1 2011-06-27 00:00:21 <jgarzik> sacarlson: a .01 transaction is perfectly normal :)
  2 2011-06-27 00:00:23 <sacarlson> jgarzik: it does work on testnet and weedsnet
  3 2011-06-27 00:00:42 <sacarlson> jgarzik: I mean an escrow transaction to send .01
  4 2011-06-27 00:01:51 <sacarlson> jgarzik: and I guess if we knew what minner did accept them I would just add his ip to addnode
  5 2011-06-27 00:03:46 <doublec> sacarlson: luke-jr's pool I think
  6 2011-06-27 00:04:14 <sacarlson> we might even be able to try a .001 escrow send to test,  and provide a fee of .0005,  yes I think luke-jr did say something before about accepting
  7 2011-06-27 00:04:54 <sacarlson> doublec: so what is luke-jr ip for his pool?
  8 2011-06-27 00:05:04 <luke-jr> relay.eligius.st
  9 2011-06-27 00:05:08 <luke-jr> but now is a bad time to test
 10 2011-06-27 00:05:18 <gmaxwell> Since the pool is down atm. :)
 11 2011-06-27 00:05:19 <sacarlson> luke-jr ok when would be a good time?
 12 2011-06-27 00:05:24 <sacarlson> oh ok
 13 2011-06-27 00:05:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's not down
 14 2011-06-27 00:06:14 <sacarlson> luke-jr so is there slower transaction windows that are a better time?
 15 2011-06-27 00:06:28 <luke-jr> sacarlson: in the middle of a rewrite is a bad time :
 16 2011-06-27 00:07:59 <sacarlson> luke-jr: seems we are in constant change I'm not sure when we are not in a rewrite as I see changes in git almost dayly
 17 2011-06-27 00:08:20 <luke-jr> sacarlson: Eligius git isn't publci
 18 2011-06-27 00:09:48 <kgo_> Would any kind soul send me 5-20 testnet coins?  mmWBgHDjaMNrGkCouxqmnF7jtqpseV1HVo
 19 2011-06-27 00:11:15 <sacarlson> luke-jr: oh this is some change in some minner software,  I would think there's never a bad time to test, then you know what broke it
 20 2011-06-27 00:11:53 <marioxcc> someone has to open a testnet/bitcoin market
 21 2011-06-27 00:12:17 <luke-jr> &
 22 2011-06-27 00:12:32 <tcatm> that'd be fun when we reset testnet again :)
 23 2011-06-27 00:12:48 <marioxcc> it should be called "testmarket"
 24 2011-06-27 00:12:59 <marioxcc> "trade real money for test money"
 25 2011-06-27 00:13:17 <kgo_> I was just going to CPU mine, but that option is off of the bitcoin gui now.
 26 2011-06-27 00:13:38 <marioxcc> i just realized
 27 2011-06-27 00:13:39 <sacarlson> marioxcc: I have a testnet/weeds market
 28 2011-06-27 00:13:45 <marioxcc> that's what CPU miner is for
 29 2011-06-27 00:13:49 <marioxcc> *cpuminer
 30 2011-06-27 00:14:00 <marioxcc> kgo_: https://github.com/jgarzik/cpuminer
 31 2011-06-27 00:14:03 <tcatm> kgo_: still waiting for testnet coins?
 32 2011-06-27 00:14:35 <kika_> on linux i just installed the ati catalyst thing, do i need to run aticonfig --init or something for the card to start to be used for X ?
 33 2011-06-27 00:14:47 <sacarlson> marioxcc: http://exchange.beertokens.info trades tnBTC
 34 2011-06-27 00:15:04 <kgo_> tcatm, yeah, but I'm not even sure what the testnet block count is.  If I'm synced up.  I'm at 27078
 35 2011-06-27 00:15:16 <tcatm> kgo_: invalid address
 36 2011-06-27 00:15:24 <marioxcc> sacarlson: haha
 37 2011-06-27 00:15:43 <kgo_> tcatm, UGH.  RUnning test net on a VM.  Copy/paste wasn't working.  Thought I got it right.
 38 2011-06-27 00:15:48 <kgo_> Lemme fire up some webmail.
 39 2011-06-27 00:16:03 <sacarlson> marioxcc: I can add another trade option for btc/tnbtc if you want
 40 2011-06-27 00:16:26 <marioxcc> sacarlson: no, thanks :)
 41 2011-06-27 00:16:56 <kika_> i think my 6990 card burn out?
 42 2011-06-27 00:17:09 <kika_> for some reaso i get "get temperature failed for the default adapter"
 43 2011-06-27 00:21:21 <kgo_> tcatm, if you don't mind, try this mmWBgHDjaMNrGkCouxqmnF7JtqpseV1HVo
 44 2011-06-27 00:21:32 <tcatm> works
 45 2011-06-27 00:21:36 <sacarlson> tcatm: if your giving away testnet coin I could use 1000 or more myQVmbfygx2xyqzBpxNi4RJNNW1gJFRBkH
 46 2011-06-27 00:21:44 <kgo_> I'm rich! ;-)
 47 2011-06-27 00:21:54 <kgo_> thx a million
 48 2011-06-27 00:22:01 <marioxcc> it's by design than bitcoin address begin with '1'?
 49 2011-06-27 00:22:13 <tcatm> marioxcc: kinda...
 50 2011-06-27 00:22:36 <marioxcc> 'kinda' don't answer my question :)
 51 2011-06-27 00:23:23 <sacarlson> marioxcc: the first byte is the version that 1 normaly means it BTC and n or m seems to mean it's testnet
 52 2011-06-27 00:23:25 <tcatm> marioxcc: no, it's not designed to start with 1, but because of the encoding and raw address format (starts with a constant) it tends be 1 in most (all?) cases
 53 2011-06-27 00:23:46 <doublec> N and M are namecoin
 54 2011-06-27 00:23:52 <doublec> so it's useful to help visually differentiate
 55 2011-06-27 00:23:58 <marioxcc> ok, thanks you sacarlson, tcatm
 56 2011-06-27 00:24:03 <marioxcc> brb
 57 2011-06-27 00:24:07 <tcatm> sacarlson: sent
 58 2011-06-27 00:25:11 <sacarlson> tcatm: thank very much I got it "txid" : "c187cff1054c83a21d2e8be1c64238dd31abc7754c9b78cf230ec0653947e8b3", 1000 tnBTC
 59 2011-06-27 00:26:18 <sacarlson> tcatm: well you can trade them for weeds that sometimes are worth like a peporoni slice
 60 2011-06-27 00:26:26 <kgo_> tcatm, you run bitcoincharts right?
 61 2011-06-27 00:26:29 <tcatm> kgo_: yes
 62 2011-06-27 00:26:48 <kgo_> tcatm, been meaning to donate, but if you want a pizza instead I'll do that.
 63 2011-06-27 00:28:12 <tcatm> hrm so I need to find a pizza service that actually takes orders with credit cards over the internet :)
 64 2011-06-27 00:28:34 <kgo_> tcatm, papa johns seems to be the best choice for that.
 65 2011-06-27 00:28:59 <tcatm> I don't think they'll deliver them to germany :)
 66 2011-06-27 00:29:19 <jrmithdobbs> wow valgrind on osx (even using the trunk working version) is useless on apps using openssl
 67 2011-06-27 00:29:40 <jrmithdobbs> apparently the prng does some super fun stuff on osx because urandom sucks or something
 68 2011-06-27 00:29:49 <jrmithdobbs> reading unitialized values makes valgrind unhappy ;p
 69 2011-06-27 00:30:14 <kgo_> Yes... That could be a problem...
 70 2011-06-27 00:30:33 <jrmithdobbs> nope, just redherrings
 71 2011-06-27 00:37:42 <unclemantis> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/55b08cf8c3e80b7808fd3d9230bb4d717b4c924af6b6b28220ebb6efadff2e5d#o1
 72 2011-06-27 00:38:09 <unclemantis> this is showing as not yet redeemmed but i have had my client running for 12 hours now and it STILL has not shown up!
 73 2011-06-27 00:39:04 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: not redeemed just means you haven't spent them yet.
 74 2011-06-27 00:39:16 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: what block number are you currently at?
 75 2011-06-27 00:39:45 <gmaxwell> If it's in block explorer that means the transaction has been mined, so it will be in your client unless you are not up to sync with the network.
 76 2011-06-27 00:41:23 <unclemantis> 133446
 77 2011-06-27 00:41:45 <gmaxwell> Thats where the network is.
 78 2011-06-27 00:42:07 <unclemantis> i sent it at 133365
 79 2011-06-27 00:42:16 <gmaxwell> so address 1BJVmTFxUA9d9Ff2jntA8kzsEdxeq23GH7 is yours and you do not see the 0.05 input in it?
 80 2011-06-27 00:43:18 <unclemantis> correct
 81 2011-06-27 00:43:51 <e_scott5679> Hi, I'm wondering if it would be possible for a user of the bitcoin client to generate a dump of multiple bitcoin addresses that can be accessed by the user -- I know the client generates 100 public and private keys and corresponding addresses in advance, but can those be easily accessed without clicking on "new address" multiple times?
 82 2011-06-27 00:43:51 <gmaxwell> shutdown and restart with -rescan  ... :-/ but thats weird. It should have seen it when it got mined.
 83 2011-06-27 00:43:56 <zapnap> anyone had issues getting pushpool to build?
 84 2011-06-27 00:44:01 <zapnap> getting an error about byteswap.h
 85 2011-06-27 00:45:18 <unclemantis> sigh ok
 86 2011-06-27 00:45:29 <zapnap> (on os x of course, where that doesn't appear to be present)
 87 2011-06-27 00:45:43 <unclemantis> gmax, i am trying
 88 2011-06-27 00:46:53 <gmaxwell> (you also should have seen it when it was sent, even before it showed up in the blockchain, if you were online)
 89 2011-06-27 00:46:59 <unclemantis> the client took longer than usual to load
 90 2011-06-27 00:47:30 <unclemantis> i saw it go out, and it is showing as confirmed like a bunch of times, but the other wallet I am using that i sent it to is not showing it
 91 2011-06-27 00:47:31 <gmaxwell> yes, thats what rescan does (in fact it's probably still thrashing your disk, no?)
 92 2011-06-27 00:47:57 <unclemantis> probably, not sure. I am downloading videos right now
 93 2011-06-27 00:47:59 <gmaxwell> so the wallet that sent it sees the confirms. .. er wait. Which wallet were you telling me was at 133446?
 94 2011-06-27 00:48:12 <gmaxwell> It's the reciever that needs to be current to see it. :)
 95 2011-06-27 00:48:16 <unclemantis> they are both at 133446 now
 96 2011-06-27 00:49:23 <gmaxwell> the reciever that should be fixed by the rescan.  ... kind of a dumb question, but you're sure the address is right, right?
 97 2011-06-27 00:55:16 <unclemantis> gmaxwell... ummm. ya
 98 2011-06-27 00:55:48 <unclemantis> i have two addresses for that wallet 1BJVmTFxUA9d9Ff2jntA8kzsEdxeq23GH7 and 158jg3J4QBS9dko1MDnHdfPJ5Bug1R4XiY
 99 2011-06-27 00:56:00 <unclemantis> the one i sent it FROM is pretty mature
100 2011-06-27 00:56:29 <gmaxwell> the maturity doesn't matter. Its been mined. If the rx side is current with the blockchain then it should be there.
101 2011-06-27 00:56:42 <gmaxwell> (and if its not, thats a bug but a rescan should make it show up)
102 2011-06-27 00:58:39 <unclemantis> well it didn't
103 2011-06-27 00:59:47 <gmaxwell> Does it see anything at all? and what version of the software is running?
104 2011-06-27 01:00:13 <unclemantis> the latest one, both of them
105 2011-06-27 01:00:30 <unclemantis> 0.3.23-beta
106 2011-06-27 01:02:37 <gmaxwell> I saw that there was also a 1e-8 btc payment to that address, does it see that one?
107 2011-06-27 01:03:11 <unclemantis> yaq
108 2011-06-27 01:03:12 <unclemantis> ya
109 2011-06-27 01:03:23 <unclemantis> of all the transactions it sees the cheaper one LOL
110 2011-06-27 01:03:33 <marioxcc> gmaxwell: 1 satoshi :)
111 2011-06-27 01:03:42 <unclemantis> sure... IGNORE THE DOLLAR ONE!
112 2011-06-27 01:04:50 <unclemantis> marioxcc now if only a pack of beer costs that much ;)
113 2011-06-27 01:05:01 <marioxcc> unclemantis: it will, someday
114 2011-06-27 01:05:15 <marioxcc> :)
115 2011-06-27 01:05:29 <marioxcc> but we will all die before that (unless you're superhuman, of course)
116 2011-06-27 01:05:32 <btceezey> anyone know why I might be getting a TCP RST packet from bitcoind after the initial 3-way handshake?
117 2011-06-27 01:06:04 <gmaxwell> btceezey: becaus you've reached the max connections?
118 2011-06-27 01:06:13 <unclemantis> so, gmaxwell..... can i get a rebuke on that transaction?
119 2011-06-27 01:06:26 <btceezey> I've got the bitcoind behind a linksys router with port forwarding active and accessing from remote location. it sees remote request but bails after handshake
120 2011-06-27 01:06:42 <btceezey> works when accessing external IP from internal computer on same network
121 2011-06-27 01:06:50 <btceezey> just not from external computer
122 2011-06-27 01:07:04 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: no.. so.. it sees the _later_ one. er. thats totally broken.
123 2011-06-27 01:07:42 <gmaxwell> that proves you've got the address right too.
124 2011-06-27 01:08:37 <gmaxwell> so, shut down blow away everything in the data directory _except_ wallet.dat. Restart, if that doesn't fix it, I'll buy that wallet.dat of you for troubleshooting (because we're not getting anywhere trying to figure it out remotely)
125 2011-06-27 01:10:09 <sacarlson> btceezey: I'm lost on your (10:06:42 AM) statement is that external ip accessing the ip from the same local machine or is this two machines on a local network?
126 2011-06-27 01:10:33 <unclemantis> gmaxwell that is like 600+ megs of data! :(
127 2011-06-27 01:11:30 <btceezey> sacarlson: I am accessing the bitcoind machine from a local machine using the router external IP, and that works
128 2011-06-27 01:11:40 <unclemantis> is there anything other than the wallet file that contains information that is unique to me?
129 2011-06-27 01:11:42 <btceezey> when accessing from a remote machine (same IP) it does not work
130 2011-06-27 01:11:43 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: indeed, it would have to resync. Which will take a while. Is that 0.05000001 all thats in it?
131 2011-06-27 01:11:52 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: just the wallet file.
132 2011-06-27 01:12:01 <unclemantis> ok
133 2011-06-27 01:12:46 <sacarlson> btceezey: ok and I assume you mean rpc access
134 2011-06-27 01:12:55 <btceezey> right
135 2011-06-27 01:13:20 <unclemantis> grrr
136 2011-06-27 01:13:26 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: hm?
137 2011-06-27 01:13:49 <unclemantis> the 0.00000001 transaction is showing up greyed out and that is all! not the other one!
138 2011-06-27 01:14:14 <gmaxwell> unclemantis: well it wouldn't show up until it synced up with the network again.
139 2011-06-27 01:14:21 <sacarlson> btceezey: you might be the one I chated with yestarday,  I never tried access rpc from outside ssh proxy might be needed?
140 2011-06-27 01:14:39 <unclemantis> ok at block 4000+ right now
141 2011-06-27 01:14:40 <gmaxwell> it only knows about the 1e-8 one because it already knew about it.
142 2011-06-27 01:14:52 <sacarlson> btceezey: or some kind of proxy like appache has proxy options
143 2011-06-27 01:15:23 <kika_> do you guys know if is there a way to check if my 6990 card is working ok on linux ?
144 2011-06-27 01:15:31 <unclemantis> thanks gmaxwell
145 2011-06-27 01:15:32 <btceezey> sacarlson: I'm not that person. Yeah, that might help. The thing it that the initial handshake happens, and I see the packet requesting the data, but the bitcoind sends RST right after the handshake
146 2011-06-27 01:15:43 <unclemantis> i have company, talk to you later. Thanks again
147 2011-06-27 01:16:20 <gmaxwell> okay, if I don't respond send me a /msg .. all else fails, I'll have you make a new wallet and I'll send you replacement funds in exchange for your broken one (so I can debug it)
148 2011-06-27 01:16:33 <kika_> it says OpenCL platform AMD Accelerated processing contains no devices
149 2011-06-27 01:16:36 <sacarlson> btceezey: security feature ?
150 2011-06-27 01:17:05 <sacarlson> btceezey: seems if your coming in from outside you should encrypt anyway with ssh or https
151 2011-06-27 01:17:12 <gmaxwell> btceezey: you know the rpc has a allowup setting, right?
152 2011-06-27 01:17:23 <gmaxwell> er allowip
153 2011-06-27 01:17:26 <btceezey> sacarlson: didn't see allowup. What's that?
154 2011-06-27 01:17:58 <btceezey> sacarlson: and I'll need to get security on it for sure before going beyond experimentation phase
155 2011-06-27 01:18:29 <sacarlson> btceezey:  -rpcallowip=<ip>   Allow JSON-RPC connections from specified IP address
156 2011-06-27 01:18:37 <gmaxwell> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin
157 2011-06-27 01:18:39 <btceezey> oh, allowip
158 2011-06-27 01:18:42 <btceezey> yeah I have that
159 2011-06-27 01:18:42 <gmaxwell> rpcallowip
160 2011-06-27 01:18:51 <gmaxwell> hm.
161 2011-06-27 01:19:03 <gmaxwell> And you restarted after setting it?
162 2011-06-27 01:19:08 <btceezey> Yeah
163 2011-06-27 01:19:16 <gmaxwell> and you set it to something like *.*.*.* ?
164 2011-06-27 01:19:29 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I wonder if -rpcallowip=0.0.0.0 would be all?
165 2011-06-27 01:19:36 <btceezey> I set it to IP of specific remote server
166 2011-06-27 01:19:48 <btceezey> I could try to allow all and see what happens
167 2011-06-27 01:19:50 <gmaxwell> hm. And you know the remote server is using the right address?
168 2011-06-27 01:19:57 <btceezey> yeah
169 2011-06-27 01:22:15 <sacarlson> btceezey: seems to me to access from outside like that without encryption would put your clients into a posible man-in-the-middle-attack in the event of wifi or mobile would be even more of a problem
170 2011-06-27 01:23:10 <btceezey> sacarlson: oh for sure! I'm doing proof of concept now, and I was just stumped on getting data out at all
171 2011-06-27 01:23:11 <deltaray> I was told to ask here if its safe to delete everything on my .bitcoin directory (on Linux) except the wallet.dat file?  I'm having segfaults when I try to start the bitcoin client.
172 2011-06-27 01:23:15 <deltaray> Is it?
173 2011-06-27 01:23:17 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: bitcoin does support ssl for the rpc...
174 2011-06-27 01:23:40 <gmaxwell> deltaray: Yes, thats safe. You should also make a backup of wallet.dat, too.
175 2011-06-27 01:23:58 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ya that's a new feature so how does the client hook into it then?
176 2011-06-27 01:24:26 <btceezey> sacarlson: doing allow *.*.*.* fixed it.
177 2011-06-27 01:24:31 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I guess like https?
178 2011-06-27 01:24:57 <sacarlson> btceezey: cool next 6 people who ask me then we have the answer
179 2011-06-27 01:25:02 <deltaray> gmaxwell, thanks.
180 2011-06-27 01:25:24 <btceezey> sacarlson: I really wanted to allow only the ip of the server, for added security, but something is not letting that work
181 2011-06-27 01:26:26 <sacarlson> btceezey: well maybe look at what's comeing in with wireshark to find out what your router really is sending it.  it's probly nat and becomes another address
182 2011-06-27 01:28:04 <btceezey> sacarlson: I do have wireshark up. That's how I even found the RST packet. The router changes local requests (even to the external IP) into the router address. Wireshark shows the remote IP getting all the way into the box, but just allowing that IP in bitcoin.conf didn't work
183 2011-06-27 01:28:17 <btceezey> confusing
184 2011-06-27 01:28:22 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Enabling_SSL_on_original_client_daemon
185 2011-06-27 01:29:53 <btceezey> thanks for that
186 2011-06-27 01:31:14 <gmaxwell> I'm currently being DDOSed at home. :-/ People are jerks
187 2011-06-27 01:32:05 <marioxcc> gmaxwell: don't you have dynamic IP?
188 2011-06-27 01:32:19 <gmaxwell> marioxcc: it's a real pain to change it.
189 2011-06-27 01:32:56 <marioxcc> gmaxwell: well, just think the atacker is using as much bandwidth as they're hurting from you :)
190 2011-06-27 01:33:15 <gmaxwell> marioxcc: I have to basically take out my internet for a half hour to change it.. if I just reup I get the same IP, if I change mac addr I get filtered out for a half hour until it forgets the old one.
191 2011-06-27 01:33:31 <marioxcc> oh, lol
192 2011-06-27 01:34:12 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: lol what'd you do?
193 2011-06-27 01:34:16 <gmaxwell> I have backup connectivity anyways, and thats not being DOSed.
194 2011-06-27 01:34:25 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: nothing as far as I know.
195 2011-06-27 01:36:43 <unclemantis> up to 41580 blocks
196 2011-06-27 01:37:51 <kika_> amd sdk 2.4 doesnt support catalyst 11.6 ?
197 2011-06-27 01:39:01 <btceezey> sacarlson: got SSL working. Thanks
198 2011-06-27 01:40:04 <sacarlson> btceezey: thank gmaxwell he pointed it out for ya
199 2011-06-27 01:40:58 <btceezey> gmaxwell: thanks!
200 2011-06-27 01:42:41 <Herodes> Have an eye out for oddities in the mtGox trading at the moment. A few minutes ago the price dropped with 0.8, apparently without removing all the orders in between. I didn't have a look at the market depth of the time, but the executed orders are:
201 2011-06-27 01:42:42 <Herodes> mtgoxUSD 2011-06-27 05:25:03 1309145103 16.98879 0.39
202 2011-06-27 01:43:01 <Herodes> A spread could explain it.
203 2011-06-27 01:43:09 <Herodes> Else there would have to be something wrong.
204 2011-06-27 01:45:40 <copumpkin> Herodes: yeah, I've noticed some of my orders not being filled
205 2011-06-27 01:45:46 <copumpkin> despite being well within the range
206 2011-06-27 01:45:53 <copumpkin> kind of annoying actually
207 2011-06-27 01:45:53 <nanotube> Herodes: people have reported similar things... suggest you file a ticket
208 2011-06-27 01:46:05 <Herodes> I will do.
209 2011-06-27 01:46:24 <copumpkin> ah well, I guess a bit of a loss is what I get for trading on a beta market :P
210 2011-06-27 01:49:08 <Herodes> copumpkin: hehe, yeah.
211 2011-06-27 01:49:30 <Herodes> Well, nanotube, I've been a good boy and filed a ticket, now give me a cookie please!
212 2011-06-27 01:50:12 <nanotube> ;;give Herodes a cookie. two even!
213 2011-06-27 01:51:02 <copumpkin> ;;give itself a bitcoin
214 2011-06-27 01:51:15 <unclemantis> 48 connections and block 64214
215 2011-06-27 01:52:15 <Herodes> ty!
216 2011-06-27 02:04:25 <e_scott37820> Hi, I'm wondering if it would be possible for a user of the bitcoin client to generate a dump of multiple bitcoin addresses that can be accessed by the user -- I know the client generates 100 public and private keys and corresponding addresses in advance, but can those be easily accessed without clicking on "new address" multiple times?
217 2011-06-27 02:04:27 <dubbz82> okay
218 2011-06-27 02:04:41 <dubbz82> i still can't pull in values from mtgox's ticker into a program
219 2011-06-27 02:04:45 <dubbz82> like it's timing out
220 2011-06-27 02:04:55 <dubbz82> so am i doing something wrong, or is it still screwed up?
221 2011-06-27 02:05:12 <dubbz82> (they work fine for tradehill)
222 2011-06-27 02:08:20 <nanotube> e_scott37820: there is a patch to allow for key import/export out there somewhere
223 2011-06-27 02:08:36 <nanotube> ;;bc,mtgox
224 2011-06-27 02:08:37 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":17.95,"low":14.01,"avg":15.988500408,"vol":24897.68339986,"last":17,"buy":16.83801,"sell":17}}
225 2011-06-27 02:08:41 <nanotube> dubbz82: ^ no problems here
226 2011-06-27 02:08:56 <dubbz82> nanotube, yea, and i can pull it in from the website too
227 2011-06-27 02:09:04 <dubbz82> but it's choking and dying within my program :/
228 2011-06-27 02:09:22 <nanotube> dubbz82: well maybe your program is doing something wrong :)
229 2011-06-27 02:09:37 <dubbz82> so i'm just trying to figure out if i'm fucking something up or if others are having issues pulling in the data to their programs, too
230 2011-06-27 02:10:09 <doublec> e_scott37820: this is the patch I think nanotube refers too http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8091.0
231 2011-06-27 02:10:13 <e_scott37820> Thank you, I'll check it out,  nano
232 2011-06-27 02:10:31 <nanotube> doublec: yep that's it :)
233 2011-06-27 02:10:51 <unclemantis> all this crap just to print out a paper copy of my wallet LOL
234 2011-06-27 02:10:53 <nanotube> dubbz82: try turning of ssl cert validation in your code (if it does that)
235 2011-06-27 02:11:19 <e_scott37820> thank you, doublec
236 2011-06-27 02:11:25 <e_scott37820> I'll reading the thread now
237 2011-06-27 02:11:31 <nanotube> unclemantis: base64 wallet.dat > somefile.txt, then print it.
238 2011-06-27 02:11:38 <doublec> dubbz82: getting the ticker via curl works for me
239 2011-06-27 02:11:47 <doublec> dubbz82: have you been banned from hitting it to frequently?
240 2011-06-27 02:11:49 <dubbz82> hrm
241 2011-06-27 02:11:55 <dubbz82> doublec, i doubt it
242 2011-06-27 02:12:07 <dubbz82> i only recently tried attacking it..and not that often
243 2011-06-27 02:12:20 <doublec> dubbz82: what URL are you using?
244 2011-06-27 02:12:37 <dubbz82> https://mtgox.com/code/data/ticker.php
245 2011-06-27 02:12:40 <dubbz82> just their ticker.
246 2011-06-27 02:12:59 <doublec> I used: https://mtgox.com/code/ticker.php
247 2011-06-27 02:13:16 <dubbz82> hrm
248 2011-06-27 02:13:27 <dubbz82> lemme give that a shot.
249 2011-06-27 02:14:26 <dubbz82> ...nope, still not working
250 2011-06-27 02:14:50 <doublec> does this work: curl https://mtgox.com/code/ticker.php
251 2011-06-27 02:14:56 <dubbz82> i wonder what's causing it to mess up though, because tradehill stuff works fine :/
252 2011-06-27 02:15:41 <dubbz82> i'm just using a c# function called downloadstring, which pulls in plain text variation of whatever url you point it to
253 2011-06-27 02:15:47 <dubbz82> dunno how to do curl in c# even
254 2011-06-27 02:15:59 <nanotube> works with wget for me, if i include --no-check-certificate (because apparently i have an old openssl that doesn't know how to read alt domains in a cert)
255 2011-06-27 02:16:25 <doublec> right, the certificate could be the issue
256 2011-06-27 02:16:34 <doublec> also, it sends a text/html mime type
257 2011-06-27 02:16:37 <dubbz82> ...wonder if there's a good way to work around that :/
258 2011-06-27 02:16:41 <doublec> which your library might not like
259 2011-06-27 02:16:43 <dubbz82> in c# that is
260 2011-06-27 02:18:30 <dubbz82> well wtf.
261 2011-06-27 02:18:45 <dubbz82> there isn't an api that doesn't use the ssl?
262 2011-06-27 02:18:52 <dubbz82> :/
263 2011-06-27 02:19:06 <jgarzik> The SSL!
264 2011-06-27 02:19:16 <dubbz82> quite frankly, for the purpose i'm using it for, i could give two shits less about the ssl...lol
265 2011-06-27 02:19:21 <doublec> there can be only one!
266 2011-06-27 02:19:24 <jgarzik> sounds impressive, doesn't it?
267 2011-06-27 02:19:29 <doublec> definitely
268 2011-06-27 02:20:25 <doublec> dubbz82: http://blog.jameshiggs.com/2008/05/01/c-how-to-accept-an-invalid-ssl-certificate-programmatically/
269 2011-06-27 02:20:30 <doublec> I used The Google
270 2011-06-27 02:21:55 <dubbz82> good call, i'll look at that :P
271 2011-06-27 02:22:23 <dubbz82> kinda bad that you gotta work around stuff like that with an otherwise good api, though.
272 2011-06-27 02:22:29 <doublec> it looks impressively complicated for such a simple requirement
273 2011-06-27 02:48:57 <egecko> wasabi.
274 2011-06-27 02:50:17 <ultrixx> hi, in my debug.log i see "Flushed wallet.dat" about every 2 minutes. what does "flushed wallet.dat" mean?
275 2011-06-27 02:50:35 <egecko> that means it wrote the contents of what it had in memory to the disk
276 2011-06-27 02:50:56 <ultrixx> ah ok thank you. so nothing to worry about, right?
277 2011-06-27 02:51:25 <ultrixx> thanks again
278 2011-06-27 03:32:17 <pixglen> hi
279 2011-06-27 03:32:53 <RAM2012> anyone else see this? http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=22965.0
280 2011-06-27 03:33:09 <RAM2012> wondering if more optimizations could be made
281 2011-06-27 03:38:26 <pixglen> i have a proposal and/or query -- the JSON RPC API has listtransactions, but it has limited usefulness when you're polling and need to know the txns since the last poll
282 2011-06-27 03:38:53 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rae16718 / src/main/resources/DiabloMiner.cl : Adding bitless's hack - http://bit.ly/li9FgZ
283 2011-06-27 03:39:10 <pixglen> i'm wondering if there is a way to get txns since a given timestamp, and if not, then to implement that myself
284 2011-06-27 03:49:12 <doublec> pixglen: it only lists transactions in a block
285 2011-06-27 03:49:28 <doublec> pixglen: so you can just use the confirmations argument maybe
286 2011-06-27 03:50:34 <pixglen> doublec: doesn't it lists all the transactions for a particular account? otherwise once the block is past, how could i check the transactions?
287 2011-06-27 03:51:17 <doublec> pixglen: 'bitcoind listtransactions foo 5' will list all the transactoins for account foo within the last 5 blocks
288 2011-06-27 03:52:01 <pixglen> doublec: ok... doesn't that list 5 transactions? 1 transaction == 1 block?
289 2011-06-27 03:52:39 <doublec> pixglen: oh you're right, it's count not confirmations, sorry
290 2011-06-27 03:53:06 <doublec> pixglen: I was thinking of listreceivedbyaccount
291 2011-06-27 03:53:12 <pixglen> doublec: in any case, if i were running a process that was polling bitcoind for txn's e.g. to copy to a database or record it for some purpose, then there's no real way of ensuring listtransactions will return all the unrecorded txn's
292 2011-06-27 03:56:27 <pixglen> looking at the code, it's dying to be rewritten in sqlite or something other than bdb
293 2011-06-27 04:12:20 <dubbz82> damn
294 2011-06-27 04:12:24 <dubbz82> i gotta be missing something here
295 2011-06-27 04:12:48 <dubbz82> even after FORCING certificates to show up as valid in c#
296 2011-06-27 04:12:56 <dubbz82> it's still not liking the mtgox ticker :/
297 2011-06-27 04:17:15 <dubbz82> i'll have to look into this some more when i get actual free time, i think
298 2011-06-27 05:29:36 <accel> err .... people are still using mtgox? (according to their chat on their front page)
299 2011-06-27 05:35:30 <folklore> ofcourse people are using mtgox
300 2011-06-27 05:35:44 <folklore> infact more are probably using it now then before it went down
301 2011-06-27 05:37:01 <folklore> all the fear mongers who said "the end of bitcoin" etc... went it got hacked, clearly don't know how the internets works
302 2011-06-27 05:37:21 <folklore> any publicity is good publicity
303 2011-06-27 05:39:44 <gm> folklore: i think it's actually more people now either wanting to cash in mtgoxusd to btc and get it out
304 2011-06-27 05:39:50 <gm> or profit from a spike or crash
305 2011-06-27 05:40:20 <folklore> maybe, but imho theres really no better exchange than mtgox right now
306 2011-06-27 05:40:31 <gm> yeah
307 2011-06-27 05:40:36 <gm> tradehill moves way too slow
308 2011-06-27 05:40:50 <folklore> longevity, api, and they just went through essentially an epic story,and with any epic story theres always conflict and resolution
309 2011-06-27 05:41:09 <folklore> now people feel more safe cause they went on the journey with em
310 2011-06-27 05:41:18 <gm> well the real telling is not that they got hacked, but how they handled it
311 2011-06-27 05:41:39 <folklore> yeah
312 2011-06-27 05:42:52 <gm> everyone is now logging in and "oh, my money/btc is still there"
313 2011-06-27 06:24:49 <vegard> I managed to make gavin very, very nervous :-P
314 2011-06-27 06:27:36 <nhodges> ?
315 2011-06-27 06:28:07 <vegard> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/349
316 2011-06-27 06:30:59 <sivu> :)
317 2011-06-27 06:32:58 <edcba> fcking shit
318 2011-06-27 06:33:24 <edcba> i really hope you didn't find a bug in scripting system
319 2011-06-27 06:33:37 <edcba> i don't really want to upgrade :)
320 2011-06-27 06:34:05 <vegard> it's not bad
321 2011-06-27 06:34:27 <vegard> it's more of a compatibility issue. as long as you use the official client, you're good
322 2011-06-27 06:36:05 <edcba> it's bad because if someone issue some tx with your bug network is splitetd
323 2011-06-27 06:36:38 <edcba> clients accepting the tx vs those non accepting it
324 2011-06-27 06:37:16 <vegard> I'm not sure if anyone will accept it
325 2011-06-27 06:37:26 <vegard> in the first place. but I'm not sure about that
326 2011-06-27 06:37:45 <Kryten> Hi every one
327 2011-06-27 06:38:47 <quup> is there any bitcoin client that gives some network information? like download speed of blocks and info abotu what the peers have and such?
328 2011-06-27 06:39:04 <quup> I'm suspecting i'm getting my blocks frome some person with dialup
329 2011-06-27 06:39:25 <Kryten_> so, is there any one here ?
330 2011-06-27 06:39:30 <edcba> no it's just very slow quup
331 2011-06-27 06:39:46 <edcba> quup: you can download the block from http somewhere
332 2011-06-27 06:39:51 <quup> edcba: can I do anything to speed it up besides getting a cup of coffee?
333 2011-06-27 06:40:29 <vegard> quup: you can open port 8333 (wasn't it?) in your firewall and use -maxconnections=25
334 2011-06-27 06:40:48 <quup> vegard: oh yea, I guess that'd be best
335 2011-06-27 06:40:53 <edcba> won't be faster i think
336 2011-06-27 06:41:03 <edcba> unless something has changed in block downloading
337 2011-06-27 06:41:04 <quup> I have 8 connections now from the fallback list
338 2011-06-27 06:42:46 <Kryten_> I would like to contribute to the bitcoin project, what's the best way to start ?
339 2011-06-27 06:43:07 <sivu> kryten, do unit tests to components
340 2011-06-27 06:43:15 <Kryten_> all right
341 2011-06-27 06:43:42 <Kryten_> I am on the github page, trying to look for global doc on the code
342 2011-06-27 06:44:20 <edcba> quup: http://bitcoin.bluematt.me/bitcoin-nightly/blockchain-nightly/
343 2011-06-27 06:47:14 <pixglen> ok submitted the listtransactionsaftertime patch https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/355
344 2011-06-27 07:20:16 <Edulix> hi people
345 2011-06-27 07:20:52 <Edulix> I just read-over the bitcoin paper, it seems nice
346 2011-06-27 07:21:55 <Edulix> I suppose the mixers as silkroad create single transactions with lots of inputs and outputs, right?
347 2011-06-27 07:22:11 <Edulix> thuns performing a "mixing"
348 2011-06-27 07:33:21 <quup> edcba: thanks :)
349 2011-06-27 07:58:35 <nhodges> Edulix which paper
350 2011-06-27 07:59:08 <Edulix> http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
351 2011-06-27 07:59:17 <Edulix> ( nhodges )
352 2011-06-27 08:00:08 <nhodges> :] fo shizzle
353 2011-06-27 08:00:18 <Edulix> huh?
354 2011-06-27 08:01:35 <prof7bit> silkroad is a mixer? i thought it was a trading platform like ebay or amazon?
355 2011-06-27 08:35:59 <pixglen> hey guys, does bitcoin store internal txn's that never make it out to the network e.g. in support of multiple accounts in the wallet?
356 2011-06-27 08:38:08 <ionspin> pixglen, I don't think so, you need to publish all transactions. I'm not sure though
357 2011-06-27 08:41:05 <vegard> pixglen: you mean transactions among your own addresses?
358 2011-06-27 08:41:14 <pixglen> well in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Accounts_explained under "Account -> Account Transfers", it says transferring between accounts (in the same wallet) are not broadcast to the network
359 2011-06-27 08:42:00 <pixglen> presumably this causes some kind of internal txn right?
360 2011-06-27 08:43:26 <pixglen> is there any way to abort bitcoind gracefully? I seemed to have stuffed up the internal database when i ctrl-c'ed it
361 2011-06-27 08:49:39 <meelu> are there any perl developers about which can help me accept bitcoin on my site? i have functions for paypal alertpay webmoney smscoin and could paste it, i also have bitcoind installed. I know python and php and could understand enough to modify and improve perl code but i cant come up with a nice function to generate keys and aprove it, i could plan it but i cant write it...
362 2011-06-27 08:49:57 <meelu> pleasE
363 2011-06-27 08:49:58 <meelu> ?
364 2011-06-27 08:50:19 <meelu> i really think i could get alot of bitcoin transactions going through my site
365 2011-06-27 08:50:39 <pixglen> meelu: can't u use php or python to do it? use the json-rpc interface, it's pretty straightforward
366 2011-06-27 08:51:01 <meelu> well i can, but i want to intregate it into the current system as most the functions are already there
367 2011-06-27 08:51:32 <meelu> pixglen*
368 2011-06-27 08:51:33 <cacheson> meelu: maybe put up an ad in the marketplace on the forum
369 2011-06-27 08:52:09 <meelu> i can offer all me bitcoins (0.5) to whoever helps me get it working
370 2011-06-27 08:52:36 <meelu> but i am just looking for help
371 2011-06-27 08:52:58 <cacheson> post in technical support, then?
372 2011-06-27 08:53:06 <meelu> i dont know if the forum will bring attention
373 2011-06-27 08:53:14 <cacheson> or at least, ask here at a busier time
374 2011-06-27 08:53:21 <cacheson> it's 7 AM where I am right now
375 2011-06-27 08:53:49 <meelu> its nearly 12am here
376 2011-06-27 08:53:55 <cacheson> a lot of bitcoin users are in the US
377 2011-06-27 08:54:07 <cacheson> so most of them are asleep right now
378 2011-06-27 08:54:09 <meelu> if you do understand perl though or if anyone does http://pastebin.com/Myve2uAv
379 2011-06-27 08:54:11 <meelu> just pm me
380 2011-06-27 08:54:23 <cacheson> I don't, unfortunately
381 2011-06-27 09:24:59 <minus> https://testnet.freebitcoins.appspot.com/
382 2011-06-27 09:25:11 <minus> is that ennough testcoins for now? >:D
383 2011-06-27 09:25:32 <MrSam> :P
384 2011-06-27 09:25:44 <MrSam> i gave up on testnet
385 2011-06-27 09:25:48 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r103 /trunk/ (2 files in 2 dirs): Bugfix from Noa Resare. Resolves issue 29.
386 2011-06-27 09:25:50 <MrSam> sticking to mrsamnet in a box
387 2011-06-27 09:25:57 <MrSam> difficulty is better
388 2011-06-27 09:26:30 <MrSam> maybe a bit to easy , i'm getting 10 blocks a second :P
389 2011-06-27 09:36:57 <sacarlson> anyone want to try recieve .01 btc from the first ever attempted escrow transaction on mainnet btc
390 2011-06-27 09:37:31 <sacarlson> it's now tested on testnet and weedsnet
391 2011-06-27 09:37:44 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r104 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/BlockChain.java: Don't output an info log for every block downloaded.
392 2011-06-27 09:37:45 <jeremias> MrSam: on testnet?
393 2011-06-27 09:38:01 <sacarlson> jeremias: you want to try it on testnet?
394 2011-06-27 09:38:29 <sacarlson> opps
395 2011-06-27 09:41:41 <sacarlson> meelu: you can run pearl functions with php, I've integrated python and C with php you can run things like cli with php if you want
396 2011-06-27 09:42:11 <prof7bit> pearl?
397 2011-06-27 09:42:25 <ersi> "first ever attempted escrow"?
398 2011-06-27 09:42:45 <sacarlson> prof7bit: ya I used to program in pearl too but that was some time back
399 2011-06-27 09:43:14 <prof7bit> never heard of this language.
400 2011-06-27 09:43:33 <doublec> sacarlson: perl?
401 2011-06-27 09:43:48 <sacarlson> prof7bit:  it's from the cave man days when they rubed two sticks oh ya perl
402 2011-06-27 09:44:38 <prof7bit> rubed? You mean Ruby on Rails?
403 2011-06-27 09:45:15 <sacarlson> prof7bit: no rubed sticks to make fire
404 2011-06-27 09:45:17 <prof7bit> sorry, i have too much time at the moment
405 2011-06-27 09:45:43 <sacarlson> prof7bit: as in cave man days
406 2011-06-27 09:45:48 <minus> <MrSam> maybe a bit to easy , i'm getting 10 blocks a second :P ??? how do you get so much?
407 2011-06-27 09:45:52 <doublec> sacarlson: rubbed
408 2011-06-27 09:46:08 <sacarlson> doublec: ya ruubbbbed
409 2011-06-27 09:47:35 <prof7bit> we are all little syntax and grammar nazis
410 2011-06-27 09:47:42 <sacarlson> minus: why would you complain about 10 blocks per secound as long as your the only one and not another to make a branch
411 2011-06-27 09:48:08 <prof7bit> because my compiler is a grammar nazi also
412 2011-06-27 09:48:46 <sacarlson> prof7bit: that's ok I write with as litle efort as posible to get an idea accross
413 2011-06-27 09:49:13 <prof7bit> i'm only joking. i have too much time.
414 2011-06-27 09:54:46 <sacarlson> ersi: yes first ever on main net
415 2011-06-27 09:55:16 <sacarlson> ersi or first I've ever seen I should say,  maybe someone has already seen them?
416 2011-06-27 09:55:51 <meelu> sacarlson, i can but i want to just intregate it into the current code i have and not write alot
417 2011-06-27 09:58:21 <sacarlson> meelu: well you can merge or run this https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/commit/83707c8dd4573bb958f9e504fb6263c8fa1ef942 or try https://github.com/sacarlson/freecoin
418 2011-06-27 09:58:51 <sacarlson> meelu: freecoin is just a merge of groffer commit
419 2011-06-27 09:59:11 <meelu> nice, so i just forward them to this?
420 2011-06-27 09:59:16 <meelu> once i set it up
421 2011-06-27 09:59:48 <meelu> nvm
422 2011-06-27 10:00:33 <sacarlson> meelu: what' the problem?
423 2011-06-27 10:01:01 <bloodybeet> hi, i might know who hacked the bitcoin a while ago. Anyone i can talk to ? :]
424 2011-06-27 10:01:19 <sacarlson> bloodybeet: cool I want to know
425 2011-06-27 10:01:31 <sacarlson> bloodybeet: was it the rusians?
426 2011-06-27 10:02:06 <bloodybeet> if i look at https://www.thoroquel.org/tags/bitcoin/
427 2011-06-27 10:02:10 <sacarlson> bloodybeet: how hacked bitcoin?  I thought you meant mtgox
428 2011-06-27 10:02:19 <bloodybeet> ye that's kind of what i mean
429 2011-06-27 10:02:21 <bloodybeet> those headers
430 2011-06-27 10:03:01 <bloodybeet> errr..
431 2011-06-27 10:03:31 <bloodybeet> i'm not entirely sure nvm :')
432 2011-06-27 10:05:33 <BlueMatt> sipa: are you planning any other big refactors like CWallet yet?
433 2011-06-27 10:08:36 <sacarlson> bloodybeet: I was sent an ip list of the last ddos attack he had and it was from all over.  but I think it was a compitition thing as it states in your article but i thought it was another site
434 2011-06-27 10:10:42 <bloodybeet> ye i dont know anything, nvm xD
435 2011-06-27 10:10:45 <bloodybeet> misinterpretation
436 2011-06-27 10:11:15 <sacarlson> anyone have any other ideas how I could create a method to licence minners on smaller block chain networks?
437 2011-06-27 10:12:08 <sacarlson> so that only trusted minners could partisipate
438 2011-06-27 10:12:47 <sacarlson> or does a branch already exist for such a thing?
439 2011-06-27 10:13:14 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: if you're talking an alt chain
440 2011-06-27 10:13:15 <BlueMatt> wait, what do you want to do?
441 2011-06-27 10:13:52 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: yes alternate chain with only minners that were trusted
442 2011-06-27 10:14:30 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: just add a script to the block itself, and require them to pass a checksig op referencing the block they were licensed in in order for any blocks they create to validate and be forwarded
443 2011-06-27 10:14:35 <BlueMatt> you could do it so that you limit blocks to only have coinbase txes to a list of trusted sigs
444 2011-06-27 10:14:35 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: so you could ban a minner if they were to be found doing something wrong also
445 2011-06-27 10:14:48 <jrmithdobbs> oh well that part is harder
446 2011-06-27 10:15:03 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: ya that sounds about right
447 2011-06-27 10:15:28 <BlueMatt> and if majority of miners ban a miner, it will not be able to hold blocks it generated
448 2011-06-27 10:15:55 <jrmithdobbs> that would work but isn't validatable in the chain itself
449 2011-06-27 10:16:21 <BlueMatt> yes it is
450 2011-06-27 10:16:32 <sacarlson> BlueMatt well in this case the coins are preminted but the minner will recieve transaction fee's to pay for minning but it should take very little power
451 2011-06-27 10:16:35 <BlueMatt> oh you mean sans client mods to most clients?
452 2011-06-27 10:17:00 <BlueMatt> not necessarily
453 2011-06-27 10:17:07 <BlueMatt> you dont have to premint any coins
454 2011-06-27 10:17:42 <BlueMatt> just say if coinbase tx does not exist or for each coinbase.txout if to address is not in list, block is invalid
455 2011-06-27 10:18:27 <sacarlson> BlueMatt ya I think I want that
456 2011-06-27 10:19:17 <sacarlson> I'm not sure how you would regulate if some minner sold his rights to his licence maybe have to add some kind of an ip check also
457 2011-06-27 10:19:42 <BlueMatt> no, you cant really do that
458 2011-06-27 10:19:51 <BlueMatt> ip checking in bitcoin is virtually impossible
459 2011-06-27 10:20:48 <sacarlson> ok well as long as the group he sells his rights to mine don't go bad it should be ok,  but if one fails and has already run up the difficulty and has to be banned then there will be a problem for some time to correct
460 2011-06-27 10:20:56 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: are you saying store the whitelist in the chain somewhere?
461 2011-06-27 10:21:21 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: you could do that, but its simpler to just do it in-client if you can
462 2011-06-27 10:21:40 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: well the white list would be stored in the config file that could be modified if needed
463 2011-06-27 10:22:15 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: yes it would be in the clients config files
464 2011-06-27 10:22:31 <jrmithdobbs> white list in client-only seems meh to me, you're at the mecery of the mob at that point
465 2011-06-27 10:22:39 <jrmithdobbs> mercy
466 2011-06-27 10:23:03 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: then the minners no longer rule the mob does
467 2011-06-27 10:23:08 <BlueMatt> well as long as the clients who matter dont, it doesnt matter
468 2011-06-27 10:24:00 <BlueMatt> its like regular bitcoin, even if the majority of clients start generating 100 BTC/block, those who dont do that will reject those blocks
469 2011-06-27 10:24:01 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: but that's not really how it's supposed to work, the validators' jobs is to validate (I forget who started using this term instead of miners, but i like it)
470 2011-06-27 10:24:22 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: in fact I guess the clients could be selective and pick the minners they want to use
471 2011-06-27 10:24:47 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: no, then you'd have 50 different forked chains running concurrently and thing would get ugly fast
472 2011-06-27 10:25:22 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: ya your right there,  there would have to be some central point of consensis
473 2011-06-27 10:25:35 <jrmithdobbs> and no way to bootstrap newcomers since there's no way they could garuntee connection to enough discrete nodes that have all the different blocks for all the different forks
474 2011-06-27 10:25:40 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: not at all
475 2011-06-27 10:26:00 <BlueMatt> its a way to create a trusted list of "validators" for each client
476 2011-06-27 10:26:33 <BlueMatt> as long as there is enough clients who have the list on the alternate network, you shouldnt have problems with forks causing crazy net usage and such
477 2011-06-27 10:26:48 <sacarlson> well in a micro network you may only need 3 redundant minners to keep things working when it get's biger they could move to the bitcoin model
478 2011-06-27 10:27:13 <BlueMatt> why are you trying to do this anyway?
479 2011-06-27 10:27:49 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: yes but given clients a,b,c,d and validators z,y,x,w let's say clients a,b decide to stop trusting x AND w but c,d say they're a-ok, you've now got a (possibly long-lasting) fork that wont resolve itself until the network of validators grows
480 2011-06-27 10:28:06 <Kryten> ok
481 2011-06-27 10:28:25 <sacarlson> BlueMatt to create the posibilty of other smaller secure networks like beertokens to work
482 2011-06-27 10:28:49 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: well, what matters more is that the validators switch and as long as the majority of miners switch to the new list, its ok
483 2011-06-27 10:29:10 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, a much better way to do that is secondary chain implementations
484 2011-06-27 10:29:19 <jrmithdobbs> point is, it's something that will happen at some point or another in a system like that
485 2011-06-27 10:29:29 <sacarlson> BlueMatt I looke at that but I think I would have to pay fee's?
486 2011-06-27 10:29:36 <jrmithdobbs> and while it's happening the thing will be next to worthless
487 2011-06-27 10:29:39 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: what, no
488 2011-06-27 10:30:12 <jrmithdobbs> also, what happens when clients a,b ignore w,x? do they now refuse to hand out w,x's *historic* blocks?
489 2011-06-27 10:30:21 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: look for TD's implementation details
490 2011-06-27 10:30:57 <jrmithdobbs> eg, given a new client joining the network, say a,b used to trust w,x but no longer do.... i think you see where i'm going
491 2011-06-27 10:31:07 <knotwork> I have a new machine that is x86_64 type running Fedora 15, and am trying to compile bitcoin using source that worked on 32 bit x86 in Fedora 14
492 2011-06-27 10:31:24 <knotwork> I see a lot of complaints about casting a pointer from an integer of a different size
493 2011-06-27 10:31:30 <jrmithdobbs> client e connects and is only connected to clients a,b ... if it doesn't receive the old blocks from w,x, it now has an invalid chain
494 2011-06-27 10:31:41 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: I guess same as if a problem happend on bitcoin everyone would be required to upgrade to a new version of the client software, in the case of a roge minner then the central distibution would hand out updated config lists
495 2011-06-27 10:31:48 <knotwork> so I am guessing it might be trying to use 32 bit integers as pointers despite its now on a 64 bit machine
496 2011-06-27 10:32:20 <knotwork> there is no ./configure to automagically adjust it for such things, is it even possible to compile on 64 bit using same sources that worked on 32 bit?
497 2011-06-27 10:33:17 <BlueMatt> knotwork: it compiles fine on 64-bit for most people
498 2011-06-27 10:33:20 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs:(07:31:30 PM) jrmithdobbs: client e connects and is only connected to clients a,b .,  yes the same problem I had when I tried testnet with a too old a version, I had to upgrade to make it work
499 2011-06-27 10:33:41 <knotwork> with no complaints about weird casting of integer to pointer?
500 2011-06-27 10:33:43 <BlueMatt> knotwork: more details might help
501 2011-06-27 10:33:46 <BlueMatt> knotwork: nope
502 2011-06-27 10:33:59 <knotwork> util.h: In function void ExitThread(unsigned int):
503 2011-06-27 10:34:00 <knotwork> util.h:634:25: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
504 2011-06-27 10:34:59 <knotwork> mind you so far I have onlt compiled openssl into a deps directory, I havew not addressed any other dependencies yet
505 2011-06-27 10:35:21 <knotwork> maybe some dependency it has not actually complained about yet would if it were present have fixed this?
506 2011-06-27 10:35:44 <knotwork> I only installed fedora 15 clean last night, using floppy that installs over the net, and told it I want development box
507 2011-06-27 10:36:11 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: you have to have a way of tracking which validators were trusted at a snapshot in time within the chain i think
508 2011-06-27 10:36:18 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: to do it *right*
509 2011-06-27 10:36:55 <knotwork> okay I have let it go onm past these warnings now it wants boost I guess I will just address such dependencies as they arise and see if in long run they end up getting rid of this pointer/integer complaint
510 2011-06-27 10:37:21 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: eg, require any validator publishing a block to be listed in the "trusted" field of the block for X% of the last % blocks or similar
511 2011-06-27 10:37:23 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: well the network is public just as we see things with blockexplorer so they would be audited dayly hourly
512 2011-06-27 10:37:30 <BlueMatt> knotwork: ah, well it will work fine anyway...we ignore a ton of -W... warnings, its terrible I know, but its just not particularly high on the priorities list
513 2011-06-27 10:37:42 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: it would take longer to blacklist a validator, but it would also solve most of the fork/abuse issues
514 2011-06-27 10:37:48 <BlueMatt> knotwork: thats why the makefile only has -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat
515 2011-06-27 10:38:01 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: on a small network you only need a whitlist of 3
516 2011-06-27 10:38:12 <knotwork> okay I dont have problem with that as long its its not in fact a problem of mixing 32 bit and 64 bit between pointer and integer
517 2011-06-27 10:38:15 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: but again, for that to work, it puts the power back in the validator's hands
518 2011-06-27 10:38:24 <knotwork> I would have thought compiler would use same bits for both actually
519 2011-06-27 10:38:40 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: the validators will always have the power since they're the ones genning the blocks and the only place to store validatable information like that is in the chain ....
520 2011-06-27 10:38:41 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: what power might that be?
521 2011-06-27 10:38:51 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: power to white/blacklist other validators
522 2011-06-27 10:39:08 <knotwork> I probably ignored all warnings on the 32 bit machine its just going to different bits made me worry
523 2011-06-27 10:39:21 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: no I want the list in the clients hands not only the other minners
524 2011-06-27 10:39:31 <BlueMatt> knotwork: what makefile are you using anyway?
525 2011-06-27 10:40:06 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: seriously, use side chains, its much simpler and way more secure
526 2011-06-27 10:40:14 <knotwork> I had to hack the makefile-unix a lot to get it to work on fedora 14 on the 32 bit box
527 2011-06-27 10:40:21 <BlueMatt> well much simpler not being that simple, but its the right way to do it
528 2011-06-27 10:40:25 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: just as a bad block would be orphaned so would a block when created by a black listed or not white listed minner
529 2011-06-27 10:40:34 <BlueMatt> knotwork: then why did you add a ton of -W...?
530 2011-06-27 10:40:36 <knotwork> so instead of spending all those hours over again I figured work from that to try to get it working on fedora 15
531 2011-06-27 10:40:47 <knotwork> I doubt I deliberately added warnings
532 2011-06-27 10:40:50 <sacarlson> BlueMatt how much would that cost for a transaction this side chain thing?
533 2011-06-27 10:40:52 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: you mean having two concurrent chains in the network or a side chain to 'real' bitcoin?
534 2011-06-27 10:40:57 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: it wouldnt
535 2011-06-27 10:41:04 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: because that's kind of what i was about to propose (the former)
536 2011-06-27 10:41:11 <knotwork> but maybe didnt really pay attention to what they were when pasting whole swaths of stuff about umpteen dependencies or something
537 2011-06-27 10:41:32 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: no, a side chain to main bitcoin chain
538 2011-06-27 10:41:34 <sacarlson> BlueMatt I thought if I put a zero transaction into bitcoin to side chain I would require to pay .0005 btc
539 2011-06-27 10:41:42 <knotwork> this is not latest trunk, it was trunk of svn way back when I did it but that was months ago now feb maybe
540 2011-06-27 10:41:52 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: you dont put a 0 transaction, its in coinbase
541 2011-06-27 10:42:06 <BlueMatt> and has to be, or it wouldnt be secure
542 2011-06-27 10:42:14 <knotwork> does latest trunk actually pretty much compile out of the box on fedora ?
543 2011-06-27 10:42:37 <BlueMatt> knotwork: I thought so, one of the head devs works on fedora all the time afaik
544 2011-06-27 10:42:40 <sacarlson> BlueMatt 0 transaction I mean in btc zero but the transaction would hold value in the side chain but I thought that had a fee on the btc side
545 2011-06-27 10:43:00 <knotwork> well back in feb or so I went through hell to make it work on fedora 14
546 2011-06-27 10:43:18 <knotwork> though maybe actually most of that was making xwidgets work not really bitcoin per se
547 2011-06-27 10:43:41 <knotwork> it is just bitcoind I am trying to do right now but still I think I hjad to hack makefile some even to do that
548 2011-06-27 10:43:56 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, a side chain means side chain's blocks are in a merkle stored in coinbase on main chain
549 2011-06-27 10:44:01 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no txes needed
550 2011-06-27 10:44:24 <sacarlson> BlueMatt  that sounds good
551 2011-06-27 10:44:42 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: seriously, go read TD's post
552 2011-06-27 10:44:49 <sacarlson> BlueMatt well then cancel my last idea,  is that how namecoin works?
553 2011-06-27 10:44:51 <BlueMatt> it explains how it would be implemented
554 2011-06-27 10:44:53 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: you could always side chain off your own trust-chain with a static diff too if you *want* clients to be able to vote
555 2011-06-27 10:45:00 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: it should be, but I dont think so
556 2011-06-27 10:45:05 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: on trust
557 2011-06-27 10:45:44 <jrmithdobbs> sacarlson: but voting clients leads to sybil and static diff leads to dos
558 2011-06-27 10:46:17 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs:  never perfect calm in the world
559 2011-06-27 10:46:19 <phungus> wow, the DuckDuckGo search provider for firefox (or something else with DDG) is having a problem with bitcoin mining. It hangs the browser each time a search is performed. The author was super fast in looking at it though and he suspected bitcoin mining without me telling him. :-)
560 2011-06-27 10:46:28 <BlueMatt> static diff provides no security on top of dynamic diff
561 2011-06-27 10:46:35 <BlueMatt> why do people keep thinking that?
562 2011-06-27 10:46:42 <BlueMatt> its total network hash power not diff
563 2011-06-27 10:46:55 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: it's for the opposite reason of security in this case
564 2011-06-27 10:47:12 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: he *wants* clients, not validators, to be able to determine the trust chain
565 2011-06-27 10:47:26 <sacarlson> BlueMatt I assume when you say side chain that the sub chain links to bitcoin correct?
566 2011-06-27 10:47:36 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: the only way to ensure clients can do that is to ensure validators with large ammounts of hashing power can't inflate the diff
567 2011-06-27 10:47:43 <BlueMatt> no side chain and subchains, just side chains
568 2011-06-27 10:48:02 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: I just want security on a small network at a cheap price
569 2011-06-27 10:48:05 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: where's td's thread about this?
570 2011-06-27 10:48:19 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: dont remember search on the forums for side chain implementation details
571 2011-06-27 10:48:27 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: and thats what side chains offer
572 2011-06-27 10:48:56 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: not hitting anything
573 2011-06-27 10:49:00 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: why i was asking.
574 2011-06-27 10:49:07 <sacarlson> BlueMatt I think I read it and asked here about it before but I was pushed down by luke-jr about the fee's that I would have to pay
575 2011-06-27 10:49:08 <BlueMatt> by [mike]
576 2011-06-27 10:49:28 <BlueMatt> well then luke was mistaken or didnt understand you
577 2011-06-27 10:49:31 <BlueMatt> there is no fee involved
578 2011-06-27 10:49:40 <sacarlson> BlueMatt and that most of the minners would reject a side net link
579 2011-06-27 10:49:44 <b4epoche> sacarlson:  I'm not sure I'd pay much attention to luke-jr
580 2011-06-27 10:49:47 <jrmithdobbs> this one?
581 2011-06-27 10:50:00 <BlueMatt> that is the only problem, you have to get miners on bitcoin main chain to accept side chain in coinbase
582 2011-06-27 10:50:08 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: thats the one
583 2011-06-27 10:50:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: i have some ideas for other refactorings, but nothing concrete yet :)
584 2011-06-27 10:50:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: care to share, Ive been thinking a bit too, and kind of think that that should be next on the priorities list
585 2011-06-27 10:51:03 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: the bdb code is starting to bubble up
586 2011-06-27 10:51:06 <jrmithdobbs> especially in osx
587 2011-06-27 10:51:15 <BlueMatt> what bdb code?
588 2011-06-27 10:51:32 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: the way bitcoin uses bdb in general re: transactions
589 2011-06-27 10:51:37 <BlueMatt> you mean the bug on how slow bdb is in bitcoin on osx?
590 2011-06-27 10:51:45 <jrmithdobbs> ya
591 2011-06-27 10:51:54 <jrmithdobbs> it's not osx-specific, just particularly bad on osx
592 2011-06-27 10:52:19 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: yes I read that article and talked about it before, so now I will go back and explore the linked chain method as I think what bluemat was saying
593 2011-06-27 10:52:21 <BlueMatt> yea, that is a problem, care to do something about it?
594 2011-06-27 10:53:05 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: alot of the major problem could be fixed by fixing addr.dat node selection and adding pruning i think
595 2011-06-27 10:53:12 <jrmithdobbs> though the latter wont be helpful (maybe even make things worse) until enough nodes have upgraded as old nodes will just continue to spam out every addr that's ever connected to the network
596 2011-06-27 10:53:41 <jrmithdobbs> i don't have time right now, i've looked at it a bit :(
597 2011-06-27 10:54:01 <sipa> BlueMatt: a listener framework, where there is one central part (the block database), to which other classes subscribe to receive notifications about new blocks/reorga/new tx's/..., so p2p, rpc, gui, monitoring stuff, could become completely separate components only communicating though that hub
598 2011-06-27 10:54:04 <sacarlson> (07:50:00 PM) BlueMatt: that is the only problem, you have to get miners on bitcoin main chain to accept side chain in coinbase,  and how do I go about doing such a thing and why would they be motivated to partisipate?
599 2011-06-27 10:54:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: and something similar for wallets probably, where only rpc and gui connect to
600 2011-06-27 10:54:39 <b4epoche> jrmithdobbs:  where should I be seeing the slowness of bdb on osx?
601 2011-06-27 10:54:40 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: well, you just need some major set of miners, it doesnt effect them in any significant way, just adds a bit more net traffic on their bitcoind...
602 2011-06-27 10:55:05 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: watch the io-ops/s on addr.dat, wallet.dat, and database/*log
603 2011-06-27 10:55:16 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: it's not "slow" it just writes something crazy like 300MB/hr
604 2011-06-27 10:55:32 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: well, that's not "slow" for me anyways, thnx ssd
605 2011-06-27 10:55:35 <sacarlson> BlueMatt:  sorry I just don't think I would have the power to do anything like that,  but I'll still look into it
606 2011-06-27 10:55:59 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: *on an idle client*
607 2011-06-27 10:56:00 <b4epoche> I built bdb4.8 myself and got that working...  the macports version was giving db loading errors on db's it created
608 2011-06-27 10:56:31 <b4epoche> so, does bdb5.1 fix that, or are people thinking some sql implementation?
609 2011-06-27 10:57:02 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea been thinking something similar, you get libclient which handles a wallet, which subscribes to the central thing, then launches net which gets blocks/txes etc, then all uis just connect to a libclient
610 2011-06-27 10:57:05 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I'm not even sure I can get an escrow trasaction into a minner let alone a linked chain but I know very little
611 2011-06-27 10:57:26 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: well if you implement it, Im sure many miners would jump on board
612 2011-06-27 10:57:40 <sipa> BlueMatt: main advantage is that all components become interchangable with alternatives
613 2011-06-27 10:57:41 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: at least one or two of the big pools would, which would be enough
614 2011-06-27 10:58:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: yep, though I prefer to see main advantage as ease of making new uis and new program which subscribes to central notification lib
615 2011-06-27 10:58:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: which is for unit tests very useful, you could create two dummy memory-only wallets connected to the same hub, and do some transactions
616 2011-06-27 10:58:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: that too
617 2011-06-27 10:59:12 <sipa> and indeed just decreasing the barrier to create a new/alternative component
618 2011-06-27 10:59:29 <b4epoche> jrmithdobbs: I'm not seeing any disk activity on my idle client (although I can't remember how to watch specific file disk activity), I'm seeing between 0 and 10 KB/s on an otherwise idle system.
619 2011-06-27 11:00:21 <Optimo> wishes do come true. the board is nearly all green :)
620 2011-06-27 11:00:36 <b4epoche> eh?
621 2011-06-27 11:01:06 <Optimo> bitcoincharts.com
622 2011-06-27 11:01:18 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: i'd have to look again, but it's definitely doing excessive writes. someone was in here a day or two ago profiling it and providing numbers
623 2011-06-27 11:01:23 <pasky> aaw, no reaction to my pull request
624 2011-06-27 11:01:45 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: look through the public logs
625 2011-06-27 11:01:47 <Optimo> I was mumbling yesteday ...best thing for bitcoin after mtgox reopens would be all green tickers
626 2011-06-27 11:01:59 <b4epoche> ah...
627 2011-06-27 11:02:06 <b4epoche> Optimo:  you see p/m?
628 2011-06-27 11:02:13 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: btw, gmaxwell has some work in-progress related to better peer selection, once he's got that sorted pruning is trivial
629 2011-06-27 11:03:30 <b4epoche> so, how are the trading volumes?  mtgox back to normal?  th take a hit?
630 2011-06-27 11:06:05 <BlueMatt> mtgox no where near back to normal
631 2011-06-27 11:07:08 <doublec> trading a normal range though
632 2011-06-27 11:09:06 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r105 /trunk/pom.xml: Checked in extra POM code. Patch by Gary Rowe.
633 2011-06-27 11:11:13 <b4epoche> is there a way to search logs?
634 2011-06-27 11:12:05 <minus> grep <search term here> moddata/logs/#bitcoin-dev* :D
635 2011-06-27 11:13:12 <b4epoche> online logs
636 2011-06-27 11:13:28 <sacarlson> jrmithdobbs: BlueMatt: I read that article again http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7219.0  and all point to the fact that there is no way that a side chain will be free.  It continues to point out the fact that the minners have and will continue to rase fee's.   I must be missing something in this about some way to free link transactions into bitcoin.
637 2011-06-27 11:14:38 <upb> sacarlson: btw why are you doing stuff like creating weeds and beers ?
638 2011-06-27 11:14:42 <upb> whats the point
639 2011-06-27 11:15:14 <sacarlson> upb:  see http://www.beertokens.info
640 2011-06-27 11:15:35 <sacarlson> upb: as well as having other networks with other features
641 2011-06-27 11:16:04 <sacarlson> upb: different transaction speeds, escrow ...
642 2011-06-27 11:16:47 <sacarlson> upb: and why not?
643 2011-06-27 11:18:21 <upb> ok i read it :)
644 2011-06-27 11:18:30 <upb> its very different from bitcoin
645 2011-06-27 11:18:59 <upb> i would say that the beers are more fair than bitcoin in terms of inital distribution
646 2011-06-27 11:19:03 <sacarlson> upb: it's just another concept, maybe not THE concept
647 2011-06-27 11:20:37 <knotwork> I like the idea of freecoin's configurability though last time I looked at it I wasnt sure if it supported the variants I have been using
648 2011-06-27 11:21:05 <sacarlson> knotwork: what variants might those be?
649 2011-06-27 11:21:40 <sacarlson> knotwork: if there are others we would like to add them
650 2011-06-27 11:21:45 <knotwork> mine are same as -testnet except for the genesis block
651 2011-06-27 11:21:56 <sacarlson> knotwork: yes then they will work
652 2011-06-27 11:22:07 <knotwork> it wasnt clear to me of freecoin allows the halving of number of coins issued each X number of blocks
653 2011-06-27 11:22:25 <knotwork> as notes only explicitly mentioned having one point at which number issued changes
654 2011-06-27 11:22:40 <sacarlson> knotwork: it has other controls but you don't have to change them if you don't want to
655 2011-06-27 11:23:04 <knotwork> well it looks like it might be useful to mess with the number issued actually
656 2011-06-27 11:23:24 <knotwork> as I just made very trivial changes to support the new coin types I created
657 2011-06-27 11:23:26 <sacarlson> knotwork: give me your root block and I'll add a config file to support it
658 2011-06-27 11:24:01 <sacarlson> knotwork: then you will be able to do your chain and all the other with just one software
659 2011-06-27 11:24:10 <knotwork> and it looks like some of the Freeciv Galactic Milieu nations might actually prefer to mint most of their coins fast so they can open up their network to tom dick and harry
660 2011-06-27 11:24:39 <sacarlson> knotwork: sure any why they wish it to be
661 2011-06-27 11:25:10 <knotwork> that is the problem you see, these "nations" do not want to release their root block details because they do not want to have to "back" coins minted by tom dick and harry
662 2011-06-27 11:25:12 <sacarlson> knotwork: and we hope to make even small networks secure as they are not yet
663 2011-06-27 11:25:50 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: jrmithdobbs I see no mention of fees there
664 2011-06-27 11:25:51 <sacarlson> knotwork: you can't mint them even if you wanted to once minted
665 2011-06-27 11:26:25 <knotwork> yes the problem is in each coming up with one policy and sticking to it
666 2011-06-27 11:26:35 <upb> haha how can a bitcoin based currency depend on the secrecy of the root block!?
667 2011-06-27 11:26:42 <upb> every client must have it anyway
668 2011-06-27 11:27:03 <knotwork> the current system will only really work if they keep their networks private for several years before opening up mining to "outsiders" / "foreigners"
669 2011-06-27 11:27:30 <knotwork> upb, currently it works by only branches of that nation's bank having a thick clients
670 2011-06-27 11:27:46 <upb> oh
671 2011-06-27 11:28:04 <knotwork> in theory eventually all the nations throughout the galaxies could all help secure each others banking networks
672 2011-06-27 11:28:14 <knotwork> but initially there is not enough trust for that
673 2011-06-27 11:28:18 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: I counted the number of the word fee in the article it comes out to 33 times
674 2011-06-27 11:28:32 <knotwork> so each "nation" keeps its interstellar banking network links secret from others
675 2011-06-27 11:28:50 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, thats some other guy's subsequent post. the actual article TD wrote has fee once
676 2011-06-27 11:28:59 <knotwork> banking is done by things such as e.g. /msg nickebot help
677 2011-06-27 11:29:14 <knotwork> oops I mean /msg nickelbot help
678 2011-06-27 11:29:20 <sacarlson> BlueMatt: well I read all the links to the article then not just the top one
679 2011-06-27 11:29:41 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: well the post by goblin is incorrect, Im really not sure what hes even talking about
680 2011-06-27 11:29:49 <knotwork> I have a server that has daemons for each nation's currency, the bots thus can work with any of the currencies on behalf of the players
681 2011-06-27 11:30:04 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, hm? which one?
682 2011-06-27 11:30:21 <knotwork> most players dont even run a daemon, so only mining is my ancient CPU mining 8 or so currencies at once
683 2011-06-27 11:30:28 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: actually, no, hes talking about something unrelated to alternate chains, hes talking about something that can be done with them, not about them themselves
684 2011-06-27 11:30:39 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: no goblin not UukGoblin http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=7219.msg106194#msg106194
685 2011-06-27 11:30:58 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, it's me
686 2011-06-27 11:31:45 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: oh, well in any case, its a use of the alternative chains, not the chains themselves hence sacarlson's confusion
687 2011-06-27 11:31:46 <knotwork> these currencies are somewhat like beertokens in being similar to shares of a trust
688 2011-06-27 11:32:08 <knotwork> nickelbot keeps for each currency accounts in each other currency
689 2011-06-27 11:32:09 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, I'm talking there (and around there) about a timestamping service that wouldn't need any alternative chains. p2p dns could be based upon this timestamping service too, imho
690 2011-06-27 11:32:24 <knotwork> so it knows how many of each type have been used to buy which other type
691 2011-06-27 11:32:55 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: yep, and that particular post is unrelated to alternative chains, but could be a use of alternative chains
692 2011-06-27 11:32:55 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, I was proposing to drop the idea of alternative chains altogether. The main chain is good enough.
693 2011-06-27 11:33:05 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, yes, correct
694 2011-06-27 11:33:11 <knotwork> that results in a kind of federal reserve for each currency, its collection of all the various other types that it has bought and that it can thus use to buy itself back, "backing" itself in terms of all the others
695 2011-06-27 11:33:12 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: no, alternative chains are a 1000x times better way of doing it
696 2011-06-27 11:33:13 <UukGoblin> (more or less)
697 2011-06-27 11:33:37 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, I disagree
698 2011-06-27 11:33:49 <BlueMatt> satoshi, me, and TD agree here ;)
699 2011-06-27 11:34:10 <BlueMatt> and I really dont feel like debating this with you for the 10th time
700 2011-06-27 11:34:15 <UukGoblin> satoshi not directly, and I've got nanotube and theymos and gavin agreeing with me
701 2011-06-27 11:34:19 <knotwork> for example if britcoins were used to buy beertokens, the brit bank would thus have beertokens with which it could "back" its britcoins
702 2011-06-27 11:34:25 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, yeah, let's not
703 2011-06-27 11:34:42 <BlueMatt> no, youve got everyone agreeing that its impossible to prevent, not that its a better solution
704 2011-06-27 11:35:17 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, that's gavin, actually
705 2011-06-27 11:35:35 <UukGoblin> the two former guys agreed it's better, or at least seemed to a few months ago
706 2011-06-27 11:35:44 <UukGoblin> anyway :-X
707 2011-06-27 11:35:58 <BlueMatt> anyway, doesnt matter
708 2011-06-27 11:37:18 <sacarlson> UukGoblin: so you mean that they will never allow alternate chains linked into bitcoins?
709 2011-06-27 11:37:32 <BlueMatt> sacarlson: no, thats not what he said
710 2011-06-27 11:37:55 <MrSam> hello world
711 2011-06-27 11:38:20 <BlueMatt> alternative chains are an elegant solution to having alternate bitcoin-style chains and not effect mainline bitcoin chain at all
712 2011-06-27 11:38:48 <BlueMatt> or you could do as UukGoblin suggests and just fill the main chain with a shitton of random data and pay a fee for each one
713 2011-06-27 11:39:27 <knotwork> sacarlson your beertokens jump us instantly into the future time when the only reward for mining is fees. I think most of my "nations" had in mind to just do more of a gradual rollout where initially they "back" the coins then some day in the future, possibly, they might open ming and it would still have some minting involved even then
714 2011-06-27 11:40:30 <knotwork> sacarlson basically they didnt want to honour other people's coins initially, they wanted to honour their own and build reserves of everyone else's with which to do so
715 2011-06-27 11:41:05 <knotwork> sacarlson I guess basically they bought into the mises theory that initially a currency has to actually buy something to have value
716 2011-06-27 11:41:28 <sacarlson> knotwork: ya like beer
717 2011-06-27 11:41:32 <knotwork> sacarlson so they all want their "nation" to have something to trade, and sell it for their own coins
718 2011-06-27 11:41:51 <sacarlson> knotwork: and that's what I'm going to go buy right now,  thanks for all the chat all
719 2011-06-27 11:41:52 <knotwork> yes like beer, but you did beer since then, but Italian nation for example might do wine
720 2011-06-27 11:43:39 <b4epoche> I think he's got the Jamaican's covered
721 2011-06-27 11:43:45 <knotwork> :)
722 2011-06-27 11:43:49 <knotwork> ya mon
723 2011-06-27 11:44:26 <xtalmath> Yesterdat I asked a few questions regarding user privileges, and was referred to SELinux, now WikiPedia's SELinux entry states: "(SELinux has been integrated into version 2.6 series of the Linux  kernel, and separate patches are now unnecessary; the above is a  historical quote.)" Does this mean Ubuntu 10.04 has SELinux builtin? is it enabled or does it have to be enabled?
724 2011-06-27 11:44:36 <knotwork> in the Freeciv Galactic Milieu they were thinking mostly of selling tehnologies, settler units, starships, military units, maybe even planets or peace treaties etc
725 2011-06-27 11:45:02 <UukGoblin> knotwork, for bitcoins?
726 2011-06-27 11:45:46 <knotwork> UukGoblin in Freeciv is a nation categorised as fictional, known as Hackers. it is to that nation we attribute satoshi's "original" bitcoins
727 2011-06-27 11:46:12 <knotwork> from Hackers, the Martians gained the technology; it is not expected that Martian Botcoins will be as valued as Bitcoins
728 2011-06-27 11:46:40 <knotwork> Martians in turn have given the technology to others, who in turn as in some cases as far below Martians in tech as Martians are below hackers
729 2011-06-27 11:47:03 <knotwork> so those other nations' coins are not expected to be valued as highly as Martian Botcoins
730 2011-06-27 11:47:42 <UukGoblin> that doesn't really answer my question... but nvmd ;-]
731 2011-06-27 11:48:11 <knotwork> doubtless many people having any of the other types of coins would love to trade them for bitcoins
732 2011-06-27 11:48:22 <xtalmath> nm: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features#selinux
733 2011-06-27 11:48:32 <knotwork> but, how much would they likely get in bitcoins for their coins?
734 2011-06-27 11:49:21 <knotwork> typically a game would cost a few bucks every once in a while, either a monthly subscription or an occasional blowing of a few bucks for a whole bunch of game-resources
735 2011-06-27 11:49:47 <knotwork> so it is expected bitcoins would only come into the system in small quantities compared to the amount of game-currency flowing in the games
736 2011-06-27 11:53:00 <knotwork> the markets to and from bitcoins would probably be very jagged, and in lumps, like "1 bitcoin for such and such a spaceship" followed by players running around trying to be first to come up with whatever someone has offered bitcoins for
737 2011-06-27 11:55:21 <knotwork> part of the game will be how to sufficiently commoditise some product or service to be able to build a reliable market for it in terms of the various curruencies, hopefully incuding bitcoins as well as beertokens etc
738 2011-06-27 12:05:39 <upb> xtalmath: btw i found a solution for 26 23:10 < xtalmath> not good enough, I ask for a collision X,Y SHA256(X)=SHA256(Y)
739 2011-06-27 12:06:14 <vegard> X=Y :-P
740 2011-06-27 12:06:23 <upb> you ruined it but yes :)
741 2011-06-27 12:06:35 <vegard> oops.
742 2011-06-27 12:07:00 <upb> he promised to give all his BTC if anyone finds a solution lol :)
743 2011-06-27 12:07:39 <vegard> what time is it now?
744 2011-06-27 12:07:45 <MrSam> 16:07:39 < vegard> what time is it now?
745 2011-06-27 12:07:51 <MrSam> or do you mean
746 2011-06-27 12:07:54 <MrSam> 'Time to party?'
747 2011-06-27 12:08:01 <vegard> upb: what time is it now?
748 2011-06-27 12:08:12 <MrSam> :P
749 2011-06-27 12:08:19 <vegard> MrSam: that doesn't help, I want to find out when xtalmath wrote that :-P
750 2011-06-27 12:08:50 <MrSam> everyone should have unix timestamp in their irc clients
751 2011-06-27 12:09:16 <upb> vegard: 17:09
752 2011-06-27 12:09:48 <upb> better use CTCP TIME :)
753 2011-06-27 12:09:54 <upb> btw someone screwed up http://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/order-book/#
754 2011-06-27 12:10:03 <upb> binds are in wrong direction
755 2011-06-27 12:10:04 <vegard> I didn't know about that!
756 2011-06-27 12:10:38 <upb> bids*
757 2011-06-27 12:11:12 <knotwork> the latest trunk svn of bitcoind has some upnp thing in it, is there a way to turn off that dependency? commenting out the stuff about it in makefile.unix donest actually stop code from trying to use it in some kind of serialisation step
758 2011-06-27 12:11:16 <mtrlt> upb: hmm? seems right to me
759 2011-06-27 12:12:11 <doublec> knotwork: make -f makefile.unix USE_UPNP=
760 2011-06-27 12:12:27 <knotwork> ahh thanks
761 2011-06-27 12:12:28 <doublec> knotwork: will disable it during build
762 2011-06-27 12:12:39 <upb> mtrlt: for me it shows small bids at top
763 2011-06-27 12:12:49 <mtrlt> upb: what browser? :P
764 2011-06-27 12:12:52 <mtrlt> i use chrome
765 2011-06-27 12:12:53 <upb> ff4
766 2011-06-27 12:12:58 <mtrlt> chrome 12
767 2011-06-27 12:13:25 <upb> yeah so javascript sorting is buggy in ff4 when dealing with bids :)
768 2011-06-27 12:13:32 <knotwork> nope, it still tries to link to it
769 2011-06-27 12:14:10 <knotwork> I did make -f makefile.unix USE_PNP= bitcoind
770 2011-06-27 12:14:24 <knotwork> but it died trying to link a pnp library
771 2011-06-27 12:14:44 <upb> hmm works now on refresh but no order execution is shown
772 2011-06-27 12:15:16 <b4epoche_> knotwork:  you can edit the makefile
773 2011-06-27 12:15:58 <knotwork> yeah I tried, I commented out all the defines about it, but still some serialise / unserialise code mentioned it and died
774 2011-06-27 12:16:12 <upb> yep i noticed that too :)
775 2011-06-27 12:16:47 <b4epoche_> I've notice that some compilers take a very liberal view of defined()
776 2011-06-27 12:17:06 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r106 /trunk/README: Update README to talk about Maven.
777 2011-06-27 12:17:18 <knotwork> /usr/src/bitcoin/trunk/db.cpp:811: undefined reference to `fUseUPnP'
778 2011-06-27 12:17:22 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r107 /trunk/pom.xml: Attempt to exclude Bouncy Castle from javadocs/coverage reports. Doesn't work for coverage for some reason.