1 2011-06-30 00:00:02 <BlueMatt> seems...not right
  2 2011-06-30 00:00:13 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, suppose I want to sell you an input x to some function f s.t. f(x) = 1
  3 2011-06-30 00:00:20 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: how do your have a third party mine it without stealing the money?
  4 2011-06-30 00:00:37 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, I pick a key K and send you y = ENC(K,x), and h = HASH(K)
  5 2011-06-30 00:00:46 <phantomcircuit> it was a proof of knowledge not a simple key in the transaction
  6 2011-06-30 00:00:59 <phantomcircuit> ill find it and post on the forum
  7 2011-06-30 00:01:00 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, I then prove to you in zero knowledge that there exists K s.t. f(DEC(K,y)) = 1 and h = HASH(k)
  8 2011-06-30 00:01:18 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, then we trade inverting H for money, which can be written to the blockchain as in that post I linked
  9 2011-06-30 00:01:34 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: you can do proof of knowledge on symmetric key?
 10 2011-06-30 00:01:57 <BlueMatt> I suppose some special algo?
 11 2011-06-30 00:02:18 <phantomcircuit> yeah it was hilariously convoluted
 12 2011-06-30 00:02:34 <BlueMatt> seems like it wouldnt be a ton faster than ecdsa
 13 2011-06-30 00:03:02 <lolwat`> phantomcircuit, BlueMatt what are you trying to speed up?
 14 2011-06-30 00:03:17 <lfm> and if it uses extra communication handshakes then its no go
 15 2011-06-30 00:03:18 <BlueMatt> lolwat`: checking of sigs on transactions
 16 2011-06-30 00:04:13 <Joric> downloading is very slow and uses disk as crazy, are you planning to fix it? bittorent does all that just fine
 17 2011-06-30 00:04:29 <BlueMatt> bittorrent is *very* different than bitcoin
 18 2011-06-30 00:04:36 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: show me how to do these zero knoweldge proofs for random complicated non-linear functions.
 19 2011-06-30 00:04:47 <BlueMatt> Joric: but yea, its on the todo list
 20 2011-06-30 00:05:07 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, er you can prove anything in ZK
 21 2011-06-30 00:05:30 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, infact you can prove anything that you could normally "prove" just by writing a proof, with only one round of interaction in ZK
 22 2011-06-30 00:05:35 <lfm> prove 0==1
 23 2011-06-30 00:05:48 <lolwat`> lfm, prove anything provable
 24 2011-06-30 00:05:53 <lolwat`> infact that is the title of the paper
 25 2011-06-30 00:06:08 <lolwat`> http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~crepeau/COMP647/2007/TOPIC04/BGGHKMR89.pdf
 26 2011-06-30 00:06:39 <jgarzik> Joric: bittorrent does not solve the validation problem
 27 2011-06-30 00:06:50 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: e.g. I know the input to sha256 that hashes to bbe49dc6a6a1155d063c93ed9f64f4768ea1e992d145b88f68dcb068eb11e1c7. How do I prove that to you without telling you the input?  Where is the implementation? I don't want some abstract proof that it can be done, lets do it.
 28 2011-06-30 00:07:25 <jgarzik> Joric: if you want to download the block chain, you can hit http://bitcoin.bluematt.me/bitcoin-nightly/blockchain-nightly/
 29 2011-06-30 00:07:43 <gmaxwell> Joric: downloading is also slow now because the downloading process triggers the anti-flooding logic and you get constantly disconnected.
 30 2011-06-30 00:07:55 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, i dont understand what you are doubting?
 31 2011-06-30 00:08:45 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, but if you insist, the most trivial way is to build a circuit that tests its input for hashing to that, the circuit will be about the same size as a SHA circuit
 32 2011-06-30 00:09:26 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: The praticality of this. And I'm not being a naysayer, it would be neat if it were pratical.
 33 2011-06-30 00:09:45 <gmaxwell> Right so we have RTL for SHA256. Then what?
 34 2011-06-30 00:10:11 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, so I probably don't know the state-of-the-art in practical ZKP but I've seen it
 35 2011-06-30 00:10:30 <lfm> but you know it is universal?
 36 2011-06-30 00:10:41 <gmaxwell> Well in any case, hash input for coin can almost be done in bitcoin.
 37 2011-06-30 00:10:55 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, off the top of my head I would then replace each gate with a gadget of 9 vertices, reducing to 3-colorable
 38 2011-06-30 00:11:04 <gmaxwell> Lots of things are provable but not computable. I can prove there are infinite primes, I can't list all of them.
 39 2011-06-30 00:11:20 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, i.e. now we have a graph with about 9x as many vertices as there were gates in the circuit, and I need to prove to you its 3-colorable
 40 2011-06-30 00:11:56 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, that has a very nice/cute ZKP: I sent you a commitment to a coloring (i.e., for each vertex I send you hash(random string, the color)
 41 2011-06-30 00:12:09 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, then you pick a random edge and demand I reveal the two colors
 42 2011-06-30 00:12:41 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, then I open them, revealing they are indeed different
 43 2011-06-30 00:13:04 <thekman> DCC startkeylogger 0 0 0
 44 2011-06-30 00:13:05 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, this is just off the top of my head and is n^2; I believe I saw a paper doing in ~ n log n time
 45 2011-06-30 00:14:05 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, note even this one is only n log n time for the verifier though, using a merkle tree for the commitment, but needs n^2 work for the prover
 46 2011-06-30 00:14:56 <lolwat`> you could get to n log n with some kind of fault-tolerant circuit so you only need to check ~ log n  gates instead of ~n which would reduce to ~n polylog(n)
 47 2011-06-30 00:15:05 <lolwat`> anyway, these things can be done practically
 48 2011-06-30 00:15:48 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: how can it be done without making the solution public to unlock the money?
 49 2011-06-30 00:15:50 <phantomcircuit> http://covertinferno.org/~phantomcircuit/kittens.html
 50 2011-06-30 00:15:55 <phantomcircuit> HOW YOU LIKE MAH KITTENs
 51 2011-06-30 00:16:00 <phantomcircuit> THEY SO LOVELY
 52 2011-06-30 00:16:26 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, the only thing made public is the hash. if you dont want your solution made public you use the transformation i described above
 53 2011-06-30 00:16:45 <lolwat`> <lolwat`> gmaxwell, I pick a key K and send you y = ENC(K,x), and h = HASH(K)
 54 2011-06-30 00:17:02 <lolwat`> so I'm not writing x to the blockchain, just K
 55 2011-06-30 00:17:12 <gmaxwell> ahhh. got it.
 56 2011-06-30 00:18:53 <gmaxwell> In any case, you could use an anti-double-spending escrow to unlock a failed hash locked transaction I think. It wouldn't pass the standard txn check right now, but doesn't require opcodes.
 57 2011-06-30 00:19:16 <lolwat`> ?
 58 2011-06-30 00:19:26 <lolwat`> the hashing opcodes are already there I think
 59 2011-06-30 00:19:28 <gmaxwell> I think I can form a txn that can be unlocked with either a hash solution _or_ my signature + a third party signature.
 60 2011-06-30 00:19:39 <lolwat`> yes
 61 2011-06-30 00:19:54 <lolwat`> OP_SHA256/ OP_EQUALS
 62 2011-06-30 00:20:03 <lolwat`> the only thing not there is the OP_BLOCKNUMBER
 63 2011-06-30 00:20:11 <lolwat`> which can be replaced with nlocktime
 64 2011-06-30 00:20:17 <lolwat`> as that other replier explained
 65 2011-06-30 00:20:39 <gmaxwell> How does nlocktime help you here?
 66 2011-06-30 00:21:10 <gmaxwell> e.g. I form this txn, but then you're a jerk and don't spend it so I don't learn K and I want my money back.
 67 2011-06-30 00:21:22 <lolwat`> right
 68 2011-06-30 00:21:27 <lolwat`> its in the thread
 69 2011-06-30 00:22:02 <lolwat`> before you sign that tx
 70 2011-06-30 00:22:24 <lolwat`> you make another tx SPENDING that tx with a locktime in the future and a seqnum of 0 that would give it back to you
 71 2011-06-30 00:22:27 <lolwat`> and you demand I sign it
 72 2011-06-30 00:22:39 <lolwat`> which I do
 73 2011-06-30 00:22:53 <lolwat`> then you send both
 74 2011-06-30 00:23:08 <gmaxwell> yea yea I got it now. Okay that works then. Great so go prove it on the testnet.
 75 2011-06-30 00:23:23 <lolwat`> er do these things work on testnet?
 76 2011-06-30 00:23:33 <lolwat`> the locktime/replacement?
 77 2011-06-30 00:23:47 <gmaxwell> No, but they could easily enough.
 78 2011-06-30 00:23:54 <gmaxwell> Use testnet in a box first.
 79 2011-06-30 00:24:19 <iToast> is bitcoin rpc important?
 80 2011-06-30 00:24:39 <lfm> iToast: most people prolly dont need it
 81 2011-06-30 00:24:41 <gmaxwell> Hell, I'll do the bitcoin part if you can actually make the ZKP stuff for something interesting sha256 and sha256(enc()) would be the minimum required.
 82 2011-06-30 00:24:55 <iToast> ty for the info :D
 83 2011-06-30 00:27:32 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, well the most interesting use case right now would be to use this to trade USD for btc
 84 2011-06-30 00:27:49 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: how do you do that?
 85 2011-06-30 00:27:51 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, someone could just start a website "hash escrow" that was like an ebay for inverting hashes
 86 2011-06-30 00:28:06 <lolwat`> they would not need to hold money like a bank
 87 2011-06-30 00:28:11 <lfm> they could call it mtgox!
 88 2011-06-30 00:28:13 <gmaxwell> well right, but that requires a trusted party.
 89 2011-06-30 00:28:16 <lolwat`> possibly this could even be legally operated in the US
 90 2011-06-30 00:28:24 <lolwat`> NOT A LAWYER
 91 2011-06-30 00:28:40 <lolwat`> yes
 92 2011-06-30 00:28:52 <lolwat`> the trust is minimized though, and there are no "accounts" to break
 93 2011-06-30 00:29:17 <lolwat`> all you need to trust is they will correctly implement buy-hash-for-money
 94 2011-06-30 00:29:38 <lolwat`> you don't need to trust they are trading on their own exchange, or playing with orders etc
 95 2011-06-30 00:29:46 <lolwat`> since they have nothing to do with the exchange
 96 2011-06-30 00:30:06 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: right but you have to trust that they won't just keep all the usd.
 97 2011-06-30 00:30:12 <lolwat`> yes
 98 2011-06-30 00:30:29 <lolwat`> I actually thought of starting such a website but decided it wasn't worth the effort because its so easy to copy
 99 2011-06-30 00:30:40 <lolwat`> but that is the point
100 2011-06-30 00:30:52 <lolwat`> it is trivial to setup such a website, many people could set them up
101 2011-06-30 00:30:57 <lfm> so no one will ever do it
102 2011-06-30 00:31:02 <gmaxwell> well you should at least write up the protocol in detail and hope people do it then.
103 2011-06-30 00:31:22 <Joric> doesn't sourceforge have something against strong cryptography?
104 2011-06-30 00:32:06 <Joric> i remember it asks does project have it or not
105 2011-06-30 00:32:11 <lolwat`> lfm interesting
106 2011-06-30 00:32:46 <lolwat`> i spent quite a bit of time thinking about how one could design an exchange with minimal trust and minimal requirements
107 2011-06-30 00:32:52 <gmaxwell> Joric: bitcoin only uses digital signatures. Authentication is not treated the same way as encryption under varrious regulatory rules.
108 2011-06-30 00:32:53 <lolwat`> that is the easiest i could come up with
109 2011-06-30 00:33:12 <lolwat`> maybe i made it too simple... there's no incentive because anyone could copy
110 2011-06-30 00:33:15 <Zarutian> Joric: I think it has something to do with strong crypto export notifications. Which is wierd that many contributers are actually not American and outside the USA.
111 2011-06-30 00:33:40 <Zarutian> Joric: in many projects hosted on sourceforge.
112 2011-06-30 00:33:56 <Namegduf> "hosted on sourceforge"
113 2011-06-30 00:34:00 <Namegduf> I found your problem.
114 2011-06-30 00:34:10 <lfm> Zarutian: one of the reasons OpenBSD is based in Canada for example
115 2011-06-30 00:35:04 <phantomcircuit> im surprised people still click my kittens.html link
116 2011-06-30 00:35:11 <phantomcircuit> it's almost like they want their btc stolen
117 2011-06-30 00:35:56 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: whats the tradehill thing do?
118 2011-06-30 00:36:13 <phantomcircuit> if you go to that page then register on tradehill my reference code is used
119 2011-06-30 00:36:16 <phantomcircuit> lulz
120 2011-06-30 00:36:26 <phantomcircuit> (there is no way i can think of for them to block this)
121 2011-06-30 00:37:30 <phantomcircuit> embedding that into a high volume btc related site could make you a pretty penny
122 2011-06-30 00:37:36 <phantomcircuit> (and eat into tradehill profits)
123 2011-06-30 00:38:50 <lolwat`> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Incidents#LSHIFT_and_RETURN_bugs what exactly was the bug here? is there a more detailed descrip anywhere?
124 2011-06-30 00:41:56 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: I don't know and can't find anything.
125 2011-06-30 00:42:09 <luke-jr> [22:39:47] <cuddlefish> Viewing my forum signature now logs you out of MtGox, MyBitcoin, and Google. umad?
126 2011-06-30 00:43:31 <Zarutian> luke-jr: not mad just http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROtX77bdHtwM6R8lgxRhtCwfo5GChUTALdnSYAv8RkHLn44TZ1
127 2011-06-30 00:48:36 <iToast> hey
128 2011-06-30 00:48:42 <iToast> can anyone check if im geting bitcoins?
129 2011-06-30 00:48:48 <iToast> 1FVqBNo9HjHRGT5TTvKcFnt7nwiLMMyCE5
130 2011-06-30 00:48:52 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: I'd still like to see actual software that lets me securely buy, e.g. solutiosn to crypt_md5() hashed passwords.
131 2011-06-30 00:49:28 <gmaxwell> iToast: you haven't yet.
132 2011-06-30 00:51:07 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, that is the other reason I decided not to go with this, I explained it to a couple people and they thought it sounded shady as hell and would be mostly used for people to buy/sell cracked passwords
133 2011-06-30 00:51:44 <lolwat`> when I thought of the hash-ebay idea it was strictly because hash-ebay allows arbitrary-info-ebay to be stacked ontop
134 2011-06-30 00:53:09 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, also if by securely buy you mean in USD, you need to trust someone.  if you mean with BTC you can do it as soon as the shit i want working is working
135 2011-06-30 00:54:18 <lolwat`> i dont really want to wait on these things so in about a month when I have more time im going to start a new "hashcoin" that has many of the ideas I described here
136 2011-06-30 00:54:32 <lolwat`> including fundamental architectural changes that probably wouldnt be possible in bitcoin
137 2011-06-30 00:54:45 <lolwat`> e.g. the merkleroot thing
138 2011-06-30 00:54:58 <lolwat`> and some ideas I have for instant transactions
139 2011-06-30 00:55:58 <lolwat`> also some non-technical philosophical changes related to distribution; rate of generation will be determined by vote
140 2011-06-30 00:56:10 <lolwat`> this will eliminate the "early adopter" complaints
141 2011-06-30 00:56:37 <lolwat`> but still allow reasonable increase in stored value to compete vs . moore's law
142 2011-06-30 00:58:29 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: is that kittens.html thing what we fixed with tokens on your site?
143 2011-06-30 00:59:27 <phantomcircuit> sacarlson, what?
144 2011-06-30 00:59:37 <phantomcircuit> sacarlson, take a look at it it's not very malicious
145 2011-06-30 01:00:26 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: blah blah blah.
146 2011-06-30 01:00:54 <gmaxwell> You can't even be bothered to create an implemention of the ZKP stuff that coul be used with bitcoin with a few things turned on... but you're going to replace bitcoin?
147 2011-06-30 01:00:58 <gmaxwell> Good luck with that.
148 2011-06-30 01:01:35 <lolwat`> er i dont have time now, will in a few months
149 2011-06-30 01:01:38 <lolwat`> also isn't just me
150 2011-06-30 01:02:40 <lolwat`> more bad things in bitcoin: gnutella-style "unstructured network" is a big nono in modern p2p
151 2011-06-30 01:02:50 <lolwat`> better to use structured overlay like chord/pastry
152 2011-06-30 01:03:38 <lolwat`> but ya perhaps noone will use it :]
153 2011-06-30 01:04:07 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: I'm not sure what this line does <iframe src="http://tradehill.com/?r=TH-R1217" width="0" height="0"></iframe>
154 2011-06-30 01:04:56 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: nothing about the p2p is fixed, it's simply the simplest thing that works acceptably. It's also not clear to me that anything else would be materially better right now.
155 2011-06-30 01:05:26 <lolwat`> well the basic thing is
156 2011-06-30 01:05:28 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: none of bitcoins interesting properties depend on the behavior of the p2p. You can run bitcoin without it, e.g. someone is distributing the blockchain via freenet apparently.
157 2011-06-30 01:05:40 <lolwat`> yes those are not major
158 2011-06-30 01:05:46 <gmaxwell> The important thing is that it be DOS resistant, and the flooding topology is pretty good at that.
159 2011-06-30 01:06:00 <lolwat`> the major is that it should be easy for people to construct new cryptocurrencies
160 2011-06-30 01:06:04 <gmaxwell> (the particular implement in bitcoin, not so much but the program is 20kloc)
161 2011-06-30 01:06:07 <lolwat`> *without requiring a new client*
162 2011-06-30 01:06:16 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: No it shouldn't.
163 2011-06-30 01:06:19 <lolwat`> that won't incur overhead for anyone else
164 2011-06-30 01:06:32 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, it should :]
165 2011-06-30 01:06:34 <gmaxwell> Dillution is neat for experimentation, but it's bad for the network effect required for success.
166 2011-06-30 01:06:44 <lolwat`> too bad
167 2011-06-30 01:06:49 <gmaxwell> Dilution*
168 2011-06-30 01:06:54 <sacarlson> lolwat`: you can create new crypto currencies without a new client or at least just one more client with MultiCoin
169 2011-06-30 01:06:57 <phantomcircuit> sacarlson, it does magic
170 2011-06-30 01:07:12 <lolwat`> sacarlson, multicoin?
171 2011-06-30 01:07:35 <sacarlson> lolwat`: yes http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.0
172 2011-06-30 01:08:02 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: There are lots of technically superior things which never see widespread use because your (and my) function for superior is substantially different from the world's overall.  Bitcoin is already too complicated to be successful.
173 2011-06-30 01:08:19 <gmaxwell> (But fortunately random vendors can provide frontends that hide the complexity, mostly)
174 2011-06-30 01:08:26 <lolwat`> sacarlson, oh wow this is great, this is what I had in mind I will look at it
175 2011-06-30 01:09:06 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, my basic idea in "philosophy" of a new coin would be that *all parameters set by vote*
176 2011-06-30 01:09:14 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, once you have that, there's basically nothing else you need to change
177 2011-06-30 01:09:16 <gmaxwell> Investing your time into yet another microkernel of currencies might be fun and might get you published, but it probably won't cause the creation of a widely used system.
178 2011-06-30 01:09:55 <lolwat`> i disagree
179 2011-06-30 01:10:11 <gmaxwell> lolwat`: I wouldn't use a decenteralized system controlled via vote. (I assume coin holder vote?) Too unpredictable when there are only a small to moderate number of users.
180 2011-06-30 01:10:22 <sacarlson> lolwat`: then you would be looke at beertokens trust where the holders vote how they want things to be http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9493.0
181 2011-06-30 01:10:35 <gmaxwell> Disagreeing is pointless. Proving me wrong would be meaningful.
182 2011-06-30 01:10:45 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, actually great that you mention that up, because I actually want TWO currencies with two voting mechanisms
183 2011-06-30 01:11:04 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, one, "hashshares" would be a crypto-corporation where voting was done by coins (shares) owned
184 2011-06-30 01:11:14 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, the other voting would be done by current cpu power
185 2011-06-30 01:11:42 <lolwat`> i.e., when you mine a block you include your vote
186 2011-06-30 01:11:50 <gmaxwell> b4epoche_: such a terrible distortion force&
187 2011-06-30 01:11:58 <gmaxwell> distorting*
188 2011-06-30 01:12:04 <lolwat`> getting published doesn't actually matter
189 2011-06-30 01:12:10 <sacarlson> lolwat`: the escrow feature of mulicoin uses voting from unlimited parties to make a decision
190 2011-06-30 01:12:11 <lolwat`> getting cited does
191 2011-06-30 01:12:19 <gmaxwell> yea, thats even worse.
192 2011-06-30 01:12:23 <b4epoche_> I know...  but that's how everything is essentially decided in academia
193 2011-06-30 01:12:30 <lolwat`> b4epoche, no, it's by citations
194 2011-06-30 01:12:34 <b4epoche_> no
195 2011-06-30 01:12:49 <gmaxwell> To get cited you need to be a core paper for a new idea, not just the optimization that makes it practically useful.
196 2011-06-30 01:12:49 <lolwat`> your publications dont matter to any real hiring commitee
197 2011-06-30 01:12:51 <lolwat`> if they aren't cited
198 2011-06-30 01:13:02 <b4epoche_> administrators are not smart enough or take enough time to look into citation counts
199 2011-06-30 01:13:10 <lolwat`> uh
200 2011-06-30 01:13:18 <lolwat`> yes they are
201 2011-06-30 01:13:25 <lolwat`> hiring commitees for tenure track faculty will tell you
202 2011-06-30 01:13:29 <b4epoche_> are you a prof or a student?
203 2011-06-30 01:13:31 <lolwat`> they will look at 4 or 5 of your papers
204 2011-06-30 01:13:39 <lolwat`> student but I've had this discussion w/ advisor
205 2011-06-30 01:13:48 <b4epoche_> and I've lived it for 12 years
206 2011-06-30 01:14:00 <b4epoche_> been on P&T committee, etc.
207 2011-06-30 01:14:03 <gmaxwell> So you invent underwater basket weaving for 8 dimensional hyperbolic surfaces ... instead of an actual usable implementation of ZKPs on real programs that people want proved, cause that will never be cited the paper that shows it can be done will be.
208 2011-06-30 01:14:05 <lolwat`> perhaps things are different in different places....
209 2011-06-30 01:14:16 <lolwat`> and different areas
210 2011-06-30 01:14:35 <lolwat`> eh oh well maybe im wrong
211 2011-06-30 01:14:52 <lolwat`> if im wrong then ill leave academia and go start a business, no big deal
212 2011-06-30 01:15:08 <lolwat`> anyway
213 2011-06-30 01:15:21 <b4epoche_> I wish it mattered more but it really doesn't...  everyone is too busy to do a more in-depth analysis of your research
214 2011-06-30 01:15:51 <conjre> yea.. why can't people just be as interested as you in your own research.. gosh :-P
215 2011-06-30 01:16:16 <lolwat`> sacarlson, you use a different blockchain for each currency?
216 2011-06-30 01:16:24 <lolwat`> sacarlson, so each requires its own work?
217 2011-06-30 01:16:28 <b4epoche_> yea, we ask for the 4 or 5 best papers...  but the thing is, you'll be up for tenure before some of those may even be published (accepted but not published)
218 2011-06-30 01:17:14 <b4epoche_> if it's a truly seminal work it may take a few years before people even realize it
219 2011-06-30 01:17:44 <sacarlson> lolwat`: in the present working model yes but there is hope for others that just use the bitcoin chain as in the artcle on the page
220 2011-06-30 01:17:53 <b4epoche_> hell, I'm a mechanical engineering professor writing a front end to a crypto-currency client
221 2011-06-30 01:17:54 <lolwat`> which page?
222 2011-06-30 01:18:03 <b4epoche_> /that/ is the beauty of having tenure
223 2011-06-30 01:18:16 <sacarlson> lolwat`: but with licenced minners it takes very little power to run
224 2011-06-30 01:18:35 <lolwat`> licenced?
225 2011-06-30 01:19:10 <wladston> hey guys! I wanted to start to develop a javascript miner, since I found none...
226 2011-06-30 01:19:14 <sacarlson> lolwat`: not implemented yet that the option to have only licenced miners allowed to mine for blocks
227 2011-06-30 01:19:41 <wladston> I can then do all the crazy things, like including it automatically via squid on all the pages I serve
228 2011-06-30 01:19:45 <wladston> :D
229 2011-06-30 01:19:47 <b4epoche_> wladston:  there's a js miner...  and it's pointless (unless it's an academic exercise)
230 2011-06-30 01:19:48 <lolwat`> sacarlson, so what I had in mind was a way for allowing the work to be shared
231 2011-06-30 01:20:02 <wladston> b4epoche: it's an academic exercise
232 2011-06-30 01:20:06 <lolwat`> sacarlson, basically I think of bitcoin as a special case of a transactional log-structured filesystem
233 2011-06-30 01:20:16 <b4epoche_> wladston:  the best kind ;-)
234 2011-06-30 01:20:29 <wladston> b4epoche: https://github.com/jwhitehorn/jsMiner you are talking about this one ?
235 2011-06-30 01:20:32 <b4epoche_> and I remember seeing an js miner...  but can't remember the web site
236 2011-06-30 01:20:39 <gmaxwell> error: {"code":-6,"message":"Account has insufficient funds"}
237 2011-06-30 01:20:44 <sacarlson> lolwat`: we would like to try all that are posible and avalable as seen https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
238 2011-06-30 01:20:45 <gmaxwell> hey, theres one I haven't seen before.
239 2011-06-30 01:21:03 <wladston> b4epoche: there was a jsminer, but they aren't taking new registrations. they wrote that client i liked
240 2011-06-30 01:21:04 <b4epoche_> wladston:  it was a web site I saw.  I'm not sure what code it was using
241 2011-06-30 01:21:12 <lolwat`> sacarlson, in general one has several filesystems, and a "commit" is a collection of transactional changes to each of them, along with any "proof of work"
242 2011-06-30 01:21:47 <lolwat`> sacarlson, i.e., a commit could have "bitcoin: new bitcoin root is inode xxx; namecoin: new namecoin root is inode yyy"
243 2011-06-30 01:22:01 <lolwat`> sacarlson, but the point is those would all be hashed/worked on together
244 2011-06-30 01:22:03 <wladston> Also got a question that has been bugging me ... in 2017, when all bitcoins are generated, what incentive people will have to keep mining ?
245 2011-06-30 01:22:09 <sacarlson> lolwat`: yes I think that's how it is explained
246 2011-06-30 01:22:19 <b4epoche_> wladston:  fees
247 2011-06-30 01:22:27 <gmaxwell> wladston: transaction fees, health of the network, alternative blockchains.
248 2011-06-30 01:22:37 <gmaxwell> wladston: and thats not in 2017
249 2011-06-30 01:22:43 <noagendamarket> if you think fees will support btc youre kidding :)
250 2011-06-30 01:22:44 <gmaxwell> (dunno where you got 2017 from)
251 2011-06-30 01:22:56 <lolwat`> sacarlson, that can't be done without changing bitcoin, so as a halfass way, one can just put the other info somewhere in a tx script, like inject a new merkleroot in the extranonce
252 2011-06-30 01:23:04 <wladston> gmaxwell: that's when ?
253 2011-06-30 01:23:11 <gmaxwell> the rate of new coin creation falls off 'gradually'
254 2011-06-30 01:23:13 <lolwat`> ill look at that now, thx, you might have done like 1/2 or all of my work for me
255 2011-06-30 01:23:28 <noagendamarket> I think we need a version of bitcoin that keeps producing blocks
256 2011-06-30 01:23:29 <nanotube> wladston: 2140 or so.
257 2011-06-30 01:23:42 <gmaxwell> wladston: the exactly last date is completely irrelevant because it will be very small long before its zero.
258 2011-06-30 01:23:42 <wladston> noagendamarket: agree with u
259 2011-06-30 01:23:45 <noagendamarket> so it makes the fees minimised
260 2011-06-30 01:23:59 <nanotube> noagendamarket: this version also keeps producing blocks
261 2011-06-30 01:24:03 <sacarlson> lolwat`: well I was looking at it as sending a zero or very small transaction on bitcoin that is linked to the new chain
262 2011-06-30 01:24:08 <nanotube> noagendamarket: it jsut doesn't keep producing coins :)
263 2011-06-30 01:24:13 <noagendamarket> lol
264 2011-06-30 01:24:18 <gmaxwell> (and the zero point could change if the precision is increased... the maximum comes not from the transition to zero but the limit of the infinite series)
265 2011-06-30 01:24:44 <lolwat`> sacarlson, yes exactly either way.  these new chains all use a blockchain though right?  for near-instant TX I had some thoughts on other schemes that would not be block based
266 2011-06-30 01:24:45 <wladston> maybe in the future a high transaction cost to keep it same might the problem
267 2011-06-30 01:24:55 <wladston> *safe
268 2011-06-30 01:24:59 <lolwat`> sacarlson, every TX would be itself a commit, and a commit could have multiple parents to indicate it was consistent
269 2011-06-30 01:25:17 <lolwat`> sacarlson, basically a 'block DAG' like GIT, with many branches and merges
270 2011-06-30 01:25:19 <gmaxwell> wladston: safe doesn't depend on tx volume, so if there is a lot of tx volume it won't be a big deal.
271 2011-06-30 01:25:58 <wladston> gmaxwell: hummm right, yeah. So we have to make it popular now, else it might die
272 2011-06-30 01:26:02 <sacarlson> lolwat`: no we try all ideas not just one,  present is just a paralel running chain,  the config file setting decide how the user of the chain wants it to be
273 2011-06-30 01:26:03 <lolwat`> sacarlson, infact, think GIT for money.  If you allow the "chain" to branch and merge, you don't have the problem of people doing work for nothing that you do when you just take the block architecture and reduce the delay
274 2011-06-30 01:26:11 <gmaxwell> wladston: the risk is what if the txn volume is low... then fees would need to be great to keep it safe and it might fail unless people choose to support it at a loss.
275 2011-06-30 01:26:58 <wladston> gmaxwell: is there any estimatives ? like, how much transactions would we need to keep it safe on a USD 0.03 transaction fee ?
276 2011-06-30 01:28:05 <gmaxwell> wladston: It's easy enough to reason about. How much might an attacker spend on their own in order to reverse and respend?
277 2011-06-30 01:28:29 <gmaxwell> The transaction fees need to be large enough so that other people will spend more, in total, than any one attacker would spend.
278 2011-06-30 01:28:45 <wladston> gmaxwell: I guess up to about 10 times what he is willing to steal....
279 2011-06-30 01:28:52 <gmaxwell> So that tells you the total, then you divide to find out the volume.
280 2011-06-30 01:29:24 <wladston> gmaxwell: ok, so let's say 1 million dollars
281 2011-06-30 01:29:26 <lolwat`> sacarlson, oh wow this is great you've done or are in the process of doing most of the stuff I wanted to do
282 2011-06-30 01:30:48 <wladston> gmaxwell: we would need about 30 million transactions
283 2011-06-30 01:31:07 <lolwat`> sacarlson, have you looked at OpenTransactions?  I was also hoping to reuse some of that, and figure out a way to fit bitcoin-style "decentralized issuer" into the OT model.  OT is nice because it already has well-written client software, and many things ontop already built (contracts, derivatives, etc)
284 2011-06-30 01:33:06 <gmaxwell> well, how about the current security: it would require 5 million to outpower the network. We're getting that with a $850/block reward. So we'd need 5666 txn/block to meet $1m security with a cost of $0.03/TXN.
285 2011-06-30 01:38:42 <wladston> wow
286 2011-06-30 01:39:14 <wladston> 5666 every 10 minutes ?
287 2011-06-30 01:39:18 <wladston> I think we can make it
288 2011-06-30 01:39:21 <wladston> :D
289 2011-06-30 01:39:36 <wladston> I hope
290 2011-06-30 01:39:39 <wladston> :)
291 2011-06-30 01:42:42 <nanotube> wladston: visa does thousands per second
292 2011-06-30 01:43:01 <nanotube> a few thousand in 10 minutes is a piece of cake
293 2011-06-30 01:43:33 <gmaxwell> There is perhaps some weirdness wrt the daily cycle which might not have been thought through.
294 2011-06-30 01:43:50 <gmaxwell> Why should someone mine when everyone is asleep?
295 2011-06-30 01:44:15 <iz> someone is awake in a timezone somewhere
296 2011-06-30 01:44:27 <wladston> and most mining is done on servers
297 2011-06-30 01:44:36 <nanotube> gmaxwell: newsflash: earth is round! :)
298 2011-06-30 01:45:06 <bittwist> filthy lies
299 2011-06-30 01:45:07 <egecko> are you implying that computers need to sleep?
300 2011-06-30 01:45:16 <wladston> hummm.... maybe we could launch a mobile app with let people pay each other via bluetooth
301 2011-06-30 01:45:24 <wladston> then small commerce can start using it
302 2011-06-30 01:45:37 <nanotube> also, once you /have/ the hardware, there's no reason to turn it off. the marginal cost of extra mining once you have the hw is minimal.
303 2011-06-30 01:45:46 <nanotube> bittwist: hah
304 2011-06-30 01:46:00 <gmaxwell> nanotube: newsflash people don't live in the middle of the pacific.
305 2011-06-30 01:46:00 <wladston> I'm going to buy a graphics card
306 2011-06-30 01:46:08 <bittwist> nanotube: you could not see it, but i was shaking my fist at my monitor
307 2011-06-30 01:46:13 <gmaxwell> Wikipedia worldwide reqstat data: http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-weekly.png
308 2011-06-30 01:46:16 <wladston> my corrent server does about 60 khash/s only
309 2011-06-30 01:46:20 <wladston> *current
310 2011-06-30 01:46:59 <wladston> oh, and btw, I found a javascript miner
311 2011-06-30 01:47:01 <nanotube> gmaxwell: newsflash: by the time 2140 rolls around, they may :)
312 2011-06-30 01:47:01 <wladston> :)
313 2011-06-30 01:47:02 <gmaxwell> nanotube: though the marginal cost thing is key I guess.
314 2011-06-30 01:47:03 <nanotube> hehe
315 2011-06-30 01:47:15 <gmaxwell> nanotube: haha "bitcoin: saved by seastedding"
316 2011-06-30 01:47:20 <nanotube> hehe indeed.
317 2011-06-30 01:47:24 <wladston> on monday I'll have a meeting with my friend who has a broker business ... he is interested on the coins
318 2011-06-30 01:47:26 <nanotube> and also: seasteading: saved by bitcoin
319 2011-06-30 01:47:49 <nanotube> wladston: cool
320 2011-06-30 01:48:15 <wladston> there is almost nothing bitcoin-related here in brazil
321 2011-06-30 01:48:46 <nanotube> gmaxwell: that said, one can imagine that if everyone mines right at the threshold of profitability... the rate of block creation may go down during the off-peak times, when the least-efficient miners drop out
322 2011-06-30 01:49:08 <gmaxwell> hmph, that other link is old and is missing sometuff.. better graphs here http://torrus.wikimedia.org/torrus/CDN?path=%2FTotals%2FAll_client_requests
323 2011-06-30 01:49:48 <gmaxwell> nanotube: there is a bit of a commons problem it might make sense to pay _more_ at night to encourage mining, but you're not going to fund a block on your own, and there won't be as much competition for blockspace.
324 2011-06-30 01:50:02 <nanotube> gmaxwell: also, one can imagine that people will try to time their tx to go during offpeak times, to reduce fees
325 2011-06-30 01:50:09 <nanotube> iow... i think the free market will sort it out. :)
326 2011-06-30 01:50:38 <nanotube> no, you won't pay more at night, but more people may schedule tx at night to get them in cheaper
327 2011-06-30 01:50:43 <nanotube> which will basically balance out the tx load
328 2011-06-30 01:50:56 <wladston> nanotube: I think even if you include no fee maybe some block could process your transaction
329 2011-06-30 01:51:01 <wladston> if you are willing to wait
330 2011-06-30 01:51:05 <gmaxwell> Yea, well, a lot of people obsess to much about putting all txn in the blockchain.. You pay via bitcoinvisa during the day when bitcoin is overloaded, and settle at night.
331 2011-06-30 01:51:37 <gmaxwell> wladston: thats the idea, we'll see how well it works in practice over the long term.
332 2011-06-30 01:52:30 <nanotube> yea we still have a few decades for the things to settle down :)
333 2011-06-30 01:52:45 <gmaxwell> The key part is getting to where any of that actually matters.
334 2011-06-30 01:52:51 <gmaxwell> Bitcoins' future is far from sure now.
335 2011-06-30 01:52:56 <wladston> eyah
336 2011-06-30 01:52:59 <nanotube> yea
337 2011-06-30 01:53:04 <wladston> I wanted to help change that
338 2011-06-30 01:53:13 <nanotube> first, we'll see what happens when bounty drops to 25 ;)
339 2011-06-30 01:53:28 <wladston> nanotube: when will that happen ?
340 2011-06-30 01:53:42 <nanotube> wladston: yes transaction priority is in part based on input age. so as you wait, age increases, and tx priority increases.
341 2011-06-30 01:53:46 <nanotube> wladston: at block 210000
342 2011-06-30 01:54:20 <wladston> nanotube: in with block are we ?
343 2011-06-30 01:54:36 <gmaxwell> I wish the fee notice would tell you the current age and the time it will cross priority 510000.
344 2011-06-30 01:55:01 <gmaxwell> then again, I'm convinced the coin selection is broken and is not picking the oldest inputs based on the user reports on IRC.
345 2011-06-30 01:56:04 <wladston> auch
346 2011-06-30 01:56:05 <egecko> why should it pick the oldest inputs?
347 2011-06-30 01:56:13 <gmaxwell> to get the highest priority.
348 2011-06-30 01:56:41 <wladston> gmaxwell: how many BTC do you own ?
349 2011-06-30 01:56:47 <egecko> that neglects txn size tho
350 2011-06-30 01:56:47 <gmaxwell> (priority is based on age so that a DOS attacker who is rapidly round-tripping coins to create txn volume will get low priorities)
351 2011-06-30 01:57:00 <wladston> I've just managed to mine my first 0.01 BTC :D
352 2011-06-30 01:57:05 <gmaxwell> wladston: not many.
353 2011-06-30 01:57:11 <gmaxwell> oh well, a lot more than that. :)
354 2011-06-30 01:57:22 <wladston> :)
355 2011-06-30 01:57:49 <gribble> 133956
356 2011-06-30 01:57:49 <nanotube> ;;bc,blocks
357 2011-06-30 01:57:55 <nanotube> wladston: ^ current block count
358 2011-06-30 01:58:59 <gmaxwell> Hey, if someone were to create a hash locked transaction in bitcoin, how the hell would you keep a miner from stealing it?
359 2011-06-30 01:59:19 <gmaxwell> (when the hash is disclosed in order to redeem it)
360 2011-06-30 01:59:45 <wladston> I have another question ..... a miner could "hide" a solution and report only to one of the pools, while receiving from all the others for the shares
361 2011-06-30 02:00:22 <gmaxwell> wladston: Yes, but that doesn't help the miner.
362 2011-06-30 02:00:49 <gmaxwell> "withholding attack" and it puts pure pps pools out of business unless they have high fees.
363 2011-06-30 02:00:57 <gmaxwell> (pps = pay per share)
364 2011-06-30 02:01:17 <wladston> right
365 2011-06-30 02:02:01 <gmaxwell> In theory and practice people don't do this unless it's neutral or only slightly unprofitable for them to do so. So pools can't use payment schemes where this is true.
366 2011-06-30 02:02:28 <wladston> sure.
367 2011-06-30 02:13:28 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: walletlock is broken:
368 2011-06-30 02:13:30 <gmaxwell> -    if (pwalletMain->IsCrypted() && (fHelp || params.size() != 2))
369 2011-06-30 02:13:53 <gmaxwell> +    if (pwalletMain->IsCrypted() && (fHelp || params.size() != 0))
370 2011-06-30 02:14:00 <gmaxwell> thnx
371 2011-06-30 02:30:08 <lolwat`> gmaxwell, you never protect with just a hash, always hash and pubkey
372 2011-06-30 02:30:42 <gmaxwell> oh, and I give you the private key, dur.
373 2011-06-30 02:30:51 <gmaxwell> Sorry, long day.
374 2011-06-30 02:31:37 <lolwat`> er
375 2011-06-30 02:31:54 <lolwat`> you give me pubkey
376 2011-06-30 02:32:11 <lolwat`> i write tx spendable by sig from that pubkey AND hash inversion
377 2011-06-30 02:32:49 <lolwat`> though i suppose in the "pay for hash cracking model" it could be entirely reasonable to make a coin spendable by just a hash inversion
378 2011-06-30 02:33:34 <egecko> how exactly would a miner know?
379 2011-06-30 02:34:57 <lolwat`> huh
380 2011-06-30 02:35:04 <lolwat`> they can see it in their mempool
381 2011-06-30 02:35:14 <lolwat`> they can literally just take the tx and replace the output lol
382 2011-06-30 02:35:15 <wladston> hehe, the javascript client runs at 0,85 khash/s
383 2011-06-30 02:36:46 <wladston> I would need about 1200 visitors to compute 1 Mhash/s
384 2011-06-30 02:38:01 <wladston> ops, no, it runs at 8,5 Khash/s
385 2011-06-30 02:38:09 <wladston> so just 120 visitors
386 2011-06-30 02:38:12 <wladston> :D
387 2011-06-30 02:39:29 <nanotube> wladston: now put it up on google homepage and watch the bitcoins flow haha
388 2011-06-30 02:39:43 <wladston> hehe, yeah
389 2011-06-30 02:39:46 <wladston> :D
390 2011-06-30 02:39:54 <wladston> if google decided to do it
391 2011-06-30 02:40:08 <wladston> they could bring bitcoins down i think
392 2011-06-30 02:40:15 <wladston> with their processing power
393 2011-06-30 02:40:40 <wladston> I'm going to put on my website
394 2011-06-30 02:40:55 <wladston> see if it ever finds a golden ticket
395 2011-06-30 02:41:25 <xelister> BlueMatt: btw one more example why people dislike USA's gov - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/30/0050236/The-Patriot-Act-and-the-EU-Cloud
396 2011-06-30 02:41:42 <conjre> ur probably right, they would only need about 5Thash/s
397 2011-06-30 02:41:42 <xelister> and this aspect of usafaggotry may in fact have impact on BitCoin or its users,
398 2011-06-30 02:41:45 <xelister> "Any data which is housed, stored or processed by a company, which is a U.S. based company or is wholly owned by a U.S. parent company, is vulnerable to interception and inspection by U.S. authorities. "
399 2011-06-30 02:42:07 <conjre> but they probably won't for the reason given by xelister
400 2011-06-30 02:42:57 <xelister> conjre: hm?
401 2011-06-30 02:43:00 <gregnotcraig> greetings everyone. anybody use openbsd? got the bitcoind compiled & working? (I dont care about the gui)
402 2011-06-30 02:44:16 <conjre> xelister: Google can't become a miner for bitcoins because if they did then they would be able to technically shut down by the U.S. government
403 2011-06-30 02:44:27 <xelister> yeap
404 2011-06-30 02:44:33 <conjre> that is, of course, if the U.S. government really wanted to get involved which I really don't think they will
405 2011-06-30 02:44:49 <xelister> conjre: and blumatt wonders why people dislike US
406 2011-06-30 02:45:05 <xelister> US the gov.  I have nothing against say the Grand Canion
407 2011-06-30 02:45:36 <conjre> xelister: lol how can you, it's a giant hole in the ground that's freakin amazing!!!
408 2011-06-30 02:47:54 <wumpus> xelister: indeed, i've got nothing against the country or most of the people, but the gov seem to be fascist assholes
409 2011-06-30 02:48:17 <phantomcircuit> xelister, i have a lot agaisnt the grand canyon
410 2011-06-30 02:48:19 <phantomcircuit> first of all
411 2011-06-30 02:48:22 <phantomcircuit> it's just a hole
412 2011-06-30 02:48:24 <phantomcircuit> seriously
413 2011-06-30 02:48:29 <phantomcircuit> it's the most boring shit ever
414 2011-06-30 02:48:40 <gmaxwell> Ahem. This is not #politics or #tourism.
415 2011-06-30 02:48:42 <gmaxwell> :)
416 2011-06-30 02:48:57 <phantomcircuit> shh we were talking about giant holes in the ground or something
417 2011-06-30 02:48:58 <gmaxwell> hehe -rw-------. 1 gmaxwell gmaxwell 39M Jun 30 00:47 /home/gmaxwell/.bitcoin/testnet/wallet.dat
418 2011-06-30 02:49:27 <wumpus> its also not #lookathowfatmywalletis ;)
419 2011-06-30 02:49:50 <phantomcircuit> xelister, also note that being based outside of the us doesn't do much for avoiding intercept by us authorities
420 2011-06-30 02:50:10 <xelister> phantomcircuit: yeap
421 2011-06-30 02:50:11 <gmaxwell> wumpus: hey dude, I've been working all day to test this wallet encrption stuff so it doesn't eat your money. Show some love.
422 2011-06-30 02:50:23 <xelister> phantomcircuit: the USA [gov] assholes are messing with everyine everywhere
423 2011-06-30 02:50:29 <xelister> BlueMatt: ^
424 2011-06-30 02:50:46 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, you realize that im going to write a trojan within a day of you guys publishing the wallet encryption code right
425 2011-06-30 02:50:49 <wumpus> gmaxwell: good work
426 2011-06-30 02:50:57 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: publish it now.
427 2011-06-30 02:50:59 <phantomcircuit> i'll probably do some in memory binary patching for fun
428 2011-06-30 02:51:01 <gmaxwell> Dur.
429 2011-06-30 02:51:05 <phantomcircuit> cant need the final binary
430 2011-06-30 02:51:06 <phantomcircuit> xD
431 2011-06-30 02:52:03 <gmaxwell> I guess RPC is not normally open on gui users systems?
432 2011-06-30 02:52:11 <wumpus> nope
433 2011-06-30 02:52:40 <gmaxwell> Yea, cause then the dumbest thing would to just be to keep hammeing the rpc with a send request until the wallet is unlocked.
434 2011-06-30 02:53:13 <gmaxwell> "dumptey dee.. look at all my moneeeey... [unlocks] [poof] omg!"
435 2011-06-30 02:53:23 <wumpus> unless they use an external GUI, but I assume those people usually know what they're doing
436 2011-06-30 02:53:25 <wumpus> hehehe
437 2011-06-30 02:53:34 <xelister> I already imagin all the users that will loose  their wallet passwords
438 2011-06-30 02:53:37 <wumpus> oooh coins
439 2011-06-30 02:53:45 <xelister> "What, I cant phone in to recover the password? SCAAAAM"
440 2011-06-30 02:54:16 <wumpus> xelister: yes that's also what I fear
441 2011-06-30 02:54:18 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: just put in a keylogger, and you don't even need the final binary.
442 2011-06-30 02:54:19 <gmaxwell> xelister: yea, walletcrypto = good for pr and some advanced users. Joe blow? he's gonna lose more coins to password loss than this thing protects him from in theft. Oh well.
443 2011-06-30 02:54:28 <wumpus> xelister: maybe we should store all the keys with me just in case :-)
444 2011-06-30 02:54:36 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: step 1: copy wallet. step2: wait for user to use it and log his pw. step3: profit.
445 2011-06-30 02:54:53 <gmaxwell> bitcoin process targeting keylogger.
446 2011-06-30 02:55:08 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, that's no fun
447 2011-06-30 02:55:26 <wumpus> but I assume wallet encryption will be optional?
448 2011-06-30 02:55:30 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: well, i guess for those people for whom fun == profit... it'll work :)
449 2011-06-30 02:55:34 <gmaxwell> wumpus: yup and its not on by default.
450 2011-06-30 02:55:39 <wumpus> +1
451 2011-06-30 02:55:43 <nanotube> cool
452 2011-06-30 02:55:46 <gmaxwell> wumpus: and the GUI cautions you about it.
453 2011-06-30 02:56:00 <gmaxwell> and, I expect we'll add some password recovery options later.
454 2011-06-30 02:56:33 <gmaxwell> (e.g. a mode to make a printed recovery code, and perhaps a mode to escrow your master key with third parties, if someone wants to bother writing it)
455 2011-06-30 02:56:43 <wumpus> yep, someone could offer that as a third party service (authentication and password recovery)
456 2011-06-30 02:56:44 <folklore> gmaxwell
457 2011-06-30 02:56:48 <folklore> I have the answer
458 2011-06-30 02:57:10 <folklore> http://www.ollydbg.de/Paperbak/index.html
459 2011-06-30 02:57:13 <gmaxwell> wumpus: whoever is going to offer it will probably need to write it. It would be a fair amount of code, unfortunately.
460 2011-06-30 02:57:34 <gmaxwell> folklore: personally I use http://ronja.twibright.com/optar/
461 2011-06-30 02:57:43 <wumpus> well if there's money in it, someone is probably going to write it
462 2011-06-30 02:58:01 <bittwist> take paperbak, rar image of it
463 2011-06-30 02:58:06 <bittwist> print out into optar
464 2011-06-30 02:58:10 <bittwist> win the internets
465 2011-06-30 02:58:21 <gmaxwell> folklore: but you don't need anything that complicated.. just some 256 bit number written in hex or pgpwords. printed on a sheet of paper with a dire warning to put it someplace secure away from the computer.
466 2011-06-30 02:58:28 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, lol if i was doing it for profit i would have just used that mtgox csrf and stolen everybodies moneyz
467 2011-06-30 02:58:42 <wumpus> I don't think at this stage people trust bitcoin-based companies enough to do something like key escrow right :-)
468 2011-06-30 02:58:57 <folklore> the problem is the verification
469 2011-06-30 02:59:05 <gmaxwell> wumpus: well, you can do multiparty escrow, and it will still require a copy of the wallet to decode.
470 2011-06-30 02:59:11 <wumpus> "I promise not to get goxed! really" :P
471 2011-06-30 02:59:18 <noagendamarket> someone could offer a password cracking service using gpu....
472 2011-06-30 02:59:21 <noagendamarket> :)
473 2011-06-30 02:59:34 <phantomcircuit> wumpus, key escrow? i could do that
474 2011-06-30 02:59:37 <gmaxwell> wumpus: meh, it's not hard. "This key has never and will never be on a computer connected to any network"
475 2011-06-30 02:59:41 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: not saying you would. but people who write the trojans. :)
476 2011-06-30 03:00:00 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, yeah which is why im going to write a ridiculous one that's over engineered for no real reason
477 2011-06-30 03:00:02 <phantomcircuit> lol
478 2011-06-30 03:00:06 <folklore> i'm sure someone will figure it out, don't think it's a good idea though, paper "money" would surely upset the US gov
479 2011-06-30 03:00:17 <gmaxwell> wumpus: at least you have to lie to screw that one up, not just be lazy or incompetent.
480 2011-06-30 03:00:30 <wumpus> gmaxwell: that's true
481 2011-06-30 03:00:31 <folklore> companies that do make paper money, like disney world specifically write on it, this is legal tender for disney land/word etc...
482 2011-06-30 03:00:39 <phantomcircuit> IT SHALL BE MY LULZIEST WORK YET
483 2011-06-30 03:00:40 <folklore> and they got permission
484 2011-06-30 03:00:58 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: heh
485 2011-06-30 03:01:03 <gmaxwell> folklore: you don't need permission to make stored value tokens.
486 2011-06-30 03:01:23 <folklore> ricco would probably disagree
487 2011-06-30 03:01:27 <wumpus> though before the Komodo SSL fiasco a lot of people also believed that SSL certificate signers worked that way
488 2011-06-30 03:02:15 <gmaxwell> folklore: guess you've never seen a gift card.... also things not denominated in dollars are an entirely different set of things that are.
489 2011-06-30 03:02:38 <gmaxwell> folklore: your argument would make bad rap albums unlawful (information, stored on physical medium, exchanged for value)
490 2011-06-30 03:03:06 <wumpus> lol
491 2011-06-30 03:03:15 <gmaxwell> wumpus: well, the fact that SSL services will give you a signed key in realtime in minutes should have been a clue
492 2011-06-30 03:03:18 <wumpus> and those can be exchanged over the internet too
493 2011-06-30 03:03:27 <gmaxwell> wumpus: it's not quite the same for a recovery service.
494 2011-06-30 03:03:34 <gmaxwell> wumpus: sadly there is not a limited supply of them.
495 2011-06-30 03:03:38 <wumpus> we've found the successor to bitcoin :P
496 2011-06-30 03:03:40 <wumpus> ah, right
497 2011-06-30 03:03:51 <folklore> gmaxwell I can generate pub/priv RSA 4096 bit key on my old pc in a few minutes
498 2011-06-30 03:03:51 <lfm> bad rap albums?
499 2011-06-30 03:04:07 <gmaxwell> obviously we need to invent a blockchain to create scarcity in bad rap albums.
500 2011-06-30 03:04:14 <folklore> as far as gift cards go, that sounds nice on paper, but if it comes down to it, if the gov wants bitcoin illegal, it will be, they make the laws
501 2011-06-30 03:04:29 <manveru> gmaxwell: now that's something i can agree with :)
502 2011-06-30 03:05:00 <folklore> reminds me of people who talk big on forums about their rights and such, and how they'd tell that to a cop, while he beats them, thinking that'll mean anything
503 2011-06-30 03:05:06 <manveru> in particular cutting down on double-spending of bad rap albums would be nice
504 2011-06-30 03:05:08 <folklore> have to understand who has the power, and who doesn't
505 2011-06-30 03:05:16 <Eremes> Im trying to edit bootsync.sh , but everytimes it reboot the command revert back to the original, anyone know how to fix it ?
506 2011-06-30 03:05:35 <gmaxwell> folklore: you're arguing against an argument I haven't made.
507 2011-06-30 03:05:44 <gmaxwell> And this is entirely offtopic for #bitcoin-dev
508 2011-06-30 03:06:01 <folklore> i'm just using an example of your argument
509 2011-06-30 03:06:06 <wumpus> oh no, first bad rap, and now it's about beating cops
510 2011-06-30 03:06:26 <manveru> speaking of which... does anybody know the limits on how many accounts a single namecoind can handle?
511 2011-06-30 03:07:13 <folklore> gmaxwell your argument was simply, since gift cards exist, bitcoin used in a similar fashion is OK
512 2011-06-30 03:07:20 <manveru> s/namecoind/bitcoind/
513 2011-06-30 03:08:00 <lfm> manveru: limited by disk space I spoze
514 2011-06-30 03:08:00 <wumpus> there's no prespecified limit
515 2011-06-30 03:08:13 <folklore> when bitcoin and gift cards are completely different, gift cards work in 1 place, bitcoin works everywhere, world wide
516 2011-06-30 03:08:20 <gmaxwell> folklore: I've very agressively argued, in the apropriate channels, that if the powers that be wanted to make bitcoin unlawful they could easily do so and that it would effectivly shut bitcoin down.
517 2011-06-30 03:08:36 <wumpus> but for very large numbers you might run against unplanned scalability constraints :)
518 2011-06-30 03:08:49 <wumpus> aka, just try it out
519 2011-06-30 03:09:28 <nanotube> folklore: visa gift cards work many places
520 2011-06-30 03:09:33 <gmaxwell> folklore: here I was simply pointing out several examples of why its ridiculous to suggest that bitcoin is _currently_ unlawful in the US. But don't take my word for it, consult an attorney like quite a few other people have done.
521 2011-06-30 03:10:02 <folklore> imho bitcoin doesn't give the gov enough control, enough power, and for that reason alone it unfortunately won't last, although I do hope it does. nanotube and visa is an american company teh gov controls too
522 2011-06-30 03:10:05 <folklore> bitcoin isn't
523 2011-06-30 03:10:05 <wumpus> it's only illegal when used for illegal things
524 2011-06-30 03:10:32 <gmaxwell> folklore: it's more helpful to government than cash is in many regards.
525 2011-06-30 03:10:37 <lfm> considered as a comodity its ok afaik
526 2011-06-30 03:10:52 <nanotube> folklore: hey, just responding to your statement that gift cards can only be spent in one place.
527 2011-06-30 03:10:56 <gmaxwell> It's also something that will make the people more prosperous. Government is not purely some evil force.
528 2011-06-30 03:11:17 <folklore> gmaxwell not if they're not getting what they feel they're entitled, in the form of taxes and the abililty to properly control and watch every aspec
529 2011-06-30 03:11:29 <folklore> the fear is criminals using it to avoid the govs
530 2011-06-30 03:11:47 <gmaxwell> Again, cash is better for those purposes than bitcoin.
531 2011-06-30 03:11:47 <nanotube> gmaxwell: prosperity leaves people more free time to watch over the govt. so arguably... govt does indeed want to keep people with their nose down tothe grindstone, so that they can keep doing whatever they want.
532 2011-06-30 03:12:09 <lfm> particularly moveing fund internationally without constraints.
533 2011-06-30 03:12:11 <nanotube> but anyway, that's not topical for -dev hehe
534 2011-06-30 03:12:29 <gmaxwell> nanotube: not building roads would also reduce people's free time to inspect the government. As would not having things like FOIA, and yet&
535 2011-06-30 03:12:36 <folklore> gmaxwell cash is more easy to track, with serial numbers, with cameras everywhere, with witnesses
536 2011-06-30 03:12:41 <folklore> fingerprints
537 2011-06-30 03:12:44 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well gotta keep up appearances. :)
538 2011-06-30 03:13:28 <gmaxwell> folklore: bitcoin has serial numbers a public transaction log, internet monitoring. And I'm now /ignoring you for a while because I suck and I can't resist you pushing me OT.
539 2011-06-30 03:13:36 <spirals> Is there ever a practical case where the output of getblockcount will not match getblocknumber for a typical miner?
540 2011-06-30 03:13:43 <wumpus> spirals: no
541 2011-06-30 03:13:49 <wumpus> spirals: check the code, it's exactly the same :)
542 2011-06-30 03:13:58 <spirals> Ok. Thanks.
543 2011-06-30 03:14:18 <manveru> ok
544 2011-06-30 03:14:19 <manveru> thanks :)
545 2011-06-30 03:14:32 <gmaxwell> hmph. why isn't one hidden from the help at least?
546 2011-06-30 03:14:49 <lfm> spirals: it would if you got a very old version of bitcoin, when they counted block 0 as a regular block
547 2011-06-30 03:14:55 <wumpus> that also confused me, first I thought one of them returned an estimate of the total number of blocks that exist.. but alas
548 2011-06-30 03:14:56 <spirals> I was wondering if they were the same, if one is considered canonical.
549 2011-06-30 03:15:06 <spirals> i.e. better to document processes with
550 2011-06-30 03:15:12 <wumpus> gmaxwell: good point, because getblocknumber is deprecated afaik
551 2011-06-30 03:15:20 <spirals> ok, so getblockcount is canonical?
552 2011-06-30 03:15:32 <lfm> sure
553 2011-06-30 03:15:43 <folklore> lol bitcoin user is also anonymous, and the client automatically gives a new address after a transaction
554 2011-06-30 03:15:51 <spirals> (this affects namecoin too so I guess they should clean it up in namecoin client before 100 people get confused while building GUIs on top of it)
555 2011-06-30 03:15:57 <folklore> to encourage anonymity, this is kinda issues i'm saying, is all about intent
556 2011-06-30 03:16:11 <folklore> that's what got piratebay and mininova hit hard
557 2011-06-30 03:16:35 <folklore> or even isohunt who simply linked to whatever copyright thats illegal, no different than google
558 2011-06-30 03:16:40 <folklore> other than the intent
559 2011-06-30 03:16:45 <gmaxwell> perhas getblocknumber should be removed for the next release.
560 2011-06-30 03:17:05 <wumpus> well at least give an deprecation warning for a few releases, then drop it
561 2011-06-30 03:17:28 <lfm> currently almost 200 thousand unique addresses with non zero balances. from over 400 thousand transaction outputs outstanding.
562 2011-06-30 03:18:11 <gmaxwell> lower reuse factor than I would have guessd.
563 2011-06-30 03:18:28 <x6763> do the current bitcoin rules allow for including transactions that spend outputs from other transactions in the same block?
564 2011-06-30 03:18:39 <gmaxwell> x6763: yes
565 2011-06-30 03:18:42 <folklore> manver I know bitcoin isn't US only, but majority of it is if I had to guess
566 2011-06-30 03:18:56 <lfm> us and europe
567 2011-06-30 03:18:57 <folklore> and if all Americans stopped using it, it'd hurt quite a bit
568 2011-06-30 03:18:58 <wumpus> the majority is probably .pl :P
569 2011-06-30 03:19:05 <folklore> mtgox only has like 100k accounts I believe
570 2011-06-30 03:19:07 <folklore> and they're #1
571 2011-06-30 03:19:11 <lfm> a lotta russians too
572 2011-06-30 03:19:23 <wumpus> mtgox is japan
573 2011-06-30 03:19:33 <folklore> i mean their user base
574 2011-06-30 03:19:33 <lfm> mtgox had 60 thousand accounts in their leak
575 2011-06-30 03:19:45 <folklore> yeah, evne smaller
576 2011-06-30 03:19:58 <noagendamarket> If you use bitcoin from a government IP it should destroy the coins lol
577 2011-06-30 03:20:16 <gmaxwell> speaking of russians  anyone every find out why there are suddenly a great many russian nodes in #namecoin on lfnet? (lfnet complaine that there were over 6000 hosts, I checked a random sample and most were russian)
578 2011-06-30 03:20:33 <lfm> noagendamarket: how would you link bitcoin address to internet address?
579 2011-06-30 03:20:41 <x6763> gmaxwell: ok, thanks! for some reason i was under the impression that it wouldn't be a valid block, but i just came across block 546 which has some transactions like that, so i wondered if either the rules changed at some point, or if the impression that i had on it was wrong...easier to ask than to dig around the blockchain to find recent examples
580 2011-06-30 03:20:43 <gmaxwell> lfm: IRC reports peak usage around 30k nodes.
581 2011-06-30 03:21:24 <gmaxwell> x6763: yea, it's completely valid. Otherwise, e.g. taking a 100 btc input and then pay 10 people one at a time (using the change) would take a _long_ time to fully confirm. :)
582 2011-06-30 03:21:48 <bittwist> gmaxwell: inb4 months of drama
583 2011-06-30 03:22:33 <lfm> x6763: your impression was wrong. its the only way you could split up a block to several people in a timely way (without multi-output hack).
584 2011-06-30 03:22:47 <gmaxwell> thats what I said. ;)
585 2011-06-30 03:23:04 <lfm> great minds
586 2011-06-30 03:23:54 <gmaxwell> Though now I wonder how many people are actually doing that, because bitcoind basically currently starts taking minutes to process when you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions in your wallet with more than 30 or so hops.
587 2011-06-30 03:24:34 <lfm> but then we have multi-output txn now
588 2011-06-30 03:24:50 <gmaxwell> (because finding the list of confirmed inputs basically becomes exptime due to the "your own txn are treated as confirmed if their external inputs are confirmed" check)
589 2011-06-30 03:29:59 <lfm> multi-output/sendmany solves that in even better way
590 2011-06-30 03:31:57 <gmaxwell> on sure. But it does require you to have batching logic.
591 2011-06-30 03:32:26 <gmaxwell> That might be an interesting feature for bitcoin... an autobatching mode that will delay regular txn for a few seconds in hopes of building a sendmany
592 2011-06-30 03:34:01 <folklore> the real problem wit bitcoin that I could see arise is taxation, since the value rapidly fluxates so much, them properly taxing it I think would be hard
593 2011-06-30 03:35:52 <noagendamarket> I earnt 0 bitcoin and said so on my tax form :)
594 2011-06-30 03:35:56 <lfm> folklore: it similar to playing a commodities market for most tax purposes I think
595 2011-06-30 03:36:33 <noagendamarket> as long as you remember taxation is mostly self incrimination youll get the idea.
596 2011-06-30 03:37:34 <lfm> well, income tax, sales tax isnt
597 2011-06-30 03:38:05 <lfm> or property tax
598 2011-06-30 03:43:19 <folklore> income tax isn't easy, for my business it's estimate quarterly...
599 2011-06-30 03:43:30 <folklore> means you have to estimate, to low and they could fine you
600 2011-06-30 03:43:34 <folklore> and you have to do again
601 2011-06-30 03:43:47 <wladston> guys, anyone tried to compile cpuminer for low end processors ?
602 2011-06-30 03:44:06 <wladston> now it's just my music server machine that isn't hashing
603 2011-06-30 03:44:09 <wladston> :D
604 2011-06-30 03:44:25 <folklore> taxes just confusin
605 2011-06-30 03:44:32 <lfm> wladston: I take it you get free electricity
606 2011-06-30 03:44:46 <wladston> lfm: the music server is on all the time
607 2011-06-30 03:44:58 <wladston> lfm: so I think it won't impact electricity
608 2011-06-30 03:45:11 <lfm> it does actually
609 2011-06-30 03:45:37 <lfm> idle CPU can use a LOT less power
610 2011-06-30 03:45:42 <wladston> hummmm
611 2011-06-30 03:46:02 <wladston> well, it's a 200Mhz box
612 2011-06-30 03:46:33 <wladston> my other 200Mhz server is now hashing 56 khash/h lol
613 2011-06-30 03:46:47 <wladston> I wanted to do it for the fun
614 2011-06-30 03:46:49 <lfm> wladston: it would probably pay for itself in a couple months to reaplace that motherboard with an atom or something low power
615 2011-06-30 03:53:20 <lfm> well maybe a year
616 2011-06-30 03:56:32 <lfm> ;;bc,gen 56
617 2011-06-30 03:56:33 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 56 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 4.08392056725e-05 BTC per day and 1.70163356969e-06 BTC per hour.
618 2011-06-30 03:57:01 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 56
619 2011-06-30 03:57:02 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 56 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 3354 years, 14 weeks, 5 days, 17 hours, 23 minutes, and 11 seconds
620 2011-06-30 03:57:14 <lfm> fun!
621 2011-06-30 03:59:40 <lfm> wladston: I assume that 56 was really khash/sec and not khash/hour as you stated it.
622 2011-06-30 04:00:04 <wladston> lfm: whops! khash/second!
623 2011-06-30 04:01:39 <wladston> ;;bc,calc 1256
624 2011-06-30 04:01:40 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1256 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 149 years, 28 weeks, 6 days, 5 hours, 40 minutes, and 0 seconds
625 2011-06-30 04:01:58 <wladston> ;;bc,gen 1256
626 2011-06-30 04:02:00 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1256 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 0.000915965041512 BTC per day and 3.8165210063e-05 BTC per hour.
627 2011-06-30 04:02:31 <lfm> wladston: add all your khash/s together
628 2011-06-30 04:03:24 <wladston> lfm: 56 from the small server, 6000 from pc1, 6000 from pc2 => 12056
629 2011-06-30 04:03:41 <wladston> lfm: I also added a javascript miner to my websites
630 2011-06-30 04:04:10 <wladston> lfm: they should be mining about 5 khash
631 2011-06-30 04:04:11 <lfm> ;;calc 12056
632 2011-06-30 04:04:12 <gribble> Duanesburg, NY 12056
633 2011-06-30 04:04:17 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 12056
634 2011-06-30 04:04:18 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12056 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 15 years, 30 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 12 minutes, and 5 seconds
635 2011-06-30 04:04:40 <wladston> lfm: I'm mining on the pool
636 2011-06-30 04:04:43 <wladston> :)
637 2011-06-30 04:04:52 <lfm> ;;bc,gen 12056
638 2011-06-30 04:04:53 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 12056 Khps, given current difficulty of 1379223.4296725 , is 0.00879209756407 BTC per day and 0.000366337398503 BTC per hour.
639 2011-06-30 04:04:55 <wladston> for far I got about 0.02
640 2011-06-30 04:05:09 <lfm> ya almost 0.01 btc per day
641 2011-06-30 04:05:16 <wladston> :D
642 2011-06-30 04:05:22 <wladston> I'm going to buy a GPU
643 2011-06-30 04:05:34 <wladston> this mining thing is so fun
644 2011-06-30 04:05:36 <wladston> :D
645 2011-06-30 04:05:41 <lfm> lol
646 2011-06-30 04:06:11 <wladston> going to install background process on mother's pc too
647 2011-06-30 04:06:13 <wladston> :D
648 2011-06-30 04:06:38 <lfm> ah, yes, and is it mother pays power bills?
649 2011-06-30 04:07:02 <wladston> lfm: does it really impact on the power bill ?
650 2011-06-30 04:07:19 <lfm> get a watt meter and find out for yourself
651 2011-06-30 04:07:22 <wladston> lfm: I have a solid impression that a starndard pc sucks always the same ammout of power
652 2011-06-30 04:07:32 <wladston> lfm: you have one ?
653 2011-06-30 04:07:37 <lfm> some ya
654 2011-06-30 04:07:48 <wladston> lfm: so ... what can you tell me ?
655 2011-06-30 04:08:23 <lfm> a pc can easily suck 100 wats more working than idle. gpu can be more than that
656 2011-06-30 04:08:36 <wladston> :O
657 2011-06-30 04:08:37 <phantomcircuit> wladston, any computer older than a P4 will use significantly more power mining than idle
658 2011-06-30 04:08:54 <lfm> new ones actually too
659 2011-06-30 04:09:04 <phantomcircuit> and a P4 generation cpu will use about 25% more
660 2011-06-30 04:09:08 <phantomcircuit> er
661 2011-06-30 04:09:11 <phantomcircuit> i meant newer
662 2011-06-30 04:09:24 <wladston> lfm: do you mine ?
663 2011-06-30 04:09:38 <lfm> even original pentium and 486 had low power wait states
664 2011-06-30 04:10:18 <lfm> wladston: yes
665 2011-06-30 04:10:31 <wladston> lfm: how did you got started ?
666 2011-06-30 04:10:42 <wladston> lfm: and, on with pool ?
667 2011-06-30 04:10:57 <lfm> I dont use pools,
668 2011-06-30 04:11:16 <conjre> he's that much of a bamf :-P
669 2011-06-30 04:11:38 <wladston> wow
670 2011-06-30 04:11:52 <wladston> lfm: how many hashes you make in a second ??!?!?
671 2011-06-30 04:12:37 <lfm> I leave that to my GPUs, I dont do any myself
672 2011-06-30 04:12:53 <wladston> :D
673 2011-06-30 04:13:01 <wladston> lfm: ok, how many they can make ?
674 2011-06-30 04:13:26 <lfm> many
675 2011-06-30 04:14:38 <wladston> lfm: woa ... amazing you can generate a block alone
676 2011-06-30 04:15:10 <lfm> well I actually havnt recently, the difficulty is that high now
677 2011-06-30 04:16:29 <phantomcircuit> lfm, yeah but they didn't work lol
678 2011-06-30 04:16:40 <grbgout> lfm: wow, still mining solo? Kudos to you, what kind of power do you weild?
679 2011-06-30 04:17:04 <phantomcircuit> lfm, i have a P4 with a low power 200MHz state (normally 1.8GHz) it saves about 10%
680 2011-06-30 04:18:01 <lfm> I am pretty small potatoes. my power bill is under $100/month (power costs) still
681 2011-06-30 04:18:29 <wladston> anyone ever investigated solar power ?
682 2011-06-30 04:18:31 <lfm> phantomcircuit: ya, p4 are maybe the worst ever
683 2011-06-30 04:18:46 <phantomcircuit> wladston, solar power is ~ 5 times as expensive as coal power
684 2011-06-30 04:18:47 <conjre> wladston: roi is very high
685 2011-06-30 04:18:50 <phantomcircuit> kind of silly
686 2011-06-30 04:19:02 <phantomcircuit> roi for solar is only high with subsidies
687 2011-06-30 04:19:02 <wladston> you guys use coal power ?
688 2011-06-30 04:19:25 <justmoon> most miners just burn babies to power their rigs, actually
689 2011-06-30 04:19:28 <phantomcircuit> if you're using 100% of the power yourself you dont get 90% of the subsidies, which are in the form of absurdly high power buy back
690 2011-06-30 04:19:41 <phantomcircuit> for example
691 2011-06-30 04:19:41 <wladston> here in brazil almost all our electricity comes from hydroelectrics
692 2011-06-30 04:19:46 <lfm> thats what comes out of the plugs here ya
693 2011-06-30 04:20:01 <phantomcircuit> in california you pay ~ 0.15 USD / kWh
694 2011-06-30 04:20:11 <phantomcircuit> however you can sell back solar power @ 0.45 USD /kWh
695 2011-06-30 04:20:26 <phantomcircuit> and it costs ~ 0.25 USD/kWh to actually produce
696 2011-06-30 04:20:50 <lfm> wonder how they know what kind of power it is they are buying!
697 2011-06-30 04:20:50 <phantomcircuit> (and the 0.15 USD/kWh is already absurdly over priced)
698 2011-06-30 04:21:03 <phantomcircuit> lfm, same way they know how much power you use
699 2011-06-30 04:21:14 <phantomcircuit> they connect a meter and assume most people dont cheat
700 2011-06-30 04:21:17 <conjre> yea I pay about 0.16/kWhr in CA
701 2011-06-30 04:21:28 <wladston> we pay 0,248109392 I think
702 2011-06-30 04:21:36 <phantomcircuit> wladston, .24 what
703 2011-06-30 04:21:42 <wladston> kw/h
704 2011-06-30 04:21:45 <lfm> phantomcircuit: but you could connect them together and sell youc coal power back as solar ata profit
705 2011-06-30 04:21:48 <phantomcircuit> no i mean what currency
706 2011-06-30 04:21:53 <wladston> usd
707 2011-06-30 04:22:01 <phantomcircuit> lfm, yeah and if you got caught you'd go to jail
708 2011-06-30 04:22:08 <wladston> in brl ( our currency) it's 0,38978
709 2011-06-30 04:22:10 <phantomcircuit> wladston, for hydro? you're getting ripped off massively
710 2011-06-30 04:22:15 <wladston> yeah
711 2011-06-30 04:22:19 <wladston> taxes
712 2011-06-30 04:22:21 <wladston> :/
713 2011-06-30 04:22:28 <phantomcircuit> hydro power in the us is like 0.05USD/kWh if you're reasonably close to the source
714 2011-06-30 04:22:36 <phantomcircuit> 0.07 USD/kWh if you're not
715 2011-06-30 04:22:43 <phantomcircuit> transmission is expensive
716 2011-06-30 04:23:09 <phantomcircuit> wladston, you realize that your government managed to dupe the entire population with the REAL right?
717 2011-06-30 04:23:10 <wladston> whoa
718 2011-06-30 04:23:16 <phantomcircuit> that's the funniest shit ever
719 2011-06-30 04:23:16 <wladston> we are close to the source
720 2011-06-30 04:23:31 <phantomcircuit> HEY EVERYBODY THIS IS THE REAL VALUE UNIT
721 2011-06-30 04:23:34 <phantomcircuit> USE THIS INSTEAD
722 2011-06-30 04:23:36 <phantomcircuit> *ok*
723 2011-06-30 04:23:38 <wladston> LOL
724 2011-06-30 04:23:39 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
725 2011-06-30 04:23:42 <wladston> yeah
726 2011-06-30 04:24:00 <wladston> I remember when it changed from the cruzeiro
727 2011-06-30 04:24:04 <wladston> I was a kid
728 2011-06-30 04:24:06 <phantomcircuit> that stupid city was something like 5% of GDP for over 5 years
729 2011-06-30 04:24:08 <phantomcircuit> and then like
730 2011-06-30 04:24:12 <phantomcircuit> nobody lived in it for years
731 2011-06-30 04:24:44 <phantomcircuit> and of course now that brazil is doing fine they're all like
732 2011-06-30 04:24:48 <phantomcircuit> SEE IT WAS A GODO IDEA
733 2011-06-30 04:24:58 <wladston> :D
734 2011-06-30 04:25:01 <phantomcircuit> ignoring that it took years and years of them not doing shit
735 2011-06-30 04:25:13 <wladston> yuU
736 2011-06-30 04:25:18 <wladston> I think it was a good idea
737 2011-06-30 04:25:21 <wladston> :D
738 2011-06-30 04:25:40 <phantomcircuit> you'd probably be a much richer country if you weren't run by idiotic pseudo marxists
739 2011-06-30 04:26:16 <lfm> so .. wanna talk about bitcoin?
740 2011-06-30 04:26:24 <wladston> :D
741 2011-06-30 04:26:46 <phantomcircuit> yes
742 2011-06-30 04:26:48 <bittwist> bitkittens
743 2011-06-30 04:26:53 <bittwist> make kittens by burning up cycles
744 2011-06-30 04:26:59 <phantomcircuit> bitcoin would have protected the brazilian people from their retarded leaders
745 2011-06-30 04:27:03 <wladston> I do see we have a REAL high energetic cost ... maybe it would be effective to get solar power instead
746 2011-06-30 04:27:05 <bittwist> see phantomcircuit for more info
747 2011-06-30 04:27:05 <phantomcircuit> if only if only
748 2011-06-30 04:27:18 <lfm> make bitcoins by burning up kittens
749 2011-06-30 04:27:26 <phantomcircuit> bittwist, lol
750 2011-06-30 04:27:41 <wladston> how long have you guys been mining ?
751 2011-06-30 04:27:53 <wladston> I started to study this about 5 days ago
752 2011-06-30 04:27:58 <wladston> and mined for 2
753 2011-06-30 04:28:06 <lfm> when I started 1 BTC was = $0.06 US
754 2011-06-30 04:28:48 <wladston> WOW
755 2011-06-30 04:28:59 <wladston> lfm: you should be rich by now
756 2011-06-30 04:29:16 <lfm> I should have baught a bunch huh?
757 2011-06-30 04:29:23 <wladston> could have bought a house or something
758 2011-06-30 04:31:07 <lfm> I got a house, I could have a Ferrari
759 2011-06-30 04:31:49 <wladston> amazing
760 2011-06-30 04:32:11 <lfm> I didnt get the house with bitcoin
761 2011-06-30 04:32:11 <wladston> I think we can still get rich by exploring bitcoins in the market
762 2011-06-30 04:32:35 <wladston> like, seling then software to operate using bitcoins
763 2011-06-30 04:32:49 <wladston> I'm planning to open the first restaurant that accepts bitcoins
764 2011-06-30 04:32:52 <wladston> :D
765 2011-06-30 04:33:07 <lfm> Id say wait a few years
766 2011-06-30 04:33:35 <wladston> lfm: why ?
767 2011-06-30 04:33:46 <lfm> unless you also accept regular money and credit cards
768 2011-06-30 04:33:47 <conjre> wladston: merchant services for bitcoins
769 2011-06-30 04:33:59 <wladston> lfm: sure, the plan is to accept both
770 2011-06-30 04:34:07 <wladston> lfm: and offer a discount for bitcoins
771 2011-06-30 04:34:22 <lfm> oh, ok, cuz prolly no one near your restaurant uses bitcoins yet
772 2011-06-30 04:34:35 <conjre> wladston: that's where the money will be, create a plastic card that will attach a tag(location of service) to it's own bitcoin token for each transaction
773 2011-06-30 04:34:48 <wladston> lfm: but I think that in the case of a restaurant, we don't have time to secure the transaction :/
774 2011-06-30 04:34:54 <conjre> then people just swipe cards and you collect the txn fees
775 2011-06-30 04:35:41 <wladston> that's something to think about ...
776 2011-06-30 04:35:46 <lfm> wladston: ya, theyd have to pay when they enter then it would confirm maybe by the time they were done
777 2011-06-30 04:35:49 <wladston> but I'm more inclined to using phones
778 2011-06-30 04:36:32 <wladston> lfm: how hard is it to make a fake transaction ?
779 2011-06-30 04:36:41 <wladston> lfm: one that will get rejected
780 2011-06-30 04:36:44 <wladston> ?
781 2011-06-30 04:37:24 <wladston> in other words ... how hard is it to fool a transaction for about 30 seconds ?
782 2011-06-30 04:37:34 <wladston> *fool/fake
783 2011-06-30 04:37:39 <lfm> not reall to hard to make double spends but the easy way it is 50-50 which of 2 transactions will go thru and which will be rejected
784 2011-06-30 04:38:04 <conjre> wladston: probably wouldn't be able to implement what you're talking about until asic's are produced Im guessing
785 2011-06-30 04:38:52 <lfm> wladston: and the bad one would never get any confirmations
786 2011-06-30 04:39:39 <wladston> lfm: hummm right... so bitcoins will never do for food :(
787 2011-06-30 04:41:43 <ersi> wladston: there's a bunch of resturants accepting bitcoins already
788 2011-06-30 04:41:56 <ersi> so you won't be the first (ever), but certainly in your country/region/local perhaps
789 2011-06-30 04:41:58 <conjre> ok so bitcoins are out for PoS for the mean time
790 2011-06-30 04:42:00 <wladston> ersi: how do they handle the confirmation delay problem ?
791 2011-06-30 04:42:33 <ersi> I don't know.
792 2011-06-30 04:42:43 <wladston> i guess they probably don't
793 2011-06-30 04:43:00 <wladston> it should be just a bunch of honest nerds trying to have lunch the fun way
794 2011-06-30 04:43:15 <ersi> well, they see the person and see the transaction getting made.. aswell as seeing it show up in their client at the same time..
795 2011-06-30 04:43:24 <ersi> and the person will probably be there for atleast 20 min
796 2011-06-30 04:43:28 <ersi> since he ordered food..
797 2011-06-30 04:43:35 <wladston> yeah
798 2011-06-30 04:43:40 <wladston> just stick a webcam
799 2011-06-30 04:43:47 <wladston> and there you go
800 2011-06-30 04:44:05 <gmaxwell> wladston: you can also use a trusted third party for anti-replay.
801 2011-06-30 04:44:25 <ersi> Webcam? well.. these guys have probably only gotten singles that has ordered with bitcoins
802 2011-06-30 04:44:28 <wladston> gmaxwell: how does that work ?
803 2011-06-30 04:44:40 <wladston> ersi: lol yeah
804 2011-06-30 04:44:49 <gmaxwell> wladston: https://github.com/groffer/bitcoin/commit/dc2dfbab6a0f75070fc3b962da4eb2967e9659df
805 2011-06-30 04:44:55 <gmaxwell> see "Immediate payment"
806 2011-06-30 04:45:37 <wladston> gmaxwell: amazing!!!!
807 2011-06-30 04:45:48 <wladston> this thing can be faster than visa
808 2011-06-30 04:46:06 <zamgo> escrow is cool
809 2011-06-30 04:47:32 <gmaxwell> Though there is nothing wrong with e.g. using a classic centeralized payment card service backed with bitcoin. I expect those will exist too.
810 2011-06-30 04:48:26 <gmaxwell> It's also possible for someone start a business offering anti-reversal insurance. You show them a transaction and they promise to insure it against reversal and they use excellent visiblity into the network and miners queues to be confident that it won't be reversed.
811 2011-06-30 04:48:44 <zamgo> oooh MemoryPoolGuaranteed
812 2011-06-30 04:48:46 <wladston> yes!!
813 2011-06-30 04:49:06 <wladston> this gavinandresen, is he active here ?
814 2011-06-30 04:49:21 <gmaxwell> Not at the moment, but he was earlier today.
815 2011-06-30 04:49:25 <wladston> cool
816 2011-06-30 04:49:28 <wladston> :)
817 2011-06-30 04:49:41 <gmaxwell> So yea, lots of options.
818 2011-06-30 04:49:52 <gmaxwell> And oppturnities for bitcoin related businesses too.
819 2011-06-30 04:51:06 <wladston> gmaxwell: yeah. I hope I can convince the business guys on monday
820 2011-06-30 04:51:11 <wladston> www.s1mp3.org/miner/
821 2011-06-30 04:51:18 <wladston> the javascript miner
822 2011-06-30 04:51:20 <wladston> :D
823 2011-06-30 04:52:04 <phantomcircuit> wladston, http://kittenmining.com/
824 2011-06-30 04:52:09 <phantomcircuit> that's how i power my mining rig
825 2011-06-30 04:52:16 <phantomcircuit> one good old american kitten at a time
826 2011-06-30 04:53:05 <wladston> phantomcircuit: I don't understand that joke!
827 2011-06-30 04:53:11 <phantomcircuit> oh
828 2011-06-30 04:53:13 <phantomcircuit> too bad
829 2011-06-30 04:53:15 <phantomcircuit> it's hilarious
830 2011-06-30 04:53:21 <phantomcircuit> bittwist,
831 2011-06-30 04:53:22 <phantomcircuit> http://kittenmining.com/
832 2011-06-30 04:53:50 <gmaxwell> omg it's not a CSRF attack.
833 2011-06-30 04:53:57 <bittwist> excellent
834 2011-06-30 04:54:12 <wladston> what does it means to say one is burning kittens ?