1 2011-07-24 00:19:21 <fingster_> hi
  2 2011-07-24 00:19:59 <fingster_> anybody interested in a thin client?
  3 2011-07-24 00:20:28 <fingster_> without downloading any blocks or headers
  4 2011-07-24 00:23:32 <jrmithdobbs> fingster_: no because that means you're probably lieing
  5 2011-07-24 00:23:42 <jrmithdobbs> at least, it can't be validated byt the client that you're not
  6 2011-07-24 00:24:00 <fingster_> try it
  7 2011-07-24 00:24:03 <fingster_> :)
  8 2011-07-24 00:24:08 <jrmithdobbs> try what
  9 2011-07-24 00:24:18 <fingster_> my client
 10 2011-07-24 00:24:23 <BlueMatt> link?
 11 2011-07-24 00:24:29 <jrmithdobbs> you privatekey stealer?
 12 2011-07-24 00:24:31 <jrmithdobbs> ;p
 13 2011-07-24 00:24:34 <jrmithdobbs> s/you/your/
 14 2011-07-24 00:24:39 <BlueMatt> (to source, not binary)
 15 2011-07-24 00:24:46 <fingster_> I will make open source
 16 2011-07-24 00:25:33 <senseles> i guess i should add the source to my centos release
 17 2011-07-24 00:26:04 <senseles> when is 0.3.25 due out?
 18 2011-07-24 00:26:12 <senseles> how is the wallet encryption coming along
 19 2011-07-24 00:26:41 <BlueMatt> .3.25 is set to never come out, instead when wallet import/export gets merged it becomes 0.4
 20 2011-07-24 00:28:17 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: how did you end up doing the salt storage btw?
 21 2011-07-24 00:28:23 <senseles> any etas? would be really nice to have that
 22 2011-07-24 00:28:31 <BlueMatt> jrmithdobbs: random salt stored in wallet
 23 2011-07-24 00:28:50 <BlueMatt> 8-bytes as that is all openssl-evp will use
 24 2011-07-24 00:28:54 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: i mean specifics of storage, it's not fixed length or anything right?
 25 2011-07-24 00:29:10 <BlueMatt> dont remember tbh...
 26 2011-07-24 00:29:21 <jrmithdobbs> where is that in the code i'll look ;p
 27 2011-07-24 00:29:29 <BlueMatt> no its a vector
 28 2011-07-24 00:29:32 <BlueMatt> so it can be any length
 29 2011-07-24 00:29:36 <jrmithdobbs> k
 30 2011-07-24 00:29:39 <BlueMatt> its the very top of crypter.h
 31 2011-07-24 00:30:09 <jrmithdobbs> and bdb is just using the serializer stuff so it doesn't set any limits right?
 32 2011-07-24 00:31:30 <BlueMatt> yea
 33 2011-07-24 00:31:41 <fingster_> If a client can't verify a received transaction, is it a promblem?
 34 2011-07-24 00:31:47 <jrmithdobbs> yes
 35 2011-07-24 00:31:56 <jrmithdobbs> a big one
 36 2011-07-24 00:32:21 <jrmithdobbs> especially for a thin client. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
 37 2011-07-24 00:32:28 <fingster_> but the client won't lose anything
 38 2011-07-24 00:32:34 <jrmithdobbs> especially for a thin client. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
 39 2011-07-24 00:33:02 <fingster_> reading...
 40 2011-07-24 00:33:58 <jrmithdobbs> BlueMatt: cool gmaxwell convinced you on going ahead and adding the nDerivationMethod value
 41 2011-07-24 00:34:15 <BlueMatt> dont remember who convinced me of that, but yea its there
 42 2011-07-24 00:34:25 <jrmithdobbs> ya not important
 43 2011-07-24 00:35:48 <fingster_> we set up a server, which is a normal bitcoin peer
 44 2011-07-24 00:36:17 <fingster_> thin clients connect to the server
 45 2011-07-24 00:36:27 <jrmithdobbs> oh, you already know that such a client exists that just uses json-rpc right?
 46 2011-07-24 00:36:32 <jrmithdobbs> spelismo or whatever
 47 2011-07-24 00:36:45 <[Tycho]> spesmilo, imho
 48 2011-07-24 00:37:05 <fingster_> ?
 49 2011-07-24 00:37:07 <jrmithdobbs> fingster_: and that's not a thin client
 50 2011-07-24 00:37:17 <fingster_> no json-rpc
 51 2011-07-24 00:37:51 <fingster_> client keeps its wallet locally
 52 2011-07-24 00:37:52 <jrmithdobbs> well if it requires running a bitcoin/bitcoind instance it's not really a thin client
 53 2011-07-24 00:38:15 <jrmithdobbs> and you still need to download the blocks and headers
 54 2011-07-24 00:38:17 <AAA_awright> Couldn't a recieveing client potentially send a signal to the network to voluntarially undo a transaction before the next block? I can't think of a reason it's technically impossible
 55 2011-07-24 00:38:21 <jrmithdobbs> just on the bitcoin instance
 56 2011-07-24 00:38:24 <fingster_> move from p2p to cs
 57 2011-07-24 00:39:34 <fingster_> oh, your thin client definition is strong
 58 2011-07-24 00:40:12 <jrmithdobbs> no your definition of "don't need to download blocks/headers" is weak
 59 2011-07-24 00:40:16 <fingster_> mine is running on mobi device, such as iPhone
 60 2011-07-24 00:41:08 <jrmithdobbs> so long as the client only uses configured trusted peers that sounds fine to me
 61 2011-07-24 00:41:36 <jrmithdobbs> i see what you're getting at, only requesting data from the bitcoin/bitcoind instance as it's necessary instead of storing it
 62 2011-07-24 00:41:44 <jrmithdobbs> but that requires implicit trust of the node you're connecting to
 63 2011-07-24 00:42:06 <fingster_> yeah
 64 2011-07-24 00:42:11 <jrmithdobbs> to the point where you might as well use json-rpc
 65 2011-07-24 00:42:26 <fingster_> but i don't see any harm to the client
 66 2011-07-24 00:42:27 <jrmithdobbs> since json-rpc has it's own listener pool
 67 2011-07-24 00:42:46 <jrmithdobbs> well, if your trusted node has all it's connection slots full the client becomes unusable
 68 2011-07-24 00:43:07 <jrmithdobbs> but no, no harm so long as it is very clearly indicated that you need to implicitly trust the node you're connecting to
 69 2011-07-24 00:43:12 <fingster_> use p2p
 70 2011-07-24 00:43:24 <jrmithdobbs> yes, i understand how you've implemented
 71 2011-07-24 00:43:32 <fingster_> use extended bitcoin protocol
 72 2011-07-24 00:43:47 <jrmithdobbs> i'm saying that you might as well use json-rpc and let the bitcoin/bitcoind instance handle the keys at that point
 73 2011-07-24 00:43:55 <jrmithdobbs> since you already require an implicitly trusted node.
 74 2011-07-24 00:44:13 <fingster_> right
 75 2011-07-24 00:44:29 <jrmithdobbs> because then you have no key storage issues on the mobile device
 76 2011-07-24 00:44:38 <jrmithdobbs> which is a huge concern
 77 2011-07-24 00:44:46 <fingster_> totally
 78 2011-07-24 00:45:11 <jrmithdobbs> so I *personally* have no interest in it, but it's not really harmful ;p
 79 2011-07-24 00:45:34 <fingster_> what harm?
 80 2011-07-24 00:45:43 <jrmithdobbs> i said it's not?
 81 2011-07-24 00:45:46 <fingster_> I wanna improve it
 82 2011-07-24 00:45:48 <jrmithdobbs> not harmful
 83 2011-07-24 00:45:57 <fingster_> oh...
 84 2011-07-24 00:46:12 <jrmithdobbs> it's risky since you're storing privkeys on a mobile device though, and that complicates backups of them and such on most platforms
 85 2011-07-24 00:46:34 <jrmithdobbs> (besides the obvious security implications of lost/stolen phone/etc)
 86 2011-07-24 00:46:54 <fingster_> agree
 87 2011-07-24 00:47:32 <fingster_> what if such a client on PC?
 88 2011-07-24 00:47:55 <jrmithdobbs> not very useful
 89 2011-07-24 00:48:03 <fingster_> though power and storage is not problem
 90 2011-07-24 00:48:03 <jrmithdobbs> since you still have to run bitcoin
 91 2011-07-24 00:48:08 <jrmithdobbs> yes it is
 92 2011-07-24 00:48:21 <jrmithdobbs> because you still have to run a trusted bitcoin/bitcoind somewhere for it to connect to
 93 2011-07-24 00:48:50 <fingster_> if the remote server is not trusted?
 94 2011-07-24 00:48:59 <jrmithdobbs> then sybil attack applies
 95 2011-07-24 00:49:02 <fingster_> any harm?
 96 2011-07-24 00:49:21 <jrmithdobbs> since you store no state that you can validate you can't check the responses you receive from peers
 97 2011-07-24 00:49:25 <fingster_> lost btc?
 98 2011-07-24 00:49:51 <jrmithdobbs> possibly
 99 2011-07-24 00:50:05 <jrmithdobbs> though it would be a complicated attack
100 2011-07-24 00:50:09 <fingster_> not seen...
101 2011-07-24 00:51:14 <fingster_> when fake coins selected, the client is able to verify them
102 2011-07-24 00:51:26 <fingster_> find them fake
103 2011-07-24 00:51:54 <eian> Can someone explain the 'Format' column for Bitcoin's variable length integers? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Variable_length_integer
104 2011-07-24 00:52:00 <eian> I have no idea what that means
105 2011-07-24 00:53:13 <jrmithdobbs> fingster_: i've answered your question, i can't say much more without code to look at.
106 2011-07-24 00:53:28 <eian> what data types have storage lengths of 3, 5 and 9 bytes respectively?
107 2011-07-24 00:53:36 <fingster_> thank you, ;)
108 2011-07-24 00:54:13 <jrmithdobbs> eian: not understanding your question
109 2011-07-24 00:54:39 <fingster_> uint8_t, unsigned int of 8 bit long
110 2011-07-24 00:54:41 <eian> Under the format column, what does this mean: "0xfd + uint16_t"
111 2011-07-24 00:54:54 <eian> uint16 to mean represents an 'unsigned short'
112 2011-07-24 00:55:02 <fingster_> begin with 0xfd
113 2011-07-24 00:55:14 <eian> OH
114 2011-07-24 00:55:22 <jrmithdobbs> heh
115 2011-07-24 00:55:27 <eian> holy hell
116 2011-07-24 00:55:30 <eian> ok, got it
117 2011-07-24 00:55:39 <eian> I was staring at that for at least 15 minutes
118 2011-07-24 00:56:29 <eian> fingster, thanks
119 2011-07-24 00:57:11 <fingster_> never mind
120 2011-07-24 00:57:29 <eian> what? is that not the correct interpretation?
121 2011-07-24 00:58:16 <fingster_> I'm not speaking English...
122 2011-07-24 00:58:31 <eian> strange. I guess I'm not either
123 2011-07-24 00:59:23 <fingster_> really?
124 2011-07-24 01:05:06 <lfm> + is concatenate there
125 2011-07-24 01:06:57 <RenaKunisaki> bitcoind keeps giving me this error
126 2011-07-24 01:06:59 <RenaKunisaki> error: {"code":-2,"message":"Safe mode: WARNING: Displayed transactions may not be correct!  You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade."}
127 2011-07-24 01:07:15 <RenaKunisaki> I've upgraded, and everyone else has had plenty of time to upgrade, so what's with that
128 2011-07-24 01:07:52 <lfm> are you sure that is a bitcoin message?
129 2011-07-24 01:08:10 <RenaKunisaki> I don't know where else it could come from
130 2011-07-24 01:09:55 <lfm> RenaKunisaki: I think it means you are trying to run a bitcoind that doesnt match the server version. some old version in your path or something
131 2011-07-24 01:10:11 <RenaKunisaki> yeah, it shows up with bitcoin getinfo. version 32300
132 2011-07-24 01:10:34 <lfm> try 0.3.24 maybe?
133 2011-07-24 01:11:29 <lfm> 3.23 is bad for other reasons
134 2011-07-24 01:11:43 <fingster_> db damaged
135 2011-07-24 01:11:57 <RenaKunisaki> hm, how to repair it?
136 2011-07-24 01:12:19 <lfm> if it db damage, it depends which file it is
137 2011-07-24 01:12:44 <fingster_> this happens when 'disconnect block' wrong
138 2011-07-24 01:13:44 <fingster_> shutdown machine not properly
139 2011-07-24 01:13:48 <lfm> RenaKunisaki: you say you upgraded but you still have 0.3.23?
140 2011-07-24 01:14:12 <RenaKunisaki> well 0.3.22 was giving that error a while ago so I upgraded then
141 2011-07-24 01:14:41 <RenaKunisaki> I've just been ignoring it for a while
142 2011-07-24 01:16:28 <lfm> you can wipe blk*.dat and addr.dat and keep wallet.dat. let it redownload the block chain and see if it fixes it. you should prolly get 0.3.24 tho for that anyway.
143 2011-07-24 01:16:50 <RenaKunisaki> yeah 0.3.24 is downloading
144 2011-07-24 01:17:06 <RenaKunisaki> it's a rather slow connection and already tied up with other downloads so it'll take a while :p
145 2011-07-24 01:17:47 <phantomcircuit> it's only ~ 600 MB of data
146 2011-07-24 01:18:37 <RenaKunisaki> nah I'm still downloading the executable :p
147 2011-07-24 01:18:52 <RenaKunisaki> another 10MB to go at 20k/s
148 2011-07-24 01:20:08 <phantomcircuit> oh
149 2011-07-24 01:20:09 <phantomcircuit> lol
150 2011-07-24 01:20:12 <lfm> RenaKunisaki: if you link is always that slow you might wanna get a preloaded blcok chain zip file to speed it up.
151 2011-07-24 01:20:45 <RenaKunisaki> I can wait :p
152 2011-07-24 01:21:46 <fingster_> someone should write a tool to fix db error
153 2011-07-24 01:22:31 <lfm> fingster_: there is many ways to get db error, you cant always just fix em.
154 2011-07-24 01:22:59 <fingster_> In fact, just need to erase last block
155 2011-07-24 01:23:20 <fingster_> then re-download from the last block
156 2011-07-24 01:23:30 <lfm> fingster_: then the index wont match!?
157 2011-07-24 01:24:07 <fingster_> read last block info from blkindex.dat
158 2011-07-24 01:24:36 <fingster_> delete any transactions in the last block from blkindex.dat
159 2011-07-24 01:25:37 <fingster_> Then client would download from the last block to the newest one, and setBestChain correctly
160 2011-07-24 01:26:59 <lfm> fingster_: assuming first that the error is in the last block.
161 2011-07-24 01:27:40 <lfm> and not in addr.dqat or wallet.dat
162 2011-07-24 01:28:36 <fingster_> addr.dat and wallet.dat errors different, heh
163 2011-07-24 01:29:41 <fingster_> the Error comes out at Reorganize > CBlock::Disconnect
164 2011-07-24 01:33:19 <upb> wow you're from china, nice :)
165 2011-07-24 01:34:52 <fingster_> er, yeah, i'm from China
166 2011-07-24 01:36:34 <fingster_> I publish my client open source at : https://github.com/fingster/BTC-Express
167 2011-07-24 01:39:21 <fingster_> howto add a new page to btc wiki?
168 2011-07-24 01:52:22 <RenaKunisaki> alright it looks like it's working after wiping and upgrading, although it hasn't downloaded any blocks yet
169 2011-07-24 01:55:15 <fingster_> hug, :)
170 2011-07-24 02:33:32 <aviadbd> anyone awake?
171 2011-07-24 02:34:11 <aviadbd> here's another thing I don't get: the wiki says that miners in pooled mining get "simpler" tasks. But how can you simplify finding a double-hash that is smaller than a certain target number?
172 2011-07-24 02:34:40 <aviadbd> what are the hashes an individual miner "finds"?
173 2011-07-24 02:36:53 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: pools just give a bigger target
174 2011-07-24 02:39:15 <aviadbd> i figured as much; but how is that helpful?
175 2011-07-24 02:39:38 <aviadbd> what do they do then? verify the smaller target? submit the hash to other workers?
176 2011-07-24 02:40:07 <aviadbd> how does it help them reach the target, is what I don't get :)
177 2011-07-24 02:40:49 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: it doesnt
178 2011-07-24 02:41:04 <Diablo-D3> you do over a million individual, complete, attempts at producing a new block
179 2011-07-24 02:41:25 <upb> it doesnt help them at all
180 2011-07-24 02:41:34 <Diablo-D3> the only thing pools do is make miners return hashes that could produce new blocks if the diff was much lower
181 2011-07-24 02:41:35 <upb> it only helps the pool to verify that the miner is doing work
182 2011-07-24 02:41:53 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: the non-block valid hashes, ie shares, are used as proof of work
183 2011-07-24 02:42:03 <Diablo-D3> which the entire system is ALREADY a proof of work system, the problem was already solved
184 2011-07-24 02:42:17 <aviadbd> ok... so i'm confused. I thought the idea of pooled mining is the workers helping the pool at reaching the target.
185 2011-07-24 02:42:47 <aviadbd> that is to say: what incentive does the pool owner have to give shares to the miners, if they don't aid him in finding a block?
186 2011-07-24 02:42:55 <upb> afaik the only point of pool mining is to smooth out the rate of income for miners
187 2011-07-24 02:42:58 <upb> nothing more
188 2011-07-24 02:43:40 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: you have no clue how mining works.
189 2011-07-24 02:43:44 <Diablo-D3> read what I wrote carefully.
190 2011-07-24 02:43:50 <Diablo-D3> [12:41:04] <Diablo-D3> you do over a million individual, complete, attempts at producing a new block
191 2011-07-24 02:43:56 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: your assessment is correct. I have no clue. :)
192 2011-07-24 02:44:09 <Diablo-D3> 1 mhash == 1 million attempts.
193 2011-07-24 02:44:35 <aviadbd> ok. so far so good. with a lower target, or a real target?
194 2011-07-24 02:44:43 <Diablo-D3> target is immaterial
195 2011-07-24 02:44:49 <aviadbd> Okay.
196 2011-07-24 02:44:49 <Diablo-D3> target has zero effect on speed
197 2011-07-24 02:44:57 <aviadbd> that's true of course.
198 2011-07-24 02:45:10 <Diablo-D3> the sha256 output is considered as a 256 bit integer, ie, a very large number
199 2011-07-24 02:45:15 <aviadbd> so the pool owner gets all these lower target blocks, and searches for a correct target block from them?
200 2011-07-24 02:45:23 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: yeah
201 2011-07-24 02:45:26 <aviadbd> and then pays off according to the shares?
202 2011-07-24 02:45:26 <Diablo-D3> but thats after the fact
203 2011-07-24 02:45:38 <aviadbd> yeah of course.
204 2011-07-24 02:45:45 <Diablo-D3> the miners dont know what the network is actually at, nor even know what bitcoin really is
205 2011-07-24 02:45:54 <aviadbd> and that gives him the incentive, and the workers the incentive.
206 2011-07-24 02:45:54 <Diablo-D3> mining software is just given a 80 byte header, and sha256s it twice.
207 2011-07-24 02:45:58 <Diablo-D3> thats _all_ it does.
208 2011-07-24 02:46:18 <Diablo-D3> the target is a 256 bit number, the sha256 produced has to be smaller than that.
209 2011-07-24 02:46:41 <Diablo-D3> so, the higher the difficulty, the smaller the number is
210 2011-07-24 02:47:20 <Diablo-D3> pools just set the bar higher just to keep track of how much work you're actually doing
211 2011-07-24 02:47:29 <Diablo-D3> er, bar lower
212 2011-07-24 02:47:36 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: that makes sense.
213 2011-07-24 02:47:42 <Diablo-D3> some of those shares will be actual blocks
214 2011-07-24 02:47:59 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: i assumed that's what's happening; i just couldn't find it Written anywhere.
215 2011-07-24 02:48:36 <aviadbd> maybe it should be made more clear on the wiki.
216 2011-07-24 02:48:36 <TuxBlackEdo> hm
217 2011-07-24 02:48:50 <aviadbd> (I might edit it if I have the permissions to ... I'll check later. :) )
218 2011-07-24 02:48:58 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: well, you cant explain how pools work without explaining how actual mining works
219 2011-07-24 02:49:02 <TuxBlackEdo> sha256 produces a 256bit hash or a 256 byte hash?
220 2011-07-24 02:49:08 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: its bits.
221 2011-07-24 02:49:20 <Diablo-D3> its a very large number, but not THAT large.
222 2011-07-24 02:49:28 <TuxBlackEdo> so a 32 character hash
223 2011-07-24 02:49:39 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: uh, no.
224 2011-07-24 02:49:40 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: actually, mining is explained well, if you look deep enough.
225 2011-07-24 02:49:42 <Diablo-D3> wait yes
226 2011-07-24 02:49:46 <Diablo-D3> if you mean by bytes.
227 2011-07-24 02:49:47 <TuxBlackEdo> :)
228 2011-07-24 02:49:56 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah bytes
229 2011-07-24 02:50:05 <aviadbd> hehe. Java vs C?
230 2011-07-24 02:50:17 <TuxBlackEdo> yep
231 2011-07-24 02:52:07 <aviadbd> anyway, thanks guys. you've been a great help. :)
232 2011-07-24 02:52:56 <aviadbd> ooh, one more thing :
233 2011-07-24 02:53:12 <aviadbd> it says in the wiki that the difficulty is set according to the amount of miners out there.
234 2011-07-24 02:53:20 <Diablo-D3> not quite
235 2011-07-24 02:53:25 <Diablo-D3> its set to the total hashing power out there
236 2011-07-24 02:53:34 <aviadbd> and its supposed to be about 10 minutes / block
237 2011-07-24 02:53:40 <aviadbd> yeah..
238 2011-07-24 02:53:41 <Diablo-D3> it targets 10 minutes/block
239 2011-07-24 02:53:50 <Diablo-D3> but theres a bunch of math on the actual difficulty set
240 2011-07-24 02:53:52 <aviadbd> so how is that governed?
241 2011-07-24 02:54:01 <aviadbd> and by who/what?
242 2011-07-24 02:54:04 <Diablo-D3> involves stuff like time during the past few blocks, current block number, and others tuff
243 2011-07-24 02:54:07 <Diablo-D3> *stuff
244 2011-07-24 02:54:36 <aviadbd> i assume there's a bitcoin server somewhere that looks at how fast blocks are being made and and adjusts the next difficulty accordingly
245 2011-07-24 02:54:40 <Diablo-D3> nope
246 2011-07-24 02:54:43 <aviadbd> but that would be against the idea..
247 2011-07-24 02:54:43 <Diablo-D3> each client knows the math
248 2011-07-24 02:55:05 <Diablo-D3> so if a client gets an incoming new block that fails the math, it rejects it
249 2011-07-24 02:55:23 <aviadbd> when you say client.. you mean wallet, miner, pool? all?
250 2011-07-24 02:55:34 <aviadbd> probably not the miner - as we said, its dumb.
251 2011-07-24 02:55:35 <aviadbd> right?
252 2011-07-24 02:55:50 <Diablo-D3> the client, as in, bitcoin
253 2011-07-24 02:56:08 <Diablo-D3> and technically pools too, but for obscure reasons, they all have an instance of bitcoin running behind them
254 2011-07-24 02:56:24 <aviadbd> ok, that makes sense.
255 2011-07-24 02:56:34 <aviadbd> and, i suppose they just want to be sure they're running the correct math?
256 2011-07-24 02:56:46 <Diablo-D3> well, they have to make sure its not an attack on the network
257 2011-07-24 02:57:21 <Diablo-D3> everything is mathematically provable
258 2011-07-24 02:57:47 <aviadbd> the pools? but they generate blocks. what do they care about an attack? unless you mean an attack by creating a lot of blocks quickly, thus reducing their calculated target?
259 2011-07-24 02:58:15 <Diablo-D3> everyone has to worry about it
260 2011-07-24 02:58:17 <Diablo-D3> pools arent magical
261 2011-07-24 02:58:21 <Diablo-D3> they're normal clients too
262 2011-07-24 02:58:32 <Diablo-D3> they just have a shitload of miners connected to them
263 2011-07-24 02:58:44 <Diablo-D3> the pool software just proxies the bitcoin the pool owner is running
264 2011-07-24 02:58:47 <aviadbd> hmm. so they make sure that transactions are legit using a bitcoin client before placing them in a block?
265 2011-07-24 02:58:58 <Diablo-D3> not quite
266 2011-07-24 02:59:05 <Diablo-D3> pool software does not manage transactions
267 2011-07-24 02:59:07 <Diablo-D3> or anything
268 2011-07-24 02:59:13 <aviadbd> bitcoin does
269 2011-07-24 02:59:19 <Diablo-D3> yes, bitcoin does
270 2011-07-24 02:59:25 <aviadbd> but pool software Could - it just uses bitcoin to do it for it.
271 2011-07-24 02:59:39 <Diablo-D3> the only way to prove the entire currency pool is valid is to mathematically prove EVERYTHING
272 2011-07-24 02:59:45 <Diablo-D3> every block, every transaction, everything
273 2011-07-24 02:59:49 <aviadbd> yeah.
274 2011-07-24 02:59:57 <aviadbd> crazy concept. :P
275 2011-07-24 03:00:18 <Diablo-D3> and btw, if pool software does start doing that... it just means the pool software is now a client too
276 2011-07-24 03:00:33 <aviadbd> yeah, that's what i meant. that pool software could be a client.
277 2011-07-24 03:00:42 <aviadbd> or rather, it is - it just encapsulates bitcoin
278 2011-07-24 03:00:43 <Diablo-D3> it could
279 2011-07-24 03:00:50 <Diablo-D3> its just kinda pointless
280 2011-07-24 03:01:00 <Diablo-D3> although Ive considered it with my pool software
281 2011-07-24 03:01:06 <fingster_> a few days ago, I tried to explain btc to a professor. He ended up with full of questions.
282 2011-07-24 03:01:14 <Diablo-D3> heh
283 2011-07-24 03:01:18 <Diablo-D3> btc is easy to explain to noobs imo
284 2011-07-24 03:01:23 <aviadbd> depends on your target platform, i guess. not everyone is comfortable running bitcoin.
285 2011-07-24 03:01:33 <Diablo-D3> its a cryptographically self-proving transaction system
286 2011-07-24 03:01:39 <TuxBlackEdo> so all pools are running the official client found on bitcoin.org
287 2011-07-24 03:01:41 <Diablo-D3> the btc currency itself is a side effect.
288 2011-07-24 03:01:51 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: i think noobs fail at "crypto-self-what?"
289 2011-07-24 03:01:52 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: yes and/or with extra patches
290 2011-07-24 03:01:59 <TuxBlackEdo> what patches?
291 2011-07-24 03:02:06 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: in the modern day of wikipedia, there is no reason for that.
292 2011-07-24 03:02:08 <TuxBlackEdo> there are patches for bitcoind?
293 2011-07-24 03:02:15 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: its open source. duh.
294 2011-07-24 03:02:32 <TuxBlackEdo> any cool mods? i do solo mining
295 2011-07-24 03:02:40 <Diablo-D3> its useful for pools only
296 2011-07-24 03:02:55 <TuxBlackEdo> i wanna see my total hashrate of all my connected miners (external)
297 2011-07-24 03:02:59 <Diablo-D3> like, eligius uses a patch that allows luke to use gen txes to send btc out
298 2011-07-24 03:02:59 <fingster_> his opinion is btc is useless and untrusted
299 2011-07-24 03:03:13 <Diablo-D3> fingster_: btc itself is useless, but its NOT untrusted
300 2011-07-24 03:03:20 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin itself is of the highest level of trust
301 2011-07-24 03:03:20 <TuxBlackEdo> oh yeah, i like getting the blocks as "generated" blocks
302 2011-07-24 03:03:26 <Diablo-D3> as in, its mathematically provable
303 2011-07-24 03:03:38 <Diablo-D3> every single last bit of the currency pool cannot be faked
304 2011-07-24 03:03:45 <fingster_> though he understood btc is safe proved by math
305 2011-07-24 03:03:52 <Diablo-D3> the btc itself is useless
306 2011-07-24 03:03:56 <Diablo-D3> they're just crypto tokens
307 2011-07-24 03:04:13 <Diablo-D3> the same system could be used lots of places
308 2011-07-24 03:04:15 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: how is it useless? the numbers are, but its useful by the virtue of the meaning people put to it (i.e. currency)
309 2011-07-24 03:04:28 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: exactly, thats why its useless
310 2011-07-24 03:04:38 <aviadbd> the same way a dollar bill is useless
311 2011-07-24 03:04:40 <aviadbd> i guess
312 2011-07-24 03:04:46 <Diablo-D3> even calling btc a currency us kinda disingenuous
313 2011-07-24 03:04:49 <Diablo-D3> *is
314 2011-07-24 03:04:53 <fingster_> btc' value is related to the power cost when produced them, right?
315 2011-07-24 03:05:01 <Diablo-D3> fingster_: nope.
316 2011-07-24 03:05:15 <Diablo-D3> btc value is what people are willing to pay for them
317 2011-07-24 03:05:22 <Diablo-D3> THAT must exceed the actual cost of production
318 2011-07-24 03:05:23 <nanotube> <Diablo-D3> even calling btc a currency us kinda disingenuous <- every currency is nothing more than a "token that other people agree has value"
319 2011-07-24 03:05:30 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: kind of.
320 2011-07-24 03:05:39 <Diablo-D3> btc has no direct equivilent
321 2011-07-24 03:05:46 <fingster_> Then it is dangerous
322 2011-07-24 03:05:49 <TuxBlackEdo> just like any other currency
323 2011-07-24 03:06:09 <Diablo-D3> the software behind it, however, its incredibly interesting
324 2011-07-24 03:06:12 <TuxBlackEdo> you could say the USD is useless with the same argument
325 2011-07-24 03:06:23 <aviadbd> TuxBlackEdo: i just did but noone paid attention :P
326 2011-07-24 03:06:31 <fingster_> heh
327 2011-07-24 03:06:35 <Diablo-D3> it could be used to crypto-prove a lot of things that are logged or transactioned across untrusted or semitrusted nodes in parallel
328 2011-07-24 03:06:53 <Diablo-D3> the fact that its used to make btc a currency is immaterial
329 2011-07-24 03:07:48 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: i agree. the software, and even the academic concept, is quite something here.
330 2011-07-24 03:09:29 <fingster_> can btc resolve a problem task like seti@home, then produce btc?
331 2011-07-24 03:09:58 <Diablo-D3> fingster_: no, that would be nonsensical
332 2011-07-24 03:10:09 <Diablo-D3> such a system would require a problem that CAN be solved
333 2011-07-24 03:10:12 <nanotube> fingster_: you're like the thousandth person to ask that, and the answer is no.
334 2011-07-24 03:10:22 <Diablo-D3> it needs something that makes actual logical sense
335 2011-07-24 03:10:23 <TuxBlackEdo> no because the bitcoin generating algorithm is generating sha256 hashes, and seti@home doesn't do any hashing
336 2011-07-24 03:10:34 <Diablo-D3> seti@home has no defined outcome
337 2011-07-24 03:10:38 <Diablo-D3> its not suitable
338 2011-07-24 03:10:41 <TuxBlackEdo> no proof of work
339 2011-07-24 03:10:53 <Diablo-D3> basically, if seti@home would be used... the system would generate btc when aliens are found.
340 2011-07-24 03:11:22 <TuxBlackEdo> Diablo-D3: Finnish this sentence "Bitcoin is useless because..."
341 2011-07-24 03:11:41 <fingster_> proof of work ought to be checking the computation amount
342 2011-07-24 03:11:48 <Diablo-D3> "... I fucking said so, and I was here long before any of you."
343 2011-07-24 03:11:58 <aviadbd> haha :)
344 2011-07-24 03:12:04 <Diablo-D3> fingster_: it is. the more proof of work you have, the more you computated.
345 2011-07-24 03:12:07 <TuxBlackEdo> yep pretty much
346 2011-07-24 03:12:24 <TuxBlackEdo> get off my lawn you damn kids
347 2011-07-24 03:12:33 <TuxBlackEdo> :P
348 2011-07-24 03:12:36 <aviadbd> :D
349 2011-07-24 03:12:51 <Diablo-D3> seriously, I remember when this channel had like 12 people
350 2011-07-24 03:13:05 <fingster_> zombies
351 2011-07-24 03:13:06 <aviadbd> Diablo-D3: you sound as if you're sitting on a rocking chair with a laptop and a shotgun.
352 2011-07-24 03:13:13 <TuxBlackEdo> all non-programmers must leave
353 2011-07-24 03:13:23 <Diablo-D3> aviadbd: well, dude
354 2011-07-24 03:13:25 <Diablo-D3> think about it
355 2011-07-24 03:13:30 <Diablo-D3> I produced 650 btc with a cpu.
356 2011-07-24 03:13:36 <aviadbd> hmm
357 2011-07-24 03:13:42 <Diablo-D3> a single cpu.
358 2011-07-24 03:13:47 <Diablo-D3> and it wasnt particularly lucky.
359 2011-07-24 03:13:54 <Diablo-D3> and I didnt write a gpu miner yet.
360 2011-07-24 03:13:56 <fingster_> no gpu involved?
361 2011-07-24 03:14:09 <aviadbd> now that's more impressive than being here with 12 people :)
362 2011-07-24 03:14:10 <fingster_> wow
363 2011-07-24 03:14:18 <TuxBlackEdo> wow, you generated 650 btc with a single unlucky cpu?
364 2011-07-24 03:14:25 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: yup
365 2011-07-24 03:14:26 <nanotube> fingster_: difficulty wasn't always in the millions, you know.
366 2011-07-24 03:14:28 <Diablo-D3> and it wasnt even on 24/7.
367 2011-07-24 03:14:30 <aviadbd> but alas, I must go - thanks for all the help, Diablo-D3 and the rest! :)
368 2011-07-24 03:15:52 <TuxBlackEdo> he waited for someone to say bye to him
369 2011-07-24 03:15:56 <TuxBlackEdo> but no one did
370 2011-07-24 03:16:32 <nanotube> heh
371 2011-07-24 03:17:08 <fingster_> https://github.com/fingster/BTC-Express
372 2011-07-24 03:17:12 <fingster_> my client for iOS