1 2011-01-07 00:03:16 <marioxcc> chris200x9: do you run it?
  2 2011-01-07 00:03:43 <chris200x9> marioxcc: run what?
  3 2011-01-07 00:04:02 <marioxcc> http://94.75.220.77:10619/
  4 2011-01-07 00:04:28 <chris200x9> no
  5 2011-01-07 00:04:38 <chris200x9> I just found it on the trade page
  6 2011-01-07 00:04:49 <marioxcc> ok
  7 2011-01-07 00:04:55 <marioxcc> maybe I made a more complete cassino
  8 2011-01-07 00:05:01 <marioxcc> if I do, I will run it as a tor hidden service
  9 2011-01-07 00:07:15 <chris200x9> so is there anyway to get them out?
 10 2011-01-07 00:08:22 <marioxcc> to get wath out?
 11 2011-01-07 00:09:05 <chris200x9> my bitcoins
 12 2011-01-07 00:09:20 <chris200x9> or is it like "play money" now
 13 2011-01-07 00:09:28 <marioxcc> i don't know+
 14 2011-01-07 00:09:48 <marioxcc> oh, no
 15 2011-01-07 00:09:51 <BitterSweet> why not contacting the casino owner
 16 2011-01-07 00:09:51 <marioxcc> it is flash BS
 17 2011-01-07 00:10:16 <marioxcc> what for?
 18 2011-01-07 00:10:17 <chris200x9> ok I'll email them
 19 2011-01-07 00:10:32 <BitterSweet> to ask them about his problem
 20 2011-01-07 00:10:37 <BitterSweet> whatever the problem is
 21 2011-01-07 00:10:40 <chris200x9> to get my bitcoins?
 22 2011-01-07 00:10:41 <marioxcc> ok
 23 2011-01-07 00:11:10 <BitterSweet> if you have a problem with a service, usually you contact someone who runs it?
 24 2011-01-07 00:11:48 <chris200x9> yea I thought the might be in here
 25 2011-01-07 00:12:15 <chris200x9> they had an email address and said to come here
 26 2011-01-07 00:13:05 <chris200x9> thats why I went here, figured it'd be quicker than email but obviously the owner is not here :(
 27 2011-01-07 00:13:40 <marioxcc> is there a GIT-wiki=
 28 2011-01-07 00:14:57 <chris200x9> welp its a moot issue I got bored went back to the tables
 29 2011-01-07 00:15:02 <chris200x9> and lost it all
 30 2011-01-07 00:15:04 <chris200x9> :(
 31 2011-01-07 00:16:32 <BitterSweet> I don't understand gambling
 32 2011-01-07 00:16:39 <BitterSweet> what's fun in losing money
 33 2011-01-07 00:17:19 <xelister> BitterSweet: you can gain
 34 2011-01-07 00:17:37 <chris200x9> well it was 6 bit coins
 35 2011-01-07 00:17:47 <chris200x9> and I had won 4
 36 2011-01-07 00:17:58 <chris200x9> so I thought I was on a roll
 37 2011-01-07 00:18:07 <chris200x9> evidently I was not
 38 2011-01-07 00:18:10 <chris200x9> :P
 39 2011-01-07 00:18:20 <chris200x9> only 6*
 40 2011-01-07 00:18:58 <marioxcc> duh, gambler fallacy
 41 2011-01-07 00:19:02 <marioxcc> ;-)
 42 2011-01-07 00:19:41 <chris200x9> no i was working on a bug theory
 43 2011-01-07 00:19:51 <Cusipzzz> martingale? lol
 44 2011-01-07 00:20:14 <chris200x9> every spin was red on the first spin
 45 2011-01-07 00:20:24 <chris200x9> then i closed it
 46 2011-01-07 00:20:39 <chris200x9> then first spin next time red again
 47 2011-01-07 00:20:58 <marioxcc> it is not a bug
 48 2011-01-07 00:21:05 <marioxcc> they may do that on purpose
 49 2011-01-07 00:21:09 <chris200x9> must have happend 5 or 6 times in a row
 50 2011-01-07 00:21:09 <marioxcc> so you do that kind of things
 51 2011-01-07 00:21:49 <chris200x9> with 6 bitcoin (less than $3) yes
 52 2011-01-07 00:21:53 <chris200x9> then I bet it all and the firt on wa black
 53 2011-01-07 00:21:56 <Cusipzzz> 5 or 6 is nothing.. i have seen 21 black spins in a row, at a casino
 54 2011-01-07 00:22:20 <Cusipzzz> people got killed, kept doubling up on red, saying, it must come...and yes it did, when most where broke
 55 2011-01-07 00:22:45 <chris200x9> it wasn't in a row
 56 2011-01-07 00:23:04 <chris200x9> it was just the first spin every time
 57 2011-01-07 00:23:12 <Cusipzzz> hm
 58 2011-01-07 00:23:13 <chris200x9> when i closed it and went back
 59 2011-01-07 00:23:40 <chris200x9> oh well it's $1.80
 60 2011-01-07 00:23:47 <chris200x9> meh
 61 2011-01-07 00:24:02 <Cusipzzz> code is something like 'on $spin1 if bet < 5 btc, red, else black'
 62 2011-01-07 00:24:03 <Cusipzzz> lol
 63 2011-01-07 00:24:16 <Cusipzzz> waiting for the big score, hah
 64 2011-01-07 00:24:19 <marioxcc> hey people
 65 2011-01-07 00:24:26 <marioxcc> this isn't a real roulette
 66 2011-01-07 00:24:35 <marioxcc> they results are competely predictable and modifiable by the operator
 67 2011-01-07 00:40:03 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: yeah that happened to me
 68 2011-01-07 00:40:08 <EvanR> about 13 black in a row
 69 2011-01-07 00:40:16 <EvanR> know what i did, kept betting on black xD
 70 2011-01-07 00:40:26 <EvanR> because that was my strategy
 71 2011-01-07 00:40:34 <EvanR> only one color, no point in changing
 72 2011-01-07 00:40:42 <Cusipzzz> once you go black, you don't go back....
 73 2011-01-07 00:40:45 <EvanR> lol
 74 2011-01-07 00:40:59 <EvanR> i kept doubling my money, it was awesome
 75 2011-01-07 00:40:59 <marioxcc> changing from one prediction to another with equal probability is the same as not changing
 76 2011-01-07 00:41:20 <EvanR> randomly choosing red or black is equal to only choosing black, so i took the lazy way ;)
 77 2011-01-07 00:41:25 <Cusipzzz> maybe the wheel was uneven, and the black slots not as deep as the red
 78 2011-01-07 00:41:31 <marioxcc> EvanR: yeah
 79 2011-01-07 00:41:51 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: no, that would make the wheel quite a burden on the house
 80 2011-01-07 00:42:01 <Cusipzzz> yes
 81 2011-01-07 00:42:06 <marioxcc> Cusipzzz: well, that will only show after lots of tests, you don't know in advance
 82 2011-01-07 00:43:37 <EvanR> casino RNGs are funny, they are required to generate a perpetual stream of random numbers which you poll at certain times
 83 2011-01-07 00:43:49 <EvanR> which is the same as just dequeuing once
 84 2011-01-07 00:44:17 <EvanR> save electricity ;)
 85 2011-01-07 01:28:14 <eureka^> http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html
 86 2011-01-07 01:28:17 <eureka^> http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html
 87 2011-01-07 01:53:44 <kartofeln> so... how futile/unfeasible is it to write a miner on top of openGL, as an attempt to leverage GPUs that don't support openCL/CUDA things?
 88 2011-01-07 01:54:05 <kartofeln> presumably by writing a very strange shader.
 89 2011-01-07 01:59:05 <nanotube> kartofeln: i've heard ArtForz say it's feasible... not sure how useful it would be, as far as how much hash rate you can get, though.
 90 2011-01-07 01:59:49 <kartofeln> if it's better than a CPU approach, it's a win for computers that don't have a GPGPU thingy.
 91 2011-01-07 02:00:04 <nanotube> possibly
 92 2011-01-07 02:00:10 <kartofeln> it also opens other possibilities. such as non-sucky web-based mining.
 93 2011-01-07 02:00:24 <nanotube> kartofeln: also a win for proprietary driver refuseniks.
 94 2011-01-07 02:00:36 <nanotube> ah hehe true, that too. :)
 95 2011-01-07 02:03:35 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
 96 2011-01-07 02:04:10 <fabianhjr> MtGox is getting near 0.31 this looks really good. :)
 97 2011-01-07 02:05:21 <Cusipzzz> try .32 =)
 98 2011-01-07 02:05:39 <fabianhjr> There is a high volume: 35K BTC. S3052, are you here?
 99 2011-01-07 02:05:41 <nanotube> fabianhjr: it seems you're missing out on #bitcoin-market. :)
100 2011-01-07 02:05:53 <nanotube> ;;bc,mtgox
101 2011-01-07 02:05:54 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.319,"low":0.29,"vol":36200,"buy":0.298,"sell":0.32,"last":0.308}}
102 2011-01-07 02:06:15 <fabianhjr> WOW, lol. BitcoinCharts failed me. Maybe it is the ticker. xD
103 2011-01-07 02:06:21 <fabianhjr> eitherway. It looks good.
104 2011-01-07 02:06:34 <gribble> 470.6
105 2011-01-07 02:06:34 <nanotube> heh nice volume... so mtgox made about ,,(math calc 36200*0.013) in fees today.
106 2011-01-07 02:06:53 <Keefe> ;;seen mtgox
107 2011-01-07 02:06:54 <gribble> mtgox was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 week, 1 day, 12 hours, 8 minutes, and 58 seconds ago: <mtgox> EvanR-work: you have to tell me you are doing it and I'll look for the transaction in my account
108 2011-01-07 02:07:10 <Cusipzzz> lol
109 2011-01-07 02:07:20 <Cusipzzz> mtgox too busy with hookers and blow =)
110 2011-01-07 02:07:29 <fabianhjr> xD
111 2011-01-07 02:08:03 <kartofeln> talking of which, did that forum post about selling one's body for BTC ever go anywhere?
112 2011-01-07 02:08:16 <nanotube> kartofeln: doubtful. ;)
113 2011-01-07 02:08:26 <fabianhjr> Anyone ready to get Randall(XKCD.com) involved in Bitcoins?
114 2011-01-07 02:08:41 <fabianhjr> kartofeln: it was genjix's and he is now selling his name.
115 2011-01-07 02:08:55 <kartofeln> ah yes. missed that. reading now.
116 2011-01-07 02:09:04 <nanotube> yea, he ran out of stuff to sell, and is now resorting to body and name. hehe
117 2011-01-07 02:09:19 <fabianhjr> I suggested a long name of each alphabetical letters like Abrams Bruno Charlie Dominique ets. and Santa.
118 2011-01-07 02:09:41 <kartofeln> so we're going from bobby table to straight out buffer overflows?
119 2011-01-07 02:10:14 <fabianhjr> I would really love Randall doing some great comics promoting Bitcoin. I mean, how many geeks read it?!
120 2011-01-07 02:11:22 <fabianhjr> nanotube: can I ask the bitcoin-market bot the latest MtGox trade or something like that via PM?
121 2011-01-07 02:12:36 <newsham> hi.. I'm trying the Diablo gpu miner on a t410s (linux 64bit) and its segfaulting.
122 2011-01-07 02:12:48 <newsham> is that normal behavior if its an unsupported gpu/card?
123 2011-01-07 02:14:24 <fabianhjr> newsham: maybe. Better ask Diablo-D3
124 2011-01-07 02:14:41 <fabianhjr> he is the one behind the miner. :)
125 2011-01-07 02:14:54 <newsham> is that a handle?
126 2011-01-07 02:15:01 <newsham> does he come on this chan?  if so, aprox when?
127 2011-01-07 02:15:14 <fabianhjr> That is his Nick on this channel.
128 2011-01-07 02:15:20 <nanotube> fabianhjr: yes you can give it the bc,mtgox command in pm.
129 2011-01-07 02:15:56 <nanotube> kartofeln: haha yea that's a good idea, btw. bid 0.01 btc for genjix to change name to 'bobby tables'... then use that to lure in randall xkcd. :)
130 2011-01-07 02:16:43 <kartofeln> lol. I'm not entirely sure bitcoins need a lot more geek-target promotion as it is..
131 2011-01-07 02:16:54 <tcatm> Yay, reduced bitcoind-patch for js-remote to 4 lines!
132 2011-01-07 02:16:58 <nanotube> how can you go wrong with more geeks, kartofeln ?? :)
133 2011-01-07 02:17:24 <nanotube> tcatm: nice! :) is that relative to svn trunk bitcoin... or relative to latest in github?
134 2011-01-07 02:17:46 <Kiba``> seem to be typical style for bitcoiners to pay people via bounties
135 2011-01-07 02:18:21 <tcatm> nanotube: should work on both. It's against github.
136 2011-01-07 02:19:04 <Kiba``> hmm
137 2011-01-07 02:19:17 <Kiba``> I should finish my novel from NOvember before proceeding to do a graphic novel
138 2011-01-07 02:20:37 <tcatm> I want a removeaccount RPC :/
139 2011-01-07 02:23:49 <Kiba``> hmm
140 2011-01-07 02:24:24 <Kiba``> Khan Academy had managed to teach me a few mechanical tricks regarding math
141 2011-01-07 02:24:27 <Kiba``> not bad
142 2011-01-07 02:51:30 <kartofeln> is there any meaningful performance difference between diablo's miner and m0mchil's ?
143 2011-01-07 03:13:06 <chuck251> I wonder about that too. Also, linux vs windows, 32bit os vs 64bit etc? has anyone benchmarked these...
144 2011-01-07 03:13:59 <nanotube> kartofeln: diablo claims his is a couple percent faster. :P
145 2011-01-07 03:14:14 <kiba> Diablo-D3 always claim that he's the best
146 2011-01-07 03:14:24 <kartofeln> k. I read a bit more about it, they're apparently both using the same underlying .cl file.
147 2011-01-07 03:14:34 <nanotube> chuck251: no i don't know if anyone has said that it makes much of a difference... so it's up to you to try i guess. :)
148 2011-01-07 03:14:39 <nanotube> kartofeln: yes
149 2011-01-07 03:14:41 <nanotube> same core
150 2011-01-07 03:16:20 <kartofeln> so.. the -v flag on those things makes it compyte 2 hashes in parallel using a vector type, right?
151 2011-01-07 03:16:43 <kartofeln> is there a reason it stops at 2, rather than 3 or 4 item vectors?
152 2011-01-07 03:21:32 <tcatm> Can I tell git to ignore changes to a single file on commit -a?
153 2011-01-07 03:23:46 <afed> cluster gets faster every day :D
154 2011-01-07 03:24:36 <nanotube> tcatm: .gitignore
155 2011-01-07 03:24:47 <nanotube> tcatm: or do you mean, to ignore it "just this one time" ?
156 2011-01-07 03:26:22 <tcatm> nanotube: ignore it always except when I explicitly commit it (it's a settings file where I'd like a clean version in git)
157 2011-01-07 03:28:25 <nanotube> tcatm: ah. well this http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/gitignore.html suggests to use 'git update-index --assume-unchanged' to ignore changes to a file that's already tracked.
158 2011-01-07 03:28:38 <nanotube> i'd man 'git-update-index' for more details
159 2011-01-07 03:32:20 <tcatm> nanotube: thanks. --assume-unchanged works
160 2011-01-07 03:35:24 <nanotube> tcatm: cool. :) and when you need to force the update, just 'git add <yourfile>' explicitly prior to commit.
161 2011-01-07 03:49:59 <tcatm> nanotube: https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
162 2011-01-07 03:53:19 <nanotube> cool tcatm :)
163 2011-01-07 03:54:04 <tcatm> What's the best way to have a clean git log on the master branch?
164 2011-01-07 03:58:18 <nanotube> tcatm: don't commit anything to master until you're ready... :)
165 2011-01-07 03:58:32 <nanotube> tcatm: do all your 'exploratory work' on side branches
166 2011-01-07 03:58:39 <kartofeln> why is the topic link pointing to an ancient forum thread?
167 2011-01-07 03:58:43 <tcatm> How do I commit a branch to master?
168 2011-01-07 04:07:46 <newsham> i have ubuntu with an nvidia card.  i have the nvidia drivers and headers, but I have no CL/cl_ext.h file.
169 2011-01-07 04:07:52 <newsham> where does that come from?
170 2011-01-07 04:08:13 <da2ce7> nvidia cards generate slow...
171 2011-01-07 04:08:22 <newsham> irrelevant.
172 2011-01-07 04:08:27 <da2ce7> you may be making more heat that bitcoin.
173 2011-01-07 04:08:44 <newsham> irrelevant.
174 2011-01-07 04:08:46 <da2ce7> any recent nvidia drivers have everything you need.
175 2011-01-07 04:09:02 <newsham> i cant build pyopencl  because it wants CL/cl_ext.h
176 2011-01-07 04:09:15 <newsham> which is not present in the nvidia driver dist or the matching -dev
177 2011-01-07 04:09:43 <da2ce7> is there a open-cl dev package you are missing?
178 2011-01-07 04:10:36 <newsham> the nvidia driver comes with opencl files in /usr/include/nvidia-current/CL/* (and matching libs elsewhere)
179 2011-01-07 04:10:43 <newsham> it has CL/cl.h but not CL/cl_ext.h
180 2011-01-07 04:11:33 <da2ce7> I cannot help, any further. I'm a windows boy.
181 2011-01-07 04:11:45 <newsham> thanks anyway.
182 2011-01-07 04:13:14 <da2ce7> http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/2_3/opencl/sdk/docs/release_notes_opencl.txt
183 2011-01-07 04:13:24 <da2ce7> there is clext.h
184 2011-01-07 04:13:38 <da2ce7> try making a symlink to cl_ext.h
185 2011-01-07 04:13:41 <nanotube> tcatm: you mean, merge a branch into master? you do 'git merge'
186 2011-01-07 04:14:07 <tcatm> nanotube: yeah, but doesn't that copy the whole commit history?
187 2011-01-07 04:14:13 <nanotube> tcatm: so... sa you're on branch 'newfeature'. you want to merge it to master because it is ready... you do "git checkout master", then "git merge newfeature"
188 2011-01-07 04:15:38 <nanotube> tcatm: ah, for that, look into the --squash option to git merge
189 2011-01-07 04:16:27 <nanotube> tcatm: you could also do an interactive rebase, and squash commits selectively
190 2011-01-07 04:16:45 <nanotube> tcatm: but all that said... there really isn't much need to 'sanitize' your commit history.
191 2011-01-07 04:16:53 <nanotube> just let it be what it is. :)
192 2011-01-07 04:26:13 <kartofeln> grmf. pyopencl claims to not require boost anymore, but its build process still very much expects it to be there.
193 2011-01-07 05:30:09 <Diablo-D3> newsham: nvidia NEVER ships up to date headers
194 2011-01-07 05:30:23 <Diablo-D3> just use the ones provided by khronos
195 2011-01-07 05:30:30 <Diablo-D3> or ones provided by mesa
196 2011-01-07 05:59:44 <da2ce7> any big changes to bitcoin since 0.3.19?
197 2011-01-07 06:03:46 <lfm> depends what you think is big
198 2011-01-07 06:39:34 <edcba> a
199 2011-01-07 07:37:57 <kartofeln> it seems like switching from a 2 ints vector to a 4 ints vector in the CL code is boosting my throughput from 160Mhash/s to 258Mhash/s
200 2011-01-07 07:38:49 <kartofeln> which for an ATI HD 5770 seems rather good
201 2011-01-07 07:39:20 <kartofeln> oh wait.
202 2011-01-07 07:39:56 <kartofeln> n/m. I suck at math.
203 2011-01-07 08:09:28 <joe_1> anyone having trouble loggin in to mtgox
204 2011-01-07 08:15:01 <joe_1> my mtgox account was just blown away fuck
205 2011-01-07 08:15:38 <FreeMoney> what?
206 2011-01-07 08:17:26 <Keefe> all's fine for me
207 2011-01-07 08:18:11 <Keefe> well, other than still waiting for a deposit to process
208 2011-01-07 08:21:10 <slush> ;;bc,mtgox
209 2011-01-07 08:21:11 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":0.319,"low":0.29,"vol":36400,"buy":0.309,"sell":0.319,"last":0.31}}
210 2011-01-07 08:21:14 <joe_1> i tried both the regular log in form, and the forgot password form. neither form recognizes my username or email
211 2011-01-07 08:21:46 <lfm> try the new user form?
212 2011-01-07 08:25:15 <joe_1> I thought of trying the new user form, but my account has coins in it. If it lets me create a new account on top of the same username, it might complicate the process for mtgox to resolve my issue.
213 2011-01-07 08:29:08 <lfm> my account seems ok over there except I wish the balances were larger
214 2011-01-07 08:43:46 <joe_1> false alarm i had the wrong username. i'm in now. but the forgot password form is still messed up because it doesn't work if you look it up by email address.
215 2011-01-07 09:34:43 <davout> hi
216 2011-01-07 11:22:13 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,calc 104000
217 2011-01-07 11:22:18 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 104000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 week, 0 days, 19 hours, 4 minutes, and 22 seconds
218 2011-01-07 11:22:35 <edcba> ;;bc,calc 3000
219 2011-01-07 11:22:37 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 3000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 38 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 11 minutes, and 41 seconds
220 2011-01-07 11:23:16 <sipa> ;;bc,calc 100500
221 2011-01-07 11:23:17 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 100500 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 35 minutes, and 16 seconds
222 2011-01-07 11:27:35 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
223 2011-01-07 11:27:42 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101447 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1367 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 1 hour, 57 minutes, and 38 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 17082.23828179
224 2011-01-07 12:03:25 <davout> ;;bc,calc 600000
225 2011-01-07 12:03:26 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 600000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 day, 8 hours, 25 minutes, and 33 seconds
226 2011-01-07 12:50:52 <devon_hillard> the pool is at 12.7GH/s, approaching 10% of total cluster speed
227 2011-01-07 13:03:16 <davout> yay
228 2011-01-07 13:03:27 <davout> bitcoin-central.net now has dark pools
229 2011-01-07 13:03:47 <davout> they aren't very sophisticated yet but they do the job
230 2011-01-07 13:04:37 <tcatm> davout: is there a minium volume required?
231 2011-01-07 13:07:22 <davout> not yet
232 2011-01-07 13:08:00 <davout> i think 1k or 500 is reasonable
233 2011-01-07 13:08:33 <tcatm> USD or BTC?
234 2011-01-07 13:08:39 <davout> BTC
235 2011-01-07 13:08:57 <tcatm> better 5k ... 10k
236 2011-01-07 13:09:00 <davout> think that's too low ?
237 2011-01-07 13:09:18 <davout> yea i guess o forgot the minimum amount at mtgox is 1k USD not BTC
238 2011-01-07 13:09:26 <tcatm> You don't want your orderbook to look empty ;)
239 2011-01-07 13:09:33 <davout> thats right
240 2011-01-07 13:09:45 <davout> there aren't that much trades so lets fill the book
241 2011-01-07 13:09:51 <davout> :D
242 2011-01-07 13:10:41 <tcatm> I just traded some coins
243 2011-01-07 13:10:46 <davout> yay
244 2011-01-07 13:11:07 <davout> hehe
245 2011-01-07 13:11:13 <davout> i need some work on the charts
246 2011-01-07 13:11:18 <davout> there should be a couple more
247 2011-01-07 13:11:22 <davout> the code is ugly
248 2011-01-07 13:11:52 <davout> and as soon as the first order dispayed in it gets older than 48h the whole line gets removed
249 2011-01-07 13:12:02 <tcatm> I could help you by porting code from bitcoincharts
250 2011-01-07 13:12:05 <davout> in other words bc charts == shitty for now
251 2011-01-07 13:12:19 <davout> i didn't really look into your code, how are you making them ?
252 2011-01-07 13:12:23 <davout> i'm using proto charts
253 2011-01-07 13:12:28 <davout> but it feels kinda shitty
254 2011-01-07 13:12:42 <tcatm> Graphs are rendered by ChartDirectory (non free)
255 2011-01-07 13:12:48 <tcatm> ChartDirector*
256 2011-01-07 13:12:53 <davout> i'd rather user jqplot like mtgox but that means translating ptype => jquery
257 2011-01-07 13:12:58 <davout> or direct svg output
258 2011-01-07 13:13:07 <tcatm> But there's a lot of pre-processing that could be used with other charting libs
259 2011-01-07 13:13:10 <davout> yea, i'd rather use some foss lib
260 2011-01-07 13:14:21 <tcatm> Most important part is one very mighty SQL query for converting trade history into chart-able data
261 2011-01-07 13:14:38 <davout> sql queries are a breeze with arel
262 2011-01-07 13:14:56 <UukGoblin> hrm
263 2011-01-07 13:15:12 <UukGoblin> I wonder if I should produce a VAT invoice for selling bitcoins
264 2011-01-07 13:15:32 <davout> and pay vat ?
265 2011-01-07 13:15:40 <tcatm> davout: is the source available yet?
266 2011-01-07 13:16:18 <davout> rails sql sweetness
267 2011-01-07 13:16:19 <davout> http://pastie.org/1437265
268 2011-01-07 13:16:19 <UukGoblin> davout, I guess...
269 2011-01-07 13:16:35 <davout> i can email you a tarball
270 2011-01-07 13:17:04 <davout> i don't have any private repo collabs slots anymore
271 2011-01-07 13:17:36 <tcatm> davout: tcatm@gawab.com
272 2011-01-07 13:17:56 <UukGoblin> if I was going to pay income tax on the income I get from bitcoin, I'd like to get as many VAT deductions as possible... or something... I've no idea about accounting, never had to do it
273 2011-01-07 13:25:04 <davout> well, in france as a company you deduct the vat you pay with expenses from the vat you collect from sales and pay the difference
274 2011-01-07 13:25:16 <davout> which is positive if you're profitable usually
275 2011-01-07 13:25:30 <davout> the problem with bitcoin
276 2011-01-07 13:25:37 <UukGoblin> yeah, that's how vat works in general
277 2011-01-07 13:25:52 <davout> is that if you buy from non professionals you don't get any vat to deduct from your sales
278 2011-01-07 13:25:58 <davout> which is shitty
279 2011-01-07 13:26:27 <UukGoblin> that's only a problem if you buy bitcoins
280 2011-01-07 13:26:46 <davout> also as a professionnal that takes deposits from ppl you could have to get a financial license which requires a 750k EUR deposit
281 2011-01-07 13:26:47 <davout> yea
282 2011-01-07 13:26:59 <davout> i guess if you buy hardware to generate that could work
283 2011-01-07 13:29:31 <ThomasV> davout: is bitcoin-central located in France ?
284 2011-01-07 13:29:36 <davout> yup
285 2011-01-07 13:29:40 <davout> tcatm: sent
286 2011-01-07 13:29:53 <ThomasV> so, will you have do pay this deposit ?
287 2011-01-07 13:30:04 <MacRohard> register a company somewhere with lax regulation
288 2011-01-07 13:30:04 <tcatm> davout: thanks
289 2011-01-07 13:30:04 <ThomasV> sorry, this licence
290 2011-01-07 13:30:19 <davout> yea, but thats pretty complicated right now
291 2011-01-07 13:30:30 <davout> that could definitely be worth it though
292 2011-01-07 13:30:40 <MacRohard> belize and seyshells shelf companies are cheap
293 2011-01-07 13:30:52 <davout> but that would mean people would have to wire funds to panama which could be expensive/sound fishy
294 2011-01-07 13:31:14 <MacRohard> you can often register the offshore companies locally
295 2011-01-07 13:31:20 <MacRohard> and then open regular france bank accounts for them
296 2011-01-07 13:32:00 <MacRohard> but they're still offshore
297 2011-01-07 13:32:52 <ThomasV> did mtgox also pay a similar licence ?
298 2011-01-07 13:33:10 <MacRohard> i don't think mtgox has a company
299 2011-01-07 13:33:19 <davout> ThomasV: i don't think so
300 2011-01-07 13:33:34 <davout> i'm going to look into it
301 2011-01-07 13:33:43 <MacRohard> you don't really need a corporate entity to deal with bitcoin or liberty reserve
302 2011-01-07 13:33:44 <ThomasV> yes but he has a eu account where users can wire euros
303 2011-01-07 13:34:00 <MacRohard> true. might just be a personal acct.. ut maybe he does have a company
304 2011-01-07 13:34:07 <UukGoblin> I'm just worried if I have to pay income tax on my bitcoin income
305 2011-01-07 13:34:15 <UukGoblin> and how to do it :-[
306 2011-01-07 13:34:26 <MacRohard> you just pay the current market price in dollars
307 2011-01-07 13:34:36 <davout> if someone feels like wiring me 1k EUR for 3.3k BTC i can do just that :)
308 2011-01-07 13:34:38 <MacRohard> or whatever your local currency is
309 2011-01-07 13:35:06 <davout> opening an offshore corporation, my wildest dreams are coming true
310 2011-01-07 13:35:09 <davout> xD
311 2011-01-07 13:41:00 <MacRohard> 1kEUR should buy more like 4020 BTC
312 2011-01-07 13:41:08 <MacRohard> going by the last mtgox prices
313 2011-01-07 13:42:02 <edcba> ;mtgox
314 2011-01-07 13:42:03 <bitbot> edcba: Mt. Gox: Last(0.322) High(0.322) Low(0.29) BestSellPrice(0.31) BestBuyPrice(0.319) Volume(40509)
315 2011-01-07 13:43:15 <fabianhjr> Hi, sup?
316 2011-01-07 13:43:27 <fabianhjr> davout: thanks for the source. :)
317 2011-01-07 13:43:37 <davout> hi
318 2011-01-07 13:43:56 <davout> MacRohard: yea i guess
319 2011-01-07 13:46:53 <MacRohard> i'd offer to do it, but i don't have 1k EUR available until a couple of weeks time.
320 2011-01-07 13:49:48 <fabianhjr> Now the USd per BTC is reaching 0.33 with the insane 40K in volume. :)
321 2011-01-07 13:54:51 <EvanR-work> well see how long THAT lasts! ;)
322 2011-01-07 13:55:43 <MacRohard> 1 BTC will prolly soon be worth $1 trillion USD ;)
323 2011-01-07 13:56:13 <edcba> 'soon'
324 2011-01-07 13:56:30 <MacRohard> hehe
325 2011-01-07 13:57:12 <ArtForz> and how many milligrams of gold is that gonna be? ;)
326 2011-01-07 13:57:15 <EvanR-work> for very eventual values of soon
327 2011-01-07 14:00:16 <edcba> i hope we'll switch from original protocol then
328 2011-01-07 14:11:19 <sipa> slush: you got 10% of the whole network in your cluster!
329 2011-01-07 14:11:38 <slush> yep I know
330 2011-01-07 14:11:47 <sipa> wow! :)
331 2011-01-07 14:12:05 <slush> tcatm added his 3ghash cluster to pool recently
332 2011-01-07 14:12:23 <slush> (which is behind the big step in overall speed)
333 2011-01-07 14:12:55 <sipa> if they all donate 2%, you earn 1.5 BTC/day through donations :)
334 2011-01-07 14:13:25 <slush> but the majority did not touch default donation settings ;) (0%)
335 2011-01-07 14:13:34 <sneak> is it stream 2.1 or 2.2 that i want?
336 2011-01-07 14:13:35 <sneak> i forgot
337 2011-01-07 14:13:42 <sipa> 2.1
338 2011-01-07 14:14:33 <sneak> my root drive in my mining box died
339 2011-01-07 14:14:42 <sneak> have to reinstall all the stuff :/
340 2011-01-07 14:22:56 <Rodrigo_M> hi there ppl
341 2011-01-07 14:23:30 <Rodrigo_M> i'm having a bit of trouble developing for bitcoin, i need some help
342 2011-01-07 14:23:57 <Rodrigo_M> anyone knows or used the MOVE command?
343 2011-01-07 14:30:35 <gavinandresen> I implemented it-- does that count?
344 2011-01-07 14:30:58 <tcatm> hey gavin :)
345 2011-01-07 14:31:22 <gavinandresen> Good morning tcatm
346 2011-01-07 14:31:29 <gavinandresen> Rodrigo_M : what's your question?
347 2011-01-07 14:33:27 <tcatm> gavinandresen: I made a patch to support CORS
348 2011-01-07 14:33:41 <gavinandresen> tcatm: awesome!  Does it work?
349 2011-01-07 14:33:56 <tcatm> https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote/raw/master/README
350 2011-01-07 14:33:57 <tcatm> yep
351 2011-01-07 14:34:05 <tcatm> even more reliable than JSONP
352 2011-01-07 14:34:10 <tcatm> and a lot simpler :)
353 2011-01-07 14:34:44 <sipa> gavinandresen: is there a branch in git which supports has the getblock method?
354 2011-01-07 14:35:11 <gavinandresen> sipa: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/monitorreceived
355 2011-01-07 14:36:15 <sipa> oh, thanks :)
356 2011-01-07 14:36:27 <sipa> i used a different one earlier, but things seem to have changed
357 2011-01-07 14:38:37 <devon_hillard> <MacRohard> 1 BTC will prolly soon be worth $1 trillion USD ;) it's already worth more than a trillion Z-USD :p
358 2011-01-07 14:43:14 <gavinandresen> tcatm: is the change to ErrorReply (status 200 instead of 500) needed for CORS?  I was careful to follow the latest JSON-RPC-HTTP for status returns and error codes...
359 2011-01-07 14:48:38 <EvanR-work> whats Z-USD
360 2011-01-07 14:49:57 <davout> zimbabwean dollar
361 2011-01-07 14:50:25 <fabianhjr> Damn, the American Dream Film is a really nice movie. :)
362 2011-01-07 14:52:06 <fabianhjr> Just finish watching it and love it even if it has some small lies in it. :P
363 2011-01-07 14:54:54 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Mhm.. it *should* work with 500. I'll have to see whether I can get a JSON object from a 500 response with jQuery.
364 2011-01-07 14:57:12 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Works!
365 2011-01-07 14:58:28 <gavinandresen> tcatm: great.  I'll push a CORS branch to github and submit a PULL request; I like the CORS solution WAY better than JSONP.
366 2011-01-07 14:58:44 <bonsaikitten> there have been 4 zimbabwean dollars as far as I remember, with inlfation putting the exchange between them near 10^25
367 2011-01-07 14:58:45 <gavinandresen> (I think IE will have issues, though....)
368 2011-01-07 14:59:01 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Me too. JSONP caused problems for strings with spaces :)
369 2011-01-07 14:59:47 <gavinandresen> WhoWouldEverUseSpaces?TheyAreWayOverrated.
370 2011-01-07 15:00:27 <tcatm> I don't think we need to care that much about IE..
371 2011-01-07 15:01:13 <tcatm> btw, would it be possible to add a mergeaccount or removeaccount RPC?
372 2011-01-07 15:01:16 <gavinandresen> I think I agree.  If you can only connect to localhost if you are running IE, then that would be just fine by me.
373 2011-01-07 15:03:31 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  mergeaccount would probably be exactly the same as: getaddressesbyaccount <old>, then for each of those setaccount <new>, then getbalance <old>, then move <new> <old> -old_balance
374 2011-01-07 15:03:58 <tcatm> Will the account disappear from listaccounts?
375 2011-01-07 15:04:23 <gavinandresen> Nope.  There might still be move's or sendfroms that reference the old account.
376 2011-01-07 15:05:09 <gavinandresen> How do professional accountants handle account merges?  I know they do NOT "rewrite history"
377 2011-01-07 15:05:09 <tcatm> Problem is I have a lot of accounts with strange names from the JSONP spaces problem. Would be nice if they could be removed.
378 2011-01-07 15:05:40 <gavinandresen> tcatm: sounds like a job for bitcointools....
379 2011-01-07 15:06:09 <gavinandresen> tcatm: do you know python?
380 2011-01-07 15:06:12 <tcatm> yep
381 2011-01-07 15:07:07 <gavinandresen> take a look at fixwallet.py -- should be easy to modify to replace bad account names.
382 2011-01-07 15:07:13 <tcatm> k
383 2011-01-07 15:08:54 <gavinandresen> Yeah, you just need an item_callback that looks for "account" or "otherAccount" keys and does the right replacement... I think...
384 2011-01-07 15:10:17 <davout> hey
385 2011-01-07 15:10:36 <davout> i was wondering about something regarding accounts
386 2011-01-07 15:11:34 <davout> like, there are ways to end up with a balance thats different from the sum of all accounts balances, or even with an account balance thats > to the clients balance
387 2011-01-07 15:11:44 <davout> is that by design ?
388 2011-01-07 15:12:08 <gavinandresen> The design is that the sum of all account balances always equal getbalance.  If that isn't true, then there is a bug.
389 2011-01-07 15:12:22 <gavinandresen> ("all accounts" includes the empty-string-named account)
390 2011-01-07 15:12:23 <tcatm> Can I check whether a sendfrom would cause a fee?
391 2011-01-07 15:12:28 <gavinandresen> tcatm: nope
392 2011-01-07 15:12:55 <davout> gavinandresen: well then there is a bug
393 2011-01-07 15:13:01 <davout> :)
394 2011-01-07 15:13:08 <tcatm> Mh. Probably complicated to add as the next run might choose different coins
395 2011-01-07 15:13:24 <davout> let's say we have three A, B and C accts
396 2011-01-07 15:13:28 <davout> each one is +10 BTC
397 2011-01-07 15:13:59 <davout> if you sendtoaddress [address from acct A] 30
398 2011-01-07 15:14:07 <gavinandresen> tcatm: exactly; between asking "will there be a fee" and actually doing the send all sorts of interesting things might happen (block chain re-org that changes coin #confirmations, etc etc)
399 2011-01-07 15:14:21 <davout> you'll end up with +40, +10, +10, and a +30 client balance
400 2011-01-07 15:14:33 <gavinandresen> ... and a -30 balance in the "" account
401 2011-01-07 15:14:45 <davout> hmm nice
402 2011-01-07 15:14:49 <gavinandresen> (sendtoaddress always debits the "" account)
403 2011-01-07 15:15:02 <davout> hmm
404 2011-01-07 15:15:07 <davout> thats what i didn't get
405 2011-01-07 15:15:22 <davout> i don't really like that "" acct but well
406 2011-01-07 15:15:25 <davout> i was just wondering
407 2011-01-07 15:15:52 <gavinandresen> If you don't like the "" account you don't have to use it-- just always use sendfrom instead of sendtoaddress.
408 2011-01-07 15:16:10 <gavinandresen> And always give out addresses for receiving bitcoins that are associated with accounts.
409 2011-01-07 15:16:37 <davout> yea, that's what i'm doing
410 2011-01-07 15:16:53 <davout> for bitcoin-central.net
411 2011-01-07 15:17:22 <gavinandresen> Good, accountants everywhere will thank you.
412 2011-01-07 15:17:49 <EvanR-work> but accountants will hate you for using negative numbers!
413 2011-01-07 15:18:07 <gavinandresen> Just put them in parentheses and they'll be OK, right?
414 2011-01-07 15:18:11 <EvanR-work> lol
415 2011-01-07 15:18:36 <EvanR-work> accountants are stuck in the twelfth century
416 2011-01-07 15:18:44 <gavinandresen> Hey, while I have a few people here interested in accounts:  I think I screwed up the gettransaction API.
417 2011-01-07 15:19:03 <gavinandresen> ... and I'm thinking about a breaking change to fix it.
418 2011-01-07 15:19:27 <davout> i'm not using it but i'll give my 2BTC :)
419 2011-01-07 15:19:45 <gavinandresen> The problem:  call gettransaction <txid>  and you don't get information about the account(s) that were involved.
420 2011-01-07 15:20:24 <gavinandresen> It really should behave like listtransactions, and return a list of Objects that describe what that transaction did to your wallet.
421 2011-01-07 15:20:40 <gavinandresen> Usually that will be one entry, but if you send coins to yourself there could be two.
422 2011-01-07 15:21:18 <gavinandresen> And, theoretically, bitcoin support wacky fan-in/fan-out so even more complicated stuff is possible.
423 2011-01-07 15:22:05 <gavinandresen> So:  I'm thinking of changing gettransaction from returning one Object:  { ... stuff ... }  to returning an array of Objects:  [ { ... } ]
424 2011-01-07 15:22:53 <gavinandresen> Essentially, you'll get the same information you'd get if you call listtransactions '*' and then just grabbed the stuff with "txid" : <txid>
425 2011-01-07 15:23:58 <davout> that sounds sensible
426 2011-01-07 15:24:18 <davout> the more i hear about the internals of the client and protocol, the more i'm confused :D
427 2011-01-07 15:24:47 <EvanR-work> pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
428 2011-01-07 15:26:07 <gavinandresen> There's a zero/one/infinity programming design principle-- either don't do something, support exactly one of something, or support an abitrary number.  Satoshi is fond of the infinity option.
429 2011-01-07 15:26:38 <EvanR-work> i dont like the dogmatism of that one
430 2011-01-07 15:26:53 <EvanR-work> there are cases where you want exactly 3 and any other amount is an error
431 2011-01-07 15:27:10 <EvanR-work> doesnt mean it has to be inflexible, but...
432 2011-01-07 15:27:29 <EvanR-work> overly general
433 2011-01-07 15:30:04 <ArtForz> well, a fanout of 1 or 2 sounds about right
434 2011-01-07 15:30:21 <tcatm> gavinandresen: what about gettransactions returning something like {$txid: [ .. array of objects like listtransaction .. ]}?
435 2011-01-07 15:30:24 <ArtForz> and why the fuck are we allowing 0-value outputs?
436 2011-01-07 15:31:02 <sipa> if no such tx is known?
437 2011-01-07 15:32:03 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  if I'm going to break it, I'd rather it be just like listtransactions.
438 2011-01-07 15:32:23 <gavinandresen> tcatm: oh, wait, I see what you're saying...
439 2011-01-07 15:32:46 <gavinandresen> (missed the $ in the $txid there)
440 2011-01-07 15:32:56 <tcatm> Grouping by txid
441 2011-01-07 15:33:56 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  interesting idea.  In the common case, it would look like a bunch of information was just repeated.
442 2011-01-07 15:34:30 <gavinandresen> tcatm: in the complicated cases, the outer information would sum up the information for you.
443 2011-01-07 15:36:14 <tcatm> I think that might even be useful for listtransactions
444 2011-01-07 15:36:38 <gavinandresen> ArtForz:  I have no idea why 0-value outputs are allowed.  I don't see the harm, though-- they trigger the micropayment code, so they're only "allowed" if they're part of a fee-paying txn
445 2011-01-07 15:36:59 <gavinandresen> (at least I THINK they trigger the micropayment code.....)
446 2011-01-07 15:39:16 <ArtForz> yep, they do
447 2011-01-07 15:40:00 <ArtForz> now I wonder, can you create a TX with no outputs at all?
448 2011-01-07 15:40:18 <sipa> good question
449 2011-01-07 15:41:01 <sipa> or one where the gen tx creates a smaller amount than 50+txfee
450 2011-01-07 15:43:05 <ArtForz> iirc thats allowed
451 2011-01-07 15:43:49 <gavinandresen> ArtForz:  I don't see anything that would prevent you from creating a CTransaction with zero txouts.
452 2011-01-07 15:45:01 <gavinandresen> I don't see it creating any problems, either.... that's just a pure-fee transaction.
453 2011-01-07 15:45:35 <ArtForz> yea
454 2011-01-07 15:45:38 <gavinandresen> Maybe the Bitcoin Central Bank will decide to do a "helicopter drop" in 2050 by doing a bunch of pure-fee transactions :-)
455 2011-01-07 15:46:02 <hacim> i noticed in src/build-unix.txt, it says to use Berkeley DB 4.7
456 2011-01-07 15:46:10 <hacim> "You need Berkeley DB 4.7.  Don't use 4.8, the database/log0000* files are incompatible"
457 2011-01-07 15:46:15 <ArtForz> yes, use bdb 4.7
458 2011-01-07 15:46:15 <hacim> however, I'm using 4.8 just fine...
459 2011-01-07 15:46:33 <ArtForz> well, now your DB is auto-upgraded to 4.8
460 2011-01-07 15:46:42 <hacim> the database/log0000* files are just transaction logs
461 2011-01-07 15:46:51 <ArtForz> = 4.7 can't read it anymore
462 2011-01-07 15:47:01 <hacim> they are of course incompatible with 4.7, this is the definition of the ABI change :)
463 2011-01-07 15:47:13 <gavinandresen> As long as you don't reinstall a precompiled bitcoin you'll be fine.
464 2011-01-07 15:47:23 <ArtForz> yep
465 2011-01-07 15:48:04 <hacim> ok, so there is nothing about the 4.7 libraries, such as relying on the network API in the internal bdb format of little-endian 4.7?
466 2011-01-07 15:48:10 <ArtForz> nope
467 2011-01-07 15:48:29 <ArtForz> it's just that 4.8 isnt backwards compatible with 4.7 and binary builds use 4.7
468 2011-01-07 15:48:31 <hacim> so, for new installs, why would one chose to use 4.7, when you will need to upgrade anyways?
469 2011-01-07 15:48:49 <hacim> eventually those binary builds will need to use 4.8, and people will have to transition
470 2011-01-07 15:48:55 <ArtForz> why?
471 2011-01-07 15:49:04 <hacim> if the history of bdb is to be any indicator of the future...
472 2011-01-07 15:49:13 <ArtForz> so far the binary builds are 4.7, so going to selfcompiled w/ 4.8 is a one-way street
473 2011-01-07 15:49:15 <hacim> do you know anyone using bdb4.1?
474 2011-01-07 15:49:26 <UukGoblin> hey!
475 2011-01-07 15:49:28 <UukGoblin> just had an idea.
476 2011-01-07 15:49:49 <UukGoblin> you know those guys who do pooled CPU mining?
477 2011-01-07 15:49:52 <ArtForz> when binary build switches to 4.8, recommended version for compiling will switch to 4.8 (duh)
478 2011-01-07 15:49:59 <hacim> why in god's name would anyone want to use 4.7 right now is beyond me
479 2011-01-07 15:50:14 <ArtForz> no one WANTS to, everyone using a precompiled binary HAS to
480 2011-01-07 15:50:15 <UukGoblin> why won't we do a pooled ASIC order
481 2011-01-07 15:50:20 <hacim> ArtForz: the 'binary build' meaning the binaries offered on the website?
482 2011-01-07 15:50:24 <ArtForz> yep
483 2011-01-07 15:50:32 <UukGoblin> order like 100 units among 10-20 people should be cheap enough
484 2011-01-07 15:50:54 <UukGoblin> if we got like 1000 willing people we could probably order the 55nm true asic thingy too
485 2011-01-07 15:50:56 <gavinandresen> hacim: you want to volunteer to organize an effort to make sure 4.8 is supported on windows mac and all the linux flavors people are using?
486 2011-01-07 15:51:14 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
487 2011-01-07 15:51:17 <gribble> Current Blocks: 101463 | Current Difficulty: 16307.48285682 | Next Difficulty At Block: 102815 | Next Difficulty In: 1352 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes, and 56 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 16809.13373253
488 2011-01-07 15:51:27 <UukGoblin> oh, nice low next estimate
489 2011-01-07 15:52:53 <nanotube> UukGoblin: someone's gotta design the asic, too, though. :)
490 2011-01-07 15:52:59 <hacim> gavinandresen: it works fine on three different linux flavors that I've tried this morning
491 2011-01-07 15:53:03 <UukGoblin> nanotube, yeah
492 2011-01-07 15:53:08 <gavinandresen> hacim: or, to say it another way:  bitcoin uses 4.7 because two years ago that is what Satoshi decided to use, and nobody has put in the effort needed to upgrade.  It just hasn't been a priority.
493 2011-01-07 15:53:14 <UukGoblin> or perhaps we could chip in to pay ArtForz to give us his :-]
494 2011-01-07 15:53:20 <nanotube> heh
495 2011-01-07 15:53:32 <gavinandresen> hacim: great!  so create a patch and recruit some people to see if it works on mac and windows.
496 2011-01-07 15:53:32 <hacim> gavinandresen: it doesn't bother me that other people use 4.7
497 2011-01-07 15:53:44 <hacim> 4.7 is from 2008 :)
498 2011-01-07 15:53:59 <hacim> gavinandresen: all it requires is to build against libdb4.8++
499 2011-01-07 15:54:04 <ArtForz> well, I kinda first want to know if the chips actually ... you know... work
500 2011-01-07 15:54:13 <hacim> which I bet a lot of people are doing already, and dont even realize it
501 2011-01-07 15:54:34 <gavinandresen> hacim: great!  so fix and test all the makefiles and submit a patch.
502 2011-01-07 15:55:20 <sneak> hi guys
503 2011-01-07 15:56:02 <UukGoblin> ArtForz, sure, it'd take ages to gather up that many people with cash too ;-]
504 2011-01-07 15:56:03 <hacim> I dont think the problem is using 4.8, the problem is migrating to 4.8
505 2011-01-07 15:56:21 <sneak> hacim: people have existing wallet and block databases
506 2011-01-07 15:56:51 <gavinandresen> hacim:  so I guess we have an answer to "why in gods name would anybody be using 4.7" ....
507 2011-01-07 15:57:24 <hacim> except that the databases are auto-upgraded to 4.8
508 2011-01-07 15:58:05 <sneak> are they?  if so, then fix it :)
509 2011-01-07 15:58:28 <sneak> it would be nice to support whatever libdb ships with redhat/centos
510 2011-01-07 15:59:23 <gavinandresen> ... it would be nice if code wrote and test itself, too....
511 2011-01-07 15:59:52 <ArtForz> iirc bdb automagically upgrading databases isn't "fixable"
512 2011-01-07 15:59:52 <sneak> gavinandresen: i would do it myself if i wasn't busy with Real Work
513 2011-01-07 16:00:03 <sneak> my time is finite, unfortunately
514 2011-01-07 16:02:18 <kiba> why is our wallet file a binary blob?
515 2011-01-07 16:03:19 <hacim> i've got a bitcoind from the pre-compiled binary, compiled against libdb4.7++. I create a wallet with it by starting up the daemon, I let it download all the current blocks. I then run a self-compiled bitcoin, linked against libdb4.8++
516 2011-01-07 16:03:27 <ArtForz> because no one invented XML with commit journals yet? ;)
517 2011-01-07 16:03:29 <hacim> it converts the database to 4.8 format, and things continue to work as normal
518 2011-01-07 16:04:08 <ArtForz> you then start a pre-compiled binary again, whoops
519 2011-01-07 16:04:39 <gavinandresen> Upgrading bdb is WAY down on my list of things I can do to make bitcoin more successful.  If it is near the top of your list, great!  go for it.
520 2011-01-07 16:04:52 <ArtForz> yeah, I dont see the problem
521 2011-01-07 16:05:25 <hacim> ArtForz: i dont see why I'd go backwards
522 2011-01-07 16:06:06 <ArtForz> well, whatever you like
523 2011-01-07 16:06:32 <ArtForz> imo keeping binary compatibility at least for wallet between as many builds as possible is a good thing
524 2011-01-07 16:07:20 <nanotube> ArtForz: well, fwiw, i once compiled bitcoind with bdb 4.8... only thing i needed to do to go back to official binary was delete .bitcoin/database/*
525 2011-01-07 16:07:25 <nanotube> no problems with the wallet itself.
526 2011-01-07 16:08:00 <ArtForz> well, iirc thats pure luck that bdb didnt introduce incompatible db format cahnges for the main DB
527 2011-01-07 16:08:20 <ArtForz> iirc official BDB docs says they're free to do so
528 2011-01-07 16:08:57 <ArtForz> so I guess using 4.7 or 4.8 doesnt matter really, as long as I can move wallet.dat between em I'm happy
529 2011-01-07 16:10:07 <nanotube> yea well, it's pretty lucky indeed. :) just telling you how it is.
530 2011-01-07 16:12:02 <hacim> gavinandresen: I understand prioritizing that, makes a lot of sense. I will point out that by using 4.7, bitcoin cannot be run on powerpc. So if you want adoption of that architecture, it will need to move
531 2011-01-07 16:12:52 <nanotube> hacim: basically, do some testing with bdb4.8 on mac/linux/win... and if things work, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the next official client release will be built with 4.8
532 2011-01-07 16:13:13 <gavinandresen> iirc, bitcoin has way more problems running on powerpc than bdb.
533 2011-01-07 16:13:13 <hacim> nanotube: i've already done the linux. i just dont know anyone with mac/windows to test it
534 2011-01-07 16:13:36 <nanotube> hacim: unfortunately... i'm on linux too, so can't help you there. :)
535 2011-01-07 16:13:55 <ArtForz> yup
536 2011-01-07 16:13:58 <nanotube> er... s/unfortunately/fortunately/ maybe hehe
537 2011-01-07 16:14:00 <hacim> if i wanted to get testers, would I post to the forum 'Development & Technical Discussion'
538 2011-01-07 16:14:06 <ArtForz> porting bitcoin to a BE arch is gonna be "fun"
539 2011-01-07 16:14:08 <nanotube> hacim: yea that's a good start
540 2011-01-07 16:15:07 <gavinandresen> Whaddya know.... I'm compiling against bdb 4.8.26 here on my mac....
541 2011-01-07 16:15:17 <hacim> i'll note that the freebsd people are also using 4.8
542 2011-01-07 16:15:23 <gavinandresen> (but I don't create the mac builds)
543 2011-01-07 16:15:29 <hacim> based on http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=379.0
544 2011-01-07 16:15:32 <bitbot> HOWTO: Compiling Bitcoin v0.3 on FreeBSD (7.2,7.3,8.0)
545 2011-01-07 16:18:22 <gavinandresen> Speaking of freebsd... there are at least four different sets of people doing linux/unix build stuff.  Anybody know about cmake and debian and freebsd build stuff who would be willing to figure out how to incorporate all their good work into the mainline bitcoin?
546 2011-01-07 16:22:56 <newsham> diablo-d3: around?
547 2011-01-07 16:23:45 <newsham> gavin: freebsd users can install and run gmake.
548 2011-01-07 16:25:50 <tcatm> gavinandresen: The HTTP server should be made multithreaded. SSL doesn't work with browsers (they keep the connection open)
549 2011-01-07 16:28:54 <gavinandresen> tcatm: that's not going to be high on my priority list, either.  Browsers keep the connection open even when sent the Connection: close header????
550 2011-01-07 16:29:16 <tcatm> It's probably the SSL layer that keeps it open
551 2011-01-07 16:30:00 <gavinandresen> Have you tried explicitly patching to call stream->close() ?
552 2011-01-07 16:30:00 <tcatm> Opening https://localhost:7332 in chrome stalls the RPC thread
553 2011-01-07 16:30:34 <tcatm> Doesn't help, the browser doesn't even send the rquest.
554 2011-01-07 16:31:12 <gavinandresen> Anything interesting in debug.log?  Like is the "pause 10 seconds to prevent brute-forcing passwords" code happening?
555 2011-01-07 16:32:04 <tcatm> Just RPC timeouts
556 2011-01-07 16:33:12 <wumpus> huh, SSL should never keep the connection open, it's transport layer encryption and works like a  normal socket
557 2011-01-07 16:36:19 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  I just turned on SSL, and it is working for me.  You sure you have SSL setup correctly (server.crt/etc in your .bitcoin/testnet folder)
558 2011-01-07 16:36:51 <tcatm> gavinandresen: Have you tried ajax requests?
559 2011-01-07 16:37:39 <gavinandresen> No.  I tried loading https://localhost:7332/  in Chrome, got the authentication required dialog, entered username/password and got a proper "Parse error" response, though.
560 2011-01-07 16:38:48 <tcatm> Yep, that works here, too.
561 2011-01-07 16:39:19 <gavinandresen> So opening https://localhost:7332 in Chrome does NOT stall the RPC thread... but Ajax requests do?
562 2011-01-07 16:40:11 <tcatm> Yep.
563 2011-01-07 16:43:01 <davout> (not to be mistaken with polish dark pools, where the orders you pass just lazily sit around)
564 2011-01-07 16:43:05 <gavinandresen> tcatm:  I don't think multithreading the RPC would fix the real problem-- the real problem is why are the Ajax requests timing out.
565 2011-01-07 16:43:24 <gavinandresen> I'm afk for lunch for a while....
566 2011-01-07 16:44:39 <davux> davout: :p
567 2011-01-07 16:44:48 <davux> davout: drinking
568 2011-01-07 16:45:59 <davout> :)
569 2011-01-07 17:24:17 <mrb_> aaaand newegg is out of sapphire 5970s. didn't last very long.
570 2011-01-07 17:26:07 <ArtForz> yeah, 5970 supplies are starting to dry up
571 2011-01-07 17:26:33 <kiba> bencoder: yo there?
572 2011-01-07 17:26:42 <kiba> MT`AwAy: will you answer my interview question?
573 2011-01-07 17:26:48 <ArtForz> no big surprise, rumors say 6990 in late jan/early feb
574 2011-01-07 17:26:57 <nanotube> kiba: what's your interview question? :)
575 2011-01-07 17:27:12 <kiba> nanotube: an interview that I am doing with MT`AwAy
576 2011-01-07 17:27:22 <kiba> I am almost finished
577 2011-01-07 17:27:30 <kiba> but MT`AwAy is the kind of person who forget
578 2011-01-07 17:28:18 <nanotube> heh
579 2011-01-07 17:28:46 <fabianhjr> kiba: the magazine got delayed. I am going to write some articles publish my own magazine and then go back to the original idea.
580 2011-01-07 17:34:40 <mrb_> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/1559226/AMD-Puts-Out-Radeon-HD-6000-Open-Source-Driver
581 2011-01-07 17:42:46 <midnightmagic> is there some way of getting a summary of blocks that are going to mature (and how far away from maturation) from the json interface?
582 2011-01-07 17:42:57 <midnightmagic> like the gui.
583 2011-01-07 17:45:40 <wumpus> afaik, no
584 2011-01-07 17:46:43 <wumpus> I don't think immature blocks will ever show up in the json interface at all
585 2011-01-07 17:47:14 <nanotube> well, listtransactions minconf=0, i think they'll show up
586 2011-01-07 17:51:24 <midnightmagic> oh.. wait a minute, what's this. PrintBlockTree via -printblocktree boolarg..
587 2011-01-07 17:53:22 <EvanR-work> holy crap @ the power of the pool right now
588 2011-01-07 17:53:34 <midnightmagic> what's it at?
589 2011-01-07 17:53:38 <EvanR-work> 14G
590 2011-01-07 17:53:45 <midnightmagic> surprising.
591 2011-01-07 17:54:49 <nanotube> ;;bc,poolstats
592 2011-01-07 17:54:50 <gribble> {"hashes_ps": 14111108550, "shares": 2175, "active_workers": 239, "round_duration": "0:11:02", "round_started": "2011-01-07 18:43:48", "getwork_ps": 82}
593 2011-01-07 17:54:57 <nanotube> yep... hard core
594 2011-01-07 17:55:15 <midnightmagic> it would be interesting to see the breakdown of participants.
595 2011-01-07 17:55:24 <midnightmagic> just by number of course..
596 2011-01-07 17:56:44 <nanotube> midnightmagic: well i understand that several people contribute multiple ghash all by themselves.
597 2011-01-07 17:57:19 <midnightmagic> i wonder why..
598 2011-01-07 17:59:09 <midnightmagic> i mean, good for them, it means that the rest of them can participate sooner, but. :)
599 2011-01-07 18:00:49 <nanotube> midnightmagic: well, tbh, i dunno. :) if i had 1gh hash power, i'd just run on my own...
600 2011-01-07 18:01:13 <nanotube> 1 block per day avg is sufficiently smooth that i wouldn't see the need for further income smoothing.
601 2011-01-07 18:02:21 <midnightmagic> yeah me too. it occurs to me: would the pool miners be able to *really know* whether the pool manager is in fact 1) distributing fairly (or at least transparently) and 2) reporting success when it happens fairly?
602 2011-01-07 18:03:33 <newsham> no, and i think the pool owners are up front about that
603 2011-01-07 18:04:11 <kiba> +
604 2011-01-07 18:04:23 <kiba> \\+
605 2011-01-07 18:04:25 <midnightmagic> i knew they were upfront about the distribution; i was curious about the success part.
606 2011-01-07 18:04:59 <midnightmagic> more on a technical level I guess. could it be checked from a miner's perspective whether the success was legit and therefore detect a hypothetical cheating pool manager.
607 2011-01-07 18:05:29 <midnightmagic> the shares part would require all the pooled miners cooperatively talk to one another and assume nobody's lying, so not really an interesting problem.
608 2011-01-07 18:20:33 <midnightmagic> i wonder if there's anyone who consistency mines at a higher difficulty just to show off.
609 2011-01-07 18:21:22 <xelister> lol midnightmagic
610 2011-01-07 18:26:31 <TD> given bitcoins potential for rapid growth i'd assume anyone who didn't try and maximize their mining income would be dumb. so not exactly showing off :)
611 2011-01-07 18:27:06 <midnightmagic> unless they just didn't need the money and had access to those fabled "acres" of computing power you hear about from time to time.
612 2011-01-07 18:27:25 <midnightmagic> but, i agree, it would be lame.
613 2011-01-07 18:37:26 <bonsaikitten> midnightmagic: byzantine generals problem
614 2011-01-07 18:44:03 <EvanR-work> not really an interesting problem indeed
615 2011-01-07 18:44:09 <EvanR-work> also, P=NP?
616 2011-01-07 18:46:41 <luke-jr> I can transfer 0.01000001 BTC, correct?
617 2011-01-07 18:46:47 <luke-jr> since it's >= 0.01
618 2011-01-07 18:46:47 <tcatm> js-remote now has a homepage! http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/
619 2011-01-07 18:48:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you mean without paying a fee?  Yes, but you need a hacked client to create the transaction.
620 2011-01-07 18:48:47 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: why? it's >= 0.01 :/
621 2011-01-07 18:49:02 <EvanR-work> the client doesnt let you
622 2011-01-07 18:49:10 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: the GUI client and the JSON-RPC interface round to the nearest 0.01
623 2011-01-07 18:49:12 <luke-jr> oh, the transaction
624 2011-01-07 18:49:20 <luke-jr> so the block generators should OK it?
625 2011-01-07 18:49:48 <EvanR-work> what happens if a hacked client sends < 0.01?
626 2011-01-07 18:50:07 <EvanR-work> no fee
627 2011-01-07 18:50:22 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: afaik, that would get rejected by all the other clients
628 2011-01-07 18:50:28 <luke-jr> unless you also generate the block yourself
629 2011-01-07 18:50:48 <gavinandresen> EvanR-work: yes, standard clients and miners will ignore it.
630 2011-01-07 18:50:53 <EvanR-work> thats bullshit!
631 2011-01-07 18:51:03 <EvanR-work> i guess its to deter spam
632 2011-01-07 18:51:06 <kiba> so...1 BTC is almost worth 3 bitcoin
633 2011-01-07 18:51:25 <EvanR-work> kiba: that would be pretty awesome
634 2011-01-07 18:51:25 <luke-jr> &
635 2011-01-07 18:51:34 <EvanR-work> iterate exchange 1BTC
636 2011-01-07 18:51:35 <kiba> err
637 2011-01-07 18:51:35 <luke-jr> that makes no sense
638 2011-01-07 18:51:41 <EvanR-work> 1 3 9 27 81...
639 2011-01-07 18:51:46 <kiba> 1 USD is worth 3 BTC
640 2011-01-07 18:51:46 <luke-jr> 1 == 3 how?
641 2011-01-07 18:51:50 <luke-jr> oh
642 2011-01-07 18:52:03 <luke-jr> I'd expect to get more than 3 BTC for 1 USD
643 2011-01-07 18:52:17 <EvanR-work> you used to
644 2011-01-07 18:52:23 <EvanR-work> was 4
645 2011-01-07 18:52:31 <ArtForz> was 10000
646 2011-01-07 18:52:53 <EvanR-work> haha, shoulda got in on that :(
647 2011-01-07 18:53:02 <luke-jr> one of the bitcoin sites says 0.5 USD/BTC
648 2011-01-07 18:53:13 <kiba> EvanR-work: just wait a few years
649 2011-01-07 18:53:20 <kiba> the newbie wishes that they have gotten in there early
650 2011-01-07 18:55:01 <EvanR-work> maybe i should start a retirement fund, buy 10 BTC per week
651 2011-01-07 18:55:08 <kiba> haha
652 2011-01-07 18:56:18 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: just hold onto 50 or so
653 2011-01-07 18:56:26 <luke-jr> if BTC ever succeeds, that will be worth quite a bit
654 2011-01-07 18:56:28 <arcatan> tcatm: that CORS patch makes me uneasy. if it's going to be merged into the mainline, i think it should be a togglable option.
655 2011-01-07 18:56:49 <EvanR-work> if theres even a 4x multiplier, im going to want more than 50
656 2011-01-07 18:57:04 <tcatm> arcatan: Why? It just changes headers so browsers don't complain.
657 2011-01-07 18:57:14 <kiba> paypal mafia?
658 2011-01-07 18:57:18 <kiba> what about the bitcoin mafia?
659 2011-01-07 18:58:00 <kiba> basically a bunch of super-rich bitcoin early adopters from the early day
660 2011-01-07 18:58:25 <kiba> that now(in the future) run a series of world-changing enterprises
661 2011-01-07 19:02:00 <ArtForz> pining for the fjords?
662 2011-01-07 19:03:26 <afed> anyone deployed 6950 or 6970 cards yet?
663 2011-01-07 19:03:34 <afed> i'm still on the fence about keeping mine or not
664 2011-01-07 19:03:36 <kiba> my theory is that Satoshi had finally made himself unnecesary
665 2011-01-07 19:03:47 <kiba> now he's somewhere out in the world doing something else
666 2011-01-07 19:03:48 <ArtForz> one 6970
667 2011-01-07 19:04:33 <arcatan> tcatm: i was going to say that it makes CSRF-type attacks easier, but on second thought it probably doesn't change the situation
668 2011-01-07 19:04:58 <ArtForz> after some kernel tweaking I get pretty much == 5870 perf
669 2011-01-07 19:05:25 <ArtForz> = another card to move to my gaming machines
670 2011-01-07 19:08:14 <kiba> mtgox volume is the biggest we have in a long time...
671 2011-01-07 19:10:33 <ArtForz> yeah, someone bought quite a few btc
672 2011-01-07 19:15:43 <fabianhjr> kiba: more like in one month. :P
673 2011-01-07 19:16:30 <midnightmagic> bonsaikitten: there's a very similar problem, where so long as a network contains 50% + 1 reliable participants, under some circumstances all the liars (who themselves might say anything) can be directly identified.
674 2011-01-07 19:19:58 <midnightmagic> it's even possible to do so with only a surprisingly small number of questions put to the whole population.
675 2011-01-07 19:20:54 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_BitCoin
676 2011-01-07 19:20:59 <luke-jr> explanatory enough?
677 2011-01-07 19:23:53 <marioxcc> luke-jr: why you don't start from 1 BTC?
678 2011-01-07 19:24:08 <luke-jr> marioxcc: 1 BTC is too big, and not a power of 2
679 2011-01-07 19:24:18 <marioxcc> luke-jr: 1 is a power of 2
680 2011-01-07 19:24:32 <marioxcc> 2^0
681 2011-01-07 19:24:40 <ArtForz> 5000000000 isnt
682 2011-01-07 19:25:40 <luke-jr> marioxcc: but BTC is 100000000 base units
683 2011-01-07 19:26:04 <marioxcc> luke-jr: I actually consider 1 BTC to be the base unit
684 2011-01-07 19:26:10 <marioxcc> and the divisions to be that, divisions
685 2011-01-07 19:26:22 <marioxcc> please don't count from 0.00..001
686 2011-01-07 19:26:34 <marioxcc> that's an horrible way to mix decimal to hexadecimal
687 2011-01-07 19:27:02 <ArtForz> so, what's 1BTC/512 ?
688 2011-01-07 19:27:39 <luke-jr> ArtForz: about 3 TBC?
689 2011-01-07 19:27:54 <luke-jr> marioxcc: blame the guy who made BTC so fundamentally decimal
690 2011-01-07 19:28:14 <luke-jr> uBTC is programmicallyl the base unit
691 2011-01-07 19:28:37 <ArtForz> actually uBTcent
692 2011-01-07 19:28:45 <luke-jr> &
693 2011-01-07 19:28:57 <ArtForz> yep, microcents
694 2011-01-07 19:29:16 <luke-jr> ArtForz: so I need to move things over 2 more decimal places and adjust? -.-
695 2011-01-07 19:29:25 <ArtForz> errr... sec
696 2011-01-07 19:29:35 <ArtForz> nope, looks right
697 2011-01-07 19:29:35 <marioxcc> luke-jr: no
698 2011-01-07 19:29:58 <luke-jr> or you mean uBTC is technically 0.000001 BTC?
699 2011-01-07 19:30:07 <ArtForz> yep
700 2011-01-07 19:30:16 <luke-jr> i c
701 2011-01-07 19:30:17 <ArtForz> which is usually what the SI u means
702 2011-01-07 19:30:23 <luke-jr> ok
703 2011-01-07 19:30:25 <luke-jr> I hate SI, so&
704 2011-01-07 19:31:07 <EvanR-work> mebicoins
705 2011-01-07 19:31:15 <ArtForz> yeah, thats what I just thought
706 2011-01-07 19:31:40 <midnightmagic> mebicoins.. good grief.
707 2011-01-07 19:32:35 <AAA_awright> ...Or we could just use SI units
708 2011-01-07 19:32:47 <luke-jr> actually, 'mebi' is a great example of how even when forced to use decimal, people will still try to move to a multiple of 2
709 2011-01-07 19:32:53 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: except SI SUCKS
710 2011-01-07 19:33:01 <EvanR-work> lets just use base three, it has the highest radix economy
711 2011-01-07 19:33:35 <ArtForz> nah, too easy
712 2011-01-07 19:33:43 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Really? I've always found it to be rather simple
713 2011-01-07 19:34:17 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: you must not do much real-world/practical things
714 2011-01-07 19:34:43 <ArtForz> how about 20 bits to a mebicent, 105 mebicents in a coin
715 2011-01-07 19:35:42 <EvanR-work> how about UNIT = avagadros number
716 2011-01-07 19:36:06 <EvanR-work> how bitcoins are subject to empirical measurements
717 2011-01-07 19:36:08 <EvanR-work> now*
718 2011-01-07 19:36:49 <ArtForz> or how about 111546435 base units to a coin
719 2011-01-07 19:36:58 <luke-jr> ArtForz: bits or bitcoins?
720 2011-01-07 19:37:15 <ArtForz> that'd be smallprimecoin :P
721 2011-01-07 19:37:32 <ArtForz> well, excluding 2
722 2011-01-07 19:50:43 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Uh, just things involving seconds, meters, kilograms, volts, amps, sometimes newtons
723 2011-01-07 19:50:50 <AAA_awright> I mean, all things that use SI prefixes
724 2011-01-07 19:51:43 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: seconds aren't SI
725 2011-01-07 19:51:51 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Milliseconds
726 2011-01-07 19:51:59 <luke-jr> that's SI hijacking seconds :P
727 2011-01-07 19:52:12 <luke-jr> anyhow, real world things, not imaginary numbers
728 2011-01-07 19:52:13 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Also, the second is an SI unit
729 2011-01-07 19:52:33 <luke-jr> humans naturally work better with 2, not 10
730 2011-01-07 19:53:03 <AAA_awright> The SI second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom
731 2011-01-07 19:53:03 <midnightmagic> i never liked listening to SI whine about csci convention..
732 2011-01-07 19:53:12 <AAA_awright> Whew
733 2011-01-07 19:53:21 <AAA_awright> And the meter is defined in terms of that, and the speed of light
734 2011-01-07 19:53:24 <midnightmagic> humans have ten fingers though..
735 2011-01-07 19:53:47 <wumpus> most humans :)
736 2011-01-07 19:53:57 <luke-jr> 9,192,631,770 is *so* magic
737 2011-01-07 19:54:05 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: humans have five fingers per hand
738 2011-01-07 19:54:20 <luke-jr> or rather, humans have 20 fingers aka DIGITS
739 2011-01-07 19:54:26 <midnightmagic> my friend used to have a fiancee who was a polydactyl at birth. she had six fingers, fully functional.
740 2011-01-07 19:54:43 <AAA_awright> Well, 10 fingers, 20 digits
741 2011-01-07 19:54:53 <midnightmagic> surgically removed, so when she held up her hand, it looked like she only had three fingers, but then you'd count them and well how about that, there's four.
742 2011-01-07 19:54:57 <luke-jr> it's better to finger-count in base 2, than decimal
743 2011-01-07 19:55:13 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: We can remember about seven things, base 2 is way harder
744 2011-01-07 19:55:22 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: you have a high opinion of humans' comfort levels. :)
745 2011-01-07 19:55:41 <AAA_awright> Perhaps we should use base 64
746 2011-01-07 19:55:45 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: & you realize how illogical that sounds?
747 2011-01-07 19:56:13 <luke-jr> 16 is just in the sweet spot :
748 2011-01-07 19:56:28 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: How so? We can remember about seven things, from any number of "symbols" so the more symbols we can represent numbers with, the more numbers we can count in memory
749 2011-01-07 19:56:31 <luke-jr> (I'd say 10, but you'd misinterpret that as 9)
750 2011-01-07 19:56:47 <AAA_awright> base 64 is just crazy because it's too much to /learn/
751 2011-01-07 19:57:15 <AAA_awright> Some of us have a hard enough time learning the alphabet :p
752 2011-01-07 19:57:25 <AAA_awright> But, maybe we could have a base 26 system
753 2011-01-07 19:57:33 <luke-jr> base 26 isn't a power of 2
754 2011-01-07 19:57:33 <midnightmagic> twenty-two-ty six.
755 2011-01-07 19:57:39 <AAA_awright> No, but it's more than 10
756 2011-01-07 19:57:39 <ArtForz> so?
757 2011-01-07 19:57:41 <midnightmagic> what would aye-ty-six be then?
758 2011-01-07 19:58:00 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: you're trying to say some weird base in decimal
759 2011-01-07 19:58:04 <AAA_awright> Base 32
760 2011-01-07 19:58:16 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: I know, it's funny. :)
761 2011-01-07 19:58:33 <ArtForz> all bases are base 10
762 2011-01-07 19:58:41 <AAA_awright> 0-9a-w
763 2011-01-07 19:58:42 <ArtForz> unless they're 0
764 2011-01-07 19:58:42 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: regardless, I'm not interested in inventing a new system, merely adopting an existing one
765 2011-01-07 19:58:59 <luke-jr> if tonal ends up being insufficient, my children can come up with something better
766 2011-01-07 19:59:23 <luke-jr> ArtForz: decimal is base 9 :
767 2011-01-07 19:59:30 <AAA_awright> Decimal is base 10...
768 2011-01-07 19:59:33 <midnightmagic> awesome. base-0. the atomic base..
769 2011-01-07 19:59:49 <ArtForz> binary is also base 10 (in binary)
770 2011-01-07 19:59:52 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: in decimal :
771 2011-01-07 20:00:01 <luke-jr> decimal is base 9 (tonal)
772 2011-01-07 20:00:22 <luke-jr> 9 tonal = 10 decimal
773 2011-01-07 20:00:33 <AAA_awright> This is why no one has heard of tonal
774 2011-01-07 20:00:46 <AAA_awright> 9 != 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+!+1
775 2011-01-07 20:00:51 <AAA_awright> gah
776 2011-01-07 20:01:08 <kartofeln> the special tonal digits on that wiki page don't render for me.
777 2011-01-07 20:01:11 <ArtForz> !1!one ?
778 2011-01-07 20:01:11 <kartofeln> I'm not tonal enough.
779 2011-01-07 20:01:13 <marioxcc> luke-jr: 9 tonal?
780 2011-01-07 20:01:19 <marioxcc> it should be 9 decimal too
781 2011-01-07 20:01:23 <marioxcc> unless you add a digit
782 2011-01-07 20:01:30 <luke-jr> marioxcc: no, there is a digit between 8 and 9 in tonal
783 2011-01-07 20:01:41 <luke-jr> kartofeln: see the link to a couple of fonts
784 2011-01-07 20:01:42 <marioxcc> why so?
785 2011-01-07 20:01:49 <AAA_awright> Because someone wanted to be stupid
786 2011-01-07 20:01:57 <luke-jr> marioxcc: the higher-valued digits are inverted forms of the lower-valued
787 2011-01-07 20:01:57 <marioxcc> luke-jr: can't you use 0-9a-f?
788 2011-01-07 20:02:00 <ArtForz> well, so it's different and special(tm), duh
789 2011-01-07 20:02:01 <luke-jr> marioxcc: 9 is a inverted 6
790 2011-01-07 20:02:09 <marioxcc> duh
791 2011-01-07 20:02:10 <luke-jr> marioxcc: I'm not inventing anything
792 2011-01-07 20:02:18 <afed> 3 is an inverted
793 2011-01-07 20:02:21 <afed> E?
794 2011-01-07 20:02:26 <luke-jr> E is more square
795 2011-01-07 20:02:43 <marioxcc> it is completely square on my font (terminus)
796 2011-01-07 20:02:54 <luke-jr> exactly
797 2011-01-07 20:02:56 <luke-jr> 3 isn't square
798 2011-01-07 20:03:08 <luke-jr> nor is ??
799 2011-01-07 20:03:19 <marioxcc> anyway, why have you to use new digits for your base-16 system?
800 2011-01-07 20:03:25 <marioxcc> just use the existing one 0-9A-F
801 2011-01-07 20:03:34 <AAA_awright> I like that idea
802 2011-01-07 20:03:34 <marioxcc> :)
803 2011-01-07 20:03:41 <AAA_awright> And you can use base 32 or base64 with that too
804 2011-01-07 20:03:44 <luke-jr> I presume it uses new digits because A-F are letters
805 2011-01-07 20:03:47 <kartofeln> 1862.. darn that's old skewl.
806 2011-01-07 20:03:47 <midnightmagic> eff-ty seven.
807 2011-01-07 20:04:04 <marioxcc> luke-jr: what if they're letter?
808 2011-01-07 20:04:14 <midnightmagic> bee-ty eee.
809 2011-01-07 20:04:15 <marioxcc> their meaning depends solely on your interpretation
810 2011-01-07 20:04:17 <luke-jr> marioxcc: again, I'm not interested in inventing something new
811 2011-01-07 20:04:19 <midnightmagic> LOL i love it.
812 2011-01-07 20:04:25 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Where have you been in computer science engineering for the last four decades?
813 2011-01-07 20:04:34 <AAA_awright> Hexadecimal is nothing new
814 2011-01-07 20:04:41 <marioxcc> luke-jr: the hexadecimal system using 0 to 9 as decimal and first 6 is very old
815 2011-01-07 20:04:44 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: newer than tonal if it's only 4 decades
816 2011-01-07 20:04:48 <marioxcc> it is also here alredy
817 2011-01-07 20:05:01 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: What about it?
818 2011-01-07 20:05:19 <midnightmagic> it's just a convenience that arose from the nature of computer hardware that's all.
819 2011-01-07 20:05:20 <marioxcc> the tonal system is barely used, maybe if you use the existing hex nomenclature :)
820 2011-01-07 20:05:23 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: Tonal is almost 15 decades
821 2011-01-07 20:05:37 <AAA_awright> So?
822 2011-01-07 20:05:51 <AAA_awright> It's nothing new, neither is hexadecimal, period.
823 2011-01-07 20:05:58 <ArtForz> and base12 is quite a bit older than that
824 2011-01-07 20:05:58 <kartofeln> dude, the tonal book itself acknowledges that base 16 is pimp
825 2011-01-07 20:06:08 <luke-jr> &
826 2011-01-07 20:06:12 <luke-jr> pimp?
827 2011-01-07 20:06:21 <newsham> its a technical term, luke
828 2011-01-07 20:06:26 <kartofeln> "The number 16 admit binary division to an infinite extent, and would, therefore be the most suitable number as a base for arithmetic, weight, measure, and coins."
829 2011-01-07 20:06:28 <kartofeln> aka pimp.
830 2011-01-07 20:06:53 <marioxcc> well, that's true for every positional systen
831 2011-01-07 20:06:55 <kartofeln> (page 10)
832 2011-01-07 20:06:57 <marioxcc> *system
833 2011-01-07 20:07:03 <luke-jr> marioxcc: uh, no
834 2011-01-07 20:07:14 <newsham> remember the maxim "pimps up hoes down"
835 2011-01-07 20:07:17 <marioxcc> why not?
836 2011-01-07 20:07:22 <luke-jr> decimal does NOT admit binary division infinitely in that way