1 2011-07-29 00:06:40 <Rabbit67890> WIN!
  2 2011-07-29 00:06:44 <Rabbit67890> or FAIL
  3 2011-07-29 00:08:33 <joepie91> just going to leave this here: by combining http://www.tahoe-lafs.org/ with bitcoin it might be possible to get redundant decentralized p2p for-bitcoins storage space
  4 2011-07-29 00:08:34 <joepie91> / backup space
  5 2011-07-29 00:08:50 <joepie91> its probably not something I could pull off
  6 2011-07-29 00:08:53 <joepie91> but I can't see why it would not work :P
  7 2011-07-29 00:08:53 <upb> wtf, still not arrested
  8 2011-07-29 00:08:59 <joepie91> ..
  9 2011-07-29 00:09:04 <b4epoche_> joepie91:  been discussed
 10 2011-07-29 00:09:44 <joepie91> and the result was...? :P
 11 2011-07-29 00:10:56 <b4epoche_> a discussion
 12 2011-07-29 00:11:43 <b4epoche_> I think it was agreed that tahoe isn't great for a real p2p system&  you'd really have to figure out how much redundancy you'd need for high availability
 13 2011-07-29 00:12:56 <joepie91> mm, if you would just 'charge' someone by the kb, someone could choose himself how redundant he wants to make it
 14 2011-07-29 00:13:18 <joepie91> the more redundant, the larger the expansion rate, the more it costs
 15 2011-07-29 00:13:44 <b4epoche_> well, that's hard to figure&  how often is at least one 'source' going to be reachable?
 16 2011-07-29 00:14:07 <joepie91> stats could be kept on that of course
 17 2011-07-29 00:14:12 <joepie91> and used to determine what a good redundancy would be
 18 2011-07-29 00:14:51 <b4epoche_> yea, that's what you'd need to figure out
 19 2011-07-29 00:18:09 <joepie91> that could be done based on past availability stats
 20 2011-07-29 00:18:20 <joepie91> but there would not be much difference between, say
 21 2011-07-29 00:18:29 <joepie91> 10 out of 200 encoding
 22 2011-07-29 00:18:34 <joepie91> and 15 out of 200 encoding
 23 2011-07-29 00:18:38 <joepie91> in terms if required storage space
 24 2011-07-29 00:19:51 <b4epoche_> yea, seems like 100's would be adequately redundant and really not eat up much space
 25 2011-07-29 00:20:56 <b4epoche_> but you'd probably have to embed tahoe in bitcoin client to get enough 'nodes'
 26 2011-07-29 00:21:56 <joepie91> yes, I'm not sure how to do that correctly
 27 2011-07-29 00:22:07 <joepie91> like, make it fully p2p without needing a centralized introduction server
 28 2011-07-29 00:22:29 <joepie91> it would be best if it could work over the bitcoin network
 29 2011-07-29 00:22:33 <joepie91> but I'm not sure if that is even technically possible
 30 2011-07-29 00:55:10 <CIA-103> bitcoin: m0mchil bugfix_workspecific_rollntime * rcb1c41c0613f poclbm-personal/Transport.py: fixed bug in calculating true target from nBits http://tinyurl.com/4444neg
 31 2011-07-29 00:55:12 <CIA-103> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr bugfix_workspecific_rollntime * r2e0debe62ab1 poclbm-personal/HttpTransport.py: Bugfix: Only look for X-Roll-NTime header when getting new work http://tinyurl.com/3qo2j3o
 32 2011-07-29 03:00:21 <luke-jr> wc|Does this look like a botnet to anyone? http://eligius.st/~artefact2/5/19BLtj3bSsJjfHp8b47eDwfGBRLognDDu2
 33 2011-07-29 04:18:06 <kartmetal> the daily wave shape is definitely unusual.
 34 2011-07-29 04:24:11 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr|wc, seems more like someone using a very old client not doing pushpool
 35 2011-07-29 04:24:23 <phantomcircuit> oh wait
 36 2011-07-29 04:24:32 <phantomcircuit> yes it does looking at the hash rate graph
 37 2011-07-29 05:15:13 <asm> added a bunch of pools to http://bitrigs.com/pools
 38 2011-07-29 05:15:18 <asm> let me know if I missed any
 39 2011-07-29 05:18:16 <imsaguy> you grabbed all the pools in guiminer?
 40 2011-07-29 05:18:43 <imsaguy> asm
 41 2011-07-29 05:18:53 <asm> hrm
 42 2011-07-29 05:19:31 <asm> I wasn't aware it had a list
 43 2011-07-29 05:20:25 <imsaguy> yeah, there's a dropdown box
 44 2011-07-29 05:20:38 <imsaguy> to make it easy for n00bs ot get started
 45 2011-07-29 05:20:42 <asm> haha, nice
 46 2011-07-29 05:20:45 <asm> I've never used it
 47 2011-07-29 05:20:46 <imsaguy> I'd say compare to that
 48 2011-07-29 05:20:59 <imsaguy> hold on, I'll fire it up and check for you
 49 2011-07-29 05:21:02 <asm> k
 50 2011-07-29 05:21:03 <asm> tx
 51 2011-07-29 05:21:43 <imsaguy> they refer to bitcoin.cz as slush's pool
 52 2011-07-29 05:21:49 <asm> yeah
 53 2011-07-29 05:21:51 <imsaguy> so i don't know if you wanna throw that in there somewhere
 54 2011-07-29 05:22:26 <asm> I guess I could change the name
 55 2011-07-29 05:23:04 <Habbie> imsaguy, oh wow. that had me confused for weeks. thanks for clearing that up :)
 56 2011-07-29 05:23:13 <imsaguy> really?
 57 2011-07-29 05:23:27 <imsaguy> asm, do whatever.  I don't know whats better
 58 2011-07-29 05:23:33 <asm> the older pools have confusing names
 59 2011-07-29 05:24:35 <imsaguy> I just pm'd you a list of the ones in guiminer
 60 2011-07-29 05:37:47 <dburns> anyone wonna buy 2 btc for 20usd
 61 2011-07-29 06:42:39 <graingert> anyone want to write a bitcoin plugin for diaspora?
 62 2011-07-29 06:43:13 <graingert> so one can go from arbitrary p2p transactions all the way to a witcoin style pay to chat system
 63 2011-07-29 07:08:17 <da2ce7> tcatm, how many hits do you get on bitcoin charts
 64 2011-07-29 07:10:59 <tcatm> da2ce7: > 3 million/month
 65 2011-07-29 07:11:14 <da2ce7> ouch
 66 2011-07-29 07:11:20 <da2ce7> are you on a dedicated server?
 67 2011-07-29 07:12:10 <tcatm> yes
 68 2011-07-29 07:29:54 <vegard> the controlled deflation is nice, though. it means that people will want to own bitcoins. what is the best way to own them? to accept them as payment for goods or services.
 69 2011-07-29 08:52:38 <mtve> wtf was that? :) http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/#74dd96e5370fa461d808775db5eed329e456837aea55a16ebe7b9f42eb238b76
 70 2011-07-29 08:53:21 <sacarlson> well I got this to work in most cases as a utility to convert difficulty to nBits value and nBits to difficulty http://paste.ubuntu.com/654410/
 71 2011-07-29 08:53:55 <sacarlson> as I suck as a programer at least I get the values I needed
 72 2011-07-29 08:53:59 <tcatm> mtve: interesting...
 73 2011-07-29 08:54:09 <tcatm> mtve: it *should* be invalid
 74 2011-07-29 08:54:34 <BlueMatt> tcatm: it cant get blocked, but it passes acceptance...which it shouldnt
 75 2011-07-29 08:54:42 <mtve> tcatm: it is, and afaiu the values of BTC are much bigger, it's just probably a decoder error
 76 2011-07-29 08:55:00 <BlueMatt> it uses the same input twice
 77 2011-07-29 08:55:06 <BlueMatt> an input which uses the same input twice
 78 2011-07-29 08:55:07 <tcatm> BlueMatt: yep
 79 2011-07-29 08:55:08 <BlueMatt> and so on
 80 2011-07-29 08:55:18 <mtve> it was propagated over network and not included in chain, so the official client is ok.
 81 2011-07-29 08:55:42 <tcatm> it should be rejected as soon as it is received, though
 82 2011-07-29 08:55:55 <BlueMatt> tp
 83 2011-07-29 08:55:57 <BlueMatt> yep
 84 2011-07-29 08:57:00 <mtve> output value is more then 32-bit perl integer can handle :(
 85 2011-07-29 08:57:47 <tcatm> and I should improve bitcoincharts to automatically remove double spends
 86 2011-07-29 08:58:20 <mtve> i get back my words, values are decoded correctly
 87 2011-07-29 08:58:36 <tcatm> I just emptied the list.
 88 2011-07-29 08:58:41 <erus`> tcatm: how do you detect them?
 89 2011-07-29 08:59:18 <tcatm> erus`: there were a few transactions whose inputs were already used in other transactions
 90 2011-07-29 09:00:15 <erus`> yeah but which is the real one?
 91 2011-07-29 09:00:23 <tcatm> the one that makes it into the chain
 92 2011-07-29 09:01:04 <mtve> tcatm: you've destroyed the only link from http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=d7073bc0b3d24b856a2277955c80fe9b80146f420cf693d5c794468d0ab04b30 :)
 93 2011-07-29 09:01:54 <tcatm> mtve: I have backups ;)
 94 2011-07-29 09:02:15 <BlueMatt> tcatm: it would be nicer if you leave all txes that make it into mem pool on the page, even if they are invalid...as it indicates bitcoin bugs
 95 2011-07-29 09:02:32 <tcatm> BlueMatt: maybe on a separate page?
 96 2011-07-29 09:02:41 <BlueMatt> sure
 97 2011-07-29 09:03:01 <tcatm> will do it when I have some time to work on that part
 98 2011-07-29 09:03:26 <BlueMatt> well Id say dont remove anything from the page manually until then :)
 99 2011-07-29 09:03:40 <BlueMatt> s/say/ask that you/
100 2011-07-29 09:04:33 <mtve> 12 millions of BTC, mmm :)
101 2011-07-29 09:32:05 <BitcoinForNewegg> dont delete
102 2011-07-29 09:32:12 <BitcoinForNewegg> they canh still make it into the chain
103 2011-07-29 09:32:27 <BitcoinForNewegg> if someone branches the chain, they can use that other transaction
104 2011-07-29 09:32:39 <mtve> not that one for sure
105 2011-07-29 09:33:08 <BitcoinForNewegg> it can
106 2011-07-29 09:33:15 <BitcoinForNewegg> if someone branches the chain way back
107 2011-07-29 09:33:55 <mtve> there are only 6.9 MBTC yet, and that one tx mention 12 MBTS :)
108 2011-07-29 09:39:48 <BlueMatt> no, those txes cant make it into a block
109 2011-07-29 09:40:04 <BlueMatt> if someone does put them in a block, that block will be rejected by everyone else on the network
110 2011-07-29 09:40:35 <BlueMatt> any fake tx can get into a block, but everyone will reject that block
111 2011-07-29 09:50:14 <ersi> http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2011/07/leveldb-fast-persistent-key-value-store.html
112 2011-07-29 09:50:18 <ersi> Interesting
113 2011-07-29 10:04:02 <accel> is there anywhere
114 2011-07-29 10:04:04 <accel> that I can buy stuff
115 2011-07-29 10:04:07 <accel> using bitcoin?
116 2011-07-29 10:04:10 <graingert> accel: here
117 2011-07-29 10:04:13 <graingert> accel: bit-pay
118 2011-07-29 10:04:18 <graingert> accel: bunch of places
119 2011-07-29 10:54:16 <erus`> accel some guy is selling his car on reddit for BTC
120 2011-07-29 12:44:10 <cjdelisle> Goofie idea of the morning: You can save on storage space by having numerous chains which depend on the same work and use mircle trees so that all are referenced from the master chain (merged mining). A given transaction input goes into the chain whose "id" is closest to the hash of the sigScript which it is claiming. This way the proof that a script has not been claimed requires much less storage.
121 2011-07-29 12:45:03 <cjdelisle> I don't think it could be patched in without massively breaking backward compat though so it's just a goofie idea.
122 2011-07-29 12:46:44 <jrmithdobbs> did you mean merkle or miracle trees?
123 2011-07-29 12:46:45 <jrmithdobbs> heh
124 2011-07-29 12:47:51 <gmaxwell> You couldn't do full validation without all of them.. and if you're not doing full validation the merkle trees already let you pull out deeply fractional bits of the trees.
125 2011-07-29 12:49:27 <cjdelisle> full validation? You mean without the miners having the whole picture, people would be able to insert horribly silly things into the chain?
126 2011-07-29 12:50:35 <Eliel> cjdelisle: the idea is that you can only be sure of the lack of double spend attempts if you have all transactions.
127 2011-07-29 12:51:38 <Eliel> however, the actual transaction is not needed. Only the knowledge of whether it has been spent or not. That could be stored with simple bitmasks. Would reduce storage requirements but not bandwidth nor processing requirements.
128 2011-07-29 12:52:03 <cjdelisle> My idea is that if you only honer transactions whose inputs are added to a chain that is "closest" to the hash of the sigscript, by checking there (a relitively low traffic area) you can prove that it wasn't spent.
129 2011-07-29 12:56:10 <gmaxwell> Eliel: bitmasks don't make sense just because they can't be securely subdivided. A hash tree of open transactions would, but still isn't great for nodes which are validating more than a little.
130 2011-07-29 12:58:08 <Eliel> gmaxwell: I can't say I know every nook and cranny of the code but outpoint has block hash and transaction number, no? you can store an array of bytes for each block with a bit for each transaction indicating whether it's been spent or not.
131 2011-07-29 12:58:26 <Eliel> and just check that.
132 2011-07-29 12:59:24 <gmaxwell> Eliel: Yes, but I can't give you a fractional copy of that map which you can validate.
133 2011-07-29 12:59:46 <Eliel> gmaxwell: of course. Hence it wouldn't reduce processing or bandwidth needs.
134 2011-07-29 12:59:52 <Eliel> only storage
135 2011-07-29 12:59:52 <gmaxwell> And it would already be enormous, much bigger than the current blocks.
136 2011-07-29 13:00:09 <gmaxwell> Why do you think it would reduce storage?
137 2011-07-29 13:00:27 <gmaxwell> You'd still need a copy of the input to do something with it.
138 2011-07-29 13:00:33 <Eliel> you store one bit per transaction instead of hundreds of bytes.
139 2011-07-29 13:01:23 <gmaxwell> Nah, you still need the open txn so when it is spent you can validate that the spend followed the rules
140 2011-07-29 13:02:03 <Eliel> oh true, you'd have to ask some other node that has it.
141 2011-07-29 13:02:54 <Eliel> not useful for a full client, this method.
142 2011-07-29 13:03:17 <gmaxwell> Well, then you have the fun challenge of then not knowing if it was really right right one for your bitmap slot
143 2011-07-29 13:07:54 <Eliel> gmaxwell: yes, hence you'd need the full merkle tree up to the transaction.
144 2011-07-29 13:08:10 <Eliel> ah no, merkle branch
145 2011-07-29 13:10:22 <Eliel> ok, so it'd save on storage but increase bandwidth requirements.
146 2011-07-29 13:11:35 <Eliel> would need enough changes that it would be somewhat incompatible with bitcoin protocol as it is I guess.
147 2011-07-29 13:15:49 <Eliel> although, not incompatible with the blockchain.
148 2011-07-29 13:17:12 <gmaxwell> Eliel: well, asking clients for tree fragments to find transactions is something litemode clients will need to do regardless.
149 2011-07-29 13:18:23 <Eliel> could litemode clients benefit from a bitarray like I explained?
150 2011-07-29 13:19:10 <Eliel> I can't think of a way to verify those masks though.
151 2011-07-29 13:19:45 <gmaxwell> You don't use a bitmask, you use a merkle tree of open transactions.
152 2011-07-29 13:21:14 <Eliel> how is that built? Is there a wiki article you can point me at? Alternatively, the source code file & function would work too.
153 2011-07-29 13:25:51 <Eliel> ah, I might have found it
154 2011-07-29 13:25:58 <Eliel> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6133.0;all
155 2011-07-29 13:32:00 <aviadbd> hey guys. anyone know what's the "hash1" parameter in the response for "getwork" method in the JSON-RPC API ?
156 2011-07-29 14:19:25 <jav__> Announce time :-) --> Instawallet now supports sending from a specific "green address" as a way to verify the origin of the transaction (can be used to do instant payments based on trusting Instawallet to not double-spend), more details here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32818.0
157 2011-07-29 14:26:07 <Firefly007> i sent btc from my old windows wallet to my new linux wallet 3 days ago I payed the fee and it still never showed up
158 2011-07-29 14:27:28 <nanotube> Firefly007: what addr did you send to? you can check on bbe or bcharts if the tx is out there
159 2011-07-29 14:28:53 <Nicksasa> i had the same thing like 2 weeks ago, txid doesn't exist
160 2011-07-29 14:32:57 <sacarlson> cjdelisle: you should look at the already working escrow transactions on the MultiCoin branch
161 2011-07-29 14:33:24 <cjdelisle> Is there a file I should look at?
162 2011-07-29 14:34:09 <cjdelisle> just name it, I'll be able to stumble around and find it in github
163 2011-07-29 14:34:35 <sacarlson> cjdelisle: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.msg300830#msg300830
164 2011-07-29 14:35:08 <cjdelisle> bookmarked, thanks
165 2011-07-29 14:39:14 <Firefly009> nanotube: thanks for your help
166 2011-07-29 14:42:49 <Firefly009> I got a question if you guys dont mind?
167 2011-07-29 14:42:58 <xelister> Firefly009: I mind.
168 2011-07-29 14:43:09 <xelister> Firefly009: don't ask to ask.. lol
169 2011-07-29 14:43:10 <CydeWeys> Don't ask to ask.
170 2011-07-29 14:43:44 <Firefly009> I sent btc from my windows wallet to my new linux wallet 3 days ago and i payed the fee and still dont see the btc in my new wallet
171 2011-07-29 14:44:11 <CydeWeys> Was the computer you were sending from attached to the Internet?
172 2011-07-29 14:44:29 <Firefly009> yes
173 2011-07-29 14:44:40 <CydeWeys> Fundamentally what you need to do is clear the transactions out of your old wallet, rescan the blockchain, and you should see all of those coins available to send again.
174 2011-07-29 14:45:21 <CydeWeys> And whatever you do, make a backup before you use any sort of external program that modifies your wallet.dat.
175 2011-07-29 14:46:20 <Firefly009> how do i do that? when i go to blockexplorer it the btc i sent is included in the "BTC Sent" totals
176 2011-07-29 14:50:28 <CydeWeys> Firefly009: Huh?
177 2011-07-29 14:50:51 <CydeWeys> Firefly009: So you do see the transaction on BlockExplorer?
178 2011-07-29 14:50:53 <Firefly009> how do o clear out the transaction?
179 2011-07-29 14:51:09 <Firefly009> i dont think i do or i dont know what i am looking at
180 2011-07-29 14:51:15 <CydeWeys> Link me to what you're looking at.
181 2011-07-29 14:51:31 <Firefly009> but the when you look at the total btc sent the amount i sent is included
182 2011-07-29 14:59:09 <Nicksasa> CydeWeys, mind explaining how to clear the transactions out of the wallet ?
183 2011-07-29 15:03:20 <CydeWeys> Nicksasa: Dunno, the wallet is a binary file, but hopefully there's tools to do it.
184 2011-07-29 15:05:55 <gmaxwell> There are instructions on the forum.
185 2011-07-29 15:06:00 <diki> not like i can code, but...
186 2011-07-29 15:06:00 <gmaxwell> It's a pain.
187 2011-07-29 15:06:02 <diki> even if i could
188 2011-07-29 15:06:08 <diki> there's nothing i want to code
189 2011-07-29 15:06:08 <gmaxwell> Nicksasa: Why do you ask?
190 2011-07-29 15:06:31 <Nicksasa> i sended 0.5btc from my linux box in a row of transactions
191 2011-07-29 15:06:45 <Nicksasa> the txid i got doesn't exist, never received the coins
192 2011-07-29 15:07:02 <gmaxwell> Just leave the sending client connected it will reannounce it.
193 2011-07-29 15:07:11 <Nicksasa> ...
194 2011-07-29 15:07:16 <Nicksasa> it has been for almost 2 weeks now
195 2011-07-29 15:07:35 <gmaxwell> What version of bitcoin are you using?
196 2011-07-29 15:07:40 <Nicksasa> if i look up the send and receive addresses on blockexplorer there's no sign of the 0.5btc transaction
197 2011-07-29 15:08:11 <gmaxwell> The official client will not generate transactions which will not confirm, at least if you're on a current version and it's unmodified.
198 2011-07-29 15:08:14 <Nicksasa> .23
199 2011-07-29 15:08:37 <Nicksasa> i did modify the min tx fee to 0 but that's the only thing
200 2011-07-29 15:08:43 <gmaxwell> ...
201 2011-07-29 15:08:50 <gmaxwell> The minimum TX fee is already zero.
202 2011-07-29 15:09:00 <Nicksasa> never worked for me on my linux box
203 2011-07-29 15:09:06 <Nicksasa> still took the fee no matter what
204 2011-07-29 15:09:17 <gmaxwell> I will help you fix your wallet, but only if you go to the thread where that zero fee patch / build is posted and tell them that it broke you.
205 2011-07-29 15:09:34 <Nicksasa> ... all my other tx'es went fine
206 2011-07-29 15:10:00 <gmaxwell> Nicksasa: no, it only takes a fee when it have had to have one. Which is usually not the case, but if you're always quickly turning around money in a mostly empty wallet it may be.
207 2011-07-29 15:10:04 <CydeWeys> Hahaha, people don't realize that when the client wants a fee, there's a reason for it.
208 2011-07-29 15:10:32 <Nicksasa> ...
209 2011-07-29 15:10:42 <gmaxwell> Yes because they didn't need one. Most transactions don't and the client doesn't apply one when its not needed unless you tell it to.
210 2011-07-29 15:11:31 <CydeWeys> How come bitcoind has no listaddresses command?
211 2011-07-29 15:12:09 <Nicksasa> gmaxwell, i understand that, but i would have expected the coins to be matured by now
212 2011-07-29 15:12:26 <gmaxwell> CydeWeys: people are promoting some stupid patch that breaks it, and arguing that the patch is fine because most of the time it doesn't cause problems. Ignoring the fact that nost of the time the client doesn't insist on a fee.
213 2011-07-29 15:12:41 <forrestv> jgarzik, what led you to disable target checking on cpuminer? https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/commit/b2372e70f0dc270877e25831d8b62e04881cd054
214 2011-07-29 15:12:48 <gmaxwell> Nicksasa: well, if you know the input you can run the priority forumla by hand.
215 2011-07-29 15:13:18 <Nicksasa> oh well, recompiling a clean bitcoind atm
216 2011-07-29 15:13:47 <jgarzik> forrestv: it did not work on one platform
217 2011-07-29 15:14:45 <nanotube> jgarzik: well it's probably a good idea to reenable it, since (a) not all pools will stay with diff=1 for shares, and (b) that includes p2pool ;)
218 2011-07-29 15:15:28 <forrestv> people get a little confused when half of their shares get rejected :/
219 2011-07-29 15:15:40 <forrestv> what platform was that?
220 2011-07-29 15:17:57 <jgarzik> nanotube, forrestv: then talk to the cgminer maintainer...
221 2011-07-29 15:19:08 <nanotube> heh ok :)
222 2011-07-29 15:23:20 <cjdelisle> Maybe the client ought to ask for the fee but offer a [I don't want to pay and understand the transaction might fail] button.
223 2011-07-29 15:32:28 <CydeWeys> cjdelisle: I think that's probably still too confusing for the default client.  Why let them try to do something that will in all likelihood break?
224 2011-07-29 15:32:43 <CydeWeys> You know most users don't actually read dialog windows anyway.
225 2011-07-29 15:34:05 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: it's not that it "might fail", it's that it will get stuck and wedge your coins in an unusable state, and potentially confuses the recipient.
226 2011-07-29 15:34:18 <gmaxwell> (e.g. if the TXN makes it to them but still won't confirm)
227 2011-07-29 15:34:31 <cjdelisle> ahh I see
228 2011-07-29 15:34:49 <cjdelisle> yes that is bad since if you pay them again then they might get both
229 2011-07-29 15:36:03 <nanotube> yes, that's one reason it may be risky to accept 0conf tx
230 2011-07-29 15:36:36 <denisx> jgarzik: I have push pool now running with ipv6, seems to work as expected
231 2011-07-29 15:36:47 <nanotube> someone might send you a really low-priority (or even invalid, per minfee requirements) tx by skipping out on the fee. then they have plenty of time to doublespend.
232 2011-07-29 15:36:56 <jgarzik> denisx: great
233 2011-07-29 15:37:20 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: pushpool always worked with ipv6 for me?
234 2011-07-29 15:37:29 <jrmithdobbs> i didn't have to do anything but build
235 2011-07-29 15:37:39 <cjdelisle> hmm that sounds like a good argument for using "password transactions" exclusively. You broadcast the password tx and then only when you have one confirm you send them the password.
236 2011-07-29 15:37:46 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: also great! ;)
237 2011-07-29 15:37:47 <jrmithdobbs> denisx: months ago
238 2011-07-29 15:37:53 <denisx> jrmithdobbs: even better!
239 2011-07-29 15:38:43 <nanotube> cjdelisle: why not just use regular transactions, and wait for 1conf? :)
240 2011-07-29 15:39:50 <cjdelisle> The only advantage with passwd is if for some reason (cheap bastard) it doesn't make the chain, then a week later it does, you can get your money back because you have the only copy of the password.
241 2011-07-29 15:40:24 <CydeWeys> You'd also get your money back if you never sent the transaction in the first place.
242 2011-07-29 15:40:36 <CydeWeys> (Well, for an identity definition of "get your money back".)
243 2011-07-29 15:42:02 <cjdelisle> The risk is you send someone some money and they don't get it because you're too cheap to pay the tx fee, you pay them again because the first payment didn't "go through", but the first payment is still valid and it lingers arouns waiting for a kind miner to let it in to the chain.
244 2011-07-29 15:42:16 <cjdelisle> When he does, you have paid the other party twice.
245 2011-07-29 15:44:09 <cjdelisle> blargh.. with passwd, 2 people have the passwd... RACE!
246 2011-07-29 15:49:44 <CydeWeys> passwd generates two transfers for every one actual transaction.  First you do the TX that sends to a password, then they do a TX that sends from the passworded address (they won't want to leave it there because you still know the password).
247 2011-07-29 15:50:04 <CydeWeys> And if they're smart they'll wait until that second transaction confirms.
248 2011-07-29 15:52:01 <cjdelisle> yea which takes forever and spams the chain... /me has a(nother) stupid idea
249 2011-07-29 16:04:44 <Eliel> jav__: that green address idea is nice :)
250 2011-07-29 16:05:13 <jav__> Eliel: thx :-)
251 2011-07-29 16:39:24 <davex__> As of 0.3.24, does wallet.dat still have to be in same folder as rest of datadir?  Or can you use same datadir for multiple wallets?
252 2011-07-29 16:57:54 <jgarzik> davex__: wallet.dat is part of the Berkeley DB database environment, which is bitcoin's datadir.  all the files in datadir belong together; bitcoin (through db) looks at them as a single unit.
253 2011-07-29 17:04:34 <davex__> jgarzik, ah.
254 2011-07-29 17:05:15 <davex__> which also means the wallet can't be separated from the block chain.  ie can't just move another wallet into datadir and have it just "work"
255 2011-07-29 17:13:14 <jgarzik> davex__: you can swap out one wallet.dat for another, provided that bitcoin is fully shut down
256 2011-07-29 17:13:26 <davex__> Oh ok.  that didn't used to be possible i thought.
257 2011-07-29 17:15:16 <davex__> or maybe i just did it wrong somehow.  last tried that in like november.
258 2011-07-29 17:16:16 <Eliel> jgarzik: isn't the -rescan parameter needed if you switch wallet?
259 2011-07-29 17:16:44 <jgarzik> Eliel: yes, that is recommended
260 2011-07-29 17:17:39 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: Eliel not anymore
261 2011-07-29 17:17:50 <BlueMatt> its unnecessary these days
262 2011-07-29 17:17:59 <Eliel> oh, good to know
263 2011-07-29 17:18:05 <davex__> because it always "rescans"?
264 2011-07-29 17:18:09 <BlueMatt> yes
265 2011-07-29 17:18:13 <BlueMatt> it always does a partial rescan
266 2011-07-29 17:18:54 <davex__> ok.  That makes me happy.  thought i'd have to download the whole effing block chain again.
267 2011-07-29 17:26:47 <jgarzik> BlueMatt: where is the partial rescan triggered in 0.3.24?
268 2011-07-29 17:27:51 <jgarzik> nevermind, I see it
269 2011-07-29 17:36:06 <davex__> BlueMatt: Can the new encryption stuff be enabled from bitcoind?  or gui only?
270 2011-07-29 17:36:59 <CIA-103> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * rfc6df1a / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Apparently, there are pools that shut ntime rolling off for LP - https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/fc6df1a4dec7701595ec30be3facc09a6e7ce224 https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/fc6df1a4dec7701595ec30be3facc09a6e7ce224
271 2011-07-29 17:37:10 <BlueMatt> davex__: both
272 2011-07-29 17:56:00 <drgr33n> Hey guys does anybody have a link to info on how I submit a patch to git ?
273 2011-07-29 17:56:16 <drgr33n> Someone did link me yesterday but can't find it now lol
274 2011-07-29 17:56:27 <nanotube> using github, or using plain git?
275 2011-07-29 17:56:44 <nanotube> if former, you do a 'pull request'. if latter, you do a git format-patch, and email it in.
276 2011-07-29 17:56:47 <drgr33n> whatever's easiest or if someone could submit this for me ?
277 2011-07-29 17:56:51 <BlueMatt> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
278 2011-07-29 17:57:25 <Diablo-D3> as a warning
279 2011-07-29 17:57:28 <Diablo-D3> if I get an emailed patch
280 2011-07-29 17:57:33 <Diablo-D3> I will kill them
281 2011-07-29 17:57:44 <nanotube> BlueMatt: he didn't say he wanted to submit a patch to /bitcoin/ git :P
282 2011-07-29 17:57:51 <drgr33n> lol
283 2011-07-29 17:58:00 <drgr33n> I do though :D
284 2011-07-29 17:58:06 <BlueMatt> well those instructions arent hard to generalize
285 2011-07-29 17:58:07 <nanotube> hehe ic. in that case read that link BlueMatt sent :)
286 2011-07-29 17:58:15 <drgr33n> :D
287 2011-07-29 17:58:18 <Diablo-D3> just send a fucking github pull request
288 2011-07-29 17:58:39 <nanotube> not every git user user github, Diablo-D3
289 2011-07-29 17:59:02 <drgr33n> Ok !! I will don't worry :D I'm no programmer though so no need a github account.
290 2011-07-29 18:00:44 <BlueMatt> if its a huge pain, just email it to someone, or post the patch itself somewhere and link
291 2011-07-29 18:01:19 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3 is very angry
292 2011-07-29 18:01:29 <BlueMatt> he always is
293 2011-07-29 18:01:45 <nanotube> in other news, water is wet. tune in at 11 for more exciting details!
294 2011-07-29 18:02:10 <BlueMatt> in yet further news, luke calls people bigots
295 2011-07-29 18:03:51 <Diablo-D3> drgr33n: github accounts are for things other than git
296 2011-07-29 18:04:02 <Diablo-D3> they host bug trackers and other stuff as well
297 2011-07-29 18:04:55 <drgr33n> It will be I'm running slackware here so I'll have to compile the git packages and all sorts :(
298 2011-07-29 18:05:01 <drgr33n> Its only a small patch lol
299 2011-07-29 18:07:40 <forrestv> Diablo-D3, what do you think of https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/pull/31 ?
300 2011-07-29 18:08:06 <Diablo-D3> forrestv: I just shut my workstation off, summary?
301 2011-07-29 18:08:13 <drgr33n> lol
302 2011-07-29 18:08:45 <drgr33n> well here's the patch. it just the one I asked about yesterday to make bitcoin compile with boost 1.46
303 2011-07-29 18:08:46 <drgr33n> http://pastebin.com/LgqLLCGD
304 2011-07-29 18:08:49 <forrestv> Diablo-D3, ah, it removes the 500ms pause after a successful long poll reply
305 2011-07-29 18:09:24 <Namegduf> Moves it into the case of a failure instead
306 2011-07-29 18:09:26 <forrestv> mainly in the interests of p2pool, but it would help normal miners a tiny bit
307 2011-07-29 18:09:44 <Diablo-D3> forrestv: that delay is to prevent pools from fucking up and rejecting the new connection early
308 2011-07-29 18:09:51 <Diablo-D3> forrestv: it handles LP _only_
309 2011-07-29 18:10:04 <Diablo-D3> the chances of a new block being formed in half a second is impossible
310 2011-07-29 18:10:15 <Diablo-D3> Im not even going to bother saying exceedingly low
311 2011-07-29 18:11:08 <Diablo-D3> forrestv: so it waits half a second before starting the LP connectiion back up
312 2011-07-29 18:11:14 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: not on p2pool
313 2011-07-29 18:11:23 <forrestv> Diablo-D3, it's actually .08%
314 2011-07-29 18:11:25 <nanotube> the chances of new block found in half a second are about 10%
315 2011-07-29 18:11:49 <Diablo-D3> nanotube: then p2pool should stop using LP then
316 2011-07-29 18:11:51 <nanotube> and that to.
317 2011-07-29 18:12:12 <nanotube> (to forrestv, not to you :P)
318 2011-07-29 18:12:26 <nanotube> LP is more efficient
319 2011-07-29 18:12:35 <Diablo-D3> oh, and you cant remove the wait anyhow
320 2011-07-29 18:12:41 <Diablo-D3> otherwise its going to basically just attack the target
321 2011-07-29 18:13:15 <Diablo-D3> and your ISP is not going to be pleased when you're doing hundreds of connect attempts per second
322 2011-07-29 18:14:02 <forrestv> would a sliding window pause be acceptable? eg. allow 20 requests in the last 10 seconds, so rare pushes can be handled but repetitive requests are throttled
323 2011-07-29 18:15:41 <Diablo-D3> no, because in the future normal miners will be flooding sendworks
324 2011-07-29 18:16:14 <forrestv> what?
325 2011-07-29 18:16:27 <jgarzik> in the future miners will sit passively and receive work from the pool server
326 2011-07-29 18:16:36 <jgarzik> no getwork at all
327 2011-07-29 18:16:45 <nanotube> jgarzik: hehe indeed. pushprotocol ftw.
328 2011-07-29 18:16:57 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: that'll never take off
329 2011-07-29 18:17:10 <jgarzik> nanotube: and notice that a large number of pools _already support_ such a protocol...
330 2011-07-29 18:17:32 <nanotube> jgarzik: oh very nice, didn't know that. do the miner clients support it?
331 2011-07-29 18:17:51 <luke-jr> jgarzik: problem is, I think your binary protocol is missing out on some of the newer features the getwork has :P
332 2011-07-29 18:17:53 <nanotube> i guess the pools that are using pushpool as base are the ones that support it.
333 2011-07-29 18:18:21 <luke-jr> jgarzik: specifically, noncerange
334 2011-07-29 18:18:35 <luke-jr> jgarzik: btw, does the binary protocol imply rollntime, or imply !rollntime?
335 2011-07-29 18:21:51 <diki> unless i get proven wrong
336 2011-07-29 18:22:00 <BlueMatt> have something against gay people?
337 2011-07-29 18:22:25 <diki> do you?
338 2011-07-29 18:22:58 <BlueMatt> Im not the one proud of having figured out someone was gay
339 2011-07-29 18:23:09 <copumpkin> diki: congratulations
340 2011-07-29 18:23:12 <BlueMatt> and to answer your, clearly avoiding, question: no
341 2011-07-29 18:23:49 <copumpkin> diki: in other news, I've figured out your tastes in porn
342 2011-07-29 18:23:58 <BlueMatt> hahaha
343 2011-07-29 18:24:02 <diki> it's lesbian porn
344 2011-07-29 18:24:07 <gjs278> firing a rocket launcher at diki
345 2011-07-29 18:24:08 <diki> lesbians all the way
346 2011-07-29 18:24:09 <copumpkin> diki: that's what you like us to think
347 2011-07-29 18:24:13 <copumpkin> but I know the truth
348 2011-07-29 18:24:18 <Eliel> ha, gay porn, we knew it! :)
349 2011-07-29 18:24:27 <BlueMatt> copumpkin: I dont think he understood the joke
350 2011-07-29 18:24:31 <copumpkin> :)
351 2011-07-29 18:24:51 <diki> so who was it
352 2011-07-29 18:24:55 <diki> that kicked me
353 2011-07-29 18:25:08 <copumpkin> nobody knows :)
354 2011-07-29 18:25:09 <BlueMatt> the bot doesnt like you
355 2011-07-29 18:25:09 <copumpkin> or cares
356 2011-07-29 18:25:28 <diki> i am extremely tolerant to people, but i hate adding the or else clause
357 2011-07-29 18:26:09 <copumpkin> diki: you don't need to justify yourself. It's just interesting that you chose to pick that out instead of saying something like "I've figured out that there's a dude from cambodia on the forums"
358 2011-07-29 18:26:14 <copumpkin> why is that of interest to anyone?
359 2011-07-29 18:26:26 <diki> because i said so?
360 2011-07-29 18:26:36 <copumpkin> there's going to be straight people, gay people, trans people, people over 60
361 2011-07-29 18:26:44 <copumpkin> it just isn't relevant to anything
362 2011-07-29 18:26:59 <BlueMatt> that and you turned a joke into a frank discussion of your porn preferences, which clearly doesnt belong on dev
363 2011-07-29 18:26:59 <copumpkin> and the fact that you cared enough to reveal it shows that you hold gay people in high regard
364 2011-07-29 18:27:10 <diki> a joke?
365 2011-07-29 18:27:11 <b4_bed> and transexual lesbians&  whatever you call them
366 2011-07-29 18:27:12 <diki> it wasnt a joke
367 2011-07-29 18:27:50 <davro> cough its #bitcoin-dev get a room ladies !
368 2011-07-29 18:28:28 <diki> so?
369 2011-07-29 18:28:39 <diki> it's an irc channel like any other
370 2011-07-29 18:28:49 <diki> whether the topic or name say dev
371 2011-07-29 18:28:54 <BlueMatt> it has a clearly defined topic, and ops who will enforce it
372 2011-07-29 18:29:05 <BlueMatt> and thatt is all that needs to be said here, so lets just move on
373 2011-07-29 18:30:03 <b4_bed> whatever happened to kaatje?  does anyone really know?
374 2011-07-29 18:30:09 <diki> who is he?
375 2011-07-29 18:30:12 <copumpkin> nope
376 2011-07-29 18:30:40 <diki> is he someone more important than me?
377 2011-07-29 18:30:50 <copumpkin> it's a she
378 2011-07-29 18:30:50 <diki> there should be no one like that
379 2011-07-29 18:30:55 <b4_bed> seemed a lot more mature than you
380 2011-07-29 18:31:52 <diki> still, why is she so important?
381 2011-07-29 18:32:02 <b4_bed> just an interesting person
382 2011-07-29 18:32:13 <b4_bed> and a huge mystery
383 2011-07-29 18:32:22 <b4_bed> satoshi-like
384 2011-07-29 18:32:23 <diki> i can only speculate that you are asking because she has made an impression, now is not here
385 2011-07-29 18:32:29 <diki> therefore i can conclude she is dead
386 2011-07-29 18:32:39 <b4_bed> there's speculation of that
387 2011-07-29 18:32:43 <diki> at least, more likely to be
388 2011-07-29 18:33:04 <BlueMatt> anyone else find it odd that b4epoch is talking from bed?
389 2011-07-29 18:33:12 <b4epoch> no longer
390 2011-07-29 18:33:20 <diki> i am also talking from bed
391 2011-07-29 18:33:24 <diki> nude
392 2011-07-29 18:33:40 <jgarzik> luke-jr: binary protocol ntime behavior should not differ from JSON-RPC behavior
393 2011-07-29 18:33:46 <jgarzik> luke-jr: it's a server setting
394 2011-07-29 18:34:19 <jgarzik> luke-jr: it is considered -wise- to enable roll-ntime for binary protocol, but not critical
395 2011-07-29 18:34:39 <diki> jgarzik what exactly is it that you do on the dev team?
396 2011-07-29 18:34:49 <diki> do you do anything at all?
397 2011-07-29 18:34:59 <BlueMatt> just about everything
398 2011-07-29 18:35:24 <b4epoch> what exactly does diki do?
399 2011-07-29 18:35:27 <BlueMatt> what do you do aside from constantly asking dumb questions and annoying people on irc?
400 2011-07-29 18:35:36 <luke-jr> jgarzik: JSON-RPC uses HTTP headers
401 2011-07-29 18:36:32 <jgarzik> luke-jr: client and server in binary protocol exchange JSON-RPC metadata at during session init (login)
402 2011-07-29 18:37:04 <jgarzik> luke-jr: that's where you can indicate noncerange support, "only send me [data, target] fields", roll-ntime, and anything else
403 2011-07-29 18:37:33 <luke-jr> jgarzik: so how to change rollntime per work? ;)
404 2011-07-29 18:37:39 <jgarzik> luke-jr: after login, server pushes work at you, at the rate you requested, in the data format you requested
405 2011-07-29 18:38:12 <jgarzik> luke-jr: Generally speaking...  you add that as a feature during JSON-RPC login, and then have mining clients support said feature you just added
406 2011-07-29 18:39:45 <jgarzik> luke-jr: mining client could send "lukejr-awesome-miner-feature":true, or server could send "lukejr-awesome-pool-feature":true
407 2011-07-29 18:40:17 <luke-jr> hmm
408 2011-07-29 18:40:30 <luke-jr> I don't see anything in the login code to indicate availability of rollntime support at all
409 2011-07-29 18:40:35 <diki> [23:35:58] <b4epoch> what exactly does diki do?<-well now
410 2011-07-29 18:41:03 <jgarzik> luke-jr: should be added, I acknowledge.  that area of binary protocol has not kept up with the latest json-rpc additions.
411 2011-07-29 18:41:08 <diki> keeping the chan from sinking in the depths of geekiness
412 2011-07-29 18:41:16 <copumpkin> diki: thank you
413 2011-07-29 18:41:21 <copumpkin> I've been trying to get people into category theory
414 2011-07-29 18:41:25 <copumpkin> and you've been fighting it :(
415 2011-07-29 18:41:31 <luke-jr> jgarzik: also, I think I see a free-then-dereference in login
416 2011-07-29 18:42:01 <diki> luke are you implying that...jgarzik has made an error?
417 2011-07-29 18:42:04 <jgarzik> luke-jr: patches welcome, for both issues :)
418 2011-07-29 18:42:05 <luke-jr> jgarzik: res_cfgobj is used in set_new which takes over the only reference to it, but then json_decref is called on it, freeing it before it's sent to the client
419 2011-07-29 18:42:33 <b4epoch> copumpkin:  I think we have enough information to categorize diki
420 2011-07-29 18:42:33 <diki> that is a bold statement
421 2011-07-29 18:42:44 <jgarzik> luke-jr: where?
422 2011-07-29 18:42:45 <luke-jr> jgarzik: would it be evil to test if it crashes as expected on a competing pool? :P
423 2011-07-29 18:42:54 <IO-> http://i.imgur.com/FVNvY.png
424 2011-07-29 18:42:55 <IO-> there
425 2011-07-29 18:42:58 <luke-jr> jgarzik:
426 2011-07-29 18:43:01 <diki> luke:i approve
427 2011-07-29 18:43:21 <jgarzik> luke-jr: ...and that path (json_decref) is only called if res_cfgobj set_new fails
428 2011-07-29 18:43:33 <luke-jr> ah, okay, that's what I was missing
429 2011-07-29 18:43:34 <jgarzik> luke-jr: (or is never called)
430 2011-07-29 18:43:57 <luke-jr> just noticed the { when I pasted it here ;)
431 2011-07-29 18:45:04 <diki> advice luke, less back-end, more front-end
432 2011-07-29 18:51:23 <aviadbd> hey guys
433 2011-07-29 18:51:26 <aviadbd> something odd at the wiki.
434 2011-07-29 18:51:29 <aviadbd> *again*
435 2011-07-29 18:51:37 <aviadbd> check out this page: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
436 2011-07-29 18:51:43 <aviadbd> doesn't the version look odd there?
437 2011-07-29 18:51:46 <aviadbd> (in the example)
438 2011-07-29 18:52:16 <aviadbd> (when I run "getwork" today, I get the version in the other endian).
439 2011-07-29 18:54:03 <luke-jr> aviadbd: it's worse
440 2011-07-29 18:54:06 <luke-jr> aviadbd: it's mixed endian
441 2011-07-29 18:54:17 <luke-jr> aviadbd: each 32 bits are big-endian, but larger is little
442 2011-07-29 18:54:46 <aviadbd> luke-jr: great. so much for examples!
443 2011-07-29 18:54:58 <mtrlt> the getwork data portion is done so that you can put the data in a char* array, cast it to an uint* array and pass it straight as the W[] array in SHA-256 :p
444 2011-07-29 18:55:07 <mtrlt> on little-endian systems only
445 2011-07-29 18:55:13 <mtrlt> but most systems are LE so.
446 2011-07-29 18:55:29 <aviadbd> okay, but ..
447 2011-07-29 18:55:34 <aviadbd> .. why is the example so wrong?
448 2011-07-29 18:55:41 <mtrlt> it's a wiki
449 2011-07-29 18:56:06 <mtrlt> what's wrong about it?
450 2011-07-29 18:56:16 <aviadbd> mtrlt: look at the version, as an example
451 2011-07-29 18:56:25 <aviadbd> mtrlt: luke-jr says there are other problems in it.
452 2011-07-29 18:56:36 <mtrlt> the version is a little-endian int that equals 1
453 2011-07-29 18:56:43 <mtrlt> problem?
454 2011-07-29 18:57:05 <luke-jr> mtrlt: no, it's big endian
455 2011-07-29 18:57:06 <aviadbd> mtrlt: that if i call "getwork", i get a different representation for version
456 2011-07-29 18:57:19 <mtrlt> luke-jr: no, it's little-endian. the data given to SHA-256 is big-endian
457 2011-07-29 18:57:31 <aviadbd> mtrlt: i get this if i call "getwork" on luke-jr 's pool: "00000001b3b520ad78c73aa24c05d1804....."
458 2011-07-29 18:57:32 <luke-jr> mtrlt: &
459 2011-07-29 18:57:40 <mtrlt> luke-jr: bytes 01 00 00 00 represent a little-endian uint "1"
460 2011-07-29 18:57:45 <luke-jr> 00000001 = 1 in big endian
461 2011-07-29 18:57:52 <mtrlt> well that's because the bytes are already swapped
462 2011-07-29 18:57:56 <mtrlt> in the getwork response
463 2011-07-29 18:58:06 <mtrlt> so that if you read them straight into an uint array on a LE system
464 2011-07-29 18:58:14 <mtrlt> they go the right way around for SHA-256
465 2011-07-29 18:58:21 <luke-jr> &&&&.
466 2011-07-29 18:58:26 <mtrlt> as i said, SHA-256 expects big-endian data
467 2011-07-29 18:58:34 <forrestv> oh, so that's why. that's stupid..
468 2011-07-29 18:59:00 <mtrlt> so if the actual data to be hashed is 01 02 03 04, then W[0] has to be 01020304 which is 04030201 in little-endian
469 2011-07-29 18:59:12 <aviadbd> mtrlt: okay, so the example is flipped already
470 2011-07-29 18:59:15 <aviadbd> right?
471 2011-07-29 18:59:33 <aviadbd> that would explain a few things..
472 2011-07-29 18:59:37 <aviadbd> *sigh*
473 2011-07-29 18:59:40 <aviadbd> *mumble*
474 2011-07-29 18:59:41 <mtrlt> the version seems to be "01000000"
475 2011-07-29 18:59:54 <mtrlt> hmmh
476 2011-07-29 19:00:04 <mtrlt> also, if you're not using your own sha-256 implementation, you might have to swap the bytes back
477 2011-07-29 19:00:07 <mtrlt> :p
478 2011-07-29 19:00:30 <mtrlt> but that applies only to cpu-miners anyway
479 2011-07-29 19:01:07 <aviadbd> mtrlt: why?
480 2011-07-29 19:01:26 <mtrlt> because sha256 libraries expect the data inside an uchar array or something :p
481 2011-07-29 19:01:43 <mtrlt> and they swap the bytes and make the uint W[] array of sha-256
482 2011-07-29 19:18:22 <diki> heehaw
483 2011-07-29 19:18:30 <diki> 900,000 getworks and only 7 hashes
484 2011-07-29 19:22:03 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
485 2011-07-29 19:22:04 <fasoula> Within 5 minutes of getting ops he started violating Freenode's rules... LOL. Domain nmcwatch.com 173.242.126.108 | Web host: namehost.com / volumedrive.com | Google analytics: UA-24071543-1 | Date Registered: 2011-6-20 | Date Modified: 2011-6-20 | Expiry Date: 2012-6-20 | loy4pcu4dfeff0e118e1@oqjij874d9300d54bd95.privatewhois.net c/o nmcwatch.com  N4892 Nassau  Bahamas  Tel: +852.81720004
486 2011-07-29 19:22:06 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
487 2011-07-29 19:22:09 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
488 2011-07-29 19:22:10 <fasoula> Within 5 minutes of getting ops he started violating Freenode's rules... LOL. Domain nmcwatch.com 173.242.126.108 | Web host: namehost.com / volumedrive.com | Google analytics: UA-24071543-1 | Date Registered: 2011-6-20 | Date Modified: 2011-6-20 | Expiry Date: 2012-6-20 | loy4pcu4dfeff0e118e1@oqjij874d9300d54bd95.privatewhois.net c/o nmcwatch.com  N4892 Nassau  Bahamas  Tel: +852.81720004
489 2011-07-29 19:22:14 <fasoula> rolmao
490 2011-07-29 19:22:15 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
491 2011-07-29 19:22:16 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
492 2011-07-29 19:22:17 <fasoula> Within 5 minutes of getting ops he started violating Freenode's rules... LOL. Domain nmcwatch.com 173.242.126.108 | Web host: namehost.com / volumedrive.com | Google analytics: UA-24071543-1 | Date Registered: 2011-6-20 | Date Modified: 2011-6-20 | Expiry Date: 2012-6-20 | loy4pcu4dfeff0e118e1@oqjij874d9300d54bd95.privatewhois.net c/o nmcwatch.com  N4892 Nassau  Bahamas  Tel: +852.81720004
493 2011-07-29 19:22:19 <fasoula> baha
494 2011-07-29 19:22:20 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
495 2011-07-29 19:22:23 <copumpkin> such a fucking scriptkiddie :)
496 2011-07-29 19:22:29 <copumpkin> he does this over and over again
497 2011-07-29 19:23:40 <diki> nice
498 2011-07-29 19:23:41 <diki> me likes
499 2011-07-29 19:23:59 <bitplane> Hi. I have some questions about contributing
500 2011-07-29 19:24:03 <fasoula> duuude
501 2011-07-29 19:24:04 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
502 2011-07-29 19:24:05 <fasoula> Within 5 minutes of getting ops he started violating Freenode's rules... LOL. Domain nmcwatch.com 173.242.126.108 | Web host: namehost.com / volumedrive.com | Google analytics: UA-24071543-1 | Date Registered: 2011-6-20 | Date Modified: 2011-6-20 | Expiry Date: 2012-6-20 | loy4pcu4dfeff0e118e1@oqjij874d9300d54bd95.privatewhois.net c/o nmcwatch.com  N4892 Nassau  Bahamas  Tel: +852.81720004
503 2011-07-29 19:24:06 <fasoula> http://pastebin.com/L8VLRMWp | spirals is a troll on the Freenode #namecoin channel | spirals IP [~max@c-24-20-235-170.hsd1.wa.comcast.net]   -NickServ- Registered : May 12 01:22:46 2011 (11 weeks, 1 day, 18:13:50 ago)  -NickServ- Last addr  : ~spirals@unaffiliated/spirals  Bitcoin address 1LiwfAiEjvNeFpMCRZm93nhMQbmuXSorMy |  Namecoin address N4aidMuAypC1RT1yeQ7USb5aXkXjLEgTpw (internetbs.net)
504 2011-07-29 19:24:07 <fasoula> Within 5 minutes of getting ops he started violating Freenode's rules... LOL. Domain nmcwatch.com 173.242.126.108 | Web host: namehost.com / volumedrive.com | Google analytics: UA-24071543-1 | Date Registered: 2011-6-20 | Date Modified: 2011-6-20 | Expiry Date: 2012-6-20 | loy4pcu4dfeff0e118e1@oqjij874d9300d54bd95.privatewhois.net c/o nmcwatch.com  N4892 Nassau  Bahamas  Tel: +852.81720004
505 2011-07-29 19:24:16 <imsaguy> jgarzik nanotube
506 2011-07-29 19:24:48 <bitplane> I don't see any function comments. If I was to add some and push, would they get merged?
507 2011-07-29 19:25:26 <bitplane> also, coding.txt tells people to explain what they're doing, rather than why they're doing it. this is a bad idea IMO
508 2011-07-29 19:25:30 <imsaguy> thanks :D
509 2011-07-29 19:25:40 <davex__> farzong's back?  hehe
510 2011-07-29 19:26:00 <Diablo-D3> bitplane: both are wrong
511 2011-07-29 19:26:12 <Diablo-D3> code should be obvious on both without comments.
512 2011-07-29 19:26:35 <Eliel> bitplane: if they're good comments that help undestanding the code, I don't see why they wouldn't be merged.
513 2011-07-29 19:27:25 <diki> this spirals person banned me
514 2011-07-29 19:27:32 <diki> he is now going to get it
515 2011-07-29 19:27:45 <bitplane> okay, I'll add comments as I read the paper and source code :)
516 2011-07-29 19:27:54 <mtrlt> yea if you need comments, you're doing something very complex
517 2011-07-29 19:28:03 <Diablo-D3> and complex is bad
518 2011-07-29 19:28:10 <mtrlt> 99% of the time yes
519 2011-07-29 19:28:23 <bitplane> another question... const correctness.. there's "const char * " as in variables for setters and stuff, shouldn't they be const * const char?
520 2011-07-29 19:28:26 <Diablo-D3> if you write code as clever as possible, by definition, you are not clever enough to debug it
521 2011-07-29 19:28:29 <mtrlt> and anyway in the 1% of cases, you won't be explaining it in the source
522 2011-07-29 19:28:37 <Diablo-D3> bitplane: no
523 2011-07-29 19:28:41 <mtrlt> instead you'll make a 20 page academic paper :P
524 2011-07-29 19:28:43 <Diablo-D3> you cant const whats behind the pointer
525 2011-07-29 19:29:08 <Diablo-D3> mtrlt: I have written in comments about deep magic and voodo
526 2011-07-29 19:29:09 <bitplane> you can treat it as const though, so other callers don't modify?
527 2011-07-29 19:29:20 <bitplane> erm so other callers can pass in const * consts
528 2011-07-29 19:29:20 <Diablo-D3> bitplane: yes, but the compiler wont help you
529 2011-07-29 19:29:24 <mtrlt> bitplane: what language is this?
530 2011-07-29 19:29:29 <bitplane> c++
531 2011-07-29 19:29:31 <Diablo-D3> bitplane: its just one const.
532 2011-07-29 19:29:45 <bitplane> it's been a while since I did any C++ to be honest, I might be pulling this out of my ass
533 2011-07-29 19:30:02 <mtrlt> 00:28 < Diablo-D3> you cant const whats behind the pointer
534 2011-07-29 19:30:03 <mtrlt> false
535 2011-07-29 19:30:13 <mtrlt> you can do const char*const*const*const*const if you want.
536 2011-07-29 19:30:33 <gmaxwell> Don't forget to restrict too.. aliasing is for the birds.
537 2011-07-29 19:30:43 <bitplane> I figured "const * foo" is a constant pointer to a mutable foo?
538 2011-07-29 19:30:51 <bitplane> could be wrong though
539 2011-07-29 19:30:54 <mtrlt> um
540 2011-07-29 19:31:07 <mtrlt> i can't decide if "foo" is a type or a name in that
541 2011-07-29 19:31:11 <mtrlt> so, parse error? :P
542 2011-07-29 19:31:29 <bitplane> hehe oops
543 2011-07-29 19:31:38 <bitplane> const foo* bar
544 2011-07-29 19:31:56 <mtrlt> hmh
545 2011-07-29 19:32:02 <mtrlt> i don't remember how it goes tho :P
546 2011-07-29 19:32:13 <mtrlt> and gotta sleep. nights ->
547 2011-07-29 19:32:55 <bitplane> confused between "constant pointer to a foo" or "pointer to a constant foo"
548 2011-07-29 19:33:10 <bitplane> I'm probably wrong, ignore me
549 2011-07-29 19:33:58 <bitplane> yeah I'm wrong. the pointer is mutable, the target is immutable
550 2011-07-29 19:34:25 <Diablo-D3> er
551 2011-07-29 19:34:35 <Diablo-D3> if its const char*, the pointer is immutable, the target is mutable
552 2011-07-29 19:35:13 <bitplane> so not "const char" is the type pointed to?
553 2011-07-29 19:35:42 <bitplane> ooh yes, right you are
554 2011-07-29 19:35:54 <bitplane> const int* pX;    // changeable pointer to constant int
555 2011-07-29 19:36:42 <bitplane> so: inline bool DecodeBase58(const char* psz, std::vector<unsigned char>& vchRet) // this can't be called from a built-in const array?
556 2011-07-29 19:36:51 <bitplane> oh
557 2011-07-29 19:37:08 <bitplane> argh I'm trying to do three things at once and making a dick out of myself in all of them
558 2011-07-29 19:39:57 <diki> now it's time for revenge
559 2011-07-29 19:40:05 <diki> no one bans diki and gets away with it
560 2011-07-29 19:46:09 <diki> a few of my rules
561 2011-07-29 19:46:21 <diki> 1)You dont screw with diki
562 2011-07-29 19:46:28 <cut> who the fuck is diki?
563 2011-07-29 19:46:31 <Namegduf> It's spelt "don't".
564 2011-07-29 19:46:39 <diki> and?
565 2011-07-29 19:46:58 <Namegduf> Well, if you spelt correctly it might sound slightly less like a pathetic attempt to be an Internet Tough Guy
566 2011-07-29 19:47:05 <Namegduf> I mean, I doubt it, but it couldn't hurt.
567 2011-07-29 19:47:16 <diki> its easier to spell like that
568 2011-07-29 19:47:35 <diki> the ' character is just too far away
569 2011-07-29 19:47:51 <diki> also referred to as single quote
570 2011-07-29 19:48:06 <diki> at least when used like ''
571 2011-07-29 19:49:24 <vragnaroda> no, ' is not a single quote. ' is an apostrophe
572 2011-07-29 19:49:50 <bitplane> depends
573 2011-07-29 19:50:23 <bitplane> if your BNF says it's a single quote, then it's a single quote
574 2011-07-29 19:51:03 <diki> ok, number two on my enemy list
575 2011-07-29 19:51:48 <vragnaroda> bitplane: in that context, sure. not universally.
576 2011-07-29 19:53:11 <bitplane> yeah I was just arguing for the sake of it :D
577 2011-07-29 19:53:27 <imsaguy> lol
578 2011-07-29 19:53:46 <imsaguy> diki sure does know how to make friends
579 2011-07-29 19:54:59 <bitplane> I think the nature of the bitcoin project attracts anonytrolls
580 2011-07-29 19:56:31 <bitplane> levels of noise and plain rudeness on the forums are a joke. I find myself slipping into that mindset myself
581 2011-07-29 19:57:10 <imsaguy> if this mybitcoin downtime results in a loss of coins, I imagine it'll have 2 effects
582 2011-07-29 19:57:25 <vragnaroda> gribble: i thought rule 1 was
583 2011-07-29 19:57:26 <imsaguy> it'll push prices higher due to reduced availability
584 2011-07-29 19:57:35 <Rabbit67890> btc-dev!
585 2011-07-29 19:57:40 <Rabbit67890> bitcoin-dev
586 2011-07-29 19:57:41 <imsaguy> and it'll push prices lower because people will lose faith in the system
587 2011-07-29 19:58:11 <bitplane> so, no change then?
588 2011-07-29 19:58:41 <bitplane> are there any alternative clients other than bitcoin-alt? (which appears to be unfinished)
589 2011-07-29 19:59:32 <bitplane> (and in a state of copyright limbo)
590 2011-07-29 20:02:15 <imsaguy> I wouldn't say net 0
591 2011-07-29 20:12:13 <Eliel> bitplane: there's the bitcoinj library made in java and the js version... might have been called bitcoinjs
592 2011-07-29 20:13:15 <BlueMatt> bitcoinj is absolutely useable, as, Ive heard, is bitcoinjs
593 2011-07-29 20:13:23 <BlueMatt> other than that, not really anything to speak of
594 2011-07-29 20:15:02 <Eliel> the android wallet uses bitcoinj
595 2011-07-29 20:15:16 <BlueMatt> yep
596 2011-07-29 20:15:18 <Eliel> ... at least the one I looked at. No idea if there are more of them :)
597 2011-07-29 20:34:17 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: you have all of phil.easy.verizon.net banned you know?
598 2011-07-29 20:36:44 <BitcoinForNewegg> HAPPY SYSADMIN DAY
599 2011-07-29 20:37:12 <Rabbit67890> ?
600 2011-07-29 20:37:23 <BlueMatt> its sysadmin appreciation day
601 2011-07-29 20:37:31 <Rabbit67890> its in a few mnths
602 2011-07-29 20:37:51 <Rabbit67890> *Facepalm
603 2011-07-29 20:38:01 <Rabbit67890> 07/FriLast
604 2011-07-29 20:38:12 <BlueMatt> well here it ended 38 minutes ago
605 2011-07-29 20:38:32 <BlueMatt> july 29 is sysadmin appreciation day
606 2011-07-29 21:00:03 <Zagitta> Is there any specific reason that the p2pool concept isn't getting merged into the client so it coexists with the normal mining?
607 2011-07-29 21:00:37 <Marf> because its to cool
608 2011-07-29 21:00:38 <Marf> ;D
609 2011-07-29 21:00:46 <BlueMatt> ...really?
610 2011-07-29 21:04:23 <Eliel> Zagitta: I haven't seen any reason being thrown about. My own guess is that if it ends up ready for it, it'll get merged.
611 2011-07-29 21:05:24 <BlueMatt> its wayyyy far away from anywhere near getting merged, though even if it was ready, no it probably wouldnt be merged
612 2011-07-29 21:05:38 <GriffenJBS> Is there anyway to speed up the sync? I have two local PCs; one is synced, the other is connected to the first and is taking a while, CPU is under 10%, IP is < 1%, is it self throttling?
613 2011-07-29 21:05:45 <BlueMatt> it is useful for maybe 10% of people, if that, the code is already a mess, adding way more crap is not the goal here
614 2011-07-29 21:05:50 <BlueMatt> probably less than 10%
615 2011-07-29 21:06:07 <BlueMatt> GriffenJBS: copy the blk* files from bitcoin datadir from one computer to the other
616 2011-07-29 21:06:23 <GriffenJBS> BlueMatt thanks, I'll try that now
617 2011-07-29 21:07:04 <bitplane> isn't verifying that eats all the time while downloading blocks?
618 2011-07-29 21:07:39 <bitplane> if CPU < 10%... how many cores do you have?
619 2011-07-29 21:07:48 <bitplane> and how many are fake, weak hyperthreading cores
620 2011-07-29 21:08:12 <BlueMatt> its disk access for many people
621 2011-07-29 21:08:20 <BlueMatt> since it is single threaded, actually, its both
622 2011-07-29 21:09:07 <bitplane> flushes in bad places?
623 2011-07-29 21:09:08 <BlueMatt> for each block, it checks it, then writes it to disk, committing so it actually waits on the disk
624 2011-07-29 21:09:18 <BlueMatt> so yea, it flushes each block
625 2011-07-29 21:09:22 <bitplane> ah okay
626 2011-07-29 21:09:30 <forrestv> Zagitta, there's also the fact that p2pool is pure python whereas bitcoin is pure c++
627 2011-07-29 21:09:33 <bitplane> blocking blocks :/
628 2011-07-29 21:09:38 <forrestv> (:
629 2011-07-29 21:09:58 <bitplane> what's p2pool?
630 2011-07-29 21:10:00 <BlueMatt> and no one has decided to/started work on a p2pool thing for the main client, its just a mining proxy
631 2011-07-29 21:10:15 <bitplane> oh is this the merged mining thing?
632 2011-07-29 21:10:25 <BlueMatt> no, its a p2p pool
633 2011-07-29 21:10:34 <bitplane> oh right
634 2011-07-29 21:10:55 <BlueMatt> hence the name ;)
635 2011-07-29 21:11:15 <bitplane> I can't imagine how such a thing would work!
636 2011-07-29 21:11:19 <forrestv> bikcmp, see #p2pool and http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18313 :)
637 2011-07-29 21:11:30 <Marf> it works
638 2011-07-29 21:11:37 <Marf> i did set it up now
639 2011-07-29 21:11:41 <Marf> its strange
640 2011-07-29 21:11:46 <Marf> but works ;D
641 2011-07-29 21:12:27 <bitplane> does it stop people from not sharing the coins if they find a block?
642 2011-07-29 21:12:33 <sacarlson> Marf: I took a quick look at p2ppool It looked like a good idea to me
643 2011-07-29 21:12:53 <Marf> i think its the future
644 2011-07-29 21:12:54 <bitplane> 'cause you could mine and get a share of the pool, but when you get a block just keep it for yourself
645 2011-07-29 21:13:03 <Marf> no not possible
646 2011-07-29 21:13:11 <bitplane> really? cool
647 2011-07-29 21:13:11 <Marf> at no pool
648 2011-07-29 21:13:15 <Marf> is that possible..
649 2011-07-29 21:13:40 <bitplane> it is if you're the pool operator isn't it?
650 2011-07-29 21:13:48 <sacarlson> marf: I added that It should distribute with escrow or multisign but if it works and no one cheats it should be fine
651 2011-07-29 21:14:07 <Marf> iam not the inventor
652 2011-07-29 21:14:18 <Marf> say that to forrestv
653 2011-07-29 21:14:36 <Marf> ok the pooloperator can cheat
654 2011-07-29 21:14:44 <Marf> at any pool
655 2011-07-29 21:15:09 <Marf> but i think p2pool could be made without pooloperator
656 2011-07-29 21:17:46 <Zagitta> forestv: hence the "concept" part of my question :)
657 2011-07-29 21:20:11 <Marf> ok teheres no operator in p2pool
658 2011-07-29 21:20:31 <Marf> if you find a block, you send it out by your self
659 2011-07-29 21:20:39 <Marf> cool
660 2011-07-29 21:23:02 <BlueMatt> thats the point of p2pool, there is no centralized authority
661 2011-07-29 21:23:08 <BlueMatt> everyone validates
662 2011-07-29 21:24:34 <IO-> where does the block's coins go though?
663 2011-07-29 21:24:40 <IO-> *do
664 2011-07-29 21:25:17 <BlueMatt> to everyone mining, like eligius' payouts
665 2011-07-29 21:26:13 <IO-> but doesn't it have to go to 1 wallet and then get divided out to miners faily?
666 2011-07-29 21:26:35 <erus`> Rupurt Murdoch thanked all for the lovely messages on Amy Winehouse's answering machine
667 2011-07-29 21:26:36 <Marf> no
668 2011-07-29 21:26:54 <Marf> its directly send at genration to everybody
669 2011-07-29 21:26:56 <BlueMatt> no, the 50 btc gets paid out to many addresses at once
670 2011-07-29 21:27:02 <Marf> no scam possible
671 2011-07-29 21:27:04 <IO-> cool
672 2011-07-29 21:27:28 <Marf> yeah
673 2011-07-29 21:27:31 <BlueMatt> IO-: 3% seems a bit high, no?
674 2011-07-29 21:27:33 <Marf> are you a miner?
675 2011-07-29 21:28:25 <Marf> we a gathering miners to start with some sensible miningpower IO
676 2011-07-29 21:28:40 <Marf> http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=32882.0
677 2011-07-29 21:28:48 <bitplane> hey erus`, fancy meeting you here!
678 2011-07-29 21:29:06 <erus`> why u no on irrlicht?
679 2011-07-29 21:29:12 <bitplane> have you forked the client and done anything nice with it?
680 2011-07-29 21:29:16 <BlueMatt> IO- runs a pool
681 2011-07-29 21:29:17 <erus`> bitplane: i saw a post from u linked on reddit
682 2011-07-29 21:29:44 <bitplane> can't be bothered with irrlicht at the moment, need a kick up the backside to get back into 3d programming
683 2011-07-29 21:30:03 <erus`> this is my addition to bitcoin thus far https://github.com/tm1rbrt/bitcoinrpc
684 2011-07-29 21:30:23 <bitplane> oh yeah, I was reading that earlier :)
685 2011-07-29 21:30:41 <bitplane> hadn't been on github in ages and decided to stalk you
686 2011-07-29 21:31:11 <erus`> i been using haskell for a few months
687 2011-07-29 21:31:14 <erus`> its great
688 2011-07-29 21:31:20 <erus`> you should try :P
689 2011-07-29 21:31:37 <bitplane> I've never got into functional programming, monads scare me
690 2011-07-29 21:32:21 <bitplane> I wanna get into bitcoin and write a nice interface and some features that users need
691 2011-07-29 21:32:46 <bitplane> a pure python client would be nice
692 2011-07-29 21:33:14 <bitplane> and immutable wallets
693 2011-07-29 21:35:54 <erus`> does the client still need to download the entire blockchain?
694 2011-07-29 21:35:59 <erus`> that needs to be fixed first
695 2011-07-29 21:36:21 <Marf> yes
696 2011-07-29 21:36:31 <Marf> but its getting fatser
697 2011-07-29 21:36:36 <Marf> faster
698 2011-07-29 21:38:19 <bitplane> would it be feasible to have an api for a site like block explorer, for checking your balance