1 2011-01-06 00:11:41 <fabianhjr> I feel so bad. Stupid Telmex they cut my Internet access for 24+ hours D:
  2 2011-01-06 00:11:59 <fabianhjr> marioxcc: sorry buddy, was knocked offline. I need a new ISP.
  3 2011-01-06 00:12:20 <fabianhjr> Now I probably missed the great 5 BTC/month dedi box. >_<
  4 2011-01-06 00:12:29 <kartofeln> this is exactly why I have a phone ready to be tethered so I won't go into withdrawal.
  5 2011-01-06 00:12:51 <fabianhjr> kartofeln: I only have an old cellphone with no internet access.
  6 2011-01-06 00:12:54 <lfm> did you download too much?
  7 2011-01-06 00:13:03 <fabianhjr> It is a really nice Motorola though. :D
  8 2011-01-06 00:13:15 <fabianhjr> lfm: no, they had issues with the central.
  9 2011-01-06 00:13:32 <kartofeln> bummer. internet addicts really ought to have a plan B though.
 10 2011-01-06 00:13:43 <fabianhjr> I am regularly knocked offline because of the bad quality of service.
 11 2011-01-06 00:13:44 <kartofeln> even if that implies cracking your neighbor's WEP passwd. O_o
 12 2011-01-06 00:14:05 <fabianhjr> kartofeln: I AM downloading aircrack-ng NOW!
 13 2011-01-06 00:14:14 <kartofeln> that's the spirit! o/
 14 2011-01-06 00:14:43 <fabianhjr> Though, I feel bad because someone in the forums was selling this: https://www.ovh.co.uk/products/rps3.xml for 5 BTC month. >_<
 15 2011-01-06 00:15:02 <kartofeln> yeah I saw that.. that seems like an entirely unrealistic pricing though.
 16 2011-01-06 00:15:15 <fabianhjr> Now I probably missed it. It is worth actually ~80 BTC/month at current exchange.
 17 2011-01-06 00:16:24 <fabianhjr> kartofeln: yeah, just imaging reselling VPS of like 256 MB RAM and 5 GB each and 20 GB transfer. :P
 18 2011-01-06 00:16:53 <fabianhjr> Hell you could do 512 MB RAM at what it comes by default.
 19 2011-01-06 00:18:07 <fabianhjr> :/
 20 2011-01-06 00:18:44 <kartofeln> I'm just going to assume it's a silly offer. at best, it'd have to be a first-month pricing promotion.
 21 2011-01-06 00:19:35 <newsham> i mined a bitcoin
 22 2011-01-06 00:19:44 <sipa> newsham: congrats!
 23 2011-01-06 00:19:53 <newsham> anyone got a bubblegum machine for me to drop this coin into?
 24 2011-01-06 00:36:39 <fabianhjr> newsham: how much coins you have?
 25 2011-01-06 00:55:20 <afed> ys hello
 26 2011-01-06 00:56:10 <fabianhjr> afed are you a FED?
 27 2011-01-06 00:56:18 <afed> no
 28 2011-01-06 00:56:20 <afed> that's just my nick
 29 2011-01-06 00:56:47 <afed> having trouble with my dual 5870 setup
 30 2011-01-06 00:57:28 <afed> with crossfire enabled, poclbm finds both GPUS, good performance if i run one instance, bad performance if i run it on both GPUS (100 instead of 300 mhash)
 31 2011-01-06 00:57:30 <luke-jr> marioxcc: Debian is the OS
 32 2011-01-06 00:57:38 <afed> if i disable crossfire i only see one GPU
 33 2011-01-06 00:57:56 <marioxcc> luke-jr: ???
 34 2011-01-06 00:58:12 <fabianhjr> afed: disable crossfire and set up two scripts.
 35 2011-01-06 00:58:20 <afed> fabianhjr: i have two scripts
 36 2011-01-06 00:58:21 <fabianhjr> One with -d 1 and the other with -d 2
 37 2011-01-06 00:58:23 <luke-jr> marioxcc: Debian, not GNU, is the OS you were talking about
 38 2011-01-06 00:58:27 <afed> fabianhjr: there isn't a 2
 39 2011-01-06 00:58:40 <fabianhjr> xD
 40 2011-01-06 00:58:48 <fabianhjr> afed: did you disable crossfire?
 41 2011-01-06 00:58:54 <afed> yes
 42 2011-01-06 00:58:58 <afed> and removed the bridges
 43 2011-01-06 00:59:09 <marioxcc> luke-jr: no...
 44 2011-01-06 00:59:14 <luke-jr> yes
 45 2011-01-06 00:59:18 <marioxcc> I was talking about OSs
 46 2011-01-06 00:59:20 <marioxcc> i'm not longer
 47 2011-01-06 00:59:34 <marioxcc> and I wasn't talking about any specific distribution
 48 2011-01-06 00:59:36 <luke-jr> &
 49 2011-01-06 01:00:03 <luke-jr> [16:33:16] <marioxcc> i think there is a debian which uses GNU Hurd rather than linux
 50 2011-01-06 01:21:05 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
 51 2011-01-06 01:21:07 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101233 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1582 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 12 hours, 14 minutes, and 28 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17084.61657186
 52 2011-01-06 01:23:38 <tcatm> testnet seems to be split or badly connected
 53 2011-01-06 02:36:28 <marioxcc> hello
 54 2011-01-06 04:56:16 <lucky> http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/05/bc-casino-chips-gangsters.html
 55 2011-01-06 04:56:46 <lucky> "$8 million in unexplained transactions is [...] unacceptable [...]"
 56 2011-01-06 06:20:03 <chaord> hi guys...I'm not in the dev forum too often, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed
 57 2011-01-06 06:20:31 <chaord> is there an implementation of a javascript (browser based) miner yet that anyone knows of?
 58 2011-01-06 06:21:34 <chaord> so joining a cooperative mining pool would be as easy as pointing your browser to "http://myminingpool.com" and putting in a bitcoin address to send rewards to
 59 2011-01-06 06:22:43 <chaord> obviously a browser miner won't be able to compete with GPU and such, but spread over a ton of browsers it might (I'm really not sure)
 60 2011-01-06 06:24:54 <OneFixt> chaord: It's on my (long) to-do list.  Not sure how extensively it's been discussed, but it's definitely worth a try.
 61 2011-01-06 06:25:38 <chaord> OneFixt: yah..I mean I'm much more interested in building the bitcoin economy organically....but a web-based miner would be nice for the curb appeal to new users
 62 2011-01-06 06:26:13 <OneFixt> chaord: absolutely
 63 2011-01-06 06:26:23 <chaord> OneFixt: one thing I thought of as a potential downside...
 64 2011-01-06 06:26:58 <chaord> i know that when javascript on my browser seems to be hogging too many resources, the browser pops up a "warning" about the script or locks up the window
 65 2011-01-06 06:27:27 <OneFixt> yeah, a good web miner won't be trivial
 66 2011-01-06 06:27:47 <chaord> yah...it'd probably be super slow
 67 2011-01-06 06:27:53 <OneFixt> yep
 68 2011-01-06 06:27:54 <chaord> or only crunch for 10s at a time or something
 69 2011-01-06 06:28:56 <chaord> ok, well it was just a thought....I'll move that one way down on my todo list too ;)
 70 2011-01-06 06:30:01 <OneFixt> =)
 71 2011-01-06 06:30:54 <lucky> I'm entirely unsure how fast such a thing would be.
 72 2011-01-06 06:31:01 <lucky> And you'd have to run it long enough to find a block
 73 2011-01-06 06:31:12 <lucky> which even on my 6000 khash/s GPU miner is like every 10 minutes.
 74 2011-01-06 06:31:20 <chaord> yah...well it would be for cooperative mining
 75 2011-01-06 06:31:24 <lucky> That's my point
 76 2011-01-06 06:31:47 <lucky> my GPU would take *months* to find a non-pooled result
 77 2011-01-06 06:31:57 <chaord> right
 78 2011-01-06 06:31:59 <lucky> on average.
 79 2011-01-06 06:32:09 <theymos> Metahash pooled mining would work better.
 80 2011-01-06 06:32:16 <lfm> frankly i dont see how javascript would be any use for mining
 81 2011-01-06 06:32:30 <lucky> If Javascript does like 200 khash/s (optimistic imo) on average hardware with an average browser
 82 2011-01-06 06:32:38 <chaord> yah...me neither...unless you had many thousands of clients
 83 2011-01-06 06:32:39 <lucky> then you're looking at something like an average of 2 - 3 hours for each share
 84 2011-01-06 06:33:07 <lucky> (with pooled mining)
 85 2011-01-06 06:33:12 <chaord> but at many thousands of clients your server costs and such would probably start to counteract what you're doing
 86 2011-01-06 06:33:23 <lfm> you could browse all year and earn a penny or two
 87 2011-01-06 06:33:29 <lucky> You just want something to open in a tab at the library, don't you?
 88 2011-01-06 06:33:40 <chaord> haha...pretty much
 89 2011-01-06 06:33:43 <lucky> A Java applet might make more sense for that purpose.
 90 2011-01-06 06:33:47 <lucky> Java is far, far faster.
 91 2011-01-06 06:33:55 <chaord> yah...i was thinking applet might work
 92 2011-01-06 06:34:16 <chaord> it's not really for me....i was thinking more as a "intro to mining" for mainstreamers
 93 2011-01-06 06:34:16 <lucky> and natively multithreaded for modern hardware
 94 2011-01-06 06:34:41 <chaord> or some way to allow your "neighborhood geek" to set up a pooled mining site
 95 2011-01-06 06:34:54 <chaord> just to add strength to the network
 96 2011-01-06 06:34:56 <lucky> imo, i think everything that emphasizes "mining" is a terrible disservice to bitcoin.
 97 2011-01-06 06:35:05 <lfm> chaord the C cpuminer is prolly your best bet for a simple intro to m,ining
 98 2011-01-06 06:35:15 <lucky> Easily 50% of people entirely forget the point is not to "mine money" but to use it to actually carry out transactions.
 99 2011-01-06 06:35:37 <chaord> yah...I generally think that mining is completely overrated
100 2011-01-06 06:35:45 <chaord> necessary, but overrated
101 2011-01-06 06:35:59 <chaord> exactly...I couldn't agree more with you
102 2011-01-06 06:36:01 <lucky> It seems ecologically wasteful and almost silly to have people buying GPUs to burn electricity just to allow them to capture more of the mining marketshare, the network would adjust and be just as fine if we all ran hash generation on one core on average CPUs in the background.
103 2011-01-06 06:36:26 <chaord> yeah...which actually, as I have talked about bitcoin with other "alternative currency experts" they end up focusing on the mining aspect
104 2011-01-06 06:37:02 <chaord> and it's quite annoying....they can't seem to get past the "arbitrariness" that is bitcoin's mining/reward structure
105 2011-01-06 06:37:20 <lucky> and in almost all cases it's not profitable anyway
106 2011-01-06 06:37:25 <chaord> yep
107 2011-01-06 06:38:04 <lucky> *maybe* if you lived in Iceland with nearly free electricity and heat your home with electricity anyway and you found a dumpster full of discarded CUDA processors
108 2011-01-06 06:38:08 <chaord> if people weren't self interested, we could theoretically all be happy campers having each town run one node on an old x486 if we really wanted to, haha
109 2011-01-06 06:38:20 <lucky> yes, pretty much.
110 2011-01-06 06:38:35 <chaord> but we digress...since that is not reality ;)
111 2011-01-06 06:38:42 <lfm> lucky CUDA processors are wrong for bitcoin.
112 2011-01-06 06:38:54 <lucky> lfm, fine, wrong term :P
113 2011-01-06 06:39:04 <lucky> a bunch of *ATI* cards
114 2011-01-06 06:39:05 <chaord> yah...i'm not even familiar with CUDA
115 2011-01-06 06:39:06 <wumpus> then one person with a GPU could take over the network :)
116 2011-01-06 06:39:24 <lucky> wumpus, from what i've heard, half a dozen people already have.
117 2011-01-06 06:39:49 <wumpus> yeah but I mean in the case people would only use their old 486 for mining
118 2011-01-06 06:39:57 <lfm> theres hundreds of people mining in the pools
119 2011-01-06 06:40:09 <wumpus> the strength of the network depends on the amount of processing power
120 2011-01-06 06:40:30 <lucky> aye, the pools seem to be a nice offset, and a few of the "big shots" have recently connected to Slush's network
121 2011-01-06 06:40:34 <chaord> wumpus: yah...i was saying 486 would work if, and only if, people could set aside self-interest ;)
122 2011-01-06 06:40:36 <lucky> it's averaging 7000 mhash/s
123 2011-01-06 06:41:01 <lucky> it's not likely in their own self-interest anyway :p it's the delusion of "free money"
124 2011-01-06 06:41:11 <chaord> haha, correct
125 2011-01-06 06:41:29 <wumpus> yes a typical tragedy of the commons problem
126 2011-01-06 06:41:43 <lfm> chaord you really think people could set aside self interest when were talking about money?
127 2011-01-06 06:41:46 <theymos> Pools still put all of the pool's power into the hands of the pool maintainer. Not much different than a person with a bunch of GPUs.
128 2011-01-06 06:41:49 <chaord> well, yes and no...it does strengthen the network, regardless
129 2011-01-06 06:42:06 <lucky> theymos, only if said person were to commit fraud and it were to be undetected
130 2011-01-06 06:42:17 <chaord> but overall, i agree....mining is definitely not the way for most people to become bitzillionaires
131 2011-01-06 06:42:38 <lucky> meh, none of this really damages bitcoin tremendously, and as it grows i suspect cornering a significant share of generation will become increasingly difficult and generation will be come a true lottery
132 2011-01-06 06:42:49 <chaord> agreed
133 2011-01-06 06:42:51 <lucky> but the detraction from the core intention of actually using it as a currency miffs me.
134 2011-01-06 06:43:01 <wumpus> which will hopefully make people forget about generation completely
135 2011-01-06 06:43:06 <chaord> yes! it's really annoying
136 2011-01-06 06:43:08 <wumpus> it's only a few coins anyway
137 2011-01-06 06:43:27 <lucky> actually i wonder if the economy is perpetually deflationary
138 2011-01-06 06:43:46 <wumpus> probably not, it'll have bubbles and busts like anything
139 2011-01-06 06:43:56 <lucky> then... well, when 0.001 BTC is an average worker's yearly wage... "OMFG I GENERATED.... *heart attack and death*"
140 2011-01-06 06:44:04 <kiba> lucky: as long we don't reverse growth and continue growing, it's deflationary
141 2011-01-06 06:44:09 <chaord> yah...long term, hopefully it will be deflationary....but short-term I think it can go either way
142 2011-01-06 06:44:17 <kiba> lucky: you have to take into consideration when that will happen
143 2011-01-06 06:44:19 <lucky> kiba, aye I think so as well.
144 2011-01-06 06:45:32 <chaord> lucky: when 0.001 BTC is an average worker's yearly wage, we are all going to be visiting each other on our private islands and having a grand time
145 2011-01-06 06:45:38 <lucky> true
146 2011-01-06 06:45:51 <chaord> haha
147 2011-01-06 06:46:40 <lucky> I saw madhatter is actually buying Canadian tire money at 2% commission for 1 TCCAD = 3 BTC
148 2011-01-06 06:46:48 <lucky> i have a whole drawer socked away of that crap
149 2011-01-06 06:50:33 <lucky> i think that should be a good measure of success to aim at: as popular as canadian tire money :p
150 2011-01-06 06:53:19 <gribble> No fancy GPU farm, and don't want to wait for months for a block gen? Join the mining pool! http://mining.bitcoin.cz/
151 2011-01-06 06:53:19 <OneFixt> ;;pool
152 2011-01-06 06:54:51 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 160000
153 2011-01-06 06:54:52 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 160000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 5 days, 1 hour, 35 minutes, and 50 seconds
154 2011-01-06 07:14:29 <lfm> ;;bc,stats
155 2011-01-06 07:14:32 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101274 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1541 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 3 hours, 33 minutes, and 49 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17218.03770014
156 2011-01-06 07:20:23 <alowm> has anyone charted difficulty over time historically?
157 2011-01-06 07:21:47 <alowm> it'd be interesting to see how it spiked/lulled after the project received press attention
158 2011-01-06 07:22:50 <theymos> This is not exactly difficulty, but here's a chart of total network hash/s: http://bayimg.com/fAbMpaAdj
159 2011-01-06 07:23:21 <alowm> cool, thanks
160 2011-01-06 07:24:37 <Sami345> do you have problems with slush mining pool?
161 2011-01-06 07:25:18 <Sami345> it keeps saying block invalid
162 2011-01-06 07:25:21 <Sami345> I'll try reboot
163 2011-01-06 07:39:54 <kartofeln> Sami345, if you're using m0mchil's CPU miner, update it now.
164 2011-01-06 07:40:42 <Sami345> oh ok
165 2011-01-06 07:40:58 <Sami345> bug?
166 2011-01-06 07:41:01 <AAA_awright> Someone needs a paper currency redeemable in BTC
167 2011-01-06 07:41:20 <AAA_awright> >_>
168 2011-01-06 07:41:21 <AAA_awright> ^_^
169 2011-01-06 07:42:03 <AAA_awright> I can't imagine this holds up if there were some major catastrophe... It's so strange
170 2011-01-06 07:42:50 <Sami345> kartofeln, bug in mienr or something?
171 2011-01-06 07:42:54 <Sami345> *mner
172 2011-01-06 07:42:57 <Sami345> **miner
173 2011-01-06 07:43:21 <kartofeln> presumably. don't know the details, but the latest commit is doing some small modifications to a timestamp field.
174 2011-01-06 07:44:44 <Sami345> lol
175 2011-01-06 07:45:06 <Sami345> I added -v -w 128 -f 30
176 2011-01-06 07:45:11 <lucky> AAA_awright, that's venturing into bank territory.
177 2011-01-06 07:45:16 <lucky> It's possible but i can't see it as being secure
178 2011-01-06 07:45:19 <Sami345> from 140 Mhash/s -> 160 Mhash/s
179 2011-01-06 07:45:39 <AAA_awright> lucky: I can imagine the regulators getting anxious over that
180 2011-01-06 07:45:40 <kartofeln> hulu is killing my hashing rate :'(
181 2011-01-06 07:45:44 <AAA_awright> Fresh meat
182 2011-01-06 07:47:41 <Sami345> now my miner does better than wikipage says o/
183 2011-01-06 07:48:10 <lucky> Just deposit your bitcoins into my account, and I'll issue you bitcash, and then you can totally trust that they're redeemable at any time *nod*
184 2011-01-06 07:49:28 <kartofeln> Sami, what GPU are you on?
185 2011-01-06 07:50:21 <lucky> brilliant idea!
186 2011-01-06 07:50:32 <lucky> use qcodes + hashes to make currency verifiable
187 2011-01-06 07:50:51 <lucky> poof, solves counterfeiting for the mostpart.
188 2011-01-06 07:50:56 <kartofeln> verifiable how?
189 2011-01-06 07:51:16 <lucky> oh wait no that totally wouldn'twork
190 2011-01-06 07:52:52 <Sami345> My balance is 21.66 BTC :)
191 2011-01-06 07:53:10 <lucky> the problem with anyone issuing a paper bitcoin currency is that counterfeiting would be immediate, and utterly brutal.
192 2011-01-06 07:53:34 <Sami345> kartofeln, HD5770
193 2011-01-06 07:53:39 <devon_hillard> strictly speaking, bitcoins are not money, they are secure tokens
194 2011-01-06 07:53:51 <kartofeln> neat. exactly my card as well.. I'll try your settings.
195 2011-01-06 07:54:01 <devon_hillard> they don't need 'confidence' to back them, it's about maths
196 2011-01-06 07:54:26 <devon_hillard> secure algorithms and uninvertible functions
197 2011-01-06 07:54:36 <devon_hillard> or hard to invert, at least
198 2011-01-06 07:54:38 <lucky> devon_hillard, true, but if no one wants them, they're worthless ;p
199 2011-01-06 07:54:52 <lfm> the math is the basis of the trust
200 2011-01-06 07:54:55 <Sami345> the best way to make bitcoin currency would be barcode with account priv + pub key with the money in it
201 2011-01-06 07:54:56 <AAA_awright> devon_hillard: Strictly speaking, they are a money, because they are a medium of intermediate exchange
202 2011-01-06 07:54:58 <devon_hillard> lucky: they have value in being provable secure and anonymous
203 2011-01-06 07:55:04 <Sami345> I mean paper money
204 2011-01-06 07:55:16 <Sami345> that way you could even print bitcoin money yourself
205 2011-01-06 07:55:29 <lucky> the math is the basis that you know bitcoins are not counterfeit, reversible, etc. etc.
206 2011-01-06 07:55:31 <Sami345> (taking money from your account)
207 2011-01-06 07:55:39 <lucky> but any actual value of bitcoins will come solely for what you can trade them for.
208 2011-01-06 07:56:01 <lucky> if no one in the world will trade anything for your half a million bitcoins, they're worthless.
209 2011-01-06 07:56:06 <lfm> and you know that the issuer isnt gonna flood the market unexpectedly
210 2011-01-06 07:56:11 <lucky> lfm, aye.
211 2011-01-06 07:58:21 <devon_hillard> the only thing that can destroy confidence in bitcoins would be some proof that the math underpinnings are flawed
212 2011-01-06 07:58:55 <lfm> devon well I think there may be some other ways
213 2011-01-06 07:58:56 <devon_hillard> eg. if someone manages to print a ridiculous ammount of BTC for very little computational resources
214 2011-01-06 07:59:36 <devon_hillard> lfm: like it being declared illegal?
215 2011-01-06 07:59:56 <lucky> i suspect if bitcoins were declared illegal in a number of countries their exchange value would plummet
216 2011-01-06 08:00:00 <theymos> The incentives might be wrong, and not enough people will generate.
217 2011-01-06 08:00:14 <lfm> demon not sure if that would be good or bad really
218 2011-01-06 08:00:43 <devon_hillard> is the bitcoin irc server using SSL?
219 2011-01-06 08:00:51 <theymos> No.
220 2011-01-06 08:00:52 <lucky> Freenode has the option for SSL
221 2011-01-06 08:01:02 <lucky> but not by default.
222 2011-01-06 08:01:31 <theymos> The network will need "backbone" entities to carry the disk/network burden. If no one is a backbone, then the network will fail.
223 2011-01-06 08:01:54 <devon_hillard> still, even with SSL, the government can force Verizon to provide backdoors in their certification process
224 2011-01-06 08:02:01 <lfm> theymos you sure of that?
225 2011-01-06 08:02:31 <lucky> on the other hand, i could imagine BTC illegality could drive their value up paradoxically, it'd probably shrink the number of sellers of non-BTC currencies, and drive demand (everyone wanting to get their money out of BTCs)
226 2011-01-06 08:02:36 <lucky> i suspect that would be short-term though.
227 2011-01-06 08:03:27 <lfm> lucky ya declaring it illegal could just turn out to be the sort of publicity to take it over the top
228 2011-01-06 08:04:08 <theymos> lfm: Full network nodes need to store all of the unspent transactions and they need to receive every block and every transaction. I can't see a Visa-level Bitcoin network surviving without some backbone entities.
229 2011-01-06 08:04:12 <lucky> I still don't think BTC itself will likely be declared illegal in most Western countries... I think they'll go after exchangers.
230 2011-01-06 08:04:55 <devon_hillard> it's much safer to "move" BTC than cash
231 2011-01-06 08:05:10 <lucky> theymos, there was some speculation on the forums about how much bandwidth and disk space would ber equired to process something like VISA's level of transactions per second, it wasn't all that shocking, in the thousands of dollars a month.
232 2011-01-06 08:05:20 <devon_hillard> but of course, a government can also order local ISPs to shut down temporarily
233 2011-01-06 08:05:21 <lfm> theymos seems to me ordinary pcs are powerful enuf to run full nodes
234 2011-01-06 08:06:20 <lucky> devon_hillard, well, some.  that'd be legally very problematic here.
235 2011-01-06 08:06:44 <lucky> of course things that step on the toes of those invested in the current economic system tend to get special legal expediency, so who knows.
236 2011-01-06 08:07:15 <theymos> lfm: That calculation didn't take into account required diskspace. All of those transactions have to be stored until they are spent. And the required network usage is *way* out of the league of what is available to consumers.
237 2011-01-06 08:07:23 <devon_hillard> other than the central IRC servers, are there any other centralized resources?
238 2011-01-06 08:07:27 <lucky> no.
239 2011-01-06 08:07:49 <lucky> although almost all BTC-nonBTC exchange takes place through maybe 2 central websites and a couple of loose coalitions hosted on IRC.
240 2011-01-06 08:07:52 <devon_hillard> is there a contingency in place for an attack on IRC?
241 2011-01-06 08:08:05 <lucky> why would that matter?
242 2011-01-06 08:08:14 <lucky> it would have little impact on bitcoin, other than affecting this channel.
243 2011-01-06 08:08:35 <devon_hillard> not this channel
244 2011-01-06 08:09:05 <lucky> then ... what?
245 2011-01-06 08:10:17 <devon_hillard> there is a big IRC server holding all currently active network nodes, right?
246 2011-01-06 08:10:20 <lucky> no
247 2011-01-06 08:10:28 <devon_hillard> or was there?
248 2011-01-06 08:10:39 <lucky> bitcoin used to get a list of hosts to connect to via IRC
249 2011-01-06 08:10:48 <lfm> devon there are lots of alternatives to the irc channel
250 2011-01-06 08:10:50 <lucky> that's what all those odd character name clients in #bitcoin are
251 2011-01-06 08:10:57 <lucky> people still running old oooold versions of the client
252 2011-01-06 08:10:57 <theymos> There are ~20 built-in seednodes in case IRC goes down. If those all go down, there's a fallback_nodes page on the wiki. If that goes down, Satoshi can issue an alert to all Bitcoin clients informing people to download a new seednode list.
253 2011-01-06 08:11:23 <devon_hillard> ah, ok
254 2011-01-06 08:11:32 <theymos> Bitcoin still connects to irc.lfnet.org as a main bootstrap source.
255 2011-01-06 08:12:23 <devon_hillard> I remember an irc channel with over 1K people in it, with hashed names
256 2011-01-06 08:12:33 <devon_hillard> forget the server address
257 2011-01-06 08:12:43 <alowm> there's a few in #bitcoin still
258 2011-01-06 08:13:02 <theymos> devon_hillard: It's #bitcoin on irc.lfnet.org
259 2011-01-06 08:13:11 <lfm> and there isnt just one irc server of course
260 2011-01-06 08:13:31 <theymos> Bitcoin connects to one hardcoded IP address.
261 2011-01-06 08:13:58 <lucky> anyway such a thing would disrupt some people trying to run their clients who don't know a peer to connect to
262 2011-01-06 08:14:02 <lucky> but would not kill bitcoin
263 2011-01-06 08:15:13 <kartofeln> so.. when people say bitcoin is a beta... does it imply bitcoins might become obsolete as a gamma or production version is ushered?
264 2011-01-06 08:15:25 <devon_hillard> theymos: yes, that was the one
265 2011-01-06 08:17:20 <devon_hillard> kartofeln: they would probably still be valuable unless the underlying algorithms are insecure
266 2011-01-06 08:17:59 <kartofeln> I wonder. no matter how sound the algorithm, even the rumor of a replacement system would drive the value down considerably.
267 2011-01-06 08:18:42 <devon_hillard> bitcoin 2.0 could work to support the 1.0 infrastructure as well
268 2011-01-06 08:33:13 <alowm> or even provide a translation layer (think IPv4<->6 gateways) or conversion service if feasible
269 2011-01-06 08:35:21 <lucky> haha i should put up sales of my old banknotes on biddingpond
270 2011-01-06 08:35:31 <lucky> there's something poetic about selling physical banknotes with bitcoins.
271 2011-01-06 08:42:59 <helmut> altamic: what is your question?
272 2011-01-06 08:43:53 <altamic> question: on http://a.yfrog.com/img640/6545/az6.png you can see a vesion message. You can see message start, command, message size and checksum marked by a rectangle
273 2011-01-06 08:44:09 <altamic> I wonder where variable data starts
274 2011-01-06 08:45:14 <helmut> obviously after the checksum
275 2011-01-06 08:46:02 <helmut> wait. actually that depends on the protocol version.
276 2011-01-06 08:47:16 <helmut> cause in earlier versions there was no checksum. since the version message is part of the version handshake it normally uses the old form without a checksum
277 2011-01-06 08:48:03 <altamic> so I need to check the protocol version and decide how to parse
278 2011-01-06 08:48:08 <helmut> yes
279 2011-01-06 08:48:30 <altamic> thank you
280 2011-01-06 08:48:40 <helmut> what language do you use?
281 2011-01-06 08:48:59 <altamic> ruby
282 2011-01-06 08:50:30 <helmut> hmm. the most promising implementations I've seen so far were all python
283 2011-01-06 09:00:16 <joe_1> kartofeln: it would only be bad if the replacement system did not preserve the current ownership of bitcoins
284 2011-01-06 09:00:27 <kartofeln> yeah
285 2011-01-06 09:01:05 <joe_1> and even then, it wouldn't be bad because the original bitcoin would have a longer chain. and longer chain = legitimacy
286 2011-01-06 09:01:21 <kartofeln> hmm. my GPU is running at 400MHz instead of the usual 850Mhz.. anything obvious that could cause that?
287 2011-01-06 09:01:39 <ArtForz> whats the temp?
288 2011-01-06 09:01:41 <kartofeln> not sure if the length of the chain matter to the people figuring out how much value they want to put on it
289 2011-01-06 09:01:43 <kartofeln> 53
290 2011-01-06 09:01:49 <kartofeln> it was at 76 for most of yesterday
291 2011-01-06 09:01:53 <ArtForz> thats... weird
292 2011-01-06 09:02:04 <ArtForz> tried restarting the miner?
293 2011-01-06 09:02:15 <joe_1> history of use is another thing that bitcoin would have and the new one wouldn't
294 2011-01-06 09:03:58 <kartofeln> yeah.. wondering if I should let the GPU take a break or get a GPU clock tool and whip it into shape.
295 2011-01-06 09:04:36 <ArtForz> well, it certainly sounds like something is off
296 2011-01-06 09:05:35 <ArtForz> 400MHz is idle clock on some cards... so is the miner still actually dfoing anything?
297 2011-01-06 09:05:52 <kartofeln> yeah.. still getting 72Mhash, but that's basically half of its normal throughput.
298 2011-01-06 09:06:06 <kartofeln> I was getting that for a while, but I was also watching some full screen video, so it didn't seem too crazy.
299 2011-01-06 09:06:19 <ArtForz> could be a driver fuckup
300 2011-01-06 09:07:08 <ArtForz> windows or linux?
301 2011-01-06 09:07:19 <kartofeln> windows.. vista x64 ati hd radeon 5770
302 2011-01-06 09:07:26 <ArtForz> yeah, sounds like driver fuckup
303 2011-01-06 09:07:42 <kartofeln> I tried downloading an "AMD gpu clock tool" thingy, but it crashed on start.
304 2011-01-06 09:07:52 <kartofeln> woe is me, and stuff.
305 2011-01-06 09:07:57 <ArtForz> might have something to do with video playback
306 2011-01-06 09:08:16 <joe_1> did u restart the machine
307 2011-01-06 09:08:19 <kartofeln> yeah.. maybe I should kill a few processes.
308 2011-01-06 09:08:24 <kartofeln> no.. I hate restarting.
309 2011-01-06 09:08:31 <ArtForz> real idle 2D clock is 150MHz, 400MHz is usually used for dualhead 2D and video playback
310 2011-01-06 09:08:37 <joe_1> me to but
311 2011-01-06 09:08:45 <ArtForz> *on 5770
312 2011-01-06 09:08:48 <kartofeln> oh woot
313 2011-01-06 09:08:57 <kartofeln> killed chrome, hash perf shot up right away
314 2011-01-06 09:09:03 <ArtForz> so my guess, your driver still thinks you're playing video ...
315 2011-01-06 09:09:04 <kartofeln> I guess it was still holding to something.
316 2011-01-06 09:09:08 <kartofeln> yup
317 2011-01-06 09:09:37 <joe_1> firefox
318 2011-01-06 09:09:42 <ArtForz> flash
319 2011-01-06 09:10:00 <kartofeln> yeah.. flash definitely had something to do with it.
320 2011-01-06 09:10:10 <ArtForz> iirc theres a registry setting to stop the ati driver from doing that
321 2011-01-06 09:10:35 <kartofeln> darn. Sami wasn't kidding.. -v -w 128 -f 30 really does crunch more hashes on this GPU.
322 2011-01-06 09:10:51 <ArtForz> weird, I always got best reults with -w 64 on 5770
323 2011-01-06 09:11:02 <ArtForz> and -f really_low
324 2011-01-06 09:11:19 <ArtForz> lags like hell, but hashes fast
325 2011-01-06 09:11:19 <kartofeln> -w 128 give 160Mhash, -w 64 tops at 152
326 2011-01-06 09:11:40 <Diablo-D3> why are you using -f 30?
327 2011-01-06 09:11:43 <kartofeln> I don't get any lag.
328 2011-01-06 09:11:47 <Diablo-D3> that will fuck your desktop performance over
329 2011-01-06 09:11:48 <kartofeln> koz Sami said so.. :-/
330 2011-01-06 09:11:54 <ArtForz> but then my miner uses a different kernel, so all bets are off
331 2011-01-06 09:11:55 <kartofeln> I don't even know what it's supposed to do :'(
332 2011-01-06 09:11:59 <Diablo-D3> it defaults at 60, and everyone uses 120 or 180
333 2011-01-06 09:12:02 <ArtForz> -f = framerate
334 2011-01-06 09:12:11 <ArtForz> anything under 120 usually = laggy desktop
335 2011-01-06 09:12:19 <joe_1> can someone buy me a radeon so i can join the fun
336 2011-01-06 09:12:22 <kartofeln> oh yeah.. dragging big windows is a wee bit sluggish now.
337 2011-01-06 09:12:23 <Diablo-D3> I should just default to 180 really
338 2011-01-06 09:12:37 <Diablo-D3> it can flush all three requests before having to draw 2D shit
339 2011-01-06 09:12:41 <AAA_awright> Has any investment actually paid off?
340 2011-01-06 09:12:46 <ArtForz> yup
341 2011-01-06 09:12:53 <AAA_awright> In the graphics cards?
342 2011-01-06 09:12:59 <ArtForz> yup
343 2011-01-06 09:13:01 <AAA_awright> That's twisted
344 2011-01-06 09:13:12 <joe_1> i think everyone has soaked up all the arbitrage by now, though.
345 2011-01-06 09:13:18 <ArtForz> not really
346 2011-01-06 09:13:33 <ArtForz> problem is, no one knows how many people are getting into the game
347 2011-01-06 09:13:48 <ArtForz> = investing in GPUs now is kinda risky
348 2011-01-06 09:14:06 <Diablo-D3> well
349 2011-01-06 09:14:09 <Diablo-D3> just buying ONE is fine
350 2011-01-06 09:14:15 <Diablo-D3> you needed to upgrade anyhow
351 2011-01-06 09:14:33 <kartofeln> well.. I can generate about 10 btc a day with my card.. so 3 bucks a day right now.. cheapest ati hd 5770 is $160
352 2011-01-06 09:14:40 <joe_1> what your going to start seeing is botnets will start gpu mining
353 2011-01-06 09:14:46 <ArtForz> I doubt it
354 2011-01-06 09:15:10 <ArtForz> gpu mining is a damn fast way to lose zombies
355 2011-01-06 09:15:14 <kartofeln> if the global computation power stayed steady for 2 months, you'd make your money back.. it's unlikely though.
356 2011-01-06 09:15:22 <joe_1> but why would u lose them
357 2011-01-06 09:15:44 <joe_1> cant u just dial the numbers down a little
358 2011-01-06 09:15:57 <kartofeln> as far as bitcoin's health is concerned, anything that increase the overall computation power of the network is a good thing. makes gaming that much harder.
359 2011-01-06 09:16:02 <ArtForz> yep
360 2011-01-06 09:16:13 <ArtForz> except a cheater getting >50% of total hash power
361 2011-01-06 09:16:37 <AAA_awright> Anyone think the NSA could go after it?
362 2011-01-06 09:16:44 <kartofeln> yes.
363 2011-01-06 09:16:50 <ArtForz> easily
364 2011-01-06 09:16:51 <Diablo-D3> the nsa is too busy trying to crack encrypted child porn
365 2011-01-06 09:16:54 <da2ce7> we need to get to the point where a cheater needs an invetment of at least 50% of the bitcoin market CAP...
366 2011-01-06 09:16:59 <da2ce7> untill then we are insecure.
367 2011-01-06 09:17:07 <ArtForz> right now you'd need about 200 5970s, 250 to be sure
368 2011-01-06 09:17:33 <ArtForz> add in the rest of the system, housing, ... still < $200k
369 2011-01-06 09:17:52 <kartofeln> how many 5970 can you cram on one mobo?
370 2011-01-06 09:17:58 <ArtForz> at least 4
371 2011-01-06 09:18:05 <ArtForz> probably 8
372 2011-01-06 09:18:07 <da2ce7> we need much much more investment in hardware.
373 2011-01-06 09:18:15 <joe_1> i'm about to buy some
374 2011-01-06 09:18:31 <kartofeln> it's kinda nifty how much raw power you can stack in a plain desktop tower box  nowadays.
375 2011-01-06 09:18:37 <joe_1> once i get em im gonna need a somebody to show me what to plug in where
376 2011-01-06 09:18:43 <ArtForz> well, I got 20Gh/s of custom chips coming in in february
377 2011-01-06 09:18:48 <da2ce7> I keep at 50-50% ratio.  between coins I generate, and coins I buy.
378 2011-01-06 09:18:55 <ArtForz> beats 5970 by a factor of >10 on hash/W
379 2011-01-06 09:19:14 <kartofeln> art, that's about 20 to 25% of the total network capacity isn't it?
380 2011-01-06 09:19:23 <ArtForz> more like 15% of current network
381 2011-01-06 09:19:38 <ArtForz> we're ~125Gh/s currently
382 2011-01-06 09:19:56 <ArtForz> and I doubt that number is gonna go down any time soon
383 2011-01-06 09:20:01 <kartofeln> darn. I thought we were a bit lower. is there an easy formula to go from difficulty level to that number?
384 2011-01-06 09:20:05 <ArtForz> yes
385 2011-01-06 09:20:10 <ArtForz> difficulty * 2**32 / 600
386 2011-01-06 09:20:34 <AAA_awright> Is there any research into how much computing power the NSA has? Though if they don't go after domestic cases I can imagine it would be hard to get an estimate
387 2011-01-06 09:20:47 <ArtForz> "a shitload" is a good estimate
388 2011-01-06 09:20:53 <kartofeln> AAA_awright: by definition, anybody who knows can't talk about it.
389 2011-01-06 09:21:06 <AAA_awright> What definition?
390 2011-01-06 09:21:30 <kartofeln> well, unless they feel like getting thrown in the brig in solitary for a months without trial.
391 2011-01-06 09:21:44 <lfm> aaa_awright its a SECRET of course. if you knew you couldnt tell anyone
392 2011-01-06 09:21:51 <da2ce7> the only real question is how wide is their quantum computers are...
393 2011-01-06 09:21:51 <joe_1> i dont know- i think it's publicly known how many flops their supercomputer does
394 2011-01-06 09:21:53 <AAA_awright> I thought it was classified
395 2011-01-06 09:22:19 <kartofeln> I'd be a little surprised if they had working useful quantum computers already.
396 2011-01-06 09:22:21 <kartofeln> but who nkows.
397 2011-01-06 09:22:40 <ArtForz> yeah, I doubt it
398 2011-01-06 09:23:26 <lfm> ya, they can factor 10 bit numbers now!
399 2011-01-06 09:23:33 <kartofeln> the real threat from NSA-type things, beside their vast pockets to buy large computers, is that they hire a lot of smart mathematician types.
400 2011-01-06 09:23:38 <ArtForz> yep
401 2011-01-06 09:23:55 <ArtForz> I'd guess most of their boxes are busy correlating data, not cracking crypto
402 2011-01-06 09:23:57 <Diablo-D3> hurrrr
403 2011-01-06 09:24:07 <Diablo-D3> where do I get drugs like that
404 2011-01-06 09:24:10 <Diablo-D3> [05:20:35] <AAA_awright> Is there any research into how much computing power the NSA has? Though if they don't go after domestic cases I can imagine it would be hard to get an estimate
405 2011-01-06 09:24:22 <Diablo-D3> they have the 4 largest super computers on the top 500 list
406 2011-01-06 09:24:31 <ArtForz> errr... no
407 2011-01-06 09:24:34 <Diablo-D3> #0, #-1, #-2, and #-3 respectively.
408 2011-01-06 09:24:51 <AAA_awright> Uh since when
409 2011-01-06 09:24:53 <ArtForz> oh, the top -5 list you mean
410 2011-01-06 09:25:01 <AAA_awright> -5?
411 2011-01-06 09:25:02 <da2ce7> I suppose you could use quite narrow quantum computer coupled with a massive cypto, a 10-bit quantum could remove 10-bit of search space.
412 2011-01-06 09:25:04 <Diablo-D3> the top "not allowed to tell you about them" list
413 2011-01-06 09:25:10 <AAA_awright> hah
414 2011-01-06 09:25:38 <Diablo-D3> theres about 10 computers in the world that are all bigger than that list
415 2011-01-06 09:25:50 <lfm> the top 500 is rated by flops tho and cryptography  is more fixed point
416 2011-01-06 09:25:55 <joe_1> satoshi got our back no matter what the nsa wants to do
417 2011-01-06 09:26:11 <ArtForz> again, I doubt anybody serious is busy cracking crypto
418 2011-01-06 09:26:11 <Diablo-D3> and walmart could almost be in the top 10, but they dont actually have a single computer
419 2011-01-06 09:26:14 <Diablo-D3> its just a massive cluster
420 2011-01-06 09:26:17 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: the nsa is
421 2011-01-06 09:26:21 <Diablo-D3> but not for shit like this
422 2011-01-06 09:26:27 <Diablo-D3> they're trying to spy on the chinese
423 2011-01-06 09:26:54 <ArtForz> btw, for raw FLOPS F@H makes top500 look like toys
424 2011-01-06 09:27:30 <joe_1> who is F@H
425 2011-01-06 09:27:34 <ArtForz> Folding@Home
426 2011-01-06 09:27:40 <ArtForz> real crappy interconnect, but crazy raw CPU power
427 2011-01-06 09:28:05 <AAA_awright> Is Seti@Home still going or what?
428 2011-01-06 09:28:16 <ArtForz> yeah, they're ~oder of magnitude smaller though
429 2011-01-06 09:28:26 <ArtForz> *order
430 2011-01-06 09:29:00 <ArtForz> last time I checked we were about 1/4 S@H in raw FLOPS (well, INTOPS)
431 2011-01-06 09:29:16 <lfm> seti@home keeps running outa data then they start over
432 2011-01-06 09:29:33 <da2ce7> artforz, if say AMD was going build a SHA256 chip, on the same process that they use for their CPU's... what order of magnitude of speed are we looking at?
433 2011-01-06 09:29:54 <ArtForz> crazy fast
434 2011-01-06 09:29:59 <kartofeln> one hash per cycle? that'd be neat..
435 2011-01-06 09:30:01 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
436 2011-01-06 09:30:06 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101293 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1522 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 22 hours, 26 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17381.29964103
437 2011-01-06 09:30:09 <ArtForz> one hash/cycle is easy
438 2011-01-06 09:30:29 <kartofeln> is it? you can hardcode all the rounds into one cycle?
439 2011-01-06 09:30:32 <da2ce7> so maybe 1000 GHash/s
440 2011-01-06 09:30:32 <lfm> 1140 hashes / cycle
441 2011-01-06 09:31:03 <ArtForz> 2 fully unrolled sha256 blocks are ~1850 32-bit adders, ~6000 2-input 32 bit logic gates and ~200k FFs
442 2011-01-06 09:31:49 <UukGoblin> FF = fast fouriers?
443 2011-01-06 09:31:53 <ArtForz> Flip Flops
444 2011-01-06 09:31:53 <UukGoblin> flip-flops.
445 2011-01-06 09:32:04 <UukGoblin> 200k seems quite a lot
446 2011-01-06 09:32:16 <ArtForz> 6MB L3 = 48M FFs
447 2011-01-06 09:32:19 <kartofeln> hmm. would that fit on run-of-the-mill FPGA boards?
448 2011-01-06 09:32:26 <ArtForz> large ones, yes
449 2011-01-06 09:32:38 <ArtForz> a XC6SLX150 is just a tad too small
450 2011-01-06 09:32:58 <AAA_awright> FFT is something entirely different I think :)
451 2011-01-06 09:33:05 <ArtForz> same goes for the fastest in alteras "low cost" family
452 2011-01-06 09:33:08 <kartofeln> what kind of clocks can FPGAs run at?
453 2011-01-06 09:33:11 <UukGoblin> AAA_awright, yeah, definitely
454 2011-01-06 09:33:12 <ArtForz> s/fastest/biggest
455 2011-01-06 09:33:38 <ArtForz> 250MHz on a Virtex6
456 2011-01-06 09:34:04 <kartofeln> ah.. that's not a bad speed overall, but not crazy better than a good GPU then.
457 2011-01-06 09:34:11 <ArtForz> XC6VLX195T can fit 2 full sha256 blocks
458 2011-01-06 09:34:19 <ArtForz> = one bitcoinhash/clock
459 2011-01-06 09:34:59 <da2ce7> so how many transistors is a XC6VLX195T equiv to?
460 2011-01-06 09:35:02 <ArtForz> costs like $2k per chip
461 2011-01-06 09:35:17 <ArtForz> = not too interesting at 250Mh/s per chip
462 2011-01-06 09:35:46 <UukGoblin> depends on power consumption also
463 2011-01-06 09:35:48 <joe_1> how many ghashes can an android phone get
464 2011-01-06 09:35:59 <da2ce7> well, lets make a bounty and get GF to make some sha256 chips.
465 2011-01-06 09:36:04 <ArtForz> in this case, not too many
466 2011-01-06 09:36:10 <UukGoblin> joe_1, G1 does about 50khash
467 2011-01-06 09:36:16 <ArtForz> FPGA really isnt suited for sha256
468 2011-01-06 09:36:36 <ArtForz> no real hardware adders
469 2011-01-06 09:36:59 <da2ce7> so two SHA256 is arround 210k transistors?
470 2011-01-06 09:37:11 <ArtForz> lets see...
471 2011-01-06 09:37:16 <ArtForz> more
472 2011-01-06 09:37:25 <UukGoblin> ArtForz, 250Mhash isn't bad imho... if it takes up to 50W...
473 2011-01-06 09:37:49 <ArtForz> probably less
474 2011-01-06 09:38:04 <ArtForz> my guess would be ~30-40W
475 2011-01-06 09:38:04 <UukGoblin> outperforms a 5770 then
476 2011-01-06 09:38:50 <ArtForz> one FF is ~6 transistors... logic gate ~4... each adder bit is ~3 gates
477 2011-01-06 09:39:26 <joe_1> uuk what is a G1
478 2011-01-06 09:40:07 <kartofeln> first gen android phone.
479 2011-01-06 09:40:14 <kartofeln> slow as heck compared to current gen.
480 2011-01-06 09:40:16 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: so what are you doing with all these?
481 2011-01-06 09:40:20 <ArtForz> ~3M transistors for a double-sha256 engine
482 2011-01-06 09:40:40 <joe_1> well they're coming out with dual core phones now
483 2011-01-06 09:40:42 <da2ce7> ah, so that is like 1W @ 1ghz.
484 2011-01-06 09:40:54 <UukGoblin> joe_1, HTC Dream, one of the oldest android devices
485 2011-01-06 09:41:29 <UukGoblin> it's about 560MHz ARM processor, IIRC not significantly slower than recent 800MHz-1GHz
486 2011-01-06 09:41:37 <da2ce7> so with current technology we can protentaly make 1GHash/s @ 1 W
487 2011-01-06 09:41:45 <ArtForz> yeah
488 2011-01-06 09:42:02 <UukGoblin> the newer ones are mostly superior in terms of RAM
489 2011-01-06 09:42:13 <ArtForz> well, at least close to it
490 2011-01-06 09:42:24 <ArtForz> crypto uses a lot more power per transistor than normal stuff
491 2011-01-06 09:42:43 <ArtForz> normally you calculate with ~10% of FFs switching per clock
492 2011-01-06 09:42:43 <UukGoblin> hrm so my 2x 5970 are about 600 times more inefficient than FPGA :-]
493 2011-01-06 09:42:54 <ArtForz> err... nope, more like 5x
494 2011-01-06 09:43:01 <ArtForz> FPGAs really arent too efficient either
495 2011-01-06 09:43:16 <UukGoblin> oh, you calculated for an ASIC
496 2011-01-06 09:43:19 <ArtForz> yep
497 2011-01-06 09:43:24 <ArtForz> true ASIC @ 45nm
498 2011-01-06 09:44:09 <ArtForz> structured ASIC is worse (you have about as much unused logic as in a FPGA, just not that much capacitive loss on the routing network)
499 2011-01-06 09:44:32 <ArtForz> for crypto you have ~50% FFs switching per clock
500 2011-01-06 09:45:37 <ArtForz> which is a nother problem with FPGAs, they aren't designed for that much power usage
501 2011-01-06 09:46:35 <UukGoblin> hrm
502 2011-01-06 09:47:10 <UukGoblin> so if you're getting 20Ghash from ASICs... is that around 20 of them?
503 2011-01-06 09:47:18 <ArtForz> 100
504 2011-01-06 09:47:29 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: you could give me one of them you know
505 2011-01-06 09:47:34 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt even need to leave your house
506 2011-01-06 09:47:39 <Diablo-D3> just make it assign coins to me
507 2011-01-06 09:47:45 <UukGoblin> so they'll do 200Mhash each... guessing one hash per cycle at 200MHz...
508 2011-01-06 09:48:05 <ArtForz> this is structured ASIC = fixed silicon+poly
509 2011-01-06 09:48:26 <ArtForz> yep
510 2011-01-06 09:48:45 <UukGoblin> and how much power? :-]
511 2011-01-06 09:48:49 <da2ce7> how many watt each?
512 2011-01-06 09:49:18 <ArtForz> about 12
513 2011-01-06 09:50:03 <UukGoblin> oh, so unstructured is still a lot better than that
514 2011-01-06 09:50:08 <ArtForz> yep
515 2011-01-06 09:50:09 <da2ce7> ooh not bad you are going one whole order of magnitude better than the GPU's/
516 2011-01-06 09:50:16 <ArtForz> yep
517 2011-01-06 09:50:22 <ArtForz> that was my design target
518 2011-01-06 09:50:32 <da2ce7> only 2 more to go/
519 2011-01-06 09:50:36 <UukGoblin> :-]
520 2011-01-06 09:51:13 <ArtForz> upping voltage I could get a lot higher clocks, but it'd kill hash/W
521 2011-01-06 09:51:52 <ArtForz> and my whole power and cooling setup isn't designed for it
522 2011-01-06 09:52:38 <da2ce7> (somebody from the GF node development team makes a sha256 units for 'testing' on the new node)... lol
523 2011-01-06 09:52:51 <UukGoblin> GF?
524 2011-01-06 09:52:57 <ArtForz> GlobalFoundries
525 2011-01-06 09:53:48 <ArtForz> problem is the crazy setup costs
526 2011-01-06 09:53:49 <UukGoblin> hahah, I like the quotes around "testing" ;-]
527 2011-01-06 09:54:14 <da2ce7> suddenly the bitcoin difficulty will go from arround 10K to 1M
528 2011-01-06 09:54:21 <ArtForz> structured ASIC is cheap because it's only metal layer masks, and shared between customers
529 2011-01-06 09:54:48 <Diablo-D3> ArtForz: I just ask for one :<
530 2011-01-06 09:54:51 <UukGoblin> 'cheap'? ;-]
531 2011-01-06 09:54:55 <ArtForz> yep
532 2011-01-06 09:55:08 <ArtForz> only ~$30k in fixed costs
533 2011-01-06 09:55:24 <da2ce7> can I help invest?
534 2011-01-06 09:55:26 <sipa> "only"
535 2011-01-06 09:55:32 <ArtForz> yes, only
536 2011-01-06 09:55:42 <ArtForz> a full mask set at 55nm is well > $1M
537 2011-01-06 09:56:33 <UukGoblin> 21M bitcoins @ $0.30 each is only $6M though
538 2011-01-06 09:56:39 <UukGoblin> the price would have to go up...
539 2011-01-06 09:56:54 <theymos> Sneak said he's going to rent a botnet with 300% of the current network's power. I hope that doesn't put all miners out of business.
540 2011-01-06 09:57:03 <ArtForz> metal masks only at 90nm is order of magnitude cheaper, and having half a dozen different customer designs on one mask set further reduces cost
541 2011-01-06 09:58:02 <ArtForz> well, I wish him luck
542 2011-01-06 09:58:15 <ArtForz> I'm more concerned about the sim unlocking guys
543 2011-01-06 09:58:53 <UukGoblin> the GSM Subscriber Identity Modules?
544 2011-01-06 09:59:03 <UukGoblin> why would /they/ be any threat?
545 2011-01-06 09:59:07 <ArtForz> yup
546 2011-01-06 09:59:16 <da2ce7> lol, the botnet guys get compition from bitoin.
547 2011-01-06 09:59:27 <ArtForz> they use lots of GPUs
548 2011-01-06 09:59:42 <UukGoblin> to crack SIMs?
549 2011-01-06 10:00:06 <ArtForz> simlock on mobiles
550 2011-01-06 10:00:27 <ArtForz> http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=45
551 2011-01-06 10:00:37 <UukGoblin> ah... interesting, I didn't know that
552 2011-01-06 10:01:12 <ArtForz> thats 52 5970s
553 2011-01-06 10:01:17 <UukGoblin> fun
554 2011-01-06 10:01:26 <da2ce7> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD it is really interesting how (almost) all the ristance levels slope down at 37% p.a. ; the rate that new bitcoin are being generated.
555 2011-01-06 10:01:33 <ArtForz> or about 1/4 current network
556 2011-01-06 10:01:42 <ArtForz> and thats a single team
557 2011-01-06 10:02:09 <ArtForz> mining bitcoins would be a good way to make use of idle time on those clusters
558 2011-01-06 10:02:46 <da2ce7> shit... gpu's are very risky
559 2011-01-06 10:03:18 <da2ce7> I have taken account for your 20GHash/s, but not annother 100GHhash/s
560 2011-01-06 10:03:30 <UukGoblin> ah, btw, I'd love to see charts of blocks per hour, and their derivative, compared to the difficulty (and its derivative)
561 2011-01-06 10:03:40 <UukGoblin> so effectively a more accurate graph of difficulty
562 2011-01-06 10:04:31 <ArtForz> so... basically the inverse of statistix graphs?
563 2011-01-06 10:04:45 <UukGoblin> yeah, I guess
564 2011-01-06 10:04:54 <ArtForz> should be easy
565 2011-01-06 10:04:56 <UukGoblin> yeah
566 2011-01-06 10:05:04 <UukGoblin> I can probably set it up on my own
567 2011-01-06 10:05:54 <UukGoblin> da2ce7, what's "ristance"?
568 2011-01-06 10:06:01 <sipa> UukGoblin: http://sipa.be/static/bitcoin/speed.pdf
569 2011-01-06 10:06:56 <ArtForz> yeah, nice graph
570 2011-01-06 10:07:12 <UukGoblin> yup, cool
571 2011-01-06 10:07:32 <ArtForz> though logarithmic difficulty + linear time/block or blocks/time would be easier to read
572 2011-01-06 10:07:32 <UukGoblin> so effectively it's all the time above the difficulty :-]
573 2011-01-06 10:07:54 <UukGoblin> and derivative would show the speed of growth
574 2011-01-06 10:07:59 <ArtForz> yea
575 2011-01-06 10:08:09 <sipa> i've a graph for that as well somewhere
576 2011-01-06 10:08:14 <UukGoblin> (could also get mtgox price in there)
577 2011-01-06 10:08:33 <sipa> ArtForz: so put blocks instead of time on the x-axis?
578 2011-01-06 10:08:44 <sipa> or what do you mean?
579 2011-01-06 10:08:57 <ArtForz> time on x
580 2011-01-06 10:09:20 <UukGoblin> log(ghash) on y? :-]
581 2011-01-06 10:09:28 <ArtForz> on one
582 2011-01-06 10:09:33 <sipa> ehm, that's what the current graph is :)
583 2011-01-06 10:09:35 <UukGoblin> hang on, it's like that already
584 2011-01-06 10:09:36 <da2ce7> UukGoblin, resistance + bad spelling;  it is where the price holds at the same level for a longer time.
585 2011-01-06 10:09:45 <ArtForz> on the other linear #blocks/timespan vs. expected blocks/timespan
586 2011-01-06 10:10:45 <UukGoblin> da2ce7, so like when it was ~$0.22, then $0.26 and now $0.30?
587 2011-01-06 10:11:00 <da2ce7> and particualy at 0.06
588 2011-01-06 10:11:51 <UukGoblin> da2ce7, so you've found a direct corellation between the price and amount of bitcoins in circulation?
589 2011-01-06 10:12:19 <da2ce7> yep... sipa made a graph for me before...
590 2011-01-06 10:12:40 <ArtForz> btw, is it me or has volume gone WAY down
591 2011-01-06 10:14:02 <da2ce7> http://bitcoin.atspace.com/economy.png
592 2011-01-06 10:15:00 <da2ce7> no it was Raulo
593 2011-01-06 10:15:45 <da2ce7> and the chart is no longer up... but anyway it is market v.s. time... and you will see that the resistance levels were flat.
594 2011-01-06 10:15:59 <da2ce7> *market size
595 2011-01-06 10:17:00 <UukGoblin> ArtForz, it has
596 2011-01-06 10:17:35 <UukGoblin> da2ce7, so if I'm thinking right, that means that the "backing" of bitcoin doesn't increase...
597 2011-01-06 10:18:42 <UukGoblin> and it means the price will continue to go up but not drastically... unless there's some external drive to increase demand
598 2011-01-06 10:19:18 <UukGoblin> ... or hrm, not much up, if there's fewer bitcoins generated after 2013...
599 2011-01-06 10:20:05 <da2ce7> UukGoblin, yep 'market cap' or 'market size' is value * ammount.  So if the that price hold flat, that show the fundermentals are solid, (when people are not actively investing)
600 2011-01-06 10:20:20 <da2ce7> if it was trailing down, that is a tell-tale sign that something is wrong.
601 2011-01-06 10:21:13 <UukGoblin> ok
602 2011-01-06 10:21:31 <da2ce7> bitcoin dosn't need people investing to keep the price up, (like fiat currencies), it only changes in value when people invest or withdraw.
603 2011-01-06 10:21:35 <UukGoblin> so a graph that would show this would be simply mtgox price * total btc?
604 2011-01-06 10:21:43 <UukGoblin> on y, and time on x?
605 2011-01-06 10:22:07 <da2ce7> yep
606 2011-01-06 10:22:32 <da2ce7> at any point in time... however the total BTC is not a simple calculation.
607 2011-01-06 10:22:42 <AAA_awright> Might want to price that in grams gold or something a bit more inflation-proof
608 2011-01-06 10:22:52 <UukGoblin> until 2013 it's just 50 * blocks
609 2011-01-06 10:23:16 <da2ce7> yep, but the blocks haven't been produced at a constant rate.
610 2011-01-06 10:23:34 <UukGoblin> they should be fairly constant at a little above 6/h
611 2011-01-06 10:23:51 <lfm> one thing I have heard that I think might be wrong is I think it would be possible to have fractional reserve banking with bitcoin
612 2011-01-06 10:24:25 <AAA_awright> It would, but without a central bank it would be highly regulated by the market
613 2011-01-06 10:24:47 <da2ce7> lfm, there is nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking... it is only wrong if they are fractionaly leaning fiat money.
614 2011-01-06 10:24:49 <UukGoblin> you could have many banks, really
615 2011-01-06 10:25:12 <AAA_awright> More likely the contract would specify when you have access to your money, the interest rate paid would reflect the risk that you can't withdraw all your money at once
616 2011-01-06 10:25:28 <da2ce7> you cannot 'make' bitcoin out of thin air.  so ther is no issue... The fundermentals are solid.
617 2011-01-06 10:25:53 <da2ce7> as long as people trade bitcoin insted of bitcoin bank checks, there isn't any issue.
618 2011-01-06 10:26:04 <AAA_awright> Right
619 2011-01-06 10:26:29 <UukGoblin> well bank checks should be fine too, as long as the bank(s) can back them with real bitcoins
620 2011-01-06 10:26:31 <lfm> so .. so long as no one starts producing a lot of thick air we should be fine
621 2011-01-06 10:26:40 <AAA_awright> Thing about modern fractional reserve banking is real money and phoney money are identical and 1:1 exchangable
622 2011-01-06 10:26:53 <AAA_awright> BitCoin I don't think you could do such a thing...?
623 2011-01-06 10:26:57 <AAA_awright> Bitcoin?
624 2011-01-06 10:27:36 <UukGoblin> main site says Bitcoin
625 2011-01-06 10:27:37 <da2ce7> lfm, we are forced to use 'bank notes' because they are the same as 'fiat notes'
626 2011-01-06 10:27:54 <AAA_awright> I meant that as a substitution yeah
627 2011-01-06 10:28:53 <da2ce7> I fully expect there to be a bitcoin fractional lending system... however it will have many more assits on the books than just bitcoin... It should be very stable.
628 2011-01-06 10:33:36 <UukGoblin> ArtForz, really you have not much to fear... the simlock guys won't have the power efficiency your ASICs will achieve
629 2011-01-06 13:01:08 <CIA-106> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen integration * rf86655f / rpc.cpp : Add time to category:move transactions. - http://bit.ly/hmk913
630 2011-01-06 13:01:09 <CIA-106> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rf86655f / rpc.cpp : Add time to category:move transactions. - http://bit.ly/hmk913
631 2011-01-06 14:06:45 <davout> hi all
632 2011-01-06 14:10:55 <altamic> hey davout :)
633 2011-01-06 14:13:16 <tcatm> http://bitcoincharts.com/media/stuff/js-remote/ almost done :)
634 2011-01-06 14:14:59 <devon_hillard> the mining.bitcoin.cz pool, is it possible to automate the donation process to the miner also?
635 2011-01-06 14:15:17 <devon_hillard> the miner author's address
636 2011-01-06 14:16:08 <davout> hey, i have a question for you all rich miners
637 2011-01-06 14:16:08 <sipa> how do you mean?
638 2011-01-06 14:16:23 <davout> would you be interested in dark pool functionality on bitcoin central ?
639 2011-01-06 14:16:41 <devon_hillard> sipa: the interface has an option to donate 2-6% to the pool
640 2011-01-06 14:16:46 <tcatm> davout: no. I don't like dark pools
641 2011-01-06 14:16:48 <sipa> yes i know
642 2011-01-06 14:16:58 <sipa> devon_hillard: 0-6% actually
643 2011-01-06 14:17:04 <devon_hillard> yes
644 2011-01-06 14:17:14 <davout> tcatm: i think they're mostly beneficial to sellers
645 2011-01-06 14:17:20 <devon_hillard> so is it possible to add a menu to send a donation to the miner authors?
646 2011-01-06 14:17:31 <davout> tcatm: well, actually i don't really have an opinion
647 2011-01-06 14:18:05 <sipa> devon_hillard: well, currently even the donation to the pool isn't implemented afaik
648 2011-01-06 14:18:11 <sipa> just the setting
649 2011-01-06 14:18:30 <devon_hillard> sipa: k, just thought that feature would be worth it
650 2011-01-06 14:18:50 <devon_hillard> and to encourage miner improvement :)
651 2011-01-06 14:19:12 <tcatm> davout: maybe you could wait until your exchange is well used
652 2011-01-06 14:19:18 <sipa> /poke slush
653 2011-01-06 14:19:45 <devon_hillard> what's a dark pool, btw?
654 2011-01-06 14:19:54 <scibotic> Is anyone here actually using a web host that accepts bitcoin?
655 2011-01-06 14:20:53 <tcatm> devon_hillard: orders that don't show in the order book
656 2011-01-06 14:21:41 <devon_hillard> tcatm: how would that be useful or relevant for bitcoin?
657 2011-01-06 14:22:30 <tcatm> devon_hillard: well you could sell 10000 BTC at $0.30 without anyone kowing aobut that order
658 2011-01-06 14:23:29 <devon_hillard> ah, a sort of ping-pong scam
659 2011-01-06 14:23:44 <devon_hillard> "I sell you, you sell me back at a higher price etc"
660 2011-01-06 14:24:41 <slush> sipa: here
661 2011-01-06 14:24:52 <slush> > devon_hillard: so is it possible to add a menu to send a donation to the miner authors?
662 2011-01-06 14:24:55 <slush> interesting idea
663 2011-01-06 14:25:12 <slush> ...to add also donation for m0mchil, Diablo and jgarzik...
664 2011-01-06 14:25:39 <sipa> or you could make a setting for each miner entry, to choose which miner software you use
665 2011-01-06 14:26:12 <slush> and yes, donations are not active for now, it is just settings
666 2011-01-06 14:26:28 <slush> I'll think about miner authors donations
667 2011-01-06 14:27:29 <davout> tcatm: i think it could attract a bunch of wealthy seller
668 2011-01-06 14:28:39 <slush> i have to go
669 2011-01-06 14:34:00 <nanotube> davout: indeed it would. but for the sake of a little openness... i would maybe suggest that instead of completely dark pools as mtgox does... have the 'dark' orders show up on the book, just not showing the amount. only the price. so you know they're there and at what price, just not the volume.
670 2011-01-06 14:37:45 <davout> nanotube: yea, i don't know, i guess there are going to be forks and interesting experiments :)
671 2011-01-06 14:38:20 <davout> nanotube: do the dark pool trades get published on mtg ?
672 2011-01-06 14:39:00 <ArtForz> trades, yep
673 2011-01-06 14:39:35 <nanotube> donpdonp: yes, trades that happen get published. just the order book is dark.
674 2011-01-06 14:39:42 <nanotube> davout that is
675 2011-01-06 14:40:06 <davout> yea ok, i think i might go for that
676 2011-01-06 14:40:24 <davout> maybe add an option to forbid executing against dark pool orders for those who don't like them
677 2011-01-06 14:40:37 <davout> i dunno, guess i should brainstorm some more
678 2011-01-06 14:40:44 <nanotube> well, consider making the existence of the order open, just hiding the volume. because being surprised by a dark pool order can kinda suck.
679 2011-01-06 14:41:01 <davout> nanotube: that makes sense
680 2011-01-06 14:41:18 <davout> nanotube: well, does it?
681 2011-01-06 14:41:25 <davout> nanotube: like in which way ?
682 2011-01-06 14:41:38 <nanotube> have them on the book... just don't show the volume of bitcoins they're trying to buy/sell
683 2011-01-06 14:41:41 <davout> if you're selling, your price will be honored
684 2011-01-06 14:41:43 <nanotube> easy as pie
685 2011-01-06 14:41:48 <davout> if you're buying it will too
686 2011-01-06 14:41:53 <ArtForz> yep
687 2011-01-06 14:42:08 <davout> so, i don't really see how one could have a bad surprise
688 2011-01-06 14:42:22 <nanotube> davout: the surprise is here
689 2011-01-06 14:42:30 <davout> or maybe an extra fee to see the full order book o/
690 2011-01-06 14:42:45 <nanotube> say i'm a seller... i look at the order book, and see lowest ask is say, .30. i say ok, i want to sell, so i'll try to sell at .299
691 2011-01-06 14:43:11 <nanotube> davout: but then, people start buying, and i'm like shit, why isn't my order getting filled? turns out there's a dark pool at .298 that's stealing my volume
692 2011-01-06 14:43:17 <nanotube> see? that kind of surprise
693 2011-01-06 14:43:22 <nanotube> (same thing on the buy side)
694 2011-01-06 14:44:04 <nanotube> if the dark pool were revealed on the book, i can place my orders with fuller information.
695 2011-01-06 14:44:30 <nanotube> but anyway, that's just my idea... dunno what others think about that.
696 2011-01-06 14:44:59 <ArtForz> dunno if thats a bad thing
697 2011-01-06 14:46:24 <davout> i guess one could argue that your order wouldn't be filled either with a better price on otc/mtgox/bcm
698 2011-01-06 14:47:07 <davout> i'm kind of surprised at how long it took for mtgox to implement them
699 2011-01-06 14:47:23 <davout> basically it's just a "show me in the order book flag"
700 2011-01-06 14:47:33 <ArtForz> btw, with the same reasoning you could also argue against trading bots
701 2011-01-06 14:49:14 <ArtForz> though watching bots on mtgox get into a bidding war can be amusing
702 2011-01-06 14:56:44 <davout> i need to replicate his trading API...
703 2011-01-06 14:57:18 <tcatm> Better write a new one that works better.
704 2011-01-06 14:58:09 <davout> yea, it doesn't really look that secure
705 2011-01-06 14:58:17 <davout> it relies on http sessions being opened
706 2011-01-06 14:58:40 <davout> i'd rather do something like LR with a shared secret that gets hashed along /w a timestamp
707 2011-01-06 14:58:52 <tcatm> + it's slow, not really reliable and returns data you didn't request
708 2011-01-06 14:59:08 <davout> ok, dark pool orders in progress, we'll see how it plays out :)
709 2011-01-06 15:00:48 <davout> tcatm: yea, i guess it's not that straightforward to write a decent API in PHP
710 2011-01-06 15:00:55 <davout> they pretty much come for free in rails
711 2011-01-06 15:01:24 <davout> your trading bot better know how to solve a captcha btw XD
712 2011-01-06 15:02:49 <davout> wtf
713 2011-01-06 15:02:55 <davout> almost an hour without a block :/
714 2011-01-06 15:02:59 <ArtForz> yup
715 2011-01-06 15:03:07 <davout> fucking statistics
716 2011-01-06 15:15:26 <davout> yay, block 101315 is out
717 2011-01-06 15:49:31 <davout> holy shit
718 2011-01-06 15:49:36 <davout> blocks are getting scarce
719 2011-01-06 15:50:43 <tcatm> yep
720 2011-01-06 15:50:56 <ArtForz> ?
721 2011-01-06 15:51:53 <tcatm> short term average is < 6 blocks/hr
722 2011-01-06 15:52:00 <davout> umm nvm
723 2011-01-06 15:52:09 <davout> my bbe wasn't refreshed
724 2011-01-06 15:52:10 <Diablo-D3> ITS THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
725 2011-01-06 15:52:11 <scibotic> Crap, I have a transaction that looks like it didn't make it to the network and it won't let me reclaim it as part of my balance.
726 2011-01-06 15:52:23 <Diablo-D3> scibotic: it'll keep retrying it
727 2011-01-06 15:52:33 <ArtForz> might take a few hours though
728 2011-01-06 15:52:59 <scibotic> Diablo-D3, It'll retry sending it? I just happened to be disconnected when I sent it.
729 2011-01-06 15:53:16 <Diablo-D3> heh thats not good
730 2011-01-06 15:53:50 <scibotic> No confirmations either.
731 2011-01-06 15:54:14 <ArtForz> it takes a while before it resends, iirc 1 block + 0-30 min
732 2011-01-06 15:54:34 <scibotic> Okay, guess I'll grab a cup of coffee then.
733 2011-01-06 16:02:53 <luke-jr> slush: I can't seem to login to the site...
734 2011-01-06 16:03:09 <luke-jr> no errors, just returns me to the login screen
735 2011-01-06 16:05:12 <luke-jr> nvm, it was links' retarded "aggressive cache"
736 2011-01-06 16:20:34 <EvanR-work> scibotic: i had that problem the other day, i reboot bitcoin to give it a kick in the pants
737 2011-01-06 16:21:10 <lfm> Average interval since last diff change: 9.64 min
738 2011-01-06 16:21:14 <lfm> Average interval last 100 blocks: 11.37 min
739 2011-01-06 16:22:22 <lfm> no thats not right
740 2011-01-06 16:25:19 <lfm> Average interval last 100 blocks: 59.38 min
741 2011-01-06 16:25:40 <lfm> is that right now?
742 2011-01-06 16:26:54 <Bittersweet> Hi, I have a technical question about Bitcoin, if all transactions are stored on clients won't it take to much space on average PC when Bitcoin will get REALLY popular?
743 2011-01-06 16:27:14 <lfm> depends
744 2011-01-06 16:27:21 <devon_hillard> not all transactions are stored, just the most recent ones
745 2011-01-06 16:27:24 <ArtForz> how did you get that number?
746 2011-01-06 16:28:01 <lfm> art timediff(currentblock, block-100)
747 2011-01-06 16:28:12 <ArtForz> I get ... about 585s/block
748 2011-01-06 16:28:47 <lfm> ya thats close to 59 min isnt it
749 2011-01-06 16:29:00 <ArtForz> errr.. no?
750 2011-01-06 16:29:09 <sipa> that's close to 10 minutes
751 2011-01-06 16:29:12 <sipa> as it should be
752 2011-01-06 16:29:18 <x6763> 9 minutes 45 seconds
753 2011-01-06 16:29:19 <ArtForz> thats 9m45s
754 2011-01-06 16:29:24 <lfm> oh
755 2011-01-06 16:30:00 <ArtForz> unless you use some weird metric minutes with 10 seconds each
756 2011-01-06 16:31:02 <lfm> no I see my problem
757 2011-01-06 16:32:47 <Bittersweet> oh, ok thanks. But the client must at least download all blocks, right?
758 2011-01-06 16:33:00 <Bittersweet> I mean, when you start the application the first time
759 2011-01-06 16:33:08 <ArtForz> yep
760 2011-01-06 16:33:31 <lfm> maybe just block headers, not sure
761 2011-01-06 16:33:37 <ArtForz> well, techically it wouldn't really HAVE to
762 2011-01-06 16:34:06 <ArtForz> block headers and merkle trees for blocks with unspent TX would be enough
763 2011-01-06 16:35:55 <ArtForz> so far no one bothered because the block chain still isn't really that big
764 2011-01-06 16:41:40 <lfm> even the merkle tree youd only really need about half of it, the actual txn hashes, the rest you can compute and check yourself
765 2011-01-06 16:42:46 <ArtForz> yeah, you'd only need the lowest merkle hash for each spent branch and the unspent txn
766 2011-01-06 16:45:01 <Bittersweet> That's all to complicated for me :P I just hope there won't be a situation you when you will have to leave a computer downloading and computing for a month to start using Bitcoin :>
767 2011-01-06 16:45:30 <ArtForz> very unlikely
768 2011-01-06 16:46:40 <lfm> bittersweet well in a sense that is already here. if your internet connection is really slow like an old modem it would take you several ages. that is part of the plan, that connection speed will continue to increase also
769 2011-01-06 16:47:55 <ArtForz> 60MB isnt THAT much even on 14.4k ;)
770 2011-01-06 16:48:15 <lfm> how bout 300 baud then? :-)
771 2011-01-06 16:48:38 <ArtForz> how about avian carriers?
772 2011-01-06 16:49:27 <lfm> floppy sneakernet?
773 2011-01-06 16:50:27 <ArtForz> station wagon filled with tapes?
774 2011-01-06 16:50:47 <Bittersweet> did someone try to make some plausible simulations like, like how long it would take (how many people, if they are doing like 1 transaction / week each) to "block" the system with current average Internet connection?
775 2011-01-06 16:51:18 <TD> Bittersweet: i did some scaling related calculations in the forum
776 2011-01-06 16:51:54 <TD> Bittersweet: showing that bitcoin can scale to VISA traffic levels without it becoming radically expensive to run nodes (you'd need a lot more hardware than today but nothing unaffordable for a small business or rich hobbyist)
777 2011-01-06 16:52:03 <ArtForz> iirc it really shouldnt be a problem even on a home line for the next few orders of magnitude
778 2011-01-06 16:52:20 <TD> yeah, also the network protocol currently has some inefficiencies in that could be removed
779 2011-01-06 16:52:28 <ArtForz> yep
780 2011-01-06 16:52:36 <TD> but if bitcoin ever reaches the level where that'd be useful, average bandwidth is probably 100x what it is today anyway
781 2011-01-06 16:52:44 <lfm> bittersweet there have been some tests to try to see if there are bottlenecks in the general txn rate yes. we can probably handle 100s of txn /min now
782 2011-01-06 16:54:32 <ArtForz> iirc isn't block size still limited to something ridiculous small like 50kB for now?
783 2011-01-06 16:54:53 <lfm> bittersweet also for really high txn rates you can offload the main net using "local" server accounts such as mybitcoin.com and mtgox.com
784 2011-01-06 16:55:46 <slush> luke-jr: Logging works perfectly. Are you using correct password?
785 2011-01-06 16:55:56 <slush> luke-jr: I'm working on 'reset password' feature now
786 2011-01-06 16:56:03 <luke-jr> slush: yes
787 2011-01-06 16:56:12 <luke-jr> slush: it was links being retarded with cache
788 2011-01-06 16:56:17 <lfm> slush he had a caching problem
789 2011-01-06 16:57:20 <slush> luke-jr: so it is solved?
790 2011-01-06 16:57:38 <luke-jr> yes
791 2011-01-06 17:00:16 <TD> ArtForz: 500kb
792 2011-01-06 17:00:38 <TD> bu yes it's still too small to take over the world :-)
793 2011-01-06 17:01:26 <luke-jr> if I added BTC prizes to a free game, would there be any interest in donating to its fund?
794 2011-01-06 17:01:52 <ArtForz> well, kinda
795 2011-01-06 17:02:03 <ArtForz> max size of block to be accepted is 500kB
796 2011-01-06 17:02:03 <luke-jr> thinking like 0.01 BTC per winner
797 2011-01-06 17:02:08 <lfm> start with your own btc and we will see
798 2011-01-06 17:02:17 <ArtForz> iirc normal miner wont put tx into block beyond 50kB thoguh
799 2011-01-06 17:02:17 <luke-jr> lfm: I have basically no BTC
800 2011-01-06 17:02:56 <luke-jr> 2.21 BTC now
801 2011-01-06 17:03:11 <ArtForz> nm, it is 500kB
802 2011-01-06 17:03:31 <lfm> try micro btc prizes then? 0.0000001btc, then youd have 1000s of prizes
803 2011-01-06 17:03:41 <luke-jr> but I can't transfer 0.0000001 BTC
804 2011-01-06 17:04:51 <lfm> just call em points and when you have a million points you can "win" 0.01btc
805 2011-01-06 17:04:52 <luke-jr> guess I need to make it stateful anyway to prevent cheating on prizes
806 2011-01-06 17:21:46 <midnightmagic> o good morning all! Morning, ArtForz.
807 2011-01-06 17:23:55 <ArtForz> hey
808 2011-01-06 17:24:52 <ArtForz> ugh, too many VMs open
809 2011-01-06 17:25:38 <midnightmagic> I just wanted to say thank you for being so free with technical information. :)
810 2011-01-06 17:25:58 <ArtForz> ?
811 2011-01-06 17:26:26 <midnightmagic> you know, how free you are with details, and equations, and facts about bitcoin and how your setup is rigged, and so on. it's really sparked my brain.
812 2011-01-06 17:26:38 <ArtForz> yeah, thats kinda the point
813 2011-01-06 17:26:45 <midnightmagic> i think your way is the best way thereby. :)
814 2011-01-06 17:29:36 <lfm> you mean we should all design asics?
815 2011-01-06 17:29:55 <ArtForz> well, yeah
816 2011-01-06 17:30:15 <lfm> ill take that under advisment
817 2011-01-06 17:30:32 <donpdonp> ArtForz: i want to second the kudos on free information. ive got a wiki page just of quotes from you on various aspects of mining.
818 2011-01-06 17:30:44 <ArtForz> or wait until someone does so and sells hardware
819 2011-01-06 17:31:54 <tcatm> Any idea why the RPC sometimes stalls for few seconds .. minutes?
820 2011-01-06 17:32:04 <ArtForz> hmmm... no
821 2011-01-06 17:33:37 <ArtForz> I dont think we'll see standard cell ASICs in the near future
822 2011-01-06 17:34:57 <ArtForz> though I do expect various FPGA implementations which still should end up a ~ 3x improvement over GPUs on hash/W (but boy do they suck for hash/$)
823 2011-01-06 17:39:09 <midnightmagic> it would be interesting to know how long the power savings would take if you put the extra money into a longer-term purchasing plan for new GPU as they came out.
824 2011-01-06 17:39:58 <tcatm> Steps to reproduce: open first telnet to localhost:8332, then open second telnet. Enter "GET / HTTP/1.1" + two returns in second. There's no response. Then enter the same in first telnet session and response in second session appears. Can anyone reproduce this?
825 2011-01-06 17:40:25 <midnightmagic> GET / HTTP/1.0[ctrl-j][ctrl-m]
826 2011-01-06 17:40:37 <ArtForz> iirc rpc is single-threaded
827 2011-01-06 17:41:19 <ArtForz> nope, it isnt... wtf
828 2011-01-06 17:42:05 <ArtForz> nm, it is
829 2011-01-06 17:42:53 <ArtForz> so yeah, RPC only handles one connection at a time
830 2011-01-06 17:45:45 <tcatm> Is there anything that might break when making it multithreaded?
831 2011-01-06 17:46:18 <ArtForz> probably
832 2011-01-06 17:46:46 <luke-jr> that's kinda the nature of multithreaded :P
833 2011-01-06 17:47:42 <ArtForz> it looks like we have locks in all important places
834 2011-01-06 17:49:34 <ArtForz> I'm pretty sure getwork isnt threadsafe
835 2011-01-06 17:50:14 <tcatm> The RPC server is already running in its own thread, isn't it?
836 2011-01-06 17:50:18 <ArtForz> yes
837 2011-01-06 17:51:14 <ArtForz> and it's doing doing while(running) {accept(); get_request(); do_stuff(); send_response();}
838 2011-01-06 17:51:50 <tcatm> So maybe using select() would work
839 2011-01-06 17:52:36 <ArtForz> hrrrm
840 2011-01-06 17:53:43 <ArtForz> yeah, I guess that could work
841 2011-01-06 17:54:00 <tcatm> There's only one point where data is read. api_caller(ReadHTTP...
842 2011-01-06 17:54:12 <ArtForz> yeah
843 2011-01-06 17:54:53 <ArtForz> from the looks of it you could also make it threaded and put a lock around the do_stuff()
844 2011-01-06 18:03:58 <mizerydearia> uhoh  http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=11/01/06/1820208
845 2011-01-06 18:05:05 <kiba> mizerydearia: non-issue
846 2011-01-06 18:05:27 <ArtForz> just a DoS, and easily fixed
847 2011-01-06 18:05:33 <luke-jr> ?
848 2011-01-06 18:17:14 <EvanR> damn
849 2011-01-06 18:17:21 <EvanR> were using that version of php
850 2011-01-06 18:18:55 <mizerydearia> It may affect my scripts if someone were to send 2.2250738585072011e-308btc to any address managed by the vps I'm working on.
851 2011-01-06 18:19:11 <kiba> floating point are bad, mizerydearia
852 2011-01-06 18:19:25 <midnightmagic> pretty sure that's too small and the network won't affect it.
853 2011-01-06 18:19:26 <kiba> I wouldn't use floating point
854 2011-01-06 18:19:31 <midnightmagic> accept it i mean.
855 2011-01-06 18:22:52 <mizerydearia> Does anyone here have any experience using OpenID?
856 2011-01-06 18:23:00 <mizerydearia> developing with it, that is
857 2011-01-06 18:23:12 <donpdonp> mizerydearia: yes
858 2011-01-06 18:27:55 <midnightmagic> i am disliking openid these days. bigger websites rarely accept arbitrary openid..
859 2011-01-06 18:30:11 <mizerydearia> hmm, isn't it gradually becoming more popular?
860 2011-01-06 18:30:31 <mizerydearia> I am integrating OpenID into a particular Bitcoin-related site.
861 2011-01-06 18:31:53 <slush> I also plan openid support on pool
862 2011-01-06 18:34:18 <donpdonp> mizerydearia: im a big fan of openid, though id call it declining instead of growing.
863 2011-01-06 18:34:26 <mizerydearia> hmm
864 2011-01-06 18:34:33 <mizerydearia> I noticed the IRC community is tiny.
865 2011-01-06 18:34:45 <mizerydearia> donpdonp, Have you noticed anything gaining popularity to take its place?
866 2011-01-06 18:34:47 <nanotube> everyone saw the .40 ppusd trade on bitcoinmarket come by?
867 2011-01-06 18:34:58 <donpdonp> mizerydearia: i think the savior for openid in the email address to openid url translation in webfinger. see webfinger.org
868 2011-01-06 18:35:05 <Zarutian> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko <- intresting idea
869 2011-01-06 18:35:20 <mizerydearia> nanotube: #bitcoin-market ^_^
870 2011-01-06 18:35:27 <nanotube> mizerydearia: yep :)
871 2011-01-06 18:37:31 <ArtForz> nanotube: yup
872 2011-01-06 18:38:35 <Zarutian> here a riddle/problem ya'll find interesting: devise a way for escrow less way of selling a name in the scroll for btc. (Fixed price and fixed btc-addr is allowed in the solution)
873 2011-01-06 18:40:24 <mizerydearia> Zarutian, interesting
874 2011-01-06 18:40:29 <mizerydearia> link
875 2011-01-06 18:47:35 <mizerydearia> webfinger seems to be an extension to OpenID
876 2011-01-06 18:48:53 <mizerydearia> However, at webfinger.org it seems to focus on Google
877 2011-01-06 18:49:39 <mizerydearia> Although I did use a gmail.com email address.
878 2011-01-06 18:50:48 <donpdonp> mizerydearia: webfinger is for discovery of all kinds of services based on an email address. openid being just one possible service
879 2011-01-06 19:00:13 <dsg> Anyone have a link to Dan Kaminsky discussing bitcoin mentioned in the link above?
880 2011-01-06 19:00:31 <dsg> (the link gives no source)
881 2011-01-06 19:10:51 <midnightmagic> ;;bc,stats
882 2011-01-06 19:10:53 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101337 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1478 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 23 hours, 21 minutes, and 14 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16827.96978340
883 2011-01-06 19:11:49 <midnightmagic> hee hee he said 1337
884 2011-01-06 19:15:37 <mizerydearia> ooh, interesting interview with gavin: http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2010/12/interview-bitcoin.php
885 2011-01-06 19:23:19 <sgornick> dsg: Via twitter right before Christmas: http://twitter.com/dakami/status/18069708553068544 there were conversations between: @aaronsw???@zooko @mala @ioerror @dakami
886 2011-01-06 19:27:57 <dsg> sgornick: thanks
887 2011-01-06 19:28:24 <dsg> I'd guess the answer to that question is $10M. :)
888 2011-01-06 19:29:00 <sgornick> Others think that threshold is much, much lower
889 2011-01-06 19:33:14 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 171800
890 2011-01-06 19:33:28 <mizerydearia> ;calc 171800+1
891 2011-01-06 19:33:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 171800 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 4 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes, and 43 seconds
892 2011-01-06 19:33:36 <mizerydearia> O_O
893 2011-01-06 19:33:42 <mizerydearia> ;calc 171800-1
894 2011-01-06 19:33:49 <mizerydearia> X_X
895 2011-01-06 19:34:54 <mizerydearia> Ah, interference
896 2011-01-06 19:35:38 <ArtForz> yep, a lot lower
897 2011-01-06 19:36:24 <ArtForz> $250k already get you > current network
898 2011-01-06 19:37:16 <ArtForz> beyond $1M or so economy of scale really kicks in
899 2011-01-06 19:37:27 <mizerydearia> hmm
900 2011-01-06 19:37:34 <mizerydearia> How much have you invested so far ArtForz ?
901 2011-01-06 19:39:41 <ArtForz> about 60k so far
902 2011-01-06 19:41:16 <xelister> ArtForz: when will you have first say 10 GHash worth of units and we will know if this was a success?
903 2011-01-06 19:41:51 <ArtForz> not too sure, chips are done in feb, I'm doing all the assembly myself
904 2011-01-06 19:42:32 <ArtForz> first bringup will probably take a while, I'm not sure yet if my layout works out
905 2011-01-06 19:49:15 <fogot> hello
906 2011-01-06 19:49:30 <fogot> I'm curious as to the libraries available for bitcoin