1 2011-06-07 00:22:54 <Doc_M> Hey devs
  2 2011-06-07 00:23:28 <Doc_M> Can I ask a few questions about planned ways to make BTC easier to use in the new clients?
  3 2011-06-07 00:24:21 <gjs278> ask anything you want
  4 2011-06-07 00:24:23 <denisx> I have pushpoold running on freebsd
  5 2011-06-07 00:25:07 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: what do you mean
  6 2011-06-07 00:25:49 <Doc_M> like URIs and stuff
  7 2011-06-07 00:26:08 <jrmithdobbs> so ask
  8 2011-06-07 00:26:47 <Doc_M> Will the new clients support URI's and auto backups, and also why does it generate 100 addresses at once then use them all up, instead of refilling the address queue as it uses them?
  9 2011-06-07 00:27:27 <jrmithdobbs> the first has been proposed and iplemented i don't know what the specific objections to the existing implementation are but there are forum threads to look through about it
 10 2011-06-07 00:27:38 <Doc_M> thanks
 11 2011-06-07 00:28:02 <jrmithdobbs> it gens 100 keys at once to prevent needing to do so at transaction time and to make backups more reliable
 12 2011-06-07 00:28:55 <jrmithdobbs> so that older wallet backups will be (in theory, there was actually a bug with this that I think will be fixed in 3.23 per gavin's commit/pull request) valid and able to see change transactions from for txns made after the backup
 13 2011-06-07 00:28:59 <jrmithdobbs> at least for a while
 14 2011-06-07 00:29:32 <jrmithdobbs> make sense?
 15 2011-06-07 00:29:51 <Doc_M> the problem is still that if you are at  say 1 address left and you back up
 16 2011-06-07 00:30:00 <jrmithdobbs> yup
 17 2011-06-07 00:30:04 <Doc_M> your backup isn't as reliable as if you had 99 addresses left in queue
 18 2011-06-07 00:30:08 <jrmithdobbs> it's not perfect
 19 2011-06-07 00:30:31 <Doc_M> thats why I suggested refilling the queue as it empties
 20 2011-06-07 00:30:40 <Doc_M> but I was curious if there was any plans for that
 21 2011-06-07 00:30:45 <jrmithdobbs> ya someone's submitted a patch that does just that
 22 2011-06-07 00:30:53 <Doc_M> oh got yah
 23 2011-06-07 00:30:55 <jrmithdobbs> that once it gets to 25 used it refills them
 24 2011-06-07 00:30:58 <Doc_M> ok, I see what you meant now
 25 2011-06-07 00:31:01 <Doc_M> thanks
 26 2011-06-07 00:31:09 <jrmithdobbs> (iirc haven't looked at the patch)
 27 2011-06-07 00:31:31 <Doc_M> so you should still backup every 25 transactions
 28 2011-06-07 00:31:44 <jrmithdobbs> imho best practice is to backup after every txn
 29 2011-06-07 00:32:14 <gjs278> you should have it on a definite schedule, either every tx or just schedule it daily
 30 2011-06-07 00:32:24 <Doc_M> I had an idea that would encrypt the wallet then back it up to a public SVN, is something like that a bad idea?
 31 2011-06-07 00:32:24 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 32 2011-06-07 00:32:26 <glassresistor> so im curious, how does pooled mining handle transaction fees?
 33 2011-06-07 00:32:38 <glassresistor> Doc_M: why?
 34 2011-06-07 00:32:39 <gjs278> glassresistor they keep them
 35 2011-06-07 00:32:48 <glassresistor> gjs278: good to know
 36 2011-06-07 00:32:50 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: there should be some wallet encryption builtin to wallet.dat in .4
 37 2011-06-07 00:32:57 <Doc_M> makes it accessible anywhere if your computer gets destroyed
 38 2011-06-07 00:32:57 <gjs278> Doc_M no point in making it public
 39 2011-06-07 00:32:57 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: as well as some better backup methods
 40 2011-06-07 00:33:12 <Doc_M> thanks jrm
 41 2011-06-07 00:33:13 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: including a dump/importwallet rpc command that dumps and imports in json format
 42 2011-06-07 00:33:22 <Doc_M> excelent
 43 2011-06-07 00:34:01 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: there's some focus on squashing stability/reliability issues that are popping up because of the exponential growth that pushes back .4 for right now
 44 2011-06-07 00:34:12 <jrmithdobbs> but all that is coming ;P
 45 2011-06-07 00:34:24 <Doc_M> cool
 46 2011-06-07 00:35:21 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: but even once encrypted i think backing up to a svn/git repo that lives on an encrypted disk (that way you get useful git/svn semantics for commit history instead of a new binary diff every time) would be a great practice
 47 2011-06-07 00:35:37 <jrmithdobbs> Doc_M: which will be even easier with the dump/importwallet stuff sipa did
 48 2011-06-07 00:36:33 <jrmithdobbs> because you wont have some of the race conditions
 49 2011-06-07 00:36:51 <jrmithdobbs> currently involved with backing up wallet.dat directly with bitcoin still running
 50 2011-06-07 00:37:19 <Doc_M> excelent
 51 2011-06-07 00:37:30 <jrmithdobbs> great questions though ;P
 52 2011-06-07 00:37:42 <Doc_M> would you guys be up for including such a backup script with the distributions, if I write one?
 53 2011-06-07 00:38:04 <jrmithdobbs> probably not but that's not on me
 54 2011-06-07 00:55:17 <Lachesis> what's the biggest balance available to any btc address right now?
 55 2011-06-07 00:55:40 <Lachesis> or more accurately, how the heck can i figure that out?
 56 2011-06-07 00:56:51 <MasterChief> theres a top100 list somewhere
 57 2011-06-07 00:58:15 <matteblack> would someone like to edit the source code to betco with me to support starcraft games instead
 58 2011-06-07 00:58:39 <matteblack> ill pay it btc
 59 2011-06-07 00:58:43 <matteblack> in*
 60 2011-06-07 01:10:11 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: you around?
 61 2011-06-07 09:02:21 <Doc_M> howdy folks, is there talk about a bitcoin lib?
 62 2011-06-07 09:03:52 <diki> howdy agent_m
 63 2011-06-07 09:06:46 <Doc_M> what's up diki?
 64 2011-06-07 09:20:04 <Doc_M> Is someone DOSing mtgox? its hella slow
 65 2011-06-07 09:20:26 <Doc_M> or some badly designed JSON program somewhere?
 66 2011-06-07 09:21:36 <tcatm> Maybe they switched the backend and it doesn't cache?
 67 2011-06-07 09:22:32 <phantomcircuit> ;;bc,calc 300000
 68 2011-06-07 09:22:33 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given current difficulty of 567358.22457067 , is 13 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 16 minutes, and 56 seconds
 69 2011-06-07 09:27:00 <lizthegrey> incidentally, I'm kind of curious related to the discussion of police stops
 70 2011-06-07 09:27:18 <lizthegrey> if I am carrying more than $10,000 of btc in privkeys on my laptop
 71 2011-06-07 09:27:37 <lizthegrey> and I get stopped by customs without declaring that I'm carrying $10,000 in btc, do they have a right to arrest me?
 72 2011-06-07 09:27:51 <phantomcircuit> lizthegrey, maybe?
 73 2011-06-07 09:27:58 <lizthegrey> obviously the trivial workaround is to shred my wallet before I leave on the trip, and scp the files to my destination
 74 2011-06-07 09:28:01 <phantomcircuit> again depends on whether btc is currency or commodity
 75 2011-06-07 09:28:02 <lizthegrey> but still
 76 2011-06-07 09:31:59 <Doc_M> "right to arrest you" since when did rights make a difference in arrest?
 77 2011-06-07 09:32:06 <Doc_M> they will arrest you when they think its a good idea
 78 2011-06-07 09:32:19 <phantomcircuit> Doc_M, false arrest is a serious crime
 79 2011-06-07 09:32:23 <Doc_M> rights might help you get out of jail later, but in general if a cop wants to take you in, they will
 80 2011-06-07 09:32:26 <Doc_M> not really
 81 2011-06-07 09:32:47 <Doc_M> due to the way the law is they can ALWAYS find something
 82 2011-06-07 09:33:00 <phantomcircuit> sure unless you really did nothing wrong at all
 83 2011-06-07 09:33:14 <Doc_M> its a cop saying, "you may not be convicted but you can always take the car trip"
 84 2011-06-07 09:33:21 <Doc_M> nope, phantom, you did
 85 2011-06-07 09:33:27 <Doc_M> everyone is a criminal
 86 2011-06-07 09:33:31 <Doc_M> most people are felons
 87 2011-06-07 09:33:33 <Doc_M> they just don't know it yet
 88 2011-06-07 09:33:50 <Doc_M> most CEOs for example commit about 5 felonies a day without even knowing it
 89 2011-06-07 09:34:01 <phantomcircuit> Doc_M, yes but you need to show that the cop could have known about it
 90 2011-06-07 09:34:03 <Doc_M> sorry 3
 91 2011-06-07 09:34:11 <Doc_M> nah
 92 2011-06-07 09:34:20 <phantomcircuit> uh yes
 93 2011-06-07 09:34:22 <Doc_M> they can say they were suspicious or they thought you were someone else
 94 2011-06-07 09:34:27 <Doc_M> seriously man
 95 2011-06-07 09:34:29 <lizthegrey> doc_m: the difference is, the $10k rule lets them seize my money
 96 2011-06-07 09:34:42 <Doc_M> they can seize a lot less than that
 97 2011-06-07 09:34:45 <lizthegrey> anything else, they can maybe send me to jail
 98 2011-06-07 09:34:53 <lizthegrey> but I'm not worried about that as much
 99 2011-06-07 09:34:54 <Doc_M> http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
100 2011-06-07 09:34:59 <phantomcircuit> sigh
101 2011-06-07 09:35:06 <Doc_M> got yah, liz
102 2011-06-07 09:35:12 <phantomcircuit> Doc_M, they can seize amounts > 10k without a court order to do so
103 2011-06-07 09:35:18 <Doc_M> yes
104 2011-06-07 09:35:21 <phantomcircuit> amounts less than that require a court order
105 2011-06-07 09:35:30 <Doc_M> depends on jurisdiction
106 2011-06-07 09:35:36 <Doc_M> some are as low as 1k, iirc
107 2011-06-07 09:35:57 <phantomcircuit> it's a federal drug statute
108 2011-06-07 09:36:11 <Doc_M> state police exist too
109 2011-06-07 09:36:19 <Doc_M> and different states have different rules regarding that
110 2011-06-07 09:36:29 <Doc_M> anyway you can argue that your wallet isn't the money
111 2011-06-07 09:36:33 <Doc_M> its just a password
112 2011-06-07 09:36:35 <phantomcircuit> yes but they all need a court order
113 2011-06-07 09:36:52 <phantomcircuit> the federal law uses the interstate commerce clause to enact it
114 2011-06-07 09:37:02 <phantomcircuit> states do not have the same powers of constitutional bullshitery
115 2011-06-07 09:37:17 <Doc_M> they have more power wrt to this
116 2011-06-07 09:37:53 <vegard> whether or not you bring your bitcoin wallet shouldn't matter
117 2011-06-07 09:38:03 <vegard> bitcoin is more like online banking
118 2011-06-07 09:38:15 <Doc_M> as they have what is known as a "general police power" so they can make smaller amounts illegal to carry
119 2011-06-07 09:38:15 <vegard> they won't arrest you for bringing your online bank pin code abroad
120 2011-06-07 09:39:22 <lizthegrey> hmm, I've been arguing that possession of the wallet's signing keys constitutes possessing the money, and that the act of signing a transaction constitutes the value transfer
121 2011-06-07 09:39:41 <lizthegrey> and that the network is effectively a set of dumb pipes that rebroadcast signed transactions that meet criteria
122 2011-06-07 09:40:02 <Doc_M> in truth the legality doesn't matter
123 2011-06-07 09:40:07 <lizthegrey> (analogy to writing out a cashier's check, and depositing it in the mail)
124 2011-06-07 09:40:11 <Doc_M> they will sieze what they want, and then make you go to court to get it back
125 2011-06-07 09:40:24 <Doc_M> then the court case will drag on for years
126 2011-06-07 09:40:29 <Doc_M> and you will run out of money fighting it
127 2011-06-07 09:40:35 <Doc_M> I know people who this has happened to
128 2011-06-07 09:41:00 <Doc_M> and chances are, if its say& a car& they already sold it
129 2011-06-07 09:41:36 <Doc_M> the way you win, is them not knowing you have BTC on you, encrypting your wallet file is a good one
130 2011-06-07 09:41:49 <Doc_M> or just emailing an encrypted copy to yourself
131 2011-06-07 09:42:14 <lizthegrey> aye, my entire hdd is encrypted, so that's pretty simple.
132 2011-06-07 09:42:39 <Doc_M> they can take your HD as evidence if they think you have done something, so you want an off site backup
133 2011-06-07 09:42:50 <Doc_M> not in a safe deposit box, because they can take that too
134 2011-06-07 09:43:05 <vegard> pastebin ;)
135 2011-06-07 09:44:13 <z310> pastebin? haha
136 2011-06-07 09:46:04 <lizthegrey> lulz, speaking of money laundering, I just found $5 that went through the wash :P
137 2011-06-07 09:48:03 <Graet> lol nice'
138 2011-06-07 09:52:16 <Doc_M> heh nice
139 2011-06-07 10:28:13 <xelister> Diablo-D3: hi, mind remining me
140 2011-06-07 10:28:28 <xelister> which amd's driver fglrx sucks cock the least, for 5xxx and sdk 2.1?
141 2011-06-07 10:50:22 <killerstorm> hi. does official client ever create transactions with more than one output?
142 2011-06-07 10:50:30 <killerstorm> I mean more then two.
143 2011-06-07 10:51:44 <killerstorm> oh, nevermind, I see sendmany RPC now
144 2011-06-07 10:57:05 <necrodearia> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12672
145 2011-06-07 11:02:50 <vegard> I'm having problems cloning from github
146 2011-06-07 11:02:58 <vegard> error: SSL certificate problem, verify that the CA cert is OK. Details:
147 2011-06-07 11:03:09 <vegard> that's for git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
148 2011-06-07 11:03:38 <vegard> with http instead of https, I get: warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.
149 2011-06-07 11:04:06 <vegard> git url finally worked, though.
150 2011-06-07 11:10:22 <johnnympereira5> ;;bc,stats
151 2011-06-07 11:10:26 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129199 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 1840 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 18 hours, 6 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 677858.22342977
152 2011-06-07 11:32:08 <diki> what is the max nonce?
153 2011-06-07 11:48:56 <insanehitz> hello
154 2011-06-07 11:49:13 <insanehitz> i need some coins on *testnet*, anybody can give me please?
155 2011-06-07 12:04:51 <Graet> Diablo-D3 a guy tring to join my pool is failing - he's the only one so far , can you see a reaon in this "Diablo i have: ./DiabloMiner-OSX.sh -u yazi.mpb -p root -o ozco.in -r 8332 BFI_INT" that would stop him connecting?
156 2011-06-07 12:04:55 <Graet> thanks
157 2011-06-07 12:05:20 <ersi> Do you get any output from his miner at all?
158 2011-06-07 12:05:23 <Graet> looks fine to me but i'm not mac and havent tried your mine
159 2011-06-07 12:05:38 <insanehitz> nobody have coins on *testnet*?
160 2011-06-07 12:05:39 <arienh4> Does anyone know if there's any information available about running a pool, other than the pushpool source?
161 2011-06-07 12:05:57 <arienh4> I tried searching the wiki, searching the forums, but it seems very scarcely documented.
162 2011-06-07 12:06:07 <Graet> sorry ersi i'm not the coder
163 2011-06-07 12:06:14 <Doc_M> what s the error message?
164 2011-06-07 12:06:17 <ersi> arienh4: Well, it's pretty scarce. There's no 'out of the box poolsoftware', you'll have to make a shit load of stuff yourself.
165 2011-06-07 12:06:32 <Graet> he cannot connect
166 2011-06-07 12:06:34 <ersi> Graet: I'm more thinking it's a problem between his chair and your pool
167 2011-06-07 12:06:38 <arienh4> ersi: I'm looking to make it all myself.
168 2011-06-07 12:06:40 <Graet> haha
169 2011-06-07 12:06:45 <Graet> me too lol but cheers
170 2011-06-07 12:07:02 <arienh4> But I need some kind of documentation on how pools work, from a technical perspective.
171 2011-06-07 12:07:20 <ersi> arienh4: Well, get up and running with pushpool and feed the shares etc into a database of some sort and make a frontend to it all
172 2011-06-07 12:07:27 <Graet> arienh4 i searched for ages
173 2011-06-07 12:07:39 <ThomasV> how can I rename an account in my wallet ?
174 2011-06-07 12:07:44 <arienh4> ersi: I could, but I want to do it from scratch, because I'd like to support some things that pushpool won't.
175 2011-06-07 12:08:00 <arienh4> And distilling the information from only source-code is very painful.
176 2011-06-07 12:08:35 <iz> is anyone here using the pushpool blkmond with the 0.3.22 bitcoind client?  what changes are needed?  i tried incrementing MY_VERSION a few different ways, but with no effect
177 2011-06-07 12:08:44 <ersi> arienh4: As far as *I* know.. that's your best source of information unfortunally :(
178 2011-06-07 12:09:14 <arienh4> I was afraid of that.
179 2011-06-07 12:09:31 <ersi> And if I'm not completely wrong, this information is ultimately distilled from the official bitcoin clients mining/rpc parts
180 2011-06-07 12:10:05 <arienh4> I figured, if you could run a decent pool, you can provide immediate payouts without causing people too much TX fees
181 2011-06-07 12:10:24 <arienh4> By simply giving coins that come from a block you generated a discount on fees.
182 2011-06-07 12:10:36 <iz> arienh4: well.. you can do no tx fee payouts in the NEXT block
183 2011-06-07 12:10:39 <arienh4> Of course you'd need a lot of miners to pull that off.
184 2011-06-07 12:10:45 <iz> but it's difficult to do it in the current block
185 2011-06-07 12:10:59 <arienh4> Depends. If you do the payouts using the generation transaction.
186 2011-06-07 12:11:08 <iz> because you don't know how much to award ppl yet.. since it's a % of user shares over total shares needed to find the block
187 2011-06-07 12:11:10 <bliket> they took out generating bitcoins in 3.2.2
188 2011-06-07 12:11:17 <arienh4> look at Eligius
189 2011-06-07 12:11:17 <ersi> arienh4: am I understanding it wrong, if I think you mean that you'd take the transaction fees from the solved block to pay your workers?
190 2011-06-07 12:11:25 <arienh4> no, that's not what I mean
191 2011-06-07 12:11:37 <ersi> 'k, was afraid I was getting it totally wrong
192 2011-06-07 12:11:44 <arienh4> The reason all pools wait until 1 BTC is to avoid later transaction fees because the coins are so small
193 2011-06-07 12:11:46 <iz> arienh4: yeah, that's paying out from previously found blocks.. eligius
194 2011-06-07 12:11:58 <iz> arienh4: no, that's not the only reason
195 2011-06-07 12:12:03 <arienh4> it's the major reason eligius does it
196 2011-06-07 12:12:22 <iz> also, you don't know what the exact block payout per miner will be for that block UNTIL you happen to find it
197 2011-06-07 12:12:34 <arienh4> if you pay 1 BTC with lots of coins worth 0.00001 each, the size of the transaction causes a lot of fees
198 2011-06-07 12:12:37 <iz> so you can't payout the miners FOR that block IN that block
199 2011-06-07 12:12:46 <arienh4> iz: to a reasonable extent, you can
200 2011-06-07 12:12:49 <iz> you can do it in the next block accurately though
201 2011-06-07 12:12:54 <arienh4> you just can't pay out the last miner
202 2011-06-07 12:12:58 <iz> arienh4: how would you propose to do that?
203 2011-06-07 12:13:05 <arienh4> As I said, Eligius already does it
204 2011-06-07 12:13:07 <iz> no, because ALL of the amounts change
205 2011-06-07 12:13:20 <arienh4> not substantially
206 2011-06-07 12:13:34 <iz> no, he pays out ppl that are owed from previous blocks
207 2011-06-07 12:13:47 <iz> arienh4: think about how block generation works technically
208 2011-06-07 12:13:56 <arienh4> hmm, I misunderstood
209 2011-06-07 12:14:01 <iz> and how the reward is divided across shares
210 2011-06-07 12:14:04 <arienh4> I know what you mean
211 2011-06-07 12:14:10 <iz> werd
212 2011-06-07 12:14:12 <arienh4> and it's possible, but it would never be precise
213 2011-06-07 12:14:17 <iz> yeah
214 2011-06-07 12:14:37 <arienh4> anyway, still, that's not what I was talking about
215 2011-06-07 12:14:39 <iz> you would have to update the merkle tree for ALL miners every time ANYONE finds a new share
216 2011-06-07 12:14:42 <iz> for it to be accurate
217 2011-06-07 12:15:03 <iz> for the block everyone is trying to solve
218 2011-06-07 12:15:18 <arienh4> what I meant was, if you pay out someone in very small amounts, all transactions using those small amounts will cost a lot in TX fees, right?
219 2011-06-07 12:15:20 <diki> so i have 100 confirmations, but my balance is still 0.00
220 2011-06-07 12:15:43 <ersi> diki: Found a block? Then it's 120 confirmations
221 2011-06-07 12:15:48 <iz> arienh4: well.. if you are solving the block that these payout transactions are in.. you don't need to use any tx fees :D
222 2011-06-07 12:15:54 <diki> but pools wait for 100
223 2011-06-07 12:15:57 <diki> and yes, i found a block
224 2011-06-07 12:15:58 <iz> because it's your pool's block anyway
225 2011-06-07 12:16:30 <diki> ok, but pools wait for 100
226 2011-06-07 12:16:34 <iz> that's another reason to include all the owed payouts from previous solved blocks in the next block the pool is trying to solve
227 2011-06-07 12:16:36 <ersi> They won't mature until 120 confirmations. That some pools wait to just 100 is totally up to them afaik, like if they got money buffered up
228 2011-06-07 12:17:24 <ersi> Oh, this is only valid for the official bitcoin client according to the wiki o_o
229 2011-06-07 12:17:49 <arienh4> but transactions using smaller coins are big if they are later spent by the miner too, right?
230 2011-06-07 12:18:54 <iz> um.. well, i think it defaults to 0.0005 in the new client
231 2011-06-07 12:19:04 <arienh4> per KB, right?
232 2011-06-07 12:19:10 <iz> but you can set that to 0 if you want.. but it might not get accepted into any blocks
233 2011-06-07 12:19:29 <iz> there are still some pools that accept 0 tx fee transactions that don't come from them
234 2011-06-07 12:19:53 <iz> but your transaction won't go through until one of those pools finds a block
235 2011-06-07 12:21:20 <arienh4> But then every confirmation has to come from those pools, right?
236 2011-06-07 12:21:23 <JFK911> oh is there a new client released?
237 2011-06-07 12:21:26 <iz> nope
238 2011-06-07 12:21:32 <arienh4> So how do confirmations actually work?
239 2011-06-07 12:21:35 <iz> yes to new client, nope to confirmations
240 2011-06-07 12:22:16 <iz> arienh4: so the sha256 hash with the right number of leading 0 bits is what all the miners are looking for.. which is computationally expensive to find..
241 2011-06-07 12:22:28 <arienh4> Yeah, I know that.
242 2011-06-07 12:22:37 <iz> but fairly easy to confirm, once you know the right data
243 2011-06-07 12:22:39 <JFK911> aha
244 2011-06-07 12:22:45 <ersi> diki: I can't find any definitve sources, but a lot of forum posts and a few wiki pages suggest that it takes 120 confirmations before a block is mature. I'm not sure if that's just the bitcoin-gui/bitcoind's "UI" or if it's actually spendable then
245 2011-06-07 12:22:49 <arienh4> Technically, it's just when the hash is below the target
246 2011-06-07 12:22:51 <ersi> definitive*
247 2011-06-07 12:22:51 <iz> so it's the other peer confirming a solved block is really solved
248 2011-06-07 12:23:02 <iz> peers
249 2011-06-07 12:23:10 <arienh4> Oh, so confirmations are about the block, not the transaction.
250 2011-06-07 12:23:26 <iz> hmm.. well.. actually.. i don't know the answer for that for sure
251 2011-06-07 12:23:45 <iz> but it does have to do with the other peers confirming that it's legit
252 2011-06-07 12:24:15 <arienh4> Mining pools also confirm transactions, don't they?
253 2011-06-07 12:24:36 <arienh4> All I know about transactions is that they use public-key cryptography somehow
254 2011-06-07 12:24:47 <arienh4> So that would have to be confirmed as well
255 2011-06-07 12:29:09 <Doc_M> everyone confirms transactions iirc
256 2011-06-07 12:29:19 <Doc_M> I think
257 2011-06-07 12:29:29 <arienh4> Apparently, it uses some kind of scripting language
258 2011-06-07 12:29:29 <Doc_M> I mean confirms blocks
259 2011-06-07 12:29:31 <arienh4> I have NO idea why.
260 2011-06-07 12:30:09 <ersi> ;;bc,stats
261 2011-06-07 12:30:11 <gribble> Current Blocks: 129211 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 1828 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours, 23 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 683165.56019216
262 2011-06-07 12:30:31 <gmaxwell> The IRC is still being blackholed at my home, FWIW.
263 2011-06-07 12:33:10 <arienh4> Okay, this seems overly complicated to me
264 2011-06-07 12:33:19 <arienh4> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction
265 2011-06-07 12:33:24 <arienh4> Why does this require a script?
266 2011-06-07 12:33:55 <lizthegrey> arienh4: to be extensible.
267 2011-06-07 12:34:10 <lizthegrey> that way you can implement things such as 'parties Alice and Bob must both sign away coins for them to be spendable'
268 2011-06-07 12:34:12 <arienh4> Oh, right.
269 2011-06-07 12:34:30 <lizthegrey> that currently isn't commonly used (they're viewed as non-standard TX), but it's in the spec.
270 2011-06-07 12:34:42 <vegard> hm. at ~125 connections, bitcoind seems to be at a constant 15% cpu load :-/
271 2011-06-07 12:34:58 <arienh4> lizthegrey: It requires all parties to use a custom client, no?
272 2011-06-07 12:35:55 <lizthegrey> arienh4: no - once a transaction is in a block it's usable, but standard clients won't accept or forward them
273 2011-06-07 12:36:08 <lizthegrey> so you can submit such transactions to eligius or another pool operator that accepts non-standard tx
274 2011-06-07 12:36:18 <lizthegrey> and have them incorporated into a block
275 2011-06-07 12:36:32 <arienh4> So a type of script is a contract
276 2011-06-07 12:36:51 <arienh4> And the client checks whether the contract is the same for any transaction?
277 2011-06-07 12:36:58 <Doc_M> which operators accept non standard tx?
278 2011-06-07 12:37:00 <lizthegrey> so it requires a custom client to generate the transaction, and a custom mining pool operator's bitcoin node to accept
279 2011-06-07 12:37:10 <lizthegrey> doc_m: just eligius as far as major players go
280 2011-06-07 12:37:36 <lizthegrey> there's a wiki page about that
281 2011-06-07 12:40:41 <lizthegrey> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy
282 2011-06-07 12:41:34 <Doc_M> thanks lizthegrey
283 2011-06-07 12:43:10 <iz> arienh4: sorta.. the script is like a contract that says pay this transaction amount to whoever can prove they have the private key associated w/ a specific bitcoin addr
284 2011-06-07 12:43:42 <iz> arienh4: and then the client's wallet.dat has the private key and can claim those bitcoins from that transaction whenever they want
285 2011-06-07 12:44:17 <Doc_M> yikes a json api for bitcoind?
286 2011-06-07 12:44:30 <Doc_M> so much easier to steal wallets then
287 2011-06-07 12:45:21 <iz> Doc_M: that's why it is username/password protected.. i thought of that idea also
288 2011-06-07 12:45:35 <lizthegrey> the problem is weak passwords
289 2011-06-07 12:45:40 <lizthegrey> the correct thing is to only listen on localhost
290 2011-06-07 12:45:43 <lizthegrey> which will suffice for most users
291 2011-06-07 12:45:48 <arienh4> doc_m bitcoind has always had a JSON/RPC interface
292 2011-06-07 12:46:03 <lizthegrey> this is part of the problem with the bitcoin c++ client reference implementation - it's 'everything and the kitchen sink'
293 2011-06-07 12:46:05 <arienh4> the actual bitcoin client does too.
294 2011-06-07 12:46:17 <iz> lizthegrey: well, i was thinking of malicious javascript in webpages that would make request to localhost:8332 >:b
295 2011-06-07 12:46:18 <Doc_M> sorry I meant the bitcoin client
296 2011-06-07 12:46:21 <Doc_M> I am sleepy
297 2011-06-07 12:46:25 <Doc_M> yah liz
298 2011-06-07 12:46:29 <Doc_M> thats scary
299 2011-06-07 12:46:42 <Doc_M> and localhost isn't protected by the normal javascript protections
300 2011-06-07 12:47:04 <luke-jr> lizthegrey: the problem is the password is cleartext in ~/.bitcoin
301 2011-06-07 12:47:05 <arienh4> I thought browsers explicitly disallowed domains to access localhost for this reason
302 2011-06-07 12:47:05 <iz> Doc_M: but an attacker would have to guess both the valid username AND password
303 2011-06-07 12:47:19 <Doc_M> they don't arienh4
304 2011-06-07 12:48:10 <vegard> cool. makes online payment much easier! ;)
305 2011-06-07 12:48:18 <arienh4> doesn't AJAX require the same domain?
306 2011-06-07 12:49:06 <lizthegrey> luke-jr: seems like an easy solution would be to store a hashed/salted pw in ~/.bitcoin rather than plaintext
307 2011-06-07 12:49:24 <luke-jr> lizthegrey: impossible
308 2011-06-07 12:49:39 <arienh4> luke-jr: Why?
309 2011-06-07 12:50:16 <luke-jr> &
310 2011-06-07 12:50:30 <arienh4> Why is that impossible?
311 2011-06-07 12:50:31 <luke-jr> because hashes are irreversible
312 2011-06-07 12:50:34 <arienh4> So?
313 2011-06-07 12:50:49 <arienh4> The server doesn't need to know the password
314 2011-06-07 12:50:51 <luke-jr> actually, I suppose it's possible since bitcoind currently gets the password cleartext over RPC
315 2011-06-07 12:50:56 <arienh4> it only needs to know whether the user knows the password
316 2011-06-07 12:51:05 <luke-jr> but ideally, that should be fixed :P
317 2011-06-07 12:51:27 <lizthegrey> this means you'd have to enter the password manually when using the client part of bitcoin
318 2011-06-07 12:51:36 <gmaxwell> vegard: that load is probably because you getting the initial blockchain.
319 2011-06-07 12:51:36 <luke-jr> arienh4: which it can't unless it knows the password
320 2011-06-07 12:51:38 <lizthegrey> but it would at least mean that the server part of bitcoin wouldn't need to hold onto the password.
321 2011-06-07 12:51:54 <arienh4> wait... we're talking about the password to the server, right?
322 2011-06-07 12:51:56 <iz> arienh4: js does have cross-domain protections for localhost, but there are other browser tricks you can do to get the job done
323 2011-06-07 12:52:04 <lizthegrey> you could still choose to enter the client password and save it to a file
324 2011-06-07 12:52:07 <arienh4> luke-jr: it can verify the password by hashing it
325 2011-06-07 12:52:18 <vegard> gmaxwell: I don't think so. I have it.
326 2011-06-07 12:52:25 <lizthegrey> but that would at least make it more secure in terms of data stored at rest
327 2011-06-07 12:52:25 <luke-jr> arienh4: only as long as the password is sent cleartext for RPC
328 2011-06-07 12:52:28 <luke-jr> which is a bigger problem
329 2011-06-07 12:52:38 <lizthegrey> https support?
330 2011-06-07 12:52:43 <gmaxwell> vegard: hm. odd. thats certantly not a behavior I'm seeing.
331 2011-06-07 12:52:47 <arienh4> that's unavoidable, unless you encrypt all communication with the server
332 2011-06-07 12:52:53 <luke-jr> lizthegrey: https support requires a cert
333 2011-06-07 12:52:54 <arienh4> which would indeed require TLS
334 2011-06-07 12:52:57 <vegard> gmaxwell: 129212 blocks
335 2011-06-07 12:53:05 <arienh4> luke-jr: that's not a big issue
336 2011-06-07 12:53:07 <arienh4> create your own
337 2011-06-07 12:53:14 <luke-jr> arienh4: MITM can create your own
338 2011-06-07 12:53:18 <lizthegrey> self-signed certs are not that difficult
339 2011-06-07 12:53:22 <arienh4> not if you install the certificate
340 2011-06-07 12:53:24 <lizthegrey> and as long as you record the fingerprint
341 2011-06-07 12:53:27 <arienh4> exactly
342 2011-06-07 12:53:28 <lizthegrey> this is similar to why ssh keys work
343 2011-06-07 12:53:28 <vegard> gmaxwell: and actually, it's not 15% but 25% :-/ (typoed)
344 2011-06-07 12:53:41 <arienh4> and bitcoin itself
345 2011-06-07 12:53:41 <luke-jr> they don't work
346 2011-06-07 12:53:43 <lizthegrey> there's no central infrastructure, you test from a known good machine (e.g. localhost)
347 2011-06-07 12:53:49 <lizthegrey> since you know you won't be mitmed locally
348 2011-06-07 12:53:52 <arienh4> luke-jr: Only if you use it badly
349 2011-06-07 12:53:55 <lizthegrey> and then you can connect remotely and remember the cert.
350 2011-06-07 12:54:00 <luke-jr> arienh4: which 99% of people do
351 2011-06-07 12:54:05 <lizthegrey> I trust myself to remember my ssh keys.
352 2011-06-07 12:54:09 <arienh4> luke-jr: not if the software doesn't allow it
353 2011-06-07 12:54:17 <arienh4> MITM can't change the fingerprint
354 2011-06-07 12:54:17 <luke-jr> arienh4: all software allows it
355 2011-06-07 12:54:26 <gmaxwell> vegard: with ~1000 connections (modified client) I was only seeing a couple percent load on average.
356 2011-06-07 12:54:30 <lizthegrey> this is already a problem with ssh, so *shrug*
357 2011-06-07 12:54:33 <arienh4> any SSH client throws a big warning if it doesn't recognise the fingerprint
358 2011-06-07 12:54:38 <lizthegrey> some people use ssh properly, some people don't.
359 2011-06-07 12:54:45 <arienh4> if they ignore it, they're on their own
360 2011-06-07 12:54:52 <iz> lol
361 2011-06-07 12:54:52 <lizthegrey> the point is that right now people who care about security don't have a choice
362 2011-06-07 12:54:55 <luke-jr> arienh4: virtually everyone ignores it
363 2011-06-07 12:54:56 <lizthegrey> because passwords are stored plaintext
364 2011-06-07 12:55:02 <lizthegrey> and transmitted in cleartext
365 2011-06-07 12:55:04 <iz> ppl aren't using bitcoin's json rpc the way they use ssh
366 2011-06-07 12:55:10 <gmaxwell> arienh4: Bad design. 99.99% of everyone ignores it, even clueful people. Clueless people have no hope
367 2011-06-07 12:55:18 <lizthegrey> yes, there will be people who fuck up, but it's their fault
368 2011-06-07 12:55:39 <iz> no, i mean from a functional viewpoint.. not from a security point of view
369 2011-06-07 12:55:49 <gmaxwell> It's not acceptable to take a "your fault" position when you know in advance that just about everyone will screw up.
370 2011-06-07 12:55:54 <lizthegrey> I'd rather first implement something that gives people who care about security the ability to act securely and then worry about how to make it usable by other people
371 2011-06-07 12:56:02 <lizthegrey> right now EVERYONE IS SCREWING UP is my point
372 2011-06-07 12:56:10 <lizthegrey> if we can make it better
373 2011-06-07 12:56:12 <iz> are they?
374 2011-06-07 12:56:12 <lizthegrey> why don't we?
375 2011-06-07 12:56:24 <iz> or are you trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist?
376 2011-06-07 12:56:26 <lizthegrey> yes. plaintext passwords, stored on disk, transmitted in cleartext
377 2011-06-07 12:56:36 <iz> over localhost
378 2011-06-07 12:56:42 <lizthegrey> granted, bitcoind defaults to only listening on localhost
379 2011-06-07 12:56:48 <iz> not over the public internet
380 2011-06-07 12:56:54 <gmaxwell> As iz says.
381 2011-06-07 12:57:05 <lizthegrey> but the point is, you still shouldn't be storing plaintext passwords.
382 2011-06-07 12:57:27 <lizthegrey> or at least, you should store hashes, and leave it up to the user whether to store the plaintext corresponding to the hash
383 2011-06-07 12:57:28 <iz> pretend they are hashed then :b
384 2011-06-07 12:57:32 <iz> what does it matter?
385 2011-06-07 12:57:49 <gmaxwell> lizthegrey: and you've just made it a pain to configure for what gain?
386 2011-06-07 12:58:05 <Doc_M> people will store plaintext passwords
387 2011-06-07 12:58:17 <Doc_M> beause we have to have so many passwords its impossible to remember them all
388 2011-06-07 12:58:42 <Diablo-D3> [10:04:52] <Graet> Diablo-D3 a guy tring to join my pool is failing - he's the only one so far , can you see a reaon in this "Diablo i have: ./DiabloMiner-OSX.sh -u yazi.mpb -p root -o ozco.in -r 8332 BFI_INT" that would stop him connecting?
389 2011-06-07 12:58:51 <gmaxwell> The bitcoin is so far from having _this_ be its biggest problem rightnow&
390 2011-06-07 12:58:56 <Diablo-D3> Graet: why would he think BFI_INT is a valid argument?
391 2011-06-07 12:59:22 <Graet> its ok
392 2011-06-07 12:59:33 <Graet> it was pebkac
393 2011-06-07 12:59:42 <Diablo-D3> its always pebkac
394 2011-06-07 12:59:53 <Diablo-D3> makes me wonder why I keep coding, honestly
395 2011-06-07 12:59:53 <Graet> but i could ask him, like i said never used mac or your program
396 2011-06-07 13:00:09 <Graet> sorry to disturb man :/
397 2011-06-07 13:00:23 <Graet> sm y instead of cap on user :S
398 2011-06-07 13:00:58 <xelister> I paid Diablo-D3 400 usd
399 2011-06-07 13:01:33 <xelister> as 20 btc... ~4 weeks ago.. ~~~:->~~~ problem?
400 2011-06-07 13:02:57 <falafell> does the official .22 client have export import option for keys?
401 2011-06-07 13:03:17 <sixteen> Hi! How is the message saying "Hey! I just mined this block!" to the bitcoin network called in the bitcoin "spec"?
402 2011-06-07 13:04:03 <sixteen> Hi! How is the message saying to the bitcoin network: "Hey! I just mined this block!", called in the bitcoin "spec"?
403 2011-06-07 13:04:05 <lizthegrey> sixteen: it's a special case of getwork
404 2011-06-07 13:04:07 <falafell> sixteen, i think it's just sent to other nodes, and the block is either valid or invalid
405 2011-06-07 13:04:23 <lizthegrey> wait, from the miner to the bitcoind, or bitcoind to rest of network?
406 2011-06-07 13:04:42 <devon_hillard> something strange, catalyst control center no longer works, I didn't uninstall it or touched it in any way
407 2011-06-07 13:04:50 <devon_hillard> clistart.exe doesn't do anything
408 2011-06-07 13:04:57 <JFK911> stop mining
409 2011-06-07 13:04:57 <sixteen> lizthegrey: latter
410 2011-06-07 13:05:29 <devon_hillard> ah, mining stopped made it work again
411 2011-06-07 13:05:37 <devon_hillard> strange because it used to work with the miner active
412 2011-06-07 13:05:38 <user102> http://www.karachan.org/$/src/130739222619.png  <-  stealing money from bitcoin pools
413 2011-06-07 13:06:21 <sixteen> falafell: Yes, that's what I'm asking.
414 2011-06-07 13:06:30 <JFK911> user102: good luck making that work
415 2011-06-07 13:06:33 <iz> sixteen: it basically says "hey, here's the block i found"
416 2011-06-07 13:06:51 <JFK911> user102: you're about as smart as the noobs who tried that last year, without reading about why it won't work
417 2011-06-07 13:06:58 <iz> you can't cheat it
418 2011-06-07 13:06:58 <JFK911> congrats on wheel reinvention and your failure.
419 2011-06-07 13:06:58 <user102> it's not me
420 2011-06-07 13:07:23 <BlueMatt> JFK911: you can do the pool switching attack though
421 2011-06-07 13:07:27 <sixteen> iz: yeah, and what other information are transmitted?
422 2011-06-07 13:07:34 <Doc_M> pool switching isn't an attack
423 2011-06-07 13:07:39 <BlueMatt> sort of
424 2011-06-07 13:07:42 <BlueMatt> you get more money
425 2011-06-07 13:07:52 <gmaxwell> JFK911: hey, well, not returning it does hurt the pool though. Doesn't help you&
426 2011-06-07 13:07:59 <iz> sixteen: the block it found.. the proof of work for it and the block header
427 2011-06-07 13:07:59 <sixteen> iz: for example I presume that the found block is signed, right?
428 2011-06-07 13:08:37 <iz> sixteen: why would it need to be signed?
429 2011-06-07 13:08:38 <JFK911> right
430 2011-06-07 13:08:43 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Normally I'd say it's an attack if it only gets you more money if everyone else doesn't also do it.
431 2011-06-07 13:09:00 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: and since no one is doing it atm, it gets you more money
432 2011-06-07 13:09:08 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: this has the somewhat paradoxical result that speeding up your sha256 kernel is 'an attack'.
433 2011-06-07 13:09:37 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: oh people are doing it ATM, but yes I agree its an attack.
434 2011-06-07 13:09:39 <BlueMatt> I wouldnt call that an attack as it benifits both you and everyone else
435 2011-06-07 13:09:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: not once the difficulty changes! :)
436 2011-06-07 13:10:06 <BlueMatt> well, not the majority it would require for it to lose value
437 2011-06-07 13:10:16 <sixteen> iz: how does the bitcoin network say "Oh right! That's indeed a valid block! It was found by X!"? How does it find out "X" if it's just the proof of work and the block header?
438 2011-06-07 13:10:28 <gmaxwell> Doc_M: he was talking about my kernel speedup comment.
439 2011-06-07 13:10:38 <Doc_M> part of the block header is the addy of the hasher
440 2011-06-07 13:10:46 <gmaxwell> ...
441 2011-06-07 13:10:47 <Doc_M> ah, got yah gm
442 2011-06-07 13:10:54 <gmaxwell> sixteen: It doesn't.
443 2011-06-07 13:11:13 <sixteen> [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Block_Headers we are talking about this block header, I suppose]
444 2011-06-07 13:11:15 <gmaxwell> Doc_M: no it's not, part of the block body includes a txn to pay someone however.
445 2011-06-07 13:11:32 <iz> sixteen: so there aren't actually any bitcoins.. it's all just transactions between accounts, stored in blocks.. when a block is "solved", it secures all the transactions in that block
446 2011-06-07 13:11:47 <Doc_M> ok, what GM said is more accurate
447 2011-06-07 13:11:48 <sixteen> oh and part of those transactions is the payment for the miner.
448 2011-06-07 13:11:53 <Doc_M> however the block body is hashed
449 2011-06-07 13:12:03 <Doc_M> and that has is part of the block header
450 2011-06-07 13:12:03 <gmaxwell> sixteen: Right.
451 2011-06-07 13:12:05 <iz> sixteen: and the p2p network has an agreement that anyone who solves a block is allowed to reward their account a 50 btc unbalanced transaction.. as a reward
452 2011-06-07 13:12:11 <sixteen> Oh great, got it!
453 2011-06-07 13:12:17 <Doc_M> am I correct?
454 2011-06-07 13:12:17 <gmaxwell> user102: where did you find that screenshot?
455 2011-06-07 13:12:34 <Doc_M> or is it just the merkle root thats hashed?
456 2011-06-07 13:12:47 <sixteen> I was wondering what one could do if one could MITM the "Oh! Block found" message.
457 2011-06-07 13:12:59 <sixteen> Seems like nothing.
458 2011-06-07 13:13:03 <gmaxwell> Doc_M: the merkle root hashes the txn in the body. (it's arranged so you don't have to keep all the txn themselves)
459 2011-06-07 13:13:03 <user102> gmaxwell: http://www.karachan.org/$/res/2967.html
460 2011-06-07 13:13:14 <iz> sixteen: nope, because the transaction that pays out the solved block is inside that block
461 2011-06-07 13:13:16 <gmaxwell> sixteen: Right. Nothing.
462 2011-06-07 13:13:18 <sixteen> yeah
463 2011-06-07 13:13:25 <iz> to mitm and change the account.. they would have to redo the proof of work
464 2011-06-07 13:13:30 <sixteen> exactly
465 2011-06-07 13:13:35 <sixteen> thank you guys, you've been most helpful!
466 2011-06-07 13:13:49 <Doc_M> thats what I was trying to say iz
467 2011-06-07 13:13:52 <Doc_M> badly
468 2011-06-07 13:58:07 <gmaxwell> oh, users&
469 2011-06-07 13:58:08 <gmaxwell> <Cube`> Skaag: what speed?
470 2011-06-07 14:03:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: happens all the time
471 2011-06-07 14:03:33 <sipa> one more reason why the gui option for generation had to go
472 2011-06-07 14:04:18 <jgarzik> morning all
473 2011-06-07 14:04:31 <jgarzik> just checking in, prior to CBS live panel discussion on bitcoin
474 2011-06-07 14:04:39 <jgarzik> are we still having IRC server problems?
475 2011-06-07 14:05:49 <BlueMatt> we were having irc server problems?
476 2011-06-07 14:06:05 <BlueMatt> also, is there an internet live stream we can watch?
477 2011-06-07 14:06:42 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: last night the IRC server was refusing connections, and gmaxwell thought Verizon might be blocking it
478 2011-06-07 14:06:47 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: is it up?
479 2011-06-07 14:06:54 <sipa> jgarzik: just confirmed that v0.3.22 works with -nolisten -noirc -dnsseed, and empty addr.dat
480 2011-06-07 14:07:02 <BlueMatt> it works for me
481 2011-06-07 14:07:11 <jgarzik> but dunno where that link is
482 2011-06-07 14:07:12 <jgarzik> there should be a live stream w/ CBS What's Trending
483 2011-06-07 14:07:17 <BlueMatt> I just connected to lfnet
484 2011-06-07 14:07:22 <jgarzik> sipa: thanks muchly
485 2011-06-07 14:07:26 <sipa> as a matter of fact, i currently have 6 connections with it, online over a tethered edge connection in a train
486 2011-06-07 14:07:35 <jgarzik> good
487 2011-06-07 14:07:55 <jgarzik> when I went to bed, it was worrisome:  IRC down, and it looked like ISPs were blocking it
488 2011-06-07 14:08:22 <BlueMatt> ouch, title looks very much into illegal stuff...oh well you can correct them :)
489 2011-06-07 14:08:23 <lizthegrey> jgarzik: good luck :)
490 2011-06-07 14:08:25 <BlueMatt> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2n
491 2011-06-07 14:08:30 <BlueMatt> stream appears to be working fine
492 2011-06-07 14:08:42 <BlueMatt> http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html?tag=watchnow
493 2011-06-07 14:08:43 <Nicksasa> This is weird. I get this after rebooting my server
494 2011-06-07 14:08:44 <BlueMatt> sorry that one
495 2011-06-07 14:08:44 <Nicksasa> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DbException'
496 2011-06-07 14:08:45 <Nicksasa> what():  Db::get: Cannot allocate memory
497 2011-06-07 14:08:52 <Nicksasa> It's not the wallet file, removed it same thing
498 2011-06-07 14:10:22 <zooko> Haha, it says please upgrade my Adobe flash player. Oh well. Break a leg!
499 2011-06-07 14:10:52 <BlueMatt> damn e3
500 2011-06-07 14:10:55 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: there was a new 0.3.22 thread on the forum... did you see that?  I think it's the same Windows problem.  They are complaining of "problem communicating with RPC server" which is a poclbm error
501 2011-06-07 14:11:13 <BlueMatt> probably
502 2011-06-07 14:11:22 <BlueMatt> currently it doesnt respond, just freezes
503 2011-06-07 14:11:25 <Nicksasa> does anyone know why i get that error atm ?
504 2011-06-07 14:11:34 <BlueMatt> so Id assume its timing out and complaining
505 2011-06-07 14:11:36 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: if you could respond on forum, that would be helpful
506 2011-06-07 14:11:40 <BlueMatt> will do
507 2011-06-07 14:11:54 <zooko> If you install flash and watch videos, Chinese privateers will exploit the bugs in flash and steal all your ??.
508 2011-06-07 14:11:58 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: trying to push back on perception that 0.3.22 is totally broken (answer: no, just for weirdos who mine on Windows :))
509 2011-06-07 14:11:58 <zooko> Just say no.
510 2011-06-07 14:12:28 <diki> bluematt:i was able to mine a block at current diff with 290 mhash/s
511 2011-06-07 14:12:39 <BlueMatt> diki: on windows?
512 2011-06-07 14:12:42 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: "We" may not be the server at 92.243.23.21 is back up
513 2011-06-07 14:12:43 <BlueMatt> on 0.3.22?
514 2011-06-07 14:12:43 <diki> yes
515 2011-06-07 14:12:46 <diki> no
516 2011-06-07 14:12:50 <diki> 0.3.21
517 2011-06-07 14:12:53 <BlueMatt> read next time then
518 2011-06-07 14:12:58 <diki> info?
519 2011-06-07 14:13:05 <gmaxwell> Verizon is still blocking all lfnet addresses for me and one other place on their network I was able to try.
520 2011-06-07 14:13:28 <jgarzik> somebody should open a ticket
521 2011-06-07 14:13:33 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: can you do that?
522 2011-06-07 14:14:05 <diki> still, i did mine a block