1 2011-08-17 00:01:27 <zeropointo> lol
  2 2011-08-17 00:11:21 <nanotube> luke-jr: #bitcoin-otc-ratings
  3 2011-08-17 00:12:06 <luke-jr> nanotube: -watch :p
  4 2011-08-17 00:13:31 <nanotube> luke-jr: i'll see how it hoes on -ratings first. :)
  5 2011-08-17 00:22:24 <vragnaroda> nanotube: *goes :p
  6 2011-08-17 00:22:31 <vragnaroda> lol
  7 2011-08-17 00:32:17 <andyroo> ;;ticker
  8 2011-08-17 00:32:28 <gribble> Error: Failure to retrieve ticker. Try again later.
  9 2011-08-17 00:32:37 <andyroo> big action on gox?
 10 2011-08-17 00:33:48 <andyroo> !ticker
 11 2011-08-17 00:36:18 <andyroo> ;;ticker
 12 2011-08-17 00:36:22 <gribble> Best bid: 10.9, Best ask: 10.96897, Bid-ask spread: 0.06897, Last trade: 10.91999, 24 hour volume: 18776, 24 hour low: 10.661, 24 hour high: 11.235
 13 2011-08-17 00:47:18 <jgarzik> ;;seen ArtForz
 14 2011-08-17 00:47:19 <gribble> ArtForz was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 9 weeks, 0 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes, and 10 seconds ago: <ArtForz> eternal beta. hah, satoshi is secretly a google employee!
 15 2011-08-17 00:48:44 <JFK911> he vanished when the bubble burst
 16 2011-08-17 00:48:49 <JFK911> alert #bitcoin-police
 17 2011-08-17 00:50:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r1e77f04481e4 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h util.c): Clean up the longpoll management to ensure the right paths go to the right pool and display whether we're connected to LP or not in the status line.
 18 2011-08-17 00:54:06 <MrTiggr> someone mentioned the police ??
 19 2011-08-17 00:54:09 <MrTiggr> sup ?
 20 2011-08-17 00:57:44 <JFK911> artforz has mysteriously vanished
 21 2011-08-17 00:58:38 <MrTiggr> for how long ?
 22 2011-08-17 00:58:51 <MrTiggr> and why is that news for the police ?
 23 2011-08-17 00:59:32 <MrTiggr> ?? mebbe we should start a missing-persons division :D
 24 2011-08-17 00:59:55 <noagendamarket> lol
 25 2011-08-17 01:00:08 <noagendamarket> actually that wouldnt be a bad idea
 26 2011-08-17 01:00:17 <MrTiggr> i knorite
 27 2011-08-17 01:00:25 <noagendamarket> the guy who runs bitcoinmarket disapeared too
 28 2011-08-17 01:00:42 <MrTiggr> i meant it as a joke nam but i have had a number of "Where s X he/she be gone since Y"
 29 2011-08-17 01:00:59 <MrTiggr> ^^ you went missing for a while; i got lots of "were's nam"
 30 2011-08-17 01:01:07 <noagendamarket> heh
 31 2011-08-17 01:01:29 <MrTiggr> so yeah ..mebbe a missing persons section where you can post "wanted" posters for people you missing
 32 2011-08-17 01:08:09 <noagendamarket> (people could post bounties for scammers too)
 33 2011-08-17 01:08:15 <noagendamarket> lol
 34 2011-08-17 01:08:31 <noagendamarket> bounty hunters ftw
 35 2011-08-17 01:09:21 <kjj> shit, that was my brother on the phone for the last 2 hours, so I missed the end of the getwork/nonce discussion
 36 2011-08-17 01:09:46 <theymos> MrTiggr: Last active today on the forum.
 37 2011-08-17 01:10:49 <MrTiggr> ? nice ..that means he is only IRC missing :D
 38 2011-08-17 01:10:53 <MrTiggr> thanks theymos
 39 2011-08-17 01:17:49 <noagendamarket> theymos are you sure thats art ?
 40 2011-08-17 01:18:49 <theymos> Yes.
 41 2011-08-17 01:21:28 <Graet> mm so will u start a "i'm afk " data base too so ppl can warn if they are going away and wont be regarded as "missing" :P
 42 2011-08-17 01:22:08 <JFK911> oh i havent seen him on the forum.
 43 2011-08-17 01:22:22 <JFK911> its interesting that artforz disappeared because he is the biggest miner
 44 2011-08-17 01:22:33 <Graet> indeed
 45 2011-08-17 01:24:00 <theymos> Is he still the biggest miner? The pictures of rooms full of graphics cards I've seen makes me think that might not be true any longer unless he's expanded.
 46 2011-08-17 01:24:23 <noagendamarket> vladimir would have to be up there
 47 2011-08-17 01:25:13 <shLONG> hey what do you guys use to build the bitcoin wallet atm
 48 2011-08-17 01:25:37 <shLONG> and where is the makefile stored in the dir
 49 2011-08-17 01:27:35 <JFK911> he can fit a room full of graphics cards into a single chassis, theymos
 50 2011-08-17 01:37:59 <nanotube> theymos: well, fwiw, his complete absence from both irc and forums since june12, and now his sudden appearance on forum on the i0coin thread, and doing pooled mining moreover, makes me suspect it's a jacked forum account.
 51 2011-08-17 01:40:25 <theymos> Doubtful. He's using the same IP range that he's always used.
 52 2011-08-17 01:46:16 <JFK911> artforz joined a pool?
 53 2011-08-17 01:46:28 <JFK911> HA
 54 2011-08-17 01:51:22 <theymos> Does ArtForz have a public key published?
 55 2011-08-17 01:52:15 <gjs278> if he signs onto irc as artforz that's good enough for me
 56 2011-08-17 01:56:47 <theymos> Just in case, I banned him until he logs in here. Someone please email/PM me if he does, as I won't be here for much longer today.
 57 2011-08-17 01:57:32 <gjs278> wow
 58 2011-08-17 01:57:55 <kjj> Art has been known to throw hashing power at various pools
 59 2011-08-17 01:58:07 <gjs278> ;;ident theymos
 60 2011-08-17 01:58:07 <gribble> Nick 'theymos', with hostmask 'theymos!~theymos@unaffiliated/theymos', is not identified.
 61 2011-08-17 01:58:10 <gjs278> hmm
 62 2011-08-17 01:58:19 <gjs278> can I have an op ban theymos until he idents
 63 2011-08-17 01:58:20 <theymos> He's coming from the same /24, so if it *is* a compromised account, the attacker probably has complete control over everything. But it doesn't hurt to take extra precautions...
 64 2011-08-17 01:58:50 <theymos> I'm identified with Freenode...
 65 2011-08-17 01:58:56 <gjs278> good enough
 66 2011-08-17 02:36:44 <HaltingState> does anyone have experience with distutils?
 67 2011-08-17 02:43:43 <lfm> HaltingState: I expect someone does, whats your question anyway?
 68 2011-08-17 02:45:07 <lfm> other than it doesnt sound like a bitcoin question yet
 69 2011-08-17 02:46:59 <HaltingState> lfm, nm; solved it through trial and error.  i am trying to build a shared library with distutils
 70 2011-08-17 02:56:31 <lfm> whats with the "strange" output script in http://blockexplorer.com/t/7wZxwKGprr
 71 2011-08-17 02:57:29 <theymos> Wrong public key size.
 72 2011-08-17 02:57:46 <lfm> is it a redeemable output?
 73 2011-08-17 02:58:04 <theymos> I don't know. It's possible.
 74 2011-08-17 02:58:28 <theymos> Actually, probably not. All Bitcoin public keys begin with 04
 75 2011-08-17 02:59:32 <lfm> so your considered opinion would be "someone messed up their txn"?
 76 2011-08-17 03:00:41 <theymos> I've heard that you can embed information into public keys using the public key format that Bitcoin uses. I'm not familiar with this issue, but maybe this would also be a valid public key. Probably, however, someone was either embedding information like this or they're using broken code.
 77 2011-08-17 03:01:35 <kjj> I understand that almost any stream of the right number of bits can be a public key
 78 2011-08-17 03:01:53 <lfm> kjj this seems to be the wrong number of bits! hehe
 79 2011-08-17 03:03:03 <kjj> what ends up in the block is a hash of the key, which is even worse
 80 2011-08-17 03:03:22 <theymos> This is is a direct-to-pubkey transaction.
 81 2011-08-17 03:06:44 <theymos> This kind of transaction is considered standard by Bitcoin and will be relayed by default clients. Satoshi once suggested that embedding info like this would be a good way to use Bitcoin for general timestamping.
 82 2011-08-17 03:07:16 <lfm> so it might be someone sending secret message or something
 83 2011-08-17 03:07:51 <theymos> Could be.
 84 2011-08-17 03:09:29 <kjj> anyone feel like going all detective on the addresses?
 85 2011-08-17 03:10:04 <lfm> kjj: which address? the ones in th txn we're talking bout you mean or some others?
 86 2011-08-17 03:10:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: various * rc40f51..6bf4d7 cgminer/ (8 files): (6 commits)
 87 2011-08-17 03:10:30 <kjj> the last address that received those coins
 88 2011-08-17 03:11:44 <lfm> ok, It looks like it leads to a string of dust txns
 89 2011-08-17 03:12:17 <lfm> but no more of those "strange" ones
 90 2011-08-17 03:12:19 <theymos> Ah, they just forgot the 04. This address is the intended recipient: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1HSrPfMA5joCS5vTnRWQF7GyeodLQZHu6e
 91 2011-08-17 03:12:36 <kjj> jackjack testing his offline signer?
 92 2011-08-17 03:14:53 <bawf_> What does safemode do?
 93 2011-08-17 03:14:55 <lfm> ya, looks like the correct addr shows up a little later
 94 2011-08-17 03:15:19 <theymos> bawf_: It prevents certain RPC commands from functioning.
 95 2011-08-17 03:15:21 <lfm> bawf_: prevents the trigger from fireing off the bullet
 96 2011-08-17 03:15:37 <bawf_> Which?
 97 2011-08-17 03:15:44 <lfm> on a gun?
 98 2011-08-17 03:16:10 <theymos> bawf_: The ones that send/receive money.
 99 2011-08-17 03:16:21 <kjj> grr.  really wish the searchbox on the "last posts of: X" page searched that user's posts
100 2011-08-17 03:16:28 <theymos> If you are in safe mode, then the network is unreliable.
101 2011-08-17 03:16:53 <lfm> mswin also has a safemode
102 2011-08-17 03:17:03 <bawf_> really theymos?
103 2011-08-17 03:17:08 <theymos> Yes.
104 2011-08-17 03:18:10 <theymos> Currently I believe you only enter safe mode when you see an invalid chain that is longer than the main chain. Maybe also when your time is seriously off.
105 2011-08-17 03:19:01 <lfm> or you try undocumented arg switch -testsafemode
106 2011-08-17 03:19:40 <theymos> Alerts used to be able to trigger safe mode, which I think was a really great idea. People could opt out if they didn't want to be affected by the "kill switch".
107 2011-08-17 03:19:53 <theymos> (But this was removed.)
108 2011-08-17 03:20:49 <lfm> ok thats when the whole safemode would have been invented then I spoze
109 2011-08-17 03:21:00 <theymos> Right.
110 2011-08-17 03:23:40 <lfm> theymos: hmm, this may sound like an odd question but when you interpret a script, do you start at the last bit?
111 2011-08-17 03:23:58 <theymos> No.
112 2011-08-17 03:24:26 <lfm> ok so the 04 is actually a load key opcode ten sorta?
113 2011-08-17 03:24:55 <lfm> ten -then
114 2011-08-17 03:24:55 <theymos> No, it's part of the public key. The pushdata opcodes are hidden from the "abstract" scripts shown on Bitcoin Block Explorer.
115 2011-08-17 03:25:44 <lfm> oh ok, the pushdata has a length arg then?
116 2011-08-17 03:26:45 <theymos> Yes. It would be OP_PUSHDATA1 0x82 <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG
117 2011-08-17 03:27:47 <lfm> k thanks
118 2011-08-17 03:27:49 <theymos> The pushdata opcodes take the next byte(s), unlike other opcodes.
119 2011-08-17 03:30:13 <lfm> ok I see, he used a 0x40 opcode instead of the 0x41 opcode normally used there
120 2011-08-17 03:30:15 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r1f1f2c3de18d cgminer/phatk110816.cl: Just use 256 sized output.
121 2011-08-17 03:30:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r93ff09e57739 cgminer/phatk110816.cl: Dos2unix.
122 2011-08-17 03:30:53 <lfm> or length code or whatever
123 2011-08-17 03:32:54 <theymos> Wouldn't that have gotten the 04 start of the pubkey?
124 2011-08-17 03:33:30 <lfm> normally it is 0x41 0x04 but he just has 0x40
125 2011-08-17 03:34:25 <theymos> Right, because the pubkey is shorter than normal.
126 2011-08-17 03:34:38 <lfm> ya, missing the 04
127 2011-08-17 03:35:04 <kjj> that's now how I read the Script page on the wiki
128 2011-08-17 03:35:27 <theymos> I wrote the script page on the wiki :)
129 2011-08-17 03:35:32 <kjj> Any opcode from 1 to 75 pushes that number of bytes
130 2011-08-17 03:35:46 <kjj> er, shit.  lemme convert to hex before I go any further
131 2011-08-17 03:36:13 <lfm> kjj no, I thinks thats right
132 2011-08-17 03:37:07 <kjj> 0x40 = 64.  0x41 = 65.  there would be no size number after it
133 2011-08-17 03:37:12 <kjj> either way
134 2011-08-17 03:37:39 <kjj> and I mistyped earlier.  I meant "not" instead of "now"
135 2011-08-17 03:37:45 <theymos> You're right. I was thinking in hex characters before. There is no OP_PUSHDATA1.
136 2011-08-17 03:37:47 <lfm> ya, the opcode just kinda accidently on purpose is the same as the length of the following arg
137 2011-08-17 03:39:11 <kjj> according to the wiki, 0x4B <byte> pushes <byte> bytes
138 2011-08-17 03:40:01 <lfm> that would be for other lenghts no covered by the push64 and push65 codes?
139 2011-08-17 03:40:22 <kjj> then 0x4C <byte byte> would push <byte byte> bytes.  after that, I'm guessing a confusion of endianness
140 2011-08-17 03:40:29 <lfm> or are we nuts
141 2011-08-17 03:40:34 <theymos> No, 0x4B pushes 0x4B bytes. 0x4C uses the next byte.
142 2011-08-17 03:40:55 <kjj> er, yeah.  I was thinking 75, not 76
143 2011-08-17 03:41:44 <lfm> in the source it has     OP_PUSHDATA1=76,
144 2011-08-17 03:42:44 <lfm> 76 == 0x4c
145 2011-08-17 03:44:16 <lfm> anything between 0 and 76 must be handled specially
146 2011-08-17 03:45:59 <lfm> if (b.size() < OP_PUSHDATA1)
147 2011-08-17 03:48:53 <lfm> if (opcode < OP_PUSHDATA1)
148 2011-08-17 03:49:47 <lfm> look for "Immediate operand" in script.h
149 2011-08-17 03:50:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r0f782ba6bd23 cgminer/ (6 files): Update poclbm kernel to FF sized mask and only check that range.
150 2011-08-17 03:50:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r52e521a7c182 cgminer/main.c: Revert "Copy the work before returning from creating a thread in case we change the work before copying it."
151 2011-08-17 03:51:14 <lfm> so pushdata1 has a 1 byte length floows, and pushdata2 and pushdata4 you can guess. 0 to 75 has data immediatly following
152 2011-08-17 03:51:42 <lfm> floows -> follows
153 2011-08-17 03:52:36 <lfm> and zero pushes a zero
154 2011-08-17 03:54:19 <kjj> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1139081/BitcoinImg/PubKeyToAddr.png
155 2011-08-17 03:55:18 <lfm> now what does OP_CHECKSIG do when the key has no 04 on it?
156 2011-08-17 03:55:46 <kjj> pretty sure it fails
157 2011-08-17 03:55:52 <theymos> I think that it's just passed to OpenSSL unmodified. I don't know how OpenSSL will process it. Possibly it could be accepted.
158 2011-08-17 03:56:41 <kjj> the sequence 0x04 + 32 bytes + 32 bytes is fed into the hasher.  without the 0x04, it'll be a different hash
159 2011-08-17 03:56:42 <theymos> kjj: 1 isn't added. It just happens to always exist there when the version is 0.
160 2011-08-17 03:56:43 <lfm> We should try to figure it out for sure, it could be exploitable ?
161 2011-08-17 03:58:16 <theymos> This was part of Kaminsky's slides on Bitcoin problems. Someone can modify public keys in transactions while in transit. This can't cause bitcoins to be stolen, but it creates strange versions of the transaction, which will confuse the sending and receiving client.
162 2011-08-17 03:58:41 <theymos> (This was known before Kaminsky's slides, as well.)
163 2011-08-17 03:59:26 <lfm> and "confused" client might be exploitable!
164 2011-08-17 03:59:51 <theymos> Not in this case. It just won't recognize the transaction as its transaction at all.
165 2011-08-17 04:00:03 <kjj> I'm pretty sure they can only make meaningless modifications, like appending data after the script
166 2011-08-17 04:00:44 <theymos> I'm don't know whether leaving out the 04 creates a usable public key. If I had to guess, I'd say that it does not, or else Bitcoin would be doing it to save space.
167 2011-08-17 04:04:38 <kjj> script.cpp is hard to follow, but I don't see any place where it adds a 0x04 if it is missing
168 2011-08-17 04:06:25 <lfm> // Hash type is one byte tacked on to the end of the signature
169 2011-08-17 04:07:05 <theymos> Normal transactions don't include a SIGHASH byte, IIRC.
170 2011-08-17 04:07:24 <theymos> Without the byte, it's SIGHASH_ALL.
171 2011-08-17 04:09:46 <kjj> pretty sure that "end" here means the other end
172 2011-08-17 04:10:03 <lfm> kjj littleendian?
173 2011-08-17 04:10:11 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rcf54f9b850ff cgminer/ (5 files): Move to 256 sized buffers and don't risk overwrite by using only 127 mask.
174 2011-08-17 04:17:14 <lfm> I cant find where it'd set or define a nHashType=4
175 2011-08-17 04:18:14 <kjj> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1139081/BitcoinImg/OpCheckSigDiagram.png
176 2011-08-17 04:18:47 <kjj> that shows the hashtype appended onto the signature, not at the beginning
177 2011-08-17 04:19:55 <kjj> I'm still pretty sure that the 0x04 at the start of the public key must be present in the transaction or the verify will fail
178 2011-08-17 04:21:26 <Vladimir> bitcoin.org.uk daily roll
179 2011-08-17 04:21:31 <gribble> 59
180 2011-08-17 04:21:31 <Vladimir> ;;dice 1d68
181 2011-08-17 04:22:35 <Vladimir> user peter won, congratulations
182 2011-08-17 04:24:14 <lfm> ya step 5 in the diagram shows hashTypeCode = 4
183 2011-08-17 04:25:22 <theymos> That's on a signature, not a public key.
184 2011-08-17 04:35:30 <kjj> I'm out for tonight.  been away from C++ for WAY too long to make sense of this without spending a couple of weeks on it
185 2011-08-17 04:36:23 <lfm> kjj ok, bye
186 2011-08-17 05:00:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r5d517729e3a0 cgminer/NEWS: Update news for 1.5.6.
187 2011-08-17 05:00:18 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r4060ae37573c cgminer/configure.ac: Bump version number.
188 2011-08-17 07:45:11 <vegard> so I did some calculations on that break-even point
189 2011-08-17 07:49:52 <vegard> assuming a price of 10 usd/btc, 50 btc/block reward, 0.5 Ghash/sec/miner, 0.3 kW/miner, and 0.1 usd/kWh, 100,000 miners will reach break even
190 2011-08-17 07:50:19 <vegard> fewer miners and each one will have a net income, more miners and each one will have a net loss
191 2011-08-17 07:51:32 <vegard> that's a hashing rate of 50 Thash/sec
192 2011-08-17 07:52:27 <vegard> when the block reward drops to 25 btc, that hashing rate drops to 25 THash/sec
193 2011-08-17 07:52:44 <vegard> (not including fees)
194 2011-08-17 07:53:29 <vegard> at the moment we seem to have about 12.5 Ghash/sec
195 2011-08-17 07:53:49 <hugolp> vegard: what level of transactions are you assuming?
196 2011-08-17 07:54:03 <vegard> none. I'm not including fees in the calculations
197 2011-08-17 07:55:21 <vegard> if the average total fees per block is 10, you can just put 60 as the btc/block reward. in that case, the current break-even hashing rate would be 60 Thash/sec
198 2011-08-17 07:55:32 <vegard> (still assuming the same specifications for the miners)
199 2011-08-17 07:56:39 <hugolp> well, the idea is that after the initial period there will be more fees, since there will be more trade in bitcoins. Otherwise, whats the point of the currency?
200 2011-08-17 07:58:01 <mtrlt> currently the fees are still negligible
201 2011-08-17 07:58:33 <vegard> yeah, so if we assume that we are at a break-even point now (it seems to be the case, since difficulty dropped), then sustaining the hashing rate when the block reward goes to 25 will require the average fee per block to rise by 25 btc
202 2011-08-17 08:00:00 <vegard> sorry, not rise by 25 btc. rise by (25 - whatever the average fee per block is now)
203 2011-08-17 08:00:12 <mtrlt> naturally.
204 2011-08-17 08:00:48 <vegard> you think that will come from an increase in the number of transactions or an increase in the fee per transaction?
205 2011-08-17 08:01:47 <mtrlt> i think hashrate will drop
206 2011-08-17 08:08:23 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
207 2011-08-17 08:08:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 141322 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 1813 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 19 hours, 42 minutes, and 23 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1783027.26943379
208 2011-08-17 08:20:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Znort 987 * rf66dec74e62a cgminer/main.c: Fix a crash with --algo auto
209 2011-08-17 08:20:15 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2e0ecb647569 cgminer/main.c: Merge pull request #35 from znort987/fix-autocpu-crash
210 2011-08-17 08:52:10 <vegard> mtrlt: right :)
211 2011-08-17 09:01:26 <grondilu> Weird:  the balance doesn't seem to match the received-sent transactions.  Should I do a "rescan" or something?
212 2011-08-17 09:02:11 <grondilu> or maybe it's because I haven't downloaded all blocks yet.
213 2011-08-17 09:03:27 <grondilu> well, nevermind
214 2011-08-17 10:23:27 <vegard> mtrlt: and that's bad.
215 2011-08-17 10:24:56 <mtrlt> well, it's because satoshi decided that the network will suddenly reduce the reward by 50%
216 2011-08-17 10:25:19 <mtrlt> instead of the reward being continuously reduced
217 2011-08-17 10:31:39 <UukGoblin> it won't matter in the long term ;-]
218 2011-08-17 10:31:53 <mtrlt> :P
219 2011-08-17 10:31:59 <mtrlt> yea, in 150 years
220 2011-08-17 10:32:09 <mtrlt> or, more likely in a decade
221 2011-08-17 10:32:17 <UukGoblin> yup
222 2011-08-17 10:33:31 <UukGoblin> sipa's graphs are b0rken :-<
223 2011-08-17 10:33:48 <mtrlt> :(
224 2011-08-17 10:34:12 <UukGoblin> they seem to stop on Monday morning
225 2011-08-17 10:35:54 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,stats
226 2011-08-17 10:35:56 <gribble> Current Blocks: 141332 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 1803 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 0 hours, 31 minutes, and 12 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1743204.48393295
227 2011-08-17 10:36:26 <UukGoblin> further drops o/
228 2011-08-17 10:40:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3edc1dfe2aad cgminer/util.c: Test at appropriate target difficulty now.
229 2011-08-17 10:46:03 <vegard> what about the short term?
230 2011-08-17 10:47:11 <mtrlt> it will matter somewhat.
231 2011-08-17 10:48:20 <vegard> I'm sorry for harping on this. but I think it's an important point that people should be aware of
232 2011-08-17 10:48:56 <vegard> and I'm not sure how obvious it is. it wasn't obvious to me
233 2011-08-17 10:49:56 <mtrlt> we'll see when it's time
234 2011-08-17 10:50:00 <mtrlt> what happen.
235 2011-08-17 10:52:40 <vegard> that's like betting
236 2011-08-17 10:53:41 <UukGoblin> vegard, what's the problem with it anyway?
237 2011-08-17 10:54:02 <mtrlt> mining reward is suddenly reduced 50%.
238 2011-08-17 10:54:07 <UukGoblin> yes, and?
239 2011-08-17 10:54:19 <mtrlt> it will cause a significant drop in hashrate
240 2011-08-17 10:54:34 <mtrlt> dunno what's the problem there  :P
241 2011-08-17 10:54:37 <UukGoblin> or increase in price
242 2011-08-17 10:54:42 <UukGoblin> or both
243 2011-08-17 10:54:44 <mtrlt> no increase in price
244 2011-08-17 10:55:00 <UukGoblin> more scarcity = higher price
245 2011-08-17 10:55:02 <mtrlt> no
246 2011-08-17 10:55:05 <vegard> the problem with difficulty going down is that it makes the block chain vulnerable
247 2011-08-17 10:55:15 <mtrlt> diff follows from price
248 2011-08-17 10:55:17 <mtrlt> not the other way around
249 2011-08-17 10:55:28 <vegard> I tend to agree with mtrlt
250 2011-08-17 10:56:25 <UukGoblin> well, strictly speaking, the two aren't exactly very correlated
251 2011-08-17 10:57:02 <mtrlt> they are.
252 2011-08-17 10:57:20 <mtrlt> look at what happened to diff when the price went to $30
253 2011-08-17 10:57:27 <UukGoblin> I agree this will probably cause more chaos than a gradual decline in reward, but after tx fees properly kick in, this won't be much of a problem
254 2011-08-17 10:57:30 <mtrlt> and what's happening now when the price went down
255 2011-08-17 10:57:44 <TuxBlackEdo> ;;bc,diffchage
256 2011-08-17 10:57:45 <gribble> Error: "bc,diffchage" is not a valid command.
257 2011-08-17 10:57:48 <gribble> -3.93094536754 % estimated difficulty change this period
258 2011-08-17 10:57:48 <TuxBlackEdo> ;;bc,diffchange
259 2011-08-17 10:57:56 <UukGoblin> mtrlt, they're not proportional at all
260 2011-08-17 10:58:09 <mtrlt> not?
261 2011-08-17 10:58:20 <mtrlt> http://bitcoin.atspace.com/income.html old graph but look at it.
262 2011-08-17 10:58:31 <mtrlt> btw i wanna have an updated version of that :p
263 2011-08-17 10:59:13 <mtrlt> and of course it takes time for people to buy new rigs when the price goes up
264 2011-08-17 10:59:30 <mtrlt> and mining is still profitable for most, so the diff isn't going that much down.
265 2011-08-17 10:59:35 <TuxBlackEdo> does bitcoin always try to send coins in such a way that no fees have to be paid, unless there is no way to send a transaction for free?
266 2011-08-17 10:59:47 <UukGoblin> TuxBlackEdo, no
267 2011-08-17 10:59:53 <mtrlt> you can always send a transaction for free
268 2011-08-17 11:00:00 <mtrlt> it might just take a lot of time before it gets into a block
269 2011-08-17 11:00:15 <vegard> UukGoblin: increased fees mean an increased number of miners at the break-even point
270 2011-08-17 11:00:35 <vegard> this helps secure the block chain
271 2011-08-17 11:00:43 <UukGoblin> mtrlt, I think what TuxBlackEdo is asking is: given a standard transaction fee (i.e. 0.0001 per kb above certain threshold), will bitcoin try to arrange your wallet in a way to minimize the requirement for fees
272 2011-08-17 11:00:52 <TuxBlackEdo> right
273 2011-08-17 11:01:26 <UukGoblin> i.e. send two smaller transactions instead of one big
274 2011-08-17 11:01:46 <UukGoblin> or wait until your coins mature to get a higher priority
275 2011-08-17 11:02:35 <mtrlt> don't the coins mature anyway independent of whether the tx has been sent or not.
276 2011-08-17 11:03:15 <UukGoblin> I'm not sure when priority is calculated
277 2011-08-17 11:03:31 <UukGoblin> but you might be right there...
278 2011-08-17 11:03:54 <TuxBlackEdo> if i ever age the coins it doesnt ask me a fee
279 2011-08-17 11:03:57 <mtrlt> if they don't, the system is bonkers
280 2011-08-17 11:03:58 <UukGoblin> I did have a case when sending a transaction returned that a fee is required... I waited 24hrs and the fee suddenly wasn't required anymore...
281 2011-08-17 11:04:18 <mtrlt> TuxBlackEdo: well, that's just because the client itself forces fees in some situations
282 2011-08-17 11:04:25 <mtrlt> the network does not
283 2011-08-17 11:04:39 <UukGoblin> well, the network consists of clietns
284 2011-08-17 11:05:09 <UukGoblin> assuming all clients require the same fees, the client could keep a wallet in such a way as to minimize the fees
285 2011-08-17 11:05:43 <UukGoblin> e.g. rather than having 50, 50, 50, 50 inputs in the wallet, the client would merge two 50s into a 100, and split one 50 into 25s, and 1 25 into 12.5s
286 2011-08-17 11:06:08 <makomk> nanotube: I'm guessing ArtForz was doing pooled mining because block propagation delays were a real killer on I0Coin...
287 2011-08-17 11:06:09 <UukGoblin> or whatever, depending on what size of the transaction the user is more likely to send
288 2011-08-17 11:17:34 <epscy> ;;bc,stats
289 2011-08-17 11:17:36 <gribble> Current Blocks: 141337 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 1798 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 5 days, 22 hours, 9 minutes, and 18 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1753837.64533232
290 2011-08-17 11:23:49 <luke-jr> nanotube: ugly:P
291 2011-08-17 11:36:43 <nanotube> luke-jr: what's ugly?
292 2011-08-17 11:36:57 <luke-jr> nanotube: -ratings
293 2011-08-17 11:37:32 <nanotube> ugly how? lack of funky colors? :)
294 2011-08-17 11:43:21 <luke-jr> yeah, and abuse of >
295 2011-08-17 11:43:41 <nanotube> abuse?
296 2011-08-17 11:43:53 <nanotube> heh guess you'd rather see some fancy unicode arrows eh? :)
297 2011-08-17 11:44:59 <UukGoblin> are the ratings in tonal? ;-]
298 2011-08-17 11:51:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: if it were an arrow, it's pointing the wrong direction :P
299 2011-08-17 12:17:24 <nanotube> luke-jr: why wrong direction? it's a rating from user on left to user on right...
300 2011-08-17 12:19:35 <luke-jr> [08:42:27] <gribble> New rating | chridi > 1 > phlogiston | smooth transaction
301 2011-08-17 12:19:43 <luke-jr> I guess it's the double arrow that's ugly
302 2011-08-17 12:19:59 <luke-jr> I'd do --( 1 )--> or smth  :P
303 2011-08-17 12:20:17 <luke-jr> well, I'd do the coloured style I mentioned the other day
304 2011-08-17 12:20:22 <luke-jr> I mean if I were to use ASCII
305 2011-08-17 12:28:56 <nanotube> heh
306 2011-08-17 12:31:27 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rc728611 / src/main.cpp : Remove unused ScanMessageStart function - http://bit.ly/q9W1Ai
307 2011-08-17 12:31:28 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r865ed8a / (src/net.h src/util.cpp src/util.h): Compile with DEBUG_LOCKORDER to detect inconsistent lock orderings that can cause deadlocks - http://bit.ly/oda9gR
308 2011-08-17 13:05:06 <b4epoche> what is the precise timing of the change in mining rewards relative to the following change in difficulty?
309 2011-08-17 13:06:09 <edcba> ?
310 2011-08-17 13:06:10 <JFK911> 1 block
311 2011-08-17 13:07:21 <b4epoche> at the end of this year (midnight 12/31?  what tz?) the mining reward will drop in half, correct?
312 2011-08-17 13:07:35 <jtaylor> no after block 210.000
313 2011-08-17 13:07:49 <b4epoche> oh, it's a block count
314 2011-08-17 13:08:27 <edcba> yes block count is loosely based on time
315 2011-08-17 13:08:33 <b4epoche> sure
316 2011-08-17 13:08:46 <edcba> but you don't base anything on time
317 2011-08-17 13:08:54 <edcba> except block generation
318 2011-08-17 13:09:14 <edcba> hmm i don't know about tx
319 2011-08-17 13:09:25 <edcba> dunno if they are checked against time
320 2011-08-17 13:09:31 <b4epoche> so 2016 blocks between difficulty updates
321 2011-08-17 13:10:18 <b4epoche> so 210,000/2016 = 104.167
322 2011-08-17 13:10:42 <b4epoche> that's a little troubling if the dynamics plays out like one might expect
323 2011-08-17 13:13:04 <mtrlt> what do you mean?
324 2011-08-17 13:13:22 <b4epoche> well, there seems like there might be a negative feedback mechanism
325 2011-08-17 13:13:25 <jtaylor> if to many miner jump ship, one will ahve a few weeks of lower block creation frequency
326 2011-08-17 13:13:29 <jtaylor> just like namecoin
327 2011-08-17 13:13:34 <jtaylor> but probably less severe
328 2011-08-17 13:14:30 <b4epoche> so 336 blocks into a difficulty the reward changes
329 2011-08-17 13:15:05 <b4epoche> so 1680 blocks need to be mined before a difficulty change
330 2011-08-17 13:15:33 <b4epoche> what do people expect the fall off in hash rate to be?
331 2011-08-17 13:16:14 <b4epoche> I'd say like 50% considering that it will probably be run up before the change
332 2011-08-17 13:16:17 <luke-jr_> ;;bc,stats
333 2011-08-17 13:16:20 <gribble> Current Blocks: 141345 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 1790 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 6 days, 1 hour, 44 minutes, and 50 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1723275.93320648
334 2011-08-17 13:16:23 <jtaylor> depends on many factors
335 2011-08-17 13:16:36 <b4epoche> although maybe not, considering mining rig owners still have the equipment
336 2011-08-17 13:16:36 <luke-jr_> IMO, it would make sense if the difficulty automatically divided itself in half when the reward halves
337 2011-08-17 13:16:44 <b4epoche> luke-jr_: ++
338 2011-08-17 13:17:01 <luke-jr_> or better yet, fix Bitcoin so it can handle big drops
339 2011-08-17 13:17:20 <jtaylor> the latter makes more sense to me
340 2011-08-17 13:17:31 <b4epoche> luke-jr_:  have you ever looked at the distribution of mining rates in your pool?
341 2011-08-17 13:17:40 <jtaylor> I don't understand why there is no maximum period after which the difficulty will always adapt
342 2011-08-17 13:17:50 <b4epoche> how many are big miners and how many are single GPU types?
343 2011-08-17 13:18:01 <kjj_AFK> there easily could be, and we have like 15 months or so to decide on a way to handle it
344 2011-08-17 13:18:44 <b4epoche> my expectation is that more than half the hash power is in the single GPU (i.e. fickle) miners
345 2011-08-17 13:19:29 <lfm> the big miners will drop out too as soon as it doesn't pay
346 2011-08-17 13:19:37 <kjj> if you look at dollars though, the block subsidy has already fallen by 66% from the $30 peak, and it didn't cause a mining exodus
347 2011-08-17 13:19:46 <b4epoche> but I think the biggies will drop out slower
348 2011-08-17 13:19:54 <b4epoche> they've already invested in the equipment
349 2011-08-17 13:19:55 <luke-jr_> b4epoche: http://eligius.st/~artefact2/contrib
350 2011-08-17 13:20:21 <b4epoche> kjj:  because it still pays (just not as well)
351 2011-08-17 13:20:28 <b4epoche> is 15 months correct?
352 2011-08-17 13:20:34 <luke-jr_> kjj: it never went *up* to the $30 peak
353 2011-08-17 13:21:05 <b4epoche> I guess so.
354 2011-08-17 13:21:17 <b4epoche> why were people talking end of the year yesterday?
355 2011-08-17 13:22:09 <b4epoche> luke-jr_:  yep, a very long tail
356 2011-08-17 13:22:21 <b4epoche> and a bug in your bar graph at the end ;-)
357 2011-08-17 13:22:50 <kjj> because people are bad at math.  68,000 blocks is (roughly) 476 days
358 2011-08-17 13:23:14 <b4epoche> kjj:  and I didn't check for myself
359 2011-08-17 13:23:38 <b4epoche> but here's the doomsday scenario:
360 2011-08-17 13:23:45 <luke-jr_> b4epoche: not mine
361 2011-08-17 13:23:54 <kjj> but I'm not comfortable predicting the exchange rate for tomorrow, much less a year or more out
362 2011-08-17 13:24:20 <b4epoche> kjj:  yea but I'm not sure it really depends much on exchange rate
363 2011-08-17 13:24:37 <imsaguy2> luke-jr_, you should come in #bitcoin and put down some smack
364 2011-08-17 13:26:02 <kjj> ouch.  I was there for like 10 seconds and my head already hurts
365 2011-08-17 13:26:12 <b4epoche> say hash rate drops by 50%, that means reward rate actually drops to one fourth of what it was
366 2011-08-17 13:26:32 <b4epoche> luke-jr:  not your what?  bug?
367 2011-08-17 13:26:51 <kjj> if the hash rate drops at the same time as the subsidy change, then yes
368 2011-08-17 13:27:19 <b4epoche> well, they're independent of course&  just trying to use round numbers
369 2011-08-17 13:27:31 <kjj> but everyone can see the subsidy change coming.  it is at a known block number, so no one will be surprised by it
370 2011-08-17 13:28:12 <kjj> I expect marginal miners to pull out gradually in advance of that, unlike the true believers
371 2011-08-17 13:28:18 <b4epoche> so reward rate is now a quarter of what it was, more miners drop out&  repeat until oblivion and inevitable armageddon ;-)
372 2011-08-17 13:28:33 <b4epoche> kjj:  that's part of the problem
373 2011-08-17 13:28:42 <jtaylor> some miners will sta what
374 2011-08-17 13:28:44 <lfm> I'd expect marginal miners to drop out after that
375 2011-08-17 13:28:50 <b4epoche> I would expect hash rate to rise before change
376 2011-08-17 13:28:59 <jtaylor> stay no matter what
377 2011-08-17 13:29:21 <lfm> ya, miners with free power would still stay
378 2011-08-17 13:29:23 <b4epoche> jtaylor:  that's why I was asking about the breakdown of miner hash rate from luke-jr
379 2011-08-17 13:29:51 <b4epoche> I think the big boys will stay&  they have the rig
380 2011-08-17 13:30:16 <kjj> my 2 gigahashes per second will remain until the cards die of old age
381 2011-08-17 13:30:18 <b4epoche> and I wouldn't expect the exchange rate to fall below the cost to mine
382 2011-08-17 13:30:25 <shLONG> hey
383 2011-08-17 13:30:26 <lfm> the big boys are the ones who know if theyre making money or not and will drop out as soon as they're not
384 2011-08-17 13:30:39 <b4epoche> lfm^^
385 2011-08-17 13:31:20 <b4epoche> but there's an extremely long tail (see http://eligius.st/~artefact2/contrib)
386 2011-08-17 13:31:54 <lfm> a disproportional number of big boys mine for themselves, not for pools
387 2011-08-17 13:31:55 <shLONG> whats that contributors for?
388 2011-08-17 13:32:22 <b4epoche> yea, that's true&  and will certainly help.
389 2011-08-17 13:32:29 <b4epoche> anyone have stats on that?
390 2011-08-17 13:32:42 <b4epoche> I suppose we could figure it out, but...
391 2011-08-17 13:32:53 <lfm> hard to get data on that
392 2011-08-17 13:33:15 <b4epoche> not hard to estimate though&  given that a few pools dominate
393 2011-08-17 13:34:00 <iddo> if $10 is a little more than production cost now, couldn't all the miners stay when the rewards becomes 25 by simply demanding $20+ when they sell?
394 2011-08-17 13:34:10 <b4epoche> I just don't like the negative feedback mechanism that seems to be there
395 2011-08-17 13:34:10 <luke-jr> am I calculating network hashrate wrong?
396 2011-08-17 13:34:26 <luke-jr> almost 8k TH/s?
397 2011-08-17 13:34:56 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 200000
398 2011-08-17 13:34:57 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 1805700.8361937 , is 0.111405871939 BTC per day and 0.00464191133079 BTC per hour.
399 2011-08-17 13:34:59 <lfm> ;;bc,nethash
400 2011-08-17 13:35:00 <b4epoche> iddo:  that's the other fun dynamic that will come into play
401 2011-08-17 13:35:02 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,cakc 200000
402 2011-08-17 13:35:03 <gribble> 12496.21706630554
403 2011-08-17 13:35:04 <gribble> Error: "bc,cakc" is not a valid command.
404 2011-08-17 13:35:04 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,calc 200000
405 2011-08-17 13:35:05 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 200000 Khps, given current difficulty of 1805700.8361937 , is 1 year, 11 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 25 minutes, and 30 seconds
406 2011-08-17 13:35:17 <luke-jr> or maybe 13 TH
407 2011-08-17 13:35:22 <gribble> 12496.21706630554
408 2011-08-17 13:35:22 <lfm> ;;bc,nethash
409 2011-08-17 13:35:32 <lfm> 12.4 th/s
410 2011-08-17 13:35:39 <lfm> 12.5
411 2011-08-17 13:36:28 <lfm> ;;calc 12496217
412 2011-08-17 13:36:30 <kjj> I don't see negative feedback in the system
413 2011-08-17 13:36:44 <gribble> ...
414 2011-08-17 13:36:49 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 12496217
415 2011-08-17 13:36:50 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12496217 Khps, given current difficulty of 1805700.8361937 , is 1 week, 0 days, 4 hours, 23 minutes, and 41 seconds
416 2011-08-17 13:37:07 <lfm> ;;bc,calc 12496217066
417 2011-08-17 13:37:36 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 12496217066 Khps, given current difficulty of 1805700.8361937 , is 10 minutes and 20 seconds
418 2011-08-17 13:38:30 <b4epoche> kjj:  not in general, no
419 2011-08-17 13:39:21 <epscy> jtaylor: I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the bitcoin network actually has a concept of time periods other than how many blocks have been mined
420 2011-08-17 13:39:28 <b4epoche> but&  (commercial interruption:  Screaming Monkey with Woot Cape - $1.99)
421 2011-08-17 13:39:50 <jtaylor> epscy: i0coin has a max difficulty period
422 2011-08-17 13:40:20 <shLONG> http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/patching-the-bitcoin-client-to-make-it-more-anonymous/
423 2011-08-17 13:40:24 <b4epoche> but, I think there is a negative feedback mechanism for the time between reward change and the following difficulty change
424 2011-08-17 13:40:33 <shLONG> Whi is the bitcoin wallet lagging behind??
425 2011-08-17 13:40:36 <lfm> epscy: it uses the time rather loosle to calculate a new difficulty
426 2011-08-17 13:40:37 <b4epoche> but there seems to be plenty of time to fix it
427 2011-08-17 13:40:40 <epscy> jtaylor: do you know how it is implemented?, the site isn't loading for me
428 2011-08-17 13:40:52 <epscy> lfm: ahh thanks
429 2011-08-17 13:41:23 <epscy> still seems a bit messy, the bitcoin way may not be perfect but it is more elegant
430 2011-08-17 13:41:35 <epscy> i don't really see this as a problem though
431 2011-08-17 13:41:57 <kjj> b4epoche: the problem is in network splits
432 2011-08-17 13:42:04 <lfm> epscy plus or minus an hour (per 2016 blocks) is nto very significant
433 2011-08-17 13:42:28 <epscy> lfm: are you talking about i0coin or bitcoin?
434 2011-08-17 13:42:56 <lfm> I dont know what iocoin is/does
435 2011-08-17 13:43:08 <epscy> lfm: presumably if the difficultly was very high and everyone stopped mining except me on my cpu, it would take a long time to reach 2016 blocks?
436 2011-08-17 13:43:19 <lfm> epscy: yes
437 2011-08-17 13:43:44 <epscy> so in that sense the network doesn't neccessarily know the time accurately
438 2011-08-17 13:43:44 <noagendamarket> it retargets after 2 weeks or 2016
439 2011-08-17 13:43:48 <lfm> fortunatly that is rather unlikely
440 2011-08-17 13:44:07 <epscy> oh how does the network know two weeks have gone by?
441 2011-08-17 13:44:18 <b4epoche> see, fall in reward -> fall in hash rate -> further fall in reward rate -> fall in hash rate -> repeat
442 2011-08-17 13:44:20 <lfm> it knows and will adjust AFTER 2016 blocks
443 2011-08-17 13:44:30 <kjj> epscy: that part is easy, the hard part is agreement between the nodes on the passage of time
444 2011-08-17 13:44:45 <epscy> kjj: yeah that is what i mean by the network
445 2011-08-17 13:44:59 <lfm> b4epoche: and difficulty falls -> more miners find it prifitable
446 2011-08-17 13:45:04 <kjj> anyhow, I'm out.  got to drive a 5 hour round-trip for what I suspect will be a 90 minute meeting.  :(
447 2011-08-17 13:45:24 <epscy> so how does bitcoin work at the moment?, just after ever 2016 blocks? or does it automatically retarget every two weeks as well?
448 2011-08-17 13:45:41 <lfm> epscy: just 2016 blocks
449 2011-08-17 13:45:47 <b4epoche> lfm:  but that's after two week
450 2011-08-17 13:45:50 <b4epoche> almost
451 2011-08-17 13:45:54 <epscy> lfm: thanks, as i thought
452 2011-08-17 13:46:08 <b4epoche> the reward rate falls not long after a difficulty change
453 2011-08-17 13:47:01 <b4epoche> lfm:  it's not a long term negative feedback situation, but a short term one
454 2011-08-17 13:47:15 <lfm> the problem has been seen on testnet, if too much mining power drops out suddenly, it can take months or years to get to the next difficulty adjustment
455 2011-08-17 13:47:37 <b4epoche> yep
456 2011-08-17 13:47:42 <epscy> i think what people are worried about is the network getting stuck with a high difficulty, all the big miners leaving and then no new blocks being created for a very long period
457 2011-08-17 13:47:55 <b4epoche> yep again
458 2011-08-17 13:48:06 <b4epoche> and I think the reward change will be a test of that
459 2011-08-17 13:48:12 <lfm> ya thats what they worry about. I wont worry till I see it happen
460 2011-08-17 13:48:40 <b4epoche> I suppose the network could just be rebooted
461 2011-08-17 13:48:55 <b4epoche> but at what difficulty rate
462 2011-08-17 13:49:02 <lfm> well if you wanna throw away all the old bitcoins
463 2011-08-17 13:49:27 <b4epoche> lfm:  it's actually not the big miners I worry about
464 2011-08-17 13:49:48 <b4epoche> they have the hardware (and I don't suppose it can be used for much else)
465 2011-08-17 13:49:50 <epscy> i think this is only a problem if bitcoins aren't valued very highly
466 2011-08-17 13:50:12 <lfm> GPUs can be resold pretty easily
467 2011-08-17 13:50:14 <b4epoche> and I can't imagine the exchange rate dropping enough to make the marginal cost to mine unprofitable
468 2011-08-17 13:50:15 <epscy> and by very highly i mean less than a couple of dollars
469 2011-08-17 13:51:09 <b4epoche> maybe there's enough damping in the system of people just being to lazy to shut down their miners that the transition will be smooth
470 2011-08-17 13:51:39 <lfm> there is a lot of variation in the costs of power also
471 2011-08-17 13:51:49 <epscy> b4epoche: it seems to me unlikely that all the big miners would shut down at exactly the same time
472 2011-08-17 13:51:57 <epscy> even accounting for the drop in reward
473 2011-08-17 13:52:44 <noagendamarket> what do people think about the trojan that uses gpu to mine for btc ?
474 2011-08-17 13:53:03 <epscy> i didn't think that was news
475 2011-08-17 13:53:05 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
476 2011-08-17 13:53:05 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":11.23499,"low":10.661,"avg":10.983170215,"vwap":10.965407596,"vol":16969,"last":10.96881,"buy":10.96881,"sell":10.977}}
477 2011-08-17 13:53:17 <epscy> but apparently it is the first to use the gpu
478 2011-08-17 13:53:38 <noagendamarket> yes
479 2011-08-17 13:53:46 <epscy> it can be hard to use the gpu without the user noticing though
480 2011-08-17 13:53:55 <epscy> especially with nvidia cards
481 2011-08-17 13:54:00 <epscy> i wonder how they handle that
482 2011-08-17 13:54:15 <edcba> they can spike usage sometimes
483 2011-08-17 13:54:34 <edcba> or wait for screensaver etc etc
484 2011-08-17 13:54:43 <lfm> run as screensaver only when the user would be away
485 2011-08-17 13:54:52 <lfm> doh
486 2011-08-17 13:55:39 <b4epoche> epscy:  it need not be at exactly the same time
487 2011-08-17 13:56:07 <Eliel> epscy: if it's the block reward dropping you're worried about, big miners are bound to be prepared for that in advance somehow.
488 2011-08-17 13:56:12 <b4epoche> even over a week would be a problem since the following diff change will be almost two weeks
489 2011-08-17 13:56:19 <epscy> b4epoche: i guess, depending on how high the diificulty is and the percentage of the network they make up
490 2011-08-17 13:56:35 <b4epoche> epscy:  yea, that's why I was trying to get stats from the pools
491 2011-08-17 13:56:38 <epscy> b4epoche: yeah and the diff change can't drop too far
492 2011-08-17 13:56:53 <lfm> if it "just" halves, it would be no big deal
493 2011-08-17 13:57:05 <epscy> so it could still leave the diff very high if the miner made up a significant part of the hashing power
494 2011-08-17 13:57:18 <b4epoche> and like I said, it's not the big miners I worry about much.  the fickle single GPU folks still make up a large percentage
495 2011-08-17 13:57:25 <b4epoche> and can shut down quickly
496 2011-08-17 13:57:38 <Eliel> on the other hand, it's also possible that it'll make it necessary for users to pay bigger fees for a while.
497 2011-08-17 13:57:50 <epscy> are there any stats on who makes up the hashing power?
498 2011-08-17 13:58:11 <Eliel> many pools provide such statistics
499 2011-08-17 13:58:19 <b4epoche> e.g. http://eligius.st/~artefact2/contrib
500 2011-08-17 13:58:39 <lfm> but they're always fickle not matter what the environment. its not really much different than the exchange rate dropping to half it previous value
501 2011-08-17 13:59:35 <b4epoche> fickle but in a random way (leaving /and/ joining)
502 2011-08-17 13:59:50 <shLONG> Hey guys I had GCC installed, but I downloaded MingW anyway, how do I compile this bitcoin makefile?
503 2011-08-17 13:59:51 <lfm> and so many of them they average out
504 2011-08-17 13:59:58 <shLONG> or feed the make file into mingw
505 2011-08-17 14:00:09 <Joric> C++0x is now an International Standard (since aug 12)
506 2011-08-17 14:00:23 <Eliel> the only difference to the exchange rate dropping to half (or more like, to half the mining costs, not the same thing) is that reward drop is predictable.
507 2011-08-17 14:02:14 <b4epoche> lfm:  but the reward change probably shifts that dynamic to many more leaving
508 2011-08-17 14:03:47 <Eliel> if we're lucky it might happen close to the exchange rate going up.
509 2011-08-17 14:03:54 <Graet> that will depend on txn fees
510 2011-08-17 14:04:01 <lfm> so if the supply is gonna  be reduced, the logical thing would be to start hoarding in advance of the change, the hoarding would drive the price up I think
511 2011-08-17 14:04:12 <Graet> deepbit already had 1 block with 16btc txn in it
512 2011-08-17 14:04:24 <lfm> 16btc fee ya
513 2011-08-17 14:04:29 <Graet> some pools already payout the txn
514 2011-08-17 14:04:56 <Graet> this will become more common and help aupport miners
515 2011-08-17 14:05:03 <Graet> support*
516 2011-08-17 14:05:41 <lfm> Graet: might take more time for the fees to build tho. I dont think they'll be really significant for years and years yet
517 2011-08-17 14:05:56 <shLONG> guys can anyone help me I have no idea how to compile this .mingw makefile
518 2011-08-17 14:06:06 <shLONG> i've tried gcc, mingw-make
519 2011-08-17 14:06:17 <Graet> well i think the 1st 16btc one is a sign of things to come, and quicker than i expected
520 2011-08-17 14:06:21 <lfm> shLONG: I thot it was cross compiled on linux
521 2011-08-17 14:06:54 <shLONG> what do you mean? I have to install mingw on linux?
522 2011-08-17 14:07:01 <shLONG> and it will compile all the osx, windows bins etc
523 2011-08-17 14:07:39 <shLONG> is there a tutorial page or something for compiling it bitcoin client
524 2011-08-17 14:07:48 <lfm> shLONG: Im not sure, I dont care that much about mswin
525 2011-08-17 14:08:24 <shLONG> well I can install linux
526 2011-08-17 14:08:28 <shLONG> whatever
527 2011-08-17 14:08:33 <shLONG> as long as I can get it to build
528 2011-08-17 14:08:38 <shLONG> and work on the source code
529 2011-08-17 14:08:46 <lfm> why not just get the .exe?
530 2011-08-17 14:08:52 <shLONG> i want to make changes
531 2011-08-17 14:09:06 <shLONG> O_o
532 2011-08-17 14:09:11 <lfm> shLONG: ok, then linux is a good idea for ya
533 2011-08-17 14:10:01 <shLONG> so once in linux I install mingw and just compile the linux-mingw makefile?
534 2011-08-17 14:10:05 <Eliel> Graet: if it's necessary, I believe the bigger exchanges could potentially help smooth the drop by sponsoring pools enough to make the drop smooth.
535 2011-08-17 14:10:15 <Eliel> should be in their interests.
536 2011-08-17 14:10:32 <lfm> phhp! I dont see that
537 2011-08-17 14:10:41 <Graet> Eliel another possibility, if any exchanges are listening i'm open to suggestions :P
538 2011-08-17 14:12:21 <Eliel> of course, another possibility would be to retool the client now so that the total amount of BTC generated overall stays the same but that after block 210000, it drops linearly rather than halving every 210000 blocks.
539 2011-08-17 14:15:11 <Eliel> would fix all the drops and not just one.
540 2011-08-17 14:16:19 <Eliel> that'd potentially split the network though.
541 2011-08-17 14:16:42 <lfm> Eliel: may be not as simple as it looks, its all rather carefully tuned and any mucking about is all to probable to cause unexpected side effects
542 2011-08-17 14:17:05 <shLONG> What linux distros would you guys reccomend for me to use?
543 2011-08-17 14:17:10 <Eliel> ubuntu
544 2011-08-17 14:17:21 <shLONG> i was thinking ubuntu
545 2011-08-17 14:18:19 <lfm> changing the upper limit from 21 million can cause overflows in unexpected places and as we saw, overflows are actually a security vunerability to the net
546 2011-08-17 14:18:53 <Eliel> lfm: I meant keeping the limit but only adjusting the way the reward goes down.
547 2011-08-17 14:19:04 <TD> gavinandresen: superb stuff! exactly what's needed to find the deadlocks
548 2011-08-17 14:19:11 <lfm> that would change the limit
549 2011-08-17 14:20:44 <shLONG> how about arch linux
550 2011-08-17 14:20:57 <Eliel> lfm: how about making the network halve the difficulty at the point of change?
551 2011-08-17 14:21:08 <Eliel> but let it develop freely after that?
552 2011-08-17 14:21:16 <epscy> Eliel: what do you mean by linearly?, reduce the reward payout for each winning block?
553 2011-08-17 14:21:23 <Eliel> epscy: yes
554 2011-08-17 14:21:27 <Joric> i've lost half of my savings on mybitcoin.com, what ewallet would you recommend now?
555 2011-08-17 14:21:43 <Eliel> Joric: I'd recommend no webwallets
556 2011-08-17 14:21:43 <epscy> i will look after your bitcoins for you
557 2011-08-17 14:21:54 <luke-jr> Joric: MtGox
558 2011-08-17 14:21:56 <lianj> epscy: lol
559 2011-08-17 14:22:10 <lfm> Joric: run your own wallet
560 2011-08-17 14:22:13 <Eliel> but if you have to, MtGox with the yubikey. Yes.
561 2011-08-17 14:22:19 <lianj> Joric: did mybitcoin start their reclaim process?
562 2011-08-17 14:22:22 <lianj> *didnt
563 2011-08-17 14:22:31 <MrTiggr> yes
564 2011-08-17 14:22:36 <epscy> lianj: i am assuming he only got half back
565 2011-08-17 14:22:36 <MrTiggr> 49% return
566 2011-08-17 14:22:47 <lfm> 40%?
567 2011-08-17 14:22:52 <lianj> oh, haha now thats sad
568 2011-08-17 14:23:10 <lfm> oh 49
569 2011-08-17 14:23:31 <MrTiggr> yes - we are still chasing the bastards over in #bitcoin-police :S  sad indeed
570 2011-08-17 14:23:53 <Eliel> MrTiggr: any progress?
571 2011-08-17 14:23:58 <epscy> MrTiggr: what is the latest with that?, do people still think it was the site owner or not?
572 2011-08-17 14:24:13 <Joric> are there any sites selling firearms for BTC? i'm gonna hunt tom williams down
573 2011-08-17 14:24:29 <lfm> Joric: not funny
574 2011-08-17 14:24:43 <lianj> Joric: wait until the claim process is over. then youre free to do so
575 2011-08-17 14:24:54 <UukGoblin> heh
576 2011-08-17 14:24:57 <UukGoblin> by what law? ;-]
577 2011-08-17 14:25:02 <lianj> like someone should have done with mtgox
578 2011-08-17 14:25:30 <MrTiggr> we have had some request for our info from the FBI via mr wagner
579 2011-08-17 14:25:39 <MrTiggr> thats about all we have for now
580 2011-08-17 14:25:53 <lfm> ok all you guys advocating shooting people please tell us your real names , addresses, and phone numbers ....
581 2011-08-17 14:26:39 <b4epoche> yea, enough with this anonymous crap
582 2011-08-17 14:26:52 <UukGoblin> lfm, Mark Smith, 140 Forest Avenue, SE13 8AR, London, 020 8834 3945
583 2011-08-17 14:27:00 <copumpkin> my name is John David Smith
584 2011-08-17 14:27:05 <copumpkin> oh wait
585 2011-08-17 14:27:12 <UukGoblin> you can't be Smith, I've taken it
586 2011-08-17 14:27:20 <lianj> ^^
587 2011-08-17 14:27:25 <copumpkin> okay
588 2011-08-17 14:27:32 <copumpkin> John David Baker
589 2011-08-17 14:27:33 <b4epoche> Mr. Peebody
590 2011-08-17 14:27:36 <Joric> Bond, James Bond
591 2011-08-17 14:27:41 <copumpkin> is Baker okay?
592 2011-08-17 14:27:50 <lfm> joric ok, your free to go, you have a licence
593 2011-08-17 14:27:52 <copumpkin> either way, it's pretty trivial to find my real name if you search
594 2011-08-17 14:27:54 <UukGoblin> yeah, you can be Baker
595 2011-08-17 14:28:10 <lianj> Gabriel Gray
596 2011-08-17 14:28:17 <b4epoche> first clue on copumpkin ^^
597 2011-08-17 14:28:19 <UukGoblin> Heisenberg
598 2011-08-17 14:28:35 <copumpkin> b4epoche's real name is B. Epoche the 4th
599 2011-08-17 14:28:41 <UukGoblin> Werner Heisenberg
600 2011-08-17 14:28:45 <copumpkin> where B is Benjamin
601 2011-08-17 14:29:07 <b4epoche> no, b4epoche just means I'm old ;-)
602 2011-08-17 14:29:12 <copumpkin> I figured :P
603 2011-08-17 14:29:12 <epscy> Sir Stanley Tarquin Bumlove of the Devonshire Bumloves
604 2011-08-17 14:29:14 <UukGoblin> anyway what is this, a thoughtcrime investigation?
605 2011-08-17 14:29:48 <copumpkin> there
606 2011-08-17 14:29:53 <copumpkin> [12:29:14 PM] <@UukGoblin> anyway what is this, a thoughtcrime investigation?
607 2011-08-17 14:29:58 <Graet> omg b4epoche another old person?
608 2011-08-17 14:29:59 <copumpkin> thoughtpolice: your services are needed
609 2011-08-17 14:30:06 <b4epoche> what's the German word&  gedogin
610 2011-08-17 14:30:07 <lfm> do the thought police NEED to read irc?
611 2011-08-17 14:30:10 <b4epoche> something like that
612 2011-08-17 14:30:24 <epscy> thoughtpolice: he was thinking, i am almost certain of it, now arrest him
613 2011-08-17 14:30:54 <lianj> thoughtpolice: he even googled it
614 2011-08-17 14:31:07 <b4epoche> Gedanken
615 2011-08-17 14:31:17 <lfm> 99.5
616 2011-08-17 14:31:19 <thoughtpolice> copumpkin: so they are
617 2011-08-17 14:31:29 <epscy> what is a bitcoiner?, someone who holds some?
618 2011-08-17 14:31:48 <Graet> would have expected more decimals lfm  ;)
619 2011-08-17 14:32:23 <Joric> 13?
620 2011-08-17 14:32:23 <luke-jr> 3
621 2011-08-17 14:32:40 <lfm> luke-jr you're biased running a pool
622 2011-08-17 14:32:41 <epscy> you think bitcoin is like lord of the flies?
623 2011-08-17 14:33:02 <freerodent> 28yrs 4mths 18days 3hrs 45mins 12secs
624 2011-08-17 14:33:25 <Joric> deepbit should collect stats like that :)
625 2011-08-17 14:33:32 <freerodent> epscy: no
626 2011-08-17 14:33:35 <epscy> aah 28, it is all downhill once you reach 29 you know...
627 2011-08-17 14:33:45 <freerodent> yes
628 2011-08-17 14:34:18 <lfm> you cant really appreciate bitcoin till you're over 28yrs 4mths 18days 3hrs 45mins 12secs
629 2011-08-17 14:34:25 <freerodent> lol
630 2011-08-17 14:36:09 <Graet> mm
631 2011-08-17 14:37:08 <copumpkin> thoughtpolice: I guess the investigation was called off :(
632 2011-08-17 14:37:26 <Joric> two 14 yo guys will go aswell
633 2011-08-17 14:37:54 <Gedankenpolizei> how the heck is mtgox covering the bitomat losses?
634 2011-08-17 14:37:58 <thoughtpolice> copumpkin: there is no 'called off.' i was brought here, and i'm gathering the datas as we speak!
635 2011-08-17 14:38:20 <thoughtpolice> it'll only be a matter of time before you never see the IRC names mentioned again, before they slowly fade away in either a netsplit or just disconnects
636 2011-08-17 14:39:07 <thoughtpolice> copumpkin: AND YOU WILL BE LEFT TO WONDER, BWAHAHAHAHAHA
637 2011-08-17 14:39:08 <freerodent> Gedankenpolizei/b4epoche: i wish i knew
638 2011-08-17 14:39:45 <Graet> lol b4epoche rather easily i imagine ;)
639 2011-08-17 14:39:47 <epscy> i didn't know they were
640 2011-08-17 14:39:58 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: because the guy has more money than he knows what to do with
641 2011-08-17 14:40:03 <Graet> ^^
642 2011-08-17 14:40:04 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: and likes wasting it
643 2011-08-17 14:40:08 <freerodent> hmm
644 2011-08-17 14:40:13 <b4epoche> MagicalTux?
645 2011-08-17 14:40:20 <epscy> how much was lost during with bitomat?
646 2011-08-17 14:40:27 <b4epoche> 17,000 btc
647 2011-08-17 14:40:28 <freerodent> 17,000 BTC
648 2011-08-17 14:40:32 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: basically they're doing it in order to buy their banking accounts because they can't figure out how to stop pissing banks off and keep theirs open
649 2011-08-17 14:40:38 <epscy> and mtgox are covering all of that?
650 2011-08-17 14:40:45 <jrmithdobbs> b4epoche: dead serious
651 2011-08-17 14:40:55 <freerodent> epscy: yes
652 2011-08-17 14:41:06 <epscy> that is a significant dollar amount
653 2011-08-17 14:41:12 <b4epoche> to bank accounts?
654 2011-08-17 14:41:17 <b4epoche> s/to/buy
655 2011-08-17 14:41:21 <Joric> what happened with bitomat? corrupted wallet.dat?
656 2011-08-17 14:41:23 <b4epoche> in Poland?
657 2011-08-17 14:41:30 <epscy> do mtgox give you bitcoins or dollars?
658 2011-08-17 14:41:34 <b4epoche> Joric:  idiocy happened
659 2011-08-17 14:41:34 <epscy> i assume bitcoins
660 2011-08-17 14:41:37 <imsaguy2> Joric, they use(d) Amazon and weren't paying for storage
661 2011-08-17 14:41:48 <epscy> this kinda sounds like market interference...
662 2011-08-17 14:41:48 <imsaguy2> so when the virtual machine restarted, it went to original state
663 2011-08-17 14:42:03 <freerodent> epscy: yes
664 2011-08-17 14:42:14 <epscy> no wonder the price has been so stable
665 2011-08-17 14:42:31 <lfm> huh?
666 2011-08-17 14:42:53 <epscy> lfm: i assume mtgox had to buy 17,000 btc
667 2011-08-17 14:43:07 <epscy> and then they are giving the btc to bitomat customers
668 2011-08-17 14:43:20 <b4epoche> I doubt buy
669 2011-08-17 14:43:37 <b4epoche> I'm assuming MagicalTux was an early adopter
670 2011-08-17 14:43:40 <lfm> Id assume mtgox would have 17000btc is their slush account
671 2011-08-17 14:43:50 <epscy> hmm i suppose
672 2011-08-17 14:43:51 <freerodent> maybe the whole bitomat failure was a stunt
673 2011-08-17 14:43:58 <epscy> still would affect the market though
674 2011-08-17 14:44:22 <MagicalTux> [01:42:53] <epscy> lfm: i assume mtgox had to buy 17,000 btc <- we forbid ourselves from buying or selling any BTC
675 2011-08-17 14:44:44 <Joric> one not doing backups, another uses php
676 2011-08-17 14:44:44 <MagicalTux> (mostly because we know too much about the market)
677 2011-08-17 14:44:54 <Graet> <epscy> do mtgox give you bitcoins or dollars?  <, they never give me any, but i have traded on the biggest btc exchange
678 2011-08-17 14:44:57 <copumpkin> thoughtpolice: lol
679 2011-08-17 14:45:07 <da2ce7> MagicalTux, would you feel that it is inmorall if you say traded on tradehill?
680 2011-08-17 14:45:16 <epscy> MagicalTux: thanks for the clarification, so the bitcoins you gave came out of your bitcoin profits/reserves?
681 2011-08-17 14:45:25 <MagicalTux> epscy: exactly
682 2011-08-17 14:45:36 <MagicalTux> da2ce7: there are too many bots acting between exchanges
683 2011-08-17 14:45:42 <da2ce7> ahh
684 2011-08-17 14:46:03 <MagicalTux> anyway we found something productive to do with some of the bitcoins cumulated so far
685 2011-08-17 14:46:31 <freerodent> oh, MagicalTux = Mt Gox :) right?
686 2011-08-17 14:46:42 <Graet> was a great pr move if nothing else
687 2011-08-17 14:46:44 <da2ce7> freerodent, correct
688 2011-08-17 14:46:47 <epscy> MagicalTux: ok, that is a nice gesture and i guess 17,000 isn't a huge portion of the 6 million plus btc in existence
689 2011-08-17 14:46:49 <lfm> so I was closer to accuracte saying it was a slush fund! (grin)
690 2011-08-17 14:46:58 <epscy> so won't move the market too much
691 2011-08-17 14:48:18 <lfm> freerodent: you are right but for the wrong reasons
692 2011-08-17 14:48:26 <imsaguy2> now if only mtgox will cover mytbitcoin losses ;)
693 2011-08-17 14:48:39 <MagicalTux> imsaguy2: we don't have that much
694 2011-08-17 14:48:51 <imsaguy2> I'm just playing
695 2011-08-17 14:49:11 <epscy> how much was lost in mybitcoin?
696 2011-08-17 14:49:13 <MagicalTux> if it was possible we may have done so if there was no doubt about what happened
697 2011-08-17 14:49:27 <MagicalTux> epscy: https://www.mybitcoin.com/accounting.txt
698 2011-08-17 14:49:42 <MagicalTux> (basically, 75k btc lost)
699 2011-08-17 14:50:08 <epscy> interesting
700 2011-08-17 14:50:30 <MagicalTux> and not "destroyed" but "stolen"
701 2011-08-17 14:50:38 <lfm> so bruce w. was prolly the biggest account there
702 2011-08-17 14:51:55 <epscy> yeah, it is still far too murky to get involved the mybitcoin fiasco
703 2011-08-17 14:54:40 <TD> MagicalTux: the explanation williams provided didn't sound solid to me, did it to you? surely it would have required repeated, auditable attacks by a pool operator to pull off
704 2011-08-17 14:55:18 <MagicalTux> TD: and it would have left proof in the form of aborted blockchain parts
705 2011-08-17 14:55:25 <b4epoche> unless as some noted they were taking 0 confirms
706 2011-08-17 14:55:28 <TD> yes. i think the block explorer would have those
707 2011-08-17 14:55:34 <TD> b4epoche: their website says they waited 1 block
708 2011-08-17 14:55:42 <TD> so to override that, you'd need to find at least 2 blocks in a row
709 2011-08-17 14:55:59 <b4epoche> TD:  yea, but some here think they weren't even waiting that long
710 2011-08-17 14:56:11 <Graet> wow all these potential "attacks" by pools i hear about
711 2011-08-17 14:56:51 <TD> surely it's easy to check how many blocks they were waiting? they DID have users, right
712 2011-08-17 14:56:58 <Graet> yes
713 2011-08-17 14:57:09 <lfm> Graet: most of them are only feasible cuz people think they can short circuit the 6 block confirmation period
714 2011-08-17 14:57:14 <b4epoche> yea, that's why people here thought less than 1
715 2011-08-17 14:57:26 <b4epoche> deposits showing up nearly instantly
716 2011-08-17 14:57:26 <Graet> but not many users come forward, and those that have dont neccesarily want to reaveal too much
717 2011-08-17 14:57:52 <Graet> lfm yep, i run a pool, i'm interested in facts ;)
718 2011-08-17 14:58:15 <Joric> "A GIFT TO THE COMMUNITY" "After the claims have all been filed and dealt with we will be releasing the entire MyBitcoin processing engine into the public domain"
719 2011-08-17 14:58:21 <Joric> haha thanks but no thanks
720 2011-08-17 14:58:23 <TD> i guess it was because the issue existed in their shopping cart. i can imagine that had fewer users
721 2011-08-17 14:58:32 <b4epoche> TD:  I can't remember who were speculating on 0 confirms but they were 'reliable'
722 2011-08-17 14:59:03 <theorbtwo> 0 confirmations is just silly.
723 2011-08-17 14:59:15 <lfm> I was speculating 0 but it was just that, speculation
724 2011-08-17 14:59:42 <b4epoche> must not have been you ;-)
725 2011-08-17 14:59:49 <lfm> good
726 2011-08-17 14:59:52 <theorbtwo> ...though I do wonder if, as a shop owner, I can start production at at least 1 confirmation, and only ship at 6.
727 2011-08-17 15:00:14 <b4epoche> seriously tho, someone said they saw evidence repeatedly of 0 confirms
728 2011-08-17 15:00:25 <lfm> theorbtwo: if you can back out then I think so
729 2011-08-17 15:00:44 <theorbtwo> I expect that exchanges are much more tempting targets then sellers of physical goods.
730 2011-08-17 15:00:59 <lfm> could be they thought they were doing 1 and it was actually 0
731 2011-08-17 15:01:29 <theorbtwo> lfm: Well, if somebody buys something, I make it, and the transaction gets reverted before 6 confirmations, I'm left with a lump of plastic I don't paticularly want.
732 2011-08-17 15:01:43 <b4epoche> still, the timing they give seems off
733 2011-08-17 15:02:05 <b4epoche> the were drained of all 'available' coins in a couple days and didn't notice?
734 2011-08-17 15:02:06 <Graet> a lot of what they have given seems off
735 2011-08-17 15:02:24 <Graet> i think thats why bitcoin-police havent stopped digging for info
736 2011-08-17 15:02:40 <lfm> theorbtwo: oh like a makerbot? cool. ya, you will have to figure out the costs of aborting and the expected frequency of the need to abort
737 2011-08-17 15:02:41 <Graet> b4epoche being drunk was the excuse
738 2011-08-17 15:02:58 <Graet> then when noticed got drunk for 5 days to cover the pain
739 2011-08-17 15:03:17 <theorbtwo> lfm: Quite a bit like a makerbot, yeah.
740 2011-08-17 15:03:27 <Joric> i was on vacation personally, and it happened when i was in the train :)
741 2011-08-17 15:03:50 <theorbtwo> Graet: Or they were on vaction, or simply lost interest in the project when it seemed to be running itself.
742 2011-08-17 15:04:13 <Graet> theorbtwo indeed, but thats what they said
743 2011-08-17 15:04:25 <b4epoche> shouldn't mybitcoin know what coins are missing?
744 2011-08-17 15:04:32 <Graet> ......
745 2011-08-17 15:04:55 <Graet> shouldnt they come forward and do what they said they would?
746 2011-08-17 15:05:00 <theorbtwo> Depends on how good they were about keeping records.
747 2011-08-17 15:05:26 <Graet> or wether they were hacked or decided it was time to rake the money and run
748 2011-08-17 15:05:31 <b4epoche> did they charge a fee?
749 2011-08-17 15:05:32 <Graet> too much speculation
750 2011-08-17 15:05:37 <Graet> goodnight :)
751 2011-08-17 15:06:16 <shLONG> is it possible to send a message with your bitcoin payment
752 2011-08-17 15:06:23 <shLONG> if not, why hasnt this been made possible?
753 2011-08-17 15:06:36 <Joric> don't think ewallets use fee they just don't work with subcents
754 2011-08-17 15:06:37 <shLONG> like a message ox 128 chars max, or 256
755 2011-08-17 15:07:07 <lfm> shLONG: if you want to send a message send email. bitcoin is for money not for messages
756 2011-08-17 15:07:36 <lfm> email, sms, titter whatever
757 2011-08-17 15:07:41 <lfm> twitter
758 2011-08-17 15:09:54 <theorbtwo> shLONG: The normal reason for that sort of "memo line" is to note what the payment is for.  That's not neccessary for bitcoin; the reciever can simply use a different address for each expected payment.
759 2011-08-17 15:10:03 <lfm> btw there was a message facility linked to the send btc to ip address feature but it has been depreciated
760 2011-08-17 16:27:33 <Mahkul> anyone around?
761 2011-08-17 16:27:49 <erus`> im round like a quater pound
762 2011-08-17 16:28:31 <Mahkul> How can I list sent transactions using bitcoind api? I have one particular transaction that didn't come through for some reason and I would like to check whether it was sent at all
763 2011-08-17 16:31:48 <erus`> have u checked listtransactions or whatever?
764 2011-08-17 16:31:57 <erus`> also what did the call return?