1 2011-06-24 00:00:00 <xtalmath> phrontist: inflation reciprocal of total bitcoins? are kidding?
  2 2011-06-24 00:00:01 <kunnis> xelister   Yeah 1MH/sec is 1,000,000 attempts/second
  3 2011-06-24 00:00:01 <lfm> like numerology
  4 2011-06-24 00:00:01 <phrontist> :-)
  5 2011-06-24 00:00:09 <freakazoid> phrontist: no, just a brain
  6 2011-06-24 00:00:11 <phrontist> xtalmath: I was just trying to understand your usage above
  7 2011-06-24 00:00:25 <phrontist> i.e. "inflation irrespective of human value"
  8 2011-06-24 00:00:28 <freakazoid> phrontist: a lot of fields spend the majority of their time trying to justify their existence
  9 2011-06-24 00:00:46 <xtalmath> yep, I dont claim its usefull characteristic just curious what it would be
 10 2011-06-24 00:00:50 <freakazoid> phrontist: and a bunch of people wanted the government to pay them for doing nothing useful, so they pretended they could measure the economy
 11 2011-06-24 00:01:02 <freakazoid> phrontist: they are no different than the astrologers of old
 12 2011-06-24 00:01:22 <phrontist> freakazoid: if you whois me you'll see I'm in DC. I have friends who do econometrics for assorted government agencies - they serve a useful descriptive role, I'd say.
 13 2011-06-24 00:01:28 <freakazoid> phrontist: haha
 14 2011-06-24 00:01:38 <xtalmath> and it actually is true inflation IF everybody used solely bitcoin
 15 2011-06-24 00:01:41 <freakazoid> phrontist: of course you think that. It's hard to tell your friends their jobs are useless.
 16 2011-06-24 00:02:03 <xelister> kunnis: no.... is it?
 17 2011-06-24 00:02:05 <freakazoid> phrontist: also, you can tolerate living in DC, the epicenter of parasitism in the US
 18 2011-06-24 00:02:06 <lfm> true most of the great astronomers back thru history were astrologers on the side to make money
 19 2011-06-24 00:02:08 <phrontist> freakazoid: I actually did tell them this on several occasions
 20 2011-06-24 00:02:23 <xelister> kunnis: nah it different.  1 mhash ~= 1 attempt/hour
 21 2011-06-24 00:03:02 <phrontist> and after some discussion I realized that they have a very banal role to play in the administration of government purchasing a such
 22 2011-06-24 00:03:17 <freakazoid> lfm: heh, that would tend to imply that people who want to study economics for a living become econometrists on the side to make money
 23 2011-06-24 00:03:23 <freakazoid> lfm: which I totally believe
 24 2011-06-24 00:03:33 <lfm> xelister: nope 1 mhash is 1 million attempt/sec
 25 2011-06-24 00:03:39 <lfm> xelister: nope 1 mhash is 1 million attempt
 26 2011-06-24 00:03:58 <xelister> lfm: ATTEMPTS
 27 2011-06-24 00:03:59 <xelister> not hashes
 28 2011-06-24 00:04:05 <lfm> xelister: 1 hash is 1 attempt
 29 2011-06-24 00:04:08 <freakazoid> phrontist: care to give an example?
 30 2011-06-24 00:04:09 <accel> how does attempt and hash differ?
 31 2011-06-24 00:04:11 <xelister> no
 32 2011-06-24 00:04:17 <freakazoid> phrontist: I can be convinced I'm wrong.
 33 2011-06-24 00:04:25 <lfm> xelist every attempt is a possible win
 34 2011-06-24 00:04:25 <xelister> lfm: TARGET = 0x00000000FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFL
 35 2011-06-24 00:04:29 <xelister> this attempts
 36 2011-06-24 00:04:32 <phrontist> freakazoid: the consumer price index?
 37 2011-06-24 00:04:45 <freakazoid> phrontist: Oh, ok. You've convinced me I was right.
 38 2011-06-24 00:04:52 <freakazoid> They're totally astrologers.
 39 2011-06-24 00:04:53 <sacarlson> xtalmath: bitcoin is a deflationary currency
 40 2011-06-24 00:05:30 <phrontist> freakazoid: elaborate?
 41 2011-06-24 00:05:39 <freakazoid> phrontist: The CPI is nonsense.
 42 2011-06-24 00:05:44 <lfm> xelister: we have not made that many attepts total since bitcoin started
 43 2011-06-24 00:05:48 <freakazoid> every time it starts to embarrass the government they change it
 44 2011-06-24 00:06:01 <xelister> lfm: you have no idea what Im talking about. meh
 45 2011-06-24 00:06:06 <xtalmath> sacarison: true in the real world, I was making the approximation of bitcoin only, and before its final state years from now
 46 2011-06-24 00:06:08 <phrontist> freakazoid: not useful for measuring, uh, what things cost?
 47 2011-06-24 00:06:12 <lfm> xelist you mean shares?
 48 2011-06-24 00:06:23 <freakazoid> phrontist: No, it's not.
 49 2011-06-24 00:06:28 <lfm> xelister you mean shares?
 50 2011-06-24 00:06:29 <freakazoid> phrontist: Nor was it ever intended to do that.
 51 2011-06-24 00:07:07 <xelister> lfm: yea
 52 2011-06-24 00:07:20 <freakazoid> phrontist: are you familiar with hedonic adjustment?
 53 2011-06-24 00:07:27 <lfm> ok 2^32 hash -> 1 share
 54 2011-06-24 00:07:41 <freakazoid> phrontist: the CPI considers a car with a donut spare to be $500 more car than a car with a full-size spare
 55 2011-06-24 00:07:55 <phrontist> freakazoid: in the sense of "the hedonic treadmill"?
 56 2011-06-24 00:08:01 <freakazoid> phrontist: so if cars went up $500 but they all switched to donut spares, that would be considered 0 inflation
 57 2011-06-24 00:08:30 <xelister> lfm: ok
 58 2011-06-24 00:08:35 <freakazoid> phrontist: hedonic adjustment is a technique they use to finesse the CPI down to whatever level they want
 59 2011-06-24 00:08:37 <phrontist> is this where I should be appalled at their ignorance?
 60 2011-06-24 00:08:43 <phrontist> ah
 61 2011-06-24 00:08:59 <freakazoid> phrontist: they find a bunch of improvements that have been made, slap arbitrary values on them, and subtract that number from the price
 62 2011-06-24 00:09:33 <phrontist> my understanding was that they tried to find similar products where those improvements had not been made to arrive at their "arbitrary values"
 63 2011-06-24 00:09:34 <freakazoid> so in spite of the fact that I can't get a car for $5000, that's ok because I'm really getting 30k worth of car when I spend 11k on one
 64 2011-06-24 00:09:41 <freakazoid> never mind that I can't get to work
 65 2011-06-24 00:09:49 <sacarlson> freakazoid: but how much did a bottle of beer cost 10 years ago?
 66 2011-06-24 00:09:56 <freakazoid> sacarlson: what do I look like, Google?
 67 2011-06-24 00:10:22 <freakazoid> phrontist: there is nothing remotely scientific about the CPI
 68 2011-06-24 00:10:33 <lfm> can sorta measure inflation statisicly with a sampling of products, compare old price to new price.
 69 2011-06-24 00:10:43 <sacarlson> freakazoid: you must be young and not remember I use that to judge inflation and when I travel how much a currency will buy
 70 2011-06-24 00:11:07 <freakazoid> sacarlson: No, I've just never paid attention to the price of beer.
 71 2011-06-24 00:11:09 <phrontist> freakazoid: I don't think science (if by that you mean something like physics) is a good point of reference for this kind of thing
 72 2011-06-24 00:11:16 <freakazoid> sacarlson: also the taxes on beer have gone up over tme
 73 2011-06-24 00:11:21 <sacarlson> freakazoid: I know you drink milk
 74 2011-06-24 00:11:27 <freakazoid> phrontist: right, because it's not science. It's astrology.
 75 2011-06-24 00:11:28 <lfm> sacarlson: exchange rate can be very different from inflation
 76 2011-06-24 00:11:38 <freakazoid> sacarlson: yeah but I don't pay attention to the price of it
 77 2011-06-24 00:11:56 <sacarlson> freakazoid: what do yo know the value of?
 78 2011-06-24 00:12:07 <freakazoid> houses, cars, gas
 79 2011-06-24 00:12:10 <phrontist> freakazoid: that seems a bit reductive, to say the least
 80 2011-06-24 00:12:20 <lfm> can sorta measure inflation statisticly with a sampling of products, compare old prices to new prices.
 81 2011-06-24 00:12:30 <freakazoid> phrontist: yeah but what if I'm right?
 82 2011-06-24 00:12:30 <sacarlson> lfm: yes but I assume the judge inflation buy how much things change in price over time
 83 2011-06-24 00:12:50 <phrontist> freakazoid: right or wrong, science or astrology, 0 or 1
 84 2011-06-24 00:12:58 <phrontist> big on the sharp division, aren't you?
 85 2011-06-24 00:13:11 <freakazoid> So you're saying it's a little bit useful
 86 2011-06-24 00:13:16 <unclemantis> how many confirmations should I wait for until I can call a transaction safe?
 87 2011-06-24 00:13:24 <phrontist> I'm saying it's fairly useful, yeah
 88 2011-06-24 00:13:25 <freakazoid> what good is a number that is just a bunch of guesses stacked on guesses?
 89 2011-06-24 00:13:35 <lfm> sacarlson: you need to be very carefull trying to measure it, just one person's point of veiw can be subject to large errors
 90 2011-06-24 00:13:40 <phrontist> freakazoid: tons of good
 91 2011-06-24 00:13:44 <phrontist> I used to work in aerospace
 92 2011-06-24 00:13:48 <freakazoid> I came to the conclusion several years ago that all you could look at is individual prices of commodities
 93 2011-06-24 00:13:54 <phrontist> guesses stacked on guesses keep you in the air :-)
 94 2011-06-24 00:14:04 <sacarlson> lfm: I'm sure there is no perfect measure only an estimate
 95 2011-06-24 00:14:06 <freakazoid> yeah but you can actually measure
 96 2011-06-24 00:14:12 <freakazoid> what happens when they're wrong about the CPI? nothing.
 97 2011-06-24 00:14:16 <freakazoid> they *can't* be wrong about the CPI
 98 2011-06-24 00:14:43 <lfm> sacarlson: mainly there is no perfect measure cuz people (even economists) dont agree on a definition
 99 2011-06-24 00:14:44 <freakazoid> sure, they can apply their methods incorrectly, but there's no way to test if their method actually does a good job of reflecting people's cost of living
100 2011-06-24 00:14:45 <phrontist> they can in the sense that people stop using it
101 2011-06-24 00:14:55 <freakazoid> phrontist: people don't use it.
102 2011-06-24 00:14:57 <phrontist> the CPI is used by private financial folks
103 2011-06-24 00:15:00 <freakazoid> phrontist: not outside of the government
104 2011-06-24 00:15:00 <phrontist> sure it is.
105 2011-06-24 00:15:04 <freakazoid> who uses it?
106 2011-06-24 00:15:15 <freakazoid> for any reason other than looking at what TIPS are gonna pay?
107 2011-06-24 00:15:21 <phrontist> quants and such
108 2011-06-24 00:15:32 <freakazoid> another useless fucking industry
109 2011-06-24 00:15:38 <freakazoid> fighting over the last cent
110 2011-06-24 00:15:44 <freakazoid> while providing no value to anyone
111 2011-06-24 00:15:54 <phrontist> freakazoid: lets talk about what you do approve of :-)
112 2011-06-24 00:15:55 <freakazoid> pricing derivatives is great, but stop there
113 2011-06-24 00:16:04 <sacarlson> lfm: on and I came up with onother posible method to secure a micro (very small) block chain net using only licenced minners
114 2011-06-24 00:16:07 <phrontist> you're in -dev, so I take it you write software?
115 2011-06-24 00:16:12 <freakazoid> I do!
116 2011-06-24 00:16:16 <phrontist> what kind?
117 2011-06-24 00:16:37 <sacarlson> lfm: would that work?
118 2011-06-24 00:16:39 <freakazoid> I just released a Python wrapper for Dan Bernstein's NaCl crypto library
119 2011-06-24 00:16:54 <unclemantis> 6 blocks
120 2011-06-24 00:16:56 <freakazoid> I've written a tiny little bit of Facebook
121 2011-06-24 00:16:56 <unclemantis> :)
122 2011-06-24 00:17:11 <phrontist> you work for facebook?
123 2011-06-24 00:17:15 <freakazoid> wrote a substantial fraction of Membase's cluster management code
124 2011-06-24 00:17:17 <freakazoid> yeah
125 2011-06-24 00:17:21 <phrontist> jesus, now there is some economic activity that angers me :-)
126 2011-06-24 00:17:30 <freakazoid> what, our ridiculous valuation?
127 2011-06-24 00:17:31 <lfm> sacarlson: I dont know why youd want to do that. I spoze it could work if they all used the same hardware and software
128 2011-06-24 00:17:40 <phrontist> freakazoid: the whole walled-garden business model
129 2011-06-24 00:17:54 <freakazoid> phrontist: yeah it doesn't make me that happy either
130 2011-06-24 00:18:08 <phrontist> some douchey harvard kid redirects a good chunk of the world's email and photosharing through datacenters he controls
131 2011-06-24 00:18:26 <freakazoid> he doesn't seem very power mad to me
132 2011-06-24 00:18:29 <phrontist> is nearly universally lauded for advancing the culture
133 2011-06-24 00:18:34 <freakazoid> he just wants to help people share more easily
134 2011-06-24 00:18:47 <freakazoid> and it seems like people like it
135 2011-06-24 00:19:00 <phrontist> he could have easily put out some open standard that let people host their profiles wherever
136 2011-06-24 00:19:01 <freakazoid> so you should blame our users for not wanting us to be more open :)
137 2011-06-24 00:19:05 <phrontist> federating, in other words
138 2011-06-24 00:19:15 <freakazoid> he could have, but previous attempts to do that haven't exactly gotten traction
139 2011-06-24 00:19:21 <sacarlson> lfm: for example my very small weeds chain it's not secure as is not the testnet since an overpowered minner could corrupt it.  but what if you only gave out a small number of licenses enuf to provide redundancy to trusted group
140 2011-06-24 00:19:36 <phrontist> freakazoid: I'm not aware of previous examples
141 2011-06-24 00:20:02 <freakazoid> phrontist: there was xfn and foaf
142 2011-06-24 00:20:14 <lfm> sacarlson: I dont understand why you dont use regular bitcoin
143 2011-06-24 00:20:40 <freakazoid> the problem is regular users aren't interested in standards, they're interested in UI
144 2011-06-24 00:20:51 <phrontist> freakazoid: I meant examples of companies taking them up
145 2011-06-24 00:21:06 <phrontist> myspace, friendster, and now facebook have each ignored them, no?
146 2011-06-24 00:21:10 <freakazoid> google has played around with foaf
147 2011-06-24 00:21:22 <freakazoid> I don't know if FB uses foaf
148 2011-06-24 00:21:44 <phrontist> message passing would be the important thing
149 2011-06-24 00:21:52 <freakazoid> well we DO support XMPP
150 2011-06-24 00:21:59 <sacarlson> lfm: because bitcoin is unstable in price and I want to try to make the Beertokens small block chain network secure to make a posible stable crypto currency
151 2011-06-24 00:22:07 <phrontist> freakazoid: that's news to me
152 2011-06-24 00:22:10 <freakazoid> the people here definitely aren't anti-open-source or walled-gardeny
153 2011-06-24 00:22:12 <phrontist> I'll have to check that out
154 2011-06-24 00:22:39 <phrontist> any talk of bitcoin at Facebook? :-)
155 2011-06-24 00:22:39 <sacarlson> lfm: or do you mean just use bitcoin linked transactions?
156 2011-06-24 00:22:45 <freakazoid> I haven't heard any
157 2011-06-24 00:23:04 <phrontist> don't they have some token system?
158 2011-06-24 00:23:07 <freakazoid> facebook has pretty much ONE ideal, which is to help people share stuff with their friends
159 2011-06-24 00:23:16 <freakazoid> it's hard to have more than one ideal as an organization
160 2011-06-24 00:23:32 <phrontist> well, that and an obligation to shareholders, surely
161 2011-06-24 00:23:45 <lfm> sacarlson: I dont think you can make price stable by makeing a SMALLER bitcoin system
162 2011-06-24 00:23:49 <sacarlson> lfm: there's even the posibility to run a faster network in this manner maybe 10 confirms per minit
163 2011-06-24 00:24:10 <freakazoid> phrontist: "provide value to the shareholders" has traditionally not been a very good ideal for a company, because it doesn't give you any sense of direction
164 2011-06-24 00:24:10 <testx0r> #bitcoin-otc
165 2011-06-24 00:24:27 <freakazoid> phrontist: companies that lose site of their core mission (NOT "provide shareholder value" die
166 2011-06-24 00:24:49 <freakazoid> insertion of the closing parenthesis is left as an exercise for the reader.
167 2011-06-24 00:25:00 <phrontist> that seems like a somewhat pollyanna view of capitalist behavior
168 2011-06-24 00:25:07 <sacarlson> lfm: no you can't but that parts taken care of in a different way with the beertokens exchange that acts like a private fed for The Trust http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9493.msg138247#msg138247
169 2011-06-24 00:25:15 <phrontist> I mean, I don't think carnegie thought about mission statements :-)
170 2011-06-24 00:25:21 <freakazoid> phrontist: I'm not talking about morality
171 2011-06-24 00:25:29 <freakazoid> I'm just talking about what makes for successful companies
172 2011-06-24 00:25:33 <lfm> sacarlson: the real way you make price stable is take a huge wad of money and off a standard price for bitcoins then take a huge wad of btc and offer to sell them at nearly the same price (small profit margin is ok).
173 2011-06-24 00:25:37 <phrontist> neither am I
174 2011-06-24 00:25:45 <sacarlson> lfm: but at the begining the network is small so it doesn't have security like bitcoin has
175 2011-06-24 00:25:51 <phrontist> but it seems to me that quite a few companies do extremely well on the ideal of chasing whatever buck comes by
176 2011-06-24 00:25:52 <freakazoid> there was a study about this recently
177 2011-06-24 00:26:16 <phrontist> can't imagine how you'd study that
178 2011-06-24 00:26:19 <sacarlson> lfm: that's exactly what beertokens exchange does
179 2011-06-24 00:26:27 <freakazoid> phrontist: I'm sure there are examples of that, but if you don't sample on the dependent variable, you find that it's better to have a core mission
180 2011-06-24 00:27:07 <freakazoid> phrontist: i.e. companies that have a strong idea of who they are do better, on average, than companies that do as you say, chase whatever buck comes by
181 2011-06-24 00:27:24 <lfm> sacarlson: the "huge wad"s have to be quite large tho to not get blown away by the market
182 2011-06-24 00:27:28 <freakazoid> phrontist: Yahoo is a good example of a company that's lost its way
183 2011-06-24 00:27:34 <phrontist> but clearly facebook's putative "mission" of helping people share is sent into quite narrow channels by competition
184 2011-06-24 00:27:44 <sacarlson> lfm: the exchanges autobots buy up btc when it falls bellow the present value of what we want beertokens to be and starts to sell beertokens when btc becomes overpriced as compared to beertokens
185 2011-06-24 00:27:49 <freakazoid> phrontist: I don't understand what you mean, could you rephrase?
186 2011-06-24 00:28:08 <phrontist> a system that would let competitors take users away, something more like openstatus, would lose them a hell of a lot of money
187 2011-06-24 00:28:22 <freakazoid> Oh, sure, you mean like publishing the whole social graph to the world?
188 2011-06-24 00:28:27 <phrontist> yeah
189 2011-06-24 00:28:32 <phrontist> just to start
190 2011-06-24 00:28:46 <freakazoid> Yeah, the mission is not just "help people share, in the short term, at any cost"
191 2011-06-24 00:28:48 <phrontist> I mean, at their core they're an advertising firm
192 2011-06-24 00:29:09 <sacarlson> lfm: the planed preminted beertokens shares are now at 29 billion units a hopefull amount to match the units of paypal float
193 2011-06-24 00:29:17 <freakazoid> I wouldn't say that's part of how we view ourselves
194 2011-06-24 00:29:19 <lfm> sacarlson: so you become the "issuer" and you pin the price to what you want. no need to actually change the software in such a case
195 2011-06-24 00:29:40 <phrontist> it's more like trying to come up with the most addictive way to commodify friendships to keep ad clickthroughs up
196 2011-06-24 00:29:54 <freakazoid> also, we make money on apps also
197 2011-06-24 00:29:56 <sacarlson> lfm: well then you don't know about the problems with double spending in testnet that I would have the same problem with when it was small
198 2011-06-24 00:29:58 <freakazoid> also also
199 2011-06-24 00:30:01 <freakazoid> and facebook credits
200 2011-06-24 00:30:05 <freakazoid> also
201 2011-06-24 00:30:39 <freakazoid> if you went back in time 50 years and tried to describe facebook to someone and you said "it's an advertising company" they would nod and think they knew what you were talking about but they would have no idea what Facebook is
202 2011-06-24 00:31:32 <phrontist> "it's like a phone company that will give you a hookup for free if they can insert ad blurbs into your calls"
203 2011-06-24 00:31:50 <freakazoid> wow I'm starting to get weird contacts on aim
204 2011-06-24 00:32:01 <freakazoid> "hi" from gptmafiaboyz and a wink from testgee
205 2011-06-24 00:32:24 <lfm> sacarlson: oh ok you dont really want bitcoin software at all then, you just want a cetrally issued currency that you print and only you can authorize txn. dont let ANYONE else run nodes
206 2011-06-24 00:33:10 <lfm> dont let enyone else run miners I mean, they can run nodes that dont mine
207 2011-06-24 00:34:19 <sacarlson> lfm: I just using a slightly modified version of bitcoin for this new chain
208 2011-06-24 00:34:55 <sacarlson> lfm: as I did to create weeds
209 2011-06-24 00:36:35 <sacarlson> lfm: but you also put the work "you can"  as all desision would fall on the group that hold The Trust
210 2011-06-24 00:36:39 <freakazoid> ah, spam bots
211 2011-06-24 00:36:45 <sacarlson> work = word
212 2011-06-24 00:37:22 <sacarlson> lfm: yall might work to replace you but yes
213 2011-06-24 00:37:58 <unclemantis> using testnet i performed a sendtoaddress and i did a listtransactions for the account i sent it to. The transaction is is there. When i did a getbalance for that account it comes up as 0.00000000 but when i do a getbalance for '' there is no change in balance either.  Confirmations for the transactions are 0 and it has been a while. What's the deal? Why are confirmations not going up? I
214 2011-06-24 00:38:03 <lfm> sacarlson: so its not bitcoin, bitcoin software is wasted/overkill/doesnt make sense to me for what you want.
215 2011-06-24 00:39:12 <sacarlson> lfm:  well to me bitcoin is still of value but I just thought there might be room for other posibilities,  not only Beertokens,  but they will all start small and need a way to be secure when they start
216 2011-06-24 00:39:27 <BitcoinForNewegg> souldnt mtgox be open now?
217 2011-06-24 00:40:08 <lfm> ya but it seems you dont want a distributed currency at all, you want a centralized currency. bitcoins is distributed
218 2011-06-24 00:40:13 <sacarlson> lfm: beertokens is just a concept with room for change or complete rewrite
219 2011-06-24 00:41:13 <sacarlson> lfm: so I'm puting these feature into my version of freecoin
220 2011-06-24 00:42:38 <lfm> sacarlson: freecoin? sounds more like slavecoin, you control price, you control how can mine. not free at all
221 2011-06-24 00:43:12 <sacarlson> lfm: if you read the article you would see that I suggested to hold 50 - 75% of the assets in BTC so I must have value for it
222 2011-06-24 00:43:33 <sacarlson> lfm: no freecoin is a multicrypto chain supported client
223 2011-06-24 00:43:53 <sacarlson> lfm: you can create and it supports an infinite number of chains
224 2011-06-24 00:44:22 <sacarlson> lfm: including bitcoins testnet weeds beer
225 2011-06-24 00:44:52 <lfm> sacarlson: sorry, just sounds like buzzwords to me, doesnt sound like anything Id want to get anywhere near
226 2011-06-24 00:45:07 <sacarlson> lfm: with freecoin your group controls inflation as they desire without recompiling
227 2011-06-24 00:45:26 <lfm> sure! good luck with that!
228 2011-06-24 00:46:06 <sacarlson> lfm: yes we have a growing support group now we are having good luck
229 2011-06-24 00:47:39 <sacarlson> lfm: and thanks to grofer we will have p2p escrow incorporated very soon https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/commit/83707c8dd4573bb958f9e504fb6263c8fa1ef942
230 2011-06-24 00:49:13 <sacarlson> lfm: I guess you want us to be slaves to the developers of bitcoin?
231 2011-06-24 00:52:38 <lfm> sacarlson: hoh is that, it is open source?
232 2011-06-24 00:54:23 <freakazoid> sacarlson: how do I download and compile the source code for your software?
233 2011-06-24 00:54:24 <sacarlson> lfm: yes opensource
234 2011-06-24 00:55:02 <lfm> sacarlson: the 50% of the computing power rule in bitcoin is a lot like the 50% vote rule in democracy. you may have tyrany of the majority but it still isnt dictatorship
235 2011-06-24 00:56:35 <sacarlson> lfm: this is my personal release but we also have a group release that isn't working yet https://github.com/sacarlson/freecoin
236 2011-06-24 00:57:23 <sacarlson> lfm: well with very little power a single entity can become a dictator
237 2011-06-24 00:57:49 <sacarlson> lfm: as my minner runs with only 300kh/sec to get one confirm every 10 min
238 2011-06-24 00:59:28 <sacarlson> lfm: so in smaller scales you have to chose more trusted entites with more power
239 2011-06-24 00:59:54 <lfm> I dont think you have to
240 2011-06-24 01:00:10 <sacarlson> lfm: well that would be even better then how
241 2011-06-24 01:00:38 <lfm> do it like bitcoin, let people mine for reward, they will sign up in droves
242 2011-06-24 01:00:55 <lfm> let price float
243 2011-06-24 01:01:18 <sacarlson> lfm: it's been running now for 2 months I don't see them lineing up,  trust isn't developed in a day
244 2011-06-24 01:02:06 <sacarlson> lfm: the price at present IS floating as stated in the rules of the bot since the rule uses mtgox data to set price and the feed is gone
245 2011-06-24 01:02:15 <lfm> true bitcoin has foothold, you arent BETTER so ...
246 2011-06-24 01:03:11 <sacarlson> lfm: so to start we start smaller and maybe later one or many others will catch on but they will all start small
247 2011-06-24 01:04:06 <sacarlson> lfm: I'm just going to try to provide the tools for the small ones to give it a try
248 2011-06-24 01:05:18 <sacarlson> and to allow on the edge stuf to be tested
249 2011-06-24 01:07:21 <sacarlson> lfm: by the way if you can find a way for people to lin up in droves for your chain you should create another one too
250 2011-06-24 01:14:23 <][nvisible1> Hello Bitcoinians!
251 2011-06-24 01:29:34 <nobled> hey, is there an option to pass to make to disable USE_UPNP when building?
252 2011-06-24 01:29:57 <Backburn> USE_UPNP=
253 2011-06-24 01:30:02 <Backburn> just like that
254 2011-06-24 01:31:52 <nobled> ah, thanks
255 2011-06-24 01:37:08 <nobled> is there a reason bitcoind links to gthread-2.0? it doesn't use glib does it?
256 2011-06-24 01:59:47 <Optimo> anyone have any luck with gribble auth today?
257 2011-06-24 02:00:44 <Optimo> nvrmind I got it to work
258 2011-06-24 02:26:28 <SuperArse> When you need great shit to fall from the sky, call upon Super Arse, the all flying, all smoking, do nothing of steel!
259 2011-06-24 02:43:42 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Merge pull request #342 from jburkle/datadir_check
260 2011-06-24 02:43:44 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Edited init.cpp to include a check that -datadir exists - http://bit.ly/jkK0UT
261 2011-06-24 02:59:51 <sytse> wtf..
262 2011-06-24 03:01:05 <sytse> there is even a third party PL/SQL engine on top of berkeley db..
263 2011-06-24 03:06:43 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r5a3a372 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java :
264 2011-06-24 03:06:45 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Finish async networking, now everything is async. getwork, sendwork, and
265 2011-06-24 03:06:47 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: LP now use 1 thread per miner instance instead of 3 per GPU. - http://bit.ly/mGIome
266 2011-06-24 03:08:29 <bill_pepper> hello
267 2011-06-24 03:08:51 <bill_pepper> only few of the bits of the sha2 hash is checked, right?
268 2011-06-24 03:09:00 <bill_pepper> for mining, that is
269 2011-06-24 03:10:12 <jgarzik> bill_pepper: the mining check is "hash <= target", where hash and target are 256-bit integers
270 2011-06-24 03:10:34 <jgarzik> bill_pepper: most miners optimize to check simply the high 32 bits equal zero, leaving the rest of the check to upper layers of software
271 2011-06-24 03:11:39 <cacheson> jgarzik: has there been any progress on removing the forum from bitcoin.org?  the place is getting worse every day
272 2011-06-24 03:12:05 <jgarzik> cacheson: I agree w/ you
273 2011-06-24 03:12:36 <cacheson> jgarzik: private emails, or on the mailing list?
274 2011-06-24 03:14:00 <jgarzik> cacheson: private emails among "most major people" that I could find
275 2011-06-24 03:14:09 <cacheson> gotcha
276 2011-06-24 03:14:36 <cacheson> well, I'm glad the issue at least hasn't been dropped.  just hadn't heard much about it, so I was wondering
277 2011-06-24 03:16:28 <cacheson> jgarzik: heh, weusecoins seems like a nice site, it'd be a shame to dump this cesspool on it
278 2011-06-24 03:18:03 <jrmithdobbs> jgarzik: i say remove the forum on bitcoin.org completely
279 2011-06-24 03:18:10 <jrmithdobbs> there's a reason most major projects do not have one.
280 2011-06-24 03:18:22 <cacheson> jrmithdobbs: that's what I've been hoping for
281 2011-06-24 03:19:41 <cacheson> people have already set up competing forums, they'd probably do a lot better if they didn't have to compete with something officially sanctioned
282 2011-06-24 03:23:52 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r2d0ed85 / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java :
283 2011-06-24 03:24:12 <go1dfish> I agree with removing the official forums
284 2011-06-24 03:27:34 <ajcutshall> stfu
285 2011-06-24 03:27:53 <ajcutshall> go1dfish i hacked your server
286 2011-06-24 03:28:01 <jgarzik> cacheson: yeah
287 2011-06-24 03:28:21 <jgarzik> cacheson: definitely want to get the current forums off bitcoin.org main page
288 2011-06-24 03:28:27 <jgarzik> they are an embarrassment
289 2011-06-24 03:31:00 <ajcutshall> problem?
290 2011-06-24 03:31:19 <ajcutshall> well yeah you can shush if you want
291 2011-06-24 03:33:45 <doublec> removing the forums removes a lot of history and background of the project
292 2011-06-24 03:33:51 <doublec> for example, discussions with satoshi
293 2011-06-24 03:33:58 <jgarzik> doublec: the forums will -not- be removed
294 2011-06-24 03:34:02 <cacheson> doublec: then they should be archived
295 2011-06-24 03:34:09 <doublec> yeah that makes more sense
296 2011-06-24 03:34:14 <jgarzik> doublec: only renamed to another hostname + not linked on main bitcoin.org page
297 2011-06-24 03:34:33 <jgarzik> doublec: google will still find satoshi's posts, as will people in the community
298 2011-06-24 03:34:43 <doublec> right, makes sense
299 2011-06-24 03:35:00 <jgarzik> or potential merchant
300 2011-06-24 03:47:16 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
301 2011-06-24 03:47:17 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
302 2011-06-24 03:47:18 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
303 2011-06-24 03:47:19 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
304 2011-06-24 03:47:20 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
305 2011-06-24 03:47:21 <PHPCanDoAnything> MagicalTux you fucking noob, notarize your crap code! are you sure you provided enough infoS?!?! you need more info to support the info?!? SUCK ON THIS FAG.
306 2011-06-24 03:48:13 <cacheson> jgarzik: hey, at least the reporters and merchants don't come to IRC first  ;)
307 2011-06-24 03:48:38 <noagendamarket> heh
308 2011-06-24 03:49:36 <jgarzik> :)
309 2011-06-24 03:57:02 <doublec> haha
310 2011-06-24 03:59:42 <jrmithdobbs> cacheson: we'd probably be better off if they did
311 2011-06-24 04:26:48 <Taveren93HGK> is there anyone around with experience underclocking with msi afterburner?
312 2011-06-24 04:39:41 <jgarzik> Taveren93HGK: might try #bitcoin-mining
313 2011-06-24 04:58:12 <sacarlson> I got groffer's escrow now compiled into my test version of freecoin seem to be running ok,  I'm doing preliminary testing before I release my git with the new additions
314 2011-06-24 05:04:49 <sacarlson> who will accept recieving one free tnbtc and return me .5 tnbtc for me to test?
315 2011-06-24 05:24:14 <erus`> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6458586/recieving-payments-from-users-with-bitcoin free karma
316 2011-06-24 06:10:41 <gmaxwell> 01:07 < upb> anyone figured out what is in here ? http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/9173744691ac25f3cd94f35d4fc0e0a2b9d1ab17b4fe562acc07660552f95518
317 2011-06-24 06:10:52 <gmaxwell> ^ this looks really quite anti-social
318 2011-06-24 06:11:18 <gmaxwell> It's a txn with 0.01 input and a zillion 0 value outputs.
319 2011-06-24 06:11:24 <unclemantis> gmaxwell are you messing around with testnet-in-a-box?
320 2011-06-24 06:11:32 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: no.
321 2011-06-24 06:11:41 <unclemantis> drat
322 2011-06-24 06:11:45 <unclemantis> anyone awake that is?
323 2011-06-24 06:13:03 <num1> ahahahaha
324 2011-06-24 06:13:28 <num1> the first attacker is running tests :P
325 2011-06-24 06:13:42 <vegard> neat
326 2011-06-24 06:13:45 <vegard> is that a bug?
327 2011-06-24 06:13:52 <unclemantis> what attacker?
328 2011-06-24 06:14:01 <num1> joke
329 2011-06-24 06:14:08 <unclemantis> not very funny :P
330 2011-06-24 06:14:23 <num1> all my jokes are funny!
331 2011-06-24 06:14:44 <upb> if transactions to public keys are considered standard aswell, then that would be a more efficient method of storing info in blockchain
332 2011-06-24 06:15:55 <unclemantis> num1 your momma is funny
333 2011-06-24 06:16:04 <vegard> and a weird hash: "scriptPubKey":"OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0d0a000000000000000000000000000000000000 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
334 2011-06-24 06:16:53 <unclemantis> does setgenerate need to be true in order to confirmation transactions?
335 2011-06-24 06:16:56 <num1> unclemantis have time to explain the blockchain to a newb? the wiki is annoying short
336 2011-06-24 06:17:01 <upb> hmm thats a cr lf :D
337 2011-06-24 06:17:10 <unclemantis> num1 only if you make it funny
338 2011-06-24 06:17:33 <num1> your wish is my... pun
339 2011-06-24 06:17:55 <vegard> upb: looks like your weird transaction has an embedded message?
340 2011-06-24 06:18:35 <num1> so every block has a hash of the last block, and a list of transactions
341 2011-06-24 06:18:39 <unclemantis> http://blockexplorer.com/
342 2011-06-24 06:18:46 <unclemantis> knock yourself out
343 2011-06-24 06:18:52 <unclemantis> really, please
344 2011-06-24 06:19:01 <num1> lol
345 2011-06-24 06:19:16 <unclemantis> muck around with that
346 2011-06-24 06:19:26 <unclemantis> that should help you understand
347 2011-06-24 06:19:32 <num1> sure thing
348 2011-06-24 06:19:40 <num1> thanks
349 2011-06-24 06:19:53 <unclemantis> horray!!! confirmations are going up!
350 2011-06-24 06:20:08 <unclemantis> only miners can confirm transactions
351 2011-06-24 06:20:34 <num1> what will the incentive be once all coins are mined? :P
352 2011-06-24 06:20:52 <unclemantis> transaction fees
353 2011-06-24 06:21:18 <unclemantis> and that will not even cover the cost of the electricity that these miners will need to stay functional!
354 2011-06-24 06:21:27 <num1> makes sense, I can see how getting the fees from hundreds of transactions at once would be profitable
355 2011-06-24 06:21:30 <joepie91> http://kerpia.cryto.net/pub
356 2011-06-24 06:21:32 <joepie91> thoughts?
357 2011-06-24 06:21:36 <unclemantis> or maybe.. who knows. I haven't done the math yet
358 2011-06-24 06:22:08 <unclemantis> joepie91 awesome!
359 2011-06-24 06:22:17 <unclemantis> resize would be nice :)
360 2011-06-24 06:22:25 <joepie91> I'm basically working on a javascript desktop environment
361 2011-06-24 06:22:32 <joepie91> that is made specifically for large amounts of data
362 2011-06-24 06:22:40 <joepie91> with window management etc specifically made for that
363 2011-06-24 06:22:46 <num1> the math on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability gives the impression there will be *very many* transactions per block
364 2011-06-24 06:22:47 <joepie91> as a sort of framework for people to build applications on
365 2011-06-24 06:22:51 <unclemantis> i think i broke it
366 2011-06-24 06:23:09 <joepie91> I think something like blockexplorer with an interface like this may be a good tool to seriously "investigate" transactions :P
367 2011-06-24 06:23:11 <joepie91> broke it?
368 2011-06-24 06:23:35 <unclemantis> yup
369 2011-06-24 06:23:40 <joepie91> in what sense?
370 2011-06-24 06:24:07 <unclemantis> whowhowooo!!! my accounts have balances now
371 2011-06-24 06:24:25 <joepie91> (also, the entire visual part is CSS, so it would be skinnable however you like)
372 2011-06-24 06:24:40 <vegard> upb: it does contain an embedded message
373 2011-06-24 06:25:08 <vegard> it has "=yend size=8 776 crc32=a7ac8449" at the end
374 2011-06-24 06:25:09 <upb> the last line of it is end size=8776 crc32=a7ac8449
375 2011-06-24 06:25:10 <upb> yep
376 2011-06-24 06:25:14 <vegard> but the rest seems to be binary data
377 2011-06-24 06:26:19 <xtalmath> what if I mistype an address where will the coins go?
378 2011-06-24 06:26:39 <vegard> xtalmath: to that address. if nobody has the private key to it, the coins will be lost
379 2011-06-24 06:26:51 <xtalmath> i mean if I mistype one character
380 2011-06-24 06:26:56 <tcatm> xtalmath: try it!
381 2011-06-24 06:26:57 <vegard> xtalmath: but addresses have a built-in check so there's a very small probability it will be accepted
382 2011-06-24 06:27:07 <xtalmath> I know but I dont believe it anymore
383 2011-06-24 06:27:25 <xtalmath> I did #grep "IsValidBitcoinAddress" .
384 2011-06-24 06:27:42 <xtalmath> and it only returned 3 instances in base58.h, they arent called anywhere!
385 2011-06-24 06:28:15 <vegard> upb: google says it's an "yEncode" file
386 2011-06-24 06:28:29 <xtalmath> please check it, first I thought cscope was buggy, but after grepping the whole source dir ( . ) I discovered somehow it isnt called anymore
387 2011-06-24 06:29:00 <tcatm> xtalmath: grepping is not a proper method to read source code. open a text editor and read the whole code.
388 2011-06-24 06:29:08 <xtalmath> the function (2 versions of it) are defined in base58.h resulting in 3 instances of the string in the whole project, no other file contains it
389 2011-06-24 06:29:28 <xtalmath> tcatm: then can you point me at exact file/line?
390 2011-06-24 06:29:48 <num1> xtalmath the whole code doesn't have an exact line
391 2011-06-24 06:30:51 <xtalmath> num1:? ok version .23 for example main.cpp:13, but it doesnt exist, tell me where
392 2011-06-24 06:30:52 <upb> vegard: found a thread about it by goolging for the crc value http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8114.0;all
393 2011-06-24 06:30:55 <upb> heh
394 2011-06-24 06:31:55 <xtalmath> please, someone help me
395 2011-06-24 06:32:12 <unclemantis> xtalmath have you called your parole officer today?
396 2011-06-24 06:32:32 <xtalmath> I give good evidence that the IsValidBitcoinAddress is called nowhere
397 2011-06-24 06:32:50 <vegard> upb: ah.. nice
398 2011-06-24 06:32:50 <xtalmath> I dont have a parole officer
399 2011-06-24 06:32:51 <unclemantis> i object!
400 2011-06-24 06:33:34 <upb> xtalmath: indeed, it doesnt seem to be called at all
401 2011-06-24 06:33:38 <unclemantis> xtalmath! stop badgering the witness!
402 2011-06-24 06:33:43 <xtalmath> see!
403 2011-06-24 06:33:49 <tcatm> xtalmath: ui.cpp:1944 ... AddressToHash160(...) # but I hope you know you're being annoying...
404 2011-06-24 06:34:09 <xtalmath> tcatm thats not IsValidBitcoinAddress
405 2011-06-24 06:34:21 <upb> but you cant be sure!
406 2011-06-24 06:34:36 <upb> the call might be obfuscated by macro magic so you need to read every line of source :)
407 2011-06-24 06:34:43 <tcatm> xtalmath: well, sometimes programmers like to abstract things to make them simpler
408 2011-06-24 06:34:51 <num1> xtalmath line 1942 // Parse bitcoin address # looks legit
409 2011-06-24 06:34:51 <xtalmath> IVBA calls ATH160 not the other way around, its either useless code, or the check isnt done
410 2011-06-24 06:36:31 <tcatm> xtalmath: you are very close to trolling
411 2011-06-24 06:36:41 <unclemantis> when i add up all of my transactions i come up with a balance of 981.5514450000001 but when i call bitcoind getbalance for the account I get 981.55144500
412 2011-06-24 06:36:55 <joepie91> the floats did it!
413 2011-06-24 06:37:00 <unclemantis> is getbalance truncating or rounding?
414 2011-06-24 06:37:10 <gmaxwell> ...
415 2011-06-24 06:37:18 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: use integers.
416 2011-06-24 06:37:29 <xtalmath> now I see that the check is of course the same as calling AddressToHash but why do we have 2 more functions doing the same?
417 2011-06-24 06:37:44 <upb> so IsValidBitcoinAddress can be removed from the source to save 10 lines
418 2011-06-24 06:38:00 <gmaxwell> 981.5514450000001 < isn't even a possible bitcoin value.
419 2011-06-24 06:38:25 <unclemantis> egad, you are correct wattson
420 2011-06-24 06:39:05 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: bitcoins are integers. The dot is a convention for 100000000 satoshi. Use satoshi for all your calculations and you will be happier.
421 2011-06-24 06:39:06 <tcatm> xtalmath: the code has evolved and is usually considered "a mess". we're working on fixing that
422 2011-06-24 06:39:07 <unclemantis> so why the heck is my little calculator coming up with that amount?
423 2011-06-24 06:39:16 <xtalmath> ok
424 2011-06-24 06:39:27 <joepie91> unclemantis: probably because you are using floats
425 2011-06-24 06:39:33 <unclemantis> probably
426 2011-06-24 06:39:48 <joepie91> have to second gmaxwell here :P
427 2011-06-24 06:39:48 <unclemantis> ok, so when i read in the amounts i should strip the decimal?
428 2011-06-24 06:39:59 <xtalmath> the reason I wanted to know is because im trying to clean it up myself but was not sure if it wasnt called
429 2011-06-24 06:40:23 <erska> is the satoshi smallest possible unit in bitcoin, or can that be divided too?
430 2011-06-24 06:40:25 <unclemantis> do the math that needs to be done and then put the decimal back in? how do i know where to put the decimal then?
431 2011-06-24 06:40:30 <sipa> xtalmath: you're right be the way - IsValidBitcoinAddress is not called anywhere
432 2011-06-24 06:41:10 <num1> AddressToHash160 takes a hash of the address, but it also returns false if the address was fat fingered at all
433 2011-06-24 06:41:29 <num1> ah least, if the checksum fails
434 2011-06-24 06:41:42 <sipa> indeed
435 2011-06-24 06:41:53 <xtalmath> Seascope is really cool tool to surf through bitcoin
436 2011-06-24 06:42:28 <unclemantis> gmaxwell?
437 2011-06-24 06:43:44 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: you always put it at the same point.
438 2011-06-24 06:43:54 <unclemantis> which is where?
439 2011-06-24 06:43:57 <unclemantis> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi
440 2011-06-24 06:44:01 <unclemantis> this doesn't help
441 2011-06-24 06:44:05 <gmaxwell> 8 digits in. so that 100000000 = 1.0
442 2011-06-24 06:45:54 <unclemantis> but the number of decimal places for a bitcoin is 11 isn't it?
443 2011-06-24 06:46:42 <sipa> no
444 2011-06-24 06:46:48 <sipa> the smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC
445 2011-06-24 06:46:59 <sipa> and every amount in bitcoin is an integer multiple of that
446 2011-06-24 06:47:36 <sipa> that 1 you see at the 11th position is a rounding error caused by you using floating point arithmetic
447 2011-06-24 06:47:47 <gmaxwell> and by 0.00000001 we mean actually 0.00000001 BTC and not whatever approximation of that a binary float gives you when you input 0.00000001.
448 2011-06-24 06:48:33 <upb> hahahahha
449 2011-06-24 06:48:34 <upb> Earlier today I posted a link to the Japanese Consulate to  Page 9 which list all the Japanese Consulates in the USA. I called the Japanese Consulate in NYC. The lady answering knew exactly what I was talking about as she said they have had a several dozen request and inquiries about Tibanne Ltd and Mt Gox.  I was informed that neither Tibanne Ltd. or Mt.Gox are valid companies or corporations in Japan. Furthermore the addresses are bogus for either company a
450 2011-06-24 06:48:41 <upb> I was advised since Mark Karpeles is a US Citizen to file a report with local authorities here also.
451 2011-06-24 06:49:44 <sipa> upb: where do you read that?
452 2011-06-24 06:50:05 <unclemantis> upb so when does the class action lawsuit start?
453 2011-06-24 06:50:13 <gmaxwell> it's on the forum attached to the mtgox support ticket.
454 2011-06-24 06:50:39 <gmaxwell> upb: unless you can confirm it, please don't propagate other people's trolling/fud.
455 2011-06-24 06:52:02 <upb> k
456 2011-06-24 06:52:05 <unclemantis> so is the number of decimal places 8 or 11?
457 2011-06-24 06:52:25 <unclemantis> if it isn't reported by FOX NEWS then it isn't real
458 2011-06-24 06:52:32 <sipa> unclemantis: please read
459 2011-06-24 06:52:43 <sipa> 10:46:48 < sipa> the smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC
460 2011-06-24 06:52:52 <unclemantis> sipa i missed that
461 2011-06-24 06:53:04 <unclemantis> where is that documented? I am reading that people want to extend it out
462 2011-06-24 06:53:27 <gmaxwell> People are blathing about stuff that wouldn't be interesting for 20 years.
463 2011-06-24 06:53:30 <sipa> can't be done without changing the protocol
464 2011-06-24 06:53:40 <sipa> and i don't think it'll be necessary anytime soon
465 2011-06-24 06:53:59 <unclemantis> so 8 decimal places and be done with it
466 2011-06-24 06:54:22 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#How_divisible_are_Bitcoins?
467 2011-06-24 06:54:45 <unclemantis> gmaxwell thank you
468 2011-06-24 06:54:54 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: or use decimal floating point, but I doubt your programing enviroment offers it.
469 2011-06-24 06:55:48 <unclemantis> since it is coming in as a string, i am going to just remove the decimal and then convert it to an int
470 2011-06-24 06:57:23 <gmaxwell> just make sure you count the digits so that 1.0 doesn't become 0.00000010 BTC.
471 2011-06-24 06:57:35 <xtalmath> the next to biggest bitcoin has 17 decimal places: 209 999 999.000 000 01
472 2011-06-24 06:57:59 <gmaxwell> And use a 64 bit integer, lest you be overflowed.
473 2011-06-24 06:58:19 <lfm> note that 32 bits is not enuf, you should use 64 bits
474 2011-06-24 06:58:35 <lfm> great minds think alike
475 2011-06-24 06:58:43 <unclemantis> gmaxwell count the digits?
476 2011-06-24 06:59:07 <Eremes> how to use gribble to calc my hashing with preffered difficulty ?
477 2011-06-24 06:59:16 <unclemantis> hmm, seems like the amounts are being stored as floats not strings
478 2011-06-24 06:59:17 <sipa> unclemantis: "so that 1.0 doesn't become 0.00000010 BTC."
479 2011-06-24 06:59:37 <lfm> DO NOT USE FLOATS!!!!
480 2011-06-24 06:59:57 <gmaxwell> if you simply remove the dot from 1.0 you'll get 10.  This is not what you want. So count the digits after the . and truncate and pad (with zeros) to 8.
481 2011-06-24 07:00:02 <xtalmath> err did type the wrong next to biggest possible bitcin though: 209 999 999.999 999 99
482 2011-06-24 07:00:08 <unclemantis> lfm it is being automaticly converted!
483 2011-06-24 07:00:15 <sipa> xtalmath: actually, wrong
484 2011-06-24 07:00:21 <xtalmath> how so?
485 2011-06-24 07:00:22 <unclemantis> so what i am doing is converting it to a string first and then removing the decimal
486 2011-06-24 07:00:40 <lfm> if the lib is using floats drop it and use another lib or fix it
487 2011-06-24 07:00:46 <kinlo> why does the bitcoin client uses floats in the json output?  it requires conversion, and when using integers, no errors can be made
488 2011-06-24 07:01:00 <unclemantis> gmaxwell count the zeros to the right of the decimal and pad
489 2011-06-24 07:01:03 <sipa> kinlo: it is safe when you use IEEE 754 64-bit binary floats
490 2011-06-24 07:01:04 <xtalmath> woops not 210 million, so it has 16 decimal places
491 2011-06-24 07:01:25 <sipa> kinlo: as that has 53 significant digits, which is more than 21M*10^8
492 2011-06-24 07:01:36 <gmaxwell> yea, 754 doubles happen to be accurate enough at bitcoin's full precision.
493 2011-06-24 07:01:36 <lfm> sipa long doubles?
494 2011-06-24 07:01:37 <xtalmath> sigh: 20 999 999.999 999 99
495 2011-06-24 07:01:44 <sipa> the largest possible BTC amount is 20999999.9769, by the way
496 2011-06-24 07:01:59 <kinlo> I'm using java double's which should do the trick
497 2011-06-24 07:02:02 <gmaxwell> But doesn't make using doubles for it a grand idea either.
498 2011-06-24 07:02:04 <xtalmath> sipa why?
499 2011-06-24 07:02:09 <sipa> 20 999 999.976 900 00
500 2011-06-24 07:02:10 <unclemantis> perhaps i should pad first and then strip
501 2011-06-24 07:02:19 <gmaxwell> kinlo: it's still a bad idea. What json returns is string. Parse it.
502 2011-06-24 07:02:19 <sipa> xtalmath: because that is the sum of all mining income
503 2011-06-24 07:02:30 <kinlo> java's double: The double data type is a double-precision 64-bit IEEE 754 floating point
504 2011-06-24 07:02:31 <sipa> gmaxwell: json returns a float
505 2011-06-24 07:02:49 <sipa> well, no, json encodes it as a numeric type
506 2011-06-24 07:02:53 <gmaxwell> sipa: json what ?
507 2011-06-24 07:03:01 <gmaxwell> I mean json is just ascii bytes over the wire.
508 2011-06-24 07:03:08 <xtalmath> yesterday I asked if mining at a certain block count multiple of 210 000 mines 0 coins and was answered no
509 2011-06-24 07:03:12 <kinlo> gmaxwell: I'm converting it to a long, integer... that way I have no problems when doing math with it, but I need to convert the json to that first
510 2011-06-24 07:03:19 <doublec> or hack the rpc interface to return a 64 bit int
511 2011-06-24 07:03:24 <xtalmath> sipa: what is the block number of the last block?
512 2011-06-24 07:03:32 <gmaxwell> There is no last block.
513 2011-06-24 07:03:33 <sipa> 6929999
514 2011-06-24 07:03:34 <xtalmath> that does reward a miner without fees
515 2011-06-24 07:03:41 <sipa> that's the last block that has a reward
516 2011-06-24 07:03:43 <gmaxwell> hm? there is a last block? why?
517 2011-06-24 07:03:45 <gmaxwell> right
518 2011-06-24 07:03:52 <lfm> the last coinbase?
519 2011-06-24 07:03:53 <gmaxwell> there is a block where the reward goes from 1 to zero.
520 2011-06-24 07:03:55 <sipa> it's definitely not the last block
521 2011-06-24 07:04:05 <sipa> yes, 6930000 has reward 0
522 2011-06-24 07:04:10 <sipa> but it will still have a coinbase
523 2011-06-24 07:04:17 <unclemantis> what kind of reward is zero?
524 2011-06-24 07:04:36 <sipa> unclemantis: there will still be mining fees collected through the coinbases
525 2011-06-24 07:04:40 <kinlo> unclemantis: you get your rewards from the fees, so it's no problem, you will still mine
526 2011-06-24 07:05:11 <xtalmath> so theres 33 iterations of divide by 2 after which 1/2=0 :D
527 2011-06-24 07:05:18 <gmaxwell> (at least assuming the precision of bitcoin isn't extended before then I assume it would be if bitcoin surrives the 130 years that will take.
528 2011-06-24 07:05:23 <unclemantis> kinlo will it be worth the electricity?
529 2011-06-24 07:05:29 <gmaxwell> )
530 2011-06-24 07:05:38 <unclemantis> the fee dropped from 0.01 to 0.0005 recently
531 2011-06-24 07:05:44 <kinlo> unclemantis: if you see that at this moment, fee's go up to 0.5 btc....
532 2011-06-24 07:05:45 <gmaxwell> ...
533 2011-06-24 07:05:55 <kinlo> unclemantis: the usage of bitcoin will go up
534 2011-06-24 07:05:58 <sipa> no, the minimum required fee dropped from 0.01 to 0.0005 in 0.3.23
535 2011-06-24 07:06:03 <sipa> in case of spammy transactions
536 2011-06-24 07:06:04 <doublec> "Satoshi Nakamoto wants to be friends on Facebook" <--- Is this a new mtgox phishing spam?
537 2011-06-24 07:06:07 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: The "the fee dropped from 0.01 to 0.0005 recently" is infuriatingly incorrect. Most transactions pay no fee, both before and now.
538 2011-06-24 07:06:29 <unclemantis> the fee for transactions below 1btc
539 2011-06-24 07:06:37 <kinlo> unclemantis: and you can always mine with only the transactions where the fee's are worth something
540 2011-06-24 07:06:47 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: transactions with outputs below 0.01 BTC you mean.
541 2011-06-24 07:07:14 <kinlo> unclemantis: if the network only mine's transactions with higher fee's, then clients must set fee's or the money isn't payed as no miner will take it in a block
542 2011-06-24 07:07:35 <kinlo> unclemantis: so it's not really a problem
543 2011-06-24 07:07:48 <kinlo> so am I :p
544 2011-06-24 07:08:04 <lfm> but after only 1470000 the "reward" will be less than 1 bitcent
545 2011-06-24 07:08:49 <lfm> or 2100000 maybe
546 2011-06-24 07:09:23 <xtalmath> so difficulty is adjusted with timing mechanism and average block minting rate,... now this all assumes that the block minting rate depends on the cryptographic hardness, when blocks start containing many transactions, simply including transactions (i know, before searching a good hash) may start to outweigh the work of hashing. the network will punish with harder hashes.
547 2011-06-24 07:09:40 <lfm> or (3rd guess) 1890000
548 2011-06-24 07:09:50 <sipa> including a transaction is a marginal cost compared to mining itself
549 2011-06-24 07:09:55 <xtalmath> right now it is
550 2011-06-24 07:10:06 <unclemantis> difficulty will peak at sometime
551 2011-06-24 07:10:08 <sipa> as the difficulty will rise, it will become only more so
552 2011-06-24 07:10:25 <unclemantis> my new total is 98155144500
553 2011-06-24 07:10:39 <unclemantis> which is 981.55144500
554 2011-06-24 07:10:41 <kinlo> xtalmath: eh, you want to say that people will not mine because there are too many transactions in the block and therefore the difficulty is too high?
555 2011-06-24 07:10:42 <gmaxwell> xtalmath: the computation for the mining POW is over the fixed lengh block header, adding more txn doesn't increase the cost of it.
556 2011-06-24 07:10:51 <kinlo> xtalmath: did you understand the merkle root? :)
557 2011-06-24 07:11:01 <xtalmath> but suppose a large part of world economy switches to bitcoin, any block minted is supposed to carry all transactions of those 10 minutes (I know this is not enforced in protocol but thats what currency network is supposed to do)
558 2011-06-24 07:11:03 <lfm> the big step will be 50 to 25 it seems. if everyone doesnt start demanding fees then they never will
559 2011-06-24 07:11:12 <kinlo> the number of transactions does not influence the power required to mine a block
560 2011-06-24 07:11:26 <unclemantis> bitcoind says 981.55144500 so horray!
561 2011-06-24 07:11:32 <xtalmath> gmaxwell: I am NOT stating that adding a transaction makes the hash bruteforcing harder
562 2011-06-24 07:11:39 <unclemantis> gmaxwell thanks for pointing out my not so obvious problem
563 2011-06-24 07:11:57 <lfm> kinko only very slightly since each txn added can is more bandwidth and disk space
564 2011-06-24 07:12:33 <unclemantis> 564MB is the size of my appdata bitcoin folder
565 2011-06-24 07:12:49 <xtalmath> kinlo: i am not saying that for a fixed difficulty it is harder to find a hash with more transactions, i  AM saying that including transactions (just the bandwith) will start taking more time compared to finding the bruteforce hash
566 2011-06-24 07:13:09 <gmaxwell> xtalmath: then bitcoin will be completely insecure.
567 2011-06-24 07:13:44 <gmaxwell> xtalmath: if the cost of 250 bytes of data is greater than the cost of solving the POW then anyone can rewrite the blockchain however they want.
568 2011-06-24 07:13:46 <lfm> like it would seem reasonable to only add free txn at the start of a new block perhaps, no sense interrupting the miners for nothing
569 2011-06-24 07:14:20 <gmaxwell> lfm: or just when a non-free txn comes in, or when the timestamp increments or you need a new extranonce.
570 2011-06-24 07:14:30 <xtalmath> its going to be 250*1000 000
571 2011-06-24 07:14:49 <lfm> gmaxwell: no need to interrupt the miners for a new timestamp, they can update timestamps themselves
572 2011-06-24 07:14:57 <xtalmath> ah now I realise why the fee is per KB
573 2011-06-24 07:15:02 <xtalmath> jeezes
574 2011-06-24 07:15:19 <xtalmath> of course per KB and not per BTC sent
575 2011-06-24 07:15:57 <gmaxwell> lfm: true enough.
576 2011-06-24 07:16:55 <lfm> yup just as easy to txn 10 million btc as 0.000001
577 2011-06-24 07:19:38 <unclemantis> so what do you folks think of the max and lows for MtGox's first day back in business?
578 2011-06-24 07:20:07 <kish> it's back?
579 2011-06-24 07:20:11 <lfm> of course naive users cant understand what influences the number of KB in a txn. It is even hard to predict for experts
580 2011-06-24 07:20:13 <kinlo> not yet
581 2011-06-24 07:20:15 <xtalmath> and my reasoning above was mistaken, it should be: lots of unprocessed transaction (processing proportional to KB) =>fees people are willing to pay rise=>miners want to include more transactions, but will start to use mining software that takes into account the processing of transactions i.e. people will not mine at just x MHash, but at (x MHash, y KB/s) each new block they didnt mine they resign all the unprocessed transactions they know of..., i
582 2011-06-24 07:21:44 <xtalmath> they will run software that finds the equilibrium of x,y that rewards most for their hardware.
583 2011-06-24 07:22:03 <unclemantis> kish they say it is going back up satuday
584 2011-06-24 07:22:09 <lfm> xtalmath: ya might be interesting if miners wont work on anything till the fees accumulate to cover costs
585 2011-06-24 07:22:19 <unclemantis> thing is a lot of people have not gotten their acceptance email yet or have been rejected
586 2011-06-24 07:23:47 <unclemantis> gmaxwell so i should be storing btc as bigints then
587 2011-06-24 07:24:03 <lfm> unclemantis: yup
588 2011-06-24 07:24:07 <xtalmath> lfm: right, but I cant envision it happen that discrete, thats the power of decentralization, theres always somebody happy with the deal (either a miner with the fees of unprocessed transactions, or a trader with the fees miners seem to want), so the chain keeps going on
589 2011-06-24 07:24:29 <lfm> or at least long long (in C) 64 bits.
590 2011-06-24 07:24:31 <unclemantis> lfm and just convert for display use only?
591 2011-06-24 07:24:42 <unclemantis> lfm what would i store in mysql?
592 2011-06-24 07:24:50 <xtalmath> I now start seeing a market depth between bitcoin users and miners
593 2011-06-24 07:25:12 <lfm> do not use floats at all, display x / 100000000 and x % 100000000
594 2011-06-24 07:25:15 <xtalmath> only instead of the typical 1 dimensional price range a 2 dimensional x, y range
595 2011-06-24 07:25:52 <lfm> unclemantis: I think mysql has 64 bit ints
596 2011-06-24 07:27:32 <unclemantis> they have bigint
597 2011-06-24 07:27:41 <lfm> xtalmath: I dont follow 2d?
598 2011-06-24 07:27:57 <unclemantis> balance / 100000000 doesn't work
599 2011-06-24 07:27:58 <xtalmath> hmm, since the miners choose the most rewarding 2 dimensional point, while users only have onedimensional influence, theres mathematical trouble: the mechanism as I understand it will guarantee new blocks and processing of payments, but not necessarily processing of all payments (even if they offer above the miners acceptable range)
600 2011-06-24 07:28:05 <unclemantis> that just cuts off my decimal places
601 2011-06-24 07:28:19 <lfm> unclemantis: integer division? floor(x/10000000000)
602 2011-06-24 07:28:29 <xtalmath> it might be happening already
603 2011-06-24 07:28:38 <unclemantis> oh wait hold on
604 2011-06-24 07:29:24 <unclemantis> ya
605 2011-06-24 07:29:27 <unclemantis> integer
606 2011-06-24 07:29:47 <unclemantis> i am storing 9815514450 as an integer
607 2011-06-24 07:29:49 <lfm> xtalmath: what 2 dimentional? I dont follow!
608 2011-06-24 07:30:28 <lfm> unclemantis: I dont think you get it yet
609 2011-06-24 07:30:37 <unclemantis> and when i perform x / 100000000 i get 981
610 2011-06-24 07:31:06 <unclemantis> I should have 981.5514450
611 2011-06-24 07:31:15 <lfm> unclemantis: oh ok I put in too many zeros, ya
612 2011-06-24 07:31:20 <unclemantis> lol
613 2011-06-24 07:31:20 <xtalmath> the time dedicated to reach the hash target say T, and the time dedicated to include transactions P by processing them together (from scratch as every new block comes in to the miner)
614 2011-06-24 07:31:36 <unclemantis> so lets try this again.. how many zeros LOL
615 2011-06-24 07:31:40 <xtalmath> imagine you are a miner, T+P should be around 10 minutes
616 2011-06-24 07:31:56 <lfm> unclemantis: 8 zeros
617 2011-06-24 07:32:05 <unclemantis> that is 8
618 2011-06-24 07:32:21 <unclemantis> x / 100000000
619 2011-06-24 07:32:30 <unclemantis> that gives me 981
620 2011-06-24 07:32:33 <lfm> xtalmath: I dont see that as 2 dimentions. that is just a sum of two parameters
621 2011-06-24 07:33:13 <xtalmath> if you include few transaction (P<<T), you will increase your probability of being the first to hit target, if you include many transactions (P>>T) you could get a lot of fees but at lower probability of being first to hit target
622 2011-06-24 07:33:39 <lfm> xtalmath: if total fees >= current estimated average cost to mine a block, then start work.
623 2011-06-24 07:35:00 <lfm> xtalmath: the user will have trouble estimating miners costs, yes, since mining costs vary al lot from area to area (electricity prices vary a lot)
624 2011-06-24 07:35:30 <xtalmath> lfm: say divide 10 minutes by 3 time units, T=2 and P=1 would have twice as much chance to mint but half as much reward, T=1 and P=2 would have half as much chance to mint and twice as much fees
625 2011-06-24 07:35:40 <unclemantis> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proper_Money_Handling_(JSON-RPC)
626 2011-06-24 07:35:42 <lfm> xtalmath: it means miners would be starting work at all sorts of different times basiclly
627 2011-06-24 07:35:43 <unclemantis> look what i found
628 2011-06-24 07:36:51 <lfm> xtalmath: also fpga miners costs are lower than GPU miners cossts and so on
629 2011-06-24 07:37:25 <unclemantis> 981.551445
630 2011-06-24 07:37:41 <lfm> unclemantis: what about it?
631 2011-06-24 07:37:51 <unclemantis> lfm about what? the URL?
632 2011-06-24 07:38:23 <lfm> or the number?
633 2011-06-24 07:38:55 <vegard> <kinlo> unclemantis: if the network only mine's transactions with higher fee's, then clients must set fee's or the money isn't payed as no miner will take it in a block
634 2011-06-24 07:39:09 <lfm> well that url is sure usefull! not.
635 2011-06-24 07:39:38 <unclemantis> lfm 98155144500 is what i am getting and then when i do x / 1e8 i get 981.551445
636 2011-06-24 07:40:19 <unclemantis> lfm how is that url NOT useful?
637 2011-06-24 07:40:39 <lfm> vegard: I suspect miners will still throw in a few free txn out of charities sake to keep the interest of the most people
638 2011-06-24 07:41:19 <unclemantis> lfm so there will be fees on every single transaction?
639 2011-06-24 07:41:54 <lfm> unclemantis: No, but free txn will be subject to unpredictable delays
640 2011-06-24 07:42:33 <lfm> like miners might only let a few free txn into each block, and let any extra wait
641 2011-06-24 07:42:46 <unclemantis> lfm could take longer than a bank money wire LOL
642 2011-06-24 07:42:55 <lfm> hehe yup
643 2011-06-24 07:43:20 <unclemantis> well now that would suck
644 2011-06-24 07:43:43 <lfm> the miners will want to motivate people to include fees somehow
645 2011-06-24 07:44:49 <lfm> and nice big fees could really motivate big miners to move you to the front of all the queues to get your TXN processes promptly
646 2011-06-24 07:45:04 <xtalmath> processing transactions will likely stay cpu work?
647 2011-06-24 07:45:08 <unclemantis> and now the btc to game token exchange begins
648 2011-06-24 07:45:21 <xtalmath> or will also end up in fpga?
649 2011-06-24 07:46:14 <lfm> xtalmath: naw, just the central core of the mining hash calculations would get fpga treatment
650 2011-06-24 07:47:23 <unclemantis> so if 1 btc is = to 1000 game tokens then i need to take 100000000 and just divide by 1e4
651 2011-06-24 07:47:28 <unclemantis> does that make sence?
652 2011-06-24 07:47:40 <xtalmath> in theory, i am not proposing this, generated blocks with n transactions could be rejected by a client that has heard of 2n transactions, however forking would have to be prevented
653 2011-06-24 07:47:54 <lfm> depends on the game, poker can just play with btc as they are
654 2011-06-24 07:48:17 <unclemantis> well that didn't work
655 2011-06-24 07:48:27 <unclemantis> 10000.0 is 100000000 / 1e4
656 2011-06-24 07:48:47 <unclemantis> 100000000 / 1e8 is 1.0
657 2011-06-24 07:49:02 <lfm> if you want to translate some mmfrpg coppers to btc you are on your own
658 2011-06-24 07:49:40 <lfm> unclemantis: there you go! using floats again! you are in a state of SIN! repent!
659 2011-06-24 07:49:43 <unclemantis> i am building a conversion to tokens the same reason that casinos have you cash in for chips. One it is safer and two, people play more when they are spending fake money
660 2011-06-24 07:50:04 <unclemantis> lfm i am not using floats!
661 2011-06-24 07:50:10 <unclemantis> 100000000 is a BIGINT
662 2011-06-24 07:50:12 <lfm> 1e4 is a float
663 2011-06-24 07:50:23 <lfm> 1.0 is a float
664 2011-06-24 07:50:32 <unclemantis> grrrrrrr
665 2011-06-24 07:51:22 <unclemantis> i need the decimals
666 2011-06-24 07:51:26 <unclemantis> i can't truncate
667 2011-06-24 07:51:33 <lfm> 1e4 is a float, 1000 is a int
668 2011-06-24 07:51:46 <lfm> say what you mean
669 2011-06-24 07:52:47 <unclemantis> say someone comes in with 100.00000001 BTC
670 2011-06-24 07:52:53 <lfm> ok when you say 1.0 BTC thats not a float but I didnt see you say BTC there
671 2011-06-24 07:53:05 <unclemantis> i convert 100.00000001 to 10000000001
672 2011-06-24 07:53:30 <unclemantis> i then run 10000000001 / 100000000 i get 100 not 100.00000001
673 2011-06-24 07:53:48 <unclemantis> lfm don't mind me
674 2011-06-24 07:54:12 <unclemantis> so using 1e8 to convert OUT to BTC again is fine
675 2011-06-24 07:54:45 <unclemantis> but if i convert to game tokens i should use / 1000 if i want my demoninations to be 1btc per 1000 tokens
676 2011-06-24 07:54:47 <unclemantis> correct?
677 2011-06-24 07:55:18 <lfm> ok if you want to work with 100.00000001 BTC as 10000000001 then display "%u.%08u", floor(value / 100000000), value % 100000000
678 2011-06-24 07:55:40 <lfm> or "%lu.%08lu"
679 2011-06-24 07:55:41 <xtalmath> my claim at mt gox was accepted!
680 2011-06-24 07:55:56 <xtalmath> but then again my balance was 0 - 0
681 2011-06-24 07:55:59 <lfm> assuming you are using C (thats what I use)
682 2011-06-24 07:56:51 <lfm> not really using floor() tho since thats actuallty a float function
683 2011-06-24 07:59:58 <unclemantis> i want to convert 100.001 BTC from the gettransactions array. So I do what?
684 2011-06-24 08:00:11 <unclemantis> i want to convert 100.001 to 100.00100000
685 2011-06-24 08:00:14 <unclemantis> i want to convert 100.001 to 10000100000
686 2011-06-24 08:00:18 <lfm> unclemantis: ok are you using C?
687 2011-06-24 08:00:21 <unclemantis> ruby
688 2011-06-24 08:00:26 <unclemantis> same difference
689 2011-06-24 08:00:40 <lfm> well sorry I dont know the right way to do it in ruby.
690 2011-06-24 08:00:48 <unclemantis> and then i want to convert it back from 10000100000 to 100.001
691 2011-06-24 08:00:59 <lfm> ok have unsigned long long value;
692 2011-06-24 08:01:11 <lfm> value = 10000100000;
693 2011-06-24 08:01:16 <unclemantis> i also want to convert 10000100000 to tokens where 1000 tokens is equal to 1btc
694 2011-06-24 08:01:38 <unclemantis> lfm stop
695 2011-06-24 08:01:58 <lfm> printf("%llu.%08llu\n", value / 100000000LU, value % 100000000LU);
696 2011-06-24 08:02:01 <unclemantis> how do i turn the 100.001 float that is coming in from json into 10000100000 bitint
697 2011-06-24 08:02:59 <unclemantis> it is ugly but this is what i am doing right now
698 2011-06-24 08:03:08 <unclemantis> value = sprintf("%.8f", transaction['amount']).to_s.sub('.','').to_i
699 2011-06-24 08:03:13 <lfm> unclemantis: well thats a bit trickier. first make sure it is a char string, then pad the end till it has exactly 8 decimal places.
700 2011-06-24 08:03:26 <unclemantis> so what i am doing is fine?
701 2011-06-24 08:03:30 <unclemantis> read left to right
702 2011-06-24 08:04:00 <lfm> %.8f IS A FLOATING POINT display it will be inacurate!
703 2011-06-24 08:06:12 <unclemantis> ok. so how the fuck do i pad?
704 2011-06-24 08:06:30 <unclemantis> do i have to get the location of the decimal manualy some how?
705 2011-06-24 08:06:58 <lfm> unclemantis: its a bunch of char string operations in C. ruby would be totally different I spoze.
706 2011-06-24 08:07:22 <unclemantis> try me
707 2011-06-24 08:08:21 <lfm> well I hope we're not driving away people who want to actually talk about bitcoin instead of junior shmuck programmer lessons ...
708 2011-06-24 08:08:51 <unclemantis> lfm shall i move this into #ruby
709 2011-06-24 08:09:05 <unclemantis> or do you want to still help out and we can move this to a PM
710 2011-06-24 08:09:09 <lfm> in C I would start with a char * str = "100.001"; or somthing like it I spoze.
711 2011-06-24 08:09:32 <unclemantis> so convert float to string
712 2011-06-24 08:09:36 <unclemantis> .to_s
713 2011-06-24 08:09:37 <unclemantis> now what
714 2011-06-24 08:09:39 <lfm> then find the decimal char *dp = index(str, '.');
715 2011-06-24 08:09:58 <lfm> split it into two strings by *dp = 0; dp++;
716 2011-06-24 08:10:00 <unclemantis> .sub('.','')
717 2011-06-24 08:10:27 <unclemantis> two strings?
718 2011-06-24 08:10:44 <unclemantis> what would the value look like?
719 2011-06-24 08:11:02 <lfm> the while (strlen(dp) < 8) dp = strcat(dp, "0");
720 2011-06-24 08:11:24 <lfm> so then dp == "00100000"
721 2011-06-24 08:11:34 <lfm> and str = "100";
722 2011-06-24 08:11:56 <lfm> got it?
723 2011-06-24 08:12:05 <unclemantis> we are SPLITING not REPLACING
724 2011-06-24 08:12:15 <unclemantis> ok
725 2011-06-24 08:12:45 <unclemantis> and then i check the length of the right side string
726 2011-06-24 08:12:56 <unclemantis> and add x number of zeros
727 2011-06-24 08:13:02 <lfm> and padd it to 8 places , ya
728 2011-06-24 08:13:05 <unclemantis> and then combine them back?
729 2011-06-24 08:13:20 <unclemantis> and then convert to bigint
730 2011-06-24 08:14:54 <lfm> sscanf(str, "%llu", &wholepart); sscanf(dp, "%llu", &fracpart); and total = wholepart * 100000000LLU + farctpart;
731 2011-06-24 08:15:20 <lianj> "%s%8s" % ("%.8f" % 100.001).split(".")
732 2011-06-24 08:15:58 <lfm> llan%f is floating point, we dont want to use floating point cuz it will underflow
733 2011-06-24 08:16:24 <lfm> lianj %f is floating point, we dont want to use floating point cuz it will underflow
734 2011-06-24 08:17:18 <lianj> isnt the value of type float anw?
735 2011-06-24 08:18:11 <lfm> well if you think so then you are not going to have an accurate total if you start working with 10 million BTC amounts and 8 digit fractional parts
736 2011-06-24 08:18:48 <unclemantis> problem is, i have btc not USD and current trading at tradehill is 15.40 and I really have no clue if market it going to go sky rocket or nose dive
737 2011-06-24 08:18:53 <unclemantis> for mtgox that is
738 2011-06-24 08:19:01 <lianj> lfm: only if you calc on it
739 2011-06-24 08:19:19 <lfm> lianj: or try to display it
740 2011-06-24 08:20:56 <lianj> ok, so what does unclemantis want? coins are represented as sathosis in the protocol
741 2011-06-24 08:21:42 <lfm> lianj: ya, and he needs to figure out how to work with stoshi and display BTC without using floats
742 2011-06-24 08:22:03 <xtalmath> hmm upon second thought pools will tend to absorb each other once the network is fee driven, the merkle root hash has to be computed only once and can be shared with all members of the pool, pools will have a dedicated high bandwith server, to process transactions and only send the hash to the members.
743 2011-06-24 08:22:28 <lianj> lfm: oh ok :)
744 2011-06-24 08:23:08 <lfm> xtalmath: you should not really share the merkle root between members of the pool. every member should have their own unique block header to work on
745 2011-06-24 08:23:24 <xtalmath> lfm: how is that?
746 2011-06-24 08:23:47 <Raccoon> merkle root?
747 2011-06-24 08:23:57 <Raccoon> sounds like something from world of warcraft
748 2011-06-24 08:24:22 <lfm> if you give everyone the same block header they can only find the same block and only the fastest will ever get a share, the slower ones will just duplicate the work
749 2011-06-24 08:24:22 <xtalmath> lfm: why wouldnt members share the same merkle root?
750 2011-06-24 08:24:44 <xtalmath> lfm not true, i am not saying same block header, only merkle root
751 2011-06-24 08:24:50 <lfm> the merkle root is how you give different block headers to each miner
752 2011-06-24 08:25:00 <xtalmath> ?
753 2011-06-24 08:25:12 <lfm> xtalmath: how else would you do it?
754 2011-06-24 08:25:36 <lfm> xtalmath: everything else MUST be the same
755 2011-06-24 08:25:37 <xtalmath> the header contains the merkle root, not other way around
756 2011-06-24 08:25:46 <xtalmath> are you talking about eligius?
757 2011-06-24 08:25:55 <lfm> xtalmath: everything else in the block header MUST be the same
758 2011-06-24 08:26:10 <xtalmath> the same as what?
759 2011-06-24 08:26:17 <lfm> the same for everyone
760 2011-06-24 08:26:37 <lfm> you need to give unique block headers to each pool member
761 2011-06-24 08:26:56 <xtalmath> err, no nonce and timestamp are supposed to be different between miners
762 2011-06-24 08:27:02 <xtalmath> err expected
763 2011-06-24 08:27:18 <lfm> the nonce starts at zero for every member
764 2011-06-24 08:27:47 <lfm> the timestamp should be the same for everyone too (or basiclly the same correct time)
765 2011-06-24 08:28:11 <xtalmath> yes
766 2011-06-24 08:28:36 <lfm> so you need to vary the merkle root to get unique block headers
767 2011-06-24 08:28:56 <xtalmath> so everybody MAY have same merkleroot and different nonce, timestamp,...
768 2011-06-24 08:29:35 <lfm> nope. the merkle root is how you figure out who gets credit for the solutions too
769 2011-06-24 08:29:38 <xtalmath> the merkle root just changes when transactions are accepted by the miner or mining pool
770 2011-06-24 08:29:57 <xtalmath> so you ARE talking about eligius
771 2011-06-24 08:30:20 <lfm> xtalmath: well there is a little thing called "extranonce" in the coinbase transaction that you probably need to use
772 2011-06-24 08:30:56 <lfm> I am talking about any pool or miner server really
773 2011-06-24 08:32:29 <xtalmath> consider following setup: all members mine in name of pool organizers address, then would add all transactions and update merkle root for each transaction, ... this can be done on a high bandwith server and spares the members from streaming and processing these transactions
774 2011-06-24 08:34:13 <lfm> you're maybe half way there
775 2011-06-24 08:34:34 <unclemantis> lfm i finally have my VALUE
776 2011-06-24 08:34:39 <unclemantis> 98155144500
777 2011-06-24 08:34:52 <lfm> unclemantis: yay
778 2011-06-24 08:34:56 <xtalmath> where a standalone miners merkle root is updated (by processing the new transaction) when a new transaction came in, in the future a pool server receives a transaction and updates merkle root => sends to members => members continue hashing on new merkle root without processing a lot of transactions
779 2011-06-24 08:34:58 <unclemantis> when i do 98155144500 / 100000000 I get 981
780 2011-06-24 08:35:13 <unclemantis> 98155144500 is a BIGINT
781 2011-06-24 08:36:04 <lfm> xtalmath: that would work ok for one user but you want separate coinbase txn and merkle root for each user, really, beleive it!
782 2011-06-24 08:37:40 <xtalmath> you mean to identify who contributed?
783 2011-06-24 08:37:43 <xtalmath> or why?
784 2011-06-24 08:37:48 <lfm> xtalmath: you can use the same bitcoin key for the coinbase but you need to use the extranonce stuff to make each user have a different coinbase and different merkle tree root
785 2011-06-24 08:38:09 <xtalmath> but why is that necessary?
786 2011-06-24 08:38:17 <lfm> xtalmath: yes to identify them and for proper operation of the whole system
787 2011-06-24 08:38:47 <lfm> xtalmath: like I said, it is the only way to make each blockheader for each user unique
788 2011-06-24 08:38:49 <xtalmath> I thought they were rewarded with 32 bit difficulty hashes
789 2011-06-24 08:39:35 <lfm> xtalmath: ya, the hash of the block header target is like 32 zero bits
790 2011-06-24 08:39:51 <xtalmath> so keep coinbase equal for everyone and add in a single transaction to the merkle root from server, thats processing 1 transaction to identify yourself to spare having to process all transactions
791 2011-06-24 08:40:09 <lfm> xtalmath: huh?
792 2011-06-24 08:40:42 <lfm> add in what txn? that IS the coinbase txn is the only one you can actually play with
793 2011-06-24 08:41:29 <xtalmath> miners have bitcoins, they can send to self, and register that address to pool so it doesnt get included in block
794 2011-06-24 08:41:41 <lfm> every time you want to add a new txn to a block you will need to recalc the merkle tree for every user. you have no choice
795 2011-06-24 08:41:45 <xtalmath> and they dont send that transaction into the network, only pool server
796 2011-06-24 08:41:57 <xtalmath> or well let them, it stays their money
797 2011-06-24 08:42:04 <xtalmath> yes
798 2011-06-24 08:42:08 <unclemantis> would be cool to get this :) http://www.mobilepc.com/Electronics/Asus-ATI-Radeon-HD5770-1-GB-DDR5-PCI-E-Graphics-Card
799 2011-06-24 08:42:11 <xtalmath> for every user
800 2011-06-24 08:42:16 <lfm> yup
801 2011-06-24 08:42:41 <xtalmath> what originally was T transactions * U users is now 1 transaction * U users
802 2011-06-24 08:43:03 <xtalmath> +T transactions * 1 user at server
803 2011-06-24 08:43:40 <xtalmath> this is T*U vs T+U, which will be important in the fee driven future
804 2011-06-24 08:43:41 <unclemantis> 981.55144500
805 2011-06-24 08:43:43 <unclemantis> horrary
806 2011-06-24 08:43:50 <lfm> xtalmath: yup if you insist on updateing for every txn you see, that is your cost. that is why some pools wait before adding new txn to batch up a few before a change
807 2011-06-24 08:43:54 <xtalmath> miners will be economically pressured to join a pool
808 2011-06-24 08:44:59 <xtalmath> lfm: say you update half the time: T/2*U is still >> T/2 + U
809 2011-06-24 08:45:05 <lfm> xtalmath: in fact you could just ignore new txn unless they have a real nice fee untill the next block comes in
810 2011-06-24 08:45:20 <xtalmath> and in fee driven network you DONT want to miss out on transaction count
811 2011-06-24 08:45:42 <xtalmath> i am not talking about current generation driven mining
812 2011-06-24 08:45:51 <lfm> xtalmath: well ya, if it has a juicy fee then you pay the price
813 2011-06-24 08:46:20 <lfm> the price is new merkle trees for everyone
814 2011-06-24 08:46:39 <xtalmath> and the effort difference stays U*T >> U+T
815 2011-06-24 08:47:18 <unclemantis> 100000000 == 1BTC. How do I make 1000 Game Tokens == 1BTC or should i just make 1BTC == 100000000 game tokens LOL
816 2011-06-24 08:47:21 <lfm> well you MAY be able to save a bit of calculation by just updateing part of the tree that needs to be updated for a new txn
817 2011-06-24 08:48:03 <lfm> unclemantis: whats a "game token"? I have no idea
818 2011-06-24 08:48:12 <unclemantis> game chip
819 2011-06-24 08:48:19 <xtalmath> if you have the merkle _root_ from the pool server that processes transactions, you only have to do add in 1 transaction that differentiates you
820 2011-06-24 08:48:20 <unclemantis> alternative currency
821 2011-06-24 08:48:37 <unclemantis> lets say 1BTC == 1000USD
822 2011-06-24 08:48:42 <lfm> well you make it any price you want. prolly best if you count the price in satoshis
823 2011-06-24 08:48:47 <unclemantis> how do i convert 15BTC to USD
824 2011-06-24 08:49:02 <lfm> unclemantis: very carefully
825 2011-06-24 08:49:04 <xtalmath> lfm: multiplicative vs additive difference is not a bit of calculation
826 2011-06-24 08:49:23 <unclemantis> lfm funny guy! see! you CAN make people laugh
827 2011-06-24 08:49:47 <lfm> xtalmath: yes well you need unique merkle trees for every pool member, sorry, no getting around it
828 2011-06-24 08:50:01 <xtalmath> unclemantis 15000USD
829 2011-06-24 08:50:10 <xtalmath> lfm: I agreed to that
830 2011-06-24 08:50:42 <unclemantis> LOL
831 2011-06-24 08:50:51 <xtalmath> they can make it unique by adding one transaction into merkle root, instead of T
832 2011-06-24 08:50:56 <lfm> xtalmath: ok so when you want to add a txn with a fee you want to claim you need to update all those merkle trees too right?
833 2011-06-24 08:51:18 <unclemantis> say i have 1BTC and I am storing it as 100000000. I want 100000000 == 1000 TOKENS
834 2011-06-24 08:51:28 <xtalmath> what?
835 2011-06-24 08:51:33 <unclemantis> exactly
836 2011-06-24 08:51:41 <lfm> xtalmath: add WHAT txn? the only txb you are actually free to fool around with is the coinbase
837 2011-06-24 08:52:36 <lfm> xtalmath: you DO not want to start inventing extra TXN just to make users different. thats what the coinbase xtranonce is for!
838 2011-06-24 08:53:31 <xtalmath> lfm: everybodys free to fool with his own money, each pool member has their address publicly listed on the pool web page, the server only combines transactions not including these, each miner "signs it" by moving money at that transaction
839 2011-06-24 08:54:13 <xtalmath> yes thats what its for, but it will be more lucrative for miners to add the personal detail last
840 2011-06-24 08:55:21 <lfm> xtalmath: well that is no longer a pool then. ech miner can just mine solo if thats how you want to do it.
841 2011-06-24 08:55:52 <xtalmath> if the pool server doesnt provide the pre merkle "root" youd have less processing power = less target hits = less reward