1 2011-04-25 00:10:42 <sec^nd> hello
  2 2011-04-25 00:10:53 <sec^nd> is there a fix for the lost bitcoins yet ?
  3 2011-04-25 00:11:14 <sec^nd> that blackhole is a problem imo
  4 2011-04-25 00:11:43 <sec^nd> if the ammount of bitcoins is fixed and some are lost then eventually there wont be anymore bitcoins
  5 2011-04-25 00:12:01 <sec^nd> also you won't know how many bitcoins are still in the network because you lost some
  6 2011-04-25 00:12:28 <midnightmagic> what blackhole?
  7 2011-04-25 00:12:41 <midnightmagic> ah the fake one.
  8 2011-04-25 00:12:48 <sec^nd> its not fake
  9 2011-04-25 00:13:07 <midnightmagic> you did know that btc can be divided down to 8 decimal places right?
 10 2011-04-25 00:13:35 <sec^nd> if you mistype a bitcoin address (copy pasta fail off by 1 char) then you will lose the bitcoins you sent to said address
 11 2011-04-25 00:13:36 <midnightmagic> each bitcoin can represent 100,000,000 units of something.
 12 2011-04-25 00:13:48 <sec^nd> midnightmagic: understand me now ?
 13 2011-04-25 00:13:57 <midnightmagic> lol
 14 2011-04-25 00:14:04 <midnightmagic> try validateaddress
 15 2011-04-25 00:14:09 <sec^nd> thats the blackhole
 16 2011-04-25 00:14:13 <sec^nd> do they have that yet ?
 17 2011-04-25 00:14:15 <midnightmagic> not much of a blackhole.
 18 2011-04-25 00:14:20 <sec^nd> heh
 19 2011-04-25 00:14:23 <sec^nd> mistakes happen
 20 2011-04-25 00:14:25 <tcatm> sec^nd: bitcoin will detect mistyped addresses
 21 2011-04-25 00:14:42 <sacarlson> sec^nd: I see in the code that the last 4 bytes are a hash to verify the address is valid so not likly that would hapen
 22 2011-04-25 00:14:52 <sec^nd> well I accidentally sent coins to a server that was wiped, anyway to get them back ?
 23 2011-04-25 00:14:59 <midnightmagic> what, did you delete your wallet by accident?
 24 2011-04-25 00:15:12 <sec^nd> empty wallet on another system
 25 2011-04-25 00:15:21 <tcatm> sec^nd: nope. they're gone. that's a feature of bitcoin, not a bug.
 26 2011-04-25 00:15:29 <sec^nd> while playing with bitcoin (lost little) but notice it as a bug
 27 2011-04-25 00:15:32 <sec^nd> how is that a feature ?
 28 2011-04-25 00:15:35 <midnightmagic> yeah, if you aren't just trolling, i suspect a large percentage of people whining about the "blackhole" were being careless with their money
 29 2011-04-25 00:16:05 <tcatm> all transactions are final and non-reversible
 30 2011-04-25 00:16:08 <tcatm> that's the feature
 31 2011-04-25 00:17:42 <sacarlson> tcatm: but soon hopfully to add escrow we will also have limited reversible
 32 2011-04-25 00:19:16 <tcatm> an escrow added to bitcoin itself will likely only allow to a) give to payee or b) destroy bitcoins
 33 2011-04-25 00:20:11 <midnightmagic> would it be possible to pay to two addresses?
 34 2011-04-25 00:20:15 <midnightmagic> i forget now..
 35 2011-04-25 00:20:33 <tcatm> sendmany?
 36 2011-04-25 00:21:36 <midnightmagic> so two other addresses have the authority to subsequently spend, but only for that next hop.
 37 2011-04-25 00:21:41 <sacarlson> tcatm: that would likly be the first but I would also like a group pools money and with the vote of the majority to send it all to one in the group or if less than 50% return to all parties
 38 2011-04-25 00:22:18 <midnightmagic> in that fashion, you can spend to a local and a remote, and once verified at the remote, you spend to another local there. you eliminate the possibility of moving bitcoins (as sec) losing them.
 39 2011-04-25 00:22:22 <tcatm> sacarlson: that might be possible, too
 40 2011-04-25 00:22:24 <midnightmagic> (assuming they use it)
 41 2011-04-25 00:23:34 <tcatm> midnightmagic: how would that help? either receiver or sender could send the coins to a new address as soon as the tx is valid
 42 2011-04-25 00:24:37 <midnightmagic> right, and if all the addresses all belong to the same person, then it stays in two wallets until he decides to put it into the local wallet at the remote end.
 43 2011-04-25 00:25:06 <midnightmagic> (so, two transactions)
 44 2011-04-25 00:25:42 <midnightmagic> and eventually it becomes a "pay extra to be extra-safe" moving around within a trusted network of wallets.
 45 2011-04-25 00:26:32 <devrandom> midnightmagic - I started a thread on that
 46 2011-04-25 00:26:59 <devrandom> sec
 47 2011-04-25 00:27:21 <devrandom> https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4723.msg68804#msg68804
 48 2011-04-25 00:27:29 <midnightmagic> oh..
 49 2011-04-25 00:27:36 <midnightmagic> maybe that's where i got the idea.
 50 2011-04-25 00:27:59 <devrandom> cool
 51 2011-04-25 00:28:39 <Roncevaux> Hi, I'd like some help with the original bitcoin client.
 52 2011-04-25 00:29:41 <Roncevaux> How can I change the language of the client interface?
 53 2011-04-25 00:32:08 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
 54 2011-04-25 00:32:10 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.794,"low":1.6,"vol":15785,"buy":1.63,"sell":1.6889,"last":1.6299}}
 55 2011-04-25 00:32:24 <sacarlson> devrandom: that link look perfect I would like to implement that on my proto coin and weeds
 56 2011-04-25 00:33:01 <Roncevaux> Hello?
 57 2011-04-25 00:33:09 <sacarlson> devrandom: is that just a theory or has it been tested on testnet?
 58 2011-04-25 00:33:38 <Roncevaux> Who could possibly answer my question?
 59 2011-04-25 00:34:05 <sacarlson> Roncevaux: spesmilo has several languages in setup
 60 2011-04-25 00:34:47 <Roncevaux> And what is spesmilo?
 61 2011-04-25 00:34:59 <sacarlson> Roncevaux: it's another user interface to bitcoind
 62 2011-04-25 00:35:08 <devrandom> sacarlson - gavin seemed to agree it works
 63 2011-04-25 00:35:25 <Roncevaux> Well, I've already installed the original client and would like to use it
 64 2011-04-25 00:36:02 <sacarlson> devrandom: I would like more details on how to set that up,  I didn't read the entire article yet
 65 2011-04-25 00:36:28 <sacarlson> devrandom: I run the git version in my present coins but I can patch them if needed
 66 2011-04-25 00:36:32 <devrandom> sacarlson - it's a pretty straightforward application of the scripting engine, and I did look at the relevant code details
 67 2011-04-25 00:37:23 <devrandom> you'd have to disable the IsStandard check or extend it, so that you can mine these transactions
 68 2011-04-25 00:37:39 <devrandom> right now miners reject the tx for mining of !IsStandard
 69 2011-04-25 00:37:48 <luke-jr> not all
 70 2011-04-25 00:37:53 <devrandom> and you'd have to generate the relevant script
 71 2011-04-25 00:37:58 <devrandom> oh, right
 72 2011-04-25 00:38:08 <midnightmagic> devrandom: ++ your post!
 73 2011-04-25 00:38:19 <devrandom> thanks :)
 74 2011-04-25 00:38:26 <JunK-Y> ;;bc,mtgox
 75 2011-04-25 00:38:27 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.794,"low":1.6,"vol":15712,"buy":1.6301,"sell":1.6778,"last":1.6299}}
 76 2011-04-25 00:38:27 <sacarlson> devrandom: no problem on my private net I only have a single minner or at most 2 so not a problem
 77 2011-04-25 00:38:44 <devrandom> btw, what are you working on?
 78 2011-04-25 00:39:17 <midnightmagic> these are the sorts of things that will increase the worth and versatility of the currency, massively..
 79 2011-04-25 00:39:34 <midnightmagic> sorry are you asking me that, devrandom?
 80 2011-04-25 00:39:52 <devrandom> the script would have to do multiple OP_CHECKSIGs, count the successes, and have some kind of check, e.g. count > n
 81 2011-04-25 00:40:23 <Roncevaux> Well, i give up.
 82 2011-04-25 00:40:42 <devrandom> but if you are working on something interesting, tell me too :)
 83 2011-04-25 00:40:55 <midnightmagic> ah good then
 84 2011-04-25 00:41:01 <midnightmagic> :-) no, i
 85 2011-04-25 00:42:16 <midnightmagic> i'm just a miner with opinions who wouldn't have any problems at all mining on production with fully-enabled scripting. :)
 86 2011-04-25 00:42:19 <midnightmagic> just sayin' :)
 87 2011-04-25 00:42:31 <sacarlson> devrandom: oh well i'm just in study mode now but hope to have pokerth interfaced to bitcoin or a dirivitive and also looking at micro comodites and equity trading with it
 88 2011-04-25 00:43:41 <sacarlson> devrandom: my work is all public opensource
 89 2011-04-25 00:43:57 <devrandom> midnightmagic - cool... you could probably charge extra fees
 90 2011-04-25 00:44:18 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: so do it ;p
 91 2011-04-25 00:44:35 <devrandom> oh, so you want to implement a gambling interface on top of the blockchain?
 92 2011-04-25 00:44:36 <midnightmagic> not interested in maintaining a fork (yet)
 93 2011-04-25 00:44:44 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: you could just merge mine :p
 94 2011-04-25 00:44:46 <midnightmagic> gambling. yeh hehe
 95 2011-04-25 00:45:13 <sacarlson> devrandom:  yes a block chain could be setup as a p2p open casino
 96 2011-04-25 00:45:15 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: git pull git://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin.git policy
 97 2011-04-25 00:45:42 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: then -addnode=173.242.112.53 and add yourself to the table on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy
 98 2011-04-25 00:46:06 <midnightmagic> is that production net? or your own testnet?
 99 2011-04-25 00:46:12 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: production net
100 2011-04-25 00:46:13 <devrandom> sacarlson - would you implement the random number generator cryptographically in the blockchain?
101 2011-04-25 00:46:51 <midnightmagic> what's the point of addnode'ing yours?
102 2011-04-25 00:46:58 <sacarlson> devrandom: yes it uses the same code in the crypto just different rules in inflation
103 2011-04-25 00:47:01 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: that's just the free tx relay node
104 2011-04-25 00:47:10 <midnightmagic> oh
105 2011-04-25 00:47:11 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: if you don't peer with it, you can't send/receive non-standard txns
106 2011-04-25 00:47:19 <luke-jr> (slightly oversimplified)
107 2011-04-25 00:48:44 <phantomcircuit_> lol
108 2011-04-25 00:48:46 <phantomcircuit_> <3 python
109 2011-04-25 00:48:54 <phantomcircuit_> i just replaced 500 loc in php with reduce(lambda x,y: x+len(y),tree.xpath('//text()'),0)
110 2011-04-25 00:49:06 <phantomcircuit_> the guy was like FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
111 2011-04-25 00:49:29 <sacarlson> devrandom: the new chains that run now have the ability to create 99% of all it's value in the first 1000 blocks then inflation drops to block creation minning value drop to .01weed per minned block
112 2011-04-25 00:49:46 <midnightmagic> peering with it is not a requirement for non-standard txn, but it helps to join it and link up with other similar-minded miners.
113 2011-04-25 00:51:00 <midnightmagic> all i'd really need to do is ensure i can mine my own non-standard txn into the blockchain reliably.
114 2011-04-25 00:51:06 <devrandom> sacarlson - oh, you are just changing the currency rules, you are not doing any random number generation in the chain itself...
115 2011-04-25 00:51:58 <sacarlson> devrandom: it's the same code it still uses new random numbers to create new chains
116 2011-04-25 00:52:11 <devrandom> ok
117 2011-04-25 00:52:21 <[Tycho]> "Free transaction relay policy" looks a bit strange, considering that the fee is mandatory :)
118 2011-04-25 00:53:11 <sacarlson> devrandom: in these envirnments you can create faster changes and inovation
119 2011-04-25 00:53:17 <devrandom> sacarlson - are you using the block hashes as seeds when generating the poker deck shuffle?
120 2011-04-25 00:54:22 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: the fee is not mandatory for relaying
121 2011-04-25 00:54:27 <sacarlson> devrandom: in the pokerth I use there original code just have the players make a deposit into the escrow to start the game and the winner in the group get the pot
122 2011-04-25 00:54:30 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: that's the point of the page: free relaying
123 2011-04-25 00:54:40 <devrandom> sacarlson - ok
124 2011-04-25 00:55:55 <sacarlson> devrandom: so with this method you could play a game with entry of .05btc or 1000weeds and that could buy you 10000 chips to start your pokerth game
125 2011-04-25 00:55:58 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: also, my miner does require fees to get into a block, BUT those fees are much less than the default (except when default gives them away)
126 2011-04-25 00:56:28 <devrandom> sacarlson - is weeds yet another chain?
127 2011-04-25 00:56:53 <sacarlson> devrandom: yes weeds is just another chain with different rules
128 2011-04-25 00:56:56 <devrandom> or is that the chain you are talking about earlier, and the chips are not a chain
129 2011-04-25 00:57:40 <sacarlson> devrandom: I have many chains with different rules and different names some have died some may live on
130 2011-04-25 00:57:51 <devrandom> cool
131 2011-04-25 00:58:45 <sacarlson> devrandom: I'm also working on a multi net client that enable transactions on many networks,  I have a working version but with no user interface
132 2011-04-25 00:59:33 <devrandom> I looked through the current code and it seemed pretty difficult to do something like that, since there are alot of globals
133 2011-04-25 00:59:44 <devrandom> did you start from scratch?
134 2011-04-25 01:00:13 <sacarlson> with my new multi network chain I hope to add a 4 byte header to the address to identify what network is needed to transact it that can be human readable as well
135 2011-04-25 01:00:59 <sacarlson> devrandom: no I just modify the existing code just worked on it so far for about 15 days
136 2011-04-25 01:01:56 <sacarlson> devrandom: I'm just pulling out alot of the hard coded number into the config file
137 2011-04-25 01:02:19 <devrandom> seems like hard work...
138 2011-04-25 01:02:43 <devrandom> maybe it makes sense to write a separate program that interacts with multiple bitcoind instances using RPC?
139 2011-04-25 01:02:53 <sacarlson> devrandom: not when you have the help here from the developers when you can't figure it out they point the way
140 2011-04-25 01:04:30 <sacarlson> devrandom: that's what the spesmilo already does and it's writen in python
141 2011-04-25 01:04:43 <devrandom> ok
142 2011-04-25 01:05:16 <sacarlson> devrandom: I can control all my running bitcoind over rpc
143 2011-04-25 01:05:31 <devrandom> right
144 2011-04-25 01:06:07 <B0g4r7> all your bitcoind are belong to us.
145 2011-04-25 01:12:38 <sacarlson> devrandom: I just did a grep IsStandard * and see it 5 times in 3 files
146 2011-04-25 01:13:06 <sacarlson> devrandom: so I'll make sure it's turned on in my minners
147 2011-04-25 01:15:33 <noagendamarket> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1817857    it pisses me off when people in the US think their laws apply anywhere else
148 2011-04-25 01:24:36 <luke-jr> noagendamarket: me too. but same goes for a lot of countries
149 2011-04-25 01:24:44 <luke-jr> they talk about "international law" as if such a thing exists
150 2011-04-25 01:28:26 <luke-jr> wtf, this paper claims Bitcoin is a fiat currency
151 2011-04-25 01:29:03 <luke-jr> it's supposed to be on legalities, yet the author is ignorant what fiat means?
152 2011-04-25 01:30:27 <eternal1> anyone know what is the estimated time to generate a block using the standard client .. on the namecoin chain ?
153 2011-04-25 01:30:33 <phantomcircuit_> luke-jr, link?
154 2011-04-25 01:30:36 <midnightmagic> namecoin?
155 2011-04-25 01:30:39 <luke-jr> [23:15:33] <noagendamarket> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1817857    it pisses me off when people in the US think their laws apply anywhere else
156 2011-04-25 01:31:19 <eternal1> namecoin is a new blockchain
157 2011-04-25 01:31:39 <noagendamarket> what do you expect from a law student
158 2011-04-25 01:31:40 <midnightmagic> they didn't take satoshi's own advice and merge the mining work with mainline bitcoin?
159 2011-04-25 01:31:41 <midnightmagic> lol
160 2011-04-25 01:31:52 <midnightmagic> meh
161 2011-04-25 01:31:55 <Compgenius> hey guys
162 2011-04-25 01:31:57 <Compgenius> how long should it normally take to confirm 0.05btc?
163 2011-04-25 01:32:11 <Compgenius> been waiting 15 minutes so far, still at 0/unconfirmed
164 2011-04-25 01:32:11 <noagendamarket> midnightmagic apparently its possible to use it that way
165 2011-04-25 01:32:20 <midnightmagic> 10 minutes perhaps? or more if your txn didn't make it into a recent block
166 2011-04-25 01:33:12 <[Tycho]> Compgenius, look if your tx is in the queue: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin
167 2011-04-25 01:33:18 <eternal1> is somene using namecoin ?
168 2011-04-25 01:34:47 <davex__> luke-jr: he says he's going to reword (fiat) that in some future revision
169 2011-04-25 01:38:50 <netxshare> what are the recommend settings for a 5970
170 2011-04-25 01:38:52 <netxshare> got one today
171 2011-04-25 01:43:48 <midnightmagic> netxshare, luke-jr will mock you and laugh at you if you overclock it even a little and it fails..  so if you are interested in making luke-jr happy, leave it run stock. else, if you can keep it below 85C (or 80C) then you should be able to overclock it marginally to get a few more hash.  but people are leery of coaching you on it because nobody wants to be responsible for killing your 5970
172 2011-04-25 01:44:30 <luke-jr> netxshare: overclocking equals damaging. if it's worth significantly shortening your card's life, do it.
173 2011-04-25 01:45:12 <midnightmagic> and upon what do you base this opinion?
174 2011-04-25 01:46:02 <[Tycho]> netxshare, i'm using 5970 slightly overclocked - at 800 MHz GPU and underclocked VRAM.
175 2011-04-25 01:46:24 <B0g4r7> I run mine at the stock clock speed.
176 2011-04-25 01:46:40 <B0g4r7> Once I get liquid cooling going I may fool around with moar cl0ck.
177 2011-04-25 01:47:00 <[Tycho]> 5870 is fine at 930, but some people use it at 950 MHz
178 2011-04-25 01:47:18 <B0g4r7> I figure the coolers are already working working damned hard doing 24/7 duty.
179 2011-04-25 01:47:30 <B0g4r7> Which they surely were not designed for.
180 2011-04-25 01:47:39 <B0g4r7> 100% load, 100% duty cycle.
181 2011-04-25 01:47:48 <[Tycho]> Watercooling is way too expensive, but sometimes allow 3 cards in one MB :)
182 2011-04-25 01:48:14 <[Tycho]> No, fan shouldn't run at 100%, usually 50-75% is enough.
183 2011-04-25 01:48:30 <B0g4r7> Mine run 70%.
184 2011-04-25 01:48:30 <luke-jr> cooling can make it give you valid results overclocked, but won't stop it from damaging the card
185 2011-04-25 01:48:43 <TheKid> quick question - what's the command to let miners connect from other ips
186 2011-04-25 01:49:11 <davex__> it wouldn't necessarily damage it, i don't think.  only if it runs too hot for too long.
187 2011-04-25 01:49:21 <luke-jr> davex__: it does.
188 2011-04-25 01:49:29 <luke-jr> TheKid: -rpcallowip=*.*.*.*
189 2011-04-25 01:49:34 <luke-jr> or something like that
190 2011-04-25 01:49:43 <davex__> artforz was talking about this once
191 2011-04-25 01:50:00 <B0g4r7> Yeah, how does it gt damaged exactly?
192 2011-04-25 01:50:01 <TheKid> thanks luke-jr
193 2011-04-25 01:50:09 <luke-jr> B0g4r7: nobody knows afaik
194 2011-04-25 01:50:36 <B0g4r7> And damaged how.  Like inoperable?
195 2011-04-25 01:50:39 <luke-jr> B0g4r7: could vary from card to card, possibly
196 2011-04-25 01:50:44 <luke-jr> B0g4r7: shorter lifetime
197 2011-04-25 01:50:52 <TheKid> technically it's just a risk
198 2011-04-25 01:50:52 <[Tycho]> Looks like luke-jr doesn't knows enough about hardware...
199 2011-04-25 01:51:03 <TheKid> because the card is engineered to run at a certain frequency
200 2011-04-25 01:51:30 <TheKid> you can run it faster but then the manufacturer makes no guarantee about the mtbf
201 2011-04-25 01:51:41 <luke-jr> TheKid: sometimes they give estimates
202 2011-04-25 01:51:51 <[Tycho]> If you run it faster, but temps are not to high, then lifetime is not affected.
203 2011-04-25 01:51:59 <luke-jr> for example, OMAP3 is supposed to last 2-3 years or something at its standard 500 MHz
204 2011-04-25 01:52:09 <luke-jr> but if you run it at 600 MHz, TI says it will last 1 year
205 2011-04-25 01:52:28 <[Tycho]> 2-3 years is almost nothing, what a bad chip is your OMAP...
206 2011-04-25 01:52:48 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: maybe it was longer, I really just remember the 600 MHz speed cuz that's what Nokia set default :P
207 2011-04-25 01:53:17 <luke-jr> catch being, they expect it to be idle most of the time anyway
208 2011-04-25 01:53:38 <luke-jr> cuz if you actually keep it at the 600 MHz constantly, the battery won't last long :P
209 2011-04-25 01:53:47 <[Tycho]> Pentium processors are working tens of years just fine :)
210 2011-04-25 01:53:56 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: overclocked?
211 2011-04-25 01:54:25 <[Tycho]> No. I have one without fan, running 24/7 for more than 10 y.
212 2011-04-25 01:54:29 <B0g4r7> I'm using 10 year old Athlon chips.
213 2011-04-25 01:54:38 <luke-jr> Pentiums ran without fans?
214 2011-04-25 01:54:43 <[Tycho]> yes.
215 2011-04-25 01:54:55 <[Tycho]> It's not AMD :)
216 2011-04-25 01:55:04 <dfc> luke-jr is a young-in
217 2011-04-25 01:55:06 <luke-jr> I just recently found I couldn't boot an i386
218 2011-04-25 01:55:20 <luke-jr> dfc: no, I just thought my Pentium had fans :P
219 2011-04-25 01:55:35 <[Tycho]> I don't know english terms, but the lifetime shortening is caused by thermal emission. So if your cooling is fine then GPU will work long enough.
220 2011-04-25 01:55:48 <[Tycho]> Anyway you'll sell or replace your card in a few years.
221 2011-04-25 01:56:05 <luke-jr> it's fraud to sell an overclocked card unless you say it outright.
222 2011-04-25 01:56:32 <netxshare> luke-jr: I had seening underclocking helps
223 2011-04-25 01:56:45 <netxshare> right now the 5970 runs at like 83-84C
224 2011-04-25 01:58:01 <netxshare> using -v -w 128 I think on m0m's
225 2011-04-25 01:58:12 <netxshare> I am getting about 525-530
226 2011-04-25 01:58:30 <[Tycho]> luke-jr, what is your experience, if measured in quantity of fried 5870/5970 cards ?
227 2011-04-25 01:58:59 <[Tycho]> netxshare, you'll get 580 at 800 MHz.
228 2011-04-25 01:59:27 <netxshare> the shader clock?
229 2011-04-25 01:59:35 <netxshare> er core clock
230 2011-04-25 01:59:42 <[Tycho]> Yes.
231 2011-04-25 01:59:51 <[Tycho]> Memory can be set at 500 or 300 MHz.
232 2011-04-25 02:00:04 <netxshare> okay
233 2011-04-25 02:00:28 <[Tycho]> Underclocking memory will make the card more power-efficient.
234 2011-04-25 02:00:39 <[Tycho]> 40W less or something like it.
235 2011-04-25 02:01:41 <netxshare> ill go test this, thanks for the info
236 2011-04-25 02:05:27 <[Tycho]> Use MSI Afterburner to control the fan speed.
237 2011-04-25 02:05:31 <Compgenius> i see bitcoin is lagging a bit...
238 2011-04-25 02:05:41 <Compgenius> http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
239 2011-04-25 02:06:01 <[Tycho]> Or set it to a higher value because it's better to be less than +80C
240 2011-04-25 02:06:12 <Compgenius> it was only at 6 unconfirmed half an hour ago, and now it's up to 29 and it doesn't seem like anything has moved >_>
241 2011-04-25 02:06:47 <[Tycho]> Compgenius, it's mostly cleaned with each block.
242 2011-04-25 02:15:19 <netxshare> yeah
243 2011-04-25 02:15:25 <netxshare> I turned on msi afterburner
244 2011-04-25 02:15:31 <netxshare> set it to those settings
245 2011-04-25 02:15:37 <netxshare> doing around 72-74c
246 2011-04-25 02:15:49 <netxshare> and doing 575-595
247 2011-04-25 02:16:08 <netxshare> it will do even better once I change the miner
248 2011-04-25 02:19:19 <[Tycho]> 72-74 is fine :)
249 2011-04-25 02:19:27 <[Tycho]> What miner do you use ?
250 2011-04-25 02:24:48 <Compgenius> 48 unconfirmed...i wonder how long until someone finds a block and clears this up...
251 2011-04-25 02:24:57 <netxshare> right now I am using poclbm
252 2011-04-25 02:25:27 <[Tycho]> Poclbm is the best one, why would you want to change it ?
253 2011-04-25 02:25:52 <netxshare> writing my own
254 2011-04-25 02:25:56 <netxshare> I don't want to use opencl
255 2011-04-25 02:26:22 <[Tycho]> Going low level ?
256 2011-04-25 02:26:26 <netxshare> yeah
257 2011-04-25 02:27:00 <[Tycho]> This would give you 1-3% more, does it worth it ? :)
258 2011-04-25 02:27:21 <netxshare> I have seen better results then that
259 2011-04-25 02:27:30 <[Tycho]> mrb's one ?
260 2011-04-25 02:27:36 <netxshare> that's one example
261 2011-04-25 02:27:38 <max__> bitcoind shouldnt listen on port 8333 when its in server mode?
262 2011-04-25 02:28:12 <max__> 8332 is the rpc port righht? and 8333 ?
263 2011-04-25 02:28:17 <netxshare> I also don't want to run 1 process per gpu
264 2011-04-25 02:28:39 <Compgenius> max__, no 8332 is for a json server, 8333 is the main port for bitcoin
265 2011-04-25 02:35:24 <doublec> max__: it listens on 8333 by default doesn't it?
266 2011-04-25 02:35:44 <doublec> max__: 8332 only if you pass '-server' or run bitcoind
267 2011-04-25 02:35:51 <max__> doublec: i think the bitcoin client runs on 8333 by default
268 2011-04-25 02:35:58 <doublec> yes
269 2011-04-25 02:36:00 <max__> doublec: if i run bitcoind it runs on 8332
270 2011-04-25 02:36:03 <max__> however
271 2011-04-25 02:36:06 <max__> i need both ports open
272 2011-04-25 02:36:10 <max__> what do you suggest me to do?
273 2011-04-25 02:36:22 <max__> maybe bitcoin -server will open both ?
274 2011-04-25 02:36:27 <doublec> max__: bitcoind runs the RPC server on 8332
275 2011-04-25 02:36:34 <doublec> bitcoin -server does do both
276 2011-04-25 02:36:34 <max__> yes
277 2011-04-25 02:36:38 <max__> okay
278 2011-04-25 02:36:47 <max__> ill try bitcoin -server and let you know
279 2011-04-25 02:36:49 <doublec> '-server' says "run the RPC server on -rpcport"
280 2011-04-25 02:37:01 <doublec> with 8332 being the default
281 2011-04-25 02:38:35 <max__> i want
282 2011-04-25 02:38:41 <max__> to kill bitcoin -dameon but i cant
283 2011-04-25 02:38:47 <max__> weird
284 2011-04-25 02:38:58 <Compgenius> max__, are you on linux or windows?
285 2011-04-25 02:39:05 <max__> root     12980  0.0  0.6  33252  5012 ?        Ss   00:23   0:00 ./bitcoin -daemon root     12981  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        Zs   00:23   0:00 [bitcoin] <defunct> root     12998  0.0  0.6  33252  5012 ?        Ss   00:23   0:00 ./bitcoin -daemon root     12999  0.0  0.0      0     0 ?        Zs   00:23   0:00 [bitcoin] <defunct>
286 2011-04-25 02:39:06 <max__> linux
287 2011-04-25 02:39:13 <Compgenius> ah, kill -9 12980
288 2011-04-25 02:39:13 <max__> kill isnt working
289 2011-04-25 02:39:15 <Compgenius> as root
290 2011-04-25 02:39:35 <max__> i know but 12980: no process found
291 2011-04-25 02:39:47 <netxshare> sleepy time
292 2011-04-25 02:39:52 <Compgenius> thats strange
293 2011-04-25 02:39:57 <dfc> whats the most efficient way to connect 10 miners to a pool? individual connections tothe pool?
294 2011-04-25 02:40:06 <[Tycho]> Yes.
295 2011-04-25 02:40:19 <max__> Comgenius: yes its very weird
296 2011-04-25 02:40:21 <Compgenius> it's even more strange, theres 2 zombie bitcoin processes
297 2011-04-25 02:40:22 <dfc> [Tycho]: i thought the getwork connections were a problem
298 2011-04-25 02:40:27 <Compgenius> sounds like something's going wrogn there
299 2011-04-25 02:40:41 <dfc> killall -9 bitcoin
300 2011-04-25 02:40:43 <max__> Compgenius: yes i want to kill them without need to restart
301 2011-04-25 02:40:51 <dfc> killall -9 bitcoin
302 2011-04-25 02:40:53 <Compgenius> do what dfc said ^
303 2011-04-25 02:41:02 <max__> killall -9 bitcoin worked
304 2011-04-25 02:41:04 <max__> thxs
305 2011-04-25 02:41:40 <dfc> was [Tycho]'s yes an answer to my question about multiple connections to a pool server?
306 2011-04-25 02:41:51 <dfc> for what its worth all the miners are on the same subnet
307 2011-04-25 02:43:34 <[Tycho]> dfc, why would getwork connections be a problem ?
308 2011-04-25 02:43:57 <dfc> i thought the pool servers where having issues with the numer of getwork requests
309 2011-04-25 02:44:00 <max__> doublec: bitcoin -server isnt openning both ports 8333 and 8332
310 2011-04-25 02:44:05 <max__> maybe i need to wait a bit for 8333 to connect?
311 2011-04-25 02:44:13 <dfc> hence the push for push-pooling
312 2011-04-25 02:44:17 <doublec> max__: how are you checking they are open?
313 2011-04-25 02:44:24 <dfc> listening or connecting
314 2011-04-25 02:44:25 <max__> telnet localhost 8332
315 2011-04-25 02:44:29 <max__> telnet localhost 8333
316 2011-04-25 02:44:34 <dfc> netstat -rn |grep 833
317 2011-04-25 02:44:36 <[Tycho]> dfc, my server doesn't :) Some others had problems, but not sure if they still do.
318 2011-04-25 02:44:48 <dfc> [Tycho]: which is yours
319 2011-04-25 02:44:52 <doublec> 8333 is a shy server. It won't send anything unless you send a version btw
320 2011-04-25 02:45:05 <doublec> (although it will connect)
321 2011-04-25 02:45:19 <max__> i need to open port 8333 and port 8332
322 2011-04-25 02:45:27 <[Tycho]> dfc, deepbit.net
323 2011-04-25 02:45:49 <doublec> check the debug log and see if there are any errors
324 2011-04-25 02:46:01 <dfc> max__: please listten to me for a second
325 2011-04-25 02:46:10 <dfc> netstat -rn |grep 833
326 2011-04-25 02:46:49 <dfc> so how about the push-pool daemon from garzik
327 2011-04-25 02:46:52 <max__> dfc: done it does nothing
328 2011-04-25 02:47:00 <max__> dfc im using it
329 2011-04-25 02:47:09 <max__> but to use it
330 2011-04-25 02:47:25 <dfc> imajerk
331 2011-04-25 02:47:30 <dfc> scrap the r
332 2011-04-25 02:47:30 <max__> i first need to open bitcoind with port 8333 and port 8332 open
333 2011-04-25 02:47:33 <dfc> netstat -n
334 2011-04-25 02:47:52 <dfc> so you arent really using it yet:)
335 2011-04-25 02:48:01 <max__> done
336 2011-04-25 02:48:04 <dfc> max__: first unix account?
337 2011-04-25 02:48:12 <max__> i compiled it
338 2011-04-25 02:48:14 <max__> and i configured the config files
339 2011-04-25 02:48:34 <max__> ?
340 2011-04-25 02:48:35 <max__> dfc what do you mean
341 2011-04-25 02:48:38 <dfc> why would one run a push-pool server?
342 2011-04-25 02:48:48 <dfc> on a small scale?
343 2011-04-25 02:48:59 <max__> i want to run a push pool server
344 2011-04-25 02:49:25 <doublec> what is a 'push pool server'?
345 2011-04-25 02:49:31 <max__> i have many machines
346 2011-04-25 02:49:36 <max__> i have 3000 machines
347 2011-04-25 02:49:43 <max__> running 6990 gpus
348 2011-04-25 02:49:45 <dfc> how many is many
349 2011-04-25 02:49:54 <dfc> 3k?
350 2011-04-25 02:49:56 <max__> yes
351 2011-04-25 02:50:03 <dfc> you are th uk guy?
352 2011-04-25 02:50:08 <max__> no
353 2011-04-25 02:50:26 <doublec> you a janitor at pixar or something?
354 2011-04-25 02:50:32 <doublec> :)
355 2011-04-25 02:50:38 <dfc> where does one come up with the loot for 3k machines?
356 2011-04-25 02:50:41 <max__> lol no
357 2011-04-25 02:50:48 <dfc> max i can
358 2011-04-25 02:50:49 <doublec> I'll help for a cut of the profits
359 2011-04-25 02:51:08 <dfc> max__:  netstat -n |grep 833
360 2011-04-25 02:51:12 <max__> im just joking i dont have 3000 machines lol
361 2011-04-25 02:51:21 <dfc> max__:  netstat -n |grep 833
362 2011-04-25 02:51:23 <doublec> I'm dissapointed
363 2011-04-25 02:51:23 <max__> dfc i already did it
364 2011-04-25 02:51:26 <dfc> and
365 2011-04-25 02:51:28 <max__> it doesnt return anything
366 2011-04-25 02:51:37 <dfc> did you do -n or -rn
367 2011-04-25 02:51:45 <max__> -n
368 2011-04-25 02:51:48 <doublec> paste your bitcoin.conf somewhere (without user/pasword)
369 2011-04-25 02:51:59 <dfc> netstat -n |grep bitcoin
370 2011-04-25 02:52:02 <doublec> are you sure you're not using '-nolisten' or something?
371 2011-04-25 02:52:19 <max__> i have all the bitcoin stuff killed btw
372 2011-04-25 02:52:20 <max__> nothing bitcoin related is running
373 2011-04-25 02:52:44 <max__> what do you want me to run? bitcoind ? bitcoin ?
374 2011-04-25 02:52:52 <dfc> max what are you running the standard bitcoin client?
375 2011-04-25 02:53:12 <dfc> or garziks pushpool?
376 2011-04-25 02:53:15 <max__> i just closed all the bitcoins related stuff
377 2011-04-25 02:53:23 <max__> i have both
378 2011-04-25 02:53:24 <dfc> dude we know
379 2011-04-25 02:53:29 <dfc> what are you trying to run
380 2011-04-25 02:53:30 <max__> i have the pushpool stuff
381 2011-04-25 02:53:37 <doublec> max__: what about netstat -an |grep 8333
382 2011-04-25 02:53:37 <max__> i have the blkmonitor
383 2011-04-25 02:53:41 <dfc> pushpool is running?
384 2011-04-25 02:53:41 <max__> that comes with pushpoold
385 2011-04-25 02:53:44 <max__> nopes
386 2011-04-25 02:54:02 <dfc> what OS?
387 2011-04-25 02:54:04 <doublec> umm, those netstat commands are useless if you're not running bitcoin btw
388 2011-04-25 02:54:09 <doublec> we're assumming you're running it
389 2011-04-25 02:54:21 <max__> i just need to run bitcoin and open port 8332 and port 8333 in some way
390 2011-04-25 02:54:28 <doublec> so run bitcoind
391 2011-04-25 02:54:28 <max__> okay, what do you want me to run?
392 2011-04-25 02:54:29 <max__> bitcoind ?
393 2011-04-25 02:54:31 <max__> okay
394 2011-04-25 02:54:32 <doublec> no arguments
395 2011-04-25 02:54:33 <max__> let me try
396 2011-04-25 02:54:34 <max__> ok
397 2011-04-25 02:54:41 <doublec> then do: netstat -an |grep 8333
398 2011-04-25 02:54:46 <doublec> after 10 seconds or so
399 2011-04-25 02:55:19 <dfc> max this is the dev channel try #bitcoin
400 2011-04-25 02:55:46 <max__> dfc: yes it have me a few 8333 connections open
401 2011-04-25 02:55:47 <max__> now?
402 2011-04-25 02:56:05 <Compgenius> dfc, he'll have no luck in there, it's a bit dead in there atm
403 2011-04-25 02:56:21 <max__> im just running all this stuff to learn how bitcoin works to be able to become dev np
404 2011-04-25 02:56:44 <dfc> why do you want to run pushpool?
405 2011-04-25 02:56:52 <max__> so port 8333 is open yes, netstat gives me a few connections
406 2011-04-25 02:56:57 <max__> i want to become pushpool developer too
407 2011-04-25 02:57:03 <max__> i want to understand how everything works
408 2011-04-25 02:57:15 <max__> but first i need to have this working
409 2011-04-25 02:57:21 <max__> to be able to perform the testing
410 2011-04-25 02:57:27 <max__> after i code
411 2011-04-25 02:57:32 <max__> and modify the programs
412 2011-04-25 02:57:51 <dfc> if you dont know how to run netstat dont you think the coding is going to be a problem?
413 2011-04-25 02:58:11 <doublec> max__: there we go - you have successfully run it with port 8333 available
414 2011-04-25 02:58:19 <max__> i ran the netstat
415 2011-04-25 02:58:21 <max__> in netsta both ports seems to be open
416 2011-04-25 02:58:23 <max__> 8333 and 8332
417 2011-04-25 02:58:45 <doublec> max__: so what's your issue? You asked how to run bitcoins with 8333 and 8332 open
418 2011-04-25 02:58:49 <doublec> max__: you have. problem solved.
419 2011-04-25 02:58:56 <doublec> max__: and you're welcome
420 2011-04-25 02:58:58 <dfc> what does netstat -an |grep 833 |grep LISTEN say
421 2011-04-25 02:59:16 <max__> yes however when i telnet localhost 8333 and localhost 8332
422 2011-04-25 02:59:17 <max__> it just works for 8332
423 2011-04-25 02:59:27 <dfc> just works?
424 2011-04-25 02:59:27 <doublec> define 'works'
425 2011-04-25 02:59:27 <max__> it says..
426 2011-04-25 02:59:32 <doublec> what does telnet to 8333 do
427 2011-04-25 02:59:41 <dfc> dude telnet to google.com 443
428 2011-04-25 02:59:47 <dfc> does that work?
429 2011-04-25 02:59:52 <max__> dhcppc2:~/.bitcoin # netstat -an |grep 833 | grep LISTEN tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:8332          0.0.0.0:*               LISTEN
430 2011-04-25 03:00:03 <dfc> okay
431 2011-04-25 03:00:15 <dfc> so you are only listening on 8332
432 2011-04-25 03:00:26 <dfc> anything you saw for 8333 was outbound
433 2011-04-25 03:01:02 <max__> 8333 has the IP 192.168.0.2
434 2011-04-25 03:01:09 <max__> however
435 2011-04-25 03:01:10 <max__> 8332 has 127.0.0.1
436 2011-04-25 03:01:16 <dfc> so why was it not in the past above?
437 2011-04-25 03:01:21 <max__> i was expecting 8333 to be listening on 127.0.0.1
438 2011-04-25 03:01:36 <Kiba> hmm
439 2011-04-25 03:01:45 <max__> thats why telnet doesnt work
440 2011-04-25 03:01:48 <dfc> you are on your own i have stuff to do
441 2011-04-25 03:01:57 <max__> ok
442 2011-04-25 03:02:00 <max__> hxs
443 2011-04-25 03:02:01 <max__> thxs
444 2011-04-25 03:02:46 <max__> weird connection refused to 8333
445 2011-04-25 03:04:21 <max__> dfc you were right those are just outbound
446 2011-04-25 03:06:00 <max__> does anyone know how i can open port 8333
447 2011-04-25 03:06:11 <gjs278> your router
448 2011-04-25 03:06:13 <gjs278> or upnp
449 2011-04-25 03:06:17 <max__> no i mean
450 2011-04-25 03:06:25 <max__> when i open bitcoin
451 2011-04-25 03:06:35 <max__> i want it to start listesting on port 8333
452 2011-04-25 03:06:39 <gjs278> oh
453 2011-04-25 03:06:39 <max__> but im not able to do it yet
454 2011-04-25 03:06:41 <gjs278> instead of 8332
455 2011-04-25 03:06:46 <max__> no, i want both
456 2011-04-25 03:06:51 <gjs278> well
457 2011-04-25 03:06:52 <max__> i need 8332 for json
458 2011-04-25 03:07:13 <max__> and 8333 for bitcoin port network
459 2011-04-25 03:07:15 <gjs278> I don't think you can do both ports with one bitcoin app
460 2011-04-25 03:07:41 <max__> so how can i do both ports?
461 2011-04-25 03:08:07 <gjs278> I really don't see any setting for this 8333 that you want to open
462 2011-04-25 03:08:17 <gjs278> what does it use by default for you
463 2011-04-25 03:08:30 <max__> i know that ports 8332 is open when i open bitcoind
464 2011-04-25 03:08:34 <max__> i know how to open 8333 on my win machine
465 2011-04-25 03:08:39 <max__> i just open the standard bitcoin client
466 2011-04-25 03:08:43 <max__> and thats all
467 2011-04-25 03:08:45 <max__> but on linux
468 2011-04-25 03:08:46 <max__> it doesnt
469 2011-04-25 03:09:18 <gjs278> yeah I have no idea
470 2011-04-25 03:12:23 <doublec> max__: do you have multiple network adapters on your linux machine?
471 2011-04-25 03:12:50 <max__> nopes
472 2011-04-25 03:12:59 <max__> its a vmware virtual machine btw
473 2011-04-25 03:13:25 <max__> on windows
474 2011-04-25 03:13:26 <max__> it opens port 8333
475 2011-04-25 03:13:27 <max__> and i can telnet to it
476 2011-04-25 03:13:33 <max__> however in linux
477 2011-04-25 03:13:36 <max__> i dont know how to do that
478 2011-04-25 03:14:02 <doublec> in linux for me it runs on port 8333 too
479 2011-04-25 03:14:04 <max__> when i telnet to port 8333 in win it tells me something like "version"
480 2011-04-25 03:14:12 <doublec> just by opening the regular client
481 2011-04-25 03:14:22 <doublec> so you'll have to debug the issue of why it's not working for you yourself I'm afraid
482 2011-04-25 03:14:45 <doublec> or, give me an account on your machine to ssh into and I'll take a look
483 2011-04-25 03:15:06 <max__> do you ahve rpcusername and rpcpassword on bitcoind.conf?
484 2011-04-25 03:15:07 <max__> im sorry i cant give access
485 2011-04-25 03:16:14 <dotblank> why don't you netstat it?
486 2011-04-25 03:16:30 <dotblank> you can use that or lsof
487 2011-04-25 03:16:51 <max__> ok
488 2011-04-25 03:17:03 <dotblank> you could then attach strace to the process running lsof and dump the output to get an idea of what really going on
489 2011-04-25 03:18:21 <dotblank> oh wow.. looking at the scroolback it seems youve done that
490 2011-04-25 05:44:16 <BurtyB> mornin
491 2011-04-25 06:04:40 <sacarlson> I would like to add this checkpoint on my proto chain block chain  // Check that the block chain matches the known block chain up to a checkpoint , how are these numbers calculated or how can it be seen?
492 2011-04-25 06:05:31 <topi`> somebody's written a working paper called "Bitcoin - an innovative alternate digital currency"
493 2011-04-25 06:05:59 <topi`> it's a very interesting read. the author is actually attempting to profile a few groups of users who find Bitcoin interesting
494 2011-04-25 06:06:14 <topi`> like the ones who right now prefer gold as a medium of sacings
495 2011-04-25 06:06:16 <topi`> savings
496 2011-04-25 06:06:20 <ArtForz> basically just take the block hash at height n and hardcode a comparison to it
497 2011-04-25 06:08:29 <sacarlson> ArtForz: I see the lines of how it does the check  but not sure where the numbers they compare with how they are calculated
498 2011-04-25 06:08:43 <ArtForz> notice the numbers start with a bunch of zeros?
499 2011-04-25 06:08:52 <sacarlson> ArtForz: yes
500 2011-04-25 06:08:55 <ArtForz> it's sha256(sha256(block header))
501 2011-04-25 06:09:08 <ArtForz> yep, the same thing thats compared against target
502 2011-04-25 06:09:18 <ArtForz> aka the block header hash
503 2011-04-25 06:09:43 <ArtForz> and height is ... well... height
504 2011-04-25 06:10:29 <ArtForz> iirc genesis is height 0
505 2011-04-25 06:12:18 <sacarlson> ArtForz: ok I have data from one of my last mined numbers it has a new proof-of-work found
506 2011-04-25 06:12:30 <ArtForz> no
507 2011-04-25 06:12:41 <ArtForz> err... yes
508 2011-04-25 06:12:59 <sacarlson> ArtForz: ok can't hurt to try that thanks
509 2011-04-25 06:13:00 <ArtForz> wait
510 2011-04-25 06:13:04 <sacarlson> ?
511 2011-04-25 06:13:08 <ArtForz> thats already the block hash, isn't it ?
512 2011-04-25 06:13:23 <sacarlson> ArtForz: I guess
513 2011-04-25 06:13:25 <ArtForz> so just plug that in with a 0x in front
514 2011-04-25 06:14:05 <ArtForz> so if (nHeight ==  14 && hash != uint256("0x00000001e61dc...")
515 2011-04-25 06:14:37 <sacarlson> oh ya so just copy that number with the compare  if ((nHeight ==  14 && hash != uint256("0x0000000069e244f73d78e8fd29ba2fd2ed618bd6fa2ee92559f542fdb26e7c1d")  of that number found in that minned block
516 2011-04-25 06:15:01 <sacarlson> ya ok
517 2011-04-25 06:15:08 <sacarlson> ArtForz: ok time to try it
518 2011-04-25 06:25:02 <genjix> phantomcircuit: yo
519 2011-04-25 06:32:33 <topi`> "However, either the developers or a 'convincing coalition' could probably exercise discretionary authority to change the inflation rate." writes Reuben Grinberg
520 2011-04-25 06:32:52 <topi`> who are the developers? it's an open source project so ANYONE can be "the developer".
521 2011-04-25 06:35:05 <roconnor> topi`: in this case I think the developers are whoever has access to the code for the bitcoin client that appears on the bitcoin webpage that everyone uses.
522 2011-04-25 06:43:54 <topi`> in that case we need to decentralize the bitcoin webpage :)
523 2011-04-25 06:44:04 <topi`> create plenty of competing clients, and offer all of them at random :)
524 2011-04-25 06:48:10 <genjix> topi`: or maybe the main page should link to several clients (spesmilo, bitcoinj, ...)
525 2011-04-25 06:50:20 <theorbtwo> roconnor: Really, the most reasonable "convincing coalition" would be the two biggest pool operators.
526 2011-04-25 06:50:51 <topi`> so, we need more pools
527 2011-04-25 06:51:06 <roconnor> theorbtwo: in this case I think you need to get the peers on board, not just the miners.
528 2011-04-25 06:51:45 <topi`> the miners can spew whatever 100btc rewards for their blocks, but it won't work as long as the peers (non-miners) do not accept those blocks...
529 2011-04-25 06:52:34 <theorbtwo> Ah, but the other miners who are in on it will accept those blocks, so they will become part of the longest chain.
530 2011-04-25 06:52:56 <theorbtwo> Also, lowering the inflation seems to be easier then raising it, possibly.
531 2011-04-25 06:55:23 <roconnor> theorbtwo: they will have the largest nonsenical chain, and no one will care about it
532 2011-04-25 06:55:52 <roconnor> the rest of the network will accept the blocks generated by the other miners instead, even if the chain is shorter
533 2011-04-25 06:56:17 <theorbtwo> Ah, I see what you mean.
534 2011-04-25 06:56:36 <theorbtwo> Lowering inflation seems easier then raising it.
535 2011-04-25 06:57:13 <theorbtwo> As controller of most of the mining power, do not build chains on top of blocks you don't like.
536 2011-04-25 06:57:15 <roconnor> Yes.  I was told that current clients will accept blocks that produce too little bitcoins.
537 2011-04-25 06:57:42 <theorbtwo> Oh.  That's even worse.
538 2011-04-25 06:58:17 <roconnor> I don't think miners have much incentive to procude fewer bitcoins than they are allowed
539 2011-04-25 06:59:18 <sacarlson> ArtForz: thanks that check seems to have worked on my first try thanks for your help
540 2011-04-25 07:00:52 <roconnor> theorbtwo: still, lowering the bitcoin rate would be hard.  As soon as one person submits a coin at the old rate all the old clients will accept it, but the new ones won't.  The you will have a "net split"
541 2011-04-25 07:02:02 <ArtForz> yep, miners can produce blocks with less generation than allowed
542 2011-04-25 07:02:26 <ArtForz> CBlock::ConnectBlock
543 2011-04-25 07:02:27 <ArtForz> if (vtx[0].GetValueOut() > GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees))
544 2011-04-25 07:02:54 <ArtForz> notice that's a >, not a !=
545 2011-04-25 07:03:52 <ArtForz> but why on earth would they do that?
546 2011-04-25 07:04:36 <ArtForz> theres no economic incentive for a miner to "throw away" generation or fees
547 2011-04-25 07:05:03 <genjix> that's like your grandma giving you free money and you throw it back in her face
548 2011-04-25 07:05:42 <genjix> ;;bc,mtgox
549 2011-04-25 07:05:42 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.747,"low":1.596,"vol":14224,"buy":1.596,"sell":1.609,"last":1.596}}
550 2011-04-25 07:07:11 <sacarlson> I guess what I see now is when I have setup fee's on the only minner on my net that my client only pays if he sends more than one transaction in on minned block time
551 2011-04-25 07:07:37 <sacarlson> on = one
552 2011-04-25 07:07:41 <sipa> roconnor: how many solutions exists at most when recovering pubkeys?
553 2011-04-25 07:08:28 <genjix> c++0x is pretty sweet
554 2011-04-25 07:08:33 <sacarlson> so I can send a free transaction every 10 minits?
555 2011-04-25 07:08:35 <roconnor> sipa: I'm well convinced it can be upto 4 in rare cases (around 1 in 10^39).
556 2011-04-25 07:08:36 <topi`> mtgox seems to be stabilizing a bit after the 2-day rally
557 2011-04-25 07:08:47 <genjix> topi`: not at all
558 2011-04-25 07:08:55 <roconnor> sipa: I have some examples where 4 public keys verify the same signature
559 2011-04-25 07:09:02 <genjix> someone bought a ton hence the low volume now and massive spread
560 2011-04-25 07:09:16 <roconnor> sipa: most of the time it is 2 or 0 keys.
561 2011-04-25 07:10:08 <sacarlson> genjix: cool I sold at my 1.23usd per btc  and now have a buy back in at 0.98usd for 1 btc
562 2011-04-25 07:11:01 <sipa> roconnor: imagine we'd add a key-recovery-identifier, a number between 0 and 3, that tells you which one it
563 2011-04-25 07:11:17 <sipa> roconnor: would it be easy to calculate that number when generating the key?
564 2011-04-25 07:13:38 <roconnor> sipa: I don't think so.  The number might change depending on the signature I think.
565 2011-04-25 07:13:54 <sipa> oh right, and when signing?
566 2011-04-25 07:14:27 <roconnor> sipa: after you sign a key you can run key recovery on it and see which key is yours
567 2011-04-25 07:14:33 <sipa> of course
568 2011-04-25 07:14:42 <sipa> but i want to know whether it is easier than that :)
569 2011-04-25 07:15:02 <sipa> my idea is this: add an OP_GETPUBKEY script opcode that takes a 2-bit number as input, and puts on the stack the generated pubkey
570 2011-04-25 07:15:19 <sipa> this key could then be hashes and verified against an address
571 2011-04-25 07:15:23 <sipa> *hashed
572 2011-04-25 07:15:24 <roconnor> sipa: Though I think I still perfer the idea of a super operation that checks all 4 keys to see which one matches the public Key hash.
573 2011-04-25 07:15:40 <sipa> using the existing mechanism
574 2011-04-25 07:15:46 <roconnor> oh
575 2011-04-25 07:16:13 <sipa> an OP_CHECKALL that takes an address would be nice too, but is computationally harder and less flexible
576 2011-04-25 07:17:26 <roconnor> sipa: so a sigScript would have the signature plus another byte (2-bits) pushed onto the stack?
577 2011-04-25 07:17:48 <sipa> yes
578 2011-04-25 07:17:52 <roconnor> sipa: then a new op to take that signature, and byte and transform it into a signature and pubkey
579 2011-04-25 07:18:04 <roconnor> sipa: then the rest of the verification script proceeds as usual
580 2011-04-25 07:18:09 <sipa> yup
581 2011-04-25 07:18:56 <roconnor> sipa: signatures will be a byte longer than having just plain signatures :D
582 2011-04-25 07:21:26 <roconnor> If you really want to squeeze it, there might be some room in the hashtype footer in the signature. ... not that I'd really recommend that route.
583 2011-04-25 07:30:50 <roconnor> sipa: but as I think TD noted, if you are going to add new scripting operations, it might be better to go all the way and implement a completely new OP_CHECKSIG2 that works on more compressed representations of everything, or at least operations that transforms a more compressed representation of signatures into the current representation.
584 2011-04-25 07:31:07 <roconnor> ie. it is better to add all the missing functionaly we want in one go rather than slowly over time.
585 2011-04-25 07:42:59 <roconnor> Have any alerts every been sent?
586 2011-04-25 07:43:07 <roconnor> can I replay alerts whenever I want to?
587 2011-04-25 07:44:12 <Greek_o_nikos> "who are the developers? it's an open source project so ANYONE can be "the developer"." << and if a developer signs their contribution with digital signature, then the "who" goes to their public key.
588 2011-04-25 07:45:02 <TD> i don't think an alert was ever sent
589 2011-04-25 07:45:25 <TD> i believe a "replay" is almost by definition possible as alerts are broadcast
590 2011-04-25 07:45:35 <TD> i don't remember if they have a time limit on them
591 2011-04-25 07:45:52 <roconnor> the wiki doesn't give any indication that the alerts have a timestamp
592 2011-04-25 07:46:09 <TD> ah yes they do
593 2011-04-25 07:46:14 <TD> look at CUnsignedAlert
594 2011-04-25 07:46:22 <TD> int64 nRelayUntil;
595 2011-04-25 07:46:29 <TD> int64 nExpiration;
596 2011-04-25 07:47:52 <roconnor> I don't look at source code.  I'm in an isolated development environment. Any notes have to go via the wiki :D
597 2011-04-25 07:48:00 <roconnor> ... actually I cheat a lot
598 2011-04-25 07:51:18 <TD> heh
599 2011-04-25 07:51:26 <TD> i'd not worry about the alerts for now
600 2011-04-25 07:52:08 <sipa> roconnor, TD: which other changes would you propose if you're going to add a new opcode anyway?
601 2011-04-25 07:52:28 <TD> i would suggest trying to condense the whole of the scriptPubKey down into one opcode to save a few more bytes
602 2011-04-25 07:52:32 <roconnor> sipa: get rid of the DER cruft in signatures
603 2011-04-25 07:52:51 <sipa> in a signature, the DER overhead is 1 byte only
604 2011-04-25 07:53:02 <roconnor> sipa: the overhead in DER is 6-8 bytes
605 2011-04-25 07:53:08 <sipa> oh sorry
606 2011-04-25 07:53:13 <sipa> in pubkeys it's one byte
607 2011-04-25 07:53:17 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,blocks
608 2011-04-25 07:53:18 <gribble> 120073
609 2011-04-25 07:53:18 <TD> i don't know. as it'd be quite a long time before it could be safely switched on, i guess creating a list of backwards incompatible wishlist changes would be a good idea
610 2011-04-25 07:53:19 <sipa> in signatures it's more indeed
611 2011-04-25 07:53:29 <roconnor> sipa: the pubkey stuff isn't DER
612 2011-04-25 07:53:47 <roconnor> sipa: it is the standard encoding for public keys given by sec 1
613 2011-04-25 07:53:55 <sipa> ah, that explains
614 2011-04-25 07:54:05 <sipa> but indeed, i would get rid of the DER encoding
615 2011-04-25 07:55:18 <roconnor> how were the tests on using compressed public keys on unpatched clienents?
616 2011-04-25 07:55:50 <sipa> unsuccesfull so far, and i fear it may be hard
617 2011-04-25 07:56:05 <roconnor> oh really :(
618 2011-04-25 07:56:10 <roconnor> I was so optimistic
619 2011-04-25 07:56:13 <sipa> since the signature uses a hash of the tx with the signature itself being erased
620 2011-04-25 07:56:52 <sipa> this changes when we're using different pubkeys
621 2011-04-25 07:57:02 <roconnor> I don't see why
622 2011-04-25 07:57:24 <TD> oh, i see
623 2011-04-25 07:57:30 <TD> it reserializes the signature into uncompressed form
624 2011-04-25 07:57:31 <sipa> actually... i don't see it anymore
625 2011-04-25 07:57:52 <sipa> since that pubkey is not part of the tx itself, it's part of the tx that will consume it
626 2011-04-25 07:57:58 <roconnor> it is the public keys that are compressed/uncompressed  not the signatures
627 2011-04-25 07:58:30 <sipa> maybe still worth a shot
628 2011-04-25 07:58:33 <TD> right, sorry
629 2011-04-25 08:02:29 <roconnor> TD: in a coinbase output, must the index be -1 or is the index just ignored?
630 2011-04-25 08:02:36 <roconnor> s/output/outpoint/
631 2011-04-25 08:03:20 <sipa> it must be -1
632 2011-04-25 08:03:28 <sipa> oh wait
633 2011-04-25 08:03:46 <BlueMatt> jaromil: ping
634 2011-04-25 08:03:52 <sipa> when consuming a generated coin, you must refer to it using hash=0 n=-1
635 2011-04-25 08:04:04 <sipa> eh nvm
636 2011-04-25 08:04:23 <TD> hmm?
637 2011-04-25 08:04:40 <TD> i don't know. i don't recall seeing any special rules for consuming coinbase transactions
638 2011-04-25 08:04:47 <sipa> i'm wrong
639 2011-04-25 08:04:56 <TD> other than their invalid input and being in position zero, i think they are treated like normal txns
640 2011-04-25 08:05:21 <roconnor> I guess my question is more like, what is the defintion of a coinbase? one in which the hash is 0, or one in which the hash is 0 and the index is -1?
641 2011-04-25 08:05:57 <roconnor> or is the first item of a tx list the coinbase no matter what the hash is.
642 2011-04-25 08:05:57 <sipa> a coinbase tx, is a transaction with 1 input, whose prevout is hash=0 and n=-1
643 2011-04-25 08:06:16 <roconnor> sipa: see, I don't think that is what the client code does...
644 2011-04-25 08:06:25 <sipa> see CTransaction::IsCoinBase() in main.h
645 2011-04-25 08:06:40 <roconnor> I find C code difficult to read
646 2011-04-25 08:06:55 <roconnor> without a good understanding of the context
647 2011-04-25 08:07:00 <jaromil> hi BlueMatt
648 2011-04-25 08:07:00 <sipa> and COutPoint::IsNull() as well
649 2011-04-25 08:07:03 <TD> the hash of a coinbase tx is not zero
650 2011-04-25 08:07:14 <jaromil> just passing on the fly, my batt almost died and my irc shell too
651 2011-04-25 08:07:16 <jaromil> http://bitcoin.dyne.org/coverage/
652 2011-04-25 08:07:17 <roconnor> TD: the hash in the output position is zero
653 2011-04-25 08:07:17 <TD> the hash of the input connection is zero
654 2011-04-25 08:07:21 <jaromil> something i've done yesterday
655 2011-04-25 08:07:23 <TD> right
656 2011-04-25 08:07:27 <roconnor> s/output/outpoint/
657 2011-04-25 08:07:29 <jaromil> is a gcov / lcov survey of bitcoin code
658 2011-04-25 08:07:32 <roconnor> TD: and the index?
659 2011-04-25 08:07:37 <BlueMatt> jaromil: ok, just checking out the autotools stuff...
660 2011-04-25 08:07:38 <roconnor> of the outpoint
661 2011-04-25 08:07:40 <jaromil> running on my account, includes initial startup
662 2011-04-25 08:07:40 <sipa> roconnor: the index must be -1
663 2011-04-25 08:07:46 <roconnor> sipa: must?
664 2011-04-25 08:07:54 <jaromil> interesting for code overview
665 2011-04-25 08:07:57 <sipa> otherwise COutPoint::IsNull() will fail, and CTransaction::IsCoinBase() as well
666 2011-04-25 08:08:08 <BlueMatt> jaromil: shouldnt output be not in src but in some other dir after make?
667 2011-04-25 08:08:09 <jaromil> BlueMatt: i shouldn't have mentioned distcheck , now i see there is a problem
668 2011-04-25 08:08:17 <jaromil> BlueMatt: it can, but usually isn't
669 2011-04-25 08:08:24 <jaromil> however all these things are configurable
670 2011-04-25 08:08:32 <roconnor> sipa TD: I don't recall seeing such a -1 check in bitcoinJ
671 2011-04-25 08:08:40 <BlueMatt> really? every program Ive ever seen builds a directory tree as if it were installed after make
672 2011-04-25 08:08:43 <jaromil> enjoy lcov! :D
673 2011-04-25 08:08:52 <BlueMatt> ie bin/ include/ etc
674 2011-04-25 08:09:07 <BlueMatt> jaromil: also, have you tried it on win32?
675 2011-04-25 08:09:37 <sipa> currently, a typical spend-to-address scriptPubKey is OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <address> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG... using my proposal that would become OP_GENPUBKEY OP_HASH160 <address>> OP_EQUALVERIFY
676 2011-04-25 08:09:44 <TD> roconnor: well, bitcoinj is incomplete. its isCoinBase check just verifies the input hash is null
677 2011-04-25 08:09:47 <jaromil> phew found connector
678 2011-04-25 08:09:57 <TD> i don't know if it matters about the index
679 2011-04-25 08:10:00 <jaromil> BlueMatt: only with cygwin. needs testing on win32 definitely
680 2011-04-25 08:10:12 <BlueMatt> ah
681 2011-04-25 08:10:13 <jaromil> however the old build system is still in place
682 2011-04-25 08:10:18 <BlueMatt> ok
683 2011-04-25 08:10:23 <TD> sipa: but there will be several pubkeys right? why not just have a single opcode that does everything.   <sig> <address> OP_VERIFYSPEND
684 2011-04-25 08:10:33 <BlueMatt> well, Ill probably go test it on mingw sometime then
685 2011-04-25 08:10:33 <jaromil> and it should work, at least autotools is usually very portable, that's why its used
686 2011-04-25 08:10:41 <sipa> TD: the sig is not part of the pubkey script
687 2011-04-25 08:10:47 <BlueMatt> jaromil: also, could you look at xcompiling support
688 2011-04-25 08:10:48 <jaromil> however knowing some other codebases and experiences i know cmake is better for win
689 2011-04-25 08:10:50 <sipa> so just <address> OP_VERIFYSPEND
690 2011-04-25 08:10:52 <jaromil> because m4 is sloooow
691 2011-04-25 08:11:06 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/tree/crosscompile
692 2011-04-25 08:11:07 <roconnor> TD: I think that if someone makes a bitcoin with an non-negative1 index for the coinbase, bitcoinj will accept it but bitcoin will not.
693 2011-04-25 08:11:19 <jaromil> BlueMatt: in autotools xcompiling is done with --host=
694 2011-04-25 08:11:20 <BlueMatt> it compiles via mingw on linux, and Id like to be able to specify that for configure
695 2011-04-25 08:11:20 <roconnor> sipa: thanks for the pointer
696 2011-04-25 08:11:26 <jaromil> oh wow
697 2011-04-25 08:11:30 <jaromil> ok see --host=
698 2011-04-25 08:11:31 <TD> bitcoinj implements SPV. that means it accepts blocks that verify as part of the block chain
699 2011-04-25 08:11:33 <jaromil> maybe it works!
700 2011-04-25 08:11:39 <TD> it doesn't check the contents of the blocks beyond a few simple sanity checks
701 2011-04-25 08:11:43 <BlueMatt> jaromil: ok, thanks, Ill go do some testing and see what happens
702 2011-04-25 08:11:46 <jaromil> i use autotools for xcompiling mipsel stuff usually
703 2011-04-25 08:11:52 <TD> it can't verify the tx inputs anyway because it doesn't store all transactions in the block chain
704 2011-04-25 08:11:54 <roconnor> TD: oh, what is SPV?
705 2011-04-25 08:11:57 <jaromil> for that i do ./configure --host=mipsel-linux-gnu
706 2011-04-25 08:11:58 <roconnor> something in the whitepaper?
707 2011-04-25 08:12:02 <TD> see satoshis paper
708 2011-04-25 08:12:10 <TD> simplified payment verification
709 2011-04-25 08:12:14 <jaromil> and it just ends up using gcc-mipse-linux-gnu compilers in path
710 2011-04-25 08:12:57 <roconnor> TD: if it doesn't verify transactions fully, then it can be spoofed?
711 2011-04-25 08:13:27 <TD> as stated in the pape, it will believe anything for as long as an attacker dominates the network (controls >50% of hash power), in ways a full implemenation cannot be fooled
712 2011-04-25 08:13:34 <TD> the benefit is much lower resource usage and simpler code
713 2011-04-25 08:15:23 <roconnor> Oh I see.  You rely on confirmations from the network
714 2011-04-25 08:15:48 <TD> yes
715 2011-04-25 08:16:07 <TD> once the attacker stops hashing, the correct/valid chain will catch up and become the longest chain again
716 2011-04-25 08:16:21 <TD> at that point SPV impls will switch to that chain and everything will sort itself out
717 2011-04-25 08:16:25 <TD> that's the code i'm writing at the moment, actually
718 2011-04-25 08:17:36 <roconnor> given a transaction how do you find which block it has been incorporated into?
719 2011-04-25 08:18:25 <TD> you can't do that in SPV mode because you don't store all transactions. but you don't have to.
720 2011-04-25 08:18:57 <TD> currently to discover new transactions you have to download full blocks, if that's what you're asking
721 2011-04-25 08:19:05 <roconnor> the SPV section says "... and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in."
722 2011-04-25 08:19:45 <TD> yes, it anticipated protocol features that were never implemented
723 2011-04-25 08:20:07 <TD> in the long term if bitcoin continues to scale up, a getmerklebranch command can be added
724 2011-04-25 08:20:12 <roconnor> TD: this seems like it would make writing your SPV code more difficult :D
725 2011-04-25 08:20:15 <TD> or rather, a getmatchingtxns
726 2011-04-25 08:20:21 <TD> no, not really.
727 2011-04-25 08:20:29 <TD> you don't need to link arbitrary transactions to a place in the chain
728 2011-04-25 08:20:30 <roconnor> your adding new protocol commands?
729 2011-04-25 08:20:32 <BlueMatt> anyone know what jgarzik's freenode.verf file is about?
730 2011-04-25 08:20:38 <roconnor> *you're
731 2011-04-25 08:20:47 <TD> not today. it's not necessary. you download the full block chain and just extract the transactions that interest you, then throw the rest away
732 2011-04-25 08:20:53 <TD> it's not very efficient bandwidth wise but it works
733 2011-04-25 08:21:02 <roconnor> oh
734 2011-04-25 08:21:06 <TD> in the longer term, you'd send a remote full node a template to match against
735 2011-04-25 08:21:13 <TD> it would then send you merkle branches for the matching transactions
736 2011-04-25 08:21:27 <TD> (or alternatively hashes of the transactions which you then query the branches for separately, but that requires more round trips)
737 2011-04-25 08:22:12 <BlueMatt> oh nvm
738 2011-04-25 08:23:05 <genjix> is there a way to auto-construct in a return value for a tuple in c++0x?
739 2011-04-25 08:23:09 <genjix> std::tuple<int, int, std::string> Multi() { return auto(10, 1, "hello"); }
740 2011-04-25 08:28:04 <jaromil> genjix: just a start at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Code_analysis :D
741 2011-04-25 08:28:18 <jaromil> genjix: caedes is in with us, you can proceed planning a meeting next week
742 2011-04-25 08:28:54 <genjix> sweet
743 2011-04-25 08:34:20 <sipa> TD: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6430.msg94738#msg94738
744 2011-04-25 08:36:51 <jaromil> hey ppl is anyone working to open a -dev mailinglist plz? web forums... meh.
745 2011-04-25 08:40:20 <BlueMatt> jaromil: I think most people gave up on the idea
746 2011-04-25 08:40:25 <BlueMatt> it just wasnt really worth doing
747 2011-04-25 08:40:49 <BlueMatt> if you want to put it together, Im sure people would use it though
748 2011-04-25 08:41:10 <ersi> I'm not so sure
749 2011-04-25 08:46:39 <roconnor> sipa: with regards to CPU usage, a superOp would be able to use keyrecovery in place of signature verification.
750 2011-04-25 08:47:11 <roconnor> key Recovory is about the same cost as signature verification I think (per key tested)
751 2011-04-25 08:47:14 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
752 2011-04-25 08:47:15 <gribble> Current Blocks: 120083 | Current Difficulty: 92347.59095209 | Next Difficulty At Block: 120959 | Next Difficulty In: 876 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 days, 8 hours, 43 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 102810.33536804
753 2011-04-25 08:47:18 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
754 2011-04-25 08:47:19 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":1.747,"low":1.5901,"vol":13800,"buy":1.59,"sell":1.599,"last":1.5903}}
755 2011-04-25 08:48:43 <sipa> roconnor: sure about that?
756 2011-04-25 08:48:56 <sipa> roconnor: actually, could you benchmark that? :)
757 2011-04-25 08:49:16 <roconnor> No I'm not sure, and I cannot benchmark it
758 2011-04-25 08:49:31 <roconnor> I'm just estimating based on the operations
759 2011-04-25 08:50:04 <roconnor> actually I should take that back
760 2011-04-25 08:50:32 <roconnor> key recovery has to both decompress a compressed public key and do something similar to a signature verification
761 2011-04-25 08:51:18 <sipa> yes, idneed
762 2011-04-25 08:51:20 <sipa> *indeed
763 2011-04-25 08:51:28 <sipa> but i'd like to know how much that overhead is
764 2011-04-25 08:51:37 <sipa> i'll try to implement it using openssl
765 2011-04-25 08:52:01 <roconnor> ignoring the decompression part, both a signature verification and a key recoveory do two group exponentions, one group operation, and one inverse mod n operation.
766 2011-04-25 08:52:53 <roconnor> oh wait I'm wrong
767 2011-04-25 08:52:55 <roconnor> sorry
768 2011-04-25 08:53:28 <roconnor> signature verification does two group exponetials, one group operation, one inverse mod n and two multiplications mod n
769 2011-04-25 08:53:53 <roconnor> key recovery does *three* group exponentials, one group operations, one inverse mond n and 0 multiplications mod n.
770 2011-04-25 08:54:09 <roconnor> so ya, I guess key recovery will be a little bit slower.
771 2011-04-25 08:54:11 <roconnor> hmm
772 2011-04-25 08:54:39 <roconnor> Acutally I my implementation is just sucky
773 2011-04-25 08:54:58 <roconnor> I can rewrite it to use the same number of operations as signature verification
774 2011-04-25 08:56:00 <sipa> hmm, if you've done that, could you show your implementation?
775 2011-04-25 08:56:07 <roconnor> ys
776 2011-04-25 08:56:16 <sipa> reading Haskell won't be a problem :p
777 2011-04-25 08:58:01 <roconnor> sipa: http://hpaste.org/46022/ecdsa_key_recovery
778 2011-04-25 08:58:07 <roconnor> let me know if you want me to walk you through it
779 2011-04-25 08:59:07 <sacarlson> is there any examples on how to use the scripts in bitcoin?
780 2011-04-25 08:59:29 <sacarlson> I was looking for posibly making a simple escrow
781 2011-04-25 08:59:52 <roconnor> sacarlson: have you seen https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Scripts ?
782 2011-04-25 09:00:15 <sacarlson> roconnor: no but I'll be reading it now thanks
783 2011-04-25 09:01:03 <roconnor> I should rewrite sqrtFp to return a list of all square roots instead of Maybe
784 2011-04-25 09:16:52 <roconnor> there, that's much more elegent
785 2011-04-25 09:19:05 <sipa> newtype Fn = Fn Integer?
786 2011-04-25 09:19:28 <roconnor> yes
787 2011-04-25 09:19:37 <roconnor> though the arithmetics are all mod n
788 2011-04-25 09:20:27 <roconnor> sipa: the types of x and y are Fp where again newtype Fp = Fp Integer
789 2011-04-25 09:21:16 <roconnor> r, invr, s, and (fromInteger (-hash)) are all of type Fn
790 2011-04-25 09:21:25 <roconnor> scale :: Fn -> Point -> Point
791 2011-04-25 09:22:53 <roconnor> sipa: maybe I should paste the entire module as well
792 2011-04-25 09:23:28 <genjix> phantomcircuit: you around?
793 2011-04-25 09:24:33 <roconnor> sipa: here is my entire module: http://hpaste.org/paste/46022/ecdsa_key_recovery_annotation#p46024
794 2011-04-25 09:26:16 <sipa> roconnor: the hard part will be finding all the relevant functions in openssl, not the algorithmic part :D
795 2011-04-25 09:26:50 <roconnor> presumablye OpenSSL doesn't have functions for key recovery
796 2011-04-25 09:26:59 <roconnor> and you would need to patch OpenSSL
797 2011-04-25 09:27:25 <sipa> no, just include the low-level headers to expose the internals of EC_KEY and EC_SIG
798 2011-04-25 09:27:38 <sipa> and call the ec math functions yourself
799 2011-04-25 09:27:43 <roconnor> :O
800 2011-04-25 09:27:57 <roconnor> wouldn't patchin openssl be better for everyone?
801 2011-04-25 09:28:01 <sipa> openssl is not really an api, just a bunch of functions
802 2011-04-25 09:28:20 <sipa> yeah, maybe i can contribute it back to openssl if it works
803 2011-04-25 09:28:55 <sipa> i already wrote a function to create an openssl key based on domain parameters + secret key parameter
804 2011-04-25 09:29:09 <roconnor> domain parameters?
805 2011-04-25 09:29:51 <sipa> the things defined by secp256k1
806 2011-04-25 09:30:03 <roconnor> ok
807 2011-04-25 09:30:08 <sipa> size of field, curve equation, generator point, ...
808 2011-04-25 09:31:41 <sacarlson> ok I read the wiki for scripts now I still need an example to make it clear to me how they are used on say the command line with bitcoind
809 2011-04-25 09:32:01 <sipa> they aren't
810 2011-04-25 09:32:11 <sipa> bitcoin only creates two types of scripts
811 2011-04-25 09:32:20 <sipa> either send to address, or send to pubkey
812 2011-04-25 09:32:30 <sipa> the first is used for normal transactions, the second for generations
813 2011-04-25 09:33:48 <sacarlson> sipa: what is sent to the pubkey to do anything like a coin of some value to make changes in the script?
814 2011-04-25 09:34:03 <sipa> ?
815 2011-04-25 09:34:27 <sacarlson> sipa: I'm clueless on the steps on the command line to perform any script operation
816 2011-04-25 09:34:43 <sipa> you can't
817 2011-04-25 09:34:51 <sipa> it is not exposed to the user
818 2011-04-25 09:34:57 <sipa> bitcoin just uses it internally
819 2011-04-25 09:35:22 <lfm> sacarlson: you dont really use "scripts" at that level, the scripts are just internal. ie when you send
820 2011-04-25 09:36:40 <sacarlson> lfm: ok give me any example of an existing or none exiting scripts operation in the case of a escrow what is needed to move the script to the next step?
821 2011-04-25 09:36:49 <jaromil> autotool pull req. rebased and looking good: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/180
822 2011-04-25 09:36:57 <jaromil> smack it up a bit more! :D
823 2011-04-25 09:37:41 <lfm> sacarlson: I dont know how youd do that really. it would be a whole new set of operations
824 2011-04-25 09:38:21 <sipa> i don't think so
825 2011-04-25 09:38:36 <sipa> escrows was the one thing satoshi had in mind when he designed the script language
826 2011-04-25 09:38:59 <lfm> new command line operations that use new combinations of script operations
827 2011-04-25 09:39:24 <sacarlson> sipa: yes I read the article but again I don't have a firm understanding of how the values get into the scripts to change there path
828 2011-04-25 09:39:55 <lfm> the scripts are actually kinda hard coded in the software
829 2011-04-25 09:40:17 <sipa> change their path?
830 2011-04-25 09:40:36 <sipa> those scripts are just sequences of bytes embedded in transactions
831 2011-04-25 09:41:13 <sacarlson> sipa:  then how are the if then statment used if the values don't change
832 2011-04-25 09:41:36 <sipa> which values?
833 2011-04-25 09:42:30 <topi`> ~.
834 2011-04-25 09:42:33 <lfm> theyre hard coded in the routine that create the transactions then interpretted by the other nodes to do waht is wanted theoreticlly. in practise most of the script abilities are disabled in the current software
835 2011-04-25 09:42:35 <sipa> a script is just a little program executed to verify whether someone is allowed to spend that output
836 2011-04-25 09:42:37 <sacarlson> sipa:  I don't know the one that the creator of the script creates I think lfm is correct  we need to add some command line input extensions to enable them
837 2011-04-25 09:42:48 <sipa> no we don't
838 2011-04-25 09:43:02 <sacarlson> sipa: yes so what input do I use to say ok it's ok to spend it now?
839 2011-04-25 09:43:13 <sipa> the transaction spending it is the input
840 2011-04-25 09:43:23 <sipa> and its scriptSig
841 2011-04-25 09:43:50 <sacarlson> sipa:  ok so on the sender side how do I change this scriptSig?
842 2011-04-25 09:44:05 <sipa> your client creates it for you
843 2011-04-25 09:44:10 <sipa> when signing a transaction
844 2011-04-25 09:44:14 <sipa> to be able to spend
845 2011-04-25 09:44:36 <lfm> sacarlson: franky Iv never really understood it. I dont see why you can just kae a script that says ok spend this other guy's money, no signature need for this script haha
846 2011-04-25 09:45:21 <BlueMatt> hey, they finally replaced the bsod with a somewhat better-looking black sod
847 2011-04-25 09:46:03 <lfm> BlueMatt: you miss the point, its still called a blue screen of death, no matter what color it is
848 2011-04-25 09:46:16 <BlueMatt> lfm: its still bsod either way
849 2011-04-25 09:46:46 <lfm> yup
850 2011-04-25 09:46:47 <sacarlson> well until I see one simple example of this scipting language used where the sender can later release the funds that the reciever knows he has locked in I'm stuck
851 2011-04-25 09:47:10 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: its not implemented yet
852 2011-04-25 09:47:29 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: yes that's what I had hoped to do
853 2011-04-25 09:47:48 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, you need nLockTime
854 2011-04-25 09:47:54 <BlueMatt> which iirc isnt implemented yet
855 2011-04-25 09:47:57 <sacarlson> but I can see at this point it's presently beyond my present knowledge
856 2011-04-25 09:48:13 <lfm> meanwhile you can still use regular escrow people
857 2011-04-25 09:48:20 <sipa> sacarlson: ah now i understand your question
858 2011-04-25 09:48:34 <sipa> sacarlson: you want a concrete example on how the script system can be used for an escrow?
859 2011-04-25 09:49:00 <sacarlson> sipa: even if it didn't exist yet yes
860 2011-04-25 09:49:03 <sipa> sacarlson: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=4723.0
861 2011-04-25 09:49:46 <sipa> transactions cannot be changed, nor can the input of a script, a script just says whether a tx is a valid or invalid way of spending the output
862 2011-04-25 09:54:54 <sacarlson> sipa: I already read that article and already enabled IsStandard() or added a way to enable it in bitcoin.conf  but I'm still stuck
863 2011-04-25 09:55:19 <sipa> what do you want to do, precisely?
864 2011-04-25 09:55:33 <sacarlson> simple escrow to start
865 2011-04-25 09:55:48 <sipa> you'll need to modify createtransaction in that case
866 2011-04-25 09:55:54 <sipa> to create another script
867 2011-04-25 09:56:08 <sipa> with two addresses instead of one
868 2011-04-25 09:56:59 <sacarlson> sipa: ok so scripts are already used in createtransaction?
869 2011-04-25 09:58:11 <sipa> yes of course
870 2011-04-25 09:58:20 <sipa> they are the mechanism for verifying transactions
871 2011-04-25 09:58:33 <sipa> only currently there are only two types of scripts used
872 2011-04-25 09:59:46 <sacarlson> sipa: well at least I'll take a look in that area to see if there is any hope,  but it looks dim
873 2011-04-25 10:00:05 <sacarlson> but thanks for your input all the same
874 2011-04-25 10:25:48 <genjix> how the hell does CTxOut call ::IsMine(...) on line 349 of main.h when it's a base class and doesn't inherit anything, nor define IsMine?
875 2011-04-25 10:29:18 <sipa> genjix: it refers to script'h IsMine() function
876 2011-04-25 10:29:28 <sipa> the :: is to explicitly not refer to the class method
877 2011-04-25 10:31:14 <genjix> oh ok in script.h
878 2011-04-25 10:50:25 <genjix> "The result has been a language with greatly improved abstraction mechanisms. The range of abstractions that C++ can express elegantly, flexibly, and at zero costs compared to hand-crafted specialized code has greatly increased."  ... "The pieces just fit together better than they used to and I find a higher-level style of programming more natural than before and as efficient as ever. ... The abstractions are simply more flexible and affordable tha
879 2011-04-25 10:50:33 <genjix> someone talking about C++0x
880 2011-04-25 10:50:51 <genjix> there are people that actually think C++ is modern.
881 2011-04-25 11:09:42 <Diablo-D3> hey
882 2011-04-25 11:09:44 <Diablo-D3> who owns mtgox?
883 2011-04-25 11:10:10 <noagendamarket> magical tux ?
884 2011-04-25 11:10:44 <Diablo-D3> he does now?
885 2011-04-25 11:10:49 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: check your email dude
886 2011-04-25 11:13:05 <noagendamarket> yes
887 2011-04-25 11:13:26 <Diablo-D3> he needs to do something about that 100btc missing tx
888 2011-04-25 11:14:06 <noagendamarket> ?
889 2011-04-25 11:14:16 <noagendamarket> yours ?
890 2011-04-25 11:14:17 <Diablo-D3> I sent 100btc to my mtgox account, it never showed up
891 2011-04-25 11:14:25 <noagendamarket> hmm when was that ?
892 2011-04-25 11:14:29 <Diablo-D3> yesterday