1 2011-09-05 00:55:08 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * a6448946e6b1 r38 /etc/lib/lib_non-maven/bitcoin-jsonrpc-0.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar: dissapeared from 0.2.9 for some reason?
  2 2011-09-05 00:55:09 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 3741073dc9b7 r39 / (18 files in 8 dirs):
  3 2011-09-05 01:03:30 <k9quaint> Diablo-D3: only took you 8 minutes to get banned, not a record but pretty competitive
  4 2011-09-05 01:04:40 <Diablo-D3> k9quaint: I was busy getting food
  5 2011-09-05 01:04:46 <Diablo-D3> cant troll on an empty stomach
  6 2011-09-05 01:04:56 <k9quaint> excuses :P
  7 2011-09-05 01:05:35 <k9quaint> you won't be laughing when RealSolid "outdevelops" all of you!
  8 2011-09-05 01:06:07 <k9quaint> I am just hoping for some real drama when SC finally melts down
  9 2011-09-05 01:06:16 <Diablo-D3> he couldnt develop his way out of a wet used condom.
 10 2011-09-05 01:06:22 <shadders_> lol
 11 2011-09-05 01:06:35 <k9quaint> to be fair, condoms are made from resilient material
 12 2011-09-05 01:06:46 <Diablo-D3> only for people with small dicks.
 13 2011-09-05 01:07:07 <k9quaint> which would explain why Realsolid has been so touchy lately
 14 2011-09-05 01:07:10 <shadders_> Diablo-D3: I'm thinking of forming a collective of btc related coders to hardcode their tools to not work with SC... you in?
 15 2011-09-05 01:07:39 <Diablo-D3> shadders_: its not even worth my time, honestly.
 16 2011-09-05 01:08:04 <k9quaint> you should make the tools work better with SC instead
 17 2011-09-05 01:08:08 <Diablo-D3> and I dont think bitcoind leaks enough info to the miner to ban alternate pools
 18 2011-09-05 01:08:17 <Diablo-D3> er
 19 2011-09-05 01:08:17 <k9quaint> the easier it is for Realsolid to work, the faster solidcoin will die
 20 2011-09-05 01:08:18 <Diablo-D3> alternate chains
 21 2011-09-05 01:08:40 <shadders_> it's only a couple of lines of code... list addresses if address.startsWith('s') System.exit(1);
 22 2011-09-05 01:08:55 <forrestv> shadders_, miners never even see addresses ..
 23 2011-09-05 01:08:58 <Diablo-D3> yeah but the miner doesnt get those
 24 2011-09-05 01:09:04 <Diablo-D3> it only get the 80 byte header
 25 2011-09-05 01:09:13 <Diablo-D3> I dont think anything useful is leaked into the header
 26 2011-09-05 01:09:38 <theymos> You could reject based on low difficulty.
 27 2011-09-05 01:09:51 <Diablo-D3> theymos: cant
 28 2011-09-05 01:10:00 <Diablo-D3> since pools use non-1 diffs
 29 2011-09-05 01:10:02 <shadders_> ahh true... psj can implement a new header... daemon: solidcoin
 30 2011-09-05 01:10:07 <theymos> Oh, right.
 31 2011-09-05 01:10:56 <shadders_> I'm sure someone can path pushpool as well..
 32 2011-09-05 01:11:02 <shadders_> patch
 33 2011-09-05 01:45:46 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * rd5566f8bd8bc cgminer/main.c: Update the status window only from the watchdog thread, do not rewrite the top status messages and only refresh once all the status window is complete, clearing the window each time to avoid corruption.
 34 2011-09-05 01:55:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * ra95dc14b4bf6 cgminer/adl.c: Set a safe starting fan speed if we're automanaging the speeds.
 35 2011-09-05 02:07:28 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * ebf8888bb839 r40 /src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/source/ (WorkExchange.java WorkSource.java): - fix: WorkSource request throttling was only activating for HTTP level failures. TCP failures (e.g. connection refused) would not activate throttling resulting in thousands of requests/sec and high CPU usage.
 36 2011-09-05 03:25:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r46d3e3fec9e6 cgminer/adl.c: Put the autotune function into its own fresh thread each time in case the library crashes so it doesn't take out cgminer.
 37 2011-09-05 03:45:45 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r6e794a99887a cgminer/adl.c: Revert "Put the autotune function into its own fresh thread each time in case the library crashes so it doesn't take out cgminer."
 38 2011-09-05 04:05:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r423a35c558c3 cgminer/adl.c: Provide locking around all adl calls to prevent races.
 39 2011-09-05 04:15:40 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * rd3e8868b0c0f cgminer/adl.c: Ramp up the fan more if we're over target temperature.
 40 2011-09-05 04:15:41 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * 17d1553c25d0 r42 /: Starting 'main' branch
 41 2011-09-05 04:23:31 <LightRider> Anyone here familiar with the new glbse system? I'm trying to figure out how to use the new web interface and how to update the bm software
 42 2011-09-05 05:15:45 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r939a6a59730b cgminer/adl.c: Lower profile settings cannot be higher than higher profile ones so link any drops in settings.
 43 2011-09-05 05:20:29 <ThomasV> :-(
 44 2011-09-05 05:25:32 <MagicalTux> ThomasV: I don't think you're missing anything
 45 2011-09-05 05:25:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * re4a635f91127 cgminer/adl.c: Fix moronic reuse of i variable.
 46 2011-09-05 05:25:59 <ThomasV> MagicalTux: yes, I missed the discussion with gavin
 47 2011-09-05 05:26:34 <ThomasV> (well, I was ont online at that moment, but I *could* have been there)
 48 2011-09-05 05:26:50 <doublec> you didn't miss much
 49 2011-09-05 05:26:52 <Diablo-D3> woah its MagicalTux
 50 2011-09-05 05:27:01 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: SEND ME JAPANESE SCHOOLGIRLS
 51 2011-09-05 05:27:10 <MagicalTux> Diablo-D3: 22 million BTC eacg
 52 2011-09-05 05:27:11 <MagicalTux> each*
 53 2011-09-05 05:27:19 <ThomasV> oh doublec, can you un-ban me again :-D
 54 2011-09-05 05:27:27 <Diablo-D3> Goddamnit.
 55 2011-09-05 05:27:33 <doublec> ThomasV: I've been de-oped
 56 2011-09-05 05:27:41 <ThomasV> omg
 57 2011-09-05 05:27:54 <Diablo-D3> MagicalTux: wait, BTC cant have 22 million.
 58 2011-09-05 05:27:59 <MagicalTux> :D
 59 2011-09-05 05:28:04 <Diablo-D3> you bastard
 60 2011-09-05 05:28:16 <doublec> ThomasV: I closed my exchange and pool and asked to be de-oped
 61 2011-09-05 05:28:25 <doublec> ThomasV: so as to be no longer associated with a nutcase
 62 2011-09-05 05:29:11 <Diablo-D3> heh
 63 2011-09-05 05:29:20 <MagicalTux> solidcoin guy came to me and tried to convince me to accept solidcoins on mtgox
 64 2011-09-05 05:29:42 <doublec> how'd that end up
 65 2011-09-05 05:29:48 <MagicalTux> he didn't convince me
 66 2011-09-05 05:30:10 <doublec> he was telling everyone that mtgox was close. Only needed to reach 2 Thash
 67 2011-09-05 05:30:39 <MagicalTux> we may implement namecoin once merged mining is running
 68 2011-09-05 05:31:52 <doublec> once he started talking about closing the source and adding ddos code to attack >51% pools I figured the writing was on the wall
 69 2011-09-05 05:32:26 <ThomasV> I find it bad that solidcoin was run by a nutcase. In a sense, the currency failed because of that guy. I was expecting it to fail for other reasons. It is likely that we will see another fork, less dictatorial.
 70 2011-09-05 05:32:45 <doublec> right, it would probably have done well if it wasn't for the personality of realsolid
 71 2011-09-05 05:33:09 <MagicalTux> Starting end of september, dev on QBitcoin will resume
 72 2011-09-05 05:33:10 <ThomasV> doublec: no, I believe that these forks are doomed to fail, even if they are run by angels
 73 2011-09-05 05:33:33 <ThomasV> because of network effects
 74 2011-09-05 05:33:34 <doublec> yea, "done well" in comparison to other chains I guess
 75 2011-09-05 05:33:47 <doublec> it's a low barrier of course given the competition is i0/ixcoin
 76 2011-09-05 05:34:49 <LightRider> Don't feel too bad, I was banned from -politics and I haven't even been there in weeks
 77 2011-09-05 05:35:23 <ThomasV> LightRider: how can someone be banned from -politics
 78 2011-09-05 05:36:47 <LightRider> it's become an anti-annarchy
 79 2011-09-05 05:37:21 <LightRider> I imagine, that channel has been getting weirder and weirder for months
 80 2011-09-05 05:37:50 <LightRider> antidisestablishmentarianism?
 81 2011-09-05 05:40:56 <TD> is the forum broke? for some reason i can't post
 82 2011-09-05 05:45:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas adl_support * r878e30d528d8 cgminer/configure.ac: Bump version to 1.9.9 till completed as version 2.0.
 83 2011-09-05 05:47:06 <LightRider> cgminer performs poorly on p2pool in my experience
 84 2011-09-05 05:47:34 <LightRider> I don't know if that's due to the nature of the pool or the miner
 85 2011-09-05 05:54:27 <SomeoneWeird> LightRider, well it's defs not the miner
 86 2011-09-05 07:35:44 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rb6a703..47f1a7 cgminer/ (adl.c miner.h configure.ac main.c): (13 commits)
 87 2011-09-05 07:45:38 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * ra2f6bb77adfe cgminer/Makefile.am: Add new needed text files to distribution.
 88 2011-09-05 07:52:00 <phantomcircuit> what the fuck guys
 89 2011-09-05 07:52:12 <phantomcircuit> who changed bitcoin.org so that it only works with javascript enabled?
 90 2011-09-05 07:56:33 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, wha? works for me
 91 2011-09-05 07:56:50 <zamgo> looks perfectly suitable without javascript... for text browsers
 92 2011-09-05 07:56:52 <phantomcircuit> there is no style sheet if javascript is disabled
 93 2011-09-05 07:57:03 <UukGoblin> ah
 94 2011-09-05 07:57:09 <UukGoblin> yeah, looks quite good in elinks
 95 2011-09-05 07:57:31 <phantomcircuit> looks ridiculous in firefox with noscript
 96 2011-09-05 07:57:33 <UukGoblin> but I wouldn't notice the difference if there was a stylesheet
 97 2011-09-05 07:57:39 <phantomcircuit> which is almost certainly a more common setup
 98 2011-09-05 07:58:06 <UukGoblin> fair enough
 99 2011-09-05 08:16:36 <cjdelisle> haha bitcoin.org looks like dan bernstein's website with noscript on.
100 2011-09-05 08:17:09 <cjdelisle> and I imagine noscript users are many in this community where you can lose actual money if your browser is exploited
101 2011-09-05 08:18:40 <Diablo-D3> ha ha, I use elinks!
102 2011-09-05 08:19:24 <TuxBlackEdo> Diablo-D3, people do use elinks
103 2011-09-05 08:19:31 <zamgo> lynx
104 2011-09-05 08:19:55 <Diablo-D3> telnet
105 2011-09-05 08:19:59 <cjdelisle> I'll be there if ff doesn't quicken up and chrome adblock still doesn't... block the ads.
106 2011-09-05 08:20:13 <Diablo-D3> I dont have ff speed problems.
107 2011-09-05 08:20:20 <Diablo-D3> then again, Ive been trying to keep myself under 200 tabs
108 2011-09-05 08:20:37 <cjdelisle> it's linux+ff only so I hear
109 2011-09-05 08:21:00 <cjdelisle> just having mtgoxlive in a tab --> death
110 2011-09-05 08:21:11 <Diablo-D3> are you trying to imply I dont use linux?
111 2011-09-05 08:21:35 <Diablo-D3> mtgoxlive does nothing strange here.
112 2011-09-05 08:21:59 <cjdelisle> how would I know if you did or not, I know winx users report no problem
113 2011-09-05 08:22:25 <Diablo-D3> I have very famously used Debian exclusively for over a decade as my primary desktop OS on multiple computers.
114 2011-09-05 08:22:32 <Diablo-D3> I do not have anything that runs osx or windows.
115 2011-09-05 08:22:48 <cjdelisle> same (although not for over a decade)
116 2011-09-05 08:26:07 <cjdelisle> happy Labor Day btw
117 2011-09-05 08:26:30 <TuxBlackEdo> Diablo-D3, you are so cool
118 2011-09-05 08:26:36 <TuxBlackEdo> :P
119 2011-09-05 08:30:02 <Diablo-D3> hey man, one day I just said, fuck this bullshit
120 2011-09-05 08:30:05 <Diablo-D3> and I havent gone back since
121 2011-09-05 08:55:20 <dub> I used to run primary linux desktop 15 years ago
122 2011-09-05 08:55:40 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2155acf1e46a cgminer/main.c: Queue requests ignoring the number of staged clones since they get discarded very easily leading to false positives for pool not providing work fast enough.
123 2011-09-05 08:55:40 <dub> then I just said, fuck this bullshit, I need a job
124 2011-09-05 08:56:09 <dub> adn then I thought fuck this bullshit, I'd think I'll play some games
125 2011-09-05 08:58:15 <phantomcircuit> dub, lol
126 2011-09-05 08:58:42 <Diablo-D3> all the games I want to play are native anyhow
127 2011-09-05 08:59:10 <Diablo-D3> and the games I dont want to play, and end up playing anyhow, usually work in wine without fiddling anyhow
128 2011-09-05 09:01:19 <dub> every tech company I've worked for issued windows workstations
129 2011-09-05 09:01:31 <Diablo-D3> wow, what shit companies
130 2011-09-05 09:02:12 <cjdelisle> 0wnable too
131 2011-09-05 09:02:13 <phantomcircuit> wine has gone to shit recently
132 2011-09-05 09:02:33 <phantomcircuit> i cant even play counter strike source
133 2011-09-05 09:02:45 <cjdelisle> I never used wine, I don't game, +1 way to waste time is the last thing I need.
134 2011-09-05 09:02:51 <dub> damn, life wouldn't be worth living
135 2011-09-05 09:02:55 <Diablo-D3> I just kill motherfuckers in nexuiz
136 2011-09-05 09:03:13 <dub> battlefield4eva
137 2011-09-05 09:03:18 <Diablo-D3> of course, people request that I dont because when I do its often 100+ frags
138 2011-09-05 09:03:39 <Diablo-D3> I mean, if you dont want me to kill you, then stop dying
139 2011-09-05 09:06:28 <dub> anyway, I have a couple of linux desktops but windows bullshit has its place
140 2011-09-05 09:07:17 <lianj> yeah, in a vm :P
141 2011-09-05 09:07:31 <Diablo-D3> yeah along with lion
142 2011-09-05 10:18:02 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r194 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java:
143 2011-09-05 10:22:45 <edcba> why isn't hearn used finally ?
144 2011-09-05 10:22:51 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r195 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java: Open files in sync mode. This forces use of fsync() at the right times, and may help resolve corruption issues observed on Android devices. Updates issue 66.
145 2011-09-05 10:23:17 <edcba> ie finally { if (this.file != null) this.file.close(); ?
146 2011-09-05 10:24:24 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r196 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java: Use "d" mode not "s" mode, to avoid needlessly updating file metadata (we don't use it).
147 2011-09-05 10:24:37 <lfm> whats hearn?
148 2011-09-05 10:25:08 <UukGoblin> Mike Hearn, aka TD
149 2011-09-05 10:25:32 <edcba> i didn't know his nick :)
150 2011-09-05 10:28:12 <lfm> close doesnt set the file pointer to null
151 2011-09-05 10:29:08 <lfm> so it might double close -> ENOFILE
152 2011-09-05 10:29:40 <lfm> or null ref some buffer
153 2011-09-05 10:32:39 <edcba> indeed didn't see it keeps file open
154 2011-09-05 10:35:42 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2f5f7efd229f cgminer/main.c: No need to use the re-entrant strtok_r and mingw32 doesn't support it anyway.
155 2011-09-05 11:06:14 <TD> edcba: because that method is supposed to keep the file around if it works
156 2011-09-05 11:06:23 <TD> edcba: we only need to close the file on the exceptional path
157 2011-09-05 11:06:39 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r197 /trunk/ (3 files in 2 dirs):
158 2011-09-05 11:06:40 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: When confirming a transaction as sent, move connected newly spent transactions
159 2011-09-05 11:19:39 <TD> hmm, BlueMatts DNS node is returning AAAA records?
160 2011-09-05 11:20:01 <TD> interesting
161 2011-09-05 11:20:56 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r198 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/PeerGroup.java: Don't log stack traces for expected network problems. Clean up the logging a bit. Resolves issue 69.
162 2011-09-05 11:30:08 <forloop> !bc,blocks
163 2011-09-05 11:36:31 <phantomcircuit> TD, so i understand that bitcoinj can only connect to 1 peer?
164 2011-09-05 11:42:56 <TD> phantomcircuit: nope
165 2011-09-05 11:43:08 <TD> phantomcircuit: it can connect to irc/dns, find a bunch of peers, connect to all of them
166 2011-09-05 11:58:48 <asher^> how long is the delay in propogating new blocks over the network usually? is it heavily dependant on the quality/quantity of nodes you are connected to or pretty quick in any case?
167 2011-09-05 11:59:16 <Tamo> Chickens control most of the blocks
168 2011-09-05 11:59:27 <Tamo> Tigers share the blocks around
169 2011-09-05 11:59:31 <Tamo> and monkeys mine the blocks
170 2011-09-05 12:02:31 <asher^> thanks.
171 2011-09-05 12:03:57 <TD> asher^: a minute or so i guess for it to go everywhere. someone has stats on this, i forgot
172 2011-09-05 12:04:08 <TD> asher^: lots of nodes are in a kind of semi-broken state where they are not on the full chain
173 2011-09-05 12:04:11 <TD> so they'll never get it
174 2011-09-05 12:04:27 <asher^> :-|
175 2011-09-05 12:23:57 <UukGoblin> !seen gavinandresen
176 2011-09-05 12:23:58 <spaola> gavinandresen (~gavinandr@pool-72-79-216-148.spfdma.east.verizon.net) was last seen quitting from #bitcoin-dev 23 hours, 47 minutes ago stating (Quit: gavinandresen).
177 2011-09-05 12:23:58 <TiggrBot> gavinandresen was last seen speaking 24 hours, 13 minutes, 40 seconds ago.
178 2011-09-05 13:34:40 <Matth1a3> so I'm trying to build the current master in win 7 to test some commits and I'm getting many symlink errors in msys when trying to tar xfz openssl - can I just use 7zip instead?
179 2011-09-05 13:35:54 <UukGoblin> Matth1a3, windows doesn't support symlinks afaik...
180 2011-09-05 13:36:00 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: it does
181 2011-09-05 13:36:03 <UukGoblin> srsly?
182 2011-09-05 13:36:15 <luke-jr> UukGoblin: yes, but probably not via POSIX
183 2011-09-05 13:36:15 <UukGoblin> since... when? :-O
184 2011-09-05 13:36:22 <luke-jr> I think NT always has
185 2011-09-05 13:37:07 <luke-jr> maybe just since NTFS
186 2011-09-05 13:37:12 <UukGoblin> hmm
187 2011-09-05 13:37:33 <luke-jr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link
188 2011-09-05 13:37:55 <luke-jr> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363866.aspx says since Vista/2008
189 2011-09-05 13:38:06 <UukGoblin> ah, that'd be it
190 2011-09-05 13:38:13 <UukGoblin> I stopped following windows after ~xp
191 2011-09-05 13:38:17 <UukGoblin> nice to hear, anyway
192 2011-09-05 14:05:53 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, normal users cant use NTFS symlinks because they override permissions or something ridiculous like that
193 2011-09-05 14:16:04 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr noncerange * rf28ddfc39063 pushpool-personal/ (msg.c server.c server.h): Implement noncerange extension (DRAFT, please review)
194 2011-09-05 14:35:42 <CIA-92> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr noncerange * rdb30421b6d59 pushpool-personal/ (msg.c server.c server.h): Implement noncerange extension (DRAFT, please review)
195 2011-09-05 15:09:35 <CIA-92> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r199 /trunk/ (2 files in 2 dirs): Make PeerGroup remember discovery sources and retry them after a while.
196 2011-09-05 15:13:22 <iddo> i'm trying to understand merged mining, does it work by concatenating the namecoin block hash to the bitcoin nonce?
197 2011-09-05 15:13:47 <TD> see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains
198 2011-09-05 15:14:18 <Diablo-D3> iddo: it requires lots and lots of drugs
199 2011-09-05 15:14:44 <iddo> so if the bitcoin block gets hashed with enough leading 0s for either namecoin difficulty or both, you need to attach this entire bitcoin block to the namecoin chain
200 2011-09-05 15:14:47 <iddo> ?
201 2011-09-05 15:15:43 <iddo> hmm https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains is a lot to read...
202 2011-09-05 15:15:46 <TD> the bitcoin block needs to be associated with the namecoin block, yes
203 2011-09-05 15:15:49 <TD> well it's a complicated topic
204 2011-09-05 15:15:53 <TD> that article explains everything though
205 2011-09-05 15:16:11 <phantomcircuit> it's not that complicated
206 2011-09-05 15:16:21 <phantomcircuit> you just put hte bitcoin block hash into the namecoin block
207 2011-09-05 15:16:23 <phantomcircuit> shazam
208 2011-09-05 15:16:27 <TD> no
209 2011-09-05 15:16:29 <TD> that's not how it works
210 2011-09-05 15:16:31 <TD> read the article again
211 2011-09-05 15:16:41 <iddo> so the entire bitcoin block (including all bitcoin transactions) have to be attached to the current namecoin chain, as proof of work?
212 2011-09-05 15:16:44 <TD> no
213 2011-09-05 15:16:53 <TD> just the header, the coinbase tx and a merkle branch linking the two
214 2011-09-05 15:16:58 <TD> really, it's best to just read the article
215 2011-09-05 15:19:28 <iddo> ok thank, i'll try to read, but it seemed to me that everything in the bitcoin block that gets hashed needs to be attached to the namecoin block as proof of work
216 2011-09-05 15:22:05 <phantomcircuit> iddo, depends on whether you have access to the bitcoin blocks or not
217 2011-09-05 15:22:11 <phantomcircuit> although i guess this is assuming you do not
218 2011-09-05 15:23:16 <iddo> i think you don't have access, because if the leading 0s are only good for the current namecoin difficulty, then this block wouldn't be part of the bitcoin blockchain
219 2011-09-05 15:27:01 <Lopuz> where do you get namecoin?
220 2011-09-05 15:30:22 <iddo> maybe the idea behind what TD meant is that we don't hash the entire bitcoin block with changing nonce, but we first calculate hash of the bitcoin block and then add changing nonce to this hash until we get proof of work
221 2011-09-05 15:30:44 <iddo> is this how bitcoin works?
222 2011-09-05 15:37:06 <Lopuz> how much does a domain cost?
223 2011-09-05 15:40:58 <npouillard> Lopuz: http://dot-bit.org/tools/domainCost.php
224 2011-09-05 15:41:13 <Lopuz> thanks
225 2011-09-05 16:13:43 <gribble> BlueMatt was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 3 days, 0 hours, 2 minutes, and 19 seconds ago: <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: well fair enough
226 2011-09-05 16:13:43 <tcatm> ;;seen BlueMatt
227 2011-09-05 16:23:44 <midnightmagic> looking forward to being vindicated when merged mining arrives..
228 2011-09-05 16:24:11 <midnightmagic> cooperation assures the success of all these alternate chains, not competition
229 2011-09-05 16:25:41 <jrmithdobbs> alternate chains are worthless
230 2011-09-05 16:25:44 <jrmithdobbs> but w/e
231 2011-09-05 16:25:55 <jrmithdobbs> at least, for use as currency
232 2011-09-05 16:26:40 <b4epoche_> what's with artfotz reporting bugs in the solidcoin client?
233 2011-09-05 16:29:14 <JFK911> lol artfotz
234 2011-09-05 16:30:06 <BTCTrader_> i want to make a solidcoin fork called s0lidcoin
235 2011-09-05 16:30:32 <midnightmagic> alternate chains allow people to experiment without parasitic theft of core bitcoin mining. and then there is a free choice to mine on them and everyone still gets their core bitcoins. it's additive: it costs basically nothing extra to hash as many coin chains as you want.
236 2011-09-05 16:30:33 <mtrlt> i would start liquidcoin
237 2011-09-05 16:30:41 <mtrlt> if i could be arsed to
238 2011-09-05 16:30:52 <BTCTrader_> alt chains have a great effect in the market
239 2011-09-05 16:31:11 <BTCTrader_> they can be used to prove good or bad implementations of features
240 2011-09-05 16:31:47 <midnightmagic> precisely: and if one becomes more popular than bitcoin because it turns out people do like more rapid adaptation to mining changes, then they can continue mining that without splitting mining effort.
241 2011-09-05 16:32:15 <BTCTrader_> when is unified mining looking to be possible?
242 2011-09-05 16:32:25 <midnightmagic> block 19200 it'll be turned on for namecoin.
243 2011-09-05 16:32:31 <BTCTrader_> sweet
244 2011-09-05 16:32:43 <BTCTrader_> namecoin is the only other one i care about atm
245 2011-09-05 16:32:45 <midnightmagic> all you need is a bitcoin patch, you don't have to change mainline as far as I can tell
246 2011-09-05 16:33:00 <midnightmagic> you just need the getauxwork() rpc call.
247 2011-09-05 16:33:49 <midnightmagic> like..  all the normal bitcoin people out there won't even know you're running getauxwork I don't think.
248 2011-09-05 16:34:00 <BTCTrader_> nods
249 2011-09-05 16:34:21 <BTCTrader_> how far away is block 19200?
250 2011-09-05 16:35:11 <jrmithdobbs> like 12 months since namecoin got fucked by drop off of mining i think
251 2011-09-05 16:35:12 <jrmithdobbs> lol
252 2011-09-05 16:35:31 <midnightmagic> about a month I think at this rate.
253 2011-09-05 16:35:32 <TuxBlackEdo> more like 2 months
254 2011-09-05 16:35:42 <midnightmagic> ah, it's more than 2 hour average?
255 2011-09-05 16:35:59 <TuxBlackEdo> Network Speed: 45.02 GH/s | Average Block Time: 2 hours 29 minutes 31 seconds   | Based on 29 Blocks
256 2011-09-05 16:36:23 <midnightmagic> oh good lord, instant is down to 6600.
257 2011-09-05 16:36:48 <TuxBlackEdo> Current Difficulty: 94037.961114 | Next Difficulty Estimate: 10628.2973631 | Next Difficulty In: 11 weeks 3 days 4 hours 30 minutes 22 seconds
258 2011-09-05 16:37:57 <midnightmagic> assuming merged mining happens at 19200, then that's 341 blocks away, @ 2:29 = 35 days i think.
259 2011-09-05 16:38:07 <midnightmagic> oh hey gavin
260 2011-09-05 16:38:14 <gavinandresen> howdy
261 2011-09-05 16:38:34 <midnightmagic> is getauxwork() got a chance in heck of making into mainline?
262 2011-09-05 16:38:45 <gavinandresen> what is getauxwork?
263 2011-09-05 16:39:15 <midnightmagic> a call to assist namecoin merged mining.
264 2011-09-05 16:40:19 <gavinandresen> ... and what does it do?  Is there a description somewhere?
265 2011-09-05 16:40:49 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, just an fyi the bitcoin.org site now looks ridiculous with noscript
266 2011-09-05 16:41:11 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: tell Nils
267 2011-09-05 16:41:19 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, ^
268 2011-09-05 16:42:25 <tcatm> phantomcircuit: I know. I'd like to pre-render the CSS but I didn't have time to figure out how to do that with github pages.
269 2011-09-05 16:44:12 <tcatm> I just tried it without CSS and it's pretty usable.
270 2011-09-05 16:45:25 <midnightmagic> there's some description here: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/blob/mergedmine/doc/README_merged-mining.md
271 2011-09-05 16:46:49 <phantomcircuit> tcatm, http://pastebin.com/s3nmrVUg
272 2011-09-05 16:47:31 <tcatm> phantomcircuit: that's the rendered CSS, yes
273 2011-09-05 16:47:47 <phantomcircuit> yes
274 2011-09-05 16:47:52 <tcatm> I'd like to have a jekyll pluging (that works on github) to automatically generate that
275 2011-09-05 16:48:13 <phantomcircuit> why not just... use that?
276 2011-09-05 16:49:03 <tcatm> I'd have to update that everytime I change the source
277 2011-09-05 16:50:37 <phantomcircuit> what's your plan for future changes?
278 2011-09-05 16:51:31 <tcatm> making github/jekyll generate the CSS on each push
279 2011-09-05 16:56:54 <gavinandresen> I just submitted two pull requests, would appreciate review/sanity-tests
280 2011-09-05 16:56:56 <Matth1a3> has anyone here had great success building the source in windows 7? I am trying to setup a test environment for some commits, and I am running into one issue after the next...
281 2011-09-05 16:57:04 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/492
282 2011-09-05 16:57:13 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491
283 2011-09-05 16:58:11 <gavinandresen> Matth1a3: the official releases are cross-compiled on Linux using mingw
284 2011-09-05 16:58:29 <gavinandresen> (I can't help, I compile linux and mac)
285 2011-09-05 16:59:00 <alexwaters> i see, np - tried the ec2 image and I am getting connection problems - can't even run the instance after setting up aws
286 2011-09-05 17:00:13 <Asphodelia> (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_we_use_calculations_that_are_also_useful_for_some_other_purpose.3F) Am I correct in thinking that the main features that would be needed from an alternate proof-of-work algorithm would be cheap verifiability and the ability to include arbitrary data in the proof of work?
287 2011-09-05 17:00:38 <zamgo> re: 492.  so if a blockchain is offered online, one downloads it and does a -rescan on it.  then is it 'safe' as long as the chain ends 120 blocks or more before the last lockin?
288 2011-09-05 17:01:33 <TD> Asphodelia: it's more complicated than that
289 2011-09-05 17:01:35 <kjj> Asphodelia: those two features are necessary, yes.  but not sufficient
290 2011-09-05 17:02:59 <Asphodelia> What other features are necessary?
291 2011-09-05 17:03:16 <midnightmagic> pseudorandomness so we can modulate the difficulty to acocmmodate fresh mining power.
292 2011-09-05 17:04:26 <Asphodelia> I don't see how pseudorandomness is involved in difficulty adjustments.
293 2011-09-05 17:05:04 <Asphodelia> Is it in the adjustability of the difficulty, or in deciding what we should adjust it to?
294 2011-09-05 17:05:32 <kjj> it has to be easy to verify, but hard to do, and the difficulty must be able to scale as needed
295 2011-09-05 17:06:36 <Asphodelia> Okay. So far I have easy verification, data inclusion, and scalable difficulty. Are there any other requirements, or are those sufficient?
296 2011-09-05 17:07:18 <kjj> there are probably a bunch more, but I can't find the thread where it was discussed in depth
297 2011-09-05 17:07:48 <midnightmagic> Asphodelia: it has to do with being able to moodulate difficulty: if the result is pseudorandom with good distribution, then we can say "anything below X" and reasonably expect that, on average,y% of all results will hit below that line.
298 2011-09-05 17:07:50 <kjj> but you basically end up with a cryptographic hash
299 2011-09-05 17:08:05 <Asphodelia> okay
300 2011-09-05 17:08:13 <midnightmagic> if it were not pseudorandom, then you couldn't set the bar at X and be able to predict on average how many results will be below it.
301 2011-09-05 17:08:31 <midnightmagic> and therefore couldn't keep block generation at an expected time interval.
302 2011-09-05 17:09:23 <gavinandresen> zamgo: ummm...  assuming you are connected to the 'real' bitcoin network, then any blockchain that you download and -rescan is safe.
303 2011-09-05 17:10:00 <zamgo> ok
304 2011-09-05 17:10:15 <gavinandresen> zamgo: the attack would be:  attacker gets you to download a bogus chain that ends after the last checkpoint, and then manages to get you to connect only to their nodes, which then agree that the bogus chain is the right one
305 2011-09-05 17:10:43 <Asphodelia> Is the thread you were thinking of one of these? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6558.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8519.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6408.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=36242.0
306 2011-09-05 17:10:58 <xelister> gavinandresen: hi, seeing how other networks are left for months damaged by surge in power, and how testnet was destroyed by me with Artz =)
307 2011-09-05 17:11:04 <acecake> If the client has a transaction in it's memory pool (i.e. not included in a block yet) will it accept another transaction spending one of the same inputs?
308 2011-09-05 17:11:23 <xelister> gavinandresen: why not allow more often lowering of target if the current reall spead appears very low
309 2011-09-05 17:11:46 <xelister> and allow lowering even without waiting even 1 block, e.g. if "there was 72 hours without ANY block mined" etc
310 2011-09-05 17:11:56 <gavinandresen> xelister: ArtForz has a very good analysis of why asymmetric difficulty adjustment is a really bad idea.
311 2011-09-05 17:12:10 <xelister> btw, anyone knows what happened to ArtForz ?
312 2011-09-05 17:12:16 <gavinandresen> xelister: ...although for the testnet, it may not matter.
313 2011-09-05 17:12:20 <midnightmagic> he's still making posts and doing stuff
314 2011-09-05 17:12:24 <Asphodelia> Mibs got him
315 2011-09-05 17:12:29 <midnightmagic> looks like he just got tired of answering questions.
316 2011-09-05 17:12:50 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, whose picture is that you use on github
317 2011-09-05 17:12:52 <xelister> aw
318 2011-09-05 17:13:01 <xelister> he was coolest person on this IRC network.
319 2011-09-05 17:13:17 <gavinandresen> xelister: I was outvoted at the last tesnet reset-- I wanted to change the difficulty re-adjust rules
320 2011-09-05 17:13:25 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: that is me from when I had a goatee
321 2011-09-05 17:13:31 <kjj> Asphodelia: I don't think that any of those is the one particular thread I was thinking of, but they are all of the same opinion
322 2011-09-05 17:13:31 <phantomcircuit> lol
323 2011-09-05 17:13:35 <midnightmagic> this is freenode, i'm pretty sure he would say he is not the coolest person here. :)
324 2011-09-05 17:13:39 <xelister> gavinandresen: what if government attacks like we did with testnet?
325 2011-09-05 17:13:59 <phantomcircuit> shadow makes it look like a full mustache
326 2011-09-05 17:14:01 <xelister> government could order x100 more 5970s then Ati released if they really want
327 2011-09-05 17:14:04 <xelister> run it for a week
328 2011-09-05 17:14:27 <xelister> then use it for the actuall purpose given to fatvote^H american public, like a cluster for your protect^H for science
329 2011-09-05 17:15:08 <Dispositions> xelister: that's only like 70gh/s :3
330 2011-09-05 17:15:11 <gavinandresen> I dunno.  Maybe we'd hard-code a difficulty reset after a couple of very-long-to-solve blocks.  There are lots of things we COULD do.
331 2011-09-05 17:15:11 <xelister> nowdays it seems we would be stuck with like... 5 days for 6 confiramtions, for months
332 2011-09-05 17:15:37 <xelister> gavinandresen: I look at ixicoin  they seem to "paniced", quickly patch and release rules and whoopsie not everyone upgraded
333 2011-09-05 17:15:55 <zamgo> is a -rescan considered a Intial Block Download?
334 2011-09-05 17:16:10 <xelister> with bitcoin perhaps we should right now plan such rules, release them, but make them activate only after say 2012-02-01 or something so virtually everyone will upgrade
335 2011-09-05 17:16:21 <acecake> anyone know about the inputs - i'm trying to implement double spend detection for pi.uk.com/bitcoin. Will the client accept double spending of the same inputs until they are committed to the block chain?
336 2011-09-05 17:16:30 <gavinandresen> zamgo: no, -rescan scans the blocks you have for transactions to/from you.
337 2011-09-05 17:16:40 <Dispositions> acecake: no, it'll reject the second one.
338 2011-09-05 17:16:48 <acecake> ok thanks
339 2011-09-05 17:16:51 <zamgo> ok
340 2011-09-05 17:16:52 <xelister> btw, gavinandresen
341 2011-09-05 17:17:02 <xelister> gavinandresen: you owe me 60000 TBTC :-E
342 2011-09-05 17:17:10 <xelister> :)
343 2011-09-05 17:17:20 <iddo> xelister: can you explain this attack that you mentioned?
344 2011-09-05 17:17:43 <gavinandresen> iddo: throw lots of hashing power at the network, drive up difficulty, then go away.
345 2011-09-05 17:18:04 <xelister> iddo: put huge power on the network so that difficulty adjusts to say 100 milion, it will be very expensive (for gov or other thugs) but just for few days and then turn off the attack
346 2011-09-05 17:18:08 <Dispositions> that's not really fesiable.
347 2011-09-05 17:18:09 <iddo> so blocks would take longer than 10mins to complete?
348 2011-09-05 17:18:16 <xelister> and network is stuck at diff 100 mil for 100 * 2 weeks
349 2011-09-05 17:18:21 <xelister> brb
350 2011-09-05 17:18:58 <acecake> Dispositions: I assume if i comment out the validation code in CTransaction::AcceptToMemoryPool() it won't mess up the block chain as the transaction is validated again once included in a block?
351 2011-09-05 17:19:12 <iddo> ok, so it doesn't attack the security, just slower confirmations
352 2011-09-05 17:19:43 <phantomcircuit> acecake, yeah
353 2011-09-05 17:19:53 <Dispositions> ^
354 2011-09-05 17:20:02 <Dispositions> well unless you generated a block
355 2011-09-05 17:20:11 <Dispositions> but if you aren't mining it won't happen
356 2011-09-05 17:20:11 <phantomcircuit> it would be rejected
357 2011-09-05 17:20:20 <acecake> i'm not mining
358 2011-09-05 17:20:32 <xelister> iddo: well it makes bitcoin useless for most todays purpsoes. a week for tx to go into exchange or any merchant or shop etc
359 2011-09-05 17:21:14 <Dispositions> maybe gavin should modify the alert system for such forsee issue xelister :P
360 2011-09-05 17:21:17 <iddo> what's the analysis why it's important to retarget the difficulty after several weeks, instead of e.g. a day?
361 2011-09-05 17:21:29 <xelister> alert system?
362 2011-09-05 17:22:01 <gavinandresen> xelister: absolutely, that kind of attack is exactly why there is an alert system
363 2011-09-05 17:22:18 <Dispositions> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#alert
364 2011-09-05 17:22:35 <Dispositions> afiak satoshi gave the key to gavinandresen
365 2011-09-05 17:24:59 <zamgo> and, does that same key work on namecoin (at least pre august2011 clients)
366 2011-09-05 17:25:10 <nexes> Does anyone happen to know if bitcoinj has a means to add a wallet reference to the BlockChain object and have it update the transactions in the wallet? Apparently using addWallet will not update the wallet with transactions from already added blocks.
367 2011-09-05 17:25:20 <xelister> hey gavinandresen I have an "fbi conference" I need you to attend. take the key =)
368 2011-09-05 17:25:26 <TD> nexes: see the RefreshWallet example
369 2011-09-05 17:25:51 <Dispositions> acecake: I'm more interested if you can write a super node that attempts to connect to as much nodes as possible and attempt to monitor double spending on a networking level.
370 2011-09-05 17:25:53 <TD> nexes: you do indeed have to redownload the block chain
371 2011-09-05 17:26:03 <TD> Dispositions: you can and it's been done
372 2011-09-05 17:26:10 <Dispositions> TD: where is this?
373 2011-09-05 17:26:15 <Dispositions> I know you  can.
374 2011-09-05 17:26:27 <TD> i could dig up the link. it was called bitcoin radar or something like that
375 2011-09-05 17:26:36 <Dispositions> k let me google
376 2011-09-05 17:26:50 <TD> in practice bitcoin has much bigger problems with botnets stealing wallets or "legitimately" mining than double spending attacks
377 2011-09-05 17:27:11 <acecake> Dispositions: We'll My client is already a "leech" that doesn't distribute txs or blocks - i'm connected to 500 other nodes at present
378 2011-09-05 17:27:22 <Dispositions> acecake: I figure as much
379 2011-09-05 17:27:30 <Dispositions> here i found it incase some one wants to take a look
380 2011-09-05 17:27:51 <nexes> TD: Let me try to explain this a bit better. :) I have bitcoinj running and the chain downloaded, and I'm connected to a local full Bitcoin node already. Now, I have a pre-existing wallet that I'm trying to get all transactions for, but I can't load this wallet on startup, as I was only just given it.
381 2011-09-05 17:28:07 <TD> ok
382 2011-09-05 17:28:16 <TD> so, wallets contain transactions
383 2011-09-05 17:28:18 <TD> and keys
384 2011-09-05 17:28:48 <nexes> TD: Right. Maybe that's the confusion then. I'm creating a new wallet based on keys that already exist, but I do not know the transactions in advance.
385 2011-09-05 17:28:51 <TD> if your wallet contains keys but no transactions, you need to redownload the block chain. you can just delete the .blockchain file and rerun your app, it will redownload all the blocks from the start and find transactions relevant to your keys
386 2011-09-05 17:28:52 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, has anybody ever tested the alert system?
387 2011-09-05 17:29:06 <TD> there isn't any way to avoid downloading the whole chain currently.
388 2011-09-05 17:29:12 <xelister> nice, an alert system dependent on some 1 person holding the key
389 2011-09-05 17:29:15 <xelister> this sure do look like
390 2011-09-05 17:29:19 <xelister> totally retarded idea ;)
391 2011-09-05 17:29:26 <Dispositions> unfortunately.
392 2011-09-05 17:29:30 <TD> one of the next things we'll add to bitcoinj is timestamps on the keys. that way when you import them, only the part of the chain since the key was created needs to be redownloaded
393 2011-09-05 17:29:42 <nexes> TD: Yeah, in my case, re-downloading or re-loading the chain from disk will be way too slow. Bummer..
394 2011-09-05 17:29:44 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: Never been used, as far as I know. I assume Satoshi tested it on a testnet.
395 2011-09-05 17:29:46 <TD> fortunately bitcoinj can download the chain very fast
396 2011-09-05 17:29:48 <Dispositions> well, there is talks about multi-sign.
397 2011-09-05 17:29:57 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, hehe
398 2011-09-05 17:30:03 <TD> the early parts of the chain go at 500 blocks/second, which is the theoretical maximum pretty much
399 2011-09-05 17:30:05 <Dispositions> and we can just multi-sign the alert key in the future
400 2011-09-05 17:30:09 <xelister> fortunatelly we knows no gov or other thugs will ever abuse power to influence, scare, sue or kidnap gavinandresen or anything
401 2011-09-05 17:30:11 <TD> nexes: why, what do you want to do?
402 2011-09-05 17:30:28 <Dispositions> well currently the alert key doesn't really do anything.
403 2011-09-05 17:30:31 <gavinandresen> Oh, yeah, speaking of multi-sig I rewrote my multi-sig proposal:  https://gist.github.com/39158239e36f6af69d6f
404 2011-09-05 17:30:35 <TD> xelister: the alert system isn't very useful. it doesn't do anything at all for non-gui nodes
405 2011-09-05 17:30:43 <TD> and it doesn't even give a popup alert for gui nodes.
406 2011-09-05 17:30:52 <TD> i think it should be used for every important upgrade actually
407 2011-09-05 17:30:55 <nexes> TD: I'm running a service where users will provide me their public keys and I need to generate a list of their transactions from that list.
408 2011-09-05 17:30:55 <xelister> anyway, why not allow very fast readjusting?
409 2011-09-05 17:31:00 <Dispositions> gavinandresen: nice, clicks
410 2011-09-05 17:31:02 <xelister> it can be also symmetrical (re ArtzForz)
411 2011-09-05 17:31:04 <TD> nexes: so a block explorer?
412 2011-09-05 17:31:29 <nexes> TD: Sort of. It also needs to be able to build and sign transactions.
413 2011-09-05 17:31:57 <TD> nexes: could you give me more details? what you need is a different BlockStore, that maintains a full chain index in a sql db or something like that.
414 2011-09-05 17:32:08 <nexes> TD: Do you mind if I PM you quick?
415 2011-09-05 17:32:10 <TD> so i'm interested in your plans for it
416 2011-09-05 17:32:12 <TD> sure, go ahead
417 2011-09-05 17:32:20 <xelister> TD: you work for the evil? ;)
418 2011-09-05 17:32:29 <Dispositions> :3 nice work TD
419 2011-09-05 17:32:29 <TD> i don't just work for the evil
420 2011-09-05 17:32:33 <TD> i AM the evil. fear me.
421 2011-09-05 17:32:34 <Dispositions> he is the evil
422 2011-09-05 17:32:36 <Dispositions> LOL
423 2011-09-05 17:32:37 <Dispositions> see.
424 2011-09-05 17:32:45 <Blitzboom> he works for google
425 2011-09-05 17:32:47 <Blitzboom> so no coincidence
426 2011-09-05 17:33:26 <kinlo> gavinandresen: do you posses the private key for this alert key?
427 2011-09-05 17:33:45 <zamgo> Do No Good
428 2011-09-05 17:33:46 <gavinandresen> kinlo: I'd rather not say who has the alert key-- lookup 'rubber hose cryptography'
429 2011-09-05 17:34:07 <zamgo> http://xkcd.com/538/
430 2011-09-05 17:34:14 <kinlo> heh, ok
431 2011-09-05 17:34:37 <iddo> TD: does bitcoinj simple verification mode stores all the blockchain headers from the genesis block, or would it use checkpoints (and calc your wallet balance till the checkpoint) and trim the earlier chain history?
432 2011-09-05 17:34:42 <Dispositions> Mmmm, there needs to be some way to fetch old transactions from a super node so there can be a service to just sign transactions
433 2011-09-05 17:34:48 <xelister> TD: are you proud for serving corportaion that helped to keep order. Like giving up personal data of Chinese blogger so his gov could imprison him :P
434 2011-09-05 17:34:56 <kinlo> gavinandresen: in any case, a fork could easily be created if the key is breached
435 2011-09-05 17:35:11 <iddo> assuming no one has hash power to fork the blockchain from a checkpoint
436 2011-09-05 17:35:13 <gavinandresen> kinlo: yup.  And a m-of-n signature scheme could replace it....
437 2011-09-05 17:35:14 <TD> iddo: it does the former but could do (and at some point will do) the latter
438 2011-09-05 17:35:16 <xelister> kinlo: easly created hardly deployed
439 2011-09-05 17:35:17 <Dispositions> kinlo: it's not a big deal, it currently doesn't do anything.
440 2011-09-05 17:35:26 <iddo> TD: ok, cool
441 2011-09-05 17:35:59 <TD> xelister: think you got us confused with yahoo
442 2011-09-05 17:36:58 <iddo> TD: the Satoshi article talks about doing the former, but i guess the latter is safe if checkpoints are far enough
443 2011-09-05 17:37:02 <kinlo> I really should continue reading the source
444 2011-09-05 17:37:25 <kinlo> but I would assume that it could be used to force people to upgrade at a certain point if implemented correctyl
445 2011-09-05 17:37:43 <Dispositions> gavinandresen: i feel the m-of-n case 2 and 4 is effectively pointless, ther eonly needs 3 with extention, and 5, works ([1..n]) or Z
446 2011-09-05 17:37:44 <TD> iddo: you need enough block headers to safely handle re-orgs
447 2011-09-05 17:37:56 <xelister> TD: doubt it. (un?)surprisingly it takes me a while to regoogle it
448 2011-09-05 17:37:59 <TD> iddo: in theory, a re-org can be arbitrarily deep, all the way back to the genesis block
449 2011-09-05 17:38:16 <TD> iddo: in practice such a re-org would be computationally infeasible. even one more than only 10 blocks deep is quite unlikely at current speeds.
450 2011-09-05 17:38:19 <Dispositions> case 2 and 4 is like a shitty lock
451 2011-09-05 17:38:21 <Dispositions> :3
452 2011-09-05 17:38:27 <TD> iddo: so if you store, say, 1000 headers, the chances of you ending up stuck is very low
453 2011-09-05 17:38:55 <gavinandresen> Dispositions: can you add a comment to the gist saying so?
454 2011-09-05 17:38:59 <TD> iddo: at some point i'll change BOBS so it stores the last X thousand headers in an on-disk ringbuffer and that will reduce the disk size of the mobile apps significantly
455 2011-09-05 17:39:05 <Dispositions> gavinandresen: of course.
456 2011-09-05 17:39:13 <iddo> TD: yes, i see, i just meant that in practice even his 4 megabytes per year extreme scenario can be improved, by trimming the chain headers with checkpoints
457 2011-09-05 17:39:30 <gavinandresen> Dispositions: thanks, otherwise it'll drop right out of my brain
458 2011-09-05 17:40:45 <TD> iddo: yes, exactly. i think we'll get it to where the lightweight clients can use <1mb of storage.
459 2011-09-05 17:41:04 <TD> iddo: it's a bit fiddly to implement, but we can do it and still get the benefits of independent clients that connect directly to the p2p network
460 2011-09-05 17:41:08 <TD> no third party services or proxies required
461 2011-09-05 17:41:29 <TD> iddo: it's only really an issue for mobile clients. apps like MultiBit don't care about disk space as they run on desktops/laptops
462 2011-09-05 17:41:55 <Asphodelia> kjj: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=203.msg3669#msg3669 ?
463 2011-09-05 17:42:17 <iddo> cool
464 2011-09-05 17:42:41 <TD> gavinandresen: shouldn't the CHECKSIGs in forms (1) and (2) be CHECKSIGVERIFY?
465 2011-09-05 17:42:59 <gavinandresen> TD: probably....
466 2011-09-05 17:43:19 <gavinandresen> wait, no.  It's gotta leave a true value on the stack
467 2011-09-05 17:43:44 <xelister> TD: still searching. want to bet 5 BTC was it (also) google? if yes then -> #bitcoin or pm me :)
468 2011-09-05 17:44:29 <Dispositions> gavinandresen: when you get a chance, I sent you rather lengthy email :/
469 2011-09-05 17:44:53 <TD> gavinandresen: oh yes. i think you're right.
470 2011-09-05 17:45:00 <TD> not intuitive.
471 2011-09-05 17:45:58 <TD> gavinandresen: i still like the CHECKMULTISIG form, even if it's got its problems. but this does seem more flexible i agree
472 2011-09-05 17:53:54 <TD> xelister: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece
473 2011-09-05 17:54:36 <xelister> TD: yeap I found that one ofcourse. Quite sure some of the other 70+ arrested where in relation to google.
474 2011-09-05 17:54:56 <TD> i have no idea. but there's a reason we got out of china ....
475 2011-09-05 17:55:19 <TD> besides, unfortunately governments are all at it. see the patriot act :(
476 2011-09-05 17:55:59 <xelister> can chinese disidents, certain-countries black people or gay people etc use Google+?  Because giving real name == prison/death
477 2011-09-05 17:57:30 <ashrewdmint> Not sure if this is a good place for support, but I can't seem to get bitcoind to work with the default port: https://gist.github.com/737068dae555b8b01553
478 2011-09-05 17:57:33 <Diablo-D3> I swear I put xelister on ignore
479 2011-09-05 17:57:44 <ashrewdmint> Nothing else is listening on :8333 that I can tell
480 2011-09-05 17:58:02 <ashrewdmint> It's on a brand new Ubuntu VM
481 2011-09-05 17:58:43 <xelister> Diablo-D3: oh you =)
482 2011-09-05 17:59:13 <alexwaters> does anyone know who controls the bitcoin.org email accounts?
483 2011-09-05 18:00:40 <Dispositions> ashrewdmint: netstat it?
484 2011-09-05 18:00:47 <Dispositions> it's running n etc
485 2011-09-05 18:00:48 <Dispositions> ?
486 2011-09-05 18:06:31 <ashrewdmint> Dispositions: I can't find it. When it complains about not being able to connect to 8333, nothing shows up in ps aux
487 2011-09-05 18:06:36 <ashrewdmint> (nothing bitcoin related)
488 2011-09-05 18:07:04 <ashrewdmint> netstat it | grep bitcoin doesn't return anything
489 2011-09-05 18:08:30 <Dispositions> ashrewdmint: you sure it's running, bitcoind I mean
490 2011-09-05 18:08:56 <ashrewdmint> Well, when the port is set to 8333, it refuses to start (see gist above)
491 2011-09-05 18:09:06 <ashrewdmint> But at that time bitcoind is not running, not that I can tell
492 2011-09-05 18:09:26 <ashrewdmint> If I set the port to something else it seems to start
493 2011-09-05 18:09:37 <ashrewdmint> $ bitcoind -port=8991
494 2011-09-05 18:09:46 <Dispositions> huh.
495 2011-09-05 18:09:49 <Dispositions> that's weird :3
496 2011-09-05 18:09:56 <Dispositions> check if you can connect to 8991 first
497 2011-09-05 18:10:32 <ashrewdmint> Is there a simple way to do that? I only know a bit of unix
498 2011-09-05 18:12:16 <Dispositions> send some json-rpc call to it.
499 2011-09-05 18:14:30 <ashrewdmint> Ah, have been trying that earlier--I either get a timeout error or a connection refused error. I'll have to keep digging. Thanks.
500 2011-09-05 18:14:41 <ashrewdmint> I think there's something wrong with my networking
501 2011-09-05 18:15:37 <Dispositions> huh, even locally?
502 2011-09-05 18:15:40 <Dispositions> via localhost
503 2011-09-05 18:16:53 <ashrewdmint> Dispositions: I guess I could enter in jsonrpc commands in the terminal, right?
504 2011-09-05 18:17:00 <Dispositions> ashrewdmint: run ./bitcoind help to see if bitcoind is EVEN up
505 2011-09-05 18:17:01 <Dispositions> yeah
506 2011-09-05 18:17:21 <Dispositions> then you can download any one of these examples here and just try it
507 2011-09-05 18:17:23 <Dispositions> remotely
508 2011-09-05 18:17:39 <ashrewdmint> When I run ./bitcoind, it hangs the terminal, and I can ^C to quit the process
509 2011-09-05 18:17:42 <ashrewdmint> Is that supposed to happen?
510 2011-09-05 18:17:49 <ashrewdmint> (It gives no output)
511 2011-09-05 18:20:30 <Dispositions> ashrewdmint: your bitcoin.conf is all peachy? go pastebin it or something, remove your pw before hand of course.
512 2011-09-05 18:20:49 <ashrewdmint> Dispositions: I got my conf from the wiki. I will paste it
513 2011-09-05 18:21:02 <ashrewdmint> Perhaps bad char encoding
514 2011-09-05 18:21:15 <Dispositions> i don't remember what ./bitcoind is suppose to show
515 2011-09-05 18:21:25 <Dispositions> but if you call "./bitcoind help"
516 2011-09-05 18:21:31 <Dispositions> you should get the help text
517 2011-09-05 18:22:24 <tcatm> ashrewdmint: use -daemon
518 2011-09-05 18:23:23 <ashrewdmint> https://gist.github.com/76a69491dfe4ac0806b1
519 2011-09-05 18:23:40 <ashrewdmint> tcatm: I thought bitcoind was automatically a daemon, but that makes sense (what you said)
520 2011-09-05 18:31:27 <boonies4u> i need help
521 2011-09-05 18:31:32 <boonies4u> I think my client is broken
522 2011-09-05 18:32:52 <tcatm> what's wrong with it?
523 2011-09-05 18:34:42 <boonies4u> everytime i fill in the required transaction
524 2011-09-05 18:34:55 <boonies4u> it tells me i need a larger transaction fee
525 2011-09-05 18:35:01 <boonies4u> required transaction fee*
526 2011-09-05 18:45:46 <Joric> that solidcoin thing is adorable
527 2011-09-05 18:45:55 <boonies4u> meh
528 2011-09-05 18:46:12 <boonies4u> Does anybody know why my client won't agree to a fee I need to set?
529 2011-09-05 18:48:48 <tcatm> boonies4u: how old are your coins (# of confirmations)?
530 2011-09-05 18:49:04 <boonies4u> the bulk is 40
531 2011-09-05 18:54:49 <boonies4u> <<
532 2011-09-05 18:56:32 <boonies4u> tcatm: the problem isn't so much the increased fee
533 2011-09-05 18:56:38 <boonies4u> but, everytime i try to fufill on fee
534 2011-09-05 18:56:44 <boonies4u> it says i need to pay a bigger one
535 2011-09-05 18:58:20 <ThomasV_> that's funny ; are you sure it is bitcoin, not solidcoin ?
536 2011-09-05 18:59:10 <cacheson> boonies4u: are you trying to send your whole balance?  it should just tell you what fee you have to pay, and then you accept or cancel
537 2011-09-05 18:59:28 <boonies4u> i'm trying to empty my wallet
538 2011-09-05 18:59:35 <boonies4u> 10.0643 bitcoins
539 2011-09-05 18:59:53 <boonies4u> 10 btc I received 41 confirms ago
540 2011-09-05 19:00:29 <cacheson> hm, not sure why the fee required would go up when you try to send less coins
541 2011-09-05 19:00:46 <cacheson> maybe it's because the average priority drops, or something?  I don't know exactly how that calculation works
542 2011-09-05 19:00:56 <cacheson> but I'm pretty sure it tries to spend smaller amounts first
543 2011-09-05 19:01:06 <boonies4u> basically, when i try to send with the default .0005 fee
544 2011-09-05 19:01:21 <boonies4u> it gives my an error saying that i need to set it to .0015
545 2011-09-05 19:01:38 <boonies4u> i then change my fee to .0015 and adjust the sent amount accordingly
546 2011-09-05 19:01:43 <boonies4u> and it says i need .0045
547 2011-09-05 19:01:47 <cacheson> boonies4u: ah, there's your problem
548 2011-09-05 19:01:58 <boonies4u> cacheson: yeah...
549 2011-09-05 19:02:01 <boonies4u> how do i fix it?
550 2011-09-05 19:02:09 <cacheson> boonies4u: leave it at 0.0005, it's a fee per kb, not per transaction
551 2011-09-05 19:02:19 <cacheson> when you increase that, you're telling the client to pay more per kb
552 2011-09-05 19:02:27 <boonies4u> oh...
553 2011-09-05 19:02:52 <cacheson> so put it back to .0005, and try to send your balance minus .0015
554 2011-09-05 19:02:55 <boonies4u> i always thought the fee i set
555 2011-09-05 19:02:59 <boonies4u> was fee per txn
556 2011-09-05 19:03:03 <cacheson> nope
557 2011-09-05 19:03:26 <cacheson> might be worded confusingly in the gui
558 2011-09-05 19:04:40 <Blitzboom> we have a new bitcoin.org design?
559 2011-09-05 19:05:33 <boonies4u> yeah, don't know when this was implemented though
560 2011-09-05 19:05:55 <cacheson> Blitzboom: oo, fancy
561 2011-09-05 19:06:00 <TD> nice!
562 2011-09-05 19:06:04 <TD> tcatm: is that your work?
563 2011-09-05 19:06:15 <tcatm> TD: yes
564 2011-09-05 19:06:19 <Blitzboom> the menu vanishes when i click on a menu item
565 2011-09-05 19:06:23 <Blitzboom> hehe, i knew this was tcatm
566 2011-09-05 19:06:29 <TD> tcatm: really nice. are you going to build a team or are you doing it solo?
567 2011-09-05 19:06:31 <tcatm> Blitzboom: chrome?
568 2011-09-05 19:06:34 <Blitzboom> using chrome
569 2011-09-05 19:06:34 <boonies4u> cacheson: so how do i calculate how much KBs a txn is?
570 2011-09-05 19:06:37 <Blitzboom> yes
571 2011-09-05 19:06:58 <tcatm> TD: we're using github pages: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.github.com
572 2011-09-05 19:07:10 <cacheson> boonies4u: I don't think you can calculate it in advance with the existing UI
573 2011-09-05 19:07:11 <Blitzboom> what are you doing?
574 2011-09-05 19:07:17 <Blitzboom> revamp?
575 2011-09-05 19:07:25 <boonies4u> cacheson: can i calculate it
576 2011-09-05 19:07:31 <boonies4u> with my ti?
577 2011-09-05 19:07:33 <boonies4u> XD
578 2011-09-05 19:08:08 <cacheson> boonies4u: I mean, maybe you could go through all the transactions you've received on block explorer and add them up
579 2011-09-05 19:08:27 <boonies4u> and reverse engineer a formula?
580 2011-09-05 19:08:49 <cacheson> well, no
581 2011-09-05 19:09:13 <boonies4u> hmmd
582 2011-09-05 19:09:34 <boonies4u> if an address were to have more activity
583 2011-09-05 19:09:40 <boonies4u> would it take more KBs to send from?
584 2011-09-05 19:09:46 <cacheson> I mean, it's not that there isn't any logic to it, it's just complicated, not something that's going to break down into a nice equation
585 2011-09-05 19:09:52 <boonies4u> oh
586 2011-09-05 19:09:54 <boonies4u> :/
587 2011-09-05 19:09:58 <boonies4u> it's not just the balance?
588 2011-09-05 19:10:02 <boonies4u> per address
589 2011-09-05 19:10:04 <cacheson> boonies4u: nope
590 2011-09-05 19:10:20 <boonies4u> well, hopefully this won't be a problem anymore
591 2011-09-05 19:10:25 <boonies4u> since i know the error shows me total
592 2011-09-05 19:10:28 <boonies4u> and not per KB
593 2011-09-05 19:10:34 <cacheson> boonies4u: transactions that draw coins from more sources are larger.  I think there's other stuff that can inflate transaction size too?
594 2011-09-05 19:11:27 <cacheson> so if you've received lots of small amounts, when you go to spend them the resulting transaction will be larger
595 2011-09-05 19:11:38 <boonies4u> well, i've been using dailybitcoins.org
596 2011-09-05 19:11:46 <boonies4u> but i've been receiving to one address
597 2011-09-05 19:12:02 <cacheson> whereas if you received a single payment of several thousand BTC, sending those would be a very small transaction
598 2011-09-05 19:12:34 <boonies4u> hmm
599 2011-09-05 19:18:33 <boonies4u> cacheson: http://blockexplorer.com/address/16R8XiGKbs5Zcc31NdSYJ2mPPPerrPXVEZ
600 2011-09-05 19:18:53 <boonies4u> yeah, i received a bunch of little payments to that address
601 2011-09-05 19:19:07 <boonies4u> 15Xc
602 2011-09-05 19:19:36 <boonies4u> luckily, i received .0005 btc at the very least
603 2011-09-05 19:19:38 <boonies4u> from each of those
604 2011-09-05 19:27:30 <cjdelisle> hey C people, gotta question
605 2011-09-05 19:28:11 <cjdelisle> arrayOfSomeStruct[x]->srrsyOfOtherStruct[y].value
606 2011-09-05 19:28:18 <cjdelisle> one memory lookup or 2?
607 2011-09-05 19:35:26 <cjdelisle> erm no that would definitely be 2
608 2011-09-05 19:35:41 <cjdelisle> arrayOfSomeStruct[x].arrayOfOtherStruct[y].value
609 2011-09-05 19:35:47 <cjdelisle> that's what I was wondering about
610 2011-09-05 19:39:09 <boonies4u> cacheson: i think i'm gonna start pointing my collections to an ewallet
611 2011-09-05 19:39:10 <boonies4u> <<
612 2011-09-05 19:54:47 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, 3
613 2011-09-05 19:55:08 <iddo> cjdelisle: if the y array is malloc'd pointer field then it has to be 2 lookups, but if the field is an array then the optimizer could make it 1 lookup? though i don't know
614 2011-09-05 19:55:17 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, although possibly only 1 instruction
615 2011-09-05 19:55:28 <iddo> why 3 ?
616 2011-09-05 19:55:55 <phantomcircuit> vtable lookup if there is one
617 2011-09-05 19:57:21 <iddo> isn't that c++ ?
618 2011-09-05 19:57:35 <cjdelisle> no, it's a structure which contains an array of structures
619 2011-09-05 19:57:41 <cjdelisle> so it should be possible in 1 lookup
620 2011-09-05 19:58:45 <iddo> if it's array and not pointers then i guess it could be optimized to 1 lookup, though i don't know what C is actually doing, wait for someone else to answer:)
621 2011-09-05 19:59:33 <diki> question
622 2011-09-05 19:59:35 <diki> what is tor?
623 2011-09-05 19:59:54 <theymos> Anonymity network.
624 2011-09-05 20:00:11 <diki> so it is a proxy?
625 2011-09-05 20:00:13 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, if it's actually c++ than struct/class are actually identical except the default protection level
626 2011-09-05 20:00:21 <theymos> diki: You can use it like a proxy.
627 2011-09-05 20:00:30 <diki> ...but?
628 2011-09-05 20:00:43 <copumpkin> nothing
629 2011-09-05 20:00:48 <cjdelisle> Naw, it's pure C99, I was just curious about how smart GCC really was. I guess the only way to know for sure is to look at the asm.
630 2011-09-05 20:00:50 <copumpkin> it's an anonymizing proxy
631 2011-09-05 20:01:00 <copumpkin> it doesn't provide you confidentiality though
632 2011-09-05 20:01:07 <copumpkin> so you'll still want to encrypt over it
633 2011-09-05 20:01:36 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, that should be 1 instruction, but it will be at least 2 actual memory lookups
634 2011-09-05 20:02:19 <upb> it cannot be 1 instruction
635 2011-09-05 20:02:23 <diki> copumpkin:and how do i encrypt over it?
636 2011-09-05 20:02:38 <orkaa> diki: traffic is only encrypted at the inner nodes
637 2011-09-05 20:02:39 <phantomcircuit> upb, there are x86 instructions which do an indirect lookup
638 2011-09-05 20:02:44 <copumpkin> diki: just use https or whatever
639 2011-09-05 20:02:50 <cjdelisle> Well it would have to lookup the pointer off the stack but that's kind of a given.
640 2011-09-05 20:02:50 <orkaa> diki: when it exits at the last node
641 2011-09-05 20:02:55 <upb> phantomcircuit: how do you read values from 2 memory locations (x and y) and add them to a third in one instruction ?
642 2011-09-05 20:02:58 <phantomcircuit> upb, you give one memory location and it will load the value at that pointer
643 2011-09-05 20:03:00 <orkaa> the node admin might see your traffic
644 2011-09-05 20:03:07 <diki> orkaa:sorry i dont get what you are talking about
645 2011-09-05 20:03:11 <orkaa> if it's not encrypted
646 2011-09-05 20:03:15 <iddo> cjdelisle: i'm also not sure why your first and second examples would be different, if it's arrays then the optimizer can calc the memory location and do single lookup, in both of your examples, no?
647 2011-09-05 20:03:20 <orkaa> diki: about the tor network
648 2011-09-05 20:03:46 <cjdelisle> iddo: the first example SomeStruct points to an array which is elsewhere, that's not what I have.
649 2011-09-05 20:03:46 <orkaa> it it made of thousand of 'proxy' computers
650 2011-09-05 20:03:47 <upb> also it involves 2 multilies
651 2011-09-05 20:03:52 <upb> multiplies
652 2011-09-05 20:04:02 <upb> so no way its 1 instruction
653 2011-09-05 20:04:20 <copumpkin> just compile it and see what it generates for you :P
654 2011-09-05 20:04:23 <phantomcircuit> upb, multilies addS?
655 2011-09-05 20:04:26 <diki> orkaa:so basically
656 2011-09-05 20:04:26 <phantomcircuit> im just talking about
657 2011-09-05 20:04:35 <phantomcircuit> arrayOfSomeStruct[x]->srrsyOfOtherStruct[y].value
658 2011-09-05 20:04:37 <diki> i am using someone else's IP while someone uses mine?
659 2011-09-05 20:04:39 <upb> so am i
660 2011-09-05 20:04:42 <phantomcircuit> im pretty sure that can be done in 1 instruction
661 2011-09-05 20:04:51 <upb> then you have no idea what youre talking about :)
662 2011-09-05 20:04:53 <orkaa> diki: you have to allow it
663 2011-09-05 20:05:02 <orkaa> diki: i don't think it is enabled by default
664 2011-09-05 20:05:08 <orkaa> but better check it :)
665 2011-09-05 20:05:14 <cjdelisle> If x, y and the value of the somestruct pointer are in registers then I think it should be possible in 1 memory lookup
666 2011-09-05 20:05:50 <phantomcircuit> upb, im guessing you haven't looked at a recent x86 architecture manual
667 2011-09-05 20:05:53 <cjdelisle> You're adding sizeof(SomeStruct) * x to sizeof(OtherStruct * y) to the pointer location of arrayOfSomeStruct and loading.
668 2011-09-05 20:05:57 <upb> i have
669 2011-09-05 20:06:08 <phantomcircuit> there is about 40 different mov instructions
670 2011-09-05 20:06:13 <orkaa> diki: but if you're one of the inner nodes, you shouldn't care
671 2011-09-05 20:06:21 <orkaa> all traffic is encrypted anyway
672 2011-09-05 20:06:28 <cjdelisle> I meant: sizeof(OtherStruct) * y
673 2011-09-05 20:07:25 <cjdelisle> And I don't really care if it's a few instructions or a lot, I care that it only requires one CAS operation on RAM.
674 2011-09-05 20:07:28 <upb> you cant do *(&arrayOfSomeStruct + sizeof(SomeStruct*) * x) + sizeof(OtherStruct) * y
675 2011-09-05 20:07:35 <upb> etc
676 2011-09-05 20:07:53 <cjdelisle> why not?
677 2011-09-05 20:08:27 <upb> with mov and lea what you can do is shifts of powers of two times a register
678 2011-09-05 20:08:34 <upb> and a hardcoded offset
679 2011-09-05 20:08:39 <upb> and another register
680 2011-09-05 20:08:49 <upb> cant fit all that into one instruction
681 2011-09-05 20:09:24 <cjdelisle> Again, I don't care how many *instructions* it takes, I care how many times a row in DRAM has to be opened for reading.
682 2011-09-05 20:09:36 <upb> oh well i was responding to phantomcircuit :)
683 2011-09-05 20:10:25 <phantomcircuit> cjdelisle, assuming neither x nor y is constant then at least 2 maybe 3 if the cachelines dont work out right
684 2011-09-05 20:11:23 <cjdelisle> The way I designed my structures: *(((char*) &arrayOfSomeStruct) + sizeof(SomeStruct) * x + sizeof(OtherStruct) * y) would work.
685 2011-09-05 20:12:03 <cjdelisle> AKA the array of OtherStruct is inside of SomeStruct, it's not a pointer.
686 2011-09-05 20:12:50 <cjdelisle> and we can assume that the ArrayOfSomeStruct pointer, x, and y are all in registers when the call happens.
687 2011-09-05 20:12:56 <cjdelisle> I can only see one lookup
688 2011-09-05 20:13:46 <cjdelisle> (discointing the pagetable fun which noone can rteally predict)
689 2011-09-05 20:23:35 <phantomcircuit> upb, im not counting loading the address from stack btw
690 2011-09-05 20:26:39 <upb> sure even then you cant do it
691 2011-09-05 20:33:30 <diki> orkaa:sorry i have no idea what an inner node is
692 2011-09-05 20:35:21 <cjdelisle> Originally I was basicly wondering if it was as efficient as the horror I linked with addition where there's only one * (other than multiplication)
693 2011-09-05 20:35:22 <orkaa> diki: this explains it - http://everythingexpress.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fig1_tor_diagram_2312091.png
694 2011-09-05 20:35:57 <cjdelisle> Now I'm kinda wondering why a single dereference would take 3 memory lookups, I guess I know less than I thought.
695 2011-09-05 20:36:12 <orkaa> diki: inner = relay node
696 2011-09-05 20:37:11 <xelister> cjdelisle: you seem pretty low level as for java realted guy ;)
697 2011-09-05 20:37:42 <cjdelisle> I'm working on C right now and I'm kind of obsessive compulsive about performance/correctness.
698 2011-09-05 20:38:59 <xelister> C is good
699 2011-09-05 20:39:06 <xelister> for loosing time on development =)
700 2011-09-05 20:39:08 <xelister> use c++
701 2011-09-05 20:41:22 <cjdelisle> the onyl thing about c++ that I would probably find usefull is try{ }catch
702 2011-09-05 20:42:00 <copumpkin> just use haskell, both of you
703 2011-09-05 20:42:27 <xelister> cjdelisle: ctor
704 2011-09-05 20:43:10 <cjdelisle> Object orianted doesn't really save a lot of time
705 2011-09-05 20:43:19 <xelister> cjdelisle:
706 2011-09-05 20:43:21 <xelister> Resource Acquisition Is Initialization: a bad name for the idea of acquiring resources in constructors (generally) and having destructors make sure they're released. Failure to acquire any resources is signaled by throwing an exception. It's better referred to as Scope-Bound Resource Management. http://www.hackcraft.net/raii/
707 2011-09-05 20:43:23 <cjdelisle> Garbage collection saves time
708 2011-09-05 20:43:38 <xelister> cjdelisle: then you dont write programs complex enough
709 2011-09-05 20:43:44 <xelister> and GC is not always optimal
710 2011-09-05 20:43:54 <cjdelisle> Of course it's not
711 2011-09-05 20:45:05 <cjdelisle> Ok so you're talking about constructors and destructors as good because you can destroy one object and it will destroy all of the objects in it's fields, correct?
712 2011-09-05 20:45:16 <xelister> and raii rocks
713 2011-09-05 20:45:22 <xelister> and operators overload help
714 2011-09-05 20:45:25 <xelister> and many other things
715 2011-09-05 20:45:31 <xelister> also real templates
716 2011-09-05 20:45:50 <xelister> c++ has some downsides but overall it can be really nice
717 2011-09-05 20:46:16 <xelister> perhaps you where using C++ like C
718 2011-09-05 20:46:27 <cjdelisle> Templates would be nice but slow compile time sucks
719 2011-09-05 20:46:27 <copumpkin> cjdelisle: C++ isn't just about OO
720 2011-09-05 20:46:33 <xelister> then it's like if you would be dating a girl like a friend (no sex) you are missing out on so much :P
721 2011-09-05 20:46:53 <xelister> cjdelisle: templates can have very good compilation time
722 2011-09-05 20:47:15 <cjdelisle> re: raii, I wrote a library for that
723 2011-09-05 20:47:22 <cjdelisle> memory allocator library
724 2011-09-05 20:47:38 <cjdelisle> you can create "child allocators" and they will be freed when the parent is freed.
725 2011-09-05 20:47:46 <copumpkin> just write CPS-style C++ and never worry about dellocating memory again
726 2011-09-05 20:47:56 <copumpkin> CPS, I guess :P
727 2011-09-05 20:48:27 <cjdelisle> in that case, I'm using C like C++ because I have a bunch of calls like:  allocator->malloc(sizeof(struct something), allocator);
728 2011-09-05 20:50:37 <cjdelisle> I'd love to learn one of the functional languages but for job prospects... c++ > *
729 2011-09-05 20:50:45 <cjdelisle> or php
730 2011-09-05 20:51:22 <xelister> cjdelisle: its not that
731 2011-09-05 20:51:29 <xelister> cjdelisle: you have to remember to delte? or gc
732 2011-09-05 20:51:41 <xelister> you can not auto execute code on end of logical block easly
733 2011-09-05 20:52:48 <cjdelisle> Naw, if I forget to free an allocator, when it's parent is freed, it goes.
734 2011-09-05 20:57:36 <luke-jr_> in the past day, bitcoind is the largest growing process on my PC
735 2011-09-05 20:57:45 <luke-jr_> grew by 141.5 MB
736 2011-09-05 20:59:05 <matth1a3> can anyone help with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/489 or https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/494 please?
737 2011-09-05 21:00:00 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr_, only?
738 2011-09-05 21:00:02 <phantomcircuit> ;)
739 2011-09-05 21:00:11 <posterminal> hi
740 2011-09-05 21:00:33 <posterminal> anyone here interested in a bitcoin point-of-sale terminal that uses a smart-card?
741 2011-09-05 21:00:54 <luke-jr_> posterminal: Wallet protocol
742 2011-09-05 21:01:12 <luke-jr_> matth1a3: I submitted a bugfix for 489 a while ago
743 2011-09-05 21:01:31 <posterminal> ya, the card stores teh wallet.dat file... card costs $1... reader costs $40
744 2011-09-05 21:01:45 <nwtspv> anyone interested in ATMs?
745 2011-09-05 21:02:11 <posterminal> ya, ATMs are cool... but what if you don't have a smartphone?
746 2011-09-05 21:02:16 <luke-jr_> posterminal: that's fail
747 2011-09-05 21:02:21 <posterminal> why?
748 2011-09-05 21:02:33 <luke-jr_> posterminal: because it's a security hole-- the reader has unlimited access to your wallet
749 2011-09-05 21:02:40 <posterminal> no it doesn't
750 2011-09-05 21:02:51 <cjdelisle> lolz this again
751 2011-09-05 21:02:51 <luke-jr_> posterminal: a sane POS would be a smart device that does its own wallet management
752 2011-09-05 21:03:11 <luke-jr_> posterminal: speaking the Wallet protocol to POS
753 2011-09-05 21:03:26 <luke-jr_> over some short-range wireless link
754 2011-09-05 21:04:45 <posterminal> so you're worried about somebody making an evil card-reader mod that allows for wallet.dat skimming?
755 2011-09-05 21:05:10 <luke-jr_> matth1a3: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/commitdiff/a687d4f574cb22ec969354dce3237558982e29d3
756 2011-09-05 21:05:27 <luke-jr_> posterminal: it's basically guaranteed to happen if you do something that stupid