1 2011-06-15 00:00:05 <Zarutian> a few could keep blocks permantly and offer a service to retrive and give back blocks or txns given the hash of foresaid. (For a small fee of course)
  2 2011-06-15 00:01:40 <muffinz> ;;bc,stats
  3 2011-06-15 00:01:42 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130890 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 149 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 15 hours, 6 minutes, and 25 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 858633.54454489
  4 2011-06-15 00:01:43 <Zarutian> or instead of few, all nodes can keep few blocks DistributedHashTable style (like kadmlia, pastry and other such p2p protocols do it)
  5 2011-06-15 00:02:56 <Zarutian> in the last case, when a miner has mined a block it lets other miners know plus the bitcoin nodes that host that part of the DHT
  6 2011-06-15 00:04:15 <Zarutian> common, gimme some critism on these proposals.
  7 2011-06-15 00:07:27 <lfm> Zarutian: they suck
  8 2011-06-15 00:08:17 <ericmock> lfm:  you aren't common ;-)
  9 2011-06-15 00:08:32 <lfm> well he asked
 10 2011-06-15 00:09:07 <ericmock> and the joke zooms off into space...
 11 2011-06-15 00:10:13 <lfm> Zarutian: there has been lots of discusion how exactly to implement a pruned block chain. The main stumbling point is as you may have figgured how old client will start up without seeing the whole block chain to verify it.
 12 2011-06-15 00:10:19 <Zarutian> lfm: sure but in which ways and can you (all) improve upon them or post some better ideas.
 13 2011-06-15 00:11:24 <lfm> Zarutian: my position has been mostly we dont need to prune yet and maybe never
 14 2011-06-15 00:12:09 <Zarutian> lfm: old client can ask the hash of the newest block, as an archiver for that block and so on recursively until it comes across a hash of a block it knows.
 15 2011-06-15 00:13:04 <lfm> Zarutian: but if it is only connected to new nodes they wont have all those block any more
 16 2011-06-15 00:13:29 <Zarutian> lfm: s/as an/ask an/
 17 2011-06-15 00:13:31 <lfm> or at least wont have all the txn for them
 18 2011-06-15 00:14:47 <Zarutian> I am not talking about that all nodes should prune but most. The others can archive all the blocks.
 19 2011-06-15 00:14:59 <lfm> do you have separate ports and connections or just flags for new type nodes so a node trying to set up a full dblock chain knows who to ask
 20 2011-06-15 00:15:33 <Zarutian> thinking about just adding flags
 21 2011-06-15 00:15:51 <lfm> Zarutian: but when a node just starts bitcoin it connects to some random nodes, maybe none of em are "acrhivers"?
 22 2011-06-15 00:15:56 <Zarutian> the portspace is crowded as it is.
 23 2011-06-15 00:16:25 <Zarutian> some of them knows one or a node that knows one.
 24 2011-06-15 00:16:44 <ericmock> seed boxes
 25 2011-06-15 00:17:17 <lfm> ok so you are modifying the protocol but an old client doesnt know a new protocol
 26 2011-06-15 00:17:18 <Zarutian> but I am frankly more intrested in the DHT solution
 27 2011-06-15 00:17:37 <Zarutian> lfm: sucks as the protocol will invariably change.
 28 2011-06-15 00:17:54 <lfm> doesnt need to, works now, should keep working
 29 2011-06-15 00:18:11 <Zarutian> "everything flows" said some ancient king
 30 2011-06-15 00:18:21 <lfm> make it upward compatible if you need to change it
 31 2011-06-15 00:19:08 <Zarutian> hmm... an archiver would work as current bitcoin nodes work today
 32 2011-06-15 00:19:51 <lfm> Zarutian: remember no one is king here. you have to c0onvince EVRYONE to change if you want to make change like that and you just as likely to make splits as change at some point
 33 2011-06-15 00:20:18 <Zarutian> the new pruning nodes would say that they prune
 34 2011-06-15 00:20:53 <lfm> sounds like an old client shouldnt really connect to your new one at all to me
 35 2011-06-15 00:21:22 <Zarutian> lfm: the only people, now mind you, I need to convince are the official bitcoin node software developers. (The ones that write the bitcoin node software aviable at bitcoin.org)
 36 2011-06-15 00:21:41 <lfm> Zarutian: their is nothing in the old protocol to say "I have pruned"
 37 2011-06-15 00:22:12 <lfm> Zarutian: nope, you need to convince the miners to run new software
 38 2011-06-15 00:23:02 <Zarutian> lfm: there is however the option to ignore "I heard about new transaction <hash of txn>" and "I heard about new block <hash of block>"
 39 2011-06-15 00:23:42 <Zarutian> which is part of the gossiping done by current bitcoin nodes iirc.
 40 2011-06-15 00:24:16 <lfm> if you ignore those you cant stay up to date. you mean not advertize those
 41 2011-06-15 00:24:41 <Zarutian> yes that would be better
 42 2011-06-15 00:24:57 <ZOP> Zarutian: actually, there's at least one other client implementation i'm aware of.  and i'm not allt hat well informed.
 43 2011-06-15 00:25:08 <graingert> ZOP: the java one?
 44 2011-06-15 00:25:20 <ZOP> graingert: oh, two then :)
 45 2011-06-15 00:25:37 <slush2> hello, I have many network interfaces on computer. How to tell to bitcoin, which want to use for 8333?
 46 2011-06-15 00:25:45 <lfm> there are some minor forks of the standard client
 47 2011-06-15 00:25:50 <Zarutian> ZOP: I am curious to hear about that client.
 48 2011-06-15 00:26:00 <graingert> ZOP: what is the other one?
 49 2011-06-15 00:26:09 <slush2> jgarzik: ^ ?
 50 2011-06-15 00:26:18 <ZOP> graingert: luke-jr and...whatishis face gajinx(?) Spesmilo
 51 2011-06-15 00:26:31 <ZOP> http://gitorious.org/bitcoin/spesmilo\n1061772
 52 2011-06-15 00:26:38 <ZOP> woops stray  there
 53 2011-06-15 00:26:52 <lfm> you mean the gui front end that still runs bitcoind in background?
 54 2011-06-15 00:27:15 <ZOP> i thought they forked bitcoind though
 55 2011-06-15 00:27:16 <jgarzik> slush2: that is a linux question, not a bitcoin question
 56 2011-06-15 00:27:19 <ZOP> not sure truth be told.
 57 2011-06-15 00:27:24 <Zarutian> well at least, for those who dont want to spend much diskspace on keeping the whole blockchain, there is the DHT option.
 58 2011-06-15 00:27:54 <upb> if the client doesnt support binding to an ip you cant do it
 59 2011-06-15 00:28:21 <lfm> theoretical as far as I know. I guess it would be a protocol change too
 60 2011-06-15 00:28:38 <ZOP> Yeah I think the client is either 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0, no way to tell it any different.
 61 2011-06-15 00:28:44 <graingert> Zarutian: that's fairly cool, what's that?
 62 2011-06-15 00:29:37 <Zarutian> graingert: Distributed HashTable, kadmlia and choord are the two protocols that implement such that come to mind
 63 2011-06-15 00:29:59 <slush2> jgarzik: well, it is pretty usual to have binding configuration directly in application, but well, I'll try to setup it somehow
 64 2011-06-15 00:30:32 <slush2> jgarzik: I care only about outgoing connections, incoming is clear
 65 2011-06-15 00:30:40 <Zarutian> graingert: afaik the bitcoin node software doesnt care where you store its block chain and I think DHT is perfect match for this kind of thing.
 66 2011-06-15 00:31:07 <genewitch> Can you point a pool at another pool?
 67 2011-06-15 00:31:32 <lfm> genewitch: theoreticly you could
 68 2011-06-15 00:31:36 <doublec> genewitch: yes
 69 2011-06-15 00:31:41 <doublec> genewitch: there are 'metapools' around
 70 2011-06-15 00:31:53 <genewitch> hm
 71 2011-06-15 00:31:56 <doublec> genewitch: that send on to another pool
 72 2011-06-15 00:32:07 <genewitch> yeah, and one bitcoind gets everything
 73 2011-06-15 00:32:36 <jgarzik> slush2: outgoing is OS, as I just mentioned
 74 2011-06-15 00:32:43 <Zarutian> lfm: you are starting to remind me of a physics theorist that was so theoritical that it affected experiments, his name escapes me at the moment
 75 2011-06-15 00:32:45 <slush2> ok
 76 2011-06-15 00:32:46 <jgarzik> slush2: your OS decides which interface for outgoing packets
 77 2011-06-15 00:33:19 <genewitch> Zarutian: your explaination only works in theory
 78 2011-06-15 00:33:27 <graingert> jgarzik: I believe you  can choose that
 79 2011-06-15 00:33:48 <Zarutian> graingert: which can be run orthogonally to bitcoin.
 80 2011-06-15 00:34:09 <Zarutian> genewitch: which one?
 81 2011-06-15 00:42:35 <BladeMcCool> i am curious about the block chain, solving the latest block, and new transactions. if new transactions are constantly being added into the block that needs to be solved, doesnt that make finding the winning nonce a moving target ? or am i missing something
 82 2011-06-15 00:43:23 <mtrlt> yea the block header constantly changes.
 83 2011-06-15 00:43:36 <mtrlt> the block.
 84 2011-06-15 00:43:38 <mtrlt> changes.
 85 2011-06-15 00:43:57 <mtrlt> it doesn't matter because mining is a random search anyway :p
 86 2011-06-15 00:44:09 <BladeMcCool> ok
 87 2011-06-15 00:44:12 <BladeMcCool> ty for info
 88 2011-06-15 00:49:23 <MC1984> @sweis
 89 2011-06-15 00:49:25 <MC1984> @benadida I wouldn't be
 90 2011-06-15 00:49:29 <MC1984> jacob again lol
 91 2011-06-15 00:58:37 <genewitch> ;;bc,stats
 92 2011-06-15 00:58:38 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130900 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 139 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 13 hours, 54 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 859399.30916321
 93 2011-06-15 00:58:50 <genewitch> oh jeez
 94 2011-06-15 00:58:58 <genewitch> 13 hours till the price goes back up to $30
 95 2011-06-15 00:59:02 <genewitch> buy your shares folks
 96 2011-06-15 01:01:07 <AnotherBrian> hi everyone
 97 2011-06-15 01:01:33 <dissipate> hi
 98 2011-06-15 01:01:45 <thallium205> hi
 99 2011-06-15 01:01:53 <dissipate> genewitch, for what reason?
100 2011-06-15 01:02:46 <thallium205> im pretty sure there is no way to predict the perceived value of thousands of users 13 hours from now given difficulty stats
101 2011-06-15 01:03:11 <phantomcircuit> wat
102 2011-06-15 01:03:35 <thallium205> the perceived value btc will have 13 hours from now to lots of people*
103 2011-06-15 01:03:47 <cacheson> thallium205: but what about the power of wishful thinking?  ;)
104 2011-06-15 01:03:53 <thallium205> :P
105 2011-06-15 01:04:25 <phantomcircuit> thallium205, replace btc with anything else
106 2011-06-15 01:05:48 <dissipate> sounds like a pump and dump might be in the pipeline
107 2011-06-15 01:05:51 <dissipate> brace for more mania
108 2011-06-15 01:09:29 <theymos> Does anyone know how I would check to see if the forum's server is slow because of a "bad" network? CPU/memory/IO seems fine, so maybe that's the cause.
109 2011-06-15 01:11:18 <genewitch> theymos: pingplotter from multiple locations
110 2011-06-15 01:11:26 <genewitch> theymos: i can provide Los Angeles, CA and Virginia
111 2011-06-15 01:11:32 <theymos> Pings seem to be fine.
112 2011-06-15 01:11:49 <genewitch> well that would tell you network dropouts and stuff
113 2011-06-15 01:11:59 <genewitch> theymos: what about caching?
114 2011-06-15 01:12:27 <genewitch> or multiple servers with something like HAproxy
115 2011-06-15 01:12:28 <theymos> It's just a slow when serving static files, so that wouldn't help in this case.
116 2011-06-15 01:12:35 <theymos> just as slow*
117 2011-06-15 01:13:04 <genewitch> theymos: and you're not saturating the connection?
118 2011-06-15 01:13:45 <theymos> I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out. I don't know how to measure that.
119 2011-06-15 01:17:22 <genewitch> theymos: what are you hosting it on?
120 2011-06-15 01:17:32 <genewitch> theymos: you can PM me if you're concerned about security
121 2011-06-15 01:18:00 <theymos> I believe it is a VPS. I don't know the details.
122 2011-06-15 01:19:35 <mrb_> theymos: random disk I/O bottleneck maybe?
123 2011-06-15 01:19:40 <mrb_> check the 'wa' time in vmstat
124 2011-06-15 01:19:51 <genewitch> theymos: those sort of suck for high traffic sites, but you should still have a SLA that tells you the bandwidth you have access to, and if you can log in to a shell you can run ntop or other utils to see network utilization
125 2011-06-15 01:20:04 <mrb_> how did you check "IO"?
126 2011-06-15 01:20:08 <CIA-90> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r48ead4a6a233 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/viewratingdetail.php: OTCWebsite: missed an htmlentities. http://tinyurl.com/3qlqden
127 2011-06-15 01:20:09 <CIA-90> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * ra53ee1926ba2 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/viewgpg.php: OTCWebsite: missed htmlentities... http://tinyurl.com/3vu3asl
128 2011-06-15 01:20:13 <theymos> mrb_: It's usually less than 5.
129 2011-06-15 01:20:27 <theymos> I checked the wait time percentage in top.
130 2011-06-15 01:20:29 <mrb_> try iostat -x 1 and look at %util
131 2011-06-15 01:21:36 <theymos> Usually less than 15. Often 0.
132 2011-06-15 01:22:28 <mrb_> hmm. at the same time the forum is not super slow at this moment. so too late to diagnose...
133 2011-06-15 01:22:59 <mrb_> I'd leave iostat -x 5 running in a terminal for a while, and come back to it later
134 2011-06-15 01:23:20 <theymos> I looked at iostat when it was extremely slow, and the result was the same.
135 2011-06-15 01:23:37 <mrb_> ah.
136 2011-06-15 01:24:17 <genewitch> it feels like network, theymos
137 2011-06-15 01:24:42 <genewitch> i can trace the connection, let me grab a utility
138 2011-06-15 01:25:18 <mrb_> then it's either network contention. or some software lock contention in the php/web stack
139 2011-06-15 01:25:29 <mrb_> or mysql stack
140 2011-06-15 01:25:38 <mrb_> or whatever else the server runs
141 2011-06-15 01:25:54 <genewitch> sql has a health check, right?
142 2011-06-15 01:26:10 <genewitch> status thing
143 2011-06-15 01:28:48 <jgarzik> theymos: what's the status on moving the forums to another domain?
144 2011-06-15 01:29:24 <theymos> I don't like the idea, so I'm not going to do it. Sirius can do it if he wants.
145 2011-06-15 01:31:40 <jgarzik> rather unilateral, for a decentralized project
146 2011-06-15 01:31:56 <genewitch> hey someone holler at me if the forums get slow again i have everything set up to see where it's slow
147 2011-06-15 01:32:10 <jgarzik> particularly when so many are in favor of it
148 2011-06-15 01:32:34 <theymos> genewitch: OK, I'll tell you. It happens pretty often, so maybe it won't be too long.
149 2011-06-15 01:33:00 <genewitch> it hauls ass on links, for the record
150 2011-06-15 01:33:43 <genewitch> jgarzik: decentralized web server?
151 2011-06-15 01:35:11 <jgarzik> genewitch: no, pretty much the entire dev team, major pool operators, major exchange ops, and lots of users think the forums have become a ghetto, and are becoming an embarrassment to the bitcoin project
152 2011-06-15 01:35:25 <jgarzik> one person disagrees
153 2011-06-15 01:35:37 <genewitch> jgarzik: ask moot to make a /bc/ topic
154 2011-06-15 01:35:44 <jgarzik> rofl
155 2011-06-15 01:36:17 <genewitch> i only see the dev forums and the pool forums sometimes, so i don't see the ghetto.
156 2011-06-15 01:36:51 <genewitch> jgarzik: so the dev team and pool operators want a seperate more professional forum?
157 2011-06-15 01:37:23 <jgarzik> genewitch: a more professional forum, yes, but more importantly stop presenting the current forum as "The Official Bitcoin Project Forum"
158 2011-06-15 01:37:46 <jgarzik> which it's not, with so many major peeps abandoning it
159 2011-06-15 01:37:56 <theymos> I'm in support of not presenting it as the official forum. I just don't want to move it from bitcoin.org.
160 2011-06-15 01:38:10 <jgarzik> theymos: anything on bitcoin.org is clearly official
161 2011-06-15 01:38:31 <theymos> Let's change that perception.
162 2011-06-15 01:38:45 <genewitch> jgarzik: you want the "good" forums on forum.bitcoin.org and the current forums on a different domain?
163 2011-06-15 01:38:52 <jgarzik> theymos: show me _one_ other person who actually thinks that is possible.  just one.
164 2011-06-15 01:39:08 <theymos> I'm sure I could find someone if I asked around.
165 2011-06-15 01:39:23 <jgarzik> bitcoin.org was started by satoshi, and it's all over the print media, online media, search engines and ... duh .. it matches the project's name.
166 2011-06-15 01:39:27 <genewitch> does that mean like drop database and start over with forum.bitcoin.org?
167 2011-06-15 01:39:31 <jgarzik> nobody thinks that is realistic
168 2011-06-15 01:39:35 <jgarzik> genewitch: no!
169 2011-06-15 01:39:38 <theymos> The weusecoins guy reacted positively to my idea.
170 2011-06-15 01:39:40 <cacheson> theymos: people are naturally going to assume that subdomains of bitcoin are official, there's nothing you can really do about that
171 2011-06-15 01:39:51 <cacheson> er, subdomains of bitcoin.org
172 2011-06-15 01:40:03 <CIA-90> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r4f18b1464c3e supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/ (vieworder.php vieworderbook.php): OTCWebsite: more missed htmlentities http://tinyurl.com/6kmav32
173 2011-06-15 01:40:05 <CIA-90> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * rfeaf80c10d55 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/vieworderbook.php: OTCWebsite: typo fix http://tinyurl.com/675n4nq
174 2011-06-15 01:40:06 <CIA-90> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r01bca550cf0c supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/vieworderbook.php: OTCWebsite: fix bad typo fix. that's what i get for pushing out without testing. http://tinyurl.com/6yg8c7c
175 2011-06-15 01:40:08 <jgarzik> genewitch: no one is proposing deleting or turning off anything
176 2011-06-15 01:40:13 <jgarzik> genewitch: just moving away from *.bitcoin.org
177 2011-06-15 01:40:19 <theymos> Not very "decentralized" of you to demand that any website be "official" at all. I argue that there should be no official websites.
178 2011-06-15 01:40:29 <genewitch> except mine
179 2011-06-15 01:40:31 <genewitch> mine is official
180 2011-06-15 01:40:33 <jgarzik> theymos: then let's not have -any- forum on bitcoin.org
181 2011-06-15 01:41:10 <jgarzik> theymos: ceasing use of bitcoin.org would be fine
182 2011-06-15 01:41:20 <genewitch> jgarzik: the wiki can link to forums for bitcoin users
183 2011-06-15 01:41:35 <jgarzik> theymos: you cannot have it both ways.   if you truly want "no official websites" then let's stop using bitcoin.org altogether.
184 2011-06-15 01:41:39 <genewitch> hey you guys remember webrings? we should bring that back.
185 2011-06-15 01:41:48 <thallium205> hahaha
186 2011-06-15 01:42:17 <upb> <@jgarzik> slush2: your OS decides which interface for outgoing packets <- thats only partially true. in linux you can do it with source routing but if the software has no way to specifiy the source address you rule out that opportunity
187 2011-06-15 01:42:20 <theymos> Why is bitcoin.org necessarily official? It's not linked anywhere in the program. No development takes place there. No developers own it.
188 2011-06-15 01:42:36 <cacheson> genewitch: for stuff like "my super-awesome geocities bitcoin homepage"?  ;)
189 2011-06-15 01:42:36 <genewitch> upb: it's an OSI layer thing
190 2011-06-15 01:42:50 <gjs278> I'm highly opposed to how crappy bitcoin.org is
191 2011-06-15 01:42:51 <genewitch> cacheson: exactly
192 2011-06-15 01:42:54 <mrb_> one more thing to consider is that using different domains makes it (a bit) harder for a government to go through the redtape to block access to all domains
193 2011-06-15 01:42:56 <gjs278> I was very vocal about this like two months ago
194 2011-06-15 01:43:08 <luke-jr> jgarzik: bitcoin.org doesn't have any claim of "official" IMO
195 2011-06-15 01:43:21 <theymos> Ha! There's one person who agrees with me. :)
196 2011-06-15 01:43:22 <mrb_> (thinking of The Great Firewall and other repressive countries)
197 2011-06-15 01:43:24 <gjs278> it's the title of our channel
198 2011-06-15 01:43:24 <luke-jr> theymos: the program isn't official either
199 2011-06-15 01:43:30 <gjs278> if it's not official take it out
200 2011-06-15 01:43:32 <cacheson> theymos: eh, bitcoin.org is a decent place for the mainline client
201 2011-06-15 01:43:41 <cacheson> theymos: it's like getting openoffice from openoffice.org, etc.
202 2011-06-15 01:43:52 <genewitch> luke-jr: maybe not "officially" if you'll pardon me for a second here but as mentioned when someone mentions bitcoin in the media it references bitcoin.org, hence it becomes the defacto official server.
203 2011-06-15 01:43:55 <luke-jr> IMO, bitcoin.org should be like weusecoins.com
204 2011-06-15 01:44:08 <jgarzik> should be... but isn't
205 2011-06-15 01:44:20 <theymos> luke-jr: That's exactly my position.
206 2011-06-15 01:44:21 <jgarzik> luke-jr: I would be fine with that
207 2011-06-15 01:44:29 <jgarzik> luke-jr: as long as the forums aren't on there
208 2011-06-15 01:44:51 <luke-jr> if you guys don't think a forum is appropriate, I'd be welcome to have something on bitgit.org (or whatever TLD I ended up with)
209 2011-06-15 01:44:52 <thallium205> bittorrent is highly decentralized, but there still exists bittorrent.com (and it has community forums)
210 2011-06-15 01:45:04 <genewitch> can't the devs and powerusers switch to a bugzilla/regular forum format and let the community host the user forums?
211 2011-06-15 01:45:04 <jgarzik> there is not a single forum linked on weusecoins.com
212 2011-06-15 01:45:11 <gjs278> bittorrent.com is nowhere near as official as bitcoin.org tries to be
213 2011-06-15 01:45:12 <upb> genewitch: sure its an OSI 'layer thing' :D
214 2011-06-15 01:45:18 <luke-jr> which I had planned to be a hosting site for Bitcoin-related projects (incl bug tracker, git, etc)
215 2011-06-15 01:45:22 <gjs278> but that's due to there being hundreds of clients
216 2011-06-15 01:45:36 <upb> genewitch: i'm arguing that bind()ing the outgoing socket is a prerequisite of doing source routing
217 2011-06-15 01:45:44 <luke-jr> gjs278: forums in general are irregular
218 2011-06-15 01:46:03 <gjs278> they are
219 2011-06-15 01:46:30 <genewitch> basically what i am hearing here is that we wish there were an opensource way for people to collaborate and ask questions on the internet semi anonymously?
220 2011-06-15 01:46:32 <jgarzik> luke-jr: so you actively support illegal activity?
221 2011-06-15 01:46:33 <gjs278> if bitcoin.org is the officlal website, it should be in a public repo the same as the "official client"
222 2011-06-15 01:46:40 <genewitch> Where nodes could come on and drop off and not really affect the whole?
223 2011-06-15 01:46:43 <genewitch> I think this exists.
224 2011-06-15 01:46:54 <genewitch> hold on i have to google the name
225 2011-06-15 01:46:55 <luke-jr> jgarzik: what? no
226 2011-06-15 01:47:07 <theymos> I support some types of illegal activity. Free trade, for example.
227 2011-06-15 01:47:08 <luke-jr> gjs278: there is no official
228 2011-06-15 01:47:23 <gjs278> bitcoin.org is in our title, we give the impression away that it is official
229 2011-06-15 01:47:29 <genewitch> oh i found it! It's called IRC!
230 2011-06-15 01:47:35 <theymos> Why is bitcoin.it not official?
231 2011-06-15 01:47:47 <luke-jr> gjs278: this channel isn't official either. there is no official, or Bitcoin becomes the Fed
232 2011-06-15 01:47:48 <genewitch> theymos: cause who's ever heard of .it
233 2011-06-15 01:47:51 <gjs278> the sourceforge page should be linked here, not bitcoin.org
234 2011-06-15 01:47:59 <jgarzik> um, satoshi did not register bitcoin.it.  the press does not link to bitcoin.it.
235 2011-06-15 01:48:10 <jgarzik> ...as "official bitcoin website"
236 2011-06-15 01:48:15 <genewitch> defacto "official" the media have to link somewhere
237 2011-06-15 01:48:20 <coderrr> does someone still have access to satoshi's private key which can be used to issue alerts ?
238 2011-06-15 01:48:25 <coderrr> or did it dissapear along with him ?
239 2011-06-15 01:48:39 <genewitch> jgarzik: you mean "just google it" isn't a valid way to get users to the community?
240 2011-06-15 01:48:41 <luke-jr> coderrr: jgarzik does
241 2011-06-15 01:48:42 <gjs278> we've been mining for it all of this time
242 2011-06-15 01:48:47 <coderrr> luke-jr, cool thx, just wondering
243 2011-06-15 01:48:52 <jgarzik> luke-jr: no, gavin does
244 2011-06-15 01:48:56 <coderrr> ah ok
245 2011-06-15 01:48:58 <gjs278> that's the whole point of the project, to reverse satoshi's key
246 2011-06-15 01:49:03 <coderrr> haha
247 2011-06-15 01:49:12 <theymos> Does he have the alert key now? I didn't hear about that.
248 2011-06-15 01:49:18 <luke-jr> jgarzik: that's what I meant to say :P
249 2011-06-15 01:49:36 <genewitch> why did satoshi disappear
250 2011-06-15 01:49:54 <gjs278> had to catch up on anime
251 2011-06-15 01:49:54 <luke-jr> I propose Bitcoin.org be a general repository of links to community resources, laid out for newbies :P
252 2011-06-15 01:50:14 <luke-jr> ie, download page links to most popular client at the time
253 2011-06-15 01:50:17 <jgarzik> luke-jr: sounds great
254 2011-06-15 01:50:19 <luke-jr> maybe to be voted in every year
255 2011-06-15 01:50:20 <genewitch> luke-jr: can it have animated balls and marquees?
256 2011-06-15 01:50:22 <jgarzik> luke-jr: like weusecoins.com...
257 2011-06-15 01:50:23 <luke-jr> or month, if it gets competitive
258 2011-06-15 01:50:42 <luke-jr> jgarzik: yeah, maybe bitcoin.org should just forward there :P
259 2011-06-15 01:50:44 <gjs278> it's all up to whoever owns the site to do that
260 2011-06-15 01:50:52 <luke-jr> sirius-m does IIRC
261 2011-06-15 01:51:05 <jgarzik> luke-jr: RE illegal activity:  people are actively soliticing illegal activity on the forums.  "bitcoin.org as official website" passes the layperson's obviousness test, and that's a major problem.  bitcoinj might end due to that, for example.
262 2011-06-15 01:51:19 <jgarzik> it's become a serious problem
263 2011-06-15 01:51:29 <genewitch> jgarzik: more active policing
264 2011-06-15 01:51:31 <jgarzik> trying to convince businesses to accept bitcoins under those conditions is... difficult
265 2011-06-15 01:51:33 <genewitch> jgarzik: pay in BTC
266 2011-06-15 01:51:39 <jgarzik> genewitch: theymos is the police
267 2011-06-15 01:51:46 <jgarzik> genewitch: centralized administrator by fiat
268 2011-06-15 01:51:51 <luke-jr> jgarzik: ok, good reason to (re)move the fourms from bitcoin.org :p
269 2011-06-15 01:51:55 <genewitch> he needs to deputize peopl
270 2011-06-15 01:51:58 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes
271 2011-06-15 01:52:11 <gjs278> good reason to not use bitcoin.org because one guy has complete control over it
272 2011-06-15 01:52:17 <jgarzik> genewitch: anybody who tries to delete signs of illegal activity has their mod powers yanked
273 2011-06-15 01:52:26 <luke-jr> jgarzik: srsly?
274 2011-06-15 01:52:29 <jgarzik> gjs278: unfortunately we cannot tell the press nor google that
275 2011-06-15 01:52:31 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yes
276 2011-06-15 01:52:37 <luke-jr> :o
277 2011-06-15 01:52:42 <genewitch> businesses don't know how to use BTC. also the "it's used for illict activity" is a silly excuse. Every American $20 has more cocaine on it than ink.
278 2011-06-15 01:52:46 <gjs278> yeah it is a little late now
279 2011-06-15 01:52:49 <genewitch> er don't know how to use forums*
280 2011-06-15 01:52:51 <theymos> That's not true at all. I've never removed a moderator. And I'm not the only administrator: Gavin was the one who made me an admin.
281 2011-06-15 01:52:58 <luke-jr> my worthless vote goes to moving forums off bitcoin.org, and censoring them heavily
282 2011-06-15 01:53:11 <jgarzik> theymos: blatant lie.  you removed my mod powers.
283 2011-06-15 01:53:13 <luke-jr> and splitting the subforums more
284 2011-06-15 01:53:19 <luke-jr> &
285 2011-06-15 01:53:22 <gjs278> force everyone to gpg auth to forum post
286 2011-06-15 01:53:35 <genewitch> gjs278: screw that gpg is annoying
287 2011-06-15 01:53:36 <theymos> That modship was only temporary. I said it at the time.
288 2011-06-15 01:53:40 <gjs278> exactly
289 2011-06-15 01:53:41 <jgarzik> uh huh
290 2011-06-15 01:53:44 <luke-jr> jgarzik: he did say it was for 24 hours..
291 2011-06-15 01:53:53 <jgarzik> luke-jr: it lasted < 60 minutes
292 2011-06-15 01:53:58 <luke-jr> O.o
293 2011-06-15 01:54:14 <gjs278> I would trust the cbs interview man to fairly moderate the bitcoin.org forums
294 2011-06-15 01:54:19 <luke-jr> well, I think everyone agrees forums shouldn't be on bitcoin.org at least? XD
295 2011-06-15 01:54:23 <jgarzik> theymos: will you make me moderator again, and permit me to delete posts encouraging illegal activity?
296 2011-06-15 01:54:35 <gjs278> ;;ident jgarzik
297 2011-06-15 01:54:36 <gribble> Nick 'jgarzik', with hostmask 'jgarzik!~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik', is not identified.
298 2011-06-15 01:54:37 <cacheson> luke-jr: theymos doesn't, hence the argument
299 2011-06-15 01:54:53 <theymos> No. It is the policy of the forum to allow such discussions. Sirius owns the server, so he can change the policy if he's worried about legal action.
300 2011-06-15 01:54:54 <gjs278> I'm not convinced this is the real jgarzik, don't mod him yet
301 2011-06-15 01:55:31 <genewitch> i know how to tell
302 2011-06-15 01:55:44 <genewitch> jgarzik: pushpoold is not updating my hashrate in the database, what up with that
303 2011-06-15 01:56:00 <jgarzik> ;;ident
304 2011-06-15 01:56:01 <gribble> You are identified as user jgarzik, with GPG key id DA1DC20F2DBF0CA8, and key fingerprint 60B00235B3355D84BF2A4E35DA1DC20F2DBF0CA8.
305 2011-06-15 01:56:03 <jgarzik> Now I'm me :)
306 2011-06-15 01:56:08 <gjs278> mod this man
307 2011-06-15 01:56:21 <luke-jr> sounds like nothing will get accomplished without sirius-m in the discussion
308 2011-06-15 01:57:14 <genewitch> well, i mean there are ways of preventing users from accessing something
309 2011-06-15 01:57:35 <luke-jr> genewitch: you're not implying we DDoS the forums I hope? :/
310 2011-06-15 01:57:40 <genewitch> no never
311 2011-06-15 01:57:52 <genewitch> i meant ask nicely
312 2011-06-15 01:58:23 <jgarzik> official website bitcoin.org points to the forums on forums.bitcoin.org.  new users are essentially automatically directed there.
313 2011-06-15 01:58:43 <theymos> I'd be fine with removing the link.
314 2011-06-15 01:59:09 <Gaming4JC> Anyone know if this will work on OpenCart v1.5.0.5 ? https://github.com/tabsa/opencart-bitcoin-payment-module
315 2011-06-15 01:59:18 <Gaming4JC> seems to only support 1.4.9 :(
316 2011-06-15 01:59:21 <jgarzik> it needs to move away from the satoshi's domain
317 2011-06-15 01:59:28 <Gaming4JC> kinda need it epically at the moment
318 2011-06-15 01:59:40 <genewitch> jgarzik: well, i mean, a comprimise sounds good for this instant
319 2011-06-15 01:59:57 <genewitch> we might see less influx of complete idiots if there's no link on the quote official unquote page
320 2011-06-15 02:00:01 <luke-jr> yep, nothing is going to change significant without sirius-m
321 2011-06-15 02:00:20 <jgarzik> hooray for centralized control of a decentralized project...
322 2011-06-15 02:01:15 <genewitch> jgarzik: there should be an official wiki, with a committe
323 2011-06-15 02:01:16 <jgarzik> the forums have changed hostnames before, and it was not a big deal
324 2011-06-15 02:01:24 <jgarzik> genewitch: hehe
325 2011-06-15 02:01:50 <genewitch> well i mean that's how most FOSS projects are run, commitee, LINUX "penguin pee" TORVALDS excepted, of course.
326 2011-06-15 02:02:11 <theymos> Centralization is an effective management technique as long as there are many centralized organizations to compete.
327 2011-06-15 02:02:43 <cacheson> theymos: right, so splitting the forums off from bitcoin.org furthers that
328 2011-06-15 02:03:09 <cacheson> theymos: makes the forums and the development stuff into two visibly separate organizations
329 2011-06-15 02:03:28 <jgarzik> indeed
330 2011-06-15 02:03:40 <cacheson> that way you can let people talk about what they want to on the forums without the developers getting (as much) flak about it
331 2011-06-15 02:04:05 <jgarzik> being under "bitcoin.org" the domain that satoshi created, and that search engines and press link to, obviously heavily favors "bitcoin.org" over any other domain
332 2011-06-15 02:04:26 <genewitch> jgarzik: bitcoin.blogspot.com is a close second though
333 2011-06-15 02:04:28 <luke-jr> cacheson: "development staff" is too vague too
334 2011-06-15 02:04:42 <luke-jr> bitcoin.org shouldn't be biased to any one project
335 2011-06-15 02:05:07 <luke-jr> besides a "default" by popularity
336 2011-06-15 02:05:15 <cacheson> luke-jr: I don't see anything terribly wrong with it being associated with the mainline client
337 2011-06-15 02:05:28 <luke-jr> cacheson: because there's multiple mainline clients
338 2011-06-15 02:05:35 <genewitch> luke-jr: who gets to decide what goes on the main page though? group editing of a website... hey we can patent that and call it something cool
339 2011-06-15 02:05:39 <genewitch> like
340 2011-06-15 02:05:40 <cacheson> luke-jr: uh... no?
341 2011-06-15 02:05:42 <genewitch> wiky
342 2011-06-15 02:05:57 <genewitch> yeah wiky, and we can make an encyclopedia
343 2011-06-15 02:06:24 <luke-jr> genewitch: popular vote
344 2011-06-15 02:06:36 <genewitch> luke-jr: it works so well for prom king
345 2011-06-15 02:06:44 <cacheson> this is just like bittorrent, openoffice, etc.
346 2011-06-15 02:06:55 <luke-jr> cacheson: no
347 2011-06-15 02:06:58 <jgarzik> I'll even purchase the domain (bitcointalk.org?) for 10 years, register w/ privacy enhanced domain registrar, and transfer it to theymos  or whomever wants it
348 2011-06-15 02:06:59 <genewitch> luke-jr: slashdot upvoting style would probably be best
349 2011-06-15 02:07:05 <luke-jr> genewitch: interesting idea
350 2011-06-15 02:07:06 <cacheson> they have the mainline software on the domain of the same name, and there are forks elsewhere
351 2011-06-15 02:07:19 <cacheson> in the case of bittorrent, the forks are far more popular
352 2011-06-15 02:07:23 <luke-jr> cacheson: openoffice doesn't purport to be distributed in any way
353 2011-06-15 02:07:46 <cacheson> luke-jr: so?
354 2011-06-15 02:07:53 <gjs278> yeah openoffice isn't a protocol, it's a program
355 2011-06-15 02:08:01 <gjs278> bitcoin is a way of life
356 2011-06-15 02:08:03 <luke-jr> bittorrent *does* have a reference implementation, but it's not promoted in any way on bittorrent.org
357 2011-06-15 02:08:07 <cacheson> gjs278: o_O
358 2011-06-15 02:08:20 <genewitch> gjs278: BTC4L
359 2011-06-15 02:08:27 <luke-jr> and in the case of bittorrent, having a single client doesn't mean the developers control money
360 2011-06-15 02:08:58 <genewitch> kernel.org
361 2011-06-15 02:09:16 <luke-jr> genewitch: Linux isn't decentralized either
362 2011-06-15 02:09:26 <luke-jr> nor does it control your money if you use it
363 2011-06-15 02:09:36 <luke-jr> Bitcoin is basically unique
364 2011-06-15 02:09:41 <theymos> IETF is maybe close.
365 2011-06-15 02:09:55 <luke-jr> IETF doesn't provide reference implementations
366 2011-06-15 02:10:30 <cacheson> pretty sure it doesn't matter either way
367 2011-06-15 02:10:38 <cacheson> if there's a better third-party client, it'll be popular
368 2011-06-15 02:10:40 <genewitch> i think we can agree that bitcoin is novel
369 2011-06-15 02:10:42 <genewitch> hence why it has value
370 2011-06-15 02:11:11 <genewitch> novel solutions are needed to age old problems, of people seeing a large group and coming over and trying to sell drugs or steal purses.
371 2011-06-15 02:12:55 <genewitch> bitcoinwatch does a really good job of displaying the status of a decentralized system
372 2011-06-15 02:13:00 <genewitch> IMHO
373 2011-06-15 02:14:44 <Gekz> hey luke-jr: http://web.archive.org/web/20050531000540/http://www.bittorrent.org/
374 2011-06-15 02:15:19 <genewitch> hot or not?
375 2011-06-15 02:15:37 <genewitch> so if i sold VPS for BTC would i be popular
376 2011-06-15 02:15:40 <luke-jr> Gekz: 2005 != 2011
377 2011-06-15 02:15:49 <luke-jr> genewitch: no
378 2011-06-15 02:15:55 <Gekz> no, but it does show relative timelines you douche
379 2011-06-15 02:16:15 <genewitch> he's not a shower
380 2011-06-15 02:16:20 <Gekz> lol
381 2011-06-15 02:16:30 <Gekz> devs can do what they want with the website, as they're the devs.
382 2011-06-15 02:16:36 <Gekz> if you disagree, compete and beat them.
383 2011-06-15 02:16:44 <cacheson> luke-jr: bitcoin is at the stage of development now that bittorrent was in 2005 and earlier
384 2011-06-15 02:16:45 <Gekz> I'm pretty sure bittorrent.org changed after the fact, not before.
385 2011-06-15 02:16:53 <luke-jr> Gekz: obviously the "devs" you refer to don't own the website
386 2011-06-15 02:17:12 <genewitch> for luke-jr is a dev
387 2011-06-15 02:17:14 <luke-jr> cacheson: hence why the reference implementation should be given more focus due to its popularity
388 2011-06-15 02:17:34 <cacheson> luke-jr: alright, so what's the problem, then?
389 2011-06-15 02:17:48 <genewitch> in fact, most of the people arguing that the forums and other stuff need to be off bitcoin.org are the devs
390 2011-06-15 02:17:51 <genewitch> soooo
391 2011-06-15 02:17:54 <luke-jr> cacheson: you tell me
392 2011-06-15 02:28:30 <`marianne`> may i propose that we rename 0.01 BTC from the official and boring name of "centi-bitcoin" to the much much cooler name "bitpenny"? :P
393 2011-06-15 02:31:34 <cacheson> `marianne`: I call them "bitcents"
394 2011-06-15 02:32:07 <`marianne`> see, i'm not the only one with this idea hehe
395 2011-06-15 02:32:08 <cacheson> also, satoshi = microbitcent
396 2011-06-15 02:32:11 <genewitch> what is the smallest unit of BTC called
397 2011-06-15 02:32:13 <`marianne`> a satoshi
398 2011-06-15 02:32:14 <cacheson> genewitch: ^
399 2011-06-15 02:32:15 <genewitch> oh
400 2011-06-15 02:32:18 <`marianne`> or a bitcoin-bong
401 2011-06-15 02:32:20 <dissipate> anyone have a fallback node address? these aren't working for me https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes
402 2011-06-15 02:32:38 <theymos> Probably they've all been spammed to death. I had 280 connections -- Bitcoin was eating so much IO that it brought down BBE.
403 2011-06-15 02:32:59 <theymos> Recently a lot of really old blocks were spent. Maybe Satoshi is cashing out? More than 20 of the first thousand blocks were spent in the last week, including block #78.
404 2011-06-15 02:33:17 <Diablo-D3> theymos: well
405 2011-06-15 02:33:26 <Diablo-D3> lulzsec says they made a fake tx that stole a lot of money
406 2011-06-15 02:33:30 <genewitch> the what
407 2011-06-15 02:33:32 <kratosk> fake tx?
408 2011-06-15 02:33:43 <theymos> lulzsec is lying (for teh lulz).
409 2011-06-15 02:33:44 <genewitch> transaction isn't "tx" if that's what yuo meant
410 2011-06-15 02:33:45 <Diablo-D3> genewitch: it is.
411 2011-06-15 02:33:46 <Diablo-D3> its ALSO transmission depending on the context
412 2011-06-15 02:33:48 <Diablo-D3> which is hilarious when you arent paying attention
413 2011-06-15 02:33:49 <luke-jr> `marianne`: BitPenny was a pool
414 2011-06-15 02:33:50 <afed> i steal pets from the popular people
415 2011-06-15 02:34:23 <`marianne`> luke-jr, aww, ok then hehe
416 2011-06-15 02:34:25 <kratosk> theymos: it may also be that Satoshi is the anonymous benefactor that's been righting wrongs, like accounts being stolen /shrugs
417 2011-06-15 02:34:27 <genewitch> the wha
418 2011-06-15 02:34:27 <luke-jr> kratosk: wait what?
419 2011-06-15 02:34:27 <theymos> Has someone been paying people who have their accounts stolen? I haven't heard about that.
420 2011-06-15 02:34:28 <genewitch> me too
421 2011-06-15 02:34:45 <kratosk> theymos: someone was claimin git happened in #bitcoin and thanking whoever it was
422 2011-06-15 02:35:01 <AAA_awright> How _do_ you tell Bitcoind to connect to another peer?
423 2011-06-15 02:36:39 <luke-jr> -addnode=1.1.1.1
424 2011-06-15 02:36:40 <AAA_awright> That's at startup though
425 2011-06-15 02:36:49 <AAA_awright> I'm talking about post-startup
426 2011-06-15 02:37:01 <kratosk> theymos: if the story is true, I'm sure whatever happened was verifiable /shrugs
427 2011-06-15 02:39:27 <genewitch> kratosk: join a pool?
428 2011-06-15 02:39:31 <kratosk> genewitch: what is fu?
429 2011-06-15 02:39:38 <genewitch> kratosk: it took my node like 15 minutes to get everything it needed to start the mining pool up (it was throwing connection errors for those 15 minutes)
430 2011-06-15 02:39:39 <genewitch> kratosk: a naughty word
431 2011-06-15 02:40:16 <kratosk> genewitch: I haven't looked into mining pools. Which one do you reccomend?
432 2011-06-15 02:41:09 <kratosk> I think this entire concept is really neat. I sure wish I knew about it sooner
433 2011-06-15 02:41:25 <kratosk> (bitcoins in general)
434 2011-06-15 02:41:38 <Gekz> #bitcoin for bitcoins in general
435 2011-06-15 02:51:41 <luke-jr> kratosk: #Eligius
436 2011-06-15 03:03:37 <osmosis> luke-jr, first it was $25k worth of coins.  then it was 25k btc  worth $500k.  Now its 500k btc  ?
437 2011-06-15 03:04:49 <osmosis> luke-jr, [14/06/2011 21:35:21] Result: 03774a7c rejected
438 2011-06-15 03:04:54 <osmosis> luke-jr, why am i getting rejected results?
439 2011-06-15 03:05:08 <luke-jr> osmosis: because your clock is wrong
440 2011-06-15 03:05:27 <osmosis> luke-jr, Tue Jun 14 22:05:17 PDT 2011
441 2011-06-15 03:05:34 <osmosis> luke-jr, i use ntp
442 2011-06-15 03:05:37 <luke-jr> [14/06/2011 21:35:21] Result: 03774a7c rejected
443 2011-06-15 03:05:42 <luke-jr> 21:35 != 22:05
444 2011-06-15 03:06:12 <osmosis> ok
445 2011-06-15 03:06:23 <afed> maybe he's in one of those goofy half hour time zones
446 2011-06-15 03:07:23 <luke-jr> as of a week ago, I am now 26 years old.
447 2011-06-15 03:07:28 <osmosis> luke-jr, afed :  i was just pasting from the screen a reject from 30 min ago.  my system time seems fine though
448 2011-06-15 03:07:39 <luke-jr> osmosis: well, are they ALL being rejected?
449 2011-06-15 03:08:05 <luke-jr> or like 1%?
450 2011-06-15 03:08:26 <osmosis> looks like all
451 2011-06-15 03:09:16 <osmosis> luke-jr, maybe there was some accepted.  http://dpaste.com/554443/
452 2011-06-15 03:09:18 <luke-jr> osmosis: what address?
453 2011-06-15 03:09:31 <luke-jr> osmosis: btw, this is really a topic for #Eligius
454 2011-06-15 03:10:57 <forests> is there any getwork sample data I can use to test my miner so see if it hashes correctly?
455 2011-06-15 03:11:43 <jgarzik> forests: there really should be
456 2011-06-15 03:11:53 <jgarzik> forests: have you looked at pyminer and cpuminer?
457 2011-06-15 03:12:14 <forests> I've looked at cpuminer
458 2011-06-15 03:12:34 <jgarzik> forests: they contain validation code.  from there, you can try mining on testnet with multiple miners working on the same getwork.  that will tell you whether or not it hashes correctly, by comparing the same work, worked on by multiple miners.
459 2011-06-15 03:15:31 <Gekz> is there a reason that bitcoins can't be encrypted the same way GPG works?
460 2011-06-15 03:15:38 <Gekz> ie, enter a passphrase to decrypt them
461 2011-06-15 03:15:59 <luke-jr> Gekz: yes
462 2011-06-15 03:16:39 <luke-jr> oh
463 2011-06-15 03:16:44 <luke-jr> I misunderstood his question I guess
464 2011-06-15 03:16:47 <Gekz> I'm not sure how wallet encryption will solve the problem
465 2011-06-15 03:16:51 <Gekz> because won't it be decrypted while the client is open?
466 2011-06-15 03:17:11 <cacheson> Gekz: well, your private key in GPG is decrypted when it's being accessed
467 2011-06-15 03:17:24 <luke-jr> Gekz: in memory, only as long as you have the wallet open
468 2011-06-15 03:17:44 <luke-jr> bigger problem will be keyloggers
469 2011-06-15 03:18:34 <thallium205> what if one were to create an arduino bitcoin wallet to serve as a hardware wallet for a savings account?
470 2011-06-15 03:18:58 <luke-jr> thallium205: you could do that with Spesmilo and a real SOC
471 2011-06-15 03:19:26 <luke-jr> thallium205: but it's generally easier to just encrypt a wallet, print it out, and store it in a safe deposit box
472 2011-06-15 03:19:29 <luke-jr> and just send to it
473 2011-06-15 03:20:09 <thallium205> yeah
474 2011-06-15 03:20:51 <Gekz> cacheson: yes, but couldn't each field in the db be encrypted so you must enter your passphrase to make a transaction?
475 2011-06-15 03:21:05 <luke-jr> Gekz: that's how ti works
476 2011-06-15 03:21:07 <xfactor> hi
477 2011-06-15 03:22:08 <CIA-90> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r35864f9 / (2 files in 2 dirs): Improve nvidia support - http://bit.ly/iF42vU
478 2011-06-15 03:22:10 <CIA-90> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rd089d86 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java :
479 2011-06-15 03:22:12 <CIA-90> DiabloMiner: Fixed connection errors accidently counting as rejects, spurious
480 2011-06-15 03:22:33 <cacheson> Gekz: in theory, yeah.  I haven't looked at the specifics of how it's going to be implemented
481 2011-06-15 03:26:17 <syke> ;;bc,stats
482 2011-06-15 03:26:29 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130926 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 113 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 11 hours, 14 minutes, and 14 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 861176.35169682
483 2011-06-15 03:28:57 <Gekz> cacheson: if that were the case it should work fine, because it would be encrypted in RAM still
484 2011-06-15 03:32:53 <JFK911> we should put bitcoin under the gnu public license
485 2011-06-15 03:55:02 <knotwork> does downloading the blockchain rely on finding someone else with an open port you can connect to, or can it work by them finding your open port connecting to you and giving you the blockchain?
486 2011-06-15 03:55:35 <hacim> why cant I do: mtgox_orders = json.load(urllib.urlopen(http://mtgox.com/code/data/getDepth.php)) ? it doesn't find a json object
487 2011-06-15 03:57:00 <hacim> if I used other exchanges' depth json, it works (such as tradehill)
488 2011-06-15 03:57:05 <Blitzboom> http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/15/close-to-us500k-stolen-in-first-major-bitcoin-theft/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web+All+Stories%29
489 2011-06-15 03:57:13 <Blitzboom> -_-
490 2011-06-15 03:57:30 <Blitzboom> as if "black friday" wasnt enough
491 2011-06-15 03:57:45 <Blitzboom> "While at the time of this writing the BTC is trading at $19.51, I wouldnt be surprised to see their value drop over the course of the day as this news spreads."
492 2011-06-15 03:57:50 <Blitzboom> FUD
493 2011-06-15 03:57:53 <Blitzboom> bitcoins actually should be more valuable if its so easy to lose them :D
494 2011-06-15 03:57:54 <hacim> oh, typo
495 2011-06-15 04:06:17 <wumpus> yes, now the serious FUD attacks start
496 2011-06-15 04:07:24 <wumpus> bitcoin is starting to get being taken seriously in the mainstream, so all the change-haters and naysayers will take every oppertunity to bash it
497 2011-06-15 04:07:54 <mtrlt> would it be possible to send bitcoins without having to have the private key on a networked computer at any time?
498 2011-06-15 04:08:01 <Blitzboom> fortunately, this strategy will only drive more people to us
499 2011-06-15 04:08:21 <mtrlt> like, sign on the networkless computer, move it with an usb stick to a networked computer, then do the rest
500 2011-06-15 04:08:35 <Blitzboom> interesting idea
501 2011-06-15 04:08:44 <wumpus> mtrlt: yes.. use the unnetworked computer for signing
502 2011-06-15 04:08:55 <wumpus> mtrlt: move the message to be signed using usb :)
503 2011-06-15 04:09:11 <mtrlt> yea that's what i said :p
504 2011-06-15 04:09:18 <mtrlt> but is it actually possible?
505 2011-06-15 04:09:24 <wumpus> airgaps are a good idea
506 2011-06-15 04:09:27 <wumpus> yes
507 2011-06-15 04:09:29 <Blitzboom> so you actually can send transactions without your private keys ever being exposed to the internet
508 2011-06-15 04:09:31 <mtrlt> interesting.
509 2011-06-15 04:09:35 <mtrlt> gotta develop this idea further :p
510 2011-06-15 04:09:49 <Blitzboom> needs to be built in the GUI :P
511 2011-06-15 04:09:53 <mtrlt> yep
512 2011-06-15 04:10:05 <wumpus> I think the person having $500k in bitcoins should have paid someone to develop a solution like that instead oif leaving it sit :p
513 2011-06-15 04:10:41 <mtrlt> there might be a sneaky virus tho, that goes on the USB stick and steals your keys etc :P
514 2011-06-15 04:10:43 <Blitzboom> stuxnet style?
515 2011-06-15 04:10:58 <mtrlt> yep
516 2011-06-15 04:11:04 <wumpus> yes the signing programs should only load and sign the message, and be very resistant to code execution exploits
517 2011-06-15 04:11:06 <mtrlt> then again, i wouldn't exactly want to run bitcoind on a windows machine
518 2011-06-15 04:11:06 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: they should start using my auto ecryption method in the future https://sites.google.com/site/remotekeyencrypt/home
519 2011-06-15 04:11:33 <wumpus> you don't want to run it on a windows machine with autostart :P yeah
520 2011-06-15 04:12:26 <mtrlt> but in principle a virus like that is possible
521 2011-06-15 04:12:40 <mtrlt> :p
522 2011-06-15 04:12:49 <wumpus> yes, it's very unlikely though if the signing system is as simple as possible
523 2011-06-15 04:12:51 <Blitzboom> ok, the best method is to remember your damn private keys and do the signing in your head
524 2011-06-15 04:13:02 <mtrlt> lol
525 2011-06-15 04:13:34 <mtrlt> true.
526 2011-06-15 04:13:57 <mtrlt> i don't have a spare computer to be unnetworked tho :/
527 2011-06-15 04:14:02 <wumpus> and physical security starts to matter as well if you have that much
528 2011-06-15 04:14:08 <mtrlt> maybe i'll buy a cheap living room PC
529 2011-06-15 04:14:15 <Blitzboom> you would need a computer to never ever connect to the internet, right?
530 2011-06-15 04:14:16 <wumpus> yes the problem seems to be that the people that think of solutions like this are not the people that actually have the large amounts of coins
531 2011-06-15 04:14:20 <mtrlt> could get one for 200e. new. with celeron! :P
532 2011-06-15 04:14:20 <wumpus> if you have $500k in coins buying an extra netbook for signing is peanuts
533 2011-06-15 04:14:22 <Blitzboom> wumpus: lol, agreed
534 2011-06-15 04:14:24 <mtrlt> yeah
535 2011-06-15 04:14:28 <mtrlt> totally
536 2011-06-15 04:14:29 <wumpus> heck you can even market some fancy device to them
537 2011-06-15 04:14:34 <Blitzboom> seriously &
538 2011-06-15 04:14:37 <Blitzboom> i dont know what he was thinking
539 2011-06-15 04:14:46 <wumpus> indeed
540 2011-06-15 04:14:55 <mtrlt> yep
541 2011-06-15 04:15:32 <Blitzboom> because noone has implemented it yet
542 2011-06-15 04:15:44 <jgarzik> min0r: FAQ: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16553.0
543 2011-06-15 04:15:50 <wumpus> min0r: his machine was compromised, I don't think it would have helped that much, the key would have been keylogged as well
544 2011-06-15 04:16:03 <dissipate> min0r, because the lead developers for bitcoin are going to CIA talks instead of fixing the glaring problems with the official client.
545 2011-06-15 04:16:05 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: actually the implementation is linked at the top of the 0.3.23 release post
546 2011-06-15 04:16:08 <sacarlson> dissipate: never heard of such a problem did you try manualy setting the connect option?
547 2011-06-15 04:16:11 <Blitzboom> jgarzik: yes, but not in any version yet released
548 2011-06-15 04:16:11 <jgarzik> true
549 2011-06-15 04:16:20 <mtrlt> hmm automatic backups on a non-networked computer?
550 2011-06-15 04:16:25 <syke> ;;bc,stats
551 2011-06-15 04:16:43 <wumpus> you can merge in the code yourself if you have the balls to test it
552 2011-06-15 04:16:55 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130935 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 104 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 10 hours, 18 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 861673.08037617
553 2011-06-15 04:17:00 <mtrlt> do i just have to have RAID or something .p
554 2011-06-15 04:17:13 <mtrlt> or lots of usb sticks
555 2011-06-15 04:17:20 <wumpus> people need to test it to get confidence in it
556 2011-06-15 04:17:29 <jgarzik> regardless, wallet encryption is useless against many modern attacks used by the big crime syndicates
557 2011-06-15 04:17:33 <jgarzik> they just grab keys from RAM
558 2011-06-15 04:17:39 <min0r> all it needs is a 2048-bit block cipher by default
559 2011-06-15 04:17:49 <wumpus> or simply steal the file and use keylogging to get the passphrase.. can be done with the simplest trojans :
560 2011-06-15 04:17:50 <min0r> devs should just vote on the encryption method and get it done on the top of the list
561 2011-06-15 04:17:53 <jgarzik> yep
562 2011-06-15 04:18:01 <min0r> at least its more secure then a plaintext file
563 2011-06-15 04:18:05 <wumpus> min0r: that's true
564 2011-06-15 04:18:08 <jgarzik> min0r: try reading that post and code before yammering
565 2011-06-15 04:18:09 <dissipate> sacarlson, do you mean with the '-addnode' directive?
566 2011-06-15 04:18:12 <sacarlson> dissipate: yes that should also work
567 2011-06-15 04:18:13 <min0r> i'm reading it now
568 2011-06-15 04:18:34 <min0r> i cant believe that guy lost $500,000 by losing his wallet.dat... crazy
569 2011-06-15 04:18:38 <jgarzik> best security: keep an offline wallet, encrypted
570 2011-06-15 04:18:41 <jgarzik> send coins to that
571 2011-06-15 04:18:45 <jgarzik> "everyday" wallet should not hold many coins
572 2011-06-15 04:19:07 <dissipate> has the problem of people not being able to connect to a node when they are behind a firewall been fixed in .23?
573 2011-06-15 04:19:11 <sacarlson> dissipate: well I run my own custom version of bitcoin with multi-crypto currency and don't have resources to test theres
574 2011-06-15 04:19:22 <min0r> stories like that will not be good for bitcoin -- if the general public hears how easy it is for your money to 'dissapear', then there will be no more adopters, and bitcoin will fail..... monetary systems only work on trust.... i hope the devs keep this in mind and as a top priority moving forward...
575 2011-06-15 04:19:34 <wumpus> mtrlt: are you going to work on the airgap thing?
576 2011-06-15 04:19:35 <jgarzik> dissipate: they need to run -upnp
577 2011-06-15 04:21:20 <Blitzboom> min0r: actually you could easily use mtgox or ewallets as a bank
578 2011-06-15 04:21:39 <Blitzboom> if you trust them
579 2011-06-15 04:21:46 <sacarlson> min0r: people will just have to learn to use encypted partitions and forget about using windows
580 2011-06-15 04:21:52 <wumpus> Blitzboom: attackers can simply keylog your mtgox or ewallet password/username
581 2011-06-15 04:21:57 <jgarzik> I guess "Priority for next version:  wallet encryption" was not clear enough
582 2011-06-15 04:22:05 <jgarzik> in the post
583 2011-06-15 04:22:17 <wumpus> Blitzboom: until they have two-factor auth, that argument is moot :)
584 2011-06-15 04:22:24 <jgarzik> darn that English language
585 2011-06-15 04:22:32 <jgarzik> so tough to parse
586 2011-06-15 04:22:45 <min0r> guys, i understand the 'if you're a n00b you deserve to lose your money' arguement... but i want bitcoin to succeed as an online currency, and that means that grandma and granpa can use it... if they hear horror stories, it will never get mainstream adoption...
587 2011-06-15 04:22:56 <min0r> its a serious matter
588 2011-06-15 04:22:57 <wumpus> min0r: you're attacking a strawman
589 2011-06-15 04:23:00 <Blitzboom> min0r: i agree 100% and i think everyone does
590 2011-06-15 04:23:08 <wumpus> min0r: no one of us said (or even thinks) that noobs deserve to lose their coins
591 2011-06-15 04:23:09 <Blitzboom> except for elitist dickheads maybe
592 2011-06-15 04:23:14 <dissipate> wumpus, we need challenge response phone apps
593 2011-06-15 04:23:22 <wumpus> min0r: but we're all constrained in time, so go coding instead of nerd raging
594 2011-06-15 04:23:37 <Blitzboom> or pay somebody to code ;)
595 2011-06-15 04:23:38 <wumpus> also good
596 2011-06-15 04:23:41 <Blitzboom> im sure those 25k BTC could have done a good deal of dev work
597 2011-06-15 04:23:49 <wumpus> yup
598 2011-06-15 04:23:51 <wumpus> but he just let them sit there on his spyware ridden rig :(
599 2011-06-15 04:24:15 <Blitzboom> i cant even begin to think how you can be so unparanoid
600 2011-06-15 04:24:26 <Blitzboom> i mean, shit, that was a house
601 2011-06-15 04:24:31 <quellhorst> Blitzboom: because he thought he was too smart
602 2011-06-15 04:24:36 <wumpus> I really feel for him I do...
603 2011-06-15 04:25:04 <Blitzboom> me too, but i cannot comprehend it
604 2011-06-15 04:26:29 <Blitzboom> also, imagine how many coins will be lost just because people forget passwords
605 2011-06-15 04:26:44 <mtrlt> wumpus: i'll develop the idea further :p
606 2011-06-15 04:26:52 <Blitzboom> what is the best way to store a password in case of amnesia?
607 2011-06-15 04:27:07 <Blitzboom> trusted party?
608 2011-06-15 04:27:21 <mtrlt> nonnetworked computer
609 2011-06-15 04:27:36 <mtrlt> but you're not safe against physical attacks :p
610 2011-06-15 04:27:49 <Blitzboom> yeah, so youd have to hide it and remember the location
611 2011-06-15 04:28:05 <wumpus> Blitzboom: split your key into parts using xor, so you need M out of N parts to put it together.. you'd still need to remember where you stored the keys, but that's easier than the keys themselves
612 2011-06-15 04:28:45 <wumpus> Blitzboom: of course that only works for keys you don't need regularly :p
613 2011-06-15 04:30:31 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: ya but if you had amnesia you would forget the location or that you even had one
614 2011-06-15 04:30:52 <Blitzboom> exactly
615 2011-06-15 04:31:20 <sacarlson> Blitzboom: I would tell my momy
616 2011-06-15 04:31:31 <jgarzik> A good way to store bitcoins:  print out the private key on paper, and put it into a safety deposit box
617 2011-06-15 04:31:48 <jgarzik> destroy the wallet.dat immediately
618 2011-06-15 04:31:57 <jgarzik> send coins to it
619 2011-06-15 04:32:12 <syke> ;;bc,stats
620 2011-06-15 04:32:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130943 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 96 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 9 hours, 29 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 864076.37744793
621 2011-06-15 04:32:22 <wumpus> yes that'd work
622 2011-06-15 04:32:37 <Blitzboom> & and in a decade discover that you have chosen the wrong address
623 2011-06-15 04:32:51 <Blitzboom> jgarzik: haha, you regularly convert your income to bitcoin?
624 2011-06-15 04:32:58 <jgarzik> my bitcoin income, yes :)
625 2011-06-15 04:33:08 <Blitzboom> its still such a risky store of value unfortunately
626 2011-06-15 04:33:21 <Blitzboom> needs to be promoted more as gold 2.0
627 2011-06-15 04:33:26 <wumpus> it's like cash under your bed
628 2011-06-15 04:33:58 <Blitzboom> i mean, hell, you can pud your encrypted wallet on your email and access it from anywhere in the world without preying eyes
629 2011-06-15 04:33:59 <quellhorst> wumpus: cept sometimes someone steals some of the cash, or the tooth ferry adds some more
630 2011-06-15 04:34:30 <Blitzboom> its theoretically a clearly superior store of value than gold
631 2011-06-15 04:34:33 <wumpus> except that if you use a spyware-ridden pc it's more like a bed in a shady hotel :P
632 2011-06-15 04:34:41 <Blitzboom> also for reasons of controlled inflation that is exactly known
633 2011-06-15 04:36:45 <wumpus> it's easier to protect than gold
634 2011-06-15 04:36:54 <wumpus> also easier to hide
635 2011-06-15 04:37:08 <Blitzboom> right
636 2011-06-15 04:38:04 <TommyBoy3G> no truck needed
637 2011-06-15 04:38:20 <min0r> jgarzik: private key from where?
638 2011-06-15 04:38:27 <jgarzik> min0r: your wallet
639 2011-06-15 04:38:32 <wumpus> and if you had $250k of gold, you'd also be very careful with it
640 2011-06-15 04:38:33 <Blitzboom> you wouldnt download my wallet
641 2011-06-15 04:38:34 <wumpus> the private key of the sending address
642 2011-06-15 04:38:35 <min0r> jgarzik: im running macos bitcoin... i see wallet.dat in /application support/bitcoin... wheres the private key?
643 2011-06-15 04:38:37 <jgarzik> min0r: keys, plural.  inside wallet.dat.
644 2011-06-15 04:38:55 <min0r> just looks like a bunch of gibberish to me when i open it in texteditor
645 2011-06-15 04:39:04 <mtrlt> it's a berkeleydb file
646 2011-06-15 04:39:21 <wumpus> it's in binary format
647 2011-06-15 04:39:26 <min0r> http://gawker.com/5811868/a-500000-geek-cyberheist
648 2011-06-15 04:39:51 <min0r> well, i dont konw where to find it easily... like, these are the sorts of things devs should think about coding into the client, so any n00b can do it easily
649 2011-06-15 04:40:11 <min0r> gawker is doing their best make bitcoin look bad
650 2011-06-15 04:40:28 <wumpus> hm I could add it to my ui
651 2011-06-15 04:41:10 <Blitzboom> min0r: more like adrian chen
652 2011-06-15 04:41:58 <Blitzboom> it was also him who wrote about silk road
653 2011-06-15 04:41:59 <genewitch> who
654 2011-06-15 04:42:01 <wumpus> min0r: can you propose a gui workflow here? https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15276.msg221045#msg221045
655 2011-06-15 04:42:27 <Blitzboom> we should start to make use of assassination markets perhaps
656 2011-06-15 04:42:44 <genewitch> wut
657 2011-06-15 04:43:42 <fbi> oops
658 2011-06-15 04:43:47 <lufbitcoin> my bad
659 2011-06-15 04:43:59 <lufbitcoin> So what's goin on
660 2011-06-15 04:44:55 <genewitch> lol irssi outed me
661 2011-06-15 04:45:03 <wumpus> :/
662 2011-06-15 04:45:33 <genewitch> i think i'm funny
663 2011-06-15 04:45:54 <genewitch> and my mom said that's all that matters
664 2011-06-15 04:48:58 <min0r> wumpus, sure... i actaully do UI design for some mobile apps
665 2011-06-15 04:49:41 <wumpus> ok great, because what we really need is people that participate instead of just throw ideas :)
666 2011-06-15 04:55:01 <min0r> i imagine a dialog that would show all addresses in the wallet with a corresponding private key if the user wants to see them and print them out.... (of course, someone with access to the computer could just look at them unless its encrypted..... waiting until 0.3.24 is helpful since the wallet.dat will be encrypted by default)
667 2011-06-15 04:55:29 <CIA-90> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r88119fa / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Accidently changed an error message - http://bit.ly/mfcRMR
668 2011-06-15 05:29:16 <CIA-90> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * re295dd7 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Change how invalid kernel args is handled again - http://bit.ly/j50HUL
669 2011-06-15 05:30:34 <coderrr> uh oh, jon matonis callin jg out
670 2011-06-15 05:32:31 <mtrlt> can i use multiple workers on one bitcoind when solo mining?
671 2011-06-15 05:32:40 <mtrlt> just checkin' :p
672 2011-06-15 05:33:04 <sturles> Of course.
673 2011-06-15 05:33:18 <mtrlt> yea i'd assume so too.
674 2011-06-15 05:33:23 <mtrlt> but you never know.
675 2011-06-15 05:35:31 <luke-jr> mtrlt: it's buggy
676 2011-06-15 05:35:46 <luke-jr> mtrlt: likely you'll lose about 0.7%
677 2011-06-15 05:35:58 <mtrlt> hmm
678 2011-06-15 05:36:02 <mtrlt> what causes that?
679 2011-06-15 05:36:24 <luke-jr> mtrlt: it's fixed for Eligius ;)
680 2011-06-15 05:36:35 <mtrlt> ah yea.
681 2011-06-15 05:36:42 <mtrlt> :-P
682 2011-06-15 05:37:19 <jgarzik> coderrr: he's a sillyhead.  I just hope matonis doesn't get a Falun Gong member killed one day.
683 2011-06-15 05:47:22 <coderrr> namecoin almost 1/10th of btc
684 2011-06-15 05:50:07 <iera> yes but only if the new ones are used
685 2011-06-15 05:50:11 <coderrr> right
686 2011-06-15 05:50:27 <coderrr> and my example was namecoin
687 2011-06-15 05:50:28 <coderrr> currently being valued at 1/10th of btc
688 2011-06-15 05:50:30 <iera> namecoin serves another purpose, doesnt count really
689 2011-06-15 05:50:32 <coderrr> it defintly counts
690 2011-06-15 05:50:49 <coderrr> it holds value thru its btc<->nmc exchange site
691 2011-06-15 05:51:29 <coderrr> but maybe ur right, im just trying to iron out my thoughts on this
692 2011-06-15 05:56:26 <sipa> but nothing says an infinite number of chains will have non-zero value
693 2011-06-15 05:56:32 <coderrr> yea but namecoin is starting to prove that at least more than 1 can
694 2011-06-15 05:56:50 <sipa> i'm convinced a few is possible
695 2011-06-15 05:58:12 <coderrr> yea are there any metal analogies, like a metal with extremely similar properties to gold, silver, platinum, or other valued metals, that never reached the same sort of value?
696 2011-06-15 05:59:18 <sipa> as long as they all have some advantages over all others, it's viable, i think
697 2011-06-15 05:59:32 <sipa> not sure what those would be, though
698 2011-06-15 06:01:37 <coderrr> it'd be quite interesting to see what would happen if someone created an exact bitcoin clone, just using a differnet port and initial block or wahtever, and tried to bootstrap it by marekting to ppl who "missed the bitcoin goldrush"
699 2011-06-15 06:01:55 <sipa> that exists
700 2011-06-15 06:01:57 <sipa> it's called the testnet
701 2011-06-15 06:02:16 <sipa> and at one point in time testnet coins were actually traded for bitcoins
702 2011-06-15 06:02:21 <coderrr> haha oh really ?
703 2011-06-15 06:02:26 <coderrr> i didntknow ppl ever traded them
704 2011-06-15 06:02:28 <sipa> (like 10k tnBTC for 3 BTC)
705 2011-06-15 06:02:36 <coderrr> interesting
706 2011-06-15 06:02:38 <sipa> that was before the reset
707 2011-06-15 06:03:05 <coderrr> yea i dunno if a testnet counts as a valid example
708 2011-06-15 06:03:09 <Joric> https://testnet.freebitcoins.appspot.com/ - 5 testnets free
709 2011-06-15 06:03:20 <Joric> why even buy them
710 2011-06-15 06:04:07 <sipa> Joric: they were hard to get back then
711 2011-06-15 06:05:15 <sipa> coderrr: it's obvious that it will be easier in your alternative chain to mine
712 2011-06-15 06:05:32 <sipa> but the problem is: why would anyone ever assume it would become tradable at a useful rate?
713 2011-06-15 06:06:08 <coderrr> yea i guess thast what it just comes down to, the psychology of that question
714 2011-06-15 06:06:11 <sipa> anyone accepting them can with the same amount of effort also accept normal btc
715 2011-06-15 06:06:53 <sipa> which will at least initally be significantly more useful
716 2011-06-15 06:08:54 <jgarzik> sure an infinite number of chains is possible, but the network effect pushes people to the big and more secure ones
717 2011-06-15 06:11:47 <sipa> Joric: exactly
718 2011-06-15 06:11:50 <sipa> ow
719 2011-06-15 06:11:54 <sipa> jgarzik: exactly
720 2011-06-15 06:25:37 <Gekz> so that's new bitcoin proposal
721 2011-06-15 06:25:53 <Gekz> did they consider the high chance of uncontrollable hyperinflation?
722 2011-06-15 06:28:16 <kratosk> I agree... accepting any chain is weaksauce
723 2011-06-15 06:28:48 <mtrlt> yep there are major problems with it.
724 2011-06-15 06:29:03 <mtrlt> the issues it identifies are real but the proposed solutions are imaginary :p
725 2011-06-15 06:29:03 <sipa> not really problems, it just won't get accepted
726 2011-06-15 06:29:25 <sipa> at least, not many chains will be economically useful
727 2011-06-15 06:41:51 <sacarlson> jgarzik: or maybe most secure and most stable valued ones?  As I see vendors have a hard time with a currency that changes value by 50% in a day
728 2011-06-15 06:48:28 <Orborde> What does the Bitcoin client use IRC for?
729 2011-06-15 06:48:36 <min0r> bitcoin needs price stability to gain market adoption
730 2011-06-15 06:48:39 <min0r> just like fiat currencies
731 2011-06-15 06:48:56 <min0r> is namecoin a bitcoin clone? can i mine namecoins?
732 2011-06-15 06:49:10 <thallium205> haha
733 2011-06-15 06:49:27 <sacarlson> by the way the BeerTokens chain is now planed to have pre-minted 29 Billion tokens to match that seen for Paypal float
734 2011-06-15 06:51:00 <sipa> and who gets these tokens?
735 2011-06-15 06:51:11 <sacarlson> sipa: the trust holders
736 2011-06-15 06:51:37 <topi`> sacarlson: is that Belgian beer or German beer? :)
737 2011-06-15 06:52:21 <sacarlson> topi: at present it's Thai beer Leo Beer
738 2011-06-15 06:52:31 <sacarlson> topi http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9493.0
739 2011-06-15 06:53:37 <sacarlson> topi but other beers have been suggested like Hienikin
740 2011-06-15 06:53:52 <sipa> please
741 2011-06-15 06:53:59 <sipa> that's not beer ;)
742 2011-06-15 06:55:03 <edcba> Orborde: get IPs to connect to
743 2011-06-15 06:58:40 <ersi> Orborde: It's what we call "Bootstrapping"
744 2011-06-15 06:59:31 <sacarlson> but I see BeerTokens or whatever you want to call the new currency symbiotic both benifitting each other by the using the bitcoin as a secure asset base and Beertokens will auto stabalize the price
745 2011-06-15 07:00:53 <Joric> if deepbit will be closed (~40% of blocks currently) does it mean transactions would be pretty much slowed down?
746 2011-06-15 07:00:58 <coderrr> Joric, yup
747 2011-06-15 07:01:16 <jgarzik> Joric: no
748 2011-06-15 07:01:21 <coderrr> well, verifications would
749 2011-06-15 07:01:23 <coderrr> right ?
750 2011-06-15 07:01:25 <Joric> why no
751 2011-06-15 07:01:37 <jgarzik> miners jump to another pool as soon as they lose connectivity
752 2011-06-15 07:01:38 <coderrr> ull still see the transaction show up pretty much immediately
753 2011-06-15 07:01:39 <Diablo-D3> your mom wouldnt slow down
754 2011-06-15 07:01:41 <Diablo-D3> thats for sure
755 2011-06-15 07:01:43 <coderrr> ah ic
756 2011-06-15 07:01:54 <Joric> will difficulty go down?
757 2011-06-15 07:01:58 <jgarzik> miners are not going to idle their machines for hours, waiting for deepbit to return
758 2011-06-15 07:02:23 <jgarzik> it's just a simple change of HTTP endpoint -- which is automatic if you use the 'flexible mining proxy', pushpool or https://github.com/kylegibson/poclbm
759 2011-06-15 07:02:27 <coderrr> but if the miners are out at strip clubs spending their btc
760 2011-06-15 07:02:44 <jgarzik> Joric: no
761 2011-06-15 07:02:50 <sacarlson> jgarzik: ya in fact that might be the best time to make profit as a minner to pop back online as soon as they saw a failure
762 2011-06-15 07:03:14 <jgarzik> sacarlson: that's why we have software that automatically switches pools upon failure :)
763 2011-06-15 07:03:19 <jgarzik> to do otherwise costs money
764 2011-06-15 07:03:54 <sacarlson> jgarzik: good idea
765 2011-06-15 07:04:17 <Diablo-D3> sigh
766 2011-06-15 07:04:23 <Diablo-D3> I should just to shut you fuckers up
767 2011-06-15 07:04:49 <topi`> fuckers are a part of life. get over it.
768 2011-06-15 07:05:02 <Joric> jgarzik, is difficulty even able to go down? i mean by design
769 2011-06-15 07:05:33 <gjs278> yes
770 2011-06-15 07:05:43 <gjs278> it has before even
771 2011-06-15 07:05:44 <Diablo-D3> topi`: dude, I will crowbar you
772 2011-06-15 07:06:00 <jgarzik> Joric: yes
773 2011-06-15 07:06:02 <topi`> gjs278: was the last time when the Mystery miner went offline?
774 2011-06-15 07:06:04 <gjs278> I think so
775 2011-06-15 07:06:08 <topi`> or probably a botnet
776 2011-06-15 07:06:33 <Joric> well it's good, who knows maybe after the nuclear apocalypse we'll get steam-powered computers
777 2011-06-15 07:06:39 <gjs278> taking otc off of autojoin until I figure out how to auto auth
778 2011-06-15 07:06:55 <gjs278> no one trades there now anyways
779 2011-06-15 07:11:43 <topi`> how do they trade, then?
780 2011-06-15 07:14:43 <eps> ;;bc,stats
781 2011-06-15 07:14:44 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130982 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 57 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 hours, 32 minutes, and 30 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 870533.97003353
782 2011-06-15 07:18:16 <Joric> how many hashes i should try to get a share? tried 1363559830 hashes so far didn't get a single share accepted
783 2011-06-15 07:19:21 <Joric> i mean, at average
784 2011-06-15 07:20:31 <ersi> What do you mean "try to get"?
785 2011-06-15 07:20:36 <ersi> Are you hashing manually or something? That'd be crazy
786 2011-06-15 07:20:44 <Joric> trying to write a miner
787 2011-06-15 07:20:48 <ersi> Ah
788 2011-06-15 07:20:55 <ersi> Well, fuck the average. Pump on?
789 2011-06-15 07:21:23 <Joric> what pump
790 2011-06-15 07:22:23 <vegard> Joric: on average you would need to hash about 3 times more than that to get a share
791 2011-06-15 07:23:50 <vegard> a share means that the first 32 bits of the hash are all 0 (the lowest difficulty, difficulty 1)
792 2011-06-15 07:24:31 <vegard> if you assume that the hash is pseudorandom, this has a probability 2^32 of happening if you try random inputs
793 2011-06-15 07:25:27 <vegard> so when you've hashed 2^32 random inputs you get that the expected number of shares is 1
794 2011-06-15 07:26:06 <Danubulo> hi. my client always is crashing (tested with 0.3.21 and 0.3.23) when getting the block 00000000000003d69f78 (129792 in block explorer). The next line in the log is REORGANIZE then it shuts down. in db.log there is "page 1348004960: illegal page type or format; PANIC: Das Argument ist ung??ltig; PANIC: fatal region error detected; run recovery" [Das Argument ist ung??ltig=invalid argument]. Any Idea what I can do about it?
795 2011-06-15 07:26:11 <Joric> thanks, it's all very clear now
796 2011-06-15 07:30:16 <sipa> Danubulo: looks like a database corruption
797 2011-06-15 07:31:40 <Danubulo> how can i rebuild the database?
798 2011-06-15 07:31:56 <Danubulo> i already tried -rescan
799 2011-06-15 07:32:53 <sipa> you can remove all files except wallet.dat, and let them redownload
800 2011-06-15 07:33:44 <gjs278> wow I think my ssd just died
801 2011-06-15 07:33:45 <Danubulo> ok, i'm going to try that. thanks
802 2011-06-15 07:33:53 <gjs278> I can't write anything
803 2011-06-15 07:33:58 <gjs278> I can only read /
804 2011-06-15 07:35:01 <gjs278> welp, time to restart and hope for the best
805 2011-06-15 07:36:47 <JFK911> ;;bc,stats
806 2011-06-15 07:36:56 <gribble> Current Blocks: 130986 | Current Difficulty: 567358.22457067 | Next Difficulty At Block: 131039 | Next Difficulty In: 53 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 5 hours, 9 minutes, and 10 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 870836.65701705
807 2011-06-15 07:43:47 <gjs278> nevermind, just a very poorly timed xfs backup
808 2011-06-15 08:04:22 <molecular> "error: The requested URL returned error: 403 while accessing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git/info/refs" <- help
809 2011-06-15 08:04:35 <sipa> jgarzik: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/0.3.23/
810 2011-06-15 08:05:21 <molecular> what's with the git repo? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
811 2011-06-15 08:05:52 <molecular> am getting 403 forbidden
812 2011-06-15 08:06:16 <Joric> jgarzik, pyminer.py did not work on win32 because of a restriction on global variables (settings, KeyError: 'host') here is a patch http://paste.pocoo.org/show/408060/
813 2011-06-15 08:07:31 <jgarzik> Joric: try 'global'
814 2011-06-15 08:07:41 <Joric> okay )
815 2011-06-15 08:07:56 <jgarzik> molecular: try git://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
816 2011-06-15 08:08:19 <jgarzik> sipa: cool.  will grab after sleep.  thanks!
817 2011-06-15 08:08:34 <jgarzik> sipa: gonna push the wallet code movement thing today, do you think?
818 2011-06-15 08:09:02 <molecular> jgarzik, that worx, thanks
819 2011-06-15 08:10:07 <molecular> jgarzik, does jgarzik/bitcoin.git include key import/export?
820 2011-06-15 08:10:52 <jgarzik> molecular: no.  look through https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls
821 2011-06-15 08:12:40 <molecular> hmmm, I need something future-proof so I can give someone a qrcode key for present... what should I use?
822 2011-06-15 08:13:42 <molecular> can I assume this will get pulled? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/220
823 2011-06-15 08:13:49 <molecular> "Wallet and key import and export"
824 2011-06-15 08:14:27 <Joric> jgarzik, just tried global, won't work "Since Windows lacks os.fork() it has a few extra restrictions: (...) Global variables"
825 2011-06-15 08:15:26 <jgarzik> molecular: probably
826 2011-06-15 08:20:05 <Joric> forgot to add (self) to scantime/hashmeter
827 2011-06-15 08:24:19 <Wuked> Is this problem fixed in the latest version or not ?
828 2011-06-15 08:24:20 <Wuked> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14483.40
829 2011-06-15 08:25:27 <molecular> I'm just too stpid it seem. How can I pull this into my local repo?: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/220
830 2011-06-15 08:30:26 <sipa> Wuked: which problem exactly (don't feel like reading the whole thread)?
831 2011-06-15 08:30:41 <Wuked> the problem with duplicates
832 2011-06-15 08:30:57 <Wuked> lots of duplicate work
833 2011-06-15 08:31:00 <Wuked> being handed out
834 2011-06-15 08:31:18 <Wuked> "The problem lies in poclbm's support for X-Roll-NTime"
835 2011-06-15 08:33:36 <ersi> Wuked: AFAIK it's not fixed in pushpoold/bitcoin. Only at that pool