1 2011-03-03 00:00:58 <dazoe> so what happend at the last block. will bitcoin just die off and cease to exist?
  2 2011-03-03 00:01:14 <dazoe> in year ~2033?
  3 2011-03-03 00:01:53 <lfm> naw, the fixed rewards go to zero but the fees are still there to reward miners
  4 2011-03-03 00:02:07 <lfm> year 2133 more like
  5 2011-03-03 00:07:11 <dazoe> from what i under stand it's searching for a block with a hash with the first x bits 0 out of (496?) there was a question here but i just figured it out on my own...
  6 2011-03-03 00:07:11 <Syke> I might actually stop mining a few minutes to play Boom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdk0auH5dVI&feature=related
  7 2011-03-03 00:07:46 <Syke> bulletstorm
  8 2011-03-03 00:09:12 <dazoe> looks like an AWESOME game
  9 2011-03-03 00:11:37 <[Tycho]> Four-barreled shotgun ? Oh...
 10 2011-03-03 00:12:42 <[Tycho]> Is it for PC ?
 11 2011-03-03 00:15:02 <TheKid> yes
 12 2011-03-03 00:19:04 <xelister> TheKid: linux?
 13 2011-03-03 00:26:38 <TheKid> xelister: don't think so
 14 2011-03-03 00:31:14 <Mango-chan> is slush's pool down
 15 2011-03-03 00:31:47 <TheKid> working for me
 16 2011-03-03 00:32:39 <Mango-chan> TheKid really?
 17 2011-03-03 00:33:09 <TheKid> no I'm lying to you
 18 2011-03-03 00:33:12 <TheKid> for fun and profit
 19 2011-03-03 00:33:22 <Mango-chan> hm
 20 2011-03-03 00:33:24 <Mango-chan> i can't ping the site
 21 2011-03-03 00:33:58 <TheKid> mining.bitcoin.cz?
 22 2011-03-03 00:34:03 <Mango-chan> yeah
 23 2011-03-03 00:34:11 <Mango-chan> Pinging mining.bitcoin.cz [178.79.147.99] with 32 bytes of data:
 24 2011-03-03 00:34:12 <Mango-chan> Request timed out.
 25 2011-03-03 00:34:14 <Mango-chan> work on my server
 26 2011-03-03 00:34:21 <OneFixt> Mango-chan: feel free to try the bitpenny upgrade, it's open
 27 2011-03-03 00:34:21 <TheKid> weird
 28 2011-03-03 00:34:23 <Mango-chan> weird
 29 2011-03-03 00:34:34 <TheKid> pings fine for me
 30 2011-03-03 00:34:36 <Mango-chan> did they fix it?
 31 2011-03-03 00:34:39 <Mango-chan> bitpenny
 32 2011-03-03 00:34:44 <Mango-chan> i thought the owner lost money or something
 33 2011-03-03 00:34:55 <OneFixt> nope, i'm the owner, it was in private mode while being upgraded
 34 2011-03-03 00:36:09 <TheKid> OneFixt: have you been making 10
 35 2011-03-03 00:36:13 <TheKid> 10%
 36 2011-03-03 00:36:18 <TheKid> like I suspect you will?
 37 2011-03-03 00:36:44 <OneFixt> TheKid: theoretically
 38 2011-03-03 00:37:25 <TheKid> I'm asking actual numbers :P
 39 2011-03-03 00:37:43 <OneFixt> sorry, the only actual numbers that I can give you are the ones in your balance =)
 40 2011-03-03 00:38:01 <tcatm> the new bitcoincharts.com is live :)
 41 2011-03-03 00:38:02 <Mango-chan> s> 270 bitcoins
 42 2011-03-03 00:38:17 <TheKid> OneFixt: if that changes, let me know ;)
 43 2011-03-03 00:38:34 <TheKid> I'm curious as to whether you are profitable, and if so, if you'll lower fees\n296476
 44 2011-03-03 00:40:49 <larsig> tcatm, nice man
 45 2011-03-03 00:44:38 <OneFixt> tcatm: very nice
 46 2011-03-03 01:00:32 <[Tycho]> Who is the owner of bitcoincharts.com ?
 47 2011-03-03 01:00:34 <jgarzik> where's mmarker?
 48 2011-03-03 01:00:37 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: tcatm
 49 2011-03-03 01:00:39 <jgarzik> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.msg58644#msg58644
 50 2011-03-03 01:00:43 <bitbot> Yet one CPU SSE2 miner for Windows Connection refused.
 51 2011-03-03 01:04:08 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, why would you even do that
 52 2011-03-03 01:04:17 <phantomcircuit> what's the point of a slightly faster cpu implementation?
 53 2011-03-03 01:04:27 <phantomcircuit> it's already just barely worth it
 54 2011-03-03 01:06:21 <gribble> tcatm was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 28 minutes and 20 seconds ago: <tcatm> the new bitcoincharts.com is live :)
 55 2011-03-03 01:06:21 <[Tycho]> ;;seen tcatm
 56 2011-03-03 01:06:36 <tcatm> I'm here ;)
 57 2011-03-03 01:06:48 <[Tycho]> Cool.
 58 2011-03-03 01:08:07 <Syke> looks good
 59 2011-03-03 01:09:01 <LobsterMan> is there a changelog somewhere for the new version if bitcoin?
 60 2011-03-03 01:09:22 <LobsterMan> of*
 61 2011-03-03 01:10:15 <phantomcircuit> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master
 62 2011-03-03 01:10:56 <phantomcircuit> i like how EURO is trading at half the value of USD for BTC
 63 2011-03-03 01:11:16 <mmarker> grrr
 64 2011-03-03 01:11:20 <mmarker> So damn close :(
 65 2011-03-03 01:11:55 <phantomcircuit> indeed if you had enough cash you could make some money arrbitraging EUR/USD via BTC
 66 2011-03-03 01:14:22 <gribble> Error: "bc," is not a valid command.
 67 2011-03-03 01:14:22 <mmarker> ;;bc, calcd 12000
 68 2011-03-03 01:14:31 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 12000 1
 69 2011-03-03 01:14:32 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 5 minutes and 57 seconds
 70 2011-03-03 01:14:58 <mmarker> wish I had the probabilty curve for this...
 71 2011-03-03 01:16:57 <mmarker> Hmm, I;m assuming the pools ask for difficulty 1 blocks?
 72 2011-03-03 01:17:33 <[Tycho]> Yes.
 73 2011-03-03 01:17:44 <mmarker> damn, I'm not getting lucky then :(
 74 2011-03-03 01:17:59 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 12000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 12069.940567 BTC per day and 502.914190292 BTC per hour.
 75 2011-03-03 01:17:59 <lfm> ;;bc,gend 12000 1
 76 2011-03-03 01:18:30 <gribble> (bc,gend <an alias, 2 arguments>) -- Alias for "echo The expected generation output, at $1 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of $2, is [math calc 50*24*60*60 / (1/((2**224-1)/$2*$1*1000/2**256))] BTC per day and [math calc 50*60*60 / (1/((2**224-1)/$2*$1*1000/2**256))] BTC per hour.".
 77 2011-03-03 01:18:30 <lfm> ;;bc,gend 12000
 78 2011-03-03 01:18:36 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 12000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 0.217123384962 BTC per day and 0.00904680770675 BTC per hour.
 79 2011-03-03 01:18:36 <lfm> ;;bc,gen 12000
 80 2011-03-03 01:19:32 <mmarker> How many blocks are on the testnet?
 81 2011-03-03 01:19:49 <AmpEater> ;;bc,gen 1200000
 82 2011-03-03 01:19:50 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 21.7123384962 BTC per day and 0.904680770675 BTC per hour.
 83 2011-03-03 01:20:12 <mmarker> Hmm
 84 2011-03-03 01:20:18 <mmarker> get H==0
 85 2011-03-03 01:20:24 <mmarker> but not enough 0's :\n296536
 86 2011-03-03 01:21:04 <tcatm> mmarker: 10161 blocks
 87 2011-03-03 01:21:09 <mmarker> hmm
 88 2011-03-03 01:21:13 <mmarker> must still be d/l then
 89 2011-03-03 01:22:57 <mmarker> Ok, on the testnet
 90 2011-03-03 01:23:44 <mmarker> Come on little miner...work!
 91 2011-03-03 01:24:20 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 12400 32
 92 2011-03-03 01:24:21 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12400 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 32, is 3 hours, 4 minutes, and 43 seconds
 93 2011-03-03 01:24:25 <mmarker> Wait
 94 2011-03-03 01:24:27 <mmarker> grr
 95 2011-03-03 01:25:03 <mmarker> Back to the pool!
 96 2011-03-03 01:29:08 <mmarker> Ok, I *know* my sha hashing is good
 97 2011-03-03 01:29:13 <lfm> why diff 32?
 98 2011-03-03 01:30:17 <mmarker> that was what was on the testnet
 99 2011-03-03 01:30:40 <lfm> oh ok
100 2011-03-03 01:34:59 <mmarker> hmm
101 2011-03-03 01:35:22 <mmarker> Spam incoming:
102 2011-03-03 01:35:26 <mmarker> Proof: 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000509a809aee896fb2
103 2011-03-03 01:35:27 <mmarker> Target: 00000000ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
104 2011-03-03 01:35:28 <mmarker> nonce: 0x827759, nonce_base: 0x827758
105 2011-03-03 01:35:51 <mmarker> I'm thinking that many 0's shouldn't be in the getwork back to the server
106 2011-03-03 01:36:29 <mmarker> Course, I don't even see my nonce in there...
107 2011-03-03 01:38:13 <phantomcircuit> mmarker, why would your nonce be in the getwork?
108 2011-03-03 01:38:19 <phantomcircuit> you're just going to overwrite it anyways
109 2011-03-03 01:38:34 <xelister> COULD NOT REPORT THE BLOCK to server! Block found, but server was unreachable!!!
110 2011-03-03 01:38:35 <xelister> x10
111 2011-03-03 01:38:39 <mmarker> Hmm, so what gets sent to the serber.
112 2011-03-03 01:38:41 <xelister> on slush.  all ok with slush pool?
113 2011-03-03 01:38:42 <mmarker> err, server
114 2011-03-03 01:39:27 <jgarzik> mmarker: 128 hex chars of 'data'
115 2011-03-03 01:39:44 <jgarzik> mmarker: er, 256 hex chars representing 128 bytes
116 2011-03-03 01:39:53 <mmarker> well, what's in the data...since I dont think that big strings of 0's looks right
117 2011-03-03 01:40:20 <jgarzik> mmarker: it's right:
118 2011-03-03 01:40:26 <mmarker> hmm
119 2011-03-03 01:40:29 <jgarzik> "00000001cf4a5f9fa73de207c6b0975a1e8f41e156250c1ed71ddf0b00011bc9000000007a80a897fc906f858e3c2498acf916ca9086695f0b333beed324a13f1a00fd0f4d6eff871b012dcd00000000000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080020000"
120 2011-03-03 01:40:44 <jgarzik> mmarker: you're just patching 4 bytes into offset 76, and leaving the rest alone
121 2011-03-03 01:40:51 <mmarker> The nonce?
122 2011-03-03 01:40:59 <jgarzik> mmarker: correct
123 2011-03-03 01:41:30 <mmarker> Of which, I don't see it in the data :(
124 2011-03-03 01:42:51 <jgarzik> mmarker: in the hex string, it's at offset 76*2
125 2011-03-03 01:43:48 <mmarker> Yes. But see my debug. The nonce should be 0x00827759
126 2011-03-03 01:43:51 <lfm> you have to find the nonce of course
127 2011-03-03 01:43:55 <mmarker> Which is where it's wonky!
128 2011-03-03 01:44:41 <mmarker> wait, I see it
129 2011-03-03 01:44:43 <lfm> generally you start at 1 and increment till you find a good nonce
130 2011-03-03 01:44:48 <jgarzik> mmarker: yeah I see that value
131 2011-03-03 01:44:53 <mmarker> lfm: I know! :D
132 2011-03-03 01:45:03 <mmarker> I'm trying to figure out why my code is still acting bogus :\n296595
133 2011-03-03 01:47:27 <mmarker> hmm
134 2011-03-03 01:47:46 <mmarker> this is wierd
135 2011-03-03 01:48:05 <jgarzik> mmarker: you're not byte-swapping the nonce too many times, are you?
136 2011-03-03 01:48:16 <mmarker> jgarzik: Dont think so
137 2011-03-03 01:48:55 <jgarzik> mmarker: the byte ordering is a bit non-standard, so it requires some attention (note differences between sha256_via and sha256_generic)
138 2011-03-03 01:49:17 <mmarker> jgarzik: Yea, I'm copying more of the 4way code, really
139 2011-03-03 01:49:35 <mmarker> but now I have something odder going on.
140 2011-03-03 01:49:50 <jgarzik> mmarker: have you seen http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=3486.msg58644#msg58644 ?
141 2011-03-03 01:49:53 <bitbot> Yet one CPU SSE2 miner for Windows Connection refused.
142 2011-03-03 01:50:13 <mmarker> Yes. He's distributing the binary blob of JWASM
143 2011-03-03 01:50:38 <mmarker> which (a), I dont want to touch with a 10 foot pole, and B, it's just a chopped up hack of the original src dump
144 2011-03-03 01:51:27 <mmarker> Bad license, MASM duplicate
145 2011-03-03 01:51:59 <mmarker> well, Open Wacom license
146 2011-03-03 01:55:57 <bk128> tcatm: new bitcoincharts design looks great
147 2011-03-03 01:56:34 <tcatm> :)
148 2011-03-03 01:56:37 <mmarker> Ok
149 2011-03-03 02:00:40 <mmarker> SOMEHOW
150 2011-03-03 02:00:43 <mmarker> I have no clue HOW
151 2011-03-03 02:00:55 <mmarker> my code is doing the sha256(sha256()) properly
152 2011-03-03 02:01:17 <mmarker> oh, wait
153 2011-03-03 02:01:18 <mmarker> no
154 2011-03-03 02:01:20 <mmarker> Damnit
155 2011-03-03 02:03:19 <mmarker> hmm, 2nd pass
156 2011-03-03 02:03:21 <mmarker> bad
157 2011-03-03 02:06:40 <EvanR_> when did diff go from 36k to 55k
158 2011-03-03 02:07:56 <bk128> last week?
159 2011-03-03 02:08:27 <[Tycho]> mmarker, what's wrong ?
160 2011-03-03 02:08:34 <EvanR_> the date! whats the date!
161 2011-03-03 02:08:39 <EvanR_> nov 5 1955
162 2011-03-03 02:08:48 <mmarker> tycho: My first pass through my sha256 code, the hash is good
163 2011-03-03 02:08:55 <mmarker> the 2nd pass, it's all messed up :(
164 2011-03-03 02:09:34 <jgarzik> mmarker: you == chromicant, right?
165 2011-03-03 02:09:38 <mmarker> yup
166 2011-03-03 02:10:16 <EvanR_> the nullvoid diff list seems to be down?
167 2011-03-03 02:10:16 <jgarzik> mmarker: is your cpuminer pull request really final?  new commits keep appearing.
168 2011-03-03 02:10:18 <EvanR_> is there another
169 2011-03-03 02:10:39 <mmarker> jgarzik: For ARM, it should be
170 2011-03-03 02:10:40 <jgarzik> mmarker: I'm happy to merge arm and validation, if they are working
171 2011-03-03 02:10:49 <mmarker> arm and validation are working
172 2011-03-03 02:11:02 <mmarker> But I should be commiting to the SSE2 branch
173 2011-03-03 02:12:21 <jgarzik> mmarker: can you create separate pull requests for ARM and validation, please?  I like to clean up the history a bit.  Like the linux kernel, for brand new code, we don't import history like:  commit AB "skeleton code"  commit BC "it builds!"  commit CD "doh fix a bug"  commit DE "dooh another bug"
174 2011-03-03 02:12:40 <mmarker> Ok, I can do a rebase on my end
175 2011-03-03 02:12:45 <jgarzik> mmarker: thanks
176 2011-03-03 02:13:01 <jgarzik> mmarker: I'll close out the current PR
177 2011-03-03 02:15:34 <mmarker> Thank.
178 2011-03-03 02:15:58 <mmarker> So, this is just bizzare. Round 1 of sha256, hash is good. Second round, it blows up
179 2011-03-03 02:16:05 <mmarker> time for the debugger
180 2011-03-03 02:21:33 <mmarker> yea, something is bizzare
181 2011-03-03 02:25:54 <mmarker> Ok, never good when random data comes back
182 2011-03-03 02:26:45 <mmarker> Yay! Mystery memory corruption!
183 2011-03-03 02:30:01 <mmarker> Hmm...Oh snap. Globals bad.
184 2011-03-03 02:32:31 <JFK911> heh
185 2011-03-03 02:35:07 <xg0d> can someone explain the mining concept to me real quick? sorry for the n00b request
186 2011-03-03 02:35:51 <jrabbit> my sisters macbook isn't even gettign hot running sha256 operations on the gpu
187 2011-03-03 02:36:12 <jrabbit> xg0d: do you get how they work in context of bitcoin?
188 2011-03-03 02:36:36 <jrabbit> xg0d: basically they verify and facilitate the trades, and for doing that they're rewarded
189 2011-03-03 02:37:00 <jgarzik> mmarker: FYI new version release tonight.  You'll want to base your PR on that.
190 2011-03-03 02:37:15 <mmarker> I'll pull before the work
191 2011-03-03 02:37:35 <xg0d> ty jrabbit
192 2011-03-03 02:37:45 <luke-jr> jgarzik: new version of what?
193 2011-03-03 02:37:52 <jgarzik> luke-jr: cpuminer
194 2011-03-03 02:37:55 <luke-jr> ah
195 2011-03-03 02:38:06 <luke-jr> was gonna say& a bit early for a new bitcoind/wx
196 2011-03-03 02:38:30 <luke-jr> jgarzik: any AVX/etc support yet? ;)
197 2011-03-03 02:38:40 <mmarker> hmm.
198 2011-03-03 02:38:44 <jgarzik> luke-jr: waiting for your PR on that
199 2011-03-03 02:38:57 <mmarker> SO, my pointers for some reason are bogusified.
200 2011-03-03 02:39:12 <luke-jr> my PR? O.o
201 2011-03-03 02:39:22 <mmarker> Pull Request
202 2011-03-03 02:39:25 <luke-jr> o
203 2011-03-03 02:39:31 <mmarker> i.e. Git codin!
204 2011-03-03 02:39:45 <luke-jr> I haven't the slightest idea where I'd even begin with something like that
205 2011-03-03 02:39:54 <mmarker> it's pretty simple
206 2011-03-03 02:39:57 <luke-jr> there are no examples for any AVX stuff, and I don't know x86 assembly
207 2011-03-03 02:39:58 <mmarker> the code is pretty clean
208 2011-03-03 02:40:07 <mmarker> luke-jr: That's my problem
209 2011-03-03 02:40:11 <luke-jr> I also have no idea how SHA-2 works :P
210 2011-03-03 02:40:24 <jrabbit> luke-jr: does anyone?
211 2011-03-03 02:40:25 <mmarker> Read wikipedia
212 2011-03-03 02:40:28 <mmarker> It's really simple
213 2011-03-03 02:40:33 <jrabbit> :P
214 2011-03-03 02:40:45 <luke-jr> mmarker: if it's really simple, why didn't we have it in 1980?
215 2011-03-03 02:40:58 <mmarker> Well, we had DES :D
216 2011-03-03 02:41:15 <mmarker> and someone probably had something....but didn't tell anyone
217 2011-03-03 02:41:55 <jgarzik> mmarker: for validation, I would think you'd want to pick an actual block header where a nonce was found.  that would permit timing and algorithm fitness checks.
218 2011-03-03 02:42:16 <xg0d> mmarker lol
219 2011-03-03 02:42:31 <mmarker> jgarzik: Probably a good idea
220 2011-03-03 02:43:21 <mmarker> Ok, something bizzare...I must be smashing a stack somewhere
221 2011-03-03 02:44:30 <luke-jr> so can I use AVX in C without assembly? :P
222 2011-03-03 02:44:39 <mmarker> you can, but god, it'll suck
223 2011-03-03 02:44:45 <luke-jr> >_<
224 2011-03-03 02:49:09 <luke-jr> yeah, this is futile
225 2011-03-03 02:49:40 <luke-jr> sure, SHA-2 looks simple enough on wiki, but how to make use of AVX or SHLD/ADC is very non-obvious
226 2011-03-03 02:49:58 <luke-jr> in fact, I don't even see a left-shift in SHA-2
227 2011-03-03 02:52:12 <mmarker> back
228 2011-03-03 02:52:21 <jrabbit> [Tycho]: do I need a seperate worker account for each instance of miner stuff?
229 2011-03-03 02:52:49 <mmarker> I wish I could wave a magic wand and get this code to magically be fixed...grrr
230 2011-03-03 02:53:31 <xelister> mmarker: you can
231 2011-03-03 02:53:35 <xelister> its called btc
232 2011-03-03 02:53:42 <mmarker> haha
233 2011-03-03 02:53:50 <xelister> srsly
234 2011-03-03 02:54:05 <xelister> mmarker: what needs to be fixed where
235 2011-03-03 02:54:06 <[Tycho]> jrabbit, no.
236 2011-03-03 02:54:33 <mmarker> well, trying to figure out why a first call to a function is OK
237 2011-03-03 02:54:36 <[Tycho]> jrabbit, you can use same account for all miners or create different workers, that makes no difference for me.
238 2011-03-03 02:54:41 <mmarker> the 2nd call, and all hell breaks loose
239 2011-03-03 02:55:01 <mmarker> hmm. "Use of uninitialized value"
240 2011-03-03 02:55:04 <mmarker> Well now
241 2011-03-03 02:55:07 <jrabbit> [Tycho]: oh ok
242 2011-03-03 02:55:27 <mmarker> all in libc
243 2011-03-03 02:55:31 <mmarker> thank you
244 2011-03-03 02:58:37 <luke-jr> mmarker: try valgrind
245 2011-03-03 02:58:50 <mmarker> That was valgrind
246 2011-03-03 02:58:57 <luke-jr> lol
247 2011-03-03 02:59:28 <FreeMoney> mtgox down?
248 2011-03-03 03:00:20 <mmarker> hmm
249 2011-03-03 03:01:20 <mmarker> jgarzik: Still here. What exactly is in hash1 in the call to the scanhash functions?
250 2011-03-03 03:02:04 <doublec> FreeMoney: down for me
251 2011-03-03 03:02:55 <FreeMoney> it told me "invalid bitcoin address" when I tried to withdraw about 2 hours ago, I wrote to Jed and got no reply yet
252 2011-03-03 03:03:10 <mmarker> Oh maybe valgrind was right
253 2011-03-03 03:05:44 <noagendamarket> mt gox and bitcoin central are both down
254 2011-03-03 03:06:00 <xg0d> sadness =(
255 2011-03-03 03:06:09 <xg0d> i wanted to buy some btcs lol
256 2011-03-03 03:06:18 <tcatm> bitcoinmarket.com and btcex.com are still up
257 2011-03-03 03:06:23 <xg0d> thx bro!
258 2011-03-03 03:06:26 <mmarker> Ok, kids.
259 2011-03-03 03:06:29 <mmarker> Today's lesson
260 2011-03-03 03:06:37 <mmarker> Never use uninitialized variables
261 2011-03-03 03:06:43 <xg0d> ah yes
262 2011-03-03 03:06:46 <xg0d> this isnt php =P
263 2011-03-03 03:07:13 <jrabbit> ./configure: line 4305: syntax error near unexpected token `LIBCURL_CHECK_CONFIG'
264 2011-03-03 03:07:16 <jrabbit> Fuck
265 2011-03-03 03:08:05 <jrabbit> configure.ac:48: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_ERROR
266 2011-03-03 03:08:06 <jrabbit> Hm
267 2011-03-03 03:08:26 <mmarker> Time to mine
268 2011-03-03 03:08:31 <mmarker> jrabbit: install libcurl-dev
269 2011-03-03 03:09:03 <mmarker> ;;bc,calcd 14800 1
270 2011-03-03 03:09:04 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14800 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 4 minutes and 50 seconds
271 2011-03-03 03:09:05 <jrabbit> I jsut installed libcurl myself!
272 2011-03-03 03:09:23 <jrabbit> let alone that osx coems with curl
273 2011-03-03 03:09:33 <mmarker> Ok, so the odds say that I will not get it right this time either :D
274 2011-03-03 03:09:40 <jrabbit> heh
275 2011-03-03 03:09:56 <mmarker> jrabbit: may not have the aclocal macro in a place aclocal will find it
276 2011-03-03 03:10:26 <mmarker> Ok, downside. If this works, my hash rate per core is only 3.7Mhash/s
277 2011-03-03 03:10:29 <mmarker> which is sad
278 2011-03-03 03:11:00 <jrabbit> :\n296762
279 2011-03-03 03:11:19 <mmarker> core i5
280 2011-03-03 03:11:20 <mmarker> 760
281 2011-03-03 03:11:26 <luke-jr> hmm
282 2011-03-03 03:11:29 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,calc 290000
283 2011-03-03 03:11:30 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 290000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 week, 2 days, 12 hours, 41 minutes, and 44 seconds
284 2011-03-03 03:11:35 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 290000
285 2011-03-03 03:11:36 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 290000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 5.24714846991 BTC per day and 0.218631186246 BTC per hour.
286 2011-03-03 03:11:44 <luke-jr> I only get like 1 MH/s/core on my i5
287 2011-03-03 03:11:52 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 330000
288 2011-03-03 03:11:53 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 330000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 5.97089308645 BTC per day and 0.248787211936 BTC per hour.
289 2011-03-03 03:12:03 <mmarker> Yea, this is the code from the SSE2 miner for windows in jgarzik's code
290 2011-03-03 03:12:13 <mmarker> But I need to make sure it can validate some work!
291 2011-03-03 03:12:18 <mmarker> which is a problem
292 2011-03-03 03:12:26 <mmarker> and jgarzik missed another optimization :D
293 2011-03-03 03:13:03 <FreeMoney> when I emailed bitcoin market about rolling my account over to the new site he said to have my password reset, but I never got the email. Now I get no response from him.
294 2011-03-03 03:13:18 <luke-jr> FreeMoney: it's ok, the new site is totally broken
295 2011-03-03 03:13:19 <FreeMoney> Did anyone else have get on? It looks pretty dead there
296 2011-03-03 03:13:31 <FreeMoney> okay
297 2011-03-03 03:13:36 <luke-jr> FreeMoney: if you put in an order to buy at .01, it purchases at 1.08 for you
298 2011-03-03 03:13:45 <FreeMoney> I wonder why he doesn't revert back to the old one till he fixes it
299 2011-03-03 03:13:58 <FreeMoney> that's pretty broken
300 2011-03-03 03:14:04 <luke-jr> I wonder why he didn't test it XD
301 2011-03-03 03:15:15 <mmarker> Wait
302 2011-03-03 03:15:21 <mmarker> WHY AM I RUNNING ON ONE CORE
303 2011-03-03 03:15:32 <mmarker> 4 cores for speed, people
304 2011-03-03 03:16:07 <luke-jr> duh
305 2011-03-03 03:16:17 <xg0d> one day i will have a bitcoin =] that will be a great day
306 2011-03-03 03:16:24 <mmarker> Heh
307 2011-03-03 03:16:30 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc 14800
308 2011-03-03 03:16:31 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14800 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 26 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 11 minutes, and 54 seconds
309 2011-03-03 03:16:45 <mmarker> I really should hack my bitcoind to return the genesis block
310 2011-03-03 03:16:51 <mmarker> to see if it can find it
311 2011-03-03 03:17:00 <mmarker> be a good test for miners
312 2011-03-03 03:17:01 <luke-jr> xg0d: I'll loan you one if you want.
313 2011-03-03 03:17:09 <xg0d> wow really!
314 2011-03-03 03:17:26 <luke-jr> xg0d: if you really don't have any&
315 2011-03-03 03:17:38 <xg0d> i swear! i just learned about this today man
316 2011-03-03 03:17:54 <phantomcircuit> so im trying to decide on an overall design for this client
317 2011-03-03 03:17:59 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, possibly you have some ideas here
318 2011-03-03 03:18:05 <xg0d> hell, id be happy with a .01
319 2011-03-03 03:18:10 <luke-jr> xg0d: be careful not to lose it
320 2011-03-03 03:18:12 <mmarker> ;;bc,block
321 2011-03-03 03:18:13 <gribble> Error: "bc,block" is not a valid command.
322 2011-03-03 03:18:17 <luke-jr> xg0d: well, the Faucet will give you 0.05
323 2011-03-03 03:18:21 <gribble> Error: "bc,current" is not a valid command.
324 2011-03-03 03:18:21 <mmarker> ;;bc,current
325 2011-03-03 03:18:25 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: like what?
326 2011-03-03 03:18:25 <phantomcircuit> so far i have each peer separated out into it's own class running as it's own thread
327 2011-03-03 03:18:28 <gribble> Error: "bc,dieinafire" is not a valid command.
328 2011-03-03 03:18:28 <mmarker> ;;bc,dieinafire
329 2011-03-03 03:18:29 <xg0d> i tried that and i guess i have to find the block?
330 2011-03-03 03:18:37 <phantomcircuit> (which on linux isn't expensive at all)
331 2011-03-03 03:18:41 <luke-jr> xg0d: huh?
332 2011-03-03 03:18:50 <xg0d> ok yea, idk what im talking about
333 2011-03-03 03:18:57 <xg0d> i just know, i havnt got the .05 lol
334 2011-03-03 03:19:01 <luke-jr> you put an address into the faucet?
335 2011-03-03 03:19:05 <mmarker> phantomcircuit: depends on how many clients you're going to scale to
336 2011-03-03 03:19:18 <xg0d> yes
337 2011-03-03 03:19:19 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: like, each connection to another peer?
338 2011-03-03 03:19:26 <luke-jr> xg0d: is your client done downloading all the blocks?
339 2011-03-03 03:19:26 <xg0d> just havnt got it yet
340 2011-03-03 03:19:27 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, yeah
341 2011-03-03 03:19:32 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: ugly
342 2011-03-03 03:19:50 <mmarker> event based!
343 2011-03-03 03:19:54 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, it's actually the suggested method for writing new servers
344 2011-03-03 03:19:55 <luke-jr> mmarker++
345 2011-03-03 03:20:01 <xg0d> luke-jr: i am on block 105k
346 2011-03-03 03:20:02 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: suggested by idiots -.-
347 2011-03-03 03:20:04 <phantomcircuit> nptl is faster than event based systems
348 2011-03-03 03:20:06 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
349 2011-03-03 03:20:07 <gribble> 111458
350 2011-03-03 03:20:07 <mmarker> perthread is like smoking 7 gram rocks
351 2011-03-03 03:20:08 <phantomcircuit> significantly so
352 2011-03-03 03:20:19 <luke-jr> xg0d: almost there
353 2011-03-03 03:20:26 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no.
354 2011-03-03 03:20:33 <phantomcircuit> lets see if i can find the paper
355 2011-03-03 03:20:42 <xg0d> im so excited about this, this is the best damn idea i have ever seen.
356 2011-03-03 03:20:43 <mmarker> Lemme find the nginx chart
357 2011-03-03 03:20:51 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: a standard async design doesn't have context switching overhead
358 2011-03-03 03:21:02 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, threading reduces the number of system calls necessary by about 50%
359 2011-03-03 03:21:10 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: nonsense
360 2011-03-03 03:21:24 <luke-jr> threading requires a syscall for every thread
361 2011-03-03 03:21:30 <luke-jr> async requires a single syscall for everything
362 2011-03-03 03:23:37 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, http://www.mailinator.com/tymaPaulMultithreaded.pdf
363 2011-03-03 03:24:09 <mmarker> 2008?
364 2011-03-03 03:24:32 <phantomcircuit> it's still accurate
365 2011-03-03 03:24:51 <xg0d> oooohhhhh shit a lightbulb just came on. so basicly, this is similar to torrent? but the concept is applied to currency, and mining takes places because they earn a little for processing the transaction?
366 2011-03-03 03:25:09 <phantomcircuit> mmarker, nptl was introduced into the kernel in early '08 iirc
367 2011-03-03 03:25:30 <mmarker> Yes, but the real sexy event based systems came later
368 2011-03-03 03:25:52 <noagendamarket> xgod  thats why we are here too
369 2011-03-03 03:26:08 <phantomcircuit> mmarker, epoll was introduced into the kernel before nptl
370 2011-03-03 03:26:40 <xg0d> purely brilliant
371 2011-03-03 03:27:48 <phantomcircuit> mmarker, also that paper specifically addresses epoll
372 2011-03-03 03:27:53 <phantomcircuit> and found it to be 25% slower
373 2011-03-03 03:28:52 <phantomcircuit> mmarker, the secret is that the event based systems require at minimum 1 extra system call
374 2011-03-03 03:29:03 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: it's by Google; they don't know anything
375 2011-03-03 03:29:31 <mmarker> luke-jr: actually, there's the classic C10K paper, also by a Google employee
376 2011-03-03 03:29:46 <mmarker> well, "paper" in the loosest sense of the word
377 2011-03-03 03:30:51 <jgarzik> mmarker: I find http://yyz.us/bitcoin/patch.bitcoin-pow-fail useful when debugging.  It's a dumb, simple patch, but it's nice info to have.
378 2011-03-03 03:31:36 <mmarker> Ahh. Hmm
379 2011-03-03 03:32:02 <mmarker> Hmm... I'd probably want to start my own testnet with low difficulty for that, then.
380 2011-03-03 03:32:03 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: it's talking a lot about Java crap
381 2011-03-03 03:32:11 <luke-jr> nothing is efficient in Java
382 2011-03-03 03:32:40 <mmarker> But this is weird, yet again....no pow after 10 minutes.
383 2011-03-03 03:32:45 <mmarker> which is just not right
384 2011-03-03 03:33:03 <luke-jr> mmarker: I went 10 days without a POW :P
385 2011-03-03 03:33:11 <luke-jr> back when it was supposed to take 5
386 2011-03-03 03:33:13 <mmarker> This is at difficulty 1 on a pool
387 2011-03-03 03:33:20 <mmarker> so, yes, it is odd
388 2011-03-03 03:33:51 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, the papers about java, but the actual technical problems all have nothing to do with java (except the notation that threads on linux used to suck, and that threads in the jvm on window sused to suck)
389 2011-03-03 03:34:27 <mmagic> what the hell is up with mtgox?
390 2011-03-03 03:34:43 <jgarzik> mmagic: moving servers
391 2011-03-03 03:35:05 <mmagic> ah.
392 2011-03-03 03:35:09 <jgarzik> mmarker: testing against a pool is fine, they have difficulty 1, and they pay you for testing :)
393 2011-03-03 03:35:09 <phantomcircuit> running away with money to the bahamas
394 2011-03-03 03:35:25 <mmarker> It's the diff 1 that I want
395 2011-03-03 03:35:37 <mmarker> but again, statistics say I should have made a hit before now...
396 2011-03-03 03:35:48 <mmagic> uh. jgarzik, how do you know this? (so I can go wherever it is you found that and then i won't ask lame questions in the future)
397 2011-03-03 03:36:06 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: except that async doesn't require more than 1 syscall per IO across all connections
398 2011-03-03 03:36:30 <doublec> mmarker: mtgox mentioned it in #bitcoin-otc
399 2011-03-03 03:37:02 <mmarker> Ok, the hashes are changing
400 2011-03-03 03:37:03 <mmagic> doh. thanks doublec.
401 2011-03-03 03:37:06 <mmarker> wait
402 2011-03-03 03:37:08 <mmarker> God damnit
403 2011-03-03 03:37:40 <da2ce7> ;;bc,stats
404 2011-03-03 03:37:41 <mmarker> Do not hash test data
405 2011-03-03 03:37:42 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111463 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1432 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 6 hours, 21 minutes, and 28 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 59741.85586512
406 2011-03-03 03:37:47 <da2ce7> ;;bc;mtgox
407 2011-03-03 03:37:48 <gribble> Error: "bc;mtgox" is not a valid command.
408 2011-03-03 03:37:59 <mmagic> whoah, difficulty estimate is down!
409 2011-03-03 03:38:14 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, huh? epoll does indeed, you make one call and are notified of what other calls you have to make
410 2011-03-03 03:38:15 <gribble> HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
411 2011-03-03 03:38:15 <mmagic> ;;bc,mtgox
412 2011-03-03 03:39:10 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: you have to make all those other calls anyway
413 2011-03-03 03:39:24 <xg0d> luke-jr: i just got my .05 :D
414 2011-03-03 03:39:31 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, that's kind of my point, with threading you dont have to make the epoll call
415 2011-03-03 03:39:54 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: yes you do
416 2011-03-03 03:40:00 <luke-jr> well, I use select, not epoll
417 2011-03-03 03:40:02 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, uh no you dont
418 2011-03-03 03:40:10 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: how do you handle timeouts?
419 2011-03-03 03:40:32 <mmarker> god, that sounds so bad.
420 2011-03-03 03:41:51 <mmarker> hmm
421 2011-03-03 03:42:30 <mmarker> Oh bugger
422 2011-03-03 03:42:39 <mmarker> wrong test for H==0
423 2011-03-03 03:43:25 <jrabbit> is it sane that a GPU would perform slower than a cpu?
424 2011-03-03 03:43:57 <xg0d> ok it says i got the .05 as a credit, but i have noticed my address has changed. is that supposed to happen? >_<
425 2011-03-03 03:43:58 <mmagic> jrabbit: which GPU. :)
426 2011-03-03 03:44:15 <jrabbit> Chipset Model:
427 2011-03-03 03:44:46 <mmarker> yes
428 2011-03-03 03:44:55 <mmarker> It helps keep you anonymous
429 2011-03-03 03:45:01 <xg0d> awesome!
430 2011-03-03 03:45:05 <mmarker> you can still get coins at your old address.
431 2011-03-03 03:45:15 <doublec> jrabbit: what are you getting on the 9400M?
432 2011-03-03 03:45:17 <mmarker> oh, and BACKUP YOUR wallet.dat file!
433 2011-03-03 03:45:24 <mmarker> lose it, you lose all your cash
434 2011-03-03 03:45:31 <xg0d> aw man that would be a bummer
435 2011-03-03 03:45:47 <jrabbit> 1300 khash ish
436 2011-03-03 03:45:59 <doublec> sounds low
437 2011-03-03 03:46:01 <mmarker> wow. That's...low
438 2011-03-03 03:46:13 <jrabbit> yeah XD
439 2011-03-03 03:46:15 <doublec> I get 9000 on a FX 880M
440 2011-03-03 03:46:24 <doublec> (another mobile nvidia chip)
441 2011-03-03 03:46:46 <jrabbit> :O
442 2011-03-03 03:46:52 <jrabbit> holy shit
443 2011-03-03 03:47:13 <jrabbit> I'm using poclbm
444 2011-03-03 03:47:24 <doublec> I also use poclbm
445 2011-03-03 03:47:24 <jrabbit> on osx
446 2011-03-03 03:47:29 <doublec> except on linux
447 2011-03-03 03:47:40 <jrabbit> hm
448 2011-03-03 03:47:46 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, rely on the OS to close the connection
449 2011-03-03 03:48:10 <doublec> jrabbit: are you sure it's using the gpu
450 2011-03-03 03:48:22 <doublec> jrabbit: and not the cpu via opencl?
451 2011-03-03 03:48:25 <mmarker> Now, wait a second
452 2011-03-03 03:48:44 <jrabbit> omly using 30% cpu python
453 2011-03-03 03:48:44 <mmarker> for work to be valid at difficulty 1, does H==0, or is that not sufficient enough?
454 2011-03-03 03:49:00 <jrabbit> oddly thats kind of high
455 2011-03-03 03:49:04 <doublec> my python is using 4%
456 2011-03-03 03:49:12 <jgarzik> mmarker: yes, H==0 is sufficient
457 2011-03-03 03:49:12 <jrabbit> doublec: yeah its using the gpu
458 2011-03-03 03:49:23 <xg0d> so i think it would be best to set this up on my server with a cron job to autoback up the wallet. sounds like a good time for tomorrow :D
459 2011-03-03 03:49:24 <mmarker> Ok, then I'm still botching something:
460 2011-03-03 03:49:25 <jrabbit> doublec: the cpu  proc ould use like 170% :P
461 2011-03-03 03:49:30 <jgarzik> mmarker: if H==0, you will get a pool share
462 2011-03-03 03:49:40 <mmarker> Hash: 13c4aecf c57b235b 528af9e2 42632d92
463 2011-03-03 03:49:40 <mmarker> Hash: ce042284 e840dba6 70c5dcd2 df5e8fd7
464 2011-03-03 03:49:42 <mmarker> Hash: f1b3f64c 6466eb8f 1ed7fa96 6bf06a4a
465 2011-03-03 03:49:44 <mmarker> Hash: c1e24eb3 106f6f5e 124f749d 0
466 2011-03-03 03:49:46 <mmarker> j: 3
467 2011-03-03 03:49:48 <mmarker> nonce: 0xd4a97, nonce_base: 0xd4a94
468 2011-03-03 03:50:07 <mmarker> my 4 way hash, nonce should have been 0xd4a97...I may have the words reversed. Back to test!
469 2011-03-03 03:52:54 <luke-jr> jrabbit: my CPU can beat that crappy GPU easy
470 2011-03-03 03:53:07 <jrabbit> luke-jr: even the macbooks cpu beat its gpu
471 2011-03-03 03:53:17 <jrabbit> luke-jr: I donno why its so bad!
472 2011-03-03 03:53:22 <nameless1> I don't even generate anymore
473 2011-03-03 03:53:26 <luke-jr> jrabbit: nvidia
474 2011-03-03 03:53:48 <jrabbit> luke-jr: hahaaha
475 2011-03-03 03:53:53 <jrabbit> luke-jr: hm
476 2011-03-03 03:54:00 <jrabbit> well I have a horrible ATI card
477 2011-03-03 03:54:08 <jrabbit> like ages old
478 2011-03-03 03:54:10 <luke-jr> can't be as bad as that nvidia
479 2011-03-03 03:54:36 <jrabbit> hah
480 2011-03-03 03:55:08 <jrabbit> luke-jr: what is actually needed to run opencl stuff on a linux box?
481 2011-03-03 03:55:24 <luke-jr> jrabbit: rtfm?
482 2011-03-03 03:55:34 <jrabbit> i mean the abstract.
483 2011-03-03 03:59:15 <mmarker> hmm, again. the 2nd round is killing me
484 2011-03-03 03:59:17 <mmarker> wtf
485 2011-03-03 04:01:25 <mmarker> Grr
486 2011-03-03 04:01:27 <mmarker> Bad cast.
487 2011-03-03 05:22:46 <jgarzik> anyone with a GPU 'getwork' miner, will to give me a few minutes of GPU time to test some pool software?  All you need is a new host/port/user/pass for testing.
488 2011-03-03 05:24:06 <tcatm> jgarzik: sure :)
489 2011-03-03 05:26:27 <tcatm> miner started
490 2011-03-03 05:26:39 <Diablo-D3> you know
491 2011-03-03 05:26:40 <tcatm> (3x 5870)
492 2011-03-03 05:26:43 <Diablo-D3> whoever invented jsonrpc
493 2011-03-03 05:26:45 <Diablo-D3> is an idiot
494 2011-03-03 05:27:10 <tcatm> you don't have to use it
495 2011-03-03 05:27:46 <tcatm> jgarzik: should I run it in pool-mode (submit every H==0)?
496 2011-03-03 05:27:58 <Diablo-D3> tcatm: yes you kind of do
497 2011-03-03 05:28:21 <jgarzik> tcatm: yes
498 2011-03-03 05:28:48 <tcatm> PROOF OF WORK RESULT: false (booooo)
499 2011-03-03 05:28:55 <jgarzik> tcatm: note that it is running full target, so it will reject a lot.  but pool mode should stress the server well.
500 2011-03-03 05:30:04 <tcatm> k
501 2011-03-03 05:30:48 <Kiba> jgarzik: how's pastecoin?
502 2011-03-03 05:32:18 <Kiba> the problem with libertarians is that they don't adopt bitcoin
503 2011-03-03 05:32:19 <jgarzik> tcatm: OK, you can turn it off now
504 2011-03-03 05:32:40 <jgarzik> Kiba: got my base site going, which has a payment system.  now to hook up pastecoin to it...
505 2011-03-03 05:33:00 <jgarzik> 1404 bitcoin   20   0  521m  65m  10m S  0.7  0.8   2:56.96 bitcoind
506 2011-03-03 05:33:05 <jgarzik> not bad
507 2011-03-03 05:33:26 <jgarzik> of course, a public test is many, many times the size.  but the async engine should handle that without a problem.
508 2011-03-03 05:33:43 <tcatm> 0.72s is efficient
509 2011-03-03 05:36:05 <Kiba> I see that bitcoin have 46 forks and 130 watchers
510 2011-03-03 05:39:37 <MT`AwAy> shit
511 2011-03-03 05:39:40 <MT`AwAy> stuff is going fasterr
512 2011-03-03 05:40:11 <Kiba> hmm?
513 2011-03-03 05:40:16 <[Tycho]> tcatm, are you going to create bitcoin video ?
514 2011-03-03 05:40:37 <Kiba> will someone ever claim the bounty's prize?
515 2011-03-03 05:41:28 <tcatm> [Tycho]: maybe. I'm only collecting ideas for now
516 2011-03-03 05:42:05 <MT`AwAy> Kiba, what bounty?
517 2011-03-03 05:42:53 <[Tycho]> Sadly, they want animated video, not live action...
518 2011-03-03 05:42:57 <Kiba> the movie bounty
519 2011-03-03 05:43:29 <tcatm> It'll be animated if I make one.
520 2011-03-03 05:43:53 <[Tycho]> How can you create animated one ?
521 2011-03-03 05:44:06 <jgarzik> someone needs to film a powerpoint presentation + audio, to present a simple, basic picture of bitcoin to newbies.
522 2011-03-03 05:44:41 <tcatm> [Tycho]: No idea, but I'm currently installing adobe's creative suite.
523 2011-03-03 05:44:44 <bitmonster> hi everyone
524 2011-03-03 05:45:48 <bitmonster> does anyone know if there is a way to send sub bitcent transactions? meaning less than 0.01 bitcoins?
525 2011-03-03 05:45:50 <Kiba> hmm, faciliating a global information economy using bitcoin
526 2011-03-03 05:46:19 <tcatm> bitmonster: not yet (you'd have to pay fees so sending 0.01 BTC would be more efficient)
527 2011-03-03 05:47:50 <tcatm> what's voy.com?
528 2011-03-03 05:48:00 <Kiba> ?
529 2011-03-03 05:48:19 <bitmonster> is there a patch for sending full precision bitcoin amounts?
530 2011-03-03 05:48:20 <Aciid> I'm a mere figure in the pool
531 2011-03-03 05:48:21 <Kiba> a messageboard?
532 2011-03-03 05:48:23 <Aciid> apathy
533 2011-03-03 05:48:35 <tcatm> 5000 hits on bitcoincharts.com with voy.com as referrer
534 2011-03-03 05:49:04 <Aciid> tcatm: can't you see the full referer url?
535 2011-03-03 05:49:08 <tcatm> http://voy.com/64855/
536 2011-03-03 05:49:49 <Aciid> thats what I got from google aswell
537 2011-03-03 05:50:00 <Kiba> I see no mention of bitcoin
538 2011-03-03 05:50:02 <Aciid> VoyForums: The Unofficial Kitco Refugees Gold and Metals Voyagers ... - [ K????nn?? t??m?? sivu ]
539 2011-03-03 05:50:06 <Aciid> http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg180ztgSzm1g10zm2g25. [ Edit | View ]; @RIP @you might think they could only play for Tampon Bay -- mozel () ...
540 2011-03-03 05:50:09 <Aciid> www.voy.com/64855/5/
541 2011-03-03 05:50:38 <Aciid> http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=voy.com+%22bitcoincharts.com%22&
542 2011-03-03 05:50:40 <Aciid> search
543 2011-03-03 05:50:54 <[Tycho]> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/04d93bf4fad686cd60d503f798494b8d1cfbe35c5b8b414d85090fe3417606a2
544 2011-03-03 05:51:08 <bitmonster> so is there a patch for sending full precision bitcoin amounts and if so does the network accept these transactions ?
545 2011-03-03 05:51:22 <Kiba> Aciid: no idea what they're fricking saying
546 2011-03-03 05:51:29 <tcatm> bitmonster: not without fees
547 2011-03-03 05:52:00 <Aciid> Kiba: same
548 2011-03-03 05:52:18 <Aciid> seems to be a free kusabahost
549 2011-03-03 05:52:42 <Aciid> or some other imageboard
550 2011-03-03 05:52:59 <nanotube> tcatm: .1001 is ok without fees.
551 2011-03-03 05:53:09 <Aciid> yay doing 0.10% of deepbit again :3
552 2011-03-03 05:53:12 <Aciid> I'm a somebody!
553 2011-03-03 05:53:14 <nanotube> bitmonster: as long as they're greater than .01, network won't complain about full precision.
554 2011-03-03 05:53:57 <bitmonster> how do i enter full precision transactions do i need to patch the client?
555 2011-03-03 05:56:27 <Syke> This is one sick card! http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121388
556 2011-03-03 05:57:08 <Aciid> I wonder how many MH/s
557 2011-03-03 05:57:45 <[Tycho]> Nice ont.
558 2011-03-03 05:57:49 <[Tycho]> Better than 5970
559 2011-03-03 05:57:50 <tcatm> 653 Mhash/s
560 2011-03-03 05:58:31 <[Tycho]> What's the price ?
561 2011-03-03 05:58:37 <Aciid> 999$
562 2011-03-03 05:58:43 <MT`AwAy> anyone knows why I get "DbEnv::open: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery" after importing a wallet ?
563 2011-03-03 05:59:07 <[Tycho]> 999$ is too much...
564 2011-03-03 05:59:17 <Aciid> it's a collectors edition
565 2011-03-03 05:59:19 <Aciid> serial numbered
566 2011-03-03 06:00:55 <[Tycho]> Isn't it way too new to be collected ?
567 2011-03-03 06:01:18 <[Tycho]> VooDoo 5500, 6600 indeed are collector's items :)
568 2011-03-03 06:01:32 <nanotube> bitmonster: yes currently you'd need a patch.
569 2011-03-03 06:01:39 <tcatm> that's marketing ;)
570 2011-03-03 06:02:34 <bitmonster> where can i get this patch?
571 2011-03-03 06:03:32 <[Tycho]> bitmonster, can you compile bitcoin ?
572 2011-03-03 06:03:56 <bitmonster> no :( i cant
573 2011-03-03 06:04:17 <[Tycho]> Then you don't need the patch.
574 2011-03-03 06:04:38 <nanotube> heh good point [Tycho]
575 2011-03-03 06:05:43 <bitmonster> how do i enter a full precision transation then? can i do it manually without gui?
576 2011-03-03 06:06:15 <nanotube> bitmonster: nope
577 2011-03-03 06:06:23 <nanotube> just wait until .21 is released
578 2011-03-03 06:06:39 <Diablo-D3> http://nerfnow.com/
579 2011-03-03 06:06:45 <Diablo-D3> the visual pun, it burns
580 2011-03-03 06:06:57 <bitmonster> .21 supports full precision then?
581 2011-03-03 06:07:20 <nanotube> bitmonster: my understanding is that that is planned for .21 release.
582 2011-03-03 06:07:25 <[Tycho]> Diablo-D3, are you from Russia ?
583 2011-03-03 06:09:05 <bitmonster> me wait for .21 then... me sad...
584 2011-03-03 06:11:07 <JFK911> preved
585 2011-03-03 06:11:41 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: no?
586 2011-03-03 06:11:44 <cosurgi> http://www.taters.net/cgi-bin/btc/matrix.pl?axisinc=0.02
587 2011-03-03 06:11:50 <cosurgi> internal server error :(
588 2011-03-03 06:26:08 <[Tycho]> Wow, 35 Gh/s peak...
589 2011-03-03 07:10:16 <Diablo-D3> lol
590 2011-03-03 07:10:19 <Diablo-D3> I made cdecker's day
591 2011-03-03 07:10:40 <dissipate> o rly?
592 2011-03-03 07:10:48 <Diablo-D3> yeah, I merged his patch
593 2011-03-03 07:10:59 <dissipate> cool
594 2011-03-03 07:23:19 <nathan7> la la la
595 2011-03-03 07:24:48 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calc 250000
596 2011-03-03 07:24:49 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 250000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 17 minutes, and 13 seconds
597 2011-03-03 07:25:42 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,calc 70000
598 2011-03-03 07:25:42 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 70000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 5 weeks, 4 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes, and 12 seconds
599 2011-03-03 07:27:55 <devon_hillard> ;;bc,rate 65000
600 2011-03-03 07:27:56 <gribble> Error: "bc,rate" is not a valid command.
601 2011-03-03 07:38:21 <legion050> ;;bc,calc 1400000
602 2011-03-03 07:38:22 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1400000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 day, 23 hours, 22 minutes, and 21 seconds
603 2011-03-03 07:38:30 <bitterJ> hello
604 2011-03-03 07:41:23 <bitterJ> I have a tech question. I got 0.05 BTC from bitcoinfaucet 10 hours ago and it still has 0 confirmations. is this normal? (btw, my bitcoin client has only 8 connections as my ISP won't give me a public IP addrees, and apparently blocks port 8333)
605 2011-03-03 07:44:20 <Aciid> bitterJ: start generating.
606 2011-03-03 07:44:38 <Aciid> ++download all blocks
607 2011-03-03 07:46:30 <[Noodles]> what exactly has generating todo with receiving?
608 2011-03-03 07:53:54 <dissipate> [Noodles], you can't do anything until you have downloaded the entire block chain.
609 2011-03-03 07:54:25 <[Noodles]> that's true, but generating or not doesnt matter
610 2011-03-03 07:54:59 <[Noodles]> besides that, bitterJ said, his tx has 0conf, means he can already see it, so i guess he has the blocks
611 2011-03-03 07:55:58 <Aciid> I thought "generating" connects to the IRC
612 2011-03-03 07:56:11 <Aciid> or does it connect on startup?
613 2011-03-03 07:56:16 <dissipate> [Noodles], his block chain could be corrupted
614 2011-03-03 07:56:18 <[Noodles]> nope, "generating" just hashes ^_^
615 2011-03-03 07:56:39 <[Noodles]> and you can shutoff irc completely
616 2011-03-03 07:57:06 <[Noodles]> dissipate: could be, yet what has "generating" todo with it?
617 2011-03-03 07:58:00 <dissipate> [Noodles], nothing
618 2011-03-03 08:26:54 <Aciid> 5970 not available in finland, gotta go with 5870
619 2011-03-03 08:28:53 <Spenvo> Hmm.  Mtgox.com is down for me.  Anyone else?
620 2011-03-03 08:29:07 <MT`AwAy> Spenvo, http://twitter.com/MtGox/status/43238072393023488
621 2011-03-03 08:29:24 <MT`AwAy> or other option: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4073.0
622 2011-03-03 08:29:26 <bitbot> '403 forbidden' at Mt.Gox Connection refused.
623 2011-03-03 08:29:53 <Spenvo> ty
624 2011-03-03 08:33:37 <Spenvo> Does anyone know of a good independent Bitcoin blog/specialty site?
625 2011-03-03 08:37:42 <nevezen> what does that even mean?
626 2011-03-03 08:38:14 <noagendamarket> Spenvo what do you mean ?
627 2011-03-03 08:40:13 <Spenvo> Well, I'm thinking of starting a Bitcoin blog, and I was wondering what, outside of the wikis and official sites, were your favorite current blogs, etc.
628 2011-03-03 08:41:10 <Spenvo> I've found some interesting stuff, including a Bitcoin weekly blog that's just started
629 2011-03-03 08:41:18 <Spenvo> just wondering what you guys liked
630 2011-03-03 08:41:21 <noagendamarket> http://www.bitcoinnews.com/    is sgornicks
631 2011-03-03 08:42:08 <Spenvo> Sweet, this looks really cool. Great site, thanks
632 2011-03-03 08:42:24 <noagendamarket> http://bitcoinmedia.posterous.com/   you could post there as a contributor
633 2011-03-03 08:42:32 <noagendamarket> its a group blog
634 2011-03-03 08:43:27 <OneFixt> sgornick: BitPenny mining pool
635 2011-03-03 08:43:43 <noagendamarket> It regularly gets over 200 views per article
636 2011-03-03 08:44:23 <Spenvo> :) , thanks again.  I will definitely join up
637 2011-03-03 09:06:16 <devon_hillard> does anyone have an AC unit hooked up to their computer cooling kit?
638 2011-03-03 09:07:51 <devon_hillard> the best way I can think of it is a watercooling system dumping heat in a chilled water tank
639 2011-03-03 09:31:23 <devon_hillard> or just build a phase-change cooling system with a lot of insulation
640 2011-03-03 09:42:01 <slush> ;;bc,stats
641 2011-03-03 09:42:03 <gribble> Current Blocks: 111519 | Current Difficulty: 55590.23763914 | Next Difficulty At Block: 112895 | Next Difficulty In: 1376 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 15 hours, 55 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 61368.88990497
642 2011-03-03 09:42:43 <gribble> Error: "b,calc" is not a valid command.
643 2011-03-03 09:42:43 <UukGoblin> ;;b,calc 1685000
644 2011-03-03 09:42:46 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,calc 1685000
645 2011-03-03 09:42:47 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1685000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 1 day, 15 hours, 21 minutes, and 36 seconds
646 2011-03-03 09:51:26 <slush> sipa: can you add all graphs  to the homepage? Or links to the images?
647 2011-03-03 09:51:45 <slush> I always forgot the correct urls :)
648 2011-03-03 09:53:20 <slush> wow, my pool has half a milion page views in last month
649 2011-03-03 09:58:58 <hwolf> ;;bc,calc 7000000
650 2011-03-03 09:58:59 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 7000000 Khps, given current difficulty of 55590.23763914 , is 9 hours, 28 minutes, and 28 seconds
651 2011-03-03 10:04:43 <mizerydearia> http://sandbox.witcoin.com/ costs only 0.00001 to post, edit, reply, upvote
652 2011-03-03 10:05:12 <bitterJ> fyi, my bitcoins got confirmed after a few hours. 24 confirmations now.
653 2011-03-03 10:05:16 <bitterJ> thanks fo rthe advice
654 2011-03-03 10:08:01 <Aciid> patience
655 2011-03-03 10:08:13 <Aciid> Y U NO HAS
656 2011-03-03 15:10:45 <Diablo-D3> 2.0 has convulted it to be true soap for json
657 2011-03-03 15:11:15 <Diablo-D3> either way, what Im saying is, json over REST _can_ be websocketed with long push
658 2011-03-03 15:11:27 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: persistent doesn't solve polling, unless it's bidirectional
659 2011-03-03 15:11:31 <Diablo-D3> browsers even support it fine
660 2011-03-03 15:11:38 <Diablo-D3> well, browsers that do websockets anyway
661 2011-03-03 15:11:52 <gavinandresen> Ok, I sit corrected.  I actually made bitcoin speak JSON 2.0... until I noticed that few of the JSON-RPC libraries supported it yet.
662 2011-03-03 15:12:01 <rgm3> Is there a URL format for sharing a bitcoin address?  Something that would be appropriate for "donation" links, if the proper browser plugin was installed?
663 2011-03-03 15:12:17 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: JSON-RPC 2.0 was designed to work well for bidirectional, persistent connections
664 2011-03-03 15:12:20 <luke-jr> rgm3: yes
665 2011-03-03 15:12:21 <rgm3> I suppose in the future ipv6 world the host and port portion of the url could point directly at a user's wallet proxy system
666 2011-03-03 15:12:35 <rgm3> luke-jr: whassit
667 2011-03-03 15:12:36 <luke-jr> rgm3: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme
668 2011-03-03 15:12:40 <rgm3> perfect!
669 2011-03-03 15:12:56 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: json-rpc 2.0 is fffffffff
670 2011-03-03 15:12:56 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt: I never answered "who does the networking part of bitcoin" question.  Answer is:  Satoshi did.
671 2011-03-03 15:13:06 <Diablo-D3> I'd rather we dont move in that direction
672 2011-03-03 15:13:15 <echelon> ewallet services need to allow users to set their own txfee
673 2011-03-03 15:13:20 <Diablo-D3> standard xml/json techniques over websockets seems to be the future
674 2011-03-03 15:13:27 <gavinandresen> I hate xml.
675 2011-03-03 15:13:31 <BlueMatt> rgm3: can I ask what you are doing?
676 2011-03-03 15:13:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: is that your preference for a new protocol, or just a "it's possible"?
677 2011-03-03 15:13:46 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: well, you do realize its essentially the same shit, right?
678 2011-03-03 15:13:51 <gavinandresen> New protocol for RPC?
679 2011-03-03 15:14:01 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: oh...
680 2011-03-03 15:14:04 <gavinandresen> Diablo-D3:  yup.  Just wordier and with more dependencies
681 2011-03-03 15:14:06 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: in any well written restful code impl I can have the same exact code produce both
682 2011-03-03 15:14:06 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: for communication between UIs and Wallet, or between Miner and Wallet
683 2011-03-03 15:14:18 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: especially with jersey/resteasy in java
684 2011-03-03 15:14:36 <rgm3> luke-jr: You know how I know you wrote this?  it uses "TBC" as an optional part of the spec ;)
685 2011-03-03 15:14:50 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  I dunno, I figure the folks who've written miners would be the right people to decide that.
686 2011-03-03 15:15:18 <luke-jr> rgm3: it gives examples in BTC and TBC, but the spec actually doesn't support Tonal
687 2011-03-03 15:15:30 <gavinandresen> I don't really care what is used, as long as it doesn't add a whole bunch of dependencies to the build (bitcoin is already too hard to build on mac/linux/windows) and it is secure.
688 2011-03-03 15:15:31 <luke-jr> rgm3: also, while I contributed, I can't take credit for it overall
689 2011-03-03 15:15:45 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it's not a problem just for mining ;)
690 2011-03-03 15:16:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it's been painful working on Spesmilo due to these things too
691 2011-03-03 15:16:05 <mizerydearia> "the client lets you set it on the fly" -- How can I set the txfee in a running bitcoin daemon?
692 2011-03-03 15:16:15 <luke-jr> mizerydearia: you can't afaik
693 2011-03-03 15:16:18 <mizerydearia> must I restart the daemon each time I want to change the txfee amount?
694 2011-03-03 15:16:28 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: but yeah, if all the sudden we switched to websocketed jsoned rest, shit would be golden
695 2011-03-03 15:16:29 <gavinandresen> mizerydearia:  yes, that needs to be fixed.
696 2011-03-03 15:16:40 <mizerydearia> "should make a request to add that into the api"
697 2011-03-03 15:16:47 <gavinandresen> And actually, that is one of the MUCH MUCH more important things that needs to be worked out
698 2011-03-03 15:16:51 <mizerydearia> hiya gavinandresen.  pm incoming
699 2011-03-03 15:18:14 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: IMO, I'd like to specify txfee with the actual send command. but that might be easier reserved for the new protocol
700 2011-03-03 15:18:44 <luke-jr> since right now parameters are just an array
701 2011-03-03 15:19:42 <mmarker> >.>
702 2011-03-03 15:21:14 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  I've been thinking about allowing RPC params to be passed as either array or object.  Object syntax would make it much easier to add extra params, and it should be easy to continue to support the old array syntax.
703 2011-03-03 15:21:17 <mizerydearia> Yes, perhaps the sendfrom and sendtoaddress methods can provide an additional parameter that allows specifying the txfee on a per transaction basis
704 2011-03-03 15:21:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: that'd be neat& but still doesn't address the other problems, so not sure if it's worth the time
705 2011-03-03 15:22:08 <gavinandresen> what other problems?  only problem I'm aware of is polling issue.
706 2011-03-03 15:22:31 <Diablo-D3> and the polling issue is easily fixed
707 2011-03-03 15:22:40 <Diablo-D3> but everyones like WAAAAAAAAH I HAVE TO CODDDEEEEE
708 2011-03-03 15:22:47 <luke-jr> that, and representing amounts as human BTC values instead of raw bitcoin amounts
709 2011-03-03 15:22:52 <gavinandresen> ... and that could be solved either by a persistent connection to a port (downside is that won't work with Javascript in the browser) or HTTP callbacks.
710 2011-03-03 15:23:02 <luke-jr> and possibly overhead of parsing JSON in general, dunno if that's a real problem
711 2011-03-03 15:23:06 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: uh, hello?
712 2011-03-03 15:23:10 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: websockets.
713 2011-03-03 15:23:18 <Diablo-D3> browsers _support this shit_
714 2011-03-03 15:23:19 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: I thought we just establised that is not an actual problem, but is purely theoretical
715 2011-03-03 15:23:23 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: WebSockets aren't supported by any browsers except Chrome
716 2011-03-03 15:23:33 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: except I use it everyday in firefox.
717 2011-03-03 15:23:39 <Kiba> what is this purely theoretical problem you speak of, gavinandresen?
718 2011-03-03 15:23:41 <Diablo-D3> and theres versions of safari shipping that have it
719 2011-03-03 15:23:56 <Diablo-D3> and msie... 9? will have it
720 2011-03-03 15:24:11 <gavinandresen> Kiba: money as floating-point values in the JSON-RPC api
721 2011-03-03 15:24:21 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: human representation in protocols/internals is a design flaw no matter how well it works; JSON parsing, I don't know how problematic it is or isn't.
722 2011-03-03 15:24:25 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: he says its theoretical, its not
723 2011-03-03 15:24:41 <Diablo-D3> Kiba: money CANNOT be represented as floating point. even pocket change.
724 2011-03-03 15:25:14 <Kiba> gavinandresen: I prefer percise over impercise
725 2011-03-03 15:25:20 <lfm> luke-jr can you just force the money values to char mode and interpret them yourself?
726 2011-03-03 15:25:30 <BlueMatt> If you guys hate the idea of floating point so much, make a patch and submit it?
727 2011-03-03 15:25:30 <luke-jr> lfm: not with most libraries
728 2011-03-03 15:25:33 <TD> it was already clearly explained that bitcoin money _can_ be represented as double precision floats
729 2011-03-03 15:25:37 <gavinandresen> Sure it can.  I have $1.24999999999998  in my pocket, which any sane implementation knows is $1.25
730 2011-03-03 15:25:39 <TD> now can we PLEASE move on !
731 2011-03-03 15:25:43 <luke-jr> lfm: and it doesn't solve the fact that it's a *design flaw*, not an implementation problem
732 2011-03-03 15:25:50 <lfm> luke-jr most? use one that does it?
733 2011-03-03 15:25:51 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: see!
734 2011-03-03 15:25:51 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: I did :p
735 2011-03-03 15:25:54 <Diablo-D3> bad!
736 2011-03-03 15:25:58 <Diablo-D3> bad gavin! bad!
737 2011-03-03 15:26:02 <Kiba> gavinandresen: I think it's better to truncate it rather than round it up
738 2011-03-03 15:26:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: where?
739 2011-03-03 15:26:10 <Diablo-D3> bad kiba!
740 2011-03-03 15:26:10 <gavinandresen> (ugh, I said I was DONE wasting time arguing about that....)
741 2011-03-03 15:26:13 <luke-jr> lfm: I'm not interested in one-off protocols, I want something that multiple implementations can use sanely.
742 2011-03-03 15:26:20 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: Gitorious branch
743 2011-03-03 15:26:21 <Diablo-D3> either output it as a string, or use ubtc.
744 2011-03-03 15:26:25 <Diablo-D3> there is your two solutions.
745 2011-03-03 15:26:34 <gavinandresen> Kiba:  you can think that, and you can also think that the world is flat...
746 2011-03-03 15:26:45 <BlueMatt> In any case, gavin said its not happening so I guess we are done now...?
747 2011-03-03 15:27:07 <lfm> luke-jr but its not the protocol, its the api that is broken. just dont use the broken api, get another (or make it) for the same protocol
748 2011-03-03 15:27:16 <luke-jr> it's easily solved by doing it right the first time in the new protocol that we need to fix other problems
749 2011-03-03 15:27:31 <luke-jr> lfm: API = protocol
750 2011-03-03 15:27:49 <gavinandresen> RE: websockets:   http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1253683/websocket-for-html5
751 2011-03-03 15:28:00 <lfm> luke-jr ok now I agree with Diablo-D3 , you are a poor programmer if you think that
752 2011-03-03 15:28:21 <luke-jr> re WebSockets, Firefox and Opera at least *removed* support
753 2011-03-03 15:28:37 <Diablo-D3> chrome, firefox, opera, safari
754 2011-03-03 15:28:39 <Diablo-D3> in other words
755 2011-03-03 15:28:42 <Diablo-D3> about 75% of the internet
756 2011-03-03 15:28:52 <gavinandresen> I thought IE still had a big share
757 2011-03-03 15:28:52 <TD> hmm, odd
758 2011-03-03 15:28:57 <luke-jr> lfm: in this case, bitcoin has no non-protocol API
759 2011-03-03 15:28:57 <TD> when i started my testnet client it seems to have missed a block
760 2011-03-03 15:29:04 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: depends on who you're talking about
761 2011-03-03 15:29:06 <TD> now it's downloading lots of orphan blocks
762 2011-03-03 15:29:07 <Diablo-D3> gavinandresen: I dont trust most of the numbers published
763 2011-03-03 15:29:08 <TD> ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=0000000028b3af4b812b
764 2011-03-03 15:29:13 <luke-jr> lfm: and only the protocol "API" has this problem: the internals don't.
765 2011-03-03 15:29:24 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: if you're targeting the "internet" its safe to assume a good browser.
766 2011-03-03 15:29:26 <TD> unless i somehow got onto the wrong testnet
767 2011-03-03 15:29:35 <Diablo-D3> a lot of them are not MSIE either behind a proxy or with UA hiding
768 2011-03-03 15:29:35 <gavinandresen> I sit corrected, IE is down to 26% according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
769 2011-03-03 15:29:39 <lfm> luke-jr so fix the api, it just software. dont change the protocol and f--- up everyone
770 2011-03-03 15:29:44 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: if you're targeting "people magazine readers" you can't assume such
771 2011-03-03 15:29:52 <Diablo-D3> what, jesus? 26% now?
772 2011-03-03 15:29:54 <Diablo-D3> holy crap
773 2011-03-03 15:29:59 <luke-jr> lfm: the API isn't broken, just the protocol
774 2011-03-03 15:30:03 <Diablo-D3> I thought it was still in the 40s
775 2011-03-03 15:30:10 <jrabbit> 26% that has to be only one versino of IE
776 2011-03-03 15:30:22 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, whatever the next major msie release is, it has websockets
777 2011-03-03 15:30:24 <jrabbit> oh shit its not
778 2011-03-03 15:30:31 <lfm> luke-jrI think you are mistaken, it is the api that uses floats, the protocol uses char strings
779 2011-03-03 15:30:31 <luke-jr> http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-firefox-4/
780 2011-03-03 15:30:38 <jrabbit> no way thats not right.
781 2011-03-03 15:30:44 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: thats up to debate, atm. check the date.
782 2011-03-03 15:30:49 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: that data looks skewed
783 2011-03-03 15:30:52 <luke-jr> lfm: no, the bitcoind internals all use int64
784 2011-03-03 15:30:58 <Diablo-D3> the data is partly skewed
785 2011-03-03 15:30:59 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: look back in 2006/7
786 2011-03-03 15:31:07 <Diablo-D3> most of the w3school visitors are webdevs
787 2011-03-03 15:31:14 <jrabbit> firefox has a MASSIVE usage that was not right
788 2011-03-03 15:31:15 <luke-jr> lfm: in any case, this is NOT the biggest problem with the current protocol
789 2011-03-03 15:31:27 <gavinandresen> jrabbit:  ok.  Even if IE has 40% that's less than when I was working as a web developer
790 2011-03-03 15:31:27 <luke-jr> lfm: fixing this problem still leaves much bigger problems
791 2011-03-03 15:31:31 <jrabbit> i.e. this is baiased towards "thje internet"
792 2011-03-03 15:31:46 <Diablo-D3> I just checked the stats on atpa and miotd
793 2011-03-03 15:31:52 <jrabbit> gavinandresen: this is representational of people who know maybe what they're doing I think.
794 2011-03-03 15:31:54 <Diablo-D3> msie is still between 35 and 40
795 2011-03-03 15:31:55 <lfm> luke-jr seems like you dont understand what the term "Protocol" means. It is the definitions of what goes accross the wires between nodes
796 2011-03-03 15:32:08 <Diablo-D3> which is basically "fuck them, they're not even close mattering"
797 2011-03-03 15:32:08 <luke-jr> lfm: that's a *different* protocol
798 2011-03-03 15:32:17 <jrabbit> enough that they use a technbical website (a bad one but still)
799 2011-03-03 15:32:24 <lfm> luke-jr and it is in characters
800 2011-03-03 15:32:36 <gavinandresen> RE: websockets:  using something as new as websockets to do something as critical as sending bitcoins gives me the heebie-jeebies
801 2011-03-03 15:32:46 <luke-jr> lfm: I'm not talking about the p2p protocol, I'm talking about the Wallet<->Miner/UI protocol
802 2011-03-03 15:33:09 <Diablo-D3> new?
803 2011-03-03 15:33:12 <Diablo-D3> how is websockets new?
804 2011-03-03 15:33:24 <lfm> luke-jryes and it is a tcp/ip protocl that at least can go over the wires
805 2011-03-03 15:33:25 <Diablo-D3> go read the spec, its just http with additional shit
806 2011-03-03 15:33:30 <Diablo-D3> I almost wanna just call it http 1.2
807 2011-03-03 15:33:42 <jrabbit> native client bitcoin minign woudl be cool btw.
808 2011-03-03 15:33:43 <Diablo-D3> not sure if it even earns the right to be called 2.0
809 2011-03-03 15:33:57 <jrabbit> NaCl is pretty easy todo iirch
810 2011-03-03 15:33:59 <gavinandresen> It is new because it hasn't been supported by all the major browsers for more than 5 years.
811 2011-03-03 15:34:09 <gavinandresen> (I have a very conservative definition of "new")
812 2011-03-03 15:34:22 <Diablo-D3> I mean, if we were all in browsers, we could just use an ajax framework here
813 2011-03-03 15:34:30 <gavinandresen> Old == https and REST
814 2011-03-03 15:34:41 <luke-jr> so does anyone have any constructive input for the new protocol?
815 2011-03-03 15:34:43 <Diablo-D3> try websockets, try cometd, try comet, use a hidden iframe
816 2011-03-03 15:34:54 <Diablo-D3> atm we're at the hidden iframe stage
817 2011-03-03 15:35:04 <TD> hrm
818 2011-03-03 15:35:08 <TD> somebody must be running a <.20 testnet client
819 2011-03-03 15:35:10 <luke-jr> is JSON-RPC 2.0 the only suggestion for protocol basis?
820 2011-03-03 15:35:15 <TD> that i keep connecting to
821 2011-03-03 15:35:16 <lfm> luke-jr the tcp/ip packets themselves are CHARACTERS. just fix the api
822 2011-03-03 15:35:22 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: no, I just said json-rpc 2.0 is bad
823 2011-03-03 15:35:28 <Diablo-D3> I do NOT want to implement that in ... anything
824 2011-03-03 15:35:35 <Diablo-D3> json-rpc 1.0 is barely sane as it is
825 2011-03-03 15:35:35 <TD> gavinandresen: do you have the IP address of a .20+ testnet node i can use directly? when i start my node currently it spends ages downloading orphan blocks
826 2011-03-03 15:35:38 <TD> presumably the old chain
827 2011-03-03 15:35:42 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: then suggest an alternate
828 2011-03-03 15:35:49 <Diablo-D3> moving to json rest is much easier
829 2011-03-03 15:35:59 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: REST is unidirectional.
830 2011-03-03 15:36:08 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: you fail at http forever.
831 2011-03-03 15:36:09 <gavinandresen> TD:  the testnet faucet is running on    69.164.218.197
832 2011-03-03 15:36:10 <luke-jr> and requires HTTP support
833 2011-03-03 15:36:11 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: What is the chance of getting the portoption merged into mainline for the next release?
834 2011-03-03 15:36:13 <TD> thanks
835 2011-03-03 15:36:20 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: we're already using http you retard
836 2011-03-03 15:36:25 <Diablo-D3> how the fuck do you think any of this works
837 2011-03-03 15:36:55 <Diablo-D3> what the fuck is this, piss off diablo day?
838 2011-03-03 15:37:04 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: the existing JSON-RPC 1.0 implementation is not HTTP compliant. and irrelevant to a replacement protocol, mostly.
839 2011-03-03 15:37:21 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: no, bitcoind's http impl is not http compliant
840 2011-03-03 15:37:36 <Diablo-D3> the json-rpc impl, afiact, actually is complaint
841 2011-03-03 15:37:54 <gribble> (bc,prob <an alias, at least 1 argument>) -- Alias for "math calc 1-exp(-$1*1000 * [seconds $*] / (2**32* [bc,diff]))".
842 2011-03-03 15:37:54 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,prob
843 2011-03-03 15:38:06 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,prob 700
844 2011-03-03 15:38:08 <gribble> Error: There's really no reason why you should have underscores or brackets in your mathematical expression.  Please remove them.
845 2011-03-03 15:38:30 <[Tycho]> How i can use this command ?
846 2011-03-03 15:38:31 <luke-jr> IIRC, slush and jgarzik's current conceptual mining-specific protocol is binary
847 2011-03-03 15:38:33 <mmarker> Grr, something broke. Now my yasm code gives me garbage in gdb
848 2011-03-03 15:38:46 <TD> there we go
849 2011-03-03 15:38:49 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: yes, and thats an extremely bad idea.
850 2011-03-03 15:38:50 <TD> gavinandresen: thanks, that worked
851 2011-03-03 15:38:53 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt:  I think it aught to be included.
852 2011-03-03 15:38:54 <Diablo-D3> I refuse to support a binary protocol.
853 2011-03-03 15:39:01 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, fear not, i have my own protocol proposal :)
854 2011-03-03 15:39:11 <Diablo-D3> we're supposed to be increasing bitcoin adoption, not fucking it over.
855 2011-03-03 15:39:16 <BlueMatt> gavinandresen: anything blocking it that I could work on...really want to see this
856 2011-03-03 15:39:38 <[Tycho]> And, by the way, i'll support binary protocol, of course.
857 2011-03-03 15:40:19 <[Tycho]> Binary is cool.
858 2011-03-03 15:40:43 <gavinandresen> BlueMatt:  worries about Sybil attacks are what is stopping it.
859 2011-03-03 15:40:44 <[Tycho]> Don't like how those linuxoids stuff their human-readable ones everywhere.
860 2011-03-03 15:40:58 <TD> gavinandresen: btw, i had a question about the new send buffer limits
861 2011-03-03 15:41:14 <jgarzik> TD: ?
862 2011-03-03 15:41:15 <TD> gavinandresen: my java implementation keeps hitting this. if i raise the buffer limit with a flag, it works ok again
863 2011-03-03 15:41:24 <gavinandresen> TD: it'll have to wait, I have a lunch meeting I need to get to
864 2011-03-03 15:41:27 <TD> no problem
865 2011-03-03 15:41:34 <gavinandresen> See y'all later
866 2011-03-03 15:41:34 <jgarzik> TD: which send-buffer limits?
867 2011-03-03 15:41:46 <Lachesis> jgarzik, did ArtForz explain why he thought your poold was broken?
868 2011-03-03 15:41:50 <TD> jgarzik: .20 now includes some anti-DoS mitigation where it disconnects nodes that it tries to send too much data too
869 2011-03-03 15:41:54 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: why not provide input for a single spec?
870 2011-03-03 15:42:00 <TD> i'm not totally sure what this is for. receive buffer limits, sure ...
871 2011-03-03 15:42:02 <jgarzik> Lachesis: no
872 2011-03-03 15:42:21 <Lachesis> jgarzik, alright - we were working through bitcoin's getwork() code and saw that it wasn't stateless
873 2011-03-03 15:42:37 <Lachesis> so i asked him why pools weren't causing a memory leak
874 2011-03-03 15:42:43 <Lachesis> and he thought pools didn't just call getwork
875 2011-03-03 15:42:46 <Lachesis> so i showed him your code
876 2011-03-03 15:43:02 <Lachesis> after some more looking, we figured out that it's storing refs
877 2011-03-03 15:43:03 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: add your ideas to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_protocol
878 2011-03-03 15:43:11 <Lachesis> and they only change if a new txn is added to the block
879 2011-03-03 15:43:18 <Diablo-D3> rgm3: hey, found the bug
880 2011-03-03 15:43:25 <Lachesis> long story short - we were wrong; you did it right
881 2011-03-03 15:43:26 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell gavinandresen in reference to the Sybil attacks and portoption: dont see why afaict, the 2h delay on non-standard ports is actually unnecessary as the outgoing connections per ip is already limited to 1 per /16 block
882 2011-03-03 15:43:27 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
883 2011-03-03 15:43:32 <rgm3> Diablo-D3: cool.
884 2011-03-03 15:43:38 <Diablo-D3> rgm3: --user wouldnt have worked either.
885 2011-03-03 15:43:42 <rgm3> i know :)
886 2011-03-03 15:43:52 <Diablo-D3> no, I mean --user instead of -u
887 2011-03-03 15:43:57 <rgm3> yep, i realize that
888 2011-03-03 15:43:58 <Diablo-D3> I had an extra comma floating around
889 2011-03-03 15:44:18 <Diablo-D3> now, otoh, "--user," would have worked.
890 2011-03-03 15:44:33 <xelister> BlueMatt: oh, interesting
891 2011-03-03 15:44:39 <xelister> BlueMatt: good catch
892 2011-03-03 15:44:45 <rgm3> might be helpful to say "http://user:password@hostname:port/" in the help output too
893 2011-03-03 15:45:09 <rgm3> also -- in the URL, is the port required?  it prolly oughta default to 8332 if not provided
894 2011-03-03 15:45:18 <Diablo-D3> rgm3: its a standard url.
895 2011-03-03 15:45:19 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, no, i'm talking about miner->pool protocol, not wallet's one.
896 2011-03-03 15:45:39 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: pool is just a specialized wallet
897 2011-03-03 15:45:58 <[Tycho]> "<luke-jr> [Tycho]: why not provide input for a single spec?" - what do you mean ?
898 2011-03-03 15:46:23 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_protocol is the foundation to design a specification for Wallet<->Miner/UI protocol
899 2011-03-03 15:46:24 <Diablo-D3> rgm3: user, password, and port arent required. port defaults to 80 as required by http spec.
900 2011-03-03 15:46:40 <Diablo-D3> rgm3: you could do http://whatever/url/shit/here, and it'd still be valid too
901 2011-03-03 15:46:41 <rgm3> okay
902 2011-03-03 15:47:31 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, currently i just propose enhancing actual protocol with long polls. This will make miners ~1.8% more effective and requires adding just one more connection with same protocol.
903 2011-03-03 15:49:13 <jgarzik> Lachesis: thanks :)