1 2013-03-09 00:00:18 <xjrn> non-zero is likely to trade at rates similar to all other non-zero, for a while
   2 2013-03-09 00:00:27 agricocb has joined
   3 2013-03-09 00:00:45 <HM2> even if you accept a pure free market policy toward fees, in the future small transactions will be unviable
   4 2013-03-09 00:00:48 <xjrn> one almost hopes that the noise floor becomes high enough to exclude the casual
   5 2013-03-09 00:00:51 <gmaxwell> SD is paying surprisingly high fees and creating enormous floods of transactions where a few would do. It'll self regulate— there must be some fee where they'll adopt more efficient transaction patterns, but obviously we've not reached it yet. As midnight magic points out, competing against mentally ill people for who can pay for fees is not a fun game.
   6 2013-03-09 00:01:01 <HM2> nobody will pay 50% fee to get confirmation
   7 2013-03-09 00:01:03 <xjrn> so that the fees do begin having meaningful ranks
   8 2013-03-09 00:01:05 <HM2> so small transactions will die
   9 2013-03-09 00:01:09 clarkm has joined
  10 2013-03-09 00:01:16 <HM2> SD is just the bottom rung on that ladder
  11 2013-03-09 00:02:01 <gmaxwell> 'bottom rung' I mean they're paying thousands of BTC in fees. This isn't a "bottom rung"
  12 2013-03-09 00:02:27 <HM2> bottom rung of transaction *value*
  13 2013-03-09 00:02:33 <iwilcox> I hate to be pessimistic, but even putting the difficult technical issues aside it seems to be a politically polarising issue and that on its own will probably stop any countermeasure getting into the codebase.
  14 2013-03-09 00:02:36 <gmaxwell> well 'they', they actually directly pass the full fees onto their customers.
  15 2013-03-09 00:02:48 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: no countermeasure would go in.
  16 2013-03-09 00:03:15 clarkm has quit (Client Quit)
  17 2013-03-09 00:03:28 <gmaxwell> Technical countermeasures are just one part of a bigger ecosystem though.
  18 2013-03-09 00:03:43 <iwilcox> Political pressure didn't seem to work very well either.  What's left?
  19 2013-03-09 00:04:30 <gmaxwell> huh? Few cared about this to any great extent >24 hours ago.
  20 2013-03-09 00:04:32 <gmaxwell> Give it time.
  21 2013-03-09 00:04:53 <HM2> i wish blockexplorer wasn't so damn slow
  22 2013-03-09 00:05:41 <HM2> gmaxwell: what *percentage* of tx value are SD paying in fees?
  23 2013-03-09 00:05:47 <HM2> what's the ratio
  24 2013-03-09 00:06:07 <xjrn> i think that high counts of tx are a storage burdone on my datamining ssd's.  that said, i could look at ways to write a linux blockchain filesystem to normalize even noise to smaller entropy, were i paid and incentivized.
  25 2013-03-09 00:06:08 <gmaxwell> its >>100% on many transactions.
  26 2013-03-09 00:06:38 <HM2> and what's the average for non-SD tx?
  27 2013-03-09 00:07:28 <xjrn> i was under the impression SD was lofting free tx
  28 2013-03-09 00:08:30 sgornick has joined
  29 2013-03-09 00:08:39 <HM2> the point i'm trying to make
  30 2013-03-09 00:08:45 <gmaxwell> xjrn: no, they pay substantially more than all the other txn, otherwise no one would notice.
  31 2013-03-09 00:08:47 <HM2> legitimate users won't pay more than a reasonable % of tx value
  32 2013-03-09 00:09:36 <xjrn> if sd takes 1.9 percent, how much of that is fee?
  33 2013-03-09 00:09:51 <gmaxwell> xjrn: the fees come out of the bet before the 1.9%
  34 2013-03-09 00:10:12 <HM2> as long as block size is finite, fees will rise and that minimum fee/% ratio will make small transactions inefficient and unviable. no individuals will be able to send $20s worth grandma on the blockchain
  35 2013-03-09 00:10:16 <gmaxwell> Basically any bet is diminished by the fees before the reward/returns are computed.
  36 2013-03-09 00:10:24 <HM2> *to grandma
  37 2013-03-09 00:11:15 <xjrn> HM2: that's a great scenario but has anyone done a calculation as to when the tx density will begin shedding non-zero fees?
  38 2013-03-09 00:11:28 clarkm has joined
  39 2013-03-09 00:12:14 clarkm has quit (Client Quit)
  40 2013-03-09 00:12:25 <gmaxwell> HM2: there is an enormous gap between few-cents per transaction and zomg $20 grandma.
  41 2013-03-09 00:12:55 clarkm has joined
  42 2013-03-09 00:12:59 <HM2> I probably wouldn't send Grandma $20 using Bitcoin if it cost more than $0.20
  43 2013-03-09 00:13:00 <gmaxwell> and, forget about fintite sizes. Bitcoin is a _global_ flooding network. Decenteralization is not cheap.
  44 2013-03-09 00:13:37 clarkm has quit (Client Quit)
  45 2013-03-09 00:13:55 <xjrn> and you cannot buy a usb thumbdrive less than a gig in a 1st world country without spending an exorbitant amount of time.
  46 2013-03-09 00:13:57 <HM2> SD are paying over the odds by any financial standard.
  47 2013-03-09 00:14:09 <gmaxwell> The flip side is that $20 you send to grandma isn't losing 3% APY in being in the form of an inflationry currency.
  48 2013-03-09 00:14:20 <xjrn> so moore's law eats the flooding epidemic
  49 2013-03-09 00:14:59 <gmaxwell> (which, incidentally is about .2 in only about 120 days)
  50 2013-03-09 00:15:03 <HM2> gmaxwell: how many times do you have to transact $20 before you've lost 3% in such a scenario?
  51 2013-03-09 00:15:08 <HM2> it's inflation through fee tax
  52 2013-03-09 00:15:41 Grouver has quit (Quit:  HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- It'll be on slashdot one day...)
  53 2013-03-09 00:15:42 <HM2> that's cool if you have a short cycle. Earn-> wallet-> spend
  54 2013-03-09 00:15:46 <gmaxwell> HM2: I don't know what you're arguing, in any case.
  55 2013-03-09 00:16:20 * HM2 shrugs
  56 2013-03-09 00:16:26 <iwilcox> Fees were initially introduced to discourage flooding of the network with micropayments, right?  Perhaps a political argument against SD's behaviour would start with "why did we accept fees in the first place?".  Presumably if you're against countermeasures, you're against fees too.
  57 2013-03-09 00:16:38 <HM2> Bitcoin is destined to replace interbank transfers and the Fed. It'll never replace person to person payment
  58 2013-03-09 00:16:44 <HM2> that's what I'm saying I guess
  59 2013-03-09 00:16:53 <gmaxwell> iwilcox: No. Minimum fees were introduced for that purpose.
  60 2013-03-09 00:17:15 <gmaxwell> Fees have been in the system since day 0, since thats how it's proposed that the system remain secure once the subsidy is gone.
  61 2013-03-09 00:18:10 <gmaxwell> And the minimum fee stuff has worked well, but it assumed that the attackers were economically rational and so wouldn't attack if it wasn't super cheap. :(  But add in some inherently economically irrational people and they don't even have to want to attack to create floods that minimum fees don't stop.
  62 2013-03-09 00:18:31 <gmaxwell> We could, of course, increment minimum fees.. but that would also disrupt lots of boring regular users who only make a couple txn a week.
  63 2013-03-09 00:19:05 <HM2> 600 transactions fills a block
  64 2013-03-09 00:19:11 CodeShark has joined
  65 2013-03-09 00:20:06 <HM2> if there were 600 transactions every 10 minutes for $10000, each paying a 1% fee. People sending small transactions would never be confirmed in an acceptable time and fee
  66 2013-03-09 00:20:17 ovidiusoft has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  67 2013-03-09 00:21:04 <HM2> How would minimum fees help in that scenario?
  68 2013-03-09 00:21:42 <jrmithdobbs> they wouldn't, that would indicate the system operating as intended
  69 2013-03-09 00:21:44 <jrmithdobbs> what's the problem?
  70 2013-03-09 00:21:59 QM has joined
  71 2013-03-09 00:23:01 <HM2> the system as intended causes delays for regular people
  72 2013-03-09 00:23:06 <HM2> which is what we have no under SD
  73 2013-03-09 00:23:16 <HM2> the cause is different but the problem is the same
  74 2013-03-09 00:23:55 <HM2> you may as well set a minimum transaction size now
  75 2013-03-09 00:24:03 <HM2> minimum transaction -> 1 BTC
  76 2013-03-09 00:24:53 <QM> gmaxwell: Wouldn't a greedy rational miner not be so shortsighted and want to make sure to accommodate average users, instead of simply maximizing immediate transaction fees?
  77 2013-03-09 00:25:18 <warren> has this debate been going on since mid-2012?
  78 2013-03-09 00:25:28 <xjrn> i am at a loss to understand how SD is assigning greater than average fees at the expense of the short-sighted, and creating friction as if cheapening the system.  I find this an incentive to somehow find an avenue of generating blocks and accepting fees
  79 2013-03-09 00:25:29 <gmaxwell> QM: and thats why some today do some load balancing that ends up blocking dice.
  80 2013-03-09 00:26:00 <gmaxwell> QM: I did say "give them the most value" for a reason. :P
  81 2013-03-09 00:26:07 chrisb has joined
  82 2013-03-09 00:26:16 <warren> Have we given up on DP?
  83 2013-03-09 00:26:18 <gmaxwell> QM: but reasoning about future impact is hard, especially since there are a lot of people arguing that the values are opposite.
  84 2013-03-09 00:26:28 clarkm has joined
  85 2013-03-09 00:26:42 <warren> xjrn: The "DP is using the system as designed" argument fails because it turns out per-KB costs do not actually reflect true costs to the network.  This is a design flaw.
  86 2013-03-09 00:27:02 <jrmithdobbs> warren: no that's been going on since at least mid-2011 ;p
  87 2013-03-09 00:27:25 <jrmithdobbs> warren: even before we actually had an example of someone actively over abusing it
  88 2013-03-09 00:27:30 <xjrn> i find any argument of cost that does not reflect a stamp collector's long term POV to be as crass as that which is claimed of SD
  89 2013-03-09 00:28:49 <warren> xjrn: This is not an argument about DP specifically.  This is an argument about behaviors like dust payments that permanently bloat the chain, externalizing cost upon everyone, which is not reflected in the current fee calculation.
  90 2013-03-09 00:29:26 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
  91 2013-03-09 00:29:45 <QM> gmaxwell: are normal users easily distinguishable from bots by the usual priority?
  92 2013-03-09 00:30:12 <xjrn> so there again, as there are now VC's throwing money at this hobby, it's enough to say twitter didn't make a dime for years.  twitter has far larger problems than SD, it is based upon inane useless flooding.
  93 2013-03-09 00:30:14 <warren> xjrn: It's perfectly reasonable to realize, "Oops, we didn't realize that costs are not all the same per-KB.  Let's charge higher fees on unreasonably low payments."
  94 2013-03-09 00:30:51 <warren> xjrn: Twitter doesn't externalize the cost of storing the spam upon others.
  95 2013-03-09 00:32:16 kritCoin has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  96 2013-03-09 00:32:29 <xjrn> if the flooding rarifies nodes, and rarifies wallets, and rarifies coins, I'll pay for spindles to hold onto my rarified collector's coins
  97 2013-03-09 00:32:58 <xjrn> I pass those costs along to the bill of sale
  98 2013-03-09 00:33:58 <xjrn> there will be VC funded sights fighting for your eyeballs to host your wallets, doubtless among them microsoft and google, and other diversified multinationals, once there's a few fish big enough to eat in this game
  99 2013-03-09 00:34:00 <QM> gmaxwell: if so, it seems like the best we can hope for is to give miners a simple "knob" to turn that prioritizes block space in favor of normal users, and have them make the Right Decision (upon education).
 100 2013-03-09 00:35:03 <warren> xjrn: You're advocating for a world where only the players with infrastructure can run the full client, not the average home user if they so choose to.  Good for you.
 101 2013-03-09 00:35:35 <xjrn> i think i can buy a terabyte for $40 at fry's.   i may bitch and moan about my $1000 worth of SSD's i paid for 3 years ago, but its laziness preventing me from opening my case and plumbing yet another sata connection
 102 2013-03-09 00:36:08 <warren> xjrn: it isn't just the block storage, it also increases RAM usage
 103 2013-03-09 00:36:10 <xjrn> a terabyte buys about 20 years of SD worst-case outcomes
 104 2013-03-09 00:36:21 <warren> the average home user should use half of their RAM to run a full client?
 105 2013-03-09 00:36:55 <warren> xjrn: the next time we approach the soft-limit, people will cry again about delayed confirmations on normal tx's, and folks will raise the limit.  Again and again.
 106 2013-03-09 00:36:58 <xjrn> warren: does the average user want to bet on $10000 coins with $200 hardware?
 107 2013-03-09 00:37:25 <warren> xjrn: It won't get there if we make Bitcoin out of the reach of average users.
 108 2013-03-09 00:37:28 <xjrn> and I had 20 megabits 2 years ago, now I have 60 megabits this year.
 109 2013-03-09 00:37:54 <warren> You're piling on elitist arguments
 110 2013-03-09 00:37:59 zooko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 111 2013-03-09 00:38:20 <HM2> cash is cheap
 112 2013-03-09 00:38:30 <warren> cash tx's aren't stored in a global ledger
 113 2013-03-09 00:38:32 <xjrn> bitcoin is already in the hands of those who buy dwolla, bitinstant, and mtgox and play that game, witha  blockchain.info wallet.
 114 2013-03-09 00:38:34 <HM2> hardware costs money, as does internet connectivity
 115 2013-03-09 00:38:48 <HM2> warren: neither will most bitcoin transactions be in the future
 116 2013-03-09 00:39:17 <warren> HM2: they will be, if the "system" allows it, even the economically stupid small tx's
 117 2013-03-09 00:39:41 FredEE_ has quit (Quit: FredEE_)
 118 2013-03-09 00:40:03 <HM2> economically stupid ?
 119 2013-03-09 00:40:34 <xjrn> i fire up bitcoin-qt because i can, not because i need to.  i think it's great that you can buy a pizza with bitcoin, but i think it's even cooler that you can earn a wage in france paid to a bitcoin vendor
 120 2013-03-09 00:40:56 <xjrn> this is the wrong year to buy a pizza with what i mined at $1.50
 121 2013-03-09 00:41:06 clarkm has quit (Quit: leaving)
 122 2013-03-09 00:41:21 clarkm has joined
 123 2013-03-09 00:41:37 <HM2> you're missing the point, if you can't get a transaction for your net wealth though the blockchain, your bitcoin bank owns you
 124 2013-03-09 00:42:07 <HM2> nobody has been able to explain to me how that will not happen
 125 2013-03-09 00:42:46 <warren> HM2: that's a great way to explain it
 126 2013-03-09 00:43:24 <HM2> all this fuss about SD makes bitcoin a laughing stock. the network processes less than 2 transactions per second.
 127 2013-03-09 00:43:48 <HM2> I say this as an avid supporter of the cause and enthusiast of bitcoin development
 128 2013-03-09 00:43:48 <warren> We have several major issues here, including the Founder problem, and advocates of reform using the wrong arguments.  This is NOT about punishing DP.  This is about reflecting true costs in fees.  We made a mistake in flat KB fees.
 129 2013-03-09 00:44:13 <xjrn> HM2 the awards end, the fees take over as the incentive, and the coins rarify over time through attrition.  the act of needing a tx becomes the incentive to create new blocks, exclusively.
 130 2013-03-09 00:45:17 <xjrn> VC's will view it as a revenue stream if there's enough money locked up in the bubble, and the attrition
 131 2013-03-09 00:45:26 discrete has joined
 132 2013-03-09 00:45:35 <HM2> Well I don't really know what you're saying
 133 2013-03-09 00:46:01 <warren> I have the sense that arguing with some random person on IRC isn't going to be helpful.
 134 2013-03-09 00:46:04 * warren wanders off.
 135 2013-03-09 00:46:28 <xjrn> warren++
 136 2013-03-09 00:46:46 <xjrn> as t approaches infinity, there will be 0 bitcoins in circulation.
 137 2013-03-09 00:47:13 <warren> (but lots of unspendable spam)
 138 2013-03-09 00:47:54 <HM2> xjrn: that's not true because the plan is to make bitcoins highly divisible
 139 2013-03-09 00:48:09 <HM2> whereas in the inflationary fiat world nations ditch their pennies, bitcoin creates pennies
 140 2013-03-09 00:49:13 <xjrn> if bitcoins become some currency backbone that you portray, then "the model" will improve and a possible successor will likely usurp the value where home-gamers can play on some lesser currency and its conversion rate to the "big flooded backbone"
 141 2013-03-09 00:49:56 <HM2> yes, using bitcoin as a reserve
 142 2013-03-09 00:50:01 <xjrn> HM2:  wallets die.  geeks riding motorcycles will die without sharing thier passwords and writing a bitcoin-specific will
 143 2013-03-09 00:50:46 <xjrn> consider the plot of goldfinger.
 144 2013-03-09 00:51:01 <xjrn> someone invents a worm to erase wallets.
 145 2013-03-09 00:51:14 <xjrn> except thiers
 146 2013-03-09 00:52:01 <HM2> you were exciting me more when you were talking about cool C++ libraries
 147 2013-03-09 00:52:44 <xjrn> "the model" and the healthy debate won't go away.  if SD is paying higher rates I wish i had more hash power to pull in SD fees.  that's my devil's advocate story.
 148 2013-03-09 00:52:57 <jrmithdobbs> xjrn: DP
 149 2013-03-09 00:53:06 <jrmithdobbs> get your acronyms right
 150 2013-03-09 00:53:31 QM has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 151 2013-03-09 00:53:36 <xjrn> s/SD/DP/
 152 2013-03-09 00:53:42 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
 153 2013-03-09 00:54:24 <HM2> well now i'm depressed
 154 2013-03-09 00:55:04 <xjrn> HM2: on the cool c++ front i have to learn graphlab next week. it looks like it picks up where boost graph lib leaves off, beyond the iterators
 155 2013-03-09 00:56:33 <warren> jrmithdobbs: If we made any progress this week, it's the new name.
 156 2013-03-09 00:56:46 <HM2> 'beyond the iterators' would be a cool name for a programming blog
 157 2013-03-09 00:57:48 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 158 2013-03-09 01:02:01 zooko has joined
 159 2013-03-09 01:03:43 <jrmithdobbs> HM2: "Beyond NaN"
 160 2013-03-09 01:03:50 denisx has joined
 161 2013-03-09 01:07:33 <xjrn> "EDIT : Also this patch is pointless, you probably spent more CPU cycles browsing this thread than you'll spend verifying SD txes for a full year."
 162 2013-03-09 01:08:19 <Diablo-D3> eh
 163 2013-03-09 01:08:21 <Diablo-D3> its really the hd churn thats the problem
 164 2013-03-09 01:08:35 <HM2> no it's the fees and the confirmation lag
 165 2013-03-09 01:08:51 <Diablo-D3> HM2: that doesnt NEED to happen
 166 2013-03-09 01:09:06 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin should just disable the no free part of the block by default
 167 2013-03-09 01:09:37 <HM2> what about the block size
 168 2013-03-09 01:10:35 toffoo has joined
 169 2013-03-09 01:10:42 <OneMiner> Trying to use testnet in Windows 7 64, bitcoind 0.8.0   I've started the .exe but cannot poll it with my bitcoind getinfo or help commands. I get "error conildn't connect to server". Anybody familiar with testnet on Windows?
 170 2013-03-09 01:11:48 <K1773R> no, but i know why
 171 2013-03-09 01:11:53 <OneMiner> Yay!
 172 2013-03-09 01:12:08 <K1773R> bitcoind -testnet -rpcport=18334 getinfo
 173 2013-03-09 01:12:14 <K1773R> just replace bitcoind to bitcoind.exe
 174 2013-03-09 01:12:35 <K1773R> if you query it somehow dosnt change the rcpport to 18334 if you supply -testnet
 175 2013-03-09 01:12:54 <K1773R> therefore u try to connect to the mainnet RPC, which in ur case isnt running
 176 2013-03-09 01:13:02 <K1773R> hope this helps ;)
 177 2013-03-09 01:13:05 <xjrn> any 2 p2p clients that agree on a trade can form their own validation criterion.  what this means is that in theory they can cordon off access to coins sent into thier domain of trade as dead currency to the outside clients.
 178 2013-03-09 01:13:26 <warren> apparently that's why testnet bitcoin.conf reads from ~/.bitcoin instead of ~/.bitcoin/testnet3.  So testnet in bitcoin.conf would work.
 179 2013-03-09 01:13:34 <warren> (not a great reason)
 180 2013-03-09 01:13:58 <K1773R> yes, but then if you start bitcoind without options, it would be always testnet
 181 2013-03-09 01:14:05 <warren> xjrn: dead currency, except for those already in the block chain?
 182 2013-03-09 01:14:18 <warren> xjrn: your position is getting more and more nonsensical
 183 2013-03-09 01:14:24 <K1773R> the correct way would be to simply load ~/.bitcoin/testnet3/bitcoin.conf IF -testnet is supplied
 184 2013-03-09 01:14:27 <OneMiner> Ding ding ding! K1773R Got it. bitcoind -testnet getinfo returns da info. Thanks! :)
 185 2013-03-09 01:14:33 <xjrn> warren: if those already in the blockchain don't control those wallets, how would it be other than dead?
 186 2013-03-09 01:14:40 Keverw_ has joined
 187 2013-03-09 01:14:53 <K1773R> oh, works without -rpcport? nice (didnt try testnet with newer versions)
 188 2013-03-09 01:14:53 Keverw_ is now known as Keverw-iPad
 189 2013-03-09 01:14:59 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 190 2013-03-09 01:15:01 Keverw-iPad has left ()
 191 2013-03-09 01:15:56 <K1773R> enjoy ur testnet, remember there is a faucet if you need some coins (send em back when ur done): http://testnet.mojocoin.com/ and http://tpfaucet.appspot.com/
 192 2013-03-09 01:16:16 <OneMiner> Thank you. I'll be good. :D
 193 2013-03-09 01:17:08 <xjrn> warren: let me put it another way,  if any single code base was agreed upon by multiple parties to validate coin ingress as a basis for following a different set of transactions, this would form a different currency traded against the ingress coins.
 194 2013-03-09 01:17:35 <warren> xjrn: only if they are mined by incompatible policies.
 195 2013-03-09 01:17:40 <xjrn> warren: those coins would not change "the existing blockchain"
 196 2013-03-09 01:18:28 <warren> K1773R: would be great to have a testnet <-> BTC exchange, just to give the speculators another toy.
 197 2013-03-09 01:18:39 BNCatDIGISHELL has quit (Quit: changing servers)
 198 2013-03-09 01:18:51 <K1773R> warren: nty, we already had this once...
 199 2013-03-09 01:18:57 BNCatDIGISHELL has joined
 200 2013-03-09 01:18:59 <warren> really?
 201 2013-03-09 01:19:17 <xjrn> namecoin might as well be
 202 2013-03-09 01:19:22 <K1773R> warren: testnet is always lowest diff if there is no block found in the last 20 min, if ppl would mine it the diff would stay constantly high and not at 1 (in reality its 0.5)
 203 2013-03-09 01:20:07 <warren> I suppose someone keeps on a non-mining seed node.
 204 2013-03-09 01:21:13 <warren> K1773R: I know this, I was just making a lame joke.
 205 2013-03-09 01:22:29 FredEE has joined
 206 2013-03-09 01:23:59 <K1773R> soon we got TBTC Diff at 100k :D
 207 2013-03-09 01:26:23 <jgarzik> random note
 208 2013-03-09 01:26:31 <jgarzik> us4.exmulti.net died, so I'm no longer mining testnet full time
 209 2013-03-09 01:26:37 <jgarzik> nor providing that testnet node
 210 2013-03-09 01:26:48 <xempew> :o
 211 2013-03-09 01:26:52 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 212 2013-03-09 01:26:59 * jgarzik needs to get back to BlueMatt, and set up that Foundation-funded VPS
 213 2013-03-09 01:27:45 <OneMiner> I've just downloaded the blockchain up to the hight that the testnet explorer states. Everything is good. Just need a block to get mah coins.
 214 2013-03-09 01:28:55 <K1773R> testnet explorer gets often stuck for a long time, dont rely on it
 215 2013-03-09 01:29:07 <OneMiner> poop
 216 2013-03-09 01:29:26 <OneMiner> Hight is 50095 at 121.something diff.
 217 2013-03-09 01:30:07 <K1773R> yeah, that was when someone mined with 1GH/s and tryd to sell the TBTC afterwards...
 218 2013-03-09 01:30:23 <OneMiner> What a dick! lol that's just supid. :P
 219 2013-03-09 01:30:59 <K1773R> i can connect to 2 nodes, i think i should host BTC testnet too on my public altcoin node
 220 2013-03-09 01:31:08 <OneMiner> Hahahaha you'd think you could get about the same results with a CPU over time. You know, per watt.
 221 2013-03-09 01:31:42 <K1773R> well, you can find alot blocks with CPU, if ur mining alone atleast every 20 min u find a block for sure
 222 2013-03-09 01:31:46 <OneMiner> So are we saying that testnet is stuck?
 223 2013-03-09 01:32:04 <K1773R> no it isnt, its usual
 224 2013-03-09 01:32:38 <OneMiner> Great. I've got my CPU working on it so I'll check back in a bit. Thanks a lot.
 225 2013-03-09 01:32:53 <K1773R> im got a public node hosting all altcoins (had problems with some altcoins being stuck because no-one did setup a port forwarding @ home)
 226 2013-03-09 01:33:02 <K1773R> which miner?
 227 2013-03-09 01:33:10 <OneMiner> Bitcoind CPU.
 228 2013-03-09 01:33:14 <K1773R> bad
 229 2013-03-09 01:33:19 <OneMiner> :(
 230 2013-03-09 01:33:23 <K1773R> https://github.com/pooler/cpuminer/ <--
 231 2013-03-09 01:33:32 <OneMiner> Oh snap. I've got that.
 232 2013-03-09 01:33:48 <K1773R> its a fork of jgarzik's cpuminer, almost fully implemented in ASM
 233 2013-03-09 01:33:51 <OneMiner> Thought that was only for scrypt or something.
 234 2013-03-09 01:33:57 <K1773R> its for both
 235 2013-03-09 01:34:20 torsthaldo has joined
 236 2013-03-09 01:34:46 <K1773R> minerd -a sha256d -o http://rpcuser:rcppassword@127.0.0.1:18334
 237 2013-03-09 01:34:48 <warren> jgarzik: I think my university wont care about hosting testnet here
 238 2013-03-09 01:34:58 <OneMiner> 2.2.3 right? Umm.... Dang. How do I setup my RCP junk for testnet in parallel with regularnet?
 239 2013-03-09 01:35:11 <OneMiner> Okey dokey.
 240 2013-03-09 01:35:20 <warren> jgarzik: would you folks want ssh access to restart it?
 241 2013-03-09 01:35:20 <K1773R> you can run bitcoind on main + testnet the same time
 242 2013-03-09 01:35:44 <K1773R> well, its 2 bitcoind instances, but it works
 243 2013-03-09 01:36:01 <jgarzik> warren: easier if that task falls on your shoulders ;p
 244 2013-03-09 01:36:14 <OneMiner> Gah, I need a damn smoke before I get anything done. bbl
 245 2013-03-09 01:36:22 <warren> Vinnie_win: btw, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents#CVE-2010-5140
 246 2013-03-09 01:36:23 <jgarzik> warren: just running current codebase on testnet, perhaps one core CPU mining w/ the internal miner
 247 2013-03-09 01:36:35 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
 248 2013-03-09 01:36:44 <warren> jgarzik: internal miner is important?
 249 2013-03-09 01:36:51 Diablo-D3 has joined
 250 2013-03-09 01:37:19 <jgarzik> warren: no, just convenient
 251 2013-03-09 01:37:24 <warren> jgarzik: is internal miner a thread within the bitcoind?  I would want to limit its CPU usage to like 5%, easier if it is its own process.
 252 2013-03-09 01:37:38 <jgarzik> warren: easier than "two moving parts" (bitcoind + cpuminer) to monitor and maintain
 253 2013-03-09 01:37:38 <K1773R> jgarzik/warren: how about creating a cron which pulls the git and builds bitcoind every 24h, stops bitcoind, replaces binarys, starts bitcoind again?
 254 2013-03-09 01:37:56 <jgarzik> warren: yes, internal miner is its own thread within bitcoind
 255 2013-03-09 01:37:59 <K1773R> warren: if you want to limit cpu usage, take a look at the tool cpulimit
 256 2013-03-09 01:38:16 <warren> K1773R: unable to build bitcoind here, no ecdsa support, and I refuse to install openssl built by other people.  I intend on making a add-on ecdsa-only library at some point for all Fedora and RHEL users.
 257 2013-03-09 01:38:30 <K1773R> then build it urself?
 258 2013-03-09 01:38:51 <warren> yeah, I will eventually
 259 2013-03-09 01:39:23 <K1773R> you can compile openssl in a specific folder (with ./configure --prefix=/some/directory and compile bitcoind with it, if you run bitcoind set the LD_LIBRARAY_PATH to the specific dir
 260 2013-03-09 01:39:35 <K1773R> so only bitcoind would use the openssl lib you compiled ;)
 261 2013-03-09 01:39:59 <warren> yeah, I could. but if I did that, I might as well make my desired ecdsa only library package
 262 2013-03-09 01:40:06 <warren> ecdsa is needed for more than just bitcoin.
 263 2013-03-09 01:41:37 <K1773R> sure, up to you. just trying to supply good ideas ;)
 264 2013-03-09 01:44:10 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 265 2013-03-09 01:44:54 zrad has joined
 266 2013-03-09 01:49:51 zooko has joined
 267 2013-03-09 01:50:03 zebedee_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 268 2013-03-09 01:50:55 <warren> K1773R: cron rebuilding and running testnet every 24H wouldn't ensure that there is at least one testnet seed all the time.
 269 2013-03-09 01:51:33 <K1773R> you could be running 2 bitcoinds (1 the release version, and another the git version)
 270 2013-03-09 01:51:41 <K1773R> both with a own data directory + different ports
 271 2013-03-09 01:51:59 <warren> I'm solving only the "no guaranteed testnet seed" problem.
 272 2013-03-09 01:52:11 <warren> because it requires so little effort to do so
 273 2013-03-09 01:52:20 <K1773R> no offense ;)
 274 2013-03-09 01:53:53 <warren> how often do we restart testnet?
 275 2013-03-09 01:54:54 <K1773R> if im correct we are at testnet3 (according to code/directory) which has been created in 0.7 im im correct
 276 2013-03-09 01:55:13 <K1773R> gotta ask someone else
 277 2013-03-09 01:58:07 B0g4r7 has joined
 278 2013-03-09 01:58:28 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 279 2013-03-09 02:00:35 <warren> Surprisingly, there are a lot of testnet nodes.
 280 2013-03-09 02:00:47 <warren> maybe I shouldn't be concerned about this
 281 2013-03-09 02:01:27 <K1773R> i got 6 over here, u?
 282 2013-03-09 02:02:02 <warren> what are the chances that everyone will shutdown testnet such that nobody is seeding?
 283 2013-03-09 02:02:09 <K1773R> very low
 284 2013-03-09 02:02:22 <warren> ok, then I'm killing this
 285 2013-03-09 02:02:32 <K1773R> poor testnet :P
 286 2013-03-09 02:04:10 <OneMiner> I'm going to run testnet for a bit for one.
 287 2013-03-09 02:04:18 <warren> OTOH, I have no limit on bandwidth here.  We were dared to saturate the pipe, and we failed with our Linux mirror.
 288 2013-03-09 02:06:48 RainbowDashh has joined
 289 2013-03-09 02:09:07 <helo> warren: one of the accepted foundation proposals was for a testnet faucet and node
 290 2013-03-09 02:09:11 <warren> OK, I'm leaving it running.  Only 64MB RAM it appears.
 291 2013-03-09 02:09:13 <helo> and dns seed
 292 2013-03-09 02:09:42 <warren> helo: well, if that happens, I'll turn it off
 293 2013-03-09 02:09:58 <warren> helo: or maybe I'll leave it running so I can extract the 1MB tx's whenever I want.
 294 2013-03-09 02:16:58 idstam-se has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 295 2013-03-09 02:17:35 vampireb has joined
 296 2013-03-09 02:20:36 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 297 2013-03-09 02:21:03 Ferroh_ has joined
 298 2013-03-09 02:25:27 Ferroh has quit (Quit: *poof*)
 299 2013-03-09 02:25:35 Ferroh_ is now known as Ferroh
 300 2013-03-09 02:26:38 <Ferroh> I forget, what file do I modify in 0.8 to prevent bitcoind from rechecking the whole chain after importing a new address?
 301 2013-03-09 02:28:18 <sipa> you put a false after importprivkey <key>
 302 2013-03-09 02:28:34 BTC_Bear is now known as hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|BTC_Bear
 303 2013-03-09 02:30:59 tyn has joined
 304 2013-03-09 02:33:13 <Ferroh> Oh, the interface changed?!
 305 2013-03-09 02:33:14 <Ferroh> awesome
 306 2013-03-09 02:33:18 <Ferroh> thanks sipa
 307 2013-03-09 02:39:59 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 308 2013-03-09 02:40:25 bock has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 309 2013-03-09 02:40:34 copumpkin has joined
 310 2013-03-09 02:50:16 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 311 2013-03-09 02:51:25 zooko has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 312 2013-03-09 02:51:51 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 313 2013-03-09 02:54:00 dust-otc has joined
 314 2013-03-09 02:55:32 <jaakkos> is anyone using GoxCLI, frontend to MtGox? seems like many commands fail, is this expected?
 315 2013-03-09 02:55:56 <jaakkos> is there a python trading library that works well?
 316 2013-03-09 02:59:42 d4de has joined
 317 2013-03-09 02:59:42 d4de has quit (Changing host)
 318 2013-03-09 02:59:42 d4de has joined
 319 2013-03-09 03:01:17 zivester has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 320 2013-03-09 03:01:44 zivester has joined
 321 2013-03-09 03:01:49 [\\\] has quit ()
 322 2013-03-09 03:02:19 zivester has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 323 2013-03-09 03:06:46 MobiusL has joined
 324 2013-03-09 03:06:51 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 325 2013-03-09 03:07:20 [\\\] has joined
 326 2013-03-09 03:07:23 Goonie has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 327 2013-03-09 03:11:49 dawei101 has joined
 328 2013-03-09 03:13:35 road33 has joined
 329 2013-03-09 03:14:50 <road33> I am developing a WS app for mtgox, today I can not longer connect, is this typical ?
 330 2013-03-09 03:18:59 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-251-16-105.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 331 2013-03-09 03:22:39 AtashiCon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 332 2013-03-09 03:27:46 Diablo-D3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 333 2013-03-09 03:28:13 Diablo-D3 has joined
 334 2013-03-09 03:32:02 <freewil> road33, it's known to have frequently connectivity issues
 335 2013-03-09 03:32:04 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 336 2013-03-09 03:33:11 fiesh_ has joined
 337 2013-03-09 03:33:49 rbecker is now known as RBecker
 338 2013-03-09 03:33:59 hsmiths has joined
 339 2013-03-09 03:34:21 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 340 2013-03-09 03:40:07 RainbowDashh has quit (Quit: Sleep. <redacted>	I joked I would replace all her sensitive files on her old computer with ponies so nothing could be recovered.)
 341 2013-03-09 03:50:55 vigilyn2 has joined
 342 2013-03-09 03:51:11 vigilyn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 343 2013-03-09 03:51:33 RainbowDashh has joined
 344 2013-03-09 04:00:15 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 345 2013-03-09 04:01:39 FredEE has joined
 346 2013-03-09 04:02:58 FredEE has quit (Client Quit)
 347 2013-03-09 04:03:43 <iwilcox> road33: I've had no WS connections work for about 24hrs.
 348 2013-03-09 04:04:11 road33 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 349 2013-03-09 04:05:34 xjrn has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 350 2013-03-09 04:06:06 road33 has joined
 351 2013-03-09 04:07:06 <iwilcox> road33: I've had no WS connections work for about 24hrs.
 352 2013-03-09 04:08:54 dust-otc has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 353 2013-03-09 04:10:26 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 354 2013-03-09 04:19:33 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 355 2013-03-09 04:25:20 gdoteof has joined
 356 2013-03-09 04:26:40 grau has joined
 357 2013-03-09 04:29:36 <freewil> how does bitcoind keep track of the confirmation count for every transaction in the wallet
 358 2013-03-09 04:30:07 <freewil> when a new block is received, does it update the confirmation count for each tx?
 359 2013-03-09 04:30:21 RainbowDashh is now known as Rarityy
 360 2013-03-09 04:30:22 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 361 2013-03-09 04:30:42 gdoteof has joined
 362 2013-03-09 04:31:30 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 363 2013-03-09 04:31:56 swappermall has joined
 364 2013-03-09 04:33:02 K1773R is now known as K1773R|OFF
 365 2013-03-09 04:37:49 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 366 2013-03-09 04:38:07 AtashiCon has joined
 367 2013-03-09 04:38:39 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 368 2013-03-09 04:41:56 testnode9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 369 2013-03-09 04:42:43 [7] has quit (Disconnected by services)
 370 2013-03-09 04:42:50 TheSeven has joined
 371 2013-03-09 04:42:53 techlife has joined
 372 2013-03-09 04:45:24 felixhandte has joined
 373 2013-03-09 04:45:27 torsthaldo has joined
 374 2013-03-09 04:46:20 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
 375 2013-03-09 04:47:45 felixhandte has left ()
 376 2013-03-09 04:49:19 Mad7Scientist has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 377 2013-03-09 04:56:47 K1773R is now known as OFF!~K1773Rfre@www.darkgamex.ch|K1773R
 378 2013-03-09 04:57:01 HM2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 379 2013-03-09 04:57:04 HM has joined
 380 2013-03-09 04:58:30 Namworld has quit ()
 381 2013-03-09 04:59:11 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 382 2013-03-09 04:59:16 FredEE has joined
 383 2013-03-09 05:00:15 gdoteof has joined
 384 2013-03-09 05:04:18 road33 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 385 2013-03-09 05:09:17 AtashiCon has joined
 386 2013-03-09 05:12:29 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yes you do...
 387 2013-03-09 05:12:43 <BlueMatt> anyone know off-hand the lower-bound on a scriptSig assuming it actually signs something
 388 2013-03-09 05:13:01 <BlueMatt> so...I suppose the lower-bound on the size of s gi
 389 2013-03-09 05:13:28 <BlueMatt> a sig*
 390 2013-03-09 05:15:53 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, i assume you could shrink it by artificially using a low value private key
 391 2013-03-09 05:16:22 swappermall has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 392 2013-03-09 05:17:19 <BlueMatt> hmm, I thought there was a lower bound on the sig size
 393 2013-03-09 05:17:29 <BlueMatt> or atleast for reasonable values
 394 2013-03-09 05:17:33 <BlueMatt> reasonable privkeys
 395 2013-03-09 05:20:11 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: can you elaborate? that may be the cause of a bug TD saw a few days ago
 396 2013-03-09 05:21:49 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, er
 397 2013-03-09 05:21:50 <phantomcircuit> nvm
 398 2013-03-09 05:21:56 <phantomcircuit> well
 399 2013-03-09 05:22:09 <phantomcircuit> theoretically the signature size could be 2 bytes
 400 2013-03-09 05:22:23 <phantomcircuit> 0, 0 is a valid signature, but exeptionallllly unlikely
 401 2013-03-09 05:22:30 <BlueMatt> will openssl/bouncycastle ever encode one as such?
 402 2013-03-09 05:22:42 <phantomcircuit> it would be uh 4 bytes?
 403 2013-03-09 05:23:06 <phantomcircuit> it's an ASN.1 sequence with 2 ASN.1 integers
 404 2013-03-09 05:23:22 <BlueMatt> hmm...I was under the impression I read something about there being a lower bound on what bitcoin will actually generate, but I may be wrong
 405 2013-03-09 05:23:25 <BlueMatt> something to dig up tomorrow
 406 2013-03-09 05:23:36 <phantomcircuit> so iirc 1 byte to identify the sequence 1 byte for the length, 1 byte to identify the int, 1 byte for the int
 407 2013-03-09 05:23:37 <phantomcircuit> so
 408 2013-03-09 05:23:39 <phantomcircuit> 6 bytes
 409 2013-03-09 05:23:45 <phantomcircuit> but that's exceptionally unlikely
 410 2013-03-09 05:23:55 <BlueMatt> yea, well Ill dig it up tomorrow then
 411 2013-03-09 05:24:16 <phantomcircuit> there might be something in the ecdsa sign math that im missing
 412 2013-03-09 05:25:48 <phantomcircuit> yeah
 413 2013-03-09 05:26:07 MiW has joined
 414 2013-03-09 05:26:10 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, both r and s could be 1
 415 2013-03-09 05:26:32 <phantomcircuit> there might be something in openssl which invalidated small values for r/s and goes back to picking k
 416 2013-03-09 05:26:53 <phantomcircuit> but i sort of doubt it since that would shrink the effective key space
 417 2013-03-09 05:27:45 <phantomcircuit> also the valid size for a scriptSig is... infinity
 418 2013-03-09 05:27:51 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
 419 2013-03-09 05:28:07 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 420 2013-03-09 05:28:20 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 421 2013-03-09 05:28:31 gdoteof has joined
 422 2013-03-09 05:29:07 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you can't just get valid tiny r/s without solving the DLP.
 423 2013-03-09 05:29:26 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, not on purpose
 424 2013-03-09 05:29:31 <phantomcircuit> but it could happen by chance
 425 2013-03-09 05:29:48 <gmaxwell> Indeed.
 426 2013-03-09 05:29:52 zrad has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 427 2013-03-09 05:30:56 dgriffi has joined
 428 2013-03-09 05:30:59 Diablo-D3 has joined
 429 2013-03-09 05:31:17 <dgriffi> can I get some advice on adding a minor, but rather needed feature?
 430 2013-03-09 05:31:45 <dgriffi> I want to add an option to determine which clipboard the "Copy Address" button copies to
 431 2013-03-09 05:32:02 <dgriffi> How should I go about doing this so I don't offend the Windows and OSX users?
 432 2013-03-09 05:32:24 canoon has joined
 433 2013-03-09 05:32:37 jgarzik has quit (Quit: Client exiting)
 434 2013-03-09 05:33:36 DarkLinkXXXX has joined
 435 2013-03-09 05:33:40 DarkLinkXXXX has left ("Leaving")
 436 2013-03-09 05:34:25 grau has joined
 437 2013-03-09 05:38:50 <Diablo-D3> dgriffi: well, to be fair
 438 2013-03-09 05:38:56 <Diablo-D3> dgriffi: qt doesn't work that way
 439 2013-03-09 05:39:14 <Diablo-D3> aaaaaand
 440 2013-03-09 05:39:29 <Diablo-D3> I'd rather see a patch that treats PRIMARY as an alias for CLIPBOARD
 441 2013-03-09 05:39:35 <Diablo-D3> thus solving the whole damned problem to begin with
 442 2013-03-09 05:41:05 <dgriffi> Diablo-D3: I'm not that familiar with QT development... what is PRIMARY?
 443 2013-03-09 05:41:18 <Diablo-D3> thats not part of QT, its part of X
 444 2013-03-09 05:41:27 <Diablo-D3> PRIMARY and CLIPBOARD are the names of the two clipboards in X
 445 2013-03-09 05:41:39 <Diablo-D3> select/middle click uses one, standard copy and paste uses the other
 446 2013-03-09 05:42:07 <dgriffi> PRIMARY is the middle click one?
 447 2013-03-09 05:42:29 <Diablo-D3> I think so
 448 2013-03-09 05:42:35 <Diablo-D3> I can never remember which is which
 449 2013-03-09 05:43:13 jgarzik has joined
 450 2013-03-09 05:43:15 <dgriffi> so should I even bother with an option to control which clipboard is used?
 451 2013-03-09 05:43:22 jgarzik has quit (Changing host)
 452 2013-03-09 05:43:22 jgarzik has joined
 453 2013-03-09 05:43:34 <dgriffi> ...just go in there and change things to write to both?
 454 2013-03-09 05:43:58 <Diablo-D3> its not worth it
 455 2013-03-09 05:44:09 <Diablo-D3> most people who finally got tired of how fucked up X clipboards are installed parcellite
 456 2013-03-09 05:44:23 <Diablo-D3> and turn on synchronize clipboards
 457 2013-03-09 05:45:08 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 458 2013-03-09 05:45:29 <Vinnie_win> So.... :-)
 459 2013-03-09 05:45:44 <Vinnie_win> I canceled my date so I could hang out with you guys and lay some blame on peeps
 460 2013-03-09 05:45:52 <Vinnie_win> who is WITH ME?
 461 2013-03-09 05:45:53 <Diablo-D3> Vinnie_win: right, sure
 462 2013-03-09 05:48:12 <dgriffi> Diablo-D3: can I just submit a pull request for shits and giggles and get it accepted?
 463 2013-03-09 05:48:35 <Diablo-D3> dgriffi: you could….
 464 2013-03-09 05:48:41 <Diablo-D3> but I can't see it being accepted
 465 2013-03-09 05:48:48 <dgriffi> why not?
 466 2013-03-09 05:48:56 <Diablo-D3> you're fixing the problem at the wrong level
 467 2013-03-09 05:55:18 swappermall has joined
 468 2013-03-09 05:56:54 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 469 2013-03-09 05:57:14 gdoteof has joined
 470 2013-03-09 06:00:01 <warren> It is confusing that Shift-Insert and CTRL-V do different things.
 471 2013-03-09 06:00:19 <warren> Fortunately it's mainly us using Linux...
 472 2013-03-09 06:00:41 hydrogenesis has joined
 473 2013-03-09 06:03:11 <dgriffi> I just want to get this code written
 474 2013-03-09 06:04:31 <warren> Diablo-D3: thanks, I didn't know about parcellite.
 475 2013-03-09 06:05:15 <dgriffi> the thing about paracellite is that fewer people will use it.. they'll look at bitcoin-qt and go "why the hell won't the clipboard work right?"
 476 2013-03-09 06:05:42 <warren> you think "Copy into clipboard 1" and "Copy into clipboard 2" would be better?
 477 2013-03-09 06:05:43 <Diablo-D3> warren: well its because shift-insert is the correct way
 478 2013-03-09 06:05:48 <Diablo-D3> its you windows weirdos that do it wrong
 479 2013-03-09 06:05:52 <Diablo-D3> warren: no, because qt doesn't work that way
 480 2013-03-09 06:06:04 <Diablo-D3> dgriffi: yes, which is why X needs fixed
 481 2013-03-09 06:06:10 <Diablo-D3> you think qt is the only broken app? hah!
 482 2013-03-09 06:06:18 <dgriffi> Diablo-D3: that's not going to happen very soon
 483 2013-03-09 06:06:27 <dgriffi> Diablo-D3: no.. we can start by writing clean apps
 484 2013-03-09 06:06:44 <Diablo-D3> how? qt is already broken
 485 2013-03-09 06:06:49 <warren> Diablo-D3: parcellite "save history" actually writes your clipboard to disk?
 486 2013-03-09 06:06:54 * warren scary
 487 2013-03-09 06:07:00 <Diablo-D3> warren: no… turn on persistent history for that
 488 2013-03-09 06:07:04 <warren> oh
 489 2013-03-09 06:07:31 <warren> Enable scary mode? Yes/No
 490 2013-03-09 06:08:36 <warren> Diablo-D3: I'd love a clipboard manager that strips all text formatting, so copying from a web page and pasting in a word processor doesn't attempt to apply its font, size, bold, etc.
 491 2013-03-09 06:08:47 <warren> but getting off topic
 492 2013-03-09 06:08:49 <Diablo-D3> heh
 493 2013-03-09 06:08:50 <Diablo-D3> well
 494 2013-03-09 06:08:56 <Diablo-D3> welcome to how fucking stupid computers are
 495 2013-03-09 06:09:15 <warren> They aren't stupid.  They do EXACTLY what you tell them to do.
 496 2013-03-09 06:09:22 <Diablo-D3> dude
 497 2013-03-09 06:09:24 <warren> +/- a few stray gamma rays
 498 2013-03-09 06:09:27 <Diablo-D3> if my computer did exactly what I told it to
 499 2013-03-09 06:09:35 <Diablo-D3> I'd be rich, happy, and have at least three wives
 500 2013-03-09 06:09:58 <dgriffi> more digging through the code... why isn't the "Show QR Code" button showing up when I run the application?
 501 2013-03-09 06:10:01 <warren> Diablo-D3: If that's the case, I haven't been telling my computer the right things.
 502 2013-03-09 06:10:10 <nanotube> warren: it's called notepad passthrough :)
 503 2013-03-09 06:10:24 <warren> nanotube: yeah, or gedit.  I do it like 100 times a day.
 504 2013-03-09 06:10:36 * dgriffi hates qedit
 505 2013-03-09 06:10:44 * dgriffi loves xclip
 506 2013-03-09 06:10:49 <warren> there probably exists a solution for this already.
 507 2013-03-09 06:11:01 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 508 2013-03-09 06:11:08 <nanotube> warren: if you use openoffice (and probably msoffice too), doing ctl-shift-v does a 'paste special' and you can choose 'unformatted text'. that's another option.
 509 2013-03-09 06:11:10 <dgriffi> so, can anyone tell me why I can't see the "Show QR Code" button?
 510 2013-03-09 06:11:27 <warren> nanotube: funny thing is, it only works most of the time.  I haven't been able to figure out why.
 511 2013-03-09 06:11:41 <warren> nanotube: although sometimes I want to paste in Google Docs, and I have to use notepad/gedit passthrough
 512 2013-03-09 06:12:01 <nanotube> yea, when in doubt, use a plain text editor :)
 513 2013-03-09 06:12:24 <warren> yeah, Google Docs doesn't print your document the way it looked in the editor anyway.  might as well use vi.
 514 2013-03-09 06:12:44 <dgriffi> warren: use LaTeX
 515 2013-03-09 06:12:54 <warren> haha
 516 2013-03-09 06:13:13 <nanotube> latex++ :)
 517 2013-03-09 06:13:31 <dgriffi> warren: I mean it.  LaTeX is the ultimate when you want your text to look good
 518 2013-03-09 06:13:31 <nanotube> though a bit overkill for quickndirty stuff.
 519 2013-03-09 06:13:48 <dgriffi> for quickanddirty I use straight ascii
 520 2013-03-09 06:13:53 <warren> especially math equations
 521 2013-03-09 06:14:22 <nanotube> yea if math, latex==good
 522 2013-03-09 06:14:55 <warren> During college, a chemistry classmate turned in his labnotes that he wrote in LaTeX.  It looked indistinguishable in formatting from the lab manual.
 523 2013-03-09 06:15:09 <Diablo-D3> it probably WAS the formatting in the lab manual
 524 2013-03-09 06:15:16 <dgriffi> warren: probably because the book was written with latex
 525 2013-03-09 06:15:22 <Diablo-D3> TeX is used quite frequently in technical manuals
 526 2013-03-09 06:15:40 <warren> The professor laughed when he saw it.
 527 2013-03-09 06:16:51 <warren> OK, adding "Implement auto-notepad passthrough hotkey to parcellite" along with the 700 other things I want to do after I finish this stupid thesis.
 528 2013-03-09 06:19:08 <dgriffi> warren: what's your thesis on?
 529 2013-03-09 06:23:04 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 530 2013-03-09 06:23:33 BTC_Bear is now known as BTC_Bear|hbrntng
 531 2013-03-09 06:23:58 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 532 2013-03-09 06:24:38 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 533 2013-03-09 06:25:43 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 534 2013-03-09 06:26:08 gdoteof has joined
 535 2013-03-09 06:26:39 dkog has quit (Quit: dkog)
 536 2013-03-09 06:34:04 torsthaldo has joined
 537 2013-03-09 06:39:25 andytoshi has joined
 538 2013-03-09 06:39:35 HM has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 539 2013-03-09 06:43:10 RBecker is now known as rbecker
 540 2013-03-09 06:43:54 HM has joined
 541 2013-03-09 06:46:16 <warren> dgriffi: software patent law
 542 2013-03-09 06:46:36 <warren> dgriffi: I will likely publish it on groklaw when I'm doe.
 543 2013-03-09 06:46:39 <warren> done
 544 2013-03-09 06:47:25 <warren> guist of it: I found a potential loophole in the statutes that nobody thought about before.
 545 2013-03-09 06:48:28 <dgriffi> oh, nice!
 546 2013-03-09 06:48:49 <warren> That could weaken software patent protection.
 547 2013-03-09 06:48:53 <dgriffi> warren: are you a law student?
 548 2013-03-09 06:48:56 <warren> No.
 549 2013-03-09 06:49:07 <warren> Taking a few law courses though.
 550 2013-03-09 06:49:16 <nanotube> warren: sounds cool. :)
 551 2013-03-09 06:49:28 <warren> I am extremely annoyed at this ecdsa thing.
 552 2013-03-09 06:49:33 xjrn has joined
 553 2013-03-09 06:50:01 <iwilcox> Don't *tell* 'em about the loophole.  Wait for the next Google v Oracle and hand it to Google.
 554 2013-03-09 06:50:42 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
 555 2013-03-09 06:51:04 * dgriffi chuckles
 556 2013-03-09 06:51:10 <warren> iwilcox: Mark Lemley published a highly influential paper on a different loophole mid-2012, and it's going through the courts in sofware patent cases now.
 557 2013-03-09 06:51:31 <nanotube> also... parcellite - looks neat.
 558 2013-03-09 06:52:05 <warren> iwilcox: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/mark-lemley-functional-claiming/
 559 2013-03-09 06:52:13 <warren> that's a short summary
 560 2013-03-09 06:52:17 <iwilcox> Cool.  Well, I hope you get appropriate credit to your name for yours.
 561 2013-03-09 06:52:22 * iwilcox reads
 562 2013-03-09 06:52:23 <warren> I found something similar but entirely different.
 563 2013-03-09 06:54:25 <dgriffi> published scholar time
 564 2013-03-09 06:54:31 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 565 2013-03-09 06:54:51 gdoteof has joined
 566 2013-03-09 06:56:53 <iwilcox> I must have missed the one where someone claimed to own emoticons.
 567 2013-03-09 06:57:31 <dgriffi> I remember reading about that, but I can't remember where and what the outcome was
 568 2013-03-09 06:57:37 <warren> I'm very annoyed that Fedora doesn't ship ecdsa, needed by bitcoin and bitmessage among others.  I didn't read the ECC patents (and I won't), but reading the analysis by people who did read the patents and understand cryptography, it sounds like ecdsa avoids the patented parts of EC*.  However, the lawyers analyzing the situation might not have the skill in the art to distinguish what exactly is in the ecdsa implementation and compare it to the
 569 2013-03-09 06:57:37 <warren> patent disclosures.  This is all a guess though, since I haven't read the code nor have I read the patents.
 570 2013-03-09 06:58:41 <warren> (and I don't know cryptography)
 571 2013-03-09 06:58:47 <iwilcox> You won't read the patents...out of the wish to maintain plausible deniability?  Out of the wish to avoid accidentally including some element?
 572 2013-03-09 06:59:03 <warren> That's theoretically why engineers don't read them.
 573 2013-03-09 06:59:51 <warren> I've been considering just saying "screw it" and cutting out openssl's ecdsa into its own library for use on Fedora, and putting that and bitcoin RPMS on my own website.
 574 2013-03-09 07:00:26 <warren> Or rather, on my corporate entity's website, which is a legal person with its own bank account.
 575 2013-03-09 07:00:35 <warren> I'm just an employee.
 576 2013-03-09 07:04:28 <dgriffi> there is a perverse incentive to not read the patents
 577 2013-03-09 07:04:53 <iwilcox> We always got told in the strongest terms never to search for any.
 578 2013-03-09 07:06:30 <dgriffi> one of my favorite perverse patents is the cat exerciser (laser pointer with a perpendicular handle)
 579 2013-03-09 07:06:41 <iwilcox> I never saw how "You knew there was a similar patent, yet you went ahead and implemented" was any worse or better than "You didn't even bother to check whether you were stealing other people's stuff"
 580 2013-03-09 07:07:04 <warren> I was issued a software patent in November, and I have another coming soon.
 581 2013-03-09 07:07:13 <dgriffi> if you don't bother to check if you're stealing, how is it stealing?
 582 2013-03-09 07:07:24 <warren> A few pages before my new patent was a "beach towel with built in pillow"
 583 2013-03-09 07:07:30 <warren> Novel invention!
 584 2013-03-09 07:07:34 <dgriffi> warren: a friend of mine got one a few months ago (assigned to his employer)
 585 2013-03-09 07:07:57 <iwilcox> It's stealing because patent law doesn't seem to distinguish wilful from ignorant copying.
 586 2013-03-09 07:08:13 <dgriffi> iwilcox: but how is it copying if you came up with it yourself?
 587 2013-03-09 07:08:16 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
 588 2013-03-09 07:08:31 <warren> dgriffi: that's part of the "fiction"
 589 2013-03-09 07:08:36 <iwilcox> Never made any sense to me either, but that's how courts seem to see it.
 590 2013-03-09 07:09:31 <iwilcox> Does that mean "beach towel with built in pillow" got issued?
 591 2013-03-09 07:10:30 <dgriffi> I came across a patent for goggles for chickens so they won't peck each others eyes out
 592 2013-03-09 07:11:55 <warren> Patents are not supposed to protect laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.  We people skilled in the art recognize mathematics as unpatentable by this rule.  The Federal Circuit agrees that math is unpatentable subject matter, ... unless it is HARD.
 593 2013-03-09 07:12:13 <warren> As if math you can do with paper and pencil is different from math that a computer can do.
 594 2013-03-09 07:13:07 <warren> iwilcox: yes.  apparently nobody published prior art or offered for sale ""beach towel with built in pillow" before
 595 2013-03-09 07:13:28 <warren> I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember exactly what it said, it was something like that.
 596 2013-03-09 07:14:21 <warren> issued November 2012
 597 2013-03-09 07:14:29 <warren> I'm seeing a 1980 patent for beach towel with pillow
 598 2013-03-09 07:15:37 <iwilcox> Don't patent clerks have pointy-haired bosses?
 599 2013-03-09 07:15:54 <warren> I dunno.  Let's put it in the IRC log and see if they answer.
 600 2013-03-09 07:15:57 <iwilcox> If I were the PHB, why wouldn't I ask for a report per granted patent?
 601 2013-03-09 07:17:38 * iwilcox shrugs
 602 2013-03-09 07:17:41 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 603 2013-03-09 07:18:19 tyn has joined
 604 2013-03-09 07:21:29 <dgriffi> okay, I found the place where bitcoin-qt copies stuff to the clipboard...
 605 2013-03-09 07:21:54 <dgriffi> it looks like I can pull this off with one or two lines
 606 2013-03-09 07:22:37 <warren> dgriffi: you putting the copy into both clipboards?
 607 2013-03-09 07:22:42 <warren> I'd like that.
 608 2013-03-09 07:23:20 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 609 2013-03-09 07:23:27 xempew has quit (Quit: xempew)
 610 2013-03-09 07:23:40 gdoteof has joined
 611 2013-03-09 07:24:56 <dgriffi> warren: yeah
 612 2013-03-09 07:25:21 <warren> well, your patch goes into MY bitcoin-qt RPM along with ecdsa.
 613 2013-03-09 07:25:37 <warren> and the dust tx dropping patch
 614 2013-03-09 07:26:19 <dgriffi> I just need to figure out how to extract the text from AddressTableModel::Address and into something that the X11 equivalent will like
 615 2013-03-09 07:29:21 <warren> I wonder if I can use the preprocessor to automatically pull out only the ecdsa functions used by bitcoin from openssl source, so it isn't subject to my error...
 616 2013-03-09 07:29:47 <Luke-Jr> warren: if you want one clipboard, just use Klipper :P
 617 2013-03-09 07:30:27 <warren> Luke-Jr: I keep wishing that with every release GNOME won't become worse again.
 618 2013-03-09 07:30:50 <dgriffi> Luke-Jr: I don't want these bolt-on bags-on-the-side
 619 2013-03-09 07:30:52 <Luke-Jr> warren: what do you expect, it's GNOME :P
 620 2013-03-09 07:31:01 <dgriffi> warren: well, at least the founder jumped ship to Mac
 621 2013-03-09 07:31:06 bigbass has joined
 622 2013-03-09 07:31:07 <dgriffi> warren: maybe that'll improve things
 623 2013-03-09 07:31:13 <warren> for mac?
 624 2013-03-09 07:31:15 <dgriffi> yes
 625 2013-03-09 07:31:22 * warren shorts Apple
 626 2013-03-09 07:31:28 <Luke-Jr> lol
 627 2013-03-09 07:31:33 <dgriffi> Miguel deIza I think is his name
 628 2013-03-09 07:31:55 <warren> I guess I shouldn't say things that are too mean about people on public IRC logs.
 629 2013-03-09 07:32:24 grau has joined
 630 2013-03-09 07:37:04 <warren> dgriffi: if you can't figure it out, make it so they can highlight the address =P
 631 2013-03-09 07:37:17 <dgriffi> warren: I'll look at doing that too
 632 2013-03-09 07:37:23 <dgriffi> maybe do both
 633 2013-03-09 07:37:55 <warren> that was a joke, but I guess I'd like it
 634 2013-03-09 07:38:20 <dgriffi> oh no. I like being able to highlight whatever I like
 635 2013-03-09 07:38:25 <dgriffi> good suggestion
 636 2013-03-09 07:39:09 <warren> Another thing on my list of things to do after the thesis, "Port litecoin protocol to bitcoin git master".  It's pointless, but good practice to learn the code.
 637 2013-03-09 07:39:22 <warren> the litecoin git is a mess
 638 2013-03-09 07:43:37 <dgriffi> what is litecoin?  bitcoin with different constants?
 639 2013-03-09 07:44:43 <warren> dgriffi: 2.5 minute blocks, overly anti-spam fee formula, scrypt instead of sha256
 640 2013-03-09 07:45:31 <Luke-Jr> dgriffi: yet another scamcoin
 641 2013-03-09 07:45:32 <warren> dgriffi: it makes no sense, but it's somehow traded in a tight range of 6-8 cents over the past year, and a few days ago jumped to ~20 cents
 642 2013-03-09 07:45:51 <warren> I doubt it will survive the long-term.
 643 2013-03-09 07:46:15 <warren> dgriffi: it's also effectively unmaintained
 644 2013-03-09 07:46:17 <Luke-Jr> it's basically being used as a pyramid scheme
 645 2013-03-09 07:46:29 <warren> a flat and boring pyramid
 646 2013-03-09 07:46:43 mappum has joined
 647 2013-03-09 07:46:47 <Luke-Jr> lol
 648 2013-03-09 07:46:55 <Luke-Jr> nah, they try to sell it to newbies
 649 2013-03-09 07:47:05 ThomasV has joined
 650 2013-03-09 07:48:36 <Luke-Jr> "look, you missed out on the bitcoin get-rich-quick! litecoin is the next big thing, you should invest in it before the price bursts like bitcoin did!"
 651 2013-03-09 07:49:11 <warren> I'm going to use litecoin as an experiment in my "pollution tax" fee formula.
 652 2013-03-09 07:49:13 <ThomasV> Luke-Jr: solidcoin!
 653 2013-03-09 07:49:36 <ThomasV> errr, no, microcash
 654 2013-03-09 07:49:43 <ThomasV> whatever
 655 2013-03-09 07:50:10 davout has joined
 656 2013-03-09 07:50:10 davout has quit (Changing host)
 657 2013-03-09 07:50:10 davout has joined
 658 2013-03-09 07:50:28 <warren> Historically litecoin suffered from a massive spam attack of tiny value tx's.  In response they jacked up the standard fee to a very high level, which pretty much stopped spam.
 659 2013-03-09 07:50:59 <Luke-Jr> warren: I wanted to try out CVE-2012-2459 on it, but they patched it :/
 660 2013-03-09 07:51:05 <warren> The gambling there has high fees and no return tx that I can see, too costly.  The gamblers pay the high tx because they're addicts.
 661 2013-03-09 07:51:40 <warren> This is an experiment, because I think bitcoin actually got its base fee theory wrong.
 662 2013-03-09 07:52:09 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 663 2013-03-09 07:52:11 <warren> The flat per-KB fee doesn't reflect true network costs, allowing the shifting of externalities that we see today.
 664 2013-03-09 07:52:32 gdoteof has joined
 665 2013-03-09 07:53:19 <warren> litecoin's users want the fee to be reduced by 10x.  I'm going to suggest they instead reduce the standard fee far more, but increase the fee on particular behaviors that are costly to the network, like dust tx.
 666 2013-03-09 07:53:50 <midnightmagic> and effectively kill micropayments! woo
 667 2013-03-09 07:54:01 <warren> midnightmagic: micropayments are already dead there
 668 2013-03-09 07:54:25 <midnightmagic> well kill them some more, i say
 669 2013-03-09 07:54:29 <warren> midnightmagic: not really
 670 2013-03-09 07:54:42 <midnightmagic> what? why not
 671 2013-03-09 07:55:03 <warren> midnightmagic: this new fee formula would allow 0.01 or 0.001 easily (often without a mandatory fee with sufficient age), but 0.00000001 will have a ridiculously high fee.
 672 2013-03-09 07:55:35 <warren> This isn't censorship, it's a pollution tax.  Market solution to a network problem.
 673 2013-03-09 07:56:15 <warren> midnightmagic: currently it's hard to transfer a zero age 1LTC, you get hit by 0.2 fee, I think.
 674 2013-03-09 07:56:27 * warren hasn't looked closely enough.
 675 2013-03-09 07:57:44 <warren> midnightmagic: this is really similar to Vinnie_win's policy idea of simply disallowing relaying of dust tx's that are smaller than fees.  Except I don't suggest it is a blanket ban, just raising the cost of it, and miners like the idea because it increases fees.
 676 2013-03-09 07:59:23 <dgriffi> dammit... I can't figure out how to get a plain old string out of AddressTableModel::Address.  Any ideas?
 677 2013-03-09 07:59:30 <Luke-Jr> warren: …
 678 2013-03-09 07:59:54 <warren> Luke-Jr: I'm open to hearing criticism.
 679 2013-03-09 08:00:27 <Luke-Jr> warren: either it's pollution or it isn't. if it is, it should be banned outright; if it isn't, the ridiculous fees hurt someone
 680 2013-03-09 08:00:49 <warren> Luke-Jr: ah yes, I agree it *should* be banned, but
 681 2013-03-09 08:01:11 <dgriffi> can someone help me understand AddressTableModel::Address?
 682 2013-03-09 08:01:52 <Luke-Jr> warren: and if it's so high that it's effectively banned and nobody is ever hurt by it because it really is pollution - then miners have nothing to gain either
 683 2013-03-09 08:01:56 <dgriffi> I got the clipboard-writing part done.. can't get at the string I need
 684 2013-03-09 08:02:38 <warren> Luke-Jr: Consider Bitcoin.  The userbase is screaming that the sky is falling, they like their DP addiction, and they quote the legendary founder as justification for the status quo.  I think the discourse has gone in the wrong direction because people suggesting it is pollution are using the wrong arguments.
 685 2013-03-09 08:02:54 <Luke-Jr> wtf is DP
 686 2013-03-09 08:03:09 * warren finds the origin pastebin...
 687 2013-03-09 08:03:24 <warren> http://pastebin.com/ng9nF4K3
 688 2013-03-09 08:03:41 <Luke-Jr> I don't get it?
 689 2013-03-09 08:03:51 <warren> Luke-Jr: that's our new name for SD.
 690 2013-03-09 08:04:15 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 691 2013-03-09 08:04:16 <Luke-Jr> o
 692 2013-03-09 08:04:21 <dgriffi> dice parasites?
 693 2013-03-09 08:04:30 <Luke-Jr> warren: that's not that many SD addicts
 694 2013-03-09 08:04:40 <xjrn> clarity pollution
 695 2013-03-09 08:04:45 <warren> Luke-Jr: and that's part of the justification for pollution
 696 2013-03-09 08:07:18 <warren> Luke-Jr: 90% of the block for a tiny number of actual users?  That's a textbook fact pattern of a negative externality.  I thought about this and concluded that our struggles in dealing with this were based on a flawed premise made in the beginning, that every KB has the same cost.
 697 2013-03-09 08:07:47 <warren> Luke-Jr: It turns out that some *behaviors* have a higher cost even though they are the same KB size.
 698 2013-03-09 08:08:00 <Luke-Jr> warren: how so?
 699 2013-03-09 08:08:36 <warren> Luke-Jr: large numbers of dust transactions that are unlikely to be spent.  That's fine if it is in proportion to growth of number of actual users on the network.
 700 2013-03-09 08:08:55 <Luke-Jr> true
 701 2013-03-09 08:09:07 <Luke-Jr> I was thinking the cost of users not adopting bitcoin :P
 702 2013-03-09 08:09:14 <xjrn> it seems like there's a protocol denormalization of something with a functionally lower entropy than what is wired
 703 2013-03-09 08:09:19 <warren> Luke-Jr: Other examples of behaviors may include chains of 0-conf to 0-conf spending repeatedly.
 704 2013-03-09 08:09:31 <iwilcox> Luke-Jr: That's a very difficult one to positively quantify or prove.  Not that I doubt it.
 705 2013-03-09 08:09:53 <Luke-Jr> iwilcox: yeah, I agree warren's cost is more obvious and direct
 706 2013-03-09 08:10:17 <warren> Luke-Jr: I haven't figured out all possible behaviors that are detectable and *always* different from normal behavior.
 707 2013-03-09 08:11:16 <warren> Luke-Jr: but my argument here is *nothing* against DP specifically.  It is not a value judgement about gambling being good or bad.  It is only to examine the fee formula to assign true network costs to behaviors, as per-KB cost isn't cutting it.
 708 2013-03-09 08:11:33 <xjrn> warren quanitfy the 'true' network costs
 709 2013-03-09 08:11:37 <Luke-Jr> warren: sure, I've never had a problem with DP in terms of it being gambling.
 710 2013-03-09 08:12:09 <warren> What I'm suggesting won't stop DP.  It might stop the instant lose dust.
 711 2013-03-09 08:13:28 <warren> Luke-Jr: Now why I suggest a higher fee instead of a ban ... you balance the magnitude of the higher fee such that it doesn't entirely stop the network cost, it just makes it more expensive.  That way miners won't fear losing income and they are more likely to accept the new policy.
 712 2013-03-09 08:13:39 <Luke-Jr> most of the problem with DP is short-term; long-term, the fees should take care of it in one way or another
 713 2013-03-09 08:14:13 <Luke-Jr> warren: a higher fee and a ban are practically equivalent
 714 2013-03-09 08:14:19 <midnightmagic> i'm fairly sure most miners are primarily interested in the blockreward and not the fees.
 715 2013-03-09 08:14:24 <warren> Luke-Jr: I keep hearing that, but I don't see how it is a realistic expectation.  In a few months we're going to hit against the next soft limit and people will scream again to raise it, with no other changes.
 716 2013-03-09 08:14:42 <warren> midnightmagic: the fees are pretty substantial now
 717 2013-03-09 08:14:46 <Luke-Jr> warren: short-term as in, a few more years
 718 2013-03-09 08:15:04 <Luke-Jr> warren: 5 years from now, I think the fee system alone (perhaps with your modifications) would deal with DP
 719 2013-03-09 08:15:19 <midnightmagic> warren: I haven't paid a fee more than once or twice since I started mining in Dec '10.
 720 2013-03-09 08:15:36 <dgriffi> midnightmagic: what's your mining rig?
 721 2013-03-09 08:15:45 <warren> Luke-Jr: whenever that comes, the "spam" will continue to be disproprotionate to user growth, and our only "solution" will be to just raise the block size.
 722 2013-03-09 08:16:05 <warren> Luke-Jr: how will the fee system deal with DP?  nobody has explained that.
 723 2013-03-09 08:16:07 <xjrn> "only" is a shortsighted classification of your solution warren
 724 2013-03-09 08:16:16 <jgarzik> soft limit seems pointless to me
 725 2013-03-09 08:16:18 <Luke-Jr> warren: the fees will go up until gamblers are unwilling to flood
 726 2013-03-09 08:16:20 <midnightmagic> dgriffi: Essentially it is not possible for me to get any more hashrate without doing something exotic or renting other places.
 727 2013-03-09 08:16:39 <jgarzik> unless you like drilling people against the eventuality of raising the hard limit :(
 728 2013-03-09 08:16:39 <Luke-Jr> warren: by that time, ordinary users will have to be using off-chain transactions most of the time
 729 2013-03-09 08:16:46 <jgarzik> set the soft limit == hard limit immediately
 730 2013-03-09 08:17:10 <warren> Luke-Jr: the casino takes in only 1.9% right now.  real life casinos are 20-40% more.  There's a LONG way to go before fees overcome the addictive drive to stupidly pay them.
 731 2013-03-09 08:17:56 <Luke-Jr> seriously? O.O
 732 2013-03-09 08:18:09 <warren> I doubt they'll pay to 20%, maybe 5% easily
 733 2013-03-09 08:18:10 <Luke-Jr> just how stupid can people get?
 734 2013-03-09 08:18:13 <warren> hahahha
 735 2013-03-09 08:18:22 <dgriffi> okay, I think I can get at the string I need
 736 2013-03-09 08:18:27 <warren> Luke-Jr: the casino tells you up front that you will lose, and people play anyway.
 737 2013-03-09 08:18:27 <midnightmagic> warren: You have some fee changes proposed somewhere? Do you have a summary or a pull request somewhere I could look at?
 738 2013-03-09 08:18:29 <dgriffi> boy, this code is convoluted.
 739 2013-03-09 08:18:55 <warren> midnightmagic: I need to do some statistical analysis before I come up with actual numbers to propose.
 740 2013-03-09 08:18:55 <xjrn> reducing the entropy of the block contents, e.g. lossless data compression, and finding a means of relative reference, e.g. hufman tree of wallets and block offsets would smash the wire protocol down a bunch
 741 2013-03-09 08:18:56 * Luke-Jr facepalms
 742 2013-03-09 08:19:39 <warren> xjrn: DP could use compressed keys to make their impact smaller, but they refuse and do anything that the system allows.
 743 2013-03-09 08:20:15 <Luke-Jr> I have to admit, after figuring out that there's a 64% chance of "winning" a fair gamble, it was tempting to try it IRL, but .. 20-40% house edge, wtf ..
 744 2013-03-09 08:20:18 <kuzetsa> there's STILL a bug where bitcoin-qt / bitcoind likes to claim "blah blah not enough after sending the 0.0???" fee and then when the fee is actually applied, it uses a different value
 745 2013-03-09 08:20:31 <warren> Luke-Jr: if we're willing to accept the original design as holy and infallible and forever accept DP's shifting network costs upon others for their private gain, then sure, let's do it.
 746 2013-03-09 08:20:36 <xjrn>  warren if i understand correctly because the one true blockref.dat lays the blockchain out in its most denormalized form, the complaint has to be about the abusers and not about the one-true blockchain serializer codebase.
 747 2013-03-09 08:20:42 <xjrn> that is lame
 748 2013-03-09 08:20:50 <dgriffi> is there any way to rudely boot SD out of bitcoindom?
 749 2013-03-09 08:20:58 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 750 2013-03-09 08:21:08 <Luke-Jr> dgriffi: block_dice branch
 751 2013-03-09 08:21:10 <warren> dgriffi: no way to do it without the miners agreeing.
 752 2013-03-09 08:21:20 gdoteof has joined
 753 2013-03-09 08:21:30 <xjrn> if tthe blockchain were represented as a huffman tree of previous tx and blocks, the bits to describe SD would be trivial and self-limitting based on frequency
 754 2013-03-09 08:21:33 <dgriffi> warren: that may be the solution to this problem.
 755 2013-03-09 08:21:36 <Luke-Jr> warren: we could make a client that punishes miners who don't block SD
 756 2013-03-09 08:22:04 <dgriffi> warren: spread the word to the miners that they can speed up the network by shunning SD
 757 2013-03-09 08:22:16 <warren> dgriffi: they know.  they want the fees.
 758 2013-03-09 08:22:20 <Luke-Jr> dgriffi: all the big pools don't care about Bitcoin's long-term viability
 759 2013-03-09 08:22:31 <warren> dgriffi: miners are driven by short-term profit
 760 2013-03-09 08:22:44 <warren> generally that's good, more hashing, more secure network
 761 2013-03-09 08:22:46 <Luke-Jr> warren: some
 762 2013-03-09 08:23:16 <kuzetsa> SendCoinsDialog::on_sendButton_clicked() ... on the line with tr("The total exceeds your balance when the %1 transaction fee is included."). it's being passed a different value than the actual fee that is used
 763 2013-03-09 08:23:19 <dgriffi> okay, how about something that can be done with bitcoin clients to punish SD?
 764 2013-03-09 08:23:24 <iwilcox> dgriffi: Any effort to kick SD that's seen as imposed upon the network instead of evolved by it will fail.
 765 2013-03-09 08:23:51 <iwilcox> Kicking SD isn't the goal, anyway.
 766 2013-03-09 08:24:05 <kuzetsa> iwilcox: well maybe not YOUR goal
 767 2013-03-09 08:24:10 <xjrn> there's no need to punish users if the frequency can be countered with reduced entropy, which seems textbooko here
 768 2013-03-09 08:24:12 <iwilcox> Encouraging sustainable behaviour is.
 769 2013-03-09 08:24:14 <warren> Luke-Jr: the cost that we accept by simply accepting bigger block sizes instead of thinking critically, sooner than we wanted to, the average home user don't want to run the full client anymore.
 770 2013-03-09 08:24:14 <kuzetsa> some people would like to see SD go away
 771 2013-03-09 08:24:54 <warren> iwilcox: right, kicking DP isn't the goal.  the goal is to better allow the cost of the network to scale with user growth.
 772 2013-03-09 08:25:42 <xjrn> dgriffi: yeah changing the clients to handle thier internal representation and wire a normalized signal would do what they're proposing without a cat and mouse game or a mob blocklist
 773 2013-03-09 08:26:07 <warren> Luke-Jr: anyway, it appears unlikely that I can convince people here because there is a lot of momentum in the original design, so I will propose it for litecoin as an experiment.  Their users want a fee change now, so it is an opportune time.
 774 2013-03-09 08:26:31 <iwilcox> Don't tell them it's an experiment :)
 775 2013-03-09 08:26:54 <iwilcox> "We thought we'd try this on an inconsequential bullshit currency first..."
 776 2013-03-09 08:27:10 <warren> I'm calling it an experiment from bitcoin's perspective, but I'm convinced it will work awesome for litecoin.  (Assuming litecoin has any value ... which it doesn't.)
 777 2013-03-09 08:27:24 <warren> (but the users seem to think it does, so whatever)
 778 2013-03-09 08:28:07 <xjrn> warren try an experiment, gzip your blockchain.  does it compress ?
 779 2013-03-09 08:28:24 <warren> litecoin is afraid of spam.  I will give them a way to drop standard fees by 1000x without the risk of spam.
 780 2013-03-09 08:29:02 coolsa has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 781 2013-03-09 08:29:15 <warren> xjrn: it isn't the blockchain storage itself, but the unspended coins that must be in memory or fast storage forever that is a problem.
 782 2013-03-09 08:30:44 zrad has joined
 783 2013-03-09 08:33:10 <iwilcox> What baffles me about this whole thing is that nobody seems to object to minimum fees.  Minimum fees prevent unsustainable volumes of microtransactions, which might be genuine financial use of Bitcoin.  SD's use of Bitcoin as a binary instant messaging system in the lost bet case is clearly not a financial use, yet suggestions to tax it cause uproar.
 784 2013-03-09 08:34:01 <iwilcox> Surely if you're against a tax on SD-like behaviour, you want minimum fees abolished entirely.  But objectors don't seem to go that far.
 785 2013-03-09 08:34:19 <warren> iwilcox: I'd be fine with that too.  I am only suggesting a theoretical justification and method of implementation that miners won't object to.
 786 2013-03-09 08:34:46 <dgriffi> I am on the verge of getting this clipboard thing working
 787 2013-03-09 08:34:50 zrad is now known as new
 788 2013-03-09 08:34:53 <warren> iwilcox: problem ... what is the minimum fee?
 789 2013-03-09 08:35:09 andytoshi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 790 2013-03-09 08:35:10 new is now known as zrad
 791 2013-03-09 08:35:15 zrad has quit (Client Quit)
 792 2013-03-09 08:35:41 <dgriffi> IT WORKS!
 793 2013-03-09 08:35:56 <warren> iwilcox: we have lots of little miners now collecting 0.002 and shrinking payouts.  That seems inconsequential to bitcoin veterans, but that's 8.8 cents now.
 794 2013-03-09 08:35:59 <iwilcox> You'd be fine with that; I'm sure you'll do good research too, and the miners will be fine with that.  A bunch of folk on bitcointalk will reject it outright as oppression, on some general principle they don't follow through to conclusion.
 795 2013-03-09 08:36:35 axhlf has joined
 796 2013-03-09 08:36:44 zrad has joined
 797 2013-03-09 08:36:45 <warren> iwilcox: ah, users must accept whatever policy miners accept.  If reference client accepts, and miners accept, users must.
 798 2013-03-09 08:36:55 andytoshi has joined
 799 2013-03-09 08:37:12 <Luke-Jr> warren: few miners use the reference client policies as-is
 800 2013-03-09 08:37:29 <warren> Luke-Jr: hence my proposal has economic incentive for miners to accept it
 801 2013-03-09 08:38:45 <xjrn> warren it approaches infinity asymptotically, but holds to a rate of entropy that's higher than it has to be.  consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity and the two examples in the beggining.
 802 2013-03-09 08:39:11 <warren> xjrn: we're talking about two entirely different things, you entirely ignored my answer
 803 2013-03-09 08:39:31 <xjrn> warren: you can solve your own problem by proposing a better normalized wire format and representation which gains consensus via proof.  trying to politic a policy change is just going to hurt the poeple you claim to be acting for
 804 2013-03-09 08:40:37 <dgriffi> you guys want to check out my modification?
 805 2013-03-09 08:40:41 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: you can't do that without a hardfork
 806 2013-03-09 08:40:46 <warren> Luke-Jr: I haven't done the math yet so I don't know if this is a good equilibrium point, but for example: currently DP pays 0.001 fee per dust?  What if that were forced to be 0.0015 by the dust-specific fee?  Miners would love the opportunity to claim a larger portion of DP's ridiculous profit.
 807 2013-03-09 08:40:48 <dgriffi> see https://github.com/DavidGriffith/bitcoin
 808 2013-03-09 08:40:50 <xjrn> can you prove there's a lower entropy state of either on-0disk, or live, hashed blocks? sure, gzip either one, and see if you can hash them uniquely
 809 2013-03-09 08:41:30 <iwilcox> xjrn: Do you consider the SD lost-bet behaviour to be a problem if something (client, protocol, SD itself) doesn't change?
 810 2013-03-09 08:41:34 <xjrn> can you add content-encoding to block representation? sure, politic that mod to cooperative p2p clients. e.g. the one-true-bitcoind codebase
 811 2013-03-09 08:41:39 <Luke-Jr> warren: you can't force someone to change a fee
 812 2013-03-09 08:42:05 <warren> Luke-Jr: the dust fee is not imposed by the reference client per-se, but rather miners realizing "ah ha! I can make bigger profits by colluding with other miners to force more fees for certain behaviors."
 813 2013-03-09 08:42:23 <xjrn> iwilcox: i consider it an annoyance that doesn't have enough bitcoins bounty for me to solve myself, a terabyte drive is liek $40 at fry's
 814 2013-03-09 08:42:24 <warren> Luke-Jr: it just so happens that the reference client calculates that way too
 815 2013-03-09 08:42:32 <xjrn> and my btrfs gzips what i tell it to anyways
 816 2013-03-09 08:42:56 <warren> xjrn: You entirely ignored my response. It is NOT about the block chain storage size.
 817 2013-03-09 08:43:06 zrad has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 818 2013-03-09 08:43:07 <warren> well, mostly not
 819 2013-03-09 08:43:24 zrad has joined
 820 2013-03-09 08:43:27 <iwilcox> xjrn: What's your opinion on the minimum fee, as currently implemented/enforced by the network?
 821 2013-03-09 08:43:29 <xjrn> warren: you said SD could compress, but doesn't, i guess you know something i don't here about the features and options
 822 2013-03-09 08:43:42 <xjrn> s/DP/
 823 2013-03-09 08:44:06 <warren> xjrn: they could choose to switch to compressed keys if they wanted to
 824 2013-03-09 08:44:22 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: everyone else is using compressed keys
 825 2013-03-09 08:44:27 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 826 2013-03-09 08:44:42 <warren> xjrn: their response is "screw you, I'm doing what's allowed by the rules"
 827 2013-03-09 08:44:49 <xjrn> iwilcox: so be it. if i  patch bitcoind to deflate before hasing, OPTIONALLY, and its adopted, the cost of each tx is a bit smaller.  if i make huffman tree backrefs to previous tx, blocks, fractional amounts, the bits go waaay down, the fees can stay as they are.
 828 2013-03-09 08:45:17 <xjrn> i guess merkel is already a digest of the tx
 829 2013-03-09 08:45:26 <warren> Luke-Jr: oh right, another pollution behavior is un-compressed key use.  Increase the fee of that slightly to discourage it.
 830 2013-03-09 08:45:43 <warren> That isn't "oppression".
 831 2013-03-09 08:45:44 <xjrn> but then they follow as plaintext or blockheaders or whatever suitable for python code.
 832 2013-03-09 08:46:06 RazielZ has joined
 833 2013-03-09 08:46:40 <iwilcox> xjrn: What do you feel you get for your minimum fee, on those transactions you pay it on?
 834 2013-03-09 08:46:43 <dgriffi> well, since you're in this debate, I think I'll depart.  I'm filing a pull request for my clipboard change in a couple minutes
 835 2013-03-09 08:47:08 <warren> dgriffi: cool, URL please
 836 2013-03-09 08:47:19 <dgriffi> warren: https://github.com/DavidGriffith/bitcoin
 837 2013-03-09 08:47:40 <dgriffi> warren: the fix was suprisingly simple.. I was getting ready to have to write a bunch of xlib code
 838 2013-03-09 08:48:19 <warren> Luke-Jr: If everyone else uses compressed keys by default, we must have decided that's a superior default, so why not make it slightly cheaper than un-compressed keys?  Where's the harm?
 839 2013-03-09 08:48:34 <dgriffi> how is a key compressible?
 840 2013-03-09 08:48:37 <Luke-Jr> warren: it already is, since it's smaller
 841 2013-03-09 08:48:46 <xjrn> iwilcox: hypothetical ranking in line is what I "feel i get".  i don't see my bitcoin-qt appraoching a fraction of anything else i use my bandwidth for SD or no
 842 2013-03-09 08:48:48 <dgriffi> that seems to go against everything I've learned about cryptography
 843 2013-03-09 08:49:18 <warren> Luke-Jr: Is the flat fee per KB an infallible doctrine that we must accept?
 844 2013-03-09 08:49:32 <iwilcox> dgriffi: I found http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3059/what-is-a-compressed-bitcoin-key/3062#3062 digestible
 845 2013-03-09 08:49:40 <Luke-Jr> warren: no, just saying it's already cheaper
 846 2013-03-09 08:49:47 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 847 2013-03-09 08:50:07 gdoteof has joined
 848 2013-03-09 08:50:23 <warren> Luke-Jr: jack up the price difference by 5%.  Ordinary users won't care.  Frequent users will change to reduce costs.  Everyone wins.
 849 2013-03-09 08:50:50 <Luke-Jr> warren: patches welcome (against 0.8.0.eligius branch)
 850 2013-03-09 08:50:55 <xjrn> dgriffi: if you do a wireshark dump of bitcoind/qt traffic, and gzip it, that's a sign that there a) is no room for lower entropy over the wire (unlikely), or b) is more normalized forms to be researched
 851 2013-03-09 08:51:07 <warren> Luke-Jr: ok, it's on my list
 852 2013-03-09 08:51:49 <xjrn> dgriffi: if you assign relative position to previous tx, previous wallets, and previous ratios of tx, you may use fewer bits still
 853 2013-03-09 08:52:23 <Luke-Jr> warren: note that GetMinFee is ignored for mining at present
 854 2013-03-09 08:52:30 <xjrn> dgriffi: then the vote goes to plausible implementation moreso than agreeing who to ban and who to up-charge
 855 2013-03-09 08:52:33 <warren> What's new in Bitcoin 0.6.0: ... New wallets created with this version will use 33-byte 'compressed' public keys instead of 65-byte public keys, resulting in smaller transactions and less traffic on the bitcoin network.
 856 2013-03-09 08:53:21 <warren> Luke-Jr: none of this will be possible overnight.  It will be part of a basket of cost analysis proposals.
 857 2013-03-09 08:53:53 <Luke-Jr> warren: a basket isn't likely to get adopted.
 858 2013-03-09 08:53:56 <warren> Luke-Jr: and I expect miners to adjust these parameters on their own to compete for whatever they think will maximize profit
 859 2013-03-09 08:54:13 <warren> Luke-Jr: ok, then separate but related proposals
 860 2013-03-09 08:54:20 BTC_Bear has quit (hbrntng!~BTC_Bear@unaffiliated/btc-bear/x-5233302|Quit: Leaving...)
 861 2013-03-09 08:54:20 Goonie has joined
 862 2013-03-09 08:54:28 <Luke-Jr> IMO the punishment for uncompressed keys is a no-brainer
 863 2013-03-09 08:54:34 <warren> yeah
 864 2013-03-09 08:54:43 <Luke-Jr> I'd deploy that overnight
 865 2013-03-09 08:54:46 <warren> can you think of other no brainers?
 866 2013-03-09 08:55:01 <xjrn> isn't punishment for uncompressed keys implicit already? you increase your tx sizes?
 867 2013-03-09 08:55:22 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: already said that. "punishment" means an ADDITIONAL penalty
 868 2013-03-09 08:55:30 <warren> all for it
 869 2013-03-09 08:55:50 <warren> xjrn: there's no switching costs, so not crying for the "victims"
 870 2013-03-09 08:55:53 <xjrn> i had no idea, btw warren that you were referring to an implementation detail, so i really did overlook it as nonsequitor
 871 2013-03-09 08:56:13 <Luke-Jr> warren: actually, there is a small switching cost
 872 2013-03-09 08:56:17 <lianj> Luke-Jr: isnt that just rude for already existing uncompressed keys?
 873 2013-03-09 08:56:40 <Luke-Jr> but since people aren't supposed to use addresses more than once anyway, I don't care :p
 874 2013-03-09 08:56:55 <xjrn> i would stick with the implicits, personally
 875 2013-03-09 08:57:05 <warren> lianj: make the additional fee small enough that ordinary users won't care, as coin age makes the fee zero anyway
 876 2013-03-09 08:57:14 <lianj> Luke-Jr: pfft, lots people use addresses more than once
 877 2013-03-09 08:57:25 <Luke-Jr> lianj: they're not supposed to, it's bad practice, etc
 878 2013-03-09 08:57:37 <Luke-Jr> and 0.6.0 was released nearly a year ago
 879 2013-03-09 08:57:38 <lianj> Luke-Jr: yep, still happens
 880 2013-03-09 08:57:38 <iwilcox> lianj: There's nothing implicit in an existing address that make it uncompressible.
 881 2013-03-09 08:57:43 <Luke-Jr> plenty of time to use up your keypool
 882 2013-03-09 08:57:49 <Luke-Jr> iwilcox: yes there is
 883 2013-03-09 08:58:09 <Luke-Jr> iwilcox: you cannot compress an existing address
 884 2013-03-09 08:58:37 <warren> lianj: ordinary users won't notice the change
 885 2013-03-09 08:58:38 <lianj> iwilcox: every privkey has two addresses, the compressed and the uncompressed
 886 2013-03-09 08:59:00 <midnightmagic>  wonder if the vanitygen does compressed keys.. hrm..
 887 2013-03-09 08:59:16 <Luke-Jr> lianj: worst case, the sends just take a little longer to make it up in priority
 888 2013-03-09 08:59:21 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: good question
 889 2013-03-09 08:59:22 <lianj> warren: just let them pay the increased tx size like it is now. why isnt that enough?
 890 2013-03-09 08:59:42 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 891 2013-03-09 09:00:03 <warren> lianj: read the last hour.  Per-KB size flat fee is a design flaw.  Tiny adjustments are needed to reflect true network costs.
 892 2013-03-09 09:00:36 <warren> lianj: I'm not suggesting a 1000% punishment.  like 5-10% that won't hurt anyone with coin age.
 893 2013-03-09 09:01:01 <Luke-Jr> warren: well, technically, the only cost of an uncompressed key IS the size
 894 2013-03-09 09:01:10 <lianj> warren: better kill 1dice then
 895 2013-03-09 09:01:17 anddam has joined
 896 2013-03-09 09:01:26 <warren> Luke-Jr: doesn't stop us from deciding to make it bigger
 897 2013-03-09 09:01:54 <Luke-Jr> lianj: exactlyu
 898 2013-03-09 09:02:13 <warren> There's no drawback to this.
 899 2013-03-09 09:02:31 <warren> well, bitcoin-0.6.0 decided the drawback wasn't worthwhile to think about.
 900 2013-03-09 09:02:46 <xjrn> shaving 20 bytes is one thing.  resolving a spammer to less than 32 bits wallet reference is doable if they keep the spam alive over time
 901 2013-03-09 09:03:28 <iwilcox> warren: The motivations for proposals in your basket are going to have to be meaningful to people with fat pipes, big disks and loads of RAM why the status quo is bad, in very pragmatic terms.  I don't think "true network costs" will appeal to non-miners.
 902 2013-03-09 09:03:47 <iwilcox> You'll need "why it's bad for your gran" arguments.
 903 2013-03-09 09:05:05 <Luke-Jr> yo gran so old she still uses uncompressed keys
 904 2013-03-09 09:05:18 <xjrn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding a coordinate system for blockchains could affect every claim of spam with a frequency based feedback loop reflected in lookup size
 905 2013-03-09 09:05:55 <xjrn> it would "reward" the spammer and the victim of spam with smaller tokens to describe SD
 906 2013-03-09 09:05:59 <iwilcox> xjrn: Patches welcome :)
 907 2013-03-09 09:06:13 <warren> iwilcox: the bloat of externalized true network costs make it more unpleasant for more users to join.  If transaction volume scales with user adoption, then that is efficient cost acceptance.  If when new users hear about the full client and find that it uses way too much resources because there's 10000x preventable dust tx's, then we have potentially lost a new user.
 908 2013-03-09 09:06:29 <warren> Luke-Jr: lol
 909 2013-03-09 09:06:41 <dgriffi> I have another bitcoin-qt question... why doesn't the program have an "install" make target?
 910 2013-03-09 09:06:44 <xjrn> iwilcox: my dayjob is my favorite pastime
 911 2013-03-09 09:06:58 <Luke-Jr> dgriffi: because you didn't write one yet
 912 2013-03-09 09:07:26 <warren> dgriffi: most makefiles get it wrong anyway, the distos and windows differ substantially
 913 2013-03-09 09:07:44 <xjrn> bitcoin rates anywhere from 1/200th to 1/2000th as important per day to code for until BFL decides to ship
 914 2013-03-09 09:07:52 <dgriffi> so, maybe a little shell script that does the job for the unix people?
 915 2013-03-09 09:07:54 <warren> dgriffi: packaging software into an rpm, you do not "make install" something directly into /usr/bin.
 916 2013-03-09 09:08:05 <warren> dgriffi: where is the "correct" location?
 917 2013-03-09 09:08:15 <iwilcox> xjrn: More seriously, I don't think anyone's arguing that a more efficient Bitcoin would be a bad thing; AIUI the argument is that the resources aren't available to reduce the effect on Grandma today by that route.
 918 2013-03-09 09:08:24 <dgriffi> warren: if you build something yourself, it gets installed to /usr/local
 919 2013-03-09 09:08:40 <warren> dgriffi: yeah, that's not desired for packagers
 920 2013-03-09 09:08:57 <warren> is that where mac puts it?
 921 2013-03-09 09:09:24 <xjrn> iwilcox: a bitcoin client with 2 flavors is reasonable, but not trivial.  it's what happens to any python codebase in the long run
 922 2013-03-09 09:09:27 <dgriffi> warren: I know.  the packaging schemes all maintain and control stuff in /usr/.. but /usr/local is intended to be manually manipulated
 923 2013-03-09 09:09:59 <dgriffi> warren: /opt is another place to put things, with its own pros and cons
 924 2013-03-09 09:10:12 <warren> dgriffi: the usual way to do what you want is with autoconf to auto-generate the target system's desired paths, but qt generally has its own thing
 925 2013-03-09 09:10:17 <midnightmagic> /opt/sbin/bitcoind !
 926 2013-03-09 09:10:28 <iwilcox> No, /opt/bitcoin/bitcoind :)
 927 2013-03-09 09:10:39 <iwilcox> (Hi, Sun!)
 928 2013-03-09 09:10:47 <midnightmagic> /opt/bitcoin/sbin/bitcoind
 929 2013-03-09 09:10:58 <midnightmagic> /usr/pkgsrc/sbin/bitcoind ?
 930 2013-03-09 09:11:13 <xjrn> pools (glaring at Luke-Jr ) have nothing to gain by not aggressively normalizing the wire protocol.
 931 2013-03-09 09:11:21 <dgriffi> /opt/bitcoin/bin/bitcoin-qt and /opt/bitcoin/share
 932 2013-03-09 09:11:31 <warren> xjrn: you're good at ignoring responses
 933 2013-03-09 09:11:31 <Luke-Jr> /Software/net-p2p/bitcoind-0.9.0-r1/bin/bitcoind
 934 2013-03-09 09:11:35 <xjrn> normalizing the shitlist will only be a cat and mouse game band-aid
 935 2013-03-09 09:12:01 <midnightmagic> I wonder if xjrn is a dadabot
 936 2013-03-09 09:12:20 zrad has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 937 2013-03-09 09:12:20 <midnightmagic> xjrn: Hey! Are you a dadabot?
 938 2013-03-09 09:12:38 <warren> midnightmagic: hahaha
 939 2013-03-09 09:12:38 zrad has joined
 940 2013-03-09 09:12:39 <xjrn> warren: don't get so touchy I'm a troll fer god sakes
 941 2013-03-09 09:12:57 <iwilcox> If eric publicly coughed up the funds he pledged in that thread, perhaps the devs could take a two-week holiday to work on Bitcoin wire/disk format optimisations ;)
 942 2013-03-09 09:12:59 <warren> midnightmagic: that would make SO much sense if true.
 943 2013-03-09 09:13:19 dawei101 has left ()
 944 2013-03-09 09:13:31 <midnightmagic> Just regurgitating ancient #bitcoin-dev from way back that is ~ relevant.
 945 2013-03-09 09:13:42 <Luke-Jr> iwilcox: huh?
 946 2013-03-09 09:13:58 bigbass has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 947 2013-03-09 09:14:08 <midnightmagic> warren: See? No answer.
 948 2013-03-09 09:14:53 <warren> midnightmagic: thank you.
 949 2013-03-09 09:15:52 <iwilcox> Luke-Jr: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.msg1601093#msg1601093
 950 2013-03-09 09:17:13 fishfish has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 951 2013-03-09 09:18:35 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
 952 2013-03-09 09:18:45 <warren> "We cannot advance Bitcoin by asking anyone who is putting stress on the system to "please refrain." I do not think Bitcoin is so delicate and poorly constructed as you. It can handle SatoshiDice, it can handle far more than SatoshiDice, and I congratulate and encourage everyone else out there who is building infrastructure and putting stress on this system."
 953 2013-03-09 09:18:59 gdoteof has joined
 954 2013-03-09 09:18:59 <dgriffi> about installing bitcoin-qt... is share/ used at all after compilation is finished?
 955 2013-03-09 09:19:03 <warren> He's correct.  And making the block size bigger isn't our best solution either.
 956 2013-03-09 09:20:02 <warren> dgriffi: I'm surprised that we don't ship some scripts like the wallet cleanup script
 957 2013-03-09 09:20:08 <warren> I've been wondering why.
 958 2013-03-09 09:20:26 <dgriffi> bitinstant was robbed
 959 2013-03-09 09:20:31 <midnightmagic> Except there's a reason if the stress is greater than it can sustain; or if the stress impedes longterm growth. Satoshi specifically told people NOT to encourage Wikileaks to start using bitcoin as early as was being contemplated.
 960 2013-03-09 09:20:37 <dgriffi> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/digital-thieves-pull-off-12000-bitcoin-heist/
 961 2013-03-09 09:20:51 <xjrn> in order for bitcoin to reduce representational sizes, a coordinate system needs to be devised so that absolute pointers are not absolutely necessary to relay new blocks
 962 2013-03-09 09:21:43 <midnightmagic> I wonder if I'm op here yet..
 963 2013-03-09 09:21:45 <xjrn> moving to offsets from absolute addressing has its tradeoffs, but huffman coding and datacompression is in the win column
 964 2013-03-09 09:21:54 <midnightmagic> nope.
 965 2013-03-09 09:24:03 <xjrn> or markov chains, just to be extra geek fashionable
 966 2013-03-09 09:24:03 <Luke-Jr> wow
 967 2013-03-09 09:24:10 <Luke-Jr> Site5 is trying to pass the blame to BitInstant
 968 2013-03-09 09:27:15 <MC1984> could it be said that in hindsight it was a mistake for bitcoin to have access to the full 8 decimal places this early
 969 2013-03-09 09:27:26 <MC1984> given the dust issue
 970 2013-03-09 09:28:58 <grau> MC1984: It would still not be late to modify relay rules, so transactions with output below the fee are not relayed.
 971 2013-03-09 09:28:59 <dgriffi> warren: what script are you referring to?
 972 2013-03-09 09:29:46 <MC1984> hmm yeah
 973 2013-03-09 09:29:59 <MC1984> i wonder why satoshi didnt do that
 974 2013-03-09 09:30:32 <grau> he was a human
 975 2013-03-09 09:30:45 <warren> MC1984: +
 976 2013-03-09 09:31:18 <warren> grau: If miners accept the "output below the fee are not relayed" then I'm perfectly happy.
 977 2013-03-09 09:32:01 <grau> warren: you cant get them accept that, but one can lower the chances of dust being forwarded to them
 978 2013-03-09 09:32:28 <warren> grau: that isn't realistic.  You can connect directly to miners that do, to make sure that they do.
 979 2013-03-09 09:32:55 <grau> warren: you can not connect to all miners directly
 980 2013-03-09 09:32:58 <warren> grau: my proposal is far more complicated, but it actually stands a chance of miners agreeing to it in order to maximize profit
 981 2013-03-09 09:33:06 <MC1984> miners are pretty happy ith dice though
 982 2013-03-09 09:33:09 <MC1984> they get fees
 983 2013-03-09 09:33:56 <midnightmagic> I am personally unaware of a single miner who's happy with DP.
 984 2013-03-09 09:34:02 <wumpus> dgriffi: no, share is never used by the program itself
 985 2013-03-09 09:34:11 <grau> sure, they only care of the fee/KB and until there is no competition to fill up the block they are happy with SD
 986 2013-03-09 09:35:10 <grau> i mean no fee paying competition.
 987 2013-03-09 09:35:14 <MC1984> so why dont allmost miners do that drop below minimum fee patch
 988 2013-03-09 09:35:38 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 989 2013-03-09 09:35:39 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: Satoshi's clients never used more than 2 decimal places
 990 2013-03-09 09:36:12 <MC1984> Luke-Jr in the GUI or protocol?
 991 2013-03-09 09:36:15 <Luke-Jr> GUI
 992 2013-03-09 09:36:20 <Luke-Jr> and bitcoind
 993 2013-03-09 09:36:30 <MC1984> i meant protocol
 994 2013-03-09 09:36:30 <warren> grau: if you convince 40% of miners to not accept "output below the fee are not relayed", it is reasonably easy for DP to connect directly to friendly nodes that do to get it to the miners.  If 70% of miners accept the "pollution tax" and demand higher fees or dust tx lower priority, then DP can still connect directly to friendly node miners, but their delay to confirmation becomes a lot more variable.  As other payments are batched with the DP
 995 2013-03-09 09:36:31 <warren> dust, someone else's payout becomes delayed, and DP users begin freaking out about confirmation delays.
 996 2013-03-09 09:36:39 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: that's stupid
 997 2013-03-09 09:36:47 <MC1984> so is dust
 998 2013-03-09 09:36:55 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: it won't be dust in the future
 999 2013-03-09 09:37:10 <MC1984> yeah so its bumped up eventually
1000 2013-03-09 09:37:13 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: protocol changes take years to deploy, it makes sense to have it flexible
1001 2013-03-09 09:37:16 <grau> SD dust problem will be solved as soon as there are fee paying other services competing for blockspace. Just matter of time.
1002 2013-03-09 09:37:29 <Luke-Jr> MC1984: you can't just "bump up" it
1003 2013-03-09 09:37:42 <warren> grau: that will happen slower if costs are higher than expected when new users join.
1004 2013-03-09 09:37:44 <MC1984> i know its a fork
1005 2013-03-09 09:38:14 <grau> warren: costs are low, what os the worry?
1006 2013-03-09 09:38:23 <warren> grau: my proposal is also good in that it requires no soft or hard fork, and miners can change the policy at any time.
1007 2013-03-09 09:39:00 <warren> wow, someone is DoS attacking my server
1008 2013-03-09 09:39:04 <warren> this never happened before
1009 2013-03-09 09:39:17 <grau> warren: point me to a summary of your proposal please
1010 2013-03-09 09:39:18 <MC1984> ive read the agumnt that dic is burning up bitcoins 'startup capital' and it makes a lot of sense
1011 2013-03-09 09:39:34 <warren> grau: I'll write it out in detail, not sure when
1012 2013-03-09 09:39:42 <warren> grau: this is a long-term problem
1013 2013-03-09 09:41:12 <kuzetsa> so I've been trying to ask about this bug for nearly a year now... I just tried again about an hour ago or something
1014 2013-03-09 09:41:21 <grau> MC1984: yes, it burns on "startup capital" of the system, just like any early adopter of a technology does that
1015 2013-03-09 09:41:24 <kuzetsa> the value in these two lines of code (for the fee does not match:
1016 2013-03-09 09:41:36 <iwilcox> MC1984: Unfortunately it's an appeal to sentiment that seems to fall on rather unsympathetic ears.
1017 2013-03-09 09:41:58 techlife has joined
1018 2013-03-09 09:42:05 <MC1984> its not an appeal to sentiment
1019 2013-03-09 09:42:30 nouitfvf has joined
1020 2013-03-09 09:42:49 <kuzetsa> tr("This transaction is over the size limit.  You can still send it for a fee of %1, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network.  Do you want to pay the fee?").arg(BitcoinUnits::formatWithUnit(BitcoinUnits::BTC, nFeeRequired));
1021 2013-03-09 09:42:52 <kuzetsa> tr("The total exceeds your balance when the %1 transaction fee is included.").
1022 2013-03-09 09:42:54 <MC1984> dice seems to be burning capital in the 20 lines of coke on a 6ft mirror and greasy chinese food way
1023 2013-03-09 09:43:03 <MC1984> not the way that advances the enterprise
1024 2013-03-09 09:43:34 <warren> grau: " will be solved as soon as there are fee paying other services competing for blockspace" is an argument to just allow the startup capital to be burned prematurely while ONE participant profits from it.
1025 2013-03-09 09:44:28 <kuzetsa> one was in sendcoinsdialog, the other was in the bitcoingui.cpp file
1026 2013-03-09 09:44:37 <iwilcox> MC1984: It's an appeal to sentiment in that it's an appeal to our sense of fairness.  If you're coldly rational or a diehard free market economist, you don't care for those arguments, was my point.
1027 2013-03-09 09:44:58 <warren> grau:  we wouldn't be caring about this if they only agreed to simple things like compressed keys and no more dust response.  but Eric is right in asking nicely for an abuser to stop isn't a solution.  This is forcing us to think creatively about the problem.  I've identified the actual source of the problem is our flawed original theory of fee calculation.
1028 2013-03-09 09:44:58 nonick is now known as darkee
1029 2013-03-09 09:45:25 <MC1984> ok
1030 2013-03-09 09:45:41 <kuzetsa> they appear to be using an inconsistent method to calculate the fee ammount to use and it's really annoying when you're trying to sweep your wallet (roll all the inputs into a single, larger transaction ID so you can better predict your fees at a later date)
1031 2013-03-09 09:45:58 <warren> they?
1032 2013-03-09 09:46:00 <MC1984> though destabalising the system at an arly stage and killing your cash cow should appeal to dice own sense of rationality one would hope
1033 2013-03-09 09:46:21 <kuzetsa> warren: the two lines in question (one from sendcoinsdialog, the other was in the bitcoingui.cpp)
1034 2013-03-09 09:46:44 <warren> MC1984: dice participants are willing to pay a much higher usage fee than new, scared users.  THAT is the startup cost we're burning now because the original design is most holy.
1035 2013-03-09 09:46:51 <MC1984> another theory is that the guys behind dice are purposefully trying to 'temper' bitcoin with heat
1036 2013-03-09 09:47:01 <MC1984> especially some of them are with the founation i read
1037 2013-03-09 09:47:03 <kuzetsa> one of the lines in the bitcoin-qt gui source code calculates the fee one way, the other from a different file of the source uses a different (inconsistent) method
1038 2013-03-09 09:47:12 <warren> MC1984: anyone with money can join the foundation
1039 2013-03-09 09:47:25 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1040 2013-03-09 09:47:26 <MC1984> yeah but the eric guy is on the board
1041 2013-03-09 09:47:49 gdoteof has joined
1042 2013-03-09 09:48:17 <warren> I might be wrong, but the board doesn't decide what goes into the protocol, isn't the Foundation more of a promotion arm?
1043 2013-03-09 09:48:35 <MC1984> i didnt say they do
1044 2013-03-09 09:49:11 <xjrn> every venture starts out with denormalized data, and faces a crunch between throwing hardware at each milestone's solution, or normalizing what's relevant.
1045 2013-03-09 09:49:26 <warren> xjrn: you actually made sense there.
1046 2013-03-09 09:49:32 <MC1984> implied maybe someone with nough interest to be on the board of the foundation is dlibeately trying to temper bitcoin for what they see as the greater good
1047 2013-03-09 09:49:34 <xjrn> bitcoin is pretty unremarkable in this sense
1048 2013-03-09 09:49:55 <xjrn> warren: im responding to you now
1049 2013-03-09 09:50:17 <warren> Right.  So let's throw more hardware at the problem!
1050 2013-03-09 09:50:32 <warren> Sounds great?
1051 2013-03-09 09:50:59 <xjrn> afaict blockchains exist as denormalized data at every level
1052 2013-03-09 09:51:29 <xjrn> it might as well be a fat mysql database with no indexes trying to update a million rows per hour
1053 2013-03-09 09:51:38 <xjrn> that's what startups do
1054 2013-03-09 09:51:53 <grau> You seem to claim SD uses an "unfair" share of the "startup capital". I think they simply do what is their interest is. If no one else finds a profitable business model for the chain, then their share is fair as is.
1055 2013-03-09 09:52:38 <grau> I hope someone will soon find some better use of the chain and the problem is solved.
1056 2013-03-09 09:52:49 <warren> grau: They're doing what is allowed under the current rules.  That's fine.  The network can decide to change the rules to adjust to their own interests that do not align with DP's interests.
1057 2013-03-09 09:53:27 <warren> grau: " I hope someone will soon find some better use of the chain and the problem is solved."  By competing on fees?
1058 2013-03-09 09:53:43 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1059 2013-03-09 09:54:24 <grau> warren: even if fees are equal, miner has at least to choose from.
1060 2013-03-09 09:54:48 <grau> currently they would forgo profit if they would not mine SD
1061 2013-03-09 09:54:53 <warren> grau: This is exactly the flawed reasoning I'm talking about.
1062 2013-03-09 09:55:02 <warren> grau: I'm not suggesting they forego DP.
1063 2013-03-09 09:55:03 <warren> at all
1064 2013-03-09 09:55:12 <warren> grau: I'm suggesting they can demand more and DP can't stop them.
1065 2013-03-09 09:55:31 <warren> And DP doesn't have a moral high horse to complain from.
1066 2013-03-09 09:56:51 <warren> grau: My suggestion is not the most extreme proposal here.  The leading proposal from yesterday seems to be to just block outputs that are smaller than fees.
1067 2013-03-09 09:57:19 <xjrn> that creates a more anachronistic system in the long run
1068 2013-03-09 09:57:46 <iwilcox> No, it buys us time to optimise stuff.
1069 2013-03-09 09:57:59 <iwilcox> Without putting Grandma off for the rest of her life.
1070 2013-03-09 09:59:05 Quazgaa has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1071 2013-03-09 10:00:36 <grau> warren: I support suppressing the relay of transactions without fee or with an output less than the fee of the transaction.
1072 2013-03-09 10:01:37 <grau> My motivation is purely technical to avoid spam and UTXO fragmentation.
1073 2013-03-09 10:01:48 <warren> grau: Right, both that proposal and mine would suppress it, either by ban or a tax.
1074 2013-03-09 10:02:02 <Luke-Jr> grau: that's everyone's motivation who wants to block DP
1075 2013-03-09 10:02:21 <warren> grau: I'm at least glad we're calling it DP.
1076 2013-03-09 10:02:30 * warren hint.
1077 2013-03-09 10:05:20 <xjrn> iwilcox: that sounds as reactionary as warren and Luke-Jr.  i'm only barely cognizant of the technical details but i can already tell it looks like amateur hour in the datacenter
1078 2013-03-09 10:05:53 <warren> "i'm only barely cognizant of the technical details" describes all of your comments.
1079 2013-03-09 10:06:06 <Luke-Jr> ^
1080 2013-03-09 10:06:58 <xjrn> warren: I'm not ashamed of admitting what I haven't picked up yet.  most of it looks like it's not worth perpetuating, it leads to the panic.
1081 2013-03-09 10:08:27 <warren> You're lucky I never bothered to learn how to ignore someone in IRC.
1082 2013-03-09 10:08:30 <xjrn> i had a mild interest in whether i should worry about SD a short while ago.  I'm more worried about those who are taking quick shortcuts in here
1083 2013-03-09 10:08:35 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: criticising solutions without having any better ideas is useless
1084 2013-03-09 10:09:08 <warren> xjrn: Quick shortcut is throwing more hardware at the problem
1085 2013-03-09 10:09:15 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: i don't have a reason to sit down and bang out an alternate client at this time, but for those of you who think you do, I can lend some perspective I'm not seeing in here
1086 2013-03-09 10:10:00 toffoo has quit ()
1087 2013-03-09 10:10:07 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: looking forward to it
1088 2013-03-09 10:10:11 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: you think you know C code, have you ever used relative addressing in asm code? is there a TIME AND PLACE for aboslute addressing, and relative addressing?
1089 2013-03-09 10:10:37 dgriffi has left ()
1090 2013-03-09 10:10:47 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: I hold the position that there is no excuse to be using assembly except in bootstrapping C
1091 2013-03-09 10:11:34 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: then go on about your politics with your pitch fork, you can't debate information thoery by stating compiler preferences
1092 2013-03-09 10:11:53 <Luke-Jr> it's not compiler-related.
1093 2013-03-09 10:12:27 Quazgaa has joined
1094 2013-03-09 10:12:59 <xjrn> then answer the question about relative and absolute addressing, or just write me off as a troll, either way I'm definitely not worried about dust transactions or SD or what follows when you plug the dyke with your finger and stand there
1095 2013-03-09 10:13:06 <grau> Luke-Jr: The only excluse for using C is writing a virual machine ...
1096 2013-03-09 10:13:32 <warren> Why are we debating with this guy?
1097 2013-03-09 10:13:53 fishfish has joined
1098 2013-03-09 10:14:27 <xjrn> warren: I don't think you can
1099 2013-03-09 10:14:28 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 proves my point
1100 2013-03-09 10:14:39 <Luke-Jr> warren: dunno, bored?
1101 2013-03-09 10:15:27 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1102 2013-03-09 10:16:13 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1103 2013-03-09 10:16:34 gdoteof has joined
1104 2013-03-09 10:20:24 axhlf has joined
1105 2013-03-09 10:21:25 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: i agreed with you at one point about banning SD tx before i gave any thought at all to the expense, which is repeating meaningless extra bits at every possible transaction from mining to p2p to on-disk indexing.   it helps to know a 64 byte hash index the first time you publish it, but thereafter you can refer to 4 million pervious blocks with 4 bytes, to put it in language a c...
1106 2013-03-09 10:21:27 <xjrn> ...programmer might recognize
1107 2013-03-09 10:22:51 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: nobody cares about the disk space cost
1108 2013-03-09 10:23:04 <warren> xjrn: I told you this multiple times.
1109 2013-03-09 10:23:12 <xjrn> so then you can debate whetehr a 56 byte or a 33 byte wallet is better, or add anachronistic penalties to the simple system that already works, but you can refer to most previously seen wallets of any size with 9 bytes, given the previous 32 bit offset
1110 2013-03-09 10:23:23 zer0def has joined
1111 2013-03-09 10:23:25 <warren> good night
1112 2013-03-09 10:23:37 <Luke-Jr> night
1113 2013-03-09 10:24:13 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: it doesn't matter if its disk or wire, the same thing applies. the same complaints are about absolute representations.
1114 2013-03-09 10:24:16 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1115 2013-03-09 10:24:22 <MC1984> what the fuck am i reading
1116 2013-03-09 10:24:38 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: nobody cares about on wire either
1117 2013-03-09 10:25:33 <grau> !ticker
1118 2013-03-09 10:25:34 <gribble> BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 46.06400, Best ask: 46.22998, Bid-ask spread: 0.16598, Last trade: 46.06400, 24 hour volume: 46746.73118119, 24 hour low: 42.50000, 24 hour high: 46.23000, 24 hour vwap: 44.03643
1119 2013-03-09 10:25:35 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: i gave you more credit than i should have, my apoligies
1120 2013-03-09 10:26:11 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: you're looking to ban tx based on niether a savings of disk or bandwidth, just out of pure spite
1121 2013-03-09 10:26:29 <xjrn> good luck with that :)
1122 2013-03-09 10:27:57 <Luke-Jr> nope, you're just too short sighted to see other limited resources
1123 2013-03-09 10:28:12 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1124 2013-03-09 10:28:14 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: like your intelligence?
1125 2013-03-09 10:28:20 RazielZ has joined
1126 2013-03-09 10:28:45 grau has joined
1127 2013-03-09 10:28:55 <Luke-Jr> guess I'll take after warren and stick you on ignore
1128 2013-03-09 10:29:04 <xjrn> MC1984:  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
1129 2013-03-09 10:29:28 <warren> Luke-Jr: I'm supposed to be sleeping.  I'm almost tempted to learn how to ignore someone.
1130 2013-03-09 10:30:02 <Luke-Jr> warren: it's easy, just don't read what they write, don't respond to it under any circumstances, or type /ignore <nick>
1131 2013-03-09 10:30:25 <warren> Luke-Jr: so much effort
1132 2013-03-09 10:30:27 <warren> but ok
1133 2013-03-09 10:32:37 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1134 2013-03-09 10:34:06 RazielZ has joined
1135 2013-03-09 10:38:24 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1136 2013-03-09 10:45:02 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1137 2013-03-09 10:45:11 Cory has joined
1138 2013-03-09 10:45:24 gdoteof has joined
1139 2013-03-09 10:48:56 gritcoin has joined
1140 2013-03-09 10:51:09 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1141 2013-03-09 10:51:17 znort987 has joined
1142 2013-03-09 10:53:24 <anddam> warren: or, you know, /ignore
1143 2013-03-09 10:56:44 <Luke-Jr> anddam: I did say that
1144 2013-03-09 10:57:41 RazielZ has joined
1145 2013-03-09 10:57:50 bock has joined
1146 2013-03-09 10:58:26 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1147 2013-03-09 10:59:50 <anddam> Luke-Jr: I missed that, I was catching with the scroll history
1148 2013-03-09 11:00:11 <anddam> Luke-Jr: I just saw a thread of yours on bitcointalk, you wrote a ASIC/FPGA miner
1149 2013-03-09 11:00:13 <anddam> in C
1150 2013-03-09 11:00:24 <anddam> is that correct?
1151 2013-03-09 11:00:43 <Luke-Jr> anddam: I didn't write all of it, but I maintain one, yes
1152 2013-03-09 11:01:28 xjrn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1153 2013-03-09 11:01:33 rlifchitz has quit (Quit: "I never worry about action, but only about inaction" (W. Churchill))
1154 2013-03-09 11:01:48 rlifchitz has joined
1155 2013-03-09 11:01:48 rlifchitz has quit (Changing host)
1156 2013-03-09 11:01:48 rlifchitz has joined
1157 2013-03-09 11:02:05 xjrn has joined
1158 2013-03-09 11:03:07 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1159 2013-03-09 11:06:49 JZavala has joined
1160 2013-03-09 11:13:02 TheButterZone has joined
1161 2013-03-09 11:13:14 <TheButterZone> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150341.0 Generate own random numbers then incorporate into bitaddress.org script (.1 btc)
1162 2013-03-09 11:13:51 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1163 2013-03-09 11:14:12 gdoteof has joined
1164 2013-03-09 11:14:59 Grouver has joined
1165 2013-03-09 11:16:00 gritcoin has joined
1166 2013-03-09 11:20:21 Hashdog has joined
1167 2013-03-09 11:22:41 znort987 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1168 2013-03-09 11:23:32 znort987 has joined
1169 2013-03-09 11:23:55 one_zero has quit ()
1170 2013-03-09 11:24:22 BTCOxygen has joined
1171 2013-03-09 11:26:21 BTCOxygen has quit (Disconnected by services)
1172 2013-03-09 11:26:27 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/mroxy/bot/btcoxygen|BTCOxygen
1173 2013-03-09 11:40:44 cheesepi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1174 2013-03-09 11:42:40 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1175 2013-03-09 11:43:01 gdoteof has joined
1176 2013-03-09 11:43:14 mcx has joined
1177 2013-03-09 11:43:14 mcx is now known as cheesepi
1178 2013-03-09 11:53:31 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1179 2013-03-09 11:57:54 MrKain has joined
1180 2013-03-09 11:59:40 ciphermonk has joined
1181 2013-03-09 12:00:11 axhlf has joined
1182 2013-03-09 12:01:19 rbecker is now known as RBecker
1183 2013-03-09 12:02:05 TheButterZone has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1184 2013-03-09 12:03:43 <ciphermonk> what happened on testnet? My block count went back from 56118 to 56112
1185 2013-03-09 12:05:54 <lianj> reorg?
1186 2013-03-09 12:07:02 BTCTrader2 has quit (Quit: BTCTrader2)
1187 2013-03-09 12:10:37 <Luke-Jr> lianj: reorgs should never go backward
1188 2013-03-09 12:10:56 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: are you sure?
1189 2013-03-09 12:11:01 richweskus has joined
1190 2013-03-09 12:11:12 <lianj> Luke-Jr: oh, true.
1191 2013-03-09 12:11:14 <richweskus> Hey folks, is there any rss feed where i can get the ticker price?
1192 2013-03-09 12:11:28 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1193 2013-03-09 12:11:39 <richweskus> not necessarily  rss any service to consume will do
1194 2013-03-09 12:11:49 gdoteof has joined
1195 2013-03-09 12:11:51 <Luke-Jr> richweskus: various exchanges might have them, but there is no "the price"
1196 2013-03-09 12:12:10 <richweskus> mtgox?
1197 2013-03-09 12:12:14 <Luke-Jr> #mtgox
1198 2013-03-09 12:12:29 <ciphermonk> Luke-Jr: Yeah I've got blocks up to 56118 processed in my CouchDB ;) and bitcoind is advertising 56113 now
1199 2013-03-09 12:12:49 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: did you restart bitcoind between the change?
1200 2013-03-09 12:13:17 <ciphermonk> nope, it's on my VPS, I don't restart it
1201 2013-03-09 12:13:40 <ciphermonk> I also have 3 orphaned generated blocks on there
1202 2013-03-09 12:13:42 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: can you upload the debug.log somewhere? please be careful not to lose it (restarting bitcoind often truncates ti)
1203 2013-03-09 12:13:55 <lianj> richweskus: https://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/user_timeline.rss?screen_name=bitcoinprice
1204 2013-03-09 12:13:58 <ciphermonk> ok
1205 2013-03-09 12:14:09 <lianj> and hope its the avg since last tweet/rss post
1206 2013-03-09 12:14:18 <Luke-Jr> lianj: actually, I did think of a scenario where a reorg would move backward
1207 2013-03-09 12:14:26 <richweskus> perfect lianj
1208 2013-03-09 12:14:43 <richweskus> straight to the chase i like you :D
1209 2013-03-09 12:19:00 <ciphermonk> I have this data for block 56118 on testnet
1210 2013-03-09 12:19:02 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1211 2013-03-09 12:19:04 <ciphermonk> {
1212 2013-03-09 12:19:04 <ciphermonk>    "hash": "00000000e9fbde2ae0f658a33b631b3e123df5a8eb1f393707210d03df4631c0", "time": 1362817248, "height": 56118, "transaction_count": 3}
1213 2013-03-09 12:19:24 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: are you mining on this bitcoind?
1214 2013-03-09 12:19:25 nus has joined
1215 2013-03-09 12:19:32 <ciphermonk> yes
1216 2013-03-09 12:19:43 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: do you have the difficulties of each block?
1217 2013-03-09 12:20:30 <ciphermonk> application-wise I just store hash, time, height and transaction count. I'm not sure how I would find the difficulties
1218 2013-03-09 12:21:35 <ciphermonk> if they are not in the debug.log then probably not
1219 2013-03-09 12:22:47 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: bitcoind getblock <hash>
1220 2013-03-09 12:23:03 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: if you could pastebin the difficulty of every block in question, that would help
1221 2013-03-09 12:23:10 <Luke-Jr> REORGANIZE: Disconnect 17 blocks; 0000000000fda51f20b0feb20e8eaf27c3e829ed0d4380995c8b247436b5d592..00000000fb95794f259f3b43040023d938a1988deb9822ca613cd4d231fdd906
1222 2013-03-09 12:23:12 <Luke-Jr> REORGANIZE: Connect 2 blocks; 0000000000fda51f20b0feb20e8eaf27c3e829ed0d4380995c8b247436b5d592..0000000000c8c22a7e7f3dc5bef949fe856a4bd7538915b492b09eff02cde408
1223 2013-03-09 12:23:15 <Luke-Jr> those are the two ranges in question, fwiw
1224 2013-03-09 12:23:19 <ciphermonk> ok
1225 2013-03-09 12:27:44 <ciphermonk> I'll pastebin those 17 blocks
1226 2013-03-09 12:30:30 daybyter has joined
1227 2013-03-09 12:32:28 <ciphermonk> I'm still pasting but from what I see they have difficulty 1
1228 2013-03-09 12:33:02 rdymac has joined
1229 2013-03-09 12:33:05 vampireb has joined
1230 2013-03-09 12:40:17 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1231 2013-03-09 12:40:37 gdoteof has joined
1232 2013-03-09 12:41:29 <gmaxwell> 04:10 < Luke-Jr> lianj: reorgs should never go backward
1233 2013-03-09 12:41:33 <gmaxwell> sure, they can.
1234 2013-03-09 12:41:57 <gmaxwell> E.g. you would prefer a short high difficulty chain to a longer diff=1 chain.
1235 2013-03-09 12:42:01 <Luke-Jr> [12:14:07] <Luke-Jr> lianj: actually, I did think of a scenario where a reorg would move backward
1236 2013-03-09 12:42:12 fishfish is now known as fishfish|AFK
1237 2013-03-09 12:43:46 <ciphermonk> ok here are the blocks in the range: http://pastebin.com/U9tnePjD
1238 2013-03-09 12:44:32 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: 0000000000c8c22a7e7f3dc5bef949fe856a4bd7538915b492b09eff02cde408 is misisng
1239 2013-03-09 12:45:03 <ciphermonk> ah crap
1240 2013-03-09 12:51:09 <Luke-Jr> …
1241 2013-03-09 12:51:43 <ciphermonk> http://pastebin.com/PWgpjXa8
1242 2013-03-09 12:52:31 gribble has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1243 2013-03-09 12:52:33 <Luke-Jr> yep, that's it
1244 2013-03-09 12:52:37 fishfish is now known as AFK!~fishfish2@cpc10-mort5-2-0-cust225.19-2.cable.virginmedia.com|fishfish
1245 2013-03-09 12:52:42 <ciphermonk> I'm confused, I'm not sure I've got them all right. I have blocks 56112 to 56118 in by application database. The rest I worked my way through the previousblockhash
1246 2013-03-09 12:52:50 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1247 2013-03-09 12:53:01 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: 0000000000c8c22a7e7f3dc5bef949fe856a4bd7538915b492b09eff02cde408 is worth 121 of the other blocks combined
1248 2013-03-09 12:53:01 <ciphermonk> I have 2 blocks 56110 for instance
1249 2013-03-09 12:53:08 <Luke-Jr>     "difficulty" : 121.01183650,
1250 2013-03-09 12:53:58 <ciphermonk> ah
1251 2013-03-09 12:54:15 nanotube has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1252 2013-03-09 12:54:32 Guest58179 has quit (Quit: Guest58179)
1253 2013-03-09 12:54:35 <Luke-Jr> so it sees that, vs a pile of up to 121 "difficulty 1" blocks, it throws the diff1 blocks away and prefers the diff121 block
1254 2013-03-09 12:54:52 valparaiso has joined
1255 2013-03-09 12:55:38 valparaiso has quit (Client Quit)
1256 2013-03-09 12:56:01 valparaiso has joined
1257 2013-03-09 12:56:33 <ciphermonk> which part of the code deals with this? I thought the rule "longest chain wins" was pretty immutable. Are the difficulty 1 blocks invalid in any way?
1258 2013-03-09 12:56:59 <Luke-Jr> a difficulty 121 block is "longer" than 121 difficulty 1 blocks
1259 2013-03-09 12:57:07 <Luke-Jr> no, they're not invalid
1260 2013-03-09 12:57:11 <Luke-Jr> (on testnet, that is)
1261 2013-03-09 12:57:22 <ciphermonk> oh length is defined as the difficulty!
1262 2013-03-09 12:57:40 <ciphermonk> euh sorry
1263 2013-03-09 12:57:54 <ciphermonk> ok
1264 2013-03-09 12:58:08 <Luke-Jr> testnet has a special rule to allow diff1 blocks every 20 minutes
1265 2013-03-09 12:58:19 <Luke-Jr> on real bitcoin, the opportunity for something like this is very small
1266 2013-03-09 12:58:34 <Luke-Jr> only once every 2 weeks, during a major network upgrade
1267 2013-03-09 12:58:38 <Luke-Jr> like the one for ASICs possibly
1268 2013-03-09 12:58:44 <Luke-Jr> (which has only barely just started)
1269 2013-03-09 12:58:54 <ciphermonk> ok fair enough
1270 2013-03-09 12:59:22 <ciphermonk> The only impact I see is miners having some coinbases invalidated
1271 2013-03-09 12:59:41 <Luke-Jr> pretty much
1272 2013-03-09 12:59:55 <ciphermonk> cool, learned something new
1273 2013-03-09 13:00:00 <Luke-Jr> note that the "height stays the same, but the top block changed" scenario is (I think?) more likely on mainnet
1274 2013-03-09 13:00:04 gribble has joined
1275 2013-03-09 13:00:18 <Luke-Jr> but height moving backward is the "only during major network upgrades" unliklihood
1276 2013-03-09 13:00:33 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: hmm, you here still?
1277 2013-03-09 13:00:59 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: is it possible that timejacking-related "bug" was intentional to avoid "height stays the same" reorgs? :/
1278 2013-03-09 13:01:16 nanotube has joined
1279 2013-03-09 13:01:51 CodeShark has joined
1280 2013-03-09 13:04:35 grau has joined
1281 2013-03-09 13:07:12 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: you can eliminate it without creating those.
1282 2013-03-09 13:07:38 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: right, but does the current bug also avoid those?
1283 2013-03-09 13:07:46 <Luke-Jr> (I added a note to the Hardfork Wishlist on this matter)
1284 2013-03-09 13:08:19 <gmaxwell> timejacking bug is created by a lack of overlap, if you add an overlap on the more recent side you can create the issue you're thinking of, I think.
1285 2013-03-09 13:09:06 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1286 2013-03-09 13:09:28 gdoteof has joined
1287 2013-03-09 13:11:08 andreas has joined
1288 2013-03-09 13:11:09 daybyter has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1289 2013-03-09 13:17:50 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1290 2013-03-09 13:19:47 CodeShark has joined
1291 2013-03-09 13:20:34 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1292 2013-03-09 13:21:52 <ciphermonk> is a reorg of, say, 6 block or more realistically possible on prodnet? (going back 6 blocks)
1293 2013-03-09 13:22:31 <grau> blockchain.info now lags by about 10 blocks.
1294 2013-03-09 13:23:35 <grau> ... just that I said. it is catching up
1295 2013-03-09 13:26:43 <_dr> do you guys plan to enter gsoc?
1296 2013-03-09 13:28:12 techlife has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1297 2013-03-09 13:29:55 <MrKain> Does anyone know of a service that can deposit funds into someones bank account., and that it be available instantly -
1298 2013-03-09 13:30:44 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1299 2013-03-09 13:31:38 techlife has joined
1300 2013-03-09 13:33:43 richweskus has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1301 2013-03-09 13:33:48 <ciphermonk> bitcoin? :D
1302 2013-03-09 13:35:08 bitafterbit has joined
1303 2013-03-09 13:37:48 Mad7Scientist has joined
1304 2013-03-09 13:37:55 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1305 2013-03-09 13:38:16 gdoteof has joined
1306 2013-03-09 13:41:27 abrkn has joined
1307 2013-03-09 13:41:52 <Luke-Jr> _dr: last I heard, nobody knows how much work is involved in mentoring
1308 2013-03-09 13:41:58 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: no
1309 2013-03-09 13:42:52 <_dr> Luke-Jr: does that imply a no?
1310 2013-03-09 13:43:03 <ciphermonk> cool okay thanks
1311 2013-03-09 13:43:47 <Luke-Jr> _dr: I'm not aware of anyone doing it, but I could be wrong
1312 2013-03-09 13:43:51 <gmaxwell> ciphermonk: We've hit reorgs of 4 before though it was under exceptional circumstances,  6 (and other lenghts) is possible but very unlikely especially outside of exceptional circumstances.
1313 2013-03-09 13:44:22 <gmaxwell> _dr: do you know anyone who might be interested in participating with Bitcoin on the student side?
1314 2013-03-09 13:44:45 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: he said realistically (and I implied "under normal conditions")
1315 2013-03-09 13:44:46 abrkn\ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1316 2013-03-09 13:44:47 <ciphermonk> okay, I'm wondering how these re-orgs could impact applications that don't account for them or handle them in any way
1317 2013-03-09 13:44:49 <_dr> gmaxwell: yes, me :)
1318 2013-03-09 13:44:53 <_dr> that's why i was asking
1319 2013-03-09 13:45:54 <Luke-Jr> ciphermonk: applications must account for reorgs
1320 2013-03-09 13:46:30 <_dr> i was looking for a new project, and since i heard some people talking about signature verification being the bootstrapping bottleneck right now i did some digging in the forums and it seemed that noone else was eager to write a hpc ecdsa implementation
1321 2013-03-09 13:47:09 <_dr> by looking at openssl's implementation i'd say there's a great margin for improvement
1322 2013-03-09 13:47:18 <Luke-Jr> _dr: I think we have patches to make it as fast as it can be
1323 2013-03-09 13:47:26 <gmaxwell> That would indeed be a good GSOC project. You should talk to sipa.  I'd be willing be the GSOC POC for bitcoin IFF we believe we can actually get some productive work done for it.
1324 2013-03-09 13:47:28 <Luke-Jr> _dr: check out sipa's pull requests
1325 2013-03-09 13:48:11 <Luke-Jr> I'd think stuff like HD wallets and trust-based zero-confirm transactions would be good GSOC projects
1326 2013-03-09 13:48:11 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no, in fact sipa has been working on a from scratch version which may be much faster. There is a lot of room for improvement.
1327 2013-03-09 13:48:21 <Luke-Jr> o.o
1328 2013-03-09 13:48:31 <_dr> Luke-Jr: i've talked to sipa, i think you're talking about an enhancement in the signature verification algorithm, not an actual fast implementation
1329 2013-03-09 13:48:50 <Luke-Jr> _dr: I see, gmaxwell and sipa certainly know better than me in this area
1330 2013-03-09 13:49:42 <Luke-Jr> but HD wallets and TB0CT would be less difficult to merge IMO :p
1331 2013-03-09 13:49:56 <Luke-Jr> anything ECDSA-related is going to need an insane amount of auditing
1332 2013-03-09 13:50:11 <_dr> the question is: do we even want assembly code for reasons of reviewability (is that even a word :)
1333 2013-03-09 13:50:17 <gmaxwell> TB0CT I agree, but anything wallet related in generall would need high confidence.
1334 2013-03-09 13:50:22 <gmaxwell> _dr: depends on how fast it is.
1335 2013-03-09 13:51:10 <gmaxwell> _dr: if its just a tiny bit faster, no.  If it's twice as fast, it's probably worth it. But it would need to meet high standards of testing and review.
1336 2013-03-09 13:51:43 <_dr> seems reasonable
1337 2013-03-09 13:52:37 stalled has joined
1338 2013-03-09 14:06:44 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1339 2013-03-09 14:07:08 gdoteof has joined
1340 2013-03-09 14:09:24 <HM> the nice thing about signature verification is it is parallel
1341 2013-03-09 14:10:40 <HM> there's no reason you can't download a dozen blocks and chew them over x cores
1342 2013-03-09 14:10:47 <HM> then just check the block chaining afterward
1343 2013-03-09 14:10:52 <HM> for bootstrapping i mean
1344 2013-03-09 14:11:09 RBecker has quit (Quit: You care. You're there for me.  You love me so much, and I never want to let it go.  You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
1345 2013-03-09 14:11:28 Namworld has joined
1346 2013-03-09 14:12:32 valparaiso_ has joined
1347 2013-03-09 14:12:36 RBecker has joined
1348 2013-03-09 14:12:36 RBecker has quit (Excess Flood)
1349 2013-03-09 14:12:43 <HM> there's lot of hybrid opportunity in between
1350 2013-03-09 14:12:55 <HM> you could have a powerful server verify whole batches of blocks and then sign them
1351 2013-03-09 14:12:57 ovidiusoft has joined
1352 2013-03-09 14:13:01 <_dr> that's already done. i'm talking about optimization of a single verification
1353 2013-03-09 14:13:28 <_dr> or perhaps doing multiple verifications in one instrucion on one core using simd
1354 2013-03-09 14:13:40 abrkn has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1355 2013-03-09 14:15:07 <HM> *shrug*
1356 2013-03-09 14:15:10 RBecker has joined
1357 2013-03-09 14:15:44 valparaiso has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1358 2013-03-09 14:15:45 valparaiso_ is now known as valparaiso
1359 2013-03-09 14:15:56 <Scrat> hm. how can SIMD be used to make it faster? correct me if I'm wrong but you can't even do 64 bit integer multiplication there
1360 2013-03-09 14:16:52 <_dr> Scrat: one idea could be to use distinct lanes for distinct verifications
1361 2013-03-09 14:17:18 <_dr> but i'm not sure how that would scale, because fast verifications would have to wait for stragglers
1362 2013-03-09 14:17:30 <Scrat> how will you deal with carry
1363 2013-03-09 14:17:54 <HM> I think working on scaling across CPUs and machines is the better long term strategy.
1364 2013-03-09 14:18:10 <HM> you need efficient batching and such to make that worthwhile
1365 2013-03-09 14:18:11 <_dr> HM: well, but that's not how you do hpc
1366 2013-03-09 14:18:25 <_dr> you don't just throw many cores at it, you start by doing single-core optimization :)
1367 2013-03-09 14:18:31 <HM> but hey, the CPU industry keeps promising us 1024 core machines
1368 2013-03-09 14:18:48 <HM> then you'll want to work on efficient memory structures for verification across NUMA systems
1369 2013-03-09 14:18:51 <_dr> and by leaving out vectorization you only use 1/8th of the cpu to begin with
1370 2013-03-09 14:19:25 <_dr> HM: no, signature verification isn't bandwidth limited, numa won't play a big role in optimization
1371 2013-03-09 14:19:40 andreas has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1372 2013-03-09 14:20:04 <HM> not  if you are doing batch verification no
1373 2013-03-09 14:20:12 <HM> that is, verification on large batches
1374 2013-03-09 14:20:34 <_dr> where do you get these batches from? the HDD? that's your bottleneck not numa
1375 2013-03-09 14:20:34 <HM> (not some specific batch verification algorithm, although that may apply as well)
1376 2013-03-09 14:20:58 <HM> huh?
1377 2013-03-09 14:21:07 <HM> a whole days worth of transactions fits inside 40 MB
1378 2013-03-09 14:21:14 <HM> even a poor hard drive can load that in a second
1379 2013-03-09 14:21:39 <HM> bottlenecks vary
1380 2013-03-09 14:21:40 <_dr> yeah and a memory controler of a decent cpu can do about 35gb/s (net!)
1381 2013-03-09 14:21:45 <HM> on mobile your bottleneck is gonna be bandwidth
1382 2013-03-09 14:21:52 <_dr> so there is no numa problem
1383 2013-03-09 14:22:29 <HM> i was talking about the theoretical 1024 core cpu
1384 2013-03-09 14:23:23 <HM> anyway, you can't predict what your bottlenecks will be or what technology you will have
1385 2013-03-09 14:23:35 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1386 2013-03-09 14:23:53 <HM> one day maybe someone will come up with an ASIC to verify transactions at insane rates
1387 2013-03-09 14:24:04 <_dr> ugh..
1388 2013-03-09 14:26:04 <Vinnie_win> How is the war against dust progressing?
1389 2013-03-09 14:26:25 <HM> I have a 10 Mbps connection, but a 3 GB download cap during the day. that means a block size of 40 MB means I can't run a full node
1390 2013-03-09 14:27:06 <HM> So worrying about signature verification performance on such huge blocks on my laptop is irrelevant to me
1391 2013-03-09 14:28:14 <_dr> great, so i guess we all should stop caring then
1392 2013-03-09 14:29:04 <_dr> if i want to bootstrap a node at university, downloading the blockchain could be done in notime at 1.3Gbps, signature verification keeps my box busy a lot longer
1393 2013-03-09 14:30:02 <HM> reminds me of Microsoft etc optimisation startup and shutdown times
1394 2013-03-09 14:30:11 <HM> everyone i know puts their computers in to standby
1395 2013-03-09 14:30:32 <HM> or hibernation on laptops
1396 2013-03-09 14:31:39 <HM> it's only an issue for new full node users
1397 2013-03-09 14:32:20 <HM> even if you triple single core performance you're boned because the growth of the blockchain will soon put you bootstrap time to 24 hours
1398 2013-03-09 14:32:46 canoon has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1399 2013-03-09 14:33:11 <Vinnie_win> Can someone help me find a SatoshiDICE losing bet confirmation tx on blockchain.info?
1400 2013-03-09 14:33:18 <HM> it reaches as point where you can say "well it would normally take 3 weeks but now it only takes one!"
1401 2013-03-09 14:33:27 <HM> great...thanks *uses webwallet*
1402 2013-03-09 14:34:29 <_dr> it not only about bootstrapping, it's also about being able to deal with new blocks with a large number of transactions
1403 2013-03-09 14:34:56 <_dr> (in the far future) but okay, you've got me convinced that you don't care :)
1404 2013-03-09 14:34:57 <Scrat> Vinnie_win: you wont get much sympathy here :p
1405 2013-03-09 14:35:25 <Vinnie_win> Scrat: Not looking for sympathy. Someone said that SD has changed its losing bet confirmation to include a much larger amount instead of dust, and I would like to confirm that
1406 2013-03-09 14:35:33 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1407 2013-03-09 14:35:48 <Vinnie_win> I have this tx how do I interpret the outputs https://blockchain.info/tx/6e0092ec8abca3ec3df5edbdf4c759024554d8e43c2f1956a3248fe1e6e664f6
1408 2013-03-09 14:35:54 gdoteof has joined
1409 2013-03-09 14:37:26 <Vinnie_win> is one BTC = 1e8 satoshi?
1410 2013-03-09 14:37:41 <HM> yes
1411 2013-03-09 14:38:23 <Vinnie_win> It looks like SD has stopped sending dust spam
1412 2013-03-09 14:39:28 znort987 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1413 2013-03-09 14:39:58 <HM> well the input looks fairly large for a lost bet notification
1414 2013-03-09 14:41:11 <Scrat> Vinnie_win: just tried it and I got 5000 satoshi
1415 2013-03-09 14:41:57 <Scrat> so I guess this qualifies as a "fix" lol
1416 2013-03-09 14:42:26 <Scrat> (in the eyes of SD operators)
1417 2013-03-09 14:42:36 <Luke-Jr> it's just trying to bypass filtering
1418 2013-03-09 14:44:09 <Namworld> I don't have a problem with SD... but I do for their bet notification "returns"
1419 2013-03-09 14:44:48 canoon has joined
1420 2013-03-09 14:45:22 <Namworld> It's a superfluous step. Either you verify the transaction yourself or you use the lookup tool and just trust SD on what it says.
1421 2013-03-09 14:46:19 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: that doesn't really make sense. that's part of SD.
1422 2013-03-09 14:46:35 <Luke-Jr> if SD wasn't flooding the network, nobody would have a problem with it
1423 2013-03-09 14:47:42 <HM> do competitors like DiceOnCrack do the same?
1424 2013-03-09 14:48:12 rdymac has joined
1425 2013-03-09 14:48:15 <Scrat> subsidizing flooding with money from dumb people. genius
1426 2013-03-09 14:48:46 <Namworld> I mean I don't mind the bet/winning transactions. I mind the few satoshis returned to notify a lost bet.
1427 2013-03-09 14:49:42 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: so I should just send a continuous stream of transactions for every share found on Eligius?
1428 2013-03-09 14:50:20 <Namworld> No. Too small.
1429 2013-03-09 14:50:31 <sivu> hmm. getting runtimeexception from bitcoinj when doing wallet save
1430 2013-03-09 14:50:40 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: and SD's flood isn't?
1431 2013-03-09 14:50:51 <Namworld> Just like lost bet notification transactions.
1432 2013-03-09 14:51:39 <Namworld> SD's bets/winnings are large enough.
1433 2013-03-09 14:52:25 RBecker has quit (Quit: You care. You're there for me.  You love me so much, and I never want to let it go.  You are the one truly amazing person. MDR 3/6/11 <3)
1434 2013-03-09 14:54:24 <Vinnie_win> Both DiceonCrack and SRoulette have a different system which doesn't spam
1435 2013-03-09 14:54:35 <Vinnie_win> Is 5,000 satoshi enough for us not to consider it dust, and to say this problem is solved?
1436 2013-03-09 14:54:44 <Namworld> No
1437 2013-03-09 14:54:59 RBecker has joined
1438 2013-03-09 14:54:59 RBecker has quit (Excess Flood)
1439 2013-03-09 14:55:04 <Namworld> They shouldn't return anything on lost bets.
1440 2013-03-09 14:55:08 <Luke-Jr> dust is anything under 0.01 BTC
1441 2013-03-09 14:55:45 RBecker has joined
1442 2013-03-09 14:55:49 <Namworld> Not necessarily stopping at 0.01 BTC...
1443 2013-03-09 14:56:09 <ciphermonk> arguably, you can't prevent private organizations from sending dust. I think we need to reflect on bitcoin rules themselves
1444 2013-03-09 14:56:15 <HM> the problem they have is their users won't want to keep track of arbitrary transaction numbers, and they have no registration system
1445 2013-03-09 14:56:34 <HM> from a business pov you can see why they wouldn't want to give up their notifications
1446 2013-03-09 14:56:37 <Namworld> But anything not over transaction fee or which represents just a notification, not an actual transfer, is superfluous.
1447 2013-03-09 14:56:55 <HM> what they have now is essentially a money printer that can be run with minimal infrastructure
1448 2013-03-09 14:56:58 <Luke-Jr> HM: they shouldn't be using transactions at all
1449 2013-03-09 14:57:03 <Namworld> HM: SD offers a lookup tool which tells the lucky number for each bet...
1450 2013-03-09 14:57:26 <HM> hmm
1451 2013-03-09 14:57:27 <Namworld> If you trust SD's notifications of loss, you'll trust their lookup tool just as much
1452 2013-03-09 14:57:50 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: the few people playing SD *do* trust them
1453 2013-03-09 14:58:03 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: because nobody notices the many times SD hasn't paid out the winnings
1454 2013-03-09 14:58:46 <Namworld> As in, the transaction never confirmed, or as in it paid as a loss what was a winning bet?
1455 2013-03-09 14:59:39 canoon has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1456 2013-03-09 15:00:17 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: as in, they never sent any response transaction at all
1457 2013-03-09 15:00:31 <Luke-Jr> and it was calculatably a win
1458 2013-03-09 15:01:59 <HM> technical errors happen all the time in casinos
1459 2013-03-09 15:02:20 <Luke-Jr> HM: my point is the players are either not checking or don't care
1460 2013-03-09 15:02:28 <Namworld> Well either if you don't receive a response there or in the lookup tool, you can always check.
1461 2013-03-09 15:02:43 <HM> if you play online video roulette they still have pit bosses so you can despute wins that never pay out, which happen surprisingly often
1462 2013-03-09 15:02:46 mhanne has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1463 2013-03-09 15:02:54 <Namworld> The lookup tool would actually make it easier to not miss those and verify yourself the lucky number
1464 2013-03-09 15:03:10 <Luke-Jr> HM: nobody has done that with SD
1465 2013-03-09 15:03:57 mhanne has joined
1466 2013-03-09 15:03:57 mhanne has quit (Changing host)
1467 2013-03-09 15:03:57 mhanne has joined
1468 2013-03-09 15:04:03 <HM> well to be perfect you'd need an independent site checking the signatures
1469 2013-03-09 15:04:21 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1470 2013-03-09 15:04:24 <HM> i.e. collecting hashes before games, then verifying everyone was paid
1471 2013-03-09 15:04:30 <HM> publishing statistics on payouts, etc
1472 2013-03-09 15:04:43 gdoteof has joined
1473 2013-03-09 15:04:44 <HM> but nobody is going to pay an arbitrator
1474 2013-03-09 15:05:10 <HM> that's why real gambling arbitration services are paid from taxes or basically charity
1475 2013-03-09 15:05:38 <Luke-Jr> HM: ragecoin gives you hashes before the game
1476 2013-03-09 15:06:35 [\\\] is now known as [III]
1477 2013-03-09 15:06:42 <HM> i thought SD did too
1478 2013-03-09 15:07:03 <Namworld> No, SD uses the hash from the transaction
1479 2013-03-09 15:07:08 <HM> right
1480 2013-03-09 15:07:32 [III] is now known as [\\\]
1481 2013-03-09 15:08:05 <HM> even so, a nice user experience is one the user can trust without having to engage in any extra effort
1482 2013-03-09 15:10:16 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1483 2013-03-09 15:17:15 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1484 2013-03-09 15:17:49 BTCOxygen has joined
1485 2013-03-09 15:20:19 rdymac has joined
1486 2013-03-09 15:22:20 <JWU42> when only usign -connect it seems 5 peers is the maximum ?
1487 2013-03-09 15:22:55 <Vinnie_win> Blockchain.info is the "enabler" of satoshidice. when blockchain went down, network tx volume went down by 66% all of it SD.
1488 2013-03-09 15:23:00 <JWU42> tried mixing -connect with -addnode and will not get more than 5
1489 2013-03-09 15:23:05 <Vinnie_win> Blockchain plays a beep every time you receive a tx in your wallet.
1490 2013-03-09 15:23:14 <Vinnie_win> And Blockchain has direct links to play SD from your wallet
1491 2013-03-09 15:23:28 <JWU42> Vinnie_win: no doubt on the SD and Blockchain integration influencing things
1492 2013-03-09 15:23:41 <JWU42> that is how i was playing it - form blockchain site
1493 2013-03-09 15:25:33 Diablo-D3 has joined
1494 2013-03-09 15:26:35 <JWU42> weird - now going past 5
1495 2013-03-09 15:26:41 <JWU42> ignore my ramblings
1496 2013-03-09 15:26:47 <sipa> JWU42: with -connect, the normal outgoing connection logic is disabled, and you _only_ connect to that node
1497 2013-03-09 15:27:16 <JWU42> sipa: understood that - but I have had 7 peers specified and never getting past 5
1498 2013-03-09 15:27:33 <JWU42> must have been an issue with the peers selected
1499 2013-03-09 15:27:41 <JWU42> as I now have 7 connects
1500 2013-03-09 15:28:31 <JWU42> sipa: Luke and gmaxwell spoke of a hybrid approach with a connect and addnode in a .conf but never found the addnode to work
1501 2013-03-09 15:28:38 <JWU42> seems you are confirming that it won't
1502 2013-03-09 15:29:13 <JWU42> all in relation to setting uop a node to mine on...
1503 2013-03-09 15:30:34 canoon has joined
1504 2013-03-09 15:31:38 <Luke-Jr> JWU42: someone said you had to mess with connect/addnode to mine?
1505 2013-03-09 15:32:12 <JWU42> no - we spoke about the number of connections for a mining node
1506 2013-03-09 15:32:41 <JWU42> saying you use a public node and then a smaller # of connects to mine against
1507 2013-03-09 15:32:59 <JWU42> the mining node using -connect to the public node
1508 2013-03-09 15:33:10 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1509 2013-03-09 15:33:21 <JWU42> so the mining node kept not much more than 4-5 connected peers
1510 2013-03-09 15:33:26 vampireb has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1511 2013-03-09 15:33:32 gdoteof has joined
1512 2013-03-09 15:34:25 <JWU42> I THOUGHT you and gmaxwell said one option is a -connect and -addnode approach -- you mentioned using jgarzik's nodes to -connect
1513 2013-03-09 15:34:35 <Luke-Jr> works for me, I think
1514 2013-03-09 15:34:58 <Luke-Jr> yep
1515 2013-03-09 15:35:04 <Luke-Jr> although this is 0.6.0 based
1516 2013-03-09 15:35:21 <sipa> the addnode logic was changed some time ago
1517 2013-03-09 15:35:25 <sipa> not sure when
1518 2013-03-09 15:38:36 <JWU42> yeah - seems it doesn't work in 0.8
1519 2013-03-09 15:38:41 <JWU42> no worries
1520 2013-03-09 15:38:54 <JWU42> just added a few more connects and all good
1521 2013-03-09 15:40:02 Happzz has joined
1522 2013-03-09 15:40:12 <Happzz> why does it take so long to import a private key in bitcoin-qt?
1523 2013-03-09 15:40:35 <sipa> it needs to rescan the entire blockchain for transactions affecting the new address
1524 2013-03-09 15:40:49 <sipa> you can disable that, by putting a 'false' after importprivkey
1525 2013-03-09 15:41:02 <sipa> importprivkey <key> false
1526 2013-03-09 15:41:41 <Luke-Jr> sipa: does that mean RPC addnode will fail too?
1527 2013-03-09 15:41:49 <sipa> Luke-Jr: no idea
1528 2013-03-09 15:41:56 <Luke-Jr> Happzz: note that if you've ever used the private key before, you MUST let it rescan
1529 2013-03-09 15:41:56 <sipa> haven't touched that in a while
1530 2013-03-09 15:42:01 <Happzz> how does blockchain.info import so fast then
1531 2013-03-09 15:42:11 <sipa> Happzz: they maintain a huge index
1532 2013-03-09 15:50:46 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1533 2013-03-09 15:51:54 vigilyn3 has joined
1534 2013-03-09 15:51:56 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1535 2013-03-09 15:52:01 vigilyn2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1536 2013-03-09 15:53:11 znort987 has joined
1537 2013-03-09 15:55:05 tyn has joined
1538 2013-03-09 15:56:55 <Scrat> "Blockchain hosts the SatoshiDICE bet form for free"
1539 2013-03-09 15:57:04 <Scrat> piuk - forums
1540 2013-03-09 15:57:13 MiningBuddy has joined
1541 2013-03-09 15:57:13 MiningBuddy has quit (Changing host)
1542 2013-03-09 15:57:13 MiningBuddy has joined
1543 2013-03-09 15:57:34 <sipa> bleh
1544 2013-03-09 15:57:34 <Scrat> sorry for OT
1545 2013-03-09 15:57:37 <Vinnie_win> Scrat: link?
1546 2013-03-09 15:57:51 <Scrat> Vinnie_win: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150820.msg1603875#msg1603875
1547 2013-03-09 15:57:55 <Vinnie_win> Scrat: Thanks
1548 2013-03-09 16:01:24 Quazgaa has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1549 2013-03-09 16:01:59 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1550 2013-03-09 16:02:19 gdoteof has joined
1551 2013-03-09 16:03:24 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1552 2013-03-09 16:08:21 daybyter has joined
1553 2013-03-09 16:21:55 <HM> lol
1554 2013-03-09 16:21:59 <HM> just read about bitinstant
1555 2013-03-09 16:22:00 <HM> oh dear
1556 2013-03-09 16:24:12 <Luke-Jr> first time I've seen good advice to lie..
1557 2013-03-09 16:24:32 <HM> Hmm?
1558 2013-03-09 16:24:38 <Luke-Jr> their DNS host
1559 2013-03-09 16:24:44 <Luke-Jr> is blaming them for using the truth
1560 2013-03-09 16:24:49 <Luke-Jr> for the security questions
1561 2013-03-09 16:25:28 <Luke-Jr> (the DNS host is still to blame IMO, but it's not a bad idea to lie on the questions like they suggested)
1562 2013-03-09 16:25:36 <HM> there are faults at all stages
1563 2013-03-09 16:25:44 <Luke-Jr> sure
1564 2013-03-09 16:25:46 <HM> one system failed, the others should have held
1565 2013-03-09 16:25:59 <Luke-Jr> eh, not really
1566 2013-03-09 16:26:02 <Luke-Jr> one system failed: the DNS host
1567 2013-03-09 16:26:22 <HM> no the email reset without further authentication was a failure
1568 2013-03-09 16:26:26 <Luke-Jr> I mean, indirectly you and I are at fault for putting up with stupid security questions as authentication
1569 2013-03-09 16:26:29 <Luke-Jr> but still
1570 2013-03-09 16:26:35 <HM> and so was lack of extra security at Verwox
1571 2013-03-09 16:26:41 <HM> virwox*
1572 2013-03-09 16:26:48 <Luke-Jr> HM: Virwox *had* extra security; BitInstant chose not to use it
1573 2013-03-09 16:26:54 <HM> yes, indeed.
1574 2013-03-09 16:27:14 <HM> I didn't mean it was Virwox's fault. It's all Bitinstants fault
1575 2013-03-09 16:27:40 <HM> But it wasn't one giant gaff, it was many. layers of fail
1576 2013-03-09 16:27:49 <Luke-Jr> dunno, I think the DNS host is mainly at fault
1577 2013-03-09 16:28:11 <Luke-Jr> sure, BitInstant could have done more - but the failure was at the DNS host
1578 2013-03-09 16:28:21 <HM> you shouldnt' use your primary domain for account reset emails
1579 2013-03-09 16:28:47 <Luke-Jr> HM: …
1580 2013-03-09 16:28:53 <Luke-Jr> now you're being unreasonable
1581 2013-03-09 16:29:01 <HM> why?
1582 2013-03-09 16:29:10 <Luke-Jr> most people only have 1 domain at most
1583 2013-03-09 16:29:16 <HM> domains are cheap
1584 2013-03-09 16:29:19 <Luke-Jr> so?
1585 2013-03-09 16:30:28 <Luke-Jr> setting up a second domain just for password resets, is above and beyond
1586 2013-03-09 16:30:39 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1587 2013-03-09 16:30:43 <HM> not if you're handling other peoples money
1588 2013-03-09 16:30:47 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1589 2013-03-09 16:31:10 gdoteof has joined
1590 2013-03-09 16:34:09 <HM> I think the weak point was actually Virwox allowing email resets
1591 2013-03-09 16:40:18 <HM> there's still an attitude in general internet services that security is secondary
1592 2013-03-09 16:40:40 <HM> i dealt with a registrar the other month who asked me to email them to unlock my domain
1593 2013-03-09 16:41:02 <HM> no authentication whatsoever except email address, which is easily spoofed
1594 2013-03-09 16:41:24 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1595 2013-03-09 16:47:26 andytoshi has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0)
1596 2013-03-09 16:49:21 zooko has joined
1597 2013-03-09 16:50:41 owowo has joined
1598 2013-03-09 16:51:19 mappum has joined
1599 2013-03-09 16:51:29 xempew has joined
1600 2013-03-09 16:54:51 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1601 2013-03-09 16:59:06 <ProfMac> if I look at debug.log for the Satoshi client, how can I identify (grep) the connections that were incoming, rather that initiated by me?
1602 2013-03-09 16:59:37 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1603 2013-03-09 16:59:57 gdoteof has joined
1604 2013-03-09 17:00:16 <bitnumus> what does it mean when my client has a grey square box next to the transactions
1605 2013-03-09 17:00:23 <bitnumus> instead of a question mark, or timer
1606 2013-03-09 17:00:28 <bitnumus> it says 'offline' on hover
1607 2013-03-09 17:00:50 reizuki__ has joined
1608 2013-03-09 17:02:03 xempew has quit (Quit: xempew)
1609 2013-03-09 17:05:59 testnode9 has joined
1610 2013-03-09 17:06:56 BTCTrader2 has joined
1611 2013-03-09 17:07:57 <MC1984> no netowrk connection
1612 2013-03-09 17:08:12 <MC1984> so confirms cant come in
1613 2013-03-09 17:08:42 moarrr has joined
1614 2013-03-09 17:17:13 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1615 2013-03-09 17:18:31 znort987 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1616 2013-03-09 17:20:35 ducch has joined
1617 2013-03-09 17:21:39 zooko has joined
1618 2013-03-09 17:22:11 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
1619 2013-03-09 17:22:27 Diablo-D3 has joined
1620 2013-03-09 17:22:30 hydrogenesis has joined
1621 2013-03-09 17:23:58 <sipa> ProfMac: use the getpeerinfo RPC
1622 2013-03-09 17:24:37 <sipa> ProfMac: and for outgoing connection there will be a "connecting to X" line in debug.log, i think
1623 2013-03-09 17:28:25 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1624 2013-03-09 17:28:45 gdoteof has joined
1625 2013-03-09 17:31:19 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1626 2013-03-09 17:31:28 paraipan has joined
1627 2013-03-09 17:33:53 xjrn has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 19.0/20130227184535])
1628 2013-03-09 17:34:25 zooko has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1629 2013-03-09 17:34:36 hydrogenesis has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPad - http://colloquy.mobi)
1630 2013-03-09 17:34:56 zooko has joined
1631 2013-03-09 17:36:39 nus- has joined
1632 2013-03-09 17:37:19 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
1633 2013-03-09 17:39:10 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1634 2013-03-09 17:40:16 testnode9 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1635 2013-03-09 17:41:26 testnode9 has joined
1636 2013-03-09 17:43:49 MobPhone has joined
1637 2013-03-09 17:48:15 cheesepi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1638 2013-03-09 17:50:59 <Prattler> Is UTXO an acronym or just a name someone came up with?
1639 2013-03-09 17:51:17 <Prattler> I mean the unspent output data, I might be wrong, maybe it's not UTXO
1640 2013-03-09 17:51:28 coolsa has joined
1641 2013-03-09 17:51:47 <Diablo-D3> er
1642 2013-03-09 17:51:50 <Diablo-D3> shouldn't it be TXUO?
1643 2013-03-09 17:52:00 mcx has joined
1644 2013-03-09 17:52:00 mcx is now known as cheesepi
1645 2013-03-09 17:52:01 <Diablo-D3> oh
1646 2013-03-09 17:52:04 <Diablo-D3> wait it is UTXO
1647 2013-03-09 17:52:08 <Diablo-D3> unspent transaction output
1648 2013-03-09 17:52:22 <Prattler> thanks!
1649 2013-03-09 17:54:32 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1650 2013-03-09 17:54:55 BurtyBB has joined
1651 2013-03-09 17:57:14 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1652 2013-03-09 17:57:40 gdoteof has joined
1653 2013-03-09 18:01:17 CodeShark has joined
1654 2013-03-09 18:01:35 <sipa> technically not an acronym, as there is no 'x' in the long form, but close enough
1655 2013-03-09 18:01:38 <sipa> :)
1656 2013-03-09 18:01:57 <MC1984> unpruned transaction output set isnt it?
1657 2013-03-09 18:02:11 <grau> sipa: you are a mathematician right?
1658 2013-03-09 18:02:11 <sipa> unspent, but same thing
1659 2013-03-09 18:02:16 <MC1984> like an image of where al the coins are *right now*
1660 2013-03-09 18:02:22 Happzz has left ()
1661 2013-03-09 18:02:32 <sipa> grau: not really, though i know some math i guess
1662 2013-03-09 18:03:07 <grau> the way you seek to be exact in all statements tells that
1663 2013-03-09 18:03:08 ducch is now known as Happzz
1664 2013-03-09 18:03:12 <sipa> haha
1665 2013-03-09 18:03:33 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1666 2013-03-09 18:03:34 <sipa> more a bad habit, i think :)
1667 2013-03-09 18:03:49 Rarityy has quit (Quit: Sleep. <redacted>	I joked I would replace all her sensitive files on her old computer with ponies so nothing could be recovered.)
1668 2013-03-09 18:03:52 <sipa> MC1984: indeed
1669 2013-03-09 18:04:36 <MC1984> wouldnt there be a theoretical limit on how big the utxo can get
1670 2013-03-09 18:04:46 <gmaxwell> MC1984: only if we deny zero value outputs.
1671 2013-03-09 18:04:54 <MC1984> say worst case scenario where each satoshio is on its own address
1672 2013-03-09 18:04:56 <gmaxwell> MC1984: but if we do, yes, on the order of 44PB or so.
1673 2013-03-09 18:05:07 <MC1984> sheeeeeeit
1674 2013-03-09 18:05:21 <sipa> i find that number conforting
1675 2013-03-09 18:05:22 <gmaxwell> you think that's big? I was impressed at how small it was.
1676 2013-03-09 18:05:45 <MC1984> im trying to comprehend
1677 2013-03-09 18:05:48 <sipa> it's only 14 doublings away from typical hard drives
1678 2013-03-09 18:06:01 <gmaxwell> Thats totally doable. I mean, I don't currently have 44PB of storage.... but I can see myself having 44PB of storage someday, even ignoring bitcoin.
1679 2013-03-09 18:06:41 <MC1984> hard drives are not going up very fast any more
1680 2013-03-09 18:06:56 <gmaxwell> MC1984: Hm? sure they are.
1681 2013-03-09 18:07:03 <MC1984> still mostly 2 and 3tb
1682 2013-03-09 18:07:14 <sipa> 14 doublings ago was around 200MB
1683 2013-03-09 18:07:23 frac has joined
1684 2013-03-09 18:07:29 <sipa> when were dard drives that size? 94?
1685 2013-03-09 18:07:50 <frac> cn anyone help me figure out why my bitcoin instance keeps corrupting the database
1686 2013-03-09 18:08:05 <gmaxwell> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives
1687 2013-03-09 18:08:08 <sipa> frac: which versiin?
1688 2013-03-09 18:08:09 <gmaxwell> frac: What version?
1689 2013-03-09 18:08:18 <frac> i downloaded 0.8 after it said my version was old
1690 2013-03-09 18:08:28 <frac> my database got corrupted somehow, i deleted .bitcoin folder
1691 2013-03-09 18:08:35 <MC1984> theres only two firms pushing the HD envelope now
1692 2013-03-09 18:08:36 <frac> woke up this morning, corrupted again
1693 2013-03-09 18:08:58 <gmaxwell> yea, in 1994 computers were shipping with 250mb hdds.
1694 2013-03-09 18:09:04 <frac> here was the final message
1695 2013-03-09 18:09:05 <frac> LevelDB read failure: Corruption: block checksum mismatch
1696 2013-03-09 18:09:05 <frac> *** System error: Database corrupted
1697 2013-03-09 18:09:05 <frac> ERROR: AcceptBlock() : AddToBlockIndex failed
1698 2013-03-09 18:09:05 <frac> ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED
1699 2013-03-09 18:09:06 <MC1984> not much innovation, i think theyre both waiting for the bit pattern stuff
1700 2013-03-09 18:09:15 <frac> bitcoin-qt: /usr/include/boost/thread/pthread/recursive_mutex.hpp:67: void boost::recursive_mutex::lock(): Assertion `!pthread_mutex_lock(&m)' failed.
1701 2013-03-09 18:09:15 <frac> Aborted
1702 2013-03-09 18:09:24 <Luke-Jr> frac: have you considered the possibility your hard drive is failed?
1703 2013-03-09 18:09:37 <gmaxwell> MC1984: they've bought up all the other firms, thats the natural response to increasing R&D complexity.
1704 2013-03-09 18:09:40 <frac> anythings possible
1705 2013-03-09 18:10:07 <gmaxwell> frac: you can recover from that without deleting the directory much more easily by doing a reindex. But before that, lets see if there is other data we want to collect from you.
1706 2013-03-09 18:10:15 <MC1984> yeah and decreased competition has slowed innovation
1707 2013-03-09 18:10:16 <frac> okay
1708 2013-03-09 18:10:16 <gmaxwell> frac: what OS? was the system shut down uncleanly?
1709 2013-03-09 18:10:29 <frac> im on slackware 64 13.37 - shutdown clean
1710 2013-03-09 18:10:30 <gmaxwell> MC1984: why do you say innovation has slowed??
1711 2013-03-09 18:10:42 <frac> i didnt build the bitcoin executable i just run the one in bin
1712 2013-03-09 18:10:47 <frac> should i try to build it on my system instead?
1713 2013-03-09 18:11:02 <sipa> frac: if you can, that seems worth trying
1714 2013-03-09 18:11:12 <MC1984> gmaxwell just anecdotally, from looking up drives and still seeing 2 and 3tb with the occasional 4tb
1715 2013-03-09 18:11:16 <MC1984> instead of 6tb+
1716 2013-03-09 18:11:26 <frac> okay also, i keep using old blk0001.dat - blk0003.dat - about 6 gigs worth of data
1717 2013-03-09 18:11:28 <gmaxwell> MC1984: first 1TB hdds were in 2007. You can buy 4TB drives now. Thats two doublings.
1718 2013-03-09 18:11:34 <frac> do i need to delete that and totally start over?
1719 2013-03-09 18:11:38 <MC1984> 1.5tb is half the price compared to what i paid not too long ago though
1720 2013-03-09 18:11:44 <frac> or can i keep rebuilding with -loadblock=
1721 2013-03-09 18:11:59 <sipa> frac: they are hard linked to their new location, 0.8 doesn't actually use the old files
1722 2013-03-09 18:11:59 <Luke-Jr> frac: -reindex
1723 2013-03-09 18:12:10 <frac> okay
1724 2013-03-09 18:12:14 jez0990 has joined
1725 2013-03-09 18:12:18 <MC1984> 2007 really?
1726 2013-03-09 18:12:20 <sipa> frac: there is a contrib/tidy_datadir.sh script that removes old files
1727 2013-03-09 18:12:23 <MC1984> thought it was more recent
1728 2013-03-09 18:12:51 <frac> okay, ill try to build it on my system and use the -reindex command. thank you for the help and if i keep getting errors ill come back.  i appreciate the help guys
1729 2013-03-09 18:12:54 <sipa> frac: and indeed, -reindex is faster than -loadblocks
1730 2013-03-09 18:13:09 <MC1984> the flood slowed things down too, especially since the two companies saw the market was bearing higher prices and decided they liked the extra margin
1731 2013-03-09 18:13:39 xempew has joined
1732 2013-03-09 18:14:29 <MC1984> still waiting for a few more doublings/price halvings of SSDs
1733 2013-03-09 18:15:32 <MC1984> whats the main thing bitcoin is choked by with SSDs? iops?
1734 2013-03-09 18:16:06 <gmaxwell> ECDSA. We shouldn't be storage performance bound on SSDs.
1735 2013-03-09 18:16:23 ProfMac has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1736 2013-03-09 18:16:27 <MC1984> oh goos
1737 2013-03-09 18:16:29 <MC1984> good
1738 2013-03-09 18:16:58 <gmaxwell> (or really anywhere, but there is no bound to how crappy a disk someone can have... :) )
1739 2013-03-09 18:17:22 <JWU42> 120GB ATA ;)
1740 2013-03-09 18:17:38 <JWU42> PATA...
1741 2013-03-09 18:17:45 <JWU42> going in the trash today
1742 2013-03-09 18:17:49 <MC1984> you have no idea how slow this cheap 32gb usb drive is for bitcoin
1743 2013-03-09 18:18:13 <sipa> haha
1744 2013-03-09 18:18:20 <JWU42> I fell your pain
1745 2013-03-09 18:18:27 <MC1984> i was told its because its speed for writing tiny bits of data is kilobytes/sec
1746 2013-03-09 18:18:50 <sipa> 0.8 doesn't do tiny writes anymore
1747 2013-03-09 18:18:57 reizuki__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1748 2013-03-09 18:19:16 <sipa> but it still writes a lot
1749 2013-03-09 18:19:17 <MC1984> pretty sure it was terrible with the 0.8 betas too
1750 2013-03-09 18:19:30 <sipa> i'm sure it is :)
1751 2013-03-09 18:20:20 <MC1984> my cunning plan was simply to buy a new usb drive twice the size of the last one every few years when the blockchain fills it and keep running a verifying node forever
1752 2013-03-09 18:20:31 <MC1984> without upgrading my disks and stuff
1753 2013-03-09 18:21:13 <gmaxwell> well, if you're buying USB flash drives you may find that their write endurance is unacceptable for the coins data.
1754 2013-03-09 18:21:34 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1755 2013-03-09 18:21:50 <MC1984> yeah maybe
1756 2013-03-09 18:21:53 <Luke-Jr> USB drives are very slow SSDs
1757 2013-03-09 18:22:54 <MC1984> i could just get a 'nano' microsd reader that can stuff an sd card flush inside the actual usb port, and change the card every time the flash dies
1758 2013-03-09 18:23:09 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1759 2013-03-09 18:23:15 <MC1984> so cheap now i dont mind doing that
1760 2013-03-09 18:23:25 <MC1984> for The Greater Good
1761 2013-03-09 18:23:58 <MrKain> hi all
1762 2013-03-09 18:24:11 d4de has joined
1763 2013-03-09 18:24:11 <MC1984> i think i read sdcard wear levelling is pretty bad though so it might last shorter than i think
1764 2013-03-09 18:26:03 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1765 2013-03-09 18:26:22 <sipa> i think sd card wear levelling is just as bad as cheap usb drive's
1766 2013-03-09 18:26:25 gdoteof has joined
1767 2013-03-09 18:27:26 <MC1984> yeah but with the reader/card combo its cheaper to replace in theory
1768 2013-03-09 18:27:31 <MC1984> guess ill find out soon enough
1769 2013-03-09 18:27:33 <gmaxwell> in theory bitcoin could be changed to only write out the coins database infrequently, e.g. once per day. But I don't think that kind of use is all that interesting.
1770 2013-03-09 18:27:47 <HM> i'd prefer if wear levelling was done in software where the most information is available to make good decisions
1771 2013-03-09 18:27:57 <HM> but i guess it's a probability thing so hardware levelling will do
1772 2013-03-09 18:28:45 <MC1984> gmaxwell you dont think having a good way to upgrade chain storage when necessary with minimum of pain for normal people is interesting?
1773 2013-03-09 18:29:12 <gmaxwell> I don't think storage on media with poor write endurance is interesting. No.
1774 2013-03-09 18:29:17 <MC1984> external plug and play flash storage probably fits that bill beter than anything right now
1775 2013-03-09 18:29:44 <sipa> inwishbthere was a hardware abstraction that had an interface DataId WriteData(void*, size_t) and ReadData(DataId, void*, size_t*)
1776 2013-03-09 18:29:45 <gmaxwell> The number of people who are going to buy special hardware to store the blockchain, but not make it reasonably high performance hardware seems small to me.
1777 2013-03-09 18:29:59 <sipa> and EraseData(DataId)
1778 2013-03-09 18:30:07 <MC1984> write endurance is something were just gonna hve to watch get better over time, not much to do about it
1779 2013-03-09 18:30:23 <MC1984> real SSD can outlast hdds sometimes now
1780 2013-03-09 18:30:39 <sipa> where DataId is an opaque identifier supplied by the driver/hardware
1781 2013-03-09 18:30:39 <gmaxwell> MC1984: write endurance is fine on everything that isn't designed for digital camera picture storage. :P
1782 2013-03-09 18:30:52 <MC1984> gmaxwell yeah youre right about that, altruistic usage is the exceptoin
1783 2013-03-09 18:31:20 <gmaxwell> not just altruistic usage, but a particularly narrowly constrained altruistic usage.
1784 2013-03-09 18:32:02 B0g4r7 has joined
1785 2013-03-09 18:32:32 <anddam> what's in rev000*.dat files?
1786 2013-03-09 18:32:56 <MC1984> i dunno, the score on bitcoin remaining function with pure rational self interest seems to be trending downward somewhat
1787 2013-03-09 18:33:04 <MC1984> minus the rational, even
1788 2013-03-09 18:33:22 <sipa> anddam: undo data for chainstate
1789 2013-03-09 18:34:00 <MC1984> im reminded of back in the 56k days when people though they were clever cloggs for setting their torrent upload speed to 0
1790 2013-03-09 18:34:40 <anddam> sipa: thanks
1791 2013-03-09 18:34:40 <sipa> anddam: it's only needed for reorganisations
1792 2013-03-09 18:39:04 <gmaxwell> MC1984: defaults are powerful, but only if the system is cheap enough to maintain that everyone won't rush out to change the defaults. :)
1793 2013-03-09 18:39:35 <HM> torrents rely on generosity as well for the most part
1794 2013-03-09 18:39:37 axhlf has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1795 2013-03-09 18:39:46 sgornick has joined
1796 2013-03-09 18:39:52 <HM> most people have asymmetric connections, and trackers play very little role these days
1797 2013-03-09 18:40:02 <HM> the original idea of the tracker was to help ensure fairness
1798 2013-03-09 18:40:35 xempew has quit (Quit: xempew)
1799 2013-03-09 18:41:00 <gmaxwell> HM: there are complex motivations there, there is a lot of copyright violating seeding done commercially funded by sites that monetize advertising the torrents... all kinds of weird stuff.
1800 2013-03-09 18:41:27 <HM> bandwidth though tended to be free. you pay a fixed fee and in times gone by your isp let you use your line to its full capacity. cpu time is never going to be free all the time energy isn't free
1801 2013-03-09 18:41:58 ThomasV has joined
1802 2013-03-09 18:44:07 D34TH has joined
1803 2013-03-09 18:44:08 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1804 2013-03-09 18:44:08 D34TH has joined
1805 2013-03-09 18:44:54 FredEE has joined
1806 2013-03-09 18:45:32 <HM> gmaxwell: it would have been interesting to see how many people would mine if there was no financial incentive. sort of like SETI
1807 2013-03-09 18:45:56 HiWEB has joined
1808 2013-03-09 18:47:06 <HM> https://boinc.berkeley.edu/
1809 2013-03-09 18:47:18 <HM> Use the idle time on your computer to... support the economy? :P
1810 2013-03-09 18:49:01 tyn has joined
1811 2013-03-09 18:50:11 dust-otc has joined
1812 2013-03-09 18:52:12 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1813 2013-03-09 18:54:18 Conflict has joined
1814 2013-03-09 18:54:51 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1815 2013-03-09 18:55:05 gritcoin has joined
1816 2013-03-09 18:55:15 gdoteof has joined
1817 2013-03-09 18:59:46 gritcoin has quit (Client Quit)
1818 2013-03-09 19:00:15 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
1819 2013-03-09 19:01:40 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
1820 2013-03-09 19:03:11 frac has quit (Quit: leaving)
1821 2013-03-09 19:05:10 tg has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1822 2013-03-09 19:08:10 gritcoin has joined
1823 2013-03-09 19:08:44 tg has joined
1824 2013-03-09 19:11:59 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1825 2013-03-09 19:14:58 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1826 2013-03-09 19:16:26 xempew has joined
1827 2013-03-09 19:16:56 hsmiths has joined
1828 2013-03-09 19:20:37 BurtyBB has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1829 2013-03-09 19:21:01 BurtyBB has joined
1830 2013-03-09 19:23:40 gdoteof has quit (Quit: Bye)
1831 2013-03-09 19:23:49 ashams has joined
1832 2013-03-09 19:23:49 ashams has quit (Changing host)
1833 2013-03-09 19:23:49 ashams has joined
1834 2013-03-09 19:24:00 gdoteof has joined
1835 2013-03-09 19:24:06 hsmiths has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1836 2013-03-09 19:24:13 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1837 2013-03-09 19:24:16 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1838 2013-03-09 19:25:37 hsmiths has joined
1839 2013-03-09 19:28:16 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1840 2013-03-09 19:28:34 B0g4r7 has joined
1841 2013-03-09 19:30:09 MC1984_ has joined
1842 2013-03-09 19:30:19 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1843 2013-03-09 19:32:59 frac has joined
1844 2013-03-09 19:33:26 <frac> hello, is anybody familiar with building bitcoin on linux
1845 2013-03-09 19:33:27 denisx has joined
1846 2013-03-09 19:33:51 <frac> in build-unix.txt the instructions state, "(If using Boost 1.37, append -mt to the boost libraries in the makefile)"
1847 2013-03-09 19:33:51 <gmaxwell> Almost everyone here is.
1848 2013-03-09 19:34:04 <frac> where in the makefile does this need to be done
1849 2013-03-09 19:34:19 <frac> because im getting an error in building and im thinking that might be it
1850 2013-03-09 19:34:28 <gmaxwell> It's easier and better to use enviroment variables.
1851 2013-03-09 19:34:29 <gmaxwell> e.g.
1852 2013-03-09 19:34:30 <gmaxwell> BOOST_LIB_SUFFIX='-mt' make -j4 -f makefile.unix bitcoind USE_UPNP=
1853 2013-03-09 19:36:41 <frac> ive walked through the install file and believe i covered all dependencies
1854 2013-03-09 19:36:48 <frac> im getting this error on compiling though
1855 2013-03-09 19:36:55 <frac> src/db.h: In member function 'bool CDB::Exists(const K&)':
1856 2013-03-09 19:36:55 <frac> src/db.h:208:24: error: 'class Db' has no member named 'exists'
1857 2013-03-09 19:36:55 <frac> make: *** [build/bitcoin.o] Error 1
1858 2013-03-09 19:37:24 <frac> i made sure i have berkleydb4.8, i just compiled and installed it
1859 2013-03-09 19:40:48 <gmaxwell> are you getting any warnings related to missing headers?
1860 2013-03-09 19:43:22 gdoteoff has joined
1861 2013-03-09 19:43:24 <frac> here is the last 70 lines, i see a fatal warning up there
1862 2013-03-09 19:43:31 <frac> i dont see anything about headers though, forgive my ignorance
1863 2013-03-09 19:43:32 <frac> http://pastebin.com/rvEBpKEf
1864 2013-03-09 19:44:00 FredEE has joined
1865 2013-03-09 19:44:08 zveda has joined
1866 2013-03-09 19:44:15 mapppum has joined
1867 2013-03-09 19:46:17 gdoteof has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1868 2013-03-09 19:47:09 Cory has quit ()
1869 2013-03-09 19:47:33 mappum has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1870 2013-03-09 19:47:44 <frac> okay i have a better output from the parameters you previously mentioned http://pastebin.com/DFX08XKj
1871 2013-03-09 19:48:11 <frac> yes i see its complaining about db.h
1872 2013-03-09 19:49:23 <sipa> quite sure you're using an older version of db++
1873 2013-03-09 19:49:31 gdoteoff has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1874 2013-03-09 19:49:38 <sipa> you may have installed several
1875 2013-03-09 19:49:54 <frac> hmm okay it must be getting the older lib then
1876 2013-03-09 19:53:16 <frac> thank you both of you guys
1877 2013-03-09 19:53:22 <frac> you guys are awesome
1878 2013-03-09 19:53:47 <frac> @gmaxwell and @sipa
1879 2013-03-09 19:53:53 <sipa> yw :)
1880 2013-03-09 19:58:42 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1881 2013-03-09 20:01:31 Quazgaa has joined
1882 2013-03-09 20:01:33 <frac> sipa when i installed boost, i simply did a make install
1883 2013-03-09 20:01:40 <frac> i never saw a bootstrap.sh
1884 2013-03-09 20:02:03 <frac> i assume thats why the linker cant find the boost_system-mt
1885 2013-03-09 20:02:20 <sipa> what version boost?
1886 2013-03-09 20:02:33 <sipa> not sure about the -mt stuff
1887 2013-03-09 20:02:45 <frac> 1.37
1888 2013-03-09 20:02:54 <frac> tried to use the versions used in the readme
1889 2013-03-09 20:03:05 <sipa> i'd use a more recent version...
1890 2013-03-09 20:03:48 <frac> okay
1891 2013-03-09 20:05:38 Grouver has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1892 2013-03-09 20:05:59 xjrn has joined
1893 2013-03-09 20:06:33 B0g4r7 has joined
1894 2013-03-09 20:06:35 cheesepi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1895 2013-03-09 20:07:14 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1896 2013-03-09 20:07:19 <MrKain> anywhere I can find coinbit programmers for hire ?
1897 2013-03-09 20:08:17 gritcoin has joined
1898 2013-03-09 20:09:48 mcx has joined
1899 2013-03-09 20:09:48 mcx is now known as cheesepi
1900 2013-03-09 20:09:48 <Scrat> coinwat
1901 2013-03-09 20:09:59 <MrKain> hi anyone here looking for work, doing bitcoin related stuff ?
1902 2013-03-09 20:10:16 ashams has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1903 2013-03-09 20:10:26 <Happzz> sure
1904 2013-03-09 20:10:28 <Happzz> what do you offer
1905 2013-03-09 20:10:52 <MrKain> i'm not sure - what should i offer
1906 2013-03-09 20:11:12 <Scrat> you should ask in -otc
1907 2013-03-09 20:11:23 <MrKain> what is otc
1908 2013-03-09 20:11:35 <Scrat> #bitcoin-otc
1909 2013-03-09 20:11:48 <MrKain> what does otc stand for
1910 2013-03-09 20:12:07 <Happzz> MrKain wht kinda job
1911 2013-03-09 20:12:32 <MrKain> using the bitcoin api to build a new project
1912 2013-03-09 20:13:01 <HM> over the counter, i'm guessing
1913 2013-03-09 20:13:27 <MrKain> why would i post there, and not in bitcoin-dev which seems the most relevant place
1914 2013-03-09 20:13:37 <Happzz> MrKain i'm in, i guess.
1915 2013-03-09 20:13:38 xempew has quit (Quit: xempew)
1916 2013-03-09 20:13:58 <MrKain> is that to me happzz ?
1917 2013-03-09 20:14:03 <Happzz> yes
1918 2013-03-09 20:14:06 <Happzz> but i'm gonna take a break
1919 2013-03-09 20:14:07 <Happzz> so ttyl
1920 2013-03-09 20:14:08 <Happzz> you can pm me.
1921 2013-03-09 20:16:35 whizter has joined
1922 2013-03-09 20:17:10 <frac> yes the documentation is slightly confusing in i thought i was supposed to get boost 1.37 but alas yes that version is too old
1923 2013-03-09 20:17:31 <frac> seems to be doing good now
1924 2013-03-09 20:17:47 <HM> Boost can be a pig at times
1925 2013-03-09 20:17:48 <frac> thanks again sipa
1926 2013-03-09 20:20:01 sgornick has joined
1927 2013-03-09 20:21:28 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
1928 2013-03-09 20:25:06 stalled has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1929 2013-03-09 20:28:12 MobPhone has quit (Quit: -a-)
1930 2013-03-09 20:29:29 iwilcox has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1931 2013-03-09 20:29:38 <frac> rpcmining.cpp: In function 'void Serialize(Stream&, const T&, long int, int) [with Stream = CHashWriter, T = COutPoint]':
1932 2013-03-09 20:29:38 <frac> rpcmining.cpp:374:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
1933 2013-03-09 20:29:43 <frac> that doesnt look very good
1934 2013-03-09 20:30:14 Cory has joined
1935 2013-03-09 20:30:41 gritcoin has joined
1936 2013-03-09 20:32:59 <MrKain> anyone use C as their primary language, and have made apps using the bitcoin api ?
1937 2013-03-09 20:33:49 <sipa> frac: which gcc version?
1938 2013-03-09 20:35:17 <frac> gcc version 4.5.2 - i ran it a second time and got past it, must have been something buggy with gcc
1939 2013-03-09 20:35:51 stalled has joined
1940 2013-03-09 20:37:54 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1941 2013-03-09 20:39:07 <MrKain> so seriously , bitcoin-dev channel, annd
1942 2013-03-09 20:39:16 <MrKain> and no one is looking for woirk
1943 2013-03-09 20:39:35 <frac> mrkain, any reasonably skilled programmer can figure out an api
1944 2013-03-09 20:39:42 <frac> could probably search anywhere
1945 2013-03-09 20:40:01 <MrKain> I'm sure ,, so I'm looking for such person
1946 2013-03-09 20:40:35 grau has joined
1947 2013-03-09 20:40:41 <sipa> MrKain: most developers here already have their own projects, i think :)
1948 2013-03-09 20:41:31 <jgarzik> we make our own work
1949 2013-03-09 20:41:54 <MrKain> you get paid for bitcoin work ?
1950 2013-03-09 20:41:56 grau has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1951 2013-03-09 20:42:56 <sipa> gavin (lead dev) does get paid by the bitcoin foundation - most others do it in their free time
1952 2013-03-09 20:43:56 <MrKain> ok let me tell you what my project is in one line, - if you like the idea, -  then maybe you might accept a proposal or make an offer
1953 2013-03-09 20:45:19 <MrKain> you knoe when you use an exchange to convert your bitcoins to actual dollars, - it takes some time ? -
1954 2013-03-09 20:45:35 <MrKain> how many in days does it take to appear as clear funds in your bank account, in the USA ?
1955 2013-03-09 20:46:09 <frac> wouldnt it depend on the method the exchange is using
1956 2013-03-09 20:46:30 <MrKain> what way is the fastest ?
1957 2013-03-09 20:46:50 <frac> hand delivery cash
1958 2013-03-09 20:47:13 <MrKain> about 24 hours -- 3 days here in australia
1959 2013-03-09 20:48:37 <frac> so what
1960 2013-03-09 20:48:39 <MrKain> the project i'm doing, is a bitcoin , credit card->bitcoins, and bitcoins->bank account, which happens in apx 10 to 30 mins,
1961 2013-03-09 20:48:50 <xjrn> that's 4 lines so far
1962 2013-03-09 20:49:38 <MrKain> e.g   you snd i have never met,,, yet with this service i could send my bitcoins as cash directly into your bankl ,as available funds in under 30 mins
1963 2013-03-09 20:49:38 <gribble> Error: "," is not a valid command.
1964 2013-03-09 20:50:17 <Scrat> you are not the first person who had the idea to accept credit cards for bitcoin
1965 2013-03-09 20:50:18 <sipa> MrKain: sounds mostly a legal/business issue, not really bitcoin development
1966 2013-03-09 20:50:27 <frac> ^
1967 2013-03-09 20:50:59 <MrKain> considering i need the help of a bitcoin developer, where should I go ?
1968 2013-03-09 20:51:54 <frac> thanks for the help guys
1969 2013-03-09 20:51:56 frac has quit (Quit: leaving)
1970 2013-03-09 20:51:58 <xjrn> you are saying you'd like to talk to software contractors, right?
1971 2013-03-09 20:52:00 <Luke-Jr> MrKain: you don't want to do credit cards->bitcoin
1972 2013-03-09 20:53:01 <MrKain> ok forget credit cards - that's not the main point -- its the abilty to convert bitcoins to cash, and send them to anyones bank account, and there is no delay -
1973 2013-03-09 20:53:42 <Scrat> of course there is delay. it's called the banking system
1974 2013-03-09 20:53:58 <MrKain> no, there wont be a delay -= that's the point of my project . -
1975 2013-03-09 20:54:06 <Scrat> that is not up to you
1976 2013-03-09 20:54:26 <Scrat> SEPA is realy fast in the EU but its not instant
1977 2013-03-09 20:54:47 <MrKain> iwell, thats what my products/service does - it allows you to withdraw bitcoins into any bank account without delay
1978 2013-03-09 20:54:47 <Scrat> fast = <1day in the banking world
1979 2013-03-09 20:54:55 <MrKain> fast = <20mins
1980 2013-03-09 20:55:20 <xjrn> mark-to-market _is_ that fast.
1981 2013-03-09 20:55:21 <Scrat> that would require a bank account on every bank you want to support
1982 2013-03-09 20:55:34 FredEE has quit (Quit: FredEE)
1983 2013-03-09 20:55:50 grau has joined
1984 2013-03-09 20:55:52 <sipa> plus non-standard deals with those banks
1985 2013-03-09 20:56:34 <MrKain> why are you explaining to me, how my product would work - it's not an issue, - it works fine. - at this point i need the development help
1986 2013-03-09 21:00:53 <Scrat> interfacing with the fiat world is a legal/accounting nightmare which is why only a few people have done it
1987 2013-03-09 21:01:10 <Scrat> explain why C is relevant in this context [22:32] <MrKain> anyone use C as their primary language, and have made apps using the bitcoin api ?
1988 2013-03-09 21:02:31 <MrKain> I enquired about C, as C is my first language,,  php or something else is fine too, but I would have to eventually recode it back in to C
1989 2013-03-09 21:03:21 <Scrat> I dont know of anyone who writes website logic in C unless they're google or facebook
1990 2013-03-09 21:03:28 <MrKain> not to mention, bitcoind is written in C
1991 2013-03-09 21:03:54 <Scrat> bitcoind exposes its api through RPC which is language agnostic
1992 2013-03-09 21:04:23 <MrKain> right, through JSON-rpc., either through command line or http post
1993 2013-03-09 21:05:22 <MrKain> still, because i've written the servers and other modules in C, it would be practical that the integration of the bitcoin service also be in C
1994 2013-03-09 21:05:28 FredEE has joined
1995 2013-03-09 21:06:02 <MrKain> yes, I know it does.. - ...  technically , it's not RPC - but that;s another story..
1996 2013-03-09 21:07:35 <MrKain> I want to understand , how to read and make sense of blockexplorers especially
1997 2013-03-09 21:08:10 <HM> I suggest using an API where you can get some service agreement
1998 2013-03-09 21:08:16 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1999 2013-03-09 21:10:28 <MrKain> service agreement ? - what is this needed for -
2000 2013-03-09 21:11:03 <MrKain> i simply want someone ( pref who codes in C ), to make json-rpc calls to bitcoind , using the standard bitcoin API,
2001 2013-03-09 21:11:07 fishfish is now known as fishfish|AFK
2002 2013-03-09 21:13:18 gritcoin has quit (Quit: gritcoin)
2003 2013-03-09 21:13:34 B0g4r7 has joined
2004 2013-03-09 21:15:32 MrKain has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2005 2013-03-09 21:15:44 <Luke-Jr> Scrat: Facebook is PHP
2006 2013-03-09 21:16:27 <HM> Luke-Jr: they translate it to C++ to bypass the interpreter
2007 2013-03-09 21:16:53 <HM> since the PHP interpreter is terrible and dog slow
2008 2013-03-09 21:16:54 <Luke-Jr> HM: that's about as relevant as translating C++ to C
2009 2013-03-09 21:17:04 <Luke-Jr> (that's how C++ was originally implemented)
2010 2013-03-09 21:18:11 <HM> ish
2011 2013-03-09 21:18:27 <HM> a lot of those implementations were pre-standardisation
2012 2013-03-09 21:20:19 <Scrat> Luke-Jr: yeah but someone had to develop HipHop, which was kinda my point
2013 2013-03-09 21:20:27 <Scrat> they also wrote some custom daemons for high traffic endpoints
2014 2013-03-09 21:20:53 <sipa> Luke-Jr's point is that the develop in PHP, which is true :)
2015 2013-03-09 21:20:57 <sipa> *they
2016 2013-03-09 21:21:42 <HM> for legacy reasons i think
2017 2013-03-09 21:22:02 <HM> some of the facebook  talks on c++ have hinted they've been doing more in c++
2018 2013-03-09 21:23:05 <HM> Heh, cool. edg make a C++11 compliant front-end
2019 2013-03-09 21:24:05 <Scrat> 23:07] <HM> I suggest using an API where you can get some service agreement
2020 2013-03-09 21:24:12 <Scrat> is there a bitcoin gateway with an SLA?
2021 2013-03-09 21:24:40 fishfish is now known as AFK!~fishfish2@cpc10-mort5-2-0-cust225.19-2.cable.virginmedia.com|fishfish
2022 2013-03-09 21:24:59 <HM> not that i know of
2023 2013-03-09 21:25:08 <HM> :P
2024 2013-03-09 21:25:24 <Scrat> the latest b.i 14 hour downtime shows how seriously this is taken :p
2025 2013-03-09 21:25:35 <HM> Yep
2026 2013-03-09 21:26:32 <HM> Bitpay are the only ones doing anything close to serious that i'm aware of
2027 2013-03-09 21:26:56 <HM> but then, I don't follow Bitcoins non-technical development :P
2028 2013-03-09 21:27:06 <xjrn>  hm hiphop came from  hiring Andrei Alexandrescu .  i wouldn't bother explaining the ramifications of a template guy's php improvements with a bunch of hicks
2029 2013-03-09 21:27:06 cheesepi has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
2030 2013-03-09 21:27:59 <HM> ah yes, Andrei.
2031 2013-03-09 21:28:05 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2032 2013-03-09 21:28:09 <HM> He's the guy who gave the talks. Was he responsible for Thrift as well?
2033 2013-03-09 21:29:00 <HM> He's alright. I prefer his style to Sutters way of presenting things
2034 2013-03-09 21:29:09 <xjrn> hm i just remember the sequence a) they hired him, then b) they delivered hiphop
2035 2013-03-09 21:29:44 <HM> Yeah, NIH
2036 2013-03-09 21:30:28 mcx has joined
2037 2013-03-09 21:30:28 mcx is now known as cheesepi
2038 2013-03-09 21:31:03 <xjrn> that might explain why google is attempting a 51% attack on c++ templates in the standards committee
2039 2013-03-09 21:31:17 <HM> what do they want to do?
2040 2013-03-09 21:31:42 <xjrn> to hear them talk about committee activity, they want to remove them
2041 2013-03-09 21:31:49 <HM> that won't happen
2042 2013-03-09 21:32:08 <HM> Breaking existing code compatibility is a no no
2043 2013-03-09 21:32:20 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
2044 2013-03-09 21:32:22 <HM> even the new modules system will be compatible with good old #includes
2045 2013-03-09 21:32:42 <HM> I mean they've broken stuff in the past, but nothing so fundamental
2046 2013-03-09 21:33:38 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2047 2013-03-09 21:33:59 <Luke-Jr> how do you remove templates and still have C++?
2048 2013-03-09 21:34:06 <Luke-Jr> that's like one of the main features
2049 2013-03-09 21:34:48 davout has joined
2050 2013-03-09 21:34:48 davout has quit (Changing host)
2051 2013-03-09 21:34:48 davout has joined
2052 2013-03-09 21:35:06 <sipa> even without, i'd consider C++ an improvement over C
2053 2013-03-09 21:35:12 <sipa> even just destructors
2054 2013-03-09 21:36:04 CodeShark has joined
2055 2013-03-09 21:36:56 <xjrn> templates are the only part of c++ worth doing
2056 2013-03-09 21:37:04 <Luke-Jr> C++ is different. I'm not sure I'd call it an improvement over C.
2057 2013-03-09 21:37:38 <xjrn> OO( C++ is just something better done in python
2058 2013-03-09 21:37:54 grau has joined
2059 2013-03-09 21:40:24 Conflict has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2060 2013-03-09 21:40:26 RBecker is now known as rbecker
2061 2013-03-09 21:41:00 <HM> people get religious about C vs C++
2062 2013-03-09 21:41:09 <HM> I don't think C++ has an equal in its scope
2063 2013-03-09 21:42:12 <bock> Don't forget those who praise C#
2064 2013-03-09 21:42:37 <HM> yes well, C# doesn't come in to the lives of us lucky enough to avoid Windows machines entirely
2065 2013-03-09 21:43:25 <sipa> as a language, C# seems very decent
2066 2013-03-09 21:43:37 <sipa> not talking about the environment, though
2067 2013-03-09 21:43:46 <sipa> and i never used it personally for those reasons
2068 2013-03-09 21:43:51 <Luke-Jr> /ignore bock
2069 2013-03-09 21:44:06 Mrcheesenips has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2070 2013-03-09 21:44:30 Mrcheesenips has joined
2071 2013-03-09 21:44:30 Mrcheesenips has quit (Changing host)
2072 2013-03-09 21:44:30 Mrcheesenips has joined
2073 2013-03-09 21:44:44 <bock> Luke-Jr, my girlfriend is C# all day... she "evolved" from java... stupid university stuff
2074 2013-03-09 21:44:57 <xjrn> c#++
2075 2013-03-09 21:45:14 <HM> I don't know enough about C# to comment. Seems to have gone through a lot of evolution
2076 2013-03-09 21:45:18 <Luke-Jr> bock: I'm trying to pretend it doesn't exist ..
2077 2013-03-09 21:45:41 <Luke-Jr> let's make a new language. we can call it C&
2078 2013-03-09 21:45:47 <bock> haha, I am in!
2079 2013-03-09 21:46:02 <xjrn> without c# there could be no msvc managed c++
2080 2013-03-09 21:46:12 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: good
2081 2013-03-09 21:46:16 <HM> lol
2082 2013-03-09 21:47:33 <xjrn> managed c++ is pretty awesome, i don't get enough opportunities to play with it.
2083 2013-03-09 21:48:45 <Luke-Jr> C++ is already managed enough
2084 2013-03-09 21:48:55 <xjrn> mingw and cygwin are lame.
2085 2013-03-09 21:49:27 <Luke-Jr> > as if there's anything else
2086 2013-03-09 21:49:34 Hashdog has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
2087 2013-03-09 21:49:39 <Luke-Jr> Windows is lame. Maybe that's what you mean.
2088 2013-03-09 21:50:02 <HM> now now
2089 2013-03-09 21:50:19 grau has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2090 2013-03-09 21:50:45 <bock> windows lacks a shell that works for me
2091 2013-03-09 21:50:52 <xjrn> windows does a few things faster than linux, and you need something native to get it done.  or managed c++, which might someday lend to stdc++ garbage collection
2092 2013-03-09 21:51:04 <bock> also, what the hell is the root? Drive letters make me go crazy
2093 2013-03-09 21:51:11 <xjrn> using mingw or cygwin is just for dog and pony shows
2094 2013-03-09 21:51:19 <Luke-Jr> everything would be better if Microsoft never existed.
2095 2013-03-09 21:51:38 <HM> lol
2096 2013-03-09 21:51:40 <bock> Luke-Jr, thats wrong... if it never existed, malware developers would concentrate on linux ;)
2097 2013-03-09 21:51:52 <xjrn> bock's spot-on
2098 2013-03-09 21:51:53 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: real programmers support Windows using MingW and WINE on Linux
2099 2013-03-09 21:51:56 <bock> its good that microsoft takes all the sh*t
2100 2013-03-09 21:51:57 <HM> wrong wrong wrong
2101 2013-03-09 21:52:01 <sipa> Luke-Jr: though i don't particularly like their existence the past 10 years, i disagree :)
2102 2013-03-09 21:52:04 <HM> If MS never existed...Apple would rule the world
2103 2013-03-09 21:52:05 <Luke-Jr> bock: that'd be ok
2104 2013-03-09 21:52:19 <Luke-Jr> HM: doubtful
2105 2013-03-09 21:52:37 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: that's a copmatibility layer, it's lameness
2106 2013-03-09 21:52:59 <sipa> xjrn: mingw is hardly a compatibility layer; cygwin certainly is
2107 2013-03-09 21:53:04 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: not mingw, no
2108 2013-03-09 21:53:12 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: MingW is MingW because it's native
2109 2013-03-09 21:53:29 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2110 2013-03-09 21:53:31 <HM> eh, depends
2111 2013-03-09 21:54:17 <HM> MSVC isn't so bad
2112 2013-03-09 21:54:32 <HM> I've ported a few apps from Linux to Windows by just fixing shit until it compiles
2113 2013-03-09 21:54:57 <Luke-Jr> HM: MSVC is unnecessary, and AFAIK doesn't run on Linux
2114 2013-03-09 21:55:54 <xjrn> gentoo released a nt microkernel edition on april fool's a few years back.  it seemed like they did it as an april fool's joke simply to avoid pissing off microsoft.  the wwriteups and logic were sound
2115 2013-03-09 21:56:46 <xjrn> any nt kernel going back as far as windows 2000 could run late model gentoo at the time
2116 2013-03-09 21:56:47 <HM> Sounds like ReactOS
2117 2013-03-09 21:57:45 <xjrn> reactos doesn't use portage does it?
2118 2013-03-09 21:57:52 <HM> no
2119 2013-03-09 21:57:59 <HM> but gentoo is a drag
2120 2013-03-09 21:58:21 fishfish has quit (Quit: Bye!)
2121 2013-03-09 21:58:26 <chrisb> HM: why is gentoo a drag?
2122 2013-03-09 21:59:10 <HM> they have this really insular oldschool philosophy, and a lot of bickering amongst themselves
2123 2013-03-09 21:59:14 <xjrn> i forget the bootstrap compiler it was using, it was that posix hummingbird wannabe shell that MS bought and killed
2124 2013-03-09 21:59:28 <HM> they want to reinvent or reject any major new architectural changes
2125 2013-03-09 21:59:32 <HM> Arch is more pragmatic
2126 2013-03-09 21:59:44 <xjrn> gentoo devs are a fat lot of self agrindising hot-air but portage works for some things
2127 2013-03-09 22:00:09 <HM> pacman is 90% as good as portage and Arch is everything gentoo should be
2128 2013-03-09 22:00:25 <HM> I switched to Arch in 2010 and haven't looked back
2129 2013-03-09 22:00:58 <HM> I don't think it's actually broken once
2130 2013-03-09 22:01:22 <chrisb> HM: how does arch handle dependencies during build?
2131 2013-03-09 22:01:30 <HM> similar to gentoo
2132 2013-03-09 22:01:36 <xjrn> i switch on a weekly basis between ubuntu and gentoo.  miniing efforts concurrent with vfs experiments are pretty deadly
2133 2013-03-09 22:01:39 <HM> without the feature flags
2134 2013-03-09 22:01:50 <HM> what did they call them? USE flags?
2135 2013-03-09 22:01:59 <xjrn> USE flags are worth doing
2136 2013-03-09 22:02:04 <HM> not really
2137 2013-03-09 22:02:15 <HM> you can just tweak the PKGBUILD if you don't like it, it's no biggy
2138 2013-03-09 22:02:43 <chrisb> HM: does arch make you set use flags?
2139 2013-03-09 22:02:50 <HM> nope
2140 2013-03-09 22:02:57 <HM> the package author decides on the compile options
2141 2013-03-09 22:03:04 <HM> if you want custom options, tweak an existing package build
2142 2013-03-09 22:03:41 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: I've considered making a Gentoo/Windows port a few times, just for fun
2143 2013-03-09 22:03:45 davout has joined
2144 2013-03-09 22:03:49 <xjrn> exherbo is for those who are too ptsd to function in the gentoo politics
2145 2013-03-09 22:04:01 Diablo-D3 has joined
2146 2013-03-09 22:04:06 <Luke-Jr> HM: without the USE flags, it's worthless
2147 2013-03-09 22:04:16 <Luke-Jr> might as well use binaries
2148 2013-03-09 22:04:32 bitafterbit has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2149 2013-03-09 22:04:45 <xjrn> HM: without use flags you might as well settle for slackware or ubuntu and just install tarfiles
2150 2013-03-09 22:05:13 <xjrn> arch has a strong following and everything, not to knock it
2151 2013-03-09 22:05:21 <xjrn> its no gentoo though
2152 2013-03-09 22:07:14 <HM> USE flags are annoying
2153 2013-03-09 22:07:28 <Luke-Jr> USE flags are the only reason to build from source
2154 2013-03-09 22:07:30 <HM> you decide to change one for one package and discover you have to recompile half your system
2155 2013-03-09 22:07:45 <Luke-Jr> actually, I guess 2nd reason; 1st reason is to mix & match stable/testing/unstable
2156 2013-03-09 22:07:54 <Luke-Jr> HM: nonsense
2157 2013-03-09 22:07:55 <HM> Luke-Jr: not so, Archs AUR has many variants of the same package with useful names
2158 2013-03-09 22:08:04 <Luke-Jr> HM: so does Debian
2159 2013-03-09 22:08:08 <xjrn> HM you can sift in per-package USE flags and build a smaller tree
2160 2013-03-09 22:08:10 <Luke-Jr> HM: you don't need to build from source for that
2161 2013-03-09 22:08:18 <HM> Luke-Jr: someone does
2162 2013-03-09 22:08:33 <HM> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=bitcoin
2163 2013-03-09 22:08:33 <bock> oh, this looks like a gentoo discussion...
2164 2013-03-09 22:08:37 * bock jumps in
2165 2013-03-09 22:09:15 <Luke-Jr> the only reason to build from source on end user machines is for USE flags and mix&match
2166 2013-03-09 22:09:20 <bock> USE-Flags are the best thing that happened to me... convenient way for handling ./configure parameters
2167 2013-03-09 22:09:45 <xjrn> ufed and flaggie are my first emerge
2168 2013-03-09 22:09:51 <HM> AUR packages are all build from source, but mostly it's just a way to share custom packages between users, there's no official support guarantee
2169 2013-03-09 22:10:25 <Luke-Jr> lol
2170 2013-03-09 22:10:37 <Luke-Jr> as if building from source makes sharing packages any safer
2171 2013-03-09 22:11:12 toffoo has joined
2172 2013-03-09 22:11:28 <HM> eh
2173 2013-03-09 22:11:29 <bock> no, it doesn't... but it makes compiling custom packages easier as all the -dev packages are present automatically
2174 2013-03-09 22:11:54 <HM> well neither gentoo or arch have dev packages
2175 2013-03-09 22:12:24 <HM> it's a blessing
2176 2013-03-09 22:14:36 <HM> include]$ find . -type f | wc -l
2177 2013-03-09 22:14:37 <HM> 35461
2178 2013-03-09 22:15:19 pierre` has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2179 2013-03-09 22:16:17 pierre` has joined
2180 2013-03-09 22:17:51 <Luke-Jr> 32035
2181 2013-03-09 22:17:59 <HM> I win
2182 2013-03-09 22:18:01 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: have you played with http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/20027/JSON-Spirit-A-C-JSON-Parser-Generator-Implemented before settling on jannsen ?
2183 2013-03-09 22:18:18 <sipa> bitcoind uses json spirit
2184 2013-03-09 22:18:45 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: that's C++, not C
2185 2013-03-09 22:18:55 <HM> sipa: it's one reason why it takes forever to compile :P
2186 2013-03-09 22:19:01 <sipa> HM: it is
2187 2013-03-09 22:19:33 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: exports aren't hard there..
2188 2013-03-09 22:19:34 <HM> Spirit is mindboggling annoying
2189 2013-03-09 22:19:42 <HM> I don't know how that guy wrote JSON Spirit and stayed sane
2190 2013-03-09 22:20:11 <sipa> HM: you assume he was sane before starting to write it?
2191 2013-03-09 22:20:36 <bock> 545075 <- in what folder did you run it? ;)
2192 2013-03-09 22:20:45 <HM> For simple data formats over small data sets you can't beat Boost.Xpressive
2193 2013-03-09 22:20:57 <xjrn> sql parser: https://github.com/jnorthrup/xSWO/blob/master/src/sql2003.HXX
2194 2013-03-09 22:20:57 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: C++ is not C.
2195 2013-03-09 22:20:58 <HM> it's basically regex but you can recurse safely and sanely
2196 2013-03-09 22:21:18 <HM> it's almost as good as Spirit imo
2197 2013-03-09 22:22:05 <HM> well, for unambigous grammars anyway
2198 2013-03-09 22:22:21 <xjrn> how is json ambiguous?
2199 2013-03-09 22:22:22 <HM> un am big u ous
2200 2013-03-09 22:22:26 <HM> it isn't
2201 2013-03-09 22:22:35 <HM> I'm refering to Boost Spirit, not JSON Spirit
2202 2013-03-09 22:23:14 <HM> I tried to use Boost Spirit for a custom text format once and after a whole day battling with it, gave up and used Xpressive. Job done in 30 minutes + tutorial time
2203 2013-03-09 22:23:43 <HM> There's some saucy memory management monkey business going on under the covers but performance was decent
2204 2013-03-09 22:23:51 <xjrn> that's how the spriti learning curve goes pretty much
2205 2013-03-09 22:25:01 <xjrn> i bugged out of boost work before spriit 2.0, it bears few resemblances to what i had invested in learning
2206 2013-03-09 22:27:10 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: you holding the torch for C in bfgminer ?
2207 2013-03-09 22:28:10 ProfMac has joined
2208 2013-03-09 22:29:46 pierre` has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
2209 2013-03-09 22:30:19 AtashiCon has quit (Quit: AtashiCon)
2210 2013-03-09 22:31:28 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2211 2013-03-09 22:31:32 grau has joined
2212 2013-03-09 22:33:41 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: of course, I support routers with 4 MB storage
2213 2013-03-09 22:34:08 * Luke-Jr glares at Avalon
2214 2013-03-09 22:34:42 <warren> Luke-Jr: what's wrong?
2215 2013-03-09 22:34:47 davout has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2216 2013-03-09 22:35:01 <Luke-Jr> warren: ?
2217 2013-03-09 22:35:31 <Luke-Jr> oh, just xjrn saying stupid stuff again
2218 2013-03-09 22:35:36 <Luke-Jr> I'm about to leave though, so he's all yours
2219 2013-03-09 22:35:38 <Luke-Jr> :P
2220 2013-03-09 22:35:59 <HM> Nein! I demand a share
2221 2013-03-09 22:36:27 * sipa sends HM a testnet share
2222 2013-03-09 22:36:56 whizter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2223 2013-03-09 22:37:23 <HM> sipa: thank you, it's beautiful
2224 2013-03-09 22:37:39 <warren> Luke-Jr: "* Luke-Jr glares at Avalon"
2225 2013-03-09 22:37:51 xjrn has left ()
2226 2013-03-09 22:38:16 xjrn has joined
2227 2013-03-09 22:38:45 MrKain has joined
2228 2013-03-09 22:39:06 whizter has joined
2229 2013-03-09 22:39:36 <Luke-Jr> warren: Avalon decided to use a crappy router with only 4 MB flash as their controller
2230 2013-03-09 22:39:50 <xjrn> Luke-Jr: my mistake in showing interest in your motivations, i didn't realize you get insecure about your plagerisims
2231 2013-03-09 22:39:58 <warren> Luke-Jr: is it true that it takes avalon a minimum of 1.4 seconds to return work?
2232 2013-03-09 22:40:40 <Luke-Jr> warren: dunno, plausable
2233 2013-03-09 22:40:46 whizter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2234 2013-03-09 22:40:56 <warren> Vinnie_win: Luke-Jr: regarding the larger dust, this may suggest further support for my pollution tax idea.  Instead an outright ban, the pollution tax would scale to the dust size.  Smaller dust is more harmful.  I'd say 5000 is still too small compared to a typical 0.00[1-5]00000 fee, so such dust should be punished.
2235 2013-03-09 22:41:07 <warren> Luke-Jr: that's what c-k says anyway
2236 2013-03-09 22:41:13 grau has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2237 2013-03-09 22:42:11 whizter has joined
2238 2013-03-09 22:42:11 whizter has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2239 2013-03-09 22:42:14 <warren> 50000 satoshi is a grey area to me though.
2240 2013-03-09 22:42:51 <Luke-Jr> xjrn: slander is a nasty thing
2241 2013-03-09 22:43:30 <warren> If there is concern about the lose return transaction, then impose a tax on 0-conf spending that only applies when there's no appreciable coin age on the first tx.
2242 2013-03-09 22:44:26 <warren> That way it won't effect the vast majority of (already rare) normal uses for 0-conf spending.
2243 2013-03-09 22:44:40 tyn has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2244 2013-03-09 22:45:59 MobiusL has joined
2245 2013-03-09 22:46:28 <warren> Maybe I should stop calling it a "tax" due to kneejerk reactions.
2246 2013-03-09 22:53:34 MobiusL has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2247 2013-03-09 22:58:41 fishfish has joined
2248 2013-03-09 22:59:49 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
2249 2013-03-09 23:02:38 one_zero has joined
2250 2013-03-09 23:02:46 MobiusL has joined
2251 2013-03-09 23:04:37 B0g4r7 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2252 2013-03-09 23:07:50 Garuda has joined
2253 2013-03-09 23:10:27 B0g4r7 has joined
2254 2013-03-09 23:16:27 fishfish is now known as fishfish|AFK
2255 2013-03-09 23:24:50 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
2256 2013-03-09 23:25:42 JWU42 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2257 2013-03-09 23:26:01 Garuda has left ("Leaving...")
2258 2013-03-09 23:27:42 unknown45682 has joined
2259 2013-03-09 23:30:08 unknown45682 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2260 2013-03-09 23:33:40 voodoo has left ()
2261 2013-03-09 23:35:01 defunctzombie_zz is now known as defunctzombie
2262 2013-03-09 23:36:24 fishfish is now known as AFK!~fishfish2@cpc10-mort5-2-0-cust225.19-2.cable.virginmedia.com|fishfish
2263 2013-03-09 23:38:15 MrKain has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2264 2013-03-09 23:38:17 oGminor has joined
2265 2013-03-09 23:38:26 <oGminor> Are there plans to change the wallet in bitcoind?
2266 2013-03-09 23:39:42 <sipa> to what?
2267 2013-03-09 23:40:22 <oGminor> Good question, I just heard there might be plans to change the way its encrypted
2268 2013-03-09 23:40:30 <sipa> i mean, there are constantly changes made
2269 2013-03-09 23:40:46 <oGminor> I apologize for being overly vague
2270 2013-03-09 23:40:49 <sipa> nothing planned wrt encryption, afaik
2271 2013-03-09 23:41:07 <oGminor> thanks
2272 2013-03-09 23:42:31 <xjrn> there is room to look at applying markov chains and huffman trees to frequently occurring "spammy"
2273 2013-03-09 23:42:34 <xjrn> details
2274 2013-03-09 23:43:04 MrKain has joined
2275 2013-03-09 23:43:11 <xjrn> the wallet wouldnt need changing just the way it's pointed to
2276 2013-03-09 23:43:26 <MrKain> Is codeshark here ?
2277 2013-03-09 23:43:35 <sipa> CodeShark: are you here?
2278 2013-03-09 23:43:40 <CodeShark> yer, what's up?
2279 2013-03-09 23:43:45 defunctzombie is now known as defunctzombie_zz
2280 2013-03-09 23:44:28 <sipa> xjrn: wth are you talking about?
2281 2013-03-09 23:46:49 <xjrn> sipa as near as i can tell the "correct" way to handle a lot of tx, iiregardless of anklebiting miners calling for SD blood, would be to change the entropy of the blockchain artifacts in use
2282 2013-03-09 23:47:10 <CodeShark> huh?!?!
2283 2013-03-09 23:47:41 <sipa> wth is a blockchain artifact, and its entropy?
2284 2013-03-09 23:48:11 <sipa> unless you're just trying to come up with a clever-sounding name for compressing blockchain files
2285 2013-03-09 23:48:41 <CodeShark> even with compression, the issue isn't merely block chain size - but UTXO size
2286 2013-03-09 23:48:59 <xjrn> sipa i don't think compressing block chains is a bad thing, but it looks like everything about blockchains and tx and new blocks exist based on denormalized representations ina highly redundant system
2287 2013-03-09 23:49:28 <sipa> i dare you to look at how the UTXO set is stored on disk in 0.8
2288 2013-03-09 23:49:44 <xjrn> a few tweaks to how one references something defined previously in the blockchain could reduce the number of bits to describe recurrences
2289 2013-03-09 23:49:58 <sipa> ah, that's what you mean
2290 2013-03-09 23:50:12 <sipa> sure, less than 256 + 32 bits to refer to a prevout would certainly suffice
2291 2013-03-09 23:50:19 JWU42 has joined
2292 2013-03-09 23:50:22 <sipa> but changing that would require a hardfork
2293 2013-03-09 23:50:36 <xjrn> yes, you can gzip the whole fucking thing, or use lzma with a 6 gig dictionary, but you can also use backreferences which don't require 64 bytes
2294 2013-03-09 23:50:42 MrKain has quit (Quit: Page closed)
2295 2013-03-09 23:51:16 <sipa> i don't really care about the blockchain itself - that's just authenticated patches to the UTXO set
2296 2013-03-09 23:51:33 remote has joined
2297 2013-03-09 23:51:37 <sipa> sure, they're large, and more compact representations are possible, but the gains are not more than a factor 2-3 at most
2298 2013-03-09 23:52:01 <sipa> but the largest problem with SD is that they spam the UTXO set
2299 2013-03-09 23:52:13 <xjrn> sipa: as i see it there's an opportunity to devise a coordinate system roughly based on hieght and nieghbors.  i'm no expert here on the exact layouts.  then you are dealing in hieghts of 32-48 bits in length, and objects in a hierarchy under those references
2300 2013-03-09 23:52:19 <CodeShark> disk space is cheap - fast memory is expensive
2301 2013-03-09 23:52:46 <CodeShark> the greatest problems with SD surround the burdens it places on validation/relay nodes
2302 2013-03-09 23:53:04 <CodeShark> not on block chain storage nodes
2303 2013-03-09 23:53:17 <CodeShark> that's a relatively minor problem
2304 2013-03-09 23:53:41 <CodeShark> and the burdens that SD places on miners...and the fees rising for everyone else
2305 2013-03-09 23:54:19 <CodeShark> to offset the burdens to miners
2306 2013-03-09 23:55:01 <xjrn> CodeShark: if the script to verify one tx is the same as it was previously for  a wallet, why not     consider that an alternate means to reference the same data?
2307 2013-03-09 23:55:46 <sipa> xjrn: patches welcome
2308 2013-03-09 23:56:08 <sipa> nobody is saying that the blockchain data can't be represented more compactly
2309 2013-03-09 23:56:21 <CodeShark> the way RAM is used by the satoshi client could certainly be improved
2310 2013-03-09 23:56:23 <sipa> but the potential gains are not more than a small constant factor
2311 2013-03-09 23:56:27 <xjrn> CodeShark: granted moore's law grows storage per dollar faster than block chains will consume it.
2312 2013-03-09 23:56:44 <xjrn> sipa: i wouldn't say constant factor, or small for that matter.
2313 2013-03-09 23:57:20 <sipa> xjrn: then feel free to write an implementation that proves me wrong
2314 2013-03-09 23:57:22 <xjrn> if there's a high   frequency occurencce of a sender, it can occupy increasingly feweer bytes in    a hhuuffman encoding or a markov model
2315 2013-03-09 23:57:46 <sipa> xjrn: address reuse isn't something we want to encourage in any way
2316 2013-03-09 23:57:50 <CodeShark> xjrn, the best way to prove your point is to implement it :)
2317 2013-03-09 23:58:01 <sipa> but yes, that is possible in theory
2318 2013-03-09 23:58:05 <xjrn> sipa: I don't mind working on it, while dodging axes and   rotten fruit from some in here :)
2319 2013-03-09 23:58:22 <sipa> though it would increase the incentive for address reuse
2320 2013-03-09 23:58:57 <CodeShark> a better memory manager for the UTXO stuff might improve performance
2321 2013-03-09 23:59:14 <xjrn> sipa: transient addresses do certainly make it hard to lower any entropy, but atm it would nail the main offender prretty good which does not use transient    addresses
2322 2013-03-09 23:59:22 <CodeShark> less fragmentation, better caching, and not duplicating objects that are the same
2323 2013-03-09 23:59:49 <sipa> xjrn: i'd rather push the main offender to not reuse address, than encourage it by making it less damaging