1 2011-09-03 00:05:25 <copumpkin> 21:48] <@Osama-BTC-Laden> it wasnt 511
  2 2011-09-03 00:05:29 <copumpkin> phantomcircuit
  3 2011-09-03 00:05:39 <phantomcircuit> he's trolling
  4 2011-09-03 00:05:43 <copumpkin> ah
  5 2011-09-03 00:09:25 <copumpkin> I really hope he gets screwed
  6 2011-09-03 00:11:53 <phantomcircuit> we didn't even have 612 BTC in that wallet
  7 2011-09-03 01:05:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r35ace4632517 cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h main.c miner.h): Enable changing of engine clock setting on the fly.
  8 2011-09-03 01:30:16 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r3681ae84cc43 cgminer/adl.c: Implement changing memory speed and voltage on the fly.
  9 2011-09-03 01:40:23 <CIA-101> bitcoin: aldiyen * r5fc42ec3e40e Phoenix-Miner-personal/ (4 files in 2 dirs):
 10 2011-09-03 01:40:24 <CIA-101> bitcoin: rejected, only drop current work; don't report idle if we just abandoned current
 11 2011-09-03 01:40:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: that?); other minor code cleanup/simplification
 12 2011-09-03 02:31:16 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/newcc.png
 13 2011-09-03 02:31:37 <forrestv> can one of the devs review https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/476 , please? it's much more useful now - it's essentially a complete alternative to the getwork call for clients that are intelligent
 14 2011-09-03 02:32:03 <forrestv> ones that compute their own generation transaction, that is..
 15 2011-09-03 02:33:11 <luke-jr> forrestv: does it support LP?
 16 2011-09-03 02:33:29 <forrestv> luke-jr, no ... and that's an excellent point
 17 2011-09-03 02:34:02 <luke-jr> forrestv: how about submitting the finished block?
 18 2011-09-03 02:34:06 <forrestv> luke-jr, it can do that
 19 2011-09-03 02:34:29 <luke-jr> k, I think that's all that pops into my mind for potential issues :P
 20 2011-09-03 02:34:34 <forrestv> it seems like it'd be hard to implement the current LP spec into bitcoind
 21 2011-09-03 02:34:43 <forrestv> s/into/in/
 22 2011-09-03 02:35:05 <forrestv> wasn't there some patch for pushpool that used a signal or a fd or something?
 23 2011-09-03 02:36:04 <luke-jr> yes
 24 2011-09-03 02:36:27 <luke-jr> forrestv: I agree, LP probably depends on threaded RPC (which I have a branch for)
 25 2011-09-03 02:40:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r07b847f7e7b0 cgminer/adl.c: Implement fan speed setting.
 26 2011-09-03 02:42:46 <apoelstra> ;;ticker
 27 2011-09-03 02:42:46 <gribble> Best bid: 8.543, Best ask: 8.61964, Bid-ask spread: 0.07664, Last trade: 8.544, 24 hour volume: 15354, 24 hour low: 8.23, 24 hour high: 8.7138
 28 2011-09-03 02:48:44 <luke-jr> ThomasV: LOL, you are such a troll :D
 29 2011-09-03 02:48:52 <ThomasV> why ?
 30 2011-09-03 02:48:58 <luke-jr> XD
 31 2011-09-03 02:50:18 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * rbf2669b83a67 cgminer/adl.c: Minor corrections to set fan speed by percentage.
 32 2011-09-03 02:57:01 <Matth1a3> can someone recommend a label that covers documentation and messages (like echos) - maybe "Text"?
 33 2011-09-03 02:58:48 <ThomasV> luke-jr: I was banned
 34 2011-09-03 02:59:07 <luke-jr> ThomasV: oh well, it was LOL while it lasted
 35 2011-09-03 02:59:31 <ThomasV> I should perhaps publish the log
 36 2011-09-03 02:59:43 <ThomasV> bah, not important
 37 2011-09-03 03:00:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r320a5f2a9290 cgminer/adl.c: Make sure to read off the value in RPM only.
 38 2011-09-03 03:13:58 <luke-jr> ThomasV: I got banned too
 39 2011-09-03 03:14:02 <luke-jr> I wasn't even talking
 40 2011-09-03 03:14:13 <ThomasV> oh
 41 2011-09-03 03:14:31 <ThomasV> what did they say ?
 42 2011-09-03 03:14:53 <luke-jr> nothing
 43 2011-09-03 03:15:04 <SomeoneWeird> lol
 44 2011-09-03 03:15:11 <ThomasV> :-)
 45 2011-09-03 03:15:15 <luke-jr> [01:08:11] --> Hans_ has joined this channel (cee18428@gateway/web/freenode/ip.206.225.132.40).
 46 2011-09-03 03:15:16 <luke-jr> [01:13:37] *** RealSolid sets mode: +o luke-jr
 47 2011-09-03 03:15:18 <luke-jr> [01:13:43] *** RealSolid sets mode: +b *!*@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49
 48 2011-09-03 03:15:19 <luke-jr> [01:13:46] *** You have been kicked from channel #solidcoin by RealSolid (luke-jr).
 49 2011-09-03 03:16:01 <Diablo-D3> lol
 50 2011-09-03 03:16:39 <SomeoneWeird> lolwut
 51 2011-09-03 03:17:22 <lfm> I take it RealSolid is somewhat defensive about solidcoin
 52 2011-09-03 03:17:46 <luke-jr> lfm: he's slandering me, saying I'm attacking it
 53 2011-09-03 03:17:53 <SomeoneWeird> somewhat is an understatement
 54 2011-09-03 03:18:07 <ThomasV> lfm: I was banned from the channel because I wanted to short sell
 55 2011-09-03 03:18:54 <nanotube> <lfm> I take it RealSolid is somewhat defensive about solidcoin <- seems like he's not very solid eh :)
 56 2011-09-03 03:18:57 <lfm> lol, when he was here I guess he would have liked to have banned me too then!
 57 2011-09-03 03:19:16 <nanotube> i'm guessing he's feeling the pinch of the dropping sc prices. :)
 58 2011-09-03 03:19:27 <luke-jr> nanotube: http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/newcc.png
 59 2011-09-03 03:20:11 <nanotube> luke-jr: interesting concept. how about a picture with some double-spends in the mesh?
 60 2011-09-03 03:20:44 <SomeoneWeird> how would that work luke-jr ?
 61 2011-09-03 03:20:56 <nanotube> luke-jr: also, what if a 'good tx' builds on a tx that ends up being the losing half of a double-spend (however losing is determined)
 62 2011-09-03 03:20:58 <luke-jr> nanotube: good question
 63 2011-09-03 03:20:58 <ThomasV> anyway, if someone wants so lend me some solidcoins, please pm me. I know it's not the right channel, but I was banned from it :-)
 64 2011-09-03 03:21:04 <nanotube> does that mean that the good tx has to be re-created?
 65 2011-09-03 03:21:06 <lfm> SomeoneWeird: the question is "would that work?"
 66 2011-09-03 03:21:09 <nanotube> in order to be valid?
 67 2011-09-03 03:21:17 <SomeoneWeird> ...
 68 2011-09-03 03:22:46 <luke-jr> nanotube: perhaps the txns can "depend" on the ones preceding in a soft way?
 69 2011-09-03 03:22:48 <lfm> ThomasV: shorting solidcoin is attacking it you know?
 70 2011-09-03 03:23:16 <ThomasV> lfm: yes but I take a risk
 71 2011-09-03 03:24:03 <luke-jr> also, in case you missed it, you're only experienced if you're a Windows user, according to RealSolid
 72 2011-09-03 03:24:26 <copumpkin> damn
 73 2011-09-03 03:24:33 <lfm> oh I thought Jimmy Hedrix defined that term
 74 2011-09-03 03:24:40 <lfm> Hendrix
 75 2011-09-03 03:24:42 <luke-jr> therefore, all Bitcoin developers are inexperienced
 76 2011-09-03 03:24:45 <luke-jr> because we don't use Windows
 77 2011-09-03 03:24:49 <luke-jr> (again, RealSolid)
 78 2011-09-03 03:25:43 <ThomasV> luke-jr: actually he might have a point here. windows users are important, at least financially
 79 2011-09-03 03:26:10 <ThomasV> they should not be neglected
 80 2011-09-03 03:26:15 <lfm> I spoze it does take a lot more dedication to stick with windows.
 81 2011-09-03 03:26:18 <luke-jr> ThomasV: depends on what side of the industry you're on
 82 2011-09-03 03:26:32 <luke-jr> ThomasV: plus, you can develop stuff for Windows without ever touching it yourself
 83 2011-09-03 03:26:55 <ThomasV> testing is crucial
 84 2011-09-03 03:27:15 <nanotube> luke-jr: yea, it seems it'd introduce a lot of complexity and abmiguity into deciding which tx are valid... but on the plus side, it semes that it avoids mining :)
 85 2011-09-03 03:27:19 <luke-jr> ThomasV: I can test on *nix
 86 2011-09-03 03:27:26 <nanotube> though a node might need a bunch of gpu power just to verify the tx mesh haha
 87 2011-09-03 03:27:41 <luke-jr> nanotube: well, mining might still be needed to generate new coins
 88 2011-09-03 03:27:47 <luke-jr> nanotube: that's just a separate process now
 89 2011-09-03 03:40:14 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r495adcbf5f3d cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h main.c miner.h): Implement auto fanspeed adjustment to maintain a target temperature and fanspeed below 85%, with an overheat check that will speed the fan up to 100%.
 90 2011-09-03 03:42:14 <ThomasV> hmmm, solidcoin is forking its blockchain
 91 2011-09-03 03:42:36 <ThomasV> https://scexchange.bitparking.com/main
 92 2011-09-03 03:42:41 <ThomasV> (the text in red)
 93 2011-09-03 03:50:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * rdcc97e45db28 cgminer/ (adl.c main.c miner.h): Add an --auto-fan command line option to allow all GPUs to have autofan enabled from startup.
 94 2011-09-03 03:51:54 <cjdelisle> "1.03 is out, everyone needs to hop on it to stop the spammers increasing the chain size unnecessarily.
 95 2011-09-03 03:52:52 <cjdelisle> sounds like the fee was fixed nomatter how big the tx was
 96 2011-09-03 03:53:39 <forrestv> hehe ... "consistent transaction fees, yay!"
 97 2011-09-03 03:53:50 <ThomasV> yes that is one of the features of sc
 98 2011-09-03 03:54:36 <nanotube> just wait for it. soon enough "block chain is forking to increase target block time to 10 minutes"
 99 2011-09-03 03:54:48 <nanotube> hehe
100 2011-09-03 03:55:19 <ThomasV> lol
101 2011-09-03 03:55:28 <nanotube> "client version 1.06 replaces all occurrences of 'solidcoin' with 'bitcoin' because it's a catchier name"
102 2011-09-03 03:55:52 <SomeoneWeird> lol
103 2011-09-03 03:56:11 <ThomasV> nanotube: oh but it will be based on the previous sc blockchain, to be fair with our miners
104 2011-09-03 03:56:34 <nanotube> "client version 1.09 is an exact replica of bitcoin, just with a different genesis block and address scheme"
105 2011-09-03 03:56:35 <nanotube> heh
106 2011-09-03 03:57:07 <cjdelisle> more likely: forking because attacking the 400% difficulty drop turns out to be too easy
107 2011-09-03 03:58:46 <ThomasV> MagicalTux: the maps extension is great, but it has a small bug
108 2011-09-03 03:59:27 <ThomasV> I sometimes need to re-parse the page in order to display all the tags
109 2011-09-03 04:01:12 <ThomasV> cjdelisle: would it pay off at currrent prices ?
110 2011-09-03 04:01:35 <cjdelisle> idk
111 2011-09-03 04:02:02 <cjdelisle> you would need >50% of the mining power but it would make for a huge payday
112 2011-09-03 04:02:22 <ThomasV> huge in solidcoins
113 2011-09-03 04:02:31 <ThomasV> or in btc ?
114 2011-09-03 04:02:52 <cjdelisle> I tend to think that it would still be profitable in btc
115 2011-09-03 04:03:41 <ThomasV> you would need to sell them quick, before everyone realizes that it is fucked
116 2011-09-03 04:04:41 <cjdelisle> but you'd have to test it on some solidcoind binaries and see just how they react, you could nuter their check work function so that you don't actually have to crunch the numbers, just feed them imaginary hashes with more and more 0s at the beginning
117 2011-09-03 04:05:11 <ThomasV> huh?
118 2011-09-03 04:05:26 <cjdelisle> method of testing the hypothesis
119 2011-09-03 04:05:34 <ThomasV> oh ok
120 2011-09-03 04:05:46 <nanotube> cjdelisle: well, bitcoin also has a /4 max difficulty reduction.
121 2011-09-03 04:06:17 <ThomasV> I guess it does not have to be profitable in order to be attractive. vladimir might do it for free :-)
122 2011-09-03 04:06:25 <cjdelisle> yea but good luck getting >50% of the btc hashing power
123 2011-09-03 04:06:45 <nanotube> unless they ripped out ,,(bc,wiki block timestamp) checks, it shouldn't be possible to trivially mod timestamps
124 2011-09-03 04:06:46 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp | Jan 13, 2011 ... Each block contains a Unix time timestamp. In addition to serving as a source of variation for the block hash, there are also validity checks, that ...
125 2011-09-03 04:07:02 <nanotube> well, of course if you have >50%, you can do many things :) not just play with timestamps
126 2011-09-03 04:07:23 <cjdelisle> if it works then start a pool since everytime the difficulty goes down, everyone gets a payday so every miner would love the idea of gaming the difficulty.
127 2011-09-03 04:07:50 <cjdelisle> It depends on the asymmetrical difficulty algo though
128 2011-09-03 04:10:23 <ThomasV> really, miners should not join pools that have more than 10%
129 2011-09-03 04:11:19 <lfm> even 1% would mean youd find a block most days
130 2011-09-03 04:11:40 <ThomasV> yes
131 2011-09-03 04:12:32 <lfm> and if getting paid almost every day isnt enuf for you you are in sad shape
132 2011-09-03 04:12:42 <cjdelisle> the manifestation of pools is due to a flaw in the btc design
133 2011-09-03 04:13:07 <nanotube> you mean, due to a flaw in the design of the average human mind. :)
134 2011-09-03 04:13:08 <lfm> huh?
135 2011-09-03 04:13:16 <nanotube> which is too intolerant of variance
136 2011-09-03 04:13:38 <cjdelisle> Blaming the user is generally not very effective
137 2011-09-03 04:13:52 <nanotube> but /very/ satisfying.
138 2011-09-03 04:13:57 <cjdelisle> heh
139 2011-09-03 04:14:07 <lfm> cjdelisle: human nature isnt really blaming the user
140 2011-09-03 04:14:24 <ThomasV> we are all intolerant to variance. we call it risk
141 2011-09-03 04:14:30 <nanotube> cjdelisle: anyway, all the pebkac-ing aside... how would you design it?
142 2011-09-03 04:14:55 <cjdelisle> p2pool has the right idea but it has scaling issues.
143 2011-09-03 04:16:04 <nanotube> the 'scaling issues' only come up if p2pool grows to be some really significant fraction of network. in which case it can always bud into separate pools.
144 2011-09-03 04:16:31 <cjdelisle> I thought of the right design when I was going to bed last night. Nodes are ordered in a dht type structure (nodes are connected to other nodes whose randomly chosen ids are closest) and when they hash a block, it is broadcast out a distance which is a function of the amount of work in that block.
145 2011-09-03 04:17:16 <lfm> and humans who were not subject to gambler's falacies would be quite different from "regular" humans. think what a different society we would have without gambling
146 2011-09-03 04:17:21 <cjdelisle> every node builds on the block it knows of which is the highest amount of work
147 2011-09-03 04:18:35 <cjdelisle> a block in the "micro-chain" will be rejected if it does not contain all of the transactions from the block before it (thus people doing transactions get near immediet "partial confirmation")
148 2011-09-03 04:19:56 <cjdelisle> by definition, a block which has a low enough hash to become the next btc block will be broadcast out across the entire dht.
149 2011-09-03 04:20:26 <lfm> cjdelisle: it sounds like you're making many many little forks
150 2011-09-03 04:20:33 <cjdelisle> yup
151 2011-09-03 04:20:50 <cjdelisle> it's the only way to keep network traffic down
152 2011-09-03 04:22:15 <lfm> so each block would come at regular fixed intervals and whoever had the "best" proof of work block for that interval "wins"?
153 2011-09-03 04:23:15 <lfm> by best I mean the most leading zeros or the "smallest" hash
154 2011-09-03 04:23:25 <cjdelisle> yes
155 2011-09-03 04:23:41 <cjdelisle> it's up to the miner how much he wants to mine before broadcasting but if he broadcasts a block with very little work then it won't be repeated very far.
156 2011-09-03 04:23:45 <nanotube> also, how would that help with the variance? would every miniblock have a bounty?
157 2011-09-03 04:24:07 <nanotube> and would there be any disincentive from broadcasting everything you see?
158 2011-09-03 04:24:13 <nanotube> i mean, everything you hash?
159 2011-09-03 04:24:53 <cjdelisle> yea every miniblock from the last bitcoin block till now would have an accompanying payout in the coinbase transaction
160 2011-09-03 04:25:26 <cjdelisle> you could broadcast everything you hash but the disincentive is that 99% of it would be dropped at your nearest neighbor.
161 2011-09-03 04:25:54 <lfm> shares proportional to the best proof of work size you found for that interval?
162 2011-09-03 04:26:36 <cjdelisle> actually all of the proofs of work which made it into the winning micro-chain
163 2011-09-03 04:27:03 <cjdelisle> if you mine 10 blocks in the winning chain then you are paid off 10 times.
164 2011-09-03 04:27:33 <lfm> huh? you are paid per block now!
165 2011-09-03 04:27:35 <luke-jr> [02:25:27] <cjdelisle> you could broadcast everything you hash but the disincentive is that 99% of it would be dropped at your nearest neighbor.
166 2011-09-03 04:27:39 <luke-jr> that's not a disincentive
167 2011-09-03 04:28:28 <cjdelisle> Well most of the time, it's enough to keep people from sending garbage to webservers.
168 2011-09-03 04:28:57 <cjdelisle> But I'm not fixing the problem of DoS today, it's enough that it is pretty ineffective.
169 2011-09-03 04:32:28 <cjdelisle> When a node hears about a block, it can either mine on top of it or it can mine a competing block. Mining a competitor would be more profitable but mining on top is more likely to make the chain win. That's a function which every miner will be able to tweak in order to maximize profits.
170 2011-09-03 04:33:42 <lfm> cjdelisle: you have those options now. and it is always better to mine a new block
171 2011-09-03 04:34:15 <cjdelisle> paid per block but not every block makes it into the winning chain so only the "fittest" blocks are likely to be paid.
172 2011-09-03 04:34:58 <lfm> ya but how is it different from what we already have
173 2011-09-03 04:35:34 <cjdelisle> already have meaning like deepbit and whatnot?
174 2011-09-03 04:35:51 <lfm> no just the block chain, like soloing
175 2011-09-03 04:36:14 <cjdelisle> for some reason people don't like solo mining, you'd have to ask them why
176 2011-09-03 04:36:34 <lfm> but what you're describing sounds like soloing actually
177 2011-09-03 04:37:44 <cjdelisle> if the average microchain has 600 blocks then you are 600 times as likely to get a block in to it as plain solo.
178 2011-09-03 04:39:24 <lfm> so can one miner get multiple miniblocks?
179 2011-09-03 04:39:29 <Matth1a3> jgarzik: ok to PM you?
180 2011-09-03 04:39:35 <cjdelisle> yes
181 2011-09-03 04:39:55 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: I'm kinda going to sleep now, but you seem to be describing p2pool
182 2011-09-03 04:40:13 <cjdelisle> yes, p2pool without netowrk contension
183 2011-09-03 04:40:29 <luke-jr> also, note that it's not entirely true that Bitcoin was designed for solo mining
184 2011-09-03 04:40:48 <luke-jr> pretty sure the original plans assumed relatively few miners, just enough to keep it secure
185 2011-09-03 04:41:06 <luke-jr> since there was talk about cutting deals with "big miners" for bulk transactions etc
186 2011-09-03 04:41:11 <luke-jr> and that's really only possible with pools now
187 2011-09-03 04:41:15 <lfm> ya, Im nor sure if Satoshi forsaw pools or not
188 2011-09-03 04:41:32 <luke-jr> pools are just "big miners" in this case
189 2011-09-03 04:41:40 <luke-jr> admittedly, Deepbit is too big
190 2011-09-03 04:41:44 <lfm> He maybe assumed they would not be popular due to the overhead
191 2011-09-03 04:42:08 <luke-jr> but you can't have private deals with "big miners" if there's so many miners that they're all small
192 2011-09-03 04:42:09 <luke-jr> ;)
193 2011-09-03 04:42:38 <apoelstra> ;;ticker
194 2011-09-03 04:42:39 <gribble> Best bid: 8.5, Best ask: 8.594, Bid-ask spread: 0.094, Last trade: 8.5, 24 hour volume: 15067, 24 hour low: 8.25, 24 hour high: 8.7138
195 2011-09-03 04:42:51 <luke-jr> and for another example, I plan to have Eligius accept proof-of-work in lieu of txn fees
196 2011-09-03 04:43:09 <cjdelisle> since the chains in my design would naturally converge, there isn'y the normal limit from network contension, multiple blocks per second is a possibility.
197 2011-09-03 04:43:09 <lfm> huh?
198 2011-09-03 04:43:14 <luke-jr> ok, that's not really an example relevant here, nm
199 2011-09-03 04:43:23 <cjdelisle> interesting idea though
200 2011-09-03 04:43:57 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: are you describing the png I posted earlier?
201 2011-09-03 04:43:59 <luke-jr> :p
202 2011-09-03 04:44:07 <cjdelisle> link?
203 2011-09-03 04:44:14 <luke-jr> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/newcc.png
204 2011-09-03 04:44:40 <luke-jr> srsly, going to bed now tho :P
205 2011-09-03 04:44:45 <cjdelisle> gnight
206 2011-09-03 04:44:46 <lfm> k bye
207 2011-09-03 04:45:32 <cjdelisle> I was confusing myself when I said "mines on top of the block with most work" it should be "mines on top of the chain with most work".
208 2011-09-03 04:46:06 <apoelstra> how long would it be before transactions were "set in stone" though?
209 2011-09-03 04:46:29 <cjdelisle> same 60 minutes
210 2011-09-03 04:46:36 <apoelstra> it seems like if parts of the network didn't talk to each other, there is a risk of several chains becoming long
211 2011-09-03 04:46:41 <cjdelisle> but you would have some assurance before that
212 2011-09-03 04:46:44 <apoelstra> and a lot of txns becoming invalid
213 2011-09-03 04:47:01 <cjdelisle> every time a btc block comes out, everything resets
214 2011-09-03 04:47:25 <apoelstra> yeah, but we have 10 minutes for everyone to get the message
215 2011-09-03 04:47:32 <lfm> apoelstra: yup, but it is pretty easy to join sub-nets back together too
216 2011-09-03 04:48:28 <apoelstra> wouldn't that ease allow double-spending too?
217 2011-09-03 04:48:56 <lfm> apoelstra: so as soon as someone notices almost there will be probably obvious way to rejoin them
218 2011-09-03 04:49:35 <lfm> apoelstra: well it may be harder than you think to isolate two groups but yes, it could allow double spending
219 2011-09-03 04:49:55 <cjdelisle> unless people wait for at least 1 or 2 btc blocks
220 2011-09-03 04:50:33 <cjdelisle> buying a soda --> instant "semi confirmation"    buying a car --> better wait 6 full blocks
221 2011-09-03 04:51:12 <lfm> well ya, you would need to keep them separated for the "confirmation period" whether it is 1 or 2 blocks or 6, whatever the nodes your attacking are using
222 2011-09-03 04:52:04 <lfm> note too that when you split the net the two subnets will be finding blocks more slowly than a united net would
223 2011-09-03 04:52:33 <cjdelisle> doesn't really work since the everyone resets when a btc block is found so any attack that would work on this would work without it.
224 2011-09-03 04:53:27 <cjdelisle> Sorry I don't have a good explaination of the whole thing, I'm trying to describe something that knd of came to me and I don't have any kind of rfc or paper on it. I realize that my description wandered a bit and I said a few things that are not quite correct.
225 2011-09-03 04:54:06 <apoelstra> well, i'd be happy to read a paper
226 2011-09-03 04:54:06 <lfm> cjdelisle: ya, youd prolly need to write a white paper to do it justice
227 2011-09-03 04:54:28 <apoelstra> but it seems to me that just setting the btc block frequency to 30 secs
228 2011-09-03 04:54:44 <apoelstra> and hoping the network will become powerful enough for 30 sec POW to be useful
229 2011-09-03 04:54:48 <apoelstra> would accomplish the same end
230 2011-09-03 04:54:49 <cjdelisle> no, actually sub 1 second
231 2011-09-03 04:55:09 <apoelstra> well, that sounds like massive overhead
232 2011-09-03 04:55:19 <lfm> apoelstra: he sez he wants 500-600 rewards per block
233 2011-09-03 04:55:22 <apoelstra> there is more than one second latency just pinging around the work
234 2011-09-03 04:55:32 <apoelstra> world*
235 2011-09-03 04:55:53 <lfm> apoelstra: but still only 6 blocks per hour
236 2011-09-03 04:55:54 <cjdelisle> it's ol as long as you tolerate massive forking
237 2011-09-03 04:56:02 <cjdelisle> *ok
238 2011-09-03 04:56:32 <apoelstra> i don't think we can tolerate massive forking - every fork divides network power
239 2011-09-03 04:56:42 <apoelstra> since anyone mining onto a dead chain, wastes their work
240 2011-09-03 04:57:10 <cjdelisle> actually it doesn't because everyone is mining 2 chains at the same time
241 2011-09-03 04:57:27 <cjdelisle> they're mining the bitcoin chain and they're mining the massively forked microchain
242 2011-09-03 04:57:40 <lfm> ok I didnt see that comming
243 2011-09-03 04:58:07 <apoelstra> but the microchain will still be wasting tons of work on all its forks
244 2011-09-03 04:58:08 <cjdelisle> every block in the microchain is a potentially valid bitcoin block as per p2pool
245 2011-09-03 04:58:30 <apoelstra> so it could be overpowered by a dedicated attacker, who doesn't bother forking
246 2011-09-03 04:59:03 <cjdelisle> then he is a solo miner
247 2011-09-03 04:59:14 <lfm> yup, just seems like youre inventing a new massivly inneficient pool
248 2011-09-03 04:59:50 <cjdelisle> think mreged mining
249 2011-09-03 04:59:53 <cjdelisle> *mreged
250 2011-09-03 04:59:56 <cjdelisle> fuck
251 2011-09-03 05:00:02 <cjdelisle> merged
252 2011-09-03 05:00:04 <apoelstra> :)
253 2011-09-03 05:00:43 <cjdelisle> you can be wasting tons of power because namecoin is forked to hell but every hash is still 100% valuble as a bitcoin hash
254 2011-09-03 05:03:27 <apoelstra> bitcoin hashes are sha1sums of bitcoin blocks
255 2011-09-03 05:03:42 <apoelstra> so, i don't see how they can be simultaneously hashing microblocks
256 2011-09-03 05:03:42 <lfm> apoelstra: nope, sha256
257 2011-09-03 05:03:50 <apoelstra> that's not my point
258 2011-09-03 05:04:39 <lfm> apoelstra: I suspect cjdelisle doesnt know how that can be either
259 2011-09-03 05:04:58 <cjdelisle> apoelstra: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
260 2011-09-03 05:05:37 <apoelstra> alternate chains do not have hashes that are useful as bitcoin hashes
261 2011-09-03 05:06:01 <cjdelisle> I got stuff to do, chat later
262 2011-09-03 05:06:23 <lfm> hehe ok bye
263 2011-09-03 05:42:25 <tomoj> just hash once, but compare to different targets, right?
264 2011-09-03 06:40:07 <cjdelisle> Hey look, September third!  Christmas is just around the corner.
265 2011-09-03 06:42:06 <cjdelisle> tomoj: if you're asking about my proposal, correct.
266 2011-09-03 06:42:55 <cjdelisle> You're comparing to the microchain target but if by luck it is way way above the microshain target, it wins the bitcoin target and it becomes the next official block.
267 2011-09-03 07:04:22 <cuqa> hey, can you somehow filter the list of transactions not only by account, but also by type of transaction .. e.g. send, generate, immature, receive
268 2011-09-03 08:27:36 <UukGoblin> huhu, 0.4.0 is coming
269 2011-09-03 08:59:49 <ThomasV> UukGoblin: huhu, Solidcoin 1.04 is coming too :-)
270 2011-09-03 09:00:13 <ThomasV> well, according to https://scexchange.bitparking.com/main
271 2011-09-03 09:01:11 <UukGoblin> ThomasV, what's their current difficulty?
272 2011-09-03 09:01:19 <ThomasV> no idea
273 2011-09-03 09:01:26 <doublec> ThomasV: I don't know if it's coming, but I'm waiting for it
274 2011-09-03 09:01:40 <UukGoblin> lol, a compulsory bugfix, how apt
275 2011-09-03 09:01:51 <doublec> UukGoblin: 16010 is difficulty
276 2011-09-03 09:01:51 <ThomasV> doublec: can you unban me from #solidcoin ? please ?
277 2011-09-03 09:02:09 <doublec> ThomasV: let me see if I can work out how (n00b at channels)
278 2011-09-03 09:02:19 <UukGoblin> ;;bc,altprofit 32 0.00950000 16010
279 2011-09-03 09:02:21 <gribble> The other chain, with 32 coins per block, price of 0.00950000 BTC per coin, and supplied difficulty of 16010, is 0.675132345444 times as profitable as mining bitcoin directly, which is currently at 50 BTC per block and difficulty of 1777774.4820015 .
280 2011-09-03 09:10:22 <SomeoneWeird> doublec, /mode <#chan> -b <user>
281 2011-09-03 09:14:10 <doublec> ThomasV: done
282 2011-09-03 09:14:12 <doublec> thanks SomeoneWeird
283 2011-09-03 09:14:20 <ThomasV> thank you so much
284 2011-09-03 09:15:01 <doublec> np
285 2011-09-03 09:17:49 <cjdelisle> Also in most irc clients you can do /unban nick
286 2011-09-03 09:17:57 <cjdelisle> or /unban *
287 2011-09-03 09:18:18 <ThomasV> oh that would unban luke-jr too :-)
288 2011-09-03 09:19:13 <cjdelisle> Yea, I figure it makes sense to flush bans every so often since people forgive and forget, ircds remember forever.
289 2011-09-03 09:21:34 <ThomasV> I hope they forgave me
290 2011-09-03 09:23:07 <UukGoblin> lol what did you guys do to deserve a ban on such a reputable channel? ;-)
291 2011-09-03 09:23:56 <ThomasV> I tried to borrow some solidcoins
292 2011-09-03 09:25:32 <ThomasV> I reckon that this was not appropriate
293 2011-09-03 09:26:12 <UukGoblin> huh
294 2011-09-03 09:30:26 <ThomasV> UukGoblin: http://pastebin.com/TSqvFLzD
295 2011-09-03 09:32:33 <UukGoblin> lol wth is it with people accusing everyone of trolls
296 2011-09-03 09:32:39 <UukGoblin> looks like it's some new trend
297 2011-09-03 09:32:48 <UukGoblin> he asked a question! he's a troll!
298 2011-09-03 09:36:45 <ThomasV> oh I like Art: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41113.msg501363#msg501363
299 2011-09-03 09:38:43 <UukGoblin> hahah pwn
300 2011-09-03 09:46:12 <noagendamarket> Art does have a point. He told him about it ages ago
301 2011-09-03 09:47:08 <cjdelisle> Nice post
302 2011-09-03 09:47:27 <cjdelisle> "Bitcoin is buggy as hell." and "hopefully karma works it out." in one post. Congrats.
303 2011-09-03 09:53:14 <edcba> buggy as hell ?
304 2011-09-03 09:53:53 <cjdelisle> it's messy as hell but if it was buggy then I think people would be having fun with it and they aren't so far.
305 2011-09-03 09:54:15 <edcba> what is solidcoin ?
306 2011-09-03 09:55:51 <cjdelisle> it's a fork with a different difficulty metric
307 2011-09-03 09:56:27 <cjdelisle> and fixed transaction fees
308 2011-09-03 09:56:34 <cjdelisle> and unlimited size transactions
309 2011-09-03 09:56:36 <cjdelisle> lulz
310 2011-09-03 09:57:22 <edcba> 3 minutes block ?
311 2011-09-03 09:57:28 <edcba> damn still too long lol
312 2011-09-03 10:01:41 <ThomasV> hmm sorry I trolled again
313 2011-09-03 10:02:15 <UukGoblin> hahah
314 2011-09-03 10:03:22 <ThomasV> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41127.msg501394#msg501394
315 2011-09-03 10:03:50 <ThomasV> wow, I was banned almost instantly from their channel ; I dod not even write to it
316 2011-09-03 10:06:50 <UukGoblin> ThomasV, rotfl
317 2011-09-03 10:08:49 <SomeoneWeird> lawl
318 2011-09-03 10:08:51 <UukGoblin> they were inserting pre-mined blocks in the chain?
319 2011-09-03 10:08:57 <ThomasV> omg! solidcoin prices are going down!
320 2011-09-03 10:09:02 <SomeoneWeird> ThomasV, you didn't write that post?
321 2011-09-03 10:09:27 <ThomasV> SomeoneWeird: I'm afraid I did
322 2011-09-03 10:09:48 <SomeoneWeird> ok
323 2011-09-03 10:09:55 <SomeoneWeird> whyd you say you didn't then?
324 2011-09-03 10:10:06 <cjdelisle> lolz
325 2011-09-03 10:10:22 <ThomasV> SomeoneWeird: huh? I did say it
326 2011-09-03 10:10:32 <SomeoneWeird> "I dod not even write to it"
327 2011-09-03 10:11:22 <ThomasV> oh, no, that was about their irc channel. realsolid banned me again, even though I did not write to the channel
328 2011-09-03 10:11:23 <phungus> write to it
329 2011-09-03 10:11:31 <phungus> "I dod not even write to it"
330 2011-09-03 10:14:04 <UukGoblin> I think the message is clear: he doesn't like you
331 2011-09-03 10:14:53 <ThomasV> my last forum posts are very much pro-solidcoin, however
332 2011-09-03 10:14:54 <UukGoblin> I'd risk a guess that he doesn't like anyone who tries to undermine his project
333 2011-09-03 10:16:04 <cjdelisle> undermine is a unfriendly word. Let's call it stress testing :)
334 2011-09-03 10:16:25 <ThomasV> UukGoblin: re bounties: "30000 SolidCoins were mined prior to public release so that bounties could be provided to encourage developers to work with SolidCoins."
335 2011-09-03 10:17:06 <ThomasV> this is from http://www.solidcoin.info/bounties.php
336 2011-09-03 10:17:10 <doublec> UukGoblin: quite a few have been given out
337 2011-09-03 10:17:26 <UukGoblin> ThomasV, oh, that nicely contradicts the original statement that mining has started 5 minutes after official release
338 2011-09-03 10:17:32 <ThomasV> doublec: I was banned again :-(
339 2011-09-03 10:17:54 <doublec> ThomasV: yeah I saw, sorry
340 2011-09-03 10:17:54 <ThomasV> UukGoblin: no! do not troll!!!
341 2011-09-03 10:18:14 <doublec> UukGoblin: he's been very open about the pre-mined bounties
342 2011-09-03 10:18:27 <doublec> UukGoblin: and they're all held in an address that's been made public
343 2011-09-03 10:18:45 <ThomasV> yes, there is mining and pre-mining. these are different things
344 2011-09-03 10:18:45 <UukGoblin> yeah, I recall something about them, I just didn't read up about it
345 2011-09-03 10:18:55 <ThomasV> very different.
346 2011-09-03 10:20:23 <Blitzboom> ethically maybe
347 2011-09-03 10:20:23 <tcatm> I wonder why people pre-mine when they could just "hardcode" those initial coins.
348 2011-09-03 10:20:27 <Blitzboom> result is the same
349 2011-09-03 10:21:37 <ThomasV> anyway, so long for solidcoin..
350 2011-09-03 10:25:13 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
351 2011-09-03 10:25:13 <tcatm> ;;later tell BlueMatt no need to mirror the chain, you can just link to them as the server has enough bandwidth. the cronjob runs at midnight UTC. could you tell me how you signed the archives? I think it's best if the server would sign the archives, probably with an easily revocable key in case something goes wrong...
352 2011-09-03 10:27:01 <edcba> i doubt solidcoins will catch up
353 2011-09-03 10:27:38 <edcba> even if right now it's a bit better than bitcoin
354 2011-09-03 10:29:21 <ThomasV> it is not decentralized
355 2011-09-03 10:32:03 <ThomasV> ok, let me ask again, just in case: does someone know about a clothing shop that accepts bitcoin, located in florida iirc. I mean a real shop, not an online shop. I saw it somewhere, but it is not listed on the trade page.
356 2011-09-03 10:32:10 <ThomasV> I want to add it to the map
357 2011-09-03 10:32:35 <ThomasV> I saw it a few weeks ago
358 2011-09-03 10:40:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * re9b5885ebed1 cgminer/ (adl.c main.c miner.h): Add a gpu autotune option which adjusts GPU speed to maintain a target temperature within the bounds of the default GPU speed and any overclocking set.
359 2011-09-03 10:47:21 <phungus> Ron Jon's Surf Shop
360 2011-09-03 10:47:30 <phungus> go talk em into taking bitcoins
361 2011-09-03 10:56:42 <soap> that's a name I haven't heard for decades.
362 2011-09-03 10:58:42 <soap> is RJSS still around and still an independent company?
363 2011-09-03 10:58:50 <soap> looked it up.  Yes and yes.
364 2011-09-03 11:17:21 <phungus> was last time I drove along the southern coast
365 2011-09-03 11:17:25 <phungus> yah
366 2011-09-03 11:41:17 <doublec> any C++ devs able to check an oddness in bitcoin I'm stumbling across?
367 2011-09-03 11:42:02 <doublec> CreateTransaction in wallet.cpp has the following code about 'limiting size':
368 2011-09-03 11:42:27 <doublec> ::GetSerializeSize(*(CTransaction*)&wtxNew, SER_NETWORK)
369 2011-09-03 11:42:38 <doublec> this is used in size/priority calculations
370 2011-09-03 11:42:43 <doublec> wtxNew is a CWalletTxn
371 2011-09-03 11:43:02 <doublec> it looks to me the intent is to use the size of the transaction, without the additional size of the extra stuff used in the wallet
372 2011-09-03 11:43:05 <doublec> (from the casting)
373 2011-09-03 11:43:09 <doublec> but this casting does nothing, right?
374 2011-09-03 11:43:18 <doublec> It will still pass a reference to the most derived class
375 2011-09-03 11:43:22 <doublec> The CWalletTxn
376 2011-09-03 11:43:28 <doublec> so it's using the wrong size in the calculation?
377 2011-09-03 11:46:34 <doublec> This line specifically: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L979
378 2011-09-03 11:57:02 <doublec> n/m emailed the developer list about it
379 2011-09-03 12:00:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r1898d851e57b cgminer/main.c: Avoid a dereference if the longpoll thread doesn't exist.
380 2011-09-03 12:07:02 <upb> doublec: but it will invoke GetSerializeSize that is specialized to the first argument being a CTransaction
381 2011-09-03 12:07:19 <upb> that is the point imo
382 2011-09-03 12:07:22 <doublec> upb: it doesn't, it calls the most derived class version
383 2011-09-03 12:07:27 <doublec> that cast doesn't actually do anything
384 2011-09-03 12:07:32 <upb> hmmmm?
385 2011-09-03 12:07:35 <upb> let me test
386 2011-09-03 12:07:40 <doublec> upb: http://pastebin.com/JBsTBGxx
387 2011-09-03 12:07:45 <doublec> what does the 2nd mydoit do?
388 2011-09-03 12:10:10 <edcba> i think it does it
389 2011-09-03 12:10:19 <doublec> heh
390 2011-09-03 12:10:29 <doublec> I suck at test function names ;)
391 2011-09-03 12:10:30 <upb> no i think you are wrong i just tested it
392 2011-09-03 12:10:40 <upb> ./derieveTest
393 2011-09-03 12:10:54 <doublec> it prints derived in both "mydoit" calls in my test
394 2011-09-03 12:11:07 <upb> http://pastebin.com/1J27BxRD
395 2011-09-03 12:13:25 <doublec> aha, good catch, thanks. The difference I didn't notice is that GetSerializeSize isn't virtual
396 2011-09-03 12:14:21 <doublec> which is why my pastebin shows the answer it does
397 2011-09-03 12:20:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * rfc36e13d5b8c cgminer/main.c: Merge branch 'master' into adl_support
398 2011-09-03 12:21:50 <doublec> obviously I've spent too much time using Java and its friends - assuming everything is virtual
399 2011-09-03 12:23:02 <sytse> I hope you don't think your girlfriend is virtual
400 2011-09-03 12:24:47 <doublec> hehe
401 2011-09-03 12:29:25 <upb> heh that case doesnt have anything to do with virtual/nonvirtual
402 2011-09-03 12:36:55 <doublec> my example did
403 2011-09-03 12:37:16 <doublec> upb: this models the code http://pastebin.com/JBsTBGxx
404 2011-09-03 12:37:22 <doublec> upb: buy I'd made 'doit' virtual
405 2011-09-03 12:37:30 <doublec> s/buy/but
406 2011-09-03 12:38:05 <doublec> 'doit' being what 'GetSerializeSize' is in bitcoin
407 2011-09-03 12:38:31 <doublec> and 'mydoit' being the global template 'GetSerializeSize'
408 2011-09-03 12:40:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r9b7262ec716a cgminer/ (adl.c adl.h main.c): Clean up by setting performance profiles and fan settings to startup levels on exit.
409 2011-09-03 13:05:52 <luke-jr> doublec: you forgot to unban me :|
410 2011-09-03 13:06:49 <ThomasV> luke-jr: I was rebanned
411 2011-09-03 13:07:15 <luke-jr> I guess this is what happens when a cryptocurrency gets an appointed king
412 2011-09-03 13:07:24 <luke-jr> w/king/dictator/
413 2011-09-03 13:07:26 <luke-jr> s*
414 2011-09-03 13:07:56 <luke-jr> isn't SC the one that requires a license to mine anyway?
415 2011-09-03 13:08:04 <doublec> no
416 2011-09-03 13:08:12 <luke-jr> oh
417 2011-09-03 13:08:14 <luke-jr> which one was that
418 2011-09-03 13:08:15 <doublec> you're thinking of sacarlson's chains
419 2011-09-03 13:08:41 <luke-jr> doublec: anyhow, I don't appreciate being banned
420 2011-09-03 13:08:52 <doublec> I'm sure RealSolid would be keen on the idea however
421 2011-09-03 13:09:02 <doublec> luke-jr: I didn't ban you
422 2011-09-03 13:09:10 <luke-jr> doublec: RealSolid did. with no reason.
423 2011-09-03 13:09:20 <doublec> luke-jr: if I unban you, he'll just ban you again
424 2011-09-03 13:09:28 <luke-jr> [01:08:11] --> Hans_ has joined this channel (cee18428@gateway/web/freenode/ip.206.225.132.40).
425 2011-09-03 13:09:30 <luke-jr> [01:13:43] B RealSolid sets mode: +b *!*@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49
426 2011-09-03 13:09:31 <ThomasV> not necessarily
427 2011-09-03 13:09:51 <luke-jr> absolutely nothing at all for 5 mins prior to my ban -.-
428 2011-09-03 13:09:57 <ThomasV> I was banned again because I posted something in the forum
429 2011-09-03 13:09:59 <luke-jr> (though he did op me immediately before banning)
430 2011-09-03 13:10:00 <doublec> who is Hans_
431 2011-09-03 13:10:11 <luke-jr> doublec: no idea, I pasted it for timestamp
432 2011-09-03 13:10:23 <ThomasV> if you do not opst in the forum, you might not get banned
433 2011-09-03 13:10:28 <ThomasV> *post
434 2011-09-03 13:10:53 <ThomasV> it's worth trying
435 2011-09-03 13:11:34 <ThomasV> luke-jr: this is how I got banned again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41127.msg501394#msg501394
436 2011-09-03 13:24:20 <Eliel> is there any python code out there that can sign/verify individual transactions?
437 2011-09-03 13:30:20 <CIA-101> bitcoin: various boost_fs3 * ra687d4..2f8f51 bitcoind-personal/ (49 files in 13 dirs): (51 commits)
438 2011-09-03 13:32:38 <gavinandresen> Good morning (ugt) everybody
439 2011-09-03 13:36:48 <ThomasV> hi gavinandresen
440 2011-09-03 13:36:50 <Eliel> good morning :)
441 2011-09-03 13:37:15 <Eliel> do you know of any python code that can do transaction signature verification and/or signing?
442 2011-09-03 13:40:34 <ThomasV> Eliel: did you try bitcointools ?
443 2011-09-03 13:41:00 <ThomasV> not sure what it does
444 2011-09-03 13:47:16 <Eliel> ThomasV: I didnt look at that directly. I did look at pywallet thoug, it didnt have it.
445 2011-09-03 13:47:41 <ThomasV> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcointools
446 2011-09-03 13:50:27 <Eliel> ThomasV: doesn't look like it does
447 2011-09-03 13:53:12 <UukGoblin> my latest bitcoind just locked up...
448 2011-09-03 13:53:19 <UukGoblin> doesn't use CPU but can't contact it via RPC
449 2011-09-03 13:53:35 <gavinandresen> Latest from top-of-git?
450 2011-09-03 13:53:48 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, yes, with a getmemorypool patch, actually
451 2011-09-03 13:54:08 <UukGoblin> 7464e6 + the getmemorypool
452 2011-09-03 13:54:26 <UukGoblin> 0.3.24 has been dying with p2pool earlier, but I didn't see a lockup like that before
453 2011-09-03 13:54:33 <gavinandresen> Recompile with -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER  and then if it happens again send me the debug.log
454 2011-09-03 13:54:43 <tcatm> gavinandresen: did you contact sirius yet for changing the DNS of bitcoin.org? if not I'm going to email him now.
455 2011-09-03 13:54:43 <UukGoblin> ok
456 2011-09-03 13:54:58 <gavinandresen> tcatm: go for it
457 2011-09-03 13:57:32 <ThomasV> UukGoblin, gavinandresen : my bitcoind too :-/
458 2011-09-03 13:57:57 <ThomasV> I started it 4 days ago
459 2011-09-03 13:58:46 <gavinandresen> UukGoblin ThomasV : what are your bitcoind's being used for-- what type of RPC calls are they getting?  I can setup stress tests if I know what to test for...
460 2011-09-03 13:59:12 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: for nothing
461 2011-09-03 13:59:43 <ThomasV> it was idle
462 2011-09-03 13:59:59 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, regular getworks from diablominer, also getmemorypool/getworks from p2pool, and getinfo from my console every now and then
463 2011-09-03 14:00:00 <gavinandresen> hrmmmm....   "run for four days and RPC dies" is going to be hard to test....
464 2011-09-03 14:00:11 <gavinandresen> UukGoblin: thanks
465 2011-09-03 14:00:18 <UukGoblin> gavinandresen, bitcoind was dying with p2pool earlier (0.3.24) as well, without the getmemorypool patch applied
466 2011-09-03 14:00:29 <ThomasV> I might have sent one tx on the first day
467 2011-09-03 14:00:45 <ThomasV> not sure if it was restarted after that
468 2011-09-03 14:01:43 <ThomasV> gavinandresen: it used to die way earlier with the previous version
469 2011-09-03 14:02:02 <gavinandresen> ThomasV: what OS?
470 2011-09-03 14:02:07 <ThomasV> ubuntu
471 2011-09-03 14:02:15 <ThomasV> 11.04
472 2011-09-03 14:04:49 <ThomasV> oh, and I compiled without upnp
473 2011-09-03 14:05:57 <UukGoblin> yeah I had upnp defined as USE_UPNP= as well
474 2011-09-03 14:40:09 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Devon Badman * rc26134..67a8bd pycoin/network.py: (5 commits)
475 2011-09-03 14:57:48 <prax> quick question on email headers.. I just want to be 100%
476 2011-09-03 14:57:53 <prax> If as part of an email header I got "Received: from unknown (XX.XXX.90.177)", I can be sure this is the senders IP right?
477 2011-09-03 14:58:23 <prax> or.. If I think it is the same person as I already have the same IP for and it matches I can be sure it is really then right
478 2011-09-03 14:58:40 <prax> (I know you can fake them otehrwise) I think this guy just doesn;t realize I can line things up
479 2011-09-03 14:59:51 <Eliel> prax: the ip being different doesn't prove anything but if the ip is the same, that's quite unlikely to happen for two different people unless they use the same computer.
480 2011-09-03 15:10:20 <prax> Right Eliel thanks. There's also some online things to parse it, spit out the pertinent IP and geolocate and it matched up, just wanted to ask.
481 2011-09-03 15:10:50 <prax> Now I just need to write up an epic trainwreck post because this guy deserves it
482 2011-09-03 15:32:50 <andyroo> ;;ticker
483 2011-09-03 15:32:50 <gribble> Best bid: 8.52, Best ask: 8.53, Bid-ask spread: 0.01, Last trade: 8.52, 24 hour volume: 12547, 24 hour low: 8.36307, 24 hour high: 8.7138
484 2011-09-03 16:00:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: aldiyen * r70558ccd3fc8 Phoenix-Miner-personal/ (ConsoleLogger.py Miner.py WorkQueue.py phoenix.py): New status format; new option to disable erasing and erdrawing when outputting status; track getworks, displaying a count and efficiency % when verbose (new status format only)
485 2011-09-03 16:38:08 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib: Stefan Thomas master * re8fba13 / (test/index.html test/test.js): Added more tests. - http://git.io/KJYASQ
486 2011-09-03 17:24:45 <diki> in which file was the block amount set?
487 2011-09-03 17:24:52 <diki> in the bitcoin source
488 2011-09-03 17:32:20 <diki> someone???
489 2011-09-03 17:32:54 <lianj> whats the block amount?
490 2011-09-03 17:32:58 <lianj> maybe grep knows
491 2011-09-03 17:33:02 <diki> reward per block
492 2011-09-03 17:33:17 <lianj> grep for it
493 2011-09-03 17:33:22 <diki> i use windows
494 2011-09-03 17:33:28 <diki> plus, its in satoshis
495 2011-09-03 17:35:44 <gavinandresen> main.cpp:    int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
496 2011-09-03 17:36:45 <diki> shouldnt you guys move that to the top of main.cpp?
497 2011-09-03 18:29:28 <yebyen> ;;bc,calc 2900
498 2011-09-03 18:29:29 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 2900 Khps, given current difficulty of 1777774.4820015 , is 83 years, 25 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 7 minutes, and 42 seconds
499 2011-09-03 18:29:39 <yebyen> ;;bc,calc 2900000
500 2011-09-03 18:29:40 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 2900000 Khps, given current difficulty of 1777774.4820015 , is 4 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 22 minutes, and 5 seconds
501 2011-09-03 18:29:57 <yebyen> hmm
502 2011-09-03 18:30:10 <yebyen> time to make an investment
503 2011-09-03 19:20:15 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r847adf689bcd cgminer/adl.c: Add a small amount of hysteresis before lowering clock speed.
504 2011-09-03 19:26:34 <andyroo> ;;ticker
505 2011-09-03 19:26:35 <gribble> Best bid: 8.432, Best ask: 8.45635, Bid-ask spread: 0.02435, Last trade: 8.45635, 24 hour volume: 11256, 24 hour low: 8.36307, 24 hour high: 8.7138
506 2011-09-03 19:30:13 <CIA-101> bitcoin: aldiyen * r92e830de4c4d Phoenix-Miner-personal/ConsoleLogger.py: Fixed bug with reported reject rate
507 2011-09-03 19:40:12 <CIA-101> bitcoin: aldiyen * r1871d611f42e Phoenix-Miner-personal/Miner.py: Increment version to 0.2.1
508 2011-09-03 19:41:39 <nexes> Does anyone happen to know of a bitcoin branch someone may have created which allows a user to sign a transaction outside client, then submit it to the client via RPC to be processed?
509 2011-09-03 19:43:48 <ThomasV> nexes: no, but I would be interested
510 2011-09-03 19:44:58 <makomk> nanotube: by the way, the clever thing about ArtForz's timestamp attack on SolidCoin seems that after artificially increasing the time between blocks (resulting in a timestamp too far  into the future to be accepted) you can decrease the fake time between blocks to 1s and difficulty will adjust up much slower than it adjusts down.
511 2011-09-03 19:45:12 <Eliel> nexes: I'm actually working on proof of concept for that right now.
512 2011-09-03 19:45:29 <nexes> Eliel: That would be excellent. :)
513 2011-09-03 19:46:04 <nexes> I have Java code to build and sign transactions, but I can't just submit them via RPC to the official client.
514 2011-09-03 19:46:10 <Sthebig> eading now
515 2011-09-03 19:46:12 <Eliel> nexes: I hadn't thought of submitting it through RPC though, but that would be trivial addition.
516 2011-09-03 19:46:20 <Sthebig> finally managed to pull it up on the phone
517 2011-09-03 19:46:29 <nexes> I think I could modify bitcoinj for that purpose, but I'm not sure how I feel about using that as a server, as it's only using simple verification..
518 2011-09-03 19:46:39 <Sthebig> What the heck? sorry, wrong channel..
519 2011-09-03 19:46:50 <nexes> Eliel: What were you working on then?
520 2011-09-03 19:47:13 <makomk> So a 51% attacker can mine blocks with timestamps until (say) 4 days into the future over a period of 1 day, then mine a whole bunch more blocks with artificially *reduced* delays, and due to the asymetry in SolidCoin's difficulty adjustment they'd end up with far more blocks than they otherwise would once the timestamps become acceptable.
521 2011-09-03 19:47:15 <Eliel> nexes: wallet software for offline use.
522 2011-09-03 19:47:45 <nexes> Eliel: Ah, okay.
523 2011-09-03 19:48:24 <nexes> Eliel: Maybe I should look into working on a branch to do that myself then. Unfortunately, I've never done any C++ dev. :x
524 2011-09-03 19:49:28 <Eliel> nexes: I was planning on doing it with python but I hit a small snag since there's no code for signing transactions with python. So, I'm reading the 0.4rc1 code that does the signing now :)
525 2011-09-03 19:52:22 <nexes> Eliel: Ah. If code to do it in Java would be useful, let me know and I can send it along. If you put up a branch with an rpc call for taking signed transactions though, I'd definitely be interested.
526 2011-09-03 19:53:39 <Eliel> nexes: but, do you really need RPC call for that? Couldn't you do a "hit&run" on the p2p port, emulate a node for long enough to push the transaction in?
527 2011-09-03 19:55:27 <nexes> Eliel: That's an interesting idea, which I suppose would work. I already require a bitcoind to be running for other tasks though, so it seems like less complication to have it all being handled by an actual node.
528 2011-09-03 19:57:02 <Eliel> but... if you're creating the transaction through bitcoinj, can't you use that to connect to the network and push the transaction out?
529 2011-09-03 19:58:33 <nexes> Eliel: I'm actually not using bitcoinj at the moment, but I suppose I could. I already have a bitcoind running for other things though, so I was hoping to avoid having two nodes running.
530 2011-09-03 20:00:01 <bx_> ello
531 2011-09-03 20:00:02 <bx_> guys
532 2011-09-03 20:00:39 <andyroo> heya
533 2011-09-03 20:04:59 <nexes> Eliel: I take it back. The bitcoinj source has some examples that have convinced me that the overhead should be pretty negligible. I can just run a simple service which maintains the blockchain and accepts transactions.
534 2011-09-03 20:29:21 <iocor> I am building a graph of every bitcoin transaction
535 2011-09-03 20:39:32 <lfm> iocor cool. kinda big grapg tho
536 2011-09-03 20:39:39 <lfm> graph
537 2011-09-03 20:39:51 <iocor> lfm: I don't know yet
538 2011-09-03 20:39:54 <iocor> :)
539 2011-09-03 20:40:16 <lfm> theres been like a million transactions so far
540 2011-09-03 20:40:42 <lfm> Total number of transactions: 1434790