1 2010-12-29 00:00:04 <INEEDMONEY> error 500
  2 2010-12-29 00:01:02 <INEEDMONEY> something do do with the rpc
  3 2010-12-29 00:01:14 <marioxcc> INEEDMONEY: jgarziks?
  4 2010-12-29 00:01:15 <nanotube> marioxcc: how would that work?
  5 2010-12-29 00:01:22 <INEEDMONEY> yeah
  6 2010-12-29 00:01:27 <marioxcc> INEEDMONEY: what's that?
  7 2010-12-29 00:01:30 <INEEDMONEY> his CPU miner
  8 2010-12-29 00:01:33 <marioxcc> oh, ok
  9 2010-12-29 00:01:40 <INEEDMONEY> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1925.0
 10 2010-12-29 00:01:41 <bitbot> New demonstration CPU miner available
 11 2010-12-29 00:01:41 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: see 'minerd --help' for options you have to provide.
 12 2010-12-29 00:01:42 <INEEDMONEY> pretty cool
 13 2010-12-29 00:01:43 <marioxcc> yah, i know
 14 2010-12-29 00:01:47 <INEEDMONEY> nanotube: I know...
 15 2010-12-29 00:02:04 <marioxcc> nanotube: my idea is
 16 2010-12-29 00:02:11 <marioxcc> every node would work on the block
 17 2010-12-29 00:02:21 <marioxcc> and report some results
 18 2010-12-29 00:02:22 <INEEDMONEY> "requested URL return error: 500"
 19 2010-12-29 00:02:31 <nanotube> what is the full command line you're using?
 20 2010-12-29 00:02:39 <marioxcc> like the slush approach
 21 2010-12-29 00:02:39 <nanotube> marioxcc: report to who?
 22 2010-12-29 00:02:49 <marioxcc> nanotube: to all other nodes
 23 2010-12-29 00:02:57 <INEEDMONEY> minerd -D -P -t 4 --userpass <user>:<pass>
 24 2010-12-29 00:03:07 <nanotube> marioxcc: how would you prevent a node from keeping a real block generation to itself?
 25 2010-12-29 00:03:23 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: are you trying to connect to the slush pool miner? or to a locally-running bitcoind?
 26 2010-12-29 00:03:28 <theymos> marioxcc: To verify that the block peers are working on is valid, the workers need to see it. However, if they see the whole block, then they can steal the block when they find a winning hash.
 27 2010-12-29 00:03:33 <marioxcc> nanotube: the block could include a transfer to every other peer
 28 2010-12-29 00:03:43 <INEEDMONEY> LAN
 29 2010-12-29 00:03:59 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: you have to specify the ip addr and port to which you want the miner to connect for getwork
 30 2010-12-29 00:04:09 <devon_hillard> just sent my first BTC, to Diablo :)
 31 2010-12-29 00:04:11 <INEEDMONEY> where do I specify?
 32 2010-12-29 00:04:18 <marioxcc> then the node would report the finds above certain difficulty
 33 2010-12-29 00:04:23 <marioxcc> to every other node, and
 34 2010-12-29 00:04:24 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: see 'minerd --help' :)
 35 2010-12-29 00:04:34 <INEEDMONEY> that hasnt helped yet
 36 2010-12-29 00:04:38 <marioxcc> it would be added to the transaction list in the block they're currently working on
 37 2010-12-29 00:04:44 <marioxcc> ?
 38 2010-12-29 00:05:12 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: --url option?
 39 2010-12-29 00:05:26 <nanotube> marioxcc: how would you decide how much goes to each address?
 40 2010-12-29 00:05:45 <marioxcc> nanotube: depending on how much partial result the other nodes reported
 41 2010-12-29 00:05:48 <nanotube> marioxcc: and how do you deal with the problem currently facing the puddinpop approach, with the sub-cent amounts?
 42 2010-12-29 00:06:01 <marioxcc> that's what i don't know
 43 2010-12-29 00:06:03 <nanotube> marioxcc: but a node could artificially inflate its own share?
 44 2010-12-29 00:06:05 <slush> marioxcc: Are you talking about 'pooled mining' without central entity?
 45 2010-12-29 00:06:11 <INEEDMONEY> nanotube: oh, I thought that was for something else, thank you!
 46 2010-12-29 00:06:15 <marioxcc> slush: yes
 47 2010-12-29 00:06:16 <nanotube> INEEDMONEY: np :)
 48 2010-12-29 00:06:28 <marioxcc> nanotube: it could, but then partial results would be rejected by rest nodes
 49 2010-12-29 00:06:57 <marioxcc> and will not get shares in the network by doing so
 50 2010-12-29 00:07:06 <devon_hillard> is diablo-d3 online?
 51 2010-12-29 00:07:06 <nanotube> marioxcc: mmm well... i can see how it could work. only problem is the subcent distributions that would get eaten up as fees.
 52 2010-12-29 00:07:15 <marioxcc> yes
 53 2010-12-29 00:07:18 <nanotube> devon_hillard: seems he's not here on this channel.
 54 2010-12-29 00:07:32 <marioxcc> the solution could be a random payment schenduling
 55 2010-12-29 00:07:40 <nanotube> marioxcc: explain?
 56 2010-12-29 00:07:45 <nanotube> what do you mean by that
 57 2010-12-29 00:07:54 <marioxcc> nanotube: say there are 10000 nodes working on the pool
 58 2010-12-29 00:07:56 <da2ce7> ;;seen noagendamarket
 59 2010-12-29 00:07:56 <gribble> noagendamarket was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 19 hours, 8 minutes, and 24 seconds ago: <noagendamarket> :)-
 60 2010-12-29 00:08:10 <nanotube> ok
 61 2010-12-29 00:08:11 <marioxcc> well, 10000 shares at one point in time
 62 2010-12-29 00:08:22 <marioxcc> that means
 63 2010-12-29 00:08:26 <marioxcc> 0.005 BTC per share
 64 2010-12-29 00:08:36 <marioxcc> but only half the shares (at random) would get paid
 65 2010-12-29 00:08:40 <marioxcc> the double
 66 2010-12-29 00:08:46 <marioxcc> then some shares would get nothing
 67 2010-12-29 00:08:48 <marioxcc> others would get double
 68 2010-12-29 00:08:53 <marioxcc> randomly
 69 2010-12-29 00:08:58 <marioxcc> the problem is to ensure randomness
 70 2010-12-29 00:09:06 <marioxcc> ???some idea?
 71 2010-12-29 00:09:17 <theymos> You can use the hash of a block.
 72 2010-12-29 00:09:32 <marioxcc> of which block?
 73 2010-12-29 00:09:33 <marioxcc> the current one?
 74 2010-12-29 00:09:40 <devon_hillard> there's surprisingly little code in a miner, just a java class and a .cl file (not sure what the .cl is)
 75 2010-12-29 00:09:47 <theymos> marioxcc: Yes.
 76 2010-12-29 00:09:48 <marioxcc> the current block will include a transaction to send the 50 BTC
 77 2010-12-29 00:09:56 <marioxcc> so you don't know in advance it hash
 78 2010-12-29 00:10:02 <slush> devon_hillard: .cl is the source for GPU
 79 2010-12-29 00:10:05 <marioxcc> maybe you have a differnent idea
 80 2010-12-29 00:10:11 <marioxcc> could you please elaborate? :)
 81 2010-12-29 00:10:29 <theymos> marioxcc: You could use the previous block, then.
 82 2010-12-29 00:11:19 <marioxcc> maybe
 83 2010-12-29 00:11:30 <marioxcc> use its hash as the random number
 84 2010-12-29 00:11:40 <marioxcc> in the other hand
 85 2010-12-29 00:11:44 <theymos> Randomness isn't necessary. If everyone uses the same rounding scheme, there's no problem.
 86 2010-12-29 00:12:02 <slush> marioxcc: How can you achieve that my miner will work on block with divided reward? Miner will multicast some partial PoW to tell others he is working?
 87 2010-12-29 00:12:04 <marioxcc> theymos: it's a problem if it is biased
 88 2010-12-29 00:12:30 <marioxcc> slush: yes
 89 2010-12-29 00:12:35 <slush> and working on right block
 90 2010-12-29 00:12:38 <marioxcc> just like your systen currently does
 91 2010-12-29 00:12:44 <theymos> marioxcc: If you don't like the rounding scheme, go to a different pool with participants that use different rules.
 92 2010-12-29 00:13:25 <marioxcc> theymos: what i want to avoid is to open the possibility to manipulate the rounding schemes
 93 2010-12-29 00:13:33 <Cusipzzz> or just create your own pool ! You keep everything =)
 94 2010-12-29 00:13:34 <marioxcc> so some persons get paid more
 95 2010-12-29 00:13:35 <devon_hillard> "A wise man once said, '??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? B A'" -- Mortal Kombat cheat code?
 96 2010-12-29 00:13:39 <nanotube> theymos: how would it work, if say, one is using a slow cpu miner, that gets < 0.01 per block with every block?
 97 2010-12-29 00:14:08 <INEEDMONEY> marioxcc: you know where to ask for custom shit
 98 2010-12-29 00:14:56 <marioxcc> INEEDMONEY: If such system is possible i would like to develop it myself
 99 2010-12-29 00:15:14 <marioxcc> let's see
100 2010-12-29 00:15:27 <marioxcc> a new block could have multiple outputs?
101 2010-12-29 00:15:31 <theymos> nanotube: Don't mine, I guess. Distributed mining will never work in the long-term, anyway, since individual miners won't have the network/disk resources necessary.
102 2010-12-29 00:15:46 <INEEDMONEY> marioxcc: I'd help you
103 2010-12-29 00:16:04 <nanotube> theymos: ah well... that's sad. :) i like putting my vps cpu core to productive use. :)
104 2010-12-29 00:16:20 <slush> marioxcc: How do you prevent double spending? Acting one miner as many many miners in network?
105 2010-12-29 00:16:42 <marioxcc> slush: what do you mean?
106 2010-12-29 00:16:49 <nanotube> marioxcc: yes it's possible. see how puddinpop's pooled miner scheme does it. and you can also look at a few of the blocks that have been generated with puddinpop-style pools.
107 2010-12-29 00:17:03 <marioxcc> nanotube: true...
108 2010-12-29 00:17:06 <marioxcc> ...i will do
109 2010-12-29 00:17:14 <slush> marioxcc: I will crunch one hash but will multicast my partial work as I'm many workers
110 2010-12-29 00:18:10 <marioxcc> slush: each partial PoW would be one share
111 2010-12-29 00:18:22 <marioxcc> just like in the current system you do run
112 2010-12-29 00:18:33 <slush> marioxcc: but this share need check if it is valid
113 2010-12-29 00:18:42 <marioxcc> all nodes would check that, of course
114 2010-12-29 00:18:48 <slush> marioxcc: _all_ nodes?
115 2010-12-29 00:18:57 <marioxcc> all nodes in the distribued miner
116 2010-12-29 00:19:03 <marioxcc> not all bitcoin nodes
117 2010-12-29 00:19:52 <nanotube> marioxcc: i'm liking this idea... could take off. :)
118 2010-12-29 00:19:54 <slush> marioxcc: You did not respond my double spending question. What if I take 'share' from another miner and multicast it to rest of  pool network as my own share?
119 2010-12-29 00:20:17 <nanotube> slush: presumably identical shares would count only once
120 2010-12-29 00:20:25 <devon_hillard> To economize network power use, is it possible to devise a scheme where work is shared as in a pool, but secure from pool owner making off with the coins?
121 2010-12-29 00:20:27 <marioxcc> yes
122 2010-12-29 00:20:40 <marioxcc> identical mini PoW (shares) count only once
123 2010-12-29 00:21:15 <marioxcc> devon_hillard: that's what i'm are purposing (I think)
124 2010-12-29 00:21:29 <nanotube> devon_hillard: well, that is what marioxcc is attempting to devise. the genius of slush pool architecture, but distributed. :)
125 2010-12-29 00:21:32 <marioxcc> slush: so, i don't really see the double spending problems
126 2010-12-29 00:21:56 <marioxcc> of course, not all nodes will work on the very same block
127 2010-12-29 00:22:00 <marioxcc> so to avoid collisions
128 2010-12-29 00:22:20 <theymos> devon_hillard: The puddinpop pool actually ensures owner honesty, since the reward is sent directly to miners. You download the temporary block (block.txt), so you know it's constructed correctly.
129 2010-12-29 00:22:50 <theymos> Really, these guarantees are distributed enough. A fully-distributed pool seems unnecessary.
130 2010-12-29 00:22:52 <nanotube> theymos: what prevents the puddinpop pool owner from 'stuffing' the block with his own shares?
131 2010-12-29 00:23:17 <theymos> nanotube: He could, but he couldn't reduce your share without you knowing about it.
132 2010-12-29 00:23:26 <marioxcc> also think a totally distributed pool don't relies on a central server
133 2010-12-29 00:23:33 <marioxcc> and no one needs to pay hosting, for instance
134 2010-12-29 00:23:46 <slush> theymos: how do you know how many other miners are working on block (so how large is your share)?
135 2010-12-29 00:24:03 <theymos> You can have multiple pool servers. Central servers will be necessary when the block chain is several terabytes in size.
136 2010-12-29 00:24:32 <nanotube> theymos: but he could just not increase your share in the first place
137 2010-12-29 00:24:38 <theymos> slush: You don't, but you can compare your reward on this pool to your reward on other pools, after taking into account historical generation times.
138 2010-12-29 00:24:46 <devon_hillard> well, you have an idea of an expected payoff and if being in a pool the payoff is less than that, you can smell owner abusing the network
139 2010-12-29 00:24:54 <nanotube> theymos: since nobody but the pool op knows total hash rate... how can an individual client know whether his 1mhps is 1% of the net, or 5% of the net?
140 2010-12-29 00:24:57 <devon_hillard> unless the owner was only shaving off 1-2% off the top
141 2010-12-29 00:25:24 <marioxcc> theymos: i though there was no need to store the complete block chain
142 2010-12-29 00:25:48 <nanotube> yea, a due to randomness, pool owner could easily shave off 5-10% without being verifiable
143 2010-12-29 00:26:01 <theymos> Given reward distribution, you can calculate how much CPU power a pool has on average.
144 2010-12-29 00:26:20 <theymos> (Given reward distribution and block times over a long period of time, I mean.)
145 2010-12-29 00:26:34 <marioxcc> i think the only real solution is a totally distributed pool
146 2010-12-29 00:26:48 <marioxcc> where each node validates everyone else actions before granting a share to him in the block he is working on
147 2010-12-29 00:26:49 <theymos> marioxcc: Generators always need to store all unspent generations. Clients don't need to.
148 2010-12-29 00:27:02 <marioxcc> theymos: ok, got it
149 2010-12-29 00:28:06 <slush> marioxcc: How can peers check PoW of another node?
150 2010-12-29 00:28:19 <slush> marioxcc: I'm checking it because I know input data
151 2010-12-29 00:28:37 <marioxcc> slush: because the input data is public in the network
152 2010-12-29 00:28:49 <marioxcc> in overall: there is an agreed data block to work on
153 2010-12-29 00:28:58 <marioxcc> once someone submits a PoW of the current agreed data
154 2010-12-29 00:29:03 <marioxcc> he is guaranted a share
155 2010-12-29 00:29:12 <marioxcc> and he is include in such agreed data block
156 2010-12-29 00:29:14 <slush> marioxcc: So also shares will be public in pool?
157 2010-12-29 00:29:25 <marioxcc> slush: yes
158 2010-12-29 00:29:38 <marioxcc> public in the sense anyone knows who have how many shares
159 2010-12-29 00:29:49 <marioxcc> not in the sense anybody could claim them
160 2010-12-29 00:29:49 <nanotube> marioxcc: i'm going afk... but i like the idea. good luck :)
161 2010-12-29 00:29:53 <marioxcc> nanotube: thanks you
162 2010-12-29 00:29:57 <slush> marioxcc: Why I should work on block when my reward is not included in block? (I'm in the second half of workers)
163 2010-12-29 00:30:13 <marioxcc> slush: that's up to be decided
164 2010-12-29 00:30:22 <marioxcc> i'm not sure
165 2010-12-29 00:30:26 <marioxcc> but for now
166 2010-12-29 00:30:30 <devon_hillard> ok, I've got it, have miner programs do a running payoff estimate based on the total number of hashes attempted
167 2010-12-29 00:30:30 <marioxcc> in the first place
168 2010-12-29 00:30:41 <marioxcc> you will be likley included in the next generated block
169 2010-12-29 00:30:45 <marioxcc> if you work on the current one
170 2010-12-29 00:31:08 <marioxcc> according to a random number (could be decided collectively by a hash of random numbers provided by every other node)
171 2010-12-29 00:31:11 <slush> how much 'included'. Is one submitted share enough?
172 2010-12-29 00:31:13 <devon_hillard> if the expected payoff is different over a while from the actual payoff (using different people), the pool owner is skimming off the top
173 2010-12-29 00:31:54 <marioxcc> slush: my idea is: the chance to be included is proportional to the PoW you have submitted
174 2010-12-29 00:31:55 <devon_hillard> so, you did 10^13 hashes, your payoff should be X BTC
175 2010-12-29 00:31:59 <slush> I have to go. But I'm interested in your idea
176 2010-12-29 00:32:24 <marioxcc> thanks for your support
177 2010-12-29 00:32:30 <marioxcc> i will keep thinking :)
178 2010-12-29 00:33:09 <marioxcc> i'm going for a (non alchooling) drink, brb
179 2010-12-29 00:33:11 <marioxcc> and regards
180 2010-12-29 00:33:28 <slush> But I'm still not convinced it will be secure & fast enough :)
181 2010-12-29 00:35:35 <marioxcc> slush: the only problem I see is bandwidth
182 2010-12-29 00:36:03 <marioxcc> nodes that don't follow the rules aren't guarented shares
183 2010-12-29 00:36:52 <marioxcc> when 0.01 BTC granularity is not enough and some pays are well bellow 1 BTC the payment is 0.01 BTC and aguarded acoording to rotation or a random number
184 2010-12-29 00:37:06 <marioxcc> of course, the random number is dediced by the network as a whole
185 2010-12-29 00:37:28 <marioxcc> there are some schemes to get random numbers without relying on trust
186 2010-12-29 01:12:59 <da2ce7> ;;bc,stats
187 2010-12-29 01:13:01 <gribble> Current Blocks: 99926 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 873 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 14 hours, 20 minutes, and 42 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15724.69532934
188 2010-12-29 01:26:45 <BoBeR> hai
189 2010-12-29 01:35:26 <afed> gonna hit 100000
190 2010-12-29 01:35:40 <afed> i wish i didn't have to turn off my GPUs to sleep :)
191 2010-12-29 01:41:13 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
192 2010-12-29 01:41:36 <gribble> Current Blocks: 99932 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 867 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 12 hours, 56 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15751.62749757
193 2010-12-29 02:21:20 <EvanR> we latch on to whatever fleeting significances we can
194 2010-12-29 02:21:45 <EvanR> to make sense of the nonsensical world
195 2010-12-29 02:23:41 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,calc 104000
196 2010-12-29 02:23:45 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 104000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 6 days, 22 hours, 9 minutes, and 23 seconds
197 2010-12-29 02:41:49 <Keefe> price at mtgox is on a tear :)
198 2010-12-29 02:42:00 <Keefe> hit 0.30
199 2010-12-29 02:45:10 <afed> lol ordering more radeons
200 2010-12-29 02:45:24 <afed> honestly who wants these things anyway :)
201 2010-12-29 02:45:44 <afed> the invisible hand wants what it wants
202 2010-12-29 02:49:52 <marioxcc> yeah, GPU's seem to be very profitable
203 2010-12-29 02:50:16 <marioxcc> maybe a RAM-intensive proof of work could have turned the other way
204 2010-12-29 02:51:37 <marioxcc> I was thinking of
205 2010-12-29 02:51:51 <marioxcc> what would be a good RAM-intensive PoW
206 2010-12-29 02:51:57 <marioxcc> maybe to find a partial collision
207 2010-12-29 02:52:13 <marioxcc> you would have to keep as much hashes in RAM as they could fit
208 2010-12-29 03:11:01 <fabianhjr> Yes, one step closer to parity. :D Now a Bitcoin is worth 0.3 bucks. :)
209 2010-12-29 03:11:06 <fabianhjr> ;;bc,market
210 2010-12-29 03:11:06 <gribble> Error: "bc,market" is not a valid command.
211 2010-12-29 03:11:14 <fabianhjr> ;;bc,help
212 2010-12-29 03:11:14 <gribble> Alias bc,bcm, Alias bc,blocks, Alias bc,btcex, Alias bc,calc, Alias bc,diff, Alias bc,estimate, Alias bc,help, Alias bc,hextarget, Alias bc,markets, Alias bc,mtgox, Alias bc,nexttarget, Alias bc,poolstats, Alias bc,stats, Alias bc,timetonext, Alias bc,totalbc, and Alias bc,wiki
213 2010-12-29 03:11:20 <fabianhjr> ;;bc,markets
214 2010-12-29 03:11:21 <gribble> bcmLRUSD: 0.26 (100 BTC) 0.26/None | bcmPPUSD: 0.295 (100 BTC) 0.2701/0.3 | bcmPXGAU: 0.0061 (300 BTC) 0.0046/0.0062 | btcexJPY: 2 (0.8 BTC) None/None | btcexRUB: 8.7 (12.92 BTC) None/None | btcexWMR: 8 (508 BTC) None/None | mtgoxUSD: 0.301 (15061.2 BTC) 0.274/0.3
215 2010-12-29 03:13:50 <fabianhjr> Anyone here?
216 2010-12-29 03:15:09 <marioxcc> what's up?
217 2010-12-29 03:15:35 <fabianhjr> BoBeR: what ya doing?
218 2010-12-29 03:20:50 <marioxcc> is someone else interested in the distributed decentralized pool miner?
219 2010-12-29 03:24:58 <Kiba> MT`AwAy: yo yo yo yo yo yo, when you will answer my interview question?
220 2010-12-29 03:25:38 <fabianhjr_> Damn ISP and Electric Company. Why monopolies are so bad?
221 2010-12-29 03:26:24 <marioxcc> ?
222 2010-12-29 03:26:48 <Kiba> ya know...what my favorite character?
223 2010-12-29 03:26:59 <Kiba> nvm
224 2010-12-29 03:27:28 <BoBeR> good
225 2010-12-29 03:27:57 <fabianhjr> Kiba: Satoshi?
226 2010-12-29 03:29:31 <da2ce7> price is going up, looks like I'm going to have to invest in more GPU's insted of buying coin.
227 2010-12-29 03:29:53 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: La puta central de Telmex no puede manterner una conexion constante y me desconencto en promedio cada 6 horas. Algunas veces durrante mis partidas importantes de BF:BC2
228 2010-12-29 03:30:22 <fabianhjr> da2ce7: next difficulty is +2000 away. It is self regulating, ya know?
229 2010-12-29 03:30:32 <fabianhjr> ;;bc,nexttarget
230 2010-12-29 03:30:32 <gribble> 100799
231 2010-12-29 03:30:35 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: oh vaya
232 2010-12-29 03:30:38 <Keefe> last time the price at mtgox was higher than this was during the paypal fraud wave in early Nov
233 2010-12-29 03:30:39 <marioxcc> yo tengo el de megacable
234 2010-12-29 03:31:10 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: yo quiero cambiarme al que esta empezando: totalplay. El problema es que mi papa esta amarrado por contrato.
235 2010-12-29 03:31:33 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: si, es un asco eso de los contratos a largo plazo
236 2010-12-29 03:31:43 <da2ce7> ;;bc,mtgox
237 2010-12-29 03:31:43 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.301,"low":0.2612,"vol":30487,"buy":0.274,"sell":0.3,"last":0.301}}
238 2010-12-29 03:31:50 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: :P de todas formas todos lo tienen.
239 2010-12-29 03:32:04 <marioxcc> bueno, nosotros pagamos el famoso 14x12 varios a??os
240 2010-12-29 03:32:15 <marioxcc> ahora est??n quitando la se??al an??loga
241 2010-12-29 03:32:18 <mizerydearia> Keefe, Actually, didn't the price peak at 0.35 recently?
242 2010-12-29 03:32:21 <da2ce7> ;;math 30487 * 0.2612
243 2010-12-29 03:32:21 <gribble> Error: The "Math" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "30487" in it.  Try "list Math" to see the commands in the "Math" plugin.
244 2010-12-29 03:32:30 <da2ce7> ;;math,calc 30487 * 0.2612
245 2010-12-29 03:32:30 <gribble> Error: "math,calc" is not a valid command.
246 2010-12-29 03:32:31 <marioxcc> y el converidor que dan de gama baja al parecer no funcioa con todas las TV's
247 2010-12-29 03:32:42 <da2ce7> ;;math,help 30487 * 0.2612
248 2010-12-29 03:32:42 <gribble> Error: "math,help" is not a valid command.
249 2010-12-29 03:32:44 <fabianhjr> xD Al menos you tengo 5 abojo uno arriba.(MBps)
250 2010-12-29 03:33:01 <nanotube> da2ce7: 'math calc <expr>'
251 2010-12-29 03:33:12 <da2ce7> ;;math calc 30487 * 0.2612
252 2010-12-29 03:33:12 <gribble> 7963.2044
253 2010-12-29 03:33:20 <nanotube> is that how many btc you have, da2ce7 :)
254 2010-12-29 03:33:24 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: yo tengo el de 2 Mb/s pero parece que ha subido un poco
255 2010-12-29 03:33:32 <fabianhjr> da2ce7: the latest transaction was of 0.3 USD per BTC
256 2010-12-29 03:33:33 <marioxcc> llega a ~350 MB/s
257 2010-12-29 03:33:52 <Keefe> mizerydearia: like Nov 9?
258 2010-12-29 03:34:00 <mizerydearia> November 8th, 6pm
259 2010-12-29 03:34:01 <da2ce7> no, how much $ was moved on mtgox today.
260 2010-12-29 03:34:01 <fabianhjr> 0_o no es posible. No se puede transmitir tan rapido por una linea de cobre.
261 2010-12-29 03:34:02 <mizerydearia> yep
262 2010-12-29 03:34:29 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: ???c??mo?
263 2010-12-29 03:34:32 <Keefe> that's what i was referring to as the fraud wave, about Nov 4-9
264 2010-12-29 03:34:39 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: digo 2 megabits
265 2010-12-29 03:34:42 <marioxcc> no megabytes
266 2010-12-29 03:35:05 <marioxcc> igual yo no uso mucho ancho de banda as?? que puse un relevo de tor
267 2010-12-29 03:35:23 <mizerydearia> Oooh, no community in #bitcoin-it yet
268 2010-12-29 03:35:35 <da2ce7> I was going to buy a couple of thousand more bitcoin... but now it is better to get a new 6950 and unlock it to a 6970 :D
269 2010-12-29 03:35:40 <mizerydearia> fabianhjr, How many Italians are there in the bitcoin community nowadays?
270 2010-12-29 03:35:44 <nanotube> mizerydearia: italian?
271 2010-12-29 03:35:49 <fabianhjr> xD demonios. Odio el marketing. En los anuncios y pagina de Telmex dicen que es en Mega(1024 * 1024) Bytes(8 bits)
272 2010-12-29 03:35:55 <mizerydearia> nanotube, I think so
273 2010-12-29 03:36:02 <mizerydearia> http://bitcoin.it
274 2010-12-29 03:36:06 <nanotube> ah
275 2010-12-29 03:36:12 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: oh, xD
276 2010-12-29 03:36:16 <nanotube> ;;sl italy tld
277 2010-12-29 03:36:17 <gribble> http://tldv.com/Dot-it-Italy.htm | it - Italy domain names with availability and background information.
278 2010-12-29 03:36:20 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: I am a mexican you spanish newb! :P
279 2010-12-29 03:36:29 <mizerydearia> fabianhjr, I used google translate
280 2010-12-29 03:36:36 <mizerydearia> It autodetected Italian
281 2010-12-29 03:36:40 <marioxcc> mizerydearia: it's a BS
282 2010-12-29 03:36:41 <nanotube> really?
283 2010-12-29 03:36:43 <fabianhjr> lol xD
284 2010-12-29 03:37:04 <gribble> (Detected source language: Spanish) not possible. Can not be transmitted as quickly by a copper line.
285 2010-12-29 03:37:04 <nanotube> ;;translate auto to en no es posible. No se puede transmitir tan rapido por una linea de cobre.
286 2010-12-29 03:37:12 <mizerydearia> hmm
287 2010-12-29 03:37:19 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: come to #bitcoin-mx
288 2010-12-29 03:37:20 <nanotube> spanish, as it should be
289 2010-12-29 03:37:54 <nanotube> fabianhjr: heh, maybe to avoid too much fragmentation, you could just do #bitcoin-es (for espanol)... so you can get all the spanish speakers together?
290 2010-12-29 03:38:13 <mizerydearia> Strange, it detected Italian at first, but not shows Spanish.
291 2010-12-29 03:38:21 <mizerydearia> s/not/now/
292 2010-12-29 03:38:38 <nanotube> mm
293 2010-12-29 03:38:47 <mizerydearia> "non ?? possibile. Non pu?? essere trasmessa il pi?? rapidamente da una linea in rame." looks more Italian
294 2010-12-29 03:38:48 <nanotube> the ghost in the google translate. :)
295 2010-12-29 03:38:55 <fabianhjr> nanotube: already moved to -mx
296 2010-12-29 03:39:06 <nanotube> fabianhjr: ok, just a suggestion. :)
297 2010-12-29 03:39:26 <fabianhjr> nanotube: #bitcoin-mx if you can speak spanish :P
298 2010-12-29 03:39:49 <mizerydearia> Also a few days ago I noticed http://bitcoin.at redirects to http://bitcoin.it
299 2010-12-29 04:04:01 <Kiba> I see that the price of bitcoin briefly hit .30
300 2010-12-29 04:04:20 <afed> who is buying these things :)
301 2010-12-29 04:08:29 <nanotube> people who need them and/or think it's going to go higher.
302 2010-12-29 04:09:05 <genjix> third group- those who like the idea.
303 2010-12-29 04:16:41 <Kiba> it's a rather slow rise
304 2010-12-29 04:16:45 <Kiba> than what come before it
305 2010-12-29 04:16:52 <Kiba> or now
306 2010-12-29 04:16:55 <Kiba> s/now/not
307 2010-12-29 04:17:21 <Kiba> we just reached 5 million bitcoins in circulation just now
308 2010-12-29 04:18:19 <nanotube> nice
309 2010-12-29 04:18:44 <nanotube> 1.4m usd
310 2010-12-29 04:19:23 <OneFixt> I'm pretty sure we need 44 more blocks for 5 million btc
311 2010-12-29 04:20:51 <nanotube> bc,blocks
312 2010-12-29 04:20:56 <nanotube> ;;bc,blocks
313 2010-12-29 04:20:57 <gribble> 99957
314 2010-12-29 04:21:18 <nanotube> yea... heh
315 2010-12-29 05:16:04 <mizerydearia> ;bcs
316 2010-12-29 05:16:05 <bitbot> mizerydearia: CurrentBlockCount( 99,962 blocks ) CurrentDifficulty( 14,484.1623612300 ) NextDifficultyAt( 100,800 blocks ) NextDifficultyIn( 838 blocks )
317 2010-12-29 05:16:57 <lfm> bitbot is back!
318 2010-12-29 05:17:05 <mizerydearia> bitbot has been back?
319 2010-12-29 05:17:10 <bitbot> :D-<
320 2010-12-29 05:17:10 <mizerydearia> ;dance
321 2010-12-29 05:17:11 <bitbot> :D|-<
322 2010-12-29 05:17:12 <bitbot> :D/-<
323 2010-12-29 05:18:38 <bitbot> ;dance
324 2010-12-29 05:18:40 <mizerydearia> :D-<
325 2010-12-29 05:18:42 <mizerydearia> :D/-<
326 2010-12-29 05:18:52 <mizerydearia> O_O wtf?
327 2010-12-29 05:19:06 <mizerydearia> I'm not a bot...
328 2010-12-29 05:21:29 <OneFixt> aO/aO
329 2010-12-29 05:21:46 <OneFixt> ;dance
330 2010-12-29 05:21:47 <bitbot> :D-<
331 2010-12-29 05:21:49 <bitbot> :D|-<
332 2010-12-29 05:21:50 <bitbot> :D/-<
333 2010-12-29 05:39:29 <nanotube> heh
334 2010-12-29 05:40:59 <EvanR> what in the name of
335 2010-12-29 05:50:48 <da2ce7> we should have a 100000 block party!
336 2010-12-29 05:50:49 <da2ce7> :D
337 2010-12-29 05:53:56 <BoBeR> okay
338 2010-12-29 05:54:03 <BoBeR> i will deliver booze for bitcoin
339 2010-12-29 05:54:34 <BoBeR> ;dance
340 2010-12-29 05:54:35 <bitbot> :D-<
341 2010-12-29 05:54:35 <BoBeR> ;dance
342 2010-12-29 05:54:36 <bitbot> :D|-<
343 2010-12-29 05:54:37 <bitbot> :D/-<
344 2010-12-29 05:54:38 <bitbot> :D-<
345 2010-12-29 05:54:39 <bitbot> :D|-<
346 2010-12-29 05:54:40 <bitbot> :D/-<
347 2010-12-29 06:07:27 <da2ce7> BoBeR, Yes that is what we need! A bitcoin Liquor store!
348 2010-12-29 06:07:28 <da2ce7> !!
349 2010-12-29 06:07:51 <da2ce7> Sombody own a microbrewery?
350 2010-12-29 06:07:59 <da2ce7> and still
351 2010-12-29 06:09:57 <lfm> ;;bc,stats
352 2010-12-29 06:10:00 <gribble> Current Blocks: 99967 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 832 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 7 hours, 34 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 15826.67919563
353 2010-12-29 06:10:17 <BoBeR> how long is this block currently
354 2010-12-29 06:13:59 <lfm> just 1 txn i think
355 2010-12-29 06:20:18 <BoBeR> i mean time wise
356 2010-12-29 06:24:33 <lfm> just got another one
357 2010-12-29 06:26:20 <lfm> 99967 was at  07:09:43 utc, 99968 was at 7:25:26
358 2010-12-29 06:43:52 <da2ce7> I cannot wait till bitcoins are worth way more than dollars... then I will sell goods that the asking price in dollars is only the excise tax cost.
359 2010-12-29 06:44:08 <da2ce7> but excise tax is inherently evil
360 2010-12-29 06:44:49 <da2ce7> but there is no better wat to push tax down than to make it transperent,
361 2010-12-29 07:11:55 <BoBeR> i cant wait until 1 bitcoin will buy me a house
362 2010-12-29 07:12:54 <ThomasV> lol
363 2010-12-29 07:15:53 <ThomasV> with the current housing market, anything can happen :-)
364 2010-12-29 07:40:04 <BoBeR> 
365 2010-12-29 07:51:42 <Diablo-D3> ahh its nice to have full speed mining again
366 2010-12-29 07:53:17 <BoBeR> 
367 2010-12-29 07:53:20 <BoBeR> sleep time
368 2010-12-29 08:01:08 <ThomasV> when I send bitcoins, is it possible to choose from which of my addresses it will be taken ?
369 2010-12-29 08:04:12 <joe_8> no, but it is theoretically possible and should appear in a future version.
370 2010-12-29 08:04:50 <ThomasV> so how does the client choose ?
371 2010-12-29 08:05:53 <lfm> 25
372 2010-12-29 08:32:18 <lfm> 22
373 2010-12-29 08:33:30 <lfm> 21
374 2010-12-29 08:38:54 <mrb__> ...2 1 0! happy new year^H^H^H^H 100000th block :-)
375 2010-12-29 08:39:12 <lfm> still 21
376 2010-12-29 08:39:13 <noot> yay
377 2010-12-29 08:39:27 <mrb__> I know. You guys will celebrate while I am sleeping, bye!
378 2010-12-29 08:39:38 <lfm> bye
379 2010-12-29 08:40:17 <mrb__> I have my GPUs churning... hopefully I will be the one to generate it, heh
380 2010-12-29 08:54:06 <Keefe> i have about a 2% chance
381 2010-12-29 09:07:50 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,calc 60000
382 2010-12-29 09:07:51 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 60000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 week, 5 days, 0 hours, and 16 seconds
383 2010-12-29 09:08:00 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,calc 600000
384 2010-12-29 09:08:01 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 day, 4 hours, 48 minutes, and 1 second
385 2010-12-29 09:08:10 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,calc 500000
386 2010-12-29 09:08:10 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 500000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 day, 10 hours, 33 minutes, and 38 seconds
387 2010-12-29 09:08:13 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,calc 550000
388 2010-12-29 09:08:13 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 550000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 day, 7 hours, 25 minutes, and 7 seconds
389 2010-12-29 09:08:55 <lfm> 19
390 2010-12-29 09:09:30 <lfm> 18
391 2010-12-29 09:10:48 <lfm> 17
392 2010-12-29 09:11:01 <Diablo-D3> 16
393 2010-12-29 09:11:21 <lfm> I dont see it yet
394 2010-12-29 09:11:40 <Diablo-D3> what are we counting down?
395 2010-12-29 09:11:50 <lfm> block numbers
396 2010-12-29 09:11:57 <lfm> 16 now
397 2010-12-29 09:12:42 <larsivi> exactly where can I download the gpu client?
398 2010-12-29 09:12:51 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: there isnt one
399 2010-12-29 09:12:56 <lfm> which one?
400 2010-12-29 09:13:00 <Diablo-D3> you use the official client with external miners
401 2010-12-29 09:13:10 <Diablo-D3> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1721.0;all
402 2010-12-29 09:13:11 <bitbot> Official DiabloMiner Thread
403 2010-12-29 09:13:12 <Diablo-D3> like that one
404 2010-12-29 09:13:38 <larsivi> ah, misunderstood - thanks :)
405 2010-12-29 09:14:43 <lfm> 15
406 2010-12-29 09:16:22 <lfm> 14
407 2010-12-29 09:16:49 <ThomasV> miners should stop immediately, so that we can sunk 100000 with the new year's eve
408 2010-12-29 09:16:57 <ThomasV> sorry, sync
409 2010-12-29 09:17:26 <lfm> diablo-spam
410 2010-12-29 09:23:43 <larsivi> Diablo-D3: using ubuntu, what would be my most likely source for opencl?
411 2010-12-29 09:23:59 <lfm> nvidia or ati/amd
412 2010-12-29 09:24:32 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: ubuntu packages the stuff for nvidia stuff (just install the right packages)
413 2010-12-29 09:24:44 <Diablo-D3> for ati, grab the v2.1 of the stream sdk off ati's site
414 2010-12-29 09:24:49 <Diablo-D3> and follow the directions
415 2010-12-29 09:24:49 <larsivi> I have ATI (Hd 4870 or something)
416 2010-12-29 09:26:09 <lfm> 13
417 2010-12-29 09:30:19 <lfm> 12
418 2010-12-29 09:42:03 <lfm> 11
419 2010-12-29 09:51:38 <lfm> 10
420 2010-12-29 09:52:26 <afed> do you use the proprietary drivers ubuntu offers to install or do you download ati's driver package along with the sdk?
421 2010-12-29 09:52:35 <afed> also, 10.04 or 10.10?
422 2010-12-29 09:53:05 <lfm> ubuntu 10.10 works for me
423 2010-12-29 09:53:20 <afed> cool
424 2010-12-29 09:53:24 <afed> and your drivers?
425 2010-12-29 09:53:36 <lfm> I downloaded 10.12 ati drivers
426 2010-12-29 09:53:44 <afed> i see
427 2010-12-29 09:53:46 <afed> thanks
428 2010-12-29 09:54:03 <afed> i'm designing a farm with nodes that netboot from a master and run miners
429 2010-12-29 09:54:35 <afed> fewer disks, fewer points of failure and less energy used
430 2010-12-29 09:54:41 <lfm> 9
431 2010-12-29 09:54:56 <lfm> cool
432 2010-12-29 09:56:53 <lfm> use m0mchil miner then. diablo's miner you need a monitor on it it seems
433 2010-12-29 09:57:38 <afed> currently using m0mchil, very happy
434 2010-12-29 09:57:49 <afed> another question, do you run a gui on your machine then?
435 2010-12-29 09:58:03 <afed> is there a speed difference with X not running?
436 2010-12-29 09:58:06 <lfm> ya you need to run xorg in any case
437 2010-12-29 09:58:57 <afed> for what?
438 2010-12-29 09:59:09 <lfm> to get the ati driver running
439 2010-12-29 09:59:34 <afed> right but you could turn it off afterward right?
440 2010-12-29 09:59:59 <lfm> xorg needs to be running but you dont need a monitor afaik
441 2010-12-29 10:00:09 <afed> ok
442 2010-12-29 10:00:27 <lfm> 8
443 2010-12-29 10:24:23 <larsivi> Diablo-D3: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
444 2010-12-29 10:24:44 <Diablo-D3> using newest version?
445 2010-12-29 10:25:02 <Diablo-D3> nope, you're not. theres nothing on 190.
446 2010-12-29 10:25:16 <larsivi> Diablo-D3: the binary link at the top of the forum link you gave me
447 2010-12-29 10:25:26 <Diablo-D3> hrrrm
448 2010-12-29 10:25:39 <larsivi> I guess I can check it out from github though
449 2010-12-29 10:25:45 <Diablo-D3> no, the binary is up to date
450 2010-12-29 10:25:47 <Diablo-D3> but line 190 is
451 2010-12-29 10:25:52 <Diablo-D3> for (CLDevice device : devices) {
452 2010-12-29 10:26:03 <Diablo-D3> the only way you could get that error is if you found no devices
453 2010-12-29 10:26:24 <Diablo-D3> yet sommehow got a valid platform
454 2010-12-29 10:26:24 <larsivi> no, you can get that if there is a list with null entries
455 2010-12-29 10:26:35 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: ergo, no devices.
456 2010-12-29 10:26:36 <larsivi> I think
457 2010-12-29 10:26:53 <Diablo-D3> you're not supposed to be able to get a valid platform with no devices
458 2010-12-29 10:27:08 <lfm> you mean valid entries after null entries? howd that happen?
459 2010-12-29 10:27:28 <sipa> that error can only occur if 'devices' itself is null there
460 2010-12-29 10:27:34 <Diablo-D3> exactly
461 2010-12-29 10:27:38 <Diablo-D3> which devices cant be null
462 2010-12-29 10:27:54 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: it sounds like you didnt follow the directions for the sdk
463 2010-12-29 10:28:06 <Diablo-D3> larsivi: did you forget to unpack icd registration in /?
464 2010-12-29 10:28:09 <larsivi> hmm
465 2010-12-29 10:28:20 <lfm> and set all the env vars?
466 2010-12-29 10:28:38 <Diablo-D3> lfm: no, if he didnt set the env it'd be a different error
467 2010-12-29 10:28:56 <Diablo-D3> but now I get to add a new error checker
468 2010-12-29 10:30:53 <larsivi> I've been trying this stuff - http://orwell.fiit.stuba.sk/~nou/
469 2010-12-29 10:31:08 <larsivi> and had missed the sdk package, however it depends on a package that doesn't exist
470 2010-12-29 10:31:12 <Diablo-D3> no, thats uselessly outdated
471 2010-12-29 10:31:25 <Diablo-D3> use the sdk zip from ati's website, v2.1
472 2010-12-29 10:31:32 <Diablo-D3> I said this already
473 2010-12-29 10:31:54 <lfm> ya, and not the new ones, not 2.2, not 2.3, use 2.1
474 2010-12-29 10:32:29 <Diablo-D3> lfm: at least I subverted the cpu usage bug on 2.2 and 2.3
475 2010-12-29 10:32:29 <larsivi> so you did, sorry (the listing above should in theory include 2.2 fwiw)
476 2010-12-29 10:33:12 <lfm> you did? I must be behind a version or two
477 2010-12-29 10:33:22 <Diablo-D3> its still slower, though
478 2010-12-29 10:36:13 <lfm> 6 (I missed 7)
479 2010-12-29 10:37:55 <sipa> lfm: 7 only took 37 seconds
480 2010-12-29 10:38:07 <sipa> *6
481 2010-12-29 10:38:24 <sipa> *99994
482 2010-12-29 10:38:26 <lfm> 5
483 2010-12-29 10:38:48 <sipa> ok, who turned his cluster of 1000 5970's on?
484 2010-12-29 10:39:22 <sipa> 99995 took 3 minutes...
485 2010-12-29 10:39:58 <lfm> well prolly have some go for 45 mionutes now
486 2010-12-29 10:39:59 <kulhas> hello
487 2010-12-29 10:40:03 <lfm> hi
488 2010-12-29 10:40:43 <kulhas> how do I know that my coin generation is working, its always 0 and calculator says that I need at least one year to make 50 coins lol
489 2010-12-29 10:41:04 <Diablo-D3> sipa: its still random
490 2010-12-29 10:41:23 <Diablo-D3> the pool of doom has hit back to backs before
491 2010-12-29 10:41:28 <lfm> kulhas ya, its a cruel joke
492 2010-12-29 10:42:02 <sipa> kulhas: http://mining.bitcoin.cz
493 2010-12-29 10:42:11 <sipa> you'll at least get a few cents :)
494 2010-12-29 10:43:03 <Diablo-D3> Ive made 22.85 on the pool thus far
495 2010-12-29 10:43:55 <sipa> 31 here
496 2010-12-29 10:44:09 <sipa> (including confirmed and unconfirmed rewards not yet payed out)
497 2010-12-29 10:44:38 <Diablo-D3> this is just confirmed and in my wallet
498 2010-12-29 10:44:51 <sipa> 28 in that case
499 2010-12-29 10:45:17 <Diablo-D3> hrm, slush needs to fix his site
500 2010-12-29 10:45:40 <Diablo-D3> it says .89 expected, 3.17 unconfirmed, 0.99 confirmed, and doesnt list what Ive gotten
501 2010-12-29 10:46:05 <sipa> ?
502 2010-12-29 10:47:38 <lfm> 4
503 2010-12-29 10:48:41 <kulhas> what kind of calculation does bitcoin do? What problems it trys to solve ?
504 2010-12-29 10:48:55 <rapacity> world hunger
505 2010-12-29 10:49:05 <Diablo-D3> its curing aids and cancer too
506 2010-12-29 10:49:31 <lfm> the problem is moving abstrace value symbols around the world reletivley quickly.
507 2010-12-29 10:49:56 <lfm> abstract
508 2010-12-29 10:49:57 <Diablo-D3> *abstract
509 2010-12-29 10:50:21 <ThomasV> it escape taxes
510 2010-12-29 10:50:33 <ThomasV> but not death
511 2010-12-29 10:50:43 <lfm> byproduct and it may not be very good at avoiding taxes
512 2010-12-29 10:51:26 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt bypass taxes
513 2010-12-29 10:51:28 <lfm> 3
514 2010-12-29 10:51:29 <sipa> 2
515 2010-12-29 10:51:30 <lfm> 2
516 2010-12-29 10:51:31 <Diablo-D3> you still have to pay them on transactions
517 2010-12-29 10:51:36 <Diablo-D3> 2
518 2010-12-29 10:51:51 <lfm> i didnt really see 3
519 2010-12-29 10:51:56 <sipa> neither did i
520 2010-12-29 10:52:34 <sipa> 19 seconds...
521 2010-12-29 10:52:39 <mizerydearia> Would anyone like to ask some questions and test a site I am working on?
522 2010-12-29 10:53:01 <lfm> questions? like? are you nuts?
523 2010-12-29 10:53:14 <mizerydearia> Sure, that is acceptable question
524 2010-12-29 10:53:19 <mizerydearia> The site is http://witcoin.com
525 2010-12-29 10:53:26 <mizerydearia> Answers will be coming soon.
526 2010-12-29 10:53:46 <ThomasV> rotfl
527 2010-12-29 10:54:02 <ThomasV> wikipedia has the answers
528 2010-12-29 10:56:00 <Diablo-D3> 1
529 2010-12-29 10:56:30 <ThomasV> bitcoiners are holding their breath
530 2010-12-29 10:57:52 <lfm> 0
531 2010-12-29 10:57:55 <Diablo-D3> 0
532 2010-12-29 10:57:56 <lfm> yay
533 2010-12-29 10:57:56 <sipa> 0
534 2010-12-29 10:58:03 <ThomasV> !!!!
535 2010-12-29 10:58:10 <ThomasV> zaaro
536 2010-12-29 10:58:39 <lfm> theymos just in time for block 100000
537 2010-12-29 10:58:57 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r4620a5b / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Happy 10,000th block, Bitcoin! - http://bit.ly/ecDimn
538 2010-12-29 10:59:53 <lfm> wtf
539 2010-12-29 11:00:17 <mizerydearia> oooh, a bug!
540 2010-12-29 11:00:27 <mizerydearia> My previous question was lost! ^_^
541 2010-12-29 11:00:40 <mizerydearia> overwritten
542 2010-12-29 11:00:48 <sipa> lol
543 2010-12-29 11:02:27 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r808c0d5 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Happy 100,000th block, Bitcoin! - http://bit.ly/ied268
544 2010-12-29 11:02:28 <CIA-106> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r1173a2b / : Merge branch 'master' of github.com:Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner - http://bit.ly/eG82T2
545 2010-12-29 11:04:19 <bitbot> mizerydearia: CurrentBlockCount( 100,000 blocks ) CurrentDifficulty( 14,484.1623612300 ) NextDifficultyAt( 100,800 blocks ) NextDifficultyIn( 800 blocks )
546 2010-12-29 11:04:19 <mizerydearia> ;bcs
547 2010-12-29 11:04:22 <mizerydearia> Woo
548 2010-12-29 11:05:02 <theymos> Some stats: it took two years and 497 quadrillion hashes to produce 100,000 blocks. The average network hash rate was 7.9 billion hashes per second, with an average interval between blocks of 626 seconds. The hash target has decreased by 26 unvigintillion, losing 4 decimal digits. 5 million BTC has been generated, of which 51% has not been spent. 24,449,361 BTC has been transferred in 216,575 transactions, 292,362 inputs, 264,252 outputs, and 17
549 2010-12-29 11:05:46 <mizerydearia> 174,704 addresses
550 2010-12-29 11:06:06 <theymos> And actually there's 100,001 blocks right now, since the genesis block is block 0.
551 2010-12-29 11:06:27 <mizerydearia> 100,000 generated blocks
552 2010-12-29 11:07:25 <ThomasV> no longer
553 2010-12-29 11:07:31 <lfm> minus 1
554 2010-12-29 11:07:46 <da2ce7> : :D :D : D: :D
555 2010-12-29 11:07:51 <bitbot> :D-<
556 2010-12-29 11:07:51 <da2ce7> ;dance
557 2010-12-29 11:07:52 <bitbot> :D|-<
558 2010-12-29 11:07:53 <bitbot> :D/-<
559 2010-12-29 11:10:17 <lfm> I think the genesis block actually needs to be genrated to doesnt it?
560 2010-12-29 11:10:23 <theymos> Yes.
561 2010-12-29 11:11:28 <lfm> Satoshi has a special program for that or something, not sure exactly
562 2010-12-29 11:11:55 <theymos> I believe Bitcoin tries to do it if you remove the pre-generated one from the source.
563 2010-12-29 11:12:38 <lfm> how do you put the newspaper quote in?
564 2010-12-29 11:13:26 <lfm> or you leave the transaction zero in and it generates the blcok then?
565 2010-12-29 11:13:27 <theymos> Modify pszTimestamp.
566 2010-12-29 11:14:03 <theymos> "Stock" Bitcoin will always include the quote unless you go out of your way to change pszTimestamp. The testnet has it as well, for example.
567 2010-12-29 11:14:29 <lfm> cool, now when I have need of a private special currency I'l have some clue how to start it, thansk
568 2010-12-29 11:15:55 <lfm> ok, enuf excitement for me, I gotta crash, bye all
569 2010-12-29 11:23:58 <theymos> In about 10 minutes I will disable HTTPS access to blockexplorer.com. This will last 3-6 days. Update tools to use HTTP for that time.
570 2010-12-29 11:24:42 <ThomasV> hi mtgox. when will it be possible to use EUR transfers at your site ?
571 2010-12-29 11:28:33 <theymos> My server managed to stay up for 128 days. :)
572 2010-12-29 11:32:05 <mtgox> ThomasV: I think in a couple hours
573 2010-12-29 11:32:20 <ThomasV> nice
574 2010-12-29 12:38:28 <mtgox> ThomasV: we can accept Euro bank transfers now. email me for details: info@mtgox.com
575 2010-12-29 12:42:30 <ThomasV> mtgox: great ; does it work with iban/bic or with wire transfer ?
576 2010-12-29 12:48:47 <mtgox> either
577 2010-12-29 12:54:13 <Keefe> mtgox: nice! i look forward to more buyers at mt gox
578 2010-12-29 13:04:59 <ThomasV> mtgox: user bitcoinjones will be our guinea pig, and he'll report back to us europeans :-)
579 2010-12-29 13:05:48 <BoBeR> mr anderson
580 2010-12-29 13:31:07 <EvanR-work> i know kung fu
581 2010-12-29 13:31:30 <BoBeR> how can you kung fu with no hands
582 2010-12-29 13:32:42 <EvanR-work> lol
583 2010-12-29 13:33:23 <EvanR-work> mtgox: if i were to add USD to my account by going to chase bank, how do you know which account to credit
584 2010-12-29 13:38:05 <bitanarchy> Would it be a good idea to have conditional transactions? The condition could then be a prediction. Nodes would then verify these transactions for validity based on the outcome of the prediction.
585 2010-12-29 13:41:27 <mizerydearia> http://witcoin.com/ - Questions are now answerable.  Keywords coming soon!
586 2010-12-29 13:44:27 <BoBeR> why should i pay to answer
587 2010-12-29 13:44:29 <BoBeR> and pay to ask
588 2010-12-29 13:44:44 <BoBeR> how do i answer
589 2010-12-29 13:44:49 <BoBeR> also it should be like this
590 2010-12-29 13:44:59 <BoBeR> person pays to ask
591 2010-12-29 13:45:04 <BoBeR> bounty is set
592 2010-12-29 13:45:11 <BoBeR> the ppl are payed to answer
593 2010-12-29 13:45:16 <BoBeR> you take 1% for hosting
594 2010-12-29 13:45:51 <TD> bitanarchy: how would you script that?
595 2010-12-29 13:46:04 <ThomasV> when ppl pay to provide answers, it's called advertising
596 2010-12-29 13:46:44 <bitanarchy> TD: A prediction would just be a line of text. People running the nodes must interpret the line and determine whether it is true or not.
597 2010-12-29 13:47:23 <TD> bitanarchy: could you give a more concrete example?
598 2010-12-29 13:50:28 <bitanarchy> Prediction: "Bitcoin block number 100 000 is generated on 29/12/2010" If nodes think this will happen then they will include the transaction, so that they can collect the corresponding fee. If the prediction fails than all coins remain with the originator.
599 2010-12-29 13:51:15 <ThomasV> that should be called "betcoin"
600 2010-12-29 13:51:50 <BoBeR> and thats stupid
601 2010-12-29 13:52:03 <BoBeR> i mean why bid on block creation
602 2010-12-29 13:52:13 <mizerydearia> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2516
603 2010-12-29 13:52:14 <BoBeR> plus you missed block 100 000
604 2010-12-29 13:52:15 <bitbot> Witcoin
605 2010-12-29 13:52:37 <bitanarchy> BoBeR: it is just an example. Prediction: BoBeR will die on 30/12/2012 :-)
606 2010-12-29 13:53:10 <BoBeR> i think bober will die on 21/12/2012
607 2010-12-29 13:53:19 <BoBeR> assassination market anyone
608 2010-12-29 13:54:21 <bitanarchy> Prediction markets can be very usefull.
609 2010-12-29 13:54:52 <bitanarchy> Especially when people bet on government policy.
610 2010-12-29 13:55:54 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, Pay to answer as a kind of proof that you are human.  The required amount is anything above 0btc.
611 2010-12-29 13:56:17 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, People will be paid for their answers... eventually.
612 2010-12-29 13:56:43 <bitanarchy> Since prediction markets will quickly be regulated by government, I suppose it would be a good idea to implement it P2P. Maybe embed it into bitcoin, just like bitDNS?
613 2010-12-29 13:56:58 <mizerydearia> The site is designed in a way that asking and answering questions is anonymous and there is no user account system.
614 2010-12-29 13:57:55 <mtgox> EvanR-work: you have to tell me you are doing it and I'll look for the transaction in my account
615 2010-12-29 13:58:03 <mizerydearia> Additionally all questions and answers are public as soon as they are posted.
616 2010-12-29 13:58:32 <mizerydearia> I would like to provide an implementation in which answerers are rewarded for their answers.
617 2010-12-29 13:58:45 <mizerydearia> However, I am not sure I can do so in a way that is required.
618 2010-12-29 13:58:59 <TD> bitanarchy: i think satoshi is interested in generalizing bitcoin in such a way that people can take part in the networks they feel comfortable with
619 2010-12-29 13:59:03 <BoBeR> recaptcha then
620 2010-12-29 13:59:08 <BoBeR> i really hate pay to do something
621 2010-12-29 13:59:13 <TD> bitanarchy: there's the obvious problem of how to encode predictions and how nodes decide whether to include them or not
622 2010-12-29 13:59:23 <mizerydearia> hmm
623 2010-12-29 13:59:37 <mizerydearia> Well...
624 2010-12-29 13:59:42 <mizerydearia> What I can do then, is...
625 2010-12-29 14:00:15 <bitanarchy> TD: I can imagine that people are not comfortable with having either DNS or a prediction market encoded into bitcoin... so maybe a second blockchain must be implemented for that.
626 2010-12-29 14:00:40 <mizerydearia> Add a checkmark box for the question and answer forms, and if it is enabled, the bitcoin amount you submit will be returned to you, however, it will also reduce the ranking of your question and answer to have 0 value, lower than others who do not check it (in which the value will be whatever amount they sent to submit their question/answer).
627 2010-12-29 14:00:51 <TD> bitanarchy: right
628 2010-12-29 14:01:14 <mizerydearia> Which will then make your question appear after those with higher value.
629 2010-12-29 14:01:27 <mizerydearia> However, then it shall be usable by those who don't want to pay ^_^
630 2010-12-29 14:01:47 <mizerydearia> However, you must pay at first and get payment returned immediately afterwards.
631 2010-12-29 14:01:48 <bitanarchy> TD: But I would like to know if the concept of conditional transactions would be enough to start up a prediction market?
632 2010-12-29 14:02:03 <mizerydearia> working on it now..
633 2010-12-29 14:02:07 <TD> i think you need to plan out your idea in more detail, maybe code up a prototype
634 2010-12-29 14:05:54 <bitanarchy> Isn't kiba working on bitDNS and bitPredict? Did he consider this approach?
635 2010-12-29 14:11:44 <TD> hmm. it seems the testnet stopped generating new blocks completely
636 2010-12-29 14:15:05 <BoBeR> ;;say
637 2010-12-29 14:15:06 <gribble> (say <channel|nick> <text>) -- Sends <text> to <channel|nick>. Can only send to <nick> if supybot.plugins.Anonymous.allowPrivateTarget is True.
638 2010-12-29 14:15:29 <BoBeR> ;;say /part
639 2010-12-29 14:15:29 <gribble> Error: You must be registered to use this command. If you are already registered, you must either identify (using the identify command) or add a hostmask matching your current hostmask (using the "hostmask add" command).
640 2010-12-29 14:15:36 <BoBeR> ;;say oeuoeu
641 2010-12-29 14:15:37 <gribble> (say <channel|nick> <text>) -- Sends <text> to <channel|nick>. Can only send to <nick> if supybot.plugins.Anonymous.allowPrivateTarget is True.
642 2010-12-29 14:16:03 <BoBeR> ;;say #bitcoin-dev oeuoeu
643 2010-12-29 14:16:03 <gribble> Error: You must be registered to use this command. If you are already registered, you must either identify (using the identify command) or add a hostmask matching your current hostmask (using the "hostmask add" command).
644 2010-12-29 14:16:06 <BoBeR> gay
645 2010-12-29 14:27:17 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, I implemented return payments for asking a question.  Would you liek to test it? ^_^
646 2010-12-29 14:27:23 <mizerydearia> Working on it for answers now.
647 2010-12-29 14:27:32 <BoBeR> yes
648 2010-12-29 14:42:23 <mizerydearia> Humm, I sent 0.01btc to an address generated by another Bitcoin client, and I confirmed the address is correct.  However, `getreceivedbyaddress [address] 0` doesn't show any amount yet.  Previously 0 confirmations appeared instantly.  I will wait until 1 confirmation and see if it is detected... Otherwise, is this an occasional occurrence?
649 2010-12-29 14:43:15 <mizerydearia> ooh, nevermind.  bug in mah script =/
650 2010-12-29 14:47:11 <BoBeR> so um what do i does
651 2010-12-29 14:49:48 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, You may ask a question.
652 2010-12-29 14:50:01 <BoBeR> why ask
653 2010-12-29 14:50:05 <BoBeR> i dont understand
654 2010-12-29 14:50:11 <BoBeR> would i not want to answer
655 2010-12-29 14:50:26 <mizerydearia> Well, you may answer also, but I am still working on adding return for answers also.
656 2010-12-29 14:50:36 <mizerydearia> As of right now bitcoins are returned only for creating new questions.
657 2010-12-29 14:53:44 <BoBeR> is it 100% return?
658 2010-12-29 14:54:03 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, returns now work for answers too.
659 2010-12-29 14:54:13 <mizerydearia> Yep, if you enable the checkbox, the funds will be returned.
660 2010-12-29 14:54:38 <mizerydearia> If you do not enable it, they will not be returned.  Also, do note, however, that by enabling the checkbox you are also setting the value of the question to 0.
661 2010-12-29 14:54:53 <mizerydearia> Whereas if you do not enable it and send 0.01btc, then the value of the question/answer will be 0.01
662 2010-12-29 14:55:05 <mizerydearia> And also if you send 50.2btc, then the value will be 50.2
663 2010-12-29 14:56:03 <mizerydearia> Eventually, questions and answers will appear in descending value.  Those with higher value appearing first.
664 2010-12-29 14:56:12 <BoBeR> http://pastebin.com/5CUzaUjQ
665 2010-12-29 14:56:15 <BoBeR> error
666 2010-12-29 14:56:24 <mizerydearia> oh?
667 2010-12-29 14:56:33 <mizerydearia> ooh, thanks
668 2010-12-29 14:56:42 <BoBeR> fix it NOA
669 2010-12-29 14:58:02 <mizerydearia> hmm, that's odd
670 2010-12-29 14:58:03 <BoBeR> questions are out of order
671 2010-12-29 14:58:14 <EvanR-work> YOU are out of order!
672 2010-12-29 14:58:17 <BoBeR> also seems like you still have my money
673 2010-12-29 14:58:25 <BoBeR> there is no order in this chatroom
674 2010-12-29 14:58:33 <BoBeR> anarchy is the only order
675 2010-12-29 14:59:47 <BoBeR> so when do i get my money back?
676 2010-12-29 15:03:10 <johndrinkwater> you sent money to localhost on a remote server?
677 2010-12-29 15:04:50 <BoBeR> why not
678 2010-12-29 15:05:48 <johndrinkwater> because that server is unlikely to claim it; someone else will
679 2010-12-29 15:09:52 <BoBeR> i see
680 2010-12-29 15:09:59 <BoBeR> so when do i get my money back
681 2010-12-29 15:10:59 <EvanR-work> your bitcoin balance is ensured up to zero point zero coins by the FDIC
682 2010-12-29 15:11:06 <EvanR-work> insured*
683 2010-12-29 15:13:17 <Kiba> Full Reserve Banking: Don't Need the FDIC
684 2010-12-29 15:13:59 <mizerydearia> BoBeR, Fixed order bug.
685 2010-12-29 15:14:11 <BoBeR> so do i get my old money back
686 2010-12-29 15:14:11 <mizerydearia> Looking into money issue.
687 2010-12-29 15:14:18 <BoBeR> 12 bitcoins i think
688 2010-12-29 15:14:21 <mizerydearia> O_O
689 2010-12-29 15:14:23 <BoBeR> i just mashed the buttons
690 2010-12-29 15:14:31 <BoBeR> i assumed it would work
691 2010-12-29 15:14:39 <mizerydearia> oooh, you did send 12btc
692 2010-12-29 15:23:01 <BoBeR> paul is a dead man
693 2010-12-29 15:56:57 <EvanR-work> ron paul
694 2010-12-29 16:18:29 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
695 2010-12-29 16:29:48 <prusnak> hi all
696 2010-12-29 16:29:57 <prusnak> is any developer at 27c3?
697 2010-12-29 16:36:24 <marioxcc> hello
698 2010-12-29 16:40:03 <BoBeR> mtgox
699 2010-12-29 16:41:04 <marioxcc> I noticed a possible flaw in the current slush model
700 2010-12-29 16:42:08 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: tell us. ;)
701 2010-12-29 16:45:28 <marioxcc> sorry
702 2010-12-29 16:45:34 <marioxcc> i was about to say:
703 2010-12-29 16:46:03 <marioxcc> a user could make a client
704 2010-12-29 16:46:15 <marioxcc> that only sends those PoW than awards him a share
705 2010-12-29 16:46:24 <marioxcc> but don't send those who really are a new block
706 2010-12-29 16:46:35 <marioxcc> that would be a small loss for the user
707 2010-12-29 16:46:50 <marioxcc> but a bigger loss for the network as a whole, i think
708 2010-12-29 16:46:51 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: yeah. That is possible. lol
709 2010-12-29 16:47:26 <marioxcc> so this problem is not currently adressed?
710 2010-12-29 16:47:27 <slush> marioxcc: that would be small loss for the users, until this worker has only small part of pool
711 2010-12-29 16:47:35 <slush> marioxcc: it is well known problem
712 2010-12-29 16:47:52 <slush> but it is not real 'problem'. sabotage is possible, but it is bigger loss for sabteur than for other users
713 2010-12-29 16:48:11 <marioxcc> slush: the "loss" for the sabteur is minimum
714 2010-12-29 16:48:11 <slush> marioxcc: because if you find a block and don't tell others, you have also loss
715 2010-12-29 16:48:30 <marioxcc> of course
716 2010-12-29 16:48:33 <slush> marioxcc: the same as for others
717 2010-12-29 16:48:44 <slush> until you don't have significant power in pool
718 2010-12-29 16:48:49 <marioxcc> but suppose I dislike the network
719 2010-12-29 16:48:52 <slush> and I'm doing stats that big players are not cheating
720 2010-12-29 16:48:57 <marioxcc> then I could publish a client which does that
721 2010-12-29 16:49:08 <marioxcc> the probability of a share being a complete PoW and valid work is minimum
722 2010-12-29 16:49:18 <marioxcc> so there is a minimum loss in not sending them
723 2010-12-29 16:49:27 <marioxcc> I then get to harm the network
724 2010-12-29 16:49:33 <marioxcc> and get almost the same reward
725 2010-12-29 16:49:46 <marioxcc> i think it's a real problem, for instance, you don't know if someone is doing this alredy
726 2010-12-29 16:50:13 <marioxcc> if so, you would be paying him with 0% probability to get a block ever form such client
727 2010-12-29 16:50:36 <slush> marioxcc: if  you are poor worker, probability that you find a block is minimal. And when you are strong player, it can be easily detected AND it is big loss for you (because you have significant reward from every block and you miss them, because you don't submit them to pool)
728 2010-12-29 16:50:46 <nanotube> marioxcc: it is hard to prevent attacks where the attacker also loses. (see, suicide bombers)
729 2010-12-29 16:51:17 <nanotube> thankfully, most people don't attack where they get no benifit and only a cost.
730 2010-12-29 16:51:47 <slush> say, I can do this sabotage with 5970 pretty well, because I find a block almost every day; yes, I can hurt pool in this way. But I miss ~6 btc from every sabotage.
731 2010-12-29 16:52:02 <nanotube> prusnak: there were several
732 2010-12-29 16:52:31 <marioxcc> slush: my point is that your loss is not SO great
733 2010-12-29 16:52:37 <marioxcc> of course, most people won't
734 2010-12-29 16:52:44 <marioxcc> but if there is a group againsting you or the pool
735 2010-12-29 16:52:47 <marioxcc> they will use this system
736 2010-12-29 16:52:50 <marioxcc> made profit
737 2010-12-29 16:52:57 <marioxcc> and harm the system
738 2010-12-29 16:53:18 <slush> marioxcc: this was intensively discussed here before and I'm pretty sure that a) there is only few people who can do it b) they don't have a motivation, because they bought GPUS to make a money, not to disable others to make a money c) I can detect them pretty easy
739 2010-12-29 16:53:28 <EvanR-work> if you control more than 50% of the network you can consistently steal money
740 2010-12-29 16:53:48 <marioxcc> EvanR-work: I don't mean the whole bitcoin network
741 2010-12-29 16:53:50 <marioxcc> only the pool
742 2010-12-29 16:54:07 <EvanR-work> how do you harm the pool?
743 2010-12-29 16:54:12 <slush> marioxcc: they make a profit, but much less when they steal their own blocks.
744 2010-12-29 16:54:49 <marioxcc> well, i think it's a real possibility
745 2010-12-29 16:54:58 <marioxcc> usually when atacking you get nothing
746 2010-12-29 16:55:09 <marioxcc> but only to harm the victim
747 2010-12-29 16:55:12 <marioxcc> with this atack, however
748 2010-12-29 16:55:24 <slush> marioxcc: of course it is _possible_
749 2010-12-29 16:55:31 <marioxcc> you will get a small profit
750 2010-12-29 16:55:44 <slush> I don't doubt it.
751 2010-12-29 16:55:58 <nanotube> marioxcc: no, your net profit is negative
752 2010-12-29 16:56:10 <slush> marioxcc: but you make bigger loss for yourself.
753 2010-12-29 16:56:22 <marioxcc> slush: there is no loss for myself
754 2010-12-29 16:56:31 <nanotube> if i spend $10 to get $2, my $2 is not profit, instead it is rather $8 loss.
755 2010-12-29 16:56:39 <slush> marioxcc: yes, there is loss for you
756 2010-12-29 16:56:48 <nanotube> ;;wp opportunity cost
757 2010-12-29 16:56:54 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost | Opportunity cost is the cost related to the next-best choice available to someone who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices. ...
758 2010-12-29 16:57:04 <marioxcc> in this case, we say i alredy want to harm the system
759 2010-12-29 16:57:11 <marioxcc> then I expect to loss $$$
760 2010-12-29 16:57:13 <slush> marioxcc: you are crunching hashes, but refuse reward from them
761 2010-12-29 16:57:16 <marioxcc> but with this method I only loss $$
762 2010-12-29 16:57:16 <slush> marioxcc: you? :)
763 2010-12-29 16:57:20 <marioxcc> if so, i wouldn't be telling you
764 2010-12-29 16:57:23 <marioxcc> lol
765 2010-12-29 16:57:40 <slush> marioxcc: that's reason why I want many workers on pool; when nobody will handle large portion of pool, nobody can effective sabotage it this way
766 2010-12-29 16:57:50 <nanotube> marioxcc: you have to (a) pay for hardware, (b) pay for electricity, and (c) give up reward you would otherwise get... it is all in all a pretty costly proposition, for not much gain.
767 2010-12-29 16:58:08 <marioxcc> nanotube: you didn't got my point
768 2010-12-29 16:58:25 <marioxcc> slush: well, anyway
769 2010-12-29 16:58:30 <slush> marioxcc: say you have to pay everything what nanotube said AND you cut your reward by not submitting hashes
770 2010-12-29 16:58:32 <BoBeR> hey
771 2010-12-29 16:58:43 <slush> marioxcc: I agree it is _possibility_
772 2010-12-29 16:58:44 <nanotube> no, i get your point (i think), that it is /possible/, if someone is motivated enough, to do it...
773 2010-12-29 16:58:57 <slush> right
774 2010-12-29 16:59:01 <nanotube> hey BoBeR got my btc?
775 2010-12-29 16:59:06 <BoBeR> yes
776 2010-12-29 16:59:14 <nanotube> cool. :)
777 2010-12-29 17:00:07 <fabianhjr> BoBeR: what ya doing now?
778 2010-12-29 17:00:47 <marioxcc> well, do you have any idea of an approach on the issue other to relying on the minority insignificance?
779 2010-12-29 17:01:04 <nanotube> marioxcc: probably slush can block peers after they get into >95% probability of withholding good blocks, statistically.
780 2010-12-29 17:01:07 <nanotube> fabianhjr: BoBeR found some rare file for me. good service. ;)
781 2010-12-29 17:01:28 <slush> nanotube: those stats are in my new statistical pack
782 2010-12-29 17:01:31 <marioxcc> nanotube: they get a new ID and IP if need
783 2010-12-29 17:01:39 <fabianhjr> No, I am asking him what he is doing _now_ xD
784 2010-12-29 17:02:09 <nanotube> fabianhjr: heh
785 2010-12-29 17:02:37 <fabianhjr> nanotube: what makes a file rare?
786 2010-12-29 17:03:08 <nanotube> marioxcc: well, how do you block a spammer? they get a new email address and ip if needed. how do you block an irc flooder? they get a new ip, etc. there's no solution. only in this case the spamming is costly, so economic self-interest takes care of itself. :)
787 2010-12-29 17:03:38 <nanotube> fabianhjr: that i couldn't find it myself with a cursory search of the web. :) so it made sense for me to pay BoBeR to help me out.
788 2010-12-29 17:03:42 <bitanarchy> Why does btcex not support euro and dollar? Wouldn't it be convenient to have multiple open bitcoin exchanges besides mtgox... Just to keep every exchange in check and avoid fractional reserve banking etc..
789 2010-12-29 17:04:54 <fabianhjr> nanotube: a multiplayr crack for a game such as BF:BC2? xD
790 2010-12-29 17:05:18 <nanotube> no, an old movie
791 2010-12-29 17:05:57 <TheAncientGoat> Heh, internet crashed
792 2010-12-29 17:06:24 <nanotube> the whole thing? :)
793 2010-12-29 17:06:44 <TheAncientGoat> Anything interesting happen bitcoin wise the past 2 weeks?
794 2010-12-29 17:06:54 <TheAncientGoat> nanotube: The tubes got knotted :(
795 2010-12-29 17:07:02 <nanotube> heh
796 2010-12-29 17:07:06 <TheAncientGoat> No, the dump truck driver was drunk
797 2010-12-29 17:07:19 <nanotube> well, some upward price movement in the past few days
798 2010-12-29 17:07:54 <fabianhjr> TheAncientGoat: BTC is at 0.3 USD currently.
799 2010-12-29 17:08:05 <fabianhjr> It is getting way up. :)
800 2010-12-29 17:08:13 <TheAncientGoat> Ooo, that's cool
801 2010-12-29 17:08:25 <bitanarchy> Goat: This video appeared http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwngKUVU85g
802 2010-12-29 17:08:30 <EvanR-work> TheAncientGoat: if you have coins, yes
803 2010-12-29 17:08:30 <TheAncientGoat> I was worred when it went down sub 0.2
804 2010-12-29 17:08:48 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: btw, switching my accelmethod to xaa solved the slow-scroll problem for me. interesting...
805 2010-12-29 17:08:50 <TheAncientGoat> EvanR-work: I threw a lot of my lottery away :(
806 2010-12-29 17:08:52 <BoBeR> any one need any rare files
807 2010-12-29 17:08:56 <BoBeR> or something found
808 2010-12-29 17:08:58 <BoBeR> information
809 2010-12-29 17:09:00 <BoBeR> dox
810 2010-12-29 17:09:16 <EvanR-work> BoBeR: i need tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables, any idea where to get those?
811 2010-12-29 17:09:28 <nanotube> EvanR-work: haha
812 2010-12-29 17:09:42 <BoBeR> yos
813 2010-12-29 17:09:46 <BoBeR> infact i got a copy
814 2010-12-29 17:13:53 <mrb__> I solved block 99993. so close!
815 2010-12-29 17:15:37 <prusnak> nanotube: any idea how to contact them? we'd like to have a chat with 'em
816 2010-12-29 17:16:37 <nanotube> oh, you mean actual bitcoin devs... no i dunno. i know a few bitcoin /users/ have mentioned it.
817 2010-12-29 17:17:35 <prusnak> ah :)
818 2010-12-29 17:18:01 <prusnak> yes, actual developers who know the system very well and their knowledge is deep
819 2010-12-29 17:20:45 <nanotube> not aware if any are there... i can only suggest sending email, and hoping to set up a live chat? see bitcoin.org/contact
820 2010-12-29 17:21:04 <prusnak> thx
821 2010-12-29 17:21:36 <tcatm> Huh? I made it to the official developer page? :)
822 2010-12-29 17:22:03 <mizerydearia> quick, hide!
823 2010-12-29 17:22:22 <prusnak> tcatm: you are not at 27c3, are you  ?
824 2010-12-29 17:23:20 <tcatm> prusnak: no
825 2010-12-29 17:25:36 <BoBeR> mtgox here
826 2010-12-29 17:26:33 <prusnak> mtgox: ping, are you at 27c3?
827 2010-12-29 17:28:59 <TD> prusnak: i know the system somewhat well by now
828 2010-12-29 17:29:12 <nanotube> prusnak: i know T_X is there... also qube<somethingorother>. but dunno how well versed in the internals they are.
829 2010-12-29 17:29:14 <TD> prusnak: i am not a "bitcoin developer" but i am working on an implementation of parts of the client in java
830 2010-12-29 17:29:18 <TD> for an android client
831 2010-12-29 17:29:31 <TD> and i've talked to satoshi a few times. otherwise i have no special insight
832 2010-12-29 17:30:15 <marioxcc> so there isn't any systematic idea to address the problem I have explained in the current pool/slush approach?
833 2010-12-29 17:30:37 <prusnak> we are interested in generul stuff, to sand decide if to support it or not :)
834 2010-12-29 17:30:51 <sipa> marioxcc: what is your question?
835 2010-12-29 17:30:52 <TD> i don't know who you are but i'm happy to answer questions as best i can
836 2010-12-29 17:30:56 <sipa> sorry, too lazy to scroll up
837 2010-12-29 17:30:57 <prusnak> s/to sand/to see and/
838 2010-12-29 17:30:59 <TD> prusnak: your best bet is just to ask
839 2010-12-29 17:31:10 <TD> you know, the usual drill ....
840 2010-12-29 17:31:21 <marioxcc> sipa: well, the discussion is above
841 2010-12-29 17:31:28 <marioxcc> it was started with "I noticed a possible flaw in the current slush model".
842 2010-12-29 17:31:51 <sipa> i see something about people witholding good blocks?
843 2010-12-29 17:31:52 <nanotube> prusnak: check out the site, faq, wiki... there's a lot of doc... then ask questions for anything that's unclear.
844 2010-12-29 17:32:14 <prusnak> most of it is clear
845 2010-12-29 17:32:20 <nanotube> sipa: yea, people withholding good blocks just to spite the pool (and themselves)
846 2010-12-29 17:32:25 <sipa> they could
847 2010-12-29 17:32:34 <sipa> it wouldn't benefit anyone
848 2010-12-29 17:32:42 <sipa> but yes, it's definitely possible
849 2010-12-29 17:33:23 <marioxcc> that's what I'm asking
850 2010-12-29 17:33:34 <sipa> however, i think it's statistically detectable if slush would want to
851 2010-12-29 17:33:41 <marioxcc> some idea to stop them (other than relying of none doing so)?
852 2010-12-29 17:34:01 <sipa> he could create very detailed statistics about the blocks that are submitted
853 2010-12-29 17:34:11 <slush> sipa: true, I have those stats ready
854 2010-12-29 17:34:37 <slush> sipa: well, coded on my dev, will go online after upgrade
855 2010-12-29 17:34:42 <marioxcc> I would like to make my proposed decentralized pool miner resistant to these atacks
856 2010-12-29 17:34:51 <TD> prusnak: which parts are unclear?
857 2010-12-29 17:35:35 <sipa> slush: if you look at the seconds 32-bit word of the submitted hashes, these should be distributed uniformly
858 2010-12-29 17:35:39 <sipa> *second
859 2010-12-29 17:35:51 <slush> sipa: exactly
860 2010-12-29 17:36:06 <ArtForz> I doubt it's possible to protect against this "attack"
861 2010-12-29 17:36:19 <sipa> it would take a long time, and definitely longer than the average time between expected blocks from this client
862 2010-12-29 17:36:33 <ArtForz> well, not without relying on statistical analysis of diff=1 solutions versus diff=real_target solutions
863 2010-12-29 17:36:42 <sipa> indeed, ArtForz
864 2010-12-29 17:36:45 <prusnak> TD: well, we are not 100% sure we want to support it
865 2010-12-29 17:36:50 <sipa> you can't do it with 100% certainty
866 2010-12-29 17:36:59 <ArtForz> yep
867 2010-12-29 17:37:06 <TD> that doesn't sound like something unclear about bitcoin. it sounds like something unclear about your goals
868 2010-12-29 17:37:30 <prusnak> yes, probably
869 2010-12-29 17:37:33 <nanotube> prusnak: ArtForz here is quite knowledgeable about bitcoin internals as well.
870 2010-12-29 17:37:36 <ArtForz> aka "either you're really unlucky or dropping diff > X solutions, banned"
871 2010-12-29 17:37:45 <prusnak> and we want to find out if our goal is to support bitcoin or not :)
872 2010-12-29 17:37:56 <marioxcc> we know banned atackers will just register again a get a new IP if need
873 2010-12-29 17:38:07 <EvanR-work> the goal of not supporting bitcoin is fairly easily accomplished
874 2010-12-29 17:38:16 <nanotube> ArtForz: exactly what i said earlier, can only do via statistical analysis.
875 2010-12-29 17:38:18 <EvanR-work> for now ;)
876 2010-12-29 17:38:19 <ArtForz> statistical analysis of diff < X solutions usbmitted wont help if the attackr is only dropping results that would lead to a valid block
877 2010-12-29 17:38:19 <slush> marioxcc: How can you solve this issue in your propsal?
878 2010-12-29 17:38:33 <marioxcc> slush: that's what i'm asking for
879 2010-12-29 17:38:36 <marioxcc> how to solve it?
880 2010-12-29 17:39:01 <ArtForz> again, I doubt it's possible to 100% protect against this with a share-based pool
881 2010-12-29 17:39:06 <TD> prusnak: the only thing to ponder is what the downside is
882 2010-12-29 17:39:36 <marioxcc> do the puddinpop approach have this flaw?
883 2010-12-29 17:39:42 <nanotube> prusnak: well, you must have some specific questions/doubts in mind that need resolution... we can't help you define your goals, but answer your questions. :)
884 2010-12-29 17:39:54 <sipa> marioxcc: i don't think so
885 2010-12-29 17:40:02 <ArtForz> I do think so
886 2010-12-29 17:40:04 <nanotube> sipa: i think so
887 2010-12-29 17:40:18 <nanotube> client can not send back the work that contains a good block solve
888 2010-12-29 17:40:26 <sipa> true
889 2010-12-29 17:40:48 <marioxcc> nanotube: but then all it shares are deleted
890 2010-12-29 17:40:49 <marioxcc> no?
891 2010-12-29 17:40:54 <ArtForz> nope
892 2010-12-29 17:40:58 <marioxcc> ok
893 2010-12-29 17:40:58 <prusnak> thx
894 2010-12-29 17:41:36 <ArtForz> puddinpop restarts share counting whenever a valid block is found
895 2010-12-29 17:42:00 <marioxcc> but do puddinpop servers tell the clients exactly which ranges to evaluate?
896 2010-12-29 17:42:09 <marioxcc> or the range is chosed at client's will?
897 2010-12-29 17:42:22 <nanotube> generally, when you want to 'prevent' someone from doing so, you can't do it 100%, you can only make it costly. if someone is willing to do it even at a cost to himself... you're pretty much out of luck.
898 2010-12-29 17:42:38 <ArtForz> I think server tells client where to start exactly, but client can stop early
899 2010-12-29 17:42:51 <nanotube> or client can just fail to report... network issues, etc.
900 2010-12-29 17:42:55 <ArtForz> yep
901 2010-12-29 17:43:11 <ArtForz> or report to stop short of the good solution
902 2010-12-29 17:43:35 <nanotube> right
903 2010-12-29 17:44:41 <marioxcc> who decides which ranges should the client evaluate in the puddinpop models?
904 2010-12-29 17:44:44 <ArtForz> irrc puddinpops works like "hey, start mining with this block header at nonce X" and client reports back "okay, did Y nonces, best target I got is Z @ nonce AA, metahash is AB"
905 2010-12-29 17:44:44 <marioxcc> the server or the client?
906 2010-12-29 17:45:17 <ArtForz> iirc server tells client where to start, after X time client reports back how many nonces it tried, the metahash it got and the best solution it found
907 2010-12-29 17:45:40 <marioxcc> ok
908 2010-12-29 17:45:47 <marioxcc> and then the metahash is verified at random by the server
909 2010-12-29 17:45:48 <marioxcc> true?
910 2010-12-29 17:45:51 <ArtForz> yep
911 2010-12-29 17:46:08 <ArtForz> so a client can just stop short of a valid solution, sit around for the rest of its nominal time and all the server sees is that that client slowed down a bit for a few seconds
912 2010-12-29 17:46:52 <EvanR-work> is it possible for no nonce to work?
913 2010-12-29 17:46:53 <ArtForz> and for a GPU miner on a user system, randomly slowing down happens a lot (flash player anyone?)