1 2011-06-19 00:00:58 <lfm> t6hats odd creatdir is in operations instead of filesystem
  2 2011-06-19 00:01:53 <jgarzik> ius: wanna submit a pull request?  :)
  3 2011-06-19 00:02:06 <ius> lfm: That's what I said.. I think?
  4 2011-06-19 00:02:29 <lfm> ius ya just saying it is odd
  5 2011-06-19 00:03:14 <ius> Sure if I knew the best approach. Haven't resolved everything, but it's starting to look like http://pastie.org/2089642
  6 2011-06-19 00:04:04 <ius> Not familiar with boost, 31f293128177e0f53331ddb3f1 was meant to 'only include certain headers if necessary'
  7 2011-06-19 00:04:38 <jgarzik> ius: none of us are boost experts either :)
  8 2011-06-19 00:04:42 <jgarzik> ius: your patch looks sane
  9 2011-06-19 00:04:43 <ius> Instead of those two separate includes from filesystem, we might as well pull all of filesystem
 10 2011-06-19 00:04:53 <jgarzik> operations.hpp exists on fedora, so I'm happy
 11 2011-06-19 00:05:12 <jrmithdobbs> sipa: wallet import/export (if a delete option with big warnings is added, anyways) is an additional step to helping people secure their wallets though, was my point
 12 2011-06-19 00:05:28 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #58: STILL FAILING in 10 min: http://www.bluematt.me/jenkins/job/Bitcoin/58/
 13 2011-06-19 00:05:29 <BlueMattBot> jgarzik: CWalletTx::GetAmounts(): pass NULL for CKeyStore*, rather than false
 14 2011-06-19 00:05:34 <jrmithdobbs> sorry got dragged off to dinner mid thought earlier ;P
 15 2011-06-19 00:05:40 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: I don't see any reason we should not merge wallet import/export
 16 2011-06-19 00:06:02 <ius> jgarzik: For reference, what boost ver is fedora on?
 17 2011-06-19 00:06:56 <jgarzik> ius: 1.44 in F14, 1.46 in F16
 18 2011-06-19 00:06:59 <jgarzik> ius: 1.44 in F14, 1.46 in F15
 19 2011-06-19 00:08:25 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: well, it'll need to be rebased on walletclass
 20 2011-06-19 00:08:31 <jgarzik> yes
 21 2011-06-19 00:08:41 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i was more saying that it's as, if not more, important than wallet encryption
 22 2011-06-19 00:09:00 <jrmithdobbs> i know there's no objection to the general concept of it ;P
 23 2011-06-19 00:09:46 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: opinion noted but largely irrelevant, as neither crypto nor import/export is a blocker for the other
 24 2011-06-19 00:10:00 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: I think we will merge both as soon as either is ready
 25 2011-06-19 00:10:42 <jrmithdobbs> k
 26 2011-06-19 00:11:41 <lfm> do you know details of crypto? what algo is planned?
 27 2011-06-19 00:12:10 <phantomcircuit> im guessing it'll be AES 256
 28 2011-06-19 00:12:14 <phantomcircuit> which would be lulzy
 29 2011-06-19 00:13:21 <lfm> is that in libssl?
 30 2011-06-19 00:13:44 <jgarzik> lfm, phantomcircuit: summary of wallet cryhpto details at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/232
 31 2011-06-19 00:13:49 <jgarzik> lfm: yes
 32 2011-06-19 00:14:11 <jgarzik> *crypto
 33 2011-06-19 00:14:24 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, do not use AES 256, it is less secure than AES128 due to a shitty key schedule
 34 2011-06-19 00:14:29 <copumpkin> roconnor: ah I see
 35 2011-06-19 00:14:41 <copumpkin> roconnor: will it be public? are you interested in collaboration?
 36 2011-06-19 00:15:07 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, i can provide references if you'd like
 37 2011-06-19 00:15:18 <JFK911> use clipper/skipjack please
 38 2011-06-19 00:15:23 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: comments w/ refs in pull request please
 39 2011-06-19 00:15:24 <phantomcircuit> rofl
 40 2011-06-19 00:15:29 <JFK911> skipjack seems secure
 41 2011-06-19 00:15:38 <JFK911> they never escrowed any keys iirc
 42 2011-06-19 00:17:40 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/another_new_aes.html
 43 2011-06-19 00:17:51 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: is a good summary (I agree comments need to go on the pull request)
 44 2011-06-19 00:20:01 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: actually he's using 1000 rounds so it's fine
 45 2011-06-19 00:20:08 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * ref9bab6a5c9c supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/nav-bg-reverse.gif: OTCWebsite: add missing style bg img http://tinyurl.com/6xu83xf
 46 2011-06-19 00:20:26 <jrmithdobbs> the "almost" feasible attacks are at 11 rounds, most implementations use 14 rounds
 47 2011-06-19 00:20:42 <roconnor> copumpkin: probably in a few week.  I might be intrested in collaboration; I don't know I don't have too much experience collaborating on code.
 48 2011-06-19 00:20:47 <phantomcircuit> jrmithdobbs, the rate at which aes 256 attacks have been getting better is troubling even at 1000 rounds...
 49 2011-06-19 00:21:07 <copumpkin> roconnor: ah okay, I might get started on something of my own in the mean time then :) you should set up a github account at some point though
 50 2011-06-19 00:21:11 <jrmithdobbs> phantomcircuit: fair
 51 2011-06-19 00:21:14 <copumpkin> or a public darcs service like darcsden
 52 2011-06-19 00:21:24 <roconnor> ya I was thinking of that
 53 2011-06-19 00:21:33 <roconnor> almost everything is crammed into one file
 54 2011-06-19 00:21:42 <roconnor> now I want to tease it out into proper modules
 55 2011-06-19 00:21:50 <roconnor> maybe do some information hiding while I'm at it.
 56 2011-06-19 00:21:57 <copumpkin> what are you using for the ecdsa?
 57 2011-06-19 00:22:02 <copumpkin> and sha256 for that matter
 58 2011-06-19 00:22:04 <copumpkin> (libraries)
 59 2011-06-19 00:22:23 <roconnor> I wrote a sha256 library 4 years ago.  I'm using a modified version of that
 60 2011-06-19 00:22:28 <copumpkin> ah
 61 2011-06-19 00:22:29 <roconnor> I wrote my own ecdsa library
 62 2011-06-19 00:22:34 <copumpkin> oh nice :)
 63 2011-06-19 00:22:56 <roconnor> ... then I rewrite it to use projective coordinates :D
 64 2011-06-19 00:23:12 <copumpkin> well, on the math front you're probably ahead of most people :)
 65 2011-06-19 00:24:08 <jrmithdobbs> ya but why not contribute that effort to improving openssl's implementation (or another similarly widely used implementation)
 66 2011-06-19 00:24:12 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, the odds that you implemented ecdsa perfectly are pretty low
 67 2011-06-19 00:24:18 <copumpkin> jrmithdobbs: we're both haskell nuts
 68 2011-06-19 00:24:26 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: it's not that hard
 69 2011-06-19 00:24:29 <copumpkin> nuff said, I'd hope :P
 70 2011-06-19 00:24:45 <roconnor> the odds that I've impelemented bitcoin properly are pretty low though =)
 71 2011-06-19 00:24:46 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, lol it's crypto code, as a rule your odds of implementing it properly yourself are in the low single digits
 72 2011-06-19 00:24:50 <copumpkin> most bad implementations are because of timing, and timing isn't a problem here
 73 2011-06-19 00:24:55 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: i'd still think hooking into a more common c lib would be a better idea
 74 2011-06-19 00:25:10 <jrmithdobbs> just for code review comfort
 75 2011-06-19 00:25:24 <phantomcircuit> roconnor, dont take it as a slight, it's true for anybody doing crypto code, even people doing systems on top of primatives
 76 2011-06-19 00:25:41 <roconnor> phantomcircuit: I think you are mistaking implementing crypto yourself with making your own cryto system.
 77 2011-06-19 00:25:48 <copumpkin> phantomcircuit: the main issues non-hardcore implementations overlook are just timing and side channel attacks
 78 2011-06-19 00:25:55 <copumpkin> implementing a spec is fairly straightforward usually
 79 2011-06-19 00:26:00 <copumpkin> especially something like DSA
 80 2011-06-19 00:26:03 <copumpkin> or ECDSA
 81 2011-06-19 00:26:13 <copumpkin> it's either right or it isn't
 82 2011-06-19 00:26:17 <phantomcircuit> copumpkin, that's what they all say ;)
 83 2011-06-19 00:26:21 <copumpkin> whether it leaks side channel information like sieve is another question
 84 2011-06-19 00:26:25 <roconnor> oh, ya, if you mean side channel attack, then maybe; but OTOH, I'm only using it to verify signatures at the momement, so I have no secrets to keep secret.
 85 2011-06-19 00:26:32 <copumpkin> yeah, exactly
 86 2011-06-19 00:27:23 <copumpkin> phantomcircuit: I dunno, I don't think it's a big issue here :) watch roconnor's kitten get lost though, now that I've said that
 87 2011-06-19 00:27:27 <lfm> roconnor: if your implementation is good then get it included in libssl or something
 88 2011-06-19 00:27:39 <copumpkin> lfm: they like haskell code? :P
 89 2011-06-19 00:27:39 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: it's in haskell
 90 2011-06-19 00:27:46 <roconnor> lfm: I don't think libssl is going to depend on the haskell runtime anytime soon.
 91 2011-06-19 00:27:50 <copumpkin> only mad haskellers like haskell code
 92 2011-06-19 00:28:01 <roconnor> OTOH, I have no buffer overflows :D
 93 2011-06-19 00:28:08 <lfm> well there's your answer then
 94 2011-06-19 00:28:46 <jrmithdobbs> roconnor: openssl doesn't exactly have a huge long record of buffer overflows either ... other fun attacks yes
 95 2011-06-19 00:28:59 <jrmithdobbs> (though really still not that many)
 96 2011-06-19 00:29:07 <jrmithdobbs> just sayin
 97 2011-06-19 00:29:17 <roconnor> that's good to hear
 98 2011-06-19 00:30:12 <roconnor> anyhow I need to go to bed many hours ago
 99 2011-06-19 00:30:17 <roconnor> l8r
100 2011-06-19 00:30:34 <copumpkin> ciao
101 2011-06-19 00:39:16 <ericmock> Haskellers in the Rathskeller?
102 2011-06-19 00:39:34 <sacarlson> I was reading https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains  and was thinking one of these might be what I want to try playing with.  I was going to try a linked chain that uses bitcoin transactions of zero of .01 with added needed fee to validate value transactions on another chain
103 2011-06-19 00:42:14 <sacarlson> so can I setup a zero transaction on bitcoin as long as I provide a fee to get into the blockchain?
104 2011-06-19 00:43:09 <sacarlson> oh and I guess the min fee now would be .001 btc not .01
105 2011-06-19 00:45:43 <luke-jr> sacarlson: it would be .0005 BTC
106 2011-06-19 00:46:02 <luke-jr> sacarlson: and Eligius will charge like 0.01048576 BTC per 512 bytes, if you do it :P
107 2011-06-19 00:46:16 <sacarlson> luke-jr: oh ok so I can setup a zero transaction and pay .0005 btc to get it in
108 2011-06-19 00:46:37 <luke-jr> sacarlson: Eligius is hostile to data storage abuses :P
109 2011-06-19 00:47:18 <sacarlson> luke-jr: I don't think the payload would be very big just a normal transaction as far as bitcoin would see it
110 2011-06-19 00:47:51 <luke-jr> sacarlson: regardless, if Eligius detects you're using it for mere data storage, it will charge more
111 2011-06-19 00:49:05 <sacarlson> luke-jr: so would a zero transaction be more than 512 bytes?
112 2011-06-19 00:49:19 <luke-jr> not likely
113 2011-06-19 00:49:32 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: hostile? what will it do?
114 2011-06-19 00:49:33 <luke-jr> sacarlson: normally Eligius charges 0.00004096 BTC per 512 bytes
115 2011-06-19 00:49:40 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: require a larger fee :p
116 2011-06-19 00:49:57 <cuddlefish> vragnaroda: It sends message MALLET
117 2011-06-19 00:50:19 <cuddlefish> vragnaroda: triggers an automated mallet to come out of your CD tray and inflict cranial injury on the user
118 2011-06-19 00:50:19 <sacarlson> luke-jr: I assume if the fee's aren't there for eligius it will just take longer to transact until a minner accepts it?
119 2011-06-19 00:50:55 <luke-jr> sacarlson: assuming another miner tolerates it
120 2011-06-19 00:51:04 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: requiring a larger fee doesn't seem hostile to me. you should fix that :)
121 2011-06-19 00:51:25 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: ..
122 2011-06-19 00:51:34 <luke-jr> it's as hostile as a pool can reasonably be
123 2011-06-19 00:51:40 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: automated DDoS!
124 2011-06-19 00:51:46 <luke-jr> &
125 2011-06-19 00:51:56 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: HOW DARE YOU BROADCAST THAT TRANSACTION
126 2011-06-19 00:51:56 <vragnaroda> hostility isn't reasonable!
127 2011-06-19 00:54:04 <sacarlson> luke-jr: well It's supply and demand if people don't want to pay for security there are cheaper but less secure chains available
128 2011-06-19 00:54:32 <nukelies-com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkkrFvwgFJ8&t=0m45s
129 2011-06-19 00:54:42 <nukelies-com> sorry wrong window
130 2011-06-19 00:55:16 <lfm> we should just charge 100btc per transaction and get it over with
131 2011-06-19 00:56:11 <sacarlson> lfm: well if that happend I guess 100btc would be worth .0001USD
132 2011-06-19 00:56:37 <lfm> naw, it would just get all the piddly little txn out of the block chain
133 2011-06-19 00:56:37 <sacarlson> lfm: and it  would still balance out
134 2011-06-19 00:59:05 <lfm> from now on my miner will only include txn with fees of 100btc or more
135 2011-06-19 00:59:25 <luke-jr> jerk
136 2011-06-19 00:59:41 <lfm> hu? its no different from what you're doing?
137 2011-06-19 01:02:52 <lfm> like the guy that asked his date "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?" She said she would probably take him up on that so then he asked would she do it for $50 and she slapped him and said "What do you think I am?" He said, we have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price.
138 2011-06-19 01:05:58 <sacarlson> I had also thought of just using the blocks created in bitcoins as timestamps for another chain so no transactions would be needed
139 2011-06-19 01:09:55 <jgarzik> anybody awake, who knows I2P?  I'm curious to know if I2P guarantees that (a) all packets are the same size, and (b) all packets are sent at highly regular intervals?  I think the answer is "no" to both, but I want to be sure.
140 2011-06-19 01:10:52 <lfm> how could it guarantee (b) if it runs on the internet
141 2011-06-19 01:12:46 <jgarzik> lfm: key word "sent" not "received"
142 2011-06-19 01:12:56 <lfm> if you're thinking of counter measures to traffic analysis then you cant ever use the full bandwith unless you are running filler data full out all the time
143 2011-06-19 01:13:03 <sacarlson> lfm: I"m not sure I guess the minners in this case wait for a transaction to come from bitcoin when they get it then they start working from that block hash a new block in the new chain.  first minner to come up with the number from the valid bitcoin number wins
144 2011-06-19 01:13:22 <jgarzik> lfm: that's what I'm wondering -- does I2P automatically provide said filler data and regularized sent-packet timings?
145 2011-06-19 01:13:54 <lfm> jgarzik: it would seem very wastful
146 2011-06-19 01:14:17 <jgarzik> lfm: <shrug>  less wasteful == easy protocol fingerprinting, regardless of encryption
147 2011-06-19 01:14:47 <jrmithdobbs> what's wrong with protocol fingerprinting?
148 2011-06-19 01:15:25 <lfm> hmm ya but you still shouldnt be able to tell a 0.01btc txn from a 100,000.00 btc txn
149 2011-06-19 01:15:30 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: if you are trying to be anonymous, you better not use the bitcoin P2P protocol, which can be easily detected
150 2011-06-19 01:16:26 <jgarzik> lfm: if you are sending a transaction, and the government has a bunch of sampling nodes around the bitcoin network, the government can probably figure out who sent a bitcoin transaction
151 2011-06-19 01:17:08 <lfm> jgarzik: yup, they can prolly figure it out pretty easy without even seeing the i2p traffic at all
152 2011-06-19 01:17:16 <jgarzik> yep
153 2011-06-19 01:17:28 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: they wouldn't even need "a bunch"
154 2011-06-19 01:18:20 <lfm> like 3 or 4 might be enuf to "triangulate
155 2011-06-19 01:18:38 <jrmithdobbs> i think 2 would be enough with modified clients
156 2011-06-19 01:18:41 <sacarlson> lfm: wouldn't just a vpn be good enuf to evade the gov from at least know your physical location?
157 2011-06-19 01:19:03 <luke-jr> fwiw, Python's "decimal" module SUCKS
158 2011-06-19 01:19:10 <luke-jr> I mean, more than just because it's Decimal
159 2011-06-19 01:19:12 <lfm> not hard to see where a vpn goes
160 2011-06-19 01:19:16 <jrmithdobbs> s/"decimal" module //
161 2011-06-19 01:19:16 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: fwiw, Python sucks
162 2011-06-19 01:19:19 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: that too
163 2011-06-19 01:19:24 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: but 'decimal' is SLOW
164 2011-06-19 01:19:38 <jrmithdobbs> s/but 'decimal'/python
165 2011-06-19 01:19:38 <sacarlson> lfm: oh ok
166 2011-06-19 01:20:12 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: I wrote a competing module (with support for like 30 radices) that runs significantly faster in pure Python
167 2011-06-19 01:20:26 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: i don't doubt it
168 2011-06-19 01:20:40 <luke-jr> and it's more accurate too
169 2011-06-19 01:20:48 <luke-jr> 'decimal' rounds at some point
170 2011-06-19 01:21:00 <luke-jr> 'anynumber' has infinite resolution :p
171 2011-06-19 01:21:04 <lfm> binary rounds too
172 2011-06-19 01:21:20 <luke-jr> lfm: binary isn't a Python module
173 2011-06-19 01:21:42 <lfm> any computer arithmetic rounds one way or another
174 2011-06-19 01:21:58 <luke-jr> lfm: depends on the input
175 2011-06-19 01:22:31 <lfm> its basic numerical analysis
176 2011-06-19 01:30:09 <lfm> cobol and pl/1 had builtin fixed point fractioal arithmetic (people called it decimal but it wasnt always implemented as decimal)
177 2011-06-19 01:30:56 <vragnaroda> i don't know anything about those languages, but ada does that, too
178 2011-06-19 01:38:44 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":18.5,"low":15.052,"vol":44936,"buy":17.699,"sell":17.7,"last":17.7}}
179 2011-06-19 01:38:44 <Kireji> ;;bc,mtgox
180 2011-06-19 01:40:03 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * ree1f79b18684 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/somefunctions.php: OTCWebsite: grab gox ticker with cron, and pull data from local file due to ssl bug in php version, but also should improve performance http://tinyurl.com/654fgxg
181 2011-06-19 01:50:51 <citiz3n> how many decimal places does the latest client allow you to see
182 2011-06-19 01:50:52 <citiz3n> and send?
183 2011-06-19 01:53:39 <citiz3n> also, are the "supernodes" working yet?
184 2011-06-19 01:53:49 <citiz3n> will they upload the blockchain faster than regular nodes
185 2011-06-19 01:54:04 <citiz3n> even using nodes over lan - it takes FOREVER to download the blockchain
186 2011-06-19 01:54:06 <vragnaroda> citiz3n: my client is showing my current balance to the 8th decimal place (ends in .10374795)
187 2011-06-19 01:54:29 <citiz3n> seems better to sneakernet the block files, but it would be nice to be able to download them faster
188 2011-06-19 01:54:54 <cuddlefish> citiz3n: the sourceforge page has nighlty blockchain dummps
189 2011-06-19 02:10:41 <wasabi1> So... all these OpenCL SHA256 kernel's I've seen...
190 2011-06-19 02:10:55 <wasabi1> They seem to me to return all the hashes...
191 2011-06-19 02:12:37 <wasabi1> Eh. No they don't. Nevermind. So these programs aren't self-parallized, are they
192 2011-06-19 02:13:09 <citiz3n> my client still seems to only show .xx places behind the decimal
193 2011-06-19 02:17:05 <sacarlson> citiz3n: what's are supernodes ?
194 2011-06-19 02:17:21 <citiz3n> in the 1st bitcoin tv video
195 2011-06-19 02:17:35 <citiz3n> they were interviewing the guys developing bitcoin software in a lab
196 2011-06-19 02:17:44 <sacarlson> citiz3n: never saw it
197 2011-06-19 02:17:47 <citiz3n> and supposedly they were going to make supernodes for people to connect to that would help speed the network up
198 2011-06-19 02:19:48 <JRWR> citiz3n: we need another IRC that the client can fall back on
199 2011-06-19 02:20:01 <JRWR> one that runs even on port 443/80
200 2011-06-19 02:21:36 <JRWR> I have a idea, how about a web based service that takes in the IP/Detected IP and lists them on a page for the client to download
201 2011-06-19 02:21:51 <sacarlson> citiz3n: I just keep a backup copy on my local server of the blk0001.dat and blkindex.dat files of each of the chains I support, I guess I could also seed a torrent file of my backups to help make some people start faster
202 2011-06-19 02:21:52 <JRWR> I just made a system for that for a new game client that needed a master server
203 2011-06-19 02:22:10 <ZOP> JRWR: if you can't connect out to an irc server, you probably won't be able to connect out on 8332 either.....
204 2011-06-19 02:23:20 <JRWR> maybe not
205 2011-06-19 02:23:26 <JRWR> some ISPs filter IRC
206 2011-06-19 02:23:31 <JRWR> and not a random port
207 2011-06-19 02:23:59 <JRWR> tho TOR can help with that, maybe a mode for tor to connect to the block chain over tor
208 2011-06-19 02:24:03 <sacarlson> jrwr: the fall back already has like 330 base addresses
209 2011-06-19 02:24:23 <JRWR> I thought about setting up a hidden server for people to use as a base for their client
210 2011-06-19 02:24:36 <citiz3n> im just wondering what makes the block transfer so slow with the client
211 2011-06-19 02:24:46 <citiz3n> it must be something in the code throttling it
212 2011-06-19 02:24:58 <citiz3n> over gigabit lan it should be downloaded in seconds
213 2011-06-19 02:25:04 <citiz3n> not hours
214 2011-06-19 02:28:40 <sacarlson> citiz3n: yes it's taken me sometime over 10 hours to download a fresh copy that's why I now keep a copy
215 2011-06-19 02:29:07 <jgarzik> JRWR: if IRC is not working for you, pass -dnsseed
216 2011-06-19 02:29:39 <citiz3n> hey jgarzik
217 2011-06-19 02:29:52 <citiz3n> do you know what functions regulate the speed of block transfer from one client to another?
218 2011-06-19 02:30:25 <citiz3n> i noticed sometimes it flies and does hundreds of blocks in a couple seconds, and other times it just sits there and sits there and goes REALLY slow
219 2011-06-19 02:30:34 <citiz3n> and this is all over lan :(
220 2011-06-19 02:31:02 <sacarlson> citiz3n: I never looked into it but I was also unhappy when I first started that I had to give up 30kb/s of my bandwidth to others getting it from me
221 2011-06-19 02:31:11 <citiz3n> it would be really cool to be able to set how much bandwidth you'd like to allocate for it
222 2011-06-19 02:31:12 <jgarzik> citiz3n: we know there's a problem in there, unfortunately
223 2011-06-19 02:31:13 <jgarzik> citiz3n: anti-DoS flooding code bumps up against huge blockchain downloads.
224 2011-06-19 02:31:15 <sacarlson> citiz3n: remind you we are not all rich with Internet bandwidth like you might be
225 2011-06-19 02:31:16 <jgarzik> citiz3n: working on a fix
226 2011-06-19 02:31:18 <citiz3n> cool
227 2011-06-19 02:31:23 <citiz3n> in the future i could see dedicated servers up there to spit out blocks REALLY quick for new people
228 2011-06-19 02:31:26 <citiz3n> cutting down on that block download time would really make the bitcoin experience better for newbies
229 2011-06-19 02:31:26 <jgarzik> in the future, normal people will use SPV clients like bitcoinj, and only pros will use the Satoshi Client
230 2011-06-19 02:31:27 <citiz3n> i don't throttle my bitcoin bandwidth at all
231 2011-06-19 02:31:27 <sacarlson> citiz3n: well at least share the bandwidth the newbee's uses with other newbee's like with torrent would be all that's needed
232 2011-06-19 02:31:28 <citiz3n> and my client is running all the time
233 2011-06-19 02:31:45 <sacarlson> citiz3n: I transfer most of those files above over lan not Internet
234 2011-06-19 02:31:57 <citiz3n> last question jgarzik, about those smaller fractions of coins
235 2011-06-19 02:32:03 <citiz3n> i thought the new client would show them?
236 2011-06-19 02:32:13 <citiz3n> my one wallet still shows 188.04 for example
237 2011-06-19 02:32:34 <citiz3n> im sure there are smaller coins in there, but i can't see them and how can i send them when i don't know what they are?
238 2011-06-19 02:32:37 <sacarlson> citiz3n: I see them with bitcoind and also in my exchange goes down to .0001
239 2011-06-19 02:32:39 <citiz3n> im organizing my wallets a bit tonight
240 2011-06-19 02:32:40 <jgarzik> citiz3n: it shows them for me.  it shows minimum necessary
241 2011-06-19 02:32:52 <JRWR> question, what are the files that are the "blockchain" that is saved by the daemon
242 2011-06-19 02:33:03 <jgarzik> JRWR: blk*.dat
243 2011-06-19 02:33:08 <JRWR> ok
244 2011-06-19 02:33:27 <citiz3n> what does the index do?
245 2011-06-19 02:33:46 <citiz3n> ive been sneaking the block and the block index file over to create new wallets
246 2011-06-19 02:33:59 <citiz3n> just curious what the difference is
247 2011-06-19 02:35:20 <jgarzik> citiz3n: indexes the block chain :)
248 2011-06-19 02:35:49 <citiz3n> yeah this stuff is beyond my comprehension right now
249 2011-06-19 02:35:53 <citiz3n> i was thinking earlier today that i should really learn it :P
250 2011-06-19 02:35:57 <sacarlson> citiz3n: your question (11:32:34 AM) try bitcoind getinfo  is should show you down to 8 dec places
251 2011-06-19 02:41:42 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: I'm making a fallback node right now, should be veery nice
252 2011-06-19 02:42:55 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: FWIW we need DNS seeds more than we need fallback nodes
253 2011-06-19 02:43:15 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: how do I make one of those?
254 2011-06-19 02:43:26 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: someone trusted, with stable service, sampling nodes for uptime and returning them via a DNS server A record
255 2011-06-19 02:43:53 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: if you write a daemon that does that, I'll host it
256 2011-06-19 02:44:17 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: on the list.  I'll probably use tinydns (djbdns) for the server, rather than write my own.
257 2011-06-19 02:44:28 <jgarzik> tinydns takes a simple flat file as input
258 2011-06-19 02:44:42 <cuddlefish> Ah, I see.
259 2011-06-19 02:45:16 <cuddlefish> that's a nice enough daemon I'll probably write one myself :P
260 2011-06-19 02:46:02 <cuddlefish> Hey, the p2p port is 8332, right?
261 2011-06-19 02:46:06 <jgarzik> anything compliant with DNS RFCs work :)
262 2011-06-19 02:46:09 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: no, that's rpc
263 2011-06-19 02:46:12 <cuddlefish> Aha!
264 2011-06-19 02:47:06 <jgarzik> the only requirement of a DNS seed is to return A records listing addresses that support incoming connections on port 8333
265 2011-06-19 02:47:20 <jgarzik> it can be a static list... but that's not very helpful to the network
266 2011-06-19 02:47:53 <cuddlefish> okay. Why DNS?
267 2011-06-19 02:47:57 <jgarzik> the two current DNS seeds (vladimir's, mine) simply return a list of fallback nodes
268 2011-06-19 02:48:01 <lfm> jgarzik: not neccessarily all of them, a sampleing of them like 8 or 32 should be ok?
269 2011-06-19 02:48:14 <jgarzik> lfm: yes
270 2011-06-19 02:48:46 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: quick efficient and works
271 2011-06-19 02:49:23 <jgarzik> remember this is bootstrapping and nothing more.  people tend to overthink it, forgetting that peer exchange is the primary method of obtaining addresses
272 2011-06-19 02:49:36 <kermit> DNS seeding wouldnt be any more p2p than irc seeding.. a list of hosts needs to be included when transferring the program.
273 2011-06-19 02:50:07 <jgarzik> DNS is not P2P
274 2011-06-19 02:51:21 <kermit> yes that was my point
275 2011-06-19 02:52:48 <jgarzik> a list of hosts is built into the client
276 2011-06-19 02:53:26 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: Oh, also, how the frak do I set maxconnections
277 2011-06-19 02:53:44 <cuddlefish> I'm -maxconnections=500, but it's holding out at 32
278 2011-06-19 02:54:17 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: max outbound limit is hardcoded inside client
279 2011-06-19 02:54:24 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: inbound.
280 2011-06-19 02:54:37 <cuddlefish> ah, there we go. looks like I just hadn't found any more nodes
281 2011-06-19 02:54:39 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: -maxconnections controls that, indeed
282 2011-06-19 02:54:42 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: yep
283 2011-06-19 02:56:56 <SerajewelKS> hey, quick question.  is it normal for bitcoind to be using more RAM than a minecraft server process?
284 2011-06-19 02:58:30 <jrmithdobbs> depneds on use
285 2011-06-19 02:58:33 <jrmithdobbs> infeasible? no
286 2011-06-19 02:59:37 <SerajewelKS> sitting mostly idle for about a week?
287 2011-06-19 02:59:39 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: irc is still primary method for determining "freshness" of peers
288 2011-06-19 03:00:13 <SerajewelKS> it seems like bitcoind is keeping a lot of shit in RAM that it doesn't need to
289 2011-06-19 03:00:17 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: yes... because it's the compiled in default
290 2011-06-19 03:00:23 <jgarzik> SerajewelKS: patches welcome
291 2011-06-19 03:00:27 <SerajewelKS> or it's leaking, i'm not sure which
292 2011-06-19 03:00:35 <SerajewelKS> ah, the standard cop-out :)
293 2011-06-19 03:00:55 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: the peer selection code is broken, look at the pull gmaxwell closed earlier and the channel logs around the time he closed it
294 2011-06-19 03:01:16 <JRWR> Updated every 6 hours from a active non-firewalled client, http://jrwr.co.cc/bitcoind/
295 2011-06-19 03:01:27 <JRWR> block preseeds as so called
296 2011-06-19 03:01:40 <doublec> SerajewelKS: mine usually sits around 300MB or so
297 2011-06-19 03:01:55 <jgarzik> I would -not- recommend downloading the block chain from untrusted parties
298 2011-06-19 03:01:56 <SerajewelKS> doublec: that seems about right
299 2011-06-19 03:01:58 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: basically as is, for outbound connections, the code gets into a state (especially without irc, but even with because of the channel splits) where it will get down to one "desired" peer to connect to :(
300 2011-06-19 03:02:04 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: gmaxwell is working on a solution though
301 2011-06-19 03:02:37 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: yes, peer selection sucks
302 2011-06-19 03:02:45 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: that is orthogonal to bootstrapping
303 2011-06-19 03:02:53 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: also, the send buffer is way too small by default right now with block size growth
304 2011-06-19 03:03:09 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: yes, I just stated as much ~50 lines ago
305 2011-06-19 03:03:21 <SerajewelKS> jgarzik: if i write a patch, it will be a cron job that restarts it every day.  i don't have a lot of experience in C++ (owing in part to my strong dislike of the language) nor in the various debugging tools to be very helpful.
306 2011-06-19 03:03:30 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: missed that
307 2011-06-19 03:03:50 <SerajewelKS> it took me long enough to write my "getsinceblock" patch... and that was one rpc command
308 2011-06-19 03:03:58 <jgarzik> SerajewelKS: it uses a lot of memory, but leaks seem unlikely
309 2011-06-19 03:04:46 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: what's the proposed for solution for he send buffer? or is there one yet?
310 2011-06-19 03:04:57 <jrmithdobbs> just bumping isn't really sustainable
311 2011-06-19 03:05:28 <vragnaroda> SerajewelKS: well, say what you really think about C++
312 2011-06-19 03:05:34 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: none yet.  buffering in RAM is criminally stupid, and the current limits are just a hack on top of a hack
313 2011-06-19 03:05:54 <jgarzik> if I had my druthers, it would just sendfile(2) and keep nothing in application heap
314 2011-06-19 03:05:55 <jrmithdobbs> ya
315 2011-06-19 03:06:10 <jrmithdobbs> i don't see any easy fix without overhauling like that tbqh
316 2011-06-19 03:06:11 <jgarzik> but it's satoshicode
317 2011-06-19 03:07:02 <SerajewelKS> vragnaroda: my thoughts about C++ are mostly expressed in four-letter words ;)
318 2011-06-19 03:07:13 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: it's a real mess.  the code is written to buffer-and-move-on, which is rather DoS prone and just overall resource intensive.  the hack stops infinite buffering, but causes problems with large block chain downloads.
319 2011-06-19 03:07:22 <jgarzik> the real fix is to keep a file pointer, and buffer nothing
320 2011-06-19 03:07:25 <jgarzik> but that's quite difficult
321 2011-06-19 03:07:34 <jrmithdobbs> right because of the storage method
322 2011-06-19 03:07:57 <jrmithdobbs> i understand the problem, i was hoping someone had thought of an easier solution :(
323 2011-06-19 03:07:59 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: no, because of the code.  the block chain is stored in native format not bdb, so sendfile(2) is straightforward
324 2011-06-19 03:08:10 <jrmithdobbs> oh it is?
325 2011-06-19 03:08:30 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: the fundamental problem is suspending a transfer in the middle of a message, as TCP windows close and open
326 2011-06-19 03:09:12 <jgarzik> blk0001.dat is block+tx in native format, already ready for the wire
327 2011-06-19 03:09:23 <jrmithdobbs> ya just looked at it
328 2011-06-19 03:09:34 <jrmithdobbs> i assumed it was bdb and never looked
329 2011-06-19 03:09:43 <jrmithdobbs> that explains why the index
330 2011-06-19 03:09:47 <jgarzik> blkindex is bdb index of blkNNNN.dat
331 2011-06-19 03:09:49 <jgarzik> yeah
332 2011-06-19 03:10:04 <jrmithdobbs> should really rename that from .dat ;P
333 2011-06-19 03:10:31 <jrmithdobbs> heh
334 2011-06-19 03:12:49 <jrmithdobbs> well shit, why not just mmap the whole thing and and instead of the buffer send pass a pointer to the block on disk for each get ?
335 2011-06-19 03:13:02 <jrmithdobbs> err response to get
336 2011-06-19 03:13:42 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: that's just reinventing sendfile...  poorly
337 2011-06-19 03:13:56 <jrmithdobbs> but it's easy to shove into the current code
338 2011-06-19 03:13:59 <jrmithdobbs> easier
339 2011-06-19 03:14:11 <jrmithdobbs> as a stopgap
340 2011-06-19 03:14:36 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: #include <standard response.h>
341 2011-06-19 03:14:42 <jgarzik> patches welcome, if it's so easy :)
342 2011-06-19 03:15:03 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Daniel Folkinshteyn * r3eb8c04d1787 supybot-bitcoin-marketmonitor/OTCWebsite/ (createticker.py somefunctions.php): OTCWebsite: use a cache for google exchange rate queries http://tinyurl.com/3ktl8xd
343 2011-06-19 03:18:48 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: if you'd actually accept such a hack as a stopgap measure i may have some time later this week to look at it more closely
344 2011-06-19 03:19:08 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: stopgaps welcome
345 2011-06-19 03:19:20 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: as I said, current situation is a hack on top of shit satoshi code :)
346 2011-06-19 03:19:23 <jgarzik> jrmithdobbs: can't get much worse
347 2011-06-19 03:24:02 <Hardcor__> how are bitcoins unique?
348 2011-06-19 03:24:19 <jrmithdobbs> what
349 2011-06-19 03:24:22 <copumpkin> as in, individual bitcoins?
350 2011-06-19 03:24:28 <copumpkin> or the scheme among other crypto cash schemes?
351 2011-06-19 03:24:29 <Hardcor__> yeah
352 2011-06-19 03:24:39 <Hardcor__> like
353 2011-06-19 03:24:49 <Hardcor__> how are they protected from collision
354 2011-06-19 03:25:08 <jrmithdobbs> coins are only created in the coinbase txn
355 2011-06-19 03:25:25 <jrmithdobbs> there is a chain of custody for every txn that tracks back to the originating coinbase
356 2011-06-19 03:25:35 <enki> they don't have identity. bitcoin just keeps track how many bitcoins you have
357 2011-06-19 03:25:43 <enki> but pby your question is better suited for #bitcoin
358 2011-06-19 03:25:46 <enki> this is the dev channel
359 2011-06-19 03:26:49 <Hardcor__> say you have 3 bitcoins
360 2011-06-19 03:27:09 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: is there an end of record demarcation in blk0001.dat or does it just depend on parsing the protocol?
361 2011-06-19 03:27:28 <Hardcor__> bitcoin1 id= 002827 bitcoin2 id = 2876632 bitcoin3 id = 002827
362 2011-06-19 03:27:34 <Hardcor__> wouldnt that be a issue
363 2011-06-19 03:27:57 <enki> bitcoins don't have ids - let's talk in #bitcoin
364 2011-06-19 03:28:19 <Hardcor__> okay
365 2011-06-19 03:28:23 <Hardcor__> pm me?
366 2011-06-19 03:28:26 <Hardcor__> im really confused
367 2011-06-19 03:54:30 <cacheson> how fast is it acceptable to poll the mtgox API?
368 2011-06-19 03:54:44 <copumpkin> I sent them an email asking that but they haven't responded yet
369 2011-06-19 03:56:20 <cacheson> hm
370 2011-06-19 03:56:45 <cacheson> ideally I should use the websocket API, but I want to get this up and running fast, and improve it later
371 2011-06-19 04:19:05 <echelon> hi
372 2011-06-19 04:19:32 <echelon> you know what would be a nice extended feature?
373 2011-06-19 04:20:01 <luke-jr> echelon: /ignore?
374 2011-06-19 04:20:04 <echelon> if you could verify that the coins you claim to have are in your possession by signing something with your address
375 2011-06-19 04:20:12 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: ????
376 2011-06-19 04:20:19 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: wtf?
377 2011-06-19 04:20:32 <luke-jr> echelon: see 'signmessage'
378 2011-06-19 04:20:35 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: ??=ha
379 2011-06-19 04:20:45 <echelon> lol, they thought of everything
380 2011-06-19 04:21:16 <luke-jr> echelon: everything except how to get the IRS to accept bitcoins
381 2011-06-19 04:21:18 <echelon> but let the record be known that i arrived at the idea independently :P
382 2011-06-19 04:21:43 <luke-jr> echelon: you didn't arrive at the less obvious practical uses though!
383 2011-06-19 04:22:00 <echelon> like?
384 2011-06-19 04:22:07 <vragnaroda> luke-jr: but they add more ??s the funnier something is. ???? is a *very* weak lol
385 2011-06-19 04:22:08 <luke-jr> like changing pool settings for eligius
386 2011-06-19 04:22:33 <echelon> i don't know much about pools
387 2011-06-19 04:22:40 <echelon> i don't operate a mining rig
388 2011-06-19 04:29:11 <sturles> All the log-files in .bitcoin/database/ can be deleted, right?  Have a client with very thight disk space, and the log files are 1 GiB in total.
389 2011-06-19 04:29:24 <sturles> Keep the two last ones, perhaps?
390 2011-06-19 04:31:04 <luke-jr> sturles: I think it will recreate them
391 2011-06-19 04:31:12 <luke-jr> ie, they're required to actually run it
392 2011-06-19 04:32:32 <gmaxwell> sturles: the debug log can be tossed though, and you can change the code to keep less
393 2011-06-19 04:32:41 <gmaxwell> (I think it keeps a gig by defaut)
394 2011-06-19 04:33:00 <gmaxwell> Dunno why your .bitcoin is so large though.
395 2011-06-19 04:33:26 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: mine is 1.5 GB
396 2011-06-19 04:33:44 <gmaxwell> On one of my normal nodes it 540MB.
397 2011-06-19 04:35:27 <kfr> Hmm generating funny Bitcoin addresses like 1BitcoinSucksTF9N9Qrate4ZoUzVVdy boils down to SHA256 bruteforcing or something like that, right?
398 2011-06-19 04:35:36 <kfr> So you could write an OpenCL program which crunches that on GPUs?
399 2011-06-19 04:35:53 <kfr> To generate the appropriate key pairs or whatever is behind this
400 2011-06-19 04:36:03 <gmaxwell> kfr: the gpu is turing compete, you could run anything on it.
401 2011-06-19 04:36:12 <gmaxwell> But it's not just SHA256, alas.
402 2011-06-19 04:36:23 <luke-jr> kfr: you need to implement ECDSA too
403 2011-06-19 04:36:28 <gmaxwell> It's ecc public key generation + sha256 + ripemd
404 2011-06-19 04:36:32 <kfr> Oh snap
405 2011-06-19 04:36:45 <kfr> I suppose that still works well for GPUs though?
406 2011-06-19 04:36:52 <copumpkin> I'd expect ECDSA not to
407 2011-06-19 04:36:58 <kfr> No? :[
408 2011-06-19 04:36:59 <copumpkin> sure, they can do it, but not very easily
409 2011-06-19 04:36:59 <gmaxwell> The ecc part requires /only/ a field multiply
410 2011-06-19 04:37:12 <kfr> I mean, they can do it better than CPUs, no?
411 2011-06-19 04:37:20 <gmaxwell> Doubtful.
412 2011-06-19 04:37:24 <kfr> Also, hi copumpkin, we haven't seen spoken in quite some time
413 2011-06-19 04:37:25 <vragnaroda> 02:33 < gmaxwell> Dunno why your .bitcoin is so large though. | 02:33 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: mine is 1.5 GB <-- really?
414 2011-06-19 04:37:27 <copumpkin> not sure what kinds of fields they typically use
415 2011-06-19 04:37:31 <copumpkin> hi kfr :)
416 2011-06-19 04:37:34 <luke-jr> vragnaroda: yes
417 2011-06-19 04:37:35 <copumpkin> I can't remember where I know you from
418 2011-06-19 04:37:42 <kfr> ##re and #haskell
419 2011-06-19 04:37:43 <kfr> Primarily
420 2011-06-19 04:37:46 <copumpkin> ah okay
421 2011-06-19 04:38:12 <gmaxwell> kfr: the algorithim openssl uses for public key gen would not be fast on gpus.
422 2011-06-19 04:38:22 <kfr> Really? Interesting
423 2011-06-19 04:38:25 <kfr> Why is it slower?
424 2011-06-19 04:38:29 <kfr> Does it have branching diversity?
425 2011-06-19 04:38:37 <gmaxwell> It has tables.
426 2011-06-19 04:38:42 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: ... Is there a faster one on GPUs?
427 2011-06-19 04:38:50 <gmaxwell> Big jucy tables.
428 2011-06-19 04:38:50 <kfr> So? GPUs have very fast memory
429 2011-06-19 04:39:04 <kfr> What's the problem?
430 2011-06-19 04:39:13 <gmaxwell> kfr: with random access to that memory completely slaughtering their performance.
431 2011-06-19 04:39:21 <kfr> Ahhh is caching an issue?
432 2011-06-19 04:39:40 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: is there a faster algo, on GPUs?
433 2011-06-19 04:39:40 <gmaxwell> gpu memory is only big and fast if your access patterns are totally predictable.
434 2011-06-19 04:39:41 <kfr> I know that GPUs have a less sophisticated caching hierarchy than CPUs for most global memory access
435 2011-06-19 04:40:09 <gmaxwell> kfr: worse, you'll make bit swaths of parallel alus wait for memory accesses
436 2011-06-19 04:40:10 <kfr> But uh the texture memory was cached wasn't it?
437 2011-06-19 04:40:20 <kfr> Anyways, how large are these tables?
438 2011-06-19 04:41:03 <gmaxwell> haven't looked, should be hundreds of k.
439 2011-06-19 04:41:21 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: probably not, because the gpus don't have a wide carryless multiply.
440 2011-06-19 04:42:12 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: oooh my
441 2011-06-19 04:42:20 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: and can you seed it?
442 2011-06-19 04:42:45 <gmaxwell> Seed what?
443 2011-06-19 04:43:02 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: seed the keygen
444 2011-06-19 04:43:12 <gmaxwell> There isn't any 'seeding'.
445 2011-06-19 04:43:17 <cuddlefish> okay, dang
446 2011-06-19 04:43:27 <gmaxwell> ECC private keys aren't specially formed like RSA ones.
447 2011-06-19 04:43:41 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: ... then how are they
448 2011-06-19 04:43:58 <cuddlefish> is it just making the corresponding public key?
449 2011-06-19 04:44:08 <gmaxwell> Basically every 256 bit number is a valid private key. (well, almost)
450 2011-06-19 04:44:19 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: yes.
451 2011-06-19 04:44:25 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: Woo!
452 2011-06-19 04:44:40 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: step 1. SHA-256 a block
453 2011-06-19 04:44:56 <cuddlefish> step 2. Find the corresponding ECDSA public key
454 2011-06-19 04:45:30 <cuddlefish> step 3. Check if the public key is less than the target
455 2011-06-19 04:45:47 <cuddlefish> step 4. Recieve non-GPUable proof-of-work system!
456 2011-06-19 04:46:03 <gmaxwell> oh there are better non-gpuable systems than that.
457 2011-06-19 04:46:11 <gmaxwell> But gpuable is important.
458 2011-06-19 04:46:24 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: why?
459 2011-06-19 04:46:26 <gmaxwell> Non-gpuable would mean that bitcoin would already be taken over by botnets.
460 2011-06-19 04:47:03 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: mmm...
461 2011-06-19 04:47:35 <gmaxwell> also, that above might be gpu resistant it sure as hell wouldn't be big fpga resistant.
462 2011-06-19 04:48:56 <gmaxwell> There have been hashes that used ECC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_only_hash
463 2011-06-19 04:49:36 <sturles> luke-jr: Normally database log files are only used for transaction loggin and rollbacks.  I'll delete the files and see what happens.
464 2011-06-19 04:52:16 <sturles> The files, except for the last one, disappeare when I quit bitcoind.
465 2011-06-19 08:24:53 <digitalirony> I will probably get more relevant answers in here heh, I asked this in another channel, don't wanna seem like im flooding or anything:
466 2011-06-19 08:25:05 <digitalirony> 5hello, anyone in here that could assist with getting a miner up and working on debian(cuda)? I have been trying to compile rpcminer unsuccesfully. I am a linux admin, and a great coder, so if anyone could spare some time to help it would be great.
467 2011-06-19 08:25:23 <JFK911> where did you try asking before
468 2011-06-19 08:25:41 <digitalirony> #bitcoin-mining
469 2011-06-19 08:25:58 <digitalirony> I keep seeing /serialize.h:629: error: get was not declared in this scope
470 2011-06-19 08:26:00 <JFK911> nobodys chatting here but #bitcoin is somewhat active right now.
471 2011-06-19 08:42:22 <doublec> digitalirony: a great coder would look at serialize.h, line 629, and see why 'get' wasn't declared
472 2011-06-19 08:42:47 <digitalirony> err
473 2011-06-19 08:42:49 <digitalirony> lololol
474 2011-06-19 08:42:55 <digitalirony> * not a great coder
475 2011-06-19 08:42:59 <digitalirony> durp de durp
476 2011-06-19 08:43:00 <doublec> :)
477 2011-06-19 08:43:01 <digitalirony> sorry
478 2011-06-19 08:43:10 <doublec> digitalirony: have you got a link to the source?
479 2011-06-19 08:43:11 <digitalirony> I meant that to say, I know linux but not code
480 2011-06-19 08:43:14 <digitalirony> sure
481 2011-06-19 08:43:24 <digitalirony> http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=2444.0
482 2011-06-19 08:43:38 <doublec> whatever happened to puddinpop?
483 2011-06-19 08:43:39 <digitalirony> I do high level stuff like php and such
484 2011-06-19 08:43:52 <digitalirony> never messed much with c/c++ outside a few muds
485 2011-06-19 08:44:51 <digitalirony> iunno. I just wanted to start messing with mining. Few people at my work got some of the saphire cards and said they were making some decent money
486 2011-06-19 08:47:28 <doublec> digitalirony: looking at it now
487 2011-06-19 08:47:33 <digitalirony> thanks
488 2011-06-19 08:50:33 <doublec> digitalirony: I get a bunch of errors even if I add the namespace required to get 'get' found
489 2011-06-19 08:50:57 <digitalirony> :C
490 2011-06-19 08:51:08 <digitalirony> well, do you know of something I can compile to work on linux lol
491 2011-06-19 08:51:12 <digitalirony> doesn't have to be that one
492 2011-06-19 08:51:20 <digitalirony> but I need it to support cuda
493 2011-06-19 08:51:29 <digitalirony> and a gui would be nice
494 2011-06-19 08:52:07 <doublec> oh there we go
495 2011-06-19 08:52:17 <doublec> digitalirony: replace get<...>
496 2011-06-19 08:52:24 <doublec> digitalirony: with boost::tuples::get<...>
497 2011-06-19 08:52:31 <doublec> in serialize.h
498 2011-06-19 08:52:51 <digitalirony> sweet
499 2011-06-19 08:52:58 <digitalirony> ill sed it
500 2011-06-19 08:53:06 <doublec> digitalirony: or add using namespace boost::tuples;
501 2011-06-19 08:53:17 <doublec> digitalirony: somewhere at the top of serialize.h, after the tuple includes
502 2011-06-19 08:53:19 <digitalirony> even better
503 2011-06-19 08:53:56 <doublec> you'll probably also need to add an include for limits.h to that file
504 2011-06-19 08:55:23 <digitalirony> sweet
505 2011-06-19 08:55:30 <digitalirony> they need to update the source then
506 2011-06-19 08:56:51 <digitalirony> awe
507 2011-06-19 08:56:56 <digitalirony> nearly did it
508 2011-06-19 08:57:13 <digitalirony> httprequest.cpp:(.text+0x1f1): undefined reference to `curl_easy_init'
509 2011-06-19 08:57:20 <digitalirony> know what library that is?
510 2011-06-19 08:57:53 <ius> curl
511 2011-06-19 08:58:23 <doublec> digitalirony: libcurl
512 2011-06-19 08:58:34 <digitalirony> I have libcurl, and it should be in the path
513 2011-06-19 08:58:35 <digitalirony> hrmm
514 2011-06-19 08:58:58 <doublec> digitalirony: do you have libcurl4-openssl-dev?
515 2011-06-19 08:59:05 <doublec> digitalirony: (assuming ubuntu or similar)
516 2011-06-19 08:59:11 <ius> Well, you need to explicitly link it; -lcurl
517 2011-06-19 09:00:09 <digitalirony> yeah
518 2011-06-19 09:00:18 <digitalirony> #include <curl/curl.h>
519 2011-06-19 09:00:21 <digitalirony> and yeas
520 2011-06-19 09:00:24 <digitalirony> yes lol
521 2011-06-19 09:00:27 <digitalirony> I have debian
522 2011-06-19 09:05:48 <denisx> digitalirony: you know that you will not get many hashes/sec with nvidia?
523 2011-06-19 09:06:14 <digitalirony> yes
524 2011-06-19 09:06:37 <digitalirony> but before I drop 800 bucks on a pair of saphire cards, imma play with it and see how it works
525 2011-06-19 09:36:48 <CorvusCorax> Hi. I have been referred here from #bitcoin. I have a question regirding this scenario: http://pastebin.com/vRZEbvtG -- Could valid transactions that stay unconfirmed for a long time because of "insufficient tx fees" be a possibly exploitable securrity risk?
526 2011-06-19 09:40:20 <cut> quantum computing is more of a reality by 2013 than dna computing
527 2011-06-19 09:42:52 <CorvusCorax> doesn't need dna computing any technology that requires a big investment to get a big advantage in mining - allowing to monopolize or oligopolize mining efforts
528 2011-06-19 09:43:20 <CorvusCorax> any breakthrough that provides an order-of-magnitude speedup in hashing but is too expensive for "end users" to use would create that effect
529 2011-06-19 09:43:42 <CorvusCorax> I think whether quantum or DNA or something entirelly different (a supercomputer build from hash-cracking FPGAS) would do it
530 2011-06-19 09:44:46 <CorvusCorax> thats not the question, the question is, if miners by far majority would require tx fees, which would cause "free transactions" to get delayed  - would that be a problem or not ?
531 2011-06-19 09:45:21 <eps> a central tenet behind bitcoin is that it is pegged to a certain extent to the price of electricity
532 2011-06-19 09:45:31 <sipa> it is not
533 2011-06-19 09:46:05 <eps> the increase in difficulty is no?
534 2011-06-19 09:46:40 <eps> anyway in the scenario that CorvusCorax describes, a new form of very cheap energy has been discovered
535 2011-06-19 09:47:06 <eps> this would have a far ranging effect on everything
536 2011-06-19 09:47:22 <sipa> i'd say it's the other way around: difficulty is limited by the exchange rate of bitcoin divided by price of electricity
537 2011-06-19 09:47:40 <eps> bitcoin would be way down the list on the things people care about
538 2011-06-19 09:48:05 <eps> and if that new free energy is controlled by a cartel, well yes that is bad
539 2011-06-19 09:48:10 <eps> but not just for bitcoin
540 2011-06-19 09:48:34 <sipa> if free energy is controlled by a cartel, the world has bigger problems to worry about, i think
541 2011-06-19 09:48:41 <CorvusCorax> eps: nah, not necessarily "cheap energy" - energy is not the sole limiting factor - its the "expense per hash calculation" - currently energy is the main limiting factor to do those, but its thinkable that a new technology is found where the limiting factor is not energy but cooling capacity or something - or supply of a very rare mineral needed
542 2011-06-19 09:49:10 <eps> cooling capicity sounds like energy to me
543 2011-06-19 09:49:15 <CorvusCorax> yeah true
544 2011-06-19 09:49:26 <eps> a very rare mineral that enables fast computation?
545 2011-06-19 09:49:33 <cut> rare mineral? like dilithium crystals?
546 2011-06-19 09:49:42 <eps> again that would break a lot more than just bitcoin
547 2011-06-19 09:50:14 <CorvusCorax> even now a major company could decide to build a big "mining pool" into the desert right next to a big solar power plant
548 2011-06-19 09:50:46 <eps> CorvusCorax: yup and if they were the only ones who did that then that would be bad too
549 2011-06-19 09:50:53 <CorvusCorax> if the bitcoin they gain cover the cost of expansion - theres infinite solar energy in the desert as long as there's space - so the limitin g factort becomes space
550 2011-06-19 09:51:09 <eps> it is a danger
551 2011-06-19 09:52:50 <eps> CorvusCorax: also remember the payout decreases over time
552 2011-06-19 09:53:05 <eps> as i understand it will drop from 50 for 25 sometime in 2013
553 2011-06-19 09:53:25 <CorvusCorax> but you still haven't answered my question. Assume mining doesnt even get monopolized, but bitcoin reaches its 21 mio limit - so miners do it for the tx fees instead of generation - and the majority stopped accepting free transactions. what are the side effects. what happens if I pay someone with a "free transaction" knowing it would take 24 h or more until it would get confirmed, then 3 hours later pay someone else with a tr
554 2011-06-19 09:53:40 <eps> Satoshi wanted a system where it was easier for most people to trade bitcoins than mine them
555 2011-06-19 09:54:05 <cacheson> CorvusCorax: don't accept unconfirmed transactions
556 2011-06-19 09:54:10 <cacheson> simple enough
557 2011-06-19 09:54:19 <CorvusCorax> aha
558 2011-06-19 09:54:30 <eps> CorvusCorax: tbh i am not entirely sure what will happen after mining stops giving payouts
559 2011-06-19 09:54:44 <sipa> the idea is that a free market for mining arises
560 2011-06-19 09:54:58 <eps> there is a thread on the forum suggesting that the scenerio won't hold up against game theory
561 2011-06-19 09:55:00 <sipa> if miners don't accept free transactions, that is their right
562 2011-06-19 09:55:14 <sipa> but if some can do it cheaper than others, market price will drop
563 2011-06-19 09:55:31 <sipa> but indeed, it's far from certain what will happen in reality
564 2011-06-19 09:55:33 <eps> it is that trend towards zero that has people worried i think
565 2011-06-19 09:55:52 <CorvusCorax> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths <-- theres a section about "Point of sale with bitcoins isn't possible because of the 10 minute wait for confirmation " arguing that the first transaction wins and therefore its still safe even without a confirmation if you make sure theres no "competing transactions" within a certain timeframe
566 2011-06-19 09:55:54 <eps> if the volume is high enough, very low tx fees could be profitable
567 2011-06-19 09:56:28 <sipa> CorvusCorax: in the future, if bitcoin becomes really succesfull, it will probably be only the backbone a of currency
568 2011-06-19 09:56:42 <sipa> people will always be able to use that backbone themselves
569 2011-06-19 09:57:05 <sipa> but most end users will use e-wallet services and visa-like transaction processors that are built on top of it
570 2011-06-19 09:57:37 <CorvusCorax> yeah, though u need to trust those "banks" operating those services, and the business partner needs to, too
571 2011-06-19 09:57:38 <eps> like if you have a clearing house
572 2011-06-19 09:57:48 <eps> you can process tx's instantly
573 2011-06-19 09:57:48 <sipa> where the transaction processor takes the risk of a tx not getting confirmed
574 2011-06-19 09:57:57 <sipa> and charges for that risk
575 2011-06-19 09:58:10 <eps> CorvusCorax: why do you trust your current bank?
576 2011-06-19 09:58:17 <Sebastan> by speaking about future... when I go into google news and list the news about bitcoins of the last week its negative all the way... so what will happen when really governments start to make bitcoins illegal? are there plans for this case?
577 2011-06-19 09:58:26 <Leo_II> cool thing about BTC is that you can run your own "backbone" if the service providers charge too much.
578 2011-06-19 09:58:31 <eps> I am guessing it is because they are well established and a lot of other people use them
579 2011-06-19 09:58:40 <CorvusCorax> eps: I don't
580 2011-06-19 09:58:48 <jeremias> what if my ISP starts blocking my ports so that I can't use bitcoin?
581 2011-06-19 09:58:54 <sipa> jeremias: use another port
582 2011-06-19 09:58:57 <sipa> or use tor
583 2011-06-19 09:59:07 <CorvusCorax> jeremias, tor, VPNs elsewhere where u can run it, ...
584 2011-06-19 09:59:16 <CorvusCorax> proxys
585 2011-06-19 09:59:19 <eps> jeremias: as long as every isp in the world doesn't do that, bitcoin survives
586 2011-06-19 09:59:29 <Leo_II> jeremias: "service providers" for banking are banks now. they can charge arbitrary fees for international banking stuff
587 2011-06-19 09:59:31 <sipa> then again, if bitcoin is really outlawed, i figure its value will drop
588 2011-06-19 09:59:43 <eps> sipa: true
589 2011-06-19 09:59:53 <sipa> since it will be impossible to use legally, no real business will be able to use it
590 2011-06-19 09:59:59 <sipa> so i hope that doesn't happen
591 2011-06-19 10:00:07 <eps> but the technology is virtually unstoppable bar any breakage in the crypto i think
592 2011-06-19 10:00:07 <Sebastan> jeremias: good question I thought about too. how about protocol obfuscation or similar techniques used by emule to make it impossible to find out the type of traffic?
593 2011-06-19 10:00:13 <CorvusCorax> well outlawed internationally versus outlawed in individual countries is a big difference
594 2011-06-19 10:00:51 <CorvusCorax> in the formwer german democratic republic using dollars or west german marks was outlawed too, still people did it and it was worth a lot more than the east german thing
595 2011-06-19 10:01:04 <sipa> agree
596 2011-06-19 10:01:35 <Sebastan> CorvusCorax: It wasnt illegal as far as I know...
597 2011-06-19 10:02:14 <Sebastan> didnt the gdr-regime have stores for deutsche mark?
598 2011-06-19 10:02:15 <CorvusCorax> Sebastan, nah, but if the Stasi saw u doing it it would have given u problems ;)
599 2011-06-19 10:02:27 <Sebastan> hm... maybe...
600 2011-06-19 10:02:32 <CorvusCorax> Sebastan, that was the government officials, they were criminals
601 2011-06-19 10:02:58 <CorvusCorax> just because theres a law against it doesnt mean the prime minister wont do it anyway
602 2011-06-19 10:03:36 <CorvusCorax> especially in the end when the country was going down the drain, they tried to horde as much worth as possible. and their own currency wasnt woth **** anymore
603 2011-06-19 10:04:30 <Sebastan> so when a government, probably the us, will forbid bitcoins... the effect would be big in my opinion... stores couldnt be paid by bitcoins... and the bitcoins would be cut off. change from or to bitcoins would be hard. while I think it could not lead to the point ot stopping bitcoins it would be hard to use it...
604 2011-06-19 10:05:35 <CorvusCorax> the difference is, you can use physical money in secret. nobody knows that u have a stash of eur under ur mattrress in north korea - with bitcoins its different, you need an internet connection, and the characteristics of a p2p network are traceable even if the traffic is encrypted
605 2011-06-19 10:05:44 <Sebastan> CorvusCorax: What about the "Intershop" in the gdr?
606 2011-06-19 10:06:33 <CorvusCorax> made for foreign visitors to leave their foreign currencies there. state operated and a measure to bring (valuable foreign) currencies into the states possession
607 2011-06-19 10:06:47 <CorvusCorax> the employees working there were paid in local currency
608 2011-06-19 10:07:19 <CorvusCorax> when u visited the gdr you were even required to "exchange" a minimum amount of currency into the local one, at the rate set by the government
609 2011-06-19 10:07:32 <eps> CorvusCorax: yes the need for an internet connection is a weak point
610 2011-06-19 10:07:52 <CorvusCorax> theres a difference between what the government does and the laws its citicens need to adhere
611 2011-06-19 10:08:01 <eps> if the US banned bitcoins that would almost certainly have a short to medium term effect on the value
612 2011-06-19 10:08:11 <CorvusCorax> yep, because they are big
613 2011-06-19 10:08:12 <eps> but it wouldn't neccessarily be the end for bitcoins
614 2011-06-19 10:08:17 <CorvusCorax> yep
615 2011-06-19 10:08:44 <eps> all you really need is one country with a decent currency to say "i don't care if people by bitcoins"#
616 2011-06-19 10:09:04 <CorvusCorax> yep, then everyone can do their transactions through them
617 2011-06-19 10:09:05 <eps> at which point, USD -> intermidiary currency -> bitcoins
618 2011-06-19 10:09:07 <Sebastan> it wouldnt be the end for sure. but how useful it would be from that point on would be the question...
619 2011-06-19 10:09:36 <eps> the real value in bitcoin is it's utility
620 2011-06-19 10:09:37 <Sebastan> no shopping for example would be a hit...
621 2011-06-19 10:09:45 <CorvusCorax> well what we need in the end is cornershops accepting bitcoins. so far you can only pay for values on the internet, and the current main use seems to be speculation
622 2011-06-19 10:09:48 <eps> that you can send money quickly over the internet
623 2011-06-19 10:10:08 <CorvusCorax> major banks accepting and trading bitcoins would help too
624 2011-06-19 10:10:13 <eps> i think bitcoin will always be an online only currency
625 2011-06-19 10:10:36 <CorvusCorax> by definition
626 2011-06-19 10:10:38 <eps> but lots of peopel have different ideas about how and where bitcoin will show up in the future
627 2011-06-19 10:10:43 <CorvusCorax> it needs online access for transactions
628 2011-06-19 10:10:53 <eps> which is what makes it interesting
629 2011-06-19 10:11:05 <CorvusCorax> but everything goes "online" nowadays
630 2011-06-19 10:11:29 <CorvusCorax> i can pay my public transport ticket through my mobile phone - so why not itcoins
631 2011-06-19 10:12:10 <Sebastan> But when bitcoins are forbidden this would mean using them would be a criminal akt. So its usefulness would be hurt badly... while I think the worth of bitcoins as a international currency will be shown when the next financial disaster appears. According to a popular guy in my country its coming soon...
632 2011-06-19 10:12:16 <CorvusCorax> for everyday live a "physical currency" that u can carry around with you is still useful. pettycash - but banks could even start giving out those
633 2011-06-19 10:12:24 <CorvusCorax> a "physical currency" backed by bitcoin
634 2011-06-19 10:13:06 <eps> Sebastan: i agree if the US puts the same resources into persecuting bitcoin users as it has the War on Drugs then bitcoin in the US at least will be a no go
635 2011-06-19 10:13:15 <CorvusCorax> a piece of paper saying" this piece of paper is worth 0.1 bitcoin, exchangeable at the springfield agricultural bank limited
636 2011-06-19 10:13:20 <eps> but at this point the US is in so much debt...
637 2011-06-19 10:13:43 <eps> CorvusCorax: I don't think bitcoin will replace cash
638 2011-06-19 10:13:50 <eps> cash works very well
639 2011-06-19 10:14:40 <eps> Sebastan: it could also be very difficult to find people using bitcoin, especially if they use tor
640 2011-06-19 10:14:41 <CorvusCorax> cash needs a backing. at first they had hard worth (gold coins) then came the paper money backed by gold - meanwhile they dropped the backing (even the swiss did) and its only partial backed if at all
641 2011-06-19 10:14:51 <CorvusCorax> the US $ is currently backed by virtually nothing
642 2011-06-19 10:15:06 <eps> it is backed by confidence
643 2011-06-19 10:15:09 <CorvusCorax> while bitcoin is backed by nothing at all
644 2011-06-19 10:15:13 <CorvusCorax> yes confidence
645 2011-06-19 10:15:21 <eps> and the potential for growth
646 2011-06-19 10:15:35 <CorvusCorax> but unlike bitcoin where theres a limited amount, the US feds keep "printing" dollars without end
647 2011-06-19 10:15:40 <Sebastan> I think the only backing that is needed is the believe of the owners... and I think there will always be people beliving in bitcoins...
648 2011-06-19 10:15:43 <eps> which is neccessarily a bad bet, but the US is so under capitalized
649 2011-06-19 10:17:54 <CorvusCorax> the US economy currently works like this: the federal bank issues credit (backed by nothing) to smaller banks, which use it to buy state bonds, which the federal government uses to pay interest to the same banks, which use that to pay interest to the federal bank (and pay their managers) - the amounts keep rising, and a little bit of that trickles into the main economy, but the problem of undercapitalisation doesnt go away, j
650 2011-06-19 10:17:55 <CorvusCorax> ust the state dept skyrockets faster and faster
651 2011-06-19 10:18:59 <CorvusCorax> I think its a 2 person ponzi scheme with virtual money
652 2011-06-19 10:20:01 <Joric> how may i accept bitcoins on an app engine site, if i don't have a VPS? should i use mybitcoin.com? mtgox api?
653 2011-06-19 10:20:52 <eps> capitalization is the key i think, if you run a bitcoin economy in the same way as a fractional reserve economy then the recessions would be catastrophic
654 2011-06-19 10:21:07 <eps> hopefully most bitcoin banks will realise this
655 2011-06-19 10:21:46 <eps> growth in a large bitcoin economy would be slower but more stable
656 2011-06-19 10:22:31 <lfm> circulation rate also effects inflation
657 2011-06-19 10:23:08 <Sebastan> Today I saw a video where a financial guru said that at the moment the markets are betting high numbers that american states are going to be bankrupt... so maybe bitcoins will close a hole at some time when other currencies are dying...
658 2011-06-19 10:24:09 <lfm> If you think bitcoin is more stable than us$ you are on drugs
659 2011-06-19 10:24:20 <CorvusCorax> safe bet. the current scheme of financing the US use is irreversible. theres no way out but a crash - similar to greece, portugal, several other european states. once you reach the point where u need to take up depts to pay interest ur bankrupt, everything else just delays the inevitable
660 2011-06-19 10:25:21 <Sebastan> and when isps would block bitcoin-traffic why not use the techniques used by other p2p-softwares to circumvent this? protocol obfuscation, isp traversal, protocol traversal... I think there should be ways to hide such traffic isnt it? otherwise they would need to block every p2p. or am i wrong? if so why?
661 2011-06-19 10:25:45 <CorvusCorax> every business owner knows that, but states think they can make the rules and not live by it. However thats a little bit short sighted ;)
662 2011-06-19 10:26:26 <Sebastan> lfm: Im not saying this. but complementary currencies in history have taken over sometimes when the real currency wasnt good.
663 2011-06-19 10:26:48 <CorvusCorax> Sebastan, theres one issue, and thats the "everything gets fed to everyone" nature of bitcoin. its possible if the network grows that the cost and bandwidth required to operate a node exceeds the capabilities of an end user
664 2011-06-19 10:27:10 <sipa> CorvusCorax: then end users won't be running a full node
665 2011-06-19 10:27:25 <sipa> which bitcoin isn't really designed for anyway
666 2011-06-19 10:27:34 <sipa> only lightweight nodes aren't implemented yety
667 2011-06-19 10:27:40 <lfm> covusno prob, so the little guys switch to bitcoin banks like mybitcoin.com or mtgox accounts
668 2011-06-19 10:27:54 <CorvusCorax> sipa: then you have a two class network. those who can afford running their own "bank node" - and the end users needing to trust their bank nodes to stay up and behave
669 2011-06-19 10:28:03 <sipa> CorvusCorax: no
670 2011-06-19 10:28:11 <lfm> so
671 2011-06-19 10:28:11 <sipa> you do get a 2-tier network
672 2011-06-19 10:28:30 <sipa> but there is no reason why you as an end user would connect to your bank's node
673 2011-06-19 10:28:38 <sipa> that's a possibility though
674 2011-06-19 10:29:04 <lfm> there are lots already like that I think, they just cant be bothered to run bitcoin itself, just have a mtgox account
675 2011-06-19 10:29:40 <CorvusCorax> I just see it like this. if end users physically cant run a full node anymore, it becomes much more easy for governments to restrict bitcoin usage, they only need to target the tier1 sites and tier2 dies out on its own. its single point(s) of failure
676 2011-06-19 10:29:56 <sipa> it is not a single point of failure
677 2011-06-19 10:30:00 <CorvusCorax> if there arent that many, they can forcxe ISP's to keep those tier1 nodes on a blocklist
678 2011-06-19 10:30:03 <sipa> as still anyone willing to run a node can do so
679 2011-06-19 10:30:07 <sipa> and even anonimously
680 2011-06-19 10:30:17 <jeremias> hmm
681 2011-06-19 10:30:17 <sipa> it may have a heavy cost
682 2011-06-19 10:30:43 <sipa> but it's still a far way from a centralized service that cannot work without trusting one single company/cartel
683 2011-06-19 10:30:48 <jeremias> we need more programmers for bitcoin, to combat all there forthcoming issues...
684 2011-06-19 10:30:55 <CorvusCorax> anonymously? currently I can run bitcoin within tor, but if the transaction volume grows that much, it would overwhelm tors capabilities
685 2011-06-19 10:31:06 <lfm> cost isnt really that much, any new pc can run bitcoin really, even an atom.
686 2011-06-19 10:31:09 <CorvusCorax> sipa, true
687 2011-06-19 10:31:29 <Sebastan> sipa: running as a node means mining? if so... why shouldnt the people let run their gpu when its not needed? let the miner running all night and day is probably only a thing of the start of bitcoin because its later not worth it anymore...
688 2011-06-19 10:31:30 <CorvusCorax> lfm, iw as talking of bandwidth, not cpu
689 2011-06-19 10:31:54 <sipa> Sebastan: mining with the best hardware will always be profitable
690 2011-06-19 10:31:56 <CorvusCorax> Sebastan, no, i wasn't even talking of mining yet, just a node that passes through transactions
691 2011-06-19 10:32:02 <sipa> if it isn't, difficulty will go down
692 2011-06-19 10:32:05 <lfm> ya, almost any internet connection can run bitcoin, even I bet a modem could
693 2011-06-19 10:32:24 <sipa> CorvusCorax: well, with anonymously i mean there is no requirement to give your identity to the already existing mining cartel
694 2011-06-19 10:32:33 <sipa> sure it may be hard to conceal yourself completely
695 2011-06-19 10:32:36 <CorvusCorax> will that still be the case if we get billions of transactions a day? and they all get broadcasted across the entire net?
696 2011-06-19 10:32:57 <sipa> when we reach that level, i doubt the current tx broadcasting system will still be in use
697 2011-06-19 10:33:15 <sipa> you'll have transaction processing companies which have deals with miner companies
698 2011-06-19 10:33:16 <CorvusCorax> so there is a theoretical alternative, just waiting to be implemented?
699 2011-06-19 10:33:22 <sipa> and directly send the transactions there
700 2011-06-19 10:33:39 <lfm> corvus the bank solution comes into play again
701 2011-06-19 10:34:04 <sipa> on the long term, bitcoin will probably not be possible without trusting middle men
702 2011-06-19 10:34:08 <CorvusCorax> why should I trust a bank operating within the bitcoin network any more than I trust the current "I want a bailout" banks?
703 2011-06-19 10:34:24 <sipa> CorvusCorax: a bitcoin bank cannot print money at will
704 2011-06-19 10:34:38 <sipa> there is a degree of fractional reserve banking possible on top of bitcoin
705 2011-06-19 10:34:39 <CorvusCorax> and what you described is a horror scenario: mining companies having exclusive contracts with banks?
706 2011-06-19 10:34:51 <lfm> corvus, its simple if you dont trust the bank then get a node capable of running a node, if you cant run a node then trust a bank
707 2011-06-19 10:34:55 <CorvusCorax> that means they would accept or not accept transactions not based on the tx fee but where they come from
708 2011-06-19 10:35:31 <sipa> people will always be free to run their own mining nodes
709 2011-06-19 10:35:45 <sipa> and i suspect that if there are exclusive deals that fuck their customers
710 2011-06-19 10:35:48 <lfm> you want your cake and eat it too, migrate to imagination land
711 2011-06-19 10:36:01 <sipa> some holding will arise which promises the opposite
712 2011-06-19 10:36:08 <CorvusCorax> assuming a cartel of banks plus mining companies will establish itself, they will be able to keep the difficulty out of reach of end users
713 2011-06-19 10:36:19 <sipa> end users: sure
714 2011-06-19 10:36:25 <lfm> CorvusCorax: they already do
715 2011-06-19 10:36:33 <sipa> but we're talking a worldwide financial network here
716 2011-06-19 10:37:07 <lfm> yup the ArtForz mining co. and the mtgox bank and money exchange
717 2011-06-19 10:37:11 <sipa> i can't believe there will at least not be (non financial) companies which do not like the idea of mining being completely in the hands of a cartel, and just start mining themselves
718 2011-06-19 10:38:04 <Sebastan> I think going into centralized direction will kill the bottom thought of bitcoins... it would be easy to harm it then...
719 2011-06-19 10:38:23 <CorvusCorax> its profitable though for those centralizing it if they succeed
720 2011-06-19 10:38:44 <CorvusCorax> it would cease to be a free market
721 2011-06-19 10:38:49 <Sebastan> and if someone will silently buy slush, deepbit and some more and... has the power without knowing someone.
722 2011-06-19 10:39:07 <lfm> "centralized" is relative tho. if you only have one bank in each country, thats still like 200 banks or something
723 2011-06-19 10:39:23 <Sebastan> as far as i read its a problem when more than 50% of mining capabilities are in one hand
724 2011-06-19 10:39:49 <CorvusCorax> true. but they could easily come to an agreement that they won't accept transactions from either "other banks" or "their own customers" which they could say we only take customers from our country
725 2011-06-19 10:39:54 <lfm> Sebastan: I agree pools are evil, no one should use pools
726 2011-06-19 10:40:18 <CorvusCorax> so in the end the end user has the choice "accept the conditions of the national bank" or "make my own, but the other banks wont accept my transactions
727 2011-06-19 10:40:38 <Sebastan> lfm... come on... i only wanted to say it probable can be done without noticing...
728 2011-06-19 10:40:54 <CorvusCorax> even if it is noticed - what could you do?
729 2011-06-19 10:41:13 <lfm> CorvusCorax: ya well if you want to play that game, they might only want rich customers and to hell with little guys. anything "might" happen
730 2011-06-19 10:41:19 <Sebastan> nothing i think
731 2011-06-19 10:41:26 <CorvusCorax> lfm: thats exactly what banks do now
732 2011-06-19 10:41:34 <sipa> these are all very far future things
733 2011-06-19 10:41:54 <CorvusCorax> the bank Im currently at offers a free account - IF you have an income of at least 3000 a month. if you are below, its heavy fees
734 2011-06-19 10:42:21 <lfm> CorvusCorax: no reason a bitcoin bank would be different
735 2011-06-19 10:42:26 <CorvusCorax> their way of saying "only rich customers"
736 2011-06-19 10:42:41 <CorvusCorax> lfm: exactly, thats why I think the system must run without NEEDING banks
737 2011-06-19 10:42:53 <lfm> their way of saying lettle accounts are money losers for them
738 2011-06-19 10:43:00 <CorvusCorax> without even allowing banks to become poerful enough to dictate the conditions to others
739 2011-06-19 10:43:56 <lfm> CorvusCorax: well like I said, you dont need a bank if you pay for you own bandwidth and whatnot. its up to you
740 2011-06-19 10:44:19 <Sebastan> sipa: and when agencies would already work hardly on a way to control the network because they think they have to? why should they want to speak one of the developers? I guess they are behind it so they can say afterwards... we recognized the risk and found ways to fight it...
741 2011-06-19 10:45:22 <Sebastan> lfm: what kind of bandwidth is needed in your opinion and does every node have to take it?
742 2011-06-19 10:46:11 <CorvusCorax> Sebastan, the current protocol broadcasts every transaction throughout the entire network. transactions are small though. even billions a day would still fit through a DSL line I think
743 2011-06-19 10:46:25 <CorvusCorax> it would fill up harddisk space eventually
744 2011-06-19 10:46:34 <CorvusCorax> 500 gig as of now
745 2011-06-19 10:46:52 <lfm> CorvusCorax: no its 500 meg!
746 2011-06-19 10:46:59 <anu> enki@linux-m98d:~/.bitcoin> du -h .
747 2011-06-19 10:47:00 <anu> 34M     ./database
748 2011-06-19 10:47:00 <CorvusCorax> sorry what I meant
749 2011-06-19 10:47:02 <anu> 472M    .
750 2011-06-19 10:47:12 <lfm> slight difference!
751 2011-06-19 10:47:15 <anu> 472M is filling a HD?
752 2011-06-19 10:47:33 <lfm> anu I know people cant tell the difference
753 2011-06-19 10:47:34 <CorvusCorax> my fault, mea culpa, I meant meg, not gig
754 2011-06-19 10:47:52 <CorvusCorax> if we get billions of transactions a day though, that would increase
755 2011-06-19 10:48:09 <lfm> so bitcoin still has at least 3 orders of magnitude growth room
756 2011-06-19 10:48:20 <CorvusCorax> more if by then space becomes bigger
757 2011-06-19 10:48:30 <CorvusCorax> hd space grows too
758 2011-06-19 10:48:48 <lfm> CorvusCorax: really? thats something to worry about when/if it happens. not a worry now
759 2011-06-19 10:49:30 <eps> to me what i like about bitcoin is that if you don't like any of the bitcoin banks available, the barrier for entry into the market and creating your own bitcoin bank is very low
760 2011-06-19 10:50:06 <eps> this is why we don't see any innovation in the current payment processing market
761 2011-06-19 10:50:24 <Sebastan> i think bandwidht, disc space and so on will grow for the average user. till now it doesnt sound to me like this grow couldnt compensate the transactiongrow...
762 2011-06-19 10:50:27 <lfm> frankly it seems most people will never use bitcoin. they think its weird, not real moeny
763 2011-06-19 10:50:44 <eps> to compete with visa/mastercard the barrier for entory is too high
764 2011-06-19 10:51:23 <eps> lfm: even if they do think it is real money, they may still not run their own node
765 2011-06-19 10:51:46 <eps> i am not against the idea that bank charges you to have an account with them
766 2011-06-19 10:52:21 <eps> the problem at the moment is the banks give out free accounts and then try to monetize them with bizzare financial money gambling schemes
767 2011-06-19 10:52:31 <eps> like derivatives
768 2011-06-19 10:53:26 <lfm> not that those same financial schemes couldn't be used with bitcoin. money is money
769 2011-06-19 10:53:28 <eps> didn't someone say the blockchain will only be 100GB by 2040?
770 2011-06-19 10:53:35 <eps> lfm: true
771 2011-06-19 10:53:58 <lfm> eps very hard to guess that far ahead
772 2011-06-19 10:54:15 <anu> lfm: people distrusted paper money for a long time
773 2011-06-19 10:54:15 <eps> i am hoping that bitcoin banks would be more responsible
774 2011-06-19 10:54:26 <eps> at least 80% capitaliazation
775 2011-06-19 10:54:45 <eps> if you lost 20% of your money in a recession then that is bad
776 2011-06-19 10:54:59 <eps> but much better than losing > 90% which is the system we have now
777 2011-06-19 10:55:43 <lfm> eps bitcoin value fluxuations are like losing 20% in a day now
778 2011-06-19 10:56:57 <CorvusCorax> to start a bitcoin bank right now (since theres no central bank I could borrow money from) I#d either have to invest enough money to give out bonds in bitcoin, or get people to lend me their money in exchange for interest (since everyone can do transactions in bitcoin, interest is really the only reason why one would use a bank)
779 2011-06-19 10:57:17 <lfm> I dont see that much to make bitcoin really more stable than other currencies. in fact the lack of regulation and fluidity of bitcoin could make it MORE unstable
780 2011-06-19 10:57:52 <Sebastan> responsibility != banks ;) I think bitcoin banks wouldnt be a difference. and if they were then the management can change and the new ones want to make more money... i think...
781 2011-06-19 10:58:04 <CorvusCorax> existing banks have a headtsrat. they could borrow from their federal bank, exchange that money into bitcoin and then lend it out
782 2011-06-19 10:58:20 <CorvusCorax> headstart ;)
783 2011-06-19 10:59:03 <lfm> nothing prevents a bitcoin bank from doing fractional reserve technique either
784 2011-06-19 10:59:48 <CorvusCorax> that approach might be easier than starting a bank "from nothing" within the bitcoin network
785 2011-06-19 11:00:34 <CorvusCorax> lfm: true, after all there is no such thing as a "bank in the bitcoin network" - a bank is a bank, regardless of which currency they use and bitcoin is a currency like any other - as far as that goes
786 2011-06-19 11:01:00 <CorvusCorax> a bank can take a bond in US $ from their federal bank, exchange that money into bitcoin, and then hand out loans in bitcoin
787 2011-06-19 11:01:34 <eps> CorvusCorax: how about a bitcoin bank where you charge a monthly fee for holding the customers money?
788 2011-06-19 11:01:54 <CorvusCorax> eps: why should the customer give the bank their money?
789 2011-06-19 11:02:14 <eps> because they don't want to run a node themselves?
790 2011-06-19 11:02:15 <Sebastan> no wallet-stealer anymore... :)
791 2011-06-19 11:02:19 <eps> this is retail banking
792 2011-06-19 11:02:21 <CorvusCorax> in the bitcoin net you don#t need a bank to do transactions, u can do them urself
793 2011-06-19 11:02:33 <CorvusCorax> true
794 2011-06-19 11:02:33 <lfm> actually the bank could pay interest to depositors
795 2011-06-19 11:02:40 <eps> this is why people don't keep wads of cash under their matress
796 2011-06-19 11:02:42 <CorvusCorax> lf: exactly what I said
797 2011-06-19 11:02:56 <CorvusCorax> eps: my grandmother did
798 2011-06-19 11:03:06 <eps> most people ;)
799 2011-06-19 11:03:38 <eps> also if fiat money is turned into bitcoins, that is a transfer of wealth
800 2011-06-19 11:03:44 <CorvusCorax> she must have had bad experience with the big crash of the system in the 40's - makes you distrust money on the bank side
801 2011-06-19 11:04:02 <eps> and that only makes sense if the depositor belives in bitcoin as a store of value
802 2011-06-19 11:04:26 <eps> basically there is only so much wealth in the world
803 2011-06-19 11:04:34 <lfm> CorvusCorax: crash was in 1929. depresion was in the 1930s
804 2011-06-19 11:04:40 <CorvusCorax> lfm: in the US
805 2011-06-19 11:04:44 <eps> fiat money is one way of looking at that wealth
806 2011-06-19 11:04:48 <eps> bitcoin is another
807 2011-06-19 11:04:55 <CorvusCorax> german economic system didn't survive the end of workldwar II it started from zero
808 2011-06-19 11:04:56 <eps> it is kinda looking like a prism
809 2011-06-19 11:05:09 <eps> but neither gives you a complete picuture
810 2011-06-19 11:05:19 <lfm> CorvusCorax: oh ok
811 2011-06-19 11:06:43 <CorvusCorax> accustomed currency in Germany in 1946 was american cigarettes ;)
812 2011-06-19 11:07:13 <eps> it is ent
813 2011-06-19 11:07:52 <eps> sorry, it is entirely possible for retail banking and investment banking to be merged in the bitcoin economy in the same way that it is in the current economy
814 2011-06-19 11:08:09 <eps> but i believe the results of that would be catastrophic
815 2011-06-19 11:08:27 <eps> and smart people wouldn't put their bitcoins in those banks
816 2011-06-19 11:08:40 <CorvusCorax> full ack
817 2011-06-19 11:08:43 <eps> because of the insanely high risk when a recession occurs
818 2011-06-19 11:08:46 <lfm> I dont think there is anything anyone can do to prevent it developing eventually