1 2011-08-29 00:25:11 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r4cc08fe45906 cgminer/main.c: Enable curses after the mining threads are set up so that failure messages won't be lost in the curses interface.
2 2011-08-29 00:25:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r510bcc3d7e6f cgminer/main.c: Disable curses after inputting a pool if we requested no curses interface.
3 2011-08-29 01:35:27 <aldiyen_> is there a specification for getwork requests somewhere?
4 2011-08-29 01:36:32 <cjdelisl1> I think there is on the wiki
5 2011-08-29 01:36:46 <aldiyen_> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork ?
6 2011-08-29 01:38:06 <cjdelisl1> ahh hmm I guess so.
7 2011-08-29 01:38:38 <aldiyen_> I was hoping for something that would include more data on the message's expected contents
8 2011-08-29 01:38:39 <asher^> aldiyen the request from the miner, the response, or both?
9 2011-08-29 01:38:46 <aldiyen_> asher^ both
10 2011-08-29 01:38:47 <cjdelisl1> I didn't read carefully I thought you were talking about the message sent between bitcoind implementations
11 2011-08-29 01:38:59 <asher^> the request is just a json-rpc request with 'getwork' as the method
12 2011-08-29 01:39:22 <asher^> 1 sec ill upload some of my packet captures for you
13 2011-08-29 01:39:53 <aldiyen_> ah ok
14 2011-08-29 01:39:59 <aldiyen_> thanks
15 2011-08-29 01:42:14 <asher^> http://pastebin.com/vTe69qyz
16 2011-08-29 01:42:29 <asher^> just some samples. they dont all correspond to each other
17 2011-08-29 01:42:50 <aldiyen_> cool
18 2011-08-29 01:42:56 <aldiyen_> I was mainly wondering what the id represented
19 2011-08-29 01:43:09 <aldiyen_> I was able to find that in the general json-rpc documentation
20 2011-08-29 01:43:42 <asher^> i think its just a way to track which responses are linked to which submissions
21 2011-08-29 01:43:54 <aldiyen_> seems like it
22 2011-08-29 01:44:25 <aldiyen_> although using http as the transport it seems unlikely to really be necessary
23 2011-08-29 01:44:31 <asher^> yeah
24 2011-08-29 01:44:48 <asher^> i see 0, 1, 'json' as well as large integers
25 2011-08-29 01:45:04 <aldiyen_> heh 'json'
26 2011-08-29 01:45:49 <asher^> ya
27 2011-08-29 01:46:16 <aldiyen_> I suppose it is defined as having "any value" :P
28 2011-08-29 03:35:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r8f788ec92734 cgminer/main.c: Add an option to break out after successfully mining a number of accepted shares.
29 2011-08-29 03:35:17 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * raf15955b784c cgminer/main.c: Exit with a failed return code if we did not reach opt_shares.
30 2011-08-29 03:58:32 <Raccoon> do we have an official QR-Code tag yet?
31 2011-08-29 03:58:52 <Raccoon> or at least a working agreed upon tag?
32 2011-08-29 04:05:18 <SomeoneWeird> no
33 2011-08-29 04:05:29 <Raccoon> you know this to be true?
34 2011-08-29 04:09:53 <SomeoneWeird> no official qr afaik
35 2011-08-29 04:10:00 <SomeoneWeird> look at forums.
36 2011-08-29 04:18:45 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
37 2011-08-29 04:18:48 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143004 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 131 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 22 hours, 40 minutes, and 13 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1781816.55478199
38 2011-08-29 04:18:50 <lfm> just qr encode "bitcoin.org"?
39 2011-08-29 04:18:50 <luke-jr> Raccoon: tag?
40 2011-08-29 04:19:12 <Raccoon> no no. printing qr-codes with bitcoin send addresses
41 2011-08-29 04:19:22 <luke-jr> Raccoon: yes
42 2011-08-29 04:19:24 <SomeoneWeird> oh
43 2011-08-29 04:19:28 <SomeoneWeird> yes thats been done
44 2011-08-29 04:19:35 <luke-jr> Raccoon: just encode a bitcoin: URI as a QRCode
45 2011-08-29 04:19:35 <Raccoon> i suppose if the bitcoin client were to register the protocol bitcoi://
46 2011-08-29 04:19:40 <Raccoon> er bitcoin:/
47 2011-08-29 04:19:41 <luke-jr> bitcoin:1youraddress
48 2011-08-29 04:19:44 <luke-jr> no slashes
49 2011-08-29 04:19:48 <Raccoon> no slashes?
50 2011-08-29 04:19:53 <Raccoon> let me try
51 2011-08-29 04:19:55 <luke-jr> it's not a URL, it's a URN
52 2011-08-29 04:20:07 <luke-jr> also, you need a client that supports it
53 2011-08-29 04:20:09 <luke-jr> like Spesmilo
54 2011-08-29 04:20:12 <lfm> Raccoon: oh, it would depend on an ap that would then send the amount. whoever makes the app designs the qr code as I understand it
55 2011-08-29 04:20:19 <Raccoon> well, as long as the qr reader launches the same application lookup
56 2011-08-29 04:20:52 <Raccoon> eg: magnet://xyzzy for bittorrent magnet addresses
57 2011-08-29 04:21:14 <luke-jr> Raccoon: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/URI_Scheme
58 2011-08-29 04:21:20 <lfm> so like a price tag with the store address and amount for an item or even a dynamic display for a total purchase
59 2011-08-29 04:21:38 <Raccoon> the official client supports it?
60 2011-08-29 04:21:49 <lfm> no, the app is yet to be built
61 2011-08-29 04:21:51 <luke-jr> Raccoon: there is no official
62 2011-08-29 04:22:00 <luke-jr> Raccoon: the one on bitcoin.org does not
63 2011-08-29 04:22:02 <Raccoon> there is an official desktop bitcoin client
64 2011-08-29 04:22:06 <Raccoon> look at the topic
65 2011-08-29 04:22:08 <luke-jr> lfm: Spesmilo and various other clients support it
66 2011-08-29 04:22:14 <Raccoon> it can register bitcoi: URIs
67 2011-08-29 04:22:16 <luke-jr> Raccoon: it's not official
68 2011-08-29 04:22:22 <luke-jr> it's just one of many
69 2011-08-29 04:22:33 <luke-jr> happens to be the most popular right now, and the original one
70 2011-08-29 04:22:36 <Raccoon> luke-jr: 0.3.24 is the official bitcoin client
71 2011-08-29 04:22:39 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no
72 2011-08-29 04:22:46 <Raccoon> get over the semantics
73 2011-08-29 04:22:50 <luke-jr> "official" implies authority, which is against the whole point of Bitcoin
74 2011-08-29 04:23:01 <lfm> Raccoon: Spesmilo is an alt UI, not the standard ui
75 2011-08-29 04:23:03 <Raccoon> it is distributed by the project leader
76 2011-08-29 04:23:16 <luke-jr> Raccoon: the project leader of one client
77 2011-08-29 04:23:27 <lfm> what project leader? there are many projectsa
78 2011-08-29 04:23:31 <Raccoon> it standardizes the protocol and changes made
79 2011-08-29 04:23:37 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no, it doesn't.
80 2011-08-29 04:23:50 <luke-jr> the democratic user base does
81 2011-08-29 04:23:52 <Raccoon> anyway, off topic nonsenes
82 2011-08-29 04:24:02 <lfm> not off topic
83 2011-08-29 04:24:05 <Raccoon> does the aformentioned client register bitcoin: uri
84 2011-08-29 04:24:10 <luke-jr> no
85 2011-08-29 04:24:14 <Raccoon> ok
86 2011-08-29 04:24:18 <Raccoon> let me know when it does
87 2011-08-29 04:24:24 <luke-jr> probably never at this rate
88 2011-08-29 04:24:28 <lfm> register?
89 2011-08-29 04:24:31 <Raccoon> then i can start accepting bitcoin payments
90 2011-08-29 04:24:38 <luke-jr> Raccoon: you can start now
91 2011-08-29 04:24:51 <Raccoon> not if the user has to type in anything with his fingers
92 2011-08-29 04:24:54 <luke-jr> Raccoon: Bitbills are doing text QR-Codes with just the address
93 2011-08-29 04:24:56 <lfm> ya, why cant you accept payments?
94 2011-08-29 04:24:58 <luke-jr> users can copy and paste
95 2011-08-29 04:25:07 <Raccoon> [00:22] <luke-jr> users can copy and paste
96 2011-08-29 04:25:09 <Raccoon> lol
97 2011-08-29 04:25:13 <Raccoon> are you sure about that?
98 2011-08-29 04:25:17 <luke-jr> ok, maybe not
99 2011-08-29 04:25:18 <copumpkin> is there a mechanism for attaching messages to transactions (possibly encrypted with the recipient's public key)?
100 2011-08-29 04:25:19 <luke-jr> :|
101 2011-08-29 04:25:27 <luke-jr> copumpkin: not yet
102 2011-08-29 04:25:31 <copumpkin> it's planned?
103 2011-08-29 04:25:36 <lfm> copumpkin: no
104 2011-08-29 04:25:39 <luke-jr> copumpkin: there's a protocol half-baked on the forum, but it's been dead lately
105 2011-08-29 04:25:41 <copumpkin> ah
106 2011-08-29 04:25:44 <lfm> copumpkin: not any more
107 2011-08-29 04:25:46 <luke-jr> copumpkin: care to revive it? it's called signmessage
108 2011-08-29 04:25:48 <Raccoon> i suggested it sometime in like january
109 2011-08-29 04:25:54 <Raccoon> not sure why nobody does it
110 2011-08-29 04:26:06 <copumpkin> I don't really care enough about it, but it seems neat
111 2011-08-29 04:26:06 <lfm> why have messages?
112 2011-08-29 04:26:10 <copumpkin> I suppose most people feel the same way
113 2011-08-29 04:26:15 <copumpkin> or it'd be happening :)
114 2011-08-29 04:26:22 <luke-jr> Raccoon: the developers of the bitcoin.org client are opposed to most features
115 2011-08-29 04:26:36 <imsaguy> derp
116 2011-08-29 04:26:41 <luke-jr> they want bugs fixed first, at least
117 2011-08-29 04:26:42 <lfm> Raccoon: the developers of the bitcoin.org client are opposed to most bloated fluff
118 2011-08-29 04:26:51 <luke-jr> lfm: not everything thinks it's fluff
119 2011-08-29 04:26:51 <Raccoon> eg, as a place to attach a physical shipping address
120 2011-08-29 04:27:09 <imsaguy> Raccoon, that would be a terrible use
121 2011-08-29 04:27:14 <lfm> doesnt matter what proponents of bloated fluff think
122 2011-08-29 04:27:15 <luke-jr> they've been going on about multi-sender transactions lately-- THAT is fluff
123 2011-08-29 04:27:25 <luke-jr> very few people need that
124 2011-08-29 04:27:30 <copumpkin> presumably you'd want to pad the encrypted message so as to reveal less information
125 2011-08-29 04:27:32 <imsaguy> you're already negotiating the transaction outside bitcoin, negotiate the address there
126 2011-08-29 04:27:49 <luke-jr> copumpkin: it doesn't do encryption, just signing
127 2011-08-29 04:27:56 <copumpkin> ah
128 2011-08-29 04:28:02 <luke-jr> imsaguy: that's a hacky workaround
129 2011-08-29 04:28:06 <lfm> copumpkin: just use unique address for each transaction and you shouldnt need messages
130 2011-08-29 04:28:07 <copumpkin> I guess you don't necessarily know the recipient's public key
131 2011-08-29 04:28:09 <luke-jr> imsaguy: easier to send a signed email
132 2011-08-29 04:28:19 <imsaguy> luke-jr, you missed the point
133 2011-08-29 04:28:35 <imsaguy> there's not reason to include shipping addresses as part of the bitcoin transmission
134 2011-08-29 04:28:38 <imsaguy> no*
135 2011-08-29 04:28:38 <luke-jr> imsaguy: a single QR-Code with a fixed address and email makes it much easier for merchants
136 2011-08-29 04:28:47 <luke-jr> imsaguy: I didn't say put it in the transmission
137 2011-08-29 04:28:52 <imsaguy> exactly
138 2011-08-29 04:28:53 <luke-jr> imsaguy: I said email it, signed with the sending key
139 2011-08-29 04:29:06 <imsaguy> my response was to that
140 2011-08-29 04:29:08 <imsaguy> had nothing to do with you
141 2011-08-29 04:29:10 <luke-jr> oh
142 2011-08-29 04:29:35 <imsaguy> <Raccoon> eg, as a place to attach a physical shipping address
143 2011-08-29 04:29:49 <luke-jr> but anyhow, if merchants can print a single thing with an unchanging payment address + email, that would make it a lot easier for them
144 2011-08-29 04:30:18 <imsaguy> they can
145 2011-08-29 04:30:27 <luke-jr> imsaguy: not right now
146 2011-08-29 04:30:42 <luke-jr> without signmessage, people can dispute who paid
147 2011-08-29 04:32:26 <luke-jr> btw, lots of txn spam today
148 2011-08-29 04:34:37 <imsaguy> lol
149 2011-08-29 04:34:48 <imsaguy> especially coming from you
150 2011-08-29 04:35:11 <luke-jr> imsaguy: ?
151 2011-08-29 04:35:24 <luke-jr> Eligius is the only pool actively fighting txn spam
152 2011-08-29 04:36:06 <imsaguy> do you still add prayer's?
153 2011-08-29 04:36:10 <imsaguy> prayers*
154 2011-08-29 04:36:25 <Raccoon> hmm
155 2011-08-29 04:36:26 <imsaguy> 'spam' is relative.
156 2011-08-29 04:37:47 <Raccoon> problem with omission of '//' from a bitcoin URI is the syntax validation of many existing applications that check the correctness of links (of any protocol) and will automatically inject '//' or will prepend 'http://' in the absence of '://'
157 2011-08-29 04:38:29 <imsaguy> google does it with their chrome:// extensions
158 2011-08-29 04:38:38 <luke-jr> Raccoon: that's a bug with those applications
159 2011-08-29 04:38:49 <luke-jr> Raccoon: read the relevant specifications
160 2011-08-29 04:38:59 <luke-jr> // is not supposed to be used for these kind of things
161 2011-08-29 04:39:08 <luke-jr> see mailto: for a common example
162 2011-08-29 04:39:11 <wumpus> it should only add // for protocols like http
163 2011-08-29 04:39:13 <wumpus> exactly
164 2011-08-29 04:39:24 <Raccoon> bugs of popular appliations are met with facilitating compatability, if begrudgingly
165 2011-08-29 04:39:37 <wumpus> I've been trying around a bit with bitcoin: URLs and did not find any issue with programs adding //
166 2011-08-29 04:40:00 <Raccoon> how about [url] BB tags
167 2011-08-29 04:40:13 <wumpus> those completely refuse unknown protocols
168 2011-08-29 04:40:16 <wumpus> out of fear for javascript
169 2011-08-29 04:40:24 <Raccoon> they like to prepend 'http://' if no :// is present
170 2011-08-29 04:40:25 <wumpus> so it's a matter of adding a handler...
171 2011-08-29 04:40:34 <luke-jr> Raccoon: even with //, they refuse it
172 2011-08-29 04:40:39 <wumpus> yes they add http... but no bitcoin://
173 2011-08-29 04:40:41 <Raccoon> no.
174 2011-08-29 04:40:51 <wumpus> so making it bitcoin:// would not save you
175 2011-08-29 04:40:55 <Raccoon> some boards will restrict which handlers can be used
176 2011-08-29 04:41:10 <Raccoon> i've used irc:// on some, and they will take foo://
177 2011-08-29 04:41:18 <wumpus> so why would the standard need to be complicated to facilitate some crappy php code anyway
178 2011-08-29 04:41:28 <Raccoon> complicated?
179 2011-08-29 04:42:09 <wumpus> yes, simply change your code, and that standard as simple as possible, which means leave out all unneeded elements.. otherwise you'll never get rid of technical debt
180 2011-08-29 04:42:41 <Raccoon> what's complicated is the debate that the size= value ought be suffixed with X8 instead of left blank
181 2011-08-29 04:42:42 <wumpus> as everyone that did development in a big company probably knows, madness lies that way :-)
182 2011-08-29 04:42:56 <wumpus> Raccoon: yes I'm also against that
183 2011-08-29 04:42:57 <Raccoon> which is nice and all from a hard edge geek prespective
184 2011-08-29 04:43:00 <Raccoon> but in practice
185 2011-08-29 04:43:12 <Raccoon> 99.99999999% of all amounts would be of BTC
186 2011-08-29 04:43:14 <wumpus> I prefer using amount=123.456
187 2011-08-29 04:43:23 <wumpus> simpler to parse and simpler to understand
188 2011-08-29 04:43:40 <Raccoon> and user-forms that fill the values wouldn't need javascript to modify the data
189 2011-08-29 04:43:56 <Raccoon> by default, form input -> ?value=
190 2011-08-29 04:44:17 <wumpus> please do add javascript for validation, though, we're in 2011 now :-)
191 2011-08-29 04:44:21 <Raccoon> you'd have to add complicated string manipulation to place X8 at the end in many cases
192 2011-08-29 04:44:39 <Raccoon> yeah, especially C applications
193 2011-08-29 04:45:01 <Raccoon> not everyone uses a web browser to 'do things'
194 2011-08-29 04:45:11 <Raccoon> especially on tiny things
195 2011-08-29 04:47:06 <luke-jr> Raccoon: it's amount=
196 2011-08-29 04:47:13 <luke-jr> Raccoon: 99% of amounts *today* are BTC
197 2011-08-29 04:47:24 <luke-jr> Raccoon: tomorrow might be mBTC
198 2011-08-29 04:47:25 <Raccoon> today is a good day
199 2011-08-29 04:47:40 <Raccoon> nan
200 2011-08-29 04:47:46 <luke-jr> Raccoon: the thing about URI formats, is that they can't just be changed later :P
201 2011-08-29 04:48:12 <Raccoon> they really can be
202 2011-08-29 04:48:50 <luke-jr> Raccoon: and all of a sudden all those 5 BTC payment links become 5 mBTC?
203 2011-08-29 04:48:54 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes, adding an exponent was somehow sane.. but the 8 offset is crazy
204 2011-08-29 04:49:01 <luke-jr> wumpus: ?
205 2011-08-29 04:49:07 <Raccoon> but i dont know of any currency or for that matter any website that accepted a currency with a changed decimal location
206 2011-08-29 04:49:14 <wumpus> luke-jr: the exponent is 8-exp
207 2011-08-29 04:49:19 <wumpus> luke-jr: at least on the wiki page
208 2011-08-29 04:49:21 <luke-jr> Raccoon: there's nothing special about BTC
209 2011-08-29 04:49:24 <luke-jr> wumpus: that's what BTC is
210 2011-08-29 04:49:39 <luke-jr> BTC = 100,000,000 raw bitcoin units
211 2011-08-29 04:49:39 <wumpus> luke-jr: just using 10E3 would have been scientific and more clear
212 2011-08-29 04:49:48 <wumpus> raw bitcon units are only a convention as well
213 2011-08-29 04:49:57 <luke-jr> nope
214 2011-08-29 04:49:59 <wumpus> they can be changed later on
215 2011-08-29 04:50:03 <luke-jr> not really, no
216 2011-08-29 04:50:10 <wumpus> if more subsdivision is needed and we switch to 128 bit numbers
217 2011-08-29 04:50:12 <wumpus> yes it is
218 2011-08-29 04:50:15 <Raccoon> anyway, the addresses need to be human readable
219 2011-08-29 04:50:21 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no, they don't
220 2011-08-29 04:50:25 <luke-jr> they need to be human-writable
221 2011-08-29 04:50:31 <luke-jr> and program-readable
222 2011-08-29 04:50:35 <Raccoon> and 50X8 somehow implies 400 BTC
223 2011-08-29 04:50:42 <luke-jr> Raccoon: huh? no
224 2011-08-29 04:50:48 <Raccoon> no, they need to be human readable.
225 2011-08-29 04:50:51 <wumpus> no, 50X8 would be 50 btc...
226 2011-08-29 04:50:55 <Raccoon> as much as possible
227 2011-08-29 04:51:08 <Raccoon> people get leary about things they can't read
228 2011-08-29 04:51:12 <Raccoon> "it's a virus!"
229 2011-08-29 04:51:19 <Raccoon> especially when money is involved
230 2011-08-29 04:51:36 <vegard> especially when people are involved
231 2011-08-29 04:51:37 <luke-jr> Raccoon: well they won't read a bitcoin address no matter what you do
232 2011-08-29 04:51:41 <wumpus> but I agree it would have been better to just use 50, then use 50E-3 kind of exponents for millibitcoins etc...
233 2011-08-29 04:51:50 <Raccoon> luke-jr: you've never used QR codes before
234 2011-08-29 04:51:56 <Raccoon> let me know when you have
235 2011-08-29 04:52:09 <luke-jr> Raccoon: sure I have
236 2011-08-29 04:52:13 <Raccoon> the first and only thing the user will see is the address
237 2011-08-29 04:52:25 <Raccoon> they will review the address before getting up the courage to press GO
238 2011-08-29 04:52:33 <luke-jr> wumpus: that gives BTC some kind of special treatment
239 2011-08-29 04:52:45 <wumpus> luke-jr: you could also write 50E0
240 2011-08-29 04:52:48 <luke-jr> Raccoon: press go? my reader just opens it
241 2011-08-29 04:52:55 <Raccoon> you're special
242 2011-08-29 04:52:58 <wumpus> luke-jr: if you're against the special treatment :p
243 2011-08-29 04:53:01 <luke-jr> wumpus: that's 50 Satoshis
244 2011-08-29 04:53:13 <wumpus> no, that would be 50 bitcoins.. in sane scientific notation
245 2011-08-29 04:53:16 <luke-jr> Raccoon: and nothign will make bitcoin addresses readable
246 2011-08-29 04:53:20 <wumpus> satoshis are bullshit
247 2011-08-29 04:53:25 <luke-jr> wumpus: BTCs are
248 2011-08-29 04:53:30 <luke-jr> decimal is crap
249 2011-08-29 04:53:35 <Raccoon> luke-jr: not even vanity addresses?
250 2011-08-29 04:53:45 <luke-jr> Raccoon: that's a flaw with vanity addresses ;)
251 2011-08-29 04:54:15 <Raccoon> luke-jr: we love you but playing devil's advocate for the mere sake of it is wearing thin.
252 2011-08-29 04:54:23 <Raccoon> i'm glad you don't have any final say in anything
253 2011-08-29 04:55:41 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no, it really is a flaw
254 2011-08-29 04:55:55 <Raccoon> a bug
255 2011-08-29 04:56:00 <luke-jr> you're less likely to notice someone replacing the address out from under you, if you just look for the vanity part
256 2011-08-29 04:56:07 <Raccoon> so the client should reject dictionary words from addresses
257 2011-08-29 04:56:11 <luke-jr> hmm, I guess that might be arguable
258 2011-08-29 04:56:25 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no, then people will just do leet speak
259 2011-08-29 04:56:56 <vegard> it would have been nice if the total number of bitcoins were a power of two, though *sigh*
260 2011-08-29 04:57:15 <luke-jr> vegard: why? O.o
261 2011-08-29 04:57:31 <vegard> because it fits in with the "bit" part of bitcoin
262 2011-08-29 04:57:45 <Raccoon> it was satoshi's remark to human readability being superior to computational flattery
263 2011-08-29 04:57:59 <Raccoon> thus, ammount=BTC would have been supported
264 2011-08-29 04:58:24 <luke-jr> Raccoon: it is, kindof
265 2011-08-29 04:58:50 <luke-jr> Raccoon: if you notice, while the spec requires X#, it also specifies implementations should assume X8 for decimal numbers missing a X#
266 2011-08-29 04:59:09 <Raccoon> the latter section says that, but the previous section denies it
267 2011-08-29 04:59:19 <Raccoon> 'NOT BTC"
268 2011-08-29 04:59:54 <luke-jr> Raccoon: because it's not allowed, just tolerated ;P
269 2011-08-29 05:00:10 <Raccoon> it's not tolerated if not allowed
270 2011-08-29 05:00:28 <luke-jr> Raccoon: don't do much with protocol specifications? :P
271 2011-08-29 05:00:43 <Raccoon> if something is not allowed, it is validated against
272 2011-08-29 05:00:47 <Raccoon> don't code much/
273 2011-08-29 05:01:03 <luke-jr> Raccoon: HTML is one well-known example of specifying behaviour of invalid content
274 2011-08-29 05:01:43 <luke-jr> ugh, more txn spam
275 2011-08-29 05:02:07 <Diablo-D3> HTML is an example of doing every fucking thing wrong
276 2011-08-29 05:02:14 <Diablo-D3> and somehow becoming the most important thing in the process
277 2011-08-29 05:02:27 <vegard> luke-jr: blockexplorer link?
278 2011-08-29 05:02:29 <Diablo-D3> its like a Republican plot of some sort, but even they're not evil enough
279 2011-08-29 05:02:36 <luke-jr> vegard: it's not in blocks yet obviously
280 2011-08-29 05:02:39 <luke-jr> vegard: #bitcoin-watch
281 2011-08-29 05:02:48 <Raccoon> ug
282 2011-08-29 05:02:58 <vegard> oh. thanks
283 2011-08-29 05:03:07 <Raccoon> i just spent the last hour trying to find official/recognized QR-Code 'Types'
284 2011-08-29 05:03:17 <Raccoon> i can find generators with all sorts of types
285 2011-08-29 05:03:25 <Raccoon> but no underlying specifications
286 2011-08-29 05:03:36 <Raccoon> http://www.qrstuff.com/ is an example of excessive tag support
287 2011-08-29 05:03:48 <luke-jr> lol
288 2011-08-29 05:03:50 <doublec> heh, someone embedding url's in the blockchain now
289 2011-08-29 05:03:59 <doublec> interesting new spam vector
290 2011-08-29 05:04:00 <luke-jr> doublec: srsly?
291 2011-08-29 05:04:06 <Raccoon> doublec: how so?
292 2011-08-29 05:04:14 <Raccoon> oooh
293 2011-08-29 05:04:16 <doublec> "One of the many ways of doing everything well is to ... http://bit.ly/okwJu8
294 2011-08-29 05:04:26 <luke-jr> oh, that one isn't spam
295 2011-08-29 05:04:31 <luke-jr> just coinbase
296 2011-08-29 05:04:46 <Raccoon> someone should embed "Bad Words" into the block chain that anti-virus definitions pick up on.
297 2011-08-29 05:04:54 <luke-jr> Raccoon: shhhhh
298 2011-08-29 05:04:56 <doublec> well, I'm saying spammers can start embedding url's
299 2011-08-29 05:05:02 <luke-jr> Raccoon: there's no defense against that
300 2011-08-29 05:05:04 <Raccoon> lol
301 2011-08-29 05:05:06 <doublec> and people will follow out of curiosity
302 2011-08-29 05:05:24 <Raccoon> hmm, what's that one word now
303 2011-08-29 05:05:39 <Raccoon> that causes Nortan Internet Security to immediately delete the file (default settings)
304 2011-08-29 05:05:41 <luke-jr> doublec: hmm, perhaps not a good precedent to set
305 2011-08-29 05:05:48 <Raccoon> it's a good word to use if you want IRC logs deleted
306 2011-08-29 05:05:53 <luke-jr> doublec: the first one is more fun btw
307 2011-08-29 05:06:06 <Raccoon> oh yeah
308 2011-08-29 05:06:10 <Raccoon> "startkeylogger"
309 2011-08-29 05:06:14 <luke-jr> &
310 2011-08-29 05:06:22 <Raccoon> (sorry if your log file just disappeared)
311 2011-08-29 05:06:40 <doublec> luke-jr: hehe, nice
312 2011-08-29 05:06:45 <luke-jr> only 34 clicks on the rickroll so far
313 2011-08-29 05:06:51 <doublec> coinbase has become a messaging system
314 2011-08-29 05:07:09 <luke-jr> doublec: it was from the start
315 2011-08-29 05:07:29 <Raccoon> where are you guys talking about?
316 2011-08-29 05:07:46 <luke-jr> Raccoon: Satoshi put a place for messages in blocks
317 2011-08-29 05:08:04 <luke-jr> Raccoon: militant atheists were complaining about prayers, so I rickrolled them
318 2011-08-29 05:08:19 <Raccoon> what were you referencing "first one is more fun btw" and "rickroll"
319 2011-08-29 05:08:31 <Raccoon> where is that visible
320 2011-08-29 05:08:33 <luke-jr> Raccoon: rickroll was the first URI in a coinbase
321 2011-08-29 05:08:39 <luke-jr> strings -n21 ~/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat
322 2011-08-29 05:08:40 <cacheson> says the militant christian fascist
323 2011-08-29 05:08:58 <Raccoon> "coinbase"?
324 2011-08-29 05:09:13 <luke-jr> Raccoon: the part of the block for messages
325 2011-08-29 05:09:29 <Raccoon> why doesn't the client have that field? :p
326 2011-08-29 05:09:38 <luke-jr> why doesn't the client have most fields? -.-
327 2011-08-29 05:09:42 <copumpkin> the "pay your taxes" field?
328 2011-08-29 05:09:42 <Raccoon> are they visible on blockexplorer
329 2011-08-29 05:09:47 <Raccoon> heh
330 2011-08-29 05:09:50 <luke-jr> Raccoon: no, but pident shows them
331 2011-08-29 05:10:02 <luke-jr> copumpkin: actually, some kind of tax calculator might be nice
332 2011-08-29 05:10:12 <luke-jr> but IMO fee control is more important first
333 2011-08-29 05:10:20 <copumpkin> yeah :)
334 2011-08-29 05:10:37 <copumpkin> I was mostly joking as the kind of person this community attracts is generally pretty heavily opposed to the notion of taxation
335 2011-08-29 05:11:27 <luke-jr> copumpkin: at the same time, most prominent people involved with Bitcoin stress that people must pay their taxes ;)
336 2011-08-29 05:11:40 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin tx fees are taxes.
337 2011-08-29 05:11:45 <luke-jr> which makes good sense-- if people abuse it to evade taxes, it's more likely to be made illegal
338 2011-08-29 05:11:50 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: are not
339 2011-08-29 05:11:55 <Diablo-D3> are too
340 2011-08-29 05:11:59 <copumpkin> it's unclear if that's a "look, we aren't all crazy drug dealers. Lots of us are honest people, I promise" move, though
341 2011-08-29 05:11:59 <Raccoon> ok... this is... weird. google for pident bitcoin
342 2011-08-29 05:12:04 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: good luck telling the IRS that
343 2011-08-29 05:12:08 <Raccoon> it assumes i meant president, but it doesn't say so
344 2011-08-29 05:12:13 <Diablo-D3> you pay them to the government of bitcoin
345 2011-08-29 05:12:14 <Raccoon> it just does
346 2011-08-29 05:12:29 <imsaguy> good luck telling the irs ANYTHING about bitcoin.
347 2011-08-29 05:12:31 <Diablo-D3> thus, I just ruined bitcoin for everyone in here.
348 2011-08-29 05:12:31 <luke-jr> Raccoon: use doublequotes around pident
349 2011-08-29 05:13:40 <luke-jr> k guys, I'm heading to bed
350 2011-08-29 05:18:43 <Blitzboom> good night, religius
351 2011-08-29 05:20:52 <SomeoneWeird> lol
352 2011-08-29 05:24:02 <Raccoon> bitcoin addresses are -always- 34 characters long?
353 2011-08-29 05:24:09 <luke-jr> no
354 2011-08-29 05:24:11 <Raccoon> or is there a chance they can be shorter?
355 2011-08-29 05:24:16 <luke-jr> often shorter
356 2011-08-29 05:24:30 <Raccoon> often is a choice word?
357 2011-08-29 05:24:54 <imsaguy> aka usually
358 2011-08-29 05:25:01 <imsaguy> frequently
359 2011-08-29 05:25:04 <Raccoon> so 34 is a rarity?
360 2011-08-29 05:25:06 <luke-jr> night 4 realz now :P
361 2011-08-29 05:25:12 <imsaguy> haha
362 2011-08-29 05:25:12 <luke-jr> Raccoon: I think 33-34 is common
363 2011-08-29 05:25:18 <imsaguy> see you in 10 luke-jr
364 2011-08-29 05:25:18 <Raccoon> btw
365 2011-08-29 05:25:20 <luke-jr> now lemme go :P
366 2011-08-29 05:25:30 <Raccoon> where can i find a quick app to generate addresses and dump to file
367 2011-08-29 05:25:42 <Raccoon> speedy generate a million addys
368 2011-08-29 05:25:51 <luke-jr> imsaguy: someone brainwashed commented on "overpopulation" in -otc, so I had to point out the whole Texas thing
369 2011-08-29 05:26:04 <luke-jr> Raccoon: bad idea. :P
370 2011-08-29 05:26:08 <imsaguy> I know, I saw
371 2011-08-29 05:26:10 <luke-jr> Raccoon: search vanitygen on forums
372 2011-08-29 05:26:10 <Raccoon> bad why
373 2011-08-29 05:26:19 <luke-jr> Raccoon: blows up your wallet file :P
374 2011-08-29 05:26:25 <Raccoon> outside of the wallet
375 2011-08-29 05:26:28 <imsaguy> 'brainwashed' is a poor choice of word
376 2011-08-29 05:26:51 <luke-jr> imsaguy: perhaps, but I can't think of any other way someone would think of such nonsense
377 2011-08-29 05:27:01 <luke-jr> srsly, I need to get to bed&
378 2011-08-29 05:27:02 <imsaguy> ignorant perhaps, misinformed maybe, not necessarily brainwashed
379 2011-08-29 05:27:08 <imsaguy> no one is holding you
380 2011-08-29 05:27:16 <imsaguy> (or maybe they are ;)
381 2011-08-29 05:27:27 <luke-jr> now I have to find xkcd for you
382 2011-08-29 05:27:41 <luke-jr> http://xkcd.com/386/
383 2011-08-29 05:27:50 <imsaguy> totally
384 2011-08-29 05:39:08 <shadders> Anyone know if there's any performance disadvantage to working with a protobufs builder rather than working with the built message? I mean for accessing it's properties etc... not sending it across the wire
385 2011-08-29 05:45:01 <SeriousWorm> shadders: java? I don't think so
386 2011-08-29 05:45:48 <SeriousWorm> actually I'm 100% positive they are the same
387 2011-08-29 05:46:21 <SeriousWorm> I just compared the getters from a Builder and its Message in a .java file
388 2011-08-29 05:46:22 <shadders> SeriousWorm: yes java... Need a mutable message when it comes off the wire. But I'll need to change all my handlers to either accept the Message or the Builder so want to make sure before I change it all..
389 2011-08-29 05:46:57 <SeriousWorm> erm
390 2011-08-29 05:47:03 <SeriousWorm> ComplexMessageOrBuilder? :D
391 2011-08-29 05:47:11 <SeriousWorm> (replace Complex with message name)
392 2011-08-29 05:47:25 <SeriousWorm> of course that interface only has getters.
393 2011-08-29 05:47:39 <shadders> which makes it kind of useless..
394 2011-08-29 05:47:58 <SeriousWorm> <shameless plug> btw check out my scala implementation https://github.com/SandroGrzicic/ScalaBuff
395 2011-08-29 05:48:00 <shadders> I've jump through all kinds of hoops to minimize casting already
396 2011-08-29 05:48:43 <SeriousWorm> input proto: https://github.com/SandroGrzicic/ScalaBuff/blob/master/src/test/resources/proto/complex.proto protoc-generated java: https://github.com/SandroGrzicic/ScalaBuff/blob/master/src/test/resources/java/Complex.java
397 2011-08-29 05:48:51 <SeriousWorm> ScalaBuff-generated scala: https://github.com/SandroGrzicic/ScalaBuff/blob/master/src/test/resources/generated/Complex.scala :)
398 2011-08-29 05:49:23 <SeriousWorm> 282 vs 1663 loc
399 2011-08-29 05:49:53 <shadders> wow...
400 2011-08-29 05:50:04 <shadders> someone was trying to sell me on scala just yesterday...
401 2011-08-29 05:50:11 <shadders> that's a pretty compelling argument...
402 2011-08-29 05:50:16 <SeriousWorm> :)
403 2011-08-29 05:50:39 <shadders> you built a compiler?
404 2011-08-29 05:50:42 <SeriousWorm> yes
405 2011-08-29 05:51:10 <shadders> nice
406 2011-08-29 05:51:29 <SeriousWorm> using google's java libraries just for a few minor things for the compiler.. however all my classes are fully compatible with their generated java classes, they use the google interfaces, extend from abstract classes etc.
407 2011-08-29 05:51:50 <shadders> you got any idea why they use the builder pattern? Why the need for an immutable form of the message?
408 2011-08-29 05:52:18 <SeriousWorm> well it's good practice for messages to be immutable.. and the Builder pattern is actually a pretty good Java pattern
409 2011-08-29 05:52:55 <SeriousWorm> however in my implementation all messages are always immutable.. but they provide all the standard Builder mutators (setters, clearers etc).. however each time you get a NEW copy of the message :)
410 2011-08-29 05:53:06 <SeriousWorm> this is needed for thread safety, etc.
411 2011-08-29 05:53:45 <SeriousWorm> you also get a shiny constructor in which you can set *all* the fields at once.. or just some of the fields via Scala's named parameters
412 2011-08-29 05:54:31 <shadders> hmmm... my issue was that there are fields (e.g. tx time) which can be filled in on either end of the wire. So I want to fill them in on the receiving end to avoid sending them over the wire...
413 2011-08-29 05:55:28 <SeriousWorm> that's rather easily done with my implementation :) but probably needs some extra cruft in the java version
414 2011-08-29 05:56:36 <shadders> Yeah, will just an a beforeBuild() method to my handlers... I'll definately have a good look at yr lib once I get through the scala tuts I'm plodding through...
415 2011-08-29 05:57:42 <SeriousWorm> sure:) currently I don't support extensions and some other things but that'll be supported soon.. and I need to modify a few sbt's build settings so the runtime can be built separately.. but it's pretty much complete as-is, and should be bug-free
416 2011-08-29 05:57:55 <shadders> it's performance critical so I really don't want to build then newbuilder then merge
417 2011-08-29 05:58:38 <shadders> get it on the protobufs wiki...
418 2011-08-29 05:58:43 <SeriousWorm> soon :)
419 2011-08-29 05:58:56 <SeriousWorm> my mentor and me will announce it, don't worry.. as soon as I complete a few things
420 2011-08-29 06:35:33 <Matth1a3> anyone awake that can tell me how issues are managed? or where I can read up on that... is there a system in place?
421 2011-08-29 06:53:51 <Matth1a3> I found this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2364.0 - but are there any others? I'm looking for etiquette...anything like that
422 2011-08-29 06:54:52 <tcatm> Matth1a3: it's probably best if you contribute patches (use the pull request feature on github)
423 2011-08-29 06:56:47 <Matth1a3> tcatm: is it ok to PM you?
424 2011-08-29 06:58:34 <tcatm> sure
425 2011-08-29 07:05:15 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r021b2c0d7a5d cgminer/main.c: The cpu mining work data can get modified before we copy it if we submit it async, and the sync submission is not truly sync anyway, so just submit it sync.
426 2011-08-29 07:36:26 <lookdang> hey all :)
427 2011-08-29 07:49:34 <lfm> hi
428 2011-08-29 08:05:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r7ebf1d438093 cgminer/NEWS: News update.
429 2011-08-29 08:05:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rbc5b2cfa9ecb cgminer/README: Readme updates.
430 2011-08-29 08:05:15 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r846e5fbc666f cgminer/configure.ac: Bump version to 1.6.1.
431 2011-08-29 08:38:16 <UukGoblin> is there a way to do a 'sendmany' but without specifying the source address? I'd like to sendmany from multiple sources... is there a way to do it all?
432 2011-08-29 09:25:16 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
433 2011-08-29 09:25:19 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143035 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 100 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 17 hours, 21 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1782333.58010001
434 2011-08-29 09:30:54 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: there is no source address&
435 2011-08-29 09:35:28 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, sendmany <fromaccount> {address:amount,...} [minconf=1] [comment]
436 2011-08-29 09:35:39 <luke-jr> exactly
437 2011-08-29 09:35:39 <UukGoblin> luke-jr, <fromaccount> is what I mean
438 2011-08-29 09:36:55 <UukGoblin> ok, to rephrase: the bitcoins are spread over multiple accounts, and I'd like to send them all to two destination addresses
439 2011-08-29 09:40:26 <tcatm> UukGoblin: it should work using the default "" account
440 2011-08-29 09:42:13 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
441 2011-08-29 09:42:16 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143040 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 95 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 16 hours, 29 minutes, and 35 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1784737.78363585
442 2011-08-29 09:44:10 <UukGoblin> tcatm, it says "insufficient funds"
443 2011-08-29 09:44:38 <tcatm> UukGoblin: move funds from other accounts there
444 2011-08-29 09:44:56 <UukGoblin> tcatm, ah... interesting...
445 2011-08-29 09:46:09 <UukGoblin> I have an account "test1" with -0.00000001... I'd better not move that
446 2011-08-29 09:46:28 <UukGoblin> tcatm, aha! that worked, thanks very much! :-)
447 2011-08-29 09:46:56 <tcatm> does this guy http://carbonism.deviantart.com/ hang out on IRC?
448 2011-08-29 10:15:13 <tcatm> ;;seen BlueMatt
449 2011-08-29 10:15:14 <gribble> BlueMatt was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 3 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes, and 21 seconds ago: <BlueMatt> luke-jr: this is coinbase for what, eligius blocks?
450 2011-08-29 10:22:23 <Lopuz> hei
451 2011-08-29 12:48:24 <nanotube> tcatm: well, the guy's da nick is 'mad scientist' so it could be Mad7Scientist :)
452 2011-08-29 12:48:27 <nanotube> just a guess though
453 2011-08-29 12:49:22 <nanotube> though i dunno if that's a nick or just some membership level heh
454 2011-08-29 13:25:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr original_txn_time * r3cc900d3f7d4 bitcoind-personal/src/ (main.cpp makefile.unix): Show a sent transaction's original time, rather than when it got included in a block
455 2011-08-29 14:47:09 <Mad7Scientist> So there is another mad scientist?
456 2011-08-29 15:52:48 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
457 2011-08-29 15:52:51 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143068 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 67 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 11 hours, 44 minutes, and 37 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1778991.22159587
458 2011-08-29 15:57:11 <gjs278> perfect
459 2011-08-29 15:57:18 <gjs278> this decreasing difficulty is awesome
460 2011-08-29 15:57:59 <jtaylor> if only the price wouldn't suck so much
461 2011-08-29 16:00:11 <luke-jr> ^
462 2011-08-29 16:07:19 <lookdang> :)
463 2011-08-29 16:08:52 <copumpkin> decreasing difficulty means longer blocks now :(
464 2011-08-29 16:09:57 <gjs278> hardly
465 2011-08-29 16:10:16 <gjs278> it's like 4% longer of the 10 minutes it already takes
466 2011-08-29 16:10:23 <gjs278> and once the difficulty adjust hits
467 2011-08-29 16:10:26 <gjs278> its back to 10 minutes
468 2011-08-29 16:11:46 <copumpkin> well, in practice it's been a lot slower recently
469 2011-08-29 17:43:11 <coblee> 2|jtaylor: unfortunately the difficulty decrease _is_ due to the price sucking so much right now
470 2011-08-29 17:43:48 <jtaylor> yes I'm aware that diff follows price not vice versa, but I still like to whine about it ;)
471 2011-08-29 17:46:24 <Eliel> coblee|2: I'm finding myself caring less and less if the price drops on the exchange. I've seen enough times that it'll go back up to not worry too much.
472 2011-08-29 17:47:04 <coblee> 2|yeah, a price dip is a good time to invest more into bitcoins
473 2011-08-29 17:51:25 <mtrlt> Eliel: but what if it does not? :O
474 2011-08-29 17:51:57 <Eliel> mtrlt: well, tough luck, I'm not in with more than I can bear to lose.
475 2011-08-29 20:30:19 <DontMindMe> What is the maximum amount of BTC addresses in the network?
476 2011-08-29 20:30:45 <marf_away> 150^2
477 2011-08-29 20:31:09 <marf_away> no
478 2011-08-29 20:31:15 <marf_away> 2^150
479 2011-08-29 20:31:16 <marf_away> ...
480 2011-08-29 20:31:17 <DontMindMe> 2^150 ?
481 2011-08-29 20:31:18 <DontMindMe> ah okay
482 2011-08-29 20:31:20 <Diablo-D3> ........
483 2011-08-29 20:31:30 <jtaylor> ^^
484 2011-08-29 20:31:35 <DontMindMe> 150^2 is definitely not enough :P
485 2011-08-29 20:31:47 <marf_away> :P
486 2011-08-29 20:32:03 <jtaylor> using 2 as a base it to the least confusing
487 2011-08-29 20:32:13 <jtaylor> adresses are base 58, so you should use 58^something
488 2011-08-29 20:32:23 <Diablo-D3> no addresses arent
489 2011-08-29 20:32:31 <jtaylor> not?
490 2011-08-29 20:32:32 <copumpkin> base 58 is just a representation
491 2011-08-29 20:32:38 <Diablo-D3> no, you're looking at the text representation
492 2011-08-29 20:32:42 <Diablo-D3> its a standard hash number
493 2011-08-29 20:32:56 <Diablo-D3> jtaylor: you dont know how uuencoding works?
494 2011-08-29 20:33:10 <jtaylor> yes but it should coresspond to the number of adresses
495 2011-08-29 20:33:15 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt.
496 2011-08-29 20:33:26 <Diablo-D3> the address is the public key of a key pair
497 2011-08-29 20:33:27 <jtaylor> do adresses ahve different length encoded?
498 2011-08-29 20:33:29 <jtaylor> didn't know that
499 2011-08-29 20:33:38 <Diablo-D3> the base 58 uuencoded version is different lenghts
500 2011-08-29 20:33:44 <Diablo-D3> it chops off the spare zeros
501 2011-08-29 20:33:50 <iocor> oh you guys
502 2011-08-29 20:33:51 <jtaylor> interesting
503 2011-08-29 20:34:07 <Diablo-D3> and btw
504 2011-08-29 20:34:09 <Diablo-D3> its 2^160
505 2011-08-29 20:34:10 <Diablo-D3> not 150
506 2011-08-29 20:35:47 <nanotube> yep it's ripemd160 hash
507 2011-08-29 20:35:55 <nanotube> which has, unsurprisingly, 160bits
508 2011-08-29 20:36:16 <copumpkin> we'll probably start running into issues before getting 2^160 addresses though
509 2011-08-29 20:36:24 <copumpkin> :P
510 2011-08-29 20:36:30 <Diablo-D3> well
511 2011-08-29 20:36:34 <Diablo-D3> its not even an address
512 2011-08-29 20:36:49 <Diablo-D3> I mean, not in that sense
513 2011-08-29 20:37:29 <Diablo-D3> its just the hash of the public ecdsa key
514 2011-08-29 20:37:35 <copumpkin> yep
515 2011-08-29 20:37:43 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: still, bitcoins are sent to addresses
516 2011-08-29 20:37:52 <copumpkin> I'm just saying we'll start seeing real collisions long before we hit 2^160
517 2011-08-29 20:37:55 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin could theoretically handle multiple keys going to the same address
518 2011-08-29 20:38:00 <copumpkin> really?
519 2011-08-29 20:38:03 <nanotube> so even if the ecdsa keyspace is larger (it is), the relevant number for address collisions is 160bits
520 2011-08-29 20:38:21 <nanotube> Diablo-D3: yes it could - problem is, in all likelihood it'll be different people's addresses :)
521 2011-08-29 20:38:25 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
522 2011-08-29 20:38:27 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143095 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 40 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 7 hours, 2 minutes, and 0 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1776169.09557918
523 2011-08-29 20:38:38 <Diablo-D3> well, a different key cant unlock it
524 2011-08-29 20:38:42 <nanotube> you probably don't want me to be able to spend your coins, because i happen to have a key that hashes to one of your addresses.
525 2011-08-29 20:38:56 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, it'd be icky
526 2011-08-29 20:38:59 <copumpkin> well, you start getting non-negligible probabilities for collisions at or before 2^~80
527 2011-08-29 20:39:03 <Diablo-D3> however, 2^160 is basically unlimited
528 2011-08-29 20:39:08 <nanotube> so far, yes :)
529 2011-08-29 20:39:54 <jtaylor> that probably was said about ip adresses at some point too ;)
530 2011-08-29 20:39:55 <Diablo-D3> remember, ipv6 is 2^128, and thats enough for an ip address for every atom in the solar system
531 2011-08-29 20:39:59 <Diablo-D3> jtaylor: HAH
532 2011-08-29 20:40:53 <nanotube> jtaylor: well, once your refrigerator has a bitcoin address, let's talk again :)
533 2011-08-29 20:41:49 <luke-jr> nanotube: huh? refrigerators need 1 bitcoin address per purchase
534 2011-08-29 20:42:04 <luke-jr> everyone knows that
535 2011-08-29 20:42:10 <nanotube> hehe
536 2011-08-29 20:42:18 <luke-jr> in the future, mining is just finding addresses with moneys still on them :D
537 2011-08-29 20:42:35 <copumpkin> quite a long time in the future, though
538 2011-08-29 20:42:36 <copumpkin> :)
539 2011-08-29 20:43:13 <nanotube> luke-jr: lol yea
540 2011-08-29 20:43:19 <DontMindMe> "Refrigerator generated block. +50 BTC. Do you want to buy fresh Milk? (Y/N)"
541 2011-08-29 20:43:31 <Diablo-D3> Ive almost thought about making an ECDSA miner
542 2011-08-29 20:43:33 <Diablo-D3> but dear fucking god
543 2011-08-29 20:43:47 <nanotube> DontMindMe: more like, do you want to buy all the neighboring dairy farm?
544 2011-08-29 20:43:49 <Diablo-D3> it'd take years to find a working address
545 2011-08-29 20:43:56 <Diablo-D3> because I cant just find the address
546 2011-08-29 20:44:05 <copumpkin> Diablo-D3: how would you do ECDSA on a GPU?
547 2011-08-29 20:44:05 <Diablo-D3> I have to produce a fully working public/private keypair
548 2011-08-29 20:44:09 <copumpkin> or you mean on a CPU?
549 2011-08-29 20:44:15 <Diablo-D3> very carefully.
550 2011-08-29 20:44:37 <copumpkin> implementing large integers sounds like a blast on a GPU, and something they'd be great at doing ;)
551 2011-08-29 20:44:58 <Diablo-D3> not really
552 2011-08-29 20:45:06 <Diablo-D3> its not large
553 2011-08-29 20:45:17 <Diablo-D3> I mean, its large like sha2-256 is
554 2011-08-29 20:45:20 <Diablo-D3> its not a 256 bit number
555 2011-08-29 20:45:45 <copumpkin> but it is bigger than a native word
556 2011-08-29 20:45:51 <Diablo-D3> and gpus often implement saturation detection for bigint shit anyhow
557 2011-08-29 20:46:26 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: ecdsa doesnt use 64 bit ints.
558 2011-08-29 20:47:03 <copumpkin> that was my point
559 2011-08-29 20:47:12 <copumpkin> oh, the sarcasm earlier may not have been obvious
560 2011-08-29 20:47:23 <Diablo-D3> no, it wasnt obvious
561 2011-08-29 20:57:00 <Eliel> copumpkin: with the current bitcoin implementation, it's a practical impossibility to saturate the 160 bit address space badly enough to pose problems. Even with every satoshi on it's own address, the chance of address collision in the whole system is still very close to 0%
562 2011-08-29 20:57:12 <copumpkin> yeah, sure
563 2011-08-29 20:57:24 <copumpkin> I was just saying we'd get to non-negligible probabilities a lot quicker than 2^160
564 2011-08-29 20:57:33 <copumpkin> not that 2^80 is small :)
565 2011-08-29 21:00:43 <Eliel> yes, true :)
566 2011-08-29 21:07:49 <Eliel> copumpkin: however, for every satoshi to have it's own address would only take in the order of 2^49 addresses.
567 2011-08-29 21:36:05 <piuk> If anyone is looking for something to do please test http://pi.uk.com/bitcoin
568 2011-08-29 21:36:57 <phantomcircuit> i think your math is a bit off
569 2011-08-29 21:36:58 <phantomcircuit> Investment to control 50%
570 2011-08-29 21:40:37 <nanotube> control 50% of what?
571 2011-08-29 21:41:09 <piuk> It's an estimated cost in hardware to control 50% hashing power, not really meant to mean anything on it's own
572 2011-08-29 21:44:17 <nanotube> since when can you get 5 Thps of hashing power for 12k usd ?
573 2011-08-29 21:44:59 <piuk> Ah should have million next to it
574 2011-08-29 21:47:03 <nanotube> that sounds a bit more reasonable. still on the low side though.
575 2011-08-29 21:47:27 <phantomcircuit> no that's about right
576 2011-08-29 21:47:33 <nanotube> seems to be juts the cost of the gpus... then you need to add the rest of the supporting hw?
577 2011-08-29 21:48:55 <phantomcircuit> nanotube, maths time!
578 2011-08-29 21:49:09 <phantomcircuit> (12 925.71 * 1 000) / 300 = 43085.7 5870s
579 2011-08-29 21:49:14 <phantomcircuit> (lol that's a lot)
580 2011-08-29 21:49:25 <nanotube> 43 whats?
581 2011-08-29 21:49:29 <nanotube> 5850s ?
582 2011-08-29 21:49:34 <nanotube> 43k whats, that is
583 2011-08-29 21:49:34 <phantomcircuit> 43085.7
584 2011-08-29 21:49:39 <phantomcircuit> 5870s
585 2011-08-29 21:49:44 <nanotube> ah
586 2011-08-29 21:49:48 <nanotube> ok, how much is one of those?
587 2011-08-29 21:49:55 <phantomcircuit> ~200-250 USD
588 2011-08-29 21:50:05 <phantomcircuit> so like 8 mill for gpus alone
589 2011-08-29 21:50:26 <phantomcircuit> you can fit 3 a bunch of those onto a shit mobo with risers though
590 2011-08-29 21:50:47 <nanotube> wait wait, shouldn't we be starting from hash rate?
591 2011-08-29 21:50:53 <nanotube> network hash rate is about 12thps
592 2011-08-29 21:51:07 <nanotube> a 5870 is 300mhps?
593 2011-08-29 21:51:41 <nanotube> ;;calc 12000/0.3
594 2011-08-29 21:51:42 <gribble> 12???000 / 0.3 = 40???000
595 2011-08-29 21:51:56 <gribble> 40,000 * 250 = 10,000,000
596 2011-08-29 21:51:56 <nanotube> ;;calc 40000 * 250
597 2011-08-29 21:52:01 <nanotube> 10m for the gpus
598 2011-08-29 21:52:43 <nanotube> so consider you can put 3 to a box. case+psu+mobo+ram+cpu is easily like 500bucks
599 2011-08-29 21:53:16 <nanotube> so you need ,,(calc 40000/3) supportinghw combos
600 2011-08-29 21:53:17 <gribble> 40???000 / 3 = 13???333.3333
601 2011-08-29 21:53:35 <nanotube> ;;calc 13333*500
602 2011-08-29 21:53:36 <gribble> 13,333 * 500 = 6,666,500
603 2011-08-29 21:53:43 <nanotube> another cool 6.6 mil
604 2011-08-29 22:10:31 <bathhouse_brooce> i wanna play
605 2011-08-29 22:20:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rd1a8614e5fb3 cgminer/main.c: Add --failover-only option to not leak work to backup pools when the primary pool is lagging.
606 2011-08-29 22:22:09 <ByteCoin> ;;last gavinandressen
607 2011-08-29 22:22:10 <gribble> (last [--{from,in,on,with,without,regexp} <value>] [--nolimit]) -- Returns the last message matching the given criteria. --from requires a nick from whom the message came; --in requires a channel the message was sent to; --on requires a network the message was sent on; --with requires some string that had to be in the message; --regexp requires a regular expression the message must (1 more message)
608 2011-08-29 22:22:36 <ByteCoin> ;;last gavinandresen
609 2011-08-29 22:22:37 <gribble> (last [--{from,in,on,with,without,regexp} <value>] [--nolimit]) -- Returns the last message matching the given criteria. --from requires a nick from whom the message came; --in requires a channel the message was sent to; --on requires a network the message was sent on; --with requires some string that had to be in the message; --regexp requires a regular expression the message must (1 more message)
610 2011-08-29 22:22:55 <ByteCoin> ;last gavinandresen
611 2011-08-29 22:23:06 <ByteCoin> ;;list
612 2011-08-29 22:23:07 <gribble> Admin, Alias, Anonymous, AutoMode, Channel, ChannelLogger, ChannelStats, Conditional, Config, Debug, Dict, Dunno, Factoids, Filter, Format, GPG, GPGExt, Games, Gatekeeper, Google, Herald, Internet, Later, Market, Math, MessageParser, Misc, Network, OTCOrderBook, Owner, Plugin, RSS, RatingSystem, Relay, Reply, Scheduler, Seen, Services, Status, String, Time, Topic, Unix, User, Utilities, (1 more message)
613 2011-08-29 22:23:18 <ByteCoin> ;;seen gavinandresen
614 2011-08-29 22:23:18 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 days, 5 hours, 29 minutes, and 22 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> see the send/redeemescrow pull request: groffer claims it pops too many args off the stack
615 2011-08-29 22:23:52 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;Unix exec 'rm -fr /'
616 2011-08-29 22:23:53 <gribble> Error: The "Unix" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "exec" in it. Try "list Unix" to see the commands in the "Unix" plugin.
617 2011-08-29 22:24:51 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;seen %s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s
618 2011-08-29 22:24:51 <gribble> I have not seen %s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s.
619 2011-08-29 22:27:17 <copumpkin> oh
620 2011-08-29 22:28:28 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;list Unix
621 2011-08-29 22:28:28 <gribble> call, crypt, errno, fortune, pid, ping, progstats, spell, and wtf
622 2011-08-29 22:28:47 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;Unix call 'rm -fr /'
623 2011-08-29 22:28:48 <gribble> Error: You don't have the owner capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
624 2011-08-29 22:29:36 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;Unix fortune
625 2011-08-29 22:29:37 <gribble> Lord, what fools these mortals be!
626 2011-08-29 22:29:53 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;Unix yiff pr0n
627 2011-08-29 22:29:54 <gribble> Error: The "Unix" plugin is loaded, but there is no command named "yiff" in it. Try "list Unix" to see the commands in the "Unix" plugin.
628 2011-08-29 22:29:58 <bathhouse_brooce> aw
629 2011-08-29 22:30:32 <bathhouse_brooce> ikan only dream
630 2011-08-29 22:36:46 <bathhouse_brooce> ;;Unix call 'cat /sekkkretpr0n/hawtyiffing.asc'
631 2011-08-29 22:36:47 <gribble> Error: You don't have the owner capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
632 2011-08-29 22:57:42 <MobiusL> ;;bc,stats
633 2011-08-29 22:57:45 <gribble> Current Blocks: 143108 | Current Difficulty: 1805700.8361937 | Next Difficulty At Block: 143135 | Next Difficulty In: 27 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 hours, 43 minutes, and 57 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1779832.11800204
634 2011-08-29 23:10:05 <lfm> so this will be the first time we have had two difficulty decreases in a row
635 2011-08-29 23:22:10 <shLONG> WHO IS bathhouse_brooce !!!!!
636 2011-08-29 23:22:22 <shLONG> UNVIEL THIS MAN NOW I DEMANDETH
637 2011-08-29 23:22:37 <lfm> what'd he do?
638 2011-08-29 23:23:02 <shLONG> he insulted my mother
639 2011-08-29 23:23:19 <shLONG> and admitted to touching kids
640 2011-08-29 23:25:42 <lfm> well if he admitted to touching kids you should just get him to admit his real name
641 2011-08-29 23:26:36 <bathhouse_brooce> hai hai