1 2013-02-02 00:00:09 <CodeShark> by adding that "point at infinity"
   2 2013-02-02 00:00:10 <CodeShark> lol
   3 2013-02-02 00:00:11 <sipa> so the remaining problem is showing that there is no specific way to find out
   4 2013-02-02 00:00:20 <sipa> and that's the hard part :p
   5 2013-02-02 00:00:48 <sipa> if f(x) was x+1, there'd be an easy way of course
   6 2013-02-02 00:00:48 one_zero has joined
   7 2013-02-02 00:00:59 <sipa> but that method won't work if f is anything else
   8 2013-02-02 00:01:45 <HM> so basically
   9 2013-02-02 00:01:49 <HM> you start at a point on the curve
  10 2013-02-02 00:01:52 <HM> bounce around it a shitload
  11 2013-02-02 00:01:56 <HM> and nobody knows where you started
  12 2013-02-02 00:02:12 <CodeShark> everyone knows where you started - nobody knows how many times you bounced around
  13 2013-02-02 00:02:36 <HM> but...don't they just need to bounce around as many times as you did?
  14 2013-02-02 00:02:46 <sipa> yes
  15 2013-02-02 00:02:47 <andytoshi> CodeShark: the group is commutative, so those are arguably the same thing :)
  16 2013-02-02 00:02:57 <sipa> but it's a ridiculously large number
  17 2013-02-02 00:03:04 <andytoshi> HM: sure, bounce 2^1200 times and tell me how long it takes you
  18 2013-02-02 00:03:06 <andytoshi> 120*
  19 2013-02-02 00:03:06 da2ce7 has joined
  20 2013-02-02 00:03:09 <sipa> so they need a ridiculously high number of attempts to find out
  21 2013-02-02 00:03:11 <andytoshi> -not- 1200
  22 2013-02-02 00:03:25 <HM> so you do a shortcut because you know the private key
  23 2013-02-02 00:03:27 <HM> but they can't?
  24 2013-02-02 00:03:30 <CodeShark> the trick is that you don't really need to bounce around 2^1200 times to calculate it
  25 2013-02-02 00:03:39 <sipa> the private key IS the number of bounces
  26 2013-02-02 00:03:52 <CodeShark> exponentiation can be done quickly - but the logarithm cannot
  27 2013-02-02 00:04:00 <HM> eesh
  28 2013-02-02 00:04:16 sebicas has joined
  29 2013-02-02 00:04:27 sebicas has quit (Client Quit)
  30 2013-02-02 00:04:35 <sipa> HM: to see why it's fast: try calculating a^33 mod p
  31 2013-02-02 00:04:42 btcven has joined
  32 2013-02-02 00:04:44 <HM> what is a
  33 2013-02-02 00:04:47 <sipa> any number
  34 2013-02-02 00:04:48 <CodeShark> it's the same trick used with modular exponentiation - except that instead of squaring and adding, you're doubling and adding
  35 2013-02-02 00:04:51 <sipa> p is also any numbr
  36 2013-02-02 00:05:21 <sipa> you square a 5 times, resulting in p,p^2,p^4,p^8,...,p^32
  37 2013-02-02 00:05:23 <sipa> eh
  38 2013-02-02 00:05:25 <sipa> a^...
  39 2013-02-02 00:05:32 <sipa> then multiply it with a itself again
  40 2013-02-02 00:05:44 <sipa> and you've computed 33 'bounces' with just 6 operations
  41 2013-02-02 00:06:07 <HM> don't you mean a, not p
  42 2013-02-02 00:06:12 <sipa> yes
  43 2013-02-02 00:06:19 <sipa> 00:47:54 < sipa> a^...
  44 2013-02-02 00:06:23 <HM> ah
  45 2013-02-02 00:06:33 rdymac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  46 2013-02-02 00:06:40 <sipa> the (mod p) doesn't really matter
  47 2013-02-02 00:07:01 <HM> right so you get your answer, and both p and a are public anyway
  48 2013-02-02 00:07:04 <HM> 33 is your secret
  49 2013-02-02 00:07:05 <CodeShark> a^32 = ((((a^2)^2)^2)^2)^2 =
  50 2013-02-02 00:07:05 <HM> right?
  51 2013-02-02 00:07:10 voodster has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
  52 2013-02-02 00:07:14 <sipa> yes
  53 2013-02-02 00:07:28 <CodeShark> all you need to do is perform two types of operations - multiply by a and square
  54 2013-02-02 00:07:54 <HM> what's the public key in this scenario, the result of a^33 mod p?
  55 2013-02-02 00:07:57 <CodeShark> a*((((a^2)^2)^2)^2)^2 = a^33
  56 2013-02-02 00:07:58 <sipa> indeed
  57 2013-02-02 00:08:12 <sipa> if you do this on regular Z_p group (aka modulo p), you get the diffie-hellman problem
  58 2013-02-02 00:08:13 <CodeShark> and the number of operations needed only goes as log n
  59 2013-02-02 00:08:31 <sipa> which is the basis for ElGamal encryption, for example
  60 2013-02-02 00:08:33 <CodeShark> in the case of EC, you're doubling and adding.
  61 2013-02-02 00:08:42 <HM> well if you didn't have the mod p, Secret * log (a) = your result
  62 2013-02-02 00:08:58 <sipa> ?
  63 2013-02-02 00:09:16 <HM> sorry
  64 2013-02-02 00:09:17 <HM> a^x= S
  65 2013-02-02 00:09:18 btcven has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  66 2013-02-02 00:09:23 <HM> x * log(a) = log (S)
  67 2013-02-02 00:09:28 <gmaxwell> He's saying if it were over ℝ
  68 2013-02-02 00:09:33 <HM> yeah
  69 2013-02-02 00:09:36 <sipa> typically, a is called G, the generator
  70 2013-02-02 00:09:53 <sipa> and the 33 is the secret
  71 2013-02-02 00:10:01 <sipa> so G^secret = public
  72 2013-02-02 00:10:15 <CodeShark> aka the discrete log problem
  73 2013-02-02 00:10:21 <sipa> and indeed, log(public/G) is the solution
  74 2013-02-02 00:10:24 andytoshi has quit (Quit: time to go home)
  75 2013-02-02 00:10:30 <sipa> eh
  76 2013-02-02 00:10:37 <HM> log(S)/log(G)
  77 2013-02-02 00:10:39 <sipa> indeed
  78 2013-02-02 00:10:58 <HM> so the mod breaks the log
  79 2013-02-02 00:10:58 <sipa> except... there is no fast way to compute that log
  80 2013-02-02 00:11:19 <sipa> in a way
  81 2013-02-02 00:11:22 da2ce732 has joined
  82 2013-02-02 00:11:38 <HM> well if it was mod 2 for instance, you're only conceptually getting the last bit of the output
  83 2013-02-02 00:11:41 Joric has joined
  84 2013-02-02 00:12:02 <sipa> the number of different private keys is always limited to the size of the group - 1
  85 2013-02-02 00:12:18 <HM> yeah that's where i can't visualise it
  86 2013-02-02 00:12:22 <sipa> well
  87 2013-02-02 00:12:24 <sipa> in the case of 2
  88 2013-02-02 00:12:31 <sipa> mod 2, i mean
  89 2013-02-02 00:12:43 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  90 2013-02-02 00:12:55 <sipa> G can't be 0, because the powers of 0 are always 0 anyway
  91 2013-02-02 00:13:04 <HM> don't you mean 1
  92 2013-02-02 00:13:19 <CodeShark> the identity element
  93 2013-02-02 00:13:27 <HM> x^0 = 1
  94 2013-02-02 00:13:28 <sipa> sorry, i'm confused
  95 2013-02-02 00:13:36 <sipa> 0 isn't even an element of the group
  96 2013-02-02 00:13:41 <CodeShark> 1^x = 1
  97 2013-02-02 00:13:48 <HM> right yeah
  98 2013-02-02 00:13:51 <sipa> but you can't use 1, as it is no generator
  99 2013-02-02 00:14:04 <CodeShark> you need a generator that is a primitive element - with known order
 100 2013-02-02 00:14:10 <sipa> now let's say you work mod 3
 101 2013-02-02 00:14:31 <HM> 3 is prime so might as well
 102 2013-02-02 00:14:33 <sipa> the group consists of the numbers 1 and 2 now (we remove 0, as multiplying by 0 isn't interesting)
 103 2013-02-02 00:14:50 <CodeShark> the additive group mod 3?
 104 2013-02-02 00:14:55 <sipa> multiplicative
 105 2013-02-02 00:14:55 <CodeShark> then 0 is the identity element
 106 2013-02-02 00:15:05 <CodeShark> multiplicative, then 1 is the identity element
 107 2013-02-02 00:15:08 <sipa> indeed
 108 2013-02-02 00:15:09 <CodeShark> 2 is the generator
 109 2013-02-02 00:15:37 <sipa> HM: just to be clear, 'generator' means that you can write any element of the group as G^x, for some x
 110 2013-02-02 00:15:42 <CodeShark> yes
 111 2013-02-02 00:15:56 <HM> right so 0 and 1 are out
 112 2013-02-02 00:16:03 <HM> well 1 would still be a generator
 113 2013-02-02 00:16:07 <HM> whatever
 114 2013-02-02 00:16:20 <CodeShark> 1 is a generator of the additive group mod 3
 115 2013-02-02 00:16:36 <CodeShark> but it is the identity element of the multiplicative group
 116 2013-02-02 00:16:42 <CodeShark> and the multiplicative group does not contain 0
 117 2013-02-02 00:17:59 saispe has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 118 2013-02-02 00:18:17 <CodeShark> for any prime p, there exists 1 < g < p such that the sequence g, g^2, g^3, g^4, ..., g^(p-1) are just a permutation of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., p-1
 119 2013-02-02 00:18:35 <CodeShark> actually, 1 < g < p-1
 120 2013-02-02 00:18:48 <CodeShark> wait, no, I had it right the first time :)
 121 2013-02-02 00:19:02 <HM> you're getting abstract again
 122 2013-02-02 00:19:13 <sipa> HM: try mod 7
 123 2013-02-02 00:19:35 <HM> ok
 124 2013-02-02 00:19:43 <sipa> is 2 a generator?
 125 2013-02-02 00:19:53 <HM> sure why not?
 126 2013-02-02 00:20:03 <CodeShark> 2, 4, 1, 2, 4, 1, ...
 127 2013-02-02 00:20:10 <sipa> ok, try to write 3 as 2^n mod 7
 128 2013-02-02 00:20:13 <CodeShark> doesn't generate 3, 5, nor 6
 129 2013-02-02 00:21:24 <HM> right
 130 2013-02-02 00:21:27 <sipa> try 3
 131 2013-02-02 00:21:52 <HM> 2^n is always a power of 2 so mod 7 is (&7 binary) and will generate 000, 001, 010, 100 only
 132 2013-02-02 00:22:10 <sipa> indeed
 133 2013-02-02 00:22:56 <HM> so prime mods always generate 0 to (p-1)?
 134 2013-02-02 00:23:09 <CodeShark> 1 to p-1
 135 2013-02-02 00:23:21 <HM> why not 0
 136 2013-02-02 00:23:36 <CodeShark> 0 is not a member of the group - it is the annihilator
 137 2013-02-02 00:23:40 <CodeShark> it has no inverse
 138 2013-02-02 00:23:49 <HM> so it's just kicked in to the long grass
 139 2013-02-02 00:24:16 bakh has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 140 2013-02-02 00:24:19 <HM> oh i see
 141 2013-02-02 00:24:30 <HM> 2^x could never be a multiple of the prime
 142 2013-02-02 00:24:37 <HM> duh
 143 2013-02-02 00:24:57 <CodeShark> :)
 144 2013-02-02 00:25:25 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 145 2013-02-02 00:25:55 <CodeShark> and more generally, if gcd(a,m) = 1, then a^k == 0 (mod m) has no solution k
 146 2013-02-02 00:26:53 <HM> isn't it simply intuitive that anything exceeded a value, mod that value cannot be recovered trivially
 147 2013-02-02 00:26:59 <HM> it's a lossy operation
 148 2013-02-02 00:27:09 <CodeShark> but it's not really lossy
 149 2013-02-02 00:27:15 <HM> why not
 150 2013-02-02 00:27:19 <CodeShark> because the group is finite
 151 2013-02-02 00:27:55 <HM> 5^33 mod 3 = 2. if i give you 2, 5 and 3 you can't easily find 33 without bruteforcing it, right?
 152 2013-02-02 00:28:12 <fiesh> it's a field iff p is prime, therefore every multiplication can be undone by "division"
 153 2013-02-02 00:28:35 <CodeShark> well, if k solves 5^k mod 3 = 2, then 2j + k will also solve it for any j
 154 2013-02-02 00:29:04 <CodeShark> so we can consider only exponents smaller than p - 1
 155 2013-02-02 00:29:10 <HM> what
 156 2013-02-02 00:29:51 <CodeShark> a^(p-1) mod p = 1 for any prime p and gcd(a,p) = 1
 157 2013-02-02 00:30:25 <HM> sorry i'm still trying to figure out j
 158 2013-02-02 00:30:54 <CodeShark> Fermat's little theorem - essentially, we can add any multiple of p-1 to the exponent and still get a solution
 159 2013-02-02 00:31:00 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 160 2013-02-02 00:31:09 <CodeShark> so if p = 3, we can add any multiple of 2
 161 2013-02-02 00:31:26 <HM> for primes only?
 162 2013-02-02 00:31:36 <CodeShark> there's Euler's generalization
 163 2013-02-02 00:31:42 <CodeShark> which is used in RSA
 164 2013-02-02 00:31:52 Yrouel has quit (Quit: Dio e' l'unico essere che, per regnare, non ha nemmeno bisogno di esistere (C. Baudelaire))
 165 2013-02-02 00:32:15 <CodeShark> for general m, we have a^(phi m) mod m = 1 for gcd(a, m) = 1
 166 2013-02-02 00:32:20 <sipa> it essentially means the multiplicative group is one less than p
 167 2013-02-02 00:32:44 <sipa> in size
 168 2013-02-02 00:33:11 <CodeShark> yes, it actually follows immediately from the existence of a primitive element
 169 2013-02-02 00:33:24 <HM> so if you use an exponent greater or equal to p then you're stuffed...because, magic
 170 2013-02-02 00:33:36 <CodeShark> you just mod the exponent by p-1
 171 2013-02-02 00:33:57 <CodeShark> you only consider exponents from 0 to p-2
 172 2013-02-02 00:34:15 Dark_Ghost has joined
 173 2013-02-02 00:34:23 <CodeShark> then the operation of modular exponentiation is fully reversible
 174 2013-02-02 00:34:29 <CodeShark> but HARD to reverse
 175 2013-02-02 00:35:44 <CodeShark> remember, HM, that in actual cryptographical applications, p is very, very large
 176 2013-02-02 00:35:57 <HM> yeah but it's got to make sense for small cases as well
 177 2013-02-02 00:36:02 <HM> even if they are bruteforceable
 178 2013-02-02 00:36:03 <sipa> HM: look at it this way: G^n mod p will only result in numbers between 1 and p-1 (it obviously can't be p because of the mod, and it can't be 0, because that would mean every higher power would also be 0)
 179 2013-02-02 00:36:04 <CodeShark> so even if we stick to keys smaller than p-1, there's a LOT of keys to choose from
 180 2013-02-02 00:36:33 <HM> sipa, yeah get that
 181 2013-02-02 00:36:33 agricocb has joined
 182 2013-02-02 00:37:01 <sipa> HM: it turns out, that if you've tried the numbers between 0 and p-2, you've got them all
 183 2013-02-02 00:37:37 <HM> right
 184 2013-02-02 00:38:25 <HM> for small values you can obviously compute a value of the exponent that gives you the correct result
 185 2013-02-02 00:38:33 <HM> but that doesn't mean it's the same one the original guy had
 186 2013-02-02 00:38:36 <HM> does it?
 187 2013-02-02 00:38:45 da2ce732 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 188 2013-02-02 00:38:47 <CodeShark> it does
 189 2013-02-02 00:38:56 <HM> this is what i don't get about it. it seems like it's a hash function to me where you lose information
 190 2013-02-02 00:39:14 <CodeShark> but you don't - we already discussed how exponentiation just permutes the numbers 1 to p-1
 191 2013-02-02 00:39:51 <CodeShark> if g is a generator, then the sequence g, g^2, g^3, g^4, ..., g^(p-1) is just a permutation of 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., p-1
 192 2013-02-02 00:40:34 <HM> right
 193 2013-02-02 00:41:36 <HM> so for each exponent there is one unique result
 194 2013-02-02 00:41:42 <CodeShark> yes
 195 2013-02-02 00:41:55 <CodeShark> and vice versa
 196 2013-02-02 00:42:17 <CodeShark> there's a one-to-one correspondence between the exponents and the members of the sequence
 197 2013-02-02 00:42:22 CodeInChaos has joined
 198 2013-02-02 00:42:36 <HM> does the value of a matter
 199 2013-02-02 00:42:46 <CodeShark> ?
 200 2013-02-02 00:42:50 <sipa> which a?
 201 2013-02-02 00:43:06 <HM> a^2 mod 3
 202 2013-02-02 00:43:13 <sipa> it needs to be a generator
 203 2013-02-02 00:43:21 <CodeShark> yeah, as long as it's a generator we're fine
 204 2013-02-02 00:43:39 <HM> eesh
 205 2013-02-02 00:44:01 <HM> so where's the generator in the y^2 = x^3 + ax + b
 206 2013-02-02 00:44:09 <sipa> there is none
 207 2013-02-02 00:44:16 <CodeShark> the generator is a point on the curve
 208 2013-02-02 00:45:02 <sipa> HM: in EC crypto, the elements of our group are no longer numbers modulo p, but are points on a curve
 209 2013-02-02 00:45:14 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 210 2013-02-02 00:45:30 <sipa> and we'll define an 'add' operation, which combines two points on the curve to end up with a new point on the curve
 211 2013-02-02 00:45:50 <HM> by taking a tangent from a point to the point of infinity
 212 2013-02-02 00:45:52 <HM> or something
 213 2013-02-02 00:45:56 <sipa> or multiply, if you like
 214 2013-02-02 00:46:42 <CodeShark> if P is a point on the curve, then to compute P + P, find the line tangent to the curve at P and find the other point where it intersects the curve
 215 2013-02-02 00:46:58 <CodeShark> then flip the sign of the y coordinate
 216 2013-02-02 00:47:02 <HM> so why does EC produce shorter keys
 217 2013-02-02 00:47:05 <HM> what property makes that so
 218 2013-02-02 00:47:55 <HM> CodeShark: yeah i saw that operation in a load of videos but it never really explained why it was done except "because that's what we do"
 219 2013-02-02 00:47:56 <sipa> it's basically because of the best known algorithm to compute the discrete log of a point on the curve
 220 2013-02-02 00:48:15 <sipa> compared to the best known algorithm for inverting G^x mod p
 221 2013-02-02 00:48:35 <HM> right so shorter keys, more operations/cpu power
 222 2013-02-02 00:48:44 <HM> same strength
 223 2013-02-02 00:48:55 <sipa> so for the same key size, the reversing is harder
 224 2013-02-02 00:48:56 btcven has joined
 225 2013-02-02 00:49:19 <sipa> note that computing the exponentiation is also harder, but that's just a worse constant factor
 226 2013-02-02 00:49:31 <HM> yeah so what makes dancing over a curve equivalent to exponentiation?
 227 2013-02-02 00:49:32 <sipa> while for reversing, the best known algorithm has a different complexity
 228 2013-02-02 00:49:36 <sipa> haha
 229 2013-02-02 00:49:56 <sipa> 'exponentiation' just means 'applying the multiplication operation multiple times'
 230 2013-02-02 00:50:00 <HM> bouncing over a curve is just like the generator right, produces a permutation ?
 231 2013-02-02 00:50:22 <sipa> so we've defined an add operation for two points, right?
 232 2013-02-02 00:50:27 <HM> yeah
 233 2013-02-02 00:50:34 <sipa> tangent or intersection, blah blah
 234 2013-02-02 00:50:40 <sipa> turns out, this defines a group
 235 2013-02-02 00:50:48 <sipa> and it has a generator
 236 2013-02-02 00:51:08 <CodeShark> the real breakthrough in EC crypto was the discovery of algorithms for computing the order
 237 2013-02-02 00:51:21 <CodeShark> I still don't fully get that :
 238 2013-02-02 00:51:23 <CodeShark> lol
 239 2013-02-02 00:51:28 <sipa> i didn't know that :p
 240 2013-02-02 00:51:43 <sipa> (well, i knew orders were known, but i had no idea how they were computed)
 241 2013-02-02 00:51:57 <sipa> HM: order of a group = number of elements in it
 242 2013-02-02 00:52:16 <CodeShark> Schoof's algorithm
 243 2013-02-02 00:52:21 <sipa> HM: so the multiplicative group mod 7, has order 6
 244 2013-02-02 00:53:10 <HM> right
 245 2013-02-02 00:53:17 <sipa> now, for the specific curve we're using in bitcoin, secp256k1, the order is prime, and this implies every point (except the identity, the point at infinity) is a generator
 246 2013-02-02 00:53:26 <CodeShark> wait, is the order prime?
 247 2013-02-02 00:54:00 <sipa> hmm, i always assumed so
 248 2013-02-02 00:54:05 <sipa> but i'm not entirely sure
 249 2013-02-02 00:54:35 <HM> so y^2 + x^3 + ax + b
 250 2013-02-02 00:54:40 <HM> a = 0, b = 7
 251 2013-02-02 00:54:55 <HM> y^2 = x^3 + 7
 252 2013-02-02 00:55:16 <HM> looks like a darn simple equation to protect your money with :/
 253 2013-02-02 00:55:22 <CodeShark> the order is 0xffffffff ffffffff ffffffff fffffffe baaedce6 af48a03b bfd25e8c d0364141
 254 2013-02-02 00:55:49 <HM> yeah so huge values of x and y
 255 2013-02-02 00:56:04 <HM> and mod p
 256 2013-02-02 00:56:11 <HM> wait
 257 2013-02-02 00:56:16 <HM> what is the mod
 258 2013-02-02 00:56:46 <CodeShark> hmm, perhaps it is prime
 259 2013-02-02 00:56:58 <HM> is it basically mod [closest prime to 2^256 - 1]?
 260 2013-02-02 00:57:29 <CodeShark> p = 2^256 - 2^32 - 2^9 - 2^8 - 2^7 - 2^6 - 2^4 - 1
 261 2013-02-02 00:57:47 <HM> that could be the same thing for all i know
 262 2013-02-02 00:57:58 <CodeShark> there must be at least one prime closer to 2^256 - 1
 263 2013-02-02 00:58:05 <CodeShark> probably quite a few
 264 2013-02-02 00:58:16 <sipa> the order is not prime
 265 2013-02-02 00:58:18 btcven has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 266 2013-02-02 00:58:21 <sipa> just checked
 267 2013-02-02 00:58:43 <HM> so i get that your public key is an x,y coordinate
 268 2013-02-02 00:58:53 <HM> and that you can compress it through algebra
 269 2013-02-02 00:58:57 <HM> what is your private key
 270 2013-02-02 00:59:05 <HM> in RSA it was the exponent
 271 2013-02-02 00:59:16 <CodeShark> your private key is a random number you pick that you multiply the generator by to get the public key
 272 2013-02-02 00:59:22 <sipa> wait, it is!
 273 2013-02-02 00:59:27 <sipa> copy-paste error
 274 2013-02-02 00:59:32 <CodeShark> mathematica is telling me it's prime, sipa
 275 2013-02-02 00:59:41 <sipa> yes, wolfram alpha too
 276 2013-02-02 00:59:44 <HM> CodeShark: and the generator is what in the case of bitcoin?
 277 2013-02-02 00:59:55 <CodeShark> HM: http://www.secg.org/collateral/sec2_final.pdf page 15
 278 2013-02-02 00:59:56 <HM> i thought the curve was now the generator
 279 2013-02-02 00:59:57 <sipa> HM: some point on the curve, it's quite arbitrary
 280 2013-02-02 01:00:02 btcven has joined
 281 2013-02-02 01:00:05 <sipa> the generator is a point on the curve
 282 2013-02-02 01:00:10 <sipa> the curve is the group
 283 2013-02-02 01:00:19 <sipa> the generator is an element of the group
 284 2013-02-02 01:00:22 <sipa> i.e., a point
 285 2013-02-02 01:00:35 <CodeShark> the generator is the base point G
 286 2013-02-02 01:00:48 <HM> right so you pick some random x (your privkey), in a 256bit range, calculate a point on the curve, and that is your starting point
 287 2013-02-02 01:00:54 <HM> the generator is your magic point
 288 2013-02-02 01:01:01 <CodeShark> you start at G, you compute xG
 289 2013-02-02 01:01:16 <CodeShark> G + G + G + G + { x times } + G
 290 2013-02-02 01:01:25 <HM> you haven't touched the curve yet
 291 2013-02-02 01:01:36 <CodeShark> the operation G + G is defined via the curve
 292 2013-02-02 01:01:38 <HM> unless you mean point addition
 293 2013-02-02 01:01:39 <sipa> HM: you need the curve to compute the addition of two points
 294 2013-02-02 01:02:06 <HM> even though it looks nothing like addition :|
 295 2013-02-02 01:02:08 graham1 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 296 2013-02-02 01:02:12 <sipa> indeed it doesn't
 297 2013-02-02 01:02:35 <sipa> it just happens to have the same properties
 298 2013-02-02 01:02:52 <sipa> though in some ways, it's more similar to the multiplication of numbers mod p
 299 2013-02-02 01:03:30 <HM> so each time you do G + G x times you've moving between points on the sec256k1 curve, it's a generator because you can only visit a finite set of points and you can reach all of them
 300 2013-02-02 01:03:30 btcven has quit (Client Quit)
 301 2013-02-02 01:03:40 <sipa> indeed!
 302 2013-02-02 01:03:44 <HM> the order you move between points is equivalent to a permutation
 303 2013-02-02 01:03:49 <HM> determined by your starting point
 304 2013-02-02 01:03:52 <HM> which is your private key
 305 2013-02-02 01:03:53 <sipa> yes
 306 2013-02-02 01:03:55 btcven has joined
 307 2013-02-02 01:03:59 <HM> err
 308 2013-02-02 01:04:01 <HM> no, G
 309 2013-02-02 01:04:14 <sipa> the number x you do the addition is the private key
 310 2013-02-02 01:04:19 <sipa> G is the starting point
 311 2013-02-02 01:04:23 <HM> the number of permutations/jumps is your private key
 312 2013-02-02 01:04:28 <HM> right
 313 2013-02-02 01:05:18 <sipa> no, the permutation is "jump 0 times, jumt 1 time, jump 2 times, ..."
 314 2013-02-02 01:05:25 <sipa> that is a permutation of the points of your curve
 315 2013-02-02 01:05:46 <HM> so all the curve really does is definte a generator for a massive permutation of large numbers
 316 2013-02-02 01:05:52 <HM> your private key is somewhat similar to n
 317 2013-02-02 01:05:54 <sipa> bingo
 318 2013-02-02 01:05:57 <HM> and your public key is the nth number
 319 2013-02-02 01:06:05 <muhoo> is this stuff in schneier's "applied cryptography" or is there a good recommended text to understand the math/theory behind this?
 320 2013-02-02 01:06:26 * muhoo alas does not have a CS or maths degree
 321 2013-02-02 01:06:28 <sipa> didn't read that, actually
 322 2013-02-02 01:06:42 <sipa> i only did stanford's online cryptography course last year
 323 2013-02-02 01:06:45 <HM> khan academy has some videos on cryptograpgy, not sure if it  covers EC
 324 2013-02-02 01:06:50 <sipa> but that didn't consider EC
 325 2013-02-02 01:06:56 <sipa> i learnt EC from wikipedia :
 326 2013-02-02 01:06:58 <HM> he has a video section called "ancient cryptography" and "modern cryptography"
 327 2013-02-02 01:07:18 <sipa> but i was familiar with groups
 328 2013-02-02 01:07:32 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 329 2013-02-02 01:07:56 <HM> so given n, for the nth number, you can calculate G+G+G point additions quickly
 330 2013-02-02 01:08:01 <sipa> yes!
 331 2013-02-02 01:08:05 <sipa> using the exact same trick
 332 2013-02-02 01:08:06 <HM> just like you can G^n with squaring
 333 2013-02-02 01:08:13 <CodeShark> exactly
 334 2013-02-02 01:08:16 <HM> but different
 335 2013-02-02 01:08:23 <HM> using tangents and slide rules and wizards
 336 2013-02-02 01:08:26 <sipa> if you need the 257th number, square (=point double) G 8 times
 337 2013-02-02 01:08:35 <CodeShark> you have two operations - doubling and adding G
 338 2013-02-02 01:08:35 <sipa> and add G once
 339 2013-02-02 01:08:58 <fiesh> getnewaddress does not require the wallet to be unlocked -- does this mean that the associated private key will be stored unencrypted until the wallet is encrypted again?
 340 2013-02-02 01:09:00 <HM> so that's why they call it point addition and multiplication?
 341 2013-02-02 01:09:14 <sipa> fiesh: no, the wallet contains 100 pre-generated keys
 342 2013-02-02 01:09:27 <sipa> fiesh: and their public address is stored unencrypted, but the private part is encrypted
 343 2013-02-02 01:09:32 btcven has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 344 2013-02-02 01:09:35 <sipa> and getnewaddress just takes one off the pool
 345 2013-02-02 01:09:40 <CodeShark> addition is an operation between two points on the curve. multiplication is an operation between a scalar and a point on the curve
 346 2013-02-02 01:09:41 <fiesh> sipa: oh, and it's taken from those?  what if it runs out, then the command fails?
 347 2013-02-02 01:09:45 <sipa> fiesh: indeed
 348 2013-02-02 01:09:49 <fiesh> ah ok, thank you
 349 2013-02-02 01:10:05 b4epoche has joined
 350 2013-02-02 01:10:06 <CodeShark> kG = G + G + ... {k times}
 351 2013-02-02 01:10:18 <fiesh> and I suppose deterministic wallets are not going to be in 0.8?
 352 2013-02-02 01:10:22 <sipa> fiesh: indeed
 353 2013-02-02 01:10:23 <fiesh> (I know I asked befoer ;))
 354 2013-02-02 01:10:25 <fiesh> ok, thanks
 355 2013-02-02 01:10:26 <CodeShark> unfortunately, fiesh :)
 356 2013-02-02 01:10:31 <fiesh> yes, very much so
 357 2013-02-02 01:10:42 <sipa> sorry, haven't had the time :p
 358 2013-02-02 01:11:05 <HM> CodeShark: but point doubling is analagous to multiplication, e.g. it's a shortcut for repeated additions. a shortcut an attacker can't take because he doesn't know he needs to take it?
 359 2013-02-02 01:11:09 <fiesh> hehe
 360 2013-02-02 01:11:15 <HM> analogous*
 361 2013-02-02 01:11:26 <CodeShark> right, HM
 362 2013-02-02 01:11:41 <sipa> HM: indeed, in some places EC addition between points is written *
 363 2013-02-02 01:11:54 <fiesh> is there a nicer way to create a large number of addresses than running getnewaddress over and over again?  I would assume the overhead is relatively large this way, but maybe I'm wrong
 364 2013-02-02 01:11:54 <sipa> HM: and point multiplication with a number is written as G^n
 365 2013-02-02 01:12:06 <fiesh> (something like getnewaddress [# times])
 366 2013-02-02 01:12:07 <HM> so when you compute your public key from a private one you mostly do point doubling
 367 2013-02-02 01:12:14 <HM> and only a few additions?
 368 2013-02-02 01:12:24 <CodeShark> + is often used to indicate commutative groups in group theory
 369 2013-02-02 01:12:30 <sipa> depends on the number of bits set in the binary representation of k
 370 2013-02-02 01:12:34 <sipa> typically, half of them
 371 2013-02-02 01:12:35 <HM> right of course
 372 2013-02-02 01:12:41 <sipa> so 256 multiplications and 128 additions
 373 2013-02-02 01:12:51 toffoo has quit ()
 374 2013-02-02 01:12:58 <sipa> eh, 256 doublings and 128 addings of G
 375 2013-02-02 01:13:18 <HM> but the point is, an attacker has to permutate the entire thing with additions, the doubling is your shortcut because you know how far you have to go
 376 2013-02-02 01:13:36 <CodeShark> there's a timing attack on older implementations of OpenSSL, HM
 377 2013-02-02 01:13:39 <sipa> well the attacker can use doublings just as well
 378 2013-02-02 01:13:49 <CodeShark> based on the fact that doubling and adding take a different amount of time in weak implementations
 379 2013-02-02 01:13:52 <sipa> but he doesn't know what/when to double
 380 2013-02-02 01:14:00 <sipa> so yes, i suppose that's a nice way of looking at it
 381 2013-02-02 01:14:05 <HM> groovy
 382 2013-02-02 01:14:14 <HM> i could hug you guys
 383 2013-02-02 01:14:49 <sipa> HM: now, can you explain why vanitygen only needs to do EC additions? :p
 384 2013-02-02 01:15:11 <HM> erm
 385 2013-02-02 01:15:34 <sipa> you said it yourself: you can use the doubling trick only if you know how many times you want to do the addition
 386 2013-02-02 01:15:40 <sipa> and they are doing an exhaustive search
 387 2013-02-02 01:15:45 <HM> right
 388 2013-02-02 01:15:58 <HM> this is what i wondered though
 389 2013-02-02 01:16:02 <sipa> so they just start with a random point
 390 2013-02-02 01:16:08 <sipa> and do +G all the time
 391 2013-02-02 01:16:29 <HM> if it's a sequential search and i'm searching for a 1Sipa prefix. then the first key i generate would be the first key anyone who uses generated for that prefix
 392 2013-02-02 01:16:35 <HM> so they must randomise it
 393 2013-02-02 01:16:39 <HM> i did wonder that
 394 2013-02-02 01:16:51 <sipa> indeed
 395 2013-02-02 01:17:17 <HM> you could create a subtly weak vanitygen if your randomisation was guff
 396 2013-02-02 01:17:24 <HM> right?
 397 2013-02-02 01:17:31 <sipa> haha, yes!
 398 2013-02-02 01:17:44 <CodeShark> thta's been known to happen
 399 2013-02-02 01:18:17 <HM> would that still work with split keying
 400 2013-02-02 01:18:31 <HM> or does that eliminate any possibility of poor randomisation
 401 2013-02-02 01:18:35 <HM> it does doesn't it
 402 2013-02-02 01:18:37 <HM> hmm
 403 2013-02-02 01:20:10 <HM> good stuff
 404 2013-02-02 01:21:59 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 405 2013-02-02 01:26:48 rdymac has joined
 406 2013-02-02 01:28:10 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 407 2013-02-02 01:28:59 techlife has joined
 408 2013-02-02 01:37:00 Jamesz has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 409 2013-02-02 01:40:12 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 410 2013-02-02 01:41:37 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 411 2013-02-02 01:55:47 <bsdunx> Is there a preferred way to support debug builds with this qmake generator, i've been hacking the .pro file for support of gdb and disabling stack-protector in debug build
 412 2013-02-02 01:59:10 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 413 2013-02-02 02:07:59 Insu has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 414 2013-02-02 02:10:04 andytoshi has joined
 415 2013-02-02 02:13:32 <bsdunx> HM was that you I was speaking with yesterday?
 416 2013-02-02 02:15:17 Joric has quit ()
 417 2013-02-02 02:19:46 Pasha has joined
 418 2013-02-02 02:20:27 Cory has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 419 2013-02-02 02:23:23 <HM> bsdunx: about what?
 420 2013-02-02 02:23:38 <HM> i'm not familiar with qmake, only cmake
 421 2013-02-02 02:23:56 <bsdunx> unit test related patch
 422 2013-02-02 02:24:06 <HM> nope
 423 2013-02-02 02:24:17 <bsdunx> sorry I don't have a log perhaps it was TD
 424 2013-02-02 02:24:30 <HM> that seems like a reasonable assumption
 425 2013-02-02 02:24:31 <bsdunx> some two letter capitalized nick =s
 426 2013-02-02 02:24:51 Pasha is now known as Cory
 427 2013-02-02 02:25:00 <Luke-Jr> bsdunx: qmake bitcoin-qt.pro CONFIG+=debug DEBUGFLAGS=-ggdb
 428 2013-02-02 02:25:08 <gmaxwell> bsdunx: why are you disabling the stack protector
 429 2013-02-02 02:25:24 <bsdunx> to not mess with debugger
 430 2013-02-02 02:25:27 <gmaxwell> I don't recall it ever gumming up debugging.
 431 2013-02-02 02:25:38 <gmaxwell> It shouldn't.
 432 2013-02-02 02:33:38 DarkSector has joined
 433 2013-02-02 02:33:52 DarkSector has left ()
 434 2013-02-02 02:35:40 LargoG has joined
 435 2013-02-02 02:39:46 Dark_Ghost has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 436 2013-02-02 02:39:51 LargoG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 437 2013-02-02 02:40:07 Silverion has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 438 2013-02-02 02:40:09 Dark_Ghost has joined
 439 2013-02-02 02:40:35 Silverion has joined
 440 2013-02-02 02:42:18 LargoG has joined
 441 2013-02-02 02:42:24 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 442 2013-02-02 02:43:10 <moore> I wrote up a post on how people are "steeling" from satoshi dice if any one is interested
 443 2013-02-02 02:43:31 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 444 2013-02-02 02:43:42 eckey has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 445 2013-02-02 02:45:06 <jgarzik> Avalon miner: 66.3 Ghps / 620 Watts / 5.6 Amps
 446 2013-02-02 02:46:04 CodesInChaos has joined
 447 2013-02-02 02:46:25 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: might want to consider running yours on 240v... a lot (all?) of pc power supplies are a couple percent more efficient at 240v.
 448 2013-02-02 02:46:58 <gmaxwell> moore: where?
 449 2013-02-02 02:48:47 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 450 2013-02-02 02:49:08 <moore> https://plus.google.com/u/0/106313804833283549032/posts/Ccg2VreMTXw
 451 2013-02-02 02:49:14 <moore> it is short
 452 2013-02-02 02:50:19 <HM> hmmm
 453 2013-02-02 02:50:20 mappum has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 454 2013-02-02 02:50:36 <MC1984> didnt avalon quote 400 watts?
 455 2013-02-02 02:50:49 <MC1984> umm over 50% more power usage isnt good
 456 2013-02-02 02:51:04 <moore> I did not want to just drop the link in the channel unless people wanted to see it as don't know if people are intrested it what I have been talking about
 457 2013-02-02 02:51:09 <gmaxwell> MC1984: no they gave a range which included 600..
 458 2013-02-02 02:51:23 <gmaxwell> and at 240v I bet that psu is under 600.
 459 2013-02-02 02:51:45 <HM> moore: i find it interesting. ty
 460 2013-02-02 02:51:49 <MC1984> why is 240 more efficient
 461 2013-02-02 02:51:51 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 462 2013-02-02 02:52:30 CodesInChaos has joined
 463 2013-02-02 02:52:42 <gmaxwell> makes the switching frequency higher and the little transformer in the switching psu is more efficient at a higher frequency. I think. I never much cared _why_ it was more efficient.
 464 2013-02-02 02:53:05 <Luke-Jr> moore: they should be applauded
 465 2013-02-02 02:53:20 <gmaxwell> moore: well written.
 466 2013-02-02 02:53:22 <MC1984> oh yeah they use little switchmodes
 467 2013-02-02 02:53:38 <moore> who should be applauded?
 468 2013-02-02 02:53:46 <moore> thanks
 469 2013-02-02 02:54:05 <Luke-Jr> moore: anyone who stops Dice from abusing the network
 470 2013-02-02 02:54:11 <gmaxwell> I assume luke means The double spending SD players. :)
 471 2013-02-02 02:54:19 <HM> Luke-Jr: is it abuse really?
 472 2013-02-02 02:54:22 <moore> well I think it is happening
 473 2013-02-02 02:54:25 <Luke-Jr> HM: yes
 474 2013-02-02 02:54:25 <MC1984> it could be 400 watts thermal and 620 at the wall
 475 2013-02-02 02:54:42 <MC1984> i wonder if jgarzik could get the model number of that psu
 476 2013-02-02 02:54:47 <Luke-Jr> moore: I should get Inaba to upgrade EclipseMC. The latest block_dice code is more complex to block inputs as well :D
 477 2013-02-02 02:54:55 <moore> I bet that they will either have to raise there take quite a bit or stop
 478 2013-02-02 02:54:58 <gmaxwell> HM: they use the network very inefficiently, creating externalized costs in the process.  Thats the facts of it... is it abuse is a boring question of definitions.
 479 2013-02-02 02:56:02 <HM> it's hard to say it's malicious
 480 2013-02-02 02:56:14 <gmaxwell> in particular their txout dust loss notification transactions may have a really significant long term burden.
 481 2013-02-02 02:56:15 <Luke-Jr> HM: they know it harms Bitcoin and they still do it. that's malicious IMO.
 482 2013-02-02 02:56:30 <moore> if my post gets any attention I suspect it will not help SD out much
 483 2013-02-02 02:57:02 <HM> modern western living harms the environment, but we still do it. does that make us malicious? because we're wasteful and don't care enough to change?
 484 2013-02-02 02:57:06 <gmaxwell> HM: they were asked to make some tweaks to improve the efficiency (Even as little as using compressed pubkeys) and the response can best be characterized by 'lol ur problem dudes'.
 485 2013-02-02 02:57:07 <moore> gmaxwell, why long term?
 486 2013-02-02 02:57:55 <HM> i'm not defending them, i just think if  it's malicious then it really is our problem
 487 2013-02-02 02:58:15 <HM> when someone *really* malicious comes along how will we deal if we don't cope with a troll service
 488 2013-02-02 02:58:16 <gmaxwell> moore: because they bloat the set of unspent transactions forever (they're so low value they likely will never be worth the txfees to spend them until they get lost) and the cache locality of the coins database is important to transaction verificiation importance...
 489 2013-02-02 02:58:19 <MC1984> isnt there a way to incentivise more efficient tx structures
 490 2013-02-02 02:58:21 <Luke-Jr> HM: maybe.
 491 2013-02-02 02:58:27 <gmaxwell> and unspent outputs can't be pruned, so more storage too.
 492 2013-02-02 02:58:29 <MC1984> fee policy?
 493 2013-02-02 02:58:46 <Luke-Jr> HM: well, if people are turning their malice against them this way, it seems we have a defence :D
 494 2013-02-02 02:58:49 <gmaxwell> MC1984: /free/ policy, at least... fee policy not so much.
 495 2013-02-02 02:59:00 <moore> ok
 496 2013-02-02 02:59:10 <HM> convince the big mining networks to block them, then game them and put them under
 497 2013-02-02 02:59:11 <MC1984> they pay for all thier txn
 498 2013-02-02 02:59:12 <moore> how well is indexDB working out?
 499 2013-02-02 02:59:19 <MC1984> they dont use free tx
 500 2013-02-02 02:59:21 <Luke-Jr> LevelDB is working nicely I think
 501 2013-02-02 02:59:34 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: 0.0005 BTC is hardly a fee
 502 2013-02-02 02:59:34 <moore> pl
 503 2013-02-02 02:59:36 <moore> cool
 504 2013-02-02 02:59:39 <gmaxwell> at least we can incentivize not bloating the utxo set a bit.. though I don't see how we can incentivize not using 2 transactions when 0.01 transactions would suffie.
 505 2013-02-02 02:59:43 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: the effective cost of Dice transactions are huge
 506 2013-02-02 02:59:44 <HM> i mean anything you do to hinder SD is equally malicious
 507 2013-02-02 02:59:55 <Luke-Jr> HM: more like self defence
 508 2013-02-02 03:00:04 <HM> how many people play SD though?
 509 2013-02-02 03:00:09 <moore> I have been thinking of writing my self a fractal tree index which might be more effechent then the aproach that LevelDB uses
 510 2013-02-02 03:00:12 <HM> do those users feel like you're defending them ? :S
 511 2013-02-02 03:00:15 <gmaxwell> HM: At least their response to problems has been 'you fix it'. ::shrugs::
 512 2013-02-02 03:00:16 <Luke-Jr> HM: far fewer than they want you to think
 513 2013-02-02 03:00:36 <MC1984> youd hope theyd be rational enough to ensure the long tern survival of the netowrk by not being dicks
 514 2013-02-02 03:00:43 <moore> locality wise more efficient
 515 2013-02-02 03:00:55 <HM> moore: 'fractal trees', if they're what i think you mean, are a patent minefield
 516 2013-02-02 03:00:55 <MC1984> thats what i mean about bitcoin assuming a level of rationality that might not exist
 517 2013-02-02 03:01:18 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: their discussions on facebook make me think they might actually not be sane
 518 2013-02-02 03:01:20 <moore> HM, I don't really look at patents much
 519 2013-02-02 03:01:29 <moore> but might matter for bitcoin
 520 2013-02-02 03:01:45 <amiller> moore by fractal tree do you basically mean any of the cache oblivious data structure
 521 2013-02-02 03:01:45 <MC1984> of course that doesnt mean shit if theyre just trying to milk it dry then move onto the next scam somewhere
 522 2013-02-02 03:01:56 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: as in, they look at Bitcoin as a tool to overthrow governments and bring about anarchy worldwide…
 523 2013-02-02 03:01:56 <moore> amiller, ya
 524 2013-02-02 03:02:10 <gmaxwell> MC1984: their their public stock is worth over 600kBTC now at market. The stock the owner owns is worth around 5.4 million BTC at market now.  ... :P short term gains seem to encourage crapping up bitcoin's long term prospets.
 525 2013-02-02 03:02:21 <MC1984> Luke-Jr sounds like punter pleasing rhetoric to me
 526 2013-02-02 03:02:32 <HM> eh
 527 2013-02-02 03:02:40 <HM> how can it be worth 5 million BTC
 528 2013-02-02 03:02:41 <moore> I actually have been thinking of a modification that should make lookups cheaper but merges cost more
 529 2013-02-02 03:02:48 <HM> that's absurd
 530 2013-02-02 03:03:05 <gmaxwell> People are stupid?
 531 2013-02-02 03:03:18 <moore> I would do this by using the b-heap layout that varnish uses
 532 2013-02-02 03:03:20 <MC1984> gmaxwell all i can say is that bitcoin has to absorb that shit, you cant change human nature
 533 2013-02-02 03:03:21 <Luke-Jr> HM: bubble, maybe fraud
 534 2013-02-02 03:03:37 <gmaxwell> They sold 10 percent of their shares. People traded the public shares up to a point where they have a market cap of 600kBTC.. ::shrugs::
 535 2013-02-02 03:03:42 <MC1984> im surpised all the pools havent banned dice tx yet though
 536 2013-02-02 03:03:45 <Luke-Jr> HM: by artificially inflating their transaction volume, they can probably be making investors thing they're a big hit
 537 2013-02-02 03:04:05 <andytoshi> hey, anyone here in or around austin tx?
 538 2013-02-02 03:04:08 <HM> investors are dumb then
 539 2013-02-02 03:04:14 <HM> you could reimplement SD in a day
 540 2013-02-02 03:04:17 <HM> maybe 2
 541 2013-02-02 03:04:21 <Luke-Jr> HM: I could do it BETTER in a day
 542 2013-02-02 03:04:29 * Luke-Jr grumbles about stupid laws in the USA
 543 2013-02-02 03:04:44 <HM> haha gambling sucks there
 544 2013-02-02 03:04:48 <gmaxwell> Not just investors, but also other gamblers.. there is a lot of social proof to gambling. Gamblers are all looking for an 'edge' (and foolish enough to think one exists when one doesn't)... a lot of people using something is a sign there is an edge.
 545 2013-02-02 03:04:49 <HM> move to antigua
 546 2013-02-02 03:04:52 <HM> problem solved
 547 2013-02-02 03:05:24 <gmaxwell> plus all the griping the technical people do about that site is free promotion.
 548 2013-02-02 03:05:29 <Luke-Jr> I really hope someone implements a Bitcoin-friendly Dice soon
 549 2013-02-02 03:05:35 <HM> gmaxwell: there *are* egdes in sports...particular if you're in to arbitrage
 550 2013-02-02 03:05:36 <Luke-Jr> (somewhere it's legal to do so)
 551 2013-02-02 03:05:44 <gmaxwell> There are plenty of transaction efficient gambling sites.
 552 2013-02-02 03:05:49 <sipa> Luke-Jr: most likely that already exist(ed), and nobody every heard about it :)
 553 2013-02-02 03:05:54 <gmaxwell> hm: sure, but not in that kind of thing.
 554 2013-02-02 03:06:06 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: sure, I mean that have all the benfits of dice
 555 2013-02-02 03:06:29 <HM> Dice....couldn't pick a more boring game
 556 2013-02-02 03:06:34 <Luke-Jr> lol
 557 2013-02-02 03:06:36 <HM> i mean at least emulate a lottery
 558 2013-02-02 03:06:39 <gmaxwell> I mean, I like to point people to https://ragecoin.appspot.com/ as an example of very efficient gambling.
 559 2013-02-02 03:06:48 <HM> have a fancy flash ball machine animation
 560 2013-02-02 03:06:53 <gmaxwell> hm: thats kinda the point.. the addicts need nothing else..
 561 2013-02-02 03:06:56 <HM> fancy music, girl in a red dress
 562 2013-02-02 03:06:57 <HM> tada
 563 2013-02-02 03:08:03 <gmaxwell> if you're the kind of person who will blow a bunch on repeated plays at 98% EV your only entertainment is the adreline rush and the dopamine spike... yet another 'drug' based service, I guess. :P
 564 2013-02-02 03:08:04 <HM> gmaxwell: just hit the 500x there l
 565 2013-02-02 03:08:36 <HM> haha
 566 2013-02-02 03:09:37 <HM> i quite like poker
 567 2013-02-02 03:10:06 <gmaxwell> Maybe I shold spend some times writing up why it's also irrational to play games of chance which have small >100% EVs... perhaps that will help more people understand that gambling is foolish.
 568 2013-02-02 03:10:10 <HM> but games of pure chance, in the casino, eesh
 569 2013-02-02 03:10:30 <HM> gmaxwell: the kelly criterion
 570 2013-02-02 03:11:02 <gmaxwell> Right.
 571 2013-02-02 03:11:02 <sipa> what worries is me, is that even people who perfectly understand the statistics behind it, seem to play it
 572 2013-02-02 03:11:03 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 573 2013-02-02 03:12:04 <MC1984> gmaxwell if you dont understand gambling
 574 2013-02-02 03:12:19 <MC1984> look up people who shoot up krokodil in russia
 575 2013-02-02 03:12:21 <gmaxwell> I am less concerned about that— its a smaller set of people... and at least they know what they are doing. There absolutely are a large number of people who think they actually have an edge, and also many people who totally don't get that the house edge is _per game_ and it adds up.
 576 2013-02-02 03:12:24 CodesInChaos has joined
 577 2013-02-02 03:13:51 <HM> meh. i'd rather spend £1/day on a lottery ticket than on a newspaper
 578 2013-02-02 03:14:25 <HM> but  i'd prefer to buy neither ;)
 579 2013-02-02 03:17:36 <Luke-Jr> does anyone understand what Diapolo is trying to tell me on the Proposals pull? can someone explain? >_<
 580 2013-02-02 03:18:24 <MC1984> i bought a scratchcard once
 581 2013-02-02 03:18:27 <MC1984> it cost £2
 582 2013-02-02 03:18:31 <MC1984> i won £4
 583 2013-02-02 03:18:36 <MC1984> i never bought another once again
 584 2013-02-02 03:18:39 <HM> good story.
 585 2013-02-02 03:18:40 <MC1984> thats how you do gambling
 586 2013-02-02 03:18:58 <HM> Cripes does ragecoin actually use MD5 :|
 587 2013-02-02 03:19:43 <gmaxwell> HM: harmless in its usage.. more amusing was that their nonces used to only be about 40 bits... so it would have been possible to make a table.
 588 2013-02-02 03:20:31 <HM> it doesn't lookt hat long now
 589 2013-02-02 03:20:47 <HM> md5(x,y,x ...are those the reel results?
 590 2013-02-02 03:20:50 <gmaxwell> He fixed it after I convinced him it was insecure... but it actually took some work to convince him.
 591 2013-02-02 03:21:12 <gmaxwell> By the end I was a bit irritated with myself that I didn't just exploit it. :P
 592 2013-02-02 03:21:40 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 593 2013-02-02 03:22:15 <HM> looks to be about 70 bits now
 594 2013-02-02 03:22:34 <HM> plus whatever the reals are
 595 2013-02-02 03:22:37 <HM> reels*
 596 2013-02-02 03:23:30 <gmaxwell> yea, you only need to precompute for a small number of reels. E.g. every one of the highest return options.. then spin until the next will be one of those and play that round.
 597 2013-02-02 03:23:39 <gmaxwell> since it costs nothing to spin without playing.
 598 2013-02-02 03:24:36 <HM> it's not provably fair is it?
 599 2013-02-02 03:27:42 copumpkin has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 600 2013-02-02 03:27:53 <HM> he should put a timestamp in the session alongside a mac to ensure nobody has a feasible time in which to brute it
 601 2013-02-02 03:28:05 copumpkin has joined
 602 2013-02-02 03:31:35 <muhoo> wow, whatever changes you guys made in the latest HEAD of bitcoinj, block chain download speed increased by an insane amount, like 100x
 603 2013-02-02 03:31:59 <sipa> muhoo: BIP37
 604 2013-02-02 03:32:07 <sipa> i suppose
 605 2013-02-02 03:33:00 <muhoo> i also note it is periodically attempting to redownload the chain, on a timer, looks like, even if it hasn't changed. haven't seen where in the code that could be (wag would be PeerGroup.java)
 606 2013-02-02 03:35:04 <ralphtheninja> hey, I'm interested in helping out with developing bitcoind/bitcoin-qt, where do I start? :)
 607 2013-02-02 03:35:16 <Luke-Jr> ralphtheninja: testing pullreqs
 608 2013-02-02 03:35:27 <muhoo> yep, looks like the bloom filter code is in here now. fantastic!
 609 2013-02-02 03:36:14 BCB is now known as mrpotatohead5445
 610 2013-02-02 03:36:24 <ralphtheninja> Luke-Jr: check, can you point me to a FAQ or similar?
 611 2013-02-02 03:36:43 <Luke-Jr> ralphtheninja: you know how to use git?
 612 2013-02-02 03:36:47 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 613 2013-02-02 03:36:55 <ralphtheninja> Luke-Jr: yeah :)
 614 2013-02-02 03:37:21 <Luke-Jr> ralphtheninja: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls
 615 2013-02-02 03:37:28 <ralphtheninja> Luke-Jr: obviously there is a shitload of stuff that I don't understand, but there must be small stuff that I can start with
 616 2013-02-02 03:37:39 <Luke-Jr> ralphtheninja: testing is the big bottleneck
 617 2013-02-02 03:37:49 mrpotatohead5445 is now known as misspotatohead54
 618 2013-02-02 03:37:56 <Luke-Jr> ralphtheninja: if you really want to start writing code right away, unit test cases
 619 2013-02-02 03:38:03 <ralphtheninja> Luke-Jr: gotcha, I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find something
 620 2013-02-02 03:38:11 zooko has joined
 621 2013-02-02 03:38:38 <HM> what's the bloom filter for?
 622 2013-02-02 03:38:47 <HM> i noticed that in the codebase
 623 2013-02-02 03:39:00 <sipa> HM: filtering transactions in blocks
 624 2013-02-02 03:39:04 <sipa> HM: read BIP 37
 625 2013-02-02 03:39:10 <muhoo> for spv
 626 2013-02-02 03:39:29 <HM> k
 627 2013-02-02 03:39:52 <sipa> it means SPV clients don't need to download all transactions
 628 2013-02-02 03:42:48 <HM> hmm indeed
 629 2013-02-02 03:43:15 <HM> what's the scenario where a peer doesn't feel like doing this work?
 630 2013-02-02 03:43:19 <HM> just disconnect?
 631 2013-02-02 03:43:32 <muhoo> light clients on slow networks
 632 2013-02-02 03:43:36 <muhoo> i.e. android phone
 633 2013-02-02 03:43:51 <muhoo> or a server running on a cheap-ass 1BTC/quarter VPS :-)
 634 2013-02-02 03:44:02 <muhoo> with 500MB RAM
 635 2013-02-02 03:44:41 <HM> no sorry, i meant what happens if someone requests a peer to filter and the peer says "forget it"
 636 2013-02-02 03:44:57 <muhoo> i don't think the peer is filtering, the client is.
 637 2013-02-02 03:44:59 <sipa> HM: if they don't implement it, they will ignore it
 638 2013-02-02 03:45:06 <gmaxwell> 19:07 < HM> it's not provably fair is it?
 639 2013-02-02 03:45:06 <sipa> muhoo: peers are peers :)
 640 2013-02-02 03:45:09 <HM> right. so basically it's advisary
 641 2013-02-02 03:45:30 <sipa> HM: a getdata for inv type 3 will be considered ignored
 642 2013-02-02 03:45:36 <HM> the SPV client will have to detect peers not being polite and disconnect them
 643 2013-02-02 03:45:38 <sipa> eh, non-existing
 644 2013-02-02 03:45:41 <gmaxwell> No, I told him how to make it provably fair and he worked on it some and I think it was just more work than he wanted to do considering the traffic it gets (not much)
 645 2013-02-02 03:46:07 <HM> gmaxwell: lol ok.
 646 2013-02-02 03:46:26 * sipa goes in stand-by mode
 647 2013-02-02 03:46:42 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 648 2013-02-02 03:47:29 <HM> sipa: you get to choose your own hash tweak?
 649 2013-02-02 03:48:01 <HM> i guess that's fine in a bloom filter.
 650 2013-02-02 03:50:23 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 651 2013-02-02 03:52:07 * HM rolls over and goes to sleep
 652 2013-02-02 03:52:13 HM is now known as WH
 653 2013-02-02 03:54:13 fiesh has joined
 654 2013-02-02 03:54:56 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 655 2013-02-02 03:55:15 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 656 2013-02-02 03:55:34 <bsdunx> Question is the block transaction history count in the UI actually an approximation of blocks remaining?
 657 2013-02-02 03:57:22 FredEE has joined
 658 2013-02-02 03:58:09 FredEE has quit (Client Quit)
 659 2013-02-02 03:58:55 <gmaxwell> bsdunx: if you're referring to the block count in the progress indicator, it's an approximation. Yes.
 660 2013-02-02 04:00:21 <bsdunx> Okay, I'll put the tilde back in, working on fixing the pluralization for the en translation.
 661 2013-02-02 04:02:06 sgornick has joined
 662 2013-02-02 04:02:21 Guest66276 is now known as Hasimir
 663 2013-02-02 04:02:21 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
 664 2013-02-02 04:02:21 Hasimir has joined
 665 2013-02-02 04:08:49 misspotatohead54 is now known as BCB
 666 2013-02-02 04:10:38 mappum has joined
 667 2013-02-02 04:11:02 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
 668 2013-02-02 04:11:59 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 669 2013-02-02 04:13:20 graham1 has joined
 670 2013-02-02 04:25:33 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 671 2013-02-02 04:25:38 [7] has joined
 672 2013-02-02 04:27:04 Maged has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 673 2013-02-02 04:27:20 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 674 2013-02-02 04:29:46 sgornick has joined
 675 2013-02-02 04:35:48 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 676 2013-02-02 04:47:22 Maged has joined
 677 2013-02-02 04:49:24 word has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 678 2013-02-02 04:54:41 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 679 2013-02-02 04:56:48 freakazoid has joined
 680 2013-02-02 05:09:21 Hasimir has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 681 2013-02-02 05:11:41 sgornick has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 682 2013-02-02 05:12:40 Jamesonwa has joined
 683 2013-02-02 05:20:43 Cryo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 684 2013-02-02 05:22:32 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 685 2013-02-02 05:25:33 b4epoche has joined
 686 2013-02-02 05:32:07 <jgarzik> cool
 687 2013-02-02 05:32:15 <jgarzik> 2 out of 3 exmulti machines are on http://blockchain.info/hub-nodes
 688 2013-02-02 05:32:23 <jgarzik> I need to finish brd ASAP, and boost my stats
 689 2013-02-02 05:32:33 <Diablo-D3> p2pool needs more blocks
 690 2013-02-02 05:32:45 <MC1984> whats exmulti
 691 2013-02-02 05:33:33 <jgarzik> MC1984: my one-man corp
 692 2013-02-02 05:34:18 Hasimir has joined
 693 2013-02-02 05:34:23 <MC1984> eh
 694 2013-02-02 05:38:09 <MC1984> should p2pool be getting more blocks now because of jeffs thing
 695 2013-02-02 05:40:55 <mappum> he's not mining it there
 696 2013-02-02 05:42:30 <Luke-Jr> I love how PayPal tells you how to bypass the password prompt after you get it wrong twice.. -.-
 697 2013-02-02 05:43:52 <mappum> oh god, and they hold all my money
 698 2013-02-02 05:43:58 <mappum> that isnt btc
 699 2013-02-02 05:44:13 testnode9 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 700 2013-02-02 05:46:23 * Luke-Jr wonders why he has 22 compilers installed <.<
 701 2013-02-02 05:47:08 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 702 2013-02-02 05:47:53 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 703 2013-02-02 05:57:49 ThomasV has joined
 704 2013-02-02 06:04:27 KIDC has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 705 2013-02-02 06:05:52 <bsdunx> Diablo-D3: curious, are you a BH member?
 706 2013-02-02 06:06:05 <Diablo-D3> a what?
 707 2013-02-02 06:06:33 <bsdunx> guess not, =p .. blizzhackers aka edgeofnowhere
 708 2013-02-02 06:07:15 <gmaxwell> bsdunx: now you get ranted at that his nick predates blizzard. in 3. 2. 1. ...
 709 2013-02-02 06:07:45 <bsdunx> gotcha
 710 2013-02-02 06:08:22 <bsdunx> I only asked since another member is around.
 711 2013-02-02 06:11:23 dvide has quit ()
 712 2013-02-02 06:22:45 * jgarzik wants to switch mining targets, but is doing a how-long-until-restart test... which it is surviving
 713 2013-02-02 06:23:00 <jgarzik> and configuration changes require restart, due to apparent software bug
 714 2013-02-02 06:23:08 <SomeoneWeird> heh
 715 2013-02-02 06:23:40 * jgarzik again pondered solo mining
 716 2013-02-02 06:24:04 <Diablo-D3> bsdunx: my nick predates blizzard entertainment, co.
 717 2013-02-02 06:24:04 <jgarzik> but ignoring variance, there is also the risk that this chip was never tested at a super high difficulty
 718 2013-02-02 06:24:08 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: damnit
 719 2013-02-02 06:24:19 <jgarzik> it does survive vardiff, with current diff around 32
 720 2013-02-02 06:24:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: so solo mine with lower difficulty results handed back and ignored.
 721 2013-02-02 06:24:52 <jgarzik> I suppose I could hack a proxy to do that
 722 2013-02-02 06:24:59 <gmaxwell> any poolserver software will do that.
 723 2013-02-02 06:25:16 <jgarzik> pool server would give me LP, too
 724 2013-02-02 06:25:19 <jgarzik> or the equivalent thereof
 725 2013-02-02 06:26:14 * jgarzik wonders if he could do his own p2pool... i.e. use p2pool software, but within my own private network-of-1
 726 2013-02-02 06:26:23 <gmaxwell> Right. Some people solo using p2pool in an isolated mode... but since you were having issues with 10 second shares.
 727 2013-02-02 06:26:28 <gmaxwell> Yep you certantly can.
 728 2013-02-02 06:28:49 <jgarzik> at the next config change, I definitely want to go back to p2pool.  it seemed like "btcaddr+10" username plus forrestv's p2pool patch did the trick for the most part.  I think the new physical configuration/lab placement may fix some p2pool issues.
 729 2013-02-02 06:30:10 <gmaxwell> Bummer you didn't get your first block on p2pool, would have been neat to have a bunch of people paid directly in the first asic mined block. :)
 730 2013-02-02 06:31:18 <bsdunx> Would refactoring stuff out of main.cpp be welcomed?
 731 2013-02-02 06:32:05 <andytoshi> i'd support it, fwiw
 732 2013-02-02 06:32:08 <andytoshi> (exactly nothing)
 733 2013-02-02 06:32:13 <jgarzik> bsdunx: refactoring is done slowly on an as-needed basis.  there is general agreement that refactoring is needed.
 734 2013-02-02 06:32:32 <jgarzik> however, refactoring really should not be a first-project
 735 2013-02-02 06:32:43 <jgarzik> but something tackled after messing around with the codebase for a while
 736 2013-02-02 06:32:59 <jgarzik> too often it's a "refactor just so I can read the damn thing" effort ;p
 737 2013-02-02 06:33:24 <bsdunx> getting rid of the globals?
 738 2013-02-02 06:34:00 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 739 2013-02-02 06:34:02 <jgarzik> bsdunx: sure, but again, slowly (or at least in many commits, not One Big Commit)
 740 2013-02-02 06:34:18 <jgarzik> and it has to make sense... sometimes a global is simply easy and efficient
 741 2013-02-02 06:34:31 <jgarzik> and the "clean" alternative winds up more complex.
 742 2013-02-02 06:34:44 <jgarzik> as with anything, life is a zen balance of many factors, costs, benefits :)
 743 2013-02-02 06:34:59 <andytoshi> support i submit a patch with translates all the code to lisp...
 744 2013-02-02 06:35:02 <jgarzik> newbies should start with one global
 745 2013-02-02 06:35:07 <jgarzik> and work their way up :)
 746 2013-02-02 06:35:08 <Luke-Jr> f = lambda b = None, a = 0: a if b is None else lambda c = None: f(c, a + b)
 747 2013-02-02 06:35:13 <Luke-Jr> ^ and people say Perl is hard to read
 748 2013-02-02 06:35:30 <jgarzik> tiny cleanups are great for newbies (new to the project, I mean)
 749 2013-02-02 06:35:37 <jgarzik> big sweeping changes, not so much, even if cosmetic
 750 2013-02-02 06:36:10 <gmaxwell> Refactors are hard to audit. If we accepted them easily from new contributors they'd be the best way to slip in a security vulnerablity.
 751 2013-02-02 06:36:13 <andytoshi> Luke-Jr: fibonacci?
 752 2013-02-02 06:36:34 <Luke-Jr> andytoshi: f(1)(2)(3)() = 1 + 2 + 3
 753 2013-02-02 06:36:47 * jgarzik ponders crowdfunding
 754 2013-02-02 06:37:04 * Luke-Jr ponders why someone would use p2pool for soloing when Eloipool works :P
 755 2013-02-02 06:37:12 <jgarzik> i.e. exMULTI wants X BTC to run M public nodes "for the public good"
 756 2013-02-02 06:37:18 * andytoshi keeps trying to trace that haskell
 757 2013-02-02 06:37:21 <jgarzik> anybody can add BTC to the given transaction
 758 2013-02-02 06:37:29 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: as mentioned: people can't figure how how to run it. :P
 759 2013-02-02 06:37:30 * jgarzik wonders how easy that is, in Bitcoin-Qt UI
 760 2013-02-02 06:37:39 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, I did document the less obvious bits
 761 2013-02-02 06:37:41 <gmaxwell> p2pool is easy, has reasonable instructions, very easy to mergemine with..
 762 2013-02-02 06:37:50 <jgarzik> i.e. add coins to existing ANYONECANPAY transaction, from the UI
 763 2013-02-02 06:37:50 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: oh, good.
 764 2013-02-02 06:38:38 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it's not hard to do them from the rawtxn api, but ANYONECANPAY is kinda kludgy since you can't add change.
 765 2013-02-02 06:39:36 <andytoshi> guys, is there a good way to determine what the input to a txout should be?
 766 2013-02-02 06:39:41 <andytoshi> it seems like bitcoind just has some templates
 767 2013-02-02 06:40:00 <andytoshi> rather, what the input should be shaped like
 768 2013-02-02 06:40:07 <jgarzik> hmmm
 769 2013-02-02 06:40:14 <jgarzik> users could send X BTC to themselves
 770 2013-02-02 06:40:23 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: beter perhaps to have a multipayer txn (like my 'I taint rich' thread) and a simple cgi that lets people join into one.
 771 2013-02-02 06:40:29 <jgarzik> then add precisely X BTC to the ANYONECANPAY TX
 772 2013-02-02 06:40:46 <andytoshi> i'd like to some sorta explain program for raw transactions
 773 2013-02-02 06:40:46 <jgarzik> hmmm
 774 2013-02-02 06:40:54 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: yep, thats how you have to use ANYONECANPAY.
 775 2013-02-02 06:41:05 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0 ('I taint rich' thread)
 776 2013-02-02 06:43:18 <gmaxwell> a simple cgi that let people provide a txid/vout they want to put up (and the amount if its not fixed).... and an email address to nag when its time to sign might work. at least if the number of participants is fairly modest (too many and you run into issues with people vanishing)
 777 2013-02-02 06:44:10 <jgarzik> makes me want to write a simple bot, instead of a cgi
 778 2013-02-02 06:44:32 <gmaxwell> annoyingly raw txn run into IRC message length limits.
 779 2013-02-02 06:44:49 jonathan__ has joined
 780 2013-02-02 06:44:52 <jgarzik> SD-like
 781 2013-02-02 06:45:02 <jgarzik> just get bitcoins over the blockchain.  return them, if level not reached.
 782 2013-02-02 06:45:15 <jgarzik> (i.e. contract not funded)
 783 2013-02-02 06:46:02 <gmaxwell> Also see: http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/rspp  if you're considering crowdfunding type things.
 784 2013-02-02 06:48:46 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 785 2013-02-02 06:49:26 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 786 2013-02-02 06:54:09 rdponticelli has joined
 787 2013-02-02 06:54:13 jurov has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 788 2013-02-02 06:54:31 * jgarzik wishes he could come up with some fantastic incentive that spreads bitcoin relay nodes throughout the world ;p
 789 2013-02-02 06:55:03 <gmaxwell> enable pay-to-ip again and then send funds to randomly selected healthy nodes. :P
 790 2013-02-02 06:55:58 jurov has joined
 791 2013-02-02 06:56:10 <petertodd> include replacable unsigned-for outputs with sighash single and tell nodes to redirect the funds to themselves and get them to miners ASAP
 792 2013-02-02 06:56:17 <petertodd> (nodes == miners in this case...)
 793 2013-02-02 06:56:50 <petertodd> and then make these special tx's be dependent on tonnes of other ones confirming
 794 2013-02-02 06:57:03 <jgarzik> if I had the cash, I'd rent servers from small shops scattered widely, just to run full nodes and nothing else
 795 2013-02-02 06:57:10 <gmaxwell> petertodd: dunno why miners wouldn't replace those outputs.
 796 2013-02-02 06:57:29 <petertodd> gmaxwell: that's why I said nodes == miners...
 797 2013-02-02 06:57:44 <gmaxwell> ah, well you don't have to pay miners. The network pays miners.
 798 2013-02-02 06:57:54 <gmaxwell> And you could just create high fee txn to do that.
 799 2013-02-02 06:57:58 <petertodd> point is to incentivising getting the dependent tx's mined, so the special ones can be
 800 2013-02-02 06:58:33 <petertodd> and incentivising in such a way that *non-supportng* miners have a reason to make this happen
 801 2013-02-02 06:58:57 <petertodd> basically it's a bridge to better tx fee handling and tit-for-tat relay protocols
 802 2013-02-02 07:00:21 two_dollar_btc has joined
 803 2013-02-02 07:01:17 <two_dollar_btc> btc going back to $2
 804 2013-02-02 07:01:44 <gmaxwell> two_dollar_btc: you've found the wrong channel.
 805 2013-02-02 07:02:10 <two_dollar_btc> sorry brothers.... sell off now.
 806 2013-02-02 07:02:32 andytoshi is now known as john-the-baptcoi
 807 2013-02-02 07:02:40 john-the-baptcoi is now known as john-thebaptcoin
 808 2013-02-02 07:03:06 john-thebaptcoin is now known as andytoshi
 809 2013-02-02 07:03:10 <gmaxwell> two_dollar_btc: troll elsewhere, no one here cares.
 810 2013-02-02 07:03:46 <jgarzik> <Eleuthria> So the upgraded bitcoind should reduce stales a bit.  I could also do the other trick that a lot of other pools do...just send a coinbase-only block at LP so I don't have to wait for bitcoind.
 811 2013-02-02 07:03:52 * jgarzik never knew that trick
 812 2013-02-02 07:04:33 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Did you see my message responding to your fidelity bank token idea?
 813 2013-02-02 07:04:50 grau has joined
 814 2013-02-02 07:12:11 <jgarzik> har!
 815 2013-02-02 07:12:14 <jgarzik> could not resist
 816 2013-02-02 07:12:20 <jgarzik> switching to solo mining for the night
 817 2013-02-02 07:12:31 <jgarzik> straight getwork-to-bitcoind
 818 2013-02-02 07:13:22 <bsdunx> jgarzik: what about having a CApplication class and just using private members for most of them, I'll do it incrementally.
 819 2013-02-02 07:14:20 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: can bitcoind keep up with 68 Gh/s getworks now?
 820 2013-02-02 07:14:36 <andytoshi> bsdunx: please no
 821 2013-02-02 07:15:11 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: well it's not like you need diff-1 work ;p
 822 2013-02-02 07:15:39 <bsdunx> andytoshi: alright
 823 2013-02-02 07:15:52 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: all getworks are diff-1 for issuing the work, which is the bottleneck ;)
 824 2013-02-02 07:16:12 <andytoshi> bsdunx: the effect would be to add a lot of C++ism to the code without improving anything
 825 2013-02-02 07:16:38 <jgarzik> odd behavior
 826 2013-02-02 07:16:45 <jgarzik> getworks increasing on bitcoind _and_ slush
 827 2013-02-02 07:20:38 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 828 2013-02-02 07:20:51 <jgarzik>    [URL] => http://10.10.20.30:8332
 829 2013-02-02 07:20:51 <jgarzik>    [Status] => Alive
 830 2013-02-02 07:20:51 <jgarzik>    [Priority] => 0
 831 2013-02-02 07:20:51 <jgarzik>    [Long Poll] => N
 832 2013-02-02 07:20:51 <jgarzik>    [Getworks] => 4418
 833 2013-02-02 07:20:52 <jgarzik>    [Accepted] => 0
 834 2013-02-02 07:20:54 <jgarzik>    [Rejected] => 0
 835 2013-02-02 07:20:56 <jgarzik>    [Discarded] => 0
 836 2013-02-02 07:20:58 <jgarzik>    [Stale] => 0
 837 2013-02-02 07:21:01 blitz- has joined
 838 2013-02-02 07:21:02 <jgarzik>    [Get Failures] => 391
 839 2013-02-02 07:21:12 <jgarzik> I'm guessing it is falling back to other pools upon 'get failure', whatever that is
 840 2013-02-02 07:21:22 two_dollar_btc has joined
 841 2013-02-02 07:22:04 blitz- has left ()
 842 2013-02-02 07:22:21 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you can't stop "getworks" on stratum, so it'll increase as long as it's connected
 843 2013-02-02 07:22:54 <Luke-Jr> (although *gminer usually disconnect at some point of non-use)
 844 2013-02-02 07:26:37 <jgarzik> almost 10% get failure rate with straight bitcoind
 845 2013-02-02 07:27:48 unknown45682 has joined
 846 2013-02-02 07:28:06 unknown45682 has quit (2!~unknown45@96.225.127.147|Client Quit)
 847 2013-02-02 07:29:02 two_dollar_btc has quit (Quit: Page closed)
 848 2013-02-02 07:30:18 unknown45682 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 849 2013-02-02 07:33:56 <jgarzik> switched to p2pool (stats in #p2pool)
 850 2013-02-02 07:35:27 BTCTrader has quit (Quit: BTCTrader)
 851 2013-02-02 07:35:33 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 852 2013-02-02 07:39:07 jonathan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 853 2013-02-02 07:43:13 MrTiggr has joined
 854 2013-02-02 08:00:13 xiangfu has joined
 855 2013-02-02 08:00:29 xiangfu has left ()
 856 2013-02-02 08:06:22 PhantomSpark has joined
 857 2013-02-02 08:06:34 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-105.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Remote host closed the connection)
 858 2013-02-02 08:07:18 PhantomSpark has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 859 2013-02-02 08:13:59 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 860 2013-02-02 08:19:08 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 861 2013-02-02 08:21:14 CodesInChaos has joined
 862 2013-02-02 08:21:32 <jgarzik> hum!  local bitcoin.git HEAD (db3b4ade7ba8a91afaa649177d5f297f20eb40fd) has taken (so far) hours to shut down
 863 2013-02-02 08:21:47 <SomeoneWeird> 0.o
 864 2013-02-02 08:21:51 <SomeoneWeird> cant be good
 865 2013-02-02 08:25:41 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 StopNode()
 866 2013-02-02 08:25:41 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 ThreadOpenConnections exited
 867 2013-02-02 08:25:41 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 ThreadMessageHandler exited
 868 2013-02-02 08:25:41 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:03 ThreadOpenAddedConnections exited
 869 2013-02-02 08:25:41 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:03 ThreadsRPCServer still running
 870 2013-02-02 08:25:42 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:45 ThreadDumpAddress exited
 871 2013-02-02 08:26:08 <jgarzik> it's waiting on... something
 872 2013-02-02 08:26:10 <jgarzik> 17143 ?        SNsl   0:40 /spare/repo/bitcoin/src/bitcoind -datadir=/spare/bitcoin/data -daemon
 873 2013-02-02 08:28:41 Goonie has joined
 874 2013-02-02 08:29:12 BTCOxygen has joined
 875 2013-02-02 08:34:13 PhantomSpark has joined
 876 2013-02-02 08:34:15 MrTiggr has joined
 877 2013-02-02 08:35:31 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 878 2013-02-02 08:37:14 CodesInChaos has joined
 879 2013-02-02 08:44:29 mapppum has joined
 880 2013-02-02 08:46:16 Goonie has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 881 2013-02-02 08:48:37 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 882 2013-02-02 08:52:28 unknown45682 has joined
 883 2013-02-02 08:52:33 Insu has joined
 884 2013-02-02 08:56:33 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 885 2013-02-02 08:56:45 CodesInChaos has joined
 886 2013-02-02 08:57:46 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 887 2013-02-02 08:58:07 Hashdog has joined
 888 2013-02-02 08:59:33 CodesInChaos has joined
 889 2013-02-02 09:01:11 CodesInChaos has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 890 2013-02-02 09:03:00 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 891 2013-02-02 09:05:12 Guest68630 has joined
 892 2013-02-02 09:05:51 CodesInChaos has joined
 893 2013-02-02 09:07:05 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 894 2013-02-02 09:07:19 CodeInChaos has joined
 895 2013-02-02 09:11:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: ps -eLo args,tid,comm |
 896 2013-02-02 09:11:05 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: ps -eLo args,tid,comm | grep bitcoind
 897 2013-02-02 09:11:13 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 898 2013-02-02 09:12:56 CodesInChaos has joined
 899 2013-02-02 09:13:35 CodeInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 900 2013-02-02 09:16:25 CodeInChaos has joined
 901 2013-02-02 09:17:32 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 902 2013-02-02 09:24:06 Diapolo has joined
 903 2013-02-02 09:30:14 bakh has joined
 904 2013-02-02 09:31:17 zebedee_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 905 2013-02-02 09:31:43 Jamesz has joined
 906 2013-02-02 09:34:57 Diapolo has left ()
 907 2013-02-02 09:35:16 ovidiusoft has joined
 908 2013-02-02 09:37:37 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 909 2013-02-02 09:40:27 b4epoche has joined
 910 2013-02-02 09:53:21 heebo has quit (Quit: pfft)
 911 2013-02-02 09:56:36 rlifchitz has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 912 2013-02-02 10:00:32 rlifchitz has joined
 913 2013-02-02 10:00:33 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
 914 2013-02-02 10:00:33 rlifchitz has joined
 915 2013-02-02 10:02:49 WolfAlex_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 916 2013-02-02 10:03:24 WolfAlex has joined
 917 2013-02-02 10:07:49 ryzen2010 has joined
 918 2013-02-02 10:14:05 KuKzz has joined
 919 2013-02-02 10:21:30 ryzen2010 has left ()
 920 2013-02-02 10:21:38 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 921 2013-02-02 10:25:22 voodster has joined
 922 2013-02-02 10:26:03 mapppum has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 923 2013-02-02 10:26:34 B0g4r7 has joined
 924 2013-02-02 10:32:55 nus has joined
 925 2013-02-02 10:35:18 WolfAlex_ has joined
 926 2013-02-02 10:36:14 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 927 2013-02-02 10:36:57 rdymac has joined
 928 2013-02-02 10:38:52 mappum has joined
 929 2013-02-02 10:43:55 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 930 2013-02-02 10:47:11 one_zero has quit ()
 931 2013-02-02 11:00:36 CodeInChaos is now known as CodesInChaos
 932 2013-02-02 11:12:52 <MC1984> whats the max datarate possible of bitcoin now
 933 2013-02-02 11:13:01 <MC1984> is it like 13kbs or something
 934 2013-02-02 11:15:36 ThomasV has joined
 935 2013-02-02 11:15:47 Ken` has joined
 936 2013-02-02 11:20:23 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 937 2013-02-02 11:22:37 RazielZ has joined
 938 2013-02-02 11:23:28 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 939 2013-02-02 11:30:03 knotwork has joined
 940 2013-02-02 11:30:03 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
 941 2013-02-02 11:30:03 knotwork has joined
 942 2013-02-02 11:36:33 Hashdog has joined
 943 2013-02-02 11:40:17 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 944 2013-02-02 11:42:10 Scrat_p has joined
 945 2013-02-02 11:43:10 Scrat has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 946 2013-02-02 11:45:21 occulta has joined
 947 2013-02-02 11:48:14 <unknown45682> Hi
 948 2013-02-02 11:48:28 <unknown45682> I have a question for the devs here
 949 2013-02-02 11:48:34 <SomeoneWeird> (just ask)
 950 2013-02-02 11:48:59 <unknown45682> It's about namecoin but also applies to any cryptocurrency including bitcoin
 951 2013-02-02 11:49:14 WH is now known as HM
 952 2013-02-02 11:49:28 <unknown45682> i have namecoind running in windows command line. then i get nmc testnet running by typing "namecoind -testnet"
 953 2013-02-02 11:49:46 <unknown45682> but my commands can only interact with the main chain
 954 2013-02-02 11:49:58 <unknown45682> how can i getinfo for the testnet or send any command to testnet
 955 2013-02-02 11:50:07 <doublec> I don't think a namecoin testnet is actually operational
 956 2013-02-02 11:50:09 <unknown45682> both main chain and testnet are running at same time
 957 2013-02-02 11:50:17 <doublec> but in practice you'd use a different rpc port for the test net
 958 2013-02-02 11:50:28 <doublec> maybe: namecoind -testnet getinfo
 959 2013-02-02 11:50:33 <doublec> if "-testnet" results in a different rpc port
 960 2013-02-02 11:50:37 <doublec> which I suspect it does
 961 2013-02-02 11:50:42 <unknown45682> doublec: i can tell by the increasing size of the blockchain file in the nmc testnet folder in appdata that it downloaded blocks though
 962 2013-02-02 11:51:08 <doublec> unknown45682: I'd be surprised if anyone was mining it though
 963 2013-02-02 11:51:13 <unknown45682> namecoind -testnet getinfo just gives me info for the main chain
 964 2013-02-02 11:51:25 <SomeoneWeird> <doublec> I don't think a namecoin testnet is actually operational < yeah, i didn't even knew it had one
 965 2013-02-02 11:51:38 <doublec> unknown45682: try namecoind -rpcport=1234 getinfo where "1234" is the port the testnet server is running on
 966 2013-02-02 11:51:40 <unknown45682> doublec: yea just fooling around with it. but cant help but wonder what the solution to this little problem is
 967 2013-02-02 11:51:57 <doublec> unknown45682: and start the server with "namecoind -rpcport=1234"
 968 2013-02-02 11:52:14 <doublec> actually "namecoind -testnet" is probably downloading the main chain
 969 2013-02-02 11:52:19 * doublec checks the source
 970 2013-02-02 11:52:20 <unknown45682> i dont even know the port so im guessing i have to play with the config file?
 971 2013-02-02 11:53:12 <SomeoneWeird> namecoind -rpcport=port
 972 2013-02-02 11:53:18 <doublec> unknown45682: looks like it doesn't change the port for testnet
 973 2013-02-02 11:53:19 <SomeoneWeird> just restart the daemon
 974 2013-02-02 11:53:23 <SomeoneWeird> hahahahha
 975 2013-02-02 11:53:25 <SomeoneWeird> no wonder
 976 2013-02-02 11:53:35 <SomeoneWeird> told you it wasn't polished
 977 2013-02-02 11:53:35 <doublec> unknown45682: so start the daemon with: "namecoind -testnet -rpcport=9000"
 978 2013-02-02 11:53:44 <unknown45682> so does that mean i cant run testnet alongside the main chain?
 979 2013-02-02 11:53:49 <doublec> unknown45682: and interact with: "namecoind -testnet -rpcport=9000 getinfo"
 980 2013-02-02 11:54:03 <doublec> unknown45682: if you do that it should work
 981 2013-02-02 11:54:08 <unknown45682> oh i see
 982 2013-02-02 11:54:22 <doublec> you can also port rpcport in the config file
 983 2013-02-02 11:54:28 <unknown45682> i guess i should stop both chains first to do this
 984 2013-02-02 11:55:08 <unknown45682> ah!
 985 2013-02-02 11:55:12 <doublec> success?
 986 2013-02-02 11:55:14 <unknown45682> i closed the main chain
 987 2013-02-02 11:55:21 <unknown45682> and tried getinfo and i got info for testnet
 988 2013-02-02 11:55:41 <unknown45682> so now ill try restarting it all like you said on diff port to see if i can get them both at same time
 989 2013-02-02 11:55:50 <doublec> I wouldn't run both anyway in case you zap all your mainnet coins
 990 2013-02-02 11:55:58 <unknown45682> ?
 991 2013-02-02 11:56:03 <unknown45682> what do you mean
 992 2013-02-02 11:56:04 <doublec> by accidentally leaving "rpcport" off
 993 2013-02-02 11:56:08 <unknown45682> oh
 994 2013-02-02 11:56:10 <doublec> and running your test stuff on mainnet
 995 2013-02-02 11:56:14 <unknown45682> i dont have any coins anyway
 996 2013-02-02 11:56:35 <unknown45682> ill just make sure i dont have it running if i ever seriously use it
 997 2013-02-02 11:57:19 <doublec> unknown45682: do you want some coins?
 998 2013-02-02 11:57:30 <SomeoneWeird> i thought namecoin died anyway
 999 2013-02-02 11:57:45 <unknown45682> doublec: how many coins?
1000 2013-02-02 11:57:45 <doublec> unknown45682: give me a mainnet address and I'll send some
1001 2013-02-02 11:57:53 <doublec> SomeoneWeird: people are still hacking away on it
1002 2013-02-02 11:58:02 <SomeoneWeird> i see
1003 2013-02-02 11:58:08 <doublec> SomeoneWeird: some interest in using it as a file lookup for torrents/mega/freenet
1004 2013-02-02 11:58:17 <SomeoneWeird> heh
1005 2013-02-02 11:58:18 <SomeoneWeird> i see
1006 2013-02-02 11:58:24 <SomeoneWeird> unknown45682, you should check out cjdns too
1007 2013-02-02 11:58:34 <unknown45682> what's that?
1008 2013-02-02 11:58:49 <SomeoneWeird> kinda like nmc i suppose
1009 2013-02-02 11:58:57 <doublec> SomeoneWeird: see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=138856.msg1489086#msg1489086
1010 2013-02-02 11:59:25 <doublec> cjdns is more a new network tunnelled inside the real internet
1011 2013-02-02 11:59:34 <SomeoneWeird> ya
1012 2013-02-02 12:00:09 <SomeoneWeird> cjd is implementing dns for it soon
1013 2013-02-02 12:00:32 <SomeoneWeird> and ofc there hypedns
1014 2013-02-02 12:00:38 <SomeoneWeird> theres*
1015 2013-02-02 12:00:43 <doublec> yeah I used to run some bitcoin nodes inside cjdns
1016 2013-02-02 12:00:46 <unknown45682> doublec: what you told me to do works!
1017 2013-02-02 12:00:52 <doublec> and I had my pool behind cjdns for a while too
1018 2013-02-02 12:01:02 <doublec> sadly no one used it though
1019 2013-02-02 12:01:11 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, it's still pretty small
1020 2013-02-02 12:01:16 <SomeoneWeird> but awesome at that
1021 2013-02-02 12:01:23 <doublec> yeah I like it
1022 2013-02-02 12:01:24 <SomeoneWeird> http://cjdns.info/
1023 2013-02-02 12:01:26 <SomeoneWeird> unknown45682, ^
1024 2013-02-02 12:01:30 <unknown45682> to interact with main chain just do like regular namecoind getinfo etc. to interact with testnet just do namecoind -testnet -rpcport=9000 getinfo
1025 2013-02-02 12:01:41 <HM> afaik using namecoin for that is crazy
1026 2013-02-02 12:01:44 <unknown45682> both running at same time working perfectly, thank you!
1027 2013-02-02 12:01:44 <doublec> unknown45682: great!
1028 2013-02-02 12:01:46 <doublec> unknown45682: yep
1029 2013-02-02 12:01:46 <HM> telehash seems more elegant
1030 2013-02-02 12:02:30 <unknown45682> HM: what's telehash
1031 2013-02-02 12:02:42 <HM> http://telehash.org/
1032 2013-02-02 12:02:43 <unknown45682> SomeoneWeird: checking out cjdns now
1033 2013-02-02 12:03:11 <unknown45682> interesting stuff guys!
1034 2013-02-02 12:03:12 <HM> like Tor, you don't need a consensus on what name goes where, all you need is to ensure people can't randomly generating colliding addresses
1035 2013-02-02 12:03:16 <unknown45682> cjdns, telehash
1036 2013-02-02 12:04:06 <unknown45682> if only you could have memorable domains on tor and have it load fast like clearnet. that's an impossibility i think
1037 2013-02-02 12:04:16 <unknown45682> that would be the ultimate
1038 2013-02-02 12:04:20 <HM> the addresses in tor though are what give you security
1039 2013-02-02 12:04:23 <unknown45682> and a better routing algo too
1040 2013-02-02 12:04:28 <HM> there's a triangle that says you can't have all of 3 things
1041 2013-02-02 12:04:33 <HM> but i can't remember what it's called
1042 2013-02-02 12:04:36 <HM> begins with Z i think
1043 2013-02-02 12:04:39 <doublec> you can use namecoin to give you the memorable names
1044 2013-02-02 12:04:43 <doublec> mapping to onion addresses
1045 2013-02-02 12:04:47 <doublec> zooko's triangle
1046 2013-02-02 12:04:50 <HM> that's it
1047 2013-02-02 12:04:51 <doublec> HM: ^^
1048 2013-02-02 12:04:52 <unknown45682> doublec, great idea!
1049 2013-02-02 12:05:07 <doublec> in fact someone seems to have tried it with i2p
1050 2013-02-02 12:05:11 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
1051 2013-02-02 12:05:24 <doublec> do a: namecoind name_filter "^i2p/.+"
1052 2013-02-02 12:05:37 <doublec> they're all expired though so I guess it was abandoned
1053 2013-02-02 12:05:45 <unknown45682> i2p used garlic routing i think. how does that compare to tor's onion routing? which is more secure? i think there are more ppl on tor though which maybe makes it harder to trace?
1054 2013-02-02 12:06:18 <doublec> garlic keeps vampires away therefore it is better than onions?
1055 2013-02-02 12:06:23 <HM> unknown45682: afaik tor establishes a fixed virtual circuit whereas i2p garlics are more like packet switching, where the circuit changes on the fly
1056 2013-02-02 12:06:47 <unknown45682> which is better?
1057 2013-02-02 12:07:08 <HM> i watched a talk by a guy at a sec con that worked on both, he said i2p is better at hiding hidden services
1058 2013-02-02 12:07:23 <HM> tor is apparently better at protecting surfers than it is hidden services
1059 2013-02-02 12:07:33 <HM> although i don't know if it's any more feasible to find a tor hs
1060 2013-02-02 12:08:06 <doublec> i2p is lousy for surfers because there's only one gateway which rarely works
1061 2013-02-02 12:08:23 <doublec> i2p is definitely more "hidden service" oriented
1062 2013-02-02 12:08:37 CodeShark has joined
1063 2013-02-02 12:08:38 <HM> yeah but you could argue hiding your IP from unhidden services is fairly pointless
1064 2013-02-02 12:08:57 <doublec> right
1065 2013-02-02 12:09:09 <HM> depends what it is of course
1066 2013-02-02 12:09:09 <doublec> unfortunately bootstrapping a "network within the internet" is hard
1067 2013-02-02 12:09:27 <doublec> i2p has got some services but not much incentive for people on the outside internet to use
1068 2013-02-02 12:09:34 slush has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1069 2013-02-02 12:10:02 <doublec> cjdns faces similar bootstrap issues
1070 2013-02-02 12:10:29 <unknown45682> interesting
1071 2013-02-02 12:11:27 <doublec> for example, say you set up an exchange on i2p
1072 2013-02-02 12:11:45 <unknown45682> 23006 blocks on nmc testnet
1073 2013-02-02 12:11:47 <doublec> it's safe from being discovered and banned
1074 2013-02-02 12:12:20 <HM> the problem tor, i2p, and ultimately namecoin suffer is performance
1075 2013-02-02 12:12:36 <SomeoneWeird> <doublec> cjdns faces similar bootstrap issues < well kind of
1076 2013-02-02 12:12:41 <unknown45682> and forget about freenet. that shit is slow as hell!
1077 2013-02-02 12:12:50 <SomeoneWeird> you have to have a contact in the network to let you join the "main" network
1078 2013-02-02 12:12:55 <SomeoneWeird> but you can easily spin off your own one
1079 2013-02-02 12:13:06 <SomeoneWeird> completely seperate from the rest
1080 2013-02-02 12:13:14 <unknown45682> SomeoneWeird: for which network? freenet?
1081 2013-02-02 12:13:21 <SomeoneWeird> cjdns
1082 2013-02-02 12:13:25 <unknown45682> oh
1083 2013-02-02 12:13:51 <SomeoneWeird> but because it's still in testing (read. alpha) cjd hands out keys to anyone that asks
1084 2013-02-02 12:14:21 <unknown45682> doublec: what's up with i0coin? nobody using it? no connections at all
1085 2013-02-02 12:15:47 <SomeoneWeird> now thats one fork thats defs dead, afaik
1086 2013-02-02 12:16:03 <unknown45682> SomeoneWeird: no, geistgeld has to be the deadest chain lol
1087 2013-02-02 12:16:12 <unknown45682> i think the chain itself was lost long time ago
1088 2013-02-02 12:16:28 <doublec> unknown45682: it's unmaintained. there's no exchange for it and no pools so it's pretty much dead.
1089 2013-02-02 12:16:31 <SomeoneWeird> oh, yeah? heh
1090 2013-02-02 12:16:51 <unknown45682> SomeoneWeird: unless someone actually still has it on their hdd lol
1091 2013-02-02 12:17:02 <unknown45682> but its got to be HUUUGE!
1092 2013-02-02 12:17:03 PhantomSpark has joined
1093 2013-02-02 12:17:03 <SomeoneWeird> yeah lol
1094 2013-02-02 12:17:05 <unknown45682> lol
1095 2013-02-02 12:17:07 <doublec> the client takes 2gb+ of memory (i0coin) so people stopped using it
1096 2013-02-02 12:17:16 <SomeoneWeird> less than armory
1097 2013-02-02 12:17:17 <SomeoneWeird> >___>
1098 2013-02-02 12:17:37 <unknown45682> i got i0c running right now
1099 2013-02-02 12:17:51 <unknown45682> but might just close it cus its senseless
1100 2013-02-02 12:18:21 <unknown45682> unless someone fixes the memory issue
1101 2013-02-02 12:19:15 <doublec> there's no incentive too
1102 2013-02-02 12:19:28 <doublec> i0coin doesn't do anything that any of the other alt coins don't already do
1103 2013-02-02 12:20:03 <unknown45682> yea to be honest btc, nmc and ltc are the only ones actually useful
1104 2013-02-02 12:20:12 <unknown45682> name for domains (not money)
1105 2013-02-02 12:20:17 <unknown45682> *namecoin
1106 2013-02-02 12:20:58 <SomeoneWeird> if you want to change dns, sure :)
1107 2013-02-02 12:21:41 <unknown45682> somebody needs to make a distributes data store. couple that with namecoin and you're set!
1108 2013-02-02 12:22:00 <unknown45682> p2p file hosting
1109 2013-02-02 12:22:31 <unknown45682> if kim dotcom does it we can call it megacoin lolz
1110 2013-02-02 12:23:37 <doublec> unknown45682: bittorrent already has a dht
1111 2013-02-02 12:23:48 <unknown45682> how does that work?
1112 2013-02-02 12:24:01 <SomeoneWeird> ;;sl fht
1113 2013-02-02 12:24:03 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FHT | FHT, a three letter initialism, stands for the following: Female hose thread, a type of threaded pipe usually found on garden hoses that connects to the male hose ...
1114 2013-02-02 12:24:03 <SomeoneWeird> damnit
1115 2013-02-02 12:24:06 <SomeoneWeird> ;;sl dht
1116 2013-02-02 12:24:07 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table | A distributed hash table (DHT) is a class of a decentralized distributed system that provides a lookup service similar to a hash table; (key, value) pairs are stored ...
1117 2013-02-02 12:24:09 <SomeoneWeird> ^
1118 2013-02-02 12:24:19 <unknown45682> lmfao
1119 2013-02-02 12:24:24 <unknown45682> Female horse thread
1120 2013-02-02 12:24:30 <SomeoneWeird> hahah
1121 2013-02-02 12:24:36 <unknown45682> nice typo
1122 2013-02-02 12:24:38 <doublec> you can search it on http://btdigg.org/
1123 2013-02-02 12:25:28 <CodeShark> yeah, what bitcoin really needs now is a female hose thread...or a female, period.
1124 2013-02-02 12:25:51 <unknown45682> a female version of gavin? lol
1125 2013-02-02 12:25:57 <SomeoneWeird> >.>
1126 2013-02-02 12:26:04 <SomeoneWeird> theres a few females around
1127 2013-02-02 12:26:07 <doublec> bittorrent bep 5 is the dht iirc
1128 2013-02-02 12:26:20 <doublec> http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html
1129 2013-02-02 12:26:25 Scrat_p is now known as Scrat
1130 2013-02-02 12:26:39 <SomeoneWeird> ;;t
1131 2013-02-02 12:26:41 <gribble> Connection refused.
1132 2013-02-02 12:26:41 <SomeoneWeird> 404
1133 2013-02-02 12:27:51 <doublec> http://web.archive.org/web/20130116084603/http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0005.html
1134 2013-02-02 12:28:10 <doublec> apparently all this fancy swarming stuff doesn't help keep your website online
1135 2013-02-02 12:28:25 <unknown45682> lol
1136 2013-02-02 12:32:03 <SomeoneWeird> lmao
1137 2013-02-02 12:32:34 <MC1984> why doesnt anyone try to make altcoins anymore
1138 2013-02-02 12:32:53 <SomeoneWeird> because they fal
1139 2013-02-02 12:32:54 <SomeoneWeird> fail
1140 2013-02-02 12:33:03 <SomeoneWeird> they don't bring anything new to the table
1141 2013-02-02 12:33:12 <MC1984> some did
1142 2013-02-02 12:33:41 <SomeoneWeird> yeah, but they don't now
1143 2013-02-02 12:33:55 <SomeoneWeird> namecoin was the most significant change
1144 2013-02-02 12:34:00 <SomeoneWeird> the rest did other stuff and eventually died
1145 2013-02-02 12:34:55 <MC1984> why wont people work on namecoin anymore
1146 2013-02-02 12:35:01 <MC1984> DNS is fucked
1147 2013-02-02 12:35:21 <SomeoneWeird> even namecoin doesn't solve the solution entirely
1148 2013-02-02 12:35:25 <SomeoneWeird> we need a distributed CA too
1149 2013-02-02 12:35:30 <SomeoneWeird> (somehow)
1150 2013-02-02 12:35:46 <SomeoneWeird> lol
1151 2013-02-02 12:35:48 <doublec> pps does proof of stake, freicoin does demurrage. at least they do something different.
1152 2013-02-02 12:35:49 <SomeoneWeird> distributed CA
1153 2013-02-02 12:35:53 <SomeoneWeird> funny how that makes no sense
1154 2013-02-02 12:36:11 <SomeoneWeird> i suppose
1155 2013-02-02 12:36:12 <MC1984> marlinspike had a system for it
1156 2013-02-02 12:36:27 <doublec> namecoin is the only one with a non-currency difference I think
1157 2013-02-02 12:36:32 <SomeoneWeird> yeah i saw that MC1984
1158 2013-02-02 12:36:59 <MC1984> the main problem is having one a govt cant secretly coerce
1159 2013-02-02 12:37:13 <SomeoneWeird> ya
1160 2013-02-02 12:37:49 <MC1984> one of the good things about coding disruptive systems must be the pure joy of making something the government cant control
1161 2013-02-02 12:37:56 <MC1984> thats why id do it anyway
1162 2013-02-02 12:38:02 <SomeoneWeird> haha yep
1163 2013-02-02 12:39:42 <unknown45682> SomeoneWeird: what is "CA"?
1164 2013-02-02 12:39:56 <SomeoneWeird> central authority
1165 2013-02-02 12:40:01 <unknown45682> oh lol
1166 2013-02-02 12:40:01 <SomeoneWeird> for SSL certificates
1167 2013-02-02 12:40:13 <doublec> I just realised where in bitcoin-dev and not namecoin. Sorry for the offtopic chatter.
1168 2013-02-02 12:40:15 <unknown45682> yea distributed and CA kind of contradict
1169 2013-02-02 12:40:23 <unknown45682> haha
1170 2013-02-02 12:40:30 <unknown45682> and we talked about i0coin too
1171 2013-02-02 12:40:43 <unknown45682> sorry devs!
1172 2013-02-02 12:40:49 <SomeoneWeird> doublec, meh no other chats going on here atm so it doesn't really matter
1173 2013-02-02 12:40:53 <CodeShark> and we even talked about female hose threads!
1174 2013-02-02 12:40:57 <SomeoneWeird> lol
1175 2013-02-02 12:40:59 <unknown45682> lmfao
1176 2013-02-02 12:41:00 <sipa> cerrificate authority, afaik
1177 2013-02-02 12:41:03 <sipa> not central
1178 2013-02-02 12:41:04 <unknown45682> that was a good typo
1179 2013-02-02 12:41:18 <sipa> though it is inherently a hierarchical system
1180 2013-02-02 12:41:34 <SomeoneWeird> oh
1181 2013-02-02 12:41:34 <SomeoneWeird> heh
1182 2013-02-02 12:41:56 <SomeoneWeird> i stand corrected :)
1183 2013-02-02 12:42:12 paraipan has joined
1184 2013-02-02 12:42:17 <SomeoneWeird> <sipa> though it is inherently a hierarchical system < yeah but that doesn't work in the real world
1185 2013-02-02 12:43:11 <MC1984> you talked about DHt too
1186 2013-02-02 12:43:16 <MC1984> greg really hates that
1187 2013-02-02 12:43:23 <SomeoneWeird> haha
1188 2013-02-02 12:43:25 <sipa> haha
1189 2013-02-02 12:43:39 <sipa> he had a great quote about them
1190 2013-02-02 12:44:28 <unknown45682> just thinking to myself....why do we need a tld anyway? people talking like what if icann makes a real .bit tld then it will conflict with nmc. then why not just make "anything" like type bitcointalk to go to their forum or bitparking to go to bitparking exchange without the .com or .org that might work in a distributed system.
1191 2013-02-02 12:45:09 <unknown45682> like usernames lol
1192 2013-02-02 12:45:23 <MC1984> there are only so many phrases that even make sense
1193 2013-02-02 12:45:28 <sipa> who decides who gets which username?
1194 2013-02-02 12:45:35 <sipa> if two people want the same one?
1195 2013-02-02 12:45:42 <doublec> whoever got there first
1196 2013-02-02 12:45:45 <unknown45682> or like visiting irc channels. type #bitcoin in your web browser and it takes you to bitcoin.org
1197 2013-02-02 12:45:52 <doublec> which is a current problem with namecoin
1198 2013-02-02 12:45:56 <doublec> with entire dictionaries taken
1199 2013-02-02 12:45:58 <sipa> irc servers are centralized
1200 2013-02-02 12:46:00 drizztbsd has joined
1201 2013-02-02 12:46:03 <MC1984> for your username analogy thats why you can only sign up to hotmail now as sexyboicharlie1986
1202 2013-02-02 12:46:22 <unknown45682> sipa: i meant just the way you type the room name
1203 2013-02-02 12:46:41 <unknown45682> MC1984: exactly
1204 2013-02-02 12:46:42 <sipa> the point about dns is that it allows delegation
1205 2013-02-02 12:46:56 <sipa> within some limits, it is first come first srved
1206 2013-02-02 12:47:05 <unknown45682> if someone buys hotrobotgirls.com before me there is no way ill get it
1207 2013-02-02 12:47:08 <sipa> but it allows you to decide about subdomains still
1208 2013-02-02 12:47:11 <unknown45682> no different
1209 2013-02-02 12:47:50 <unknown45682> hmmm well yea, subdomains might be an issue
1210 2013-02-02 12:48:04 <sipa> in practice, dns works really well
1211 2013-02-02 12:48:14 <unknown45682> hmmm, i wonder......hotrobotgirls.bit
1212 2013-02-02 12:48:25 <sipa> not always, and there are certainly some disadvantages
1213 2013-02-02 12:48:26 <MC1984> it works well except govts completely control the namespace
1214 2013-02-02 12:48:42 <sipa> yes, but not all of it
1215 2013-02-02 12:48:45 <MC1984> for instance the USG just decided one day it owns .com .net .org etc
1216 2013-02-02 12:48:55 <doublec> unknown45682: you're in luck, hotrobotgirls is available in namecoin
1217 2013-02-02 12:48:57 <sipa> i mean, no single government controls all domains
1218 2013-02-02 12:48:58 <SomeoneWeird> (they already do, heh)
1219 2013-02-02 12:49:06 <unknown45682> doublec: shhh!
1220 2013-02-02 12:49:15 <MC1984> and any namespace not under its direct jurisdiction, youll find they can pretty well "encourage" other countries to go along with it
1221 2013-02-02 12:49:19 <MC1984> like.uk
1222 2013-02-02 12:49:25 <unknown45682> doublec: is it a lot of work to rester a name?
1223 2013-02-02 12:49:37 <unknown45682> register
1224 2013-02-02 12:49:42 <doublec> unknown45682: not if you have namecoin running and have some coins
1225 2013-02-02 12:49:44 <MC1984> sipa see how gabon pulled me.ga
1226 2013-02-02 12:49:51 <unknown45682> i dont have any coins
1227 2013-02-02 12:49:54 <MC1984> phone calls were made
1228 2013-02-02 12:49:59 <doublec> unknown45682: give me an address and I'll send some
1229 2013-02-02 12:50:04 <MC1984> fucking gabon ffs
1230 2013-02-02 12:50:06 <unknown45682> ok just a sec
1231 2013-02-02 12:50:12 <MC1984> tiny little tinpot state
1232 2013-02-02 12:50:22 <unknown45682> will you help me register a name too? cus im lost with that
1233 2013-02-02 12:50:29 <HM> the tld system is about to get whacked with weirdness anyway
1234 2013-02-02 12:50:39 <doublec> unknown45682: sure
1235 2013-02-02 12:50:53 <doublec> unknown45682: although I describe it here http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2011/05/12/namecoin-a-dns-alternative-based-on-bitcoin.html
1236 2013-02-02 12:51:01 <doublec> it's old but still relevant
1237 2013-02-02 12:51:34 <unknown45682> N5Raxm5cLnk4JomF65poJzn98GW2PYihhQ
1238 2013-02-02 12:51:37 <unknown45682> nmc addy
1239 2013-02-02 12:51:45 <unknown45682> main chain not testnet
1240 2013-02-02 12:51:50 <MC1984> the world grossly underestimates the need for something like namecoin, consorship via DNS poisoning will be all the rage everywhere in 10 years
1241 2013-02-02 12:51:55 <doublec> unknown45682: ok sent some
1242 2013-02-02 12:51:57 <MC1984> look how close SOPA got
1243 2013-02-02 12:52:06 <doublec> unknown45682: once they reach 1 confirmation you can register a name
1244 2013-02-02 12:52:15 <unknown45682> great!
1245 2013-02-02 12:52:46 <unknown45682> i dont see the nmc, do i have to wait for 1 confirm before i see them?
1246 2013-02-02 12:52:59 <doublec> unknown45682: yes. you can see the transaction with listtransactions
1247 2013-02-02 12:53:21 <unknown45682> you sent 5 nmc?
1248 2013-02-02 12:53:24 <unknown45682> cool
1249 2013-02-02 12:53:24 <doublec> yes
1250 2013-02-02 12:54:05 <unknown45682> is it a yearly registration or what?
1251 2013-02-02 12:54:13 <unknown45682> or do i permanently own it
1252 2013-02-02 12:54:14 <doublec> unknown45682: every 36,000 blocks
1253 2013-02-02 12:54:20 <MC1984> how much is nmc worth these days
1254 2013-02-02 12:54:35 <unknown45682> so 36,000 blocks is a long time i think
1255 2013-02-02 12:54:51 <doublec> MC1984: 1nmc = 0.0023 btc or so
1256 2013-02-02 12:55:07 <doublec> unknown45682: about 250 days
1257 2013-02-02 12:55:11 <MC1984> oh
1258 2013-02-02 12:55:22 <unknown45682> well its cheap enough so cant complain
1259 2013-02-02 12:55:25 <MC1984> i was gonna diversify a bit into nmc at one point
1260 2013-02-02 12:55:29 <MC1984> after the bitcoin crash
1261 2013-02-02 12:55:52 <MC1984> i think i still got a few fractions nmc on an exchange somewhere
1262 2013-02-02 12:56:12 <MC1984> bitpark maybe
1263 2013-02-02 12:57:27 <doublec> unknown45682: once you get at least one confirm, register a name with: namecoind name_new d/myname
1264 2013-02-02 12:57:36 <doublec> unknown45682: replacing 'myname' with your desired name
1265 2013-02-02 12:57:46 <doublec> unknown45682: it'll print two hex numbers. one small one and one big one.
1266 2013-02-02 12:58:01 <doublec> unknown45682: don't shut namecoind down. wait 1 block for the name_new to confirm then do:
1267 2013-02-02 12:58:28 <doublec> unknown45682: namecoind name_firstupdate d/myname thesmallhexnumber "the json value to be stored"
1268 2013-02-02 12:58:45 <doublec> unknown45682: then wait 12 blocks and you'll have the name
1269 2013-02-02 12:59:50 <doublec> note that name_new doesn't reserve it - someone can still register it at that point
1270 2013-02-02 13:00:02 <unknown45682> ok
1271 2013-02-02 13:00:13 <doublec> when the name_firstupdate successfully gets 1 confirmation (12 blocks after running it) you'll have it
1272 2013-02-02 13:00:48 <doublec> so don't brag about until until you've done the name_firstupdate at least :)
1273 2013-02-02 13:00:49 <unknown45682> "the json value to be stored" is what?
1274 2013-02-02 13:01:05 <doublec> unknown45682: depends what you want. If it's a website something like:
1275 2013-02-02 13:01:45 <doublec> unknown45682: {"map":{"":"8.8.8.8""}}
1276 2013-02-02 13:01:51 <doublec> unknown45682: replacing 8.8.8.8 with your ip
1277 2013-02-02 13:02:05 <unknown45682> so that's how you tell it what server to point to?
1278 2013-02-02 13:02:09 <doublec> yes
1279 2013-02-02 13:02:20 <unknown45682> ok, im going to make a page for this lol
1280 2013-02-02 13:02:22 <doublec> if you're using vhosts on the server make sure your webserver has an entry for the foo.bit name
1281 2013-02-02 13:02:40 <unknown45682> im using webhosting
1282 2013-02-02 13:02:53 <unknown45682> regular shared hosting
1283 2013-02-02 13:03:06 <doublec> unknown45682: also see here http://dot-bit.org/HowToRegisterAndConfigureBitDomains
1284 2013-02-02 13:03:13 <doublec> unknown45682: there's a bunch of other json options that goes through
1285 2013-02-02 13:03:23 <unknown45682> ok thanks
1286 2013-02-02 13:03:36 <unknown45682> so, i have to find out the IP for my shared hosting?
1287 2013-02-02 13:03:44 <unknown45682> can i add nameservers?
1288 2013-02-02 13:03:58 <doublec> yes, you can use nameservers. that url I linked before explains.
1289 2013-02-02 13:04:02 <unknown45682> how will i get this to work? im using namecheap
1290 2013-02-02 13:04:05 <unknown45682> i see
1291 2013-02-02 13:04:21 <doublec> I use an ip myself because the thought of a namecoin system to work around dns issues forwarding to dns seems strange to me :)
1292 2013-02-02 13:05:13 <doublec> unknown45682: you'll probably want the last option on that page titled "Do a translation step before delegation:"
1293 2013-02-02 13:05:42 <unknown45682> now whether i set an ip or nameservers i still have to set something in my hosting account too. in cpanel i have to add the domain of the site im adding for it to work. but this is .bit so how can i do that?
1294 2013-02-02 13:06:16 <doublec> I do not know the intricacies of shared hosting, sorry
1295 2013-02-02 13:06:27 <doublec> this is probably why namecoin is not taking over the world :)
1296 2013-02-02 13:06:47 <unknown45682> im wondering now if it's possible
1297 2013-02-02 13:07:01 <doublec> ask in #namecoin if you're really interested in finding out. Others can help there.
1298 2013-02-02 13:07:07 <unknown45682> yea
1299 2013-02-02 13:07:18 <unknown45682> first ill register the name
1300 2013-02-02 13:07:23 <unknown45682> your nmc just got confirmed
1301 2013-02-02 13:07:31 <unknown45682> then ill take it from there
1302 2013-02-02 13:07:44 <doublec> sounds good
1303 2013-02-02 13:07:59 <unknown45682> im only registering that name as a joke anyway so its not too serious. but its a good learning experience for my first time lol
1304 2013-02-02 13:09:48 <CodeShark> you're registering hotrobotgirls?
1305 2013-02-02 13:10:08 <unknown45682> do i do d/name or d/name.bit?
1306 2013-02-02 13:10:14 <unknown45682> CodeShark: shhhh!
1307 2013-02-02 13:10:27 <doublec> unknown45682: d/name
1308 2013-02-02 13:10:28 <CodeShark> could be a killer site :p
1309 2013-02-02 13:10:36 <unknown45682> doublec> unknown45682: once you get at least one confirm, register a name with: namecoind name_new d/myname
1310 2013-02-02 13:10:56 <CodeShark> you'll want to have a japanese version of the site
1311 2013-02-02 13:11:09 <unknown45682> namecoind name_new d/myname or d/myname.bit?
1312 2013-02-02 13:11:15 <unknown45682> do i need to say .bit?
1313 2013-02-02 13:11:35 <unknown45682> doublec: oh ok
1314 2013-02-02 13:12:27 <doublec> whatever software does the translation to DNS adds the .bit for anything in the "d/" namespace by convention
1315 2013-02-02 13:13:09 zooko has joined
1316 2013-02-02 13:13:56 <unknown45682> ok
1317 2013-02-02 13:14:11 <unknown45682> how do i know if the name got 1 confirm>?
1318 2013-02-02 13:14:23 <CodeShark> wouldn't bitname be a more appropriate name for the project than namecoin?
1319 2013-02-02 13:14:38 <unknown45682> ah i see i have less nmc now
1320 2013-02-02 13:15:05 <unknown45682> but how can i tell if the name got a confirm?
1321 2013-02-02 13:15:35 <SomeoneWeird> just wait for a block
1322 2013-02-02 13:16:12 <doublec> unknown45682: namecoind listtransaction
1323 2013-02-02 13:16:14 <doublec> s
1324 2013-02-02 13:16:46 <unknown45682> ok it has a confirm
1325 2013-02-02 13:16:57 <doublec> CodeShark: it's more general than that. It's really a way to store data associated with a name in a blockchain
1326 2013-02-02 13:17:38 <unknown45682> doublec: now im at this part namecoind name_firstupdate d/myname thesmallhexnumber "the json value to be stored"
1327 2013-02-02 13:17:44 <unknown45682> but i need a json value
1328 2013-02-02 13:17:52 <SomeoneWeird> so make one
1329 2013-02-02 13:17:59 <doublec> unknown45682: pick any text, you can change it later
1330 2013-02-02 13:18:00 <unknown45682> cus of my hosting situation not sure what to put
1331 2013-02-02 13:18:04 <doublec> unknown45682: if you just want to get it working
1332 2013-02-02 13:18:05 <unknown45682> oh
1333 2013-02-02 13:18:09 <unknown45682> ok
1334 2013-02-02 13:18:17 <unknown45682> even jibberish?
1335 2013-02-02 13:18:23 <doublec> you'll see a bunch of places just use "reserved" and stuff
1336 2013-02-02 13:18:26 Insu has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1337 2013-02-02 13:18:32 <doublec> how about "send me lots of bitcoins to ...."
1338 2013-02-02 13:18:35 <doublec> and an address ;)
1339 2013-02-02 13:18:37 <unknown45682> haha ok
1340 2013-02-02 13:19:18 <doublec> once the firstupdate confirms (after 12 blocks) you can change that text with: namecoind name_update d/myname "mynewtext"
1341 2013-02-02 13:19:29 <doublec> that takes one block to happen
1342 2013-02-02 13:19:49 <doublec> the firstupdate is the only long one
1343 2013-02-02 13:20:24 <doublec> aha, your firstupdate is in the queue
1344 2013-02-02 13:20:33 <doublec> and I see the name you picked :)
1345 2013-02-02 13:20:43 <unknown45682> hotrobotgirls?
1346 2013-02-02 13:20:46 <doublec> yes
1347 2013-02-02 13:20:51 <unknown45682> awesome!
1348 2013-02-02 13:21:05 <unknown45682> im going to put up a picture of Tama from the gintama anime
1349 2013-02-02 13:21:07 <unknown45682> lol
1350 2013-02-02 13:21:32 <unknown45682> she's a robot maid
1351 2013-02-02 13:21:41 <doublec> appropriate :)
1352 2013-02-02 13:21:56 <unknown45682> :)
1353 2013-02-02 13:22:21 <unknown45682> so i gotta wait for 12 confirms?
1354 2013-02-02 13:22:24 <doublec> yes
1355 2013-02-02 13:22:27 <unknown45682> that part sucks
1356 2013-02-02 13:22:45 <doublec> yeah, it's to stop people stealing your name
1357 2013-02-02 13:23:06 <unknown45682> so, i should be in the clear now as far as somebody registering it before me?
1358 2013-02-02 13:23:33 <doublec> yes, unless they can get all namecoin miners to ignore your transaction while they register it themselves
1359 2013-02-02 13:23:39 <doublec> that's why there's the 12 block wait
1360 2013-02-02 13:23:47 <unknown45682> lol doubt that would happen though
1361 2013-02-02 13:23:51 <doublec> when you do a name_firstupdate the name is sent across the network in clear text
1362 2013-02-02 13:24:03 <doublec> for someone to steal it they need to do a name_new and their own name_firstupdate
1363 2013-02-02 13:24:13 Joric has joined
1364 2013-02-02 13:25:05 <doublec> the time you wait between your name_new and name_firstupdate (in blocks) is your buffer between them doing a name_new and a firstupdate. They have to race ahead that number of blocks.
1365 2013-02-02 13:25:19 <unknown45682> confirms take so long
1366 2013-02-02 13:25:27 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1367 2013-02-02 13:25:30 <doublec> 10 minutes on average
1368 2013-02-02 13:25:31 <unknown45682> i guess i should get busy with something else in the meantime
1369 2013-02-02 13:27:09 <unknown45682> doublec: thanks for your help
1370 2013-02-02 13:28:38 <doublec> np
1371 2013-02-02 13:29:19 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1372 2013-02-02 13:29:54 copumpkin has joined
1373 2013-02-02 13:35:07 voodster has left ()
1374 2013-02-02 13:36:25 <CodeShark> lol - nobody bothered to change the config file name in namecoin to namecoin.conf from bitcoin.conf? :)
1375 2013-02-02 13:38:02 <sipa> CodeShark: not the worst kind of lazyness
1376 2013-02-02 13:38:19 <sipa> ppcoin uses the same network magic even
1377 2013-02-02 13:38:29 <CodeShark> hah
1378 2013-02-02 13:38:38 <CodeShark> different port, I hope
1379 2013-02-02 13:39:20 testnode9 has joined
1380 2013-02-02 13:40:42 <SomeoneWeird> lol wow
1381 2013-02-02 13:42:27 tcatm has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1382 2013-02-02 13:42:44 tcatm has joined
1383 2013-02-02 13:51:35 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1384 2013-02-02 13:51:37 ralphtheninja has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1385 2013-02-02 13:52:11 zooko`` has joined
1386 2013-02-02 13:52:31 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1387 2013-02-02 13:56:24 b4epoche has joined
1388 2013-02-02 13:59:50 <jgarzik> bitcoind still stuck at shutdown, ~6 hours later
1389 2013-02-02 14:00:00 <jgarzik> [jgarzik@bd bitcoin]$ ps -eLo args,tid,comm | grep bitcoind
1390 2013-02-02 14:00:00 <jgarzik> grep bitcoind               17882 grep
1391 2013-02-02 14:00:22 <jgarzik>  /spare/repo/bitcoin/src/bit 17143 bitcoind
1392 2013-02-02 14:00:22 <jgarzik>  /spare/repo/bitcoin/src/bit 17151 bitcoind
1393 2013-02-02 14:00:47 <CodeShark> this isn't a shell, jgarzik :p
1394 2013-02-02 14:02:21 <SomeoneWeird> lies
1395 2013-02-02 14:02:25 <SomeoneWeird> it's not spare if you have things in it
1396 2013-02-02 14:02:30 <CodeShark> lol
1397 2013-02-02 14:02:32 TD has joined
1398 2013-02-02 14:02:36 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 StopNode()
1399 2013-02-02 14:02:37 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 ThreadOpenConnections exited
1400 2013-02-02 14:02:37 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:02 ThreadMessageHandler exited
1401 2013-02-02 14:02:37 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:03 ThreadOpenAddedConnections exited
1402 2013-02-02 14:02:37 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:03 ThreadsRPCServer still running
1403 2013-02-02 14:02:37 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 07:33:45 ThreadDumpAddress exited
1404 2013-02-02 14:02:43 <jgarzik> that's where debug.log ends
1405 2013-02-02 14:02:51 <sipa> jgarzik: what rpcs have you used?
1406 2013-02-02 14:02:52 <jgarzik> been there for ~6 hours
1407 2013-02-02 14:03:02 <sipa> deadlock, presumably
1408 2013-02-02 14:03:07 <jgarzik> sipa: getwork, getinfo, listtransactions
1409 2013-02-02 14:03:12 <sipa> hmmz
1410 2013-02-02 14:03:29 <CodeShark> no way to check what thread(s) are hanging?
1411 2013-02-02 14:03:37 <sipa> can you gdb attach and see what the rpc thread is doing?
1412 2013-02-02 14:03:47 <jgarzik> sipa: heavy getwork use at one point, when solo mining against it.  then, switched to p2pool, so getwork flow stopped.
1413 2013-02-02 14:03:58 <jgarzik> very light getinfo, listtransactions use otherwise.
1414 2013-02-02 14:04:12 <CodeShark> getinfo/listtransactions shouldn't be a problem
1415 2013-02-02 14:04:17 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1416 2013-02-02 14:04:28 <CodeShark> hmm
1417 2013-02-02 14:06:15 Prattler has joined
1418 2013-02-02 14:06:56 zooko``` has joined
1419 2013-02-02 14:09:30 zooko`` has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1420 2013-02-02 14:09:46 Hashdog has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1421 2013-02-02 14:10:13 <CodeShark> this? while (!fShutdown) io_service.run_one();
1422 2013-02-02 14:13:41 <CodeShark> blah, I should just shut up :p
1423 2013-02-02 14:14:24 nibcoin has joined
1424 2013-02-02 14:15:12 Hasimir has quit (Quit: Vidi, Vici, Veni.)
1425 2013-02-02 14:15:53 nas has joined
1426 2013-02-02 14:16:01 drizztbsd has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1427 2013-02-02 14:16:15 nas is now known as Guest58417
1428 2013-02-02 14:16:53 Guest58417 is now known as freeman
1429 2013-02-02 14:17:22 freeman is now known as Guest21583
1430 2013-02-02 14:18:10 zooko``` is now known as zooko
1431 2013-02-02 14:19:13 rdymac has joined
1432 2013-02-02 14:19:19 Guest21583 is now known as nas2
1433 2013-02-02 14:19:48 ralphtheninja has joined
1434 2013-02-02 14:21:21 da2ce7 has joined
1435 2013-02-02 14:22:09 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1436 2013-02-02 14:23:54 osmosis has joined
1437 2013-02-02 14:24:54 da2ce7_d has joined
1438 2013-02-02 14:25:46 <Joric> what happened with blockchain.info ? they claim that 'normal' fee policy follows the mainline bitcoin client but somehow managed to charge 0.001 instead of 0.0005 while coins were pretty old and there were no subcent inputs i doubt it needed fee at all
1439 2013-02-02 14:26:25 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1440 2013-02-02 14:26:46 <Eliel> Joric: i the transaction used a lot of small inputs, then that fee is pretty normal.
1441 2013-02-02 14:27:18 <Joric> nope i just said there was no small inputs
1442 2013-02-02 14:27:46 <Eliel> no, I don't mean that small
1443 2013-02-02 14:28:12 <Eliel> more accurately, if it had several different inputs, that would make it quite normal fee for it.
1444 2013-02-02 14:28:37 <Joric> about 10 large inputs, the smallest is about 0.5 btc
1445 2013-02-02 14:28:38 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1446 2013-02-02 14:29:01 <Eliel> Joric: 10 inputs would push the transaction size (in bytes) large enough to require bigger fee.
1447 2013-02-02 14:29:09 <Joric> hmm
1448 2013-02-02 14:29:19 <Scrat> maybe 10 inputs with low confirmations
1449 2013-02-02 14:29:24 <Joric> nope
1450 2013-02-02 14:29:40 <Eliel> no, it's the size of the transaction in bytes that matters.
1451 2013-02-02 14:29:53 <Joric> it surely have to show the transaction priority somewhere and how it was calculated
1452 2013-02-02 14:29:57 <Joric> i was really confused
1453 2013-02-02 14:30:28 <Joric> the transaction itself was under 2kb
1454 2013-02-02 14:30:44 <Eliel> over 1kb requires 0.001 IIRC
1455 2013-02-02 14:30:56 <Joric> got it
1456 2013-02-02 14:31:25 <Joric> 'default 0.0005 BTC/kb fee setting'
1457 2013-02-02 14:31:41 <Joric> well, that must be it
1458 2013-02-02 14:31:57 rdymac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1459 2013-02-02 14:32:52 <Joric> i wonder how much time it will take to get sealed without a fee
1460 2013-02-02 14:33:25 <Eliel> without a fee, you'd have to directly send it to a miner who accepts any transaction for free.
1461 2013-02-02 14:33:44 <Eliel> otherwise it won't even get propagated
1462 2013-02-02 14:34:25 optimator has joined
1463 2013-02-02 14:36:43 rdymac has joined
1464 2013-02-02 14:39:21 da2ce7 has joined
1465 2013-02-02 14:39:59 <Joric> that fee policy should be clearly stated
1466 2013-02-02 14:40:56 <Joric> e.g. your transaction is about 2kb default policy requires 0.0005 BTC/kb or something :) send/cancel
1467 2013-02-02 14:41:02 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1468 2013-02-02 14:41:11 optimator_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1469 2013-02-02 14:41:14 <kuzetsa> Joric: I've looked over the source code a few times and it's still not 100% clear (because I waasn't paying attention for the most part, and mostly only grep'd for certain things I was trying to figure out... eh whatever)
1470 2013-02-02 14:41:29 t7 has joined
1471 2013-02-02 14:42:13 <Joric> coins age would be harder to explain
1472 2013-02-02 14:42:48 nus- has joined
1473 2013-02-02 14:42:54 <Eliel> I expect pull requests to change the wording into clearer form are welcome
1474 2013-02-02 14:44:03 <Eliel> of course, the user will in many cases still be left scratching their head about why their transaction is so big in data size.
1475 2013-02-02 14:44:12 <kuzetsa> Joric: indeed... though it's basically proportional to 144 confirmations (about 1 day) per 1 BTC...that's the baseline aging rate, and smaller amounts need more age proportional to their size (which can be affected by small inputs / trying to spend microcoins)
1476 2013-02-02 14:44:46 <kuzetsa> the whole thing is structured from a "how this affects the network" standpoint rather than "what seems fair to end users who are more familiar with fiat-based transactions"
1477 2013-02-02 14:44:59 X-Scale has joined
1478 2013-02-02 14:45:17 nus-- has joined
1479 2013-02-02 14:45:43 <Eliel> yes, the whole point of the required fees is to make spamming expensive.
1480 2013-02-02 14:45:54 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1481 2013-02-02 14:46:10 <kuzetsa> Eliel: yeah... basically, to prevent penny-flooding attacks
1482 2013-02-02 14:46:25 <theorbtwo> I wonder to what degree you can change the algo of what address of yours gets put into what transactions to lower the required fees.
1483 2013-02-02 14:46:29 <Eliel> perhaps the descriptions should make a reference to anti-spam policy
1484 2013-02-02 14:46:35 <Joric> maybe a separate button to check out how that particular fee was really calculated )
1485 2013-02-02 14:47:03 <Eliel> perhaps even including a link to a bitcoin.org page that explains the anti-spam policy in simple terms
1486 2013-02-02 14:47:05 d00b has joined
1487 2013-02-02 14:47:15 <kuzetsa> theorbtwo: etothepi makes the "armory" client which has supposedly had "coin control" for a while (so you could manually select which inputs you're spending)
1488 2013-02-02 14:47:51 <Eliel> or perhaps anti-spam is a bit misleading for non-techies.
1489 2013-02-02 14:48:47 <theorbtwo> Does it make sense to try to make transactions all have as many inputs as possible while being under 1kB?  Does it make sense to not always move the "change" of a transaction to a brand new address, but rather reuse addresses a bit so you don't get tiny little bits of coins spread out all over.
1490 2013-02-02 14:49:08 <kuzetsa> Eliel: I've been studying the way the bitcoin network works off and on (casually, not like staring at source code and documentation intently or anything) for the past 7-8 months or so... about 2-3 hours a week... even being technically inclined doesn't help.
1491 2013-02-02 14:49:09 nus- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1492 2013-02-02 14:49:12 <theorbtwo> Of course, the second one makes tracking you a bit easier, probably.
1493 2013-02-02 14:49:43 <Eliel> theorbtwo: reusing addresses won't help actually.
1494 2013-02-02 14:49:57 <Scrat> do people use mixing services nowadays? because I want to make one
1495 2013-02-02 14:50:04 <kuzetsa> I would properly need to study (sit down and read over / audit the entire codebase) to fully understand some of thise... and at that point, might as well start submitting patches and fixing stuff when consensus is reached among the developers
1496 2013-02-02 14:50:48 <theorbtwo> kuzetsa: Read the bits about bitcoin enhancement proposals in the wiki?
1497 2013-02-02 14:51:08 <kuzetsa> theorbtwo: yes, I've looked over most of the BIPs including the ones which have been implemented in the past 2 years
1498 2013-02-02 14:51:22 <kuzetsa> ... and a few of the commits / how they were implemented in the code
1499 2013-02-02 14:51:57 <theorbtwo> Scrat: The problem with things like that is trust -- you are giving people money, and hoping they will send it on when they say they will, but while the parties remain anonymous to each-other.
1500 2013-02-02 14:52:02 <Eliel> theorbtwo: bitcoin doesn't combine different incoming transfers in any way. If you get two tiny inputs, you will have two tiny inputs waiting to be used no matter if they went to the same address or different addresses.
1501 2013-02-02 14:52:42 <kuzetsa> Eliel: indeed. the inputs don't automatically aggregate to form larger ones
1502 2013-02-02 14:53:28 <kuzetsa> as such, there is a (transaction & block size) cost associated with spending "microcoins"
1503 2013-02-02 14:54:17 <Joric> the input select code was pretty atrocious and pretty heinous to see ) perhaps nobody knows for sure the heuristics behind it
1504 2013-02-02 14:54:23 <theorbtwo> ...but if microcoins can never grow back together into macrocoins, then the size of individual transactions, from a user point of view, will just keep going up.
1505 2013-02-02 14:54:37 <Scrat> theorbtwo: or that 1) you're not an NSA honeypot and 2) you're not logging everything
1506 2013-02-02 14:54:43 <Eliel> it'd probably be desireable behaviour to have the client combine many smaller transactions to the same address whenever a chance presents itself.
1507 2013-02-02 14:54:54 <kuzetsa> theorbtwo: no, they grow back together the instant you spend mltiple microcoins together and pay them out to a larger output
1508 2013-02-02 14:56:00 <HM> like melting gold dust
1509 2013-02-02 14:56:01 <kuzetsa> for example... spending 250 0.1 BTC microcoins to make a 25.0 BTC output...
1510 2013-02-02 14:56:30 <kuzetsa> there will be a 1 time fee paid out because of the large transaction size associated with spending 250 inputs
1511 2013-02-02 14:56:59 <theorbtwo> kuzetsa: On the other hand, you can do a whole tree of smaller sized transactions to do the same melting together, for free.
1512 2013-02-02 14:57:02 <kuzetsa> feels rather silly to call 0.1 BTC a microcoin input though... that's about $2 USD
1513 2013-02-02 14:58:04 <Scrat> however this post by gmaxwell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.msg1488128#msg1488128) makes me think if this can be wrapped around in user friendly way
1514 2013-02-02 14:58:05 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1515 2013-02-02 14:58:26 * theorbtwo ponders spinning up some miners again.
1516 2013-02-02 14:58:42 <kuzetsa> ;;calc 1 / [ticker --currency JPY --avg]
1517 2013-02-02 14:58:43 <gribble> 0.000547141731594
1518 2013-02-02 14:58:52 <kuzetsa> that's a single japanese yen... truely a microcoin
1519 2013-02-02 14:59:10 <kuzetsa> 0.0005 BTC is worthy of being called a microcoin :)
1520 2013-02-02 14:59:38 <X-Scale> 0.5 milicoins or 500 microcoins :)
1521 2013-02-02 14:59:50 <kuzetsa> oooh
1522 2013-02-02 14:59:56 <kuzetsa> no, I didn't mean micro btc
1523 2013-02-02 15:00:11 <kuzetsa> ... rather annoyed the developers decided to have SI prefixes for the bitcoin unit
1524 2013-02-02 15:00:34 <kuzetsa> when I say "microcoin" I mean amounts small enough to be like pocket change
1525 2013-02-02 15:00:42 <Eliel> what's wrong with SI prefixes?
1526 2013-02-02 15:01:05 <kuzetsa> Eliel: nobody really uses them for currency anywhere in the world that I'm aware
1527 2013-02-02 15:01:15 <kuzetsa> so it's not an intuitive thing to think of
1528 2013-02-02 15:02:06 <kuzetsa> I've never heard of kiloeuros before... or milieuros, etc.
1529 2013-02-02 15:02:10 <Eliel> I'm not sure if there is an intuitive option out there.
1530 2013-02-02 15:02:25 <kuzetsa> it's called decimal places :P
1531 2013-02-02 15:02:48 <Eliel> no, seriously, 8 is too many
1532 2013-02-02 15:02:54 <kuzetsa> if someone writes 25k euros you read it as 25 thousand euros
1533 2013-02-02 15:03:11 WolfAlex has joined
1534 2013-02-02 15:03:25 <X-Scale> kuzetsa: 25kEUR seems to be pretty clear and short.
1535 2013-02-02 15:03:30 zooko has joined
1536 2013-02-02 15:03:43 <kuzetsa> X-Scale: right, but you don't READ it as kiloeuros
1537 2013-02-02 15:03:51 <kuzetsa> people tend to substitute "thosuand"
1538 2013-02-02 15:03:52 TD has joined
1539 2013-02-02 15:04:00 <kuzetsa> and for 25M they substitute "million"
1540 2013-02-02 15:04:05 <kuzetsa> rather than mega
1541 2013-02-02 15:04:21 <X-Scale> I guess it just takes a little bit of getting used to.
1542 2013-02-02 15:04:34 * kuzetsa shrugs
1543 2013-02-02 15:05:19 <X-Scale> 1 Megacoin is a concise way of saying "one million bitcoins"....it saves space and time.
1544 2013-02-02 15:05:33 <Eliel> those have no equivalents in the other direction though. one thousandth of an euro isn't even a valid unit.
1545 2013-02-02 15:05:43 <kuzetsa> Eliel: indeed
1546 2013-02-02 15:05:47 <theorbtwo> Hm, there still is an actual ¥1 coin.  It is made out of exactly 1 gram of aluminum, and, if placed carefully, can lay on the top of water.
1547 2013-02-02 15:05:59 <Eliel> I suppose you could start speaking of megasatoshis though :P
1548 2013-02-02 15:06:07 <Eliel> or millions of satoshi
1549 2013-02-02 15:06:15 <X-Scale> hah
1550 2013-02-02 15:06:25 WolfAlex_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1551 2013-02-02 15:06:32 <kuzetsa> Eliel: or 2^16 satoshi for tonal
1552 2013-02-02 15:06:41 <theorbtwo> On the other hand, one BTC is actually a significant multiple of the real unit.
1553 2013-02-02 15:06:41 <X-Scale> 1 MBTC looks pretty sweet.
1554 2013-02-02 15:07:17 zooko` has joined
1555 2013-02-02 15:07:20 <kuzetsa> 2^16 satoshi (I believe) comes out to 1 TBC
1556 2013-02-02 15:07:43 <theorbtwo> Ah, right.  The satoshi is the current name of the base unit.
1557 2013-02-02 15:07:54 WolfAlex has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1558 2013-02-02 15:08:06 <Eliel> "That will be 100 million satoshi."
1559 2013-02-02 15:08:16 dust-otc has joined
1560 2013-02-02 15:08:29 <Eliel> vs "That will be 1 bitcoin." :)
1561 2013-02-02 15:08:44 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1562 2013-02-02 15:08:49 bakh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1563 2013-02-02 15:09:21 WolfAlex has joined
1564 2013-02-02 15:09:38 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1565 2013-02-02 15:10:33 topace has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1566 2013-02-02 15:10:56 nus-- is now known as nus
1567 2013-02-02 15:11:03 topace has joined
1568 2013-02-02 15:11:27 topace is now known as Guest49091
1569 2013-02-02 15:15:21 superman2016 has joined
1570 2013-02-02 15:15:59 zooko` is now known as zooko
1571 2013-02-02 15:16:02 da2ce7_d has joined
1572 2013-02-02 15:17:45 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1573 2013-02-02 15:19:22 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1574 2013-02-02 15:21:06 valparaiso has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1575 2013-02-02 15:21:06 random_cat has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1576 2013-02-02 15:21:12 andytoshi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1577 2013-02-02 15:21:41 bakh has joined
1578 2013-02-02 15:27:56 D34TH has joined
1579 2013-02-02 15:27:59 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1580 2013-02-02 15:27:59 D34TH has joined
1581 2013-02-02 15:28:40 osmosis has joined
1582 2013-02-02 15:29:08 d00b has left ()
1583 2013-02-02 15:29:49 Hashdog has joined
1584 2013-02-02 15:31:24 andytoshi has joined
1585 2013-02-02 15:32:15 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest38427
1586 2013-02-02 15:32:50 Guest38427 is now known as BTCOxygen
1587 2013-02-02 15:34:45 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1588 2013-02-02 15:37:54 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1589 2013-02-02 15:37:58 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1590 2013-02-02 15:38:56 copumpkin has joined
1591 2013-02-02 15:39:14 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1592 2013-02-02 15:45:04 rdymac has joined
1593 2013-02-02 15:48:48 jonathan__ has joined
1594 2013-02-02 15:53:53 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1595 2013-02-02 15:54:10 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1596 2013-02-02 16:00:47 random_cat has joined
1597 2013-02-02 16:01:45 voodster has joined
1598 2013-02-02 16:04:02 winetaster has joined
1599 2013-02-02 16:05:39 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1600 2013-02-02 16:06:41 ovidiusoft has joined
1601 2013-02-02 16:10:21 Guest49091 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1602 2013-02-02 16:10:49 Guest49091 has joined
1603 2013-02-02 16:16:36 nus- has joined
1604 2013-02-02 16:19:59 rdymac has joined
1605 2013-02-02 16:20:09 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1606 2013-02-02 16:28:37 WolfAlex_ has joined
1607 2013-02-02 16:29:02 WolfAlex has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1608 2013-02-02 16:31:31 winetaster has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1609 2013-02-02 16:32:34 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1610 2013-02-02 16:32:48 WolfAlex has joined
1611 2013-02-02 16:33:30 WolfAlex_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1612 2013-02-02 16:41:04 TD has quit (Quit: TD)
1613 2013-02-02 17:04:55 Jamesz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1614 2013-02-02 17:10:20 * jgarzik should look into py2exe
1615 2013-02-02 17:10:35 <jgarzik> was thinking about an "exotic transaction creation tool", a python script that interfaces w/ bitcoind RPC
1616 2013-02-02 17:10:44 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1617 2013-02-02 17:10:50 <jgarzik> automate certain special "weird transactions"
1618 2013-02-02 17:11:44 <muhoo> like "i taint rich" tx's?
1619 2013-02-02 17:11:54 <SomeoneWeird> lmao
1620 2013-02-02 17:12:15 jonathan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1621 2013-02-02 17:12:22 JDuke128 has joined
1622 2013-02-02 17:12:24 <muhoo> that'd keep people from paying 10BTC in fees accidentally, so, yes.
1623 2013-02-02 17:12:34 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1624 2013-02-02 17:13:15 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.9.2)
1625 2013-02-02 17:16:27 <muhoo> there are all kinds of interesting ui's that can be built off of that json api
1626 2013-02-02 17:19:15 da2ce7 has joined
1627 2013-02-02 17:21:25 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1628 2013-02-02 17:26:06 ovidiusoft has joined
1629 2013-02-02 17:29:20 jrmithdobbs has joined
1630 2013-02-02 17:30:04 zooko has joined
1631 2013-02-02 17:30:23 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1632 2013-02-02 17:41:50 jonathan__ has joined
1633 2013-02-02 17:43:58 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1634 2013-02-02 17:44:20 rdymac has joined
1635 2013-02-02 17:46:35 Guest49091 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
1636 2013-02-02 17:49:50 jonathan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1637 2013-02-02 17:50:33 Ken` has quit (Quit: leaving)
1638 2013-02-02 17:55:20 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1639 2013-02-02 18:01:15 da2ce7_d has joined
1640 2013-02-02 18:02:57 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1641 2013-02-02 18:03:09 ThomasV has joined
1642 2013-02-02 18:03:35 Guest49091 has joined
1643 2013-02-02 18:04:56 owowo has joined
1644 2013-02-02 18:04:57 da2ce7 has joined
1645 2013-02-02 18:05:01 <ThomasV> what would it cost to crack a key that has only 60 bits of entropy?
1646 2013-02-02 18:05:24 <ThomasV> (pbkd)
1647 2013-02-02 18:05:50 tonikt has joined
1648 2013-02-02 18:06:50 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1649 2013-02-02 18:07:24 mappum has joined
1650 2013-02-02 18:08:20 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1651 2013-02-02 18:11:40 altamic has joined
1652 2013-02-02 18:11:56 altamic has quit (Client Quit)
1653 2013-02-02 18:12:10 b4epoche has joined
1654 2013-02-02 18:12:27 <sipa> ThomasV: depends how generate/verify it
1655 2013-02-02 18:13:08 Joric has quit ()
1656 2013-02-02 18:13:53 <HM> facebook hacker cup round 2 starts momentarily
1657 2013-02-02 18:13:59 <HM> for anyone doing it and forgotten
1658 2013-02-02 18:16:15 nibcoin has quit (Quit: nibcoin)
1659 2013-02-02 18:18:22 <gmaxwell> sipa: Apparently working is a bug but not an issue? :P
1660 2013-02-02 18:19:25 <ThomasV> sipa: I got a message from an electrum user who has lost part of its seed. I made a mistake in my first statement, he lost 76 bits, not 60. the master private key derivation function involves 10^5 iterations of key stretching using sha256. then a bitcoin address is generated from the master public key.
1661 2013-02-02 18:19:59 <HM> sounds infeasible to brute force unless those bits are words
1662 2013-02-02 18:20:00 <ThomasV> 76 is starting to look big
1663 2013-02-02 18:20:42 <SomeoneWeird> 76 is quite big
1664 2013-02-02 18:21:15 <ThomasV> well, he says he has a picture with 13 chars of the seed. if he refers to the seed encoded with words, that's even worse, so I'm assuming he was referring to the hexadecimal encoded version
1665 2013-02-02 18:21:56 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1666 2013-02-02 18:27:43 CodesInChaos has joined
1667 2013-02-02 18:28:54 <ThomasV> oh, he posted a picture. he might have more bits that that...
1668 2013-02-02 18:29:08 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1669 2013-02-02 18:33:52 Guest68630 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1670 2013-02-02 18:34:08 rdymac has joined
1671 2013-02-02 18:34:26 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1672 2013-02-02 18:35:31 zooko has joined
1673 2013-02-02 18:45:06 <ThomasV> well, he can reduce the search space to 14 bits
1674 2013-02-02 18:47:37 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1675 2013-02-02 18:48:02 rdymac has joined
1676 2013-02-02 18:53:05 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1677 2013-02-02 18:53:15 BurtyBB has joined
1678 2013-02-02 18:56:45 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1679 2013-02-02 18:58:49 stamit has joined
1680 2013-02-02 19:03:23 root2_ has joined
1681 2013-02-02 19:05:20 bitcoin4ever has joined
1682 2013-02-02 19:05:24 <bitcoin4ever> hello
1683 2013-02-02 19:05:34 <bitcoin4ever> So this is where the coders hang out?
1684 2013-02-02 19:06:43 <Luke-Jr> sometimes.
1685 2013-02-02 19:07:20 <bitcoin4ever> i see. :)
1686 2013-02-02 19:07:26 root2 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1687 2013-02-02 19:07:33 <stamit> what was the new thing?
1688 2013-02-02 19:07:36 <bitcoin4ever> well.. I have an idea.
1689 2013-02-02 19:08:36 <bitcoin4ever> would require some skills, it's a system. that will make you more bitcoins..
1690 2013-02-02 19:08:36 occulta has joined
1691 2013-02-02 19:08:48 <bitcoin4ever> A game.. :)
1692 2013-02-02 19:10:24 rng29a has joined
1693 2013-02-02 19:10:24 rng29a has quit (Changing host)
1694 2013-02-02 19:10:24 rng29a has joined
1695 2013-02-02 19:12:07 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1696 2013-02-02 19:12:54 friday88 has joined
1697 2013-02-02 19:13:13 friday88 has left ()
1698 2013-02-02 19:16:22 <bitcoin4ever> sleepytown
1699 2013-02-02 19:18:25 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: ping, do you happen to know what version of Openwrt runs on Avalon?
1700 2013-02-02 19:21:22 Zarutian has joined
1701 2013-02-02 19:29:19 MobiusL has joined
1702 2013-02-02 19:29:19 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: yes, already posted that info at http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/01/avalon-asic-miner-review.html
1703 2013-02-02 19:30:41 <Luke-Jr> oh right *facepalm*
1704 2013-02-02 19:30:44 <Luke-Jr> now I remember reading that..
1705 2013-02-02 19:30:53 <Luke-Jr> so bleeding edge basically
1706 2013-02-02 19:33:36 <D34TH> forums down?
1707 2013-02-02 19:36:07 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1708 2013-02-02 19:37:31 ovidiusoft has joined
1709 2013-02-02 19:39:55 <jgarzik> sipa: definitely shutdown problems
1710 2013-02-02 19:40:14 <jgarzik> this time, no mining (getwork) RPCs at all.  just: startup, run, getinfo/listtransactions
1711 2013-02-02 19:40:15 <jgarzik> now...
1712 2013-02-02 19:40:31 <BTCOxygen> Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.
1713 2013-02-02 19:40:38 <jgarzik> paused a long time at
1714 2013-02-02 19:40:40 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 19:22:05 DBFlush(false) ended              51ms
1715 2013-02-02 19:40:40 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 19:22:05 StopNode()
1716 2013-02-02 19:40:40 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 19:22:05 ThreadOpenConnections exited
1717 2013-02-02 19:40:40 <jgarzik> 2013-02-02 19:22:05 ThreadMessageHandler exited
1718 2013-02-02 19:40:42 <BTCOxygen> bitcointalk.org is dowm?
1719 2013-02-02 19:40:54 <jgarzik> ("long time" == 30-60 seconds)
1720 2013-02-02 19:40:55 <BTCOxygen> D34TH: Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.
1721 2013-02-02 19:40:56 <jgarzik> then shutdown OK
1722 2013-02-02 19:41:01 <jgarzik> BTCOxygen: yes
1723 2013-02-02 19:41:08 <BTCOxygen> jgarzik: ok
1724 2013-02-02 19:42:58 <Luke-Jr> did Avalon ever do that source drop on Friday?
1725 2013-02-02 19:43:23 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1726 2013-02-02 19:46:08 jacker224 has joined
1727 2013-02-02 19:50:05 <rdponticelli> jgarzik: Did you increase dbcache?
1728 2013-02-02 19:50:19 <jgarzik> no
1729 2013-02-02 19:50:50 Insu has joined
1730 2013-02-02 19:50:56 <rdponticelli> I've also noticed long time on shutdown once
1731 2013-02-02 19:51:17 <rdponticelli> When flushing the db
1732 2013-02-02 19:51:41 <rdponticelli> But I was using dbcache, and reindexing....
1733 2013-02-02 19:51:42 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1734 2013-02-02 20:02:39 KuKzz has left ()
1735 2013-02-02 20:04:11 <jgarzik> sigh, WalletBit thinks bitcoin payments may be returned "to their return addresses"
1736 2013-02-02 20:04:13 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140738.0;all
1737 2013-02-02 20:04:56 <jgarzik> "Once again - IF YOU DO NOT CONTROL THE BITCOIN ADDRESS YOU MADE PAYMENT FROM PLEASE CONTACT WALLETBIT SUPPORT"
1738 2013-02-02 20:05:21 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1739 2013-02-02 20:06:07 <rdponticelli> That's quite an example of a default rule working backwards...
1740 2013-02-02 20:06:16 freakazoid has joined
1741 2013-02-02 20:06:30 <Scrat> kjj should make that red text size 30 :p
1742 2013-02-02 20:10:24 zooko has joined
1743 2013-02-02 20:11:45 bitcoin4ever has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1744 2013-02-02 20:15:32 Perline has joined
1745 2013-02-02 20:15:38 Perline has left ()
1746 2013-02-02 20:16:33 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: blame blockchain.info and TD :p
1747 2013-02-02 20:19:44 da2ce7_d has joined
1748 2013-02-02 20:21:22 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1749 2013-02-02 20:21:37 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1750 2013-02-02 20:23:08 <HM> jgarzik: if all the inputs to the transactions have the same public key then there's no problem?
1751 2013-02-02 20:23:22 da2ce7 has joined
1752 2013-02-02 20:24:31 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1753 2013-02-02 20:25:45 <rdponticelli> HM: You can't know if the guy who triggered the payment controls the private key...
1754 2013-02-02 20:27:19 <HM> i'm still not clear on this. if you have a transaction that spends 5 inputs and the scriptsig for each contains the same public key
1755 2013-02-02 20:27:21 <MC1984> bit late to contact support then..
1756 2013-02-02 20:27:22 <rdponticelli> But you must assume he don't
1757 2013-02-02 20:27:25 <HM> then surely it's unambigious
1758 2013-02-02 20:28:21 <HM> whoever spent those previous transactions and made a transaction to you controlled 1 private key, and they must have had that private key to send you the money
1759 2013-02-02 20:28:34 <HM> assuming the scripts were standard
1760 2013-02-02 20:28:45 <HM> that's a lot of validation but it's possible?
1761 2013-02-02 20:28:50 eoss has joined
1762 2013-02-02 20:28:51 <Luke-Jr> HM: no, that's a lot of big assumptions
1763 2013-02-02 20:29:22 <rdponticelli> HM: There's a lot of shared wallets
1764 2013-02-02 20:29:44 jonathan__ has joined
1765 2013-02-02 20:29:50 <HM> but the refund would still go back to the control of the private key holder
1766 2013-02-02 20:29:56 <HM> regardless of whether it was shared
1767 2013-02-02 20:29:59 <rdponticelli> You trigger payments, and you have no idea who settles them
1768 2013-02-02 20:30:03 <Luke-Jr> HM: which is not necessarily a good idea
1769 2013-02-02 20:30:12 <Luke-Jr> HM: also, you're assuming there is still a private key
1770 2013-02-02 20:30:24 <Luke-Jr> HM: it is 100% valid and possibly even a good idea in some cases, to destroy the private key once it's used
1771 2013-02-02 20:30:27 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1772 2013-02-02 20:30:28 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1773 2013-02-02 20:30:54 <Luke-Jr> HM: in the case of quantum-safe keys, private keys *cannot* be used more than once
1774 2013-02-02 20:31:05 <HM> yes i have use cases where that's done after some transactions are created
1775 2013-02-02 20:31:18 <HM> quantum-safe?
1776 2013-02-02 20:32:01 <Luke-Jr> HM: yes, ECDSA (which all Bitcoin addresses today use) is broken when quantum computing hits
1777 2013-02-02 20:32:36 <HM> and using one time keypairs makes it safe? :S
1778 2013-02-02 20:34:39 <HM> if ECDSA is broken, then the moment you put your public key on the network, a quantum node could read your pubkey and create a new transaction.
1779 2013-02-02 20:34:43 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1780 2013-02-02 20:34:48 <HM> i don't see how using 1 time keypairs makes it safe
1781 2013-02-02 20:35:39 <Luke-Jr> HM: Lamport isn't ECDSA
1782 2013-02-02 20:35:44 <HM> but anyway, i see your point about ephemeral wallets
1783 2013-02-02 20:35:58 <HM> mixing services for instance
1784 2013-02-02 20:37:42 zooko has joined
1785 2013-02-02 20:38:28 ovidiusoft has joined
1786 2013-02-02 20:40:55 JDuke128 has joined
1787 2013-02-02 20:42:15 rng29a has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1788 2013-02-02 20:42:24 <MC1984> i bet ive asked this before but seeing as the disk bottleneck is greatly reduced now and theres gonna be lots of spare GPUs kicking around soon
1789 2013-02-02 20:42:35 <MC1984> what about doing verification on GPU?
1790 2013-02-02 20:43:13 denisx has joined
1791 2013-02-02 20:43:15 <MC1984> inb4 patches welcome
1792 2013-02-02 20:48:48 voodster has quit (Quit: leaving)
1793 2013-02-02 20:48:57 <HM> isn't hitting the database for checking the inputs still the bottleneck?
1794 2013-02-02 20:48:59 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1795 2013-02-02 20:49:38 <Luke-Jr> HM: no
1796 2013-02-02 20:50:01 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: not sure it'd be useful
1797 2013-02-02 20:50:41 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: GPUs are good at doing the same task over and over - but in this case you need to verify lots of different signatures; plus there's the overhead of sending them to GPU and receiving them back
1798 2013-02-02 20:51:42 <MC1984> computer buses are quite fast now...
1799 2013-02-02 20:52:04 <Luke-Jr> so are CPUs ;)
1800 2013-02-02 20:52:05 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1801 2013-02-02 20:52:08 <HM> Luke-Jr: what is the current bottleneck ?
1802 2013-02-02 20:52:32 <Luke-Jr> HM: CPU verifying signatures, I believe
1803 2013-02-02 20:52:46 <MC1984> why not use the gpu as an offload processor for verification when bitcoin is a lot bigger
1804 2013-02-02 20:52:51 <Luke-Jr> HM: for 0.8 that is
1805 2013-02-02 20:53:01 <HM> crazy, i would have thought a block containing a buttload of random old spends would cause a tonne of disk seeking
1806 2013-02-02 20:53:19 <Luke-Jr> HM: the blockchain files aren't used for that anymore
1807 2013-02-02 20:53:20 <MC1984> of course it doesnt matter if the block cap is never lifted
1808 2013-02-02 20:53:33 <Luke-Jr> HM: now there's just a (relatively) small database of unspent transaction outputs
1809 2013-02-02 20:53:42 <Luke-Jr> around 200 MB
1810 2013-02-02 20:53:51 <HM> cool
1811 2013-02-02 20:54:22 <Luke-Jr> so, it can all be kept in memory
1812 2013-02-02 20:54:27 w0mbat has joined
1813 2013-02-02 20:54:34 <Luke-Jr> (though I'm not sure if LevelDB actually does that)
1814 2013-02-02 20:54:59 <HM> I wonder how small that would be if SD wasn't around
1815 2013-02-02 20:55:28 occulta has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.3 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
1816 2013-02-02 20:56:04 <Luke-Jr> HM: well, it sounds like someone is making progress in eliminating SD, so hopefully we can find out :P
1817 2013-02-02 20:56:26 <HM> lol how so
1818 2013-02-02 20:56:50 <HM> also, are you using Snappy with LevelDB?
1819 2013-02-02 20:57:20 <Luke-Jr> I have no idea what Snappy is, nor have I been involved in the LevelDB stuff much
1820 2013-02-02 20:57:36 <Luke-Jr> HM: blockchain.info reports a lot of double-spending SD
1821 2013-02-02 20:57:53 <w0mbat> hey guys, I am pretty new to bitcoinj and I am curious if there is a way to find out, if a fee was attached to a transaction.
1822 2013-02-02 20:58:07 <HM> the leveldb page says "data is automatically compressed using the Snappy compression library"
1823 2013-02-02 20:58:14 <HM> i'm not sure if it's built in or not
1824 2013-02-02 20:59:45 superbowl has joined
1825 2013-02-02 21:00:21 <Luke-Jr> HM: I guess? :p
1826 2013-02-02 21:00:41 <HM> I'm not seeing anything in the bitcoin repo so it must be modular/separate
1827 2013-02-02 21:02:18 Mad7Scientist has joined
1828 2013-02-02 21:05:15 dbe has joined
1829 2013-02-02 21:05:19 dbe is now known as Guest10782
1830 2013-02-02 21:06:06 <Guest10782> Hey guys, I'm making a public facing website, and need to decide on using bitcoind vs bitcoinj as my client. Anyone have a susinct pro/con list on the two?
1831 2013-02-02 21:09:05 jonathan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1832 2013-02-02 21:09:38 Joric has joined
1833 2013-02-02 21:11:33 jonathan__ has joined
1834 2013-02-02 21:13:14 ovidiusoft has joined
1835 2013-02-02 21:15:48 word_ has joined
1836 2013-02-02 21:16:29 word_ has quit (Changing host)
1837 2013-02-02 21:16:29 word_ has joined
1838 2013-02-02 21:16:41 word_ is now known as word
1839 2013-02-02 21:17:54 dvide has joined
1840 2013-02-02 21:17:56 tonikt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1841 2013-02-02 21:18:48 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1842 2013-02-02 21:21:27 zooko has joined
1843 2013-02-02 21:24:02 twobitcoins_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1844 2013-02-02 21:24:26 twobitcoins_ has joined
1845 2013-02-02 21:27:26 eckey has joined
1846 2013-02-02 21:29:05 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1847 2013-02-02 21:30:07 ovidiusoft has joined
1848 2013-02-02 21:31:20 Cryo has joined
1849 2013-02-02 21:31:25 Cryo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1850 2013-02-02 21:32:03 ThomasV has joined
1851 2013-02-02 21:34:20 Cryo has joined
1852 2013-02-02 21:35:43 Joric has quit ()
1853 2013-02-02 21:38:09 grau has joined
1854 2013-02-02 21:40:41 twixed has joined
1855 2013-02-02 21:42:03 zooko has quit (Quit: bbiab)
1856 2013-02-02 21:49:41 Hashdog has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1857 2013-02-02 21:50:54 Belkaar has quit (Changing host)
1858 2013-02-02 21:50:54 Belkaar has joined
1859 2013-02-02 21:54:51 Jamesonwa has joined
1860 2013-02-02 21:58:20 jonathan__ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1861 2013-02-02 22:05:30 superbowl has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1862 2013-02-02 22:12:36 gavinandresen has joined
1863 2013-02-02 22:19:02 w0mbat has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1864 2013-02-02 22:24:07 b4epoche has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1865 2013-02-02 22:27:03 b4epoche has joined
1866 2013-02-02 22:28:47 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1867 2013-02-02 22:36:41 CodeShark has joined
1868 2013-02-02 22:40:30 jonathan__ has joined
1869 2013-02-02 22:40:40 JDuke128 has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1870 2013-02-02 22:50:12 eckey has left ()
1871 2013-02-02 22:51:10 Jamesonwa has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1872 2013-02-02 22:57:37 tyn has joined
1873 2013-02-02 23:02:43 valparaiso has joined
1874 2013-02-02 23:03:40 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1875 2013-02-02 23:04:04 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1876 2013-02-02 23:06:19 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1877 2013-02-02 23:16:17 RainbowDashh has joined
1878 2013-02-02 23:29:45 jonathan__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1879 2013-02-02 23:32:39 paybitcoin1 has joined
1880 2013-02-02 23:33:33 KIDC has joined
1881 2013-02-02 23:34:23 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1882 2013-02-02 23:36:25 valparaiso has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1883 2013-02-02 23:37:12 valparaiso has joined
1884 2013-02-02 23:37:12 valparaiso has quit (Client Quit)
1885 2013-02-02 23:38:09 valparaiso has joined
1886 2013-02-02 23:42:27 zepher has joined
1887 2013-02-02 23:43:22 paybitcoin has joined
1888 2013-02-02 23:44:08 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1889 2013-02-02 23:47:16 bsdunx has quit (Quit: leaving)
1890 2013-02-02 23:47:56 moore_ has joined