1 2011-08-05 00:08:51 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
   2 2011-08-05 00:10:15 moa7 has joined
   3 2011-08-05 00:10:35 Zarutian has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
   4 2011-08-05 00:10:38 Forexmasterja has left ()
   5 2011-08-05 00:17:09 Zarutian has joined
   6 2011-08-05 00:19:15 Lachesis has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
   7 2011-08-05 00:21:25 MobiusL has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
   8 2011-08-05 00:21:58 hachque has joined
   9 2011-08-05 00:22:06 MobiusL has joined
  10 2011-08-05 00:25:30 storrgie has joined
  11 2011-08-05 00:25:42 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: Eric Hopper * r4d96ac..9f154c / (35 files in 10 dirs): (5 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3vnjz6l
  12 2011-08-05 00:28:57 hachque has quit (Read error: No route to host)
  13 2011-08-05 00:29:54 hachque has joined
  14 2011-08-05 00:35:16 marf_away has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
  15 2011-08-05 00:36:50 SecretSJ has quit (Quit: Don't push the red button!)
  16 2011-08-05 00:36:51 sacarlson has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  17 2011-08-05 00:37:11 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  18 2011-08-05 00:48:18 stalled has joined
  19 2011-08-05 00:49:08 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
  20 2011-08-05 00:49:35 theorbtwo has joined
  21 2011-08-05 00:56:27 sacarlson has joined
  22 2011-08-05 00:57:54 temporalcause has joined
  23 2011-08-05 01:01:58 nhodges has joined
  24 2011-08-05 01:02:32 Jefff2 is now known as Jefff
  25 2011-08-05 01:03:01 mmoya has joined
  26 2011-08-05 01:05:26 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  27 2011-08-05 01:09:28 bender32 has quit ()
  28 2011-08-05 01:12:34 storrgie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  29 2011-08-05 01:15:08 TCA has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  30 2011-08-05 01:15:29 Cusipzzz has joined
  31 2011-08-05 01:15:35 TCA has joined
  32 2011-08-05 01:16:04 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  33 2011-08-05 01:16:16 ridi has quit ()
  34 2011-08-05 01:16:55 temporalcause has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  35 2011-08-05 01:20:32 BlueMatt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  36 2011-08-05 01:21:01 rynx has joined
  37 2011-08-05 01:22:30 normanrichards_ has joined
  38 2011-08-05 01:23:13 dstien has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  39 2011-08-05 01:23:16 normanrichards has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  40 2011-08-05 01:23:16 normanrichards_ is now known as normanrichards
  41 2011-08-05 01:23:42 dstien has joined
  42 2011-08-05 01:24:54 mmoya has joined
  43 2011-08-05 01:26:13 ike-exe has joined
  44 2011-08-05 01:28:07 dvide has joined
  45 2011-08-05 01:29:35 agricocb has joined
  46 2011-08-05 01:35:01 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
  47 2011-08-05 01:35:16 c0ldaussie has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  48 2011-08-05 01:41:56 <luke-jr> how do I get bitcoind to not try to connect to other nodes? -.-
  49 2011-08-05 01:43:10 <upb> i did it by using -noirc and patching out the hardcoded addresses
  50 2011-08-05 01:43:34 <upb> hmm now it also has this dns stuff
  51 2011-08-05 01:48:28 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  52 2011-08-05 01:48:44 <JackStorm> luke-jr:  not connect? or not try at all, not connect, you could just point it to an invalid proxyAddress
  53 2011-08-05 01:49:49 <luke-jr> -connect works
  54 2011-08-05 01:50:40 <JackStorm> yeah looking at the code, -connect, proxy as well as nolisten should all work
  55 2011-08-05 01:50:58 <imsaguy> or just firewall off the port
  56 2011-08-05 01:51:15 <imsaguy> its still trying, but no connections
  57 2011-08-05 01:53:20 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  58 2011-08-05 01:54:35 lfm has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  59 2011-08-05 01:55:17 devon_hillard has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  60 2011-08-05 01:55:31 bitcoinbulletin has joined
  61 2011-08-05 01:57:33 rynx has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  62 2011-08-05 01:58:33 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  63 2011-08-05 02:02:36 moa7 has left ()
  64 2011-08-05 02:05:39 RobinPKR has joined
  65 2011-08-05 02:06:02 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  66 2011-08-05 02:07:36 lfm has joined
  67 2011-08-05 02:09:34 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  68 2011-08-05 02:12:24 shLONG has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  69 2011-08-05 02:12:58 TheZimm has joined
  70 2011-08-05 02:15:15 b4epoche_ has joined
  71 2011-08-05 02:17:50 amiller has joined
  72 2011-08-05 02:18:10 Firefly007 has joined
  73 2011-08-05 02:18:48 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  74 2011-08-05 02:19:35 <Blitzboom> what have the devs to say to this? http://www.slideshare.net/dakami/bitcoin-8776098
  75 2011-08-05 02:35:40 <lfm> Blitzboom: I am on page 8 and it looks good so far. do you have questions about it?
  76 2011-08-05 02:35:48 <Blitzboom> yes
  77 2011-08-05 02:35:59 <Blitzboom> if the end result is the same shit as banks, what is the use of bitcoin?
  78 2011-08-05 02:36:27 <Blitzboom> you have trusted parties and central points of failur
  79 2011-08-05 02:36:27 <Blitzboom> e
  80 2011-08-05 02:36:50 <lfm> end result? I guess I havnt got that far
  81 2011-08-05 02:37:12 <Blitzboom> i’ve always had that thought, but it needs to be empirically tested
  82 2011-08-05 02:37:37 <Blitzboom> that as bitcoin progresses, it becomes more and more structurally like the old establishment
  83 2011-08-05 02:38:12 <lfm> ok I see one false assumption. He thinks bitcoin can replace creditcards. It obviously cannot
  84 2011-08-05 02:40:18 <gmaxwell> it's really kinda shitty that a lot of people's first introductions to bitcoin was via someone who has had no major involvement
  85 2011-08-05 02:41:10 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: do you have something to add to kaminsky?
  86 2011-08-05 02:41:28 agricocb has joined
  87 2011-08-05 02:41:40 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: that's why I'm so vocal about "there's no official"
  88 2011-08-05 02:41:46 <gmaxwell> It's borderline unethical to stand up at a conference in front of a lot of people and present a technical analysis as fact without having first exposed it to peer review, but it wouldn't be the first time Kaminsky has been accused of being unethical.
  89 2011-08-05 02:41:58 <lfm> He sez the peer-to-peer model goes away when bitcoin gets big. well, thats that assumptionagain that bitcoin will be or should be used like credit cards
  90 2011-08-05 02:42:17 <gmaxwell> He makes a bunch of points which I've routinely slayed on IRC.
  91 2011-08-05 02:42:30 <gmaxwell> "Bad Choice Of Hash Standard
  92 2011-08-05 02:42:30 <gmaxwell> Existing model can be accelerated massively with GPUs
  93 2011-08-05 02:42:30 <gmaxwell> Just 2x SHA-256
  94 2011-08-05 02:42:30 <gmaxwell> Could have been bcrypt or the like, in which performance does not scale with pure processing speed"
  95 2011-08-05 02:42:33 <gmaxwell> crap like that
  96 2011-08-05 02:42:52 <gmaxwell> If bitcoin wasn't being used on GPUs today it would be _completely_ controlled by botnets now.
  97 2011-08-05 02:43:10 <RealSolid> whats wrong with botnets
  98 2011-08-05 02:43:31 <gmaxwell> The merits one way or another are debatable, but to just express it like "oops they obviously fucked this up" is bad science.
  99 2011-08-05 02:43:35 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: could you provide those with regard to kaminsky? thx
 100 2011-08-05 02:44:25 <lfm> RealSolid: ok, should we put you down as a fan of botnets?
 101 2011-08-05 02:44:37 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 102 2011-08-05 02:44:44 <RealSolid> lfm: in the context of bitcoin, if they get the job done they get the job done
 103 2011-08-05 02:44:51 [7] has joined
 104 2011-08-05 02:44:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: only a matter of time until botnets use GPUs
 105 2011-08-05 02:44:56 <RealSolid> bitcoin shouldnt be judging how the hashing power gets there
 106 2011-08-05 02:45:17 <lfm> doesnt mean we have to like botnets
 107 2011-08-05 02:45:22 <Blitzboom> lfm: then we use fpgas
 108 2011-08-05 02:45:27 <luke-jr> RealSolid: you don't need mining to get the job done
 109 2011-08-05 02:45:27 <Blitzboom> err luke-jr
 110 2011-08-05 02:45:45 <luke-jr> RealSolid: mining is just a trick to force you to slow down, and distribute new coins "diversely"
 111 2011-08-05 02:45:50 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: Why? He's obviously interested more in making a splash than factual/scientific accuracy. It would be a waste of my time. At best I'd manage to piss him off and leave him attacking me.
 112 2011-08-05 02:46:26 <RealSolid> luke-jr: a lot of people believe the higher difficulty the more secure bitcoin is
 113 2011-08-05 02:46:40 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: so i know what to think of it
 114 2011-08-05 02:47:11 <luke-jr> RealSolid: the higher the diversity, really. it is ASSUMED that higher difficulty results in higher diversity.
 115 2011-08-05 02:47:22 <gmaxwell> To his credit at least it says "This isn’t 0day stuff, this is basically declared almost entirely up front"
 116 2011-08-05 02:47:25 <upb> lol typical kaminsky
 117 2011-08-05 02:47:34 <luke-jr> in practice, we find that higher difficulty results in lower diversity
 118 2011-08-05 02:47:35 <upb> it was dns, now its bitcoin
 119 2011-08-05 02:51:15 <lfm> ya he throws in a few of what he thinks are backhanded complements. He makes a big mistake tho thinking bitcoin will or can ewplcae credit cards
 120 2011-08-05 02:52:43 sacarlson has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 121 2011-08-05 02:56:54 <upb> http://www.slideshare.net/dakami/black-ops-of-tcpip-2011-black-hat-usa-2011
 122 2011-08-05 02:56:59 <upb> this is his main talk
 123 2011-08-05 02:57:13 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 124 2011-08-05 02:57:44 <upb> apparently he embedded a bunch of shit into the chain
 125 2011-08-05 02:58:23 <luke-jr> woop de do
 126 2011-08-05 02:58:31 pumpkin has joined
 127 2011-08-05 02:58:36 <luke-jr> I think everyone noticed that when it happened
 128 2011-08-05 03:01:19 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 129 2011-08-05 03:01:28 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
 130 2011-08-05 03:01:32 Rabbit67890 has joined
 131 2011-08-05 03:05:00 groffer has joined
 132 2011-08-05 03:06:20 Akiron has joined
 133 2011-08-05 03:06:46 drazak has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 134 2011-08-05 03:06:51 drazak has joined
 135 2011-08-05 03:06:56 jrmithdobbs has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 136 2011-08-05 03:07:39 jrmithdobbs has joined
 137 2011-08-05 03:10:13 <gmaxwell> A am pleased that he spent enough time the he reached the "The first five times you think you understand it, you don’t"
 138 2011-08-05 03:10:20 <gmaxwell> point. :)
 139 2011-08-05 03:10:33 bliket_ has joined
 140 2011-08-05 03:10:53 <bliket_> how many inputs does a transaction have to have to make it too complex to send free?
 141 2011-08-05 03:11:14 jimon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 142 2011-08-05 03:11:26 jimon has joined
 143 2011-08-05 03:12:06 draginx has joined
 144 2011-08-05 03:12:26 <gmaxwell> "it depends"
 145 2011-08-05 03:12:41 <draginx> how does the bitcoin network trim blocks for data xsfers?
 146 2011-08-05 03:12:58 <gmaxwell> bliket_: it's too complex to send free if its priority is too low, or if its over a kilobyte in size, or if it has outputs smaller than 0.01.
 147 2011-08-05 03:13:11 <draginx> reason why I ask: http://www.slideshare.net/dakami/bitcoin-8776098
 148 2011-08-05 03:13:32 <gmaxwell> draginx: without flash I can't tellwhat slide you're pointing to.
 149 2011-08-05 03:13:52 <draginx> theres only one slide O_o
 150 2011-08-05 03:14:47 <gmaxwell> draginx: No, you're pointing to one slide in a deck, which I can't see without flash. So tell me what it says.
 151 2011-08-05 03:15:45 <bliket_> gmaxwell: how do i know what priority my transaction is?
 152 2011-08-05 03:16:19 <bliket_> or my would be transaction, rather
 153 2011-08-05 03:16:28 <gmaxwell> bliket_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees#Technical_info  and IIRC it's actually logged in debug log when it tries to form a txn, the UI could make this more transparent.
 154 2011-08-05 03:16:37 <draginx> gmaxwell: it's a bit….in-depth =/
 155 2011-08-05 03:17:36 <gmaxwell> draginx: presumably if you have a question you can just ask it rather than pointing a some on the internet?
 156 2011-08-05 03:18:03 <draginx> Well I did ask my question..
 157 2011-08-05 03:18:13 <draginx> "how does the bitcoin network trim blocks for data xsfers?"?
 158 2011-08-05 03:18:15 <gmaxwell> I didn't understand your question.
 159 2011-08-05 03:18:37 <lfm> bliket_: mostly if you pay a fee you are top priority
 160 2011-08-05 03:18:39 <draginx> basically how does the large massive bandwidth of data (blocks) not become a problem especially for newcomers?
 161 2011-08-05 03:18:51 <gmaxwell> draginx: Ah!
 162 2011-08-05 03:18:59 <gmaxwell> draginx: because not all nodes have to have all the data.
 163 2011-08-05 03:19:09 <lfm> draginx: what large massive bandwidth? is none
 164 2011-08-05 03:19:19 <draginx> lfm: for now but later down the road..
 165 2011-08-05 03:19:20 <gmaxwell> draginx: bitcoin was designed to facilitate light clients which only know the block headers (a few MB of data per year)
 166 2011-08-05 03:19:30 <lfm> draginx: wont be
 167 2011-08-05 03:19:32 <draginx> hmm
 168 2011-08-05 03:19:38 DontMindMe has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 169 2011-08-05 03:19:43 <draginx> gmaxwell: how do I get this light client? Because it takes me eons to catch up on blocks :p
 170 2011-08-05 03:20:17 <gmaxwell> draginx: BitcoinJ is a light client— but the "official client" is not, because it hasn't really been needed.
 171 2011-08-05 03:20:21 <lfm> draginx: doesnt exist yet cuz its not needed (except you and you dont count)
 172 2011-08-05 03:20:28 <draginx> lol
 173 2011-08-05 03:20:31 <draginx> aye i see
 174 2011-08-05 03:20:50 <gmaxwell> draginx: the slowness of catching up right now doesn't really have anything to do with the size, it's slow because its difficulty to connect to nodes that will feed it to you without hanging up on you.
 175 2011-08-05 03:20:51 <draginx> ok thanks! :) in the slide the guy says eventually we'll need official nodes so to speak (or "banks")
 176 2011-08-05 03:21:18 <gmaxwell> draginx: If it says that its incorrect.
 177 2011-08-05 03:21:25 <lfm> draginx: dont beleive everything you read
 178 2011-08-05 03:21:50 <draginx> lfm: I didnt but i did want to get my facts stright hence going on here :)
 179 2011-08-05 03:21:57 <gmaxwell> Eventually full nodes will be too costly to operate for every single bitcoin user to run them, so most users will run lite clients or partially lite clients.  But that doesn't make the full ones "official"
 180 2011-08-05 03:22:14 <lfm> draginx: he says bitcoin will replace creditcards. it wont.
 181 2011-08-05 03:22:16 <draginx> gmaxwell: what would be the diff besides the light headers?
 182 2011-08-05 03:22:24 <draginx> lfm: it should :( lol
 183 2011-08-05 03:22:43 <lfm> dream on.
 184 2011-08-05 03:23:06 <gmaxwell> draginx: full nodes have to see all the bitcoin transactions, instead of just the headers. Which means they will eventually need megabits of connectivity and terrabytes of disk space if bitcoin continues to grow.
 185 2011-08-05 03:23:18 <lfm> it wont partly cuz of the reasons he sez. it cant really
 186 2011-08-05 03:23:27 <gmaxwell> draginx: it can't really— the transaction settling times means bitcoin will never be a credit card replacement by itself.
 187 2011-08-05 03:23:36 <gmaxwell> (not to mention scaling limits.
 188 2011-08-05 03:23:38 <gmaxwell> )
 189 2011-08-05 03:23:53 zapnap has joined
 190 2011-08-05 03:24:01 Akiron has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 191 2011-08-05 03:24:15 <gmaxwell> But you can build credit card systems on top of bitcoin that only settle periodically (e.g. daily) using traditional means (like visa) or via distributed means (like ripple)
 192 2011-08-05 03:24:48 <lfm> ya, nothing would stop real banks from starting to deal in bitcoins if they want to.
 193 2011-08-05 03:24:57 <gmaxwell> E.g. bitcoin becomes the better-gold of a digital currency ecosystem— better than gold because it's still a lot easier (and more secure) than gold, but not something you'd use for every sodapop you buy.
 194 2011-08-05 03:25:04 <draginx> right
 195 2011-08-05 03:25:14 <draginx> just drugs! :P jk but srsly >.> :p
 196 2011-08-05 03:25:25 <lfm> they dont take over tho. they are just another user
 197 2011-08-05 03:25:27 <draginx> so the light clients will still be able ot xsfer coins
 198 2011-08-05 03:25:29 <draginx> which si good
 199 2011-08-05 03:25:52 <gmaxwell> In theory if you squint just right, bitcoin could just barely scale up to replace credit cards, which makes people think that it will.  But it's really a poor fit.  It's more like a replacement for checks, wire transfers, and gold bars.
 200 2011-08-05 03:26:22 <gmaxwell> draginx: oh sure, lite clients will run fine— they just won't be contributing to the security of bitcoin overall.
 201 2011-08-05 03:26:53 <draginx> :)
 202 2011-08-05 03:27:00 <draginx> well personally id like ot see btc replace CC
 203 2011-08-05 03:27:08 <draginx> no transaction fees (are smaller fees)
 204 2011-08-05 03:27:10 <draginx> or*
 205 2011-08-05 03:27:47 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well, bitcoin /can/ replace cc for online purchases, where a little delay in processing is fine.
 206 2011-08-05 03:28:22 <gmaxwell> draginx: Nah. Bitcoin is the competition which will make future CC's and things like paypal not suck. It will replace them for somethings, but not for others.
 207 2011-08-05 03:28:27 <nanotube> also, for POS-like stuff, can just rely on payment processors... but they'll of course want fees... and it remains to be seen if the bitcoin payment processors will want lower fees than the current CC guys :)
 208 2011-08-05 03:28:49 <draginx> :)
 209 2011-08-05 03:28:51 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yes, bitcoin is a fine replacement for CC's where CC's are really being used as crappy proxies for checks and wiretransfers.
 210 2011-08-05 03:28:59 <nanotube> yea a little competition will do this market well.
 211 2011-08-05 03:30:07 <gmaxwell> You can think of bitcoin as a replacement for a bunch of things that CC's replace poorly.  It's not really a replacement for CCs or instant payment services, but compeition from bitcoin and bitcoin spawned alternatives will make those things more effective.
 212 2011-08-05 03:30:41 <nanotube> indeed
 213 2011-08-05 03:30:45 <gmaxwell> For example, there is a nice thread on the form about using ripple-esq settlment to do fast transactions backed in bitcoin: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=28565
 214 2011-08-05 03:31:01 TheZimm has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 215 2011-08-05 03:31:25 <gmaxwell> The idea being that you can use some other protocol based on pairwise trusts to exchange IOUs which you periodically/eventually settle with bitcoin.
 216 2011-08-05 03:32:15 <gmaxwell> This would make transactions fast (though a bit less secure than bitcoin: you have to have some trusted parties while bitcoin is trust-no-one), and it would remove traffic from the bitcoin network (letting bitcoin support more users without becoming too costly to operate)
 217 2011-08-05 03:33:20 ybit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 218 2011-08-05 03:33:45 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 219 2011-08-05 03:34:26 <nanotube> gmaxwell: yes, now replace 'bitcoin' with 'dollars' and 'fast verification nodes' with 'banks'... and we already have an implementation, i think :)
 220 2011-08-05 03:35:33 <gmaxwell> Indeed, though the ripple system is a design that can make everyone a bank. (dunno how well it work work in practice)
 221 2011-08-05 03:36:17 BlueMattBot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 222 2011-08-05 03:37:20 draginx has left ()
 223 2011-08-05 03:37:49 copumpkin is now known as ProofWizard
 224 2011-08-05 03:38:08 <gmaxwell> e.g. you have pairwise trust (a trusts b, b trusts c, etc). Ripple finds a path in order to build an IOU chain securely. If someone cheats only the party with the stupidly placed trust is screwed.  Then you just shim that up to bitcoin to automatically settle. And you could do things like had the party who is trusting you a transaction as proof of your intent and probable ability to pay, but they let you keep updating it until it comes time t
 225 2011-08-05 03:39:23 ybit has joined
 226 2011-08-05 03:45:50 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 227 2011-08-05 03:50:40 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.2 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 228 2011-08-05 03:51:53 samr7 has joined
 229 2011-08-05 03:54:38 BlueMattBot has joined
 230 2011-08-05 03:56:05 <nanotube> gmaxwell: your msg got cut off at 'come time t'
 231 2011-08-05 03:56:53 <nanotube> also, i know how ripple works, and am a big fan, generally. it may actually work quite well in a commercial setting.
 232 2011-08-05 03:57:03 <nanotube> though possibly not so well in a personal one.
 233 2011-08-05 03:57:38 ProofWizard is now known as copumpkin
 234 2011-08-05 03:57:46 <nanotube> (i.e. you probably won't want to stick your friend with the bill if some credit routed through him fails.)
 235 2011-08-05 03:58:33 toffoo has joined
 236 2011-08-05 03:59:21 <gmaxwell> until it comes time to settle.
 237 2011-08-05 04:00:17 <upb> haha or 'until it comes time t' :D
 238 2011-08-05 04:00:56 <cjdelisle> "finds a path in order to build an IOU" that's kind of the problem, routing algorithms are complicated and don't scale well.
 239 2011-08-05 04:01:18 <nanotube> cjdelisle: well, as long as it can find "a reasonable path" it doesn't have to be necessarily "the best path"
 240 2011-08-05 04:02:05 <cjdelisle> yea but even that means "link state updates" need to be broadcast globally which is D:
 241 2011-08-05 04:02:52 <nanotube> reminds me of bitcoin :)
 242 2011-08-05 04:02:59 <nanotube> where tx have to be broadcast globally :P
 243 2011-08-05 04:03:17 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: routing in small world graphs is trivial if you don't actually need to be sure you always have the shortest path.
 244 2011-08-05 04:03:36 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
 245 2011-08-05 04:03:38 <gribble> Error: 'HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable' is not a valid integer.
 246 2011-08-05 04:03:42 <luke-jr> nanotube: they don't *have* to be
 247 2011-08-05 04:03:57 <cjdelisle> "small world graphs?"
 248 2011-08-05 04:04:22 <gmaxwell> things like google maps wouldn't work if routing was, _that hard_, and road networks have much lower average order than business trust, I assume.
 249 2011-08-05 04:04:38 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
 250 2011-08-05 04:05:19 <cjdelisle> hmm
 251 2011-08-05 04:05:36 <gmaxwell> in fact, purely random routing doesn't work too terribly in small world graphs.
 252 2011-08-05 04:07:42 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 253 2011-08-05 04:07:58 <gmaxwell> (there are fun games for kids where you write up an letter to "random person if city, country" and just hand it to a random friend and ask them to pass it via friends to the destination. This apparently works.)
 254 2011-08-05 04:08:50 bliket_ has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 255 2011-08-05 04:11:21 <cjdelisle> If you pass the letter to someone near by to you and they pass it to someone neatby to them who happens to have a friend living in X country and sends it to them then they continue passing it along, it makes a lot of sense
 256 2011-08-05 04:12:19 <cjdelisle> although I don't know of anyone having developed a routing algorithm which works that way.
 257 2011-08-05 04:13:20 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: freenet routing
 258 2011-08-05 04:13:30 llama has joined
 259 2011-08-05 04:13:31 <gmaxwell> (not quite like that, but vaguely)
 260 2011-08-05 04:13:47 <gmaxwell> It does loop prevention too "I've seen that message before! don't give it back to me"
 261 2011-08-05 04:14:20 <gmaxwell> and it has a one dimensional direction. Your node is also aware of your peers peers in some cases, which is amusingly like social routing too.
 262 2011-08-05 04:14:28 <gmaxwell> "Bob has friends in germany!"
 263 2011-08-05 04:14:40 <cjdelisle> hmm
 264 2011-08-05 04:15:09 <cjdelisle> Freenet actually does routing, I thought it was strictly an overlay network and couldn't function on it's own.
 265 2011-08-05 04:15:32 <cjdelisle> I mean technically tor does routing but take away gbp/ospf and it's sunk.
 266 2011-08-05 04:15:38 <gmaxwell> oh wow, no. It's an overlay network on the internet but routes internally.
 267 2011-08-05 04:15:58 <gmaxwell> It's unlike tor, which is source routed.
 268 2011-08-05 04:16:18 <gmaxwell> For freenet no one has visiblity of the whole network— in fact the most anyone knows is some of their peers peers.
 269 2011-08-05 04:17:12 <cjdelisle> I won't bother you to read me the freenet faq but that's interesting.
 270 2011-08-05 04:18:10 <gmaxwell> Yea, you can google it. Unlike many open projects the freenet folks have used extensive simulation to inform their design too.
 271 2011-08-05 04:22:03 spidermon has joined
 272 2011-08-05 04:22:40 spidermon has left ()
 273 2011-08-05 04:23:04 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 274 2011-08-05 04:23:05 ahbritto_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 275 2011-08-05 04:24:00 bender32 has joined
 276 2011-08-05 04:25:00 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 277 2011-08-05 04:26:59 b4epoche_ has joined
 278 2011-08-05 04:28:26 BuiZe has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 279 2011-08-05 04:32:15 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 280 2011-08-05 04:33:56 b4epoche_ has joined
 281 2011-08-05 04:39:59 nefario has joined
 282 2011-08-05 04:41:10 <RealSolid> whats the chances of a tx with confirms=6 being invalidated
 283 2011-08-05 04:43:32 zeropointo has joined
 284 2011-08-05 04:46:15 llama has quit (Quit: llama)
 285 2011-08-05 04:47:39 <gmaxwell> See the bitcoin paper.
 286 2011-08-05 04:47:49 <gmaxwell> RealSolid: assuming that no one is trying to double spend it— zero.
 287 2011-08-05 04:48:06 <gmaxwell> Assuming they are trying to double spend it and nave >>50% hashpower. 1.
 288 2011-08-05 04:48:19 <gmaxwell> Assuming they don't have tons of hash power. ε (see paper)
 289 2011-08-05 04:49:35 c0ldaussie has joined
 290 2011-08-05 04:50:07 <nanotube> gmaxwell: nice summary :)
 291 2011-08-05 04:50:35 <gmaxwell> s/nave/have/
 292 2011-08-05 04:51:58 <RealSolid> what happens in the double spend situation, youd forever have a TX with 0 confirms?
 293 2011-08-05 04:52:38 <gmaxwell> RealSolid: if you're on the losing side.
 294 2011-08-05 04:52:40 <RealSolid> ie TXa goes through, TXb doesnt, but it still shown?
 295 2011-08-05 04:53:05 ThomasV has joined
 296 2011-08-05 04:53:54 <gmaxwell> IIRC yes. (I've actually done double spends in testing, but I don't have any wallets right now with any to go look to see if the txn is still there)
 297 2011-08-05 04:54:55 <RealSolid> on the receiving end of this, ie i get a TXb and its later invalidated, will the tx disappear?
 298 2011-08-05 04:56:16 <gmaxwell> I don't want to comment from my hazy memory because I'm not sure at the moment.
 299 2011-08-05 04:56:57 <gmaxwell> One thing thats always spooky is seeing transactions made by another client just show up like you made them locally when you have keys in two places.
 300 2011-08-05 04:57:41 <RealSolid> yah
 301 2011-08-05 04:58:12 <RealSolid> what im guessing happens is say getreceivedbyaddress ( minconfirm=0 ) will show the TXb added until its invalidade
 302 2011-08-05 04:58:24 <RealSolid> and potentially also the TXa
 303 2011-08-05 04:58:46 <gmaxwell> It won't show both while both are unconfirmed for sure.
 304 2011-08-05 04:58:49 <RealSolid> or i guess that cant happen, both active, but TXa will appear
 305 2011-08-05 04:58:55 <RealSolid> after TXb removed
 306 2011-08-05 04:59:10 <gmaxwell> Your node will instantly drop any conflicting transaction it hears about outside of the blockchain.
 307 2011-08-05 04:59:16 <RealSolid> yah
 308 2011-08-05 04:59:26 <RealSolid> then the next block is done and TXa is now there, TXb gone
 309 2011-08-05 04:59:35 <gmaxwell> (which is protective against double spends— they don't tend to propagate on the network worth a darn)
 310 2011-08-05 04:59:39 <RealSolid> i think the client which sent should be the only one having the trans there forever unconfirmed
 311 2011-08-05 04:59:59 <gmaxwell> Yea, the sending client does, I'm pretty sure of that.
 312 2011-08-05 05:00:19 <gmaxwell> And I'm absolutely sure that you won't see both on the rx side while both are unconfirmed.
 313 2011-08-05 05:00:27 <RealSolid> indeed
 314 2011-08-05 05:00:29 <gmaxwell> What I'm not completely sure is if the loser will go away if you heard it first.
 315 2011-08-05 05:00:36 <RealSolid> thanks for helping to explain
 316 2011-08-05 05:03:01 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 317 2011-08-05 05:13:53 b4epoche_ has joined
 318 2011-08-05 05:14:39 ahbritto_ has joined
 319 2011-08-05 05:14:45 nefario has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 320 2011-08-05 05:20:19 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 321 2011-08-05 05:22:25 b4epoche_ has joined
 322 2011-08-05 05:22:28 bender32 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 323 2011-08-05 05:23:06 bender32 has joined
 324 2011-08-05 05:26:20 sacarlson has joined
 325 2011-08-05 05:28:11 AStove has joined
 326 2011-08-05 05:32:35 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 327 2011-08-05 05:36:45 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 328 2011-08-05 05:36:57 osmosis has joined
 329 2011-08-05 05:37:17 b4epoche_ has joined
 330 2011-08-05 05:37:52 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
 331 2011-08-05 05:38:30 osmosis has quit (Client Quit)
 332 2011-08-05 05:40:05 bender32 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 333 2011-08-05 05:40:34 bender32 has joined
 334 2011-08-05 05:41:44 nefario has joined
 335 2011-08-05 05:42:47 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 336 2011-08-05 05:47:41 osmosis has joined
 337 2011-08-05 05:48:26 <osmosis> im seeing a tendency for # of connections to jump every day at about 5PM PST
 338 2011-08-05 05:49:10 <gmaxwell> Hm? you're not constantly maxed out?
 339 2011-08-05 05:49:17 <gmaxwell> are you running .24?
 340 2011-08-05 05:49:58 <osmosis> im running a server with 1024 max.  So no, not maxed out.  fluctuates between 70 and 110.
 341 2011-08-05 05:50:08 <osmosis> yah,  latest
 342 2011-08-05 05:50:25 <gmaxwell> just fair warning, 1024 max will make you crash if you haven't carefully upped the max fds.
 343 2011-08-05 05:51:14 <osmosis> what should I have it set at?
 344 2011-08-05 05:53:07 <gmaxwell> well, lower your connection count to 1000 and your should be safe. Or up the FD limit to 65535. :)
 345 2011-08-05 05:55:49 Diablo-D3 has joined
 346 2011-08-05 05:55:56 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 347 2011-08-05 05:56:38 b4epoche_ has joined
 348 2011-08-05 05:57:11 <osmosis> gmaxwell, ill try it at 512 and see if I get a different result
 349 2011-08-05 05:57:37 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 350 2011-08-05 05:58:38 kish`_ has joined
 351 2011-08-05 06:00:26 Firefly007 has joined
 352 2011-08-05 06:01:58 kish` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 353 2011-08-05 06:12:56 sacarlson has joined
 354 2011-08-05 06:13:10 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 355 2011-08-05 06:15:20 b4epoche_ has joined
 356 2011-08-05 06:17:15 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 357 2011-08-05 06:17:57 b4epoche_ has joined
 358 2011-08-05 06:18:05 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 359 2011-08-05 06:18:40 b4epoche_ has joined
 360 2011-08-05 06:19:01 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 361 2011-08-05 06:19:14 <upb> what the hell is a 'UABB'
 362 2011-08-05 06:19:22 <upb> without having to read 1000 spammy forum posts
 363 2011-08-05 06:20:40 aviadbd has joined
 364 2011-08-05 06:21:13 <imsaguy> some bullshit about representing the community at large
 365 2011-08-05 06:21:50 <upb> oh heh
 366 2011-08-05 06:21:57 b4epoche_ has joined
 367 2011-08-05 06:22:05 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 368 2011-08-05 06:27:28 b4epoche_ has joined
 369 2011-08-05 06:27:49 markus_wanner has joined
 370 2011-08-05 06:29:03 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 371 2011-08-05 06:30:52 <iddo> anyone looked at slides of dan kaminsky? why did he say in slide 12 that in the future each block will be 1gb ? i thought block size is affected only by num of current transactions (not entire history), no? http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/j9e4a/kaminsky_on_bitcoin/
 372 2011-08-05 06:33:20 <markus_wanner> iddo: it must be only the number of current transactions (previous history covered by just a hash), but at some point, we'll have lots and lots of transactions within 10 minutes, right?
 373 2011-08-05 06:33:41 <markus_wanner> iddo: (disclaimer: I didn't look at the slides, yet...)
 374 2011-08-05 06:34:32 <copumpkin> json isn't known as the most space-efficient format
 375 2011-08-05 06:37:24 <imsaguy> blocks are still limited in size to 2mb
 376 2011-08-05 06:38:28 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 377 2011-08-05 06:38:58 b4epoche_ has joined
 378 2011-08-05 06:39:04 <gmaxwell> iddo: he's taking some crazy estimate based on visa's peak traffic levels
 379 2011-08-05 06:39:21 <gmaxwell> iddo: which is crazy because its unlikely that bitcoin would replace visa.
 380 2011-08-05 06:39:30 <iddo> i wonder if we would have many more transactions compared to now, e.g. if there are separate layers above bitcoin that use actual bitcoin transactions less frequently, like option 3 described in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Point_of_sale_with_bitcoins_isn.27t_possible_because_of_the_10_minute_wait_for_confirmation
 381 2011-08-05 06:39:31 <upb> those are probably quoted from somewhere because i remember reading something like that
 382 2011-08-05 06:39:50 <gmaxwell> (instead people will build credit and payment networks on top of bitcoin that provide many advantages, including reducing traffic on bitcoin)
 383 2011-08-05 06:40:05 Jefff has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 384 2011-08-05 06:40:11 <gmaxwell> iddo: jinx, basically.
 385 2011-08-05 06:40:28 shadders has joined
 386 2011-08-05 06:41:00 <iddo> so his 1gb per block is just an error? what is the size of a block right now? i cannot imagine that it will be that much larger than it is now
 387 2011-08-05 06:42:48 <gmaxwell> It's a calculation based on a crazy assumption.
 388 2011-08-05 06:42:49 <iddo> about 5kb per block?
 389 2011-08-05 06:43:03 <gmaxwell> No, they're bigger than that. the average is probably up to 100k or so.
 390 2011-08-05 06:43:22 <imsaguy> plenty of room to grow before 2m
 391 2011-08-05 06:43:36 <gmaxwell> The maximum size the software will currently allow is capped (I thought at 1MB, but I see people saying 2MB and I'm too lazy to go look)
 392 2011-08-05 06:43:42 <iddo> i divided 700mb blockchain by 139000 block, was about 5kb ?
 393 2011-08-05 06:43:50 <imsaguy> I though it was 2, but I could be wrong
 394 2011-08-05 06:43:54 <gmaxwell> iddo: the blockchain is way smaller than 700mb
 395 2011-08-05 06:44:16 <iddo> hmm so it should be even less than 5kb on average?
 396 2011-08-05 06:44:22 <gmaxwell> The average over all history is not a great predictor of the future.
 397 2011-08-05 06:44:27 Jefff has joined
 398 2011-08-05 06:44:52 <gmaxwell> iddo: you can see recent sizes on blockexplorer.
 399 2011-08-05 06:45:24 <gmaxwell> in any case the 1gb number is assuming 10k transactions per second or something like that.
 400 2011-08-05 06:46:23 <gmaxwell> Which duh, that won't work so well. The point of that analysis is to show that bitcoin itself can scale up quite a bit (because a lot of people have this "omg flodding?! wtf that can't work!" response)
 401 2011-08-05 06:47:17 <gmaxwell> and it's true, you could concievably make pretty much all money exchanges transactions in the world go through bitcoin. But that would be nuts. And pointless. And damanging to bitcoin's decenteralized nature.
 402 2011-08-05 06:48:09 <imsaguy> oops
 403 2011-08-05 06:48:12 <imsaguy> If the blocksize is more than 250 kB, transactions get increasingly more expensive as the blocksize approaches the limit of 500 kB
 404 2011-08-05 06:48:19 <imsaguy> wiki says .5M
 405 2011-08-05 06:48:26 <gmaxwell> In a world where bitcoin was very widely used, we'd see bitcoin replace checks, wire transfers, gold bars, CDs — and all the uses of things like credit cards/paypal which would have been better served by those other things if they were transferable online.
 406 2011-08-05 06:49:53 RazielZ has joined
 407 2011-08-05 06:49:54 <gmaxwell> And the credit cards / payments networks that exist in that bitcoin future would be far less costly and provide more value— in order to compete with the direct bitcoin transactions that back them.
 408 2011-08-05 06:50:29 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 409 2011-08-05 06:50:39 zyb has quit (Quit: leaving)
 410 2011-08-05 06:50:51 zyb has joined
 411 2011-08-05 06:51:11 Akinava is now known as away!~lis@pff.eltel.net|Akinava
 412 2011-08-05 06:51:20 <gmaxwell> In exchange for the costs they charge and the trust they require, they'll provide many features: instant confirmation, reporting, pull transactions, perhaps even chargebacks or other anti-fraud measures, reduction in bitcoin fees (due to only needing to settle periodically), etc.
 413 2011-08-05 06:52:51 <iddo> could someone attack bitcoin by broadcasting many transactions between addresses that he controls?
 414 2011-08-05 06:52:57 SISUbtcX has joined
 415 2011-08-05 06:53:49 wardearia has joined
 416 2011-08-05 06:57:06 <[Tycho]> iddo, no.
 417 2011-08-05 06:58:43 AStove has quit ()
 418 2011-08-05 06:59:01 AStove has joined
 419 2011-08-05 07:00:22 <shadders> Any pool operators hanging out in here?
 420 2011-08-05 07:00:55 AStove has quit (Client Quit)
 421 2011-08-05 07:01:01 <iddo> [Tycho]: why not? please elaborate?
 422 2011-08-05 07:01:29 AStove has joined
 423 2011-08-05 07:02:19 AStove has quit (Client Quit)
 424 2011-08-05 07:02:52 hugolp has joined
 425 2011-08-05 07:03:04 AStove has joined
 426 2011-08-05 07:03:32 E-sense has joined
 427 2011-08-05 07:04:04 <shadders> pushpool vs poolserverj performance test: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34565.0
 428 2011-08-05 07:04:50 <shadders> hopefully keep the java haters quiet for a bit...
 429 2011-08-05 07:05:11 bender32 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 430 2011-08-05 07:05:36 <RealSolid> for a bit because any native code has potential to always be faster
 431 2011-08-05 07:06:18 <shadders> sure with identical architectures native code will always be faster.  look at the numbers
 432 2011-08-05 07:06:37 <RealSolid> is that sarcasm
 433 2011-08-05 07:06:50 <shadders> no
 434 2011-08-05 07:07:07 <RealSolid> why are you doing it in java then
 435 2011-08-05 07:07:12 <RealSolid> why not just optimize it in c++
 436 2011-08-05 07:07:25 <shadders> because I'm a java developer, it's big and a lot easier for me to manage in java
 437 2011-08-05 07:07:39 AStove has quit (Client Quit)
 438 2011-08-05 07:07:48 <RealSolid> ok
 439 2011-08-05 07:07:52 <hugolp> java sucks
 440 2011-08-05 07:07:53 AStove has joined
 441 2011-08-05 07:08:07 <hugolp> just trying to make you feel comfortable
 442 2011-08-05 07:08:10 <shadders> JIT compiler get's very close to to native performance after warmup and poolservers aren't CPU bound in any case.
 443 2011-08-05 07:08:11 <hugolp> :D
 444 2011-08-05 07:08:52 <shadders> thanks :)  first time in here, had a feeling there wasn't much java love in the room
 445 2011-08-05 07:09:41 <shadders> oh, the other reason is I don't know c++... fairly major obstacle.
 446 2011-08-05 07:09:54 <hugolp> c++ sucks too
 447 2011-08-05 07:10:20 <aviadbd> hugolp: the only natural programming language to write in is Brainfuck.
 448 2011-08-05 07:10:33 <shadders> I know it means I'm molly coddled but I couldn't imagine having to collect my own garbage
 449 2011-08-05 07:11:46 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 450 2011-08-05 07:12:19 <RealSolid> lawl shadders
 451 2011-08-05 07:12:45 <RealSolid> with smart pointers and whatnot on C++ you dont have to do much anyhow
 452 2011-08-05 07:12:59 <RealSolid> all the speed of native with the ease of use of java
 453 2011-08-05 07:13:12 <shadders> If I knew what that was I'd probably be convinced
 454 2011-08-05 07:13:16 <hugolp> aviadbd: first time I heard about it
 455 2011-08-05 07:13:17 <aviadbd> RealSolid: not sure that's the case for large complex projects, actually.
 456 2011-08-05 07:13:28 <aviadbd> hugolp: what kind of a programmer are you then?! :D
 457 2011-08-05 07:13:41 <RealSolid> aviadbd: oh?
 458 2011-08-05 07:13:59 <hugolp> Im not even a real programmer... Im an engineer recycled into a programmer. Go figure.
 459 2011-08-05 07:14:01 <RealSolid> theres a large project in java now?
 460 2011-08-05 07:14:05 <RealSolid> lawl
 461 2011-08-05 07:14:13 b4epoche_ has joined
 462 2011-08-05 07:14:15 <aviadbd> RealSolid: yes. Java's GC is working on an entirely different level than just deleting pointers.
 463 2011-08-05 07:14:20 <RealSolid> even minecraft developers are sorry they developed in java now
 464 2011-08-05 07:14:36 <aviadbd> RealSolid: sigh. Not going into a C++ vs Java argument now. :)
 465 2011-08-05 07:14:45 <RealSolid> there is no argument mate
 466 2011-08-05 07:14:51 <RealSolid> java is fine for small scale stuff
 467 2011-08-05 07:15:06 <hugolp> RealSolid: true, there is no argument, they both suck (big time).
 468 2011-08-05 07:15:07 <shadders> actually I'd argue the other way around...
 469 2011-08-05 07:15:24 <RealSolid> hugolp: nah, c++0x fixes many of the c++ annoyances
 470 2011-08-05 07:15:31 <RealSolid> whilst still having the lovely speed
 471 2011-08-05 07:15:42 jbalint has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 472 2011-08-05 07:16:11 <shadders> Java is great for big complex projects and if you really need to optimise beyond what the JIT can do write some parts as native
 473 2011-08-05 07:16:13 <RealSolid> java has its advantages that C++ never will, but trying to argue speed/resources/development time is pointless
 474 2011-08-05 07:16:36 <RealSolid> shadders: wheres a JAVA OS then
 475 2011-08-05 07:16:37 <aviadbd> RealSolid: as I said - not going there, mate.
 476 2011-08-05 07:16:48 <RealSolid> cant get any more complicated than that
 477 2011-08-05 07:16:48 <aviadbd> RealSolid: Where's a C++ OS then?
 478 2011-08-05 07:16:53 <aviadbd> RealSolid: All the OS's are written in C.
 479 2011-08-05 07:16:58 <hugolp> aviadbd: beat me to it
 480 2011-08-05 07:16:59 <aviadbd> or lower.
 481 2011-08-05 07:17:00 <RealSolid> C/C++ same thing
 482 2011-08-05 07:17:03 <RealSolid> nearly
 483 2011-08-05 07:17:05 <hugolp> NO WAY
 484 2011-08-05 07:17:06 <aviadbd> RealSolid: it's completely different.
 485 2011-08-05 07:17:08 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 486 2011-08-05 07:17:14 <RealSolid> haha no, its not completely different
 487 2011-08-05 07:17:15 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 488 2011-08-05 07:17:23 <RealSolid> C Is a subset of C++, completely valid as C++
 489 2011-08-05 07:17:31 jbalint has joined
 490 2011-08-05 07:17:33 hugolp has joined
 491 2011-08-05 07:17:37 <aviadbd> RealSolid: doesn't make them run the same way.
 492 2011-08-05 07:17:42 <shadders> use java for what java's good at (i.e. not OS's) and use c for everything else.
 493 2011-08-05 07:17:51 <aviadbd> RealSolid: in that case I'd argue that Objective-C is a subset of C and runs the same way. But it's not.
 494 2011-08-05 07:18:01 <hugolp> shadders: or one could just use python instead of Java
 495 2011-08-05 07:18:09 <RealSolid> aviadbd: no, C code doesnt run in C#
 496 2011-08-05 07:18:19 gjs278 has joined
 497 2011-08-05 07:18:22 <RealSolid> or compile rather
 498 2011-08-05 07:18:27 <aviadbd> RealSolid: so what?
 499 2011-08-05 07:18:32 <aviadbd> RealSolid: doesn't mean anything about runtime
 500 2011-08-05 07:18:34 <RealSolid> C in C++ does
 501 2011-08-05 07:18:51 <hugolp> saying that c++ and c are the same has to be a crime somewhere
 502 2011-08-05 07:18:58 <aviadbd> hugolp: I know.
 503 2011-08-05 07:19:04 <shadders> or jython, then you can not only interpret your code but execute it in it a JVM for extra teabreaks between prompts
 504 2011-08-05 07:19:06 <aviadbd> hugolp: shows some disrespect for the profession.
 505 2011-08-05 07:19:15 <RealSolid> you can program objectively in C++ or functionally, doesnt matter
 506 2011-08-05 07:19:21 <RealSolid> in java youre forced
 507 2011-08-05 07:19:26 <aviadbd> RealSolid: try to write embedded systems in C++ and tell me its the same thing.
 508 2011-08-05 07:19:43 <aviadbd> sigh.
 509 2011-08-05 07:19:51 <aviadbd> went there even though I said I wouldn't.
 510 2011-08-05 07:19:51 <RealSolid> supporting C++ is obviously more intensive than plain C, but its irrelevant
 511 2011-08-05 07:20:04 <shadders> you're not forced, you can use static methods to write functionally in java
 512 2011-08-05 07:20:05 <hugolp> aviadbd: I dont think many people does (mainly because of memory constraints) but embedded compilers are starting to accept C++ (dont ask me why)
 513 2011-08-05 07:20:18 samlander has joined
 514 2011-08-05 07:20:39 <aviadbd> hugolp: barely. And for that matter, embedded systems are accepting Java as well. Check out RTSJ.
 515 2011-08-05 07:20:47 erus` has joined
 516 2011-08-05 07:20:47 <hugolp> are you serious?
 517 2011-08-05 07:21:05 <RealSolid> lol shadders, youre forced to use SOME object stuff at lesat
 518 2011-08-05 07:21:52 <aviadbd> hugolp: even though I think it's kind of abandoned since the Oracle purchase.
 519 2011-08-05 07:22:04 <aviadbd> but it had some qualities.
 520 2011-08-05 07:22:10 <shadders> yes
 521 2011-08-05 07:22:11 <hugolp> At least Oracle did something right...
 522 2011-08-05 07:22:25 <hugolp> like what?
 523 2011-08-05 07:22:52 <RealSolid> the gap between C/C++ compilers isnt that large for todays embedded hardware
 524 2011-08-05 07:23:08 <aviadbd> hugolp: there were some cool hovering aircrafts, some manufacturing robots - even the one winning the fastest in 2005/6 or something. Can't remember exactly.
 525 2011-08-05 07:23:11 <RealSolid> and where it is, the hardware is nearly irrelevant
 526 2011-08-05 07:23:54 <hugolp> RealSolid: in the embedded world memory is VERY expensive
 527 2011-08-05 07:24:05 <RealSolid> hugolp: since when
 528 2011-08-05 07:24:06 <hugolp> it also adds to consumption
 529 2011-08-05 07:24:13 <RealSolid> were not in 1996 anymore
 530 2011-08-05 07:24:25 <RealSolid> youve got 1gb ram chips at $1
 531 2011-08-05 07:24:30 <hugolp> RealSolid: Im talking of chipsets that consume mW
 532 2011-08-05 07:24:38 <hugolp> and uW when they are sleep
 533 2011-08-05 07:24:49 <hugolp> in those type of devices memory is EXPENSIVE
 534 2011-08-05 07:24:50 <aviadbd> hugolp: agreed. I don't think he understands embedded much.
 535 2011-08-05 07:25:07 jbalint has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 536 2011-08-05 07:25:19 <aviadbd> RealSolid: its not just the size, even though in some environments you just can't PUT large memory sticks or chips.
 537 2011-08-05 07:25:22 <aviadbd> but hey, I gotta go.
 538 2011-08-05 07:25:24 <aviadbd> cya
 539 2011-08-05 07:25:25 <RealSolid> hugolp: yes C will always be used in situations where tiny memory usage is required
 540 2011-08-05 07:25:27 aviadbd has quit ()
 541 2011-08-05 07:25:31 <RealSolid> however those environments are decreasing
 542 2011-08-05 07:25:42 <hugolp> RealSolid: on the contrary, they are growing
 543 2011-08-05 07:25:45 jbalint has joined
 544 2011-08-05 07:25:49 <RealSolid> haha are they?
 545 2011-08-05 07:25:59 <hugolp> there is a big movement towards low power wifi systems
 546 2011-08-05 07:26:03 <RealSolid> youve got smart phones now that are as powerful as PCs 10 years ago
 547 2011-08-05 07:26:22 <RealSolid> and smaller than most embedded devices of 15 years ago
 548 2011-08-05 07:26:28 <hugolp> RealSolid: Im talking about devices that only act as sensors, or relays, and thinks like that
 549 2011-08-05 07:26:45 <hugolp> chipsets that cost $1.5 each
 550 2011-08-05 07:26:52 <RealSolid> and you think these devices are outpacing the more intelligent embedded systems?
 551 2011-08-05 07:27:00 <hugolp> if you need to double memory it gets a lot more expensive
 552 2011-08-05 07:27:18 <hugolp> RealSolid: you dont understand, its a problem of using the right chipset for each task
 553 2011-08-05 07:27:25 <hugolp> its not a problem that one is better than the other
 554 2011-08-05 07:27:51 <RealSolid> haha when we're talking the difference between 1W and 0.8W im not sure it really matters too much here
 555 2011-08-05 07:28:05 <hugolp> if you want to set up a sensor that takes the temperature every hour, you can use one of this cheap chipsets and with a small battery it can last for years
 556 2011-08-05 07:28:17 <RealSolid> sure
 557 2011-08-05 07:28:28 <hugolp> this devices are meant to live for years on only one battery. A change from 1W to 0.8W is HUGE!
 558 2011-08-05 07:28:48 <hugolp> anyone, done for today with this
 559 2011-08-05 07:28:49 <RealSolid> and you believe these tiny embedded systems are becoming more prevalent than the ones which can do many more things?
 560 2011-08-05 07:28:53 <RealSolid> like that can read 32 sensors at once
 561 2011-08-05 07:29:41 <hugolp> yes
 562 2011-08-05 07:30:01 <hugolp> there is a revolution in low power wireless chipsets
 563 2011-08-05 07:30:13 <hugolp> check zigbee, 6lowpa
 564 2011-08-05 07:30:14 <hugolp> n
 565 2011-08-05 07:30:16 <hugolp> etc...
 566 2011-08-05 07:30:28 <samlander> what are the chances of rolling out an official client for iphone inside of 14 days?
 567 2011-08-05 07:30:33 <samlander> or android
 568 2011-08-05 07:31:19 <RealSolid> hugolp: youre argument will then always suit the "well ASM is better than C"
 569 2011-08-05 07:31:39 <RealSolid> so youm ay as well go to the lowest and avoid any discussion of C
 570 2011-08-05 07:32:00 <RealSolid> because you can operate with no RAM in that environment
 571 2011-08-05 07:32:31 <hugolp> RealSolid: no, Im not saying that, but as I said enough for today
 572 2011-08-05 07:33:04 <RealSolid> you should be saying that, because as soon as you start adding enough RAM for C, youre like a few milliwatts and few cents off supporting C++
 573 2011-08-05 07:33:17 davex__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 574 2011-08-05 07:34:20 <samlander> this project needs a metatrader type interface to all the xchanges
 575 2011-08-05 07:34:30 <samlander> with wallet functionality
 576 2011-08-05 07:35:05 davex__ has joined
 577 2011-08-05 07:35:16 abragin has joined
 578 2011-08-05 07:38:11 <shadders> nothing stopping an MT broker from using BTC pairs
 579 2011-08-05 07:39:27 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 580 2011-08-05 07:40:30 <markus_wanner> I've just recompiled bitcoin and am testing the wallet encryption functionality.  However, I don't dare encrypt my main wallet.dat with just one password field.  What if I have a typo in that one field when encrypting wallet.dat?  IMO there should really be two fields.
 581 2011-08-05 07:50:32 molecular has joined
 582 2011-08-05 07:53:04 codler has joined
 583 2011-08-05 07:56:28 <lfm> so read pw1 ; read pw2 ; if [ $pw1 != $pw2 ] ; then exit ; fi bitcoind encrypt it $pw1
 584 2011-08-05 07:58:10 Rabbit67890 has joined
 585 2011-08-05 08:00:36 <gjs278> yeah that really should be the way it's done
 586 2011-08-05 08:00:51 zeropointo has quit (Quit: leaving)
 587 2011-08-05 08:01:45 <lfm> gjs278: so do it that way. thats what scripts are for. no need to bother developers
 588 2011-08-05 08:05:17 SISUbtcX has quit (Quit: SISUbtcX)
 589 2011-08-05 08:05:46 <iddo> could someone attack bitcoin by broadcasting many transactions between addresses that he controls, to make the blockchain much bigger?
 590 2011-08-05 08:05:55 FractalUniverse has joined
 591 2011-08-05 08:06:34 <iddo> i think he cannot do it after there are only fees and no longer any rewards for finding next block, but what about now?
 592 2011-08-05 08:06:41 <lfm> iddo ya, they are trying it all the time, its called spam and its one of the reasons free transactions take so long to get accepted in the block chain
 593 2011-08-05 08:06:57 <iddo> ahh
 594 2011-08-05 08:06:58 <lfm> also called dust
 595 2011-08-05 08:07:00 <iddo> cool
 596 2011-08-05 08:07:19 <lfm> not cool, its stupid
 597 2011-08-05 08:07:43 <iddo> is it also the reason why the official bitcoin client will not do free transactions if some conditions are met?
 598 2011-08-05 08:07:59 <lfm> one of the reasons ya
 599 2011-08-05 08:11:07 sgornick has joined
 600 2011-08-05 08:11:24 <[Tycho]> shadders, yes.
 601 2011-08-05 08:14:51 slush1 has joined
 602 2011-08-05 08:20:49 <imsaguy> hello
 603 2011-08-05 08:21:27 <imsaguy> hey slush, slush1, you should remove the reference to mybitcoin.com on http://mining.bitcoin.cz/
 604 2011-08-05 08:22:16 <slush1> imsaguy afaik they're down just for some security reasons, but they will start the service again, right?
 605 2011-08-05 08:22:22 <imsaguy> no
 606 2011-08-05 08:22:28 <imsaguy> there's a new message saying they are liquidating.
 607 2011-08-05 08:23:01 <slush1> link?
 608 2011-08-05 08:23:06 <slush1> ok, I removed link from homepage
 609 2011-08-05 08:23:09 <imsaguy> https://www.mybitcoin.com/
 610 2011-08-05 08:23:27 <imsaguy> thanks. :)
 611 2011-08-05 08:24:18 <slush1> oh, ok. Now I read carefully and finally understood :)
 612 2011-08-05 08:24:39 <imsaguy> mybitcoin made it easy for new people to get started, but exposed them to much risk.
 613 2011-08-05 08:25:48 <MrTiggr> ^^ that post on mybitcoin is not GpG signed like every other known correspondance from the owner ...mybitcoin is still being investigated by #bitcoin-police
 614 2011-08-05 08:26:05 <imsaguy> it doesn't matter, they shouldn't be linked to at this point.
 615 2011-08-05 08:27:41 <MrTiggr> absolutely!!
 616 2011-08-05 08:27:44 <MrTiggr> imsaguy++
 617 2011-08-05 08:30:31 <imsaguy> thanks for the karma pts
 618 2011-08-05 08:30:58 toffoo has quit ()
 619 2011-08-05 08:31:13 <iddo> mybitcoin is also still linked on the defunct https://clearcoin.appspot.com/
 620 2011-08-05 08:32:31 <imsaguy> See, how can new users be faulted when it was linked all over?
 621 2011-08-05 08:38:47 nr9 has joined
 622 2011-08-05 08:40:17 dbitcoin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 623 2011-08-05 08:41:02 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
 624 2011-08-05 08:41:11 Rabbit67890 has joined
 625 2011-08-05 08:42:14 dbitcoin has joined
 626 2011-08-05 08:42:37 Lethe has joined
 627 2011-08-05 08:45:12 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 628 2011-08-05 08:55:34 zeiris_ has joined
 629 2011-08-05 08:57:04 <hugolp> imsaguy: there were a lot of signs that mybitcoin was shady
 630 2011-08-05 08:57:11 <hugolp> like for example not returning emails
 631 2011-08-05 08:57:55 <doublec> MrTiggr: everyother known correspondance? There was only one wasn't there?
 632 2011-08-05 08:58:04 <hugolp> if you used for change and lost 10 bitcoins then its understandable, but how anyone left big amounts in a page that was not answering emails is beyond me
 633 2011-08-05 09:00:26 <edcba> using some bitcoin web based account is quite silly
 634 2011-08-05 09:00:50 <edcba> it's quite the opposite why bitcoin had been invented
 635 2011-08-05 09:01:03 <phedny_> well.. bitcoin gives you a choice
 636 2011-08-05 09:01:12 <imsaguy> but if you never had a reason to email them
 637 2011-08-05 09:01:19 <imsaguy> and you didn't delve into the forums
 638 2011-08-05 09:01:22 <imsaguy> you wouldn't ever know
 639 2011-08-05 09:01:26 <phedny_> for non-technical users I don't see why using a (paid) service wouldn't be the best option
 640 2011-08-05 09:01:34 <MrTiggr> doublec: ask cjdelisle in #bitcoin-police ...they have emails
 641 2011-08-05 09:03:50 d1g1t4l has joined
 642 2011-08-05 09:09:21 <hugolp> imsaguy: true, but if you leave 10,000 bitcoins in a web service and dont check on that service regularely, then you have a problem of too much trust
 643 2011-08-05 09:10:37 codler has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 5.0/20110615151330])
 644 2011-08-05 09:10:57 <cjdelisle> http://mybitcoinnow.pastebay.com/134540
 645 2011-08-05 09:11:23 <imsaguy> if you have 10k bitcoins, you aren't a n00b
 646 2011-08-05 09:12:39 <imsaguy> I'm only referring to the n00bs
 647 2011-08-05 09:14:31 ThomasV has joined
 648 2011-08-05 09:19:54 erle- has joined
 649 2011-08-05 09:21:23 <doublec> cjdelisle: how would they be able to find a full list of addresses?
 650 2011-08-05 09:21:25 xelister has joined
 651 2011-08-05 09:21:33 <doublec> cjdelisle: the client doesn't provide that information does it?
 652 2011-08-05 09:22:13 <cjdelisle> They are professionals, they can extract it from the wallet file if nothing else.
 653 2011-08-05 09:22:31 <doublec> cjdelisle: they may be professional web developers, not professional bitcoin wallet hackers
 654 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <doublec> I wouldn't have a clue how to do that and I run bitcoin related websites
 655 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <doublec> cjdelisle: maybe you could provide advice to them on how to do it
 656 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <lfm> the client will provide a full list of addresses in a wallet.
 657 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <doublec> lfm: how?
 658 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <cjdelisle> I thought so
 659 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <cjdelisle> also: We use BSD servers with MAC, immutable flags, jails, PAX, SSP,
 660 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <cjdelisle> randomized mmap, secure level, a WAF, a DDoS mitigation and alert system
 661 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <cjdelisle> - -- the works. Like I said earlier. We are not amateurs.
 662 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <cjdelisle> I don't think they need my technical advice.
 663 2011-08-05 09:27:05 <lfm> well all the ones that have been used anyway
 664 2011-08-05 09:27:06 <doublec> cjdelisle: so you're asking them to provide information you don't even know how to get?
 665 2011-08-05 09:27:13 <lfm> easiest to use the python bitcoin tools I spoze
 666 2011-08-05 09:28:17 <cjdelisle> I am not in the payment processing business, I just happen to know that that is information which will vindicate them, something that they are in need of.
 667 2011-08-05 09:28:34 <lfm> list accounts and then getaddressesbyacount
 668 2011-08-05 09:28:40 <lfm> listaccounts and then getaddressesbyacount
 669 2011-08-05 09:29:14 <lfm> including account ""
 670 2011-08-05 09:29:39 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 671 2011-08-05 09:29:39 Tracker- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 672 2011-08-05 09:30:10 E-sense has joined
 673 2011-08-05 09:31:12 <doublec> lfm: that won't list them all afaik
 674 2011-08-05 09:31:31 <doublec> eg, I addresses created as a result of change
 675 2011-08-05 09:31:37 <lfm> pretty sure it would get them all
 676 2011-08-05 09:31:52 <lfm> those get default account ""
 677 2011-08-05 09:32:08 <doublec> I just checked a transaction. listaddressesbyaccount doesn't show the address created from change from that transaction for the "" account
 678 2011-08-05 09:32:22 <doublec> it only shows those created via getnewaddress
 679 2011-08-05 09:32:27 <doublec> or getaccountaddress
 680 2011-08-05 09:32:35 Darnoth has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 681 2011-08-05 09:32:36 <lfm> oh
 682 2011-08-05 09:33:09 <lfm> well I guess you're back to python bitcointools
 683 2011-08-05 09:33:49 <lfm> (or setaccount)
 684 2011-08-05 09:34:00 <doublec> right
 685 2011-08-05 09:34:16 <doublec> I would imagine that cjdelisle would be most interested in the address stolen coins were sent to
 686 2011-08-05 09:34:39 <lfm> someone stole his coins?
 687 2011-08-05 09:34:57 <doublec> lfm: the mybitcoin stolen coins
 688 2011-08-05 09:35:08 <doublec> lfm: he's trying to track them down
 689 2011-08-05 09:35:21 <doublec> lfm: http://mybitcoinnow.pastebay.com/134540
 690 2011-08-05 09:35:48 <lfm> I immagine that might be kinda hard
 691 2011-08-05 09:35:54 datagutt has joined
 692 2011-08-05 09:36:50 <cjdelisle> I have not lost a penny to mybitcoin.com, that is one reason why I am interested in the matter, I have no emotional investment.
 693 2011-08-05 09:37:29 <lfm> so have you got some addresses to start with?
 694 2011-08-05 09:37:51 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 695 2011-08-05 09:37:58 <cjdelisle> Knowing the transactions which were unauthorized will help us nab the people who they say took the BTC, knowing the addresses which they still have control of will help them reassure us that they are honest.
 696 2011-08-05 09:39:11 zeiris_ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 697 2011-08-05 09:40:04 <doublec> instead of asking for a list of addresses, ask them to transfer their current funds to an address like mtgox did when they verified they had funds
 698 2011-08-05 09:41:23 aquaticrs__ has joined
 699 2011-08-05 09:42:26 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 700 2011-08-05 09:42:50 SISUbtcX has joined
 701 2011-08-05 09:42:52 <lfm> so they screwed up the security of their shopping cart interface huh
 702 2011-08-05 09:43:07 <lfm> or so they claim
 703 2011-08-05 09:50:19 <doublec> pretty much
 704 2011-08-05 09:52:20 aquaticrs__ has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 705 2011-08-05 09:53:28 d1g1t4l has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 706 2011-08-05 09:57:59 Cherothald has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 707 2011-08-05 09:58:15 sabrexx has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 708 2011-08-05 09:59:53 agricocb has joined
 709 2011-08-05 09:59:53 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
 710 2011-08-05 09:59:53 agricocb has joined
 711 2011-08-05 10:00:15 <lfm> fuckin video sites that play the adds fine then hang on the content!
 712 2011-08-05 10:04:53 <JFK911> so mybitcoin coins were moved?
 713 2011-08-05 10:06:03 bittwist_ has joined
 714 2011-08-05 10:06:19 <cjdelisle> We can't know that until they give us auditable lists of transaction IDs and addresses.
 715 2011-08-05 10:07:32 <lfm> might not know it after that
 716 2011-08-05 10:07:36 aviadbd has joined
 717 2011-08-05 10:07:56 bittwist has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 718 2011-08-05 10:08:01 <JFK911> surely people have addresses they sent to and received from in their history
 719 2011-08-05 10:08:48 <lfm> sure but how do you prove you were hacked?
 720 2011-08-05 10:08:51 sabrexx has joined
 721 2011-08-05 10:09:35 aviadbd has quit (Client Quit)
 722 2011-08-05 10:09:47 aviadbd has joined
 723 2011-08-05 10:10:19 <cjdelisle> They give us the information, we determin if it fits with the addresses that people actually paid in to.
 724 2011-08-05 10:10:41 TheAncientGoat has joined
 725 2011-08-05 10:11:01 <lfm> that doesnt prove anything
 726 2011-08-05 10:11:37 <cjdelisle> it proves that it fits with the addresses that people actually paid in to.
 727 2011-08-05 10:12:32 Sedra has joined
 728 2011-08-05 10:12:52 <cjdelisle> It also proves that they are acting in good faith and they want to handle this transparently.
 729 2011-08-05 10:13:22 <cjdelisle> maybe "proves" is a strong word but is provides substancial evidence.
 730 2011-08-05 10:15:18 pixglen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 731 2011-08-05 10:15:23 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: Eric Hopper file-storage * r460085e145d1 / (4 files in 4 dirs): Skeleton of libbitcoin::file_storage plus a mininmal test. http://tinyurl.com/43cms3d
 732 2011-08-05 10:15:24 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: Eric Hopper file-storage * r17df8ac78c0b / (src/storage/file_storage.cpp tests/fs_storage.cpp): Fix compiler warnings in file_storage code. http://tinyurl.com/3uw2sd9
 733 2011-08-05 10:15:25 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: Eric Hopper file-storage * ra292c841c71d / (4 files in 4 dirs): Merge in compiler warning fixes from master. http://tinyurl.com/3bqx9hj
 734 2011-08-05 10:15:27 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: Eric Hopper file-storage * re8bf7d1ac9fb / (5 files in 3 dirs): Do not create subdirectories for file_storage until needed, also make names of subdirectories into constants. http://tinyurl.com/3fe8h5n
 735 2011-08-05 10:19:21 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
 736 2011-08-05 10:21:28 pixglen has joined
 737 2011-08-05 10:30:30 shawn-p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 738 2011-08-05 10:31:19 pixglen has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 739 2011-08-05 10:34:13 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 740 2011-08-05 10:36:11 BlueMatt has joined
 741 2011-08-05 10:36:22 shawn-p has joined
 742 2011-08-05 10:36:49 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
 743 2011-08-05 10:36:50 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":11.12,"low":10.351,"avg":10.809160727,"vwap":10.838471411,"vol":31713,"last":10.93004,"buy":10.90214,"sell":10.93004}}
 744 2011-08-05 10:37:21 normanrichards has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 745 2011-08-05 10:37:22 normanrichards has joined
 746 2011-08-05 10:38:05 pixglen has joined
 747 2011-08-05 10:39:42 <diki> mybitcoin, back up
 748 2011-08-05 10:39:46 <diki> no need to worry now
 749 2011-08-05 10:41:00 * BlueMatt has a feeling they will lose 99% of their deposits in the next couple hours
 750 2011-08-05 10:43:54 Fant has joined
 751 2011-08-05 10:44:08 TheZimm has joined
 752 2011-08-05 10:44:50 nefario has left ()
 753 2011-08-05 10:45:31 <Eliel> diki: they seem to be up but nonfunctional.
 754 2011-08-05 10:46:09 <Eliel> I think a lot of grief might have been avoided if they'd posted something, anything on their website.
 755 2011-08-05 10:46:18 <Eliel> like they did now
 756 2011-08-05 10:51:30 <BitcoinForNewegg> who?
 757 2011-08-05 10:52:33 mmoya has joined
 758 2011-08-05 10:57:02 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 759 2011-08-05 11:01:21 <diki> BitcoinForNewegg:exactly
 760 2011-08-05 11:04:15 Sedra has quit (Quit: ( IRC :: Quit ))
 761 2011-08-05 11:04:22 Sedra has joined
 762 2011-08-05 11:05:35 Sedra has quit (Client Quit)
 763 2011-08-05 11:05:42 Sedra has joined
 764 2011-08-05 11:10:10 The_SLain_MAn has joined
 765 2011-08-05 11:10:24 The_SLain_MAn has quit (Client Quit)
 766 2011-08-05 11:10:34 The_SLain_MAn has joined
 767 2011-08-05 11:14:31 aviadbd has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 768 2011-08-05 11:17:45 Stellar has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 769 2011-08-05 11:18:11 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 770 2011-08-05 11:18:19 blzp has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 771 2011-08-05 11:21:09 underscor has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 772 2011-08-05 11:22:35 underscor has joined
 773 2011-08-05 11:23:52 wardearia has joined
 774 2011-08-05 11:26:23 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: leaving)
 775 2011-08-05 11:26:34 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 776 2011-08-05 11:26:35 wolfspraul has joined
 777 2011-08-05 11:27:03 suriv has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 778 2011-08-05 11:28:16 random_cat has joined
 779 2011-08-05 11:29:22 fahadsadah has quit (Excess Flood)
 780 2011-08-05 11:32:05 denisx has joined
 781 2011-08-05 11:34:33 fahadsadah has joined
 782 2011-08-05 11:39:29 BlueMatt has joined
 783 2011-08-05 11:41:06 AStove has quit ()
 784 2011-08-05 11:44:18 huk has quit ()
 785 2011-08-05 11:45:22 sabrexx has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 786 2011-08-05 11:53:12 aviadbd has joined
 787 2011-08-05 11:53:32 <topi`> how does the official linux bitcoin wxwidgets client behave when ran from command line? does it block, or does it spawn and return the shell?
 788 2011-08-05 11:54:02 <topi`> because I never tested my script on that, but just assumed that it will block...
 789 2011-08-05 11:54:16 AStove has joined
 790 2011-08-05 11:55:43 Tracker has joined
 791 2011-08-05 11:55:56 <tcatm> topi`: blocks, of course :)
 792 2011-08-05 12:03:29 blomqvist has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 793 2011-08-05 12:03:52 somuchwin has joined
 794 2011-08-05 12:04:09 blomqvist has joined
 795 2011-08-05 12:04:34 somuchwin2 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 796 2011-08-05 12:10:49 ike-exe has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 797 2011-08-05 12:12:59 purpleposeidon has joined
 798 2011-08-05 12:13:36 ike-exe has joined
 799 2011-08-05 12:16:23 pakaran has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 800 2011-08-05 12:17:42 suriv has joined
 801 2011-08-05 12:23:02 SISUbtcX has left ()
 802 2011-08-05 12:23:15 SISUbtcX has joined
 803 2011-08-05 12:29:27 erle- has joined
 804 2011-08-05 12:29:54 peck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 805 2011-08-05 12:30:30 ike-exe has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 806 2011-08-05 12:33:40 ike-exe has joined
 807 2011-08-05 12:33:57 peck has joined
 808 2011-08-05 12:34:40 shLONG has joined
 809 2011-08-05 12:39:04 E-sense has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 810 2011-08-05 12:39:38 E-sense has joined
 811 2011-08-05 12:39:39 <topi`> right, but you can never be too sure ;)
 812 2011-08-05 12:40:07 <topi`> so does anyone use my decrypt-before-spawn-script? in http://lorelei.kaverit.org/bitcoin.sh
 813 2011-08-05 12:40:58 xelister has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 814 2011-08-05 12:41:21 <topi`> or is everyone just relying on crypting filesystems?
 815 2011-08-05 12:41:26 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r167 /trunk/ (2 files in 2 dirs): Don't mark outputs that spend to non-wallet addresses as spent. This avoids a ... http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r167/
 816 2011-08-05 12:41:27 <topi`> or block devices
 817 2011-08-05 12:41:54 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 818 2011-08-05 12:41:57 <tcatm> I use GPG (and usually never decrypt it, only on a live cd) for my savings wallet
 819 2011-08-05 12:42:06 <tcatm> my normal wallet is unencrypted
 820 2011-08-05 12:42:21 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 821 2011-08-05 12:42:23 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 822 2011-08-05 12:42:41 denisx has joined
 823 2011-08-05 12:44:05 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
 824 2011-08-05 12:48:55 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
 825 2011-08-05 12:50:24 Clipse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 826 2011-08-05 12:53:37 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 827 2011-08-05 12:55:30 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 828 2011-08-05 12:56:24 Tracker has quit ()
 829 2011-08-05 12:56:30 Tracker has joined
 830 2011-08-05 12:56:45 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 831 2011-08-05 12:56:52 shLONG has quit ()
 832 2011-08-05 13:04:53 BlueMatt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 833 2011-08-05 13:04:59 Milbo has joined
 834 2011-08-05 13:05:11 <Milbo> heyhooo
 835 2011-08-05 13:05:15 BlueMatt has joined
 836 2011-08-05 13:05:33 TD has joined
 837 2011-08-05 13:05:43 <Milbo> I wanna write a paymentmethod for an ecommerce system based on mysql, php solutions (joomla)
 838 2011-08-05 13:06:12 <Milbo> There are some people already working on that?
 839 2011-08-05 13:07:42 <BlueMatt> its been done, but I dont know of any oss versions
 840 2011-08-05 13:10:35 <Milbo> hmm of course I want to write it opensource
 841 2011-08-05 13:10:53 <Milbo> I believe that bitcoins could help us to get rid of this fiat money system
 842 2011-08-05 13:11:14 <Milbo> So I am writing for virtuemart and we are one of the most spreaded of the world
 843 2011-08-05 13:11:22 <Milbo> 160 k shops are already running with virtuemart.
 844 2011-08-05 13:11:59 normanrichards has joined
 845 2011-08-05 13:12:18 <BlueMatt> several ecommerce systems have bitcoin plugins, but I dont may too much attention to which ones specifically, youd have to check
 846 2011-08-05 13:12:48 <Milbo> hmm okey
 847 2011-08-05 13:13:11 b4epoche_ has joined
 848 2011-08-05 13:13:15 <Milbo> one opensource php thing would be enough for me.
 849 2011-08-05 13:13:36 <Milbo> I just wonder about how to get it working without running it as service
 850 2011-08-05 13:14:00 <Milbo> I mean,.. my bitcoin client is running all the time, but php is just executed once, and then it stops.. .until the next request.
 851 2011-08-05 13:14:34 <Milbo> So  I think i need an extra client, and the php is just working with that client, or? does pure php work? I fear not
 852 2011-08-05 13:14:38 <BlueMatt> you should be able to query it via rpc just fine
 853 2011-08-05 13:14:47 <BlueMatt> there is a bitcoin rpc library for php
 854 2011-08-05 13:14:54 <Milbo> the thig is a lot shops are running on shared hosts, they cant run extra services
 855 2011-08-05 13:15:01 <Milbo> a great
 856 2011-08-05 13:15:18 <Milbo> so  I google for "bitcoin rpc library php" and I should find what I need. great
 857 2011-08-05 13:16:17 gp5st has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 858 2011-08-05 13:16:17 <iddo> maybe it's similar to bit-pay.com ?
 859 2011-08-05 13:16:30 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 860 2011-08-05 13:16:31 <iddo> not sure about terminology you're using
 861 2011-08-05 13:16:40 <iddo> i just watched them on youtube bitcoin show
 862 2011-08-05 13:16:41 gfinn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 863 2011-08-05 13:17:03 Rabbit67890-ipad has joined
 864 2011-08-05 13:17:05 marf_away has joined
 865 2011-08-05 13:17:25 <Milbo> looks like a service like paypal.  I thought bitcoins can work without that.
 866 2011-08-05 13:17:33 <iddo> bitcoin show 030 on youtube
 867 2011-08-05 13:18:09 <Milbo> in fact  I hate paypal,.. but we have to provide it,.. otherwise people wont use the shop system
 868 2011-08-05 13:18:25 epscy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 869 2011-08-05 13:18:53 <Milbo> okey,  I could write a paymentplugin for them... but that is not my goal, my goal it to have a system without center
 870 2011-08-05 13:19:12 xelister has joined
 871 2011-08-05 13:19:13 xelister has quit (Changing host)
 872 2011-08-05 13:19:13 xelister has joined
 873 2011-08-05 13:19:18 <Milbo> in fact bitcoins is for me like a dream I had years ago.... very great
 874 2011-08-05 13:19:27 <Milbo> and so I want to push it and use my position
 875 2011-08-05 13:19:36 xelister has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 876 2011-08-05 13:20:06 <iddo> sounds like a great goal...
 877 2011-08-05 13:20:15 <iddo> especially if it's open source
 878 2011-08-05 13:20:38 <Milbo> virtuemart.net
 879 2011-08-05 13:20:58 <ThomasV> Milbo: your position as what ?
 880 2011-08-05 13:21:26 <Milbo> my position as leader of virtuemart
 881 2011-08-05 13:21:38 <ThomasV> :-)
 882 2011-08-05 13:21:54 <Milbo> and look here .-) http://trends.builtwith.com/shop/VirtueMart
 883 2011-08-05 13:22:01 <ThomasV> 160k shops use it ?
 884 2011-08-05 13:22:10 <Milbo> ye, even more
 885 2011-08-05 13:22:17 <Milbo> also big shops like ikea kuwait
 886 2011-08-05 13:22:20 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
 887 2011-08-05 13:22:54 E-sense has joined
 888 2011-08-05 13:22:55 <ThomasV> what is the volume they handle ? any iea ?
 889 2011-08-05 13:22:59 <ThomasV> *idea*
 890 2011-08-05 13:23:09 <Milbo> billions at least
 891 2011-08-05 13:23:36 <iddo> do they use paypal mostly?
 892 2011-08-05 13:23:37 <Milbo> I know shops with more than 80k products
 893 2011-08-05 13:23:41 <Milbo> yes  :-(
 894 2011-08-05 13:24:18 <Milbo> and we cant add bitcoins in the normal release
 895 2011-08-05 13:24:27 <Milbo> they will block our paypal account, it is war
 896 2011-08-05 13:24:33 <ThomasV> is virtuemart based on paypal ?
 897 2011-08-05 13:24:40 <Milbo> NO
 898 2011-08-05 13:24:50 <Milbo> that is x commerce by ebay
 899 2011-08-05 13:24:56 <Milbo> we are the concurrent
 900 2011-08-05 13:25:12 <Milbo> virtuemart is working on joomla
 901 2011-08-05 13:25:14 <ThomasV> so how does your software transfer money ?
 902 2011-08-05 13:25:33 <Milbo> There exists a lot of payment plugins
 903 2011-08-05 13:25:47 <Milbo> and also paypal yes
 904 2011-08-05 13:26:00 <Milbo> and I want to add bitcoins
 905 2011-08-05 13:26:02 <ThomasV> so you will add bitcoin to the list, is that what you plan to do ?
 906 2011-08-05 13:26:04 <ThomasV> ok
 907 2011-08-05 13:26:07 <Milbo> yes
 908 2011-08-05 13:26:17 <Milbo> the longer you work with paypal, the more you hate it
 909 2011-08-05 13:26:21 <ThomasV> but does that mean that 160k shops will know about it ?
 910 2011-08-05 13:26:25 <Milbo> a lot vendors have trouble with them
 911 2011-08-05 13:26:29 <Milbo> yes
 912 2011-08-05 13:26:34 <ThomasV> cool
 913 2011-08-05 13:26:40 <ThomasV> then do it !
 914 2011-08-05 13:26:56 <Milbo> I am here to get a feeling for your community
 915 2011-08-05 13:27:03 <Milbo> atm we work on vm2
 916 2011-08-05 13:27:06 <BlueMatt> that is one of the things bitcoin is sorely lacking - merchant support
 917 2011-08-05 13:27:12 <Milbo> I may start with that in september ro so
 918 2011-08-05 13:27:13 <ThomasV> Milbo: I mean, do the shops need to install plugins, or are they available by default ?
 919 2011-08-05 13:27:15 <Milbo> yes, exactly
 920 2011-08-05 13:27:23 <BlueMatt> good to come here to see the community, the forums are kinda...
 921 2011-08-05 13:27:26 <Milbo> both
 922 2011-08-05 13:27:59 <Milbo> We cant support it official.... govs and banks will run after us then
 923 2011-08-05 13:28:08 <BlueMatt> I dont know about that
 924 2011-08-05 13:28:12 <Milbo> but someone else could post it then in our forums,... for exampel
 925 2011-08-05 13:28:15 <ThomasV> Milbo: not necessarily
 926 2011-08-05 13:28:24 <BlueMatt> so far no one has complained too loudly about bitcoin
 927 2011-08-05 13:28:35 <Milbo> shops which support bitcoins,.. get banned by paypal.
 928 2011-08-05 13:28:42 <BlueMatt> obviously paypal wont support buying bitcoin via them - its against their terms of service
 929 2011-08-05 13:28:46 <BlueMatt> but supporting both isnt
 930 2011-08-05 13:28:55 <ThomasV> I can imagine that some banks will try to fight, but perhaps others will see it as an opportunity
 931 2011-08-05 13:28:57 <BlueMatt> I havent heard of any such case yet
 932 2011-08-05 13:29:11 <Milbo> interesting I heard about that already Blue
 933 2011-08-05 13:29:18 <BlueMatt> example?
 934 2011-08-05 13:29:21 <Milbo> but maybe I mixed up, what you said
 935 2011-08-05 13:29:36 <ThomasV> and governments shoud see bitcoin as a way to get free from banks
 936 2011-08-05 13:29:43 <Milbo> EXACT !
 937 2011-08-05 13:29:54 <Milbo> I see it as this,.. to get rid of this fuu fiat money system
 938 2011-08-05 13:30:05 <Milbo> 2012 yeh,..
 939 2011-08-05 13:30:07 <BlueMatt> theyve shutdown several accounts of people who are selling bitcoin/mtgoxusd/etc via paypal (which is specifically against their tos)
 940 2011-08-05 13:30:17 <Milbo> okey
 941 2011-08-05 13:30:18 <ThomasV> currently the crisis shows that banks dictate their wills to entire nations
 942 2011-08-05 13:30:31 <ThomasV> because our money is based on debt
 943 2011-08-05 13:30:37 <Milbo> yepp, and bitcoins could save economy
 944 2011-08-05 13:30:40 <Milbo> yepp
 945 2011-08-05 13:30:42 <BlueMatt> ...
 946 2011-08-05 13:31:04 <ThomasV> of course paypal will not agree
 947 2011-08-05 13:31:10 <nanotube> Milbo: i don't think paypal can close your account because you /also/ accept bitcoins. they disallow trading paypal for bitcoins, but they can't prohibit other random payment method
 948 2011-08-05 13:31:17 <nanotube> that'd land them in hot antitrust waters
 949 2011-08-05 13:31:29 <Milbo> So helping me, should rise the value of bitcoins...
 950 2011-08-05 13:31:39 <Milbo> good to know that difference thanks to blue and nano
 951 2011-08-05 13:31:50 <ThomasV> Milbo: the value will rise anyway. :-)
 952 2011-08-05 13:31:58 <Milbo> yes, especially now
 953 2011-08-05 13:32:15 <Milbo> I wanted to buy silver 1 months ago,. heavens, why I didnt do that?
 954 2011-08-05 13:32:19 <BlueMatt> Bitcoin is still by far an experiment, not to say it cant grow, but to argue that it has the ability to radically change the financial system...well that is years to early
 955 2011-08-05 13:32:19 <nanotube> ThomasV: not really - it only rises through the combined efforts of the bitcoin community putting work into it. if everyone just sat there and did nothing, value would not rise.
 956 2011-08-05 13:32:21 Akinava is now known as Akinava|away
 957 2011-08-05 13:32:40 <Milbo> jepp,
 958 2011-08-05 13:32:52 <Milbo> but value would rise very fast, when 100 k shops are supporting it
 959 2011-08-05 13:33:01 <ThomasV> nanotube: hmmm... you're trying to make me feel guilty for not working hard enough ?
 960 2011-08-05 13:33:14 <nanotube> ThomasV: hehe maybe :)
 961 2011-08-05 13:33:55 <BlueMatt> Milbo: more shops accepting bitcoin will theoretically make the value spike, but software support is the first step, the merchants have to actually accept it too
 962 2011-08-05 13:34:02 gp5st has joined
 963 2011-08-05 13:34:05 <Milbo> yes blue
 964 2011-08-05 13:34:14 <nanotube> Milbo: so... go ahead and do it. i'd suggest to make it support both standalone bitcoin, and mtgox and/or bit-pay merchant SCI
 965 2011-08-05 13:34:15 <ThomasV> nanotube: I have an e-wallet project almost ready to go... but the recent crisis makes me think twice
 966 2011-08-05 13:34:21 <BlueMatt> not to say it isnt important...
 967 2011-08-05 13:34:27 <nanotube> ThomasV: yea ewallets are... ewallets :)
 968 2011-08-05 13:34:49 * BlueMatt thinks we need well-trusted ewallets...
 969 2011-08-05 13:34:55 <Milbo> using it without any exra service that is the goal yes.
 970 2011-08-05 13:34:57 <BlueMatt> maybe gavin would do that...but hes really busy
 971 2011-08-05 13:35:05 <BlueMatt> or tcatm or jgarzik...
 972 2011-08-05 13:35:16 <Milbo> and I need to learn more about theory,.. when I understood it right, bitcoins would even work analog, yeah?
 973 2011-08-05 13:35:26 <Milbo> like trading certificates printed on pater
 974 2011-08-05 13:35:28 <Milbo> paper
 975 2011-08-05 13:35:28 <ThomasV> analog ?
 976 2011-08-05 13:35:31 <BlueMatt> sort of
 977 2011-08-05 13:35:37 <BlueMatt> you have to trust the other party then
 978 2011-08-05 13:35:41 <Milbo> ofc
 979 2011-08-05 13:35:52 <BlueMatt> but yea, you could give the privkeys to bitcoins
 980 2011-08-05 13:36:07 <BlueMatt> someone sells them, what are they called again?
 981 2011-08-05 13:36:14 <ThomasV> bitbills
 982 2011-08-05 13:36:16 <Milbo> But when they turn down the net, it should work
 983 2011-08-05 13:36:22 <BlueMatt> thats it
 984 2011-08-05 13:36:28 <Milbo> great,
 985 2011-08-05 13:37:03 <Milbo> I am also holding speeches about virtuemart worldwide, ofc I would like to  advertise bitcoins then.
 986 2011-08-05 13:37:23 <BlueMatt> if you want a good primer, gavin has given a good podcast or two
 987 2011-08-05 13:37:31 <BlueMatt> whats the good one? omegatau?
 988 2011-08-05 13:38:37 <nanotube> ThomasV: maybe if you make an ewallet where users store the privatekeys on their own comps. so you don't have to worry about theft.
 989 2011-08-05 13:40:24 <ThomasV> isn't that called a lightweight client ?
 990 2011-08-05 13:40:34 <iddo> or store encrypted wallet on server, send it to user so he can decrypt locally and sign txn to send coins
 991 2011-08-05 13:40:36 <BlueMatt> justmoon did that
 992 2011-08-05 13:40:56 <BlueMatt> exactly what justmoon did
 993 2011-08-05 13:41:05 <iddo> cool
 994 2011-08-05 13:41:17 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/justmoon
 995 2011-08-05 13:41:20 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
 996 2011-08-05 13:41:47 <BlueMatt> most of the node-* things on that page are a part of it
 997 2011-08-05 13:42:28 <Milbo> gotta go, cya next time.
 998 2011-08-05 13:42:36 <Milbo> but still idling though
 999 2011-08-05 13:42:41 <RealSolid> geez some blocks take so long to find now
1000 2011-08-05 13:42:46 <RealSolid> transactions taking forever
1001 2011-08-05 13:45:11 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1002 2011-08-05 13:45:38 TD has joined
1003 2011-08-05 13:46:51 TheAncientGoat has joined
1004 2011-08-05 13:47:32 epscy has joined
1005 2011-08-05 13:48:29 aviadbd has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1006 2011-08-05 13:49:38 aviadbd has joined
1007 2011-08-05 13:49:45 aviadbd has quit (Client Quit)
1008 2011-08-05 13:55:32 Burgundy has joined
1009 2011-08-05 13:58:05 Rabbit67890-ipad has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1010 2011-08-05 13:59:04 Rabbit67890 has joined
1011 2011-08-05 14:01:55 vigilyn has left ("Leaving")
1012 2011-08-05 14:04:19 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1013 2011-08-05 14:06:28 <nanotube> RealSolid: natural variation, blocks are taking no longer to find now than they were before...
1014 2011-08-05 14:06:39 <nanotube> target is about 10min per block, as always
1015 2011-08-05 14:06:58 ybit has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1016 2011-08-05 14:07:26 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r168 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Wallet.java: Minor formatting change. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r168/
1017 2011-08-05 14:08:41 ybit has joined
1018 2011-08-05 14:10:18 vigilyn has joined
1019 2011-08-05 14:10:31 vigilyn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1020 2011-08-05 14:12:07 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r169 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/examples/FetchBlock.java: Fix compile error. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r169/
1021 2011-08-05 14:12:31 mmoya has joined
1022 2011-08-05 14:13:54 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r170 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/PeerGroup.java: Remove a java6ism (IOError) http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r170/
1023 2011-08-05 14:14:19 hachque has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1024 2011-08-05 14:15:02 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r171 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java: Throw BlockStoreException if the chain head doesn't seem to be in the store. Update issue 66. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r171/
1025 2011-08-05 14:16:17 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r172 /trunk/ (6 files in 2 dirs): Rename Block.getTime() to Block.getTimeSeconds() and note the metric used in the javadoc. ... http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r172/
1026 2011-08-05 14:16:57 vigilyn has joined
1027 2011-08-05 14:17:45 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1028 2011-08-05 14:22:31 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r173 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/DownloadListener.java: Print date and time in DownloadListener. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r173/
1029 2011-08-05 14:22:32 <makomk> gmaxwell: Dan Kaminski's crazy "what if this replaces Visa" numbers come from a long-standing page on scalability on the Bitcoin wiki that a lot of Bitcoin users seem to believe.
1030 2011-08-05 14:23:01 <makomk> It's a fairly good - and very much overdue - refutation of that page.
1031 2011-08-05 14:23:11 <TD> what is refuted about it ?
1032 2011-08-05 14:24:26 <makomk> Technically that page is still accurate - it's just that Bitcoin no longer in any way resembles a decentralized currency at that point.
1033 2011-08-05 14:24:34 d33tah has joined
1034 2011-08-05 14:24:41 <TD> you mean when there are supernodes?
1035 2011-08-05 14:24:41 <BlueMatt> so?
1036 2011-08-05 14:24:45 <TD> how is it not decentralized?
1037 2011-08-05 14:24:58 <TD> decentralized != everyone runs everything from their desktop
1038 2011-08-05 14:25:10 <TD> eg, email is decentralized. but most people host their email on servers. if you get a lot of email, it has to be pretty powerful.
1039 2011-08-05 14:25:20 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1040 2011-08-05 14:25:33 <TD> once you start receiving really a lot of mail, you need "smtp supernodes" (ie, webmail companies)
1041 2011-08-05 14:25:49 <d33tah> why do all adresses start with 1?
1042 2011-08-05 14:25:51 <makomk> Now imagine if every e-mail in the world passed through every e-mail server, like Usenet.
1043 2011-08-05 14:26:07 <TD> yes ... ?
1044 2011-08-05 14:26:07 <edcba> because addrs respect some format that got encoded with 1...
1045 2011-08-05 14:26:17 karnac has joined
1046 2011-08-05 14:26:17 <TD> so is usenet not decentralized?
1047 2011-08-05 14:26:24 <makomk> Then no matter how little e-mail you received, you'd have to use a central server to handle it on.
1048 2011-08-05 14:26:41 <makomk> Not really. Usenet is hierarchial.
1049 2011-08-05 14:26:41 <TD> what's wrong with using servers?
1050 2011-08-05 14:26:54 <edcba> governments
1051 2011-08-05 14:26:56 <TD> well, you're using a different definition of decentralized/distributed to me
1052 2011-08-05 14:27:11 <makomk> What's wrong is that only a handful of companies can run them and they control the servers.
1053 2011-08-05 14:27:20 <TD> what makes you think only a handful of companies can run them ?
1054 2011-08-05 14:27:28 <d33tah> internet is decentralized. it has some servers tho.
1055 2011-08-05 14:27:28 <edcba> ...
1056 2011-08-05 14:27:55 <edcba> TD: did you try running a bank ?
1057 2011-08-05 14:28:02 <TD> bitcoin nodes are not banks
1058 2011-08-05 14:28:09 <TD> i wrote up a reply to dan on the forum
1059 2011-08-05 14:28:12 <TD> you might want to read that
1060 2011-08-05 14:28:16 <makomk> TD: because only a handful will be able to afford to.
1061 2011-08-05 14:28:19 <TD> no
1062 2011-08-05 14:28:25 <TD> i think you're dramatically overestimating the cost
1063 2011-08-05 14:28:33 <edcba> TD: creating an electronic payment system then :)
1064 2011-08-05 14:28:59 <edcba> you know what happened to eGold etc ?
1065 2011-08-05 14:29:05 <TD> with *todays* technology, a bitcoin node could keep up with visa (ie be used for a significant fraction of all daily payments!!) for about the same cost as running a medium sized website
1066 2011-08-05 14:29:15 <TD> but if bitcoin ever reaches that kind of size, we won't be using todays technology
1067 2011-08-05 14:29:18 <TD> and the cost will be much lower
1068 2011-08-05 14:29:27 <mabus> and people wont be running bitcoind at home
1069 2011-08-05 14:29:30 <mabus> ?
1070 2011-08-05 14:29:32 <TD> exactly
1071 2011-08-05 14:29:44 <TD> that'll happen long before visa-scale traffic loads though, if that ever happens at all
1072 2011-08-05 14:29:47 <makomk> (Usenet's not even physically decentralized these days from what I can tell; most of the servers are physically located at a handful of datacenters because it doesn't make economic sense not to cluster them together.)
1073 2011-08-05 14:29:53 <TD> over the next year or two i guess most users will migrate onto lightweight client modes
1074 2011-08-05 14:30:09 <edcba> don't guess
1075 2011-08-05 14:30:11 <TD> running a full bitcoin node will be done by people on personal servers and such, as a community service
1076 2011-08-05 14:30:41 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1077 2011-08-05 14:31:07 <edcba> if mybitcoin like services continue to lose their wallet i don't see how users will be confident to give them theirs :p
1078 2011-08-05 14:31:08 suriv_ has joined
1079 2011-08-05 14:31:31 <TD> you don't have to give anyone your wallet to use bitcoin
1080 2011-08-05 14:31:39 <TD> see: SPV, webcoin
1081 2011-08-05 14:31:40 suriv has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1082 2011-08-05 14:31:40 molecular has joined
1083 2011-08-05 14:31:48 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r174 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java: Log the block chain height to debug, not info. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r174/
1084 2011-08-05 14:33:38 <gmaxwell> makomk: It's an extreme end of the vision which refutes the "omg flooding can't scale" initial reaction that everyone sane has.
1085 2011-08-05 14:34:01 <gmaxwell> That doesn't make it a long term plan (and even if it was the 'plan') that doesn't make it exceptionally likely.
1086 2011-08-05 14:35:17 <makomk> gmaxwell: except it doesn't refute that, because it does show that flooding scales badly enough that we'd end up with centralisation at high transactin volumes.
1087 2011-08-05 14:35:26 <d33tah> why do all adresses start with 1?
1088 2011-08-05 14:35:28 <gmaxwell> People we are concerned about decreased decentralization will resist block size increases in the software, should they be threatened to outpace people's ability to scale bitcoin infrastructure.
1089 2011-08-05 14:35:36 <TD> d33tah: that's a version code. it distinguishes that type of data from different types.
1090 2011-08-05 14:35:44 <gmaxwell> makomk: Well, it's not quite fair to call that centralisation— it's less decentralized.
1091 2011-08-05 14:35:56 <edcba> makomk: it's not because p2p protocol is bad that means the only solution is to centralize
1092 2011-08-05 14:36:20 <d33tah> TD: so when there will be a massive bitcoin upgrade, addresses will begin with 2?
1093 2011-08-05 14:36:36 <gmaxwell> makomk: even in that model there would be tens or hundreds of thousands of independant operators keeping each other honest. (keep in mind communication and storage cost will continue downward)
1094 2011-08-05 14:36:39 <TD> d33tah: only if there was an entirely incompatible network, which won't happen. they'll start with 1 for the forseeable future.
1095 2011-08-05 14:36:50 <d33tah> i see.
1096 2011-08-05 14:36:54 <makomk> Less decentralized? At the bandwidth usage we're talking about, anyone other than members of a core group of big operators would have to pay through the nose to get a full transaction feed.
1097 2011-08-05 14:37:09 <TD> bandwidth has been getting cheaper for a long time
1098 2011-08-05 14:37:11 <gmaxwell> makomk: 10 megabit per second? I can sustain that at home.
1099 2011-08-05 14:37:42 <TD> and bear in mind, the figures on that page start from the assumption that bitcoin, literally, takes over the world
1100 2011-08-05 14:37:48 <gmaxwell> Commercial bulk rates are on the order of $2/mbit/sec/mo these days.
1101 2011-08-05 14:37:54 <TD> bitcoin can still be very successful and useful without being used everywhere credit cards are today
1102 2011-08-05 14:37:59 <RealSolid> are transfers compressed currently?
1103 2011-08-05 14:38:04 <TD> bitcoin does not compress much
1104 2011-08-05 14:38:05 <RealSolid> they should be easily compressable
1105 2011-08-05 14:38:12 <edcba> easily ? :)
1106 2011-08-05 14:38:12 <gmaxwell> Not just "takes over the world" be replaces _all_ payment systems directly.
1107 2011-08-05 14:38:13 <RealSolid> oh yes true, random sha
1108 2011-08-05 14:38:26 <TD> gmaxwell: well, just visa. mastercard not included ;)
1109 2011-08-05 14:38:45 <RealSolid> what compression rate do you get with it? 80%?
1110 2011-08-05 14:38:45 <edcba> some stuff may be compressed but we won't gain much
1111 2011-08-05 14:38:49 <gmaxwell> TD: well, within an order of magnitude of everything.
1112 2011-08-05 14:39:01 <mabus> do people actually think it can compete with credit cards or cash? bitcoins do not add any ease or value to most types of transactions
1113 2011-08-05 14:39:04 slush1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1114 2011-08-05 14:39:26 <edcba> of course it can compete with cash
1115 2011-08-05 14:39:34 <gmaxwell> makomk: it can "compete", but that doesn't make it a complete replacement for them.
1116 2011-08-05 14:39:43 <TD> gmaxwell: and excluding cash, and transactions in developing countries that don't have visa/mc. but yes, close enough to ~everything that it's not worth worrying about for now
1117 2011-08-05 14:39:55 copumpkin has joined
1118 2011-08-05 14:40:10 <TD> makomk: lots of stuff is still sent through the postal mail 20 years+ after email become common
1119 2011-08-05 14:40:12 <mabus> like aside from novelty i dont get the benefit of paying in bitcoins at POS
1120 2011-08-05 14:40:15 <TD> or started becoming common
1121 2011-08-05 14:40:28 <TD> mabus: it's much easier for merchants to accept than credit cards, for one.
1122 2011-08-05 14:40:37 <edcba> cheaper too
1123 2011-08-05 14:40:38 <TD> mabus: and potentially more convenient than cash (with good mobile clients)
1124 2011-08-05 14:40:56 <gmaxwell> In a world with bitcoin everywhere credit cards and payment processors would have to add more value— because bitcoin is a better "next best" than checks,wire transfers,bags of cash,bars of gold etc.
1125 2011-08-05 14:41:17 <makomk> Ah. The really nasty data rates are for if you want to be able to actually solve blocks.
1126 2011-08-05 14:41:29 <makomk> That's the other tiering catch I forgot about.
1127 2011-08-05 14:41:35 <TD> makomk: yes. if you aren't doing full verification bandwidth usage can be trivial
1128 2011-08-05 14:41:41 <gmaxwell> makomk: right, you only need all the data if you want to do full verification.
1129 2011-08-05 14:41:42 erle- has joined
1130 2011-08-05 14:42:00 <TD> hopefully lots of companies/people will still run full nodes. but they don't have to, in order to take part in the system
1131 2011-08-05 14:42:01 <denisx> right now it looks more that the miners will simply get their dollars and leave the bitcoin market
1132 2011-08-05 14:42:06 <gmaxwell> (People other than miners will do full verification forever, its what keeps the miners honest.)
1133 2011-08-05 14:42:08 <makomk> gmaxwell: if you need to do full verificatioon you need full historical data too; I'm ignoring that problem for now.
1134 2011-08-05 14:42:17 <gmaxwell> makomk: thats not true.
1135 2011-08-05 14:42:36 <gmaxwell> You have to have seen the historical data once, and/or have a trusted snapshot from some point in time.
1136 2011-08-05 14:42:46 <makomk> gmaxwell: exactly.
1137 2011-08-05 14:42:53 <gmaxwell> makomk: and miners _must_ do full verfication too.
1138 2011-08-05 14:43:04 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r175 /trunk/ (3 files in 3 dirs): Delete some dead code in Script that was confusing people; BitCoinJ does not run scripts. ... http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r175/
1139 2011-08-05 14:43:13 <gmaxwell> My point was that more than miners will do full verification.
1140 2011-08-05 14:43:16 <edcba> you can only need to know who owns what in some old enough block
1141 2011-08-05 14:43:31 <edcba> you can forgot everything before that block
1142 2011-08-05 14:43:42 <gmaxwell> edcba: thus 'trusted snapshot'
1143 2011-08-05 14:43:51 <edcba> yes
1144 2011-08-05 14:44:04 <gmaxwell> You only need to know about the open transactions, but you need to be quite sure that your open transaction list is correct.
1145 2011-08-05 14:44:16 <makomk> Of course, that still leaves the problem of the big pool servers conspiring to control which transactions get accepted and rejected.
1146 2011-08-05 14:44:21 <TD> checkpoints do this already, after a fashion
1147 2011-08-05 14:44:30 <TD> centralized pools will hopefully go away in the long term
1148 2011-08-05 14:44:37 <makomk> gmaxwell: technically you only *need* to know your open transaction list is the same as everyone else's.
1149 2011-08-05 14:44:41 <TD> p2pool is developing quite nicely. it might need some help at some point
1150 2011-08-05 14:44:50 <TD> the website pointing miners there or something. too early yet.
1151 2011-08-05 14:45:15 <gmaxwell> makomk: No, not if you care about the security properties of bitcoin— if you want to prevent dishonest parties from cheating you also need to know that the open transaction set is honest.
1152 2011-08-05 14:45:44 <makomk> That assumes that you can do anything about dishonest parties cheating.
1153 2011-08-05 14:46:08 <gmaxwell> You don't accept or forward their blocks.
1154 2011-08-05 14:46:15 <d33tah> is it possible to choose the bitcoin address i'd want to have?
1155 2011-08-05 14:46:21 <gmaxwell> If you're the only person in the world checking that doesn't do much.
1156 2011-08-05 14:46:30 <makomk> If you're a new miner on the block and all the other miners claim the current state of transactions is X, all you can do by rejecting their blocks is lose the ability to mine.
1157 2011-08-05 14:46:46 <gmaxwell> But if you are a very important target (e.g. mtgox), or if you are one of many (but far less than everyone) it matters.
1158 2011-08-05 14:47:16 <gmaxwell> makomk: thats not true, because other validating nodes won't have accepted their dishonest claims.
1159 2011-08-05 14:47:39 <makomk> I guess so, if there are any.
1160 2011-08-05 14:47:49 <makomk> (That are still honest.)
1161 2011-08-05 14:48:38 <gmaxwell> If course there would be. Even in the omg high traffic vision of the future, I could operate full validating node personally.  I don't think that vision of the future is a likely possibility in any case.
1162 2011-08-05 14:49:11 <TD> it's very optimistic for sure
1163 2011-08-05 14:49:37 <gmaxwell> well even assuming uber-success: I expect that at some point users will resist efforts to increase the maximum block size, thus driving transaction fees up and paving the way for the growth of bitcoin backed payment processors that only settle daily/weekly.
1164 2011-08-05 14:49:42 <TD> makomk: i wrote the Scalability page. it uses VISA traffic as a baseline because people kept saying "bitcoin can't be useful because it would collapse if it became as popular as credit cards"
1165 2011-08-05 14:50:00 <d33tah> is it possible to choose the bitcoin address i'd want to have?
1166 2011-08-05 14:50:10 <gmaxwell> yea, it's a reasonable counterargument to the "omg it can't scale"
1167 2011-08-05 14:50:11 <TD> makomk: it successfully stopped people saying that (well, except for dan kaminsky) :)
1168 2011-08-05 14:50:17 <gmaxwell> d33tah: define "choose"
1169 2011-08-05 14:50:18 <TD> d33tah: you can try generating vanity addresses.
1170 2011-08-05 14:50:30 <makomk> gmaxwell: so in other words the more likely result is trusted third parties that have a substantial ability to commit fraud.
1171 2011-08-05 14:50:30 <TD> d33tah: otherwise no, they are "random numbers". the only way to choose is keep trying until you find one you like
1172 2011-08-05 14:50:37 <gmaxwell> d33tah: you can choose a few digits using a vanity address generator.
1173 2011-08-05 14:50:42 <makomk> A thousand mybitcoin.coms...
1174 2011-08-05 14:50:43 <gmaxwell> makomk: they already do!
1175 2011-08-05 14:50:53 <gmaxwell> Thats _nothing_ special about bitcoin.
1176 2011-08-05 14:51:05 <d33tah> TD, gmaxwell: okay, thanks ^^
1177 2011-08-05 14:51:21 <makomk> What's, errrm, "special" about Bitcoin is just how shady all the intermediarys are.
1178 2011-08-05 14:51:24 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin just gives people fewer excuses— e.g. there wouldn't be much reason for a payment processor to settle againts bitcoin more slowly than once a day or so.
1179 2011-08-05 14:51:37 <gmaxwell> makomk: they're only shady because bitcoin is new and risky as @#$@%@$@
1180 2011-08-05 14:51:39 <d33tah> will it be possible in the future to make bitcoin more anonymous, say, encapsulate in HTTP, randomize ports, encrypt the sessions?
1181 2011-08-05 14:51:49 <gmaxwell> d33tah: it already runs over tor just fine.
1182 2011-08-05 14:52:03 <makomk> gmaxwell: they're shady because it's unregulated and people have no effing clue how to judge risk.
1183 2011-08-05 14:52:20 <d33tah> gmaxwell: thanks again
1184 2011-08-05 14:52:22 <makomk> Witness Bruce Wagner and MyBitcoin, for example.
1185 2011-08-05 14:53:23 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1186 2011-08-05 14:53:42 <gmaxwell> There are shady operators in every area, and regulation is far from a silver bullet.  But seriously, at the moment repudiable people are somewhat scared away by the massive uncertainty.
1187 2011-08-05 14:53:55 BGL has quit ()
1188 2011-08-05 14:54:30 <TD> what happened with bruce?
1189 2011-08-05 14:54:51 <gmaxwell> He didn't realize that mybitcoin was a boobytrap.
1190 2011-08-05 14:55:24 <TD> oh, you mean he was recommending it
1191 2011-08-05 14:55:42 <TD> i think meze grill was using it. hope they weren't hoarding the coins.
1192 2011-08-05 14:55:57 <TD> mybitcoin always looked incredibly dubious. i'm surprised it was as popular as it was
1193 2011-08-05 14:56:03 <gmaxwell> Of course, some people did. I pointed out here that it was an anonymously run company behind an offshore shell and that I couldn't even begin to assess the risk that they'd run off with your coins, and I cautioned people on IRC against using it.
1194 2011-08-05 14:56:06 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: there are so many shady parties because bitcoiners are stupid enough to let criminality generally be ridiculously profitable and risk-free
1195 2011-08-05 14:56:08 <TD> guess the web model really appeals
1196 2011-08-05 14:56:08 <makomk> Not only that, he actively ignored warnings that no-one had been able to communicate with them or get responses to support requests for a month because he thought that wasn't a "concrete" enough reason to distrust or stop recommending them.
1197 2011-08-05 14:56:31 <Blitzboom> and because bitcoiners don’t actually use bitcoin to store their wealth, due to the client
1198 2011-08-05 14:56:47 <d33tah> would quantum computers endanger bitcoin mining? a simple computer generating all the blocks?
1199 2011-08-05 14:56:47 koleg has joined
1200 2011-08-05 14:57:01 <Blitzboom> of course there will be more and more criminals springing up if it is so profitable
1201 2011-08-05 14:57:04 <Blitzboom> free market :D
1202 2011-08-05 14:57:11 koleg has joined
1203 2011-08-05 14:57:13 koleg has quit (2!~koleg@89.151.191.93|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1204 2011-08-05 14:57:28 koleg has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1205 2011-08-05 14:57:48 <gmaxwell> In any case, this is all part of the reason that early adopters of bitcoin are rewarded graciously by the protocol. It's risky as hell— not just due to the risk that it might not be successful, or software bugs.. but also due to criminals and irresponsible service operators, as people learn to deal with the systems.
1206 2011-08-05 14:58:10 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: lol, come on
1207 2011-08-05 14:58:24 <Blitzboom> that counts more so for the later adopters than the earliest imo
1208 2011-08-05 14:58:36 <Blitzboom> because at the beginning, there hasn’t been any profit motive to scam and steal
1209 2011-08-05 14:58:39 Rabbit67890_ has joined
1210 2011-08-05 14:58:45 <gmaxwell> We're all earliest adopters still.
1211 2011-08-05 14:58:47 <makomk> gmaxwell: what Blitzboom said, plus it encourages the early adopters to play down the risks
1212 2011-08-05 14:58:53 <Blitzboom> yes, yes, in the grand scheme of things
1213 2011-08-05 14:59:00 <gmaxwell> What percentage of the world uses bitcoin? it's still smaller than the smallest "proper" currency I expect.
1214 2011-08-05 14:59:14 <gmaxwell> makomk: it also encourages them to _fix_ the risks.
1215 2011-08-05 14:59:23 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: and in the bitcoin scheme of things, the earliest adopters were rewarded for stumbling upon bitcoin
1216 2011-08-05 14:59:24 <Blitzboom> nothing more
1217 2011-08-05 14:59:31 <gmaxwell> And people have been, but it happens slowly. And people getting burned from time to time is part of the process.
1218 2011-08-05 14:59:49 <makomk> gmaxwell: fixing the perception of risk is easier and more effective than actually fixing the risks.
1219 2011-08-05 15:00:08 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: not so, I used bitcoin during the _first year_, but lost interest and eventually didn't restart it after an OS upgrade.
1220 2011-08-05 15:00:13 <Blitzboom> the people actually taking risks are those who a) invest money or hardware and b) deal with the infrastructure
1221 2011-08-05 15:00:26 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: they were reawarded for also paying attention, keeping up on it, etc.
1222 2011-08-05 15:00:38 <Blitzboom> gmaxwell: what kind of risk was that, have you lost your shirt?
1223 2011-08-05 15:00:54 <gmaxwell> Blitzboom: I didn't get the reward because I didn't keep using it.
1224 2011-08-05 15:01:10 <gmaxwell> (instead I did a lot of other things with my time which have been very rewarding in other ways :) )
1225 2011-08-05 15:01:10 <Blitzboom> you didn’t get the reward due to a coincidence
1226 2011-08-05 15:01:16 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1227 2011-08-05 15:01:17 Rabbit67890_ is now known as Rabbit67890
1228 2011-08-05 15:01:31 <Blitzboom> others got the reward due to other coincidences
1229 2011-08-05 15:01:35 <gmaxwell> It's not due to a coincidence, I didn't due to bad judgement.
1230 2011-08-05 15:02:11 <Blitzboom> of course everything is a series of coincidences, there’s no denying that
1231 2011-08-05 15:02:26 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: I only gamble with what I have left .... time
1232 2011-08-05 15:02:32 <gmaxwell> okay, we're not going to debate free will in #bitcoin-dev
1233 2011-08-05 15:02:46 <Blitzboom> i don’t get this mystical greater reward scheme, as if satoshi’s masterplan is watching over us and distributing wealth :P
1234 2011-08-05 15:02:50 <Blitzboom> punishing and incentivizing
1235 2011-08-05 15:02:58 <Blitzboom> #bitcoin
1236 2011-08-05 15:03:47 <edcba> Blitzboom: taking risks with bitcoin is invest money (or time) :)
1237 2011-08-05 15:03:47 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: I'm more tword whoever adds assets to the system has more control of it's outcome
1238 2011-08-05 15:04:21 <Blitzboom> edcba: yeah, technically speaking
1239 2011-08-05 15:04:23 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: that's the systems I try to develop
1240 2011-08-05 15:04:30 <makomk> (In fact, fixing the perception of risk is often at odds with actually fixing the risk. For example, MagicalTux could probably have been convinced to fix some of the gaping holes in his site if someone had made a public fuss, but that would increase *perceived* risk.)
1241 2011-08-05 15:04:52 <Blitzboom> fact is, the risk was miniscule (electricity, cpu cycles) at the beginning and the reward unbelievably huge
1242 2011-08-05 15:05:16 <Blitzboom> the risk actually increased and is climaxing now
1243 2011-08-05 15:05:34 <Blitzboom> i’m not complaining about reality, just about your choice of words :P
1244 2011-08-05 15:06:09 Clipse has joined
1245 2011-08-05 15:06:16 <TD> reward was zero
1246 2011-08-05 15:06:26 <TD> i also ran bitcoin for a while back in 2009, took part in the mailing list, etc
1247 2011-08-05 15:06:33 <TD> back then it seemed most likely bitcoin would never go anywhere
1248 2011-08-05 15:06:44 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: there are other models of crypto currency, bitcoin was just one of the first and is now the biggest
1249 2011-08-05 15:06:45 <TD> the fact that it actually took off came as a big surprise to everyone, i think
1250 2011-08-05 15:07:01 <makomk> TD: it was definitely unexpected.
1251 2011-08-05 15:07:04 Prattler has joined
1252 2011-08-05 15:07:25 <Blitzboom> immediate reward, sure
1253 2011-08-05 15:07:52 <Blitzboom> mining is profitable now, while it has not been for a long time
1254 2011-08-05 15:08:44 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: I'm still working on a model of licensed mining that takes very little power
1255 2011-08-05 15:09:17 dvide has quit ()
1256 2011-08-05 15:09:39 molecular has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1257 2011-08-05 15:10:11 <Blitzboom> TD: bitcoin is pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to its incentives, right from the start
1258 2011-08-05 15:10:15 <Blitzboom> imo
1259 2011-08-05 15:10:29 <TD> er, no
1260 2011-08-05 15:10:36 <TD> bitcoin went nowhere for about a year and a half
1261 2011-08-05 15:10:38 <MagicalTux> makomk: actually I would have fixed the problems if people would have pointed at the holes rather than trolling
1262 2011-08-05 15:10:41 molecular has joined
1263 2011-08-05 15:10:57 <Blitzboom> that was because nobody has heard about it
1264 2011-08-05 15:11:41 <TD> it was because satoshi, for all his skills and effort, wasn't working on building an ecosystem around it
1265 2011-08-05 15:11:45 <TD> other people had to do all of that
1266 2011-08-05 15:11:52 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1267 2011-08-05 15:12:11 <TD> when i first found bitcoin, i wrote it off because satoshi seemed very academic to me. it seemed like a technical curiousity that might inspire future research but not much more
1268 2011-08-05 15:12:14 <TD> i was more interested in ripple
1269 2011-08-05 15:12:22 <Blitzboom> yeah, and brought desaster one after another :P
1270 2011-08-05 15:12:24 <TD> as that seemed like a bigger shakeup to the establishment
1271 2011-08-05 15:12:28 <TD> :)
1272 2011-08-05 15:12:28 Rabbit67890 has quit (Quit: Rabbit67890)
1273 2011-08-05 15:12:43 <TD> ripple, for example, was also quite a revolutionary take on the concept of money. however it never did achieve critical mass, and went nowhere
1274 2011-08-05 15:12:55 <TD> perhaps too revolutionary? well its concepts may well surface again in other contexts
1275 2011-08-05 15:12:57 <TD> eg distributed bitcoin exchanges
1276 2011-08-05 15:12:58 <Blitzboom> i can tell you why
1277 2011-08-05 15:13:05 <Blitzboom> it doesn’t appeal to greed
1278 2011-08-05 15:13:29 <makomk> MagicalTux: explain please?
1279 2011-08-05 15:14:11 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: that might be the flaw in my system, that look for stability but lacks the greed factor to make easy quick money
1280 2011-08-05 15:14:39 <MagicalTux> makomk: if someone reported the bug to us we would have fixed it (both, actually)
1281 2011-08-05 15:14:45 <Blitzboom> theoretically, bitcoin’s price should be stable due to greed
1282 2011-08-05 15:14:54 <Blitzboom> due to short selling and selling bitcoins
1283 2011-08-05 15:15:00 <Blitzboom> but markets don’t work like that
1284 2011-08-05 15:15:11 <makomk> So you're saying that no-one actually reported having discovered the bug, or?
1285 2011-08-05 15:15:15 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: do we have short selling now?
1286 2011-08-05 15:15:35 <Blitzboom> i believe campbx offers it. and you could also just borrow bitcoins of course
1287 2011-08-05 15:16:10 <MagicalTux> [00:10:02] <makomk> So you're saying that no-one actually reported having discovered the bug, or? <- got reports *after* it was exploited, by jrmithdobbs and others. Before that I had the usual one pm a week saying the site was going to be hacked unless I paid 5000 USD via LR, and other trolls
1288 2011-08-05 15:16:36 <Blitzboom> TD: the only thing that has bootstrapped bitcoin is the self-fulfilling prophecy of its future utility and therefore value
1289 2011-08-05 15:16:38 <makomk> Interesting.
1290 2011-08-05 15:16:38 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: I don't know of any lenders but I did hear that contracts put call options were not far off if not here yet
1291 2011-08-05 15:16:52 nhodges has joined
1292 2011-08-05 15:17:11 <jrmithdobbs> fyi: I wasn't aware of that sqli until after
1293 2011-08-05 15:17:14 p0s has joined
1294 2011-08-05 15:17:39 <MagicalTux> anyway we're not trying to have teams listening to shady groups to see any reference to us
1295 2011-08-05 15:17:41 <jrmithdobbs> (the one that was already patched i was)
1296 2011-08-05 15:18:44 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: if it's the one I think of I had a really vague report about it at some point (someone talked to me about some sql injection with case modification, I spent a few hours looking for all case changes close to queries)
1297 2011-08-05 15:18:48 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: and it took a public announcement of the nasty CSRF for you to pay attention to phantomcircuit's attempts to reach you for a week straight
1298 2011-08-05 15:18:51 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
1299 2011-08-05 15:18:57 <upb> sup
1300 2011-08-05 15:19:08 <d33tah> is it possible someone in the future'd find a gigantic protocol bug that would rob everyone off their bitcoins?
1301 2011-08-05 15:19:10 <Blitzboom> but listen to satoshi’s words: "It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on.  If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy."
1302 2011-08-05 15:19:14 <upb> MagicalTux: btw did you give any comment on that order execution bug ?
1303 2011-08-05 15:19:28 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: you are definitely being much more responsive since the incident, btw
1304 2011-08-05 15:19:36 <jrmithdobbs> to at least add something positive to the discussion
1305 2011-08-05 15:19:38 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: all mails from phantomcircuit & co arrived the night preceding the public announcement, a bit after 3am
1306 2011-08-05 15:19:47 <MagicalTux> upb: which bug?
1307 2011-08-05 15:19:57 <jrmithdobbs> and for the most part you have taken some good steps to prevent things in the future
1308 2011-08-05 15:20:14 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: he'd been trying to get you on irc as well and sent you forum pms, but like i said w/e
1309 2011-08-05 15:20:31 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: I have *no* forum pm from him or anyone
1310 2011-08-05 15:20:38 <upb> 05 04:52 < upb> hehe, something maybe a bit buggy, i had an ask at 10.84 the whole time and:
1311 2011-08-05 15:20:41 <upb> 05 04:52 < upb> [1312509018106667] bid: 10.84 4.45701452
1312 2011-08-05 15:20:42 <MagicalTux> I never erased a single pm I received either, so it's easy to check
1313 2011-08-05 15:20:44 <upb> 05 04:52 < upb> [1312509031789066] bid: 10.8432 2.3587179
1314 2011-08-05 15:20:46 <upb> 05 04:52 < upb> [1312509031975138] bid: 10.84 30
1315 2011-08-05 15:20:49 <upb> 05 04:52 < upb> a bid executed at 10.8432?
1316 2011-08-05 15:21:07 <MagicalTux> upb: are you sure your ask was active ?
1317 2011-08-05 15:21:10 <upb> yes
1318 2011-08-05 15:21:16 <upb> 1312509018106667 and 1312509031975138 bot filled my ask
1319 2011-08-05 15:21:19 <upb> both
1320 2011-08-05 15:21:20 <sacarlson> d33tah: the smart just won't leave all there coins online.  as you don't walk around with all your money in your poket only what you need for the day to spend
1321 2011-08-05 15:21:23 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: i have logs showing him saying he was /msg'ing you on irc, but like i said, w/e, water under the bridge.
1322 2011-08-05 15:21:38 <upb> and it was active after that
1323 2011-08-05 15:21:41 <upb> aswell
1324 2011-08-05 15:21:44 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: including public messages in this channel, in fact ;p
1325 2011-08-05 15:22:19 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: I just woke up a morning finding ~8 emails and a public announcement on the forums of a CSRF I could confim was never used by anyone
1326 2011-08-05 15:22:19 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
1327 2011-08-05 15:22:34 <MagicalTux> public messages are harder to follow, as my IRC client only keeps ~500 lines of backlog
1328 2011-08-05 15:22:38 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: you can't confirm that. that's why csrf are nasty
1329 2011-08-05 15:22:46 <jrmithdobbs> there is no way to prove a csrf wasn't used
1330 2011-08-05 15:22:53 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: I can, since it's a stored field
1331 2011-08-05 15:23:05 <jrmithdobbs> what is?
1332 2011-08-05 15:23:12 <MagicalTux> it was using the item name in the cart system
1333 2011-08-05 15:23:15 karnac has joined
1334 2011-08-05 15:23:21 <MagicalTux> and we keep that field in database
1335 2011-08-05 15:23:49 <makomk> Bwuh?
1336 2011-08-05 15:23:52 <MagicalTux> (was it? or was it another one, I don't remember anymore, but I remember I could confirm if it was used)
1337 2011-08-05 15:24:02 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: no this was the email changing one
1338 2011-08-05 15:24:23 <MagicalTux> oh, the email changing one
1339 2011-08-05 15:24:24 <jrmithdobbs> not xss
1340 2011-08-05 15:25:28 <MagicalTux> that one would have been mostly impractical as password reset by email was broken, so you needed to know the login too, by targetting some people precisely for example
1341 2011-08-05 15:26:08 cronopio has joined
1342 2011-08-05 15:26:16 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, targetting individuals is actually fairly easy with in the bitcoin community
1343 2011-08-05 15:26:22 <phantomcircuit> especially those using the forum
1344 2011-08-05 15:26:22 <jrmithdobbs> still no way to prove it wasn't used
1345 2011-08-05 15:26:24 <jrmithdobbs> and that
1346 2011-08-05 15:26:41 <MagicalTux> we have logs of email changes
1347 2011-08-05 15:26:43 <upb> he he i remember he said he checked the logs to make sure it wasnt used :)
1348 2011-08-05 15:26:46 <MagicalTux> (and password changes, and logins)
1349 2011-08-05 15:26:59 <MagicalTux> also the xss would have made the referer appear in the logs
1350 2011-08-05 15:27:02 <upb> so maybe tried to check refererrs?:P
1351 2011-08-05 15:27:06 <MagicalTux> ie. a call to that script from a different referer
1352 2011-08-05 15:27:08 <upb> which doesnt work
1353 2011-08-05 15:27:09 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: you can get around that.
1354 2011-08-05 15:27:18 <makomk> MagicalTux: what jrmithdobbs said.
1355 2011-08-05 15:27:28 <jrmithdobbs> this is why csrf is so nasty
1356 2011-08-05 15:27:35 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: how so?
1357 2011-08-05 15:27:44 <jrmithdobbs> javascript tomfoolery
1358 2011-08-05 15:27:51 <MagicalTux> you'd need the setting page to actually execute your thing
1359 2011-08-05 15:28:05 <makomk> Yeah, you can create a page that has no address at all and execute the CSRF from there.
1360 2011-08-05 15:28:08 <jrmithdobbs> no you need the user to
1361 2011-08-05 15:28:15 <MagicalTux> hum, JS can actually make a query to a different origin with a forged referer ?
1362 2011-08-05 15:28:21 <jrmithdobbs> yup
1363 2011-08-05 15:28:25 <MagicalTux> oh, have the user copy/paste some js in the url bar ?
1364 2011-08-05 15:28:39 <jrmithdobbs> or like makomk said it can be run from a javascript that doesn't have a url
1365 2011-08-05 15:28:49 <jrmithdobbs> (as in, dynamically generated)
1366 2011-08-05 15:29:00 <jrmithdobbs> csrf is some nasty nasty shit ;p
1367 2011-08-05 15:29:13 <upb> i'm pretty sure you can create a about:blank window, load a img tag into it
1368 2011-08-05 15:29:18 <MagicalTux> anyway even if it was used, nobody ever reported it
1369 2011-08-05 15:29:56 <MagicalTux> while the sqli was never reported before the incident, but was quite used
1370 2011-08-05 15:30:09 <jrmithdobbs> and i believe at least some browsers will actually let you override referrer header directly from javascript
1371 2011-08-05 15:30:12 <jrmithdobbs> heh
1372 2011-08-05 15:30:32 <BlueMatt> no somewhat-modern browsers will, maybe some really old ones...
1373 2011-08-05 15:30:33 <d33tah> does the current bitcoin protocol allow commenting the transactions?
1374 2011-08-05 15:30:46 <MagicalTux> I don't think anyone exploiting this csrf would actually care to hide their referer, too
1375 2011-08-05 15:31:00 <MagicalTux> d33tah: only for direct ip transactions
1376 2011-08-05 15:31:12 <BlueMatt> which are pretty much disabled now
1377 2011-08-05 15:31:24 <makomk> MagicalTux: there were several people reporting that the e-mail addresses and password had mysteriously changed and they couldn't get back into their Mt Gox accounts, from what I recall?
1378 2011-08-05 15:31:25 <jrmithdobbs> why wouldn't they? it's financials stuff. concealing the attacker's identity is very important for liability reasons
1379 2011-08-05 15:31:26 <d33tah> any other forms of exechanging plaintext between the bitcoin addresses?
1380 2011-08-05 15:31:37 <jrmithdobbs> never assume your attackers are incompetent ;p
1381 2011-08-05 15:31:45 <jrmithdobbs> (even if they usually are)
1382 2011-08-05 15:32:28 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: you sure about that? i specifically looked through the firefox code not that long back and it doesn't filter out changes to that header by javascript
1383 2011-08-05 15:32:32 <jrmithdobbs> (it does others)
1384 2011-08-05 15:32:54 asher^ has joined
1385 2011-08-05 15:32:55 <d33tah> or are there text transaction comments planned in the future?
1386 2011-08-05 15:33:00 <MagicalTux> makomk: we checked those accounts, and the logs show successful login first
1387 2011-08-05 15:33:03 <jrmithdobbs> "not that long" being <2 months
1388 2011-08-05 15:33:11 <BlueMatt> that is what someone told me, dont remember who, but I know it was someone  I trusted...
1389 2011-08-05 15:33:22 <jrmithdobbs> MagicalTux: of course it would. csrf runs through the victims' browser
1390 2011-08-05 15:33:41 <MagicalTux> jrmithdobbs: the user would suddently login from vietnam?
1391 2011-08-05 15:34:00 <MagicalTux> (or russia, or some place different from until then)
1392 2011-08-05 15:34:08 <jrmithdobbs> if they were using tor, sure
1393 2011-08-05 15:34:37 <MagicalTux> well, that's a constant then, all user use their computer from non tor, then suddently switch to tor and login to change their email, buy as much bitcoin as possible and withdraw everything
1394 2011-08-05 15:34:41 <makomk> Ah, you mean the mysterious logins from weird places by attackers knowing the user's password... just before it became clear the database of password hashes had been obtained by someone malicious several days before.
1395 2011-08-05 15:35:02 <jrmithdobbs> makomk: ;p
1396 2011-08-05 15:35:03 <MagicalTux> makomk: actually, several weeks before
1397 2011-08-05 15:35:44 <MagicalTux> however the investigation is progressing smoothly so far, so in the end there might be some justice
1398 2011-08-05 15:36:17 <ius> So, has there been another incident?
1399 2011-08-05 15:36:27 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1400 2011-08-05 15:36:28 <ius> Haven't been following for... weeks
1401 2011-08-05 15:36:29 <MagicalTux> ius: mybitcoin ?
1402 2011-08-05 15:36:39 <BlueMatt> bitomat
1403 2011-08-05 15:36:40 <ius> They got owned?
1404 2011-08-05 15:36:55 <MagicalTux> ius: https://www.mybitcoin.com/
1405 2011-08-05 15:36:56 <makomk> bitomat owned themselves.
1406 2011-08-05 15:37:15 <BlueMatt> bitomat reset their server then complained at amazon because they lost their wallet
1407 2011-08-05 15:37:32 <ius> Right, be right back
1408 2011-08-05 15:38:23 WakiMiko has joined
1409 2011-08-05 15:38:53 WakiMiko_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1410 2011-08-05 15:40:28 JackStorm has quit (Quit: JackStorm)
1411 2011-08-05 15:40:41 <d33tah> is the bitcoin installer code available anywhere?
1412 2011-08-05 15:41:00 <d33tah> can't find it in the SVN
1413 2011-08-05 15:41:29 <BlueMatt> its nsis
1414 2011-08-05 15:41:40 <d33tah> vanilla?
1415 2011-08-05 15:41:53 <BlueMatt> nsis plus the generation script
1416 2011-08-05 15:41:57 <BlueMatt> in contrib iirc
1417 2011-08-05 15:42:05 <BlueMatt> (in the bitcoin tree)
1418 2011-08-05 15:42:37 <d33tah> only gitian.yml in the trunk
1419 2011-08-05 15:42:37 <BlueMatt> no its share/setup.nsi
1420 2011-08-05 15:43:04 <d33tah> is it bitcoin.svn.sourceforge.net?
1421 2011-08-05 15:43:12 <BlueMatt> heh no
1422 2011-08-05 15:43:19 <BlueMatt> that hasnt been touched in months
1423 2011-08-05 15:43:25 <d33tah> three exactly.
1424 2011-08-05 15:43:27 normanrichards has quit (Quit: normanrichards)
1425 2011-08-05 15:43:29 <BlueMatt> github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
1426 2011-08-05 15:43:34 <d33tah> mkay, thanks
1427 2011-08-05 15:43:39 <d33tah> what i'm getting to is
1428 2011-08-05 15:44:05 <d33tah> there was an idea to allow the users to send their bitcoins to faucet on uninstallation
1429 2011-08-05 15:44:09 <upb> MagicalTux: so is there any way to add this to some kind of bug tracker?
1430 2011-08-05 15:44:12 <d33tah> i wanted to take a look on how hard would it be
1431 2011-08-05 15:44:19 <upb> because this kind of order execution bug can affect everything
1432 2011-08-05 15:44:49 <MagicalTux> upb: please email details to info@mtgox.com, we'll look into it (include trade ids of offending trades and executed trades)
1433 2011-08-05 15:45:02 <d33tah> what do you think of it? obviously a few issues would need to be solved, but it might help bitcoin economy a bit ;)
1434 2011-08-05 15:45:03 <upb> ok
1435 2011-08-05 15:45:31 <d33tah> BlueMatt?
1436 2011-08-05 15:45:52 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1437 2011-08-05 15:46:44 maqr has joined
1438 2011-08-05 15:47:11 <UukGoblin> mhm, Dan Kaminsky made a nice analysis... at least he's getting the stuff right ;-]
1439 2011-08-05 15:47:31 d33tah has quit (Quit: had to go)
1440 2011-08-05 15:47:55 wardearia has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1441 2011-08-05 15:48:13 <BlueMatt> link to full analysis?
1442 2011-08-05 15:48:23 <UukGoblin> it's not full
1443 2011-08-05 15:48:24 pogden has joined
1444 2011-08-05 15:48:33 <BlueMatt> link anyway?
1445 2011-08-05 15:48:34 <UukGoblin> just some slides at http://dankaminsky.com/2011/08/05/bo2k11/
1446 2011-08-05 15:49:02 <gmaxwell> I was initially irritated the he focused on TD's fanciful analysis, but otherwise he made a bunch of reasonable points.
1447 2011-08-05 15:51:14 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r176 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/PeerGroup.java: Lower priority for peer threads to avoid competing with UI threads. Resolves issue 67. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r176/
1448 2011-08-05 15:51:39 <TD> i disagree it's fanciful. you have to pick some number to do some calculations, might as well pick one nobody can argue is setting the bar too low
1449 2011-08-05 15:52:21 <jrmithdobbs> UukGoblin: what's the context for this?
1450 2011-08-05 15:52:47 <UukGoblin> jrmithdobbs, none
1451 2011-08-05 15:53:25 <jrmithdobbs> ok just thought i missed part of the conversation, ha
1452 2011-08-05 15:53:56 TCA_ has joined
1453 2011-08-05 15:54:35 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r177 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java: Propagate BlockStoreException in BlockChain.setChainHead http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r177/
1454 2011-08-05 15:54:48 erus` has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1455 2011-08-05 15:55:10 <BlueMatt> TD: heh, still dan's use of your numbers on modern hdd/proc/etc standards is invalid
1456 2011-08-05 15:55:36 TCA has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1457 2011-08-05 15:55:44 <BlueMatt> by the time those scalability numbers come into play hardware will be x10 what it is today, at a minimum
1458 2011-08-05 15:55:54 <TD> for some, yeah. depends on the numbers
1459 2011-08-05 15:56:06 <TD> disk seek time has hardly changed for years. on the other hand, flash got a lot cheaper
1460 2011-08-05 15:56:18 <TD> processors aren't much faster than some years ago. but you can squish more of them on a single chip now. etc.
1461 2011-08-05 15:56:32 <TD> i'd say it'll be 10x cheaper rather than 10x more powerful
1462 2011-08-05 15:56:38 <TD> though it's two sides of the same coin
1463 2011-08-05 15:56:44 <BlueMatt> essentially the same thing
1464 2011-08-05 15:57:28 <epscy> anyone seen this http://dankaminsky.com/2011/08/05/bo2k11/ ?
1465 2011-08-05 15:57:39 <epscy> oh you are already talking about it
1466 2011-08-05 15:57:41 <epscy> ignore me
1467 2011-08-05 15:57:45 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: linked it like 20 seconds ago
1468 2011-08-05 15:57:50 <UukGoblin> well even if there will be large corporations with supernodes that validate the transactions... they won't be able to control supply like they can now
1469 2011-08-05 15:58:04 nr9 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1470 2011-08-05 15:58:21 <UukGoblin> and there should always be an option of fair competition among them
1471 2011-08-05 15:58:45 <edcba> i/gnore epscy
1472 2011-08-05 15:58:46 pickett_ has joined
1473 2011-08-05 15:58:47 pickett has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1474 2011-08-05 15:59:04 <jrmithdobbs> TD: who cares about disk seek times when nand is so cheap that we'll have affordable TB ssds within the next 5 years anyways.
1475 2011-08-05 15:59:07 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
1476 2011-08-05 15:59:57 <TD> yes that's what i said :)
1477 2011-08-05 16:00:47 <BlueMatt> this is the most wandering talk Ive ever seen, first bitcoin, then upnp, then old tcp/ip attacks
1478 2011-08-05 16:00:49 <BlueMatt> wtf is it on?
1479 2011-08-05 16:01:01 aviadbd has joined
1480 2011-08-05 16:01:01 <jrmithdobbs> ya i'm not following it at all
1481 2011-08-05 16:01:02 <TD> "generic tcp stuff"
1482 2011-08-05 16:01:29 <BlueMatt> since when does defcon let you talk about "random stuff"...oh wait
1483 2011-08-05 16:01:38 <jrmithdobbs> since always
1484 2011-08-05 16:01:39 SISUbtcX_ has joined
1485 2011-08-05 16:01:41 <jrmithdobbs> haha
1486 2011-08-05 16:01:45 <gmaxwell> Depends on how much you've had to drink.
1487 2011-08-05 16:01:50 <BlueMatt> why do all hacker cons appear to be just that...
1488 2011-08-05 16:02:02 <BlueMatt> you have to submit slides ahead of time though
1489 2011-08-05 16:02:13 <TD> BlueMatt: there's another lock inversion in the key crypto code :(
1490 2011-08-05 16:02:22 <TD> BlueMatt: see the forum thread from vector76
1491 2011-08-05 16:02:33 <BlueMatt> link?
1492 2011-08-05 16:03:03 <TD> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34642.0
1493 2011-08-05 16:03:26 <gmaxwell> hm. Why didn't I hit this in testing?
1494 2011-08-05 16:03:32 <BlueMatt> ah, shit
1495 2011-08-05 16:03:37 <jrmithdobbs> also
1496 2011-08-05 16:03:37 <TD> hm, the -development mailing list isn't actually linked to from the bitcoin.org homepage
1497 2011-08-05 16:03:39 <BlueMatt> requires gui
1498 2011-08-05 16:03:48 <jrmithdobbs> why must all monetary txn examples involve alice and bob?
1499 2011-08-05 16:03:55 <jrmithdobbs> why not pradeep and mohammed?
1500 2011-08-05 16:03:57 <jrmithdobbs> racists.
1501 2011-08-05 16:04:03 <gmaxwell> yea, I didn't test with gui, and I also mostly tested on an isolated node.
1502 2011-08-05 16:04:31 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: did you see the Hawala doc I as linking to a while back from the usgov?
1503 2011-08-05 16:04:42 <Habbie> using established and meaningful names is not racist
1504 2011-08-05 16:04:49 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i've seen one before dunno if it's the same one
1505 2011-08-05 16:04:53 ee1 has joined
1506 2011-08-05 16:05:03 <jrmithdobbs> don't remember seeing you say anything about hawala ;p
1507 2011-08-05 16:05:50 <TD> is there a way to see commits on github in order?
1508 2011-08-05 16:05:59 <TD> instead of seeing the order they were branched from or whatever it uses by default
1509 2011-08-05 16:06:10 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I'd give you the URL but it's impossible to get from google.
1510 2011-08-05 16:06:11 Rabbit67890 has joined
1511 2011-08-05 16:06:18 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: haha
1512 2011-08-05 16:06:22 <gmaxwell> because it's rewriting it to some link tracking thing.
1513 2011-08-05 16:06:27 <BlueMatt> TD: dont think so, only the merge commits are in order...
1514 2011-08-05 16:06:37 <gmaxwell> google for "FinCEN Hawala Report - U.S. Department of the Treasury"
1515 2011-08-05 16:06:39 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: is it the one that basically implies it's a terrorist network in itself?
1516 2011-08-05 16:06:52 <gmaxwell> nah, its more balanced then that.
1517 2011-08-05 16:07:12 <gmaxwell> But I liked the ethinically 'correct' placeholder names.
1518 2011-08-05 16:07:21 <ius> MagicalTux: Wow. I recall a letter from their 'CEO' right after MtGox's incident, about how much IDS/IPS they had in place ;)
1519 2011-08-05 16:07:25 <jrmithdobbs> this one? http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Documents/FinCEN-Hawala-rpt.pdf
1520 2011-08-05 16:07:56 <ius> Also, nice donation to the humble bundle project. See you've beaten notch, heh
1521 2011-08-05 16:07:58 <gmaxwell> I wanted to write a parallel version of the text about bitcoin using "John" (a chinese wowgold farmer) and "rapeghost" (a new york investment banker).
1522 2011-08-05 16:08:33 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: yes, thats right.
1523 2011-08-05 16:08:54 <BlueMatt> why do we still have cs_main?
1524 2011-08-05 16:10:20 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr stale_reason_split * r7d58aae3fb20 pushpool-personal/ (msg.c server.h): Split "stale" into "prevhash-stale" (most recent non-current prevhash only) and "prevhash-wrong" (any other prevhash) http://tinyurl.com/3zeeu24
1525 2011-08-05 16:10:54 purpleposeidon has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1526 2011-08-05 16:13:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: wait, "rapeghost" is a banker?
1527 2011-08-05 16:13:38 <Caesium> luke-jr: did you/are you going to make noncerange stuff public?
1528 2011-08-05 16:13:52 <Caesium> not seen a branch for it yet
1529 2011-08-05 16:14:13 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Perhaps, no idea. But it makes the story perfect.
1530 2011-08-05 16:14:15 <luke-jr> Caesium: uncertain. certain other pool ops are keeping their stuff private, so I feel like I need to keep mine so I have something to barter with
1531 2011-08-05 16:14:23 <Caesium> fair enough
1532 2011-08-05 16:14:32 purpleposeidon has joined
1533 2011-08-05 16:14:39 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
1534 2011-08-05 16:14:42 <gribble> 139735
1535 2011-08-05 16:14:55 <luke-jr> Caesium: I don't think the GPL allows me to selectively share it :/
1536 2011-08-05 16:14:56 <gmaxwell> Luke has already made more important patches available by far than other operators.
1537 2011-08-05 16:15:14 <luke-jr> yeah, I just sent a PULL req to jgarzik for that last one too :P
1538 2011-08-05 16:15:36 <Caesium> mine are no secret but whether they'd be of use to anyone is another matter
1539 2011-08-05 16:15:50 <TD> luke-jr: what do you think about p2pool?
1540 2011-08-05 16:15:50 SISUbtcX has quit (Quit: SISUbtcX)
1541 2011-08-05 16:15:50 SISUbtcX_ is now known as SISUbtcX
1542 2011-08-05 16:15:57 <Caesium> listening on unix socket, prefetching getwork, using integers to identify users rather than passing chars all over
1543 2011-08-05 16:16:01 <luke-jr> TD: I don't think it's viable for small miners
1544 2011-08-05 16:16:12 <luke-jr> TD: it also conflicts with my goals for Eligius
1545 2011-08-05 16:16:12 <TD> doesn't reduce the variance enough ?
1546 2011-08-05 16:16:24 <TD> what goals are those? allowing non-std transactions?
1547 2011-08-05 16:16:26 <luke-jr> TD: no, small miners simply make too little per block
1548 2011-08-05 16:16:26 <BlueMatt> what are your goals for Eligius?
1549 2011-08-05 16:16:40 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: the same as my goals for anything Bitcoin-related
1550 2011-08-05 16:16:47 <BlueMatt> which are?
1551 2011-08-05 16:16:50 <luke-jr> improving/promoting Tonal
1552 2011-08-05 16:16:56 <TD> lol :)
1553 2011-08-05 16:16:57 <TD> right
1554 2011-08-05 16:17:00 <TD> how could we forget
1555 2011-08-05 16:17:04 <BlueMatt> ahhhh
1556 2011-08-05 16:17:13 <TD> why would the pool affect how much you make per block? shouldn't p2pool users make more per block, due to the lack of a fee-charging organizer?
1557 2011-08-05 16:17:25 <BlueMatt> p2pool does take a fee
1558 2011-08-05 16:17:38 <BlueMatt> one fee for the finder of the block, one for the guy who wrote p2pool
1559 2011-08-05 16:17:46 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: this is a pretty good document, i'm surprised
1560 2011-08-05 16:17:47 <luke-jr> TD: p2pool *could* be made to work for smaller miners, if it were to do payouts of like 5000 satoshis :p
1561 2011-08-05 16:17:49 * BlueMatt is surprised the second has yet to be removed...
1562 2011-08-05 16:18:06 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: also makes me wish we had something like hawala in the western world ;p
1563 2011-08-05 16:18:16 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: unless *everyone* removed it, other p2pool miners would reject your shares ;)
1564 2011-08-05 16:18:21 <jrmithdobbs> (I have the same thought every time hawala comes up)
1565 2011-08-05 16:18:26 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: well, yes
1566 2011-08-05 16:18:55 <TD> BlueMatt: ah, ok
1567 2011-08-05 16:19:04 <luke-jr> TD: basically, the small miners depend on the pool's ability to aggregate block rewards into larger payoouts
1568 2011-08-05 16:19:10 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: I think it might actually be a good template for a writeup about bitcoin (not the technology, but how its used). Just the basic flow is pretty good.
1569 2011-08-05 16:19:26 <TD> luke-jr: so it's not viable because there aren't enough gigahashes/sec taking part, rather than some inherent design issue ?
1570 2011-08-05 16:19:44 <jrmithdobbs> ya, it's laid out pretty well and uses nice plain language to explain everything
1571 2011-08-05 16:20:22 <luke-jr> TD: no, it's a per-miner issue
1572 2011-08-05 16:20:38 <gmaxwell> Well, this is assuming you want to pay every miner every round.
1573 2011-08-05 16:20:39 <makomk> That reminds me: why nonce ranges specifically to reduce the amount of getwork requests?
1574 2011-08-05 16:20:42 <gmaxwell> I don't think thats required.
1575 2011-08-05 16:20:47 <BlueMatt> you are saying it doesnt work for smaller miners because they get small payouts which are hard to spend, correct?
1576 2011-08-05 16:20:50 <luke-jr> TD: to get enough blocks to be reasonable, the smaller miners can only be like 0.1% or so of the total hashrate
1577 2011-08-05 16:21:12 <luke-jr> or maybe less
1578 2011-08-05 16:21:19 <luke-jr> so their payouts would be pitiful
1579 2011-08-05 16:21:31 <gmaxwell> With a system like that you can take a constant 500x reduction in variance vs solo without causing infinitesmal payouts.
1580 2011-08-05 16:21:35 E-sense has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
1581 2011-08-05 16:21:51 <gmaxwell> It might not be attractive for CPU miners still, but many GPU miners should be happy enough with that.
1582 2011-08-05 16:22:02 <TD> i'm trying to understand why/why not p2pool could theoretically become the only pool
1583 2011-08-05 16:22:12 E-sense has joined
1584 2011-08-05 16:22:13 wardearia has joined
1585 2011-08-05 16:22:30 XX01XX has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1586 2011-08-05 16:22:34 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: yes
1587 2011-08-05 16:22:47 <luke-jr> makomk: reduces load
1588 2011-08-05 16:22:52 <gmaxwell> TD: it's ability to mitigate variance for small miners is lower than classic central pools.
1589 2011-08-05 16:23:03 <makomk> luke-jr: why not offload the midstate generation from bitcoind and generate extranonce ranges instead, for example?
1590 2011-08-05 16:23:10 <BlueMatt> TD: luke does have a valid point here, spending tiny outputs is hard and there is no good way for a p2p pool to lump payouts into larger numbers
1591 2011-08-05 16:23:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: there is no difference in variance between p2pool and other pools, or am I missing something?
1592 2011-08-05 16:23:31 <gmaxwell> TD: because paying ten zillion users 1 micro btc each every round sucks.
1593 2011-08-05 16:24:03 <luke-jr> makomk: because changing extranonce means making an entirely new work
1594 2011-08-05 16:24:10 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you can eliminate small outputs by making is so small miners just have a lower probablity of being paid.. when they do get paid they'll get 0.01 or whatever, but it happens rarely.
1595 2011-08-05 16:24:27 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: so you can trade variance vs payment size.
1596 2011-08-05 16:24:36 <BlueMatt> ah, true
1597 2011-08-05 16:24:39 <BlueMatt> does p2pool do that?
1598 2011-08-05 16:24:44 <gmaxwell> Yes.
1599 2011-08-05 16:24:45 <luke-jr> IIRC p2pool is PPLNS
1600 2011-08-05 16:25:03 <gmaxwell> It's PPLNS with N=600 shares (or it was, it might have changed)
1601 2011-08-05 16:25:16 normanrichards has joined
1602 2011-08-05 16:25:27 normanrichards has quit (Client Quit)
1603 2011-08-05 16:25:30 <gmaxwell> which means that if your rate is slow enough that you often won't have even one in 600 then you're going to see higher variance.
1604 2011-08-05 16:25:46 <makomk> Ah, I see how that works now.
1605 2011-08-05 16:25:52 <gmaxwell> But that also means it never has to split the block into more than 600 parts (and often far less)
1606 2011-08-05 16:26:01 <jrmithdobbs> pplns?
1607 2011-08-05 16:26:07 <gmaxwell> Pay per last N shares.
1608 2011-08-05 16:26:11 <gmaxwell> E.g. a rolling window.
1609 2011-08-05 16:26:24 <jrmithdobbs> ya got it, just hadn't seen that acronym
1610 2011-08-05 16:26:36 <gmaxwell> people submit shares, when it finds a block the reward is distributed according to the distribution of the last N shares submitted.
1611 2011-08-05 16:26:40 <makomk> I'm guessing this wasn't designed with pools or large numbers of miners in mind.
1612 2011-08-05 16:27:09 <gmaxwell> What wasn't P2Pool?
1613 2011-08-05 16:27:16 <gmaxwell> Sure it was.
1614 2011-08-05 16:27:30 <makomk> No, the block hash format itself.
1615 2011-08-05 16:27:48 <luke-jr> makomk: no, PPLNS was originally an Eligius community innovation ;)
1616 2011-08-05 16:27:53 <luke-jr> like most reward systems now
1617 2011-08-05 16:28:14 <gmaxwell> in any case, I think this kind of system  scales well enough that all reasonably large gpu miners can be p2p, where cpu miners would probably be slaves on someone elses p2p node based pool.
1618 2011-08-05 16:28:25 <luke-jr> makomk: in fact, when/if we change reward systems, we'll probably become PPLNS with N=diff*8
1619 2011-08-05 16:28:45 <gmaxwell> hm? The expectation was that ~most bitcoin users would be miners for a long time. This has been violated, alas.
1620 2011-08-05 16:28:47 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: CPU miners can't survive much without GPU miners either
1621 2011-08-05 16:28:48 koleg has quit (3!kvirc@95.81.246.230|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1622 2011-08-05 16:29:17 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right, but the CPU miners would just end up being contributors to some p2p miners operation.
1623 2011-08-05 16:29:19 <makomk> Sorry, I meant miners with large amounts of hash power, not a large number of them. Weird thinko.
1624 2011-08-05 16:29:23 bitcoinbulletin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1625 2011-08-05 16:30:11 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: e.g. if the p2p mining was mature and strong you could simply make eligius use it. It would work well for you as you have lots of hash power. You'd see lower varience if other pools moved to it.
1626 2011-08-05 16:30:34 <luke-jr> but that would help p2pool too much ;)
1627 2011-08-05 16:30:38 <gmaxwell> Eventually some of your bigger miners would become p2p-solo miners, instead of using the pool... but you'd gain no varience from that.
1628 2011-08-05 16:31:02 <TD> how exactly does eligius promote tonal, again?
1629 2011-08-05 16:31:07 zeiris_ has joined
1630 2011-08-05 16:31:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'd lose the ability to control fees and offer lower fees to people
1631 2011-08-05 16:31:19 <luke-jr> TD: Tonal-sized fees, for example
1632 2011-08-05 16:31:21 <gmaxwell> Of all the noteworthy pool operators, you're the most likely to go along with it: you won't lose big income (well, unless you're stealing from the pool... ;) )
1633 2011-08-05 16:31:23 <TD> heh
1634 2011-08-05 16:31:33 <luke-jr> TD: also, artefact2's stats support TBC
1635 2011-08-05 16:31:51 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1636 2011-08-05 16:31:55 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if p2pool becomes more viable, I potentially lose members
1637 2011-08-05 16:32:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: and for Eligius to become viable, it needs to grow enough where I either get donations to cover the expenses, or can add a fee
1638 2011-08-05 16:32:33 wolfspraul has joined
1639 2011-08-05 16:33:42 <gmaxwell> yea, so now we see the real barrier against p2pool.
1640 2011-08-05 16:34:02 <gmaxwell> (not the particular implementation, it's a bit lame on its own— but the general concept)
1641 2011-08-05 16:34:09 <TD> yup
1642 2011-08-05 16:34:16 <TD> centralization, once it appears, is tough to remove
1643 2011-08-05 16:34:20 <TD> lots of entrenched interests
1644 2011-08-05 16:34:42 <gmaxwell> This can be fixed though. e.g. once its mature package it with the default client.
1645 2011-08-05 16:34:49 <gmaxwell> purchased hash power too.
1646 2011-08-05 16:34:50 <TD> it's ironic that whilst people are freaking out about zomg you need money to run a bitcoin node, there are really only a handful of voters in the network currently
1647 2011-08-05 16:34:54 <TD> yeah
1648 2011-08-05 16:35:05 <Diablo-D3> is this something I have to give a fuck aboout?
1649 2011-08-05 16:35:23 <gmaxwell> I wonder how much I'd have to give the three top users of eligius which represent 20% of its hashpower to switch.  1% more PPS?
1650 2011-08-05 16:35:28 <MacRohard> yea mining pools kindof ruined that aspect of bitcoin
1651 2011-08-05 16:35:28 bitcoinbulletin has joined
1652 2011-08-05 16:35:39 <luke-jr> TD: people had been saying even before pools, that one day people would parner with big "miners" for lower fees
1653 2011-08-05 16:36:23 DontMindMe has joined
1654 2011-08-05 16:36:25 <TD> yeah, sure. due to the economics of ASIC development and such
1655 2011-08-05 16:36:28 <TD> it's a bit early for that
1656 2011-08-05 16:36:31 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1657 2011-08-05 16:36:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: p2pool doesn't solve the problem, either
1658 2011-08-05 16:36:42 <TD> and i don't think it was exactly that people were looking forward to it
1659 2011-08-05 16:36:55 <luke-jr> it just moves the control from the pool op back to the software developers
1660 2011-08-05 16:37:03 <TD> satoshi once said to me that "eventually" people would be using GPUs to mine, but he hoped it wouldn't happen for a while
1661 2011-08-05 16:37:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the developers can still divest most control to the users.
1662 2011-08-05 16:37:25 <TD> luke-jr: well, users still have to "vote" by downloading new software
1663 2011-08-05 16:37:28 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they don't.
1664 2011-08-05 16:37:36 JackStorm has joined
1665 2011-08-05 16:37:50 <luke-jr> the miners don't care about the policies of mining
1666 2011-08-05 16:37:54 <luke-jr> just that they get paid
1667 2011-08-05 16:37:59 <gmaxwell> Yes, thats a problem.
1668 2011-08-05 16:38:02 <MacRohard> imo the main bitcoin client will probably become irrelevant once some professional softawre house starts making their own
1669 2011-08-05 16:38:06 <gmaxwell> You can give users control, but they don't give a @#$@
1670 2011-08-05 16:38:38 <TD> luke-jr: users who don't care, just upgrade and accept the developers decisions, yes.
1671 2011-08-05 16:38:48 <TD> luke-jr: users who do care, can exercise that power they have
1672 2011-08-05 16:39:02 <edcba> or just don't upgrade if you don't force them :)
1673 2011-08-05 16:39:02 <TD> dominance of pools eliminates the second option, pretty much
1674 2011-08-05 16:39:03 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: at least by centralizing it, there are multiple points of control
1675 2011-08-05 16:39:14 <gmaxwell> td: But then the default becomes very powerful.
1676 2011-08-05 16:39:21 <luke-jr> before the centralization/pools, there was effectively one: the Satoshi client devteam
1677 2011-08-05 16:39:26 <TD> it's already powerful. how many pools customize the policies?
1678 2011-08-05 16:39:39 <jrmithdobbs> minksy kind of missed that you can put data in the blockchain without burning the coins ;p
1679 2011-08-05 16:39:43 <luke-jr> TD: Eligius at least does
1680 2011-08-05 16:39:55 <BlueMatt> MacRohard: except at that point one will cost money and one will be free, I wonder which people will use
1681 2011-08-05 16:40:01 <TD> that's rare though. and look at it this way - if you weren't very interested in tonal, maybe you wouldn't bother.
1682 2011-08-05 16:40:10 <gmaxwell> Sadly I don't think most of the pool operators are especially good voters. E.g. other than luke-jr I don't see any of the other 'major' (and I cast that widely) pool operators discussing much about bitcoin policy.
1683 2011-08-05 16:40:16 pickett has joined
1684 2011-08-05 16:40:18 <MacRohard> BlueMatt, maybe.. maybe not.
1685 2011-08-05 16:40:19 <luke-jr> TD: probably true
1686 2011-08-05 16:40:20 pickett_ has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1687 2011-08-05 16:40:24 <TD> yeah, does anyone know if they even upgrade reliably?
1688 2011-08-05 16:40:29 <gmaxwell> They do not.
1689 2011-08-05 16:40:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: yeah, didn't jgarzik have to go out of his way to get Deepbit to go along with the txn fee drop to 0.0005?
1690 2011-08-05 16:40:41 <TD> superb
1691 2011-08-05 16:40:50 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: other than tycho who just absolutely refuses to discuss anything, basically
1692 2011-08-05 16:40:54 <gmaxwell> It'll be more obvious after IsStandard changes to allow multisig/escrow.
1693 2011-08-05 16:41:02 <aviadbd> gmaxwell: why would they be good voters? they're just "big miners".
1694 2011-08-05 16:41:08 <jrmithdobbs> "why would i change it it works!"
1695 2011-08-05 16:41:11 <TD> is there a specific reason why they don't upgrade or is it just lazyness?
1696 2011-08-05 16:41:16 <jrmithdobbs> is basically all he ever says
1697 2011-08-05 16:41:20 <luke-jr> TD: probably security/stability
1698 2011-08-05 16:41:24 <gmaxwell> aviadbd: because they're more deeply involved than joe blow running bitcoin on his desktop.
1699 2011-08-05 16:41:28 <luke-jr> after .24 was released, I upgraded my codebase to .23
1700 2011-08-05 16:41:44 <jrmithdobbs> TD: tycho in particular doesn't seem to actually understand how things work and insists on "always processing free txns" for instance
1701 2011-08-05 16:41:47 <TD> newer versions tend to be more stable/secure than older versions though
1702 2011-08-05 16:41:48 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: hopefully you have the fix for relays
1703 2011-08-05 16:41:52 Titeuf_87 has joined
1704 2011-08-05 16:41:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ?
1705 2011-08-05 16:41:58 <TD> <sigh>
1706 2011-08-05 16:41:59 <denisx> my pool is small but I plainly play by the rules. I even pay fee for my payouts...
1707 2011-08-05 16:42:06 <TD> luke-jr: clients <0.3.24 are broken and cannot transmit the block chain
1708 2011-08-05 16:42:08 <jrmithdobbs> TD: i don't know if it's changed but he was on .19 FOREVER
1709 2011-08-05 16:42:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: a stable branch would be nice ;)
1710 2011-08-05 16:42:10 <gmaxwell> <sigh>
1711 2011-08-05 16:42:16 <TD> luke-jr: by running it you are degrading network stability
1712 2011-08-05 16:42:21 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: the fix that made bitcoin actually relay blocks right
1713 2011-08-05 16:42:32 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: releases are stable
1714 2011-08-05 16:42:39 <luke-jr> TD: well, there's been a lot of bug reports on .24
1715 2011-08-05 16:42:40 <BlueMatt> git head...not so much
1716 2011-08-05 16:42:47 <TD> there have?
1717 2011-08-05 16:42:55 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: "stable" means "no new features added"
1718 2011-08-05 16:43:14 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: there's been no new features since .20ish
1719 2011-08-05 16:43:21 <jrmithdobbs> what are you babbling about
1720 2011-08-05 16:43:28 <jrmithdobbs> at least, nothing significant
1721 2011-08-05 16:43:28 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: …
1722 2011-08-05 16:43:33 <gmaxwell> The difference between .24 and .23 are pretty insubstantial. It's .23 + fixed flooding rules + upnp on by default if its compiled with it + dnsseed on by default... anything I'm missing?
1723 2011-08-05 16:43:44 <gmaxwell> There are no new features in .24
1724 2011-08-05 16:43:48 <BlueMatt> .24 is much better for network
1725 2011-08-05 16:43:49 <luke-jr> wallet encryption
1726 2011-08-05 16:43:51 <gmaxwell> (unless I'm forgetting something)
1727 2011-08-05 16:43:51 <jrmithdobbs> and .22->.23 was as similar update
1728 2011-08-05 16:43:57 <gmaxwell> ___.24 does not have wallet encryption___
1729 2011-08-05 16:43:58 * BlueMatt *facepalm*
1730 2011-08-05 16:43:58 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: wallet encryption isn't in .24
1731 2011-08-05 16:44:03 <luke-jr> o
1732 2011-08-05 16:44:08 <luke-jr> what about that "automatic rescan"?
1733 2011-08-05 16:44:09 pickett has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1734 2011-08-05 16:44:19 <BlueMatt> if you are going to be running an old version, make sure you know wtf you are talking about
1735 2011-08-05 16:44:28 <BlueMatt> no, that was like 20 versions ago
1736 2011-08-05 16:44:30 <jrmithdobbs> a completely non-destructive feature is obviously awful
1737 2011-08-05 16:44:33 pickett has joined
1738 2011-08-05 16:44:44 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: ANY feature has the potential to introduce bgus
1739 2011-08-05 16:44:48 <luke-jr> bugs*
1740 2011-08-05 16:44:51 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: seems to be another problem, random recirculating rumors of "new versions don't work", sadly they're probably spawned due to people having initial bringup problems! :(
1741 2011-08-05 16:45:02 zeiris_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1742 2011-08-05 16:45:04 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I see this one often
1743 2011-08-05 16:45:06 <BlueMatt> luke complains that his node is getting poor connections resulting in orphan blocks, so he runs an old version which makes the problem for him, and the network worse
1744 2011-08-05 16:45:08 <BlueMatt> ...WTF???
1745 2011-08-05 16:45:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: people ask me where my payout is
1746 2011-08-05 16:45:29 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: yes, but the changes between .23 and .24 are quite minimal and easily inspected.
1747 2011-08-05 16:45:35 TCA_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1748 2011-08-05 16:45:42 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the initial bringup problems are due to people not running .24!
1749 2011-08-05 16:45:46 <luke-jr>     "connections" : 759,
1750 2011-08-05 16:45:47 <gmaxwell> (well, at least partially due)
1751 2011-08-05 16:45:49 <denisx> yeah, like the pool operators who use this native long polling patch the wrong way...
1752 2011-08-05 16:45:56 <jrmithdobbs> all the changes between .20 and .24 are quite minimal and easily inspectible sans cwallet tbqh
1753 2011-08-05 16:45:57 <TD> luke-jr: if somebody can't get the full block chain, it's because they are connecting to <.24 nodes
1754 2011-08-05 16:46:07 <jrmithdobbs> and cwallet isn't that big it's mostly just shuffling existing code around
1755 2011-08-05 16:46:11 <gmaxwell> Because nodes prior to .24 will start randomly hanging up on anyone trying to sync the blockchain once they hit 100k or so.
1756 2011-08-05 16:46:13 <luke-jr> TD: they *have* the full block chain
1757 2011-08-05 16:46:31 <TD> luke-jr: your node has 759 connections?
1758 2011-08-05 16:46:34 <luke-jr> TD: yep
1759 2011-08-05 16:46:36 <TD> PLEASE upgrade
1760 2011-08-05 16:46:38 <TD> ye gods
1761 2011-08-05 16:46:42 SecretSJ has joined
1762 2011-08-05 16:46:42 <TD> you are damaging the network, seriously
1763 2011-08-05 16:46:47 <gmaxwell> Yes, because he's doing agressive outbound connetions.
1764 2011-08-05 16:46:49 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you are doing horrible harm to the network
1765 2011-08-05 16:46:55 <BlueMatt> ok yea, its time to just in 0.4 drop all connections <0.3.24
1766 2011-08-05 16:46:57 <gmaxwell> and using up slots on .24 hosts. :(
1767 2011-08-05 16:46:57 <jrmithdobbs> especially if you're doing that
1768 2011-08-05 16:47:10 <TD> all the people complaining that it takes forever to sync the block chain are having trouble because of nodes like yours
1769 2011-08-05 16:47:12 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: agree.
1770 2011-08-05 16:47:27 <TD> the "upgrade to 0.3.24" message needs to be way stronger
1771 2011-08-05 16:47:28 bittwist_ is now known as bittwist
1772 2011-08-05 16:47:32 <gmaxwell> Or if you don't upgrade at least apply the flood filtering fix.
1773 2011-08-05 16:47:35 <luke-jr> got a commit I can cherry-pick?
1774 2011-08-05 16:47:50 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you're one of the bad guys eating up all the connection slots that make my node consume 512 connections in <15 minutes on restart
1775 2011-08-05 16:47:52 <BlueMatt> TD: happy?
1776 2011-08-05 16:48:09 prax has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1777 2011-08-05 16:48:11 <TD> i was thinking more website changes and broadcast alerts, but i guess that has to wait until gavin gets back
1778 2011-08-05 16:48:12 <edcba> why do i need to upgrade to 0.3.24 ?
1779 2011-08-05 16:48:20 <Diablo-D3> lol
1780 2011-08-05 16:48:20 <imsaguy> because anything older is shit
1781 2011-08-05 16:48:21 <TD> edcba: you should always be running the latest version, period.
1782 2011-08-05 16:48:22 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: take all of .23-.24 it's *all* bug fixes
1783 2011-08-05 16:48:23 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I wonder how much Dan would charge to falsely claim bitcoin prior to .24 is insecure? :-/
1784 2011-08-05 16:48:24 <Diablo-D3> whats the change in .24?
1785 2011-08-05 16:48:26 * BlueMatt strangles edcba 
1786 2011-08-05 16:48:27 <edcba> TD: lol
1787 2011-08-05 16:48:33 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: that means rebasing everything
1788 2011-08-05 16:48:34 * TD got trolled
1789 2011-08-05 16:48:36 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1790 2011-08-05 16:48:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: tough shit, you're hurting the network.
1791 2011-08-05 16:48:45 <edcba> bug fixes or new bug added ? :)
1792 2011-08-05 16:48:52 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: most of the nodes doing that to me are in .ru/.ua.
1793 2011-08-05 16:49:09 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: mine are very widely dispearsed
1794 2011-08-05 16:49:27 <edcba> and i doubt there is only "bug fixes"
1795 2011-08-05 16:49:30 <gmaxwell> well, I get a ton of old nodes that are starved.
1796 2011-08-05 16:49:31 <luke-jr> 10k LOC changed, no thanks
1797 2011-08-05 16:49:34 <luke-jr> that isn't just bug fixes
1798 2011-08-05 16:49:36 <TD> luke-jr: if you fork the codebase you take on the responsibility for keeping up
1799 2011-08-05 16:49:42 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: if you're already on .23 the .24 update is simple
1800 2011-08-05 16:49:49 <gmaxwell> .23 -> .24 is 10loc changed? oh because of the cwallet reorg.
1801 2011-08-05 16:49:49 XX01XX has joined
1802 2011-08-05 16:49:56 <gmaxwell> In any case, you can cherry pick the important fix.
1803 2011-08-05 16:49:58 <edcba> is there some remote vuln fixed ?
1804 2011-08-05 16:50:04 <jrmithdobbs> ya cwallet was just shuffling, not really changes
1805 2011-08-05 16:50:05 <luke-jr> TD: Satoshi client maintainers force me to fork it because they never merge stuff
1806 2011-08-05 16:50:10 <gmaxwell> And BTW— I opposed the cwallet change for .24!
1807 2011-08-05 16:50:11 <imsaguy> Change the default behavior to drop connections from everything but the last 2 versions.
1808 2011-08-05 16:50:27 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so what commit?
1809 2011-08-05 16:50:28 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: tbqh, if you can't keep up with the state of things your patches kind of desrve to be ignored
1810 2011-08-05 16:50:29 <gmaxwell> you can't do that.. new nodes would be orphaned.
1811 2011-08-05 16:50:40 <gjs278> how do I get my version on bitcoind
1812 2011-08-05 16:50:48 <edcba> where are the changelogs ?
1813 2011-08-05 16:50:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you never pull req anything, also, most of your stuff is unmergable
1814 2011-08-05 16:50:51 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: getinfo
1815 2011-08-05 16:50:51 <gjs278> I grab against git every so often so I have no idea
1816 2011-08-05 16:50:58 <jrmithdobbs> gjs278: or getversions
1817 2011-08-05 16:50:59 <gjs278> alright
1818 2011-08-05 16:51:02 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: you use GitHub, and all my stuff is mergable
1819 2011-08-05 16:51:04 <jrmithdobbs> s/s$//
1820 2011-08-05 16:51:04 <luke-jr> almost*
1821 2011-08-05 16:51:08 <edcba> on wiki :)
1822 2011-08-05 16:51:18 <TD> luke-jr: if you don't want to keep up, block inbound 8333 so you aren't listening
1823 2011-08-05 16:51:30 <edcba> dns seeding ?
1824 2011-08-05 16:51:34 <edcba> what is that ?
1825 2011-08-05 16:51:43 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: and stop running that agressive outbound connection code, it is demonstratably harmful.
1826 2011-08-05 16:51:46 <imsaguy> alternative to irc connections
1827 2011-08-05 16:51:49 <edcba> upnp enabled by default lol
1828 2011-08-05 16:51:51 <jrmithdobbs> you don't ened that many outbound connections
1829 2011-08-05 16:51:52 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: then tell Deepbit to share their node IP
1830 2011-08-05 16:52:22 <edcba> ok so now if bitcoin is vuln someone gets my ip and fucks me directly :)
1831 2011-08-05 16:52:24 <edcba> nice to know
1832 2011-08-05 16:52:33 sytse has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1833 2011-08-05 16:52:58 <TD> edcba: obviously, some users have to listen
1834 2011-08-05 16:53:01 <gmaxwell> I hate github.
1835 2011-08-05 16:53:09 sytse has joined
1836 2011-08-05 16:53:17 <luke-jr> GitHub is why I never "pull req"
1837 2011-08-05 16:53:18 <TD> edcba: bitcoin currently suffers a lack of sockets. partly that's thanks to luke-jr using up lots. but mostly it's because not enough users have open ports
1838 2011-08-05 16:53:26 <gmaxwell> edcba: it always listened by default. If you didn't want that you should have turned that off. (or shouldn't be running upnp)
1839 2011-08-05 16:53:31 <TD> luke-jr: why do you need to know deepbits ip?
1840 2011-08-05 16:53:36 <topi`> edcba: I suppose there's a #define to switch off the upnp code
1841 2011-08-05 16:53:39 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: you seriously don't need to do that agressive outbound connection crap
1842 2011-08-05 16:53:42 <luke-jr> TD: so I don't have delays getting their blocks
1843 2011-08-05 16:53:43 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr:     "connections" : 506,
1844 2011-08-05 16:53:45 <gmaxwell> TD: so he doesn't have to connect to everyone.
1845 2011-08-05 16:53:52 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: that's a stock .3.24 build
1846 2011-08-05 16:53:57 <jrmithdobbs> with maxconnections=512
1847 2011-08-05 16:54:00 <TD> delays?
1848 2011-08-05 16:54:05 <TD> why does that matter? blocks aren't that big
1849 2011-08-05 16:54:09 <luke-jr> TD: invalid blocks
1850 2011-08-05 16:54:15 <edcba> gmaxwell: i don't usually think every software talks to my router
1851 2011-08-05 16:54:20 <TD> they should propagate across the network in a few seconds, maybe 10-20 seconds at most
1852 2011-08-05 16:54:29 <luke-jr> TD: reality shows it can be minutes
1853 2011-08-05 16:54:30 <topi`> TD: it's difficult to listen to incoming stuff if you're behind a NAT like I am
1854 2011-08-05 16:54:48 <TD> topi`: that is what upnp does, unless it's not a NAT you control, in which case, sure
1855 2011-08-05 16:54:55 <TD> topi`: not everyone has to listen. just as many as possible.
1856 2011-08-05 16:54:59 <luke-jr> TD: and 10-20 seconds is still time for an invalid
1857 2011-08-05 16:55:02 <gmaxwell> TD: thats basically 20 seconds of lost work. And even with this agressive policy I've seen 30 second LP skews between btcguild and eligius.
1858 2011-08-05 16:55:02 <topi`> the NAT is at the other end of my 3G provider
1859 2011-08-05 16:55:41 <mabus> she sells ssh shells
1860 2011-08-05 16:55:45 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but just running stable proxy nodes gets you just as many connections as that stupid agressive policy ;p
1861 2011-08-05 16:55:45 <luke-jr> UPnP is actually a perfect fit for mobile networking
1862 2011-08-05 16:55:49 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: pull https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/497317453422611a077f7f195eb193d3bb597a9c
1863 2011-08-05 16:55:56 <edcba> upnp & mobile ???
1864 2011-08-05 16:56:06 <TD> urgh
1865 2011-08-05 16:56:21 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: no, because there is a pretty good chance that you'll not end up connected to the four or five nodes that really matter.
1866 2011-08-05 16:56:22 <luke-jr> edcba: you don't want to waste battery answering connections to closed ports, so you want the telco side to filter
1867 2011-08-05 16:56:32 <edcba> ok
1868 2011-08-05 16:56:33 <luke-jr> edcba: but at the same time, UPnP would let you open those ports
1869 2011-08-05 16:56:37 <edcba> indeed
1870 2011-08-05 16:56:47 <gmaxwell> Miners _ought_ to be arranging private peering with each other to increase security and remove these problems.
1871 2011-08-05 16:56:53 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: but there's an equally good chance that in such cases you'll be one to two peers away
1872 2011-08-05 16:56:56 <jrmithdobbs> at most
1873 2011-08-05 16:57:02 <TD> so why doesn't deepbit tell people his node ip?
1874 2011-08-05 16:57:11 <imsaguy> ddos?
1875 2011-08-05 16:57:27 <TD> ok where "people" is other pool operators
1876 2011-08-05 16:57:28 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: if you run 3-4 good proxy nodes that you don't use for getwork and have your backend only connect to them and have them be geographically dispearsed ... problem solved
1877 2011-08-05 16:57:40 <jrmithdobbs> and if you're running a pool that ~$150/month is worth it.
1878 2011-08-05 16:57:41 nemesis51 is now known as away!~nemesis@178-25-106-201-dynip.superkabel.de|nemesis51
1879 2011-08-05 16:57:47 <jrmithdobbs> and actually good for the network instead of awful
1880 2011-08-05 16:57:55 <gmaxwell> You can solve the DDOS by setting up one relay as a "for other pools" relay.. run it on the same IP(s) as your primary pool address(s) which aren't hidden in any case.
1881 2011-08-05 16:57:55 <imsaguy> jrmithdobbs++
1882 2011-08-05 16:57:58 <jrmithdobbs> also, that way your proxy nodes don't need to run your modified codebase
1883 2011-08-05 16:58:10 <jrmithdobbs> because they're just proxying the p2p traffic to you
1884 2011-08-05 17:00:04 E-sense has quit (Quit: System.exit(0);)
1885 2011-08-05 17:00:53 <luke-jr> Eligius restarted with gmaxwell's commit
1886 2011-08-05 17:02:09 <topi`> luke-jr: how much time does it need to restart?
1887 2011-08-05 17:02:17 <luke-jr> topi`: a minute or so at most
1888 2011-08-05 17:02:41 <topi`> ok I can connect now
1889 2011-08-05 17:02:49 <gjs278> I am now using the latest bitcoin
1890 2011-08-05 17:02:59 * BlueMatt would like to see someone with the time do more detailed analysis of dns seed nodes and the network as a whole, as gmaxwell pointed out, 8 outgoing should be plenty and the network should be happy, but why isnt it?
1891 2011-08-05 17:03:37 <imsaguy> when nodes negotiate a connection, do they indicate how many other nodes they are connected to?
1892 2011-08-05 17:04:04 <gmaxwell> we can't even figure out how many nodes are listening anymore because many are full so they look dead.
1893 2011-08-05 17:04:06 Firefly007 has joined
1894 2011-08-05 17:04:35 <gmaxwell> And the ones that aren't are old code that aren't real contributors.
1895 2011-08-05 17:04:50 E-sense has joined
1896 2011-08-05 17:04:58 <TD> imsaguy: no. nodes provide almost nothing in the way of statistics or useful data :(
1897 2011-08-05 17:05:27 <BlueMatt> well I could change dnsseed to identify the difference between the connection drops after syn ack and the no syn ack which would indicate the difference between dead nodes and old nodes
1898 2011-08-05 17:05:52 <gmaxwell> dead and full.
1899 2011-08-05 17:05:59 hugolp has joined
1900 2011-08-05 17:06:08 <BlueMatt> yea, sorry
1901 2011-08-05 17:06:31 <TD> what surprised me was how much variance there was in chain heights
1902 2011-08-05 17:06:36 <TD> a lot of nodes seem to have incomplete chains
1903 2011-08-05 17:06:45 <BlueMatt> a result of old <0.3.24 nodes
1904 2011-08-05 17:06:47 * luke-jr lost 100 GH/s changing bitcoind for gmaxwell
1905 2011-08-05 17:06:50 <TD> yes
1906 2011-08-05 17:06:59 Rabbit67890 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1907 2011-08-05 17:07:03 <TD> luke-jr: presumably it'll come back
1908 2011-08-05 17:07:05 Rabbit67890 has joined
1909 2011-08-05 17:07:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: hah. I'm ~10% of that
1910 2011-08-05 17:07:32 <gmaxwell> I would have fallen over if you stopped responding. ;)
1911 2011-08-05 17:07:49 <gmaxwell> It'll come back though.
1912 2011-08-05 17:07:56 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so you leave because I do your update? :P
1913 2011-08-05 17:08:11 <luke-jr> the irony…
1914 2011-08-05 17:08:18 <gmaxwell> hah. My sofware leaves you whenever you fail to respond. Which is often.
1915 2011-08-05 17:08:26 <luke-jr> pfft, not often
1916 2011-08-05 17:08:43 <gmaxwell> Many times a day. Perhaps its the network between me and you.
1917 2011-08-05 17:09:16 <gmaxwell> But my failover is pretty twitchy. Btcguild, however, doesn't set it off anywhere near as often as eligius does.
1918 2011-08-05 17:10:13 <luke-jr> I did notice eurorings.net drop crap a few times in the last week
1919 2011-08-05 17:11:28 Rabbit67890 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1920 2011-08-05 17:11:38 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1921 2011-08-05 17:14:04 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1922 2011-08-05 17:14:12 mosi has joined
1923 2011-08-05 17:15:29 klikklak has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1924 2011-08-05 17:18:58 koleg has joined
1925 2011-08-05 17:19:00 sshc has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1926 2011-08-05 17:19:22 hugolp has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1927 2011-08-05 17:20:43 <nanotube> <gmaxwell> TD: it's ability to mitigate variance for small miners is lower than classic central pools. <- when p2pool reaches about 10thps, a miner with 1ghps will get about 2 shares a day. so it still has a ways to go. also, there can be multiple p2pool nets to split things up, when it comes to that.
1928 2011-08-05 17:21:35 <nanotube> gmaxwell: also, 600 pplns is outdated.
1929 2011-08-05 17:22:57 devon_hillard has joined
1930 2011-08-05 17:24:08 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1931 2011-08-05 17:28:02 MetaV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1932 2011-08-05 17:28:10 cjdelisle has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1933 2011-08-05 17:29:30 flok has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1934 2011-08-05 17:31:12 sshc has joined
1935 2011-08-05 17:33:09 cjdelisle has joined
1936 2011-08-05 17:33:50 MetaV has joined
1937 2011-08-05 17:37:49 asher^ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1938 2011-08-05 17:38:11 aviadbd has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1939 2011-08-05 17:38:14 aidman has joined
1940 2011-08-05 17:38:21 aidman has left ()
1941 2011-08-05 17:46:49 pogden has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1942 2011-08-05 17:48:58 TD_ has joined
1943 2011-08-05 17:49:26 purpleposeidon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1944 2011-08-05 17:51:23 toffoo has joined
1945 2011-08-05 17:51:24 TD_ is now known as TD
1946 2011-08-05 17:52:35 purpleposeidon has joined
1947 2011-08-05 17:52:41 pogden has joined
1948 2011-08-05 17:53:45 cronopio has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1949 2011-08-05 17:53:53 cronopio has joined
1950 2011-08-05 17:58:21 erus` has joined
1951 2011-08-05 18:01:49 * luke-jr ponders including code in 0.4 to detect coins reported stolen and secretly send them to an agreed on person for recovery
1952 2011-08-05 18:03:24 _Burgundy has joined
1953 2011-08-05 18:03:25 <gmaxwell> The secretly send stuff wouldn't be good, alas. Functionality that would allow you to easily add a list of tainted addresses that you get alterted if you get coins that have gone through, (and logs for us non-cli users) might be neat.
1954 2011-08-05 18:03:27 <erus`> lol
1955 2011-08-05 18:03:33 <erus`> luke-jr you are mad
1956 2011-08-05 18:03:42 <TD> yeah, tx blacklisting would be useful
1957 2011-08-05 18:03:49 <TD> the problem is the need to recursively load all dependencies
1958 2011-08-05 18:03:51 <gmaxwell> It would disincentivize theft if the theives knew that when they spent the reciver might just get a notice.
1959 2011-08-05 18:03:55 <TD> that could be a  very expensive operation
1960 2011-08-05 18:04:00 <gmaxwell> TD: nah, just add a single flag to every input.
1961 2011-08-05 18:04:14 <gmaxwell> and once one is marked tainted, it just flows through as you validate.
1962 2011-08-05 18:04:18 <TD> good point
1963 2011-08-05 18:04:39 <TD> you'd still need to support retroactive blacklisting though
1964 2011-08-05 18:04:53 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1965 2011-08-05 18:04:55 <TD> and the problem is, the taint could potentially spread quite far
1966 2011-08-05 18:04:59 ThomasV has joined
1967 2011-08-05 18:04:59 ThomasV has quit (Changing host)
1968 2011-08-05 18:04:59 ThomasV has joined
1969 2011-08-05 18:05:00 <gmaxwell> Eventually someone gets a input and it says "Hey, this came via an address you blacklisted with comment "allinvain's coins", via this path x->y->z"
1970 2011-08-05 18:05:01 <hippich_> luke-jr, please do not do it ))
1971 2011-08-05 18:05:06 <hippich_> it is not right things.
1972 2011-08-05 18:05:25 <gmaxwell> Hm, hippich_ sure seems to have a lot of opions about theft... ;)
1973 2011-08-05 18:05:52 <gmaxwell> In any case, a centeralized list would be bad— but users being able to maintain their own (which they'd mostly just copy from message boards) would be interesting.
1974 2011-08-05 18:06:02 <hippich_> gmaxwell, yes. my betco.in was hacked too. and i had time to think about it.
1975 2011-08-05 18:06:07 <gmaxwell> It would just be an extra layer of disincentive.
1976 2011-08-05 18:06:25 <hippich_> voluntary lists are ok.
1977 2011-08-05 18:06:32 <hippich_> just do not enforce it in network software.
1978 2011-08-05 18:06:52 <gmaxwell> TD: when the alert comes up you get an option to drop the blacklist rule...  so ones that have been too dilluted don't bother you more than once.
1979 2011-08-05 18:07:40 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: a centralized list would be fine; as for sending, I only meant in the case of the exact stolen coins being detected
1980 2011-08-05 18:07:59 <gmaxwell> I list all your coins as stolen.
1981 2011-08-05 18:08:00 <gmaxwell> TADA!
1982 2011-08-05 18:08:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: hence why I don't blindly upgrade ;)
1983 2011-08-05 18:09:43 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1984 2011-08-05 18:13:41 shLONG has joined
1985 2011-08-05 18:14:29 Darnoth has joined
1986 2011-08-05 18:15:23 <TD> though i guess only large, reputable members of the community (eg, companies) would be able to use it
1987 2011-08-05 18:15:34 <TD> otherwise there's no way to be sure a given blacklisting is valid
1988 2011-08-05 18:15:57 <TD> you could sign with your old (useless) keys
1989 2011-08-05 18:16:19 DaQatz has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1990 2011-08-05 18:16:24 DaQatz has joined
1991 2011-08-05 18:16:29 <TD> but it seems like someone who stole your wallet could also "beat you to it". presumably there'd have to be a way to revoke the blacklisting, in case it was made in error
1992 2011-08-05 18:16:32 <TD> hard
1993 2011-08-05 18:17:36 RenaKunisaki has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1994 2011-08-05 18:20:15 <hippich_> guys, the whole idea of "blacklisting" is wrong.
1995 2011-08-05 18:20:24 <BlueMatt> heh
1996 2011-08-05 18:20:34 <BlueMatt> that isnt an argument
1997 2011-08-05 18:20:53 <hippich_> will you "blacklist" wedding ring for yoru fiance, 'cos 300 years ago someone killed someone else to steal gold used to produce this ring?
1998 2011-08-05 18:21:04 <hippich_> this is insane.
1999 2011-08-05 18:21:11 <hippich_> same about blacklisting "coins"
2000 2011-08-05 18:21:22 <BlueMatt> no, not the same thing
2001 2011-08-05 18:21:27 <TD> the point of blacklisting isn't to make the coins forever unusable
2002 2011-08-05 18:21:32 <mtrlt> i think they were referring to blacklisting the addresses
2003 2011-08-05 18:21:34 <TD> it's to make it harder to be a criminal
2004 2011-08-05 18:21:38 <mtrlt> not the coins, right?
2005 2011-08-05 18:21:49 <TD> when you try and spend stolen coins, people might stop and say, er, who are you again?
2006 2011-08-05 18:21:50 <mtrlt> or specific transaction outputs
2007 2011-08-05 18:21:57 <TD> so it's harder to avoid being caught
2008 2011-08-05 18:22:10 <TD> if/when the coins are reunited with their original owner, the blacklisting would be dropped.
2009 2011-08-05 18:22:18 <TD> that said, i don't see any good way to actually implement that in a reasonable manner
2010 2011-08-05 18:22:27 <TD> i doubt it will happen
2011 2011-08-05 18:22:27 <mtrlt> tainting coins like that would be retarded.
2012 2011-08-05 18:22:31 <hippich_> there are several problems with all this
2013 2011-08-05 18:22:45 <mtrlt> soon, every coin would be tainted
2014 2011-08-05 18:22:46 <hippich_> 1) what if someone traded legally something for these blacklisted bitcoins?
2015 2011-08-05 18:22:57 <hippich_> 2) how could you know who is "original" owner?
2016 2011-08-05 18:22:57 <mtrlt> because if only one input in a tx is tainted, the whole output should be.
2017 2011-08-05 18:22:58 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2018 2011-08-05 18:23:02 <mtrlt> otherwise it won't make sense.
2019 2011-08-05 18:23:15 <mtrlt> and this way it leads to everything being tainted.
2020 2011-08-05 18:23:20 <TD> yes, the taint would propagate until cancelled.
2021 2011-08-05 18:23:32 <mtrlt> TD: the propagation is retarded and i already explained why,
2022 2011-08-05 18:23:33 <mtrlt> .
2023 2011-08-05 18:23:51 <hippich_> guys... you need to create bitcreditcard and bitcreditcard processors to process cards and chargebacks and blacklist and whatever you want.
2024 2011-08-05 18:23:51 <TD> it doesn't result in every coin being tainted unless the taint lasts for ages (months+)
2025 2011-08-05 18:23:56 <TD> coins don't circulate that fast
2026 2011-08-05 18:23:58 <luke-jr> mtrlt: if you sent stolen coins back when they were identified, there'd be no way to taint others
2027 2011-08-05 18:23:58 _Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2028 2011-08-05 18:23:59 <hippich_> but bitcoins itself do not need this.
2029 2011-08-05 18:24:19 <mtrlt> luke-jr: why would i want to if i was not the thief?
2030 2011-08-05 18:24:24 <mtrlt> or even if i was the thief.
2031 2011-08-05 18:24:31 <BlueMatt> is it just me, or did jason jones show a part of his sack on national tv?
2032 2011-08-05 18:24:35 <luke-jr> mtrlt: stolen goods should be returned
2033 2011-08-05 18:24:45 <mtrlt> luke-jr: who can verify that they were actually stolen?
2034 2011-08-05 18:25:05 <mtrlt> bitcoin-court?
2035 2011-08-05 18:25:07 <TD> exactly. that's why i said only taints from highly trusted people/companies make sense
2036 2011-08-05 18:25:12 <TD> and even then, probably not.
2037 2011-08-05 18:25:14 <mtrlt> i trust no-one
2038 2011-08-05 18:25:24 <hippich_> i do not trust anyone of you too.
2039 2011-08-05 18:25:27 <TD> highly trusted companies, by definition, are unlikely to get their coins stolen
2040 2011-08-05 18:25:37 <TD> so it wouldn't be a very useful feature
2041 2011-08-05 18:25:44 <hippich_> and especialy i do not trust any "company"
2042 2011-08-05 18:25:50 <hippich_> at best company is a paper.
2043 2011-08-05 18:26:05 <BlueMatt> refusal to trust anyone just doesnt work...period
2044 2011-08-05 18:26:23 <copumpkin> if you live as a hermit on the top of a mountain
2045 2011-08-05 18:26:27 <copumpkin> I think it can be okay
2046 2011-08-05 18:26:27 <mtrlt> BlueMatt: who decides who's a highly trusted person?
2047 2011-08-05 18:26:35 <mtrlt> another highly trusted person? :P
2048 2011-08-05 18:26:36 <BlueMatt> you do
2049 2011-08-05 18:26:38 <mtrlt> or is it a democracy
2050 2011-08-05 18:26:51 <mtrlt> i already said i trust no-one
2051 2011-08-05 18:26:52 <BlueMatt> you can ignore their taints
2052 2011-08-05 18:26:57 <mtrlt> yes.
2053 2011-08-05 18:27:08 <copumpkin> lol
2054 2011-08-05 18:27:15 <hippich_> BlueMatt, i am not talking about general trust. i am talking about trusting some group of people to decide which coins are tainted and which are normal.
2055 2011-08-05 18:27:17 <mtrlt> but how would you propagate taint?
2056 2011-08-05 18:27:49 <mtrlt> or do you?
2057 2011-08-05 18:27:54 <BlueMatt> hippich_: what is a taint? its nothing chose to ignore them or not
2058 2011-08-05 18:28:26 <hippich_> yeah. just do not make it part of enforced network rules.
2059 2011-08-05 18:28:30 <mtrlt> yep
2060 2011-08-05 18:28:38 <TD> i don't think anyone was suggesting changing the rules
2061 2011-08-05 18:28:43 <phantomcircuit> lol transaction pruning is now totally necessary
2062 2011-08-05 18:28:46 <TD> i guess you could have privately run blacklists, downloaded by http
2063 2011-08-05 18:28:49 <mtrlt> BlueMatt: would you propagate taint?
2064 2011-08-05 18:28:56 <hippich_> and allow few guys to do "tainting" with "bitcoin-courts" =)
2065 2011-08-05 18:28:57 <phantomcircuit> i started out at block 134000~ about 3 hours ago and am only at 135k
2066 2011-08-05 18:28:58 <TD> so you decide you trust bitcoin-court.org or something
2067 2011-08-05 18:28:58 E-sense has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
2068 2011-08-05 18:29:19 <TD> phantomcircuit: you're probably connecting to lots of older nodes or dead nodes. what client ver?
2069 2011-08-05 18:29:28 E-sense has joined
2070 2011-08-05 18:29:35 <phantomcircuit> TD, git head
2071 2011-08-05 18:29:42 <phantomcircuit> it's on a shit netbook
2072 2011-08-05 18:29:54 <TD> ah
2073 2011-08-05 18:30:03 <phantomcircuit> but still it shouldn't be this slow
2074 2011-08-05 18:30:08 owowo has joined
2075 2011-08-05 18:30:55 <TD> what do the logs say/
2076 2011-08-05 18:32:25 chuck has quit (Changing host)
2077 2011-08-05 18:32:25 chuck has joined
2078 2011-08-05 18:32:30 <phantomcircuit> received: block (5149 bytes)
2079 2011-08-05 18:32:30 <phantomcircuit> received block 0000000000000731563e
2080 2011-08-05 18:32:30 <phantomcircuit> SetBestChain: new best=0000000000000731563e  height=135904  work=43016014307697696055
2081 2011-08-05 18:32:30 <phantomcircuit> ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
2082 2011-08-05 18:32:34 <phantomcircuit> just really slowly
2083 2011-08-05 18:32:51 <phantomcircuit> im not getting junk data or anything
2084 2011-08-05 18:32:56 <TD> ok. so yeah your machine is just teh suck :)
2085 2011-08-05 18:33:30 <phantomcircuit> yes
2086 2011-08-05 18:33:49 <phantomcircuit> but then stuff happens like processing blocks stops for AddAddress
2087 2011-08-05 18:33:52 <phantomcircuit> which is just stupid
2088 2011-08-05 18:33:59 <TD> is there a way to stop the client advertising itself via addr?
2089 2011-08-05 18:34:12 <TD> i'd like to run a node that connects to the network but keeps all its listening slots empty unless something specifically talks to it
2090 2011-08-05 18:34:29 <TD> so bitcoinj mobile clients can get good connectivity quickly, at least until more users are upgraded and listening
2091 2011-08-05 18:34:53 <phantomcircuit> yes there is one sec
2092 2011-08-05 18:35:07 <BlueMatt> what does nolisten do there?
2093 2011-08-05 18:35:23 <phantomcircuit> stops from listening entirely
2094 2011-08-05 18:35:39 Firefly007 has joined
2095 2011-08-05 18:35:39 <BlueMatt> yes but how does it not propagate is my point
2096 2011-08-05 18:35:43 <jrmithdobbs> still sends addr i think
2097 2011-08-05 18:35:48 <BlueMatt> ah
2098 2011-08-05 18:36:07 <TD> doh
2099 2011-08-05 18:36:08 pumpkin has joined
2100 2011-08-05 18:36:08 <phantomcircuit> TD, actually you cant currently
2101 2011-08-05 18:36:15 <TD> ok, that's what i thought. just wanted to double check
2102 2011-08-05 18:36:16 <phantomcircuit> TD, i can hack that together for you if you'd like
2103 2011-08-05 18:36:18 <BlueMatt> Also, dont other nodes forward your addr anyway
2104 2011-08-05 18:36:19 <TD> it's alright
2105 2011-08-05 18:36:21 <TD> i'll do it
2106 2011-08-05 18:36:21 <phantomcircuit> should be easy enough
2107 2011-08-05 18:36:22 <TD> oh
2108 2011-08-05 18:36:26 toffoo has quit ()
2109 2011-08-05 18:36:30 <TD> right. i have a feeling BlueMatt might be right
2110 2011-08-05 18:36:36 <TD> need to check exactly how this mechanism works
2111 2011-08-05 18:36:47 <TD> i guess i could have it listen on a different port or something awfully hacky like that
2112 2011-08-05 18:37:36 <phantomcircuit> i believe he's wrong actually
2113 2011-08-05 18:37:38 <phantomcircuit> but ill look
2114 2011-08-05 18:38:10 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2115 2011-08-05 18:38:16 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
2116 2011-08-05 18:38:27 <BlueMatt> you could unset NODE_NETWORK and maybe you wouldnt get any connections
2117 2011-08-05 18:40:30 RenaKunisaki has joined
2118 2011-08-05 18:40:44 <TD> hmmm
2119 2011-08-05 18:41:31 erle- has joined
2120 2011-08-05 18:41:38 hippich_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2121 2011-08-05 18:41:48 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, pnSeed is all of the seed nodes right?
2122 2011-08-05 18:44:23 coderrr is now known as coderrr`brb
2123 2011-08-05 18:44:31 <TD> i wonder why satoshi chose to verify every block all the way back to the genesis node on startup
2124 2011-08-05 18:45:06 <phantomcircuit> TD, there are 2 things you need to deal with to keep people from connecting to you
2125 2011-08-05 18:45:27 <phantomcircuit> first main.cpp:1845 if you have a routeable ip it will push your address to the other node
2126 2011-08-05 18:45:44 <phantomcircuit> that's it
2127 2011-08-05 18:45:46 <phantomcircuit> shazam
2128 2011-08-05 18:45:54 phatsphere has joined
2129 2011-08-05 18:46:01 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: those are old and are worthless
2130 2011-08-05 18:46:04 <BlueMatt> dnsseed is used first
2131 2011-08-05 18:46:09 <phantomcircuit> unless something is doing something weird
2132 2011-08-05 18:46:24 <phantomcircuit> like editing the map without using AddAddress
2133 2011-08-05 18:46:25 <BlueMatt> TD: why are bitcoinj nodes having such problems, regular 0.3.24 nodes get a couple connections within seconds, usually
2134 2011-08-05 18:46:30 <BlueMatt> (without an addr.dat)
2135 2011-08-05 18:46:43 <TD> phantomcircuit: i think bluematt is right, if NODE_NETWORK is not set, it won't be announced
2136 2011-08-05 18:46:48 Burgundy has joined
2137 2011-08-05 18:46:55 <TD> BlueMatt: bitcoinj currently only uses dns seeds and nothing else
2138 2011-08-05 18:46:56 <BlueMatt> I think it will be, but no one will try to connect
2139 2011-08-05 18:47:03 <TD> sorry, right
2140 2011-08-05 18:47:04 <TD> that's what i meant
2141 2011-08-05 18:47:09 <TD> trying to do too much at once
2142 2011-08-05 18:47:14 <BlueMatt> that is where bitcoin regular gets most of its clients
2143 2011-08-05 18:47:31 <TD> i think 0.3.24 benefits from multiple sources simultaneously. i'd need to time it.
2144 2011-08-05 18:47:36 <TD> honestly i haven't seen it having huge problems myself
2145 2011-08-05 18:47:39 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
2146 2011-08-05 18:47:43 <TD> but startup time is critical in mobile apps
2147 2011-08-05 18:47:45 <BlueMatt> -noirc still gets connections very quickly
2148 2011-08-05 18:47:53 <TD> ok. maybe i'm barking up the wrong tree.
2149 2011-08-05 18:47:53 <phantomcircuit> TD, yes but then bitcoinj would be treating a non client as a client which is odd
2150 2011-08-05 18:48:08 markus_wanner has quit (Quit: leaving)
2151 2011-08-05 18:48:33 pogden has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2152 2011-08-05 18:49:09 <BlueMatt> I get two connections within 10 seconds
2153 2011-08-05 18:49:25 owowo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2154 2011-08-05 18:49:26 <BlueMatt> after that it starts pulling from addr messages and slows down terribly
2155 2011-08-05 18:49:33 d4de has joined
2156 2011-08-05 18:49:33 d4de has quit (Changing host)
2157 2011-08-05 18:49:34 d4de has joined
2158 2011-08-05 18:50:15 owowo has joined
2159 2011-08-05 18:50:43 <BlueMatt> though I think its trying dnsseed.bluematt.me before the other ones, which might be helping
2160 2011-08-05 18:51:53 <TD> yeah, we do that too. i think it may just be variable, i tried the android wallet again and this time it was full after maybe 10 seconds
2161 2011-08-05 18:52:02 <TD> oddly, i'm seeing a lot of repeated blocks on my desktop client (c++)
2162 2011-08-05 18:52:09 <TD> not sure why nodes are pushing blocks to me i already have
2163 2011-08-05 18:52:15 <BlueMatt> pushing?
2164 2011-08-05 18:52:25 <BlueMatt> those are not normal nodes
2165 2011-08-05 18:52:36 <BlueMatt> normal nodes should never push if you already have it...
2166 2011-08-05 18:52:42 <jrmithdobbs> UukGoblin: you know if minsky has actually given that preso yet and if it was recorded?
2167 2011-08-05 18:52:44 <TD> yeah. i don'tg get it.
2168 2011-08-05 18:52:58 <TD> i'm seeing lots of ERROR: ProcessBlock(): already have block
2169 2011-08-05 18:53:08 <TD> i wonder if it's somehow trying to download the chain from two nodes in parallel
2170 2011-08-05 18:53:31 <jrmithdobbs> sounds plausible
2171 2011-08-05 18:53:47 <BlueMatt> maybe, or nodes are just being thick and sending for no reason
2172 2011-08-05 18:53:55 karnac has joined
2173 2011-08-05 18:54:50 ewal-otg has joined
2174 2011-08-05 18:55:21 <TD> yeah maybe a bad node. i restarted and don't see it anymore
2175 2011-08-05 18:57:34 karnac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2176 2011-08-05 18:57:40 karnac has joined
2177 2011-08-05 19:00:45 <TD> right, restarted my server node with -maxconnections=1000
2178 2011-08-05 19:00:53 <BlueMatt> oh god
2179 2011-08-05 19:02:23 <TD> heh
2180 2011-08-05 19:04:01 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2181 2011-08-05 19:05:07 <phantomcircuit> TD, hope you have 10GB of ram
2182 2011-08-05 19:05:26 <TD> i'm watching the memory usage quite carefully
2183 2011-08-05 19:05:40 <TD> so far i think 10G seems unnecessarily pessimistic
2184 2011-08-05 19:05:51 <TD> i'm more worried about io
2185 2011-08-05 19:05:59 <BlueMatt> its fud like that that pisses me off
2186 2011-08-05 19:06:36 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: i run a 512 maxconn node with 4GB (that isn't even all addressable by bitcoin since 32bit) without issue
2187 2011-08-05 19:06:37 <BlueMatt> theoretical maximum memory usage and telling people it will use that much is just fucking stupid
2188 2011-08-05 19:06:39 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
2189 2011-08-05 19:06:58 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: the block chunking stuff sipa did basically makes that maximum completely theorhetical
2190 2011-08-05 19:07:10 <jrmithdobbs> since that's the *only* portion of the code that'll ever consume that much
2191 2011-08-05 19:09:33 tny000 has joined
2192 2011-08-05 19:10:03 <tny000> anyone who wants to buy bitchat,org ?
2193 2011-08-05 19:10:10 <jrmithdobbs> no go away
2194 2011-08-05 19:10:30 <tny000> lol
2195 2011-08-05 19:10:32 <tny000> fu
2196 2011-08-05 19:11:19 zeropointo has joined
2197 2011-08-05 19:12:53 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, that only works if nobody tries to attack you the max buffer size is 10MB
2198 2011-08-05 19:13:10 <phantomcircuit> and actually if you rapidly connect/request you can cause spikes > 10MB
2199 2011-08-05 19:13:47 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: i'm aware, but what could actually be requested that would generate +\- 10MB besides blocks ?
2200 2011-08-05 19:14:01 <TD> ok, capping it at 600. i need a better vps plan, get some more ram cheap
2201 2011-08-05 19:14:10 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, blocks xD
2202 2011-08-05 19:14:25 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: blocks are capped at 5MB now
2203 2011-08-05 19:14:53 <phantomcircuit> hmm
2204 2011-08-05 19:15:01 <phantomcircuit> let me see something
2205 2011-08-05 19:16:17 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2206 2011-08-05 19:16:52 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2207 2011-08-05 19:17:52 copumpkin has joined
2208 2011-08-05 19:20:00 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, incoming messages are processed in batches up to 0x10000
2209 2011-08-05 19:20:42 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, so
2210 2011-08-05 19:20:50 <jrmithdobbs> hmm, that's no good
2211 2011-08-05 19:20:54 <phantomcircuit> yeah
2212 2011-08-05 19:21:18 <jrmithdobbs> why is it that big when the protocol defines the biggest batch as 500 anyways
2213 2011-08-05 19:21:18 <phantomcircuit> you can trivially top over
2214 2011-08-05 19:21:21 <jrmithdobbs> ugh
2215 2011-08-05 19:21:40 <BlueMatt> my point was: the network code can be exploited so that it keeps a lot of in memory, but saying that it is even remotely reasonable for that to happen in regular use atm is just fucking stupid
2216 2011-08-05 19:21:42 <phantomcircuit> lol someoen didn't trust the os?
2217 2011-08-05 19:21:52 <BlueMatt> a lot being 10MB per connection
2218 2011-08-05 19:21:59 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, would you like an example? :P
2219 2011-08-05 19:22:11 <BlueMatt> can you not read?
2220 2011-08-05 19:22:12 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: he just proved it could
2221 2011-08-05 19:22:20 <BlueMatt> can neither of you read?
2222 2011-08-05 19:22:26 <phantomcircuit> yes if there are no malicious people it's all good
2223 2011-08-05 19:22:42 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: unless "regular" use to you doesn't include any malicious intent in an environment full of malicious intent
2224 2011-08-05 19:22:42 <BlueMatt> never said that
2225 2011-08-05 19:23:07 pipo has joined
2226 2011-08-05 19:23:23 <BlueMatt> first of all, how many of these have you seen? secondly, who doesnt have 250MB for 25 connections?
2227 2011-08-05 19:23:30 <BlueMatt> or even 1GB for 100 connections
2228 2011-08-05 19:23:32 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: that huge # of incoming messages should be an easy fix
2229 2011-08-05 19:23:54 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: add a pull req for it ;p
2230 2011-08-05 19:24:08 <BlueMatt> heh, like phantom will work on the satoshi client
2231 2011-08-05 19:24:26 <jrmithdobbs> he has before. and this is like a 2-3 line change
2232 2011-08-05 19:25:03 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2233 2011-08-05 19:25:34 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
2234 2011-08-05 19:25:42 <BlueMatt> no, he spends all his time spreading fud about the satoshi client and never any time fixing it anymore (he wants people to sign up to use his client instead)
2235 2011-08-05 19:25:54 <jrmithdobbs> um
2236 2011-08-05 19:25:55 karnac has joined
2237 2011-08-05 19:26:01 <jrmithdobbs> he doesn't have a complete client
2238 2011-08-05 19:26:01 <TD> i got up to about 600 connections with 512mb of ram until i got below 100mb free. it's not that intensive.
2239 2011-08-05 19:26:10 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: yea, thats why I dont get it
2240 2011-08-05 19:26:24 <BlueMatt> TD: thats why I said its fud
2241 2011-08-05 19:26:26 <jrmithdobbs> and you sure forgot his fix for non-blocking connectspretty quick.
2242 2011-08-05 19:26:29 <TD> yeah
2243 2011-08-05 19:26:54 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, actually i believe you can spike to unlimited memory usage if you send the individual tcp packets out of order such that recv gets a ton of getblocks commands all in one call
2244 2011-08-05 19:27:18 <BlueMatt> I suppose you also dont understand how tcp works
2245 2011-08-05 19:27:22 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it's not fud, a malicious party could take advantage of what he's talking about?!
2246 2011-08-05 19:27:33 <jrmithdobbs> just because "good" clients wont trigger it doesn't mean anything
2247 2011-08-05 19:27:55 <BlueMatt> a. could being a key word here and b. again if you cant spare 10MB ram...wtf are you running bitcoin on?
2248 2011-08-05 19:28:36 <jrmithdobbs> you know you're the only person that defends this cod awful net code right?
2249 2011-08-05 19:28:49 <BlueMatt> oh, I agree its not well-written
2250 2011-08-05 19:28:53 <BlueMatt> I agree it could be redone
2251 2011-08-05 19:29:01 <BlueMatt> but that doesnt excuse the shit phantomcircuit says
2252 2011-08-05 19:29:21 <jrmithdobbs> sipa / jeff have said many times that *this specific* portion of the code is a horrible clusterfuck
2253 2011-08-05 19:29:27 <BlueMatt> as have I
2254 2011-08-05 19:29:38 Firefly007 has joined
2255 2011-08-05 19:29:38 <jrmithdobbs> it's not fud
2256 2011-08-05 19:29:43 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, how about i stop developing and instead spend my time attacking? im 100% certain i could shut down the network with a few days dedicated effort
2257 2011-08-05 19:29:53 <phantomcircuit> oh wait no?
2258 2011-08-05 19:29:55 <phantomcircuit> ok then
2259 2011-08-05 19:29:56 <jrmithdobbs> he's absolutely right, to avoid DOS you really need that much ram
2260 2011-08-05 19:30:09 <BlueMatt> 100GB? yea thats bullshit
2261 2011-08-05 19:30:18 <jrmithdobbs> he said 10
2262 2011-08-05 19:30:20 <jrmithdobbs> can't read?
2263 2011-08-05 19:30:23 <TD> chill dudes
2264 2011-08-05 19:30:26 <BlueMatt> excuse me 10
2265 2011-08-05 19:30:28 <BlueMatt> still bullshit
2266 2011-08-05 19:30:28 <Milbo> hmmm I doubt taht
2267 2011-08-05 19:30:32 <copumpkin> people are so unpleasant here :P
2268 2011-08-05 19:30:34 <phantomcircuit> also i would like to revise my previous statement
2269 2011-08-05 19:30:39 * copumpkin runs back to his friendly IRC channels
2270 2011-08-05 19:30:48 <TheZimm> copumpkin :O
2271 2011-08-05 19:30:50 <jrmithdobbs> no, looking at the code, it's right, if not a bit CONSERVATIVE for 1000 maxconns
2272 2011-08-05 19:30:52 <phantomcircuit> a low level attack could force an allocation of nearly unlimited memory
2273 2011-08-05 19:30:54 <TheZimm> its you!
2274 2011-08-05 19:30:56 <Milbo> Does someone knows here DC++? Long time ago I was in a hubwar with some swedish hubs, the big udg network
2275 2011-08-05 19:31:01 <copumpkin> TheZimm: indeed!
2276 2011-08-05 19:31:04 <copumpkin> 'tis I
2277 2011-08-05 19:31:26 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: more fud? or care to back that one up?
2278 2011-08-05 19:31:33 <Milbo> They attacked our server which was running on a 486 with turbo linux, we were even able to use teamspeak2 while they attacked us.
2279 2011-08-05 19:31:46 <phantomcircuit> the order in which incoming data is processed is as such
2280 2011-08-05 19:32:03 <Milbo> The trick was using deny and not reject, then you can handle DDOS with lesser RAM
2281 2011-08-05 19:32:03 <TD> there are probably lots of ways to do that
2282 2011-08-05 19:32:14 <jrmithdobbs> you sure you could actually (not theorhetically) do that though?
2283 2011-08-05 19:32:16 <TD> bitcoin is far from dos proof
2284 2011-08-05 19:32:31 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: you couldnt even theoretically do that
2285 2011-08-05 19:32:55 <BlueMatt> TD: never said it was, but phantomcircuit's comments are just bullshit for the sake of spreading fud
2286 2011-08-05 19:33:02 <Milbo> or do you mean attacks directly on the bitcoin client, which passed the firewall, hmm okrey sorry folks I was off topic, just noticd
2287 2011-08-05 19:33:16 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, the attack is sophisticated but would almost certainly work
2288 2011-08-05 19:33:33 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: explain because i'm not following you on this one
2289 2011-08-05 19:33:34 <BlueMatt> again, you havent backed anything up, you are just spouting fud
2290 2011-08-05 19:33:34 <phantomcircuit> incoming data is processed in this order
2291 2011-08-05 19:33:37 <Blitzboom> is 0.4 coming out anytime soon?
2292 2011-08-05 19:33:47 <TD> i don't think anyone is interested in spreading fud. it's just a technical disagreement
2293 2011-08-05 19:33:51 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, how about you chill out while i detail the attack?
2294 2011-08-05 19:33:54 <TD> it's easy to prove/disprove phantoms theory
2295 2011-08-05 19:34:16 <phantomcircuit> recv() attempts to fill the full 0x10000 buffer
2296 2011-08-05 19:34:20 <luke-jr> Milbo: fail
2297 2011-08-05 19:34:32 <phantomcircuit> which is then added to vRecv
2298 2011-08-05 19:34:40 <jrmithdobbs> wait, you're right
2299 2011-08-05 19:34:52 <jrmithdobbs> send every packet but the second then send the second packet
2300 2011-08-05 19:35:17 <Milbo> at least I noticed myself luke-jf
2301 2011-08-05 19:35:31 <jrmithdobbs> that's nasty
2302 2011-08-05 19:35:53 <Milbo> TD of course, spreading fud is the way todo cyberwar.
2303 2011-08-05 19:35:59 <edcba> :)
2304 2011-08-05 19:36:11 <phantomcircuit> if you can get recv() to contain a very large number of getblocks commands in one call you they will all be processed before the check if run to see if vSend is over the buffer limit
2305 2011-08-05 19:36:51 <phantomcircuit> but you know im just full of shit right?
2306 2011-08-05 19:37:28 <Milbo> hmm, can you check the size of an incoming packet and check that against vSend before actually processing it?
2307 2011-08-05 19:37:37 <phantomcircuit> flawless victory
2308 2011-08-05 19:37:38 <TD> it'd be neat to see a proof-of-concept implementation of that
2309 2011-08-05 19:38:07 <phantomcircuit> TD, would be hard as hell, you'd need to run the attack with raw sockets to force the out of ordering for the ip packets
2310 2011-08-05 19:38:09 <jrmithdobbs> it would, i'm wondering if there isn't something in common tcp stack impl that would prevent it from working
2311 2011-08-05 19:38:24 <jrmithdobbs> on the receiving end
2312 2011-08-05 19:38:52 <TD> well, it's probably best not to get too worked up about hard attacks that may or may not work
2313 2011-08-05 19:38:56 <Milbo> jrmithdobbs, that depens on the drivers,... it was a long time (and even is) possible to kick people out of the internet with a single ping command
2314 2011-08-05 19:39:03 <TD> whilst you can connect to any node and flood it with random transactions, exhausting its cpu ;)
2315 2011-08-05 19:39:11 <jrmithdobbs> Milbo: shut up, let the grown ups speak
2316 2011-08-05 19:39:49 <TD> guys
2317 2011-08-05 19:39:52 <TD> please chill out
2318 2011-08-05 19:39:58 <Milbo> you just set the ping higher than the RAM of the router.... people got crazy with me, I used a 486 fli4l linux router with 32 MB ram that time (most routers in that time had only 8MB)
2319 2011-08-05 19:40:00 <TD> #bitcoin-dev is not the forum
2320 2011-08-05 19:40:06 <Milbo> pff
2321 2011-08-05 19:40:22 <Milbo> I kicked out child porn guys out of the net already ten years ago
2322 2011-08-05 19:40:23 <phantomcircuit> TD, well i came up with another attack which is easier to implement but kind of annoying
2323 2011-08-05 19:40:48 <phantomcircuit> TD, you could prevent new entrants to the network fairly easily but keeping open a few million tcp connections is annoying
2324 2011-08-05 19:40:56 sytse has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2325 2011-08-05 19:41:01 <Milbo> and I did that. btw I was also the first guy who secured the inet servers of my university... hmm
2326 2011-08-05 19:41:16 <BlueMatt> Milbo: no seriously, shut up if you are going to say stupid shit like that
2327 2011-08-05 19:41:17 <jrmithdobbs> TD: or you know, just reconnect over and over again to the same node passing a different time offset;p
2328 2011-08-05 19:41:17 <Milbo> and I am a leader of a big project, lol adults?
2329 2011-08-05 19:41:19 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: wrong
2330 2011-08-05 19:41:22 <jrmithdobbs> TD: that one's fun
2331 2011-08-05 19:41:30 <Milbo> Why is it stupid shit?
2332 2011-08-05 19:41:38 sytse has joined
2333 2011-08-05 19:41:43 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: oh wait...one sec misread a line
2334 2011-08-05 19:41:46 <Milbo> you are talking about ddos attacks on bitcoin programs, right?
2335 2011-08-05 19:41:51 <Milbo> that was my hobby, lol.
2336 2011-08-05 19:41:56 <jrmithdobbs> Milbo: no
2337 2011-08-05 19:42:26 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, you also need to keep in mind that there is a fairly fast switching of execution between threads
2338 2011-08-05 19:42:39 Milbo has joined
2339 2011-08-05 19:43:21 <jrmithdobbs> especially if running on a real smp host
2340 2011-08-05 19:43:43 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: no, that wouldnt work, though Ill give you that it could eat a good chunk of ram...
2341 2011-08-05 19:43:56 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, this attack is very unlikely to ever happen with a small number of connections as the recv
2342 2011-08-05 19:44:00 <phantomcircuit> has a gap
2343 2011-08-05 19:44:02 <BlueMatt> firstly, the os has a limit on tcp out of order crap it will hold
2344 2011-08-05 19:44:11 tcoppi has joined
2345 2011-08-05 19:44:19 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, you can fit a lot of getblocks in that limit
2346 2011-08-05 19:44:39 <jrmithdobbs> really the only question is how many
2347 2011-08-05 19:44:53 <jrmithdobbs> and would it be enough to trigger a situation where the oom killer starts up
2348 2011-08-05 19:45:36 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: i'd be interested in seeing POC code. sounds fun ;p
2349 2011-08-05 19:47:48 huk has joined
2350 2011-08-05 19:48:56 <BlueMatt> yea, though as you pointed out, if the os switches threads quickly, which it will, you cant fill more than 10MB
2351 2011-08-05 19:49:06 <BlueMatt> or maybe you could fill slitghly more, but it would be really hard
2352 2011-08-05 19:49:37 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, the thread switching makes the attack easier nto harder
2353 2011-08-05 19:49:58 <phantomcircuit> because the locking prevents the check for > 10MB vSend from occuring for the entirety of the ProcessMessages call
2354 2011-08-05 19:50:02 <BlueMatt> no, the oversized vSend check is in a separate thread than the fill vSend thread
2355 2011-08-05 19:51:12 <BlueMatt> what locking?
2356 2011-08-05 19:51:14 <phantomcircuit> in fact if you did it concurrently with lots of connections you might be able to pull it off without re ordering the tcp stream
2357 2011-08-05 19:51:23 <phantomcircuit> TRY_CRITICAL_BLOCK(pnode->cs_vRecv)
2358 2011-08-05 19:51:55 <phantomcircuit> hmm wait
2359 2011-08-05 19:52:25 <BlueMatt> no, that would only be locked when you are waiting on a recv
2360 2011-08-05 19:52:35 <BlueMatt> but isnt locked anywhere in main.cpp
2361 2011-08-05 19:52:38 <phantomcircuit> yes yes i see
2362 2011-08-05 19:53:16 <BlueMatt> so...maybe possible to cause large mem usage but as reading from disk is slower than checking in the other thread anyway...
2363 2011-08-05 19:53:59 <phantomcircuit> std::vector::erase cannot possibly be thread safe...
2364 2011-08-05 19:54:10 <BlueMatt> ???
2365 2011-08-05 19:54:31 <BlueMatt> where?
2366 2011-08-05 19:54:48 <phantomcircuit> memcpy(&vRecv[nPos], pchBuf, nBytes);
2367 2011-08-05 19:54:56 pumpkin has joined
2368 2011-08-05 19:54:59 pumpkin has quit (Changing host)
2369 2011-08-05 19:54:59 pumpkin has joined
2370 2011-08-05 19:55:01 Firefly007 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2371 2011-08-05 19:55:09 <phantomcircuit> that is potentially running at the same time as vRecv.erase(vRecv.begin(), vRecv.end() - nHeaderSize);
2372 2011-08-05 19:55:53 Zarutian has joined
2373 2011-08-05 19:56:25 <BlueMatt> heh, well that might be
2374 2011-08-05 19:56:41 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2375 2011-08-05 19:57:06 denisx has joined
2376 2011-08-05 19:57:20 <BlueMatt> though its not that line that will kill it its vRecv.resize(nPos + nBytes);
2377 2011-08-05 19:57:27 <BlueMatt> and vRecv.erase(vRecv.begin(), vRecv.end() - nHeaderSize);
2378 2011-08-05 19:58:48 <BlueMatt> nope, that cant cause problems
2379 2011-08-05 19:58:54 <BlueMatt> though it could cause extra memory usage
2380 2011-08-05 19:59:46 <BlueMatt> but no more than you are eraseing
2381 2011-08-05 19:59:48 <BlueMatt> which isnt much
2382 2011-08-05 19:59:53 <BlueMatt> and it will be removed quick
2383 2011-08-05 20:00:57 <BlueMatt> so...so far youve given quite a few theoretical crap all of which wont work...
2384 2011-08-05 20:01:02 <BlueMatt> more and more and more fud
2385 2011-08-05 20:03:07 <phantomcircuit> if you tried often enough eventually you would hit the cs_vSend being locked trying to send stuff long enough that the oom killer would run before being acquired by the buffer send code
2386 2011-08-05 20:03:31 <phantomcircuit> not to mention that the send buffer cap is actually twice what it appears to be
2387 2011-08-05 20:03:32 <BlueMatt> where?
2388 2011-08-05 20:03:46 <BlueMatt> again, proof instead of blind statements?
2389 2011-08-05 20:03:47 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
2390 2011-08-05 20:04:18 <phantomcircuit> ThreadMessageHandler2
2391 2011-08-05 20:04:38 <phantomcircuit> locks cs_vRecv
2392 2011-08-05 20:04:42 <BlueMatt> that is the most non descriptive answer ever
2393 2011-08-05 20:04:44 <phantomcircuit> and cs_vSend
2394 2011-08-05 20:05:01 <phantomcircuit> net.cpp:1525 on HEAD
2395 2011-08-05 20:05:18 <phantomcircuit> locks cs_vSend then proceeds to call SendMessages
2396 2011-08-05 20:05:23 <phantomcircuit> which is potentially slow
2397 2011-08-05 20:05:49 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: why are you so adamant about calling everything he's saying fud, just because it's theorhetical doesn't mean anything. you're claiming to be able to read his mind
2398 2011-08-05 20:06:03 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: well so far everything he said has turned out to be wrong...so yes
2399 2011-08-05 20:06:07 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: did your gf leave you recently or something? you've been awful contrary about EVERYTHING lately
2400 2011-08-05 20:06:28 <phantomcircuit> bah i ahve to go back to paid work
2401 2011-08-05 20:06:56 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: so far all hes said has been wrong, so...yes I do have to call it fud when he says things like "YOU COULD MAKE IT EAT ALL YOUR MEMORY" and then its gone through and is just plain wrong
2402 2011-08-05 20:07:07 <BlueMatt> that is quite the definition of FUD
2403 2011-08-05 20:07:10 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: not everything he's said is wrong btw
2404 2011-08-05 20:07:24 <jrmithdobbs> or'd you ignore the part where the recv buffer is 0x1000?
2405 2011-08-05 20:07:24 <BlueMatt> the 10MB stuff is right yes
2406 2011-08-05 20:07:41 <TD> http://www.muditajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/arguing-on-internet.png
2407 2011-08-05 20:07:48 <jrmithdobbs> so his original comment re: 1000 connections = 10GB of ram was absolutely right
2408 2011-08-05 20:07:57 <BlueMatt> thats not why
2409 2011-08-05 20:08:08 <BlueMatt> also, recv buffer is 0x10000
2410 2011-08-05 20:08:47 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r178 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Wallet.java: Always close the FileOutputStream in Wallet.saveToFile(). Cleans up a FindBugs warning. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r178/
2411 2011-08-05 20:09:06 <BlueMatt> 1000 connection could be 10GB because max send buffer is 10MB per node, but to hit that is actually very, very hard
2412 2011-08-05 20:09:12 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, also the send buffer is actually variable based on network buffering
2413 2011-08-05 20:09:14 <phantomcircuit> which is lulz
2414 2011-08-05 20:09:45 <phantomcircuit> as vSend is erased by the amount send() was able to send before the check is done for being over sized
2415 2011-08-05 20:09:49 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i think we can all agree that the send buffer stuff is awful code that was poorly thought out and needs reworking, at least ;p
2416 2011-08-05 20:10:01 <phantomcircuit> so that protects against one class of attack without protecting against an oom killer spiking attack
2417 2011-08-05 20:10:10 <BlueMatt> phatsphere: no, SendBufferSize =  1000*GetArg("-maxsendbuffer", 10*1000);
2418 2011-08-05 20:10:14 <BlueMatt> which is not very varible
2419 2011-08-05 20:10:25 <Milbo> <@BlueMatt> 1000 connection could be 10GB because max send buffer is 10MB per node, but to hit that is actually very, very hard      easy for a serious attacker with a botnet
2420 2011-08-05 20:10:30 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, possibly you should read what i typed before responding?
2421 2011-08-05 20:11:16 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: I did, and from that I read maximum 10MB, not 10MB +
2422 2011-08-05 20:11:27 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2423 2011-08-05 20:11:38 <BlueMatt> Milbo: 1 connection != botnet, if you dont know what you are talking about, stfu
2424 2011-08-05 20:11:44 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, the setting is 10MB
2425 2011-08-05 20:11:52 <phantomcircuit> the reality is 10MB after send()
2426 2011-08-05 20:11:55 ThomasV has joined
2427 2011-08-05 20:12:05 <phantomcircuit> which means vSend can be spiked
2428 2011-08-05 20:12:10 Rabbit67890 has joined
2429 2011-08-05 20:12:15 <BlueMatt> not by much
2430 2011-08-05 20:12:28 <BlueMatt> in fact, by very, very little
2431 2011-08-05 20:12:38 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2432 2011-08-05 20:12:42 <Milbo> maybe you dont know how you can work with a botnet blue, maybe I know things you dont know. In ecommerce there exist people from russia forcing shops to pay them
2433 2011-08-05 20:12:45 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: btw that was the first thing milbo said that actually made sense
2434 2011-08-05 20:12:49 <Milbo> or they get attacked
2435 2011-08-05 20:13:11 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: no, he said its easy to hit 10MB on one connection if you have a botnet, that makes the opposite of sense
2436 2011-08-05 20:13:44 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: implying you initiate 1000 connections all performing the same action on their given connections
2437 2011-08-05 20:13:51 <BlueMatt> discussion MB per connection has absolutely nothing to do with number of connections,
2438 2011-08-05 20:13:55 <jrmithdobbs> that's how i read it, anyways
2439 2011-08-05 20:14:01 <BlueMatt> well I never said that was hard
2440 2011-08-05 20:14:06 <BlueMatt> (for a motivated attacker)
2441 2011-08-05 20:14:11 <Milbo> that is what I meant thanks jrmithdobbs
2442 2011-08-05 20:14:20 <BlueMatt> I said even for a motivated attacker hitting the 10MB per connection limit is fucking hard
2443 2011-08-05 20:14:37 <BlueMatt> which has nothing to do with botnets or number of connections
2444 2011-08-05 20:14:50 <phantomcircuit> well to be fair it would make it easier because you'd certainly need to fill all 120 connection slots to cause a significant memory spike
2445 2011-08-05 20:14:50 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: but even if you hit half that you'd exhaust mem on most nodes with maxconns set to high
2446 2011-08-05 20:14:53 <jrmithdobbs> was kind of the point
2447 2011-08-05 20:15:11 <phantomcircuit> also i've been downloading the block chain on this netbook for like 4 hours now
2448 2011-08-05 20:15:13 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: last I checked you could fill 120 connection slots from 1 ip
2449 2011-08-05 20:15:16 abragin has quit (Read error: No route to host)
2450 2011-08-05 20:15:21 <Rabbit67890> lol
2451 2011-08-05 20:15:32 <BlueMatt> (which is obviously a bug)
2452 2011-08-05 20:15:43 <phantomcircuit> great you can attack 1 person
2453 2011-08-05 20:16:04 <phantomcircuit> if you wanted to attack the entire network with this you'd be talking a million+ connections
2454 2011-08-05 20:16:47 <BlueMatt> yes and there a botnet clearly helps
2455 2011-08-05 20:17:05 <jrmithdobbs> a botnet even helps on the single host scenario
2456 2011-08-05 20:17:09 <BlueMatt> though you have claimed over and over again that you can do that with one box with a good connection
2457 2011-08-05 20:17:21 <BlueMatt> and you guys wonder why I call FUD on a lot that phantomcircuit says
2458 2011-08-05 20:17:26 <jrmithdobbs> seeing as 5MB*120connections is hard to pull off on some of the best internet links.
2459 2011-08-05 20:17:41 abragin has joined
2460 2011-08-05 20:17:41 abragin has quit (Changing host)
2461 2011-08-05 20:17:41 abragin has joined
2462 2011-08-05 20:17:44 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, you can but it is extremely challenging
2463 2011-08-05 20:18:39 <BlueMatt> ...
2464 2011-08-05 20:19:16 <phantomcircuit> actually my current issue with it is that im parsing addr messages
2465 2011-08-05 20:19:34 ewal-otg has joined
2466 2011-08-05 20:19:41 <BlueMatt> did the db txn stuff for addr messages make it into 0.3.24?
2467 2011-08-05 20:19:50 <phantomcircuit> if i was simply opening the connection sending version + getblocks (genesis,genesis+1) and then recv to the same buffer it would likely be much faster
2468 2011-08-05 20:19:59 <BlueMatt> as that should help a TON
2469 2011-08-05 20:20:01 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2470 2011-08-05 20:20:28 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,blocks
2471 2011-08-05 20:20:28 <gribble> 139758
2472 2011-08-05 20:20:37 <phantomcircuit> only 600 more to go
2473 2011-08-05 20:20:38 <phantomcircuit> sigh
2474 2011-08-05 20:21:07 ThomasV has joined
2475 2011-08-05 20:22:29 <BlueMatt> july 14, nope that didnt make it right?
2476 2011-08-05 20:23:16 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2477 2011-08-05 20:23:45 robblesz has joined
2478 2011-08-05 20:26:18 robblesz has quit (Client Quit)
2479 2011-08-05 20:26:45 robblesz has joined
2480 2011-08-05 20:27:09 Firefly007 has joined
2481 2011-08-05 20:27:34 blomqvist is now known as again
2482 2011-08-05 20:27:45 again is now known as blomqvist
2483 2011-08-05 20:28:22 Burgundy has joined
2484 2011-08-05 20:30:33 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r179 /trunk/ (14 files in 4 dirs): Remove the built-in copy of Bouncy Castle. Instead, make it a dependency in the Maven POM. Also include the shade plugin so the final JARs won't cause conflicts on Android. Resolves issue 42. Patch by Jonny Heggheim. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r179/
2485 2011-08-05 20:31:49 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2486 2011-08-05 20:32:26 <Diablo-D3> hrm
2487 2011-08-05 20:32:31 <Diablo-D3> I forget, whos doing bitcoinj
2488 2011-08-05 20:33:07 <TD> me
2489 2011-08-05 20:33:26 <Diablo-D3> TD: it WILL turn into an entire client, right?
2490 2011-08-05 20:33:33 <TD> lightweight client
2491 2011-08-05 20:33:48 <TD> bitcoinj is just a library. there is one guy doing a desktop wallet built on it, and another guy doing a mobile wallet
2492 2011-08-05 20:33:51 <TD> another two guys actually.
2493 2011-08-05 20:34:35 <luke-jr> but it's Java crap :P
2494 2011-08-05 20:34:39 <Diablo-D3> well, I need something for the pool end of shit
2495 2011-08-05 20:34:53 <Milbo> <- loves java forces people to write OO
2496 2011-08-05 20:35:16 <Diablo-D3> because proxying the actual getwork construction to a real bitcoin sucks dick
2497 2011-08-05 20:35:18 <luke-jr> people shouldn't be forced to write OO when OO is wrong
2498 2011-08-05 20:35:22 <TD> somebody has written a higher performance pool based on bitcoinj
2499 2011-08-05 20:35:25 <TD> it still needs bitcoind though
2500 2011-08-05 20:35:32 <TD> http://poolserverj.org/performance-testing/
2501 2011-08-05 20:35:37 <TD> but apparently it's faster than pushpool
2502 2011-08-05 20:35:52 <Diablo-D3> TD: hell, mines a shitload faster than pushpool
2503 2011-08-05 20:35:58 <luke-jr> that doesn't take much
2504 2011-08-05 20:36:00 <Diablo-D3> but I just wanna ditch bitcoind altogether
2505 2011-08-05 20:36:02 <luke-jr> not that pushpool is slow
2506 2011-08-05 20:36:28 <TD> ditching bitcoind isn't going to happen for a loooong time
2507 2011-08-05 20:36:47 <Diablo-D3> TD: damnit
2508 2011-08-05 20:36:53 <luke-jr> TD: fun, that page admits pushpool performs better ;p
2509 2011-08-05 20:37:17 <TD> luke-jr: where?
2510 2011-08-05 20:37:21 <BlueMatt> c vs java...wonder why
2511 2011-08-05 20:37:25 <TD> it says
2512 2011-08-05 20:37:28 <TD> In all but one of the tests poolserverj outperformed pushpool by a significant percentage.  In some of the more realistic tests in the order of 200-400% faster.
2513 2011-08-05 20:37:33 <luke-jr> "As you might expect in the raw throughput test pushpool performed better when poolserverj only used a single bitcoind."
2514 2011-08-05 20:37:54 <Milbo> OO is wrong? hmm I rewrote the last two years 160k lines of code procedural written to object orientated,.. the code has now 60k lines
2515 2011-08-05 20:37:56 <luke-jr> in other words, bitcoind is the bottleneck
2516 2011-08-05 20:38:01 <luke-jr> Milbo: OO is wrong sometimes.
2517 2011-08-05 20:38:07 <Milbo> and can more, easier to extend and so on.
2518 2011-08-05 20:38:19 <TD> PoolserverJ’s performance improved and eventually outperformed pushpool as concurrency increased and clearly there is a major benefit to using multiple bitcoin daemons to feed the server.
2519 2011-08-05 20:38:21 <TD> hmm, well whatever
2520 2011-08-05 20:38:26 * TD doesn't care about pooling that much
2521 2011-08-05 20:38:37 <TD> i don't think it uses bitcoinj for much beyond basic utility code anyway
2522 2011-08-05 20:38:38 <luke-jr> TD: that's a performance gain from /multiple bitcoind/, not from poolserverj
2523 2011-08-05 20:38:41 <BlueMatt> well it uses multiple bitcoind backends which is really cool
2524 2011-08-05 20:38:44 <Milbo> of course the part actually mining for exampel should not written OOP I asume.
2525 2011-08-05 20:40:14 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r180 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Transaction.java: Delete the unused/incomplete Transaction.verifyInput method. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r180/
2526 2011-08-05 20:40:41 <Diablo-D3> multiple bitcoind backends are REALLY broken
2527 2011-08-05 20:41:17 <b4epoche_> OO is crap, it's just there to help the feeble minded keep their code straight
2528 2011-08-05 20:41:26 CydeWeys has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2529 2011-08-05 20:41:35 samlander has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2530 2011-08-05 20:41:36 <luke-jr> b4epoche_: nah, OO has uses
2531 2011-08-05 20:41:39 <Diablo-D3> for people who think OO is crap: OO is a design pattern.
2532 2011-08-05 20:41:47 <Diablo-D3> thats like saying design patterns are crap
2533 2011-08-05 20:41:59 <Milbo> jepp
2534 2011-08-05 20:42:05 robblesz has quit (Quit: .)
2535 2011-08-05 20:42:22 <Diablo-D3> and yes, I've done significant OO in C. so go fuck yourself.
2536 2011-08-05 20:42:24 samlander has joined
2537 2011-08-05 20:43:19 <b4epoche_> you don't need OO for a good design pattern
2538 2011-08-05 20:43:42 <b4epoche_> anyway, I was just kidding…  but ultimately I think my statement is true
2539 2011-08-05 20:43:45 robblesz has joined
2540 2011-08-05 20:43:46 <Diablo-D3> b4epoche_: you are a troll.
2541 2011-08-05 20:43:50 robblesz has left ()
2542 2011-08-05 20:43:53 <Milbo> my objectives about that we call it KISS DRY REST CRUD http://buddylindsey.com/kiss-dry-restful-crud-ruby-on-rails-links/
2543 2011-08-05 20:44:24 <Milbo> lol jepp lets stop flaming about jokes of the other :-)
2544 2011-08-05 20:44:28 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r181 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java: Minor efficiency improvement: use entrySet() instead of keySet()+get(). Clears out a FindBugs warning. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r181/
2545 2011-08-05 20:44:33 <b4epoche_> and feeble-minded encompasses pretty much everyone anyway
2546 2011-08-05 20:44:34 <Diablo-D3> Milbo: people were doing kiss dry rest crud in perl long before ruby existed
2547 2011-08-05 20:44:52 <Diablo-D3> TD: findbugs?
2548 2011-08-05 20:44:56 <TD> yes
2549 2011-08-05 20:45:14 <Diablo-D3> whats that?
2550 2011-08-05 20:45:18 <Milbo> I just used the article of ruby, I started with C, C++ then CG (language to program nvidia shaders before cuda), now php and mysql, js and so
2551 2011-08-05 20:45:19 <TD> a static analysis tool for java
2552 2011-08-05 20:45:25 <Diablo-D3> TD: lint for java?
2553 2011-08-05 20:45:30 <TD> much more powerful than lint
2554 2011-08-05 20:45:30 <b4epoche_> but I stand behind my statement
2555 2011-08-05 20:45:35 <TD> but that's the basic concept, yes
2556 2011-08-05 20:45:37 <Diablo-D3> TD: eclipse integeration?
2557 2011-08-05 20:45:40 <Milbo> ahh and  I forgot, I wrote 3 years in java
2558 2011-08-05 20:45:46 <TD> sure. it's a very common tool in the java world. it's pretty good.
2559 2011-08-05 20:45:53 <Milbo> I never used ruby myself
2560 2011-08-05 20:45:55 <Diablo-D3> TD: hrm, might want
2561 2011-08-05 20:45:57 <TD> it doesn't just find bugs but also security problems, inefficient code, etc
2562 2011-08-05 20:46:02 <Diablo-D3> Milbo: ruby is an annoying pile of shit
2563 2011-08-05 20:46:08 <TD> http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/
2564 2011-08-05 20:46:12 RenaKunisaki has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2565 2011-08-05 20:46:36 <Milbo> Diablo-D3 [22:40:45] <Milbo> I never used ruby myself
2566 2011-08-05 20:46:39 RenaKunisaki has joined
2567 2011-08-05 20:46:49 <Diablo-D3> Milbo: yes, and Im filling in your gaps of knowledge
2568 2011-08-05 20:46:54 * b4epoche_ was just looking into Cg today...
2569 2011-08-05 20:46:56 <Milbo> lol
2570 2011-08-05 20:47:02 <Diablo-D3> Cg is pointless
2571 2011-08-05 20:47:11 <Milbo> CG is outdated,...
2572 2011-08-05 20:47:15 <Diablo-D3> if you're going to program stupidly, use HLSL instead
2573 2011-08-05 20:47:21 <Diablo-D3> if you actually want to get work done, use GLSL
2574 2011-08-05 20:47:31 <Milbo> I proved years ago the concept of GPGPU on a geforce 6800 with CG
2575 2011-08-05 20:47:38 <b4epoche_> noticed a Cg binary in DeathSpank and wondered what it was...
2576 2011-08-05 20:47:44 Bachfischer has joined
2577 2011-08-05 20:47:45 <Diablo-D3> Milbo: yeah, so did I on a radeon 9600
2578 2011-08-05 20:47:50 <Milbo> hahah
2579 2011-08-05 20:47:53 <Milbo> great
2580 2011-08-05 20:47:54 <Milbo> same time
2581 2011-08-05 20:48:00 <Diablo-D3> <-- author of DiabloMiner
2582 2011-08-05 20:48:07 <Milbo> You do not come from düsseldorf?
2583 2011-08-05 20:48:15 <Diablo-D3> no.
2584 2011-08-05 20:48:17 <Milbo> okey
2585 2011-08-05 20:48:31 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
2586 2011-08-05 20:48:31 <Milbo> some guy from düsseldorf is suspected that he took my work,...
2587 2011-08-05 20:48:35 <b4epoche_> yes, now that I know what it is, I completely agree
2588 2011-08-05 20:48:43 <Milbo> which is okey,.... he did not steal the code.
2589 2011-08-05 20:49:53 <Milbo> ahh that is the reason for you nick,, diablo-3d the 3d,
2590 2011-08-05 20:51:42 <Milbo> I think I should be next time an ATI card. nvidia is going too much in the direction of CPU (looks for me like that)
2591 2011-08-05 20:51:47 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r182 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/ (core/Peer.java store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java): Make a couple of inner classes static for efficiency, clears some FindBugs warnings. ... http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r182/
2592 2011-08-05 20:51:57 <Milbo> But I am a bit out of the graphic card stuff.
2593 2011-08-05 20:52:06 <Milbo> ah not be, buy
2594 2011-08-05 20:53:08 <Diablo-D3> findbugs would probably shit on DM
2595 2011-08-05 20:54:06 Firefly007 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2596 2011-08-05 20:54:14 * b4epoche_ wants to see PPU become common
2597 2011-08-05 20:55:05 eoss has joined
2598 2011-08-05 20:55:06 eoss has quit (Changing host)
2599 2011-08-05 20:55:06 eoss has joined
2600 2011-08-05 21:03:01 gjs278 has joined
2601 2011-08-05 21:04:59 Bachfischer has quit (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
2602 2011-08-05 21:05:50 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r183 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/ (5 files in 2 dirs): Clear out the remaining non-security related FindBugs warnings. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r183/
2603 2011-08-05 21:06:38 <lfm> b4epoche you mean ppu like on old cdc big iron?
2604 2011-08-05 21:07:35 noagendamarket has joined
2605 2011-08-05 21:07:51 <jrmithdobbs> Diablo-D3: absolutely shocked that a java fan boy hates ruby, SHOCKED i say
2606 2011-08-05 21:07:52 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
2607 2011-08-05 21:07:59 <Milbo> haha
2608 2011-08-05 21:08:07 <b4epoche_> now, like physics
2609 2011-08-05 21:08:10 <Milbo> flaamer  :-P
2610 2011-08-05 21:08:30 <lfm> ping b4epoche
2611 2011-08-05 21:08:34 <b4epoche_> s/now/no
2612 2011-08-05 21:09:04 <lfm> b4epoche oh physics is just gpu with floating point aint it?
2613 2011-08-05 21:09:29 Xunie has joined
2614 2011-08-05 21:09:47 <b4epoche_> yea
2615 2011-08-05 21:10:03 <jrmithdobbs> they're great at bignum math and stuff too aren't they?
2616 2011-08-05 21:10:36 <b4epoche_> I'd like to see some numerical integrators in silicon ;-)
2617 2011-08-05 21:10:49 <Milbo> dna computers
2618 2011-08-05 21:10:57 <b4epoche_> yea, and floating point
2619 2011-08-05 21:11:09 <jrmithdobbs> i just want to see some things like the vpn1401/1411 on modern busses, personally
2620 2011-08-05 21:11:22 <jrmithdobbs> and more commonly available hardware rngs ;p
2621 2011-08-05 21:11:54 <jrmithdobbs> there's better chips than those cards use but noone seems to put them on boards that'll work on commodity hardware
2622 2011-08-05 21:11:57 <jrmithdobbs> annoying.
2623 2011-08-05 21:11:58 <b4epoche_> I'm not really sure…  I haven't looked into them closely since they're rare.  PhysX or something I remember from a while back.
2624 2011-08-05 21:12:21 marf_away has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2625 2011-08-05 21:12:40 <lfm> be careful what you wish for then
2626 2011-08-05 21:12:51 <jrmithdobbs> ?
2627 2011-08-05 21:14:32 marf_away has joined
2628 2011-08-05 21:15:37 <Evious> How much money is the current BTC mining network worth?
2629 2011-08-05 21:15:56 <lfm> ;;totalbtc
2630 2011-08-05 21:15:56 <gribble> Error: "totalbtc" is not a valid command.
2631 2011-08-05 21:16:02 <lfm> ;;bc,totalbtc
2632 2011-08-05 21:16:02 <gribble> Error: "bc,totalbtc" is not a valid command.
2633 2011-08-05 21:16:07 <lfm> ;;bc,totalbc
2634 2011-08-05 21:16:08 <gribble> 6988200.00000000
2635 2011-08-05 21:16:14 <Evious> Knowing total mhash/s + cost of rigs in $/mhash/s.
2636 2011-08-05 21:16:26 <Evious> Nah, I meant the value of the hardware.
2637 2011-08-05 21:16:29 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: what'd you mean mby be careful what you wish for?
2638 2011-08-05 21:16:32 <lfm> cant know cost of rigs really
2639 2011-08-05 21:17:03 <jrmithdobbs> Evious: well, assume ~$1100 / TH/s for well built nodes (so really, bump that to closer to 1400-1800 because so many morons)
2640 2011-08-05 21:17:07 <jrmithdobbs> Evious: and do the math
2641 2011-08-05 21:17:16 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: b4e said he want to see more physics processors but then he admits he doesnt really know much about them.
2642 2011-08-05 21:17:21 <jrmithdobbs> Evious: plus power costs
2643 2011-08-05 21:17:32 <jrmithdobbs> Evious: that's usd
2644 2011-08-05 21:17:33 <Evious> ;;help
2645 2011-08-05 21:17:34 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
2646 2011-08-05 21:18:35 <b4epoche_> Evious:  seems like "Knowing total mhash/s + cost of rigs in $/mhash/s" gets you the answer
2647 2011-08-05 21:18:43 <jrmithdobbs> err MH/s not TH/s btw
2648 2011-08-05 21:18:54 <jrmithdobbs> and bitcoincharts estimates approx
2649 2011-08-05 21:19:02 <jrmithdobbs> 14.311TH/s right now
2650 2011-08-05 21:19:30 <lfm> est is usually difficulty * 2^32 hash/sec
2651 2011-08-05 21:19:34 <b4epoche_> lfm:  I know enough to know I want them
2652 2011-08-05 21:19:43 <jrmithdobbs> ~$ echo '14.311 * 1024 * 1700' | bc -l
2653 2011-08-05 21:19:43 <jrmithdobbs> 24912588.800
2654 2011-08-05 21:19:45 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•CVTTENBERC•ESSE•DELENDVM)
2655 2011-08-05 21:19:52 <jrmithdobbs> usd
2656 2011-08-05 21:20:15 <jrmithdobbs> not counting infrastructure like network/isp/power costs
2657 2011-08-05 21:20:24 <jrmithdobbs> or labor
2658 2011-08-05 21:20:27 <lfm> est is usually difficulty * 2^32 / 600 hash/sec
2659 2011-08-05 21:20:56 <jrmithdobbs> so like $25mil in usd with those factors in mind
2660 2011-08-05 21:21:01 <jrmithdobbs> worth of hardware
2661 2011-08-05 21:21:36 <Evious> That's... interesting.
2662 2011-08-05 21:21:47 <jrmithdobbs> some people gonna eat a lot of hardware costs if prices don't rebound ;p
2663 2011-08-05 21:22:46 larsivi has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2664 2011-08-05 21:23:19 <jrmithdobbs> Evious: actual cost is probably a little higher since it's known that people are using fpgas/asics and initial hardware investment on them is much higher.
2665 2011-08-05 21:23:30 <lfm> my hardware paid for itself long time ago. not so sure about power costs
2666 2011-08-05 21:23:53 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: ya but that can only be said for thet pre-1mil diff hardware
2667 2011-08-05 21:24:12 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: the vast majority of it on the network hasn't recouped at this point.
2668 2011-08-05 21:24:12 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
2669 2011-08-05 21:24:27 <b4epoche_> yea, I think I calc'd that rate needs to be at least $4/btc to cover 'average' power cost
2670 2011-08-05 21:24:35 <b4epoche_> Over 300 game titles have been created using the PhysX SDK for multiple platforms: PC, Mac OSX, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Tegra, and iOS. Here is a partial listing.
2671 2011-08-05 21:24:36 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2672 2011-08-05 21:24:40 <b4epoche_> iOS?
2673 2011-08-05 21:25:31 <b4epoche_> what iOS hardware has a PhysX capable GPU?
2674 2011-08-05 21:25:50 <Milbo> I think the prices will rise, when you look at the this day with almost crushing bonds
2675 2011-08-05 21:26:02 <Milbo> I mean the bitcoin value will rise
2676 2011-08-05 21:26:10 <ThomasV> crushing bonds ?
2677 2011-08-05 21:26:18 <Milbo> you did not read the news?
2678 2011-08-05 21:26:26 <ThomasV> no, url ?
2679 2011-08-05 21:26:40 <Milbo> they lost last week 2,4 trillion dollar
2680 2011-08-05 21:26:59 <ThomasV> oh, ok
2681 2011-08-05 21:27:16 <Milbo> gold is high as it never was before
2682 2011-08-05 21:28:48 Sylph2 has joined
2683 2011-08-05 21:29:00 flok has joined
2684 2011-08-05 21:29:11 Sylph2 has quit (Client Quit)
2685 2011-08-05 21:29:39 <Milbo> http://www.finanzen.net/index/Dow_Jones
2686 2011-08-05 21:29:46 pogden has joined
2687 2011-08-05 21:30:16 <Milbo> same to the german DAX due the debth problem of the euro,.. the yen is also week due the tsunami
2688 2011-08-05 21:30:29 <Milbo> people start to buy chinese yuang....
2689 2011-08-05 21:30:31 <b4epoche_> hmm…  looks like the PhysX stuff has come a long way since I last looked at it.  (Which I now realize was quite a few years ago.)
2690 2011-08-05 21:30:43 FractalUniverse has quit (Quit: Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org)
2691 2011-08-05 21:30:51 <Milbo> PhysX is bought by nvidia
2692 2011-08-05 21:30:59 <Milbo> and I said that 2 years before lol
2693 2011-08-05 21:31:26 <Milbo> Because my chief in fraunhofer said that graphiccards have too many limits,  I said him that will change
2694 2011-08-05 21:31:48 <Milbo> and then he said, they will use physx and I said nvidia is 50 times bigger and will just buy them.
2695 2011-08-05 21:32:03 <Milbo> and ATI was not bought by AMD that time, so they had not the money...
2696 2011-08-05 21:32:10 <Milbo> and 2 yeras later nvidia bought pyhsx
2697 2011-08-05 21:32:29 robblesz has joined
2698 2011-08-05 21:33:17 <Milbo> the problem with the yuang is that the chinese want to fix the rate for it.... so that they can export cheap.... this effect takes the money from the inner market to the international
2699 2011-08-05 21:33:34 <Milbo> and the chinese normal citizen ahs less  money,.. so they will crash also lol...
2700 2011-08-05 21:34:13 <Milbo> The only thing except gold and silver is bitcoins,... so YOU hold the future, that is my conviction
2701 2011-08-05 21:35:10 <Milbo> We need bitcoins then like an international currency as the ECU was before in europe. imho
2702 2011-08-05 21:35:38 <Eliel> I agree
2703 2011-08-05 21:36:23 <lfm> ecu != euro?
2704 2011-08-05 21:36:48 <Milbo> ECU was a currency just for b2b,... no coins,.. euro is the ecu with real coins.
2705 2011-08-05 21:37:25 <Milbo> or hmm yeah it was kind of .... we print the ECU now, lets call it euro
2706 2011-08-05 21:37:28 <jandd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Currency_Unit
2707 2011-08-05 21:38:08 <Milbo> jepp, being replaced by parity,.. I thought also a long time ago it is the same, but it was not
2708 2011-08-05 21:39:07 <Milbo> the ecu made very stable system.... it was quite perfect.... it was a common currency powered by all states,... but every state was able to devalue his currency without harming the others
2709 2011-08-05 21:39:18 <Milbo> state = country
2710 2011-08-05 21:42:29 samlander has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2711 2011-08-05 21:42:38 Titeuf_87 has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2712 2011-08-05 21:45:13 <makomk> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/2752058d360a55ed6d99717efdf13299f098d16d663492f138893fe82f172ddb - wtf?
2713 2011-08-05 21:45:48 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2714 2011-08-05 21:46:01 shLONG has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2715 2011-08-05 21:46:58 E-sense has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2716 2011-08-05 21:47:04 nemesis51 is now known as nemesis51|away
2717 2011-08-05 21:47:19 <makomk> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1MaZAHzEFfinRJ2dwK6YtNDfvWMBkiAxDr - those send addresses look odd in general...
2718 2011-08-05 21:49:33 RenaKunisaki has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2719 2011-08-05 21:50:13 Tracker- has joined
2720 2011-08-05 21:51:36 <lfm> related to --- strings -n 20 ~/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat
2721 2011-08-05 21:52:24 nhodges has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2722 2011-08-05 21:52:38 Tracker has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2723 2011-08-05 21:53:01 <gmaxwell> more of that garbage?
2724 2011-08-05 21:53:02 <gmaxwell> ugh.
2725 2011-08-05 21:53:57 <makomk> lfm: no, I know which transaction Dan Kaminski use for that
2726 2011-08-05 21:54:06 <makomk> Used, ven.
2727 2011-08-05 21:54:39 <makomk> It looks like someone's been doing this every day or so for the past month...
2728 2011-08-05 21:54:58 <gmaxwell> makomk: yea, I was bitching in here a month ago one one of these showed up.
2729 2011-08-05 21:56:27 erus` has joined
2730 2011-08-05 21:57:30 copumpkin has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
2731 2011-08-05 22:03:39 <Diablo-D3> [05:02:40] <jrmithdobbs> Diablo-D3: absolutely shocked that a java fan boy hates ruby, SHOCKED i say
2732 2011-08-05 22:03:47 <Diablo-D3> but since when was I a java fanboy
2733 2011-08-05 22:05:02 <asm> Diablo-D3: I noticed my performance drop a bit with the latest release
2734 2011-08-05 22:05:22 <asm> well, hrm I take that back
2735 2011-08-05 22:05:24 zeropointo has quit (Quit: leaving)
2736 2011-08-05 22:05:28 <asm> it seems to take longer to settle
2737 2011-08-05 22:05:45 <asm> did you change the size of the average windows or something?
2738 2011-08-05 22:05:55 AStove has quit ()
2739 2011-08-05 22:06:16 <Diablo-D3> asm: no
2740 2011-08-05 22:07:12 <asm> well, looking at my graph, there might actually be a perf decrease
2741 2011-08-05 22:07:34 suriv_ has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2742 2011-08-05 22:07:52 <Diablo-D3> asm: Ive changing nothing relating to that
2743 2011-08-05 22:07:59 <asm> hrm
2744 2011-08-05 22:08:02 <asm> I will a/b test
2745 2011-08-05 22:08:17 <Diablo-D3> what was your previous version? awhile back?
2746 2011-08-05 22:09:36 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: care to sanity check something really quick?
2747 2011-08-05 22:09:45 ewal-otg has quit (Quit: ewal-otg)
2748 2011-08-05 22:10:05 Fant has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2749 2011-08-05 22:12:03 <asm> Diablo-D3: let me check
2750 2011-08-05 22:12:26 kartmetal has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2751 2011-08-05 22:12:31 Tracker has joined
2752 2011-08-05 22:13:37 <asm> hrm, how do I get the version?
2753 2011-08-05 22:13:57 kartmetal has joined
2754 2011-08-05 22:14:49 Tracker- has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2755 2011-08-05 22:14:53 <Diablo-D3> asm: you cant.
2756 2011-08-05 22:15:08 <asm> awesome
2757 2011-08-05 22:15:28 <asm> well, here's the date: 2011-06-11 08:58 DiabloMiner-Linux.sh
2758 2011-08-05 22:15:35 abragin has quit ()
2759 2011-08-05 22:16:05 <asm> 2011-07-04 07:32 DiabloMiner.jar
2760 2011-08-05 22:16:07 <Diablo-D3> how slow of a speed decrease are we talking?
2761 2011-08-05 22:16:19 <asm> about 50Mh/s
2762 2011-08-05 22:16:27 <Diablo-D3> from what?
2763 2011-08-05 22:16:34 <asm> from 620
2764 2011-08-05 22:16:40 <asm> not huge
2765 2011-08-05 22:16:58 <asm> I'll let it run for a bit and then link you to the graphs
2766 2011-08-05 22:17:58 <Diablo-D3> what pool?
2767 2011-08-05 22:18:03 suriv has joined
2768 2011-08-05 22:18:07 <asm> eligious
2769 2011-08-05 22:18:10 <asm> -o
2770 2011-08-05 22:18:24 <Diablo-D3> hrm, I wonder if luke turned off the dm detect code
2771 2011-08-05 22:18:29 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
2772 2011-08-05 22:19:01 <Diablo-D3> asm: but no, nothing Ive done in the past 2 months ago affect speed
2773 2011-08-05 22:19:09 <asm> ok, noted :)
2774 2011-08-05 22:19:14 <Prattler> I upgraded from some version from first half of july to august 4 and had -20% drop in hashrate for 6950 (memory at 300 MHz) with -v2 -w 256. Going to -v 124 returned the hashrate.
2775 2011-08-05 22:19:16 <Prattler> just so that you know
2776 2011-08-05 22:19:26 XRcode has joined
2777 2011-08-05 22:19:31 <asm> ah, interesting
2778 2011-08-05 22:19:35 <asm> I'll try that too
2779 2011-08-05 22:19:44 <Diablo-D3> if its post phatk-erization
2780 2011-08-05 22:19:48 <Diablo-D3> you have to change your -v and -w
2781 2011-08-05 22:20:05 <Diablo-D3> the optimums that you had may not be optimums for the new one
2782 2011-08-05 22:20:17 <Prattler> o yeah, that's what I had to do
2783 2011-08-05 22:20:38 copumpkin has joined
2784 2011-08-05 22:20:51 <Prattler> meant to say "Going to -w 128 returned the hashrate."
2785 2011-08-05 22:21:06 <Prattler> o yeah, I had to do 256->128 after the upgrade
2786 2011-08-05 22:21:08 <asm> I haven't changed anything other than updating dm
2787 2011-08-05 22:22:04 DukeOfURL has joined
2788 2011-08-05 22:24:03 pipo has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2789 2011-08-05 22:25:21 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2790 2011-08-05 22:26:08 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2791 2011-08-05 22:26:56 TheZimm has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2792 2011-08-05 22:32:45 Prattler has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2793 2011-08-05 22:33:37 RenaKunisaki has joined
2794 2011-08-05 22:34:04 ewal-otg has joined
2795 2011-08-05 22:36:41 Bachfischer has joined
2796 2011-08-05 22:41:03 Bachfischer has quit (Client Quit)
2797 2011-08-05 22:42:37 toffoo has joined
2798 2011-08-05 22:43:41 sgornick has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2799 2011-08-05 22:44:01 tny000 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2800 2011-08-05 22:48:12 aficiomaquinas has joined
2801 2011-08-05 22:48:44 zeropointo has joined
2802 2011-08-05 22:58:02 eian has joined
2803 2011-08-05 22:58:14 danbri has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2804 2011-08-05 23:01:20 GMP has joined
2805 2011-08-05 23:05:51 tower has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2806 2011-08-05 23:07:04 SISUbtcX has quit (Quit: SISUbtcX)
2807 2011-08-05 23:10:15 Astriks has quit (K-Lined)
2808 2011-08-05 23:10:42 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2809 2011-08-05 23:12:48 gjs278 has joined
2810 2011-08-05 23:13:42 gp5st has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2811 2011-08-05 23:16:17 <BlueMatt> can we split rpc.cpp now? I can compile everything but that on 256MB without using swap
2812 2011-08-05 23:18:27 phungus has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2813 2011-08-05 23:19:49 owowo has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2814 2011-08-05 23:24:41 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2815 2011-08-05 23:25:19 dr_win has joined
2816 2011-08-05 23:26:18 dr_win has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2817 2011-08-05 23:28:42 <m03sizlak> hey, ive launched a HTML5 bitcoin blackjack site, check it out  http://bitjack21.com
2818 2011-08-05 23:29:05 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yeah please do that 
2819 2011-08-05 23:29:42 <BlueMatt> m03sizlak: ok, can we stop the advertising now?
2820 2011-08-05 23:29:56 <m03sizlak> soon
2821 2011-08-05 23:30:29 <BlueMatt> this isnt the place, and that wasnt intended to be a question
2822 2011-08-05 23:31:52 sabrexx has joined
2823 2011-08-05 23:34:06 <shadders> luke-jr: you wrote "TD: that's a performance gain from /multiple bitcoind/, not from poolserverj"
2824 2011-08-05 23:36:30 <shadders> not true... With a single bitcoin daemon poolserverj still out performed pushpool by 360% for share submits and by 299% for getworks
2825 2011-08-05 23:38:16 phatsphere has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2826 2011-08-05 23:39:10 <shadders> The differences are architectural.  The fact that one is native and one is JIT doesn't really have much of an impact.  The way pools work they aren't really bound by raw CPU cycles
2827 2011-08-05 23:40:22 <BlueMatt> what are they bound by then?
2828 2011-08-05 23:45:37 tower has joined
2829 2011-08-05 23:46:11 aficiomaquinas has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2830 2011-08-05 23:47:14 HEx1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2831 2011-08-05 23:48:04 <shadders> latency between pool and daemon, database mostly
2832 2011-08-05 23:48:31 <shadders> also how effectively they handle high concurrency
2833 2011-08-05 23:49:13 <BlueMatt> how does poolserverj help that over pushpool?
2834 2011-08-05 23:50:42 XRcode has quit (Excess Flood)
2835 2011-08-05 23:50:55 XRcode has joined
2836 2011-08-05 23:51:00 <shadders> latency, adjusting num concurrent connections between them, psj caches work.  So it fills cache during low activity periods and serves from cache during activity spikes
2837 2011-08-05 23:51:28 <BlueMatt> ah, nice
2838 2011-08-05 23:51:46 <shadders> db, psj also caches here, collects shares in cache and flushes to db in chunks rather than one at a time...
2839 2011-08-05 23:53:43 <shadders> The only heavy lifting they really have to do is hashing a solution the validate it.
2840 2011-08-05 23:54:00 <shadders> *to validate it
2841 2011-08-05 23:54:58 asuk has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
2842 2011-08-05 23:55:10 pumpkin has joined
2843 2011-08-05 23:57:39 asuk has joined
2844 2011-08-05 23:59:03 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)