1 2011-01-04 01:30:23 <luke-jr> why do some blocks take 8 mins, and others 8 hours?
  2 2011-01-04 01:31:17 <theymos> It's random chance, like entering a lottery a million times a secnod.
  3 2011-01-04 01:45:09 <Sami345> Does anybody know what port and protocol (TCP/UDP) Bitcoin uses?
  4 2011-01-04 01:45:25 <theymos> TCP 8333
  5 2011-01-04 01:46:07 <luke-jr> does it support UPnP? :p
  6 2011-01-04 01:46:18 <MT`AwAy> no
  7 2011-01-04 01:46:21 <luke-jr> lame
  8 2011-01-04 01:49:42 <Sami345> what is this "MIT license"
  9 2011-01-04 01:49:50 <luke-jr> Sami345: &
 10 2011-01-04 01:49:58 <luke-jr> everyone knows MIT = BSD
 11 2011-01-04 01:50:09 <theymos> ;;wp mit license
 12 2011-01-04 01:50:10 <gribble> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License | The MIT License is a free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It is a permissive license, meaning that it ...
 13 2011-01-04 02:40:41 <CyanDynamo> http://imgur.com/8KcwZ
 14 2011-01-04 03:06:09 <fabianhjr> slush: the 6 Ghashes/sec
 15 2011-01-04 03:20:07 <fabianhjr> :) The powa is unlimted!
 16 2011-01-04 03:20:17 <nanotube> ;;bc,poolstats
 17 2011-01-04 03:20:20 <gribble> {"hashes_ps": 6226277773, "shares": 9649, "active_workers": 138, "round_duration": "1:50:56", "round_started": "2011-01-04 02:29:30", "getwork_ps": 41.899999999999999}
 18 2011-01-04 03:23:33 <fabianhjr> nanotube: I am giving aways BTC to my friends and already got like 3 people to use Bitcoin.
 19 2011-01-04 03:25:50 <fabianhjr> Now I am asking a videogame lover to write a review of his favourite game for 5 BTC and he got exited. He never thought he was going to get paid to play Videogames xD
 20 2011-01-04 03:25:52 <Cusipzzz> fabianhjr: need another friend?
 21 2011-01-04 03:26:15 <fabianhjr> Cusipzzz: lol, no. Just physical ones. I assite them getting the client installed and all.
 22 2011-01-04 03:26:43 <Cusipzzz> i can assure you those BTCs would find a warm and loving home..not be mistreated
 23 2011-01-04 03:27:37 <Cusipzzz> ah well.
 24 2011-01-04 03:30:07 <fabianhjr> BRB Dinner
 25 2011-01-04 03:30:23 <nanotube> hehe
 26 2011-01-04 03:30:26 <nanotube> good job fabianhjr :)
 27 2011-01-04 03:31:07 <fabianhjr> nanotube: I will need a plagarism checking service though. :P
 28 2011-01-04 03:32:00 <nanotube> fabianhjr: it's called google :)
 29 2011-01-04 03:42:01 <fabianhjr> nanotube: how do you distribute your coins?
 30 2011-01-04 03:42:25 <fabianhjr> I do 50 % saving 25 % Spending and 25% investing
 31 2011-01-04 03:42:30 <mizerydearia> Are there any users here that participate in any popular ugc (user-generated content) sites?
 32 2011-01-04 03:42:47 <fabianhjr> kiba does art. :)
 33 2011-01-04 03:43:14 <mizerydearia> s/par/actively par/
 34 2011-01-04 03:43:42 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: why do you ask?
 35 2011-01-04 03:44:15 <mizerydearia> I am contemplating how to implement a similar site, but one that rewards users that submit content by paying them if the content they submitted is popular.
 36 2011-01-04 03:44:21 <mizerydearia> Not how...
 37 2011-01-04 03:44:30 <kiba> mizerydearia: focus on your current project
 38 2011-01-04 03:44:37 <kiba> you have pizza4BTC right?
 39 2011-01-04 03:44:38 <kiba> finish that
 40 2011-01-04 03:44:40 <mizerydearia> Not how as in code, but how as in if the site will be useful for or accepted by users
 41 2011-01-04 03:44:48 <mizerydearia> kiba: >_<
 42 2011-01-04 03:45:24 <mizerydearia> The site will make use of bitcoin to handle payments.
 43 2011-01-04 03:47:02 <nanotube> fabianhjr: i trade in the markets. :)
 44 2011-01-04 03:47:13 <fabianhjr> xD
 45 2011-01-04 03:47:14 <mizerydearia> I was thinking, offer a way for users to buy points that they can then use to vote on content.  And for content that is popular to direct the funds making that content popular back to the user that submitted the content.
 46 2011-01-04 03:47:42 <mizerydearia> However, I am not sure if the idea seems like something that would attract users.
 47 2011-01-04 03:48:27 <fabianhjr> O maldito Telmex
 48 2011-01-04 03:50:08 <nanotube> mizerydearia: i think it's definitely worth a try. :)
 49 2011-01-04 03:52:35 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: I can help you code if you want.
 50 2011-01-04 03:52:40 <fabianhjr> :D Just saying. :)
 51 2011-01-04 03:52:50 <mizerydearia> re: pizza4btc, I will get back to working on that project soon.  I'll keep you updated ^_^
 52 2011-01-04 03:53:30 <theymos> mizerydearia: I don't think a "donation facilitator" site would be really succesful. The voters need to get something out of it, too.
 53 2011-01-04 03:53:43 <mizerydearia> Well, the coding isn't an issue, however, the direction for the site is of my primary concern.
 54 2011-01-04 03:54:21 <mizerydearia> theymos, Well, take existing sites for example.  Do voters get anything out of upvoting/downvoting?  Even though it doesn't cost anything to do so, I do not see any rewards.
 55 2011-01-04 03:54:56 <nanotube> theymos: it would be a way to filter out crap, and keep good stuff in.
 56 2011-01-04 03:55:08 <mizerydearia> The rewards usually go to the content gaining more and more popularity as content should.
 57 2011-01-04 03:55:13 <nanotube> theymos: if it costs points to post... and you lose points when you get downvoted... crap is kept out.
 58 2011-01-04 03:55:18 <mizerydearia> My idea is to reward users that submit popular content.
 59 2011-01-04 03:55:30 <mizerydearia> e.g. if you are the first to submit this new idea that is popular, you will be rewarded.
 60 2011-01-04 03:55:41 <mizerydearia> s/is/will be/
 61 2011-01-04 03:56:07 <mizerydearia> Actually, as the site functions now, posting content is free and doesn't cost anything.
 62 2011-01-04 03:56:33 <mizerydearia> However, if it helps to weed out crap posts I can have a minimal cost such as 0.01btc.
 63 2011-01-04 03:59:13 <theymos> I personally have no interest in paying to vote unless I get something in return -- maybe not monetary rewards, but something. How about voters get rewarded if the submissions they vote on become popular? They more of a reward if they vote on a submission while it has fewer votes. This would promote correct popularity ordering.
 64 2011-01-04 03:59:28 <mizerydearia> mm
 65 2011-01-04 03:59:40 <Animeking> jesus, I know this is to be expected but the GPU miner has risen my GPU temp to 81 degrees celscius D:
 66 2011-01-04 03:59:40 <mizerydearia> that would be interesting.
 67 2011-01-04 04:00:47 <theymos> Clearly in a system where voters get paid, most people lose, but the *prospect* of a real reward is enough. And you can give even the losers imaginary points/"achievements" for participating.
 68 2011-01-04 04:00:57 <mizerydearia> theymos, that is good idea, rewarding users that upvote, to receive a share of the profits as the content continues to receive more upvotes.
 69 2011-01-04 04:01:38 <mizerydearia> However, the calculation to determine the appropriate share will be interesting to determine.
 70 2011-01-04 04:01:48 <mizerydearia> s/determine.$//
 71 2011-01-04 04:01:50 <kiba> wdoesn't that encourage only stuff that appeal to a wide range people?
 72 2011-01-04 04:02:05 <kiba> range audience
 73 2011-01-04 04:07:19 <theymos> For every vote, send the vote cost to everyone who voted previously (with some curve). The submitter would be considered just the first voter. Submitters/voters on niche topics might get even more of a reward, since the new votes will be shared with fewer people.
 74 2011-01-04 04:08:17 <theymos> Maybe this is too pyramid-scheme-like to be legal, though.
 75 2011-01-04 04:08:37 <nanotube> mizerydearia: i like theymos idea :)
 76 2011-01-04 04:08:48 <nanotube> Animeking: rev up your fan
 77 2011-01-04 04:08:52 <nanotube> (if it's not already)
 78 2011-01-04 04:08:59 <Animeking> at 100% already
 79 2011-01-04 04:09:14 <Animeking> :/ I wonder if this could damage my GPU if it doesn't rest
 80 2011-01-04 04:10:52 <fabianhjr> Good night
 81 2011-01-04 04:13:54 <nanotube> fabianhjr: o/
 82 2011-01-04 04:14:02 <fabianhjr> hehe?
 83 2011-01-04 04:14:05 <nanotube> Animeking: it could... so maybe you can clock it down a bit or something.
 84 2011-01-04 04:14:31 <Animeking> I think I'll give it a rest after I get my 50 BC ._.
 85 2011-01-04 04:17:30 <EvanR> Animeking: how long will that take?
 86 2011-01-04 04:17:53 <Animeking> 55 more blocks for maturity
 87 2011-01-04 04:17:57 <Animeking> and supposedly
 88 2011-01-04 04:18:00 <Animeking> 7 blocks per hour
 89 2011-01-04 04:19:37 <nanotube> you could script a crontab job to run the miner for 10 min at a time, then kill it for 10 min for rest, or something.
 90 2011-01-04 04:19:47 <nanotube> but better to just try improving airflow in your case somehow.
 91 2011-01-04 04:19:54 <nanotube> maybe open the case and point a deskfan at it.
 92 2011-01-04 04:20:17 <xelister> nanotube: or just change the miner code to od that
 93 2011-01-04 04:21:24 <xelister> nanotube: pid=`pidof minerfoo` or similar, and then  while true ; do echo "." && kill -p $pid -s SIGSTOP ; sleep 10 ; kill -p $pid -s SIGCONT ; done   or something in this direction (this is a draft)
 94 2011-01-04 04:21:46 <xelister> pausing 1 second each 9 sec should be better for temp, then all the dickery around with cron
 95 2011-01-04 04:22:47 <nanotube> mm yea
 96 2011-01-04 04:36:38 <midnightmagic_> ;;bc,stats
 97 2011-01-04 04:36:40 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100950 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1865 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 26 minutes, and 10 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17050.43295989
 98 2011-01-04 04:45:57 <joe_1> how do i see who sent me coins
 99 2011-01-04 04:51:19 <afed> joe_1: blockexplorer.com
100 2011-01-04 04:56:58 <joe_1> second question, if i want to send coins back to someone that sent them to me, will it work even if payment was sent by mybitcoin.com or another major bitcoin transmitter?
101 2011-01-04 04:57:15 <nanotube> joe_1: no
102 2011-01-04 04:57:21 <nanotube> you have to ask the sender for an address to send back to.
103 2011-01-04 04:58:22 <joe_1> ok
104 2011-01-04 04:58:36 <joe_1> but if it was sent from a bitcoin client, then afed's method will work without communicating with the sender?
105 2011-01-04 04:58:54 <nanotube> yes... because the source address(es) will be present in the wallet.
106 2011-01-04 04:59:43 <nanotube> but (a) you can't know whether something was sent to you via client, or with a processor. and (b) those source addresses even if from a client, will probably be labeled as something entirely unrelated to you, so when they receive your refund, they won't know wtf happened.
107 2011-01-04 05:01:32 <joe_1> good point
108 2011-01-04 05:01:40 <joe_1> that reminds me i don't like how the client forces you to name new addresses
109 2011-01-04 05:06:05 <nanotube> mmm does it...? you can just leave the label field blank
110 2011-01-04 05:06:23 <midnightmagic_> o ArtForz
111 2011-01-04 05:12:29 <joe_1> oh
112 2011-01-04 05:18:12 <afed> my daddy was a miner and i'm a miner's son
113 2011-01-04 05:18:22 <afed> and i'll stick with the union 'til every battle's won
114 2011-01-04 06:58:18 <joe_1> is there a way to get western union for bitcoins
115 2011-01-04 07:17:10 <midnightmagic_> joe_1: Sure! Offer to send someone bitcoins in exchange for a western union transfer! :-)
116 2011-01-04 07:19:01 <midnightmagic_> ah, that's not very nice of me.  joe_1: You have to jump through some hoops to do it, but there are websites out there to help. find someone you trust and have them recommend one.
117 2011-01-04 07:21:09 <midnightmagic_> o slush!
118 2011-01-04 07:26:04 <joe_1> midnightmagic thanks. dont need the transfer right now but it is something i want to know about
119 2011-01-04 07:26:17 <joe_1> i'll look around in the forums see if anyone's done it.
120 2011-01-04 07:27:55 <slush> midnightmagic hi
121 2011-01-04 07:50:23 <samfisher> hello
122 2011-01-04 07:50:31 <eureka^> split much
123 2011-01-04 08:13:43 <davout> o hai
124 2011-01-04 08:24:21 <lucky> o hai davout
125 2011-01-04 09:06:49 <UukGoblin> oh, gribble knows about Bitcoin Central already
126 2011-01-04 09:07:11 <UukGoblin> it's cool, but shouldn't show '$' for LREUR transactions, it's a bit misleading
127 2011-01-04 09:23:07 <midnightmagic_> uh..  in the bitcoin gui, there's a section that tells you a summary of pending generated blocks..  is there some way to get this list via json? i don't mind if it's convoluted. :-)
128 2011-01-04 09:28:01 <davout> haha yea i was busy fixing that right now actually
129 2011-01-04 09:28:28 <midnightmagic_> that was directed at me? :)
130 2011-01-04 09:29:30 <midnightmagic_> looks like listaccounts doesn't distinguish between local wallet accounts and just addressbook accounts. is there a difference?
131 2011-01-04 09:31:46 <davout> no, UukGoblin :)
132 2011-01-04 09:33:02 <UukGoblin> what do you mean "no"? :-]
133 2011-01-04 09:33:19 <UukGoblin> euros aren't dollars. $ are. $ != eur. wrong.
134 2011-01-04 09:33:45 <midnightmagic_> davout: ah, sorry. :-)
135 2011-01-04 09:34:08 <sipa> midnightmagic_: what would the difference be?
136 2011-01-04 09:42:43 <davout> UukGoblin: which part of "fixing" did you not get ?
137 2011-01-04 09:43:23 <davout> fixes are deployed btw, comments welcome
138 2011-01-04 09:43:58 <davout> :)
139 2011-01-04 09:44:19 <UukGoblin> ah sorry I thought you were talking to midnightmagic ;-]
140 2011-01-04 10:01:59 <mizerydearia> wooo, response from Cyriak
141 2011-01-04 10:03:55 <mizerydearia> <ioguix> isn't bitcoin a bit like http://flattr.com/ but using bitcoins ?
142 2011-01-04 10:04:21 <mizerydearia> I'm not sure. I've never used flattr.  Is it similar?
143 2011-01-04 10:06:56 <UukGoblin> no, bitcoin is not like flattr :-]
144 2011-01-04 10:07:00 <sipa> not at all
145 2011-01-04 10:28:06 <da2ce7> have fun people: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=2602.0
146 2011-01-04 10:28:08 <bitbot> mIRC TOR Script (that works) + Guide (with pictures) [25 + 50 + more BTC]
147 2011-01-04 10:33:40 <devon_hillard> the mining.bitcoin.cz pool, it would be nice if workloads were a little harder
148 2011-01-04 10:34:32 <da2ce7> devon_hillard, having small work loads, mean that the coins will be shared eavenly even when the total time between blocks is small.
149 2011-01-04 10:34:32 <devon_hillard> to reduce the network traffic and possibly reduce load on the server
150 2011-01-04 10:34:52 <devon_hillard> or something dynamic
151 2011-01-04 10:35:05 <da2ce7> if the work loads were larger, we would have less accurate results when the total pool speed gets very large.
152 2011-01-04 10:35:11 <devon_hillard> if 1K shares have been distributed, increase difficulty
153 2011-01-04 10:35:31 <devon_hillard> after 2K, 4K, etc...
154 2011-01-04 10:35:32 <UukGoblin> a sasl mirc script? why sasl?
155 2011-01-04 10:35:53 <da2ce7> cause that is how you connect over Tor to Freenode.
156 2011-01-04 10:35:57 <da2ce7> It is fucking shit.
157 2011-01-04 10:36:23 <UukGoblin> oh. and mIRC doesn't support SASL?
158 2011-01-04 10:36:29 <da2ce7> nope.
159 2011-01-04 10:36:47 <da2ce7> there are two dogey scripts that don't work
160 2011-01-04 10:37:05 <UukGoblin> :-[
161 2011-01-04 10:37:27 <da2ce7> (hence the bounty)
162 2011-01-04 10:37:54 <UukGoblin> mhm
163 2011-01-04 10:38:00 <UukGoblin> looks like about a day's job tbh
164 2011-01-04 10:38:18 <UukGoblin> for a proficient windows guy
165 2011-01-04 10:39:06 <devon_hillard> Does anyone sell/buy BTC for Eve-Online ISK?
166 2011-01-04 10:39:07 <UukGoblin> but the guides could possibly be written by non-windows guys who understand tor and bitcoin well
167 2011-01-04 10:39:52 <UukGoblin> devon_hillard, I know someone did for Linden $, but you could be the first to do ISK! :-]
168 2011-01-04 10:40:22 <devon_hillard> the trouble with isk trade is that CCP are pretty paranoid about the ISK trade
169 2011-01-04 10:40:37 <devon_hillard> well, they sort of monitor large transactions
170 2011-01-04 10:40:59 <devon_hillard> because its' illegal to trade ISK for out of game money
171 2011-01-04 10:41:08 <UukGoblin> ah. sucks.
172 2011-01-04 10:41:42 <UukGoblin> can you trade this game time thingy for out-of-game money?
173 2011-01-04 10:41:50 <devon_hillard> no
174 2011-01-04 10:42:13 <devon_hillard> you can only trade in one direction money -> ISK (via game-time cards)
175 2011-01-04 10:42:23 <devon_hillard> but not ISK -> money
176 2011-01-04 10:42:40 <UukGoblin> :-[
177 2011-01-04 10:43:16 <UukGoblin> heh, bitcoin.org/trade is blocked in my company with reason 'Proxy Avoidance'
178 2011-01-04 10:43:25 <UukGoblin> but bitcoin.org and the forum and others aren't.
179 2011-01-04 10:44:04 <UukGoblin> it's probably because of all these anonymous VPN services linked from there
180 2011-01-04 10:44:12 <ArtForz> probably doesn't like one of the tunnel links
181 2011-01-04 10:44:45 <UukGoblin> what's up, ArtForz? :-)
182 2011-01-04 10:44:53 <ArtForz> not much
183 2011-01-04 10:44:58 <UukGoblin> how's the new year, got your ASICs yet? :-]
184 2011-01-04 10:45:07 <ArtForz> nope, like I said, february
185 2011-01-04 10:45:15 <UukGoblin> still in memphis then ;-]
186 2011-01-04 10:46:35 <ArtForz> hardware design is pretty much done, so I got some spare time trying to improve my GPU miner a bit more
187 2011-01-04 10:47:18 <UukGoblin> xkcd.com/281 but looks down ATM
188 2011-01-04 10:47:26 <ArtForz> should be able to get another 8-10% out of it
189 2011-01-04 10:47:45 <ArtForz> yep
190 2011-01-04 11:04:41 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
191 2011-01-04 11:04:43 <gribble> Current Blocks: 100993 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1822 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 1 hour, 29 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17190.47141793
192 2011-01-04 11:21:14 <devon_hillard> anyone selling teamspeak hosting for bitcoins?
193 2011-01-04 11:52:07 <mizerydearia> http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/30/son_of_julius_and_ethel_rosenberg
194 2011-01-04 12:07:16 <mizerydearia> If the us financial system were to collapse, what would the aftermath be like?
195 2011-01-04 12:09:18 <mizerydearia> Keefe, "if "miners" stopped running their processors when the flow of new coins slows to a trickle, the bitcoin system will collapse" -- If miners stop, then the difficulty will decrease to accomodate the less amount of processing power so that the remaining miners can continue to generate 2016 blocks in about two weeks.
196 2011-01-04 12:10:16 <mizerydearia> <AnonymousUser> i figure, once the US economy collapses, we'll have millions of people with college degrees who are very knowledgable.  if i can find a trustworthy way of connecting people to exchange the services they've been trained to provide, then they'll have at least some means of income
197 2011-01-04 12:56:05 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
198 2011-01-04 12:56:07 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101004 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1811 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17058.76276457
199 2011-01-04 13:53:07 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: how long will it take to decrease the difficulty?
200 2011-01-04 13:53:23 <mizerydearia> Well
201 2011-01-04 13:53:27 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: if the miners all go away suddenly, it could take eternity
202 2011-01-04 13:53:40 <mizerydearia> If it takes longer than 2 weeks (in seconds), the difficulty will decrease.
203 2011-01-04 13:53:52 <devon_hillard> how is mhas/s calculated in the mining.bitcoin.cz pool?
204 2011-01-04 13:53:53 <luke-jr> even before the current 2016 finish?
205 2011-01-04 13:54:04 <mizerydearia> I am not sure of the exact formula used, but if someone provides it, you should be able to determine that info.
206 2011-01-04 13:54:31 <devon_hillard> it looks like slower workers are at a big disadvantage
207 2011-01-04 13:55:57 <mizerydearia> If there is a sudden drop in miners, then it will take a long time for the remaining of 2016 blocks to be generated.  It could take a very long time.  However, once those 2016 blocks are generated, the difficulty will be adjusted accordingly so that the next 2016 blocks will be very to easy to generate, perhaps even so easy that it may take a day or two (maybe less) to generate them.
208 2011-01-04 13:56:16 <mizerydearia> I imagine at that point, the difficulty will spiral back and forth until it gets closer and closer back to 1 difficulty
209 2011-01-04 13:57:30 <mizerydearia> However, I think participants of Bitcoin miners can work to help reduce the time to make the difficulty back down to 1.
210 2011-01-04 13:58:22 <mizerydearia> e.g. I foresee that individuals can generate 2015 blocks, and then stop 90% or so of processing and wait for more than 2 weeks to pass and then reintroduce the 90% processing power to quicly finish off generating 2016 blocks so that the difficulty will reduce
211 2011-01-04 13:58:44 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calculate 5600
212 2011-01-04 13:58:44 <gribble> Error: "bc,calculate" is not a valid command.
213 2011-01-04 13:58:44 <mizerydearia> And to keep doing that for 2 week intervals so that the difficulty lowers to a point where it is not expensive to generate to keep the currency flowing
214 2011-01-04 13:58:50 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calc 5600
215 2011-01-04 13:58:50 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5600 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 20 weeks, 4 days, 18 hours, 12 minutes, and 41 seconds
216 2011-01-04 13:58:51 <mizerydearia> And gradually users will bring the difficulty to 1.0
217 2011-01-04 13:58:57 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calc 5600000
218 2011-01-04 13:58:57 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 3 hours, 28 minutes, and 27 seconds
219 2011-01-04 13:59:28 <mizerydearia> can work together*
220 2011-01-04 13:59:43 <mizerydearia> Actually, stop 90% should be stop 100%
221 2011-01-04 14:00:16 <mizerydearia> actually no
222 2011-01-04 14:00:33 <mizerydearia> It is essential to continue generating for the bitcoin system to function.
223 2011-01-04 14:01:06 <mizerydearia> Therefore current generators must work together to establish generating blocks at slightly greater than 10 minutes so that it doesn't interrupt service too noticeably.
224 2011-01-04 14:01:19 <mizerydearia> Perhaps even a delay of 20 minutes per block generation may be acceptable
225 2011-01-04 14:01:31 <mizerydearia> and in such case, that will allow 4 weeks to pass for generating 2016 blocks
226 2011-01-04 14:01:36 <EvanR-work> haha 'slightly greater'
227 2011-01-04 14:01:42 <mizerydearia> and that will help to reduce the difficulty.
228 2011-01-04 14:01:54 <mizerydearia> yes, slightly greater so as to not cause interrupting in transactions
229 2011-01-04 14:02:08 <EvanR-work> 2x is slight?
230 2011-01-04 14:02:36 <mizerydearia> e.g. if 2016 blocks are generated in 2 years instead of 2 weeks, then transactions will be very slow and cause many Bitcoin-established services to function very poorly.
231 2011-01-04 14:03:12 <mizerydearia> Therefore while it is essential to prepare mining to take longer than 2 weeks to gradually reduce the difficulty closer to 1.0, to not take too much longer, so as to preserve the flow of transactions and confirmations
232 2011-01-04 14:03:51 <EvanR-work> what are we talking about, difficulty is too high?
233 2011-01-04 14:04:07 <mizerydearia> btw, if anyone is just following, due to tl;dr, the discussion is regarding reducing the difficulty when all 21,000,000 (or just less, forgot the exact number) have been generated and it is no longer at all profitable to generate
234 2011-01-04 14:04:28 <afed> it probably falls to zero
235 2011-01-04 14:04:31 <afed> or one
236 2011-01-04 14:04:33 <afed> or some such
237 2011-01-04 14:04:41 <afed> just high enough to regulate the rate
238 2011-01-04 14:05:25 <mizerydearia> My proposed suggestion is for existing miners at that time (~140 years from now) to work together to reduce the difficulty gradually by organizing to generate blocks in slightly greater than 10 minute intervals.
239 2011-01-04 14:05:27 <afed> the reason it increases now is to regulate the rate of bitcoin generation, once no new coins are generated, difficulty's purpose will be to make sure blocks aren't generated too fast
240 2011-01-04 14:05:28 <mizerydearia> btw, o
241 2011-01-04 14:05:33 <mizerydearia> nm btw
242 2011-01-04 14:06:07 <mizerydearia> The reason it increases now is because there is still high demand for users to obtain bitcoins and it is worthy of doing so.
243 2011-01-04 14:06:16 <mizerydearia> e.g. there is much potential value for bitcoins.
244 2011-01-04 14:06:23 <mizerydearia> e.g.
245 2011-01-04 14:06:24 <mizerydearia> ;worldpop
246 2011-01-04 14:06:26 <bitbot> mizerydearia: According to http://is.gd/dsqcH the world population is 6,891,399,716. If everyone had the same amount of bitcoins, everyone would have 0.00304728 bitcoins.  If 0.00000001 bitcoins were equivalent to US$0.01, then everyone would have equivalent of US$3,047.27644099 and the value of all bitcoins would be equivalent of US$21,000,000,000,000.00.
247 2011-01-04 14:07:29 <afed> ok
248 2011-01-04 14:07:32 <luke-jr> that is why the Tonal units are based on 0x1,0000 uBTC
249 2011-01-04 14:08:25 <mizerydearia> However, with the potential fall of us financial system, I presume that 140 years from now people will not even know what us$ are unless they are familiar with history.
250 2011-01-04 14:08:39 <EvanR-work> lol
251 2011-01-04 14:10:26 <mizerydearia> Julian Assange-Wikileaks-The Latest Interview part 1-6 are interesting... up to part 5 now
252 2011-01-04 14:10:55 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: the point is that BTC are too limited
253 2011-01-04 14:11:01 <mizerydearia> Actually, part 1-4 covers the previous interview from July.  Part 5 starts the latest interview
254 2011-01-04 14:11:10 <mizerydearia> luke-jr, too limited?
255 2011-01-04 14:11:17 <luke-jr> if people only have 0.001 BTC, they'll be trading in 0.000001 BTC or so, and won't want to write that
256 2011-01-04 14:11:20 <luke-jr> or say it
257 2011-01-04 14:11:39 <mizerydearia> Why would they not want to write it?
258 2011-01-04 14:11:47 <mizerydearia> for example, the opposite
259 2011-01-04 14:11:57 <mizerydearia> If you have $1,000,000,000 would you not write it because too many zeros?
260 2011-01-04 14:12:10 <mizerydearia> Similarly, then you would or would not write $0.0000000001
261 2011-01-04 14:12:23 <EvanR-work> just change units
262 2011-01-04 14:12:35 <luke-jr> $1,000,000,000 is a lot
263 2011-01-04 14:12:42 <EvanR-work> this aspect of bitcoins is the thing most complained about
264 2011-01-04 14:12:45 <luke-jr> not a usual value
265 2011-01-04 14:12:53 <mizerydearia> I do not think the number will have any value in determinine whether a user will write it or not.
266 2011-01-04 14:12:58 <EvanR-work> people dont complain about pennies being the smallest practical unit of dollars
267 2011-01-04 14:13:00 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: I am advocating that, but nobody else is :P
268 2011-01-04 14:13:18 <EvanR-work> no thats the usual answer to people complaining about nanocoins being too big
269 2011-01-04 14:13:19 <mizerydearia> EvanR-work, That aspect is mind over matter.
270 2011-01-04 14:13:32 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: nobody wants to print 4 for $0.000001 on merchandise
271 2011-01-04 14:13:39 <mizerydearia> EvanR-work, And especially biased by currencies that use minimal amounts for simple purchases
272 2011-01-04 14:13:51 <EvanR-work> yeah
273 2011-01-04 14:14:05 <mizerydearia> currencies that require larger amounts for simple purchases are used to it.
274 2011-01-04 14:14:20 <mizerydearia> And alternatively currencies that require tiny amounts for simple transactions are used to it as well
275 2011-01-04 14:14:22 <EvanR-work> it just so happens 1btc is worth 'alot' right now
276 2011-01-04 14:14:29 <mizerydearia> s/simple transactions/low cost transactions.
277 2011-01-04 14:14:31 <gavinandresen> mizerydearia:  why are you worrying about problems that won't happen until after we're all dead?
278 2011-01-04 14:14:31 <mizerydearia> s/simple transactions/low cost transactions/
279 2011-01-04 14:14:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: if you die first, it will never happen
280 2011-01-04 14:14:52 <luke-jr> because BTC will be a failure
281 2011-01-04 14:14:59 <mizerydearia> gavinandresen, mm, because I can?
282 2011-01-04 14:15:06 <luke-jr> the only way BTC can succeed, is if it gains significant adoption
283 2011-01-04 14:15:18 <EvanR-work> gavinandresen its called thinking
284 2011-01-04 14:15:23 <luke-jr> at which point each BTC will have enourmous value each
285 2011-01-04 14:15:23 <mizerydearia> gavinandresen, Same reason why people are concerned about improving our world for future generations
286 2011-01-04 14:15:27 <gavinandresen> Worrying about problems that won't happen for 100 years is a very good way to ensure bitcoin will be a failure.  You should worry about things that are a problem NOW
287 2011-01-04 14:15:38 <mizerydearia> gavinandresen, e.g. why do people care about global warming if it will not affect them in their lifetime?
288 2011-01-04 14:15:39 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it is a problem now
289 2011-01-04 14:15:49 <EvanR-work> no it isnt
290 2011-01-04 14:15:53 <EvanR-work> it may never be
291 2011-01-04 14:16:04 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: BTC can never be adopted so long as this problem exists
292 2011-01-04 14:16:09 <luke-jr> so if you want adoption, it is a problem
293 2011-01-04 14:16:14 <EvanR-work> ...
294 2011-01-04 14:16:18 <mizerydearia> However, such things are becoming a noticeable problem now
295 2011-01-04 14:16:51 <EvanR-work> luke-jr: you want problems with adoption, use base 2
296 2011-01-04 14:16:55 <mizerydearia> Additionally, there are many people, problems that exist now can be worked on by some of the people while other people can work on other problems whether they exist now or later.
297 2011-01-04 14:16:56 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: let's just think up a good name for TBTC and start using that :P
298 2011-01-04 14:17:03 <EvanR-work> seriously
299 2011-01-04 14:17:14 <gavinandresen> So, if bitcoin is still going in 100 years, I think we have to assume it is being used a bunch.  So there are lots of transaction fees in blocks, because people want their transactions to go through....
300 2011-01-04 14:17:27 <ThomasV> luke-jr: how much is a TBTC ?
301 2011-01-04 14:17:30 <EvanR-work> not using base ten is a great way to scare people away
302 2011-01-04 14:17:39 <EvanR-work> use uBTC if theres a real need
303 2011-01-04 14:17:48 <EvanR-work> which there isnt
304 2011-01-04 14:18:11 <mizerydearia> It is true, however, that 100 years from now a better implementation than Bitcoin can be developed and just like we are currently gradually shifting from usd and other currencies to bitcoin, the same will happen in which bitcoin users will gradually shift to the new currency.
305 2011-01-04 14:18:38 <mizerydearia> Therefore it isn't necessary to be concerned on how Bitcoin can still function in the future.
306 2011-01-04 14:18:43 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
307 2011-01-04 14:18:45 <ThomasV> mizerydearia: yes ! a new bitcoin with controlled inflation !
308 2011-01-04 14:18:57 <EvanR-work> now supports fractional reserve banking
309 2011-01-04 14:19:03 <EvanR-work> lol
310 2011-01-04 14:19:27 <mizerydearia> And as gavinandresen said, to focus on issues that are now.
311 2011-01-04 14:19:27 <ThomasV> no fractional banking, just inflation
312 2011-01-04 14:19:46 <mizerydearia> gavinandresen, What do you suggest are the current issues at the moment?
313 2011-01-04 14:19:53 <mizerydearia> besides jsonp ^_^
314 2011-01-04 14:20:00 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: make it mainstream. :P
315 2011-01-04 14:20:30 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: let's just think up a good name for TBTC and start using that :P
316 2011-01-04 14:20:31 <fabianhjr> LOL, I am giving coins out just to get people interested.
317 2011-01-04 14:20:38 <gavinandresen> Right now:  the bitcoin "out of the box experience" is lousy.
318 2011-01-04 14:20:55 <mizerydearia> fabianhjr, ooh, I'll take some and will establish a bit of interest maybe ^_^
319 2011-01-04 14:21:02 <fabianhjr> gavinandresen: unless you use the Bitcoin via email similar to PayPal and others service.
320 2011-01-04 14:21:09 <gavinandresen> Installing software and then having to wait several hours for something called the 'block chain' to download is ... bleuch.
321 2011-01-04 14:21:21 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: have a raindroplet account?
322 2011-01-04 14:21:26 <mizerydearia> fabianhjr, I don't.
323 2011-01-04 14:21:33 <gavinandresen> Yes, we need super-reliable web-based bitcoin accounts.
324 2011-01-04 14:21:39 <fabianhjr> Create it ajnd I will give you credit. :)
325 2011-01-04 14:21:39 <gavinandresen> From trusted companies.
326 2011-01-04 14:21:46 <mizerydearia> I heard about raindroplet from nanotube, haven't investigated it too much as of yet.
327 2011-01-04 14:21:48 <ThomasV> hehe
328 2011-01-04 14:22:00 <gavinandresen> Or, at least, from little startups that are INSURED or backed by trusted companies.
329 2011-01-04 14:22:25 <fabianhjr> gavinandresen: :/ there is this already. Let me get you the address.
330 2011-01-04 14:22:50 <gavinandresen> Oh, and a properly licensed easy-to-buy-bitcoins-with-soft-currency (credit card or paypal) service.
331 2011-01-04 14:22:52 <mizerydearia> Well, with the super-reliable web-based accounts, I imagine that with my Bitcoin Control Panel development, it will help to spark or make easier super-reliable services to arise.
332 2011-01-04 14:23:20 <fabianhjr> https://www.mybitcoin.com/
333 2011-01-04 14:23:29 <gavinandresen> The real problems aren't technology (although there's plenty to be done there)-- it is trust.  Which will mostly take time.
334 2011-01-04 14:23:41 <fabianhjr> Thats the current implementation. It is not open source.
335 2011-01-04 14:23:57 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: so much for trust
336 2011-01-04 14:24:15 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: http://raindroplet.info and tell me your email. I will trust you some coins. :)
337 2011-01-04 14:24:18 <mizerydearia> Yes, open source similarly to nanotube's bitcoin-otc may be useful
338 2011-01-04 14:24:25 <mizerydearia> Otherwise raindroplet is innteresting also
339 2011-01-04 14:24:31 <fabianhjr> luke-jr: I am not happy either.
340 2011-01-04 14:24:32 <gavinandresen> fabianhjr:  I like mybitcoin... but I'm not absolutely 100% sure they won't accidently, or on purpose, lose/steal any bitcoins I park there.
341 2011-01-04 14:24:57 <mizerydearia> And if they lose the bitcoins, it is impossible to refund them
342 2011-01-04 14:25:08 <mizerydearia> stealing is another matter
343 2011-01-04 14:25:12 <EvanR-work> insurance
344 2011-01-04 14:25:15 <EvanR-work> ;)
345 2011-01-04 14:25:17 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: under they cost as a responsible company would.
346 2011-01-04 14:25:23 <mizerydearia> EvanR, insurance would cause services to go bankrupt and cease to exist
347 2011-01-04 14:25:35 <mizerydearia> e.g. more money cannot be printed from thin air
348 2011-01-04 14:25:53 <mizerydearia> In fact, I am not so enthusiastic about insurance
349 2011-01-04 14:25:58 <mizerydearia> and think insurance is unnecessary
350 2011-01-04 14:25:59 <fabianhjr> mizerydearia: I am right now mining Bitcoins. :P
351 2011-01-04 14:26:10 <EvanR-work> insurance is a pilar of modern finance
352 2011-01-04 14:26:35 <EvanR-work> bitcoins surely should be able to support it
353 2011-01-04 14:26:43 <EvanR-work> perhaps not for loss of bitcoins
354 2011-01-04 14:26:46 <EvanR-work> :(
355 2011-01-04 14:27:11 <mizerydearia> gavinandresen, Perhaps it would be essential to store your bitcoins across many different providers so that if funds are lost from one, it is not too devastating a loss
356 2011-01-04 14:27:26 <mizerydearia> e.g. 100+ vendors, and your bitcoins distributed evenly (or not) across them.
357 2011-01-04 14:27:38 <mizerydearia> That may seem a bit much, but may be useful posssibly
358 2011-01-04 14:28:11 <gavinandresen> mizerydearia:  secure storage of bitcoins, offline, encrypted, etc  is on my short list of stuff we need to make easier to do.
359 2011-01-04 14:28:12 <mizerydearia> Perhaps a kind of p2p network distributed mybitcoin-like service?
360 2011-01-04 14:28:21 <mizerydearia> e.g. a p2p network for a p2p network?
361 2011-01-04 14:28:29 <EvanR-work> you know how no matter what the enterprise never seems to suffer some catastrophic event about 1000 of which could happen in space at any minute? thats the technology we need for our bitcoins
362 2011-01-04 14:28:42 <EvanR-work> should be that hard with a bit of redundancy and encryption (and trust)
363 2011-01-04 14:28:46 <EvanR-work> shouldnt
364 2011-01-04 14:30:21 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: any ideas for name of TBTC?
365 2011-01-04 14:30:31 <mizerydearia> What is t in btc?
366 2011-01-04 14:30:52 <EvanR-work> i dont like BTC
367 2011-01-04 14:31:00 <luke-jr> Tonal
368 2011-01-04 14:31:26 <mizerydearia> Hmm, what is Tonal BTC?
369 2011-01-04 14:31:43 <luke-jr> 1 TBTC = 0x1,0000 uBTC
370 2011-01-04 14:32:03 <EvanR-work> 10^-8BTC?
371 2011-01-04 14:32:03 <mizerydearia> It isn't necessary the currency have "Bitcoin" in the name.
372 2011-01-04 14:32:26 <mizerydearia> However, at this time it isn't necessary to think about it really as gavin mentioned initially.
373 2011-01-04 14:32:39 <mizerydearia> You're welcome to consider it further, but I won't waste time with it.
374 2011-01-04 14:33:00 <ThomasV> I think it's more urgent to develop the economy
375 2011-01-04 14:33:14 <luke-jr> changing terminology after adoption is much harder
376 2011-01-04 14:33:30 <EvanR-work> terminology, window dressing, etc, is up to the people
377 2011-01-04 14:33:37 <EvanR-work> if it gets adopted let them figure itout
378 2011-01-04 14:33:49 <luke-jr> no
379 2011-01-04 14:33:51 <luke-jr> they're idiots
380 2011-01-04 14:34:07 <EvanR-work> i can assure you they wont like base16
381 2011-01-04 14:34:21 <ThomasV> I guess they will use "mb" for "millibitcoin"
382 2011-01-04 14:34:38 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: don't be so sure
383 2011-01-04 14:34:50 <EvanR-work> are you trying to sabotage things?
384 2011-01-04 14:34:53 <EvanR-work> or what
385 2011-01-04 14:35:00 <luke-jr> despite dollar being a decimal currency, people /still/ find ways to use divisions of 2
386 2011-01-04 14:35:33 <EvanR-work> base2 for money is inappropriate
387 2011-01-04 14:35:43 <luke-jr> base16 is perfect
388 2011-01-04 14:35:48 <edcba> ?
389 2011-01-04 14:36:05 <EvanR-work> base3 has high information density
390 2011-01-04 14:36:08 <EvanR-work> higher
391 2011-01-04 14:36:49 <luke-jr> despite it technically representing 0.125 cents in a currency that can't meet that resolution, people still work with units of 'bit'
392 2011-01-04 14:36:58 <EvanR-work> we use base ten for money, scientific measurement, writing most numbers (even in non base ten systems like time of day), fingers etc
393 2011-01-04 14:37:00 <luke-jr> because powers/divisions of 2 are EASIER
394 2011-01-04 14:37:12 <EvanR-work> engineering
395 2011-01-04 14:37:16 <EvanR-work> architecture
396 2011-01-04 14:37:16 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: only because people were forced to
397 2011-01-04 14:37:19 <luke-jr> by law
398 2011-01-04 14:37:23 <EvanR-work> youre forcing bas16
399 2011-01-04 14:37:33 <luke-jr> base16 is natural to adopt
400 2011-01-04 14:37:36 <luke-jr> unlike base10
401 2011-01-04 14:37:54 <luke-jr> it won't require force, just needs to gain motion
402 2011-01-04 14:38:34 <ThomasV> luke-jr: just write a client that uses base 2 and see how it gains adoption
403 2011-01-04 14:38:41 <luke-jr> ThomasV: tonal
404 2011-01-04 14:38:44 <ThomasV> I predict utter failure, though
405 2011-01-04 14:38:51 <ThomasV> whatever
406 2011-01-04 14:39:10 <sipa> i agree that base 2 might be more natural than base 10
407 2011-01-04 14:39:16 <luke-jr> and I can't really do that so long as building bitcoin clients is practically impossible
408 2011-01-04 14:39:17 <fabianhjr> Anyone called Doctordns in this channel at the site OpenStudy?
409 2011-01-04 14:39:42 <sipa> but people are trained to use base 10 from very young age on
410 2011-01-04 14:39:51 <sipa> i don't think anyone it going to want to switch
411 2011-01-04 14:40:03 <luke-jr> sipa: yep, but even despite that brainwashing, people STILL try to use base2 when they cna
412 2011-01-04 14:40:16 <sipa> it's not brainwashing
413 2011-01-04 14:40:25 <luke-jr> sure it is
414 2011-01-04 14:40:33 <EvanR-work> let the kid live with wolves, lets see how well they can count in *any* base system after that
415 2011-01-04 14:40:37 <sipa> there are studies that show that people can do very fast math up to some 15 numbers
416 2011-01-04 14:40:57 <sipa> so i think that base 8 or 16 would be faster than base 2
417 2011-01-04 14:41:05 <sipa> and possibly *slightly* better than base 10
418 2011-01-04 14:41:38 <luke-jr> significantly*
419 2011-01-04 14:41:43 <sipa> that is, if one were to learn only these in there lives
420 2011-01-04 14:41:45 <EvanR-work> ripple adder mentally is slower in base 2
421 2011-01-04 14:41:45 <sipa> their
422 2011-01-04 14:42:12 <EvanR-work> but you dont always need an exact result
423 2011-01-04 14:43:26 <EvanR-work> base sixty ftw
424 2011-01-04 14:44:08 <mizerydearia> Yay http://democracynow.org/
425 2011-01-04 14:45:43 <pankkake> after months of running bitcoin on my machines, I still have 0 bitcoin
426 2011-01-04 14:45:50 <pankkake> :(
427 2011-01-04 14:45:53 <sipa> pankkake: join a pool
428 2011-01-04 14:46:04 <pankkake> a pool?
429 2011-01-04 14:46:17 <sipa> http://mining.bitcoin.cz
430 2011-01-04 14:46:38 <pankkake> thanks, that looks interesting
431 2011-01-04 14:48:36 <genjix> ssssup
432 2011-01-04 14:52:29 <fabianhjr> Are there any forks of the main client apart of the github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/ one?
433 2011-01-04 14:55:27 <genjix> i believe jgar has one
434 2011-01-04 14:56:49 <devon_hillard> Patent-pending file compression scheme: take a file, which is just a string of bits, which is a number N. Add "0." in front of it so it looks like "0.N". Now you have a number between 0 and 1, or a ratio. Take a stick of defined length and make a mark on it at the precise ratio.
435 2011-01-04 14:57:45 <bonsaikitten> devon_hillard: that's arithmetic coding
436 2011-01-04 14:58:03 <EvanR-work> having reliable hardware real numbers is nice isnt it
437 2011-01-04 14:58:07 <bonsaikitten> with the twist that you try to use a real-world item as representation instead of a bitstring
438 2011-01-04 14:58:27 <devon_hillard> the idea is, you can have any file length :) infinite storage
439 2011-01-04 14:58:47 <EvanR-work> as long as you can read it back to arbitrary precision, correctly
440 2011-01-04 14:59:51 <devon_hillard> As an exercise, try to determine the maximum practical storage space of a 1m stick.
441 2011-01-04 15:00:01 <devon_hillard> using this scheme
442 2011-01-04 15:00:19 <EvanR-work> he said practical ;)
443 2011-01-04 15:00:38 <devon_hillard> practical, but limited by hard physical constants
444 2011-01-04 15:01:08 <sipa> so, you can store some 115 bits in a 1-meter stick
445 2011-01-04 15:01:31 <devon_hillard> amazing, isn't it :)
446 2011-01-04 15:01:35 <EvanR-work> plank length hasnt been established as hard anything, thats stuff is in the realm of pop science
447 2011-01-04 15:04:18 <EvanR-work> machines on the scale of transistors could be made to mechanically report a number besides 0 or 1
448 2011-01-04 15:04:30 <EvanR-work> altering it after the fact seems hard though
449 2011-01-04 15:07:37 <genjix> devon_hillard: -_- you assume also that matter is infinitely devisible
450 2011-01-04 15:07:51 <genjix> as sipa says
451 2011-01-04 15:07:55 <devon_hillard> patent-pending assumption :p
452 2011-01-04 15:08:23 <genjix> it's wrong though :p the planck length is the smallest distance in physics possible
453 2011-01-04 15:09:21 <sipa> not really
454 2011-01-04 15:09:33 <genjix> beyond that physics breaks down and we start using strings and membranes XD
455 2011-01-04 15:09:40 <sipa> it's the length at which quantum-mechanical probabilities become relevant
456 2011-01-04 15:10:19 <sipa> if you want some reasonable certainty, you'd need to stay some orders of magnitude larger, i think
457 2011-01-04 15:19:14 <bonsaikitten> hmm, I thought the planck length was the voxel resolution used in this simulation of a universe
458 2011-01-04 15:25:59 <lucky> heh, reminds me of Zeno's paradox of motion.
459 2011-01-04 15:38:07 <nefario> grondilu hello
460 2011-01-04 15:38:14 <grondilu> hi
461 2011-01-04 15:38:46 <luke-jr> http://lightfoot.dashjr.org/?page=vps&currency=TBC
462 2011-01-04 15:38:49 <nefario> sorry I havn't used the bitcoin irc before
463 2011-01-04 15:39:07 <nefario> ok so I assume you got my pm?
464 2011-01-04 15:39:16 <grondilu> yes
465 2011-01-04 15:39:35 <nefario> would those machines be ok for you?
466 2011-01-04 15:39:46 <nefario> one is already set up
467 2011-01-04 15:39:57 <grondilu> no I prefer use my own.
468 2011-01-04 15:39:57 <nefario> the onther has yet  to be done
469 2011-01-04 15:40:27 <nefario> what did you have in mind?
470 2011-01-04 15:40:42 <nefario> (I assume you are based in france?)
471 2011-01-04 15:41:12 <grondilu> what do you mean ?
472 2011-01-04 15:41:44 <grondilu> I just want to avoid taxes :)
473 2011-01-04 15:41:57 <nefario> I'm thinking that you are in France, that is where you are located, and compared to China France has quite good internet connections
474 2011-01-04 15:42:36 <nefario> hate tax |:<
475 2011-01-04 15:42:44 <grondilu> I'm just about installing OpenSSL now
476 2011-01-04 15:42:51 <luke-jr> grondilu: BTC won't avoid taxes
477 2011-01-04 15:43:12 <nefario> ok, you don't need to uninstall the apt openssl packages
478 2011-01-04 15:43:33 <nefario> openssl from openssl.org should install to /usr/local/ssl
479 2011-01-04 15:44:02 <grondilu> I've added the experimental repo, and now I'm looking for the correct option to apt-get to install using it
480 2011-01-04 15:44:39 <grondilu> hum...  I think it's '-t' :  apt-get install -t experimental openssl
481 2011-01-04 15:44:42 <nefario> just add this directory to your path (before everythin else) and Open-Transactions will find the correct version of openssl for building
482 2011-01-04 15:45:05 <grondilu> I'll go with the 'simulate' option first
483 2011-01-04 15:45:21 <nefario> I just did a source install from openssl.org
484 2011-01-04 15:45:43 <nefario> it must be version 1.0.0b or higher
485 2011-01-04 15:47:22 <grondilu> ok I'll go for it
486 2011-01-04 15:48:01 <nefario> the build doesn't take long
487 2011-01-04 15:48:38 <nefario> for openssl or OT
488 2011-01-04 15:53:12 <grondilu> ok I'm trying to compile OT now
489 2011-01-04 15:54:05 <grondilu> damn it I still have the whrlpool.h error.
490 2011-01-04 15:54:19 <nefario> go openssl verion
491 2011-01-04 15:54:25 <nefario> see what does it say?
492 2011-01-04 15:55:47 <grondilu> oh, my mistake
493 2011-01-04 15:55:55 <nefario> if it is older version that means you have not added /usr/local/ssl/bin on to the front of your path
494 2011-01-04 15:56:36 <grondilu> I just downloaded '-d' option in apt-get
495 2011-01-04 15:56:46 <grondilu> I'm making the real install now
496 2011-01-04 15:57:07 <grondilu> ok now I have openssl 1.0.0c
497 2011-01-04 15:57:29 <grondilu> recompiling OT
498 2011-01-04 15:57:36 <nefario> great
499 2011-01-04 15:57:52 <nefario> what languages do you like?
500 2011-01-04 15:58:48 <grondilu> C, and C++ (until I read Satoshi's code ;) )
501 2011-01-04 15:59:02 <grondilu> but I'm a poor C programmer :(
502 2011-01-04 15:59:23 <grondilu> shit I still have the whirlpool error :(
503 2011-01-04 15:59:54 <nefario> $openssl version
504 2011-01-04 16:00:07 <nefario> what is the result?
505 2011-01-04 16:00:30 <nefario> also did you do a make clean first before re-compiling?
506 2011-01-04 16:00:39 <grondilu> OpenSSL 1.0.0c 2 Dec 2010
507 2011-01-04 16:00:53 <grondilu> yeas I had made "make clean"
508 2011-01-04 16:01:01 <grondilu> I think I need the openssl-dev
509 2011-01-04 16:01:10 <nefario> sure
510 2011-01-04 16:01:32 <nefario> I've just told you what worked for me
511 2011-01-04 16:01:53 <grondilu> ah apt-get doesn't find any openssl-dev
512 2011-01-04 16:02:43 <grondilu> but there is a "libglobus-openssl-dev".   ?
513 2011-01-04 16:03:20 <nefario> You have a spare machine to use for this?
514 2011-01-04 16:04:41 <nanotube> grondilu: libssl-dev
515 2011-01-04 16:04:50 <grondilu> oh, thkns nanotube
516 2011-01-04 16:04:54 <nanotube> np :)
517 2011-01-04 16:07:20 <grondilu> ok.  A few warnings, but it went through
518 2011-01-04 16:07:35 <nefario> sweet
519 2011-01-04 16:07:59 <nefario> did you do make or make rpc?
520 2011-01-04 16:08:22 <grondilu> ah indeed I should have made rpc
521 2011-01-04 16:08:31 <grondilu> I restart
522 2011-01-04 16:08:32 <nefario> no difference
523 2011-01-04 16:08:37 <nefario> dont worry
524 2011-01-04 16:08:43 <nefario> if one works so does the other
525 2011-01-04 16:09:01 <grondilu> Well the "getting start' file says it's better to make rpc
526 2011-01-04 16:09:13 <nefario> the only difference in use is the client must issue a connect command before speaking to the server
527 2011-01-04 16:09:47 <nefario> what we would actually be using would be the rpc version, that would sure make things easier.
528 2011-01-04 16:09:53 <nanotube> grondilu: what are you making? :)
529 2011-01-04 16:10:16 <grondilu> "make rpc" instead of just "make"
530 2011-01-04 16:10:52 <grondilu> ok now I read the "GETTING-STARTED.txt"  (I should have done that first :)  )
531 2011-01-04 16:11:13 <nefario> yep
532 2011-01-04 16:11:37 <nefario> first with the transaction/transaction.exe
533 2011-01-04 16:11:57 <nefario> then try the client in testwallet/testwallet.exe
534 2011-01-04 16:12:28 <grondilu> a ".exe" file, ain't that weird ?
535 2011-01-04 16:12:48 <nefario> it's just the name
536 2011-01-04 16:13:01 <nefario> makes it easier to find I suppose
537 2011-01-04 16:13:19 <nefario> I guess the devs are planning to have it working on windows
538 2011-01-04 16:14:01 <nefario> oh a quick, only slightly related question, is there a url shortening service for .onion url?
539 2011-01-04 16:14:34 <nefario> so users don't have to type asfefasdfassade.onion
540 2011-01-04 16:15:58 <grondilu> hum I don't get it.  Should I put the password on command line or something ?  I get a USAGE line if I just run ./transaction.exe
541 2011-01-04 16:16:09 <nefario> yes you do
542 2011-01-04 16:16:27 <nefario> wait a sec
543 2011-01-04 16:18:13 <grondilu> ok I have my test server running
544 2011-01-04 16:18:33 <nefario> ok sorry
545 2011-01-04 16:18:50 <grondilu> Well, I have to take some time to understand all this.
546 2011-01-04 16:18:55 <grondilu> Give me a few days
547 2011-01-04 16:19:06 <nefario> you need ./transaction /full/path/to/keys
548 2011-01-04 16:19:14 <grondilu> yes I did that
549 2011-01-04 16:19:34 <nefario> me too but read the wiki's and the basic theory
550 2011-01-04 16:19:49 <grondilu> ok now I'm gonna leave IRC and focus on this stuff.
551 2011-01-04 16:19:52 <nefario> I need to play around with it more, especially the market
552 2011-01-04 16:20:06 <grondilu> ok
553 2011-01-04 16:20:15 <nefario> sure im going to be
554 2011-01-04 16:35:41 <samfisher> hi, do you know how I could see statistics of my website (no of visitors, ips etc)
555 2011-01-04 16:35:49 <samfisher> free hosted website
556 2011-01-04 16:37:07 <fabianhjr> SamGoogle analytics.
557 2011-01-04 16:37:21 <fabianhjr> samfisher: Google Analytics
558 2011-01-04 16:43:43 <nanotube> heh, /me has google-analytics blocked via noscript. :P
559 2011-01-04 16:44:13 <luke-jr> someone needs to make BitCoin a library or something -.-
560 2011-01-04 16:44:32 <luke-jr> does the 'bitcoin' GUI use the daemon?
561 2011-01-04 16:44:48 <nanotube> no, it's standalone
562 2011-01-04 16:46:28 <luke-jr> is there a branch of bitcoin with sane build process?
563 2011-01-04 16:57:16 <UukGoblin> has anyone started discussing increasing divisibility on the forum?
564 2011-01-04 16:57:56 <UukGoblin> bitcoin went up in value a lot and 0.01 is actually worth more than some real-world currencies' minimal denomination
565 2011-01-04 16:58:48 <UukGoblin> and since some people want to use it for micropayments... might be worth giving it another decimal point...
566 2011-01-04 17:09:52 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: afaik it works fine
567 2011-01-04 17:09:55 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: what would be a sane build process?  What platform you on?
568 2011-01-04 17:10:03 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: I'm creating a new serialization of BTC :p
569 2011-01-04 17:10:10 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ./configure && make && make install
570 2011-01-04 17:10:12 <luke-jr> Gentoo
571 2011-01-04 17:10:47 <ThomasV> luke-jr: that would be great
572 2011-01-04 17:10:48 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  you know anything about configure scripts?  I know folks are working on cmake...  I'd like somebody to make the build better.
573 2011-01-04 17:11:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm working on porting it to Qt :P
574 2011-01-04 17:11:19 <luke-jr> including QCA for SHA256 and QJson
575 2011-01-04 17:11:20 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  awesome.
576 2011-01-04 17:11:33 <luke-jr> would be nice if I could build it in the first place tho ;)
577 2011-01-04 17:12:28 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  well, there is no "somebody needs to" -- this is open source, either do it yourself or get together with somebody to get it done.
578 2011-01-04 17:13:02 <gavinandresen> Then be prepared for all the crap people will fling at you because you didn't do it exactly the way they wanted youto.....
579 2011-01-04 17:14:32 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the thing is, I don't care about wx, and will readily trash it
580 2011-01-04 17:14:56 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  awesome.  I think NOBODY is happy with wx (including Satoshi)
581 2011-01-04 17:14:57 <genjix> please do
582 2011-01-04 17:15:21 <genjix> why does bitcoin even have a gui?
583 2011-01-04 17:15:23 <luke-jr> lol XD
584 2011-01-04 17:15:30 <luke-jr> genjix: for Windows users i presume
585 2011-01-04 17:15:54 <genjix> it could be a simple core, and let people write guis for it :)
586 2011-01-04 17:16:10 <luke-jr> my idea is to have a prompt at first run
587 2011-01-04 17:16:16 <genjix> like how git works
588 2011-01-04 17:16:19 <luke-jr> to connect to a remote bitcoind, or spawn a local one
589 2011-01-04 17:16:20 <genjix> bitcoin blaa
590 2011-01-04 17:16:25 <gavinandresen> I bet satoshi would agree; bitcoin didn't take off until he did the first version of the RPC and web apps could start using it.
591 2011-01-04 17:17:01 <gavinandresen> (it is easy to forget that it was chugging along for over a year before anybody really started paying attention)
592 2011-01-04 17:17:25 <genjix> yes, definitely was value then for an integrated gui.
593 2011-01-04 17:18:06 <genjix> but maybe it will hurt development now having that extra code in there.
594 2011-01-04 17:18:26 <genjix> (just my opinionated speculation)
595 2011-01-04 17:22:56 <luke-jr> yay I got bitcoin CLI to build with qmake
596 2011-01-04 17:32:30 <ThomasV> bitcoin CLI == the daemon ?
597 2011-01-04 17:33:27 <genjix> yep
598 2011-01-04 17:33:34 <luke-jr> right
599 2011-01-04 17:35:21 <ThomasV> ah ok, I thought that perhapd you had already removed wx :-D
600 2011-01-04 17:35:54 <luke-jr> ThomasV: remove wx = daemon/CLI
601 2011-01-04 17:55:55 <jgarzik> does this mean people are working on separating the GUI from "the engine"?  That would be nice to have the UI using RPC for everything.
602 2011-01-04 18:01:19 <luke-jr> jgarzik: more like destroying the GUI, and rewriting a new one from scratch using RPC
603 2011-01-04 18:04:52 <genjix> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:QBitcoin
604 2011-01-04 18:05:03 <genjix> suggestions for improving the gui
605 2011-01-04 18:05:22 <genjix> any comments would be appreciated
606 2011-01-04 18:05:56 <genjix> if bitcoin had a better rpc interface/seperated gui/library then i could make these changes
607 2011-01-04 18:06:11 <genjix> because writing qt guis is easy :p
608 2011-01-04 18:06:52 <lolcat> Does this mean I can port rutorrent to play with bitcoin?
609 2011-01-04 18:07:35 <lolcat> Rutorrent also uses rpc
610 2011-01-04 18:10:27 <gavinandresen> genjix: what do you need in the rpc?
611 2011-01-04 18:11:05 <genjix> i think it was listtransactions before, but that exists now.
612 2011-01-04 18:12:17 <genjix> well then.
613 2011-01-04 18:13:25 <kiba> it is amusing to me that the largest thread on the forum concerns mining
614 2011-01-04 18:14:29 <lolcat> I upgraded my ubuntu, now I can't start bitcoin :(
615 2011-01-04 18:14:58 <luke-jr> genjix: I'm first porting the core to Qt, then writign a GUI in Qt
616 2011-01-04 18:15:01 <gavinandresen> genjix, jgarzik:  I'm reworking my monitorreceived patch, to bring it up-to-date and make it compatible with latest listtransactions.  But  one part of it still bugs me.
617 2011-01-04 18:15:01 <luke-jr> genjix: want to help?
618 2011-01-04 18:15:17 <kiba> lolcat: don't you know? upgrading ubuntu tend to break your system
619 2011-01-04 18:15:25 <genjix> luke-jr: ill write a gui
620 2011-01-04 18:15:35 <luke-jr> genjix: I hate SI.
621 2011-01-04 18:15:39 <genjix> luke-jr: but MagicalTux is also making his own Qt core too
622 2011-01-04 18:16:18 <lolcat> kiba: I know, this alpha release isnt haf as stable as I hoped too
623 2011-01-04 18:16:28 <kiba> well
624 2011-01-04 18:16:35 <kiba> I am on a rolling release distro
625 2011-01-04 18:16:40 <genjix> gavinandresen: well it's not hard to change if the api changes (i hope :p)
626 2011-01-04 18:16:44 <kiba> they are suprisingly stable even if they break sometime
627 2011-01-04 18:17:10 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: cool :)
628 2011-01-04 18:17:18 <gavinandresen> genjix:  what bugs me is how it re-reports blocks/transactions arbitrarily at 1, 6, and 120 confirmations....
629 2011-01-04 18:18:14 <genjix> you mean it repeats transactions?
630 2011-01-04 18:18:40 <gavinandresen> Ok, the problem:  you want to get told about transactions/blocks.  "when they happen"
631 2011-01-04 18:18:57 <gavinandresen> But "when they happen" is ill-defined, because block chain reorgs can (and do) happen.
632 2011-01-04 18:19:05 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: it's only a problem for the case where TX's change TX ids, right?
633 2011-01-04 18:19:21 <gavinandresen> Hang on one sec, phone call....
634 2011-01-04 18:20:32 <luke-jr> why the heck is there a bytecode interpreter in bitcoin? -.-
635 2011-01-04 18:21:27 <gavinandresen> ok, back.
636 2011-01-04 18:22:10 <nathan7> luke-jr: sssh, that's for the backdoor
637 2011-01-04 18:22:19 <luke-jr> hmm
638 2011-01-04 18:22:38 <luke-jr> the client has a miner builtin, doesn't it? -.-
639 2011-01-04 18:22:48 <genjix> and a frige.
640 2011-01-04 18:22:59 <lolcat> 3.17 is my version, do I have to compile?
641 2011-01-04 18:23:03 <gavinandresen> jgarzik:  I just don't like the arbitrariness of 1/6/120....
642 2011-01-04 18:23:30 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: so...  let the user site their desired point(s) ?
643 2011-01-04 18:23:34 <jgarzik> s/site/set/
644 2011-01-04 18:23:51 <gavinandresen> Yeah, but how?  THe API gets ugly.
645 2011-01-04 18:24:32 <gavinandresen> (and the implementation gets even uglier if I let the user say "tell me about transactions after they've got 30,000 confirmations, please...")
646 2011-01-04 18:26:01 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: a 'monitorconfig' RPC to set / reset settings?  That's how my intended usage would look.  'monitorconfig' to have it store POST URL and number-of-confirmations data in the database.  the background monitor loads those settings at startup, and begins monitoring as new blocks come in.
647 2011-01-04 18:26:22 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: of course, not everybody likes 'monitorall' the way I do
648 2011-01-04 18:27:14 <gavinandresen> Maybe just doing monitorblocks makes the most sense.  All the transactions are in the block, you can call gettransaction when you like...
649 2011-01-04 18:27:33 <gavinandresen> ... and you can detect block chain reorgs because blocks point to previous blocks...
650 2011-01-04 18:28:02 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: yeah I would send just enough info to know to clal gettranaction
651 2011-01-04 18:28:03 <gavinandresen> ... and a GUI will probably just call listtransactions '*' to update #confirmations when a new block is accepted....
652 2011-01-04 18:28:17 <jgarzik> agree
653 2011-01-04 18:28:57 <gavinandresen> Ok, I think I like that.
654 2011-01-04 18:29:28 <gavinandresen> Lots easier to code, too.
655 2011-01-04 18:30:50 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: no way to parse a block without 'getblockbycount' patch though, right?
656 2011-01-04 18:31:03 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: "I have a new block!" + "listtransactions '*'" seems coarse
657 2011-01-04 18:31:30 <gavinandresen> monitorblock will give you block details.  Doing getblock at the same time makes sense.
658 2011-01-04 18:32:15 <genjix> why not timestamp/store each transaction? is that possible?
659 2011-01-04 18:32:23 <gavinandresen> So the new api would be:  monitorblocks <url> true/false      to send info about new accepted blocks (txids, etc....)
660 2011-01-04 18:32:29 <genjix> (assuming i understand the problem here right)
661 2011-01-04 18:32:38 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: at a minimum you'd need a list of transactions in the block (for later gettransaction)
662 2011-01-04 18:32:43 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that API seems easy enough
663 2011-01-04 18:32:46 <jackmcbarn> what nice level exactly does generation run at?
664 2011-01-04 18:32:51 <gavinandresen> and   getblock <hash|depth>   to ask for same information you'll get from monitorblocks
665 2011-01-04 18:33:05 <gavinandresen> jackmcbarn: 16 (nicest)
666 2011-01-04 18:33:10 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that works
667 2011-01-04 18:33:40 <gavinandresen> genjix:  hmm?  wallet transactions are timestamped/stored.
668 2011-01-04 18:33:56 <gavinandresen> genjix: and there's already gettransaction <hash> API call
669 2011-01-04 18:34:01 <jgarzik> the RPC API typing in CommandLineRPC() makes "multi-parameters" like that a bit complicated
670 2011-01-04 18:34:40 <jgarzik> ie. where param[1] can be number or string.  sure, it's easy enough to parse in the RPC implementation itself....  but I dunno if that would give satoshi the grumps.
671 2011-01-04 18:34:47 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: oh, yeah, forgot about that... I'd hacked it so <hash|depth> was always a JSON string.
672 2011-01-04 18:37:36 <gavinandresen> jgarzik:  thinking about it.... getblock <depth> is probably always what you want.  getinfo returns depth, and getting a random block hash from the internet and asking for THAT block might now work (if it was an orphan that your client didn't happen to see)
673 2011-01-04 18:37:45 <gavinandresen> ^now^not
674 2011-01-04 18:38:01 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that's what getblockbycount currently does (depth)
675 2011-01-04 18:47:27 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, well, not in the mainstream client at least...
676 2011-01-04 18:47:47 <UukGoblin> also, I wonder if the json-rpc interface's float is prone to rounding errors
677 2011-01-04 19:02:03 <brocktice> So this is kind of OT... but it's nice living in the future. Need to upgrade to 16GB of RAM. Only $200. Amazing.
678 2011-01-04 19:02:18 <luke-jr> "only"
679 2011-01-04 19:02:50 <brocktice> luke-jr: Considering how much RAM I got for $200 in 1999 it's pretty damned good.
680 2011-01-04 19:12:50 <UukGoblin> brocktice, worry not, it's often hard to find a non-OT discussion here
681 2011-01-04 19:13:04 <brocktice> UukGoblin: Well, the topic is pretty broad
682 2011-01-04 19:13:14 <brocktice> and computers are nominally related to bitcoins :)
683 2011-01-04 19:14:03 <UukGoblin> indeed :-]
684 2011-01-04 19:43:59 <DjeZAeL> seems there is a pb with the worker on my server :(
685 2011-01-04 19:44:28 <DjeZAeL> on my account page, never seen "current shares" with another thing than "0"
686 2011-01-04 19:44:43 <marioxcc> what is it?
687 2011-01-04 19:45:19 <DjeZAeL> the cpuminer
688 2011-01-04 19:45:50 <DjeZAeL> the one on my laptop works correctly, i see current shares on my profile, but nor for the cpuminer on my server
689 2011-01-04 19:46:34 <marioxcc> but what's the problem?
690 2011-01-04 19:46:39 <marioxcc> what do you see if not the shares
691 2011-01-04 19:47:14 <DjeZAeL> i never had womething else than null in the "current shares" area on my profile page
692 2011-01-04 19:47:32 <DjeZAeL> and no mhashes/s
693 2011-01-04 19:48:43 <DjeZAeL> whereas my laptop is slower than my server and has "current shares" (2) and Mhashes/s
694 2011-01-04 20:02:03 <EvanR-work> whoa nice graphics on mining.bitcoin.cz
695 2011-01-04 20:02:26 <EvanR-work> amounting to 3 lines of CSS ;)
696 2011-01-04 20:18:55 <brocktice> BAH
697 2011-01-04 20:19:04 <brocktice> there is no 'race' to get the next block
698 2011-01-04 20:19:15 <brocktice> I mean, yes, there is a race to be THE next block
699 2011-01-04 20:19:28 <brocktice> but someone else getting the next block doesn't normally affect your own chances.
700 2011-01-04 20:20:38 <sipa> indeed
701 2011-01-04 20:31:06 <EvanR-work> roll the dice
702 2011-01-04 21:24:34 <gribble> m0mchil was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 6 days, 2 hours, 38 minutes, and 7 seconds ago: <m0mchil> hi sneak, is your presentation available online?
703 2011-01-04 21:24:34 <slush> ;;seen m0mchil
704 2011-01-04 21:24:44 <sneak> hi
705 2011-01-04 21:24:57 <sneak> derp
706 2011-01-04 21:25:01 <slush> :)
707 2011-01-04 21:38:57 <brocktice> sneak: how'd that go?
708 2011-01-04 21:40:02 <sneak> it went really really well
709 2011-01-04 21:40:11 <sneak> i had to rush the last 3-4 minutes because i ran out of time
710 2011-01-04 21:42:03 <nanotube> hey sneak so any exciting stories? :)
711 2011-01-04 21:43:01 <gribble> m0mchil was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 hours, 36 minutes, and 20 seconds ago: *** m0mchil <m0mchil!~m0mchil@unaffiliated/m0mchil> has parted #bitcoin-dev
712 2011-01-04 21:43:01 <slush> ;;any m0mchil
713 2011-01-04 21:52:25 <sneak> nanotube: about what?
714 2011-01-04 21:58:01 <nanotube> weren't you giving a presentation on bitcoin?
715 2011-01-04 22:00:04 <sneak> yeah
716 2011-01-04 22:00:16 <sneak> bitcoin and other stuff
717 2011-01-04 22:00:21 <sneak> basically, applications of digital cash
718 2011-01-04 22:00:27 <sneak> with bitcoin and a tor hidden service
719 2011-01-04 22:00:31 <sneak> and rubber gloves and stamps
720 2011-01-04 22:00:34 <sneak> you can be an anonymous retailer now
721 2011-01-04 22:00:55 <sneak> no 'exciting stories' though
722 2011-01-04 22:01:07 <sneak> just talked about bitcoin, pecunix, lr, pktp
723 2011-01-04 22:01:14 <sneak> exchangezone, mtgox, tor
724 2011-01-04 22:01:32 <sneak> also why it's important, using wikileaks and steve bierfeldt as examples
725 2011-01-04 22:04:18 <nanotube> cool.is there a webcast somewhere?
726 2011-01-04 22:35:29 <slush> wow, now I found that jgarzik's miner is _not_ asking for work until he does not crunch whole nonce space
727 2011-01-04 22:36:00 <slush> I didn't spot it before...
728 2011-01-04 22:36:35 <marioxcc> slush: what's the difference to other miners in this regard?
729 2011-01-04 22:37:24 <slush> marioxcc: when slow miner finally crunch valid block (after one year or more), there is high probability that bitcoin block has changed during last work...
730 2011-01-04 22:37:39 <slush> ..and block will be rejected by network
731 2011-01-04 22:38:01 <marioxcc> mine finishes threads in some seconds
732 2011-01-04 22:38:08 <slush> the best idea is to throw away work every 5 seconds or so
733 2011-01-04 22:38:14 <marioxcc> ok
734 2011-01-04 22:38:21 <slush> marioxcc: depends on cpu power, of course
735 2011-01-04 22:38:31 <marioxcc> well, thats approximately the time it takes on mine
736 2011-01-04 22:38:34 <slush> My intel atom crunching full nonce exactly one minute :)
737 2011-01-04 22:38:39 <marioxcc> hehe
738 2011-01-04 22:38:57 <marioxcc> but is really worth the electricy consuption and wear and tear?
739 2011-01-04 22:38:58 <slush> so 10% probability that block will be invalid
740 2011-01-04 22:39:04 <marioxcc> maybe
741 2011-01-04 22:39:48 <marioxcc> i just stopped to mine, decided it is not worth to have the CPU at 70+ ???C just for less than a bitcoin a day
742 2011-01-04 22:40:21 <slush> I'm not using Atom for mining, it's just for compatibility tests
743 2011-01-04 22:40:24 <slush> with pool
744 2011-01-04 22:40:26 <marioxcc> ok
745 2011-01-04 22:44:14 <nanotube> slush: when i was mining on my core, it was maybe 20sec per chunk... which is pretty reasonable
746 2011-01-04 22:44:22 <marioxcc> slush: what do you do if a client sends a block with a hash<target when it is no loger valid?
747 2011-01-04 22:44:25 <marioxcc> *longer
748 2011-01-04 22:57:12 <slush> marioxcc: currently I accept it as a share. Teoretically it should make only 1% difference in final share distribution. But in last update (yesterday) I also started to log which share is 'effective' and which is not (job is older than last network chain change). So I will see real difference in distribution. Then I'll decide if I should count those 'ineffective' submits as shares
749 2011-01-04 22:57:51 <marioxcc> slush: ok
750 2011-01-04 23:15:01 <TheRealPlato> Hi all, is there a more recent guide to setting up DiabloMiner than this thread: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1721.0
751 2011-01-04 23:15:04 <bitbot> Official DiabloMiner Thread
752 2011-01-04 23:16:11 <nanotube> well, it's "the official" thread :) i haven't seen anything besides that
753 2011-01-04 23:16:53 <TheRealPlato> nano, I saw your name at bitcoin-otc.com
754 2011-01-04 23:16:55 <TheRealPlato> nice wrok
755 2011-01-04 23:16:56 <TheRealPlato> *work
756 2011-01-04 23:22:12 <Guest36282> hey all, I knew about bitcoin for a while but finally might use it =)
757 2011-01-04 23:24:35 <EvanR> use it?
758 2011-01-04 23:24:41 <EvanR> like to pay your rent?
759 2011-01-04 23:24:44 <nanotube> TheRealPlato: :) tx
760 2011-01-04 23:25:11 <afed> yo slush
761 2011-01-04 23:25:35 <da2ce7> slush, 0.1% invalid or stale now. :)
762 2011-01-04 23:26:04 <afed> slush: confirmation backlog is now 9 blocks, is that expected?
763 2011-01-04 23:28:33 <slush> afed: what is confirmation backlog?
764 2011-01-04 23:29:40 <slush> da2ce7: yes, I found optimization on current server. And tomorrow we'll go to fresh clean server with pool, so it should be even better
765 2011-01-04 23:29:41 <afed> slush: the ones awaiting conformation before rewards
766 2011-01-04 23:30:00 <slush> afed: ok, what you mean 'is that expected'?
767 2011-01-04 23:30:22 <slush> we're waiting to 120 confirmations of bitcoin network
768 2011-01-04 23:32:45 <afed> slush: well there used to be four waiting usually
769 2011-01-04 23:32:50 <afed> now it's up to nine
770 2011-01-04 23:32:59 <slush> afed: see mhash/s
771 2011-01-04 23:33:04 <slush> it's little higher now :)
772 2011-01-04 23:33:22 <slush> it is simple - now we have 9 blocks in last 120 blocks
773 2011-01-04 23:33:35 <afed> ok just because we're making blocks faster :)
774 2011-01-04 23:33:40 <slush> exactly
775 2011-01-04 23:34:12 <slush> I have to go, bye!
776 2011-01-04 23:34:22 <afed> bye
777 2011-01-04 23:38:54 <jgarzik> slush: yes, it runs through nonce 0 - 0xffffff before checking for more work.  this increases the chance of finding zeroes in current work, and increases the chance of solving older work.  0xffffff nonce's take about 5 seconds on my machine, but this varies from machine to machine.
778 2011-01-04 23:40:18 <jgarzik> slush: I can add "max nonce" option for people to shorten.  Another possibility is creating a "max scan time" option, and calculate number of hashes required to reach max scan time -- 5 seconds or whatever
779 2011-01-04 23:56:01 <tcatm> Anyone on testnet?
780 2011-01-04 23:56:08 <xelister> how to list all transactions I done?
781 2011-01-04 23:56:12 <xelister> with cli bitcoind
782 2011-01-04 23:56:31 <xelister> tcatm: I could join I suppose. why?  for a moment I can put there hundrets of M ;)
783 2011-01-04 23:57:52 <tcatm> I need some transactions for testing my bitcoin UI. Send some coins to mqqCCLT8jJGW4PBSNWzonkqsfn8D14YcDH and tell me addreses where I can send some coins to.
784 2011-01-04 23:58:14 <xelister> test coins?
785 2011-01-04 23:58:18 <tcatm> yep
786 2011-01-04 23:59:20 <nanotube> tcatm: does your ui list all the transactions, like the bitcoin gui does?
787 2011-01-04 23:59:43 <tcatm> It uses listtransactions (RPC)