1 2011-08-18 00:00:38 <zeropointo> it would be nice if most of the bitcoin client commands like "getdifficulty" had an additional param like [block #] or [date]
2 2011-08-18 00:21:15 <Plasma_> zeropointo, maybe blockexplorer.com/q ?
3 2011-08-18 00:49:31 <kreal-> ;;seen Myckel
4 2011-08-18 00:49:32 <gribble> Myckel was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 15 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 1 minute, and 53 seconds ago: <Myckel> I mean very short term (like in next hour)
5 2011-08-18 02:05:35 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * r27ceffa / src/transaction.js : Split getDescription() into two functions. - http://bit.ly/pXQ4gU
6 2011-08-18 02:05:36 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * r90c30f2 / (src/eckey.js src/wallet.js): Moved wallet loading out of bitcoinjs-lib. - http://bit.ly/qQ9KWd
7 2011-08-18 02:05:37 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * r6fdba19 / src/util.js : New utility function for parsing value strings. - http://bit.ly/ro67r1
8 2011-08-18 02:11:13 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-gui: Stefan Thomas master * rb93d206 / (4 files in 2 dirs): Added HTTPS exit node support. - http://bit.ly/olZL6q
9 2011-08-18 02:11:14 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-gui: Stefan Thomas master * r89b1821 / (13 files in 5 dirs): Switched to using Require.JS to load the client. - http://bit.ly/ozpv8u
10 2011-08-18 02:58:55 <josephcp> Does anyone have any experience with bitcoin-js?
11 2011-08-18 02:59:29 <josephcp> I'm playing around with it and am having trouble with running the exit node
12 2011-08-18 05:11:39 <d33tah> where can I find qbitcoin sources?
13 2011-08-18 05:13:08 <luke-jr> you can't.
14 2011-08-18 05:13:14 <luke-jr> MagicalTux never released any yet
15 2011-08-18 05:13:26 <d33tah> doesn't seem too open
16 2011-08-18 05:13:39 <d33tah> btw, luke-jr, i have a eligius-related problem, can I PM?
17 2011-08-18 05:13:40 <luke-jr> not to be confused with bitcoin-qt
18 2011-08-18 05:13:44 <luke-jr> d33tah: #Eligius
19 2011-08-18 05:14:15 <d33tah> it'd take admin anyway. i mined a few shares on a new account and they didn't appear on the stats even hours later
20 2011-08-18 05:14:33 <d33tah> hm, and bitcoin-qt? didn't know there are 2 qt bitcoin projects
21 2011-08-18 05:14:50 <luke-jr> d33tah: still prefer to talk in public if possible
22 2011-08-18 05:15:02 <d33tah> mkay
23 2011-08-18 05:15:05 <luke-jr> bitcoin-qt is just the branch of the Satoshi client with Qt instead of wx, planned to merge for 0.4
24 2011-08-18 05:15:14 <luke-jr> qbitcoin is an entirely new client stack
25 2011-08-18 05:15:22 <d33tah> are they giving up on wx completely?
26 2011-08-18 05:15:24 <d33tah> that would be cool
27 2011-08-18 05:15:26 <d33tah> i hate wx :P
28 2011-08-18 05:15:33 <luke-jr> unless someone steps up to maintain it I guess :P
29 2011-08-18 05:16:28 <d33tah> let's hope not :P
30 2011-08-18 08:37:49 <Vladimir> Hi all
31 2011-08-18 08:38:26 <Vladimir> I have a question for bitcoin developers about proposed shared mining
32 2011-08-18 08:39:58 <Vladimir> Don't you think that Vince has almost pulled off a successful attack on bitcoin with this shared mining idea? The attack which will compromise fundamental principles of Bitcoin?
33 2011-08-18 08:40:43 <Vladimir> Anyone? Just want some second opinions before I get real loud about this?
34 2011-08-18 08:42:11 <d33tah> you mean mining in pools?
35 2011-08-18 08:42:37 <d33tah> Vladimir?
36 2011-08-18 08:43:38 <Vladimir> no I mean namecoin becoming parasite on Bitcoin netwrok
37 2011-08-18 08:43:46 <d33tah> namecoin?
38 2011-08-18 08:44:14 <Vladimir> google 'namecoin shared mining'
39 2011-08-18 08:44:27 <noagendamarket> it doesnt hurt bitcoin
40 2011-08-18 08:44:32 <phantomcircuit> Vladimir, who gives a shit? they're on their own network
41 2011-08-18 08:45:26 <Vladimir> I unerstand, that is the point they want to patch bitcoin code to allow them to let bitcoin miners to solve namecoin blocks 'by the way'
42 2011-08-18 08:46:42 <Vladimir> noagendamarket, I think it does, it really terminally does, if this shared mining idea is allowed, just trying to check here if I completely insane with this or someone else can see it too
43 2011-08-18 08:49:25 <edcba> the way is not to merge namecoin and bitcoin
44 2011-08-18 08:49:52 <edcba> it's to completely abstract the block chain away from bitcoin
45 2011-08-18 08:50:33 <gjs278> namecoin and bitcoin mining will never be merged in the official client... if someone wants to mod their poclbm to mine bitcoins and namecoins 50/50 each, that's up to them
46 2011-08-18 08:50:42 <gjs278> it's their gpus after all
47 2011-08-18 08:50:53 <edcba> i don't think their goal is to 50/50
48 2011-08-18 08:52:44 <gjs278> I really don't get what the shared mining is then
49 2011-08-18 08:55:18 <gjs278> oh
50 2011-08-18 08:55:19 <gjs278> I get it now
51 2011-08-18 08:55:49 <gjs278> lol I also don't care
52 2011-08-18 08:55:51 <gjs278> fuck namecoins
53 2011-08-18 08:55:57 <Vladimir> gjs278, so are you saying that there is no defence against this and consequently that there will be nearly infinite number of blockhains with difficulty approaching taht of Bitcoin?
54 2011-08-18 08:56:30 <gjs278> none of the other blockchains will have real value behind them unless someone is dumb enough to pay for the coins from that one
55 2011-08-18 08:56:51 <gjs278> if anything this hurts namecoin, not bitcoin
56 2011-08-18 08:59:19 <gjs278> namecoin already has a high enough difficulty that nobody can mine on it because nobody cares about namecoins
57 2011-08-18 08:59:51 <gjs278> when merged mining is available, there will be more namecoins in existance, the value of each namecoin goes down, the difficulty still goes up, and nobody uses namecoin because it's a waste of time project
58 2011-08-18 09:00:19 <jtaylor> no the number of namecoins does not change
59 2011-08-18 09:00:22 <jtaylor> just the difficulty
60 2011-08-18 09:01:13 <gjs278> if you find a block of namecoins does that make another block of namecoins expire or something?
61 2011-08-18 09:01:30 <noagendamarket> why does namecoin get promoted to merged mining above any other fork ?
62 2011-08-18 09:02:26 <Vladimir> because Vince is running so far successful community infiltration attack IMO and everyone ust loves the trojan horse he pushing into our castle
63 2011-08-18 09:02:59 <zamgo> +1 Vladimir
64 2011-08-18 09:03:13 <gjs278> it doesn't matter if there are thousands of blockchains, I'm not willing to pay for coins from the other chains
65 2011-08-18 09:03:24 <gjs278> anyone who is can waste their money on it
66 2011-08-18 09:03:27 <zamgo> plus, saving name/values in a blockchain is just cool
67 2011-08-18 09:04:05 <Vladimir> I really have one more important question, can we ensure (technically) that this merged mining never ever happens? I am not asking will we I am asking can we?
68 2011-08-18 09:04:27 <hugolp> Vladimir: you can not stop the pools from using a modified bitcoind
69 2011-08-18 09:04:32 <hugolp> if that is what you are asking
70 2011-08-18 09:04:34 <Vladimir> It does, this is compromising Bitcoin network
71 2011-08-18 09:04:47 <gjs278> how
72 2011-08-18 09:04:59 <hugolp> Vladimir: its not compromising the Bitcoin network, but it could hurt a lot Bitcoin
73 2011-08-18 09:05:34 <gjs278> it will just make the bitcoin difficulty go up when the people who were previously mining on namecoin can now use their resources on bitcoin
74 2011-08-18 09:05:46 <gjs278> what else am I supposed to be worrying about?
75 2011-08-18 09:06:02 <noagendamarket> how the fuck do I use namecoin ? lol
76 2011-08-18 09:06:10 <coderrr> gjs278, i think he's saying now there's going ot be X netwokrs just as secure as bitcoin
77 2011-08-18 09:06:21 <Vladimir> It can quickly create infinite number of competing crypto currencies which bootstrap from Bitcoin, thus eliminating our most valuable competitive advantage
78 2011-08-18 09:06:23 <hugolp> when people have namecoins, they will want to use them, why not? so it will be an incentive for merchants to accept namecoins as well. And namecoins would have adquired their popularity by leeching from Bitcoin and hurting its value. Then other coins will do the same, and the mess will be complete, hurting bit time Bitcoin value.
79 2011-08-18 09:06:24 <coderrr> so it gets rid of one adoption hurdle of a new currency ?
80 2011-08-18 09:06:32 <gjs278> well
81 2011-08-18 09:06:34 <coderrr> and now ur only left with network effects protecting bitcoin
82 2011-08-18 09:07:00 <gjs278> who even takes namecoins now?
83 2011-08-18 09:07:01 <coderrr> and if a big payment processor like mtgox or something decides to start accepting any currency you've effectively diluted bitcoins
84 2011-08-18 09:07:15 <Vladimir> coderrr: yep, and I do not think it is enough
85 2011-08-18 09:07:21 <gjs278> the coins from the other chains won't be worth anything
86 2011-08-18 09:07:33 <Vladimir> this is inflation by proxy
87 2011-08-18 09:07:47 <noagendamarket> ++
88 2011-08-18 09:07:53 <Vladimir> tehy worth something because the are protected by Bitcoin security
89 2011-08-18 09:08:03 <coderrr> yea this is pretty interesting, and scary
90 2011-08-18 09:08:05 <hugolp> Vladimir: there are two solutions as I see it. One, convince everybody how this can hurt Bitcoin so people refuses to mine in a pool that does merged mining.
91 2011-08-18 09:08:20 <Vladimir> it is like Ebay inviting any start up auction house to use it's websites
92 2011-08-18 09:08:28 <noagendamarket> technically you can have unlimited forks,as many coins as you need to print
93 2011-08-18 09:08:39 <noagendamarket> there is no end
94 2011-08-18 09:08:41 <coderrr> Vladimir, i havent looked into it much yet.. so this only requires that miners update their code ?
95 2011-08-18 09:08:44 <hugolp> Two, start a mirriade of competing currencies and add them to merged mining so the mess will be so big that people will ignore them and stay with Bitcoin.
96 2011-08-18 09:08:59 <gjs278> the miners don't have to update code, the pools do
97 2011-08-18 09:09:11 <coderrr> so only the pools... damn thats worse
98 2011-08-18 09:09:12 <Vladimir> hugolp: you are optimist
99 2011-08-18 09:09:28 <gjs278> whoever you're submitting your hashes to can do whatever they want with them in the end
100 2011-08-18 09:09:45 <hugolp> Vladimir: so what do you want to do about it?
101 2011-08-18 09:10:02 <hugolp> beside presure to the pools and trying to create a mess, whats left?
102 2011-08-18 09:10:17 <Vladimir> I think we can quadruple exchange rate of bitcoin overnite if this was ont a creadible terminal thread, and vice versa, BTW the fall of Bitcoin on markets coincides with namecoin's merged mining noises
103 2011-08-18 09:10:39 <Vladimir> dump all my bitcoins
104 2011-08-18 09:10:59 <Vladimir> or get real loud
105 2011-08-18 09:11:25 <coderrr> its in all the pools/miners interest to do this right? because regardless of which currency wins theyre already holding all of them right ?
106 2011-08-18 09:11:55 <gjs278> btc have been in this range for a long time now
107 2011-08-18 09:11:58 <Vladimir> but miners will swallow the trojan horse of free namexoins
108 2011-08-18 09:12:15 <zamgo> how easy/difficulty is it going to be to identify bitcoin blocks mined via merged mining? just look for an enlarged coinbase ?
109 2011-08-18 09:12:45 <zamgo> that what is seems like on testnet now
110 2011-08-18 09:15:18 <coderrr> Vladimir, yo where is the best technical description of merged mining
111 2011-08-18 09:15:45 <Vladimir> there are some threads on the forum with links
112 2011-08-18 09:15:55 <zamgo> http://dot-bit.org/Merged_Mining
113 2011-08-18 09:15:59 <Vladimir> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29525.0
114 2011-08-18 09:19:24 <mtve> wtf is http://blockexplorer.com/t/6jSt3dAnar ?
115 2011-08-18 09:20:11 <hugolp> Vladimir, thinking about it, this could also be a very bad move for namecoins depending on how the miners react. If a lot of miners are not interested in namecoin and decide to start selling them for bitcoins as soon as they get them, namecoin will plummet.
116 2011-08-18 09:20:37 <DiabloD3> hugolp: so welcome to free market dynamics 101?
117 2011-08-18 09:20:38 <Vladimir> It is exactly the situation they have now
118 2011-08-18 09:20:54 <Vladimir> it cannot get worse for them it can get worse for us
119 2011-08-18 09:21:38 <coderrr> Vladimir, hrm one thing i see so far is that it needs to sign each proof of work or something, doesnt this add another operation taht could poetnitally slow down miners ?
120 2011-08-18 09:21:58 <coderrr> or i guess im wrong if miners themselves dnt need to change anything
121 2011-08-18 09:22:18 <Vladimir> it's insignificant overhead IMO
122 2011-08-18 09:22:27 <hugolp> Vladimir: no, because right now only the people interested on namecoins are mining namecoins, therefore creating a demand, as small as it is. I have namecoins. I mined some. If this happens, I will probably dumb all the namecoins I get from merged mining, and if a part of the miners do the same it will be a complete collapse for namecoins.
123 2011-08-18 09:23:07 <hugolp> you will probably wont find anyone buying namecoins.
124 2011-08-18 09:23:17 <zamgo> complete collapse? unlikely. drop in prices, likely
125 2011-08-18 09:23:23 <hugolp> *that was supposed to be english...
126 2011-08-18 09:23:39 <Vladimir> the thing is, namecoin get parasitic on bitcoin network, diluting bitcoin and increasing own secuiry
127 2011-08-18 09:23:39 <zamgo> people are still going to want to do namecoin transactions to update their names
128 2011-08-18 09:24:27 <Vladimir> do you think shares of an auction company which is allowed to trade on ebay and have access to all ebay resources would plummet?
129 2011-08-18 09:24:59 <zamgo> I get the parasitic part. but what is the dilution part?
130 2011-08-18 09:25:25 <hugolp> zamgo: if a important part of the bitcoin miners (the big majority are not interested in namecoins) dumb the namecoins, supply could completely destroy demand for namecoins. Basically, you could get to the situation where sellers could not find buyers at any price.
131 2011-08-18 09:25:50 <Vladimir> there was one viable cryptocurrency, now there are zillion of cryptocurrecies with the same security
132 2011-08-18 09:25:52 <hugolp> zamgo: you are creating double the currency. What if a third chain joins in merged mining, and a fourth, and a ...
133 2011-08-18 09:25:52 <zamgo> ok, let me add in my 0.00000001 orders now
134 2011-08-18 09:25:53 <zamgo> ;)
135 2011-08-18 09:26:49 <zamgo> there is 'double' currency now, with 2 blockchains. what does merged mining change in that, except that the aux chain will speed up?
136 2011-08-18 09:27:02 <shadders> My first reaction was BTC dilution as well... But as pointed hugolp pointed out, BTC miners will get bonus NMCs and try to exchange them for BTC. This *adds* demand for BTC. namecoins will find fair value because they are exposed to a much larger market.
137 2011-08-18 09:28:03 <zamgo> buy popcorn futures
138 2011-08-18 09:28:15 <Joric> does namecoin.org belong to the right ppl currently?
139 2011-08-18 09:28:32 <shadders> If I got paid for my job 50% AUD and 50% zimbabwe $ (or whatever they are) I'd change them for AUD straight away as as well. That externality is brings Z$ to fair value. NMC is a largely self-contained economy at the moment.
140 2011-08-18 09:28:39 <hugolp> zamgo: if the miners keep the namecoins, it will be an incentive for merchants to accept namecoins and it would hurt Bitcoin a lot. If miners enough miners decide to dumb namecoins, it would devastate namecoins. It all depends on how miners react.
141 2011-08-18 09:28:54 <shadders> hence it's value is not in context of the global market
142 2011-08-18 09:28:59 <zamgo> ah ok
143 2011-08-18 09:29:36 <zamgo> so there is no danger of technical damage to the blockchain. but there is cause for concern for the impact on the curent bitcoin economy
144 2011-08-18 09:29:52 <hugolp> see, spoken as a true economist. It could go up, down, right or left, it all depends on how people react... :d
145 2011-08-18 09:30:05 <hugolp> zamgo: exactly
146 2011-08-18 09:30:15 <shadders> zamgo there's not change to the bitcoin chain at all...
147 2011-08-18 09:30:17 <Vladimir> My point is that namecoin is just a nice and pretty Tojain Horse which is being towed into Bitcoin castle, once it is in there is nothing stopping all the shitcoins having the same diff as Bitcoin
148 2011-08-18 09:30:18 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Znort 987 * re49bfbf2ecd1 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h): Add per-device statics log output
149 2011-08-18 09:30:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3926ad96c815 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h): Merge pull request #36 from znort987/per-device-stats
150 2011-08-18 09:30:50 <zamgo> that is a pretty picture of a trojan horse
151 2011-08-18 09:30:59 <Vladimir> yes this is purely economical conern
152 2011-08-18 09:31:42 <Vladimir> and it seems that there is not technical solution available to address it
153 2011-08-18 09:31:58 <zamgo> so social solutions are the only aveneue
154 2011-08-18 09:32:08 <zamgo> s/ne/n/
155 2011-08-18 09:32:49 <zamgo> find vince, and buy him out
156 2011-08-18 09:34:31 <shadders> bugger... shitcoin.com and shitcoin.org already registered
157 2011-08-18 09:34:46 <shadders> was gonna make a fork just for the name
158 2011-08-18 09:34:50 <coderrr> Vladimir, yea this was one of the ways i thot btc might fail from the beginning, the infinite inflation via other btc like currencies
159 2011-08-18 09:35:20 <coderrr> i think we might be under-estimating network effects though
160 2011-08-18 09:35:47 <Vladimir> it seem that network effect is the only moat left here than
161 2011-08-18 09:35:59 <coderrr> yea :/ that is kinda scary
162 2011-08-18 09:36:00 <shadders> it's a higher load on pools. other than that all changes are in the child forks
163 2011-08-18 09:36:16 <Graet> shadders make scamcoin for me!!!
164 2011-08-18 09:36:41 <Vladimir> what high load? who cares? CPU's are cheap as dirt
165 2011-08-18 09:37:08 <zamgo> driving the namecoin price down, while at same time increasing namecoin chain speed, would be good for namecoin. The price of registering a name would go down quicker, and be generally cheaper overall. name registration an updating would become more usable
166 2011-08-18 09:37:21 <shadders> just saying impact on bitcoin network is limited to *maybe* some of the big pools having to buy and extra server
167 2011-08-18 09:37:37 <coderrr> and it gives much more power to the banks/payment-processors
168 2011-08-18 09:37:55 <shadders> how?
169 2011-08-18 09:37:58 <coderrr> they can decide to create their own new currency and make their software accept it also
170 2011-08-18 09:38:24 <coderrr> since they will have a lot of control over the network effect aspect of it
171 2011-08-18 09:38:51 <shadders> true... then it become a marketing problem
172 2011-08-18 09:39:37 <shadders> use bitcoin - controlled by nobody or use bankcoin controlled by banks
173 2011-08-18 09:40:15 <coderrr> except the centralized banks will have better marketing than bitcoin ppl
174 2011-08-18 09:40:17 <shadders> suspect if that happened it would be hard for banks to win
175 2011-08-18 09:40:19 <hugolp> shadders: there are lots of shills in this world.
176 2011-08-18 09:40:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r64e7cdd61bed cgminer/main.c: The new phatk kernel needs a different nonce passed according to how many vectors are in use. This fixes breakage that otherwise occurs when 1 or 4 vectors are chosen.
177 2011-08-18 09:40:26 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rd89a6c57b1e4 cgminer/util.c: Since we check roll time per work item now, it need only be debug log level.
178 2011-08-18 09:40:28 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2798b8c54998 cgminer/ (main.c miner.h): Merge branch 'master' of github.com:ckolivas/cgminer
179 2011-08-18 09:41:09 <shadders> the key is the pools.. pools would have to disclose which chains they are contributing to... I doubt many of the current crop of miners would support a bank sponsored chain
180 2011-08-18 09:41:32 <shadders> so it would hurt the pools... or fragment them into the goodies and baddies
181 2011-08-18 09:41:56 <zamgo> why disclose?
182 2011-08-18 09:42:11 <zamgo> can't it be figured out via the block data itself?
183 2011-08-18 09:42:27 <shadders> though actually that's one of the biggest issues... as it stands there's no way for a miner to know if the pool is mining one blockchain or many
184 2011-08-18 09:42:32 <zamgo> sure there is
185 2011-08-18 09:42:52 <shadders> how?
186 2011-08-18 09:43:23 <zamgo> here is a btc-testnet block merged-mined via alpha.masterpool.eu http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/rawtx/f8f82f09edd769be6db6b32e4ee419401339f6c07fffcdd53e869e2b99314ec4
187 2011-08-18 09:43:25 <coderrr> chekc the other blockchains
188 2011-08-18 09:43:27 <zamgo> notice how long the coinbase is
189 2011-08-18 09:43:35 <zamgo> compared to a 'normal' block with a smallish coinbase
190 2011-08-18 09:43:37 <shadders> oh yeah... interogate the aux chain for the parent block
191 2011-08-18 09:44:07 <shadders> yes but can you link that block to a block in the btc chain?
192 2011-08-18 09:44:20 <Graet> i'm guessing the drive for merged mining came from nmc not btc?
193 2011-08-18 09:44:24 <zamgo> um.. otherway
194 2011-08-18 09:44:31 <zamgo> that is merged-mining on bitcoin-tesnet & namecoin-testnet
195 2011-08-18 09:44:37 <Graet> oh ok
196 2011-08-18 09:44:40 <zamgo> no one is doing live networks yet
197 2011-08-18 09:44:46 <Graet> i know
198 2011-08-18 09:44:49 <Graet> i run a pool
199 2011-08-18 09:45:05 <Graet> not keen on the merged stuff yet tbh
200 2011-08-18 09:45:11 <shadders> so you can prove a btc block is parent of an aux block?
201 2011-08-18 09:45:43 <zamgo> not sure
202 2011-08-18 09:45:46 <shadders> or you can just prove and aux block is an aux block of the parent chain?
203 2011-08-18 09:46:41 <shadders> That would be interesting to know. If you can't prove an aux block is part of a specific parent block any pool could mine all aux blocks and miners would have no way of knowing
204 2011-08-18 09:46:59 <zamgo> if anyone has namecoin-testnet running, you can check via getblockbycount on the nmc-testnet block that was mm'd with that btc-testnet block
205 2011-08-18 09:47:24 <zamgo> probably do match up via coinbase to<>whatever
206 2011-08-18 09:48:31 <zamgo> so it'd be kinda easy to make a "Merged Mining Watch" system for any parent chain
207 2011-08-18 09:48:46 <shadders> this is doing my head in... the blocks don't actually match 1 for 1. If difficulty is different then a solution that doesn't solve for bitcoin can solve for namecoin and generate a new block...
208 2011-08-18 09:49:01 <zamgo> yup
209 2011-08-18 09:49:07 <shadders> so there's no matching block in bitcoin to record the coinbase
210 2011-08-18 09:49:20 <Vladimir> shadders: miners will support whoever pays the most
211 2011-08-18 09:49:50 <coderrr> Vladimir, and pool operators will do wahtever miners want, right ?
212 2011-08-18 09:49:53 <zamgo> shadders: exactly. in those cases only the lower-diff aux chain gets a solution
213 2011-08-18 09:50:18 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r191 /trunk/ (4 files in 2 dirs): Support for importing/exporting private keys in sipa format. Resolves issue 48.
214 2011-08-18 09:50:43 <Vladimir> coderrr: unless they can lie
215 2011-08-18 09:50:49 <zamgo> oooh nice import/export to bitcoinj
216 2011-08-18 09:51:02 <coderrr> lie ?
217 2011-08-18 09:51:07 <shadders> so in that scenario how would you prove that it came from the same pool that bitcoin-block-n came from
218 2011-08-18 09:51:17 <coderrr> I meant they will support merged mining because that gives miners more than single mining
219 2011-08-18 09:51:28 <zamgo> there are many ways a pool can lie
220 2011-08-18 09:51:37 <coderrr> its in each miners inidividual interest to get their btc + extra shit rather than just btc
221 2011-08-18 09:51:44 <coderrr> even if its not in their group interest
222 2011-08-18 09:52:07 <shadders> I'm thinking in terms of the social defense against citibankcoin feeding off btc chain
223 2011-08-18 09:52:08 <Vladimir> to tell not truth
224 2011-08-18 09:53:16 <coderrr> and the first block of citibankcoin will have half of all coins mined already
225 2011-08-18 09:53:24 <shadders> yes I agree for the most part Vladimir|coderrr... perhaps I'm just being optimistic but I suspect the current crop of miners care enough about bitcoin to sidestep something as obviously malicious as bankcoin
226 2011-08-18 09:53:26 <coderrr> but citibank.com will support it
227 2011-08-18 09:53:49 <shadders> they still have get critical mass
228 2011-08-18 09:54:15 <Vladimir> it is frogboiling process, namecoin first than a few shitcoins, than citicoin, than fedcoin
229 2011-08-18 09:54:24 <coderrr> yea
230 2011-08-18 09:54:33 <Vladimir> than newworldordercoin
231 2011-08-18 09:55:05 <coderrr> Vladimir, is there a comparable example with precious metals? like a precious metal that shares the same properties with gold/silver but isnt as valuable ?
232 2011-08-18 09:55:35 <zamgo> Pyrite?
233 2011-08-18 09:55:54 <Vladimir> there are byproducts of gold mining like manganin or something
234 2011-08-18 09:56:12 <Vladimir> but I do not think that comparison is valid
235 2011-08-18 09:56:14 <shadders> argh... stop making me think... I'm supposed to be build a pool...
236 2011-08-18 09:56:21 <coderrr> yea it needs to share almost all properties
237 2011-08-18 09:56:21 <shadders> *building
238 2011-08-18 09:57:23 <Vladimir> the thing is that if you can breach the only moat left, the network effect, you can make a clone of bitcoin with 100mil$ investment into marketing
239 2011-08-18 09:57:39 <coderrr> yep
240 2011-08-18 09:58:03 <Vladimir> basically any medium size corporation can do it, previously they would also need to buy some GPU's
241 2011-08-18 09:58:42 <noagendamarket> looks like another coinspiracy http://coinspiracy.blogspot.com/
242 2011-08-18 10:03:14 <Joric> that site that sells bitcoins using google checkout is it working?
243 2011-08-18 10:03:24 <Joric> i mean http://www.btcnow.net
244 2011-08-18 10:03:32 <Joric> how about refunds
245 2011-08-18 10:04:43 <Graet> Currently BTC are being sold for 18 USD per coin << WTH???
246 2011-08-18 10:05:10 <Graet> i'm in the wrong game :_
247 2011-08-18 10:06:17 <noagendamarket> wow
248 2011-08-18 10:06:25 <noagendamarket> thats some nice margin you got there
249 2011-08-18 10:06:33 <kreal-> Joric, I know WalletBit is, same deal there.
250 2011-08-18 10:07:41 <hugolp> Joric: I asked the same, and I was told that Google checkout has some protection against fraud but its not a gurantee and chargebacks can happen.
251 2011-08-18 10:07:55 <hugolp> So its only a matter of time before someone finds a way to cheat him.
252 2011-08-18 10:08:08 <noagendamarket> of course
253 2011-08-18 10:08:13 <hugolp> Although the margins he is charging give him room to have some loses
254 2011-08-18 10:08:16 <noagendamarket> bitcoin is a honeypot for scammers
255 2011-08-18 10:08:18 <hugolp> him/her
256 2011-08-18 10:08:41 <hugolp> noagendamarket: I would say that careless merchants are a honeypot for scammers
257 2011-08-18 10:10:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * re414490bf791 cgminer/main.c: Don't display rolling status if per device stats is enabled.
258 2011-08-18 10:11:43 <Graet> noagendamarket thats from the site you linked ;)
259 2011-08-18 10:20:23 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r6f769e0f8f05 cgminer/main.c: Add the ability to enable/disable per-device stats on the fly and match logging on/off.
260 2011-08-18 10:40:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r082e20df5f8f cgminer/ocl.c: Explicitly tell the compiler to retain the program to minimise the chance of the zero sized binary errors.
261 2011-08-18 10:48:59 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 6362d063121c r27 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (12 files in 8 dirs):
262 2011-08-18 10:49:00 <CIA-101> poolserverj: - change property name 'useEasiestDifficulty' to 'useRidiculouslyEasyTargetForTesingButDONTIfThisIsARealPool' to make is clear this isn't the same as pushpools 'rewritedifficulty'
263 2011-08-18 10:50:21 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r4beade3772be cgminer/ocl.c: Retain the program immediately after it's created from source.
264 2011-08-18 11:10:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra754cc3f0cfe cgminer/main.c: Suppress correct log output when display per-device status.
265 2011-08-18 11:11:05 <imsaguy2> lol @ 'useRidiculouslyEasyTargetForTesingButDONTIfThisIsARealPool
266 2011-08-18 11:52:06 <MagicalTux> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/9740e7d646f5278603c04706a366716e5e87212c57395e0d24761c0ae784b2c6 <- we got a strange tx in the blockchain
267 2011-08-18 11:53:48 <cosurgi> MagicalTux: you mean: fee higher than transferred money?
268 2011-08-18 11:54:05 <MagicalTux> no
269 2011-08-18 11:54:08 <MagicalTux> I mean output not valid
270 2011-08-18 11:54:18 <MagicalTux> public key length is >130 hexachars
271 2011-08-18 11:55:30 <cosurgi> MagicalTux: eligiuss made this block
272 2011-08-18 11:55:40 <kinlo> so someone tried something, and failed, and the money is lost?
273 2011-08-18 11:55:41 <cosurgi> (from http://digbtc.com/index.php )
274 2011-08-18 11:56:05 <cosurgi> luke-jr: do you know anything about that?
275 2011-08-18 11:56:42 <DOUGHTY> someone speak french there
276 2011-08-18 11:57:25 <MagicalTux> DOUGHTY: I do
277 2011-08-18 11:57:46 <kinlo> MagicalTux: according to pident it seems to be relatively normal:
278 2011-08-18 11:57:47 <kinlo> http://pident.artefact2.com/tx/9740e7d646f5278603c04706a366716e5e87212c57395e0d24761c0ae784b2c6
279 2011-08-18 11:58:04 <MagicalTux> no, it's not
280 2011-08-18 11:58:09 <MagicalTux> the public key is too long on the output
281 2011-08-18 11:58:26 <MagicalTux> my private blockchain explorer choked on it too
282 2011-08-18 11:58:34 <kinlo> mmmz
283 2011-08-18 11:58:41 <kinlo> the public key on the output?
284 2011-08-18 11:58:49 <MagicalTux> yep
285 2011-08-18 11:58:55 <kinlo> is there a public key on the output?
286 2011-08-18 11:58:59 <MagicalTux> there is
287 2011-08-18 11:59:05 <kinlo> I tought only inputs where given public keys
288 2011-08-18 11:59:06 <MagicalTux> it's an output by public key, like generation transactions
289 2011-08-18 11:59:17 <kinlo> ic
290 2011-08-18 11:59:24 <MagicalTux> nah, generation transactions also send by public key instead of public key hash
291 2011-08-18 12:00:03 <kinlo> satoshi really had to invent a total programming language eh
292 2011-08-18 12:00:20 <kinlo> would have been much simpler to reduce the feature set but make it easyer for everybody
293 2011-08-18 12:01:21 <batouzo> is there a table (html, CSV, xls, xml, whatever) or difficulty dates? on what datetimes did diff changed to what value - exact date, to process in script
294 2011-08-18 12:01:26 <batouzo> *of
295 2011-08-18 12:01:51 <tcatm> batouzo: blockexplorer.com/q has it
296 2011-08-18 12:02:44 <someone42> the public key reads: "LUKE-JR IS A PEDOPHILE! Oh, and god isn't real, sucka. Stop polluting the blockchain with your nonsense."
297 2011-08-18 12:04:10 <batouzo> tcatm, oh right. http://blockexplorer.com/q/nethash
298 2011-08-18 12:07:42 <ThomasV> anyone here had success with genjix's libbitcoin ?
299 2011-08-18 12:21:25 <UukGoblin> yeah, stop polluting the blockchain with your nonsense financial transactions ;-)
300 2011-08-18 12:24:17 <noagendamarket> :0
301 2011-08-18 12:27:13 <phungus> Blockchain pollution. The techno-eco-crisis of the latter half of the 21st century
302 2011-08-18 12:27:50 <phungus> 500PB blockchain by 2086
303 2011-08-18 12:28:46 <phungus> Vanity transactions are the norm
304 2011-08-18 12:28:52 <UukGoblin> lolol
305 2011-08-18 12:29:18 <phungus> "He who has most Bitcoin transaction volume is King"
306 2011-08-18 12:29:28 <infested999> If all 21M coins are mined, everyone will be mining for tx fees. Does the difficulty effect the tx fees? Will people care what the difficulty is once it's tx-fees-only?
307 2011-08-18 12:35:16 <mtrlt> ummmh
308 2011-08-18 12:35:22 <mtrlt> difficulty controls how difficult it is to mine blocks.
309 2011-08-18 12:35:42 <mtrlt> you can only get transaction fees if you mine a block
310 2011-08-18 12:55:07 <imsaguy2> fees will go up if there is a lag in transactions being included in the blocks. transactions will have to compete for priority.
311 2011-08-18 12:55:56 <imsaguy2> but they'll be relative to bitcoin prices.. if the value of bitcoin goes up, the transaction fee might actually go down when viewed strictly as a btc decimal
312 2011-08-18 13:47:25 <luke-jr> cosurgi: no
313 2011-08-18 13:50:23 <luke-jr> great, trolls in the block chain now
314 2011-08-18 13:51:40 <kinlo> luke-jr: ?
315 2011-08-18 13:51:48 <luke-jr> http://blockexplorer.com/tx/9740e7d646f5278603c04706a366716e5e87212c57395e0d24761c0ae784b2c6
316 2011-08-18 13:52:17 <kinlo> the transaction with an invalid public key you mean
317 2011-08-18 13:52:28 <kinlo> its your pool that generated that block :)
318 2011-08-18 13:52:30 <gavinandresen> The invalid message is a message to luke-jr.
319 2011-08-18 13:52:32 <luke-jr> ASCII "pubkey"
320 2011-08-18 13:53:17 <luke-jr> whoever it is, is a big hypocrite
321 2011-08-18 13:55:06 <luke-jr> being the first spammer to abuse Eligius's policy
322 2011-08-18 13:56:04 <UukGoblin> he paid like 9 cents for it
323 2011-08-18 13:56:45 <luke-jr> he could have paid less
324 2011-08-18 13:56:52 <UukGoblin> yeah
325 2011-08-18 13:56:54 <gavinandresen> Now that the idea is out there, I bet he won't be the last. And he overpaid; he could've done it for just a TBC or two.
326 2011-08-18 13:57:11 <luke-jr> probably 0.1 TBC even
327 2011-08-18 13:57:14 <RealSolid> whats scriptPubKey in bitcoin do?
328 2011-08-18 13:57:16 <UukGoblin> TBC?
329 2011-08-18 13:57:26 <cosurgi> what idea? losing money to unknown address? whats the benefit of doing that?
330 2011-08-18 13:57:37 <cosurgi> I think it's just someone experimenting
331 2011-08-18 13:57:43 <luke-jr> maybe I should do some content analysis and reject ASCII-looking crap
332 2011-08-18 13:57:51 <luke-jr> cosurgi: read it?
333 2011-08-18 13:57:55 <luke-jr> [10:02:45] <someone42> the public key reads: "LUKE-JR IS A PEDOPHILE! Oh, and god isn't real, sucka. Stop polluting the blockchain with your nonsense."
334 2011-08-18 13:57:57 <cjdelisle> cosurgi: http://ostermiller.org/calc/encode.html
335 2011-08-18 13:58:10 <cosurgi> ouch :(
336 2011-08-18 13:58:43 <RealSolid> luke-jr: are you a pedofile?
337 2011-08-18 13:59:02 <luke-jr> or maybe I should require people to personally get a key from me to use non-std txns
338 2011-08-18 13:59:07 <luke-jr> RealSolid: of course not
339 2011-08-18 13:59:50 <RealSolid> luke-jr; well considering your behaviour in the last week, you probably know why someone did it
340 2011-08-18 13:59:55 <cosurgi> I think that plan verification of transactions would do. reject wrong pubkeys, reject wrong anything
341 2011-08-18 13:59:56 <epscy> i don't see this as a huge problem
342 2011-08-18 14:00:02 <luke-jr> RealSolid: no idea. what about my "behaviour"?
343 2011-08-18 14:00:05 <cosurgi> s/plan/plain/
344 2011-08-18 14:00:17 <cosurgi> or plain verification is too complex?
345 2011-08-18 14:00:17 <RealSolid> you were talking about destroying chains, etc, trolling type stuff
346 2011-08-18 14:00:26 <luke-jr> cosurgi: that's the vanilla "standard transactions" nonsense
347 2011-08-18 14:00:33 <makomk> If I recall correctly, luke-jr claims to reject the non-public key kind of fake transactions with messages in.
348 2011-08-18 14:00:46 <UukGoblin> cosurgi, there's no such thing as "wrong pubkeys"
349 2011-08-18 14:00:57 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: in this case there is I think
350 2011-08-18 14:00:58 <cosurgi> UukGoblin: this one was too long.
351 2011-08-18 14:00:58 <makomk> UukGoblin: actually there is.
352 2011-08-18 14:01:04 <UukGoblin> heh
353 2011-08-18 14:01:07 <UukGoblin> what a response
354 2011-08-18 14:01:08 <gavinandresen> yeah, that one was definitely wrong.
355 2011-08-18 14:01:27 <phantomcircuit> also it's only 1 OP_PUSH
356 2011-08-18 14:01:30 <phantomcircuit> you need at least 2
357 2011-08-18 14:01:32 <makomk> Not only do they have to be the right length, they also have to be a point on the correct elliptic curve
358 2011-08-18 14:01:35 <UukGoblin> agreed, there are some "wrong" pubkeys
359 2011-08-18 14:01:39 <cosurgi> it's interesting how the attacker managed to get into _this_ block
360 2011-08-18 14:01:45 <UukGoblin> but a subset of these wrong ones is indistinguishable from correct ones
361 2011-08-18 14:01:47 <cosurgi> nobody know who will create the block next
362 2011-08-18 14:01:50 <luke-jr> cosurgi: only Eligius accepts non-standard
363 2011-08-18 14:02:09 <UukGoblin> he could've done it with standard-only if he wanted
364 2011-08-18 14:02:18 <luke-jr> not as easily?
365 2011-08-18 14:02:19 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, wrong
366 2011-08-18 14:02:25 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, 100% wrong
367 2011-08-18 14:02:36 <luke-jr> he couldn't get it past the 21-char I think
368 2011-08-18 14:02:46 <UukGoblin> he would've created more outputs?
369 2011-08-18 14:02:58 <luke-jr> I think he wanted to get it into: strings ~/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat -n21 | uniq
370 2011-08-18 14:03:05 <makomk> Of course, the IsStandard check doesn't check whether it is a valid public key IIRC, just that it's the right length.
371 2011-08-18 14:03:19 <cjdelisle> Strange transactions have a lot of potential benefit, if there was a group where you could submit hashes and someone assembled them into a mercal tree, that would allow for noterization (timestamping) and only pollute the chain with (at most) one spam transaction per block.
372 2011-08-18 14:03:28 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, it's 20 chars fyi
373 2011-08-18 14:03:37 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no, it's way more
374 2011-08-18 14:03:48 <makomk> Which means you should be able to get at least 65 contiguous characters into the blockchain just using a standard transaction.
375 2011-08-18 14:03:56 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, the standard transaction is a RIPEMD-160
376 2011-08-18 14:04:12 <phantomcircuit> or is it SHA256 of a RIPEMD-160
377 2011-08-18 14:04:15 <luke-jr> &
378 2011-08-18 14:04:17 <makomk> phantomcircuit: public key transactions also count as standard.
379 2011-08-18 14:04:19 <phantomcircuit> im actually not sure
380 2011-08-18 14:04:26 <phantomcircuit> oh right
381 2011-08-18 14:04:27 <phantomcircuit> rofl
382 2011-08-18 14:04:30 <UukGoblin> cjdelisle, I totally agree with you, also, if the output was 0, that transaction would be easily prunable (unlike burnt coins like this); however you'll find that most of the community will shout at you polluting "their" blockchain
383 2011-08-18 14:04:32 <phantomcircuit> been awake too long
384 2011-08-18 14:05:11 <UukGoblin> cjdelisle, so they're going another way, using the coinbase tx for this purpose... which requires changing the miner to support whatever your tree contains
385 2011-08-18 14:05:25 <phantomcircuit> locking 500k rows is annoying as fuck
386 2011-08-18 14:05:47 <cjdelisle> If we accept that blockchain pollution is going to happen, then we should make an effort to control and minimize it by offering an "easier way" to get things noterized.
387 2011-08-18 14:06:14 <UukGoblin> cjdelisle, I also agree here, some other people will not, however.
388 2011-08-18 14:06:32 <someone42> btw, if you run "strings -n 20 blk0001.dat", you'll see there's a lot more pollution
389 2011-08-18 14:07:16 <cjdelisle> The neat thing about mircal trees is if you use rpimd160 then it can be made indistinguishable from a standard transaction so backward compat is trivial.
390 2011-08-18 14:07:18 <someone42> there seems to be lots of religious-oriented stuff as well, such as "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee and I detest all my sins."
391 2011-08-18 14:07:26 <UukGoblin> yeah the first pollution was by satoshi himself... "EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
392 2011-08-18 14:07:29 <luke-jr> someone42: that's not pollution though, it's by design
393 2011-08-18 14:08:44 <phantomcircuit> oh
394 2011-08-18 14:08:50 <someone42> the "Stop polluting the blockchain with your nonsense" may not have been directed at you, luke-jr
395 2011-08-18 14:08:52 <phantomcircuit> that explains why someone is mad at luke-jr
396 2011-08-18 14:09:06 <phantomcircuit> there is a tribute to Eligius/Benedictus Deus. Benedictum Nomen Sanctum eius.
397 2011-08-18 14:09:07 <UukGoblin> heh, fun
398 2011-08-18 14:09:08 <phantomcircuit> lol
399 2011-08-18 14:09:23 <UukGoblin> is there a plan of action in case someone puts CP there? :-P
400 2011-08-18 14:09:31 <cosurgi> omg, what's this crap
401 2011-08-18 14:09:31 <luke-jr> Satoshi set a clear precedent for coinbase content being acceptable
402 2011-08-18 14:09:42 <luke-jr> but making dummy txns is just spam
403 2011-08-18 14:10:19 <zamgo> do your spamming on namecoin
404 2011-08-18 14:10:28 <UukGoblin> hm...
405 2011-08-18 14:10:28 <zamgo> that's what it was made for
406 2011-08-18 14:10:36 <UukGoblin> are merkle branches regarding your wallet stored somewhere?
407 2011-08-18 14:10:56 <cosurgi> and all this crap is mined, and un-removable from blockchain?
408 2011-08-18 14:11:05 <cosurgi> wtf.....
409 2011-08-18 14:11:07 <mtrlt> cosurgi: yep :)
410 2011-08-18 14:11:10 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, merkle branches are generated at runtime using the order of the transactions
411 2011-08-18 14:11:15 <mtrlt> and every node has a copy of it.
412 2011-08-18 14:11:36 <luke-jr> cosurgi: technically, the coinbases can all be removed someday
413 2011-08-18 14:11:46 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, I'm saying... if the network forgot about contents of an old block, is there a way for coin owner to prove that his coins are actually there?
414 2011-08-18 14:11:54 <cosurgi> let's wait until somebody will make a distributed blockchainfs
415 2011-08-18 14:12:06 <UukGoblin> cosurgi, that'd be an expensive fs
416 2011-08-18 14:12:09 <UukGoblin> and slooow
417 2011-08-18 14:12:16 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, wallet.dat keeps a copy of everything related to your coins so yes i believe so
418 2011-08-18 14:12:19 <luke-jr> it already exists kinda
419 2011-08-18 14:12:28 <luke-jr> oh wait
420 2011-08-18 14:12:29 <luke-jr> now I get it
421 2011-08-18 14:12:31 <cosurgi> but would drive people nuts. Imagine how fun it will be for the creator of this
422 2011-08-18 14:12:44 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, so the merkle branches are stored in the wallet, apart from addresses?
423 2011-08-18 14:12:54 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, hmm they might not be actually
424 2011-08-18 14:13:03 <cjdelisle> distributed blockchain is theoreticly possible but I can't imagine it working and being backward compatable.
425 2011-08-18 14:13:21 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: he means a FUSE fs that automatically embeds files in the blockchain
426 2011-08-18 14:13:24 <UukGoblin> cjdelisle, I can
427 2011-08-18 14:13:26 <luke-jr> (and parses them out)
428 2011-08-18 14:13:29 <phantomcircuit> but for now at least every single block and every single transaction with at least 1 confirmation the node has ever seen is stored in blk0001.dat
429 2011-08-18 14:13:49 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, ah, true...
430 2011-08-18 14:14:07 <cosurgi> luke-jr: what does it mean to remove coinbase?
431 2011-08-18 14:14:14 <cosurgi> uh, what is a coinbase? :)
432 2011-08-18 14:14:18 <UukGoblin> so paranoid people should keep their blk0001.dat as well as wallet.dat ;-]
433 2011-08-18 14:14:20 <luke-jr> cosurgi: same as removing any standard transaction
434 2011-08-18 14:14:32 <luke-jr> cosurgi: coinbase is the generation transaction's "input"
435 2011-08-18 14:14:35 <UukGoblin> cosurgi, coinbase is the "generation" transaction, the first transaction in a block
436 2011-08-18 14:14:56 <luke-jr> cosurgi: by design, it contains "random" data-- I've just been setting some of that "random" data to prayers
437 2011-08-18 14:15:01 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, i believe that BlueMatt's block downloads are from a pretty old client
438 2011-08-18 14:15:07 <phantomcircuit> so they probably include lots of old forks
439 2011-08-18 14:15:24 <luke-jr> cosurgi: but once all the generated coins are spent, the transaction can be pruned like any other
440 2011-08-18 14:15:56 <cosurgi> ok. why there are random bytes? Isn't it a waste of spece by design?
441 2011-08-18 14:16:06 <luke-jr> cosurgi: to uniquely identify the coins
442 2011-08-18 14:16:22 <luke-jr> the problem is when the spammers abuse transaction info for data
443 2011-08-18 14:16:23 <cosurgi> ahh. I see
444 2011-08-18 14:16:30 <luke-jr> those *can't* be purged, because they will never be spent
445 2011-08-18 14:16:49 <log0s> Satoshi set a clear precedent of using content in the _genesis block_ coinbase to show that you haven't been mining in secret for an extended period of time before publicly releasing the software...i don't think it implies that it's ok for any coinbase transaction to have random content in it
446 2011-08-18 14:16:52 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, are you christian?
447 2011-08-18 14:17:02 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: of course
448 2011-08-18 14:17:17 <mtrlt> please go to #eligius for theological discussions
449 2011-08-18 14:17:29 <Graet> mm interesting luke-jr i understand you are strong in your faith but you dont think putting prayers in might alienate some ppl - after all btc is multidenominational
450 2011-08-18 14:17:52 <luke-jr> Graet: Catholics do not believe in freedom of religion.
451 2011-08-18 14:18:12 <Graet> and you make your non catholic miners aware of this?
452 2011-08-18 14:18:22 <cosurgi> I don't think that any faith allows freedom of reglion
453 2011-08-18 14:18:33 <mtrlt> luke-jr: i'd love to see a religion that did :P
454 2011-08-18 14:18:37 <mtrlt> yep.
455 2011-08-18 14:19:01 <luke-jr> Graet: no point wasting coinbases on random data
456 2011-08-18 14:19:03 <cosurgi> luke-jr: is that random text a fixed size in bytes?
457 2011-08-18 14:19:16 <luke-jr> tell namecoin to get their merged mining stuff figured out and i'll do that instead ;P
458 2011-08-18 14:19:25 <luke-jr> that's what I wrote the code for anyway
459 2011-08-18 14:19:45 <UukGoblin> putting CP there would be fun.
460 2011-08-18 14:19:51 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: no.
461 2011-08-18 14:19:52 <UukGoblin> (to watch)
462 2011-08-18 14:19:59 <UukGoblin> (as in, watch then reactions)
463 2011-08-18 14:20:01 <UukGoblin> meh.
464 2011-08-18 14:20:02 <cosurgi> oh. merged mining is putting its bits into _this_ random data?
465 2011-08-18 14:20:07 <luke-jr> yes
466 2011-08-18 14:20:40 <cosurgi> UukGoblin: what's CP ?
467 2011-08-18 14:20:48 <luke-jr> and since their side isn't working yet, no better way to test it & :P
468 2011-08-18 14:20:55 <luke-jr> cosurgi: child pornography
469 2011-08-18 14:20:56 <UukGoblin> cosurgi, really nasty shit that can put you in jail
470 2011-08-18 14:21:25 <cosurgi> hm. isn't that pictures? decrypting this would be quite complex
471 2011-08-18 14:21:38 <UukGoblin> not decrypting, de-obfuscating.
472 2011-08-18 14:21:47 <cosurgi> yes
473 2011-08-18 14:21:47 <UukGoblin> well, unless someone put it there encrypted
474 2011-08-18 14:21:49 <luke-jr> well, you could encrypt it too
475 2011-08-18 14:22:10 <luke-jr> you could probably do ASCII CP in a transaction :/
476 2011-08-18 14:22:16 <RealSolid> luke-jr what does pubscriptKey do in the genesis creation
477 2011-08-18 14:22:23 <luke-jr> RealSolid: English?
478 2011-08-18 14:22:30 <UukGoblin> cosurgi, the law is so fucked up though, that mere possession of this shit can get you jailed, so theoretically every bitcoin user would become arrestable upon downloading the block which contained the shit.
479 2011-08-18 14:22:31 <RealSolid> scriptPubKey
480 2011-08-18 14:22:48 <RealSolid> txNew.vout[0].scriptPubKey = CScript() << ParseHex("04678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb649f6bc3f4cef38c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f") << OP_CHECKSIG;
481 2011-08-18 14:22:49 <phantomcircuit> RealSolid, it's an extra nonce field
482 2011-08-18 14:22:56 <luke-jr> RealSolid: it's ignored
483 2011-08-18 14:23:26 <phantomcircuit> RealSolid, the 32bit nonce in the block header isn't enough since gpu miners and pools blow through it faster than they get new transactions
484 2011-08-18 14:23:37 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: that's nonsense
485 2011-08-18 14:23:51 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: not a single miner can complete a nonce
486 2011-08-18 14:24:03 <phantomcircuit> the block header nonce is 32 bits right?
487 2011-08-18 14:24:05 <luke-jr> yes
488 2011-08-18 14:24:08 <luke-jr> that's 4 GH/s
489 2011-08-18 14:24:21 <phantomcircuit> ok so a pooled miner can blow through that easy
490 2011-08-18 14:24:26 <luke-jr> there's a timestamp header too. so you start from scratch every second.
491 2011-08-18 14:24:38 <phantomcircuit> yes 4 GH per second
492 2011-08-18 14:24:44 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: no miner does 4 GH/s
493 2011-08-18 14:24:45 <mtrlt> or do what i do, just increment the time. don't have to touch the nonce :p
494 2011-08-18 14:24:55 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, mining pools obviously do
495 2011-08-18 14:25:05 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: but mining pools can't split it up (yet)
496 2011-08-18 14:25:08 <phantomcircuit> if you have > 4 GH/s you need to be able to change something other than the nonce
497 2011-08-18 14:25:45 <phantomcircuit> wait seriously nobody has figured out that you can give pool miners a slightly different work load by changing the coinbase ?
498 2011-08-18 14:25:47 <RealSolid> and thats txNew.vout[0].scriptPubKey?
499 2011-08-18 14:25:51 <phantomcircuit> that would be fast as shit
500 2011-08-18 14:26:04 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: changing the coinbase isn't that fast
501 2011-08-18 14:26:17 <luke-jr> bitcoind has to do it
502 2011-08-18 14:26:19 <luke-jr> and does it
503 2011-08-18 14:26:43 <phantomcircuit> bitcoind does almost all block chain operations in O(n)
504 2011-08-18 14:26:53 <mtrlt> where n is?
505 2011-08-18 14:26:59 <phantomcircuit> are you serious
506 2011-08-18 14:27:07 <phantomcircuit> height
507 2011-08-18 14:27:13 <mtrlt> of what
508 2011-08-18 14:27:16 <luke-jr> &
509 2011-08-18 14:27:19 <phantomcircuit> facepalm
510 2011-08-18 14:27:21 <phantomcircuit> GTFO
511 2011-08-18 14:27:26 <luke-jr> O(n) would be very slow I think
512 2011-08-18 14:27:27 <mtrlt> length of block chain?
513 2011-08-18 14:27:29 <mtrlt> wtf
514 2011-08-18 14:27:33 <mtrlt> that's what i assumed
515 2011-08-18 14:27:36 <RealSolid> phantomcircuit: you can actually go through each nonce and not hit a target for a specified time, if im right
516 2011-08-18 14:27:38 <mtrlt> made no sense so i asked
517 2011-08-18 14:27:41 <mtrlt> gtfo if you can't answer
518 2011-08-18 14:27:46 <phantomcircuit> RealSolid, that is correct
519 2011-08-18 14:27:55 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, ill find an example
520 2011-08-18 14:28:03 <RealSolid> so 4GH/s is almost irrelevant, you just keep going through new seconds until it is?
521 2011-08-18 14:28:07 <mtrlt> phantomcircuit: so you didn't know what you were talking about.
522 2011-08-18 14:28:11 <RealSolid> but then you have new tx's so
523 2011-08-18 14:28:13 <luke-jr> RealSolid: that's what /s is
524 2011-08-18 14:28:22 <phantomcircuit> libbitcoin that genjix is working on can do a lot of the basic block operations orders of magnitude faster than bitcoind
525 2011-08-18 14:28:55 <RealSolid> luke-jr: no im saying does bitcoin give you times in the future to solve if you're over 4gh/s ?
526 2011-08-18 14:29:08 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: anyhow, when you have to deliver 1000 getwork results ASAP, things can't be slow
527 2011-08-18 14:29:43 <luke-jr> RealSolid: it changes the coinbase and rebuilds the merkle tree
528 2011-08-18 14:29:57 <phantomcircuit> RealSolid, yes except if you're going faster than 4GH/s obviously you'll end up with clock drift, you can just deal with it for a minutes of drift and hope that you get a new tx or you can re calculate the merkle tree and be sure it'll be fine
529 2011-08-18 14:30:03 <UukGoblin> 4x 5970 is about 2.4GH/s
530 2011-08-18 14:30:21 <RealSolid> why is it in seconds?
531 2011-08-18 14:30:22 <UukGoblin> so not far from now with better gfx cards, or using ASIC, you can easily exceed 4GH/s on one miner
532 2011-08-18 14:30:31 <RealSolid> seems weird, youd think 64bit int for time in milli
533 2011-08-18 14:30:37 <luke-jr> &.
534 2011-08-18 14:30:41 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, yeah obviously if you're doing a pool you want to be using a scheme that partitions the work based on time/nonce first
535 2011-08-18 14:30:46 <luke-jr> no, I'd think 64-bit nonce and forget the time
536 2011-08-18 14:31:01 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: hence my noncerange extension proposal
537 2011-08-18 14:31:03 <RealSolid> luke-jr: considering the 32int time is going to be useless in our lifetimes...
538 2011-08-18 14:31:45 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, you can recalculate merkle trees in anticipation of needing new ones though, doing that faster than you need them would be trivial
539 2011-08-18 14:32:06 <phantomcircuit> really the issue is using bitcoind in any performance critical function
540 2011-08-18 14:32:15 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: maybe, but I'd lose my super-redundant failover capabilities :P
541 2011-08-18 14:32:36 <luke-jr> right now, if things break, the pool keeps operating mostly
542 2011-08-18 14:34:00 <RealSolid> so how do pools with 5000GH handle it
543 2011-08-18 14:34:20 <luke-jr> RealSolid: multiple bitcoind I think
544 2011-08-18 14:34:40 <cypherpunk01> I think you mean pool... deepbit
545 2011-08-18 14:34:41 <RealSolid> no i mean, do they farm out like time+1, time+2,time+3 etc
546 2011-08-18 14:35:03 <luke-jr> RealSolid: Eligius does, but I'm pretty sure we're unique
547 2011-08-18 14:35:12 <imsaguy2> 'special'
548 2011-08-18 14:35:17 <RealSolid> if they dont do that, how would they use all their power?
549 2011-08-18 14:35:29 <luke-jr> &
550 2011-08-18 14:35:48 <luke-jr> rebuilding the coinbases
551 2011-08-18 14:36:01 <RealSolid> and what is that
552 2011-08-18 14:36:14 <luke-jr> I am not repeating the basics of bitcoin -.-
553 2011-08-18 14:36:29 <phantomcircuit> RealSolid, it's magic
554 2011-08-18 14:36:32 <RealSolid> transaction order?
555 2011-08-18 14:37:43 <phantomcircuit> no no
556 2011-08-18 14:37:46 <phantomcircuit> *magic*
557 2011-08-18 14:37:50 <RealSolid> heh
558 2011-08-18 14:38:00 <RealSolid> doing a google search on "rebuilding the coinbases" ends up with nothing
559 2011-08-18 14:38:36 <riush> RealSolid, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transactions#Generation
560 2011-08-18 14:40:16 <RealSolid> i see
561 2011-08-18 14:43:57 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, bwahahaha market daemon can handle 10k TPS with 500k open limit orders on the orderbook
562 2011-08-18 14:43:57 <RealSolid> in the genesis block they store the value of a block, why is that
563 2011-08-18 14:44:02 <phantomcircuit> i believe that calls for a beer
564 2011-08-18 14:44:17 <RealSolid> is it later checked?
565 2011-08-18 14:53:25 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: my custom share db can handle 15 TH/s ;)
566 2011-08-18 14:57:45 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, 15 terahas/second
567 2011-08-18 14:57:53 <luke-jr> yes
568 2011-08-18 14:57:56 <phantomcircuit> neat
569 2011-08-18 14:58:34 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, i can handle several thousand trades per second
570 2011-08-18 14:59:00 <phantomcircuit> so basically i could run the entire bitcoin economy on my laptop
571 2011-08-18 15:05:58 <infested999> So when the client starts and it needs to find blocks, how does it know while IPs it should connect to. For example in torrents there is always a "tracker" who tells you what IP's you need to know to get connected. Does the Bitcoin clent have some kind of "tracker"?
572 2011-08-18 15:07:41 <hugolp> infested999: the chatroom
573 2011-08-18 15:08:39 <infested999> Through IRC?
574 2011-08-18 15:08:49 <tcatm> infested999: older clients use IRC for bootstrapping (= discovering other nodes), newer versions use DNS sees
575 2011-08-18 15:08:53 <tcatm> seeds*
576 2011-08-18 15:09:25 <infested999> Does it use more than one DNS server?
577 2011-08-18 15:09:50 <infested999> or does it have 10 diffrent places it can bootstrap from, just incase one goes down?
578 2011-08-18 15:10:19 <infested999> Also, does that make this guy wrong? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37864.msg465717#msg465717
579 2011-08-18 15:10:38 <tcatm> there currently three bootstrap domains
580 2011-08-18 15:11:29 <infested999> But can't domain names easily be shut down, like what happened to wikileaks.com?
581 2011-08-18 15:11:48 <phantomcircuit> infested999, you mean wikileaks.cc ?
582 2011-08-18 15:12:03 <phantomcircuit> er
583 2011-08-18 15:12:13 <infested999> but before they used the Swiss domain
584 2011-08-18 15:12:19 <infested999> they used another one that got taken down
585 2011-08-18 15:13:02 <phantomcircuit> infested999, they have a domain for almost every country on earth
586 2011-08-18 15:13:05 <phantomcircuit> so
587 2011-08-18 15:13:06 <phantomcircuit> whatever
588 2011-08-18 15:13:10 <tcatm> infested999: yes they could be shut down and it's far from perfect
589 2011-08-18 15:13:46 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, seems unlikely
590 2011-08-18 15:13:47 <tcatm> infested999: though there's also a list of hardcoded IPs as a last resort
591 2011-08-18 15:13:56 <phantomcircuit> not to mention there are a bazillion other ways to boot strap
592 2011-08-18 15:15:13 <tcatm> personally I think the bigger problem is shutting down bitcoin.org and the github repos
593 2011-08-18 15:16:06 <MacRohard> that would be a problem for about 10min
594 2011-08-18 15:16:17 <MacRohard> well.. maybe a couple of days ;)
595 2011-08-18 15:16:31 <MacRohard> and actually probably more than that 'cause everyone would argue about where it should go
596 2011-08-18 15:18:23 <MacRohard> bitcoin.org isn't even used for anything now that the forums are gone
597 2011-08-18 15:18:36 <MacRohard> just a couple of download links
598 2011-08-18 15:21:01 <MacRohard> probably the most effective thing for the gov to attack would be mtgox.com
599 2011-08-18 15:52:02 <infested999> MacRohard: No you've got it all wrong
600 2011-08-18 15:52:31 <infested999> If the government attacks BitCoin, everyone will want to have some bitcoins
601 2011-08-18 15:52:47 <infested999> It's like if drugs were illegal, the price would go wayyy up
602 2011-08-18 15:53:02 <infested999> if bitcoins were to be illegal, everyone is going to buy bitcoins and nobody will want to sell
603 2011-08-18 15:53:07 <infested999> the price would skyrocket
604 2011-08-18 15:53:35 <Blitzboom> http://bitcoin.com/
605 2011-08-18 15:53:38 <Blitzboom> SERIOUSLY?
606 2011-08-18 15:54:06 <mtrlt> infested999: if there were not enough places where you could spend bitcoins, instaed of having to convert to $ first, i think that wouldn't happen.
607 2011-08-18 15:55:28 <infested999> Blitzboom: lololol
608 2011-08-18 15:55:52 <infested999> Their designers must have been hard at work to make that site in less than 24 hours after they bought the domain from the origional owner
609 2011-08-18 15:55:57 <Blitzboom> this is ridiculous, the domain should belong to the project
610 2011-08-18 15:56:20 <Ten98> bitcoin.org should belong to the project
611 2011-08-18 15:56:22 <Ten98> .com = commercial
612 2011-08-18 15:56:29 <Blitzboom> bitcoin = bitcoin
613 2011-08-18 15:56:30 <luke-jr> Ten98: what project?
614 2011-08-18 15:56:40 <Ten98> the bitcoin project
615 2011-08-18 15:56:48 <Blitzboom> and some ewallet service is not bitcoin
616 2011-08-18 15:56:52 <luke-jr> Ten98: there is no such entity
617 2011-08-18 15:56:59 <Ten98> uh
618 2011-08-18 15:57:00 <Ten98> ok
619 2011-08-18 15:57:06 <Ten98> except there is
620 2011-08-18 15:57:08 <Ten98> but you're cool
621 2011-08-18 15:57:10 <luke-jr> nope
622 2011-08-18 15:57:13 <Ten98> shh now
623 2011-08-18 15:57:44 <Ten98> it's like email.com doesn't belong to stanford or MIT or whoever it was that invented email
624 2011-08-18 15:57:54 <Ten98> ftp.com doesn't belong to the people that invented ftp
625 2011-08-18 15:57:57 <Ten98> deal with it
626 2011-08-18 15:58:23 <luke-jr> Satoshi is no more
627 2011-08-18 15:58:43 <Ten98> irrelevant
628 2011-08-18 15:58:45 <Ten98> the project lives on
629 2011-08-18 15:59:11 <luke-jr> there are lots of projects in the community
630 2011-08-18 15:59:28 <Ten98> indeed
631 2011-08-18 15:59:42 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, tradehill always with the good show of faith... oh wait
632 2011-08-18 16:00:04 <Ten98> we need an organisation like tradehill
633 2011-08-18 16:00:17 <Ten98> without commercial support this whole thing is nothing
634 2011-08-18 16:00:24 <Blitzboom> if mtgox would have acquired it, they probably would have granted it to the project
635 2011-08-18 16:00:27 <phantomcircuit> Ten98, tradehill is not commercial support
636 2011-08-18 16:00:34 <Blitzboom> but tradehill makes some bullshit ewallet out of it
637 2011-08-18 16:00:43 <Ten98> we need ewallet services
638 2011-08-18 16:00:45 <Blitzboom> after mybitcoin.com this must be a joke
639 2011-08-18 16:00:48 <Ten98> nope
640 2011-08-18 16:00:51 <Blitzboom> Ten98: but not at a bitcoin.com domain
641 2011-08-18 16:00:54 <Ten98> why not
642 2011-08-18 16:00:57 <Blitzboom> and no, we do not need wallet services
643 2011-08-18 16:00:58 <Ten98> it makes perfect sense
644 2011-08-18 16:01:00 <Ten98> yes we do
645 2011-08-18 16:01:07 <Blitzboom> what we need is for people to be able to actually use bitcoin
646 2011-08-18 16:01:09 <Ten98> general public can't be trusted with their own wallet.dat
647 2011-08-18 16:01:12 <Blitzboom> to store their wealth and do transactions
648 2011-08-18 16:01:19 <Blitzboom> i am convinced it can be done
649 2011-08-18 16:01:21 <infested999> The whole POS BitCoin idea won't work with the bitcoin network anyway. We need an online e-wallet that EVERYONE uses and that everyone only keeps like ~10 bitcoins in it. There is no way you can wait 10 minutes to be able to buy something in a store.
650 2011-08-18 16:01:25 <luke-jr> I hope TH uses BCCAPI
651 2011-08-18 16:01:31 <Ten98> my dad would lose everything on a weekly basis
652 2011-08-18 16:01:39 <Ten98> he reformats his PC
653 2011-08-18 16:01:48 <Ten98> get viruses
654 2011-08-18 16:01:51 <Ten98> reformats
655 2011-08-18 16:01:52 <Ten98> etc
656 2011-08-18 16:02:02 <Blitzboom> Ten98: thats why im saying we need to improve the software to accomodate users needs
657 2011-08-18 16:02:06 <Ten98> we need a secure ewallet
658 2011-08-18 16:02:07 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, they're noobs...
659 2011-08-18 16:02:11 <Ten98> for noobs
660 2011-08-18 16:02:14 <Blitzboom> ewallets are against bitcoinss spirit
661 2011-08-18 16:02:18 <Ten98> no they aren't
662 2011-08-18 16:02:19 <Blitzboom> it makes no sense to use bitcoin then
663 2011-08-18 16:02:23 <Ten98> why not
664 2011-08-18 16:02:28 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, 10:1 they've already rm -rf'd half their btc
665 2011-08-18 16:02:31 <Blitzboom> because it gives up the major advantages
666 2011-08-18 16:02:34 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: a centralized "bitcoin project" is *more* against the spirit of Bitcoin
667 2011-08-18 16:02:39 <Blitzboom> better use paypal then
668 2011-08-18 16:02:41 <Ten98> desktops are on the way out
669 2011-08-18 16:02:48 <Ten98> soon everyone will just have a tablet and a mobile
670 2011-08-18 16:02:50 <Blitzboom> so what?
671 2011-08-18 16:02:53 <Ten98> where are they gonna run the bitcoin client?
672 2011-08-18 16:02:59 <Blitzboom> on tablets and mobiles
673 2011-08-18 16:02:59 <imsaguy2> Ten98, not true
674 2011-08-18 16:03:00 <luke-jr> Ten98: their plug server at home
675 2011-08-18 16:03:04 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: that's stupid
676 2011-08-18 16:03:09 <Blitzboom> luke-jr: no, its logical
677 2011-08-18 16:03:13 <Ten98> soon people won't even have a hard drive
678 2011-08-18 16:03:14 <imsaguy2> keyboards are needed until voice input can replace it
679 2011-08-18 16:03:19 <Ten98> everything will be in the cloud
680 2011-08-18 16:03:20 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: you *can't* run a Bitcoin node on a tablet/phone
681 2011-08-18 16:03:27 <luke-jr> Ten98: no, cloud sucks
682 2011-08-18 16:03:31 <Ten98> I know it sucks
683 2011-08-18 16:03:33 <Ten98> but noobs love it
684 2011-08-18 16:03:38 <Blitzboom> luke-jr: sure you can
685 2011-08-18 16:03:40 <Ten98> and noobs outnumber us 1000 to 1
686 2011-08-18 16:03:44 <imsaguy2> bitcoinj is halfway there
687 2011-08-18 16:03:45 <Ten98> so get used to it
688 2011-08-18 16:03:46 <Blitzboom> luke-jr: there are already clients
689 2011-08-18 16:03:50 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: no, it requires GBs of storage and an active network connection
690 2011-08-18 16:03:55 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: aka say goodbye to battery life
691 2011-08-18 16:04:05 <imsaguy2> and there are smaller projects on top of that to handle the rest of it
692 2011-08-18 16:04:08 <Ten98> so
693 2011-08-18 16:04:11 <Ten98> you need ewallet
694 2011-08-18 16:04:17 <Ten98> for bitcoin to succeed
695 2011-08-18 16:04:19 <Blitzboom> anyway, my main point is: if we dont actually use bitcoin, why use bitcoin?
696 2011-08-18 16:04:19 <luke-jr> you need BCCAPI-like
697 2011-08-18 16:04:21 <Ten98> it has to copy everything paypal does
698 2011-08-18 16:04:27 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: competition.
699 2011-08-18 16:04:31 <Ten98> you do use it though
700 2011-08-18 16:04:34 <imsaguy2> or at least a way for multiple ewallet sites to trust/honor one another to resolve transactions quickly
701 2011-08-18 16:04:35 <Ten98> just not on your own machine
702 2011-08-18 16:04:38 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: nobody can inflate it, and anyone can open a new 'bank'
703 2011-08-18 16:04:45 <Ten98> you use it on the ewallet server
704 2011-08-18 16:04:50 <luke-jr> Blitzboom: and most importantly, you can trade in tonal
705 2011-08-18 16:04:53 <Ten98> it's exactly the same concept, just with a remote login
706 2011-08-18 16:05:00 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy, bitcoinj isn't even close dude
707 2011-08-18 16:05:05 <phantomcircuit> it can only connect to 1 peer
708 2011-08-18 16:05:11 <phantomcircuit> which makes it useless as a half node
709 2011-08-18 16:05:12 <Ten98> we can still keep the real client
710 2011-08-18 16:05:18 <Blitzboom> Ten98: yeah, who cares about actually owning your own money
711 2011-08-18 16:05:22 <Blitzboom> and no chargebacks
712 2011-08-18 16:05:24 <Blitzboom> those are bugs
713 2011-08-18 16:05:24 <Ten98> there will still be a hard core of elites who run bitcoin on their own desktop
714 2011-08-18 16:05:32 <Ten98> this is just for noobs
715 2011-08-18 16:05:36 <Ten98> and convenience
716 2011-08-18 16:05:44 <imsaguy2> phantomcircuit, my phone wallet connects to more than 1 peer
717 2011-08-18 16:05:46 <Ten98> actually it's much more secure too
718 2011-08-18 16:05:53 <Blitzboom> we could make the client convenient
719 2011-08-18 16:05:57 <Ten98> so I can have my savings on my home PC
720 2011-08-18 16:06:01 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, people should be allowed to be as trusting as they want, so long as they have a clear choice
721 2011-08-18 16:06:02 <imsaguy2> typically, it connects to 5-6
722 2011-08-18 16:06:04 <Blitzboom> im convinced it can be done in a convenient and secure way for the user
723 2011-08-18 16:06:04 <Ten98> and have a current account in an ewallet
724 2011-08-18 16:06:12 <Blitzboom> while retaining all advantages of bitcoin
725 2011-08-18 16:06:14 <Ten98> I don't need to connect to my home PC to spend
726 2011-08-18 16:06:21 <Ten98> I can spend from my ewallet
727 2011-08-18 16:06:33 <Ten98> and only keep 10BTC or so in there so it doesn't matter if it gets hacked
728 2011-08-18 16:06:39 <Blitzboom> phantomcircuit: yeah well, we saw what became of this with mybitcoin, mtgox etc.
729 2011-08-18 16:06:53 <Ten98> I don't need to carry around my PGP key with me
730 2011-08-18 16:07:16 <phantomcircuit> Blitzboom, i still cant for the life of me understand why anybody would trust either of those services
731 2011-08-18 16:07:22 <Blitzboom> Ten98: you could have your encrypted wallet everywhere online
732 2011-08-18 16:07:38 <Blitzboom> it CAN work conveniently and securely with the client
733 2011-08-18 16:07:59 <Blitzboom> but no, people rather use ewallets than bitcoin
734 2011-08-18 16:08:01 <imsaguy2> why would someone trust yours then phantomcircuit?
735 2011-08-18 16:08:02 <Ten98> of course
736 2011-08-18 16:08:10 <Ten98> it's so much more convenient
737 2011-08-18 16:08:15 <Ten98> all I need is a login, the same as paypal
738 2011-08-18 16:08:19 <Blitzboom> currently yes
739 2011-08-18 16:08:20 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy2, it's open source and im not hiding who i am
740 2011-08-18 16:08:24 <Blitzboom> but in principal no
741 2011-08-18 16:08:36 <Ten98> in prinipal, in theory, in practise, take your pick
742 2011-08-18 16:08:39 <phantomcircuit> we've been running britcoin for a while now
743 2011-08-18 16:08:40 <imsaguy2> there's no guarantee that you are runnign the code thats published
744 2011-08-18 16:08:46 <Ten98> it *is* more convenient for someone else to deal with it all for me
745 2011-08-18 16:08:51 <imsaguy2> opensource doesn't mean anything
746 2011-08-18 16:08:54 <Blitzboom> Ten98: thats why i say we should focus on the damn client
747 2011-08-18 16:08:56 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy2, no but if we steal your bitcoins you can find me
748 2011-08-18 16:09:00 <Blitzboom> and not on ewallets &
749 2011-08-18 16:09:02 <phantomcircuit> good luck finding the mybitcoin guy
750 2011-08-18 16:09:03 <Ten98> the client works just fine
751 2011-08-18 16:09:08 <Ten98> why fix what isn't broken
752 2011-08-18 16:09:16 <Blitzboom> no, it does not for normal users
753 2011-08-18 16:09:21 <imsaguy2> people knowingly write bad checks and can be found, still doesn't stop them
754 2011-08-18 16:09:22 <Blitzboom> they have to know where wallet.dat is etc.
755 2011-08-18 16:09:22 <Ten98> normal users can use an ewallet
756 2011-08-18 16:09:26 <hugolp> is it normal that bitcoind -testnet does not daemonize itself?
757 2011-08-18 16:09:33 <Blitzboom> Ten98: then bitcoin is useless
758 2011-08-18 16:09:36 <Ten98> really?
759 2011-08-18 16:09:41 <Blitzboom> yes
760 2011-08-18 16:09:41 <Ten98> explain how
761 2011-08-18 16:09:48 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy2, it stops them from writing very large bad checks
762 2011-08-18 16:09:50 <Blitzboom> you give up the property on your money
763 2011-08-18 16:09:51 <phantomcircuit> for the most part
764 2011-08-18 16:09:52 <Ten98> no
765 2011-08-18 16:09:55 <Ten98> normal users do
766 2011-08-18 16:09:58 <Ten98> I dont
767 2011-08-18 16:10:02 <Blitzboom> oh, ok, just the elite profits
768 2011-08-18 16:10:05 <Blitzboom> congrats
769 2011-08-18 16:10:05 <Ten98> sure
770 2011-08-18 16:10:18 <Ten98> tradehill profits
771 2011-08-18 16:10:21 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy2, but to be clear i would *much* rather people stored their bitcoins securely on their own person
772 2011-08-18 16:10:23 <Ten98> they seem like pretty cool guys
773 2011-08-18 16:10:30 <Ten98> I'll go work for them
774 2011-08-18 16:10:33 <Ten98> where are they based?
775 2011-08-18 16:10:34 <imsaguy2> I'd concur phantomcircuit
776 2011-08-18 16:10:41 <imsaguy2> I think there should be a balance of both
777 2011-08-18 16:10:59 <Blitzboom> no, bitcoin should be 0.1% people actually using it
778 2011-08-18 16:11:00 <phantomcircuit> imsaguy2, i just accept that some people are incapable of doing so and have made a very bad judgement that learning how to do so would be to expensive
779 2011-08-18 16:11:01 <imsaguy2> just like you keep currency on your person as well as at the bank and/or stored at your house
780 2011-08-18 16:11:04 <Blitzboom> and the rest using paypal clones
781 2011-08-18 16:11:09 <Blitzboom> great idea
782 2011-08-18 16:11:15 <Ten98> it is perfect
783 2011-08-18 16:11:24 <hugolp> Does anyone know if its normal that "bitcoind -testnet" does not daemonize itself?
784 2011-08-18 16:11:28 <Ten98> the only weak link is we all have to trust the ewallet companies
785 2011-08-18 16:11:36 <Blitzboom> yeah, no biggie
786 2011-08-18 16:11:41 <Blitzboom> lets trust the companies, banks
787 2011-08-18 16:11:43 <Blitzboom> governments
788 2011-08-18 16:11:43 <Ten98> meh
789 2011-08-18 16:11:46 <Ten98> I trust google
790 2011-08-18 16:11:53 <Ten98> and redhat
791 2011-08-18 16:11:57 <Ten98> and a few companies
792 2011-08-18 16:11:58 <Blitzboom> why again do we use bitcoin?
793 2011-08-18 16:12:01 <Ten98> just be selective
794 2011-08-18 16:12:06 <imsaguy2> I used to trust google
795 2011-08-18 16:12:09 <imsaguy2> not anymore
796 2011-08-18 16:12:11 <phantomcircuit> hugolp, bitcoind despite the d doesn't daemonize by default you have to pass -daemon
797 2011-08-18 16:12:18 <Blitzboom> i thought it was to make it a larger population possible to have more freedom
798 2011-08-18 16:12:19 <phantomcircuit> hugolp, which also starts the rpc server
799 2011-08-18 16:12:24 <Ten98> it is
800 2011-08-18 16:12:28 <Blitzboom> not to enrichen a small geeky elite
801 2011-08-18 16:12:29 <hugolp> phantomcircuit: thanks
802 2011-08-18 16:12:29 <Ten98> you don't have to use an ewallet
803 2011-08-18 16:12:41 <Blitzboom> Ten98: yeah, but you want to make it more attractive
804 2011-08-18 16:12:42 <Ten98> but it makes huge amounts of sense for the masses
805 2011-08-18 16:12:46 <Blitzboom> and leave the client user-unfriendly
806 2011-08-18 16:12:50 <Ten98> if the fees are super low
807 2011-08-18 16:13:04 <Ten98> and they should be, since there's not much overhead
808 2011-08-18 16:13:22 <Ten98> not like paypal who need expensive banking contracts etc
809 2011-08-18 16:13:46 <Ten98> it's the banks we want to get away from, not the notion of organisations
810 2011-08-18 16:13:51 <Blitzboom> i say the approach should be to make the client possible for normal persons