1 2011-01-03 00:00:53 <lucky> sipa, every time i pull it i have to confirm whether the entry has already been processed, which means keeping track of all the transactions i've processed already, and every time there's a transaction that dataset returned by listreceivedbyaccount is going to be larger and larger
  2 2011-01-03 00:01:17 <sipa> yes
  3 2011-01-03 00:01:24 <sipa> oh
  4 2011-01-03 00:02:01 <lucky> which is both an implementation headache and makes me wonder about how well it'd scale ;/
  5 2011-01-03 00:02:37 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 140000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 5 days, 3 hours, 25 minutes, and 50 seconds
  6 2011-01-03 00:02:37 <Sami345> ;;bc,calc 140000
  7 2011-01-03 00:03:01 <afed> ;;bc,calc 660000
  8 2011-01-03 00:03:02 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 660000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 day, 2 hours, 10 minutes, and 56 seconds
  9 2011-01-03 00:03:17 <lucky> ;;bc,calc 5500
 10 2011-01-03 00:03:18 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5500 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 18 weeks, 4 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes, and 7 seconds
 11 2011-01-03 00:03:29 <lucky> i'll be sticking with pooled ;
 12 2011-01-03 00:03:30 <lucky> :P
 13 2011-01-03 00:04:24 <lucky> sipa, so i was wondering how other people had done it, and if there was any code i could look at ;/
 14 2011-01-03 00:05:21 <Sami345> how much power of pool is going to calculate proof of work
 15 2011-01-03 00:05:31 <sipa> ?
 16 2011-01-03 00:06:14 <Sami345> I mean when pool send "false" jobs, how much power calculating those false jobs costs
 17 2011-01-03 00:06:15 <lucky> tbh i consider this entire "omg i gotta max hash, brb buying 128 $1000 ATI video cards" fetish to be silly, i'm far more interested in actually using BC as a currency
 18 2011-01-03 00:06:32 <lucky> Sami345, they're not false.
 19 2011-01-03 00:06:40 <sipa> Sami345: you don't get false jobs
 20 2011-01-03 00:06:49 <sipa> you get real ones, with lower difficulty
 21 2011-01-03 00:07:03 <Sami345> but aren't they useless?
 22 2011-01-03 00:07:07 <sipa> no
 23 2011-01-03 00:07:10 <lucky> a lone person doing regular hashing is burning through billions of incorrect numbers until they find a sufficient one
 24 2011-01-03 00:07:15 <lucky> as well.
 25 2011-01-03 00:07:19 <lucky> that's the entire point, really
 26 2011-01-03 00:07:20 <sipa> Sami345: every hash is a number
 27 2011-01-03 00:07:21 <lucky> proof of work.
 28 2011-01-03 00:07:32 <sipa> Sami345: we're looking for hashes whose number is small enough
 29 2011-01-03 00:07:50 <sipa> to win in the the real bitcoin network, it has to be lower than 2^224/difficulty
 30 2011-01-03 00:08:04 <Sami345> so it makes my client send too big numbers too?
 31 2011-01-03 00:08:34 <sipa> however, the pool asks you to not only report the very small numbers (less than 2^224/difficulty), but also the larger ones (up to 2^224)
 32 2011-01-03 00:08:52 <sipa> but the ones you do report also include the small ones
 33 2011-01-03 00:09:33 <Sami345> what about you said the hashes pool clients are corrupted
 34 2011-01-03 00:09:42 <sipa> ?
 35 2011-01-03 00:09:43 <Sami345> so they can't steal it to them self
 36 2011-01-03 00:10:02 <sipa> you have to decide who the block will be fore, before you start hashing
 37 2011-01-03 00:10:19 <Sami345> oh
 38 2011-01-03 00:10:25 <sipa> and in fact, the miners don't even know that, they don't get to see the full block
 39 2011-01-03 00:10:29 <Sami345> yeah that makes sense
 40 2011-01-03 00:10:46 <sipa> they just get work from the pool, and return the hashes, without having any clue whom it will be for
 41 2011-01-03 00:11:39 <sipa> there is one possibility for vandalism, and that is deliberately withholding blocks which do beat the full difficulty
 42 2011-01-03 00:11:47 <sipa> that's hurting yourself and the pool
 43 2011-01-03 00:11:54 <sipa> but it's possible
 44 2011-01-03 00:12:20 <Sami345> but I can't still get the money from the blocks
 45 2011-01-03 00:12:26 <Sami345> so what's the point?
 46 2011-01-03 00:12:53 <Sami345> What I have is unusable block
 47 2011-01-03 00:12:58 <sipa> yes
 48 2011-01-03 00:13:15 <sipa> the only way to earn money through it, is by sending it to the pool
 49 2011-01-03 00:13:27 <Sami345> hmm
 50 2011-01-03 00:13:35 <sipa> but if you would want to hurt the pool, you could decide not to send it
 51 2011-01-03 00:13:46 <Sami345> but it can wait until you have high shares and then send the block? :d
 52 2011-01-03 00:14:16 <jgarzik> marioxcc: your implementation queues work in the background...  old work
 53 2011-01-03 00:14:52 <marioxcc> jgarzik: ?
 54 2011-01-03 00:15:23 <marioxcc> i don't claim these to be a wonder, they're just my 2 cents
 55 2011-01-03 00:16:03 <marioxcc> if that's what you mean
 56 2011-01-03 00:16:14 <sipa> marioxcc: he means you fetch work
 57 2011-01-03 00:16:15 <jgarzik> marioxcc: work retrieved is always a few seconds older than current in-line scheme.  it is a regression.
 58 2011-01-03 00:16:20 <sipa> and only start working on it much later
 59 2011-01-03 00:16:25 <jgarzik> correct
 60 2011-01-03 00:16:45 <sipa> so by the time you work your way through it, it may have become invalid
 61 2011-01-03 00:16:51 <marioxcc> of course
 62 2011-01-03 00:16:52 <jgarzik> correct
 63 2011-01-03 00:17:03 <marioxcc> but the other option is to await the work
 64 2011-01-03 00:17:15 <marioxcc> the work you're working on may become obsolete when you work in it
 65 2011-01-03 00:17:21 <marioxcc> there is no currently a way to know when to update
 66 2011-01-03 00:17:27 <marioxcc> with the API
 67 2011-01-03 00:17:31 <marioxcc> as far as i know
 68 2011-01-03 00:17:42 <jgarzik> marioxcc: sure there is -- observe timings, and fetch work just before thread completes current run
 69 2011-01-03 00:18:20 <jgarzik> marioxcc: your proposed changes are worse than waiting for an inline 'getwork' RPC, because you are introduced silent delays.
 70 2011-01-03 00:18:22 <marioxcc> jgarzik: network latency is unpredictable
 71 2011-01-03 00:18:45 <marioxcc> the queue size is configurate
 72 2011-01-03 00:18:48 <jgarzik> for a single client and server it is predictable within bounds 99% of the time
 73 2011-01-03 00:18:59 <sipa> there is no point in using a queue
 74 2011-01-03 00:19:04 <marioxcc> not if you have other software using network
 75 2011-01-03 00:19:05 <sipa> just always use the latest one
 76 2011-01-03 00:19:08 <marioxcc> as is my case, running a tor relay
 77 2011-01-03 00:19:19 <sipa> unless the nonce overflows in that time
 78 2011-01-03 00:19:48 <marioxcc> sipa: would you use a stack?
 79 2011-01-03 00:20:14 <marioxcc> jgarzik: i was also thinking of dropping old works, but that increses load on server
 80 2011-01-03 00:20:37 <sipa> what i would do, is having two completely independent threads
 81 2011-01-03 00:20:45 <sipa> one fetches work every X seconds
 82 2011-01-03 00:21:07 <sipa> the other works on the latest getwork that succeeded
 83 2011-01-03 00:21:21 <sipa> if there is a network delay, just keep working on the previous one
 84 2011-01-03 00:21:47 <sipa> and make the timings so that nonce overflows rare occur
 85 2011-01-03 00:22:18 <sipa> *rarely
 86 2011-01-03 00:23:02 <marioxcc> i think curernt implementation scans all the range
 87 2011-01-03 00:23:32 <sipa> if a nonce overflows, you can increase the TS btw
 88 2011-01-03 00:23:39 <jgarzik> marioxcc: also, your list implementation should be http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob_plain;f=include/linux/list.h;hb=b518a64983cbf2ff31aed530898de2d80e4573d5
 89 2011-01-03 00:23:42 <marioxcc> timestapm?
 90 2011-01-03 00:23:46 <sipa> yes
 91 2011-01-03 00:24:14 <marioxcc> jgarzik: what's the difference?
 92 2011-01-03 00:24:47 <jgarzik> marioxcc: the kernel's is inline, small, efficient, does not require huge module for simple linked list
 93 2011-01-03 00:25:47 <marioxcc> jgarzik: do you suggest to spend 5 minutes with a new implementation to make a 5 ???s difference?
 94 2011-01-03 00:28:15 <jgarzik> marioxcc: cpuminer does not need bloat from a linked list implementation.  linked lists aren't that hard that you must link 1300 lines of code into cpuminer.
 95 2011-01-03 00:28:17 <jgarzik> 546 cpu-miner.c
 96 2011-01-03 00:28:19 <jgarzik> 89 sha256_via.c
 97 2011-01-03 00:28:24 <jgarzik> that's just silly.
 98 2011-01-03 00:28:58 <lfm> whats wrong?
 99 2011-01-03 00:29:26 <xelister> DrUNK|what is lists
100 2011-01-03 00:29:42 <xelister> DrUNK|o lol own lists implementation
101 2011-01-03 00:29:46 <xelister> DrUNK|ah, the C days
102 2011-01-03 00:30:04 <marioxcc> jgarzik: bear in mind the file you linked to is 718 lines long
103 2011-01-03 00:30:10 <marioxcc> almost half
104 2011-01-03 00:30:22 <marioxcc> stripping can drop the non used functions
105 2011-01-03 00:30:38 <jgarzik> marioxcc: yes, and only the tiny needed bits are actually used.
106 2011-01-03 00:30:45 <sipa> what are you all talking about?
107 2011-01-03 00:30:59 <sipa> is see absolutely no reason why you would use a list at all
108 2011-01-03 00:31:29 <marioxcc> jgarzik: i was actually thinking of a array implementation
109 2011-01-03 00:31:41 <jgarzik> marioxcc: see what sipa said :)
110 2011-01-03 00:31:44 <marioxcc> just a array with 2 pointers to first and last item
111 2011-01-03 00:32:10 <sipa> never work on anything but the last getwork you received
112 2011-01-03 00:32:18 <marioxcc> yeah, that
113 2011-01-03 00:32:19 <marioxcc> that's a good idea
114 2011-01-03 00:32:26 <marioxcc> i will implement it
115 2011-01-03 00:32:57 <sipa> if all 2^32 have been tried and you still don't have a new getwork
116 2011-01-03 00:33:14 <sipa> increase the timestamp of the old one yourself, and continue with that
117 2011-01-03 00:34:06 <sipa> slush: maybe you can implement a getwork call which blocks until actual new work is available (new tx, or new block) ?
118 2011-01-03 00:35:20 <xelister> DrUNK|jgarzik: you are implementing bitcoin in pure C?  why ._.
119 2011-01-03 00:35:32 <sipa> xelister|DrUNK: it's just a miner
120 2011-01-03 00:36:12 <xelister> DrUNK|ah
121 2011-01-03 00:37:33 <EvanR> what block are we on?
122 2011-01-03 00:37:46 <EvanR> have it been 100769 for freakin ever?
123 2011-01-03 00:38:44 <lfm> ;;bc,stats
124 2011-01-03 00:38:46 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100769 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 30 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 16 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16293.31583200
125 2011-01-03 00:39:20 <lfm> thats odd
126 2011-01-03 00:39:37 <lfm> I am at 100769 too
127 2011-01-03 00:39:56 <EvanR> i still have 0 confirmations
128 2011-01-03 00:40:18 <EvanR> world wide drop in hash power?
129 2011-01-03 00:40:47 <lfm> yes, nearly an hour on that blcok
130 2011-01-03 00:40:50 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: everyone got drunk
131 2011-01-03 00:40:59 <xelister> DrUNK|only loosers keep now miners running
132 2011-01-03 00:41:10 <lfm> Block #100769 2011-01-03 00:48:52 UTC
133 2011-01-03 00:41:18 <jgarzik> EvanR: sometimes blocks just take forever to solve, even with everyone working at full hash rate.
134 2011-01-03 00:41:25 <jgarzik> that's the nature of the hash :)
135 2011-01-03 00:41:40 <EvanR> whats the stddev ?
136 2011-01-03 00:41:41 <lucky> So does anyone have a code sample for what i'm describing? because i think it's beyond me to implement without having something to base it off of
137 2011-01-03 00:47:28 <EvanR> no i think an hour for a hash is very unlikely
138 2011-01-03 00:47:39 <sipa> it's a bit unlikely
139 2011-01-03 00:47:51 <EvanR> assuming constant cpu power
140 2011-01-03 00:48:24 <sipa> assume 115 Ghash/s
141 2011-01-03 00:48:48 <EvanR> ;;bc,calc 115000000
142 2011-01-03 00:48:49 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 115000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 9 minutes and 0 seconds
143 2011-01-03 00:49:26 <sipa> 115000000000/(2^32*14484.16236123)
144 2011-01-03 00:49:39 <sipa> .00184860700621980743 is the average number of blocks found per second
145 2011-01-03 00:49:59 <sipa> now look at the exponential distribution with lambda=.00184860700621980743
146 2011-01-03 00:51:26 <sipa> 0.128% chance
147 2011-01-03 00:51:35 <EvanR> ._.
148 2011-01-03 00:51:43 <sipa> for a given interval being larger than 1 hour
149 2011-01-03 00:51:52 <EvanR> soon we will win the lottery
150 2011-01-03 00:52:03 <sipa> so once every 776 blocks, that should occur
151 2011-01-03 00:52:45 <EvanR> once every 776 blocks that should occur, dont you have to go through another round of analysis to determine the chance that its much less or greater than 776
152 2011-01-03 00:53:09 <ArtForz> see poisson distribution and CDF
153 2011-01-03 00:53:29 <xelister> DrUNK|ArtForz: got pm?
154 2011-01-03 00:53:34 <ArtForz> yup
155 2011-01-03 00:54:29 <sipa> EvanR: then you are doing hypothesis testing :)
156 2011-01-03 00:54:42 <EvanR> i just want to transfer my damned coins xD!
157 2011-01-03 00:55:13 <Cusipzzz> transfer them where?
158 2011-01-03 00:55:14 <xelister> DrUNK|how long are we waiting for the new block?
159 2011-01-03 00:55:29 <EvanR> somewhere!
160 2011-01-03 00:55:33 <sipa> 1h07m
161 2011-01-03 00:55:38 <xelister> DrUNK|lol shit
162 2011-01-03 00:56:02 <xelister> DrUNK|perhaps ArtForz invited all his friends, so did the owners of other clusters
163 2011-01-03 00:56:12 <xelister> DrUNK|and they all play 128 players turnament of quake
164 2011-01-03 00:56:46 <sipa> you need 4 5970's to play quake these days? ;)
165 2011-01-03 00:56:59 <zygf> when he's done generating he can rent his cluster to onlive or something
166 2011-01-03 00:57:17 <xelister> DrUNK|but in fact computing power seems impared, on 1st day of 2011, instead of expected 0.5 block, I mined not 1, not 2, but 3 blocks!!! woot?
167 2011-01-03 00:57:39 <Cusipzzz> wow, u haxx =)
168 2011-01-03 00:57:44 <EvanR> approximately 10 minutes lol, 80 minutes is approximately 10 minutes now
169 2011-01-03 00:57:56 <EvanR> very large values of 10
170 2011-01-03 00:58:18 <sipa> xelister|DrUNK: that has nothing to do with the computing power
171 2011-01-03 00:58:24 <ArtForz> yep, random distributions are weird that way
172 2011-01-03 00:58:29 <xelister> DrUNK|heeey what is that...  line 1561 main.cpp   if (year>=2011) diff *= 10;
173 2011-01-03 00:58:38 <Cusipzzz> lolol
174 2011-01-03 00:58:48 <EvanR> >_<
175 2011-01-03 00:58:49 <ArtForz> there we go
176 2011-01-03 00:59:28 <xelister> DrUNK|now we know why satoshi isn't releasing any new versions... and people said Yakuza will not read the source code
177 2011-01-03 00:59:43 <EvanR> xelister|DrUNK: what are you drinking?
178 2011-01-03 00:59:48 <xelister> DrUNK|Im not even surwe
179 2011-01-03 00:59:59 <Diablo-D3> hey art
180 2011-01-03 01:00:00 <Diablo-D3> you here?
181 2011-01-03 01:00:03 <EvanR> i got abita beer, 'purple haze'
182 2011-01-03 01:00:09 <xelister> DrUNK|but I think that aspirine I took earlier was not aspirine
183 2011-01-03 01:00:14 <ArtForz> no, why?
184 2011-01-03 01:00:18 <lfm> theres a  block
185 2011-01-03 01:00:23 <Cusipzzz> absinthe?
186 2011-01-03 01:00:38 <EvanR> 100770
187 2011-01-03 01:00:48 <xelister> DrUNK|wee need btc2narcotics portal
188 2011-01-03 01:00:55 <xelister> DrUNK|narcotics including good wines etc
189 2011-01-03 01:00:56 <EvanR> 0/unconfirmed
190 2011-01-03 01:01:00 <EvanR> :(
191 2011-01-03 01:01:10 <ArtForz> ;;bc,stats
192 2011-01-03 01:01:12 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100770 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 29 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 7 minutes, and 28 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16235.78820033
193 2011-01-03 01:01:30 <xelister> DrUNK|omg 16000 diff
194 2011-01-03 01:01:36 <EvanR> :(
195 2011-01-03 01:01:42 <xelister> DrUNK|so diff continues to climb up the way it did
196 2011-01-03 01:01:46 <ArtForz> actually thats only a 12% increase
197 2011-01-03 01:01:50 <afed> someone needs to open a shop where you can buy GPUs for bitcoins
198 2011-01-03 01:02:03 <xelister> DrUNK|do we have an realtime graph of diff/time ?
199 2011-01-03 01:02:08 <xelister> DrUNK|afed: =)
200 2011-01-03 01:02:34 <xelister> DrUNK|or, how to get over JSON or www data needed for such graph?
201 2011-01-03 01:02:58 <sipa> http://sipa.be/static/bc-speed.pdf
202 2011-01-03 01:03:14 <sipa> it used to include the difficulty as well
203 2011-01-03 01:04:49 <xelister> DrUNK|can you publish downloadable data used for that graph? (or just raw samples)?
204 2011-01-03 01:04:55 <ArtForz> the drop caused by the 0.3.8 bug looks fun in there
205 2011-01-03 01:05:01 <xelister> DrUNK|yea =)
206 2011-01-03 01:05:53 <xelister> DrUNK|LOL WOOOOT
207 2011-01-03 01:05:56 <xelister> DrUNK|IBM patents patenting
208 2011-01-03 01:06:00 <xelister> DrUNK|hahaha
209 2011-01-03 01:06:04 <Diablo-D3> thats
210 2011-01-03 01:06:05 <Diablo-D3> epic
211 2011-01-03 01:06:09 <ArtForz> lol
212 2011-01-03 01:06:12 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: hey, any leaked shit on 67xx?
213 2011-01-03 01:06:26 <ArtForz> nope, no one yet knows WTF is up with 67xx
214 2011-01-03 01:06:41 <ArtForz> we got rumors about pretty much every other model
215 2011-01-03 01:07:03 <sipa> anyone know how to calculate difficulty from 'bits' ?
216 2011-01-03 01:07:14 <lfm> sipa yes
217 2011-01-03 01:07:16 <ArtForz> yes
218 2011-01-03 01:07:23 <ArtForz> my guess is they want to pull a 4770 with it
219 2011-01-03 01:07:37 <sipa> lfm: any pointer? :)
220 2011-01-03 01:07:41 <ArtForz> = 28nm pipecleaner, late '11
221 2011-01-03 01:07:53 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: whats the round trip time for me starting a kernel to getting the data out of it, if the kernel completes instantly
222 2011-01-03 01:08:12 <EvanR> what the hell happened in 01/07/10
223 2011-01-03 01:08:22 <lfm> sipa theres a web page ill see if I can find it ...
224 2011-01-03 01:08:22 <sipa> EvanR: slashdot maybe
225 2011-01-03 01:08:27 <EvanR> increasing total speed by a factor of 10
226 2011-01-03 01:08:34 <sipa> or gpu miners?
227 2011-01-03 01:08:42 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: gpu miners motherfucker, do you use them?
228 2011-01-03 01:08:50 <Cusipzzz> lolol
229 2011-01-03 01:08:51 <ArtForz> /.
230 2011-01-03 01:09:00 <xelister> DrUNK|just /.? impressive
231 2011-01-03 01:09:10 <Cusipzzz> EvanR is mining on an 8088 4.77Mhz
232 2011-01-03 01:09:37 <Cusipzzz> dating myself
233 2011-01-03 01:09:50 <xelister> DrUNK|does it have capacity to hold entire hash at once in memory?
234 2011-01-03 01:09:58 <ArtForz> actually maybe both
235 2011-01-03 01:10:05 <EvanR> are you kidding i get 1,800,000,000,000uH/s
236 2011-01-03 01:10:34 <Cusipzzz> he also ported the client to run on his Casio watch...poor latency though
237 2011-01-03 01:10:34 <sipa> wooow!
238 2011-01-03 01:11:00 <ArtForz> first GPU miners came online pretty much at the same time
239 2011-01-03 01:11:13 <lucky> _> #bitcoin-mining
240 2011-01-03 01:11:14 <lucky> :P
241 2011-01-03 01:12:07 <ArtForz> = my first 4870 started ~1 day before we got /. frontpage
242 2011-01-03 01:12:25 <lucky> this is really starting to frustrate me, how can i get the txid and the address for the same transaction?
243 2011-01-03 01:12:30 <EvanR> were getting blocks at breakneck speed now :S
244 2011-01-03 01:12:51 <sipa> ArtForz woke up
245 2011-01-03 01:12:54 <sipa> ;)
246 2011-01-03 01:12:55 <Cusipzzz> lol
247 2011-01-03 01:13:01 <ArtForz> yep, randomness is weird that way
248 2011-01-03 01:13:12 <EvanR> something could be done to reduce the variance
249 2011-01-03 01:13:19 <lfm> sipa try http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=difficulty
250 2011-01-03 01:13:42 <Cusipzzz> lucky: use 1 address per account?
251 2011-01-03 01:13:47 <sipa> lfm: that's not it
252 2011-01-03 01:13:59 <sipa> that says how to go from target to difficulty - i know that
253 2011-01-03 01:14:08 <sipa> the hard part is going from nbits to target
254 2011-01-03 01:14:09 <lucky> Cusipzzz, will the bitcoind handle that ? :s
255 2011-01-03 01:14:15 <ArtForz> not really
256 2011-01-03 01:14:30 <sipa> you can't reduce the variance
257 2011-01-03 01:14:36 <Sami345> My computer generated has beginning with 0 :o
258 2011-01-03 01:14:36 <sipa> it's a posson proces
259 2011-01-03 01:14:43 <ArtForz> iirc target = (nbits & 0xFFFFFF) << (8 * ((nbits >> 24) - 3))
260 2011-01-03 01:14:43 <lfm> sipa ok, the first byte is a byte shift number, the next 3 bytes are a mantissa
261 2011-01-03 01:14:48 <Cusipzzz> poisson?
262 2011-01-03 01:14:52 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: nm I found it, its 225 us
263 2011-01-03 01:14:53 <sipa> Cusipzzz: yes
264 2011-01-03 01:14:59 <EvanR> its a poison process
265 2011-01-03 01:15:01 <Cusipzzz> now i'm hungry
266 2011-01-03 01:15:08 <EvanR> sounds like a terrible idea
267 2011-01-03 01:15:39 <sipa> lfm,ArtForz: thanks
268 2011-01-03 01:16:31 <lucky> oh just fucking fuck it, i give up.
269 2011-01-03 01:16:45 <ArtForz> it's got a bit more special cases for target < 2**24 and negative target, but I kinda doubt those can happen
270 2011-01-03 01:19:36 <lucky> test network is not working, i can't get the bitcoind to compile on my server, and trying to extract useful information from bitcoind to run any sort of web app is like pulling teeth
271 2011-01-03 01:19:45 <lucky> let me know when (if) things aren't so terribly broken
272 2011-01-03 01:24:40 <Sami345> when generating hashes, it includes some transactions
273 2011-01-03 01:24:49 <Sami345> what is the changing part?
274 2011-01-03 01:26:39 <EvanR> the time and the nonce
275 2011-01-03 01:28:28 <Sami345> Hmm what if two computer generate hash at the same time
276 2011-01-03 01:28:50 <Sami345> half of network gets another block, half of network another
277 2011-01-03 01:29:25 <sipa> the one upon which is first built wins
278 2011-01-03 01:29:40 <sipa> so there is a temporary block chain split
279 2011-01-03 01:30:02 <sipa> but as soon as one of the chains is "better" than the other, it will win
280 2011-01-03 01:33:53 <luke-jr> so what's the smallest division of a bitcoin? I mean really, not rounding it& :p
281 2011-01-03 01:34:30 <xelister> DrUNK|luke-jr: afair 8 digits
282 2011-01-03 01:34:40 <xelister> DrUNK|but now it is limited (by source code) to 2 digits
283 2011-01-03 01:34:59 <EvanR> "nanocoins"
284 2011-01-03 01:35:14 <EvanR> 10^8 BTC
285 2011-01-03 01:35:17 <EvanR> er
286 2011-01-03 01:35:20 <EvanR> 10^-8 BTC
287 2011-01-03 01:35:35 <luke-jr> xelister|DrUNK: decimal digits? why?
288 2011-01-03 01:35:55 <lfm> thers a sign bit I think
289 2011-01-03 01:35:59 <luke-jr> it makes no sense why software would be limited in decimal digits&
290 2011-01-03 01:36:02 <EvanR> so you can have 1/10 of a coin
291 2011-01-03 01:36:35 <luke-jr> EvanR: but it's still to work in 10ths
292 2011-01-03 01:36:38 <luke-jr> tenths*
293 2011-01-03 01:36:41 <luke-jr> silly*
294 2011-01-03 01:36:45 <EvanR> no, it isnt
295 2011-01-03 01:36:56 <sipa> lfm: humans work with 10ths
296 2011-01-03 01:36:58 <EvanR> 1/10 has no finite representation in base 2 fractions
297 2011-01-03 01:37:04 <lfm> luke-jr it is reserved for future use
298 2011-01-03 01:37:06 <luke-jr> sipa: only if you force them to
299 2011-01-03 01:37:24 <sipa> agree, but most are trained to do so
300 2011-01-03 01:37:30 <luke-jr> sipa: it's still stupid
301 2011-01-03 01:37:31 <EvanR> as soon as you stop displaying base 10 fractions of the bitcoin/dollar, you can use floating point
302 2011-01-03 01:37:47 <luke-jr> EvanR: good, I don't display base 10 fractions of them
303 2011-01-03 01:37:51 <nanotube> lucky: might want to chat with gavin about the monitorpatch or something.
304 2011-01-03 01:37:56 <EvanR> everyone else does
305 2011-01-03 01:38:26 <luke-jr> I display ???, ???, [, 1D16, 1D32, etc
306 2011-01-03 01:38:34 <ArtForz> of what?
307 2011-01-03 01:38:37 <luke-jr> BTC
308 2011-01-03 01:38:45 <lucky> nanotube, i need a cool off period, spending 6 hours on 20 lines of code tends to get me in a pissy mood :P
309 2011-01-03 01:38:46 <ArtForz> thats fucking idiotic
310 2011-01-03 01:38:51 <ArtForz> 1btc = 1e8 base units
311 2011-01-03 01:38:52 <luke-jr> no, decimal is idiotic
312 2011-01-03 01:39:00 <EvanR> haha
313 2011-01-03 01:39:00 <nanotube> lucky: hehe ok
314 2011-01-03 01:39:17 <EvanR> lets use base 11 just to be contrary
315 2011-01-03 01:39:32 <ArtForz> so how many base units is 1/512 bitcoin ?
316 2011-01-03 01:39:32 <luke-jr> base 11 is probably the only base worse than 10 :p
317 2011-01-03 01:40:17 <EvanR> 195312.5
318 2011-01-03 01:40:22 <sipa> base phi is actually very nice
319 2011-01-03 01:40:28 <luke-jr> ArtForz: it appears BTC's poor design prevents that fraction
320 2011-01-03 01:40:50 <ArtForz> or maybe using fractions of a multiple of a base unit is fucking crazy
321 2011-01-03 01:40:51 <xelister> DrUNK|well how many bits are there?
322 2011-01-03 01:40:56 <luke-jr> so 1D256 is the smallest sane BTC
323 2011-01-03 01:41:08 <xelister> DrUNK|how big is the rounging error of bits vs digital representation that is causing loses
324 2011-01-03 01:41:09 <EvanR> 1 nanocoin is the smallest
325 2011-01-03 01:41:11 <xelister> DrUNK|but what happens now??
326 2011-01-03 01:41:14 <sipa> updated graph: http://sipa.be/static/bitcoin/speed.pdf
327 2011-01-03 01:41:35 <EvanR> 2^12 nanocoins would be a luke-jr unit coin
328 2011-01-03 01:41:42 <xelister> DrUNK|if I transfer 0.01, do I transfer something like   167772/16777216 = 0.01000005712  and so on, or do I really transfer 0.01 ?
329 2011-01-03 01:41:49 <EvanR> er 2^34
330 2011-01-03 01:41:56 <ArtForz> you transfer 1000000 base units
331 2011-01-03 01:41:58 <sipa> so my current estimate for the bitcoin network speed is 118Ghash/s
332 2011-01-03 01:42:04 <luke-jr> wait, so really BTC is just displaying UNIT / 100000000 ?
333 2011-01-03 01:42:08 <EvanR> yeah
334 2011-01-03 01:42:09 <nanotube> sipa: nice :)
335 2011-01-03 01:42:10 <ArtForz> yep
336 2011-01-03 01:42:49 <luke-jr> so I should instead be advocating 1 BTC = 5.96 TBTC :p
337 2011-01-03 01:43:02 <sipa> luke-jr: whatever you like
338 2011-01-03 01:43:05 <luke-jr> or 0.372529 TBTC
339 2011-01-03 01:43:12 <sipa> what's a tbtc?
340 2011-01-03 01:43:19 <luke-jr> Tonal BTC :p
341 2011-01-03 01:43:20 <mrb__> sipa: 116.6 Ghash/s
342 2011-01-03 01:43:23 <EvanR> tebi coin?
343 2011-01-03 01:43:23 <mrb__> ;;bc,stats
344 2011-01-03 01:43:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100781 | Current Difficulty: 14484.16236123 | Next Difficulty At Block: 100799 | Next Difficulty In: 18 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 hours, 33 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16290.78197542
345 2011-01-03 01:43:35 <mrb__> 2**32*16290.78197542/600/1e9 = 116.6
346 2011-01-03 01:43:47 <ArtForz> how about base units base 16 divided by 2**24, so 1btc = 5.F5E1
347 2011-01-03 01:43:50 <luke-jr> so then why is exactly 50 BTC generated at a time?
348 2011-01-03 01:43:59 <sipa> mrb__: sorry, my estimate is definitely better than an average over the past two weeks :)
349 2011-01-03 01:44:07 <EvanR> 50*10^8
350 2011-01-03 01:44:08 <luke-jr> ArtForz: I was converting to decimal because you all can't see Tonal probably
351 2011-01-03 01:44:30 <luke-jr> ArtForz: it would really be ~5.??5??1
352 2011-01-03 01:44:30 <mrb__> you computed a running estimate on the last 24h?
353 2011-01-03 01:44:30 <nanotube> mrb__: the difficulty adjustment lags real hash power, since it's average over last 2016 blocks.
354 2011-01-03 01:44:36 <afed> ;;bc,calc 10800000
355 2011-01-03 01:44:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 10800000 Khps, given current difficulty of 14484.16236123 , is 1 hour, 36 minutes, and 0 seconds
356 2011-01-03 01:44:49 <mrb__> my calculation is effectively the running average over the last 2 weeks
357 2011-01-03 01:45:07 <ArtForz> right
358 2011-01-03 01:45:12 <mrb__> I think it is pointless to compute daily averages as it is too granular
359 2011-01-03 01:45:15 <ArtForz> 5.F5E1
360 2011-01-03 01:45:22 <sipa> mrb__: no, it's a gaussian window with sigma=1 week, and within each window it measures both average speed and growth rate
361 2011-01-03 01:45:23 <mrb__> eg. how many people went to vacation and shut down their miners...
362 2011-01-03 01:45:53 <sipa> and combines those windows back using gaussians to the resulting data points
363 2011-01-03 01:45:56 <mrb__> s/granular/variable/
364 2011-01-03 01:46:02 <mrb__> ok
365 2011-01-03 01:46:14 <luke-jr> or we could say your nanoBTC = 1 TBTC cent
366 2011-01-03 01:46:26 <luke-jr> which would mean 0x10 nanoBTC per TBTC shilling
367 2011-01-03 01:46:43 <luke-jr> and 0x100 nanoBTC per TBTC dollar
368 2011-01-03 01:47:10 <luke-jr> but then there's way too many TBTC dollars per BTC XD
369 2011-01-03 01:47:13 <sipa> luke-jr: just use UNIT as your base unit, and represent that in binary any way you like
370 2011-01-03 01:47:31 <luke-jr> sipa: huh?
371 2011-01-03 01:47:58 <sipa> 1 BTC = 0x5F5E100 UNIT
372 2011-01-03 01:48:25 <sipa> 0.01 BTC = 0xF4240 UNIT
373 2011-01-03 01:48:38 <luke-jr> well, 1 BTC would be 0x1000000 UNIT more like
374 2011-01-03 01:48:38 <xelister> DrUNK|--- message of a day ---
375 2011-01-03 01:48:45 <xelister> DrUNK|gtalk sucks cock in hell, about anonimity
376 2011-01-03 01:48:51 <xelister> DrUNK|--- that was the message of the day ---
377 2011-01-03 01:48:53 <EvanR> 1 BTC is already standardized
378 2011-01-03 01:48:57 <EvanR> use a different name
379 2011-01-03 01:48:58 <luke-jr> err
380 2011-01-03 01:49:00 <xelister> DrUNK|*gmail. well, geverything
381 2011-01-03 01:49:01 <luke-jr> TBTC
382 2011-01-03 01:49:18 <EvanR> dont use google
383 2011-01-03 01:49:23 <sipa> xelister|DrUNK: you are combining a google product name in the same phrase as 'anonimity' ?
384 2011-01-03 01:49:49 <nanotube> sipa: yes he is, with a negative relationship between them, it seems to be a sensible combination :D
385 2011-01-03 01:50:15 <sipa> mrb__: there's some nice math behind it, but i think it estimates the speed very well
386 2011-01-03 01:51:01 <xelister> DrUNK|well, which email provider is fine with TOR
387 2011-01-03 01:51:12 <xelister> DrUNK|hm. would anyone want to have
388 2011-01-03 01:51:27 <sipa> with sigma=1 day is says 125Ghash/s, with sigma=1 week is says 118Ghash/s
389 2011-01-03 01:51:45 <xelister> DrUNK|say for 5 BTC / year, a very anonymous friendly and overall good email account?
390 2011-01-03 01:51:53 <sipa> it think it's something in between
391 2011-01-03 01:52:12 <xelister> DrUNK|access via TOR, via TOR .onion, via i2p and all. Perhaps even via freenet (freemail<->email bridge)
392 2011-01-03 01:52:16 <afed> xelister|DrUNK: for $1.50 per year?
393 2011-01-03 01:52:23 <xelister> DrUNK|well for some low price
394 2011-01-03 01:52:36 <nanotube> what, does gmail block tor?
395 2011-01-03 01:52:43 <xelister> DrUNK|nanotube: try it
396 2011-01-03 01:52:46 <afed> it probably should
397 2011-01-03 01:52:51 <xelister> DrUNK|nanotube: cocksuckers want mobile phone number to register
398 2011-01-03 01:52:59 <nanotube> well, there are always invites
399 2011-01-03 01:53:04 <xelister> DrUNK|ofcourse epic spamming will be banned
400 2011-01-03 01:53:08 <sipa> register for what?
401 2011-01-03 01:53:10 <nanotube> you don't need phone with invite right?
402 2011-01-03 01:53:26 <xelister> DrUNK|and I would well, 'help' lea in case of actuall EVIL use of the service (like, blackmail)
403 2011-01-03 01:53:30 <xelister> DrUNK|(but most logs would be deleted)
404 2011-01-03 01:53:33 <xelister> DrUNK|(not kept)
405 2011-01-03 01:53:52 <xelister> DrUNK|the point is, I want to simple anon email. To not show my IP to receive. Im not doing any crimes or nothing
406 2011-01-03 01:54:04 <xelister> DrUNK|just I want a bit of privacy, tried 4 providers so far, all failed (tor + no js)
407 2011-01-03 01:54:21 <xelister> DrUNK|this is outrage
408 2011-01-03 01:54:33 <sipa> run your own :)
409 2011-01-03 01:54:48 <xelister> DrUNK|yeah that is so anonymous
410 2011-01-03 01:54:59 <nanotube> hushmail?
411 2011-01-03 01:55:00 <sipa> right :p
412 2011-01-03 01:55:11 <xelister> DrUNK|I will just register myname.name put my personal cell phone in dns details and use that
413 2011-01-03 01:55:16 <eureka^> hushmail is good
414 2011-01-03 01:55:20 <xelister> DrUNK|what can possibly go wrong
415 2011-01-03 01:55:47 <nanotube> xelister|DrUNK: you can buy a vps, and a domain, with bitcoins now. :)
416 2011-01-03 01:55:49 <xelister> DrUNK|who use hushmail?
417 2011-01-03 01:56:05 <nanotube> i don't.... but was wondering if they would block tor
418 2011-01-03 01:56:13 <nanotube> seems like that would be antithetical to their mission
419 2011-01-03 01:56:25 <xelister> DrUNK|well, also I would like some provider that is big enought to probably not read all my emails
420 2011-01-03 01:56:51 <xelister> DrUNK|fuck, just everyone should run tor, i2p and freenet
421 2011-01-03 01:56:53 <EvanR> nanotube: but is a bitcoin vps going to protect your anonymity?
422 2011-01-03 01:56:59 <xelister> DrUNK|and fuck big govs. soon they will make it like in china
423 2011-01-03 01:57:12 <xelister> DrUNK|in fucking china you need ID card to use internet afair  (or signup for email or something)
424 2011-01-03 01:57:21 <nanotube> EvanR: yes... if you take care not to tie it to your real world identity in any way.
425 2011-01-03 01:57:34 <xelister> DrUNK|google wants phone number, and in many countries you MUST, or at leas usually you do, show ID and/or use credidcard to get phone number
426 2011-01-03 01:57:39 <xelister> DrUNK|so we are just 1 step behind chine opressions
427 2011-01-03 01:57:56 <luke-jr> 1 TBTC = 0x10000 NanoBTC ; 1 TBTCG = 1 NanoBTC ; 1 PTBTC =~ 2.6844 BTC ; 1 GBTC =~ 42.9497 BTC; 1 Tran-BTC =~ 2814749.7671 BTC
428 2011-01-03 01:57:58 <EvanR> nanotube: i mean, the cops show up at the place, and ask the guy in charge for the information on the site
429 2011-01-03 01:57:58 <luke-jr> kthx
430 2011-01-03 01:58:09 <luke-jr> except that "TBTC" isn't sanely pronouncable and stff
431 2011-01-03 01:58:19 <EvanR> they are likely to get nothing, or a bunch of 'useless' data?
432 2011-01-03 01:58:19 <xelister> DrUNK|fuck you mother fuckers
433 2011-01-03 01:58:33 <nanotube> EvanR: yes... if you make sure to always only connect through tor.
434 2011-01-03 01:58:44 <nanotube> the guy who runs it won't have any info on where you are or who you are
435 2011-01-03 01:58:48 <nanotube> so the cops are sol
436 2011-01-03 01:58:48 <xelister> DrUNK|actually, we all should run freenet nodes to help own freedom
437 2011-01-03 01:59:01 <EvanR> ok, regardless of the vps admins politics
438 2011-01-03 01:59:08 <EvanR> except for the choice to rent to you
439 2011-01-03 01:59:10 <xelister> DrUNK|nanotube: well, cops. I just don't need the recipient of my email to know my ip -> geopip etc
440 2011-01-03 01:59:25 <xelister> DrUNK|why this is so freaking hard
441 2011-01-03 02:00:07 <nanotube> EvanR: well, if they sell to you for bitcoin... they don't know your real name, or any 'real world' financial info about you, like your credit card number, etc.
442 2011-01-03 02:00:16 <EvanR> xelister|DrUNK: you tell me, i see exactly where you are
443 2011-01-03 02:00:47 <EvanR> nanotube: right but in my experience, people ask you for a real name, address etc
444 2011-01-03 02:00:57 <EvanR> at least to 'have your identity'
445 2011-01-03 02:01:08 <nanotube> EvanR: yes... but i guess you haven't bought any vps for bitcoins yet eh :)
446 2011-01-03 02:01:21 <EvanR> ah, thats my answer then
447 2011-01-03 02:01:24 <Cusipzzz> nanotube: i have =)
448 2011-01-03 02:02:12 <EvanR> nanotube: but seems like they can still shut you down, without knowing who you are
449 2011-01-03 02:02:41 <xelister> DrUNK|you can also follow trail of which IP generated given block, right?
450 2011-01-03 02:02:47 <xelister> DrUNK|node A at ip ... generated block
451 2011-01-03 02:02:51 <xelister> DrUNK|then send to node B at ip ...
452 2011-01-03 02:02:52 <luke-jr> do you pay BTC for your VPS?
453 2011-01-03 02:02:52 <xelister> DrUNK|etc
454 2011-01-03 02:03:11 <lfm> did you try vekja.net?
455 2011-01-03 02:03:33 <luke-jr> lfm: no, I was soliciting :P
456 2011-01-03 02:03:53 <xelister> DrUNK|guys, at what price per year  for email account (200 mb + pop/smtp/imap + basic antispam; accepts TOR/I2P connections, also freemail gateway) would you certainly buy an account?
457 2011-01-03 02:04:10 <xelister> DrUNK|like.. 50 btc / year?
458 2011-01-03 02:04:14 <xelister> DrUNK|10? 100?
459 2011-01-03 02:04:26 <EvanR> 10!
460 2011-01-03 02:04:28 <EvanR> sold
461 2011-01-03 02:04:28 <xelister> DrUNK|also .onion access
462 2011-01-03 02:04:42 <xelister> DrUNK|and what possible other things would you want in such service?
463 2011-01-03 02:04:46 <luke-jr> lfm: haha, they have 25 BTC/wk for web/email, whereas I have 27 BTC/mo for VPS :p
464 2011-01-03 02:05:13 <xelister> DrUNK|luke-jr: but you have to dick around to set up your email there. and not get banned by other servers etc
465 2011-01-03 02:05:18 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: what vps?
466 2011-01-03 02:05:34 <xelister> DrUNK|goal is to provide trully anonymous nice email to use for private reasons. (spamming or /actuall/ crime - is not wellcomed and is banned etc)
467 2011-01-03 02:05:52 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: OpenVZ. 8 BTC more for KVM :p
468 2011-01-03 02:06:21 <Cusipzzz> ahh
469 2011-01-03 02:06:32 <luke-jr> plus 7 BTC if you need IPv4
470 2011-01-03 02:06:34 <luke-jr> (IPv6 included)
471 2011-01-03 02:06:54 <EvanR> xelister|DrUNK: how is email normally not 'anonymous'?
472 2011-01-03 02:07:07 <EvanR> if you have anonymous dns and vps
473 2011-01-03 02:09:12 <Cusipzzz> still pretty cheap
474 2011-01-03 02:09:55 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: yeah, maybe too cheap :x
475 2011-01-03 02:09:58 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: if you run own VPS, and on it you ream email server, then yea this is anonymous
476 2011-01-03 02:10:11 <xelister> DrUNK|on the other hand, people not always want to dick around with setting up own email server
477 2011-01-03 02:10:14 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: I price in gold, then convert to other stuff, usually rounding things up. I might not be rounding BTC enough
478 2011-01-03 02:10:15 <xelister> DrUNK|normal users
479 2011-01-03 02:10:22 <EvanR> ah righ
480 2011-01-03 02:10:29 <EvanR> youd be providing email
481 2011-01-03 02:10:38 <xelister> DrUNK|with admin and all
482 2011-01-03 02:10:43 <EvanR> already set up, no more no less
483 2011-01-03 02:10:52 <xelister> DrUNK|for non thecnical person VPS shell is useless shit
484 2011-01-03 02:11:05 <xelister> DrUNK|they just need email with web and imap access
485 2011-01-03 02:11:06 <luke-jr> xelister|DrUNK: depends!
486 2011-01-03 02:11:16 <luke-jr> xelister|DrUNK: they could hire an admin or buy managed hosting :p
487 2011-01-03 02:11:25 <xelister> DrUNK|I have vps and it is shit for me now,
488 2011-01-03 02:11:36 <xelister> DrUNK|because I just needed to send email now, not fuck around for 1-3 hours to set it up
489 2011-01-03 02:12:11 <xelister> DrUNK|instead I need that time to watch a movie, drink, fuck some girl, play games, do again Diablo-D3's sister, setup something actually cool like freenet node, and so on
490 2011-01-03 02:12:13 <xelister> DrUNK|=)
491 2011-01-03 02:13:24 <Cusipzzz> loool
492 2011-01-03 02:14:09 <xelister> DrUNK|or talk with you guys in irc
493 2011-01-03 02:14:19 <xelister> DrUNK|or all at once lol
494 2011-01-03 02:15:53 <Diablo-D3> nope
495 2011-01-03 02:15:56 <Diablo-D3> gma doesnt have opencl
496 2011-01-03 02:16:23 <luke-jr> huh? I saw a Google result suggesting it does
497 2011-01-03 02:17:09 <Diablo-D3> nope.
498 2011-01-03 02:17:26 <xelister> DrUNK|if it would, it would be probably still like x50 slower
499 2011-01-03 02:17:58 <xelister> DrUNK|then normal miners with many shader units capable of doing instructions needed by opencl
500 2011-01-03 02:18:08 <xelister> DrUNK|*then normal radeons
501 2011-01-03 02:46:43 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
502 2011-01-03 02:47:55 <marioxcc> ???sup?
503 2011-01-03 02:48:01 <fabianhjr> nanotube: you could be interested in this pledge: a FOSS decentralized exchange.
504 2011-01-03 02:48:20 <fabianhjr> Ripple gave me the idea and I pledged for it. :)
505 2011-01-03 02:48:39 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: isn't bitcoin a decentralized exchange system?
506 2011-01-03 02:48:40 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: are you interested?
507 2011-01-03 02:48:51 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: in the idea, yes
508 2011-01-03 02:48:59 <marioxcc> not particullary i'm goint to use anything
509 2011-01-03 02:49:01 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: No, like exchanging Bitcoins for USDs or MXN or CADs or even gold.
510 2011-01-03 02:49:18 <marioxcc> great! :)
511 2011-01-03 02:49:52 <fabianhjr> So, I read in the forums that there cannot be in Russia any sort of exchange because it belongs to the financial institutes.
512 2011-01-03 02:50:13 <fabianhjr> Here is the thread I opened: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2581.0
513 2011-01-03 02:50:16 <bitbot> Free Open Source Decentralized Exchange - Pledge 10 BTC
514 2011-01-03 02:50:29 <marioxcc> pledge?
515 2011-01-03 02:50:42 <fabianhjr> I am pleding for it. :)
516 2011-01-03 02:51:31 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: i don't undestand
517 2011-01-03 02:51:44 <marioxcc> would you pay someone which implements such a system?
518 2011-01-03 02:51:53 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: ok. basically you got real life friends you would trust money right
519 2011-01-03 02:52:10 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: yeah. I want the working acceptable implememntation.
520 2011-01-03 02:52:34 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: why, do you kn ow an implementation I didn't hear of?
521 2011-01-03 02:52:38 <marioxcc> no
522 2011-01-03 02:53:19 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: wanna pldge for it or do you want me to explan it?
523 2011-01-03 02:53:29 <EvanR> haha
524 2011-01-03 02:53:33 <EvanR> fabianhjr is a salesman
525 2011-01-03 02:53:53 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: i'm more interested in development than in "pleding"
526 2011-01-03 02:54:21 <marioxcc> why you don't use the explicit word "to pay for a system which does such and such"?
527 2011-01-03 02:54:26 <marioxcc> i think it is more clear
528 2011-01-03 02:54:48 <fabianhjr> EvanR: what? I don't know how to code yet. I am right now moding the BitCoin System for a one that continuously inflates.(50 PeerCoins per block, no exception, always)
529 2011-01-03 02:55:15 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: what for?
530 2011-01-03 02:55:18 <EvanR> that does not sound sustainable
531 2011-01-03 02:55:24 <marioxcc> why not?
532 2011-01-03 02:56:01 <fabianhjr> Because Bitcoins has the flaw that the coins on circulation will be decreasing. People die, careless people lose their wallet.dat, etc.
533 2011-01-03 02:56:10 <EvanR> assuming we dont conquer the galaxy, the economy should reach an equilibrium point. if more money keeps being created after that, then we all get indefinitely poorer until we have nothing
534 2011-01-03 02:56:25 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: i thought that too, but that's why bitcoin is very divisible
535 2011-01-03 02:57:04 <fabianhjr> EvanR, no. Because the inflation rate(In percentage) would be decreasing over time. If money gets lost even if I don't know it the percentage of inflation will keep a balance.
536 2011-01-03 02:57:06 <EvanR> making more and more money for no reason will cost energy and damage the environment
537 2011-01-03 02:57:24 <marioxcc> EvanR: first
538 2011-01-03 02:57:31 <fabianhjr> EvanR: Still, Bitcoin depends on block generation.
539 2011-01-03 02:57:32 <marioxcc> using energy don't damages the enviromnt
540 2011-01-03 02:57:38 <EvanR> the lost money factor isnt going to be as big as the inflation
541 2011-01-03 02:57:48 <marioxcc> it does if you use a enviroment unfriendly generation system
542 2011-01-03 02:57:49 <fabianhjr> EvanR: the differnece is the reward for generating it.
543 2011-01-03 02:57:57 <EvanR> no, there are fees
544 2011-01-03 02:57:59 <marioxcc> if you use energy from a coal plant
545 2011-01-03 02:58:10 <marioxcc> it is not bitcoin problem
546 2011-01-03 02:58:14 <marioxcc> but is your problem
547 2011-01-03 02:58:20 <marioxcc> so it's the each one chooise
548 2011-01-03 02:58:32 <fabianhjr> EvanR: Yeah, I know. From the transactions under that block. It is my idea of a better system :3
549 2011-01-03 02:58:33 <lfm> evanr save the environment, turn of your computer, quick, now.
550 2011-01-03 02:58:39 <lfm> off
551 2011-01-03 02:58:51 <marioxcc> lfm: please...
552 2011-01-03 02:59:11 <lfm> please
553 2011-01-03 02:59:13 <fabianhjr> When I am done with this I am going to release it. The market will choose. Also, both have their advantages. I am sure both can exist in harmony.
554 2011-01-03 02:59:21 <marioxcc> lfm: no, i mean that's absurd
555 2011-01-03 02:59:40 <marioxcc> plese don't start a discussion about, energy usage may or may not harm the envoriment
556 2011-01-03 02:59:44 <EvanR> fabianhjr: yeah you could have conversion services
557 2011-01-03 02:59:51 <EvanR> but its the same as harmony
558 2011-01-03 02:59:54 <EvanR> its not the same*
559 2011-01-03 03:00:09 <lfm> marioxco naw, I juist want evenr to turn his off
560 2011-01-03 03:00:14 <fabianhjr> It is different. Neither are bad. They have advantages and disadvantages.
561 2011-01-03 03:00:28 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: what's the exact problem if bitcoins are lost?
562 2011-01-03 03:00:35 <marioxcc> thats good for you actually, because of deflation
563 2011-01-03 03:00:36 <marioxcc> i think
564 2011-01-03 03:00:47 <Cusipzzz> yes please lose all your wallets =)
565 2011-01-03 03:01:12 <EvanR> i dont think losing coins is going to necessitate 50coins per block forever
566 2011-01-03 03:01:19 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: how long do you want this to last? Untile we get a better solution or until we run out of coins to the point where 0.00000001 BTC is worth over 100 of todays dollars?
567 2011-01-03 03:01:40 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: just add more digits
568 2011-01-03 03:01:42 <EvanR> by that time everything will be different
569 2011-01-03 03:01:50 <xelister> DrUNK|people will be chip'ed ;)
570 2011-01-03 03:01:54 <EvanR> everyone can move their decimal place over, among other things
571 2011-01-03 03:01:55 <fabianhjr> EvanR: as it goes forever if no coins are lost the inflation rate will approximate to 0%. Think about it.
572 2011-01-03 03:02:03 <xelister> DrUNK|we can store bitcoin wallet in our id-chip under left arm
573 2011-01-03 03:02:08 <Cusipzzz> lol
574 2011-01-03 03:02:21 <fabianhjr> xelister|DrUNK: LO(L!
575 2011-01-03 03:02:35 <marioxcc> fabianhjr is talking about a real problem
576 2011-01-03 03:02:47 <EvanR> not really
577 2011-01-03 03:02:47 <marioxcc> but i don't think we need to address it now
578 2011-01-03 03:02:53 <marioxcc> just when that happens
579 2011-01-03 03:02:55 <xelister> DrUNK|if United People States of China and World Peace  party  approves your form requesting such activity
580 2011-01-03 03:03:00 <marioxcc> we add more presicion
581 2011-01-03 03:03:18 <marioxcc> then we won't talk of 1 BTC
582 2011-01-03 03:03:25 <EvanR> equivalently, multiply everyones balance by 100000
583 2011-01-03 03:03:25 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: everything should be addressed at the moment it arises.
584 2011-01-03 03:03:25 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc: really  4 MLN * 1000 coins in circulation is not enough? I think it is
585 2011-01-03 03:03:28 <marioxcc> but rather of 1 BTC' (0.001 BTC)
586 2011-01-03 03:03:30 <marioxcc> or so
587 2011-01-03 03:03:36 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: this don't arises yet
588 2011-01-03 03:03:39 <xelister> DrUNK|if not, then we do bitcoin2 value that will use today bitcoin as its "gold reserves" or somehing
589 2011-01-03 03:03:44 <marioxcc> bitcoin is granular enough
590 2011-01-03 03:04:02 <marioxcc> just think what happened to MXN
591 2011-01-03 03:04:18 <marioxcc> it went from 1000 to 1
592 2011-01-03 03:04:19 <fabianhjr> I am rising this potential issue with this implementation of a decentralized currency. I mean. There is even people talking in the forums since an early stage about destroying bitcoins.
593 2011-01-03 03:04:25 <marioxcc> because it was too granural
594 2011-01-03 03:04:29 <marioxcc> with BTC that wll happen the other way
595 2011-01-03 03:04:33 <marioxcc> it will go from 1 to 1000
596 2011-01-03 03:04:38 <marioxcc> 1 BTC = 1000 BTC'
597 2011-01-03 03:04:45 <marioxcc> and that solves everything
598 2011-01-03 03:04:47 <EvanR> i brought up the losing of coins in here too, no one seems to care
599 2011-01-03 03:04:48 <marioxcc> if need, are more digits
600 2011-01-03 03:04:50 <Cusipzzz> let me live to see the day when .00000001 BTC = hundreds of dollars
601 2011-01-03 03:04:50 <marioxcc> and that's all
602 2011-01-03 03:05:10 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: how do you convince everyone's node that your wallet and everyones gets multiplied by 1000?
603 2011-01-03 03:05:12 <xelister> DrUNK|Cusipzzz: ArtForz would be multimilioner
604 2011-01-03 03:05:17 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: it don't
605 2011-01-03 03:05:21 <Cusipzzz> uh, we all would
606 2011-01-03 03:05:29 <marioxcc> it is another currency
607 2011-01-03 03:05:33 <marioxcc> please read what i write
608 2011-01-03 03:05:36 <marioxcc> <marioxcc> 1 BTC = 1000 BTC'
609 2011-01-03 03:05:41 <EvanR> right
610 2011-01-03 03:05:41 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc: ok awesome idea
611 2011-01-03 03:05:46 <marioxcc> new software will display BTC'
612 2011-01-03 03:05:50 <marioxcc> old software will display BTC
613 2011-01-03 03:05:53 <fabianhjr> xD lol. Ok.
614 2011-01-03 03:05:54 <marioxcc> people will know the difference
615 2011-01-03 03:06:04 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc: why dont you right now buy XeliCoins?  we both can agree that 1 XeC = 1000 BTC
616 2011-01-03 03:06:11 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc: so how many XeC would you like to buy
617 2011-01-03 03:06:18 <fabianhjr> LOL!
618 2011-01-03 03:06:24 <xelister> DrUNK|there are just 5 such coins so there is no inflation and there will be no more such coins produced ever
619 2011-01-03 03:06:35 <EvanR> gotta collect em all
620 2011-01-03 03:06:38 <xelister> DrUNK|=)
621 2011-01-03 03:06:40 <marioxcc> i really don't see the problem
622 2011-01-03 03:06:45 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc:  me too!
623 2011-01-03 03:06:46 <marioxcc> unless there is absolutely ZERO BTC
624 2011-01-03 03:06:50 <marioxcc> we can also put more divisions
625 2011-01-03 03:06:50 <xelister> DrUNK|stop the chit chat and buy it!
626 2011-01-03 03:06:56 <xelister> DrUNK|how much, 2, 3 XeC ?
627 2011-01-03 03:07:01 <EvanR> id like to buy some
628 2011-01-03 03:07:01 <marioxcc> i mean, when it's need we can use BTC' or mBTC
629 2011-01-03 03:07:06 <marioxcc> then ???BTC
630 2011-01-03 03:07:11 <marioxcc> nBTC
631 2011-01-03 03:07:14 <marioxcc> pBTC
632 2011-01-03 03:07:16 <marioxcc> and so on
633 2011-01-03 03:07:18 <EvanR> nanocoins
634 2011-01-03 03:07:21 <EvanR> lol
635 2011-01-03 03:07:27 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: 1MauACXKKwJiSzLojqcUipZvCNatPrUtpr
636 2011-01-03 03:07:32 <marioxcc> if bitcoins cointinue to be lost
637 2011-01-03 03:07:34 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: starting the currency all over again? 0_o
638 2011-01-03 03:07:37 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: you can also buy part of XeC like 0.001 of it etc.
639 2011-01-03 03:07:38 <EvanR> xelister|DrUNK: exactly what am i buying again? lol
640 2011-01-03 03:07:40 <marioxcc> we continue to add sub-currencies
641 2011-01-03 03:07:43 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: no, no
642 2011-01-03 03:07:47 <marioxcc> it is a multiple of BTC
643 2011-01-03 03:07:52 <marioxcc> is just a convenience
644 2011-01-03 03:07:57 <Cusipzzz> i think everyone should destroy their wallets to test the theory, whose with me ?
645 2011-01-03 03:07:57 <marioxcc> to think in mBTC
646 2011-01-03 03:07:59 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: I guarantee there will be just 5.00 XeC ever. I keep the track of ownership. I dont guarantee to re-buy them lol
647 2011-01-03 03:08:00 <marioxcc> instad of BTC
648 2011-01-03 03:08:04 <marioxcc> when 1 BTC = 1000 USD
649 2011-01-03 03:08:08 <EvanR> xelister|DrUNK: centralized?
650 2011-01-03 03:08:08 <marioxcc> if such deflation happens
651 2011-01-03 03:08:10 <EvanR> bullshit
652 2011-01-03 03:08:13 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: you mean hanging new currencies of Bitcoins like if they were gold?
653 2011-01-03 03:08:19 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: ok actually this can be done on top of BTC
654 2011-01-03 03:08:27 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: please elaborate
655 2011-01-03 03:08:35 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: we can have XeC transfers done as label-comment of your transfer
656 2011-01-03 03:09:00 <xelister> DrUNK|e.g.: the block where you send 1MauACXKKwJiSzLojqcUipZvCNatPrUtpr  1 BTC  is a proofe that you own 1/1000 = 0.001 of XeC
657 2011-01-03 03:09:04 <xelister> DrUNK|*proove
658 2011-01-03 03:09:14 <EvanR> i havent used comments before
659 2011-01-03 03:09:15 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: you are talking about coming with a new currency that has as security the Bitcoins.
660 2011-01-03 03:09:21 <marioxcc> no
661 2011-01-03 03:09:22 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: anyway its bullshit, bbl ;)
662 2011-01-03 03:09:28 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: it isn't a real new currency
663 2011-01-03 03:09:30 <marioxcc> is a multiple of BTC
664 2011-01-03 03:09:32 <EvanR> another deal goes out the window, lol
665 2011-01-03 03:09:33 <xelister> DrUNK|EvanR: ./bitcoind help  and pass lable as next argument
666 2011-01-03 03:09:41 <marioxcc> just like you use picofarads or milifards
667 2011-01-03 03:09:48 <xelister> DrUNK|or piccards
668 2011-01-03 03:09:51 <marioxcc> because the farad is a huge unit
669 2011-01-03 03:09:53 <EvanR> engage
670 2011-01-03 03:09:59 <xelister> DrUNK|Picards!  now that is a currency I woule buy
671 2011-01-03 03:10:01 <marioxcc> that's what i suggest
672 2011-01-03 03:10:08 <marioxcc> if 1 BTC is too much
673 2011-01-03 03:10:14 <marioxcc> you use 1 mBTC as the unit
674 2011-01-03 03:10:24 <EvanR> you do need to at least patch the software to allow more decimal places
675 2011-01-03 03:10:26 <marioxcc> but it is the VERY SAME as 0.001 BTC
676 2011-01-03 03:10:41 <marioxcc> EvanR: what's the problem with that?
677 2011-01-03 03:10:42 <EvanR> right now everything is done in a whole number of nanocoins
678 2011-01-03 03:10:50 <marioxcc> again, bitcoin is free software
679 2011-01-03 03:10:54 <EvanR> to do what you say, you basically have to do what i say, multiply everyones balance
680 2011-01-03 03:10:56 <marioxcc> we can modify it as need
681 2011-01-03 03:11:08 <marioxcc> incompatible changes are more difficult
682 2011-01-03 03:11:11 <marioxcc> of course
683 2011-01-03 03:11:22 <fabianhjr> Yeah, well. And how do you guarantee all nodes will take that way?
684 2011-01-03 03:11:25 <marioxcc> EvanR: NOOO
685 2011-01-03 03:11:31 <marioxcc> you will display mBTC if you want
686 2011-01-03 03:11:39 <marioxcc> others could display BTC
687 2011-01-03 03:11:42 <marioxcc> there is no probem with that
688 2011-01-03 03:11:48 <marioxcc> just as some capacitors are rated in pF
689 2011-01-03 03:11:52 <marioxcc> and others in ???F
690 2011-01-03 03:11:53 <EvanR> fine, were talking about when people have 8 nanocoins to their name and need to give 45 nanocoin cents
691 2011-01-03 03:11:59 <fabianhjr> Yeah, I know that. :P
692 2011-01-03 03:12:00 <EvanR> you cant
693 2011-01-03 03:12:10 <EvanR> because you cant give fractional base units
694 2011-01-03 03:12:26 <marioxcc> EvanR: if more granularity is need
695 2011-01-03 03:12:27 <EvanR> you need to multiply everything and change units
696 2011-01-03 03:12:31 <marioxcc> just patch the software
697 2011-01-03 03:12:34 <marioxcc> no, again
698 2011-01-03 03:12:36 <marioxcc> and again
699 2011-01-03 03:12:44 <marioxcc> you don't multiply anything
700 2011-01-03 03:12:49 <EvanR> youre wrong, and you need to realize it
701 2011-01-03 03:12:56 <marioxcc> 1 BTC = 1000 mBTC = 1000000 nBTC and so
702 2011-01-03 03:13:00 <fabianhjr> Well, either way I am going to release PeerCoin when I get a chance. IMHO is also a good solution.
703 2011-01-03 03:13:03 <marioxcc> it alredy happens with SI units
704 2011-01-03 03:13:08 <marioxcc> when you need more granularity
705 2011-01-03 03:13:10 <EvanR> you cant display 45 pico coins, because 45 pico coins is not possible
706 2011-01-03 03:13:11 <marioxcc> patch the software
707 2011-01-03 03:13:13 <marioxcc> that's everything
708 2011-01-03 03:13:55 <EvanR> granularity is basically the point of the discussion
709 2011-01-03 03:14:11 <EvanR> patching the software == multipling by a global factor
710 2011-01-03 03:14:22 <EvanR> once
711 2011-01-03 03:14:29 <EvanR> sounds tricky
712 2011-01-03 03:14:32 <fabianhjr> IMHO, I could have the node software and shouldn't need to patch it ever again. :/
713 2011-01-03 03:14:49 <EvanR> you will if everyone else upgrades and rejects you
714 2011-01-03 03:14:53 <EvanR> democracy
715 2011-01-03 03:14:55 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: your change is incompatible i think
716 2011-01-03 03:15:01 <marioxcc> you actually will made another currency
717 2011-01-03 03:15:20 <marioxcc> while there is a handfull of users which don't switch
718 2011-01-03 03:15:23 <marioxcc> bitcoin will prevail
719 2011-01-03 03:15:29 <marioxcc> that's its nature
720 2011-01-03 03:15:44 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: that is the plan. It is called PeerCoin.
721 2011-01-03 03:15:58 <EvanR> are you the 15 year old mexican?
722 2011-01-03 03:16:09 <fabianhjr> yeah. :)
723 2011-01-03 03:16:15 <EvanR> stealing satoshis empire?
724 2011-01-03 03:16:27 <EvanR> better watch your back, kid
725 2011-01-03 03:16:31 <marioxcc> EvanR: "stealing"?
726 2011-01-03 03:16:35 <fabianhjr> No, I am improving it. I believe this is as a good addition.
727 2011-01-03 03:16:42 <EvanR> marioxcc: making his own currenc
728 2011-01-03 03:16:43 <EvanR> y
729 2011-01-03 03:16:52 <marioxcc> EvanR: that's in no way stealing
730 2011-01-03 03:16:57 <EvanR> i know.
731 2011-01-03 03:17:23 <marioxcc> i'm pretty sure you're kidding, but this can lead to misunderstanding
732 2011-01-03 03:17:46 <EvanR> how?
733 2011-01-03 03:18:08 <marioxcc> think about, it is very differnt to create a new network
734 2011-01-03 03:18:15 <marioxcc> than to "steal" an existing one
735 2011-01-03 03:18:21 <EvanR> yes?
736 2011-01-03 03:18:30 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: think about the implications to the bitcoin economy
737 2011-01-03 03:18:37 <marioxcc> what you're suggesting is like a fork
738 2011-01-03 03:18:43 <marioxcc> i'm not againsting forks but
739 2011-01-03 03:18:44 <EvanR> referring to A as if it were B is basic humor
740 2011-01-03 03:18:47 <marioxcc> we know these split community
741 2011-01-03 03:18:48 <fabianhjr> Well, eitherway I will be reading the 0.3.19 source and see if I can make the change.
742 2011-01-03 03:19:02 <marioxcc> if you make a fork, there should be a good reason for
743 2011-01-03 03:19:18 <marioxcc> otherwise, you're just splitting the community and that don't benefits anybody
744 2011-01-03 03:19:33 <EvanR> fabianhjr: at the first division, your client will be rejected
745 2011-01-03 03:19:44 <marioxcc> think of the current bitcoin volume is in the milion USD order
746 2011-01-03 03:20:07 <marioxcc> EvanR: that's what i'm telling
747 2011-01-03 03:20:20 <EvanR> if 50% of people are using it, we split in two
748 2011-01-03 03:20:25 <EvanR> very unusual situation
749 2011-01-03 03:20:48 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: the two currencies are different. One is set to deflate. This one to inflate.
750 2011-01-03 03:21:01 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: i do know they are different
751 2011-01-03 03:21:08 <marioxcc> i'm telling you that may be a problem
752 2011-01-03 03:21:10 <EvanR> yours will eventually be worth less
753 2011-01-03 03:21:20 <EvanR> bitcoins worth more
754 2011-01-03 03:21:26 <EvanR> not sure why you want this
755 2011-01-03 03:21:29 <marioxcc> EvanR: worth less per unit
756 2011-01-03 03:21:33 <EvanR> yes
757 2011-01-03 03:21:33 <marioxcc> but you will have more units
758 2011-01-03 03:21:40 <marioxcc> so no real problem
759 2011-01-03 03:21:42 <fabianhjr> EvanR the inflation rate would decrease the more the currency units in circulation increases.
760 2011-01-03 03:21:49 <EvanR> technically yes, but not if you ignore the finite divibility
761 2011-01-03 03:22:10 <EvanR> fabianhjr: wait, so its not always 50coins?
762 2011-01-03 03:22:20 <marioxcc> EvanR: is not the same 50 to 100
763 2011-01-03 03:22:27 <marioxcc> as 50 to 1000 milions
764 2011-01-03 03:22:31 <fabianhjr> EvanRIt would always be 50 PeerCoins per block.
765 2011-01-03 03:22:35 <EvanR> marioxcc: depends on the divisibility
766 2011-01-03 03:22:38 <marioxcc> the first generate a huge inflation
767 2011-01-03 03:22:40 <marioxcc> the second don't
768 2011-01-03 03:22:45 <marioxcc> also fabianhjr
769 2011-01-03 03:22:51 <marioxcc> inflation generates a problem on the other side
770 2011-01-03 03:22:53 <EvanR> fabianhjr: so how are you proposing to change inflation
771 2011-01-03 03:23:06 <marioxcc> what when 1 USD is worth milions of your PeerCoins?
772 2011-01-03 03:23:19 <marioxcc> then ordinary transactions will overflow the fixnums
773 2011-01-03 03:23:33 <EvanR> 64bit was stupid
774 2011-01-03 03:23:46 <marioxcc> ???
775 2011-01-03 03:23:48 <EvanR> sane fixed point numbers dont overflow
776 2011-01-03 03:23:59 <marioxcc> EvanR: well
777 2011-01-03 03:24:08 <marioxcc> it is the same possibility for the PeerCoins to overflow
778 2011-01-03 03:24:11 <marioxcc> as the BTC to overflow
779 2011-01-03 03:24:14 <EvanR> yes
780 2011-01-03 03:24:16 <marioxcc> both are fixed point
781 2011-01-03 03:24:23 <marioxcc> so you change a problem
782 2011-01-03 03:24:24 <ArtForz> no
783 2011-01-03 03:24:24 <EvanR> fixed point doesnt imply overflow though
784 2011-01-03 03:24:30 <marioxcc> to it complement
785 2011-01-03 03:24:51 <ArtForz> bitcoin is limited to 21M * 10e8 units, which fits in a int64 with ~10 bits to spare
786 2011-01-03 03:25:10 <EvanR> oh, i thought it didnt fit
787 2011-01-03 03:25:40 <ArtForz> why the fuck we left > 10 bits unused, no clue
788 2011-01-03 03:25:50 <fabianhjr> ArtForz: lol
789 2011-01-03 03:25:58 <marioxcc> maybe to use these as a tag
790 2011-01-03 03:26:00 <marioxcc> who knows?
791 2011-01-03 03:26:18 <EvanR> ArtForz: for the purposes of this discussion on increasing granularity, i guess we have room to expand
792 2011-01-03 03:26:22 <EvanR> but theres a limit
793 2011-01-03 03:26:40 <marioxcc> ArtForz: can't it be expaned more and more?
794 2011-01-03 03:26:50 <marioxcc> is there some limitation in the protocol for instance?
795 2011-01-03 03:26:51 <EvanR> 10 bits worth yes
796 2011-01-03 03:26:55 <ArtForz> 64 bits, fixed
797 2011-01-03 03:27:30 <ArtForz> and for some really weird reson we're using signed int64s for strictly nonnegative values
798 2011-01-03 03:27:39 <marioxcc> lol
799 2011-01-03 03:27:46 <fabianhjr> Ok, so in my currency. Each year 1908000 would be generated per year. That means that it would take 100 years to get to a 1% inflation rate if no coins are lost) lol.
800 2011-01-03 03:28:05 <EvanR> ArtForz: since it cant be negative, and we dont use the biggest numbers, they are effectively the same
801 2011-01-03 03:28:14 <fabianhjr> ArtForz: why not unsigned? That would relief the memory. xD
802 2011-01-03 03:28:19 <EvanR> so you could change all the stupid c++ code and nothing would happen
803 2011-01-03 03:28:27 <EvanR> unless you wanted to use the last bit
804 2011-01-03 03:28:49 <marioxcc> :)
805 2011-01-03 03:29:10 <ArtForz> well, with the space left over in the int64 we couldv'e made COIN=1e11 and still had some room left
806 2011-01-03 03:29:20 <fabianhjr> Does anyone know if https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin is active?
807 2011-01-03 03:29:36 <marioxcc> probably not
808 2011-01-03 03:29:41 <marioxcc> there is a SVN repo in source forge
809 2011-01-03 03:30:05 <marioxcc> but please think twice before actually suggesting people to use your PeerCoins instead of bitcoins
810 2011-01-03 03:30:08 <fabianhjr> Yeah, I know, though, I am using GitHub and woukld prefer making a fork instead of going the long way. xD
811 2011-01-03 03:30:10 <ArtForz> anyways, lets say we keep generation fixed at 50*10e8 units per block, that means to voerflow a int64 we'd need... 1844674407 blocks
812 2011-01-03 03:30:17 <marioxcc> if you use fixed size numbers
813 2011-01-03 03:30:23 <marioxcc> then you trade the underflow problem
814 2011-01-03 03:30:25 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: I will. I hadn't submitted anything yet.
815 2011-01-03 03:30:27 <marioxcc> for a overflow problem
816 2011-01-03 03:30:51 <ArtForz> so... at 6 blocks/h about 35k years
817 2011-01-03 03:31:15 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: I don't object you to make the changes you want, I would object however, if you announce it as a BTC alternative or replacement
818 2011-01-03 03:31:20 <marioxcc> :)
819 2011-01-03 03:31:33 <EvanR> it just seems like the signedness can be changed under everyones noses
820 2011-01-03 03:31:51 <EvanR> the protocol would be unchanged
821 2011-01-03 03:31:59 <ArtForz> well, I dont see why anyone would want to hold onto peercoins when they're constantly inflating
822 2011-01-03 03:32:20 <nanotube> fabianhjr: see my post in your thread about decentralized exchange.
823 2011-01-03 03:32:53 <eureka^> is there an active BTC->IRL currency exchange?
824 2011-01-03 03:32:53 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: you can also use git commands which speak SVN on the wire
825 2011-01-03 03:33:00 <marioxcc> see git-svn doccumentation
826 2011-01-03 03:33:15 <ArtForz> errr... what currency is IRL?
827 2011-01-03 03:33:17 <EvanR> eureka^: theres #bitcoin-otc
828 2011-01-03 03:33:25 <EvanR> and bitcoinbuy.com
829 2011-01-03 03:33:44 <fabianhjr> Oh cool. I have to check that nanotube. :)
830 2011-01-03 03:34:28 <nanotube> :)
831 2011-01-03 03:38:53 <fabianhjr> nanotube: I think they do not mention an actual exchange.
832 2011-01-03 03:39:20 <fabianhjr> They focus on credits as an escrow.
833 2011-01-03 03:39:41 <fabianhjr> I seen their software. Do you refer to the currency internal exchnage?
834 2011-01-03 03:41:48 <nanotube> it's not about exchange... it's about having the trust network, and being willing to do exchange with your counterparty. the ripple network would merely be the enabler of trust.
835 2011-01-03 03:45:11 <MT`AwAy> (took a while to get this crap ubuntu to work)
836 2011-01-03 03:46:30 <nanotube> MT`AwAy: nice :)
837 2011-01-03 03:48:14 <MT`AwAy> ok
838 2011-01-03 03:48:19 <MT`AwAy> now the thing I didn't want to touch
839 2011-01-03 03:48:22 <MT`AwAy> need to move my mails server
840 2011-01-03 03:48:26 <MT`AwAy> this is going to be painful
841 2011-01-03 03:52:56 <tjgillies_> do bitcoin clients send ip addresses of other clients?
842 2011-01-03 03:53:19 <tjgillies_> or are ips found exclusively through irc?
843 2011-01-03 03:54:02 <nanotube> tjgillies_: yes; no.
844 2011-01-03 03:54:21 <nanotube> :)
845 2011-01-03 03:54:59 <tjgillies_> oh so client A asks client B "what are all the ips you know of?"
846 2011-01-03 03:56:07 <nanotube> yea pretty much. the irc is just a backup bootstrapping method.
847 2011-01-03 03:56:24 <tjgillies_> gotcha
848 2011-01-03 03:56:34 <tjgillies_> thnx
849 2011-01-03 03:57:06 <nanotube> np
850 2011-01-03 04:16:21 <Sami345> I get 1 BTC from this http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000b9c7ef6be66b02fe6e4f11e2e9ac57abd550cc8e4a211f7bd640 :)
851 2011-01-03 04:16:24 <fabianhjr> Wow, hashrate x4 from last week 0_o
852 2011-01-03 04:16:44 <Sami345> I found this thing from Wikipedia
853 2011-01-03 04:17:52 <AnonymousUser> Hey, does anyone here know anything about cryptography?  I'm looking for a client that does a very particular application of encrpytion
854 2011-01-03 04:17:55 <marioxcc> fabianhjr: PM :)
855 2011-01-03 04:18:02 <AnonymousUser> er, an email client
856 2011-01-03 04:18:09 <marioxcc> AnonymousUser: as fsbot ,anyone says
857 2011-01-03 04:18:18 <marioxcc> don't as if you can ask or if someone is good or knows of X
858 2011-01-03 04:18:23 <marioxcc> just throw your real question
859 2011-01-03 04:18:31 <marioxcc> and if someone can, he will help you
860 2011-01-03 04:19:29 <xelister> DrUNK|fabianhjr: what? hash arete is now x4 since last week??
861 2011-01-03 04:19:58 <Sami345> lots of new users I think :d
862 2011-01-03 04:20:24 <midnightmagic_> ;;bc,stats
863 2011-01-03 04:20:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100801 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 2014 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 65230.42677925
864 2011-01-03 04:20:25 <xelister> DrUNK|with gpu clusters?!
865 2011-01-03 04:20:42 <nanotube> oooh, new difficulty
866 2011-01-03 04:21:14 <Sami345> Next Difficulty Estimate: 65230.42677925
867 2011-01-03 04:21:15 <Sami345> lol
868 2011-01-03 04:21:25 <Sami345> that's pretty high?
869 2011-01-03 04:21:34 <nanotube> Sami345: it's a bad estimate, wait until a few hundred blocks have passed.
870 2011-01-03 04:21:35 <Sami345> PoW?
871 2011-01-03 04:21:42 <nanotube> pow = proof of work
872 2011-01-03 04:22:24 <AnonymousUser> I'm wondering if there's an email cleint that can handle multple key encrpytion
873 2011-01-03 04:22:36 <marioxcc> Sami345: proof of work
874 2011-01-03 04:22:41 <xelister> DrUNK|marioxcc: you mean the AES commision ;)  well, I guess Satoshi could had used some other algo.. but which, sha256 was the most obvious choice imo
875 2011-01-03 04:22:45 <Sami345> marioxcc, too late :P
876 2011-01-03 04:22:54 <marioxcc> yeah
877 2011-01-03 04:22:56 <xelister> DrUNK|AnonymousUser: multiple openpgp recipients? sure
878 2011-01-03 04:23:00 <marioxcc> i should have cursed him earlier
879 2011-01-03 04:23:19 <marioxcc> or they, if you talk about the AES commision, hehe
880 2011-01-03 04:23:23 <marioxcc> xelister|DrUNK: probably
881 2011-01-03 04:23:42 <marioxcc> what could be a good PoW which is faster on CPU?
882 2011-01-03 04:25:12 <Sami345> something that takes lot's of memory?
883 2011-01-03 04:25:25 <Sami345> idk
884 2011-01-03 04:25:31 <marioxcc> maybe not
885 2011-01-03 04:25:47 <marioxcc> a branching-intensive thing maybe
886 2011-01-03 04:25:48 <marioxcc> like integer factoring (i'm not sure)
887 2011-01-03 04:26:23 <xelister> DrUNK|it is said, that operations which include lots of small random memory accesses, or lots of branching, or non standard instructions
888 2011-01-03 04:26:55 <xelister> DrUNK|yeah and taking lots of mem helps too
889 2011-01-03 04:27:22 <marioxcc> :)
890 2011-01-03 04:27:40 <Sami345> Server temporily down :(
891 2011-01-03 04:28:01 <midnightmagic_> Happy New Year!
892 2011-01-03 04:29:30 <marioxcc> hello midnightmagic_ !
893 2011-01-03 04:30:37 <marioxcc> it isnt longer new but happy new year too too
894 2011-01-03 04:30:47 <Sami345> hmm
895 2011-01-03 04:30:57 <Sami345> it takes forever for most 3D-renders to render a image
896 2011-01-03 04:31:13 <Sami345> what about OpenCL 3D-render
897 2011-01-03 04:31:26 <marioxcc> what?
898 2011-01-03 04:31:42 <xelister> DrUnK|yeah lol
899 2011-01-03 04:31:57 <marioxcc> Sami345: they can't render 3d faster
900 2011-01-03 04:32:04 <xelister> DrUnK|GPU cards are known for being bad at fancy things like 3d-rendering.  LOLOLOLolololoLLOLOLollololoOLOL000lll1111
901 2011-01-03 04:32:05 <marioxcc> they're alredy especialiced for such thing
902 2011-01-03 04:32:07 <Sami345> marioxcc, faster than CPU?
903 2011-01-03 04:32:08 <Diablo-D3> I think he means offline CGI rendering
904 2011-01-03 04:32:13 <marioxcc> yes
905 2011-01-03 04:32:16 <xelister> DrUnK|3d rendering is too undefinable
906 2011-01-03 04:32:19 <marioxcc> unless you have a
907 2011-01-03 04:32:21 <Diablo-D3> and yes, some renderers already use GPUs
908 2011-01-03 04:32:24 <marioxcc> damn crappy GPU
909 2011-01-03 04:32:26 <xelister> DrUnK|there is no best algo for it
910 2011-01-03 04:32:29 <marioxcc> or a CPU
911 2011-01-03 04:32:31 <xelister> DrUnK|people will not agree on that
912 2011-01-03 04:32:33 <marioxcc> sort of intel research
913 2011-01-03 04:32:34 <xelister> DrUnK|we need something simple to define
914 2011-01-03 04:32:36 <marioxcc> like 120 cores or so
915 2011-01-03 04:32:38 <marioxcc> at 4 GHz
916 2011-01-03 04:32:41 <marioxcc> i undestand GPU power comes from SIMD
917 2011-01-03 04:32:43 <marioxcc> instructions
918 2011-01-03 04:32:45 <xelister> DrUnK|ye
919 2011-01-03 04:32:46 <Sami345> damn I must be bored
920 2011-01-03 04:32:48 <marioxcc> but they will probably suck at branching
921 2011-01-03 04:32:51 <Sami345> I have stared xxxxxxx khash/s for a few hours :D
922 2011-01-03 04:32:56 <Diablo-D3> whos client?
923 2011-01-03 04:32:58 <marioxcc> what do you did with overheating?
924 2011-01-03 04:32:58 <Sami345> marioxcc, cleaned up
925 2011-01-03 04:33:01 <Sami345> now temp never rises over 81 degree
926 2011-01-03 04:33:03 <Sami345> even after 4 hours
927 2011-01-03 04:33:45 <AnonymousUser> huh... is it possible to set up an encrpytion scheme so that multiple documents are produced to be read by different public keys?
928 2011-01-03 04:33:56 <xelister> DrUnK|AnonymousUser: yes
929 2011-01-03 04:34:08 <xelister> DrUnK|AnonymousUser: openpgp email sent to multiply recipients at once uses that afaik
930 2011-01-03 04:34:26 <marioxcc> xelister|DrUnK: OpenPGP isn't email-specific
931 2011-01-03 04:34:30 <AnonymousUser> no, i mean, different documents
932 2011-01-03 04:34:48 <xelister> dRuNk|ah
933 2011-01-03 04:34:52 <AnonymousUser> like 4 public keys, 4 different only slight different documents
934 2011-01-03 04:34:53 <xelister> dRuNk|yes, phonebook encryption
935 2011-01-03 04:34:56 <fabianhjr> Night
936 2011-01-03 04:35:01 <xelister> dRuNk|and they can be totally different too
937 2011-01-03 04:35:09 <Sami345> 114 confirmations left I want my money!
938 2011-01-03 04:35:13 <AnonymousUser> right
939 2011-01-03 04:35:29 <AnonymousUser> and most importantly, it needs to be secure to both figuring out the data and the public keys to decrypt the data
940 2011-01-03 04:36:03 <marioxcc> AnonymousUser: what are you looking for, exactly?
941 2011-01-03 04:36:21 <AnonymousUser> Well the ideal program would be:
942 2011-01-03 04:36:30 <marioxcc> don't post pseudocode please
943 2011-01-03 04:36:36 <marioxcc> use pastebin for that
944 2011-01-03 04:36:48 <AnonymousUser> Can I write a description?
945 2011-01-03 04:37:01 <marioxcc> sure
946 2011-01-03 04:37:06 <marioxcc> i mean just please don't flood
947 2011-01-03 04:37:16 <marioxcc> :)
948 2011-01-03 04:37:17 <xelister> dRuNk|1-Cypress-core2: INVALID BLOCK found. nonce=2098861849 G=80624 H=2456409318
949 2011-01-03 04:37:20 <xelister> dRuNk|thank you ati
950 2011-01-03 04:37:24 <xelister> dRuNk|FUCK YOU IN THE ASS, CROSSFIRE SHIT
951 2011-01-03 04:37:29 <marioxcc> xelister|dRuNk: ???
952 2011-01-03 04:37:33 <marioxcc> data corruption?
953 2011-01-03 04:37:52 <xelister> dRuNk|marioxcc: since Ati software development is lead by mentally retarded fucktards, and it takes a while for Amd to fire this idiots,
954 2011-01-03 04:38:03 <xelister> dRuNk|therefore their software drivers are still, since 2005's, utter crap
955 2011-01-03 04:38:14 <xelister> dRuNk|in example enabling crappy xfire, that makes OpenCL produce invalid results
956 2011-01-03 04:38:24 <marioxcc> what a pity
957 2011-01-03 04:38:31 <marioxcc> that is when free software comes in handy
958 2011-01-03 04:38:39 <marioxcc> if they were free, you could debug it
959 2011-01-03 04:38:42 <AnonymousUser> Sure.  I'll do my best -- I'm looking for a program that sends out an email to each recipient after accepting a public key.  essentially, i want a system where users have multiple private keys and they are exchanged in secure transactions
960 2011-01-03 04:38:44 <xelister> dRuNk|it is possible to again disable it. just it takes some time. and few restars of X server, that I dont want to d onow
961 2011-01-03 04:39:11 <marioxcc> so you have to work around the bug
962 2011-01-03 04:39:17 <AnonymousUser> i mean, in practice it's something similar to that
963 2011-01-03 04:39:18 <marioxcc> proprietary software makes you do that, to adapt you to the software
964 2011-01-03 04:39:24 <marioxcc> instead of to adapt the software to you
965 2011-01-03 04:39:25 <marioxcc> :)
966 2011-01-03 04:39:26 <xelister> dRuNk|yea, i just dont want now to restard my X server milion times to fix this
967 2011-01-03 04:40:06 <marioxcc> ok
968 2011-01-03 04:41:38 <marioxcc> AnonymousUser: sorry, i don't undestand very well
969 2011-01-03 04:41:40 <marioxcc> let's see
970 2011-01-03 04:41:43 <AnonymousUser> sorry, i meant public
971 2011-01-03 04:41:47 <marioxcc> you encrypt the doccuemt
972 2011-01-03 04:41:51 <marioxcc> who should be able to see it?
973 2011-01-03 04:42:36 <Sami345> ;;bc,calc 6219000
974 2011-01-03 04:42:38 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 6219000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 3 hours, 7 minutes, and 42 seconds
975 2011-01-03 04:42:39 <xelister> dRuNk|AnonymousUser: you want different data decrypted based on what key you use?  google addressbook encryption
976 2011-01-03 04:42:52 <AnonymousUser> ok
977 2011-01-03 04:42:57 <luke-jr> xelister|dRuNk is just trolling. :P
978 2011-01-03 04:43:08 <luke-jr> ATi's cards work fine with free software
979 2011-01-03 04:43:16 <Sami345> ;;bc,calc 9000000
980 2011-01-03 04:43:17 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 9000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 2 hours, 9 minutes, and 42 seconds
981 2011-01-03 04:43:35 <marioxcc> luke-jr: fine, but they can run a miner with it?