1 2011-07-22 00:00:52 ewal has joined
   2 2011-07-22 00:07:04 DukeOfURL has joined
   3 2011-07-22 00:07:29 theorb has joined
   4 2011-07-22 00:07:56 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
   5 2011-07-22 00:07:58 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
   6 2011-07-22 00:08:02 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
   7 2011-07-22 00:09:46 kish has quit (!~rr@unaffiliated/spice|Remote host closed the connection)
   8 2011-07-22 00:13:00 nhodges has joined
   9 2011-07-22 00:15:04 kish has joined
  10 2011-07-22 00:15:05 dacoinminster has joined
  11 2011-07-22 00:15:36 <dacoinminster> Just popping in for a second to ask if you guys think my idea for a pegged-value bitcoin-backed currency is crazy: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=30741.0
  12 2011-07-22 00:15:38 <dacoinminster> I think it could massively increase bitcoin's utility and value
  13 2011-07-22 00:18:34 <dacoinminster> Anybody at least reading the thread?
  14 2011-07-22 00:18:45 eian has quit ()
  15 2011-07-22 00:19:19 <Joric> moi
  16 2011-07-22 00:20:16 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ping
  17 2011-07-22 00:24:25 <dacoinminster> I guess my biggest question is an economic one: How much demand would there be for a value-pegged bitcoin-backed currency?
  18 2011-07-22 00:25:42 <dacoinminster> The protocol changes would be non-trivial, and I'm not sure it is even possible (although I give an example of one way it might be done). But if it attracts the kind of attention and usage I'm imagining, bitcoins values would blast off again.
  19 2011-07-22 00:27:18 <dacoinminster> Or maybe I'm just another crazy forum poster with another crazy *coins idea that will never amount to anything
  20 2011-07-22 00:29:18 <BlueMatt> does someone have a long-running bitcoin node who's debug.log hasnt been purged in a while>
  21 2011-07-22 00:29:20 <BlueMatt> ?
  22 2011-07-22 00:29:55 ewal has quit (otg!~ewal@71-90-88-222.dhcp.ftbg.wi.charter.com|Quit: ewal|otg)
  23 2011-07-22 00:30:00 <gjs278> I route my debug.log to dev null because that thing gets so fucking huge
  24 2011-07-22 00:30:09 curiositysquared has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  25 2011-07-22 00:30:19 <BlueMatt> no shit
  26 2011-07-22 00:31:39 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: semi-pong
  27 2011-07-22 00:31:53 <gmaxwell> and no, my node fitting that description has been down for 24 hours because of power problems.
  28 2011-07-22 00:32:07 <gmaxwell> gjs278: it's autotruncated at 1gb.
  29 2011-07-22 00:32:14 <gmaxwell> (unless you've disabled that code)
  30 2011-07-22 00:32:56 wardearia has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  31 2011-07-22 00:33:10 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I just wanted to ask really quickly, when you were doing the crazy fill-wallet-with-txes testing, you said there was some code which was recursively processing txes, where was that?
  32 2011-07-22 00:33:17 <BlueMatt> that was being really slow
  33 2011-07-22 00:33:32 * BlueMatt is feeling too lazy to look it up
  34 2011-07-22 00:34:03 wardearia has joined
  35 2011-07-22 00:34:16 <Zagitta> BlueMatt, i never purged my debug.log
  36 2011-07-22 00:34:41 <BlueMatt> well my node gave surprisingly good numbers despite having its log purged not too long ago
  37 2011-07-22 00:34:48 <BlueMatt> so, thanks but i got what I needed there
  38 2011-07-22 00:37:53 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  39 2011-07-22 00:38:42 thefinn93 has joined
  40 2011-07-22 00:44:11 thefinn93 has quit (Quit: BAI)
  41 2011-07-22 00:53:50 sacarlson has joined
  42 2011-07-22 00:54:42 Tiraspol has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  43 2011-07-22 00:54:55 dacoinminster has left ()
  44 2011-07-22 00:58:37 moa7 has joined
  45 2011-07-22 00:59:33 Tiraspol has joined
  46 2011-07-22 01:07:32 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  47 2011-07-22 01:11:15 zeropointo has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  48 2011-07-22 01:18:14 SecretSJ has quit (Quit: There's nothing dirtier then a giant ball of oil)
  49 2011-07-22 01:18:37 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  50 2011-07-22 01:18:37 fn0rd has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  51 2011-07-22 01:21:03 fnord0 has joined
  52 2011-07-22 01:21:05 fn0rd has joined
  53 2011-07-22 01:21:17 karnac has joined
  54 2011-07-22 01:22:52 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the IsConfirmed check on your own txn checks to to see if the ultimate !IsMine inputs are confirmed.
  55 2011-07-22 01:23:01 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  56 2011-07-22 01:23:04 zeropointo has joined
  57 2011-07-22 01:23:28 <gmaxwell> And because there is no memoization the common txn pattern of change->change->change->change  does a lot of redundant computation.
  58 2011-07-22 01:25:12 ewal has quit (Quit: ewal)
  59 2011-07-22 01:26:13 skeledrew has joined
  60 2011-07-22 01:26:25 Carandiru has joined
  61 2011-07-22 01:27:34 arthurb has joined
  62 2011-07-22 01:28:16 mmoya has joined
  63 2011-07-22 01:31:27 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
  64 2011-07-22 01:33:32 lolcat has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  65 2011-07-22 01:34:03 lolcat has joined
  66 2011-07-22 01:37:00 ewal has joined
  67 2011-07-22 01:37:31 ewal has quit (otg!~ewal@71-90-88-222.dhcp.ftbg.wi.charter.com|Client Quit)
  68 2011-07-22 01:40:43 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  69 2011-07-22 01:42:49 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: jwsample@gmail.com * r159 /branches/keystore/ (8 files in 4 dirs): Added per account private key encryption to SQLiteKeyStore. ... http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r159/
  70 2011-07-22 01:43:11 gjs278 has joined
  71 2011-07-22 01:44:18 EPiSKiNG- has joined
  72 2011-07-22 01:47:38 devon_hillard has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  73 2011-07-22 01:48:45 Carandiru has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  74 2011-07-22 01:55:24 <b4epoche_> so gmaxwell….
  75 2011-07-22 01:56:17 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  76 2011-07-22 01:56:43 copumpkin has joined
  77 2011-07-22 01:57:04 Teslah has joined
  78 2011-07-22 01:57:11 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
  79 2011-07-22 01:58:21 amiller has joined
  80 2011-07-22 02:01:47 gyver has joined
  81 2011-07-22 02:08:01 cypher5001 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  82 2011-07-22 02:09:30 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * r643160f / src/main.cpp : Actually use mapAlreadyAskedFor. ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/643160f6e7e5e8ca84bc7d2c1a0f37d9cf43a6e1
  83 2011-07-22 02:09:30 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik master * rc2da353 / src/main.cpp : Merge pull request #423 from TheBlueMatt/mapalreadyaskedforfix ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c2da35319d7d9c2a28a2299d09176a0459cf7e00
  84 2011-07-22 02:10:47 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  85 2011-07-22 02:12:37 blueadept has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  86 2011-07-22 02:12:49 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Yes?
  87 2011-07-22 02:13:13 <b4epoche_> JSTOR?  PRSL?
  88 2011-07-22 02:15:26 JackStorm has joined
  89 2011-07-22 02:20:40 agricocb has joined
  90 2011-07-22 02:21:27 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  91 2011-07-22 02:22:51 cuqaa has joined
  92 2011-07-22 02:23:30 JackStorm has left ()
  93 2011-07-22 02:25:28 JackStorm has joined
  94 2011-07-22 02:26:20 cuqa has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
  95 2011-07-22 02:26:42 Teslah has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  96 2011-07-22 02:30:35 Joric has joined
  97 2011-07-22 02:32:20 <Joric> how to merge a whole bunch of tiny-commits into the one feature? it looks ridiculous for now
  98 2011-07-22 02:33:30 <Joric> it's not a mainstream bitcoin client, don't worry :)
  99 2011-07-22 02:33:35 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin-Test build #12: STILL FAILING in 11 sec: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin-Test/12/
 100 2011-07-22 02:33:35 <BlueMattBot> matt: Actually use mapAlreadyAskedFor.
 101 2011-07-22 02:33:50 <coderrr> Joric, git rebase -i ?
 102 2011-07-22 02:34:23 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 103 2011-07-22 02:35:31 <coderrr> or maybe just git reset up to the commit u want and then recommit everything in one commit
 104 2011-07-22 02:35:59 <Joric> yeah that probably will do the trick
 105 2011-07-22 02:36:43 <Joric> it's really bad for now, a shitpile of commits adding or removing a single line
 106 2011-07-22 02:48:17 cypher5001 has joined
 107 2011-07-22 02:49:40 <gmaxwell> "Seemingly in solidarity with Swartz, someone called Gregory Maxwell has uploaded to 33 GB of journal articles"  I wonder if the journalists would be more likely to believe my name if I called myself Satoshi Nakamoto.
 108 2011-07-22 02:51:00 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 109 2011-07-22 02:51:12 TheSeven has joined
 110 2011-07-22 02:53:37 <coderrr> hah
 111 2011-07-22 02:54:14 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 112 2011-07-22 02:58:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: lol, ya i saw that too
 113 2011-07-22 03:00:09 <nanotube> gmaxwell: what's that stuff about 33gb of journal articles?
 114 2011-07-22 03:00:48 Joric has quit ()
 115 2011-07-22 03:01:15 <gmaxwell> nanotube: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331
 116 2011-07-22 03:02:04 freakazoid has joined
 117 2011-07-22 03:02:25 <nanotube> gmaxwell: oh nice
 118 2011-07-22 03:02:56 <jrmithdobbs> haha, i've been harassing way too many people lately
 119 2011-07-22 03:03:08 <jrmithdobbs> safari has finally added pastebin.com to my Top Sites
 120 2011-07-22 03:03:17 <jrmithdobbs> chrome too
 121 2011-07-22 03:05:07 <b4epoche_> seriously, gmaxwell, what got you upset enough to risk doing that?
 122 2011-07-22 03:08:53 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 123 2011-07-22 03:09:17 DukeOfURL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 124 2011-07-22 03:10:54 ewal-otg has joined
 125 2011-07-22 03:19:43 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 126 2011-07-22 03:22:03 gjs278 has joined
 127 2011-07-22 03:23:20 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 128 2011-07-22 03:25:23 jimon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 129 2011-07-22 03:26:00 gjs278 has joined
 130 2011-07-22 03:29:26 jimon has joined
 131 2011-07-22 03:31:53 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 132 2011-07-22 03:33:42 lolcat has quit (Changing host)
 133 2011-07-22 03:33:42 lolcat has joined
 134 2011-07-22 03:34:20 Joric has joined
 135 2011-07-22 03:36:48 <copumpkin> gmaxwell++
 136 2011-07-22 03:40:00 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: hey what's a damned headless bt client that does the dht stuff so i can put this on a box with bandwidth
 137 2011-07-22 03:40:24 <b4epoche_> so, the copyright's had expired on these?
 138 2011-07-22 03:41:18 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: rtorrent.
 139 2011-07-22 03:42:16 <b4epoche_> is it PTRS or PRSL that has stuff online from like 1800?
 140 2011-07-22 03:42:25 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Yes, though in the past varrious parties have claimed that scanning something makes a copyrightable work. This is so obviously untrue under US law at this point that it's a joke, but many large instutions still claim it.
 141 2011-07-22 03:42:34 accel has joined
 142 2011-07-22 03:42:47 <accel> anyone has great wisdom to share?
 143 2011-07-22 03:43:01 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: is your identity easily traceable? do you except JSTOR to track you down and sue you?
 144 2011-07-22 03:43:10 <copumpkin> you didn't exactly try very hard to mask your name :)
 145 2011-07-22 03:43:18 <gmaxwell> PTRS has about 100 documents online: http://trailblazing.royalsociety.org/?p=1
 146 2011-07-22 03:43:41 <accel> dumb queston: if someone is stealing documents to torrent
 147 2011-07-22 03:43:53 <b4epoche_> about three years ago the CIC (the Big Ten schools and UChicago) came up with a 'copyright' addendum to include when you submit the paperwork for a paper to be published
 148 2011-07-22 03:43:56 <accel> why is it academicjournals, and not porn?
 149 2011-07-22 03:44:10 <IO-> very good question
 150 2011-07-22 03:44:24 <b4epoche_> that got debated and debated, and eventually the faculty senate decided not to endorse it.  pussies.
 151 2011-07-22 03:44:29 <gmaxwell> Because you can already get all the porn you'll ever need very easily?
 152 2011-07-22 03:44:39 leroux has joined
 153 2011-07-22 03:44:45 leroux has left ()
 154 2011-07-22 03:44:51 <IO-> ya but i can't rsync porn yet :(
 155 2011-07-22 03:44:59 <IO-> there's still avenues to explore
 156 2011-07-22 03:45:04 <b4epoche_> and porn actors get paid
 157 2011-07-22 03:45:52 <nhodges> why can't you rsync porn
 158 2011-07-22 03:46:15 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: of course it's easily traceable. They're welcome to try. I am hoping they do not, but I intend to win if they do. If they fail or fail to try it will embolden other people. I don't think it would have been as politically powerful if I'd published anonymously.
 159 2011-07-22 03:46:41 <copumpkin> very ballsy, and I hope you succeed
 160 2011-07-22 03:46:44 <IO-> i need rsync share's of porn
 161 2011-07-22 03:46:46 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: also, sharing >30GB of data anonymously is actually really hard.
 162 2011-07-22 03:46:47 <IO-> mass
 163 2011-07-22 03:46:47 <b4epoche_> +1
 164 2011-07-22 03:47:13 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: cowardly academics everywhere are silently cheering for you
 165 2011-07-22 03:47:17 <copumpkin> :)
 166 2011-07-22 03:47:23 <b4epoche_> hear, hear
 167 2011-07-22 03:47:27 <gmaxwell> copumpkin: and not that silently, I've had hundreds of emails.
 168 2011-07-22 03:47:35 * b4epoche_ cowers back...
 169 2011-07-22 03:47:49 <gmaxwell> And there are some excellent posts on the news articles.
 170 2011-07-22 03:47:51 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: I hope more of them write publicly about it
 171 2011-07-22 03:48:04 <copumpkin> I just tweeted about it, which isn't much :P
 172 2011-07-22 03:48:55 <b4epoche_> but you have to realize most academics are just interested in advancing their careers…
 173 2011-07-22 03:49:23 <b4epoche_> I know people that are all excited to get in bed with Elsevier and start a new general
 174 2011-07-22 03:49:25 <vragnaroda> s/academics/people/
 175 2011-07-22 03:49:47 <gmaxwell> ya, thats everyone. But also it's not "just interested" ... it's "foremost interested".
 176 2011-07-22 03:49:54 <b4epoche_> true, but academics are not really much more noble than 'people'
 177 2011-07-22 03:50:03 <copumpkin> or at all :)
 178 2011-07-22 03:50:20 <copumpkin> it attracts lots of pretty average people, in my experience
 179 2011-07-22 03:50:31 * b4epoche_ has resigned himself to retire as an associate professor
 180 2011-07-22 03:50:55 <b4epoche_> my department head about flipped when I said that
 181 2011-07-22 03:51:05 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
 182 2011-07-22 03:51:16 <b4epoche_> she's all about advancing her career and can't understand why it means nothing to me
 183 2011-07-22 03:51:18 <vragnaroda> well, that is pretty pathetic
 184 2011-07-22 03:51:39 ewal-otg has joined
 185 2011-07-22 03:51:56 <copumpkin> b4epoche_: dude, you should be striving to be The John Smith Professor Of Awesomeness
 186 2011-07-22 03:52:03 <copumpkin> or some other endowed professorship
 187 2011-07-22 03:52:42 * b4epoche_ is the Director of ISIT, the Institute for the Study of Interesting Things
 188 2011-07-22 03:52:49 <copumpkin> oh excellent
 189 2011-07-22 03:52:57 <b4epoche_> hmm…  maybe I should make it IS^2
 190 2011-07-22 03:55:29 <b4epoche_> a very smart colleague told me one time that you consider what you do either a job, a career, or a calling
 191 2011-07-22 03:55:43 <b4epoche_> unfortunately most professors fall into the career category
 192 2011-07-22 04:00:32 somuchfail2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 193 2011-07-22 04:00:56 somuchfail has joined
 194 2011-07-22 04:01:30 <b4epoche_> for my take:  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1041468/Description.pdf
 195 2011-07-22 04:02:01 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
 196 2011-07-22 04:03:29 <b4epoche_> see also:  http://imechanica.org/blog/1075
 197 2011-07-22 04:03:34 wirehead has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 198 2011-07-22 04:04:00 <Joric> i see you've merged a plenty of pull requests today
 199 2011-07-22 04:04:48 wirehead has joined
 200 2011-07-22 04:05:44 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 201 2011-07-22 04:06:52 Clipse has joined
 202 2011-07-22 04:08:53 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche_: you know dropbox has backdoor keys to decrypt your data rite? just sayin
 203 2011-07-22 04:09:06 * b4epoche_ doesn't care
 204 2011-07-22 04:11:51 <copumpkin> even before that information leaked out
 205 2011-07-22 04:12:03 <copumpkin> I was encrypting anything I cared about them not seeing before putting it on there
 206 2011-07-22 04:12:08 wolfspraul has joined
 207 2011-07-22 04:12:27 <upb> well it was obvious anyway since they de-dupe the data
 208 2011-07-22 04:12:29 <copumpkin> it's kind of dumb to take a third party's word about something like that, even if it's a hip and cool company
 209 2011-07-22 04:12:36 <copumpkin> upb: they didn't start doing that for a while though
 210 2011-07-22 04:12:40 <upb> oh
 211 2011-07-22 04:12:51 <copumpkin> at least, I don't remember seeing it in the earlier days
 212 2011-07-22 04:12:59 <copumpkin> even with what I'm sure were pretty common files
 213 2011-07-22 04:14:02 <b4epoche_> yea, it's amazing how quickly those iOS5 dev releases upload, eh?
 214 2011-07-22 04:15:40 <copumpkin> :P
 215 2011-07-22 04:16:51 <upb> lol
 216 2011-07-22 04:17:03 <Joric> is there any iphone bitcoin client that supports qr codes?
 217 2011-07-22 04:17:19 accel has quit (Quit: leaving)
 218 2011-07-22 04:18:19 <copumpkin> I don't think there's any iphone bitcoin client
 219 2011-07-22 04:18:21 <copumpkin> at all
 220 2011-07-22 04:18:26 <copumpkin> is there?
 221 2011-07-22 04:18:33 <copumpkin> or did the rejected one end up on cydia?
 222 2011-07-22 04:18:49 <Joric> nope just useless chart watchers
 223 2011-07-22 04:19:56 * b4epoche_ is working to fix that
 224 2011-07-22 04:20:23 <Joric> i used to be an iphone developer in 2008-2011 don't really like it though, it's pretty inconvenient
 225 2011-07-22 04:21:51 <Joric> not quite sure how to port it, official client weights a ton and eats a ton of traffic
 226 2011-07-22 04:22:25 <Joric> android uses bitcoinj afaik
 227 2011-07-22 04:23:01 <Joric> heard it doesn't download a whole blockchain
 228 2011-07-22 04:24:22 <copumpkin> I'd be quite happy to have it be a remote interface to a real client running on my home computer
 229 2011-07-22 04:24:25 <copumpkin> or something along those lines
 230 2011-07-22 04:24:34 <copumpkin> I don't really want my actual wallet on a mobile device anyway
 231 2011-07-22 04:24:43 The_SLain_MAn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 232 2011-07-22 04:24:44 <b4epoche_> I don't see the issue with downloading the whole block chain.
 233 2011-07-22 04:25:13 <b4epoche_> there are plenty of games that use twice as much space.
 234 2011-07-22 04:25:34 <b4epoche_> and don't most 'magazines' weigh in at like 0.5 GB?
 235 2011-07-22 04:25:46 <copumpkin> I'd expect so
 236 2011-07-22 04:26:42 <Joric> iphone thread http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17626.0
 237 2011-07-22 04:26:53 * b4epoche_ had better get to bed…  night all, and way to go gmaxwell 
 238 2011-07-22 04:27:50 <b4epoche_> btw, that entire 'reject for using alternative currencies' has got to be crap…
 239 2011-07-22 04:27:53 Zagitta has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 240 2011-07-22 04:28:50 <copumpkin> yeah
 241 2011-07-22 04:28:52 * b4epoche_ thinks the real reason is because the dev was trying to run bitcoind in the background
 242 2011-07-22 04:30:07 <Joric> wat?
 243 2011-07-22 04:30:40 <Joric> oh well ios5 has 'backround tasks' now, right
 244 2011-07-22 04:30:58 noagendamarket has joined
 245 2011-07-22 04:31:31 <Joric> since ios4 even if i remember right
 246 2011-07-22 04:32:27 <jrmithdobbs> not really
 247 2011-07-22 04:32:30 <jrmithdobbs> kind of
 248 2011-07-22 04:32:51 <Joric> well downloading blocks in the backround shouldnt be a problem
 249 2011-07-22 04:33:38 amiller has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 250 2011-07-22 04:33:56 <Joric> atleast it's possible to keep tcp connection alive
 251 2011-07-22 04:38:20 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 252 2011-07-22 04:38:43 <lfm> do you have unlimited data?
 253 2011-07-22 04:39:10 <lfm> on your phone?
 254 2011-07-22 04:40:14 <Joric> i pay 25c per MB
 255 2011-07-22 04:40:40 Incitatus has joined
 256 2011-07-22 04:41:00 <Joric> luckily i'm not using gprs connection much
 257 2011-07-22 04:42:44 <lfm> so you wouldnt want live btc on your phone
 258 2011-07-22 04:43:31 <lfm> itd be like a mb every hour
 259 2011-07-22 04:45:21 <jrmithdobbs> netatalk 2.2.0-p6 liberated from it's closed source ransom
 260 2011-07-22 04:45:23 <jrmithdobbs> https://github.com/jrmithdobbs/netatalk-2-2-0-p6
 261 2011-07-22 04:45:37 <jrmithdobbs> (works with lion time machine)
 262 2011-07-22 04:49:00 <moa7> +1 gmaxwell on JSTOR upload ... bittorrent is for grown-ups to!
 263 2011-07-22 04:49:16 accel has joined
 264 2011-07-22 04:49:19 accel has quit (Quit: leaving)
 265 2011-07-22 04:52:18 theymos has joined
 266 2011-07-22 04:52:30 TheZimm has joined
 267 2011-07-22 04:53:40 RobinPKR_ has joined
 268 2011-07-22 04:53:59 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 269 2011-07-22 04:53:59 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 270 2011-07-22 04:55:52 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 271 2011-07-22 04:57:54 freewil is now known as freewil`away
 272 2011-07-22 04:58:44 Folklore has joined
 273 2011-07-22 05:03:05 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 274 2011-07-22 05:03:52 Incitatus has joined
 275 2011-07-22 05:06:23 <lfm> can you restrict an app to wifi only, never to use cell data link(is it called gprs or something)
 276 2011-07-22 05:09:32 <Joric> you may turn it off in the menu
 277 2011-07-22 05:10:13 <lfm> joric thats for all apps tho?
 278 2011-07-22 05:10:38 <lfm> or not?
 279 2011-07-22 05:11:14 <lfm> and which phone is that?
 280 2011-07-22 05:11:55 <Joric> any iphone allows turing cell data off, in the options
 281 2011-07-22 05:12:17 <lfm> for each app individually or for the whole phone?
 282 2011-07-22 05:12:44 <Joric> for the whole phone, not sure about a specific api for that
 283 2011-07-22 05:12:53 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 284 2011-07-22 05:13:48 nus has joined
 285 2011-07-22 05:14:37 <lfm> cuz if bitcoin was in the background and only updating the block chain when it could get a free connect, that would be ok.
 286 2011-07-22 05:15:14 <lfm> so long as it fit in memory
 287 2011-07-22 05:20:06 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: too cool for #haskell-blah?
 288 2011-07-22 05:22:19 <gmaxwell> 227 irssi windows too many. :-/
 289 2011-07-22 05:23:15 <copumpkin> oh man
 290 2011-07-22 05:23:23 <jrmithdobbs> lol
 291 2011-07-22 05:23:26 <Joric> whoa it's like a real life matrix
 292 2011-07-22 05:23:45 amiller has joined
 293 2011-07-22 05:24:41 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 294 2011-07-22 05:25:44 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: what happened with net-atalk?
 295 2011-07-22 05:25:47 * jgarzik used to use that
 296 2011-07-22 05:26:38 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: current maintainer was holding the updates that makes it work with 10.7's timemachine ransom to try and force oem nas manufacturers to buy support from his company
 297 2011-07-22 05:26:43 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 298 2011-07-22 05:26:44 <jrmithdobbs> even though it is gplv2
 299 2011-07-22 05:27:08 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: see: http://www.netafp.com/open-letter-to-the-netatalk-community-501/
 300 2011-07-22 05:27:14 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: what is a "10.7's timemachine ransom"?
 301 2011-07-22 05:28:12 RazielZ has joined
 302 2011-07-22 05:28:28 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: 10.7 == tiger == new OS X released yesterday
 303 2011-07-22 05:28:43 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: he was holding the code updates that made netatalk work with time machine (apple's backup stuff) ransom
 304 2011-07-22 05:28:51 <vragnaroda> jrmithdobbs: no
 305 2011-07-22 05:28:55 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 306 2011-07-22 05:29:01 <jrmithdobbs> err s/tiger/lion/
 307 2011-07-22 05:29:06 theymos has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 308 2011-07-22 05:29:18 <vragnaroda> yeah, tiger was released in 2005
 309 2011-07-22 05:29:40 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: apple broke using timemachine with nfs/cifs by adding a ioctl() in backupd (the timemachine process) that only works on afp shares
 310 2011-07-22 05:30:00 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: so until this noone using 10.7 could backup to anything but apple-supplied devices
 311 2011-07-22 05:30:04 zeropointo has quit (Quit: leaving)
 312 2011-07-22 05:30:38 <jrmithdobbs> because the available version of netatalk did not quite have a functioning afp3.3 implementation which is required for time machine to function now on afp now
 313 2011-07-22 05:30:48 <jrmithdobbs> s/now//
 314 2011-07-22 05:31:44 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: I looked at your determinent wallet idea, I think it is provably safe. You can prove it's security by simplifying it. Suppose instead of a PRNG you use a counter, privateKey_n = privateKey + n, publicKey_n = publicKey + n * point. The security of generating public keys is trivial to prove since you should never be able to derive the private key from only the public. The security of making multiple signatures with sequencial
 315 2011-07-22 05:32:08 Tim-7967 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 316 2011-07-22 05:32:32 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: this was cc'ed to gpl-violations@gnu.org and the netgear opensource@ addresses is what changed his mind
 317 2011-07-22 05:32:38 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=27835003
 318 2011-07-22 05:33:12 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: yes, _except_ if there is a weakness in ECDSA you could exploit a known relationship between private keys used to sign messages.
 319 2011-07-22 05:33:35 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: no— no such weakness is known to exist, none seems likely, but it also doesn't seem likely that there will be a proof that one doesn't exist.
 320 2011-07-22 05:33:50 <iddo> cjdelisle: why use non-random counter, that's much worse than PRNG, no?
 321 2011-07-22 05:33:57 <gmaxwell> Well other than the obvious ones.
 322 2011-07-22 05:34:06 <gmaxwell> It makes a proof simpler.
 323 2011-07-22 05:34:15 <iddo> cjdelisle: it's not provably secure
 324 2011-07-22 05:34:25 <gmaxwell> (and makes it clear that the security doesn't come from the hash function)
 325 2011-07-22 05:34:26 <cjdelisle> How is that?
 326 2011-07-22 05:34:52 <AndyBr> wow, these people love to write long letters
 327 2011-07-22 05:35:01 <cjdelisle> Is there a way it could be insecure even if every assumption I gave is still correct?
 328 2011-07-22 05:35:33 <iddo> cjdelisle: your long msg was cut at the end?
 329 2011-07-22 05:35:53 <cjdelisle> It ended with this: The security of making multiple  signatures with sequencial keys is secure if making multiple signatures with the same key is secure.
 330 2011-07-22 05:36:22 <iddo> but you're not signing with same key, you're signing with related keys
 331 2011-07-22 05:36:25 <cjdelisle> That is something I would have to give some thought to proving but I think it could be done.
 332 2011-07-22 05:36:43 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: try for the case where one key is the multiplicate inverse of another key.
 333 2011-07-22 05:36:47 <iddo> alas it cannot be done, no free lunch... :(
 334 2011-07-22 05:37:28 <iddo> there's now famous related key attack on aes256
 335 2011-07-22 05:37:49 <cjdelisle> Yea, AES is fortunately not much like ECDSA.
 336 2011-07-22 05:37:51 Incitatus has joined
 337 2011-07-22 05:38:04 <cjdelisle> I think that it comes down to "if m is really a random number"
 338 2011-07-22 05:38:43 <iddo> signing multiple msgs with same key is secure (using standard assumptions like factoring or discrete log hardness), signing with related keys is shaky
 339 2011-07-22 05:39:21 <cjdelisle> Of course, that's because I have not written any proof :)
 340 2011-07-22 05:39:55 <iddo> you shouldnt expect to be able to generate related public keys for free, without any security implications... no free lunch
 341 2011-07-22 05:40:16 <lfm> you can use one way hashes to isolate them
 342 2011-07-22 05:40:23 <gmaxwell> Well, they aren't related if H() is a random oracle.
 343 2011-07-22 05:40:52 <iddo> ECDSA has much more 'structure' than AES, so in terms of security the situation here could be even worse
 344 2011-07-22 05:41:18 <gmaxwell> I always required the assumption that H() was secure, ideally it would be provable without that assumption, but I agree with iddo that that probably isn't possible.
 345 2011-07-22 05:41:29 <cjdelisle> This reliance on the hash disturbs me. Hashes are by their nature a strange beast, they don't take well to proving. IMO if it's not safe for a counter it's not safe for a hash.
 346 2011-07-22 05:41:51 <lfm> well rsa isnt proved either
 347 2011-07-22 05:42:14 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 348 2011-07-22 05:42:34 <cjdelisle> RSA is hard because it boils down to discrete periodic functions and people don't know how to algbraicly solve for sine waves very well.
 349 2011-07-22 05:42:50 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: there are a lot of security protocols that require the hash to be a random oracle.
 350 2011-07-22 05:43:06 <iddo> cjdelisle: in practice hash sounds much more safe than counter, any non-random quirks of H() that could be exploited in theory might be very hard in practice
 351 2011-07-22 05:43:10 <lfm> in fact I dont think anything except a one time pad has any proof of security
 352 2011-07-22 05:43:12 Incitatus has joined
 353 2011-07-22 05:43:44 <gmaxwell> lfm: oh thats not so, there are lots of proofs that just depend on particular assumptions.
 354 2011-07-22 05:44:03 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 355 2011-07-22 05:44:08 rethaw has joined
 356 2011-07-22 05:44:14 <lfm> ya depend on unproven assumtions like factoring is np hard and stuff
 357 2011-07-22 05:44:20 <cjdelisle> I totally agree re the hash in practice. If for no other reason because confidentality (public keys not all being one point apart) depends on it.
 358 2011-07-22 05:44:22 <gmaxwell> like H() is a random oracle, or that H() is collision resistant. (ECDSA's security depends on the latter)
 359 2011-07-22 05:45:07 <gmaxwell> The funny thing is that the "provably secure" hash fucntions have mostly turned out to be insecure. :)
 360 2011-07-22 05:46:36 <cjdelisle> With hashes and ciphers, it's difficult to nail down exactly what makes them hard to break.
 361 2011-07-22 05:46:37 <iddo> the provably secure hash functions are secure against collisions i think? it wouldnt help for a proof here
 362 2011-07-22 05:47:10 <lfm> what you need is provably irreversable
 363 2011-07-22 05:47:39 <iddo> i dont think thats what you need either....
 364 2011-07-22 05:48:31 <iddo> you need random behavior, which obviously you cannot prove because it's not random
 365 2011-07-22 05:48:32 <lfm> the one way nature is the main point. collisions are unavoidable
 366 2011-07-22 05:48:59 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 367 2011-07-22 05:49:01 <gmaxwell> It's provable if you assume the hash is a random oracle. But yea, the hash isn't.
 368 2011-07-22 05:49:17 <iddo> i dont see how resistance to preimage attacks can help to prove anything here
 369 2011-07-22 05:49:19 Incitatus has joined
 370 2011-07-22 05:49:36 <gmaxwell> Since we don't really have an attack in mind against ECDSA is hard to say the property we need.
 371 2011-07-22 05:51:47 <iddo> btw i raised this issue because i say it on bitcoin show on youtube, the guy who made the short bitcoin movie took it as a done deal that deterministic wallet is obviously good idea for his smartphones implementation etc.
 372 2011-07-22 05:51:47 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 373 2011-07-22 05:52:09 <lfm> then theres stuf like man in the middle which is kinda like subverting the assumptions.
 374 2011-07-22 05:53:57 <iddo> the disclaimer should be that (a) it's not provably as secure as single instance of ECDSA, and (b) if you break it at some point, then all the next keys might be easily broken
 375 2011-07-22 05:53:58 Incitatus has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 376 2011-07-22 05:54:22 <lfm> iddo ya deterministic wallet just relies on the same hash functions we are already relying on for the main bitcoin blocks and txn
 377 2011-07-22 05:54:51 <iddo> but not relying on it in the same way
 378 2011-07-22 05:55:24 <cjdelisle> if it's not provably as secure as single instance of ECDSA then it should not be available or there should be a loud warning to the user before they use it.
 379 2011-07-22 05:55:31 <iddo> bitcoin relies on hardness of (partial) preimage attack on random block data
 380 2011-07-22 05:55:42 wardearia has joined
 381 2011-07-22 05:56:20 <lfm> Im not sure what (partial) preimage attacks are.
 382 2011-07-22 05:56:46 <cjdelisle> getting lots of 0000 at the beginning of a sha256 hash
 383 2011-07-22 05:56:54 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: there are all kinds of things which can't be proven to be as secure.
 384 2011-07-22 05:57:08 <iddo> i just meant you dont need to find preimage which is all 0s, just partial according to current difficulty
 385 2011-07-22 05:57:11 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: For example, a single bitflip during signing can prettymuch disclose your private key.
 386 2011-07-22 05:57:37 MC-Eeepc has joined
 387 2011-07-22 05:57:38 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 388 2011-07-22 05:57:44 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: so should bitcoin validate every signature attempt 50 times because thats (provably, in fact) more secure than only validating it twice?
 389 2011-07-22 05:58:40 <iddo> lfm: here the assumption is more shaky compared to bitcoin sha256, you assume that signing multiple TXs with related keys that are different from one another by hash function that could have non-random quirks cannot be exploited
 390 2011-07-22 05:58:52 <gmaxwell> The message signing functionality will expose users to signing message text which is _completely_ chosen by an attacker. Should that get a big warning?
 391 2011-07-22 05:58:59 <cjdelisle> I don't care about "provably more secure" I only care that people aren't being shipped software which uses "roll your own" cryptography. Even if it's on the back of a napkin there shoulf be *some* kind of paper written on this first.
 392 2011-07-22 05:59:00 <TuxBlackEdo> wut
 393 2011-07-22 05:59:06 <TuxBlackEdo> *lol*
 394 2011-07-22 05:59:12 <TuxBlackEdo> _lol+
 395 2011-07-22 05:59:15 <TuxBlackEdo> _lol_
 396 2011-07-22 05:59:16 <TuxBlackEdo> oh
 397 2011-07-22 05:59:19 <TuxBlackEdo> thats cool
 398 2011-07-22 05:59:25 <TuxBlackEdo> i didn't know my irc client did that
 399 2011-07-22 05:59:26 <gmaxwell> Even though if an attacker can perform a preimage attack he can spend all your money?
 400 2011-07-22 05:59:41 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: who's being shipped anything?
 401 2011-07-22 06:00:01 <iddo> gmaxwell: is there article about specific bug attack on ECDSA ?
 402 2011-07-22 06:00:14 <cjdelisle> Oh, I thought you wanted the deterministic wallet to end up in trunk. You don't?
 403 2011-07-22 06:00:18 <gmaxwell> We do have professional cryptographers on the forums, I commented on it precisely so they could sound alarms before I went further.
 404 2011-07-22 06:00:19 <lfm> gmaxwell: any message signing should add timestamps and random bits to the message to be signed.
 405 2011-07-22 06:00:22 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: _someday_
 406 2011-07-22 06:00:39 <gmaxwell> lfm: I proposed that, and bytecoin really didn't like that.
 407 2011-07-22 06:00:55 <lfm> their loss
 408 2011-07-22 06:01:08 <gmaxwell> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6428.msg283958#msg283958
 409 2011-07-22 06:01:27 Snapman has joined
 410 2011-07-22 06:01:49 <cjdelisle> I myself am all for it, it's just that without some attempt at a paper, tinkering with crypto algorithms is a bad joke and it will be taken that way.
 411 2011-07-22 06:02:20 * copumpkin is reminded of the "do you have a flag" sketch
 412 2011-07-22 06:02:22 <TuxBlackEdo> how do we make namecoin be able to tell us how many getworks are being pulled per minute (lets say_
 413 2011-07-22 06:02:26 <luke-jr> [01:55:04] <gmaxwell> The message signing functionality will expose users to signing message text which is _completely_ chosen by an attacker. Should that get a big warning? <-- false
 414 2011-07-22 06:02:26 <TuxBlackEdo> i mean
 415 2011-07-22 06:02:27 <TuxBlackEdo> bitcoin
 416 2011-07-22 06:02:58 <Joric> http://jcryptool.sourceforge.net/JCrypTool/Home.html elliptic curve cryptography visualization
 417 2011-07-22 06:02:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: What input to the signing message is unknown to the attacker?
 418 2011-07-22 06:03:15 <TuxBlackEdo> how can i tell how many getworks (or better yet hash/sec) my bitcoind is doing (with all my miners connected)?
 419 2011-07-22 06:03:15 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: unknown or unchosen?
 420 2011-07-22 06:03:22 <Joric> want to try visualizing keys i have, just for fun
 421 2011-07-22 06:03:32 <TuxBlackEdo> totalhash/sec says 0 even though its generating blocks
 422 2011-07-22 06:03:48 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 423 2011-07-22 06:03:50 Beccara_ has joined
 424 2011-07-22 06:03:54 <lfm> TuxBlackEdo: is it an external miner program?
 425 2011-07-22 06:04:20 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah I use external miners, I was just wondering how to get bitcoind to tell me the totalhash/sec
 426 2011-07-22 06:04:24 <TuxBlackEdo> or do i need pushpool?
 427 2011-07-22 06:04:26 wardearia has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 428 2011-07-22 06:04:30 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: it can't.
 429 2011-07-22 06:04:30 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: It really needs to have unknown. Because since the input is hashed, if there is unchosen then they can "simply" (assuming hash weaknesses) search for a chosen part that makes it do what they want.
 430 2011-07-22 06:04:33 <lfm> TuxBlackEdo: the totalhash/sec is only ofr internal hashing
 431 2011-07-22 06:04:43 wardearia has joined
 432 2011-07-22 06:04:45 <TuxBlackEdo> well
 433 2011-07-22 06:04:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: E.g. consider security if our hash was MD5 instead.
 434 2011-07-22 06:04:57 <TuxBlackEdo> if i ran verbose mode i could see how many getworks per minute its getting, right?
 435 2011-07-22 06:05:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if SHA256 is broken, bitcoin is already dead
 436 2011-07-22 06:05:15 peck has joined
 437 2011-07-22 06:05:20 <cjdelisle> http://www.tarsnap.com/scrypt.html <-- This is a perfect example of someone who wanted to make up his own hash and so he wrote a paper on it. He's not an academic but he put it on paper first and that's what is important.
 438 2011-07-22 06:05:32 <lfm> TuxBlackEdo: maybe, depends on version. prolly pushpool stats are your vbest bet.
 439 2011-07-22 06:05:32 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: not so, it depends on how it's broken.
 440 2011-07-22 06:05:37 <TuxBlackEdo> and if i know how many getworks it is pulling per minute, i should be able to calculate total hash/sec externally?
 441 2011-07-22 06:05:55 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: no
 442 2011-07-22 06:06:05 <TuxBlackEdo> how does pushpool get this information? through getwork counting?
 443 2011-07-22 06:06:10 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: it doesn't
 444 2011-07-22 06:06:14 <TuxBlackEdo> how?
 445 2011-07-22 06:06:22 <lfm> TuxBlackEdo: you cant really tell how much work is done on a single getwork.
 446 2011-07-22 06:06:27 <luke-jr> pushpool has no idea what the hashrate is
 447 2011-07-22 06:06:42 <luke-jr> usually your miner sw tells you
 448 2011-07-22 06:06:45 <TuxBlackEdo> how come i can see how fast my miners are going on a pool but i cant when i solo
 449 2011-07-22 06:06:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: in any case, see my post I stated the case there. The fact that an attacker knows all the inputs lets them choose messages whos hashes have certian properties. I don't like that, but I admit it's just a theoretical risk.
 450 2011-07-22 06:06:58 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: pools estimate based on shares you submit
 451 2011-07-22 06:07:05 osmosis has joined
 452 2011-07-22 06:07:07 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: solo doesn't have shares
 453 2011-07-22 06:07:08 Beccara has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 454 2011-07-22 06:07:17 <TuxBlackEdo> oh you are right, that makes sense
 455 2011-07-22 06:08:13 <TuxBlackEdo> so i have to run pushpool and make all my miners work on 1 difficulty blocks
 456 2011-07-22 06:08:52 <TuxBlackEdo> hmm
 457 2011-07-22 06:09:01 <iddo> gmaxwell: which article is about single bit-flip attack on ECDSA ?
 458 2011-07-22 06:09:28 <iddo> the article linked in forum you mentioned seems more general
 459 2011-07-22 06:09:31 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: or just join a pool
 460 2011-07-22 06:09:34 <TuxBlackEdo> i dont even know if i want to know how many hash/sec my solo pool is doing anymore
 461 2011-07-22 06:10:17 <TuxBlackEdo> i might have to try pushpool, but i am too lazy
 462 2011-07-22 06:10:23 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: use Eligius
 463 2011-07-22 06:10:28 <gmaxwell> iddo: sorry,
 464 2011-07-22 06:10:29 <iddo> "some lattice attacks on DSA and ECDSA"
 465 2011-07-22 06:10:31 <luke-jr> TuxBlackEdo: http://yourbitcoinaddress:x@mining.eligius.st:8337
 466 2011-07-22 06:10:32 <gmaxwell> iddo: one sec
 467 2011-07-22 06:10:49 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah luke-jr i haven't forgot about your pool :)
 468 2011-07-22 06:10:51 <Joric> i wrote an ecdsa reverser lately ;) http://bitcointools.appspot.com
 469 2011-07-22 06:12:38 denisx has joined
 470 2011-07-22 06:14:15 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 471 2011-07-22 06:15:43 <gmaxwell> iddo: this is weaker than I remember but it's what I was thinking of, I think, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFEQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.139.1652%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=ecdsa%20fault%20secp256k1%20pdf&ei=DRQpTsO_M8zTgQeV9NmqCw&usg=AFQjCNGqCAMzTqlfXgzWXZT-TsiSroeyVg&cad=rja
 472 2011-07-22 06:15:48 <gmaxwell> oh screw you google!
 473 2011-07-22 06:16:04 <gmaxwell> iddo: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.139.1652&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 474 2011-07-22 06:16:32 lebish has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 475 2011-07-22 06:16:34 <iddo> ok i'll look, thanks
 476 2011-07-22 06:17:15 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 477 2011-07-22 06:18:21 <Joric> jcryptool won't visualize sec256k - "Large elliptic curves are used in professional cryptography. Because of the size of the curves, it's not possible to display a grid or the points of the curve"
 478 2011-07-22 06:20:02 Optimo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 479 2011-07-22 06:20:03 lebish has joined
 480 2011-07-22 06:22:28 LobsterMan has joined
 481 2011-07-22 06:22:28 LobsterMan has quit (Changing host)
 482 2011-07-22 06:22:28 LobsterMan has joined
 483 2011-07-22 06:23:39 mpr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 484 2011-07-22 06:23:50 lebish has quit (Changing host)
 485 2011-07-22 06:23:50 lebish has joined
 486 2011-07-22 06:25:44 Optimo has joined
 487 2011-07-22 06:26:41 <cjdelisle> here it is: s = (k^−1 * (H(m) + x * r)) mod q      r is the private key, x, H(m), and q are public, s is part of the signature and k is the secret nonrepeating unpredictable number.
 488 2011-07-22 06:27:29 <cjdelisle> It looks to me like it would be trivial to prove.
 489 2011-07-22 06:28:48 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 490 2011-07-22 06:28:51 Evious has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 491 2011-07-22 06:30:32 kish has quit (!~rr@unaffiliated/spice|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 492 2011-07-22 06:32:55 <iddo> what do you mean by unpredictable? PRNG?
 493 2011-07-22 06:34:04 mpr has joined
 494 2011-07-22 06:34:30 <gmaxwell> iddo: it's the nonce in ECDSA.
 495 2011-07-22 06:34:30 <cjdelisle> Nonrepeating, unpredictable number is the requirement. It's usually a PRNG and if you want to attack ECDSA, you want to attack the random function which makes k
 496 2011-07-22 06:34:31 Evious has joined
 497 2011-07-22 06:35:02 uberjar has joined
 498 2011-07-22 06:35:15 <cjdelisle> That's what sony messed up, they used the same k for all of their signatures and as you can see from that, knowing k is ruinous.
 499 2011-07-22 06:35:35 <uberjar> what is a fair btc value to pay someone for answering a programming question in an IRC channel ?
 500 2011-07-22 06:35:36 <iddo> is this still in the context of type2 deterministic wallet, or you're talking about something more general?
 501 2011-07-22 06:36:16 <cjdelisle> I am trying to prove that type2 is as secure as a single key signing everything.
 502 2011-07-22 06:36:26 <uberjar> let me rephrase.. what would be about $0.20 in btc ?
 503 2011-07-22 06:36:38 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 504 2011-07-22 06:37:11 <cjdelisle> uberjar: how about asking your question, I can try to answer it and you're free to tip ;)
 505 2011-07-22 06:37:12 <iddo> even if all the bits except one bit for the next value in the sequence are unpredictable, you couldnt prove it
 506 2011-07-22 06:37:25 <upb> what is a fair btc value to pay someone to divide a number by the current price of btc is usd ?
 507 2011-07-22 06:37:44 <cjdelisle> hehe
 508 2011-07-22 06:37:49 <uberjar> cjdelisle: you're too late this time someone already helped me I'm just trying to figureo ut what to tip him
 509 2011-07-22 06:38:03 <cjdelisle> iddo: are you talking about k or r?
 510 2011-07-22 06:38:12 <uberjar> nice 1 upb
 511 2011-07-22 06:38:42 <iddo> from what you wrote i think k ?
 512 2011-07-22 06:39:10 <cjdelisle> Any predictability in k is very very bad.   type2 depends on r being related to the last r.
 513 2011-07-22 06:39:18 <cjdelisle> k = random, r = key
 514 2011-07-22 06:39:34 <cjdelisle> why they use those letters is o_O
 515 2011-07-22 06:39:42 <cjdelisle> I copy/pasted from a paper
 516 2011-07-22 06:40:06 <iddo> so k should be both deterministic and completely unpredictable ? :)
 517 2011-07-22 06:40:34 <cjdelisle> k is random per signature, it needs to be "unpredictable and nonrepeating"
 518 2011-07-22 06:40:48 <cjdelisle> r is deterministic, it's the private key
 519 2011-07-22 06:41:14 <iddo> so k is public ?
 520 2011-07-22 06:41:24 <cjdelisle> noooo if k is public ten you are sony
 521 2011-07-22 06:41:44 <cjdelisle> even if k is the same for 2 signatures then you are sony
 522 2011-07-22 06:41:45 <Joric> they can't use latin, it's both "c" key - clavis, random - casualis :)
 523 2011-07-22 06:42:00 <iddo> i fail to understand the scenario
 524 2011-07-22 06:42:01 <upb> he just integrated the deterministic wallet into ecdsa
 525 2011-07-22 06:42:15 <upb> so its the whole scheme in one
 526 2011-07-22 06:42:17 <iddo> if k is private and random, how is it a deterministic sequence ?
 527 2011-07-22 06:42:33 <cjdelisle> it's not, r is.
 528 2011-07-22 06:42:47 <cjdelisle> r is the private key which is the deterministic sequence
 529 2011-07-22 06:43:01 <cjdelisle> k is a number which is secret, and random per signature.
 530 2011-07-22 06:43:34 <cjdelisle> sorry about the confusing names, blame certicom, I copied it from their paper.
 531 2011-07-22 06:43:58 <iddo> ahh ok i didnt understand, s is the signature
 532 2011-07-22 06:44:06 <cjdelisle> yup
 533 2011-07-22 06:44:50 <iddo> so what makes you think you can prove anything, if signatures are related because r's are related ?
 534 2011-07-22 06:45:40 <cjdelisle> signatures will not be related because r is multiplied by k^-1
 535 2011-07-22 06:46:26 <luke-jr> uberjar: 16 mBTC
 536 2011-07-22 06:46:27 <iddo> i dont think that means that they're unrelated
 537 2011-07-22 06:47:29 <iddo> if that meant they're completely unrelated, it would mean that r is unneeded for signing...?
 538 2011-07-22 06:47:45 <cjdelisle> k^−1 * (public + public * r)
 539 2011-07-22 06:48:30 <cjdelisle> after the multiplication by k^-1, there's no more way to derive r from differences of signatures
 540 2011-07-22 06:48:32 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
 541 2011-07-22 06:48:33 <gribble> 137449
 542 2011-07-22 06:49:33 <cjdelisle> and it's quite clear that it's secure because people sign multiple documents with the same private key so you have
 543 2011-07-22 06:49:41 <cjdelisle> k^−1 * (public + public * constant)
 544 2011-07-22 06:50:07 <iddo> and we're probably trying to prove something too strong, should try to prove that signing multiple msgs with related keys is as secure as signing the same number of msgs with the same key (because providing mutiple signatures can be less secure than providing single signature)
 545 2011-07-22 06:50:32 <iddo> s/the same key/a single key
 546 2011-07-22 06:50:48 <cjdelisle> Yes, that is what I am trying to do. Prove that it is at least as strong as signing everything with the same key.
 547 2011-07-22 06:50:59 <Joric> enourmous brains, pls take a look at this http://bitcoin-kamikaze.com
 548 2011-07-22 06:51:02 <Joric> they use custom salt and md5 in a 'honesty proof', how do you think it can be forged?
 549 2011-07-22 06:52:06 <iddo> cjdelisle: it seems that you claim that s doesnt leak any info on r ?
 550 2011-07-22 06:52:10 <gmaxwell> Joric: you mean a committment?  MD5 is vulnerable to both preimage and collision attacks if the attacker can freely choose the end of the hashed message.
 551 2011-07-22 06:52:52 <cjdelisle> iddo: that is correct, if it did then signing multiple messages with the same r would equal death.
 552 2011-07-22 06:53:13 <Joric> yeah its vulnerable, but how fast it would be?
 553 2011-07-22 06:54:10 <iddo> cjdelisle: but it cannot be correct, only computationally hard
 554 2011-07-22 06:54:32 <cjdelisle> you mean computationally hard like trying every key?
 555 2011-07-22 06:55:37 <Joric> anyway it can't be considered as a honesty proof
 556 2011-07-22 06:55:51 <gmaxwell> Joric: the md5 attacks are pretty much instant now, but they are obvious if you manually inspect the messages.
 557 2011-07-22 06:56:21 <iddo> the assumption is semantic security i think? given two signatures, one signed with the correct r and the other signed with a random private key, you cannot distinguish between them with an efficient algorithm
 558 2011-07-22 06:56:49 <gmaxwell> E.g. someone could make two messages "I bet heads ηη⊕η∧ηη6y5f5ωψη⊕ω⊕δη⊕⊕⊕⊕ΚΡJ↔ΚJJΔΩj2" and "I bet tails yκγτƒrrfi∧κtfτιtgdυ45υƒj5" that have the same MD5.
 559 2011-07-22 06:57:37 <gmaxwell> Joric: but they can't likely create two message like "1234567 I bet heads" and "3457673 I bet tails" with the same hash.
 560 2011-07-22 06:57:49 <gmaxwell> (Just due to the nature of the available attacks)
 561 2011-07-22 06:57:55 <iddo> distinguish = have non-negligible probability (higher than 1/2)
 562 2011-07-22 06:58:28 <cjdelisle> I don't think that's necessary, all I need to prove is that the multiplication by 2/k leaves no way to compare 2 signatures and derive r
 563 2011-07-22 06:58:30 <denisx> http://www.wtfnoway.com/ US Debt in pictures
 564 2011-07-22 06:58:47 <JFK911> the us government should have invested in bitcoins
 565 2011-07-22 06:58:58 <cjdelisle> It's already proven for a single r, I want to prove it for related r.
 566 2011-07-22 06:58:58 <Joric> i think is't not a honesty proof, it's a joke, anybody can precalculate a set of identical hashes for every possible case
 567 2011-07-22 06:59:19 <gmaxwell> Joric: you can't, of course.
 568 2011-07-22 06:59:53 <gmaxwell> I mean the MD5 attacks are bad and you shouldn't use md5 for this.
 569 2011-07-22 07:00:12 <gmaxwell> But I don't think there are any freeform enough that they'd pass human inspection.
 570 2011-07-22 07:00:27 <moa7> JFK911: how do you know they didn't?
 571 2011-07-22 07:00:34 <gmaxwell> "err why does your commitment string contain 400 bits of random binary garbage?"
 572 2011-07-22 07:00:46 <iddo> cjdelisle: is given s it is completely impossible to tell if it was signed with r or with another random private key, then it doesnt make sense because you wouldnt need your private key for signing
 573 2011-07-22 07:00:56 <iddo> s/is/if
 574 2011-07-22 07:01:50 <cjdelisle> There's another part to the signature as well.
 575 2011-07-22 07:02:13 <cjdelisle> It's (G^k mod p) mod q
 576 2011-07-22 07:02:26 <cjdelisle> G, p and q are also public
 577 2011-07-22 07:03:05 <cjdelisle> but determining k from that is the hard problem that makes dsa unfeasable to break.
 578 2011-07-22 07:05:07 <iddo> ok so you're saying there's one part that is completely random assuming that k is random, but then you say that some f(k) is public
 579 2011-07-22 07:06:23 <cjdelisle> yes but that f() is point multiplication which is not reversable
 580 2011-07-22 07:06:25 <Joric> gmaxwell, long story short, how easy it would be to make 2 strings "(1,2,3,4,5)randomgarbage" and "(2,1,3,4,5)anothergarbage" with identical md5 hashes?
 581 2011-07-22 07:07:50 <iddo> computationally not reverable ?
 582 2011-07-22 07:08:11 <cjdelisle> What it boils down to is there's a function which is not reversable because we don't really know how to do it yet. That is a sad fact but it is all that holds up all modern cryptography.
 583 2011-07-22 07:08:34 <cjdelisle> *public key cryptography
 584 2011-07-22 07:08:39 Beccara_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 585 2011-07-22 07:09:20 <cjdelisle> And fortunately, related keys do not affect this guarantee because they do not affect this function.
 586 2011-07-22 07:10:59 <cjdelisle> I have said before that I am more afraid of a bald guy with a few reams of paper and too much free time than I am of a quantum computer.
 587 2011-07-22 07:12:45 Beccara has joined
 588 2011-07-22 07:14:21 <JFK911> moa7: because it's bankrupt
 589 2011-07-22 07:14:59 <abishai> cjdelisle: this guy? :) -> http://theoriginalwinger.com/2010-03-24-russian-math-genius-solves-100-year-old-problem-then-turns-down-1m-prize
 590 2011-07-22 07:15:16 <iddo> cjdelisle: something seems a little dubious, are you claiming that signing mutiple msgs with single private key is as secure as signing a single msg ?
 591 2011-07-22 07:15:49 <moa7> JFK911: but tht doesn't stop them mining btc in the early days if they were "in the know"
 592 2011-07-22 07:15:52 AStove has joined
 593 2011-07-22 07:16:01 <iddo> it seems that that's what you claim, because k is chosen at random each time
 594 2011-07-22 07:16:51 <cjdelisle> abishai: that guy is awesome :)
 595 2011-07-22 07:17:00 <gmaxwell> Joric: trivial if the garbage can be long and binary. I think it's not easy if you tightly constrain the garbage.
 596 2011-07-22 07:17:33 <cjdelisle> iddo: No, I don't claim that signing multiple messages is as secure as a single one, I didn't develop DSA so there is no reason why I should bother trying to claim that.
 597 2011-07-22 07:18:01 <cjdelisle> I claim that signing with related keys is as secure as signing with the same key.
 598 2011-07-22 07:18:35 <iddo> cjdelisle: but this claim seems to follow from your other claims
 599 2011-07-22 07:18:49 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 600 2011-07-22 07:18:53 fn0rd has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 601 2011-07-22 07:19:41 <cjdelisle> I don't see how it depends on that. Did I make a mistake?
 602 2011-07-22 07:20:21 <iddo> if k is random, you provide signature whose first part is completely random for random k, and second part is f(k) and not f(k,r), then signing multiple msgs is as secure as signing a single msg, no?
 603 2011-07-22 07:21:07 <cjdelisle> It would seem so but that is something for the DSA people to deal with.
 604 2011-07-22 07:21:33 <iddo> s/it would seem so/it must be so
 605 2011-07-22 07:21:34 <iddo> ?
 606 2011-07-22 07:21:35 <iddo> :)
 607 2011-07-22 07:21:57 <iddo> i think it means that one of your other claims could be wrong
 608 2011-07-22 07:22:21 <cjdelisle> Even if signing multiple messages with the same key is marginally less secure (and it probably is) if related keys are as secure as the same key then type2 can go forward.
 609 2011-07-22 07:23:14 fnord0 has joined
 610 2011-07-22 07:23:17 <iddo> but your proof implies that signing multiple msgs is as secure as single msg
 611 2011-07-22 07:24:00 <iddo> at least one of us is saying something wrong here....
 612 2011-07-22 07:24:04 <cjdelisle> It is arguably less secure simply because the cryptoanalyst has more information to look at, he has twice as much signature and he knows they are related (same key)
 613 2011-07-22 07:24:52 <iddo> but you said they're unrelated, you said first part is completely random if k is completely random, and second part depends only on k
 614 2011-07-22 07:25:03 <iddo> this makes the signatures unrelated
 615 2011-07-22 07:25:11 * cjdelisle is too cowardly to try proving DSA so wants to stick to proving that related is as secure as same :P
 616 2011-07-22 07:26:13 <cjdelisle> hmm no multiple sigs is definitely less secure.
 617 2011-07-22 07:26:35 <iddo> i'm saying that either your proof says that signing multiple msgs with related keys or with same key or just signing single msg are all as secure as each other, or there's something wrong with your claims
 618 2011-07-22 07:27:37 <cjdelisle> I am willing to claim that related keys are as secure as the same key, I am not willing to claim that the same key is as secure as only one sig for a given key.
 619 2011-07-22 07:27:48 <iddo> if first part of signature is completely random if k is completely random, and second part depends only on k, how multiple sigs less secure?
 620 2011-07-22 07:28:56 <iddo> your proof implies what you're unwilling to claim?
 621 2011-07-22 07:28:56 <cjdelisle> Because there might be a way to apply the sig verification function to the difference between sigs.
 622 2011-07-22 07:29:28 <cjdelisle> That would not be applicable if there was only one sig.
 623 2011-07-22 07:30:21 <cjdelisle> But to apply it to the difference between sigs with related keys cannot be easier than applying it to the difference between sigs with the same key.
 624 2011-07-22 07:31:18 Stryker has joined
 625 2011-07-22 07:31:24 ivan has quit (Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs))
 626 2011-07-22 07:32:18 <iddo> i think that i see maybe where i'm wrong, using the second part of signatures you can discover something first of the signatures, even without reversing k
 627 2011-07-22 07:32:56 <iddo> if you had to find k, then it would mean that multiple signatures are as secure as single signature
 628 2011-07-22 07:33:08 ivan has joined
 629 2011-07-22 07:33:24 <cjdelisle> yea, signing generates x from k and y from r and k.  verification generates v from r and k without finding k and then compares v to x
 630 2011-07-22 07:33:45 <cjdelisle> erm
 631 2011-07-22 07:33:56 klikklak has joined
 632 2011-07-22 07:34:03 <cjdelisle> I broke it
 633 2011-07-22 07:35:29 <iddo> s/discover something first/discover something about first part
 634 2011-07-22 07:35:49 <cjdelisle> signing generates x from k and y from r, k, and the message.  verification generates v from x, y and the message then it compares v to x.
 635 2011-07-22 07:37:26 <cjdelisle> so because it can't reverse the point multiply to get k from x, it point multiplies the other side and compares it to x
 636 2011-07-22 07:38:23 <cjdelisle> all I need to do is determine that any attack on a sequence of keys would also apply to many sigs with the same key.
 637 2011-07-22 07:40:47 <cjdelisle> hm I'm using the letters backwards, it doesn't matter for the example since I was consistent but it's confusing as hell.
 638 2011-07-22 07:41:39 <iddo> so you say that y is completely random for k that is completely random, but x isn't ?
 639 2011-07-22 07:43:08 <cjdelisle> I would suggest that x is also unpredictable and marginally less non-repeating than is k
 640 2011-07-22 07:43:49 <iddo> if (x,y) were completely random, it would mean that signing multiple msgs is as secure
 641 2011-07-22 07:44:02 <iddo> so are you claiming that y is completely random ?
 642 2011-07-22 07:44:45 <cjdelisle> I wouldn't use the word "random" I would say: "unpredictable and marginally less non-repeating than is k"
 643 2011-07-22 07:45:15 <cjdelisle> Because it is multiplied and modded so it may repeat when k does not.
 644 2011-07-22 07:46:12 <iddo> by random i mean: if k is chosen as a completetly random value, then y is a completely random value (i.e. if you keep y and discard k)
 645 2011-07-22 07:47:40 <cjdelisle> yes that sounds right
 646 2011-07-22 07:47:46 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 647 2011-07-22 07:47:48 <iddo> aren't k and y belong to same domain ?
 648 2011-07-22 07:48:05 <iddo> s/arent/dont
 649 2011-07-22 07:48:21 <cjdelisle> domain as in "as random as k?"
 650 2011-07-22 07:48:48 <iddo> no domain i just meant {1,2,3,...,N} or something?
 651 2011-07-22 07:49:09 <cjdelisle> yea they're both mod q so they will be in the same range
 652 2011-07-22 07:49:54 * cjdelisle didn't take much math in school so some of the words are o_O
 653 2011-07-22 07:50:21 <iddo> so didnt you say that multiplying any value by 1/k for random k gives a random value?
 654 2011-07-22 07:51:49 <cjdelisle> it would end up random over a different range but if it's modded then that's a moot point.
 655 2011-07-22 07:52:12 <iddo> it should be true if this range is a group and k is random
 656 2011-07-22 07:53:14 <iddo> so the claims still seem fishy, you choose random k, then (x,y) are random as well, so signing many times is as secure?
 657 2011-07-22 07:53:19 devon_hillard has joined
 658 2011-07-22 07:53:27 devon_hillard has quit (Changing host)
 659 2011-07-22 07:53:27 devon_hillard has joined
 660 2011-07-22 07:54:23 <cjdelisle> well we know that from y you can't determine k neither with multiple sigs with the same key nor multiple sigs with different keys.
 661 2011-07-22 07:54:34 <cjdelisle> s/different/related/
 662 2011-07-22 07:54:50 <iddo> for x, G^k should also be random when G is a generator
 663 2011-07-22 07:55:32 <cjdelisle> G is publicly known but if you can reverse that, it's not our fault.
 664 2011-07-22 07:57:00 <iddo> but if G^k is random then s=(x,y) is random, so sigs are unrelated?
 665 2011-07-22 07:58:03 <cjdelisle> x_1 is unrelated to x_n, y_1 is unrelated to y_n
 666 2011-07-22 07:58:13 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 667 2011-07-22 07:58:47 <cjdelisle> The problem is that {x, y}_1 is related to {x, y}_n because you can verify them both as good signatures.
 668 2011-07-22 07:59:58 <cjdelisle> dammit and I thought this would be *easy* to prove :P
 669 2011-07-22 08:05:24 <iddo> i think that my faulty logic is that there's no implication from saying that random k means random (x,y) to saying that partial knowledge of k doesnt leak anything
 670 2011-07-22 08:06:33 <cjdelisle> ``leaking even a few bits of k in each of several signatures, is enough to break DSA''
 671 2011-07-22 08:06:40 <iddo> and of course also (x,y) isnt random, because they were generated from same k
 672 2011-07-22 08:06:43 <cjdelisle> from the wiki machine
 673 2011-07-22 08:07:03 RenaKunisaki has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 674 2011-07-22 08:07:26 evelyn66 has joined
 675 2011-07-22 08:08:12 <iddo> yeah leaking few bits each time is the article that gmaxwell mentioned
 676 2011-07-22 08:08:46 <cjdelisle> yea power glitching little chips that do it will get k out of them
 677 2011-07-22 08:10:17 zamgo_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 678 2011-07-22 08:11:41 Joric has quit ()
 679 2011-07-22 08:12:21 <cjdelisle> I'm going to get something to eat and think on it some more, see ya later.
 680 2011-07-22 08:12:38 <iddo> so y_1,y_n are unrelated, but (x1,y1),(xn,yn) are related
 681 2011-07-22 08:14:05 <iddo> so could it be that for determisitic r sequence, (x1,y1),(xn,yn) are related in a worse way?
 682 2011-07-22 08:15:06 <iddo> compared to constant r
 683 2011-07-22 08:15:39 <iddo> cannot be proved i think?
 684 2011-07-22 08:18:45 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
 685 2011-07-22 08:19:26 AndyBr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 686 2011-07-22 08:21:34 AndyBr has joined
 687 2011-07-22 08:23:10 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 688 2011-07-22 08:28:19 rethaw has quit (Quit: rethaw)
 689 2011-07-22 08:30:21 kish has joined
 690 2011-07-22 08:34:02 Ketzer has joined
 691 2011-07-22 08:34:35 <Ketzer> hi @ll
 692 2011-07-22 08:34:50 sacredchao has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 693 2011-07-22 08:35:10 coderrr`brb is now known as coderrr
 694 2011-07-22 08:35:17 sacredchao has joined
 695 2011-07-22 08:38:59 <Ketzer> Is there anyone who has the problem by using Xenlands mining pool: if you log in with your registered username (email-verified) that you will be sent to the index.php and it won't show you the menu for your workers and account details? It's just looking as if you weren't logged in.
 696 2011-07-22 08:42:41 AndyBr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 697 2011-07-22 08:44:56 AndyBr has joined
 698 2011-07-22 08:48:22 ThomasV has joined
 699 2011-07-22 08:48:29 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
 700 2011-07-22 08:48:29 ThomasV has joined
 701 2011-07-22 08:48:50 neopallium has left ("Leaving")
 702 2011-07-22 08:49:15 peper has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 703 2011-07-22 08:51:03 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 704 2011-07-22 08:51:29 copumpkin has joined
 705 2011-07-22 08:51:54 gjs278 has joined
 706 2011-07-22 09:02:11 MC-Eeepc has joined
 707 2011-07-22 09:02:26 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 708 2011-07-22 09:07:27 d1g1t4l has joined
 709 2011-07-22 09:08:27 Ketzer has quit ()
 710 2011-07-22 09:09:30 dr_win has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 711 2011-07-22 09:11:44 senseles has joined
 712 2011-07-22 09:13:07 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 713 2011-07-22 09:17:00 Quetzalcoatl_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 714 2011-07-22 09:23:16 gjs278 has joined
 715 2011-07-22 09:29:11 Quetzalcoatl_ has joined
 716 2011-07-22 09:33:33 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 717 2011-07-22 09:41:51 Stellar has joined
 718 2011-07-22 09:43:14 redhatzero has joined
 719 2011-07-22 09:43:18 hugolp has joined
 720 2011-07-22 09:43:59 Joric has joined
 721 2011-07-22 09:44:56 <Joric> did anyone try to store the entire blockchain on a google app engine account? it allows up to 1 GB
 722 2011-07-22 09:46:06 <MrSam> bc;stats;
 723 2011-07-22 09:46:08 <MrSam> hmm
 724 2011-07-22 09:46:13 <MrSam> bc;stat
 725 2011-07-22 09:46:15 <MrSam> bc;stats
 726 2011-07-22 09:47:07 <MrSam> hmm , 1'779'117.44 it seems
 727 2011-07-22 09:49:39 <Joric> another blockexplorer: http://abe.john-edwin-tobey.org
 728 2011-07-22 09:50:45 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 729 2011-07-22 09:51:21 copumpkin has joined
 730 2011-07-22 09:58:09 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 731 2011-07-22 10:00:03 larsivi has joined
 732 2011-07-22 10:00:27 <prof7bit> i read somewhere the app engine is very restrictive when it comes to using sockets and non-standard ports but I have never tried myself, it might be wrong information or outdated.
 733 2011-07-22 10:02:40 MC-Eeepc has joined
 734 2011-07-22 10:04:00 <Joric> well there is a 30 seconds timeout on all connections
 735 2011-07-22 10:04:27 Sedra has quit (Quit: ( IRC :: Quit ))
 736 2011-07-22 10:04:54 <cjdelisle> heh re http://abe.john-edwin-tobey.org I know john.
 737 2011-07-22 10:06:41 LobsterMan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 738 2011-07-22 10:07:07 <cjdelisle> He was telling me that he's interested in some other blockchain currencies and is taking a "may the best currency win" attitude. Re why he made a multicoin compatable blockexplorer.
 739 2011-07-22 10:10:37 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 740 2011-07-22 10:11:22 MC-Eeepc has joined
 741 2011-07-22 10:19:41 Joric has quit ()
 742 2011-07-22 10:20:01 <moa7> http://abe.john-edwin-tobey.org/ seems weird than NMC has better transaction volume than btc eh?
 743 2011-07-22 10:20:46 erus` has joined
 744 2011-07-22 10:21:41 <lfm> they have over a million txn?
 745 2011-07-22 10:22:00 <cjdelisle> Perhaps because there's a rush to grab up nmc in case they jump to 10 like btc did?
 746 2011-07-22 10:23:05 gjs278 has joined
 747 2011-07-22 10:23:14 <cjdelisle> Pretty soon every tom dick and harry is going to be starting a block chain :/  It's great if they introduce a different payout rate or something but just for the hell of it...
 748 2011-07-22 10:26:49 molecular has joined
 749 2011-07-22 10:26:50 <mtrlt> yea, and?
 750 2011-07-22 10:27:07 <mtrlt> nobody will use most of those chains anyway
 751 2011-07-22 10:27:48 <cjdelisle> I tend to agree, unless one has a compelling reason why people should want to use it, it will not find much adoption.
 752 2011-07-22 10:27:50 <moa7> not many tom, dicks or harry's can even read the source ... so probably not.
 753 2011-07-22 10:28:38 <moa7> the first chain that encorporates strong anonymity in the tx signing will win ...
 754 2011-07-22 10:28:52 sanchaz has quit (Quit: i ain't gone. u just can't see me.)
 755 2011-07-22 10:28:57 <moa7> better fungibility
 756 2011-07-22 10:30:03 <cjdelisle> Indeed. The only thing I am really worried about is merchants ending up with btc which is treated as "stolen property" and then getting out of btc all together.
 757 2011-07-22 10:30:52 sanchaz has joined
 758 2011-07-22 10:31:40 <AndyBr> hmm, switching between c#, cshtml and t-sql all the time has made me confused. now i can't remember if AND in C# is && or &. need break :-||
 759 2011-07-22 10:31:53 <cjdelisle> But you don't need a new chain to make it more anonymous, that can be done just by having a swarm of nodes cooperate to create one transaction where an external viewer can't tell who paid who. (One big transaction per block)
 760 2011-07-22 10:32:50 <iddo> if you deposit and then withdraw from mtgox, does that give you anonymity?
 761 2011-07-22 10:33:15 <cjdelisle> I imagine if mtgox is asked, they will turn over the records.
 762 2011-07-22 10:33:35 <moa7> all are fix-ups, better to just do it properly from the get go ...
 763 2011-07-22 10:33:42 <cjdelisle> Otherwise that would be umm.. attackable.
 764 2011-07-22 10:34:06 ForceMajeure has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 765 2011-07-22 10:34:44 <cjdelisle> I think the best thing btc has going for it is that it exists now. We can sit around and imagine perfect scenarios but that's not going to make a community.
 766 2011-07-22 10:34:44 luke-jr has quit (Excess Flood)
 767 2011-07-22 10:35:18 luke-jr has quit (otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 768 2011-07-22 10:35:22 luke-jr has joined
 769 2011-07-22 10:35:24 <cjdelisle> And I am just as guilty as the next guy of liking to sit around imagining the perfect code.
 770 2011-07-22 10:35:49 luke-jr has joined
 771 2011-07-22 10:35:57 MC-Eeepc has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 772 2011-07-22 10:35:59 <lfm> sit around dreaming that mining will make you rich.
 773 2011-07-22 10:37:51 <cjdelisle> I will say that if I had 10 or 20k btc to my name, I would be offering an award to whoever can invent a program which uses btc and gets more than X number of installs.
 774 2011-07-22 10:38:02 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 775 2011-07-22 10:38:29 * cjdelisle has 10 or 20 btc to his name :/
 776 2011-07-22 10:38:46 spiky has joined
 777 2011-07-22 10:38:57 spiky has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 778 2011-07-22 10:39:11 <iddo> all the developers here probably have 10k or 20k btc ? :)
 779 2011-07-22 10:39:41 <lfm> depends when they started
 780 2011-07-22 10:39:50 <lfm> and what hardware they have
 781 2011-07-22 10:39:54 <erus`> maybe i should learn to who wants a game of blindfold connect four? i will start: d
 782 2011-07-22 10:40:06 <lfm> doesnt matter much if theyre a developer or not.
 783 2011-07-22 10:40:33 <iddo> i guess developers were among the early adapters
 784 2011-07-22 10:40:50 <lfm> some are some arnt
 785 2011-07-22 10:41:57 Tracker has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 786 2011-07-22 10:42:24 <iddo> i didnt really understand the anonymous tx problem, what's the scenario exactly?
 787 2011-07-22 10:42:30 Folklore has quit ()
 788 2011-07-22 10:42:36 BlueMatt has joined
 789 2011-07-22 10:43:27 <cjdelisle> iddo: suppose someone has their computer hacked and loses a bunch of btc, they can see where it went in the chain so it's easy to say "nobody accept money from that wallet!"
 790 2011-07-22 10:43:39 <lfm> iddo well you understand that all txn are essentially public. the only thing that isnt automaticlly know is who owns which btc address.
 791 2011-07-22 10:44:16 E-sense has joined
 792 2011-07-22 10:44:25 <cjdelisle> But if somebody does, do you then treat them as holders of stolen property? It all gets to be a mess and nobody wants to accept btc because it might have a bad history.
 793 2011-07-22 10:44:34 <moa7> the only thing that really needs to be public is the total amount of coin in circulation
 794 2011-07-22 10:44:59 <cjdelisle> If you have a blacklist of "bad wallets" then the goobermint will demand that you add a bunch more because they don't like people and judges will demand that you add more...
 795 2011-07-22 10:45:09 <moa7> conceptually
 796 2011-07-22 10:45:28 <lfm> moa7: well thats not how it is. every txn amount to every address is public. thats how btc works
 797 2011-07-22 10:45:30 <mtrlt> that doesn't work if there's no way to unblacklist
 798 2011-07-22 10:45:51 <moa7> yes, i know, it is flawed like that ... bad fungibility
 799 2011-07-22 10:46:34 <cjdelisle> Once you start doing that, it all just falls apart. Nobody can trust anybody, you might aswell go back to credit cards where all you have to worry about is chargebacks.
 800 2011-07-22 10:46:35 <moa7> nuff said, the discussion was about alternate chains winning.
 801 2011-07-22 10:47:18 Tracker has joined
 802 2011-07-22 10:47:21 <iddo> not sure i understood in that scenario how do you claim that the stolen address belonged to you...
 803 2011-07-22 10:47:22 <cjdelisle> I don't see any alt chain ever "winning", btc was the first and it will always have the prestige even if it does prove not to be the most efficient.
 804 2011-07-22 10:47:33 <lfm> well it works, we have to accept it now, to late to change btc even if it was possible. alternate block chains may be different but they dont have the acceptance of btc.
 805 2011-07-22 10:47:52 <cjdelisle> ^
 806 2011-07-22 10:48:20 <moa7> early days.
 807 2011-07-22 10:48:47 <cuqaa> submit_work json_rpc_call failed ... JSON-RPC call failed ... anyone cann tell me what causes this?
 808 2011-07-22 10:48:56 moa7 has left ()
 809 2011-07-22 10:49:01 <cuqaa> bitcoind seems to work
 810 2011-07-22 10:49:01 gjs278 has joined
 811 2011-07-22 10:49:13 <lfm> iddo ya stolen btc, people kinda have to take your word. You would need more trust in the community than the theif.
 812 2011-07-22 10:49:23 <cuqaa> but I get this message couple of times per hour
 813 2011-07-22 10:49:47 <cjdelisle> However, suppose I was about to develop a groundbreaking piece of software which would use btc as a micropayment system. It is going to make 10,000,000 people adopt btc over the next 5 years. Why should I use btc instead of an alt chain? What incentive is there for me to enrich the early adopters instead of starting fresh?
 814 2011-07-22 10:50:10 <lfm> cuqaa: some sort of communications fail. maybe internet conjestion or something, or maybe a bug.
 815 2011-07-22 10:50:36 <iddo> ahh so blacklists based on voluntarism, this doesnt seem to be a big issue
 816 2011-07-22 10:51:20 <lfm> iddo and black market btc laundering will probably still work for the theif.
 817 2011-07-22 10:51:33 <Eliel> cjdelisle: how would you know your system really is a groundbreaking system that can succeed on it's own?
 818 2011-07-22 10:51:58 <lfm> Eliel: only way is to try and succeed or fail
 819 2011-07-22 10:52:24 <Eliel> would you really risk the success of the system by trying to use your own currency for it?
 820 2011-07-22 10:52:35 <lfm> or trust expert advice (but that can be mistaken too)
 821 2011-07-22 10:52:53 <iddo> maybe new blockchain based on sha3 would be nice? or bitcoin itself can transition to sha3
 822 2011-07-22 10:52:55 <cjdelisle> Eliel: The assumption is that it doesn't depend on btc, it just uses it to settle internal debts as part of a fairness algorithm. Users don't really even have to know they're invested in btc, they just use it and it works. Think bittorrent.
 823 2011-07-22 10:53:23 <Eliel> cjdelisle: that sounds a bit like ripple
 824 2011-07-22 10:53:52 Joric has joined
 825 2011-07-22 10:54:03 <cjdelisle> Ripple has some problems too. It shouldn't be called 'ripple', it should be called 'packet tsunami'
 826 2011-07-22 10:54:37 <iddo> would be hard to compete with bitcoin unless you can also convert the new blockchain coins to fiat dollars (or to bitcoins)
 827 2011-07-22 10:54:51 <Eliel> cjdelisle: yes, personally, I believe that bitcoin, at least in short term (few years) has a better chance of success.
 828 2011-07-22 10:55:02 <iddo> we will see if namecoin is a bubble that would implode soon...
 829 2011-07-22 10:55:52 manifold_ has joined
 830 2011-07-22 10:56:10 <lfm> iddo a transition to a new hash would be a major step. almost everyone would need to agree to it, but it is theoreticlly possible, just so hard that no one wants to tackle the job without a very good reason, like maybe if weakness are found in sha2.
 831 2011-07-22 10:57:03 <iddo> lfm: yeah, but another reason can be that someone else plans to start a competing blockchain based on sha3, so maybe bitcoin better start first?
 832 2011-07-22 10:57:29 <lfm> I'd say naw, let them.
 833 2011-07-22 10:57:32 <iddo> will take a year until sha3 is announced anyway
 834 2011-07-22 10:57:59 Zagitta has joined
 835 2011-07-22 10:58:21 Beccara_ has joined
 836 2011-07-22 10:58:31 Beccara has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 837 2011-07-22 10:58:50 <iddo> it's also possible to transition from ECDSA if needed? assuming an attack that is only theoretical for now
 838 2011-07-22 10:59:27 <iddo> you generate stronger (pk,sk) and sign with your old sk (only you can do it because the attack isnt practical yet)
 839 2011-07-22 10:59:33 <lfm> ya, like you could use RSA but the keys are larger so it would make the packets and the disk files larger
 840 2011-07-22 11:00:12 <iddo> s/sign/sign them
 841 2011-07-22 11:00:28 <lfm> or maybe DSA signatures , not sure
 842 2011-07-22 11:00:30 <AndyBr> why convert to a new system? just start a new currency =)
 843 2011-07-22 11:01:04 redhatzero has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 844 2011-07-22 11:01:11 <iddo> actually, sign the new pk with the old sk
 845 2011-07-22 11:01:12 <Joric> is it possible to draw a nice chart with keys on the sec256k curve? jcryptool says 'Large elliptic curves are used in professional cryptography. Because of the size of the curves, it's not possible to display a grid or the points of the curve'
 846 2011-07-22 11:01:28 <lfm> AndyBr: substructure. all the other services designed around BTC would have to transit to a new system also.
 847 2011-07-22 11:01:40 <diki> lfm, diffcalc works great, thanks
 848 2011-07-22 11:01:52 <lfm> diki great, you're welcome
 849 2011-07-22 11:03:16 <AndyBr> hmm, i wonder if there is something in this world more boring than writing unit tests
 850 2011-07-22 11:03:17 <lfm> joric weel you can show a grid, just not at the finest level of detail.
 851 2011-07-22 11:03:43 <AndyBr> when i write tests, i daydream about folding laundry or ironing
 852 2011-07-22 11:04:06 clarkbox has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 853 2011-07-22 11:04:14 <lfm> AndyBr: silly boy! :-)
 854 2011-07-22 11:06:05 arthurb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 855 2011-07-22 11:06:16 hugolp has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 856 2011-07-22 11:06:43 clarkbox has joined
 857 2011-07-22 11:07:18 wardearia has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 858 2011-07-22 11:11:06 rynx has joined
 859 2011-07-22 11:11:28 manifold_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 860 2011-07-22 11:14:09 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 861 2011-07-22 11:15:31 <Eliel> gmaxwell: there's an article about your torrent on a Finnish newspaper.
 862 2011-07-22 11:15:38 <Eliel> http://www.uusisuomi.fi/ymparisto/114111-mies-suuttui-%E2%80%9Dtiede-kuuluu-kaikille-tassa-102-000-%E2%82%AClla-ilmaiseksi%E2%80%9D
 863 2011-07-22 11:18:21 hugolp has joined
 864 2011-07-22 11:20:18 jimon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 865 2011-07-22 11:20:49 gjs278 has joined
 866 2011-07-22 11:20:52 jimon has joined
 867 2011-07-22 11:23:01 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 868 2011-07-22 11:23:38 peper has joined
 869 2011-07-22 11:26:46 gjs278 has joined
 870 2011-07-22 11:31:37 <Joric> how does merged mining work? i didn't get it... it's breaking the law of conservation of energy :)
 871 2011-07-22 11:31:41 <Joric> https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/blob/mergedmine/doc/README_merged-mining.md
 872 2011-07-22 11:31:53 huk has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 873 2011-07-22 11:32:37 danbri has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 874 2011-07-22 11:33:38 danbri has joined
 875 2011-07-22 11:33:44 huk has joined
 876 2011-07-22 11:36:50 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 877 2011-07-22 11:37:10 <Joric> looks like vinced just going to link namecoin blockchain to the btc blockchain
 878 2011-07-22 11:37:12 mmoya has joined
 879 2011-07-22 11:37:33 uberjar has quit (Quit: connection reset by peer)
 880 2011-07-22 11:40:00 Habbie has joined
 881 2011-07-22 11:40:04 <Habbie> hi
 882 2011-07-22 11:40:24 <Habbie> this tx http://blockexplorer.com/tx/7aab70214bf04ba3b9c16671760d6a59c2e13b6d865e0288ae0e40e56f92a7cf causes two *identical* entries in 'bitcoind listtransactions' - is there anything i can do to distinguish those?
 883 2011-07-22 11:43:58 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 884 2011-07-22 11:43:59 <cjdelisle> Joric: merged mining is described pretty well here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
 885 2011-07-22 11:44:30 <lfm> Habbie: do you know where the other one is?
 886 2011-07-22 11:44:36 <Habbie> lfm, what other one?
 887 2011-07-22 11:44:57 <cjdelisle> You mine btc but you add a "message" to the coinbase transaction which is a hash of a block from the alternate chain.
 888 2011-07-22 11:45:16 <lfm> what this txn is in the block shain twice? I dont think that can be.
 889 2011-07-22 11:45:20 huk has quit ()
 890 2011-07-22 11:45:40 <Habbie> lfm, the txn is not in the block chain twice. it's one tx that sends to the same address twice. Outputs 0 and 2 are to the same address.
 891 2011-07-22 11:45:57 <Habbie> Joric, you dropped out of #bitcoin while i was trying to discuss cheating at bitcoin-kamikaze with you :)
 892 2011-07-22 11:46:30 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gmaxwell
 893 2011-07-22 11:46:31 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 hours, 29 minutes, and 29 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> Joric: trivial if the garbage can be long and binary. I think it's not easy if you tightly constrain the garbage.
 894 2011-07-22 11:46:40 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 895 2011-07-22 11:46:42 <lfm> Habbie: oh, ok thats normal, you just have to distinguish them by their possintion in the txn
 896 2011-07-22 11:46:56 <lfm> position
 897 2011-07-22 11:47:04 <Habbie> lfm, i know, but 'bitcoind listtransaction' does not include the position. if it did, i would be done :)
 898 2011-07-22 11:47:47 <Joric> Habbie, their md5 'honesty proof' is a complete bullshit
 899 2011-07-22 11:47:55 <BlueMatt> ;;seen sipa
 900 2011-07-22 11:47:55 <gribble> sipa was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 22 hours, 29 minutes, and 37 seconds ago: <sipa> i suppose there will always be some nodes keeping all blocks, forever
 901 2011-07-22 11:48:11 <Habbie> Joric, i read what you said, but from what i can gather online, generating a 'fake' proof would involve 2^50 md5 attempts
 902 2011-07-22 11:48:15 <Habbie> Joric, it doesn't seem feasible for a game
 903 2011-07-22 11:48:48 <lfm> the way the txn input do the Previous output well the txn has a hash and any txn that use it will have their own hash
 904 2011-07-22 11:49:11 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 905 2011-07-22 11:50:23 <lfm> Habbie: two "outputs" are not two transactions.
 906 2011-07-22 11:50:52 <Habbie> lfm, that is in fact my whole point :)
 907 2011-07-22 11:51:00 gjs278 has joined
 908 2011-07-22 11:51:25 <lfm> so you get both outputs if you ask for that transaction. you dont need anything else.
 909 2011-07-22 11:51:28 <Habbie> in bitcoind listtransactions, this single transaction generates this output: https://p.6core.net/p/iqrd22qb26g5f757
 910 2011-07-22 11:51:47 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 911 2011-07-22 11:52:03 <Habbie> i would like to be able to stick the output of listtransactions in a database, but to do that i'd need something to uniquely identify the items in the output
 912 2011-07-22 11:52:10 <Habbie> and i'm wondering if i'm missing a trick for that, or not :)
 913 2011-07-22 11:52:47 <Joric> Habbie, collision attack on md5 finds collisions within seconds
 914 2011-07-22 11:52:56 <Habbie> Joric, do you have a reference for that
 915 2011-07-22 11:53:11 <Joric> total complexity is 2^24.1, not 2^50
 916 2011-07-22 11:53:25 * Habbie adds question mark to last line to look more friendly ;)
 917 2011-07-22 11:53:31 <lfm> Habbie: nope you're not missing anything. perhaps that should also return the output number
 918 2011-07-22 11:54:11 <Habbie> lfm, that would fix it, indeed. i do notice that 'bitcoind gettransaction xxxx' returns a list that i can index into.. i could always make sure i check transactions with that one
 919 2011-07-22 11:54:20 <Joric> Habbie, http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/On%20Collisions%20for%20MD5%20-%20M.M.J.%20Stevens.pdf
 920 2011-07-22 11:54:21 <Habbie> lfm, or alternatively i should patch my bitcoind to include the output number
 921 2011-07-22 11:55:42 <Joric> and of course it doesnt need to be realtime
 922 2011-07-22 11:55:52 <Habbie> true
 923 2011-07-22 11:55:56 <Habbie> they could have a database full of 'em
 924 2011-07-22 11:56:04 <Habbie> and even reuse them between players (slight risk there, of course)
 925 2011-07-22 11:56:18 karnac has joined
 926 2011-07-22 11:58:00 gjs278 has joined
 927 2011-07-22 11:59:00 <lfm> Habbie: that txn is kinda special since most cases would just have one output to the sum of the values.
 928 2011-07-22 11:59:10 <Habbie> Joric, i'm convinced that kamikaze's proof is not very strong :)
 929 2011-07-22 11:59:28 <Habbie> lfm, oh i know, but when i write code i try to deal with all possible situations
 930 2011-07-22 11:59:29 xelister has joined
 931 2011-07-22 11:59:42 <Habbie> lfm, i have to admit i generated this txn on purpose (after a few people told me they'd seen it before)
 932 2011-07-22 11:59:59 <lfm> hehe ok, good luck with that
 933 2011-07-22 12:00:12 <Habbie> :)
 934 2011-07-22 12:00:55 Ambriely has joined
 935 2011-07-22 12:01:30 Ambriely has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 936 2011-07-22 12:03:53 <Habbie> basically 'listtransactions' returns a list of mutations to address balances, with the tx as a foreign key. it's not actually a list of transactions
 937 2011-07-22 12:04:58 rynx has joined
 938 2011-07-22 12:06:26 d1g1t4l has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 939 2011-07-22 12:08:00 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 940 2011-07-22 12:08:31 <Habbie> hmm, getreceivedbyaddress only counts additions to the balance, it ignores subtractions. this is perfect for my purposes
 941 2011-07-22 12:09:20 <sneak> hi
 942 2011-07-22 12:09:27 <sneak> does anyone know the date of the original release of bitcoin.pdf?
 943 2011-07-22 12:09:30 <sneak> all i have is "2009"
 944 2011-07-22 12:11:29 gyver has quit (Quit: leaving)
 945 2011-07-22 12:12:00 cwestbrook has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 946 2011-07-22 12:12:01 <Habbie> sneak, metadata on the pdf says Mar 24
 947 2011-07-22 12:12:17 <Habbie> sneak, (2009)
 948 2011-07-22 12:13:06 <sneak> thanks
 949 2011-07-22 12:15:59 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 950 2011-07-22 12:20:23 gjs278 has joined
 951 2011-07-22 12:21:06 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 952 2011-07-22 12:21:15 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 953 2011-07-22 12:23:10 sacredchao has joined
 954 2011-07-22 12:24:08 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 955 2011-07-22 12:25:47 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 956 2011-07-22 12:28:48 gjs278 has joined
 957 2011-07-22 12:29:43 cwestbrook has joined
 958 2011-07-22 12:30:43 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 959 2011-07-22 12:35:17 TheAncientGoat has joined
 960 2011-07-22 12:35:58 Speeder has joined
 961 2011-07-22 12:37:20 AStove has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 962 2011-07-22 12:37:33 AStove has joined
 963 2011-07-22 12:38:43 Joric has quit ()
 964 2011-07-22 12:39:17 genjix has joined
 965 2011-07-22 12:39:59 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 966 2011-07-22 12:42:12 <genjix> i noticed that blockexplorer reports the input scripts for a coinbase transaction ([4 bytes] [1 byte]) in a "coinbase" field where it joins the fields together; 04: [ff ff 00 1d] 01: [04]  goes to 04ffff001d0104
 967 2011-07-22 12:42:20 <genjix> is there any significance to this?
 968 2011-07-22 12:42:55 <genjix> or does it just store it like that since the input script for a coinbase generation is a useless field and there's no point parsing it.
 969 2011-07-22 12:44:39 <lfm> genjix: they are just extra nonces, not much point in parsing them for sure
 970 2011-07-22 12:45:14 <genjix> ok thanks
 971 2011-07-22 12:45:37 <genjix> they still have to be in a valid format though
 972 2011-07-22 12:45:58 <genjix> (if you use them as a nonce :p)
 973 2011-07-22 12:46:43 <lfm> well ya I guess if oyu want to put some sort of info in there (like a copy of the compressed target) the legth coded format is usefull
 974 2011-07-22 12:50:27 Sedra has joined
 975 2011-07-22 12:51:23 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 976 2011-07-22 12:53:52 d1g1t4l has joined
 977 2011-07-22 12:56:09 gjs278 has joined
 978 2011-07-22 12:57:06 <diki> will nmc and btc be merged?
 979 2011-07-22 12:58:38 <lfm> I doubt it
 980 2011-07-22 12:58:46 somuchfail has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 981 2011-07-22 12:59:19 DukeOfURL has joined
 982 2011-07-22 13:00:55 <vragnaroda> diki: that's kinda like asking if english and russian will merge.
 983 2011-07-22 13:02:12 <diki> interesting you mention russian
 984 2011-07-22 13:02:19 <diki> since your name does sound a lot russian
 985 2011-07-22 13:02:32 <diki> s/name/nick
 986 2011-07-22 13:02:39 <erus`> vragnaroda: like spanglish?
 987 2011-07-22 13:03:24 DukeOfURL has quit (Client Quit)
 988 2011-07-22 13:03:31 <diki> your nick, to me, means "Enemy to the people"
 989 2011-07-22 13:03:43 <diki> that's how i interpret it based on my language
 990 2011-07-22 13:04:24 viggi_ has joined
 991 2011-07-22 13:04:37 viggi_ is now known as viggi
 992 2011-07-22 13:05:37 sshc has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 993 2011-07-22 13:05:55 <vragnaroda> diki: yes, ‘enemy of the people’ is the normal translation. but spanglish is not a merging of english and spanish; it's adding to both of them from the other.
 994 2011-07-22 13:07:35 rynx has joined
 995 2011-07-22 13:08:37 sshc_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 996 2011-07-22 13:09:04 <diki> sorry, i dont get the spanglish thing
 997 2011-07-22 13:09:17 klikklak has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 998 2011-07-22 13:10:59 <vragnaroda> diki: spanglish is not merging the two together. it's adding to both english and spanish, but they're not converging at all.
 999 2011-07-22 13:11:18 <vragnaroda> they're not moving toward a common middle at all when spanglish is used
1000 2011-07-22 13:11:52 <diki> example?
1001 2011-07-22 13:15:07 <AndyBr> como estas muthafuckah
1002 2011-07-22 13:15:10 <senseles> is it possible for bitcoin to give mining clients different blocks to work on?
1003 2011-07-22 13:15:27 <senseles> seems to me if you had 600ghash/s with each 100ghash/s going after a different block
1004 2011-07-22 13:15:29 <AndyBr> in this example, i combined a common phrase in spanish with vernacular from american english
1005 2011-07-22 13:15:42 <senseles> your luck value might increase instead of having 600ghash/s churning away at the same block for 24 hours
1006 2011-07-22 13:16:14 <diki> senseles
1007 2011-07-22 13:16:16 <diki> nope
1008 2011-07-22 13:16:17 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1009 2011-07-22 13:16:20 <senseles> or is it only possible to work on the current block?
1010 2011-07-22 13:16:20 <diki> you work on one block
1011 2011-07-22 13:16:21 <senseles> ah
1012 2011-07-22 13:18:06 quiccker has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1013 2011-07-22 13:19:36 kytibe has joined
1014 2011-07-22 13:20:43 gp5st has joined
1015 2011-07-22 13:22:55 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1016 2011-07-22 13:23:06 <s13013> anyone doing openbsd in esxi?
1017 2011-07-22 13:23:10 krekbwoy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1018 2011-07-22 13:23:11 <s13013> oops, wrong channel.
1019 2011-07-22 13:23:43 Titeuf_87 has joined
1020 2011-07-22 13:24:38 gjs278 has joined
1021 2011-07-22 13:26:56 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1022 2011-07-22 13:31:53 <prof7bit> they are all trying *different* hashes on the same block, the chances increase that *one* of them will find a valid hash in the same time.
1023 2011-07-22 13:32:14 <lfm> Linux 3.0!
1024 2011-07-22 13:32:37 <genjix> lfm: yep pretty cool huh :)
1025 2011-07-22 13:33:11 <erus`> the semantic penguin
1026 2011-07-22 13:33:13 <lfm> Ya like 2.0 is 10 years old or something
1027 2011-07-22 13:33:17 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1028 2011-07-22 13:35:00 <Habbie> senseles, working on 6 different potential blocks at 100ghash/sec each gives you the same odds as working on one potential block at 600ghash/sec
1029 2011-07-22 13:35:01 TheAncientGoat has joined
1030 2011-07-22 13:36:20 copumpkin is now known as nmcblanket
1031 2011-07-22 13:36:36 nmcblanket is now known as copumpkin
1032 2011-07-22 13:39:06 <lfm> sensless note that each block has inside it the hash of the previous block. there is no way to know the hash of the previous block untill after the previous block has been found.
1033 2011-07-22 13:40:09 LobsterMan has joined
1034 2011-07-22 13:40:09 LobsterMan has quit (Changing host)
1035 2011-07-22 13:40:09 LobsterMan has joined
1036 2011-07-22 13:40:37 nick has joined
1037 2011-07-22 13:40:38 nick is now known as imsguy
1038 2011-07-22 13:40:44 imsguy is now known as imsaguy
1039 2011-07-22 13:41:09 wolfspraul has joined
1040 2011-07-22 13:41:43 <mtrlt> "going after a different block" is meaningless
1041 2011-07-22 13:42:10 gjs278 has joined
1042 2011-07-22 13:42:13 Joric has joined
1043 2011-07-22 13:42:15 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1044 2011-07-22 13:42:56 b4epoche_ has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1045 2011-07-22 13:44:00 The_SLain_MAn has joined
1046 2011-07-22 13:44:39 <lfm> that said, all miners are working on different blocks in that the payout address is different for the coinbase and (barring bugs) the extra noces can also be used to make different next blocks so no effort at finding a block is replicated.
1047 2011-07-22 13:45:04 <lfm> extra nonces
1048 2011-07-22 13:46:17 MC-Eeepc has joined
1049 2011-07-22 13:46:32 <lfm> so barring bugs all those millions and billions of hashes the miners test will every one be different.
1050 2011-07-22 13:47:32 <lfm> ok plus a very slim chance of a hash collision
1051 2011-07-22 13:49:45 dragon720 has joined
1052 2011-07-22 13:50:04 <dragon720> hi there is italian people?
1053 2011-07-22 13:50:48 dragon720 has quit (Client Quit)
1054 2011-07-22 13:51:27 d4de has joined
1055 2011-07-22 13:52:46 Clipse has joined
1056 2011-07-22 14:00:04 agricocb has joined
1057 2011-07-22 14:00:54 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1058 2011-07-22 14:00:57 <Joric> mi scusi
1059 2011-07-22 14:02:15 b4epoche_ has joined
1060 2011-07-22 14:03:10 <UukGoblin> mi na tavla fo la italian.
1061 2011-07-22 14:04:42 AStove has quit ()
1062 2011-07-22 14:05:08 copumpkin has joined
1063 2011-07-22 14:07:02 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1064 2011-07-22 14:07:30 <lfm> he signed off about 10 sec after he asked
1065 2011-07-22 14:07:39 b4epoche has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1066 2011-07-22 14:07:39 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1067 2011-07-22 14:08:23 agricocb has joined
1068 2011-07-22 14:08:31 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
1069 2011-07-22 14:08:31 agricocb has joined
1070 2011-07-22 14:10:21 MC-Eeepc has joined
1071 2011-07-22 14:11:03 AStove has joined
1072 2011-07-22 14:11:59 b4epoche_ has joined
1073 2011-07-22 14:12:33 TD has joined
1074 2011-07-22 14:14:24 glassresistor has joined
1075 2011-07-22 14:14:24 glassresistor has quit (Changing host)
1076 2011-07-22 14:14:24 glassresistor has joined
1077 2011-07-22 14:16:37 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1078 2011-07-22 14:16:37 fnord0 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1079 2011-07-22 14:17:10 nhodges has joined
1080 2011-07-22 14:17:45 fnord0 has joined
1081 2011-07-22 14:19:27 darksk1ez has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
1082 2011-07-22 14:20:03 koleg has joined
1083 2011-07-22 14:20:30 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1084 2011-07-22 14:22:58 <UukGoblin> well yeah my answer was supposed to be a joke... but it was a bad one, I guess
1085 2011-07-22 14:25:03 <lfm> I am certainly no judge of jokes in Italian
1086 2011-07-22 14:25:19 <UukGoblin> well, part of the joke was that it wasn't italian ;-]
1087 2011-07-22 14:25:20 <mtrlt> but it was lojban :P
1088 2011-07-22 14:25:36 <mtrlt> anything is awesome in lojban!
1089 2011-07-22 14:25:40 <UukGoblin> ;-]
1090 2011-07-22 14:25:55 <lfm> I am certainly no judge of jokes in lojban
1091 2011-07-22 14:26:35 johnlockwood_ has joined
1092 2011-07-22 14:26:37 <copumpkin> italian!
1093 2011-07-22 14:26:38 gjs278 has joined
1094 2011-07-22 14:26:46 johnlockwood_ has left ()
1095 2011-07-22 14:26:47 blueadept has joined
1096 2011-07-22 14:27:13 Taveren93HGK has joined
1097 2011-07-22 14:29:18 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1098 2011-07-22 14:29:20 <lfm> hmm google translate doesnt handle lojban either
1099 2011-07-22 14:29:32 <doublec> he said he doesn't speak italian
1100 2011-07-22 14:29:56 * copumpkin speaks italian if necessary
1101 2011-07-22 14:30:05 <copumpkin> not sure what is going on though :)
1102 2011-07-22 14:30:24 <lfm> in fact google translate seems to think it is Esperanto!
1103 2011-07-22 14:31:12 <doublec> what did it think it said?
1104 2011-07-22 14:31:16 wolfspraul has joined
1105 2011-07-22 14:31:36 <lfm> We are not yet able to translate from Esperanto into English.
1106 2011-07-22 14:31:43 <doublec> sad
1107 2011-07-22 14:31:44 <UukGoblin> lol
1108 2011-07-22 14:38:52 <gmaxwell> Hm. Seems that blockexplorer is frequently behind.
1109 2011-07-22 14:39:11 <gmaxwell> I wonder if it's peering off of a pre .24 node which is disconnecting it.
1110 2011-07-22 14:41:21 <prof7bit> is this still a problem once it has all recent blocks and doesn't need to make huge downloads?
1111 2011-07-22 14:41:55 <prof7bit> when its running 24/7?
1112 2011-07-22 14:42:36 <gmaxwell> It's a problem if if ever ends up more than a couple MB behind.
1113 2011-07-22 14:43:55 altamic has joined
1114 2011-07-22 14:45:32 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1115 2011-07-22 14:47:14 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: ping
1116 2011-07-22 14:47:19 <b4epoche_> yep
1117 2011-07-22 14:47:24 Teslah has joined
1118 2011-07-22 14:47:30 <BlueMatt> do you, by any chance, happen to have virtualbox installed on your mac?
1119 2011-07-22 14:47:51 freakazoid has joined
1120 2011-07-22 14:47:53 <b4epoche_> no, but have vmware fusion
1121 2011-07-22 14:48:01 <BlueMatt> m, nevermind
1122 2011-07-22 14:48:04 <b4epoche_> had vb at point
1123 2011-07-22 14:48:10 <b4epoche_> can install if you want
1124 2011-07-22 14:48:35 <BlueMatt> no, its fine
1125 2011-07-22 14:48:50 nhodges has joined
1126 2011-07-22 14:48:52 <BlueMatt> I need to do more research first anyway...
1127 2011-07-22 14:49:02 <b4epoche_> what you up to?
1128 2011-07-22 14:49:15 <BlueMatt> lion
1129 2011-07-22 14:49:25 <BlueMatt> oh, I did some looking at coca
1130 2011-07-22 14:49:31 <BlueMatt> it looks good, but I saw a couple bugs
1131 2011-07-22 14:49:46 <b4epoche_> apparently the license allows Lion to be virtualized now.
1132 2011-07-22 14:49:58 <BlueMatt> well server has always been legal, but now you can on client too
1133 2011-07-22 14:50:06 <b4epoche_> should prevent having to hack around
1134 2011-07-22 14:50:07 <BlueMatt> (only on apple hardware though obviously)
1135 2011-07-22 14:50:10 <Joric> most ugly ui i've seen. ever. :) http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15276.0
1136 2011-07-22 14:50:29 <BlueMatt> first, some of the settings (specifically upnp, not sure about others) dont always update
1137 2011-07-22 14:50:40 <BlueMatt> ie change setting, close window, open settings, old value is there
1138 2011-07-22 14:50:56 <b4epoche_> ah, yea, haven't messed with that much...
1139 2011-07-22 14:51:08 <b4epoche_> Joric:  somewhat agreed
1140 2011-07-22 14:51:12 <BlueMatt> Joric: on windows...oh god
1141 2011-07-22 14:52:12 <b4epoche_> well, that's really old
1142 2011-07-22 14:52:21 <BlueMatt> yea
1143 2011-07-22 14:52:26 <BlueMatt> hopefullt it has been changed
1144 2011-07-22 14:52:35 <b4epoche_> have they gotten feedback?
1145 2011-07-22 14:52:45 <BlueMatt> a ton judging by the thread
1146 2011-07-22 14:52:51 <Joric> he says it would be merged into 0.4, really?
1147 2011-07-22 14:52:58 <BlueMatt> Id like to get that merged with cocoa, but gim hasnt been around for some reason...
1148 2011-07-22 14:53:02 <BlueMatt> Joric: not 0.4, but 0.4.X
1149 2011-07-22 14:53:17 <BlueMatt> it looks really good to me, just the background on the windows one...
1150 2011-07-22 14:53:33 <Joric> so were going (L)GPL after all?
1151 2011-07-22 14:53:40 <BlueMatt> no
1152 2011-07-22 14:53:48 <BlueMatt> well, he would have to relicense it in MIT
1153 2011-07-22 14:54:01 <abishai> guys both the current and the linked ui are awfull, at least for anyone except hardcore geeks
1154 2011-07-22 14:54:21 FellowTraveler has joined
1155 2011-07-22 14:54:31 <TD> gmaxwell: it may be that theymos has not upgraded
1156 2011-07-22 14:54:43 <TD> gmaxwell: iirc he refused to upgrade past a certain point because of some fee related change
1157 2011-07-22 14:54:51 <FellowTraveler> Hi all.  FYI, I just posted some new builds of Open-Transactions, server + Java client API:  https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions/downloads
1158 2011-07-22 14:54:57 <b4epoche_> before anyone starts bad mouthing the Cocoa UI, I just tried to copy the Wx UI
1159 2011-07-22 14:54:58 <FellowTraveler> (Win32, Mac64, and Ubuntu 32)
1160 2011-07-22 14:55:00 <BlueMatt> why are people so obsessed with the fee thing
1161 2011-07-22 14:55:27 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  I think it has to do with a loss of control more than anything
1162 2011-07-22 14:55:49 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  you have to remember the early adopters are 'rebels'
1163 2011-07-22 14:55:51 <BlueMatt> yea, though it really only effects those who deal with a /ton/ of /tiny/ transactions
1164 2011-07-22 14:56:13 <FellowTraveler> It's not a fully install program (yet) but should save people a lot of hassle not to have to build OT.
1165 2011-07-22 14:57:03 <gmaxwell> Is the import/export stuff expected for 0.4.0?
1166 2011-07-22 14:57:11 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes
1167 2011-07-22 14:57:20 <random_cat> in some cases the fee is very annoying
1168 2011-07-22 14:57:23 <BlueMatt> that is, I think, everything major that has to get merged for 0.4.0
1169 2011-07-22 14:59:13 <imsaguy> I ran into a thing the other day where the .02 wasn't being picked up by anybody because it didn't have a fee attached
1170 2011-07-22 14:59:19 <ersi> Joric: I'd have to agree. That looks horrible.
1171 2011-07-22 15:00:15 <BlueMatt> imsaguy: if you are using the latest version, it will force a fee if necessary to get it picked up
1172 2011-07-22 15:00:26 <imsaguy> this was a mobile version
1173 2011-07-22 15:00:58 <imsaguy> so I had to reprocess the chain, add more funds and then redo the transfer for a larger amount
1174 2011-07-22 15:01:24 <imsaguy> kinda sucked, but it worked
1175 2011-07-22 15:01:27 <TD> one of the android apps, yeah
1176 2011-07-22 15:01:29 <Joric> http://goo.gl/7JkhX, totally
1177 2011-07-22 15:01:35 <imsaguy> yeah td
1178 2011-07-22 15:01:37 <imsaguy> bitcoin wallet
1179 2011-07-22 15:01:45 <imsaguy> glad I figured it out though
1180 2011-07-22 15:01:49 <TD> sorry about that. it says on the bitcoinj page since forever that some spends may never confirm
1181 2011-07-22 15:01:58 <TD> i wish the mobile apps came with stronger health warnings
1182 2011-07-22 15:01:59 <imsaguy> I reset the chain in the app
1183 2011-07-22 15:02:09 <imsaguy> it still showed the outgoing transaction
1184 2011-07-22 15:02:11 <imsaguy> but reset my balance
1185 2011-07-22 15:02:15 <imsaguy> so I added more funds
1186 2011-07-22 15:02:20 <imsaguy> and then sent a larger transaction
1187 2011-07-22 15:02:29 <imsaguy> uninstalled/reinstalled the app to reset the wallet
1188 2011-07-22 15:02:41 <TD> i think eventually the tx may have confirmed anyway due to the inputs aging
1189 2011-07-22 15:02:42 <imsaguy> they just need to add fee support
1190 2011-07-22 15:02:47 <TD> i've forgotten the exact formula used
1191 2011-07-22 15:02:49 <TD> imsaguy: why not you?
1192 2011-07-22 15:02:51 <imsaguy> nah, no peers were relaying
1193 2011-07-22 15:02:58 <TD> ah right, good point
1194 2011-07-22 15:03:05 <imsaguy> it was dying before it got to pending
1195 2011-07-22 15:03:11 <imsaguy> I watched for hours
1196 2011-07-22 15:03:14 <TD> i'm on holidays from a week and a half so i don't think anyone will implement fees for at least a few weeks yet
1197 2011-07-22 15:03:16 <imsaguy> tried setting trusted peers
1198 2011-07-22 15:03:18 <TD> but patches are welcome
1199 2011-07-22 15:03:35 <imsaguy> who are you?
1200 2011-07-22 15:03:36 <imsaguy> :-x
1201 2011-07-22 15:03:55 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1202 2011-07-22 15:04:00 <TD> i wrote bitcoinj
1203 2011-07-22 15:04:04 <TD> on which the mobile apps are based
1204 2011-07-22 15:04:05 <imsaguy> ok
1205 2011-07-22 15:04:13 <imsaguy> I don't do java
1206 2011-07-22 15:04:26 <TD> too bad
1207 2011-07-22 15:04:27 <imsaguy> I'm newer to the bitcoin arena so I don't know many of the names
1208 2011-07-22 15:04:36 <imsaguy> but I've been mining for a while
1209 2011-07-22 15:04:39 <TD> BlueMatt: seems somebody is generating empty blocks
1210 2011-07-22 15:04:41 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1211 2011-07-22 15:04:49 <imsaguy> oops
1212 2011-07-22 15:04:51 <TD> doh
1213 2011-07-22 15:05:02 <UukGoblin> their loss... isn't it?
1214 2011-07-22 15:05:20 WakiMiko_ has joined
1215 2011-07-22 15:05:25 <TD> not really. generating empty blocks will probably become more common in future
1216 2011-07-22 15:05:29 <Joric> TD, do you work for google?
1217 2011-07-22 15:05:41 <TD> because people aren't attaching fees, and processing the chain is getting more expensive (disk seeks, cpu, etc)
1218 2011-07-22 15:05:43 <TD> Joric: yes
1219 2011-07-22 15:06:37 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1220 2011-07-22 15:07:12 <b4epoche_> what happened to BlueBoy?
1221 2011-07-22 15:07:41 <UukGoblin> TD, their loss cause they didn't earn the tx fees that they could
1222 2011-07-22 15:07:55 <TD> UukGoblin: you're assume there were any fees to collect
1223 2011-07-22 15:08:02 <UukGoblin> yeah
1224 2011-07-22 15:08:05 <TD> or that the fees available were worth more than the cost of keeping up with the chain
1225 2011-07-22 15:08:11 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1226 2011-07-22 15:08:24 <erus`> what are < 1 bitcoins called
1227 2011-07-22 15:08:32 <erus`> do people count in cents or satoshis or what?
1228 2011-07-22 15:08:51 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
1229 2011-07-22 15:08:56 <imsaguy> actually issue 58 is similar to what I was experiencing
1230 2011-07-22 15:08:57 <UukGoblin> erus`, no consensus
1231 2011-07-22 15:09:06 <b4epoche_> OT but this is going to be really good:  http://www.wolfram.com/broadcast/screencasts/cdf_intro/
1232 2011-07-22 15:09:27 <erus`> also can someone download the client and use it without having to download the entire block chain yet?
1233 2011-07-22 15:09:36 rynx has joined
1234 2011-07-22 15:09:47 <UukGoblin> erus`, nope, at least not the mainstream one
1235 2011-07-22 15:09:58 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
1236 2011-07-22 15:10:00 <erus`> that really needs to be sorted
1237 2011-07-22 15:10:12 [7] has joined
1238 2011-07-22 15:10:17 <UukGoblin> works is being done on it I believe
1239 2011-07-22 15:10:22 <UukGoblin> s/works/work/
1240 2011-07-22 15:10:32 Jefff2 has joined
1241 2011-07-22 15:10:47 MC-Eeepc has joined
1242 2011-07-22 15:10:48 <UukGoblin> the big problem imho is that miners really have very little incentive to include transactions without fees in the blocks
1243 2011-07-22 15:11:10 hugolp has joined
1244 2011-07-22 15:11:13 <UukGoblin> the only incentive is "to keep users happy and hope that if they're happy I'll indirectly gain more from their happiness later"
1245 2011-07-22 15:11:42 genjix has left ()
1246 2011-07-22 15:13:26 Jefff has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1247 2011-07-22 15:13:40 Stellar has joined
1248 2011-07-22 15:13:44 <Joric> what 1 btc would be in satoshis? 100 megasatoshi? :)
1249 2011-07-22 15:13:57 <copumpkin> yep
1250 2011-07-22 15:15:56 <Joric> it's... beautiful... http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6594/bitcoinqt5.png
1251 2011-07-22 15:17:01 <copumpkin> I demand a fork of the official client that counts in satoshis
1252 2011-07-22 15:17:05 <copumpkin> it makes me feel richer
1253 2011-07-22 15:17:32 <imsaguy> do it yourself!
1254 2011-07-22 15:17:37 <b4epoche_> Joric:  if you insist
1255 2011-07-22 15:17:48 <gmaxwell> I was in italy during the switch to the euro and there were people on TV whining about how they'd no longer be millionaires.
1256 2011-07-22 15:18:00 <copumpkin> b4epoche_: can you have an option in your client to do that?
1257 2011-07-22 15:18:12 <b4epoche_> done
1258 2011-07-22 15:18:17 <copumpkin> gmaxwell: yeah, there used to be the "who wants to be a billionaire" show on TV
1259 2011-07-22 15:18:24 <copumpkin> it turned into a millionaire later :(
1260 2011-07-22 15:18:31 <b4epoche_> what's the symbol for a satoshi?  $?
1261 2011-07-22 15:18:33 <copumpkin> it was pretty easy to be a millionaire in italy before the switch :)
1262 2011-07-22 15:18:39 <TD> Joric: well it's not like the current client is a work of art :)
1263 2011-07-22 15:19:12 BlueMatt has joined
1264 2011-07-22 15:19:23 <imsaguy> Go to mexico
1265 2011-07-22 15:19:24 <Joric> TD, this work of art would be merged into 0.4.x
1266 2011-07-22 15:19:29 <b4epoche_> if I use $ for a satoshi that might make you feel richer
1267 2011-07-22 15:19:30 <imsaguy> you can be a millionaire there pretty easy
1268 2011-07-22 15:19:35 <b4epoche_> BlueBoy is back...
1269 2011-07-22 15:19:37 <TD> *shrug*
1270 2011-07-22 15:19:44 <gmaxwell> (or maybe it was billionaire... millionaire would have been .. not much)
1271 2011-07-22 15:19:48 <TD> if it's easier to evolve the UI in Qt and there's a guy who is actively doing so, i'm all for it
1272 2011-07-22 15:19:54 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  bug fixed, next?
1273 2011-07-22 15:19:57 <TD> nobody touches the wx gui, almost
1274 2011-07-22 15:20:21 <gmaxwell> I don't speak Italian, so my grasp anything there was pretty weak)
1275 2011-07-22 15:20:23 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: well it did randomly crash when I clicked the address button...
1276 2011-07-22 15:20:37 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: also, there are no icons on top of the address and send buttons
1277 2011-07-22 15:21:04 <b4epoche_> eh?  in the version you built?
1278 2011-07-22 15:21:20 <BlueMatt> you
1279 2011-07-22 15:21:25 <BlueMatt> well yours still wont load...
1280 2011-07-22 15:21:34 <b4epoche_> mine?
1281 2011-07-22 15:21:38 <BlueMatt> your build
1282 2011-07-22 15:21:42 BlueMattBot has joined
1283 2011-07-22 15:21:44 <Joric> i've added "downloaded blocks / total blocks" it's was the only improvement i needed
1284 2011-07-22 15:21:57 <b4epoche_> what's it complaining about?
1285 2011-07-22 15:22:04 sytse_ has joined
1286 2011-07-22 15:22:04 sytse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1287 2011-07-22 15:22:09 <b4epoche_> you have Xcode up?
1288 2011-07-22 15:22:17 <BlueMatt> yea sure
1289 2011-07-22 15:22:46 <b4epoche_> you see Send.pdf and AddressBook.png in the cocoa folder?
1290 2011-07-22 15:23:21 <BlueMatt> yes
1291 2011-07-22 15:23:23 <Joric> TD, i afraid to ask, but i wonder does google have interest in that somehow?
1292 2011-07-22 15:23:35 <TD> an interest in what
1293 2011-07-22 15:24:31 <b4epoche_> oh, haha…  forgot to have those files copied into the bundle in that target
1294 2011-07-22 15:25:43 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1295 2011-07-22 15:26:06 <Joric> TD, in bitcoinj
1296 2011-07-22 15:26:15 <TD> in bitcoinj?
1297 2011-07-22 15:26:16 <TD> google funds it
1298 2011-07-22 15:26:23 <BlueMatt> ha, didnt realize laszlo is an osx86 hacker...googeling turned up bootloader files...
1299 2011-07-22 15:26:23 <TD> i develop it in work time, and the copyright is owned by google
1300 2011-07-22 15:26:37 <iddo> hmmmm
1301 2011-07-22 15:27:07 <iddo> why google cares about bitcoin and bitcoind ?
1302 2011-07-22 15:27:22 <TD> it's a 20% time project
1303 2011-07-22 15:27:26 <TD> google has no official position on bitcoin
1304 2011-07-22 15:27:56 <iddo> so they just allow you to do it because it's something you want to do?
1305 2011-07-22 15:28:14 <BlueMatt> thats what google does
1306 2011-07-22 15:28:24 <D0han> thats how google rolls
1307 2011-07-22 15:28:28 <BlueMatt> 20% time
1308 2011-07-22 15:28:38 <b4epoche_> and shut down Google Labs
1309 2011-07-22 15:28:41 <Joric> one day of 5 day week
1310 2011-07-22 15:28:49 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: yea :(
1311 2011-07-22 15:29:23 * b4epoche_ thinks that was a really smart thing for them to do
1312 2011-07-22 15:29:26 <prof7bit> Lines 50..61: http://pastebin.com/ekPk7n54
1313 2011-07-22 15:30:07 <Joric> if i don't want any pet project, i may stay at home that day? :)
1314 2011-07-22 15:31:15 <b4epoche_> anyone else want a list of 14,000 DDOS'ing IPs?
1315 2011-07-22 15:33:19 <D0han> 14k? thats decent botnet
1316 2011-07-22 15:33:45 <Joric> omg i just been forked
1317 2011-07-22 15:33:46 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
1318 2011-07-22 15:33:51 <Joric> twice!
1319 2011-07-22 15:33:58 TheSeven has joined
1320 2011-07-22 15:33:59 <Joric> "Forked repository is at jackjack-jj/pywallet"
1321 2011-07-22 15:34:07 <Joric> forked hard
1322 2011-07-22 15:34:24 <b4epoche_> D0han:  flooded psu.edu with 13 Gbps
1323 2011-07-22 15:35:16 <D0han> oh, nice one
1324 2011-07-22 15:37:53 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  I'm not able to get a crash with address book…  you have a crash log?
1325 2011-07-22 15:38:12 <cjdelisle> b4epoche_: investigations@cymru.com I'm sure if you wrote up the story they would be interested in the intel.
1326 2011-07-22 15:38:45 <cjdelisle> In case you're interested: http://www.team-cymru.org/About/
1327 2011-07-22 15:38:54 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: yea, invalid access to pwalletMain->cs_mapAddressBook in ViewController.mm:refreshAddressBookArrays
1328 2011-07-22 15:40:11 <b4epoche_> cjdelisle:  I've been told by the IT people (little surrounding me and who I see in the hall many times per day) to lay low ;-)
1329 2011-07-22 15:40:42 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1330 2011-07-22 15:41:09 <b4epoche_> cjdelisle:  and I think the IT higher-ups here probably have already contacted them
1331 2011-07-22 15:41:22 <cjdelisle> oh I doubt cymru would do much other than log it in their db and add it to their "known infected ips"
1332 2011-07-22 15:41:33 <cjdelisle> good chance of it
1333 2011-07-22 15:42:00 <b4epoche_> "wrote up the story" <- didn't sound like laying low ;-)
1334 2011-07-22 15:42:38 <cjdelisle> The botnet tracking community is pretty tightknit so it doesn't matter if you give it to cymru or the storm center or outpost42 they all get the infoz.
1335 2011-07-22 15:42:51 Sedra has joined
1336 2011-07-22 15:43:59 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  that method (refreshAddressBookArrays) is essentially 'core code'
1337 2011-07-22 15:44:03 blueadept has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1338 2011-07-22 15:44:17 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: no idea why its broken, Im just reporting the error I saw
1339 2011-07-22 15:44:28 <b4epoche_> yea, that's really strange.
1340 2011-07-22 15:44:42 rynx has joined
1341 2011-07-22 15:44:56 <b4epoche_> there's nothing there but adding stuff to an array based on calls to core code
1342 2011-07-22 15:45:02 huk has joined
1343 2011-07-22 15:45:16 <BlueMatt> well for some reason cs_mapAddressBook doesnt exist
1344 2011-07-22 15:45:28 <b4epoche_> is this a consistent thing?
1345 2011-07-22 15:45:36 <BlueMatt> yes
1346 2011-07-22 15:46:02 <b4epoche_> isn't cs_mapAddressBook part of 0.3.24 code base?
1347 2011-07-22 15:46:10 <BlueMatt> yep
1348 2011-07-22 15:47:22 <b4epoche_> it's pretty clearly defined in wallet.h, hmm?
1349 2011-07-22 15:47:29 mmoya has joined
1350 2011-07-22 15:48:05 <BlueMatt> all I know is "Program received signal: EXC_BAD_ACCESS" and the trace shows it originating form CRITICAL_BLOCK(pwalletMain->cs_mapAddressBook)
1351 2011-07-22 15:48:31 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1352 2011-07-22 15:49:01 blueadept has joined
1353 2011-07-22 15:49:06 dvide has quit ()
1354 2011-07-22 15:49:25 <b4epoche_> can I blame CCriticalSection::Enter() instead of my function?
1355 2011-07-22 15:49:41 <BlueMatt> I dont think so
1356 2011-07-22 15:51:35 <b4epoche_> that seems very 'low level'
1357 2011-07-22 15:51:41 <b4epoche_> VM issue?
1358 2011-07-22 15:51:49 <TD> BlueMatt: suggests that pwalletMain is NULL ?
1359 2011-07-22 15:52:02 <BlueMatt> TD: yea
1360 2011-07-22 15:52:18 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: I havent seen any other issues in here, nor any other vm so I highly doubt it
1361 2011-07-22 15:52:29 <b4epoche_> or maybe got trampled, eh?
1362 2011-07-22 15:52:47 <TD> on linux at least, signals come with info about the cause of the crash
1363 2011-07-22 15:52:47 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1364 2011-07-22 15:52:56 <TD> you can print it out to see what the bad access address was
1365 2011-07-22 15:53:00 <TD> not sure about darwin
1366 2011-07-22 15:53:35 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1367 2011-07-22 15:53:46 <BlueMatt> well xcode catches it and displays lines quite nicely, though Im currently trying to parse VirtualBox source, so I cant exactly debug atm...
1368 2011-07-22 15:53:47 <b4epoche_> I think gdb intercepts them
1369 2011-07-22 15:53:51 <TD> ah
1370 2011-07-22 15:54:01 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: yep pwalletMain is NULL here
1371 2011-07-22 15:54:26 <b4epoche_> very strange.
1372 2011-07-22 15:54:34 x6763 has joined
1373 2011-07-22 15:54:36 <b4epoche_> that's a global
1374 2011-07-22 15:56:02 Joric has quit ()
1375 2011-07-22 15:58:29 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1376 2011-07-22 15:59:03 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1377 2011-07-22 16:01:26 <b4epoche_> oh wait...
1378 2011-07-22 16:01:45 koleg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1379 2011-07-22 16:01:49 E-sense has joined
1380 2011-07-22 16:01:52 <b4epoche_> I think it's because the UI is up but the wallet code isn't init'd
1381 2011-07-22 16:02:11 <BlueMatt> did you not copy most of AppInit() into your init stuff?
1382 2011-07-22 16:02:29 <b4epoche_> I call it on a separate thread
1383 2011-07-22 16:02:41 <BlueMatt> ah, well yes that would be a problem
1384 2011-07-22 16:03:08 <BlueMatt> for now, its probably best to just do that before you do anything else
1385 2011-07-22 16:03:29 <b4epoche_> but that issue that just showed up is troubling
1386 2011-07-22 16:04:03 <b4epoche_> it's starting to look like some random memory trampling, no?
1387 2011-07-22 16:04:12 <BlueMatt> dont think so
1388 2011-07-22 16:04:26 <BlueMatt> though Im not paying attention
1389 2011-07-22 16:04:34 * BlueMatt is reading vbox source
1390 2011-07-22 16:04:52 <b4epoche_> I mean, it's certainly not beyond me to trample some memory
1391 2011-07-22 16:05:12 <BlueMatt> I really, highly, doubt virtualbox is doing anything nasty
1392 2011-07-22 16:05:31 <b4epoche_> no, I'm not blaming anyone but me
1393 2011-07-22 16:05:53 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
1394 2011-07-22 16:06:47 FellowTraveler has left ()
1395 2011-07-22 16:07:45 <BlueMatt> hey, virtualbox prefixes all their variables just like satoshi does
1396 2011-07-22 16:07:49 <BlueMatt> ...
1397 2011-07-22 16:08:20 <b4epoche_> that's old school…  my evidence satoshi is > 35
1398 2011-07-22 16:08:33 <BlueMatt> yep
1399 2011-07-22 16:08:47 * b4epoche_ likes postfixing better
1400 2011-07-22 16:09:31 <copumpkin> b4epoche_: you planning on supporting namecoins in your client? :) :)
1401 2011-07-22 16:10:01 <b4epoche_> maybe once I figure out what use it is
1402 2011-07-22 16:10:24 ewal-otg has joined
1403 2011-07-22 16:12:47 hdwow has joined
1404 2011-07-22 16:14:50 Incitatus has joined
1405 2011-07-22 16:15:43 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt:  0x1?
1406 2011-07-22 16:15:46 <Eliel> BlueMatt: is there anything done about the timejacking attack yet?
1407 2011-07-22 16:15:56 <BlueMatt> Eliel: not yet...:(
1408 2011-07-22 16:16:03 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: ncf
1409 2011-07-22 16:16:07 <BlueMatt> does seem odd
1410 2011-07-22 16:16:44 <b4epoche_> nfc?
1411 2011-07-22 16:17:06 <BlueMatt> no f'ing clue
1412 2011-07-22 16:17:28 <b4epoche_> no, you said ncf so I'm trying to figure out what that was ;-)
1413 2011-07-22 16:17:49 <IO-> he told you
1414 2011-07-22 16:17:49 <BlueMatt> ...
1415 2011-07-22 16:17:51 nhodges has joined
1416 2011-07-22 16:17:54 <IO-> hehe
1417 2011-07-22 16:17:56 <mtrlt> no cocking flu
1418 2011-07-22 16:18:01 <IO-> nfc
1419 2011-07-22 16:18:03 <IO-> no fucking clue
1420 2011-07-22 16:18:16 <b4epoche_> IO-:  read closely
1421 2011-07-22 16:18:32 <IO-> ;
1422 2011-07-22 16:19:07 <b4epoche_> is always shocked that developers don't seem to have the eye for written details you think they would need for debugging
1423 2011-07-22 16:19:20 <mtrlt> where do you think the need for debugging comes from? :P
1424 2011-07-22 16:19:30 T_X has joined
1425 2011-07-22 16:19:51 <b4epoche_> no, bugs are inevitable, but it takes a detailed eye to find them sometimes
1426 2011-07-22 16:20:06 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1427 2011-07-22 16:20:13 <BlueMatt> I do have to say, xcode is quite refreshing after using gedit and...nothing
1428 2011-07-22 16:20:16 <copumpkin> my code doesn't have bugs in it
1429 2011-07-22 16:20:28 <copumpkin> some of it, anyway
1430 2011-07-22 16:20:33 <b4epoche_> that's because you use haskel
1431 2011-07-22 16:20:43 <copumpkin> nah, my haskell code sometimes contains bugs, I'm sorry to say
1432 2011-07-22 16:20:49 <copumpkin> the agda code, on the other hand
1433 2011-07-22 16:21:02 <copumpkin> assuming I bother to write all the proofs
1434 2011-07-22 16:21:02 <Eliel> copumpkin: agda does it even better?
1435 2011-07-22 16:21:08 <Eliel> oh right
1436 2011-07-22 16:21:10 <copumpkin> :)
1437 2011-07-22 16:21:11 <Eliel> takes more effort
1438 2011-07-22 16:21:13 <copumpkin> oh yes
1439 2011-07-22 16:21:14 <BlueMatt> b4epoche_: well I dont know whats going on here...Im gonna do a reboot and try some more stuff wrt to virtualbox and hardware ids
1440 2011-07-22 16:21:16 <copumpkin> lots of effort
1441 2011-07-22 16:21:23 <copumpkin> especially when I never actually run the program
1442 2011-07-22 16:21:28 <Eliel> :D
1443 2011-07-22 16:21:34 <copumpkin> but at least I've proven it would be correct if I chose to run it
1444 2011-07-22 16:21:36 * b4epoche_ does like Xcode but has nothing much to compare it to, besides messing with Eclipse a few times
1445 2011-07-22 16:21:49 * Eliel is a haskeller too.
1446 2011-07-22 16:21:52 <b4epoche_> BlueMatt: okay
1447 2011-07-22 16:21:57 <copumpkin> Eliel: yay haskell
1448 2011-07-22 16:22:11 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1449 2011-07-22 16:22:15 <Eliel> I spent a lot of time yesterday going over PureCoin code :)
1450 2011-07-22 16:22:21 <copumpkin> yay
1451 2011-07-22 16:22:29 <copumpkin> roconnor will be happy
1452 2011-07-22 16:22:34 <Eliel> it had lots of complaints about bitcoin design in it :D
1453 2011-07-22 16:22:43 <mtrlt> i so gotta get into haskell :-(
1454 2011-07-22 16:22:43 <b4epoche_> there's a bar down the street from my office called the Rathskeller
1455 2011-07-22 16:24:44 nhodges has joined
1456 2011-07-22 16:27:38 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1457 2011-07-22 16:28:56 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1458 2011-07-22 16:29:19 bobke_ has joined
1459 2011-07-22 16:29:20 bobke has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1460 2011-07-22 16:31:51 Incitatus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1461 2011-07-22 16:32:46 pusle has joined
1462 2011-07-22 16:35:32 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1463 2011-07-22 16:36:16 bobke_ is now known as bobke
1464 2011-07-22 16:40:33 MC-Eeepc has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1465 2011-07-22 16:40:51 MC-Eeepc has joined
1466 2011-07-22 16:40:56 mosimo has joined
1467 2011-07-22 16:41:28 MrTiggr has joined
1468 2011-07-22 16:42:07 osmosis has joined
1469 2011-07-22 16:45:12 Qatz has joined
1470 2011-07-22 16:45:44 SuprTiggr has joined
1471 2011-07-22 16:45:48 rethaw has joined
1472 2011-07-22 16:46:23 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1473 2011-07-22 16:46:34 <MrTiggr> ?? so is this the ryt chan to ask a question abut an "odd" block of TXN'x ???
1474 2011-07-22 16:46:56 SecretSJ has joined
1475 2011-07-22 16:47:45 <vegard> sure
1476 2011-07-22 16:48:03 MobiusL has joined
1477 2011-07-22 16:48:45 copumpkin has joined
1478 2011-07-22 16:49:06 DaQatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1479 2011-07-22 16:49:34 Rocks has joined
1480 2011-07-22 16:49:45 <lfm> Block #71036?
1481 2011-07-22 16:50:35 <imsaguy> the suspense is killing me
1482 2011-07-22 16:50:39 <MrTiggr> nup
1483 2011-07-22 16:50:43 <MrTiggr> ok ... so i got the following TXN sent to me the other day to look at :: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1AwbExP42XU6NaJgVJYFUKYDpS961Jmj5M
1484 2011-07-22 16:51:06 <imsaguy> and?
1485 2011-07-22 16:51:13 <MrTiggr> it leads (at LEAST) to http://blockexplorer.com/address/14nbRYAjJFJYF5ZpvUtdZhhNUus29fRChM
1486 2011-07-22 16:51:28 <MrTiggr> and siphons funds to subwallets over a number of days
1487 2011-07-22 16:51:41 <MrTiggr> ?? WTF  ??? Miner shifting funds ??
1488 2011-07-22 16:51:53 <lfm> those arnt txn, they are ledgers
1489 2011-07-22 16:52:01 <MrTiggr> yah fair call
1490 2011-07-22 16:52:12 <MrTiggr> but still ...any insight ?
1491 2011-07-22 16:52:13 <gmaxwell> MrTiggr: it looks pretty boring to me.
1492 2011-07-22 16:52:30 <imsaguy> looks like they keep adding funds
1493 2011-07-22 16:52:33 <lfm> money comes in, money goes out.
1494 2011-07-22 16:52:35 <imsaguy> probably buying
1495 2011-07-22 16:52:41 <imsaguy> whats the issue?
1496 2011-07-22 16:53:25 spiky has joined
1497 2011-07-22 16:53:36 <MrTiggr> yeh - i'm looking at it from the POV of holding up the confirm chain etc ....it siphons to a lot of subwallets from a 36KBTC+ wallet to 28KBTC over a few days
1498 2011-07-22 16:53:46 Qatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1499 2011-07-22 16:54:00 spiky is now known as Guest26990
1500 2011-07-22 16:54:16 <MrTiggr> why wud such a chain exist ?? if it the wrong chan to ask ..all gud..i fsk off
1501 2011-07-22 16:54:32 <imsaguy> no
1502 2011-07-22 16:54:38 <imsaguy> its adding value
1503 2011-07-22 16:54:46 <imsaguy> the subwallets are adding to the main wallet
1504 2011-07-22 16:54:55 <imsaguy> if they even are subwallets
1505 2011-07-22 16:55:15 <MrTiggr> yeh ...i kinda get that ... ??? stil not odd ??
1506 2011-07-22 16:55:20 <MrTiggr> i say miner
1507 2011-07-22 16:55:30 <MrTiggr> (not a bad one at that)
1508 2011-07-22 16:55:47 <MrTiggr> or mining pool
1509 2011-07-22 16:55:54 <imsaguy> who cares?
1510 2011-07-22 16:55:55 <MrTiggr> mrlikly
1511 2011-07-22 16:55:59 <MrTiggr> I do
1512 2011-07-22 16:56:11 <imsaguy> do you tell everyone everytime you add money to your wallet?
1513 2011-07-22 16:56:18 <MrTiggr> no
1514 2011-07-22 16:56:31 <MrTiggr> but i get notified of suss TXN's
1515 2011-07-22 16:56:41 <MrTiggr> not my wallet BTW
1516 2011-07-22 16:57:07 karnac has joined
1517 2011-07-22 16:57:20 <gmaxwell> MrTiggr: thats how the txn will look if you have a wallet with a single input and make a number of payments.
1518 2011-07-22 16:57:41 <imsaguy> oh it is payments
1519 2011-07-22 16:57:52 <imsaguy> <--stupid
1520 2011-07-22 16:57:55 rethaw has quit (Quit: rethaw)
1521 2011-07-22 16:58:23 <gmaxwell> MrTiggr: for example, if I send you 100 btc in one transaction to a virgin wallet, and send out 1,1,1,1...,1 the txn will look like 100->99,1  99->98,1  98->97,1 ... etc.
1522 2011-07-22 16:58:48 <gmaxwell> Each time respending the change from the last one. And indeed, it can take longer to confirm this way.
1523 2011-07-22 16:59:25 <gmaxwell> The situation is greatly improved by using sendmany if you know you're going to make a bunch of transactions at once.
1524 2011-07-22 16:59:41 freakazoid has joined
1525 2011-07-22 17:00:03 <gmaxwell> (and arguably the bitcoin software should delay your transactions by a little bit in order to merge them into sendmany's but this would break returning the txid)
1526 2011-07-22 17:00:33 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, any idea what it would take to have forceresendtx merged?
1527 2011-07-22 17:00:51 <BlueMatt> what is that one again?
1528 2011-07-22 17:01:31 <phantomcircuit> side steps the 0 to 30 minute random delay for resending wallet tx's not yet in a block when you first start up
1529 2011-07-22 17:02:12 <phantomcircuit> i also threw in an rpc call to force resending manually
1530 2011-07-22 17:02:14 <phantomcircuit> just for fun
1531 2011-07-22 17:02:19 <BlueMatt> meh, no idea ask one of the people who actually make decisions
1532 2011-07-22 17:02:19 agath has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1533 2011-07-22 17:02:25 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1534 2011-07-22 17:02:26 <phantomcircuit> lul
1535 2011-07-22 17:02:35 <phantomcircuit> they're not here
1536 2011-07-22 17:02:43 <BlueMatt> yep, so its gonna have to wait anyway
1537 2011-07-22 17:02:47 <lfm> phantomcircuit: you tested it? is it subject to abuse?
1538 2011-07-22 17:03:06 <lfm> not that I make such decisions.
1539 2011-07-22 17:03:07 <phantomcircuit> lfm, i tested it enough to know that it works
1540 2011-07-22 17:03:30 <phantomcircuit> the rpc is subject to people calling it in a loop
1541 2011-07-22 17:03:36 <phantomcircuit> which would be obnoxious
1542 2011-07-22 17:04:08 agath has joined
1543 2011-07-22 17:05:01 jav__ has joined
1544 2011-07-22 17:05:59 <lfm> MrTiggr: so ..  we think those are not odd txn at all.
1545 2011-07-22 17:06:58 <jav__> ;;seen ArtForz
1546 2011-07-22 17:06:58 <gribble> ArtForz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 weeks, 2 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes, and 52 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
1547 2011-07-22 17:07:24 <lfm> I hope hes ok
1548 2011-07-22 17:07:56 <jav__> any idea why he hasn't been online in a while?
1549 2011-07-22 17:08:30 <lfm> got something better to do?
1550 2011-07-22 17:09:18 <jav__> hopefully :-) .. in any case: does anyone know what licence ArtForz "half-a-node" code is under? .. I got it from a pastebin, but was wondering, if he had mentioned anything?
1551 2011-07-22 17:09:53 <MrTiggr> :D:D:D ok thanx gang .... good explain
1552 2011-07-22 17:10:00 <MrTiggr> karma++ to all!
1553 2011-07-22 17:10:11 <phantomcircuit> jav__, yes he said public domain
1554 2011-07-22 17:10:56 <jav__> phantomcircuit: aw, great, thx
1555 2011-07-22 17:13:46 Qatz has joined
1556 2011-07-22 17:14:58 <jav__> this means if I take that code, do some modifications, I can release it under a MIT licence, right? ... of course part of it is still public domain, but it's fine if I put it under MIT in addition to that?
1557 2011-07-22 17:15:47 <nanotube> jav__: well, public domain means "you can do anything you want with it"
1558 2011-07-22 17:15:52 ar4s has joined
1559 2011-07-22 17:16:27 <jav__> nanotube: right, just wanted to make sure - thx!
1560 2011-07-22 17:16:35 <nanotube> ;;wp public domain
1561 2011-07-22 17:16:36 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain | Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property rights have expired, or if the ...
1562 2011-07-22 17:17:41 Rocks has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1563 2011-07-22 17:17:50 gjs278 has joined
1564 2011-07-22 17:19:01 Rocks has joined
1565 2011-07-22 17:20:57 magn3ts has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1566 2011-07-22 17:22:44 ThomasV has joined
1567 2011-07-22 17:23:29 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1568 2011-07-22 17:23:31 Qatz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1569 2011-07-22 17:24:10 freakazoid has joined
1570 2011-07-22 17:24:18 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1571 2011-07-22 17:24:57 ar4s has quit (Quit: ar4s)
1572 2011-07-22 17:25:00 denisx has joined
1573 2011-07-22 17:28:49 denisx_ has joined
1574 2011-07-22 17:29:14 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1575 2011-07-22 17:29:15 denisx_ is now known as denisx
1576 2011-07-22 17:32:10 Rocks has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1577 2011-07-22 17:32:22 Rocks has joined
1578 2011-07-22 17:34:34 JackStorm has quit (Quit: JackStorm)
1579 2011-07-22 17:35:19 hdwow has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1580 2011-07-22 17:37:06 datagutt has joined
1581 2011-07-22 17:40:23 p0s has joined
1582 2011-07-22 17:40:47 koleg has joined
1583 2011-07-22 17:40:50 Zarutian has joined
1584 2011-07-22 17:47:19 rynx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1585 2011-07-22 17:54:55 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1586 2011-07-22 17:59:06 denisx has joined
1587 2011-07-22 18:00:07 TD has joined
1588 2011-07-22 18:00:07 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1589 2011-07-22 18:01:12 sacredchao has quit (Quit: KVIrc KVIrc Equilibrium 4.1.1, revision: 5829, sources date: 20110403, built on: 2011-05-07 15:04:44 UTC http://www.kvirc.net/)
1590 2011-07-22 18:07:20 sacredchao has joined
1591 2011-07-22 18:09:09 <Zagitta> What exactly is the problem with the json-rcp protocol and cpu miners?
1592 2011-07-22 18:11:05 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1593 2011-07-22 18:11:53 <gmaxwell> Zagitta: if someone has many cpus they will perform many more getworks per unit of work done than the same hashing power in gpu miners.
1594 2011-07-22 18:12:21 <gmaxwell> because a cpu will almost never exahust its nonce range, thus loading up pool servers more heavily.
1595 2011-07-22 18:12:31 osmosis has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1596 2011-07-22 18:13:35 xelister has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1597 2011-07-22 18:13:44 <upb> yep thats why a move to xml-rpc is needed
1598 2011-07-22 18:13:48 <upb> or soap
1599 2011-07-22 18:14:09 <jrmithdobbs> both of those are more verbose and require more parsing though?
1600 2011-07-22 18:14:34 <upb> thats the point
1601 2011-07-22 18:14:39 <upb> thus more efficient
1602 2011-07-22 18:15:04 <jrmithdobbs> but that means more load on the pools, not following
1603 2011-07-22 18:15:05 <mtrlt> ah, so that's where the script programmers come from
1604 2011-07-22 18:19:48 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1605 2011-07-22 18:20:25 da2ce7 has joined
1606 2011-07-22 18:24:10 <gmaxwell> upb: XML is WEBSCALE, no?
1607 2011-07-22 18:24:11 rynx has joined
1608 2011-07-22 18:24:25 wirehead has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1609 2011-07-22 18:24:53 <upb> yes but im not sure whether its more webscale than json :)
1610 2011-07-22 18:25:16 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you using that word specifically for me?
1611 2011-07-22 18:25:25 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: no, for upb.
1612 2011-07-22 18:25:33 <upb> i mean, XML was already pretty webscale
1613 2011-07-22 18:25:53 * BlueMatt ponders setting up a script to ban anyone using the "word" webscale
1614 2011-07-22 18:25:54 <Zagitta> xml, yucks... I vote for binary!
1615 2011-07-22 18:25:59 <upb> wbxml
1616 2011-07-22 18:26:00 <upb> :)
1617 2011-07-22 18:28:03 b4epoche has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1618 2011-07-22 18:28:03 b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
1619 2011-07-22 18:28:16 <prof7bit> WEBSCALE? <-- this word does not exist. and even if it existed it would have no meaning.
1620 2011-07-22 18:28:37 <BlueMatt> thank you
1621 2011-07-22 18:29:42 TheZimm has joined
1622 2011-07-22 18:30:07 <bonsaikitten> I learned it in a webinar
1623 2011-07-22 18:30:19 <prof7bit> demand your money back.
1624 2011-07-22 18:31:18 <prof7bit> "webinar"...
1625 2011-07-22 18:31:39 <jgarzik> our network is webscale!
1626 2011-07-22 18:31:49 <BlueMatt> my dog is webscale
1627 2011-07-22 18:31:57 <upb> false, it isnt
1628 2011-07-22 18:32:07 <BlueMatt> my powersupply is webscale
1629 2011-07-22 18:32:07 <upb> since i saw syncing in the db code
1630 2011-07-22 18:33:26 enquirer has joined
1631 2011-07-22 18:34:13 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, i am webscale
1632 2011-07-22 18:34:29 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: your mom sucked my webscale last night
1633 2011-07-22 18:34:57 harrigan has joined
1634 2011-07-22 18:35:16 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, sounds unlikely
1635 2011-07-22 18:36:29 <BlueMatt> oh really
1636 2011-07-22 18:37:52 d1g1t4l has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1637 2011-07-22 18:38:47 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
1638 2011-07-22 18:39:25 enquirer has joined
1639 2011-07-22 18:40:20 <TD> lol
1640 2011-07-22 18:40:26 <TD> we've been known to use the term "web scale" at el goog
1641 2011-07-22 18:40:35 <TD> it means "you have more than a half a billion users", roughly speaking
1642 2011-07-22 18:41:20 <phantomcircuit> so if i had 50k servers serving up the same static page i would be webscale?
1643 2011-07-22 18:41:23 <phantomcircuit> I CAN DO THAT
1644 2011-07-22 18:41:27 Clipse has joined
1645 2011-07-22 18:42:15 <TD> users
1646 2011-07-22 18:42:19 <TD> not servers or hits :-)
1647 2011-07-22 18:42:40 <TD> but let me know how bitcoin consultancy goes ;)
1648 2011-07-22 18:44:03 <phantomcircuit> oh
1649 2011-07-22 18:44:09 <phantomcircuit> so only like 1k servers
1650 2011-07-22 18:44:09 <phantomcircuit> lame
1651 2011-07-22 18:44:26 <BlueMatt> that would be only 500 users/server
1652 2011-07-22 18:44:44 <BlueMatt> unless he means users/sec thats way overkill
1653 2011-07-22 18:44:45 <CydeWeys_> You guys are off by three orders of magnitude.
1654 2011-07-22 18:45:50 altamic has joined
1655 2011-07-22 18:45:55 <CydeWeys_> You guys don't get it, webscale isn't just something that you dump something on.  It's not a big truck.
1656 2011-07-22 18:45:56 sytse_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1657 2011-07-22 18:45:58 <CydeWeys_> I cannot emphasize that enough.
1658 2011-07-22 18:46:05 <BlueMatt> webscale isnt anything
1659 2011-07-22 18:46:11 sytse has joined
1660 2011-07-22 18:46:13 <BlueMatt> webscale is a bullshit "word" with no meaning
1661 2011-07-22 18:46:17 <CydeWeys_> Webscale handles enormous amounts of information, enormous amounts of information.
1662 2011-07-22 18:46:26 <BlueMatt> webscale is a bullshit "word" with no meaning
1663 2011-07-22 18:46:28 <jrmithdobbs> is it like tubes
1664 2011-07-22 18:46:32 <jrmithdobbs> i like tubes
1665 2011-07-22 18:46:42 <BlueMatt> the internet is a bunch of them
1666 2011-07-22 18:46:45 <BlueMatt> you must like the internet
1667 2011-07-22 18:46:51 <imsaguy> lol
1668 2011-07-22 18:46:56 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: finally caught on.
1669 2011-07-22 18:47:04 <cut> CydeWeys_: did you repeat to emphasize redundancy too?
1670 2011-07-22 18:47:15 <BlueMatt> cut: lol
1671 2011-07-22 18:47:18 <CydeWeys_> cut: No, that's from the original quote.
1672 2011-07-22 18:47:30 <jrmithdobbs> best.quote.ever.
1673 2011-07-22 18:47:48 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1674 2011-07-22 18:48:03 <BlueMatt> who the hell said that
1675 2011-07-22 18:48:19 copumpkin has joined
1676 2011-07-22 18:48:30 jav__ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1677 2011-07-22 18:50:14 <CydeWeys_> BlueMatt, the Internet is not just something that you dump something on.  It's not a big truck.  It's a series of tubes.
1678 2011-07-22 18:50:23 <imsaguy> lol
1679 2011-07-22 18:50:28 <imsaguy> BlueMatt, welcome to the internet!
1680 2011-07-22 18:50:30 <CydeWeys_> And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
1681 2011-07-22 18:50:32 <BlueMatt> oh, my bad never have seen the full beginning...
1682 2011-07-22 18:50:46 <imsaguy> oh goodie
1683 2011-07-22 18:50:46 <BlueMatt> well, its been a long time
1684 2011-07-22 18:50:53 <imsaguy> an internet lesson
1685 2011-07-22 18:50:54 <BlueMatt> just remember the tubes parts...
1686 2011-07-22 18:53:30 Diablo-D3 has joined
1687 2011-07-22 18:55:08 <MrSam> http://osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/joy-of-tech-lion-gestures.gif
1688 2011-07-22 18:57:09 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
1689 2011-07-22 18:58:05 FractalUniverse has joined
1690 2011-07-22 18:59:12 meLon has joined
1691 2011-07-22 18:59:13 meLon has quit (Changing host)
1692 2011-07-22 18:59:13 meLon has joined
1693 2011-07-22 18:59:59 <TD> tubes are great
1694 2011-07-22 19:00:00 <TD> tubes and pipes
1695 2011-07-22 19:00:06 <TD> big fat pipes. you put data in them
1696 2011-07-22 19:00:08 <TD> and then you smoke them
1697 2011-07-22 19:01:16 <imsaguy> I was gonna go to work
1698 2011-07-22 19:01:18 <imsaguy> but then I got high
1699 2011-07-22 19:01:24 <imsaguy> (on data)
1700 2011-07-22 19:01:34 <imsaguy> who ever knew what that song was really about?
1701 2011-07-22 19:01:38 Strom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1702 2011-07-22 19:03:30 zeropointo has joined
1703 2011-07-22 19:03:34 <Zagitta> are there any ideas for a better implementation of longpoll than how it currently works?
1704 2011-07-22 19:03:50 <Zagitta> if we're talking in the context of a new protocol
1705 2011-07-22 19:04:54 TrIpNI has joined
1706 2011-07-22 19:04:56 <TrIpNI> sup brosephs
1707 2011-07-22 19:05:21 <imsaguy> sup dawg
1708 2011-07-22 19:06:36 enquirer has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1709 2011-07-22 19:06:54 ewal-otg has joined
1710 2011-07-22 19:07:22 koleg has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1711 2011-07-22 19:08:09 Strom has joined
1712 2011-07-22 19:08:38 peper has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1713 2011-07-22 19:09:18 peper has joined
1714 2011-07-22 19:11:26 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1715 2011-07-22 19:12:39 freakazo_ has joined
1716 2011-07-22 19:14:17 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1717 2011-07-22 19:14:17 freakazo_ is now known as freakazoid
1718 2011-07-22 19:14:33 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1719 2011-07-22 19:14:47 enquirer has joined
1720 2011-07-22 19:20:19 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1721 2011-07-22 19:20:47 denisx has joined
1722 2011-07-22 19:25:14 Clipse has joined
1723 2011-07-22 19:25:28 zamgo has joined
1724 2011-07-22 19:29:06 <Zagitta> really no suggestions?
1725 2011-07-22 19:30:38 hugolp has joined
1726 2011-07-22 19:31:24 osmosis has joined
1727 2011-07-22 19:32:57 karnac has joined
1728 2011-07-22 19:34:01 freakazoid has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1729 2011-07-22 19:35:22 freakazoid has joined
1730 2011-07-22 19:36:42 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1731 2011-07-22 19:37:57 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1732 2011-07-22 19:40:23 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1733 2011-07-22 19:41:43 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1734 2011-07-22 19:45:34 Snapman has left ("Leaving")
1735 2011-07-22 19:51:29 glassresistor has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1736 2011-07-22 19:52:07 <nanotube> Zagitta: rather than polling, the pool should be pushing data.
1737 2011-07-22 19:52:10 BitVenture has joined
1738 2011-07-22 19:53:03 Speeder has quit (Quit: Speeder)
1739 2011-07-22 19:53:26 T_X1 has joined
1740 2011-07-22 19:54:45 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, jgarzik already made a better protocol
1741 2011-07-22 19:54:57 <makomk> Long polling ought to be about as efficient as just pushing data from the pool anyway, if implemented right.
1742 2011-07-22 19:55:33 T_X has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1743 2011-07-22 19:56:08 <nanotube> makomk: how so? a miner doesn't know when a new block arrives since it doesn't communicate with the bitcoin network
1744 2011-07-22 19:56:33 <nanotube> i guess if you make a miner monitor the bitcoin network for blocks... then yes, polling can be as efficient as pushing
1745 2011-07-22 19:58:31 <makomk> Long polling isn't quite the same as traditional polling; it emulates push-based messaging by delaying the poll reply until there's a response to send.
1746 2011-07-22 20:00:24 Strom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1747 2011-07-22 20:00:43 <nanotube> ah
1748 2011-07-22 20:01:40 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1749 2011-07-22 20:02:01 <hugolp> Hi, does the order getaccountaddress creates a new account and a new address for that account if the account does not exists already?
1750 2011-07-22 20:02:49 <Zagitta> luke-jr|otg: he did? where? and a usefull one that's not some shitty xml or something?
1751 2011-07-22 20:03:43 BitVenture has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1752 2011-07-22 20:04:43 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, long polling is basically push messaging for NAT
1753 2011-07-22 20:04:50 <phantomcircuit> h4x all around!
1754 2011-07-22 20:05:31 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, binary
1755 2011-07-22 20:05:32 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, binar
1756 2011-07-22 20:05:39 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, check forums
1757 2011-07-22 20:05:41 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: hehe
1758 2011-07-22 20:05:58 <nanotube> hugolp: yes
1759 2011-07-22 20:06:12 <hugolp> nanotube: thanks
1760 2011-07-22 20:08:09 altamic_ has joined
1761 2011-07-22 20:09:22 dr_win has joined
1762 2011-07-22 20:09:53 Guest26990 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1763 2011-07-22 20:11:32 altamic has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1764 2011-07-22 20:11:45 altamic_ is now known as altamic
1765 2011-07-22 20:16:31 Strom has joined
1766 2011-07-22 20:16:32 RenaKunisaki has joined
1767 2011-07-22 20:18:45 <Zagitta> luke-jr|otg: I've read through the thread and i think the implementation is overly complex and bloated due to backwards compatability which imo should be outside the protocols concern... a json-rcp -> protocol proxy is a much better solution to backwards compatability untill the miners change
1768 2011-07-22 20:19:44 <BlueMatt> who cares, rson-rpc works fine
1769 2011-07-22 20:19:49 <BlueMatt> it still has room to be upgraded
1770 2011-07-22 20:21:03 <Zagitta> how on earth does it "work fine" to double the amount of required bandwidth and use non presistant connections?
1771 2011-07-22 20:21:14 ForceMajeure has joined
1772 2011-07-22 20:21:24 <Zagitta> we're talking in a pool context here mind you
1773 2011-07-22 20:21:39 <BlueMatt> persistent connections can be added
1774 2011-07-22 20:21:50 <BlueMatt> and the bw required is still small enough that it doesnt matter
1775 2011-07-22 20:21:51 <Zagitta> it's still only part of the problem
1776 2011-07-22 20:22:07 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, pushpool supports both jsonrpc and binary natively
1777 2011-07-22 20:22:35 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|eligius supports it on 8336
1778 2011-07-22 20:23:07 <jgarzik> Zagitta: JSON-RPC uses persistent connections
1779 2011-07-22 20:23:08 <Zagitta> so it's really just a question of making miners switch?
1780 2011-07-22 20:26:12 <Zagitta> jgarzik: it wasn't not long ago
1781 2011-07-22 20:27:20 <jgarzik> Zagitta: bitcoin did not exist not long ago.  The relevant, important fact is that all major miners and all major pools support persistent connections.
1782 2011-07-22 20:28:04 abishai has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1783 2011-07-22 20:28:41 <Zagitta> point taken...
1784 2011-07-22 20:30:08 pusle has quit ()
1785 2011-07-22 20:31:29 <jgarzik> ;;seen sirius-m
1786 2011-07-22 20:31:30 <gribble> sirius-m was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 5 minutes, and 46 seconds ago: <sirius-m> sipa: it's updated already?
1787 2011-07-22 20:32:04 shermanash has quit (Quit: shermanash)
1788 2011-07-22 20:33:23 <Zagitta> Am i really the only one that consider json-rcp an incredible messy protocol for mining purpose?
1789 2011-07-22 20:33:32 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: he was on the forum yesterday...
1790 2011-07-22 20:33:46 <diki> zagitta:no?
1791 2011-07-22 20:33:52 nhodges has joined
1792 2011-07-22 20:34:10 <diki> i simulated recently around 10,000 getworks with a for loop...
1793 2011-07-22 20:34:16 <diki> the result wasnt very good
1794 2011-07-22 20:35:24 <lfm> Zagitta: feel free to design and implement your own better way. People might switch, you never know.
1795 2011-07-22 20:35:42 <Zagitta> lfm: already working on it
1796 2011-07-22 20:36:44 <lfm> So you're just here to badmouth the competition?
1797 2011-07-22 20:37:19 <nanotube> lfm: that's the best part of implementing an alternative, don't you know? :)
1798 2011-07-22 20:37:35 <Zagitta> lfm: i'm sorry if it got off as that, just trying to discuss the implications
1799 2011-07-22 20:37:37 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: I sent him a forum PM, to no avail :(
1800 2011-07-22 20:38:04 <D0han> will we have win 64bit bitcoin client version?
1801 2011-07-22 20:39:23 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: he seems to be avoiding people...
1802 2011-07-22 20:39:26 <BlueMatt> D0han: why?
1803 2011-07-22 20:39:59 <D0han> well..
1804 2011-07-22 20:40:02 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1805 2011-07-22 20:40:02 <D0han> dont be oldfags?
1806 2011-07-22 20:40:40 <Zagitta> all i meant with json-rcp being bad for mining is that it's meant for php and the parsing/conversion steps needed at every station is quite a waste
1807 2011-07-22 20:41:16 <jgarzik> D0han: bitcoin client does not need more than 4gb of address space
1808 2011-07-22 20:41:33 <jgarzik> D0han: not does it bring measureable performance gains in any relevant area
1809 2011-07-22 20:41:48 <jgarzik> we could drop the 64-bit bitcoin client, even
1810 2011-07-22 20:42:05 <lfm> parsing and converting are cheap
1811 2011-07-22 20:42:07 <BlueMatt> 32-bit linux doesnt load due to some library incompatibilities on some 64-bit hosts
1812 2011-07-22 20:43:03 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|jgarzik, pure 64bit OS dont run 32bit dyn bins
1813 2011-07-22 20:43:06 <BlueMatt> something about bdb using some odd bdb-specific libs and some crap iirc
1814 2011-07-22 20:43:14 <BlueMatt> luke-jr|otg: name 1 pure 64bit OS?
1815 2011-07-22 20:43:32 <D0han> lukeOS
1816 2011-07-22 20:43:33 <D0han> ;d
1817 2011-07-22 20:43:37 <Zagitta> lfm: depends on the language
1818 2011-07-22 20:43:42 <lfm> dec alpha true 64?
1819 2011-07-22 20:43:45 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|Zagitta, PM me @ home
1820 2011-07-22 20:44:09 bitcoinbulletin has joined
1821 2011-07-22 20:44:21 <Zagitta> luke-jr|otg: huh?
1822 2011-07-22 20:44:22 <luke-jr> otg!~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49|BlueMatt, Debian 64 by default
1823 2011-07-22 20:44:26 <nanotube> jgarzik: so sirius is hiding out? :)
1824 2011-07-22 20:44:40 <BlueMatt> nanotube: more like avoiding people
1825 2011-07-22 20:44:49 <lfm> ;;seen sirius
1826 2011-07-22 20:44:49 <gribble> sirius was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 6 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 41 minutes, and 42 seconds ago: <sirius> hi
1827 2011-07-22 20:44:56 <nanotube> BlueMatt: that's how you hide out on the internet :P
1828 2011-07-22 20:44:59 <BlueMatt> hes on the forums on a regular basis
1829 2011-07-22 20:45:07 <BlueMatt> but doesnt respond to pms
1830 2011-07-22 20:45:39 <jgarzik> nanotube: what BlueMatt said
1831 2011-07-22 20:45:52 <nanotube> hrrm... strange
1832 2011-07-22 20:46:41 MC-Eeepc has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
1833 2011-07-22 20:46:57 <jgarzik> nanotube: I bought bitcointalk.org (10 years worth) and the email consensus plan was to rename forum.bitcoin.org -> forum.bitcointalk.org.  Gave him all the registrar info and discussed receipt of bitcointalk.org via IRC, then....  silence
1834 2011-07-22 20:47:12 MC-Eeepc has joined
1835 2011-07-22 20:48:43 mistil has joined
1836 2011-07-22 20:48:49 <nanotube> strange indeed. could he have some kind of personal reason to keep forum on bitcoin.org?
1837 2011-07-22 20:49:43 * b4epoche wondered about this the other day…  seemed like the feeling was, "Yes"
1838 2011-07-22 20:49:52 TD has joined
1839 2011-07-22 20:50:09 <BlueMatt> dont know why else he would not respond when hes on the forums...
1840 2011-07-22 20:50:50 <lfm> does he want advertizing revenue or something?
1841 2011-07-22 20:50:58 <BlueMatt> he doesnt have ads
1842 2011-07-22 20:51:07 <BlueMatt> and its not like people will go away, they will still be active
1843 2011-07-22 20:51:12 <b4epoche> but might he be thinking of adding ads?
1844 2011-07-22 20:51:28 <BlueMatt> if he was thinking of them, Id think it would take 20 minutes to get them up there
1845 2011-07-22 20:51:42 <BlueMatt> unless hes trying to sell ads himself instead of going google ads or whatever
1846 2011-07-22 20:52:02 nhodges has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1847 2011-07-22 20:52:32 <nanotube> don't think it's ads - since he could easily do the same on the new domain
1848 2011-07-22 20:55:38 <b4epoche> maybe he just likes the power
1849 2011-07-22 21:00:19 altamic has quit (Quit: altamic)
1850 2011-07-22 21:02:25 erus` has joined
1851 2011-07-22 21:05:27 nhodges has joined
1852 2011-07-22 21:05:45 gut4 has joined
1853 2011-07-22 21:06:04 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1854 2011-07-22 21:07:32 sabalaba has joined
1855 2011-07-22 21:07:33 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1856 2011-07-22 21:08:30 Zagitta has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1857 2011-07-22 21:08:55 Zagitta has joined
1858 2011-07-22 21:09:56 <b4epoche> BlueMatt:  you find anything funky with VM?
1859 2011-07-22 21:10:47 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: nope, been hacking around on vbox source and got lion to work :)
1860 2011-07-22 21:10:47 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1861 2011-07-22 21:10:55 <BlueMatt> now I just have to make a better patch and send it upstream
1862 2011-07-22 21:11:01 <b4epoche> nice
1863 2011-07-22 21:11:14 <b4epoche> what was the vbox issue?
1864 2011-07-22 21:11:30 <b4epoche> wtf?  Lion is autocorrect vbox to xbox
1865 2011-07-22 21:11:30 Animeking has joined
1866 2011-07-22 21:11:34 <BlueMatt> it didnt pass some hardware descriptors to osx, and lion kernel checks for the motherboard version
1867 2011-07-22 21:11:36 <Animeking> where is the ofificial blocks downloader?
1868 2011-07-22 21:11:54 <WakiMiko_> the what now
1869 2011-07-22 21:12:05 <Animeking> the place the developers upload the current blocks :/
1870 2011-07-22 21:12:16 <BlueMatt> there isnt an official one
1871 2011-07-22 21:12:17 <Animeking> the .dat files that tell you what block we're in
1872 2011-07-22 21:12:23 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1873 2011-07-22 21:12:23 <BlueMatt> the official block downloader is bitcoin client
1874 2011-07-22 21:12:23 <Animeking> if i recall there was :/
1875 2011-07-22 21:12:28 <BlueMatt> I do one, if you want that
1876 2011-07-22 21:12:28 <WakiMiko_> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/blockchain/
1877 2011-07-22 21:12:36 <BlueMatt> oh, thats really really out of date
1878 2011-07-22 21:12:41 <WakiMiko_> matts is probably more recent
1879 2011-07-22 21:12:43 <WakiMiko_> yeah
1880 2011-07-22 21:12:50 <BlueMatt> its only at 120k
1881 2011-07-22 21:14:21 <Animeking> Okauy
1882 2011-07-22 21:14:24 <Animeking> ten where is matts?
1883 2011-07-22 21:14:33 <diki> werent you doing nightly uploads matt?
1884 2011-07-22 21:14:34 <BlueMatt> bitcoin.bluematt.me
1885 2011-07-22 21:14:38 <diki> where did the motivation go?
1886 2011-07-22 21:19:19 <Zagitta> jgarzik: why not just use basic authentication for the binary pushpool protocol?
1887 2011-07-22 21:19:44 <jgarzik> Zagitta: it's not HTTP, and Basic auth is just about the worst choice one can make
1888 2011-07-22 21:19:49 Pinion has joined
1889 2011-07-22 21:20:39 <mistil> use pascal instead of basic
1890 2011-07-22 21:21:39 <Zagitta> jgarzik: aha might have read through your post a bit too quick
1891 2011-07-22 21:27:20 karnac has joined
1892 2011-07-22 21:31:29 b4epoche_ has joined
1893 2011-07-22 21:31:59 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1894 2011-07-22 21:32:31 gut4 has quit (Quit: gut4)
1895 2011-07-22 21:34:15 b4epoche_ has quit (Client Quit)
1896 2011-07-22 21:37:43 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
1897 2011-07-22 21:39:20 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1898 2011-07-22 21:40:47 agricocb has joined
1899 2011-07-22 21:41:11 <upb> json-rpc is meant for php ?
1900 2011-07-22 21:41:12 <upb> wow
1901 2011-07-22 21:41:22 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1902 2011-07-22 21:41:57 <zamgo> json-rpc is meant for anything
1903 2011-07-22 21:43:47 <upb> not what i heard
1904 2011-07-22 21:46:21 <Zagitta> it's not meant for transfer of binary data
1905 2011-07-22 21:47:19 <nanotube> all data is binary data :P hehe
1906 2011-07-22 21:49:00 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1907 2011-07-22 21:49:08 <Zagitta> raw binary data then
1908 2011-07-22 21:49:24 <Zagitta> you have to admit binary -> hex -> binary is a terrible waste
1909 2011-07-22 21:50:27 <BlueMatt> oh come on, that is such a minuscule fraction of a second its not worth debating
1910 2011-07-22 21:50:40 <BlueMatt> if you are implementing a new protocol, sure, but...
1911 2011-07-22 21:51:34 m1nus has joined
1912 2011-07-22 21:53:38 <Zagitta> BluteMatt: if any single operation takes longer than a fraction of a second you're doing it wrong :p
1913 2011-07-22 21:55:07 * Zagitta is a perfectionist
1914 2011-07-22 21:55:44 <BlueMatt> that operation takes much less than a fraction of a second
1915 2011-07-22 21:56:20 <davex__> does github repository have a list of all issues resolved in 0.3.24?  i can't seem to find one.
1916 2011-07-22 21:58:24 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1917 2011-07-22 22:02:23 <Zagitta> BlueMatt: sure, but it's still there, overcomplicating and slowing down things without any practical purpose... As it's been said before getwork was hacked into the json-rcp and wasn't meant to handle the loads pools put on it
1918 2011-07-22 22:02:26 jgarzik has joined
1919 2011-07-22 22:02:44 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
1920 2011-07-22 22:02:45 jgarzik has joined
1921 2011-07-22 22:05:06 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1922 2011-07-22 22:06:12 b4epoche_ has joined
1923 2011-07-22 22:06:43 <BlueMatt> Zagitta: ok, so get people to switch for no noticeable advantage, have fun
1924 2011-07-22 22:07:37 abragin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1925 2011-07-22 22:07:39 <b4epoche_> hmm, maybe everyone is smarter than everyone else
1926 2011-07-22 22:08:49 <jgarzik> heh
1927 2011-07-22 22:09:25 <Zagitta> BlueMatt: KISS is the key to optimization
1928 2011-07-22 22:10:29 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1929 2011-07-22 22:10:33 <upb> KISS doesnt mean write your own binary protocol to avoid an array dereference
1930 2011-07-22 22:12:11 <Zagitta> How's it just an array dereference if you want to do anything useful with the reply?
1931 2011-07-22 22:13:52 alystair has joined
1932 2011-07-22 22:13:53 Folklore has joined
1933 2011-07-22 22:14:51 <davex__> bluematt: did your encryption feature get into the 0.3.24 build?  am trying to find an issue for it on github.
1934 2011-07-22 22:14:59 <BlueMatt> no
1935 2011-07-22 22:15:02 <upb> Zagitta: you still need to unserialize the response
1936 2011-07-22 22:15:22 <davex__> oh.  no pull request for that yet either?
1937 2011-07-22 22:15:47 <BlueMatt> its in the latest git head
1938 2011-07-22 22:15:57 <Zagitta> upb: exatly so it's not _just_ an array dereference thank you very much ;)
1939 2011-07-22 22:16:17 <davex__> ah ok.  maybe there wasn't an issue with discussion on github?  just wanted to read about it.
1940 2011-07-22 22:16:39 <b4epoche_> jgarzik:  just a comment on the fact that now-a-days everyone seems to think they're smarter than everyone else
1941 2011-07-22 22:17:14 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1942 2011-07-22 22:17:27 <upb> Zagitta: the difference is an array dereference
1943 2011-07-22 22:17:34 <upb> to get from hex to binary :)
1944 2011-07-22 22:17:49 E-sense has joined
1945 2011-07-22 22:18:33 <Zagitta> upb: you still have to extract the right parts from the json
1946 2011-07-22 22:18:53 <Zagitta> anyway i get the point, i'll shut up
1947 2011-07-22 22:18:58 <jrmithdobbs> you have to do that either way?!
1948 2011-07-22 22:19:04 <upb> the same way you have to 'extract the right parts' from the binary protocol
1949 2011-07-22 22:19:07 <upb> == deserialize
1950 2011-07-22 22:19:16 <jgarzik> The first thing you learn upon entering Georgia Tech or M.I.T. is that you are likely -not- smarter than everyone else.  It's a good lesson to learn :)
1951 2011-07-22 22:19:54 <b4epoche_> UMich and UC-Berkeley teach you the same
1952 2011-07-22 22:20:27 <copumpkin> b4epoche_: yeah, they're all wrong though. I, on the other hand, am smarter than everyone else
1953 2011-07-22 22:21:01 <copumpkin> and I can prove it
1954 2011-07-22 22:21:07 <copumpkin> I have The Answer
1955 2011-07-22 22:21:11 <b4epoche_> damn Ivy leaguer
1956 2011-07-22 22:21:27 Taveren93HGK has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1957 2011-07-22 22:21:29 <BlueMatt> 42.
1958 2011-07-22 22:21:31 <copumpkin> no no, they don't teach you The Answer in school
1959 2011-07-22 22:21:31 <BlueMatt> you all lose
1960 2011-07-22 22:21:32 <copumpkin> oh shit
1961 2011-07-22 22:21:37 <copumpkin> BlueMatt is also smarter than everyone else
1962 2011-07-22 22:21:39 <copumpkin> :(
1963 2011-07-22 22:21:44 <davex__> dammit...
1964 2011-07-22 22:21:54 <copumpkin> now the question is whether BlueMatt is smarter than me or not
1965 2011-07-22 22:22:02 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: but are you garaunteed your soul will be saved or triple your money back?
1966 2011-07-22 22:22:06 <jrmithdobbs> *that* is the real question
1967 2011-07-22 22:22:15 <jrmithdobbs> when the x-ists come
1968 2011-07-22 22:23:48 <Zagitta> now i don't know how it's done in other languages but i do know that there's a vast difference in reading from a stream in a specific pattern according to the command type specified in the first byte and reading the json reply into a string, then parsing it and then converting the hex into binary
1969 2011-07-22 22:24:00 <Zagitta> in c#
1970 2011-07-22 22:24:14 * Zagitta hides before people throw shit at him for MS language
1971 2011-07-22 22:24:27 <jrmithdobbs> you're worried about json parsing vs binary parsing performance and your reference lang is c#
1972 2011-07-22 22:24:30 <jrmithdobbs> go diaf
1973 2011-07-22 22:26:30 <Zagitta> what else do you suggest to optimize?
1974 2011-07-22 22:30:21 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1975 2011-07-22 22:32:43 cygnus2112 has joined
1976 2011-07-22 22:33:15 <Zagitta> i mean you're not going to get around construction of the merkleroot which probably is the biggest preformance hurlde considering all the hashing and to me the json-rcp from the outside aswell as to your local bitcoind seemd like the most obvious things to optimize because it's used so much
1977 2011-07-22 22:33:42 AStove has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1978 2011-07-22 22:34:47 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1979 2011-07-22 22:35:39 <Zagitta> luke-jr: are the eligius graphs correct? as far as i can see the maximum reward is not actually showing?
1980 2011-07-22 22:37:18 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1981 2011-07-22 22:39:12 <osmosis> anyone have a munin script for bitcoind connections?
1982 2011-07-22 22:40:29 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1983 2011-07-22 22:45:04 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1984 2011-07-22 22:45:21 Zagitta has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1985 2011-07-22 22:50:39 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
1986 2011-07-22 22:58:17 alystair has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1987 2011-07-22 22:59:57 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1988 2011-07-22 23:00:01 freewil`away is now known as freewil
1989 2011-07-22 23:00:12 MrTiggr has joined
1990 2011-07-22 23:04:34 copumpkin has joined
1991 2011-07-22 23:06:25 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1992 2011-07-22 23:08:20 genjix has joined
1993 2011-07-22 23:08:25 <genjix> gmaxwell: HERO!
1994 2011-07-22 23:08:30 <genjix> HAHAHA
1995 2011-07-22 23:08:47 <genjix> for everyone else, this is gmaxwell: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/2254204/Release-of-33GiB-of-Scientific-Publications
1996 2011-07-22 23:08:52 <genjix> http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331
1997 2011-07-22 23:09:01 <genjix> send him some bitcoinzz
1998 2011-07-22 23:09:15 Tim-7967 has joined
1999 2011-07-22 23:09:25 <genjix> gmaxwell: i love you.
2000 2011-07-22 23:09:54 <gmaxwell> The crazy thing is now jstor is apparently telling journalists that the files didn't come from them.
2001 2011-07-22 23:10:09 <gmaxwell> Which confuses the hell out of me, but I suppose this forcloses them going after me.
2002 2011-07-22 23:11:12 underscor has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2003 2011-07-22 23:11:45 <b4epoche_> Unfortunately, it's Science Direct/Elsevier that's really screwing over the libraries
2004 2011-07-22 23:11:53 <genjix> your text on tpb is one of those historical texts i will reference forever :)
2005 2011-07-22 23:12:35 <zamgo> http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/38112/
2006 2011-07-22 23:12:58 <zamgo> 'Guerilla Activist' Releases 18,000 Scientific Papers
2007 2011-07-22 23:13:03 <zamgo> heh
2008 2011-07-22 23:13:07 <zamgo> Guerilla
2009 2011-07-22 23:14:19 <genjix> gmaxwell: see pm
2010 2011-07-22 23:15:39 <b4epoche_> JSTOR is actually considered one of the 'good guys'
2011 2011-07-22 23:17:01 Pinion has quit (Quit: Has quit)
2012 2011-07-22 23:18:45 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Jstor is certantly less bad. Even acceptably not bad. I was pretty unimpressed to see "And even if the documents were out-of-copyright, JSTOR says users are not free to post them online, because JSTOR's terms of service prohibit that" in the press.
2013 2011-07-22 23:19:24 Clipse has joined
2014 2011-07-22 23:19:32 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: rather than, perhaps, "we're going to reconsider our terms of service on public domain works and encourage journals to permit more permissive ones"
2015 2011-07-22 23:19:41 Joric has joined
2016 2011-07-22 23:19:51 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  I'm sure their terms of service do say that
2017 2011-07-22 23:21:39 <b4epoche_> but please compare JSTOR's financial with Elseviers
2018 2011-07-22 23:21:42 <genjix> gmaxwell: see pm :p
2019 2011-07-22 23:21:44 <gmaxwell> Indeed, I'm sure they do. (In fact, I'm sure they prohibit a lot of things, including most of the common uses, but everyone ignores them)
2020 2011-07-22 23:22:11 <b4epoche_> well, ITHAKA's financials
2021 2011-07-22 23:22:32 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: You mean $60m a year income, $60m in investment assets, a ceo making .5 million a year?  Only 3.4m spent on scanning, about 14.7% given to journals.
2022 2011-07-22 23:22:42 <gmaxwell> Yes, its an order of magnitude less on all numbers than Elsevier.
2023 2011-07-22 23:23:09 <gmaxwell> It's not great either. And it doesn't make their imposition of additional restrictions on _public domain works_, morally right.
2024 2011-07-22 23:23:52 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  think about it this way, say you paid to have all of that stuff scanned, archived, maintained and someone comes along and takes it?
2025 2011-07-22 23:24:03 <b4epoche_> anyone can walk into a library and get the stuff
2026 2011-07-22 23:24:38 <b4epoche_> if it were so important, why didn't you spend your time scanning all that material to release?
2027 2011-07-22 23:24:47 <gmaxwell> Because I don't have access to it.
2028 2011-07-22 23:24:49 <b4epoche_> sorry, just playing devil's advocate
2029 2011-07-22 23:25:15 <b4epoche_> walk into any university library and start scanning
2030 2011-07-22 23:25:19 <gmaxwell> And at wikimedia we _regularly_ request access to materials to scan and get turned down.
2031 2011-07-22 23:25:59 <gmaxwell> moreover, if paying for the scanning were really the issue, why not just make sure that the first copy accessed recovers the scanning costs.
2032 2011-07-22 23:26:04 <genjix> b4epoche_: we live in a world of abundance
2033 2011-07-22 23:26:19 <genjix> i hate this creating of artificial scarcity where there is none.
2034 2011-07-22 23:26:41 <genjix> everybody could have several libraries on their own computers, and we could all be self educating ourselves.
2035 2011-07-22 23:27:18 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  I'm sure 90% of those papers have never been paid 'accessed'.  That's the problem, there's a /really/ long tail
2036 2011-07-22 23:27:28 <zeropointo> genjix: the people who produce those works need to get paid or they wont bother
2037 2011-07-22 23:28:07 <genjix> zeropointo: except they dont
2038 2011-07-22 23:28:11 TrIpNI has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2039 2011-07-22 23:28:21 <b4epoche_> genjix:  he's not talking about us academics
2040 2011-07-22 23:28:27 <senseles> change the copyright law so a creator of a work regardless of what it is only gets sole access for 1-2 years
2041 2011-07-22 23:28:31 <senseles> then it's opened up to public domain
2042 2011-07-22 23:28:34 <genjix> you really think writing is a profitable profession?
2043 2011-07-22 23:28:45 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: well, thats technically true in fact, pay acces (vs subscriptions) is less than 1% of their income. In fact, I could pretty much personally pay all their pay access income for a year out of my own bank account. This isn't a lack of demand, however, the cost here is all the exploration that it turns away.
2044 2011-07-22 23:28:54 <genjix> nobody makes money off of writing
2045 2011-07-22 23:29:11 <genjix> maybe the top 20 authors make something worthwhile
2046 2011-07-22 23:29:18 <senseles> its kind of stupid to think that you can protect something from being copied
2047 2011-07-22 23:29:31 <zeropointo> genjix: they still need to eat and pay their bills
2048 2011-07-22 23:29:37 <senseles> isn't that the worth of an author, director, etc, how many people see and enjoy their creations?
2049 2011-07-22 23:29:51 <b4epoche_> genjix:  you're still not getting it…  someone needed to go in a do the work to scan all that material
2050 2011-07-22 23:29:57 <zeropointo> genjix: and the ones producing textbooks get paid enough year after year
2051 2011-07-22 23:30:04 <b4epoche_> and someone needs to maintain it
2052 2011-07-22 23:30:19 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Indeed, lots of places will maintain it without restricting it, however.
2053 2011-07-22 23:30:19 <genjix> you mean like google?
2054 2011-07-22 23:30:30 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  like who?
2055 2011-07-22 23:30:32 <genjix> which offered to scan ALL the books in the world's libraries for free
2056 2011-07-22 23:30:36 <genjix> and got rejected
2057 2011-07-22 23:30:42 <senseles> 1000$ for an engineering text book and every year they release a new one charge another 1000$ because they fixed some grammar issues ..
2058 2011-07-22 23:30:50 <senseles> no one would want to give up that gold mine
2059 2011-07-22 23:30:51 <gmaxwell> Google, archive.org, wikimedia, for example.
2060 2011-07-22 23:30:53 <b4epoche_> you know how much this (http://www.hathitrust.org/) costs?
2061 2011-07-22 23:31:01 <genjix> scanning books is not expensive
2062 2011-07-22 23:31:02 <gmaxwell> Haithtrust, ofr example.
2063 2011-07-22 23:31:18 <genjix> and once they're scanned, they're around forever for all generations to view
2064 2011-07-22 23:31:42 <b4epoche_> hathitrust will not maintain it.
2065 2011-07-22 23:31:56 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: as far as scanning goes, jstor's scanning budget is between 3 and 4 million in their 2009 990. They have _investments_ $60m. There doesn't seem to be any obvious funding problem here.
2066 2011-07-22 23:32:23 <gmaxwell> I admit, the hathitrust collection is disorganized.
2067 2011-07-22 23:32:50 <genjix> give it to google books to scan and put online :p
2068 2011-07-22 23:33:01 <genjix> they're more than happy to oblige
2069 2011-07-22 23:33:05 asuk has quit (Quit: leaving)
2070 2011-07-22 23:33:08 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  and who do you think is paying ITHAKA/JSTOR for this?
2071 2011-07-22 23:33:22 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: capping the top 8 paid jstor employees to incomes of 200k would pay for 1/3 of their scanning budget alone.
2072 2011-07-22 23:33:23 <b4epoche_> genjix:  fuck Google, they're just in it to make a buck
2073 2011-07-22 23:33:53 <genjix> fuck middleman, they're just in it to make a buck
2074 2011-07-22 23:33:59 <b4epoche_> and universities are seriously regretting ever trusting Google
2075 2011-07-22 23:34:08 <genjix> none of that money from journals goes to scientists
2076 2011-07-22 23:34:17 <senseles> fuck everyone, everyones just trying to make a buck?
2077 2011-07-22 23:34:37 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Fuck trust in general. This is why no one should be further restricting the documents.
2078 2011-07-22 23:34:59 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  I agree…  but the issue is "further"
2079 2011-07-22 23:35:02 <genjix> publishers are cultural middlemen
2080 2011-07-22 23:35:27 <b4epoche_> someone had to make the effort/investment to convert all that material to digital form
2081 2011-07-22 23:35:38 <b4epoche_> genjix:  get a sense of history
2082 2011-07-22 23:35:42 <gmaxwell> Ultimately its the universities and libraries that are going to pay for the scanning (plus all the management overhead of whoever scanned it) it doesn't matter much if its now or later, and paying for it over time by giving them control creates big trust problems and harms the public good.
2083 2011-07-22 23:36:06 <genjix> i built my own book scanner.
2084 2011-07-22 23:36:09 <senseles> why cant someone just do it and charge for access to the material?
2085 2011-07-22 23:36:11 <b4epoche_> genjix:  I /hate/ publishers but they served a /huge/ purpose 15-20 years ago
2086 2011-07-22 23:36:14 <genjix> put the book in and scan the pages
2087 2011-07-22 23:36:15 <genjix> bam
2088 2011-07-22 23:36:22 <genjix> now imagine something to turn the pages
2089 2011-07-22 23:36:27 <genjix> costs < $100
2090 2011-07-22 23:36:28 Clipse has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2091 2011-07-22 23:36:35 <genjix> omg the manpower.
2092 2011-07-22 23:36:47 <senseles> seems like an online library would be a decent business .. mainly for the highly technical stuff..
2093 2011-07-22 23:36:57 <b4epoche_> genjix:  and OCR and indexing...
2094 2011-07-22 23:37:07 <b4epoche_> and physically getting the volumes?
2095 2011-07-22 23:37:22 <gmaxwell> Getting access to the materials is _hard_. Believe me, people offer, and get turned down. I haven't dealt with academic libraries, but I've delt with art galleries, and they expect you to pay them. A LOT.
2096 2011-07-22 23:37:27 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2097 2011-07-22 23:37:30 <b4epoche_> genjix:  your coming off as very naive here
2098 2011-07-22 23:37:48 <gmaxwell> I guess google managed to screw the academic libraries, pretty cunning on google's part.
2099 2011-07-22 23:37:48 <b4epoche_> art galleries?
2100 2011-07-22 23:37:56 <genjix> i don't think you've ever dealt with academia
2101 2011-07-22 23:37:58 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  yes, it was
2102 2011-07-22 23:38:15 <b4epoche_> genjix:  you have no idea who you're talking to ;-)
2103 2011-07-22 23:38:18 zamgo has left ()
2104 2011-07-22 23:38:24 Diablo-D3 has joined
2105 2011-07-22 23:38:56 <genjix> so all this information which can help the world, should be locked up?
2106 2011-07-22 23:39:23 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  you could walk into an academic library with a laptop and scanner and scan /everything/ no questions asked
2107 2011-07-22 23:39:25 <genjix> it's like wikileaks. maybe having a company's private documents leaked is bad FOR THEM
2108 2011-07-22 23:39:35 <genjix> but FOR SOCIETY, it's only a good thing
2109 2011-07-22 23:39:40 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: You're kicked out of the library of congress for this.
2110 2011-07-22 23:39:45 <genjix> more information to work with.
2111 2011-07-22 23:39:48 <gmaxwell> (I speak from expirence!)
2112 2011-07-22 23:40:00 <genjix> get us out of the dark.
2113 2011-07-22 23:40:13 <senseles> its library of congress they probably thought you were al qaeda or something
2114 2011-07-22 23:40:15 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  library of congress is not run by a university
2115 2011-07-22 23:40:27 <gmaxwell> Indeed, it's run by the federal government.
2116 2011-07-22 23:40:35 <senseles> isnt everything on LOC online now anyway?
2117 2011-07-22 23:40:42 <genjix> and i only hope we have a larger culture of leaking for which aaron swartz has set a precedent.
2118 2011-07-22 23:40:44 <gmaxwell> nah, alas.
2119 2011-07-22 23:40:51 <genjix> and gmaxwell too :)
2120 2011-07-22 23:40:53 <b4epoche_> and the federal government is an academic institution?
2121 2011-07-22 23:41:34 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2122 2011-07-22 23:41:45 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: switching subjects... a more productive question what offer wrt public domain documents, if jstor declined, would cause you to agree that they were part-of-the-evil?
2123 2011-07-22 23:41:47 <genjix> grigori perelman published his paper on arxiv and all the mathematicians in academia got all pissy because he didn't go through the 'respected proper channels'
2124 2011-07-22 23:42:28 <genjix> it's a waste. there's no reason for publishing in academia when we have the internet.
2125 2011-07-22 23:42:45 <b4epoche_> genjix:  there's a reason for peer review…  and no one cares if you post stuff to arxiv
2126 2011-07-22 23:42:55 <b4epoche_> genjix:  agreed.
2127 2011-07-22 23:43:03 <gmaxwell> Well, I don't agree there completely. The internet isn't magic pixie dust. You can have peer review without elsiver though.
2128 2011-07-22 23:43:07 <b4epoche_> genjix:  but have you ever been an assistant professor?
2129 2011-07-22 23:43:27 <genjix> no, but i've taught at university
2130 2011-07-22 23:43:48 grbgout has quit (Quit: brb)
2131 2011-07-22 23:43:50 <b4epoche_> and no mathematician is going to get pissy because Perelman didn't submit to a for-profit journal
2132 2011-07-22 23:43:58 <genjix> except they did
2133 2011-07-22 23:43:59 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2134 2011-07-22 23:44:00 <b4epoche_> genjix:  then you don't get it
2135 2011-07-22 23:44:09 <b4epoche_> genjix:  links?
2136 2011-07-22 23:44:30 <genjix> and the reason he did so is because someone tried to rip him off his work before
2137 2011-07-22 23:44:37 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  can you rephrase that question?  I'm not ignoring it.  Just trying to decipher it correctly.
2138 2011-07-22 23:44:39 <genjix> so he stopped contributing to academia entirely
2139 2011-07-22 23:45:12 MrTiggr has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2140 2011-07-22 23:45:27 random_cat has joined
2141 2011-07-22 23:46:12 MrTiggr has joined
2142 2011-07-22 23:46:35 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  is ITHAKA entirely within Mellon Foundation?
2143 2011-07-22 23:47:44 * b4epoche_ doesn't like people hiding behind 'non-profit' either…  see the section of the proposal I posted yesterday regarding PLoS
2144 2011-07-22 23:47:59 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: Well, you're saying that it's okay for archives to perpetually encumber works via TOS because how else would they pay for scanning costs, right? So say I found funding to them some offer (e.g. to pay for the scanning costs for every PD document) in order to free them completely, what would that offer be for you to agree that they were being bad if they refused it?
2145 2011-07-22 23:48:41 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: they have overlapping board members, (or did at least), but I don't think its formally within it anymore.
2146 2011-07-22 23:49:01 <gmaxwell> Basically jstor changed leadership in 2008, they merged with ITHAKA.
2147 2011-07-22 23:49:08 <b4epoche_> I can't find financials for ITHAKA, just Mellon
2148 2011-07-22 23:49:38 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=300152775&Year=2009&Cobrandid=0&sourceid=
2149 2011-07-22 23:50:06 wardearia has joined
2150 2011-07-22 23:50:08 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  the problem is that it's not about the scanning cost, it's about stewardship
2151 2011-07-22 23:50:35 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: but the stweardship can be paid for by their continued subscriptions, if they're actually providing good stweardship.
2152 2011-07-22 23:50:54 <b4epoche_> and they are, no?
2153 2011-07-22 23:50:59 <BlueMatt> why cant apple follow a goddamn standard?
2154 2011-07-22 23:51:05 <gmaxwell> E.g. if I get a copy and dump them up on archive.org this doesn't replace their stewardship, I agree.
2155 2011-07-22 23:51:20 <senseles> BlueMatt: would require more work than half-assing something. I.e. less $ per unit.
2156 2011-07-22 23:51:49 <gmaxwell> but right now I _can't_ just get them and dump them up on archive.org, because their ToS forbids it.
2157 2011-07-22 23:52:52 <gmaxwell> I'm just fine with them being paid for the very worthwhile services they provide and I wish them success. My concern is that they're using a legal game to moot the natural expiration of copyright, and assert new perpetual ownership of things simply by virtue of scanning them.
2158 2011-07-22 23:53:00 <b4epoche_> gmaxwell:  you /can/ go into a library and scan them all
2159 2011-07-22 23:53:01 mosimo has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.com :: NoNameScript 4.22 :: www.esnation.com ))
2160 2011-07-22 23:53:12 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: haha. Google failed.
2161 2011-07-22 23:53:38 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: In google's scans they failed to actually capture the complete collection that I posted.
2162 2011-07-22 23:53:44 <b4epoche_> Google didn't fail…  they scammed us
2163 2011-07-22 23:53:52 <gmaxwell> Because some issues aren't in most libraries.
2164 2011-07-22 23:53:57 <Joric> gmaxwell, did you have any negative consequences already?
2165 2011-07-22 23:54:08 <b4epoche_> you can always do an inter-library loan
2166 2011-07-22 23:54:52 <b4epoche_> the problem is you don't fully understand all the issues at play (and I don't claim to either)
2167 2011-07-22 23:55:04 <b4epoche_> libraries /hate/ ToS's as much as we do.
2168 2011-07-22 23:55:07 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: okay, so I'm going to try to do an ILL to get access to an 1859 copy of PTRS which none of the google scanning libraries had. And do you have a hat to eat when I fail? :)
2169 2011-07-22 23:55:12 <Evious> The main issue is that information wants to be free, yo
2170 2011-07-22 23:55:19 <b4epoche_> the digital world has been /terrible/ for libraries
2171 2011-07-22 23:55:57 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: in addition to being a member of the board of trustees for wikimedia, my SO spent the last year as a policy analyist for the ALA, so I have _some_ feel, if not a complete one.
2172 2011-07-22 23:55:58 <b4epoche_> Evious:  while I tend to agree, I'm sick of hearing that
2173 2011-07-22 23:56:13 <Evious> It's cliche as hell, but there's something to the idea.
2174 2011-07-22 23:56:18 <gmaxwell> The ToS sucks in may ways— for example, it turns us all into law breakers.
2175 2011-07-22 23:57:00 <iddo> gmaxwell: why are you fine with copyrights?
2176 2011-07-22 23:57:41 <gmaxwell> iddo: I'm .. not exactly fine with copyrights. I think our current system is imbalanced. As a general concept I'm okay with copyright—
2177 2011-07-22 23:57:51 <senseles> should people not have a right to own what they create?
2178 2011-07-22 23:57:55 <iddo> gmaxwell: why are you okay with copyrights?
2179 2011-07-22 23:58:00 <gmaxwell> The notion that we'll lose some rights to copy, so that people will have more incentives to publish seems basically like a good idea.
2180 2011-07-22 23:58:02 <senseles> I'm fine with copyrights
2181 2011-07-22 23:58:12 <b4epoche_> iddo:  if you're against copyrights then you've never produced anything worthwhile
2182 2011-07-22 23:58:33 <iddo> laws against copying don't make sense
2183 2011-07-22 23:58:47 <Evious> Neither do laws against taking people's stuff because you want it.
2184 2011-07-22 23:58:50 <gmaxwell> That said, a lot of people support strong copyright because they're convinced that some day they're going to MAKE IT BIG, but thats almost never true.
2185 2011-07-22 23:58:51 <senseles> the laws aren't against copying
2186 2011-07-22 23:59:05 <senseles> the laws are against theft and unauthorized distribution of a material which they dont own
2187 2011-07-22 23:59:08 <gmaxwell> iddo: we have all kinds of social compromises out there.
2188 2011-07-22 23:59:24 <iddo> their premise is that someone shouldnt be allowed to "steal" the profits that you supposedly should get
2189 2011-07-22 23:59:28 <gmaxwell> iddo: what do you think about trademarks?
2190 2011-07-22 23:59:31 <b4epoche_> honestly, this (http://snapplr.com/cqh5) doesn't seem too out of whack to me
2191 2011-07-22 23:59:41 <gmaxwell> iddo: thats not the premise of copyright...
2192 2011-07-22 23:59:49 dvide has joined
2193 2011-07-22 23:59:53 <gmaxwell> Copyright doesn't give anyone the right to demand a living from others.