1 2011-01-29 00:13:50 <echelon> hey theymos
  2 2011-01-29 00:13:54 <theymos> Hi.
  3 2011-01-29 00:15:02 <noagendamarket> hello theymos
  4 2011-01-29 00:15:10 <echelon> hmm.. still have 0/unconfirmed for a bitlaundry transaction
  5 2011-01-29 00:16:14 <theymos> It's been 0/unconfirmed for more than a few blocks?
  6 2011-01-29 00:16:54 <echelon> last i checked, it was 105083 blocks
  7 2011-01-29 00:17:00 <echelon> now it's 105087
  8 2011-01-29 00:17:07 <molecular> slush, did you think about making a 1% donation option?
  9 2011-01-29 00:17:36 <theymos> echelon: Run Bitcoin with the -debug switch, double-click the transaction, and pastebin the transaction dump.
 10 2011-01-29 00:17:52 <echelon> ok
 11 2011-01-29 00:19:17 <echelon> i can just add debug=1 in the .conf?
 12 2011-01-29 00:19:25 <theymos> I think so.
 13 2011-01-29 00:19:41 <btcex> i am a rich!1111
 14 2011-01-29 00:19:43 <btcex> muhaha!
 15 2011-01-29 00:33:26 <kiba> yay!
 16 2011-01-29 00:34:05 <kiba> my wallet is no longer limited to the death of one computer
 17 2011-01-29 00:34:33 <btcex> kiba: are you also gamble in the dice win-win casino?
 18 2011-01-29 00:34:40 <btcex> ah
 19 2011-01-29 00:34:40 <kiba> I don't gamble, btcex
 20 2011-01-29 00:34:58 <kiba> last time that happen, I almost lost all my money
 21 2011-01-29 00:35:02 <molecular> actually that dice casino is not really gambling
 22 2011-01-29 00:35:11 <btcex> molecular: :)
 23 2011-01-29 00:35:16 <btcex> kiba: listen to molecular
 24 2011-01-29 00:35:31 <kiba> why?
 25 2011-01-29 00:35:49 <btcex> kiba: it is returns 112%
 26 2011-01-29 00:35:56 <molecular> roll a 6: get 600%, roll a 1: get 100%, roll any other number: get 0%
 27 2011-01-29 00:35:59 <btcex> math mistake
 28 2011-01-29 00:35:59 <Cusipzzz> sure it is....variance is not your friend...and unless you have an infinite banroll, you could get crushed :)
 29 2011-01-29 00:36:22 <molecular> pretty stupid one for an owner of a casino, one must say
 30 2011-01-29 00:36:35 <theymos> Where is this?
 31 2011-01-29 00:36:50 <molecular> http://jackpotdice.bitcoinbet.com:8080/index.php
 32 2011-01-29 00:36:51 <btcex> theymos: http://jackpotdice.bitcoinbet.com
 33 2011-01-29 00:37:10 <Cusipzzz> alleged math mistake... 'oh, the game is +ev, my bad...try it out!' uhhh
 34 2011-01-29 00:37:10 <molecular> one cannot be sure the dice are correct, though... who knows?
 35 2011-01-29 00:37:10 <theymos> Thanks.
 36 2011-01-29 00:37:23 <btcex> as I understand the author thinks it's okay, and tomorrow he is going to fix it
 37 2011-01-29 00:37:28 <Cusipzzz> key word being alleged. he hasn't shown the code
 38 2011-01-29 00:37:29 <echelon> theymos, you sure xqzfakpeuvrobvpj.onion was up on 2010-11-13?
 39 2011-01-29 00:37:31 <molecular> I played twice. got "1" each time, then stopped.
 40 2011-01-29 00:37:35 <btcex> but tomorrow hi found nothing on his wallet
 41 2011-01-29 00:37:48 <btcex> Cusipzzz: I am do record of my bets
 42 2011-01-29 00:37:56 <btcex> in oocalc table
 43 2011-01-29 00:38:12 <Cusipzzz> well, unless you are doing 10,000+ trials, doesn't say much
 44 2011-01-29 00:38:23 <theymos> echelon: Yes.
 45 2011-01-29 00:38:30 <btcex> Cusipzzz: it is true
 46 2011-01-29 00:38:40 <molecular> how many did you manage to place, btcex.
 47 2011-01-29 00:38:41 <btcex> but 12% it is not 2%
 48 2011-01-29 00:38:42 <echelon> hasn't been up whenever i checked
 49 2011-01-29 00:38:42 <molecular> have a script?
 50 2011-01-29 00:38:48 <btcex> molecular: ~20
 51 2011-01-29 00:38:53 <echelon> but the website is working on the server
 52 2011-01-29 00:38:54 <btcex> molecular: no, by hands
 53 2011-01-29 00:39:06 <echelon> webserver*
 54 2011-01-29 00:39:09 <molecular> something to do on a boring night )
 55 2011-01-29 00:39:33 <molecular> btcex: you total >100%, I hope
 56 2011-01-29 00:39:40 <btcex> molecular: yes
 57 2011-01-29 00:39:55 <molecular> how much are you betting each round?
 58 2011-01-29 00:40:07 <kiba> I seem to have secure myself another job
 59 2011-01-29 00:40:22 <btcex> Teaching web artists a mathematics through fines
 60 2011-01-29 00:40:31 <btcex> molecular: 1 btc
 61 2011-01-29 00:40:59 <btcex> but slow block generations drive me crazy
 62 2011-01-29 00:41:13 <kiba> who's a web artist?
 63 2011-01-29 00:41:28 <btcex> kiba: i think author of jackpotdice.bitcoinbet.com
 64 2011-01-29 00:41:46 <btcex> it have cool art design
 65 2011-01-29 00:42:27 <kiba> oh fine
 66 2011-01-29 00:42:33 <kiba> I'll devote 1 BTC to this game
 67 2011-01-29 00:43:14 <theymos> echelon: BitLex's node also used to do that. Maybe xqzf... screwed up his configuration at some point.
 68 2011-01-29 00:43:40 <molecular> btcex, just bet more, that'll be faster
 69 2011-01-29 00:43:57 <btcex> molecular: i waiting for 20 bets now
 70 2011-01-29 00:43:57 <molecular> btcex, you can also do it in parallel easily
 71 2011-01-29 00:44:07 <btcex> for confirmations
 72 2011-01-29 00:44:13 <molecular> hehe, lets hash a little faster, then ;)
 73 2011-01-29 00:44:30 <Cusipzzz> lol...spammin the blockchain
 74 2011-01-29 00:44:41 <molecular> wonder what happens when he runs out of coins
 75 2011-01-29 00:45:26 <Cusipzzz> if it's really +ev, we will find out
 76 2011-01-29 00:45:29 <kiba> I lost 1 BTC
 77 2011-01-29 00:45:30 <Cusipzzz> if not, great marketing :p
 78 2011-01-29 00:45:42 <btcex> awaiting 19 ets
 79 2011-01-29 00:45:43 <btcex> bets
 80 2011-01-29 00:45:52 <theymos> A while ago there was a whole casino with bad odds. I made hundreds of BTC playing slots.
 81 2011-01-29 00:46:26 <btcex> molecular: hi says what site entering to special 'out of money' mode
 82 2011-01-29 00:46:35 <ArtForz> happens a lot really
 83 2011-01-29 00:46:53 <btcex> currently money avail
 84 2011-01-29 00:47:06 <Cusipzzz> theymos: sporting events are rigged too, give it a shot :)
 85 2011-01-29 00:47:10 <btcex> hi says what prize fund is 1000 BTC
 86 2011-01-29 00:47:41 <kiba> I think it's Dragon Tales
 87 2011-01-29 00:47:47 <kiba> the big daddy gambling casino of bitcoin
 88 2011-01-29 00:48:03 <noagendamarket> yes its dragons tale
 89 2011-01-29 00:48:26 <kiba> it seem that an awful lot of casino are popping up
 90 2011-01-29 00:49:17 <btcex> 18 bets awaiting
 91 2011-01-29 00:49:47 <btcex> why played into Dragon Tales?
 92 2011-01-29 00:50:05 <btcex> my SiS GPU don't allow OpenGL and i am don't seen it
 93 2011-01-29 00:50:07 <Cusipzzz> if he let you deposit and keep a running balance, you would quickly find out if it's +ev or not. this 1 and done is just blockchain spam
 94 2011-01-29 00:50:50 <kiba> btcex: I don't have enough RAM
 95 2011-01-29 00:51:00 <btcex> Cusipzzz: spam? no, it is transaction from him to me
 96 2011-01-29 00:51:03 <btcex> :)
 97 2011-01-29 00:51:47 <theymos> It's annoying how so many Bitcoin sites use the same favicon. I'm always getting the tabs confused.
 98 2011-01-29 00:51:49 <Cusipzzz> a useless transaction when you are sending 20 and he is sending back 18 or 21
 99 2011-01-29 00:51:54 <btcex> average dice number is 2.6 ... hmmm
100 2011-01-29 00:52:07 <kiba> theymos: we're in a boomtown!
101 2011-01-29 00:52:25 <btcex> from 19 attempts
102 2011-01-29 00:52:25 <molecular> well, a samplesize of 20 doesn't really say much
103 2011-01-29 00:52:57 <molecular> expected value is 3.5
104 2011-01-29 00:53:17 <molecular> I'm sure 2.6 is not significantly off with samplesize 19
105 2011-01-29 00:53:35 <Cusipzzz> lol
106 2011-01-29 00:53:54 <molecular> I played 6 times, got "1" 5 times and a "4"
107 2011-01-29 00:54:10 <Cusipzzz> nothing is significant with a sample size of 19..or even 100. variance is your friend (or not)
108 2011-01-29 00:54:29 <molecular> hehe, played 7 times, got 6 "1"s and one "4"
109 2011-01-29 00:54:58 <btcex> f**K! i am sended 4 BTC to already played invalid addres
110 2011-01-29 00:55:02 <noagendamarket> theymos which favicon is that ?
111 2011-01-29 00:55:03 <btcex> carramba
112 2011-01-29 00:55:13 <molecular> hehe, maybe that's his trick
113 2011-01-29 00:55:16 <noagendamarket> is it the official bitcoin logo ?
114 2011-01-29 00:55:18 <ArtForz> int rand() { return 4; } //random number determined by fair dice roll
115 2011-01-29 00:55:37 <btcex> also i win 2 * 6 = 12 BTC
116 2011-01-29 00:55:39 <btcex> hehe)
117 2011-01-29 00:55:46 <kiba> noagendamarket: do we even have an official?
118 2011-01-29 00:55:50 <btcex> molecular: may be may be )
119 2011-01-29 00:55:55 <kiba> there's like two logo and favicon competing with each other
120 2011-01-29 00:55:56 <molecular> ArtForz, where do I know that from?
121 2011-01-29 00:56:06 <noagendamarket> kiba its the satoshi one
122 2011-01-29 00:56:06 <theymos> noagendamarket: http://www.bitcoin.org/favicon.ico
123 2011-01-29 00:57:14 <noagendamarket> theymos its confusing on twitter too as lots of accounts use that
124 2011-01-29 00:57:18 <noagendamarket> lol
125 2011-01-29 00:57:25 <molecular> btcex, do you use the same receiving-adress on each bet?
126 2011-01-29 00:57:31 <btcex> molecular: yes
127 2011-01-29 00:57:42 <btcex> it is don't track it, it seems
128 2011-01-29 00:58:13 <molecular> not to avoid parallel playing at least
129 2011-01-29 00:58:48 <molecular> that picture fo the lady make me want to sip on a whiskey and have a cigar
130 2011-01-29 01:01:12 <kiba> bitcoiners are the type of people who exploits bad rules for profit
131 2011-01-29 01:01:34 <kiba> or good deals
132 2011-01-29 01:01:42 <btcex> kiba: You seen results of the pool about bitcoin network attack?
133 2011-01-29 01:01:56 <kiba> no
134 2011-01-29 01:01:59 <Cusipzzz> bitcoiners are nitty :)
135 2011-01-29 01:03:24 <kiba> The egg or young of a parasitic insect, such as a louse.
136 2011-01-29 01:03:41 <kiba> err
137 2011-01-29 01:03:46 <noagendamarket> kiba I see you figured out how to post on witcoin :)
138 2011-01-29 01:03:48 <kiba> that's for nit
139 2011-01-29 01:03:56 <kiba> The egg or young of a parasitic insect, such as a louse.
140 2011-01-29 01:04:07 <Cusipzzz> check other definitions
141 2011-01-29 01:04:07 <kiba> I seem to not have earn a profit yet, noagendamarket
142 2011-01-29 01:04:18 <Cusipzzz> ;;ud nitty
143 2011-01-29 01:04:18 <gribble> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nitty | An idiot or a dickhead, someone who thinks theyr'e cool.
144 2011-01-29 01:04:22 <Cusipzzz> oops
145 2011-01-29 01:04:29 <Cusipzzz> should be another definition :)
146 2011-01-29 01:04:31 <noagendamarket> kiba we dont have many users yet
147 2011-01-29 01:04:53 <kiba> I am stuck 0.99
148 2011-01-29 01:05:12 <Cusipzzz> Nitty is also often used to describe somebody who is tight with their money, or somebody who you can never please.
149 2011-01-29 01:06:02 <molecular> these bots are fun, where can I see a list of ;;bots available?
150 2011-01-29 01:06:19 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
151 2011-01-29 01:06:19 <sipa> ,,help
152 2011-01-29 01:07:21 <kiba> noagendamarket: so, what was your involvement in the witcoin project?
153 2011-01-29 01:07:39 <noagendamarket> kiba I host it
154 2011-01-29 01:08:28 <kiba> so you get any profit out of it?
155 2011-01-29 01:09:18 <kiba> http://witticisms.witcoin.com/witticism/13/The-witcoin-screencap-show
156 2011-01-29 01:09:22 <kiba> I don't see anything there
157 2011-01-29 01:09:42 <noagendamarket> yeah i was testing something....and taking a screencap
158 2011-01-29 01:10:19 <kiba> how come you can vote your own stuff up?
159 2011-01-29 01:10:36 <btcex> why need witcoin?
160 2011-01-29 01:11:03 <noagendamarket> it prevents spam
161 2011-01-29 01:11:18 <noagendamarket> yet it doesnt cost much as to be noticeable
162 2011-01-29 01:11:54 <btcex> blocks are overloaded
163 2011-01-29 01:12:28 <btcex> my ~20 transactions are unconfirmed, and 1-2 confirmed after each block is generated
164 2011-01-29 01:15:08 <kiba> what if a bitcoin equal a hundred dollar?
165 2011-01-29 01:15:49 <echelon> sounds like a possibility
166 2011-01-29 01:15:56 <btcex> kiba: we make big party
167 2011-01-29 01:16:10 <btcex> a big party
168 2011-01-29 01:16:15 <btcex> runglish, sorry
169 2011-01-29 01:16:50 <btcex> dice average value is 2.78. probably it works
170 2011-01-29 01:16:54 <kiba> I am now at 684.01 BTC now
171 2011-01-29 01:17:07 <btcex> kiba: what is lottery ticket?
172 2011-01-29 01:17:23 <kiba> btcex: if it get big, than I am a self-made man for life :D
173 2011-01-29 01:22:43 <btcex> kiba: est 1 hour ago you said what you do not a gamble at all
174 2011-01-29 01:22:51 <citiz3n> for slush's pool, do you have to create a user/pass for each device you use?
175 2011-01-29 01:22:53 <btcex> now you say what you collect lottery ticket
176 2011-01-29 01:22:57 <citiz3n> for each individual graphics card?
177 2011-01-29 01:27:44 <molecular> yay, slush got 3 blocks in a row
178 2011-01-29 01:28:50 <theymos> So the pool could double-spend transactions to Bitcoin Market...
179 2011-01-29 01:29:09 <kiba> btcex: ok, so I was inconsistent
180 2011-01-29 01:29:55 <noagendamarket> we need a competing pool
181 2011-01-29 01:30:21 <molecular> slush has 20% of the mining power
182 2011-01-29 01:31:17 <citiz3n> i thought i read that older catalyst drivers (well, at least older opencl) was faster than the most recent
183 2011-01-29 01:31:37 <kiba> Kids, soda are expensive junks
184 2011-01-29 01:31:45 <molecular> kiba = kirsch banane ?
185 2011-01-29 01:31:52 <kiba> ?
186 2011-01-29 01:32:02 <kiba> is that some german drink?
187 2011-01-29 01:32:26 <molecular> some drink in germany called "kiba". its cherry juice (KIrsche) plus banana juice (BAnane) -> KIBA
188 2011-01-29 01:32:27 <citiz3n> i have ~330 mhash/s to add to slush's pool :D
189 2011-01-29 01:32:36 <citiz3n> just need to decide which catalyst to install
190 2011-01-29 01:33:15 <molecular> rolled the dice 11 times now, bet 11 btc, got back 11 btc. I'm done with this game ;)
191 2011-01-29 01:34:07 <molecular> citiz3n, wow, from your cpus?
192 2011-01-29 01:34:14 <luke-jr> anyone here using KVM yet?
193 2011-01-29 01:34:21 <molecular> there have to be some gpu involved ;)
194 2011-01-29 01:34:26 <molecular> KVM?
195 2011-01-29 01:34:36 <luke-jr> Kernel Virtual Machine
196 2011-01-29 01:34:41 <luke-jr> qemu w/ hw virt support
197 2011-01-29 01:35:02 <citiz3n> no, i went out and picked up two 5770s tonight
198 2011-01-29 01:35:12 <citiz3n> that was the best card they had unfortunately
199 2011-01-29 01:35:20 <citiz3n> i wanted the 5870s
200 2011-01-29 01:35:40 <luke-jr> I want to isolate the proprietary blobs
201 2011-01-29 01:35:41 <citiz3n> i was itching to get these coins crunchin :)
202 2011-01-29 01:35:46 <luke-jr> so ideally, I want them inside a VM
203 2011-01-29 01:36:27 <molecular> citiz3n, did you overclock yet? you should get quite a bit more, I think
204 2011-01-29 01:36:43 <citiz3n> haven't even ran them yet - need to install the drivers first
205 2011-01-29 01:36:50 <citiz3n> was trying to figure out if i should go with latest, or earlier version
206 2011-01-29 01:37:12 <citiz3n> i don't use this box with a monitor even - it's all remote desktop
207 2011-01-29 01:37:21 <molecular> yeah, do that here, too
208 2011-01-29 01:37:22 <citiz3n> so i don't care about anything other than hash speed :)
209 2011-01-29 01:37:29 <molecular> why connect a monitor to graphics card anyways?
210 2011-01-29 01:37:43 <luke-jr> I agree
211 2011-01-29 01:37:45 <citiz3n> haha i had some old piece of shit connected to that computer
212 2011-01-29 01:37:49 <btcex> molecular: -30 BTC for now
213 2011-01-29 01:37:50 <citiz3n> and it wouldn't even post
214 2011-01-29 01:37:53 <luke-jr> the IGP is far more than capable
215 2011-01-29 01:37:55 <luke-jr> :P
216 2011-01-29 01:37:56 <btcex> awaiting 10 bets
217 2011-01-29 01:37:59 <citiz3n> but it booted up just fine and i remoted into it like normal
218 2011-01-29 01:38:06 <molecular> btcex: how many still open?
219 2011-01-29 01:38:13 <citiz3n> that monitor is so old and crappy nothing came up on it :P
220 2011-01-29 01:38:22 <molecular> btcex, a, sorry, 10
221 2011-01-29 01:38:37 <btcex> 61 BTC bets, 32 win
222 2011-01-29 01:38:48 <molecular> btcex, damn, thats bad
223 2011-01-29 01:38:49 <btcex> awaiting ~10 bets
224 2011-01-29 01:39:15 <molecular> 10 should get you 12BTC, you still loose ;(
225 2011-01-29 01:39:34 <btcex> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLDm8821jQ doop doop :)
226 2011-01-29 01:40:39 <btcex> molecular: may be this is fraud :(
227 2011-01-29 01:40:49 <molecular> maybe
228 2011-01-29 01:40:57 <molecular> he let me get away with 100%, though
229 2011-01-29 01:41:05 <molecular> maybe it's just bad luck
230 2011-01-29 01:41:40 <btcex> molecular: it may analyse bet amount
231 2011-01-29 01:41:45 <sgornick> Is it normal to have 12 blocks solved in just an hour? http://blockexplorer.com
232 2011-01-29 01:41:47 <Cusipzzz> odds of him offering a +ev game are pretty slim
233 2011-01-29 01:41:57 <molecular> there is no "normal"
234 2011-01-29 01:42:14 <btcex> if you bet < 1 btc it is not fraud, but if you bet 4-5 btc...
235 2011-01-29 01:42:15 <molecular> yeah, he can't be that stupid
236 2011-01-29 01:42:22 <molecular> possible
237 2011-01-29 01:42:31 <Cusipzzz> sgornick: it's directly proportional to me looking for a transaction.. 12 per hr is fine, but when i need a tx, it's min 45 mins per block :)
238 2011-01-29 01:42:50 <molecular> Cusipzzz: lol
239 2011-01-29 01:43:05 <btcex> molecular: i am not beliewe that hi don checked his system by random number of bets amount to avoid math mistake
240 2011-01-29 01:43:15 <btcex> hi don't checked*
241 2011-01-29 01:43:22 <Cusipzzz> not joking... everytime i tell someone they will be credit in ~10 mins, it's minimum 30
242 2011-01-29 01:43:48 <molecular> I don't believe one can make such a math mistake at all. not someone running a casino.
243 2011-01-29 01:43:48 <sgornick> holy shttake!  Approx. cluster performance:31190.291685 Mhash/s  http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/
244 2011-01-29 01:44:08 <molecular> yeah, it's been around 30ghash/s for 2 days now
245 2011-01-29 01:44:17 <molecular> or maybe 1
246 2011-01-29 01:44:36 <Cusipzzz> pretty soon it will become sentient and launch the missles :)
247 2011-01-29 01:45:31 <citiz3n> but im le tired
248 2011-01-29 01:45:42 <citiz3n> sorry, just made me think of that
249 2011-01-29 01:48:50 <EvanR> pool will be at about 40G next week
250 2011-01-29 01:49:01 <btcex> five! from ~30 attemts i am get only one 5 on dice
251 2011-01-29 01:49:03 <citiz3n> so anyone know if the catalyst 11.1 suck
252 2011-01-29 01:49:07 <citiz3n> or if they're good?
253 2011-01-29 01:49:29 <btcex> citiz3n: cisco sucks at all
254 2011-01-29 01:49:50 <citiz3n> ati :P
255 2011-01-29 01:58:37 <EvanR> citiz3n: 5970
256 2011-01-29 01:59:53 <EvanR> alrighty
257 2011-01-29 02:00:34 <EvanR> im running diablo miner, and getting 14000kh/s
258 2011-01-29 02:00:53 <EvanR> and it reports only one of my two cypress chips...
259 2011-01-29 02:00:59 <EvanR> i am getting shares on the pool
260 2011-01-29 02:01:12 <EvanR> anyone know how to help? :S
261 2011-01-29 02:01:36 <citiz3n> i wish i knew something to help you with :(
262 2011-01-29 02:01:43 <citiz3n> but today's my first day mining
263 2011-01-29 02:01:51 <EvanR> mine too
264 2011-01-29 02:02:33 <citiz3n> are you on windows?
265 2011-01-29 02:03:09 <Diablo-D3> [10:00:34] <EvanR> im running diablo miner, and getting 14000kh/s
266 2011-01-29 02:03:13 <Diablo-D3> because you have crossfire on
267 2011-01-29 02:03:15 <Diablo-D3> dont do that.
268 2011-01-29 02:04:08 <citiz3n> anyone havign problems connecting to slush?
269 2011-01-29 02:04:30 <Diablo-D3> nope, working for me
270 2011-01-29 02:05:07 <Netsniper> haven't found a block since september *sigh*
271 2011-01-29 02:05:08 <citiz3n> im not resolving mining.bitcoin.cz anymore
272 2011-01-29 02:05:08 <Netsniper> :)
273 2011-01-29 02:05:13 <citiz3n> what's his numerical IP?
274 2011-01-29 02:05:43 <citiz3n> yay for dns
275 2011-01-29 02:05:53 <echelon> theymos, hmm.. i get 3/unconfirmed from bitlaundry
276 2011-01-29 02:06:09 <theymos> Cool. I guess it just had low priority for some reason.
277 2011-01-29 02:06:40 <echelon> so it's safe to send more to bitlaundry?
278 2011-01-29 02:07:17 <Diablo-D3> echelon: if its >0 it made it into the chain
279 2011-01-29 02:07:37 <echelon> i see
280 2011-01-29 02:07:46 <theymos> I think I know what happened: since BitLaundry keeps a low balance, it sends the same coins back to you. Sending the same coins twice in a row gives the transaction very low priority.
281 2011-01-29 02:08:01 <theymos> I wouldn't use BitLaundry for the same reason. Getting the same coins back is pointless.
282 2011-01-29 02:08:05 <btcex> theymos: and very traceable
283 2011-01-29 02:08:22 <echelon> -__-
284 2011-01-29 02:08:33 <echelon> wasn't there another site similar to it?
285 2011-01-29 02:09:01 <theymos> Just put the balance in MyBitcoin and leave it there for a couple of days. That'll mix your coins very well.
286 2011-01-29 02:09:07 <citiz3n> yawn - waiting for server to reboot
287 2011-01-29 02:09:10 <echelon> oh
288 2011-01-29 02:09:25 <Cusipzzz> or mtgox...or btcsportsbet ;)
289 2011-01-29 02:09:28 <citiz3n> perhaps someone can tell me if i need to create a user/password for each of the graphics cards
290 2011-01-29 02:09:32 <citiz3n> for slush's pool
291 2011-01-29 02:09:42 <citiz3n> do you need to have a separate user/pass for each instance of a miner you are running
292 2011-01-29 02:09:47 <theymos> echelon: You can even check on BBE to see whether you got any of your own coins back. If you did, mix them again.
293 2011-01-29 02:10:12 <echelon> bbe?
294 2011-01-29 02:10:20 <doublec> citiz3n: you need to register a miner with a different username/password for each miner instance you run
295 2011-01-29 02:10:24 <theymos> echelon: http://blockexplorer.com/
296 2011-01-29 02:10:35 <echelon> thanks
297 2011-01-29 02:10:54 <theymos> echelon: The transaction hash listed in the -debug dump output can be used to look up a specifc transaction on BBE.
298 2011-01-29 02:11:07 <echelon> ah
299 2011-01-29 02:11:20 <kiba> pursue bitcoin with great greed; live like a monk
300 2011-01-29 02:17:51 <molecular> citiz3n, no, you dont need an account for every miner. look on "my account", you can register so-called "workers". register one worker per miner.
301 2011-01-29 02:21:58 <citiz3n> that's what i meant
302 2011-01-29 02:22:03 <citiz3n> so you HAVE to register a worker for each miner?
303 2011-01-29 02:24:13 <molecular> yes
304 2011-01-29 02:24:22 <molecular> don't use same worker-account for more than 1 miner
305 2011-01-29 02:24:43 <molecular> not that it's much hassle to register a worker
306 2011-01-29 02:27:34 <btcex> average of 6 in dice gambling is ~0.08 (must be 0.16)
307 2011-01-29 02:28:13 <btcex> i think site contains function like: r = random(); if (r = 6 ) then r = random()
308 2011-01-29 02:28:13 <Cusipzzz> btcex: rigged obv
309 2011-01-29 02:28:43 <Cusipzzz> or if bet> .01 r(1:5)
310 2011-01-29 02:28:55 <btcex> Cusipzzz: no, i am check various bet amouts
311 2011-01-29 02:29:00 <btcex> from 0.01 to 10
312 2011-01-29 02:29:03 <Cusipzzz> ah. k
313 2011-01-29 02:29:11 <btcex> awaiting ~8 bets
314 2011-01-29 02:31:15 <molecular> one of my 11 1BTC-bets got a 6
315 2011-01-29 02:31:49 <kiba> Gogole will be like..Blindedsided but blessed by bitcoin
316 2011-01-29 02:32:07 <kiba> s/Gogole/Google
317 2011-01-29 02:33:02 <btcex> frequency of 1 is 0.28, what bigger whan 1/3
318 2011-01-29 02:33:15 <btcex> oh, 1/6
319 2011-01-29 02:34:23 <molecular> I got 5 ones (out of 11)
320 2011-01-29 02:34:45 <molecular> I think his random() might be severely biased
321 2011-01-29 02:34:58 <btcex> becouse this is fraud site owner do not check math
322 2011-01-29 02:35:02 <btcex> (i think)
323 2011-01-29 02:35:32 <molecular> maybe he made it >100% return to attract players (faked the mistake)
324 2011-01-29 02:35:49 <btcex> awaiting =11 bets
325 2011-01-29 02:36:10 <btcex> little chance to fix probabilities
326 2011-01-29 02:36:11 <btcex> :)
327 2011-01-29 02:36:31 <btcex> molecular: i am change return addres, but don't change my IP
328 2011-01-29 02:36:52 <molecular> yeah, that's what I thought about... changing adress is not sufficient
329 2011-01-29 02:38:49 <btcex> when all bets are be played i am calculate depending from bet amount
330 2011-01-29 02:39:12 <btcex> but it is to little number of bets, but..
331 2011-01-29 02:39:24 <btcex> 95% what it is fraud :(
332 2011-01-29 02:42:35 <echelon> who receives the transaction fee set in the options?
333 2011-01-29 02:45:16 <btcex> echelon: why generates block
334 2011-01-29 02:45:31 <echelon> what?
335 2011-01-29 02:46:24 <btcex> echelon: transactions fee receives person, why owns generator of a block
336 2011-01-29 02:46:44 <btcex> english is not my native language, sorry )
337 2011-01-29 02:47:07 <echelon> np
338 2011-01-29 02:55:04 <theymos> Whoever generates the block your transactions appear in get the fee.
339 2011-01-29 02:59:31 <echelon> ah i see
340 2011-01-29 03:00:52 <echelon> but don't they get 50 btc's automatically?
341 2011-01-29 03:01:06 <theymos> It's added. For example: http://blockexplorer.com/b/73261
342 2011-01-29 03:01:41 <theymos> The generation input in this case was worth 54.32 instead of 50.
343 2011-01-29 03:01:56 <luke-jr> echelon: also, the 50 BTC is not forever
344 2011-01-29 03:01:58 <echelon> oh cool
345 2011-01-29 03:02:07 <luke-jr> it halves about every 2 years IIRC
346 2011-01-29 03:02:18 <echelon> how is it determined
347 2011-01-29 03:02:25 <btcex> 3 bets awaiting
348 2011-01-29 03:02:51 <btcex> echelon: in bitcoin src
349 2011-01-29 03:02:53 <luke-jr> echelon: your client chooses the fee it sends
350 2011-01-29 03:03:24 <luke-jr> the free market decides if they put your tx into a block ;)
351 2011-01-29 03:03:52 <echelon> i know the client can send a set transaction fee, but how is the initial 50 btc is determined
352 2011-01-29 03:04:02 <luke-jr> hard-coded into the design
353 2011-01-29 03:04:08 <echelon> oh
354 2011-01-29 03:04:59 <theymos> Every 210,000 blocks (4 years), your client halves the maximum generation it is willing to accept in a block. Blocks that break the rules will not be accepted.
355 2011-01-29 03:05:28 <echelon> so what prevents someone from changing their client code to give themselves 100 instead of 50
356 2011-01-29 03:05:55 <theymos> No one would accept it and the coins would be worthless.
357 2011-01-29 03:06:27 <echelon> cool
358 2011-01-29 03:08:11 <echelon> so two years from now when it's halved, if a person is still mining on an old client their block would get rejected?
359 2011-01-29 03:08:29 <luke-jr> all the clients know the rules
360 2011-01-29 03:08:31 <theymos> No. The halving is automatic.
361 2011-01-29 03:08:36 <echelon> ah
362 2011-01-29 03:09:01 <theymos> Probably their block will be rejected, though, since some breaking change is likely in that time.
363 2011-01-29 03:14:20 <echelon> what if the coins you're sending contains blocks generated from multiple persons, the transaction fee gets divided?
364 2011-01-29 03:14:33 <luke-jr> &
365 2011-01-29 03:14:54 <luke-jr> a tx can onyl be in one block
366 2011-01-29 03:15:03 <echelon> eh
367 2011-01-29 03:15:47 <theymos> It's the block your transaction is *published in* that gets the fee.
368 2011-01-29 03:16:08 <echelon> ohh
369 2011-01-29 03:17:57 <molecular> it's to keep people generating blocks even though they have no value any more (in 14 years)
370 2011-01-29 03:19:26 <theymos> A low fee will also be required soon to filter out transaction spam.
371 2011-01-29 03:33:00 <citiz3n> i can't get my new radeons to post :(
372 2011-01-29 03:33:13 <citiz3n> the computer booted up, but with no monitor signal
373 2011-01-29 03:33:37 <citiz3n> i was able to ping it and everything, got in there and installed the drivers via remote desktop
374 2011-01-29 03:33:51 <echelon> oh..
375 2011-01-29 03:33:59 <echelon> theymos, this was what i was trying to find.. https://bitlaundry.appspot.com/
376 2011-01-29 03:34:00 <citiz3n> thought if it worked, i would just forget about the no posting for now since i never use a monitor there anyways
377 2011-01-29 03:35:13 <citiz3n> damn this is annoying
378 2011-01-29 03:35:57 <theymos> echelon: That one will probably send you your own coins, too. I'd stick with MyBitcoin/MtGox until someone modifies Bitcoin to mix coins properly.
379 2011-01-29 03:37:35 <jgarzik> is testnet difficulty back down to something sane?
380 2011-01-29 03:38:09 <echelon> oh, i already have my money in mtgox
381 2011-01-29 03:38:27 <echelon> so i should just withdraw different amounts at different intervals?
382 2011-01-29 03:40:56 <theymos> Yes. Choosing amounts that are very different from the deposit amounts will make it less likely that you'll get back those coins.
383 2011-01-29 03:41:42 <theymos> The Bitcoin client is bad for anonymity. It's a good idea to keep a MyBitcoin account that you use only for anonymous transactions.
384 2011-01-29 03:42:05 <echelon> cool
385 2011-01-29 03:49:17 <luke-jr> &
386 2011-01-29 03:49:25 <luke-jr> MyBitcoin is even worse for anonymity
387 2011-01-29 03:49:41 <knotwork> is there any reference-implementation or sample or whatever of source code for bots interfacing to the MtGox APIs ?
388 2011-01-29 03:50:08 <knotwork> I am looking for something to use from commandline and/or from an IRC bot TCL script
389 2011-01-29 03:52:12 <theymos> luke-jr: Why? If you access it via Tor, they can't find you. Bitcoin, however, is very vulnerable to timing attacks when used over Tor, and your balance is not automatically mixed with other users.
390 2011-01-29 03:53:07 <luke-jr> theymos: *IF you access it via Tor*
391 2011-01-29 03:54:00 <theymos> Obviously you need to access it via Tor if you're searching for anonymity...
392 2011-01-29 03:54:03 <citiz3n> what do you mean by vulnerable to timing attacks?
393 2011-01-29 03:54:13 <luke-jr> also, Tor isn't very anonymous either
394 2011-01-29 03:54:28 <theymos> It's anonymous enough when used over HTTPS.
395 2011-01-29 03:54:46 <luke-jr> assuming MyBitcoin is out of a mandatory logging jurisdiction
396 2011-01-29 03:55:09 <theymos> citiz3n: Since your ISP can watch both ends of the Bitcoin connection easily, they can match the timings of packets and identify you. It's pretty trivial.
397 2011-01-29 03:55:33 <kiba> finding freedom in an unfree world
398 2011-01-29 03:55:55 <luke-jr> kiba: you mean making freedom into a god
399 2011-01-29 03:56:01 <citiz3n> ah you're just talking about privacy
400 2011-01-29 03:56:48 <kiba> luke-jr: I don't believe in god or goddess
401 2011-01-29 03:56:57 <kiba> except Eris, the Goddess of Chaos
402 2011-01-29 03:57:08 <citiz3n> freedom can only exist as a state of being :)
403 2011-01-29 03:57:12 <luke-jr> kiba: denial just makes you more the blind
404 2011-01-29 03:59:38 <kiba> what's wrong wtih freedom?
405 2011-01-29 04:00:37 <luke-jr> nothing, but it isn't an end in itself
406 2011-01-29 04:00:55 <kiba> I want to be immortal
407 2011-01-29 04:00:57 <kiba> do you?
408 2011-01-29 04:01:07 <luke-jr> I know I am immortal.
409 2011-01-29 04:01:49 <kiba> so if I kill you, you'll live?
410 2011-01-29 04:01:56 <luke-jr> yes
411 2011-01-29 04:01:57 <kiba> what if I fuck up your brain?
412 2011-01-29 04:02:06 <luke-jr> that wouldn't be very nice
413 2011-01-29 04:02:16 <kiba> do you believe in dualism?
414 2011-01-29 04:02:23 <luke-jr> ..
415 2011-01-29 04:02:34 <kiba> I believe my soul is the brain!
416 2011-01-29 04:02:38 <kiba> do you?
417 2011-01-29 04:02:40 <EvanR> oh what is this, a religious discussion
418 2011-01-29 04:02:55 <kiba> EvanR is merely being platotistic
419 2011-01-29 04:02:58 <luke-jr> brain is only part of the soul
420 2011-01-29 04:03:17 <kiba> well, luke-jr is merely being a platotistic
421 2011-01-29 04:03:20 <EvanR> whats platotistic
422 2011-01-29 04:03:20 <luke-jr> EvanR: why not? playing freeciv by myself gets boring
423 2011-01-29 04:04:48 <EvanR> thats what platotistic means
424 2011-01-29 04:05:04 <luke-jr> ?
425 2011-01-29 04:05:20 <EvanR> i dont know
426 2011-01-29 04:05:36 <EvanR> bitches, im mining the shit out of this shit
427 2011-01-29 04:05:37 <luke-jr> it should mean pizza.
428 2011-01-29 04:05:39 <luke-jr> I like pizza.
429 2011-01-29 04:06:24 <EvanR> i could go for some pizza
430 2011-01-29 04:06:29 <EvanR> wheres that bitpizza site
431 2011-01-29 04:06:41 <citiz3n> that's a good iea
432 2011-01-29 04:07:06 <luke-jr> yeah
433 2011-01-29 04:07:14 <luke-jr> could use pizzaparty for it
434 2011-01-29 04:07:22 <kiba> pizza4btc?
435 2011-01-29 04:08:07 <luke-jr> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1brr3_man-pizza-party_tech
436 2011-01-29 04:09:07 <luke-jr> stupid sourceforge
437 2011-01-29 04:09:13 <luke-jr> idiots can't even keep passwords secure -.-
438 2011-01-29 05:28:33 <EvanR> ;;bc,calc 550000
439 2011-01-29 05:28:33 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 550000 Khps, given current difficulty of 22012.4941572 , is 1 day, 23 hours, 44 minutes, and 56 seconds
440 2011-01-29 05:38:33 <dirtyfilthy> does anyone have/know of a tool to dump raw transactions from the wallet?
441 2011-01-29 05:51:48 <tcatm> dirtyfilthy: bitcointools
442 2011-01-29 05:53:48 <dirtyfilthy> nah, i need raw transactions, i've started modifying it to it, but i thought i'd ask fist
443 2011-01-29 05:55:17 <theymos> New real-time stats page: http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash . This data would be useful for making a nice chart of network hash/s over time.
444 2011-01-29 05:57:52 <tcatm> theymos: Great! Can you share the code used to calculate the data?
445 2011-01-29 06:01:32 <theymos> http://pastebin.com/EePxYb6W It mostly just takes advantage of my block database (I'm not sharing the code for that).
446 2011-01-29 06:04:33 <tcatm> thanks
447 2011-01-29 06:22:52 <jgarzik> newer, faster cpuminer released: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1925.msg42319#msg42319
448 2011-01-29 06:33:03 <mrb_> jgarzik: I think your code is certainly useful, at least for educational purposes. others can learn from your code how mining works, or can use it as a starting point for writing other miners. but given that CPUs have lost almost all value in mining --I don't mean to be disparaging-- I am curious to know what motivates you to work on it?
449 2011-01-29 06:33:53 <jgarzik> mrb_: cpuminer has a lot of pool users
450 2011-01-29 06:35:24 <Keefe> there are many cases where cpu mining is slightly profitable, and many more where it's attractive for non-profit reasons
451 2011-01-29 06:36:30 <Keefe> it's good for bitcoin, for cpu owners to be encouraged to contribute to the system even if just a little bit
452 2011-01-29 06:37:29 <mrb_> okay.
453 2011-01-29 06:38:01 <mrb_> Keefe: yep, I do know that CPU mining is slightly profitable with 6+ core CPUs at $.10/kWhr
454 2011-01-29 06:38:28 <mrb_> the most profitable are actually the 12-core Opterons
455 2011-01-29 06:44:22 <mrb_> speaking of pools...
456 2011-01-29 06:46:42 <mrb_> slush's pool is now at ~20Ghash/s. It's not unreasonable to think that a small contributor may produce no more than a few Mhash/s. That means he gets about .01 BTC per block solved by the pool.
457 2011-01-29 06:47:08 <mrb_> as the pool continues to grow, they will be rounded to 0 by the current bitcoin client.
458 2011-01-29 06:48:39 <mrb_> wouldn't it mean that pooling is soon to become useless for single-CPU owners?
459 2011-01-29 06:54:08 <tcatm> It's already pretty useless for single-CPU miners (except when you have free power). Lately a lot of GPU miners have switched to pool because as blocks are taking long even for GPUs now.
460 2011-01-29 06:56:00 <mrb_> by the way how does slush handle rounding? he cannot round perfectly as the share almost never add up to exactly 50.00 BTC
461 2011-01-29 06:56:25 <mrb_> he must be rounding down. what is he doing with the remainder?
462 2011-01-29 06:56:33 <mrb_> shares*
463 2011-01-29 06:58:54 <tcatm> Maybe he keeps it?
464 2011-01-29 06:59:04 <tcatm> It's not much anyway
465 2011-01-29 07:00:48 <wumpus> well at least he gets something out of hosting the thing that way
466 2011-01-29 07:01:29 <wumpus> if it covers the bandwidth costs at all
467 2011-01-29 07:02:06 <wumpus> wow, haven't been watching the bc prices for a while, now they almost doubled
468 2011-01-29 07:02:08 <mrb_> tcatm: it is a lot actually. if he rounds down and has N users, then statistically speaking he gains N/200 BTC per block
469 2011-01-29 07:02:28 <mrb_> 50 users -> 0.25 BTC for him per block
470 2011-01-29 07:03:12 <tcatm> I used to set donation to 2% during the short time while running the pool so I think it's just fair he gets some coins from it
471 2011-01-29 07:03:17 <mrb_> his pool finds a block per hour. that's 6 BTC/day
472 2011-01-29 07:04:03 <tcatm> Great. That's enough to cover his server costs
473 2011-01-29 07:04:19 <mrb_> if he grows to 250 users, that's 1000 BTC / month.
474 2011-01-29 07:04:57 <mrb_> I think too it's fair for him to round down.
475 2011-01-29 07:05:32 <tcatm> Maybe I should start a pool. Looks like there's lot of Bitcoins to be made ;)
476 2011-01-29 07:06:50 <wumpus> could be a good idea to have some diversity in pools
477 2011-01-29 07:07:25 <lfm> slush carries over fractions of BTC to the next round. He only profits if you drop out
478 2011-01-29 07:07:55 <mrb_> ah.
479 2011-01-29 07:09:16 <wumpus> though it's hard to think of something that would give a competitive advantage in what is essentially a free service, slush's seems to work very well and I've heard very few complaints
480 2011-01-29 07:10:33 <tcatm> Maybe a very good management interface for multi GPU miners?
481 2011-01-29 07:11:24 <wumpus> yes a good management interface would be nice
482 2011-01-29 07:11:28 <theymos> I'd like a connected-mode pool. You get more BTC from those.
483 2011-01-29 07:12:10 <lfm> how do you figure?
484 2011-01-29 07:12:34 <theymos> Less people to split the BTC with.
485 2011-01-29 07:12:52 <lfm> more miners make more frequent rewards
486 2011-01-29 07:13:10 <echelon> is MT`AwAy around?
487 2011-01-29 07:13:41 <mrb_> bitcoin users are technical enough to recognize the importance of not having a pool monopoly. or else slush would be in control of the bitcoin block chain.
488 2011-01-29 07:14:04 <theymos> The blocks would be generated at the same speed. You just get a bit more BTC because people who aren't currently connected lose their shares.
489 2011-01-29 07:15:17 <lfm> you get btc proportional to your partisipation same way either way
490 2011-01-29 07:16:16 <wumpus> mrb_: yes, at this moment they are technical and paranoid enough, but we can guess where things will be going when bitcoin becomes more popular :)
491 2011-01-29 07:17:32 <mrb_> yep. however for this reason I do think that in the short term the bitcoin network will evolve towards a stable oligopoly of either 2 or 3 pools
492 2011-01-29 07:18:10 <lfm> theymos ok, are you thinking you will be connected 24/7? either way you have the same avaerage probable reward
493 2011-01-29 07:19:04 <theymos> If I'm connected 24/7, then I get a higher reward because there are fewer "shares".
494 2011-01-29 07:19:40 <wumpus> mrb_: agreed
495 2011-01-29 07:20:11 <lfm> theymos ok lets say there are just two people, you and someone else with twice the power as you connected half the time? you think they will be different results?
496 2011-01-29 07:20:39 <lfm> in the slash type shares you each would get half, right?
497 2011-01-29 07:21:18 <theymos> That's not a realistic example. If a pool has 100,000 total hash/s and I contribute 10,000, then I will get 1/10th of the reward in connected mode. In contributed mode, I am guaranteed to get less in almost all cases because somewhat who was generated no longer is, and their share is not recovered.
498 2011-01-29 07:21:43 <theymos> someone who was generating*
499 2011-01-29 07:22:16 <lfm> theymos and they WILL be connected sometimes and you will get less then
500 2011-01-29 07:22:53 <lfm> your only looking at half the cases of the "connected" mode
501 2011-01-29 07:23:40 <theymos> I will be connected 24/7. If even one person who was generating is not when a block is found, then I will make more in connected mode than contributed mode.
502 2011-01-29 07:24:09 <lfm> but you make less if they ARE connected cuz they are more powerful
503 2011-01-29 07:24:39 <lfm> you get less when they ARE connected than you would in slush's system
504 2011-01-29 07:28:49 <lfm> and odds are those powerfull systems actually will be connected 24/9 too anyway
505 2011-01-29 07:28:57 <lfm> 24/7
506 2011-01-29 07:30:16 <jgarzik> man, bitcoin's JSON-RPC interface is trivial to DoS.
507 2011-01-29 07:30:35 <jgarzik> it's basically single-threaded, vis a vis multiple connections.
508 2011-01-29 07:31:48 <theymos> lfm: I can't compete with 24/9! ;) I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how the statistics would turn out, though -- it seems the odds would roughly balance out. I just remember getting higher generations when I was on a connected pool.
509 2011-01-29 07:34:30 <MT`AwAy> echelon: mh?
510 2011-01-29 07:35:09 <echelon> MT`AwAy, hey.. i'm not sure if i still have time to send in the payment
511 2011-01-29 07:35:23 <echelon> i have the funds, i just need to circulate it first
512 2011-01-29 07:36:18 <MT`AwAy> echelon: should be fine
513 2011-01-29 07:36:38 <echelon> ok, thanks
514 2011-01-29 07:36:43 <MT`AwAy> not sure using the "bitcoinlaundry" will change anything btw
515 2011-01-29 07:36:57 <echelon> i know, i stopped using it
516 2011-01-29 07:40:17 <MT`AwAy> http://ipv6.he.net/statistics/ <- I'm looking forward to "in 4 days"
517 2011-01-29 07:41:55 <lfm> theymos actually looking at it some more it seems you might be right. 24/7 miners have an advantage in connected mode
518 2011-01-29 07:42:21 <lfm> intermitant connections are punished
519 2011-01-29 07:44:03 <jgarzik> connected mode is not based on shares completed?
520 2011-01-29 07:47:34 <npouillard> lg 24
521 2011-01-29 07:47:35 <theymos> Right. When a block is found, you get paid depending on your hash/s at the moment compared to the pool total. I'm still not sure which one would be more profitable... probably depends on who else is using it.
522 2011-01-29 07:47:37 <npouillard> oops
523 2011-01-29 07:48:42 <lfm> depends if you are planning to go 24/7 or not
524 2011-01-29 07:57:34 <lfm> ah! I see an error in my annalysis. looks like theyre equal again. note that the more miners connected effects the odds of finding a block
525 2011-01-29 08:07:58 <theymos> MT`AwAy: You've worked with PHP sockets, right? Any idea why my JSON-RPC client occasionally takes a second or more to finish reading from the socket? It doesn't seem to be a problem with Bitcoin: using bitcoind as an RPC client shows much fewer such cases.
526 2011-01-29 08:09:13 <tcatm> theymos: Bug in bitcoind. I have the same problem sometimes.
527 2011-01-29 08:11:07 <MT`AwAy> theymos: never had such problem
528 2011-01-29 08:11:19 <MT`AwAy> you send HTTP/1.0 requests ?
529 2011-01-29 08:11:31 <MT`AwAy> (for bitcoin RPC calls, I use curl)
530 2011-01-29 08:11:49 <theymos> I set 1.1 requests.
531 2011-01-29 08:11:58 <MT`AwAy> theymos: you handle keep alive?
532 2011-01-29 08:12:13 <theymos> I specify Connection: close
533 2011-01-29 08:12:27 <MT`AwAy> not sure bitcoind's http server is so compliant
534 2011-01-29 08:12:36 <MT`AwAy> I'd suggest you use the "Content-Length" header and only read up to the reply
535 2011-01-29 08:12:42 <MT`AwAy> (then close the socket immediatly)
536 2011-01-29 08:13:24 <theymos> Thanks; I will try that. It just started happening when I upgraded all my software, so I think something's behavior must have changed.
537 2011-01-29 08:54:17 <joe_1> I get occasional fopen errors opening the json rpc socket for bitcoin -server. theymos/mt`away, have you ever seen these before?
538 2011-01-29 08:54:40 <echelon> woah.. Bitcoin Payment Address generation error! Daily limit exceeded!
539 2011-01-29 08:54:54 <MT`AwAy> joe_1: as I said, I use curl :)
540 2011-01-29 08:55:03 <MT`AwAy> echelon: wtf?
541 2011-01-29 08:55:09 <echelon> <3 curl :D
542 2011-01-29 08:55:16 <echelon> oh lol.. it's from mybitcoin
543 2011-01-29 08:55:23 <MT`AwAy> xD
544 2011-01-29 08:58:34 <theymos> I haven't had any problems opening the socket.
545 2011-01-29 09:06:36 <joe_1> i think it's a problem with php fopen or jsonrpcclient.
546 2011-01-29 09:27:09 <molecular> ;;bt,calcd
547 2011-01-29 09:27:10 <gribble> Error: "bt,calcd" is not a valid command.
548 2011-01-29 09:27:15 <molecular> ;;bc;calcd
549 2011-01-29 09:27:16 <gribble> Error: "bc;calcd" is not a valid command.
550 2011-01-29 09:27:24 <molecular> ;;bc,calcd
551 2011-01-29 09:27:25 <gribble> (bc,calcd <an alias, 2 arguments>) -- Alias for "echo The average time to generate a block at $1 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of $2, is [time elapsed [math calc 1/((2**224-1)/$2*$1*1000/2**256)]]".
552 2011-01-29 09:27:54 <gribble> (bc,calcd <an alias, 2 arguments>) -- Alias for "echo The average time to generate a block at $1 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of $2, is [time elapsed [math calc 1/((2**224-1)/$2*$1*1000/2**256)]]".
553 2011-01-29 09:27:54 <molecular> ;;bc,calcd 620000,22012
554 2011-01-29 09:28:19 <molecular> ;;bc,calcd 620000 22012
555 2011-01-29 09:28:20 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 620000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 22012, is 1 day, 18 hours, 21 minutes, and 25 seconds
556 2011-01-29 09:31:34 <molecular> the only thing that keeps me from mining solo is the fact that bitcoin will loose it's network connection after a while... connection count just goes to 0. I assume it's because my ip-address changes (dynamic ip). What do you guys do to avoid that problem?
557 2011-01-29 09:32:05 <tcatm> use a static IP
558 2011-01-29 09:32:51 <molecular> grrrr
559 2011-01-29 09:33:06 <molecular> could also try to fix bitcoin...
560 2011-01-29 09:33:20 <tcatm> actually bitcoin should reconnect in such a case
561 2011-01-29 09:33:29 <molecular> it doesn't, believe me
562 2011-01-29 09:33:36 <molecular> at least not on my system
563 2011-01-29 09:34:32 <molecular> just sits there with 0 connections. was at block 105101 when I got up 15 minutes ago. had to restart bitcoin.
564 2011-01-29 09:37:07 <theymos> ArtForz used to experience this issue. He modified his client to fix it.
565 2011-01-29 09:37:24 <molecular> yeah, talked to him about that before...
566 2011-01-29 09:37:54 <molecular> he didn't seem to be content enough with his fix to give it out
567 2011-01-29 09:38:18 <molecular> I suppose I could just poll connectioncount with a script and restart in case it's 0.
568 2011-01-29 09:38:47 <tcatm> can you create an issue on github?
569 2011-01-29 09:39:27 <molecular> ok
570 2011-01-29 09:46:30 <molecular> just forced to get a new ip
571 2011-01-29 09:47:12 <molecular> now the problem: how can I verify / falsify that bitcoin is connected? It still say "49 connection", but I don't trust these are actually "active"
572 2011-01-29 09:47:57 <molecular> hmm, I'll wait for the next block and see if that shows up
573 2011-01-29 09:47:57 <theymos> Wait to see whether you get the next block.
574 2011-01-29 09:50:01 <molecular> allright, I'm not getting 105156 with 47 connections
575 2011-01-29 09:50:13 <molecular> now I got a good reproduction description
576 2011-01-29 09:56:29 <molecular> if I now have a miner running connected to my "disconnected" bitcoin... it wont generate any valid block, will it?
577 2011-01-29 09:56:55 <theymos> Right.
578 2011-01-29 09:58:03 <molecular> this actually might happen to a lot of people. you wont even notice, the client still happily tells me "43 connections"
579 2011-01-29 09:58:35 <theymos> They'll eventually fail when Bitcoin pings them to see if they're still alive.
580 2011-01-29 09:58:41 <molecular> well, created an issue on github
581 2011-01-29 09:58:56 <joe_1> i'm on an old client and it only goes up to 8 connections. newer clients connect to more?
582 2011-01-29 09:59:07 <molecular> yeah, well, you'll loose a couple of hours of mining-time
583 2011-01-29 09:59:40 <molecular> joe_1, why not just update and find out?
584 2011-01-29 09:59:45 <theymos> Incoming connections are unlimited. You can also run with the -maxconnections=50 switch to force extra outgoing connections.
585 2011-01-29 09:59:53 <joe_1> i'm too scared it will break the rpc interface
586 2011-01-29 09:59:57 <molecular> if you're pre- 0.3.10 you should definitely update
587 2011-01-29 10:00:34 <molecular> break to rpc interface to what?
588 2011-01-29 10:01:18 <molecular> s/to/the
589 2011-01-29 10:01:25 <joe_1> i dont know.. getreceivedbyaddress, stuf like that
590 2011-01-29 10:01:27 <joe_1> has that code been touched
591 2011-01-29 10:01:29 <joe_1> i'm on 0.3.13
592 2011-01-29 10:01:30 <molecular> are you using that in your own code?
593 2011-01-29 10:01:33 <joe_1> yea
594 2011-01-29 10:01:34 <molecular> the rpc interface?
595 2011-01-29 10:01:58 <molecular> then you could probably easily fix that in case it breaks, right?
596 2011-01-29 10:02:33 <joe_1> yea but i just need to audit the work thats been done on the code
597 2011-01-29 10:03:04 <molecular> my client usually makes about 50 connections. don't know about older ones.
598 2011-01-29 10:06:09 <joe_1> if i'm in git hub, which bitcoin do i look at. gavinandreasen/bitcoin or bitcoin/bitcoin.
599 2011-01-29 10:06:20 <tcatm> bitcoin/bitcoin
600 2011-01-29 10:06:36 <molecular> ;seen btcex
601 2011-01-29 10:07:22 <Keefe> anyone know how many confirms bitcoincentral requires for btc deposits before balance becomes confirmed?
602 2011-01-29 10:07:34 <gribble> Error: "lastseen" is not a valid command.
603 2011-01-29 10:07:34 <molecular> ;;lastseen btcex
604 2011-01-29 10:29:16 <joe_1> i probably should update
605 2011-01-29 10:29:41 <joe_1> has anything gay been done to the client since 0.3.13? like useless features and bloating?
606 2011-01-29 10:31:08 <molecular> I'm not here long enought to tell
607 2011-01-29 10:31:38 <[Noodles]> the whole account-stuff was added in .16 (i think)
608 2011-01-29 10:32:29 <joe_1> will it break any of the RPC calls related to getting a new address?
609 2011-01-29 10:33:39 <tcatm> joe_1: how are you currently using the RPC?
610 2011-01-29 10:34:41 <joe_1> the getnewaddress call
611 2011-01-29 10:35:45 <tcatm> should still work
612 2011-01-29 10:43:10 <joe_1> ok
613 2011-01-29 10:44:40 <[Noodles]> afaik the only change in case of rpc-responds was, that sendtoaddress no longer returns "sent", but the tx-ID instead, correct me if i'm wrong
614 2011-01-29 10:45:57 <joe_1> ok that should be fine
615 2011-01-29 10:45:59 <tcatm> sendtoaddress shouldn't be used anymore
616 2011-01-29 10:46:04 <tcatm> use sendfrom
617 2011-01-29 10:46:45 <[Noodles]> well, if i don't use accounts, i can't use sendfrom
618 2011-01-29 10:47:13 <joe_1> wow
619 2011-01-29 10:47:17 <joe_1> that's really nice
620 2011-01-29 10:47:24 <joe_1> it allows you which coins to pay people with?
621 2011-01-29 10:48:10 <[Noodles]> its not "sendfrom address", its "sendfrom account"
622 2011-01-29 10:49:01 <[Noodles]> so i'd say no, it still sends 'random' coins
623 2011-01-29 10:49:46 <joe_1> oh
624 2011-01-29 10:50:32 <[Noodles]> but who am i? i havent really looked into accounting at all myself
625 2011-01-29 10:51:04 <joe_1> well it's not really an accounting question, more of a bitcoin transactional question
626 2011-01-29 10:51:08 <[Noodles]> still running a few .15-nodes
627 2011-01-29 10:51:43 <joe_1> cool
628 2011-01-29 10:56:33 <wtfmate> Hello, could anyone possibly help out with trying to get poclbm.py working in Windows 64bit?
629 2011-01-29 10:57:13 <wtfmate> I got OpenCL drivers, Stream SDK 2.2, Python 2.6.6, scypy, numpy, all the Microsoft VS depends install
630 2011-01-29 10:57:59 <wtfmate> I get the following error.
631 2011-01-29 10:58:02 <wtfmate> Traceback (most recent call last):   File "poclbm.py", line 33, in <module>     myMiner = PoolMiner(platform, context, options.host, options.user, options.p assword, options.port, options.frames, options.rate, options.askrate, options.wo rksize, options.vectors)   File "C:BitcoinpoclbmPoolMiner.py", line 132, in __init__     self.miner = cl.Program(self.context, kernelFile.read()).build(defines)   File "C:Python26libsite-pac
632 2011-01-29 10:58:38 <sipa> your error got cut off
633 2011-01-29 10:58:52 <sipa> use pastebin or so maybe
634 2011-01-29 10:58:55 <wtfmate> pyopencl.RuntimeError: clBuildProgram failed: build program failure  Build on <pyopencl.Device 'Juniper           ' at 0x2d59ce8>:  Error: Compilation from LLVMIR binary to IL text failed!
635 2011-01-29 10:59:30 <tcatm> Try SDK 2.1
636 2011-01-29 10:59:34 <wtfmate> I had this working on my box last week, then the PS went south and took my MB and Video card too :(
637 2011-01-29 10:59:55 <wtfmate> Now I'm starting over, and for the life of me I can't find the web page that had the intructions.
638 2011-01-29 11:00:14 <wtfmate> And http://www.newslobster.com/random/how-to-get-started-using-your-gpu-to-mine-for-bitcoins-on-windows   is not what I'm looking for.
639 2011-01-29 11:00:40 <wtfmate> I just want poclbm.py to run...that's all.
640 2011-01-29 11:01:05 <wtfmate> I guess SDK 2.1 is worth a shot
641 2011-01-29 11:01:19 <wtfmate> one min and I'll let ya know how that works.
642 2011-01-29 11:04:35 <Keefe> wtfmate: what psu model?
643 2011-01-29 11:05:59 <wtfmate> Rosewill RV2-700
644 2011-01-29 11:11:33 <joe_1> looks like the sendfrom does not hand pick coins from the account you specify. it just sees whether that account balance is sufficient, updates the balance, then issues a send as if you used the regular sendtoaddress function.
645 2011-01-29 11:15:01 <Keefe> so it acts as a mini laundry between your accounts :D
646 2011-01-29 11:15:28 <Keefe> j/k
647 2011-01-29 11:16:03 <wtfmate> ok, new error
648 2011-01-29 11:16:08 <wtfmate> File "poclbm.py", line 3, in <module>     import pyopencl as cl   File "C:Python26libsite-packagespyopencl-0.92-py2.6-win32.eggpyopencl__i nit__.py", line 3, in <module>     import pyopencl._cl as _cl ImportError: DLL load failed: The specified procedure could not be found.
649 2011-01-29 11:18:59 <wtfmate> And now the pre-compiled poclbm.exe doesn't work with 2.1....great
650 2011-01-29 11:19:03 <wtfmate> back to 2.2
651 2011-01-29 11:19:07 <wtfmate> :(
652 2011-01-29 11:19:51 <wtfmate> This shit works in Linux no problem...but god forbid Windows 7 ever work for Devel shit.
653 2011-01-29 11:31:33 <joe_1> haha
654 2011-01-29 11:32:03 <joe_1> windows 7 and development in the same sentence makes me sick to my stomach
655 2011-01-29 11:32:34 <necrodearia> I convinced Stefan Molyneux to reconsider bitcoin.  It may be interesting if a bitcoin user, someone very knowledgeable, were to call in and do a show with him, discussing bitcoin in a style of discussion similar to Stefan's existing style.
656 2011-01-29 11:34:23 <noagendamarket> hmm
657 2011-01-29 11:42:46 <joe_1> who is stefan molyneux
658 2011-01-29 12:09:02 <OneFixt> necrodearia: great job!
659 2011-01-29 12:09:43 <necrodearia> joe_1, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stefan+molyneux
660 2011-01-29 12:16:08 <joe_1> thanks for googling that for me. yes it was too hard for me to do it myself.
661 2011-01-29 12:17:14 <joe_1> he's a radio host
662 2011-01-29 12:18:25 <joe_1> for freedomain radio: "Powerful ideas for all lovers of personal and political freedom"
663 2011-01-29 12:52:52 <echelon> joe_1, you listen to freedomain? :)
664 2011-01-29 12:53:48 <echelon> i guess i shouldn't be surprised by the presence of libertarians in here
665 2011-01-29 12:55:43 <joe_1> no i havent listened to it before but it seems ok looking att the website
666 2011-01-29 12:59:51 <echelon> i'm not a regular listener, the guy seems to ramble on and on
667 2011-01-29 13:25:42 <tcatm> I remember using a RPC getblock but I can't find it anymore. Anyone know where the patch is?
668 2011-01-29 14:06:03 <luke-jr> tcatm: when you find it, someone should merge it into mainline? :P
669 2011-01-29 14:06:48 <luke-jr> https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=724.0
670 2011-01-29 14:09:05 <tcatm> that one does only getbyheight
671 2011-01-29 14:19:49 <jgarzik> tcatm: what do you need?
672 2011-01-29 14:20:06 <jgarzik> tcatm: getblockbyhash ?
673 2011-01-29 14:20:39 <tcatm> yep but I already ported code to work with -bycount. Currently syncing database to see if it works
674 2011-01-29 14:23:40 <jgarzik> tcatm: still interested in outside work?  I need a skeleton website w/ user account system.  Users must be able to register (requires BTC or free coupon code), verify registration via emailed link, login, deposit bitcoins, withdraw bitcoins, and be charged a monthly fee in BTC.
675 2011-01-29 14:24:14 <jgarzik> python, JS, HTML, CSS
676 2011-01-29 14:25:43 <tcatm> Yep, django should be a good framework for the task and I have some experience with it (bitcoincharts)
677 2011-01-29 14:29:02 <jgarzik> gotta go monitor baby.  lemme know if you're interested via email or PM or something.
678 2011-01-29 14:29:11 <tcatm> k
679 2011-01-29 14:30:12 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: ?
680 2011-01-29 14:30:35 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: so far, most of the votes in the poll are *opposing* a solution, rather than voting for either solution (or both)
681 2011-01-29 14:30:57 <Cusipzzz> oh...haven't voted yet. ;)
682 2011-01-29 14:31:47 <luke-jr> yeah, only 6 votes so far
683 2011-01-29 14:31:55 <luke-jr> but still, sad 3 of them are just opposed to fixing the problem
684 2011-01-29 14:32:05 <luke-jr> I am curious about the "Other" with no explanation tho
685 2011-01-29 14:32:24 <Cusipzzz> drunk forum browsing imo
686 2011-01-29 14:32:58 <luke-jr> lol
687 2011-01-29 14:33:26 <luke-jr> originally, I was "Both", but considering the possible floating-point problems, changed to RPC v1 only
688 2011-01-29 14:37:00 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: I think some people might need a bump to realize bitcoin is big enough that everyone involved does *not* share a common set of ideal/reasons for involvement, and they can't just assume only their needs/wants are relevant.
689 2011-01-29 14:37:47 <luke-jr> eg, I think at least some of those 3 anti-fix votes were simply because it would 'help' TBC. Actively trying to stifle innovation.
690 2011-01-29 14:38:14 <Cusipzzz> perhaps. some people are resistant to change.
691 2011-01-29 14:39:06 <luke-jr> it's ironic, since BitCoin itself is in general a revolution on par with Tonal
692 2011-01-29 14:39:28 <luke-jr> would think people involved would be more open to change
693 2011-01-29 14:40:34 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: 8BTC so far
694 2011-01-29 14:40:52 <Cusipzzz> EvanR: nice..hashrate?
695 2011-01-29 14:41:14 <EvanR> about 520 530, i bumped the overclock
696 2011-01-29 14:41:22 <Cusipzzz> cool, grats
697 2011-01-29 14:41:32 <EvanR> maybe a different miner will get more
698 2011-01-29 14:41:58 <Keefe> should try. should get more like 630
699 2011-01-29 14:42:26 <tcatm> luke-jr: It's not an easy problem. I think the only solution is to change to raw integers, but that would break every application assuming x*10^8 for all RPC amounts.
700 2011-01-29 14:42:46 <Keefe> maybe as high as 660mhps at 860mhz
701 2011-01-29 14:43:17 <EvanR> so the python thing is the alternative eh
702 2011-01-29 14:43:44 <Keefe> the only other public one i know of
703 2011-01-29 14:45:28 <Cusipzzz> Other might be "get off my lawn" :)
704 2011-01-29 14:47:32 <EvanR> -w 128 got me about 560
705 2011-01-29 14:47:41 <luke-jr> tcatm: no, it is fully backward compatible
706 2011-01-29 14:47:46 <hacim> EvanR: damn you passed me
707 2011-01-29 14:47:58 <tcatm> luke-jr: where's the diff?
708 2011-01-29 14:48:00 <luke-jr> tcatm: integers are only used, when -rpcversion=1 is specified
709 2011-01-29 14:48:01 <hacim> EvanR: i started on the pool maybe three hours before you did
710 2011-01-29 14:48:13 <EvanR> whats your rate?
711 2011-01-29 14:48:16 <hacim> oh wait, I've got 10btc
712 2011-01-29 14:48:35 <hacim> about 340
713 2011-01-29 14:48:44 <luke-jr> tcatm: when unspecified, or -rpcversion=0, it uses the floats
714 2011-01-29 14:48:47 <hacim> but thats because I dont have a 5970
715 2011-01-29 14:49:34 <tcatm> luke-jr: In such an early state we shouldn't have multiple RPC verions.
716 2011-01-29 14:49:54 <luke-jr> tcatm: maybe, if the RPC API was designed properly at the start
717 2011-01-29 14:50:18 <tcatm> We can still change it (and I think we should).
718 2011-01-29 14:50:41 <luke-jr> there is enough software already, that backward-compatibility is necessary for now
719 2011-01-29 14:50:45 <tcatm> Maybe a good point would be from 0.3 -> 0.4?
720 2011-01-29 14:50:50 <luke-jr> we can delete version 0 support in a year or two
721 2011-01-29 14:52:02 <tcatm> Then people might still use version 0
722 2011-01-29 14:52:32 <luke-jr> nah, just announce it in advance
723 2011-01-29 14:52:44 <tcatm> That doesn't work :P
724 2011-01-29 14:52:48 <EvanR> hacim: shouldnt be long before i do pass you xD
725 2011-01-29 14:52:51 <luke-jr> "RPC v1 added. In 6 months, it will become default. In a year, RPC v0 will be removed."
726 2011-01-29 14:53:08 <luke-jr> tcatm: sure it does :P
727 2011-01-29 14:53:33 <luke-jr> "immediate: all new code should use v1; within a year, all existing code must be migrated to v1"
728 2011-01-29 14:53:36 <hacim> EvanR: how long as your process been running?
729 2011-01-29 14:53:58 <luke-jr> "
730 2011-01-29 14:54:03 <tcatm> I'd prefer something like switching to full precision integers and outputting errors for inputs < 10000 for a few months
731 2011-01-29 14:54:08 <hacim> EvanR: looks like I started mine at 16:49:15 yesterday
732 2011-01-29 14:54:12 <luke-jr> "within 6 months, you should know where you have problems upgrading"
733 2011-01-29 14:54:36 <luke-jr> tcatm: sure, the timespans can be adjusted. just saying for example
734 2011-01-29 14:54:39 <EvanR> hacim: about 11pm yesterday
735 2011-01-29 14:54:54 <luke-jr> maybe give 1 month before default, then another before removal
736 2011-01-29 14:55:04 <tcatm> hm
737 2011-01-29 14:55:26 <luke-jr> 1. begin writing v1 code; 2. migrate all code that migrated w/o problems; 3. migrate all remaining code that needed bugfixes to v1
738 2011-01-29 14:55:54 <hacim> EvanR: ps ax -opid,lstart,cmd | grep whatever
739 2011-01-29 14:55:58 <luke-jr> so there's a 1 month migration window plus another month spare in case there are problems in the first month
740 2011-01-29 14:56:02 <hacim> lstart is awesome
741 2011-01-29 14:56:11 <EvanR> i just restart the miner
742 2011-01-29 14:56:19 <EvanR> to try different w sizes
743 2011-01-29 14:56:20 <hacim> so much better than seeing just the date from the previous day
744 2011-01-29 14:56:37 <hacim> keep restarting it so you will never catch up ;)
745 2011-01-29 14:56:46 <ArtForzZz> then again, whats the fucking point? bitcoin vales can and are represented exactly in a double
746 2011-01-29 14:57:06 <luke-jr> tcatm: in practice, I would suggest 0.4 change the default, and 0.5 remove v0
747 2011-01-29 14:57:09 <EvanR> i had like 4800 blocks found or something
748 2011-01-29 14:57:17 <hacim> EvanR: i've got 704 shares for the current block
749 2011-01-29 14:57:26 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: not decimal bitcoin values
750 2011-01-29 14:57:29 <hacim> EvanR: i think you mean shares
751 2011-01-29 14:57:32 <ArtForzZz> yes
752 2011-01-29 14:57:36 <EvanR> 928
753 2011-01-29 14:57:54 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: no matter how precise, a binary floating-point number cannot represent 0.1
754 2011-01-29 14:57:55 <EvanR> hacim: yeah 4800 shares not resetting
755 2011-01-29 14:58:10 <hacim> EvanR: i'm not getting the rpc issues I was yesterday, are you?
756 2011-01-29 14:58:13 <ArtForzZz> luke-jr: luckily we don't need infitite precision, 8 decomal places is fine
757 2011-01-29 14:58:18 <EvanR> hacim: rpc issues?
758 2011-01-29 14:58:45 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: even if we had infinite precision, it still couldn't do 0.1
759 2011-01-29 14:58:53 <luke-jr> 0.1 is an irrational number in binary
760 2011-01-29 14:58:58 <hacim> EvanR: my client was periodically having trouble connecting to getwork
761 2011-01-29 14:58:59 <EvanR> no it isnt
762 2011-01-29 14:59:06 <EvanR> 0.1 is rational regardless of how you write it down
763 2011-01-29 14:59:06 <luke-jr> EvanR: no?
764 2011-01-29 14:59:10 <luke-jr> &
765 2011-01-29 14:59:13 <ArtForzZz> with infinite precision you could represent it exactly
766 2011-01-29 14:59:26 <EvanR> your campaign about tonal is about *notation* for writing numbers, not changing the numbers
767 2011-01-29 14:59:54 <ArtForzZz> same way 0.9periodic == 1
768 2011-01-29 14:59:55 <luke-jr> 0.1 in binary is 0.0011001100&
769 2011-01-29 15:00:00 <ArtForzZz> so?
770 2011-01-29 15:00:22 <EvanR> hacim: mine too, its still happening
771 2011-01-29 15:00:32 <ArtForzZz> anyways, whats that have to fucking do with anything
772 2011-01-29 15:00:39 <EvanR> luke-jr: the repeating pattern makes it rational
773 2011-01-29 15:00:45 <hacim> EvanR: I think that slows us down
774 2011-01-29 15:00:50 <EvanR> me too
775 2011-01-29 15:00:53 <ArtForzZz> again, we don't have to represent any possible number
776 2011-01-29 15:01:07 <ArtForzZz> 0-21M to 8 decimal places is enough
777 2011-01-29 15:01:15 <ArtForzZz> and surprise - a double is plenty for that
778 2011-01-29 15:01:17 <luke-jr> yawn
779 2011-01-29 15:01:28 <EvanR> hacim: i noticed my hash rate drop when it failed to connect several times
780 2011-01-29 15:01:41 <ArtForzZz> so again, whats the fucking point?
781 2011-01-29 15:02:07 <hacim> EvanR: AOL
782 2011-01-29 15:02:07 <luke-jr> ArtForzZz: efficiency and unit-neutral
783 2011-01-29 15:02:19 <EvanR> america online?
784 2011-01-29 15:02:23 <Cusipzzz> why are you in the pool and deal with those errors/network issues/pool issues when you have enough hash to run your own ?
785 2011-01-29 15:02:25 <luke-jr> RPC v0 is inherently biased to decimal bitcoins
786 2011-01-29 15:02:37 <ArtForzZz> boo. fucking. hoo
787 2011-01-29 15:02:41 <Cusipzzz> lol
788 2011-01-29 15:02:51 <hacim> EvanR: its another way of saying "me too" because of how AOL users would always reply to threads on usenet just to say that
789 2011-01-29 15:03:10 <EvanR> bets on how long luke-jr's bias away from decimal is tolerated before he is publically ridiculed on a consistent basis
790 2011-01-29 15:03:13 <ArtForzZz> so write a frontend to convert it to tonal or base-e for users
791 2011-01-29 15:03:17 <hacim> EvanR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_too
792 2011-01-29 15:03:38 <Cusipzzz> EvanR: why pool? you'll get your own blocks in ~2 days
793 2011-01-29 15:03:41 <hacim> Problems communicating with bitcoin RPC
794 2011-01-29 15:03:51 <hacim> i can *hear* when its happening, because my fan slows down
795 2011-01-29 15:04:25 <EvanR> hacim: interesting
796 2011-01-29 15:04:30 <Cusipzzz> makes no sense unless your mine rwill be on and off a lot...just reduces variance at the cost of some overhead
797 2011-01-29 15:04:38 <hacim> Cusipzzz: i ran my 5870 for 6 days without a block
798 2011-01-29 15:05:04 <Cusipzzz> don't fear variance...keep running it, will even out
799 2011-01-29 15:05:05 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: right not because i couldnt be arsed to set up any more shit last night
800 2011-01-29 15:05:08 <EvanR> now*
801 2011-01-29 15:05:12 <Cusipzzz> lol
802 2011-01-29 15:05:30 <EvanR> also im losing 2% to donations ;)
803 2011-01-29 15:05:46 <Cusipzzz> i'd be more worried about network overhead and pool errors
804 2011-01-29 15:05:53 <EvanR> pool errors?
805 2011-01-29 15:06:01 <hacim> Cusipzzz: yeah, except there was a bug in m0n's miner which made it not find blocks, and I didn't know about it for 6 days
806 2011-01-29 15:06:02 <Cusipzzz> you went to the trouble to get a rig going, might as well max the efficiency
807 2011-01-29 15:06:32 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: well im having trouble getting bitcoin itself to run on the miner
808 2011-01-29 15:06:33 <hacim> and then it was fixed, and now I'm gunshy
809 2011-01-29 15:06:44 <EvanR> ./bitcoin never shows a gui
810 2011-01-29 15:06:52 <hacim> EvanR: run the cli?
811 2011-01-29 15:06:58 <Cusipzzz> uhh, just bitcoind
812 2011-01-29 15:06:59 <EvanR> alright, but wtf?
813 2011-01-29 15:07:10 <Cusipzzz> gui sucks anyway :)
814 2011-01-29 15:07:10 <hacim> i haven't even seen the gui yet heh
815 2011-01-29 15:07:35 <EvanR> the command line client has been bitchy to me
816 2011-01-29 15:07:40 <Cusipzzz> lol
817 2011-01-29 15:07:50 <EvanR> documentation, missing commands etc
818 2011-01-29 15:08:08 <Cusipzzz> EvanR: wiki
819 2011-01-29 15:08:42 <luke-jr> EvanR: I didn't suggest making it Tonal bias. ;)
820 2011-01-29 15:08:49 <luke-jr> EvanR: base units are neutral
821 2011-01-29 15:09:09 <EvanR> luke-jr you dont make any sense, sorry
822 2011-01-29 15:09:28 <Cusipzzz> last thing we need is unit-confusion, though. non nerds have a hard enough time graspingBTCs as it is
823 2011-01-29 15:09:40 <luke-jr> EvanR: lack of bias != bias against
824 2011-01-29 15:09:56 <EvanR> now youre just trolling
825 2011-01-29 15:10:02 <luke-jr> &
826 2011-01-29 15:10:20 <hacim> 
827 2011-01-29 15:10:28 <luke-jr> EvanR: base units are significant to both decimal and tonal bitcoins
828 2011-01-29 15:10:35 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: guess ill unplug my miner and watch the pool take a 500M hit xD
829 2011-01-29 15:11:03 <Cusipzzz> EvanR: will be better for you in the long run, just sayin
830 2011-01-29 15:11:06 <hacim> moar shares for me
831 2011-01-29 15:11:08 <EvanR> units and radices are a gui thing, nothing else
832 2011-01-29 15:11:25 <luke-jr> EvanR: I agree, that's why the underlying tech should be neutral to it all
833 2011-01-29 15:11:34 <EvanR> it cant be
834 2011-01-29 15:11:43 <luke-jr> it can be, as spec'd in RPC v1
835 2011-01-29 15:12:06 <EvanR> the machine must always have some concrete representation, what you mean is to have it be separated from the gui
836 2011-01-29 15:12:36 <EvanR> theres nothing neutral about twos complement or ieee floating point
837 2011-01-29 15:12:43 <EvanR> or whatever integer rep
838 2011-01-29 15:12:44 <hacim> EvanR: tried m0n's miner yet?
839 2011-01-29 15:12:51 <luke-jr> EvanR: the concrete representation of base units is inherent in the bitcoin system at the lowest level. this representation is neutral to decimal and tonal bitcoins, and equally represents both.
840 2011-01-29 15:12:59 <EvanR> hacim: looks like a lot of work to set up
841 2011-01-29 15:13:12 <hacim> i got higher hash rates with that one over the java one (also the cpu wasn't pegged by java all the time)
842 2011-01-29 15:13:13 <EvanR> luke-jr: who cares about the implementation just make a gui
843 2011-01-29 15:13:17 <hacim> EvanR: its pretty easy actually
844 2011-01-29 15:13:25 <EvanR> 'i want it to look a certain way so change the lowest level machinery'
845 2011-01-29 15:13:29 <hacim> git clone, pull the python lib and you are done
846 2011-01-29 15:13:51 <luke-jr> EvanR: nothing to do with how it looks. the lowest level is already fine.
847 2011-01-29 15:13:59 <luke-jr> it's just the middle-ware which limits usability
848 2011-01-29 15:14:02 <EvanR> good then youre done
849 2011-01-29 15:14:23 <EvanR> hacim: clone one python lib and im done?
850 2011-01-29 15:14:24 <luke-jr> the RPC layer currently cannot represent TBC at all
851 2011-01-29 15:14:36 <ArtForzZz> and yes, round-to-0.01 for RPC interface is fucking stupid
852 2011-01-29 15:14:36 <EvanR> why is the rpc layer representing TBC at all
853 2011-01-29 15:15:02 <luke-jr> EvanR: to use TBC, the RPC layer needs to represent it in some form or another
854 2011-01-29 15:15:10 <hacim> EvanR: clone m0n's git repo, and then install the python lib
855 2011-01-29 15:15:24 <hacim> i presume you have python already
856 2011-01-29 15:15:33 <EvanR> it literally says a string a glyphs on the gui, so you want to stuff that into the rpc
857 2011-01-29 15:15:39 <ArtForzZz> mno
858 2011-01-29 15:15:41 <luke-jr> EvanR: no.
859 2011-01-29 15:15:55 <ArtForzZz> the problem is rpc rounds to 0.01 BTC for sendto
860 2011-01-29 15:15:55 <EvanR> hacim: i have python
861 2011-01-29 15:16:05 <luke-jr> EvanR: the RPC *cannot* represent 0.009 BTC, either
862 2011-01-29 15:16:09 <EvanR> fixing that doesnt seem to be related to TBC
863 2011-01-29 15:16:23 <luke-jr> EvanR: it's not, but TBC benefits from it.
864 2011-01-29 15:16:32 <EvanR> parallel discussions
865 2011-01-29 15:16:45 <ArtForzZz> iirc we already use full 8-digit precision for outputting stuff
866 2011-01-29 15:16:46 <luke-jr> TBC support is one thing this bug affects
867 2011-01-29 15:17:07 <luke-jr> but the bug is not directly related to TBC
868 2011-01-29 15:17:31 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: agree, but people will vote against ya because they want no part of TBC ;)
869 2011-01-29 15:17:56 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: yeah, people opposed to progress-- how'd they get into the bitcoin community? :P
870 2011-01-29 15:18:00 <ArtForzZz> ./bitcoind getbalance
871 2011-01-29 15:18:09 <luke-jr> also, BTC itself will need to be adjusted at some point
872 2011-01-29 15:18:16 <ArtForzZz> wgy?
873 2011-01-29 15:18:18 <ArtForzZz> *why?
874 2011-01-29 15:18:18 <luke-jr> because it's simply too big for any real-world adoption
875 2011-01-29 15:18:37 <luke-jr> 1 of 21 million is too big if the system ever gets any adoption
876 2011-01-29 15:18:48 <luke-jr> there's billions of people
877 2011-01-29 15:19:03 <ArtForzZz> so?
878 2011-01-29 15:19:06 <luke-jr> with the current size of BTC, 1 BTC would be the equivalent of a millionaire
879 2011-01-29 15:19:14 <EvanR> that assumes something about prices in the far future
880 2011-01-29 15:19:15 <luke-jr> on a global scale
881 2011-01-29 15:19:21 <ArtForzZz> total money in circulation != total value of economy
882 2011-01-29 15:19:30 <luke-jr> EvanR: it's a necessary assumption, if bitcoin is adopted
883 2011-01-29 15:19:42 <EvanR> necessary assumption, interesting
884 2011-01-29 15:19:53 <luke-jr> if 21 million people ever use bitcoin, that's 1 per person
885 2011-01-29 15:19:55 <Cusipzzz> at that point we'll be using all decimal digits
886 2011-01-29 15:19:59 <ArtForzZz> "because I said so."
887 2011-01-29 15:19:59 <luke-jr> they would need to have significant value
888 2011-01-29 15:20:28 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: exactly. what sense will the RPC v0 interface have then? :P
889 2011-01-29 15:20:31 <ArtForzZz> wow, lucky we still have 6 orders of magnitude precision left
890 2011-01-29 15:21:08 <xelister> but rules need to be changed about the minimum 0.01 transfer cost
891 2011-01-29 15:21:11 <luke-jr> decimal bitcoin will be rebased on 10-1000 base units, etc
892 2011-01-29 15:21:18 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: i'm not against it, and it will be fixed eventually. just saying that your preaching of TBC like jesus carrying the cross is not helping your cause ;)
893 2011-01-29 15:21:22 <ArtForzZz> erm... probably not
894 2011-01-29 15:21:28 <luke-jr> and to say 1 BTC, you'll have to RPC a value of 0.000001
895 2011-01-29 15:21:32 <EvanR> luke-jr: it might be displayed differently
896 2011-01-29 15:21:47 <ArtForzZz> no, to say 1 btc you'll have a rpc value of 1.0
897 2011-01-29 15:21:56 <EvanR> Cusipzzz: thats not a very good analog, look at jesus xD
898 2011-01-29 15:22:00 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: TBC is the entire purpose of BitCoin, to me. ;)
899 2011-01-29 15:22:13 <xelister> wtf is tbc
900 2011-01-29 15:22:18 <EvanR> lol
901 2011-01-29 15:22:24 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: and that turns a lot of people off, so you might as well go away now :)
902 2011-01-29 15:22:40 <luke-jr> xelister: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_BitCoin
903 2011-01-29 15:23:02 <EvanR> hacim: ok i have the git repo
904 2011-01-29 15:23:05 <EvanR> which python lib is it?
905 2011-01-29 15:23:16 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: and invent a clone of bitcoin for TBC, that can't easily be converted for those who prefer decimal? :P
906 2011-01-29 15:23:18 <xelister> "BitCoin-bong "
907 2011-01-29 15:23:21 <xelister> WHAT THE FUCK
908 2011-01-29 15:23:30 <EvanR> hahaha
909 2011-01-29 15:23:47 <Cusipzzz> luke-jr: go ahead, create your own,and see who adopts!
910 2011-01-29 15:23:57 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: better to do it this way, so adoption can be gradual
911 2011-01-29 15:24:03 <xelister> did someone smoked the bong while designing this??
912 2011-01-29 15:24:21 <Cusipzzz> people don't want to adopt, you need to see that reality at some point :)
913 2011-01-29 15:24:30 <luke-jr> xelister: I doubt a notable genius was smoking much
914 2011-01-29 15:24:41 <ArtForzZz> I see a problem with rounding sendto to 0.01 in the future, which is a 1-line change
915 2011-01-29 15:24:51 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: most people don't want to adopt bitcoin, either. ;)
916 2011-01-29 15:25:12 <ArtForzZz> it already uses full to-base-unit precision for returning stuff
917 2011-01-29 15:25:28 <Cusipzzz> ArtForzZz: exactly, and that will be fixed. but creating multiple unit-notation scheme friendly BTC to create even more confusion, don't see it
918 2011-01-29 15:25:35 <ArtForzZz> yep
919 2011-01-29 15:25:39 <ArtForzZz> same here
920 2011-01-29 15:26:27 <ArtForzZz> just change the sendto rounding and "dust spam" min amount when BTC value increases by another order of magnitude or so
921 2011-01-29 15:26:32 <luke-jr> using a biased unit for implementation is just bad design
922 2011-01-29 15:26:55 <ArtForzZz> actually those 2 are somewhat independent
923 2011-01-29 15:27:28 <ArtForzZz> my fork does full-precision sendto since r153 or so
924 2011-01-29 15:27:31 <Cusipzzz> if the biased unit leads to consistency and prevents confusion - that works for most users :)
925 2011-01-29 15:27:41 <luke-jr> Cusipzzz: it doesn't.
926 2011-01-29 15:27:50 <Cusipzzz> well, need to fix the round, obv
927 2011-01-29 15:28:21 <hacim> EvanR: sorry, was cooking breakfast
928 2011-01-29 15:28:31 <luke-jr> it's like a store sticking to USD and refusing to accept bitcoin unless you convert it first
929 2011-01-29 15:28:41 <ArtForzZz> no, not at all
930 2011-01-29 15:29:01 <hacim> EvanR: you need pyopencl, and you should check out this library directly into the m0m source dir: svn checkout http://svn.json-rpc.org/trunk/python-jsonrpc
931 2011-01-29 15:29:26 <hacim> EvanR: once you svn check that out, cd python-jsonrpc; sudo python setup.py install
932 2011-01-29 15:29:56 <hacim> (sorry I said one library before, looks like its two... on debian one of those is packaged)
933 2011-01-29 15:29:57 <EvanR> im cloning pyopencl now
934 2011-01-29 15:31:37 <hacim> actually I dont recall if pyopencl is needed, or if that was needed when I had the nvidia card
935 2011-01-29 15:32:47 <EvanR> i tried to run the miner and it said no module found
936 2011-01-29 15:32:49 <EvanR> so i do
937 2011-01-29 15:33:04 <hacim> ah
938 2011-01-29 15:33:15 <hacim> oh you also need to set your environment variables
939 2011-01-29 15:33:20 <EvanR> fun
940 2011-01-29 15:33:32 <EvanR> the ubuntu guide didnt say anything about those
941 2011-01-29 15:33:56 <hacim> maybe they aren't needed if you installed the SDK correctly
942 2011-01-29 15:33:58 <hacim> i probably didn't
943 2011-01-29 15:34:05 <hacim> i just put it in my home directory