1 2011-01-10 00:00:45 <sipa> do we need two different wiki pages discussing possible uri schemes?
  2 2011-01-10 00:00:59 <kartofeln> as opposed to an edit war over one page, you mean? ;)
  3 2011-01-10 00:01:09 <tcatm> we need one scheme that's approved so I can write the parser
  4 2011-01-10 00:02:17 <kartofeln> there should be 2 steps to putting together together a bitcoin uri scheme:
  5 2011-01-10 00:02:29 <kartofeln> 1: what kind of data and capabilities should be encoded in the URI
  6 2011-01-10 00:02:32 <kartofeln> 2: how should it look like
  7 2011-01-10 00:03:45 <kartofeln> 2. is a little tricky as esthetical sensibilities will push toward diverging formats.. 1. however should be fairly consensual if done right.
  8 2011-01-10 00:05:29 <tcatm> data needed ([] means optional): (address | (label & host)) [label] [amount] [id] [msg]
  9 2011-01-10 00:05:50 <fabianhjr> Damn CPanel, I hadn't been able to start an app. >_<
 10 2011-01-10 00:06:00 <jgarzik> IP transfers are disabled by default in bitcoin, with good reason.
 11 2011-01-10 00:06:05 <jgarzik> they should not be in any spec.
 12 2011-01-10 00:06:35 <tcatm> host means payment processor
 13 2011-01-10 00:07:00 <kartofeln> does the host mean anything to bitcoin, or it just human readable fluff?
 14 2011-01-10 00:07:13 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so go back to URN?
 15 2011-01-10 00:07:18 <jgarzik> yeah, IP is fine for HTTP.  just not for bitcoin P2P.
 16 2011-01-10 00:08:18 <luke-jr> sigh, hold on
 17 2011-01-10 00:08:27 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: No, file:///(path) is not a valid URI
 18 2011-01-10 00:08:39 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: What /line/ says it is?
 19 2011-01-10 00:08:39 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: the RFC disagrees
 20 2011-01-10 00:08:51 <AAA_awright> The RFC requires a host or "localhost"
 21 2011-01-10 00:08:51 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: the part about empty string for host
 22 2011-01-10 00:09:45 <luke-jr> line 14-15 not counting blank lines, starting with 0 = "3.10 FILES"
 23 2011-01-10 00:09:48 <AAA_awright> Hmm, the grammar section disagrees
 24 2011-01-10 00:09:51 <jgarzik> tcatm: regarding "data needed"...   looks good
 25 2011-01-10 00:09:56 <luke-jr> the grammar section uses [] for optional
 26 2011-01-10 00:09:57 <AAA_awright> luke-jr: Copying and pasting would help
 27 2011-01-10 00:10:07 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: I did that earlier, scroll up
 28 2011-01-10 00:10:49 <kartofeln> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738 : fileurl        = "file://" [ host | "localhost" ] "/" fpath
 29 2011-01-10 00:11:05 <AAA_awright> Ah nvm
 30 2011-01-10 00:11:20 <AAA_awright> That's really poor, but yeah, it's inside brackets
 31 2011-01-10 00:11:35 <jgarzik> tcatm: I wonder about 'msg', but no huge objection.  vendors might like a fully customized 'msg', but an arbitrary message that says 'spend 50 BTC?' (amount=100 BTC) illustrates a potential for abuse by evil vendors?
 32 2011-01-10 00:11:52 <AAA_awright> The w3c uses that to mean a selection of host OR "localhost" but not neither
 33 2011-01-10 00:12:04 <tcatm> jgarzik: ?
 34 2011-01-10 00:12:10 <kartofeln> note that if we somehow had a DNS extension that could resolve an hostname to a bitcoin address, it would make sense to have hostname in there.
 35 2011-01-10 00:12:12 <jgarzik> tcatm: I was thinking of requiring phone app to construct "Pay $vendor $amount?  Yes / no" message would be more secure, from customer point of view.
 36 2011-01-10 00:12:24 <fabianhjr> why not btc:[host]:[port]:addr:[label]:[ammount]:[desc] ? It is the most simple and we could reserve 2 more slots for future or unofficial use. xD
 37 2011-01-10 00:12:37 <AAA_awright> Ugh why haven't the RFCs moved to HTML
 38 2011-01-10 00:12:49 <AAA_awright> Seriously who is printing these things out anymore
 39 2011-01-10 00:12:50 <luke-jr> fabianhjr: because it's invalid
 40 2011-01-10 00:12:55 <jgarzik> any scheme that does not permit arbitrary name=value future expansion is broken at birth.
 41 2011-01-10 00:12:55 <kartofeln> because RFCs are written by terminal junkies?
 42 2011-01-10 00:12:58 <jgarzik> broken.
 43 2011-01-10 00:13:04 <AAA_awright> On your rotart printer terminal things
 44 2011-01-10 00:13:05 <fabianhjr> xD damnit.
 45 2011-01-10 00:13:20 <AAA_awright> I mean, it even includes the page break character for geek's sake
 46 2011-01-10 00:13:42 <AAA_awright> geeks sake's?
 47 2011-01-10 00:13:58 <jgarzik> tcatm: I was responding to the "[msg]" part, assuming that "[msg]" is an arbitrary message passed from merchant to customer via QR-code?
 48 2011-01-10 00:14:14 <luke-jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme#BNF_Syntax
 49 2011-01-10 00:14:29 <tcatm> jgarzik: I included the message part to allow display of what the user is supposed to pay for
 50 2011-01-10 00:14:38 <luke-jr> AAA_awright: geeks' sakes
 51 2011-01-10 00:14:55 <jgarzik> tcatm: so, phone displays "Pay $vendor $amount for $msg?"   ?
 52 2011-01-10 00:15:09 <jgarzik> tcatm: so, phone displays "Pay $label $amount for $msg?"   ?
 53 2011-01-10 00:15:32 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: No, show the address
 54 2011-01-10 00:15:48 <AAA_awright> And have the phone replace it with a user-defined string
 55 2011-01-10 00:15:53 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: see the "|" in tcatm's "data needed"
 56 2011-01-10 00:15:55 <AAA_awright> But not a 3rd-party defined one
 57 2011-01-10 00:15:59 <tcatm> jgarzik: Haven't decided yet... Maybe something like "<italic>$msg<italic>\n\nPay <bold>$amount</bold> to <bold>$label</bold>?"
 58 2011-01-10 00:16:01 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: scroll up
 59 2011-01-10 00:16:21 <jgarzik> tcatm: that works
 60 2011-01-10 00:16:22 <kartofeln> lol@tonal bitcoin units in the BNF syntax.
 61 2011-01-10 00:16:33 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: I did, what line are you referring to?
 62 2011-01-10 00:16:41 <jgarzik> tcatm: remember the phone software will want to internationalize that string
 63 2011-01-10 00:16:53 <marioxcc> so people still uses SVN...
 64 2011-01-10 00:16:55 <marioxcc> and CVS...
 65 2011-01-10 00:16:55 <tcatm> jgarzik: did you see my js-remote?
 66 2011-01-10 00:17:05 <jgarzik> tcatm: no
 67 2011-01-10 00:17:13 <luke-jr> marioxcc: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
 68 2011-01-10 00:17:16 <tcatm> jgarzik: http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote
 69 2011-01-10 00:17:26 <marioxcc> luke-jr: ok
 70 2011-01-10 00:17:29 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: "(address | (label & host))"
 71 2011-01-10 00:17:30 <tcatm> jgarzik: basic scanning of QR codes with raw address already works on android
 72 2011-01-10 00:17:36 <jgarzik> tcatm: looking...
 73 2011-01-10 00:17:46 <luke-jr> jgarzik: are IP tx deprecated or not?
 74 2011-01-10 00:18:13 <marioxcc> luke-jr: so unit could be PTBC?
 75 2011-01-10 00:18:18 <luke-jr> marioxcc: right
 76 2011-01-10 00:18:26 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: No, read _only_ the address and replace that address with a name in the user's address book, if the address is in there... Having a 3rd-party-provided "pay to" string could lead to misleading hacks
 77 2011-01-10 00:18:33 <jgarzik> luke-jr: they have been disabled in the mainline bitcoin client for several versions now.  it is unlikely that feature will be removed.  but IP TX use is /discouraged/.
 78 2011-01-10 00:18:52 <marioxcc> luke-jr: why to require unicode?
 79 2011-01-10 00:18:59 <luke-jr> jgarzik: if it won't be removed, why shouldn't the URI support it?
 80 2011-01-10 00:19:13 <marioxcc> please spell the name instead song-TBC, if you absolutely have to
 81 2011-01-10 00:19:25 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: the customer first walking into $Store will not have $Store in their address book
 82 2011-01-10 00:19:28 <luke-jr> song-TBC has no abbreviation
 83 2011-01-10 00:19:40 <marioxcc> just always spell then I mean
 84 2011-01-10 00:19:43 <AAA_awright> jgarzik: Which is fine, if they see the raw address
 85 2011-01-10 00:20:02 <kartofeln> can't wait for a bitcoin URL with version=??.?? in it..
 86 2011-01-10 00:20:17 <AAA_awright> It's no different than a credit card number or anything else, people understand it
 87 2011-01-10 00:20:17 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: a raw address can be just as malicious as any other string
 88 2011-01-10 00:20:37 <marioxcc> lol, malicious address?
 89 2011-01-10 00:20:41 <AAA_awright> ^
 90 2011-01-10 00:20:41 <marioxcc> are you kidding?
 91 2011-01-10 00:20:48 <jgarzik> it is completely pointless to ever show a bitcoin address to a customer
 92 2011-01-10 00:20:58 <marioxcc> why so?
 93 2011-01-10 00:21:13 <jgarzik> marioxcc: a customer will never know if a bitcoin address is Starbuck Inc. or Evildoers Criminal Syndicate Skimmer, LLC.
 94 2011-01-10 00:21:30 <AAA_awright> Yes they will, if they've been there before
 95 2011-01-10 00:21:36 <marioxcc> of course...
 96 2011-01-10 00:21:46 <AAA_awright> That's the whole point of the mentioned address book or whatever
 97 2011-01-10 00:21:48 <kartofeln> jgarzik: which would be why a DNS extension that'd resolve an host to a bitcoin address would be useful to help users know what's what.
 98 2011-01-10 00:21:52 <marioxcc> is like saying showing URL in browsers is useless
 99 2011-01-10 00:22:00 <marioxcc> that's what human memory and digital signatures are for
100 2011-01-10 00:22:07 <jgarzik> AAA_awright: not in the common case scenarios of (a) using a new bitcoin address for every transaction, and/or (b) using a new bitcoin address as a unique transaction id
101 2011-01-10 00:22:25 <jgarzik> kartofeln: strongly agreed.  I have proposed this on the forums.
102 2011-01-10 00:22:25 <kartofeln> going on a limb here, but I suspect people have an easier time recognizing "google.com" than "1agNxzuDoVioQgdE4BeLWbNWR7wEkttGy"
103 2011-01-10 00:22:31 <jgarzik> kartofeln: yup
104 2011-01-10 00:22:33 <AAA_awright> Now there's a good idea
105 2011-01-10 00:23:19 <jgarzik> doesn't work well for single-use bitcoin addresses, which is what most major stores will likely use.
106 2011-01-10 00:23:26 <marioxcc> then you will have to do something like DNS for bitcoin
107 2011-01-10 00:23:42 <jgarzik> works great for vanity donation bitcoin addresses
108 2011-01-10 00:23:44 <marioxcc> along with the classical DNS problems but greater
109 2011-01-10 00:23:48 <jgarzik> jgarzik.bitcoin.com
110 2011-01-10 00:24:00 <jgarzik> could even use your OpenID ID (which is a URL) as a bitcoin address
111 2011-01-10 00:24:05 <jgarzik> return a TXT record
112 2011-01-10 00:24:07 <kartofeln> well yeah. the bitcoin dns extensions would greatly benefit from dnssec, I suppose.
113 2011-01-10 00:25:18 <luke-jr> since you can never tell *who* sent a tx, you almost always *need* a unique address at least per person
114 2011-01-10 00:25:27 <jgarzik> so, at point of sale time, with single use bitcoin addresses, you have no idea whose bitcoin address that is.  it's just a random, ever-changing number for each Starbucks Inc. visit.
115 2011-01-10 00:25:30 <jgarzik> luke-jr: correct
116 2011-01-10 00:25:41 <luke-jr> so it is useless to have a DNS resolving to address
117 2011-01-10 00:25:51 <luke-jr> a RDNS address-to-person makes sense, but can lie
118 2011-01-10 00:26:09 <luke-jr> just be sure you don't use any bitcoin addresses on non-SSL sites :P
119 2011-01-10 00:26:16 <luke-jr> other than donation perhaps
120 2011-01-10 00:26:28 <jgarzik> Yes, the phone should log the bitcoin address.  But at Starbucks Inc?  There is no REAL WORLD person who is going to have any use whatsoever for the bitcoin address used in that transaction.
121 2011-01-10 00:26:33 <luke-jr> tcatm: anyhow, how do you like the current page iteration? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin-scheme
122 2011-01-10 00:26:49 <jgarzik> the bitcoin address would likely be printed in their monthly statement, just like transaction id's are reported now.
123 2011-01-10 00:27:23 <jgarzik> thus, bitcoin address is utterly useless in a simple mobile phone UI.
124 2011-01-10 00:27:51 <luke-jr> if phones last much longer, they would need a way to scan a bitcoin URI in or smth
125 2011-01-10 00:27:58 <luke-jr> is that what the barcode thing is for?
126 2011-01-10 00:28:33 <jgarzik> who is -ever- going to type in, hand-transcribe a bitcoin address?  only the truly dedicated, or desperate.  sane people will obtain, and publish, bitcoin addresses via electronic means:  cut-n-paste, email, HTTP, QR-code, bluetooth, ...
127 2011-01-10 00:28:34 <tcatm> luke-jr: why all those BTC units?!
128 2011-01-10 00:28:54 <luke-jr> tcatm: why not?
129 2011-01-10 00:29:09 <tcatm> luke-jr: bitcoin doesn't understand them
130 2011-01-10 00:29:20 <luke-jr> I suppose if it poses a problem for implementors, we could reduce it to just BTC, TBC, and null
131 2011-01-10 00:29:31 <jgarzik> luke-jr: "what is this barcode thing for?"   Well, at a high level, QR-code is needed so that mobile phone user points their phone at a code on a cash register, hits a button, and initiates a bitcoin payment.
132 2011-01-10 00:29:43 <kartofeln> luke-kr: Because the idea of force-fitting an ancient rejected precursor to hexadecimal into bitcoin is, at best, silly.
133 2011-01-10 00:30:01 <jgarzik> though, NFC looms large
134 2011-01-10 00:30:02 <luke-jr> kartofeln: if BitCoin won't support Tonal, I won't support BitCoin
135 2011-01-10 00:30:15 <jgarzik> NFC might overtake QR-codes as bitcoin payment method on mobile phones.
136 2011-01-10 00:30:18 <luke-jr> kartofeln: BitCoin should remain neutral in the number system war
137 2011-01-10 00:30:24 <tcatm> could such a bitcoin-scheme be transferred with NFC?
138 2011-01-10 00:30:31 <kartofeln> are you sure there's a number system war?
139 2011-01-10 00:30:38 <luke-jr> kartofeln: I'm starting one. :P
140 2011-01-10 00:30:41 <kartofeln> right
141 2011-01-10 00:30:42 <luke-jr> if there isn't already
142 2011-01-10 00:30:58 <jgarzik> tcatm: sure
143 2011-01-10 00:31:00 <jgarzik> tcatm: http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javame/nfc/
144 2011-01-10 00:31:03 <jgarzik> intro
145 2011-01-10 00:31:51 <tcatm> great
146 2011-01-10 00:32:22 <jgarzik> tcatm: of course NFC is 100x more complex, but $Big Corps are working to put NFC in the field everywhere
147 2011-01-10 00:32:51 <tcatm> I think QR codes will work great for now.
148 2011-01-10 00:32:56 <jgarzik> tcatm: agreed
149 2011-01-10 00:33:12 <luke-jr> tcatm: if you need to interface with the old/existing bitcoind, convert TBC to 0.00065536 and round up to the next 0.01 BTC (telling the user you're doing so first)
150 2011-01-10 00:33:39 <tcatm> The NFC thing is only needed as those $Big Corps want more complex data tranfers + encryption.
151 2011-01-10 00:33:56 <tcatm> luke-jr: can you remove the unit stuff from the scheme?
152 2011-01-10 00:34:10 <luke-jr> tcatm: you mean only work in base units?
153 2011-01-10 00:34:24 <luke-jr> eg, 50 BTC would be amount=5000000000
154 2011-01-10 00:34:24 <tcatm> only work in decimals
155 2011-01-10 00:34:26 <luke-jr> no
156 2011-01-10 00:34:27 <luke-jr> decimal sucks
157 2011-01-10 00:35:01 <tcatm> they work great as long as you don't cast them to floats :P
158 2011-01-10 00:35:09 <luke-jr> no, they don't.
159 2011-01-10 00:35:22 <luke-jr> it's a poor choice for numeric base
160 2011-01-10 00:35:42 <jgarzik> tcatm: agreed, though the basic point is that NFC is already planned to be widely deployed in mobile phones and, more importantly, in merchants worldwide.  It is easier to (a) upgrade existing NFC-supporting POS software to support bitcoin than (b) buy new hardware that displays a QR-code to customers.
161 2011-01-10 00:35:58 <jgarzik> from merchant's PoV
162 2011-01-10 00:37:10 <luke-jr> tcatm: put simply, I don't *want* decimal bitcoins to succeed; I want tonal bitcoins to. For a unitless URI, I insist it either be base units or tonal units :
163 2011-01-10 00:37:39 <luke-jr> if it makes it easier to reduce it to "BTC" | "TBC" | "", then that's ok
164 2011-01-10 00:37:48 <marioxcc> this channel is 70% total offtopic, 23% bitcoin-related and 7% bitcoin-dev-related
165 2011-01-10 00:38:04 <tcatm> marioxcc: can you graph that vs. time?
166 2011-01-10 00:38:16 <marioxcc> lol
167 2011-01-10 00:38:23 <kartofeln> that 70% offtopic number seem high.
168 2011-01-10 00:38:48 <luke-jr> tcatm: of course, there's the *technical* option to display "units not supported" for anything other than "BTC" | "", but I won't encourage that :P
169 2011-01-10 00:38:51 <kartofeln> although, so does the 7% number.
170 2011-01-10 00:39:04 <marioxcc> kartofeln: from recent history most is jgarzik offtopic
171 2011-01-10 00:39:10 <tcatm> luke-jr: make a patch for bitcoin to support units.
172 2011-01-10 00:39:12 <jgarzik> luke-jr: "(address | (label & host))"
173 2011-01-10 00:39:27 <marioxcc> (and tcatm)
174 2011-01-10 00:39:28 <luke-jr> tcatm: the old codebase is probably going away.
175 2011-01-10 00:39:34 <luke-jr> jgarzik: G?
176 2011-01-10 00:39:48 <kartofeln> I'd count all the mobile phone NFC stuff as bitcoin related since it's in the context of using bitcoin on phones.
177 2011-01-10 00:39:53 <luke-jr> tcatm: the new one, if properly designed, will use only base units in core
178 2011-01-10 00:40:12 <luke-jr> leaving BTC/TBC conversions to UI
179 2011-01-10 00:40:15 <tcatm> luke-jr: which new one?
180 2011-01-10 00:40:28 <jgarzik> luke-jr: your bitcoin URI scheme requires a bitcoin address, which won't work for a key QR-code use case on mobile phones.
181 2011-01-10 00:40:45 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/QBitcoin
182 2011-01-10 00:42:35 <luke-jr> jgarzik: why wouldn't an address work?
183 2011-01-10 00:44:30 <tcatm> luke-jr: looks like the RPC api will be compatible
184 2011-01-10 00:45:03 <jgarzik> luke-jr: you might not always have an address at the initial point of QR-code scan.  given a transaction-specific merchant reference number, the phone can call out to a mtgox/mybitcoin/etc. web API to receive the address.
185 2011-01-10 00:45:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: yes, never heard of backward compatible?
186 2011-01-10 00:45:44 <jgarzik> luke-jr: this makes it -loads- easier to implement using legacy (ie. all existing today) POS systems, that generate their own, unique transaction numbers for each cash register transaction.
187 2011-01-10 00:46:23 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so you're forcing everyone to use some public web service?
188 2011-01-10 00:46:50 <luke-jr> whatever displays the barcode needs to be a computer anyway. it can generate an address
189 2011-01-10 00:46:57 <jgarzik> luke-jr: the logic is (address | call out to a payment processor URL)
190 2011-01-10 00:47:12 <luke-jr> oh
191 2011-01-10 00:47:25 <luke-jr> I get it
192 2011-01-10 00:48:18 <luke-jr> so instead of a bitcoin URI, give them a HTTP URI that redirects to a bitcoin URI?
193 2011-01-10 00:49:21 <luke-jr> any reason that wouldn't work?
194 2011-01-10 00:49:54 <tcatm> complicated to code
195 2011-01-10 00:50:00 <jgarzik> seems pointless when information could be stored directly in bitcoin URI
196 2011-01-10 00:50:15 <jgarzik> bitcoin URI needs 2 mods:  (1) don't require address, (2) optionally specify PP URL
197 2011-01-10 00:50:52 <marioxcc> bitcoin URI without address?
198 2011-01-10 00:51:21 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no sensible way to do that IMO
199 2011-01-10 00:51:29 <luke-jr> bitcoin requires an address
200 2011-01-10 00:51:34 <luke-jr> and URIs dont' contain URIs
201 2011-01-10 00:51:58 <jgarzik> the URL will give your phone the bitcoin address it needs
202 2011-01-10 00:52:09 <luke-jr> exactly
203 2011-01-10 00:52:20 <jgarzik> and it is pointless to insert an additional HTTP query on the phone, just to specify specification cleanliness
204 2011-01-10 00:52:27 <jgarzik> that wastes power and network
205 2011-01-10 00:52:30 <luke-jr> http://my.site.net/payment.php?txcode=4
206 2011-01-10 00:52:40 <luke-jr> &
207 2011-01-10 00:52:44 <luke-jr> it's not additional
208 2011-01-10 00:52:48 <luke-jr> you're saying it's required anyway
209 2011-01-10 00:53:06 <luke-jr> encoding the HTTP URI into a bitcoin URI doesn't make that go away
210 2011-01-10 00:53:22 <tcatm> we won't encode a HTTP URI
211 2011-01-10 00:53:26 <tcatm> just a domain
212 2011-01-10 00:53:43 <luke-jr> so even less useful
213 2011-01-10 00:53:50 <jgarzik> whatever
214 2011-01-10 00:53:59 <luke-jr> just put a HTTP URI in the QR-code
215 2011-01-10 00:54:05 <luke-jr> works the same, and makes better sense
216 2011-01-10 00:54:27 <luke-jr> also lets the phone possibly include a header indicating preferred currency or system
217 2011-01-10 00:54:43 <luke-jr> thus useful for non-bitcoin systems even if one comes about
218 2011-01-10 00:55:20 <tcatm> anyway, I'll implemented my scheme this week so we have something that actually works
219 2011-01-10 00:55:29 <tcatm> s/ed//
220 2011-01-10 00:55:50 <luke-jr> tcatm: let me know if you need help with TBC stuff
221 2011-01-10 00:55:52 <luke-jr> :p
222 2011-01-10 00:56:24 <tcatm> luke-jr: the amount will be passed to RPC sendfrom after checking it's a valid decimal
223 2011-01-10 00:56:46 <tcatm> jgarzik: did you take a look at js-remote?
224 2011-01-10 00:57:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: that won't work
225 2011-01-10 00:57:14 <luke-jr> also, sendfrom is broken
226 2011-01-10 00:57:44 <tcatm> why is it broken?
227 2011-01-10 00:57:55 <luke-jr> it doesn't care what account it takes the moneys out of
228 2011-01-10 00:58:13 <tcatm> that can be fixed easily
229 2011-01-10 00:58:31 <luke-jr> and if you don't check the unit at all, you'll end up sending 400000000 BTC when you should only send 4 :p
230 2011-01-10 00:58:31 <tcatm> an that's not a problem for endusers
231 2011-01-10 00:59:08 <luke-jr> for a simple implementation, just check that it matchs ^(d+)BTC$ and reject anything else for now
232 2011-01-10 00:59:34 <luke-jr> (or do the trivial math to support ^(d+)(BTC|TBC)?$ )
233 2011-01-10 01:00:03 <luke-jr> actually, that wouldn't be trivial for TBC, just for ^(d+)(BTC)?$
234 2011-01-10 01:00:26 <luke-jr> (the math would be trivial for TBC, but not necessarily parsing the number)
235 2011-01-10 01:00:36 <tcatm> you're making the whole thing way to complicated
236 2011-01-10 01:16:15 <jgarzik> indeed
237 2011-01-10 01:16:36 <jgarzik> tcatm: just cloned it, but SIGDINNER and SIGBABY have both fired
238 2011-01-10 01:17:23 <tcatm> fork() :D
239 2011-01-10 01:19:06 <tcatm> you need a git bitcoin with accounts feature
240 2011-01-10 01:19:20 <tcatm> (I should add that to the website...)
241 2011-01-10 01:28:08 <luke-jr> tcatm: &
242 2011-01-10 01:44:31 <fabianhjr> Good night :)
243 2011-01-10 01:59:54 <newsham> can you create a transaction record completely offline?
244 2011-01-10 02:00:24 <newsham> if so, wouldnt it be useful to have a transaction file format?  so i could make a transaction, and give it to someone who has bitcoin client, and they could post it ot the bitcoin net if they so choose?
245 2011-01-10 02:00:43 <newsham> ie. i wouldnt need to be on the bitcoin network to make a transaction and email it to someone who is on the bitcoin network
246 2011-01-10 02:01:10 <tcatm> newsham: yes, that's (in theory) possible
247 2011-01-10 02:01:32 <newsham> and it would be trivial to have a website to post such files to in the case where you arent running bitcoin yourself and you recieve such a file.
248 2011-01-10 02:02:31 <newsham> ok, next q, would such a transaction file fit in a QR?
249 2011-01-10 02:02:54 <luke-jr> tcatm: I'm not sure it is
250 2011-01-10 02:02:57 <newsham> if so, really easy way to xfer bitcoin to and from phone (and phone-to-phone)
251 2011-01-10 02:03:08 <luke-jr> don't transactions have the last-block referenced in them?
252 2011-01-10 02:03:13 <tcatm> newsham: in almost all cases it should fit
253 2011-01-10 02:03:19 <tcatm> luke-jr: nope
254 2011-01-10 02:03:27 <newsham> luke: thats the block.
255 2011-01-10 02:03:39 <luke-jr> then what's stopping me from copying your transaction over and over?
256 2011-01-10 02:03:47 <tcatm> http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/280b37efa96c139073557e073179882f382167829197551d9ce759e8614334ec sample TX
257 2011-01-10 02:03:53 <newsham> luke: the net would only accept the transaction once (at most)
258 2011-01-10 02:04:04 <luke-jr> oh, because the inputs would be invalid later
259 2011-01-10 02:04:12 <tcatm> luke-jr: exact
260 2011-01-10 02:04:17 <newsham> by "transaction" i mean the inert request to perform a transaction.
261 2011-01-10 02:04:28 <newsham> its the net that makes a transaction official by writing it into its log
262 2011-01-10 02:04:37 <luke-jr> but there would be no way to verify the tx until it was on the net
263 2011-01-10 02:04:42 <newsham> right.
264 2011-01-10 02:04:48 <newsham> like a check.
265 2011-01-10 02:04:58 <newsham> and like a check, you could rip it up an dnot use it
266 2011-01-10 02:05:22 <luke-jr> but unlike a check, you might not know who to go after if it's no good
267 2011-01-10 02:05:33 <Cusipzzz> lol
268 2011-01-10 02:05:33 <newsham> i guess you'd have to keep track of which coins you've already given out that havent been spent.
269 2011-01-10 02:05:53 <newsham> luke: nah, thats outside of the check/tx scheme.
270 2011-01-10 02:06:33 <newsham> if someone mails you a random bad check,you have no idea who to go after if its bogus.
271 2011-01-10 02:06:53 <newsham> but if someone at the store gives the cashier a check, they will ask for id and compare with addr and what not
272 2011-01-10 02:06:59 <newsham> ie. its outside the check protocol..
273 2011-01-10 02:07:20 <newsham> i think a TX file would be very handy to email around, to QR, etc.
274 2011-01-10 02:07:40 <newsham> and you dont even need a bank to cash it.. you can cash it with your own distributed bitcoin net client
275 2011-01-10 02:08:15 <newsham> could be put into URI form, too, if desired.
276 2011-01-10 02:08:22 <luke-jr> >_<
277 2011-01-10 02:08:29 <newsham> maybe one URI to request payment, and another URI that promises payment (a check)?
278 2011-01-10 02:08:36 <luke-jr> data:application/x-bitcoin-tx,base64data ? :p
279 2011-01-10 02:09:00 <newsham> luke: ascii encoding binary data alreayd happens.. see also bitcoin addresses
280 2011-01-10 02:09:09 <newsham> and ip addresses
281 2011-01-10 02:09:22 <luke-jr> much shorter
282 2011-01-10 02:09:29 <luke-jr> anyhow, data URI would work for that fine
283 2011-01-10 02:10:34 <newsham> ps: why does bitcoin use a captive portal for forum instead of a mailing list or something more open?
284 2011-01-10 02:10:48 <newsham> thats a huge turnoff
285 2011-01-10 02:11:26 <newsham> what forum channel do people discuss proposals in?
286 2011-01-10 02:11:34 <newsham> dev&tech discussion?
287 2011-01-10 02:11:41 <tcatm> yep
288 2011-01-10 02:21:48 <luke-jr> marioxcc: I added hex support in the URI bit :P
289 2011-01-10 02:22:17 <luke-jr> marioxcc: minor TBC extension just for you: xA TBC can be used for hex symbols
290 2011-01-10 02:26:57 <gavinandresen> newsham: RE: your "bitcoin check" proposal:  is the idea that the transaction is spendable by whoever holds the check?  Or only somebody with a particular bitcoin address?
291 2011-01-10 02:27:35 <newsham> its spendable only by the person you write the check to, though anybody can make the transaction happen ('cash it')
292 2011-01-10 02:28:11 <luke-jr> newsham: same with real checks
293 2011-01-10 02:28:20 <luke-jr> and not cash it, deposit it :p
294 2011-01-10 02:29:07 <newsham> its the authorization for a transaction.
295 2011-01-10 02:29:24 <gavinandresen> newsham:  so just a standard format for a bitcoin transaction, in case you can't connect to the bitcoin network directly to send it.
296 2011-01-10 02:29:31 <newsham> right.
297 2011-01-10 02:29:50 <newsham> and you could easily make an online service that accepts such files, for those who dont want to run bitcoin locally
298 2011-01-10 02:30:11 <newsham> and you dont have to trust them.
299 2011-01-10 02:30:20 <newsham> if they fail to post it, you can just try to get someone else to post it
300 2011-01-10 02:30:48 <newsham> you could print em out on christmas cards, even :)
301 2011-01-10 02:31:30 <newsham> it could even be as simple as the exact same encoding as the bitcoin protocol currently uses for transactions
302 2011-01-10 02:31:33 <newsham> just as its own stand-alone entity
303 2011-01-10 02:32:26 <gavinandresen> newsham: implementing a service that takes signed transactions and either says "NOPE, INVALID" or posts them onto the network is a good idea.   I don't know that we need to agree on a standardized format for transactions first, though.
304 2011-01-10 02:32:44 <gavinandresen> Just go implement such a thing and you'll set the standard....
305 2011-01-10 02:33:25 <luke-jr> ad-hoc standards ftl
306 2011-01-10 02:34:15 <newsham> i agree, but having a defined format would be useful for several reasons.  1) std client could generate and consume the file, making it more widely useful, 2) different wallet/checkbook apps could interop with each other and with web apps
307 2011-01-10 02:35:01 <newsham> anyway, the online service is the trivial part.. i think a good android btc checkbook would be a good proof.
308 2011-01-10 02:35:05 <gavinandresen> The standard client is connected to the network, so it can just send the frickin transaction.   Why bother generating a "check" ???
309 2011-01-10 02:35:23 <newsham> gavin: I might receive a check.
310 2011-01-10 02:35:45 <newsham> also my internet might be on the fritz, but i can put it on sneakernet or print out a QR
311 2011-01-10 02:36:20 <luke-jr> perhaps the daemon shouldn't even have code to generate transactions :P
312 2011-01-10 02:36:25 <newsham> also if you give someone a check, youc an reclaim it if they dont cash it.
313 2011-01-10 02:36:28 <gavinandresen> If your internet is on the fritz, you likely won't be able to get the right bitcoin address to pay for whatever it is you're buying.
314 2011-01-10 02:36:48 <gavinandresen> Ditto on the other end-- how is the phone going to know your bitcoin address?
315 2011-01-10 02:36:53 <newsham> gavin: might have an address book of all the people on my christmas list from last year?
316 2011-01-10 02:38:00 <newsham> phone could get it from a web page or email or QR code.
317 2011-01-10 02:38:04 <gavinandresen> So you send Cousin Phil 100BTC via a bitcoin check, call him and ask "did you get those bitcoins I sent?" and he tells you "huh?  Oh, I transferred all my BTC to MyBitcoin last year just before my computer got hacked and somebody stole my wallet....."
318 2011-01-10 02:38:14 <newsham> like the "please donate" line on the slush pool web page
319 2011-01-10 02:38:37 <newsham> gavin: yup, that would be a problem for sure :)
320 2011-01-10 02:39:30 <mizerydearia> Topic for ##economics is: Welcome! http://tinyurl.com/thewiki #bitcoin-dev #business@efnet #mises ##econometrics ##eu ##rothbard ##stocks ##psychology ##business ##not-economics
321 2011-01-10 02:40:07 <gavinandresen> I think Bitcoin Bearer Bonds (signed transactions that can be claimed by anybody) might actually be more useful.
322 2011-01-10 02:40:35 <newsham> i thikn that would be useful too.. and you could do that too, except for the script limitations currently in the popular clients
323 2011-01-10 02:41:05 <newsham> actually, yah, you could do that now, by just sending along the keypair with the TX
324 2011-01-10 02:41:09 <gavinandresen> The script limitations currently in the popular clients can be changed, they just can't be changed willy-nilly.
325 2011-01-10 02:42:12 <newsham> thats a lot more like a coin than bitcoin :)
326 2011-01-10 02:43:47 <newsham> hmm.. wait.. (key, tx) isnt quite like a bearer bond in that the sender could still reclaim it before the receiver claims it
327 2011-01-10 02:44:03 <newsham> but it is like a check without the name filled in
328 2011-01-10 02:44:12 <Cusipzzz> or a blank money order
329 2011-01-10 02:44:15 <newsham> right
330 2011-01-10 02:45:07 <newsham> quick, someone implement it and post $20 to ##economics and see if any economists pick it up
331 2011-01-10 02:45:17 <luke-jr> newsham: send raw tx to a new address, and include the private key for that address ;)
332 2011-01-10 02:45:35 <newsham> luke: right. thats what I was trying to say
333 2011-01-10 02:46:49 <newsham> bonus use case: the ability to throw spare change out on IRC
334 2011-01-10 02:46:56 <newsham> and watch people scramble to pick it up
335 2011-01-10 02:47:08 <luke-jr> newsham: except that this data is way too big for IRC
336 2011-01-10 02:47:24 <newsham> pshaw.
337 2011-01-10 02:47:40 <Cusipzzz> lol
338 2011-01-10 02:49:31 <newsham> ok, i see a potential problem here.. if i have a 20BTC "coin" and I want to give 5BTC to someone, i write a TX with 5BTC to recipient and 15BTC to myself.  now if I want to write another check, the other check wont work unless the first check is cached (if I use the new 15BTC) or will cancel the first one (if I use the original 20BTC)
339 2011-01-10 02:49:44 <newsham> you would have to go online first and make change befor eyou can write those two checks
340 2011-01-10 02:50:14 <luke-jr> right
341 2011-01-10 02:50:48 <newsham> so now you need change machines, which you would have to trust.
342 2011-01-10 02:50:58 <newsham> wait, no.. you dont have to trust.
343 2011-01-10 02:51:12 <newsham> you would need to have access to something online that does TXs for you
344 2011-01-10 02:51:17 <nanotube> newsham: seems like a solution in search of a problem. services like mybitcoin seem to be the simple method "for those who don't want to run a client"
345 2011-01-10 02:51:32 <newsham> nanotube: you have to trust mybitcoin.
346 2011-01-10 02:51:34 <luke-jr> nanotube: he wants offline
347 2011-01-10 02:51:57 <newsham> i dont hvae to trust a TX submitting service.
348 2011-01-10 02:52:20 <newsham> this allows separation of TX submission and wallet handling.
349 2011-01-10 02:52:33 <luke-jr> newsham: I'd rather see a general IP link :
350 2011-01-10 02:53:34 <gavinandresen> I think there is a need for a lightweight, only-sometimes-connected, store-my-wallet-on-my-phone solution.  That is easy if you're OK with some gateway knowing about all of your transactions and knowing how many bitcoins are in your wallet.
351 2011-01-10 02:53:56 <nanotube> gavinandresen: ssh to server with a running bitcoind. problem solved. :P
352 2011-01-10 02:54:28 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  then the wallet isn't on the phone, it is on the server.
353 2011-01-10 02:54:55 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: rather the gateway be IP
354 2011-01-10 02:55:44 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  huh?
355 2011-01-10 02:56:03 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: instead of transmitting a tx for me, it should just provide me with an IP connection and let me send it myself
356 2011-01-10 02:56:07 <nanotube> gavinandresen: yes... but what's the point of storing wallet on phone, if you can't make transactions with it anyway? and if you can make a tx, then you might as well ssh out.
357 2011-01-10 02:56:39 <nanotube> storing wallet on phone is not secure anyway, phones get lost or stolen all the time.
358 2011-01-10 02:56:43 <luke-jr> nanotube: he's saying, phone makes the tx, but the other thing transmits it
359 2011-01-10 02:57:00 <nanotube> why rely on other thing to transmit it?
360 2011-01-10 02:57:10 <luke-jr> that's what I say :P
361 2011-01-10 02:57:15 <nanotube> heh
362 2011-01-10 02:57:17 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  one gateway could support tens of thousands of phones.  Most people ain't gonna run bitcoind on their own secure VPS.
363 2011-01-10 02:57:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: one phone can support bitcoind :p
364 2011-01-10 02:58:13 <newsham> gavin: right, but I am trying ot think of a way to do this without the trust.. and I mostly have a solution.
365 2011-01-10 02:58:24 <newsham> but having to be online to "make change" is definitely a downside.
366 2011-01-10 02:58:42 <luke-jr> you guys are talking about applying future tech (bitcoin) to past tech (poor connectivity)
367 2011-01-10 02:58:47 <gavinandresen> newsham:   how does the phone know when it has been sent coins?
368 2011-01-10 02:58:58 <luke-jr> nowadays, phones basically all have IP all the time
369 2011-01-10 02:59:00 <nanotube> gavinandresen: sorry, so fill me in here maybe i'm missing something... so phone generates a tx... what happens then?
370 2011-01-10 02:59:10 <newsham> gavin: *nod* it would have to trust some collection of online entities for the verification part.
371 2011-01-10 02:59:22 <newsham> but that is at least a lot less trust than giving an online service your wallet
372 2011-01-10 02:59:38 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  it sends it to a gateway, which either says "NOPE, INPUTS SPENT" (which should never happen) or transmits it to the network.
373 2011-01-10 02:59:50 <newsham> not that I have anything against mybitcoin,  i'm just trying to think of a less trusting alternative
374 2011-01-10 02:59:55 <gavinandresen> newsham:  agreed.
375 2011-01-10 03:00:55 <nanotube> gavinandresen: ah i see. does the gateway even need to check if inputs are spent? if they're spent, the tx will just fail to get incorporated into the chain... gateway can be dumb, no?
376 2011-01-10 03:01:19 <newsham> nanotube: for the sake of the client.. the gateway would be the only way the client has of verifying a TX has or hasnt occurred
377 2011-01-10 03:01:48 <nanotube> ah, so you don't have to wait for block confirmations...
378 2011-01-10 03:02:07 <newsham> yah, just submit TX and check back later to see if it went through
379 2011-01-10 03:02:49 <newsham> also there are two reasons you want to know if a TX happened.  1) did the money I received get put into my wallet.  2) did the money I send get taken out of my wallet (which is part of 3) can I reclaim the money I sent that was never used yet))
380 2011-01-10 03:02:53 <gavinandresen> Sure, the gateway doesn't HAVE to check, but the user experience will be better if it does.
381 2011-01-10 03:02:53 <nanotube> so let me ask this, then... why use the gateway at all, rather than sending the tx to the bitcoin network directly? a lightweight client, that only sends tx without being a full bitcoin node, can do just as well, no? and no need for a 'gateway'?
382 2011-01-10 03:03:43 <newsham> nanotube: *nod*  that might be fine too.  but i think a simple web gw would still be occasionally useful.
383 2011-01-10 03:03:47 <nanotube> assuming the lightweight client keeps track of balance on the sendout... should always be fine. and for managing receipts, it can be synced with a 'real client' periodically.
384 2011-01-10 03:03:48 <gavinandresen> Submitting the transactions is the easy part.
385 2011-01-10 03:03:59 <nanotube> mmm
386 2011-01-10 03:04:02 <gavinandresen> ... figuring out that you've been sent BTC is the hard part.
387 2011-01-10 03:04:03 <newsham> like when you can only reach port 80, or you're in javascript and port 80 is the most convenient net connection.
388 2011-01-10 03:04:08 <newsham> chromeos comes to mind.
389 2011-01-10 03:04:32 <newsham> javascript with local state (html5) and a web gw could be a bitcoin wallet
390 2011-01-10 03:05:07 <newsham> ahh right, the verificaiton part.
391 2011-01-10 03:05:40 <newsham> anyway, gotta run for now.  thanks for the back and forth on the idea
392 2011-01-10 03:05:47 <gavinandresen> So:  you COULD just directly connect to the network, send a transaction, then disconnect.  But if you're polling a gateway or asking a gateway to ping you every time BTC are sent to any of your receiving addresses, you might as well use the gateway to submit the txns for you.
393 2011-01-10 03:06:49 <gavinandresen> If the gateway knows all of your receiving addresses, then it knows how many bitcoins are in your wallet, and it can see whenever you spend coins received on any of those addresses, so connecting directly to the bitcoin network doesn't buy you any privacy.
394 2011-01-10 03:08:47 <nanotube> mmm, so the only difference is... unlike mybitcoin, the gateway can't steal your coins.
395 2011-01-10 03:09:25 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  yep.  That's a big plus.  You've got to be careful to backup so you don't lose your coins, of course...
396 2011-01-10 03:10:04 <nanotube> though i guess it can be malicious and fail to report receipts, or claim failed sends when they didn't fail, causing you to resend, thus spending extra coins... but it can't claim those to itself, thus removing the profit motive for maliciousness.
397 2011-01-10 03:10:39 <nanotube> interesting idea, then. :) i'd still prefer to run my own bitcoind on my vps, but... that option is not for everyone indeed. :)
398 2011-01-10 03:11:14 <gavinandresen> gateways that did that would soon find themselves out of business.  And I'm assuming that the gateways would find some way of charging for their services...
399 2011-01-10 03:11:45 <nanotube> ah... in that case... i'd doubly prefer to run my own bitcoind :) hehe
400 2011-01-10 03:11:58 <gavinandresen> Yeah, but you're a big ole geek.
401 2011-01-10 03:12:07 <nanotube> hehe indeed. :)
402 2011-01-10 03:12:32 <tcatm> Yay, I finally got rid of a global variable holding application state in js-remote!
403 2011-01-10 03:12:43 <nanotube> o/
404 2011-01-10 03:13:37 <gavinandresen> I've actually been thinking about whether you could be fuzzy about which bitcoin addresses you're interested in knowing about so the gateway doesn't know which addresses are yours.  You'd get extra transactions which your phone could just ignore.....
405 2011-01-10 03:15:08 <nanotube> gavinandresen: yea, but you couldn't be fuzzy about which addresses you're sending from... so i'm not sure if being fuzzy about receiving addresses would be of any benefit. some simple statistical analysis can reveal which addresses are fake.
406 2011-01-10 03:15:15 <nanotube> (if the gateway so desires)
407 2011-01-10 03:16:11 <gavinandresen> nanotube:  yeah.  Although you could occasionally generate sends to yourself, and that gateway wouldn't be able to tell if you were really paying somebody else.
408 2011-01-10 03:16:49 <gavinandresen> The gateway WOULD be able to tell if you donated to a public  bitcoin address (like the Faucet or EFF donation addresses)
409 2011-01-10 03:16:52 <nanotube> hehe seems like a lot of effort for dubious gain. but i guess at some point, when some spare programming cycles materialize, it would be interesting.
410 2011-01-10 03:17:56 <gavinandresen> Yeah, I think the extremely-paranoid-privacy-conscious people will always run their own bitcoind and talk to it via ssh.
411 2011-01-10 03:18:08 <Cusipzzz> <--
412 2011-01-10 03:28:42 <nanotube> hehe
413 2011-01-10 03:38:07 <Cam> >.>
414 2011-01-10 03:38:34 <nanotube> o/ Cam ;)
415 2011-01-10 03:38:43 <Cam> :)
416 2011-01-10 03:39:28 <nanotube> <.<
417 2011-01-10 03:40:03 <Cam> That sounds gross... it's what my sister calls her cookies.
418 2011-01-10 03:40:08 <Cam> shamdoodles.
419 2011-01-10 03:40:14 <Cam> nobody cares.
420 2011-01-10 04:02:08 <EvanR> hm.
421 2011-01-10 04:51:14 <newsham> gavin: the gw doesnt need to know what coins you have.  it just needs to be queriable to how many confirmations there are on a transaction you ask about (block explorer could be used, for example)
422 2011-01-10 04:52:46 <newsham> gavin: all the information in a TX is made public in the block chain anyway.  the gateway doesnt get any private info
423 2011-01-10 05:08:16 <joe_1> does bruce wagner ever get on here
424 2011-01-10 05:10:32 <gribble> brucewagner was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 36 minutes, and 17 seconds ago: <brucewagner> Any word on Bitcoin.org site?  Please email and let me know email@bitcoinme.com
425 2011-01-10 05:10:32 <nanotube> ;;seen brucewagner
426 2011-01-10 05:10:41 <nanotube> joe_1: rarely, he does, apparently
427 2011-01-10 05:11:25 <joe_1> supposedly he's getting a point-of-sale company to add bitcoin support
428 2011-01-10 05:11:37 <nanotube> cool
429 2011-01-10 07:03:40 <theymos> brocktice: Regarding integrating BBE's search, you can use GET like http://blockexplorer.com/search/111111 . BBE actually redirects you to a page like this for every search, but you don't see it very often because it automatically sends you to pages if there's only one result.
430 2011-01-10 10:15:43 <davout> hai
431 2011-01-10 10:18:45 <tcatm> hey davout
432 2011-01-10 10:54:33 <omglolbbq> what port does bitcoin program listen on to receive connections?
433 2011-01-10 10:54:58 <theymos> 8333
434 2011-01-10 10:55:01 <omglolbbq> tnxx :)
435 2011-01-10 11:05:16 <xelister> the port can be changed to allow many nodes on a computer or on 1 ext ip?
436 2011-01-10 11:06:30 <theymos> Not in the UI. You can change it in the code, but it would be pointless because Bitcoin will only connect to peers with a non-standard port as a last resort.
437 2011-01-10 11:06:55 <omglolbbq> prety easy too block then
438 2011-01-10 11:07:30 <omglolbbq> just make ISP block all port 8333, like they did with 21 :)
439 2011-01-10 11:08:38 <theymos> Bitcoin transmissions are all unencrypted and very easy-to-detect, anyway.
440 2011-01-10 11:09:51 <omglolbbq> tought bitcoin was supposed to be somewhat resistant to getting taken down
441 2011-01-10 11:12:04 <theymos> It's hard to destroy the system, but currently it's not difficult to block it or DoS attack it. It is beta software, after all.
442 2011-01-10 11:13:48 <theymos> You can use Bitcoin over Tor, which is difficult block.
443 2011-01-10 11:14:33 <omglolbbq> hosting a server on I2P now, see how that goes
444 2011-01-10 11:15:21 <theymos> omglolbbq: Is there any way to connect to a Bitcoin node on I2P? Bitcoin can't do hostname lookup over a proxy, so I thought it was impossible without modifying the code.
445 2011-01-10 11:15:51 <omglolbbq> theymos, you can connect manualy to a specified Ip and port right?
446 2011-01-10 11:16:06 <theymos> Yes.
447 2011-01-10 11:16:12 <omglolbbq> so, i've set up a server tunnel connected to my bitcoin program.
448 2011-01-10 11:16:27 <omglolbbq> you'd have to create a client tunnel targeted at my I2P destination
449 2011-01-10 11:16:45 <omglolbbq> then you connect to localhost on a chosen IP  and it should connect
450 2011-01-10 11:16:51 <theymos> Then the client's I2P creates a virtual IP?
451 2011-01-10 11:17:21 <omglolbbq> the client tunnel is sort of a 'proxy' that opens a port on localhost to that server destination
452 2011-01-10 11:17:45 <omglolbbq> so if you create your cliennt tunnel at say port 9999, you connect your bitcoin client to 127.0.0.1:9999
453 2011-01-10 11:18:06 <theymos> Oh, I see. I don't know if Bitcoin allows specifying the port.
454 2011-01-10 11:18:30 <omglolbbq> if it doesn't  just set client tunnel to listen on 8333
455 2011-01-10 11:18:55 <omglolbbq> hmm that might conflict with your bitcoin client ... :)
456 2011-01-10 11:19:44 <omglolbbq> i'm only running the server right now, can't realy test myself easily
457 2011-01-10 11:20:42 <omglolbbq> does bitcoin have arguments to connect only to the ip's specified? (skip the bootstrapping)
458 2011-01-10 11:23:31 <theymos> No, but I believe you can induce the behavior by setting noirc and some addnode switches, and then setting -maxconnections to be less than or equal to the number of addnodes you specified.
459 2011-01-10 11:23:54 <omglolbbq> i see
460 2011-01-10 11:24:20 <omglolbbq> easiest for now would be tto just set your firewall to block all non-localhost traffic for bitcoin
461 2011-01-10 11:25:49 <theymos> If Bitcoin is set to use the I2P proxy, won't all connections fail or be proxied anyway?
462 2011-01-10 11:27:40 <omglolbbq> all you can do is add a node to connect to, then, if you prevent your client from connecting to others, yes, it fails to connect to other nodes, and everything you do will be proxied over that single i2p 'proxy'
463 2011-01-10 11:28:02 <omglolbbq> to be reliable and trustworthy you'd need more i2p proxies to verify the chain i guess
464 2011-01-10 11:45:29 <xelister> omglolbbq: this is easly done on unix on UID match
465 2011-01-10 11:45:44 <xelister> assuming there is separate user running bitcoind
466 2011-01-10 11:45:49 <xelister> which anyway is a good idea
467 2011-01-10 12:05:57 <davout> hey all
468 2011-01-10 12:08:59 <xelister> omglolbbq:  there seems to be work in progress on freenet transportg
469 2011-01-10 12:09:01 <xelister> transport
470 2011-01-10 12:25:56 <xelister> let's celebrate?
471 2011-01-10 12:26:15 <xelister> there should be  btc2beerandbitches.com
472 2011-01-10 14:04:18 <johnyh> how big is one block (entire block not just headers)?
473 2011-01-10 14:04:51 <theymos> It depends on how many transactions are in the block.
474 2011-01-10 14:05:33 <johnyh> but typically
475 2011-01-10 14:05:53 <lucky> a few kilobytes.
476 2011-01-10 14:06:19 <theymos> You can see http://blockexplorer.com/q/avgblocksize/10000000 for all-time average block size.
477 2011-01-10 14:10:41 <johnyh> so this 600 is in bytes or kb
478 2011-01-10 14:11:52 <theymos> Bytes.
479 2011-01-10 14:12:31 <theymos> If you restrict it to just the last 5000 blocks the average is much higher. http://blockexplorer.com/q/avgblocksize/5000
480 2011-01-10 14:34:10 <luke-jr> anyone here with Move command on wiki?
481 2011-01-10 14:36:46 <tcatm> luke-jr: ?
482 2011-01-10 14:37:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: genjix renamed the page to Schema
483 2011-01-10 14:37:50 <luke-jr> also, I simplified the amount syntax for you: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#tcatm,_modified_by_LukeJr
484 2011-01-10 14:38:31 <luke-jr> now it only requires ASCII and not a slew of different unit names
485 2011-01-10 14:47:21 <pidpawel> what are the limitations when i have port 8333 closed?
486 2011-01-10 14:47:35 <sipa> you can only make outgoing connections
487 2011-01-10 14:49:01 <pidpawel> that is a problem. there isnt any way to override it?
488 2011-01-10 14:49:23 <theymos> Bitcoin works fine with the port closed.
489 2011-01-10 14:49:40 <lfm> its not really a problem, you can still do everything on the bitcoin net
490 2011-01-10 14:50:18 <pidpawel> so i can get some bitcoins, send them, generate?
491 2011-01-10 14:50:25 <lfm> yes
492 2011-01-10 14:50:50 <pidpawel> so why website says so much about it?
493 2011-01-10 14:51:36 <lfm> well if there was no one accepting incoming connects then the net wouldnt work at all but there is enuf now generally that it works
494 2011-01-10 14:52:06 <lfm> so every node you connect to is one that accepts incoming
495 2011-01-10 14:52:49 <pidpawel> oh. i see :)
496 2011-01-10 14:53:48 <lfm> so if you CAN do it please do it to help keep the net strong
497 2011-01-10 14:55:29 <pidpawel> i cant do it using ipv4. but using ipv6 i can do that.
498 2011-01-10 14:55:41 <theymos> Bitcoin doesn't support IPv6 yet.
499 2011-01-10 14:56:12 <pidpawel> what about bitcoin on gentoo? have anyone tried it?
500 2011-01-10 14:56:33 <lfm> yes some people use gentoo
501 2011-01-10 14:56:53 <pidpawel> does anyone have "working" ebuild?
502 2011-01-10 14:58:04 <lfm> there are people working on it but not dure if ebuild works for everyone yet
503 2011-01-10 14:59:37 <pidpawel> i have an old pentium d with 2GB of ram working 27/7 and i want to use it to help the network, but i didnt found any working ebuild yet.
504 2011-01-10 15:01:04 <lfm> itd work as a node ok but pentium are not very efficient for generating blocks if thats what you're thinking
505 2011-01-10 15:01:25 <lfm> p4/pd that is
506 2011-01-10 15:02:41 <pidpawel> i know that but it still have to run constantly so... it's better than doing boinc :>
507 2011-01-10 15:03:59 <lfm> even the increase in power consumtion over idle will cost more than you will profit but you are of course welcome to try, just dont build up expectations! grin
508 2011-01-10 15:04:31 <pidpawel> :>
509 2011-01-10 15:07:01 <pidpawel> i dont have enough computing power to generate coins but i dont know how to get coins either. i have now 0.05 from freecoins and no idea how to get more.
510 2011-01-10 15:08:02 <luke-jr> sipa: did that actually work? XD
511 2011-01-10 15:08:20 <pidpawel> im looking now for a suitable gpu client, but i dont think it will do much.
512 2011-01-10 15:08:43 <luke-jr> pidpawel: I have a working branch, but no ebuild for it
513 2011-01-10 15:08:58 <sipa> luke-jr: not yet, just need some patience :)
514 2011-01-10 15:09:11 <sipa> it's swapping like hell
515 2011-01-10 15:09:25 <luke-jr> pidpawel: an old Pentium D would cost more in electricity than it would generate in Bitcoins
516 2011-01-10 15:09:56 <theymos> pidpawel: Trade goods, services, or other currencies on the forum or on #bitcoin-otc .
517 2011-01-10 15:10:02 <luke-jr> sipa: oh, a swappy VPS :p
518 2011-01-10 15:10:39 <pidpawel> ok. so it will run as usual. actually i want to switch it with some atom mainboard but... atom costs too.
519 2011-01-10 15:10:46 <luke-jr> pidpawel: maybe try http://coinpal.ndrix.com/
520 2011-01-10 15:11:09 <pidpawel> i am still reading about getting bitcoins
521 2011-01-10 15:11:15 <pidpawel> thx for link :)
522 2011-01-10 15:11:18 <luke-jr> pidpawel: the problem is that inevitably, BitCoins are more secure than any other online transaction
523 2011-01-10 15:11:32 <luke-jr> pidpawel: buying secured good with insecure goods carries some risk
524 2011-01-10 15:11:46 <luke-jr> risk for the seller that is
525 2011-01-10 15:12:02 <luke-jr> eg, if someone disputes a paypal to CoinPal, they're screwed basically
526 2011-01-10 15:12:41 <luke-jr> and often, PayPal closes the account entirely rather than just being out the $
527 2011-01-10 15:14:01 <luke-jr> if by chance you have any Pecunix (gold), you can buy BTC with that usually
528 2011-01-10 15:14:05 <pidpawel> pff. 2000khashes/s i thought it will run faster.
529 2011-01-10 15:14:20 <pidpawel> i dont have paypal abbount right now.
530 2011-01-10 15:14:32 <luke-jr> mail cash to someone trustworthy then
531 2011-01-10 15:14:39 <brocktice> theymos: excellent re: get
532 2011-01-10 15:14:41 <brocktice> thanks
533 2011-01-10 15:15:06 <brocktice> tcatm: you around?
534 2011-01-10 15:15:13 <brocktice> tcatm: I got bitcoin-js-remote working
535 2011-01-10 15:15:24 <tcatm> brocktice: cool
536 2011-01-10 15:15:31 <brocktice> tcatm: want to send part of the bounty but it would be good if you had a QR code for donations on the page :)
537 2011-01-10 15:15:37 <pidpawel> accually i dont want to exchange "real money" to bc. now im just trying and looking around ;)
538 2011-01-10 15:16:12 <brocktice> tcatm: actually I just reviewed my pledge
539 2011-01-10 15:16:13 <luke-jr> pidpawel: Bitcoins are more real than your USD :P
540 2011-01-10 15:16:34 <tcatm> brocktice: QR scheme will change soon to support more than just a plain address. After that I'll add QR donation code :)
541 2011-01-10 15:16:35 <brocktice> I pledged 800 for a nice iphone/web app that could be hosted on one's own server
542 2011-01-10 15:16:44 <brocktice> I also pledged 200 for QR codes
543 2011-01-10 15:16:48 <brocktice> you get 1000 BTC bounty :)
544 2011-01-10 15:16:50 <brocktice> nice work
545 2011-01-10 15:16:58 <pidpawel> luke-jr: yes. but just give me some time to get udes to it ;)
546 2011-01-10 15:17:07 <luke-jr> tcatm: you're done already, or just the prototype?
547 2011-01-10 15:17:08 <brocktice> Do you want it paid to that address on the page?
548 2011-01-10 15:17:17 <luke-jr> brocktice: please tell me you made a condition being open source? :P
549 2011-01-10 15:17:30 <tcatm> luke-jr: prototype encoding plain bitcoin addresses in QR for now
550 2011-01-10 15:17:32 <brocktice> luke-jr: no, but his is open source
551 2011-01-10 15:17:38 <brocktice> I think it's more important to have ANY android app first
552 2011-01-10 15:17:40 <luke-jr> ah
553 2011-01-10 15:17:46 <brocktice> we can worry about open source later
554 2011-01-10 15:17:47 <tcatm> brocktice: yes, that donation address is fine
555 2011-01-10 15:17:50 <brocktice> cool
556 2011-01-10 15:18:01 <luke-jr> brocktice: easier to make it a condition :p
557 2011-01-10 15:18:12 <pidpawel> when you have an android app done just tell me :)
558 2011-01-10 15:18:17 <brocktice> done
559 2011-01-10 15:18:24 <brocktice> thanks for writing it!
560 2011-01-10 15:18:25 <luke-jr> tcatm: I can help you implement the URI support if you want to link the source repo :P
561 2011-01-10 15:18:48 <tcatm> http://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
562 2011-01-10 15:18:59 <luke-jr> tcatm: also, note that GPL and iPhone do not play together unless you have an exception
563 2011-01-10 15:19:10 <luke-jr> (not sure what licenses you were considering)
564 2011-01-10 15:19:26 <tcatm> it's pure javascript/html and it'll use the same license as bitcoin
565 2011-01-10 15:19:58 <brocktice> just noted on the forum that my part of the bounty was paid to tcatm
566 2011-01-10 15:20:44 <luke-jr> JS/HTML and does all that? XD
567 2011-01-10 15:20:56 <brocktice> yep, pretty impressive actually
568 2011-01-10 15:21:07 <brocktice> and it's running on my own machine, with SSL, also a requirement
569 2011-01-10 15:21:10 <brocktice> I didn't mention SSL but it's kind of a 'duh' thing
570 2011-01-10 15:21:36 <luke-jr> it is?
571 2011-01-10 15:21:43 <luke-jr> I don't see what SSL has to do with it
572 2011-01-10 15:21:53 <luke-jr> why would it need to do HTTP at all?
573 2011-01-10 15:21:59 <tcatm> luke-jr: I wrote a small server in python to host the website and proxy RPC calls
574 2011-01-10 15:22:03 <brocktice> I'm not going to connect my phone to my wallet without SSL
575 2011-01-10 15:22:11 <brocktice> that'd be stupid
576 2011-01-10 15:22:12 <luke-jr> oh, your wallet isn't on the phone?
577 2011-01-10 15:22:20 <brocktice> nope, on my workstation
578 2011-01-10 15:22:24 <tcatm> of course not
579 2011-01-10 15:23:15 <tcatm> Average users don't backup their phones so it's not secure to store data there
580 2011-01-10 15:23:57 <brocktice> plus, crossing the US border with my wallet on my phone might not be a great idea
581 2011-01-10 15:24:24 <luke-jr> tcatm: http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/parseuri
582 2011-01-10 15:25:05 <brocktice> This is so cool
583 2011-01-10 15:25:17 <tcatm> luke-jr: thanks
584 2011-01-10 15:25:21 <brocktice> I could now plausibly walk into a coffee shop and buy coffee with my phone
585 2011-01-10 15:26:31 <tcatm> that's how I felt when I scanned the first QR code on my phone and send an transaction
586 2011-01-10 15:31:36 <brocktice> It's cool living in the future :)
587 2011-01-10 15:32:14 <EvanR-work> brocktice: whats wrong with crossing the border
588 2011-01-10 15:32:32 <brocktice> EvanR-work: CBP likes to take electronics and hold them indefinitely
589 2011-01-10 15:32:57 <brocktice> If I had a current backup and emptied my wallet as soon as I got home, I could at least keep my BTC
590 2011-01-10 15:33:05 <brocktice> but still, better to have the BTC somewhere else
591 2011-01-10 15:34:35 <EvanR-work> brocktice: yeah, many places else
592 2011-01-10 15:35:14 <EvanR-work> would be nice if there was a backup solution which used much less than xx megabytes
593 2011-01-10 15:35:31 <EvanR-work> so you could store it on small size media
594 2011-01-10 15:58:32 <pidpawel> can i idle for some time on client's communication channel or rather do do that?
595 2011-01-10 15:59:49 <theymos> What channel?
596 2011-01-10 16:02:49 <mizerydearia> pidpawel, LFNet #bitcoin
597 2011-01-10 16:09:03 <pidpawel> mizerydearia: i know. i read it from the source ;)
598 2011-01-10 16:10:27 <omglolbbq> well I2P proxy seems to be working but somebody is having an issue anyone willing to try?
599 2011-01-10 16:18:02 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#ECMAScript
600 2011-01-10 16:20:35 <tcatm> luke-jr: I'd prefer a class that parses the scheme and returns query as array
601 2011-01-10 16:20:50 <luke-jr> tcatm: that URI one I sent you earlier should
602 2011-01-10 16:21:13 <luke-jr> it might not for URNs, but you should be able to fix that easily
603 2011-01-10 16:21:33 <tcatm> Ah I thought you wanted to contribute code I could just plug in?
604 2011-01-10 16:21:56 <Diablo-D3> http://images.4chan.org/m/src/1294679557152.jpg
605 2011-01-10 16:21:59 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck?!
606 2011-01-10 16:22:06 <luke-jr> tcatm: some reaosn you couldn't just plug in the parseuri func and this one?
607 2011-01-10 16:22:26 <luke-jr> remember, you haven't published your code yet, so I don't know what you're working with
608 2011-01-10 16:22:42 <tcatm> 17:17 < luke-jr> tcatm: I can help you implement the URI support if you want to link the source repo :P
609 2011-01-10 16:22:46 <tcatm> 17:17 < tcatm> http://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote
610 2011-01-10 16:22:52 <brocktice> heh
611 2011-01-10 16:23:17 <tcatm> luke-jr: see URI.js, it already does a very similiar job
612 2011-01-10 16:23:51 <luke-jr> tcatm: except parsing query string?
613 2011-01-10 16:24:08 <tcatm> yep
614 2011-01-10 16:24:15 <luke-jr> parseuri parses that :p
615 2011-01-10 16:24:37 <tcatm> so make a class that adds that function to URI.js
616 2011-01-10 16:25:03 <luke-jr> hmm
617 2011-01-10 16:25:11 <tcatm> Or even change URI.js
618 2011-01-10 16:25:20 <tcatm> It's probably useful for other URIs, too.
619 2011-01-10 16:25:31 <luke-jr> you wrote URI.js?
620 2011-01-10 16:25:37 <tcatm> no
621 2011-01-10 16:25:38 <luke-jr> it's missing a copyright
622 2011-01-10 16:26:01 <luke-jr> where did you get it?
623 2011-01-10 16:26:03 <davout> hey all
624 2011-01-10 16:26:26 <davout> FYI i just opened the git repo for bitcoin central
625 2011-01-10 16:26:44 <tcatm> luke-jr: http://code.google.com/p/js-uri/
626 2011-01-10 16:31:47 <luke-jr> whoever wrote this doesn't know ECMAScript well& XD
627 2011-01-10 16:32:45 <tcatm> luke-jr: what did he do wrong?
628 2011-01-10 16:32:51 <luke-jr> / Introduce a new scope to define some private helper functions.
629 2011-01-10 16:32:53 <luke-jr> function merge(base, rel_path) {
630 2011-01-10 16:33:02 <luke-jr> functions defined like that *ignore* scoping
631 2011-01-10 16:35:07 <tcatm> can you fix it?
632 2011-01-10 16:35:13 <luke-jr> I could
633 2011-01-10 16:35:31 <tcatm> https://github.com/tcatm/bitcoin-js-remote/blob/master/lib/URI.js added copyright/license
634 2011-01-10 16:39:55 <pidpawel> birthday bitcoins :> i had my birthday last friday :P
635 2011-01-10 16:44:01 <tcatm> davout: ping?
636 2011-01-10 16:55:31 <luke-jr> tcatm: your QR-code on the site is wrong
637 2011-01-10 16:55:53 <tcatm> what's wrong with it?
638 2011-01-10 16:55:59 <luke-jr> it's set as text, not URI
639 2011-01-10 16:56:46 <tcatm> how do i make it URI?
640 2011-01-10 16:56:59 <luke-jr> nfc
641 2011-01-10 16:57:07 <luke-jr> the webapp I used to genereate one had an option
642 2011-01-10 16:57:50 <tcatm> google's chart api doesn't
643 2011-01-10 16:59:01 <luke-jr> http://qrcode.kaywa.com/
644 2011-01-10 17:01:54 <tcatm> there's no difference?!
645 2011-01-10 17:05:16 <newsham> tcatm: where do you get data for bitcoincharts?
646 2011-01-10 17:05:32 <tcatm> newsham: directly from the exchanges
647 2011-01-10 17:05:46 <newsham> personal agreement or do they have an open way to grab history?
648 2011-01-10 17:06:04 <tcatm> public APIs
649 2011-01-10 17:06:51 <tcatm> I can give you access to that data if you like
650 2011-01-10 17:07:28 <newsham> do they let you grab full history or do you have to periodically pull to archive it?
651 2011-01-10 17:08:05 <tcatm> mtgox needs preriodic pulls, all others provide complete history
652 2011-01-10 17:08:08 <luke-jr> tcatm: wget http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0001-add-query_form-function-from-Perl-URI.patch && git am 0001-add-query_form-function-from-Perl-URI.patch
653 2011-01-10 17:08:31 <newsham> interesting.  dont want the data now, but i might come knocking later.. thanks for the offer.
654 2011-01-10 17:09:11 <tcatm> I think it would even be possible to add a read-only mysql user with access to the trades table
655 2011-01-10 17:10:22 <tcatm> luke-jr: thanks
656 2011-01-10 17:14:16 <luke-jr> combine that with https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Schema#ECMAScript and you should be able to parse it all
657 2011-01-10 17:14:46 <luke-jr> if you're talking to the old/current bitcoin daemon, you need to do parseAmount(qd['amount']) / 100000000.
658 2011-01-10 17:17:35 <tcatm> btw, what's the best way to extend an existing Class in ECMAScript? for e.g. adding parseAmount to URI.js
659 2011-01-10 17:19:09 <luke-jr> not sure it belongs on URI
660 2011-01-10 17:19:29 <luke-jr> anyhow, ECMAScript doesn't use classes
661 2011-01-10 17:19:32 <luke-jr> just prototypes
662 2011-01-10 17:19:36 <luke-jr> so just add it
663 2011-01-10 17:20:07 <tcatm> Not URI but I want to make a new class based on URI that parses a bitcoinscheme
664 2011-01-10 17:20:48 <luke-jr> again, no classes in ECMAScript
665 2011-01-10 17:21:28 <luke-jr> I think to create a new prototype that inherits, you just set BitcoinURI.prototype.prototype = URI.prototype
666 2011-01-10 17:21:30 <luke-jr> not sure tho
667 2011-01-10 17:36:25 <pidpawel> how many khashes/s do i need to generate block during the... week?
668 2011-01-10 17:37:35 <theymos> ;;bc,calc 110000
669 2011-01-10 17:37:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 110000 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 1 week, 0 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes, and 8 seconds
670 2011-01-10 17:37:41 <ArtForzZz> 115806
671 2011-01-10 17:38:15 <luke-jr> how do I tell how many khash/s I have?
672 2011-01-10 17:38:21 <pidpawel> hmm. so i have to find gpu client or something? :>
673 2011-01-10 17:38:32 <luke-jr> pidpawel: if you want to give up your freedom
674 2011-01-10 17:38:35 <nanotube> pidpawel: yes, probably. :)
675 2011-01-10 17:39:00 <nanotube> luke-jr: bitcoind getinfo, or look in lower left of the gui (to get your hash rate)
676 2011-01-10 17:39:02 <EvanR-work> give up your freedom to use your hardware at all
677 2011-01-10 17:39:03 <nameless> |You know, I really should get bitcoin working on my server again
678 2011-01-10 17:39:08 <luke-jr> nanotube: my client doesn't do hashing
679 2011-01-10 17:39:13 <pidpawel> without valid ebuild for gentoo it will be hard.
680 2011-01-10 17:39:15 <nameless> |It's a fairly decent vps
681 2011-01-10 17:39:16 <luke-jr> I'm using the cpuminer
682 2011-01-10 17:39:22 <nanotube> luke-jr: then obviously, you have 0 khps.
683 2011-01-10 17:39:34 <ArtForz> ask the cpuminer then
684 2011-01-10 17:39:35 <EvanR-work> cpuminer reports speed by default
685 2011-01-10 17:39:36 <nanotube> luke-jr: ah cpuminer... that one spits out the info to terminal
686 2011-01-10 17:39:42 <ArtForz> client doesnt report getwork khps
687 2011-01-10 17:39:57 <ArtForz> thats the job of each getwork miner
688 2011-01-10 17:40:14 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 588
689 2011-01-10 17:40:21 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 588 Khps, given current difficulty of 16307.48285682 , is 3 years, 40 weeks, 3 days, 15 hours, 43 minutes, and 45 seconds
690 2011-01-10 17:40:26 <luke-jr> >_<
691 2011-01-10 17:40:39 <luke-jr> I think the pool works out better
692 2011-01-10 17:40:43 <luke-jr> about 14 BTC/mo
693 2011-01-10 17:41:02 <ArtForz> thats sounds a bit high
694 2011-01-10 17:41:04 <luke-jr> 3.5 months vs 4 years
695 2011-01-10 17:41:24 <luke-jr> ArtForz: 14 BTC too high, or 4 years?
696 2011-01-10 17:41:30 <ArtForz> 14 btc
697 2011-01-10 17:41:46 <luke-jr> oh well, it's not exact
698 2011-01-10 17:41:48 <nanotube> it took me about 3 weeks to get 1 btc a 750khps lu
699 2011-01-10 17:41:50 <nanotube> ke
700 2011-01-10 17:41:57 <nanotube> so... not exact as in, off by a power of 10 :)
701 2011-01-10 17:42:02 <luke-jr> ..
702 2011-01-10 17:42:04 <luke-jr> no
703 2011-01-10 17:42:13 <ArtForz> about 50 btc / 45 months = 1.something btc/month
704 2011-01-10 17:42:54 <nanotube> luke-jr: well if you can get 14btc per month with 588 khps, more power to you... but either you're inhumanly lucky, or there's a bug in slush's pool. :)
705 2011-01-10 17:43:02 <ArtForz> yep
706 2011-01-10 17:43:18 <ArtForz> 1.4/mo should be in the ballpark
707 2011-01-10 17:43:28 <luke-jr> 0.43 BTC over the last 24 hrs
708 2011-01-10 17:43:43 <nanotube> i guess you lucked out and got a share in one of the fast blocks
709 2011-01-10 17:43:47 <nanotube> don't expect that to be the norm
710 2011-01-10 17:43:48 <ArtForz> yea
711 2011-01-10 17:43:55 <luke-jr> it has been the norm :p
712 2011-01-10 17:44:02 <luke-jr> maybe my miner had a low hash count or smth
713 2011-01-10 17:44:04 <nanotube> well... great for you then :)
714 2011-01-10 17:44:08 <ArtForz> "hey, I'm getting 100% of blocks" (sample size 1 block)
715 2011-01-10 17:44:35 <nanotube> luke-jr: anyway, no point in speculating... come back in 2 weeks and tell us what you have gotten since. :)
716 2011-01-10 17:44:42 <luke-jr> nanotube: ok :p
717 2011-01-10 17:44:44 <ArtForz> yep
718 2011-01-10 17:45:22 <luke-jr> 2.5 since I began mining I think
719 2011-01-10 17:45:37 <luke-jr> so definitely over 1.4/mo
720 2011-01-10 17:45:49 <luke-jr> (I found bitcoin on Jan 1)
721 2011-01-10 17:46:52 <ArtForz> yup, either your miner is underreporting or you were simply lucky
722 2011-01-10 17:48:49 <tcatm> luke-jr: why don't you use 20.3e8 in your scheme (instead of 20.3X8)?
723 2011-01-10 17:49:11 <luke-jr> tcatm: it was e, until I realized that broke hexadecimal numbers :P
724 2011-01-10 17:50:30 <tcatm> luke-jr: why do we need to specify BTC amounts in hex anyway?
725 2011-01-10 17:50:58 <luke-jr> tcatm: to have a close approximation to Tonal for TBC
726 2011-01-10 17:51:03 <luke-jr> because decimal Sucks
727 2011-01-10 17:51:28 <luke-jr> x10x4 = 10 TBC
728 2011-01-10 17:51:40 <tcatm> what's a TBC?
729 2011-01-10 17:51:42 <luke-jr> (or x1x5)
730 2011-01-10 17:51:45 <luke-jr> Tonal BitCoin
731 2011-01-10 17:52:29 <ArtForz> duh, a tuberculosis coin
732 2011-01-10 17:52:30 <luke-jr> x10x4 = 10 TBC = x1x5 = 1 WTBC
733 2011-01-10 17:52:36 <edcba> and what is tonal ?
734 2011-01-10 17:52:44 <tcatm> luke-jr: how many BTCs is that?
735 2011-01-10 17:52:47 <luke-jr> edcba: decimal's worst  nightmare
736 2011-01-10 17:52:56 <edcba> that is ?
737 2011-01-10 17:53:06 <luke-jr> tcatm: 0.01048576
738 2011-01-10 17:53:27 <luke-jr> edcba: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/tonal-system/10991091
739 2011-01-10 17:53:44 <tcatm> any chance the bitcoin client could use TBC and BTC at the same time?
740 2011-01-10 17:53:51 <luke-jr> Tonal is to Decimal, what BitCoin is to fiat currency
741 2011-01-10 17:53:58 <luke-jr> tcatm: yes
742 2011-01-10 17:54:45 <tcatm> so we can convert any TBC value to BTC and back?
743 2011-01-10 17:54:52 <luke-jr> right
744 2011-01-10 17:54:53 <edcba> ok some guy invented a new meaning for tonal ?
745 2011-01-10 17:55:01 <edcba> because it sounded mystic enough ?
746 2011-01-10 17:55:11 <tcatm> then there's no need for one of them
747 2011-01-10 17:55:23 <luke-jr> tcatm: ok, get rid of Decimal BitCoin
748 2011-01-10 17:55:37 <x6763> yeah, that will increase adoption
749 2011-01-10 17:55:49 <ArtForz> yes, just in case you feel the need for expressing time and temperature as hexadecimal multiples of some crazy unit
750 2011-01-10 17:55:57 <luke-jr> I'm more interested in Tonal adoption, than BitCoin adoption.
751 2011-01-10 17:56:53 <ArtForz> how bout a pony while you're at it?
752 2011-01-10 17:56:54 <x6763> perhaps bitcoin is not the best place to start with increasing tonal adoption?
753 2011-01-10 17:57:01 <luke-jr> TBC allows the BitCoin tech to remain number system-neutral
754 2011-01-10 17:57:08 <ArtForz> it already is
755 2011-01-10 17:57:21 <luke-jr> x6763: if not bitcoin, then Tonal requires an alternative currency competing *against* bitcoin :
756 2011-01-10 17:57:45 <x6763> the tonal number system is just for currency?
757 2011-01-10 17:57:49 <luke-jr> nope
758 2011-01-10 17:57:51 <ArtForz> feel free to change the interface to represent the 64 bit # of base currency units in hex, base64 or smells
759 2011-01-10 17:58:07 <tcatm> luke-jr: If you write code that can transparently translate js-remote to TBC, we could add that.
760 2011-01-10 17:58:08 <luke-jr> ArtForz: that's more or less what TBC is
761 2011-01-10 17:58:28 <tcatm> (hint: there's already a .formatBTC() prototype)
762 2011-01-10 17:58:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: maybe later; for now, displaying everything as BTC might be easier
763 2011-01-10 17:58:33 <ArtForz> doesnt change the fact that we're still simply counting base units internally
764 2011-01-10 17:58:49 <luke-jr> ArtForz: sure.
765 2011-01-10 17:59:57 <edcba> ok so tonal system is just using hexadecimal everywhere ?
766 2011-01-10 18:00:03 <edcba> seems stupid
767 2011-01-10 18:00:06 <luke-jr> edcba: not hexadecimal, but similar
768 2011-01-10 18:00:18 <edcba> and why he doesn't redefine units ?
769 2011-01-10 18:00:24 <luke-jr> tonal has the same base as hexadecimal
770 2011-01-10 18:00:26 <edcba> ie kilogram
771 2011-01-10 18:00:28 <luke-jr> he does
772 2011-01-10 18:00:35 <tcatm> luke-jr: is there anything online to read about it (free)?
773 2011-01-10 18:00:42 <luke-jr> except kilogram BS didn't exist back then
774 2011-01-10 18:00:47 <luke-jr> tonal competes against not only decimal, but SI
775 2011-01-10 18:00:50 <luke-jr> tcatm:  http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/tonal-system/10991091
776 2011-01-10 18:00:52 <edcba> i quite agree with SI
777 2011-01-10 18:01:05 <edcba> but i don't see why we should change base
778 2011-01-10 18:01:12 <luke-jr> because decimal sucks
779 2011-01-10 18:01:16 <ArtForz> it's basically ancient SI units, in hex!
780 2011-01-10 18:01:19 <luke-jr> it is unnatural to use
781 2011-01-10 18:01:20 <x6763> luke-jr: according to you
782 2011-01-10 18:01:22 <edcba> or why specifically 16 more than 2
783 2011-01-10 18:01:33 <luke-jr> x6763: it's not hard to prove it applies to all humans inductively
784 2011-01-10 18:01:35 <x6763> this is a matter of personal preference...any base is purely arbitrary
785 2011-01-10 18:01:42 <luke-jr> edcba: binary is a pain to write? :P
786 2011-01-10 18:01:49 <edcba> no base 2 is not arbitrary
787 2011-01-10 18:02:01 <x6763> choosing to use base 2 is arbitrary
788 2011-01-10 18:02:08 <lfm> i still like base 60
789 2011-01-10 18:02:14 <ArtForz> I prefer base12
790 2011-01-10 18:02:33 <x6763> for building computers base 2 is the simplest/easiest way to go, but it's still arbitrary
791 2011-01-10 18:02:44 <ArtForz> base 2 is the smallest possible integer base
792 2011-01-10 18:02:59 <luke-jr> ArtForz: the last section of the book has arguements compared to base 12 too
793 2011-01-10 18:03:03 <x6763> and there's an infinite number of number bases larger than 2
794 2011-01-10 18:03:07 <nanotube> ArtForz: no, base1 is smallest possible integer base. :P
795 2011-01-10 18:03:08 <edcba> if i go for minimalism i choose as unit the smallest thing i can measure and use the smallest base etc etc
796 2011-01-10 18:03:10 <luke-jr> x6763: not just for computers, but also for humans
797 2011-01-10 18:03:25 <ArtForz> yeah, but base1 has a hard time expressing numbers other than 0 ;)
798 2011-01-10 18:03:41 <lfm> makes for long numbers
799 2011-01-10 18:04:03 <x6763> after spending my entire life using base10, base2 does not come that natural to me, so i prefer using base10
800 2011-01-10 18:04:17 <lfm> actually you can use base 1.0001 and otther fractional bases
801 2011-01-10 18:04:20 <nanotube> ArtForz: that's besides the point. :)
802 2011-01-10 18:04:30 <edcba> if we knew some max for our universe we could use it as base :)
803 2011-01-10 18:04:41 <ArtForz> well, using base1 makes for a very compact arithmetic system
804 2011-01-10 18:04:45 <nanotube> lfm: base pi!
805 2011-01-10 18:05:04 <lfm> yes base e has been proposed on more that one occation
806 2011-01-10 18:05:10 <ArtForz> yep
807 2011-01-10 18:05:27 <tcatm> luke-jr: what about adding &exp=8&unit=BTC?
808 2011-01-10 18:05:43 <ArtForz> that might a bit irrational
809 2011-01-10 18:06:01 <luke-jr> tcatm: amount=<num><unit> was the old way, but was more difficult ot do
810 2011-01-10 18:06:44 <edcba> more difficult ?
811 2011-01-10 18:07:04 <x6763> a number system is just a tool...there are tradeoffs when choosing between different number bases as some calculations become simpler and others become less simple
812 2011-01-10 18:07:38 <luke-jr> edcba: it means hard-coding all units in implementations, as well as supporting actual Tonal numbers to be fair
813 2011-01-10 18:07:57 <lfm> i think someone once calculated base e would be the most efficient base (by some criteria i dont remember)
814 2011-01-10 18:07:57 <tcatm> ArtForz: what would you suggest?
815 2011-01-10 18:08:50 <ArtForz> thats was a e pun
816 2011-01-10 18:09:49 <ArtForz> as in, irrational number as base
817 2011-01-10 19:00:51 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0001-Number.formatTBC.patch
818 2011-01-10 19:00:55 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/0002-formatBitcoin-guesses-BTC-or-TBC.patch
819 2011-01-10 19:01:01 <luke-jr> tcatm: ^
820 2011-01-10 19:01:08 <luke-jr> wget && git am && use :p
821 2011-01-10 19:01:32 <luke-jr> anynumber.formatBitcoin() guesses TBC or BTC (or uBTCent for very small numbers)
822 2011-01-10 19:02:24 <luke-jr> tcatm: suggest offering users an option, to force either TBC or BTC
823 2011-01-10 19:03:43 <tcatm> how should i use formatBitcoin()?
824 2011-01-10 19:06:07 <luke-jr> yournumber.formatBitcoin()
825 2011-01-10 19:06:30 <tcatm> yournumber will always be in BTC
826 2011-01-10 19:06:37 <luke-jr> it shouldn't be
827 2011-01-10 19:06:51 <luke-jr> parseAmount returns Bitcoin base units
828 2011-01-10 19:07:10 <luke-jr> (400000000).formatBitcoin() => 4.00 BTC
829 2011-01-10 19:07:13 <tcatm> every RPC call returns BTC
830 2011-01-10 19:07:37 <luke-jr> (4194304).formatBitcoin() => 40 TBC
831 2011-01-10 19:07:59 <EvanR-work> luke-jr: why dont you go to a hexeditor channel and try and get them to print bytes out in decimal instead
832 2011-01-10 19:08:27 <luke-jr> tcatm: that can be fixed with the new version
833 2011-01-10 19:08:37 <slush> da2ce7: I tested furmark yersterday on my 5970. It freeze computer almost immediately :-)
834 2011-01-10 19:08:45 <luke-jr> all high-level abstraction should be moved to the actual clients
835 2011-01-10 19:09:32 <slush> da2ce7: But mining is absolutely stable, I also moved my miner to another place and voltage regulators are under 90oC, so I think it is pretty good...
836 2011-01-10 19:09:40 <tcatm> luke-jr: no such change is planned
837 2011-01-10 19:09:51 <luke-jr> tcatm: it is
838 2011-01-10 19:10:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: while there will be backward compatibility with the old RPC, the new APIs should all use base units
839 2011-01-10 19:11:02 <tcatm> We are talking about the official bitcoin client.
840 2011-01-10 19:11:30 <EvanR-work> if two or more sets of people used different base systems to write numbers, there would be much confusion and inefficiency in commerce
841 2011-01-10 19:11:32 <luke-jr> tcatm: it's a mess, planned to get rid of :P
842 2011-01-10 19:12:31 <EvanR-work> if the idea is to reach a 'final solution' and everyone uses tonal for everything, well we have to live through however many centuries of communist five year plans turmoil
843 2011-01-10 19:13:13 <EvanR-work> cost benefit analysis plz
844 2011-01-10 19:13:23 <luke-jr> EvanR-work: more like the transition to SI
845 2011-01-10 19:13:32 <luke-jr> which was a waste of time
846 2011-01-10 19:13:35 <luke-jr> no benefit at all
847 2011-01-10 19:14:08 <EvanR-work> science everyone agrees on a standard notation, and it reduces cost of interprocess communication
848 2011-01-10 19:14:13 <EvanR-work> everywhere*
849 2011-01-10 19:14:26 <ArtForz> and that is SI
850 2011-01-10 19:14:31 <luke-jr> and SI sucks
851 2011-01-10 19:14:37 <luke-jr> SI should have been killed earlier on
852 2011-01-10 19:14:41 <ArtForz> well, it's better than the alternatives
853 2011-01-10 19:14:54 <luke-jr> not
854 2011-01-10 19:14:58 <ArtForz> which are a) nothing and b) even less
855 2011-01-10 19:14:58 <luke-jr> Tonal is better
856 2011-01-10 19:15:12 <EvanR-work> as an engineer, SI works pretty damn nicely
857 2011-01-10 19:15:37 <EvanR-work> only convert to base 2 fractions of an inch when necessary ;)
858 2011-01-10 19:16:14 <luke-jr> lol
859 2011-01-10 19:16:16 <luke-jr> that's "nicely"?
860 2011-01-10 19:16:27 <ArtForz> yes
861 2011-01-10 19:16:59 <ArtForz> working in weird fractions of " is a pain
862 2011-01-10 19:17:09 <luke-jr> that's nothing compared to never having to convert (except when dealing with idiots who use decimal :
863 2011-01-10 19:17:24 <EvanR-work> i never have to convert to or from tonal
864 2011-01-10 19:17:26 <EvanR-work> its great
865 2011-01-10 19:17:38 <kiba> geeks war over mesurement system
866 2011-01-10 19:17:45 <EvanR-work> the war is won
867 2011-01-10 19:17:49 <EvanR-work> paradise
868 2011-01-10 19:17:55 <ArtForz> except for... about every fucking standard document out there
869 2011-01-10 19:20:12 <nathan7> =p
870 2011-01-10 19:20:54 <nathan7> SI ftw
871 2011-01-10 19:21:39 <ArtForz> standards for electronic components are fucked up
872 2011-01-10 19:22:07 <nathan7> Yep.
873 2011-01-10 19:23:31 <luke-jr> SI ftl
874 2011-01-10 19:23:55 <ArtForz> so... whats your superior system of base units?
875 2011-01-10 19:24:01 <luke-jr> SI was decided by fools who don't care about the future, only the present
876 2011-01-10 19:24:06 <luke-jr> ArtForz: Tonal
877 2011-01-10 19:24:12 <ArtForz> and no, "SI expressed in base16" is not a new system
878 2011-01-10 19:24:23 <EvanR-work> ArtForz: hes been advertising them for the last two weeks
879 2011-01-10 19:24:30 <ArtForz> yeah
880 2011-01-10 19:24:53 <luke-jr> 1 millmeter = 1 Timmill
881 2011-01-10 19:25:02 <EvanR-work> unit of time is rate of a pendulum of a given length, at a given height on earth, or something
882 2011-01-10 19:26:03 <luke-jr> 10 Tim = 1 circle (eg, of the Earth) = 1 day
883 2011-01-10 19:26:12 <ArtForz> and iirc the original tonal base unit for temp is defined by such exact references as "freezing point of water" ... what water? at what pressure?
884 2011-01-10 19:26:17 <EvanR-work> triple point, i asked that earlier
885 2011-01-10 19:26:22 <ArtForz> triple point of what?
886 2011-01-10 19:26:24 <EvanR-work> which is more like 'a freezing point'
887 2011-01-10 19:26:30 <EvanR-work> water
888 2011-01-10 19:26:33 <ArtForz> pure h2o? tap water? any O2 in there?
889 2011-01-10 19:26:34 <luke-jr> ArtForz: you could ask the same details of SI
890 2011-01-10 19:26:43 <ArtForz> no, actually SI DEFINES crap like that
891 2011-01-10 19:27:18 <luke-jr> ArtForz: it didn't