1 2011-07-17 00:00:08 <bliket_> whats a good os to run bitcoind on?
  2 2011-07-17 00:00:40 <jrmithdobbs> reactos
  3 2011-07-17 00:02:12 <accel_> http://www.bitcoindeals.com/ <- is fucking brilliant, especially if they do a 10-50% markup. Anyone ineterested in joining this market? I'm thinking bitcoin-escorts or bitcoin-order-bride or bitcoin-drugs
  4 2011-07-17 00:05:14 <jjjx> accel_: Wow that IS a nice site.
  5 2011-07-17 00:05:28 <jjjx> accel_: Except it doesn't do anything :-)
  6 2011-07-17 00:05:32 <jjjx> accel_: But very promising looking!
  7 2011-07-17 00:05:45 <accel_> yeah, the deals tag
  8 2011-07-17 00:05:47 <accel_> looks like best buy
  9 2011-07-17 00:06:03 <accel_> and ir you look at the background, there's cameras, cabinets
 10 2011-07-17 00:06:06 <accel_> movies,
 11 2011-07-17 00:06:09 <accel_> even PowerPoint 2007!
 12 2011-07-17 00:06:14 <jjjx> Glad to see more pro-level stuff like this popping up
 13 2011-07-17 00:06:34 <b4epoche> great...  I refuse to fall into the Twitter trap
 14 2011-07-17 00:07:48 <b4epoche> and brilliant, the whole damn page is a jpg
 15 2011-07-17 00:08:09 <b4epoche> coming_soon6.jpg
 16 2011-07-17 00:20:36 <jjjx> b4epoche: Be optimistic. :-)
 17 2011-07-17 00:20:56 <jjjx> b4epoche: Really, I think the people putting work into these things should be praised, whatever the state its in.
 18 2011-07-17 00:21:26 <jjjx> b4epoche: I grant you that a lot of broken promises aren't really ideal, but positivity is at least more motivational. ;-)
 19 2011-07-17 00:21:28 <b4epoche> yea, I do hope it succeeds...  and if exchange rate stabilizes I think it might
 20 2011-07-17 00:21:46 <jjjx> b4epoche: Speaking of which, what's to these rumors that 'bots' are keeping the exchange rate stable?
 21 2011-07-17 00:21:59 <b4epoche> I have no idea
 22 2011-07-17 00:22:44 <b4epoche> they're talking about it in #mtgox
 23 2011-07-17 00:23:19 <jjjx> Heh, I didn't even know that channel existed.
 24 2011-07-17 00:23:21 <pasky> is it normal that bitcoind (latest git) generates massive amount of write I/O? (in the order of 1MiB/s)
 25 2011-07-17 00:23:34 <pasky> it started behaving like this at a certain point about a week ago
 26 2011-07-17 00:25:47 <jrmithdobbs> how secure is aes256/aes512 for ondisk encryption assuming the keys are stored well?
 27 2011-07-17 00:25:54 <jrmithdobbs> using xts or essiv
 28 2011-07-17 00:30:24 <gmaxwell> There is no aes 512..  :)
 29 2011-07-17 00:33:35 <jrmithdobbs> was refering to key size
 30 2011-07-17 00:36:17 <jrmithdobbs> err could have sworn aes 256 could use a 512bit key
 31 2011-07-17 00:37:31 <jrmithdobbs> i'll go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard and stfu ;p
 32 2011-07-17 00:37:40 <bliket_> if the difficulty were just 1, would we be getting a block each time we get a share?
 33 2011-07-17 00:37:56 <denisx> bliket_: mostly
 34 2011-07-17 00:38:05 <bliket_> nice
 35 2011-07-17 00:47:10 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: so what can be done to minimize exposure to the aes key schedule attacks
 36 2011-07-17 00:47:13 <diki> amd cal is a native language right?
 37 2011-07-17 00:47:18 <diki> it should work on every amd card?
 38 2011-07-17 00:47:25 <diki> even those that dont support opencl?
 39 2011-07-17 00:47:27 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: or is there something better to use as a block cipher that'll work with dm_crypt?
 40 2011-07-17 00:49:46 <diki> right guys?
 41 2011-07-17 00:50:31 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: dmcrypt supports every cipher in linux. So e.g. you can use twofish.
 42 2011-07-17 00:50:55 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ya i can't find anything that clearly lays out the pros/cons of the options
 43 2011-07-17 00:51:46 <Zagitta> /me pats diki on the head
 44 2011-07-17 00:51:53 <Zagitta> :<
 45 2011-07-17 00:52:13 <diki> do all amd cards support amd cal?
 46 2011-07-17 00:52:13 <gmaxwell> well, AES is the most widely attacked. the AES128 + keyed IV doesn't have any severe relevant known weaknesses...
 47 2011-07-17 00:52:38 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: what about aes128/256-xts
 48 2011-07-17 00:52:39 <gmaxwell> It's also quite fast on the right hardware
 49 2011-07-17 00:53:34 <b4epoche> diki:  my better would be no
 50 2011-07-17 00:53:41 <b4epoche> s/better/bet
 51 2011-07-17 00:53:51 <gmaxwell> I personally use aes128 + lrw, which has 256 bits of keying material.
 52 2011-07-17 00:53:53 <b4epoche> since /all/ is a strong word
 53 2011-07-17 00:54:12 <diki> cause ufasoft claims that his miner will use it, if opencl is not present
 54 2011-07-17 00:54:31 <jrmithdobbs> i understand why cbc is bad
 55 2011-07-17 00:54:42 <diki> i'll have to try it
 56 2011-07-17 00:55:00 <gmaxwell> well, it's only bad because there is no good source of random IVs. :)
 57 2011-07-17 00:55:16 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: do you go with aes128 vs 256 because of the key scheduling ?
 58 2011-07-17 00:55:20 <cjdelisle> cbc is not bad as much as it is pointless
 59 2011-07-17 00:55:35 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i was referring more to the watermarking attacks
 60 2011-07-17 00:56:12 <jrmithdobbs> though, in this particular application only authenticated authorized users will have write access in the first place (with both authen/author being done with proven strong crypto methods to begin with)
 61 2011-07-17 00:56:13 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: er.. it's not pointless. ECB is quite insecure.
 62 2011-07-17 00:56:42 <cjdelisle> gmaxwell: yes of course ecb is a horror. Counters are much better than cbc though since they are random access.
 63 2011-07-17 00:56:50 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: cbc is fine if you have good random IVs unavailable to the attacker., but you don't for disk encryption.
 64 2011-07-17 00:57:13 <diki> zomg
 65 2011-07-17 00:57:26 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: the counterness of cbc with sector IVs is what results in watermarking attacks on disk encryption&
 66 2011-07-17 00:57:27 <diki> cal is supported by all cards above hd2ki
 67 2011-07-17 00:57:45 <gmaxwell> and disks aren't random access below the sector level regardless.
 68 2011-07-17 00:58:13 <cjdelisle> hmm I wasn't talking as much about disk crypto as crypto in general
 69 2011-07-17 00:58:30 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: right, i'm talking specifically in relation to block device encryption though ;p
 70 2011-07-17 00:58:45 <diki> it might actually work
 71 2011-07-17 00:58:47 <gmaxwell> in general, counter modes expose known ciphertext attacks better than non-counter modes.
 72 2011-07-17 00:58:52 <diki> i have an igp and a 3650 waiting to be used
 73 2011-07-17 00:59:46 <Zagitta> diki: would probably give shitty hash rates though
 74 2011-07-17 01:00:00 <diki> yeah
 75 2011-07-17 01:00:02 <diki> he said that
 76 2011-07-17 01:00:15 <diki> but the important part is i can use all my gpus now
 77 2011-07-17 01:00:21 <diki> but first gotta test if it does work
 78 2011-07-17 01:00:33 <diki> gotta disconnect for a bit
 79 2011-07-17 01:01:01 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: in any case, if your threat model includes people who can crack AES128 and are willing to admit it, then I have no advice for you!
 80 2011-07-17 01:01:49 <gmaxwell> well, some, in that case I'd nest AES128 + something else (perhaps twofish or serpent) with _unrelated keys_.
 81 2011-07-17 01:02:00 <JFK911> skipjack
 82 2011-07-17 01:04:08 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i'm more worried about something that will have some longevity, eg, at the rate issues with aes are being found lately i think it's realistic to say it could be fundamentally broken at full 14+ rounds within the next 10 years
 83 2011-07-17 01:06:42 <devrandom> Zagitta: you need a 64 bit machine with svm instructions and svm enabled in the bios
 84 2011-07-17 01:07:33 <Zagitta> devrandom: ah, i think we're out of luck then
 85 2011-07-17 01:07:45 <devrandom> oh well :-|
 86 2011-07-17 01:08:35 <Zagitta> the machine is 64bit but is currently installed with 32bit... haven't seen any virtualization options in the bios though
 87 2011-07-17 01:08:38 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: well, thats one reason I use LRW.
 88 2011-07-17 01:08:48 <devrandom> Zagitta: I think you still can build the 32 bit stuff, including windows
 89 2011-07-17 01:09:24 <devrandom> Zagitta: you'll need to adjusts the architectures list for the linux builds to remove amd64
 90 2011-07-17 01:09:45 <cjdelisle> I am a big fan of salsa20 because you can write it on a napkin and it's reasonably easy to comprehend what makes it strong.
 91 2011-07-17 01:09:48 <Zagitta> devrandom: I'll have a look at that at some point
 92 2011-07-17 01:10:21 <cjdelisle> ofc with salsa20 if you break the rules, even a little, you are sunk.
 93 2011-07-17 01:10:23 <Zagitta> anyone that can help me a bit with the merkle root? because the example given in BitcoinJ confused me a bit: http://pastebin.com/DtgXaGwQ
 94 2011-07-17 01:11:28 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: lrw effectively encrypts the block before and after with a simple stream cipher whos strength comes from the difficulty of inverting multiplication in a finite field.
 95 2011-07-17 01:11:30 <noagendamarket> http://youtu.be/2zwR5iKJh5E  nice
 96 2011-07-17 01:13:30 <Zagitta> noagendamarket: when does the core 2 duo part start? xD that's the only part im interested in
 97 2011-07-17 02:01:03 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: ah, figured out the 512bit key confusion
 98 2011-07-17 02:01:12 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: with xts you need 2x the keying material
 99 2011-07-17 03:22:52 <riush> how is the bitcoin address of a generation address determined / why does scriptPubKey.getBitcoinAddress not return any?
100 2011-07-17 03:23:08 <riush> s/generation address/generation transaction/
101 2011-07-17 03:36:37 <lfm> riush: for a coinbase 50BTC generate the address is a new key generated randomly (actually selected from the list of pregenerated random addresses)
102 2011-07-17 03:37:37 <lfm> lfm: some pools might have different ways of doing it tho
103 2011-07-17 03:37:52 <riush> yeah, but i mean, how does blockexplorer know it?
104 2011-07-17 03:38:39 <lfm> riush: oh block explorer gets the address from the public key in the "output" script.
105 2011-07-17 03:39:37 <riush> ok, thats what i thought.. but why does scriptPubKey.getBitcoinAddress() not return it?
106 2011-07-17 03:39:58 <lfm> Im not sure what that function is
107 2011-07-17 03:40:43 <riush> for normal transactions, that gives me the address.. (in the standard client)
108 2011-07-17 03:41:03 <riush> how would i go about decoding the output script myself?
109 2011-07-17 03:42:04 <lfm> there are only a few "op codes" used in the scripts. they shouldnt be too hard to find them and get the key data out of the script
110 2011-07-17 03:44:22 <riush> ok then i'll dig into that.. thanks lfm :)
111 2011-07-17 03:44:24 <lfm> like for a regular coinbase key script you have a script 67 bytes long. the public key starts at byte 2 and is 65 bytes long I beleive
112 2011-07-17 03:44:48 <lfm> the second byte, byte {1} actually
113 2011-07-17 03:45:00 <riush> ah
114 2011-07-17 03:45:58 <jrmithdobbs> nice. the new atoms can write ~30MB/s across usb2 using aes-xts-benbi (aes256)
115 2011-07-17 03:49:26 <unclemantis> offtopic. Anyone know where I can buy tungsten metal?
116 2011-07-17 03:52:44 <senseles> google ~
117 2011-07-17 03:53:05 <senseles> you should be able to get a tungsten bar similar to gold or silver
118 2011-07-17 03:53:26 <lfm> http://www.metalsupermarkets.com/
119 2011-07-17 03:53:39 <senseles> http://compare.ebay.com/like/170576282682?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&_lwgsi=y
120 2011-07-17 03:53:41 <unclemantis> been having a little trouble finding
121 2011-07-17 03:53:44 <senseles> few 100lbs of tungsten there
122 2011-07-17 03:54:01 <lfm> they dont say they have tungsten tho
123 2011-07-17 03:54:09 <unclemantis> hmm these guys do metal cuts.
124 2011-07-17 03:54:23 <unclemantis> i don't see tungsten
125 2011-07-17 03:54:57 <unclemantis> looking for .999 percent tungsten or as pure as i can get
126 2011-07-17 03:55:20 <unclemantis> tungsten's melting point is the reason i am after pure tungsten
127 2011-07-17 03:55:45 <unclemantis> i don't want a tungsten ring
128 2011-07-17 03:55:51 <unclemantis> even thought they do look pretty bad add
129 2011-07-17 03:55:52 <unclemantis> ass
130 2011-07-17 03:56:33 <lfm> you want filament?
131 2011-07-17 03:56:58 <unclemantis> i want it in sheets
132 2011-07-17 03:57:16 <nanotube> out of curiosity.. what do you want with it? :)
133 2011-07-17 03:57:34 <unclemantis> nanotube i am still on my kick about an offline wallet for the appocolipse
134 2011-07-17 03:58:16 <nanotube> ah hehe nice
135 2011-07-17 03:58:19 <unclemantis> and tungsten has the highest melting point
136 2011-07-17 03:58:50 <nanotube> i think possibly by the time you get to container melting point, whatever the metal is, the usb stick inside is gonna be toast anyway
137 2011-07-17 03:59:05 <lfm> http://www.tungsten.com/mtsprod.html
138 2011-07-17 03:59:06 <nanotube> unless you plan to engrave uuencoded keys on stone tablets...
139 2011-07-17 03:59:10 <unclemantis> who said anything about storing information on a usb stick
140 2011-07-17 03:59:24 <nanotube> what do you plan to store inside, then? :)
141 2011-07-17 03:59:41 <unclemantis> i plan on engraving keys into the metal
142 2011-07-17 04:00:11 <senseles> why does it need to be tungsten?
143 2011-07-17 04:00:13 <lfm> are you like some sorta survivalist?
144 2011-07-17 04:00:20 <senseles> cant you just stick a chip on a 1$ plastic card?
145 2011-07-17 04:00:39 <unclemantis> lfm no just bipolar and this is my THING right now
146 2011-07-17 04:00:56 <lfm> and how you gonna preserve the computer net needed to use the keys?
147 2011-07-17 04:01:15 <senseles> lfm: i actually had an idea about that
148 2011-07-17 04:01:20 <senseles> 50,000$ cubesat
149 2011-07-17 04:01:24 <nanotube> unclemantis: hehe nice
150 2011-07-17 04:01:30 <unclemantis> lfm the transactions are already on the block
151 2011-07-17 04:01:38 <jrmithdobbs> now if i can just figure out how to turn off the shitty power management shit in the AR9285 driver
152 2011-07-17 04:01:43 <unclemantis> this is a long term solution
153 2011-07-17 04:02:36 <lfm> still sounds nuts but dont let me bother you
154 2011-07-17 04:02:44 <unclemantis> lfm i won't :)
155 2011-07-17 04:02:58 <unclemantis> bugs the shit out of my wife though
156 2011-07-17 04:03:20 <unclemantis> i am sorting pennies right now for copper content to stock pile until the melt ban is lifted
157 2011-07-17 04:04:13 <cjdelisle> I was thinking it makes sense to make things out of pennies.
158 2011-07-17 04:04:18 <cjdelisle> faraday cage?
159 2011-07-17 04:04:29 <cjdelisle> Anything you need copper/nickel whatever it is
160 2011-07-17 04:04:29 <lfm> isnt it easier to just melt em all together and refine the result as needed?
161 2011-07-17 04:04:38 <unclemantis> now here we go
162 2011-07-17 04:04:56 <unclemantis> pure tungsten disks at $45 a pound
163 2011-07-17 04:05:26 <unclemantis> cjdelisle the copper is for the exchange rate
164 2011-07-17 04:05:38 <unclemantis> my solution requires no batteries
165 2011-07-17 04:05:59 <cjdelisle> yea but since they don't want you melting it, make something out of it that you would othewise use copper for?
166 2011-07-17 04:06:10 <unclemantis> true
167 2011-07-17 04:06:23 <unclemantis> or i could still stock pile until they lift the ban
168 2011-07-17 04:06:39 <unclemantis> right now a 100 percent copper penny is worth about 4 cents
169 2011-07-17 04:06:40 <lfm> sew em into armored vests
170 2011-07-17 04:06:53 <cjdelisle> or just stockpile for the fun of it, just to be a pain in the ass :)
171 2011-07-17 04:06:54 <unclemantis> there ya go
172 2011-07-17 04:07:05 <unclemantis> cjdelisle just to piss off the wife :)
173 2011-07-17 04:07:25 <cjdelisle> oh did you see my idea for a miner hot water heater?
174 2011-07-17 04:07:39 <unclemantis> wha? now that is a cool idea
175 2011-07-17 04:07:40 <unclemantis> i mean HOT
176 2011-07-17 04:08:03 <cjdelisle> Buy an old hot water heater with burned out elements, hell bum it off someone or hang around the dump
177 2011-07-17 04:08:24 <cjdelisle> hook it up to a heat exchanger to your collant loop for your mining rig
178 2011-07-17 04:08:32 <XX01XX> haha
179 2011-07-17 04:08:50 <cjdelisle> get water up to ~100 and then the real hot water heater only has to do the last 70 degrees.
180 2011-07-17 04:09:13 <cjdelisle> with tap water at about 50 you get half your hot water heated by your miner
181 2011-07-17 04:09:28 <XX01XX> I don't think they put out enough heat.
182 2011-07-17 04:09:38 <cjdelisle> Instant sell with the wife because you will *have* to take long showers to use all of the energy.
183 2011-07-17 04:09:56 <cjdelisle> avg hot water heater uses around 18 amps on average which is 4000 watts.
184 2011-07-17 04:10:19 <wirehead> additional requirements: degree in mechanical engineering, friendly landlord,
185 2011-07-17 04:10:27 <lfm> cjdelisle: is that 220 volt system?
186 2011-07-17 04:10:31 <cjdelisle> yea
187 2011-07-17 04:10:37 <cjdelisle> did I fail @ math?
188 2011-07-17 04:10:49 <lfm> no just id be different for 110
189 2011-07-17 04:11:16 <cjdelisle> yea, 18@240=4320
190 2011-07-17 04:11:27 <unclemantis> i emailed a quote
191 2011-07-17 04:11:35 <lfm> dont forget rms conversion
192 2011-07-17 04:11:37 <XX01XX> power factor, but I'd buy 4000.
193 2011-07-17 04:11:58 <cjdelisle> yea which is why anyone who is serious about mining should be using 240v stuff exclusively
194 2011-07-17 04:12:02 <XX01XX> What do these mining rigs draw?
195 2011-07-17 04:12:18 <lfm> XX01XX: as much as you want
196 2011-07-17 04:12:23 <XX01XX> haha
197 2011-07-17 04:12:32 <cjdelisle> I see 1200 watt psu boxes on some, I think a 5970 uses about 300
198 2011-07-17 04:12:38 <lfm> XX01XX: depends how many gpu you put in them
199 2011-07-17 04:12:38 <unclemantis> bitcoin is at 13.52 right now. Good. The inflation is going down!
200 2011-07-17 04:12:43 <unclemantis> stupid noobs
201 2011-07-17 04:12:45 <unclemantis> :P
202 2011-07-17 04:12:50 <lfm> dual 1000 wat psus
203 2011-07-17 04:13:12 <XX01XX> a 1000W PSU isn't necessarily going to supply 1000Wth
204 2011-07-17 04:13:22 <XX01XX> at least not to a piped cooling rig.
205 2011-07-17 04:13:28 <cjdelisle> moar inflation, moar inflation!!  wallstreet forex noob plz short btc, I want your shirt ;)
206 2011-07-17 04:13:30 <jrmithdobbs> i can't find a sane reason for some of those crazy 2x1kW psu rigs
207 2011-07-17 04:13:35 <lfm> XX01XX: yes of course
208 2011-07-17 04:13:43 <jrmithdobbs> unless you have 8x gpus it's a waste
209 2011-07-17 04:13:46 <jrmithdobbs> because you can't do math
210 2011-07-17 04:13:52 <cjdelisle> /nod
211 2011-07-17 04:14:03 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: put 6 5970 in one system?
212 2011-07-17 04:14:11 <jrmithdobbs> srsly, i ran 4x5850s off a *good* 750W
213 2011-07-17 04:14:13 <jrmithdobbs> stably
214 2011-07-17 04:14:23 <wirehead> overclocking can almost double the wattage draw
215 2011-07-17 04:14:34 <jrmithdobbs> overclocked to the point the cards were capable of
216 2011-07-17 04:14:50 <jrmithdobbs> underclocking the ram takes care of the extra power used by the gpu overclock
217 2011-07-17 04:14:53 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
218 2011-07-17 04:14:54 <XX01XX> And thermal stress would probably be not good if you shock the system from 100F to 50F
219 2011-07-17 04:14:55 <cjdelisle> also psus put out a lot of heat so getting a water block onto the rectifer would help that
220 2011-07-17 04:15:13 <lfm> some motherboards have 7 pcie slots, you can maybe use them all with enuf risers and stuff
221 2011-07-17 04:15:20 <jrmithdobbs> i've had like 20 people tell me the system i just described is impossible yet i ran 4 of 'em for ~30 days
222 2011-07-17 04:15:24 <wirehead> jrmithdobbs, do you have loadmeter readings to that effect
223 2011-07-17 04:15:37 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: ghetto load reads
224 2011-07-17 04:15:50 <cjdelisle> the coolant loop should be seperate from the domestic hot water so with an electric valve you could prevent thermal shock
225 2011-07-17 04:15:56 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: without the ram underclock, 3 nodes on one 120 tripped the breaker
226 2011-07-17 04:16:06 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: with the ram underclock, 3 nodes did not trip the breaker ;p
227 2011-07-17 04:16:11 <XX01XX> Then you're not getting the level of heat transfer you could.
228 2011-07-17 04:16:14 <wirehead> very sciency
229 2011-07-17 04:16:41 <lfm> jrmithdobbs: ya you need two circuits unless you have a high power circuit
230 2011-07-17 04:16:43 <jrmithdobbs> ya i didn't have a pdu that would measure or a kill-a-watt or similar handy at the time i was running that shit
231 2011-07-17 04:17:15 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: ya, you can basically run 2 nodes on one 120 safely
232 2011-07-17 04:17:23 <jrmithdobbs> 3 if you tweak it to hell
233 2011-07-17 04:17:30 <cjdelisle> even if it's only 30% efficient, it has all night to build up a tank of hot water.
234 2011-07-17 04:17:35 <jrmithdobbs> but then
235 2011-07-17 04:17:56 <XX01XX> I suppose any waste heat you capture is an efficiency gain, so it doesn't really matter.
236 2011-07-17 04:17:57 <jrmithdobbs> all the tards that call me out saying i'm lieing also did stupid shit like had overpowered cpus and put spinning disks in their mining rigs
237 2011-07-17 04:17:58 <wirehead> that hot water idea sounds useful
238 2011-07-17 04:18:01 <jrmithdobbs> which NEVER made sense to me
239 2011-07-17 04:18:17 <jrmithdobbs> i was also able to cool the things with nothing but stock fans, proper airflow in the case, and duct tape
240 2011-07-17 04:18:28 <jrmithdobbs> combined with a correct hot/cold aisle setup
241 2011-07-17 04:18:36 <lfm> then when the tank is full what? stop the water or dump it?
242 2011-07-17 04:18:46 <jrmithdobbs> in a room that was 08F ambient temp every gpu ran <72C
243 2011-07-17 04:18:50 <jrmithdobbs> 80F
244 2011-07-17 04:19:10 <cjdelisle> you need a water/air radiator to dump heat, otherwise you'd risk damaging the components
245 2011-07-17 04:19:10 <wirehead> I figure that a live usb os with underclocked ram and cpu will cut the wattage overhead as far as is reasonable
246 2011-07-17 04:19:24 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: no you don't, you just need to exhaust it properly
247 2011-07-17 04:19:29 <wirehead> no sata or ide drives
248 2011-07-17 04:19:41 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: fuck usb
249 2011-07-17 04:19:47 <wirehead> why
250 2011-07-17 04:19:49 <jrmithdobbs> my nodes had no local storage
251 2011-07-17 04:19:50 <jrmithdobbs> period
252 2011-07-17 04:19:56 <jrmithdobbs> ram is cheap as fuck
253 2011-07-17 04:20:00 <cjdelisle> sure but if you're not around then what? It just gets hotter and hotter until something fails?
254 2011-07-17 04:20:03 <lfm> usb seems wrong, direct sata seems better
255 2011-07-17 04:20:16 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: sata uses more power
256 2011-07-17 04:20:30 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: huh?
257 2011-07-17 04:20:33 <wirehead> just use some throwaway 4gb drive that is expected to fail
258 2011-07-17 04:20:41 <wirehead> only needs to run the miners
259 2011-07-17 04:20:44 <jrmithdobbs> wirehead: or just network boot like a man
260 2011-07-17 04:21:03 <jrmithdobbs> shit
261 2011-07-17 04:21:08 <cjdelisle> jrmithdobbs: You need an emergency dump just in case you don't use any hot water and the system gets too much energy and starts to overheat
262 2011-07-17 04:21:22 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: why the fuck do you need water cooling at all?
263 2011-07-17 04:21:31 <cjdelisle> scroll up?
264 2011-07-17 04:21:32 <jrmithdobbs> (you don't)
265 2011-07-17 04:21:42 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: ya you're talking theorhetical horseshit
266 2011-07-17 04:21:51 <jrmithdobbs> cjdelisle: i'm talking actual applied examples
267 2011-07-17 04:21:54 <lfm> he thinks he can cut his water heating bill
268 2011-07-17 04:22:03 <cjdelisle> I have that setup here. It just uses a wood stove instead of a mining rig.
269 2011-07-17 04:22:19 <lfm> wood is hella inefficient
270 2011-07-17 04:22:30 <cjdelisle> s/inefficient/free/
271 2011-07-17 04:22:46 <jrmithdobbs> no it's not
272 2011-07-17 04:22:58 <cjdelisle> tell the tree that
273 2011-07-17 04:23:20 <jrmithdobbs> can't since you cut them down and have to replant
274 2011-07-17 04:23:22 <jrmithdobbs> making it not free
275 2011-07-17 04:23:34 <cjdelisle> "theorhetical horseshit"
276 2011-07-17 04:23:44 <jrmithdobbs> wood burning stove is free like oil is free
277 2011-07-17 04:23:59 <cjdelisle> show me where I can get free oil
278 2011-07-17 04:24:08 <lfm> theory is the same as practise in theory, in parctise it isn't.
279 2011-07-17 04:24:50 <lfm> try to work thru the typos
280 2011-07-17 04:25:03 <cjdelisle> wait. wtf am I doing arguing about efficiency with someone who thinks it's a better deal to use oil than wood.
281 2011-07-17 04:25:07 <cjdelisle> I have stuff to do.
282 2011-07-17 04:25:17 <lfm> who said oil?
283 2011-07-17 04:25:22 <jrmithdobbs> yes because that's exactly what i said
284 2011-07-17 04:25:27 <jrmithdobbs> tard
285 2011-07-17 04:25:54 <jrmithdobbs> lfm: he's referring to this: 01:23 < jrmithdobbs> wood burning stove is free like oil is free
286 2011-07-17 04:26:38 <lfm> ok, ya, he is confusing efficiency with cost. poor deluded soul! grin
287 2011-07-17 04:29:06 <jrmithdobbs> jesus this wifi driver is crap
288 2011-07-17 04:29:13 <jrmithdobbs> there has got to be a way to turn off this powersave crap
289 2011-07-17 04:29:20 <lfm> If I put in a wood furnace for my house Id prolly need to buy a stack of wood bigger than my house for the winter and itd prolly cost more than my house
290 2011-07-17 04:31:17 <jrmithdobbs> i must say
291 2011-07-17 04:31:29 <jrmithdobbs> klonipin + good green tea is deliciously relaxing
292 2011-07-17 04:31:55 <jrmithdobbs> klonopin
293 2011-07-17 04:34:13 <jrmithdobbs> this is crazy, is there some secret to the ath9k driver that i'm missing?
294 2011-07-17 04:34:28 <jrmithdobbs> like some option to turn off power save crap?
295 2011-07-17 04:34:48 <jrmithdobbs> so long as it's got constant net activity it works great, but the moment activity drops off it starts getting ping timeouts and shit
296 2011-07-17 04:34:59 <jrmithdobbs> annoying as fuck on a latency-sensitive connection (ssh)
297 2011-07-17 04:38:14 <lfm> just run a ping constantly?
298 2011-07-17 04:40:46 <jrmithdobbs> iwconfig wlan0 power off
299 2011-07-17 04:40:49 <jrmithdobbs> bam
300 2011-07-17 04:40:51 <jrmithdobbs> problem solved
301 2011-07-17 04:40:59 <lfm> cool
302 2011-07-17 04:41:11 <jrmithdobbs> been like 8 years since i fucked with wifi in linux
303 2011-07-17 04:41:12 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
304 2011-07-17 05:03:27 <knotwork> does AddressToHash160 turn an address into a "pubKey" ? if not, what does?
305 2011-07-17 05:05:52 <Eliel_> knotwork: Hash160ToAddress does
306 2011-07-17 05:07:03 <knotwork> so a pubKey is actually an address?
307 2011-07-17 05:07:22 <jrmithdobbs> no
308 2011-07-17 05:07:31 <jrmithdobbs> an address can be derived from a pubkey
309 2011-07-17 05:07:50 <knotwork> but not vice-versa?
310 2011-07-17 05:08:03 <jrmithdobbs> correct. ripemd160 is a oneway hash
311 2011-07-17 05:08:11 <lfm> the hash of the pubkey can be dirived from the address, not the key itself
312 2011-07-17 05:09:04 <knotwork> and for a coinbase transaction you need the pubKey, not address nor hash of pubkey?
313 2011-07-17 05:09:16 <lfm> you just need the hash
314 2011-07-17 05:09:45 <lfm> use the addr script instead of the key script
315 2011-07-17 05:10:25 <knotwork> we tried that but addr script expects to refer to outputs of previous transactions
316 2011-07-17 05:10:42 <lfm> there are two types of output scripts. the coinbase normally uses the key script but you could use the addr script if you prefer
317 2011-07-17 05:11:17 <lfm> knotwork: use the output script, not the input script
318 2011-07-17 05:11:18 <knotwork> we are trying to give some of the coins to the miner and some to a list of beneficiaries whose addresses we have
319 2011-07-17 05:14:03 <lfm> yup, you should be able to use a sendmany type set of outputs
320 2011-07-17 05:14:39 <lfm> they can be mixed send to addr and send to ket outputs
321 2011-07-17 05:14:46 <lfm> ket->key
322 2011-07-17 05:16:06 <knotwork> we had txout.scriptPubKey << OP_DUP << OP_HASH160 << hash160 << OP_EQUALVERIFY << OP_CHECKSIG;
323 2011-07-17 05:16:32 <knotwork> where the hash160 as got by AddressToHash160
324 2011-07-17 05:17:08 <lfm> for an example look at block #136661 in the block explorer
325 2011-07-17 05:17:29 <lfm> knotwork: ya, the hash is hash160
326 2011-07-17 05:18:35 <Kiba`> http://bitcoinweekly.com/
327 2011-07-17 05:19:20 <lfm> the hash160 type output is what I call a addr output since you can easily convert back and forth addr from/to hash160
328 2011-07-17 05:20:24 <lfm> the key type is different since you can only convert key to hash160, not back
329 2011-07-17 05:21:13 <knotwork> ok but we can take someone's bitcoin donation address and convert that into whatever ADDRESSVERSION
330 2011-07-17 05:21:30 <knotwork> an alternate chain uses, and it will still work using their key?
331 2011-07-17 05:22:01 <knotwork> since the ADDRESSVERSION is basically cosmetic?
332 2011-07-17 05:23:44 <lfm> an alternate chain should have its own addressversion. most keys would only be used on one chain
333 2011-07-17 05:23:47 <Kiba`> but write code!
334 2011-07-17 05:24:40 <lfm> but if the wrong addressversion was on an address you could ignore it if the user wanted to force it
335 2011-07-17 05:29:46 <lfm> knotwork: its probably not a good idea to routinly use keys on more than one chain.
336 2011-07-17 05:30:15 <knotwork> no but Unthinkingbit wants groupcoin/devcoin to autodonate to developers
337 2011-07-17 05:30:34 <knotwork> and he only has their bitcoin donation addresses and cannot maybe get hold of all of them to get them
338 2011-07-17 05:30:45 <knotwork> to get themselves each a groupcoin donation address
339 2011-07-17 05:31:13 <knotwork> I would think if I had an address that started with "markmetson" or "knotwork" I'd want to use it on all chains
340 2011-07-17 05:31:33 <lfm> knotwork: well its a pain in the but to move keys around between wallets and I think its kinda dangerous too.
341 2011-07-17 05:31:57 <knotwork> yeah
342 2011-07-17 05:32:22 <lfm> and you surely should not use a wallet on more than one chain Id think. the accounting would get all meesed up Id think
343 2011-07-17 05:33:55 <lfm> knotwork: what do you mean key that started with "..."? you doing one of those custom key generators?
344 2011-07-17 05:34:22 <knotwork> well if I did, those wouod be so hard to find I would want to use tem everywhere
345 2011-07-17 05:34:25 <lfm> and bitcoin keys start with "1"
346 2011-07-17 05:34:47 <knotwork> yeah but testnet can start with m
347 2011-07-17 05:36:06 <knotwork> using txout.scriptPubKey << OP_DUP << OP_HASH160 << hash160 << OP_EQUALVERIFY << OP_CHECKSIG; produces an error
348 2011-07-17 05:36:24 <lfm> so if you had a tesnet key that started with "markmetson" and moved it to bitcoin then it would look totally different
349 2011-07-17 05:36:31 <knotwork> the block shows an error as that txout
350 2011-07-17 05:36:42 <lfm> what block?
351 2011-07-17 05:36:52 <knotwork> in testing, watching the log
352 2011-07-17 05:37:06 <knotwork> running two machines with -connect so they only talk to each other
353 2011-07-17 05:37:17 <lfm> did you do it like block 136661?
354 2011-07-17 05:37:56 <knotwork> is there a way I can get blockexplorer to show me what the code for that would have looked like?
355 2011-07-17 05:38:21 <lfm> yah, there is a "raw block" button
356 2011-07-17 05:38:25 <knotwork> by default it shows me a list of outputs not how one woudl code them
357 2011-07-17 05:41:05 <knotwork> hmm its doing it the same way
358 2011-07-17 06:52:59 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r5d66fbf / (lib/connection.js lib/peermanager.js): Fix block chain download from open network. ... https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/5d66fbfc5468be0a924908ee55445c394d26c15a
359 2011-07-17 06:53:00 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rb9ef9ec / (6 files in 4 dirs): Fix --connect setting. - http://bit.ly/r3oyt0 https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/b9ef9ec7c4847f8090197d54d92616609f66290e
360 2011-07-17 06:58:07 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r2d58354 / examples/genchain.js : Added example script generating a test chain. (Useful for profiling.) - http://bit.ly/rsMork https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/2d5835433520d5fd559845414bf7f40f425ebc3f
361 2011-07-17 07:28:55 <sacarlson> who would like to loan me .01 nbc for 2 - 4 blocks to test MultiCoin on the namecoin network?  there's only a 70% chance it will even work so DONT send more, and don't risk what your not willing to loose
362 2011-07-17 07:32:20 <sacarlson> I'm presently downloading namecoin net blocks up to number  "blocks" : 12023,  with the new MultiCoin namecoin config
363 2011-07-17 07:48:17 <kinlo> what's up with the fee's nowadays?  they are getting more and more decimals after the comma
364 2011-07-17 08:05:45 <Eliel_> kinlo: my guess is the value of bitcoins went up, so the fees were reduced.
365 2011-07-17 08:06:25 <kinlo> Eliel_: dunno, as far as I know the fee rules remain the same, someone is putting in manual fees I think
366 2011-07-17 08:07:28 <Eliel_> ah, eligius pool is doing diverging fee handling. It doesn't accept any transactions without a fee but will accept any fee, no matter how small.
367 2011-07-17 08:07:33 <kinlo> cuddlefish: ?
368 2011-07-17 08:07:37 <cuddlefish> kinlo: tarpit.
369 2011-07-17 08:07:42 <kinlo> oh
370 2011-07-17 08:07:51 <cuddlefish> kinlo: bitcoin right now only downloads blocks from one node...
371 2011-07-17 08:07:52 <kinlo> why ? :p
372 2011-07-17 08:08:01 <cuddlefish> this one sybils out, and gives 1 block per minute :D
373 2011-07-17 08:08:19 <cuddlefish> and also several invalid blocks
374 2011-07-17 08:09:11 <kinlo> cuddlefish: but once the block chain has been downloaded, surely the bitcoin client receives the block from anyone who has it first right?
375 2011-07-17 08:09:22 <kinlo> cuddlefish: so only the initial download would be impacted?
376 2011-07-17 08:09:26 <cuddlefish> kinlo: yes
377 2011-07-17 08:09:37 <cuddlefish> block updates are pushed, basically
378 2011-07-17 08:09:57 <cuddlefish> the data is asked for, but there is a notification
379 2011-07-17 08:26:30 <cuddlefish> pub:0452b2646c8075a5cab9a787628eb7de5c9a51d76aabfba28a330c8d6960ed3b2e9a4b7ce0f49e8ae9d4c0c20a88893fd6309405d0bd8ef216ab623fbfd250ddcb priv:363dfdb30e520f4b25e6a202dea4b64101a323f6471c7af8827fee5952c2353f
380 2011-07-17 08:26:34 <cuddlefish> ... oh crap
381 2011-07-17 08:28:01 <kinlo> eh
382 2011-07-17 08:28:25 <kinlo> cuddlefish: was there money attached to that key?
383 2011-07-17 08:28:34 <cuddlefish> kinlo: not anymore
384 2011-07-17 08:28:42 <kinlo> I expect if there was you already moved it so I'm not bothering to calculate things
385 2011-07-17 08:28:53 <cuddlefish> on the upside, I can indeed export my public keys
386 2011-07-17 08:29:05 <kinlo> cuddlefish: and are private keys that short?
387 2011-07-17 08:29:06 <cuddlefish> and private
388 2011-07-17 08:29:15 <cuddlefish> kinlo: Yeah, ECDSA != RSA
389 2011-07-17 08:29:25 <cuddlefish> a key doesn't need more than the entropy
390 2011-07-17 08:29:34 <cuddlefish> any 256 bytes will doo
391 2011-07-17 08:29:58 <kinlo> it would help if many of the patches that are floating around would end up into the bitcoin client
392 2011-07-17 08:31:23 <cuddlefish> yeah, 0.4 has it all man
393 2011-07-17 08:31:32 <cuddlefish> wallet encryption, export/import...
394 2011-07-17 08:33:42 <kinlo> :)
395 2011-07-17 08:33:48 <kinlo> is there a list of release dates?
396 2011-07-17 08:34:56 <cuddlefish> not yet
397 2011-07-17 08:34:57 <gmaxwell> cuddlefish: s/bytes/bits/
398 2011-07-17 08:35:13 <cuddlefish> gmaxwell: derp, yeah
399 2011-07-17 08:35:24 <cuddlefish> nice chunky blockchain :P
400 2011-07-17 08:35:35 <kinlo> I should see in git then
401 2011-07-17 08:41:17 <cuddlefish> aaw, gribble thinks he's ChanServ
402 2011-07-17 08:42:05 <kinlo> how cute :)
403 2011-07-17 08:42:33 <kinlo> so I have another question about mining... what's the time difference for, miners do not need the current time as they get their work from bitcoind right?
404 2011-07-17 08:43:04 <Kiba`> so: new front page http://bitcoinweekly.com
405 2011-07-17 08:44:44 <cuddlefish> Kiba`: web design protip: Drop shadows and rounding.
406 2011-07-17 08:45:00 <cuddlefish> it makes everything look decent
407 2011-07-17 08:46:09 <sacarlson> any one know what the min transaction fee's are in namecoin for sendtoaddress ?
408 2011-07-17 08:46:41 <cuddlefish> jython's so last year
409 2011-07-17 08:47:13 <Kiba`> cuddlefish: what's your site again?
410 2011-07-17 08:47:25 <cuddlefish> Kiba`: ubitex.org is the old one
411 2011-07-17 08:47:30 <cuddlefish> zode.ubitex.org is the new interface
412 2011-07-17 08:56:10 <BlueMatt> ;;seen sirius
413 2011-07-17 08:56:11 <gribble> sirius was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 5 weeks, 3 days, 18 hours, 56 minutes, and 54 seconds ago: <sirius> hi
414 2011-07-17 09:06:27 <sacarlson> MultiCoin with namecoin support released for preliminary testing https://github.com/sacarlson/MultiCoin it come up ok reads all the blocks, needs send recieve tests
415 2011-07-17 09:29:52 <diki> does anybody know of the path for pushpool for namecoin support?
416 2011-07-17 09:30:01 <diki> s/path/patch
417 2011-07-17 09:32:13 <doublec> diki: it should just work
418 2011-07-17 09:32:19 <doublec> diki: with the exception of longpolling
419 2011-07-17 09:32:24 <doublec> diki: since  blkmond needs changes
420 2011-07-17 09:32:46 <doublec> diki: try asking in #namebit since they run a namecoin pool and have contributed patches to others
421 2011-07-17 09:53:16 <WildSoil> ;;bc,stats
422 2011-07-17 09:53:18 <gribble> Current Blocks: 136712 | Current Difficulty: 1564057.4508376 | Next Difficulty At Block: 137087 | Next Difficulty In: 375 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 8 hours, 33 minutes, and 45 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1674884.76153916
423 2011-07-17 10:10:37 <CIA-103> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r6b16c30 / (lib/connection.js lib/node.js lib/peer.js lib/peermanager.js): Better management/discovery of peers in p2p mode. - http://bit.ly/nibZUl https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p/commit/6b16c30c0100e37fd83623fe32b3f27b1abd3b4d
424 2011-07-17 10:21:00 <MrDD> anyone know something about cgminer here?
425 2011-07-17 10:22:22 <Joric> https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer ?
426 2011-07-17 10:22:41 <Joric> what should one know
427 2011-07-17 10:32:11 <MrDD> when i run it, Mh/s is dropping every sec
428 2011-07-17 10:32:18 <MrDD> from 200 to 20
429 2011-07-17 10:34:09 <Joric> i don't know why
430 2011-07-17 11:06:17 <cuddlefish> oh my god, Vegetta's an idiot
431 2011-07-17 11:06:19 <cuddlefish> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15747.msg291270#msg291270
432 2011-07-17 11:06:41 <cuddlefish> "I can tell you that the attack was basically a script programming the creation of .core files by the thousands"
433 2011-07-17 11:06:56 <BlueMatt> lolwut
434 2011-07-17 11:07:09 <cuddlefish> he goes on to explain how the hacker must have bruteforced his FTP password
435 2011-07-17 11:07:16 <cuddlefish> and uploaded the files to slow down the server
436 2011-07-17 11:07:27 <cuddlefish> "The core files were basically huge blocks of random chars, generated to slow down/ and eventually max out the forum, till you see what your seeing now. "
437 2011-07-17 11:07:38 <BlueMatt> ...
438 2011-07-17 11:09:35 <b4epoche> "who" is Vegetta?
439 2011-07-17 11:09:44 <cacheson> some twit
440 2011-07-17 11:09:53 <b4epoche> yea, I got that...
441 2011-07-17 11:10:00 <b4epoche> but does he run some forum?
442 2011-07-17 11:10:23 <cacheson> he's the guy behind "bitcams", if you saw that thread
443 2011-07-17 11:10:34 <cacheson> and yes, he has a forum
444 2011-07-17 11:10:39 <cuddlefish> core files = HACKING ATTEMPTS
445 2011-07-17 11:10:52 <cacheson> other than that, nobody of particular importance
446 2011-07-17 11:11:11 <cuddlefish> oh. wonderful, looks like he did exactly 1 thing to fix this: changed his FTP password and restored from backup
447 2011-07-17 11:11:47 <BlueMatt> wow, how is he even capable of clicking the "intall a debian install" button on his vps provider?
448 2011-07-17 11:12:02 <BlueMatt> hes clearly never heard of google...
449 2011-07-17 11:12:39 <cuddlefish> he says he's building a custom platform soon
450 2011-07-17 11:12:44 <BlueMatt> lol
451 2011-07-17 11:12:48 <cuddlefish> bet a bitcoin it'll be CSRFable
452 2011-07-17 11:12:54 <b4epoche> I'm at home so I'm not visiting bitcams?  bitcoin peepshows?
453 2011-07-17 11:12:58 <cuddlefish> and a bitdime it'll be SQL injected
454 2011-07-17 11:13:05 <cacheson> google?  why would he bother with that when he can post on bitcoin forum about it
455 2011-07-17 11:13:26 <BlueMatt> bet a bitcoin it'll be worse, shell parm escape fail or something
456 2011-07-17 11:13:26 <cacheson> b4epoche: not up and running, just search for the thread on the forum
457 2011-07-17 11:13:30 <cacheson> it's HILARIOUS
458 2011-07-17 11:13:54 <b4epoche> how do people get their forum 'ranks'?
459 2011-07-17 11:14:04 <BlueMatt> number of posts
460 2011-07-17 11:14:15 <b4epoche> bad idea...  that should be changed
461 2011-07-17 11:14:21 <cacheson> b4epoche: yep
462 2011-07-17 11:14:35 <BlueMatt> well sirius has been mia for some time now...
463 2011-07-17 11:14:46 <cacheson> lots of high-rank posters that got there from torrents of low-quality posts
464 2011-07-17 11:16:31 <cacheson> BlueMatt: he's been logging in to the forums
465 2011-07-17 11:16:35 <cacheson> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4
466 2011-07-17 11:16:49 <cuddlefish> gotta love http://tweetforum.com/current/
467 2011-07-17 11:16:50 <b4epoche> yea, and I think it gives people (including me) a sense that they are people you should listen to
468 2011-07-17 11:17:18 <cuddlefish> or http://tweetforum.com/breakingnews/. literally every post is by the admin <<
469 2011-07-17 11:17:21 <BlueMatt> cacheson: hmm...odd I wonder what hes up to then...
470 2011-07-17 11:17:27 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: who's that
471 2011-07-17 11:17:42 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: the guy with the keys to the forum/dns/servers/etc
472 2011-07-17 11:17:52 <cuddlefish> ow.
473 2011-07-17 11:18:28 <cacheson> I wish jgarzik would just delink the forum already
474 2011-07-17 11:18:31 <xelister> every post by admin? this sounds like a serious case of ForeverAlone
475 2011-07-17 11:18:42 <BlueMatt> cacheson: its up to sirius to do that, not jgarzik
476 2011-07-17 11:19:07 <cacheson> BlueMatt: jgarzik has access to the bitcoin.org main page, right?
477 2011-07-17 11:19:15 <BlueMatt> but not the dns
478 2011-07-17 11:19:20 <cacheson> right
479 2011-07-17 11:19:24 <cacheson> delink, meaning remove the link
480 2011-07-17 11:19:28 <BlueMatt> oh you mean remove link
481 2011-07-17 11:19:30 <BlueMatt> yea, I agree
482 2011-07-17 11:19:45 <cuddlefish> cacheson: honestly. Get a nice UserVoice or something for bug reports, and maybe a dev forum that costs 0.10 BTC to register
483 2011-07-17 11:20:09 <BlueMatt> na, someone needs to just make a forum that is strictly moderated
484 2011-07-17 11:20:24 <BlueMatt> and /ONLY/ talks about dev stuff/tech support/etc
485 2011-07-17 11:20:27 <cacheson> I've been pushing for the bitcoin stackexchange site
486 2011-07-17 11:20:29 <BlueMatt> but you need a mod team...
487 2011-07-17 11:20:42 <cacheson> I think it's a good format for user/merchant support
488 2011-07-17 11:20:45 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: Just requiring 0.05 BTC to register will work. if bant, not refunded.
489 2011-07-17 11:20:57 <BlueMatt> no it wont
490 2011-07-17 11:20:57 <cacheson> are you guys registered on there?
491 2011-07-17 11:21:04 <cuddlefish> you don't have to have keys on the server
492 2011-07-17 11:21:11 <BlueMatt> that means noobs who need help wont register
493 2011-07-17 11:21:17 <cuddlefish> just pick a bunch of addresses and ping blockexplorer
494 2011-07-17 11:21:23 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: this is for the dev forum.
495 2011-07-17 11:21:38 <BlueMatt> why do we need a dev forum?
496 2011-07-17 11:21:39 <cacheson> http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency
497 2011-07-17 11:21:40 <BlueMatt> we use the list
498 2011-07-17 11:21:41 <cuddlefish> Hey, maybe witcoin could be of some assistance there
499 2011-07-17 11:21:44 <cacheson> ^ join!
500 2011-07-17 11:22:02 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: docs
501 2011-07-17 11:23:41 <BlueMatt> ???
502 2011-07-17 11:24:00 <cuddlefish> for documentation and such
503 2011-07-17 11:24:43 <cacheson> forums are terrible for documentation
504 2011-07-17 11:24:48 <BlueMatt> that can be just as easily, if not more easily posted to the list
505 2011-07-17 11:24:57 <cuddlefish> maybe your write
506 2011-07-17 11:25:03 <cuddlefish> << derp
507 2011-07-17 11:25:07 <cuddlefish> *you're *right
508 2011-07-17 11:27:10 <b4epoche> I like some of the ideas discussed last night...
509 2011-07-17 11:27:42 <b4epoche> in particular gmaxwell's
510 2011-07-17 11:28:17 <BlueMatt> which suggestion was that?
511 2011-07-17 11:28:45 <b4epoche> ads that help pay some mods and also help stabilize exchange rate
512 2011-07-17 11:29:04 <BlueMatt> youd need to hire a ton of mods to keep the current forum
513 2011-07-17 11:29:14 <b4epoche> no, not the current forum
514 2011-07-17 11:30:22 <BlueMatt> well in any case...
515 2011-07-17 11:30:22 <cuddlefish> now THAT is a successful troll
516 2011-07-17 11:30:24 <b4epoche> that just need exploded
517 2011-07-17 11:30:38 <b4epoche> that = current forums
518 2011-07-17 11:32:12 <cuddlefish> can we put bounties on reporting trolls/spam?
519 2011-07-17 11:32:26 <BlueMatt> if you want to pay
520 2011-07-17 11:32:31 <cuddlefish> the trick is to catch them before they get out of Newbies
521 2011-07-17 11:32:46 <cuddlefish> the full member system  + post count legitimizes them
522 2011-07-17 11:32:54 <b4epoche> no, just 'demote' them
523 2011-07-17 11:33:16 <cuddlefish> even then
524 2011-07-17 11:33:19 <b4epoche> bounties are bad too
525 2011-07-17 11:33:34 <cuddlefish> then you get people bitching at the mods because 'they had some valid points'
526 2011-07-17 11:33:42 <b4epoche> so what
527 2011-07-17 11:34:14 <b4epoche> if the mods aren't getting bitched at they aren't doing their jobs
528 2011-07-17 11:34:22 <cacheson> there's no way to improve the forum with its current userbase, staff, and software
529 2011-07-17 11:34:34 <BlueMatt> no, just need more staff
530 2011-07-17 11:34:38 <cacheson> best to kill it with fire and start something new
531 2011-07-17 11:34:43 <BlueMatt> if you start banning all the idiots, then poof
532 2011-07-17 11:34:54 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: no, it's a sybil-like problem
533 2011-07-17 11:34:56 <BlueMatt> there are good people there, they are just hiding under the trolls and spam
534 2011-07-17 11:35:14 <cuddlefish> time to make a spam account: basically zero
535 2011-07-17 11:35:26 <cuddlefish> time to make a troll account: again basically zero
536 2011-07-17 11:35:43 <BlueMatt> well seriously, I dont care, please make a better forum for us to use
537 2011-07-17 11:35:46 <BlueMatt> until then...
538 2011-07-17 11:35:48 <b4epoche> or at the very least have a system of 'promotion'
539 2011-07-17 11:35:55 <b4epoche> for both people and posts
540 2011-07-17 11:36:09 <cacheson> BlueMatt: the current userbase will hinder that, as will the current staff, and the current software just tends toward this kind of situation
541 2011-07-17 11:36:25 <cuddlefish> b4epoche: honestly, I'd like to see this: address in everyone's sig that they set. your status is the number of BTC blockexplorer says that address has
542 2011-07-17 11:36:32 <cuddlefish> 0 BTC: newbie
543 2011-07-17 11:36:35 <cacheson> b4epoche: that should be a part of every web-forum these days
544 2011-07-17 11:36:37 <cuddlefish> 0.01 BTC: whitelisted newbie
545 2011-07-17 11:36:49 <cacheson> I don't understand why people still use classic-style forums
546 2011-07-17 11:36:53 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: lol no, and noobs with serious technical support issues?
547 2011-07-17 11:37:03 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: they're already stuck in Newbies
548 2011-07-17 11:37:25 <BlueMatt> meh, whatever, please make a better forum
549 2011-07-17 11:37:29 <BlueMatt> because no one else has time
550 2011-07-17 11:37:45 <cuddlefish> honestly I'd like people to go to Witcoin
551 2011-07-17 11:37:53 <cacheson> BlueMatt: please sign up for this: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/30763/bitcoin-crypto-currency
552 2011-07-17 11:38:01 <cacheson> we need more people before it can launch
553 2011-07-17 11:38:10 <BlueMatt> no, Im good
554 2011-07-17 11:38:15 <BlueMatt> I would have no use for that
555 2011-07-17 11:38:29 <cacheson> BlueMatt: you wouldn't be willing to answer technical questions?
556 2011-07-17 11:38:41 <cacheson> and the bitcoin community certainly has a use for it
557 2011-07-17 11:38:52 <BlueMatt> maybe...but I do have other stuff to do...
558 2011-07-17 11:38:55 <b4epoche> I'm not seeing the use for that cacheson
559 2011-07-17 11:39:02 <cuddlefish> we need better docs, dammit
560 2011-07-17 11:39:25 <b4epoche> yes, but as a site?  just a FAQ would be good
561 2011-07-17 11:39:29 <cacheson> b4epoche: when people have questions like "how do I accept bitcoin on my site", they can go there and ask, or see where someone has already asked
562 2011-07-17 11:39:54 <cacheson> b4epoche: a FAQ is only good for the most general stuff, SE is good for specific situations
563 2011-07-17 11:40:04 <b4epoche> cacheson:  exactly...  there are like 100 questions that might be asked
564 2011-07-17 11:40:25 <cuddlefish> b4epoche: because there are no bugs or contingencies, rite
565 2011-07-17 11:40:58 <b4epoche> stackoverflow is not good for debugging code
566 2011-07-17 11:41:08 <cacheson> b4epoche: I'm running x CMS with y shopping cart software, I tried z bitcoin payment gateway and I got e error, how do I fix it?
567 2011-07-17 11:41:57 <b4epoche> those question would be what a good forum would answer
568 2011-07-17 11:42:31 <cacheson> b4epoche: and stackexchange is the best forum format for that kind of thing
569 2011-07-17 11:42:44 <cacheson> b4epoche: seriously, what else would you run it on?
570 2011-07-17 11:43:30 <b4epoche> I have no idea.  but you're talking about 'technical' questions on stackexchange
571 2011-07-17 11:43:43 <cacheson> b4epoche: technical and conceptual
572 2011-07-17 11:43:45 <cuddlefish> or just simple support.
573 2011-07-17 11:43:53 <cuddlefish> stackexchange has an amazing community
574 2011-07-17 11:44:03 <cuddlefish> part of that is their dupe detection
575 2011-07-17 11:44:12 <b4epoche> http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/1359/is-bitcoin-big-enough-for-a-stack-exchange-site
576 2011-07-17 11:44:12 <cuddlefish> let me repeat that: dupe detection
577 2011-07-17 11:44:29 <cuddlefish> biggest thing the forum's missing
578 2011-07-17 11:44:38 <cuddlefish> about 50 threads on any subject
579 2011-07-17 11:45:00 <cuddlefish> you can only expect them to be filled with, on average, 0 useful info
580 2011-07-17 11:45:47 <b4epoche> but stackexchange doesn't look like a good place for discussion/debate
581 2011-07-17 11:45:48 <prof7bit> does the ping message have 20 (short header) or 24 byte (normal header)?
582 2011-07-17 11:45:56 <cacheson> b4epoche: it's not for that
583 2011-07-17 11:46:06 <cacheson> b4epoche: discussion and debate can go elsewhere
584 2011-07-17 11:46:13 <b4epoche> so, stackexchange + a forum?
585 2011-07-17 11:46:13 <cdecker> prof7bit, it has the checksummed header
586 2011-07-17 11:46:22 <b4epoche> why not just a good forum then?
587 2011-07-17 11:46:28 <cacheson> part of our current problem is that the current bitcoin forum does everything, and badly
588 2011-07-17 11:46:28 <prof7bit> ok
589 2011-07-17 11:46:35 <cuddlefish> cdecker: wouldn't want those pings getting corrupted :P
590 2011-07-17 11:46:44 <cdecker> Basically everything after a verack is checksummed
591 2011-07-17 11:46:50 <cdecker> cuddlefish, exactly ^^
592 2011-07-17 11:47:04 <cdecker> But seriously losing sync in the stream is deadly ^^
593 2011-07-17 11:47:13 <cacheson> b4epoche: why not have different sites that specialize in different things?  why do we have technical help, political arguments, and buying/selling all in one place?
594 2011-07-17 11:47:29 <cacheson> it would make more sense to have a technical help site, a politics forum, and a marketplace site
595 2011-07-17 11:47:36 <b4epoche> well, that's what different sections of a good forum could be
596 2011-07-17 11:47:40 <cuddlefish> cdecker: if you like parsers you'll love construct.
597 2011-07-17 11:48:03 <cacheson> b4epoche: classic webforums are bad for 1 and terrible for 3
598 2011-07-17 11:48:07 <cuddlefish> it actually makes parsing fun
599 2011-07-17 11:48:14 <cdecker> Construct?
600 2011-07-17 11:48:18 <cuddlefish> 3 lines of code does Bitcoin's variable length integers.
601 2011-07-17 11:48:25 <cuddlefish> cdecker: google "construct python parser"
602 2011-07-17 11:48:27 <cacheson> b4epoche: again, why do they all have to be in the same place?
603 2011-07-17 11:49:05 <b4epoche> I just don't see why good forum software can't cover all the cases.
604 2011-07-17 11:49:10 <cdecker> cuddlefish, sounds interesting
605 2011-07-17 11:49:16 <cacheson> b4epoche: because then you get the situation we have now
606 2011-07-17 11:49:28 <b4epoche> /good/ forum software
607 2011-07-17 11:49:35 <b4epoche> but maybe that doesn't exist
608 2011-07-17 11:49:39 <cuddlefish> cdecker: oh, yes. declarative goodnes
609 2011-07-17 11:49:57 <cdecker> Hehe
610 2011-07-17 11:50:13 <cdecker> I had to parse each message independently
611 2011-07-17 11:50:17 <b4epoche> I think splintering things will be bad.
612 2011-07-17 11:50:27 <cdecker> cuddlefish, https://github.com/cdecker/BitDroid-Network
613 2011-07-17 11:50:28 <cacheson> even with *good* software (what?), you still want the political kooks and trolls airgapped from the "how do I get this to work" newbies, and them separate from the "DOUBLE YOUR COINS" hucksters
614 2011-07-17 11:50:47 <cuddlefish> cdecker: pycoin's total wire parser is 150 lines.
615 2011-07-17 11:50:59 <cdecker> Wow, that's neat
616 2011-07-17 11:51:04 <cuddlefish> gets all the datatype conversions, checksums check... summed... and so on
617 2011-07-17 11:51:07 <cacheson> b4epoche: there's no reason the main site can't direct people to the right places for what they're looking for
618 2011-07-17 11:51:17 <cdecker> I would have to check
619 2011-07-17 11:51:28 <cdecker> My parsing is encapsulated in the message classes
620 2011-07-17 11:51:37 <b4epoche> cacheson:  a good forum wouldn't have "political kooks and trolls"
621 2011-07-17 11:51:53 <cuddlefish> cdecker: mmm, this is python-only sadly
622 2011-07-17 11:51:58 <cacheson> b4epoche: you're going to have those on any general discussion forum
623 2011-07-17 11:52:00 <prof7bit> <cuddlefish> 3 lines of code does Bitcoin's variable length integers.  <-- and one line could read an entire message at once into a struct if they would not exist.
624 2011-07-17 11:52:37 <cdecker> Yeah, wasn't hard to write but a pain to debug and write unit tests
625 2011-07-17 11:52:48 <b4epoche> cacheson:  but with good mods their crap would be separated
626 2011-07-17 11:53:12 <cdecker> I should really bridge the BitcoinJ crypto stuff to my network library
627 2011-07-17 11:53:14 <cuddlefish> prof7bit: satoshi's a brilliant systems designer and a shitty programmer.
628 2011-07-17 11:53:36 <cacheson> b4epoche: moderation only does so much, and you're introducing way more overhead by having everything in the same place
629 2011-07-17 11:53:49 <prof7bit> especiylly funny is the subbversion string in the version message
630 2011-07-17 11:53:54 <Joric> why you're all telling that satoshi is a shitty programmer :) it's ridiculous
631 2011-07-17 11:54:02 <cdecker> Networking code is horrible yes, he basically made all the "tweaking decisions" one shouldn't do
632 2011-07-17 11:54:28 <cdecker> Well the subversion string could become useful
633 2011-07-17 11:54:32 <b4epoche> I'd call him an immature programmer (like me)
634 2011-07-17 11:54:44 <cdecker> If we were to use the version as protocol version and subversion as the client identifier
635 2011-07-17 11:55:13 <jjjx> Do any of the Bitcoin clients have UPnP support?
636 2011-07-17 11:55:21 <cuddlefish> jjjx: yeah, the mainline one does :P
637 2011-07-17 11:55:30 <jjjx> Was that recently added?
638 2011-07-17 11:55:36 <cuddlefish> check git
639 2011-07-17 11:55:37 <prof7bit> nobody needs and nobody wants client names in strings. remember the user-agent mess in the www
640 2011-07-17 11:55:38 <Joric> it does have an obsolete upnp version though
641 2011-07-17 11:55:45 <Joric> doesn't work with my router
642 2011-07-17 11:56:01 <Joric> later versions got rid of BaseURL already
643 2011-07-17 11:56:43 <prof7bit> once clients start to use this string to decide about the behavior the other half of clients will start putting fake names into that string.
644 2011-07-17 11:56:47 <BlueMatt> jjjx: upnp was added a long time ago
645 2011-07-17 11:56:59 <BlueMatt> Joric: no, it uses the latest stable, though they have fixed bugs in their unstable branch
646 2011-07-17 11:57:10 <BlueMatt> just like we have encryption in the unstable branch, doesnt mean people should use it
647 2011-07-17 11:57:34 <xelister> btw BlueMatt, what to use to dump raw blocks via rpc?
648 2011-07-17 11:57:54 <cuddlefish> the getblock patch
649 2011-07-17 11:58:00 <cuddlefish> there's a link on block explorer
650 2011-07-17 11:58:06 <BlueMatt> why are you asking me?
651 2011-07-17 11:58:24 <xelister> because I trust in your development knowledge? =)
652 2011-07-17 11:58:26 <cuddlefish> BlueMatt: you haven't proved you're not Satoshi yet
653 2011-07-17 11:58:38 <Joric> had to replace URLBase to ARLBase in a binary file to get it working :)
654 2011-07-17 11:58:39 <BlueMatt> xelister: me? lol no
655 2011-07-17 11:58:44 <xelister> what cuddlefish said. TITS OR GTFO (satoshi's not a girl so)
656 2011-07-17 11:58:50 <BlueMatt> cuddlefish: oh shit you found me out
657 2011-07-17 11:59:51 <Joric> Directed By M. Night Shyamalan
658 2011-07-17 12:00:34 <jjjx> Joric: The Bitcoin movie?
659 2011-07-17 12:01:29 <Joric> yeah, they found out satoshi is a girl
660 2011-07-17 12:02:10 <b4epoche> woman
661 2011-07-17 12:24:53 <prof7bit> hmm... the client does not seem to process incoming messages while it is still downloading blocks
662 2011-07-17 12:27:56 <prof7bit> is it single-threaded?
663 2011-07-17 12:45:30 <prof7bit> maybe the official client should be totally rewritten from scratch. Delete everything, forget everything and start fresh.
664 2011-07-17 12:46:29 <mtrlt> rewriting everything is very seldomly the right way
665 2011-07-17 12:48:55 <tcatm> prof7bit: that would be possible if there was at least a single person who fully understands every aspect of the software and protocol
666 2011-07-17 12:50:51 <Kiba`> tcatm: nobody understand the whole thing?
667 2011-07-17 12:50:58 <phantomcircuit> lol seriously?
668 2011-07-17 12:51:04 <phantomcircuit> it's not *that* complicated
669 2011-07-17 12:51:20 <phantomcircuit> if you can implement OP_CHECKSIG you can build your own client
670 2011-07-17 12:51:44 <tcatm> phantomcircuit: what's the problem with op_checksig?
671 2011-07-17 12:52:26 <phantomcircuit> rewritting the transaction exactly the same way mainline does isn't trivial
672 2011-07-17 12:52:39 <phantomcircuit> but it isn't hard so much as it is time consuming
673 2011-07-17 12:53:21 <nanotube> prof7bit: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
674 2011-07-17 12:53:22 <prof7bit> maybe also switch the programming language when rewriting it to something more high level and more modern.
675 2011-07-17 12:54:00 <tcatm> prof7bit: = make every current dev learn another highlevel language?
676 2011-07-17 12:54:18 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, that doesn't apply because it isn't a rewrite of your own code
677 2011-07-17 12:54:32 <prof7bit> maybe use a language that every dev should be expected to know / able to learn
678 2011-07-17 12:54:41 <tcatm> like c++?
679 2011-07-17 12:54:50 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: it applies to everything. (note the bit about borland buying arago and rewriting it)
680 2011-07-17 12:54:51 <cjdelisle> lisp
681 2011-07-17 12:55:00 <phantomcircuit> prof7bit, http://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt/ i got to implementing OP_CHECKSIG and just said fuck it
682 2011-07-17 12:55:26 <prof7bit> c++.... I said a *high* level language, not a macro assembler
683 2011-07-17 12:55:29 <cjdelisle> I can hear the "p word" coming now.
684 2011-07-17 12:55:40 <prof7bit> no
685 2011-07-17 12:55:54 <prof7bit> no p word today
686 2011-07-17 12:56:04 <prof7bit> although...
687 2011-07-17 12:56:16 <prof7bit> if i think about it...
688 2011-07-17 12:56:34 <tcatm> I think there was someone writing a haskell port.
689 2011-07-17 12:56:51 <cjdelisle> C++ is ugly but it is fast. C is clean and fast but everything needs to be written out the long way.
690 2011-07-17 12:56:56 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, I've posted some sample code to implement OP_CHECKSIG in python on the forums, it's not that hard
691 2011-07-17 12:57:21 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, link?
692 2011-07-17 12:57:31 <phantomcircuit> because with that i will complete my python client
693 2011-07-17 12:57:33 <Titeuf_87> Let me find it back.
694 2011-07-17 12:57:47 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, honestly i just got tired of dealing with it and stopped coding
695 2011-07-17 12:57:57 <prof7bit> c is fast but not clean. (depending on the definition of clean). there are equally fast languages that are also fulfill the definition of clean
696 2011-07-17 12:58:11 <Fireball> prof7bit - like?
697 2011-07-17 12:58:15 <cjdelisle> ^
698 2011-07-17 12:58:29 <phantomcircuit> heh you're not going to get any faster than c it's basically a macro language for assembly
699 2011-07-17 12:58:30 <prof7bit> if you have to ask then you wont like to hear the answer.
700 2011-07-17 12:58:46 <cjdelisle> I'm always up for a good laugh
701 2011-07-17 12:58:57 <phantomcircuit> delphi gives c a run for it's money
702 2011-07-17 12:59:03 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18051.0
703 2011-07-17 12:59:21 <prof7bit> no.
704 2011-07-17 12:59:36 <prof7bit> no languages with C in their name.
705 2011-07-17 12:59:38 <phantomcircuit> if you say java im gonna die of laughter
706 2011-07-17 12:59:39 <nanotube> phantomcircuit: doesn't mean writing alternative implementations is bad - it's not. but scrapping the original in the meantime, that's bad. :)
707 2011-07-17 12:59:47 <prof7bit> also not with "J"
708 2011-07-17 12:59:57 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, why did you choose M2Crypto?
709 2011-07-17 13:00:35 <prof7bit> when searching for an alternative to C or C++ we have to look at languages that compile to machine code.
710 2011-07-17 13:00:47 <prof7bit> and yes, there are such languages.
711 2011-07-17 13:00:52 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, from some googling, that was the only openssl python bindings that actually has some support for ecdsa
712 2011-07-17 13:00:56 <cjdelisle> Didn't one of the the google people do a full java implementation?
713 2011-07-17 13:01:07 <phantomcircuit> you can get java to compile to machine code actually
714 2011-07-17 13:01:15 <prof7bit> most kids don't know nowadays but there are more than 3 languages.
715 2011-07-17 13:01:45 <phantomcircuit> uh huh how about you name one?
716 2011-07-17 13:01:57 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, it's a half node
717 2011-07-17 13:02:10 <cjdelisle> I see
718 2011-07-17 13:02:14 <b4epoche> yea, there is work on a haskell version
719 2011-07-17 13:02:27 <prof7bit> phantomcircuit: i don't believe you are seriously asking this question.
720 2011-07-17 13:02:35 <b4epoche> there's a not-complete java version
721 2011-07-17 13:02:40 <b4epoche> bitcoinj
722 2011-07-17 13:03:03 <cjdelisle> PHP!
723 2011-07-17 13:03:09 <b4epoche> ObjC
724 2011-07-17 13:03:09 <cjdelisle> It can do anything
725 2011-07-17 13:03:13 <prof7bit> i am i missing the irony tags around your posts?
726 2011-07-17 13:03:33 <tcatm> shell scripts?
727 2011-07-17 13:03:54 <phantomcircuit> prof7bit, i honestly would like to know if there is a language that can run faster than c
728 2011-07-17 13:04:00 <genjix> asm
729 2011-07-17 13:04:14 <genjix> esperanto
730 2011-07-17 13:04:17 <tcatm> can't get much more highlevel - you call actual programs instead of assembler instructions or functions :)
731 2011-07-17 13:04:24 <phantomcircuit> <phantomcircuit> heh you're not going to get any faster than c it's basically a macro language for assembly
732 2011-07-17 13:04:38 <prof7bit> handcrafted assembler or Pascal (equally fast as C) for example
733 2011-07-17 13:04:45 <phantomcircuit> uh huh
734 2011-07-17 13:04:51 <genjix> ???_???
735 2011-07-17 13:05:00 <Fireball> Pascal? The language used to teach programming?
736 2011-07-17 13:05:09 <b4epoche> fortran77
737 2011-07-17 13:05:17 <prof7bit> no, the language USED for programming.
738 2011-07-17 13:05:29 <b4epoche> fortran is often faster than c
739 2011-07-17 13:05:31 <upb> 10 years ago
740 2011-07-17 13:06:00 <prof7bit> C++ was also used 10 years ago, what kind of argument is this?
741 2011-07-17 13:06:09 <upb> what software uses pascal nowadays ?
742 2011-07-17 13:06:14 <upb> i only know of skype ui
743 2011-07-17 13:06:21 <mtrlt> lisp!
744 2011-07-17 13:06:28 <mtrlt> use lisp.
745 2011-07-17 13:06:31 <b4epoche> logo
746 2011-07-17 13:06:37 <sipa> haskell!
747 2011-07-17 13:07:09 <genjix> speak of the devil
748 2011-07-17 13:07:15 <prof7bit> <upb> what software uses pascal nowadays ?   <-- more software each day
749 2011-07-17 13:07:26 <genjix> me and phantom were just discussing haskell
750 2011-07-17 13:07:29 <gim> upb: tex is still written in pascal
751 2011-07-17 13:07:37 <b4epoche> what?
752 2011-07-17 13:07:42 <b4epoche> pdftex sure isn't
753 2011-07-17 13:07:44 <cjdelisle> I understand lisp and haskell compile well and are very near as fast as C. Unfortunately noone knows them so your software will never be maintained.
754 2011-07-17 13:08:16 <sipa> i think quite some people know haskell here
755 2011-07-17 13:08:30 <b4epoche> a lot of classic MacOS software is in pascal
756 2011-07-17 13:08:38 <genjix> sipa: what do you think about if scripting wasn't disabled outright
757 2011-07-17 13:08:45 <genjix> but if the script ops had rankings
758 2011-07-17 13:08:56 <genjix> and the total sum of the script ops had to be below a threshold
759 2011-07-17 13:09:05 <gim> b4epoche: nowadays compilation of tex is done through Pascal -> C -> binary
760 2011-07-17 13:09:06 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, your OP_CHECKSIG is wrong, it'll work for most of the signatures but not all
761 2011-07-17 13:09:14 <genjix> i.e checksig has more 'ticks' than a dup
762 2011-07-17 13:09:22 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, this isn't right subscript = subscript.replace(chr(len(signature)) + signature, "")
763 2011-07-17 13:09:28 <b4epoche> gim:  tex or pdftex?
764 2011-07-17 13:09:41 <gim> the original tex by Knuth
765 2011-07-17 13:09:57 <b4epoche> oh, but very few use that anymore
766 2011-07-17 13:10:04 <gim> dunno about pdftex
767 2011-07-17 13:10:06 <prof7bit> Pascal -> C -> binary  <-- why would they do this? there is gpc and fpc, both compiling native directly to machine code.
768 2011-07-17 13:10:30 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, #7. The scripts for all transaction inputs in txCopy are set to empty scripts
769 2011-07-17 13:10:32 <phantomcircuit> that's also wrong
770 2011-07-17 13:11:20 <gim> prof7bit: are gpc or fpc able to compile to all main architectures?
771 2011-07-17 13:11:35 <sipa> genjix: sounds reasonable, it would offer quite some possibilities
772 2011-07-17 13:11:38 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, yeah this gets the basics right but misses all the subtle differences
773 2011-07-17 13:11:54 <prof7bit> gpc is gcc and fpc also compiles to all major architectures
774 2011-07-17 13:11:55 <sipa> genjix: but it is something that requires discussion
775 2011-07-17 13:12:04 <genjix> yep
776 2011-07-17 13:12:30 <prof7bit> gpc is just another frontend for gcc.
777 2011-07-17 13:12:46 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, it needs a lot more work, true. This was more as a small sample to see how it works.
778 2011-07-17 13:13:06 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, and I only tested this on a few transactions.
779 2011-07-17 13:13:07 <prof7bit> and fpc is the free reference implementation of Object Pascal nowadays.
780 2011-07-17 13:13:26 <Titeuf_87> phantomcircuit, but thanks for pointing those out, I'll write it down and take a look next time I work on this again
781 2011-07-17 13:13:30 <phantomcircuit> Titeuf_87, yeah this will work for almost all the transactions actually in there
782 2011-07-17 13:13:36 <phantomcircuit> but it wont work for some edge cases
783 2011-07-17 13:13:55 <phantomcircuit> also txCopy.txins[0].script = subscript
784 2011-07-17 13:14:02 <phantomcircuit> that's an assumption that isn't always true
785 2011-07-17 13:14:10 <phantomcircuit> and isn't true for transactions in the block chain
786 2011-07-17 13:14:18 <prof7bit> http://www.freepascal.org/
787 2011-07-17 13:14:51 <upb> wtf is wrong with the bot
788 2011-07-17 13:14:52 <upb> 17 18:13 <+amphipod> Jul05 16:21:45 cbx          1.0000 @    12.49       USD
789 2011-07-17 13:14:59 <upb> 12 days old quotes
790 2011-07-17 13:15:18 <Titeuf_87> I should continue working on my blockchain storage implementation and then continue working on this again, been a little while :)
791 2011-07-17 13:15:45 <phantomcircuit> oh i already have a storage implementation
792 2011-07-17 13:15:55 <phantomcircuit> it will download the entire chain + transactions into a sqlite db
793 2011-07-17 13:16:04 <phantomcircuit> and it has reasonable performance which is amazing for sqlite
794 2011-07-17 13:16:14 <phantomcircuit> (spent about half the time working on just that)
795 2011-07-17 13:17:12 <genjix> Titeuf_87: you know c++?
796 2011-07-17 13:17:35 <Titeuf_87> genjix, I can kind of read it, but I've never written c++ myself
797 2011-07-17 13:17:51 <genjix> ah ok
798 2011-07-17 13:18:02 <genjix> i have a c++ implementation of script
799 2011-07-17 13:18:06 <genjix> but missing the checksig
800 2011-07-17 13:18:17 <genjix> did not get around to that yet
801 2011-07-17 13:18:27 <prof7bit> http://www.ohloh.net/p/3311  <-- looks very alive (opposite of dead)
802 2011-07-17 13:19:02 <Titeuf_87> genjix, another bitcoin implementation in c++?
803 2011-07-17 13:31:42 <lfm> awww, poor Zagitta !, thats ok, you'll learn to like a good language some day...
804 2011-07-17 13:32:53 <Zagitta> lfm: mind pointing out exactly what's so "bad" about c#?
805 2011-07-17 13:33:46 <xelister> microsoft? (;
806 2011-07-17 13:35:31 <Zagitta> ignorant linux twats are starting to annoy me.. There's a reason microsoft owns the desktop OS market
807 2011-07-17 13:36:35 <lfm> from what I know of it, and you're right, its not that much, the main problem with it is that microsoft likes it.
808 2011-07-17 13:37:12 <b4epoche> Cb?
809 2011-07-17 13:37:49 <sipa> will the language discussions ever stop in here?
810 2011-07-17 13:38:04 <sipa> people just won't agree about what's best
811 2011-07-17 13:38:06 <sipa> get over it
812 2011-07-17 13:38:16 <lfm> will the complaining about language discussions ever stop in here?
813 2011-07-17 13:38:22 <Blitzboom> why did satoshi make the monetary inflation in bitcoin so high for such a long time?
814 2011-07-17 13:38:28 <Blitzboom> quite annoying
815 2011-07-17 13:38:41 <lfm> Blitzboom: high?
816 2011-07-17 13:38:55 <Blitzboom> it will be many years before bitcoins inflation is lower than that of fiat money
817 2011-07-17 13:39:04 <Blitzboom> lfm: yes, calculate it yourself
818 2011-07-17 13:39:27 <Blitzboom> or see http://spekulantenblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png
819 2011-07-17 13:39:31 <Blitzboom> this is hyperinflation
820 2011-07-17 13:39:56 <lfm> ya ok about 1/2% per day I guess.
821 2011-07-17 13:40:11 <jjjx> *in*flation?
822 2011-07-17 13:40:13 <Blitzboom> perhaps a reduction of 50% every two years would have been better
823 2011-07-17 13:40:16 <jjjx> Was that in the design?
824 2011-07-17 13:40:24 <Blitzboom> jjjx: hm?
825 2011-07-17 13:40:27 <lfm> jjjx: ya
826 2011-07-17 13:40:48 <jjjx> Not deflation, the word everyone likes to throw around?
827 2011-07-17 13:40:50 <upb> jjjx: umm yeah, new blocks are being mined with  50 btc ?:P
828 2011-07-17 13:40:53 <Blitzboom> id like a more deflationary bitcoin -_-
829 2011-07-17 13:41:06 <Blitzboom> jjjx: no, the deflation argument is bullshit atm
830 2011-07-17 13:41:18 <xelister> lets change protocol to make all new blocks 500 btc :D
831 2011-07-17 13:41:20 <jjjx> Blitzboom: Well, I can agree with that for sure.
832 2011-07-17 13:41:22 <Blitzboom> we only had an increase of price because demand rose and supply is non-elastic
833 2011-07-17 13:41:26 <lfm> the fact that the price of btc relative to us$ is going up means the us$ inflation is worse?
834 2011-07-17 13:41:37 <Blitzboom> lfm: no, it means that demand rose
835 2011-07-17 13:41:44 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, inflation != money supply increase
836 2011-07-17 13:41:47 <Blitzboom> but monetary bitcoin inflation itself is way higher
837 2011-07-17 13:41:49 <Blitzboom> phantomcircuit: yes, it is
838 2011-07-17 13:41:57 <Blitzboom> there is monetary and price inflation
839 2011-07-17 13:42:30 <lfm> well money creation needs to balance hoarding and such
840 2011-07-17 13:42:45 <Blitzboom> and you think bitcoin has the prfect balance?
841 2011-07-17 13:42:48 <Blitzboom> lol
842 2011-07-17 13:42:57 <lfm> there is a lot of hoarding
843 2011-07-17 13:43:02 <Blitzboom> i dont see why a balance is needed
844 2011-07-17 13:43:17 <Blitzboom> if we have a crazy batshit deflationary design anyway, then why not from the start on?
845 2011-07-17 13:43:19 <lfm> hoarded money is not available for circulation
846 2011-07-17 13:43:27 <Blitzboom> lfm: and why does that matter?