Fix --connect setting. - http://bit.ly/r3oyt0 https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/b9ef9ec7c4847f8090197d54d92616609f66290e
929 2011-07-17 09:01:27 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r2d58354 / examples/genchain.js : Added example script generating a test chain. (Useful for profiling.) - http://bit.ly/rsMork https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/2d5835433520d5fd559845414bf7f40f425ebc3f
930 2011-07-17 09:06:26 MobiusL has joined
931 2011-07-17 09:15:10 Fireball has quit (Quit: ROS is the power.)
932 2011-07-17 09:17:38 JordanCastroKnow is now known as diki
933 2011-07-17 09:32:15 <sacarlson> who would like to loan me .01 nbc for 2 - 4 blocks to test MultiCoin on the namecoin network? there's only a 70% chance it will even work so DONT send more, and don't risk what your not willing to loose
934 2011-07-17 09:32:24 joepie91 has quit (laptop!~joepie91@f131242.upc-f.chello.nl|Quit: joepie91|laptop)
935 2011-07-17 09:35:41 <sacarlson> I'm presently downloading namecoin net blocks up to number "blocks" : 12023, with the new MultiCoin namecoin config
936 2011-07-17 09:38:26 devon_hillard has joined
937 2011-07-17 09:40:54 dobalina has joined
938 2011-07-17 09:51:37 <kinlo> what's up with the fee's nowadays? they are getting more and more decimals after the comma
939 2011-07-17 09:54:20 huk has quit ()
940 2011-07-17 09:59:02 Marf has joined
941 2011-07-17 10:06:35 gjs278 has joined
942 2011-07-17 10:08:40 gut4 has joined
943 2011-07-17 10:09:06 <Eliel_> kinlo: my guess is the value of bitcoins went up, so the fees were reduced.
944 2011-07-17 10:09:14 cuddlefish has joined
945 2011-07-17 10:09:25 gut4 has quit (Client Quit)
946 2011-07-17 10:09:46 <kinlo> Eliel_: dunno, as far as I know the fee rules remain the same, someone is putting in manual fees I think
947 2011-07-17 10:10:17 kish_ has joined
948 2011-07-17 10:10:21 * cuddlefish is compiling bitcoinJ to make the most annoying node ever, muahaha
949 2011-07-17 10:10:49 <Eliel_> ah, eligius pool is doing diverging fee handling. It doesn't accept any transactions without a fee but will accept any fee, no matter how small.
950 2011-07-17 10:10:53 <kinlo> cuddlefish: ?
951 2011-07-17 10:10:58 <cuddlefish> kinlo: tarpit.
952 2011-07-17 10:11:02 <kinlo> oh
953 2011-07-17 10:11:09 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
954 2011-07-17 10:11:12 <cuddlefish> kinlo: bitcoin right now only downloads blocks from one node...
955 2011-07-17 10:11:12 <kinlo> why ? :p
956 2011-07-17 10:11:22 <cuddlefish> this one sybils out, and gives 1 block per minute :D
957 2011-07-17 10:11:35 kish has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
958 2011-07-17 10:11:40 <cuddlefish> and also several invalid blocks
959 2011-07-17 10:12:12 * cuddlefish wonders what would happen with a testnet client and prodnet peers
960 2011-07-17 10:12:32 <kinlo> cuddlefish: but once the block chain has been downloaded, surely the bitcoin client receives the block from anyone who has it first right?
961 2011-07-17 10:12:42 <kinlo> cuddlefish: so only the initial download would be impacted?
962 2011-07-17 10:12:46 <cuddlefish> kinlo: yes
963 2011-07-17 10:12:58 <cuddlefish> block updates are pushed, basically
964 2011-07-17 10:13:17 <cuddlefish> the data is asked for, but there is a notification
965 2011-07-17 10:13:35 stalled has joined
966 2011-07-17 10:18:04 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
967 2011-07-17 10:23:02 WakiMiko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
968 2011-07-17 10:29:50 <cuddlefish> pub:0452b2646c8075a5cab9a787628eb7de5c9a51d76aabfba28a330c8d6960ed3b2e9a4b7ce0f49e8ae9d4c0c20a88893fd6309405d0bd8ef216ab623fbfd250ddcb priv:363dfdb30e520f4b25e6a202dea4b64101a323f6471c7af8827fee5952c2353f
969 2011-07-17 10:29:54 <cuddlefish> ... oh crap
970 2011-07-17 10:31:22 <kinlo> eh
971 2011-07-17 10:31:46 <kinlo> cuddlefish: was there money attached to that key?
972 2011-07-17 10:31:55 <cuddlefish> kinlo: not anymore
973 2011-07-17 10:32:03 <kinlo> I expect if there was you already moved it so I'm not bothering to calculate things
974 2011-07-17 10:32:14 <cuddlefish> on the upside, I can indeed export my public keys
975 2011-07-17 10:32:26 <kinlo> cuddlefish: and are private keys that short?
976 2011-07-17 10:32:27 <cuddlefish> and private
977 2011-07-17 10:32:36 <cuddlefish> kinlo: Yeah, ECDSA != RSA
978 2011-07-17 10:32:46 <cuddlefish> a key doesn't need more than the entropy
979 2011-07-17 10:32:54 <cuddlefish> any 256 bytes will doo
980 2011-07-17 10:33:19 <kinlo> it would help if many of the patches that are floating around would end up into the bitcoin client
981 2011-07-17 10:34:43 <cuddlefish> yeah, 0.4 has it all man
982 2011-07-17 10:34:52 <cuddlefish> wallet encryption, export/import...
983 2011-07-17 10:37:02 <kinlo> :)
984 2011-07-17 10:37:09 <kinlo> is there a list of release dates?
985 2011-07-17 10:38:17 <cuddlefish> not yet
986 2011-07-17 10:38:17 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: s/bytes/bits/
987 2011-07-17 10:38:34 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: derp, yeah
988 2011-07-17 10:38:45 <cuddlefish> nice chunky blockchain :P
989 2011-07-17 10:38:55 <kinlo> I should see in git then
990 2011-07-17 10:40:00 BlueMatt has joined
991 2011-07-17 10:44:38 <cuddlefish> aaw, gribble thinks he's ChanServ
992 2011-07-17 10:45:26 <kinlo> how cute :)
993 2011-07-17 10:45:54 <kinlo> so I have another question about mining... what's the time difference for, miners do not need the current time as they get their work from bitcoind right?
994 2011-07-17 10:46:25 <Kiba`> so: new front page http://bitcoinweekly.com
995 2011-07-17 10:48:05 <cuddlefish> Kiba`: web design protip: Drop shadows and rounding.
996 2011-07-17 10:48:21 <cuddlefish> it makes everything look decent
997 2011-07-17 10:49:30 <sacarlson> any one know what the min transaction fee's are in namecoin for sendtoaddress ?
998 2011-07-17 10:49:47 * cuddlefish is converting bitcoinj to Python
999 2011-07-17 10:50:02 <cuddlefish> jython's so last year
1000 2011-07-17 10:50:34 <Kiba`> cuddlefish: what's your site again?
1001 2011-07-17 10:50:45 <cuddlefish> Kiba`: ubitex.org is the old one
1002 2011-07-17 10:50:51 <cuddlefish> zode.ubitex.org is the new interface
1003 2011-07-17 10:59:31 <BlueMatt> ;;seen sirius
1004 2011-07-17 10:59:31 <gribble> sirius was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 56 minutes, and 54 seconds ago: <sirius> hi
1005 2011-07-17 11:04:52 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1006 2011-07-17 11:08:05 gjs278 has joined
1007 2011-07-17 11:09:47 <sacarlson> MultiCoin with namecoin support released for preliminary testing https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin it come up ok reads all the blocks, needs send recieve tests
1008 2011-07-17 11:15:41 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1009 2011-07-17 11:16:10 gim has joined
1010 2011-07-17 11:33:13 <diki> does anybody know of the path for pushpool for namecoin support?
1011 2011-07-17 11:33:22 <diki> s/path/patch
1012 2011-07-17 11:35:34 <doublec> diki: it should just work
1013 2011-07-17 11:35:40 <doublec> diki: with the exception of longpolling
1014 2011-07-17 11:35:45 <doublec> diki: since blkmond needs changes
1015 2011-07-17 11:36:07 <doublec> diki: try asking in #namebit since they run a namecoin pool and have contributed patches to others
1016 2011-07-17 11:39:27 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1017 2011-07-17 11:42:50 Marf has joined
1018 2011-07-17 11:43:36 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1019 2011-07-17 11:43:58 manifold_ has joined
1020 2011-07-17 11:46:33 cjdelisle has joined
1021 2011-07-17 11:52:47 HashKat has joined
1022 2011-07-17 11:54:27 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1023 2011-07-17 11:55:59 phungus has quit (Quit: leaving)
1024 2011-07-17 11:56:26 WildSoil has joined
1025 2011-07-17 11:56:37 <WildSoil> ;;bc,stats
1026 2011-07-17 11:56:37 cjdelisle has joined
1027 2011-07-17 11:56:39 <gribble> Current Blocks: 136712 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 375 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 8 hours, 33 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1674884.76153916
1028 2011-07-17 11:57:00 phungus has joined
1029 2011-07-17 11:57:39 dvide has joined
1030 2011-07-17 11:59:33 phungus has quit (Client Quit)
1031 2011-07-17 12:07:29 phungus has joined
1032 2011-07-17 12:09:47 karnac has joined
1033 2011-07-17 12:13:58 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r6b16c30 / (lib/connection.js lib/node.js lib/peer.js lib/peermanager.js): Better management/discovery of peers in p2p mode. - http://bit.ly/nibZUl https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/6b16c30c0100e37fd83623fe32b3f27b1abd3b4d
1034 2011-07-17 12:14:51 manifold_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1035 2011-07-17 12:23:46 Joric has joined
1036 2011-07-17 12:24:07 MrDD has joined
1037 2011-07-17 12:24:21 <MrDD> anyone know something about cgminer here?
1038 2011-07-17 12:25:43 <Joric> https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer ?
1039 2011-07-17 12:26:02 <Joric> what should one know
1040 2011-07-17 12:28:12 sanchaz has joined
1041 2011-07-17 12:31:23 Titeuf_87 has joined
1042 2011-07-17 12:35:32 <MrDD> when i run it, Mh/s is dropping every sec
1043 2011-07-17 12:35:40 <MrDD> from 200 to 20
1044 2011-07-17 12:37:30 <Joric> i don't know why
1045 2011-07-17 12:41:24 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1046 2011-07-17 12:42:47 samr7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1047 2011-07-17 12:43:29 samr7 has joined
1048 2011-07-17 12:54:22 SISUbtcX has joined
1049 2011-07-17 12:54:54 HashKat has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1050 2011-07-17 13:01:51 agricocb has joined
1051 2011-07-17 13:03:13 cdecker has joined
1052 2011-07-17 13:07:23 Marf2 has joined
1053 2011-07-17 13:08:37 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1054 2011-07-17 13:09:38 <cuddlefish> oh my god, Vegetta's an idiot
1055 2011-07-17 13:09:41 <cuddlefish> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15747.msg291270#msg291270
1056 2011-07-17 13:10:02 <cuddlefish> "I can tell you that the attack was basically a script programming the creation of .core files by the thousands"
1057 2011-07-17 13:10:18 <BlueMatt> lolwut
1058 2011-07-17 13:10:30 <cuddlefish> he goes on to explain how the hacker must have bruteforced his FTP password
1059 2011-07-17 13:10:38 <cuddlefish> and uploaded the files to slow down the server
1060 2011-07-17 13:10:48 <cuddlefish> "The core files were basically huge blocks of random chars, generated to slow down/ and eventually max out the forum, till you see what your seeing now. "
1061 2011-07-17 13:10:49 xelister has joined
1062 2011-07-17 13:10:59 <BlueMatt> ...
1063 2011-07-17 13:12:36 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
1064 2011-07-17 13:12:56 <b4epoche> "who" is Vegetta?
1065 2011-07-17 13:13:05 <cacheson> some twit
1066 2011-07-17 13:13:14 <b4epoche> yea, I got that...
1067 2011-07-17 13:13:21 <b4epoche> but does he run some forum?
1068 2011-07-17 13:13:32 MrDD has quit ()
1069 2011-07-17 13:13:44 <cacheson> he's the guy behind "bitcams", if you saw that thread
1070 2011-07-17 13:13:55 * b4epoche doesn't read forum
1071 2011-07-17 13:13:56 <cacheson> and yes, he has a forum
1072 2011-07-17 13:14:00 <cuddlefish> core files = HACKING ATTEMPTS
1073 2011-07-17 13:14:13 <cacheson> other than that, nobody of particular importance
1074 2011-07-17 13:14:15 * BlueMatt has a bad feeling bitcams is something that shouldnt be allowed on the forum...
1075 2011-07-17 13:14:33 <cuddlefish> oh. wonderful, looks like he did exactly 1 thing to fix this: changed his FTP password and restored from backup
1076 2011-07-17 13:15:09 <BlueMatt> wow, how is he even capable of clicking the "intall a debian install" button on his vps provider?
1077 2011-07-17 13:15:24 <BlueMatt> hes clearly never heard of google...
1078 2011-07-17 13:16:01 <cuddlefish> he says he's building a custom platform soon
1079 2011-07-17 13:16:05 <BlueMatt> lol
1080 2011-07-17 13:16:09 <cuddlefish> bet a bitcoin it'll be CSRFable
1081 2011-07-17 13:16:15 <b4epoche> I'm at home so I'm not visiting bitcams? bitcoin peepshows?
1082 2011-07-17 13:16:19 <cuddlefish> and a bitdime it'll be SQL injected
1083 2011-07-17 13:16:27 <cacheson> google? why would he bother with that when he can post on bitcoin forum about it
1084 2011-07-17 13:16:47 <BlueMatt> bet a bitcoin it'll be worse, shell parm escape fail or something
1085 2011-07-17 13:16:48 <cacheson> b4epoche: not up and running, just search for the thread on the forum
1086 2011-07-17 13:16:52 <cacheson> it's HILARIOUS
1087 2011-07-17 13:17:16 <b4epoche> how do people get their forum 'ranks'?
1088 2011-07-17 13:17:26 <BlueMatt> number of posts
1089 2011-07-17 13:17:37 <b4epoche> bad idea... that should be changed
1090 2011-07-17 13:17:37 AStove has quit ()
1091 2011-07-17 13:17:42 <cacheson> b4epoche: yep
1092 2011-07-17 13:17:57 <BlueMatt> well sirius has been mia for some time now...
1093 2011-07-17 13:18:08 <cacheson> lots of high-rank posters that got there from torrents of low-quality posts
1094 2011-07-17 13:19:52 <cacheson> BlueMatt: he's been logging in to the forums
1095 2011-07-17 13:19:57 <cacheson> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4
1096 2011-07-17 13:20:11 <cuddlefish> gotta love http://tweetforum.com/current/
1097 2011-07-17 13:20:11 <b4epoche> yea, and I think it gives people (including me) a sense that they are people you should listen to
1098 2011-07-17 13:20:39 <cuddlefish> or http://tweetforum.com/breakingnews/. literally every post is by the admin <<
1099 2011-07-17 13:20:42 <BlueMatt> cacheson: hmm...odd I wonder what hes up to then...
1100 2011-07-17 13:20:48 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: who's that
1101 2011-07-17 13:21:03 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: the guy with the keys to the forum/dns/servers/etc
1102 2011-07-17 13:21:13 <cuddlefish> ow.
1103 2011-07-17 13:21:49 <cacheson> I wish jgarzik would just delink the forum already
1104 2011-07-17 13:21:53 <xelister> every post by admin? this sounds like a serious case of ForeverAlone
1105 2011-07-17 13:22:04 <BlueMatt> cacheson: its up to sirius to do that, not jgarzik
1106 2011-07-17 13:22:28 <cacheson> BlueMatt: jgarzik has access to the bitcoin.org main page, right?
1107 2011-07-17 13:22:36 <BlueMatt> but not the dns
1108 2011-07-17 13:22:41 <cacheson> right
1109 2011-07-17 13:22:46 <cacheson> delink, meaning remove the link
1110 2011-07-17 13:22:49 <BlueMatt> oh you mean remove link
1111 2011-07-17 13:22:52 <BlueMatt> yea, I agree
1112 2011-07-17 13:23:06 <cuddlefish> cacheson: honestly. Get a nice UserVoice or something for bug reports, and maybe a dev forum that costs 0.10 BTC to register
1113 2011-07-17 13:23:31 <BlueMatt> na, someone needs to just make a forum that is strictly moderated
1114 2011-07-17 13:23:45 <BlueMatt> and /ONLY/ talks about dev stuff/tech support/etc
1115 2011-07-17 13:23:49 <cacheson> I've been pushing for the bitcoin stackexchange site
1116 2011-07-17 13:23:50 <BlueMatt> but you need a mod team...
1117 2011-07-17 13:24:03 <cacheson> I think it's a good format for user/merchant support
1118 2011-07-17 13:24:06 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: Just requiring 0.05 BTC to register will work. if bant, not refunded.
1119 2011-07-17 13:24:18 <cacheson> are you guys registered on there?
1120 2011-07-17 13:24:19 <BlueMatt> no it wont
1121 2011-07-17 13:24:25 <cuddlefish> you don't have to have keys on the server
1122 2011-07-17 13:24:27 aristidesfl has joined
1123 2011-07-17 13:24:32 <BlueMatt> that means noobs who need help wont register
1124 2011-07-17 13:24:39 <cuddlefish> just pick a bunch of addresses and ping blockexplorer
1125 2011-07-17 13:24:42 RazielZ has joined
1126 2011-07-17 13:24:44 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: this is for the dev forum.
1127 2011-07-17 13:24:59 <BlueMatt> why do we need a dev forum?
1128 2011-07-17 13:25:00 <cacheson> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency
1129 2011-07-17 13:25:01 <BlueMatt> we use the list
1130 2011-07-17 13:25:02 <cuddlefish> Hey, maybe witcoin could be of some assistance there
1131 2011-07-17 13:25:05 <cacheson> ^ join!
1132 2011-07-17 13:25:23 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: docs
1133 2011-07-17 13:27:02 <BlueMatt> ???
1134 2011-07-17 13:27:22 <cuddlefish> for documentation and such
1135 2011-07-17 13:28:05 <cacheson> forums are terrible for documentation
1136 2011-07-17 13:28:09 <BlueMatt> that can be just as easily, if not more easily posted to the list
1137 2011-07-17 13:28:18 <cuddlefish> maybe your write
1138 2011-07-17 13:28:24 <cuddlefish> << derp
1139 2011-07-17 13:28:28 <cuddlefish> *you're *right
1140 2011-07-17 13:30:32 <b4epoche> I like some of the ideas discussed last night...
1141 2011-07-17 13:31:03 <b4epoche> in particular gmaxwell's
1142 2011-07-17 13:31:38 <BlueMatt> which suggestion was that?
1143 2011-07-17 13:32:01 aristidesfl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1144 2011-07-17 13:32:06 <b4epoche> ads that help pay some mods and also help stabilize exchange rate
1145 2011-07-17 13:32:15 sacredchao has joined
1146 2011-07-17 13:32:26 <BlueMatt> youd need to hire a ton of mods to keep the current forum
1147 2011-07-17 13:32:36 <b4epoche> no, not the current forum
1148 2011-07-17 13:32:49 aristidesfl has joined
1149 2011-07-17 13:33:43 <BlueMatt> well in any case...
1150 2011-07-17 13:33:43 <cuddlefish> now THAT is a successful troll
1151 2011-07-17 13:33:44 <cuddlefish> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15747.msg371662#msg371662
1152 2011-07-17 13:33:45 <b4epoche> that just need exploded
1153 2011-07-17 13:34:00 <b4epoche> that = current forums
1154 2011-07-17 13:35:33 <cuddlefish> can we put bounties on reporting trolls/spam?
1155 2011-07-17 13:35:47 <BlueMatt> if you want to pay
1156 2011-07-17 13:35:52 <cuddlefish> the trick is to catch them before they get out of Newbies
1157 2011-07-17 13:36:07 <cuddlefish> the full member system + post count legitimizes them
1158 2011-07-17 13:36:15 <b4epoche> no, just 'demote' them
1159 2011-07-17 13:36:38 <cuddlefish> even then
1160 2011-07-17 13:36:40 <b4epoche> bounties are bad too
1161 2011-07-17 13:36:56 <cuddlefish> then you get people bitching at the mods because 'they had some valid points'
1162 2011-07-17 13:37:03 <b4epoche> so what
1163 2011-07-17 13:37:35 <b4epoche> if the mods aren't getting bitched at they aren't doing their jobs
1164 2011-07-17 13:37:43 <cacheson> there's no way to improve the forum with its current userbase, staff, and software
1165 2011-07-17 13:37:55 <BlueMatt> no, just need more staff
1166 2011-07-17 13:37:59 <cacheson> best to kill it with fire and start something new
1167 2011-07-17 13:38:04 <BlueMatt> if you start banning all the idiots, then poof
1168 2011-07-17 13:38:15 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: no, it's a sybil-like problem
1169 2011-07-17 13:38:18 <BlueMatt> there are good people there, they are just hiding under the trolls and spam
1170 2011-07-17 13:38:36 <cuddlefish> time to make a spam account: basically zero
1171 2011-07-17 13:38:48 <cuddlefish> time to make a troll account: again basically zero
1172 2011-07-17 13:38:50 klikklak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1173 2011-07-17 13:39:04 <BlueMatt> well seriously, I dont care, please make a better forum for us to use
1174 2011-07-17 13:39:07 <BlueMatt> until then...
1175 2011-07-17 13:39:09 <b4epoche> or at the very least have a system of 'promotion'
1176 2011-07-17 13:39:15 dvide_ has joined
1177 2011-07-17 13:39:17 <b4epoche> for both people and posts
1178 2011-07-17 13:39:30 <cacheson> BlueMatt: the current userbase will hinder that, as will the current staff, and the current software just tends toward this kind of situation
1179 2011-07-17 13:39:46 <cuddlefish> b4epoche: honestly, I'd like to see this: address in everyone's sig that they set. your status is the number of BTC blockexplorer says that address has
1180 2011-07-17 13:39:53 <cuddlefish> 0 BTC: newbie
1181 2011-07-17 13:39:56 <cacheson> b4epoche: that should be a part of every web-forum these days
1182 2011-07-17 13:39:58 <cuddlefish> 0.01 BTC: whitelisted newbie
1183 2011-07-17 13:40:11 <cacheson> I don't understand why people still use classic-style forums
1184 2011-07-17 13:40:15 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: lol no, and noobs with serious technical support issues?
1185 2011-07-17 13:40:24 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: they're already stuck in Newbies
1186 2011-07-17 13:40:42 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1187 2011-07-17 13:40:46 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever, please make a better forum
1188 2011-07-17 13:40:50 <BlueMatt> because no one else has time
1189 2011-07-17 13:41:06 samr7 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1190 2011-07-17 13:41:07 <cuddlefish> honestly I'd like people to go to Witcoin
1191 2011-07-17 13:41:14 <cacheson> BlueMatt: please sign up for this: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency
1192 2011-07-17 13:41:17 Tril has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1193 2011-07-17 13:41:22 <cacheson> we need more people before it can launch
1194 2011-07-17 13:41:31 <BlueMatt> no, Im good
1195 2011-07-17 13:41:34 Tril has joined
1196 2011-07-17 13:41:36 klikklak has joined
1197 2011-07-17 13:41:37 <BlueMatt> I would have no use for that
1198 2011-07-17 13:41:51 <cacheson> BlueMatt: you wouldn't be willing to answer technical questions?
1199 2011-07-17 13:42:02 <cacheson> and the bitcoin community certainly has a use for it
1200 2011-07-17 13:42:14 <BlueMatt> maybe...but I do have other stuff to do...
1201 2011-07-17 13:42:16 <b4epoche> I'm not seeing the use for that cacheson
1202 2011-07-17 13:42:23 <cuddlefish> we need better docs, dammit
1203 2011-07-17 13:42:30 hachque has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1204 2011-07-17 13:42:47 <b4epoche> yes, but as a site? just a FAQ would be good
1205 2011-07-17 13:42:51 <cacheson> b4epoche: when people have questions like "how do I accept bitcoin on my site", they can go there and ask, or see where someone has already asked
1206 2011-07-17 13:43:16 <cacheson> b4epoche: a FAQ is only good for the most general stuff, SE is good for specific situations
1207 2011-07-17 13:43:25 <b4epoche> cacheson: exactly... there are like 100 questions that might be asked
1208 2011-07-17 13:43:46 <cuddlefish> b4epoche: because there are no bugs or contingencies, rite
1209 2011-07-17 13:44:13 cdecker has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1210 2011-07-17 13:44:19 <b4epoche> stackoverflow is not good for debugging code
1211 2011-07-17 13:44:30 <cacheson> b4epoche: I'm running x CMS with y shopping cart software, I tried z bitcoin payment gateway and I got e error, how do I fix it?
1212 2011-07-17 13:44:41 cdecker has joined
1213 2011-07-17 13:45:02 coderrr`brb is now known as coderrr
1214 2011-07-17 13:45:19 <b4epoche> those question would be what a good forum would answer
1215 2011-07-17 13:45:22 freewil has joined
1216 2011-07-17 13:45:53 <cacheson> b4epoche: and stackexchange is the best forum format for that kind of thing
1217 2011-07-17 13:46:05 <cacheson> b4epoche: seriously, what else would you run it on?
1218 2011-07-17 13:46:14 cdecker has quit (Client Quit)
1219 2011-07-17 13:46:31 da2ce7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1220 2011-07-17 13:46:35 cdecker has joined
1221 2011-07-17 13:46:37 eoss has joined
1222 2011-07-17 13:46:51 <b4epoche> I have no idea. but you're talking about 'technical' questions on stackexchange
1223 2011-07-17 13:47:04 <cacheson> b4epoche: technical and conceptual
1224 2011-07-17 13:47:05 da2ce7 has joined
1225 2011-07-17 13:47:07 <cuddlefish> or just simple support.
1226 2011-07-17 13:47:07 da2ce7 has quit (Excess Flood)
1227 2011-07-17 13:47:15 <cuddlefish> stackexchange has an amazing community
1228 2011-07-17 13:47:19 cdecker has quit (Client Quit)
1229 2011-07-17 13:47:24 <cuddlefish> part of that is their dupe detection
1230 2011-07-17 13:47:33 <b4epoche> http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/1359/is-bitcoin-big-enough-for-a-stack-exchange-site
1231 2011-07-17 13:47:33 <cuddlefish> let me repeat that: dupe detection
1232 2011-07-17 13:47:51 <cuddlefish> biggest thing the forum's missing
1233 2011-07-17 13:47:59 <cuddlefish> about 50 threads on any subject
1234 2011-07-17 13:48:05 da2ce7 has joined
1235 2011-07-17 13:48:21 <cuddlefish> you can only expect them to be filled with, on average, 0 useful info
1236 2011-07-17 13:48:34 cdecker has joined
1237 2011-07-17 13:49:09 <b4epoche> but stackexchange doesn't look like a good place for discussion/debate
1238 2011-07-17 13:49:10 <prof7bit> does the ping message have 20 (short header) or 24 byte (normal header)?
1239 2011-07-17 13:49:18 <cacheson> b4epoche: it's not for that
1240 2011-07-17 13:49:27 <cacheson> b4epoche: discussion and debate can go elsewhere
1241 2011-07-17 13:49:32 Marf2 has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1242 2011-07-17 13:49:34 <b4epoche> so, stackexchange + a forum?
1243 2011-07-17 13:49:35 <cdecker> prof7bit, it has the checksummed header
1244 2011-07-17 13:49:43 <b4epoche> why not just a good forum then?
1245 2011-07-17 13:49:49 <cacheson> part of our current problem is that the current bitcoin forum does everything, and badly
1246 2011-07-17 13:49:50 <prof7bit> ok
1247 2011-07-17 13:49:56 <cuddlefish> cdecker: wouldn't want those pings getting corrupted :P
1248 2011-07-17 13:50:05 <cdecker> Basically everything after a verack is checksummed
1249 2011-07-17 13:50:12 <cdecker> cuddlefish, exactly ^^
1250 2011-07-17 13:50:25 <cdecker> But seriously losing sync in the stream is deadly ^^
1251 2011-07-17 13:50:35 <cacheson> b4epoche: why not have different sites that specialize in different things? why do we have technical help, political arguments, and buying/selling all in one place?
1252 2011-07-17 13:50:51 <cacheson> it would make more sense to have a technical help site, a politics forum, and a marketplace site
1253 2011-07-17 13:50:58 <b4epoche> well, that's what different sections of a good forum could be
1254 2011-07-17 13:51:01 <cuddlefish> cdecker: if you like parsers you'll love construct.
1255 2011-07-17 13:51:24 <cacheson> b4epoche: classic webforums are bad for 1 and terrible for 3
1256 2011-07-17 13:51:29 <cuddlefish> it actually makes parsing fun
1257 2011-07-17 13:51:36 <cdecker> Construct?
1258 2011-07-17 13:51:39 <cuddlefish> 3 lines of code does Bitcoin's variable length integers.
1259 2011-07-17 13:51:47 <cuddlefish> cdecker: google "construct python parser"
1260 2011-07-17 13:51:48 <cacheson> b4epoche: again, why do they all have to be in the same place?
1261 2011-07-17 13:52:26 <b4epoche> I just don't see why good forum software can't cover all the cases.
1262 2011-07-17 13:52:31 <cdecker> cuddlefish, sounds interesting
1263 2011-07-17 13:52:37 <cacheson> b4epoche: because then you get the situation we have now
1264 2011-07-17 13:52:49 <b4epoche> /good/ forum software
1265 2011-07-17 13:52:57 <b4epoche> but maybe that doesn't exist
1266 2011-07-17 13:53:01 <cuddlefish> cdecker: oh, yes. declarative goodnes
1267 2011-07-17 13:53:18 <cdecker> Hehe
1268 2011-07-17 13:53:34 <cdecker> I had to parse each message independently
1269 2011-07-17 13:53:38 <b4epoche> I think splintering things will be bad.
1270 2011-07-17 13:53:49 <cdecker> cuddlefish, https://github.com/cdecker/BitDroid-Network
1271 2011-07-17 13:53:50 <cacheson> even with *good* software (what?), you still want the political kooks and trolls airgapped from the "how do I get this to work" newbies, and them separate from the "DOUBLE YOUR COINS" hucksters
1272 2011-07-17 13:54:09 <cuddlefish> cdecker: pycoin's total wire parser is 150 lines.
1273 2011-07-17 13:54:21 <cdecker> Wow, that's neat
1274 2011-07-17 13:54:26 <cuddlefish> gets all the datatype conversions, checksums check... summed... and so on
1275 2011-07-17 13:54:29 <cacheson> b4epoche: there's no reason the main site can't direct people to the right places for what they're looking for
1276 2011-07-17 13:54:38 <cdecker> I would have to check
1277 2011-07-17 13:54:50 <cdecker> My parsing is encapsulated in the message classes
1278 2011-07-17 13:54:58 samr7 has joined
1279 2011-07-17 13:54:59 <b4epoche> cacheson: a good forum wouldn't have "political kooks and trolls"
1280 2011-07-17 13:55:14 <cuddlefish> cdecker: mmm, this is python-only sadly
1281 2011-07-17 13:55:20 <cacheson> b4epoche: you're going to have those on any general discussion forum
1282 2011-07-17 13:55:21 <prof7bit> <cuddlefish> 3 lines of code does Bitcoin's variable length integers. <-- and one line could read an entire message at once into a struct if they would not exist.
1283 2011-07-17 13:55:33 VastLite has joined
1284 2011-07-17 13:55:59 <cdecker> Yeah, wasn't hard to write but a pain to debug and write unit tests
1285 2011-07-17 13:56:10 <b4epoche> cacheson: but with good mods their crap would be separated
1286 2011-07-17 13:56:33 <cdecker> I should really bridge the BitcoinJ crypto stuff to my network library
1287 2011-07-17 13:56:35 <cuddlefish> prof7bit: satoshi's a brilliant systems designer and a shitty programmer.
1288 2011-07-17 13:56:57 <cacheson> b4epoche: moderation only does so much, and you're introducing way more overhead by having everything in the same place
1289 2011-07-17 13:57:10 <prof7bit> especiylly funny is the subbversion string in the version message
1290 2011-07-17 13:57:16 <Joric> why you're all telling that satoshi is a shitty programmer :) it's ridiculous
1291 2011-07-17 13:57:23 <cdecker> Networking code is horrible yes, he basically made all the "tweaking decisions" one shouldn't do
1292 2011-07-17 13:57:49 <cdecker> Well the subversion string could become useful
1293 2011-07-17 13:57:53 <b4epoche> I'd call him an immature programmer (like me)
1294 2011-07-17 13:58:05 <cdecker> If we were to use the version as protocol version and subversion as the client identifier
1295 2011-07-17 13:58:35 <jjjx> Do any of the Bitcoin clients have UPnP support?
1296 2011-07-17 13:58:43 <cuddlefish> jjjx: yeah, the mainline one does :P
1297 2011-07-17 13:58:52 <jjjx> Was that recently added?
1298 2011-07-17 13:58:58 <cuddlefish> check git
1299 2011-07-17 13:58:58 <prof7bit> nobody needs and nobody wants client names in strings. remember the user-agent mess in the www
1300 2011-07-17 13:59:00 <Joric> it does have an obsolete upnp version though
1301 2011-07-17 13:59:07 <Joric> doesn't work with my router
1302 2011-07-17 13:59:23 <Joric> later versions got rid of BaseURL already
1303 2011-07-17 14:00:05 <prof7bit> once clients start to use this string to decide about the behavior the other half of clients will start putting fake names into that string.
1304 2011-07-17 14:00:08 <BlueMatt> jjjx: upnp was added a long time ago
1305 2011-07-17 14:00:21 <BlueMatt> Joric: no, it uses the latest stable, though they have fixed bugs in their unstable branch
1306 2011-07-17 14:00:31 <BlueMatt> just like we have encryption in the unstable branch, doesnt mean people should use it
1307 2011-07-17 14:00:56 <xelister> btw BlueMatt, what to use to dump raw blocks via rpc?
1308 2011-07-17 14:01:15 <cuddlefish> the getblock patch
1309 2011-07-17 14:01:22 <cuddlefish> there's a link on block explorer
1310 2011-07-17 14:01:28 <BlueMatt> why are you asking me?
1311 2011-07-17 14:01:45 <xelister> because I trust in your development knowledge? =)
1312 2011-07-17 14:01:48 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: you haven't proved you're not Satoshi yet
1313 2011-07-17 14:02:00 <Joric> had to replace URLBase to ARLBase in a binary file to get it working :)
1314 2011-07-17 14:02:01 <BlueMatt> xelister: me? lol no
1315 2011-07-17 14:02:05 <xelister> what cuddlefish said. TITS OR GTFO (satoshi's not a girl so)
1316 2011-07-17 14:02:11 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: oh shit you found me out
1317 2011-07-17 14:03:12 <Joric> Directed By M. Night Shyamalan
1318 2011-07-17 14:03:56 <jjjx> Joric: The Bitcoin movie?
1319 2011-07-17 14:04:50 <Joric> yeah, they found out satoshi is a girl
1320 2011-07-17 14:05:26 liltoe has quit (Quit: wee wee wee)
1321 2011-07-17 14:05:31 <b4epoche> woman
1322 2011-07-17 14:06:35 larsivi has joined
1323 2011-07-17 14:09:56 asuk has left ()
1324 2011-07-17 14:11:23 asuk has joined
1325 2011-07-17 14:12:03 sanity has joined
1326 2011-07-17 14:13:21 ewal-ipad has joined
1327 2011-07-17 14:14:01 ewal-ipad has quit (Client Quit)
1328 2011-07-17 14:14:21 ewal-ipad has joined
1329 2011-07-17 14:18:24 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1330 2011-07-17 14:18:38 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1331 2011-07-17 14:19:26 Marf has joined
1332 2011-07-17 14:19:28 nus has joined
1333 2011-07-17 14:19:30 cuddlefish has quit (Quit: leaving)
1334 2011-07-17 14:25:37 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1335 2011-07-17 14:27:44 Fireball has joined
1336 2011-07-17 14:28:15 <prof7bit> hmm... the client does not seem to process incoming messages while it is still downloading blocks
1337 2011-07-17 14:28:20 Gonzago has joined
1338 2011-07-17 14:31:17 <prof7bit> is it single-threaded?
1339 2011-07-17 14:31:35 Kolky has joined
1340 2011-07-17 14:31:47 erus` has joined
1341 2011-07-17 14:32:59 K0lky has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1342 2011-07-17 14:33:38 shLONG has joined
1343 2011-07-17 14:34:23 ewal-ipad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1344 2011-07-17 14:34:44 wardearia has joined
1345 2011-07-17 14:34:58 K0lky has joined
1346 2011-07-17 14:35:56 Kolky has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1347 2011-07-17 14:36:48 jimon has joined
1348 2011-07-17 14:36:51 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1349 2011-07-17 14:43:41 Zagitta has joined
1350 2011-07-17 14:48:52 <prof7bit> maybe the official client should be totally rewritten from scratch. Delete everything, forget everything and start fresh.
1351 2011-07-17 14:49:50 <mtrlt> rewriting everything is very seldomly the right way
1352 2011-07-17 14:52:17 <tcatm> prof7bit: that would be possible if there was at least a single person who fully understands every aspect of the software and protocol
1353 2011-07-17 14:52:28 Joric has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1354 2011-07-17 14:54:13 <Kiba`> tcatm: nobody understand the whole thing?
1355 2011-07-17 14:54:20 <phantomcircuit> lol seriously?
1356 2011-07-17 14:54:26 <phantomcircuit> it's not *that* complicated
1357 2011-07-17 14:54:42 <phantomcircuit> if you can implement OP_CHECKSIG you can build your own client
1358 2011-07-17 14:55:06 <tcatm> phantomcircuit: what's the problem with op_checksig?
1359 2011-07-17 14:55:47 <phantomcircuit> rewritting the transaction exactly the same way mainline does isn't trivial
1360 2011-07-17 14:56:00 <phantomcircuit> but it isn't hard so much as it is time consuming
1361 2011-07-17 14:56:42 <nanotube> prof7bit: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
1362 2011-07-17 14:56:44 <prof7bit> maybe also switch the programming language when rewriting it to something more high level and more modern.
1363 2011-07-17 14:57:21 <tcatm> prof7bit: = make every current dev learn another highlevel language?
1364 2011-07-17 14:57:39 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, that doesn't apply because it isn't a rewrite of your own code
1365 2011-07-17 14:57:53 <prof7bit> maybe use a language that every dev should be expected to know / able to learn
1366 2011-07-17 14:58:03 <tcatm> like c++?
1367 2011-07-17 14:58:12 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: it applies to everything. (note the bit about borland buying arago and rewriting it)
1368 2011-07-17 14:58:13 <cjdelisle> lisp
1369 2011-07-17 14:58:22 <phantomcircuit> prof7bit, http://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/ i got to implementing OP_CHECKSIG and just said fuck it
1370 2011-07-17 14:58:48 <prof7bit> c++.... I said a *high* level language, not a macro assembler
1371 2011-07-17 14:58:51 <cjdelisle> I can hear the "p word" coming now.
1372 2011-07-17 14:59:02 <prof7bit> no
1373 2011-07-17 14:59:16 <prof7bit> no p word today
1374 2011-07-17 14:59:26 <prof7bit> although...
1375 2011-07-17 14:59:38 <prof7bit> if i think about it...
1376 2011-07-17 14:59:56 <tcatm> I think there was someone writing a haskell port.
1377 2011-07-17 15:00:12 <cjdelisle> C++ is ugly but it is fast. C is clean and fast but everything needs to be written out the long way.
1378 2011-07-17 15:00:18 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, I've posted some sample code to implement OP_CHECKSIG in python on the forums, it's not that hard
1379 2011-07-17 15:00:43 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, link?
1380 2011-07-17 15:00:52 <phantomcircuit> because with that i will complete my python client
1381 2011-07-17 15:00:54 <Titeuf_87> Let me find it back.
1382 2011-07-17 15:01:09 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, honestly i just got tired of dealing with it and stopped coding
1383 2011-07-17 15:01:19 <prof7bit> c is fast but not clean. (depending on the definition of clean). there are equally fast languages that are also fulfill the definition of clean
1384 2011-07-17 15:01:33 <Fireball> prof7bit - like?
1385 2011-07-17 15:01:37 <cjdelisle> ^
1386 2011-07-17 15:01:51 <phantomcircuit> heh you're not going to get any faster than c it's basically a macro language for assembly
1387 2011-07-17 15:01:52 <prof7bit> if you have to ask then you wont like to hear the answer.
1388 2011-07-17 15:02:07 <cjdelisle> I'm always up for a good laugh
1389 2011-07-17 15:02:18 <phantomcircuit> delphi gives c a run for it's money
1390 2011-07-17 15:02:25 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18051.0
1391 2011-07-17 15:02:25 * Fireball fears to hear C#
1392 2011-07-17 15:02:43 <prof7bit> no.
1393 2011-07-17 15:02:58 <prof7bit> no languages with C in their name.
1394 2011-07-17 15:02:59 <phantomcircuit> if you say java im gonna die of laughter
1395 2011-07-17 15:03:01 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: doesn't mean writing alternative implementations is bad - it's not. but scrapping the original in the meantime, that's bad. :)
1396 2011-07-17 15:03:09 <prof7bit> also not with "J"
1397 2011-07-17 15:03:19 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, why did you choose M2Crypto?
1398 2011-07-17 15:03:57 <prof7bit> when searching for an alternative to C or C++ we have to look at languages that compile to machine code.
1399 2011-07-17 15:04:09 <prof7bit> and yes, there are such languages.
1400 2011-07-17 15:04:14 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, from some googling, that was the only openssl python bindings that actually has some support for ecdsa
1401 2011-07-17 15:04:18 <cjdelisle> Didn't one of the the google people do a full java implementation?
1402 2011-07-17 15:04:28 <phantomcircuit> you can get java to compile to machine code actually
1403 2011-07-17 15:04:37 <prof7bit> most kids don't know nowadays but there are more than 3 languages.
1404 2011-07-17 15:05:07 <phantomcircuit> uh huh how about you name one?
1405 2011-07-17 15:05:19 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, it's a half node
1406 2011-07-17 15:05:30 genjix has joined
1407 2011-07-17 15:05:31 <cjdelisle> I see
1408 2011-07-17 15:05:36 <b4epoche> yea, there is work on a haskell version
1409 2011-07-17 15:05:49 <prof7bit> phantomcircuit: i don't believe you are seriously asking this question.
1410 2011-07-17 15:05:57 <b4epoche> there's a not-complete java version
1411 2011-07-17 15:06:01 <b4epoche> bitcoinj
1412 2011-07-17 15:06:09 Gonzago has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1413 2011-07-17 15:06:24 <cjdelisle> PHP!
1414 2011-07-17 15:06:31 <cjdelisle> It can do anything
1415 2011-07-17 15:06:31 <b4epoche> ObjC
1416 2011-07-17 15:06:35 <prof7bit> i am i missing the irony tags around your posts?
1417 2011-07-17 15:06:55 <tcatm> shell scripts?
1418 2011-07-17 15:07:16 <phantomcircuit> prof7bit, i honestly would like to know if there is a language that can run faster than c
1419 2011-07-17 15:07:22 <genjix> asm
1420 2011-07-17 15:07:36 <genjix> esperanto
1421 2011-07-17 15:07:39 <tcatm> can't get much more highlevel - you call actual programs instead of assembler instructions or functions :)
1422 2011-07-17 15:07:45 <phantomcircuit> <phantomcircuit> heh you're not going to get any faster than c it's basically a macro language for assembly
1423 2011-07-17 15:08:00 <prof7bit> handcrafted assembler or Pascal (equally fast as C) for example
1424 2011-07-17 15:08:07 <phantomcircuit> uh huh
1425 2011-07-17 15:08:13 <genjix> ಠ_à²
1426 2011-07-17 15:08:22 <Fireball> Pascal? The language used to teach programming?
1427 2011-07-17 15:08:31 <b4epoche> fortran77
1428 2011-07-17 15:08:39 <prof7bit> no, the language USED for programming.
1429 2011-07-17 15:08:50 <b4epoche> fortran is often faster than c
1430 2011-07-17 15:08:53 <upb> 10 years ago
1431 2011-07-17 15:09:21 <prof7bit> C++ was also used 10 years ago, what kind of argument is this?
1432 2011-07-17 15:09:31 <upb> what software uses pascal nowadays ?
1433 2011-07-17 15:09:36 <upb> i only know of skype ui
1434 2011-07-17 15:09:43 <mtrlt> lisp!
1435 2011-07-17 15:09:50 <mtrlt> use lisp.
1436 2011-07-17 15:09:53 <b4epoche> logo
1437 2011-07-17 15:09:58 <sipa> haskell!
1438 2011-07-17 15:10:31 <genjix> speak of the devil
1439 2011-07-17 15:10:37 <prof7bit> <upb> what software uses pascal nowadays ? <-- more software each day
1440 2011-07-17 15:10:47 <genjix> me and phantom were just discussing haskell
1441 2011-07-17 15:10:50 <gim> upb: tex is still written in pascal
1442 2011-07-17 15:10:58 <b4epoche> what?
1443 2011-07-17 15:11:04 <b4epoche> pdftex sure isn't
1444 2011-07-17 15:11:06 <cjdelisle> I understand lisp and haskell compile well and are very near as fast as C. Unfortunately noone knows them so your software will never be maintained.
1445 2011-07-17 15:11:37 <sipa> i think quite some people know haskell here
1446 2011-07-17 15:11:51 <b4epoche> a lot of classic MacOS software is in pascal
1447 2011-07-17 15:12:00 <genjix> sipa: what do you think about if scripting wasn't disabled outright
1448 2011-07-17 15:12:06 <genjix> but if the script ops had rankings
1449 2011-07-17 15:12:18 <genjix> and the total sum of the script ops had to be below a threshold
1450 2011-07-17 15:12:27 <gim> b4epoche: nowadays compilation of tex is done through Pascal -> C -> binary
1451 2011-07-17 15:12:27 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, your OP_CHECKSIG is wrong, it'll work for most of the signatures but not all
1452 2011-07-17 15:12:36 <genjix> i.e checksig has more 'ticks' than a dup
1453 2011-07-17 15:12:44 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, this isn't right subscript = subscript.replace(chr(len(signature)) + signature, "")
1454 2011-07-17 15:12:50 <b4epoche> gim: tex or pdftex?
1455 2011-07-17 15:13:03 <gim> the original tex by Knuth
1456 2011-07-17 15:13:06 Diablo-D3 has joined
1457 2011-07-17 15:13:19 <b4epoche> oh, but very few use that anymore
1458 2011-07-17 15:13:26 <gim> dunno about pdftex
1459 2011-07-17 15:13:27 <prof7bit> Pascal -> C -> binary <-- why would they do this? there is gpc and fpc, both compiling native directly to machine code.
1460 2011-07-17 15:13:51 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, #7. The scripts for all transaction inputs in txCopy are set to empty scripts
1461 2011-07-17 15:13:54 <phantomcircuit> that's also wrong
1462 2011-07-17 15:14:27 Marf has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1463 2011-07-17 15:14:42 <gim> prof7bit: are gpc or fpc able to compile to all main architectures?
1464 2011-07-17 15:14:56 <sipa> genjix: sounds reasonable, it would offer quite some possibilities
1465 2011-07-17 15:15:00 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, yeah this gets the basics right but misses all the subtle differences
1466 2011-07-17 15:15:15 <prof7bit> gpc is gcc and fpc also compiles to all major architectures
1467 2011-07-17 15:15:17 <sipa> genjix: but it is something that requires discussion
1468 2011-07-17 15:15:25 <genjix> yep
1469 2011-07-17 15:15:52 <prof7bit> gpc is just another frontend for gcc.
1470 2011-07-17 15:16:08 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, it needs a lot more work, true. This was more as a small sample to see how it works.
1471 2011-07-17 15:16:28 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, and I only tested this on a few transactions.
1472 2011-07-17 15:16:28 <prof7bit> and fpc is the free reference implementation of Object Pascal nowadays.
1473 2011-07-17 15:16:48 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, but thanks for pointing those out, I'll write it down and take a look next time I work on this again
1474 2011-07-17 15:16:52 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, yeah this will work for almost all the transactions actually in there
1475 2011-07-17 15:16:58 <phantomcircuit> but it wont work for some edge cases
1476 2011-07-17 15:17:16 <phantomcircuit> also txCopy.txins[0].script = subscript
1477 2011-07-17 15:17:23 <phantomcircuit> that's an assumption that isn't always true
1478 2011-07-17 15:17:32 <phantomcircuit> and isn't true for transactions in the block chain
1479 2011-07-17 15:17:40 <prof7bit> http://www.freepascal.org/
1480 2011-07-17 15:18:13 <upb> wtf is wrong with the bot
1481 2011-07-17 15:18:14 <upb> 17 18:13 <+amphipod> Jul05 16:21:45 cbx 1.0000 @ 12.49 USD
1482 2011-07-17 15:18:20 <upb> 12 days old quotes
1483 2011-07-17 15:18:40 <Titeuf_87> I should continue working on my blockchain storage implementation and then continue working on this again, been a little while :)
1484 2011-07-17 15:19:07 <phantomcircuit> oh i already have a storage implementation
1485 2011-07-17 15:19:15 blueadept has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1486 2011-07-17 15:19:16 <phantomcircuit> it will download the entire chain + transactions into a sqlite db
1487 2011-07-17 15:19:25 <phantomcircuit> and it has reasonable performance which is amazing for sqlite
1488 2011-07-17 15:19:36 <phantomcircuit> (spent about half the time working on just that)
1489 2011-07-17 15:20:34 <genjix> Titeuf_87: you know c++?
1490 2011-07-17 15:20:57 <Titeuf_87> genjix, I can kind of read it, but I've never written c++ myself
1491 2011-07-17 15:21:12 <genjix> ah ok
1492 2011-07-17 15:21:24 <genjix> i have a c++ implementation of script
1493 2011-07-17 15:21:28 <genjix> but missing the checksig
1494 2011-07-17 15:21:39 <genjix> did not get around to that yet
1495 2011-07-17 15:21:48 <prof7bit> http://www.ohloh.net/p/3311 <-- looks very alive (opposite of dead)
1496 2011-07-17 15:22:11 blueadept has joined
1497 2011-07-17 15:22:14 dvide has joined
1498 2011-07-17 15:22:23 <Titeuf_87> genjix, another bitcoin implementation in c++?
1499 2011-07-17 15:22:39 enquirer has joined
1500 2011-07-17 15:24:02 dvide_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1501 2011-07-17 15:24:49 Lachesis has joined
1502 2011-07-17 15:25:32 Fireball has quit (Quit: ROS is the power.)
1503 2011-07-17 15:29:37 Gonzago has joined
1504 2011-07-17 15:29:42 AStove has joined
1505 2011-07-17 15:33:50 * Zagitta hides in the corner with his C#
1506 2011-07-17 15:34:42 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1507 2011-07-17 15:35:04 <lfm> awww, poor Zagitta !, thats ok, you'll learn to like a good language some day...
1508 2011-07-17 15:35:53 genjix has left ()
1509 2011-07-17 15:36:15 <Zagitta> lfm: mind pointing out exactly what's so "bad" about c#?
1510 2011-07-17 15:37:08 <xelister> microsoft? (;
1511 2011-07-17 15:38:53 <Zagitta> ignorant linux twats are starting to annoy me.. There's a reason microsoft owns the desktop OS market
1512 2011-07-17 15:39:57 <lfm> from what I know of it, and you're right, its not that much, the main problem with it is that microsoft likes it.
1513 2011-07-17 15:40:29 Gonzago has quit ()
1514 2011-07-17 15:40:34 <b4epoche> Cb?
1515 2011-07-17 15:41:11 <sipa> will the language discussions ever stop in here?
1516 2011-07-17 15:41:26 <sipa> people just won't agree about what's best
1517 2011-07-17 15:41:28 <sipa> get over it
1518 2011-07-17 15:41:30 jimon has quit (Excess Flood)
1519 2011-07-17 15:41:37 <lfm> will the complaining about language discussions ever stop in here?
1520 2011-07-17 15:41:38 jimon has joined
1521 2011-07-17 15:41:44 <Blitzboom> why did satoshi make the monetary inflation in bitcoin so high for such a long time?
1522 2011-07-17 15:41:50 <Blitzboom> quite annoying
1523 2011-07-17 15:42:03 <lfm> Blitzboom: high?
1524 2011-07-17 15:42:17 <Blitzboom> it will be many years before bitcoinâs inflation is lower than that of fiat money
1525 2011-07-17 15:42:26 <Blitzboom> lfm: yes, calculate it yourself
1526 2011-07-17 15:42:49 <Blitzboom> or see http://spekulantenblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png
1527 2011-07-17 15:42:54 <Blitzboom> this is hyperinflation
1528 2011-07-17 15:43:18 <lfm> ya ok about 1/2% per day I guess.
1529 2011-07-17 15:43:33 <jjjx> *in*flation?
1530 2011-07-17 15:43:35 <Blitzboom> perhaps a reduction of 50% every two years would have been better
1531 2011-07-17 15:43:38 <jjjx> Was that in the design?
1532 2011-07-17 15:43:46 <Blitzboom> jjjx: hm?
1533 2011-07-17 15:43:49 <lfm> jjjx: ya
1534 2011-07-17 15:44:10 <jjjx> Not deflation, the word everyone likes to throw around?
1535 2011-07-17 15:44:11 <upb> jjjx: umm yeah, new blocks are being mined with 50 btc ?:P
1536 2011-07-17 15:44:14 <Blitzboom> iâd like a more deflationary bitcoin -_-
1537 2011-07-17 15:44:28 <Blitzboom> jjjx: no, the deflation argument is bullshit atm
1538 2011-07-17 15:44:40 <xelister> lets change protocol to make all new blocks 500 btc :D
1539 2011-07-17 15:44:42 <jjjx> Blitzboom: Well, I can agree with that for sure.
1540 2011-07-17 15:44:44 <Blitzboom> we only had an increase of price because demand rose and supply is non-elastic
1541 2011-07-17 15:44:48 <lfm> the fact that the price of btc relative to us$ is going up means the us$ inflation is worse?
1542 2011-07-17 15:44:59 <Blitzboom> lfm: no, it means that demand rose
1543 2011-07-17 15:45:06 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, inflation != money supply increase
1544 2011-07-17 15:45:08 <Blitzboom> but monetary bitcoin inflation itself is way higher
1545 2011-07-17 15:45:11 <Blitzboom> phantomcircuit: yes, it is
1546 2011-07-17 15:45:19 <Blitzboom> there is monetary and price inflation
1547 2011-07-17 15:45:52 <lfm> well money creation needs to balance hoarding and such
1548 2011-07-17 15:46:07 <Blitzboom> and you think bitcoin has the prfect balance?
1549 2011-07-17 15:46:09 <Blitzboom> lol
1550 2011-07-17 15:46:19 <lfm> there is a lot of hoarding
1551 2011-07-17 15:46:24 <Blitzboom> i donât see why a balance is needed
1552 2011-07-17 15:46:39 <Blitzboom> if we have a crazy batshit deflationary design anyway, then why not from the start on?
1553 2011-07-17 15:46:41 <lfm> hoarded money is not available for circulation
1554 2011-07-17 15:46:49 <Blitzboom> lfm: and why does that matter?
1555 2011-07-17 15:46:57 <lfm> circulation is good
1556 2011-07-17 15:46:59 <Blitzboom> bitcoins are infinitely divisible
1557 2011-07-17 15:47:06 <sipa> bitcoin currently has monetary inflation and price deflation, i think
1558 2011-07-17 15:47:22 <Blitzboom> sipa: no, prices are inflated when they rise
1559 2011-07-17 15:47:23 <lfm> sipa he sez its cuz of demand
1560 2011-07-17 15:47:43 <sipa> Blitzboom: yes, and prices seem to go down
1561 2011-07-17 15:47:44 <jjjx> But I still don't understand where inflation lies in the design?
1562 2011-07-17 15:47:52 <lfm> not infinatly, just close to it
1563 2011-07-17 15:47:54 <Blitzboom> sipa: have you looked at a historical chart?
1564 2011-07-17 15:48:08 <prof7bit> http://pastebin.com/RDjzwJnX
1565 2011-07-17 15:48:19 <sipa> Blitzboom: prices of things expressed in BTC
1566 2011-07-17 15:48:22 <Blitzboom> jjjx: we have 7 million BTC atm
1567 2011-07-17 15:48:29 <lfm> jjjx: in the 7200 BTC created every day
1568 2011-07-17 15:48:39 <Blitzboom> by end of 2012, weâll have 10.5 million
1569 2011-07-17 15:48:44 darrob has joined
1570 2011-07-17 15:48:49 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, uh no inflation means price inflation which is not the same as monetary supply increase
1571 2011-07-17 15:49:29 <Blitzboom> phantomcircuit: depends on economic school
1572 2011-07-17 15:49:39 <sipa> just agree on a definition
1573 2011-07-17 15:49:39 <jjjx> I understand. And no increase in demand?
1574 2011-07-17 15:49:44 <jjjx> Therefore, inflation.
1575 2011-07-17 15:50:01 <lfm> except there seems to be plenty of demand
1576 2011-07-17 15:50:01 <Blitzboom> price inflation in fiat money is caused by an increaso of money supply, usually
1577 2011-07-17 15:50:18 <Blitzboom> thereâs demand and supply of goods and demand and supply of MONEY
1578 2011-07-17 15:50:26 <sipa> if you think inflation means price inflation, and he things inflation means monetary inflation, then just disambiguate
1579 2011-07-17 15:51:04 <phantomcircuit> meh
1580 2011-07-17 15:51:07 karnac has joined
1581 2011-07-17 15:51:12 <Eliel_> Blitzboom: bitcoins are not infinitely divisible... at least not with the current implementation.
1582 2011-07-17 15:51:15 <lfm> Blitzboom: the main point of bitcoin is to not let the economists tinker with it to their hearts content and argue which scool of economics gets to do the tinkering.
1583 2011-07-17 15:51:28 <phantomcircuit> Eliel_, they are for all practical purposes
1584 2011-07-17 15:51:29 <Blitzboom> Eliel_: ok, but practically 8 decimal places is more than enough
1585 2011-07-17 15:52:05 <Blitzboom> whatever. my point was: we already have such a crazy design where supply is a) non-elastic and b) reduced by 50% every four years
1586 2011-07-17 15:52:24 <Blitzboom> in the first four years of bitcoinâs existence, 50% of the money supply will already have been extracted
1587 2011-07-17 15:52:33 <lfm> or rate of supply increase at least
1588 2011-07-17 15:52:33 <sipa> supply isn't reduced - introduction rate of new currency is
1589 2011-07-17 15:52:40 <sipa> and yes
1590 2011-07-17 15:52:41 <Blitzboom> it seems like a bad balance to me
1591 2011-07-17 15:52:46 <sipa> that's possible
1592 2011-07-17 15:52:57 <sipa> i don't doubt there were better models possible
1593 2011-07-17 15:53:10 <sipa> but people seem to accept this one
1594 2011-07-17 15:53:11 <Eliel_> Blitzboom: if it's bad balance, then it'll delay bitcoin becoming mainstream for a bit.
1595 2011-07-17 15:53:13 <Blitzboom> dunno why there hasnât been any debate over this
1596 2011-07-17 15:53:20 <lfm> Blitzboom: for every economist you can find to agree with you we can prolly find another to take the opposite point of view.
1597 2011-07-17 15:53:20 <Blitzboom> everyone who questions it immediately gets shouted down
1598 2011-07-17 15:53:43 <sipa> well, discussion is useful
1599 2011-07-17 15:53:53 <sipa> but unless you start from scratch, there is no way to change this
1600 2011-07-17 15:53:58 <Blitzboom> i know
1601 2011-07-17 15:54:05 <Blitzboom> and thatâs why people will attack you
1602 2011-07-17 15:54:16 <lfm> ya they want to control it
1603 2011-07-17 15:54:21 <Blitzboom> of course there have been no questions of this regard in 2009 and 2010
1604 2011-07-17 15:54:29 <Blitzboom> everyone was happy to mine his big batch
1605 2011-07-17 15:54:48 <Eliel_> I doubt they felt so big back then.
1606 2011-07-17 15:54:50 <lfm> actually it seems every other day such questions come up
1607 2011-07-17 15:54:59 <sipa> in 2009, bitcoins were worthless
1608 2011-07-17 15:55:10 <lfm> most of em want mining to be easier tho of course
1609 2011-07-17 15:55:13 <sipa> don't overestimate what mining meant back then
1610 2011-07-17 15:55:15 <Blitzboom> sipa: still, it is the first of its kind and a new monetary system
1611 2011-07-17 15:55:23 <Blitzboom> i know that mining was unprofitable
1612 2011-07-17 15:55:25 <Blitzboom> technically
1613 2011-07-17 15:55:39 <lfm> well cpu mining
1614 2011-07-17 15:55:45 <Blitzboom> i think a bit of discussion why everything is what it is like would have been appropriate
1615 2011-07-17 15:55:59 <lfm> did you read the white paper?
1616 2011-07-17 15:56:04 <Blitzboom> yes, i did
1617 2011-07-17 15:56:12 <sipa> satoshi basically chose all constants himself
1618 2011-07-17 15:56:20 <sipa> based on guesswork or gut feeling
1619 2011-07-17 15:56:30 <lfm> or personal theories
1620 2011-07-17 15:56:32 <Blitzboom> which is why i think it could have been more "democratic"
1621 2011-07-17 15:56:39 <Blitzboom> but whatever
1622 2011-07-17 15:56:42 <sipa> i'm not sure that if there was a larger discussion earlier on, it would have worked
1623 2011-07-17 15:56:49 <phantomcircuit> Eliel_, total world wealth is 200 trillion usd, so once all 21 million btc have been "mined" each would be worth 9,523,809.52 usd if they replaced 100% of world assets (not this is MUCH more than the total world money supply) so each satoshi would be the same as 0.09 USD
1624 2011-07-17 15:56:50 <lfm> ya could have been, prolly would have been worse
1625 2011-07-17 15:56:51 <sipa> maybe it would have, maybe not
1626 2011-07-17 15:56:55 <phantomcircuit> Eliel_, that scale well enough for you?
1627 2011-07-17 15:57:28 <Blitzboom> there was one thread about it though: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=57.0
1628 2011-07-17 15:57:39 <Blitzboom> although i donât agree with it
1629 2011-07-17 15:57:46 <Blitzboom> i want more extreme deflation :P
1630 2011-07-17 15:57:50 <prof7bit> "so each satoshi would be the same as 0.09 USD" <-- /me starting the CPU miner again
1631 2011-07-17 15:58:18 <Eliel_> phantomcircuit: I wasn't saying it doesn't scale well enough :) just nitpicking.
1632 2011-07-17 15:58:34 <phantomcircuit> heh close enough
1633 2011-07-17 15:58:36 <Blitzboom> itâs remarkable anyway that prices have risen that fast with such an inflation rate â¦
1634 2011-07-17 15:59:03 <lfm> prof7bit: ya read the whole think, if BTC become the sole pool of wealth
1635 2011-07-17 15:59:12 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1636 2011-07-17 15:59:17 <sipa> either you believe the monetary supply should match the size of the economy, to keep prices constant - in which case you either need to know the future, or a centrally controlled system
1637 2011-07-17 15:59:18 <Blitzboom> it just seems that at the moment, bitcoin suck as a store of wealth because the supply increases so quickly
1638 2011-07-17 15:59:26 <Eliel_> phantomcircuit: but the precision the bitcoin system can handle is pretty nicely set I must say :)
1639 2011-07-17 15:59:32 enquirer has joined
1640 2011-07-17 15:59:35 <lfm> Blitzboom: prices dropped the last month or so it seems
1641 2011-07-17 15:59:38 enquirer has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1642 2011-07-17 15:59:47 <Blitzboom> sipa: centrally controlled systems canât even determine the present right, lol
1643 2011-07-17 16:00:03 <Blitzboom> lfm: yes, due to contraction of the extreme demand
1644 2011-07-17 16:00:27 <Blitzboom> dropping prices is the normal state
1645 2011-07-17 16:00:36 <Eliel_> Blitzboom: that's assuming bitcoin usage won't increase faster than supply increases.
1646 2011-07-17 16:00:47 <Blitzboom> indeed
1647 2011-07-17 16:01:00 <lfm> hmm interesting that you seem so certain of the reasons for these things. It seems a lot more foggy to me.
1648 2011-07-17 16:01:01 <cjdelisle> that's an awesome sign then, even at such high input rate, the price is generally rising, that means there is a lot of people who believe in it.
1649 2011-07-17 16:01:04 <Blitzboom> but wouldnât it be better to have less inflation than fiat money, so we donât HAVE to have more people using it?
1650 2011-07-17 16:01:09 MC-Eeepc has joined
1651 2011-07-17 16:01:32 <Blitzboom> but perhaps that is the incentive that satoshi wants to set
1652 2011-07-17 16:01:47 <sipa> Blitzboom: well, i consider the current monetary inflation to just be the initial introduction phase of the currency
1653 2011-07-17 16:01:48 <Blitzboom> as prices drop, people get desperate and they try to make bitcoin more popular
1654 2011-07-17 16:02:00 <sipa> and i doubt a (much) lower rate would have worked
1655 2011-07-17 16:02:09 <cjdelisle> If we were to put on the brakes now, perhaps they would think it was just an elitist game and only the first in get anything, that would cause them to go elsewhere.
1656 2011-07-17 16:02:29 <sipa> many people already think that
1657 2011-07-17 16:02:31 <lfm> Blitzboom: I think his main experiment was to see what would happen without interference from politicians and their pet economists with a currency.
1658 2011-07-17 16:02:37 <Blitzboom> sipa: thatâs what i just wanted to say
1659 2011-07-17 16:02:47 <Blitzboom> itâs already so extreme anyway
1660 2011-07-17 16:02:52 <Blitzboom> so why not gather the benefits?
1661 2011-07-17 16:03:04 <xelister> sipa: may I ask you a question =)
1662 2011-07-17 16:03:08 molecular has joined
1663 2011-07-17 16:03:09 <Eliel_> I wonder if it would be possible to convince enough people to switch to a client that will stop generating new money :P I somehow doubt it.
1664 2011-07-17 16:03:15 TheZimm has joined
1665 2011-07-17 16:03:18 <sipa> xelister: i don't see how i could prevent you from doing so
1666 2011-07-17 16:03:24 <b4epoche> that is why there is always a price drop before the weekend... miners dumping new coins into the market for weekend chicks and beer
1667 2011-07-17 16:03:29 <Blitzboom> i have always questioned whether the ENTIRE WORLD will agree that 50% of their bitcoin wealth will be confiscated by early adopters end of 2012
1668 2011-07-17 16:03:38 <Blitzboom> because thatâs what it is, in practice
1669 2011-07-17 16:03:57 <xelister> sipa: what do you think about transporting bitcoin over freenet. freeNET is uncensored cloud server, it can never be censored by govs or anyone, also it is anonymous.
1670 2011-07-17 16:04:17 <sipa> xelister: i already answered that question - i don't consider it priority, but it is definitely useful
1671 2011-07-17 16:04:28 <lfm> xelister: I think itd be overkill
1672 2011-07-17 16:04:38 <Eliel_> Blitzboom: if they expect that 50% to be more than they invest, sure.
1673 2011-07-17 16:04:49 <Blitzboom> thatâs why i argue that too much benefit to early adopters could indeed hinder adoption
1674 2011-07-17 16:04:59 <sipa> xelister: and it's not that hard, just implement a minimal client that listens and broadcasts tx and block messages
1675 2011-07-17 16:05:08 <Blitzboom> when it is no longer viewed as "legitimate" and people want to have their own bitcoin
1676 2011-07-17 16:05:10 <sipa> and forwards those over whatever transport protocol you wanrt
1677 2011-07-17 16:05:32 <xelister> sipa: also, what do you think about people heaving right to speak freely without being ever cesored, and people listening to who THEY choose to (not who government chooses they can) - so the idea behind freeNET
1678 2011-07-17 16:06:09 <lfm> Blitzboom: the fees to miners is increasing quite fast too. they may be more significant than the creation already by then
1679 2011-07-17 16:06:15 <Blitzboom> sipa: the only thing that makes bitcoin legitimate to me is that it would have never gotten out of the ground
1680 2011-07-17 16:06:21 <Blitzboom> nobody CARED to discuss it
1681 2011-07-17 16:06:38 <lfm> and they were scared
1682 2011-07-17 16:06:41 <sipa> the early adopters liked it
1683 2011-07-17 16:06:47 <Blitzboom> and of course that bitcoin was always public, from the beginning
1684 2011-07-17 16:06:58 <sipa> when it became financially attractive to mine, the miners started to like it
1685 2011-07-17 16:07:03 Incitatus has joined
1686 2011-07-17 16:07:09 <Incitatus> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29566.0
1687 2011-07-17 16:07:11 <sipa> if mainstream doesn't like it, so be it
1688 2011-07-17 16:07:22 <Incitatus> a new USD exchange by britcoin guys: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29566.0
1689 2011-07-17 16:07:23 <Eliel_> I have to admit that mining is a big part of the attraction :P
1690 2011-07-17 16:07:26 <Incitatus> plz comment
1691 2011-07-17 16:07:35 <lfm> bitcoin could prolly survive as underground currency
1692 2011-07-17 16:07:41 <sipa> i doubt it
1693 2011-07-17 16:07:44 <Blitzboom> sipa: so be it? the premise of bitcoin is to cut out the middlemen. cut out the banks, paypal, government
1694 2011-07-17 16:07:59 <sipa> Blitzboom: yes, but the whole system is a consensus
1695 2011-07-17 16:08:10 <Blitzboom> we want the world to profit from it to increase wealth
1696 2011-07-17 16:08:14 <cjdelisle> Is anyone looking at the problem of transaction clearing time? For micropayment and face to face payment, people can't wait 10 minutes, they need clearence right away. OTOH they can live with a weaker assurance than can someone transferring large amounts of money.
1697 2011-07-17 16:08:39 <sipa> cjdelisle: you'll use a payment processor, who uses bitcoin as backend
1698 2011-07-17 16:08:41 <Blitzboom> but again, if such large amounts of wealth are "confiscated" by distributing so many bitcoins practically for free â¦
1699 2011-07-17 16:08:42 <sipa> instead of bitcoin directly
1700 2011-07-17 16:09:04 <xelister> cjdelisle: you can use bitcoin like backing value and some escort services for faster "paper bills" "cash" instant transactions perhaps
1701 2011-07-17 16:09:06 <cjdelisle> that's sad that at the end of the day, the answer has to be "paypal"
1702 2011-07-17 16:09:13 <xelister> cjdelisle: there is OT open transactions project related to it somewhat
1703 2011-07-17 16:09:15 <sipa> cjdelisle: it isn't
1704 2011-07-17 16:09:26 <Blitzboom> tradeoff "incentive for early adoption" vs "incentive for late adoption"
1705 2011-07-17 16:09:31 <lfm> oh its 0.1% per day
1706 2011-07-17 16:09:48 <cjdelisle> xelister: do you have a link re "open transactions"?
1707 2011-07-17 16:10:03 <lfm> and continuously dropping
1708 2011-07-17 16:10:06 maikmerten is now known as maik|afk
1709 2011-07-17 16:10:16 <sipa> cjdelisle: using bitcoin is so much more open to be used by anyone, it will also be a lot easier to be "a paypal"
1710 2011-07-17 16:10:27 <xelister> cjdelisle: google 1st link
1711 2011-07-17 16:10:31 <cjdelisle> I think it's a problem that can be solved without breaking compatability if we just put out minds to it.
1712 2011-07-17 16:10:34 <cjdelisle> thx
1713 2011-07-17 16:11:24 p0s has joined
1714 2011-07-17 16:11:31 <Eliel_> cjdelisle: waiting a few seconds is usually a sufficient guarantee after receiving the transaction. The majority of bitcoin network will reject any double spend attempts after that.
1715 2011-07-17 16:11:38 <Blitzboom> sipa: i like the idea of multiplying the block reward with difficulty though
1716 2011-07-17 16:11:39 <lfm> cjdelisle: not paypal, more like mybitcoin.com
1717 2011-07-17 16:11:49 <Blitzboom> that would play out interestingly
1718 2011-07-17 16:12:06 <sipa> Blitzboom: i don't like that idea
1719 2011-07-17 16:12:31 <Eliel_> Blitzboom: that's nearly the same thing as not increasing difficulty at all
1720 2011-07-17 16:12:37 <Eliel_> except perhaps more secure
1721 2011-07-17 16:12:40 <prof7bit> <cjdelisle> OTOH they can live with a weaker assurance <-- couldn't the fact that the unconfirmed transaction managed to propagate through the network already be seen as some sort of "weak assurance"?
1722 2011-07-17 16:12:41 <lfm> Eliel_: actually a double spend attempt resolution would stall till the next block comes out
1723 2011-07-17 16:12:49 <sipa> prof7bit: yes
1724 2011-07-17 16:12:57 <sipa> for small transactions that is most likely enough
1725 2011-07-17 16:13:19 <cjdelisle> I didn't know that the network already resolves such situations, that's basicly what i had in my mind.
1726 2011-07-17 16:13:38 <sipa> note that that is by no means a guarantee
1727 2011-07-17 16:13:47 <sipa> it can still be double spent by an evil miner
1728 2011-07-17 16:13:53 <Blitzboom> sipa: what i particularly do not like is the notion that a few people deserve a few billions for running a cpu consuming app
1729 2011-07-17 16:14:11 <Blitzboom> running an app has nothing to do with actually developing bitcoin and its ecosystem
1730 2011-07-17 16:14:21 <prof7bit> every node would not propagate it if the tx were not valid enough to be mined into a block (as seen from the forwarding node)
1731 2011-07-17 16:14:22 <sipa> no, those are two separate things
1732 2011-07-17 16:14:23 <Blitzboom> although it certainly has a correlation
1733 2011-07-17 16:14:24 <lfm> Blitzboom: that just seems like a lack of immagination on your part.
1734 2011-07-17 16:14:31 <Eliel_> lfm: you mean, if there's a transaction that's already spread to the whole network and a double spend attempt gets broadcast, the double spend attempt still has a real chance? (Assuming no pools are supporting the attempt)
1735 2011-07-17 16:14:37 <sipa> being a bitcoin node/miner is a service to the network, and there is a market for it
1736 2011-07-17 16:14:57 <Blitzboom> sipa: and if you do it early on, you deserve to confiscate billions of wealth from the later world?
1737 2011-07-17 16:15:04 <sipa> no
1738 2011-07-17 16:15:13 <sipa> if you do it early on and don't sell
1739 2011-07-17 16:15:14 <Blitzboom> thatâs how it plays out, if bitcoin is successful
1740 2011-07-17 16:15:28 <lfm> Eliel_: I mean if a double spend enters the net at two places essentially simultaneous, the net will be split as to which to honour till a block comes out to resolve the issue
1741 2011-07-17 16:15:32 <wasabi1> I do think running an app is a contribution.
1742 2011-07-17 16:15:47 <sipa> Blitzboom: there is one legitimate concern, imho, though
1743 2011-07-17 16:15:48 <wasabi1> Running an app that consumes CPU is dedicating power and resources to securing the network.
1744 2011-07-17 16:16:01 <Blitzboom> wasabi1: i also think itâs a form of contribution because it increases difficulty and makes double spending more difficult
1745 2011-07-17 16:16:16 <Eliel_> lfm: how possible is it that the double spend attempt will end up undetected by the receiver?
1746 2011-07-17 16:16:32 <Eliel_> if they wait a few seconds
1747 2011-07-17 16:16:41 <sipa> Blitzboom: the fact that quite some bitcoins are not moving around, raises the question whether they are lost or being saved
1748 2011-07-17 16:16:44 <Blitzboom> sipa: i can hold against that that many people have forgotten about bitcoin and just stumbled upon their wallet
1749 2011-07-17 16:16:58 <wasabi1> It's also not a matter of people "deserving" billions. People are willing to pay for that, currently. And that's the market speaking.
1750 2011-07-17 16:17:12 <lfm> Eliel_: well it may be detected but some nodes will honor one, and some will honor the other dependsing which one they see first.
1751 2011-07-17 16:17:22 <Blitzboom> wasabi1: oh, of course. as long as itâs all voluntary itâs all fine
1752 2011-07-17 16:17:31 <Blitzboom> because every participant of the market is fully aware of those facts
1753 2011-07-17 16:17:39 <wasabi1> Well, maybe. :0
1754 2011-07-17 16:17:40 <Blitzboom> (haha, dream on)
1755 2011-07-17 16:17:55 <Blitzboom> thatâs like people arguing for democracy
1756 2011-07-17 16:17:59 <Eliel_> lfm: as long as it can be detected reliably, that should solve the problem for the cases where waiting for next block is too much.
1757 2011-07-17 16:18:02 <wasabi1> People's ignorance of their participation in something isn't an indictment.
1758 2011-07-17 16:18:06 <cjdelisle> If a double spending attempt is detected then a POS device can simply throw up a red screen and the checkout people can stop the customer until it is handled.
1759 2011-07-17 16:18:14 <wasabi1> Except where that ignorance is promoted by a party for gain.
1760 2011-07-17 16:18:21 <Blitzboom> wasabi1: peopleâs ignorance also justifies war and dictatorship i guess
1761 2011-07-17 16:18:33 <wasabi1> Lack of indictment is not a justification.
1762 2011-07-17 16:18:45 <lfm> Eliel_: yes if one comes early enough to reach the whole net before the second one shows up then the second one will get no support
1763 2011-07-17 16:18:52 sipa has left ()
1764 2011-07-17 16:19:35 <sacarlson> I like this new Merged mining blocks I see that namecoin is going to incorporate in the near future. I would like to be a test platform for such a method in MultiCoin. As the code is already available should be little effort.
1765 2011-07-17 16:19:42 <lfm> Eliel_: there will only be a few seconds window where there could be two fighting for a foothold.
1766 2011-07-17 16:19:59 <Eliel_> I wonder if it would make sense to not stop double spend attempts on their tracks but rather broadcast it more widely to help detection.
1767 2011-07-17 16:20:09 <cjdelisle> IMO what's important is knowing it before the customer gets out the door.
1768 2011-07-17 16:20:37 <Eliel_> yes, few seconds is plenty enough for that.
1769 2011-07-17 16:20:41 <lfm> Eliel_: well it is the way it is now for good reasons and you need to be really carefull about trying to change such basic things
1770 2011-07-17 16:21:22 <Eliel_> lfm: yes, would need to be a "double spend notification" not the normal transaction distribution.
1771 2011-07-17 16:21:33 <sacarlson> lfm: maybe escrow in this case might be of help so they both party are set with the payer having the funds in a pre escrowed account that can't be pulled until signed by third trusted party , so store knows he can get his funds
1772 2011-07-17 16:21:40 <cjdelisle> I would suggest not modifying the existing protocol but at least broadcasting a message about a transaction dispute.
1773 2011-07-17 16:21:57 <cjdelisle> err yea that
1774 2011-07-17 16:22:36 <Eliel_> lfm: for the moment, I'm interested more in discussion rather than changin stuff.
1775 2011-07-17 16:22:50 <sacarlson> escrow already works
1776 2011-07-17 16:23:14 <cjdelisle> US dollars work too but that doesn't make them optimal.
1777 2011-07-17 16:23:27 <lfm> well mybitcoin.com works too
1778 2011-07-17 16:23:36 <sacarlson> cjdelisle: that's why you might have to move to BeerTokens
1779 2011-07-17 16:24:20 <cjdelisle> If I was going to rely on a central controller, why is mybitcoin.com better than dwolla?
1780 2011-07-17 16:24:47 <BlueMatt> its not, its much worse
1781 2011-07-17 16:24:56 <lfm> cjdelisle: just mybitcoin.com is still bitcoins
1782 2011-07-17 16:25:13 <BlueMatt> anyone still trusting mybitcoin is a complete idiot
1783 2011-07-17 16:25:17 <BlueMatt> lets be honest
1784 2011-07-17 16:25:29 <lfm> oh have they melted down?
1785 2011-07-17 16:25:34 <cjdelisle> But the reason why bitcoin is better is because it is not centralized. If I'm going centralized then Ben Bernanki is my man.
1786 2011-07-17 16:26:00 <BlueMatt> no one knows whos behind them, and they stopped responding to questions...
1787 2011-07-17 16:26:29 <BlueMatt> thats a pretty bad indication that if, say, bitcoind dies, there will be no one there to respawn it
1788 2011-07-17 16:27:06 <lfm> ok I was just useing them as an example. a more open version of them, even mtgox or whatever
1789 2011-07-17 16:27:17 <BlueMatt> I have no problem with mtgox
1790 2011-07-17 16:27:18 <cjdelisle> And since it sounds like with a little tinkering, we can get rasonable assurance that a transaction won't be "disputed" in a couple seconds, why not figure out how to make this real?
1791 2011-07-17 16:27:39 <BlueMatt> make what real?
1792 2011-07-17 16:28:19 <lfm> bluematt he wants a "alert" spread thru the net if a double spend is detected to put a hold on BOTH txn
1793 2011-07-17 16:28:20 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: other than mtgox geting raided and shut down for days and ddosed on a regular bases we love them
1794 2011-07-17 16:28:24 <cjdelisle> If I'm selling someone a soda and they're in my store paying with their cell phone, I want my POS terminal to flash red before they walk out the door if they try to doublespend
1795 2011-07-17 16:28:57 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: they werent raided, some idiot who used to have access to the server lost their pw...and despite the ddoses they stay up...hmmmm
1796 2011-07-17 16:29:09 <BlueMatt> lfm: thats ridiculous
1797 2011-07-17 16:29:29 estornudo has joined
1798 2011-07-17 16:29:29 <BlueMatt> hold both txes???
1799 2011-07-17 16:29:32 <cjdelisle> "put a hold on BOTH txn" no I don't
1800 2011-07-17 16:29:41 <cjdelisle> I just want to know that something is wrong
1801 2011-07-17 16:29:42 <lfm> bluematt ya, it would seem to have some nasty implications he hasnt thot thru
1802 2011-07-17 16:29:50 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: you dont need notifications to do that
1803 2011-07-17 16:30:09 <cjdelisle> All I want is a red screen of OMG within like 3 seconds.
1804 2011-07-17 16:30:16 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: so peer with all the big miners
1805 2011-07-17 16:30:18 <BlueMatt> done
1806 2011-07-17 16:30:33 <lfm> bluematt just till the double spend is "resolved" to someone's satisfaction, Im not sure it is even practical
1807 2011-07-17 16:30:54 <BlueMatt> if you peer with all the big miners, you will be the first to know if a tx gets double spent
1808 2011-07-17 16:31:03 <cjdelisle> hmm
1809 2011-07-17 16:31:09 <BlueMatt> if someone were to double spend, the idea is to send one txn to the merchant and another to the mienrs
1810 2011-07-17 16:31:10 <cjdelisle> That means everyone who cared would have to
1811 2011-07-17 16:31:12 <BlueMatt> miners*
1812 2011-07-17 16:31:22 <BlueMatt> so if you peer with the miners, poof problem solved
1813 2011-07-17 16:31:30 <BlueMatt> (well and some minor modifications to your client)
1814 2011-07-17 16:31:32 <lfm> cjdelisle: so whenever a txn you dont like shows up on the net you could put out a ddos on it?
1815 2011-07-17 16:31:44 <cjdelisle> no
1816 2011-07-17 16:31:48 <sacarlson> BlueMatt cjdelisle, how can you double spend a multisign or escrow transaction?
1817 2011-07-17 16:31:52 <lfm> sounds like you could
1818 2011-07-17 16:31:54 <cjdelisle> Don't give the customer his coke.
1819 2011-07-17 16:32:04 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: the exact same way as any other tx
1820 2011-07-17 16:32:32 <lfm> ya I could issue false alerts on any txn?
1821 2011-07-17 16:32:39 <BlueMatt> cjdelisle: though its not ideal, just putting up a node and getting a decent number of well-connected peers is absolutely acceptable to prevent double-spends
1822 2011-07-17 16:32:44 <BlueMatt> after some minor client mods
1823 2011-07-17 16:32:52 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1824 2011-07-17 16:33:02 <BlueMatt> just wait a sec after the tx and double spend becomes very, very hard
1825 2011-07-17 16:33:03 <cjdelisle> I like that as a method, it sounds workable.
1826 2011-07-17 16:33:14 <BlueMatt> no crazy network modifications, nothing fancy
1827 2011-07-17 16:33:17 <lfm> bluematt he doesnt want to have to wait for even a single block tho
1828 2011-07-17 16:33:25 <BlueMatt> lfm: thats my point
1829 2011-07-17 16:33:53 <BlueMatt> and if its a huge concern, just find someone who will insure your txes against double-spends
1830 2011-07-17 16:34:03 <BlueMatt> Im sure someone will take the no-risk insurance policy ;)
1831 2011-07-17 16:34:10 <cjdelisle> heh
1832 2011-07-17 16:34:15 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I would think they only can keep control for a shot time so with the multisign both party can just wait for a safe window of time knowing the transaction is safe
1833 2011-07-17 16:34:33 <lfm> bluematt do the nodes pass along both txn if they detect one of them as a double spend?
1834 2011-07-17 16:34:46 <BlueMatt> lfm: no,
1835 2011-07-17 16:35:06 <lfm> bluematt so you wont neccesarily see a double spend
1836 2011-07-17 16:35:10 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: the problem with multisign, is there is just as much a likelyhood of the second signer being the same person
1837 2011-07-17 16:35:15 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1838 2011-07-17 16:35:40 <BlueMatt> lfm: exactly, but if you peer with large miners (and modify your client to act on seeing conflicting txes/rejection of txes) then you will know the txes that matter
1839 2011-07-17 16:35:44 <cjdelisle> ahh I see why being well integrated works now. The chance of someone mining a block with the "other" transaction is almost 0
1840 2011-07-17 16:35:53 <BlueMatt> exactly
1841 2011-07-17 16:35:59 TheZimm has joined
1842 2011-07-17 16:36:00 WildSoil has quit ()
1843 2011-07-17 16:36:47 <cjdelisle> That said, it might be nice to hear a notice that there is something amiss with that account even if the chance of losing your transaction is very low.
1844 2011-07-17 16:37:50 <BlueMatt> creates too much network load though
1845 2011-07-17 16:38:15 <cjdelisle> hmm indeed. ddos by doublespending a whole bunch
1846 2011-07-17 16:39:27 <cjdelisle> well thx for the help
1847 2011-07-17 16:43:09 <lfm> then you need notices that there is notices
1848 2011-07-17 16:44:25 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1849 2011-07-17 16:44:50 DaQatz has joined
1850 2011-07-17 16:45:01 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1851 2011-07-17 16:45:49 RobinPKR_ has joined
1852 2011-07-17 16:46:28 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1853 2011-07-17 16:46:28 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
1854 2011-07-17 16:52:41 <iddo> if i only received single transaction of e.g. 5 BTC and i send 2 BTC, will the remaining 3 BTC be sent to new address in my wallet.dat, or to my first address? how is it decided?
1855 2011-07-17 16:53:33 <BlueMatt> new address from pool
1856 2011-07-17 16:55:01 <iddo> never to same address? but it's not protocol restriction right? someone can write client who would use the first address all the time?
1857 2011-07-17 16:55:06 Joric has joined
1858 2011-07-17 16:55:50 <BlueMatt> yes
1859 2011-07-17 16:55:56 <BlueMatt> yes and yes
1860 2011-07-17 16:57:48 peck has joined
1861 2011-07-17 16:58:00 <iddo> there was a bug that caused client not to generate the 100 addresses in initial wallet.dat, and people lost money when they sent BTC and only had backup of original wallet ?
1862 2011-07-17 16:58:33 DaQatz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1863 2011-07-17 16:58:38 <BlueMatt> that was fixed
1864 2011-07-17 16:58:45 <BlueMatt> in .23 iirc
1865 2011-07-17 16:58:57 ar4s has joined
1866 2011-07-17 16:59:16 enquirer has joined
1867 2011-07-17 16:59:17 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1868 2011-07-17 16:59:30 <Joric> Titeuf_87, there are pure python alternatives for m2crypto, say python-ecdsa used by caesure
1869 2011-07-17 16:59:31 wirehead has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1870 2011-07-17 17:00:08 DaQatz has joined
1871 2011-07-17 17:00:22 <iddo> i see, so this horror story was really true: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11104.0
1872 2011-07-17 17:00:23 freakazoid has joined
1873 2011-07-17 17:00:56 <BlueMatt> no way to know, but it was possible
1874 2011-07-17 17:01:07 <iddo> ok
1875 2011-07-17 17:02:46 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1876 2011-07-17 17:02:55 <iddo> can i ask again about encrypted wallet, i asked before but didnt quite understand, when new address beyond initial 100 should be added to pool, how can you do it without prompting the user for aes256 passphrase?
1877 2011-07-17 17:03:12 peck has joined
1878 2011-07-17 17:04:06 <BlueMatt> you cant
1879 2011-07-17 17:04:32 <iddo> is it true that generating new address is only needed when user sends bitcoins, so you have the aes256 key at that moment anyway? or how else it works?
1880 2011-07-17 17:04:43 <BlueMatt> pretty much true
1881 2011-07-17 17:04:48 wirehead has joined
1882 2011-07-17 17:04:54 <iddo> ahh
1883 2011-07-17 17:04:57 <BlueMatt> you do need them when mining, but its not a huge deal if it starts paying out to old addresses
1884 2011-07-17 17:05:04 <BlueMatt> which is what it does
1885 2011-07-17 17:05:58 <iddo> for mining? you mean when you receive 50 BTC reward more than 100 times you will need to generate new address?
1886 2011-07-17 17:05:59 <Kiba`> BlueMatt: how do you feel about Bitcoin Week's new look?
1887 2011-07-17 17:06:20 <BlueMatt> iddo: yes
1888 2011-07-17 17:06:37 <BlueMatt> Kiba`: needs a bit more split between the different blocks imo, but whatever
1889 2011-07-17 17:06:44 <BlueMatt> Kiba`: tbqh I dont read bcw much...
1890 2011-07-17 17:07:01 <Kiba`> surely you remember the old bitcoinweekly looks
1891 2011-07-17 17:07:10 <BlueMatt> no
1892 2011-07-17 17:07:18 <Titeuf_87> Joric, interesting, I'll take a look. Thanks for the tip!
1893 2011-07-17 17:07:32 <Kiba`> do you like the looks anyway?
1894 2011-07-17 17:07:38 <luke-jr> iddo: Bitcoin doesn't use AES
1895 2011-07-17 17:07:50 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: hes talking about wallet encryption, which does
1896 2011-07-17 17:07:55 <luke-jr> oh
1897 2011-07-17 17:07:59 aristidesfl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1898 2011-07-17 17:08:05 <Kiba`> http://bitcoinweekly.com/ versus http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gu4trMIE52cJ:bitcoinweekly.com/+bitcoinweekly&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
1899 2011-07-17 17:08:09 <Kiba`> which one is better?
1900 2011-07-17 17:08:17 <BlueMatt> Kiba`: yea looks good, as I said could use more of a background on the blocks, but whatever
1901 2011-07-17 17:08:21 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: surely generating a new address doesn't require the wallet key? :/
1902 2011-07-17 17:08:25 <iddo> so the current client implementation just uses old addresses in the unlikely scenario that no new addr is available in pool?
1903 2011-07-17 17:08:44 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: thats aboud the only way to do it with symm keys
1904 2011-07-17 17:08:57 <BlueMatt> iddo: yep
1905 2011-07-17 17:09:13 aristidesfl has joined
1906 2011-07-17 17:09:21 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: well then it shouldn't be using symm keys
1907 2011-07-17 17:09:28 <Kiba`> I worked 8 hours last night on it
1908 2011-07-17 17:09:35 <Kiba`> pretty good learning experience
1909 2011-07-17 17:09:42 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: and the keypool padding attack?
1910 2011-07-17 17:09:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: what attack?
1911 2011-07-17 17:09:56 <iddo> yeah what attack?
1912 2011-07-17 17:10:18 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: if someone has access to your hard drive, and you use asym keys, then they can freely add their addresses to your keypool so when you send coins, the attacker gets them
1913 2011-07-17 17:10:34 <BlueMatt> hence why it should be required that you need your pw to add keys
1914 2011-07-17 17:10:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ok, maybe a good point
1915 2011-07-17 17:11:15 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: in that case, let's change the question: surely getnewaddress can use the keypool without the key?
1916 2011-07-17 17:11:18 datagutt has joined
1917 2011-07-17 17:11:25 <BlueMatt> it can
1918 2011-07-17 17:11:25 <iddo> but since it's true that generating new address is almost only needed when user sends bitcoins, so you have the aes256 key at that moment anyway, i think that using public key encryption for wallet would be an overkill
1919 2011-07-17 17:11:39 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: its only if you are out of keys that it becomes a problem
1920 2011-07-17 17:12:06 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: actually, since Bitcoin never *reissues* addresses, I don't see a problem with allowing insertion of untrusted keys⦠so long as they aren't in the keypool, it should be fine
1921 2011-07-17 17:12:16 SeriousWorm has joined
1922 2011-07-17 17:12:27 <luke-jr> iddo: you need a new address to receive too usually
1923 2011-07-17 17:12:57 <BlueMatt> yep, but then people can add their own keys to pool...I mean you could theoretically add crypto to the pool list, but this is really just getting way too complicated
1924 2011-07-17 17:12:59 <luke-jr> of course, this problem is ALSO solved by deterministic wallets
1925 2011-07-17 17:13:05 <BlueMatt> its really not a problem...
1926 2011-07-17 17:13:38 Zarutian has joined
1927 2011-07-17 17:13:40 <luke-jr> it would be, if deterministic wallets weren't planned
1928 2011-07-17 17:13:42 <luke-jr> :p
1929 2011-07-17 17:14:09 <BlueMatt> people think deterministic wallet solve more problems than it does
1930 2011-07-17 17:14:26 <BlueMatt> deterministic wallets are good for a narrow set of situations...other than that, people are overhypeing them
1931 2011-07-17 17:14:32 <Joric> 'encrypt wallet' does encrypt all keys in the pool, doesn't it?
1932 2011-07-17 17:14:38 <BlueMatt> yes
1933 2011-07-17 17:15:58 <Kiba`> what is a determistic wallet?
1934 2011-07-17 17:16:20 <iddo> deterministic wallet means you generate keys using some pseudorandom sequence starting from random seed?
1935 2011-07-17 17:16:44 <iddo> anyone analysed the security risks in that?
1936 2011-07-17 17:16:56 <lfm> iddo: whats the advantage?
1937 2011-07-17 17:16:58 <BlueMatt> they are kind of logical
1938 2011-07-17 17:17:07 <BlueMatt> lfm: backup once and forever have all your keys backed up
1939 2011-07-17 17:17:09 <Joric> deterministic wallet is a tool that reduces all your security to a single password
1940 2011-07-17 17:17:18 <BlueMatt> and that sums up the security risks too
1941 2011-07-17 17:17:33 jjjx has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1942 2011-07-17 17:17:44 Tamo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1943 2011-07-17 17:18:38 <iddo> i'm asking if maybe the security degrades? if someone sees several public addrs generated deterministically, could he attack the ECDSA somehow? anyone analysed it?
1944 2011-07-17 17:19:03 <BlueMatt> no, if its done right you cant
1945 2011-07-17 17:19:18 jjjx has joined
1946 2011-07-17 17:19:22 darrob has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.5)
1947 2011-07-17 17:19:22 <BlueMatt> assuming the hash function used is secure
1948 2011-07-17 17:19:26 <lfm> iddo: ya if one private key leaks or is discovered all following keys would be known
1949 2011-07-17 17:19:34 <iddo> do it right you mean that you can proof that it has same security as random ECDSA keys?
1950 2011-07-17 17:19:42 eianpsego has joined
1951 2011-07-17 17:19:46 <BlueMatt> iddo: yes
1952 2011-07-17 17:20:01 <gim> where's the proof?
1953 2011-07-17 17:20:05 <BlueMatt> as that is a requirement for a "cryptographically strong hash function"
1954 2011-07-17 17:20:10 <gim> no
1955 2011-07-17 17:20:12 <iddo> lfm: ok, but i'm asking if also if no leak occured, is there security risk
1956 2011-07-17 17:20:15 ar4s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1957 2011-07-17 17:20:19 <BlueMatt> gim: yes it very much is
1958 2011-07-17 17:20:20 <Joric> i thought someone could use sha256(password) for generating private keys :) checked most often passwords didn't find any :)
1959 2011-07-17 17:20:26 <Joric> it's like finding a treasure
1960 2011-07-17 17:20:33 <BlueMatt> a requirement for a strong hash function is that the result is no different from random data
1961 2011-07-17 17:20:37 ar4s has joined
1962 2011-07-17 17:22:08 <gim> ah yes, you're not using the method that was described on the forum thread
1963 2011-07-17 17:22:32 <Blitzboom> BlueMatt: will deterministic wallets be implemented?
1964 2011-07-17 17:22:39 <BlueMatt> no idea what was described on the forum thread, I know that was /a/ suggestion on the thread though
1965 2011-07-17 17:22:47 <Joric> there were 0.25 BTC buried under privkey(sha256("This string contains 0.25 BTC hiding in plain sight."))
1966 2011-07-17 17:22:55 <gim> yes the first
1967 2011-07-17 17:23:02 <mtrlt> Joric: really? :D
1968 2011-07-17 17:23:04 <gim> but the second got more attention
1969 2011-07-17 17:23:04 <BlueMatt> Blitzboom: by some, but hopefully they actually think through what they are doing, which many people pimping them dont seem to be doing...
1970 2011-07-17 17:23:04 <Joric> yes
1971 2011-07-17 17:23:06 <mtrlt> that's awesome
1972 2011-07-17 17:23:11 <iddo> BlueMatt: ok but i'm still a little concerned, the hash isnt true random data so there could be some attack if the hash function has weakness when you use it as pseudorandom sequence like this
1973 2011-07-17 17:23:14 <Blitzboom> k
1974 2011-07-17 17:23:29 <BlueMatt> iddo: yep, you have to trust the hash function
1975 2011-07-17 17:23:54 Burgundy has joined
1976 2011-07-17 17:24:17 <lfm> Joric: thats not really different from burrying coins at key zero.
1977 2011-07-17 17:24:37 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1978 2011-07-17 17:25:02 <mtrlt> maybe i'll embark on a bitcoin treasure hunt of my own.. :o
1979 2011-07-17 17:25:20 <Joric> lfm, did you get it right? it's an actual private key, they were redeemed by the fider
1980 2011-07-17 17:25:25 <Joric> finder
1981 2011-07-17 17:26:14 <iddo> i think that a much more simple option to give user (not as default option) is just generating initially N=100 or N=1000 etc., and not generating anymore addresses for this kind of constant wallet... you lose anonymity for having constant wallet that always remains the same, so you can run hash on it to see that no one tempered with it etc.
1982 2011-07-17 17:26:23 <lfm> Joric: I guess I misunderstood
1983 2011-07-17 17:26:30 <Joric> sha256('something') = 32-bit secret for ecdsa
1984 2011-07-17 17:26:51 <Joric> *32 byte
1985 2011-07-17 17:27:08 <BlueMatt> iddo: I agree wholehartedly
1986 2011-07-17 17:27:47 <lfm> unless they tamper with your recored of the hash too
1987 2011-07-17 17:27:50 <iddo> BlueMatt: so are there plans to implement this simple version of constant wallet?
1988 2011-07-17 17:28:03 <mtrlt> yea that'd be good
1989 2011-07-17 17:28:17 <sacarlson> BlueMatt : for multisigning why can't we establish trusted entities like versign that can be trusted? we trust them with our banks why not multisign transactions for stores or someone like them?
1990 2011-07-17 17:28:48 <BlueMatt> iddo: not currently...
1991 2011-07-17 17:29:10 <lfm> sacarlson: huh? central authority? non starter.
1992 2011-07-17 17:29:28 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: ...because it offers no discernible security over a standard web-wallet?
1993 2011-07-17 17:29:37 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: sounds good on paper but...
1994 2011-07-17 17:29:52 <sacarlson> lfm: it's not central there are many trusted signers we now trust on our browsers
1995 2011-07-17 17:30:15 <lfm> what you mean we?
1996 2011-07-17 17:30:33 <sacarlson> and the signer is only needed in a dispute nothing more
1997 2011-07-17 17:30:40 <iddo> BlueMatt: so who and how should i bother with this feature request for constant wallet?
1998 2011-07-17 17:31:13 <BlueMatt> iddo: put it on github, if you want to bug someone...well write it yourself ;)
1999 2011-07-17 17:31:31 <BlueMatt> it actually wouldnt be too hard, should be entirely doable in TopUpKeyPool in CWllaet
2000 2011-07-17 17:31:34 <BlueMatt> Wallet*
2001 2011-07-17 17:31:36 <BlueMatt> just return;
2002 2011-07-17 17:31:45 <BlueMatt> (and iirc change something in rpc.cpp or two)
2003 2011-07-17 17:33:02 <iddo> but should also add handling to identify which kind of wallet you have? and gui options...
2004 2011-07-17 17:33:33 <BlueMatt> well wouldnt be hard to add a setting in db.cpp which gets loaded into a wallet flag
2005 2011-07-17 17:33:40 <BlueMatt> and just act based on that in TopUpKeyPool
2006 2011-07-17 17:33:53 <BlueMatt> gui options, well thats more work, but should also be easy to copy/paste existing code
2007 2011-07-17 17:34:43 <iddo> i'm not touching the source code myself, if someone loses a lot of money because of mistake he might kill me:)
2008 2011-07-17 17:35:02 <BlueMatt> well its too late for me...
2009 2011-07-17 17:35:19 <iddo> though i guess code review is good before anything is added to official client
2010 2011-07-17 17:35:30 <lfm> iddo: we know who you are just for suggesting it, doesnt matter if someone else implements it.
2011 2011-07-17 17:35:37 <BlueMatt> yea the devs are pretty good at reviewing that kind of thing
2012 2011-07-17 17:38:33 Fireball has joined
2013 2011-07-17 17:38:36 Fireball has quit (Changing host)
2014 2011-07-17 17:38:36 Fireball has joined
2015 2011-07-17 17:41:38 karnac has joined
2016 2011-07-17 17:45:05 TheZimm has joined
2017 2011-07-17 17:50:01 koleg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2018 2011-07-17 17:54:00 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2019 2011-07-17 18:00:18 erus` has joined
2020 2011-07-17 18:00:48 redshark1802 has joined
2021 2011-07-17 18:02:31 <redshark1802> hello. I have one quick question about cheat-proofs pools. I've done some reading on the methods that are already used and I thought a bit about. Finally, I came up with my own idea, why not take the t(seconds since round start) as score?
2022 2011-07-17 18:03:00 <nanotube> because seconds pass by without anyone doing anything, maybe?
2023 2011-07-17 18:03:12 Kiba` has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2024 2011-07-17 18:04:01 <redshark1802> mhm
2025 2011-07-17 18:04:38 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2026 2011-07-17 18:06:20 <Eliel_> luke-jr: you mean, just protect the keypool with aes256 and the already used ones with a pki-algo?
2027 2011-07-17 18:06:23 <redshark1802> I can see your point but is this really significant? Sorry if this is dumb question.
2028 2011-07-17 18:06:32 <Eliel_> ... nevermind, was reading way back :)
2029 2011-07-17 18:06:53 <Eliel_> irssi needs something more visible to tell me I'm not in the moment. :P
2030 2011-07-17 18:07:04 * Eliel_ does this too often.
2031 2011-07-17 18:09:00 lyspooner has joined
2032 2011-07-17 18:09:17 <redshark1802> someone else?
2033 2011-07-17 18:09:18 Joric has joined
2034 2011-07-17 18:09:18 Joric has quit (Changing host)
2035 2011-07-17 18:09:18 Joric has joined
2036 2011-07-17 18:10:05 brunner has joined
2037 2011-07-17 18:10:33 Joric has quit (Client Quit)
2038 2011-07-17 18:11:07 aristidesfl has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2039 2011-07-17 18:14:24 aristidesfl has joined
2040 2011-07-17 18:14:39 <diki> best fucking thread ever
2041 2011-07-17 18:14:40 <diki> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29687.0
2042 2011-07-17 18:14:55 <Eliel_> redshark1802: I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. seconds since round start as a score for whom?
2043 2011-07-17 18:15:10 <redshark1802> for rewards
2044 2011-07-17 18:15:28 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2045 2011-07-17 18:15:44 <redshark1802> /workers
2046 2011-07-17 18:17:34 puhc has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2047 2011-07-17 18:17:54 <redshark1802> understood?
2048 2011-07-17 18:18:26 BlueMatt has joined
2049 2011-07-17 18:19:12 <Eliel_> redshark1802: umm, no, not quite. so, everyone gets the same score?
2050 2011-07-17 18:19:34 Joric has joined
2051 2011-07-17 18:21:11 <redshark1802> well if you submit a share at the beginning of the round you'll get for example a score of 100(seconds since round start) this goes on until the round is finished. now sum the t of the worker and t of all submitted shares. the reward would be tUser/tServer*50
2052 2011-07-17 18:24:44 maik has quit (afk!~maikmerte@port-92-201-202-195.dynamic.qsc.de|Quit: Leaving)
2053 2011-07-17 18:25:25 carli2 has joined
2054 2011-07-17 18:25:30 <carli2> http://pastebin.com/tCVNvQbm
2055 2011-07-17 18:25:32 <carli2> fail
2056 2011-07-17 18:25:56 <carli2> a database becomes incorrupt after a system crash
2057 2011-07-17 18:26:32 <carli2> you should switch to an other database... the one used in bitcoin is crap
2058 2011-07-17 18:26:56 <carli2> no recovery, no transaction control
2059 2011-07-17 18:27:28 <BlueMatt> it does have recovery and transaction control, bitcoin just doesnt use txes very often...
2060 2011-07-17 18:27:36 <BlueMatt> chances are its a bug in addr.dat anyway, just delete that
2061 2011-07-17 18:28:17 <carli2> what do i delete with addr.dat?
2062 2011-07-17 18:28:24 <BlueMatt> bitcoin datadir
2063 2011-07-17 18:28:34 <redshark1802> brb, some thoughts about it are appreciated
2064 2011-07-17 18:29:19 <Eliel_> redshark1802: you just described how the proportional payment system works.
2065 2011-07-17 18:29:31 Kiba` has joined
2066 2011-07-17 18:30:13 <carli2> BlueMatt: http://pastebin.com/ar0Ukg1K after deleting addr.dat
2067 2011-07-17 18:30:29 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2068 2011-07-17 18:30:37 <BlueMatt> carli2: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11331.0
2069 2011-07-17 18:30:56 denisx has joined
2070 2011-07-17 18:32:05 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2071 2011-07-17 18:32:06 <carli2> why a repairing guide? implement the recovery steps into the exception handler. let the software do these steps.
2072 2011-07-17 18:33:37 <carli2> and does not react to my break. have to kill it
2073 2011-07-17 18:34:09 huk has joined
2074 2011-07-17 18:34:30 <Eliel_> carli2: sure, code it and make a pull request on github. If it's good, it should get included eventually.
2075 2011-07-17 18:36:13 <redshark1802> Eliel_: why, the user who submits work from the beginning to the end gets a reasonable higher score than a pool hopper
2076 2011-07-17 18:37:02 <mtrlt> redshark1802: i'm sure it's hoppable
2077 2011-07-17 18:37:11 <mtrlt> even slush is hoppable
2078 2011-07-17 18:37:19 <Eliel_> redshark1802: yes, it's fair as long as you just look at that single block.
2079 2011-07-17 18:37:41 <BlueMatt> mtrlt: slush is hoppable, anything is hoppable, the point is that you dont gain anything by hopping with slush
2080 2011-07-17 18:37:52 <Eliel_> but when you look at the bigger picture, pool hoppers will get most of the short blocks and won't use much effort on the long ones.
2081 2011-07-17 18:37:53 <BlueMatt> you do on deepbit, etc
2082 2011-07-17 18:38:27 <mtrlt> BlueMatt: you don't on slush?
2083 2011-07-17 18:38:29 <Zagitta> how is shared PPS hopable?
2084 2011-07-17 18:38:41 <mtrlt> BlueMatt: obviously what i meant by "hoppable" was that you'd gain from hopping
2085 2011-07-17 18:38:58 <BlueMatt> mtrlt: no, slush specifically changes share values by time so that if you do hop from his pool you dont gain anything
2086 2011-07-17 18:39:23 <BlueMatt> which is, ironically, some part of the reason people moved to deepbit when it came out...
2087 2011-07-17 18:39:33 <nanotube> what about giving payounts to N lowest-hash shares? wouldn't that also make pool-hopping zero-profit?
2088 2011-07-17 18:39:34 RenaKunisaki has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2089 2011-07-17 18:39:35 <BlueMatt> dont know why people moved off slush, I still prefer it, its not hoppable
2090 2011-07-17 18:39:54 <nanotube> er, payouts.
2091 2011-07-17 18:40:00 <BlueMatt> Zagitta: same reason a regular pool is
2092 2011-07-17 18:40:14 <carli2> the bitcoin client should be completely database based; no files with invented binary formats
2093 2011-07-17 18:40:20 <BlueMatt> nanotube: possibly...
2094 2011-07-17 18:40:26 <mtrlt> nanotube: sounds complicated
2095 2011-07-17 18:40:34 <mtrlt> nanotube: just do last N shares by time if you wanna go down that road
2096 2011-07-17 18:40:37 RenaKunisaki has joined
2097 2011-07-17 18:40:38 <nanotube> mtrlt: why? pool keeps track of all shares anyway.
2098 2011-07-17 18:40:38 <carli2> so that i can connect to a database where I want to have my wallet.
2099 2011-07-17 18:40:56 <mtrlt> no need to compare hash values
2100 2011-07-17 18:40:58 <BlueMatt> nanotube: in a p2p system you cant be 100% sure which shares came when and before which
2101 2011-07-17 18:41:09 <nanotube> BlueMatt: doesn't matter which is before
2102 2011-07-17 18:41:13 <nanotube> BlueMatt: you compare the hashes
2103 2011-07-17 18:41:27 <BlueMatt> nanotube: but it does matter which is before the block
2104 2011-07-17 18:41:39 <mtrlt> that doesn't matter
2105 2011-07-17 18:41:44 <mtrlt> shares with wrong prevblock are invalid anyway
2106 2011-07-17 18:41:49 <nanotube> ah well, yes. you need to weed out stales, but that can be done by consensus
2107 2011-07-17 18:42:11 <Eliel_> carli2: bitcoin does use BDB. It's not some random binary format.
2108 2011-07-17 18:42:13 <BlueMatt> nanotube: consensus in p2p is a very fuzzy topic
2109 2011-07-17 18:42:22 <BlueMatt> Eliel_: blk***.dat is not bdb
2110 2011-07-17 18:42:22 <Eliel_> it's a well standardized format with long history.
2111 2011-07-17 18:42:48 <nanotube> BlueMatt: well, since the 'voting' is by hash power anyway... it's about the same as bitcoin itself.
2112 2011-07-17 18:42:49 <BlueMatt> blkindex is bdb as with the rest
2113 2011-07-17 18:42:53 <redshark1802> "but when you look at the bigger picture, pool hoppers will get most of the short blocks and won't use much effort on the long ones." I don't get your point. In short rounds they aren't hopping and in long rounds they are hopping out decreasing the value of the submitted shares
2114 2011-07-17 18:43:03 Zagitta has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2115 2011-07-17 18:43:24 <nanotube> mtrlt: but yes, last N shares by time probably would work as well...
2116 2011-07-17 18:43:26 <Eliel_> BlueMatt: is there documentation somewhere about what the different files contain?
2117 2011-07-17 18:43:32 <BlueMatt> nanotube: I cant say I know much anything about the current proposal for distributed pools so I cant 100% comment...
2118 2011-07-17 18:43:35 <mtrlt> but imo SMPPS is good
2119 2011-07-17 18:43:38 <BlueMatt> Eliel_: the source
2120 2011-07-17 18:43:41 <carli2> but when the system crashes, BDB is saying goodbye. And that's the catastrophy that every data base is written to not happen.
2121 2011-07-17 18:43:45 <Eliel_> I like SMPPS too.
2122 2011-07-17 18:43:48 <BlueMatt> nanotube: it just seems...fuzzy
2123 2011-07-17 18:44:01 <mtrlt> in SMPPS, you always get your reward.. eventually
2124 2011-07-17 18:44:14 <nanotube> BlueMatt: well, at the moment, i was only asking about "assuming you have an agreed-upon pool of valid shares... would only paying out to N lowest-hashing shares make pool hopping unprofitable"
2125 2011-07-17 18:44:32 <BlueMatt> theoretically, yes
2126 2011-07-17 18:44:45 <BlueMatt> if you can agree on lowest-hashing shares, Id bet yes
2127 2011-07-17 18:44:47 <nanotube> mtrlt: what's smpps? some kind of modified pay per share?
2128 2011-07-17 18:45:01 jjjx has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2129 2011-07-17 18:45:13 <nanotube> BlueMatt: mm ok. that's kind of also what i think. :)
2130 2011-07-17 18:45:54 <BlueMatt> nanotube: though it might create hopping of a different kind
2131 2011-07-17 18:46:04 <BlueMatt> if you already have x of the lowest hashing y, why continue
2132 2011-07-17 18:46:11 <BlueMatt> switch to another pool until someone overtakes you
2133 2011-07-17 18:46:19 <redshark1802> i really don't get at which point my idea is hoppable. sorry it's been a long day
2134 2011-07-17 18:46:38 agricocb has joined
2135 2011-07-17 18:46:44 <nanotube> BlueMatt: sure, but the expected value of that doesn't seem to be any larger than just staying and continuing to 'defend your position'
2136 2011-07-17 18:47:03 <mtrlt> redshark1802: it might not reduce share value enough
2137 2011-07-17 18:47:11 <Eliel_> nanotube: basically pps that only pays as the pool gets the coins to do that.
2138 2011-07-17 18:47:16 <mtrlt> redshark1802: dunno, should run simulations :P
2139 2011-07-17 18:47:22 <BlueMatt> nanotube: no, because if you are defending your position and a block is found, all those hashes you found to defend were completely worthless
2140 2011-07-17 18:47:30 <mtrlt> nanotube: yep, what Eliel_ said.
2141 2011-07-17 18:47:58 <nanotube> BlueMatt: yes... but if you had left and someone overtook you, you'd have lost the payout
2142 2011-07-17 18:48:23 <nanotube> mtrlt: i see. basically, protect pool owner from being bankrupted by griefers (or bad luck)
2143 2011-07-17 18:48:23 <Eliel_> so, if the pool gets very unlucky, you get less.
2144 2011-07-17 18:48:43 <nanotube> Eliel_: tx :)
2145 2011-07-17 18:49:44 <BlueMatt> nanotube: true, one would have to simulate it, but my hunch is that it would still be smarter to switch pools as you could get a portion of their block instead of sitting there defending which may, or may not, end up helping you
2146 2011-07-17 18:49:45 rynx has joined
2147 2011-07-17 18:49:53 <Eliel_> it seems to work pretty well, so far, though.
2148 2011-07-17 18:50:30 <Eliel_> I don't know if there are others but at least eligius and arsbitcoin pools use it
2149 2011-07-17 18:51:07 <nanotube> BlueMatt: well... yes there's no substitute to actual calculations and simulations. :) but it seems to me that the expected value of continuing to hash on the first pool, vs moving over to another should be the same.
2150 2011-07-17 18:51:31 <BlueMatt> meh
2151 2011-07-17 18:51:48 <nanotube> so i guess let's just leave it at "needs more data" hehe
2152 2011-07-17 18:51:57 <BlueMatt> sounds good
2153 2011-07-17 18:52:07 <nanotube> hehe
2154 2011-07-17 18:52:44 <Eliel_> redshark1802: do you understand what makes pool hopping work in the first place?
2155 2011-07-17 18:52:50 carli2 has left ()
2156 2011-07-17 18:53:20 <redshark1802> yes I do
2157 2011-07-17 18:54:09 <Eliel_> redshark1802: do you think your method is different from the standard proportional. If so, what is the difference. I didn't quite understand that.
2158 2011-07-17 18:54:22 <eianpsego> Is the wallet format specified somewhere?
2159 2011-07-17 18:54:33 <mtrlt> Eliel_: each share has a score of N where N is the seconds since round start when the share was submitted or smth
2160 2011-07-17 18:54:56 <redshark1802> a submitted share at 1s is less worth than a submitted at 1000s
2161 2011-07-17 18:54:57 <mtrlt> so it is not prop
2162 2011-07-17 18:54:59 sabalaba has joined
2163 2011-07-17 18:55:13 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2164 2011-07-17 18:55:17 <Eliel_> oh right, so the shares increase in value as time goes by
2165 2011-07-17 18:55:32 <redshark1802> where the seconds since round start are the scores
2166 2011-07-17 18:55:37 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2167 2011-07-17 18:55:37 <redshark1802> yes
2168 2011-07-17 18:55:47 <Eliel_> if you adjust it just right, it could work.
2169 2011-07-17 18:57:18 <redshark1802> Eliel_: what do you have in mind?
2170 2011-07-17 18:58:52 <Eliel_> adjusting the scores just right, however, is not trivial
2171 2011-07-17 18:59:36 brunner has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2172 2011-07-17 18:59:44 <Eliel_> if they're adjusted wrong, the pool is either vulnerable to hopping or then no-one will want to mine at the start of the round.
2173 2011-07-17 19:00:55 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2174 2011-07-17 19:01:01 <Eliel_> the resulting system would be difficult for most miners to understand (as in if it's balanced right) and as such they might then avoid the pool completely.
2175 2011-07-17 19:01:56 <lfm> ls
2176 2011-07-17 19:02:01 <lfm> bah
2177 2011-07-17 19:02:24 nhodges has joined
2178 2011-07-17 19:05:39 <Kiba`> yo
2179 2011-07-17 19:06:26 Burgundy has quit ()
2180 2011-07-17 19:06:54 <aristidesfl> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmFwnIRG9c
2181 2011-07-17 19:07:45 <aristidesfl> isn't it a good idea to include servers of this in bitcoin miners?
2182 2011-07-17 19:07:51 <BlueMatt> aristidesfl: really old news
2183 2011-07-17 19:08:39 <aristidesfl> BlueMatt: I'm asking a question, not giving news
2184 2011-07-17 19:08:59 <BlueMatt> a good idea to include a client in all of the clients?
2185 2011-07-17 19:09:15 <aristidesfl> BlueMatt: a server in all the servers
2186 2011-07-17 19:09:24 <BlueMatt> why on earth would you want that?
2187 2011-07-17 19:09:44 Fairuser has joined
2188 2011-07-17 19:10:05 <aristidesfl> to take advantage of the incentive of mining to have more servers
2189 2011-07-17 19:10:23 <BlueMatt> that makes no sense
2190 2011-07-17 19:10:48 <aristidesfl> BlueMatt: why
2191 2011-07-17 19:10:49 <BlueMatt> pool servers and web-wallets are two very, very different things
2192 2011-07-17 19:10:49 <lfm> aristidesfl: it is stupid slow!
2193 2011-07-17 19:12:39 <Kiba`> I am having trouble figuring out if Bitcoin Weekly's new looks is liked or not liked.
2194 2011-07-17 19:12:58 <Kiba`> they told me to get rid of the border...so I got rid of them
2195 2011-07-17 19:13:27 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r56b500fd2b50 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/viewratingdetail.php: OTCWebsite: make sort by nick case-insensitive in viewratingdetail http://tinyurl.com/5shx2j2
2196 2011-07-17 19:15:04 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2197 2011-07-17 19:15:14 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2198 2011-07-17 19:16:08 Kiba` has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
2199 2011-07-17 19:16:42 Kiba` has joined
2200 2011-07-17 19:19:11 <lfm> Kiba`: the new layout is fine, the old layout was fine.
2201 2011-07-17 19:19:34 * Kiba` sigh
2202 2011-07-17 19:19:37 <Kiba`> people hate it
2203 2011-07-17 19:19:39 <Kiba`> people like it
2204 2011-07-17 19:19:50 <BlueMatt> looks fine
2205 2011-07-17 19:19:51 <Kiba`> I know I can't please everyone
2206 2011-07-17 19:20:13 <wirehead> just go with something
2207 2011-07-17 19:20:25 <wirehead> use it for long enough and people will adapt
2208 2011-07-17 19:20:41 <wirehead> I mean look at smbc-comics layout
2209 2011-07-17 19:21:18 <wirehead> looks like it was made in ms paint, yet the site is very popular
2210 2011-07-17 19:21:30 Burgundy has joined
2211 2011-07-17 19:21:56 <Kiba`> but is bitcoinweekly asthetically pleasing?
2212 2011-07-17 19:22:49 <wirehead> it's kind of plain
2213 2011-07-17 19:22:54 <lfm> kiba are you really asking a bunch of nurds that question?
2214 2011-07-17 19:26:04 <BlueMatt> lfm: you misspelled nerds
2215 2011-07-17 19:26:25 <lfm> sorry
2216 2011-07-17 19:26:36 <BlueMatt> ;)
2217 2011-07-17 19:27:52 niekie_ is now known as niekie
2218 2011-07-17 19:30:54 skeledrew has joined
2219 2011-07-17 19:34:29 brunner has joined
2220 2011-07-17 19:36:52 skeledrew has quit (Quit: Instantbird 0.3pre)
2221 2011-07-17 19:38:11 disq has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2222 2011-07-17 19:39:05 skeledrew has joined
2223 2011-07-17 19:42:07 TheZimm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2224 2011-07-17 19:44:09 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2225 2011-07-17 19:45:07 TheZimm has joined
2226 2011-07-17 19:45:35 <Joric> http://vimeo.com/21848588 this guy may code / draw and sell games in the same time )
2227 2011-07-17 19:46:13 <Joric> sadly he doesn't write music as well ) as the guy who coded aquaria
2228 2011-07-17 19:47:52 <Joric> drawing tutorial http://vimeo.com/6803967
2229 2011-07-17 19:51:14 <Joric> though you meant nerds, not just ordinary ppl :)
2230 2011-07-17 19:52:19 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
2231 2011-07-17 19:53:11 moa7 has joined
2232 2011-07-17 19:55:47 disq has joined
2233 2011-07-17 19:58:10 skeledrew has joined
2234 2011-07-17 19:58:52 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: summary of sleep period: people agreeing that the forum should be de-linked from www.bitcoin.org
2235 2011-07-17 19:58:54 <jgarzik> anything else?
2236 2011-07-17 20:00:03 Akiron has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2237 2011-07-17 20:01:44 <luke-jr> lfm: deterministic wallets also allow you to provision services with a public key only-- so they can generate new addresses for customers, but they can't spend any of them
2238 2011-07-17 20:02:16 <luke-jr> lfm: in the case of encryption, it also means your client could generate new addresses without the passphrase to spend them
2239 2011-07-17 20:03:20 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: pretty much
2240 2011-07-17 20:03:29 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-106-201-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
2241 2011-07-17 20:03:31 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: nothing exciting that Ive seen
2242 2011-07-17 20:03:56 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
2243 2011-07-17 20:04:20 <Fireball> and where would the forum go?
2244 2011-07-17 20:04:29 <BlueMatt> a different domain
2245 2011-07-17 20:04:38 <Fireball> ah, thanks
2246 2011-07-17 20:05:03 <lfm> um that seems to be a different sort of deterministic wallet than was described here earlier. you're encrypting the wallet with a public key instead of a symetric key?
2247 2011-07-17 20:05:16 <jgarzik> ;;seen sirius-m
2248 2011-07-17 20:05:16 <gribble> sirius-m was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 40 minutes, and 1 second ago: <sirius-m> sipa: it's updated already?
2249 2011-07-17 20:05:19 <jgarzik> sigh
2250 2011-07-17 20:05:25 <BlueMatt> hes been on the forum though
2251 2011-07-17 20:05:27 <BlueMatt> last seen today
2252 2011-07-17 20:05:57 * BlueMatt thinks its time jgarzik or gavin get the keys to the servers
2253 2011-07-17 20:06:13 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2254 2011-07-17 20:06:50 <moa7> what happened with sirius?
2255 2011-07-17 20:07:10 <BlueMatt> hasnt been responding for some reason...
2256 2011-07-17 20:07:56 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: what's his forum nick? sirius? sirius-m?
2257 2011-07-17 20:08:02 <BlueMatt> think its sirius
2258 2011-07-17 20:09:30 <BlueMatt> yea http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4
2259 2011-07-17 20:09:33 <BlueMatt> profile 4
2260 2011-07-17 20:10:23 <moa7> https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4;sa=showPosts
2261 2011-07-17 20:10:46 MetaV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2262 2011-07-17 20:12:44 <diki> never knew malloc was that important
2263 2011-07-17 20:12:58 <diki> saves you from entering another program's stack space
2264 2011-07-17 20:13:04 topace has joined
2265 2011-07-17 20:13:19 <gim> mmm, many size_t in bitcoin code are prinf-ed with "%d"
2266 2011-07-17 20:13:29 <gim> but the safe and portable way to do this is like a mess
2267 2011-07-17 20:13:34 <gim> :/
2268 2011-07-17 20:13:40 <gim> (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/174612/cross-platform-format-string-for-variables-of-type-size-t)
2269 2011-07-17 20:14:03 <diki> gim
2270 2011-07-17 20:14:08 <diki> why not just use an ifdef?
2271 2011-07-17 20:14:13 <diki> ifdef WIN32
2272 2011-07-17 20:14:20 <gim> yeah, that's what i call a mess
2273 2011-07-17 20:14:33 MetaV has joined
2274 2011-07-17 20:15:17 <gim> printf("%"PRIzu, toto); is just ugly
2275 2011-07-17 20:16:16 <gim> are there many platform on which sizeof(int) != sizeof(size_t) ?
2276 2011-07-17 20:17:35 <diki> even bitcoin has ifdefs
2277 2011-07-17 20:17:40 <diki> so does xvid codec
2278 2011-07-17 20:17:46 <diki> or anything else as a matter of fact
2279 2011-07-17 20:17:50 <lfm> gim x86-64?
2280 2011-07-17 20:18:14 <gim> i think it's 64 for both
2281 2011-07-17 20:18:32 <lfm> gim int is 32, long is 64, size is 64
2282 2011-07-17 20:20:04 <gim> mmm, how can this be working properly :)
2283 2011-07-17 20:20:16 <lfm> gim even certain memory models on old msdos failed your assertion
2284 2011-07-17 20:20:25 <lfm> this?
2285 2011-07-17 20:20:42 Marf has joined
2286 2011-07-17 20:21:00 eianpsego has quit ()
2287 2011-07-17 20:21:33 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: sent sirius a forum PM
2288 2011-07-17 20:21:44 Beccara has joined
2289 2011-07-17 20:23:44 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2290 2011-07-17 20:24:56 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: good, can you not ask for the dns of bitcoin.org, seems like you or gavin should have that
2291 2011-07-17 20:25:41 <denisx> BlueMatt: you mean "now", right?
2292 2011-07-17 20:25:52 <BlueMatt> no, I mean in a year or two???
2293 2011-07-17 20:26:07 <denisx> BlueMatt: read it!
2294 2011-07-17 20:26:34 <BlueMatt> I said can he ask for it, ie can he ask now and get it when he gets it?
2295 2011-07-17 20:26:59 <denisx> I repeat: "can you not ask for"
2296 2011-07-17 20:27:09 <BlueMatt> s/not//
2297 2011-07-17 20:29:24 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: always a delicate situation, that...
2298 2011-07-17 20:29:32 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: quote "satoshi gave bitcoin.org to me"
2299 2011-07-17 20:29:46 <BlueMatt> yea, but if hes not usually around...
2300 2011-07-17 20:29:48 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: so, baby steps :)
2301 2011-07-17 20:29:53 <BlueMatt> I mean I totally get his position, but...
2302 2011-07-17 20:30:05 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2303 2011-07-17 20:30:07 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I agree w/ you. Sirius is largely absent from bitcoin these days
2304 2011-07-17 20:30:36 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: but seriously, get a new registrar ;)
2305 2011-07-17 20:30:51 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: but when you are trying to convince someone to do something, when (a) they have all the power and (b) they are giving up power, you tread lightly
2306 2011-07-17 20:30:55 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2307 2011-07-17 20:31:05 <BlueMatt> so true
2308 2011-07-17 20:31:08 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: (re registrar) what's wrong with register4less?
2309 2011-07-17 20:31:27 <BlueMatt> their website looks like crap and as far as I can tell they charge 1.5x what everyone else does?
2310 2011-07-17 20:31:55 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: their points system lowers prices. but what do you care? :)
2311 2011-07-17 20:32:15 <BlueMatt> I dont, I was just impressed you use someone with a website that looks like such crap ;)
2312 2011-07-17 20:32:39 <jgarzik> I value reliability and hands-off above looks :)
2313 2011-07-17 20:32:55 <jgarzik> they've never given me any crap, unlike godady and other registrars
2314 2011-07-17 20:32:55 <BlueMatt> as do I, but there are others who offer that...whatever
2315 2011-07-17 20:33:06 estornudo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2316 2011-07-17 20:33:07 <BlueMatt> oh god, godaddy needs to crawl in a hole and die
2317 2011-07-17 20:33:10 <jgarzik> anyway... *poof*
2318 2011-07-17 20:35:47 b4epoche has joined
2319 2011-07-17 20:37:48 <Joric> seriously though, what is the most reliable registrar? register.com?
2320 2011-07-17 20:38:06 <Eliel_> I have had no problem with dyndns myself.
2321 2011-07-17 20:38:30 <BlueMatt> Ive moved around a fair bit, but gandi.net tends to be good (if you dont mind paying a tiny bit extra due to usd/eur conversion) or hover.com (if you want 24/7 phone support with no hold times)
2322 2011-07-17 20:39:42 <Eliel_> My personal favourite is dyndns due to the highly automated systems. You can do just about everything you need through their web interface.
2323 2011-07-17 20:40:04 <BlueMatt> same with hover and gandi, esp gandi
2324 2011-07-17 20:40:27 <BlueMatt> though seriously, what do you need? dns, glue records, nameservers, whois changes, what else is there?
2325 2011-07-17 20:43:53 <Joric> how do feds shutdown dotcoms? via registrar or via icann?
2326 2011-07-17 20:44:15 <BlueMatt> icann
2327 2011-07-17 20:50:46 Evious has quit (Disconnected by services)
2328 2011-07-17 20:50:49 Amtal is now known as Evious
2329 2011-07-17 20:51:13 Reviou has joined
2330 2011-07-17 20:52:10 iddo has quit (Changing host)
2331 2011-07-17 20:52:10 iddo has joined
2332 2011-07-17 20:56:08 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2333 2011-07-17 20:57:55 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
2334 2011-07-17 20:58:00 coderrr`brb is now known as coderrr
2335 2011-07-17 20:59:26 <b4epoche> wow... a 5 sec brb
2336 2011-07-17 21:00:45 viggi has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2337 2011-07-17 21:00:54 viggi has joined
2338 2011-07-17 21:01:30 <coderrr> is there any easy way to compile a 32bit linux binary on an 64bit system ?
2339 2011-07-17 21:01:41 <gmaxwell> -m32
2340 2011-07-17 21:01:44 <coderrr> i tried that
2341 2011-07-17 21:01:48 <coderrr> got some other errors
2342 2011-07-17 21:01:51 <gmaxwell> (you must also have the required libararies installed)
2343 2011-07-17 21:02:06 <coderrr> ok, lemme look into that
2344 2011-07-17 21:02:18 <gmaxwell> (both 32 bit versions of the compiler support stuff, and 32 bit versions of all the dependencies)
2345 2011-07-17 21:03:20 Fuehrer has joined
2346 2011-07-17 21:03:21 Fireball has quit (Disconnected by services)
2347 2011-07-17 21:03:21 Fuehrer has quit (Changing host)
2348 2011-07-17 21:03:21 Fuehrer has joined
2349 2011-07-17 21:06:57 moa7 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2350 2011-07-17 21:08:13 evelyn66 has joined
2351 2011-07-17 21:10:17 Fuehrer has quit (Quit: ROS is the power.)
2352 2011-07-17 21:10:46 <coderrr> that probly means building 32bit wx first, yea ?
2353 2011-07-17 21:10:58 viggi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2354 2011-07-17 21:11:14 <b4epoche> have fun
2355 2011-07-17 21:11:32 <coderrr> so i guess the answer is no to "any easy way to ..." ?
2356 2011-07-17 21:11:46 <b4epoche> no easy way...
2357 2011-07-17 21:12:20 <b4epoche> other than using a hex editor to cut the wx lib in half (i.e. from 64-bit to 32-bit)
2358 2011-07-17 21:13:24 ar4s has quit (Quit: zZzZZz)
2359 2011-07-17 21:13:25 BlueMattBot has joined
2360 2011-07-17 21:14:58 <gim> might be easier to use an hex editor and write it from scratch..
2361 2011-07-17 21:15:36 Zagitta has joined
2362 2011-07-17 21:15:55 viggi has joined
2363 2011-07-17 21:16:00 <coderrr> yea, ok, ill just wait till i get enuf motivation to setup a 32bit system then
2364 2011-07-17 21:16:58 molecular has joined
2365 2011-07-17 21:17:38 Clipse has joined
2366 2011-07-17 21:17:40 <edcba> vm and livecd ?
2367 2011-07-17 21:17:59 m00p has joined
2368 2011-07-17 21:18:26 <coderrr> yea
2369 2011-07-17 21:19:08 sabalaba has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2370 2011-07-17 21:19:43 <lyspooner> what's the longest time ever taken for the network to find a block
2371 2011-07-17 21:19:49 <lyspooner> it feels like namecoin right now
2372 2011-07-17 21:20:10 redshark1802 has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
2373 2011-07-17 21:20:19 sabalaba has joined
2374 2011-07-17 21:22:43 conjre has joined
2375 2011-07-17 21:23:16 cdecker has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2376 2011-07-17 21:25:02 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Say What?)
2377 2011-07-17 21:27:41 Cablesaurus has joined
2378 2011-07-17 21:27:41 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
2379 2011-07-17 21:27:41 Cablesaurus has joined
2380 2011-07-17 21:27:44 <prof7bit> the easy way is use virtual machines
2381 2011-07-17 21:29:33 <BlueMatt> virtual machines ftw
2382 2011-07-17 21:30:33 <b4epoche> virtual machines and lotsa RAM ftw
2383 2011-07-17 21:31:10 <JFK911> ^^
2384 2011-07-17 21:31:15 <BlueMatt> both ftw but not required, linux vms take no ram
2385 2011-07-17 21:31:17 <JFK911> iscsi helps
2386 2011-07-17 21:31:28 <BlueMatt> well raid helps
2387 2011-07-17 21:31:34 <JFK911> i still get contention w/ raids
2388 2011-07-17 21:31:45 <JFK911> i guess the answer is more spindles
2389 2011-07-17 21:32:01 <BlueMatt> iscsi isnt the solution, its a result of using a nas which is the real solution
2390 2011-07-17 21:32:03 <JFK911> or stop using sql server 2008
2391 2011-07-17 21:32:12 <BlueMatt> lol, or stop using any m$ product
2392 2011-07-17 21:32:15 <BlueMatt> which always helps
2393 2011-07-17 21:33:04 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2394 2011-07-17 21:33:11 <b4epoche> wtf? scsi's still alive.
2395 2011-07-17 21:33:14 <BlueMatt> linux vm base = 128M (or less) and 0.1% cpu, windows vm min = 512M and 10% cpu min...
2396 2011-07-17 21:33:21 * b4epoche doesn't require a lot of drive space
2397 2011-07-17 21:33:39 <JFK911> i got some 256mbyte ram NT vm's going
2398 2011-07-17 21:33:59 <JFK911> it is an art
2399 2011-07-17 21:34:09 <BlueMatt> running unsupported m$ products...seems like you are asking for trouble
2400 2011-07-17 21:34:13 <b4epoche> linux vm base = linux running in vm, or vm running on linux?
2401 2011-07-17 21:34:14 <JFK911> but its easier in newer windozes
2402 2011-07-17 21:34:32 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: linux vm min requirements to do something useful
2403 2011-07-17 21:34:41 <JFK911> whos unsupported
2404 2011-07-17 21:34:51 <prof7bit> windows: 192 MB : http://imagebin.org/163502
2405 2011-07-17 21:34:55 <BlueMatt> nt is no longer updated...
2406 2011-07-17 21:35:01 <JFK911> yeah it is
2407 2011-07-17 21:35:01 <b4epoche> but I'm asking what is the host OS and what is the hosted OS?
2408 2011-07-17 21:35:07 <JFK911> they just released a brand new one
2409 2011-07-17 21:35:21 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: host os doesnt matter, hosted os == linux
2410 2011-07-17 21:35:23 <JFK911> im mining bitcoins with it
2411 2011-07-17 21:35:53 <b4epoche> BlueMatt: well the vm is going to take resources too
2412 2011-07-17 21:36:06 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: included in the 128M
2413 2011-07-17 21:36:20 <BlueMatt> prof7bit: and the memory useage/page useage on that vm?
2414 2011-07-17 21:37:27 <b4epoche> what vm software?
2415 2011-07-17 21:37:35 <prof7bit> this is a windows XP VM. I have given it 192MB. total system RAM us 500MB (running KDE3.5 on the host and xp prof. in the guest)
2416 2011-07-17 21:37:42 <prof7bit> vmware
2417 2011-07-17 21:38:26 <BlueMatt> whats the mem usage inside the vm is my question
2418 2011-07-17 21:38:33 <prof7bit> i need to have that running 24/5 for some algo-trading experiments with some proprietary windows-only platform
2419 2011-07-17 21:38:54 <BlueMatt> why vmware?
2420 2011-07-17 21:39:16 <BlueMatt> in my experience qemu actually tends to have better perf than vmware's crap
2421 2011-07-17 21:39:20 <BlueMatt> and vmware server...really?
2422 2011-07-17 21:39:27 <BlueMatt> that thing sucks so bad...
2423 2011-07-17 21:39:29 bc has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2424 2011-07-17 21:39:42 <prof7bit> http://imagebin.org/163503
2425 2011-07-17 21:39:45 <BlueMatt> vmware server puts all mem on files on disk and then expects the os to cache it...
2426 2011-07-17 21:40:20 <prof7bit> i have experimented with vitualbox for a while
2427 2011-07-17 21:40:35 <prof7bit> and now i'm trying vmware for a comparison
2428 2011-07-17 21:40:45 <prof7bit> not yet decided what is better
2429 2011-07-17 21:40:46 <BlueMatt> I used to use vmware server a long time ago, moved to virtualbox and never looked back
2430 2011-07-17 21:40:52 <BlueMatt> esxi is good, but vmware server...
2431 2011-07-17 21:40:57 <BlueMatt> god that thing is a fail
2432 2011-07-17 21:41:02 <JFK911> prof7bit: vmware workstation might suit you too
2433 2011-07-17 21:41:06 <prof7bit> my main problem is i am low on RAM on this laptop
2434 2011-07-17 21:41:07 <JFK911> if thats available
2435 2011-07-17 21:41:15 <BlueMatt> wait till one of your vms starts swap thrashing, the entire thing crashes like crazy...
2436 2011-07-17 21:41:39 <BlueMatt> one vm starts swap trashing and every vm gets like 30s disk read times
2437 2011-07-17 21:41:46 <BlueMatt> its crazy
2438 2011-07-17 21:42:04 <Eliel_> I've just been using virtualbox myself. It was the easiest vm software I found for ubuntu :)
2439 2011-07-17 21:42:06 <prof7bit> i have never more than 1 vm running at the same time
2440 2011-07-17 21:42:21 <JFK911> kvm+qemu is bitchin
2441 2011-07-17 21:42:26 <BlueMatt> still that indicates serious problems with the underlying architecture of vmware server
2442 2011-07-17 21:42:55 <BlueMatt> namely it literally stores each vm's memory on disk and just hopes the os will cache it
2443 2011-07-17 21:43:27 <prof7bit> vmware server does some strange things with the clock (the time) on processors with speed step
2444 2011-07-17 21:43:36 <BlueMatt> that too
2445 2011-07-17 21:43:50 <BlueMatt> vm clocks always drift a ton on vmware server
2446 2011-07-17 21:43:50 <prof7bit> and i also have problems with sporadic short network disconnects every few hours
2447 2011-07-17 21:43:59 <BlueMatt> god all the problems I used to have when I used that crap
2448 2011-07-17 21:44:16 lyspooner has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 3.6.18/20110614230723])
2449 2011-07-17 21:44:23 <JFK911> drifting clock = simple problem to solve
2450 2011-07-17 21:44:43 <BlueMatt> true, but its just ridiculous that one has to set up ntpdate cron scripts
2451 2011-07-17 21:44:49 Blitzboom has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2452 2011-07-17 21:45:05 <prof7bit> i'm just too lazy to move all the things i have installed in that VM over to virtualbox again
2453 2011-07-17 21:45:19 <BlueMatt> you dont have to, virtualbox opens vmware disk images
2454 2011-07-17 21:45:25 <JFK911> no, not ntpdate
2455 2011-07-17 21:45:27 <b4epoche> interesting: PPC-440 Virtex-ML507 Linux 2.6 test image for qemu
2456 2011-07-17 21:45:32 <JFK911> its one tweak on the host
2457 2011-07-17 21:45:39 <BlueMatt> you just have to reauth windows (unless you are using a cracked version)
2458 2011-07-17 21:45:55 <diki> this interesting
2459 2011-07-17 21:46:02 <diki> python works in one command prompt
2460 2011-07-17 21:46:06 <diki> but not another??
2461 2011-07-17 21:46:23 <b4epoche> command prompt? what are you using? DOS?
2462 2011-07-17 21:46:43 <prof7bit> maybe i'll give it a try next weekend if i find some time. Once i started it sunday night it needs to run uninterrupted until Friday NY close.
2463 2011-07-17 21:47:12 <BlueMatt> prof7bit: ah, well I highly recommend switching to anything from vmware server its really old tech
2464 2011-07-17 21:47:17 <BlueMatt> and not even good when it came out
2465 2011-07-17 21:48:06 liltoe has joined
2466 2011-07-17 21:48:41 magn3ts has joined
2467 2011-07-17 21:49:30 Joric has quit ()
2468 2011-07-17 21:52:08 copumpkin is now known as bob_loblaw
2469 2011-07-17 21:53:47 bob_loblaw is now known as copumpkin
2470 2011-07-17 21:54:25 dobalina has quit ()
2471 2011-07-17 21:54:28 <b4epoche> and his true identity comes out
2472 2011-07-17 21:57:33 <diki> and
2473 2011-07-17 21:57:42 <diki> something is really screwed up
2474 2011-07-17 21:58:07 <b4epoche> just chalk it up to a religious experience
2475 2011-07-17 21:59:49 sytse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2476 2011-07-17 21:59:56 sytse has joined
2477 2011-07-17 22:04:12 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2478 2011-07-17 22:04:13 <copumpkin> :O
2479 2011-07-17 22:05:24 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2480 2011-07-17 22:06:50 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: OUCH!!!)
2481 2011-07-17 22:06:52 BlueMatt_ has joined
2482 2011-07-17 22:07:33 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2483 2011-07-17 22:07:39 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2484 2011-07-17 22:07:44 BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
2485 2011-07-17 22:10:30 rynx has joined
2486 2011-07-17 22:13:00 skeledrew has joined
2487 2011-07-17 22:13:53 xxx3a has joined
2488 2011-07-17 22:14:56 Teslah has joined
2489 2011-07-17 22:16:45 xxx3a has quit (Client Quit)
2490 2011-07-17 22:17:46 ahbritto_ has joined
2491 2011-07-17 22:18:12 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
2492 2011-07-17 22:18:34 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2493 2011-07-17 22:23:56 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2494 2011-07-17 22:24:26 brunner has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2495 2011-07-17 22:26:22 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2496 2011-07-17 22:26:46 plato has joined
2497 2011-07-17 22:26:53 <plato> hi guys
2498 2011-07-17 22:27:28 nus has joined
2499 2011-07-17 22:28:22 <BlueMatt> hey, its plato
2500 2011-07-17 22:28:31 <plato> imagine i want to start a small open source project, and contribute 20 btc to a pool. i want these funds to be disbursed according to the outcome of a PieTrust algorithm.
2501 2011-07-17 22:29:14 <plato> Here's the thing, I want the funds to be inaccessible by any participants until the algorithm decides to release the funds
2502 2011-07-17 22:29:28 <plato> and i want it to never fuck up
2503 2011-07-17 22:30:14 <BlueMatt> wtf is pietrust?
2504 2011-07-17 22:30:28 <plato> uhhh jfgi i'm on mobile
2505 2011-07-17 22:30:45 <plato> its a way to democratically allocate a pie of something
2506 2011-07-17 22:30:53 <BlueMatt> fair enough
2507 2011-07-17 22:30:56 <plato> trusted users get more clout
2508 2011-07-17 22:31:14 <plato> outsiders who no one trusts don't count for much
2509 2011-07-17 22:31:57 <plato> e.g. you allocate 100 shares to whoever you want in the pie... but how much your shares influence others is affected by how many shares others have given you
2510 2011-07-17 22:32:12 <plato> i haven't seen the algorithm
2511 2011-07-17 22:32:14 <BlueMatt> yea, yea ok I get it
2512 2011-07-17 22:32:17 <gim> mmm, maybe you'll have to code the algorithm in the bitcoin script
2513 2011-07-17 22:32:32 <gim> or depend on some trusted 3rd party
2514 2011-07-17 22:32:43 <BlueMatt> yea youll have to depend on a trusted 3rd party
2515 2011-07-17 22:32:48 <plato> oh i have an idea h/o
2516 2011-07-17 22:32:49 <BlueMatt> dont think you could do it in bitcoin scripts
2517 2011-07-17 22:33:04 <BlueMatt> you could do it in bitcoin multisign stuff so that you get multiple parts of the 3rd party...
2518 2011-07-17 22:33:12 <gim> well thats a limited language
2519 2011-07-17 22:33:39 let_me_hold_this has joined
2520 2011-07-17 22:33:54 <let_me_hold_this> Not sure if this should go here but: When the bitcoin client reports to the user his/her current balance, it queries the bitcoin network for the user's transactions and calculates the user's money?
2521 2011-07-17 22:34:20 <BlueMatt> no
2522 2011-07-17 22:34:52 <let_me_hold_this> Does the data directory hold all the user's transactions and his current money?
2523 2011-07-17 22:35:01 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2524 2011-07-17 22:35:03 <let_me_hold_this> I mean his current money as a value.
2525 2011-07-17 22:35:04 <BlueMatt> yes
2526 2011-07-17 22:35:10 <BlueMatt> it totals txes
2527 2011-07-17 22:35:15 <BlueMatt> which are stored in wallet.dat
2528 2011-07-17 22:35:29 <BlueMatt> well it totals confirmed txes
2529 2011-07-17 22:35:49 <let_me_hold_this> Alright, but the procedure I mentioned above is done by bitcoin nodes when they validate a transaction, right?
2530 2011-07-17 22:36:03 <plato> it can be wrong if your wallet gets desynced, run bitcoin.exe -rescan if that happens
2531 2011-07-17 22:36:03 <let_me_hold_this> To verify that the sender of the transaction had enough money indeed
2532 2011-07-17 22:36:24 <gmaxwell> There is no balance calculating except by the user's wallet.
2533 2011-07-17 22:36:27 <BlueMatt> plato: thats fairly out of date, yes it could still fix some wallet corruption, but that is very, very rare anymore
2534 2011-07-17 22:36:43 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: Please read the bitcoin paper. Bitcoin is not a system of account balances.
2535 2011-07-17 22:37:12 <plato> gmaxwell: sure it is in a sense
2536 2011-07-17 22:37:42 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: The bitcoin itself concerns itself only with transactions. You can think of them logically as coins. The system validates that the coins are legit (have not been double spent).
2537 2011-07-17 22:37:44 <plato> let_me_hold_this: the blockchain is an accounting ledger detailing movements of btc from address to address
2538 2011-07-17 22:38:10 <plato> let_me_hold_this: each movement is a transaction and is recorded in a block (one page of the ledger)
2539 2011-07-17 22:38:40 <gmaxwell> plato: Thats not strictly correctâ or rather, that mental model causes great confusion with non-standard scripts. E.g. what happens when an output isn't controlled by a single address?
2540 2011-07-17 22:39:02 <plato> these nonstandard scripts scare me
2541 2011-07-17 22:39:13 <plato> sounds like a potential ghost in the machine
2542 2011-07-17 22:39:20 <gim> hehe
2543 2011-07-17 22:39:21 <gmaxwell> ...
2544 2011-07-17 22:39:36 <plato> do you mean for e.g. a pool payout
2545 2011-07-17 22:39:47 <gmaxwell> For example, say I write an output which requires any two of three signatures to spend.
2546 2011-07-17 22:39:49 <let_me_hold_this> What I want to say is that if I craft a transaction giving someone a number of BTC I don't have, bitcoin nodes must invalidate that transaction and stop propagating it.
2547 2011-07-17 22:39:55 <let_me_hold_this> I'm sorry if I don't understand they way you are putting it.
2548 2011-07-17 22:39:58 <let_me_hold_this> I've read the paper btw.
2549 2011-07-17 22:40:02 <gim> those are ghosts that release money against some passphrase...
2550 2011-07-17 22:40:09 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: No, you simply can't write such a transaction.
2551 2011-07-17 22:40:20 noagendamarket has joined
2552 2011-07-17 22:40:29 <plato> let_me_hold_this: I don't know where the check happens but there is a check somewhere
2553 2011-07-17 22:40:52 <let_me_hold_this> gmaxwell: because in the transaction one does not specify a number of BTC, but one specifies a number of previous transactions?
2554 2011-07-17 22:40:54 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: every transaction specifies the id of the previous transaction(s) which is is redeeming in order to make a new transaction.
2555 2011-07-17 22:41:02 <let_me_hold_this> I see.
2556 2011-07-17 22:41:15 <let_me_hold_this> Alright.
2557 2011-07-17 22:41:19 <gmaxwell> Right, for input you don't specify the value. If specify which txn (coins) you are spending.
2558 2011-07-17 22:41:26 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2559 2011-07-17 22:41:53 <let_me_hold_this> Another question, is there a way to pinpoint the IP address of a bitcoin address by noticing how its transactions are propagating in the network?
2560 2011-07-17 22:42:04 <gmaxwell> The inputs have conditions on where/who/when they can be used. This is what keeps other people from redeeming payments to you.
2561 2011-07-17 22:42:15 <let_me_hold_this> I don't think I can detail you an attack of this kind, I'm just brainstorming.
2562 2011-07-17 22:42:22 <BlueMatt> just a recommendation: if anyone sees anyone on the forum comment that they are using anything other than version 0.3.23, please immediately respond in all caps and tell them that they are hurting the network and should please just turn their nodes off instead of running outdated versions
2563 2011-07-17 22:42:28 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: Yes, probabilistically at leastâ with enough effort.
2564 2011-07-17 22:43:36 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: It would be fun to add code to the forum with a list of nodes with version .23 or less, and then display a nasty message to anyone hitting the forums from any of those IPs. ;)
2565 2011-07-17 22:43:45 denisx has joined
2566 2011-07-17 22:43:53 <let_me_hold_this> gmaxwell: I see. How does a bitcoin client that does a txn select the first bitcoin nodes on which it will announce the txn?
2567 2011-07-17 22:44:00 <freewil> if you run bitcoin without mining how does that help the network?
2568 2011-07-17 22:44:07 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: hehe, yea that should be done :)
2569 2011-07-17 22:44:16 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: This is why bitcoin supports running over tor.
2570 2011-07-17 22:44:22 m00p has joined
2571 2011-07-17 22:44:25 <BlueMatt> freewil: if you accept incoming connections and are running on version 0.3.24+ yes
2572 2011-07-17 22:44:28 <let_me_hold_this> gmaxwell: aha
2573 2011-07-17 22:44:37 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: it selects a random subset of the neighbors for fowarding.
2574 2011-07-17 22:44:48 <let_me_hold_this> what do you mean neighbors?
2575 2011-07-17 22:44:50 <BlueMatt> freewil: in fact, as it stands now, just running an 0.3.24 node might very well help the network anyway...
2576 2011-07-17 22:45:05 <gmaxwell> freewil: all bitcoin nodes validate and forward transactions, provide peers with a validate copy of the blockchain, etc.
2577 2011-07-17 22:45:13 <gim> freewil: it helps like in a usual p2p nework
2578 2011-07-17 22:45:18 <let_me_hold_this> Do you mean nodes, or is the bitcoin network splitted in hoods?
2579 2011-07-17 22:45:21 <gmaxwell> let_me_hold_this: other nodes that your node is connect to.
2580 2011-07-17 22:45:41 <freewil> ok
2581 2011-07-17 22:45:51 <let_me_hold_this> Oh, a bitcoin node is always connected to some nodes. Alright, I guess I should get into reading again and stop asking obvious shit here.
2582 2011-07-17 22:45:55 <let_me_hold_this> gmaxwell: thank you very much
2583 2011-07-17 22:46:06 m00p has quit (Client Quit)
2584 2011-07-17 22:47:15 let_me_hold_this has quit (Quit: a)
2585 2011-07-17 22:48:01 stuhood has joined
2586 2011-07-17 22:48:34 stuhood has left ()
2587 2011-07-17 22:48:34 <b4epoche> ah, he left...
2588 2011-07-17 22:49:26 <b4epoche> someone really needs to write a new 'paper' on the implementation. "The paper" leaves a lot of 'how is it actually done' questions unanswered.
2589 2011-07-17 22:50:03 rynx has joined
2590 2011-07-17 22:50:51 <gmaxwell> b4epoche: The first page answers the fact that bitcoin tracks chains of transactions clearly enough.
2591 2011-07-17 22:51:20 <gmaxwell> Really, the implementation details are a distraction when you want to understand how it fundimentally works.
2592 2011-07-17 22:51:33 <b4epoche> yes, I know... and I'm not talking necessarily about his specific questions
2593 2011-07-17 22:51:41 <gmaxwell> Though sure, there should be a _book_ covering the rest of the details.
2594 2011-07-17 22:51:52 <edcba> the paper is theoritical mainly
2595 2011-07-17 22:51:55 <edcba> not technical
2596 2011-07-17 22:51:59 <b4epoche> exactly
2597 2011-07-17 22:52:11 <b4epoche> something in between 'read the paper' and 'look at the code' ;-)
2598 2011-07-17 22:52:17 <gmaxwell> Right but how can you understand it technically when you don't really grasp the theory?
2599 2011-07-17 22:52:41 <b4epoche> gmaxwell: I'm not talking about that fellas questions
2600 2011-07-17 22:52:46 <gmaxwell> Fair enough.
2601 2011-07-17 22:52:50 <edcba> doesn't mean a technical summary isn't needed :)
2602 2011-07-17 22:53:16 <edcba> btw what are bitcoin news
2603 2011-07-17 22:53:28 * edcba didn't read the chan since a lot of time
2604 2011-07-17 22:53:32 <gmaxwell> There is also an unhealty obsession with the bits and bytes of the p2p protocol... which is about the least interesting part of bitcoin.
2605 2011-07-17 22:53:34 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
2606 2011-07-17 22:53:34 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":13.75,"low":13.021,"avg":13.338290948,"vwap":13.34577186,"vol":33009,"last":13.37597,"buy":13.35021,"sell":13.37}}
2607 2011-07-17 22:53:42 <gmaxwell> edcba: I think this channel is mostly about drugs and text editors now.
2608 2011-07-17 22:53:43 <BlueMatt> ;;seen laszlo
2609 2011-07-17 22:53:44 <gribble> I have not seen laszlo.
2610 2011-07-17 22:53:52 <edcba> text editors ?
2611 2011-07-17 22:54:04 <gmaxwell> edcba: Vi vs Emacs vs Pico.
2612 2011-07-17 22:54:08 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2613 2011-07-17 22:54:10 <edcba> lol
2614 2011-07-17 22:54:45 BlueMatt has joined
2615 2011-07-17 22:56:04 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
2616 2011-07-17 23:03:01 conjre has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2617 2011-07-17 23:07:11 Gonzago has joined
2618 2011-07-17 23:08:34 skeledrew has joined
2619 2011-07-17 23:08:36 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2620 2011-07-17 23:09:00 SISUbtcX has quit (Quit: SISUbtcX)
2621 2011-07-17 23:09:26 liltoe has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2622 2011-07-17 23:12:00 liltoe has joined
2623 2011-07-17 23:13:14 zapnap has joined
2624 2011-07-17 23:13:36 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2625 2011-07-17 23:13:38 bittwist is now known as Iranian
2626 2011-07-17 23:13:46 Iranian is now known as bittwist
2627 2011-07-17 23:14:52 gavinandresen has joined
2628 2011-07-17 23:15:39 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: wb
2629 2011-07-17 23:16:09 <gavinandresen> Good morning
2630 2011-07-17 23:16:24 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I PM'd sirius on the forum, since he hasn't responded to email, and hasn't appeared on IRC
2631 2011-07-17 23:17:23 <jgarzik> the baby step of renaming forum.bitcoin.org to forum.bitcointalk.org, in pursuit of the larger "make forum unofficial" goal, may get reduced to a further baby step of simply removing link from www.bitcoin.org front page
2632 2011-07-17 23:17:31 <jgarzik> either remove, or replace with a google search
2633 2011-07-17 23:19:56 ahbritto_ has joined
2634 2011-07-17 23:20:05 <gavinandresen> How about an even smaller first baby step-- replace the link to a google search for "bitcoin forums"
2635 2011-07-17 23:22:39 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: are you able to edit the bitcoin.org home page on sourceforge?
2636 2011-07-17 23:27:12 AStove has quit ()
2637 2011-07-17 23:28:31 freewil has quit (Quit: freewil)
2638 2011-07-17 23:29:13 denisx has joined
2639 2011-07-17 23:30:58 <shLONG> http://bitgambler.sytes.net/ - GAMBING EASY :D
2640 2011-07-17 23:31:22 devon_hillard is now known as meta_metaphysics
2641 2011-07-17 23:31:29 meta_metaphysics is now known as devon_hillard
2642 2011-07-17 23:32:24 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2643 2011-07-17 23:36:52 puhc has joined
2644 2011-07-17 23:37:10 <gmaxwell> How about simply changing the webpage to say "Unofficial forums"
2645 2011-07-17 23:37:19 <gmaxwell> (as a first step)
2646 2011-07-17 23:37:27 ToTameALand has joined
2647 2011-07-17 23:38:04 * BlueMatt has a sneaking suspicion they are discussing this in pm ;)
2648 2011-07-17 23:38:23 <ToTameALand> hello is mtGox API down? Im getting "{"error":"Must be logged in"}" whenever I do queries
2649 2011-07-17 23:38:38 <BlueMatt> ask on #mtgox
2650 2011-07-17 23:38:47 <ToTameALand> ok np
2651 2011-07-17 23:42:42 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2652 2011-07-17 23:43:20 <b4epoche> ToTameALand: I'm having no problem
2653 2011-07-17 23:48:39 <ToTameALand> that makes you the 2nd person who says that, weird, it doesnt work here
2654 2011-07-17 23:48:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yes, able to edit www.bitcoin.org home page
2655 2011-07-17 23:48:52 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: I've been updating it for new versions, as part of the release process
2656 2011-07-17 23:48:59 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: a google search link is definitely doable
2657 2011-07-17 23:49:47 * jgarzik does so...
2658 2011-07-17 23:49:58 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: It'd be nice to version-control the homepage.... I'm looking at github post-receive hooks....
2659 2011-07-17 23:50:12 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: agreed
2660 2011-07-17 23:50:17 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2661 2011-07-17 23:51:06 <BlueMatt> well Id like to see some gitian stuff implemented for long-term auto-updates too, but more on that later...
2662 2011-07-17 23:51:30 <gavinandresen> Has anybody expressed interested in volunteering to be the bitcoin.org webmaster? I know martti was looking for someobody a while ago
2663 2011-07-17 23:51:44 * BlueMatt would be willing to do so...
2664 2011-07-17 23:52:13 <gavinandresen> ... but BlueMatt is going to turn into a pumpkin at the end of the summer, yes?
2665 2011-07-17 23:52:16 <copumpkin> :O
2666 2011-07-17 23:52:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: autoupdates should only be implemented very cautiously to avoid creating arguments that bitcoin is centrally controlled.
2667 2011-07-17 23:52:21 <copumpkin> THAT IS NOT A BAD THING
2668 2011-07-17 23:52:42 <gmaxwell> Ideally the correct autoupdate system would have a time delay during which a number of key holders could veto the update.
2669 2011-07-17 23:53:07 <gmaxwell> (and more ideally there would be more than one widely used client, but we'll probably have autoupdate before that)
2670 2011-07-17 23:53:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: thats the idea behind gitian ;)
2671 2011-07-17 23:53:20 <gavinandresen> Auto-updates of what? Links to nightly build images?
2672 2011-07-17 23:53:25 <BlueMatt> and yes, its a known be-very-careful thing
2673 2011-07-17 23:53:29 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: bitcoin itself
2674 2011-07-17 23:53:34 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: oh! okay. I'll be quite now!
2675 2011-07-17 23:54:03 <gavinandresen> I don't like the idea of auto-updating the "satoshi bitcoin client"
2676 2011-07-17 23:54:24 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: re: end of the summer...I wouldnt say pumpkin, wont have too much time to program, but time to update a website from time to time, yea Im sure Ill have plenty of time to do that at a minimum
2677 2011-07-17 23:54:38 <jgarzik> gavinandresen, BlueMatt, sipa, tcatm: updated the home page. Link testing requested. "Visit the unofficial Bitcoin Forums"
2678 2011-07-17 23:54:39 <b4epoche> what exactly are you meaning by 'auto' updating?
2679 2011-07-17 23:54:54 <b4epoche> no user confirmation?
2680 2011-07-17 23:54:57 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: IMO: auto-notification: ok. auto-update: not ok.
2681 2011-07-17 23:55:08 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: Agreed
2682 2011-07-17 23:55:20 <gmaxwell> In any case, notification should come first.
2683 2011-07-17 23:55:25 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: no, no user confirmations required
2684 2011-07-17 23:55:34 <BlueMatt> yea notification absolutely
2685 2011-07-17 23:55:49 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: RE: updating website: I'd like to put the current home page in a github project, give several people permission to PUSH to it, and have pushes automatically update the live bitcoin.org. I think.
2686 2011-07-17 23:55:54 <b4epoche> yea, not letting user confirm is will not go over well
2687 2011-07-17 23:56:04 <BlueMatt> its still a wip so nothing is in stone...
2688 2011-07-17 23:56:20 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it's still linked most obviously under Resources -> Forum
2689 2011-07-17 23:56:25 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: ahhh....well yes that is a very good idea, that could be done very quickly and easily no?
2690 2011-07-17 23:56:32 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: via the existing bitcoin repo?
2691 2011-07-17 23:57:32 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I think so, but easiest way looks like it would be to move the DNS Yet Again to point to github instead of sourceforge.
2692 2011-07-17 23:57:48 <gmaxwell> b4epoche: I think, an ideal system would do something like "when a signed update is available, fetch it, and then wait 24 hours. If no vetos are recieved notify the user, if the users doesn't NAK it, and no vetos are recieved in 48 hours, update automatically".
2693 2011-07-17 23:58:27 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: gitian works like: if a signed update is available fetch the sigs, if you have x of y sigs signing that update, ask the user, otherwise wait until you have more sigs
2694 2011-07-17 23:58:38 <Zagitta> Something just struck me... For bitcoin to not be centrally controlled but rather by the people using it, wouldn't it require an easier way to modify it than programming? for example what transactions you relay right now is decided by the developers and if you don't agree with them you have to change the source and compile it wich isn'te exactly something for normal people...
2695 2011-07-17 23:58:42 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: yep, and you need a sysadmin then because...?
2696 2011-07-17 23:58:50 <gavinandresen> RE: notification of new version random thought: I wonder if the client could figure out that there's a new version available just be looking at the version(s) of its peers....
2697 2011-07-17 23:59:33 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: then you get questions about what if users are using beta version, alternate clients or a ton of connections from evil peers