1 2011-10-29 00:00:25 <genjix> graingert: you know how the gil does thread switching?
  2 2011-10-29 00:00:36 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: small memcpies are cheap
  3 2011-10-29 00:00:46 <genjix> it keeps selecting random threads until it hits the thread it wants.
  4 2011-10-29 00:01:12 <graingert> genjix: no idea #python ?
  5 2011-10-29 00:01:15 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: I mean hell, if its a union of primitives just use = to copy
  6 2011-10-29 00:01:18 <graingert> oh
  7 2011-10-29 00:01:21 <graingert> I see
  8 2011-10-29 00:01:37 <genjix> heh yeah bad phrasing
  9 2011-10-29 00:01:52 <cjdelisle> setting a register to the first 4 bytes and doing a bswap instruction is really cheap
 10 2011-10-29 00:02:05 <genjix> btw since i'm here
 11 2011-10-29 00:02:07 <gmaxwell> kiba`: that sounds pretty similar to my thinking too.
 12 2011-10-29 00:02:27 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: its kinda like this... a union is part of the compiler, not the resulting code
 13 2011-10-29 00:02:34 <genjix> cjdelisle: gmaxwell Diablo-D3 graingert, you all can do a talk at the conference if you're able to come
 14 2011-10-29 00:02:49 <genjix> http://conference.bitgroups.org <-- in case you didn't see it
 15 2011-10-29 00:03:08 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: if you have a union thats, say, a char and a short, it'll always be short big, but if you access the char member, all uses of it will be as if it was just a char
 16 2011-10-29 00:03:20 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: its just syntax sugar
 17 2011-10-29 00:03:22 <genjix> would be cool to see you all. anybody else PM me... it's hard to include everyone
 18 2011-10-29 00:03:28 <Diablo-D3> genjix: I dont do conferences
 19 2011-10-29 00:03:58 <graingert> genjix: can't get to prague for then
 20 2011-10-29 00:04:05 <genjix> no worries
 21 2011-10-29 00:04:06 <Ycros> genjix: the gil's scheduler is a lot smarter in erm, 3.3 I think
 22 2011-10-29 00:04:07 <graingert> at le uni
 23 2011-10-29 00:04:15 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: so if I do achar = unionthing.charinside, its like as if I did achar = otherchar
 24 2011-10-29 00:04:25 <genjix> but the other day someone was asking me why i didn't invite them
 25 2011-10-29 00:04:28 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: the only time you'd need memcpy is if it was much larger
 26 2011-10-29 00:04:43 <genjix> and it was like they should've asked me because i forgot them :p
 27 2011-10-29 00:04:46 <graingert> genjix: ask them why they didn't invite themeselves
 28 2011-10-29 00:04:47 <cjdelisle> union { uint8_t bytes[20]; uint32_t ints[4] } punt; memcpy(punt.bytes, address, 20); return punt.ints[0];
 29 2011-10-29 00:04:49 <Ycros> genjix: or in some version. I do remember they fixed a lot of retarded context switching in the GIL
 30 2011-10-29 00:04:51 <graingert> lol
 31 2011-10-29 00:04:53 <graingert> yeah
 32 2011-10-29 00:04:54 <cjdelisle> is that the best and fastest way?
 33 2011-10-29 00:05:04 <genjix> Ycros: that's cool
 34 2011-10-29 00:05:16 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: yeah in your case the memcpy is for the array copying
 35 2011-10-29 00:05:19 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: you'd need it anyhow
 36 2011-10-29 00:05:26 <Ycros> genjix: it would like, thrash when trying to switch between threads
 37 2011-10-29 00:06:04 <cjdelisle> hrm
 38 2011-10-29 00:06:15 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: although your code sucks, you're hacking off 4 bytes
 39 2011-10-29 00:06:20 <Diablo-D3> and that is not endian safe
 40 2011-10-29 00:06:37 <cjdelisle> oh yea, I forgot the ntohl()
 41 2011-10-29 00:07:14 <cjdelisle> actually I read memcpy and it does type punt pretty badly in the linux version
 42 2011-10-29 00:07:40 <Ycros> I'm convinced that bitcoin's choice of endianness encodings was chosen to annoy everyone
 43 2011-10-29 00:07:45 <cjdelisle> haha
 44 2011-10-29 00:07:55 <genjix> i can side with that
 45 2011-10-29 00:08:11 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: its not endian safe.
 46 2011-10-29 00:08:32 <cjdelisle> I kind of wish letoh32() and letoh64() were standardized
 47 2011-10-29 00:08:33 <genjix> im thankful to satoshi, and he's a great crypto/math guy
 48 2011-10-29 00:08:46 <genjix> but the code is so bad
 49 2011-10-29 00:08:51 <kiba`> code is so bad?
 50 2011-10-29 00:08:55 <kiba`> code is so good?
 51 2011-10-29 00:08:57 <kiba`> which is it?!
 52 2011-10-29 00:09:09 <gmaxwell> genjix: meh, Have you ever worked on a commercial c++ project?
 53 2011-10-29 00:09:10 <genjix> there are bugs and standard breaking code all over the place
 54 2011-10-29 00:09:19 <genjix> gmaxwell: yes with millions and millions LOC
 55 2011-10-29 00:09:30 <genjix> game engines in particular.
 56 2011-10-29 00:09:33 <Diablo-D3> the code sucks badly
 57 2011-10-29 00:09:35 <Diablo-D3> but it works
 58 2011-10-29 00:09:36 <genjix> but bitcoin doesn't even use C++
 59 2011-10-29 00:09:38 <Diablo-D3> so its like all other c++
 60 2011-10-29 00:09:40 <Diablo-D3> genjix: yes it does
 61 2011-10-29 00:09:45 <kiba`> Diablo-D3: bitcoin is worse is better?
 62 2011-10-29 00:09:46 <genjix> no it doesn't
 63 2011-10-29 00:09:48 <Diablo-D3> did you miss the fact IT FUCKING USES BOOST?
 64 2011-10-29 00:09:50 <Diablo-D3> BOOST
 65 2011-10-29 00:09:53 <gmaxwell> genjix: indeed, thats why it sucks less then it might. ;)
 66 2011-10-29 00:09:56 <Diablo-D3> THE GODDAMNED FUCKING PILE OF SHIT
 67 2011-10-29 00:09:57 <genjix> it's like bastardised C++
 68 2011-10-29 00:09:57 <kiba`> anyway, it seems that Satoshi is pragamatic
 69 2011-10-29 00:10:02 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: it makes _very_ limited use of C++.
 70 2011-10-29 00:10:03 <genjix> boost is not shit lol
 71 2011-10-29 00:10:08 <Ycros> now you know why when Java was being created, they looked at C++ and said, "no, one class per file"
 72 2011-10-29 00:10:09 <Diablo-D3> BOOST IS SHIT
 73 2011-10-29 00:10:09 <genjix> you're a C coder... go away
 74 2011-10-29 00:10:18 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: which is as it should be. ;) But no two C++ coders use the same subset. ;)
 75 2011-10-29 00:10:26 <Diablo-D3> SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTT
 76 2011-10-29 00:10:28 <genjix> boost is brilliant
 77 2011-10-29 00:10:33 <kiba`> why didn't Satoshi program it in python?
 78 2011-10-29 00:10:34 <Diablo-D3> genjix: dude
 79 2011-10-29 00:10:34 <genjix> hence it going into the standard
 80 2011-10-29 00:10:36 <Diablo-D3> shut the fuck up
 81 2011-10-29 00:10:41 <Ycros> woah
 82 2011-10-29 00:10:43 <cjdelisle> Bitcoin kind of an enigma, it's brilliant code far ahead of it's time but still it makes programmers tear their hair out with rage and disgust.
 83 2011-10-29 00:10:47 <Diablo-D3> you dont even fucking code
 84 2011-10-29 00:10:51 <graingert> kiba`: because python is too cool
 85 2011-10-29 00:10:54 <genjix> lol
 86 2011-10-29 00:10:58 <Diablo-D3> and python is for fucking children
 87 2011-10-29 00:10:58 <Ycros> boost isn't bad.
 88 2011-10-29 00:11:00 <kiba`> cjdelisle: it's called pragramatism I think
 89 2011-10-29 00:11:03 <genjix> i've rewritten bitcoin
 90 2011-10-29 00:11:06 <genjix> you haven't
 91 2011-10-29 00:11:07 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: people hate everything didn't code themselves, generally. ;)
 92 2011-10-29 00:11:10 <genjix> deal with it
 93 2011-10-29 00:11:11 <graingert> Provides a repository for free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries. The emphasis is on libraries which work well with the C++ standard library.
 94 2011-10-29 00:11:12 <genjix> https://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/libbitcoin
 95 2011-10-29 00:11:18 <genjix> in C++
 96 2011-10-29 00:11:23 <Diablo-D3> genjix: useless trash
 97 2011-10-29 00:11:27 <Ycros> Diablo-D3: you picked the dumbest thing to criticise the bitcoind codebase on (boost)
 98 2011-10-29 00:11:29 <Diablo-D3> rewrite it in C next time
 99 2011-10-29 00:11:38 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: I could pick on wx, but meh
100 2011-10-29 00:11:39 <gmaxwell> Ycros++
101 2011-10-29 00:11:39 <graingert> #bitcoin-flamewar
102 2011-10-29 00:11:41 <kiba`> the engimatic satoshi
103 2011-10-29 00:11:48 <Ycros> Diablo-D3: wx is gone now
104 2011-10-29 00:11:49 <Diablo-D3> satoshi should have learned how to code first
105 2011-10-29 00:11:50 <genjix> nope. C is not suitable for development on large scale
106 2011-10-29 00:11:50 <Ycros> :P
107 2011-10-29 00:11:58 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: yes, and its replaced with qt which makes it useless
108 2011-10-29 00:12:00 <genjix> hence why no video games are programmed in C
109 2011-10-29 00:12:01 <Diablo-D3> no one gives a shit about qt
110 2011-10-29 00:12:03 <Ycros> bitcoind is a reference implementation
111 2011-10-29 00:12:05 <gmaxwell> genjix: Tell that to .. pretty much all of unix.
112 2011-10-29 00:12:05 <kiba`> Satoshi invented bitcoin. Why does he need tob e perfect?
113 2011-10-29 00:12:07 <Diablo-D3> genjix: s/no/most/
114 2011-10-29 00:12:16 <graingert> Diablo-D3: dude these days everything is in qt
115 2011-10-29 00:12:16 <Ycros> go forth and write your own
116 2011-10-29 00:12:25 <Diablo-D3> graingert: okay, lemme go look at my desktop
117 2011-10-29 00:12:30 <Diablo-D3> graingert: NOTHING USES QT
118 2011-10-29 00:12:37 <graingert> Diablo-D3: what's your desktop
119 2011-10-29 00:12:38 <genjix> derp
120 2011-10-29 00:12:42 <kiba`> cryptographers hate bitcoin, C++ programemrs hate bitcoin, etc
121 2011-10-29 00:12:49 <genjix> Qt is one of the most common gui libs around
122 2011-10-29 00:12:51 <Diablo-D3> graingert: about 50 different programs, all gtk.
123 2011-10-29 00:12:55 <Diablo-D3> genjix: not even close
124 2011-10-29 00:12:59 <Diablo-D3> I use _exactly one_ qt app
125 2011-10-29 00:13:01 <Diablo-D3> and thats vbox
126 2011-10-29 00:13:03 <Ycros> Qt is probably the best crossplatform C++ lib around.
127 2011-10-29 00:13:05 <Diablo-D3> and I heard they're changing to gtk
128 2011-10-29 00:13:05 <genjix> good for you
129 2011-10-29 00:13:08 <kiba`> I used emacs
130 2011-10-29 00:13:10 <graingert> Diablo-D3: well you're a gnome-fag so that doesn't count
131 2011-10-29 00:13:12 <genjix> the majority of the world uses Qt
132 2011-10-29 00:13:15 <Diablo-D3> graingert: not at all
133 2011-10-29 00:13:15 <gmaxwell> Stop.
134 2011-10-29 00:13:18 <genjix> that's including windows
135 2011-10-29 00:13:18 <gmaxwell> Listen.
136 2011-10-29 00:13:19 <Diablo-D3> gnome is a pile of shit
137 2011-10-29 00:13:22 <gmaxwell> Vi or Emacs?
138 2011-10-29 00:13:24 <genjix> Vi
139 2011-10-29 00:13:25 <Ycros> nobody cares about your shit GTK bullshit that is fucked to deal with on any platform apart from linux
140 2011-10-29 00:13:27 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: eclipse!
141 2011-10-29 00:13:28 <kiba`> Emacs
142 2011-10-29 00:13:30 <graingert> geany all the way
143 2011-10-29 00:13:42 <genjix> KDE vs Gnome
144 2011-10-29 00:13:45 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: fuck you dude, if I can compile gtk on windows, so can everyone else
145 2011-10-29 00:13:47 <Diablo-D3> genjix: xfce.
146 2011-10-29 00:13:52 <kiba`> genjix: Xmonad
147 2011-10-29 00:13:53 <graingert> flamewar or shitthrowing?
148 2011-10-29 00:13:57 <genjix> awesome :(
149 2011-10-29 00:13:59 <gmaxwell> yea, another xmonad user here.
150 2011-10-29 00:13:59 <Graet> vim and xfce
151 2011-10-29 00:14:04 <genjix> vim
152 2011-10-29 00:14:04 <graingert> I personally prefer shit-throwing
153 2011-10-29 00:14:06 <Diablo-D3> graingert: a little of column a, a little of column b
154 2011-10-29 00:14:24 <gmaxwell> (and I use joe (for casual editing) and emacs)
155 2011-10-29 00:14:26 <graingert> Yoghurt, yogurt or yogourt ?
156 2011-10-29 00:14:29 <gmaxwell> (wordstar forever!)
157 2011-10-29 00:14:41 <genjix> Diablo-D3: troll harder; "everything i can't or won't use is crap. fuck off world."
158 2011-10-29 00:14:42 <Ycros> xmonad *humps*
159 2011-10-29 00:14:49 <genjix> actually i can't fault that logic.
160 2011-10-29 00:15:07 <genjix> Ycros: awesome > xmonad
161 2011-10-29 00:15:11 <kiba`> I can only tolerate one application on my screen and hence why I used xmonad
162 2011-10-29 00:15:17 <graingert> I prefer QT apps as they look nice in both gnome and kde
163 2011-10-29 00:15:24 <Ycros> genjix: hell no.
164 2011-10-29 00:15:28 <genjix> Qt is a joy to program in
165 2011-10-29 00:15:31 <gmaxwell> I'd switch to awesome.. but why? I know the xmonad keybindings. :)
166 2011-10-29 00:15:32 <genjix> gtk sucks
167 2011-10-29 00:15:35 <Diablo-D3> and the only reason I use xfce because I havent wrote my own
168 2011-10-29 00:15:39 <Diablo-D3> and Im thinking about it
169 2011-10-29 00:15:46 <graingert> qt-gtk+ is awesome
170 2011-10-29 00:15:51 <kiba`> Diablo-D3: don't reinvent the wheel
171 2011-10-29 00:15:56 <Ycros> kiba`: no he wants to
172 2011-10-29 00:16:01 <Diablo-D3> either that, or Im just going to make emacs my window manager.
173 2011-10-29 00:16:04 <Ycros> kiba`: no wheels are Diablo-D3 coloured enough
174 2011-10-29 00:16:08 <graingert> don't reinvent the sqwheel
175 2011-10-29 00:16:15 <Diablo-D3> kiba`: and no
176 2011-10-29 00:16:19 <Diablo-D3> Im not going to reinvent it
177 2011-10-29 00:16:21 <Diablo-D3> Im going to make it round.
178 2011-10-29 00:16:28 <Diablo-D3> theres a subtle difference
179 2011-10-29 00:16:34 <kiba`> YOU ARE going to reinvent the wheel
180 2011-10-29 00:16:38 <cjdelisle> how about cmake v. autoconf v. Scons, thoughts?
181 2011-10-29 00:16:44 <kiba`> don't care
182 2011-10-29 00:16:47 <kiba`> don't work with C++
183 2011-10-29 00:16:53 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: no one actually like autoconf
184 2011-10-29 00:16:55 <Ycros> cjdelisle: cmake, if you care about crossplatform building
185 2011-10-29 00:16:59 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: meh, pointless
186 2011-10-29 00:16:59 <Ycros> and yeah
187 2011-10-29 00:17:02 <Ycros> nobody likes autoconf
188 2011-10-29 00:17:03 <kiba`> I am just a programming grunt that work at a firm that make web applications
189 2011-10-29 00:17:03 <Ycros> lol
190 2011-10-29 00:17:07 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: but if you want to make code thats portable to anything except windows you use autoconf.
191 2011-10-29 00:17:08 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: and thats not even a valid comparison
192 2011-10-29 00:17:13 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: if you want windows you use cmake.
193 2011-10-29 00:17:14 <Diablo-D3> its cmake v autoMAKE v scons
194 2011-10-29 00:17:23 <Diablo-D3> autoconf + buildsys is superior to all of them
195 2011-10-29 00:17:23 <genjix> cjdelisle: no views. i work downstream
196 2011-10-29 00:17:31 <cjdelisle> yea
197 2011-10-29 00:17:41 <Diablo-D3> anyone who bitches about autoconf sucking hasnt used it in the past 10 years
198 2011-10-29 00:17:42 <cjdelisle> I get the idea autotools is the most powerful
199 2011-10-29 00:17:45 <genjix> guess i'd go with autoconf since i know a little of it
200 2011-10-29 00:17:53 <Ycros> Diablo-D3: I used it last month, still sucks.
201 2011-10-29 00:18:01 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: then you cant fucking read the manual
202 2011-10-29 00:18:03 <Diablo-D3> not my problem
203 2011-10-29 00:18:06 <cjdelisle> but I try to understand it and make it work a little bit and I am sunk :(
204 2011-10-29 00:18:06 <gmaxwell> genjix: Autoconf is a great equalizer.. no one knows more than a little of it. ;)
205 2011-10-29 00:18:16 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: bullshit, I can almost understand m4.
206 2011-10-29 00:18:29 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: good, I'll ask you questions then.
207 2011-10-29 00:18:41 <Ycros> m4 is just macros, it's pretty easy, and the rest is just shellscript
208 2011-10-29 00:18:45 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: how the @#$@ can I add C flags to just a couple of the source files but not all?
209 2011-10-29 00:18:46 <Ycros> it's also a huge giant pile of shit
210 2011-10-29 00:19:01 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you cant if you use automake.
211 2011-10-29 00:19:04 <gmaxwell> (and without using recursive make)
212 2011-10-29 00:19:11 <Diablo-D3> surprisingly I had the exact question a few years back
213 2011-10-29 00:19:27 <Diablo-D3> ended up setting the variable in the rule as a goddamned almighty hack
214 2011-10-29 00:21:05 <cjdelisle> I think the biggest problem re learning autotools is that there are old deprecated things in it and lots of people using it wrong so it's full of red herrings and bad examples.
215 2011-10-29 00:21:07 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: btw, the rule for C is something like $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS)
216 2011-10-29 00:23:27 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: I agree
217 2011-10-29 00:23:32 <Diablo-D3> but no autoconf should be complex to begin with
218 2011-10-29 00:23:39 <Diablo-D3> if it is, your code sucks
219 2011-10-29 00:23:57 <cjdelisle> is there a project I might look at to learn the ropes?
220 2011-10-29 00:24:17 <cjdelisle> I can usually learn by example but decent ones are hard to come by
221 2011-10-29 00:25:31 <Diablo-D3> Im using buildsys
222 2011-10-29 00:25:42 <cjdelisle> I've been using cmake but I doubt I'll ever want to compile on windows, I'll just cross compile since *nix is much easier for building things and cmake doesn't seem to do 1/10th the compatability checks as autotools
223 2011-10-29 00:25:46 <Diablo-D3> so my current lib isnt exactly brilliant
224 2011-10-29 00:26:03 <Diablo-D3> https://webkeks.org/hg/buildsys/
225 2011-10-29 00:26:04 <graingert> premake4 is aparantly quite nice
226 2011-10-29 00:26:15 <Diablo-D3> audacious and the ircd freenode uses uses it, for example
227 2011-10-29 00:27:48 <cjdelisle> oh off topic, I was reading the code for google v8 and I saw:
228 2011-10-29 00:27:56 <cjdelisle> dnl Someone will forgive me
229 2011-10-29 00:28:05 <cjdelisle> #define __GNU_SOURCE
230 2011-10-29 00:28:59 <Diablo-D3> LOL
231 2011-10-29 00:29:02 <Diablo-D3> but yeah like
232 2011-10-29 00:29:03 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/WeAi7btr
233 2011-10-29 00:29:08 <Diablo-D3> thats my current one for a library
234 2011-10-29 00:30:10 <cjdelisle> hmm
235 2011-10-29 00:31:00 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/UmbhpdPV
236 2011-10-29 00:31:03 <Diablo-D3> thats extra.mk.in
237 2011-10-29 00:31:32 <cjdelisle> thanks
238 2011-10-29 00:31:40 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/c4434zL1
239 2011-10-29 00:31:43 <Diablo-D3> thats Makefile
240 2011-10-29 00:31:56 <Diablo-D3> so its all really simple shit
241 2011-10-29 00:32:32 <Diablo-D3> and then I have multiple dirs in src
242 2011-10-29 00:32:35 <Diablo-D3> the one for the lib is
243 2011-10-29 00:32:53 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/tTduVJNX
244 2011-10-29 00:32:57 <Diablo-D3> and the app is
245 2011-10-29 00:33:18 <Diablo-D3> http://pastebin.com/GiMJEwKf
246 2011-10-29 00:33:26 <Diablo-D3> so buildsys is really fucking easy to use
247 2011-10-29 00:33:38 <Diablo-D3> almost completely non-bullshit
248 2011-10-29 00:34:10 <Ycros> I like that you have a template to use the so simple auto*
249 2011-10-29 00:34:39 <Diablo-D3> Ycros: well, this is autoconf + buildsys
250 2011-10-29 00:34:50 <Diablo-D3> buildsys has its own templates for a few things, but they're too minimal
251 2011-10-29 00:35:14 <cjdelisle> yea, I think I'm going to need to read more about how to makefile because I have a ton of tiny libraries which are all static linked into the executable to seperate concerns and lots of tests which are linked all kinds of weird ways to make them work.
252 2011-10-29 00:37:00 <Diablo-D3> cjdelisle: buildsys actually supports THAT usage
253 2011-10-29 00:37:04 <Diablo-D3> but I dont have anything for it
254 2011-10-29 00:37:17 <cjdelisle> very cool
255 2011-10-29 00:37:41 <Diablo-D3> audacious for example has a lot of sub-libs that are staticed in and not installed
256 2011-10-29 00:37:49 <Diablo-D3> but it doesnt use that yet either
257 2011-10-29 00:37:51 <Diablo-D3> :<
258 2011-10-29 01:18:47 <gribble> Error: "calcd" is not a valid command.
259 2011-10-29 01:18:47 <[Tycho]> ;;calcd 435,1
260 2011-10-29 01:18:53 <gribble> Error: "gend" is not a valid command.
261 2011-10-29 01:18:53 <[Tycho]> ;;gend 435,1
262 2011-10-29 01:18:57 <gribble> Error: "gen" is not a valid command.
263 2011-10-29 01:18:57 <[Tycho]> ;;gen 435,1
264 2011-10-29 01:19:08 <cjdelisle> bc,gen?
265 2011-10-29 01:19:10 <gribble> Error: Something in there wasn't a valid number.
266 2011-10-29 01:19:10 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 435,1
267 2011-10-29 01:19:14 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gen 435.1
268 2011-10-29 01:19:15 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 435.1 Khps, given current difficulty of 1468195.4272208 , is 0.000298077435932 BTC per day and 1.24198931638e-05 BTC per hour.
269 2011-10-29 01:19:21 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,gend 435 1
270 2011-10-29 01:19:22 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 435 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 437.535345554 BTC per day and 18.2306393981 BTC per hour.
271 2011-10-29 01:19:30 <[Tycho]> Thanks.
272 2011-10-29 01:19:34 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 435 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 2 hours, 44 minutes, and 33 seconds
273 2011-10-29 01:19:34 <[Tycho]> ;;bc,calcd 435 1
274 2011-10-29 01:19:35 <cjdelisle> nps
275 2011-10-29 02:43:27 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rd115a64 / lib/logger.js : (Re-)enabled timestamps in console log. - http://git.io/LYlwRg
276 2011-10-29 02:43:28 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r98d320e / package.json : Version bump to 0.1.3. - http://git.io/kt6MtQ
277 2011-10-29 03:09:28 <Diablo-D3> ;;ticker
278 2011-10-29 03:09:29 <gribble> Best bid: 3.46173, Best ask: 3.498, Bid-ask spread: 0.03627, Last trade: 3.45657, 24 hour volume: 54213, 24 hour low: 2.956, 24 hour high: 3.5
279 2011-10-29 03:15:49 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Forrest Voight * re01d6941c14b cgminer/main.c: Byteswap computed hash in hashtest so it can be correctly checked
280 2011-10-29 03:59:35 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * ff4d04285300 r174 / (17 files in 10 dirs): WorkMaker pre-integration commit
281 2011-10-29 06:34:51 <CIA-101> poolserverj: shadders * d4fa5e572f43 r175 / (8 files in 5 dirs):
282 2011-10-29 06:43:31 <zeiris> Gosh this channel is quiet now.
283 2011-10-29 06:47:18 <nathan7> zeiris: Yes it is!
284 2011-10-29 06:47:22 <nathan7> Fix it (;
285 2011-10-29 06:47:55 <zeiris> Well with the bubble gone, maybe BTC's stable enough for me to do something fun.
286 2011-10-29 06:48:11 <zeiris> What kind of web services/libraries does the BTC community need?
287 2011-10-29 06:49:03 <nathan7> I'd love something that automatically does the exchange business and gets me a pizza.
288 2011-10-29 08:36:29 <edcba> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/160/visa-secret-security-center
289 2011-10-29 08:36:54 <edcba> 10547 messages/s during peak hour in 2010 ?
290 2011-10-29 08:38:10 <edcba> (1 transaction may be multiple messages)
291 2011-10-29 08:53:46 <CIA-101> bips: genjix master * rce40c0f / (5 files): BIP 0001, 0011, 0012, 0013. - http://git.io/j74jcg
292 2011-10-29 10:57:22 <luke-jr> ;;bc,stats
293 2011-10-29 10:57:25 <gribble> Current Blocks: 151021 | Current Difficulty: 1468195.4272208 | Next Difficulty At Block: 151199 | Next Difficulty In: 178 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 day, 13 hours, 22 minutes, and 48 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1212314.00409509 | Estimated Percent Change: -17.428294516
294 2011-10-29 11:07:08 <Diablo-D3> http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/10/29/devilrobber-mac-os-x-trojan-horse-spies-on-you-uses-gpu-for-bitcoin-mining/?utm_source=facebook
295 2011-10-29 11:13:46 <nathan7> Diablo-D3: AWESOME
296 2011-10-29 11:14:06 <Diablo-D3> well get this
297 2011-10-29 11:14:12 <Diablo-D3> devilrobber, right?
298 2011-10-29 11:14:27 <Diablo-D3> devil = diablo, its osx, and my miner is the only one that works on osx
299 2011-10-29 11:14:41 <Diablo-D3> so clearly I need to dmca someone
300 2011-10-29 11:14:43 <Graet> IT WAS YOU!!!!!!!
301 2011-10-29 11:14:43 <nathan7> o:
302 2011-10-29 11:15:03 <nathan7> be proud
303 2011-10-29 11:15:09 <nathan7> you're spreading bitcoin
304 2011-10-29 11:15:16 <Graet> ^^
305 2011-10-29 11:15:22 <Diablo-D3> well, SOMEONE is spreading bitcoin... like an std.
306 2011-10-29 11:16:00 <nathan7> [=
307 2011-10-29 11:16:07 <Diablo-D3> seriously, I've dmca'ed someone before over diablominer
308 2011-10-29 11:16:09 <Diablo-D3> I can do it again
309 2011-10-29 11:17:09 <Diablo-D3> although, if hes shipping the source with the trojan or a notice where to get it, thats perfectly a-okay
310 2011-10-29 11:17:19 <Eliel> :D
311 2011-10-29 11:17:45 <Diablo-D3> seriously, some day trojan makers will have github accounts
312 2011-10-29 11:18:04 <Diablo-D3> open source machine fucking.
313 2011-10-29 11:18:50 <luke-jr> what if the trojan complies with the license? ;)
314 2011-10-29 11:19:01 <Diablo-D3> like I said, a-okay
315 2011-10-29 11:19:10 <Diablo-D3> officially not my problem
316 2011-10-29 11:20:02 <Diablo-D3> GPL indemnifies me from my code being too awesome
317 2011-10-29 11:20:07 <Diablo-D3> anyhow, night all
318 2011-10-29 12:50:16 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r4e6cb9cdc76e / (9 files in 6 dirs): example program to fetch balance of bitcoin address.
319 2011-10-29 14:07:24 <edcba> ;;bc,mtgox
320 2011-10-29 14:07:25 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":3.82717,"low":3.121,"avg":3.475816274,"vwap":3.503402281,"vol":77958,"last_all":3.57959,"last_local":3.57959,"last":3.57959,"buy":3.562,"sell":3.5796}}
321 2011-10-29 16:14:27 <necrodearia> Can anyone help me with compile issues?  Why is there an error?  http://privatepaste.com/2244be3f0a  I have compiled previously using the exact same source, but after updating some softwares on the system, it no longer compiles =/
322 2011-10-29 16:15:37 <tcatm> do you have boost devel packages installaed?
323 2011-10-29 16:17:38 <necrodearia> I have dev-libs/boost-1.42.0-r2 and dev-util/boost-build-1.42.0 installed.
324 2011-10-29 16:17:51 <necrodearia> oh also
325 2011-10-29 16:18:17 <necrodearia> dev-libs/boost-1.46.1-r1 and dev-util/boost-build-1.46.1
326 2011-10-29 16:19:01 <necrodearia> and `eselect boost list` shows that boost-1.46/default is enabled
327 2011-10-29 16:19:08 <necrodearia> or active
328 2011-10-29 16:20:30 <tcatm> does /usr/lib/libboost_thread.a exist?
329 2011-10-29 16:22:42 <tcatm> oh, that's an old makefile. can you try 0.5.0rc1?
330 2011-10-29 16:24:39 <necrodearia> no instances of libboost_thread.a exists, only /usr/lib64/libboost_thread-1_46.so
331 2011-10-29 16:24:58 <necrodearia> sure, I can try a new makefile
332 2011-10-29 16:25:51 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * ra779b515445b /src/storage/postgresql/postgresql_storage.cpp: if dupli tx stop block caching
333 2011-10-29 16:25:52 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * ra3e23088143b /src/types.cpp: Fix for premature end of pretty byte stream
334 2011-10-29 16:25:54 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * rddb84767b8fe / (include/bitcoin/script.hpp src/script.cpp): seperate op_checksigverify into generate_signature_hash for create new transactions.
335 2011-10-29 16:32:33 <jgarzik> "CBlock.GetSigOpCount counts vtx[0].vin[0]scriptSig's OpCount.  It shouldn't, because the value in vtx[0].vin[0].scriptSig is a random string between 2 and 100 bytes." https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/596
336 2011-10-29 16:32:37 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: ^^  interesting point
337 2011-10-29 16:33:55 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I rewrote the GetOpCount code for OP_EVAL ... but had to keep the old code to prevent block chain splits
338 2011-10-29 16:34:24 <gavinandresen> I don't see the issue, though:  the opcount of a standard scriptSig is always 0
339 2011-10-29 16:45:54 <necrodearia> ah, obj/nogui/ contained files that affected the compile.  rming them resolved the issue
340 2011-10-29 16:49:34 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I forgot vtx[0].vin[0] is special (is the coinbase)....   He's right, that is a bug.
341 2011-10-29 16:49:47 <jgarzik> yep
342 2011-10-29 16:50:08 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: there's probably a block-chain-splitting attack hiding if we just fix it the obvious way
343 2011-10-29 16:50:31 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that's my worry.  I understand his point, but have not thought through the ramifications of changing that
344 2011-10-29 16:51:21 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: the OP_EVAL change requires a majority of hashing power before being put into place; that's the time to fix it.
345 2011-10-29 16:52:00 <gavinandresen> (actually count how many sigops are done instead of guesstimating based on the CHECKSIG opcodes in the scripts)
346 2011-10-29 16:56:57 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: has the majority of hash power shown willingness to support OP_EVAL?
347 2011-10-29 16:57:22 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I haven't asked yet.  I will soon.
348 2011-10-29 16:57:52 <gavinandresen> you don't like OP_EVAL?
349 2011-10-29 16:58:04 <gavinandresen> It's nicely backwards-compatible.....
350 2011-10-29 16:59:14 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: not qualified yet to answer honestly.  The entire email thread is in my to-read pile for this weekend.  As long as 0.3.19 won't puke all good
351 2011-10-29 17:00:15 <gavinandresen> I could actually start sending myself OP_EVAL transactions right now (I'd have to send them through Elgius) and all would be fine.
352 2011-10-29 17:01:24 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: 0.3.19 seems to be the "old codger" version of bitcoin.  some pools and community notables like theymos are sitting on 0.3.19 and intentionally not moving forward.
353 2011-10-29 17:01:39 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: nice
354 2011-10-29 17:02:24 <gavinandresen> I'll volunteer to back-port the relevant bits of OP_EVAL to 0.3.19 if it'll help get them to move
355 2011-10-29 17:03:28 <gmaxwell> There shouldn't even be a risk of a minority of unupgraded miners from being forked, so long as they don't mine non-standard txn.
356 2011-10-29 17:03:39 <da2ce7> gavinandresen do we have a every-bitcoiner explanation of the proposed OP_EVAL changes?
357 2011-10-29 17:03:51 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yup
358 2011-10-29 17:03:58 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: how does OP_EVAL behave when sent to unmodified 0.3.19 miners and clients?
359 2011-10-29 17:04:13 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: non-standard transaction, so they're ignored.
360 2011-10-29 17:04:25 <gavinandresen> jgarzik:  (but accepted if included in blocks, of course)
361 2011-10-29 17:04:43 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: 0.3.19 is pre-isStandard, if you recall.  lack of isStandard is a philosophical reason why some chose not to upgrade.
362 2011-10-29 17:05:03 <jgarzik> several people disagreed w/ satoshi's introduction of isStandard, at the time
363 2011-10-29 17:05:20 <gavinandresen> da2ce7: what do you mean by 'every-bitcoiner' ?   The initial changes are just infrastructure to enable more secure wallets and escrow transactions and such later
364 2011-10-29 17:05:57 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I didn't recall....
365 2011-10-29 17:06:22 <da2ce7> so when are we implmenting the breaking changes? is that still a while off?
366 2011-10-29 17:06:25 <gmaxwell> Hmmmm.... but its easy to demonstrate there is no non-trivial hashpower on a version without isStandard other than eligius. Just make one with no fee and note that it goes nowhere.
367 2011-10-29 17:07:06 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: this isn't a breaking change from the perspective of most parties.
368 2011-10-29 17:07:37 <gmaxwell> (miners that mine non-standard txn would consider this a breaking change since there will be some txn that if they mine them, they'll end up orphaned)
369 2011-10-29 17:07:43 <batouzo> how long time would be there before change
370 2011-10-29 17:07:57 <batouzo> not every btc user upgrades regularly
371 2011-10-29 17:08:02 <gmaxwell> They don't need to.
372 2011-10-29 17:08:06 <da2ce7> ah, so the OP_EVAL rules are become more strict?
373 2011-10-29 17:08:39 <gmaxwell> There is no OP_EVAL today. There is a OP_NOP (does nothing) which would become OP_EVAL .. and OP_EVAL will be strictly more strict that does-nothing. :)
374 2011-10-29 17:08:57 <da2ce7> :)
375 2011-10-29 17:09:11 <gmaxwell> So old clients will see payments that had no output restrictions.. and accept them. New clients will see rules being followed and accept them.
376 2011-10-29 17:09:20 <edcba> what is that OP_EVAL ?
377 2011-10-29 17:09:35 <gmaxwell> In particular, the op_eval rules don't allow txn that would somehow pass op_eval nodes but not the old ones.
378 2011-10-29 17:10:00 <gmaxwell> edcba: A script opteration that allows the spender to provide the actual script instead of the sender.
379 2011-10-29 17:10:02 <gavinandresen> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0012   is the OP_EVAL proposal
380 2011-10-29 17:10:36 <edcba> so it is a breaking change ?
381 2011-10-29 17:10:39 <gmaxwell> No.
382 2011-10-29 17:10:42 <edcba> lol
383 2011-10-29 17:11:07 <gmaxwell> Did you ask that just to be obnoxious or is there a point I can help clarify?
384 2011-10-29 17:11:13 <gavinandresen> It is not a breaking change, but if it is not rolled out carefully it could trigger a block-chain-split.
385 2011-10-29 17:11:30 <edcba> but if old clients don't recognize the owner of coins it will break
386 2011-10-29 17:11:42 <gmaxwell> They will.
387 2011-10-29 17:12:07 <gmaxwell> Because they'll see the op_eval transactions as "this coin belongs to whomever wants it! have fun"
388 2011-10-29 17:12:21 <edcba> so what if i claim those ?
389 2011-10-29 17:12:28 <gavinandresen> ... that's not quite right.  the hash of the script has to be correct for old clients to accept it
390 2011-10-29 17:12:51 <gavinandresen> And if you don't re-use keys, every script will be different, so you're actually secure
391 2011-10-29 17:12:57 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: It was a simplification, but now that you mention it... I guess thats actually helpful too.
392 2011-10-29 17:13:00 <gavinandresen> (even with old clients/miners)
393 2011-10-29 17:13:40 <gmaxwell> edcba: You can't you could try but any upgraded miner won't accept a chain while you do.  (also, as gavin points out you'd actually have to know the required script)
394 2011-10-29 17:13:42 <batouzo> edcba: you can have them. I claim mtgox'es 0 address though
395 2011-10-29 17:14:01 <gmaxwell> s/while/where/
396 2011-10-29 17:14:25 <edcba> gmaxwell: so you split chain with old clients
397 2011-10-29 17:14:30 <gmaxwell> edcba: And non-upgraded miners don't appear to mine the relevant non-standard txn.
398 2011-10-29 17:14:32 <edcba> ie breaking change
399 2011-10-29 17:14:36 <gmaxwell> No sir.
400 2011-10-29 17:15:06 <edcba> if old clients see me acquiring those coins and new ones not
401 2011-10-29 17:15:09 <graingert> edcba: they would still mine on the new blocks
402 2011-10-29 17:15:14 <edcba> it means chains are splitted
403 2011-10-29 17:15:21 <graingert> edcba: but they would only take old style tx
404 2011-10-29 17:15:23 <da2ce7> edcba, we are doing it now so it ISN'T a breaking change later...
405 2011-10-29 17:15:36 <edcba> old clients will accept my tx new clients won't
406 2011-10-29 17:15:58 <graingert> ?
407 2011-10-29 17:16:05 <gmaxwell> edcba: so? What matters is what gets mined. (and because it's non-standard most clients will just drop it, but we'll ignore that for now)
408 2011-10-29 17:16:16 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I just checkout out 0.3.19, and it DOES include the IsStandard() check
409 2011-10-29 17:16:24 <da2ce7> edcba, this is like "we are going to do breaking changes in the future, lets now get everyone prepared for it"
410 2011-10-29 17:16:33 <gmaxwell> da2ce7: Not really.
411 2011-10-29 17:16:40 <da2ce7> :(
412 2011-10-29 17:16:43 <graingert> because it doesn't break
413 2011-10-29 17:16:44 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: hum, I misremembered then.  The controversy was earlier.
414 2011-10-29 17:16:49 <gmaxwell> edcba: Lets walk through the steps. You transmit a bogus txn.
415 2011-10-29 17:16:51 <graingert> miners will still mine on the old block
416 2011-10-29 17:16:54 <graingert> s
417 2011-10-29 17:17:23 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: that helps define behavior a bit, because it is true that 0.3.19 is a prominent "old codger" version
418 2011-10-29 17:17:30 <gmaxwell> edcba: lets just assume that there exists a miner that will mine it (though I've tested and this doesn't appear to be the case: no one mines nonstandard txn now except eligius as far as I can tell)
419 2011-10-29 17:17:42 <edcba> :)
420 2011-10-29 17:18:18 <gmaxwell> edcba: That miner mines it.  But then none of the upgraded nodes will accept their blocks.  So there is a one block orphan and life goes on.
421 2011-10-29 17:18:52 <edcba> and for old clients it sees a good block so use it
422 2011-10-29 17:19:21 <edcba> ok it may not last long since most of miners used your new version ?
423 2011-10-29 17:19:22 <gmaxwell> edcba: The risky outcome is that (1) one of those nodes exists, (2) the unupgraded nodes are the majority of hash power, (3) someone does what you said.
424 2011-10-29 17:20:05 <edcba> we'll see what majority decides anyway
425 2011-10-29 17:20:12 <gmaxwell> edcba: right. So long as upgraded miners are a majority such a split won't last long, if they are a very large majority it will only be one block... and those happen often enough naturally.
426 2011-10-29 17:20:25 <gmaxwell> edcba: it's also possible to make the feature depend on hashpower majority directly.
427 2011-10-29 17:21:10 <gmaxwell> edcba: e.g. you make the upgraded nodes write OP_EVAL into their coinbase.. and they only start following the new rules when at least 60% (say) of the last 2016 blocks (say) indicate support. (then they stop advertising it)
428 2011-10-29 17:21:20 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: see the Backwards Compatiblity section of the BIP.  I propose we evaluate January 15, with an "interpret OP_EVAL AS OP_EVAL" date of Feb 1.
429 2011-10-29 17:21:40 <gmaxwell> But if the big pool operators indicate willingness, I don't see a reason for the complexity of a coinbase vote.
430 2011-10-29 17:22:57 <gavinandresen> I worry that they'll "indicate willingness" but then just get lazy and not actually get around to patching their block creation code
431 2011-10-29 17:23:25 <gavinandresen> putting "OP_EVAL" into mined blocks means they actually had to apply the patch
432 2011-10-29 17:23:27 <graingert> gavinandresen: could you get it so reward transactions could include OP_EVAL
433 2011-10-29 17:23:58 <gavinandresen> graingert: yes, that's what "OP_EVAL" in the coinbase means
434 2011-10-29 17:23:59 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: fair enough.
435 2011-10-29 17:24:01 <graingert> ah
436 2011-10-29 17:24:05 <graingert> durp
437 2011-10-29 17:25:22 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: The lazy bit is actually a really excellent point. I'm glad you thought of that.
438 2011-10-29 17:26:20 <gavinandresen> I see my primary jobs a lead bitcoin dev to worry about stuff that probably won't happen, but would be bad if it did....
439 2011-10-29 17:27:44 <edcba> hmm i don't understand really well how that OP_EVAL will be used
440 2011-10-29 17:30:28 <gavinandresen> OP_EVAL by itself does nothing.  It needs multisignature transactions, too, to be useful (see BIPs 11 and 13)
441 2011-10-29 17:32:39 <edcba> grmbl
442 2011-10-29 17:36:19 <edcba> ok so with that scheme you'll have to mark coins as pending ?
443 2011-10-29 17:36:35 <gmaxwell> ... Pending? hm?
444 2011-10-29 17:37:05 <gmaxwell> Oh you mean a mutisignature secured wallet? Presuably you'll train your wallet how to go out and get the signatures when it needs them.
445 2011-10-29 17:37:44 <gavinandresen> Yes, there will be public keys in your wallet where the private part is "go ask FOO to sign the transaction"
446 2011-10-29 17:38:03 <edcba> hmm
447 2011-10-29 17:39:32 <gmaxwell> edcba: the key thing op_eval adds to this is that the payer doesn't need to know or care about the payees personal wallet security procedure.
448 2011-10-29 17:40:02 <edcba> i think i will have to read forum to understand all that thing
449 2011-10-29 17:40:13 <gavinandresen> ... and they payer doesn't have to pay more transaction fees because I'm using some wacky 4-of-10-signatures-required protection scheme
450 2011-10-29 17:40:17 <edcba> seems a bit complicated just for escrow :)
451 2011-10-29 17:40:50 <gavinandresen> It isn't just for escrow
452 2011-10-29 17:41:20 <gavinandresen> The other big advantage is it means one additional bitcoin address type can handle any transaction type we come up with in the future
453 2011-10-29 17:41:25 <edcba> the payer use more resource i don't see why he shouldn't pay more fees
454 2011-10-29 17:41:25 <gmaxwell> It's for transient escrow, wallet security, trust fund accounts, etc etc.
455 2011-10-29 17:41:50 <gmaxwell> edcba: the payer is not using more resources the txn are ~the same size as current standard ones.
456 2011-10-29 17:41:52 <gavinandresen> edcba: the payEE uses more resources...  (when they spend the 4-of-10 signatures required coin)
457 2011-10-29 17:42:02 <gmaxwell> What gavinandresen said.
458 2011-10-29 17:42:27 <edcba> anyway payer/payee don't matter one will pay the price for the other :)
459 2011-10-29 17:43:47 <gavinandresen> OP_EVAL also allows transaction types that are smaller in the block-chain than their non-OP_EVAL equivalents
460 2011-10-29 17:44:25 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: is there a seperate BIP for supporting the key recovery in OP_EVAL?
461 2011-10-29 17:44:56 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: I started writing one up, but then decided I agreed with ByteCoin : if we care about scriptSig size, it would be better to optimize for that directly
462 2011-10-29 17:45:30 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: e.g. by adding protocol methods to "give me a bunch of transactions but leave out their scriptSigs because I trust they were signed correctly because they're in the block chain"
463 2011-10-29 17:46:02 <gavinandresen> (that obviously requires a lot more thought...)
464 2011-10-29 17:46:03 <graingert> lol
465 2011-10-29 17:46:15 <gmaxwell> Yep. okay.
466 2011-10-29 17:55:20 <edcba> can't we just break completly old clients and invent a new tx scheme without scripts ?
467 2011-10-29 17:56:18 <edcba> ie using the upgraded nodes show their will in block chain ?
468 2011-10-29 17:57:21 <[Tycho]> Scripts are cool.
469 2011-10-29 17:57:26 <edcba> lol
470 2011-10-29 17:57:40 <[Tycho]> I would like to use them.
471 2011-10-29 17:57:53 <edcba> me too i'd like to see their use :)
472 2011-10-29 17:58:45 <edcba> script only could be usefull if you could implement an hashing function in it i guess
473 2011-10-29 17:58:58 <[Tycho]> Why ?
474 2011-10-29 17:59:47 <tcatm> if you remove scripts adding new transaction types will become even harder
475 2011-10-29 18:00:59 <Davincij15> I screwed up.
476 2011-10-29 18:01:06 <Davincij15> maybe someone can help.
477 2011-10-29 18:01:18 <edcba> no your wallet is lost
478 2011-10-29 18:01:19 <Davincij15> I transfered 850 namecoins to a bitcoin address
479 2011-10-29 18:01:30 <edcba> hmm
480 2011-10-29 18:01:34 <Davincij15> I own the bitcoin private key
481 2011-10-29 18:01:36 <edcba> ok maybe not
482 2011-10-29 18:02:09 <Davincij15> so maybe -rescan on with the bitcoin private key on the namecoind?
483 2011-10-29 18:02:12 <edcba> don't namecoin use a different version for the sigs ?
484 2011-10-29 18:02:35 <Davincij15> yeah
485 2011-10-29 18:02:42 <Davincij15> so i'm fucked
486 2011-10-29 18:03:05 <edcba> why your namecoin has accepted the bitcoin address then ?
487 2011-10-29 18:03:46 <tcatm> I don't know exactly how namecoin works but maybe you could use a copy of your bitcoin wallet with namecoin?
488 2011-10-29 18:04:01 <Davincij15> because the ghetto has dev decided not to do a basic check of duh if there is 1 in front it's not valid
489 2011-10-29 18:04:45 <Davincij15> I know so many people who have done this.
490 2011-10-29 18:04:50 <edcba> but isn't 1 the version ?
491 2011-10-29 18:05:17 <edcba> oh encoded 1
492 2011-10-29 18:05:22 <Davincij15> 1 in front of the public key is dead giveaway that it's a bitcoin address
493 2011-10-29 18:05:34 <Davincij15> I was not paying attention to what i was doing
494 2011-10-29 18:05:48 <Davincij15> and did not see i was entering a bitcoin address
495 2011-10-29 18:06:52 <Eliel> Davincij15: no problem at all, you'll just need to export the key from bitcoin wallet.dat and import it into namecoin wallet.dat
496 2011-10-29 18:07:26 <Davincij15> You sure that will work?
497 2011-10-29 18:07:51 <Davincij15> just copy the btc wallet and do -rescan?
498 2011-10-29 18:08:20 <Eliel> umm, I'm not sure if the wallet itself will work as it is.
499 2011-10-29 18:08:30 <Davincij15> it does
500 2011-10-29 18:08:30 <Eliel> but if you export the key and import it, that works.
501 2011-10-29 18:08:49 <Davincij15> is there a key export option
502 2011-10-29 18:08:50 <Eliel> but if the wallet.dat will work with namecoin, then that should work just fine.
503 2011-10-29 18:09:01 <Eliel> there's some command line tools for doing that.
504 2011-10-29 18:09:18 <Davincij15> where are they what are they called?
505 2011-10-29 18:09:21 <Eliel> just copying the wallet.dat is probably easier if it works (just make sure you have backups)
506 2011-10-29 18:13:07 <Davincij15> alright I will empty the bitcoin wallet and copy the wallet.dat file since the btc wallet works with namecoind.
507 2011-10-29 18:13:38 <Davincij15> do a -rescan and cross my fingers
508 2011-10-29 18:14:47 <Davincij15> If not I will ask Khal to update the number of lost coins in the namecoin explorer
509 2011-10-29 18:14:59 <Davincij15> lol
510 2011-10-29 18:16:56 <khalahan> Davincij15, this should work, doublec does this time to time to correct mistakes of the exchange users :p
511 2011-10-29 18:21:18 <Eliel> Davincij15: emptying the bitcoin wallet is not needed I think :)
512 2011-10-29 18:24:04 <neofutur> I nearly did the same error 2 or 3 times, but have a rule to always check the destination address twice before pushing enter
513 2011-10-29 18:26:09 <Eliel> I have to say I'm surprised namecoin accepts bitcoin addresses still.
514 2011-10-29 18:26:56 <khalahan> Eliel, same, this shouldn't be accepted, because i've patched this...
515 2011-10-29 18:27:07 <khalahan> Davincij15, using an old release ?
516 2011-10-29 18:37:59 <batouzo> I like the "voting" by hash-power on the new features like https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0012
517 2011-10-29 18:49:58 <gmaxwell> batouzo: it's important just for saftey.
518 2011-10-29 18:50:33 <gmaxwell> If the feature only has 40% has power behind it, it risks creating annoying splits.
519 2011-10-29 19:13:31 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan master * r8d3e1be / src/qt/bitcoinstrings.cpp :
520 2011-10-29 19:26:09 <Davincij15> khalahan old release of what? bitcoin? i am using 0.4 btc and the latest nmc release
521 2011-10-29 19:52:59 <ThomasV> I need a block to be found ...
522 2011-10-29 19:53:12 <graingert> ThomasV: pq
523 2011-10-29 19:53:29 <ThomasV> testing something with abe
524 2011-10-29 19:55:50 <ThomasV> maybe if I go have a shower, a new block will be there when I'm back
525 2011-10-29 19:56:03 <imsaguy> depends on how long your shower is
526 2011-10-29 20:01:55 <ThomasV> hmm it was too short
527 2011-10-29 20:03:11 <graingert> ThomasV: https://github.com/bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-explorer
528 2011-10-29 20:03:17 <graingert> is there a hosted copy of that?
529 2011-10-29 20:03:54 <ThomasV> I do not know
530 2011-10-29 20:04:05 <ThomasV> I don't use it, I use abe
531 2011-10-29 20:04:21 <graingert> where is Abe hosted
532 2011-10-29 20:04:37 <ThomasV> on github
533 2011-10-29 20:04:58 <ThomasV> https://github.com/jtobey/bitcoin-abe
534 2011-10-29 20:06:32 <graingert> _hosted_
535 2011-10-29 20:06:58 <neofutur> what do you mean by hosted ?
536 2011-10-29 20:07:12 <neofutur> a live running example ?
537 2011-10-29 20:07:34 <ThomasV> I don't think it has a homepage elsewhere
538 2011-10-29 20:08:04 <graingert> yes
539 2011-10-29 20:08:25 <graingert> hopefully with a shorter name than blockexplorer
540 2011-10-29 20:08:33 <graingert> blocks.bitcoin.org would be good
541 2011-10-29 20:08:37 <ThomasV> a live running example: ecdsa.org
542 2011-10-29 20:09:00 <graingert> down
543 2011-10-29 20:09:03 <ThomasV> but I am doing some tests on it, so it's not 100% uptime
544 2011-10-29 20:09:15 <ThomasV> up npow :-)
545 2011-10-29 20:09:18 <graingert> http://imgur.com/SCyRt
546 2011-10-29 21:18:38 <CIA-101> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rd5f8df0 / test/native_key.js : Added unit tests for BitcoinKey native class. (+8 more commits...) - http://git.io/jqzIGg
547 2011-10-29 22:50:18 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * rb09f6d331bf6 / (11 files in 7 dirs): w00t! Subscriber model for networking interface!