1 2011-07-27 00:02:31 <sacarlson> I can't wait to try a chain of a chain so that you don't even need to get a bitcoin miner to added to a new chain,  you just chain to another chain that has already got bitcoin to partisipate
  2 2011-07-27 00:26:55 <sacarlson> I'm not sure but I just had a thought about the posible weakness of merge mining,  what if a powerful pool started to mergemine a net and stoped publishing to the world it's results and created the bigiest chain and later at some point released it's big chain and wipes out the transactions from the smaller chain
  3 2011-07-27 00:32:27 <imsaguy> it would have to be larger than the rest of the network
  4 2011-07-27 00:35:33 <aristidesfl1> where miners get the seeds to calculate the SHA-265 hashes?
  5 2011-07-27 00:35:53 <forrestv> arima, 'seeds'? the block headers?
  6 2011-07-27 00:36:27 <aristidesfl1> forrestv: what are mineres really calculating?
  7 2011-07-27 00:36:27 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#block
  8 2011-07-27 00:36:59 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, they hash that structure i linked (parts between version and nonce)
  9 2011-07-27 00:37:08 <forrestv> and increment the nonce to change the hash
 10 2011-07-27 00:37:58 <aristidesfl1> forrestv: is the nounce reset each new block?
 11 2011-07-27 00:39:24 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, yes, not that it matters
 12 2011-07-27 00:39:30 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, all the other fields change too
 13 2011-07-27 00:39:34 <forrestv> except version
 14 2011-07-27 00:41:40 <aristidesfl1> forrestv: is the timestamp variable? I mean the block is only considered created when a hash is found right?
 15 2011-07-27 00:42:30 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, the timestamp changes, and yes, only structures with a hash lower than the target (as represented by bits) are considered blocks
 16 2011-07-27 00:43:31 <aristidesfl1> so the decimal value doesn't count?
 17 2011-07-27 00:51:04 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, of the timestamp? no
 18 2011-07-27 00:51:42 <aristidesfl1> forrestv: structures with a hash lower than the target (as represented by bits)
 19 2011-07-27 00:52:11 <aristidesfl1> I tought you where refering to the the hash itself, not to the header
 20 2011-07-27 00:54:39 <forrestv> aristidesfl1, wait, what?
 21 2011-07-27 01:15:27 <jrmithdobbs> hmmm
 22 2011-07-27 01:15:32 <jrmithdobbs> anyone heard from gmaxwell lately
 23 2011-07-27 01:18:58 <nanotube> ;;seen gmaxwell
 24 2011-07-27 01:18:59 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 9 hours, 4 minutes, and 47 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> sipa: what inspired that was someone drafting out a spec api for the required export / offline sign.
 25 2011-07-27 01:19:05 <nanotube> about 9 hours ago, yes :)
 26 2011-07-27 01:20:19 <jrmithdobbs> just making sure, ha
 27 2011-07-27 02:27:09 <MaggyO> is genjix's fork still needed for PHP that don't have 64bit ints
 28 2011-07-27 02:31:48 <luke-jr> MaggyO: what PHP doesn't have 64-bit ints?
 29 2011-07-27 02:37:32 <MaggyO> all 32bit ones apparently?
 30 2011-07-27 02:41:29 <MaggyO> i was surprised too, since INT64 support has been in for a while in most compilers
 31 2011-07-27 02:41:40 <MaggyO> even on 32bit cores, perhaps its a performance thing
 32 2011-07-27 02:42:23 <IO-> whiskey fixes that issue and a bunch of other php issues also
 33 2011-07-27 02:42:38 <IO-> addslashes($_REQUEST["
 34 2011-07-27 02:42:40 <MaggyO> whiskey the alcoholic drink?
 35 2011-07-27 02:42:42 <IO-> whiskey"
 36 2011-07-27 02:42:48 <IO-> *hic*
 37 2011-07-27 02:44:33 <jrmithdobbs> whiskey is indeed the only solution to php problems
 38 2011-07-27 02:44:41 <jrmithdobbs> whiskey and finding a better job ;p
 39 2011-07-27 02:45:11 <MaggyO> bah
 40 2011-07-27 02:45:15 <IO-> well if you're paid by the hour and your paid to fix web app security problems php is fantastic
 41 2011-07-27 02:45:19 <MaggyO> ill see what happens
 42 2011-07-27 02:45:59 <aristidesfl> forrestv: what happens when the same block is solved by 2 different people?
 43 2011-07-27 02:47:31 <aristidesfl> what happens when the same block is solved by 2 different people?
 44 2011-07-27 02:47:55 <forrestv> aristidesfl, the two blocks are not going to be 'the same'
 45 2011-07-27 02:48:04 <forrestv> they'll be at the same height in the blockchain and will create a fork
 46 2011-07-27 02:48:11 <IO-> if that ever happens it's like the internet dividing by zero, we all die
 47 2011-07-27 02:48:42 <aristidesfl> IO-: nice thought
 48 2011-07-27 02:49:04 <aristidesfl> forrestv: so which block is accepted?
 49 2011-07-27 02:49:19 <IO-> its a race
 50 2011-07-27 02:49:37 <IO-> which ever fork wins, the other block(s) become invalid
 51 2011-07-27 02:49:48 <IO-> thats why you see "we pay for invalids" and what not on pool ads
 52 2011-07-27 02:50:04 <IO-> THEN WE ALL DIE
 53 2011-07-27 02:50:16 <aristidesfl> but I read somewhere the amount of work counted instead of the time the block was found
 54 2011-07-27 02:50:44 <IO-> time is almost random, the work shares submitted doesn't == a block at X work shares
 55 2011-07-27 02:50:52 <IO-> you never know when a share you submit might be valid
 56 2011-07-27 02:51:19 <IO-> thats why pool with 2Th/s turn out blocks faster, but its still random. you can't count on a block every 29.3 minutes
 57 2011-07-27 02:51:33 <IO-> could be 5m, could be 30hr
 58 2011-07-27 02:51:45 <aristidesfl> IO-: let's focus on single mining for now
 59 2011-07-27 02:51:51 <IO-> you mean solo?
 60 2011-07-27 02:51:56 <aristidesfl> solo
 61 2011-07-27 02:52:15 <IO-> same principal
 62 2011-07-27 02:52:23 <IO-> you connect to bitcoind instead of a pool
 63 2011-07-27 02:52:24 <IO-> get work
 64 2011-07-27 02:52:29 <IO-> submit results
 65 2011-07-27 02:52:41 <IO-> if bitcoind gets a valid block result you get 50 BTC
 66 2011-07-27 02:53:08 <aristidesfl> IO-: I'm not interested in the generated bitcoins
 67 2011-07-27 02:53:09 <IO-> so if you run at 10000Mh/s you're more likely to get a valid block more often, but luck is still a factor
 68 2011-07-27 02:53:33 <aristidesfl> instead, on how a block is selected instead of other
 69 2011-07-27 02:54:13 <IO-> think of it as a lock you're trying to break. and you have key... lots and lots and lots of keys... you have to keep trying them till you unlock the lock
 70 2011-07-27 02:54:18 <IO-> solo or pooled, same thing
 71 2011-07-27 02:54:25 <IO-> you have to find the right key.
 72 2011-07-27 02:54:27 <nanotube> aristidesfl: blocks get broadcast through the network
 73 2011-07-27 02:54:41 <nanotube> a block that is marginally first, has a head start, and reaches more nodes, so more miners start mining on top of it
 74 2011-07-27 02:55:01 <nanotube> one of the two eventually gets a valid block built upon it first
 75 2011-07-27 02:55:10 <nanotube> and then that one gets selected to be the 'real chain'
 76 2011-07-27 02:55:12 <CIA-103> libbitcoin: genjix * r5f5dbd3f9b30 / (16 files in 8 dirs): OP_CHECKSIG http://tinyurl.com/4xazqnk
 77 2011-07-27 02:55:14 <nanotube> and the other one is abandoned.
 78 2011-07-27 02:56:19 <aristidesfl> nanotube: so the selected block is the one who gets a new block on top first?
 79 2011-07-27 02:56:25 <nanotube> yes
 80 2011-07-27 02:57:23 <aristidesfl> when that happens, do miners working on the invalid block, start to mine on the right branch immediately?
 81 2011-07-27 02:57:27 <nanotube> yes
 82 2011-07-27 02:57:43 <nanotube> well, as soon as the new tip of the block chain is distributed
 83 2011-07-27 02:57:48 <nanotube> and they realize that it now is the longest chain
 84 2011-07-27 02:58:20 <aristidesfl> nanotube: ^
 85 2011-07-27 02:58:27 <nanotube> ?
 86 2011-07-27 02:58:56 <aristidesfl> nanotube: how long does a new found block take to propragate?
 87 2011-07-27 02:59:20 <nanotube> somewhere on the order of a few seconds
 88 2011-07-27 02:59:57 <nanotube> same as transactions
 89 2011-07-27 03:02:19 <luke-jr> nanotube: I see minutes
 90 2011-07-27 03:02:20 <aristidesfl> nanotube: theoretically, I had had really a lot of luck, would be possible at any point to create a new branch and make it the main one, by finding blocks faster than the main branch?
 91 2011-07-27 03:02:37 <nanotube> aristidesfl: yes. either a lot of luck, or a lot of hashing power.
 92 2011-07-27 03:02:40 <luke-jr> aristidesfl: read the paper
 93 2011-07-27 03:02:45 <nanotube> luke-jr: really? that much slower than transactions?
 94 2011-07-27 03:02:52 <aristidesfl> luke-jr: which one?
 95 2011-07-27 03:02:58 <luke-jr> nanotube: no reason to think transactions are any faster
 96 2011-07-27 03:03:02 <nanotube> aristidesfl: the original bitcoin whitepaper
 97 2011-07-27 03:03:16 <nanotube> luke-jr: i generally see transactions make it to me within single-digit seconds.
 98 2011-07-27 03:04:09 <aristidesfl> nanotube: you only see transactions when a block is solved.. right?
 99 2011-07-27 03:04:21 <nanotube> luke-jr: as soon as someone says "i just sent you bitcoins" bam, i see the 0conf tx in my client almost immediately.
100 2011-07-27 03:04:25 <nanotube> aristidesfl: no.
101 2011-07-27 03:04:30 <aristidesfl> ok I get it
102 2011-07-27 03:04:42 <nanotube> transactions get distributed immediately. otherwise, how would miners know what tx to incorporate into a block?
103 2011-07-27 03:04:51 <aristidesfl> sure
104 2011-07-27 03:06:28 <aristidesfl> what happens when SHA 265 gets cracked?
105 2011-07-27 03:07:04 <nanotube> hopefully that will happen gradually, and bitcoin can switch to a new hash algo
106 2011-07-27 03:08:17 <aristidesfl> nanotube: don't you have to make everyone change at the same time?
107 2011-07-27 03:08:59 <nanotube> no. basically, you'd release a bitcoin client that has the rule of "we switch to newalgo starting from block X" where block X is a few months in the future
108 2011-07-27 03:09:20 <nanotube> then within those few months, "the majority of people" upgrade and are ready to switch seamlessly.
109 2011-07-27 03:09:40 <nanotube> hopefully, all that is quite some years in the future still. :)
110 2011-07-27 03:11:11 <aristidesfl> and within those months my money get's stollen..
111 2011-07-27 03:11:26 <nanotube> again, hopefully, the switch happens before sha256 is completely broken.
112 2011-07-27 03:11:59 <nanotube> it is a usual occurrence that crypto algos weaken gradually, as small chinks here and there are discovered.
113 2011-07-27 03:12:09 <nanotube> it is unlikely thas sha256 will be completely useless overnight.
114 2011-07-27 03:12:15 <gmaxwell> A "complete break" of SHA256 of the same kind that any modern well tested hash function has been completely broken wouldn't have enormous upfront consequences, in the way bitcoin uses it.
115 2011-07-27 03:12:28 <aristidesfl> SHA-3 is supposed to get selected in 2012
116 2011-07-27 03:12:57 <gmaxwell> SHA-3 will be less secure than SHA-2 for some time, just on the basis of man hours of effort spent attacking it.
117 2011-07-27 03:13:32 <nanotube> gmaxwell: well, it would, if "anyone" can quickly build up alternate chains of really high difficulty, and thereby 'unspend' any arbitrary bitcoin transactions.
118 2011-07-27 03:13:44 <nanotube> which is  what a 'complete break' would allow for, no?
119 2011-07-27 03:13:58 <aristidesfl> gmaxwell: true
120 2011-07-27 03:14:15 <nanotube> well, any tx after the last checkpoint hardcoded into the client, maybe. :)
121 2011-07-27 03:14:40 <forrestv> nanotube, block headers are constrained in many ways - really the only field you can freely change is the nonce
122 2011-07-27 03:14:40 <luke-jr> nanotube: nah, you can rewrite history with a complete break :p
123 2011-07-27 03:14:56 <aristidesfl> nanotube: a complete break would allow the attacker creating transactions as he pleased
124 2011-07-27 03:15:04 <gmaxwell> nanotube: no, because everyone would start using the same fast-hash for mining.
125 2011-07-27 03:15:05 <aristidesfl> no need to create  anew branch
126 2011-07-27 03:15:49 <gmaxwell> nanotube: unless the fast hash threw us out of the diffiulty adjustment range but thats more of a complete break than anything recently has had.
127 2011-07-27 03:16:10 <aristidesfl> with sha256 brewk you would gain access to the private keys
128 2011-07-27 03:16:12 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: checkpoints prevent rewriting history too far back in time.
129 2011-07-27 03:16:21 <gmaxwell> No, not so.
130 2011-07-27 03:16:26 <aristidesfl> so you could create transactions in the behalf of other people
131 2011-07-27 03:16:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: checkpoints are just SHA256 hashes of a block. if it's broken, you can make that be anything
132 2011-07-27 03:16:41 <gmaxwell> You would not gain any private key access from a sha256 break.
133 2011-07-27 03:16:46 <nanotube> aristidesfl: no, sha256 break won't let you access other people's private keys.
134 2011-07-27 03:17:07 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: you wouldn't need to
135 2011-07-27 03:17:08 <nanotube> luke-jr: indeed, if it's broken enough... yea.
136 2011-07-27 03:17:22 <luke-jr> you'd just have to make a new private key with a public key matching the SHA256
137 2011-07-27 03:17:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: No, you can't. The block header is tightly constrained. Its not unlikely that there aren't many valid block headers that map to a given hash.
138 2011-07-27 03:17:42 <gmaxwell> And, of course, it's not checkpointed at just one point.
139 2011-07-27 03:17:46 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if it's broken, you don't have to bruteforce
140 2011-07-27 03:18:04 <aristidesfl> nanotube: why? get a transaction signed with their private key and reverse it
141 2011-07-27 03:18:32 <nanotube> aristidesfl: reversing signatures requires breaking of ecdsa, not breaking sha256
142 2011-07-27 03:18:47 <gmaxwell> You don't have to bruteforce what? This is not a block cipher. There has never been a widely analyized hash function broken in a way that would allow that.
143 2011-07-27 03:19:17 <aristidesfl> nanotube: what about the public key, itsn't it related with the private key?
144 2011-07-27 03:19:27 <MaggyO> whats the size of the public key
145 2011-07-27 03:19:36 <nanotube> aristidesfl: yes, the keys are ECDSA.
146 2011-07-27 03:19:48 <gmaxwell> MaggyO: 520 bits.
147 2011-07-27 03:19:52 <nanotube> in order to derive privkey from pubkey, you have to break ecdsa
148 2011-07-27 03:20:00 <aristidesfl> oh
149 2011-07-27 03:20:05 <aristidesfl> ok
150 2011-07-27 03:20:35 <MaggyO> how long will that be secure for
151 2011-07-27 03:21:30 <gmaxwell> Barring mathmatical or computational breakthrough, forever. Of course breakthroughs happen, but they're hard to predict.
152 2011-07-27 03:21:37 <MaggyO> forever?
153 2011-07-27 03:21:48 <luke-jr> MaggyO: quantum computing breaks all private key crypto
154 2011-07-27 03:21:55 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thats not true.
155 2011-07-27 03:21:59 <MaggyO> right, but RSA at low bit levels is broken
156 2011-07-27 03:22:02 <gmaxwell> (though it breaks DLP)
157 2011-07-27 03:22:06 <luke-jr> ok, all *used* private key crypto
158 2011-07-27 03:22:15 <MaggyO> youre saying ECDSA will take 100 years of years at moores laws increase?
159 2011-07-27 03:22:16 <gmaxwell> All widely used, yes.
160 2011-07-27 03:22:21 <gmaxwell> MaggyO: yes.
161 2011-07-27 03:22:25 <MaggyO> ok
162 2011-07-27 03:22:32 <forrestv> bitcoin needs to move to lamport signatures :)
163 2011-07-27 03:22:33 <luke-jr> MaggyO: depends on when quantum computing is finished
164 2011-07-27 03:23:07 <gmaxwell> Basically anything with classical strength over 128 bits or more is completely safe against brute force classical computers, because you can't do that many operations on a purely energy basis.
165 2011-07-27 03:23:25 <MaggyO> luke-jr: well hard to know  if that will ever happen also
166 2011-07-27 03:23:32 <MaggyO> its like cold fusion, a theory
167 2011-07-27 03:23:48 <aristidesfl> is SHA-2 collision free?
168 2011-07-27 03:24:01 <MaggyO> how could it be
169 2011-07-27 03:24:04 <gmaxwell> (it takes the energy equivalent of ~240megatons of TNT just to increment an optimally efficient classical counter 2^128 times)
170 2011-07-27 03:24:30 <gmaxwell> aristidesfl: no hash function is collision free. Its a logical impossiblity when the input is bigger than the output.
171 2011-07-27 03:24:35 <MaggyO> indeed
172 2011-07-27 03:24:49 <forrestv> pidginhole theorem
173 2011-07-27 03:24:59 <MaggyO> i think its pigeon
174 2011-07-27 03:25:03 <MaggyO> too much IM for you
175 2011-07-27 03:25:19 <nanotube> lol
176 2011-07-27 03:25:20 <gmaxwell> The birds don't care, just don't put more than one into a slot and remember to feed them.
177 2011-07-27 03:25:24 <forrestv> oh, haha, yeah ... i was actually talking to a friend about pidgin earlier
178 2011-07-27 03:26:03 <aristidesfl> gmaxwell: thanks
179 2011-07-27 03:26:33 <aristidesfl> forrestv: are you on pidgin?
180 2011-07-27 03:27:04 <forrestv> aristidesfl, no.
181 2011-07-27 03:27:26 <aristidesfl> irssi?
182 2011-07-27 03:27:41 <gmaxwell> aristidesfl: the concern isn't collisions.. its collisions of the right form being found easily... E.g. if you spend money from address A, and I can find (via an attack on the hash) another txn which spends other money assigned to A and has the same hash, and is a valid transaction, then I can steal the rest of A's money.
183 2011-07-27 03:27:45 <nanotube> looks like xchat :)
184 2011-07-27 03:28:02 <forrestv> xchat. how can i limit the number of connections bitcoin can have? right now there's 130 on my public node and it's bogging things down with testing p2pool..
185 2011-07-27 03:28:20 <nanotube> maxconnections=N
186 2011-07-27 03:28:25 <gmaxwell> As far as I can tell even if bitcoin used MD5 it would still be pratically secure at the moment, because the MD5 attacks are not flexible enough to allow you to do that.
187 2011-07-27 03:28:45 <gmaxwell> (though obviously if bitcoin used md5 we'd be in the process of switching already)
188 2011-07-27 03:29:23 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: not so obvious. isn't SHA1 weakened?
189 2011-07-27 03:29:27 <luke-jr> yet git still depends on it
190 2011-07-27 03:29:30 <forrestv> gmaxwell, that may be true for blocks, but with transactions you have a lot less constraints..
191 2011-07-27 03:29:53 <aristidesfl> luke-jr: who want's to attack git repos?
192 2011-07-27 03:29:54 <forrestv> hm, what can be done if you can create transactions with the same hash?
193 2011-07-27 03:30:00 <gmaxwell> hm? sha-1 is not all that tightly related to sha-256.
194 2011-07-27 03:30:14 <yin> when the heck are u geeks going to make something the masses can use?
195 2011-07-27 03:30:20 <gmaxwell> And sha-256 changes the stuff that creates issues for sha-1 (the linear key schedlues)
196 2011-07-27 03:30:28 <forrestv> yin, what trouble did you have?
197 2011-07-27 03:30:44 <yin> just want to get the ball rolling
198 2011-07-27 03:30:48 <yin> wtf
199 2011-07-27 03:30:51 <yin> when?
200 2011-07-27 03:31:06 <aristidesfl> gmaxwell: I didn't undertand this: "he concern isn't collisions.. its collisions of the right form being found easily... E.g. if you spend money from address A, and I can find (via an attack on the hash) another txn which spends other money assigned to A and has the same hash, and is a valid transaction, then I can steal the rest of A's money."
201 2011-07-27 03:31:17 <aristidesfl> don't you need to have the private key?
202 2011-07-27 03:31:19 <gmaxwell> forrestv: IsStandard is an enormous constraint.
203 2011-07-27 03:32:00 <gmaxwell> No, if you can produce a second different txn with the same hash as another one, you can rebind the signature.
204 2011-07-27 03:32:22 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: my point is that git is trusted a lot, yet it isn't moving away from SHA-1
205 2011-07-27 03:32:26 <aristidesfl> gmaxwell: rebind?
206 2011-07-27 03:32:29 <gmaxwell> One nice thing is that there is a work around if this attack becomes a risk: adjust the client to always spend all of the coin available to an address.
207 2011-07-27 03:32:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: ah yea, well, SHA-1's weaknesses are far less pratical than MD5's.
208 2011-07-27 03:33:08 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IsStandard is not a constraint at all, for confirmed transactions
209 2011-07-27 03:33:26 <gmaxwell> But if you're saying bitcoin wouldn't change, I find that doubtful.
210 2011-07-27 03:34:01 <gmaxwell> I suppose you could make a stealing txn, and mine it. So I suppose. The txn still has to be syntatically valid.
211 2011-07-27 03:34:25 <gmaxwell> for MD5 the attacker needs complete suffix control right now I think.
212 2011-07-27 03:35:00 <gmaxwell> They also can't free start to collide an existing hash, so they couldn't do that particular attack.
213 2011-07-27 03:35:35 <gmaxwell> E.g. they could make two txn A,B with the same hash, so long as they could put in a a hundred bytes of crap at the end
214 2011-07-27 03:35:53 <gmaxwell> I put up an MD5 example for someone earlier this week
215 2011-07-27 03:36:35 <gmaxwell> https://people.xiph.org/~greg/msg1.bin https://people.xiph.org/~greg/msg2.bin
216 2011-07-27 03:36:45 <gmaxwell> (same md5sum)
217 2011-07-27 04:03:08 <aristidesfl> gmaxwell: what do you mean with rebind the signature?
218 2011-07-27 04:04:21 <gmaxwell> aristidesfl: copy it over. If the content has the same hash then the same signature can be used.
219 2011-07-27 04:08:53 <MaggyO> does the gui bitcoin do JSON
220 2011-07-27 04:09:16 <gmaxwell> If there are two different txn with the same hash, I wonder which one is the redeemable one
221 2011-07-27 04:19:18 <MaggyO> i dont understand how the gui bitcoin can be saving config settings without a bitcoin.conf on system
222 2011-07-27 04:26:28 <cuddlefish> thought you might appreciate this
223 2011-07-27 04:26:29 <cuddlefish> such as raThreads are sub-optimal for a variety of reasons, ce contitions.
224 2011-07-27 04:31:28 <wumpus> MaggyO: they're saved in the wallet
225 2011-07-27 04:33:09 <lfm> gmaxwell they both should be redemable. the txn input cout field has the hash AND the output number.
226 2011-07-27 04:45:26 <cuddlefish> http://redd.it/j0xm5
227 2011-07-27 04:45:30 <cuddlefish> i'd mine on that
228 2011-07-27 04:52:33 <copumpkin> only nvidia though
229 2011-07-27 04:52:37 <cuddlefish> yep.
230 2011-07-27 04:52:53 <cuddlefish> I bet you could get them to put an ATI card in there though
231 2011-07-27 04:52:58 <cuddlefish> zareason is cool like that
232 2011-07-27 04:55:31 <sacarlson> seems I found the first problem created from the new added merge mine to weeds net in the bitcoin-abe abe.py block explorer I now get this error OverflowError: long int too large to convert to int  detailed trace see: http://paste.ubuntu.com/652878/
233 2011-07-27 04:56:02 <sacarlson> I'm sure it's minor
234 2011-07-27 04:56:58 <cuddlefish> sacarlson: my gd, a bug? in SOFTWARE?
235 2011-07-27 04:57:46 <sacarlson> cuddlefish: it's just that changes in one package can causing problems in the infrastructure
236 2011-07-27 04:58:23 <cuddlefish> sacarlson: Oh, I see
237 2011-07-27 05:15:12 <MaggyO> is there a fixed transaction fee now with bitcoins?
238 2011-07-27 05:29:36 <sipa> no
239 2011-07-27 05:56:28 <MaggyO> seems there is sipa
240 2011-07-27 05:56:52 <MaggyO> if the amount is low
241 2011-07-27 06:03:08 <sipa> there are some rules
242 2011-07-27 06:03:52 <sipa> if you have an output less than 0.01, or if the transaction is too large (in bytes), or uses too recent/little inputs, a fee of 0.0005 is enforced by the client
243 2011-07-27 07:55:42 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
244 2011-07-27 07:55:42 <sipa> ;;later tell BlueMatt Sleep() takes milliseconds, but GetTime() gives second - sure ThreadCleanWalletPassphrase is correct?
245 2011-07-27 09:13:11 <sacarlson> I wonder how hard it would be to make a modification for a proto chain that the nBits would be force changed to a higher value after some block number?
246 2011-07-27 09:23:20 <sacarlson> maybe near this line  uint256 hashTarget = CBigNum().SetCompact(pblock->nBits).getuint256();
247 2011-07-27 09:25:25 <Eliel> sacarlson: can you remind me what was the significance of nBits?
248 2011-07-27 09:25:51 <edcba> nBits is a short form representation of some bignum
249 2011-07-27 09:25:57 <edcba> the difficulty
250 2011-07-27 09:26:18 <sacarlson> Eliel: edcba: yes the difficulty to next target
251 2011-07-27 09:26:25 <diki> ok, question
252 2011-07-27 09:26:50 <diki> what do the nbits have to do when searching for h==0?
253 2011-07-27 09:27:00 <diki> in the 4way algo in cgminer it's used in findnonce.c
254 2011-07-27 09:27:15 <erus`> find nonce :|
255 2011-07-27 09:27:27 <diki> wwwwwwwwhhhhhhhyyyyyyyy?
256 2011-07-27 09:27:36 <diki> phoenix doesnt use that afaik
257 2011-07-27 09:28:57 <sacarlson> diki: I was told it makes it ignore unlikly targets.  they put it back in to find difficulties less than 1
258 2011-07-27 09:29:33 <diki> by unlikely targets you mean...>
259 2011-07-27 09:29:47 <sacarlson> diki: sorry unlikly solutions?
260 2011-07-27 09:29:57 <diki> unlikely how?
261 2011-07-27 09:30:01 <diki> hash > target?
262 2011-07-27 09:30:23 <diki> if its hash > target there are no checks like that
263 2011-07-27 09:31:41 <sacarlson> diki: I'm not sure I don't have a full understanding,  but I needed a miner that ran well on low difficulty nets like  "difficulty" : 0.06249911,
264 2011-07-27 09:32:01 <diki> ooops
265 2011-07-27 09:32:11 <diki> sorry tooootally was wrong when i wrote this -> [14:27:18] <diki> in the 4way algo in cgminer it's used in findnonce.c
266 2011-07-27 09:32:25 <diki> findnonce.c is not the 4way algo, the 4way algo is for the cpu
267 2011-07-27 09:32:28 <diki> nbits arent used there
268 2011-07-27 09:33:35 <sacarlson> diki: I would assume nbits would be used in all miners maybe just renamed to hashTarget
269 2011-07-27 09:34:07 <diki> nope, i searched for they keyword target, but nothing like that
270 2011-07-27 09:34:11 <diki> also for nbits, but nope
271 2011-07-27 09:34:36 <sipa> the getwork protocol sends the target directly
272 2011-07-27 09:34:46 <sipa> the miner doesn't need to look at the nbits inside the block
273 2011-07-27 09:34:54 <diki> cgminer does
274 2011-07-27 09:34:58 <sipa> it shouldn't
275 2011-07-27 09:35:07 <sipa> except for debugging purposes maybe
276 2011-07-27 09:35:20 <diki> nope, it's used inside for some reason
277 2011-07-27 09:35:21 <sipa> to tell you what the difficulty of the block it is mining is
278 2011-07-27 09:35:42 <sipa> if it uses nbits instead of the supplied target, it would be incompatible with pool mining
279 2011-07-27 09:35:57 <diki> how so?
280 2011-07-27 09:36:07 <diki> pools dont check for hash <=> target
281 2011-07-27 09:36:12 <diki> i've tested that myself
282 2011-07-27 09:36:15 <sipa> ?
283 2011-07-27 09:36:28 <sipa> pools always give you a target of 2**224
284 2011-07-27 09:36:36 <diki> doesnt matter
285 2011-07-27 09:36:39 <sipa> at least, those i know of
286 2011-07-27 09:36:46 <diki> cgminer sends whatever h==0 it finds
287 2011-07-27 09:36:55 <sipa> then it doesn't use nbits
288 2011-07-27 09:37:06 <sipa> h==0 is equal to assuming a target of 2**224
289 2011-07-27 09:37:44 <diki> sipa, i hate python
290 2011-07-27 09:37:54 <sipa> i don't know python :)
291 2011-07-27 09:38:02 <diki> 2**224 is from python
292 2011-07-27 09:38:16 <diki> the "power of"
293 2011-07-27 09:38:34 <sipa> it's used in many places
294 2011-07-27 09:38:42 <sipa> either 2^224 or 2**224
295 2011-07-27 09:38:59 <sipa> are the common notations for the power operator
296 2011-07-27 09:39:02 <denisx> my pool does
297 2011-07-27 09:39:15 <diki> does what?
298 2011-07-27 09:39:34 <denisx> checking for hash <=> target
299 2011-07-27 09:39:39 <diki> pushpool?
300 2011-07-27 09:39:47 <denisx> yes, but modified for diff-2
301 2011-07-27 09:40:06 <diki> have you further changed the check_hash function to actually check that?
302 2011-07-27 09:40:14 <denisx> diki: yes
303 2011-07-27 09:41:50 <MaggyO> cant believe PHP has 32/64bit ints that differ version to version
304 2011-07-27 09:42:06 <mtrlt> what did you expect of a script language :P
305 2011-07-27 09:42:30 <kinlo> it's true tough, you shouldn't look at php as a programming language, php was only created to quickly create a website
306 2011-07-27 09:42:46 <diki> s/website/dynamic webpage
307 2011-07-27 09:44:22 <MaggyO> that the same script works the same regardless of where its deployed?
308 2011-07-27 09:44:44 <MaggyO> i mean PHP mostly does this, but getting the INT thing wrong is  weird
309 2011-07-27 09:45:09 <MaggyO> how hard is it to use INT64 when nearly all the compilers support it? or when you can just tack on a macro to handle it
310 2011-07-27 09:46:46 <MaggyO> json passes a float for the btc amounts
311 2011-07-27 09:46:58 <MaggyO> why would you use float and not string?
312 2011-07-27 09:47:11 <MaggyO> considering float can vary platform to platform
313 2011-07-27 10:00:56 <MaggyO> seems no one has fixed this issue in the main btc client
314 2011-07-27 10:02:28 <MaggyO> why not just add a getBalanceInt
315 2011-07-27 10:07:38 <TuxBlackEdo> is there any way to use gpg4win without using outlook?
316 2011-07-27 10:07:52 <TuxBlackEdo> i need to send a message
317 2011-07-27 10:11:35 <prof7bit> isn't there enigmail for thunderbird for windows too?
318 2011-07-27 10:19:17 <TuxBlackEdo> i really dont need the integration
319 2011-07-27 10:19:38 <TuxBlackEdo> i just want to send a plain text email with the encrypted data inside it
320 2011-07-27 10:19:46 <TuxBlackEdo> is that possible?
321 2011-07-27 10:20:12 <TuxBlackEdo> since all the pgp clients i just downloaded (the last 4) they all try to install a plugin for a mail client
322 2011-07-27 10:20:24 <TuxBlackEdo> what if i am using gmail? it's impossible to use pgp?
323 2011-07-27 10:21:52 <MrTiggr> not at all ...run thunderbird and access ur gmail that way
324 2011-07-27 10:21:56 <MrTiggr> with the Gpg plugin
325 2011-07-27 10:22:00 <MrTiggr> its awsm!
326 2011-07-27 10:22:09 <TuxBlackEdo> oh i dont use gmail, that was an example
327 2011-07-27 10:22:25 <TuxBlackEdo> i use my office's webmail
328 2011-07-27 10:22:26 <MrTiggr> Enigmail for thunderbird
329 2011-07-27 10:22:31 <MrTiggr> aaaa kk
330 2011-07-27 10:22:45 <TuxBlackEdo> i just need to encrypt a piece of text with someones public key
331 2011-07-27 10:23:10 <MrTiggr> got gpg installed ?
332 2011-07-27 10:23:10 <prof7bit> For this purpose on Linux I just use kgpg a little kde app to sign/en-/de-crypt the clipboard. I'm sur there must be something similar for windows too.
333 2011-07-27 10:23:19 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah like 5 different versions
334 2011-07-27 10:23:30 <MrTiggr> drop to cmdline and do it
335 2011-07-27 10:23:37 <MrTiggr> really easy to clearsign
336 2011-07-27 10:24:07 <MrTiggr> http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/gpg/gpg-com-0.htm
337 2011-07-27 10:25:32 <TuxBlackEdo> gpg2.exe?
338 2011-07-27 10:25:40 <TuxBlackEdo> i literally got 50 exes
339 2011-07-27 10:25:42 <MrTiggr> that shud do
340 2011-07-27 10:25:48 <MrTiggr> just drop to cmd
341 2011-07-27 10:25:51 <MrTiggr> and type gpg
342 2011-07-27 10:25:56 <MrTiggr> see what happens
343 2011-07-27 10:26:08 <MrTiggr> then the cmd u after from there wud be...um...
344 2011-07-27 10:26:28 <TuxBlackEdo> it says "go ahead and type your message"
345 2011-07-27 10:26:39 <prof7bit> you only ned *one* gpg. all the tools can use this
346 2011-07-27 10:26:57 <MrTiggr> yep
347 2011-07-27 10:27:01 <TuxBlackEdo> does that sounds like the right thing for gpg to say?
348 2011-07-27 10:27:04 <MrTiggr> ok prec Ctl-C to escape
349 2011-07-27 10:27:06 <MrTiggr> then
350 2011-07-27 10:27:29 <MrTiggr> gpg --clearsign path\todocdcument.txt
351 2011-07-27 10:27:35 <TuxBlackEdo> i generated my own gpg signature with "kleoparta"
352 2011-07-27 10:27:46 <TuxBlackEdo> and i have the recipients gpg signature
353 2011-07-27 10:27:48 <prof7bit> http://www.gnupg.org/related_software/frontends.html#gui
354 2011-07-27 10:27:50 <MrTiggr> is easy to do with kleo too!
355 2011-07-27 10:28:35 <TuxBlackEdo> ah
356 2011-07-27 10:29:00 <MrTiggr> ok in kleo u will need to import their key
357 2011-07-27 10:29:25 <TuxBlackEdo> i did that "gpg --clearsign path\todocdcument.txt"
358 2011-07-27 10:29:32 <TuxBlackEdo> and it worked
359 2011-07-27 10:29:38 <TuxBlackEdo> it asked for a password that i set earlier
360 2011-07-27 10:29:40 <TuxBlackEdo> sweet
361 2011-07-27 10:29:41 <TuxBlackEdo> thanks
362 2011-07-27 10:29:48 <TuxBlackEdo> i think i got it from here, thank you thank you
363 2011-07-27 10:29:50 <MrTiggr> yah ...that was signing it with YOUR private key for them to decrypt though
364 2011-07-27 10:29:52 <MrTiggr> my bad
365 2011-07-27 10:30:19 <MrTiggr> kewl ...shout me if u need help
366 2011-07-27 10:30:29 <Gekz> in the pants
367 2011-07-27 10:30:37 <MrTiggr> :P
368 2011-07-27 10:32:25 <TuxBlackEdo> oh ok
369 2011-07-27 10:32:33 <TuxBlackEdo> so it screted a pgp signed message
370 2011-07-27 10:32:50 <TuxBlackEdo> the receiver doesnt know my signature or anything
371 2011-07-27 10:32:57 <MrTiggr> yep correct
372 2011-07-27 10:33:10 <TuxBlackEdo> dont i encrypt my message with his public key?
373 2011-07-27 10:33:11 <MrTiggr> they can only decode it if you tell them your PUBLIC KEY
374 2011-07-27 10:33:32 <MrTiggr> NEVER tell anyone UR PASSPHRASE and nevr give out ur PRIVATE KEY
375 2011-07-27 10:33:43 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah but
376 2011-07-27 10:33:52 <TuxBlackEdo> isnt the message supposed to be encrypted
377 2011-07-27 10:33:56 <TuxBlackEdo> it looks like it only signed it
378 2011-07-27 10:34:04 <TuxBlackEdo> and i can read the message plain text
379 2011-07-27 10:34:22 <MrTiggr> you can encrypt it with his PUBLIC KEY and he cand decode it with his PRIVATE key without knowing any of your keys
380 2011-07-27 10:34:29 <TuxBlackEdo> oh ok
381 2011-07-27 10:34:34 <TuxBlackEdo> thats what i want to do
382 2011-07-27 10:34:43 <MrTiggr> and you are correct; that was just signing...can encrypt too
383 2011-07-27 10:34:48 <MrTiggr> ok
384 2011-07-27 10:34:55 <MrTiggr> lets do this in kleopatra then
385 2011-07-27 10:35:02 <MrTiggr> ??ur windoze i take it ?
386 2011-07-27 10:35:14 <TuxBlackEdo> right now it made a file with the "begin pgp signed message" and then the plaintext and then the "begin pgp signature" and some data and then "end"
387 2011-07-27 10:35:19 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah :/
388 2011-07-27 10:35:30 <MrTiggr> ok gimme 5 *brb*
389 2011-07-27 10:36:05 <prof7bit> what does "limited" mean (timestamp in the block message): "A timestamp recording when this block was created (Limited to 2106!)"
390 2011-07-27 10:36:18 <prof7bit> from the wiki
391 2011-07-27 10:36:22 <jtaylor> you want to use gpg --encrypt
392 2011-07-27 10:36:31 <jtaylor> not cleansign
393 2011-07-27 10:36:40 <jtaylor> *clearsign
394 2011-07-27 10:37:42 <jtaylor> prof7bit: its an unsigned 32bit integer timestamp
395 2011-07-27 10:37:51 <jtaylor> 2016 is the highest value it can carr
396 2011-07-27 10:37:56 <jtaylor> 2106
397 2011-07-27 10:38:11 <jtaylor> a signed integer would be 2038, see the unix timestamp problem
398 2011-07-27 10:38:12 <prof7bit> a 32 bit can carry more than 2106
399 2011-07-27 10:38:29 <jtaylor> in seconds
400 2011-07-27 10:38:51 <jtaylor> timestamps are seconds from 1.1.1970
401 2011-07-27 10:39:08 <prof7bit> yes. but why does it say loimited to 2106?
402 2011-07-27 10:39:17 <prof7bit> is this a year?
403 2011-07-27 10:39:23 <jtaylor> yes
404 2011-07-27 10:39:37 <prof7bit> wiki text should be improved.
405 2011-07-27 10:40:24 <prof7bit> i was thinking about version numbers, block numbers and everything else, never thought they were refering to the well known 32bit timestamp problem
406 2011-07-27 10:40:31 <jtaylor> see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem#Solutions
407 2011-07-27 10:40:42 <mtrlt> you can improve it yourself :P
408 2011-07-27 10:40:45 <mtrlt> it's a wiki
409 2011-07-27 10:41:11 <prof7bit> only if i understand why the 2038 problem is now asuddenly a 2106 problem
410 2011-07-27 10:41:25 <mtrlt> unsigned int
411 2011-07-27 10:41:28 <jtaylor> the 2038 problem affects signed 32bit integers
412 2011-07-27 10:41:39 <jtaylor> a unsigned integer can represent double as high values
413 2011-07-27 10:42:39 <sacarlson> this must be the function I would want to modify for a proto chain to make the first X blocks nBits easy then get harder unsigned int static GetNextWorkRequired(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast)
414 2011-07-27 10:43:03 <jtaylor> (2038-1970)*2+1970 = 2108 = 2106 if you use exact numbers
415 2011-07-27 10:43:56 <prof7bit> i got it. i never thought anybody would seriously be considering 32 bit numbers even after the year 2038 only to get one more bit instead of ust making it a 64 bit
416 2011-07-27 10:44:52 <jtaylor> its unlikely we will still ahve the same protocol version in 90 years
417 2011-07-27 10:45:32 <mtrlt> well duh because we need to change it :P
418 2011-07-27 10:46:32 <prof7bit> the version message has a 64 bit timestamp.
419 2011-07-27 10:49:03 <TuxBlackEdo> i tried "gpg --encrypt --recipient 'thereci@what.wut' c:message.txt
420 2011-07-27 10:49:06 <prof7bit> why not one of these variable integers instead?
421 2011-07-27 10:49:26 <TuxBlackEdo> it says "skipped: no public key"
422 2011-07-27 10:49:41 <jtaylor> do you ahve the public key of the recipient?
423 2011-07-27 10:49:46 <TuxBlackEdo> even though i can see the person with "gpg --listkeys"
424 2011-07-27 10:49:47 <TuxBlackEdo> yeah
425 2011-07-27 10:51:08 <jtaylor> try using the key id
426 2011-07-27 10:52:08 <TuxBlackEdo> it still says "no public key"
427 2011-07-27 10:53:16 <jtaylor> weird
428 2011-07-27 10:53:24 <TuxBlackEdo> yes
429 2011-07-27 10:55:14 <TuxBlackEdo> oh ok
430 2011-07-27 10:55:28 <TuxBlackEdo> i had ' around recipient, it didnt like that
431 2011-07-27 10:57:12 <TuxBlackEdo> ok so now i got a binary file called message.txt.gpg
432 2011-07-27 10:57:21 <TuxBlackEdo> any way to make it base64 or something
433 2011-07-27 10:57:59 <jtaylor> base64 file on unix
434 2011-07-27 10:58:06 <jtaylor> windows no idea
435 2011-07-27 10:58:32 <jtaylor> hm probably gpg can do it, maybe --armor
436 2011-07-27 10:59:07 <jtaylor> yes armor does it
437 2011-07-27 10:59:21 <TuxBlackEdo> yes
438 2011-07-27 10:59:23 <TuxBlackEdo> awesome
439 2011-07-27 10:59:47 <TuxBlackEdo> exactly what i was looking for
440 2011-07-27 11:00:04 <TuxBlackEdo> so
441 2011-07-27 11:00:27 <TuxBlackEdo> will this message be signed with my public key so he can send me an encrypted reply?
442 2011-07-27 11:01:17 <jtaylor> add --sign
443 2011-07-27 11:01:41 <jtaylor> but a signature does not include your public key
444 2011-07-27 11:01:49 <jtaylor> it just ensures the message comes from your private key
445 2011-07-27 11:02:21 <TuxBlackEdo> should i include my public key inside the message?
446 2011-07-27 11:02:29 <TuxBlackEdo> btw thanks a lot for the help
447 2011-07-27 11:02:48 <jtaylor> you can just send it to him or upload it on a keyserver
448 2011-07-27 11:02:55 <jtaylor> public key is no secret information
449 2011-07-27 11:03:51 <jtaylor> but for the whole system to work you should somehow make sure that the key really belongs to the person you think it does, e.g. meet him and let him give you the fingerprint
450 2011-07-27 11:06:50 <TuxBlackEdo> hm cool
451 2011-07-27 11:06:57 <TuxBlackEdo> thanks for the hep
452 2011-07-27 11:06:59 <TuxBlackEdo> help*
453 2011-07-27 11:07:48 <jtaylor> np
454 2011-07-27 11:09:18 <MrTiggr> jtaylor++
455 2011-07-27 11:09:33 <TuxBlackEdo> jtaylor++
456 2011-07-27 11:09:43 <MrTiggr> nice work...sry i didn't get back in time to help u Tux; jt did a great job
457 2011-07-27 11:11:48 <TuxBlackEdo> just to confirm, I put into C:message.txt "hey whats up this is my public key <pasted public key>" and then I did a "gpg --sign --encrypt --recipient H42A0ADD --armor C:message.txt" and then i send him the contents of "c:message.txt.asc" which is just a block of GPG encrypted data (3k worth), does that sound like I did everything right?
458 2011-07-27 11:12:21 <MrTiggr> hehehehe yes
459 2011-07-27 11:12:22 <MrTiggr> but
460 2011-07-27 11:12:22 <TuxBlackEdo> it asks me to put my secret passphrase and then asks me if i am sure that i trust the recipient's public key
461 2011-07-27 11:12:31 <TuxBlackEdo> and makes that file
462 2011-07-27 11:12:43 <MrTiggr> how is he gunna decrypt that without the public key...which you kindly put inside the encrypted message ;)
463 2011-07-27 11:12:55 <MrTiggr> yep sounds like all worked as planned
464 2011-07-27 11:13:00 <jtaylor> he does not need it
465 2011-07-27 11:13:15 <jtaylor> the message is encrypted for the recipients private key
466 2011-07-27 11:13:16 <MrTiggr> is it up on keyserv?
467 2011-07-27 11:13:20 <MrTiggr> aaah
468 2011-07-27 11:13:21 <MrTiggr> sweet
469 2011-07-27 11:13:22 <MrTiggr> kk
470 2011-07-27 11:13:24 <jtaylor> but he can't verify the signature
471 2011-07-27 11:13:28 <MrTiggr> yeh
472 2011-07-27 11:13:29 <cjdelisle> mmm 20k paypal accounts closed, /me is feeling bullish today
473 2011-07-27 11:13:36 <jtaylor> before decrypting it
474 2011-07-27 11:13:50 <TuxBlackEdo> but this is my first message to him
475 2011-07-27 11:14:36 <TuxBlackEdo> you said "17:13 < jtaylor> he does not need it" but how would he reply to my message (encrypted) if he didnt have my public key?
476 2011-07-27 11:15:11 <jtaylor> using your public key he decrypted
477 2011-07-27 11:15:33 <jtaylor> he uses that to encrypt a message which only you can decrypt with your private key
478 2011-07-27 11:15:35 <TuxBlackEdo> oh ok :)
479 2011-07-27 11:16:55 <jtaylor> but the public key does not need to be encrypted, the only problem of publishing it might be spam and people knowing you ahve one
480 2011-07-27 11:18:32 <jtaylor> the advantage is that you can sign all your messages and people can verify it assuming you are integrated in some web of trust
481 2011-07-27 11:19:49 <TuxBlackEdo> there are gpg encrypted spam messages?
482 2011-07-27 11:20:20 <jtaylor> probably not many ^^, but spammers can use keyservers to gather email adresses
483 2011-07-27 11:21:01 <jtaylor> small warning, googlemail tends to classify encrypted messages as spam :/
484 2011-07-27 11:21:31 <MrTiggr> jtaylor++
485 2011-07-27 11:21:34 <MrTiggr> TRU DAT!
486 2011-07-27 11:21:51 <MrTiggr> i use Thunderbird+Enigmail to conext to my gmail and do that tho ;)
487 2011-07-27 11:22:09 <TuxBlackEdo> jtaylor: from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all your help
488 2011-07-27 12:07:58 <nanotube> <cjdelisle> mmm 20k paypal accounts closed, /me is feeling bullish today <-- wut?
489 2011-07-27 12:08:43 <nanotube> <jtaylor> small warning, googlemail tends to classify encrypted messages as spam :/ <-- not if you add ----begin pgp message--- to your whitelist filter in the settings :)
490 2011-07-27 12:09:06 <nanotube> TuxBlackEdo: yea, gpg kicks ass. use it wisely. :)
491 2011-07-27 12:18:44 <copumpkin> feeling bullshittish
492 2011-07-27 12:20:05 <cjdelisle> Well FWIW according to lulzsec, 20k paypal accounts have been so far closed.
493 2011-07-27 12:20:19 <Rabbit67890> for what?
494 2011-07-27 12:21:07 <cjdelisle> It started with the whole wikileaks thing and there were a lot of companies who blocked them.
495 2011-07-27 12:21:28 <cjdelisle> PP didn't help the situation with this: http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/263634,paypal-cso-calls-for-antisec-hunt.aspx
496 2011-07-27 12:22:59 <cjdelisle> Then one of the anons who the fbi rounded up turned out to be her: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/fbi-exposes-terrifying-face-anonymous-748293
497 2011-07-27 12:24:18 <cjdelisle> So all the Anon people are calling for a boycott, I canceled my account, it wasn't doing me any good anyway and PP really has had this coming for a long time.
498 2011-07-27 12:24:56 <nanotube> heh i see. nice.
499 2011-07-27 12:26:05 <Rabbit67890> LOOOL
500 2011-07-27 12:26:11 <cjdelisle> Also, my bank account number was in that database and lulzsec is looking in to it. I can sleep better knowing I canceled.
501 2011-07-27 12:26:50 <Rabbit67890> oh f*ck
502 2011-07-27 12:35:43 <UukGoblin> what? lulzsec h4x0r3d paypal?
503 2011-07-27 12:36:27 <cjdelisle> Nope but they are right now sponsering a boycott and giving them a stern look.
504 2011-07-27 12:36:53 <UukGoblin> eek
505 2011-07-27 12:36:54 <UukGoblin> that sucs
506 2011-07-27 12:36:57 <UukGoblin> k
507 2011-07-27 12:37:01 <UukGoblin> I need my paypal :-/
508 2011-07-27 12:38:30 <UukGoblin> yeah paypal hacked would be awesome
509 2011-07-27 12:38:36 <BlueMatt> nanotube: gonna be a while...have to hit 10% of people before it spreads quickly...and that would take a while
510 2011-07-27 12:38:43 <UukGoblin> all these headlines saying bitcoin's more secure...
511 2011-07-27 12:38:47 <BlueMatt> keep in mind that if bitcoin becomes bit, we still need payment processors
512 2011-07-27 12:38:53 <BlueMatt> (like paypal)
513 2011-07-27 12:39:28 <cjdelisle> I think I'm going to apply for a credit card, it's like pp except that the chargebacks are sane and there's someone I can talk to.
514 2011-07-27 12:39:46 <BlueMatt> you dont have a credit card?
515 2011-07-27 12:39:56 <cjdelisle> nop, just a debit card
516 2011-07-27 12:40:05 <BlueMatt> damn
517 2011-07-27 12:40:18 <nanotube> BlueMatt: well "we" means "people who can't secure their own computers and can't run their own bitcoin node" then yes. :)
518 2011-07-27 12:40:31 <UukGoblin> I bought a small gold bar today and the company didn't accept credit cards, only debit... go figure ;-]
519 2011-07-27 12:40:44 <nanotube> BlueMatt: also, by 10% you're referring to that bit on slashdot the other day about spread of ideas eh? :)
520 2011-07-27 12:40:56 <BlueMatt> nanotube: and merchants who want security, and people who want more security, and, and, and...at that point its like 99.999% of people
521 2011-07-27 12:40:59 <BlueMatt> nanotube: yea
522 2011-07-27 12:40:59 <nanotube> UukGoblin: haha yea, gold is like bitcoin - no chargebacks :)
523 2011-07-27 12:41:11 <UukGoblin> BlueMatt, meh, outsourcing security is... meh
524 2011-07-27 12:41:24 <nanotube> UukGoblin: it's fine if you know that you really suck at it.
525 2011-07-27 12:41:30 <BlueMatt> UukGoblin: but they can provide insurance, not just security
526 2011-07-27 12:41:37 <nanotube> and >90% of people do suck.
527 2011-07-27 12:41:43 <UukGoblin> my gf sucks
528 2011-07-27 12:41:48 <UukGoblin> and she's pretty good at it too
529 2011-07-27 12:41:52 <BlueMatt> nanotube: way more than 90%
530 2011-07-27 12:41:53 <nanotube> heh
531 2011-07-27 12:42:05 <nanotube> BlueMatt: heh ye, well i did say >90 :)
532 2011-07-27 12:42:08 <TD_> can we please keep the level of stupidity here manageable? there is #bitcoin for that kind of stuff
533 2011-07-27 12:42:23 <UukGoblin> kk
534 2011-07-27 12:42:38 <nanotube> heh
535 2011-07-27 12:42:58 <nanotube> suddenly silence. :)
536 2011-07-27 12:43:28 <Rabbit67890> or not
537 2011-07-27 12:43:35 <TD> well, set up a payment processor and then there'll be lots of talk about ;)
538 2011-07-27 12:43:52 <TD> or a bitbank
539 2011-07-27 12:43:56 <nanotube> well, there's mtgox and mybitcoin
540 2011-07-27 12:44:01 <nanotube> they are payment processors.
541 2011-07-27 12:44:02 <UukGoblin> I moved the convo to #bitcoin... but no-one followed
542 2011-07-27 12:44:03 <TD> yes.
543 2011-07-27 12:44:15 <TD> is mybitcoin still alive ?
544 2011-07-27 12:44:16 <nanotube> no insurance though...
545 2011-07-27 12:44:32 <nanotube> yes, i haven't heard anybody say they're not
546 2011-07-27 12:44:37 <nanotube> though i don't use it myself
547 2011-07-27 12:44:50 <BlueMatt> TD: site is still up and working, but I dont think they have responded to email or anything in a long time now
548 2011-07-27 12:44:55 <BlueMatt> or I havent heard that they are back responding
549 2011-07-27 12:44:58 <TD> yeah
550 2011-07-27 12:45:20 <nanotube> wonder how many btc they're sitting on...
551 2011-07-27 12:46:49 <jeremias> take the bitcoins and run!
552 2011-07-27 12:47:09 <BlueMatt> ...or satoshi is running it
553 2011-07-27 12:47:36 <doublec> they use an NZ phone number which is odd
554 2011-07-27 12:48:02 <iddo> maybe someone here can remove the link to mybitcoin on the defunct clearcoin website?
555 2011-07-27 12:48:34 <jeremias> what would you do if you were satoshi
556 2011-07-27 12:48:58 <jeremias> i heard that he can somehow broadcasat messages through the bitcoin system, i would troll the hell out of it
557 2011-07-27 12:49:00 <BlueMatt> jeremias: go to #bitcoin?
558 2011-07-27 12:49:39 <nanotube> iddo: remove the link to one defunct site from another defunct site eh? heh.
559 2011-07-27 12:49:43 <joepie91> [global message] IMPORTANT: If you did not hear about #OpPaypal yet - thousands of people are closing their PayPal accounts out of protest - http://pastebin.com/LAykd1es | JOIN NOW, Call PayPal at +1-888-221-1161 to close your account. Stock dropped 1 billion in the first 15 minutes of trading. Online account-disable page closed. TELL EVERYONE.
560 2011-07-27 12:50:37 <senseles> thats fucking retarded
561 2011-07-27 12:51:41 <senseles> i doubt that the 1 billion stock drop had anything to do with this
562 2011-07-27 12:51:48 <doublec> paypal doesn't have a publically traded stock
563 2011-07-27 12:51:50 <doublec> how can it drop
564 2011-07-27 12:51:54 <cjdelisle> Meh, they had it coming for a long time. I closed my account because I didn't need it and I can sleep better knowing my bank number isn't in a database which lulzsec is really interested in dumping.
565 2011-07-27 12:51:55 <senseles> ebay does doesnt it?
566 2011-07-27 12:52:02 <senseles> and paypal is owned by ebay
567 2011-07-27 12:52:08 <nanotube> joepie91: paypal is owned by ebay. the entire market has gone down today. ebay has 1.3 billion shares outstanding, and price per share went down by 90 cents or so currently.
568 2011-07-27 12:52:11 <doublec> right, ebay does
569 2011-07-27 12:52:17 <senseles> but my point was going to be
570 2011-07-27 12:52:18 <senseles> ebay sucks
571 2011-07-27 12:52:22 <nanotube> i doubt it has something to do with 20k people closing accounts.
572 2011-07-27 12:52:23 <senseles> so it's no surprise theres a drop
573 2011-07-27 12:52:31 <joepie91> nanotube: the drop is far sharper than that of other stocks
574 2011-07-27 12:52:42 <senseles> i hope ebay sells paypal soon because they're really bringing paypal down
575 2011-07-27 12:52:49 <joepie91> and especially considering the past few days
576 2011-07-27 12:52:53 <joepie91> it's a very sudden drop
577 2011-07-27 12:53:41 <nanotube> senseles: if ebay sucks, presumably the market participants have known about that for quite a while. i doubt that today suddenly a bunch of people realized that. :P
578 2011-07-27 12:53:48 <senseles> ya but whats the total capitalization ?
579 2011-07-27 12:53:51 <senseles> you're saying 1 billion
580 2011-07-27 12:53:57 <senseles> but 1 billion to most companies is nothing
581 2011-07-27 12:54:10 <ersi> joepie91: And how would one close his/her PayPal account?
582 2011-07-27 12:54:19 <nanotube> joepie91: 2.8 percent down today. nasdaq overall down by 1.8 or so. now i bet about 20 percent of other stocks on nasdaq are down by more than 2.8
583 2011-07-27 12:54:57 <joepie91> ersi: I believe they took down the online closure page - at least on the US version, apparently it still works on the international version
584 2011-07-27 12:55:01 <senseles> market cap for ebay is 42 billion
585 2011-07-27 12:55:02 <senseles> so
586 2011-07-27 12:55:04 <joepie91> if you call the phone number (account support>)
587 2011-07-27 12:55:09 <senseles> you're talking about 2% of their total value
588 2011-07-27 12:55:10 <joepie91> you can close down your account from there
589 2011-07-27 12:55:12 <senseles> go back to sleep now
590 2011-07-27 12:55:19 <TD> i thought this was related to the new withdrawal policies, perhaps?
591 2011-07-27 12:55:53 <senseles> but you're completely ignoring the fact that it went down pre-market
592 2011-07-27 12:55:57 <senseles> it STARTED down 2%
593 2011-07-27 12:55:59 <joepie91> ah, just hear that it's apparently possible to close down your account online by logging in through an international version like paypal.fr
594 2011-07-27 12:56:01 <senseles> so all of this is just a joke
595 2011-07-27 12:56:08 <senseles> "look our boycott is work". lol.
596 2011-07-27 12:56:10 <joepie91> senseles: the op was running before the stock market was open
597 2011-07-27 12:56:13 <joepie91> so I don't see your point
598 2011-07-27 12:56:19 <ersi> https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:
599 2011-07-27 12:56:20 <ersi> :D
600 2011-07-27 12:56:22 <cjdelisle> I am happy even at the thought that perhaps maybe possibly the chickens are finally coming home to roost for fraudpal.
601 2011-07-27 12:56:27 <joepie91> also last time I checked, doomsaying didn't change anything
602 2011-07-27 12:56:38 <senseles> ok so how do you explain the last 5 days of positive growth for ebay?
603 2011-07-27 12:56:47 <senseles> if the boycott was running before today
604 2011-07-27 12:56:53 <joepie91> did I say it was running before today?
605 2011-07-27 12:56:54 <joepie91> no
606 2011-07-27 12:56:58 <joepie91> I said it was running BEFORE MARKET WAS OPEN.
607 2011-07-27 12:57:05 <joepie91> wow, reading is an art.
608 2011-07-27 12:57:05 <senseles> lol
609 2011-07-27 12:57:24 <nanotube> TD: probably it's related to "most tech stocks being more volatile to market conditions" :)
610 2011-07-27 12:57:31 <TD> could be
611 2011-07-27 12:57:32 <nanotube> er, more sensitive
612 2011-07-27 12:57:48 <senseles> almost every stock is down the same amount as ebay
613 2011-07-27 12:57:50 <nanotube> apple went down 6%, google 8%...
614 2011-07-27 12:57:57 <senseles> ASTC -2.7%
615 2011-07-27 12:58:02 <senseles> NVDA -2.78%
616 2011-07-27 12:58:08 <senseles> PGH -1.41%
617 2011-07-27 12:58:10 <TD> ok
618 2011-07-27 12:58:11 <nanotube> it's just general ph33r ruling the market today
619 2011-07-27 12:58:13 <TD> makes sense
620 2011-07-27 12:58:21 <TD> because of the US ?
621 2011-07-27 12:58:45 <nanotube> yea, talkabout economy and the debt ceiling
622 2011-07-27 12:59:01 <senseles> i hope it crashes already
623 2011-07-27 12:59:02 <nanotube> though again... i'm not sure if any /new/ information has made it out to the market today about that.
624 2011-07-27 12:59:06 <senseles> im all set to profit off the downfall of the US
625 2011-07-27 12:59:37 <cjdelisle> IMO all of this kind of relats to btc because this fear leads to a bullish market here.
626 2011-07-27 12:59:56 <nanotube> all the pundits just try to 'fit the news to the markets' :) unless some actual extraordinary event happens, or some actual news is economic data is released... it's all just guesswork
627 2011-07-27 13:00:03 <iddo> senseles: how? are you buying gold or bitcoins or...?
628 2011-07-27 13:00:19 <UukGoblin> it's all not -dev related! ;-P
629 2011-07-27 13:00:28 <senseles> ive got all sorts of holdings
630 2011-07-27 13:00:35 <nanotube> UukGoblin: we're developing the bitcoin economic engine!  :)
631 2011-07-27 13:00:39 <UukGoblin> oic
632 2011-07-27 13:00:45 <iddo> senseles: including bitcoins?
633 2011-07-27 13:00:52 <cjdelisle> heh we need a -speculation chan
634 2011-07-27 13:00:56 <senseles> i think ive got 2 bitcoins
635 2011-07-27 13:01:01 <senseles> im not going to hold my cash there
636 2011-07-27 13:01:11 <iddo> why not?
637 2011-07-27 13:01:25 <Rabbit67890> lol
638 2011-07-27 13:01:25 <senseles> i have no use for it
639 2011-07-27 13:01:31 <cjdelisle> hehe, /me stays out of there
640 2011-07-27 13:01:45 <iddo> you have use for gold?
641 2011-07-27 13:01:51 <nanotube> :)
642 2011-07-27 13:01:58 <senseles> yep, fall back currency
643 2011-07-27 13:02:08 <iddo> but not bitcoin ?!
644 2011-07-27 13:02:14 <senseles> if the US collapses
645 2011-07-27 13:02:18 <senseles> bitcoin is going to be useless
646 2011-07-27 13:02:35 <senseles> what percentage of miners are located in the US
647 2011-07-27 13:02:42 <senseles> 50? 75?
648 2011-07-27 13:02:54 <gribble> Error: "getratings" is not a valid command.
649 2011-07-27 13:02:54 <xelister> ;;getratings davidk
650 2011-07-27 13:02:55 <iddo> what is your point?
651 2011-07-27 13:03:09 <iddo> about US miners
652 2011-07-27 13:03:09 <senseles> how is bitcoin going to survive with every exchange, US miner, etc offline
653 2011-07-27 13:03:14 <xelister> ;;getratins davidk
654 2011-07-27 13:03:15 <gribble> Error: "getratins" is not a valid command.
655 2011-07-27 13:03:22 <gribble> Error: This user has not yet been rated. Currently authenticated from hostmask davidk!~bbear@97.0.98.84.rev.sfr.net
656 2011-07-27 13:03:22 <xelister> ;;getrating davidk
657 2011-07-27 13:03:23 <nanotube> senseles: the 'collapse' of the us won't suddenly destroy the internet and mining hardware. if it does, we've got bigger problems. heh.
658 2011-07-27 13:03:28 <senseles> because no one is going to be able to afford electric to keep their mining rig running
659 2011-07-27 13:03:39 <senseles> nanotube: im thinking argentina
660 2011-07-27 13:03:48 <senseles> or weimar republic
661 2011-07-27 13:04:04 <nanotube> inflation doesn't make electricity more expensive
662 2011-07-27 13:04:04 <xelister> nanotube: o.
663 2011-07-27 13:04:07 <nanotube> it makes currency cheaper.
664 2011-07-27 13:04:09 <nanotube> heya xelister :)
665 2011-07-27 13:04:12 <senseles> correct
666 2011-07-27 13:04:16 <iddo> senseles: you dont think that the price of bitcoins will rise in terms of dollars?
667 2011-07-27 13:04:18 <senseles> if your currency is devalued by half
668 2011-07-27 13:04:19 <cjdelisle> cmon this is silly, you have been listening to too much Alex Jones. That kind of apocyliptic collapse doesn't really happen on that scale.
669 2011-07-27 13:04:28 <senseles> and 60-70% of your electric supply comes from outside the US
670 2011-07-27 13:04:31 <nanotube> senseles: well, the price of bitcoins will rise in terms of dollars. so price of electricity /in bitcoins/ should remain stable.
671 2011-07-27 13:04:35 <xelister> cjdelisle: read your history books?
672 2011-07-27 13:04:42 <senseles> sure, but who is going to exchange them for you?
673 2011-07-27 13:04:51 <senseles> as far as im aware all exchanges are inside the US
674 2011-07-27 13:04:52 <xelister> sacarlson: exchange btc into usd?  fuck usd
675 2011-07-27 13:04:57 <nanotube> mtgox is not sens
676 2011-07-27 13:04:57 <xelister> sacarlson: wrong
677 2011-07-27 13:05:03 <senseles> where are they hosted?
678 2011-07-27 13:05:06 <nanotube> japan
679 2011-07-27 13:05:09 <xelister> sacarlson: main exchanger, mtgox, left the usa shithole
680 2011-07-27 13:05:13 <senseles> cool
681 2011-07-27 13:05:15 <xelister> its a company in japan
682 2011-07-27 13:05:17 <nanotube> senseles: also, tradehill is not us based.
683 2011-07-27 13:05:23 <senseles> where are they at?
684 2011-07-27 13:05:24 <xelister> fuck usa o/
685 2011-07-27 13:05:30 <nanotube> senseles: chile, presumably.
686 2011-07-27 13:06:01 <nanotube> so, let's just say that our exchange infrastructure is reasonably geographically diversified. :)
687 2011-07-27 13:06:01 <senseles> with argentina though
688 2011-07-27 13:06:02 <iddo> senseles: the miners validate the network according to currect difficulty, the difficulty self-adjusts, i'm not sure what was your point on US miners
689 2011-07-27 13:06:15 <senseles> they went to bed and woke up the next morning with their currency worth 0.0001% of what it was when they went to sleep
690 2011-07-27 13:06:17 <prof7bit> senseles: the wold consists of more than the US only.
691 2011-07-27 13:06:42 <prof7bit> there exists an outside world
692 2011-07-27 13:06:42 <senseles> really?
693 2011-07-27 13:06:46 <prof7bit> yes
694 2011-07-27 13:06:48 <senseles> i thought the philippines where i live was america
695 2011-07-27 13:06:58 <senseles> no wonder they speak a weird language
696 2011-07-27 13:07:04 <senseles> i thought my brain was just fucked up
697 2011-07-27 13:07:24 <senseles> thanks for opening my eyes !
698 2011-07-27 13:07:34 <prof7bit> you're welcome ;-)
699 2011-07-27 13:07:41 <b4epoche_> senseles:  careful or we might invade
700 2011-07-27 13:07:46 <senseles> please do
701 2011-07-27 13:07:49 <senseles> this country needs help
702 2011-07-27 13:08:00 <senseles> plus, im not filipino
703 2011-07-27 13:08:01 <senseles> im american
704 2011-07-27 13:08:02 <Optimo> loving this stability ;p
705 2011-07-27 13:08:33 <nanotube> senseles: well, that's why you don't hold gobs of fiat currency. even if it doesn't inflate by hundreds or thousands of percent... it does inflate.
706 2011-07-27 13:09:01 <senseles> an economy cant function with such a rapid devaluation
707 2011-07-27 13:09:02 <b4epoche_> US collapsing?  who even brought that up?
708 2011-07-27 13:09:21 <senseles> look at zimbabwae
709 2011-07-27 13:09:36 <Optimo> famine
710 2011-07-27 13:09:39 <iddo> senseles: why you dont care about advantages of bitcoin over gold? you can send bitcoin easily to someone in another country, and more anonymously so you dont need to comply with gov regulations (US gov can ban gold, but not bitcoin)
711 2011-07-27 13:09:54 <Optimo> bitcoin makes donating more accueate (hopefully)
712 2011-07-27 13:10:09 <senseles> us gov wont take gold from its citizens again
713 2011-07-27 13:10:50 <iddo> they can impose tax on ppl dealing with gold
714 2011-07-27 13:10:50 <Optimo> 'the new deal'
715 2011-07-27 13:10:54 <b4epoche_> honestly, gold is pretty much a useless commodity anymore...
716 2011-07-27 13:11:00 <senseles> there already is a tax, its called business tax
717 2011-07-27 13:11:05 <senseles> sales tax
718 2011-07-27 13:11:06 <cjdelisle> I can see your fear but really, the bankers are smarter than you think. In 2007 I thought US collapse was iminent, now I am 4 years older and wizer. It just won't happen like zimbabwe or argentina.
719 2011-07-27 13:11:15 <senseles> just because you're dealing with another currency doesnt mean those things don't exist
720 2011-07-27 13:11:22 <Optimo> and what does this have to do with code writing ?;p
721 2011-07-27 13:11:37 <b4epoche_> anybody who thinks the US is going to 'collapse' is either ignorant or naive or young
722 2011-07-27 13:11:44 <prof7bit> nobody can (effectively) ban gold. they can *say* it is banned but thats everything they can do.
723 2011-07-27 13:12:03 <mtrlt> nobody can make laws, they just say it's the law!
724 2011-07-27 13:12:08 <iddo> prof7bit: s/gold/bitcoin  ? :)
725 2011-07-27 13:12:22 <erus`> daily troll from prof7bit
726 2011-07-27 13:12:22 <senseles> anyone who thinks the US couldn't collapse has been living in their secluded little corner of the world too long
727 2011-07-27 13:12:24 <prof7bit> the same applies to bitcoiuns
728 2011-07-27 13:12:27 <prof7bit> -u
729 2011-07-27 13:12:38 <prof7bit> erus`: whats your problem?
730 2011-07-27 13:12:45 <erus`> im just kidding :)
731 2011-07-27 13:12:53 <erus`> its a running gag now
732 2011-07-27 13:12:53 <senseles> that is the same mentality as bear sterns
733 2011-07-27 13:13:08 <senseles> "its too big to collapse, they wont fail, they've been here for 100 years!"
734 2011-07-27 13:13:13 <Optimo> my goodness the hashrate burns my eyes
735 2011-07-27 13:13:17 <b4epoche> senseles:  maybe you've been living in Philippines too long...
736 2011-07-27 13:13:30 <cjdelisle> senseles: in 4 more years you'll know exactly what I'm saying to you now.
737 2011-07-27 13:13:33 <b4epoche> senseles:  how is this 'collapse' going to happen and when?
738 2011-07-27 13:13:40 <Optimo> ;;bc,stats
739 2011-07-27 13:13:43 <gribble> Current Blocks: 138332 | Current Difficulty: 1690906.2047244 | Next Difficulty At Block: 139103 | Next Difficulty In: 771 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 17 hours, 56 minutes, and 12 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1868637.08766574
740 2011-07-27 13:13:43 <senseles> it already has
741 2011-07-27 13:13:52 <senseles> compare the price of basic services and commodities
742 2011-07-27 13:13:53 <b4epoche> if you're talking centuries, sure, it could happen
743 2011-07-27 13:13:54 <TD> BlueMatt: which miniupnp version do I need, for mac compiling?
744 2011-07-27 13:13:56 <senseles> food, water, electric, etc
745 2011-07-27 13:14:02 <senseles> compare the rates from 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010
746 2011-07-27 13:14:08 <Optimo> oh that's why.. diff coming up soon
747 2011-07-27 13:14:09 <TD> i'm getting  too few arguments to function UPNPDev* upnpDiscover
748 2011-07-27 13:14:10 <MaggyO> the real collapse senseles, is when the resources drain up
749 2011-07-27 13:14:18 <MaggyO> until then, it can be restarted
750 2011-07-27 13:14:33 <senseles> really, you think if the USD collapses due to inflation
751 2011-07-27 13:14:38 <senseles> we're just going to start a new currency
752 2011-07-27 13:14:43 <Optimo> we can just steal all the holdings from our billionaires ;p
753 2011-07-27 13:14:45 <senseles> and everything is honky dory again?
754 2011-07-27 13:14:57 <senseles> optimo: most of those have already left the country
755 2011-07-27 13:15:01 <TD> ah, 1.5
756 2011-07-27 13:15:05 <iddo> senseles: can you elaborate why bitcoin isn't a good investment assuming that USD devalues, i didn't understand your argument on US miners
757 2011-07-27 13:15:23 <Optimo> should go do this in #bitcoin-politics
758 2011-07-27 13:15:31 <cjdelisle> heh
759 2011-07-27 13:15:36 <BlueMatt> TD: 1.5
760 2011-07-27 13:15:44 <senseles> well whatever, dont debate them then
761 2011-07-27 13:15:47 <BlueMatt> TD: IIRC the macports one is right
762 2011-07-27 13:15:58 <Optimo> debate them, but in another room
763 2011-07-27 13:15:59 <senseles> history doesnt exist, you're right im ring
764 2011-07-27 13:16:08 <Optimo> I'm wong
765 2011-07-27 13:16:08 <senseles> wrong*
766 2011-07-27 13:16:51 <senseles> just let me know when bread hits 5.99 a loaf and everyone is still making 30k a year
767 2011-07-27 13:16:59 <senseles> (your "average" people at least)
768 2011-07-27 13:17:29 <iddo> couldnt you buy bread for 0.000001 BTC then? :)
769 2011-07-27 13:17:38 <senseles> how you don't have internet
770 2011-07-27 13:17:57 <Optimo> everyone I know has internet and is unexmployed
771 2011-07-27 13:17:59 <Optimo> lol
772 2011-07-27 13:18:03 <iddo> oh you think the internet will stop existing?
773 2011-07-27 13:18:13 <Optimo> every mcdonalds has free wifi
774 2011-07-27 13:18:17 <senseles> i think people will decide to buy bread instead of paying for internet
775 2011-07-27 13:18:25 <b4epoche> and $1 burgers
776 2011-07-27 13:18:29 <Optimo> or get free internet while buying bread
777 2011-07-27 13:18:31 <senseles> Optimo: going to move your mining rigs there?
778 2011-07-27 13:18:38 <Optimo> I don't mine
779 2011-07-27 13:18:38 <TD> BlueMatt: i wonder if it'd make sense to commit miniupnp as part of the source tree
780 2011-07-27 13:18:43 <Optimo> this is a dev chat
781 2011-07-27 13:18:48 <b4epoche> mine from McD's parking lot!
782 2011-07-27 13:19:06 <Optimo> senseles, not everyone is here trying to accumulate a hoard of coins stash
783 2011-07-27 13:19:12 <Optimo> I just want to build the usefulness
784 2011-07-27 13:19:21 <prof7bit> and electricity comes out of every wall socket nowadays. So there is absolutely no need for nuclear power plants anymore too.
785 2011-07-27 13:19:45 <erus`> :|
786 2011-07-27 13:19:49 <senseles_> optimo, going to move your mining rigs to mcdonalds?
787 2011-07-27 13:19:55 <Optimo> I don't mine
788 2011-07-27 13:20:11 <Rabbit67890> lol
789 2011-07-27 13:20:18 <senseles_> then how are you going to make BTC to exist in this bitcoin economy after USD is super inflated?
790 2011-07-27 13:20:25 <BlueMatt> TD: no, its really a terrible idea, when miniupnp gets updated...as it stands we have too much, if it werent because we modified the json library we used, and we only use a fraction of cryptopp (which I still think should be removed) those shouldnt be in there
791 2011-07-27 13:20:28 <senseles_> magicka?
792 2011-07-27 13:20:37 <Optimo> trade my dollars for coins
793 2011-07-27 13:20:58 <TD> having them in-tree means only one person needs to think about what the right version to use is
794 2011-07-27 13:21:06 <senseles_> ok so you trade 5.99 for bitcoins you now have enough bitcoins to buy 1 load of bread
795 2011-07-27 13:21:06 <TD> otherwise everyone building has to ensure they keep up to date
796 2011-07-27 13:21:15 <BlueMatt> TD: currently, you just use the latest stable
797 2011-07-27 13:21:21 <TD> apparently not
798 2011-07-27 13:21:23 <BlueMatt> TD: we do the same for wx, boost et
799 2011-07-27 13:21:23 <Optimo> senseles_ ok
800 2011-07-27 13:21:24 <BlueMatt> c
801 2011-07-27 13:21:25 <TD> i tried 1.5 as well, same thing
802 2011-07-27 13:21:36 <TD> trying the macports now
803 2011-07-27 13:21:37 <BlueMatt> TD: 1.5 works, 1.5.XXXXXXX does not
804 2011-07-27 13:21:39 <TD> ah
805 2011-07-27 13:21:40 <BlueMatt> XXXXXXXXX being a date
806 2011-07-27 13:21:45 <Optimo> bread for coins seems like a good way to circulate btc
807 2011-07-27 13:21:49 <BlueMatt> aka unstable nightly branch afaict
808 2011-07-27 13:22:13 <senseles_> heh
809 2011-07-27 13:22:21 <senseles_> you completely missed the point but whatever
810 2011-07-27 13:22:50 <TD> ok, let me try that
811 2011-07-27 13:23:15 <Optimo> senseles_, at least the people here have the where-with-all to consider their own finances. you shoudl go preach to the people that have no money-managing skills
812 2011-07-27 13:23:42 <senseles_> wtf are you on
813 2011-07-27 13:23:46 <Optimo> we are all at least dabbling in diversification
814 2011-07-27 13:23:47 <senseles_> we're talking about inflation and currency conversion
815 2011-07-27 13:24:18 <senseles_> managing finances is irrelevant
816 2011-07-27 13:24:20 <nanotube> anyway, maybe we should leave this channel for actual development-related talk. :) there are people actually trying to work here.
817 2011-07-27 13:24:26 <Optimo> conversion won't matter once I hold no dollars
818 2011-07-27 13:24:43 <Optimo> well, it will matter to bread suppliers perhaps
819 2011-07-27 13:24:48 <senseles_> you're just saying intentionally stupid shit to try to egg me on or what?
820 2011-07-27 13:25:00 <Optimo> I was about to ask you the same
821 2011-07-27 13:25:06 <senseles_> heh
822 2011-07-27 13:26:13 <cjdelisle> http://pastebay.com/133717
823 2011-07-27 13:26:20 <cjdelisle> did that the other night
824 2011-07-27 13:27:13 <cjdelisle> and yes it works
825 2011-07-27 13:27:18 <diki> when ntime is rolled by the client, is it by seconds, minutes or what??
826 2011-07-27 13:28:01 <Optimo> in serious news., apaprently dwolla has chargebacks now
827 2011-07-27 13:28:03 <nanotube> nime is unixtime, in seconds since epoch
828 2011-07-27 13:28:23 <Joric> cjdelisle, is it faster than rpcminer-cuda?
829 2011-07-27 13:28:23 <pwrcycle> nanotube yes.
830 2011-07-27 13:28:41 <diki> what's the max you can roll it?
831 2011-07-27 13:28:42 <nanotube> pwrcycle: yes what?
832 2011-07-27 13:28:56 <pwrcycle> nanotube yes, unixtime is in seconds since epoch
833 2011-07-27 13:29:04 <nanotube> ah.. well i knew that, that wasn't a question :)
834 2011-07-27 13:29:08 <cjdelisle> Joric: it seems to be a little bit faster, it's modified from puddinpop's rpcminer-cuda and it's definitely simplified.
835 2011-07-27 13:29:40 <cjdelisle> I was doing around 60-61k and after the mods I was doing 61-62k, still really hard to tell
836 2011-07-27 13:29:51 <diki> isnt the cuda miner closed source?
837 2011-07-27 13:30:04 <cjdelisle> not this one
838 2011-07-27 13:30:24 <diki> what's the max you can roll ntime?