1 2011-06-23 00:00:01 <egecko> right
  2 2011-06-23 00:00:08 <luke-jr> egecko: bitcoind doesn't support accounts
  3 2011-06-23 00:00:09 <jercos> Pools generally run a proxy that only allows getwork, or their own custom implementation.
  4 2011-06-23 00:00:40 <wasabi1> Yeah there's a lot of accounting to be done.
  5 2011-06-23 00:00:47 <wasabi1> ANd also adjusting the target, etc.
  6 2011-06-23 00:16:36 <egecko> ok. excellent.
  7 2011-06-23 00:18:23 <hipeopl> mtgox going up soon?
  8 2011-06-23 00:19:00 <Juffo-Wup> maybe
  9 2011-06-23 00:19:10 <Juffo-Wup> mt gox hasn't been up for ten days
 10 2011-06-23 00:19:13 <Juffo-Wup> ...because that would be too long!
 11 2011-06-23 00:19:15 <Juffo-Wup> *bow, bow, bow*
 12 2011-06-23 00:20:01 <hipeopl> ???
 13 2011-06-23 00:20:10 <Juffo-Wup> never mind, that joke (which i stole anyway) didn't really work out
 14 2011-06-23 00:20:53 <hipeopl> .........
 15 2011-06-23 00:20:59 <egecko> so query.. say i send someone some bitcoins and they dont fire up their bitcoin app for like months.. obviously the coins are still in the bitcoin network, i assume they just are in an unreceived state?
 16 2011-06-23 00:21:55 <egecko> or at least credited to the receiving address and then when the person opens bitcoin again they are magically accounted for
 17 2011-06-23 00:33:43 <xtalmath> I was thinking about competing blocktrails in the blockchain, it makes sense to distinguish haphazard splits from heavy mining attacks, suppose 2 miners find a different next block in ambiguous closeness, what about allowing the hash that was a little later to be accepted as a next block for half the mining reward? right now its in the interest (yet quite hopeless) of accidental fork to try and compute the next block on his own (you never know if
 18 2011-06-23 00:35:50 <xtalmath> are there any statistics on how many side chains have formed and how long they were? obviously less than 100 some blocks or we would have had troubles, but can one view how long some of these attempted side chains are?
 19 2011-06-23 00:41:42 <phantomcircuit> xtalmath, the longest one in recent history was 6 blocks long (thus the 6 block confirmation limit)
 20 2011-06-23 00:44:12 <xtalmath> idea for a new block chain: CrackCoin, the block chain also keeps all the posted submitted password hashes, you can bid X coins to crack a hash within Y blocks, the block with transactions that first solves a valuable enough (difficulty will correspond to how long the hash exists in the block chain) password is accepted, different password hashes are supported
 21 2011-06-23 00:45:45 <xtalmath> ophcracks website has a web form that takes a few seconds, and visitors are in a que, so first reflex of miners will be to direct it to ophcrack website for LM hashes, of course ophcrack will shut that service down but also profit since miners will buy there bigger rainbow tables.
 22 2011-06-23 00:46:54 <xtalmath> the constant need of black hat crackers worldwide to quickly crack a hash will keep the value of the coins up (they have to buy coins to let the network solve them)
 23 2011-06-23 00:47:09 <xtalmath> we are happy, and the fed is happy :D
 24 2011-06-23 00:47:55 <xtalmath> since it can become the most costeffective way for investigators to access encrypted data
 25 2011-06-23 01:00:01 <pakaran> hmm
 26 2011-06-23 01:00:12 <pakaran> am i right in thinking that someone is mining on the testnet pretty heavily?
 27 2011-06-23 01:05:03 <cuddlefish> Does getaccountaddress create the account?
 28 2011-06-23 01:05:38 <ImRoot702> pakaran, i think so... im trying to mine for some testing and it's taking way to long IMO
 29 2011-06-23 01:06:04 <cuddlefish> (the JSON-RPC call)
 30 2011-06-23 01:06:51 <Nibiru_> what's happening to make the btc client more secure?
 31 2011-06-23 01:07:14 <pakaran> ImRoot702, just use the faucet
 32 2011-06-23 01:07:16 <pakaran> or actually
 33 2011-06-23 01:07:19 <cuddlefish> Nibiru_: we're deleting random wallet.dats until people learn to encrypted backup
 34 2011-06-23 01:07:20 <pakaran> how many btc do you need?
 35 2011-06-23 01:07:23 <ImRoot702> pakaran, ?
 36 2011-06-23 01:07:31 <pakaran> for your tests?
 37 2011-06-23 01:07:37 <pakaran> because i have quite a lot of test coins
 38 2011-06-23 01:07:51 <ImRoot702> pakaran, just a couple to pass around to different wallets.
 39 2011-06-23 01:07:55 <ImRoot702> can i get 10?
 40 2011-06-23 01:08:42 <pakaran> sure
 41 2011-06-23 01:08:46 <pakaran> what's your address?
 42 2011-06-23 01:09:03 <Nibiru_> so nothing then
 43 2011-06-23 01:13:07 <Nibiru_> because the current client is unusable for widespread use
 44 2011-06-23 01:13:40 <cuddlefish> Does the JSON-RPC  call getaccountaddress create the account? If not, how do I create an accoount?
 45 2011-06-23 01:23:25 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: pretty happy with genjix' /. answers
 46 2011-06-23 01:23:45 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: see my above question?
 47 2011-06-23 01:24:06 <jgarzik> cuddlefish: yes, it creates the account
 48 2011-06-23 01:24:10 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, good
 49 2011-06-23 01:24:17 <cuddlefish> jgarzik: excellent :<
 50 2011-06-23 01:25:33 <egecko> query.. i did not realize you could send coins to an IP address.  why would this be done?
 51 2011-06-23 01:25:58 <jgarzik> egecko: ignore that, it is (a) disabled by default and (b) going away
 52 2011-06-23 01:28:46 <egecko> someone mentioned that the comment field is going away as well?
 53 2011-06-23 01:29:05 <egecko> why? that seems like a valuable piece of the bitcoin
 54 2011-06-23 01:30:28 <kunnis> Yeah, logging transaction IDs would be nice, things like that
 55 2011-06-23 01:35:36 <jgarzik> egecko: the command field is not going away
 56 2011-06-23 01:35:53 <jgarzik> kunnis: 'listtransactions' shows your transaction log
 57 2011-06-23 01:36:37 <egecko> excellent! i thought that would be foolish and nonsensical given theres a comment in the genesis block
 58 2011-06-23 01:37:42 <egecko> what is the comment-to field for though?
 59 2011-06-23 01:39:05 <jgarzik> egecko: comments are only stored in your wallet; never in transactions or the block chain.
 60 2011-06-23 01:39:18 <jgarzik> that has always been the case.
 61 2011-06-23 01:39:24 <egecko> ah!
 62 2011-06-23 01:39:26 <egecko> ok :)
 63 2011-06-23 01:39:29 <egecko> that makes sense now
 64 2011-06-23 01:39:49 <egecko> any plans to add a field to the coins? ;)
 65 2011-06-23 01:43:18 <jgarzik> egecko: nope
 66 2011-06-23 02:10:24 <egecko> so, the sendfrom (and i assume the sendtoaddress) api calls return a txn id
 67 2011-06-23 02:11:31 <egecko> what is the txn id in relation to the two coins generated in the transaction and the account id and the address being sent to?
 68 2011-06-23 02:14:40 <egecko> its the key to the coin that represents the remainder of the transaction back to the sender right?
 69 2011-06-23 02:20:20 <egecko> its the reserve key.. woot
 70 2011-06-23 02:48:16 <curiositysquared> how large would a bounty have to be (in bitcoins) for it to be worth looking for an sha-256 collision while mining?
 71 2011-06-23 02:49:05 <curiositysquared> If I'm thinking about it correctly, it would have to be astronomical. Even if the entire bitcoin network were looking for a collision it would take an eternity.
 72 2011-06-23 02:52:10 <hipeopl> [Update June 23 - 03:45 GMT] T-Minus 23 Hours and 15 Minutes until Launch.
 73 2011-06-23 03:06:10 <pakaran> hi, how do I start a client using a separate, new, wallet?
 74 2011-06-23 03:06:37 <pakaran> I want to do some testing with the "using 2 clients to anonymize for people" idea
 75 2011-06-23 03:06:38 <pakaran> see how hard it really is to operate by hand
 76 2011-06-23 03:06:50 <doublec> create a directory to contain the new wallet's files
 77 2011-06-23 03:06:50 <GarrettB> pakaran: start with -datadir=PATH
 78 2011-06-23 03:06:54 <doublec> and use datadir
 79 2011-06-23 03:07:11 <doublec> and conf
 80 2011-06-23 03:07:16 <pakaran> and an empty directory will work fine?
 81 2011-06-23 03:07:25 <doublec> yes
 82 2011-06-23 03:07:55 <doublec> pakaran: don't forget to run the second bitcoin instance on a different port
 83 2011-06-23 03:08:08 <doublec> (assuming you're running two bitcoind's at the same time)
 84 2011-06-23 03:08:18 <pakaran> i'm behind a nat, actually
 85 2011-06-23 03:08:27 <pakaran> so in practice i don't get incoming connections
 86 2011-06-23 03:08:42 <doublec> pakaran: I'm talking about running two bitcoind's on the same machine
 87 2011-06-23 03:08:52 <doublec> pakaran: but with different wallets
 88 2011-06-23 03:09:25 <pakaran> can i just run it with -nolisten?
 89 2011-06-23 03:09:36 <doublec> pakaran: you'll want a different rpcport
 90 2011-06-23 03:09:40 <egecko> your cant
 91 2011-06-23 03:09:43 <grbgout> doublec: hey, how's namecoin goin'?
 92 2011-06-23 03:09:44 <egecko> err you cant
 93 2011-06-23 03:09:52 <egecko> have to have separate instances
 94 2011-06-23 03:09:53 <doublec> egecko: can't what?
 95 2011-06-23 03:09:56 <doublec> egecko: why not?
 96 2011-06-23 03:10:04 <egecko> you cant run multiple wallets from the same instance
 97 2011-06-23 03:10:32 <doublec> egecko: you run multiple instances
 98 2011-06-23 03:10:33 <egecko> you have to have multiple instances
 99 2011-06-23 03:10:37 <egecko> thats a nightmare from the management perspective too
100 2011-06-23 03:10:42 <pakaran> alright, thanks
101 2011-06-23 03:10:54 <doublec> grbgout: it's going ok. The network is a bit slow since a number of miners left once the arbitrage opportunities dropped
102 2011-06-23 03:11:40 <doublec> egecko: my 'savings' wallet is run from a different datadir and instance
103 2011-06-23 03:11:46 <grbgout> pretty interesting stuff.  Is that your exchange?
104 2011-06-23 03:11:47 <doublec> egecko: I bring it up when I want to transfer to/from it
105 2011-06-23 03:11:52 <grbgout> doublec: nice, do you run a pool on it as well?
106 2011-06-23 03:11:58 <doublec> grbgout: yep
107 2011-06-23 03:13:07 <grbgout> I might point my 1.4 Ghps at it one of these days just for fun ;)
108 2011-06-23 03:13:08 <doublec> grbgout: to give you an idea in the drop in power, the pool was at 300 ghash a week ago
109 2011-06-23 03:13:13 <grbgout> wow
110 2011-06-23 03:13:24 <doublec> the entire network was 950 ghash
111 2011-06-23 03:13:28 <doublec> now it's 200 or so
112 2011-06-23 03:13:41 <grbgout> that's crazy
113 2011-06-23 03:13:44 <doublec> yeah
114 2011-06-23 03:13:52 <grbgout> Is there a competing implementation, or something?
115 2011-06-23 03:13:55 <hipeopl> u guys think btc will crash once mtgox opens?
116 2011-06-23 03:14:03 <grbgout> hipeopl: I don't.
117 2011-06-23 03:14:19 <doublec> grbgout: no, just that people mined like crazy when it was very profitable due to difficulty differences with the bitcoin chain and the nmc/btc price
118 2011-06-23 03:14:20 <egecko> no way
119 2011-06-23 03:14:31 <grbgout> doublec: gotchya
120 2011-06-23 03:14:36 <doublec> mtgox might crash, bitcoin won't
121 2011-06-23 03:14:44 <grbgout> doublec: indeed, hah!
122 2011-06-23 03:15:09 <grbgout> well crap, now I'll have to figure out how to determine at what BTC difficulty it will be more profitable to mine namecoins >_<
123 2011-06-23 03:15:14 <doublec> (no disrespect meant to mtgox, just their load will be enormous when they open)
124 2011-06-23 03:16:05 <doublec> grbgout: namecoin.us lists some pools and their current hash rates
125 2011-06-23 03:16:14 <midnightmagic> No, namecoin mining crashed once people stopped being willing to pay more BTC per mining effort in namecoin than they could get just by mining bitcoins.
126 2011-06-23 03:16:31 <doublec> http://www.namecoin.us/pools.php
127 2011-06-23 03:16:46 <doublec> midnightmagic: isn't that basically what I said?
128 2011-06-23 03:17:46 <midnightmagic> Yes, we were typing it together..