1 2011-08-09 00:30:47 <copumpkin> luke-jr: you serious?
  2 2011-08-09 00:31:03 <copumpkin> an information theorist wants to have a talk with you :)
  3 2011-08-09 00:31:46 <tcatm> luke-jr: not everyone has the same blk0001.dat
  4 2011-08-09 00:36:53 <copumpkin> luke-jr: I can explain why that probably wouldn't work if you want
  5 2011-08-09 00:46:04 <luke-jr> copumpkin: because the file is so big, the pointers would take up more space? :P
  6 2011-08-09 00:46:12 <copumpkin> basically :)
  7 2011-08-09 00:48:59 <luke-jr> we can compress the pointers!
  8 2011-08-09 00:49:00 <luke-jr> oh wait&
  9 2011-08-09 00:49:03 <copumpkin> :)
 10 2011-08-09 00:49:06 <luke-jr> ;)
 11 2011-08-09 01:33:11 <JamesBBB> so i guess i was not away tradehill no longer usese dwolla?
 12 2011-08-09 01:33:18 <JamesBBB> #tradehill
 13 2011-08-09 03:46:38 <osmosis> please link me to the wiki page that has the seed hosts.
 14 2011-08-09 04:02:18 <nanotube> ;;bc,wiki fallback nodes
 15 2011-08-09 04:02:19 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes | Fallback Nodes. From Bitcoin. Jump to: navigation, search. This is a list of nodes which are considered reliable. Nodes from this list which are down for ...
 16 2011-08-09 04:02:26 <nanotube> ah he's gone heh
 17 2011-08-09 04:06:05 <lfm> who
 18 2011-08-09 04:06:14 <lfm> oh
 19 2011-08-09 04:06:23 <lfm> ya
 20 2011-08-09 04:41:15 <Doktor99_> if a miner does a getwork() a starts hashing, how long before the work is stale?
 21 2011-08-09 04:41:35 <Doktor99_> can I increment the timestamp and keep going...
 22 2011-08-09 04:41:53 <Doktor99_> or do I just quit if I exhaust the nonce space, and call getwork() again
 23 2011-08-09 04:42:39 <luke-jr> Doktor99_: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork
 24 2011-08-09 04:42:47 <luke-jr> Doktor99_: specifically, see the rollntime extension
 25 2011-08-09 04:47:44 <Doktor99_> i.e. the native client
 26 2011-08-09 04:47:56 <Doktor99_> and if yes, what time does it give
 27 2011-08-09 04:48:16 <Doktor99_> for expire
 28 2011-08-09 04:49:06 <Doktor99_> and then, if I find a block but it's missing some transactions, under what conditions will it be rejected by the network
 29 2011-08-09 04:51:19 <Doktor99_> I mean, obviously it will be rejected if a new block has been found in the meantime
 30 2011-08-09 04:51:30 <Doktor99_> but that is not the question
 31 2011-08-09 04:52:20 <lfm> ya you can take as long as you feel like risking a new block showing up
 32 2011-08-09 04:52:59 <lfm> and if you are just mining solo with boicoin(d) you can increase the time stamp
 33 2011-08-09 04:53:34 <Doktor99_> so what is the incentive to bother incorporating new transactions, other than the transaction fees
 34 2011-08-09 04:54:31 <lfm> just being nice generally. Some people figure if you include free txn you make for more widespread use of bitcoin in general
 35 2011-08-09 04:54:43 <Doktor99_> that makes sense
 36 2011-08-09 04:55:01 <Doktor99_> do any pools support rollntime
 37 2011-08-09 04:55:25 <lfm> not sure which ones
 38 2011-08-09 04:55:26 <Doktor99_> i'd think not, since they want you to getwork() to ensure all transactions are included and they get their fees
 39 2011-08-09 04:55:45 <Doktor99_> (since most pools keep the fees, at the moment)
 40 2011-08-09 04:55:53 <lfm> most are going to the long-pole instead of plain getwork
 41 2011-08-09 04:56:09 <lfm> poll
 42 2011-08-09 04:56:34 <Doktor99_> right, but long-pole isn't relevant to my question: that just ensures that you getwork() straight away if a new block is found
 43 2011-08-09 04:56:54 <lfm> or a new txn with fee wants to get in
 44 2011-08-09 04:57:33 <Doktor99_> does long-pole trigger if a new fee paying transaction shows up?
 45 2011-08-09 04:57:39 <Doktor99_> or is that up to the pool?
 46 2011-08-09 04:57:44 <lfm> I think so, it should
 47 2011-08-09 04:57:48 <Doktor99_> right
 48 2011-08-09 04:58:50 <Doktor99_> ok, i think that about clears it up
 49 2011-08-09 04:59:46 <Doktor99_> just to be clear: if I getwork() from bitcoind, do I need to explicitly request with  "X-Roll-NTime" header, or can I just take that liberty
 50 2011-08-09 05:00:24 <Doktor99_> i.e. if I getwork() and I decide to roll the timestamp "without permission", then find a new block and submit my result with another call to getwork(), what will happen?
 51 2011-08-09 05:00:26 <lfm> no, bitcoin(d) accepts "rolltime" by default. it won't recognize that header
 52 2011-08-09 05:00:52 <lfm> it should be accepted
 53 2011-08-09 05:01:58 <lfm> your only problem is if you start updating the time too fast and you get like an hour ahead or something
 54 2011-08-09 05:02:30 <Doktor99_> lfm: what, then there is a change that the timestamp is invalid?
 55 2011-08-09 05:02:41 <Doktor99_> chance
 56 2011-08-09 05:02:53 <Doktor99_> the timestamp is Unix time or something, right
 57 2011-08-09 05:03:14 <Doktor99_> so long as your inserting the actual time, you should be good
 58 2011-08-09 05:03:25 <lfm> ya, it is really quite relaxed but there is an extreme chance the timestamp would be rejected.
 59 2011-08-09 05:04:09 <lfm> unix or mswin time() call ya
 60 2011-08-09 05:05:14 <Doktor99_> I guess the other way to ask the question is: how fast would you have to be hashing to rip through an entire nonce space every second... actually maybe only something like 4.5 GHash/s
 61 2011-08-09 05:05:27 <lfm> yup
 62 2011-08-09 05:05:29 <Doktor99_> is the timestamp to the second, right??
 63 2011-08-09 05:05:35 <lfm> yup
 64 2011-08-09 05:11:35 <Doktor99_> ok, so what triggers an update of the overflow nonce (new Merkle root)... what logic... I can only imagine it would be necessary if the transaction rate was low and the hash rate very very high
 65 2011-08-09 05:18:05 <Doktor99_> like, if I am hashing at > 4.5 GHash/s, then varying the none and timestamp is insufficient... but how do I communicate with my getwork() call that I have overflowed
 66 2011-08-09 05:19:45 <Doktor99_> lfm: since I cannot just go ahead and update the root myself
 67 2011-08-09 05:30:04 <Doktor99_> if I call getwork() twice in a short enough interval (no new transactions, no 'new work' to do), will the overflow nonce automatically be incremented?
 68 2011-08-09 05:33:12 <kenny__> Hi everyone / Bonjour tout le monde
 69 2011-08-09 05:34:33 <lfm> Doktor99_: well the bitcoind design doesnt handle it very gracefully I dont think. it was orginally designed with cpu hash rates in mind and not many of them either. I think it kinda assumes you wont be hashing much greater than 4gh/s
 70 2011-08-09 05:34:53 <lfm> (not many cores)
 71 2011-08-09 05:35:10 <Doktor99_> one option that I can think of would be to use multiple receiving addresses
 72 2011-08-09 05:35:12 <Doktor99_> for the award
 73 2011-08-09 05:35:24 <Doktor99_> which are trivial to generate, right?
 74 2011-08-09 05:35:42 <lfm> yup, there is also a thing in the "coinbase" txn called an extra nonce
 75 2011-08-09 05:36:01 <Doktor99_> I'm aware of that; is it automatically incremented
 76 2011-08-09 05:36:24 <lfm> Im not sure of the details of its use really
 77 2011-08-09 05:36:37 <Doktor99_> so if I call bitcoin(d) getwork() twice, it will automatically increment I assume
 78 2011-08-09 05:36:44 <MrSam> yes
 79 2011-08-09 05:36:49 <MrSam> extranounce
 80 2011-08-09 05:37:12 <Doktor99_> actually, bitcoin(d) must automatically use your current wallet address for the award
 81 2011-08-09 05:37:13 <lfm> there does seem to be a limit to how many miners the standard bitcoin(d) can handle. I think its something like 10 or 12
 82 2011-08-09 05:37:16 <Doktor99_> so that doesn't work for extra entropy
 83 2011-08-09 05:38:15 <lfm> not sure if it uses the default next address/key or it has it's own
 84 2011-08-09 05:38:37 <kenny__> Hi, just a question can i use bitcoins on 3 computers at home (1pc and 2 servers) ?
 85 2011-08-09 05:38:47 <lfm> sure
 86 2011-08-09 05:38:50 <Doktor99_> well, it has to be your address... so either it's the current address or some new valid addres
 87 2011-08-09 05:39:01 <lfm> yup
 88 2011-08-09 05:39:26 <kenny__> ok then how i redirect my port 8333 on each...? :D
 89 2011-08-09 05:39:33 <Doktor99_> I guess the code will say it all
 90 2011-08-09 05:39:55 <Doktor99_> if I feel like digging through the bitcoin(d) code
 91 2011-08-09 05:39:57 <Doktor99_> to find out
 92 2011-08-09 05:40:33 <lfm> oh only one would be visible from the outside on port 8333 of course on a NAT lan. the other should be fine just using outgoin connections tho
 93 2011-08-09 05:41:21 <kenny__> ok i understand thank you :)
 94 2011-08-09 05:41:53 <lfm> you can add the -addnode= parms to link the local nodes together
 95 2011-08-09 05:43:07 <kenny__> ok hummm how i can do that..? and what is the node
 96 2011-08-09 05:43:45 <lfm> just the ip number - its not reqally needed
 97 2011-08-09 05:45:17 <kenny__> ok, im not really a good informatician... where i put this -addnode= params
 98 2011-08-09 05:45:39 <imsaguy> in the commandline
 99 2011-08-09 05:45:48 <imsaguy> if you use a shortcut, you have to add it in
100 2011-08-09 05:45:57 <imsaguy> if you launch the program manually, you just type it in at the end
101 2011-08-09 05:46:01 <lfm> no, you dont have to
102 2011-08-09 05:46:14 <lfm> ya its command line parm
103 2011-08-09 05:46:19 <kenny__> ok
104 2011-08-09 05:47:59 <kenny__> i make something like a batch with bitcoind.exe -addnode=..... on the bitcoinD (server)
105 2011-08-09 05:50:52 <osmosis> anyone have the link to the seed list on the wiki?
106 2011-08-09 05:51:21 <imsaguy> hold on osmosis
107 2011-08-09 05:51:33 <imsaguy> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes
108 2011-08-09 06:35:48 <Plasma-> Hello devs. With the listtransactions RPC call for the official Bitcoin client, a 'time' field is returned that is a 64bit number. Am I correct in saying its the unix timestamp (and so its also in UTC) of when the transaction was received by the network (and not my local bitcoin client)?
109 2011-08-09 06:35:58 <Plasma-> I am wanting to work out the 'date' of the transaction
110 2011-08-09 06:36:23 <osmosis> imsaguy, thx
111 2011-08-09 06:37:59 <edcba> received by the client ?
112 2011-08-09 06:38:04 <edcba> not sure of that
113 2011-08-09 06:38:38 <edcba> it may be dated by tx creator
114 2011-08-09 06:51:23 <lfm> if you have linux you can use the date -d @number command to work out the dat
115 2011-08-09 06:53:09 <lfm> so like "date -d @1309780976" displays your local time corresponding to that number
116 2011-08-09 06:53:36 <lfm> like "Mon Jul  4 06:02:56 MDT 2011"
117 2011-08-09 06:53:58 <lfm> or date -u -d @number" would show the utc time for it
118 2011-08-09 06:55:17 <phantomcircuit> Plasma-, it's either the time your client received it or the time it was included in a block
119 2011-08-09 06:55:20 <phantomcircuit> i cant remember
120 2011-08-09 06:55:21 <phantomcircuit> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx
121 2011-08-09 06:57:24 <lfm> probably timestamp from your local ssytem when it first sees the txn
122 2011-08-09 06:58:45 <phantomcircuit> i think that the timestamp is the block timestamp once it's included
123 2011-08-09 07:01:19 <lfm> nope I just checked, they dont match
124 2011-08-09 07:05:36 <lfm> oh they do match for received txn, for txn I sent the time is different
125 2011-08-09 07:15:54 <Plasma-> thanks everyone; im running a test (sent a coin while offline, will check back in a while to check the time difference)
126 2011-08-09 07:16:17 <Plasma-> was using http://www.unixtimestamp.com/ to quickly do a timestamp conversion, got confused because the output is in EST( -5hrs) instead of UTC heh :)
127 2011-08-09 07:16:49 <phantomcircuit> lfm, lul
128 2011-08-09 07:16:54 <phantomcircuit> lfm, that's probably a bug
129 2011-08-09 07:17:39 <Plasma-> back later, but will find out whats going on soon. thanks for the advice. afk
130 2011-08-09 07:17:53 <Darnoth> http://www.epochconverter.com/ will show your timezone and GMT.
131 2011-08-09 08:18:57 <sacarlson> there must be a way to resend a transaction,  seems when I sent one of my transactions I lost connection and now that send won't get confirmed
132 2011-08-09 08:19:30 <sacarlson> I was able to send another transaction from the same source and the secound already confirmed
133 2011-08-09 08:33:52 <sacarlson> -rescan seem not to have helped
134 2011-08-09 08:36:07 <wumpus> rescan does not re-send transactions
135 2011-08-09 08:36:19 <wumpus> afaik they are automatically rebroadcasted after a while
136 2011-08-09 09:11:45 <phantomcircuit> sacarlson, i wrote a patch that adds a resendtxs rpc call
137 2011-08-09 09:13:07 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: cool I'll check it out
138 2011-08-09 09:13:31 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: github ?
139 2011-08-09 09:13:56 <phantomcircuit> yeah one sec i made improvements since then
140 2011-08-09 09:17:46 <phantomcircuit> sacarlson, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/421
141 2011-08-09 09:21:32 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: ok thanks I'll check it out
142 2011-08-09 09:52:52 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: oh weard even before I looked at that code a few more blocks came it and it finaly got confirmed just one block back
143 2011-08-09 09:53:07 <phantomcircuit> heh
144 2011-08-09 09:53:36 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: so when would that be needed then if it self corrects your resend?
145 2011-08-09 09:54:13 <phantomcircuit> the resend happens randomly between the first connection and 30 minutes
146 2011-08-09 09:54:20 <phantomcircuit> which personally i find to be annoying as fuck
147 2011-08-09 09:54:30 <phantomcircuit> but i can understand why it's there
148 2011-08-09 09:54:53 <sacarlson> phantomcircuit: oh ok well if I had known that I might of just waited,  but the disconect was like 3 hours ago so I didn't know
149 2011-08-09 10:11:08 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
150 2011-08-09 10:11:09 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":10.25,"low":7.6,"avg":8.498840737,"vwap":8.771925917,"vol":75535,"last":10.1,"buy":10.1,"sell":10.14464}}
151 2011-08-09 10:13:17 <Plasma-> <phantomcircuit> Plasma-, it's either the time your client received it or the time it was included in a block <---- to answer my own question from earlier, the 'time' field in the rpc call getlatesttransactions appears to be a unix timestamp (so UTC) of when the txn was accepted/broadcast/etc? by the network
152 2011-08-09 10:13:38 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol
153 2011-08-09 10:32:51 <xelister> 12.00 already BUY BUY BUY we are going in for 13 in next hour, 17 in evening
154 2011-08-09 10:42:11 <lfm> xelister: we?
155 2011-08-09 10:42:50 <b4epoche_> him and his mom
156 2011-08-09 10:44:21 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
157 2011-08-09 10:44:25 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":12.1,"low":7.6,"avg":8.876262773,"vwap":9.217614992,"vol":91339,"last":10.487,"buy":10.25024,"sell":10.5}}
158 2011-08-09 10:44:49 <edcba> wait this morning it was 8 no ?
159 2011-08-09 11:03:02 <copumpkin> edcba: yeah
160 2011-08-09 12:18:05 <b4epoche_> is there a 'bitcoincharts' forum?  or is it just best to find tcatm here?
161 2011-08-09 12:20:18 <CIA-101> DiabloMiner: Patrick McFarland master * r39df3ef / src/main/java/com/diablominer/DiabloMiner/DiabloMiner.java : Improved error handling more, remove usage of System.exit() and blanket ... https://github.com/Diablo-D3/DiabloMiner/commit/39df3efc14c52b000714b358a2158b7022e424e3
162 2011-08-09 12:24:58 <tcatm> b4epoche_: either msg me here or email info@bitcoincharts.com
163 2011-08-09 12:51:38 <ImRoot702> i've heard the client pre-generates bitcoin addresses when you create a wallet. But when I run 'bitcoind getaddressbyaccount "" ', i just get one address. can someone address my misconception?
164 2011-08-09 12:52:21 <asher^> you still need to go through the process of making a new address
165 2011-08-09 12:52:27 <tcatm> ImRoot702: the pre-generated addresses are "hidden" until you use them
166 2011-08-09 12:52:29 <asher^> it pre-generates them just to save time when you do that
167 2011-08-09 12:53:02 <arcatan> "Returns the current bitcoin address for receiving payments to this account." says the wiki
168 2011-08-09 12:53:14 <arcatan> whoops, sorry, read the wrong line
169 2011-08-09 12:53:54 <ImRoot702> ok. thanks guys. a wiki link would be nice if someone has it handy
170 2011-08-09 12:55:53 <jtaylor> ImRoot702: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Key_pool
171 2011-08-09 12:56:04 <jtaylor> hm ok its not ver long ^^
172 2011-08-09 12:57:05 <jtaylor> and its not really to save time, but so you don't need to backup your wallet after every new adress
173 2011-08-09 12:57:29 <ImRoot702> ok. thanks for that! but I still dont understand the purpose of "hiding" them or why they are not visible. would gavin's bitcointools be able to reveal those pregenerated addresses?
174 2011-08-09 12:57:54 <tcatm> bitcointools shows them
175 2011-08-09 12:58:03 <asher^> because many people have no use for 100 addresses
176 2011-08-09 12:58:33 <tcatm> they are hidden so they can be used for change transactions without confusing the user
177 2011-08-09 12:59:01 <ImRoot702> ah. k. thanks tcatm asher^  jtaylor !!! just trying to make sure I have a solid understanding
178 2011-08-09 13:00:41 <ImRoot702> once a wallet has been generated, is there a way to pregen any more addresses if I felt the need given a backup schedule and new use or would it just be more prudent to recreate a new wallet with the option to specify more pregen'd addresses?
179 2011-08-09 13:01:45 <asher^> when would you need more than 100 new ones at once?
180 2011-08-09 13:02:52 <ImRoot702> not at once, just over a period of time between a wallets backup i guess
181 2011-08-09 13:04:49 <asher^> iirc when you use one, another is generated so theres always 100 spare
182 2011-08-09 13:05:03 <b4epoche_> asher^:  get to bed, you got classes tomorrow ;-)
183 2011-08-09 13:05:39 <ImRoot702> and what if I only receive at a wallet's address... the backup/pregenerated address problem only comes into play if I have a lot of "change" from sends. if it's receive only for a long period of time, the problem doesn't come into play. is that correct?
184 2011-08-09 13:05:59 <asher^> b4epoche hehe
185 2011-08-09 13:08:49 <b4epoche_> copumpkin:  ping
186 2011-08-09 13:14:02 <copumpkin> pong
187 2011-08-09 13:14:06 <copumpkin> kind of busy though :)
188 2011-08-09 13:15:20 <Eliel> tcatm: the change transactions are actually confusing in some respects _because_ the addresses are hidden.
189 2011-08-09 13:15:50 <Eliel> I know there are at least a few people who have bungled up their backups because of it.
190 2011-08-09 13:17:13 <b4epoche_> copumpkin:  just wanted to introduce you to tcatm, another haskeller ;-)
191 2011-08-09 13:17:20 <copumpkin> oh yay
192 2011-08-09 13:17:26 <copumpkin> moar haskell
193 2011-08-09 13:17:49 <Eliel> although, granted, most of them were also because of the client failing to generate the first 100 addresses at wallet creation.
194 2011-08-09 13:18:01 <Eliel> ah, more haskellers :) good good
195 2011-08-09 13:18:53 <b4epoche_> maybe we'll eventually have a haskell backend to bitcoincharts, eh tcatm ?
196 2011-08-09 13:19:00 <copumpkin> :D
197 2011-08-09 13:20:55 <tcatm> b4epoche_: unlikely. I'm not going to rewrite 9623 SLOC again. (first version of bitcoincharts was shellscripts + perl)
198 2011-08-09 13:22:37 <copumpkin> pff
199 2011-08-09 13:22:41 <copumpkin> that'd be like 10 lines of haskell, duh
200 2011-08-09 13:22:59 <tcatm> 10 very long lines ;)
201 2011-08-09 13:23:00 <copumpkin> you just need to use the zygohistomorphic prepromorphism
202 2011-08-09 14:00:53 <vegard> hm, guys
203 2011-08-09 14:00:57 <vegard> maybe this has been suggested before
204 2011-08-09 14:01:27 <vegard> but couldn't transactions include a proof of work?
205 2011-08-09 14:01:36 <vegard> to discourage flooding, I mean
206 2011-08-09 14:02:45 <Diablo-D3> no because it was not built into the original system
207 2011-08-09 14:03:00 <dreamer_> I doubt the goddess of weather will flood your house just because of lack of proof of work :)
208 2011-08-09 14:03:08 <vegard> it doesn't have to become a part of the block chain
209 2011-08-09 14:03:09 <Diablo-D3> the system already deals with the flooding problem with tx fees.
210 2011-08-09 14:03:31 <vegard> but miners could include transactions that have a valid proof of work associated
211 2011-08-09 14:03:38 <Diablo-D3> vegard: no
212 2011-08-09 14:03:43 <Diablo-D3> btc is designed as a pay to play system
213 2011-08-09 14:05:15 <vegard> are you afraid of taking away the incentive to mine once all the coins have been minted?
214 2011-08-09 14:05:50 <Diablo-D3> yes
215 2011-08-09 14:05:59 <Diablo-D3> I mean, this is one of the core principals of the system
216 2011-08-09 14:06:05 <vegard> then say so ;) it's much easier to understand that.
217 2011-08-09 14:06:08 <Diablo-D3> if tx fees didnt exist, your way would already be used.
218 2011-08-09 14:09:01 <vegard> well, what about a proof of work just for broadcasting messages?
219 2011-08-09 14:09:29 <vegard> nevermind, I guess it's not necessary.
220 2011-08-09 14:38:32 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r9f0ac16 / src/net.cpp : Do-nothing MapPort() ifndef USE_UPNP. fixes #450 - http://bit.ly/mSHAFD https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9f0ac16942d9f15ec57204448436cd429badf481
221 2011-08-09 15:49:34 <forrestv> my bitcoind just locked up - no cpu usage, no answering rpc calls
222 2011-08-09 15:49:41 <forrestv> i have a backtrace of all the threads from gdb: http://pastebin.com/na6tbVhT
223 2011-08-09 15:50:44 <forrestv> looks like most of the threads are waiting on CRITICAL_BLOCK(cs_mapAddresses)?
224 2011-08-09 15:51:27 <forrestv> this is from git, commit 9326234
225 2011-08-09 15:51:55 <gavinandresen> forrestv: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/453
226 2011-08-09 15:55:04 <forrestv> not sure that it's the same thing. i'm not using an encrypted wallet or the gui
227 2011-08-09 15:57:50 <xelister> lolo http://www.squarewear.biz/image/cache/data/smallStoreBitcoinMemory-200x200.jpg  I'm old :(
228 2011-08-09 16:05:16 <dooglus> is there some way to unencrypt my wallet once I've encrypted it?
229 2011-08-09 16:06:20 <dooglus> I tried using 'walletpassphrasechange' with the 2nd arg being '', but it gives me a usage error
230 2011-08-09 16:33:38 <diki> i want someone to tell me, in pushpool, msg.c check_hash function, the line with if(hash[27] == 0) which checks if the hash should be sent to bitcoind, someone told me that i can also add hash[26] == 0
231 2011-08-09 16:33:39 <diki> why?
232 2011-08-09 16:39:45 <Zagitta> diki: i would assume it's because the difficulty is >1 mil now but i'm not entirly sure
233 2011-08-09 16:42:29 <Caesium> yeah, assume it's that 1048576 in hex is 100000, so there is another zero to take advantage of
234 2011-08-09 16:42:58 <Caesium> anything below and hash[27] wouldn't be zero, so it only works at diff >= 1048576
235 2011-08-09 16:43:10 <Caesium> er 26
236 2011-08-09 16:44:11 <Caesium> hash32[7] checks the last 4 in one operation, then hash[27] checks the fifth from the end
237 2011-08-09 16:44:27 <Caesium> I tihnk ;)
238 2011-08-09 17:37:07 <zyphlar> Has anyone seen jargon lately? I need to pass an urgent message from Kaminsky
239 2011-08-09 17:43:57 <FractalUniverse> ;;seen jargon
240 2011-08-09 17:43:57 <gribble> jargon was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 1 day, 8 hours, 44 minutes, and 51 seconds ago: <jargon> Why do Humans make such good tv antennas, yet we don't have telepathy so much.
241 2011-08-09 17:44:12 <FractalUniverse> no;)
242 2011-08-09 17:47:05 <edcba> that jargon : http://pastebin.com/2ADv2FL5 ?
243 2011-08-09 17:47:58 <zyphlar> Damn, I must transfer this vital knowledge to him
244 2011-08-09 17:48:29 <edcba> vital knowledge being kaminsky drunk ?
245 2011-08-09 17:49:24 <zyphlar> I've been watching kaminsky for days
246 2011-08-09 17:49:41 <zyphlar> He knows things about bitcoin
247 2011-08-09 17:49:47 <edcba> lol no shit
248 2011-08-09 17:50:03 <upb> lol
249 2011-08-09 17:50:07 <edcba> maybe he even did some conference about it !
250 2011-08-09 17:50:19 <zyphlar> Its possible, I can't confirm
251 2011-08-09 17:50:42 <upb> there is an imminent threat to bitcoin but he can only reveal it to the affected parties right
252 2011-08-09 17:50:44 <edcba> yeah maybe he wasn't him after all
253 2011-08-09 17:50:54 <edcba> haha
254 2011-08-09 17:50:57 <upb> and the details will be released at the next conference
255 2011-08-09 17:51:06 <upb> tickets can be bought here:
256 2011-08-09 17:51:11 <zyphlar> Absolutely, I need to let everyone know that they can't know
257 2011-08-09 17:51:26 <edcba> sell ! sell !
258 2011-08-09 17:51:37 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
259 2011-08-09 17:51:41 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":12.1,"low":7.61,"avg":9.495312924,"vwap":9.661233753,"vol":104624,"last":10.16455,"buy":10.16456,"sell":10.21224}}
260 2011-08-09 17:51:46 <edcba> no wait, buy buy !
261 2011-08-09 17:51:55 <upb> sell sell
262 2011-08-09 17:52:00 <upb> so we can buy buy
263 2011-08-09 17:52:10 <edcba> i already have bitcoins !
264 2011-08-09 17:52:18 <upb> i dont:)
265 2011-08-09 17:52:23 <zyphlar> Sell them and then buy them back
266 2011-08-09 17:52:29 <zyphlar> Its the only way
267 2011-08-09 17:52:34 <edcba> yes ! i'll become rich !
268 2011-08-09 17:52:49 <upb> i sold at 12, bought at 8.25, sold at 10.5
269 2011-08-09 17:53:46 <zyphlar> What's the coolest thing you bought with bitcoins?
270 2011-08-09 17:53:58 <upb> usd
271 2011-08-09 17:54:21 <zyphlar> I heard jargon bought liquid plutonium
272 2011-08-09 17:54:25 <FractalUniverse> :)
273 2011-08-09 17:55:00 <zyphlar> 0.51 btc
274 2011-08-09 17:55:29 <zyphlar> For like a bagful
275 2011-08-09 18:00:14 <iz> edcba: did you accept payment in bitcoin?
276 2011-08-09 18:01:13 <edcba> iz: i did of course but i don't know if it still works
277 2011-08-09 18:01:29 <edcba> and dunno if exploitable
278 2011-08-09 19:41:58 <m03sizlak> hey, ive launched a HTML5 bitcoin blackjack site, check it out  http://bitjack21.com
279 2011-08-09 19:42:37 <copumpkin> man, this has to go be the first time I've ever heard of that fucking blackjack site
280 2011-08-09 19:42:43 <copumpkin> never seen that before
281 2011-08-09 19:42:50 <copumpkin> :)
282 2011-08-09 19:44:58 <doublec> it does look pretty nifty however
283 2011-08-09 19:46:47 <m03sizlak> i just enabled a "honesty" algorithm
284 2011-08-09 19:47:04 <m03sizlak> allows me to prove that the order of the cards is random and didnt change during the hand
285 2011-08-09 19:47:09 <m03sizlak> its actually quite cool:
286 2011-08-09 19:47:17 <m03sizlak> http://bitjack21.com/cryptoproof
287 2011-08-09 19:48:49 <copumpkin> yeah, that's neat :)
288 2011-08-09 19:49:05 <copumpkin> we did a lot of stuff like that in the iphone jailbreak community back in the day
289 2011-08-09 19:59:15 <diki> [21:43:04] <Caesium> anything below and hash[27] wouldn't be zero, so it only works at diff >= 1048576
290 2011-08-09 19:59:37 <diki> so
291 2011-08-09 20:00:09 <diki> is it possible that when hash[27] doesnt evaluate to 0, but hash[26] does, is it possible that could solve a block(if it meets target)?
292 2011-08-09 20:05:17 <Diablo-D3> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/08/08/mybitcoin-spokesman-finally-comes-forward-what-did-you-think-we-did-after-the-hack-we-got-shitfaced/
293 2011-08-09 20:05:27 <Diablo-D3> I lol'd.
294 2011-08-09 20:07:13 <Diablo-D3> I dont think that MyBitcoin site existed anyhow
295 2011-08-09 20:09:22 <tcatm> does anybody know if satoshi ever explained why he set the limit to 21M?
296 2011-08-09 20:10:07 <Diablo-D3> tcatm: approximate number of sha256 hashes that start with a few 0s.
297 2011-08-09 20:10:26 <tcatm> src?
298 2011-08-09 20:10:41 <Diablo-D3> there isnt one, its sorta obvious
299 2011-08-09 20:11:08 <tcatm> that might be, but is that the reason for the limit?
300 2011-08-09 20:11:17 <jtaylor> ? can't sha256 theretically hash to 0?
301 2011-08-09 20:11:24 <eastender> my windows defender is detecting one of my miners as CoinMiner is this a false positive?
302 2011-08-09 20:14:27 <tcatm> Diablo-D3: how did you approximate that number?
303 2011-08-09 20:15:22 <edcba> jtaylor: so ?
304 2011-08-09 20:15:56 <jtaylor> I don't get the connection with 21M
305 2011-08-09 20:16:26 <TheSeven> the 21M limit is probably just what happens if you cut the generated coins into half every n-th block
306 2011-08-09 20:16:44 <edcba> 21M is sum of some algebric suite
307 2011-08-09 20:17:06 <tcatm> yes, that's visible from the code. but why 21M and not some other limit?
308 2011-08-09 20:17:30 <edcba> ie start at (50+25+12+6+3+1)*x
309 2011-08-09 20:17:49 <edcba> because satoshi liked 50 ?
310 2011-08-09 20:18:04 <edcba> why 10 minutes ?
311 2011-08-09 20:18:06 <edcba> because
312 2011-08-09 20:18:09 <lfm> tcatm: on possibility I noticed, (I dont know if its real) is 21000000.00000000 is an amount that still fits accuratly into a double float.
313 2011-08-09 20:18:30 <edcba> you can't trust that
314 2011-08-09 20:18:32 <jtaylor> no
315 2011-08-09 20:18:39 <jtaylor> it are 2 digits
316 2011-08-09 20:18:45 <jtaylor> a float can carry ~9 digits
317 2011-08-09 20:18:52 <edcba> he said double
318 2011-08-09 20:18:53 <jtaylor> +exponent
319 2011-08-09 20:18:53 <lfm> double float
320 2011-08-09 20:19:02 <jtaylor> double float 15 digits then
321 2011-08-09 20:19:08 <jtaylor> still 2 vs 15
322 2011-08-09 20:19:28 <edcba> anyway he doesn't use floats nor double
323 2011-08-09 20:19:43 <edcba> i think it's just more convenient to "sell"
324 2011-08-09 20:19:43 <lfm> jtaylor: it actually 51 or 52 BITS, not digits you know?
325 2011-08-09 20:19:59 <TheSeven> double guarantees 63 bits
326 2011-08-09 20:20:02 <jtaylor> lfm: I know but your apparently talking of digits
327 2011-08-09 20:20:15 <lfm> jtaylor: look again
328 2011-08-09 20:20:21 <edcba> ie saying to a novice you'll win 50 bitcoins each block instead of 128
329 2011-08-09 20:20:28 <jtaylor> you know what float in floating point number stands for?
330 2011-08-09 20:20:44 <edcba> it's less dense than water ?
331 2011-08-09 20:20:45 <TheSeven> er, wait, 52 was correct, sorry
332 2011-08-09 20:21:13 <jtaylor> a now I get what you mean
333 2011-08-09 20:21:16 <jtaylor> sorry I'm a bit slow
334 2011-08-09 20:21:20 <edcba> lol
335 2011-08-09 20:22:02 <lfm> ok, now that we seem to agree, did Satoshi do it on purpose do you think?
336 2011-08-09 20:23:15 <Eliel> lfm: I'd be inclined to believe it's on purpose.
337 2011-08-09 20:23:45 <Eliel> I mean, he did do similar things elsewhere. Like the base-58 thing.
338 2011-08-09 20:23:54 <Eliel> Try to protect against people making mistakes.
339 2011-08-09 20:24:16 <Diablo-D3> [06:14:27] <tcatm> Diablo-D3: how did you approximate that number?
340 2011-08-09 20:24:18 <edcba> he did a lot of thing on purpose
341 2011-08-09 20:24:19 <Eliel> and bad programmers using doubles is almost a given
342 2011-08-09 20:24:22 <Diablo-D3> more of a question on how satoshi did
343 2011-08-09 20:24:23 <Diablo-D3> I dont know
344 2011-08-09 20:24:40 <lfm> Eliel: yes he surely did think thru a lot of things that we are still struggling to think thru ourselves
345 2011-08-09 20:24:45 <edcba> bitcoin has really been thought a lot
346 2011-08-09 20:24:58 <Eliel> (or lazy... in case you want to consider lazy programmer to be different from bad)
347 2011-08-09 20:25:08 <Diablo-D3> it also dictated what number he started with
348 2011-08-09 20:25:15 <Diablo-D3> such as 50 instead of 100 or whatever
349 2011-08-09 20:25:40 <edcba> dunno why he didn't choose 100
350 2011-08-09 20:25:58 <Diablo-D3> edcba: I just said why earlier
351 2011-08-09 20:26:01 <lfm> ya 100 wouldnt work, it would be too big
352 2011-08-09 20:26:05 <Eliel> I'm curious, though, where the number 210000 for the mining reward halving cycle comes from.
353 2011-08-09 20:26:24 <Diablo-D3> he chose an approximate number of sha256 hashes that have enough 0s
354 2011-08-09 20:26:41 <lfm> it maybe got rounded off a little for humans
355 2011-08-09 20:27:17 <jtaylor> Diablo-D3: maybe I'm slow again, but I don't see how the number of 0's in a hash has something to do with it?
356 2011-08-09 20:27:28 <jtaylor> isn't it random?
357 2011-08-09 20:27:39 <Diablo-D3> you do realize how mining works, right?
358 2011-08-09 20:27:50 <jtaylor> yes
359 2011-08-09 20:28:00 <edcba> but how rewards are connected ???
360 2011-08-09 20:28:07 <Diablo-D3> he chose a number that works
361 2011-08-09 20:28:25 <edcba> reward is not related to difficulty afaik
362 2011-08-09 20:28:31 <Diablo-D3> too low, and there are a lot of sha256s that could have been valid
363 2011-08-09 20:28:39 <lfm> he starts with 21e14 as aprrox 2^51 the pics 8 bigits for fractional part (arbitrary?
364 2011-08-09 20:28:42 <Diablo-D3> too high, and mining may never complete
365 2011-08-09 20:29:03 <edcba> he could have started with diff 1
366 2011-08-09 20:29:09 <Diablo-D3> he did start with diff 1.
367 2011-08-09 20:29:18 <jtaylor> you mean he took a reasonable number of zeros for the hardware at the time and that coincided with 21 M?
368 2011-08-09 20:29:19 <Diablo-D3> but he didnt know what future diffs would reach
369 2011-08-09 20:29:27 <Diablo-D3> jtaylor: vaguely
370 2011-08-09 20:29:33 <Diablo-D3> its a ballpark figure
371 2011-08-09 20:29:47 <Diablo-D3> he only needed to get in the right ballpark
372 2011-08-09 20:30:06 <edcba> there is nothing related between difficulty and total bitcoins
373 2011-08-09 20:30:06 <lfm> he prolly benchmarked his own cpu and said, that is 1 (about)
374 2011-08-09 20:30:20 <edcba> they are independant
375 2011-08-09 20:30:21 <Diablo-D3> edcba: not true.
376 2011-08-09 20:30:37 <edcba> so give me the formula :)
377 2011-08-09 20:30:43 <Diablo-D3> if difficulty spikes too high that we, say, need 255 binary 0s first, we're doomed.
378 2011-08-09 20:31:02 <lfm> then switch to sha512
379 2011-08-09 20:31:13 <Diablo-D3> lfm: nope
380 2011-08-09 20:31:19 <lfm> why not?
381 2011-08-09 20:31:22 <Diablo-D3> you cannot make changes that require new clients.
382 2011-08-09 20:31:23 <edcba> difficulty regulates block time, rewards are function of block count
383 2011-08-09 20:31:31 <edcba> so they are not dependant
384 2011-08-09 20:31:36 <Diablo-D3> edcba: time is money.
385 2011-08-09 20:31:40 <edcba> ...
386 2011-08-09 20:31:40 <jtaylor> you can, you just need enough rollo9ut time
387 2011-08-09 20:31:58 <Eliel> Diablo-D3: in an event when previous clients would stop functioning anyway, you can pretty much make sure the network upgrades.
388 2011-08-09 20:31:58 <lfm> not a danger anyway barring math breakthroughs
389 2011-08-09 20:31:58 <wasabi2> No. Becuase any new clients wuold be incomptible with old clients.
390 2011-08-09 20:32:04 <wasabi2> Hello typoes.
391 2011-08-09 20:32:07 <edcba> still having some diff starting at 1000 woulnd't chante total amount of bitcoin or whatever
392 2011-08-09 20:32:08 <jtaylor> we need 250 zeros now, so within a year all clients should update, that should be possible
393 2011-08-09 20:32:25 <wasabi2> jtaylor: An old client would be unable to verify blocks of new clients.
394 2011-08-09 20:32:28 <Diablo-D3> edcba: why start at 1000? the diff can only go up
395 2011-08-09 20:32:35 <edcba> only ? :)
396 2011-08-09 20:32:47 <lfm> it goes up and down actually
397 2011-08-09 20:32:50 <Diablo-D3> since diff 1 was one of satoshi's cpus? yes.
398 2011-08-09 20:33:03 <lfm> very roughly
399 2011-08-09 20:33:06 <jtaylor> wasabi2: a client can do both and on a certain agreed block they all switch, and who doesn't gets excluded from the network?
400 2011-08-09 20:33:09 <Diablo-D3> to drop below diff 1 on the main network, EVERYONE would have to stop mining.
401 2011-08-09 20:33:09 <edcba> like when the guy stopped mining with amazon ec2
402 2011-08-09 20:33:16 <edcba> he went up lol
403 2011-08-09 20:33:28 <lfm> it actually WAS below 1 for the first year
404 2011-08-09 20:33:34 <edcba> oh yes of course it can't go below 1
405 2011-08-09 20:33:36 <Diablo-D3> lfm: vaguely.
406 2011-08-09 20:33:50 <wasabi2> I supose.
407 2011-08-09 20:33:59 <edcba> or i mean below 1 bit in distance
408 2011-08-09 20:33:59 <Eliel> you could also do a soft upgrade. First start preparing the network for the move, so that all new clients support the new hash and when majority of the miners support that, switch.
409 2011-08-09 20:34:04 <lfm> well actual diff pinned to 1 but the actual rate was below that
410 2011-08-09 20:34:05 <Diablo-D3> lfm: his machine wasnt on 24/7
411 2011-08-09 20:34:13 <lfm> right
412 2011-08-09 20:34:33 <Eliel> if the miners are mostly onboard, people are basically forced to migrate to the new system.
413 2011-08-09 20:35:15 <lfm> a single ATI 5770 GPU like mine by itself would make for a difficulty of 45 I figure
414 2011-08-09 20:35:39 <Diablo-D3> well do the math lfm
415 2011-08-09 20:35:56 <Diablo-D3> 100mhash does 2^32 hashes in 45 seconds
416 2011-08-09 20:36:20 <Diablo-D3> 2012 blocks are supposed to be done in 2 weeks
417 2011-08-09 20:37:08 <Diablo-D3> thats 1209600 seconds
418 2011-08-09 20:37:31 <edcba> 1 block is supposed to do in 10 minutes ?
419 2011-08-09 20:37:32 <Diablo-D3> so a diff of 26880 just with one 5850
420 2011-08-09 20:37:36 <Diablo-D3> edcba: yes
421 2011-08-09 20:37:38 <edcba> isn't easier to calc ? :)
422 2011-08-09 20:37:57 <Diablo-D3> its easier to calc when the two numbers arent near each other.
423 2011-08-09 20:38:00 <Diablo-D3> er sorry
424 2011-08-09 20:38:08 <Diablo-D3> its 26880 with one 100mhash card
425 2011-08-09 20:38:29 <lfm> well easier to calc 600 seconds for a nominal block
426 2011-08-09 20:38:40 <Diablo-D3> its 101069 with a 5850
427 2011-08-09 20:38:50 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,diff
428 2011-08-09 20:38:51 <gribble> 1888786.7053531
429 2011-08-09 20:39:42 <Diablo-D3> that means we have about 7 ghash if my math is right
430 2011-08-09 20:39:58 <jtaylor> total?
431 2011-08-09 20:40:02 <Diablo-D3> at least, I should be in the right ballpark
432 2011-08-09 20:40:07 <Diablo-D3> jtaylor: yeah
433 2011-08-09 20:40:12 <jtaylor> network hashrate is ~13 TH
434 2011-08-09 20:40:23 <Diablo-D3> yeah, Im in the right ballpark
435 2011-08-09 20:40:36 <jtaylor> 3 orders of magnitude a ballpark?
436 2011-08-09 20:40:41 <Diablo-D3> er
437 2011-08-09 20:40:52 <lfm> er 7 mhash?
438 2011-08-09 20:40:53 <Diablo-D3> I think my math is wrong somewhere.
439 2011-08-09 20:42:24 <Diablo-D3> 45 seconds for a diff 1 block at 100 mhash
440 2011-08-09 20:42:27 <gribble> (2^32) / 600 = 7,158,278.83
441 2011-08-09 20:42:27 <lfm> ;;calc 2^32/600
442 2011-08-09 20:42:46 <jtaylor> total hashrate/difficulty/100mhash?
443 2011-08-09 20:42:56 <jtaylor> would make 0.06 difficulty if I did not make typos
444 2011-08-09 20:42:58 <lfm> 45/600
445 2011-08-09 20:43:04 <lfm> ;;calc 45/600
446 2011-08-09 20:43:05 <gribble> 45 / 600 = 0.075
447 2011-08-09 20:43:22 <lfm> ;;calc 600/45
448 2011-08-09 20:43:23 <gribble> 600 / 45 = 13.3333333
449 2011-08-09 20:44:41 <Diablo-D3> heh
450 2011-08-09 20:45:19 <Diablo-D3> oh wait, 1209600 is wrong
451 2011-08-09 20:45:19 <lfm> difficulty 13 would be one gpu dominating the whole net
452 2011-08-09 20:45:27 <Diablo-D3> its 172800
453 2011-08-09 20:45:32 <Diablo-D3> no wait no
454 2011-08-09 20:45:43 <Diablo-D3> 60*60*24*7*2 = 1209600
455 2011-08-09 20:46:03 <lfm> ok thats minutes
456 2011-08-09 20:46:10 <Diablo-D3> actually hell, even just 10 minutes
457 2011-08-09 20:46:19 <lfm> now divide by 10 for 10 miniute blocks
458 2011-08-09 20:46:53 <Diablo-D3> wait no, 10 minutes is retarded
459 2011-08-09 20:47:03 <Diablo-D3> I want to know how often it creates a diff 1 block
460 2011-08-09 20:47:07 <Diablo-D3> its every 45 seconds
461 2011-08-09 20:47:13 <lfm> oh ok yes
462 2011-08-09 20:47:54 <Diablo-D3> so shouldnt it be 1888786 / 600 * 45?
463 2011-08-09 20:48:03 <Diablo-D3> that gives me 141685 * 100 mhash
464 2011-08-09 20:48:04 <lfm> and if you want it to take 600 seconds, set the diff to 13.3
465 2011-08-09 20:48:26 <Diablo-D3> which is... 14 thash?
466 2011-08-09 20:48:36 <lfm> no 100 ghash
467 2011-08-09 20:48:57 <Diablo-D3> 14168.5 ghash, 14.1 thash
468 2011-08-09 20:49:02 <lfm> 14 thash is diff 1.6million
469 2011-08-09 20:49:16 <lfm> isnt it?
470 2011-08-09 20:49:49 <Diablo-D3> lfm: not with my math
471 2011-08-09 20:50:05 <lfm> currently for difficulty of 1.88879e+06 is overall 1.35207e+13 hash/s
472 2011-08-09 20:50:14 <owowo> !bc,estimate
473 2011-08-09 20:50:44 <Diablo-D3> btw apparently its 43 seconds not 45
474 2011-08-09 20:50:52 <lfm> ;;bc,nethash
475 2011-08-09 20:50:53 <gribble> 12401.866387646673
476 2011-08-09 20:51:10 <lfm> dunno what units gribble is using
477 2011-08-09 20:51:12 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc.diff
478 2011-08-09 20:51:13 <gribble> Error: "bc.diff" is not a valid command.
479 2011-08-09 20:51:16 <Diablo-D3> er
480 2011-08-09 20:51:18 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,diff
481 2011-08-09 20:51:19 <gribble> 1888786.7053531
482 2011-08-09 20:51:39 <gribble> 1830502.27179797
483 2011-08-09 20:51:39 <lfm> ;;bc,estimate
484 2011-08-09 20:51:47 <lfm> ;;bc,spotestimate
485 2011-08-09 20:51:48 <gribble> 1732494.28941
486 2011-08-09 20:51:59 <Diablo-D3> (1 888 786.7053531 / 600) * 43 = 135 363.047
487 2011-08-09 20:52:03 <owowo> ;;bc,estimate
488 2011-08-09 20:52:04 <gribble> 1830502.27179797
489 2011-08-09 20:52:13 <gribble> Error: "bc,eta" is not a valid command.
490 2011-08-09 20:52:13 <owowo> ;;bc,eta
491 2011-08-09 20:52:28 <Diablo-D3> (135 363.047 / 10) / 1 000 = 13.5363047
492 2011-08-09 20:52:37 <Diablo-D3> so there
493 2011-08-09 20:52:41 <owowo> ;;bc,diffchange
494 2011-08-09 20:52:42 <gribble> -3.08581341608 % estimated difficulty change this period
495 2011-08-09 20:52:47 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,estimate] /600 * 43
496 2011-08-09 20:52:48 <gribble> (1,830,502.27179797 / 600) * 43 = 131,185.996
497 2011-08-09 20:52:48 <owowo> ;o)
498 2011-08-09 20:52:49 <Diablo-D3> to maintain the current diff, you need 13.5 thash.
499 2011-08-09 20:52:58 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,spotestimate] /600 * 43
500 2011-08-09 20:52:59 <gribble> (1,732,494.28941 / 600) * 43 = 124,162.091
501 2011-08-09 20:53:15 <Diablo-D3> there. I did the fucking maths.
502 2011-08-09 20:53:20 <gribble> 12401.866387646673
503 2011-08-09 20:53:20 <lfm> ;;bc,nethash
504 2011-08-09 20:53:29 <owowo> ;;bc,timetonext
505 2011-08-09 20:53:30 <gribble> 5 days, 23 hours, 31 minutes, and 50 seconds
506 2011-08-09 20:53:33 <Diablo-D3> lfm: thats probably current actual
507 2011-08-09 20:53:38 <Diablo-D3> remember, the estimate is lower than current
508 2011-08-09 20:53:55 <Diablo-D3> oh hey
509 2011-08-09 20:54:07 <Diablo-D3> 12401 / 10 / 1000 = 12.4 ghash.
510 2011-08-09 20:54:17 <Diablo-D3> now I know how gribble estimates current
511 2011-08-09 20:54:22 <lfm> estimates can vary widley up and down especially at the start of a new difficulty
512 2011-08-09 20:54:33 <Diablo-D3> so I like my figure better
513 2011-08-09 20:54:35 <Diablo-D3> its 13.5 thash
514 2011-08-09 20:54:57 <Diablo-D3> [06:40:13] <jtaylor> network hashrate is ~13 TH+
515 2011-08-09 20:55:04 <Diablo-D3> so. there.
516 2011-08-09 20:55:35 <lfm> so that ;;bc,nethash is in ghash/sec
517 2011-08-09 20:55:43 <Diablo-D3> yes
518 2011-08-09 20:55:51 <Diablo-D3> but it means you can calculate it yourself
519 2011-08-09 20:56:13 <Diablo-D3> (2^32) + 65 536 = 4 295 032 832 = diff 1
520 2011-08-09 20:56:52 <Diablo-D3> / 100m = 42.9503283
521 2011-08-09 20:57:57 <Diablo-D3> current diff / 10 minutes * that seconds / 10 / 1000 (->ghash->thash) = thash needed to maintain that diff
522 2011-08-09 20:58:20 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,estimate] / 600 * 43 / 10 / 1000
523 2011-08-09 20:58:21 <gribble> (((1,830,081.80988365 / 600) * 43) / 10) / 1,000 = 13.1155863
524 2011-08-09 20:58:27 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 600 * 43 / 10 / 1000
525 2011-08-09 20:58:27 <lfm> 1.35207e+13 hash/s
526 2011-08-09 20:58:28 <gribble> (((1,888,786.7053531 / 600) * 43) / 10) / 1,000 = 13.5363047
527 2011-08-09 20:58:40 <Diablo-D3> so there.
528 2011-08-09 20:58:47 <Diablo-D3> Diablo's magic thash calculator.
529 2011-08-09 20:58:58 <lfm> whats 43 from?
530 2011-08-09 20:59:09 <Diablo-D3> [06:56:13] <Diablo-D3> (2^32) + 65 536 = 4 295 032 832 = diff 1
531 2011-08-09 20:59:13 <Diablo-D3> [06:56:52] <Diablo-D3> / 100m = 42.9503283
532 2011-08-09 20:59:34 <lfm> oh
533 2011-08-09 20:59:39 <Diablo-D3> 100 mhash takes 43 seconds to do a diff 1
534 2011-08-09 20:59:50 <Diablo-D3> 1 ghash takes 4.3 seconds
535 2011-08-09 21:01:40 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]/2^32/600
536 2011-08-09 21:01:41 <gribble> (1,888,786.7053531 / (2^32)) / 600 = 7.32945707 * 10^(-7)
537 2011-08-09 21:02:05 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]*2^32/600
538 2011-08-09 21:02:06 <gribble> (1,888,786.7053531 * (2^32)) / 600 = 1.35204619 * 10^(13)
539 2011-08-09 21:02:32 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]*2^32/600/1e12
540 2011-08-09 21:02:33 <gribble> ((1,888,786.7053531 * (2^32)) / 600) / 1e12 = 13.5204619
541 2011-08-09 21:03:18 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 2577019.7
542 2011-08-09 21:03:19 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 2,577,019.7 = 0.732934523
543 2011-08-09 21:03:23 <Diablo-D3> derp
544 2011-08-09 21:04:18 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 2.5770197
545 2011-08-09 21:04:19 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 2.5770197 = 732,934.523
546 2011-08-09 21:04:26 <Diablo-D3> nope thats not right
547 2011-08-09 21:04:58 <lfm> ;;calc 600*1e12/2^32
548 2011-08-09 21:04:59 <gribble> (600 * 1e12) / (2^32) = 139,698.386
549 2011-08-09 21:05:38 <Diablo-D3> ((2^32) + 65 536) / 1 000 000 000 = 4.29503283 = diff 1 at 1 ghash
550 2011-08-09 21:05:53 <Diablo-D3> (((2^32) + 65 536) / 1 000 000 000) / 1 000 = 0.00429503283 = diff 1 at 1 thash
551 2011-08-09 21:06:16 <Diablo-D3> (600 * (((2^32) + 65 536) / 1 000 000 000)) / 1 000 = 2.5770197 = diff 1s at 1 thash in ten minutes
552 2011-08-09 21:06:39 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 2.5770197
553 2011-08-09 21:06:40 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 2.5770197 = 732,934.523
554 2011-08-09 21:06:47 <Diablo-D3> we sure as hell arent doing 732 thash.
555 2011-08-09 21:07:20 <lfm> is 2^32 + 2^15 right?
556 2011-08-09 21:07:25 <lfm> is 2^32 + 2^16 right?
557 2011-08-09 21:07:30 <Diablo-D3> yes
558 2011-08-09 21:08:23 <lfm> i use 2^32/600
559 2011-08-09 21:08:51 <lfm> ratio of diff 1 hash to seconds
560 2011-08-09 21:09:10 <Diablo-D3> that seems too simple
561 2011-08-09 21:09:10 <lfm> its not exact but close enuf for me
562 2011-08-09 21:09:47 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 7158388.05
563 2011-08-09 21:09:48 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 7,158,388.05 = 0.263856429
564 2011-08-09 21:09:57 <Diablo-D3> fail.
565 2011-08-09 21:10:03 <gribble> Error: "calc2^32/600" is not a valid command.
566 2011-08-09 21:10:03 <lfm> ;;calc2^32/600
567 2011-08-09 21:10:06 <lfm> ;;calc 2^32/600
568 2011-08-09 21:10:07 <gribble> (2^32) / 600 = 7,158,278.83
569 2011-08-09 21:10:50 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 * 7,158,388.05 = 1.35206682 * 10^(13)
570 2011-08-09 21:10:50 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff] *  7158388.05
571 2011-08-09 21:11:05 <lfm> multiply
572 2011-08-09 21:11:19 <Diablo-D3> also, derp
573 2011-08-09 21:11:22 <Diablo-D3> [07:05:53] <Diablo-D3> (((2^32) + 65 536) / 1 000 000 000) / 1 000 = 0.00429503283 = diff 1 at 1 thash
574 2011-08-09 21:11:28 <Diablo-D3> no, it'd be * 1000
575 2011-08-09 21:11:51 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] * 2577019.7
576 2011-08-09 21:11:51 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 * 2,577,019.7 = 4.86744055 * 10^(12)
577 2011-08-09 21:12:10 <Diablo-D3> thats not helpful!
578 2011-08-09 21:12:40 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff] *  7158388.05
579 2011-08-09 21:12:41 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 * 7,158,388.05 = 1.35206682 * 10^(13)
580 2011-08-09 21:13:09 <Diablo-D3> 600 * (((2^32) + 65 536) / 1 000 000 000) * 1 000 = 2 577 019.7
581 2011-08-09 21:13:49 <Diablo-D3> so 1 thash does 2577019.7 diff 1 blocks in ten minutes
582 2011-08-09 21:15:19 <lfm> ;;calc 1e12/2^32
583 2011-08-09 21:15:20 <gribble> 1e12 / (2^32) = 232.830644
584 2011-08-09 21:15:30 <Diablo-D3> wait my math is still wrong somewhere.
585 2011-08-09 21:15:42 <gribble> (1e12 / (2^32)) * 600 = 139,698.386
586 2011-08-09 21:15:42 <lfm> ;;calc 1e12/2^32*600
587 2011-08-09 21:16:23 <lfm> should be close
588 2011-08-09 21:17:53 <Diablo-D3> ((2^32) + 65536) / 1000000000000 = 0.00429503283 = 1 thash doing a diff 1
589 2011-08-09 21:18:25 <Diablo-D3> ((2^32) + 65536) / 1000000000000 * 600 = diff 1s done by 1 thash in ten minutes
590 2011-08-09 21:18:38 <Diablo-D3> = 2.5770197
591 2011-08-09 21:19:11 <Diablo-D3> hrm.
592 2011-08-09 21:20:12 <Diablo-D3> no, that should be 600 / ((2^32) + 65536) / 1000000000000)
593 2011-08-09 21:20:35 <Diablo-D3> maybe.
594 2011-08-09 21:21:35 <Diablo-D3> I hate algebra _so much_
595 2011-08-09 21:21:48 <Diablo-D3> it takes 0.004 seconds for 1 thash to do a diff 1
596 2011-08-09 21:22:04 <lfm> should be 2^32 + 65537
597 2011-08-09 21:22:15 <Diablo-D3> shuddup lfm
598 2011-08-09 21:22:28 <Diablo-D3> so 600 / that = 139969.255
599 2011-08-09 21:22:31 <Diablo-D3> thus
600 2011-08-09 21:22:38 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: what's wrong with algebra?
601 2011-08-09 21:22:41 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 139969.255
602 2011-08-09 21:22:41 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 139,969.255 = 13.4942971
603 2011-08-09 21:22:45 <Diablo-D3> THERE
604 2011-08-09 21:22:47 <Diablo-D3> THERE GODDAMNIT
605 2011-08-09 21:22:50 <Diablo-D3> ONE FUCKING NUMBER
606 2011-08-09 21:23:26 <lfm> rofl
607 2011-08-09 21:24:12 <Diablo-D3> no inaccuracies
608 2011-08-09 21:24:27 <lfm> off by one still
609 2011-08-09 21:29:41 <gribble> (1e12 / ((2^32) + (2^16) + 1)) * 600 = 139,696.255
610 2011-08-09 21:29:41 <lfm> ;;calc 1e12/(2^32+2^16+1)*600
611 2011-08-09 21:36:27 <Diablo-D3> lfm: no
612 2011-08-09 21:36:34 <Diablo-D3> pretty sure its 65536
613 2011-08-09 21:37:27 <Diablo-D3> so Im thinking
614 2011-08-09 21:37:37 <Diablo-D3> 1.8 million * 4.3 billion / 600
615 2011-08-09 21:37:59 <lfm> ;;calc 2^256/(2^224-2^208)-2^32
616 2011-08-09 21:38:00 <gribble> ((2^256) / ((2^224) - (2^208))) - (2^32) = 65,537
617 2011-08-09 21:38:39 <Diablo-D3> lfm: because its 2^256 - 1.
618 2011-08-09 21:38:52 <Diablo-D3> counting starts at one.
619 2011-08-09 21:38:57 <Diablo-D3> er zero
620 2011-08-09 21:38:58 <lfm> 2^256 possible hashes
621 2011-08-09 21:39:24 <Diablo-D3> yes, but only one of them gets you into willy wonka's chocolate factory
622 2011-08-09 21:39:45 <lfm> unless sha256 somehow excludes possible zero result or something but I dont think it does
623 2011-08-09 21:40:01 <Diablo-D3> yeah but you're doing + 1 at the wrong spot
624 2011-08-09 21:40:33 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin itself defines it as 2^32 + 65536 period
625 2011-08-09 21:40:36 <lfm> the 000ffff000... is 2^224-2^208 right?
626 2011-08-09 21:40:48 <Diablo-D3> no
627 2011-08-09 21:40:56 <Diablo-D3> otherwise it'd be 00 10000 000
628 2011-08-09 21:41:03 <lfm> subtract
629 2011-08-09 21:41:13 <Diablo-D3> ff is 255 not 256, for example
630 2011-08-09 21:41:35 <lfm> ya 2^256 possible hashes
631 2011-08-09 21:41:56 <lfm> from 0 to fff...fff
632 2011-08-09 21:42:16 <lfm> 256 possible values in a byte
633 2011-08-09 21:42:27 <Diablo-D3> anyhow
634 2011-08-09 21:42:32 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin defines diff 1 very specifically
635 2011-08-09 21:42:36 <Diablo-D3> your argument is invalid
636 2011-08-09 21:42:51 <lfm> defines diff 1 as the 000ffff000 value only
637 2011-08-09 21:43:07 <Diablo-D3> yes, but Im still sleeping with your mom.
638 2011-08-09 21:43:18 <lfm> hehe have fun
639 2011-08-09 21:43:24 <Diablo-D3> so
640 2011-08-09 21:43:46 <Diablo-D3> ((((1 888 786.7053531 * ((2^32) + 65 536)) / 600) / 1 000) / 1 000) / 1 000 = 13 520.6682
641 2011-08-09 21:43:58 <Diablo-D3> er
642 2011-08-09 21:44:05 <Diablo-D3> 1888786.7053531 * (2^32 + 65536) / 600 / 1000 / 1000 / 1000 / 1000
643 2011-08-09 21:44:11 <Diablo-D3> so there
644 2011-08-09 21:44:18 <Diablo-D3> the math conceptualized better
645 2011-08-09 21:44:31 <Diablo-D3> current diff * hashes in a diff 1 / 600 seconds / 1 thash
646 2011-08-09 21:44:34 <lfm> ;;[bc,diff]*600e12/(2^32+2^16)
647 2011-08-09 21:44:35 <gribble> Error: "1888786.7053531" is not a valid command.
648 2011-08-09 21:44:44 <gribble> (1,888,786.7053531 * 600e12) / ((2^32) + (2^16)) = 2.63856428 * 10^(11)
649 2011-08-09 21:44:44 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]*600e12/(2^32+2^16)
650 2011-08-09 21:45:26 <lfm> oh now I did it backwards again
651 2011-08-09 21:45:42 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]*(2^32+2^16)/600e12
652 2011-08-09 21:45:43 <gribble> (1,888,786.7053531 * ((2^32) + (2^16))) / 600e12 = 13.5206682
653 2011-08-09 21:46:41 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,estimate]*(2^32+2^16)/600e12
654 2011-08-09 21:46:42 <gribble> (1,828,748.57884197 * ((2^32) + (2^16))) / 600e12 = 13.090892
655 2011-08-09 21:48:19 <lfm> ;;calc [bc,diff]/[bc,spotestimate]
656 2011-08-09 21:48:20 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 1,741,481.15485 = 1.08458636
657 2011-08-09 21:55:23 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] * (2^32 + 65536) / 600 / 1000 / 1000 / 1000 / 1000
658 2011-08-09 21:55:29 <gribble> ......
659 2011-08-09 21:55:43 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc [bc,diff] / 139969.255
660 2011-08-09 21:55:44 <gribble> 1,888,786.7053531 / 139,969.255 = 13.4942971
661 2011-08-09 21:55:51 <Diablo-D3> oh gee, thanks gribble
662 2011-08-09 21:57:15 <Diablo-D3> weird
663 2011-08-09 21:57:24 <Diablo-D3> 1888786.7053531 * 0.00000715838805 = = 13.5206682
664 2011-08-09 21:57:56 <Eliel> it's funny looking at mtgox now. It's like a battle of pushing the rate up/down.
665 2011-08-09 21:58:03 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
666 2011-08-09 21:58:07 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":12.1,"low":7.671,"avg":9.601409446,"vwap":9.710629936,"vol":114295,"last":9.793,"buy":9.611,"sell":9.793}}
667 2011-08-09 21:58:21 <Diablo-D3> hh
668 2011-08-09 21:58:34 <Eliel> it went to 9.3 nad now has been sharply climbing
669 2011-08-09 21:58:54 <Eliel> there's even already a little buffer at 9.6ish
670 2011-08-09 21:59:17 <luke-jr> wtf is mrcd
671 2011-08-09 21:59:23 <Eliel> and now it's over 10 again
672 2011-08-09 21:59:29 <tcatm> luke-jr: new exchange
673 2011-08-09 21:59:35 <luke-jr> named?
674 2011-08-09 21:59:52 <tcatm> http://mercadobitcoin.com.br/
675 2011-08-09 22:01:09 <luke-jr> tcatm: is it a deposit-based exchange, do you know?
676 2011-08-09 22:05:35 <tcatm> luke-jr: I don't know anything about it yet.
677 2011-08-09 22:05:54 <luke-jr> tcatm: then how do you know they aren't using TBC?
678 2011-08-09 22:18:15 <luke-jr> tcatm: https://www.cavirtex.com/
679 2011-08-09 22:18:36 <luke-jr> or is that vanilla 'virtex'?