1 2011-07-10 00:07:33 <^1bitc0inplz> justmoon: did I read right, did you guys incorporate the extraNonce patch into the Node Bitcoin project?
  2 2011-07-10 00:08:25 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: 19:08 <@ljrbot> Txn 7bee253b1c2a6216c92a8a471210cca15c6b8724ed35c87e08dd59b30ffc572d: 1JyvSzqb5z2jJfjYSWJ14XHETJCJ4iTGyt  ????7.23 TBC, 1LZJg7RZS4cesFvfYGxa82UkV85JqVLQ3j 0.0104974 BTC
  3 2011-07-10 00:08:31 <cuddlefish> THIS IS WHY we don't use tonal
  4 2011-07-10 00:08:49 <luke-jr> cuddlefish: hmm?
  5 2011-07-10 00:10:11 <jackmcbarn> no block in over a half hour? really?
  6 2011-07-10 00:10:30 <justmoon> ^1bitc0inplz, yes, we did
  7 2011-07-10 00:10:42 <^1bitc0inplz> that is sweet!
  8 2011-07-10 00:11:03 <^1bitc0inplz> I was looking over your code the other day, very cleanly written!
  9 2011-07-10 00:11:11 <justmoon> thanks :)
 10 2011-07-10 00:11:23 <justmoon> I've got some more fixes to do regarding block chain download, then i'll do a screencast, how to install it
 11 2011-07-10 00:12:29 <^1bitc0inplz> I see your using mongoDB, how hard would it be to stub some of that out to give someone a choice of their data store? I'm kinda partial to Redia ATM :-D
 12 2011-07-10 00:13:36 <justmoon> ^1bitc0inplz, you mean Redis?
 13 2011-07-10 00:13:47 <^1bitc0inplz> sorry, sleeping kid in my lap
 14 2011-07-10 00:13:49 <^1bitc0inplz> yes, Redis
 15 2011-07-10 00:14:27 <justmoon> ^1bitc0inplz, we are planning to switch to database agnostic models, but that would be a major change and not at all our priority right now
 16 2011-07-10 00:15:03 <roconnor> Tonal Bitcoin ?!
 17 2011-07-10 00:15:11 <^1bitc0inplz> justmoon: gotcha, I was fearing it would be difficult
 18 2011-07-10 00:15:15 <roconnor> ``. This is an alternative to decimal and the metric system, which improves usability drastically by allowing for infinite binary division.
 19 2011-07-10 00:15:38 <roconnor> Um ... I hate to break it to these tonal people, but the decimal system already allows for infinite binary division.
 20 2011-07-10 00:15:49 <roconnor> as it happens 2 is a factor of 10
 21 2011-07-10 00:15:57 <justmoon> roconnor, there is only one tonal person, luke, so take it up with him
 22 2011-07-10 00:21:20 <JackStorm> could always just force .001BTC to be displayed as 1E-3 and improve the US education system in the process :)
 23 2011-07-10 00:38:06 <luke-jr> roconnor: read the book
 24 2011-07-10 00:40:29 <lfm> roconnor: I read the tonal book and its not worth your time unless you really like folding rulers
 25 2011-07-10 00:41:01 <roconnor> is folding a verb or an adjective?
 26 2011-07-10 00:41:08 <luke-jr> lfm: no u
 27 2011-07-10 00:41:09 <lfm> adj
 28 2011-07-10 00:41:35 <luke-jr> lfm: at least you understand what is meant by infinite binary division ;p
 29 2011-07-10 00:41:55 <lfm> I understand what you both mean
 30 2011-07-10 00:42:01 <marvin_> ;;bc,stats
 31 2011-07-10 00:42:04 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135552 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1535 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 3 days, 9 hours, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1608756.31443102
 32 2011-07-10 00:42:54 <lfm> roconnor: it was written before the invention of tape measures so this guy though folding rulers were very important to get right
 33 2011-07-10 00:43:05 <lfm> thought
 34 2011-07-10 00:43:10 <roconnor> oh
 35 2011-07-10 00:43:17 <roconnor> that makes sense
 36 2011-07-10 00:44:16 <lfm> also he didnt understand logarithms very well imho
 37 2011-07-10 00:44:23 <luke-jr> lfm: quit trolling
 38 2011-07-10 00:44:33 <luke-jr> tape measures don't obsolete rulers
 39 2011-07-10 00:44:38 <luke-jr> they complement them
 40 2011-07-10 00:44:47 <luke-jr> and that's not even the main point
 41 2011-07-10 00:45:01 <roconnor> O_o
 42 2011-07-10 00:45:16 <lfm> ya, thats why you find folding rulers in every carpeter's tool box today, wait, no you don't
 43 2011-07-10 00:45:38 <lfm> carpenter's
 44 2011-07-10 00:46:32 <luke-jr> are there still carpenters today?
 45 2011-07-10 00:46:37 <[Tycho]> "[06:08] <cuddlefish> THIS IS WHY we don't use tonal" - why exactly in this case ?
 46 2011-07-10 00:46:39 <gmaxwell> i have a long folding ruler in my toolbox. ::shrugs:: can't use a tape measure as a long straight-edge.
 47 2011-07-10 00:46:39 <lfm> carpeter's too I spoze
 48 2011-07-10 00:47:02 <lfm> gmaxwell: well you'r just weird
 49 2011-07-10 00:47:12 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I have a laser
 50 2011-07-10 00:47:26 <JackStorm> luke-jr: yes there are, and even fewer wood workers, let alone masters
 51 2011-07-10 00:47:43 <luke-jr> [Tycho]: because he's too stupid to snoop in other peoples' trades when they don't use units he knows? :p
 52 2011-07-10 00:49:47 <lfm> if cubits were good enuf for Noah they should be good enuf for anyone
 53 2011-07-10 00:52:01 <cuddlefish> [Tycho]: Because the bot output binary instead of hex
 54 2011-07-10 00:52:09 <luke-jr> &
 55 2011-07-10 00:52:23 <luke-jr> it output tonal for a tonal transaction, just as it should
 56 2011-07-10 00:52:27 <luke-jr> brb
 57 2011-07-10 00:52:39 <cuddlefish> can we stick to ascii?
 58 2011-07-10 00:53:12 <lfm> cuddlefish: tonal requires the use of characters not found in ascii
 59 2011-07-10 00:53:26 <roconnor> cuddlefish: I'm using C  :/
 60 2011-07-10 00:53:30 <cuddlefish> lfm: << well, that's too bad, it looked promising.
 61 2011-07-10 00:53:45 <roconnor> (not for tonal though)
 62 2011-07-10 00:55:01 <lfm> in fact I suspect tonal characters would be hard to find in any or the known char sets you could find.
 63 2011-07-10 00:55:50 <lfm> unless you get a copy from luke-jr
 64 2011-07-10 00:56:49 <roconnor> is U+E9D9 private use area?
 65 2011-07-10 00:57:29 <lfm> unicode?
 66 2011-07-10 00:57:53 <roconnor> those are the unicode characters on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin
 67 2011-07-10 00:58:13 <luke-jr> roconnor: high-bit tonal digits are U+E9Dx
 68 2011-07-10 01:00:20 <roconnor> ya, U+E000 to U+F8FF is a private use area
 69 2011-07-10 01:00:58 <luke-jr> roconnor: from the perspective of Unicode; they encourage smaller communities to setup standards within PUA
 70 2011-07-10 01:01:21 <lfm> they dont seem to be part of any standard unless I am missing something
 71 2011-07-10 01:02:09 <lfm> Contained in the Private Use Area Unicode block.
 72 2011-07-10 01:04:30 <cuddlefish> Hmmmm.
 73 2011-07-10 01:04:38 <cuddlefish> sent 7 BTC from instawallet
 74 2011-07-10 01:04:46 <cuddlefish> an hour ago
 75 2011-07-10 01:04:56 <cuddlefish> no confirms... not in bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin...
 76 2011-07-10 01:05:30 <cuddlefish> and yet my balance was decremented
 77 2011-07-10 01:06:40 <lfm> ya the sender loses the amount right away when a txn is sent
 78 2011-07-10 01:06:54 <cuddlefish> But you'd think they'd propagate the transaction....
 79 2011-07-10 01:07:07 <lfm> No fee?
 80 2011-07-10 01:07:19 <freewil> yeah instawallet has no fees
 81 2011-07-10 01:07:24 <freewil> give it another hour or so
 82 2011-07-10 01:07:31 <gmaxwell> Might only meet the .22/.23 fee rules.
 83 2011-07-10 01:07:35 <cuddlefish> lfm: fee wouldn't matter, though
 84 2011-07-10 01:07:45 <luke-jr> it could
 85 2011-07-10 01:07:49 <cuddlefish> since it's not even on the network yet
 86 2011-07-10 01:07:59 <gmaxwell> Sure it would. bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin only shows stuff its heard about.
 87 2011-07-10 01:08:03 <luke-jr> cuddlefish: the network won't even consider it if the fees aren't met
 88 2011-07-10 01:08:10 <freewil> FAQ: A: Please be patient. Instawallet currently includes no fees in transactions (this feature is planned however) and as such they can sometimes take a very long time to confirm. Please wait at least 24 hours before contacting me. You can check Bitcoin Charts for currently unconfirmed transactions.
 89 2011-07-10 01:08:13 <lfm> if a node judges the fee is too small it might not hand off the txn to other nodes
 90 2011-07-10 01:08:19 <cuddlefish> Ah, right, propagation rules
 91 2011-07-10 01:08:24 <cuddlefish> ffffs
 92 2011-07-10 01:08:39 <luke-jr> cuddlefish: next time connect to the Free Relay Network :P
 93 2011-07-10 01:08:50 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: i'll tell instawallet to
 94 2011-07-10 01:09:07 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: worthless currently in any case addnode makes no effort to keep the connection up.
 95 2011-07-10 01:09:47 <cuddlefish> It's weird though
 96 2011-07-10 01:09:50 <gmaxwell> Also, bitcoincharts imposes the same anti-spam rules as everyone else, a txn which isn't getting propagated won't show up there even if you happen to be connected to it.
 97 2011-07-10 01:10:06 <cuddlefish> a 1 BTC transaction an hour earlier worked
 98 2011-07-10 01:10:06 <lfm> gmaxwell: It could be better at getting the txn to a node that will mine with it
 99 2011-07-10 01:10:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I was told it did
100 2011-07-10 01:10:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: #bitcoin-watch is on free-relay
101 2011-07-10 01:10:17 <cuddlefish> but this 7 BTC transaction didn't.
102 2011-07-10 01:10:31 <cuddlefish> ooooh, I know why, maybe it sends from different addresses
103 2011-07-10 01:10:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: go look at the code, it clearly only does a one shot connection to addnodes nodes.
104 2011-07-10 01:10:54 <luke-jr> :/
105 2011-07-10 01:11:12 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: #bitcoin-watch hasn't shown my TX either ;_;
106 2011-07-10 01:11:15 <cuddlefish> the network hates me
107 2011-07-10 01:11:29 <luke-jr> cuddlefish: it has to get to the FRN first :P
108 2011-07-10 01:11:33 <gmaxwell> It's a simple change to change that... I guess I should submit a pull request for just that.
109 2011-07-10 01:11:48 <cuddlefish> luke-jr: guess my coins, like fine wine, must mature
110 2011-07-10 01:11:57 <cuddlefish> hopefully it won't take several decades.
111 2011-07-10 01:12:14 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: still, I don't know why instawallet would be hitting low priority... it should have a standing balance.
112 2011-07-10 01:12:46 <lfm> cuddlefish: ya, there is "newness" considered by some nodes to invoke fees, including spending "change" from another recent txn
113 2011-07-10 01:13:11 <gmaxwell> Yes, though bitcoin considers that in picking which inputs to spend.
114 2011-07-10 01:13:27 <gmaxwell> er, well, it intends to at least, I have my doubts. :)
115 2011-07-10 01:14:12 <lfm> ya, it so out of the user's control that it looks like magic
116 2011-07-10 01:14:51 <gmaxwell> might be useful if listtransactions told you the priority of non-confirmed txn.
117 2011-07-10 01:15:02 <lfm> wave the lucky coin wand over your computer before sending
118 2011-07-10 01:15:25 <cuddlefish> ./bitcoind getpriority send 1foo 1.3
119 2011-07-10 01:15:59 <gmaxwell> Yea, thats useless because if you recieve something or spend something the decision may be entirely different.
120 2011-07-10 01:16:04 <lfm> cuddlefish: the good news, as such, is that the newness will wear off in a couple days and let the txn go thru
121 2011-07-10 01:16:17 <cuddlefish> lfm: Hooray!... not.
122 2011-07-10 01:16:24 <gmaxwell> If its newness ant not bitcoind being down.
123 2011-07-10 01:16:46 <gmaxwell> Or some attack filling all its connections with useless nodes.
124 2011-07-10 01:17:50 <lfm> cuddlefish: would you care to reveal the address you sent to so we can watch ofr it?
125 2011-07-10 01:17:56 <cuddlefish> lfm: one sec
126 2011-07-10 01:19:19 <cuddlefish> Oh, you're kidding me. managed to trigger a bug in the Bitcoin android app that dropped my wallet. Never mind, it's not relevant anymore.
127 2011-07-10 01:19:25 <cuddlefish> i'll be over here, crying.
128 2011-07-10 01:19:31 <luke-jr> o.o
129 2011-07-10 01:19:58 <gmaxwell> Man you sent coin to a wallet that wasn't backed up?
130 2011-07-10 01:20:16 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: It was an Android app
131 2011-07-10 01:29:27 <Lachesis> is there a good reason that there's no RPC command to calculate the fee a spend would incur?
132 2011-07-10 01:29:44 <Lachesis> or is it just that no one has the time for that?
133 2011-07-10 01:31:37 <luke-jr> Lachesis: probably partly because it could change at any time
134 2011-07-10 01:31:46 <Lachesis> how so?
135 2011-07-10 01:32:06 <luke-jr> lots of ways
136 2011-07-10 01:32:37 <Lachesis> i mean, that's why i don't want to code it in my external program
137 2011-07-10 01:32:49 <Lachesis> but shouldn't there just be a "calculate fee for transaction" function in the C++?
138 2011-07-10 01:33:48 <luke-jr> just creating the transaction itself
139 2011-07-10 01:35:21 <Lachesis> so can I call CWallet::CreateTransaction() and get the fee from that?
140 2011-07-10 01:35:30 <Lachesis> or will that actually _place_ the transaction?
141 2011-07-10 01:36:21 <luke-jr> I don't think it will place it
142 2011-07-10 01:36:25 <luke-jr> you still need to do more for that
143 2011-07-10 01:36:31 <Lachesis> ok
144 2011-07-10 01:36:42 <Lachesis> thinking more, i realized that in my particular application, fees are unlikely
145 2011-07-10 01:36:43 <Lachesis> but
146 2011-07-10 01:36:46 <luke-jr> fyi, updated/fixed trades in #bitcoin-watch
147 2011-07-10 01:36:58 <luke-jr> Lachesis: personally, I hacked my bitcoind to never send fees
148 2011-07-10 01:37:05 <luke-jr> it either errors out, or forces without a fee
149 2011-07-10 01:37:25 <luke-jr> which is why I have a 1 Satoshi txn tied up that will probably never get confirmed :|
150 2011-07-10 01:37:36 <Lachesis> lol
151 2011-07-10 01:37:47 <Lachesis> can't you make Eligius accept it?
152 2011-07-10 01:40:22 <luke-jr> Lachesis: not yet
153 2011-07-10 01:40:36 <Lachesis> oh? why not?
154 2011-07-10 01:40:46 <luke-jr> Lachesis: I'd have to write a mod for the bitcoind to do so
155 2011-07-10 01:40:51 <Lachesis> oh well yeah
156 2011-07-10 01:41:00 <Lachesis> just if address == "", accept
157 2011-07-10 01:41:02 <Lachesis> now ""
158 2011-07-10 01:41:03 <luke-jr> lol
159 2011-07-10 01:41:04 <Lachesis> not*
160 2011-07-10 01:41:17 <Lachesis> or if value = 1 satoshi :)
161 2011-07-10 01:41:33 <luke-jr> actually, it'd be nice to let miners submit a txid with their share ;)
162 2011-07-10 01:41:34 <Lachesis> just make sure to turn it _off_ after you get the coins :D
163 2011-07-10 01:41:41 <luke-jr> if it's a valid share, accept that txid
164 2011-07-10 01:41:48 <Lachesis> hmm that's interesting
165 2011-07-10 01:41:57 <Lachesis> probably would want more than 1 share
166 2011-07-10 01:42:05 <Lachesis> btw, is there any good reason that pools don't use diff > 1.0 shares?
167 2011-07-10 01:42:15 <luke-jr> Lachesis: is there any reason to?
168 2011-07-10 01:42:21 <Lachesis> it seems that you could dramatically decrease pool server load
169 2011-07-10 01:42:24 <luke-jr> we don't have any load issues on that side
170 2011-07-10 01:42:32 <luke-jr> most of the work is the getwork
171 2011-07-10 01:42:36 <Lachesis> alright
172 2011-07-10 01:42:37 <luke-jr> which isn't reduced by a higher target
173 2011-07-10 01:42:39 <Lachesis> yeah
174 2011-07-10 01:42:52 <Lachesis> what we really need is the binary pool protocol
175 2011-07-10 01:42:53 <luke-jr> also, pushpool doesn't support it
176 2011-07-10 01:43:04 <luke-jr> Eligius supports the binary pool protocol :p
177 2011-07-10 01:51:27 <Lachesis> which of the ecdsa curve does bitcoin use?
178 2011-07-10 01:51:43 <Lachesis> and/or is there code somewhere that'll generate a public key given a private one?
179 2011-07-10 01:53:01 <luke-jr> given a sig, at least, I think
180 2011-07-10 01:54:36 <justmoon> Lachesis, secp256k
181 2011-07-10 01:54:46 <Lachesis> justmoon, ty
182 2011-07-10 01:55:04 <justmoon> might have to switch p and k always get those two confused ^^
183 2011-07-10 01:57:08 <justmoon> yeah, secp256k1 it is