1 2011-05-04 00:01:25 <ntosme2> clearly "the man" doesn't want us to climb to the status of significant influence aka wealth lol
  2 2011-05-04 00:01:53 <molecular> boy am I glad!
  3 2011-05-04 00:02:03 <molecular> it was just the filesystem, my card is still good ;)
  4 2011-05-04 00:02:16 <Diablo-D3> lol
  5 2011-05-04 00:02:20 <ntosme2> anyone had a card die on them?
  6 2011-05-04 00:02:36 <molecular> if you overvoltage, I think it can happen
  7 2011-05-04 00:02:46 <ntosme2> I've never seen a dead gfx card that was kept stock
  8 2011-05-04 00:10:00 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix * r73d9687560a2 intersango/ (help.php index.php): Donald: altered help text. http://tinyurl.com/3utu9mv
  9 2011-05-04 00:10:05 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix * r6f41e27611fd intersango/www/footer.php: altered links wording slightly. http://tinyurl.com/3krf9uz
 10 2011-05-04 00:10:06 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix * rc0620bbffbe1 intersango/view_request.php: BUGFIX: cancel deposits = bad! http://tinyurl.com/3uhhqch
 11 2011-05-04 00:11:36 <molecular> "kernel: [  143.980772] do_IRQ: 0.84 No irq handler for vector (irq -1)" <- getting this in syslog when mining with poclbm. anyone know what that means?
 12 2011-05-04 00:12:18 <ArtForz> sounds like spurious IRQs
 13 2011-05-04 00:12:45 <molecular> could these come from the graphics-card?
 14 2011-05-04 00:13:13 <ArtForz> in theory, yes
 15 2011-05-04 00:15:57 <molecular> "kernel: [  301.024026] EXT4-fs (sda2): initial error at 1296827262: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:718" <- something's awfully wrong here
 16 2011-05-04 00:16:06 <ArtForz> uh oh
 17 2011-05-04 00:16:19 <ArtForz> HD dieing?
 18 2011-05-04 00:16:22 <molecular> maybe
 19 2011-05-04 00:16:28 <molecular> made a backup before
 20 2011-05-04 00:16:32 <B0g4r7> best run badblocks
 21 2011-05-04 00:16:45 <ArtForz> smart showing anything unusual?
 22 2011-05-04 00:16:48 <B0g4r7> If all checks out, fsck.
 23 2011-05-04 00:16:59 <molecular> if I suspect a hd of failing, I dont run badblocks, I run to my trusted hw dealer ;)
 24 2011-05-04 00:17:17 <molecular> fscked before, looked like crap, many errors
 25 2011-05-04 00:17:23 <ArtForz> actually even near-dead HDs can last for a surprisingly long time
 26 2011-05-04 00:17:37 <B0g4r7> I first check with badblocks.
 27 2011-05-04 00:17:38 <molecular> they might, just dont like playing games at todays hd-prices
 28 2011-05-04 00:17:44 <B0g4r7> If there is a problem, then it's ddrescue.
 29 2011-05-04 00:18:06 <molecular> will do badblocks, at least then I know what I'm against
 30 2011-05-04 00:18:12 <molecular> *up against
 31 2011-05-04 00:18:20 <ArtForz> I have a 120GB samsung that likes to develop bad blocks by the dozen for testing unknown mainboards
 32 2011-05-04 00:19:18 <B0g4r7> You mean testing boards you think may kill your drive?
 33 2011-05-04 00:19:21 <ArtForz> yep
 34 2011-05-04 00:19:26 <B0g4r7> Or fot testing how well the controller handles physical errors?
 35 2011-05-04 00:19:28 <B0g4r7> ah.
 36 2011-05-04 00:19:58 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix * rb15cab8d4b33 intersango/view_request.php: no need to translate request type. http://tinyurl.com/3dsjlpd
 37 2011-05-04 00:20:34 <ArtForz> basically a whole bunch of damaged stuff that's still good enough to do basic checking for magic smoke and getting up to BIOS or so
 38 2011-05-04 00:21:27 <molecular> it sucks: going to bed with the miner off ;(. no checking for a block tomorrow morning. gn8 guys
 39 2011-05-04 00:21:39 <B0g4r7> :(
 40 2011-05-04 00:21:40 <B0g4r7> nite
 41 2011-05-04 00:40:00 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix exper * r982b72..76f3a9 intersango/ (22 files in 5 dirs): (6 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3dynz2e
 42 2011-05-04 00:49:59 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix exper * r26a8ddd151a9 intersango/db.php: unreverted revert of db.php using config file. http://tinyurl.com/6awoghh
 43 2011-05-04 00:50:10 <Diablo-D3> I... what?
 44 2011-05-04 00:57:09 <lulzplzkthx> lol.
 45 2011-05-04 00:57:14 <lulzplzkthx> "unreverted revert"
 46 2011-05-04 00:58:44 <genjix> :)
 47 2011-05-04 01:00:58 <lulzplzkthx> So I recently realized I had an issue in my last pull request, so the tooltip worked correctly, but doesn't update the balance if there is a new transaction to you, and the UI hasn't been shown. So I just made a change localy, can someone send me a bitcent and tell me when it has 1 confirmation?
 48 2011-05-04 01:01:07 <lulzplzkthx> 1Q3YTpqDG9WX4THdhkvR8MQ9x3t334yqJs <-- This address.
 49 2011-05-04 01:04:40 <lulzplzkthx> No? :\n475597
 50 2011-05-04 01:07:34 <da2ce7> https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=7181.msg105408#msg105408
 51 2011-05-04 01:07:39 <da2ce7> Support the Poject
 52 2011-05-04 01:37:42 <EPiSKiNG> what's the least expensive case I can get to house 2 5970 and an additional 5870?
 53 2011-05-04 01:37:53 <EPiSKiNG> are there like motherboard platters you can buy?
 54 2011-05-04 01:38:47 <gjs278> my case can do a 5870 and two 5970s with a single riser and balancing the 5870 on top of the 5970 sideways
 55 2011-05-04 01:38:56 <gjs278> and then securing it to the back of the case with a zip tie
 56 2011-05-04 01:39:15 <EPiSKiNG> riser to x1 lane?
 57 2011-05-04 01:39:17 <gjs278> no
 58 2011-05-04 01:39:24 <gjs278> I have 3 pci-e slots
 59 2011-05-04 01:39:30 <gjs278> so riser to the 3rd pci slot
 60 2011-05-04 01:39:36 <gjs278> 16x to 16x
 61 2011-05-04 01:39:57 <EPiSKiNG> and the power supply has enough cabling for 3 cards?
 62 2011-05-04 01:40:22 <gjs278> I have a tx850 and I have enough cables
 63 2011-05-04 01:40:26 <gjs278> but I don't think it's enough power
 64 2011-05-04 01:40:32 <gjs278> I know I can do two 5970's, but I only do 1
 65 2011-05-04 01:40:42 <EPiSKiNG> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130290  <--------- that one has 2 x16 slots and one x1... was figuring I could use a riser for the x1 lane
 66 2011-05-04 01:41:03 <gjs278> you can
 67 2011-05-04 01:41:12 <gjs278> they make 1x to 16x if you don't feel like hacking the plastic
 68 2011-05-04 01:41:41 <gjs278> you definitely have to rise that 1x, no way a card will fit there
 69 2011-05-04 01:42:37 <gjs278> my case is just a generic mid sized lian li, and I have to remove the hd bay to fit any 5970
 70 2011-05-04 01:42:48 <gjs278> so keep that in mind you'll probably have to get that out of the way and just put the hd in the 5.25 bay
 71 2011-05-04 01:43:21 <EPiSKiNG> yeah, but to fit 2 5970...
 72 2011-05-04 01:43:48 <EPiSKiNG> I have an Antec 900 two
 73 2011-05-04 01:43:56 <gjs278> whats your isse
 74 2011-05-04 01:43:59 <EPiSKiNG> and it will fit 2 5970 with the cages out
 75 2011-05-04 01:43:59 <gjs278> issue
 76 2011-05-04 01:44:39 <gjs278> I'll show you my ghetto pic
 77 2011-05-04 01:44:45 <EPiSKiNG> i'm just wondering if there's a cheaper way to set it up than to spend $120 on a case
 78 2011-05-04 01:44:52 <gjs278> http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1626/photocpr.jpg
 79 2011-05-04 01:44:59 <gjs278> the 5870 is vertical in that pic
 80 2011-05-04 01:45:03 <gjs278> underneath it is 1 5970
 81 2011-05-04 01:45:07 <gjs278> but above that is my raid card
 82 2011-05-04 01:45:13 <gjs278> and if that were out, I could fit another 5970
 83 2011-05-04 01:45:38 <EPiSKiNG> yeah, my main PC is using a RevoDrive
 84 2011-05-04 01:45:39 <gjs278> the 5870 looks like its sticking out a lot, but thats only because I have an aftermarket cooler on it which is slightly larger
 85 2011-05-04 01:45:49 <gjs278> with stock cooler it would fit easily
 86 2011-05-04 01:46:03 <gjs278> I have a zip tie on the left side to secure it to the back of the case
 87 2011-05-04 01:46:45 <gjs278> so if you really wanted to you could copy this setup with a riser, just the card would be on top near the cpu cooler
 88 2011-05-04 01:47:21 <gjs278> case was like $90 but a similar size can be found for less
 89 2011-05-04 01:48:09 <EPiSKiNG> i'm looking now
 90 2011-05-04 01:51:19 <gjs278> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811112154 is mine
 91 2011-05-04 01:54:23 <gjs278> that explains why the hashrate is almost 300hash now
 92 2011-05-04 01:54:42 <gjs278> you keep adding new miners to the mix
 93 2011-05-04 01:57:52 <EPiSKiNG> [Tycho] sell me one!
 94 2011-05-04 01:59:11 <EPiSKiNG> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811103038  <--- that looks like it'd fit 2 5970
 95 2011-05-04 01:59:13 <Diablo-D3> cases for what?
 96 2011-05-04 02:00:34 <EPiSKiNG> motherboards and GPUs
 97 2011-05-04 02:02:25 <gjs278> if you take out the hd bay
 98 2011-05-04 02:02:30 <gjs278> basically every midsized case will work
 99 2011-05-04 02:03:42 <gjs278> I have the 11.4 drivers now
100 2011-05-04 02:03:46 <gjs278> going to check these things out
101 2011-05-04 02:03:52 <gjs278> 397mhash is the number to beat
102 2011-05-04 02:04:03 <luke-jr> 1 grafut is seriously close to 2 tonal meters; I wonder if they're really exactly the same
103 2011-05-04 02:05:10 <gjs278> no change
104 2011-05-04 02:09:21 <EPiSKiNG> a lot of mid-sized cases don't have removable drive bays
105 2011-05-04 02:10:04 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc [bc,eligius]
106 2011-05-04 02:10:06 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14617205.3641 Khps, given current difficulty of 109670.13329248 , is 8 hours, 57 minutes, and 4 seconds
107 2011-05-04 02:10:16 <luke-jr> what! under 15 GH now?
108 2011-05-04 02:36:44 <vorlov> are there currently any asics that can be modified to do mining
109 2011-05-04 02:36:46 <vorlov> ?
110 2011-05-04 02:36:56 <vorlov> has anybody come up with their own homebrew?
111 2011-05-04 02:38:41 <[Tycho]> EPiSKiNG, shipping will be too expensive.
112 2011-05-04 02:38:52 <gjs278> in mother russia, case ships you
113 2011-05-04 02:39:53 <[Tycho]> They were marked as for video cards up to ~280 mm and i got my saw ready, but to my surprise 5970 fits nicely :)
114 2011-05-04 02:40:29 <[Tycho]> So i'm going to buy more of them
115 2011-05-04 02:40:53 <ArtForz> in some of my cheap cases the 5970s actually are *technically* too long, but fit nicely
116 2011-05-04 02:41:28 <ArtForz> = the upper one ends up sitting nicely in the hd cage
117 2011-05-04 02:43:32 <[Tycho]> Also it says "four 3.5 bays" but it's more like one at the very bottom of the case, one for floppy and two with mounting holes only on ONE side :)
118 2011-05-04 02:43:46 <midnightmagic> i hate towers like that.. so poorly designed..
119 2011-05-04 02:44:02 <ArtForz> designed?
120 2011-05-04 02:44:12 <[Tycho]> And it's my first PC case made out of 0.3 mm foil
121 2011-05-04 02:44:14 <midnightmagic> "slapped together thoughtlessly"?
122 2011-05-04 02:44:23 <ArtForz> yeah
123 2011-05-04 02:44:49 <ArtForz> and yeah, the metal is *really* thin
124 2011-05-04 02:45:27 <ArtForz> the side panels pretty much bend from looking at them
125 2011-05-04 02:46:17 <[Tycho]> There was a 15 kg limit for shipping with a personal delivery. I imagine how that delivery guy found out that 14.5 kg order is a whole 5 cases :)
126 2011-05-04 02:46:31 <ArtForz> lol
127 2011-05-04 02:46:46 <midnightmagic> good for blood sacrifices anyway, which as we all know for those of us who've seen the old satanic.org, is the best way to increase uptime..
128 2011-05-04 02:46:50 <ArtForz> really makes you wonder how they can make 4Us for $50
129 2011-05-04 02:47:26 <[Tycho]> Rack-mounts are very expensive here :(
130 2011-05-04 02:47:42 <ArtForz> oh, they're pretty cheap, but shipping is a bitch
131 2011-05-04 02:48:08 <[Tycho]> I don't think that i can find any at $100 or cheaper
132 2011-05-04 02:48:14 <ArtForz> whoa
133 2011-05-04 02:48:26 <ArtForz> I got a bunch for 40EUR + shipping
134 2011-05-04 02:48:55 <ArtForz> okay, they're not exactly from a high-end store
135 2011-05-04 02:49:25 <ArtForz> basically a small webshop selling 2nd rate cases and stock of discontinued stuff
136 2011-05-04 02:49:45 <ArtForz> who the hell cares if their 4Us top panel has a scratch?
137 2011-05-04 02:50:37 <[Tycho]> Initially i didn't wanted to use cases at all, but then figured out that $19 case is cheaper than my time sawing off pieces of alum. profile to make handmade cages.
138 2011-05-04 02:50:55 <ArtForz> yup, pretty much
139 2011-05-04 03:20:37 <LightRider> Will the client use IPv6?
140 2011-05-04 03:32:16 <_ape> playing around with making a win7 gadget with c#/wpf
141 2011-05-04 03:32:23 <_ape> they certainly didnt make it easy
142 2011-05-04 03:32:34 <EPiSKiNG> ;;bc,stats
143 2011-05-04 03:32:35 <gribble> Current Blocks: 121748 | Current Difficulty: 109670.13329248 | Next Difficulty At Block: 122975 | Next Difficulty In: 1227 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 9 hours, 22 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 146256.50765492
144 2011-05-04 03:46:59 <cosurgi> luke-jr: do you have protection against sub mitting the same share/solution multiple times?
145 2011-05-04 03:47:46 <cosurgi> luke-jr: if somebody is faking his hash strngth by submitting ver and over hen no wonder we cant find a block
146 2011-05-04 03:48:24 <cosurgi> luke-jr: if somebody is faking his hash strngth by submitting over and over the same share, then no wonder we cant find a block
147 2011-05-04 03:48:40 <[Tycho]> cosurgi, it can't stop or delay the pool from finding a block.
148 2011-05-04 03:48:55 <[Tycho]> cosurgi, only the part of that user will be wasted.
149 2011-05-04 03:49:39 <cosurgi> yes, but  he will get higher reward, because he submitted "more" shares
150 2011-05-04 05:02:46 <Andrevan> amiller, you here?
151 2011-05-04 05:02:56 <amiller> hello
152 2011-05-04 05:03:04 <Andrevan> ok, I have questions about this but hold on
153 2011-05-04 05:06:30 <amiller> ok, i'm excited to talk about this topic - i hope we can get a lot further than i got on my own
154 2011-05-04 05:06:35 <Andrevan> cool
155 2011-05-04 05:06:43 <Andrevan> I'm a software engineer about to graduate from college btw
156 2011-05-04 05:07:25 <amiller> i'm a phd student in a mostly unrelated field of CS - computer vision and graphics
157 2011-05-04 05:11:37 <Andrevan> amiler, cool stuff, where are you studying?
158 2011-05-04 05:13:04 <gjs278> AMDOverdriveCtrl is such a piece of shit
159 2011-05-04 05:13:12 <gjs278> why the hell isn't there a set fan speed to 100% option
160 2011-05-04 05:13:28 <gjs278> it constantly fucks with me and keeps setting like 30% everytime I make a move with this damn program
161 2011-05-04 05:14:12 <ersi> Andrevan: Ask questions and someone might be able to answer :)
162 2011-05-04 05:14:52 <amiller> we're going to discuss building a securities/futures trading system in a secure/crypto way, possibly based on FellowTraveler's jvaa implementation of ricardian contracts
163 2011-05-04 05:15:09 <Andrevan> will do ersi
164 2011-05-04 05:15:26 <Andrevan> yeah ersi I came in here because amiller mentioned this java contract implementation
165 2011-05-04 05:15:32 <Andrevan> I was asking about options/futures trading
166 2011-05-04 05:15:41 <Andrevan> we're chattign in query on off topic stuff atm
167 2011-05-04 05:15:50 <ersi> traffic here is a bit random though, just giving you a heads up. Sometimes lots of activity, sometimes less activity.
168 2011-05-04 05:15:57 <ersi> ah, alrighty :)
169 2011-05-04 05:16:37 <Andrevan> cool, thanks for the heads up
170 2011-05-04 05:17:16 <ersi> and it's quite a mix of developers, users, hard-core users and such in here
171 2011-05-04 05:23:42 <npouillard> netxshare: yes (about namecoins)
172 2011-05-04 05:41:41 <EPiSKiNG> ;;bc,stats
173 2011-05-04 05:41:42 <gribble> Current Blocks: 121764 | Current Difficulty: 109670.13329248 | Next Difficulty At Block: 122975 | Next Difficulty In: 1211 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 6 days, 7 hours, 2 minutes, and 19 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 146697.42464560
174 2011-05-04 06:34:45 <fetokun> is there anyone alive in here?
175 2011-05-04 06:36:42 <retinal> there better not be any survivors
176 2011-05-04 06:36:52 <retinal> if you see any, let me know
177 2011-05-04 06:39:27 <fetokun> =D
178 2011-05-04 06:39:48 <fetokun> I need help testing this website I've just finnished to buy/sell bitcoins using BRL (brazilian reals)
179 2011-05-04 06:41:17 <_ape> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6281166/btccharts_gadget_wip.png
180 2011-05-04 06:41:22 <_ape> workin on a little gadget for fun
181 2011-05-04 06:45:35 <tcatm> _ape: cool. let me know if there's any data missing in markets.json :)
182 2011-05-04 06:46:17 <_ape> some of them had null for something, i will check what it was after i implement this update timer
183 2011-05-04 06:46:21 <_ape> probably going to post the code up on github
184 2011-05-04 06:46:57 <tcatm> can you open a socket in your applet? telnet to bitcoincharts.com 27007 for a realtime stream
185 2011-05-04 06:47:37 <_ape> haha
186 2011-05-04 06:47:39 <_ape> that would be fun
187 2011-05-04 06:47:41 <_ape> i will look into it
188 2011-05-04 06:47:51 <_ape> i was just using your json as a test for adding other json rpc stuff
189 2011-05-04 06:48:02 <_ape> to make sure it works
190 2011-05-04 07:20:41 <BlueMatt> a tx sig is just the signed sha256 correct?
191 2011-05-04 07:21:04 <molecular> ArtForz, Diablo-D3 setting the Voltage definitely works. setting it down to 1.038 @880 -> instant crash. Its possible, though, that art is right and it sets no nearest register setting from BIOS.
192 2011-05-04 07:21:04 <sipa> depends
193 2011-05-04 07:21:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: on?
194 2011-05-04 07:21:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: oh, you mean the signature itself, or the scriptSig ?
195 2011-05-04 07:22:03 <BlueMatt> the sig itself is just signing the hash of the tx?
196 2011-05-04 07:22:39 <sipa> it signs the hash of the tx after removing the signatures from it
197 2011-05-04 07:22:50 <BlueMatt> oh, shit, ok
198 2011-05-04 07:23:08 <BlueMatt> then Im completely against the current sign-verify pull
199 2011-05-04 07:23:22 <sipa> why?
200 2011-05-04 07:23:37 <BlueMatt> Id much rather see sha512 or 384 or some other size thing so that any break still means sign cant sign a tx accidentally
201 2011-05-04 07:24:25 <sipa> i'm not sure
202 2011-05-04 07:24:41 <BlueMatt> (obviously sha256 would have to be broke)
203 2011-05-04 07:24:47 <sipa> i don't think we should be using separate algorithms just because something "needs to be different"
204 2011-05-04 07:25:03 <sipa> increases security, yes, that's a good reason for several algorithms
205 2011-05-04 07:25:13 <BlueMatt> but if sha256 is broken sign is f'd.  why not sha384, its pretty much the same algo
206 2011-05-04 07:25:29 <sipa> chances are that if sha256 is broken, sha384 is broken as well
207 2011-05-04 07:25:42 <sipa> it's the same algorithm, but on 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit ones
208 2011-05-04 07:25:51 <topi`> if sha256 is broken, then the whole bitcoin is pointless
209 2011-05-04 07:25:53 <BlueMatt> yes, but then I cant trick you into signing a tx
210 2011-05-04 07:25:55 <sipa> exactly
211 2011-05-04 07:26:00 <BlueMatt> (if its somewhat broken)
212 2011-05-04 07:26:11 <sipa> if a flaw is found it sha2, we need to switch to something different anyway
213 2011-05-04 07:26:15 <BlueMatt> ie I can generate  a plaintext for a given hash)
214 2011-05-04 07:26:30 <BlueMatt> but what about the time in between?
215 2011-05-04 07:26:44 <topi`> in between sha256 broken and?
216 2011-05-04 07:26:52 <BlueMatt> switching to new hash
217 2011-05-04 07:26:53 <topi`> well, just sell all your btc as fast as you can :D
218 2011-05-04 07:27:05 <BlueMatt> still better to be that tiny bit more secure
219 2011-05-04 07:27:18 <topi`> secure or obscure?
220 2011-05-04 07:27:30 <BlueMatt> secure from signing tx via sign+verify
221 2011-05-04 07:28:43 <sipa> what about using ECDSA(HASH(address + fixed str + message) XOR fixed_uint256) ?
222 2011-05-04 07:29:06 <sipa> with fixed_uint256 standardized to only be used for proving ownership of an address
223 2011-05-04 07:29:48 <BlueMatt> or ECDSA(HASH(address + fixed str + message) + one extra fixed bit)
224 2011-05-04 07:30:34 <BlueMatt> because in your suggestion, an attack who can calculate a given sha just has to change his sha
225 2011-05-04 07:32:57 <dick> hey where can i trace peoples transactions
226 2011-05-04 07:33:04 <BlueMatt> blockexplorer.com
227 2011-05-04 07:33:08 <BlueMatt> if you know the address
228 2011-05-04 07:33:25 <_ape> there think i got the timer working right
229 2011-05-04 07:33:26 <sipa> BlueMatt: ecdsa implicitly does a hash, because it can only sign fixed-sized data
230 2011-05-04 07:33:45 <sipa> if you want more, you need two separate signatures
231 2011-05-04 07:33:48 <BlueMatt> I thought it was fixed length * x
232 2011-05-04 07:34:08 <BlueMatt> ie you can just add another fixed length to the end
233 2011-05-04 07:34:15 <BlueMatt> then you dont need another hash algo
234 2011-05-04 07:34:24 <dick> thanks
235 2011-05-04 07:34:38 <sipa> the input to the cryptographic part of ecdsa is a 256-bit number
236 2011-05-04 07:34:46 <sipa> and when verifying, you need this number
237 2011-05-04 07:35:45 <BlueMatt> Ah, ok then nevermind.  That doesnt help...
238 2011-05-04 07:36:26 <BlueMatt> What about ECDSA(128-bit 0000+first half of resulting hash)+ECDSA(second half of resulting hash+128-bit 00000)
239 2011-05-04 07:36:30 <BlueMatt> or similar
240 2011-05-04 07:37:18 <sipa> all that just to be sure you don't accidentally generate a tx hash?
241 2011-05-04 07:37:24 <BlueMatt> yes
242 2011-05-04 07:37:24 <sipa> it's a 256-bit space
243 2011-05-04 07:37:32 <sipa> you don't just randomly end up having the same hash
244 2011-05-04 07:37:33 <BlueMatt> not accidentally though
245 2011-05-04 07:37:52 <BlueMatt> ie if sha has a slight break which allows calculation of a chosen hash
246 2011-05-04 07:38:05 <sipa> slight break?
247 2011-05-04 07:38:09 <sipa> that'd be completely broken
248 2011-05-04 07:38:22 <BlueMatt> but if it takes longer than to mine, bitcoin would still be fairly secure
249 2011-05-04 07:40:26 <BlueMatt> anyway, I need to be studying as I have an exam in 2 hours
250 2011-05-04 07:41:31 <sipa> good luck
251 2011-05-04 07:42:00 <dick> hey, why in the getdifficulty does it show the longest block count and not the mean
252 2011-05-04 07:42:30 <sipa> ?
253 2011-05-04 07:43:34 <dick> sipa, nm
254 2011-05-04 07:51:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: please comment: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6428.0;all on my suggestion there
255 2011-05-04 07:52:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: how do you define "a full sha break" then, if not vulnerable to a preimage attack?
256 2011-05-04 07:54:08 <UukGoblin> hrm
257 2011-05-04 07:54:12 <UukGoblin> what'd be /really/ useful
258 2011-05-04 07:54:19 <UukGoblin> is to add a transaction that signs a message ;-]
259 2011-05-04 07:54:36 <BlueMatt> sipa: one where the time to calculate it would be < mining
260 2011-05-04 07:54:40 <UukGoblin> any idea when will non-standard transactions be accepted into a block by mainstream client?
261 2011-05-04 07:54:45 <BlueMatt> (for bitcoin, for everything else, that is a full sha-break)
262 2011-05-04 07:54:46 <sipa> BlueMatt: for cryptography, that doesn't matter
263 2011-05-04 07:55:02 <BlueMatt> this is bitcoin, not general cryptography though
264 2011-05-04 07:55:04 <Pander> In order to get Bitcoin currency BTC and currency symbol more widely supported (e.g. Unicode, gnucash, etc.) please request http://www.currency-iso.org/iso_index.htm to add BTC to the ISO 4217 list if Currency Codes.
265 2011-05-04 07:55:09 <sipa> BlueMatt: as soon as you can do a preimage attack with less than O(2^N) complexity, it is considered broken
266 2011-05-04 07:55:20 <BlueMatt> but not for bitcoin ;)
267 2011-05-04 07:55:37 <sipa> so? if it is broken we should change algorithms anyway
268 2011-05-04 07:56:02 <BlueMatt> yes, but then we dont go crazy and block all txes after the break, we just do it at block x
269 2011-05-04 07:56:11 <BlueMatt> meaning it still needs to be secure for a while longer
270 2011-05-04 07:56:36 <sipa> if a preimage attack is possible, you can already fake any transaction to be signed with any public key that has already made a signature
271 2011-05-04 07:58:00 <BlueMatt> only sort of, txes have to be pretty specific in terms of structure, signing doesnt
272 2011-05-04 07:58:15 <BlueMatt> plus if IsStandard is till on then (I hope it isnt) its even harder
273 2011-05-04 07:58:34 <BlueMatt> and more calculation is required as you have to be able to figure out a tx which is spendable by you
274 2011-05-04 08:01:55 <BlueMatt> obviously this is all very speculative and absolutely insane that a preimage attack would be found with these requirements...but, that doesnt mean we shouldnt add a couple extra lines of code to make it that much more secure
275 2011-05-04 08:02:04 <BlueMatt> any way, please respond on the topic as Im off to my exam
276 2011-05-04 08:03:40 <UukGoblin> can I repeat my question? :-) will non-standard transactions be accepted into blocks by the mainstream client please? especially if they have a fee? :-)
277 2011-05-04 08:09:32 <sipa> UukGoblin: not very soon, i think
278 2011-05-04 08:09:41 <UukGoblin> any reason why not?
279 2011-05-04 08:09:59 <UukGoblin> if I submitted a patch, would it be controversial to add it? :-)
280 2011-05-04 08:11:30 <sipa> it would be without very good argumentation why and how it would still prevent attacks
281 2011-05-04 08:12:34 <UukGoblin> I don't want it to prevent attacks, I want it to enhance the blockchain's functionality. A requirement of a fee should be good enough attack prevention, shouldn't it?
282 2011-05-04 08:12:46 <sipa> no
283 2011-05-04 08:13:08 <UukGoblin> what sort of attack then?
284 2011-05-04 08:13:27 <sipa> well, yes, it all depends on how much one is willing to spend of course
285 2011-05-04 08:13:51 <UukGoblin> well imho
286 2011-05-04 08:13:56 <UukGoblin> the fees should be configurable
287 2011-05-04 08:14:06 <UukGoblin> everyone should have a say in what fees they require
288 2011-05-04 08:14:17 <UukGoblin> but there's a slight problem
289 2011-05-04 08:14:28 <sipa> i agree
290 2011-05-04 08:14:42 <UukGoblin> if everyone sets arbitrary fees, then the client has no way of knowing if a fee is actually required with a transaction
291 2011-05-04 08:14:56 <sipa> but even if most miners do not accept a feelees non-standard transaction, it would have to be relayed through the network
292 2011-05-04 08:14:57 <UukGoblin> so it'd need some way of querying the peers about that
293 2011-05-04 08:15:00 <sipa> and that is the dangerous part
294 2011-05-04 08:15:37 <UukGoblin> ok I agree to not propagate feeles non-standards
295 2011-05-04 08:15:48 <UukGoblin> but non-standards with a fee... why not? there's a fee in there for the miners
296 2011-05-04 08:16:02 <sipa> what if the fee is 0.00000001 ?
297 2011-05-04 08:16:11 <sipa> would that be relayed?
298 2011-05-04 08:16:15 <UukGoblin> it should be like the current default fee, e.g. 0.01
299 2011-05-04 08:16:22 <UukGoblin> but again, should be configurable in future
300 2011-05-04 08:16:24 <sipa> maybe there is some miner who is happy with 0.00000001
301 2011-05-04 08:16:29 <UukGoblin> maybe.
302 2011-05-04 08:16:41 <sipa> even while it may be deadly to the network to allow it
303 2011-05-04 08:17:11 <UukGoblin> ok so the way I see it
304 2011-05-04 08:18:33 <UukGoblin> if we enable configurable fees, we also make a setting for configurable 'relaying' of transactions. If Alice wants to send out a transaction, it first queries her peers to see if they're mining and if they'd require a fee for her transaction. If they don't know, they might ask their peers or their peers' peers (but not too deep) to get a general idea. All this can be cached.
305 2011-05-04 08:19:06 <sipa> i don't think that should be done within the network
306 2011-05-04 08:19:18 <sipa> miners will have policies, and announce these
307 2011-05-04 08:19:33 <sipa> sites will track what payment fees are required for what kind of transaction
308 2011-05-04 08:19:57 <UukGoblin> ok, so you use a different network for the policy updates
309 2011-05-04 08:20:11 <UukGoblin> which relies on sites to be up
310 2011-05-04 08:20:57 <UukGoblin> I mean, your solution uses a different network
311 2011-05-04 08:21:37 <UukGoblin> what I'm saying is that Satoshi's original idea that miners can set their own fees is currently not directly implementable
312 2011-05-04 08:22:07 <UukGoblin> also, I recall hearing that transactions can be reversed if they don't get included in a number of blocks, is that right?
313 2011-05-04 08:22:14 <UukGoblin> (or a fee can be added later)
314 2011-05-04 08:22:43 <sipa> transactions can not ever be reversed
315 2011-05-04 08:23:09 <sipa> but they can be updated - you can send a new version of a transaction, with possibly more fees, if it doesn get included after a while
316 2011-05-04 08:23:17 <UukGoblin> right, ok
317 2011-05-04 08:23:48 <UukGoblin> ok, that's cool
318 2011-05-04 08:24:12 <UukGoblin> but I do think we need some scheme to allow for miners to be able to set their fee policies
319 2011-05-04 08:24:21 <UukGoblin> and other clients to understand these policies
320 2011-05-04 08:24:25 <UukGoblin> do you agree?
321 2011-05-04 08:25:07 <UukGoblin> announcing on forums and relying on coders to update the mainstream client accordingly is just not sustainable
322 2011-05-04 08:25:08 <sipa> yes, but that is something for later
323 2011-05-04 08:25:48 <UukGoblin> well that 'later' seems quite long for now
324 2011-05-04 08:26:16 <UukGoblin> I've been talking about it on the forum in february
325 2011-05-04 08:26:35 <UukGoblin> but I didn't make it clear enough in the post
326 2011-05-04 08:27:02 <UukGoblin> so, if I made a patch, do you agree that this 'later' could become 'sooner'? :-)
327 2011-05-04 08:27:36 <UukGoblin> now, one solution I see is this: when a miner announces a block, she also announces her fee policy with it
328 2011-05-04 08:28:05 <UukGoblin> clients gather these policies and make guesses based on most recently visible data
329 2011-05-04 08:28:28 <UukGoblin> we need a reasonable language for communicating these policies
330 2011-05-04 08:28:34 <sipa> as i said, i don't think that is a problem for now, and i don't think it needs to be done through the bitcoin network
331 2011-05-04 08:28:54 <UukGoblin> what other network do you propose it should be done through?
332 2011-05-04 08:29:09 <sipa> supply and demand :)
333 2011-05-04 08:29:16 <UukGoblin> it is a bit problematic right now imho, as the default 0.01 fee might soon become very large
334 2011-05-04 08:29:47 <UukGoblin> i.e. when 1 BTC is traded for $100, the default fee will be $1, which is quite large compared to what it is now
335 2011-05-04 08:30:04 <UukGoblin> supply and demand network? how do you send a packet there?
336 2011-05-04 08:30:20 <sipa> by noticing it does not get included
337 2011-05-04 08:30:36 <sipa> these are changes that happen very slowly
338 2011-05-04 08:31:07 <UukGoblin> not that very imho ;-]
339 2011-05-04 08:31:18 <UukGoblin> they do happen anyway
340 2011-05-04 08:33:09 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
341 2011-05-04 08:33:10 <gribble> 121786
342 2011-05-04 08:34:41 <UukGoblin> also, given that currently non-standard transactions are not accepted, and there are no plans to add them in future, if I wanted to develop a BitDNS type of thing, the first thing I'd have to push for is these fee policies to become implemented, I think.
343 2011-05-04 08:35:43 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: it's better to use namecoin for that, or another block chain
344 2011-05-04 08:35:46 <UukGoblin> if I implemented them and set my miners to allow a BitDNS non-standard transactions, that could kick my BitDNS project off, as long as I generate a block every now and then (and then slowly others could start to follow)
345 2011-05-04 08:35:59 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, I do not believe it is so
346 2011-05-04 08:36:24 <jgarzik> currency users don't need that spam in the main chain
347 2011-05-04 08:36:37 <UukGoblin> but they don't have to worry about it either
348 2011-05-04 08:36:42 <jgarzik> false.  it has been demonstrated that it raises fees for -everyone-
349 2011-05-04 08:37:01 <UukGoblin> where/how was it demonstrated?
350 2011-05-04 08:37:11 <jgarzik> read the forums.  this has been covered extensively.
351 2011-05-04 08:37:13 <noagendamarket> that makes your system a leech UukGoblin
352 2011-05-04 08:37:20 <jgarzik> yep
353 2011-05-04 08:37:23 <noagendamarket> or a parasite
354 2011-05-04 08:37:42 <UukGoblin> in my view, it makes mining more profitable by creating more fees for the miners
355 2011-05-04 08:37:47 <noagendamarket> why do we have to pay more fees ?
356 2011-05-04 08:37:53 <UukGoblin> you don't?
357 2011-05-04 08:38:05 <UukGoblin> fees wouldn't be changed for standard bitcoin transactions
358 2011-05-04 08:38:12 <UukGoblin> you'd only require fees for non-standard stuff
359 2011-05-04 08:38:31 <jgarzik> false.  read the forum threads on BitX and BitDNS.  block sizes increase, fees increase for everyone.
360 2011-05-04 08:38:49 <noagendamarket> it pushes out currency fees
361 2011-05-04 08:39:08 <noagendamarket> the non standard ones then replace it
362 2011-05-04 08:39:30 <UukGoblin> then the fee algorithm you're proposing is wrong
363 2011-05-04 08:39:38 <UukGoblin> non-standard ones shouldn't replace them
364 2011-05-04 08:39:49 <jgarzik> there is no "proposing" -- this is the fee schedule as it currently exists
365 2011-05-04 08:39:55 <noagendamarket> you need a separate block chain and a client that sits on top and can choose whichever blcok chain it desires
366 2011-05-04 08:40:08 <jgarzik> these are the fee rules of the current, mainnet block chain
367 2011-05-04 08:40:12 <noagendamarket> and one that mines both chains
368 2011-05-04 08:40:22 <UukGoblin> creating a separate blockchain is not feasible
369 2011-05-04 08:40:27 <jgarzik> BitDNS increases data load for the entire network, and -all- users suffer increased fees
370 2011-05-04 08:40:40 <noagendamarket> you can mine all the chains at once
371 2011-05-04 08:40:44 <jgarzik> more data traffic total == more fees
372 2011-05-04 08:40:49 <jgarzik> obvious
373 2011-05-04 08:40:57 <sipa> i like the idea of bitdns, but it does not need a full bitcoin block chain like system, that is overengineered for it
374 2011-05-04 08:41:04 <UukGoblin> noagendamarket, can you?
375 2011-05-04 08:41:19 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: yes.  read the forums!
376 2011-05-04 08:41:20 <sipa> and i definitely don't want it in the main blockhain
377 2011-05-04 08:41:22 <noagendamarket> yes
378 2011-05-04 08:41:25 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: satoshi described how to do it.
379 2011-05-04 08:41:44 <noagendamarket> god how many times do we have to argue about it ?
380 2011-05-04 08:41:46 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, forums aren't easy to read
381 2011-05-04 08:41:54 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, unless you have a link
382 2011-05-04 08:41:58 <noagendamarket> I created a thread
383 2011-05-04 08:42:11 <noagendamarket> it has everything satoshi wrote about bitdns
384 2011-05-04 08:42:48 <noagendamarket> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6197.0
385 2011-05-04 08:42:55 <noagendamarket> I suggest you read it
386 2011-05-04 08:43:04 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, I disagree about more data traffic total equalling more fees for standard transactions.
387 2011-05-04 08:43:07 <UukGoblin> noagendamarket, thanks
388 2011-05-04 08:43:21 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: it's simple math under the current fee schedule.
389 2011-05-04 08:43:41 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: and that schedule won't be changing
390 2011-05-04 08:44:01 <noagendamarket> this is why they created namecoin  not squashed it into bitcoin
391 2011-05-04 08:44:04 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, current fee schedule is to drop all non-standard transactions
392 2011-05-04 08:44:18 <noagendamarket> eventually they will create multi miners
393 2011-05-04 08:44:25 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, so the math is: bitdns's in current fee schedule cost is 0
394 2011-05-04 08:44:36 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: miners may insert non-std tx's
395 2011-05-04 08:44:54 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, yes
396 2011-05-04 08:45:05 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, but they wouldn't use the current fee schedule
397 2011-05-04 08:45:22 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: it is self-evident that -- if bitdns data is stuffed into the main chain, somehow -- total average block size increases.  when total avg blk size increases, fees increase for everyone.
398 2011-05-04 08:45:51 <jgarzik> not just bitdns users
399 2011-05-04 08:45:54 <UukGoblin> how's that? is the current fee based on total avg blk size?
400 2011-05-04 08:45:56 <jgarzik> all data has a carrying cost
401 2011-05-04 08:46:05 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: yes
402 2011-05-04 08:46:12 <UukGoblin> ok, I didn't know that, that's weird
403 2011-05-04 08:47:29 <UukGoblin> I'd have to read up about the current fee policy
404 2011-05-04 08:47:50 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
405 2011-05-04 08:48:59 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: as block size increases, fees increase.  it is only logical:  more data on the network means more resource costs for each node.
406 2011-05-04 08:49:52 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, the 4 bullets under 'Current "Default" Rules for the regular Bitcoin client' don't contain any reference to total average block size
407 2011-05-04 08:50:13 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: no, just block size
408 2011-05-04 08:50:48 <UukGoblin> hrm, we have a misunderstanding here
409 2011-05-04 08:51:17 <cdecker> ;;seen TD
410 2011-05-04 08:51:17 <gribble> TD was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 19 hours, 16 minutes, and 3 seconds ago: <TD> BlueMatt: there's nothing magical about a bitcoin key. why should i have to create two and link them via some third party site?
411 2011-05-04 08:51:38 <UukGoblin> my proposition is to alter the standard rules to set a 0.01+ fee for all non-standard transactions. All the standard transactions would be unaffected
412 2011-05-04 08:51:51 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: irrelevent.  that still increases block size.
413 2011-05-04 08:52:07 <UukGoblin> i.e. calculations of block size for the purpose of determining a fee for a standard transactions would not count the nonstandard transactions' size
414 2011-05-04 08:52:42 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: that's not how things current work, and I don't see that logic changing ever
415 2011-05-04 08:52:42 <TD> cdecker: i'm here
416 2011-05-04 08:52:46 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: I hate the large tx fees.
417 2011-05-04 08:52:56 <Diablo-D3> because of xelister's little 1000 of 0.01 tx stunt
418 2011-05-04 08:52:58 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: increased block size costs everyone, so that incentive does not need changing
419 2011-05-04 08:53:06 <Diablo-D3> I paid almost 4btc to send 685 to mtgox
420 2011-05-04 08:53:19 <TD> cdecker: sup?
421 2011-05-04 08:53:27 <cdecker> Hi Mike
422 2011-05-04 08:53:27 <Diablo-D3> and I had to send it over multiple tx because the 0.01 tx would FILL UP MY TX TO MTGOX
423 2011-05-04 08:53:37 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, ok let me phrase this simply: every non-standard transaction requires a fee, so all the increased block size is paid for!
424 2011-05-04 08:53:47 <cdecker> Just wanted to ask whether  CouchDB would be an option for the blockchain on Android
425 2011-05-04 08:54:11 <TD> "Apache CouchDB is a document-oriented database that can be queried and indexed in a MapReduce fashion using JavaScript."
426 2011-05-04 08:54:12 <TD> that one ?
427 2011-05-04 08:54:19 <cdecker> Yup
428 2011-05-04 08:54:27 <cdecker> They just released an iOS version
429 2011-05-04 08:54:38 <cdecker> And apparently an Android version will follow soon
430 2011-05-04 08:54:40 <TD> written in erlang? it sounds more like it's intended for server side usage
431 2011-05-04 08:55:04 <UukGoblin> separate blockchain seems the wrong solution to me, even if it can be mined using the same CPU power
432 2011-05-04 08:55:13 <cdecker> What's most interesting is that they keep memory usage really low
433 2011-05-04 08:55:25 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: OK, enjoy spinning your wheels
434 2011-05-04 08:55:34 <sipa> and many people agree that the block chain should not be used for anything but bitcoin money transfers
435 2011-05-04 08:55:38 <UukGoblin> I want this sort of functionality: "I want the bitcoin network to sign this-and-that message for me. Here's your bitpenny in reward"
436 2011-05-04 08:55:46 <Diablo-D3> cdecker: uh, what the fuck dude
437 2011-05-04 08:55:46 <TD> hrmm, well it must be a totally different system to the one they are describing then .... their website says it uses a javascript based query language and can only be accessed via http
438 2011-05-04 08:55:49 <Diablo-D3> what is wrong with you
439 2011-05-04 08:55:54 <Diablo-D3> couchdb is a slow bloated pile of shit
440 2011-05-04 08:55:59 <Diablo-D3> we're storing a few mb of data
441 2011-05-04 08:56:06 <Diablo-D3> use sqlite or bdb and stop being a noob.
442 2011-05-04 08:56:31 <cdecker> No need to get offensive
443 2011-05-04 08:56:33 <TD> cdecker: the bitcoinj implementation just lays out blocks one after the other. for android we'll need a slightly different implementation that also stores the calculated data in StoredBlock
444 2011-05-04 08:56:49 <TD> cdecker: i haven't looked much at how many bits we'll require to hold the bnChainWork field
445 2011-05-04 08:57:06 <TD> once that's figured out it's easy to seek back and forth in the chain
446 2011-05-04 08:57:19 <sipa> the total amount of work in the block chain?
447 2011-05-04 08:57:27 <cdecker> So you still keep the full blockchain?
448 2011-05-04 08:57:55 <UukGoblin> this namecoin solution doesn't allow for more than 50 domains every 10 minutes if I'm reading this correctly
449 2011-05-04 08:58:00 <TD> sipa: yeah
450 2011-05-04 08:58:10 <UukGoblin> or some other arbitrarily set number
451 2011-05-04 08:58:11 <TD> cdecker: no just the headers+some extra calculated data
452 2011-05-04 08:58:20 <UukGoblin> what if you need to register a thousand domains in 10 minutes?
453 2011-05-04 08:58:34 <UukGoblin> simple solution with a merged blockchain: you spend a thousand bitcoins
454 2011-05-04 08:58:56 <cdecker> I was hoping to only store blocks with inputs for my own addresses
455 2011-05-04 08:58:59 <UukGoblin> having a separate blockchain will complicate trading, people will have to start trading namecoins for bitcoins
456 2011-05-04 08:59:09 <cdecker> And accept incoming confirmed transactions
457 2011-05-04 08:59:14 <TD> the wallet stores all relevant transactions
458 2011-05-04 08:59:21 <TD> in both c++ bitcoin and bitcoinj
459 2011-05-04 08:59:28 <UukGoblin> also a blockchain for namecoins would be different, as you don't want to only have 21 million domain names ever
460 2011-05-04 08:59:34 <TD> UukGoblin: the "namecoin" thing is just an artifact of how the guy implemented it
461 2011-05-04 08:59:43 <TD> UukGoblin: he forked the code and renamed some stuff but otherwise made minimal changes
462 2011-05-04 09:00:01 <TD> UukGoblin: it's not necessarily the best/right design for a distributed naming service .... but he at least did some work instead of just talking about it :-)
463 2011-05-04 09:00:02 <sipa> TD: it seems to be the sum of the difficulties, but based at 0xffffff... instead of at 0x00000000ffff0000....
464 2011-05-04 09:00:05 <UukGoblin> TD, and I think it's all wrong by design
465 2011-05-04 09:00:23 <Diablo-D3> [06:56:31] <cdecker> No need to get offensive
466 2011-05-04 09:00:27 <Diablo-D3> when it comes to nosql? yes I do.
467 2011-05-04 09:00:28 <UukGoblin> TD, I'm just scared that even if I do work it'd get rejected by the mainstream community
468 2011-05-04 09:00:31 <TD> sipa: yes it's a measure of estimated hashes done, iirc. so it's going to need to be a very big number :-)
469 2011-05-04 09:00:44 <sipa> ;;bc,diff
470 2011-05-04 09:00:45 <gribble> 109670.13329248
471 2011-05-04 09:00:49 <UukGoblin> TD, and I don't understand it as I can almost prove that it wouldn't do any harm to the regular bitcoin network
472 2011-05-04 09:00:50 <gribble> 121794
473 2011-05-04 09:00:50 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
474 2011-05-04 09:00:55 <cdecker> Diablo-D3: I do in fact administer a 1 TB Apache Cassandra cluster
475 2011-05-04 09:00:58 <TD> UukGoblin: well, bitcoin mainstream isn't really focused on DNS right now. if you want to use the code i'm sure people will help you. if you try to subvert the financial block chain then your'e gonna get flamed
476 2011-05-04 09:01:01 <cdecker> And we're doing very well
477 2011-05-04 09:01:28 <UukGoblin> TD, yes, exactly, everyone's just talking about subverting the financial block chain
478 2011-05-04 09:01:40 <sipa> TD: assuming the difficulty was always the current number, it'd need a 66 bit number now
479 2011-05-04 09:01:40 <TD> UukGoblin: no, sorry, people who understand bitcoin better than you disagree. satoshi is correct, trying to merge every possible proof of work quorum into a single chain doesn't scale and is bad engineering. the tx format used in bitcoin is specifically for finance.
480 2011-05-04 09:01:41 <UukGoblin> TD, which is bullshit to me
481 2011-05-04 09:01:42 <cdecker> NoSQL does have its place, just like RDBMS have
482 2011-05-04 09:01:58 <TD> UukGoblin: a DNS system would/should use totally different block contents
483 2011-05-04 09:02:06 <jgarzik> TD: indeed
484 2011-05-04 09:02:06 <UukGoblin> agreed
485 2011-05-04 09:02:13 <TD> the only part of BitCoin you'd really want to reuse is the block chain header format and some of the split handling logic
486 2011-05-04 09:02:18 <UukGoblin> but not a different block chain
487 2011-05-04 09:02:23 <TD> everything else can be fresh (and should be!)
488 2011-05-04 09:02:30 <sipa> TD: exactly
489 2011-05-04 09:02:35 <UukGoblin> TD, I want to pay for other stuff in bitcoins
490 2011-05-04 09:02:44 <UukGoblin> not in namecoins or xcoins or whatever
491 2011-05-04 09:02:47 <TD> UukGoblin: you can't have different formats of blocks in the same chain. but what you can do is share the computational power so it's possible to work on both simultaneously
492 2011-05-04 09:02:56 <Diablo-D3> [07:00:55] <cdecker> Diablo-D3: I do in fact administer a 1 TB Apache Cassandra cluster
493 2011-05-04 09:02:59 <TD> UukGoblin: you can also link the chains logically, if you want
494 2011-05-04 09:03:00 <Diablo-D3> cdecker: I dont like you anymore.
495 2011-05-04 09:03:07 <cdecker> Goddamn I got that wrong
496 2011-05-04 09:03:12 <cdecker> It's 1 PB
497 2011-05-04 09:03:23 <UukGoblin> TD, that multi-chain solution would have different difficulties, from what I read
498 2011-05-04 09:03:26 <TD> UukGoblin: so you can buy domain names with bitcoins without needing any intermediate currencies
499 2011-05-04 09:03:37 <cdecker> Diablo-D3: why what do you prefer?
500 2011-05-04 09:03:45 <TD> UukGoblin: it'd have its own difficulty, potentially its own target time (not 10 minutes) etc
501 2011-05-04 09:03:47 <npouillard> UukGoblin: no there could be a lot more than 21 million domainnames with namecoin
502 2011-05-04 09:03:51 <TD> cdecker, Diablo-D3: guys guys guys
503 2011-05-04 09:04:03 <TD> stop fighting. i routinely lose 1PB of storage down the back of the sofa.
504 2011-05-04 09:04:10 <cdecker> rofl
505 2011-05-04 09:04:21 <npouillard> UukGoblin: namecoins is the currency to pay fees to get domain names
506 2011-05-04 09:04:37 <Diablo-D3> TD: lol
507 2011-05-04 09:04:46 <cdecker> I'd love to get your sofa when you're done with it then :D
508 2011-05-04 09:04:47 <Diablo-D3> 1 PB? thats... not really that much.
509 2011-05-04 09:04:56 <UukGoblin> ok thanks for the input anyhow, I'll try to read up about that multichain solution, maybe it'll change my mind
510 2011-05-04 09:05:08 <cdecker> It's more than most RDBMS will scale to
511 2011-05-04 09:05:29 <TD> UukGoblin: it's not as complex as it sounds. i'm happy to explain the details.
512 2011-05-04 09:05:30 <UukGoblin> but you have to realise that at some point this "subverting" of the main blockchain will be inevitable anyway
513 2011-05-04 09:05:39 <npouillard> UukGoblin: then the current implementation represents the ownership of a domain by a 0.01 NC, but it could be 0.00000001 NC
514 2011-05-04 09:05:39 <TD> if only because this "let's put DNS into the financial chain" thing keeps coming up
515 2011-05-04 09:05:46 <TD> and we need to kill it :)
516 2011-05-04 09:06:02 <UukGoblin> TD, no, I only used DNS as an example
517 2011-05-04 09:06:15 <TD> dns, ssl certs, voting systems, etc ....
518 2011-05-04 09:06:20 <UukGoblin> npouillard, ok, but you can't buy namecoins with bitcoins unless you have willing traders
519 2011-05-04 09:06:34 <Diablo-D3> well
520 2011-05-04 09:06:37 <Diablo-D3> namecoin would work
521 2011-05-04 09:06:37 <jgarzik> TD: what is the "extra data" that goes into BitDNS block header?
522 2011-05-04 09:06:41 <Diablo-D3> if they'd get their own fucking network
523 2011-05-04 09:06:45 <_ape> ok does anyone want to see if my bitcoin charts gadget works
524 2011-05-04 09:06:47 <_ape> https://github.com/apeape/Bitcoin-Charts-Gadget
525 2011-05-04 09:06:50 <Diablo-D3> its not hard
526 2011-05-04 09:06:52 <cdecker> Anyway, I'll drop the couchdb idea then :D
527 2011-05-04 09:06:52 <TD> namecoins is its own network
528 2011-05-04 09:06:55 <_ape> i uploaded the .gadget in the downloads section
529 2011-05-04 09:06:58 <npouillard> UukGoblin: sure, but I can sell you some :)
530 2011-05-04 09:07:02 <jgarzik> TD: http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1790.msg28715#msg28715
531 2011-05-04 09:07:04 <Diablo-D3> select a) your own port pair, b) your own genesis block
532 2011-05-04 09:07:10 <Diablo-D3> no other real modifications needed to bitcoin
533 2011-05-04 09:07:31 <UukGoblin> so basically you need to invent a new currency for each BitX project if you have separate blockchains
534 2011-05-04 09:07:34 <Diablo-D3> shove the dns ip/name itself into the comment block thats already in bitcoin
535 2011-05-04 09:07:40 <sipa> that way you could implement trading of any goods, as long as people trust the issuer of that contract, in atomic transactions for bitcoins
536 2011-05-04 09:07:53 <jgarzik> I was tempted to commit a "guide to starting your own block chain", because namecoin neglected to change the address format :(
537 2011-05-04 09:08:00 <UukGoblin> and if one of the projects is very unpopular, you're screwed, you can't really use it
538 2011-05-04 09:08:05 <UukGoblin> cause you'll be the only one mining
539 2011-05-04 09:08:06 <sipa> it could be used for DNS names (though not as authorative db)
540 2011-05-04 09:08:06 <TD> jgarzik: the basic approach is to extend BitCoin C++ with a new set of RPCs that let you place a hash into the txin of the current coinbase transaction.
541 2011-05-04 09:08:08 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: well
542 2011-05-04 09:08:12 <Diablo-D3> it'd be really interesting
543 2011-05-04 09:08:17 <Diablo-D3> if you could supply an xml document
544 2011-05-04 09:08:17 <npouillard> UukGoblin: not with cross-mining
545 2011-05-04 09:08:29 <Diablo-D3> that you just feed it to bitcoin and it automatically loads the foreign network
546 2011-05-04 09:08:32 <TD> jgarzik: you also need a way of telling BitCoin to spit out blocks found according to a different difficulty level
547 2011-05-04 09:08:35 <noagendamarket> the key is sharing the load
548 2011-05-04 09:08:40 <jgarzik> TD: yep
549 2011-05-04 09:08:44 <UukGoblin> npouillard, with cross-mining you'd still have to convince others to mine for your project
550 2011-05-04 09:09:05 <npouillard> UukGoblin: there is an incentive for it
551 2011-05-04 09:09:06 <Diablo-D3> its a list of the genesis block name, difficulty settings, time between block settings, and the port number, and a list of well known peers
552 2011-05-04 09:09:06 <TD> jgarzik: then you write a totally new codebase that just the nakamoto block chain algorithm, but is otherwise independent. it's not that hard actually, the hard part is determining the rules for transactions and how they link together
553 2011-05-04 09:09:12 <UukGoblin> npouillard, what sort of incentive?
554 2011-05-04 09:09:19 <TD> which in bitcoin is super complex but that's because it's a complete distributed financial contracts system :-)
555 2011-05-04 09:09:24 <Diablo-D3> [07:09:05] <Diablo-D3> its a list of the genesis block name, difficulty settings, time between block settings, and the port number, and a list of well known peers
556 2011-05-04 09:09:24 <TD> names would be simpler
557 2011-05-04 09:09:27 <Diablo-D3> seriously
558 2011-05-04 09:09:29 <UukGoblin> npouillard, I invent a shitty chain, no-one wants my shitcoins, why would they mine my block?
559 2011-05-04 09:09:30 <Diablo-D3> thats all you have to do
560 2011-05-04 09:09:33 <npouillard> UukGoblin: trading the X currency you have for bitcoins
561 2011-05-04 09:09:42 <npouillard> UukGoblin: no they won't
562 2011-05-04 09:09:45 <UukGoblin> npouillard, but X is shit, no-one wants to buy or sell it
563 2011-05-04 09:09:55 <npouillard> like with any currency
564 2011-05-04 09:09:57 <jgarzik> TD: I'm just referring to, specifically, the mining-for-multiple-chains-at-same-time part.  The other parts fall out naturally, once you have that one bit.
565 2011-05-04 09:10:05 <TD> when BitCoin C++ spits out a bitcoin format block header that is sufficient to meet the namecoin difficulty (regardless of whether it matches bitcoins difficulty), your new network takes it, and broadcasts it as part of its own "block found" message
566 2011-05-04 09:10:28 <TD> after the bitcoin block header, you just append whatever data you want
567 2011-05-04 09:10:41 <TD> it doesn't even have to have any concept of transactions
568 2011-05-04 09:10:44 <UukGoblin> npouillard, yes, and a single-block solution would benefit every miner because every now and then I'd send a shitcoin transaction and include a bitcoin fee with it
569 2011-05-04 09:10:45 <TD> though it probably would
570 2011-05-04 09:11:06 <UukGoblin> s/single-block/single-blockchain/
571 2011-05-04 09:11:07 <npouillard> UukGoblin: but you polute everyone with it
572 2011-05-04 09:11:21 <TD> other nodes in the DnsCoin network receive that bitcoin format block header, verify it matches the dns chains difficulty, verify their own data beneath it and verify the txin hash is correct
573 2011-05-04 09:11:23 <UukGoblin> npouillard, why is everyone using the word 'polute'?
574 2011-05-04 09:11:35 <UukGoblin> npouillard, I'd pay for the storage of my transaction!
575 2011-05-04 09:11:39 <TD> (so dnscoin distributes the bitcoin block header, the coinbase tx and the merkle branch needed to link the two together)
576 2011-05-04 09:11:45 <TD> that's where satoshis 200 bytes comes from
577 2011-05-04 09:11:45 <UukGoblin> like every other bitcoiner does if he wants to send a large transaction
578 2011-05-04 09:11:52 <npouillard> UukGoblin: Satoshi also mentioned that we may want different fates for different projects
579 2011-05-04 09:11:57 <jgarzik> TD: tnx
580 2011-05-04 09:11:59 <TD> it's the size of the bitcoin format block header + the coinbase tx. perhaps also the merkle branch too, i never calculated it for sure
581 2011-05-04 09:12:29 <sipa> afaik merkle branches aren't stored anywhere
582 2011-05-04 09:12:36 <sipa> in the block chain
583 2011-05-04 09:12:38 <TD> UukGoblin: yes, you'd have to convince miners to take part. but if all it involves is running a program with a --bitcoin-node=localhost:18333 switch, why would they not do it?
584 2011-05-04 09:12:39 <jgarzik> to fix SSL cert
585 2011-05-04 09:12:40 <sipa> only the merkle root
586 2011-05-04 09:12:55 <TD> UukGoblin: assuming they think your code is good
587 2011-05-04 09:13:05 <TD> UukGoblin: bear in mind only a handful of miners control nearly half a terahash of power!
588 2011-05-04 09:13:10 <noagendamarket> if its shit it deserves to fail
589 2011-05-04 09:13:11 <TD> UukGoblin: you don't have to convince many people to take part.
590 2011-05-04 09:13:12 <noagendamarket> anyway
591 2011-05-04 09:13:16 <UukGoblin> TD, they'd have to do that for every small single project
592 2011-05-04 09:13:28 <TD> sipa: yes. you'd have to define your own format for distributing the data, eg a protobuf like:
593 2011-05-04 09:13:33 <TD> message DnsCoinBlock {
594 2011-05-04 09:13:38 <UukGoblin> which would quickly become unmanageable
595 2011-05-04 09:13:40 <TD> required bytes bitcoin_header = 1;
596 2011-05-04 09:13:49 <TD> required bytes bitcoin_coinbase_tx = 2;
597 2011-05-04 09:13:56 <TD> required bytes coinbase_merkle_branch = 3;
598 2011-05-04 09:14:04 <TD> required DnsCoinData data = 4;
599 2011-05-04 09:14:08 <UukGoblin> anyway whatever you can say about poluting
600 2011-05-04 09:14:12 <TD> UukGoblin: there aren't going to be that many chains
601 2011-05-04 09:14:13 <UukGoblin> you can't stop me :-]
602 2011-05-04 09:14:20 <TD> UukGoblin: it's hard to come up with use cases for even 3 or 4
603 2011-05-04 09:14:36 <UukGoblin> TD, I want a way to sign events from a MMORPG game
604 2011-05-04 09:14:52 <TD> why?
605 2011-05-04 09:15:01 <UukGoblin> to be able to prove that mmorpg servers don't cheat
606 2011-05-04 09:15:27 <TD> so your MMORPG would send every game event like "user logged in", "user moved from X to Y" to be timestamped?
607 2011-05-04 09:15:40 <UukGoblin> TD, in an aggregated fashion, yes
608 2011-05-04 09:15:53 <genjix> cool
609 2011-05-04 09:15:58 <sipa> i don't see the point
610 2011-05-04 09:16:08 <UukGoblin> i.e. store the whole message in a DHT of some sort, compute the shasum, and get the shasum signed by the bitcoin network
611 2011-05-04 09:16:09 <TD> UukGoblin: hrmm. bitcoin of today isn't a good fit for that use case anyway.
612 2011-05-04 09:16:10 <sipa> the mmorpg can claim whatever it likes
613 2011-05-04 09:16:17 <TD> UukGoblin: you can't really establish orderings for events within a block
614 2011-05-04 09:16:30 <UukGoblin> TD, just an example
615 2011-05-04 09:16:52 <UukGoblin> the generic problem that I can see the bitcoin blockchain solving is this: sign me a message for a fee
616 2011-05-04 09:16:59 <TD> well, that's my point :) coming up with use cases that actually do fit the block chain system isn't so easy. for a MMORPG operator who wanted to prove their honesty a trusted timestamp server is more appropriate
617 2011-05-04 09:17:05 <TD> because it's much higher performance
618 2011-05-04 09:17:14 <UukGoblin> ok, this could be a separate BitSign chain
619 2011-05-04 09:17:19 <jgarzik> UukGoblin: sounds like a great application for another chain
620 2011-05-04 09:17:27 <noagendamarket> like a sslchain
621 2011-05-04 09:17:30 <noagendamarket> :)
622 2011-05-04 09:17:40 <UukGoblin> or BitStamp
623 2011-05-04 09:17:50 <npouillard> indeed I would like a BitSign chain
624 2011-05-04 09:17:52 <noagendamarket> fuck verisign
625 2011-05-04 09:18:01 <TD> like this:
626 2011-05-04 09:18:06 <UukGoblin> ok, let me ask this: why would a miner have to care about all the chains? All he wants is bitcoins.
627 2011-05-04 09:18:10 <TD> if i was running an MMORPG i'd use that
628 2011-05-04 09:18:22 <UukGoblin> TD, dude
629 2011-05-04 09:18:26 <UukGoblin> TD, that's like owned by someone
630 2011-05-04 09:18:31 <UukGoblin> I want a p2p mmorpg
631 2011-05-04 09:18:37 <UukGoblin> not "operated" by someone
632 2011-05-04 09:18:40 <TD> that's a totally different and much harder problem :-)
633 2011-05-04 09:18:44 <TD> i know because i tried to build one once, haha
634 2011-05-04 09:18:49 <noagendamarket> lol
635 2011-05-04 09:19:00 <TD> once you successfully build a P2P MMORPG get back to us about making it trustworthy using distributed timestamping
636 2011-05-04 09:19:00 <UukGoblin> TD, good :-] I was talking about building one once too ;-]
637 2011-05-04 09:19:17 <UukGoblin> well I won't until I know that bitcoin can work with it
638 2011-05-04 09:19:25 <TD> anyway you just answered your own question - miners who care can join your other network. miners who don'
639 2011-05-04 09:19:37 <UukGoblin> TD, yes but why do they have to care?
640 2011-05-04 09:19:39 <TD> who don't care, won't want you trying to stuff your MMORPG data into their financial database
641 2011-05-04 09:19:46 <TD> because they are paying for the costs of running a node
642 2011-05-04 09:19:58 <TD> that's fundamental. you're trying to externalize the costs of your project onto other people who may or may not want to pay them
643 2011-05-04 09:20:00 <UukGoblin> TD, if you asked every miner around if they want an extra 0.01 for each block they generate, I'm sure the answer would be 100% yes
644 2011-05-04 09:20:09 <TD> if they do, you can make setup literally one line they copy/paste into a terminal
645 2011-05-04 09:20:22 <TD> no, probably not if the cost is an additional 100txns per second of processing cost
646 2011-05-04 09:20:28 <UukGoblin> if it costs them more than 0.01 to store my transaction, OK, I'll pay that much more
647 2011-05-04 09:21:08 <TD> no you won't. your game is entirely theoretical and needs the ability to timestamp events to very high precision at a rate of potentially thousands of events per second
648 2011-05-04 09:21:19 <TD> the Thales hardware I linked to can do that and more.
649 2011-05-04 09:21:27 <UukGoblin> forget about a game
650 2011-05-04 09:21:28 <TD> bitcoin can't even approach that level of accuracy and throughput today.
651 2011-05-04 09:21:41 <UukGoblin> I don't want it to approach that level of accuracy and throughput
652 2011-05-04 09:21:54 <UukGoblin> the only way I could use bitcoin is to sign aggregated many-minute event logs
653 2011-05-04 09:22:18 <UukGoblin> anyway
654 2011-05-04 09:22:24 <UukGoblin> I have to go soon
655 2011-05-04 09:22:32 <noagendamarket> it would be like trying to cram twitter into the block chain
656 2011-05-04 09:22:57 <noagendamarket> think how many fail whales that would bring
657 2011-05-04 09:23:02 <UukGoblin> but one last question: Do you people agree that the mainstream bitcoin client not allowing the user to set his own fees for mining is a bug?
658 2011-05-04 09:24:27 <dinox_> UukGoblin: what do you mean by that? fees for mining?
659 2011-05-04 09:24:42 <TD> you mean minimum inclusion fees?
660 2011-05-04 09:25:11 <UukGoblin> dinox_, I mean that currently fees for transactions are set up arbitrarily by satoshi, gavin, etc. If I wanted to run a mining node using my own fee policy, I'd have to modify the client's code, rather than set my fees in a config.
661 2011-05-04 09:25:43 <dinox_> Aha, to only include tansactions with fees, for example?
662 2011-05-04 09:25:47 <TD> yeah, mining for fees doesn't really happen today and i suspect by the time it becomes popular there'll be a bunch of very different models
663 2011-05-04 09:25:47 <UukGoblin> yes
664 2011-05-04 09:25:57 <TD> (like the one i proposed on the tx fee equilibrium thread)
665 2011-05-04 09:26:10 <TD> it's probably premature to try and make it all settable via a config file
666 2011-05-04 09:26:19 <sipa> i'd call it a limitation indeed
667 2011-05-04 09:26:22 <sipa> not a bug
668 2011-05-04 09:26:24 <dinox_> UukGoblin: That's more like a missing feature
669 2011-05-04 09:26:34 <TD> if your understanding of bitcoin is good enough to want to mine with custom rules, it's probably good enough to edit the code today.
670 2011-05-04 09:26:46 <UukGoblin> sipa, original satoshi's paper talks about miners being able to set fees on their own, and that's not implemented, hence bug
671 2011-05-04 09:26:50 <TD> given that you'd be spending a lot in order to mine at sufficient speeds anyway
672 2011-05-04 09:27:04 <TD> UukGoblin: satoshis paper discusses a lot of things that are not implemented
673 2011-05-04 09:27:18 <TD> "bug" means "software is not acting the way it was intended to" rather than "software could be improved by doing X"
674 2011-05-04 09:27:23 <TD> though usually it's all tracked in a bug database
675 2011-05-04 09:27:29 <sipa> it seems the design of the system is/was miles ahead of the implementation
676 2011-05-04 09:27:32 <UukGoblin> "bug" means "software does not match specification" in my language
677 2011-05-04 09:27:33 <TD> yeah
678 2011-05-04 09:27:46 <TD> satoshis paper is so far from a specification :-(
679 2011-05-04 09:27:48 <UukGoblin> ok missing feature/bug/whatever
680 2011-05-04 09:27:50 <sipa> which is actually very rare
681 2011-05-04 09:27:52 <TD> huge chunks of the system don't even appear in it
682 2011-05-04 09:28:00 <UukGoblin> if I coded it and submitted a patch, why would it not get included?
683 2011-05-04 09:28:15 <TD> it might do
684 2011-05-04 09:28:21 <TD> try asking gavin
685 2011-05-04 09:28:24 <UukGoblin> ok
686 2011-05-04 09:28:34 <TD> i'm not sure many people would use that feature, mind you
687 2011-05-04 09:28:36 <UukGoblin> I can already see people shouting at me that it polutes bitcoin and what not
688 2011-05-04 09:28:52 <TD> why?
689 2011-05-04 09:29:07 <sipa> wait, are you talking about setting mining fees, or about allowing nonstandard tx's for a fee?
690 2011-05-04 09:29:08 <UukGoblin> because it'll allow miners to set arbitrary fees for non-standard transactions
691 2011-05-04 09:29:28 <TD> there's a difference between making the default min fee configurable, and changing the tx inclusion rules
692 2011-05-04 09:29:29 <UukGoblin> sipa, mining fees in general include rules about non-standard transactions
693 2011-05-04 09:29:31 <TD> that's really two separate changes
694 2011-05-04 09:29:43 <UukGoblin> the way I see it, both should be configurable
695 2011-05-04 09:29:46 <TD> no, i don't think gavin would accept the latter change
696 2011-05-04 09:29:50 <sipa> UukGoblin: 1) rules for relaying transactions 2) rules for accepting transactions
697 2011-05-04 09:29:58 <UukGoblin> sipa, yes. two things
698 2011-05-04 09:29:59 <TD> but of course you're free to modify your code to do that. luke-jr has done it.
699 2011-05-04 09:30:01 <UukGoblin> both configurable
700 2011-05-04 09:30:23 <UukGoblin> ok, well thanks again for the input
701 2011-05-04 09:30:26 <sipa> making 2) configurable is reasonable i think
702 2011-05-04 09:30:36 <sipa> making 1) configurable will need a lot more discussion
703 2011-05-04 09:30:53 <UukGoblin> I still do not understand why you want to reject a transaction with a fee, it's beyond my comprehension, but I'll try to read up about it, maybe I'll understand at some point
704 2011-05-04 09:31:05 <TD> you mean a non standard transaction with a fee
705 2011-05-04 09:31:10 <UukGoblin> yes
706 2011-05-04 09:31:23 <TD> because everyone has to pay the cost of a block, not just the miner
707 2011-05-04 09:31:40 <sipa> blocks and transactions are verified by everyone
708 2011-05-04 09:31:50 <TD> if I accept a 1 gigabyte transaction for a fee of 0.05 bit cents, it might be profitable for _me_, but it's just a cost to everyone else who has to download, process and index the chain
709 2011-05-04 09:31:55 <sipa> if the script in it is computationall very hard to execute, that's huge load on the system
710 2011-05-04 09:32:11 <UukGoblin> so the miner's decision in english would be "Oh I'd love to have extra money, but because I'm sooo altruistic I'll chuck it in the bin so that others are happy"?
711 2011-05-04 09:32:21 <TD> we all accept that shared cost today because everyone agrees they want to take part in a financial system
712 2011-05-04 09:32:34 <TD> if your gigantic complicated transaction is to do with mmorpgs or dns or whatever, it breaks that implied social contract.
713 2011-05-04 09:32:36 <sipa> don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you
714 2011-05-04 09:33:01 <UukGoblin> TD, of course, who said about 1GB costing 0.05
715 2011-05-04 09:33:10 <TD> it's just an example to make a point.
716 2011-05-04 09:33:11 <UukGoblin> I'd want 1KB to cost about 0.01, like it does now
717 2011-05-04 09:33:17 <TD> it's not just about storage size.
718 2011-05-04 09:33:23 <TD> it's about processing power and other things.
719 2011-05-04 09:34:19 <TD> look, with all due respect as you're clearly a bright guy, i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. people install and run bitcoin [miners] to take part in a financial system. we've explained to you how to extend that system so those who want to can take part in others, without having to split their computational work done
720 2011-05-04 09:34:47 <TD> it is a win/win situation. new networks can easily leverage the hard work done by miners in setting up GPU clusters or pools or whatever
721 2011-05-04 09:35:05 <TD> but for end users, merchants, people who aren't mining, etc - they don't have to worry about it
722 2011-05-04 09:35:10 <TD> people are free to make their own decisions
723 2011-05-04 09:35:30 <TD> and realistically you'd be able to get a very secure network with minimal marketing. just convincing five or six guys would get you enormous amounts of hash power.
724 2011-05-04 09:35:38 <UukGoblin> I'm not discarding that solution, I'm saying that "polution" of the main blockchain isn't necessarily bad either. I do have to read up about the multi-chain solution more though.
725 2011-05-04 09:36:16 <TD> there isn't much written about it unfortunately. satoshi appears to have invented it a long time after he wrote bitcoin itself, in response to peoples desire to generalize the system.
726 2011-05-04 09:36:31 <TD> but i (finally) understand what he meant, so i'm happy to discuss it with you here or on the forums
727 2011-05-04 09:36:37 <UukGoblin> ok, cool
728 2011-05-04 09:36:56 <UukGoblin> I think forums might be slightly more organized than here, but a wiki-type article would be best
729 2011-05-04 09:37:15 <TD> if you start a thread i'll try and write out a clearer explanation than what satoshi provided so far.
730 2011-05-04 09:37:21 <UukGoblin> ok cool
731 2011-05-04 09:37:25 <UukGoblin> gotta go now
732 2011-05-04 09:37:36 <TD> later
733 2011-05-04 09:37:51 <UukGoblin> thanks very much for your input and please don't be offended, I don't want to make anyone's chain dirty ;-]
734 2011-05-04 09:38:18 <TD> great, good to hear that :-)
735 2011-05-04 09:40:57 <cdecker> TD you'll be there this weekend right?
736 2011-05-04 09:43:01 <TD> that's my plan
737 2011-05-04 09:43:42 <cdecker> Great, looking forward to it ^^
738 2011-05-04 09:46:39 <TD> UukGoblin: actually i'll just make a post myself today, whilst i'm thinking about it.
739 2011-05-04 09:57:58 <CIA-30> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r70 /trunk/build.xml: Fix the ant build.xml file to include SLF4J
740 2011-05-04 09:59:58 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix exper * r6fdcb41cf8a9 intersango/www/ (config.php index.php): purge config.php http://tinyurl.com/6zfnteh
741 2011-05-04 10:10:00 <CIA-30> bitcoin: genjix exper * r5001f4fd9e57 intersango/login.php: BUGFIX: remove duplicate header include in login. http://tinyurl.com/623gngo
742 2011-05-04 10:13:29 <luke-jr> sipa: changing rules for accepting transactions almost depends on changing rules for relaying
743 2011-05-04 10:22:07 <nefario> questions about transaction fees for bitcoind
744 2011-05-04 10:22:08 <nefario> Using version 3210, which is the latest binary on the site.
745 2011-05-04 10:22:10 <nefario> I've set transaction fees to be 0.01btc, but have a fee here for 0.03btc
746 2011-05-04 10:22:11 <nefario> It's messing up my accounting.
747 2011-05-04 10:22:41 <sipa> it's 0.01 BTC/kbyte
748 2011-05-04 10:22:50 <nefario> oh
749 2011-05-04 10:23:12 <nefario> so how do I account for a variable transaction fee then?
750 2011-05-04 10:23:34 <sipa> how do you mean?
751 2011-05-04 10:24:15 <nefario> well in my app, I need to record transaction fees
752 2011-05-04 10:24:22 <nefario> and account for them
753 2011-05-04 10:25:24 <nefario> how do I get the fee?
754 2011-05-04 10:26:11 <sipa> listtransactions will show you the fee
755 2011-05-04 10:27:13 <nefario> facepalm
756 2011-05-04 10:27:45 <nefario> when I run sendfrom what is the return value?
757 2011-05-04 10:28:31 <sipa> hmmm, a sendfrom that returns the created transaction may be useful
758 2011-05-04 10:28:46 <nefario> it would be very very usefull
759 2011-05-04 10:30:42 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,diff
760 2011-05-04 10:30:43 <gribble> 109670.13329248
761 2011-05-04 10:33:17 <nefario> I guess I just have to disable fees
762 2011-05-04 10:33:36 <nefario> and block sending anything less than 1btc so it doesn't incure a fee
763 2011-05-04 10:33:41 <Diablo-D3> okay so
764 2011-05-04 10:33:44 <Diablo-D3> if I do constant share value
765 2011-05-04 10:33:48 <Diablo-D3> and use diff 1 shares
766 2011-05-04 10:34:17 <Diablo-D3> 50 / current diff is the share value, right?
767 2011-05-04 10:34:21 <sipa> yes
768 2011-05-04 10:47:06 <genjix> MagicalTux: hey
769 2011-05-04 10:47:21 <genjix> any chance to get an Ubuntu natty narwhal added to autovps?
770 2011-05-04 10:47:37 <genjix> lenny breaks when i do a fresh install and try to upgrade
771 2011-05-04 10:48:25 <genjix> *lucid lynx\n476771
772 2011-05-04 10:49:57 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I actually see a lot of double-solutions in the share db& too many to be intentional cheating I think
773 2011-05-04 10:59:42 <sipa> ;;bc,calc [bc,eligius]
774 2011-05-04 10:59:43 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14789004.0559 Khps, given current difficulty of 109670.13329248 , is 8 hours, 50 minutes, and 49 seconds
775 2011-05-04 11:04:09 <genjix> ;;seen MagicalTux
776 2011-05-04 11:04:10 <gribble> MagicalTux was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 23 hours, 47 minutes, and 48 seconds ago: <MagicalTux> yes, it is
777 2011-05-04 11:04:21 <MagicalTux> yes, it's me
778 2011-05-04 11:04:29 <genjix> :p
779 2011-05-04 11:05:30 <genjix> so is it possible to update the Ubuntu CD on autovps to Natty Narwhal?
780 2011-05-04 11:05:46 <genjix> Lucid Lynx breaks on upgrade and is really old.
781 2011-05-04 11:08:48 <genjix> ;;seen MagicalTux
782 2011-05-04 11:08:48 <gribble> MagicalTux was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 minutes and 27 seconds ago: <MagicalTux> yes, it's me
783 2011-05-04 11:09:51 <MagicalTux> yes, it's me
784 2011-05-04 11:10:03 <MagicalTux> genjix: I'll open a ticket
785 2011-05-04 11:10:51 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc [bc,eligius]
786 2011-05-04 11:10:53 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 14345190.7686 Khps, given current difficulty of 109670.13329248 , is 9 hours, 7 minutes, and 15 seconds
787 2011-05-04 11:11:41 <luke-jr> any ideas how to modify my SQL query to eliminate duplicate solutions?
788 2011-05-04 11:11:54 <sipa> what is the query now?
789 2011-05-04 11:11:55 <luke-jr> select username,count() from shares where our_result = "Y" group by username
790 2011-05-04 11:12:06 <MagicalTux> genjix: ticket open
791 2011-05-04 11:12:17 <sipa> use count distinct?
792 2011-05-04 11:12:26 <genjix> oh, so you don't own autovps? you resell it?
793 2011-05-04 11:12:35 <genjix> luke-jr: select distinct
794 2011-05-04 11:12:39 <MagicalTux> genjix: It's not my own servers at this time
795 2011-05-04 11:12:42 <luke-jr> that didn't help, and took 10 times longer&.
796 2011-05-04 11:12:44 <genjix> ok
797 2011-05-04 11:12:56 <MagicalTux> luke-jr: you're not happy with group by username?
798 2011-05-04 11:13:06 <ersi> genjix: Lucid isn't.. *that* old :p
799 2011-05-04 11:13:15 <genjix> luke-jr: you want select distinct
800 2011-05-04 11:13:18 <luke-jr> MagicalTux: apparently some solutions are getting multiple shares
801 2011-05-04 11:13:30 <genjix> but you need the primary key
802 2011-05-04 11:14:20 <luke-jr> problem #2 is that the db is growing fast
803 2011-05-04 11:14:25 <luke-jr> already like 1 GB
804 2011-05-04 11:14:27 <UukGoblin> TD, cool, please give me a URL once you do :-)
805 2011-05-04 11:14:43 <genjix> you can use a sub-query like select * from blaa where column in (select distinct column from blaa);
806 2011-05-04 11:15:11 <sipa> luke-jr: that query is used for what?
807 2011-05-04 11:15:37 <luke-jr> sipa: counting shares
808 2011-05-04 11:16:00 <sipa> so you need to do it continuously?
809 2011-05-04 11:16:07 <luke-jr> pretty much
810 2011-05-04 11:16:08 <genjix> ersi: yeah but lucid sucks
811 2011-05-04 11:16:56 <sipa> luke-jr: but the rows in the databse are marked with what round they are for?
812 2011-05-04 11:17:17 <luke-jr> not exactly
813 2011-05-04 11:17:24 <UukGoblin> I'm back anyway
814 2011-05-04 11:17:40 <sipa> then what do they contain?
815 2011-05-04 11:17:53 <luke-jr> hold on, having a problem here
816 2011-05-04 11:17:56 <luke-jr> pushpoold is frozen
817 2011-05-04 11:17:58 <luke-jr> jgarzik: ^
818 2011-05-04 11:18:18 <UukGoblin> and I've made up a new argument point: currently, to sign any document using the bitcoin blockchain, you can destroy your money and send 0.01 to a non-existing address that's at the same time a signature of your stuff
819 2011-05-04 11:18:46 <UukGoblin> with my proposed solution, that 0.01 will go to the block miner instead of being wasted
820 2011-05-04 11:19:12 <UukGoblin> do you think it's better to get currency destructed than to transfer it to people who support the network? :-P
821 2011-05-04 11:20:17 <cdecker> Both options have advantages :D
822 2011-05-04 11:20:34 <cdecker> As a miner I'd like to get my hands on that destroyed currency
823 2011-05-04 11:20:54 <cdecker> As a speculator I'd love it to get destroyed ^^
824 2011-05-04 11:21:10 <UukGoblin> hm. :-]
825 2011-05-04 11:21:38 <UukGoblin> HM.
826 2011-05-04 11:22:09 <cdecker> Or even better hardcode it to my address ^^
827 2011-05-04 11:23:58 <UukGoblin> ok I have to say, I'm more of a miner than speculator
828 2011-05-04 11:24:10 <UukGoblin> so maybe I see things slightly skewed ;-]
829 2011-05-04 11:24:51 <UukGoblin> but then again... it should be up to the user. Speculators should get no say on the rules of the network. As a speculator, you'd rather change the rules to give /you/ the initial 21 million.
830 2011-05-04 11:26:11 <luke-jr> ok wtf
831 2011-05-04 11:26:16 <luke-jr> some major I/O bottlenecking
832 2011-05-04 11:46:40 <UukGoblin> hmm, is the "re-sending a transaction with a higher fee" functionality implemented yet? is that the purposeful double-spend stuff?
833 2011-05-04 11:52:54 <UukGoblin> ok I'm gonna stop saying BitDNS
834 2011-05-04 11:53:00 <UukGoblin> cause it causes too much confusion
835 2011-05-04 11:53:01 <UukGoblin> BitStamp
836 2011-05-04 11:53:04 <UukGoblin> simple service
837 2011-05-04 11:53:04 <xelister> what bitdns
838 2011-05-04 11:53:13 <UukGoblin> tiny transaction
839 2011-05-04 11:53:16 <UukGoblin> and a fee
840 2011-05-04 11:53:23 <UukGoblin> what. on. earth. is. it. polluting and how.
841 2011-05-04 11:53:54 <UukGoblin> (with just the BitStamp alone, you can do BitDNS, my mmorpg, and all the other crap)
842 2011-05-04 11:56:00 <UukGoblin> xelister, I started arguing about it at 10:54 BST (9:54 GMT), read the backlog if you want to know what I'm talking about :-]
843 2011-05-04 11:56:14 <xelister> k ;)
844 2011-05-04 11:58:19 <TD> UukGoblin: please let me know if this is insufficient:
845 2011-05-04 11:58:20 <TD> http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=7219.0
846 2011-05-04 11:58:35 <TD> also if something isn't clear let me know so I can improve the article. eventually i'll stick it on the wiki.
847 2011-05-04 11:59:16 <TD> i realize it's quite a lot to read
848 2011-05-04 11:59:34 <TD> but it should outline everything needed to create alternative chains .... except for scaling it up to many possible chains using a second merkle tree
849 2011-05-04 11:59:41 <TD> i felt it was getting too long and complex without discussing that
850 2011-05-04 12:04:21 <UukGoblin> TD, nice intro, I keep reading :-)
851 2011-05-04 12:06:01 <TD> oops, just realized i left an obvious field out of NameTx, editing ...
852 2011-05-04 12:07:03 <cdecker> Sounds pretty interesting :-)
853 2011-05-04 12:08:24 <xelister> molecular: you alive? ;)   seeing my jabber?
854 2011-05-04 12:09:39 <UukGoblin> TD, OK, I agree about a lot of stuff
855 2011-05-04 12:10:16 <UukGoblin> TD, the actual DNS data SHOULD NOT be stored in the bitcoin blockchain, the DNS rules SHOULD NOT be verified by stock clients
856 2011-05-04 12:10:25 <UukGoblin> reading on
857 2011-05-04 12:11:42 <UukGoblin> TD, HEY! the last paragraph, you've described almost exactly what I wanted to to
858 2011-05-04 12:11:49 <UukGoblin> s/to to/to do/
859 2011-05-04 12:13:01 <UukGoblin> and you even said exactly what I wanted to say: "In reality burning BitCoins isn't smart and a much better system could be devised using scripts."
860 2011-05-04 12:13:09 <UukGoblin> which is exactly what I'd like to do instead of burning them
861 2011-05-04 12:13:32 <UukGoblin> burning is already kinda implemented in the stock client, but it's a bit silly
862 2011-05-04 12:13:58 <UukGoblin> I'm proposing upgrading the default tx fee rules slightly to allow to transfer the money to the first guy to find a next block
863 2011-05-04 12:14:25 <UukGoblin> and while we're at it, I'm proposing making the tx fee rules slightly more customizable by the user, because it seems that's what satoshi wanted in his paper
864 2011-05-04 12:14:50 <UukGoblin> I find it unfair that tx fee rules are set by a centralized group of devs without the users having any say in it
865 2011-05-04 12:14:51 <TD> best way is to send patches to gavin, they can be discussed then
866 2011-05-04 12:15:05 <TD> in practice fees are only a concern of miners who are nearly all devs anyway, currently :-)
867 2011-05-04 12:15:16 <UukGoblin> great :-]
868 2011-05-04 12:15:29 <UukGoblin> ok, we have an understanding then :-]
869 2011-05-04 12:15:30 <UukGoblin> now
870 2011-05-04 12:15:47 <UukGoblin> in order to write a patch (I'm not saying I have enough time to write one), we'd have to agree on how we do it
871 2011-05-04 12:16:00 <UukGoblin> cause there are many ways
872 2011-05-04 12:16:16 <TD> indeed. well, i'm afraid i don't have time to do that myself.
873 2011-05-04 12:16:26 <TD> i wasn't actually intending to do anything bitcoin related today at all :-)
874 2011-05-04 12:16:35 <TD> but if you do have the energy and time, go for it
875 2011-05-04 12:16:54 <UukGoblin> regarding signing/timestamping, I suggest that a simple non-standard transaction be accepted that contains no outputs, a few inputs, a fee of 0.01 BTC for each KB (or something like that), and arbitrary data
876 2011-05-04 12:17:28 <UukGoblin> nah, I'm afraid I only have the energy to talk about it for now; I might do some simple patch but definitely don't sign up for writing a fee policy language
877 2011-05-04 12:18:10 <UukGoblin> if you're too scared about arbitrary data, then we can limit the transaction size to 256 bits which is enough to post a SHA256 signature (but 512 might be needed later)
878 2011-05-04 12:18:22 <TD> that sounds like a reasonable thing
879 2011-05-04 12:18:26 <UukGoblin> now, these transactions ideally shouldn't be counted for the block size when determining fees for standard transactions
880 2011-05-04 12:19:19 <UukGoblin> because they already require fees (i.e. you should be able to send as many free standard transactions in a block with a non-standard stamping transaction as you'd be in a one without it)
881 2011-05-04 12:21:13 <UukGoblin> jgarzik, sipa, npouillard, Diablo-D3 - can you please read what I've just written and comment? :-)
882 2011-05-04 12:22:49 <UukGoblin> continuing, the timestamping feature is pretty simple to implement and I even could try writing a patch for it this weekend, if you say it has a chance of getting accepted