1 2011-07-20 00:00:37 <leo> phantomcircuit: yes, only rpcpassword
  2 2011-07-20 00:00:47 <phantomcircuit> then i haven't a clue
  3 2011-07-20 00:00:56 <leo> ok, thanks
  4 2011-07-20 00:35:39 <sacarlson> I guess I need a miner that works from getwork that still runs on cpu based machine, do any or all of them work without a GPU?
  5 2011-07-20 00:36:10 <sacarlson> I only need 300kh/sec or less so speed is not a problem
  6 2011-07-20 00:37:24 <jgarzik> sacarlson: sure, CPU miners exist in addition to GPU miners
  7 2011-07-20 00:37:38 <jgarzik> sacarlson: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=1925.0 is one example
  8 2011-07-20 00:37:52 <sacarlson> jgarzik: just point me ,  ok let me look at that one thanks
  9 2011-07-20 00:41:13 <sacarlson> jgarzik: that looks perfect, but as a bit old but as long as it still works
 10 2011-07-20 00:41:29 <jgarzik> sacarlson: what is old?
 11 2011-07-20 00:41:54 <sacarlson> jgarzik: nov 2010
 12 2011-07-20 00:42:31 <jgarzik> sacarlson: that was when it was originally posted, not when it was last updated.  on the forums, it is customary to update the top post continually, as new updates of software are released.
 13 2011-07-20 00:42:31 <sacarlson> I don't see any git connections for it so I assume it might be old but I'll give this a try
 14 2011-07-20 00:42:47 <Joric> are you going to drop forum.bitcoin.org?
 15 2011-07-20 00:42:50 <jgarzik> sacarlson: ?  the git repository is right there in the top post
 16 2011-07-20 00:43:00 <jgarzik> Joric: it will be renamed to forum.bitcointalk.org
 17 2011-07-20 00:43:08 <sacarlson> jgarzik: oh I better look again
 18 2011-07-20 00:43:58 <sacarlson> jgarzik: oh wow I didn't even read to the bottom of the first post that says it's superceded
 19 2011-07-20 00:44:11 <sacarlson> I didn't have my first cup of coffee yet
 20 2011-07-20 00:44:33 <jgarzik> sacarlson: cgminer works, but may not be the best choice it turns out, as it is focused more on GPU than CPU mining
 21 2011-07-20 00:44:54 <jgarzik> sacarlson: some people are finding that plain 'ole cpuminer is better
 22 2011-07-20 00:45:10 <jgarzik> sacarlson: regardless, you have two examples, and ufasoft makes a third
 23 2011-07-20 00:46:51 <sacarlson> cgminer is saying they will work with eather cpu or gpu,
 24 2011-07-20 00:48:36 <sacarlson> ok my coffee is kicking in I'll try the cpuminer just to be safe
 25 2011-07-20 00:49:01 <sacarlson> I now see the git for the cpuminer also
 26 2011-07-20 00:49:44 <Joric> "reporters were quoting random bs from the forums as official announcements" i badly want to read this :)
 27 2011-07-20 00:50:56 <sacarlson> Joric: I haven't seen any such reports of droping forum.bitcoin.org
 28 2011-07-20 00:51:59 <fabianhjr> Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be very exciting. How has everyone been?
 29 2011-07-20 00:57:45 <AlonzoTG> I hate the linux kernel.
 30 2011-07-20 00:58:16 <xelister> AlonzoTG: rewrite it. or gnu hurd
 31 2011-07-20 00:58:26 <AlonzoTG> I was offered a job,
 32 2011-07-20 00:58:39 <AlonzoTG> but to get the interview I had to write some kernel modules.
 33 2011-07-20 00:58:44 <AlonzoTG> But there is no map for the kernel?
 34 2011-07-20 00:58:47 <AlonzoTG> Why?
 35 2011-07-20 00:58:53 <AlonzoTG> becuz they change it EVERY WEEK!!!
 36 2011-07-20 00:58:57 <AlonzoTG> So it's not documented.
 37 2011-07-20 00:59:02 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: ls(1) is your map
 38 2011-07-20 00:59:12 <AlonzoTG> ?
 39 2011-07-20 00:59:20 <AlonzoTG> ls(1)????
 40 2011-07-20 01:00:05 <xelister> AlonzoTG: it seems this is not a job for you
 41 2011-07-20 01:00:21 <AlonzoTG> But seriously, WTF???
 42 2011-07-20 01:00:42 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: what are you looking / hoping for?
 43 2011-07-20 01:00:56 <AlonzoTG> I'm trying to avoid having to learn Spring Framework. =\n1312433
 44 2011-07-20 01:01:14 <Diablo-D3> seam 3 > spring
 45 2011-07-20 01:01:50 <AlonzoTG> Probably.
 46 2011-07-20 01:02:05 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: there is no Spring Framework in the kernel, so I don't know what you're talking about
 47 2011-07-20 01:02:12 <AlonzoTG> The problem is that Spring tries to support every style of programming,
 48 2011-07-20 01:02:13 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: if you have kernel questions, I can answer them
 49 2011-07-20 01:02:23 <AlonzoTG> so it's really hard to find the best way to solve your problem.
 50 2011-07-20 01:02:23 <Diablo-D3> AlonzoTG: no, its because its a pile of shit.
 51 2011-07-20 01:03:03 <AlonzoTG> All the jobs in my area want either Spring or Visual Basic #
 52 2011-07-20 01:03:08 <AlonzoTG> or C#
 53 2011-07-20 01:03:27 <AlonzoTG> or anything that is directly tied to a certain monopolistic software company in Redmond.
 54 2011-07-20 01:03:46 <fabianhjr> Weren't they in Alaska eating the bears?
 55 2011-07-20 01:04:28 <jgarzik> in Alaska, the mosquitos are big enough to eat the bears
 56 2011-07-20 01:04:58 <IO-> fuck everything about mosquitos
 57 2011-07-20 01:06:28 <denisx> when I start pushpoold with valgrind it crashes when it gets a usr1 or hup signal
 58 2011-07-20 01:06:43 <luke-jr> ;;bc,blocks
 59 2011-07-20 01:06:46 <gribble> 137129
 60 2011-07-20 01:11:08 <AlonzoTG> Yeah, I lost a week from my Bitcoin project trying to do that linux module problem. =(
 61 2011-07-20 01:11:11 <AlonzoTG> now I'm down to $73
 62 2011-07-20 01:11:14 <AlonzoTG> =(
 63 2011-07-20 01:11:24 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: should have asked me for help :)
 64 2011-07-20 01:12:02 <AlonzoTG> One of the problems seemed to require hooking the Exec system call, I could have done that in DOS, but not linux.
 65 2011-07-20 01:12:03 <AlonzoTG> =\n1312553
 66 2011-07-20 01:12:43 <jgarzik> AlonzoTG: ah, you were being asked to -hack- Linux kernel for evil purposes
 67 2011-07-20 01:14:41 <jrmithdobbs> AlonzoTG: that doesn't require a module at all though?!
 68 2011-07-20 01:14:48 <jrmithdobbs> just ld trickery
 69 2011-07-20 01:14:53 <jrmithdobbs> kids these days
 70 2011-07-20 01:17:49 <upb> hmmmm, is 0 valid in the middle of a b58 string ?
 71 2011-07-20 01:18:16 <Joric> upb, this is password to somewhere, there's no hidden message
 72 2011-07-20 01:18:21 <upb> oh
 73 2011-07-20 01:18:26 <upb> damn tricks :P
 74 2011-07-20 01:19:02 <upb> it probably has to be xored with the key that he stick to his front door :D
 75 2011-07-20 01:19:37 <Joric> upb, go private
 76 2011-07-20 01:21:31 <AlonzoTG> I hate LD.
 77 2011-07-20 01:21:44 <AlonzoTG> It was entirely undocumented until someone wrote a book about it (which I bought).
 78 2011-07-20 01:21:47 <AlonzoTG> =(
 79 2011-07-20 01:22:28 <jrmithdobbs> not entirely
 80 2011-07-20 01:22:47 <AlonzoTG> Well, it wasn't documented in any place that Google knew about.
 81 2011-07-20 01:25:25 <AlonzoTG> Anyway,
 82 2011-07-20 01:27:16 <AlonzoTG> my current strategy for my bitcoin implementation is to implement little pieces here and there.
 83 2011-07-20 01:28:33 <AlonzoTG> I wanted to write the entire protocol layer, but it depends on how it will interact with the wallet....
 84 2011-07-20 01:31:16 <upb> LD_* is hardly undocumented
 85 2011-07-20 01:31:38 <AlonzoTG> Now it might be,
 86 2011-07-20 01:31:41 <upb> but you cant really hook the system call with it anyway
 87 2011-07-20 01:31:45 <AlonzoTG> but only because Levine wrote Linkers and Loaders
 88 2011-07-20 01:32:40 <cuddlefish> AlonzoTG: i love that game
 89 2011-07-20 01:33:46 <jrmithdobbs> AlonzoTG: nah most of the major LD_ vars were documented before that
 90 2011-07-20 01:33:58 <jrmithdobbs> maybe not *well*
 91 2011-07-20 01:34:13 <jrmithdobbs> but saying it wasn't at all isn't really true
 92 2011-07-20 02:27:01 <sacarlson> with cpuminer I turned on all the --debug  and --debug-protocol and all seems to be working as I would suspect it should
 93 2011-07-20 02:28:08 <sacarlson> so I'll try the cgminer to see if I can get any results.  it's more likely I have a bug in MultiCoin with getwork or my lack of knowing how to config stuf
 94 2011-07-20 02:28:59 <doublec> sacarlson: what problem are you seeing/
 95 2011-07-20 02:29:20 <sacarlson> doublec: just the lack of getting any created blocks from cpuminer
 96 2011-07-20 02:29:40 <doublec> sacarlson: with merged mining? Or normal mining?
 97 2011-07-20 02:29:54 <sacarlson> doublec: normal mining
 98 2011-07-20 02:30:22 <sacarlson> doublec: with weeds net  "difficulty" : 0.06249911,  I should see at more than zero blocks in 30 minits
 99 2011-07-20 02:30:52 <doublec> sacarlson: aren't the miners hard coded to submit difficulty 1 or greater only?
100 2011-07-20 02:31:23 <sacarlson> doublec: yes maybe so but they self adjust depending on what power you put on them
101 2011-07-20 02:31:43 <sacarlson> I've always only provided 300kh/sec on the weeds net
102 2011-07-20 02:32:04 <sacarlson> to acheave about 1 block every 10 minits or so
103 2011-07-20 02:37:27 <sacarlson> doublec: the plan is to use the weeds net as the parent in the testing of a proto chain using merge mining
104 2011-07-20 02:37:44 <doublec> ok
105 2011-07-20 02:48:22 <luke-jr> jgarzik: yt?
106 2011-07-20 02:51:11 <CIA-103> bitcoin: various noncerange * r629eb1..ebbce2 pushpool-personal/ (12 files): (18 commits) http://tinyurl.com/3tu6v6g
107 2011-07-20 02:51:50 <luke-jr> jgarzik: could you comment on? http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/pushpool/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/629eb1ff9634dea2a6c7d2601d4661c3acf849ce
108 2011-07-20 02:57:01 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: jwsample@gmail.com * r153 /branches/keystore/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/ (23 files): More of the KeyStore interface for comment. http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r153/
109 2011-07-20 02:57:06 <jgarzik> luke-jr: a quick scan does not reveal obvious bugs.  but it is not yet convincing that it's a win...
110 2011-07-20 02:58:39 <luke-jr> jgarzik: no?
111 2011-07-20 02:59:11 <luke-jr> IMO putting all the CPU miners on a single work is win :P
112 2011-07-20 02:59:46 <jgarzik> luke-jr: and cpu miners actually implement this?  measurements taken during your field test?
113 2011-07-20 02:59:58 <luke-jr> jgarzik: not yet :P
114 2011-07-20 03:00:16 <luke-jr> but I have 6 GH/s worth of CPU miners under one address alone&
115 2011-07-20 03:00:26 <luke-jr> each work can easily do 3-4 GH/s
116 2011-07-20 03:00:34 <jgarzik> luke-jr: the motivation is to reduce total 'getwork' calls to upstream bitcoind, I presume?
117 2011-07-20 03:00:39 <luke-jr> yes
118 2011-07-20 03:01:05 <jgarzik> luke-jr: well, no objections to merging...  once this becomes a widely used feature
119 2011-07-20 03:01:21 <CIA-103> bitcoinj: jwsample@gmail.com * r154 /branches/keystore/ (17 files in 6 dirs): Tests and Lib for KeyStore http://bitcoinj.googlecode.com/svn-history/r154/
120 2011-07-20 03:01:45 <jgarzik> luke-jr: in general upstreams should avoid stuff that ultimately remains site-specific, and does not get widely adopted.  contra, widely adopted stuff should absolutely be upstreamed.
121 2011-07-20 03:02:18 <jgarzik> so....  who's python client is the furthest along?
122 2011-07-20 03:02:20 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit's?
123 2011-07-20 03:02:31 <luke-jr> there's multiple in active development?
124 2011-07-20 03:09:14 <jgarzik> luke-jr: seems like there was at least one other, besides phantomcircuit's.  forrestv did something related to p2pool that might be client-ish, and maybe one other incomplete effort as well.
125 2011-07-20 03:21:15 <sacarlson> oh wow it seems the cpuminer finaly mined something.  1 hour to create one block in the weeds net.  why would this cpuminer be so much slower then the built in bitcoind miner?
126 2011-07-20 03:22:12 <gmaxwell> What cpuminer?
127 2011-07-20 03:23:46 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: cpuminer from git://github.com/jgarzik/cpuminer.git  and compiled commitish 602e31b96c9b94ed8e4acaa010622cb1aad2bd5e
128 2011-07-20 03:24:32 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: I'll try the other cpuminer cgminer and see if I can get slightly better performance
129 2011-07-20 03:26:53 <sacarlson> I'm going to give this one a try https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer
130 2011-07-20 03:27:56 <rethaw> i'm using it right now
131 2011-07-20 03:28:16 <rethaw> not for cpu mining though
132 2011-07-20 03:29:04 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: What engine are you using? It matters a lot.
133 2011-07-20 03:29:18 <gmaxwell> I think only the 4way and sse2_64 are fast enough to be worth using.
134 2011-07-20 03:29:54 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: remind you I only have a cpu no gpu,  how are these settings changed?
135 2011-07-20 03:30:30 <sacarlson> and my cpu is some amd dual core that I plan to only provide a single core if that option is posible
136 2011-07-20 03:31:17 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: are these changes something done at compile time?
137 2011-07-20 03:31:19 <gmaxwell> it's a command line option or a flag in the config file.
138 2011-07-20 03:31:30 <gmaxwell> Though you have to have yasm installed when you compile for it to be there.
139 2011-07-20 03:32:23 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ok I found it in help with
140 2011-07-20 03:32:45 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: so before I try move on then I'll try that setting
141 2011-07-20 03:33:44 <sacarlson> gmaxwell: ok started [2011-07-20 12:33:24] 2 miner threads started, using SHA256 '4way' algorithm.
142 2011-07-20 03:36:09 <doublec> sacarlson: it should show the hash rate too so you can compare the speed
143 2011-07-20 03:36:57 <sacarlson> doublec: it doen't look much better [2011-07-20 12:36:36] thread 0: 2709088 hashes, 426.59 khash/sec
144 2011-07-20 03:37:24 <sacarlson> on each core so about over 800khash/sec
145 2011-07-20 03:37:34 <doublec> that's pretty low
146 2011-07-20 03:37:45 <doublec> each core on my laptop gets about 1000khash/s
147 2011-07-20 03:38:04 <sacarlson> doublec: that's more than needed for weeds net that normaly runs on 300kh/sec single core with results ever 10 -20 minits
148 2011-07-20 03:38:49 <sacarlson> doublec: old slow computers,  I'm not a rich guy
149 2011-07-20 03:40:13 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr combo * r119438a32847 poclbm-personal/Transport.py: Merge branch 'bugfix_difficulty_error' into combo http://tinyurl.com/3gmvcqb
150 2011-07-20 03:42:18 <IO-> It's not just you! http://tradehill.com looks down from here.
151 2011-07-20 03:42:20 <IO-> haha
152 2011-07-20 03:58:39 <sacarlson> so this cpuminer is slow maybe due to getting wrong target from getwork? "target" : "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffff0f000000"
153 2011-07-20 04:00:13 <jgarzik> sacarlson: all CPU miners are slow :)
154 2011-07-20 04:01:06 <sacarlson> jgarzik: ya but on a magnatude of 6 times slower then the build in bitcoind cpu miner?
155 2011-07-20 04:01:39 <jgarzik> sacarlson: seems unlikely
156 2011-07-20 04:01:50 <gmaxwell> sacarlson: perhaps you just got unlucky?
157 2011-07-20 04:01:51 <sacarlson> jgarzik: yes I think it's almost imposible
158 2011-07-20 04:01:52 <jgarzik> sacarlson: probably something like built-in miners uses multiple threads by default
159 2011-07-20 04:02:02 <jgarzik> sacarlson: and you're just measuring one thread, in cpuminer
160 2011-07-20 04:02:40 <sacarlson> jgarzik: well I'm still seeing 2 times as many hashes per secound and yet less blocks created
161 2011-07-20 04:02:57 <sacarlson> so it must be working on the wrong problem
162 2011-07-20 04:04:09 <jgarzik> sacarlson: well all modern miners check for at least H==0
163 2011-07-20 04:04:09 <sacarlson> it should be working on  block.nBits    = 0x1d07fff8;
164 2011-07-20 04:04:27 <jgarzik> sacarlson: so, lower difficulties won't speed up external miners
165 2011-07-20 04:04:35 <AlonzoTG> om
166 2011-07-20 04:04:40 <AlonzoTG> unix sucks nuts.
167 2011-07-20 04:05:16 <sacarlson> jgarzik: lower difficulties won't speed up external miners?  why not?
168 2011-07-20 04:05:22 <AlonzoTG> Every feature in it assumes that 1 process == 1 thread.
169 2011-07-20 04:05:31 <AlonzoTG> =(
170 2011-07-20 04:05:54 <AlonzoTG> The only way to make that work is to launch 10^9 processes.
171 2011-07-20 04:06:07 <AlonzoTG> Which is the solution the underlying operating system all but forces you to adopt.
172 2011-07-20 04:06:12 <AlonzoTG> =(
173 2011-07-20 04:06:14 <Ycros> 10^9 threads sounds like a horrible idea as well
174 2011-07-20 04:06:18 <AlonzoTG> Does anybody notice? no.
175 2011-07-20 04:06:48 <AlonzoTG> I've got a lot more research to do.
176 2011-07-20 04:06:57 <AlonzoTG> and I think I'm going to have to do some serious engineering,
177 2011-07-20 04:07:04 <jgarzik> sacarlson: I just told you
178 2011-07-20 04:07:11 <jgarzik> <jgarzik> sacarlson: well all modern miners check for at least H==0
179 2011-07-20 04:07:16 <knotwork> is the SVN trunk on sourceforge out of date or something?
180 2011-07-20 04:07:22 <AlonzoTG> a loose-leaf sheet of sketched notes isn't going to be enough to devel a daemon.
181 2011-07-20 04:07:36 <knotwork> I get the impression using trunk I have not got some of the things the latest version supposedly has?
182 2011-07-20 04:07:37 <jgarzik> knotwork: bitcoin SVN is not used anymore
183 2011-07-20 04:07:37 <Ycros> AlonzoTG: if you need that many threads you're doing it wrong
184 2011-07-20 04:07:49 <AlonzoTG> Yeah, I'm just using hyperbolie.
185 2011-07-20 04:07:52 <knotwork> oh I thought it was for released
186 2011-07-20 04:08:19 <jgarzik> knotwork: git is current.  SVN is for people born before 1965 or so.
187 2011-07-20 04:08:46 <knotwork> ok. I thought I read somewhere git as development and when released it went to svn
188 2011-07-20 04:08:58 <AlonzoTG> Why is everyone going crazy over git? SVN has been totally roxors ever since I started using it.
189 2011-07-20 04:09:19 <sacarlson> jgarzik: so I'll have to patch a miner to check for less than H==0 ?
190 2011-07-20 04:10:45 <jgarzik> sacarlson: yes, you have to patch the core proof-of-work algorithm
191 2011-07-20 04:10:59 <jgarzik> sacarlson: all PoW algorithms in external miners simply check for H==0 as a shortcut
192 2011-07-20 04:11:17 <jgarzik> sacarlson: it is a key optimization
193 2011-07-20 04:12:28 <sacarlson> jgarzik: well if I could just patch it with the original bitcoind I would get 600% improvment so is any of those already build or will I have to create one?
194 2011-07-20 04:12:45 <knotwork> I already have a git locally of bitcoin, intro to github said how to push any changes I make but not how to update my local copy
195 2011-07-20 04:12:56 <knotwork> how do I tell it to get up to date with the original?
196 2011-07-20 04:16:06 <forrestv> sacarlson, i have a patch for cpu-miner that lets it work at lower difficulties
197 2011-07-20 04:16:22 <sacarlson> forrestv: cool my man
198 2011-07-20 04:16:50 <sacarlson> forrestv: you have the url to git?
199 2011-07-20 04:20:36 <sacarlson> forrestv: ok maybe this one https://github.com/forrestv/cpuminer  at any specific commit?
200 2011-07-20 04:23:06 <forrestv> sacarlson, i just created that, i'm getting it in
201 2011-07-20 04:23:10 <forrestv> i just had it locally before
202 2011-07-20 04:23:23 <sacarlson> forrestv: ok very cool
203 2011-07-20 04:31:40 <forrestv> sacarlson, okay, look again now
204 2011-07-20 04:32:25 <sacarlson> forrestv:  ok will do, any specific commit?  or master,  any algo?
205 2011-07-20 04:32:32 <forrestv> sacarlson, master, c algo
206 2011-07-20 04:32:40 <sacarlson> ok
207 2011-07-20 04:44:25 <sacarlson> forrestv: it seemed to build ok but when I run ./minerd --url http://127.0.0.1:38332/ --userpass yourusername:yourpassword  I get a segmentation fault error at run time
208 2011-07-20 04:44:42 <sacarlson> forrestv: dependancy I forget?
209 2011-07-20 04:46:00 <sacarlson> forrestv: same error with ./minerd --url http://127.0.0.1:38332/ --userpass yourusername:yourpassword --a 4way  so I assume it's not your modified c algo
210 2011-07-20 04:47:20 <forrestv> sacarlson, yeah ... i made userpass optional and evidently broke something
211 2011-07-20 04:47:44 <sacarlson> forrestv: ok I'll just build this commit then 1346c705876bffdb4752cdd21f296a1bb6e66eb7
212 2011-07-20 04:47:52 <sacarlson> forrestv: before your password changes
213 2011-07-20 04:48:33 <forrestv> sacarlson, or you can git pull; i fixed it
214 2011-07-20 04:49:10 <sacarlson> ok I'll try fetch your new one then
215 2011-07-20 04:50:09 <sacarlson> I'll try this one f7617f3f7c0eb348e1bf2af21ed5d965f05df24d
216 2011-07-20 04:51:43 <sacarlson> forrestv: ok that seems to have fixed it,  it's now running [2011-07-20 13:51:15] Binding thread 0 to cpu 0
217 2011-07-20 04:51:44 <sacarlson> H <= 15
218 2011-07-20 04:52:32 <sacarlson> wow and already just got my first block created from it
219 2011-07-20 04:52:51 <sacarlson> now I might have to slow it down
220 2011-07-20 04:53:36 <sacarlson> [2011-07-20 13:52:08] PROOF OF WORK RESULT: true (yay!!!)
221 2011-07-20 04:54:48 <sacarlson> ok just got the secound block,  how to I at least get it to run on only one cpu instead of 2?
222 2011-07-20 04:58:46 <knotwork> is there a way to make by fork of bitcoin on github update itself to match current bitcoin?
223 2011-07-20 04:59:01 <knotwork> or simply to make my at home on disk copy update itself to match actual bitcoin?
224 2011-07-20 04:59:15 <knotwork> github doesnt seem to have any update type button or anything similar
225 2011-07-20 04:59:51 <knotwork> does one instead just delete the fork and make a new one to get latest?
226 2011-07-20 05:00:25 <forrestv> sacarlson, -t 1
227 2011-07-20 05:00:54 <sacarlson> forrestv: ya I just figured that out even though it says it default to 1 it seems not
228 2011-07-20 05:00:58 <forrestv> knotwork, see http://help.github.com/fork-a-repo/
229 2011-07-20 05:02:46 <sacarlson> forrestv: dam even with -t 1 I just got another block,  so maybe I'll also add priority to that thread to slow it down more
230 2011-07-20 05:03:12 <knotwork> if at home I do git fetch upstream then git merge upstream/master will that make my fork on github match the actual thinig its a fork of?
231 2011-07-20 05:04:13 <doublec> sacarlson: you're the first person I've seen complain about finding blocks too fast!
232 2011-07-20 05:05:04 <sacarlson> doublec: well when I put the task back to the slow computer that normaly runs the minner it will find it too hard
233 2011-07-20 05:05:33 <forrestv> knotwork, you have to push to github to do that
234 2011-07-20 05:05:54 <sacarlson> doublec: then I'll have the same problem people complain about with -testnet and not having minners able to mine it
235 2011-07-20 05:06:05 <knotwork> so I am basically skipping my fork and going direct to the original?
236 2011-07-20 05:06:29 <knotwork> is there a way to walk over any changs at my end? it thinks I changed something and says commit it or stash it
237 2011-07-20 05:06:42 <forrestv> knotwork, no, it will merge upstream changes
238 2011-07-20 05:06:45 <knotwork> I have no idea what it thinks I changed can i just walk over local ocpy with original?
239 2011-07-20 05:06:57 <forrestv> stash it in case it's important
240 2011-07-20 05:07:13 <knotwork> like "git stash"
241 2011-07-20 05:07:43 <sacarlson> knotwork: you really should learn git,  like at #git or google git
242 2011-07-20 05:08:22 <knotwork> probably easier to just trash this git clone and download .tar.gz of actual latest source
243 2011-07-20 05:09:20 <sacarlson> knotwork: the tar I assume will just be the master branch there are also sometimes things released above that
244 2011-07-20 05:09:51 <knotwork> unelss there is some reasonable chance git can somehow reconcile all the changes since old version I made my variants from
245 2011-07-20 05:10:01 <knotwork> so as to update my variants to new code
246 2011-07-20 05:11:33 <knotwork> git's download button doesnt give you the latest version?
247 2011-07-20 05:12:11 <knotwork> I always had impression it did since unlike sourceforge it has no separate option to make a tarball of current version
248 2011-07-20 05:13:31 <knotwork> is there no longer any "releases" distinct from jsut getting latest bugs someone just put in moments ago?
249 2011-07-20 05:13:37 <sacarlson> knotwork: git fetch --all brings in all remote updates but you also have to checkout the version you want to be working on and to view the files in each commit.  as I said learn git  #git and google git