1 2011-07-08 00:24:35 <nameless> |Seeing as there's a lack of conversation
  2 2011-07-08 00:24:40 <nameless> |Allow me to try to start some
  3 2011-07-08 00:27:19 <[Tycho]> ^)
  4 2011-07-08 00:27:48 <upb> that attempt pmuch failed tho
  5 2011-07-08 00:28:19 <cuddlefish> upb: wut
  6 2011-07-08 00:28:31 <cuddlefish> kiba: Hahaha
  7 2011-07-08 00:28:40 <cuddlefish> kiba: i know how that feels :P
  8 2011-07-08 00:34:23 <kiba> cuddlefish: I wanna get serious about coding and doing it properly...which I am..and starting to..but system admin is bottleneck
  9 2011-07-08 00:35:05 <CheapScotsman> Does clicking off CPU Affinity in GUIMiner stop CPU mining?
 10 2011-07-08 00:35:15 <CheapScotsman> I tried clicking them off and my core2 went to 100% usage
 11 2011-07-08 00:35:38 <cuddlefish> kiba: Oh, by the way: compass-style.org.
 12 2011-07-08 00:35:50 <cuddlefish> kiba: i'm no web designer, but with that, I made zode.ubitex.org
 13 2011-07-08 00:36:01 <kiba> cuddlefish: the style upgrade is maddening to me since I cannot code fast enough/use my time efficently
 14 2011-07-08 00:36:05 <cuddlefish> you might want to use it for Bitcoinweekly
 15 2011-07-08 00:36:21 <cuddlefish> kiba: compass helps massively.
 16 2011-07-08 00:36:35 <kiba> yes...yes...
 17 2011-07-08 00:36:45 <kiba> when I can get to it
 18 2011-07-08 00:39:13 <nameless> |upb: nah, look what happened
 19 2011-07-08 00:39:21 <CheapScotsman> Is it normal for CPU to be in use 50+% with phenox miner?
 20 2011-07-08 00:39:33 <CheapScotsman> then drop down to 0% immediately after stopping?
 21 2011-07-08 00:39:40 <CheapScotsman> *pheonix
 22 2011-07-08 00:42:11 <moa7> [Tycho] you should charge more for your pool ... like 4 or 5%
 23 2011-07-08 00:43:33 <[Tycho]> Why ? I'm less than 50% already
 24 2011-07-08 00:44:03 <moa7> it might stop all the whinging, attacks, etc
 25 2011-07-08 00:44:24 <moa7> when you get big again
 26 2011-07-08 00:45:22 <[Tycho]> My users won't like it.
 27 2011-07-08 00:45:55 <hwolf> pigs get slaughtered
 28 2011-07-08 00:46:01 <moa7> but your wallet will
 29 2011-07-08 00:46:16 <moa7> it is amtter of good network regulation, nothing personal
 30 2011-07-08 00:46:36 <[Tycho]> My fee is already the highest.
 31 2011-07-08 00:46:44 <moa7> he can make same money with smaller overheads, etc
 32 2011-07-08 00:46:58 <moa7> but your service is too good for the cost
 33 2011-07-08 00:47:11 <hwolf> probably a better plan for Tycho would be to spin out "private pool" mining in another data center from deepbit
 34 2011-07-08 00:47:30 <moa7> that is why you get too big, you are undercharging
 35 2011-07-08 00:47:39 <hwolf> let people like you pay 5% to be away from the main deepbit server
 36 2011-07-08 00:47:59 <moa7> just a suggestion
 37 2011-07-08 00:50:59 <moa7> or appoint an independent 3rd party to audit your blocks for irregulaties is another option
 38 2011-07-08 00:51:41 <moa7> when you go over 50% only
 39 2011-07-08 00:59:12 <shLONG> http://bitgambler.sytes.net/ source code now available
 40 2011-07-08 01:02:40 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: Sign up for Black Lotus, create a pool behind them with a gigantic fee
 41 2011-07-08 01:06:16 <[Tycho]> cuddlefish, I already have BlackLotus service :)
 42 2011-07-08 01:07:11 <doublec> [Tycho]: what do you think of BlackLotus? I was looking into them for another service but couldn't find much in the way of reviews.
 43 2011-07-08 01:08:48 <[Tycho]> moa7, I already started a pledge of 50 BTC to make fork monitoring site (that was like ~1500 USD), but no one cared. Also I proposed a change in miners code that will add something like anti-fork functionality at client side, independent from any pool, but no one cared.
 44 2011-07-08 01:09:01 <[Tycho]> doublec, mtGox left them.
 45 2011-07-08 01:09:39 <[Tycho]> moa7, turns out that no one really cares about forks and stuff, they are all talk.
 46 2011-07-08 01:09:42 <nanotube> [Tycho]: well the point is that you don't want /anti fork/, since bitcoin is supposed to fork.
 47 2011-07-08 01:09:54 <nanotube> the longest chain should win
 48 2011-07-08 01:09:56 <[Tycho]> nanotube, I mean the evil fork
 49 2011-07-08 01:10:07 <nanotube> how can you determine whether a fork is evil
 50 2011-07-08 01:10:09 <moa7> [Tycho] : didn't know that ...  u r right, all talk.
 51 2011-07-08 01:10:19 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: How about an API call that gives clients the block headers for a piece of work
 52 2011-07-08 01:10:24 <moa7> when it stabs you in the hand?
 53 2011-07-08 01:10:45 <nanotube> moa7: haha
 54 2011-07-08 01:10:52 <lfm> forks are recorded in blk0001.dat
 55 2011-07-08 01:11:09 <lfm> so we can go back and reveiw them any time we like
 56 2011-07-08 01:12:22 <moa7> lfm: every blk0001.dat has unique forks
 57 2011-07-08 01:12:30 <lfm> yup
 58 2011-07-08 01:13:26 <moa7> so if [Tycho] published his blk001.dat would that keep the noise down?
 59 2011-07-08 01:13:44 <lfm> naw, he could edit it
 60 2011-07-08 01:14:05 <moa7> ways around that?
 61 2011-07-08 01:14:36 <lfm> have people connect to him with -addnode and they record and publish the forks they see
 62 2011-07-08 01:14:55 <moa7> anything stopping that?
 63 2011-07-08 01:15:07 <lfm> maybe
 64 2011-07-08 01:15:48 <moa7> sounds like [Tycho] is offering 50 BTC for someone to do this?
 65 2011-07-08 01:16:02 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: I'd appreciate a "reverse getwork": Given the "pre-hash", produce the block headers
 66 2011-07-08 01:16:14 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: Then, I'd gladly create a monitoring site
 67 2011-07-08 01:16:33 <lfm> has tyco published his node number so we can -addnode him?
 68 2011-07-08 01:16:57 <lfm> indeed does he support incoming connects?
 69 2011-07-08 01:17:14 <cuddlefish> lfm: well, there tend to be transactions in his blocks, so yes.
 70 2011-07-08 01:17:40 <lfm> cuddlefish: huh?
 71 2011-07-08 01:18:07 <cuddlefish> lfm: if he doesn't have any connections, his blocks would be empty
 72 2011-07-08 01:18:32 <lfm> cuddlefish: he might have outgoin connects only, like behind a nat with no upnp
 73 2011-07-08 01:18:38 <cuddlefish> lfm: Ah, i see
 74 2011-07-08 01:20:06 <lfm> [Tycho]: can we -addnode you?
 75 2011-07-08 01:21:11 <lfm> afk I guess
 76 2011-07-08 01:21:29 <moa7> actually wouldn't it be good to have biggest pool as a fallback node?
 77 2011-07-08 01:21:34 <cuddlefish> lfm: he's hiding
 78 2011-07-08 01:22:00 <lfm> shy huh
 79 2011-07-08 01:22:03 <moa7> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes
 80 2011-07-08 01:22:35 <moa7> busy
 81 2011-07-08 01:22:50 <hwolf> or his node is not on a fat pipe and would not do well against ddos
 82 2011-07-08 01:23:28 <lfm> ya well if he prefers we could have just a few who monitor him with a address he only tells them
 83 2011-07-08 01:24:31 <lfm> ya I can see where he might prefer to not make the address too well known to keep out of ddos sights
 84 2011-07-08 01:25:13 <moa7> slush is on fallback node
 85 2011-07-08 01:25:24 <lfm> assuming it is a different address from his rpc miners address
 86 2011-07-08 01:26:56 <moa7> $ host deepbit.net deepbit.net has address 46.4.121.118 deepbit.net has address 46.4.121.119 deepbit.net has address 91.205.41.157 deepbit.net has address 91.213.175.240
 87 2011-07-08 01:27:12 <moa7> try -addnode on those
 88 2011-07-08 01:28:12 <[Tycho]> Those are isolated frontends, there are no bitcoinds.
 89 2011-07-08 01:28:47 <jgarzik> slush runs many bitcoind's
 90 2011-07-08 01:28:49 <lfm> well, none public you are saying
 91 2011-07-08 01:29:16 <[Tycho]> Sadly open bitcoind would be too vulnerable
 92 2011-07-08 01:29:54 <moa7> so if [Tycho] published his blk001.dat would that keep the noise down?
 93 2011-07-08 01:30:04 <[Tycho]> I don't think so.
 94 2011-07-08 01:30:07 <jgarzik> no
 95 2011-07-08 01:30:13 <lfm> moa7: I dont think so either
 96 2011-07-08 01:30:19 <moa7> why not?
 97 2011-07-08 01:30:28 <[Tycho]> The service should monitor the network, not just believe me.
 98 2011-07-08 01:30:43 <moa7> ok
 99 2011-07-08 01:30:51 <jgarzik> nothing wrong with open bitcoind...  as long as it's isolated far away from your main service ;)
100 2011-07-08 01:31:05 <lfm> moa7: if he was doing anything, his logs would agree with him
101 2011-07-08 01:31:14 <jgarzik> same concept in router-land with bastion nodes, DMZ's, etc.
102 2011-07-08 01:31:30 <moa7> but selected 3rd party fork monitoring is an option?
103 2011-07-08 01:32:42 <lfm> moa7: ya, but seems like overkill till we actually have some stronger suspicician of misbehaviour.
104 2011-07-08 01:33:07 <lfm> not just paranoia
105 2011-07-08 01:33:23 <hwolf> you could use statistics to get paranoid
106 2011-07-08 01:33:36 <jgarzik> you could use all sorts of things to get paranoid
107 2011-07-08 01:33:45 <moa7> i'm not that suspicious ... but a monitoring system is pointless unless it is above suspicion
108 2011-07-08 01:33:51 <lfm> might be interesting to develop some tools for fork reporting in general anyway
109 2011-07-08 01:34:01 <jgarzik> lfm: we do need that, yes...
110 2011-07-08 01:34:10 <jgarzik> double spending alerts
111 2011-07-08 01:34:45 <lfm> jgarzik: ya that would go hand in hand  ... true
112 2011-07-08 01:35:04 <moa7> network watchdog
113 2011-07-08 01:35:25 <moa7> "rating agency"
114 2011-07-08 01:46:40 <[Tycho]> nanotube, the site would monitor all forks and list orphaned branches. About the miner feature - to prevent mining more than ~5 blocks back. You can search for both my proposals on the forum
115 2011-07-08 01:50:01 <lfm> one site doesnt see all forks. you need severl spread out sites to see most of them I think
116 2011-07-08 01:50:33 <jgarzik> lfm: correct
117 2011-07-08 01:51:02 <[Tycho]> If i'm correct then longer orphans will be more visible
118 2011-07-08 01:51:56 <lfm> longer? ya I spoze. most forks are just one block, longer forks would show up over more of the net
119 2011-07-08 01:54:00 <[Tycho]> Hmm, if someone would like to make a double-spend, he should wait for planned orphan to reach it's target, i suppose.
120 2011-07-08 01:56:25 <lfm> [Tycho]: good question, exactly what would double spend look like in blk001 or on net itself?
121 2011-07-08 01:56:31 <moa7> huh? can you clarify "planned orphan"
122 2011-07-08 01:57:33 <[Tycho]> moa7, the branch containing first spend that will be invalidated by second one.
123 2011-07-08 01:59:15 <moa7> ok. has anyone even attempted that, in testing for instance?
124 2011-07-08 01:59:25 <[Tycho]> If some evil pool operator would like to trick mtGox, he should wait for more than 6 blocks before releasing alternative branch.
125 2011-07-08 01:59:40 <lfm> what if theres just two txn enter the net to spend the same bitcoins input at the same time? 1/2 nodes see one first and half see the other. race to see which one is in next block?
126 2011-07-08 02:00:14 <cuddlefish> lfm: yep
127 2011-07-08 02:00:48 <[Tycho]> Six-blocks long orphan would reach most nodes unlike usual orphans.
128 2011-07-08 02:02:21 <[Tycho]> That's why even a single node can detect them.
129 2011-07-08 02:02:32 <moa7> so in practicality it would be the 6-block long double spend attack?
130 2011-07-08 02:02:42 <gmaxwell> [Tycho]: or he finds mtgox's nodes (/guard nodes), and isolates them with a sybil attack. Then mines the fork just for mtgox, and then feeds mtgox the real chain once its longer. The rest of the network doesn't see the fork, and this attack doesn't technically require 50% hashpower, only enough that it can mine 6 blocks (or whatever mtgox requires) in plausable time.
131 2011-07-08 02:02:49 <[Tycho]> You should wait to your wictim consider it confirmed.
132 2011-07-08 02:02:55 <moa7> so 50 BTC for a 6-block orphan monitor then [Tycho]?
133 2011-07-08 02:03:13 <[Tycho]> moa7, check that my thread at forum.
134 2011-07-08 02:03:21 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: Please, implement reverse getblock.
135 2011-07-08 02:03:30 <moa7> right.
136 2011-07-08 02:03:48 <[Tycho]> Actually I just invented a new idea, even better.
137 2011-07-08 02:04:05 <[Tycho]> Going to write some RFC
138 2011-07-08 02:04:20 <moa7> moa7, check that my thread at forum ... link?
139 2011-07-08 02:04:36 <moa7> forum too big for searching sensibly now
140 2011-07-08 02:04:58 <[Tycho]> Does it allows to see all threads created by me ? Should be just a few.
141 2011-07-08 02:05:08 <[Tycho]> I don't remember the link.
142 2011-07-08 02:06:15 <lfm> gmaxwell: in order to mine 6 blocks an anythink like reasonable time (fast enuf the victim doesnt get suspicious) you would need pretty near as much power as the rest of the net
143 2011-07-08 02:06:46 <cuddlefish> lfm: suspicious doesn't matter
144 2011-07-08 02:07:00 <cuddlefish> you have to mine 6 blocks faster than the network mines 5
145 2011-07-08 02:07:13 <lfm> ya well if he sees no blocks/confirmations in 2 days, that is pretty suspicious
146 2011-07-08 02:07:52 <cuddlefish> what?
147 2011-07-08 02:07:58 <cuddlefish> why wouldn't he see other blocks
148 2011-07-08 02:08:34 <lfm> you are mining a fork just for him
149 2011-07-08 02:08:38 <nanotube> cuddlefish: he said in the context of sybil attack
150 2011-07-08 02:08:41 <cuddlefish> nanotube: Ah.
151 2011-07-08 02:08:42 <nanotube> isolating his nodes
152 2011-07-08 02:12:49 <gmaxwell> lfm: yes, thus 'technically'. The more important difference being that a public style respend probably takes a very long time when you only have just over 50% and want to go back 6 blocks.
153 2011-07-08 02:13:58 <gmaxwell> lfm: while a 6 block respend would be 100% successful with 50% hash power (meaning matching the good network) and a sybil attack.
154 2011-07-08 02:14:41 <gmaxwell> er, 100% suffessful in just the time it took you to mine six blocks. Since you never bother undoing.
155 2011-07-08 02:14:59 <lfm> gmaxwell: well anyone with power to challenge the rest of the net have several vectors really they can choose from.
156 2011-07-08 02:16:03 <gmaxwell> If you're especially good at sybil attacks you may be able to partition some miners to use their hash power too, which is fun.
157 2011-07-08 02:16:41 <lfm> well if you could divide the net in half you could spend your coins in both haves without needing any moning power
158 2011-07-08 02:16:51 <lfm> mining
159 2011-07-08 02:18:27 <gmaxwell> E.g. if PoolX has >50% hash power on one ISP, then an attacker who can compromise one ISP routers in order to partition their bitcoind can use them to mine a fork for the purpose of undoing activity happening on the rest of the network.
160 2011-07-08 02:19:19 <lfm> if you can spend twice, you dont much care which one is eventually accepted as valid
161 2011-07-08 02:20:40 <gmaxwell> Or more generally if you can create parititions with a nontrivial amount of hash power (enough to mine X blocks before people wonder whats up), you can do fun things.  But the more concentrated hash power is the more realistic the attack.
162 2011-07-08 02:21:35 <lfm> gmaxwell: that is another good reason tycho has for not revealing the full extent of his net
163 2011-07-08 02:22:31 <gmaxwell> It's hard to hide miners though as they announce blocks.
164 2011-07-08 02:23:20 <phantomcircuit> lol fucking banks
165 2011-07-08 02:23:31 <phantomcircuit> they dont provide statements with unique id's for transactions
166 2011-07-08 02:23:56 <phantomcircuit> so the only way to prevent doubling up on deposits at britcoin is to only process them once daily
167 2011-07-08 02:23:57 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
168 2011-07-08 02:25:00 <lfm> dont they have timestamps? so long as two txn with same amount dont happen in same second you can tell them apart?
169 2011-07-08 02:25:21 <phantomcircuit> timestamp? lol no they have the date
170 2011-07-08 02:25:54 <phantomcircuit> 05/07/2011,NAME REFERENCE_CODE,+50.00
171 2011-07-08 02:26:04 <phantomcircuit> genius amirite?
172 2011-07-08 02:26:45 <lfm> phantomcircuit: yup, my statements are date only too
173 2011-07-08 02:27:26 <phantomcircuit> it's almost like they make this difficult on purpose
174 2011-07-08 02:27:27 <phantomcircuit> hmm
175 2011-07-08 02:33:31 <dikidera> ;;bc,calcd 11000 1
176 2011-07-08 02:33:34 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 11000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 6 minutes and 30 seconds
177 2011-07-08 02:33:45 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: not surprising.  a great many banks operate on the "post at midnight, hackery to get by until then" legacy mode of operation
178 2011-07-08 02:35:15 <phantomcircuit> yup
179 2011-07-08 02:35:26 <phantomcircuit> i believe that hsbc has a better way of doing this
180 2011-07-08 02:35:30 <phantomcircuit> but they dont make it obvious
181 2011-07-08 02:35:42 <phantomcircuit> so ill have to call them and be annoying
182 2011-07-08 02:38:09 <Zarutian> what is with USA banks and being in the 18th century regarding operations?
183 2011-07-08 02:38:19 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: banks do sometimes have unique TX ids, on internal systems you're not allowed to access :)
184 2011-07-08 02:39:03 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol
185 2011-07-08 02:39:20 <phantomcircuit> Zarutian, uk banks bro
186 2011-07-08 02:39:50 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: I've worked to interface with systems @ US banks and investment houses
187 2011-07-08 02:40:43 <dikidera> ;;bc,stats
188 2011-07-08 02:40:46 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: if the bank started more than ~5 years old, their systems are probably legacy garbage from the 80's, with mainframes and such.  ugly stuff, like Very Important databases that are _column_ delimited text files
189 2011-07-08 02:40:47 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135257 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1830 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 3 hours, 10 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1519856.86124243
190 2011-07-08 02:40:49 <jgarzik> e.g. fortran
191 2011-07-08 02:41:34 <jgarzik> they never replace that stuff, just layer newer crap on top.  a great many websites wind up interfacing with code written 20+ years ago on mainframes
192 2011-07-08 02:42:48 <senseles> cobol fear.
193 2011-07-08 02:42:58 <lfm> cobol more than fortran
194 2011-07-08 02:43:34 <lfm> but ya, the 80 column card legacy will never die
195 2011-07-08 02:43:40 <senseles> great american insurance has only been working for 20 years and 2 failed attempts to get rid of their mainframe cobol system
196 2011-07-08 02:43:52 <senseles> and to switch over to a java (i know irght) based on coded by indians
197 2011-07-08 02:44:10 <senseles> coding*
198 2011-07-08 02:44:12 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol i know, i have a relative who working at citi in the 80s, apparently they had a complete rebuild of the entire infrastructure done and it was just killed
199 2011-07-08 02:44:25 <phantomcircuit> replaced with a 40 million USD project that never finished
200 2011-07-08 04:44:19 <luke-jr> otg|;;bc,blocks
201 2011-07-08 04:52:26 <sipa> this never happened to me with the earlier version i was running
202 2011-07-08 06:13:00 <phantomcircuit> sipa, can you paste the oom message?
203 2011-07-08 06:25:29 <erus`> Where does the backupwallet command place the backup?
204 2011-07-08 06:25:41 <kinlo> you have to specify the directory
205 2011-07-08 06:26:05 <phantomcircuit> god i love linux
206 2011-07-08 06:26:10 <erus`> i just did "backup"
207 2011-07-08 06:26:26 <phantomcircuit> just hot added a sata drive without turning off the system
208 2011-07-08 06:26:29 <phantomcircuit> baller
209 2011-07-08 06:26:41 <sipa> probably the cwd of the bitcoind process
210 2011-07-08 06:26:59 <kinlo> I wasn't aware the command also works with no extra directory
211 2011-07-08 06:29:00 <erus`> boost::filesystem::copy_file: The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is ncorrect: "C:Users\tomcAppDataRoamingBitcoinwallet.dat", "Cackupwallet"
212 2011-07-08 06:31:49 <cuddlefish> yes, Cackupwallet?
213 2011-07-08 06:32:48 <erus`> lol i wasnt escaping my backslashes :D
214 2011-07-08 06:33:45 <erus`> no error now butwell it saved it to here C:Users\tomcAppDataLocalVirtualStore
215 2011-07-08 06:38:22 <sipa> phantomcircuit: bitcoin.sipa.be/dmesg.log
216 2011-07-08 06:38:36 <erus`> json rpc is fun right guys... right... guys...
217 2011-07-08 06:42:16 <phantomcircuit> sipa, only 512MB?
218 2011-07-08 06:42:21 <sipa> yes
219 2011-07-08 06:42:25 <phantomcircuit> is this a virtual machine
220 2011-07-08 06:42:33 <phantomcircuit> assuming openvz
221 2011-07-08 06:42:35 <sipa> xen
222 2011-07-08 06:42:40 <phantomcircuit> hmm
223 2011-07-08 06:42:53 <sipa> i used to work fine with bitcoin 0.3.21
224 2011-07-08 06:43:04 <sipa> now it doesn't last longer than a few hours-days
225 2011-07-08 06:43:12 <sipa> *it
226 2011-07-08 06:43:30 <phantomcircuit> what else is using memory
227 2011-07-08 06:45:53 <sipa> bah, i want timestamps in debug.log
228 2011-07-08 06:52:13 <midnightmagic> i want clean statistics about actual network events including orphaned blocks and transactions, illegal packets, sketchy transactions, and attempts at scripted transactions.
229 2011-07-08 06:55:57 <midnightmagic> yes, which is why i want to be notified of them.
230 2011-07-08 06:56:05 <midnightmagic> in times past, i would have been happy to mine them into blocks, but now i'm just curious to see whether someone is trying to use them in the production network or not.
231 2011-07-08 06:56:17 <[Tycho]> midnightmagic, join my bounty proposal on the forum :)
232 2011-07-08 07:37:02 <moa7> sipa: timestamping http://ask.metafilter.com/23391/Unix-Logging
233 2011-07-08 07:37:57 <moa7> $tail -f debug.log | perl -nle 'print localtime()." ".$_' > timestamp_debug.log
234 2011-07-08 07:38:24 <moa7> puts into another file stamped which you can then $tail -f timestamp_debug.log
235 2011-07-08 07:38:35 <sipa> nice :)
236 2011-07-08 07:38:40 <moa7> tail -f [your_log_file] | gawk '{"date" | getline cur_date} {close("date")} {print "[" cur_date "] " $0}'
237 2011-07-08 07:38:55 <moa7> for on the fly... no record
238 2011-07-08 07:40:05 <phantomcircuit> tail -f debug.log;while read line;do echo "$(date +%s) $line" >> debug_ts.log;done
239 2011-07-08 07:40:09 <phantomcircuit> i think that'll work
240 2011-07-08 07:40:25 <phantomcircuit> oops
241 2011-07-08 07:40:26 <sipa> i'd just modify bitcoin'd printf wrapper :)
242 2011-07-08 07:40:31 <phantomcircuit> tail -f debug.log|while read line;do echo "$(date +%s) $line" >> debug_ts.log;done
243 2011-07-08 07:40:36 <sipa> *bitcoind's
244 2011-07-08 07:41:01 <phantomcircuit> what you done like hacks?
245 2011-07-08 07:41:03 <phantomcircuit> i love hacks
246 2011-07-08 07:42:22 <moa7> then timestamp is not optional
247 2011-07-08 07:42:36 <moa7> since timestamp has special privilege with p2p network
248 2011-07-08 07:43:08 <moa7> best done by nodes ... like wallet encryption
249 2011-07-08 07:48:22 <dikidera> ;;bc,stats
250 2011-07-08 07:48:24 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135281 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1806 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 9 hours, 4 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1472902.02651905
251 2011-07-08 07:50:25 <dikidera> zomg, next diff is < current diff
252 2011-07-08 07:50:27 <dikidera> yay
253 2011-07-08 08:02:05 <lfm> early days, plenty of time for it to pick up again
254 2011-07-08 08:02:45 <cuddlefish> I lurrrrve freshen
255 2011-07-08 08:02:48 <cuddlefish> Hey, does Bitcoin even have any tests?
256 2011-07-08 08:02:50 <cuddlefish> i haven't seen any
257 2011-07-08 08:03:05 <cuddlefish> Woo, just mined my first block!
258 2011-07-08 08:03:08 <cuddlefish> anyone want some testnet coins? :P
259 2011-07-08 08:03:10 <cuddlefish> gribble: cookies
260 2011-07-08 08:03:36 <lfm> are you nuts?
261 2011-07-08 08:04:12 <sipa> cuddlefish: there are plans for a testing framework, as it is really needed
262 2011-07-08 08:04:17 <sipa> but no, nothing serious for now
263 2011-07-08 08:08:42 <cuddlefish> sipa: https://github.com/paoloambrosio/cukebins/wiki
264 2011-07-08 08:08:54 <cuddlefish> if you write the steps, I'll write the features.
265 2011-07-08 08:10:13 <sipa> cuddlefish: we're already using boost's test framework
266 2011-07-08 08:10:29 <cuddlefish> sipa: ah, too bad
267 2011-07-08 08:10:32 <sipa> (which i don't know much about, tbh)
268 2011-07-08 08:10:48 <sipa> but the problem is mainly that it's hard to setup a test environnement
269 2011-07-08 08:11:06 <sipa> for higher-level tests, you need a setup with a few nodes and miners
270 2011-07-08 08:13:42 <cuddlefish> sipa: Mock the networking code
271 2011-07-08 08:14:12 <wumpus> especially a test that would require the network to progress by mining would be annoying to set up, as the testing machine would have to do mining :-)
272 2011-07-08 08:14:31 <sipa> wumpus: i suppose some hack with a trivial difficulty is possible
273 2011-07-08 08:14:34 <cuddlefish> wumpus: no, you wouldn't.
274 2011-07-08 08:14:43 <sipa> where you artificially create a network whose difficulty is 0.0001 or so
275 2011-07-08 08:14:47 <wumpus> yes, possible, but every hack that you make makes it a less realistic test
276 2011-07-08 08:14:51 <sipa> agree
277 2011-07-08 08:14:52 <cuddlefish> sipa: you could have a list of blocks
278 2011-07-08 08:15:01 <cuddlefish> and then release one, pretend you mined it
279 2011-07-08 08:15:17 <wumpus> things like mocking are good for low-level tests, but you also want 'action' tests
280 2011-07-08 08:15:18 <sipa> you can't mine blocks if you don't know the transactions that need to go into it
281 2011-07-08 08:15:52 <wumpus> but yes, reducing the difficulty would be the best bet here
282 2011-07-08 08:15:57 <cuddlefish> sipa: pre-define blocks, pre-define transactions
283 2011-07-08 08:15:57 <sipa> my idea was modularizing the source code further to have wallets, blockchain dbs and p2p code as separately instantiatable components that interact through a 'hub'
284 2011-07-08 08:16:07 <cuddlefish> sipa: yeah, that's carrot's take on it
285 2011-07-08 08:16:18 <cuddlefish> Bacula-like
286 2011-07-08 08:16:35 <wumpus> yes, that's a good idea, but that'd postpone writing tests to when this reorganisation is done
287 2011-07-08 08:16:53 <sipa> of course, we need testing sooner
288 2011-07-08 08:16:57 <cuddlefish> carrot is everything bitcoin should be :P
289 2011-07-08 08:17:08 <sipa> carrot?
290 2011-07-08 08:17:14 <cuddlefish> alternate cryptocurrency.
291 2011-07-08 08:17:26 <cuddlefish> stuff like
292 2011-07-08 08:17:33 <wumpus> where can you find it?
293 2011-07-08 08:17:38 <sipa> you're referring to the use carrots joke?
294 2011-07-08 08:17:42 <cuddlefish> wumpus: nowhere, i'm still working on it
295 2011-07-08 08:17:45 <cuddlefish> sipa: that's the name
296 2011-07-08 08:17:52 <wumpus> lol the farming carrots joke, ok I get it
297 2011-07-08 08:18:07 <sipa> ah, yet another bitcoin successor?
298 2011-07-08 08:18:09 <wumpus> I was already seriously googling for it
299 2011-07-08 08:18:14 <wumpus> :')
300 2011-07-08 08:18:19 <cuddlefish> sipa: But with serious improvements.
301 2011-07-08 08:18:30 <sipa> i'm sure they all have serious improvements
302 2011-07-08 08:18:31 <cuddlefish> sipa: Network is node/supernode architecture.
303 2011-07-08 08:18:37 <wumpus> better to improve the current source code imo than yet another rewrite attempt
304 2011-07-08 08:18:42 <wumpus> then again, that's just me...
305 2011-07-08 08:19:05 <cuddlefish> Addresses are ECDSA private key + merkle root of Lamport pubkey + checksum
306 2011-07-08 08:19:14 <wumpus> everyone wants to be satoshi
307 2011-07-08 08:19:18 <cuddlefish> so if ECDSA is broken, you can still prove you own an address
308 2011-07-08 08:20:04 <cuddlefish> block + metablock + keyblock structure
309 2011-07-08 08:20:45 <cuddlefish> blocks contain transactions, metablocks contain transactions + difficulty + maintainance info, keyblocks contain ALL transactions since the last keyblock
310 2011-07-08 08:20:53 <cuddlefish> so the storage problem doesn't suck
311 2011-07-08 08:20:56 <wumpus> bitcoin could integrate those things as well, I guess, there's no reason to start anew
312 2011-07-08 08:22:06 <Diablo-D3> meh
313 2011-07-08 08:22:12 <Diablo-D3> after much study of this kernel
314 2011-07-08 08:22:27 <Diablo-D3> I have come to one realization
315 2011-07-08 08:22:56 <Diablo-D3> thank god for vim's regex function
316 2011-07-08 08:23:05 <cuddlefish> Diablo-D3: you spelled emacs wrong
317 2011-07-08 08:23:28 <cuddlefish> Diablo-D3: The featureset expands to fill available RAM!
318 2011-07-08 08:23:37 <lfm> cuddlefish: maybe easier to write tests for bitcoinj
319 2011-07-08 08:45:26 <Eliel_> cuddlefish: seriously, it's going to be very difficult to get traction for alternative blockchain. It'll be tough even if your system has an immediate practical advantage.
320 2011-07-08 08:46:33 <Eliel_> that said, if bitcoin grows fast enough to hit the bottlenecks before they're fixed, it could happen.
321 2011-07-08 08:46:50 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: Yeah. The nice thing about this architecture
322 2011-07-08 08:47:38 <jeremias> what prevents me from slowing down the system by just generating new addresses & transactions
323 2011-07-08 08:48:10 <cuddlefish> with 10,000 supernodes and each having just 8 supernode connections, if it's a small-world network it should take less than a second to propagate to EVERY SUPERNODE
324 2011-07-08 08:48:27 <Eliel_> jeremias: nothing strictly prevents it but there's some transaction fee rules that'd quickly eat up your money if you did that.
325 2011-07-08 08:48:52 <cuddlefish> supernodes propagate to nodes on their own time, which is negligible
326 2011-07-08 08:49:15 <cuddlefish> the block chain you have to download is capped at around 1GB max...
327 2011-07-08 08:49:40 <cuddlefish> jeremias: generating new addresses is just stupid, the network doesn't hear about that
328 2011-07-08 08:49:52 <Eliel_> 1GB? so, that means there's an absolute limit on the number of addresses that can be used?
329 2011-07-08 08:50:24 <diki> ;;bc,stats
330 2011-07-08 08:50:27 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135288 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1799 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 24 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1482364.36613964
331 2011-07-08 08:50:29 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: no
332 2011-07-08 08:50:55 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: that's assuming VISA transaction volume
333 2011-07-08 08:51:04 <Eliel_> oh ok
334 2011-07-08 08:51:59 <mtrlt> and how much bandwidth does it need at VISA tx volume?
335 2011-07-08 08:52:05 <mtrlt> like, constantly
336 2011-07-08 08:53:39 <cuddlefish> mtrlt: supernodes need significant amounts of bandwith, probably 500kbps up+down
337 2011-07-08 08:54:01 <Eliel_> 500kbps? that little?
338 2011-07-08 08:54:14 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: Optimized routing
339 2011-07-08 08:54:28 <mtrlt> mmm
340 2011-07-08 08:54:42 <mtrlt> i find that hard to believe without seeing it in action :p
341 2011-07-08 08:55:03 <Eliel_> how did you calculate that 500kbps?
342 2011-07-08 08:55:19 <lfm> I kinda doubt bitcoin will ever need visa like txn volume
343 2011-07-08 08:55:27 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: Oh, ha, s/500/5000/
344 2011-07-08 08:55:32 <cuddlefish> derp-de-derp
345 2011-07-08 08:55:38 <mtrlt> lul
346 2011-07-08 08:55:57 <Eliel_> ok, that improves beliaveability quite a bit
347 2011-07-08 08:56:00 <Eliel_> :D
348 2011-07-08 08:56:16 <cuddlefish> but there is compression and no stupid routing
349 2011-07-08 08:56:54 <Eliel_> is there optimization of the sort that ends up with each node sending and receiving each transaction only once on average?
350 2011-07-08 08:56:59 <lfm> centralized planning?
351 2011-07-08 08:57:08 <cuddlefish> lfm: no :P
352 2011-07-08 08:57:23 <lfm> Eliel_: more like twice
353 2011-07-08 08:58:18 <Eliel_> ok, so still O(n) asymptotic performance.
354 2011-07-08 08:58:34 <Eliel_> lfm: is that for bitcoin?
355 2011-07-08 08:59:33 <mtrlt> 13:55 < lfm> I kinda doubt bitcoin will ever need visa like txn volume
356 2011-07-08 08:59:34 <mtrlt> why?
357 2011-07-08 08:59:36 <lfm> Eliel_: what if it was 8?
358 2011-07-08 09:00:03 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: each datamessage has a list of nodes it's been routed through
359 2011-07-08 09:00:24 <lfm> mtrlt: cuz of the confirmation delays it just isnt suitable for point of sale
360 2011-07-08 09:00:32 <cuddlefish> with 10,000 supernodes, that list would be slightly less than 8 on average.
361 2011-07-08 09:00:36 <Eliel_> lfm: it means it'd take a few years more time before the world has enough average power to run bitcoin everywhere.
362 2011-07-08 09:01:19 <Eliel_> cuddlefish: if the list will also be used to optimize connectivity, that sounds pretty good.
363 2011-07-08 09:01:38 <lfm> Eliel_: that wouldnt effect the confirmation delays
364 2011-07-08 09:01:40 <cuddlefish> Eliel_: Yes, nodeIDs are just little ECDSA keypairs
365 2011-07-08 09:02:28 <idnar> lfm: you can do 0 confirmation txes at point of sale
366 2011-07-08 09:02:38 <mtrlt> idnar: if the network does not forget transactions.
367 2011-07-08 09:02:48 <lfm> idnar: ya and eat the double spends
368 2011-07-08 09:03:22 <Eliel_> shops deal with shoplifting anyway, double spends sound like would be much more rare.
369 2011-07-08 09:03:22 <idnar> lfm: it's still better than eating credit card fraud / fees
370 2011-07-08 09:03:42 <lfm> maybe, Im not so sure
371 2011-07-08 09:04:15 <idnar> it doesn't seem worth the effort executing a double spend attack for small transactions
372 2011-07-08 09:04:28 <Leo_II> double spending should be visible in the net within minutes if not seconds.
373 2011-07-08 09:04:41 <cuddlefish> PROTIP: s/doublespending/chargeback fraud/
374 2011-07-08 09:04:46 <lfm> Leo_II: not till you get at least 1 confirmation
375 2011-07-08 09:05:09 <Leo_II> do miners include the first tx or do they cancel both?
376 2011-07-08 09:05:14 <Leo_II> first then
377 2011-07-08 09:05:28 <idnar> in a double spending attack, the attacker is also the miner
378 2011-07-08 09:05:38 <cuddlefish> "Credit cards will never be viable, what if you buy a latte and chargeback?"
379 2011-07-08 09:05:39 <Eliel_> I'd guess it's the first transaction that ends up in the blockchain. Alternatively, if both appear but in different blocks, the longer chain wins
380 2011-07-08 09:06:06 <lfm> idnar: in a 0 confirm double spend they just spend the same inputs at the same time in two places, forget mining
381 2011-07-08 09:06:35 <Leo_II> lfm: agreed
382 2011-07-08 09:06:45 <Leo_II> but both txns would spread fast
383 2011-07-08 09:06:54 <lfm> till they collide
384 2011-07-08 09:07:17 <idnar> lfm: okay, fair enough, but that's even harder to do if there's a high speed clearing network
385 2011-07-08 09:07:34 <cuddlefish> idnar: supernode architecture settles that
386 2011-07-08 09:07:34 <Leo_II> so if my client sees 2 txns with 0conf conflicting, wouldn't it recognize there's something fishy? or do those txns not get propagated
387 2011-07-08 09:07:34 <lfm> then each noe will only pass along the first one it sees I think
388 2011-07-08 09:07:43 <lfm> noe -> node
389 2011-07-08 09:07:47 <cuddlefish> Leo_II: it only sends the first one
390 2011-07-08 09:07:50 <cuddlefish> lfm: O NODES
391 2011-07-08 09:08:50 <idnar> O NODENS
392 2011-07-08 09:08:52 <Leo_II> lfm: hmmm ... wouldn't it be of interest to broadcast both? or would that again be a vector for dos attacks?
393 2011-07-08 09:09:32 <moa7> POS will most likely be done between small mobile wallets and large retail bitcoind (or their "banks")
394 2011-07-08 09:09:40 <Leo_II> hmmm ... if those double spend attempts would get reported somewhere, it would be a matter of seconds to see them.
395 2011-07-08 09:09:41 <sipa> cuddlefish: how is bitcoin now not a supernode/node architecture?
396 2011-07-08 09:10:17 <moa7> walmart needs to ert
397 2011-07-08 09:10:24 <lfm> ert?
398 2011-07-08 09:10:28 <moa7> get some mining rigs set-up
399 2011-07-08 09:10:37 <moa7> s/ert/get
400 2011-07-08 09:11:47 <moa7> or pay for pipe to deepbit
401 2011-07-08 09:12:23 <lfm> moa7: huh? cant they just do like everyone else?
402 2011-07-08 09:13:11 <redshark1802> hello, anyone with knowledge about pushpool here?
403 2011-07-08 09:13:13 <cuddlefish> sipa: everyone's a supernode.
404 2011-07-08 09:13:18 <moa7> and risk getting cut off like everyone else?
405 2011-07-08 09:13:21 <cuddlefish> sipa: Create transaction. TELL EVERYBODY
406 2011-07-08 09:13:27 <cuddlefish> then they tell everyone else! yay!
407 2011-07-08 09:13:35 <cuddlefish> it's one big happy spammily!
408 2011-07-08 09:13:42 <Eliel_> cuddlefish: how about the possibility of creating more lightweight nodes?
409 2011-07-08 09:13:44 <lfm> cuddlefish: nodes open to receive connects are more super than those that arnt
410 2011-07-08 09:13:55 <moa7> the need to tell miners first and for sure
411 2011-07-08 09:14:01 <Eliel_> the protocol allows this I hear
412 2011-07-08 09:14:01 <sipa> cuddlefish: if you're a lightweight node, you don't propagate, i believe
413 2011-07-08 09:15:33 <redshark1802> Hello, i've played a bit aroung with pushpoold and everything worked just fine. But when I asked a friend for a little test something strange happened. I have about 100MH/s my friend has 1500MH/s. As soon as my friend joined for testing i got a lot of stales, I looked it up in the datase and the reason is "unknown-work". Where does this come from? Help with this would be really nice.
414 2011-07-08 09:17:12 <lfm> redshark1802: do you have a complete block chain?
415 2011-07-08 09:17:14 <cuddlefish> lfm: you don't send transactions preferentially to iother supernodes
416 2011-07-08 09:17:23 <redshark1802> lfm: yes i do
417 2011-07-08 09:18:29 <redshark1802> lfm: it all works fine when I test it without him
418 2011-07-08 09:19:39 <redshark1802> i'm running bitcoin .23 and the latest pushpool (0.51)
419 2011-07-08 09:19:41 <lfm> redshark1802: well normally stale blocks are when a miner keeps grinding on an old block after a new one has come in
420 2011-07-08 09:20:20 <redshark1802> lfm: but would it not be stale instead of unkown-work
421 2011-07-08 09:20:47 <lfm> server forgets about old ones when new one arrives
422 2011-07-08 09:20:55 <lfm> maybe
423 2011-07-08 09:21:20 <redshark1802> mhm okay, but why is this only happening to me?
424 2011-07-08 09:21:53 <redhatzero> redshark, do the 1500MH/s of your friend come from gpu or cpu? (asking about how many getwork/s are incoming)
425 2011-07-08 09:22:51 <redshark1802> I just tried using only 300MH/s and I have the same problems, one HD9650
426 2011-07-08 09:23:33 <Leo_II> redshark1802: 15000MH/s? ... hmm ... if it was TH/s i could tell you why ;)
427 2011-07-08 09:23:48 <redhatzero> what you can try is to increase HIST_LOG_SZ in hist.c
428 2011-07-08 09:24:16 <lfm> 9650?
429 2011-07-08 09:24:20 <redhatzero> but at your hashrate that shouldn't be a problem
430 2011-07-08 09:24:31 <redshark1802> Leo_II: sadly it only 1500MH/s 6950 xD
431 2011-07-08 09:24:48 <lfm> oh ok
432 2011-07-08 09:25:02 <redshark1802> LP and everything is working properly
433 2011-07-08 09:25:52 <BlueMatt> whats the status of 0.3.24 release?
434 2011-07-08 09:32:27 <Joric> i've just changed date format from M/d/yyyy to dd-MMM-yy and client started to complain "Please check that your computer's date and time are correct." wtf? can't be it's using only posix time(), win7 bug?
435 2011-07-08 09:32:33 <Joric> i'll double check this
436 2011-07-08 09:33:25 <redshark1802> lfm: do you have an other idea?
437 2011-07-08 09:34:17 <Joric> uhm, no looks like it doesn't depend on date format
438 2011-07-08 09:34:32 <Joric> just got the same message on M/d/yyyy
439 2011-07-08 09:34:47 <lfm> redshark1802: fraid not
440 2011-07-08 09:36:01 <lfm> Joric: $ date -u
441 2011-07-08 09:36:01 <redshark1802> okay thanks anyway
442 2011-07-08 09:37:25 <Joric> Sat Jul  9 11:37:08 UTC 2011
443 2011-07-08 09:37:38 <lfm> sounds ok
444 2011-07-08 09:37:41 <Joric> seems to be correct
445 2011-07-08 09:37:46 <lfm> cept for the date
446 2011-07-08 09:37:58 <lfm> Fri Jul  8 11:35:49 UTC 2011
447 2011-07-08 09:38:09 <Joric> yeah sry )
448 2011-07-08 09:38:18 <Joric> strange
449 2011-07-08 09:38:27 <lfm> that would do it
450 2011-07-08 09:39:51 <lfm> redshark1802: make s me think you guys should check your time sync too?
451 2011-07-08 09:40:29 <redshark1802> lfm: where?
452 2011-07-08 09:40:37 <redshark1802> lfm: on the serverside?
453 2011-07-08 09:40:46 <lfm> all your machines
454 2011-07-08 09:41:19 <lfm> bitcoin isnt too picky but more than an hour makes it barf
455 2011-07-08 09:41:38 <lfm> a day off is right out
456 2011-07-08 09:41:46 <redshark1802> lfm: sorry I don't understand you.
457 2011-07-08 09:42:10 <lfm> the time between the servers and the miners should agree
458 2011-07-08 09:42:21 <redshark1802> lfm: Why would the time of a miner effect the result?
459 2011-07-08 09:42:54 <lfm> miners can update timestamps in a proper bitcoin protocol aspecially long poll
460 2011-07-08 09:43:25 <redshark1802> lfm: ah okay good. I've just tested it and they're in sync
461 2011-07-08 09:47:06 <Blitzboom> what are the chances satoshi is wei dai?
462 2011-07-08 09:47:27 <Blitzboom> im sure people have already thought about that
463 2011-07-08 09:47:36 <lfm> whos that?
464 2011-07-08 09:47:51 <Blitzboom> source in satoshis paper
465 2011-07-08 09:48:08 <Blitzboom> http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt
466 2011-07-08 09:48:11 <sipa> it's a possibility
467 2011-07-08 09:48:27 <lfm> maybe a stundent of his, not him I'd think
468 2011-07-08 09:48:41 <lfm> student
469 2011-07-08 09:51:23 <wumpus> yes it's been brought up before
470 2011-07-08 09:51:29 <Joric> "I am Philip Zimmerman" (geek code generator)
471 2011-07-08 09:51:31 <BlueMatt> ;;seen jgarzik
472 2011-07-08 09:51:31 <gribble> jgarzik was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 7 hours, 9 minutes, and 56 seconds ago: <jgarzik> they never replace that stuff, just layer newer crap on top.  a great many websites wind up interfacing with code written 20+ years ago on mainframes
473 2011-07-08 09:51:35 <Blitzboom> what was the conclusion?
474 2011-07-08 09:51:51 <wumpus> evidence inconclusive :)
475 2011-07-08 09:52:01 <Blitzboom> mkay
476 2011-07-08 09:52:55 <wumpus> I wonder if we'll ever know
477 2011-07-08 09:53:08 <Joric> does any1 have a copy? http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt not opening
478 2011-07-08 09:54:01 <Blitzboom> Joric: http://pastebin.com/fb71gf7X
479 2011-07-08 09:54:30 <Xenland> any one know how to get bitcoind to shut down if it dosn't feel like it
480 2011-07-08 09:54:38 <Xenland> I keep running ps aux | grep bitcoind
481 2011-07-08 09:54:45 <Xenland> and its still there after running killall bitcoind
482 2011-07-08 09:55:02 <Joric> opened via anonymizer, wtf is happening with my brand new win7? :)
483 2011-07-08 09:55:03 <redshark1802> hi, try kill -9 bitcoind(pid)
484 2011-07-08 09:55:05 <sipa> BlueMatt: seen the bug report bij TD?
485 2011-07-08 09:55:09 <sipa> *by
486 2011-07-08 09:55:56 <BlueMatt> sipa: unless you can reproduce I dont think its a blocker
487 2011-07-08 09:56:14 <Xenland> redshark1802: Assuming the pid number is the first number reported by ps aux, I tried the following command and it said no such proccess
488 2011-07-08 09:56:20 <sipa> i wonder if it is related to pull 385
489 2011-07-08 09:56:24 <Xenland> kill -9 5063
490 2011-07-08 09:56:45 <BlueMatt> I highly, doubt that
491 2011-07-08 09:57:19 <redshark1802> it's the second number, the first number is the userid the process is running on
492 2011-07-08 09:57:32 <BlueMatt> 385 has little to no effect unless we do multithreaded net
493 2011-07-08 09:57:38 <BlueMatt> its a very minor leak
494 2011-07-08 09:57:41 <sipa> right
495 2011-07-08 09:57:59 <Xenland> Yeah the second number reports no such proccess
496 2011-07-08 09:58:01 <Xenland> this is odd
497 2011-07-08 09:58:05 <BlueMatt> and ThreadSocketHandler closes itself right (or should)
498 2011-07-08 09:58:06 <Xenland> I'll just restart server i guess
499 2011-07-08 09:58:22 <redshark1802> try "ps aux | grep bitcoind" double check the number is correct and try again
500 2011-07-08 09:59:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: well it wfm, Im assuming it was some fluke and might even be solved by 388
501 2011-07-08 09:59:34 <lfm> start bitcoin with -pid switch
502 2011-07-08 10:00:20 <sipa> wfm?
503 2011-07-08 10:00:30 <BlueMatt> works for me
504 2011-07-08 10:00:46 <BlueMatt> ie I cant reproduce
505 2011-07-08 10:01:20 <sipa> neither can i
506 2011-07-08 10:01:33 <sipa> i really don't like the bitcoind on my vps dying though
507 2011-07-08 10:01:48 <sipa> but i'll need more time to find out what is causing it to go OOM
508 2011-07-08 10:02:09 <sipa> not sure if it's related to changes in the code, or changes in the network
509 2011-07-08 10:02:47 <BlueMatt> how often is it dying?
510 2011-07-08 10:02:52 <Xenland> This is evene wierder, i just rebooted the VPS and bitcoind is still running? I did ps aux | grep bitcoind
511 2011-07-08 10:02:54 <Xenland> it reports this
512 2011-07-08 10:02:55 <Xenland> root       936  0.0  0.0   6440   832 pts/0    S+   07:02   0:00 grep --color=auto bitcoind
513 2011-07-08 10:03:08 <wumpus> lol that's you grepping your grep
514 2011-07-08 10:03:14 <Xenland> lol what?
515 2011-07-08 10:03:19 <redshark1802> are root atm?
516 2011-07-08 10:03:24 <Xenland> yes
517 2011-07-08 10:03:26 <wumpus> the process you're seeing is your grep process
518 2011-07-08 10:03:30 <BlueMatt> that process is greping for bitcoin, not bitcoin
519 2011-07-08 10:03:31 <wumpus> not bitcoind
520 2011-07-08 10:03:33 <redshark1802> and you can't kill the process?
521 2011-07-08 10:03:34 <wumpus> doh :-)
522 2011-07-08 10:03:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: last time it ran for less than 24h
523 2011-07-08 10:03:40 <redshark1802> doh!
524 2011-07-08 10:03:47 <sipa> the time before that, 3 days or so
525 2011-07-08 10:03:50 <Xenland> but i put grep bitcoind
526 2011-07-08 10:03:52 <Xenland> not bitcoin
527 2011-07-08 10:03:57 <redshark1802> it is reporting bitcoind in the first row xd
528 2011-07-08 10:04:07 <Xenland> there is only one row
529 2011-07-08 10:04:09 <redshark1802> ah no it isnt
530 2011-07-08 10:04:10 <redshark1802> xD
531 2011-07-08 10:04:11 <BlueMatt> sipa: hmm....well thats not good, what else changed since 0.3.23 on there?
532 2011-07-08 10:04:16 <redshark1802> so bitcoind is not running
533 2011-07-08 10:04:26 <redshark1802> you allways get one row
534 2011-07-08 10:04:28 <Xenland> let me try to kill it
535 2011-07-08 10:04:35 <lfm> no
536 2011-07-08 10:04:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: i upgraded from 0.3.21 or so to 0.3.24, so there are quite some changes
537 2011-07-08 10:04:42 <redshark1802> nope you can't bitcoind is not running
538 2011-07-08 10:04:47 <wumpus> you should really use pgrep
539 2011-07-08 10:04:48 <Xenland> yea I guess its not running....
540 2011-07-08 10:04:53 <Xenland> Thanks guys
541 2011-07-08 10:05:02 <Xenland> that kind of clears up one issue i thought i was having
542 2011-07-08 10:05:04 <sipa> Xenland: you are seeing yourself grepping for bitcoind, you are not seeing bitcoind
543 2011-07-08 10:05:13 <redshark1802> i could use some help too if you have time for it: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10321.260
544 2011-07-08 10:05:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh...still not good...but I really do want to get 0.3.24 out the door, and I havent heard from anyone else its been crashing so...
545 2011-07-08 10:05:18 <lfm> xenland do the ps grep thing again to see what it looks like when bitcoin really is running
546 2011-07-08 10:05:29 <sipa> BlueMatt: indeed
547 2011-07-08 10:05:59 <Xenland> redshark1802... that is odd indeed
548 2011-07-08 10:06:13 <Xenland> have you tried just your friend mining with out any one else?
549 2011-07-08 10:06:27 <redshark1802> yes, it works
550 2011-07-08 10:06:39 <Xenland> oh but you get alot of stales not your buddy?
551 2011-07-08 10:06:49 <Xenland> hmm
552 2011-07-08 10:07:09 <redshark1802> the weird thing they are not marked as stales in the database but "unknown-work"
553 2011-07-08 10:07:14 <redshark1802> just a sec afk
554 2011-07-08 10:07:25 <Xenland> I've heard of unknown-work before. I saw it once on my DB but i dont remmeber what caused the problem
555 2011-07-08 10:07:45 <Xenland> it kind of fixed it self i guess you could say, sorry i cant be of any more help
556 2011-07-08 10:09:31 <redshark1802> back
557 2011-07-08 10:09:34 <redshark1802> *reading*
558 2011-07-08 10:09:52 <redshark1802> okay
559 2011-07-08 10:09:59 <redshark1802> mhm that's weird
560 2011-07-08 10:11:49 <sipa> BlueMatt: i want to pull newenc :)
561 2011-07-08 10:12:15 <Xenland> redshark1802: how do you go about connecting to pushpool?
562 2011-07-08 10:12:36 <Xenland> do you share one username and password for all miners
563 2011-07-08 10:12:52 <Xenland> i think ip addresses might make pushpool go crazy and not accept it
564 2011-07-08 10:12:55 <redshark1802> xenland: no seperate usernamers
565 2011-07-08 10:12:58 <redshark1802> *usernames
566 2011-07-08 10:13:17 <redshark1802> and different ip addresses
567 2011-07-08 10:16:42 <BlueMatt> sipa: when jgarzik wakes up he can finalize 0.3.24, Ill add db txns to newenc and then you can pull :)
568 2011-07-08 10:22:59 <Joric> hows about closing this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/75
569 2011-07-08 10:23:27 <tcatm> is it fixed?
570 2011-07-08 10:23:39 <Joric> no
571 2011-07-08 10:23:45 <BlueMatt> then why close it?
572 2011-07-08 10:23:57 <Joric> fix, then close :)
573 2011-07-08 10:25:29 <Joric> i've tried two win32 gui clients with testnet-in-a box with different datadirs, they won't launch simultaneously
574 2011-07-08 10:25:43 <Joric> ended with bitcoind + bitcoin
575 2011-07-08 10:26:17 <sipa> strange
576 2011-07-08 10:26:35 <lfm> something in wx prevents two running?
577 2011-07-08 10:27:11 <BlueMatt> must be
578 2011-07-08 10:29:38 <Joric> yeah, even with -nolisten, just checked
579 2011-07-08 10:30:20 <sipa> it's remarkable how often people still advise using -rescan on the forums
580 2011-07-08 10:30:28 <sipa> since 0.3.23 that shouldn't ever be necessary
581 2011-07-08 10:31:10 <doublec> not that remarkable since it's still in the help
582 2011-07-08 10:31:29 <wumpus> "should" not be necessary :)
583 2011-07-08 10:31:49 <doublec> the hard part is known "when"
584 2011-07-08 10:32:05 <doublec> s/known/knowing
585 2011-07-08 10:32:08 <wumpus> is it ever still necessary? if not, why not remove the option
586 2011-07-08 10:32:36 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh, now I remember why I didnt pass CWalletDBs around, it would have to hit CCryptoKeyStore::EncryptKeys which no db stuff should hit anything in keystore.*...
587 2011-07-08 10:33:07 <BlueMatt> well screw it Ill just make a global CWalletDB in CWallet and lock it
588 2011-07-08 10:33:13 <Joric> it's not necessary wx maybe as well a win32 network code
589 2011-07-08 10:33:40 <sipa> BlueMatt: dangerous
590 2011-07-08 10:33:50 <BlueMatt> sipa: got a better idea?
591 2011-07-08 10:33:50 <Joric> though bitcoind works
592 2011-07-08 10:34:25 <sipa> BlueMatt: you could create a cs around that global
593 2011-07-08 10:34:36 <BlueMatt> of course
594 2011-07-08 10:35:17 <sipa> still a bit tricky, since you don't want to prevent any db interaction
595 2011-07-08 10:36:02 <BlueMatt> well it should handle multithreaded stuff fine
596 2011-07-08 10:36:08 <Joric> does linux version allow two gui instances?
597 2011-07-08 10:36:15 <BlueMatt> yes
598 2011-07-08 10:36:18 <sipa> maybe only use and check that global in CWallet::AddCryptedKey
599 2011-07-08 10:36:41 <BlueMatt> yea that was my idea, except it has to be created in CWallet::EncryptWallet
600 2011-07-08 10:36:56 <sipa> indeed
601 2011-07-08 10:38:07 <Joric> well, win32 still doesn't allow two instances, double checked with nolisten and different ports
602 2011-07-08 10:38:43 <lfm> allows two bitcoind tho so points to wx
603 2011-07-08 10:38:55 <Joric> i don't know the exact reason but the second always waits till the first will exit
604 2011-07-08 10:42:21 <lfm> I vaugly remember windows startup code message loop example checked for self running and exited. simplified the message que processing iirc
605 2011-07-08 10:46:13 <Joric> there is a ton of __WXMSW__ ifdefs i've lost
606 2011-07-08 10:47:50 <Joric> windows startup code as in bitcoin or as in wxwidgets themselves?
607 2011-07-08 10:50:06 <Joric> hmhm
608 2011-07-08 10:50:17 <Joric> init.cpp:309 // wxSingleInstanceChecker doesn't work on Linux
609 2011-07-08 10:50:49 <Joric> the whole block after that
610 2011-07-08 10:51:09 <Joric> "#if defined(__WXMSW__) && defined(GUI)"
611 2011-07-08 10:52:14 <lfm> so it should put message in log
612 2011-07-08 10:52:25 <lfm> printf("Existing instance found\n");
613 2011-07-08 10:53:55 <Joric> well it should allow two instances in the first place
614 2011-07-08 10:54:05 <lfm> // Limit to single instance per user
615 2011-07-08 10:54:14 <lfm> g.*
616 2011-07-08 10:55:21 <Joric> why it's windows only? )
617 2011-07-08 10:55:22 <lfm> not relevant if you have separate -datadirs
618 2011-07-08 10:55:49 <lfm> proll should just put a lock file in -datadir instead
619 2011-07-08 10:55:58 <sipa> it does
620 2011-07-08 10:55:59 <wumpus> it does that already
621 2011-07-08 10:56:16 <Joric> so probably the whole block should be removed
622 2011-07-08 10:56:16 <lfm> k then flush that
623 2011-07-08 10:56:21 <sipa> it seems that single instance check is older than the lock file code
624 2011-07-08 10:58:07 <lfm> so long as lock file works right on windows?
625 2011-07-08 10:58:15 <sipa> right
626 2011-07-08 11:07:47 <Joric> got rid of that, it works now
627 2011-07-08 11:08:40 <Joric> i'll try to run it on the same datadir
628 2011-07-08 11:09:12 <Joric> it says ---------------------------
629 2011-07-08 11:09:13 <Joric> OK
630 2011-07-08 11:09:23 <Joric> sorry for spam
631 2011-07-08 11:09:46 <Joric> and exits after that, seems it works
632 2011-07-08 11:10:53 <b4epoche> sipa:  what're you plans for the tx fee code in wallet.cpp?  I was not able to find a semi-elegant way to get around that without messing with your code.
633 2011-07-08 11:11:47 <BlueMatt> b4epoche: the plan is to redo how fees are handled in general
634 2011-07-08 11:11:56 <sipa> b4epoche: i want to get rid of minimum fees whatsoever
635 2011-07-08 11:12:26 <b4epoche> you mean 'forced' minimum fees?
636 2011-07-08 11:12:27 <sipa> if you want a workaround right now, i'd introduce a return error code that means "too low fee", and place the minimum fee in a variable passed by reference
637 2011-07-08 11:12:35 <sipa> yes
638 2011-07-08 11:13:11 <Joric> i'd move towards that http://i53.tinypic.com/2dj2flk.png
639 2011-07-08 11:13:25 <b4epoche> okay, that workaround was what I was thinking too&  just didn't want to mess with wallet.cpp if you had an eminent plan.
640 2011-07-08 11:13:30 <sipa> ideally, there is a slider where you can select the fee, and it tells you how long the transaction is expected to confirm
641 2011-07-08 11:13:49 <sipa> with a large warning if there seems a reasonable chance the tx won't be included
642 2011-07-08 11:14:05 <sipa> and only when we have a solution for unspending transactions that do not seem to confirm
643 2011-07-08 11:15:53 <b4epoche> gotcha
644 2011-07-08 11:17:10 <Joric> hm looks like miner still doesn't work with a gui client, only with bitcoind
645 2011-07-08 11:17:42 <sipa> you need to run it -server
646 2011-07-08 11:18:38 <Joric> yeah, sorry
647 2011-07-08 11:20:46 <Joric> pity even with difficulty 1 it would take about 90 minutes (with 790khashes) to complete a block )
648 2011-07-08 11:20:53 <Joric> i'm trying testnet in a box
649 2011-07-08 11:21:20 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 790 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.5, is 45 minutes and 18 seconds
650 2011-07-08 11:21:20 <sipa> ;;bc,calcd 790 0.5
651 2011-07-08 11:21:21 <lfm> ;;calcd 790 1
652 2011-07-08 11:21:22 <gribble> Error: "calcd" is not a valid command.
653 2011-07-08 11:21:37 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 790 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 1 hour, 30 minutes, and 36 seconds
654 2011-07-08 11:21:37 <lfm> ;;bc,calcd 790 1
655 2011-07-08 11:21:37 <sipa> testnet difficulty 1 == realnet difficulty 0.5
656 2011-07-08 11:21:56 <Joric> 2^32 / 790000 / 60
657 2011-07-08 11:22:21 <lfm> ya depends if that is real diff1 or fake testnet diff 1
658 2011-07-08 11:22:21 <sipa> difficulty 1 is actually 2^48/65535 hashes, slightly more than 2^32
659 2011-07-08 11:23:41 <Joric> i have no idea really it's from http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/testnet-in-a-box/
660 2011-07-08 11:25:15 <Joric> well, it's a testnet for sure but there were two different testnets afair
661 2011-07-08 11:26:58 <lfm> testnet in a box should be real diff of 0.25 or somthing
662 2011-07-08 11:27:15 <lfm> ;;bc,calcd 790 0.25
663 2011-07-08 11:27:16 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 790 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.25, is 22 minutes and 39 seconds
664 2011-07-08 11:27:36 <Joric> lfm, they are running with -testnet flag
665 2011-07-08 11:27:37 <sipa> it can't be lower than 0.5
666 2011-07-08 11:30:12 <lfm> Difficulty: 0.125
667 2011-07-08 11:30:28 <lfm> can be less than .5
668 2011-07-08 11:30:40 <sipa> hmmm
669 2011-07-08 11:30:41 <BlueMatt> must be a in-a-box feature
670 2011-07-08 11:30:42 <sipa> ok
671 2011-07-08 11:30:53 <sipa> in-a-box does not have a binary
672 2011-07-08 11:31:03 <Joric> just tried getinfo it says says 1.0000000
673 2011-07-08 11:31:06 <sipa> it's just a set of config files and data dirs
674 2011-07-08 11:31:18 <lfm> thats where testnet started for first 2016 blocks (no doing silly *2 thingy)
675 2011-07-08 11:31:51 <Joric> how to run it with difficulty < 1 ?
676 2011-07-08 11:31:54 <BlueMatt> really, I always thought it was max 0.5 which was reported at
677 2011-07-08 11:31:55 <BlueMatt> 1
678 2011-07-08 11:32:14 <sipa> indeed
679 2011-07-08 11:32:20 <sipa> i thought the same
680 2011-07-08 11:32:37 <lfm> testnet seems to go down to 0.125 and reports it at 0.25
681 2011-07-08 11:33:01 <Joric> http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/testnet-in-a-box/ "This is a private, difficulty 1 testnet in a box."
682 2011-07-08 11:33:14 <sipa> lfm: you're right
683 2011-07-08 11:33:48 <lfm> dunno what testnet-in-a-box is doing
684 2011-07-08 11:34:14 <sipa> testnet effectively started at difficulty 0.125 it seems (reported as 0.25)
685 2011-07-08 11:35:05 <Joric> it demands two nodes running simultaneously that's why i was bitching about several gui instances
686 2011-07-08 11:35:27 <sipa> they don't have to be gui instances
687 2011-07-08 11:35:39 <Joric> yeah i know it actually works with bitcoind
688 2011-07-08 11:35:56 <lfm> I suppose it starts with whatever is put into block zero?
689 2011-07-08 11:36:40 <Joric> it comes with precalculated 190 blocks
690 2011-07-08 11:37:16 <Joric> and 3650.00 theoretical moneys :)
691 2011-07-08 11:38:19 <copumpkin> many moneys!
692 2011-07-08 11:38:42 <lfm> tniabtc
693 2011-07-08 11:39:50 <sipa> former testnet coins were actually traded for bitcoin
694 2011-07-08 11:40:15 <lfm> copumpkin: if its patented then you have the patent publicly filed somewhere?
695 2011-07-08 11:40:34 <copumpkin> lfm: nah, I patented a new patent process, in itself
696 2011-07-08 11:40:44 <copumpkin> but the novelty is that the patent process is private
697 2011-07-08 11:41:05 <copumpkin> so it's patented in a new private patented patent process
698 2011-07-08 11:41:20 <lfm> ya, I think in the real world youd call it a "trade secret" as opposed to a patent
699 2011-07-08 11:41:25 <Joric> damn, i'd better start a second miner it takes eternity to complete the block
700 2011-07-08 11:41:44 <copumpkin> :(
701 2011-07-08 11:41:55 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 790 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.125, is 11 minutes and 19 seconds
702 2011-07-08 11:41:55 <lfm> ;;bc,calcd 790 0.125
703 2011-07-08 11:42:02 <sturles> Dit you know that patent is latin and means "be open"?
704 2011-07-08 11:42:48 <copumpkin> yeah :)
705 2011-07-08 11:42:53 <Joric> lfm, how to start a new 0.125 blockchain from the scratch?
706 2011-07-08 11:43:14 <lfm> Joric: afaik the bitcoin in a box should do that
707 2011-07-08 11:43:31 <Joric> getinfo - "difficulty 1"
708 2011-07-08 11:44:00 <Joric> well it's after 190 blocks maybe it was 0.125 somewhen
709 2011-07-08 11:44:30 <lfm> ok, well you could delete your testnet datadir and just quickly start it and stop it then use that datadir with bitcoin in a box
710 2011-07-08 11:45:01 <lfm> joic the first 2016 blocks should all be the same difficulty
711 2011-07-08 11:46:32 <redhatzero> by the way... if i fetch a block with getblockbyhash .. what's the easiest way to find out the blocknumber?
712 2011-07-08 11:47:08 <lfm> redhatzero: build a block chain
713 2011-07-08 11:47:22 <redhatzero> i feared so :D
714 2011-07-08 11:47:25 <redhatzero> ty
715 2011-07-08 11:56:29 <lfm> Joric: the README for testnet in a box is incorrect. the difficulty really is 0.125
716 2011-07-08 12:00:02 <wtfman> hey, how are u
717 2011-07-08 12:00:41 <wtfman> i installed pushpool once again with the pushpool tech support thread, however I did this like 2 weeks ago and there was also info about blkmond
718 2011-07-08 12:01:07 <wtfman> now the blkmond part has been deleted. can anyone tell me what blkmond exactly does and if its still necessary?
719 2011-07-08 12:01:41 <lfm> I cant
720 2011-07-08 12:02:30 <redhatzero> blkmon is for longpolling
721 2011-07-08 12:03:10 <redhatzero> it's a tiny bitcoin client that connects to your bitcoin daemon and every time a new block is found it sends a sighup to pushpool so that it does the longpolling stuff
722 2011-07-08 12:03:41 <redhatzero> so, if you want longpolling and don't have a special patched bitcoind that does the signalling, you'll need it
723 2011-07-08 12:04:21 <wtfman> ok. thanks
724 2011-07-08 12:04:39 <wtfman> do u maybe have a config of blkmond which I can copy? :<
725 2011-07-08 12:05:44 <redhatzero> either have a look in the example-blkmon.cfg that should be still lying around in the pushpool sources .. or:
726 2011-07-08 12:05:51 <redhatzero> host=127.0.0.1
727 2011-07-08 12:06:29 <wtfman> does it have to be the same port like some other stuff from server.json?
728 2011-07-08 12:06:39 <sacarlson> I have my new multicoin-qt almost working with the new qt graphics from bitcoin-qt group,  it will not be fully featured with escrow but most other features should work
729 2011-07-08 12:06:55 <redhatzero> 8333 is the default bitcoind port, it's not related to pushpool
730 2011-07-08 12:07:28 <redhatzero> so, host&port should point to bitcoind .. not pushpool
731 2011-07-08 12:08:24 <wtfman> so the same port the miners connect to? sry man
732 2011-07-08 12:09:01 <redhatzero> no, it's not the rpc port :) if you have a default bitcoin.conf for your daemon, just use 8333 ;)
733 2011-07-08 12:10:41 <lfm> miners connect to rpcport=19332
734 2011-07-08 12:10:54 <lfm> or 8332
735 2011-07-08 12:11:15 <redhatzero> 8333 should be the port for P2P connections
736 2011-07-08 12:11:23 <lfm> right
737 2011-07-08 12:11:51 <redhatzero> and blkmond works like a bitcoin daemon on it's own, so it needs 8333
738 2011-07-08 12:13:26 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r4091b84 / (2 files in 2 dirs): Cleaned up the kernel. It probably isn't going to go faster assuming the ... https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/4091b8484fc8959159557310ae6ddf1a0b3739f8
739 2011-07-08 12:14:18 <phantomcircuit> lol
740 2011-07-08 12:14:22 <Joric> damnit :) after 5 minutes of nmap i've finally stumbled upon rpcallowip option
741 2011-07-08 12:14:26 <phantomcircuit> so google has completely broken their openid implementation
742 2011-07-08 12:14:28 <phantomcircuit> excellent work
743 2011-07-08 12:14:37 <mercora> hey all :) we have yesterday switched to solomining and we solved a block now asking bitcoind for transactions shows one with 110 confirmations but the balnce keeps beeing 0.... could someone point me to the right direction to let me determine when i get the btc for solving the block
744 2011-07-08 12:14:53 <Diablo-D3> mercora: after 120 confirmations.
745 2011-07-08 12:15:12 <mercora> ah! this is a fixed value
746 2011-07-08 12:15:14 <lfm> mercora: wait for 120 confirms
747 2011-07-08 12:15:15 <mercora> -???
748 2011-07-08 12:15:30 <lfm> ya it is fixed
749 2011-07-08 12:15:39 <mercora> is this implemented in those scripts or in the client ?
750 2011-07-08 12:15:41 <sipa> the network will not accept generated coins that are less than 100 transactions old
751 2011-07-08 12:15:44 <Diablo-D3> mercora: yes, its fixed. you have to wait until bitcoin is absolutely sure the block is now historical
752 2011-07-08 12:15:47 <sipa> it's a network rule
753 2011-07-08 12:15:59 <sipa> the client increases this to 120
754 2011-07-08 12:16:11 <sipa> because of certain attacks that may be possible otherwise
755 2011-07-08 12:16:25 <wtfman> thx redhatzero
756 2011-07-08 12:16:51 <mercora> ah thats fine with me i just was wondering if something goes wrong because a quick search said also 100validations :)
757 2011-07-08 12:17:08 <lfm> ya, you are close
758 2011-07-08 12:17:15 <Joric> two machines, 310 khashes + 790 khashes, whoa i'm a massive miner
759 2011-07-08 12:17:44 <gmaxwell> sipa: What attack is exposed that e.g. the use of nlocktime wouldn't produce?
760 2011-07-08 12:17:58 <lfm> Joric: the README for testnet in a box is incorrect. the difficulty really is 0.125
761 2011-07-08 12:18:27 <lfm> and getinfo should report it as 0.25
762 2011-07-08 12:18:31 <Joric> lfm, how so? getinfo says 1.0
763 2011-07-08 12:18:49 <lfm> maybe you did something wrong
764 2011-07-08 12:18:52 <Joric> why it should report 0.25 if it reports 1.0
765 2011-07-08 12:19:18 <sipa> gmaxwell: nlocktime has the same problem, i suppose
766 2011-07-08 12:19:31 <gmaxwell> K.
767 2011-07-08 12:19:47 <lfm> I dunno why it reports false numbers that way.
768 2011-07-08 12:20:05 <Joric> lfm, so it's both readme and me
769 2011-07-08 12:20:11 <lfm> joric did you use  bitcoin -datadir=1 setgenerate true
770 2011-07-08 12:20:25 <gmaxwell> Spending right at 100 runs into forwarding issues in any case, because your neighbors may not have heard about the block quite yet (I expirenced this first hand with namecoin)
771 2011-07-08 12:20:46 <lfm> joric did you use  bitcoin -datadir=1 getinfo
772 2011-07-08 12:21:00 <Joric> yes
773 2011-07-08 12:23:18 <Joric> <lfm> Joric: the README for testnet in a box is incorrect. the difficulty really is 0.125
774 2011-07-08 12:23:27 <Joric> could you please tell me why do you think so?
775 2011-07-08 12:27:46 <lfm> joric I looked at the actual blocks in the block chain and their difficulty in the block headers is 0.125
776 2011-07-08 12:28:38 <Joric> looks legit i've just got a block it was a way too fast
777 2011-07-08 12:29:14 <Joric> have no idea why getinfo reports 1.0 then
778 2011-07-08 12:30:38 <Joric> rpc.cpp:207 // minimum difficulty = 1.0
779 2011-07-08 12:31:02 <lfm> ya it lies again
780 2011-07-08 12:31:08 <Joric> // Floating point number that is a multiple of the minimum difficulty
781 2011-07-08 12:31:32 <Joric> damnit :)
782 2011-07-08 12:32:50 <sipa> the code does allow lower numbers though
783 2011-07-08 12:33:30 <lfm> ya there is several levels of sillyness in the testnet difficulty stuff
784 2011-07-08 12:34:14 <sipa> indeed
785 2011-07-08 12:35:52 <lfm> joric my bitocin in a box reports     "difficulty" : 0.12500000,
786 2011-07-08 12:36:21 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the pullrequest for encryption isn't in-sync with the encrpytion description in the commit. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/352  vs https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/e25317f61ed7fe7635e40f998f34e20bf29178b1 E.g. it says "password"
787 2011-07-08 12:36:31 <lfm> "version" : 32300,
788 2011-07-08 12:37:04 <sipa> gmaxwell: the pull req also still says EVP with AES256
789 2011-07-08 12:37:23 <Joric> 32002 here
790 2011-07-08 12:37:45 <lfm> joric might want to upgrade then
791 2011-07-08 12:37:45 <sipa> 0.3.22 had a patch that fixed an inaccuracy in the difficulty calculation
792 2011-07-08 12:37:50 <wtfman> one more question to blkmond. it actually stops running after a while redhatzero
793 2011-07-08 12:38:04 <wtfman> probably not supposed to stop, or?
794 2011-07-08 12:38:11 <Joric> lfm, 32400 reports 0.12500000
795 2011-07-08 12:38:11 <redhatzero> no, it shouldn't
796 2011-07-08 12:38:56 <lfm> ya prolly that difficulty correction dropped some of the sillyness
797 2011-07-08 12:38:57 <redhatzero> i had such problems with blkmond, bitcoind disconnected it... try restarting bitcoind and right after that start blkmond
798 2011-07-08 12:39:02 <Joric> someone fix readme on sourceforge then :)
799 2011-07-08 12:39:06 <redhatzero> and see if it keeps running then
800 2011-07-08 12:40:28 <wtfman> ok. ty
801 2011-07-08 12:40:32 <lfm> joric for most people 0.125 and 1.0 difficulty are not much different
802 2011-07-08 12:40:37 <Joric> why generation was removed from the client?
803 2011-07-08 12:40:44 <Joric> i mean, from the menu
804 2011-07-08 12:41:20 <sipa> BlueMatt: to conform to the coding standard, encryptionWalletDB should be called pwalletdbEncryption
805 2011-07-08 12:41:25 <lfm> joric it is just cpu generation and cpu generation does not make sense for most people. gpu is so much more effective
806 2011-07-08 12:41:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: i don't really care if it's not conformant, though
807 2011-07-08 12:42:39 <Joric> lfm, i'd not say that 0.124 and 1.0 are not that different :) "most" people don't have opencl
808 2011-07-08 12:43:02 <sipa> Joric: then most people shouldn't be mining
809 2011-07-08 12:43:07 <BlueMatt> Ill update that, though I also think I broke that standard in several places wrt a Crypter object
810 2011-07-08 12:43:29 <sipa> Joric: if they really want to, they can use a dedicated cpu miner, which is faster, better maintained and supports pooled mining
811 2011-07-08 12:43:52 <sipa> the miner in the client itself is just for reference and testing purposes
812 2011-07-08 12:44:22 <lfm> Joric: actually any new gpu these days from ati or nvidia will support opencl
813 2011-07-08 12:45:07 <lfm> now if you are saying most people do not have a new computer, well ok
814 2011-07-08 12:45:55 <lfm> but even real cheap gpu do run opencl
815 2011-07-08 12:47:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: also, the text in the pull req itself is a bit outdated
816 2011-07-08 12:47:44 <sipa> if you haven't seen gmaxwell's remark
817 2011-07-08 12:48:44 <Joric> i don't see why not add opencl miner then
818 2011-07-08 12:49:15 <BlueMatt> sipa: I thought I updated the commit...
819 2011-07-08 12:49:17 <lfm> Joric: not the purpose of a "reference"
820 2011-07-08 12:49:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: though I did never bother with the pull req text
821 2011-07-08 12:49:44 <sipa> Joric: because opencl-based is probably one of the hardest thing to maintain for a multi-platform project
822 2011-07-08 12:49:58 <lfm> joric if you really wanna mine then get a gpu miner
823 2011-07-08 12:50:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: happy?
824 2011-07-08 12:50:37 <sipa> BlueMatt: haha, yes :D
825 2011-07-08 12:51:50 <BlueMatt> well, Im bored, Im gonna go see if I can whip up a CNet
826 2011-07-08 12:52:00 <sipa> cnet ?
827 2011-07-08 12:52:09 <BlueMatt> net code in a class
828 2011-07-08 12:52:15 <sipa> ok, good :)
829 2011-07-08 12:53:34 <BlueMatt> also, might it be a good idea for alternate chains to use a different pchMessageStart
830 2011-07-08 12:53:47 <BlueMatt> that way they absolutely cant connect to normal nodes
831 2011-07-08 12:53:49 <BlueMatt> or to each other
832 2011-07-08 12:54:05 <sipa> i assume they did change that
833 2011-07-08 12:54:21 <BlueMatt> oh, well that shows how much I know
834 2011-07-08 12:54:35 <sipa> same here - it's purely a guess