1 2011-08-11 00:38:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Venkatesh Srinivas master * rec93a0e / src/net.cpp : Test for SO_NOSIGPIPE rather than assuming all BSDs support it. ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ec93a0e2197e8a84789c6c512cee90a66a11f82a
  2 2011-08-11 01:01:17 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Venkatesh Srinivas master * r7c3002b / src/db.cpp : Qualify make_tuple with boost:: namespace. ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7c3002bf272c56dcc92b463db6d0b793221bfa8a
  3 2011-08-11 01:01:18 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r72173ff / src/db.cpp : Merge pull request #460 from jgarzik/make-tuple ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/72173ffaca10a8370921b9f64668df142ba818ab
  4 2011-08-11 01:01:40 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rc648b58 / (src/main.cpp src/net.h): Merge pull request #459 from jgarzik/char-msgstart ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c648b589bec6494551d300b335af88d6b194cf82
  5 2011-08-11 01:33:10 <sacarlson> anyone know a way to get rid of these defunct python process that seem to acumulate  6803 pts/6    00:00:29 python <defunct> ?
  6 2011-08-11 01:33:56 <tcatm> init 6
  7 2011-08-11 01:34:00 <JFK911> ^
  8 2011-08-11 01:34:51 <tcatm> or wait until it's parent dies and init takes care of it
  9 2011-08-11 01:35:17 <sacarlson> tcatm: init 6 what is that like reboot?
 10 2011-08-11 01:35:40 <tcatm> yes
 11 2011-08-11 01:36:21 <tcatm> that python process is a zombie. it's just an entry in the process table
 12 2011-08-11 01:36:50 <sacarlson> tcatm: ok and it's not using mem?
 13 2011-08-11 01:38:06 <tcatm> from wiki: "When a process ends, all of the memory and resources associated with it are deallocated so they can be used by other processes. However, the process's entry in the process table remains."
 14 2011-08-11 01:38:40 <sacarlson> I'm already short on memory with 2Gb,  ok good enuf then
 15 2011-08-11 01:38:46 <upb> iirc whatever is spawning those childs isnt handling sigchld correctly
 16 2011-08-11 01:39:14 <upb> so check your code :)
 17 2011-08-11 01:39:46 <sacarlson> upb: I may not be shuting it down correctly or your right might be a code problem
 18 2011-08-11 01:40:10 <tcatm> it's the parent's fault
 19 2011-08-11 01:40:45 <upb> yep
 20 2011-08-11 01:42:03 <sacarlson> tcatm: ya that's what I keep telling my dad.   I try to  shut down abe.py with ctl<c> doesn't stop it so ctl<z> seems to but it has spawned the python stuf that never closes
 21 2011-08-11 01:42:52 <sacarlson> so I need to killall -9 python just to stop it at all
 22 2011-08-11 02:15:34 <luke-jr> jgarzik: wb
 23 2011-08-11 02:18:00 <lolwat`> luke-jr, you process script TX right?  What exactly did you change? Just remove IsStandard?  Do you know any other pools that do the same?
 24 2011-08-11 02:18:40 <luke-jr> lolwat`: correct, and no
 25 2011-08-11 02:18:44 <luke-jr> jgarzik: wb = welcome back
 26 2011-08-11 02:18:47 <luke-jr> jgarzik: we missed you
 27 2011-08-11 02:19:08 <jgarzik> luke-jr: yeah, know what it means.  Was wondering what I'd missed :)
 28 2011-08-11 02:19:09 <lolwat`> how often do you find blocks?
 29 2011-08-11 02:19:25 <luke-jr> jgarzik: nothing, the channel just isn't the same without you ;)
 30 2011-08-11 02:19:32 <luke-jr> lolwat`: http://eligius.st/~artefact2/
 31 2011-08-11 02:19:44 <lolwat`> though I guess it would be dangerous to offer a service that depends on a single pool's behavior
 32 2011-08-11 02:19:45 <gribble> Error: "bc,eligius,calc" is not a valid command.
 33 2011-08-11 02:19:45 <luke-jr> ;;bc,eligius,calc
 34 2011-08-11 02:19:54 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calc [bc,eligius]
 35 2011-08-11 02:19:58 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 479447199.252 Khps, given current difficulty of 1888786.7053531 , is 4 hours, 42 minutes, and 0 seconds
 36 2011-08-11 02:20:17 <luke-jr> lolwat`: perhaps we could setup an arrangement ;)
 37 2011-08-11 02:20:42 <lolwat`> ?
 38 2011-08-11 02:21:27 <luke-jr> dunno what you're doing ;P
 39 2011-08-11 02:21:47 <lolwat`> seems doing any business with nLockTime/escrow contracts is dangerous because if the more complicated TX doesn't get into a block, the default "return to sender" will become available and be accepted
 40 2011-08-11 02:24:50 <lolwat`> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25786.0
 41 2011-08-11 02:24:58 <lolwat`> I want to build something to do that
 42 2011-08-11 02:25:08 <lolwat`> would allow secure instant TX
 43 2011-08-11 02:25:18 <lolwat`> but totally impossible without locktime/multisig tx
 44 2011-08-11 03:16:08 <shadders> poolserverj source published: https://bitbucket.org/shadders/bitcoin-poolserverj/src
 45 2011-08-11 03:38:44 <sovox> hello
 46 2011-08-11 03:38:45 <sovox> ???
 47 2011-08-11 03:50:56 <t3a> hello sovox
 48 2011-08-11 06:06:02 <mrb_> who maintains bitcoinwatch.com? tcatm?
 49 2011-08-11 06:12:32 <Giel> ;;bc,stats
 50 2011-08-11 06:12:35 <gribble> Current Blocks: 140507 | Current Difficulty: 1888786.7053531 | Next Difficulty At Block: 141119 | Next Difficulty In: 612 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 12 hours, 27 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1842925.44717341
 51 2011-08-11 06:18:08 <Giel> ;;bc,stats
 52 2011-08-11 06:18:10 <gribble> Current Blocks: 140509 | Current Difficulty: 1888786.7053531 | Next Difficulty At Block: 141119 | Next Difficulty In: 610 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 12 hours, 6 minutes, and 20 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1843552.73400402
 53 2011-08-11 06:24:51 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
 54 2011-08-11 06:24:52 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":10.4959,"low":9.5,"avg":10.028411747,"vwap":10.018291055,"vol":25182,"last":10.06394,"buy":10.0602,"sell":10.06374}}
 55 2011-08-11 09:20:16 <tcatm> mrb_: yes
 56 2011-08-11 09:20:37 <diki> can pushpoold be hooked to another pool?
 57 2011-08-11 09:20:57 <diki> so i can redirect some mining power i may have to the pooL?
 58 2011-08-11 09:22:28 <diki> when i say to THE pool what i meant was to A pool
 59 2011-08-11 09:29:48 <Giel> tcatm: is there any reason why loads of non-template code resides in header files instead of compilation units?
 60 2011-08-11 09:30:12 <Giel> because just moving all of that non-template code from headers to implementation files speeds up compilation a *lot*
 61 2011-08-11 09:30:46 <Giel> (heck, using GCC the generated code is even smaller that way, using LLVM with -O4 it makes little difference)
 62 2011-08-11 09:30:52 <edcba> i still don't know why ppl insist in putting code into headers
 63 2011-08-11 09:31:25 <tcatm> Giel: satoshi did that and nobody changed it and as patches that move a lot of code are hard review we didn't do that yet
 64 2011-08-11 09:33:18 <ThomasV> is it possible to compile bitcoin without the ui ?
 65 2011-08-11 09:33:38 <Giel> ThomasV: 'make -C src -f makefile.unix bitcoind'
 66 2011-08-11 09:33:46 <Giel> i.e. the 'bitcoind' target doesn't include the UI
 67 2011-08-11 09:33:50 <ThomasV> ok
 68 2011-08-11 09:34:23 <Giel> tcatm: code-moving patches may be hard to review, but moving of code itself should be easy enough that someone with direct pull access should be able to do it...
 69 2011-08-11 09:34:32 <Giel> s/pull/push/;
 70 2011-08-11 09:34:58 <Giel> unless you want every single modification to the repository to go through a review process (is that the case?)
 71 2011-08-11 09:38:37 <tcatm> Giel: not really, but everything goes through pull requests so other devs can look at the code before it is merged
 72 2011-08-11 09:41:53 <Giel> tcatm: the problem is that right now most of the code is such an utter mess that non-cleanup development/maintenance is next to impossible
 73 2011-08-11 09:42:33 <Giel> but a lot of code can only be cleaned up by moving it around in one way or another
 74 2011-08-11 09:44:25 <edcba> fork
 75 2011-08-11 09:44:49 <tcatm> Giel: I think there was some discussion on the mailing list about that
 76 2011-08-11 09:45:40 <Plasma-> fork to refactor? surely you jest (think of the merge! hehe)
 77 2011-08-11 09:45:49 <tcatm> It might get merged if you re-organize small files and at the same time add tests
 78 2011-08-11 09:46:53 <Giel> tcatm: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net ?
 79 2011-08-11 09:47:42 <tcatm> Giel: yes
 80 2011-08-11 09:48:36 <Giel> which small files? aside from a few dummy-like headers most files are at least 2000 lines long...
 81 2011-08-11 09:49:59 <neofutur> fyi real time mtgox quotes are now working on #mtgox-RT , more or less 5 seconds delay
 82 2011-08-11 09:51:58 <vragnaroda> win 20
 83 2011-08-11 09:52:01 <vragnaroda> dammit
 84 2011-08-11 09:53:31 <phedny_> vragnaroda: try http://pthree.org/2007/07/18/irssi-windows-1-throuh-80/
 85 2011-08-11 09:54:24 <phedny_> and from my point of view, #bitcoin-dev *is* window 20 ;)
 86 2011-08-11 09:57:22 <vragnaroda> phedny_: from my POV, #bitcoin-dev is window 147 so that doesn't really help that much
 87 2011-08-11 09:57:42 <phedny_> owh, well.. good luck with that :D
 88 2011-08-11 09:59:37 <vragnaroda> phedny_: also, i did something similar to that, but i just reset it to the defaults because i switched keyboard layouts
 89 2011-08-11 10:00:24 <ThomasV> Giel: is miniupnp needed ? the Makefile has USE_UPNP:=0, but it still complains about lacking headers
 90 2011-08-11 10:01:01 <Giel> ThomasV: that's a bug in the way the makefile's written
 91 2011-08-11 10:01:43 <ThomasV> Giel: so, does it mean that I need to install miniupnp ?
 92 2011-08-11 10:01:49 <xelister> bitomat.pl (that lost 17000 BTC) is taken over by mtgox.com ... woot? :)
 93 2011-08-11 10:02:17 <edcba> seems that mtgox is earning some money
 94 2011-08-11 10:02:50 <Giel> ThomasV: or a bug in the source, depending on how you look at it; I'll whip up a quick patch to fix it..
 95 2011-08-11 10:03:32 <ThomasV> Giel: ok, thanks, but you did not answer my question
 96 2011-08-11 10:06:47 <Giel> ThomasV: no, you don't need to install miniupnp
 97 2011-08-11 10:07:22 <ThomasV> ok, so I'll wait for your patch
 98 2011-08-11 10:08:29 <Giel> ThomasV: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/461
 99 2011-08-11 10:08:43 <ThomasV> ty
100 2011-08-11 10:15:19 <xelister> how precise is bitcoin, how should it be stored in db? float? int of btc??10^8 ?
101 2011-08-11 10:15:21 <xelister> ??
102 2011-08-11 10:15:39 <mtrlt^> uint64
103 2011-08-11 10:16:07 <mtrlt^> you already seem to know how precise it is, but...
104 2011-08-11 10:16:20 <mtrlt^> btc can be divided up to 10^-8
105 2011-08-11 10:17:30 <phantomcircuit> 21000000.00000000
106 2011-08-11 10:17:32 <ThomasV> Giel: fatal: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/461/info/refs not found: did you run git update-server-info on the server?
107 2011-08-11 10:17:42 <phantomcircuit> NUMERIC(16,8)
108 2011-08-11 10:18:34 <ThomasV> Giel: or perhaps I am doing it wrong.. I did "git pull" on your url
109 2011-08-11 10:18:36 <vegard> xelister: never store money as float
110 2011-08-11 10:19:04 <xelister> vegard: thats what I thought, yea
111 2011-08-11 10:19:22 <xelister> so 10^-8
112 2011-08-11 10:26:19 <Giel> ThomasV: you'll want to pull from git://github.com/muggenhor/bitcoin.git
113 2011-08-11 10:26:37 <ThomasV> oh ok
114 2011-08-11 10:26:48 <Giel> ThomasV: that previous URL was a webpage containing a reference to the pull url and branch
115 2011-08-11 10:27:00 <Giel> ThomasV: the use-upnp-preprocessor-fix branch
116 2011-08-11 10:27:08 <phedny_> I noticed VerifySignature() is only called from main.cpp and the nHashType argument is not used .. does this mean that what has been documented at the Contracts wiki page is not working (yet)?
117 2011-08-11 10:28:09 <edcba> if you trust something trust code over wiki...
118 2011-08-11 10:29:09 <phedny_> edcba: code above anything, but I'm new to the source code and I was just hoping someone that already knows the state of those things could possibly save me a lot of time ;)
119 2011-08-11 10:36:49 <ThomasV> 
120 2011-08-11 10:55:52 <Giel> argh, what idiot designed BitCoin's protocol: "Almost all integers are encoded in little endian. Only IP or port number are encoded big endian."
121 2011-08-11 10:56:17 <Giel> as if little endian isn't bad enough to transfer across a wire: lets use *mixed* endian...
122 2011-08-11 10:57:55 <vegard> why is little endian bad on a wire?
123 2011-08-11 10:58:56 <mtrlt> network byte order is big endian
124 2011-08-11 10:59:06 <Giel> vegard: what mtrlt said
125 2011-08-11 10:59:16 <Giel> but mixed endian is most definitely worse
126 2011-08-11 10:59:21 <mtrlt> yes.
127 2011-08-11 10:59:32 <vegard> as long as it's documented...
128 2011-08-11 10:59:40 <mtrlt> no
129 2011-08-11 10:59:49 <mtrlt> it is worse, no matter if it's documented or not
130 2011-08-11 10:59:52 <Giel> just about every binary network protocol that's formally specified uses big endian; making the use of little endian very confusing...
131 2011-08-11 11:00:22 <vegard> it should be a small problem.
132 2011-08-11 11:00:23 <Giel> it would be even worse if it wasn't documented sure, being documented doesn't make it better though...
133 2011-08-11 11:00:58 <ThomasV> compiling bitcoind on a vps takes ages...
134 2011-08-11 11:01:59 <Giel> ThomasV: try precompiling the headers
135 2011-08-11 11:02:18 <Giel> if you're using GCC most of the time is spent preprocessing
136 2011-08-11 11:02:24 <ThomasV> Giel: how do I do that ?
137 2011-08-11 11:03:48 <Giel> ThomasV: create a single header that #include's all others, #include that header from all sources (before any other #includes)
138 2011-08-11 11:04:29 <ThomasV> oh but that's complicated :-)
139 2011-08-11 11:04:48 <Giel> then simply compile that header with the same options as any other compilation unit, that'll create a .gch which gcc will use instead when doing the actual compiling
140 2011-08-11 11:04:58 <ThomasV> I see
141 2011-08-11 11:05:49 <sacarlson> phedny_: I assume you've already seen this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/319  it's already incorporated and tested in MultiCoin
142 2011-08-11 11:08:21 <phedny_> sacarlson: haven't seen it.. but it doesn't seem to change main.cpp to set the nHashType argument to VerifyScript()
143 2011-08-11 11:09:31 <sacarlson> phedny_: I guess not but I saw your interest in contracts so just thought it might be of some use
144 2011-08-11 11:10:27 <sacarlson> phedny_: I was reading some of your links about the posibility of secure transactions offline?
145 2011-08-11 11:11:51 <sacarlson> phedny_: oh I think that was someone else
146 2011-08-11 11:15:28 <phedny_> sacarlson: yeah, must have been someone else .. this code looks interesting by the way :)
147 2011-08-11 11:17:33 <phedny_> by the way, is it the case that transactions that don't pass IsStandard() are not relayed or incorporated into a block?
148 2011-08-11 11:31:53 <sacarlson> phedny_: I was told it's a mining thing, the miner must accept isStandard() or I guess nonstandard transactions to use escrow multisign
149 2011-08-11 11:32:33 <sacarlson> phedny_: the beertokens chain accepts them
150 2011-08-11 12:06:48 <ThomasV> Giel: you forgot the makefile in your patch
151 2011-08-11 12:33:40 <Giel> ThomasV: AFAIK the makefile can stay as it is
152 2011-08-11 12:33:58 <ThomasV> Giel: I PM'd you the patch
153 2011-08-11 12:34:28 <ThomasV> just replaced ifdef with ifeq
154 2011-08-11 13:08:06 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 308000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 256, is 1210137.27039 BTC per day and 50422.3862663 BTC per hour.
155 2011-08-11 13:08:06 <luke-jr> ;;bc,gend 308000000 256
156 2011-08-11 13:14:17 <jrmithdobbs> is blockchain storage mechanism up for discussion at all? this single huge flat file thing sucks
157 2011-08-11 13:14:36 <jrmithdobbs> my incremental backups have a GB or more on each run because of that
158 2011-08-11 13:14:52 <jrmithdobbs> quite annoying
159 2011-08-11 13:16:21 <Giel> jrmithdobbs: AFAIK it stores them in BDB, I suppose that could be swapped out for some other database easy enough
160 2011-08-11 13:16:45 <copumpkin> most databases aren't terribly incremental backup-friendly though
161 2011-08-11 13:17:13 <Caesium> but the old stuff *never* changes so splitting it into a few files would make it less painful
162 2011-08-11 13:17:18 <copumpkin> jrmithdobbs: why even back up the blockchain?
163 2011-08-11 13:17:18 <makomk> Wow - someone did actually manage to use the block chain checkpointing code for something evil.
164 2011-08-11 13:17:35 <copumpkin> I guess it takes a while to reacquire
165 2011-08-11 13:17:52 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: because it can take weeks to get good downloads still since people aren't upgrading to .24
166 2011-08-11 13:18:00 <jrmithdobbs> Giel: the blockchain is a flat file, not bdb
167 2011-08-11 13:18:03 <Caesium> more hassle to set up exclusions for everything than it is to just leave it in and have the bakcup takea bit longer
168 2011-08-11 13:18:29 <jrmithdobbs> ya i think the current split at 1GB is too big is basically what I'm getting at
169 2011-08-11 13:18:42 <copumpkin> jrmithdobbs: do the clients check for updates? I wasn't even aware a new version was out which is why I'm still on .23
170 2011-08-11 13:18:45 <copumpkin> downloading the new one now
171 2011-08-11 13:18:57 <copumpkin> (the new clients, that is)
172 2011-08-11 13:19:15 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: no, they don't, TD keeps preaching about needs an alerts-like system for notifying of updates ;p
173 2011-08-11 13:19:21 <copumpkin> ah :)
174 2011-08-11 13:19:23 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: and he's right, we need it ;p
175 2011-08-11 13:19:25 <copumpkin> yeah, it seems beneficial
176 2011-08-11 13:19:41 <jrmithdobbs> copumpkin: <=.23 actually harm the network because they basically can't send the blockchain
177 2011-08-11 13:37:06 <mrb_> tcatm: bitcoinwatch.com incorrectly computes the network's equivalent PFLOPS
178 2011-08-11 13:39:25 <mrb_> imo, it should assume that most of the computer power is provided by radeon gpus, with which 1 Mhash/s =~ 7200 MFLOPS (hd 6990: 710 Mhash/s and 5100000 MFLOPS)
179 2011-08-11 13:40:10 <mrb_> so the network's 13.41 Thash/s is about 97 PFLOPS
180 2011-08-11 13:40:57 <mrb_> and document somewhere that these are single precision FLOPS
181 2011-08-11 13:42:39 <mrb_> assuming the hd 6000 series: 97 single precision FLOPS = 24 double precision FLOPS
182 2011-08-11 13:49:01 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 308000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 4096, is 75633.5793994 BTC per day and 3151.39914164 BTC per hour.
183 2011-08-11 13:49:01 <luke-jr> ;;bc,gend 308000000 4096
184 2011-08-11 13:49:29 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 308000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 4096, is 57 seconds
185 2011-08-11 13:49:29 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 308000000 4096
186 2011-08-11 13:49:56 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 308000000 1024
187 2011-08-11 13:49:57 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 308000000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1024, is 14 seconds
188 2011-08-11 13:50:38 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 308000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1024, is 3 hours, 57 minutes, and 59 seconds
189 2011-08-11 13:50:38 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 308000 1024
190 2011-08-11 13:53:17 <cypherpunk01> ;;bc,calcd 1000 1024
191 2011-08-11 13:53:18 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 1000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1024, is 7 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 40 minutes, and 46 seconds
192 2011-08-11 13:53:30 <cypherpunk01> lame
193 2011-08-11 13:53:50 <phantomcircuit> why is bnProofOfWorkLimit defined as 0f00 00 00 00 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ... when the max target is 0x1d00ffffff or 0x00 00 00 00 ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 ...?
194 2011-08-11 13:56:31 <SomeoneWeird> guys what exactly does pushpool do?
195 2011-08-11 13:56:42 <luke-jr> pushes the pool over
196 2011-08-11 13:56:45 <luke-jr> duh
197 2011-08-11 13:56:47 <SomeoneWeird> like whats the advantage over connecting directly to bitcoind
198 2011-08-11 13:56:54 <luke-jr> it works
199 2011-08-11 13:57:01 <SomeoneWeird> -.-
200 2011-08-11 13:57:13 <luke-jr> fail
201 2011-08-11 13:57:16 <SomeoneWeird> anyone else ? ^-^
202 2011-08-11 13:57:18 <SomeoneWeird> lol
203 2011-08-11 13:57:23 <SomeoneWeird> im kidding, but it was a serious question
204 2011-08-11 13:57:43 <luke-jr> SomeoneWeird: all you have to do is try using bitcoind and you'll see
205 2011-08-11 13:58:02 <luke-jr> (if you don't, by all means use it&)
206 2011-08-11 13:58:18 <SomeoneWeird> i dont wanna try, i just wanna do what pushpool does
207 2011-08-11 13:58:27 <luke-jr> it proxies requests to bitcoind
208 2011-08-11 13:59:16 <SomeoneWeird> anything else?
209 2011-08-11 13:59:43 <luke-jr> depends on how you configure it
210 2011-08-11 13:59:55 <luke-jr> if you use a modified bitcoind, or blkmond, it adds longpolling
211 2011-08-11 13:59:59 <luke-jr> you can enable rollntime
212 2011-08-11 14:00:08 <luke-jr> it can rewrite the target and log shares
213 2011-08-11 14:00:41 <SomeoneWeird> yeh, thanks
214 2011-08-11 14:20:31 <ImRoot702> is there a roadmap for the bitcoin client that lists features/patches/etc and when they are expected to be released?
215 2011-08-11 14:25:15 <luke-jr> ImRoot702: gavinandresen made one on the ML
216 2011-08-11 14:25:27 <ImRoot702> ML?
217 2011-08-11 14:25:34 <gavinandresen> made one what?
218 2011-08-11 14:25:47 <mrb_> mailing list
219 2011-08-11 14:26:05 <SomeoneWeird> lol
220 2011-08-11 14:26:12 <ImRoot702> gavinandresen, asking if there is a posted roadmap to the bitcoin client
221 2011-08-11 14:27:50 <tcatm> mrb_: ping
222 2011-08-11 14:28:10 <gavinandresen> ImRoot702: http://tinyurl.com/3dmadd3
223 2011-08-11 14:28:31 <ImRoot702> bligity blam. thank you man.
224 2011-08-11 14:36:05 <ImRoot702> gavinandresen, so the .0.4 release is generally expected around the october/november timeframe?
225 2011-08-11 14:37:48 <gavinandresen> I'd like to get it out sooner, if possible.
226 2011-08-11 14:38:48 <tcatm> mrb_: the calculation is based on this forum post: http://bitcointalk.org/?topic=4689.msg68933#msg68933
227 2011-08-11 14:42:15 <ImRoot702> gavinandresen, awesome... and the sipa import/export is def going to be a part of that?
228 2011-08-11 14:43:24 <gavinandresen> ImRoot702: No, I proposed that 0.4 be wallet encryption release, and release-after-0.4 have wallet import/export.
229 2011-08-11 14:43:35 <gavinandresen> (because I want to get wallet encryption out sooner rather than later)
230 2011-08-11 14:44:23 <mrb_> tcatm: ArtForz's numbers are for x86 (6350 ops per hash), not amd gpus (with which it takes only 3800 ops per hash)
231 2011-08-11 14:44:48 <ImRoot702> :/ understood... however, being able to make long-term storable paper copies of keys (offline) seems more secure than an encrypted wallet (to me)
232 2011-08-11 14:45:17 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: import/export has been ready for a long time afaik
233 2011-08-11 14:45:22 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: no reason it couldn't be sooner IMO
234 2011-08-11 14:45:45 <luke-jr> ImRoot702: indeed, wallet encryption is mainly a PR thing
235 2011-08-11 14:45:56 <luke-jr> it doesn't REALLY improve security much
236 2011-08-11 14:46:32 <mrb_> tcatm: anyway, no need for this fancy math, we know that 1 HD 6990 at standard clock = 710 Mhash/s (per benchmarks) = 5100 GFLOPS (per official specs)
237 2011-08-11 14:47:02 <mrb_> so base your computations on this
238 2011-08-11 14:47:46 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: did you see sipa's reply RE: dump/import wallet/keys?  "It does require testing though..."
239 2011-08-11 14:48:12 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: afaik people have been testing it for months
240 2011-08-11 14:48:18 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: including every Bitbill user
241 2011-08-11 14:48:31 <gavinandresen> I'm a BitBill user and I haven't tested it.
242 2011-08-11 14:54:51 <luke-jr> ok, every Bitbill user who has actually deposited their Bitbill..
243 2011-08-11 14:55:00 <gavinandresen> Apologies in advance, I'm super-cranky today (I'm still suffering in australian-jet-lag-hell).  RE: testing :   I'd really like to go beyond ad-hoc "works for me" testing...
244 2011-08-11 14:58:45 <b4epoche> gavinandresen:  like some 'real' unit testing frameworks?
245 2011-08-11 14:59:51 <gavinandresen> b4epoche: I was thinking of a dedicated bitcoin QA person who gets a salary to put together test plans, runs them by the developer(s), and then runs the tests.
246 2011-08-11 15:00:15 <b4epoche> ah, even better
247 2011-08-11 15:00:27 <gavinandresen> ... but more unit tests would be good, too.  I've been working on a cross-implementation at-the-network-level test framework.
248 2011-08-11 15:00:33 <makomk> luke-jr: technically you can redeem bitbills without using sipa's code, in theory.
249 2011-08-11 15:01:19 <gavinandresen> makomk: jackjack's pywallet can do that, right?
250 2011-08-11 15:03:01 <b4epoche> gavinandresen:  my issue with unit testing is that I've never really done it officially (yea, I'm not qualified for the QA job either) and I'm not really sure if there's more to it than there seems
251 2011-08-11 15:03:51 <b4epoche> i.e. take a function pass in a bunch of random stuff, get a bunch of random stuff out&  pass in same random stuff to new function and see if you get same random stuff out?
252 2011-08-11 15:04:05 <tcatm> mrb_: that would assume that all mining is done with CPUs which is incorrect, too
253 2011-08-11 15:04:46 <gavinandresen> b4epoche: ummm... read a good unit testing book?  (were you here when I said I was super-cranky today?)
254 2011-08-11 15:05:13 <b4epoche> like I said, I have a real job, that is not developing software
255 2011-08-11 15:05:24 <b4epoche> I read books on physics
256 2011-08-11 15:06:02 <gavinandresen> (super-cranky Gavin trys to resist... fails...)  So if you have a real job why are you hanging out in bitcoin-dev?
257 2011-08-11 15:06:32 <makomk> gavinandresen: not sure if it needs an additional tool as well, but pywallet ought to be able to yeah..
258 2011-08-11 15:06:45 <b4epoche> because I have time for a hobby (especially in the summer)
259 2011-08-11 15:16:34 <Giel> gavinandresen: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/457
260 2011-08-11 15:16:50 <Giel> could you have a looksie at my comment and give your opinion again?
261 2011-08-11 15:18:38 <luke-jr> Giel: you only need one socket for dual stack
262 2011-08-11 15:19:15 <Giel> luke-jr: not on Windows and NetBSD
263 2011-08-11 15:19:25 <Giel> or OpenBSD, not sure, I always mix those two up
264 2011-08-11 15:19:28 <luke-jr> lame
265 2011-08-11 15:19:50 <luke-jr> (also note I have a 100% working semi-multi-threaded JSON-RPC
266 2011-08-11 15:20:27 <Giel> luke-jr: look at line 2324, I already try to use a single socket when possible
267 2011-08-11 15:20:54 <Giel> luke-jr: as a pull req? url?
268 2011-08-11 15:22:00 <luke-jr> Giel: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/shortlog/refs/heads/threaded_rpc
269 2011-08-11 15:22:32 <Giel> luke-jr: I was thinking of making all RPC I/O async by using async_read_until() to fetch, then process the header...
270 2011-08-11 15:22:59 <luke-jr> Giel: I need true multi-threading.
271 2011-08-11 15:23:12 <luke-jr> my RPC calls are recursive
272 2011-08-11 15:24:06 <Giel> luke-jr: you use synchronous I/O ?
273 2011-08-11 15:24:14 <luke-jr> I think so
274 2011-08-11 15:24:34 <Giel> synchronous = blocking
275 2011-08-11 15:24:40 <luke-jr> blocking a single thread
276 2011-08-11 15:25:36 <Giel> so you need one thread per connection?
277 2011-08-11 15:25:43 <luke-jr> my getwork popens another process, which makes RPC calls itself
278 2011-08-11 15:27:09 <luke-jr> (see http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/shortlog/refs/heads/coinbaser for details on that)
279 2011-08-11 15:27:34 <Giel> argh!
280 2011-08-11 15:27:49 <Giel> why would you popen() ?
281 2011-08-11 15:28:34 <luke-jr> Giel: easy, works
282 2011-08-11 15:28:57 <Giel> well a function call should work even better...
283 2011-08-11 15:29:09 <luke-jr> then I'd have to write it in C, and restart bitcoind to change it
284 2011-08-11 15:29:23 <Giel> once you need to popen() just to call a function you're design is worse than horrible
285 2011-08-11 15:29:23 <luke-jr> this way, I have it implemented in Python, and can change it on a whim
286 2011-08-11 15:29:54 <Giel> so you popen() a python script from bitcoind ?
287 2011-08-11 15:29:57 <luke-jr> yes
288 2011-08-11 15:30:54 <Giel> I suppose that's a good way to create a prototype, don't think it'll do well for a final implementation though
289 2011-08-11 15:31:07 <luke-jr> there is no one-size-fits-all coinbaser
290 2011-08-11 15:32:09 <luke-jr> I actually have a few more commits in my local coinbaser branch
291 2011-08-11 15:32:16 <luke-jr> to use a TCP socket instead, for example
292 2011-08-11 15:32:31 <luke-jr> but popen hasn't been a bottleneck, so I haven't bothered with it
293 2011-08-11 15:34:16 <Giel> popen() does fork(), and more importantly execve(), that last one invokes the dynamic linker which can cost quite a *lot* in performance
294 2011-08-11 15:34:31 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r498a2c9 / (29 files): Merge pull request #458 from TheBlueMatt/copyright ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/498a2c9b162dd5e7281e80e364eb82f3e2b333cb
295 2011-08-11 15:36:28 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * r8b32d43 / (46 files in 8 dirs): Moved sources into src/ subdirectory. - http://bit.ly/pgDyDl https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/8b32d4333561a8078b02fbcc0e897790d2c8265f
296 2011-08-11 15:52:53 <luke-jr> Giel: but not enough to matter. I could change my stuff to use a TCP socket, but it would be premature optimization
297 2011-08-11 15:53:26 <Giel> luke-jr: I suppose
298 2011-08-11 15:53:51 <Giel> the complexity from using multiple languages is probably more troublesome than the popen() overhead
299 2011-08-11 15:53:58 <luke-jr> as it is, having it popen is actually easier for me, the human-- I don't need to worry about another daemon crashing, or restarting it when I make changes
300 2011-08-11 15:54:03 <luke-jr> I just drop a new script in place
301 2011-08-11 15:54:33 <luke-jr> sure
302 2011-08-11 15:54:40 <luke-jr> actually, maybe I should be using a .pyc instead
303 2011-08-11 15:55:05 <Giel> Python automatically uses a .pyc when it's available and newer than the .py
304 2011-08-11 15:55:18 <luke-jr> not for the main script
305 2011-08-11 15:55:19 <luke-jr> only for imports
306 2011-08-11 15:55:25 <luke-jr> unless you specify the .pyc explicitly
307 2011-08-11 15:55:35 <Giel> it *uses* it for the main script, doesn't generate it for the main script though
308 2011-08-11 15:55:46 <luke-jr> I know from experience it does not use it for the main script.
309 2011-08-11 15:55:55 <Giel> use a dummy script to invoke then ;-)
310 2011-08-11 15:57:42 <luke-jr> in practice: no performance change from using pyc
311 2011-08-11 15:58:01 <luke-jr> in any case, it would be another case of premature optimization-- it's not exactly slow :P
312 2011-08-11 15:58:15 <luke-jr> (the slowest part is actually waiting on the bitcoin RPC calls& ;)
313 2011-08-11 16:19:49 <rgm3> Feature request -- Please make it possible / easier to copy addresses from the history to the clipboard
314 2011-08-11 16:28:02 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
315 2011-08-11 16:28:05 <gribble> Current Blocks: 140567 | Current Difficulty: 1888786.7053531 | Next Difficulty At Block: 141119 | Next Difficulty In: 552 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 36 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1841792.46957133
316 2011-08-11 16:28:11 <luke-jr> rgm3: make a patch for bitcoin-qt
317 2011-08-11 16:30:39 <rgm3> luke-jr: I am incapable and/or unwilling to do so, but I humbly ask that you do it for me ;)
318 2011-08-11 17:16:15 <EPiSKiNG-> any progress on merged mining???
319 2011-08-11 17:30:58 <luke-jr> Silk Road is running off a GoDaddy server in the USA
320 2011-08-11 17:31:00 <luke-jr> FYI
321 2011-08-11 17:31:07 <luke-jr> anyone wanna get its info to the gov't?
322 2011-08-11 17:32:53 <luke-jr> who's involved w/ law enforcement on this?
323 2011-08-11 17:33:45 <b4epoche> does anyone have a good link to learn about crypto-currency history?
324 2011-08-11 17:35:28 <vegard> luke-jr: how did you figure that out?
325 2011-08-11 17:35:51 <luke-jr> vegard: vulns in their website
326 2011-08-11 17:37:04 <vegard> interesting. try fbi?
327 2011-08-11 17:56:29 <b4epoche> I'm planning to give a TEDxPSU talk about bitcoin and need to provide "a 3-4 sentence description of what you would like to pitch as your talk"
328 2011-08-11 17:56:34 <b4epoche> what I have:
329 2011-08-11 17:56:40 <b4epoche> Bitcoin is the latest in a series of so called crypto-currencies that use a ideas and developments in cryptography and peer-to-peer networks as the basis for a next-generation, virtual currency; and the first one that seems to have gained a foothold.  The ideas behind bitcoin were introduced in a 20? paper published independently by Satoshi Nakamoto (certainly a pseudonym) who then implemented the system in code and
330 2011-08-11 17:56:41 <b4epoche> disappeared from the scene roughly six months ago.  The fundamental breakthrough that has help propel bitcoin is the idea to have a rewarded 'proof-of-work' called mining to prevent double spending and introduce new bitcoins into the ecosystem.  This talk will give an overview of bitcoin, discuss some of the challenges it has faced and some of the benefits it provides, and speculate on some future challenges.
331 2011-08-11 17:57:04 <b4epoche> anything blatantly wrong in there?
332 2011-08-11 17:58:44 <tcatm> b4epoche: "latest in a series" <- which series?
333 2011-08-11 17:58:57 <luke-jr> b4epoche: more like first in a series
334 2011-08-11 17:59:03 <luke-jr> namecoin and ixcoin are "latest"
335 2011-08-11 17:59:12 <lfm> Bitcoin is the first currency to use peer-to-peer tech afaik
336 2011-08-11 17:59:18 <b4epoche> hence my question "does anyone have a good link to learn about crypto-currency history?"
337 2011-08-11 17:59:25 <tcatm> b4epoche: also s/six months ago/$absolute_timestamp/
338 2011-08-11 17:59:44 <luke-jr> b4epoche: also, proof of work does nothing related to double spending
339 2011-08-11 18:00:16 <lfm> do you KNOW satoshi is a pseudonym?
340 2011-08-11 18:00:32 <b4epoche> there's /no way/ I'm going to claim bitcoin is not an evolution of previous ideas
341 2011-08-11 18:01:18 <tcatm> it's not really an evolution. more a combination of previous ideas
342 2011-08-11 18:01:25 <lfm> bitcoin is the first to combine digital currency and peer-to-peer networking then
343 2011-08-11 18:01:56 <b4epoche> tcatm:  Is there an absolute time stamp on Satoshi going AWOL?
344 2011-08-11 18:02:22 <b4epoche> but there have been crypto-currencies before, no?
345 2011-08-11 18:02:25 <tcatm> b4epoche: early 2011?
346 2011-08-11 18:02:38 <b4epoche> anyway, I think I'll reword the first sentence.
347 2011-08-11 18:02:39 <lfm> not really since he was reported to be in private conversation with some after his last public note.
348 2011-08-11 18:02:52 <b4epoche> early 2011 ~ six months ago, no?
349 2011-08-11 18:03:22 <tcatm> yes, but I think it's better to use absolute timestamps in case you want to re-use the talk later
350 2011-08-11 18:03:27 <luke-jr> lfm: Satoshi is a male name
351 2011-08-11 18:03:29 <tcatm> or upload slides
352 2011-08-11 18:03:37 <luke-jr> lfm: and we know Satoshi is really Gavin's wife, a female
353 2011-08-11 18:03:45 <b4epoche> "Bitcoin is the latest in a series of so called crypto-currencies and the first to use ideas and developments in cryptography and peer-to-peer networks as the basis for a next-generation, virtual currency"
354 2011-08-11 18:04:02 <lfm> luke-jr huh? you know that how?
355 2011-08-11 18:04:14 <luke-jr> lfm: I forget, it was a topic in here some months ago
356 2011-08-11 18:04:27 <b4epoche> I think I'll leave ";and the first one that seems to have gained a foothold." there too
357 2011-08-11 18:04:33 <luke-jr> b4epoche: Bitcoin is the first crypto-currency ever.
358 2011-08-11 18:04:45 <tcatm> b4epoche: again, where's the series? which other cryptop-currencies where there before (and somewhat known to the public)?
359 2011-08-11 18:05:08 <lfm> luke-jr not true, there was digi-cash and digi-cheque systems before bitcoin
360 2011-08-11 18:05:22 <b4epoche> again, this is going to be a crowd of academics and I am not going to clain this is the first anything
361 2011-08-11 18:05:35 <luke-jr> lfm: never heard of them
362 2011-08-11 18:05:43 <b4epoche> even satoshi referenced 'hash-cash'
363 2011-08-11 18:05:46 <tcatm> what about "Bitcoin is a so called crypto-currency..."?
364 2011-08-11 18:05:49 <luke-jr> b4epoche: if academics can't handle new stuff, that's their problem
365 2011-08-11 18:05:54 <lfm> luke-jr never-the-less- they existed
366 2011-08-11 18:06:06 <b4epoche> luke-jr:  no its you being naive.
367 2011-08-11 18:06:09 <luke-jr> lfm: were they really crypto-currencies tho?
368 2011-08-11 18:06:10 <pumpkin> fucking academics
369 2011-08-11 18:06:25 <b4epoche> and making absolute statements that are surely not true
370 2011-08-11 18:06:48 <luke-jr> b4epoche: surely what? you know of some prior?
371 2011-08-11 18:07:05 <b4epoche> well, the one satoshi references
372 2011-08-11 18:07:12 <tcatm> if you say "latest" it should be "ixcoin is the the latest of a series of crypto...." ;)
373 2011-08-11 18:07:25 <lfm> luke-jr yes, they may never have got much beyond prototype stage really but they could have been used for banking and such. they were complete and afaik secure. they WERE centralized too.
374 2011-08-11 18:07:34 <tcatm> where series = hashcash, bitcoin, namecoin, ixcoin
375 2011-08-11 18:07:48 <b4epoche> and I can be 99% sure other ideas preceded
376 2011-08-11 18:08:01 <b4epoche> namecoin is a currency?
377 2011-08-11 18:08:08 <b4epoche> what's ixcoin?
378 2011-08-11 18:08:11 <lfm> b4epoch http://www.isi.edu/gost/info/NetCheque/
379 2011-08-11 18:08:15 <tcatm> if bitcoin is a currency, namecoin is one, too
380 2011-08-11 18:08:38 <tcatm> ixcoin is basically bitcoin with slightly different rules
381 2011-08-11 18:08:44 <luke-jr> lfm: doesn't centralized necessarily negate crypto-?
382 2011-08-11 18:09:01 <b4epoche> what?  no
383 2011-08-11 18:09:29 <lfm> luke-jr well no, they still used public key encryption and signature systems to prevent double spending and such
384 2011-08-11 18:09:47 <b4epoche> the idea is for people to be able to purchase general goods with namecoins?
385 2011-08-11 18:10:25 <b4epoche> I've got to run, but why doesn't proof-of-work prevent double spending (in a broad view)?
386 2011-08-11 18:10:51 <tcatm> b4epoche: the paper explains the reason for using a proof-of-work chain pretty good
387 2011-08-11 18:10:59 <luke-jr> because all it does is require hashpower to produce blocks
388 2011-08-11 18:11:01 <lfm> no alone, it is part of the system I guess
389 2011-08-11 18:11:30 <b4epoche> the point is, without a proof of work, double spending would be easy, no?
390 2011-08-11 18:11:34 <tcatm> it's not to prevent double spends but allows all nodes to have the same view of all transactions without having to trust a single node
391 2011-08-11 18:11:35 <luke-jr> double-spending is prevented by the block chain
392 2011-08-11 18:11:46 <luke-jr> b4epoche: without proof of work, Bitcoin would not function as-is
393 2011-08-11 18:12:02 <lfm> b4epoch proof of work allows you to pick a winner when double spending is detected
394 2011-08-11 18:12:04 <b4epoche> but the block chain is enabled by proof-of-work
395 2011-08-11 18:12:14 <luke-jr> yes, it is
396 2011-08-11 18:12:24 <luke-jr> but proof-of-work is not itself responsible for the benefits of the block chain IMO
397 2011-08-11 18:12:43 <lfm> its all tied together tho
398 2011-08-11 18:13:05 <b4epoche> again, I'm just trying to summarize this as succinctly as possible
399 2011-08-11 18:13:47 <b4epoche> I'm off&  thanks for the comments.
400 2011-08-11 18:13:47 <luke-jr> b4epoche: perhaps "proof of work" should be replaced with "block chain"
401 2011-08-11 18:13:53 <lfm> good luck
402 2011-08-11 18:13:59 <b4epoche> bbl
403 2011-08-11 18:14:27 <tcatm> the concept of the block chain makes double spending impossible. proof-of-work allows building that block chain on distributed, untrusted nodes
404 2011-08-11 18:14:57 <b4epoche> a thought:  "a proof-of-work backed block chain"?
405 2011-08-11 18:15:00 <lfm> is its like indirectly true
406 2011-08-11 18:15:17 <luke-jr> proof-of-work managed block chain?
407 2011-08-11 18:15:36 <b4epoche> oo
408 2011-08-11 18:15:54 <luke-jr> topic change: any reason not to allow people to enter lowercase L in addresses, and parse it like a 1 ?
409 2011-08-11 18:16:04 <luke-jr> ie, accept ambiguous characters in any form
410 2011-08-11 18:16:31 <tcatm> luke-jr: does the base58 charset include both characters?
411 2011-08-11 18:16:38 <lfm> http://www.bcneuman.com/ecommerce/
412 2011-08-11 18:16:46 <luke-jr> tcatm: no, it specifically excludes lowercase L because it looks like 1
413 2011-08-11 18:16:59 <lfm> ^^ lots of older crypto-currency systems for the net
414 2011-08-11 18:17:07 <luke-jr> same for zero and uppercase O I think
415 2011-08-11 18:17:10 <tcatm> luke-jr: then I'm okay with s/l/1/g
416 2011-08-11 18:17:33 <lfm> netcash, digicash, cybercash
417 2011-08-11 18:17:40 <tcatm> or even tr/OIl/011/
418 2011-08-11 18:18:42 <tcatm> luke-jr: actually, what about returning "incorrect address. did you mean $translated_address?" if $trans... is valid?
419 2011-08-11 18:18:59 <luke-jr> tcatm: well, my goal is to help vanity addresses ;)
420 2011-08-11 18:19:20 <luke-jr> ie 1E1igiusfEjs1pCaGjEERExE9gYcrFwow7
421 2011-08-11 18:21:17 <lfm> and you never used it?
422 2011-08-11 18:21:57 <luke-jr> lfm: ?
423 2011-08-11 18:49:07 <diki> you know
424 2011-08-11 18:49:19 <diki> i really want to know under what conditions a hash is < target
425 2011-08-11 18:49:52 <diki> i want to dig down deep into the algorith
426 2011-08-11 18:50:06 <diki> and see how bitcoin creates the so called "luck" that blesses a miner with 50 bitcoins
427 2011-08-11 18:50:46 <edcba> what for ?
428 2011-08-11 18:51:09 <Eliel> well, good luck with that. the algorithm is designed so it'd be as hard as possible to do that.
429 2011-08-11 18:51:10 <diki> just so i can satisfy my curiosity
430 2011-08-11 18:51:11 <chinaskibit> lol'd
431 2011-08-11 18:51:22 <m03sizlak> hey, ive launched a HTML5 bitcoin blackjack site, check it out  http://bitjack21.com     This site uses a crypto hash system AND a hardware random number generator to 100% prove that every hand you play is 100% honest and 100% random
432 2011-08-11 18:51:47 <edcba> hardware random generator won't prove anything
433 2011-08-11 18:52:05 <copumpkin> it's just an /amsg on a timer, I think
434 2011-08-11 18:52:08 <diki> m03sizlak:and where is whitejack?
435 2011-08-11 18:52:15 <diki> and jack's wife?
436 2011-08-11 18:52:16 <mabus> ban the spammer
437 2011-08-11 18:52:30 <Eliel> banhammer holders, wake up!
438 2011-08-11 18:52:32 <diki> one thing i can say
439 2011-08-11 18:52:38 <diki> there is no 100% randomness
440 2011-08-11 18:52:48 <diki> with computers
441 2011-08-11 18:52:57 <edcba> with anything
442 2011-08-11 18:53:02 <copumpkin> his proof scheme seems more complicated than it needs to be
443 2011-08-11 18:53:02 <diki> so that is false advertisement
444 2011-08-11 18:53:09 <mabus> http://xkcd.com/221/
445 2011-08-11 18:53:29 <BlueMatt> m03sizlak: I thought you had previously agreed to stfu about that on this chan?
446 2011-08-11 18:53:32 <BlueMatt> oh well...
447 2011-08-11 18:53:50 <Giel> diki: I didn't know you could quantify randomness...
448 2011-08-11 18:53:54 <Eliel> diki: well, white noise recorded from the soundcard is good enough for me. you can get quite good quality random from there.
449 2011-08-11 18:53:57 <copumpkin> Giel: you can attempt to
450 2011-08-11 18:54:01 <edcba> mini 0.02 max 0.75 no way to cheat it seems
451 2011-08-11 18:54:09 <Giel> sure you can quantify entropy
452 2011-08-11 18:54:14 <copumpkin> the only "real" way to quantify randomness is kolmogorov complexity
453 2011-08-11 18:54:20 <copumpkin> but there are, um, issues, computing that :)
454 2011-08-11 18:54:41 <diki> right, issues, then let's not talk about it :D
455 2011-08-11 18:54:50 <diki> topic change, to what i was saying
456 2011-08-11 18:54:53 <edcba> anyway non random blackjack would make only him suffer :)
457 2011-08-11 18:55:24 <edcba> unless he chose cards specifically but could be spotted quite well
458 2011-08-11 18:55:40 <diki> tho i wonder how he made the graphics
459 2011-08-11 18:55:41 <m03sizlak> my system proves that the cards are random
460 2011-08-11 18:55:44 <diki> i am very bad with photoshop
461 2011-08-11 18:55:44 <edcba> BITJACK21.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
462 2011-08-11 18:55:49 <edcba> way to inspire confiance :)
463 2011-08-11 18:56:05 <m03sizlak> i was worried about the semi legality of it
464 2011-08-11 18:56:16 <m03sizlak> but anyway, I **PROVE** mathematically that every hand is honest
465 2011-08-11 18:56:24 <neofutur> +1 no trust on this kind of anonymous whois
466 2011-08-11 18:56:25 <diki> BlueMatt
467 2011-08-11 18:56:30 <m03sizlak> id imagine that insires confidence
468 2011-08-11 18:56:34 <BlueMatt> m03sizlak: doesnt matter in the slightest, this isnt the place to be advertising a site especially if youve been asked to stop before...
469 2011-08-11 18:56:43 <noagendamarket> domainsbyproxy is another mybitcoin-privacyshark site...
470 2011-08-11 18:57:01 <neofutur> m03sizlak: #bitcoin-games
471 2011-08-11 18:57:30 <m03sizlak> that chan is fucking dead
472 2011-08-11 18:57:42 <copumpkin> m03sizlak: why not advertise it in #haskell then
473 2011-08-11 18:57:42 <m03sizlak> i havent heard anyone talk in there since i enetered a week ago
474 2011-08-11 18:58:01 <copumpkin> or #ubuntu
475 2011-08-11 18:58:12 <m03sizlak> cus those ppl dont have bitcoins!
476 2011-08-11 18:58:13 <chinaskibit> lol
477 2011-08-11 18:58:18 <copumpkin> m03sizlak: many of them do
478 2011-08-11 18:58:26 <copumpkin> my point is that they don't necessarily want to see ads in there
479 2011-08-11 18:58:35 <m03sizlak> its not an ad, more of a plug
480 2011-08-11 18:58:39 <edcba> m03sizlak: not sure about your proof
481 2011-08-11 18:58:48 <m03sizlak> edcba, plz elaborate
482 2011-08-11 18:58:49 <edcba> when do you display R1 ?
483 2011-08-11 18:58:57 <m03sizlak> immediately after the hand is over
484 2011-08-11 18:59:07 <edcba> so you can choose whatever you want
485 2011-08-11 18:59:12 <BlueMatt> m03sizlak: its an ad, you are never in here as a regular person, you are just writing one-off messages about your new site
486 2011-08-11 18:59:17 <m03sizlak> you can choose whatever R2 you want
487 2011-08-11 18:59:23 <m03sizlak> R1 is generated with a hardware RNG
488 2011-08-11 18:59:32 <copumpkin> m03sizlak: that doesn't really do anything
489 2011-08-11 18:59:36 <m03sizlak> yes it does
490 2011-08-11 18:59:49 <edcba> yes but you may look at SHA(R1+R2) see R1 isn't good so choose R1' that will be ok
491 2011-08-11 18:59:57 <BlueMatt> anyway, not really relevant, no one should be advertising sites in here
492 2011-08-11 19:00:08 <m03sizlak> edcba, i dont follow
493 2011-08-11 19:00:35 <edcba> you can repetively choose R1 until deck order will be in your favor
494 2011-08-11 19:00:55 <m03sizlak> but i display SHA256(R1+RX) PRIOR to the hand
495 2011-08-11 19:01:05 <edcba> what is + ?
496 2011-08-11 19:01:05 <m03sizlak> so they can see that R1 was decided before the hand started
497 2011-08-11 19:01:10 <m03sizlak> concatenation
498 2011-08-11 19:01:28 <desaiu> Which rpc-json spec is bitcoin using, 1.0 or 2.0?
499 2011-08-11 19:01:37 <Eliel> desaiu: looked like 1.0 to me
500 2011-08-11 19:01:38 <edcba> ok missed that step it seems
501 2011-08-11 19:01:46 <edcba> looks ok then i guess
502 2011-08-11 19:01:50 <diki> anywya
503 2011-08-11 19:01:55 <diki> i made 20 btc today
504 2011-08-11 19:01:59 <diki> and i am proud of it
505 2011-08-11 19:02:28 <m03sizlak> i make that much every week
506 2011-08-11 19:02:34 <diki> lol
507 2011-08-11 19:02:42 <diki> with the site, you will prolly make 100 a week
508 2011-08-11 19:02:43 <edcba> with your website ?
509 2011-08-11 19:03:02 <diki> is it flash?
510 2011-08-11 19:03:14 <m03sizlak> no
511 2011-08-11 19:03:17 <m03sizlak> jquery
512 2011-08-11 19:03:29 <diki> cause chrome developers told me that flash is the usual method to execute malicious code
513 2011-08-11 19:03:33 <m03sizlak> plays in just about every browser including android and ipad
514 2011-08-11 19:03:39 <m03sizlak> its not flash
515 2011-08-11 19:07:02 <diki> seems m03sizlak also posted on btcguild
516 2011-08-11 19:08:17 <diki> i already registered it
517 2011-08-11 19:08:22 <m03sizlak> BASTARD!
518 2011-08-11 19:08:33 <m03sizlak> ive already cornered the bitcoin gambling market
519 2011-08-11 19:08:36 <m03sizlak> so whats next i wonder
520 2011-08-11 19:08:50 <diki> but do know that a true gambler always uses tricks
521 2011-08-11 19:08:56 <m03sizlak> such as?
522 2011-08-11 19:09:05 <m03sizlak> im a true gambler BTW
523 2011-08-11 19:09:06 <diki> a magician never tells his secrets
524 2011-08-11 19:09:22 <m03sizlak> ive never met a gambler who didnt have a "system"
525 2011-08-11 19:09:31 <m03sizlak> luckily im the house, and my system is MATH
526 2011-08-11 19:09:41 <diki> there are those with systems
527 2011-08-11 19:09:47 <diki> and those that win with said systems
528 2011-08-11 19:09:54 <m03sizlak> the best system ive seen on my site is the Martingale system
529 2011-08-11 19:10:07 <m03sizlak> where every time you lose you double your bet
530 2011-08-11 19:10:17 <m03sizlak> and every time you win you drop it back to the minimum
531 2011-08-11 19:10:35 <m03sizlak> this is of course no better than any other system
532 2011-08-11 19:10:39 <m03sizlak> statistically
533 2011-08-11 19:11:16 <m03sizlak> you go on a 10 hand losing streak which happens, and you lose 2+4+8+16+32+64 BTC
534 2011-08-11 19:11:18 <m03sizlak> etc
535 2011-08-11 19:11:27 <m03sizlak> then, youre bankrupt
536 2011-08-11 19:12:43 <diki> i really wonder if your site is secure from sql injections
537 2011-08-11 19:12:49 <diki> if it is using mysql and php
538 2011-08-11 19:20:02 <m03sizlak> diki, im a programmer by trade
539 2011-08-11 19:20:08 <m03sizlak> a very security conscious one
540 2011-08-11 19:20:19 <m03sizlak> so no, its not vulnerable to sql injection
541 2011-08-11 19:20:51 <copumpkin> but it is vulnerable to this 0day I have right here
542 2011-08-11 19:21:00 <m03sizlak> give it your best shot
543 2011-08-11 19:21:07 <copumpkin> :)
544 2011-08-11 19:21:08 <copumpkin> just kidding
545 2011-08-11 19:21:08 <m03sizlak> i keep about 5 BTC on that server
546 2011-08-11 19:24:07 <diki> haha
547 2011-08-11 19:24:14 <diki> do you know how many people said they were secure
548 2011-08-11 19:24:23 <diki> only to have that security thrown at their faces?
549 2011-08-11 19:24:36 <desaiu> Thank you for the help