1 2011-07-12 00:00:20 <moa7> yes, "Email me your wallet.dat file and I'll see if I can help" is tech. support first response byline
  2 2011-07-12 00:01:44 <moa7> hmm difficulty to set the fees ....
  3 2011-07-12 00:02:33 <moa7> *the minimum
  4 2011-07-12 00:03:36 <gmaxwell> The idea being that difficulty goes up when bitcoin becomes more valuable. But sadly, it also goes up because computers get faster, even when the value doesn't change.
  5 2011-07-12 00:05:12 <moa7> and network infrastructure != mining infrastructure
  6 2011-07-12 00:05:42 <gmaxwell> yea. And storage, really.
  7 2011-07-12 00:05:54 <moa7> that too ..
  8 2011-07-12 00:05:59 <gmaxwell> The bigger danger of spam is that it can make the blockchain very bloated very fast.
  9 2011-07-12 00:06:51 <gmaxwell> And that bloat _never_ goes away. We can only make it less awful by getting lite clients, but the network's security requires that there still be many full nodes.
 10 2011-07-12 00:07:26 <gmaxwell> Adding 144MBytes/day to the blockchain right now would stink.
 11 2011-07-12 00:09:14 <gmaxwell> (or rather, it would rock if we were getting that much _real_ _useful_ economic activity. A good problem to have. It would suck if it were just some anti-social jerkwad stuffing the blockchain for lulz (or payoffs by people who don't like bitcoin))
 12 2011-07-12 00:09:58 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: did you hear me yesterday?
 13 2011-07-12 00:10:56 <gmaxwell> No.
 14 2011-07-12 00:11:20 <gmaxwell> I've mostly given up on reading the backlog in the bitcoin channels. Too much offtopic crud. :(
 15 2011-07-12 00:11:37 <Diablo-D3> I added multipool
 16 2011-07-12 00:12:30 <gmaxwell> oh? spiffy!
 17 2011-07-12 00:12:49 <Diablo-D3> so now people can quit bitching
 18 2011-07-12 00:13:01 <gjs278> I thought there was a limit on block size
 19 2011-07-12 00:13:06 <gjs278> per block
 20 2011-07-12 00:13:24 <gjs278> does it calculate out to 144mbytes a day?
 21 2011-07-12 00:13:46 <gmaxwell> gjs278: yes.
 22 2011-07-12 00:13:56 <gmaxwell> (assuming 6 blocks an hour)
 23 2011-07-12 00:13:59 <gjs278> gotcha
 24 2011-07-12 00:14:44 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: although Ive run into a problem
 25 2011-07-12 00:14:51 <Diablo-D3> I only use one pool :<
 26 2011-07-12 00:15:44 <gmaxwell> heh. Mine against multiple accounts. :)
 27 2011-07-12 00:16:11 <gmaxwell> (at least you're dogfooding them)
 28 2011-07-12 00:16:13 <gmaxwell> er then
 29 2011-07-12 00:23:57 <osmosis> why does the blockchain take extra long to load at the end?
 30 2011-07-12 00:24:51 <gmaxwell> osmosis: because the blocks have become larger.
 31 2011-07-12 00:25:23 <gmaxwell> osmosis: also  because the larger blocks are triggering your peers to disconnect you.
 32 2011-07-12 00:25:58 <gmaxwell> (probably not just also, that likely accounts for most of the slowness you've seen unless you've been lucky enough to get all .24 peers)
 33 2011-07-12 00:26:26 <gmaxwell> Sadly most nodes are not running .24
 34 2011-07-12 00:30:23 <gmaxwell> Think anyone would cry if I spam attacked testnet?
 35 2011-07-12 00:31:41 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: if you want to spam you should spam weeds or groupcoin nets they could use more testing
 36 2011-07-12 00:32:54 <gmaxwell> Well, I already have a testnet wallet with zillions of transactions from other testing which I intentionally kept off the network.
 37 2011-07-12 00:33:06 <gmaxwell> I'm curious to see what happens if I release them.
 38 2011-07-12 00:33:17 <gmaxwell> (and I think testnet is due for a reset anyways&)
 39 2011-07-12 00:38:03 <nanotube> gmaxwell: re: fees and difficulty: while it's true that increases come not only from price bumps but also hardware improvements (e.g., advent of gpu mining), 'over the long term' one might expect that difficulty would track value reasonably well
 40 2011-07-12 00:40:46 <gmaxwell> Yes, eventually. But it doesn't work now.
 41 2011-07-12 00:41:14 <nanotube> what do you mean, doesn't work?
 42 2011-07-12 00:42:09 <nanotube> that if we start with diff 1 and price... 0.003 and minfee 0.01 and go to diff 1.5m and price 14, we don't end up with a minfee of something reasonable?
 43 2011-07-12 00:42:27 <nanotube> (or whatever diff was when bitcoins started trading for real usd)
 44 2011-07-12 00:42:41 <nanotube> or even, whatever the price was when minfee was instituted)
 45 2011-07-12 00:43:05 <gmaxwell> I mean if you pick a simple formula (your choice) and apply it to difficulty in the last for months, you won't find any forumula which produces reasonable fees along the whole span. (obviously you can add terms until it fits but it'll probably break in the future)
 46 2011-07-12 00:43:11 <gmaxwell> You can fit any two points with a line. :)
 47 2011-07-12 00:43:42 <nanotube> well, when was minfee instituted? and what was the diff and price at the time?
 48 2011-07-12 00:44:18 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: oh I added some of your quotes and others from irc into my article on my Multicoin post http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg347203#msg347203  mostly in the disadvantages section hope you all don't mind
 49 2011-07-12 00:44:51 <sacarlson> I find your comments very useful
 50 2011-07-12 00:45:28 <gmaxwell> nanotube: http://tvori.info/bitcoin/charts/historical.png the green line is mining income assuming 100MH. If you made the fee a constant factor of difficulty thats the shape it would have.
 51 2011-07-12 00:45:49 <gmaxwell> (shape in terms of 'value' assuming mtgox price represents value)
 52 2011-07-12 00:46:06 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: weeds testnet method to control spam is that it forces a fee and it has limited distrubution
 53 2011-07-12 00:46:14 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: No problem. Thanks.
 54 2011-07-12 00:46:47 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well... seems reasonable :)
 55 2011-07-12 00:47:01 <gmaxwell> 0_o. The desired behavior would be a flat line. :)
 56 2011-07-12 00:47:03 <sacarlson> but in the long run I guess if they send to them self and mine themself it would still get spamed
 57 2011-07-12 00:47:27 <nanotube> gmaxwell: it's "pretty flat". nobody in his right mind would expect a perfect flat line
 58 2011-07-12 00:47:32 <gmaxwell> nanotube: that swings around in a range of 4:1
 59 2011-07-12 00:47:35 <gmaxwell> Well, sure.
 60 2011-07-12 00:47:38 <nanotube> pretty reasonable
 61 2011-07-12 00:47:40 <nanotube> as i said, long term
 62 2011-07-12 00:47:57 <nanotube> it beats the hell of the main devs deciding what the fee is by quorum. :)
 63 2011-07-12 00:48:31 <nanotube> not that i think .0005 was a bad choice :)
 64 2011-07-12 00:48:42 <gmaxwell> Eh, I don't think it does. But it wouldn't preclude updating the factor the way we update the fees.
 65 2011-07-12 00:48:53 <gmaxwell> It's harder to remember what it is, however. Which is bad.
 66 2011-07-12 00:49:16 <gmaxwell> Also, sadly, most of the volitality there comes from the exchange rate, so e.g. we couldn't filter it out.
 67 2011-07-12 00:49:19 <nanotube> client will tell you what i tis.
 68 2011-07-12 00:49:33 <moa7> if the fee was agreed by a formula the whining is somewhat disarmed
 69 2011-07-12 00:49:36 <nanotube> we don't need to filter it out.
 70 2011-07-12 00:49:44 <moa7> minfee
 71 2011-07-12 00:49:52 <nanotube> moa7: yea, that's the idea
 72 2011-07-12 00:50:06 <gmaxwell> right, but the system being kinda-inexplicable is already a serious problem: its part of the reason why people think it's an unconditional minimum, because they don't understand how its selectively applied.
 73 2011-07-12 00:50:39 <nanotube> "people" will get used to it.
 74 2011-07-12 00:50:44 <moa7> call it anti-spam network insurance due
 75 2011-07-12 00:50:49 <moa7> instead of minfee
 76 2011-07-12 00:50:57 <gmaxwell> There is also the point I raised earler we don't have much incentive to upgrade, periodic fee adjustments are one of the few.
 77 2011-07-12 00:51:14 <gmaxwell> yea "minfee" is super unfortunate naming.
 78 2011-07-12 00:51:17 <nanotube> in the long term, most "people" won't be using a bitcoin client, because people suck at securing their own computer.
 79 2011-07-12 00:51:31 <gmaxwell> well, I'm concerned with the 1 year time horizon.
 80 2011-07-12 00:51:59 <gmaxwell> and frankly the fee whining has burned a fair amount of my patience with the bitcoin community. ::shrugs::
 81 2011-07-12 00:52:04 <moa7> what about 1 year?
 82 2011-07-12 00:52:22 <gmaxwell> e.g. one year is too soon for 'most people' to have moved to things like web wallets.
 83 2011-07-12 00:52:46 <nanotube> once the trojans really come out en masse... it won't be a pretty sight...
 84 2011-07-12 00:52:57 <nanotube> fwiw, i haven't seen any fee whining
 85 2011-07-12 00:53:07 <nanotube> well, any that's worth mentioning, anyway hehe
 86 2011-07-12 00:53:14 <gmaxwell> A couple of times these fee arguments have left me feeling like "you know, what, do what you want and I'll just track down your node and DOS it until its out of memory over and over again and then we can discuss this again"
 87 2011-07-12 00:53:26 <infinitev> lol
 88 2011-07-12 00:53:36 <nanotube> haha
 89 2011-07-12 00:53:50 <moa7> just a lot of noise over is it or isn't it free ?
 90 2011-07-12 00:53:54 <AlonzoTG> Do you know what's double-plus uncool?
 91 2011-07-12 00:54:01 <AlonzoTG> 3,000 LINE SOURCE FILES!!!!
 92 2011-07-12 00:54:09 <AlonzoTG> =\n1235022
 93 2011-07-12 00:54:19 <nanotube> AlonzoTG: you know what helps dealing with those? the scrollbar! :)
 94 2011-07-12 00:54:30 <infinitev> haha @ nanotube
 95 2011-07-12 00:54:39 <jgarzik> extra exclamation points help
 96 2011-07-12 00:55:18 <gmaxwell> Are you complaining about bitcoin? ... the whole program is only about 25kloc. It's tiny.
 97 2011-07-12 00:55:48 <AlonzoTG> That's more that 3x the biggest I've ever written. =\n1235035
 98 2011-07-12 00:56:04 <AlonzoTG> I'm having a real headache with my rewrite.
 99 2011-07-12 00:56:04 <infinitev> i think he's complaining that he's too lazy to read the source
100 2011-07-12 00:56:14 <AlonzoTG> I'm trying to figure out exactly what needs to be global,
101 2011-07-12 00:56:28 <kreal-> some borrow me a testnet bitcoin address.
102 2011-07-12 00:56:30 <gmaxwell> er, well, nothing ever needs to be global. :)
103 2011-07-12 00:56:44 <AlonzoTG> Mostly I'm starting with the bitcoin protocol itself, but I realized that I need to get some infrastructure in place before I can implement the protocol.
104 2011-07-12 00:56:45 <jgarzik> that will fall naturally out of your design, and depends largely on your own code
105 2011-07-12 00:56:52 <gmaxwell> It's not much of a rewrite if you don't get to make those decisions on your own. :)
106 2011-07-12 00:56:52 <jgarzik> -> globals
107 2011-07-12 00:57:01 <AlonzoTG> Well, Bitcoin has lots of globals,
108 2011-07-12 00:57:02 <AlonzoTG> =\n1235053
109 2011-07-12 00:57:16 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: no.  the current client implementation does, which is different.
110 2011-07-12 00:57:19 <AlonzoTG> My daemon will have a few carefully selected globals such as the utility that deals with the net...
111 2011-07-12 00:57:24 <gmaxwell> and all those statics.. oy.
112 2011-07-12 00:57:26 <AlonzoTG> Yeah, that's what I meant.
113 2011-07-12 00:57:28 <kreal-> nevermind
114 2011-07-12 00:57:36 <infinitev> *sigh*
115 2011-07-12 00:57:40 <AlonzoTG> Statics are OK.
116 2011-07-12 00:57:45 <AlonzoTG> If you use them right.
117 2011-07-12 00:57:57 <jgarzik> blanket statements are OK.  if you use them right.
118 2011-07-12 00:58:02 <AlonzoTG> =P
119 2011-07-12 00:58:15 <gmaxwell> They're globals with namespace scoping, and annoying for 90% of the reasons globals are annoying ::shrugs::
120 2011-07-12 00:58:21 <nanotube> kreal-: what do you mean to 'borrow a testnet address' ?
121 2011-07-12 00:58:23 <AlonzoTG> I'm thinking about 1 thread per peer,
122 2011-07-12 00:58:33 <AlonzoTG> so that means all the critical stuff needs to be reentrant.
123 2011-07-12 00:58:42 <nanotube> jgarzik: haha
124 2011-07-12 00:58:59 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: can you think of another P2P program that uses one thread per peer, and has a large number of peers?
125 2011-07-12 00:59:08 <kreal-> nanotube: nevermind.
126 2011-07-12 00:59:10 <jgarzik> a professional, well-debugged P2P program that is
127 2011-07-12 00:59:20 <kreal-> just needed an address to perform validate on :)
128 2011-07-12 00:59:27 <nanotube> ah heh ic
129 2011-07-12 00:59:40 <jgarzik> kreal-: http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
130 2011-07-12 01:00:01 <kreal-> jgarzik: heh yes
131 2011-07-12 01:00:48 <AlonzoTG> I don't know how that would work. =\n1235098
132 2011-07-12 01:01:29 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: most programs use async I/O
133 2011-07-12 01:01:41 <AlonzoTG> I'm really new to sockets.
134 2011-07-12 01:01:44 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: thread per connection is expensive, and potentially DoS'able if you're not careful
135 2011-07-12 01:01:51 <AlonzoTG> In any event, I'll need some kind of thread pool.
136 2011-07-12 01:02:04 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: don't look for the tool before the solution
137 2011-07-12 01:02:11 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: find the solution, the tool will be obviuos
138 2011-07-12 01:02:13 <jgarzik> *obvious
139 2011-07-12 01:02:24 <infinitevs> you guys are way too nice ;)
140 2011-07-12 01:02:29 <AlonzoTG> ????
141 2011-07-12 01:02:31 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: design your data structures first
142 2011-07-12 01:02:38 <AlonzoTG> hmmm
143 2011-07-12 01:03:03 <AlonzoTG> I'm not completely sure what I'll need to record yet, which lead me to spy on the existing implementation, which lead me to my comment about 3,000 lines of code.
144 2011-07-12 01:03:03 <Kiba`> I like how my job benefit my hobby and my hobby benefit my job
145 2011-07-12 01:03:18 <AlonzoTG> I'm hoping to get a job by doing well on this implementation.
146 2011-07-12 01:03:22 <AlonzoTG> =\n1235127
147 2011-07-12 01:03:25 <AlonzoTG> =(
148 2011-07-12 01:04:32 <kreal-> aagh I cant make brackes anymore.
149 2011-07-12 01:04:34 <kreal-> meh to tired.
150 2011-07-12 01:06:36 <AlonzoTG> Shockingly, the book in front of me actually covers async IO,
151 2011-07-12 01:07:34 <AlonzoTG> Usually, when someone mentions something like that, I don't have anything that even breathes a word about it in an entire library of computer books. =\n1235163
152 2011-07-12 01:09:16 <gmaxwell> Get better books. ;)
153 2011-07-12 01:10:00 <AlonzoTG> Sometimes that's not possible.
154 2011-07-12 01:10:16 <AlonzoTG> For example when I was trying to write an operating system, I was in dire need of a deeper understanding of the linker,
155 2011-07-12 01:10:24 <AlonzoTG> At that time, no such book had been written.
156 2011-07-12 01:10:30 <AlonzoTG> It wasn't available until ten years later. =\n1235185
157 2011-07-12 01:10:44 <AlonzoTG> =\n1235187
158 2011-07-12 01:10:53 <AlonzoTG> I was very young. =P
159 2011-07-12 01:10:56 <JFK911> dude man ld!
160 2011-07-12 01:11:09 <AlonzoTG> I fucking printed the ld manual,
161 2011-07-12 01:11:10 <JFK911> well back then man pages were probably in binders on a shelf
162 2011-07-12 01:11:16 <JFK911> oh, beaten.
163 2011-07-12 01:11:21 <AlonzoTG> It was written in moonspeak, it contained nearly zero information.
164 2011-07-12 01:11:48 <AlonzoTG> In my experience, GNU project manuals are worse than useless,
165 2011-07-12 01:12:00 <JFK911> well the source code is there why do you need manual?
166 2011-07-12 01:12:06 <AlonzoTG> they contain no conceptual information, and the information they do contain is so out of date as to be an outright lie.
167 2011-07-12 01:12:15 <JFK911> AT&T published a toolchain too.
168 2011-07-12 01:12:18 <shLONG> Have you ever felt you wanted to make a programmer related facebook status but didnt in fear of looking nerdy? Well join my new group Programming Talk !! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Programming-Talk/245909775419785 :D Here we programmers are free to express ourselves with other like minded people, please support my dream to create a programmer haven! :D
169 2011-07-12 01:12:29 <jgarzik> who needs manuals when you have source code :)
170 2011-07-12 01:13:09 <AlonzoTG> It takes much too long to parse source code, especially when there is more than 3,000 lines in a file. =\n1235223
171 2011-07-12 01:13:21 <AlonzoTG> Usually main.cpp is 200 lines...
172 2011-07-12 01:13:27 <AlonzoTG> In this program it is more than 3,000
173 2011-07-12 01:13:37 <IO-> after fighting the NDB mysql clusters for days i've come to the conclusion that it offically sucks
174 2011-07-12 01:13:42 <JFK911> haha my small c programs are 3000 lines
175 2011-07-12 01:13:50 <JFK911> and im a crap programmer
176 2011-07-12 01:14:17 <gmaxwell> well, c!=cpp.
177 2011-07-12 01:14:17 <IO-> a simple HA (heartbeat) active/passive cluster with a SAN for storage actually works in production and performs
178 2011-07-12 01:14:38 <JFK911> well i still have about 2500 lines that are nothing more than a comment or an {
179 2011-07-12 01:15:40 <jgarzik> yeah, with C++ and boost, 3000 lines will get you "hello, world" and not much else
180 2011-07-12 01:16:04 <AlonzoTG> I'd like to submit a TODO for trunk: move all classes in main.h and main.cpp to their own .h and .cpp files.
181 2011-07-12 01:16:30 <AlonzoTG> I could do it right now...
182 2011-07-12 01:16:52 <AlonzoTG> But then the code doesn't build on my machine.
183 2011-07-12 01:20:39 <JFK911> oh look who's here
184 2011-07-12 01:22:35 <sacarlson> AlonzoTG: your welcome to try that on MultiCoin but then how do we stay in sync with bitcoin changes?
185 2011-07-12 01:26:10 <AlonzoTG> The book I have in front of me sez that assynchronous IO is experimental and the authors say that they don't know of any unix implementations that implement it for sockets, they only mumble some stuff about it as a hypothetical.
186 2011-07-12 01:26:55 <gmaxwell> nanotube: your argument on the forum with JoelKatz re fees is misplaced.
187 2011-07-12 01:27:03 <nanotube> gmaxwell: how so?
188 2011-07-12 01:27:24 <gmaxwell> nanotube: since size is directly determined by inputs and outputs, for large txn you can compute a marginal fee per input/output pretty easily.
189 2011-07-12 01:27:37 <gmaxwell> Which is what he's saying, and his math is right.
190 2011-07-12 01:28:02 <nanotube> yes, but doesn't the priority score also depend on tx age?
191 2011-07-12 01:28:06 <nanotube> input age
192 2011-07-12 01:28:50 <gmaxwell> It's not a question of priority, priority only matters for free txn, which jumbo transactions are disqualified from being due to being jumbo.
193 2011-07-12 01:29:09 <nanotube> and jumbo is, any tx > 27k or some such?
194 2011-07-12 01:29:36 <gmaxwell> Yea, something like that. I'd have to go look.
195 2011-07-12 01:30:12 <Diablo-D3> [10:16:11] <gmaxwell> (at least you're dogfooding them)
196 2011-07-12 01:30:18 <gmaxwell> Really the tiny payouts are not great. Why not increase the difficulty so that slow miners won't get a share every round? Their average returns will still be the same, but the network won't be taxed with tiny payouts.
197 2011-07-12 01:30:20 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: well I tested it, but all the pools suck dick
198 2011-07-12 01:30:42 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well, one can always break the consolidations up into several, to stay under the 'egregious-fee-required' threshold
199 2011-07-12 01:30:55 <upb> AlonzoTG: doesnt epoll qualify as asyncrhonous io ?
200 2011-07-12 01:31:29 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well, that could be done - the assumption is that there will be different pools with different difficulties.
201 2011-07-12 01:31:31 <Diablo-D3> your mom qualifie--wait, no she doesnt
202 2011-07-12 01:32:02 <gmaxwell> nanotube: it's still loading up the network, even if it gets buy the current fee structure.
203 2011-07-12 01:32:11 <Diablo-D3> lol nanotubes
204 2011-07-12 01:32:13 <nanotube> gmaxwell: if someone wants to set up a pool with low difficulty, can't stop them. ideally, people won't :)
205 2011-07-12 01:32:19 <gmaxwell> Ideally your pool solution should be less harmful to network health than the pools in every way. :)
206 2011-07-12 01:32:22 <Diablo-D3> nanotuuuuuube
207 2011-07-12 01:32:26 <Diablo-D3> nanotuba.
208 2011-07-12 01:32:31 <Diablo-D3> the plural of nanotube
209 2011-07-12 01:32:35 <gmaxwell> nanotube: well, the software defaults are powerful motivators.
210 2011-07-12 01:32:48 <AlonzoTG> BUCKMINSTERFULERINE!
211 2011-07-12 01:32:48 <nanotube> so you think 1e-4 is too low of a difficulty?
212 2011-07-12 01:32:53 <upb> Diablo-D3: well i'd be interested in your argument :)
213 2011-07-12 01:33:00 <Diablo-D3> upb: about what?
214 2011-07-12 01:33:02 <nanotube> i mean, 1e-4*currentdifficulty
215 2011-07-12 01:33:12 <upb> not about my mom but epoll
216 2011-07-12 01:33:21 <Diablo-D3> upb: oh, just dont use epoll directly
217 2011-07-12 01:33:33 <Diablo-D3> use one of the one or two C libs that wrap the native async method
218 2011-07-12 01:33:47 <nanotube> heya Diablo-D3 ;)
219 2011-07-12 01:34:05 <upb> thats not an argument, a wrapper doesnt make it more async
220 2011-07-12 01:34:16 <Diablo-D3> no Im just saying
221 2011-07-12 01:34:31 <Diablo-D3> I prefer not to write barebones platform specific code
222 2011-07-12 01:34:48 <Diablo-D3> I mean, fuck, I'm doing quasi-async code in Java
223 2011-07-12 01:34:56 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yea, ... 1e-2 would be more interesting... I mean 100x better than solomining without pool weaknesses would be attractive to a lot of people.
224 2011-07-12 01:35:47 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well, i wouldn't have any problems with that as 'default' suggested value.
225 2011-07-12 01:36:28 <Diablo-D3> btw
226 2011-07-12 01:36:32 <Diablo-D3> you know whats attractive to people?
227 2011-07-12 01:36:36 <Diablo-D3> destroying the largest pools
228 2011-07-12 01:36:38 <gmaxwell> personally I'd make users modify the source to make it much smaller than 1e-3 or so... ::shrugs:: but I'm not writing it. :)
229 2011-07-12 01:37:31 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: going to add a solution witholding mode to your miner?
230 2011-07-12 01:37:31 <nanotube> gmaxwell: neither am i, yet. hehe. :) there seems to be a somewhat similar-approach distributed pool that actually has some poc code already: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0
231 2011-07-12 01:37:38 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: ...
232 2011-07-12 01:37:45 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: huh.
233 2011-07-12 01:37:55 <gmaxwell> Is there a memorypool explorer for testnet like http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ ?
234 2011-07-12 01:38:02 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: seriously though
235 2011-07-12 01:38:05 <jgarzik> I think "people" like large pools
236 2011-07-12 01:38:07 <Diablo-D3> why mine on a big pool
237 2011-07-12 01:38:07 <jgarzik> which is a shame
238 2011-07-12 01:38:12 <Diablo-D3> when you can mine on 50 small pools
239 2011-07-12 01:38:34 <jgarzik> network effect.  big pool is simple and predictable.
240 2011-07-12 01:38:43 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: more pools will equal lower variance.
241 2011-07-12 01:39:08 <nanotube> jgarzik: well, it's also about trust. at this point, you can be fairly certain that deepbit and slush won't walk away with your mined coins.
242 2011-07-12 01:39:10 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: thats good, right?
243 2011-07-12 01:39:19 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: yes.
244 2011-07-12 01:39:27 <nanotube> jgarzik: but $newpool that $randomjoe just started... is a wildcard.
245 2011-07-12 01:39:29 <Diablo-D3> I wonder what the upper limit of my code is
246 2011-07-12 01:39:32 <Diablo-D3> its probably thousands of pools
247 2011-07-12 01:39:51 <nanotube> walkoff, security problems, reliability/stability problems... you don't know what you're walking into with a newly started pool.
248 2011-07-12 01:40:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: well, they also think mining is strictly and unconditionally a race. I had a lot of people respond to suggestions that they move off deepbit with the strong instance that it will make them a lot more money.
249 2011-07-12 01:40:18 <gmaxwell> nanotube: eh, walkoff is more attractive when you're bigger.
250 2011-07-12 01:40:32 <rethaw> eligius is really cool
251 2011-07-12 01:40:42 <rethaw> i really enjoy their model
252 2011-07-12 01:40:45 <gmaxwell> Yea, eligius doesn't keep your balance, for the most part.
253 2011-07-12 01:40:48 <nanotube> gmaxwell: not really - if you can make 150btc a day (when you're deepbit), you won't sacrifice that by grabbing 5000btc once.
254 2011-07-12 01:40:52 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: wait wait wait
255 2011-07-12 01:40:54 <Diablo-D3> hold up
256 2011-07-12 01:41:01 <Diablo-D3> strictly and unconditionally it IS a race
257 2011-07-12 01:41:08 <Diablo-D3> whoever flips the most coins wins
258 2011-07-12 01:41:17 <gmaxwell> ::sigh::
259 2011-07-12 01:41:37 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: but it is not true that being in a bigger pool, you'll make more btc with a given amount of hashrate.
260 2011-07-12 01:41:45 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: no not quite
261 2011-07-12 01:41:52 <Diablo-D3> you make more over infinite time solo mining
262 2011-07-12 01:41:57 <gmaxwell> If you flip 10x faster. You'll make 10x more. Yes. But the mental model of a race is "if the other guy is 10x faster I'll lose _every time_"
263 2011-07-12 01:42:07 <gmaxwell> I'm not talking solo mining.
264 2011-07-12 01:42:43 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: there are different kinds of races
265 2011-07-12 01:42:48 <gmaxwell> I'm saying, e.g. people insisted that they'd make much less at  eligius or btcguild because the smaller pools were not fast enough to win the race against the big pool.
266 2011-07-12 01:42:49 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: well assuming both pools are fast enough to generate several blocks within a single difficulty-adjustment period... should be the same.
267 2011-07-12 01:43:07 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: depends on how much the pool loses
268 2011-07-12 01:43:23 <nanotube> how much /what/ the pool loses?
269 2011-07-12 01:43:46 <gmaxwell> meh, don't repeat the X per difficulty fable.
270 2011-07-12 01:44:04 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: btc
271 2011-07-12 01:44:10 <nanotube> how do you lose btc?
272 2011-07-12 01:44:15 <nanotube> gmaxwell: what fable? :)
273 2011-07-12 01:44:18 <gmaxwell> Thats not actually true, the difficulty changes for everyone, so it doesn't create differential expected value for varrious alternative choices.
274 2011-07-12 01:44:20 <Diablo-D3> pay them to people whove never produced a block
275 2011-07-12 01:44:56 <gmaxwell> nanotube: your expected return on a share worth of hasing is 50/difficulty no matter which way you mine.
276 2011-07-12 01:45:39 <gmaxwell> Now you might want to have a collective pool of some size or another, in order to get the variance to a level you find acceptable. And thats good and fine, but it's a question of risk tolerance, not expected payout.
277 2011-07-12 01:45:55 <Diablo-D3> theres also that
278 2011-07-12 01:46:01 <gmaxwell> (I'm ignoring orphans, which are a bit of a race, but they're rare enough that they mostly done matter and are more an issue of node health)
279 2011-07-12 01:46:11 <Diablo-D3> how much the pool either takes, or offsets to maintain payout rate
280 2011-07-12 01:46:15 <sacarlson> I think this pool method with the adition of escrow transaction to distibute might be cool http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.0
281 2011-07-12 01:46:42 <sacarlson> I mean the p2p escrow from groffer
282 2011-07-12 01:46:53 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: yea, I suggested the escrow in that thread.
283 2011-07-12 01:47:08 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: oh I guess I didn't read down that far
284 2011-07-12 01:47:51 <knotwork> Diablo-D3 does the wiki page have link to your latest version of miner?
285 2011-07-12 01:48:01 <Diablo-D3> knotwork: dunno, I dont use the wiki
286 2011-07-12 01:48:06 <nanotube> gmaxwell: in the case of forever-increasing difficulty, it's possible to have a very small chance to ever generate anything, even at infinity.
287 2011-07-12 01:48:14 <knotwork> where do you put laest version then?
288 2011-07-12 01:48:20 <Diablo-D3> where it always goes
289 2011-07-12 01:48:39 <knotwork> I have no idea where that is, first post of thread didnt seem to say
290 2011-07-12 01:48:41 <gmaxwell> nanotube: sure. And a pool could also generate nothing. Or you could be mining solo on a single 386 an generate 10 blocks.
291 2011-07-12 01:48:51 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ya that sounds good http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg276580#msg276580
292 2011-07-12 01:50:15 <gmaxwell> nanotube: But thats not a difference in expected payout, thats a difference in variance and you rationally decide that unusually low payouts are far worse than unusually high payouts are good, so they don't cancel each other out in terms of your actual utility, even though they cancel out mathmatically to produce the average.
293 2011-07-12 01:50:26 <nanotube> gmaxwell: indeed. and i'm just saying that you may want to mine in a pool that is more likely to give you /something/ rather than nothing. :) of course a pool would have to be really small in order to have a >50% chance of never generating anything.
294 2011-07-12 01:50:59 <gmaxwell> nanotube: what you're laboring under is the infinite time interpretation of rare events. Which is a crap mental model, because as you observe it fails for non-stationary statistics.
295 2011-07-12 01:51:48 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yea yea okay, but we started this silly tangent when I thought you were saying that a pool had to be sufficiently big to match the average payout. Thats not so.
296 2011-07-12 01:52:14 <gmaxwell> It has to be acceptably big to match your perfered idea of risk, and you hope that generalizes to other people.
297 2011-07-12 01:52:23 <nanotube> gmaxwell: how so? isn't it reasonable to say that if you're mining with a cpu at say, 1000khps, and assume that difficulty will increase at 10% per period forever, that your chance of never generating anything even at infinity is something like 90% ?
298 2011-07-12 01:53:00 <nanotube> no, i wasn't saying anything about average payout of a pool ;)
299 2011-07-12 01:53:28 <gmaxwell> nanotube: yes, sure, but that change of generating nothing is cancled out by your chance of having really good returns. So e.g. if there were a million of you making the same decision in parallel, on average you'd all get the expected return (the amount a feeless perfect pps pool would give you)
300 2011-07-12 01:54:01 <nanotube> well of course. expected value is the same regardless of whether you're in a pool or solo
301 2011-07-12 01:54:11 <gmaxwell> it's just that the average would be unequally distributed, and in fact there is a neat argument that if you only have 1000khps you should be _solo_ mining.
302 2011-07-12 01:54:13 <nanotube> (minus pool fee, and minus extra network lag for the getworks)
303 2011-07-12 01:54:53 <nanotube> hehe what's the neat argument? wouldn't you have to assume risk-affinity in order for it to make sense?
304 2011-07-12 01:54:56 <gmaxwell> Because the pool returns (even from an ideal feeless pps pool) from 1000khps now won't make a damn difference in the quality of your life in the future.
305 2011-07-12 01:55:06 <nanotube> though i guess that's pretty much what people actually do exhibit, when they play a lottery :)
306 2011-07-12 01:55:16 <gmaxwell> It's a return compariable to skiping lunch for a few days.
307 2011-07-12 01:55:28 <gmaxwell> Well lottery still has negative ev. This has positive.
308 2011-07-12 01:55:31 <nanotube> unless 1btc becomes == 1million usd :)
309 2011-07-12 01:55:47 <nanotube> no, not if you count electricity costs
310 2011-07-12 01:55:52 <nanotube> it's negative ev then.
311 2011-07-12 01:55:53 <gmaxwell> Then you could still skip the hamburger for a few days and buy a BTC.
312 2011-07-12 01:56:04 <nanotube> hehe yea
313 2011-07-12 01:56:14 <gmaxwell> well, right actually it's postive ev on cpu mining _still_ if you have one of the more efficient cpus and cheapish power.
314 2011-07-12 01:56:49 <gmaxwell> But ... your 1000khps might just solve you a couple blocks if you're really lucky, which would improve the quality of your life greatly if bitcoin survives. :)
315 2011-07-12 01:56:51 <nanotube> really? i haven't made the calculation in a while... but i'd think the power would have to be nearly free
316 2011-07-12 01:57:23 <gmaxwell> (17179869184*diff*kwh)/(719989013671875*exc*mhj)=1
317 2011-07-12 01:57:33 <gmaxwell> the best cpuminers are about .3 MH/j
318 2011-07-12 01:58:02 <gmaxwell> power where I am is $0.075/KWH  0.05(5?) in the winter.
319 2011-07-12 01:58:18 <gmaxwell> throw in some factor for cooling if you want.
320 2011-07-12 01:58:21 <nanotube> i have about .10 usd/kwh here
321 2011-07-12 01:59:33 <Zagitta> Hi fokes
322 2011-07-12 01:59:43 <kreal-> Hi pizza
323 2011-07-12 01:59:52 <kreal-> hmm
324 2011-07-12 01:59:57 <kreal-> sleep cya.
325 2011-07-12 02:00:35 <gmaxwell> I turned off my cpuminers because of uncertanty about how much my AC actually cost.  so assuming .3 MH/J, $14/BTC, $0.075/KWH breakeven is at diff 2,346,897.
326 2011-07-12 02:01:34 <nanotube> hm wow, not bad... i'd have thought cpu mining is long dead at this diff
327 2011-07-12 02:02:19 <gmaxwell> but if you toss in a factor of two due to cooling costs for an old AC ... or you're on cpus which aren't modern multicore amds... or whatever.. then its not breakeven anymore.
328 2011-07-12 02:03:09 <Zagitta> Does anyone know where i can read up on how to verify the hash that a miner returns to a pool?
329 2011-07-12 02:04:08 <gmaxwell> That lottery argument I made extends into negative ev's too... e.g. paying $1 for some small chance to solve a block may still be utility positive for me, simply because losing an extra dollar a month is irrelevant to my well being.
330 2011-07-12 02:05:02 <nanotube> gmaxwell: indeed... but since your expecting winning is only 50btc aka 700bucks or so... it's not a hell of a winning. :)
331 2011-07-12 02:05:22 <gmaxwell> yea, if it were larger I'd probably still have the cpu miners going. :)
332 2011-07-12 02:05:22 <nanotube> might as well just buy 50btc to be sure :)
333 2011-07-12 02:05:27 <nanotube> hehe
334 2011-07-12 02:32:48 <da2ce7> any windows admin bouncing arround wanting to help out a bitcoin related projects
335 2011-07-12 02:32:50 <da2ce7> ?
336 2011-07-12 02:47:31 <nhodges> omg happy dance
337 2011-07-12 02:47:34 <nhodges> cloud9ide.com
338 2011-07-12 02:49:15 <rethaw> cloud9ide.com
339 2011-07-12 03:21:22 <Graet> da2ce7 mperth in #ozcoin might. you can ask him :)
340 2011-07-12 04:06:12 <sacarlson> how can multiple networks share listeners? seems one of the problems in small proto nets is that not everyone has the ability to listen behind ISP firewalls
341 2011-07-12 04:09:12 <Guest54873> you can listen to your ISP>?
342 2011-07-12 04:10:19 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: "use ipv6"
343 2011-07-12 04:10:50 <gmaxwell> really, if your _ISP_ is firewalling/natting you and you can't get inbound connectivity, you're not on the internet.
344 2011-07-12 04:11:31 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ya I think an ipv6 tunnel would open up conectivity even behind a firewall wouldn't it?
345 2011-07-12 04:11:38 <gmaxwell> Sure.
346 2011-07-12 04:11:49 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: thanks solution found
347 2011-07-12 04:12:30 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: so point a dns to a ipv6 tunnled address and you now have open to listen from a firewalled net
348 2011-07-12 04:13:18 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: my hero
349 2011-07-12 04:14:49 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: but I wonder how that works if dns to ipv6 it still get's there won't it for clients that don't have ipv6 conectivity?
350 2011-07-12 04:16:03 <gmaxwell> I can't quite parse that, but v6 won't work except between hosts with v6 support.
351 2011-07-12 04:16:23 <gmaxwell> If you're a v4 only host and you get a v6 only dns reply it's as good as no reply at all.
352 2011-07-12 04:16:49 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ya so maybe still not perfect solution for all client users then
353 2011-07-12 04:17:08 <sacarlson> but it would at least keep major miners connected
354 2011-07-12 04:17:52 <sacarlson> in the event one of the miners was behind a firewall
355 2011-07-12 04:18:40 <sacarlson> I still think that's the best solution
356 2011-07-12 04:21:53 <sacarlson> Guest54873:  did you mean can't listen to your isp?
357 2011-07-12 04:26:00 <sacarlson> Guest54873: if so, I CAN some others can't
358 2011-07-12 04:26:50 <sacarlson> from some 3rd party told me only about 10% of the users on bitcoin are listeners
359 2011-07-12 04:27:27 <sacarlson> not sure of the accuracy of that statment
360 2011-07-12 04:27:50 <gmaxwell> thats about right currently, but will change with upnp on by default now.
361 2011-07-12 04:28:08 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: oh cool
362 2011-07-12 04:28:44 <midnightmagic> one more reason to build my own :-(
363 2011-07-12 04:28:44 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I never even installed that lib on ubuntu it wasn't availible in the distro libs
364 2011-07-12 04:29:07 <gmaxwell> well, I assume most of the non-listeners aren't *nix users.
365 2011-07-12 04:29:26 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: no I think still majority are windows
366 2011-07-12 04:29:56 <forrestv> gmaxwell, sipa, (i think it was?) answering my earlier question, bitcoind takes about 5 seconds to push out all the headers
367 2011-07-12 04:37:59 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.50, is 7 minutes and 9 seconds
368 2011-07-12 04:37:59 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 5000 0.50
369 2011-07-12 04:38:11 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 5000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 14 minutes and 18 seconds
370 2011-07-12 04:38:11 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 5000 1
371 2011-07-12 04:38:22 <cuddlefish> Guest54873: testnet?
372 2011-07-12 04:38:23 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 2000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.06, is 2 minutes and 8 seconds
373 2011-07-12 04:38:23 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 2000 0.06
374 2011-07-12 04:38:30 <cuddlefish> lool
375 2011-07-12 04:39:05 <sacarlson> cuddlefish: not those are the block counts of groupcoin
376 2011-07-12 04:40:17 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 2000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.066389028462137, is 2 minutes and 22 seconds
377 2011-07-12 04:40:17 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 2000 0.066389028462137
378 2011-07-12 04:40:29 <cuddlefish> sacarlson: ah
379 2011-07-12 04:40:34 <sacarlson> cuddlefish:  that was just knotwork giving away all his beans
380 2011-07-12 04:40:35 <cuddlefish> heh, groupcoin
381 2011-07-12 04:40:47 <cuddlefish> this'll totally work, guys
382 2011-07-12 04:40:54 <cuddlefish> what if we make a system just like bitcoin
383 2011-07-12 04:41:11 <cuddlefish> but where block generation relies on a centralized source
384 2011-07-12 04:42:19 <cuddlefish> people'll love it
385 2011-07-12 04:42:36 <sacarlson> cuddlefish: already done with beertokens
386 2011-07-12 04:42:50 <sacarlson> and in test in weeds
387 2011-07-12 04:45:11 <cuddlefish> sacarlson: right
388 2011-07-12 04:51:31 <gribble> Error: '0.670914314857' is not a valid integer.
389 2011-07-12 04:51:31 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 425000 0.066389028462137
390 2011-07-12 04:51:51 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
391 2011-07-12 04:51:51 <Guest54873> ;;bc,calcd 425000 (int)0.066389028462137
392 2011-07-12 04:52:35 <sacarlson> Guest54873: what's your groupcoin address I'll send you some
393 2011-07-12 04:53:49 <sacarlson> french I guess don't read english
394 2011-07-12 04:56:10 <gmaxwell> I have no clue who "Guest54873" is, since it's a rather non-descriptive name. But since I'm seeing half the conversation I must have them on /ignore.
395 2011-07-12 04:57:44 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: your missing nothing
396 2011-07-12 05:02:18 <Guest54873> ;;bc,stats
397 2011-07-12 05:02:20 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135866 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1221 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 6 hours, 24 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1604752.90857900
398 2011-07-12 05:35:05 <AndyBr> good day, sirs
399 2011-07-12 05:36:35 <AndyBr> i'd like to try the test net and have an existing wallet.dat on my computer (windows) with real btc in it. will this cause problems? i noticed the bitcoind doesn't have an option to change the location of your wallet.dat
400 2011-07-12 05:37:23 <gmaxwell> it will automatically use a subdirectory for testnet, but you should always mak a wallet.dat backup. Just to be sure!
401 2011-07-12 05:37:51 <doublec> AndyBr: -datadir controls where the wallet goes iirc
402 2011-07-12 05:37:53 <AndyBr> great, thanks. i don't have a lot in it; not too worried
403 2011-07-12 05:38:04 <doublec> AndyBr: but also the blockchain files
404 2011-07-12 05:38:07 <AndyBr> okay, i must have skipped past that. better re-read docs
405 2011-07-12 05:38:10 <xelister> AndyBr: make a backup before you start. best encrypted (strong password) into some CD (and do not loose it)
406 2011-07-12 05:38:37 <gmaxwell> It's just a good policy to have a backup regardless.
407 2011-07-12 05:38:43 <AndyBr> agreed
408 2011-07-12 05:38:55 <xelister> we have backup on paper
409 2011-07-12 05:39:00 <xelister> on freaking paper
410 2011-07-12 05:39:06 <xelister> COME AT ME BRO
411 2011-07-12 05:39:15 <AndyBr> xel: i thought about that and then thought "hmm, maybe im crazy"
412 2011-07-12 05:39:35 <AndyBr> paper for the win
413 2011-07-12 05:39:46 <AndyBr> infact, i shall print my wallet on lambskin or papyrus
414 2011-07-12 05:40:02 <moa7> gold tablets
415 2011-07-12 05:40:10 <AndyBr> had to one up, eh
416 2011-07-12 05:40:35 <moa7> just to be sure
417 2011-07-12 05:40:48 <AndyBr> any issue in having concurrent rpc calls to bitcoind?
418 2011-07-12 05:40:50 <Zarutian> moa7: Cryptonomicon?
419 2011-07-12 05:41:04 <Zarutian> any way I am off to bed.
420 2011-07-12 05:41:06 <AndyBr> i -assume- each request will wait for a lock to the data dir
421 2011-07-12 05:41:53 <moa7> Zautian: started re-reading after 10 years ... it's still awesome
422 2011-07-12 05:43:14 <doublec> AndyBr: concurrent calls are fine
423 2011-07-12 06:35:33 <AndyBr> pretty good data type for storing btc? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/364x0z75.aspx
424 2011-07-12 06:44:14 <AndyBr> how fast is getting money on test? need something for.. testing
425 2011-07-12 06:45:46 <dsockwell> AndyBr: i got 200 testcoin per day last week
426 2011-07-12 06:45:50 <dsockwell> on dual 8800GTs
427 2011-07-12 06:45:56 <dsockwell> 60 megahash
428 2011-07-12 06:46:02 <AndyBr> okay. i have a laptop :P
429 2011-07-12 06:46:10 <dsockwell> you should beg
430 2011-07-12 06:46:16 <AndyBr> this is me begging
431 2011-07-12 06:46:17 <dsockwell> unfortunately I deleted mine
432 2011-07-12 06:46:18 <dsockwell> :(
433 2011-07-12 06:46:27 <AndyBr> need to setup wallet anyway =)
434 2011-07-12 06:49:22 <forrestv> AndyBr, i have a ton to send
435 2011-07-12 06:49:35 <AndyBr> great, will get an address up in a sec
436 2011-07-12 06:52:12 <forrestv> why has the testnet difficulty gone up so much ...
437 2011-07-12 06:52:20 <forrestv> it's supposed to be kept low ... for testing, you know..?
438 2011-07-12 06:52:52 <kinlo> :)
439 2011-07-12 06:55:58 <kinlo> forrestv: I'm sure someone is willing to give you some coins
440 2011-07-12 06:56:48 <forrestv> kinlo, ...
441 2011-07-12 06:57:03 <kinlo> I don't have testcoins :(
442 2011-07-12 06:57:05 <forrestv> kinlo, i don't mine there for coins, i mine there while testing programs that generate coins
443 2011-07-12 06:57:14 <kinlo> ic
444 2011-07-12 06:58:34 <mtrlt_> hmh
445 2011-07-12 06:58:39 <mtrlt_> i don't see the point in doing that
446 2011-07-12 06:58:56 <mtrlt_> i just test my miner on an actual bitcoin pool. getting paid for testing software = :-)
447 2011-07-12 07:00:28 <forrestv> mtrlt, ah, i was talking about pool software, not miners :p
448 2011-07-12 07:01:22 <mtrlt> ah :P
449 2011-07-12 07:02:36 <kinlo> testing would take quite some time then :p
450 2011-07-12 07:02:45 <mtrlt> yep you'd need a lot of power to test a pool in the main network
451 2011-07-12 07:02:57 <mtrlt> or alternatively, a lot of patience
452 2011-07-12 07:03:04 <AndyBr> reminds me, saw the most awesome thing of my life (except from my birth) on youtube for final fantasy fans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPl_kpwyAyA
453 2011-07-12 07:05:25 <forrestv> AndyBr, got that address yet? planning to sleep soon
454 2011-07-12 07:05:46 <AndyBr> my app not working. can i run bitcoin gui with -test?
455 2011-07-12 07:05:54 <forrestv> it's -testnet
456 2011-07-12 07:06:19 <AndyBr> mfyJVjJfsTuq9VBeEZeqaczEz8LF4UKst5
457 2011-07-12 07:06:28 <AndyBr> =)
458 2011-07-12 07:07:52 <forrestv> AndyBr, f6ab63fe703e747c203dd83b772225b7a5db553aee9066e006429dadf2612680
459 2011-07-12 07:08:27 <AndyBr> what am i doing with that?
460 2011-07-12 07:08:49 <forrestv> um
461 2011-07-12 07:09:12 <AndyBr> i'm new... :)
462 2011-07-12 07:09:21 <forrestv> you can type 'bitcoind gettransaction f6ab63fe703e747c203dd83b772225b7a5db553aee9066e006429dadf2612680' to look at it
463 2011-07-12 07:09:29 <forrestv> not sure how on a gui client ..
464 2011-07-12 07:09:35 <AndyBr> great, thanks
465 2011-07-12 07:32:27 <sipa> ;;bc,stats
466 2011-07-12 07:32:30 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135886 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1201 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 1 day, 3 hours, 49 minutes, and 47 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1598514.22613085
467 2011-07-12 08:27:51 <AndyBr> does bitcoind care about testnet=1 in config?
468 2011-07-12 08:28:34 <xelister> AndyBr: try it, getinfo   testnet: true or false
469 2011-07-12 08:30:09 <AndyBr> weird.
470 2011-07-12 08:30:45 <AndyBr> http://i.imgur.com/YrnXj.png
471 2011-07-12 08:30:58 <AndyBr> can you spot the error?
472 2011-07-12 08:31:42 <AndyBr> PS C:Program Files (x86)Bitcoindaemon> .itcoind.exe -testnet <-- works, getinfo returns testnet true
473 2011-07-12 08:42:32 <AndyBr> anyone able to send some test money? forrestv said he sent some, but it's been hours and not received
474 2011-07-12 08:43:30 <forrestv> AndyBr, hm
475 2011-07-12 08:43:36 <forrestv> (still awake)
476 2011-07-12 08:43:36 <Happy0> AndyBr: have you tried 'the faucet'? :P
477 2011-07-12 08:43:53 <AndyBr> Happy0: : i assume you mean just turn on generating?
478 2011-07-12 08:43:57 <Happy0> nope
479 2011-07-12 08:44:07 <Happy0> 2 secs
480 2011-07-12 08:44:10 <AndyBr> but it's still a metaphor?
481 2011-07-12 08:44:11 <Happy0> https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/
482 2011-07-12 08:44:15 <Happy0> ^^ that's what i mean
483 2011-07-12 08:44:24 <forrestv> AndyBr, there haven't been any blocks generated since i sent it
484 2011-07-12 08:44:28 <forrestv> so, no confirmations
485 2011-07-12 08:44:49 <AndyBr> okay :-|
486 2011-07-12 08:45:06 <forrestv> i guess mining on the testnet is pretty variable...
487 2011-07-12 08:45:31 <Happy0> forrestv: i still don't understand that aspect of bitcoin - i thought the coins were already in our wallets, so it was just a matter of transferring them from one place to another :P
488 2011-07-12 08:45:57 <Happy0> although i guess i could read up on it
489 2011-07-12 08:46:13 <AndyBr> i understood it as that people need to "build on top" of your transaction or something
490 2011-07-12 08:47:05 <Happy0> :o
491 2011-07-12 08:47:27 <forrestv> Happy0, right, but the problem with that is that you could send the same coins to multiple people
492 2011-07-12 08:47:46 <forrestv> the chain of blocks is a centralized record that doesn't include duplicate spends
493 2011-07-12 08:47:54 <forrestv> so it's what matters
494 2011-07-12 08:48:17 <AndyBr> to acknowledge a transaction, you just want X others to have verified it (built on top)?
495 2011-07-12 08:48:19 <Happy0> forrestv: of course! so what does the confirmation process entail? :P
496 2011-07-12 08:48:22 <AndyBr> which i assume is minconf
497 2011-07-12 08:48:42 <forrestv> AndyBr, yes
498 2011-07-12 08:49:01 <forrestv> Happy0, it's included in a block, which is computationally intensive to do (= mining)
499 2011-07-12 08:49:24 <Happy0> i see! =]
500 2011-07-12 08:49:48 <AndyBr> forrestv: have people made duplicate transactions on test? i assume it can be done if you got some processing power
501 2011-07-12 08:50:39 <forrestv> AndyBr, maybe? it's difficult to know because the only preserved history is the main block chain
502 2011-07-12 08:50:51 <forrestv> definitely possible, though
503 2011-07-12 08:53:14 <AndyBr> i wonder when someone will try to ocean's 14 the main bitcoin net with a gazillion gpus :D
504 2011-07-12 08:59:05 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
505 2011-07-12 08:59:05 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 week, 0 days, 19 hours, 1 minute, and 24 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> afk for a bit
506 2011-07-12 08:59:18 <BlueMatt> well hes been afk for quite some time...
507 2011-07-12 08:59:37 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ping
508 2011-07-12 08:59:43 <BlueMatt> tcatm: sipa ping
509 2011-07-12 09:05:51 <sipa> BlueMatt: pong
510 2011-07-12 09:10:00 <BlueMatt> sipa: what would your take be on upgrading to bdb5.X in 0.4?
511 2011-07-12 09:10:13 <sipa> what advantages does bdb5 have?
512 2011-07-12 09:10:37 <BlueMatt> none, except that it would appear most distros are slowly moving bdb4.X into unsupported/deprecated/etc
513 2011-07-12 09:11:27 <BlueMatt> so, for continuity of releases, we might consider upgrading to 5.X
514 2011-07-12 09:11:48 <sipa> problem is that bdb4 and bdb5 are quite incompatible, no?
515 2011-07-12 09:12:00 <BlueMatt> yea, once you upgrade to 5.X, you cant go back
516 2011-07-12 09:12:09 <BlueMatt> both data and log files are incompatible
517 2011-07-12 09:12:34 <sipa> and which is the oldest (ubuntu eg) distro that does not have 5.x packages?
518 2011-07-12 09:12:36 <sipa> packaged
519 2011-07-12 09:13:34 <BlueMatt> no
520 2011-07-12 09:13:38 <BlueMatt> thats my problem
521 2011-07-12 09:14:02 <sipa> no = none?
522 2011-07-12 09:14:15 <BlueMatt> oh, just the latest one has 5.X
523 2011-07-12 09:14:32 <sipa> then i don't think it's time to switch
524 2011-07-12 09:15:23 <BlueMatt> my thinking was: if 4.X is moving out of stable on the latest releases of many distros, and we arent gonna make it into the distro packages for a while now anyway, by the time we can make that we have to be using 5.X
525 2011-07-12 09:16:48 <BlueMatt> plus, since we are adding wallet crypto, we are already making an incompatible wallet format change
526 2011-07-12 09:17:03 <sipa> but my current install does not even have bdb5
527 2011-07-12 09:17:13 <BlueMatt> what distro?
528 2011-07-12 09:17:13 <sipa> and 4.8 is the latest here
529 2011-07-12 09:17:23 <sipa> ubuntu 10.10
530 2011-07-12 09:17:43 <BlueMatt> yea, 5.1 was added in 11.04
531 2011-07-12 09:17:51 <sipa> i find it hard to imagine 4.8 will become unsupported soon
532 2011-07-12 09:17:52 <minus> use archlinux :D
533 2011-07-12 09:18:02 <minus> yeah, you can't do that
534 2011-07-12 09:18:08 <BlueMatt> minus: hence why I brought this up
535 2011-07-12 09:18:12 <sipa> or even 4.7
536 2011-07-12 09:18:25 <BlueMatt> well both arch and debian are moving that way
537 2011-07-12 09:18:33 <BlueMatt> arch already has for some bright reason
538 2011-07-12 09:18:36 <sipa> i agree that if we want to switch in any of the coming months, let's say, we should do it now
539 2011-07-12 09:18:47 <sipa> but i'm not sure that is necessary yet
540 2011-07-12 09:20:08 <BlueMatt> well thats my point, we have to do it before we are able to get any kind of distro adoption...
541 2011-07-12 09:20:27 <BlueMatt> and I have no idea when we will make another incompatible wallet change...
542 2011-07-12 09:21:08 <sipa> but there is simply no way we can move to 5.x unless you want to alienate a not-yet-one-year old distro right now
543 2011-07-12 09:21:27 <BlueMatt> my question though: why the hell is arch so damn stupid that they deprecated 4.X already?
544 2011-07-12 09:21:57 <BlueMatt> well the releases are still static linked, so people can still use it on any distro
545 2011-07-12 09:21:58 <sipa> when mainstream package adoption comes, won't they be deciding on the bdb version themselves?
546 2011-07-12 09:22:01 <BlueMatt> but building yourself...
547 2011-07-12 09:22:08 <BlueMatt> they shouldnt
548 2011-07-12 09:22:23 <BlueMatt> it should be the same across all distros so that wallets are portable
549 2011-07-12 09:22:34 <sipa> they are - only logfiles aren't
550 2011-07-12 09:22:52 <BlueMatt> no, thats only if everyone sticks to 4.X or 5.X
551 2011-07-12 09:22:58 <BlueMatt> between 4 and 5 they are not
552 2011-07-12 09:23:10 <sipa> they are forward compatible, right?
553 2011-07-12 09:23:22 <BlueMatt> 5.X will automatically upgrade 4.X to the new format
554 2011-07-12 09:23:27 <BlueMatt> but you cant go back
555 2011-07-12 09:23:30 <sipa> indeed
556 2011-07-12 09:23:49 <BlueMatt> thats why I would very much like to see all packages using the same bdb
557 2011-07-12 09:23:49 <sipa> i think it's just too early now
558 2011-07-12 09:23:56 <sipa> to switch
559 2011-07-12 09:23:58 <BlueMatt> yea, youre probably right
560 2011-07-12 09:24:07 <sipa> 4.8, yes
561 2011-07-12 09:24:17 <BlueMatt> yea, Im already planning 4.8 for 0.4
562 2011-07-12 09:25:54 <BlueMatt> but seriously, that is fucking stupid as hell of arch...
563 2011-07-12 09:26:18 <BlueMatt> not only did they deprecate db4.X, but also 5.1, no other distro even has 5.2 yet
564 2011-07-12 09:41:40 <cuddlefish> If you click New Address with an address selected, you add that label to the address...
565 2011-07-12 09:45:05 <Joric> i just wrote a standalone python script allowing to import 'vanity' addresses, anyone interested?
566 2011-07-12 09:45:24 <sipa> Joric: into a wallet.dat?
567 2011-07-12 09:45:26 <Joric> yeah
568 2011-07-12 09:45:42 <sipa> i guess you create a 'key' entry for it?
569 2011-07-12 09:47:05 <Joric> i'm adding it to 'key' and to 'name' simultaneously
570 2011-07-12 09:47:25 <sipa> ok, good
571 2011-07-12 09:47:38 <Joric> here http://pastebin.com/vUrACviw
572 2011-07-12 09:48:05 <Joric> only dumpwallet / importprivkey so far
573 2011-07-12 09:48:36 <sipa> you could also reset the 'bestblock' entry
574 2011-07-12 09:48:44 <sipa> so the application will force a rescan when loading
575 2011-07-12 09:49:56 <Joric> yeah
576 2011-07-12 09:50:09 <Joric> i'm badly afraid of damaging wallet :)
577 2011-07-12 09:50:26 <sipa> you can simply overwrite it with an empty array
578 2011-07-12 09:53:47 <Joric> there's a ton of records - pool/name/defaultkey/transactions :)
579 2011-07-12 09:54:09 <sipa> don't worry about those
580 2011-07-12 09:54:13 <Joric> i've used your format for dumpwallet + forgot to remove 'settings' and 'version'
581 2011-07-12 09:54:38 <Joric> the next killer feature is to delete keys, not implemented :)
582 2011-07-12 09:58:38 <sipa> Joric: which options of dumpwallet do you support?
583 2011-07-12 10:00:24 <Joric> i read 'keys' and use 'names' to determine visibility, that's basically all
584 2011-07-12 10:03:16 <Joric> there also settings/version/defaultkey in the json, without any special reason :)
585 2011-07-12 10:05:44 <unclemantis> any ideas on connecting a bitcoin wallet to a payment proccessor?
586 2011-07-12 10:07:43 <forrestv> which gpu miners support shares below difficulty 1?
587 2011-07-12 10:08:54 <Joric> i spend most time writting openssl bindings found out there's no libs, M2Crypto doesn't have all i needed
588 2011-07-12 10:11:12 <cuddlefish> Joric: what did it lack
589 2011-07-12 10:11:49 <Joric> i don't remember really the whole naming is fucked up
590 2011-07-12 10:13:57 <Joric> it doesn't have i2d_ECPrivateKey / i2o_ECPublicKey, maybe they can be implemented somehow i don't know really
591 2011-07-12 10:18:00 <phungus> so, this is fun... calling JSON-RPC methods from Perl using the Wiki examples.. I think the testnet mods are maybe breaking it
592 2011-07-12 10:18:27 <phungus> $VAR1 = {
593 2011-07-12 10:18:33 <phungus> 'difficulty' => '1563027.99611622',
594 2011-07-12 10:18:41 <phungus> 'blocks' => 135905,
595 2011-07-12 10:18:43 <cuddlefish> phungus: pastebin.com
596 2011-07-12 10:18:57 <phungus> yeah
597 2011-07-12 10:18:59 <phungus> hang on
598 2011-07-12 10:19:57 <Joric> http://blockexplorer.com/address/1JoricCBkW8C5m7QUZMwoRz9rBCM6ZSy96 ain't it cool? :)
599 2011-07-12 10:20:13 <cuddlefish> Joric: vanitygen makes Captain Planet cry
600 2011-07-12 10:20:43 <AndyBr> man, transactions take a while on test
601 2011-07-12 10:23:37 <phungus> http://pastebin.com/TDSUwx6x
602 2011-07-12 10:23:48 <phungus> testnet and generate are returning horked data
603 2011-07-12 10:23:55 <phungus> when I execute getinfo
604 2011-07-12 10:24:26 <phungus> I'm pretty rusty with my perl, but that is straight from the wiki
605 2011-07-12 10:24:28 <Joric> 1BTC addresses http://i52.tinypic.com/2emomjd.png
606 2011-07-12 10:25:02 <kinlo> pure coincidence?
607 2011-07-12 10:25:07 <Joric> sure
608 2011-07-12 10:25:13 <phungus> VanityGen
609 2011-07-12 10:25:26 <phungus> what a waste of processing power. :-)
610 2011-07-12 10:25:34 <Joric> i just wrote a python script to import those
611 2011-07-12 10:26:16 <kinlo> Joric: if you really have too much computing power, you could always mine a bit for me, no?
612 2011-07-12 10:27:13 <Joric> kinlo, it takes ~0.1s to generate 1BTCsomething
613 2011-07-12 10:28:08 <phungus> I wonder if something as stupid as vanity generated address could cause a collision somewhere. :-)
614 2011-07-12 10:28:37 <phungus> I know it's mathmatically improbable, but you never know
615 2011-07-12 10:29:27 <Joric> the import script http://pastebin.com/vUrACviw
616 2011-07-12 10:32:35 <AndyBr> is there a way to lisstransactions for any account and still use from and count?
617 2011-07-12 10:33:33 <sipa> phungus: just a collision is already hard, but worthless
618 2011-07-12 10:33:38 <unclemantis> I was thinking of giving a magstripe card and pin number out to folks who use a online web wallet to be able to use at a POS just like a debit card. Any ideas on who i would need to talk to?
619 2011-07-12 10:33:59 <sipa> phungus: a collision with a preexisting address that holds money may be useful, but is orders of magnitude harder
620 2011-07-12 10:34:07 <phungus> AndyBr: listtransactions already requires an argument for account?
621 2011-07-12 10:34:21 <phungus> werd
622 2011-07-12 10:34:48 <AndyBr> phungus: well, "listtransactions" works fine, but "listtransactions 10 0" returns nothing.l listtransactions from=0 count=10 returns nothing
623 2011-07-12 10:34:48 <phungus> I'm just thinking in the future, if we got millions of folks generating addresses on a much larger scale than normal bitcoin usage
624 2011-07-12 10:34:59 <phungus> hmm
625 2011-07-12 10:35:18 <Joric> unclemantis, you may give a private key that uses vanitygen, it's only 50 bytes and 'human readable'
626 2011-07-12 10:35:19 <phungus> listtransactions <account> [count=10] Returns up to [count] most recent transactions for account <account>.
627 2011-07-12 10:35:28 <phungus> from the wiki
628 2011-07-12 10:35:44 <phungus> do you have an account called '10'?
629 2011-07-12 10:35:57 <AndyBr> no, have one called nothing ("")
630 2011-07-12 10:36:02 <Joric> also there's a built-in checksum
631 2011-07-12 10:36:16 <phungus> listtransactions "" 10
632 2011-07-12 10:36:30 <phungus> lists the last 10 transactions for the account ""
633 2011-07-12 10:37:07 <AndyBr> PS C:Program Files (x86)Bitcoindaemon> .itcoind.exe listtransactions "" 10 <-- returns []
634 2011-07-12 10:37:22 <Cryo> vanity kinda sucks towards anonymity
635 2011-07-12 10:37:23 <phungus> you may not have any transactions to list. :-)
636 2011-07-12 10:37:31 <phungus> for that account
637 2011-07-12 10:37:46 <AndyBr> phungus: PS C:Program Files (x86)Bitcoindaemon> .itcoind.exe listtransactions <-- returns two transactions, each with: "account" : "",
638 2011-07-12 10:37:57 <phungus> oh hmm
639 2011-07-12 10:38:02 <Joric> i would never mix vanity address with 'anonymous' ones
640 2011-07-12 10:38:04 <phungus> I don't know what's up with that
641 2011-07-12 10:38:06 <phungus> :-)
642 2011-07-12 10:38:26 <AndyBr> phungus: and even worse, i'm trying to write something to sync the tran log with a database, so i need to "move backards" in the tran log for -all- accounts
643 2011-07-12 10:38:58 <Cryo> oh, not 'normal' people.  'stupid' people might get confused thinking that having vanity still garners some form of anonymity.
644 2011-07-12 10:39:58 <Cryo> send money to 1CryoHasP0t4u9823ua99a0
645 2011-07-12 10:40:00 <phungus> AndyBr: I'm not sure, I think you're beyond my understanding. :-)
646 2011-07-12 10:40:23 <AndyBr> phungus: damn. i'd read the source code for help but cant really read c++ that well
647 2011-07-12 10:40:38 <phungus> yeah, I don't know a lick of c++
648 2011-07-12 10:40:47 <Joric> speaking of p0t, http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road
649 2011-07-12 10:40:51 <phungus> it seems like the 10 on the end should list all of them
650 2011-07-12 10:41:18 <Cryo> shhh
651 2011-07-12 10:41:47 <phungus> Private forums > Silk Road
652 2011-07-12 10:42:02 <AndyBr> well wtf: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/rpc.cpp#L1029
653 2011-07-12 10:42:10 <AndyBr> i must have an old version
654 2011-07-12 10:42:30 <sipa> which version are you running?
655 2011-07-12 10:42:36 <AndyBr> about to find out
656 2011-07-12 10:42:52 <AndyBr> 32300
657 2011-07-12 10:43:13 <Cryo> I did enjoy the media getting all up about silk road and bitcoins, because clearly no one uses that anonymous form of legal tender called& cash to do the same thing.
658 2011-07-12 10:43:15 <phungus> 3.24 is out
659 2011-07-12 10:43:26 <BlueMatt> that change should be in 23 iirc
660 2011-07-12 10:43:42 <phungus> cash via Priority works great
661 2011-07-12 10:43:47 <forrestv> just got a share with hash 0xbddbdbcbc411ba6b44720e3371a16faa3800bbd36905ac8164fa0338 ..
662 2011-07-12 10:43:51 <forrestv> hehe, interesting prefix
663 2011-07-12 10:43:51 <Joric> "My own method was to route 4 bitcoins through Mt.Gox (this was before the hacking, a series of events which confirmed my own resolution to keep a balance at Mt.Gox for as short a time as possible), then through Mybitcoin."
664 2011-07-12 10:44:11 <Joric> i bet both of them work for feds
665 2011-07-12 10:44:21 <phungus> yes, if you deal with a fed
666 2011-07-12 10:44:23 <AndyBr> BlueMatt: pretty weird, because when i do "listtransactions *" i get [] back
667 2011-07-12 10:44:24 <BlueMatt> lol, they think mtgox is worse than mybitcoin
668 2011-07-12 10:44:29 <phungus> which is why you avoid Silk Road
669 2011-07-12 10:44:37 <sipa> mtgox at least communicates
670 2011-07-12 10:44:44 <BlueMatt> mtgox complies with all regulation in .jp
671 2011-07-12 10:44:49 <BlueMatt> mybitcoin, who the fuck knows
672 2011-07-12 10:45:14 <phungus> I need to try OTC someday
673 2011-07-12 10:45:25 <phungus> and make sure I follow all the steps. :-)
674 2011-07-12 10:46:03 <phungus> so, anyone know what's up with this perl weirdness? http://pastebin.com/TDSUwx6x
675 2011-07-12 10:46:30 <phungus> I don't really need the getinfo results, but it jumped out at me, given that it's the example from the wiki
676 2011-07-12 10:47:36 <erus`> phungus: they are nested elements?
677 2011-07-12 10:47:46 <Joric> BlueMatt, just hacked up a standalone vanity import script, checkitout http://pastebin.com/vUrACviw
678 2011-07-12 10:47:47 <AndyBr> BlueMatt: upgraded to 24 now and no help *slight rage*
679 2011-07-12 10:47:51 <phungus> it's just dumping what it sees from getingo
680 2011-07-12 10:47:54 <phungus> getinfo
681 2011-07-12 10:48:04 <phungus> when I call bitcoind getinfo directly all is well
682 2011-07-12 10:48:19 <Joric> probably will develop it up to full json import/export
683 2011-07-12 10:48:51 <phungus> AndyBr: what about listtransactions "" 3 ?
684 2011-07-12 10:48:58 <AndyBr> however, in 24 listtransactions "" works
685 2011-07-12 10:48:58 <phungus> AndyBr: what about listtransactions "" 1
686 2011-07-12 10:49:13 <AndyBr> phungus: nope
687 2011-07-12 10:49:20 <phungus> only 2 works?
688 2011-07-12 10:49:36 <phungus> so you have to pass the exact number of transactions in order for it to show?
689 2011-07-12 10:49:41 <AndyBr> listtransactions works. listtransactions "" works (account name is blank where i got the money)
690 2011-07-12 10:49:51 <AndyBr> listtransactions "" X Y does -not- work
691 2011-07-12 10:49:54 <AndyBr> not just with X
692 2011-07-12 10:50:14 <phungus> hmm
693 2011-07-12 10:50:41 <doublec> listtransactions doesn't take a Y
694 2011-07-12 10:50:57 <doublec> oh it does
695 2011-07-12 10:51:01 <doublec> when did that happen
696 2011-07-12 10:51:13 <phungus> there needs to be some serious documentation updates. :-)
697 2011-07-12 10:51:20 <doublec> true that
698 2011-07-12 10:51:23 <AndyBr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/rpc.cpp#L1110
699 2011-07-12 10:51:25 <forrestv> AndyBr, ah, the testnet finally generated a block
700 2011-07-12 10:51:45 <AndyBr> forrestv: it did? i'm working on real now :D
701 2011-07-12 10:51:54 <sipa> ;;bc,blocks
702 2011-07-12 10:51:55 <gribble> 135910
703 2011-07-12 10:52:34 <epscy> ;;bc,stats
704 2011-07-12 10:52:37 <gribble> Current Blocks: 135910 | Current Difficulty: 1563027.9961162 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 1177 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 0 days, 23 hours, 15 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1604214.38439170
705 2011-07-12 10:52:40 <forrestv> AndyBr, ah :p
706 2011-07-12 10:52:56 <epscy> hmmm mining levelling off?
707 2011-07-12 10:53:05 <epscy> or too early to tell?
708 2011-07-12 10:53:18 <forrestv> AndyBr, http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/tx/f6ab63fe703e747c203dd83b772225b7a5db553aee9066e006429dadf2612680
709 2011-07-12 10:53:36 <AndyBr> =)
710 2011-07-12 10:54:47 <phungus> Perl: 'generate' => $VAR1->{'testnet'},       Bitcoind: "generate" : false,
711 2011-07-12 10:54:58 <phungus> Perl: 'testnet' => bless( do{(my $o = 0)}, 'JSON::XS::Boolean' ),
712 2011-07-12 10:55:06 <phungus> Bitcoind: "testnet" : false,
713 2011-07-12 10:55:10 <phungus> not handling boolean
714 2011-07-12 10:55:22 <phungus> bleh
715 2011-07-12 10:56:09 <phungus> so either JSON:XS isn't handling it, or it's something else
716 2011-07-12 10:56:42 <phungus> time for #perl
717 2011-07-12 10:56:43 <phungus> :-)
718 2011-07-12 10:59:33 <AndyBr> bleh, my cpp isnt good enough to understand whats up with this listtransactions. anyone else able to look?
719 2011-07-12 11:05:43 <phungus> ok, well, apparently Perl doesn't report false values
720 2011-07-12 11:06:03 <phungus> so JSON::XS is just passing through nothing, and it ends up screwing with output
721 2011-07-12 11:06:19 <phungus> that's loverly
722 2011-07-12 11:10:00 <phungus> looks like I have to either deserialize or serialize the data
723 2011-07-12 11:10:12 <phungus> in order to fixup the false (missing) data
724 2011-07-12 11:10:26 <phungus> so the wiki entry has been broken the whole time, maybe
725 2011-07-12 11:27:33 <Joric> uploaded that damn thing to https://github.com/joric/pywallet
726 2011-07-12 11:40:10 <cuqa> hey, i have a problem with staled shares and pushpool
727 2011-07-12 11:41:04 <cuqa> when I connect one miner everything works well with almost no stale shares, however when a 2nd miner connects the stale rate increases significantly
728 2011-07-12 11:41:30 <cuqa> anyways. i am interested whats cause of stale shares anyways
729 2011-07-12 11:44:53 <cuqa> mostly the stales come in packages and the duration is until new block is started
730 2011-07-12 11:46:27 <AndyBr> yay! solved my issues with listtransactions. it's a problem with using bitcoind to speak to the rpc. works fine when doing rpc from my own app
731 2011-07-12 11:47:47 <AndyBr> where in the source is bitcoind daemon?
732 2011-07-12 11:48:01 <Cryo> so you found a bug.
733 2011-07-12 11:48:08 <Cryo> congrats :)
734 2011-07-12 11:48:32 <AndyBr> Cryo: would like to try correct it or atleast make issue, but no idea where to look :D
735 2011-07-12 11:48:33 <kinlo> AndyBr: it's the same code as the regular client
736 2011-07-12 11:48:58 <kinlo> AndyBr: they just change gui.cpp with nogui.cpp if I remember correctly
737 2011-07-12 11:50:34 <AndyBr> kinlo: can you point out the path (exploring github at the moment)?
738 2011-07-12 11:50:47 <kinlo> andyBr: do a checkout :)
739 2011-07-12 11:50:54 <kinlo> you can see everything yourself decently :)
740 2011-07-12 11:51:02 <AndyBr> hehe, ok. i dont have anything to compile it anyway
741 2011-07-12 11:51:32 <Sami345> Find blocks fast!
742 2011-07-12 11:51:44 <Sami345> I need to get my transaction confirmed :D
743 2011-07-12 11:51:56 <kinlo> sure, but you can still look at the source :)
744 2011-07-12 11:52:04 <kinlo> Sami345: I am ! :)
745 2011-07-12 11:52:11 <kinlo> attempting anyway
746 2011-07-12 11:53:27 <AndyBr> every time i install visual studio i tell myself i wont need c++ support. been wrong for like 8 years
747 2011-07-12 11:59:05 <upb> lol
748 2011-07-12 11:59:40 <AndyBr> if (strMethod == "listtransactions"       && n > 1) ConvertTo<boost::int64_t>(params[1]); <-- o_O
749 2011-07-12 12:00:20 <phungus> gosh I don't understand that at all
750 2011-07-12 12:00:44 <phungus> I figured out the perl thing
751 2011-07-12 12:00:48 <phungus> though
752 2011-07-12 12:01:20 <phungus> $res->result->{connections}
753 2011-07-12 12:04:22 <AndyBr> phungus: not sure myself, but i assume there's where it starts to mess up when you use listtransactions * 10 0 etc
754 2011-07-12 12:04:51 <AndyBr> can't really check without a debugger, which im too lazy to install :D
755 2011-07-12 12:06:17 <ThomasV> tcatm: is it possible to generate QR codes from adresses with your library, without having to connect to a server ?
756 2011-07-12 12:08:01 <tcatm> ThomasV: in js-remote?
757 2011-07-12 12:08:51 <ThomasV> tcatm: I believe it is called so. but I do not care, tell me if that's possible with or without it :-)
758 2011-07-12 12:09:21 <ThomasV> I am just looking for a way to generate qr codes in javascript
759 2011-07-12 12:09:28 <tcatm> ThomasV: currently it relies on google's QR code API but it can be generated in javascript with the correct lib
760 2011-07-12 12:09:53 <ThomasV> what is "the correct lib" ?
761 2011-07-12 12:10:21 <gribble> http://jquery-howto.blogspot.com/2009/08/qr-code-generator-plugin-for-jquery.html | Aug 11, 2009 ... Blog is about JQuery javascript library. I collect javascript code ... Anyway, there are plenty of free online QR code generator sites, ...
762 2011-07-12 12:10:21 <nanotube> ;;sl javascript qr code generation library
763 2011-07-12 12:10:30 <nanotube> ThomasV: ^ first google hit points here
764 2011-07-12 12:10:32 <nanotube> try it :)
765 2011-07-12 12:10:50 <ThomasV> I already did
766 2011-07-12 12:11:13 <ThomasV> but it is not related to bitcoin
767 2011-07-12 12:11:20 <lianj> jquer-howto and 2 years old looks outdated :D
768 2011-07-12 12:11:55 <nanotube> ThomasV: you can generate a qr code of /anything/
769 2011-07-12 12:12:03 <nanotube> it doesn't have to be a bitcoin address, but it can be :)
770 2011-07-12 12:12:12 <nanotube> (subject to length restrictions)
771 2011-07-12 12:12:40 <nanotube> lianj: hell, it's the google lucky hit. anyone who wants to can actually seach google in a normal fashion to find something :)
772 2011-07-12 12:12:58 <ThomasV> nanotube: I know ; I am looking for a js solution to generate QR codes for bitcoin addresses, in a way that is compatible with other bitcoin applications
773 2011-07-12 12:12:58 <vegard> is it common to qr to base58-encoded address or the raw bytes?
774 2011-07-12 12:12:59 <lianj> hehe true
775 2011-07-12 12:13:21 <vegard> qr *the
776 2011-07-12 12:13:22 <nanotube> ThomasV: don't bitcoin applications just use standard qr codes for bitcoin addresses?
777 2011-07-12 12:13:26 <nanotube> nothing special required?
778 2011-07-12 12:13:50 <nanotube> one would think just stuffing a bitcoin addr into a qr-generator will produce a valid 'bitcoin-compatible' qr code of a bitcoin address...
779 2011-07-12 12:13:50 <ThomasV> nanotube: I do not know ; I would guess there are some conventions, no ?
780 2011-07-12 12:14:03 <b4epoche> done that
781 2011-07-12 12:14:12 <vegard> nanotube: see my question, for example...
782 2011-07-12 12:14:13 <nanotube> ThomasV: that i'm not sure about. if i had to guess... i'd say it's just 'stuff addr into qr code gen'
783 2011-07-12 12:14:26 <ThomasV> bah
784 2011-07-12 12:14:41 <ThomasV> ok, lemme find a qrcode generator
785 2011-07-12 12:14:52 <b4epoche> there's a lib
786 2011-07-12 12:14:57 <Joric> how about google chart?
787 2011-07-12 12:14:58 <b4epoche> qrencode
788 2011-07-12 12:15:05 <sipa> vegard: the bitcoin android app encodes the address (in base58 form) as qr code
789 2011-07-12 12:15:22 <b4epoche> there are tons of scripting language libs but qrencode is the only C-based one
790 2011-07-12 12:15:57 <Joric> 'generator' https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?chs=150x150&cht=qr&chl=Hello%20world&choe=UTF-8
791 2011-07-12 12:15:58 <vegard> right
792 2011-07-12 12:16:27 <nanotube> vegard: yea as i said, i'd /think/ you just stuff the address, in its base58 representation, into qr
793 2011-07-12 12:16:38 <b4epoche> that's what I did
794 2011-07-12 12:16:49 <nanotube> b4epoche: k :)
795 2011-07-12 12:16:58 <b4epoche> http://snapplr.com/mtkc
796 2011-07-12 12:17:24 <b4epoche> does the android app do it natively or via a web site?
797 2011-07-12 12:17:30 <Joric> bitcoin-js-remote uses a certain naming convention already http://tcatm.github.com/bitcoin-js-remote/
798 2011-07-12 12:17:42 <b4epoche> actually there were quite a few java libs too for encoding.
799 2011-07-12 12:18:05 <Joric> bitcoin:18pnDgDYFMAKsHTA3ZqyAi6t8q9ztaWWXt?label=&amount=&message=
800 2011-07-12 12:18:10 <nanotube> ah, using the uri ic
801 2011-07-12 12:28:19 <Cryo> http://www.dailytech.com/AntiSec+Exposes+US+Soldiers+SNs+Passwords+Vows+Attack+on+Monsanto/article22132.htm
802 2011-07-12 12:28:36 <Cryo> dailytech just HAD to include mtgox into #antisec crap
803 2011-07-12 12:29:22 <BlueMatt> " it used an unacceptably weak level of encryption" which is just not true of mtgox
804 2011-07-12 12:29:23 <b4epoche> any press is good press
805 2011-07-12 12:29:42 <BlueMatt> it used to, at the time of hacking, it didnt
806 2011-07-12 12:44:35 <phungus> Yay for OPMonsanto!
807 2011-07-12 12:44:47 <phungus> http://www.anonpad.org/opmonsanto
808 2011-07-12 12:45:04 <phungus> glad to see that made it
809 2011-07-12 12:47:56 <nanotube> ;;sell 100 TNBTC @ 0.005 BTC selling testnet btc to all interested parties. :)
810 2011-07-12 12:47:57 <gribble> Order id 4597 created.
811 2011-07-12 12:54:46 <genjix> how do you do gentlemen
812 2011-07-12 13:49:39 <JackRabiit> Fuck sakes. Im at .99btc could someone send me .01btc @ 1GNn2YB2TEiaia1VBAMwv8gceHtmvsaBi7
813 2011-07-12 13:49:51 <diki> github kinda sucks atm
814 2011-07-12 13:49:58 <diki> i press the Download button...and nothing
815 2011-07-12 13:50:02 <BlueMatt> JackRabiit: for what?
816 2011-07-12 13:50:15 <JackRabiit> So that i have One btc that i can sell
817 2011-07-12 13:50:26 <JackRabiit> to an automated webpage
818 2011-07-12 13:50:49 <BlueMatt> I dont think -dev is the right place to be asking that ;)