1 2011-05-27 00:01:42 <fabianhjr> Ok, it went for theymos for 3 BTC. Enjoy your earnings. xD
  2 2011-05-27 00:05:13 <jeremid> just got home
  3 2011-05-27 00:05:20 <io_error> Damnit, I wasn't looking for trade offers in here :P
  4 2011-05-27 00:07:19 <fabianhjr> Night
  5 2011-05-27 00:19:25 <theymos> I think that possibly BBE testnet's reorg handling is finally fixed now. I simplified the code so I can hopefully rely on it without testing (now it does a full rescan whenever it sees a long reorg -- previously it tried to incrementally go back to find the fork).
  6 2011-05-27 00:24:39 <karnac> i keep getting this error: platforms = cl.get_platforms()
  7 2011-05-27 00:24:46 <karnac> pyopencl.LogicError: clGetPlatformIDs failed: invalid/unknown error code
  8 2011-05-27 00:24:56 <luke-jr> theymos: sounds more like a workaround than a fix
  9 2011-05-27 00:24:59 <luke-jr> imo
 10 2011-05-27 00:25:13 <karnac> does anyone know how to get the nvidia drivers disabled in ubuntu
 11 2011-05-27 00:25:22 <luke-jr> install Debian?
 12 2011-05-27 00:25:27 <luke-jr> this isn't #bitcoin-mining :P
 13 2011-05-27 00:26:59 <theymos> luke-jr: I don't really care about DB update performance, and it's better than spending hours trying to get a real solution. This should hopefully work fine.
 14 2011-05-27 00:27:30 <theymos> And to implement it, I just put in a goto that restarted the process with a different variable...
 15 2011-05-27 00:31:54 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rd25a57b / (2 files in 2 dirs):
 16 2011-05-27 00:42:12 <Neskia> did the difficulty rise in the last day or two? confirmations taking for ever... 4 blocks in an hour and a half.
 17 2011-05-27 00:42:31 <gmaxwell> It went up today.
 18 2011-05-27 00:42:41 <Neskia> ahh ok
 19 2011-05-27 00:43:24 <stuhood> things were looking smoother earlier in the day
 20 2011-05-27 00:43:50 <io_error> Search eBay for GPUs, sort by newly listed
 21 2011-05-27 00:43:55 <stuhood> =P
 22 2011-05-27 00:44:07 <Nesetalis> hah
 23 2011-05-27 00:44:09 <io_error> It sure FEELS like a bunch of people stopped mining
 24 2011-05-27 00:44:51 <stuhood> is there a reasonable way to monitor the liveness of all of the pools using only the bitcoin protocol?
 25 2011-05-27 00:44:52 <stuhood> yea
 26 2011-05-27 00:45:40 <stuhood> an output block is the only thing i can think of
 27 2011-05-27 00:45:52 <falafell> not unexpected, i sold my cards too, its just expensive to do right now
 28 2011-05-27 00:46:10 <JRWR> ok, i must be going insane, can bitcoind be ran in userland (nonroot) on linux amd64
 29 2011-05-27 00:46:10 <Nesetalis> BTCMine has dropped about 20,000Mhash since yesterday... but its currently at 235691Mhash
 30 2011-05-27 00:46:20 <io_error> JRWR: of course
 31 2011-05-27 00:46:27 <Xenland> so eh, bitcoin-php can, check my wallet balance, and send it to a supplied address is this correct?
 32 2011-05-27 00:46:53 <JRWR> mine keeps segfaulting when i try
 33 2011-05-27 00:47:02 <io_error> JRWR: Compiled it yourself?
 34 2011-05-27 00:47:47 <JRWR> nope
 35 2011-05-27 00:48:00 <JRWR> thats the fun part, im using the static bins that where in the archive
 36 2011-05-27 00:49:42 <io_error> JRWR: They ought to be fine, though I compiled my own (needed some patches)
 37 2011-05-27 00:50:02 <JRWR> 0x00007ffff6cf3974 in fclose () from /lib/libc.so.6
 38 2011-05-27 00:50:06 <JRWR> never a good sign
 39 2011-05-27 00:50:32 <io_error> JRWR: That the whole backtrace?
 40 2011-05-27 00:50:48 <Nesetalis> hmm virwox is still way high.. but stabilized finally :p
 41 2011-05-27 00:51:28 <Nesetalis> there were people buying BTC for 30$ per for a few minutes... insanity :p so wish i had some left on the site.
 42 2011-05-27 00:51:34 <JRWR> thats the only thing gdb gave me...
 43 2011-05-27 00:52:12 <io_error> JRWR: Time to look for filesystem corruption or hardware issues?
 44 2011-05-27 00:52:19 <stuhood> is there an existing service for monitoring the sources of blocks? if you could gather that information, you could watch liveness over time, and keep a scoreboard (of ips at least& although pool operators might want to claim their ip)
 45 2011-05-27 00:52:28 <ArtForzZz> maybe check perms on .bitcoin first
 46 2011-05-27 00:54:40 <JRWR> ArtForzZz: you are correct, perms on .bitcoin where wrong (stupid me)
 47 2011-05-27 00:54:48 <JRWR> bitcoin should handle that a little better...
 48 2011-05-27 00:55:23 <ArtForzZz> yeah
 49 2011-05-27 00:55:36 <ArtForzZz> needs check and error message
 50 2011-05-27 00:56:11 <JRWR> leave it to me to find a bug
 51 2011-05-27 00:59:07 <Xenland> any suggestions on how to get sharelog in pushpool to use userId's with the supplied username?
 52 2011-05-27 01:00:26 <luke-jr> Xenland: hack the code. and hope they don't have blasters.
 53 2011-05-27 01:00:48 <Xenland> :P
 54 2011-05-27 01:01:08 <Xenland> I just might have to this is a huge performance work around issue for front-end interfaces
 55 2011-05-27 01:02:59 <citiz3n> is it normal to not get confirmations even after new blocks have been found?
 56 2011-05-27 01:03:00 <citiz3n> :\n668388
 57 2011-05-27 01:03:54 <io_error> citiz3n: If the miner rejected your transaction
 58 2011-05-27 01:04:11 <citiz3n> why would it
 59 2011-05-27 01:04:13 <io_error> Looks like some miners out there are rejecting free transactions
 60 2011-05-27 01:04:23 <io_error> I had one tonight that took 2 blocks to get accepted by somebody
 61 2011-05-27 01:04:30 <citiz3n> ahhh
 62 2011-05-27 01:04:32 <jgarzik> miners don't "reject".  they might ignore
 63 2011-05-27 01:04:46 <io_error> jgarzik: The effect is the same, is it not? :)
 64 2011-05-27 01:05:03 <NZbitminers> Any clues as to why the price has been going up the last few days ?
 65 2011-05-27 01:05:04 <io_error> Fail to include the transaction in the block, how about that
 66 2011-05-27 01:05:14 <io_error> NZbitminers: More people are buying than selling.
 67 2011-05-27 01:05:14 <NZbitminers> What is driving the demand for BTC/USD?
 68 2011-05-27 01:05:30 <citiz3n> new people finding out about bitcoin
 69 2011-05-27 01:05:46 <NZbitminers> through purchasing or just coming across the mining program?
 70 2011-05-27 01:05:53 <stuhood> the media
 71 2011-05-27 01:05:56 <NZbitminers> I hope its becomming more popular
 72 2011-05-27 01:05:57 <citiz3n> purchasing
 73 2011-05-27 01:06:04 <citiz3n> people see a story, they want to get ahold of some coins
 74 2011-05-27 01:06:14 <citiz3n> the first thing you do when you discover bitcoin is you want to get your hands on some coins - at least a few :)
 75 2011-05-27 01:06:53 <NZbitminers> are you guys actively trying to spread the word?
 76 2011-05-27 01:07:02 <noagendamarket> yes
 77 2011-05-27 01:07:10 <NZbitminers> if it makes the price go higher, it'd make this whole thing a lot more profitable... ?
 78 2011-05-27 01:07:11 <noagendamarket> like a cult
 79 2011-05-27 01:07:49 <NZbitminers> also. Does anyone have a clue about the 2TH increase overnight? :P thats pretty sweet
 80 2011-05-27 01:08:14 <io_error> I don't care, I care about the $1 increase over night :)
 81 2011-05-27 01:08:35 <darbsllim> NZbitminers seriously thats a major increase
 82 2011-05-27 01:08:40 <ArtForzZz> yes, wrong stat calcs
 83 2011-05-27 01:09:01 <gmaxwell> NZbitminers: there was not a 2TH overnight increase.
 84 2011-05-27 01:09:05 <NZbitminers> thats the amount of increase though, am I right? no?
 85 2011-05-27 01:09:06 <gmaxwell> bitcoinwatch's numbers are buste.
 86 2011-05-27 01:09:10 <ArtForzZz> yup
 87 2011-05-27 01:09:18 <NZbitminers> any more reliable course?
 88 2011-05-27 01:09:20 <darbsllim> ah
 89 2011-05-27 01:09:20 <NZbitminers> source*
 90 2011-05-27 01:09:22 <ArtForzZz> yes
 91 2011-05-27 01:09:23 <ArtForzZz> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-2k.png
 92 2011-05-27 01:09:52 <darbsllim> ArtForzZz I just had an electrician over - looks like it will be difficult to add more circuits
 93 2011-05-27 01:09:57 <jrmithdobbs> ArtForzZz: you get your new asics or something?
 94 2011-05-27 01:09:58 <jrmithdobbs> ha
 95 2011-05-27 01:10:06 <ArtForzZz> jrmithdobbs: I wish
 96 2011-05-27 01:10:14 <jrmithdobbs> really curious who the hell that is
 97 2011-05-27 01:10:40 <ArtForzZz> 8wk+ lead times at the speed bitcoin is growing = teh suck
 98 2011-05-27 01:10:44 <citiz3n> 3 blocks and still no confirmation
 99 2011-05-27 01:10:46 <jrmithdobbs> darbsllim: residential power is a fuckin joke
100 2011-05-27 01:10:52 <gmaxwell> NZbitminers: all the measurements are not that reliable, because they're all fuzzed up with noise from the whole process variance.
101 2011-05-27 01:11:07 <stuhood> citiz3n: were you disconnected when you sent the transaction?
102 2011-05-27 01:11:08 <citiz3n> are we going to have to start including fees in transactions?
103 2011-05-27 01:11:15 <jrmithdobbs> yes
104 2011-05-27 01:11:16 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: poor poor art, having to wait weeks to get custom nano-scale manufacturing done&
105 2011-05-27 01:11:23 <citiz3n> stuhood, yes
106 2011-05-27 01:11:28 <darbsllim> ArtForzZz whats an 8wk lead time?
107 2011-05-27 01:11:37 <jrmithdobbs> citiz3n: welcome to xfering newly minted coins right after a diff change
108 2011-05-27 01:11:40 <jrmithdobbs> citiz3n: it sucks.
109 2011-05-27 01:11:43 <stuhood> citiz3n: ah. yea& i had that happen the other day. it will eventually retry
110 2011-05-27 01:12:08 <citiz3n> anything i can do to speed it up?
111 2011-05-27 01:12:17 <jrmithdobbs> citiz3n: not a thing
112 2011-05-27 01:12:25 <jrmithdobbs> citiz3n: not once the txn has hit the p2p network
113 2011-05-27 01:12:27 <stuhood> citiz3n: the transaction is in your wallet&i don't know what the retry time is, but it will notice that it hasn't seen word about the tx, and it will rebroadcast
114 2011-05-27 01:12:36 <stuhood> jrmithdobbs: it hasn't
115 2011-05-27 01:12:41 <ArtForzZz> should be 1 block + 5-30 min
116 2011-05-27 01:12:54 <jrmithdobbs> that code is so convoluted
117 2011-05-27 01:13:03 <io_error> Blocks are being generated quite slowly right now, and it appears some miners aren't including free tx's
118 2011-05-27 01:13:10 <citiz3n> redownloading blocks won't fix it either?
119 2011-05-27 01:13:19 <jrmithdobbs> io_error: correct
120 2011-05-27 01:13:27 <NZbitminers> so the main force for "buy" orders on the BTC/USD is customers buying stuff with bitcoins?
121 2011-05-27 01:13:28 <jrmithdobbs> io_error: that trend started a couple weeks ago
122 2011-05-27 01:13:37 <io_error> citiz3n: Do you see your transaction here? http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
123 2011-05-27 01:13:39 <jrmithdobbs> NZbitminers: hardly
124 2011-05-27 01:13:46 <stuhood> citiz3n: it was around an hour before the transaction i had was retried
125 2011-05-27 01:13:48 <citiz3n> mostly speculation i would say, NZbitminers
126 2011-05-27 01:13:50 <jrmithdobbs> NZbitminers: in an ideal world you would be correct, but that is not currently the case
127 2011-05-27 01:14:02 <NZbitminers> I see
128 2011-05-27 01:14:14 <io_error> I'm buying stuff with bitcoins!
129 2011-05-27 01:14:16 <NZbitminers> shouldnt we spam this shit?
130 2011-05-27 01:14:17 <NZbitminers> lol
131 2011-05-27 01:14:33 <jrmithdobbs> seeing as silk road killed registration there's not much you can buy with btc really
132 2011-05-27 01:14:38 <jrmithdobbs> well, not much worth buying, at least
133 2011-05-27 01:14:39 <noagendamarket> http://www.pri.org/business/bitcoins-and-the-future-of-the-monetary-system4075.html   radio interview about bitcoin
134 2011-05-27 01:14:43 <ArtForzZz> alpaca socks?
135 2011-05-27 01:14:47 <io_error> jrmithdobbs: When did that happen?
136 2011-05-27 01:14:56 <stuhood> i bought a landscape print the other day =P
137 2011-05-27 01:14:59 <noagendamarket> when did jason calacanis become bitcoin spokesperson? lol
138 2011-05-27 01:15:01 <jrmithdobbs> (they killed registration because of all the press and the grey/black market items that proliferate there)
139 2011-05-27 01:15:07 <stuhood> and one of these: http://www.nerdmeritbadges.com/products/bitcoin
140 2011-05-27 01:15:37 <jrmithdobbs> noagendamarket: he's just grabbing all the press he can even though he has nothing to do with anything
141 2011-05-27 01:15:53 <noagendamarket> yea
142 2011-05-27 01:16:00 <jrmithdobbs> noagendamarket: it's called "running a shit 'media' organization with no content making grab for marketing eyeballs"
143 2011-05-27 01:16:09 <jrmithdobbs> p common tactic to latch on to some fad
144 2011-05-27 01:17:10 <anarchyx> ;;bc,stats
145 2011-05-27 01:17:11 <gribble> Current Blocks: 127082 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 1941 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes, and 9 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 646305.08126905
146 2011-05-27 01:17:51 <jrmithdobbs> noagendamarket: i don't get why people are listening to him though
147 2011-05-27 01:17:55 <jrmithdobbs> he doesn't even understand the system
148 2011-05-27 01:18:00 <jrmithdobbs> let alone have any association
149 2011-05-27 01:18:21 <stuhood> he's a douchebag, but he's also a very successful investor
150 2011-05-27 01:18:23 <gmaxwell> jason calacanis is a fad-leech.
151 2011-05-27 01:18:34 <noagendamarket> ya
152 2011-05-27 01:18:52 <noagendamarket> just trying to ride the coat tails
153 2011-05-27 01:18:58 <gmaxwell> I'm somewhat dubius about the claims of his success he doesn't have the taste or the tact of someone who is successful&
154 2011-05-27 01:19:08 <jrmithdobbs> if he calls bitcoins anonymous one more time i may have to track him down and punch him in the face
155 2011-05-27 01:20:19 <stuhood> so hey: totally hacky idea
156 2011-05-27 01:20:53 <stuhood> could you use the nonce in a block to determine how much work a node did to find it?
157 2011-05-27 01:21:25 <stuhood> or might different algorithms increment vs decrement, etc
158 2011-05-27 01:21:44 <Nesetalis> 7 blocks in 2 hours :p i think the difficulty is going to be a bit painful for the next week XD
159 2011-05-27 01:21:46 <io_error> stuhood: no, since they may be done in parallel (e.g. on a GPU) or in any particular oder
160 2011-05-27 01:21:48 <io_error> order
161 2011-05-27 01:21:50 <Nesetalis> -wanders off to bed-
162 2011-05-27 01:22:00 <ArtForzZz> yep
163 2011-05-27 01:22:01 <stuhood> io_error: they'd be roughly increasing though, right?
164 2011-05-27 01:22:06 <ArtForzZz> I'm doing my nonces bass-ackwards
165 2011-05-27 01:22:10 <stuhood> doh
166 2011-05-27 01:22:20 <ArtForzZz> as it saves a byteswap in the inner loop
167 2011-05-27 01:24:36 <stuhood> would there be any security reason not to add a method of determining who generated a given block?
168 2011-05-27 01:24:42 <stuhood> which ip
169 2011-05-27 01:25:14 <jargon> how am I in here if I was banned some weeks ago?
170 2011-05-27 01:25:23 <ArtForzZz> jargon: magic!
171 2011-05-27 01:25:38 <io_error> stuhood: a LOT of people would abandon bitcoin, or fork, if you did that
172 2011-05-27 01:25:59 <ArtForzZz> io_error: you can already mostly do that, at least for miners finding a decent % of blocks
173 2011-05-27 01:26:14 <stuhood> io_error: because it would associate the block reward with an ip?
174 2011-05-27 01:26:21 <ArtForzZz> block propagation between nodes takes a few 100ms
175 2011-05-27 01:26:31 <io_error> ah, doh, I was thinking of transactions
176 2011-05-27 01:26:35 <ArtForzZz> so if you are connected to everyone, you know who generated the block
177 2011-05-27 01:26:35 <stuhood> yea
178 2011-05-27 01:26:43 <stuhood> ArtForzZz: right
179 2011-05-27 01:26:55 <io_error> And why are we STORING IP addresses?
180 2011-05-27 01:27:18 <ArtForzZz> io_error: because connecting to a pubkey doesn't exactly work?
181 2011-05-27 01:27:31 <stuhood> for monitor-ability, as a defensive measure
182 2011-05-27 01:27:37 <io_error> ArtForzZz: No, I mean why would you want to store them in the block chain?
183 2011-05-27 01:27:44 <ArtForzZz> no clue
184 2011-05-27 01:27:54 <ArtForzZz> sounds pointless
185 2011-05-27 01:28:13 <stuhood> we only know who has the largest pool right now because they are friendly
186 2011-05-27 01:28:24 <ArtForzZz> stuhood: wrong
187 2011-05-27 01:28:50 <ArtForzZz> iirc MM was traced with simple timing analysis
188 2011-05-27 01:28:52 <stuhood> ArtForzZz: because you can estimate who is creating the blocks?
189 2011-05-27 01:29:07 <stuhood> if it isn
190 2011-05-27 01:29:14 <stuhood> 't a vulnerability
191 2011-05-27 01:29:21 <stuhood> then it could be very helpful to know
192 2011-05-27 01:29:30 <ArtForzZz> well, it is a vuln, but really hard to fix
193 2011-05-27 01:29:50 <jrabbit> ArtForzZz: who/where
194 2011-05-27 01:29:52 <jrabbit> deetz
195 2011-05-27 01:29:58 <ArtForzZz> what?
196 2011-05-27 01:30:14 <jrabbit> who was it and where was the timing anaylsis done
197 2011-05-27 01:30:27 <ArtForzZz> MM?
198 2011-05-27 01:30:31 <stuhood> ArtForzZz: i mean, associating transactions with ips sucks& but blocks?
199 2011-05-27 01:30:46 <ArtForzZz> well, it's not like he wasnt generating enough of em...
200 2011-05-27 01:30:48 <ArtForzZz> http://bitcoin.atspace.com/mysteryminer.html
201 2011-05-27 01:31:10 <jrabbit> ArtForzZz: thanks :D
202 2011-05-27 01:31:46 <ArtForzZz> and here's his main wallet address: http://blockexplorer.com/address/12YZ8ubTBJHeWRtxFnRpmrgJuxaUv2nCQY
203 2011-05-27 01:32:19 <jrabbit> oh .... I thoguht someone identified him based off thsat info
204 2011-05-27 01:32:36 <ArtForzZz> well, someone has his IP
205 2011-05-27 01:32:37 <jrabbit> and correlated with something
206 2011-05-27 01:32:45 <jrabbit> oh I see
207 2011-05-27 01:33:11 <ArtForzZz> about an hour after discussion in this chan, he stopped.
208 2011-05-27 01:33:25 <stuhood> spooky
209 2011-05-27 01:34:05 <jrabbit> I forget is it easy to asociateaddr to ip addr?
210 2011-05-27 01:34:36 <ArtForzZz> nope
211 2011-05-27 01:34:45 <ArtForzZz> imo pretty near impossible after the fact
212 2011-05-27 01:36:22 <vegard> how were you able to make that graph?
213 2011-05-27 01:36:50 <ArtForzZz> I didnt
214 2011-05-27 01:36:55 <ArtForzZz> someone else did
215 2011-05-27 01:37:13 <ArtForzZz> well, because his blocks were slightly different than anybody elses
216 2011-05-27 01:37:22 <ArtForzZz> and ebcause he sent all generations to one wallet address
217 2011-05-27 01:37:31 <vegard> how are they different?
218 2011-05-27 01:37:48 <stuhood> he signed them with a burning Z
219 2011-05-27 01:37:49 <ArtForzZz> everyone else used 1 or 2-byte bnExtranconce in coinbase, he used 4
220 2011-05-27 01:38:51 <Blitzboom> ArtForzZz, arent electricity prices comparably high in germany or is it negligible for your venture?
221 2011-05-27 01:39:23 <jrabbit> maybe he was using novel hashing afterall :P
222 2011-05-27 01:39:47 <ArtForzZz> doesnt matter much
223 2011-05-27 01:40:01 <sacarlson> what is the best safety measure I could add to protect against the lost transactions I saw yestarday in -testnet transactions.  maybe stop transactions when I see more than 1 block created every 2 minits?  or maybe just auto add more confirms as the rate increase?
224 2011-05-27 01:40:19 <Blitzboom> i want to invest my bitcoins in ArtForzZz
225 2011-05-27 01:40:48 <JRWR> my god, Pool rate: 1430 Gh/s for deepbit
226 2011-05-27 01:40:50 <Blitzboom> you should pool community resources and build something epic
227 2011-05-27 01:41:26 <stuhood> sacarlson: a minimum amount of time and a minimum number of confirmations?
228 2011-05-27 01:42:21 <ArtForzZz> stuhood: doesn't help much when an attacker forks the chain from more than a few blocks back
229 2011-05-27 01:43:23 <stuhood> ArtForzZz: yea& that's a bit of a different problem though, right? diverse connections are the only way to protect against something like that
230 2011-05-27 01:43:47 <ArtForzZz> won't help either if the attacker has more hashpower
231 2011-05-27 01:44:16 <stuhood> indeed =p
232 2011-05-27 01:44:21 <JRWR> so someone cheated?
233 2011-05-27 01:44:40 <ArtForzZz> yep, on testnet
234 2011-05-27 01:44:56 <ArtForzZz> which takes... about a 5870 really
235 2011-05-27 01:45:11 <JRWR> lol
236 2011-05-27 01:45:16 <noagendamarket> lawl
237 2011-05-27 01:45:19 <noagendamarket> ;)
238 2011-05-27 01:45:21 <JRWR> had me scared for a moment
239 2011-05-27 01:46:17 <sacarlson> stuhood: then I guess I need to write a tool that monitors block creation rate in a 5 min window with that number used to shutdown transactions and or change confirms
240 2011-05-27 01:47:37 <stuhood> sacarlson: yea maybe& don't know your usecase. a hardcoded minimum would work 9 times out of ten
241 2011-05-27 01:47:44 <gmaxwell> I was hoping to totally take over testnet because the blocks aren't pinned in the client by starting at the genesis block and playing forward with fudged timestamps to retain a difficulty of one... and I was saddened by the fact that longest chain is actually measured by sum effective difficulty.
242 2011-05-27 01:48:03 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: yup
243 2011-05-27 01:48:10 <ArtForzZz> still doesnt take too much effor to do though
244 2011-05-27 01:48:24 <gmaxwell> well, like 10x more. :)
245 2011-05-27 01:48:45 <stuhood> sacarlson: basically, you could require at least N minutes per confirmation: 5 confirmations, at least 25 minutes
246 2011-05-27 01:48:52 <stuhood> &for n = 5
247 2011-05-27 01:48:53 <sacarlson> stuhood: well my other networks are identicle to testnet and even easier to break with less minning power so the same method could be used to break my nets
248 2011-05-27 01:49:08 <ArtForzZz> I kidna wanted to do that with old testnet after I accidentlly 24 5970s for 2 days and difficulty was north of 400
249 2011-05-27 01:49:28 <sacarlson> stuhood: but part of my action with other networks was to make them faster not slower
250 2011-05-27 01:49:36 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: so you have a hashchain which isn't testnet that you want to protect?
251 2011-05-27 01:49:52 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: yes
252 2011-05-27 01:49:54 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: marry it to the bitcoin network to protect it.
253 2011-05-27 01:50:01 <ArtForzZz> yep
254 2011-05-27 01:50:10 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: not sure how I would do that
255 2011-05-27 01:50:19 <ArtForzZz> in the meantime, use checkpoints. frequently.
256 2011-05-27 01:50:32 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7219.0
257 2011-05-27 01:50:38 <ArtForzZz> at least that way someone can't rewrite all of history
258 2011-05-27 01:50:42 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I've hardcoded a checkpoint already at a point after all the coins have been minted
259 2011-05-27 01:51:32 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: my networks has no created coins they have a static number of coins from block 10
260 2011-05-27 01:52:21 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: k. In any case, that post I linked to tells you how to slave another blockchain on bitcoin without gunking up bitcoin.
261 2011-05-27 01:52:24 <sacarlson> so the only danger is having lost transactions so to protect from that a shutdown policy would have to be inacted
262 2011-05-27 01:52:40 <DaSpawn> had a thought wanted to run by devs about if somehow the bitcoin network/chain was commpromised somehow...
263 2011-05-27 01:52:56 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ok I'll take a read
264 2011-05-27 01:53:18 <DaSpawn> if actual bitcoin network was comprimised through some hole in the chain and code, isn;t all bitcoins trackable from where they are generated to everywhere spent?
265 2011-05-27 01:53:30 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: in the long long term it's important for bitcoin's continued health that people start slaving other chains on it... so it would be good to get that all worked out sooner rather than later.
266 2011-05-27 01:53:42 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: ... no.
267 2011-05-27 01:53:58 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: there is no encryption in bitcoin. The system itself doesn't hide any data, really.
268 2011-05-27 01:54:18 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: the privacy comes from never transmitting anything private for the most part.
269 2011-05-27 01:54:25 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I try to look outside the box sometimes at other posible solutions
270 2011-05-27 01:54:31 <gmaxwell> I suppose if you could hack all bitcoin nodes you could see what if any wallets they had locally.
271 2011-05-27 01:54:36 <DaSpawn> right, but is it possible to check everywhere a coin went or somehow eliminate it from a new network?
272 2011-05-27 01:55:16 <DaSpawn> I would imagine if somehow btc was broken, a new network would quickly come up, eliminating the hole
273 2011-05-27 01:55:28 <DaSpawn> but being able to convert all legitimate coins to new network easily..
274 2011-05-27 01:55:35 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: I think you don't have a clear enough idea of what you're asking in order to ask yet. :)
275 2011-05-27 01:55:58 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: you don't even need a net network. You need clients that speak the fixed protocol and can also parse the old data.
276 2011-05-27 01:56:05 <gmaxwell> then you just swap out the clients.
277 2011-05-27 01:56:15 <DaSpawn> trying to think about what would/could happen if bitcoin chain was brokem through a unforseen hole...
278 2011-05-27 01:56:18 <gmaxwell> In most cases thats all that would be required.
279 2011-05-27 01:56:44 <gmaxwell> Well, it's rather difficult to forsee the unforseeable by definition.
280 2011-05-27 01:56:59 <DaSpawn> right  :)
281 2011-05-27 01:57:22 <gmaxwell> The security assumptions in the system are pretty conservative. The biggest risks I think are a remote exploit in the node code which could get a lot of wallets stolen.
282 2011-05-27 01:57:30 <DaSpawn> I have been asked the same question by every person I have talked to about bitcoins
283 2011-05-27 01:57:43 <gmaxwell> Odd. No one seems to ask me that.
284 2011-05-27 01:57:45 <DaSpawn> what happens if something completely breaks the bitcoins process/network
285 2011-05-27 01:57:55 <darbsllim> gmaxwell do you think a site like mybitcoins.com for security?
286 2011-05-27 01:58:30 <DaSpawn> if bitcoins are to be adopted, can not only be geeks that use it...
287 2011-05-27 01:58:38 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: that's far too vague to answer.
288 2011-05-27 01:58:50 <gmaxwell> Different specific cases have different responses.
289 2011-05-27 01:59:11 <DaSpawn> I think I am trying to figure out a better answer I guess thean "I don't know"
290 2011-05-27 01:59:15 <JRWR> i guess he is asking, what would bitcoind users do if someone said, HAHA I CAN MAKE AS MANY COINS AS I WISH AT ONCE
291 2011-05-27 01:59:18 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: the non-geeks certantly don't ask technical compromise related questions, they just assume it's completely secure forever in my expirence.
292 2011-05-27 01:59:23 <DaSpawn> that does not bestow much confidence in a technology..
293 2011-05-27 01:59:37 <stuhood> only time will do that
294 2011-05-27 01:59:45 <DaSpawn> this is small business owners I have been speaking to that have asked the answer
295 2011-05-27 01:59:55 <DaSpawn> * question
296 2011-05-27 02:00:31 <DaSpawn> but yes, others I have talked to that have basic computer skills do not ask that..
297 2011-05-27 02:00:32 <gmaxwell> JRWR: Depends on how they are doing it. Lets just say they found out that in addition to allowing 50 BTC they found that clients permitted blocks that paid out 5000000 BTC due to a bug.
298 2011-05-27 02:00:33 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ya that seems likely for the windows packages as most of the code is black boxes
299 2011-05-27 02:01:03 <gmaxwell> if that happened a patch would quickly be written and distributed to the biggest miners (and everyone else) and the crazy blocks would effectively be erased from the TX history.
300 2011-05-27 02:01:36 <DaSpawn> oh, so they can be eliminated from existiing network by repairing the chain/blacklisting coins?
301 2011-05-27 02:01:40 <gmaxwell> (even without updating all the software)
302 2011-05-27 02:01:43 <DaSpawn> (potentially)
303 2011-05-27 02:01:58 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: by making sure that the big miners were ignoring the bad blocks the chain would automatically heal itself.
304 2011-05-27 02:02:34 <gmaxwell> (because everyone will already ignore everything but the longest chain, so just by virtue of making the good chain the longest you'll prevent bad blocks from mattering)
305 2011-05-27 02:02:46 <JRWR> because it acts like voting system, if most of the system thinks the blocks are wrong, then everyone bleaves they ae
306 2011-05-27 02:02:48 <JRWR> are
307 2011-05-27 02:02:55 <DaSpawn> excellent...  so basic answer that would solve their curiorisity about this would be "the network can see the bad coins and ignore them"
308 2011-05-27 02:03:01 <gmaxwell> In the future there will be more software diversity so it will be unlikely that there will be a single bug impacting most hosts to begin with, but even if one cropped up it could be dealt with.
309 2011-05-27 02:03:40 <DaSpawn> absolutely, but as network grows is possibility..  trying to get small business interested to invest/accept the currency...
310 2011-05-27 02:03:47 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: yes, it already does that too. I was hypothesizing a situation where there was a bug in that logic and something slipped through. By fixing the bug the bad coins would vanish.
311 2011-05-27 02:04:18 <DaSpawn> just what I was looking for  :)
312 2011-05-27 02:04:57 <DaSpawn> but all hypothetically...  just like Macs are hypothetically free from viruses, at least in Apples eyes  :)
313 2011-05-27 02:05:20 <DaSpawn> thank you much for info again
314 2011-05-27 02:05:23 <gmaxwell> JRWR: two types of voting system, in fact, which veto each other: Miners vote with hashpower, and all the other nodes and clients vote with their enforcement behavior.
315 2011-05-27 02:05:48 <gmaxwell> JRWR: any action must be permitted by both groups in order to be permitted by the network as a whole.
316 2011-05-27 02:05:55 <DaSpawn> very nice
317 2011-05-27 02:11:05 <JRWR> bitcoins remind me of the senate :)
318 2011-05-27 02:11:56 <stuhood> there is a third component that has veto power: the software itself.
319 2011-05-27 02:12:05 <stuhood> the more implementations of the protocol, the better
320 2011-05-27 02:13:48 <DaSpawn> oh, another one, if that situation were to occur, that would mean the conformations received are not legitimate, once network is "healed" would those confirmations disappear?
321 2011-05-27 02:14:03 <gmaxwell> right. With enough software diversity any bugs will automatically be vetoed by the other processes because of users running the other software.
322 2011-05-27 02:14:04 <stuhood> yes
323 2011-05-27 02:14:23 <stuhood> yes DaSpawn
324 2011-05-27 02:14:27 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: yes, confirmations on the bad fork would be erased and replaced with confirmations on the good fork.
325 2011-05-27 02:14:41 <gmaxwell> This is why it would be imporant to get miners on fixed software as fast as possible.
326 2011-05-27 02:15:02 <gmaxwell> (and, perhaps, its the only reason that big pools are actually good for security we actually could get them to upgrade fast)
327 2011-05-27 02:15:24 <stuhood> double edged sword, for sure
328 2011-05-27 02:15:57 <gmaxwell> in the case of "too much being permitted" getting the big pools to upgrade would mostly fix the issue by itself.
329 2011-05-27 02:16:56 <DaSpawn> than bitcoins are totally stable in the long run (unless encryption has a flaw, but that would be bad for everything), and potential problems only mean be careful what transactions are accepted or wait untill problem fixed..  but people could be burned by not waiting long enough for confirmations....  would immagine a "breach" would be detected quickly by everyone and worked out within a few days or less...
330 2011-05-27 02:17:38 <DaSpawn> but all hypothetical..  but great for pitching to businesses the stability of the currency (in terms of technology, not conversion rates)
331 2011-05-27 02:21:04 <Akiron> has anyone tracked the amount of "turnover" of bitcoins?
332 2011-05-27 02:21:38 <io_error> Akiron: to some extent
333 2011-05-27 02:21:48 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: I full expect transaction insurance companies to exist that solve the confirmation waiting problem.
334 2011-05-27 02:22:02 <io_error> Akiron: https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9300.0
335 2011-05-27 02:22:03 <Akiron> io_error: to what extent? =)
336 2011-05-27 02:23:01 <stuhood> gmaxwell: yea& good idea. could attach it to an otherwise free escrow
337 2011-05-27 02:23:02 <Akiron> io_error: Thanks!
338 2011-05-27 02:23:21 <io_error> Akiron: I made 10BTC doing just that, so :)
339 2011-05-27 02:23:59 <Akiron> io_error: good to know, so if this isn't what i'm looking for, I can bug you for further development =)
340 2011-05-27 02:24:39 <io_error> Akiron: Sure, but bring bitcoins if you want me to interrupt my sooper sekrit project I've been hacking at for the last 3 or 4 days
341 2011-05-27 02:24:48 <io_error> :DS
342 2011-05-27 02:24:50 <io_error> :D
343 2011-05-27 02:24:57 <Akiron> io_error: i would think of doing nothing else =)
344 2011-05-27 02:26:47 <io_error> Akiron: Great. Now, back to sorting out left joins for me :)
345 2011-05-27 02:28:18 <stuhood> gmaxwell: speaking of ideas& are you going to implement that insured escrow?
346 2011-05-27 02:29:37 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * r11b4b8b97269 bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: Execute command specified by -coinbaser when creating a new block, which can output data to control where the generation goes http://tinyurl.com/3zvpe3o
347 2011-05-27 02:29:38 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik combo * rb1ad9eeeaef2 bitcoind-personal/rpc.cpp: Add 'getblockbycount' dumping RPC http://tinyurl.com/3fah6fk
348 2011-05-27 02:29:39 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr coinbaser * rd593adfd364d bitcoind-personal/src/main.cpp: coinbaser: replace %d in command line with available funds http://tinyurl.com/3etcbd4
349 2011-05-27 02:29:40 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Jeff Garzik combo * r12de418b7db9 bitcoind-personal/rpc.cpp: s/getblockbycount/dumpblock/ http://tinyurl.com/3hpsjdd
350 2011-05-27 02:30:25 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr policy * r081ce519b78a bitcoind-personal/src/main.h: Waive the fee in a tonal-sized "free tranaction area" if at least one output is TBC (and under 512 bytes) ;) http://tinyurl.com/3ue6mkn
351 2011-05-27 02:31:04 <jgarzik> luke-jr: anything in personal I should pull, for pushpool?
352 2011-05-27 02:31:11 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I think I've narrowed down an fd leak, btw
353 2011-05-27 02:32:19 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I don't think anything new in my pushpool
354 2011-05-27 02:33:16 <citiz3n> is there a proper and improper way to handle wallet.dat in windows?
355 2011-05-27 02:33:19 <luke-jr> why the heck did CIA post all that?
356 2011-05-27 02:33:28 <citiz3n> shutting down bitcoin, renaming/moving/etc the wallet.dat
357 2011-05-27 02:33:37 <citiz3n> then running bitcoin.exe creates a new wallet.dat file
358 2011-05-27 02:33:47 <citiz3n> is there any reason why one shouldn't use this new wallet?
359 2011-05-27 02:34:21 <luke-jr> citiz3n: &
360 2011-05-27 02:34:32 <luke-jr> citiz3n: just don't lose the old one with coins
361 2011-05-27 02:34:43 <DaSpawn> gmaxwell: transaction insurance, great idea, would that insure the sender or recipient?
362 2011-05-27 02:34:53 <citiz3n> luke of course not
363 2011-05-27 02:34:57 <citiz3n> but i can use the new one, can't i?
364 2011-05-27 02:35:02 <citiz3n> and switch back and forth between the new/old one?
365 2011-05-27 02:35:10 <citiz3n> close the program, swap the files, open again
366 2011-05-27 02:35:20 <stuhood> DaSpawn: the recipient
367 2011-05-27 02:35:39 <DaSpawn> or it would basically insure against bogus transactions allowing to not wait for confirmations?
368 2011-05-27 02:36:04 <DaSpawn> how many confirmations before the bitcoins are allowed to be spent (or is that client restriction?)
369 2011-05-27 02:36:11 <citiz3n> 1
370 2011-05-27 02:36:32 <DaSpawn> so max about 10 minutes to confirm at minimum then?
371 2011-05-27 02:36:32 <stuhood> it's actually only a client restriction& i think?
372 2011-05-27 02:36:38 <DaSpawn> well average 10 min
373 2011-05-27 02:37:00 <citiz3n> ive been waiting hours and still don't have a confirmation
374 2011-05-27 02:37:04 <citiz3n> this has never happened to me before
375 2011-05-27 02:37:07 <DaSpawn> would be good to wait for at least one...  but I would immagine client restricction...
376 2011-05-27 02:37:09 <luke-jr> citiz3n: pay more fee
377 2011-05-27 02:37:12 <jrmithdobbs> citiz3n: txn id?
378 2011-05-27 02:37:14 <midnightmagic> average supposed to be more like 5 min..
379 2011-05-27 02:37:47 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
380 2011-05-27 02:37:49 <gribble> 127088
381 2011-05-27 02:37:51 <DaSpawn> if you do transaction in middle of block gen would give average 5, yes?  so it could be much less, like 1 min or less?
382 2011-05-27 02:38:11 <DaSpawn> (if high enough transaction fee)
383 2011-05-27 02:39:01 <DaSpawn> extremely important transactions would encourage higher transaction fees if could have possibility of 1 min transaction..
384 2011-05-27 02:39:05 <midnightmagic> blocks are supposed to arrive approx. 10 minutes apart on average. therefore, you are on average, assuming miners consider your txn to be worthy of including, going to wait something like 5 minutes in that ideal world.
385 2011-05-27 02:39:22 <citiz3n> this is the receiving address: 15iGR51QCgWCXukkvgmtQcA4Zsb2DDwjD2
386 2011-05-27 02:39:29 <DaSpawn> ok..  been telling everyone 10 min...
387 2011-05-27 02:39:41 <Stabaho> anyone here setup a shopping cart with zencart and the bitcoin zencart module?
388 2011-05-27 02:39:46 <midnightmagic> well, again the miners have this little priority calculation.
389 2011-05-27 02:40:07 <stuhood> citiz3n: you confirmed that you were _offline_ when you initially sent it, right?
390 2011-05-27 02:40:14 <citiz3n> correct
391 2011-05-27 02:40:40 <citiz3n> i created a new wallet for this transaction
392 2011-05-27 02:40:55 <citiz3n> copied the receiving address
393 2011-05-27 02:40:55 <stuhood> the problematic one?
394 2011-05-27 02:41:00 <citiz3n> correct
395 2011-05-27 02:41:19 <citiz3n> then closed bitcoin
396 2011-05-27 02:41:28 <citiz3n> the transaction was initiated sometime later
397 2011-05-27 02:41:38 <citiz3n> hours later
398 2011-05-27 02:41:45 <citiz3n> then loaded up the same wallet again
399 2011-05-27 02:41:51 <citiz3n> the transaction appeared, but won't confirm
400 2011-05-27 02:42:05 <citiz3n> and now there are two addresses in my "address book"
401 2011-05-27 02:42:08 <citiz3n> 2 receiving addresses
402 2011-05-27 02:42:14 <citiz3n> although I don't recall ever creating a second one
403 2011-05-27 02:42:18 <stuhood> and your block count in the GUI matches the block count in the explorer?
404 2011-05-27 02:42:31 <citiz3n> 127088
405 2011-05-27 02:42:35 <citiz3n> ;;bc,stats
406 2011-05-27 02:42:37 <gribble> Current Blocks: 127089 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 1934 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 13 minutes, and 44 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 594265.96894452
407 2011-05-27 02:42:55 <citiz3n> 127089 now
408 2011-05-27 02:43:16 <citiz3n> i really hope i don't lose these coins
409 2011-05-27 02:43:51 <stuhood> keep all of your wallets
410 2011-05-27 02:44:28 <stuhood> i'm a bit confused&. you ended up sending two transactions? because you don't think the first one actually reached the network?
411 2011-05-27 02:44:53 <Akiron> io_error: you around?
412 2011-05-27 02:45:04 <citiz3n> this was a pool payout
413 2011-05-27 02:45:22 <citiz3n> so the pay button was clicked, with the receiving address of the new wallet.dat file
414 2011-05-27 02:45:39 <stuhood> oh& well assuming you have all your wallets, with valid addresses, the coins can't be lost?
415 2011-05-27 02:46:20 <stuhood> sorry, i thought you were _sending_ a transaction.
416 2011-05-27 02:46:36 <citiz3n> nope, just receiving
417 2011-05-27 02:46:49 <citiz3n> according to the block explorer, this transaction WAS included in a block?
418 2011-05-27 02:46:56 <citiz3n> so it should have 1 confirmation, shouldn't it?
419 2011-05-27 02:47:09 <stuhood> yes
420 2011-05-27 02:47:17 <erbs> confir2
421 2011-05-27 02:47:27 <citiz3n> perhaps redownloading the blocks would bring it through?
422 2011-05-27 02:47:35 <erbs> OK
423 2011-05-27 02:48:33 <stuhood> citiz3n: yes& but i personally don't know the best way to do that
424 2011-05-27 02:59:07 <gmaxwell> citiz3n: hm? the client will spend a tx with no confirmations, though perhaps only as a last resort.
425 2011-05-27 03:00:05 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: insure the reciever that a transaction won't vanish later.
426 2011-05-27 03:00:25 <gmaxwell> (or if it does they'll get paid regardless)
427 2011-05-27 03:01:35 <gmaxwell> DaSpawn: there are things you can do beyond just waiting for a TX to have high confidence. For example, if you have good network visibility and you're aware of what txn are in the big miners workqueues then you can be more confident that a TXN will not be reversed and doublespent.
428 2011-05-27 03:07:33 <Xenland> Is it okay for pushpool to be listening on all addresses and no set ip address when running: netstat -an | grep "LISTEN "
429 2011-05-27 03:08:22 <Xenland> Let me re-word that, when i run: netstat -an | grep "LISTEN "; I get tcp6 0 0 ::8347
430 2011-05-27 03:08:42 <stuhood> gmaxwell: imo, that's something the escrow should do anyway
431 2011-05-27 03:08:43 <Xenland> that to me means that it dosne't bind to an ip address
432 2011-05-27 03:08:52 <Xenland> idk if thats bad or good
433 2011-05-27 03:11:15 <DaSpawn> gmaxwell: very true..  so sonfidence service can be built that "guarantees" transactions and to protect their interests monitors many parts of bitcoins, in turn also securing the entire network since they could also have an alert service...
434 2011-05-27 03:11:43 <DaSpawn> and would cause malicious activity to be caught very quickly..
435 2011-05-27 03:12:17 <gmaxwell> Yep. And making money in the process. win win win.
436 2011-05-27 03:12:35 <Xenland> Whats the maximum length of a bitcoin address?
437 2011-05-27 03:12:59 <jlewis> jrmithdobbs: ping?
438 2011-05-27 03:13:08 <DaSpawn> sha hash, 40 isn't it?
439 2011-05-27 03:13:11 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: what's up?
440 2011-05-27 03:13:33 <DaSpawn> (checking)
441 2011-05-27 03:13:51 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: oh, about my comment on your pull i'm sure. ;P
442 2011-05-27 03:13:53 <jlewis> thanks for commenting on my asio pull - do you have any ideas about how to benchmark it? people on the forum want to see some of that and i wasn't able to do a very good job
443 2011-05-27 03:14:24 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: just tell them to run bitcoind with miners capable of about 4-5Ghash/s hitting rpc directly
444 2011-05-27 03:14:36 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: it's an obvious improvement
445 2011-05-27 03:15:08 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: you go from "problem connecting to rpc" at least once every 3-4 seconds to barely seeing it at all
446 2011-05-27 03:15:11 <jlewis> do you think you could make a forum post about it? that's great that it's actually working well, but so far i haven't been able to demonstrate it, lacking the access to 5 ghash/s miners and stuff
447 2011-05-27 03:15:19 <lamuguo> Hi
448 2011-05-27 03:15:24 <jlewis> lemme get the link
449 2011-05-27 03:15:24 <lamuguo> Have a question related to mining
450 2011-05-27 03:15:39 <jlewis> your testimony would improve it's merging chances i think
451 2011-05-27 03:15:57 <lamuguo> I sent request to get a work as  {"method":"getwork","params":[],"id":0}
452 2011-05-27 03:16:04 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: just tell them that eligius and all the pools have had to custom implement something similar or they can't feed the miner proxy, lol
453 2011-05-27 03:16:06 <DaSpawn> Xenland: I am not sure, better someone answers...
454 2011-05-27 03:16:17 <jrmithdobbs> jlewis: link to thread? are people really arguing it's usefulness?
455 2011-05-27 03:16:17 <stuhood> jlewis, jrmithdobbs: isn't there the equivalent of a ping request that you could benchmark with?
456 2011-05-27 03:16:23 <stuhood> or something that does a bit of io at least
457 2011-05-27 03:16:32 <jlewis> https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7757.msg113094#msg113094
458 2011-05-27 03:16:40 <jlewis> jrmithdobbs: no one's aruging, there's just no proof yet..
459 2011-05-27 03:17:02 <lamuguo> d"data":"0000000139e578abffef211aa3268996eb74fc801b7c914401c3aaa10000221a000000006ddc5ba78b6c1b04493a18f16226e9eb03c5fe14a947441628a1990ed1cb296f4ddf31281a26942100000000000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080020000",
460 2011-05-27 03:17:49 <lamuguo> And I mine out one block as: "0000000139e578abffef211aa3268996eb74fc801b7c914401c3aaa10000221a00000000f2f60262c58e2b9b540b4dc899e61acbc94ebe2a8c6ebe111f415267d46ea8ac4ddf31141a2694218ed39c8d000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080020000"
461 2011-05-27 03:19:14 <lamuguo> But once I submit result request as: {"method":"getwork","params":["0000000139e578abffef211aa3268996eb74fc801b7c914401c3aaa10000221a000000006ddc5ba78b6c1b04493a18f16226e9eb03c5fe14a947441628a1990ed1cb296f4ddf31281a2694214e3b78f5000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000080020000"],"id":1}
462 2011-05-27 03:19:25 <lamuguo> The server send me a new request for mining.
463 2011-05-27 03:19:38 <lamuguo> Is there anyone know what is the problem? Thanks!
464 2011-05-27 03:22:44 <io_error> Akiron: What's up?
465 2011-05-27 03:23:19 <Akiron> bitcoin days is an interesting measure
466 2011-05-27 03:23:35 <doublec> lamuguo: what server?
467 2011-05-27 03:23:49 <io_error> Akiron: It wasn't my idea, I just wrote a script to walk the block chain :)
468 2011-05-27 03:24:05 <Akiron> but i guess what i imagine might be insightful would be a histogram of bitcoins per number of times transacted
469 2011-05-27 03:24:25 <lamuguo> http://mining.bitcoin.cz:8332
470 2011-05-27 03:24:30 <lamuguo> Server is: http://mining.bitcoin.cz:8332
471 2011-05-27 03:24:47 <lamuguo> And I use a test account: j16sdiz.gaeminer / unconfiged
472 2011-05-27 03:25:11 <io_error> Akiron: My sooper sekrit project I"m in the middle of might be able to do that
473 2011-05-27 03:26:01 <Akiron> interesting, will it be public or proprietary?
474 2011-05-27 03:26:09 <io_error> Akiron: It will be a web service
475 2011-05-27 03:26:44 <Akiron> ooooooh, where can i sign up to your mailing list? =)
476 2011-05-27 03:26:50 <io_error> Akiron: Though, after a certain point, a bitcoin has been spent so many times that it looks like a tree
477 2011-05-27 03:26:57 <io_error> trying to track where the money went
478 2011-05-27 03:27:05 <lamuguo> @doublec any thought on this?
479 2011-05-27 03:27:08 <io_error> The same for backtracking
480 2011-05-27 03:27:21 <doublec> lamuguo: no idea, sorry.
481 2011-05-27 03:27:29 <Akiron> right, but i don't care about the fate of any particular bitcoin, just the number that have been spent 5 times, 6 times, etc.
482 2011-05-27 03:27:48 <io_error> Akiron: Hmmm. I think that's probably impossible
483 2011-05-27 03:28:05 <lamuguo> sigh...
484 2011-05-27 03:28:08 <io_error> Akiron: When they say destroyed, they really mean it - every transaction destroys the original bitcoins and makes new ones
485 2011-05-27 03:28:09 <lamuguo> Will send out mail to ask
486 2011-05-27 03:28:41 <doublec> lamuguo: what miner are you using?
487 2011-05-27 03:28:56 <io_error> Akiron: Let's say you have two 50BTC generated coins, and you decide to spend 73 BTC on a 6990 video card. The two 50BTC are consumed, and two new coins, a 73BTC and a 27BTC are created
488 2011-05-27 03:29:09 <lamuguo> I wrote myself
489 2011-05-27 03:29:35 <doublec> lamuguo: does it work against the standard bitcoin client?
490 2011-05-27 03:29:43 <BitterTea> io_error: Ah, that's a much more intuitive way of stating it, thanks for that
491 2011-05-27 03:30:20 <Akiron> ok, to me that would be 100 BTC that have been transacted twice
492 2011-05-27 03:30:20 <io_error> BitterTea: Thanks, I made it up myself :)
493 2011-05-27 03:30:42 <io_error> Akiron: Well, you have the generation, and then the spend, so that's twice.
494 2011-05-27 03:30:56 <BitterTea> Akiron: It's a chain of transactions
495 2011-05-27 03:31:03 <Akiron> right, i get that
496 2011-05-27 03:31:05 <io_error> Akiron: I can measure the AMOUNT of bitcoins being spent, obviously, but this makes it impossible to track any single "coin"
497 2011-05-27 03:31:29 <Akiron> yes, i get that, but what i think i overlooked is circularity
498 2011-05-27 03:31:36 <BitterTea> In another sense though io, it's kind of unintuitive actually
499 2011-05-27 03:31:48 <BitterTea> Well, nvm
500 2011-05-27 03:32:01 <BitterTea> I was going to say that each output had a corresponding input but it's a many-many relationship
501 2011-05-27 03:32:13 <Akiron> like suppose you have 50 BTC, and you spend 25 and send 25 back to the wallet
502 2011-05-27 03:32:18 <io_error> BitterTea: Yeah, it's not intuitive, but I've been around a while. Chaum's DigiCash did the same thing, only it was the bank that split and recombined the coins.
503 2011-05-27 03:32:39 <io_error> With Bitcoin, the miner does it
504 2011-05-27 03:32:52 <Akiron> i mean address
505 2011-05-27 03:33:05 <io_error> Akiron: From an outside observer it's difficult to figure out which address is the "change"
506 2011-05-27 03:33:13 <io_error> bitcoin intentionally randomizes it
507 2011-05-27 03:33:55 <io_error> It didn't do this originally; the earliest blocks in the chain show plenty of tx where the change went back to the original address.
508 2011-05-27 03:33:58 <BitterTea> It could be more random though. Isn't it generally the smaller output out of two?
509 2011-05-27 03:34:11 <io_error> BitterTea: Not necessarily.
510 2011-05-27 03:34:22 <io_error> BitterTea: Depends on how much BTC you spent :)
511 2011-05-27 03:34:47 <Akiron> yeah, maybe the wallet should randomly split itself up periodically
512 2011-05-27 03:35:04 <Akiron> into completely random amounts
513 2011-05-27 03:35:24 <Akiron> although, i guess with transaction fees, that's not cost free
514 2011-05-27 03:35:52 <BitterTea> There are theoretical and actual mixing services which would essentially do that
515 2011-05-27 03:35:53 <Akiron> io_error: i think you've convinced me that it can't really be done the way i imagined it
516 2011-05-27 03:35:57 <io_error> Akiron: The thing is, if you want to track a coin, you have to know which one is the change, and it's not presently knowable by any means I know of
517 2011-05-27 03:36:19 <Akiron> i don't really care which is change
518 2011-05-27 03:36:30 <BitterTea> io_error: Have you seen this thread? http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=5559.0
519 2011-05-27 03:36:37 <Akiron> just how many transactions are occuring in a chain
520 2011-05-27 03:36:38 <BitterTea> ;;http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=5559.0
521 2011-05-27 03:36:39 <gribble> Error: "http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=5559.0" is not a valid command.
522 2011-05-27 03:37:36 <io_error> BitterTea: Been a while since I read that thread.
523 2011-05-27 03:37:59 <io_error> Though, I suppose with generated coins it's easy to figure out which is the change. For instance http://blockexplorer.com/tx/dc418dec5ff18e55b27df1544983f085593ecc121c8e31e13cea6f6e59e95e00
524 2011-05-27 03:38:10 <io_error> Three guesses which is the change, and the first two don't count.
525 2011-05-27 03:38:31 <io_error> (I wish I still had those coins)
526 2011-05-27 03:39:23 <Akiron> but then again it's not acyclical
527 2011-05-27 03:39:48 <lamuguo> @doublec What do you mean against?
528 2011-05-27 03:39:50 <gmaxwell> io_error: the change is pretty obvious sometimes.
529 2011-05-27 03:39:58 <lamuguo> I just follow the protocol
530 2011-05-27 03:40:09 <lamuguo> And wrote a parallel miner myself.
531 2011-05-27 03:40:14 <gmaxwell> io_error: e.g. if the input wasn't round to the cents, but one of the outputs is the other output is almost certantly the change.
532 2011-05-27 03:40:17 <BitterTea> io_error: I have no idea which is which
533 2011-05-27 03:40:26 <BitterTea> Unless I assume the smaller
534 2011-05-27 03:40:37 <io_error> BitterTea: Look at the inputs :)
535 2011-05-27 03:40:46 <doublec> lamuguo: have you tested it mining connecting with the standard bitcoin client instead of with a pool
536 2011-05-27 03:40:57 <io_error> BitterTea: If one was the spend, the inputs would be different
537 2011-05-27 03:41:07 <io_error> gmaxwell: Sure, you can often guess.
538 2011-05-27 03:41:17 <luke-jr> jgarzik: oh, now I remember!
539 2011-05-27 03:41:20 <gmaxwell> io_error: also if a coin is ever in a shared input with another coin from address that originated it then it was the change in the prior tx.
540 2011-05-27 03:41:22 <luke-jr> jgarzik: I fixed the MySQL build errors
541 2011-05-27 03:41:32 <doublec> lamuguo: to isolate whether it is a pool problem vs your miners problem
542 2011-05-27 03:41:40 <gmaxwell> (this analysis becomes more powerful as you kink more accounts from shared origination)
543 2011-05-27 03:41:45 <BitterTea> io_error: I'm not getting it :(
544 2011-05-27 03:41:45 <lamuguo> ok, got it. Thanks!
545 2011-05-27 03:41:49 <lamuguo> Let me try it
546 2011-05-27 03:42:10 <BitterTea> Good thing I'm not a bitcoin transaction investigator
547 2011-05-27 03:42:27 <io_error> gmaxwell: Good point. I think I have some code to write :)
548 2011-05-27 03:42:39 <io_error> BitterTea: You still looking at the 54/46 split?
549 2011-05-27 03:43:10 <io_error> BitterTea: If 46 was the spend, and 54 the change, what would the inputs look like?
550 2011-05-27 03:43:12 <gmaxwell> io_error: ideally you want some whole graph coloring thing that puts addresses into clusters and minimizes the cross-contamination from joint sends.
551 2011-05-27 03:43:33 <BitterTea> io_error: :)
552 2011-05-27 03:43:38 <gmaxwell> io_error: but once the contamination happens it should merge the clusters and freely join from them (since it's already too late)
553 2011-05-27 03:43:49 <io_error> gmaxwell: Well now I have some good ideas; I even have some ideas to tie addresses together, just gotta build the DB now :)
554 2011-05-27 03:43:51 <BitterTea> Was staring right at, but not seeing, it
555 2011-05-27 03:44:27 <BitterTea> Would it make the links more difficult to follow if you, say, used twice as many inputs as necessary and had multiple change outputs?
556 2011-05-27 03:44:30 <io_error> This chat has been really good.
557 2011-05-27 03:44:49 <gmaxwell> io_error: also, it can be adventagious to reuse change addresses. e.g. if I send twice to the same address, I should reuse the same change. Change is often identifyable by the fact that it only gets input once.
558 2011-05-27 03:44:50 <io_error> BitterTea: Absolutely! Fortunately one can hack the client to use extra inputs and extra outputs.
559 2011-05-27 03:45:16 <lamuguo> doublec do you have any client for connecting?
560 2011-05-27 03:45:18 <BitterTea> That's a good point
561 2011-05-27 03:45:39 <BitterTea> Both of those combined could make it much more difficult to identify from the actual exchange
562 2011-05-27 03:45:57 <doublec> lamuguo: just use the address and port of your locally running bitcoind instance and your miner will use that
563 2011-05-27 03:46:01 <io_error> gmaxwell: True, but that could also be used to associate transactions together.
564 2011-05-27 03:46:26 <gmaxwell> io_error: you detect the cases where they can already be associated and only do it there.
565 2011-05-27 03:46:52 <io_error> gmaxwell: That gives me a headache. :)
566 2011-05-27 03:46:55 <gmaxwell> io_error: e.g. A->B,C  (c is change)  if A->B over and over again but the change chages then the change becomes increasingly obvious.
567 2011-05-27 03:47:09 <gmaxwell> but if you constantly do A->B,C no additional information leaks.
568 2011-05-27 03:47:42 <gmaxwell> Then it's very important that C never be used in a TX with A or any other address which has ever been a source with A.
569 2011-05-27 03:47:47 <io_error> gmaxwell: I think Bitcoin could do that.
570 2011-05-27 03:47:59 <jine> Anyone awake and willing to help me? Issue with calc hash/sec on a pool, based on shares: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10121.msg145438#msg145438
571 2011-05-27 03:48:19 <io_error> Though it's also a problem in that people don't often pay the same address over and over (unless they're mining pools)
572 2011-05-27 03:48:39 <BitterTea> I could see having an account with a company
573 2011-05-27 03:48:48 <BitterTea> Your address is your account number, and you pay your bills there
574 2011-05-27 03:48:51 <doublec> jine: have you seen this http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=7613.0
575 2011-05-27 03:49:12 <BitterTea> It would be easy for them to watch for payments and associate them to your account
576 2011-05-27 03:49:21 <io_error> Even mtgox won't give me the same receiving address if I send bitcoins to mtgox
577 2011-05-27 03:49:24 <BitterTea> Compared to generating a new address for each bill
578 2011-05-27 03:49:50 <BitterTea> I'd say that's more sensitive information than your internet bill, say ;)
579 2011-05-27 03:50:01 <gmaxwell> Getting new addresses helps anonymity but you can bet people won't always do that.
580 2011-05-27 03:50:34 <io_error> BitterTea: Probably so :)
581 2011-05-27 03:50:42 <citiz3n> omg, my coins are here :D
582 2011-05-27 03:50:45 <io_error> Though bitcoin has broken my anonymity in a few non-obvious ways
583 2011-05-27 03:50:53 <citiz3n> just had to redownload the whole blockchain again
584 2011-05-27 03:51:11 <io_error> For instance I signed up with bitcoin toss referral program and every couple of days they send me a 0.01 when somebody loses their money
585 2011-05-27 03:51:21 <io_error> That's the only place I used that particular address.
586 2011-05-27 03:51:33 <io_error> But yesterday when i sent some bitcoins to someone else entirely, that address was used as the sending address
587 2011-05-27 03:52:25 <gmaxwell> it would be nice if you could quarantine accounts so they could never draw from any addresses in other accounts or vice versa.
588 2011-05-27 03:52:39 <io_error> Which now that I think of it is normal, but it was unexpected.
589 2011-05-27 03:52:52 <erbs> ArtForzZz is a genius
590 2011-05-27 03:53:29 <gmaxwell> Right now, for ease of use sake my wallet has an account with a public non-profit's address in it that I'm in charge of collection for.  I sometimes worry that my spending getting drawn from that is going to end up in the blockchain and someone might see a known payment address and think the non-profit is misspending funds.
591 2011-05-27 03:54:18 <gmaxwell> so it would be nice to just quarantine that account so I don't have to worry about keeping a seperate wallet to avoid conflated spending.
592 2011-05-27 03:54:21 <erbs> jus giv me the coinz
593 2011-05-27 03:54:28 <erbs> i will keep them safes
594 2011-05-27 03:54:36 <gmaxwell> io_error: a lot of people think bitcoin is more anonymous than it is, which is going to get someone hurt eventually.
595 2011-05-27 03:55:43 <jine> doublec: Trying to solve it, its not working the way i want to :// Strange.
596 2011-05-27 03:58:34 <io_error> gmaxwell: well, maybe this will help find some ways to make bitcoin a bit more anonymous.
597 2011-05-27 03:59:05 <io_error> citiz3n: Have you seen this? https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9991
598 2011-05-27 03:59:42 <gmaxwell> io_error: I think it's fundimentally hard. At best a TX has two interaction points. If you can deanonymize one you can walk the chain back.
599 2011-05-27 04:00:26 <io_error> gmaxwell: Oh sure, i can go back all the way to the generation of every coin. Akiron's more interesting problem was walking forward and learning anything useful.
600 2011-05-27 04:01:05 <erbs> how many buttcoins do neee?
601 2011-05-27 04:04:11 <io_error> Buttcoins?
602 2011-05-27 04:05:58 <Xenland> io_error: is that what the prostitutes call 'em now?
603 2011-05-27 04:06:59 <io_error> Xenland: I wouldn't mind paying a prostitute with buttcoins! er, bitcoins
604 2011-05-27 04:08:19 <Xenland> XD
605 2011-05-27 04:08:52 <Xenland> here's 20 buttcoins now play with this shake-weight
606 2011-05-27 04:10:44 <erbs> i prefer titcoin
607 2011-05-27 04:14:28 <glicth-mod> How can a miner charge transaction fees?
608 2011-05-27 04:18:02 <io_error> glicth-mod: by including transactions which have the fees they want, and skipping the rest
609 2011-05-27 04:18:05 <Xenland> glicth-mod: i wonder.....
610 2011-05-27 04:18:49 <erbs> do i need a coinbit acc to use mygox?
611 2011-05-27 04:19:35 <glicth-mod> Is this something I can implement on my rig?
612 2011-05-27 04:21:59 <erbs> yes
613 2011-05-27 04:22:39 <glicth-mod> How?
614 2011-05-27 04:23:34 <gmaxwell> glicth-mod: not if you're part of a pool
615 2011-05-27 04:23:55 <gmaxwell> if you're part of a poll you're not a real miner you're a mining slave. Slaves don't set the policy they just work. Work slave work!
616 2011-05-27 04:25:30 <gmaxwell> glicth-mod: if you're actually mining solo, you'll get transaction fees when they come, you don't need to change anything.
617 2011-05-27 04:25:32 <erbs> zarbalarba
618 2011-05-27 04:25:38 <gmaxwell> The software already prefers tx with fees.
619 2011-05-27 04:25:52 <glicth-mod> I see
620 2011-05-27 04:26:57 <glicth-mod> My rig does a steady 1.5 gigahashes would it be wise to break from the pool?
621 2011-05-27 04:27:03 <erbs> no
622 2011-05-27 04:27:10 <erbs> your rig is miniscule
623 2011-05-27 04:27:16 <erbs> pool big
624 2011-05-27 04:27:16 <glicth-mod> i kno :(
625 2011-05-27 04:27:41 <erbs> theres no profit in mining im afraid.. unless you run a "pool" and can skim fees
626 2011-05-27 04:28:03 <gmaxwell> wise depends on your risk tolerance, the expected returns are the same (to slightly better, depending) when solo but the risk is higher.
627 2011-05-27 04:28:26 <Xenland> does slush charge 1BTC per block or per worker/block found?
628 2011-05-27 04:30:38 <gmaxwell> per block.. 2%.
629 2011-05-27 04:32:56 <erbs> (% of a total that could be a lie)
630 2011-05-27 04:33:12 <erbs> the total is a billion! your % is 0.000000 sorry :(
631 2011-05-27 04:38:08 <erbs> do i need a private keys
632 2011-05-27 04:39:30 <erbs> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
633 2011-05-27 04:39:32 <erbs> time does not exist
634 2011-05-27 04:45:44 <gmaxwell> The duplicate generations it the lost coin thread are pretty hilarious.
635 2011-05-27 04:45:53 <erbs> duplk?
636 2011-05-27 04:48:24 <erbs> hood you old zebra!
637 2011-05-27 04:53:00 <soultcer> I've read your contributions in the last few hours, erbs. There has not been a single one that was useful in any way
638 2011-05-27 04:53:31 <wumpus> so we have a new clown in our channel
639 2011-05-27 04:54:09 <soultcer> A silent cloin, that is
640 2011-05-27 04:54:14 <soultcer> *clown
641 2011-05-27 05:23:04 <Phoebus> Watching all the bitcoin mining videos on youtube is pretty exciting, especially given I don't have the time to do this.
642 2011-05-27 05:58:19 <stuhood> zebra?
643 2011-05-27 05:58:33 <stuhood> i swear erbs was human yesterday
644 2011-05-27 05:59:10 <phantomcircuit> stuhood, lies
645 2011-05-27 06:05:29 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
646 2011-05-27 06:05:30 <gribble> Current Blocks: 127114 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 1909 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 36 minutes, and 37 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 608604.33312815
647 2011-05-27 06:39:08 <sacarlson> crap I didn't set the transaction fee on my testnet so I guess that transaction will never move?  I sent another one but seems testnet is slow today
648 2011-05-27 06:40:40 <sacarlson> oh well good excuse to do my laundry, transaction should be done by then
649 2011-05-27 06:41:50 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":8.92,"low":8.201,"vol":20206,"buy":8.79,"sell":8.83,"last":8.83}}
650 2011-05-27 06:41:50 <JFK911> ;;bc,mtgox
651 2011-05-27 06:42:19 <eps1> ;;bc,stats
652 2011-05-27 06:42:22 <gribble> Current Blocks: 127116 | Current Difficulty: 434882.7217497 | Next Difficulty At Block: 129023 | Next Difficulty In: 1907 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 4 minutes, and 59 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 576428.27251580
653 2011-05-27 06:42:28 <eps1> ;;bc,mtgox
654 2011-05-27 06:42:28 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":8.92,"low":8.201,"vol":20206,"buy":8.79,"sell":8.83,"last":8.83}}
655 2011-05-27 06:44:43 <Stabaho> anyone setup a wordpress shopping cart to use bitcoin in here?
656 2011-05-27 06:49:18 <phantomcircuit> Stabaho, i dont believe there is anyway to do so yet
657 2011-05-27 06:50:36 <Stabaho> ive found some addon, http://www.nostate.com/3971/bitcoin-for-wp-e-commerce-shopping-cart-for-wordpress/
658 2011-05-27 06:50:45 <Stabaho> just having trouble getting it to see my rpc server
659 2011-05-27 06:51:33 <Stabaho> im hosting my bitcoind rpc server at home, and not locally on the website
660 2011-05-27 06:52:03 <gjs278> you'll have to port forward
661 2011-05-27 06:52:12 <gjs278> it would also be a good idea to keep it local to the website
662 2011-05-27 06:52:19 <gjs278> because if your main pc is down, your website would be nonfunctional
663 2011-05-27 06:52:19 <Stabaho> i have my router setup to forward the port
664 2011-05-27 06:52:35 <Stabaho> its not on my main pc, its on a old server i have
665 2011-05-27 06:53:03 <Stabaho> im using a free hosting atm, and i dont think i can run bitcoind on the hosting server
666 2011-05-27 06:53:08 <gjs278> well anyways
667 2011-05-27 06:53:13 <gjs278> what's the problem it's facing
668 2011-05-27 06:53:17 <gjs278> trying to connect
669 2011-05-27 06:53:59 <Stabaho> it doesnt give a good error message, just The Bitcoin server is presently unavailable.
670 2011-05-27 06:54:13 <Stabaho> i was hoping to find someone else who had tried
671 2011-05-27 06:57:35 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rfbd225b / (2 files in 2 dirs): Fixed bug with mtrlt's code, recomitting it - http://bit.ly/jW71ca
672 2011-05-27 07:03:22 <Phoebus> What happens when a wallet hasn't been online for say half a year?
673 2011-05-27 07:03:47 <Stabaho> it has to download some updates
674 2011-05-27 07:04:01 <Phoebus> And should be fine.
675 2011-05-27 07:04:13 <Phoebus> Cuz I have my old wallet in an external sata drive.
676 2011-05-27 07:05:29 <eps1> a wallet doesn't need to be online until you want to spend no?
677 2011-05-27 07:05:55 <eps1> you can recieve ragardless
678 2011-05-27 07:06:26 <Phoebus> The contents will update when you get the latest.
679 2011-05-27 07:06:57 <Phoebus> Now given the wallet is a file, what happens when duplicates get accessed?
680 2011-05-27 07:07:10 <Phoebus> The state of the wallet is on the distributed network, agreed.
681 2011-05-27 07:07:11 <eps1> it is the same private key
682 2011-05-27 07:07:15 <sipa> the first one to spend a coin gets it
683 2011-05-27 07:07:23 <Phoebus> But having 2 files, means 2 people have the right to spend from it?
684 2011-05-27 07:07:29 <Phoebus> ah
685 2011-05-27 07:18:33 <topi`_> 1 private key, 1 chance of spending the coin in question.
686 2011-05-27 07:18:46 <topi`_> you can have 2 files but they probably contain the same privkeys.
687 2011-05-27 07:19:00 <sipa> wrong
688 2011-05-27 07:19:10 <sipa> same address -> both chance to spend it
689 2011-05-27 07:19:16 <sipa> the private key does not need to be identical
690 2011-05-27 07:19:27 <topi`_> the avg blocks/hour is 10.00 so the difficulty is still going to climb up
691 2011-05-27 07:19:34 <topi`_> sipa: where were your difficulty plots?
692 2011-05-27 07:19:42 <sipa> bitcoin.sipa.be
693 2011-05-27 07:19:47 <topi`_> thx
694 2011-05-27 07:20:17 <topi`_> the mystery miner of march is now showing as a tiny spike down below :)
695 2011-05-27 07:20:27 <wumpus> now that's a j-curve
696 2011-05-27 07:20:55 <Kurtov> Does anyone have any experience with unlocking the shaders on a 6950? I need urgent help
697 2011-05-27 07:21:06 <topi`_> I guess it just shows that there are more people coming every day, AND they are purchasing their local comp stores empty of radeon 5xxx's :)
698 2011-05-27 07:23:40 <EPiSKiNG> it's a damn shame
699 2011-05-27 07:41:34 <UukGoblin> "DNS transactions may not contain change outputs. Inputs should be chosen in such a way that no change is required." <- nanotube, theymos: why?
700 2011-05-27 07:43:40 <Diablo-D3> UukGoblin: less bullshit spam for one
701 2011-05-27 07:45:00 <UukGoblin> Diablo-D3, err, more, imho. You need to send one more transaction and get it confirmed, to prepare your inputs accordingly
702 2011-05-27 07:45:26 <Diablo-D3> if your inputs match your outputs
703 2011-05-27 07:45:29 <Diablo-D3> then less data in the block
704 2011-05-27 07:45:32 <Diablo-D3> ergo, less chance of a fee
705 2011-05-27 07:45:44 <UukGoblin> chance of a fee? a fee is /required/
706 2011-05-27 07:46:02 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 989342 Khps, given current difficulty of 434882.7217497 , is 3 weeks, 0 days, 20 hours, 25 minutes, and 28 seconds
707 2011-05-27 07:46:02 <nevezen> ;;bc,calc 989342
708 2011-05-27 07:46:05 <Diablo-D3> you know what I mean
709 2011-05-27 07:46:29 <Diablo-D3> and with no change, it churns spare addresses in wallets less
710 2011-05-27 07:46:54 <UukGoblin> spare addresses in wallets are the same, because you first need to prepare your input
711 2011-05-27 07:47:05 <Diablo-D3> w/e
712 2011-05-27 07:47:07 <UukGoblin> say you have an address that contains 50 bitcoins
713 2011-05-27 07:47:15 <UukGoblin> you want to spend 10 bitcoins for a domain registration
714 2011-05-27 07:47:26 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1702332 Khps, given current difficulty of 434882.7217497 , is 1 week, 5 days, 16 hours, 46 minutes, and 44 seconds
715 2011-05-27 07:47:26 <nevezen> ;;bc,calc 1702332
716 2011-05-27 07:47:35 <UukGoblin> with this restriction, you need to first create a regular bitcoin transaction which will split the 50 bitcoins into 10 and 40
717 2011-05-27 07:47:47 <UukGoblin> and then a second transaction that uses the 10 for domain
718 2011-05-27 07:47:58 <UukGoblin> without this restriction, it'd all be one transaction only
719 2011-05-27 07:48:23 <UukGoblin> same number of addresses, less network overhead, faster, simpler.
720 2011-05-27 07:48:41 <UukGoblin> (and less data in the blockchain)
721 2011-05-27 07:48:45 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5940111 Khps, given current difficulty of 434882.7217497 , is 3 days, 15 hours, 20 minutes, and 39 seconds
722 2011-05-27 07:48:45 <nevezen> ;;bc,calc 5940111
723 2011-05-27 07:51:24 <UukGoblin> hrm, also, the four "fee adjusts within ten blocks of the registration transaction" are dodgy
724 2011-05-27 07:51:42 <UukGoblin> if you don't manage to send them properly within 10 blocks, you'll have lost all the money you've spent on a domain
725 2011-05-27 08:02:56 <UukGoblin> the 'other' pool is threatening the security of bitcoins!
726 2011-05-27 08:03:13 <UukGoblin> it has over 50% of the total bitcoin hashrate! ;-P
727 2011-05-27 08:04:22 <mtrlt> yep, it was sneaky of them to call their pool that :o
728 2011-05-27 08:16:21 <wumpus> yes they grew really quick :p
729 2011-05-27 08:16:36 <wumpus> first they were the smallest pool
730 2011-05-27 08:17:26 <wumpus> well at least deepbit is no longer a threat...
731 2011-05-27 08:17:52 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ping
732 2011-05-27 08:18:26 <BlueMatt> the "other" pool?
733 2011-05-27 08:19:26 <BlueMatt> oh, lol
734 2011-05-27 08:20:04 <wumpus> <tinfoil> maybe tycho secretly lowered the reported mhash/s </tinfoil>
735 2011-05-27 08:20:35 <topi`_> ok, now somebody has released an open source fpga miner in github
736 2011-05-27 08:20:54 <topi`_> but it seems it uses >90k lut so it would mean an expensive FPGA chip
737 2011-05-27 08:26:06 <UukGoblin> 80Mhash for ... how much $?
738 2011-05-27 08:26:13 <UukGoblin> and what's the power consumption of it?
739 2011-05-27 08:26:28 <genjix> ;;seen tcatm
740 2011-05-27 08:26:28 <gribble> tcatm was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 23 hours, 29 minutes, and 44 seconds ago: <tcatm> I'd vote for 3 and switch to 0.0005 fees once most parts of the network allow smaller fees
741 2011-05-27 08:27:12 <BlueMatt> ;;seen jgarzik
742 2011-05-27 08:27:13 <gribble> jgarzik was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 hours, 56 minutes, and 1 second ago: <jgarzik> luke-jr: I think I've narrowed down an fd leak, btw
743 2011-05-27 08:28:37 <BlueMatt> BlueMattBot: status Bitcoin
744 2011-05-27 08:28:38 <BlueMattBot> Bitcoin: last build: 33 (14 hr ago): SUCCESS: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin/33/
745 2011-05-27 08:32:53 <topi`_> UukGoblin: that dev board (with >110k luts) is approx $600
746 2011-05-27 08:33:08 <topi`_> the power consumption is probably < 10 watts
747 2011-05-27 08:34:39 <UukGoblin> topi`_, lut? lookup table?
748 2011-05-27 08:36:29 <UukGoblin> topi`_, ok so assuming it's 10 watts, it's about 3.5x more power efficient than a 5970
749 2011-05-27 08:37:07 <BlueMatt> sipa: tcatm ping
750 2011-05-27 08:38:06 <sipa> BlueMatt: pang
751 2011-05-27 08:38:48 <BlueMatt> pull dpifix
752 2011-05-27 08:39:38 <BlueMatt> dont really get it though, isnt gcc supposed to optimize away stuff that cant be possible due to static const's...
753 2011-05-27 08:43:02 <nanotube> UukGoblin: back before sendmany was introduced, it was felt best to stick to at most two outputs per tx. not so important now that we have sendmany
754 2011-05-27 08:43:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: it may optimize it away, but the source must still be compilable
755 2011-05-27 08:43:42 <UukGoblin> nanotube, indeed.
756 2011-05-27 08:43:51 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #34: ABORTED in 5 min 18 sec: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin/34/
757 2011-05-27 08:44:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: hm, it isnt for upnp, but that still works...oh well just needs pulled, simple ifdef fix
758 2011-05-27 08:44:38 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * raf531f0 / src/ui.cpp : Fix GUI build on UNIX. - http://bit.ly/mlnpP9
759 2011-05-27 08:44:50 <UukGoblin> nanotube, ok, what happens if you don't manage to get your 4 fee-adjusts into the first 10 blocks, i.e: your internet connection drops, or the miners are just being picky?
760 2011-05-27 08:44:56 <sipa> BlueMatt: where in upnp?
761 2011-05-27 08:45:02 <UukGoblin> nanotube, do you lose your investment on the domain?
762 2011-05-27 08:45:13 <jindel> when the network switches to only being supported by fees instead of bitcoin creation, would it be possible or nodes to simply ignore transactions that have a fee below a threshhold and publish solved blocks that only include transactions included a fee over their threshold?  -effectivly imposing a minimum fee for the network?
763 2011-05-27 08:45:27 <sipa> jindel: yes
764 2011-05-27 08:45:29 <jindel> s/or nodes/for nodes/
765 2011-05-27 08:45:33 <sipa> supply and demand
766 2011-05-27 08:45:34 <BlueMatt> sipa: IIRC the if(fHaveUPnP) stuff might be incompatible in a couple places
767 2011-05-27 08:45:39 <nanotube> UukGoblin: yes, currently that is the case
768 2011-05-27 08:45:43 <BlueMatt> but I might be wrong
769 2011-05-27 08:46:16 <jindel> sipa, isn't that a terrible situation though??  -allowing people to impose a minimum transaction fee onto others in the network?
770 2011-05-27 08:46:34 <sipa> i'm more concerned about them not doing so
771 2011-05-27 08:46:43 <sipa> making mining unprofitable
772 2011-05-27 08:47:14 <jindel> sipa, e.g. if I have enough hashing power I can probably delay many transactions from entering the chain if I simply don't include them in my block solutions
773 2011-05-27 08:47:19 <sipa> jindel: anyone can mine, if you can mine for a cheaper price, you're probably able to accept more transactions with a lower fee than someone else
774 2011-05-27 08:47:27 <BlueMatt> also, sipa, do you think its a good idea to start a 0.4.0 branch on git to start pulling all this stuff...it might be a considerable amount of work to rebase half of the pull requests onto each other
775 2011-05-27 08:47:54 <UukGoblin> hm, accepting transactions doesn't translate to mining power
776 2011-05-27 08:48:04 <sipa> UukGoblin: no, the dynamics of it all are very unclear
777 2011-05-27 08:48:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: agree
778 2011-05-27 08:48:31 <UukGoblin> since the cpu/gpu power is usually a limiting factor, I think it's best interest for all miners to simply include all transactions with a fee
779 2011-05-27 08:48:36 <jindel> UukGoblin, no, I'm saying that if I have a large enough chance of winning the block race, I can choose to simply not include transactions with "too small" of a fee.
780 2011-05-27 08:48:47 <sipa> jindel: then the next miner will include them
781 2011-05-27 08:48:48 <UukGoblin> jindel, yes, you can
782 2011-05-27 08:49:02 <jindel> sipa, good point
783 2011-05-27 08:49:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: if you dont mind, Im gonna start pulling these pull req's into a temp repo of mine and see what happens
784 2011-05-27 08:49:09 <sipa> unless you have over 50%, you cannot permanently prevent a tx from being included
785 2011-05-27 08:49:41 <sipa> BlueMatt: sure, try - i don't think 0.3.22 is that far off though, so it won't be long before we can start on 0.4.0
786 2011-05-27 08:49:57 <BlueMatt> yep, but why wait 2 days when we can start now :)
787 2011-05-27 08:50:05 <jindel> sipa, yeah.. good point..  my "pruned blocks" would likely die off of the chain as people provide solutions that included the $0 transactions, too (that were longer than my block)
788 2011-05-27 08:50:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: have you had a look at my walletclass branch?
789 2011-05-27 08:50:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: not yet, but Id like to see that on 0.4.0
790 2011-05-27 08:50:38 <jindel> s/$0 transactions/transactions with no fee included/
791 2011-05-27 08:50:45 <UukGoblin> also, there's a few concerns I have with the 1MB block limit: on one hand, miners can just fill up blocks up to 1MB to include their dodgy data into the block chain, leading to about 500TB block chain after 10 years if everyone did that; on the other hand, 1MB block can only support about 500k transactions per day, which might not be enough in the future
792 2011-05-27 08:51:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: I suppose thats the first to be merged...then everything gets rebased onto that
793 2011-05-27 08:52:04 <jindel> UukGoblin, hmrm..  500k/day sounds small.  isn't visa like 4k transactions per second, and ~8.5k per second during holidays?
794 2011-05-27 08:52:05 <BlueMatt> ?
795 2011-05-27 08:52:30 <sipa> BlueMatt: it will already be quite some work to rebase walletclass to master, and it definitely needs testing
796 2011-05-27 08:52:50 <BlueMatt> how out of date is it?
797 2011-05-27 08:53:08 <jindel> 500k/day isn't even enough to handle the ~46tps that paypal does
798 2011-05-27 08:53:23 <sipa> 15 days
799 2011-05-27 08:53:50 <BlueMatt> cant be *that* bad...famous last words
800 2011-05-27 08:54:13 <sipa> well, it's not worse than redoing it from scratch, which took me "only" 2 weekends :)
801 2011-05-27 08:54:14 <BlueMatt> anyway, IMHO that is a huge addition that probably takes prio over anything else due for 0.4.0 so...
802 2011-05-27 08:54:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: anyway, it introduces a CKeystore class, which may be useful for your encryption stuff
803 2011-05-27 08:54:42 <phantomcircuit> jindel, do you actually have hard facts on credit card volume?
804 2011-05-27 08:54:53 <jindel> phantomcircuit, looking.
805 2011-05-27 08:55:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, was thinking about that this morning, Ill go try to rebase your branch, then rebase crypter onto it
806 2011-05-27 08:55:49 <Alexees> I tried to install ubuntu using my new 5970, after the installation finished, I cant get to ubuntu welcome screen, its all black
807 2011-05-27 08:55:56 <Alexees> trying to reinstall couple times, same results here
808 2011-05-27 08:55:58 <jindel> phantomcircuit,http://corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press960.jsp
809 2011-05-27 08:56:05 <Alexees> does ubuntu support 5970 ?
810 2011-05-27 08:56:28 <jindel> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/59438/visa_customers_reap_benefits_ip_network/
811 2011-05-27 08:58:06 <jindel> phantomcircuit, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
812 2011-05-27 08:59:12 <jindel> ("Today the BitCoin network is restricted to about 7 tps by some artificial limits." = 60*60*24*7 ~= 605k transactions/day )
813 2011-05-27 08:59:44 <phantomcircuit> jindel, that is just the max block size, which can be increased but never decreased
814 2011-05-27 08:59:47 <jindel> spose, the sentence after it says why the limit and that it CAN be lifted.
815 2011-05-27 08:59:51 <phantomcircuit> http://corporate.visa.com/media-center/press-releases/press960.jsp
816 2011-05-27 08:59:56 <jindel> phantomcircuit, aah, yeah.
817 2011-05-27 09:00:24 <phantomcircuit> jindel, so currently there is a fairly conservative value chosen for the max block size
818 2011-05-27 09:00:56 <jindel> phantomcircuit, I see now.  -not a hardcoded limit.  able to increase as needed by modifying clients.
819 2011-05-27 09:02:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: i'll first do some cleanup inside walletclass itself - it contains dutch commit messages now :)
820 2011-05-27 09:03:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: arg, I just got started...oh well tell me when you are dont
821 2011-05-27 09:03:13 <BlueMatt> e
822 2011-05-27 09:03:24 <BlueMatt> (plus commits get rebased anyway, so commitmsgs dont matter)
823 2011-05-27 09:03:40 <jindel> I guess the only thing that would worry me is someone getting 51% of the hashing power.  -by DoS'ing the (easily obtainable list of?) miners and getting ahold of a quantum computer (http://vr-zone.com/articles/d-wave-one-released-the-first-commercial-quantum-computer/12303.html) for a few hours, before "trustworthy" people add one to the network
824 2011-05-27 09:04:53 <sipa> BlueMatt: ok, go ahead, but i think manually backporting all intermediate changes done to the master branch will be easier than using rebase
825 2011-05-27 09:05:18 <sipa> my git-fu isn't that good yet though, so maybe there are better wats
826 2011-05-27 09:05:19 <sipa> ways
827 2011-05-27 09:05:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok Ill look into it
828 2011-05-27 09:05:33 <BlueMatt> cherry-pick each one and see what doesnt merge :)
829 2011-05-27 09:05:42 <sipa> great
830 2011-05-27 09:37:19 <topi`_> maybe the max block size could be bound to the size of the mining bounty? i.e. now 50 btc, after 200k blocks 25btc, and after 400k block 12.5 btc
831 2011-05-27 09:37:42 <topi`_> so that at the 1st level, max block is 1M, then after 200k blocks max=2M, then 4M, 8M etc
832 2011-05-27 09:37:58 <topi`_> this anticipates the progress made in networks and storage hardware through the years
833 2011-05-27 09:38:10 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: how goes builds?  I saw the build fix...
834 2011-05-27 09:38:22 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: building now, linux done..win32 soon
835 2011-05-27 09:38:45 <BlueMatt> Im working on rebasing sipa's walletclass onto master and hope to start pulling all the 0.4.0 stuff on top of that to get us started
836 2011-05-27 09:38:57 <BlueMatt> (with 0.4.0)
837 2011-05-27 09:42:54 <phantomcircuit> topi`_, well really the issue is that large blocks cost everybody time/money but cost the miners nothing
838 2011-05-27 09:43:08 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: let's see what Gavin says, before assuming.  we might want to pull everything but the wallet class, because we sure do have a ton of pull requests pending, and rewriting all those will be a pain
839 2011-05-27 09:43:10 <phantomcircuit> topi`_, it's a distributed cost with a centralized production point (ie it doesn't scale well)
840 2011-05-27 09:43:49 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: yea but either way, walletclass should be pulled and why rewrite later when it can be done now, probably easier
841 2011-05-27 09:43:49 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, i got the distinct impression he had no intention of pulling most of them
842 2011-05-27 09:44:18 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: when did you speak with him on the subject?
843 2011-05-27 09:44:52 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, there are comments on a lot of them basically saying not gonna happen
844 2011-05-27 09:45:14 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: update 1 patch (wallet class) versus update N patches...  I know what I would pick.
845 2011-05-27 09:45:21 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: thats true, but there are also a ton of pull req that absolutely will be pulled
846 2011-05-27 09:45:47 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: well either way Im working on rebaseing walletclass to master now, and thats gonna be a decent amount of work...
847 2011-05-27 09:45:58 <BlueMatt> that needs to happen no matter what
848 2011-05-27 09:47:16 <jgarzik> agreed
849 2011-05-27 09:47:32 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: disappearing for a while.  will watch email for builds as usual
850 2011-05-27 09:47:33 <BlueMatt> anyway, I want to get a head start on 0.4.0 as all these pull req conflict with each other anyway
851 2011-05-27 09:47:42 <BlueMatt> alright, will email