1 2011-09-15 00:25:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3f10e80a9316 cgminer/adl.c: If the user defined flag is not set on fanspeed, set the fanspeed with it first.
  2 2011-09-15 00:43:42 <luke-jr> anyone here want to form a team to maintain bitcoind 0.4 as a stable version?
  3 2011-09-15 00:43:50 <luke-jr> ie, bugfixes only
  4 2011-09-15 00:44:23 <luke-jr> (yes, I'm specifically excluding the wx GUI)
  5 2011-09-15 02:34:19 <semb> does anyone know about transaction updates? do you have to post an update, or can you just post another transaction?
  6 2011-09-15 03:05:46 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r2cae5c1dc388 cgminer/main.c: Restart longpoll under lock when we'll be reusing it on pool switch to prevent derefs.
  7 2011-09-15 05:45:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * rae6fe9659300 cgminer/main.c: Revert "Restart longpoll under lock when we'll be reusing it on pool switch to prevent derefs."
  8 2011-09-15 07:31:56 <Matth1a3> does getblockcount return the network's # of blocks? or the current amount of blocks processed?
  9 2011-09-15 07:36:49 <Diablo-D3> thats the same thing.
 10 2011-09-15 07:37:21 <Matth1a3> sorry I meant, does it show the total network blocks or the current amount of downloaded blocks
 11 2011-09-15 07:38:10 <Matth1a3> i am trying to write a script that returns true when the client is caught up to the blockchain
 12 2011-09-15 07:41:39 <Diablo-D3> current downloaded
 13 2011-09-15 07:41:47 <Diablo-D3> since thats also the same thing
 14 2011-09-15 07:41:54 <Diablo-D3> if you havent downloaded it, your client doesnt know it exists yet
 15 2011-09-15 07:42:02 <Matth1a3> ok cool that works
 16 2011-09-15 07:42:05 <Matth1a3> thanks
 17 2011-09-15 08:15:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r8566ed44d2a3 cgminer/main.c: Just keep whatever longpoll we have if it's working instead of risking the stop/start dereference problem.
 18 2011-09-15 08:15:58 <conman> meh
 19 2011-09-15 08:24:38 <jjjrmy> Anyone interested in purchasing BitPizza.net?
 20 2011-09-15 08:25:14 <neofutur> how much do you pay ?
 21 2011-09-15 08:26:12 <EskimoBob> jjjrmy: what's the price?
 22 2011-09-15 08:26:56 <EskimoBob> I'll bit 0.01 BTC
 23 2011-09-15 08:55:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r8feb661dbfcc cgminer/adl.c: Set the fanspeed in coarse rounded up values and then ever finer grained values in case the card does not support fine values.
 24 2011-09-15 08:56:05 <Diablo-D3> conman: you dont automatically set values above 85, right?
 25 2011-09-15 08:56:14 <conman> correct
 26 2011-09-15 08:56:24 <Diablo-D3> alright good
 27 2011-09-15 08:56:30 <conman> upper limit is 85 unless it detects thermal meltdown
 28 2011-09-15 08:56:42 <Diablo-D3> clever
 29 2011-09-15 08:57:01 <conman> I've discovered all sorts of nonsense from cards
 30 2011-09-15 08:57:07 <conman> some support only writing fanspeed in rpm
 31 2011-09-15 08:57:15 <conman> some support only 10% values
 32 2011-09-15 08:57:19 <conman> some only 20%
 33 2011-09-15 08:57:29 <conman> some want it set to 0 first before being set to the real value
 34 2011-09-15 08:57:34 <conman> ati can seriously suck my dick
 35 2011-09-15 08:57:40 <Diablo-D3> heh
 36 2011-09-15 08:57:46 <Diablo-D3> and now you know why ADL isnt a public interface
 37 2011-09-15 08:58:04 <conman> no one in their right mind would ever support it
 38 2011-09-15 08:58:12 <conman> but I got paid well, so I did
 39 2011-09-15 09:05:46 <EskimoBob> question: "Can someone start a new fork with a new chain/genesis block and use existing wallets and existing account numbers?"
 40 2011-09-15 09:07:17 <Diablo-D3> EskimoBob: LOL
 41 2011-09-15 09:07:41 <EskimoBob> i am asking this because I am not sure I understand wtf this SLC clown is actually planning and or how is he going to make sure that all prefork slc ownes get the new coin
 42 2011-09-15 09:07:51 <Diablo-D3> no, you cant use existing shit
 43 2011-09-15 09:08:09 <Diablo-D3> coins no because their existence is defined by the chain
 44 2011-09-15 09:08:15 <ThomasV> Diablo-D3: why not ?
 45 2011-09-15 09:08:58 <bittwist> http://solidcointalk.org/topic/215-solidcoin-20-feature-discussion/
 46 2011-09-15 09:09:05 <bittwist> this thread, is a winnar.
 47 2011-09-15 09:09:14 <Diablo-D3> the addresses arent portable because iirc it also encodes which chain its for in the address
 48 2011-09-15 09:09:25 <Diablo-D3> if they dont, then he can manually mine new coins and hand them out
 49 2011-09-15 09:09:32 <bittwist> tldr: taxing the chain for a private fund, also shit ton of what looks like premining
 50 2011-09-15 09:09:52 <bittwist> am i reading that wrong?
 51 2011-09-15 09:10:08 <Diablo-D3> premining as in mining to create coins to hand out to users to replace their old ones?
 52 2011-09-15 09:10:20 <bittwist> where else would they come from?
 53 2011-09-15 09:10:22 <bittwist> yes
 54 2011-09-15 09:10:32 <Diablo-D3> he could actually hand write an entire fake chain if he wanted to
 55 2011-09-15 09:10:51 <Diablo-D3> all he has to do is fake mine the sha256s
 56 2011-09-15 09:10:59 <Diablo-D3> but wtf why bother
 57 2011-09-15 09:11:04 <Diablo-D3> just dump the chain and use btc
 58 2011-09-15 09:11:16 <bittwist> see the other points he listed
 59 2011-09-15 09:11:20 <bittwist> piggy banking funds
 60 2011-09-15 09:11:35 <Diablo-D3> I mean, if people want a sub-btc currency thats locked to the real one
 61 2011-09-15 09:11:36 <Diablo-D3> fine
 62 2011-09-15 09:11:38 <Diablo-D3> thats easy to do
 63 2011-09-15 09:11:49 <bittwist> An end point would be an interesting thing to work out, however a NPO would still need some funds to run and be the head of the SolidCoin currency. (interviews, media handling, etc). Personally I want a "strong" currency not something which looks like it's run out of someones garage.
 64 2011-09-15 09:12:12 <bittwist> the users on that forum seem to be rather supportive of an altchain that has a siphon scheme built into it
 65 2011-09-15 09:12:39 <Diablo-D3> bittwist: well
 66 2011-09-15 09:12:41 <Diablo-D3> the interesting thing is
 67 2011-09-15 09:12:57 <Diablo-D3> I could easily create a new currency that glues to the existing btc chain
 68 2011-09-15 09:14:30 <Diablo-D3> have the currency manually set it's diff to, say, one hundredth btc
 69 2011-09-15 09:14:33 <Diablo-D3> run 100 times faster
 70 2011-09-15 09:15:05 <Diablo-D3> and generate the same amount of coins (ie, 50 microcoins = 100 times less than 50 btc)
 71 2011-09-15 09:15:24 <Diablo-D3> and have two parent blocks
 72 2011-09-15 09:15:37 <Diablo-D3> the microcoin parent block and the btc parent block
 73 2011-09-15 09:15:38 <xelister> Due to transactions spammers and the wanted elimination of them transaction fees are going to be very high for a period of time until SolidCoin stabilizes in value. A normal transaction is going to cost about 0.05 SC moving up based on size of the transactions.
 74 2011-09-15 09:15:40 <xelister> trololo
 75 2011-09-15 09:15:46 <Diablo-D3> and only allow 100 microcoin blocks per btc parent block
 76 2011-09-15 09:15:46 <xelister> SC 0, ArtFortz/BTC 1
 77 2011-09-15 09:16:16 <xelister> A small amount of SolidCoins will be generated each block and given to a "fund".
 78 2011-09-15 09:16:18 <xelister> TROLOLO
 79 2011-09-15 09:16:38 <bittwist> that thread, oh lord that thread.
 80 2011-09-15 09:16:46 <Diablo-D3> it gives people microtransaction ability on a secondary chain
 81 2011-09-15 09:16:59 <xelister> "new genesis block will be formed with 1128000 + fee coverage SolidCoins in it. "  <-- this one MAY make some sense actually
 82 2011-09-15 09:17:36 <xelister> "he lowest it will go is down to 1SC + fees. The reason this small amount of never ending inflation i"  <--- dunno, this may be interesting
 83 2011-09-15 09:17:38 <bittwist> Any serious currency alternative to the current system will 100% need a central organization doing their best for it. Banks hire security people, governments investigate fraud, etc. Without that their systems would not be successful. If SC is very successful it is going to face attacks from the current systems in place (banks, governments) and we need that NPO to have money to fight legal cases, take out ads, influence politics/media, lobbying, e
 84 2011-09-15 09:17:56 <Diablo-D3> bittwist: yeah, but my way, thats not needed
 85 2011-09-15 09:18:03 <Diablo-D3> since normal btc users would use it for trash money
 86 2011-09-15 09:18:33 <xelister> so now solidcoin is the free coin system... except the creator^H "some fund" gets part of your coins!
 87 2011-09-15 09:18:39 <xelister> built-in taxaction! woot
 88 2011-09-15 09:18:56 <xelister> income-tax, vat-tax, and RealSolid tax
 89 2011-09-15 09:19:41 <bittwist> he needs special forces to fight off SC's enemies
 90 2011-09-15 09:19:54 <Diablo-D3> yeah but he MADE those enemies
 91 2011-09-15 09:21:24 <bittwist> anyways
 92 2011-09-15 09:21:30 <bittwist> he says it'd be for a nonprofit
 93 2011-09-15 09:21:37 <bittwist> i call bullshit outright
 94 2011-09-15 09:22:00 <bittwist> just thought it was interesting that the Fuck You I'll Take Mine mentality is trying to be shoehorned into an altchain
 95 2011-09-15 09:26:04 <EskimoBob> you know what, fuck this realsolid and hes new fork. Lets use the old one and blow this shit bird off
 96 2011-09-15 09:29:05 <conman> btc forks are all doomed
 97 2011-09-15 09:29:31 <conman> no matter what they say, they're all driven by greed to make a serious ponzi scheme
 98 2011-09-15 09:29:48 <conman> so they're destined to die in the arse
 99 2011-09-15 09:30:32 <bittwist> namecoin is the only meaningful fork that comes to mind
100 2011-09-15 09:31:01 <conman> right, but nc serves a different purpose
101 2011-09-15 09:31:07 <conman> to the greed ponzi forks
102 2011-09-15 09:32:09 <lfm> you dont think some people genuinly think that bitcoin needs to be done a little differently to make it great?
103 2011-09-15 09:33:05 <conman> I didn't say that
104 2011-09-15 09:33:29 <lfm> you said "they're all driven by greed" tho
105 2011-09-15 09:33:47 <conman> but the forks will die because of human nature, persistence of  already existing btc, momentum etc
106 2011-09-15 09:34:25 <ThomasV> of course they will
107 2011-09-15 09:34:53 <lfm> just as bitcoin might die
108 2011-09-15 09:35:19 <ThomasV> no, if bitcoin dies it will be for completely different reasons
109 2011-09-15 09:35:59 <EskimoBob> conman: all *coins are driven by greed
110 2011-09-15 09:36:15 <lfm> all money is driven by greed?
111 2011-09-15 09:36:34 <conman> EskimoBob, maybe
112 2011-09-15 09:36:38 <EskimoBob> *coin market value at the moment is just a result of greed and fear
113 2011-09-15 09:37:28 <ThomasV> and confidence
114 2011-09-15 09:37:31 <ThomasV> and hope
115 2011-09-15 09:37:46 <ThomasV> and generosity
116 2011-09-15 09:38:08 <EskimoBob> ThomasV: aka greed an fear - confidence and hope are byproducts
117 2011-09-15 09:38:32 <EskimoBob> so is generosity
118 2011-09-15 09:38:45 <ThomasV> byproducts, orly ?
119 2011-09-15 09:38:47 <lfm> paranoia and gulibility?
120 2011-09-15 09:39:19 <EskimoBob> really shitty mixture of greed and fear
121 2011-09-15 09:39:58 <ThomasV> and courage
122 2011-09-15 09:40:16 <EskimoBob> go up few lines an read one more time
123 2011-09-15 09:40:44 <ThomasV> Iread that forks are doomed
124 2011-09-15 09:41:21 <ThomasV> and I think most of them are
125 2011-09-15 09:41:42 <ThomasV> probably all ofthem
126 2011-09-15 12:29:13 <flying> afk/beer
127 2011-09-15 12:34:11 <copumpkin> any ops around?
128 2011-09-15 12:40:27 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r205 /trunk/pom.xml: Only do Bouncy Castle shading for a newly created Android-specific build. This should resolve issues with JAR signature check failures. Patch from Gary Rowe.
129 2011-09-15 13:02:18 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r206 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/Script.java: Fix a minor bug in OP_PUSHDATA2 (not used). Resolves issue 80.
130 2011-09-15 13:03:22 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r207 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/ (3 files): Split out parsing of header and payload. This is useful for high-performance programs that don't always need to parse the payload. Patch from shadders (CLA agreement pending).
131 2011-09-15 13:18:31 <log0s> tcatm: can you please remove that spike into the 12s on the mtgoxUSD charts? (i believe the actual high that day was only 7.38, at least according to what came over the websocket)...it's really annoying when trying to look at the 10 day chart
132 2011-09-15 13:19:47 <tcatm> log0s: is that a rolled back trade?
133 2011-09-15 13:21:18 <log0s> tcatm: not sure, but i believe it only ever existed due to a mtgox bug that skipped a ton of orders between the 7s and 12s
134 2011-09-15 13:21:48 <ThomasV> I think yes, it was rolled back
135 2011-09-15 13:22:12 <log0s> i would hope that it was rolled back
136 2011-09-15 13:22:26 <log0s> due to it's obviousness
137 2011-09-15 13:24:11 <tcatm> I'll contact mtgox
138 2011-09-15 13:24:21 <log0s> tcatm: thanks
139 2011-09-15 13:27:14 <tcatm> so the next logical step would be writing code to auto-detect rollbacks :/
140 2011-09-15 13:35:11 <upb> its not that hard, poll the trades interface
141 2011-09-15 13:35:25 <upb> save any new trades and detect all removed trades as rolled back :)
142 2011-09-15 14:11:41 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r208 /trunk/ (5 files in 2 dirs):
143 2011-09-15 14:22:57 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r209 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/store/BoundedOverheadBlockStore.java: Make a field static. Resolves comments by Miron on r194.
144 2011-09-15 14:38:44 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r210 /trunk/ (5 files in 2 dirs): Fix Message.readStr(). Implement a unit test and some equals() methods. Resolves issue 79.
145 2011-09-15 14:41:42 <CIA-101> bitcoinj: hearn@google.com * r211 /trunk/src/com/google/bitcoin/core/NetworkConnection.java: Throw a ProtocolException instead of ClassCastException if connecting to a bad peer that does not send a version message on new connections. Resolves issue 81.
146 2011-09-15 16:54:02 <bitanarchy> what is the reason that miners don't just generate empty blocks?
147 2011-09-15 16:54:45 <gmaxwell> bitanarchy: because doing so wouldn't benefit them over not, but it would hurt bitcoin which hurts them.
148 2011-09-15 16:56:01 <bitanarchy> I understand that miners want fees, but missing a transaction wouldn't hurt them much
149 2011-09-15 16:56:44 <mtrlt> are you asking why would they include no-fee transactions?
150 2011-09-15 16:56:55 <bitanarchy> yes
151 2011-09-15 16:57:02 <gmaxwell> bitanarchy: Including transactions is pretty much completely costless for miners.
152 2011-09-15 16:57:05 <mtrlt> i'm wondering the same thing
153 2011-09-15 16:57:21 <jgarzik> bitanarchy: if miners ignored transactions, the bitcoin network's value would collapse
154 2011-09-15 16:57:23 <gmaxwell> Promoting the health of bitcoin makes the bitcoin they are mining more valuable.
155 2011-09-15 16:57:25 <jgarzik> bitanarchy: no value without users
156 2011-09-15 16:57:27 <gavinandresen> Because they would have to change the code that they started with...
157 2011-09-15 16:57:35 <Blitzboom> jgarzik: the value is collapsing anyway?
158 2011-09-15 16:57:38 <gmaxwell> and gavinandresen hits the _real_ reason.
159 2011-09-15 16:57:48 <bitanarchy> mtrlt: right now with the low bitcoin price I understand
160 2011-09-15 16:57:54 <gavinandresen> ... and if they started to do that, "we" would write code shunned their blocks.
161 2011-09-15 16:58:13 <jgarzik> Blitzboom: the value is delfating back to reality at the moment.  it would quickly go straight to zero, if bitcoin users could not confirm transactions.
162 2011-09-15 16:58:22 <jgarzik> *deflating
163 2011-09-15 16:58:26 <mtrlt> gavinandresen: why aren't you already doing it?
164 2011-09-15 16:58:31 <gmaxwell> "Oh hey, lemme do some coding work which will have no effect except reducing the value of the bitcoin that I generated."
165 2011-09-15 16:58:37 <gmaxwell> mtrlt: because its a non-issue.
166 2011-09-15 16:58:51 <gavinandresen> Already shunning blocks that don't include enough transactions from the memory pool?  Hasn't percolated to the top of the priority list.
167 2011-09-15 16:59:00 <gmaxwell> And its actually a little bit tricky to block since the memory pool is not globally synchronized.
168 2011-09-15 16:59:08 <mtrlt> how do you shun blocks anyway :P
169 2011-09-15 16:59:10 <bitanarchy> gnaxwell: I missed what gavin sayed about the real reason, can you explain?
170 2011-09-15 16:59:23 <gavinandresen> you shun blocks by refusing to relay then when they are announced.
171 2011-09-15 16:59:27 <mtrlt> relay delay? or just making them invalid?
172 2011-09-15 16:59:34 <gmaxwell> mtrlt: by not forwarding or extending them until they are burried.
173 2011-09-15 17:00:04 <gmaxwell> bitanarchy: because it would take work and provide no benefit and people are lazy.
174 2011-09-15 17:00:35 <gavinandresen> Writing block-shunning code actually IS pretty high on my priority list, to fix a potential play-with-block-time attack
175 2011-09-15 17:01:34 <gavinandresen> ^fix^mitigate^  (to make gmaxwell happy :)
176 2011-09-15 17:01:34 <Joric> lol just discovered this in bitcoinj - if (!versionMessage.hasBlockChain()) { shutdown(); // Shut down the socket
177 2011-09-15 17:01:54 <gmaxwell> heh
178 2011-09-15 17:01:55 <Joric> it drops clients that dont have a complete blockchain
179 2011-09-15 17:02:50 <gavinandresen> lets all hope and pray bitcoinj doesn't get really popular really fast....
180 2011-09-15 17:02:53 <Joric> 0.3, NetworkConnection.java, currently in svn
181 2011-09-15 17:03:23 <gavinandresen> that's the right thing for it to do, by the way.
182 2011-09-15 17:03:35 <bitanarchy> what is wrong with a blockchainless client?
183 2011-09-15 17:04:02 <gmaxwell> They're not too useful for other blockchainless clients to talk to.
184 2011-09-15 17:04:03 <gavinandresen> bitcoinj is a super-lightweight client that relys on its peers to tell it about the blockchain.
185 2011-09-15 17:04:17 <gavinandresen> ... so if a peer doesn't HAVE the blockchain....
186 2011-09-15 17:05:50 <jjjrmy> Anyone interested in BitPizza.net?
187 2011-09-15 17:06:21 <Joric> with cheese?
188 2011-09-15 17:06:33 <bitanarchy> gavin: can this be solved by charging a small fee for blockchain info?
189 2011-09-15 17:06:46 <gmaxwell> ...
190 2011-09-15 17:07:22 <gmaxwell> bitanarchy: You're not understanding. If a client only needs peers with the blockchain, then there is no use in it staying connected to ones without the blockchain.
191 2011-09-15 17:08:22 <bitanarchy> gmaxwell: only to receive a fee, right?
192 2011-09-15 17:11:33 <Joric> guess it doesn't share blocks as well
193 2011-09-15 17:13:55 <Joric> it just looks big there's nothing but a huge mess of interfaces/abstract classes/etc
194 2011-09-15 17:14:45 <Joric> 700kb of those
195 2011-09-15 17:19:14 <bitanarchy> where is the archive of this channel?
196 2011-09-15 17:24:47 <jrmithdobbs> bitanarchy: in the subject
197 2011-09-15 17:25:54 <bitanarchy> jrmithdobbs: hmm must have missed that... thx
198 2011-09-15 17:27:38 <bitanarchy> Is anybody working on how to embed predictions or conditions into the blockchain, that must be verified by miners.... in order to create a decentralized escrow or prediction market?
199 2011-09-15 17:27:56 <lfm> bitanarchy: try /topic
200 2011-09-15 18:05:40 <doublec> anyone here familiar with what ICE seizures look like?
201 2011-09-15 18:06:00 <doublec> one of the bitcoin/namecoin/solidcoin exhange/poker/betting sites has gone down, the site shows an error
202 2011-09-15 18:06:13 <doublec> but the https version returns a cerficate for www.ice.gov
203 2011-09-15 18:06:18 <doublec> https://moonco.in
204 2011-09-15 18:06:57 <gmaxwell> All the past ice seizures have worked by changing the name server for the domain
205 2011-09-15 18:07:04 <doublec> gmaxwell: right, so it seems strange
206 2011-09-15 18:07:15 <doublec> gmaxwell: the operator has deleted all their reddit posts promoting the site too
207 2011-09-15 18:07:48 <gmaxwell> The www is resoving to an Akamai IP for me.
208 2011-09-15 18:07:51 <doublec> gmaxwell: I'm wondering if they've run with the coins and put the ice thing up as a diversion. Or if they are in legal difficulty and deleted the posts for that.
209 2011-09-15 18:09:21 <gmaxwell> I'm doubtful that it's posible to tell for sure.
210 2011-09-15 18:11:58 <k9quaint> I can begin by checking beaches in the Virgin Islands for Mr. Moon :P
211 2011-09-15 18:12:16 <doublec> yeah, I suspect so
212 2011-09-15 18:12:59 <k9quaint> although, even if it wasn't a real seizure, it was probably only a matter of time before he was charged with running an unlicensed gambling establishment
213 2011-09-15 18:24:24 <lfm> url?
214 2011-09-15 18:24:54 <doublec> lfm: https://moonco.in
215 2011-09-15 18:26:17 <upb> Certificate chain
216 2011-09-15 18:26:20 <upb> i:/C=US/O=Akamai Technologies Inc/CN=Akamai Subordinate CA 3
217 2011-09-15 18:26:23 <upb> haha
218 2011-09-15 18:27:00 <upb> is that akamai cert really akamais?
219 2011-09-15 18:27:52 <doublec> what does a real ice cert look like?
220 2011-09-15 18:28:04 <doublec> where's a seized site when you need one
221 2011-09-15 18:29:10 <upb> yeah seems to be valid
222 2011-09-15 18:29:40 <doublec> usually sezied domains don't get an https entry point
223 2011-09-15 18:29:40 <upb> its signed by CN = GTE CyberTrust Global Root
224 2011-09-15 18:30:16 <gmaxwell> since the CN is ice.gov thats just going to throw an error anyways.
225 2011-09-15 18:30:24 <upb> ofcourse he couldve just pointed his name at that ip
226 2011-09-15 18:30:32 <gmaxwell> It would have been super exciting to see customs get a cert with someone elses domain as the CN.
227 2011-09-15 18:30:44 <doublec> heh
228 2011-09-15 19:06:02 <phantomcircuit> / nMisbehavior == 100 gets you a default-25-hour timeout:
229 2011-09-15 19:06:03 <phantomcircuit> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/a5c763c3e092a4a22270862878140192b65b42ad
230 2011-09-15 19:06:06 <phantomcircuit> why 25 hours?
231 2011-09-15 19:07:25 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: presumably so that "do bad thing once per day" fails. Same logic why wikipedia often uses 36 hour blocks againt people. :)
232 2011-09-15 19:07:55 <AnnihilaT> anyone here read arabic ?
233 2011-09-15 19:08:25 <lfm> most people here cant even write english
234 2011-09-15 19:08:27 <phantomcircuit> if (GetRandInt(100) < nMisbehavior)
235 2011-09-15 19:08:40 <phantomcircuit> o.O
236 2011-09-15 19:08:46 <AnnihilaT> lol
237 2011-09-15 19:08:54 <phantomcircuit> i can see a soft point around which to ban peers
238 2011-09-15 19:08:58 <phantomcircuit> but no minimum at all?
239 2011-09-15 19:09:36 <phantomcircuit> ah he changed that
240 2011-09-15 19:09:38 <lfm> ya might be zero
241 2011-09-15 19:10:56 <phantomcircuit> Peers are only penalized for sending messages that won't, and shouldn't, get relayed.
242 2011-09-15 19:11:14 <imsaguy> negative reinforcement
243 2011-09-15 19:12:04 <phantomcircuit> return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout.nValue negative"));
244 2011-09-15 19:12:05 <phantomcircuit> lol wat
245 2011-09-15 19:12:17 <phantomcircuit> the on the wire protocol uses an unsigned integer
246 2011-09-15 19:12:21 <phantomcircuit> that isn't even possible
247 2011-09-15 19:13:48 <lfm> naw, just that negative values are an error. its still signed so far as the wire knows
248 2011-09-15 19:40:19 <CIA-101> bitcoin: phantomcircuit * r22a4909716e1 bitcoin-alt/LICENSE: Added licensing
249 2011-09-15 20:38:42 <xelister> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ChBR0mSWhI&NR=1#t=20m40s <------- usa hearing on alternative currencies, they mention Bitcoin ~10 seconds since 20:40   uploaded by CongressmanRonPaul on Sep 14, 2011 The hearing, entitled "Road Map to Sound Money: A Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1098 and Restoring the Dollar,"
250 2011-09-15 20:40:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r92e1ffd374c6 cgminer/adl.c: Store the targetfan even if the later getfanspeed fails in case it's temporary.
251 2011-09-15 20:44:21 <jjjrmy> Anyone interested in buying BitPizza.net?
252 2011-09-15 21:58:52 <b4epoche> I never got my pizza with everything..
253 2011-09-15 22:27:22 <dikidera> i'd like to know why does it take so much time for bitcoin to generate say 200k addresses>
254 2011-09-15 22:27:31 <dikidera> i mean i've generated a lot with vanitygen
255 2011-09-15 22:27:36 <dikidera> and importing them took forever
256 2011-09-15 22:27:44 <dikidera> like 1 key per 10 seconds with pywallet
257 2011-09-15 22:28:03 <dikidera> so why does bitcoin's own keypool take forever as well?
258 2011-09-15 22:28:58 <dikidera> it took me a lot of hours to generate 138k addresses
259 2011-09-15 22:29:15 <dikidera> wallet went >100mb which was understandable
260 2011-09-15 22:30:41 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r67fe6ab7265f cgminer/ (adl.c miner.h): Don't both with adapter speed set as it has no effect on mining speed.
261 2011-09-15 22:30:43 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r3c38adc9ce1b cgminer/adl.c: Only set the speed once, but set it only if fanspeed get says the card is ok and ready.
262 2011-09-15 22:44:42 <sacarlson> ;;bc,calcd 270 0.061
263 2011-09-15 22:44:43 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 270 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.061, is 16 minutes and 10 seconds
264 2011-09-15 22:46:40 <log0s> dikidera: i'm not sure, but i'd guess that for each address you generate/import it checks the blockchain to see if any bitcoins have been sent to it
265 2011-09-15 22:50:48 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Con Kolivas * r07c21bcbc4f5 cgminer/adl.c: Don't forget to set the actual fanspeed too!
266 2011-09-15 22:55:42 <pointbiz> dikidera: what's the point of generating so many addresses?
267 2011-09-15 22:56:30 <gmaxwell> dikidera: importing keys causes a scan of the blockchain to determine if the key has a balance.
268 2011-09-15 22:59:19 <dikidera> gmaxwell:can this not be done AFTER they have been genned?
269 2011-09-15 22:59:28 <dikidera> i think it would be a few percent faster
270 2011-09-15 23:00:32 <gmaxwell> can? sure. Few percent? fuck no. The scan should take approximately the same time if you scanning one key or a zillion. It should be ~N way faster where N is the number of keys you're importing.
271 2011-09-15 23:00:48 <gmaxwell> But who cares, there isn't much of a valid use case for importing seriously large numbers of keys.
272 2011-09-15 23:00:50 <log0s> pointbiz: i'm not sure what his use case is, but if i were to run an ecommerce site, i'd pre-generate a large number of addresses and have only the public keys accessible by the website software and keep the private keys offline somewhere
273 2011-09-15 23:01:30 <gmaxwell> (or at least not one where a long load time actually matters)
274 2011-09-15 23:16:12 <pointbiz> ah