1 2012-06-16 00:00:14 egecko has joined
2 2012-06-16 00:02:38 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
3 2012-06-16 00:04:52 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
4 2012-06-16 00:15:16 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: jgarzik opened pull request 1471 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1471>
5 2012-06-16 00:15:30 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
6 2012-06-16 00:16:50 spq is now known as spq`
7 2012-06-16 00:16:55 spq` is now known as spq
8 2012-06-16 00:24:22 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
9 2012-06-16 00:25:21 wizkid057 has joined
10 2012-06-16 00:27:27 imsaguy has joined
11 2012-06-16 00:28:30 Turingi has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
12 2012-06-16 00:36:24 toffoo has quit ()
13 2012-06-16 00:38:12 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
14 2012-06-16 00:39:43 <sipa> gmaxwell: either I have bug, or i compressed the txout set data to 52 MiB :)
15 2012-06-16 00:40:51 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: grarpamp opened issue 1472 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1472>
16 2012-06-16 00:40:58 <luke-jr> O.O
17 2012-06-16 00:41:36 <luke-jr> ^ wtf?
18 2012-06-16 00:43:03 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
19 2012-06-16 00:44:50 <yellowhat> if you load that dataset into memory, how long does it take to filter it for a single address (brute-force without any indexing)
20 2012-06-16 00:45:28 <sipa> yellowhat: not long :)
21 2012-06-16 00:45:45 <yellowhat> 1 ms?
22 2012-06-16 00:45:47 gasteve has joined
23 2012-06-16 00:45:47 gasteve has quit (Changing host)
24 2012-06-16 00:45:47 gasteve has joined
25 2012-06-16 00:46:10 <sipa> it uses key compression for public keys, which means decompression for all spend-to-pubkey outputs
26 2012-06-16 00:46:14 <sipa> and that's slow
27 2012-06-16 00:47:38 <sipa> but if you only need spend-to-keyid, it'd be very fast
28 2012-06-16 00:57:35 egecko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
29 2012-06-16 00:58:59 <sipa> too, bad, i have bug
30 2012-06-16 00:59:06 <sipa> too bad, i have a bug
31 2012-06-16 00:59:20 <gmaxwell> too bad I, have a bug
32 2012-06-16 01:00:22 Nolybab has joined
33 2012-06-16 01:01:45 <sipa> ok, 68 MiB
34 2012-06-16 01:02:20 <gmaxwell> Are you only compressing pubkeys for that are are you also taking advantage of repeated txouts?
35 2012-06-16 01:02:54 <sipa> no inter-txout tricks
36 2012-06-16 01:04:42 <sipa> i think i should define a special case for txouts with amount = 50.00000000 BTC
37 2012-06-16 01:08:53 <sipa> after piping it through lzma --best: 46 MiB
38 2012-06-16 01:09:17 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
39 2012-06-16 01:09:25 <Nolybab> i read an interesting article recently about some IP address that was having blocks granted with only a single transaction listed in the block
40 2012-06-16 01:09:55 imsaguy has joined
41 2012-06-16 01:11:00 <Nolybab> anyone know anything about that?
42 2012-06-16 01:14:58 <sipa> ok, final result: 42.8 MiB
43 2012-06-16 01:15:17 <Nolybab> another question perhaps: when a 'coin' is created, please confirm, it's not really a coin at all (no serial number, etc), just an amount that correlates to an account...if one sends BTC it's just transferring value from one account to another, as opposed to transfering a coin 'or portion' thereof, correct?
44 2012-06-16 01:15:31 <sipa> Nolybab: no, wrong
45 2012-06-16 01:15:54 <Nolybab> so an actual 'coin' does exist?
46 2012-06-16 01:16:00 <sipa> Nolybab: bitcoin (at the protocol level) does not know about accounts or addresses, only "transaction outputs"
47 2012-06-16 01:16:18 <Nolybab> understood...
48 2012-06-16 01:16:30 <sipa> each transaction consumes outputs from a previous transaction (which is explicitly referred to), and produces new outputs
49 2012-06-16 01:16:46 <sipa> these outputs are abstract things, they are just defined by the transactions that create them
50 2012-06-16 01:16:54 <sipa> but they are tracked individually
51 2012-06-16 01:17:03 <sipa> and not per address they are assigned to
52 2012-06-16 01:17:31 <Nolybab> ok, that helps clarify
53 2012-06-16 01:18:37 <Nolybab> other than the code, are there any documents about bitcoin, such as architecture diagrams, etc?
54 2012-06-16 01:18:52 <Nolybab> sequence diagrams? use-case diagrams, etc?
55 2012-06-16 01:19:01 <sipa> hardly
56 2012-06-16 01:19:05 <gmaxwell> Nolybab: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pd
57 2012-06-16 01:19:11 <gmaxwell> er http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
58 2012-06-16 01:19:32 <Nolybab> i read that
59 2012-06-16 01:19:37 <Nolybab> MANY times :)
60 2012-06-16 01:19:46 <Nolybab> I read every work referenced by it
61 2012-06-16 01:19:53 <Nolybab> and every work referenced by every work
62 2012-06-16 01:20:14 <Nolybab> but thx gmaxwell
63 2012-06-16 01:22:39 <Nolybab> the only thing i haven't really dug into was the code
64 2012-06-16 01:22:46 <Nolybab> <<not a C expert
65 2012-06-16 01:23:22 rav3n_pl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
66 2012-06-16 01:23:52 bitcoinbulletin has joined
67 2012-06-16 01:25:04 <Nolybab> so another question about trx inputs/outputs, can they come from anywhere? this suggests that they cascade and stay separate. for instance, if i 'receive' .02 btc from A and .03 btc from B and then send .05 to C, there are two inputs and one output? and if C sends .06 btc to D then that would be at least 3 inputs?
68 2012-06-16 01:25:32 darkee has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
69 2012-06-16 01:25:32 darkee has joined
70 2012-06-16 01:25:50 <Nolybab> if you prefer, you can just tell me with src files to review
71 2012-06-16 01:26:48 <[Tycho]> If C sends to D then it will be 2 inputs and 1-2 outputs.
72 2012-06-16 01:27:01 <sipa> or more than 2 inputs, if necessary
73 2012-06-16 01:27:22 <sipa> but it will use the 0.05 coin received from C as one single input
74 2012-06-16 01:27:32 <galambo> bitcoin is not really a currency its a distributed file system containing an accounting database
75 2012-06-16 01:29:01 <sipa> hard to call it a filesystem imho, as it does not provide consistency
76 2012-06-16 01:29:21 <sipa> several nodes are allowed to have a different opinion about the state of the shared data
77 2012-06-16 01:29:38 <sipa> (though it's built in such a way that over time they are exponentially more likely to agree on the past)
78 2012-06-16 01:30:06 <Nolybab> technically, it's BerkleyDB (key-value datastore), and it's not technically a 'distributed' database as it's not sharded or technially a cluster, so much as full replicati
79 2012-06-16 01:30:08 <Nolybab> on
80 2012-06-16 01:30:37 <sipa> well, BDB is an implementation detail; i wasn't talking about that low level :)
81 2012-06-16 01:30:48 <galambo> oh, well thanks for the clarification...
82 2012-06-16 01:32:06 <Nolybab> here's another way for me to approach my question: if i have party A and B, who want to pay entity C, can they do so in a single transaction? (i'm not asking if any client allows it, i'm just asking if there's anything that technically prevents such a scenario?
83 2012-06-16 01:32:28 <Nolybab> i.e. can it be done without changing current data-structure
84 2012-06-16 01:32:37 <sipa> yes
85 2012-06-16 01:32:39 <galambo> the transactions are part of a scripting language, yes
86 2012-06-16 01:32:42 <sipa> that's possible in theory
87 2012-06-16 01:32:45 <Nolybab> cool
88 2012-06-16 01:32:55 <sipa> galambo: scripts have nothing to do with this, actually
89 2012-06-16 01:33:02 <sipa> though you are correct
90 2012-06-16 01:33:29 <galambo> i thought the multisign would be one of the operators im not very familiar with this bit of bitcoin yet
91 2012-06-16 01:33:50 <sipa> you can also send a coin to (A and B), meaning that both A and B must agree and sign the transaction to spend that coin
92 2012-06-16 01:33:59 <sipa> that does requires the scripting system
93 2012-06-16 01:34:10 <Nolybab> ok
94 2012-06-16 01:34:19 <Nolybab> what languge is scripting in?
95 2012-06-16 01:34:40 <sipa> very simple stack-based custom language
96 2012-06-16 01:34:55 <Nolybab> not in original release?
97 2012-06-16 01:34:57 BlueMatt has quit (Quit: Quit!)
98 2012-06-16 01:35:12 <galambo> yes actually it was from what i understand
99 2012-06-16 01:35:14 <sipa> it's been there forever
100 2012-06-16 01:35:23 <sipa> and it's always been part of the protocol
101 2012-06-16 01:35:26 <Nolybab> oh, ok
102 2012-06-16 01:35:53 <sipa> for "normal" transactions you also use it, but there are only 2 scripts actually created by the client for this
103 2012-06-16 01:37:02 AntKinGTube has joined
104 2012-06-16 01:38:12 <Nolybab> so, just to clarify, i can theoretically support situations where more than one party can pay into a transaction and pay out to more than one party?
105 2012-06-16 01:38:25 <Nolybab> all within a single transaction
106 2012-06-16 01:38:52 <sipa> yes
107 2012-06-16 01:39:04 <Nolybab> thats' what i wanted to confirm (at least one thing)
108 2012-06-16 01:39:14 <Nolybab> i guess i should have asked it that way to start with :D
109 2012-06-16 01:39:38 egecko has joined
110 2012-06-16 01:39:40 <Nolybab> now, about the other thing...did you see my earlier statement about the IP address that is generating only single-transactioblocks?
111 2012-06-16 01:40:01 <sipa> old news :)
112 2012-06-16 01:40:10 <Nolybab> well yeah, to you
113 2012-06-16 01:40:15 <Nolybab> i'm just curious how it resolved
114 2012-06-16 01:40:15 <sipa> supposedly a botnet
115 2012-06-16 01:40:23 <sipa> i assume it got shut down
116 2012-06-16 01:40:30 <Nolybab> but was the botnet getting 50 BTC for those blocks?
117 2012-06-16 01:40:54 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
118 2012-06-16 01:40:54 <sipa> yes
119 2012-06-16 01:40:59 <[Tycho]> What is wrong with this address ? 17FSKMPAyXGR7EQziCqbVfwleGumRosQoh
120 2012-06-16 01:41:03 <Nolybab> and there's been a patch, right?
121 2012-06-16 01:41:06 <sipa> no
122 2012-06-16 01:41:40 <sipa> there was talk about patches to 'protect' against such miners
123 2012-06-16 01:42:05 <Nolybab> hmmm
124 2012-06-16 01:42:17 <Nolybab> well, i think it's more serious than that
125 2012-06-16 01:42:53 <Nolybab> i care about bitcoin, which is why i'm talking to you guys first instead of satoshi-dice :) but i may just be stupid, but if i'm right, then i have to be careful
126 2012-06-16 01:42:57 <Nolybab> who i tell
127 2012-06-16 01:43:41 <Nolybab> already said too much (look like a loud mouth)
128 2012-06-16 01:43:51 <Nolybab> what do i know...just a newbie :)
129 2012-06-16 01:44:15 <Nolybab> since it's quiet, maybe you will entertain a few more thoughts...
130 2012-06-16 01:44:22 <Nolybab> ever hear of 'fractal transactions'
131 2012-06-16 01:44:49 <Nolybab> thomas frey coined the term, but everyone today just calls them split-transactions or similar type terms
132 2012-06-16 01:45:04 <Nolybab> bitcoin is a perfect example of such a system, though its not really being used that way right now
133 2012-06-16 01:46:56 <Nolybab> anyway...i've been 'working' on fractal transactions now for going on 6 years, i'll write a white-paper ;)
134 2012-06-16 01:48:27 osmosis has joined
135 2012-06-16 01:48:33 da2ce728 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
136 2012-06-16 01:48:42 <Nolybab> in any case, just wanted to say that i see things converging...and you all are coming up to a crossroads, and something tells me it's going to be a wild ride...
137 2012-06-16 01:50:05 <Nolybab> i'll leave now because it's too quiet and i'm monopolizing the air-waves
138 2012-06-16 01:50:14 <Nolybab> wrap your ears around this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3l9wwp_srg
139 2012-06-16 01:50:19 <Nolybab> bye
140 2012-06-16 01:50:24 Nolybab has left ()
141 2012-06-16 01:51:22 AntKinGTube has quit (Quit: Leaving)
142 2012-06-16 02:06:40 maqr has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
143 2012-06-16 02:07:51 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
144 2012-06-16 02:19:02 davex__ has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
145 2012-06-16 02:25:25 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
146 2012-06-16 02:27:33 Facefox has quit ()
147 2012-06-16 02:27:39 zapsoda has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
148 2012-06-16 02:28:56 imsaguy has joined
149 2012-06-16 02:32:17 <sipa> gzip: 55.8 MiB, bzip2: 50.7 MiB, lzma: 42.8 MiB
150 2012-06-16 02:32:54 <Diablo-D3> okay, so what about ck's thing
151 2012-06-16 02:33:29 <sipa> which?
152 2012-06-16 02:35:06 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
153 2012-06-16 02:35:22 <Diablo-D3> he has a compressor
154 2012-06-16 02:35:25 <Diablo-D3> beats everything out there
155 2012-06-16 02:35:30 <Diablo-D3> forget the name of it though
156 2012-06-16 02:35:47 <Diablo-D3> (what, you only thought he wrote bfs and cgminer?)
157 2012-06-16 02:37:44 * sipa installs lrzip
158 2012-06-16 02:38:06 graingert__ has quit (Quit: Bye)
159 2012-06-16 02:38:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'd only expect to do better with a custom compressor that knows to send the txids verbatim.
160 2012-06-16 02:38:26 graingert_ has joined
161 2012-06-16 02:39:05 <gmaxwell> (I mean over the xz/lzma)
162 2012-06-16 02:39:42 <sipa> 50.1 MiB
163 2012-06-16 02:40:08 <sipa> gmaxwell: txids, key ids, pubkey coordinates, ...
164 2012-06-16 02:40:38 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
165 2012-06-16 02:43:15 da2ce728 has joined
166 2012-06-16 02:43:20 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
167 2012-06-16 02:43:25 * sipa -> bed
168 2012-06-16 02:45:00 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, really the only thing that's compressible is var ints and maybe the op codes in scripts
169 2012-06-16 02:45:34 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: the scripts are highly repeative.
170 2012-06-16 02:45:48 <gmaxwell> the several bytes of pushes and checksigs can all become a fraction of a bit.
171 2012-06-16 02:46:05 <gmaxwell> and the output addresses are repetative too.
172 2012-06-16 02:46:11 <phantomcircuit> right as i said opcodes
173 2012-06-16 02:46:23 <phantomcircuit> but you're gonna save like 12 bytes per script
174 2012-06-16 02:46:37 <gmaxwell> sure, which will be like 10%
175 2012-06-16 02:46:47 egecko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
176 2012-06-16 02:47:03 <gmaxwell> not that I think it matters. More important is actually using such a datastructure on nodes.
177 2012-06-16 02:49:05 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
178 2012-06-16 02:49:13 [7] has joined
179 2012-06-16 02:55:00 smtmnyz has quit (Read error: No route to host)
180 2012-06-16 02:55:26 smtmnyz has joined
181 2012-06-16 02:58:19 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: bitcoinuser opened issue 1473 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1473>
182 2012-06-16 02:58:21 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
183 2012-06-16 03:01:09 RainbowDashh is now known as Rabbit67890
184 2012-06-16 03:01:15 Rabbit67890 is now known as RainbowDashh
185 2012-06-16 03:07:47 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
186 2012-06-16 03:07:54 imsaguy has joined
187 2012-06-16 03:08:23 gasteve has quit (Quit: gasteve)
188 2012-06-16 03:08:31 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
189 2012-06-16 03:12:25 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
190 2012-06-16 03:13:24 wizkid057 has joined
191 2012-06-16 03:14:49 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
192 2012-06-16 03:17:41 ThomasV has joined
193 2012-06-16 03:23:46 ahbritto_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
194 2012-06-16 03:23:53 ahbritto has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
195 2012-06-16 03:24:18 imsaguy has joined
196 2012-06-16 03:26:39 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
197 2012-06-16 03:27:14 sgornick has joined
198 2012-06-16 03:27:15 sgornick has quit (Changing host)
199 2012-06-16 03:27:15 sgornick has joined
200 2012-06-16 03:31:11 AlexWaters has joined
201 2012-06-16 03:31:25 da2ce728 is now known as da2ce7
202 2012-06-16 03:32:03 Xunie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
203 2012-06-16 03:36:31 ahbritto has joined
204 2012-06-16 03:37:37 ahbritto_ has joined
205 2012-06-16 03:42:09 zebedee_ has joined
206 2012-06-16 03:54:22 graingert has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
207 2012-06-16 04:08:15 Slix` has joined
208 2012-06-16 04:08:28 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
209 2012-06-16 04:33:25 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
210 2012-06-16 04:38:44 MobiusL has joined
211 2012-06-16 04:43:38 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep. DERPY HOOVES SLAMMING THE LAPTOP LID MISTAKE?)
212 2012-06-16 04:58:54 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
213 2012-06-16 04:59:06 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
214 2012-06-16 05:03:20 RainbowDashh has joined
215 2012-06-16 05:32:16 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
216 2012-06-16 05:32:56 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
217 2012-06-16 05:35:06 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
218 2012-06-16 05:40:34 <devrandom> ;;later tell BlueMatt may be useful in the future: https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/blob/master/bin/canon-zip
219 2012-06-16 05:40:35 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
220 2012-06-16 05:43:16 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
221 2012-06-16 05:44:06 wizkid057 has joined
222 2012-06-16 05:48:28 Joric has quit ()
223 2012-06-16 05:49:08 AlexWaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
224 2012-06-16 05:58:54 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep. DERPY HOOVES SLAMMING THE LAPTOP LID MISTAKE?)
225 2012-06-16 06:14:34 RainbowDashh has joined
226 2012-06-16 06:16:07 RainbowDashh has quit (Client Quit)
227 2012-06-16 06:16:22 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
228 2012-06-16 06:17:46 one_zero has joined
229 2012-06-16 06:22:06 zeiris has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
230 2012-06-16 06:22:57 zeiris has joined
231 2012-06-16 06:23:00 ThomasV has joined
232 2012-06-16 06:23:30 graingert has joined
233 2012-06-16 06:26:34 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
234 2012-06-16 06:27:34 graingert_ has joined
235 2012-06-16 06:27:51 Turingi has joined
236 2012-06-16 06:27:51 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
237 2012-06-16 06:27:51 Turingi has joined
238 2012-06-16 06:28:02 graingert_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
239 2012-06-16 06:28:11 graingert_ has joined
240 2012-06-16 06:28:53 graingert__ has joined
241 2012-06-16 06:29:21 graingert_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
242 2012-06-16 06:30:16 ovidiusoft has joined
243 2012-06-16 06:31:42 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
244 2012-06-16 06:33:23 graingert__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
245 2012-06-16 06:37:57 RainbowDashh has joined
246 2012-06-16 06:38:54 RazielZ has joined
247 2012-06-16 06:41:02 graingert has joined
248 2012-06-16 06:41:41 graingert_ has joined
249 2012-06-16 06:45:26 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
250 2012-06-16 06:46:30 dvide has joined
251 2012-06-16 06:46:52 graingert has joined
252 2012-06-16 06:48:03 graingert__ has joined
253 2012-06-16 06:50:11 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
254 2012-06-16 06:50:20 graingert_ has joined
255 2012-06-16 06:51:12 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep. DERPY HOOVES SLAMMING THE LAPTOP LID MISTAKE?)
256 2012-06-16 06:51:16 graingert has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
257 2012-06-16 06:52:16 graingert__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
258 2012-06-16 06:59:28 JZavala has joined
259 2012-06-16 07:15:02 graingert_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
260 2012-06-16 07:18:14 RainbowDashh has joined
261 2012-06-16 07:22:43 yellowhat has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
262 2012-06-16 07:22:46 Slix` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
263 2012-06-16 07:31:02 yellowhat has joined
264 2012-06-16 07:41:20 TD has joined
265 2012-06-16 07:48:06 Motest003 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
266 2012-06-16 07:48:26 Motest003 has joined
267 2012-06-16 07:55:23 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
268 2012-06-16 08:05:23 m00p has joined
269 2012-06-16 08:07:07 Ummon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
270 2012-06-16 08:11:40 Silverion has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
271 2012-06-16 08:12:00 Silverion has joined
272 2012-06-16 08:13:46 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
273 2012-06-16 08:16:25 molecular has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
274 2012-06-16 08:17:06 molecular has joined
275 2012-06-16 08:19:07 m00p has joined
276 2012-06-16 08:39:49 sirk390 has joined
277 2012-06-16 08:40:06 erle- has joined
278 2012-06-16 08:44:40 JZavala has joined
279 2012-06-16 08:45:28 m00p has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
280 2012-06-16 08:46:01 m00p has joined
281 2012-06-16 08:52:49 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
282 2012-06-16 09:01:35 bogodyson is now known as ClOaKeD-Banshee1
283 2012-06-16 09:03:56 dvide_ has joined
284 2012-06-16 09:04:00 dvide has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
285 2012-06-16 09:11:02 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
286 2012-06-16 09:18:15 pklaus has joined
287 2012-06-16 09:19:19 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
288 2012-06-16 09:28:43 pklaus has quit ()
289 2012-06-16 09:34:11 erle- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
290 2012-06-16 09:34:23 cryptoxchange has joined
291 2012-06-16 09:34:23 cryptoxchange has quit (Changing host)
292 2012-06-16 09:34:23 cryptoxchange has joined
293 2012-06-16 09:35:35 PK has joined
294 2012-06-16 09:42:58 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
295 2012-06-16 09:46:28 OneFixt has joined
296 2012-06-16 09:48:32 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
297 2012-06-16 09:55:11 Diapolo has joined
298 2012-06-16 09:55:37 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
299 2012-06-16 09:55:52 <Diapolo> Can someone post a testnet address I can add into my addressbook ;)?
300 2012-06-16 09:57:10 m00p has joined
301 2012-06-16 09:58:23 moop has joined
302 2012-06-16 10:01:34 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
303 2012-06-16 10:03:06 <Diapolo> got one
304 2012-06-16 10:03:08 Diapolo has left ()
305 2012-06-16 10:05:53 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep. DERPY HOOVES SLAMMING THE LAPTOP LID MISTAKE?)
306 2012-06-16 10:06:19 <wumpus> testnet addresses:
307 2012-06-16 10:06:23 <wumpus> mxKx1GxgUpqoQ71kxc5GAjMd6hqDJHRbBL mx5DgE1aUNCxhowwQmtuxUwzPXEpE1ZhBV n1AUqxRpEdeUGZwAqRKmoWA8GVYYHGoQfV mfgkiy8g3oX5nn9Raq5gejfHDmqaWT15HG mvDoMzbrmjsf5xkkLiUHmLtFxsRZsk7Gbv moC55rciNJvSqMk5VPWbEku7oXKMibNDBU n2aDpjABAsDLDHJ7v6eCzncHknqF2oPDPh ms5Bk3xzcVHNEQM5vpRmApuGPHsfWNZZWr mtoKs9V381UAhUia3d7Vb9GNak8Qvmcsme mxKx1GxgUpqoQ71kxc5GAjMd6hqDJHRbBL miGuMc6qtVEKS6Pf1jKddaa81DeHjMzkpB
308 2012-06-16 10:07:04 TD has joined
309 2012-06-16 10:10:04 Nick_ has joined
310 2012-06-16 10:10:13 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
311 2012-06-16 10:10:17 Nick_ is now known as nicksasa
312 2012-06-16 10:10:25 nicksasa has quit (Changing host)
313 2012-06-16 10:10:25 nicksasa has joined
314 2012-06-16 10:11:45 someone42 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
315 2012-06-16 10:13:24 datagutt has joined
316 2012-06-16 10:16:31 erle- has joined
317 2012-06-16 10:24:31 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
318 2012-06-16 10:25:01 pickett has joined
319 2012-06-16 10:29:31 RainbowD_ has joined
320 2012-06-16 10:31:02 rlifchitz has joined
321 2012-06-16 10:31:03 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
322 2012-06-16 10:31:03 rlifchitz has joined
323 2012-06-16 10:32:04 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
324 2012-06-16 10:34:56 ThomasV has joined
325 2012-06-16 10:45:22 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
326 2012-06-16 10:46:21 wizkid057 has joined
327 2012-06-16 10:47:49 Perlboy has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
328 2012-06-16 10:48:33 Perlboy has joined
329 2012-06-16 10:59:05 one_zero has quit ()
330 2012-06-16 11:15:56 t7 has joined
331 2012-06-16 11:16:03 rdponticelli has joined
332 2012-06-16 11:16:37 Graet has joined
333 2012-06-16 11:18:47 zz_Nicksasa has joined
334 2012-06-16 11:20:29 zz_Nicksasa has quit (Client Quit)
335 2012-06-16 11:21:49 zz_Nicksasa has joined
336 2012-06-16 11:22:25 zz_Nicksasa has quit (Client Quit)
337 2012-06-16 11:29:32 <sipa> gmaxwell: 65462071 bytes uncompressed, 45090522 bytes after lzma
338 2012-06-16 11:31:17 <justmoon> sipa: told you compression would be interesting :P
339 2012-06-16 11:33:08 <ClOaKeD-Banshee1> is that the blockchain?
340 2012-06-16 11:33:37 <sipa> ClOaKeD-Banshee1: the most important part of it
341 2012-06-16 11:33:52 <justmoon> the part you need to verify new transactions
342 2012-06-16 11:33:56 <sipa> it's not enough to do rescans, reorganisations or serve the blockchain to other nodes
343 2012-06-16 11:34:25 <ClOaKeD-Banshee1> nice, its prety kl to see it compresses down to 45mb :)
344 2012-06-16 11:34:28 <sipa> justmoon: i suppose we can thank 1VayNert and DICE for the compressibility
345 2012-06-16 11:34:52 <justmoon> sipa: I guess I have to add one more argument against decouraging address reuse :P
346 2012-06-16 11:34:53 <sipa> s/thank/"thanks"/
347 2012-06-16 11:35:03 <justmoon> discouraging*
348 2012-06-16 11:35:36 Nicksasa_ has joined
349 2012-06-16 11:35:53 <sipa> gzip only reduces it to 58260726 bytes
350 2012-06-16 11:36:35 <justmoon> and bzip2?
351 2012-06-16 11:36:53 <sipa> though there are certainly some improvements possible still, i think i have to go experiment with changing bitcoind's verification logic to use this data, instead of further squishing the last redundancy out of it
352 2012-06-16 11:37:03 <sipa> 53040010 bytes
353 2012-06-16 11:37:08 nicksasa has quit (Quit: Ik ga weg)
354 2012-06-16 11:37:11 <justmoon> interesting
355 2012-06-16 11:37:33 <justmoon> I have about 13 pages worth of debate response email to gmaxwell - spent all day yesterday writing, about five hours today, still not happy with it ^^
356 2012-06-16 11:37:46 <sipa> i gave up following that thread
357 2012-06-16 11:38:07 <sipa> i already have a custom integer encoder, custom amount encoder, custom script encoder and custom pruned-transaction encoder
358 2012-06-16 11:38:23 <justmoon> I'll probably post it on the forums, it's a bit much for the mailing list
359 2012-06-16 11:38:31 <justmoon> sipa: is that code up somewhere yet?
360 2012-06-16 11:38:43 <justmoon> I want to play with putting it in bzing as well
361 2012-06-16 11:39:07 <sipa> justmoon: in my 'info' branch
362 2012-06-16 11:39:14 <justmoon> nice, you're the man!
363 2012-06-16 11:39:24 <sipa> let me rebase and push the latest version
364 2012-06-16 11:42:51 Nicksasa_ has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
365 2012-06-16 11:43:35 Nicksasa has joined
366 2012-06-16 11:45:04 Nicksasa has quit (Changing host)
367 2012-06-16 11:45:04 Nicksasa has joined
368 2012-06-16 11:48:24 eryngi has joined
369 2012-06-16 11:48:36 <eryngi> dev's around?
370 2012-06-16 11:49:00 <justmoon> what kind of dev?
371 2012-06-16 11:49:33 <eryngi> like gavin
372 2012-06-16 11:50:05 <justmoon> there is at least one online that I know of, but rule #1 of irc is: ask your question, don't ask to ask your question
373 2012-06-16 11:50:56 <eryngi> I'm just curious on the dev's opinion regarding recent advancements of several companies aiming to produce ASIC for mining
374 2012-06-16 11:51:50 <eryngi> the fabs of the world are run by ~10 corporations, most of them in the USA
375 2012-06-16 11:51:57 eoss has joined
376 2012-06-16 11:52:07 <eryngi> ASIC will force practically all mining onto ASIC
377 2012-06-16 11:52:15 eoss has quit (Changing host)
378 2012-06-16 11:52:15 eoss has joined
379 2012-06-16 11:52:28 <justmoon> you realize that the same is true for GPU chips, right?
380 2012-06-16 11:52:32 <eryngi> nope
381 2012-06-16 11:52:50 <eryngi> GPU chips are widely available product that has been hacked to mine bitcoins
382 2012-06-16 11:53:02 <eryngi> bitcoin specific ASIC is just that
383 2012-06-16 11:53:16 <justmoon> you realize that most GPU chips we use for mining come from one of two companies? :)
384 2012-06-16 11:53:23 <eryngi> eh..
385 2012-06-16 11:53:33 <eryngi> you fail to see the point here my friend
386 2012-06-16 11:53:43 <galambo> do you have one
387 2012-06-16 11:53:54 <justmoon> I think I get your point, GPUs are generic, ASIC are produced specifically for Bitcoin
388 2012-06-16 11:54:04 <justmoon> but I fail to see how that is a problem
389 2012-06-16 11:54:13 <justmoon> ASIC manufacturers are happy to produce whatever you order
390 2012-06-16 11:54:17 <eryngi> well it takes no more than some pressure from ane government to stop the production of those chips
391 2012-06-16 11:54:35 <eryngi> or if not stop, then seize imports
392 2012-06-16 11:54:35 <sipa> then we'll all get back to GPU mining or FPGA mining, right?
393 2012-06-16 11:54:54 <Graet> its just an arems race that will increase mining costs and drive difficulty way high, to the point asics wont make more profit than gpus do now
394 2012-06-16 11:55:00 <eryngi> no, then the entity that want's to shut down bitcoin will produce a run of ASIC
395 2012-06-16 11:55:12 <sipa> plus, i believe governments have far easier ways to shut down bitcoin if they really wanted to
396 2012-06-16 11:55:22 <sipa> like making it illegal
397 2012-06-16 11:55:28 <justmoon> :D
398 2012-06-16 11:55:46 <eryngi> lol?
399 2012-06-16 11:56:00 <galambo> ... i think the bigger problem is that the companies that are claiming to make advancements in ASIC aren't being honest.
400 2012-06-16 11:56:01 <sipa> i fail to see the humor
401 2012-06-16 11:56:10 <eryngi> drugs are illegal too
402 2012-06-16 11:56:44 <sipa> so, how will making asic production illegal work?
403 2012-06-16 11:56:45 <justmoon> eryngi: and yet they are readily available, making your point about restricting ASIC somewhat dubious as well maybe? :P
404 2012-06-16 11:56:55 <justmoon> hehe
405 2012-06-16 11:57:00 <sipa> there is a large difference though
406 2012-06-16 11:57:05 <justmoon> which is?
407 2012-06-16 11:57:06 <sipa> bitcoin has a network effect
408 2012-06-16 11:57:11 <eryngi> err
409 2012-06-16 11:57:22 <eryngi> there are 10 companies creating ASIC
410 2012-06-16 11:57:24 <sipa> drugs don't - they are useful in any amount on themselves (well, for some definition of 'useful')
411 2012-06-16 11:57:37 <eryngi> there are 10000000 people working for drug business
412 2012-06-16 11:57:56 <sipa> closing off bitcoin from the reach of honest businesses, before it reaching some critical mass, will effectively kill it, imho
413 2012-06-16 11:58:18 <eryngi> how can that be done in your opinion?
414 2012-06-16 11:58:29 <galambo> yes but none of those companies is going to devote resources to making bitcoin specific asic (its not enough to make an asic you have to use the same scale processes used in fast gpu and fpga chips)
415 2012-06-16 11:58:32 <sipa> by outlawing it
416 2012-06-16 11:58:53 <eryngi> like that stopped silkroad`?
417 2012-06-16 11:58:56 <justmoon> eryngi: I'm googling, it looks like most suppliers for custom ASICs are in china it looks like
418 2012-06-16 11:59:29 <eryngi> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants
419 2012-06-16 11:59:35 <sipa> eryngi: a currency that is only useful for trading for illegal goods, is not useful at all, even to criminals
420 2012-06-16 12:00:12 <eryngi> sipa, ok so in your opinion we can just neglect this asic issue, because bitcoin can be outlawed?
421 2012-06-16 12:00:22 <eryngi> and that will be the end of it?
422 2012-06-16 12:00:35 <galambo> its totally irrelevant to bitcoin protocol
423 2012-06-16 12:00:37 <eryngi> ok, problem solved!
424 2012-06-16 12:00:52 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
425 2012-06-16 12:01:14 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
426 2012-06-16 12:01:27 <eryngi> that's why I asked if any dev's are around here, because I don't want to spend my time chatting beside the point
427 2012-06-16 12:01:40 <eryngi> if you fail to see the point, or disagree, is't fine
428 2012-06-16 12:01:42 <sipa> if your worry about ASICs is that they can be controlled by governments, yes, then that is a valid point
429 2012-06-16 12:01:54 <eryngi> I wan't to hear the dev's stand on this issue
430 2012-06-16 12:02:13 wizkid057 has joined
431 2012-06-16 12:02:15 wizkid057 has quit (Changing host)
432 2012-06-16 12:02:15 wizkid057 has joined
433 2012-06-16 12:02:20 <eryngi> is it possible that we will hold protocol change as a backdoor for self-protection, or not
434 2012-06-16 12:02:21 <sipa> bitcoin is an experiment to me
435 2012-06-16 12:02:37 <sipa> and a damn interesting one
436 2012-06-16 12:02:45 <eryngi> it's a potential revolution to me
437 2012-06-16 12:03:04 <justmoon> eryngi: *looking at list* so you're saying that the governments of the US, Israel, Germany, Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, France, Italy, Singapore, Mexico, UAE and Ireland will all outlaw Bitcoin ASICs?
438 2012-06-16 12:03:09 <galambo> governments can control asic like eryngi can demand bitcoin developers time
439 2012-06-16 12:03:28 <sipa> even if it fails, it will teach us invaluable things about how to run a cryptocurrency
440 2012-06-16 12:03:48 <ClOaKeD-Banshee1> so true sipa
441 2012-06-16 12:04:04 <justmoon> which of course includes all of these companies actually figuring out that the chips they are asked to manufacture are made for bitcoin purposes
442 2012-06-16 12:04:08 <eryngi> justmoon, I'm saying there are powers in this world that are capable of this, yes
443 2012-06-16 12:04:25 <eryngi> I'll give you an example
444 2012-06-16 12:05:16 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
445 2012-06-16 12:05:27 <dub> while -qt starts up and hangs my machine for 30 seconds there is a single white pixel in the middle of the splash screen logo which I keep mistaking for a dead pixel
446 2012-06-16 12:05:32 <galambo> the economics of asic will never work out
447 2012-06-16 12:05:44 <galambo> after the block rewards start decreasing we should expect the total hashing power of the network to decrease
448 2012-06-16 12:05:44 <eryngi> A terrorist bombs something, we find out he was paid in bitcoins. Governments try to figure out how to close the system, and see that easiest way is to restrict supply of hardware that runs the network, and attack the network
449 2012-06-16 12:05:45 <justmoon> eryngi: also it says at the top that the list is incomplete, here's a better one: http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/manufactures.php
450 2012-06-16 12:06:07 <galambo> its not necessary for the hashrate to be as high as it is today for bitcoin to work
451 2012-06-16 12:06:22 <justmoon> yeah, I don't think that that would be their conclusion, exchanges are much more easy to restrict than hardware
452 2012-06-16 12:06:33 <eryngi> justmoon, those are not fabs
453 2012-06-16 12:07:08 <justmoon> they are semiconductor manufacturers, how do you think they make semiconductors - by hand?
454 2012-06-16 12:07:38 <eryngi> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_device_fabrication
455 2012-06-16 12:07:42 <sipa> eryngi: any amount of hashing power is enough to run the network technically (as soon as it doesn't change too suddenly), the only thing it does is change of economics of the game
456 2012-06-16 12:08:01 <eryngi> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fab_(semiconductors)
457 2012-06-16 12:08:32 <justmoon> eryngi: I know how semiconductor fabication works, I took tour at two fabs - one at stuttgart university as part of a week long course and one at IBM when I was interning
458 2012-06-16 12:08:34 <eryngi> sipa, you must be talking to galambo?
459 2012-06-16 12:08:39 <justmoon> both fabs aren't listed on wikipedia btw
460 2012-06-16 12:09:07 <sipa> eryngi: no
461 2012-06-16 12:09:41 <sipa> eryngi: kill a fab of ASICs, fine, the hashing power will decrease for a while; so what?
462 2012-06-16 12:09:51 <sipa> on itself that is not a problem
463 2012-06-16 12:09:52 <eryngi> sipa, which network is more protected: a) network with 1Gigaash/s b) networks with 1Petahash/s?
464 2012-06-16 12:10:12 <galambo> which one is a bigger misallocation of resources
465 2012-06-16 12:10:23 <justmoon> galambo: hehe :D
466 2012-06-16 12:10:34 <sipa> eryngi: the network doesn't need more protection than the stakeholders need
467 2012-06-16 12:10:46 <sipa> of course more hash power is more protected
468 2012-06-16 12:10:48 <eryngi> sipa, the point is, if the access to new mining hardware gets restricted for the BTC-friendly, that doesn't stop the BTC-unfriendly to produce hardware to overtake the network
469 2012-06-16 12:11:21 <freewil> you can always just buy gold and guns
470 2012-06-16 12:11:35 <freewil> but someone might have a bigger gun
471 2012-06-16 12:11:45 <eryngi> I repeat my question: Have the dev's looked at this, and where do they stand
472 2012-06-16 12:11:56 <eryngi> only way to protect against ASIC is protocol change
473 2012-06-16 12:12:03 <galambo> lol
474 2012-06-16 12:12:35 <sipa> changing the hash function is unreasonable, i believe
475 2012-06-16 12:12:44 CryptoX has joined
476 2012-06-16 12:12:46 <sipa> unless there is a cryptographic flaw found in it
477 2012-06-16 12:12:49 <eryngi> even if the network is under attack?
478 2012-06-16 12:12:50 <justmoon> I concur
479 2012-06-16 12:12:52 toffoo has joined
480 2012-06-16 12:13:00 <justmoon> there are alternatives to bitcoin with other proof-of-work systems
481 2012-06-16 12:13:07 <galambo> what change do you propose that would discriminate between ASIC and FPGA hashes
482 2012-06-16 12:13:24 <eryngi> well ASIC cannot change at all
483 2012-06-16 12:13:35 <justmoon> galambo, litecoin uses memory intensive proof-of-work to accomplish that
484 2012-06-16 12:13:39 <freewil> is any hash function really protect against ASIC, or can it just be made more expensive
485 2012-06-16 12:13:42 <sipa> "memory intensive"
486 2012-06-16 12:13:43 <eryngi> it would be trivial to change a bitstream to say sha-256 + 1
487 2012-06-16 12:14:03 <sipa> eryngi: no, all ASIC miners would complain loudly
488 2012-06-16 12:14:13 <sipa> ;)
489 2012-06-16 12:14:15 <eryngi> we have non
490 2012-06-16 12:14:18 <eryngi> yet
491 2012-06-16 12:14:25 <galambo> sha-256 + 1. would that be sha-257?
492 2012-06-16 12:14:29 <eryngi> jesus
493 2012-06-16 12:14:41 <sipa> and we need an extraordinary degree of consensus to change anything that requires a hardfork
494 2012-06-16 12:14:43 <eryngi> ok I'll just wait till someone over 15 comes to the channel
495 2012-06-16 12:14:49 <justmoon> eryngi: we're also not anywhere near big enough for any government to care either
496 2012-06-16 12:15:11 cryptoxchange has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
497 2012-06-16 12:15:54 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
498 2012-06-16 12:16:01 <sipa> eryngi: if your question is: is bitcoin vulnerable to very powerful attackers? yes
499 2012-06-16 12:16:15 <eryngi> no, that was not my question
500 2012-06-16 12:16:19 <sipa> if your question is: does ASIC mining increase that risk? maybe
501 2012-06-16 12:16:49 <eryngi> no, that was not my question either
502 2012-06-16 12:17:00 <galambo> hm having trouble finding sha-257 algo on wikipedia
503 2012-06-16 12:17:13 <justmoon> eryngi: so what's your question?
504 2012-06-16 12:17:26 <eryngi> scroll up, I've said it twice
505 2012-06-16 12:17:35 <sipa> bah, his point is well made; it is programmatically trivial to change the hash function, and yes, that would kill inflexible miners like ASIC miners
506 2012-06-16 12:17:44 ClOaKeD-Banshee1 is now known as MysteryBanshee
507 2012-06-16 12:17:49 <sipa> but changing that function is very non-trivial to the community
508 2012-06-16 12:17:55 <eryngi> exactly
509 2012-06-16 12:18:17 <eryngi> but if the whole community is under attack, would the dev's be ready to do so?
510 2012-06-16 12:18:25 <sipa> and if we're eyed by a large government, asic mining will be the least of my worries
511 2012-06-16 12:18:25 <eryngi> or are we calling it quit's?
512 2012-06-16 12:18:35 <eryngi> sipa, why is that?
513 2012-06-16 12:18:44 <sipa> i'd try to stay out of prison
514 2012-06-16 12:19:00 <eryngi> I don't see many ways of killing bitcoin except attacking the very core of it
515 2012-06-16 12:19:10 <justmoon> it doesn't really matter what we think, somebody would make a version with a different hash function, the question is how many users will switch to it
516 2012-06-16 12:19:24 <eryngi> justmoon, exactly
517 2012-06-16 12:19:35 <eryngi> and the trust would be lost
518 2012-06-16 12:19:36 MobiusL has joined
519 2012-06-16 12:19:48 <sipa> maybe
520 2012-06-16 12:19:49 <eryngi> (in bigger public's eyes)
521 2012-06-16 12:19:53 <justmoon> if the original block chain is completely busted it would be useless to run the old client, so I'd imagine that people would switch
522 2012-06-16 12:19:54 <eryngi> or general public
523 2012-06-16 12:20:37 <justmoon> there would be some diversity, but eventually one or two forks would probably emerge victorious
524 2012-06-16 12:20:39 <eryngi> it wouldn't need to get busted
525 2012-06-16 12:20:40 <justmoon> it wouldn't be pretty
526 2012-06-16 12:20:50 <justmoon> but it should survive in some form
527 2012-06-16 12:21:42 <justmoon> hope that helped answer your question, I have to go back to debating another dev on whether devs have too much power :P
528 2012-06-16 12:22:09 <eryngi> good luck with that, important issue aswell
529 2012-06-16 12:22:14 <sipa> damn, stl::map is inefficient
530 2012-06-16 12:22:28 <justmoon> sipa: google_sparse_hash yo
531 2012-06-16 12:22:41 <sipa> my 65 MiB of data in an stl::map on a 64-bit system requires 330 MiB ram :(
532 2012-06-16 12:22:54 <sipa> sure, there are definitely better tuned datastructures
533 2012-06-16 12:23:17 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
534 2012-06-16 12:23:31 <justmoon> google_sparse_hash isn't "better tuned" - it's reality defying black magic :)
535 2012-06-16 12:23:56 <sipa> any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic
536 2012-06-16 12:24:06 <justmoon> well said
537 2012-06-16 12:24:28 <sipa> hence, any technically distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced ;)
538 2012-06-16 12:24:39 <sipa> *technology
539 2012-06-16 12:24:48 <justmoon> non sequitor
540 2012-06-16 12:25:51 <justmoon> actually, no, it's correct, just misleading, because it's no longer clear that "sufficiently" refers to the distinguishability
541 2012-06-16 12:26:42 <sipa> indeed
542 2012-06-16 12:27:04 <sipa> logically correct, but an incorrect implication when interpreted as everyday english
543 2012-06-16 12:28:50 MobiusL is now known as enoch
544 2012-06-16 12:29:21 <sipa> worded differently: there exist a degree of advancedness A for which it is true that any technology beyond A is indistinguishable from magic
545 2012-06-16 12:29:52 <sipa> hence, there exists a degree of advancedness A for which it is true that any technology distinguishable from magic is not beyond A
546 2012-06-16 12:30:13 p0s has joined
547 2012-06-16 12:30:27 enoch is now known as MobiusL
548 2012-06-16 12:32:57 <justmoon> it should be pointed out though that a technology can appear somewhat magical long before it reaches the threshold of being indistinguishable from magic
549 2012-06-16 12:33:25 * justmoon feels like he's taking part in some kind of weird nerd bonding ritual :P
550 2012-06-16 12:36:17 dw has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
551 2012-06-16 12:40:32 <sipa> MysteryBanshee: what for?
552 2012-06-16 12:46:23 chrisb__ has joined
553 2012-06-16 12:47:27 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
554 2012-06-16 12:47:47 dw has joined
555 2012-06-16 12:47:47 dw has quit (Changing host)
556 2012-06-16 12:47:47 dw has joined
557 2012-06-16 12:49:05 <MysteryBanshee> oh im giving out btc randomly
558 2012-06-16 12:51:17 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
559 2012-06-16 12:51:43 <MysteryBanshee> between 0.05 and 1 to people depending on what /dev/random says :P
560 2012-06-16 12:56:31 <sipa> why...?
561 2012-06-16 12:57:00 <MysteryBanshee> im bored :)
562 2012-06-16 13:02:24 <galambo> has anyone here actually seen a bfl product operating in person
563 2012-06-16 13:02:50 <sipa> in #bitcoin-mining perhaps more people :)
564 2012-06-16 13:03:07 <galambo> i dont want to talk to people that would be motivated to lie
565 2012-06-16 13:03:14 <Graet> lol
566 2012-06-16 13:03:50 <Graet> well 4 of the people that code on my pool say they have them, and i trust them so... and i have seen pics 2 or 3 of them have taken of bfls
567 2012-06-16 13:04:26 <Graet> it wopuld be one hell of a super conspiracy if everyone that said they had one didnt....
568 2012-06-16 13:04:50 <galambo> no actually it wouldnt be a hell of a conspiracy
569 2012-06-16 13:05:02 <sipa> just good marketing ;)
570 2012-06-16 13:05:17 <galambo> it would be a few orders of magnitude smaller than the average penny stock scam
571 2012-06-16 13:07:36 <galambo> there are many miners, id imagine, who expanded their operations during the bubble using credit
572 2012-06-16 13:08:48 <galambo> otherwise honest people could be encouraged to lie under that weight
573 2012-06-16 13:10:55 <Graet> lol
574 2012-06-16 13:11:12 <Graet> whatever, bfls exist, ppl mine on them, bvelieve what you like :)
575 2012-06-16 13:12:47 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
576 2012-06-16 13:13:11 <galambo> I think its rather convienent that they announced a new product with a "trade-in" for people with preorders of their old product. the new product having even less believable numbers than the last..
577 2012-06-16 13:14:26 <galambo> and its clear that they are still unable to meet their obligations for the old product, if it exists at all
578 2012-06-16 13:20:26 rdponticelli_ has joined
579 2012-06-16 13:20:59 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
580 2012-06-16 13:23:27 rdponticelli_ is now known as rdponticelli
581 2012-06-16 13:24:34 <MysteryBanshee> sipa: thx gd idea
582 2012-06-16 13:25:04 ThomasV has joined
583 2012-06-16 13:33:44 kokjo has joined
584 2012-06-16 13:35:16 <kokjo> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Network_address , specifies that network addresses has a time field. i can't seem to find it in the acctual messages from the satoshi client. is this field removed?
585 2012-06-16 13:37:15 Zarutian has joined
586 2012-06-16 13:38:03 m00p has joined
587 2012-06-16 13:40:31 moop has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
588 2012-06-16 13:41:29 RainbowDashh is now known as Rabbit67890
589 2012-06-16 13:41:46 Rabbit67890 is now known as RainbowDashh
590 2012-06-16 13:42:08 <sipa> kokjo: see CAddress in protocol.h
591 2012-06-16 13:42:19 <sipa> nLastSeen or something
592 2012-06-16 13:42:50 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
593 2012-06-16 13:43:24 RainbowDashh has joined
594 2012-06-16 13:47:07 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
595 2012-06-16 13:50:35 <kokjo> thansk
596 2012-06-16 13:50:38 <kokjo> thanks*
597 2012-06-16 13:53:08 <kokjo> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/protocol.h#L82 means that its only when written to disk right? and not to the network?
598 2012-06-16 14:02:47 tower has quit (Disconnected by services)
599 2012-06-16 14:03:07 tower has joined
600 2012-06-16 14:05:55 fpgaminer has joined
601 2012-06-16 14:06:24 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
602 2012-06-16 14:06:55 tcatm has joined
603 2012-06-16 14:06:55 tcatm has quit (Changing host)
604 2012-06-16 14:06:55 tcatm has joined
605 2012-06-16 14:12:09 MobiusL is now known as enoch
606 2012-06-16 14:12:15 enoch is now known as MobiusL
607 2012-06-16 14:15:42 Joric has joined
608 2012-06-16 14:22:20 <sipa> kokjo: either when writing to disk, or when using a network protocol version later than that constant
609 2012-06-16 14:30:00 CryptoX has quit (Quit: Leaving)
610 2012-06-16 14:30:12 Joric is now known as Guest34919
611 2012-06-16 14:36:19 T_X has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
612 2012-06-16 14:41:36 t7 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
613 2012-06-16 14:43:57 MobiusL is now known as enoch
614 2012-06-16 14:44:01 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep. DERPY HOOVES SLAMMING THE LAPTOP LID MISTAKE?)
615 2012-06-16 14:44:11 enoch is now known as MobiusL
616 2012-06-16 14:44:53 MobiusL is now known as LinuxKernel
617 2012-06-16 14:45:30 LinuxKernel is now known as MobiusL
618 2012-06-16 14:46:26 MobiusL is now known as enoch
619 2012-06-16 14:47:36 enoch is now known as MobiusL
620 2012-06-16 14:48:08 ThomasV has joined
621 2012-06-16 14:48:16 toffoo has quit ()
622 2012-06-16 14:48:26 moop has joined
623 2012-06-16 14:49:39 t7 has joined
624 2012-06-16 14:50:14 _W_ is now known as W_
625 2012-06-16 14:50:29 W_ is now known as _W
626 2012-06-16 14:50:31 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
627 2012-06-16 14:50:43 _W is now known as _W_
628 2012-06-16 14:50:58 MobiusL is now known as Mobius_AFK
629 2012-06-16 14:51:55 Mobius_AFK is now known as Mobius_zzz
630 2012-06-16 14:52:21 Mobius_zzz is now known as enoch
631 2012-06-16 14:52:37 enoch is now known as MobiusL
632 2012-06-16 14:53:17 MobiusL is now known as LinuxKernel
633 2012-06-16 14:54:17 LinuxKernel is now known as MobiusL
634 2012-06-16 14:59:52 MobiusL is now known as Mobius_AFK
635 2012-06-16 15:05:33 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
636 2012-06-16 15:10:13 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
637 2012-06-16 15:14:25 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
638 2012-06-16 15:23:26 Guest34919 is now known as Joric
639 2012-06-16 15:23:27 Joric has quit (Changing host)
640 2012-06-16 15:23:27 Joric has joined
641 2012-06-16 15:24:12 CluckCreek has joined
642 2012-06-16 15:26:34 RazielZ has joined
643 2012-06-16 15:36:29 dw has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
644 2012-06-16 15:43:36 e0s_ has joined
645 2012-06-16 15:51:17 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: xanatos opened issue 1474 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1474>
646 2012-06-16 15:55:52 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
647 2012-06-16 15:56:39 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
648 2012-06-16 15:56:40 <devrandom> MysteryBanshee: you are giving out bitcoins based on what I say? cool!
649 2012-06-16 15:58:18 MC1984 has joined
650 2012-06-16 15:58:22 egecko has joined
651 2012-06-16 16:05:22 ThomasV has joined
652 2012-06-16 16:06:12 MC1984 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
653 2012-06-16 16:06:19 MC1984 has joined
654 2012-06-16 16:15:24 darkee has quit (!~darkee@gateway/tor-sasl/darkee|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
655 2012-06-16 16:15:24 random_cat__ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
656 2012-06-16 16:16:06 moop has quit (Quit: Leaving)
657 2012-06-16 16:16:35 darkee has joined
658 2012-06-16 16:18:59 random_cat__ has joined
659 2012-06-16 16:22:07 grepix has quit (Quit: reb00t)
660 2012-06-16 16:25:29 chrisb__ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
661 2012-06-16 16:26:09 Diapolo has joined
662 2012-06-16 16:35:49 dw has joined
663 2012-06-16 16:35:49 dw has quit (Changing host)
664 2012-06-16 16:35:49 dw has joined
665 2012-06-16 16:39:20 davex__ has joined
666 2012-06-16 16:41:05 dlb76 has joined
667 2012-06-16 16:41:42 T_X has joined
668 2012-06-16 16:41:42 T_X has quit (Changing host)
669 2012-06-16 16:41:42 T_X has joined
670 2012-06-16 17:07:47 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
671 2012-06-16 17:10:56 kokjo has quit (Quit: Page closed)
672 2012-06-16 17:18:40 <luke-jr> so I'm seriously considering limiting the number of transactions Eligius puts into blocks
673 2012-06-16 17:18:50 <luke-jr> we just had a second series of 3 orphans in a row
674 2012-06-16 17:20:53 <Diapolo> luke-jr: I'm "finished" with the UI changes for sign / verify, can you take another look? I'm soon off, but feel free to use the Github thread :D.
675 2012-06-16 17:21:04 <luke-jr> Diapolo: I will later probably
676 2012-06-16 17:21:16 <luke-jr> https://raw.github.com/gist/2941991/49e56aad358e7586eed0c8b35a4961985b09d41d/gistfile1.json
677 2012-06-16 17:22:16 talpan has joined
678 2012-06-16 17:22:24 d34th has joined
679 2012-06-16 17:22:59 <galambo> how do the pools work
680 2012-06-16 17:23:15 <galambo> does the pool operator keep a digest of the transactions to put into the block and send out the merkle root to the pool?
681 2012-06-16 17:23:31 rdponticelli has joined
682 2012-06-16 17:25:09 <MysteryBanshee> oh ffs what is wrong with blockchain.info's wallet
683 2012-06-16 17:25:18 <MysteryBanshee> i meant to send 0.1010101010 btc and it sent 1.010101010 instead
684 2012-06-16 17:25:35 <d34th> did you put 0. or just .
685 2012-06-16 17:25:42 <MysteryBanshee> 0.
686 2012-06-16 17:25:47 <MysteryBanshee> but it seems if you put too many digits in
687 2012-06-16 17:25:49 Diapolo has left ()
688 2012-06-16 17:25:50 <MysteryBanshee> (more than 8)
689 2012-06-16 17:25:56 <MysteryBanshee> it confuses the applet
690 2012-06-16 17:26:03 <d34th> seems legit
691 2012-06-16 17:26:17 <MysteryBanshee> urgh i just lost 1 btc
692 2012-06-16 17:26:22 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
693 2012-06-16 17:27:08 <luke-jr> https://raw.github.com/gist/2941991/6d1ab1e0fb569f82edbdb9aed078a8a84c311578/gistfile1.json
694 2012-06-16 17:27:52 gavinandresen has joined
695 2012-06-16 17:28:14 <galambo> is this what you send to your pool?
696 2012-06-16 17:29:51 <MysteryBanshee> if someone had any time, please do me a favour and tell the muppets who run blockchain.info to fix their damn shit
697 2012-06-16 17:29:59 <MysteryBanshee> had=has
698 2012-06-16 17:31:46 d34th has quit (Quit: leaving)
699 2012-06-16 17:32:39 toffoo has joined
700 2012-06-16 17:37:23 <luke-jr> MysteryBanshee: go ahead and tell them
701 2012-06-16 17:38:28 <galambo> luke-jr: why do you send all of the transactions to the miners in your pool
702 2012-06-16 17:38:34 <Graet> MysteryBanshee, i already posted in thier thread once today - diff issue, but basically that :P
703 2012-06-16 17:39:24 grepix has joined
704 2012-06-16 17:52:28 D34TH has joined
705 2012-06-16 17:56:46 <yellowhat> /join #bitcoin-otc
706 2012-06-16 18:00:13 da2ce7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
707 2012-06-16 18:01:07 da2ce7 has joined
708 2012-06-16 18:10:47 <MysteryBanshee> oh cool thx Graet
709 2012-06-16 18:11:01 <Graet> :)
710 2012-06-16 18:12:52 antix has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
711 2012-06-16 18:23:23 antix has joined
712 2012-06-16 18:30:03 davex__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
713 2012-06-16 18:41:08 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
714 2012-06-16 18:41:42 e0s_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
715 2012-06-16 18:41:42 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
716 2012-06-16 18:43:07 sirk390 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
717 2012-06-16 18:52:22 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
718 2012-06-16 18:52:53 davex__ has joined
719 2012-06-16 18:53:14 wizkid057 has joined
720 2012-06-16 18:57:37 ThomasV has joined
721 2012-06-16 19:01:40 Motest003 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
722 2012-06-16 19:10:53 erle- has joined
723 2012-06-16 19:16:35 erle- has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
724 2012-06-16 19:16:57 <luke-jr> anyone have a dice-blocking patch yet?
725 2012-06-16 19:17:40 erle- has joined
726 2012-06-16 19:23:30 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
727 2012-06-16 19:23:39 erle- has joined
728 2012-06-16 19:23:46 <PK> does bitcoin's rpc support named parameters?
729 2012-06-16 19:23:57 <JFK911> isnt that called xml
730 2012-06-16 19:24:10 <JFK911> hey maybe you can mix xml with rpc
731 2012-06-16 19:24:20 <JFK911> it would be neat
732 2012-06-16 19:25:22 denisx has joined
733 2012-06-16 19:25:37 <PK> I mean something like "params" : { "account" : "myAccount", "from" : 0, "count" : 25 } instead of "params" : ["myAccount", 0, 25]
734 2012-06-16 19:25:56 <PK> I'm not sure why you could call that xml though
735 2012-06-16 19:26:38 sgstair has quit (Quit: .«UPP»Â.)
736 2012-06-16 19:26:46 O2made has joined
737 2012-06-16 19:26:50 <forrestv> PK, you can do that in jsonrpc 2.0, but i'm pretty sure bitcoind doesn't support it
738 2012-06-16 19:27:46 <PK> forrestv: actually, you can do it in 1.1. But bitcoind keeps telling me that it expects an array. So you might be right about bitcoind not supporting it.
739 2012-06-16 19:28:14 <PK> Is there any way to skip a parameter then? I want to call listtransactions without the account but with the paging values.
740 2012-06-16 19:29:13 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
741 2012-06-16 19:31:24 O2made has quit (Client Quit)
742 2012-06-16 19:31:58 <forrestv> PK, i think if you use "*" for account, it's equivalent to not passing it
743 2012-06-16 19:32:50 <PK> forrestv: that works, thanks a lot. You saved my project! :)
744 2012-06-16 19:33:02 <forrestv> hehe :)
745 2012-06-16 19:34:03 <luke-jr> please review http://codepad.org/Hy4Qrnor
746 2012-06-16 19:34:10 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: forrestv: anyone else: ^
747 2012-06-16 19:36:59 <devrandom> /win 18
748 2012-06-16 19:38:37 <sipa> luke-jr: looks safe to me
749 2012-06-16 19:41:58 <forrestv> seems good http://codepad.org/vLfbz3Rb
750 2012-06-16 19:44:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it looks correct. My preference is to treat them as zero fee, low prio instead of totally dropping them but..
751 2012-06-16 19:44:19 eoss has joined
752 2012-06-16 19:44:19 eoss has quit (Changing host)
753 2012-06-16 19:44:19 eoss has joined
754 2012-06-16 19:45:00 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
755 2012-06-16 19:47:54 <PK> Why is 1dice getting "blocked"? I thought they use the network correctly and pay fees? Did I miss something?
756 2012-06-16 19:49:10 moartr4dez has joined
757 2012-06-16 19:51:13 Raziel_ has joined
758 2012-06-16 19:51:23 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
759 2012-06-16 19:52:24 <sipa> PK: fees are payed miners, not to everyone running a node
760 2012-06-16 19:53:10 <sipa> if people use the network in a way that some users do not consider to be beneficial, they may decide not to use it at all
761 2012-06-16 19:53:44 <PK> sipa: yes, I know. But how is that related to my question. You confuse me
762 2012-06-16 19:54:21 <MC1984> so
763 2012-06-16 19:54:36 <sipa> that said, i don't think they are doing something "wrong", but i also don't think it's wrong that some people personally decide to take measures against it
764 2012-06-16 19:54:42 <MC1984> what, cut in everyone running a full node or what?
765 2012-06-16 19:55:34 <sipa> PK: you consider "paying fees" to mean "i can do whatever i want"; technically that is true, but that doesn't mean everyone should consider whatever you do while paying fees to be playing nice
766 2012-06-16 19:55:35 <PK> sipa: that patch is only for pool code, not for the main bitcoind client?
767 2012-06-16 19:55:41 <sipa> PK: of course not
768 2012-06-16 19:56:04 <sipa> i don't think such specific code belongs in the reference code
769 2012-06-16 19:56:45 <sipa> gmaxwell: i put the txid -> compressed pruned txout data in a bdb file: 110 MiB
770 2012-06-16 19:58:23 <PK> sipa: I'm more referring to "oh, I don't like them, I don't think they are beneficial. Let's put an embargo on them." sound more something certain govs would do. Not the bitcoin community. In other words, you're welcome to deal in drugs and weapons of mass destructions, but if you care bloat our chain we get angry!
771 2012-06-16 19:58:50 <PK> s/care/dare/
772 2012-06-16 19:58:52 sgstair has joined
773 2012-06-16 19:59:18 <sipa> PK: "we" don't get angry, but I don't mind some people personally becoming angry :)
774 2012-06-16 19:59:45 <gmaxwell> I dunno that anyone is angry. It's just something else to deal with.
775 2012-06-16 19:59:48 <moartr4dez> well I think you found the fatal flaw in bitcoin... developer chooses to block arbitrary bitcoin addresses
776 2012-06-16 19:59:59 <gmaxwell> moartr4dez: No one is doing that.
777 2012-06-16 20:00:12 <gmaxwell> And also no one can be made to use software that does that.
778 2012-06-16 20:00:12 <Graet> lol
779 2012-06-16 20:00:15 <PK> I just think it's a bit hypocrite :)
780 2012-06-16 20:00:25 <sipa> moartr4dez: if developers start doing that, I hope you're wise enough to start your own branch
781 2012-06-16 20:00:31 <gmaxwell> ^ that.
782 2012-06-16 20:01:01 <Eliel> PK: there's actually a good reason for miners to use that code change. Bigger blocks are less likely to win races between blocks found close together and end up orphan.
783 2012-06-16 20:01:31 <gmaxwell> PK: I don't welcome people dealing in drugs or weapons of mass destruction. But there is nothing I can do about that. (and in the cast of the latter, I don't believe that exists. Don't spread fud, playing emotions is poor form)
784 2012-06-16 20:01:32 <Graet> actyually its a poolop that trhinks txn from that adress are harming his pool (business) that is proposing this, yes he is a bitcoin dev too, but which hat atm? poolop i'd say
785 2012-06-16 20:01:32 <Eliel> and if you have to keep your blocks smaller, satoshidice txs are a good candidate to exclude
786 2012-06-16 20:02:11 <sipa> PK: well the mining platform is still a free market - i have as little to say about how pools run their business as i have to say in how users use bitcoin, or what for
787 2012-06-16 20:02:23 <moartr4dez> gmaxwell: true, but if its advantageous enough miners might... as a miner I would like to mine transactions for the subset of bitcoin addresses that is most profitable to me
788 2012-06-16 20:02:33 <gmaxwell> Graet: I've personally run patches that filter some kinds of transactions (though not targeting single senders), and I refuse to distribute them, even to other developers. Becuase I don't agree in principle with doing that sort of things.
789 2012-06-16 20:02:43 <PK> gmaxwell: you don't have to. It's the problem with the mass. Most people will use the official client, and most people won't care so much. Therefore most nodes would accept the change and block the addresses. It's the same issue with direct democracy. People don't care enough to read up on the topics they're going to vote about. They just vote what "everyone else" does.
790 2012-06-16 20:02:52 <moartr4dez> so why not built multiple lists of bitcoin addresses by classification... miners can choose the lists they want to include/exclude
791 2012-06-16 20:03:17 <moartr4dez> kinda like ad blocker lists
792 2012-06-16 20:03:24 <sipa> PK: wait... are you assuming such a patch for blocking DICE would end up in the reference client?
793 2012-06-16 20:03:40 <gmaxwell> PK: As far as I can tell you're babling about nonsense though. ''Most people will use the official client'' Okay, so where is your concern? Show me a single place where any developer of any kind has proposed blocking in the official client.
794 2012-06-16 20:04:23 <PK> sipa: I was assuming that since we're in #bitcoin-dev, yes. You told me a few lines above that it's not.
795 2012-06-16 20:04:47 <gmaxwell> moartr4dez: because thats just a mess. It's better to identify things based on behavior than based on addresses. Addresses are trivially changed. It would be a waste of code and have more potential for abuse than benefit.
796 2012-06-16 20:05:12 <gmaxwell> PK: No such thing is going in the official client, so relax.
797 2012-06-16 20:05:31 <gmaxwell> PK: you have my word that if any such thing were added I'd revert the change until my access was revoked. Happy?
798 2012-06-16 20:05:34 * PK relaxes
799 2012-06-16 20:05:36 <MC1984> so pools are gonna block 1dice?
800 2012-06-16 20:05:40 <moartr4dez> lists of addresses can be just as dynamically updated
801 2012-06-16 20:05:50 <Eliel> PK: also, there's actually no way to reliably block transactions in bitcoin network. Any block that doesn't stop all transactions (or all but a certain list) is easily routed around.
802 2012-06-16 20:05:51 <gmaxwell> MC1984: some miners already are.. ::shrugs::
803 2012-06-16 20:06:15 * wizkid057 raises hand
804 2012-06-16 20:06:23 <wizkid057> i've applied luke's code
805 2012-06-16 20:06:24 <Graet> MC1984, a pool has proposed to
806 2012-06-16 20:06:27 <sipa> if dice has enough market share, they can subsidize miners that do allow their transactions as well :)
807 2012-06-16 20:06:29 <wizkid057> has lowered CPU usage... lol
808 2012-06-16 20:07:00 <Graet> sipa, the problem is large blocks /slow propagation, more orphans
809 2012-06-16 20:07:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: my own nodes have been downpreffing all repeated addresses for some time now. Though that got broken on a merge to current code and at the moment I've moved my minfee up to 0.01 BTC, though I'm unhappy about that because I'd like to preserve some amount of free txn.
810 2012-06-16 20:07:03 <PK> dice simply has to increase the fees until it gets more attractive to process their transactions again.
811 2012-06-16 20:07:03 <MC1984> can it really be considered txn spam though
812 2012-06-16 20:07:27 <Graet> find a way i can include more txn without blosting block and risking orphans and I'm all for it :)
813 2012-06-16 20:07:28 <Eliel> MC1984: up to you. Everyone can decide for themselves.
814 2012-06-16 20:07:28 <sipa> Graet: yeah, never understood why blocks carry the full transactions; those are normally already distributed anyway
815 2012-06-16 20:07:31 <gmaxwell> MC1984: thats the problem with words, they're so limited. It is what it is, nothing more or less.
816 2012-06-16 20:07:55 <MC1984> yeah, its valid txn right, no exploits
817 2012-06-16 20:08:00 wizkid057 has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
818 2012-06-16 20:08:15 <sipa> it's not because a door is open, that it is legal to walk in
819 2012-06-16 20:08:23 <Eliel> Graet: I expect the size of the block will stop mattering once you can avoid transfering the txs that the receiving node already has in mempool.
820 2012-06-16 20:08:27 wizkid057 has joined
821 2012-06-16 20:08:36 <gmaxwell> MC1984: well the 'exploit' is only that they get around needing confirmations by using a great many more transactions than any other gambling site with similar volume.
822 2012-06-16 20:09:13 <gmaxwell> MC1984: which is adverse to the future success of bitcoin because it prematurely increases the cost of operating it relative to the economic success of the system. ::shrugs::
823 2012-06-16 20:09:15 <Graet> once we can
824 2012-06-16 20:09:19 <Graet> eta Eliel ?
825 2012-06-16 20:09:32 <Eliel> Graet: I have none but I heard it's being worked on
826 2012-06-16 20:09:43 <wizkid057> Personally, the gripe I have with satoshidice is that there exist much better methods of doing this type of thing WITHOUT 30,000 TXNs/day
827 2012-06-16 20:09:45 [7] has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
828 2012-06-16 20:09:49 <Graet> i mean all this ethicval and should and shouldnty discussion is fine, but atm it is a rwal problem for a lot of pools
829 2012-06-16 20:09:57 <moartr4dez> well I think all that will happen is SD will start issuing new addresses to use on the fly...
830 2012-06-16 20:10:06 <moartr4dez> so your 'fix' will be neutered
831 2012-06-16 20:10:07 <gmaxwell> And say sipa saysâ we can't make the system rules prohibit all possible anti-social behavior without also blocking a lot of legit behavior. Just because the system allows something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
832 2012-06-16 20:10:15 <PK> I think it's more accurate to compare it to flash mobbing a restaurant every day. You pay full price and bring in 10 times the customers they can handle. That should be good for the restaurant but they might end up refusing service.
833 2012-06-16 20:10:39 <Graet> yes, so we (the poools) need to work out a solution to this, and blcoking some adresses or randomly raising fees wont solve it
834 2012-06-16 20:11:00 <gmaxwell> PK: Thats an interesting comparison point. The restaurant hates it because when the mob stops they may have no other customers left because the mob made everyone not part of the mob give up.
835 2012-06-16 20:11:15 <PK> gmaxwell: exactly.
836 2012-06-16 20:11:52 <wizkid057> Graet: I think part of the issue is that the block size is quite large now that we're including satoshispam, and most pools have connections to many many nodes... if the pool finds a block, it has to use the massive bandwidth of sending a large block out to all of those nodes... which takes time, time enough for another pool with a smaller block to orhpan
837 2012-06-16 20:11:58 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
838 2012-06-16 20:12:05 <gmaxwell> Graet: my preference is to use the repeated use of an address as a signal that a txn doesn't need high priority, and then drop it at the very end of the priority list. Couple that with some block relaying and pruned-node improvements and we'd be pretty good.
839 2012-06-16 20:12:13 <Graet> wizkid057, yes
840 2012-06-16 20:12:17 <PK> however, does this mean we hit the limit of the network already and others "not part of the mob give up" ?
841 2012-06-16 20:12:47 <moartr4dez> gmaxwell: I was thinking the same thing... some sort of prioritization to speed bump the txn... but that's susceptible to the same rotation of addresses countermeasure
842 2012-06-16 20:12:49 <Eliel> PK: there's more room for optimization in the code but those take time.
843 2012-06-16 20:12:53 <gmaxwell> PK: It's really hard to say. We do know that this activity is causing some people who know nothing about it to complain about slow/"stuck" transactions.
844 2012-06-16 20:12:53 <Graet> gmaxwell, how will that work for my coinbase generation of blocks, reusing the same addy?
845 2012-06-16 20:12:59 <wizkid057> how compressable are blocks? :P
846 2012-06-16 20:13:13 <gmaxwell> Graet: doesn't do it on block themselves, just related txn.
847 2012-06-16 20:13:32 <Graet> and i forsee a lot of bitcoin businesses reusing addys for same customers, thus we are de prioritising thier customers txns
848 2012-06-16 20:13:42 <Graet> ok
849 2012-06-16 20:13:59 <gmaxwell> moartr4dez: Thats okay. If you're communicating with someone to agree on addresses, then you can also communicate to have a balance and not generate a ton of txns.
850 2012-06-16 20:14:15 <gmaxwell> Graet: and I think thats okay, actually. If you have a standing relationship you don't need fast confirmations.
851 2012-06-16 20:14:31 <Eliel> PK: In my view, satoshidice did a good job in highlighting some scalability issues in the current implementation. However, the point has been made and it'd be preferable the spam stops so regular use is not adversely affected.
852 2012-06-16 20:14:31 <MC1984> well
853 2012-06-16 20:14:45 <MC1984> pools can refuse service for any reason i suppose
854 2012-06-16 20:14:52 <wizkid057> Eliel: i agree with this
855 2012-06-16 20:14:53 <Graet> i think that would depend on thebusiness involved, some sure, but not all :)
856 2012-06-16 20:14:57 <PK> Eliel: then these optimizations should be done before bitcoin become more popular and wide spread.
857 2012-06-16 20:15:00 <MC1984> but its the same as visa and chums refusing service to say wikileaks
858 2012-06-16 20:15:04 <gmaxwell> MC1984: perhaps but thats not good for the success of bitcoin either.
859 2012-06-16 20:15:33 <gmaxwell> It's important to note that regular bitcoin use doesn't result in persistant addresses which can just be blocked.
860 2012-06-16 20:15:40 <moartr4dez> the txn spam problem
861 2012-06-16 20:16:02 <moartr4dez> at least a txn 'costs' something
862 2012-06-16 20:16:04 <wizkid057> well, the issue is that the huge increase in transaction volume needs to inspire an early development shift towards ways of effectively handling the volume, and as a side effect, detract from other development
863 2012-06-16 20:16:05 <MC1984> isnt txn fees supposed to fix this problem
864 2012-06-16 20:16:12 <Eliel> PK: of course, we'll have similar transaction level to what satoshidice is causing right now in a year or so.
865 2012-06-16 20:16:20 <gmaxwell> There are special use case to make it possible for nodes to accept unconfirmed txn which simultaniously increase the number of txn on the network, and use static easily identified addresses.
866 2012-06-16 20:16:23 <PK> *sarcasm* Otherwise Bitcoin really becomes just "gold" and we need something else for silver, like Litecoin.
867 2012-06-16 20:16:27 <Eliel> PK: assuming satoshidice stops causing lots of txs
868 2012-06-16 20:16:49 <gmaxwell> PK: you mean .. the thing which is even less scalable as silver? :)
869 2012-06-16 20:17:23 <MC1984> litecoin is finished i think
870 2012-06-16 20:17:38 <wizkid057> Eliel: i *think* part of the issue is that the satoshidice txns reuse an unconfirmed txn, thus bloating the memory pool... more so than the same amount of "normal" txns
871 2012-06-16 20:17:39 <Graet> loo
872 2012-06-16 20:17:41 <wizkid057> i could be wrong
873 2012-06-16 20:17:46 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I haven't been following it for a while.
874 2012-06-16 20:18:03 <Graet> a lot of keen developers on it atm MC1984
875 2012-06-16 20:18:10 <MC1984> turns out the can GPU mine it after all, so whats the point
876 2012-06-16 20:18:16 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: this might be part of the high cpu usage you were seeing. Linear scans of the memory pool.
877 2012-06-16 20:18:22 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: exactly
878 2012-06-16 20:18:24 <Graet> ltc netwiork hasht=rate has increased over last week
879 2012-06-16 20:18:40 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: perhaps a temporary (perm?) fix would be to optimize scans of the memory pool
880 2012-06-16 20:18:47 <PK> if miners refuse to process 1dice transactions. They will stack up in the pool of unconfirmed ones. Correct? Wouldn't that make it even worse?
881 2012-06-16 20:18:50 rdponticelli has joined
882 2012-06-16 20:18:54 <sipa> Graet: what's the exchange rate LTC<->BTC right now?
883 2012-06-16 20:18:54 <Graet> MC1984, the p[oint is its not economically viable to mine on gpu - even if you can :)
884 2012-06-16 20:19:06 <gmaxwell> PK: not if you drop them right on ingress.
885 2012-06-16 20:19:26 <MC1984> nope i read someone worked out how to get megahashes on a gpu with litecoin
886 2012-06-16 20:19:31 TheSeven has joined
887 2012-06-16 20:19:33 <PK> gmaxwell: for the miner, yes. But they still float around the network for the next block.
888 2012-06-16 20:19:43 <gmaxwell> Graet: it's not net positive over power on cpu either, ::shrugs::
889 2012-06-16 20:19:51 <wizkid057> PK: the patch in question just ignores them completely, so, no stacking... and since the bet itself was ignored, the payout also will be ignored since it's input isnt in the memory pool... thus, effectively ignoring 1dice* txns
890 2012-06-16 20:19:57 <Graet> 0.003001 sipa
891 2012-06-16 20:20:03 <gmaxwell> PK: sure, but mempool being slow on nodes that aren't mining isn't a major problem. No one would notice.
892 2012-06-16 20:20:14 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: lies, i noticed... lol
893 2012-06-16 20:20:17 <Graet> gmaxwell, indeed, but worse than btc on gpu, so really silly :)
894 2012-06-16 20:20:20 <sipa> Graet: ah, about the exchange rate between testnet coins and bitcoin 2 years ago ;)
895 2012-06-16 20:20:48 <gmaxwell> Graet: ha. I think thats higher than were I sold all my ltc.
896 2012-06-16 20:20:58 <gmaxwell> (well ~all)
897 2012-06-16 20:21:04 <Graet> MC1984, i have mined with megahashes on gpu, and guees what it costs me more than mining ltc on cpu, so it is still a barrier :)
898 2012-06-16 20:21:26 <Graet> heh cool :D gmaxwell
899 2012-06-16 20:22:19 <wizkid057> heres a silly question...
900 2012-06-16 20:22:30 <wizkid057> would there be a way to optimize satoshidice txns?
901 2012-06-16 20:22:50 <wizkid057> nm, stupid question
902 2012-06-16 20:22:53 <TuxBlackEdo> wizkid057, I am glad you ask
903 2012-06-16 20:23:07 <TuxBlackEdo> they should set up a online wallet
904 2012-06-16 20:23:14 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: sure. But not without making them more vulnerable to doublespends breaking them. I mean every other gambling site handles more traffic than this without issue.
905 2012-06-16 20:23:24 <gmaxwell> What TuxBlackEdo says.
906 2012-06-16 20:23:42 <gmaxwell> And if the wanted do to fast deposits they could accept mtgox codes like Joric's thing does.
907 2012-06-16 20:23:46 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: well, that would be optimal, sure, but what incentive do they have to do so when their current spam works for them
908 2012-06-16 20:24:02 <TuxBlackEdo> so people can deposit into satoshidice
909 2012-06-16 20:24:11 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
910 2012-06-16 20:24:26 <Eliel> frankly, I can't see them doing that. It'd be reducing the attractiveness of their service.
911 2012-06-16 20:24:51 <wizkid057> i could care less what they do, as long as it doesnt adversely effect me
912 2012-06-16 20:25:07 <wizkid057> as a non-satoshidice user that is
913 2012-06-16 20:25:28 <wizkid057> some random bitcoin user with bitcoin-qt installed shouldnt have to suffer satoshidice CPU spikes
914 2012-06-16 20:25:42 <MC1984> how many txns are they putting out then
915 2012-06-16 20:25:44 dvide_ has quit ()
916 2012-06-16 20:25:51 <wizkid057> MC1984: > 30k per day
917 2012-06-16 20:26:00 <Eliel> MC1984: 90% of daily transactions currently.
918 2012-06-16 20:26:04 <MC1984> jesus christ what the fuck are they doing over there
919 2012-06-16 20:26:05 <Eliel> maybe more than that already
920 2012-06-16 20:26:16 <TuxBlackEdo> ouch 90%
921 2012-06-16 20:26:29 <wizkid057> so the solutions appear to be either ousting satoshidice from bitcoin somehow (not likely, nor desirable probably), or, solving the underlying issue
922 2012-06-16 20:26:32 <wizkid057> i prefer the latter
923 2012-06-16 20:26:33 <gmaxwell> 13:03 < MC1984> can it really be considered txn spam though
924 2012-06-16 20:26:37 <TuxBlackEdo> might as well call it gamblecoin now
925 2012-06-16 20:26:48 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: you're the only one with an underlying issue that can be solved I think. :)
926 2012-06-16 20:26:50 <MC1984> how are they affording the fees
927 2012-06-16 20:26:55 <Eliel> MC1984: take a look at this graph for an idea: http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions
928 2012-06-16 20:27:01 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: most people aren't concerned about the cpu usage, right now.
929 2012-06-16 20:27:19 <gmaxwell> okay, I suppose luke's relaying issue can be solved.
930 2012-06-16 20:27:20 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: well, CPU usage for a generic node is one thing, CPU usage for a pool will be far higher
931 2012-06-16 20:27:22 <TuxBlackEdo> 90% to satoshi dice and 10% to silk road, is there a precentage left for non gambling and non drug use?
932 2012-06-16 20:27:32 <Graet> i prefe the latter too wizkid057 :)
933 2012-06-16 20:27:32 <TuxBlackEdo> that was a joke btw
934 2012-06-16 20:27:39 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: but software fixes don't solve the "my txn is taking forever to confirm! help!"
935 2012-06-16 20:27:47 <sipa> TuxBlackEdo: sure, 1% traffic from/to exchange sites ;)
936 2012-06-16 20:28:10 <gmaxwell> MC1984: their suckers^wcustomers are giving them free money.
937 2012-06-16 20:28:20 <Graet> gmaxwell, it is affecting lots of pools, laggung bitcoinds and causing slow announces and orphan blocks
938 2012-06-16 20:28:28 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: if the software could handle the load better, then perhaps it wouldnt be as much of an issue
939 2012-06-16 20:28:28 <Graet> and slow longpolls
940 2012-06-16 20:29:01 <wizkid057> what Graet said ^^
941 2012-06-16 20:29:02 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: the slow confirmations aren't software issues, the dice txn are crowding non-dice free txn out of blocks.
942 2012-06-16 20:29:06 <Eliel> wizkid057: I believe bitcoind can be optimized to handle this. The issue is just that it was a sudden multiplication of the transaction volume.
943 2012-06-16 20:29:10 <MC1984> TuxBlackEdo we knew the first ue of bitcoin would be shady ones
944 2012-06-16 20:29:15 <gmaxwell> it's not like we've lost apparent block rate due to this.
945 2012-06-16 20:29:15 <MC1984> its the same for all new tech
946 2012-06-16 20:29:35 <Eliel> wizkid057: no time to work on optimizing things in peace.
947 2012-06-16 20:29:46 <Graet> well for every orphan there is a rwal block...
948 2012-06-16 20:29:50 <Graet> so you wouldnt
949 2012-06-16 20:29:54 <Eliel> while the effects are starting to show but not really serious yet.
950 2012-06-16 20:29:56 <Graet> real*
951 2012-06-16 20:30:35 <wizkid057> Graet: if anything, the difficulty probably should be HIGHER, since more blocks are actually being created than accepted
952 2012-06-16 20:30:44 <gmaxwell> Graet: Sure, but I'm just pointing out that the pool perfomance issues aren't causing users to expirence slow txn. The slow txn are because users are sending zero fee txn and dice txn are being accepted before them.
953 2012-06-16 20:31:05 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: well, I disagree
954 2012-06-16 20:31:07 <MC1984> so free txn are on the way out
955 2012-06-16 20:31:11 <MC1984> we knew that would happen anyway
956 2012-06-16 20:31:20 <gmaxwell> MC1984: you mean bitcoin is on its way out.
957 2012-06-16 20:31:20 <Graet> ok well like i said before the pools need to work it out
958 2012-06-16 20:31:25 <MC1984> the only people getting screwed are running nodes without minig
959 2012-06-16 20:31:26 <galambo> why are people complaining about this?
960 2012-06-16 20:31:33 <Graet> all this going around in circles isnt solving anything
961 2012-06-16 20:31:51 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: pools like luke-jr's which would have mined almost all pending txns which ended up with orphans would have been able to help that issue, but instead got booted by satoshispam slowdown...
962 2012-06-16 20:32:07 <gmaxwell> MC1984: miners are more screwed by this than most due to software performance issues.
963 2012-06-16 20:32:16 <Graet> well one pool has lost 300btc from hab=ving blocks orphaned that wouldnt normally be, i guess he has a reason to complain galambo ?
964 2012-06-16 20:32:23 <MC1984> so
965 2012-06-16 20:32:32 <MC1984> maybe they shouldnt have bought up all the semprons eh.......
966 2012-06-16 20:32:38 <galambo> why are people complaining about the blocking
967 2012-06-16 20:32:41 <galambo> i mean to say
968 2012-06-16 20:32:59 <gmaxwell> galambo: becuase what if you get blocked next?
969 2012-06-16 20:33:17 <MC1984> <gmaxwell> MC1984: you mean bitcoin is on its way out.
970 2012-06-16 20:33:19 <MC1984> ha wat
971 2012-06-16 20:33:24 <galambo> then ill make another address :)
972 2012-06-16 20:33:35 <wizkid057> well, let me ask this simple question: Do miners/pools still have the authority to decide which txns are included in their blocks?
973 2012-06-16 20:33:37 <gmaxwell> galambo: yea, you've got me. :)
974 2012-06-16 20:33:46 <wizkid057> if so, the ST*U about the blocking
975 2012-06-16 20:33:50 <wizkid057> if not, wth happened
976 2012-06-16 20:34:15 <gmaxwell> (turning an earlier argument around) Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.
977 2012-06-16 20:34:17 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
978 2012-06-16 20:34:35 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: well, lets look at it a different way
979 2012-06-16 20:34:42 <wizkid057> online gambling is illegal in germany
980 2012-06-16 20:34:46 <galambo> if the protocol does not make it forbidden, it is allowed. by definition.
981 2012-06-16 20:34:57 <wizkid057> so, not including dice txns may be better for the pool legally
982 2012-06-16 20:35:05 <gmaxwell> galambo: the protocol of the universe permits me to kill your family. ...
983 2012-06-16 20:35:11 <sipa> galambo: if the door does not prevent me from walking through it, it is allowed to enter?
984 2012-06-16 20:35:23 <Graet> itys 4.30am its been looked at many ways, can anyone sugegst a solution pools can adopt in the short term to improve their performance without blocking txns?
985 2012-06-16 20:35:44 <sipa> decreasing priority sounds "nice" to me
986 2012-06-16 20:35:45 <wizkid057> Graet: optimize searches through memory pool
987 2012-06-16 20:35:49 <galambo> the people complaining about blocking are trying to apply their morals to other people
988 2012-06-16 20:35:50 <Graet> or as it is not affecting the "normal" user (which it actually is) it is of no concern?
989 2012-06-16 20:35:52 <wizkid057> Graet: allow blocks to be broadcast compressed
990 2012-06-16 20:36:11 <gmaxwell> Graet: I think you should just go ahead and block them in the short term. I'm just arguing with wizkid057 and galambo because I think it's fine to say that it's not great even if its also not wrong.
991 2012-06-16 20:36:23 <Graet> sure
992 2012-06-16 20:36:34 <galambo> the people blocking are not making any moral judgement (the transactions will still eventually be confirmed)
993 2012-06-16 20:36:41 <Graet> i see the discussion and its fine, but hey i can ask for advice and help here too?
994 2012-06-16 20:37:02 <gmaxwell> And as I said, I'm also blocking them on my nodes (though at the moment by imposing higher fees, which I think is less goodâ because I want free transactions for regular users)
995 2012-06-16 20:37:17 <Graet> i'd prefer to continue tio be one of the pools including most txn in our blocks, not restrict randdom ppl from having txn accepted
996 2012-06-16 20:37:24 <Eliel> of course, every pool that blocks the satoshidice txs will reduce the total throughput available for satoshidice.
997 2012-06-16 20:37:40 <gmaxwell> Eliel: go go ratelimits.
998 2012-06-16 20:37:41 <Graet> and the txnm backlog will get huge
999 2012-06-16 20:37:59 <galambo> well satoshis dice should be netting transactions if they don't want to be arbitrarily excluded
1000 2012-06-16 20:38:23 <MC1984> ok
1001 2012-06-16 20:38:23 <galambo> if i invite you into my house and you piss on the floor i dont have to ask you back
1002 2012-06-16 20:38:33 <MC1984> now imagine there are no pools
1003 2012-06-16 20:38:33 <wizkid057> well, from a pool view, what are the issues? Slow memorypool and slow relay of large blocks found. Can we attack these issues?
1004 2012-06-16 20:38:36 <guruvan> Graet: that will have the effect of teching users of satoshidice to slow down some IMO (ratelimitnig it further)
1005 2012-06-16 20:38:44 <MC1984> to conspire to deal with dice
1006 2012-06-16 20:38:48 <MC1984> what happens
1007 2012-06-16 20:39:10 <guruvan> individual solominers conspire :)
1008 2012-06-16 20:39:19 * wizkid057 mines solo
1009 2012-06-16 20:39:21 <gmaxwell> wizkid057: sure, the first sounds easy, the second would need a protocol change. E.g. a new "Get block without txn" request.
1010 2012-06-16 20:39:22 <TuxBlackEdo> the sucky thing is there seems to not be a solution for this problem
1011 2012-06-16 20:39:23 <Graet> guruvan, and all the ppl paying a default fee lower than SD are, what about them? the "normal" user?
1012 2012-06-16 20:40:01 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I mine p2poolâ my own bitcoinds' set their own policies. You don't need pools to cooperate.
1013 2012-06-16 20:40:08 <gmaxwell> and it's not like we've responded quickly to this.
1014 2012-06-16 20:40:12 <wizkid057> gmaxwell: perhaps I'll work on the first a bit if I get some time
1015 2012-06-16 20:40:14 <guruvan> if there's any way to distinguish - that's the preference I'd imagine - but I don't know there's a good blanket solution
1016 2012-06-16 20:40:33 <Graet> block by address - which is trivial to change
1017 2012-06-16 20:40:37 <Graet> so useless
1018 2012-06-16 20:40:39 <MC1984> so heres a question
1019 2012-06-16 20:40:43 <guruvan> I like the deprioritization of repeat addresses
1020 2012-06-16 20:40:51 <guruvan> much more so than "block"
1021 2012-06-16 20:40:54 <MC1984> why is the echange rate skyrocketing while this shit is going donw
1022 2012-06-16 20:40:57 <gmaxwell> Graet: its not trivial to change for dice.
1023 2012-06-16 20:41:13 <gmaxwell> MC1984: probably because of all the press around greece and the euro + bitcoin.
1024 2012-06-16 20:41:39 <gmaxwell> MC1984: I've seen a sudden rise of mention of bitcoin in the non-bitcoin IRC channels I'm in.
1025 2012-06-16 20:41:56 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, you are in non-bitcoin channels?
1026 2012-06-16 20:42:02 <MC1984> ha, are people really dumping euros into bitcoin
1027 2012-06-16 20:42:17 <guruvan> if you were to reduce the priority by the frequency at which you saw the address used, it would have the effect desired - without unduly penalizeing say - online wallet users that reuse deposit addresses
1028 2012-06-16 20:43:14 <guruvan> quickly those dice addresses wold lower their priority significantly relative to other repeating addresses at their current txn rates
1029 2012-06-16 20:43:22 <gmaxwell> guruvan: bluematt had suggested just checking the memory pool (existing unconfirmed txn).
1030 2012-06-16 20:43:35 <gmaxwell> so the it would only deprioritize fast reusers.
1031 2012-06-16 20:43:43 <guruvan> that's not a bad way of going about it perhaps
1032 2012-06-16 20:44:07 <gmaxwell> What I was doing was deprioritizing all reuse, but that required indexing all txn by address in the database.
1033 2012-06-16 20:44:54 <guruvan> yeah - that's what I was thinkinig - but that may be intensive on a node - bluematt's plan sounds less resource intensive
1034 2012-06-16 20:45:27 <guruvan> and will allow addresses to reset their priority a little more easily through decreased use
1035 2012-06-16 20:46:49 <gmaxwell> On thought I had was, lets imagine that every txn had an identity attached that couldn't be sybiled. How would we prioritize there? I think we'd give fair service by identity.
1036 2012-06-16 20:47:35 <gmaxwell> Of course thats not possible.. but sometimes users voluntarily identify txn as belonging to the same parties by reusing addresses.. so why not do fair service when we can do it?
1037 2012-06-16 20:51:44 <wizkid057> why not just deprioritize txns that use an unconfirmed input?
1038 2012-06-16 20:52:14 <Eliel> wizkid057: I don't think that would help.
1039 2012-06-16 20:52:26 <wizkid057> would help some
1040 2012-06-16 20:52:34 <wizkid057> since it would half the satoshidice txns
1041 2012-06-16 20:52:35 Joric_ has joined
1042 2012-06-16 20:52:35 Joric_ has quit (Changing host)
1043 2012-06-16 20:52:35 Joric_ has joined
1044 2012-06-16 20:53:17 <guruvan> what unintended additional effects would that have on other users?
1045 2012-06-16 20:53:20 <Eliel> wizkid057: no it wouldn't, it would just make them clog the gears for double the time.
1046 2012-06-16 20:53:53 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1047 2012-06-16 20:53:54 <Eliel> wizkid057: in the case there's twice the number of those out there that fits in a block, it would do nothing.
1048 2012-06-16 20:53:56 <wizkid057> guruvan: i doubt much... do any standard clients allow spending unconfirmed inputs?
1049 2012-06-16 20:54:31 t7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1050 2012-06-16 20:54:41 <wizkid057> Eliel: i'm ok with that
1051 2012-06-16 20:54:44 <Eliel> the bitcoin.org client requires one confirm for received transactions. When spending your own change addresses, it's different though. Those don't require confirm.
1052 2012-06-16 20:54:59 <wizkid057> Eliel: if it takes betters 2x as long to get their payout, that'll slow it down
1053 2012-06-16 20:57:05 <guruvan> it seems a common model for a player to play till their client is waiting confirmations on 100% of the funds in the wallet - then play again once the confirmations come in
1054 2012-06-16 20:57:22 <wizkid057> yeah, exactly
1055 2012-06-16 20:59:16 Joric_ is now known as Joric
1056 2012-06-16 21:00:53 moartr4dez has left ()
1057 2012-06-16 21:01:52 osmosis has joined
1058 2012-06-16 21:03:26 DomChan has joined
1059 2012-06-16 21:08:36 <DomChan> Hi all, I am a bitcoin newbie and have a couple of questions I was hoping some one can help with. I am trying to set up a betting website that accepts bitcoins. Ideally, I would like to keep the wallet information on a local PC, and not on the webserver. If I do that, is there a way for the site to get transaction & balance information on the my wallet accounts?
1060 2012-06-16 21:09:36 <Eliel> DomChan: you could encrypt the wallet on your home-pc with a randomly generated complex password and never unencrypted it on the server.
1061 2012-06-16 21:11:08 p0s has joined
1062 2012-06-16 21:11:42 Detritus has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1063 2012-06-16 21:11:59 Detritus has joined
1064 2012-06-16 21:14:29 TD has joined
1065 2012-06-16 21:15:37 <DomChan> Eliel: thanks, so if the web site has been hacked, they will not be able to access the funds in the wallet? But the server can still see transaction/balance information? do you know where I can read more about this method? Also, when I transfer bitcoins from one address to another, the transaction is usually not instant. Is there a way to check if a transaction has been set to my wallet faster?
1066 2012-06-16 21:16:10 BurtyBB has joined
1067 2012-06-16 21:16:14 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1068 2012-06-16 21:17:31 <Eliel> DomChan: yes, that's what the encryption does. Without the password, no moving the bitcoins anywhere. Everything else works though, just not moving bitcoins or creating new addresses (you can still get new addresses from the pool though, so make sure to set the poolsize big enough)
1069 2012-06-16 21:18:00 <MC1984> if you wanted to cripple bitcoin because you were a general adversary of bitcoin
1070 2012-06-16 21:18:15 <MC1984> and you wanted to get bitcoin users to themselves pay to do it
1071 2012-06-16 21:18:19 BurtyB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1072 2012-06-16 21:18:21 <MC1984> what sort of website would you set up
1073 2012-06-16 21:19:33 <Eliel> MC1984: gambling or porn sounds like it would attract money.
1074 2012-06-16 21:19:51 <Eliel> without need for doing anything actually useful
1075 2012-06-16 21:21:08 <Eliel> DomChan: I don't think much has been written about it. At least I don't remember seeing any.
1076 2012-06-16 21:21:30 <Eliel> DomChan: there are better methods under development though.
1077 2012-06-16 21:22:52 toffoo has quit ()
1078 2012-06-16 21:23:13 <Eliel> DomChan: just remember to sometimes unlock the wallet on your home system so it refills the pool and then copy a backup copy of the wallet to the server.
1079 2012-06-16 21:23:16 Diablo-D3 has joined
1080 2012-06-16 21:23:53 <Eliel> (a copy made with the backup function, to replace the server's old version of the wallet)
1081 2012-06-16 21:24:23 <Eliel> DomChan: just don't replace the server's wallet while bitcoind is running :)
1082 2012-06-16 21:25:55 rav3n_pl has joined
1083 2012-06-16 21:27:24 <DomChan> Eliel: for transaction info, is the transaction timestamp dependable? in my case, the odds are changing, I would like to know when the person place the bet
1084 2012-06-16 21:28:23 <Eliel> hmm, someone else would need to answer that, I'm not sure.
1085 2012-06-16 21:38:12 <Eliel> DomChan: my guess would be that the timestamps are the times from when your node first saw the transaction.
1086 2012-06-16 21:40:21 <DomChan> hmm, I see..
1087 2012-06-16 21:41:57 <Eliel> how much accuracy do you need for the times?
1088 2012-06-16 21:44:18 <DomChan> It seems that transaction can take hours to "confirm". I am trying to think of a way to link the payment with the odds they should be associated with.
1089 2012-06-16 21:45:35 Mobius_AFK is now known as MobiusL
1090 2012-06-16 21:45:55 <DomChan> other online payments have confirmation pretty much instantly, but it doesn't seem as easy with bitcoin
1091 2012-06-16 21:49:33 <PK> I managed to get all transactions from listtransaction using "*" as account name. But is there a way to get the total transaction count without receiving all transaction details via RPC?
1092 2012-06-16 21:50:15 justmoon has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1093 2012-06-16 21:50:55 saieko has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1094 2012-06-16 21:51:40 erle- has quit (Quit: erle-)
1095 2012-06-16 21:54:11 meLon has quit (Quit: leaving)
1096 2012-06-16 21:54:30 doublec has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1097 2012-06-16 21:56:28 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
1098 2012-06-16 22:00:42 toffoo has joined
1099 2012-06-16 22:02:21 <DomChan> is the time stamp within 15min accuracy? I remember reading that blocks gets updated every 15min?
1100 2012-06-16 22:05:42 denisx has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1101 2012-06-16 22:05:54 denisx has joined
1102 2012-06-16 22:06:17 doublec has joined
1103 2012-06-16 22:07:02 <rav3n_pl> block is closed about every 10 mins
1104 2012-06-16 22:07:05 PK has quit ()
1105 2012-06-16 22:10:09 CluckCreek has left ()
1106 2012-06-16 22:12:02 <DomChan> thanks all, brb
1107 2012-06-16 22:12:10 DomChan is now known as DomChan|Away
1108 2012-06-16 22:12:52 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1109 2012-06-16 22:14:16 rav3n_pl is now known as rav3n_pl_away
1110 2012-06-16 22:17:07 asuk has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1111 2012-06-16 22:17:39 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1112 2012-06-16 22:18:37 denisx has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1113 2012-06-16 22:18:57 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1114 2012-06-16 22:24:56 <Joric> 1,583,177 BTC block http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000063c9acc532bff7f70247b5a9d65da9616ec8c9eea5583ed3808
1115 2012-06-16 22:25:04 <Joric> was mined yesterday
1116 2012-06-16 22:25:29 <Joric> today even
1117 2012-06-16 22:26:06 <Joric> oh sorry wrong number
1118 2012-06-16 22:26:21 talpan has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
1119 2012-06-16 22:26:22 <Joric> Total BTC: 1,182,825.13424492
1120 2012-06-16 22:29:45 denisx has joined
1121 2012-06-16 22:31:53 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1122 2012-06-16 22:37:08 saieko has joined
1123 2012-06-16 22:43:12 <sipa> DomChan|Away: confirmed is relative; visa transactions are processed instantly, but take months to confirm
1124 2012-06-16 22:45:03 O2made has joined
1125 2012-06-16 22:45:15 O2made has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1126 2012-06-16 22:47:04 O2made has joined
1127 2012-06-16 22:47:16 O2made has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1128 2012-06-16 22:53:42 RainbowDashh has joined
1129 2012-06-16 22:54:36 RainbowD_ has joined
1130 2012-06-16 22:54:36 RainbowDashh has quit (Disconnected by services)
1131 2012-06-16 22:54:39 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1132 2012-06-16 22:55:57 imsaguy has joined
1133 2012-06-16 22:57:01 RainbowD_ is now known as RainbowDashh
1134 2012-06-16 22:57:18 <phantomcircuit> sipa, 90 days to be precise
1135 2012-06-16 23:01:36 Raziel_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1136 2012-06-16 23:03:45 RainbowDashh has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1137 2012-06-16 23:04:44 sirk390 has joined
1138 2012-06-16 23:09:57 rdponticelli has joined
1139 2012-06-16 23:10:15 <MagicalTux> [07:53:48] <phantomcircuit> sipa, 90 days to be precise <- actually it depends on a lot of things, including what you call "confirmed"
1140 2012-06-16 23:10:32 <MagicalTux> confirmed can be when you got the money in your hands, or when you're sure the money won't be taken away from your hands
1141 2012-06-16 23:10:54 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, by statute you have 90 days to dispute the charges
1142 2012-06-16 23:10:58 <phantomcircuit> ITS THE LAW
1143 2012-06-16 23:11:00 <phantomcircuit> lold
1144 2012-06-16 23:11:13 <MagicalTux> phantomcircuit: usually it's more like 6 months for visa credit transfers
1145 2012-06-16 23:11:30 <MagicalTux> (at least in France)
1146 2012-06-16 23:11:31 <Diablo-D3> hey MagicalTux
1147 2012-06-16 23:12:00 <phantomcircuit> MagicalTux, in the us it's 90 days
1148 2012-06-16 23:12:08 <phantomcircuit> but visa can extend that if they so choose
1149 2012-06-16 23:12:13 <phantomcircuit> so in reality
1150 2012-06-16 23:12:14 <phantomcircuit> it is
1151 2012-06-16 23:12:17 <phantomcircuit> FOREVERRRRR
1152 2012-06-16 23:12:21 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: hi
1153 2012-06-16 23:15:25 <gmaxwell> 14:58 < DomChan> is the time stamp within 15min accuracy? I remember reading that blocks gets updated every 15min?
1154 2012-06-16 23:15:56 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: what do I need mtgox verification for?
1155 2012-06-16 23:15:57 <gmaxwell> ^ in case he comes back, the timestamps are not accurate at all, except you can assume they aren't dated more than 2hr in the future.
1156 2012-06-16 23:17:42 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: eur transfers and dwolla, mostly
1157 2012-06-16 23:18:19 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: dwolla in AND out?
1158 2012-06-16 23:18:29 MysteryBanshee has quit ()
1159 2012-06-16 23:18:51 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: yes
1160 2012-06-16 23:18:57 AntKinGTube has joined
1161 2012-06-16 23:19:04 AntKinGTube has quit (Client Quit)
1162 2012-06-16 23:19:23 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: any other way to get USD out?
1163 2012-06-16 23:20:32 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1164 2012-06-16 23:21:27 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: for now, expensive wires. We're working on other options and something should come up soon
1165 2012-06-16 23:23:33 AntKinGTube has joined
1166 2012-06-16 23:25:19 doublec has quit (Changing host)
1167 2012-06-16 23:25:19 doublec has joined
1168 2012-06-16 23:41:04 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1169 2012-06-16 23:52:31 AntKinGTube has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1170 2012-06-16 23:52:43 Diapolo has joined
1171 2012-06-16 23:55:38 AntKinGTube has joined
1172 2012-06-16 23:55:51 AntKinGTube has quit (Client Quit)
1173 2012-06-16 23:56:58 AntKinGTube has joined
1174 2012-06-16 23:57:38 Diapolo has left ()
1175 2012-06-16 23:58:40 someone42 has joined