1 2010-12-22 00:01:02 <necrodearia> btw, Kiba, it appears since you referenced her name, she eventually stumbled upon the thread and may not have heard of Bitcoin otherwise.  Perhaps if you produce similar threads of interest or controversy whilst also referencing names of famous or powerful individuals, you can additionally get their attention as well.  However, I recommend producing positive or rewarding commentary so as to make such individuals interested in respo
  2 2010-12-22 00:01:16 <necrodearia> disregard the controversy suggestion
  3 2010-12-22 00:01:18 <midnightmagic> Asphodelia: I'm pretty sure they would merge a patch if yo sent one in.
  4 2010-12-22 00:01:35 <Diablo-D3> -f 1
  5 2010-12-22 00:01:52 <Asphodelia> Really? It seems like a standard use case for don't change it because you'll break things.
  6 2010-12-22 00:01:59 <Diablo-D3> if you absolutely need to rape every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes
  7 2010-12-22 00:02:46 <midnightmagic> probably. but that's just a technical hurdle. change it, and begin versioning the interface protocol.
  8 2010-12-22 00:03:12 <midnightmagic> so, let me correct my prior statement: a "good" patch if you send one in. :)
  9 2010-12-22 00:06:48 <BoBeR> any one know how to make firefox plugins
 10 2010-12-22 00:07:01 <BoBeR> id gladly take help on making the bitcoin one
 11 2010-12-22 00:08:44 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: 50 of 50!
 12 2010-12-22 00:08:53 <slush_cz1> Fantastic!
 13 2010-12-22 00:08:57 <slush_cz1> Problem solved!
 14 2010-12-22 00:09:06 <slush_cz1> And thank you for great coop
 15 2010-12-22 00:09:52 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r397defe / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java :
 16 2010-12-22 00:10:26 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: and btw you earned almost .2 btc during test :))
 17 2010-12-22 00:10:56 <Diablo-D3> lol
 18 2010-12-22 00:11:05 <Diablo-D3> binary pushed
 19 2010-12-22 00:13:51 <slush_cz1> Updated
 20 2010-12-22 00:13:53 <da2ce7> G'day
 21 2010-12-22 00:14:58 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3, would you be able to add revision numbers to the DiabloMiner.zip on the forum... it would make it much easer to check if there has been a update.
 22 2010-12-22 00:15:18 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: meh, just follow the github log
 23 2010-12-22 00:16:15 <da2ce7> well atm, I just compare filesize, but it is somewhat annoying.
 24 2010-12-22 00:16:57 <xelister> Diablo-D3:  http://wikileaks.ch/Video.html?jhgjj  :[
 25 2010-12-22 00:19:18 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: you updated miner now, right?
 26 2010-12-22 00:19:26 <da2ce7> yep
 27 2010-12-22 00:19:30 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: bad news
 28 2010-12-22 00:19:40 <slush_cz1> both me and da2ce7 had the same problems
 29 2010-12-22 00:19:52 <slush_cz1> I solved 29 blocks and two was bad
 30 2010-12-22 00:20:03 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: did not hav bad blocks before
 31 2010-12-22 00:20:10 <Diablo-D3> using the newest one?
 32 2010-12-22 00:20:14 <slush_cz1> yes, both
 33 2010-12-22 00:20:19 <Diablo-D3> you sure of that?
 34 2010-12-22 00:20:26 <slush_cz1> seems to be related to last release
 35 2010-12-22 00:20:30 <slush_cz1> yes, absolutely
 36 2010-12-22 00:20:34 <da2ce7> yeah, I'be had bad blocks in both Diablo's and m0's
 37 2010-12-22 00:20:37 <da2ce7> Diablo-D3's still is unstable on my computer... m0's ran overnight.
 38 2010-12-22 00:20:47 <slush_cz1> I'm looking at those big players carefully :-D
 39 2010-12-22 00:20:53 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: mines perfectly usable on yours, you just keep forgetting to find an acceptable -f value
 40 2010-12-22 00:21:08 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: Definitely not so often
 41 2010-12-22 00:21:35 <Diablo-D3> what gpus?
 42 2010-12-22 00:21:41 <slush_cz1> 5970 here
 43 2010-12-22 00:21:51 <da2ce7> one 5970
 44 2010-12-22 00:22:01 <da2ce7> so 2 cores
 45 2010-12-22 00:22:04 <slush_cz1> yes
 46 2010-12-22 00:22:55 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: You probably don't see those 'bad blocks' because miner not report them in normal mode (only on debug)
 47 2010-12-22 00:23:30 <slush_cz1> but I have here big fat warning that somebody is submitting bad things
 48 2010-12-22 00:23:33 <da2ce7> how often do I submit a bad bock?
 49 2010-12-22 00:23:51 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: Normally no one
 50 2010-12-22 00:24:02 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: From update I see few
 51 2010-12-22 00:24:10 <slush_cz1> This is what we solve for two hours here
 52 2010-12-22 00:24:46 <Diablo-D3> it could be because you're on multiple gpus and the difficulty is so low
 53 2010-12-22 00:24:52 <Diablo-D3> you're solving valid blocks in parallel
 54 2010-12-22 00:24:55 <slush_cz1> say two, I'm not sure. log is so fast at 6ghash
 55 2010-12-22 00:25:23 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: now the next one
 56 2010-12-22 00:25:36 <da2ce7> just then?
 57 2010-12-22 00:25:50 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I don't think so.
 58 2010-12-22 00:26:28 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: even you submit second block from getwork() which is older than submit from previous, block will be still valid
 59 2010-12-22 00:26:37 <Diablo-D3> hrm.
 60 2010-12-22 00:26:47 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: because it is not real bitcoin block, nothing change in source data
 61 2010-12-22 00:27:11 <Diablo-D3> what happens when you run my miner on testnet?
 62 2010-12-22 00:27:38 <slush_cz1> make a try
 63 2010-12-22 00:27:54 <slush_cz1> I make a try
 64 2010-12-22 00:29:07 <slush_cz1> but I think it is different because found block on testnet will make older getwork invalid
 65 2010-12-22 00:29:33 <Diablo-D3> hrm.
 66 2010-12-22 00:29:43 <Diablo-D3> Im running out of solutions on this.
 67 2010-12-22 00:30:03 <slush_cz1> But it probably changed with threading model somehow
 68 2010-12-22 00:30:10 <slush_cz1> This does not mean I have any idea
 69 2010-12-22 00:30:19 <Diablo-D3> except its correctly handling this by force
 70 2010-12-22 00:30:22 <Diablo-D3> and I cant reproduce it
 71 2010-12-22 00:30:32 <slush_cz1> but we both on 5970 can
 72 2010-12-22 00:30:39 <Diablo-D3> absolutely make sure you're on the newest zip
 73 2010-12-22 00:30:53 <slush_cz1> absolutely
 74 2010-12-22 00:30:57 <Diablo-D3> -rw-r--r-- 1 diablo diablo 4915248 Dec 21 20:10 DiabloMiner.zip
 75 2010-12-22 00:30:57 <slush_cz1> I re-download it already
 76 2010-12-22 00:31:02 <da2ce7> diablo-d3, http://pastebin.com/9sAVhfDc
 77 2010-12-22 00:31:22 <Diablo-D3> da2ce7: you're not on 2.1
 78 2010-12-22 00:31:23 <slush_cz1> yep, same binary
 79 2010-12-22 00:32:06 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: it is interesting that you had problem and it is solved for you now
 80 2010-12-22 00:32:08 <slush_cz1> but not for us
 81 2010-12-22 00:32:16 <da2ce7> ok installing 10.12 lets see if this works.
 82 2010-12-22 00:32:46 <slush_cz1> http://adterrasperaspera.com/images/DiabloMiner.zip , correct?
 83 2010-12-22 00:32:47 <da2ce7> I think that this windows needs a format
 84 2010-12-22 00:33:43 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes
 85 2010-12-22 00:33:53 <da2ce7> but I'm saving up for a SSD, dang they are expencive.
 86 2010-12-22 00:33:55 <da2ce7> :S
 87 2010-12-22 00:34:12 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: out of 50, how many fail?
 88 2010-12-22 00:34:47 <slush_cz1> I closed the window. But think ~5
 89 2010-12-22 00:35:02 <Diablo-D3> xelister: oh, this is rap the news
 90 2010-12-22 00:35:28 <Diablo-D3> xelister: Ive seen this
 91 2010-12-22 00:36:02 <da2ce7> yeah, i've gotta format. :S this system is getting old anyway.
 92 2010-12-22 00:36:08 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: hey, can affect -w 64 something?
 93 2010-12-22 00:37:11 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: I had something strange on startup, approx 20 submits of incorrect work to pool
 94 2010-12-22 00:37:21 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: But I don't care if it will work next
 95 2010-12-22 00:37:44 <slush_cz1> even on difficulty 1 is not normal to have so many works at once
 96 2010-12-22 00:38:03 <Diablo-D3> -w cant effect it
 97 2010-12-22 00:38:11 <Diablo-D3> Ive now done 71 out of 71
 98 2010-12-22 00:38:26 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: remember, you're still OCing
 99 2010-12-22 00:38:32 <Diablo-D3> so there might be weird shit
100 2010-12-22 00:38:53 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: btw, how do you flush attempts in your pool
101 2010-12-22 00:39:00 <Diablo-D3> because if gpu 1 finds attempt, and gpu 2 finds attempt
102 2010-12-22 00:39:03 <Diablo-D3> and 1 sent it in
103 2010-12-22 00:39:07 <Diablo-D3> and your pool flushed it
104 2010-12-22 00:39:11 <Diablo-D3> 2 sends it in, and fails
105 2010-12-22 00:41:22 <slush_cz1> oh, you are splitting the work for more threads??
106 2010-12-22 00:41:26 <slush_cz1> Oh yes!
107 2010-12-22 00:41:38 <slush_cz1> Thats fucking problem
108 2010-12-22 00:41:53 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: yes, single work, split between ALL executors
109 2010-12-22 00:41:54 <slush_cz1> I HAVE TO remove job when worker send a solution of it
110 2010-12-22 00:42:03 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz1: dont remove the job
111 2010-12-22 00:42:04 <slush_cz1> because of doublespending
112 2010-12-22 00:42:10 <Diablo-D3> er, oh.
113 2010-12-22 00:42:11 <Diablo-D3> well
114 2010-12-22 00:42:13 <Diablo-D3> you're doomed then
115 2010-12-22 00:42:30 <slush_cz1> that's it, we are at home
116 2010-12-22 00:42:37 <da2ce7> how can you double spend?
117 2010-12-22 00:42:47 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: send same solution over and over
118 2010-12-22 00:43:11 <da2ce7> but won't they have diffent nounce's
119 2010-12-22 00:43:12 <slush_cz1> I can make ugly hack
120 2010-12-22 00:43:29 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: yes, I can register nonces and accept only different ones
121 2010-12-22 00:43:46 <slush_cz1> But I have to go now, 3am here and I'm standing up at 7
122 2010-12-22 00:43:53 <da2ce7> ok
123 2010-12-22 00:44:03 <slush_cz1> da2ce7: So please downgrade for now
124 2010-12-22 00:44:10 <da2ce7> ok
125 2010-12-22 00:44:10 <Diablo-D3> dont downgrade
126 2010-12-22 00:44:12 <slush_cz1> I will make on it tomorrow, definitely
127 2010-12-22 00:44:14 <Diablo-D3> just suffer through it
128 2010-12-22 00:44:16 <Diablo-D3> it should be rare
129 2010-12-22 00:44:25 <slush_cz1> Diablo-D3: Not so rare as expected :(
130 2010-12-22 00:44:29 <slush_cz1> Guys, thanks, I have to go
131 2010-12-22 00:44:37 <slush_cz1> I'll handle this sometimes
132 2010-12-22 00:44:42 <slush_cz1> ...somehow
133 2010-12-22 00:45:28 <Diablo-D3> well
134 2010-12-22 00:45:36 <Diablo-D3> keeping track of already used nonces are fine
135 2010-12-22 00:45:44 <Diablo-D3> just use a 10 depth queue for the store
136 2010-12-22 00:45:54 <Diablo-D3> of the headers I mean
137 2010-12-22 00:46:02 <Diablo-D3> so after 10 gets, you cant use old headers anymore
138 2010-12-22 00:46:31 <Diablo-D3> and allow accepting new solutions on <10 headers by keeping track of nonces (also, 10 depth)
139 2010-12-22 00:46:41 <Diablo-D3> so you only have to keep track of, at most, 100 items per miner
140 2010-12-22 01:28:51 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
141 2010-12-22 01:33:37 <Asphodelia> How bad would it be if the number of transactions on the network were to increase by a couple orders of magnitude?
142 2010-12-22 01:35:33 <Diablo-D3> no one would notice.
143 2010-12-22 01:37:53 <Asphodelia> So then my second question is: would it improve anonymity if all transactions were capped at 1BTC, and larger transfers were translated transparently by the software into many small ones?
144 2010-12-22 01:38:06 <Diablo-D3> nope
145 2010-12-22 01:38:16 <Diablo-D3> although what you really want is a bitcoin mixer
146 2010-12-22 01:38:36 <Asphodelia> Yes, that it what I want.
147 2010-12-22 01:38:38 <Asphodelia> *is
148 2010-12-22 01:38:41 <tcatm> We have mtgox ;)
149 2010-12-22 01:39:12 <Asphodelia> But what I *really* really want is the mixer to be built in to bitcoin, so that you don't have to trust a central authority to do your mixing.
150 2010-12-22 01:41:17 <Diablo-D3> Asphodelia: the centrality is what makes it mix
151 2010-12-22 01:41:25 <Diablo-D3> people keep sending to a known address
152 2010-12-22 01:41:25 <sgornick> Asphodelia: Multi-mixer, ... first stop, http://MyBitcoin.com  then http://mtgox.com then  http://bitcoinlaundry.com/
153 2010-12-22 01:41:37 <Diablo-D3> it gets shunted through few internal random only used once addresses
154 2010-12-22 01:41:40 <Diablo-D3> in all weird amounts
155 2010-12-22 01:41:51 <Diablo-D3> and then mixes it with coins of other peopke's
156 2010-12-22 01:41:54 <Diablo-D3> and then shunts it back to you
157 2010-12-22 01:41:59 <Asphodelia> I still feel like it should be possible to have a decentralized mixer.
158 2010-12-22 01:42:15 <Asphodelia> And that, if that's possible, that it should be built in to the protocol.
159 2010-12-22 01:42:27 <Asphodelia> Do you at least agree with the subjunctive?
160 2010-12-22 01:43:40 <Diablo-D3> its not useful.
161 2010-12-22 01:44:20 <Asphodelia> Really? Why not?
162 2010-12-22 01:44:30 <sgornick> Asphodelia: Don't know if this helps ... but if you aren't ware of this, here you go: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions
163 2010-12-22 01:44:31 <Diablo-D3> because you need the central system to make it useful
164 2010-12-22 01:44:36 <Diablo-D3> you need OTHER people's coins to mix with
165 2010-12-22 01:44:38 <Diablo-D3> otherwise its not a mixer
166 2010-12-22 01:45:11 <Asphodelia> Hence the subjunctive. *If* a decentralized mixer that actually mixes turns out to be possible, *then* that should be a standard part of bitcoin.
167 2010-12-22 01:45:28 <Asphodelia> After all, it turned out to be possible to have a decentralized currency. :)
168 2010-12-22 01:53:29 <Asphodelia> And more so, what I want isn't really a mixer in the sense of passing through as many nodes as possible in the hopes that one of them will choose to keep your secret. I just... have a sense that more is possible.
169 2010-12-22 01:59:39 <Lysacor> Diablo, don't know if you are there, and I am sure you have better things to do than support winblows for your applet, but you have any idea why the java process would outright crash after about 5-10 seconds connection to the server?
170 2010-12-22 02:00:15 <Diablo-D3> its not an applet.
171 2010-12-22 02:00:24 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: pastebin the error.
172 2010-12-22 02:00:34 <Diablo-D3> I suspect its because you didnt setup something right
173 2010-12-22 02:01:20 <Lysacor> I wouldn't doubt it, yeah lemme get that pastebin for ya.
174 2010-12-22 02:01:37 <kupo> hey all long time no talk
175 2010-12-22 02:01:57 <kupo> I like how all the recent WL drama has elevated bitcoins recognition
176 2010-12-22 02:02:08 <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7sdo_Aj0o
177 2010-12-22 02:02:19 <Diablo-D3> beatboxing shouldnt sound this good
178 2010-12-22 02:02:52 <BoBeR> kupo, what do you mean
179 2010-12-22 02:03:51 <kupo> BoBeR: bitcoin has been mentioned several times as an alternative to the visa mastercard blocks
180 2010-12-22 02:03:53 <Diablo-D3> part 2 has some epic shit too
181 2010-12-22 02:04:06 <BoBeR> where?
182 2010-12-22 02:04:09 <BoBeR> links?
183 2010-12-22 02:04:18 <Diablo-D3> [10:02:08] <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7sdo_Aj0o
184 2010-12-22 02:04:20 <Diablo-D3> part 1
185 2010-12-22 02:04:29 <Diablo-D3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMr2cn04wKA
186 2010-12-22 02:04:30 <Diablo-D3> part 2
187 2010-12-22 02:06:13 <kupo> BoBeR: sorry to lazy atm, google will help though
188 2010-12-22 02:06:24 <Lysacor> http://pastebin.com/BLEu5PpD
189 2010-12-22 02:06:36 <Lysacor> Might not be much to go on, sorry
190 2010-12-22 02:07:17 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
191 2010-12-22 02:07:19 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98838 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1961 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 30 minutes, and 25 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15965.58403033
192 2010-12-22 02:07:55 <Asphodelia> If a,b,c,d are large primes, and I give you either (1) a*b and c*d or (2) a*b and b*c, can you tell whether the two numbers I gave have a common factor?
193 2010-12-22 02:08:01 <Lysacor> It is connecting to my local bitcoin GUI with the server switch active, and bitcoin.conf is defined. I use it with m0m's miner already, just wanted to shake things up a bit
194 2010-12-22 02:11:27 <Asphodelia> Oh wait, my brother just told me it's totally possible. Oh well.
195 2010-12-22 02:12:24 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: driver bug.
196 2010-12-22 02:12:43 <Diablo-D3> Lysacor: you sure you using the newest version, btw?
197 2010-12-22 02:13:59 <Lysacor> Diablo-D3: just downloaded the binaries for your program, updated the java system, and I am running stream 2.2, don't know if any of those are contributing factors.
198 2010-12-22 02:14:13 <Diablo-D3> why 2.2 instead of 2.1?
199 2010-12-22 02:16:13 <Lysacor> Good question, I can roll back, no huge deal, mmm let me check my stream version again, I am actually using stream 2.3. I can back off to 2.1. 2.3 did Bring some significant performance improvements when using m0m's client, must still be bugs in ati's implementation of OpenCL
200 2010-12-22 02:17:35 <Diablo-D3> 2.1 is faster
201 2010-12-22 02:17:55 <Lysacor> cool, well then 2.1 here I come!
202 2010-12-22 02:27:22 <Lysacor> Diablo-D3: Backing off to Stream 2.1 did seem to do the trick. Much appreciated for the support
203 2010-12-22 02:27:53 <Diablo-D3> which cat you on?
204 2010-12-22 02:28:34 <Lysacor> 10.12
205 2010-12-22 02:29:41 <Diablo-D3> ahh
206 2010-12-22 02:30:33 <Lysacor> your miner is definitely more aggressive with my 5870, without the -f switch, desktop interactivity is for shit :P
207 2010-12-22 02:30:45 <Diablo-D3> yeah, try -f 120 or -f 180
208 2010-12-22 02:30:58 <Diablo-D3> the side effect of being optimum... is being optimum.
209 2010-12-22 02:31:11 <Lysacor> pretty much, that does make a lot of sense
210 2010-12-22 03:47:37 <ByteCoin> test
211 2010-12-22 03:49:44 <DerrikeG1> ding
212 2010-12-22 03:50:21 <Asphodelia> Is that the sound of finding a block?
213 2010-12-22 03:50:36 <nanotube> no... that's 'caching' :)
214 2010-12-22 03:50:46 <nanotube> ;;bc,poolstats
215 2010-12-22 03:50:48 <gribble> {"active_workers": 93, "hashes_ps": 5232613300, "shares": 10564, "round_started": "2010-12-22 02:26:16"}
216 2010-12-22 04:04:25 <da2ce7> ;;bc,mtgox
217 2010-12-22 04:04:26 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.267,"low":0.24,"vol":8861,"buy":0.244,"sell":0.26,"last":0.244}}
218 2010-12-22 04:05:03 <da2ce7> we are still hovering arround the 0.25c mark...
219 2010-12-22 04:05:04 <da2ce7> hmm
220 2010-12-22 04:07:23 <Cusipzzz> is that poolstat like 1 block every 3 hrs ??
221 2010-12-22 04:08:45 <da2ce7> ;;bc,calc 5200000
222 2010-12-22 04:08:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 3 hours, 19 minutes, and 23 seconds
223 2010-12-22 04:08:51 <da2ce7> yep
224 2010-12-22 04:09:22 <Cusipzzz> wow, impressive
225 2010-12-22 04:10:27 <nanotube> it was above 6ghps at some point earlier today
226 2010-12-22 04:11:39 <Cusipzzz> bernake would be proud of this money-printing =)
227 2010-12-22 04:11:48 <nanotube> haha
228 2010-12-22 04:16:01 <lfm> ,,bc,calc 160000
229 2010-12-22 04:16:02 <gribble> (bc,calc <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "echo The average time to generate a block at $1 Khps, given current difficulty of [bc,diff], is [time elapsed [math calc 1/((2**224-1)/[bc,diff]*$1*1000/2**256)]]".
230 2010-12-22 04:16:42 <Cusipzzz> so, if for whatever reason that pool went down for 24hrs, the ~8 blocks would be porportionally distributed among others generating ? or would just delay the 8 blocks slightly ?
231 2010-12-22 04:16:50 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 160000
232 2010-12-22 04:16:51 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 160000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 4 days, 12 hours, and 6 seconds
233 2010-12-22 04:20:32 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: what 8 blocks?
234 2010-12-22 04:22:14 <lfm> if the pool server is down youd miss out on the (probable) blocks
235 2010-12-22 04:22:42 <nanotube> yea if pool is down, there's no pool generation for that time.
236 2010-12-22 04:22:57 <Cusipzzz> that's what i meant...i'm just talking about impact on everyone else
237 2010-12-22 04:23:07 <Cusipzzz> who is still generating
238 2010-12-22 04:23:26 <nanotube> you mean everyone who's not in the pool?
239 2010-12-22 04:23:28 <lfm> people outside the pool would not be effected
240 2010-12-22 04:23:29 <Cusipzzz> yes
241 2010-12-22 04:23:35 <nanotube> they wouldn't notice...
242 2010-12-22 04:23:57 <Cusipzzz> right, theystill have same difficulty..less competition doesn't matter
243 2010-12-22 04:23:59 <nanotube> well, the avg time between blocks for the whole network would go down by about 5 percent. :)
244 2010-12-22 04:24:24 <sgornick> Total hashing would drop about ... oh ... nearly 5% ...    so instead of 158 blocks in 24 hours there would be 150 blocks.
245 2010-12-22 04:24:32 <lfm> Cusipzzz: right other than a slight possible decrease in difficulty at the next change
246 2010-12-22 04:24:58 <Cusipzzz> gotcha, that's what I thought, just clarifying.
247 2010-12-22 04:25:28 <Cusipzzz> so much for the idea of DDoS'ing all the major pools and scooping up all the blocks for a given day, haha.
248 2010-12-22 04:26:39 <nanotube> heh yea... doesn't help you much.
249 2010-12-22 04:26:42 <lfm> Cusipzzz: ya that wouldnt help you really
250 2010-12-22 04:27:07 <sgornick> Is there a real-time "hashing power" number, or is that just calculated based on the same numbers as the difficulty calculation?
251 2010-12-22 04:28:20 <nanotube> sgornick: yea, the difficulty is a result of the hashing power of the previous 2016 block chunk.
252 2010-12-22 04:28:30 <Cusipzzz> so really this arms race in pools/generating will just make the next difficulty bump that much more painful for all.
253 2010-12-22 04:29:47 <Cusipzzz> as far as coins/day or whatever measure
254 2010-12-22 04:30:26 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: coins per day will stay the same
255 2010-12-22 04:30:46 <nanotube> the whole point of diff adjustments is to keep difficulty such that on avg a block is created every 10 min.
256 2010-12-22 04:31:30 <Cusipzzz> but right now it's over that..until next adjustment, right?
257 2010-12-22 04:31:43 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
258 2010-12-22 04:31:53 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98861 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1938 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 24 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17495.00702667
259 2010-12-22 04:31:59 <lfm> Cusipzzz: thats the idea, but we just had one adjustment, it takes a while
260 2010-12-22 04:32:17 <nanotube> well... it seems that total hash power is still going up... based on that estimate there
261 2010-12-22 04:32:22 <nanotube> though we're only <100 blocks into the chunk so it's still not too stable of an estimate
262 2010-12-22 04:32:28 <lfm> ;;bc,estimate
263 2010-12-22 04:32:42 <gribble> 17495.00702667
264 2010-12-22 04:33:05 <nanotube> quite an estimate there
265 2010-12-22 04:33:16 <sgornick> nanotube: ya, the first one out of the shoe was an estimate of 54,000 or something like that.
266 2010-12-22 04:33:27 <nanotube> ;;math calc 17495.00702667 / 14484.16236123
267 2010-12-22 04:33:52 <gribble> 1.20787150758
268 2010-12-22 04:34:06 <nanotube> sgornick: yea, and then it dropped to like 13k
269 2010-12-22 04:34:17 <nanotube> and now it's back to 17
270 2010-12-22 04:34:39 <nanotube> heh
271 2010-12-22 04:35:03 <Cusipzzz> right, but the 191 blocks/last 24 hrs is well above target
272 2010-12-22 04:35:15 <nanotube> Cusipzzz: that's why the next diff estimate is so high. :)
273 2010-12-22 04:35:17 <lfm> with the small count since the last change the estimate will vary more
274 2010-12-22 04:35:23 <nanotube> my (totally ballparky) guess is that it'll be about 16k difficulty
275 2010-12-22 04:35:31 <Cusipzzz> so someone waited for the change, then fired up the network of Crays =), to get most bang for buck
276 2010-12-22 04:35:37 <nanotube> heh
277 2010-12-22 04:35:44 <lfm> crays would suck at this i suspect
278 2010-12-22 04:35:46 <Cusipzzz> dating myself with the Crays, sigh
279 2010-12-22 04:35:48 <Cusipzzz> ya
280 2010-12-22 04:35:52 <Cusipzzz> PS3 farm, then
281 2010-12-22 04:35:55 <lfm> ps3 cant compete with radeons either
282 2010-12-22 04:35:59 <Cusipzzz> i wonder if the opportunity cost of keeping hashing power offline until after the adjustment is worth the blocks lost bringing it on right away.. maybe i'm overthing this.
283 2010-12-22 04:36:03 <Cusipzzz> overthinking*
284 2010-12-22 04:41:31 <sgornick> a little over a month ago, difficulty was under 5K.  btc was about $0.25.  Now at 14K difficulty, and BTC  at $0.25 means those mining today are doing so for much less reward than those doing it in november were getting for it.
285 2010-12-22 04:42:07 <Asphodelia> Not necessarily. The cost of computation could have gone down. (Though probably not by quite that much.)
286 2010-12-22 04:42:22 <lfm> ya, the rewards are spread thinner at higher difficulties
287 2010-12-22 04:43:11 <Cusipzzz> seems to be an equilibrium, the additional 7500 coins/day of added supply offset by new demand, regardless of the amount of work required?
288 2010-12-22 04:43:24 <lfm> i suspect some people were expecting the prices to go higher with the difficulty\n127307
289 2010-12-22 04:43:57 <nanotube> so the don't really care about the difficulty
290 2010-12-22 04:44:03 <Cusipzzz> right.
291 2010-12-22 04:44:30 <lfm> ya supposedly higher difficulty makes smaller supply tho
292 2010-12-22 04:44:49 <nanotube> lfm: why? same num of coins produced per day... so it doesn't affect supply
293 2010-12-22 04:44:52 <Cusipzzz> well, they see the difficulty, and say 'F that' and go to buy coins, thus supporting the price even with the constant supply increase.
294 2010-12-22 04:45:10 <Asphodelia> That's an increase in demand, not a decrease in supply.
295 2010-12-22 04:45:27 <nanotube> right
296 2010-12-22 04:45:32 <lfm> hmm, ok ya, i guess thats right
297 2010-12-22 04:45:37 <Cusipzzz> it's both...that 7500/day added to the market should bring prices down, but demand is increasing as well
298 2010-12-22 04:45:39 <nanotube> difficulty adjusts to keep supply relatively constant.
299 2010-12-22 04:45:58 <nanotube> or maybe... more people are mining with intent to hold on, rather than sell off immediately.
300 2010-12-22 04:47:35 <Cusipzzz> i'm sure both sides are speculating, but it is an interesting equilibrium, around this price point recently
301 2010-12-22 04:48:04 <nanotube> yea
302 2010-12-22 05:34:07 <da2ce7> has sombody graphed market cap vs. time?
303 2010-12-22 05:34:50 <da2ce7> I think that will show the best long term rate of growth in the bitcoin economy.
304 2010-12-22 05:34:51 <da2ce7> :D
305 2010-12-22 05:37:42 <nanotube> ask tcatm, maybe he'll do it. :)
306 2010-12-22 06:09:09 <sneak> http://sneak.datavibe.net/20101222/financing-the-revolution/
307 2010-12-22 06:09:28 <sneak> giving a talk about bitcoin and other digital currencies and systems in berlin next wednesday at berlinsides during the ccc
308 2010-12-22 06:12:46 <nanotube> nice
309 2010-12-22 06:56:37 <wumpus> sneak: very nice
310 2010-12-22 08:02:23 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
311 2010-12-22 08:02:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98881 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1918 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 18 hours, 36 minutes, and 39 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16383.31251835
312 2010-12-22 08:02:47 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 17 hours, 16 minutes, and 49 seconds
313 2010-12-22 08:02:47 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 1000000
314 2010-12-22 08:06:27 <lfm> weird fglrx works on ubuntu but failed for me on kubuntu
315 2010-12-22 08:49:46 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I had new miner over night and it really doesn't look like share rate drop too much.
316 2010-12-22 08:50:22 <Diablo-D3> out of my most recent run, 177 out of 188 won
317 2010-12-22 08:51:02 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I have probably worse ratio, but as it improves network latency, it null bad effects of those drops
318 2010-12-22 08:51:22 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: So I hope it will run better after fixes on my side
319 2010-12-22 08:51:28 <Diablo-D3> it should
320 2010-12-22 08:51:36 <slush_cz> better than old version without invalid shares
321 2010-12-22 08:52:06 <slush_cz> well, so I think it is not necessary to warn users, because currently they have ~same rate with both versions
322 2010-12-22 08:53:02 <Diablo-D3> eh, about a 5% loss
323 2010-12-22 08:53:17 <slush_cz> 5% less valid blocks, but 5% improved speed. I think final effect is 0
324 2010-12-22 08:53:25 <Diablo-D3> depends how you define 5%
325 2010-12-22 08:53:29 <Diablo-D3> the shit didnt effect me
326 2010-12-22 08:53:42 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: I have quite good line (40ms to server)
327 2010-12-22 08:53:51 <Diablo-D3> since latency between me and your miner server was obscured by having three execution threads
328 2010-12-22 08:55:18 <slush_cz> Diablo-D3: And I don't see any significant drop in performance overnight
329 2010-12-22 08:56:55 <Diablo-D3> slush_cz: well
330 2010-12-22 08:56:58 <Diablo-D3> once you fix your shit
331 2010-12-22 08:57:01 <Diablo-D3> that bug will go away
332 2010-12-22 08:57:09 <slush_cz> yes, I know
333 2010-12-22 08:57:40 <slush_cz> I'm talking just about 'well, so I think it is not necessary to warn users, because currently they have ~same rate with both versions' - I mean with current pool, of course
334 2010-12-22 08:58:10 <slush_cz> Once I will improve this, their share rate will go higher
335 2010-12-22 09:56:24 <Amiga4000> mkay, 300 MHashes/sec for the ATI 5870 with m0ndom miner in win7 64bit
336 2010-12-22 09:56:45 <Amiga4000> ;;bc,calc 300000
337 2010-12-22 09:56:46 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 2 days, 9 hours, 36 minutes, and 3 seconds
338 2010-12-22 09:57:39 <Amiga4000> ;;bc,calc 9000
339 2010-12-22 09:57:39 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 11 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 1 minute, and 51 seconds
340 2010-12-22 10:00:30 <wumpus> is it possible to change the bitcoin port? for testing I want to run multiple instances of the test network on my machine, but  the second one complains about "unable to bind to IP"
341 2010-12-22 10:00:37 <Necrathex> hi, I have a question about translations, I'm using the NL-nl locale, but the nl translation has some grammar errors, is there any way i can suggest a change?
342 2010-12-22 10:00:49 <Diablo-D3> Necrathex: supply a patch
343 2010-12-22 10:01:05 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: I dont think so yet
344 2010-12-22 10:01:39 <wumpus> hm just checked the source, you are right Diablo-D3, it currently insists on the default port
345 2010-12-22 10:01:41 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: if its an option, bitcoin --help will say
346 2010-12-22 10:01:44 <Diablo-D3> heh
347 2010-12-22 10:01:48 <Diablo-D3> that works too
348 2010-12-22 10:01:50 <wumpus> monkeypatching time
349 2010-12-22 10:02:02 <Necrathex> ok, ill go grab the source then :)
350 2010-12-22 10:02:04 <Diablo-D3> the problem is
351 2010-12-22 10:02:15 <Diablo-D3> if you change the port, other bitcoin cant connect to you
352 2010-12-22 10:04:31 <wumpus> well that's true, but it should work somehow, I mean how does it handle being behind a NAT?
353 2010-12-22 10:05:02 <lfm> wumpu you could tell it to use too many threads used bitcoin setgenerate true 10
354 2010-12-22 10:05:08 <UukGoblin> wumpus, it handles NAT by simply connecting to people who are NOT behind it
355 2010-12-22 10:05:18 <Diablo-D3> yeah
356 2010-12-22 10:05:26 <Diablo-D3> the NAT has to route incoming stuff normally
357 2010-12-22 10:05:36 <Diablo-D3> outside:8333 -> inside:8333
358 2010-12-22 10:05:52 <Diablo-D3> if you want incoming connections, anyways
359 2010-12-22 10:05:52 <wumpus> UukGoblin: so having no outside port to connect to wouldn't be a problem as long as there are people who do have it?
360 2010-12-22 10:06:05 <UukGoblin> wumpus, yup
361 2010-12-22 10:06:07 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: yeah, it'll only break incoming connections
362 2010-12-22 10:06:15 <Diablo-D3> it can still dial out
363 2010-12-22 10:06:37 <UukGoblin> to a premium rate number
364 2010-12-22 10:06:43 <UukGoblin> and get an IP over that
365 2010-12-22 10:06:48 <UukGoblin> and then listen on the needed port
366 2010-12-22 10:06:52 <Diablo-D3> 1-900-hot-sext
367 2010-12-22 10:06:53 <UukGoblin> oops I wasn't supposed to talk about that
368 2010-12-22 10:06:54 <wumpus> lfm: I just want to test something, I don't need generation or threads
369 2010-12-22 10:07:39 <lfm> oh ok I think most people use separate real machines for tests like that
370 2010-12-22 10:07:40 <wumpus> seems to me this should actually be a common use case for people testing ecommerce-like things
371 2010-12-22 10:08:24 <Diablo-D3> well
372 2010-12-22 10:08:31 <Diablo-D3> it should support clients on any port
373 2010-12-22 10:09:01 <Diablo-D3> the client should store a ip:port tuple instead of just the ip of peers
374 2010-12-22 10:09:15 <wumpus> Diablo-D3: indeed, would be much better
375 2010-12-22 10:09:28 <UukGoblin> yeah it was moaned about since the beginning I think ;-]
376 2010-12-22 10:09:36 <Diablo-D3> yeah it was, I bitched about it
377 2010-12-22 10:09:45 <UukGoblin> it has spare space to store the v6 address but not the port ;-]
378 2010-12-22 10:09:55 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: lol
379 2010-12-22 10:11:08 <wumpus> well with IPV6 the port is less of an issue, I guess, you could give every process its own IP adress :p
380 2010-12-22 10:11:09 <lfm> gavinanderson had a patch to run on opther ports at one time. Im not sure if he has kept it current
381 2010-12-22 10:11:26 <Diablo-D3> lol
382 2010-12-22 10:11:32 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: ports are still useful
383 2010-12-22 10:12:30 <wumpus> sure, because you still need unique source ports for TCP, otherwise each connection would need a new IPv6 address..
384 2010-12-22 10:12:58 <Diablo-D3> I meant even on top of that
385 2010-12-22 10:13:02 <Diablo-D3> it makes it more obscure
386 2010-12-22 10:13:04 <wumpus> heh, seems we'll find a way to fill up the address space
387 2010-12-22 10:13:11 <Diablo-D3> so you cant just scan a network for bitcoin clients
388 2010-12-22 10:13:22 <UukGoblin> hmm actually the last 2 bytes of a v6 address could be used as a port ;-]
389 2010-12-22 10:13:31 <wumpus> scanning in ipv6 will take a damn long time :)
390 2010-12-22 10:14:05 <wumpus> but I agree the port should be changable, it should simply be a command line option, like every P2P program...
391 2010-12-22 10:14:06 <Diablo-D3> also
392 2010-12-22 10:14:10 <Diablo-D3> ISPs could just block the port
393 2010-12-22 10:14:15 <xelister> fuck ubuntu/wubi
394 2010-12-22 10:14:17 <Diablo-D3> to stop terrorism
395 2010-12-22 10:14:37 <wumpus> yes they could block the ev0l terrorism ports!
396 2010-12-22 10:14:40 <UukGoblin> or under the Data Protection Act
397 2010-12-22 10:14:46 <wumpus> oh no, you might have given them an idea :)
398 2010-12-22 10:14:53 <UukGoblin> did I mention
399 2010-12-22 10:14:56 <UukGoblin> I work for an ISP?
400 2010-12-22 10:15:01 <UukGoblin> *blocks 3 million users*
401 2010-12-22 10:15:06 <Diablo-D3> why dont they have a Penis Protection Act?
402 2010-12-22 10:15:06 <wumpus> next up: spread spectrum internet traffic
403 2010-12-22 10:15:18 <wumpus> randomize the ports for every packet :P
404 2010-12-22 10:15:23 <Diablo-D3> make it a fine for a woman not to be dedicating her life to protecting a penis
405 2010-12-22 10:15:27 <Diablo-D3> or jail time
406 2010-12-22 10:17:06 <wumpus> yeah let's bog down the law system even more with senseless laws
407 2010-12-22 10:17:18 <Diablo-D3> senseless?!
408 2010-12-22 10:17:29 <Diablo-D3> it'd be the law that a woman would have to be parked on my dick 24/7!
409 2010-12-22 10:17:32 <wumpus> they should apply an optimizer to the law books
410 2010-12-22 10:18:00 <wumpus> you're a wuss if you need the law to provide you that :p
411 2010-12-22 10:18:15 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: hey, its just as much for them as it is for me
412 2010-12-22 10:18:17 <lfm> just repeal 99.99% of them
413 2010-12-22 10:18:23 <Diablo-D3> women are always bitching "I cant get a man!"
414 2010-12-22 10:18:27 <Diablo-D3> well Im right here damnit!
415 2010-12-22 10:18:33 <Diablo-D3> Im manly as it gets!
416 2010-12-22 10:18:47 <Diablo-D3> my beard is it's own citystate!
417 2010-12-22 10:19:01 <Diablo-D3> my chesthair is the third largest economy in the world!
418 2010-12-22 10:19:06 <wumpus> hehe
419 2010-12-22 10:19:40 <lfm> oh, how many inhabitants in your beard?
420 2010-12-22 10:19:48 <wumpus> watch out or the US will invade you
421 2010-12-22 10:19:58 <Diablo-D3> lfm: just bin laden and a few of his crew
422 2010-12-22 10:20:27 <Diablo-D3> and arthur c clark modeled the space elevator concept off of my dick after watching a woman climb on it
423 2010-12-22 10:20:59 <xelister> lol :}
424 2010-12-22 10:21:07 <xelister> speaking of your sister though,
425 2010-12-22 10:21:14 <xelister> where does she have a free night in this week, Diablo-D3?
426 2010-12-22 10:21:22 <xelister> * when
427 2010-12-22 10:21:43 <Diablo-D3> I dont even have a sister, moron
428 2010-12-22 10:22:05 <wumpus> anyway, back to coding
429 2010-12-22 10:23:15 <wumpus> and I think we should set the default port for bitcoin to the same as DNS, go ahead, filter that :)
430 2010-12-22 10:23:25 <Diablo-D3> tcp 53? sure.
431 2010-12-22 10:23:32 <Diablo-D3> and I can get away with it too
432 2010-12-22 10:23:40 <Diablo-D3> since dns usually uses udp 53.
433 2010-12-22 10:24:01 <Diablo-D3> (yup, its valid on both tcp and udp)
434 2010-12-22 10:24:04 <wumpus> would be some effort to multiplex the protocols, then again, it'd simple be a kind of tunneling
435 2010-12-22 10:24:23 <Diablo-D3> you mean like tcp over dns?
436 2010-12-22 10:24:29 <wumpus> yes
437 2010-12-22 10:24:36 <Diablo-D3> or ip over icmp?
438 2010-12-22 10:24:43 <Diablo-D3> or any of those other horrid things I read about?
439 2010-12-22 10:24:47 <Diablo-D3> wikipedia == dangerous
440 2010-12-22 10:25:34 <wumpus> ip over icmp is pretty neat as well
441 2010-12-22 10:26:11 <Diablo-D3> or port knocking to open up ports through firewalls?
442 2010-12-22 10:26:32 <wumpus> been there, done that, got the tshirt
443 2010-12-22 10:26:33 <Diablo-D3> which I assume, such a daemon to implement that, would be called fartknockr
444 2010-12-22 10:27:02 <wumpus> nowadays I simply tunnel everything through ssh though
445 2010-12-22 10:27:11 <wumpus> I'm lazy :P
446 2010-12-22 10:28:14 <wumpus> openvpn is pretty nice but still needs a lot of setup, ssh is so deliciously simple
447 2010-12-22 10:28:35 <Diablo-D3> openssh is easier
448 2010-12-22 10:28:46 <Diablo-D3> even can turn into a socks proxy
449 2010-12-22 10:28:51 <wumpus> yep
450 2010-12-22 10:32:53 <wumpus> are there any bitcoin nodes supporting ipv6?
451 2010-12-22 10:33:42 <larsivi> the bitcoin address - does it incorporate ip address or similar?
452 2010-12-22 10:33:52 <wumpus> nope
453 2010-12-22 10:33:57 <wumpus> it's random
454 2010-12-22 10:33:58 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: software doesnt support it
455 2010-12-22 10:34:38 <larsivi> wumpus: so when I enter it into the faucet, how does the payment arrive at my computer?
456 2010-12-22 10:34:45 <wumpus> larsivi: it's possible to pay to a IP address but it's really really evil and deprecated, don't do it
457 2010-12-22 10:35:23 <wumpus> Diablo-D3: right, so they only took it into account in the protcol, but didn't implement it yet
458 2010-12-22 10:35:25 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: your client contains the private key for that address
459 2010-12-22 10:35:59 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: the faucet puts into the chain of work the transaction containing the public key for that address
460 2010-12-22 10:36:05 <larsivi> Diablo-D3: sure, but somehow some message about the transaction must reach my client
461 2010-12-22 10:36:15 <wumpus> larsivi: bitcoin is basically a broadcast protocol, every node will get the transaction
462 2010-12-22 10:36:17 <Diablo-D3> yes, your client updates to the newest chain of work
463 2010-12-22 10:36:29 <wumpus> larsivi: but only your client will know what to do with it
464 2010-12-22 10:36:49 <Diablo-D3> wumpus: also, yes, ipv6 was never implemented, but it can be easily
465 2010-12-22 10:36:59 <larsivi> wumpus: yes, that is fine - I just don't like broadcast protocols :)
466 2010-12-22 10:37:17 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: in this case, you need the broadcast
467 2010-12-22 10:37:31 <Diablo-D3> otherwise clients cant mathematically prove the chain of work is valid
468 2010-12-22 10:37:41 <larsivi> broadcast don't normally scale very well
469 2010-12-22 10:37:41 <wumpus> yes in this case its the thing providing you security.. all the nodes check the validity and double spending
470 2010-12-22 10:38:00 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: a new block is produced on the chain every ten minutes
471 2010-12-22 10:38:18 <Diablo-D3> I could have a 300 baud modem for every node, and we're still fine
472 2010-12-22 10:39:20 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, until someone DoSes the network ;-]
473 2010-12-22 10:39:23 <larsivi> so a broadcast is only sent on generation of a new block? or on each transaction?
474 2010-12-22 10:39:34 <wumpus> everything that is not broadcast would require trust
475 2010-12-22 10:39:47 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: a new transaction, but that doesnt mean the transaction is accepted
476 2010-12-22 10:39:55 <wumpus> and trust is the thing bitcoin is trying to avoid
477 2010-12-22 10:40:01 <Diablo-D3> its only considered valid when it makes it into a new block
478 2010-12-22 10:40:06 <Diablo-D3> and the new block becomes valid
479 2010-12-22 10:41:26 <lfm> larsivi: it isnt reall broadcast, it is net of p2p links that distribute the messages
480 2010-12-22 10:41:51 <larsivi> lfm: ah, that is a different thing entirely
481 2010-12-22 10:41:54 <Diablo-D3> yeah
482 2010-12-22 10:41:57 <wumpus> but they deliver the messages to all nodes, so in principle it is broadcast
483 2010-12-22 10:42:20 <larsivi> broadcast refers specifically to the broadcast datagram protocols
484 2010-12-22 10:42:35 <wumpus> not really, broadcast is a general term in distributed computing
485 2010-12-22 10:42:37 <larsivi> in my question above :P
486 2010-12-22 10:42:41 <wumpus> ok
487 2010-12-22 10:42:48 <lfm> just seems like broadcast cuz it is wide fanout
488 2010-12-22 10:43:17 <larsivi> how do a client discover other clients?
489 2010-12-22 10:44:14 <lfm> larsivi:  several ways. 1 nis a special irc chan, 2 is a hard coded list in client 3 is command line args
490 2010-12-22 10:44:35 <bd_> also peer list exchanges with other nodes
491 2010-12-22 10:44:40 <bd_> 1/2/3 are only needed for bootstrapping
492 2010-12-22 10:45:27 <Diablo-D3> it also saves a list of nodes to disk
493 2010-12-22 10:45:45 <larsivi> When I now have 199 confirmations of my faucet transaction, what does that number signify? Most of the clients logged in since the transaction?
494 2010-12-22 10:46:09 <Diablo-D3> number of blocks passed into the chain after the block that contained that transaction
495 2010-12-22 10:46:11 <lfm> ya once it gets on net it gets a list of nodes with freshness timestamps and saves to disk
496 2010-12-22 10:46:13 <wumpus> 4) you can specify another client to bootstrap from on the command line
497 2010-12-22 10:46:20 <wumpus> ah wayt you already had that
498 2010-12-22 10:46:22 <Diablo-D3> I have a block that has almost 20k confirmations
499 2010-12-22 10:46:37 <Diablo-D3> it just means 20k blocks have been created since then
500 2010-12-22 10:46:50 <wumpus> so that's what confirmations are, interesting
501 2010-12-22 10:46:59 <lfm> larsivi: no confirmations are not nodes, they are blocks on the block chain
502 2010-12-22 10:49:18 <larsivi> if a block is generated every 10 minutes, would it then be proportional with hte time passed since the transaction?
503 2010-12-22 10:49:34 <lfm> larsivi: ya
504 2010-12-22 10:50:13 <lfm> btw the 10 min firgure is an average, it varies randomly a lot
505 2010-12-22 10:50:48 <larsivi> lfm: right, as I have 200 (which would on average mean 33 hours, but only 25 has gone by)
506 2010-12-22 10:51:05 <lfm> yup
507 2010-12-22 10:51:38 <Diablo-D3> it just means we're running fast today
508 2010-12-22 10:51:56 <Diablo-D3> difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks
509 2010-12-22 10:52:11 <larsivi> 'k. thanks for the answers :)
510 2010-12-22 10:52:43 <lfm> larsivi: by convention 6 confirmations make the transaction "safe" but in most circumstances 2 or 3 are virtually certain.
511 2010-12-22 10:53:35 <Diablo-D3> except when its a transaction that generates new coins
512 2010-12-22 10:53:38 <Diablo-D3> then its much more
513 2010-12-22 10:54:07 <lfm> and the one time when there was a nasty bug and we had to rewind a couple hours
514 2010-12-22 11:21:10 <gribble> Error: "blocks" is not a valid command.
515 2010-12-22 11:21:10 <grondilu> ,,blocks
516 2010-12-22 11:21:13 <gribble> Error: "block" is not a valid command.
517 2010-12-22 11:21:13 <grondilu> ,,block
518 2010-12-22 11:21:17 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
519 2010-12-22 11:21:17 <grondilu> ,,help
520 2010-12-22 11:22:57 <gribble> 98901
521 2010-12-22 11:22:57 <grondilu> ,,bc,blocks
522 2010-12-22 11:23:37 <grondilu> hum... my client is stuck at 98897 :(
523 2010-12-22 11:25:26 <grondilu> ,,bc,blocks
524 2010-12-22 11:25:27 <gribble> 98902
525 2010-12-22 11:26:52 <lfm> grondilu: how many connections?
526 2010-12-22 11:31:01 <lfm> ;;bc,blocks
527 2010-12-22 11:31:02 <gribble> 98903
528 2010-12-22 11:31:28 <Necrathex> so, i just corrected the nl-locale, how do i contribute it?
529 2010-12-22 11:32:04 <lfm> put a link to the corrected file in the forum
530 2010-12-22 11:32:23 <Necrathex> lfm: okay
531 2010-12-22 11:32:25 <lfm> or just post the file
532 2010-12-22 11:33:08 <wumpus> FUCK FUCK FUCK, I typed a complete post on the forum with a patch attached, then clicked submit, and it complained that .patch is not a valid attachment... but I still lost the entire post
533 2010-12-22 11:33:40 <lfm> thatd suck
534 2010-12-22 11:34:13 <wumpus> back in the old days, at least the back button worked :P
535 2010-12-22 11:34:20 <Necrathex> lfm: it's only the bitcoin.po file right?
536 2010-12-22 11:34:22 <Amiga4000> thats why news are better ;-)
537 2010-12-22 11:34:50 <Necrathex> wumpus: or use browser like Opera, then your back button works ;)
538 2010-12-22 11:35:11 <lfm> Necrathex:  i dunno, i only use/know english
539 2010-12-22 11:36:30 <wumpus> Necrathex: anyway, they have a very good security measure against contributing patches, it seems, I suddenly feel a lot less altruistic :)
540 2010-12-22 11:37:21 <lfm> wumpus maybe want msdos file names 8.3
541 2010-12-22 11:38:03 <wumpus> well you never know the patch was a uuencoded worm trojan virus, or maybe it could contain backdoors
542 2010-12-22 11:39:01 <wumpus> lfm: yeah you never know, there might be someone in a basement somewhere with a DOS pc :)
543 2010-12-22 12:24:04 <Necrathex> okay, i put the updated translation here: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=151.msg32479#msg32479
544 2010-12-22 12:24:06 <bitbot> Website and software translations : Necrathex: Hi there!  I noticed that the NL locale for Bitcoin has some errors (quite some actually)  So i made my corrections, attached is the nl locale .po file.  <i>edit: correctly used poedit this time</i>
545 2010-12-22 12:28:18 <freemind2> I'm working on a webapp that may accept bitcoin for payment. Is there any way to be notified of an incoming transaction, other than polling the rpc?
546 2010-12-22 12:29:51 <UukGoblin> freemind2, public away is evil. And no, I can't think of any way short of modifying the upstream bitcoind source
547 2010-12-22 12:30:02 <tcatm> freemind2: a) use a SCI (like mybitcoin), b) https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/monitorreceived
548 2010-12-22 13:10:52 <EvanR> UukGoblin: i was told that its very unlikely to fail, especially after 1 confirmation
549 2010-12-22 13:11:24 <UukGoblin> EvanR, that's true
550 2010-12-22 13:11:59 <cdecker> To fail a node must refuse the block and then generate 2 blocks before all other nodes generate 1 new block
551 2010-12-22 13:38:26 <xelister> too quiet? Time for offtopic story
552 2010-12-22 13:38:30 <xelister> Windows is awesome: I inserted liveusb to boot windows and execute fixmbr.  The fixmbr program succeeded. It fixed the MBR in... the liveusb 'harddrive' (thus leaving the computer still unbootable, as well as now corrupting the liveusb used to attempt to fix it). :D
553 2010-12-22 13:40:06 <wumpus> windows and MBRs is a dangerous combination
554 2010-12-22 13:40:28 <xelister> yeah. but wubi/ubuntu sucks so much, it bricked the box. so Im fixing it all step by step
555 2010-12-22 13:40:47 <cdecker> Wubi sucks because you run windows under it ^^
556 2010-12-22 13:40:47 <wumpus> just like installing windows will wipe all other operating systems from the MBR, pretending it's the only OS
557 2010-12-22 13:41:34 <wumpus> but sounds like wubi does the same ^^
558 2010-12-22 13:42:31 <wumpus> I've never had problems with it, i've used wubi to fix some windows problems, to remove rootkits and spyware inaccessible from windows itself
559 2010-12-22 13:42:44 <EvanR-work> wubi? chinese input method?
560 2010-12-22 13:43:11 <wumpus> it's a linux that you can start from windows (and lives inside a file on the windows file system)
561 2010-12-22 13:43:44 <EvanR-work> virtual?
562 2010-12-22 13:43:54 <wumpus> nope, it reboots the machine into linux
563 2010-12-22 13:43:58 <EvanR-work> o
564 2010-12-22 13:44:12 <wumpus> if it was virtual you couldn't use it to fix things as windows would still be running
565 2010-12-22 13:44:57 <EvanR-work> right
566 2010-12-22 13:44:58 <wumpus> a drawback compared to native linux is that disk access is pretty slow (ext2 over loopback over ntfs)
567 2010-12-22 13:45:33 <wumpus> then again, it's an excellent way to get to know ubuntu.. if it doesn't brick you box :)
568 2010-12-22 13:53:06 <xelister> wubi is windows-based ubuntu installer basically
569 2010-12-22 13:53:27 <xelister> its problem is that it created the ubuntu partition in a file on windows filesystem - slow, hard to repair etc
570 2010-12-22 13:54:02 <wumpus> yes but how did it mess up your windows?
571 2010-12-22 13:56:15 <xelister> on ubuntu update, new GRUB was installed, and this grup totally fails in such setup. It can not load its files from that in-windows partition, so grub does not operate normally, so you can not boot ubuntu. Nor even windows (without external boot manager, like on liveusb)
572 2010-12-22 14:00:40 <gavinandresen> Any github gurus here?
573 2010-12-22 14:01:13 <gavinandresen> I need to know how to get my forks in order.
574 2010-12-22 14:02:56 <BoBeR> hai
575 2010-12-22 14:03:05 <BoBeR> github hmm
576 2010-12-22 14:03:11 <BoBeR> start pulling requests
577 2010-12-22 14:03:14 <BoBeR> ond what you want added
578 2010-12-22 14:03:22 <BoBeR> that should join them into a big one
579 2010-12-22 14:04:14 <gavinandresen> Pulling isn't the problem; the problem is I've got two trees-- gavinandresen/bitcoin-git    and   bitcoin/bitcoin.   I forked bitcoin/bitcoin FROM gavinandresen.
580 2010-12-22 14:04:26 <BoBeR> yes
581 2010-12-22 14:04:31 <BoBeR> oh you want to switch it
582 2010-12-22 14:04:34 <BoBeR> hmm
583 2010-12-22 14:04:36 <gavinandresen> But now I want to invert that relationship-- I want bitcoin/bitcoin to be the parent of my personal tree
584 2010-12-22 14:04:47 <BoBeR> thats im possible i think
585 2010-12-22 14:04:52 <BoBeR> you can try to make new ones
586 2010-12-22 14:05:00 <BoBeR> or ask the admins
587 2010-12-22 14:05:01 <gavinandresen> Yeah, that's probably what I'll end up doing.
588 2010-12-22 14:08:26 <xelister> are USA discussing option to make it illegal to smoke, even in own home?
589 2010-12-22 14:08:44 <Diablo-D3> good.
590 2010-12-22 14:08:47 <Diablo-D3> I want such a law.
591 2010-12-22 14:08:53 <Diablo-D3> its not about the rights of the people
592 2010-12-22 14:08:58 <Diablo-D3> its about destroying rich companies
593 2010-12-22 14:09:24 <lfm> ya, make tobbaco illegal and put grass in vending machines
594 2010-12-22 14:12:26 <xelister> lfm: =)
595 2010-12-22 14:12:28 <UukGoblin> what's the point of destroying rich companies?
596 2010-12-22 14:12:34 <wumpus> haven't they learned from the prohibition?
597 2010-12-22 14:12:42 <wumpus> such a law would only help the mafia
598 2010-12-22 14:13:21 <wumpus> so it'd destroy rich companies and create rich criminals.. yeah, that's progress :/
599 2010-12-22 14:21:00 <jav_> What is your estimate on how many transactions per second the current Bitcoin infrastructure can handle? ... I'm wondering if an application that requires _lots_ of transactions of very, very tiny amounts would be feasible or if that would run into limits in terms of transactions per second?
600 2010-12-22 14:21:29 <cdecker> It's quite limited at the moment to be honest
601 2010-12-22 14:22:03 <jav_> and what would raise the limit? more people mining?
602 2010-12-22 14:22:05 <cdecker> When a certain threshold is hit there'll be transaction fees to pay for increased storage needs
603 2010-12-22 14:22:15 <cdecker> Not really
604 2010-12-22 14:22:36 <cdecker> There are efforts to try to make it scale better
605 2010-12-22 14:22:51 <cdecker> But until now the transaction volume is quite low
606 2010-12-22 14:23:03 <jav_> ok, I see, thx
607 2010-12-22 14:23:29 <cdecker> np
608 2010-12-22 14:23:33 <lfm> jav_: if you wanna do that you can do it with something like mybiycoin.com
609 2010-12-22 14:23:50 <lfm> mybitcoin.com
610 2010-12-22 14:23:50 <wumpus> bitcoin is not very suited to large numbers of small transactions
611 2010-12-22 14:24:49 <jav_> lfm: I assume that works as long as it's only transactions between mybitcoin addresses?
612 2010-12-22 14:25:19 <lfm> jay ya, but its easy to make accounts anyway
613 2010-12-22 14:25:26 <cdecker> The goal should be to aggregate transactions locally and only send them to the network once a threshold is reached.
614 2010-12-22 14:26:41 <jav_> wumpus: that's unfortunate for a micro-payement system, isn't it? ... well, I guess Bitcoin doesn't claim to be one
615 2010-12-22 14:27:41 <edcba> yes it isn't but it should be one
616 2010-12-22 14:27:51 <cdecker> Well people are working on that, so maybe we can claim to be a micropayment system one day ^^
617 2010-12-22 14:27:58 <edcba> 'working'
618 2010-12-22 14:28:00 <jav_> good to hear =)
619 2010-12-22 14:28:35 <gavinandresen> Seems to me micropayments on a worldwide network is a Really Hard Problem.  But I hope y'all prove me wrong!
620 2010-12-22 14:28:52 <wumpus> jav_: well, at the moment it's not a micro payment system, it's geared toward perfect double spending protection, which means the entire transaction log is sent to all the nodes to be verified
621 2010-12-22 14:31:35 <wumpus> jav_: Safety over everything. Other proposed cryptocurrency systems sacrifice double spending protection for more locality/less bandwidth and storage usage, or special 'trusted' nodes, but it's a compromise, a dangerous one at that
622 2010-12-22 14:32:38 <da2ce7> something like this: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=847.0 backed by bitcoin would work
623 2010-12-22 14:32:46 <bitbot> Open Transactions: untraceable digital cash
624 2010-12-22 14:33:48 <wumpus> yep
625 2010-12-22 14:34:28 <wumpus> but I think the choice made by bitcoin is a very valid one, to get people to have any faith in cryptocurrencies at all, double spending must be prevented at all costs
626 2010-12-22 14:40:54 <TD_> so
627 2010-12-22 14:41:04 <TD> the old wiki is deprecated
628 2010-12-22 14:41:11 <TD> is anyone moving the technical series content to the new wiki?
629 2010-12-22 15:10:46 <wumpus> ooh shiny new wiki
630 2010-12-22 15:12:13 <gavinandresen> She's realy purty
631 2010-12-22 15:13:33 <wumpus> TD: seems there is already quite some technical content in there, for example "Script"
632 2010-12-22 15:14:21 <wumpus> TD: but I'm not sure it's the same as in the old wiki
633 2010-12-22 15:16:11 <TD> ah right
634 2010-12-22 16:25:13 <Asphodelia> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner
635 2010-12-22 16:27:31 <Asphodelia> Diablo-D3, do you have any idea what I might do to fix this? I already tried manually setting $JAVA_HOME and $CLASSPATH in the shell environment.
636 2010-12-22 16:28:58 <Diablo-D3> did you get from git?
637 2010-12-22 16:29:03 <Asphodelia> yes
638 2010-12-22 16:29:06 <Diablo-D3> thats why
639 2010-12-22 16:29:10 <Diablo-D3> you forgot to build it
640 2010-12-22 16:29:11 <Diablo-D3> run mvn package
641 2010-12-22 16:30:06 <Asphodelia> Thank you.
642 2010-12-22 16:48:43 <sgornick> Is there web access to the logs for this IRC?  https://caurea.org gives a 404.
643 2010-12-22 16:53:47 <Asphodelia> caurea.org looks up to me.
644 2010-12-22 16:54:07 <nanotube> sgornick: http://veritas.maximilianeum.ch/bitcoin/irc/logs/
645 2010-12-22 17:00:40 <theymos> nanotube: http://blockexplorer.com/q/eta now never looks at blocks before the last retarget. The parameter is the maximum number of blocks to look back at.
646 2010-12-22 17:00:45 <gribble> 15974.07550945
647 2010-12-22 17:00:45 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,estimate
648 2010-12-22 17:00:51 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
649 2010-12-22 17:00:53 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98938 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1861 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes, and 13 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15974.07550945
650 2010-12-22 17:01:56 <nanotube> theymos: cool... it seems about equal to what the current time estimate is showing, now that we've had some blocks done.
651 2010-12-22 17:02:02 <sgornick> Asphodelia: thanks, ... but they were an archive for some of #bitcoin-dev back in July / Aug e.g., http://stuff.caurea.org/irssi/.../%23bitcoin-dev/.../%23bitcoin-dev-2010-08-03.log
652 2010-12-22 17:02:12 <gribble> 1 week, 4 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes, and 8 seconds
653 2010-12-22 17:02:12 <nanotube> ;;time elapsed [web fetch http://blockexplorer.com/q/eta]
654 2010-12-22 17:02:24 <sgornick> nanotube: those don't go back earler..., darn.
655 2010-12-22 17:02:46 <nanotube> mm ya
656 2010-12-22 17:03:07 <sgornick> lfm: Care to relive for us youngin's (well, newer to Bitcoin than August) how this "Rewind" went down?
657 2010-12-22 17:03:38 <midnightmagic> oh thank god..
658 2010-12-22 17:03:41 <nanotube> sgornick: yea it seems the irssi dir is down on caurea. someone may have a copy
659 2010-12-22 17:03:55 <lfm> eh?
660 2010-12-22 17:04:24 <sgornick> lfm: you wrote "and the one time when there was a nasty bug and we had to rewind a couple hours"
661 2010-12-22 17:05:36 <lfm> there was a bug someone found that they created a transaction that gave them trillions of btc. There ware some guys noticed it in the block chain almost right away.
662 2010-12-22 17:05:39 <sgornick> that's a fascinating concept that a financial system could work that way.  what I gather is there was a bug 0.3.8 or something, then everyone instructed to not trust trx after a certain block until
663 2010-12-22 17:06:06 <theymos> nanotube: It should be very close until 1000 blocks (or the specified maximum) is reached. Then mine is more accurate. 4 days before the last retarget, I recorded our estimates and compared them afterward: Mine was 1 hour off, and yours was 4 hours off.
664 2010-12-22 17:06:09 <sgornick> ... you could run on 0.3.10
665 2010-12-22 17:06:55 <nanotube> theymos: well, guess i'll switch my timetonext to use your new eta. :)
666 2010-12-22 17:07:15 <lfm> within a few hours we got Satoshi to release a new version that would reject the bad transaction. It actually took a few more hours than that to get enough people runnign the new version and producing enough new blocks to take over with a nerw block chain
667 2010-12-22 17:07:56 <cosurgi> slush_cz: I'm afraid I won't do that change to default client for pooled mining. not enough time, sorry.
668 2010-12-22 17:08:40 <slush_cz> cosurgi: Ok, don't worry
669 2010-12-22 17:08:50 <nanotube> ;;bc,stats
670 2010-12-22 17:08:52 <gribble> Current Blocks: 98938 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1861 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 4 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes, and 8 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15974.07550945
671 2010-12-22 17:09:05 <nanotube> theymos: thanks :)
672 2010-12-22 17:09:11 <cosurgi> slept only 3h for three consecutive days
673 2010-12-22 17:09:37 <cosurgi> slush_cz: maybe "later" can't promise :/
674 2010-12-22 17:09:47 <slush_cz> cosurgi: eh "nevermind"
675 2010-12-22 17:09:58 <cosurgi> :)
676 2010-12-22 17:10:11 <cosurgi> life
677 2010-12-22 17:10:51 <davux> any French speaker here?
678 2010-12-22 17:10:58 <davux> i would like to invite you to #bitcoin-fr
679 2010-12-22 17:11:00 <theymos> nanotube: Cool. I think I'll change the default lookback so it's only 50 when near a retarget. That'll be noticeably more accurate.
680 2010-12-22 17:11:19 <davux> a couple of people came to me and have some questions about bitcoin, and they speak French
681 2010-12-22 17:11:42 <nanotube> theymos: i think just leaving the lookback at max(500, blockssincelastretarget) would be quite accurate enough...
682 2010-12-22 17:11:50 <slush_cz> cosurgi: It would be cool to have remote mining support, but real life at first place, of course :)
683 2010-12-22 17:12:05 <nanotube> theymos: er... i mean, min()
684 2010-12-22 17:13:13 <cosurgi> slush_cz: :)
685 2010-12-22 17:14:00 <lfm> davux: if you wann translate for them what are the questions?
686 2010-12-22 17:14:25 <nanotube> lfm: google translate to the rescue :)
687 2010-12-22 17:15:13 <theymos> nanotube: Yeah. I suppose no one needs minute-level accuracy.
688 2010-12-22 17:16:04 <nanotube> if they do they can pass an argument to eta. :)
689 2010-12-22 17:16:56 <EvanR-work> how much does an operator turban cost
690 2010-12-22 17:17:32 <davux> lfm: i have to go now, i can't do the translation
691 2010-12-22 17:24:12 <sgornick> lfm: thanks for the info.  When did that "rewind" occur ... back in July? I see notes about an "overflow" bug back in pre-0.3.10,
692 2010-12-22 17:24:46 <lfm> sgornick: yes that was it
693 2010-12-22 17:25:08 <lfm> not sure exactly when it was off hand
694 2010-12-22 17:27:14 <omglolbbq> what could cause gpu miner to perform realy bad in a pool while showing high khash?
695 2010-12-22 17:30:24 <ArtForz> lots of possiblities
696 2010-12-22 17:31:40 <omglolbbq> ArtForz, my one card with 70.000khash is finding about same amount as blocks as my 24.000khash card...
697 2010-12-22 17:31:56 <omglolbbq> only since today
698 2010-12-22 17:32:00 <ArtForz> OCed?
699 2010-12-22 17:32:10 <omglolbbq> it was oced but crashed, not anymore
700 2010-12-22 17:33:48 <ArtForz> sounds weird
701 2010-12-22 17:34:09 <omglolbbq> maybe its just having a bad day... just tought it was odd
702 2010-12-22 17:34:17 <ArtForz> usually it's either too high a OC or crossfire fucking things up
703 2010-12-22 17:35:08 <ArtForz> yeah, bad luck also happens, but usually my cards are within 10% or so of expected H==0 counts over a day or so
704 2010-12-22 17:35:52 <omglolbbq> could slow internet connection be a problem?
705 2010-12-22 17:35:57 <omglolbbq> (pooled mining)
706 2010-12-22 17:36:11 <ArtForz> I guess so
707 2010-12-22 17:36:56 <omglolbbq> *kills torrents*
708 2010-12-22 17:37:11 <necrodearia> sgornick, Re:  Bitcoin 3.9 bug and irc log since just before discovery see http://please.bitcoin.me/irclog.txt
709 2010-12-22 17:37:25 <ArtForz> err, 0.3.9 was already fixed
710 2010-12-22 17:37:34 <necrodearia> And while you're at it, feel freely to pbm ^_^
711 2010-12-22 17:37:40 <ArtForz> 0.3.8 and earlier had the overflow bug
712 2010-12-22 17:37:45 <necrodearia> actually, more liek "pb noagendamarket"
713 2010-12-22 17:40:57 <BoBeR> im starting a service
714 2010-12-22 17:41:05 <BoBeR> will find weird rare files for anyone
715 2010-12-22 17:41:18 <BoBeR> prices is PWYC
716 2010-12-22 17:41:29 <BoBeR> already 1 happy customer
717 2010-12-22 17:41:38 <BoBeR> good at finding the rarest of porn
718 2010-12-22 17:41:47 <BoBeR> and the piratyest of warez
719 2010-12-22 17:42:02 <BoBeR> only accept BTC
720 2010-12-22 17:43:51 <omglolbbq> ArtForz, i heard you were planning on overtaking bitcoin power?
721 2010-12-22 17:44:04 <ArtForz> not quite
722 2010-12-22 17:44:50 <ArtForz> actually pretty far from it
723 2010-12-22 17:45:05 <omglolbbq> i tought you'd have more then 50% of the networks generating power
724 2010-12-22 17:45:22 <ArtForz> with a full 1000 chips, yes
725 2010-12-22 17:45:44 <ArtForz> only ordered 100 for now
726 2010-12-22 17:45:51 <omglolbbq> good :p
727 2010-12-22 17:46:28 <ArtForz> so it's only ~20Gh/s
728 2010-12-22 17:46:31 <Asphodelia> Protip: don't try to get 50% of the network. You'll crash the currency.
729 2010-12-22 17:47:25 <midnightmagic> those those fpga you were thinking about a few days ago?
730 2010-12-22 17:47:39 <ArtForz> structured ASIC
731 2010-12-22 17:47:44 <midnightmagic> very nice.
732 2010-12-22 17:47:49 <ArtForz> basically a FPGA without the FP part
733 2010-12-22 17:49:33 <ArtForz> FPGAs simply cost too much up front
734 2010-12-22 17:49:58 <BoBeR> ArtForz just let your run
735 2010-12-22 17:50:01 <midnightmagic> i love the implication that asics don't. :)
736 2010-12-22 17:50:02 <BoBeR> tell ppl they have a chance
737 2010-12-22 17:50:07 <BoBeR> and they more ppl will generate
738 2010-12-22 17:50:13 <BoBeR> trully making it p2p
739 2010-12-22 17:50:17 <ArtForz> actually they really dont
740 2010-12-22 17:50:31 <BoBeR> if one person has more CPU power then others
741 2010-12-22 17:50:45 <ArtForz> structured ASIC = standard silicon, metal layer defined function
742 2010-12-22 17:50:48 <BoBeR> ppl will be scared that if you get arrested the network will clash in difficulty
743 2010-12-22 17:50:52 <BoBeR> and destroy everything
744 2010-12-22 17:52:07 <ArtForz> higher per-unit cost for FPGA makes it a worse choice than ASIC even for "only" 20Ghps
745 2010-12-22 17:52:08 <midnightmagic> oh, no, I meant i love it as in "that's really cool!"
746 2010-12-22 17:52:30 <Asphodelia> More to the point, a party with >50% can execute various bad attacks.
747 2010-12-22 17:53:00 <ArtForz> yes, if I wanted to grab > 50% of the network, I would've done so a long time ago
748 2010-12-22 17:53:03 <xelister> god windows is shit
749 2010-12-22 17:55:35 <xelister> 1 BTC for anyone that tells me how to change partition to logical;  layout: 4 primary partitions (+free space). Without destroying data. Quickly, not moving 40 GB data back and forth a lot. PM me if offer is still open
750 2010-12-22 17:56:35 <ArtForz> kinda tricky but possible if you have a few sectors space in front of your first partiton
751 2010-12-22 17:57:35 <xelister> no space there... but 1st partition is small, I could shirng it and move + few sectors
752 2010-12-22 17:57:40 <xelister> shrink*
753 2010-12-22 17:58:26 <xelister> overall, in gparted or other program... is there way to to tell partition to be logical
754 2010-12-22 17:58:33 <xelister> oh meh
755 2010-12-22 17:59:13 <ArtForz> dunno about gparted, I usually do crap like that more-or-less manually
756 2010-12-22 17:59:29 <midnightmagic> boot into Linux, fdisk, mark current geometry, delete partition, create primary, enter same layout, make sure type is correct, mount to verify?
757 2010-12-22 18:00:14 <ArtForz> pretty much
758 2010-12-22 18:00:33 <midnightmagic> 0.5 BTC please.
759 2010-12-22 18:01:45 <midnightmagic> j/k, keep it man, your cross to bear makes me feel sympathy.. :)
760 2010-12-22 18:01:51 <ArtForz> boot linux, find/make free sector for extended partiton table, copy primary partiton entries to extended table, replace partitions in primary table with ref to extended table, ???, profit!
761 2010-12-22 18:03:24 <ArtForz> officially extended part table should be right in fornt of extended partitoion, real-world more crazy structures usually work just as well
762 2010-12-22 18:15:47 <Asphodelia> I don't understand why the supply is scheduled to level off. Isn't the value of the coin determined mostly by the cost of minting?
763 2010-12-22 18:17:00 <EvanR-work> no?
764 2010-12-22 18:17:02 <Guest34676> Value is a subjective measure.  Value is not determined by cost
765 2010-12-22 18:17:17 <Asphodelia> okay, market price.
766 2010-12-22 18:19:01 <Asphodelia> But if the cost of minting 1BTC approaches infinity, shouldn't the market price of bitcoins likewise approach infinity? That seems wrong.
767 2010-12-22 18:19:18 <Guest34676> market price is what the last person paid in some currency/good for btc. the value of 1 btc for that person exceeded its market price - that's why he traded
768 2010-12-22 18:19:30 <Asphodelia> yes
769 2010-12-22 18:19:51 <Guest34676> cost of minting depends on the amount of cpu power
770 2010-12-22 18:20:09 <Guest34676> cpu power is in flux as miners decided whether they want to mine or not
771 2010-12-22 18:20:36 <EvanR-work> if there are more goods and services to trade for it, the value goes up
772 2010-12-22 18:21:26 <EvanR-work> when more total money appears, the value goes down
773 2010-12-22 18:21:34 <Asphodelia> That doesn't sound right.
774 2010-12-22 18:22:04 <Asphodelia> How do the sellers decide how much to charge?
775 2010-12-22 18:22:14 <Asphodelia> You have to already know the value for that.
776 2010-12-22 18:22:21 <EvanR-work> look at this chart
777 2010-12-22 18:22:31 <Asphodelia> It feels like the only place that price information originally "comes from" is the cost of minting.
778 2010-12-22 18:22:46 <EvanR-work> https://mtgox.com/trade/history see depth of market
779 2010-12-22 18:23:00 <EvanR-work> people are selling for lots of prices, in blue
780 2010-12-22 18:23:39 <EvanR-work> so if you wanted to sell, youd choose a price somewhere in there
781 2010-12-22 18:24:04 <EvanR-work> Asphodelia: money can have more value to it than the cost of creating it. look at dollars
782 2010-12-22 18:24:05 <Guest34676> not really.  market price is a meeting of supply and demand value scales between sellers and buyers of btc
783 2010-12-22 18:25:12 <tcatm> What's the best algorithm to calculate total network hashrate from block timestamps?
784 2010-12-22 18:25:49 <ArtForz> define best
785 2010-12-22 18:26:21 <Guest34676> for miners the cost of mining does play a role in what they're willing to sell at, but buyers are likely to consider other factors (what can i get for btc, ease of transmitting btc, anonymity...)
786 2010-12-22 18:26:22 <EvanR-work> Asphodelia: a good starting point for choosing a price is what the various markets are currently charging. too high and youll never sell it. too low and youll be missing profits
787 2010-12-22 18:26:40 <tcatm> ArtForz: Most accurate hashrate at any given time.
788 2010-12-22 18:26:53 <tcatm> Output will be a graph
789 2010-12-22 18:27:12 <ArtForz> thats kinda hard
790 2010-12-22 18:27:38 <ArtForz> to get rid of the noise you have to average over a lot of blocks
791 2010-12-22 18:27:58 <ArtForz> but that also means you're looking at 1kblock+ averages
792 2010-12-22 18:28:28 <tcatm> What would you suggest?
793 2010-12-22 18:28:46 <ArtForz> not too sure, best-fit with a quadratic curve maybe?
794 2010-12-22 18:29:00 <ArtForz> *least-squares fit
795 2010-12-22 18:29:12 <tcatm> Could take quite long to calculate
796 2010-12-22 18:29:58 <ArtForz> well, statistix uses simple average-of-last-X-blocks
797 2010-12-22 18:31:12 <EvanR-work> is there a graph for total bitcoin hash per second over time?
798 2010-12-22 18:31:20 <EvanR-work> is it like moores law?
799 2010-12-22 18:31:21 <tcatm> i.e. calculating hashrate for every block, then average over n blocks?
800 2010-12-22 18:31:31 <ArtForz> http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/hashes.png
801 2010-12-22 18:31:37 <ArtForz> hashrate for block is easy
802 2010-12-22 18:31:41 <tcatm> EvanR-work: I'm adding that to bitcoincharts
803 2010-12-22 18:31:46 <EvanR-work> great
804 2010-12-22 18:32:29 <ArtForz> it gives nonsensical results sometimes
805 2010-12-22 18:33:12 <ArtForz> should be ~ 2**32 * block[X].difficulty / (block[X].time - block[X-1].time)
806 2010-12-22 18:33:54 <ArtForz> result is HPS
807 2010-12-22 18:34:11 <ArtForz> small problems from blocks with timestamps <= prev block
808 2010-12-22 18:36:26 <gribble> Error: "bc," is not a valid command.
809 2010-12-22 18:36:26 <midnightmagic> ;;bc, calc 150000
810 2010-12-22 18:36:32 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 150000
811 2010-12-22 18:36:33 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 150000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 4 days, 19 hours, 12 minutes, and 6 seconds
812 2010-12-22 18:37:58 <tcatm> ArtForz: What would you suggest for dealing with negative deltas?
813 2010-12-22 18:38:03 <EvanR-work> as more cpu joins the pool, my share rate will drop
814 2010-12-22 18:38:34 <EvanR-work> eventually back to the original problem the pool was supposed to 'solve'
815 2010-12-22 18:38:44 <ArtForz> not really
816 2010-12-22 18:39:09 <ArtForz> with a pool you just get less coins more often
817 2010-12-22 18:39:33 <EvanR-work> in either case, as more cpu computes bit coins, and my cpu power doesnt increase, i will see less coins
818 2010-12-22 18:39:38 <ArtForz> averaged over "long enough" you end up with slighly less than straight mining would get you
819 2010-12-22 18:40:22 <EvanR-work> at some point it wont be 'fun' to join the pool either
820 2010-12-22 18:40:57 <ArtForz> well, miners will be getting milliBTC very regularly :P
821 2010-12-22 18:41:09 <EvanR-work> not if you cant get a share
822 2010-12-22 18:41:31 <EvanR-work> the pool gets several blocks a day now :S
823 2010-12-22 18:41:39 <ArtForz> well, at diff 14k theres avg 14k shares per block
824 2010-12-22 18:42:26 <ArtForz> yep
825 2010-12-22 18:42:47 <xelister> ArtForz: got updated version?
826 2010-12-22 18:43:15 <ArtForz> updated version of what?
827 2010-12-22 18:43:18 <xelister> of http://www3.telus.net/millerlf/hashes.png
828 2010-12-22 18:43:22 <ArtForz> nope
829 2010-12-22 18:43:30 <xelister> wait, that actually is up to date it seems
830 2010-12-22 18:43:39 <xelister> well almost
831 2010-12-22 18:43:41 <ArtForz> not quite
832 2010-12-22 18:43:53 <ArtForz> up to dec 1st or so it eseems
833 2010-12-22 18:44:09 <EvanR-work> i ran my 1100M miner at lunch and got nothing :S
834 2010-12-22 18:44:32 <EvanR-work> er
835 2010-12-22 18:44:36 <EvanR-work> 1.1M ;)
836 2010-12-22 18:45:07 <ArtForz> btw, getting > 550Mh/s on a stock 5970 now
837 2010-12-22 18:45:32 <EvanR-work> how much do those go for, 600 dollars?
838 2010-12-22 18:45:49 <ArtForz> dunno, they used to be ~500 before they went out of stock everywhere
839 2010-12-22 18:45:54 <EvanR-work> lol
840 2010-12-22 18:46:25 <ArtForz> probably because 6990 is supposed to come out early '11
841 2010-12-22 18:48:52 <ArtForz> it should be possible to get close to 600Mh/s from a 5970
842 2010-12-22 18:49:13 <ArtForz> *a stock 5970
843 2010-12-22 18:50:00 <EvanR-work> can a quantum computer blow us out of the water?
844 2010-12-22 18:50:09 <ArtForz> probably not
845 2010-12-22 18:50:39 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,calc 105000
846 2010-12-22 18:50:40 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 105000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 6 days, 20 hours, 34 minutes, and 26 seconds
847 2010-12-22 18:51:02 <EvanR-work> ;;bc.calc 1100
848 2010-12-22 18:51:02 <gribble> Error: "bc.calc" is not a valid command.
849 2010-12-22 18:51:07 <EvanR-work> ;;bc,calc 1100
850 2010-12-22 18:51:08 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1100 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 year, 41 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes, and 39 seconds
851 2010-12-22 18:51:33 <ArtForz> ;;bc,calc 16441609
852 2010-12-22 18:51:33 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 16441609 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 3 seconds
853 2010-12-22 18:51:37 <EvanR-work> that command needs to extrpolate for expected increases in total bitcoin cpu
854 2010-12-22 18:52:02 <ArtForz> why? it says *given current difficulty*
855 2010-12-22 18:52:19 <EvanR-work> which is obviously useless 1 year 41 weeks out
856 2010-12-22 18:52:23 <EvanR-work> ;;bc,calc 1000000000
857 2010-12-22 18:52:23 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 minute and 2 seconds
858 2010-12-22 18:52:46 <EvanR-work> $_$
859 2010-12-22 18:53:14 <EvanR-work> cpu is money
860 2010-12-22 18:53:36 <ArtForz> that'd probably be < $1M of ASICs
861 2010-12-22 18:53:56 <ArtForz> well, not probably, it is
862 2010-12-22 18:56:07 <EvanR-work> how is difficulty determined?
863 2010-12-22 18:56:42 <bencoder> magic
864 2010-12-22 18:58:33 <BoBeR> its calculated so only 6 bitcoins an hour
865 2010-12-22 18:58:42 <BoBeR> it takes the last amount and magicifys it
866 2010-12-22 18:58:50 <bencoder> ^
867 2010-12-22 18:58:55 <bencoder> s/bitcoins/blocks
868 2010-12-22 18:59:08 <BoBeR> that
869 2010-12-22 18:59:16 <EvanR-work> based on how fast blocks have been generating?
870 2010-12-22 18:59:25 <ArtForz> yup
871 2010-12-22 18:59:31 <EvanR-work> based on timestamps?
872 2010-12-22 18:59:34 <ArtForz> yup
873 2010-12-22 18:59:41 <EvanR-work> arent the timestamps up to the clients?
874 2010-12-22 18:59:47 <ArtForz> not really
875 2010-12-22 19:00:26 <ArtForz> clients ignore blocks with timestamps in the future or < median of prev 11 blocks
876 2010-12-22 19:01:08 <EvanR-work> so before using bitcoin, make sure you set your clock?
877 2010-12-22 19:01:22 <EvanR-work> or your 1 minute in the future timestamp will be rejected?
878 2010-12-22 19:01:34 <ArtForz> errr... more than 2h into the future
879 2010-12-22 19:01:38 <EvanR-work> oh
880 2010-12-22 19:02:09 <EvanR-work> will bitcoins work between planets?
881 2010-12-22 19:02:25 <ArtForz> and iirc bitcoin calcs offset from local UTC clock by using median of peer time
882 2010-12-22 19:02:58 <ArtForz> iirc thats limited to +- 1h though
883 2010-12-22 19:03:49 <ArtForz> so if your clock is more than 2h in the future, you'll be mining blocks no other node will accept