1 2010-12-28 00:02:02 <EvanR> this polling thing is going to get hairy if i want to recover all future accidental payments to an address
  2 2010-12-28 00:02:27 <EvanR> monitor patch...
  3 2010-12-28 00:04:23 <da2ce7> hey boys: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20485
  4 2010-12-28 00:04:49 <EvanR> saw that on slashdot
  5 2010-12-28 00:07:17 <EvanR> is there no accepted automatic way to effectively make an address 'one time only' ?
  6 2010-12-28 00:07:45 <theymos> Use getaccountaddress.
  7 2010-12-28 00:09:28 <EvanR> how does that help
  8 2010-12-28 00:10:02 <theymos> It returns one address until you receive something at it. Then it never returns that address again.
  9 2010-12-28 00:10:58 <EvanR> and if someones accidentally sends money there?
 10 2010-12-28 00:12:45 <theymos> It increases the account balance appropriately.
 11 2010-12-28 00:14:35 <EvanR> it can be used any number of times
 12 2010-12-28 00:14:52 <EvanR> even after the first, probably correct, one
 13 2010-12-28 00:15:56 <theymos> You could move all old addresses to an "old" account, and then just poll that one. Or use monitor*. Or just manually fix it for users who do stupid things like that.
 14 2010-12-28 00:16:39 <EvanR> ah, setaccountaddress
 15 2010-12-28 00:17:01 <Kiba> today
 16 2010-12-28 00:17:04 <Kiba> I learned something useful
 17 2010-12-28 00:17:10 <Kiba> experiencing self and remembering self
 18 2010-12-28 00:17:41 <EvanR> theymos: so a server has a total balance, but its divided into accounts?
 19 2010-12-28 00:17:50 <EvanR> and an account has many addresses?
 20 2010-12-28 00:17:55 <Kiba> experiencing is what I feel at the moment. Remembering is looking back in the past and remembering only part of the experience
 21 2010-12-28 00:18:29 <theymos> EvanR: Right. Also, the default account can access all account balances.
 22 2010-12-28 00:18:55 <EvanR> whats with negative balance?
 23 2010-12-28 00:19:42 <theymos> I don't think that should happen. It might be a bug.
 24 2010-12-28 00:20:03 <EvanR> getbalance shows 51.17, getbalance "" shows -10, getbalance "mtgox" shows 10
 25 2010-12-28 00:21:24 <theymos> getbalance is the real 'getbalance ""'.
 26 2010-12-28 00:22:38 <EvanR> is there an upper limit to amount of coins in a transaction, or in a wallet, or balance, or? 21M ?
 27 2010-12-28 00:23:06 <sipa> there is a limit on the size of transaction, i believe
 28 2010-12-28 00:24:29 <theymos> Bitcoin will probably crash from a too-large wallet before you get near 21 million. Transactions can't be above 1MB.
 29 2010-12-28 00:24:58 <EvanR> too large wallet?
 30 2010-12-28 00:25:23 <theymos> Your entire wallet is stored in memory. It can't get too large.
 31 2010-12-28 00:25:47 <EvanR> the number 21 million fits easily in memory
 32 2010-12-28 00:26:16 <sipa> EvanR: also, how do you define a coin?
 33 2010-12-28 00:26:27 <EvanR> 1BTC
 34 2010-12-28 00:26:55 <theymos> Unless you get it in one transaction, you'll have hundreds of thousands of transactions in your wallet. Every received and sent transaction is stored in the wallet, as well as the "branch" transactions in its block.
 35 2010-12-28 00:26:57 <sipa> well the physical representation of a BTC (whatever the amount) is a series of transactions leading to a netto positive balance
 36 2010-12-28 00:27:10 <sipa> there is no such thing as "this piece of data is 1 BTC"
 37 2010-12-28 00:27:22 <EvanR> well the transaction amount is in json right
 38 2010-12-28 00:27:24 <EvanR> as nanocoins
 39 2010-12-28 00:27:30 <sipa> yes
 40 2010-12-28 00:27:33 <EvanR> can that number be arbitrarily long
 41 2010-12-28 00:28:01 <sipa> it's in units of 0.00000001 BTC
 42 2010-12-28 00:28:10 <EvanR> yeah 'nanocoins' xD
 43 2010-12-28 00:28:24 <sipa> it's decananocoins :)
 44 2010-12-28 00:28:37 <EvanR> nano is hipper and has precedent
 45 2010-12-28 00:28:51 <EvanR> and has the hip-benefit of being wrong
 46 2010-12-28 00:29:01 <EvanR> always good for popularity
 47 2010-12-28 00:29:41 <EvanR> centimicrocoins
 48 2010-12-28 00:30:01 <theymos> You can store huge-value transactions if they are small. The overflow transaction transferred over 100 billion BTC.
 49 2010-12-28 00:30:20 <sipa> 'the overflow transaction' ?
 50 2010-12-28 00:30:31 <theymos> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents#Value_overflow
 51 2010-12-28 00:30:39 <sipa> thanks
 52 2010-12-28 00:30:43 <EvanR> awesome
 53 2010-12-28 00:32:00 <theymos> The overflow bug worked because it was trasferring the highest possible amount, which is 92,233,720,368.54275808 BTC.
 54 2010-12-28 00:32:18 <Cusipzzz> ya, let me list 186Billion on mtgox
 55 2010-12-28 00:32:26 <sipa> significantly more than can possibly ever exist
 56 2010-12-28 00:32:38 <EvanR> what makes that the highest possible amount?
 57 2010-12-28 00:32:57 <sipa> that's 2^63-1/100000000
 58 2010-12-28 00:33:04 <sipa> (2^63-1)/100000000
 59 2010-12-28 00:33:15 <theymos> It's the highest amount that Bitcoin's fixed-point 64-bit integer representation of BTC can hold.
 60 2010-12-28 00:33:17 <EvanR> ah so there are 64bit numbers sneaking around somewhere
 61 2010-12-28 00:33:32 <EvanR> was wondering about that
 62 2010-12-28 00:33:32 <sipa> signed 64 bit numbers even
 63 2010-12-28 00:33:54 <sipa> theymos: hmm, it's 2^63/10^8
 64 2010-12-28 00:34:19 <sipa> you can't represent that value in a 2's complement signed 64 bit number
 65 2010-12-28 00:35:01 <ArtForz> we are using signed int64s ?
 66 2010-12-28 00:35:06 <theymos> Maybe it's a little different. I was just copying the value of the overflow transaction.
 67 2010-12-28 00:35:31 <sipa> well, it is the value listed on that wiki page
 68 2010-12-28 00:35:38 <ArtForz> *shrug*
 69 2010-12-28 00:35:47 <EvanR> i have more than that dont i? xD
 70 2010-12-28 00:35:50 <theymos> Yes; value is signed.
 71 2010-12-28 00:36:20 <ArtForz> I still wonder why cent = 1M
 72 2010-12-28 00:36:51 <theymos> Two less zeroes than COIN.
 73 2010-12-28 00:36:59 <ArtForz> yes
 74 2010-12-28 00:37:13 <ArtForz> but why not at least make decent use of that int64
 75 2010-12-28 00:37:37 <ArtForz> 21M * COIN is a few orders of magnitude < int64_max
 76 2010-12-28 00:37:45 <sipa> what's COIN?
 77 2010-12-28 00:37:53 <ArtForz> 100 * CENT
 78 2010-12-28 00:38:05 <EvanR> whats CENT
 79 2010-12-28 00:38:13 <ArtForz> 1000000
 80 2010-12-28 00:38:21 <sipa> oh ok
 81 2010-12-28 00:38:39 <sipa> COIN = 10^8, CENT = 10^6 :)
 82 2010-12-28 00:38:59 <ArtForz> yep, 1BTC = 1e8 'smallest possible bitcoin units'
 83 2010-12-28 00:39:25 <ArtForz> and 21M = 2.1e15
 84 2010-12-28 00:40:06 <ArtForz> 2**63-1 = 9.2e18
 85 2010-12-28 00:40:48 <theymos> Maybe Satoshi limited precision to eight decimals to limit spam attacks.
 86 2010-12-28 00:40:51 <sgornick> EvanR: I was just reviewing the log from earlier, regarding ability to return bitcoins to sender.  Just an FYI.  If I send an amount from on ewallet provider, such as MyBitcoin, and then you return that back to the address sent from, I'll never see it.
 87 2010-12-28 00:40:56 <ArtForz> so we'll never using the top ~12 bits of that int64
 88 2010-12-28 00:41:10 <ArtForz> ?
 89 2010-12-28 00:41:14 <sipa> indeed
 90 2010-12-28 00:41:24 <EvanR> sgornick: good to know, i wont be doing that
 91 2010-12-28 00:41:32 <sipa> but that int64 is just an implementation detail, no?
 92 2010-12-28 00:41:48 <sipa> a different implementation way use another datatype
 93 2010-12-28 00:41:54 <EvanR> yeah like nanocoins
 94 2010-12-28 00:42:08 <ArtForz> well, you could change it in bitcoinV2
 95 2010-12-28 00:42:18 <EvanR> haskell 10^-8 fixed point has no upper limit
 96 2010-12-28 00:42:20 <theymos> sipa: It's in transactions -- all Bitcoin-compatible clients must use it.
 97 2010-12-28 00:42:33 <sipa> theymos: but the protocol, is it binary?
 98 2010-12-28 00:42:36 <sipa> or json?
 99 2010-12-28 00:42:42 <ArtForz> but as its part of the block chain, no way to change it for current bitcoin
100 2010-12-28 00:42:42 <theymos> Binary.
101 2010-12-28 00:43:02 <sipa> ah, in that case the encoding is more than an implementation detail :)
102 2010-12-28 00:43:12 <genjix> why?
103 2010-12-28 00:43:15 <ArtForz> = we'll be wasting 12 bits per transaction output til the end of time
104 2010-12-28 00:43:21 <sipa> oh no
105 2010-12-28 00:43:41 <sipa> it's not like bitcoin itself isn't already a huge 'waste' of bandwidth and cpu power
106 2010-12-28 00:43:48 <EvanR> not flexible, now were stuck with 64bit ints
107 2010-12-28 00:44:10 <EvanR> lol sipa
108 2010-12-28 00:44:10 <sipa> ArtForz: actually, the blocks in the block chain contain a version number
109 2010-12-28 00:44:16 <genjix> we aren't stuck. if people adopt longer ints then it becomes standard
110 2010-12-28 00:44:19 <sipa> so it's rather easy to add a new one
111 2010-12-28 00:44:21 <ArtForz> yeah, except in the network protocol we're shaving single bytes off integers
112 2010-12-28 00:44:56 <ArtForz> = effectively a completely new incompatible chain "grandfathering in" the old chain
113 2010-12-28 00:45:14 <sipa> indeed
114 2010-12-28 00:45:26 <ArtForz> = spend old-chain coins on bitcoinV2, then spend em again on bitcoinV1 ... whoops
115 2010-12-28 00:46:01 <sipa> there's other things as well which will eventually lead to need for update
116 2010-12-28 00:46:09 <ArtForz> ?
117 2010-12-28 00:46:15 <sipa> for example the fact that each and every transaction is sent to each and every client
118 2010-12-28 00:46:29 <ArtForz> we can change network protocol and structure no problem, we just cant change the block or transaction format
119 2010-12-28 00:46:52 <ArtForz> well, generators have to see every transaction
120 2010-12-28 00:47:17 <theymos> sipa: Eventually generators will act as hubs, and non-generators will only connect to a few of them, and not receive transactions.
121 2010-12-28 00:47:23 <sipa> there are ways around that
122 2010-12-28 00:47:24 <ArtForz> yep
123 2010-12-28 00:47:41 <ArtForz> "normal" nodes dont need to see transactions
124 2010-12-28 00:47:46 <sipa> even those
125 2010-12-28 00:48:07 <sipa> you can split the work based on some hash of the transactions
126 2010-12-28 00:48:21 <sipa> each generator only processes some subset of transactions
127 2010-12-28 00:48:31 <sipa> with smaller reward
128 2010-12-28 00:48:51 <sipa> and within each subset a separate 1-block-per-10-minutes rule
129 2010-12-28 00:48:54 <ArtForz> yes, lets make transactions even slower...
130 2010-12-28 00:49:04 <ArtForz> can't be done with current block chain rules
131 2010-12-28 00:49:10 <sipa> i know
132 2010-12-28 00:49:35 <sipa> you will need separate block chains for each subset of course
133 2010-12-28 00:49:47 <theymos> How do you verify that a transaction hasn't been double-spent?
134 2010-12-28 00:49:59 <ArtForz> any noncompatible change effectively creates 2 chains
135 2010-12-28 00:50:09 <sipa> each transaction belongs in one and only one chain
136 2010-12-28 00:50:25 <sipa> oh wait nvm
137 2010-12-28 00:50:27 <ArtForz> which means if theres significant # users on both chains you can now double-spend old coins in both old and new chain
138 2010-12-28 00:50:41 <sipa> it would need to reference transactions in another chain
139 2010-12-28 00:51:21 <ArtForz> so each node has to get all chains anyhow... whats the point again?
140 2010-12-28 00:51:29 <sipa> my point is gone :)
141 2010-12-28 00:51:40 <ArtForz> as if you need to see X data, X*2 isnt really that much more
142 2010-12-28 00:51:40 <devon_hillard> is bitcoin 2.0 coming along at some point?
143 2010-12-28 00:51:50 <theymos> To verify that no double-spending has occurred on any possible system, you need all unspent transactions. There's no way arond this.
144 2010-12-28 00:52:04 <devon_hillard> say, engineered with a logarithmically growing BTC supply
145 2010-12-28 00:52:17 <ArtForz> I'd guess so
146 2010-12-28 00:52:33 <devon_hillard> tuned to the relative increase in processing power
147 2010-12-28 00:52:48 <sipa> why would you want that?
148 2010-12-28 00:52:55 <ArtForz> that sounds wrong
149 2010-12-28 00:53:21 <ArtForz> I'd like to see less steep steps in per-block reward
150 2010-12-28 00:53:34 <sipa> yes
151 2010-12-28 00:53:50 <ArtForz> first halving is gonna be interesting
152 2010-12-28 00:54:29 <sipa> it's still two years
153 2010-12-28 00:54:35 <ArtForz> assuming for-profit miners operating close to breakeven, it could pretty much kill the network
154 2010-12-28 00:54:47 <sipa> i think by then some equilibrium of amount of people that do mining will have been reached already
155 2010-12-28 00:54:59 <sipa> currently it's still growing exponentially
156 2010-12-28 00:55:14 <ArtForz> not quite
157 2010-12-28 00:55:26 <EvanR> wouldnt whatever happens happen before the 'cliff'
158 2010-12-28 00:55:37 <theymos> I think that by that time fees will already be a big percentage of block reward.
159 2010-12-28 00:55:38 <sipa> afterwards, i think
160 2010-12-28 00:55:46 <sipa> indeed theymos
161 2010-12-28 00:55:54 <ArtForz> doesnt matter much
162 2010-12-28 00:56:45 <ArtForz> and I severely doubt we'll be seeing 20+ BTC/block in tx fees in the next few years
163 2010-12-28 00:56:57 <marioxcc> _Securing your wallet_ wiki page says there is a buffer of 100 future keys
164 2010-12-28 00:57:08 <ArtForz> currently we're growing hashrate a lot because avg cost of power for a block using ATI cards is like 15% of btc per block
165 2010-12-28 00:57:17 <marioxcc> so they get in the backup earlier before you use them
166 2010-12-28 00:57:20 <marioxcc> if i understand well
167 2010-12-28 00:57:26 <sipa> marioxcc: correct
168 2010-12-28 00:57:49 <EvanR> get in mah backup
169 2010-12-28 00:58:00 <marioxcc> what about using a secure pseudorandom generator and storing the seed?
170 2010-12-28 00:58:19 <ArtForz> so let's say hashrate levels off where miners are still making 50% or so profit over power
171 2010-12-28 00:58:38 <EvanR> marioxcc: that would really suck then, if someone stole your wallet and you didnt know xD
172 2010-12-28 00:58:45 <theymos> marioxcc: That's been discussed on IRC before. It would work, but it'd be an even bigger problem if an attacker got your wallet.
173 2010-12-28 00:58:48 <ArtForz> works pretty well, hashrate pretty much follows current/expected market value of btc
174 2010-12-28 00:59:01 <ArtForz> now reward per block halves
175 2010-12-28 00:59:15 <EvanR> the market value is going to do something before that cliff
176 2010-12-28 00:59:18 <sipa> some people will stop mining, considering it not worth it
177 2010-12-28 00:59:20 <theymos> Maybe fees will double at that point.
178 2010-12-28 00:59:28 <ArtForz> = it's suddenly uneconomical for pretty much everyone to mine
179 2010-12-28 00:59:32 <sipa> some people will keep mining for a while, waiting to see how many people stop
180 2010-12-28 00:59:55 <sipa> i expect at least a few retargets will happen in the mean time
181 2010-12-28 01:00:04 <EvanR> maybe the result is regular people will have to check 'generate coins' again ;)
182 2010-12-28 01:00:11 <marioxcc> ok, I understand
183 2010-12-28 01:00:13 <ArtForz> unlikely
184 2010-12-28 01:00:48 <sipa> or people could just stop immediately
185 2010-12-28 01:00:52 <ArtForz> why would a for-profit miner keep mining at a loss when he can just sit there and let others SLOWLY find blocks until diff is low enough to make his operation profitable again?
186 2010-12-28 01:01:02 <sipa> and wait to see what happens, planning to rejoin if enough miners stopped
187 2010-12-28 01:01:26 <theymos> ArtForz: He might wait 10-20 minutes until the fees build up to a sufficient level. This will serve to increase the fees that people pay.
188 2010-12-28 01:01:27 <sipa> with indeed a very sudden drop in computation power
189 2010-12-28 01:01:53 <EvanR> it wont matter if we still dont have 'minecarts' full ;)
190 2010-12-28 01:01:54 <ArtForz> yeah, but that again means very long time/block to accumulate enough fees
191 2010-12-28 01:02:14 <ArtForz> = the next few retargets will take a LOT longer than normal
192 2010-12-28 01:02:19 <nanotube> maybe if bitdns is operational by then... there will be plenty of fees :)
193 2010-12-28 01:02:20 <EvanR> it will though mean a decrease in network security
194 2010-12-28 01:02:38 <Diablo-D3> heee
195 2010-12-28 01:02:38 <EvanR> when miners bail
196 2010-12-28 01:02:48 <Diablo-D3> my miner hackup seems to almost work
197 2010-12-28 01:02:50 <Diablo-D3> no threads
198 2010-12-28 01:02:54 <ArtForz> yep
199 2010-12-28 01:02:56 <Diablo-D3> and it executes kernels
200 2010-12-28 01:03:10 <ArtForz> which is why imo a more gradual change would've been a lot better
201 2010-12-28 01:03:47 <EvanR> better start selling your coins now
202 2010-12-28 01:03:51 <EvanR> the end is coming
203 2010-12-28 01:03:58 <theymos> Maybe Bitcoin-backed currencies like Open Transactions will become popular after the first subsidy adjustment happens and transactions become slow and expensive.
204 2010-12-28 01:04:16 <EvanR> why will they be slow? popularity?
205 2010-12-28 01:04:44 <EvanR> when difficulty drops wont things be business as usual
206 2010-12-28 01:05:25 <ArtForz> and who finds those 2016 blocks until difficulty drops? those "2 weeks nominal" could take a few months...
207 2010-12-28 01:05:49 <EvanR> well it would be silly to start a company to serve the needs of a two month slow network
208 2010-12-28 01:06:00 <EvanR> few months*
209 2010-12-28 01:06:34 <theymos> Generators could very well work together at that point to raise acceptable fees by 10x or more.
210 2010-12-28 01:07:17 <ArtForz> anways, btc_per_block / 2 every 210000 blocks is imo a lot worse than btc_per_block * 150 / 151 every 2016 blocks
211 2010-12-28 01:07:21 <sipa> Diablo-D3: what does it do?
212 2010-12-28 01:07:45 <EvanR> go start your own bitcoin ArtForz! xD
213 2010-12-28 01:07:45 <sipa> ArtForz: agree
214 2010-12-28 01:08:25 <theymos> Satoshi must have had some reason for making the subsidy adjust like this.
215 2010-12-28 01:09:13 <EvanR> a giant april fools joke
216 2010-12-28 01:09:33 <ArtForz> I fucking hate unexplained magic numbers
217 2010-12-28 01:09:52 <Diablo-D3> sipa: I got rid of threads
218 2010-12-28 01:10:06 <sipa> why?
219 2010-12-28 01:10:16 <EvanR> pthreads is awful
220 2010-12-28 01:10:23 <Diablo-D3> sipa: trying to move the BML
221 2010-12-28 01:10:27 <Diablo-D3> (big miner lock)
222 2010-12-28 01:10:44 <sipa> Diablo-D3: btw, i upgraded to stream api 2.3, and now your miner is faster, and looping slows things down
223 2010-12-28 01:11:07 <Diablo-D3> sipa: except 2.3 is not faster than 2.1
224 2010-12-28 01:11:20 <sipa> except 2.1 just doesn't work here :)
225 2010-12-28 01:11:52 <Diablo-D3> why?
226 2010-12-28 01:11:52 <sipa> llc gets started, and goes to 100% cpu usage, and nothing happens
227 2010-12-28 01:12:04 <Diablo-D3> because of loops
228 2010-12-28 01:12:11 <Diablo-D3> 2.1 insanely unrolls huge loops
229 2010-12-28 01:12:27 <sipa> even with your miner, which i believe doesn't have loops?
230 2010-12-28 01:12:34 <ArtForz> use the xor luke
231 2010-12-28 01:13:51 <ArtForz> clc happily tries to unroll a loop of for(i = 0; i < 4096; i++) {nonce = base_nonce + i; hash; check}
232 2010-12-28 01:14:16 <ArtForz> it also unrolls base_nonce | i
233 2010-12-28 01:14:27 <sipa> ArtForz: i know about the xor trick
234 2010-12-28 01:15:08 <sipa> but since the code that causes the bug doesn't have any loops afaik, i wonder if that's the problem
235 2010-12-28 01:15:29 <ArtForz> that sounds weird
236 2010-12-28 01:15:47 <Diablo-D3> sipa: mine doesnt have loops, but 2.1 works fine on 4xxx hardware + 10.12
237 2010-12-28 01:15:48 <ArtForz> so far I only got clc to 100% cpu until it OOMs with big loops
238 2010-12-28 01:16:12 <ArtForz> 2.1 with 10.9 10.10 and 10.12, no problems here
239 2010-12-28 01:16:15 <sipa> let's try
240 2010-12-28 01:16:23 <sipa> maybe i didn't test all combinations :)
241 2010-12-28 01:18:05 <EvanR> do bitcoind move commands enter into the block chain / use work
242 2010-12-28 01:18:26 <EvanR> or is it wallet-only
243 2010-12-28 01:18:58 <sipa> Diablo-D3: you're right, yours works with 2.1 - the python one doesn't
244 2010-12-28 01:19:04 <sipa> and indeed faster
245 2010-12-28 01:19:23 <theymos> EvanR: Wallet only.
246 2010-12-28 01:20:32 <EvanR> hrm.... doesnt seem to be a way to execute that move and also update a RDBMS about the payment being accepted
247 2010-12-28 01:20:39 <EvanR> transactionally
248 2010-12-28 01:25:14 <Diablo-D3> no, its not useful for what you want
249 2010-12-28 01:30:16 <Kiba> so the BitDNS effort die off?
250 2010-12-28 01:30:36 <EvanR> how do you handle overpayment?
251 2010-12-28 01:31:21 <ArtForz> no, it's .. uh... resting
252 2010-12-28 01:31:52 <nanotube> EvanR: i find it not to be in evidence. hehe
253 2010-12-28 01:33:26 <EvanR> i cant just 'not handle' stuff
254 2010-12-28 01:33:49 <ArtForz> sure can
255 2010-12-28 01:33:59 <EvanR> i guess the strategy is, keep the extra money, provide the goods
256 2010-12-28 01:34:57 <nanotube> EvanR: i'd venture to guess that it would be so rare, that you can handle it via direct communication with buyer, if it arises.
257 2010-12-28 01:35:37 <EvanR> yes
258 2010-12-28 01:35:45 <EvanR> but as far as code is concerned...
259 2010-12-28 01:40:16 <nanotube> EvanR: have it send you a special notification email if it happens...
260 2010-12-28 01:41:13 <nanotube> send goods, get special email, resolve refund with buyer via personal communication.
261 2010-12-28 01:41:51 <EvanR> ah
262 2010-12-28 01:44:05 <nanotube> just my .02btc :)
263 2010-12-28 01:51:14 <donpdonp> nanotube: omg lol nerdy
264 2010-12-28 01:59:58 <nanotube> heh
265 2010-12-28 02:40:46 <Kiba> As the year began, the project appeared to be on its last legs  just another cypherpunk fever dream destined for the same dustbin as digital cash and assassination politics.
266 2010-12-28 02:40:49 <Kiba> ROFL
267 2010-12-28 02:40:55 <Kiba> digital cash is just getting started
268 2010-12-28 02:41:00 <Kiba> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/internet-war/
269 2010-12-28 03:15:02 <theymos> What cheap GPU would you guys recommend that would allow me to play the latest games on at least medium settings for the next 2-3 years? I don't care about mining.
270 2010-12-28 03:15:53 <lfm> how cheap
271 2010-12-28 03:16:29 <theymos> Less than $200, but cheaper is better.
272 2010-12-28 03:17:17 <mrb_> hd 6850
273 2010-12-28 03:17:37 <lfm> qls
274 2010-12-28 03:19:56 <donpdonp> theymos: toms hardware does a best cards for the money post every month. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-recommendation-upgrade,2803.html
275 2010-12-28 03:19:57 <lfm> ya that 6850 is right at the $200 point now. It is a new model so it should be viable for a while
276 2010-12-28 03:21:52 <lfm> the next best are prolly the 5770 at about $100 now but it doesnt have dp floating point which may become more important but its hard to say.
277 2010-12-28 03:22:06 <Diablo-D3> theymos: 6850
278 2010-12-28 03:22:15 <Diablo-D3> its also the lowest card you can effectively mine at
279 2010-12-28 03:22:50 <Diablo-D3> 6850, 6870, 5850, 5870, 69xx, 5970, 6990
280 2010-12-28 03:23:02 <Diablo-D3> from slowest to fastest on combined 3D/mining scoring
281 2010-12-28 03:23:05 <lfm> one other is the 5830 which has dp floats but it sucks more power at $120
282 2010-12-28 03:23:10 <Diablo-D3> and, really, cost
283 2010-12-28 03:23:14 <Diablo-D3> lfm: no
284 2010-12-28 03:23:18 <Diablo-D3> never recommend 5830
285 2010-12-28 03:23:31 <Diablo-D3> they're so fucking shit
286 2010-12-28 03:23:38 <Diablo-D3> its better to just grab a 5770 at that point
287 2010-12-28 03:23:46 <Diablo-D3> and 6850s really arent that more expensive than a 5770
288 2010-12-28 03:24:36 <lfm> well if #200 vs $100 isnt significant, ok
289 2010-12-28 03:24:48 <Diablo-D3> $200? no
290 2010-12-28 03:25:01 <Diablo-D3> more like $180
291 2010-12-28 03:25:29 <Diablo-D3> 5770s are closer to $130
292 2010-12-28 03:25:42 <theymos> Thanks -- the 6850 looks good. Is anyone here selling one for BTC, by chance? I'm so sick of the drivers for my barely-useful nVidia 7950GT crashing.
293 2010-12-28 03:26:05 <lfm> thats just the prices I have at my favorite place right now. thay have a sale on 5770
294 2010-12-28 03:26:17 <Diablo-D3> Im looking at newegg prices
295 2010-12-28 03:26:36 <Diablo-D3> theymos: a 6850 gives you 3D of a 5850, but mining speed closer to a 5770
296 2010-12-28 03:26:49 <Diablo-D3> 6870 does 5870 3D, 5850 mining
297 2010-12-28 03:27:09 <Diablo-D3> pricing is pretty similar, 6870s are going for around 5850 prices
298 2010-12-28 03:27:21 <lfm> 6870 is another 50-60 bucks too
299 2010-12-28 03:28:03 <Diablo-D3> lfm: yeah, but so is a 5850
300 2010-12-28 03:28:12 <lfm> true
301 2010-12-28 03:28:54 <Diablo-D3> cheapest non-shit 5850 is $210, cheapest nonshit 6870 is $225
302 2010-12-28 03:28:58 <Diablo-D3> so they're in the same ballpark
303 2010-12-28 03:29:27 <lfm> theymos  check your local suppliers, they may have a sale
304 2010-12-28 03:29:39 <Diablo-D3> cheapest nonshit 5870 is $270
305 2010-12-28 03:30:25 <Diablo-D3> cheapest nonshit 6950 is $300, cheapest nonshit 6970 is $370
306 2010-12-28 03:32:08 <lfm> so if that $200 is a hard limit I think we agree 6850 is your best bet
307 2010-12-28 03:32:27 <Diablo-D3> yeah, 6850 is the cheapest card worth buying
308 2010-12-28 03:32:38 <Diablo-D3> 6850 prices are so slow it basically eliminates 5770 off the list
309 2010-12-28 03:32:52 <Diablo-D3> er, low
310 2010-12-28 03:33:29 <theymos> I'll get that one, then. I don't do much GPU-intensive stuff, anyway. Probably I'll have to buy it from newegg -- there are few hardware suppliers near me.
311 2010-12-28 03:33:50 <lfm> plus for future proof the dp float support could become a big factor
312 2010-12-28 03:37:05 <joe_1> we're up to .264 - we can do better. we can get up to 1.00 by new years
313 2010-12-28 03:37:46 <lfm> joe_1 get what up?
314 2010-12-28 03:37:58 <joe_1> the price for each bitcoin against usd
315 2010-12-28 03:38:00 <Cusipzzz> 1? pretty much no shot.
316 2010-12-28 03:38:33 <Diablo-D3> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125353
317 2010-12-28 03:38:35 <joe_1> if we each buy $100 we can probably blow out the market
318 2010-12-28 03:38:36 <Diablo-D3> theymos: ^
319 2010-12-28 03:38:55 <Diablo-D3> theymos: $10 more than the cheapest non-shit one, but it has extra cooling
320 2010-12-28 03:39:05 <lfm> I think its unlikely to get that high for a little while yet, mayebe by february
321 2010-12-28 03:40:47 <theymos> Diablo-D3: Thanks a lot! I don't know much about hardware, so I'll probably buy your recommendation.
322 2010-12-28 03:45:11 <fabianhjr> Hey, poclbm just output "Accepted [date] part of hash.
323 2010-12-28 03:45:38 <fabianhjr> However, in the Bitcoin client it still doesn't show I generated something. :/
324 2010-12-28 03:45:52 <fabianhjr> Is that normal? Must I wait?
325 2010-12-28 03:46:31 <Diablo-D3> fabianhjr: the UI should if it was a valid block
326 2010-12-28 03:47:01 <fabianhjr> OMG, it isn't even showing it. >_<
327 2010-12-28 03:47:21 <Diablo-D3> wait 10 minutes
328 2010-12-28 03:47:27 <Diablo-D3> if it still doesnt, you didnt get one
329 2010-12-28 03:48:10 <fabianhjr> >_< oh, well. I still got a part of a CPU pool block. xD
330 2010-12-28 03:48:34 <Diablo-D3> you're in a pool?
331 2010-12-28 03:48:35 <lfm> it wont show up in the gui client for 120 blocks
332 2010-12-28 03:48:42 <Diablo-D3> lfm: yes it will
333 2010-12-28 03:48:55 <Diablo-D3> it just wont be spendable for that many
334 2010-12-28 03:49:24 <Diablo-D3> fabianhjr: if you're in a pool, you dont get blocks.
335 2010-12-28 03:49:41 <fabianhjr> :/ No, I just generated a block trough my own via poclbm
336 2010-12-28 03:49:47 <Diablo-D3> ahh
337 2010-12-28 03:49:49 <fabianhjr> I am also in a pool for the CPU.
338 2010-12-28 03:49:57 <fabianhjr> They are separate things. :P
339 2010-12-28 03:49:58 <Diablo-D3> you should add your gpu to the pool
340 2010-12-28 03:50:14 <fabianhjr> I do, however, the pool is currently down
341 2010-12-28 03:50:28 <fabianhjr> Are you the guy behind Diablo Miner?
342 2010-12-28 03:50:43 <Diablo-D3> yes
343 2010-12-28 03:50:52 <fabianhjr> Cool :D
344 2010-12-28 03:51:01 <fabianhjr> Had heard really cool things about it.
345 2010-12-28 03:52:30 <fabianhjr> :/ anyone knows what's wrong with 91.121.29.91?
346 2010-12-28 03:53:01 <Diablo-D3> I dont recognize that ip
347 2010-12-28 03:53:30 <fabianhjr> It is of my remote-miner. It is on the forums under Project Dev if I remember right.
348 2010-12-28 03:53:45 <fabianhjr> It is "the pool" address.
349 2010-12-28 03:53:50 <theymos> It's been down for a while.
350 2010-12-28 03:53:58 <Diablo-D3> thats not slush's pool
351 2010-12-28 03:54:56 <theymos> It's the successor to doublec's pool.
352 2010-12-28 03:54:57 <fabianhjr> No, it is not. There is a guy with a dedi that offered himeself to take the his place.
353 2010-12-28 03:55:13 <fabianhjr> Already generated 1 block and took a 4.x BTC share.
354 2010-12-28 03:58:13 <fabianhjr> damn, poclbm crashed. :/ deja vu.
355 2010-12-28 04:05:21 <fabianhjr> Ok, the Bitcoin client/GUI still doesn't show I generated a block. Could it be a recent change in difficulty that anulated the block?
356 2010-12-28 04:06:23 <lfm> ;;bc,status
357 2010-12-28 04:06:24 <gribble> Error: "bc,status" is not a valid command.
358 2010-12-28 04:06:47 <gribble> Error: "bc,stat" is not a valid command.
359 2010-12-28 04:06:47 <lfm> ;;bc,stat
360 2010-12-28 04:06:58 <lfm> ;;bc,stats
361 2010-12-28 04:07:00 <gribble> Current Blocks: 99783 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 1016 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 12 hours, 54 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15635.05156590
362 2010-12-28 04:07:31 <lfm> nope, last difficulty change was 1000 blocks ago
363 2010-12-28 04:08:08 <lfm> fabian perhaps you just lost a race condition is all, bad luck
364 2010-12-28 04:09:17 <fabianhjr> race condition?
365 2010-12-28 04:09:27 <fabianhjr> :/ Sorry, I am new.
366 2010-12-28 04:09:46 <lfm> fabian ya when two peole find different blocks at near the same time
367 2010-12-28 04:09:54 <lfm> people
368 2010-12-28 04:10:18 <fabianhjr> Oh, ok, so the smallest value is considered to be the first?
369 2010-12-28 04:10:38 <theymos> No, the first one to broadcast is the first.
370 2010-12-28 04:10:48 <fabianhjr> And shouldn't I see a "failed to integrate to the chain" message at my client?
371 2010-12-28 04:10:49 <lfm> um, not quite. the one that the most nodes support wins
372 2010-12-28 04:10:55 <lfm> sorta
373 2010-12-28 04:11:10 <fabianhjr> Well, there is "nothing". >_<
374 2010-12-28 04:11:32 <lfm> usually, its a big lottery
375 2010-12-28 04:11:49 <theymos> Usually the first to broadcast gets the most peers, unless the blocks were broadcast within a few seconds of each other.
376 2010-12-28 04:12:04 <fabianhjr> 5 days earlier I generated 4.47 BTC and like 30 minutes ago I was suppose to generate a whole new block by myself(50 BTC) However, it never registered in my client.
377 2010-12-28 04:12:39 <lfm> fabian I dont know if there is a message for that
378 2010-12-28 04:12:40 <fabianhjr> The issue in hand is that the client is not registering the even at all.
379 2010-12-28 04:13:20 <fabianhjr> Shouldn't the "Generated 50 BTC(Maturing in x blocks) message be changed for a "failed" one?
380 2010-12-28 04:13:49 <lfm> fabian did you get a message thet you had got a valid block? what exactly was the message?
381 2010-12-28 04:14:33 <lfm> if it says that then you got it
382 2010-12-28 04:14:45 <fabianhjr> in poclbm I got an "Accepted [date] [small digest of hash]
383 2010-12-28 04:15:04 <fabianhjr> In Bitcoin it never appeared(The client)
384 2010-12-28 04:15:18 <fabianhjr> I got it set up as a server so poclbm connects to localhost.
385 2010-12-28 04:15:41 <lfm> huh? did you or didnt you get the  "Generated 50 BTC(Maturing in x blocks)" message?
386 2010-12-28 04:17:52 <fabianhjr> No I didn't. That's the issue. While poclbm told me I generated a block I didn't saw a thing in Bitcoin.
387 2010-12-28 04:18:05 <theymos> fabianhjr: When was this? Bitcoin waits a block before showing generations in the UI.
388 2010-12-28 04:19:33 <fabianhjr> It was 30 min ago.
389 2010-12-28 04:19:44 <fabianhjr> still nothing.
390 2010-12-28 04:20:47 <lfm> last block generated was at 4:57 UTC, nothing since so you maybe still need to wait for the first confirming block
391 2010-12-28 04:20:51 <fabianhjr> The funny thing is that I closed poclbm to go to sleep and I noticed that.  I opened Bitcoin and the surprise started.
392 2010-12-28 04:21:08 <fabianhjr> What time UTC is it currently?
393 2010-12-28 04:21:18 <gribble> Tue Dec 28 05:21:18 2010
394 2010-12-28 04:21:18 <nanotube> ;;echo $utc
395 2010-12-28 04:21:32 <fabianhjr> Wow, is everyoen sleeping? 0_o
396 2010-12-28 04:21:54 <lfm> prolly more than half the world awake
397 2010-12-28 04:22:15 <marioxcc> 11:22 here
398 2010-12-28 04:22:18 <fabianhjr> xD Wasn't it suppose that every 10 min there was a block?
399 2010-12-28 04:22:29 <fabianhjr> 11:22 in Mexico City
400 2010-12-28 04:22:31 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: in averange
401 2010-12-28 04:22:34 <nanotube> on average
402 2010-12-28 04:22:36 <theymos> What is the hash of your block? Does it exist on BBE?
403 2010-12-28 04:22:41 <lfm> fabian ya but it is random, it averages 10 min
404 2010-12-28 04:22:45 <fabianhjr> Yeah, that is like 3x average :P
405 2010-12-28 04:22:49 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: ???do you live in mexico?
406 2010-12-28 04:22:58 <fabianhjr> I do, soy chilango.
407 2010-12-28 04:23:10 <marioxcc> fine, i'm from veracruz
408 2010-12-28 04:23:11 <marioxcc> hehe
409 2010-12-28 04:23:22 <fabianhjr> :P how is the climate over there?
410 2010-12-28 04:23:29 <marioxcc> a bit cold
411 2010-12-28 04:23:37 <fabianhjr> 5c?
412 2010-12-28 04:23:44 <marioxcc> no so cold
413 2010-12-28 04:23:51 <marioxcc> maybe in Perote it is
414 2010-12-28 04:23:57 <lfm> minus 5 c here
415 2010-12-28 04:24:05 <fabianhjr> We are like that in the mornings in Mexico City :P
416 2010-12-28 04:24:06 <marioxcc> hehe
417 2010-12-28 04:24:17 <fabianhjr> lol. I miss Canada already. :P
418 2010-12-28 04:24:26 <marioxcc> do you know how to get BTC from MXN?
419 2010-12-28 04:25:14 <lfm> there should be several options for buying BTC at mtgox.com
420 2010-12-28 04:29:31 <marioxcc> only from dollars
421 2010-12-28 04:30:55 <lfm> generally easier to buy BTC than to sell then I think
422 2010-12-28 04:31:15 <fabianhjr> It is the same :P
423 2010-12-28 04:32:28 <lfm> but if you have credit card maybe
424 2010-12-28 04:33:05 <marioxcc> i don't, i value my privacity :)
425 2010-12-28 04:33:48 <fabianhjr> You just got the options to pussy wait for the buyer/seller or go for it at market price(hit it) :P
426 2010-12-28 04:34:05 <marioxcc> *privacy
427 2010-12-28 04:34:15 <lfm> ok, you dont have bank account either then?
428 2010-12-28 04:34:21 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: how much you need?
429 2010-12-28 04:34:45 <marioxcc> really i need none
430 2010-12-28 04:35:02 <fabianhjr> I currently have like 3 BTC and soon will generate 50.
431 2010-12-28 04:35:37 <marioxcc> i want to know how it's the price
432 2010-12-28 04:35:40 <marioxcc> compared to pesos
433 2010-12-28 04:35:52 <fabianhjr> 0.25 USD per BTC
434 2010-12-28 04:36:03 <marioxcc> hey, how do you know you will soon generate 50?
435 2010-12-28 04:36:12 <fabianhjr> There is currently no market in Mexico. it is a shame.
436 2010-12-28 04:36:20 <marioxcc> yes :(
437 2010-12-28 04:36:22 <fabianhjr> Cus I got a freaking 5870 :P
438 2010-12-28 04:36:29 <lfm> mario you dont know when. it is like a lottery
439 2010-12-28 04:36:49 <marioxcc> 5870 of what?
440 2010-12-28 04:36:56 <marioxcc> lfm: that's why i'm asking how he could know
441 2010-12-28 04:37:03 <fabianhjr> An ATI Radeon HD 5870 :P
442 2010-12-28 04:37:18 <lfm> he just expects the odds, he doesnt know
443 2010-12-28 04:37:26 <nanotube> ;;google calc .25 usd in mexican peso
444 2010-12-28 04:37:43 <marioxcc> ok
445 2010-12-28 04:37:53 <gribble> .25 US dollars = 3.0849 Mexican pesos
446 2010-12-28 04:38:00 <nanotube> so, 1 btc is just above 3 mx peso
447 2010-12-28 04:38:20 <fabianhjr> There you go, 3 MXN per BTC :P
448 2010-12-28 04:38:30 <nanotube> ;;bc,mtgox
449 2010-12-28 04:38:35 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.27,"low":0.252,"vol":5174,"buy":0.262,"sell":0.268,"last":0.264}}
450 2010-12-28 04:38:39 <marioxcc> yes
451 2010-12-28 04:38:46 <nanotube> actually, a bit above... going by mtgox price
452 2010-12-28 04:39:15 <marioxcc> they're getting higher on mtgox
453 2010-12-28 04:39:59 <fabianhjr> Wow, it increased one whole cent over the day :D
454 2010-12-28 04:40:25 <lfm> so last was 0.264 us$
455 2010-12-28 04:41:02 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: do you run your GPU miner with free software? :)
456 2010-12-28 04:43:41 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: I pulled a 25% OC with stock temps with this heatsink.
457 2010-12-28 04:43:52 <marioxcc> sweet :)
458 2010-12-28 04:43:56 <fabianhjr> Got my i7 930 to 3.5 GHz stable.
459 2010-12-28 04:44:04 <fabianhjr> From the 2.8 GHz stock
460 2010-12-28 04:44:23 <marioxcc> when this one crashes
461 2010-12-28 04:44:27 <lfm> those dielectric things are REALLY inefficient. they can suck more power than the rest of the system put together
462 2010-12-28 04:44:30 <marioxcc> i plan to buy an AMD
463 2010-12-28 04:44:48 <marioxcc> Intel don't seems to be serious enough about their non-server platforms
464 2010-12-28 04:44:52 <marioxcc> first core 2 series
465 2010-12-28 04:45:00 <marioxcc> now i[357]
466 2010-12-28 04:45:32 <fabianhjr> lfm: it is a small plate. I am aware they are not as efficient as a compression(typical fridge) system.
467 2010-12-28 04:45:47 <marioxcc> which are of course, socket-incompatible