1 2011-11-06 00:10:13 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: with hex conversion, I get about 1 second for 100000 iterations
  2 2011-11-06 00:11:43 <terrytibbs> who runs http://btcstats.net/?
  3 2011-11-06 00:12:56 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: h=hashlib.sha512();h.digest() gives me the binary output.
  4 2011-11-06 00:13:10 <ThomasV> use .hexdigest()
  5 2011-11-06 00:18:05 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: the point I'm making is _don't_ use hexdigest.
  6 2011-11-06 00:18:16 <gmaxwell> pw="foo";last="";for i in range(10):hashlib.sha512(pw+last);last=hashlib.digest()  < is that faster?
  7 2011-11-06 00:18:48 <ThomasV> you're still adding strings here
  8 2011-11-06 00:18:57 <ThomasV> just binary strings
  9 2011-11-06 00:19:28 <ThomasV> that will concatenate them
 10 2011-11-06 00:19:32 <gmaxwell> yes, but how much of the slowness is from the conversion to hex vs the string manipulation.
 11 2011-11-06 00:20:01 <ThomasV> which string manipulation?
 12 2011-11-06 00:20:22 <gmaxwell> The concat. (IIRC python strings are immutable, so thats a copy)
 13 2011-11-06 00:20:44 <ThomasV> sorry, I really don't understand
 14 2011-11-06 00:21:12 <ThomasV> what is your point?
 15 2011-11-06 00:21:33 <gmaxwell> I don't see why this is hard to understand.  I'm suggesting that it may be considerably faster if you get the needless coversion to hex out of the loop.
 16 2011-11-06 00:21:42 <ThomasV> if you add strings, the length keeps growing
 17 2011-11-06 00:21:48 <gmaxwell> No it doesn't.
 18 2011-11-06 00:21:59 <gmaxwell> The digest is a fixed size.
 19 2011-11-06 00:22:00 <ThomasV> I wish it was needess indeed
 20 2011-11-06 00:22:40 <gmaxwell> It _is_ needless.
 21 2011-11-06 00:23:08 <ThomasV> ?
 22 2011-11-06 00:25:07 <ThomasV> hmm you are right
 23 2011-11-06 00:25:16 <ThomasV> I guess I need some sleep
 24 2011-11-06 00:25:20 <gmaxwell> :)
 25 2011-11-06 00:25:50 <ThomasV> why did the size explode in my previous code? I just don't remember what I did there
 26 2011-11-06 00:26:48 <gmaxwell> perhaps you were adding the digest to the password, rather than the password to the digest?
 27 2011-11-06 00:27:11 <Tuxavant> trying to programatically monitor my client's blockchain status (is it up to date?)... is there anyway to ask the client what the current highest blocknumber is so I can compare it to getblockcount (which I understand to be the client's idea how many blocks it currently knows about) - or do I need to get the highest block number from an external source?
 28 2011-11-06 00:28:20 <ThomasV> perhaps, no idea. it is faster now
 29 2011-11-06 00:28:45 <ThomasV> 400ms for 100k
 30 2011-11-06 00:29:22 <gmaxwell> Tuxavant: the clients idea of the current height is in the getinfo output.
 31 2011-11-06 00:29:42 <gmaxwell> oh you want.. wait.
 32 2011-11-06 00:29:49 <gmaxwell> The number the client knows is all it knows
 33 2011-11-06 00:30:12 <tcatm> Tuxavant: there's a field in the version message but I wouldn't count on it
 34 2011-11-06 00:30:20 <Tuxavant> i need both numbers... the actual last block, and the number of blocks the client knows about so I can sleep until they match
 35 2011-11-06 00:30:41 <gmaxwell> There is no such thing.
 36 2011-11-06 00:30:45 <gmaxwell> There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
 37 2011-11-06 00:30:46 <gmaxwell> We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
 38 2011-11-06 00:30:46 <Tuxavant> gah
 39 2011-11-06 00:30:49 <gmaxwell> But there are also unknown unknowns  the ones we don't know we don't know
 40 2011-11-06 00:30:50 <tcatm> if you are monitoring anyway you could probably just compare it with blockexplorer.com or another node
 41 2011-11-06 00:31:28 <gmaxwell> Tuxavant: Bitcoin is a distributed system. Future bloks are an unknown unknown until they become a known known. ;)
 42 2011-11-06 00:31:49 <gmaxwell> As tcatm says, you can ask some other node and hope it's not on some other fork, or broken.
 43 2011-11-06 00:31:54 <Tuxavant> ok.. grab it from an external source (blockexplorer) and comapre to the client's idea. gmaxwell, that makes sense
 44 2011-11-06 00:32:19 <Tuxavant> gmaxwell, tcatm thank you for the reality check
 45 2011-11-06 00:32:24 <gmaxwell> If you're higher than blockexplorer, thats not shocking at any given time. :)
 46 2011-11-06 00:33:53 <Tuxavant> gmaxwell, trying to wrap my mind about my client having a higher block count than block explorer.
 47 2011-11-06 00:35:16 <tcatm> can happen easily as block explorer does a lot more processing than your client (which takes longer)
 48 2011-11-06 00:35:36 <gmaxwell> Tuxavant: it happens pretty often.
 49 2011-11-06 00:35:50 <gmaxwell> tcatm: or just due to network topology.
 50 2011-11-06 00:36:15 <gmaxwell> Tuxavant: bitcoin is a distributed system. Blockexplorer is no more central to bitcoin itself than the software on your computer.
 51 2011-11-06 00:36:41 <Tuxavant> kinda picking up what you're putting down... yea, i got that part... i can see how it's a moving target
 52 2011-11-06 00:36:54 <gmaxwell> Tuxavant: the only difference is that block explorer is maintained, highly visable, and has a nice Ui on it that does a bunch of extra useful stuff.
 53 2011-11-06 00:36:59 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: ok, time to sleep. thanks for your inputs
 54 2011-11-06 00:37:10 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: No problem. I'm glad to yell at you any time.
 55 2011-11-06 00:37:30 <Tuxavant> for what I'm doing.. it's not that critical... i just want to allow the client to catch up to a reasonable position in the blockchain while I'm switching wallets around
 56 2011-11-06 00:38:49 <Tuxavant> so i'll grab what blockexplorer has, wait for that, and die
 57 2011-11-06 00:38:52 <Tuxavant> thanks guys
 58 2011-11-06 00:54:55 <CIA-34> poolserverj: shadders * 6d9502e6bc99 r186 / (3 files in 3 dirs): fix nullpointer in ShareExchange constructor.
 59 2011-11-06 00:54:56 <CIA-34> poolserverj: shadders * acbf68d92ff3 r188 /poolserverj-main/src/main/java/com/shadworld/poolserver/ (conf/Conf.java db/worker/WorkerDBFetchEngine.java):
 60 2011-11-06 00:54:57 <CIA-34> poolserverj: add retry for worker db fetch. If connection fails close and reopen connection then retry query before throwing an exception.
 61 2011-11-06 00:54:58 <CIA-34> poolserverj: The ShareLogger thread periodically checks for shares on the disk and resubmits them to the database. This means shares can survive across a poolserverj restart if the DB is failed for that long.
 62 2011-11-06 00:55:43 <CIA-34> poolserverj: THIS IS AN API BREAKING CHANGE. Any db.engine.shareLogging plugins that inherit from DefaultPreparedStatementSharesDBFlushEngine will need to have their method signatures updated.
 63 2011-11-06 00:56:51 <luke-jr> time for 2.0? :p
 64 2011-11-06 02:43:46 <cameron_temp> hello
 65 2011-11-06 02:48:54 <nanotube> hey cameron_temp
 66 2011-11-06 04:56:26 <c_k> has the merged mining patch for bitcoind from vinced been integrated in to bitcoind yet?
 67 2011-11-06 05:03:56 <phantomcircuit> c_k, what makes you think it ever will be?
 68 2011-11-06 05:05:24 <gjs278> yeah I doubt the officlal thing for merged mining would ever be included in the official bitcoind
 69 2011-11-06 05:18:56 <luke-jr> c_k: sure hope not
 70 2011-11-06 05:19:03 <luke-jr> c_k: vinced's implementation sucks
 71 2011-11-06 05:20:33 <luke-jr> the one I did is far simpler and reliable
 72 2011-11-06 06:02:32 <c_k> luke-jr: is there a thread about it somewhere?
 73 2011-11-06 06:04:03 <c_k> inirial implimentations are usually not perfect
 74 2011-11-06 06:40:08 <c_k> *initial
 75 2011-11-06 07:12:19 <c_k> luke: or even just a repo?
 76 2011-11-06 07:16:01 <urstroyer_> i think luke is refering to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47779.0
 77 2011-11-06 08:11:33 <c_k> urstroyer_: ah yeah cheers
 78 2011-11-06 08:18:00 <Diablo-D3> ;;ticker
 79 2011-11-06 08:18:00 <gribble> Best bid: 2.9613, Best ask: 2.977, Bid-ask spread: 0.0157, Last trade: 2.96131, 24 hour volume: 54096, 24 hour low: 2.85, 24 hour high: 3.14
 80 2011-11-06 08:18:24 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc 2.96 * (2.25 * 0.69)
 81 2011-11-06 08:18:24 <gribble> 4.5954
 82 2011-11-06 08:18:38 <gjs278> ;;bc,stats
 83 2011-11-06 08:18:41 <gribble> Current Blocks: 152096 | Current Difficulty: 1203461.92638 | Next Difficulty At Block: 153215 | Next Difficulty In: 1119 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 0 days, 18 hours, 48 minutes, and 39 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1203205.11548962 | Estimated Percent Change: -0.0213393447994
 84 2011-11-06 08:27:10 <Diablo-D3> er
 85 2011-11-06 08:27:13 <Diablo-D3> ;;calc 2.96 * (2.25 + 0.69)
 86 2011-11-06 08:27:14 <gribble> 8.7024
 87 2011-11-06 08:30:42 <nathan7> 'morning, Diablo-D3
 88 2011-11-06 09:01:15 <nathan7> magic
 89 2011-11-06 09:04:00 <Eliel> the webinterface is showing correct block numbers though.
 90 2011-11-06 11:30:48 <CIA-34> libbitcoin: genjix * r12fb96d81010 /AUTHORS: kdomanski - gentoo ebuild.
 91 2011-11-06 11:30:49 <CIA-34> libbitcoin: genjix * r174e0ec96fa3 /Makefile.am: bitcoin.sql installed to /usr/share/<package-name>
 92 2011-11-06 13:51:10 <rjk2> i just thought, on windows the blockchian is stored in the users' %appdata% - since it will be the same for all users, couldn't it be stored in some common location that all users can access?
 93 2011-11-06 13:51:29 <rjk2> and store only user-specific stuff in %appdata%
 94 2011-11-06 13:51:54 <rjk2> woiuld save a gigabyte or so of space per additional user
 95 2011-11-06 13:51:55 <luke-jr> rjk2: security
 96 2011-11-06 13:52:21 <luke-jr> rjk2: to do that sanely, you'd need to have a common "block chain data" server on the system
 97 2011-11-06 13:52:31 <rjk2> ah, like a service
 98 2011-11-06 13:52:33 <luke-jr> outside the control of non-administrators
 99 2011-11-06 13:52:59 <rjk2> how much more difficult might it be to implement a service?
100 2011-11-06 13:53:06 <rjk2> (not that i am suggesting that)
101 2011-11-06 13:54:08 <luke-jr> rjk2: you'd at least want to find a developer who was interested in Windows support
102 2011-11-06 13:54:24 <rjk2> lol true
103 2011-11-06 13:54:37 <rjk2> probably not enough demand for such a thing
104 2011-11-06 13:54:57 <rjk2> probably won't be any more than 2 bitcoin users on any common system anyway
105 2011-11-06 13:55:17 <luke-jr> especially not Windows
106 2011-11-06 13:55:42 <luke-jr> on *nix, it would make sense
107 2011-11-06 13:55:57 <rjk2> yeah, fo rshell accounts say
108 2011-11-06 13:56:11 <rjk2> to save hosting space
109 2011-11-06 14:30:56 <lianj> "probably" is nice :D
110 2011-11-06 16:45:06 <genjix> luke-jr: here?
111 2011-11-06 16:45:44 <luke-jr> ?
112 2011-11-06 16:48:00 <genjix> luke-jr: can you make kdomanski a member of the bitcoin-developers group on gitorious?
113 2011-11-06 16:48:14 <genjix> he wants to push some ebuilds
114 2011-11-06 16:48:45 <luke-jr> bitcoin-developers group != people with push to gentoo overlay
115 2011-11-06 16:49:26 <luke-jr> for ebuilds, a pull request would be more appropriate
116 2011-11-06 16:49:41 <luke-jr> merge request in gitorious terminology I guess
117 2011-11-06 16:50:49 <genjix> what does it matter? he wants to add some ebuilds and work on them without going through a middle-man
118 2011-11-06 16:52:41 <genjix> ok he'll make a merge request
119 2011-11-06 16:52:41 <luke-jr> I'd prefer to at least do some QA before giving just anyone basically root on all bitcoin overlay users' systems& it's not like he's even in #bitcoin-gentoo ?
120 2011-11-06 16:53:00 <genjix> kdomanski. he doesn't use irc much.
121 2011-11-06 16:53:10 <genjix> but if you want you can add him o jabber
122 2011-11-06 16:53:15 <genjix> what's your jabber?
123 2011-11-06 16:53:17 <luke-jr> sure
124 2011-11-06 16:53:22 <genjix> ill add you too
125 2011-11-06 16:53:24 <luke-jr> dashjr org , luke
126 2011-11-06 16:53:49 <genjix> luke
127 2011-11-06 16:53:57 <genjix> funny squirly symbol
128 2011-11-06 16:54:08 <genjix> dashjr - org right?
129 2011-11-06 16:54:56 <luke-jr> yes
130 2011-11-06 16:54:57 <genjix> genjix@jabber.org
131 2011-11-06 16:57:32 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: at the end of the wikipedia page on pgp word list, there is a ref to mnemonic encoding
132 2011-11-06 16:57:44 <ThomasV> https://github.com/singpolyma/mnemonicode
133 2011-11-06 16:58:05 <ThomasV> it uses a larger dictionary, so that 32 bits -> 3 words
134 2011-11-06 17:22:03 <CIA-34> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Andrew Vorobyov master * rde51d3e / (4 files in 2 dirs): s/sys/util/g again - http://git.io/iG3sGA
135 2011-11-06 17:22:04 <CIA-34> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * ra41e49a / (4 files in 2 dirs):
136 2011-11-06 17:30:17 <CIA-34> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rab94a2ca45ca gentoo/ (4 files in 2 dirs): added libbitcoin live ebuild + dependency (cppdb)
137 2011-11-06 17:30:19 <CIA-34> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * rea4f0d894524 gentoo/dev-db/cppdb/ (Manifest cppdb-0.0.3.ebuild): dev-db/cppdb: fixed cmake args
138 2011-11-06 18:10:26 <luke-jr> ]later tell gavin* maybe the binaries should be distributed independently? especially if they're static&
139 2011-11-06 18:10:32 <luke-jr> ;;later tell gavin* maybe the binaries should be distributed independently? especially if they're static&
140 2011-11-06 18:10:33 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
141 2011-11-06 18:11:08 <genjix> ;;later tell * hello
142 2011-11-06 18:11:09 <gribble> Error: That is an invalid IRC nick. Please check your input.
143 2011-11-06 18:11:13 <genjix> ;;later tell a* hello
144 2011-11-06 18:11:14 <gribble> The operation succeeded.
145 2011-11-06 18:11:27 <genjix> lmao
146 2011-11-06 18:12:38 <CIA-34> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * r974fc5a / (lib/db/mongo/storage.js lib/schema/index.js): Schema index no longer required. - http://git.io/bxa4Rg
147 2011-11-06 18:12:42 <CIA-34> bitcoinjs/node-bitcoin-p2p: Stefan Thomas master * rb9b4297 / (9 files in 5 dirs): New storage backend "Kyoto" - initial commit. - http://git.io/ku759Q
148 2011-11-06 18:26:58 <neofutur> luke-jr: his complete nickname is gavinandresen
149 2011-11-06 18:30:19 <luke-jr> neofutur: that's fine. I don't care to look up the spellings :P
150 2011-11-06 18:32:52 <asomething_> test
151 2011-11-06 18:33:12 <asomething_> no messages :)
152 2011-11-06 18:33:23 <cjdelisle> Test Failed, please type "/exec reboot" to continue
153 2011-11-06 18:53:56 <gribble> Error: That is an invalid IRC nick. Please check your input.
154 2011-11-06 18:53:56 <phantomcircuit> ;;later tell *a* i enjoy cookies
155 2011-11-06 18:53:59 <phantomcircuit> aw
156 2011-11-06 19:08:00 <genjix> ;;later tell s[]++ foo
157 2011-11-06 19:08:00 <gribble> Error: "" is not a valid command.
158 2011-11-06 19:08:12 <genjix> ;;later tell s... foo
159 2011-11-06 19:08:13 <gribble> Error: That is an invalid IRC nick. Please check your input.
160 2011-11-06 19:27:53 <terrytibbs> luke-jr: Can you explain in more detail why you think Litecoin is a scam and felt the need to express that personal opinion of yours on the Bitcoin Wiki?
161 2011-11-06 19:28:28 <luke-jr> terrytibbs: because it serves no purpose other than being a pyramid scheme
162 2011-11-06 19:29:01 <terrytibbs> luke-jr: Are you aware of the fact that it follows the exact same principles as Bitcoin?
163 2011-11-06 19:29:18 <luke-jr> Bitcoin already serves the legitimate purpose.
164 2011-11-06 19:29:35 <luke-jr> duplication without innovation cannot serve the same purpose
165 2011-11-06 19:30:00 <terrytibbs> Clearly silver cannot co-exist in this universe, then?
166 2011-11-06 19:30:32 <luke-jr> silver does not serve the same purpose
167 2011-11-06 19:31:19 <terrytibbs> would you care to elaborate?
168 2011-11-06 19:31:56 <luke-jr> silver has significantly different properties to any other substance
169 2011-11-06 19:32:37 <ThomasV> bitcoin clones are as pointless as clones of jesus
170 2011-11-06 19:33:32 <genjix> litecoin is not a scam
171 2011-11-06 19:33:56 <terrytibbs> luke-jr: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this editorial by Jason Himmel says silver shares nearly all of gold's properties: http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/hommel080104.html
172 2011-11-06 19:33:57 <genjix> and it has a pretty nice innovation in the proof of work system
173 2011-11-06 19:34:25 <genjix> it's unfair to trash other people's work when they have good intentions
174 2011-11-06 19:36:04 <luke-jr> terrytibbs: easily disproven
175 2011-11-06 19:36:16 <cjdelisle> silver is antiseptic, gold, not so much
176 2011-11-06 19:36:28 <luke-jr> genjix: it has a worse proof-of-work
177 2011-11-06 19:36:39 <phantomcircuit> terrytibbs, silver tarnishes gold does not
178 2011-11-06 19:36:55 <luke-jr> there's also a lot more silver to go around
179 2011-11-06 19:36:58 <terrytibbs> phantomcircuit: this is true
180 2011-11-06 19:37:08 <terrytibbs> this can all be compared to bitcoin and litecoin
181 2011-11-06 19:37:11 <sipa> bitcoin is an experiment
182 2011-11-06 19:37:11 <ThomasV> luke-jr: even if it had better POW, bitcoin has historical precedence
183 2011-11-06 19:37:14 <terrytibbs> they are similar, very much so
184 2011-11-06 19:37:21 <sipa> altenrative blockchains can be seen as further experimentations
185 2011-11-06 19:37:34 <cjdelisle> I agree with sipa
186 2011-11-06 19:37:34 <luke-jr> terrytibbs: litecoin is just a lame clone that doesn't even try to fix any of the problems in bitcoin, and creates new problems
187 2011-11-06 19:37:40 <Edward_Black> When people start comparing cryptocoins to metallic commodities, I become very very sad
188 2011-11-06 19:37:57 <ThomasV> Edward_Black: why?
189 2011-11-06 19:37:58 <genjix> luke-jr: another merge request btw for the gitorious from kdomanski
190 2011-11-06 19:38:03 <luke-jr> sipa: the problem is when people try to pass them off as legitimate currencies
191 2011-11-06 19:38:07 <sipa> luke-jr: indeed
192 2011-11-06 19:38:15 <Edward_Black> sipa: word
193 2011-11-06 19:38:36 <luke-jr> sipa: when they don't improve the situation, and are simple clones, passing them off as a currency is a pyramid scheme
194 2011-11-06 19:38:45 <terrytibbs> so... this makes it a pyramid scheme?
195 2011-11-06 19:38:47 <sipa> i haven't looked into litecoin in detail
196 2011-11-06 19:39:03 <luke-jr> litecoin is just bitcoin with an inferior proof-of-work
197 2011-11-06 19:39:06 <genjix> that was the case with iocoin, and i said so. but litecoin is much different
198 2011-11-06 19:39:15 <sipa> luke-jr: is litecoin the scrypt-based POW?
199 2011-11-06 19:39:16 <genjix> why is the proof of work inferior?
200 2011-11-06 19:39:18 <luke-jr> sipa: yes
201 2011-11-06 19:39:20 <genjix> sipa: yes
202 2011-11-06 19:39:30 <luke-jr> genjix: because it means you can't mass-mine with commodity hardware
203 2011-11-06 19:39:34 <sipa> i find that an interesting experiemnt, but i haven't followed it in detail
204 2011-11-06 19:39:43 <luke-jr> genjix: ie, only the rich corporations can create the equivalent of a GPU
205 2011-11-06 19:39:57 <Edward_Black> ThomasV because while both "metals of value" and "crypto-coins" are actually commodities (and not "currencies"!), they are so profoundly different (especially as far as comparissons with gold are concerned - not a single other commodity has trading patterns of gold!) that it is, at the very least, grivously misleading analogy
206 2011-11-06 19:40:15 <genjix> terrytibbs: correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't scrypt supposed to be *more* of an equalizer than bitcoin's aglorithm?
207 2011-11-06 19:40:42 <luke-jr> genjix: it has the inverse effect if you think about it
208 2011-11-06 19:40:48 <sipa> the only risk with scrypt - imho - is that it may make it a more viable target for botnets
209 2011-11-06 19:40:53 <Edward_Black> luke-jr , with all due respect, bitcoin is more of a legitimate commodity than legitimate currency
210 2011-11-06 19:40:57 <cjdelisle> Edward_Black: you joined halfway through, it started as with a claim that if litecoin is a scam because it duplicated bitcoin then surely silver is a "scam" because it duplicates gold.
211 2011-11-06 19:41:08 <genjix> my thread before about ixcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=36701.0
212 2011-11-06 19:41:11 <luke-jr> there is no (known) algorithm that is actually resistant to specialization; scrypt merely puts that specialization outside the hands of ordinary people
213 2011-11-06 19:41:17 <genjix> read all my points... they don't apply to litecoin
214 2011-11-06 19:41:33 <genjix> luke-jr: interesting.
215 2011-11-06 19:41:50 <terrytibbs> luke-jr: if we rewind a little, can you explain again how litecoin is a pyramid scheme and why you felt the need to post this in a public wiki?
216 2011-11-06 19:42:03 <luke-jr> - They only made one minor modification to the source code (changing 50 -> 96) <-- true of litecoin
217 2011-11-06 19:42:14 <luke-jr> - Already mined 400k IxCoins themselves. <-- not true of i0coin (admitted a scam already)
218 2011-11-06 19:42:19 <sipa> i don't see how it can be a pyramid scheme, unless you consider bitcoin a pyramid scheme itself (which i don't)
219 2011-11-06 19:42:24 <luke-jr> - Copied and leveraged bitcoin community with minimal input. Product doesn't have much value on its own. <-- true of litecoin
220 2011-11-06 19:42:25 <justmoon> terrytibbs: it's the bitcoin wiki - we can't pick favorites among other currencies
221 2011-11-06 19:42:46 <terrytibbs> justmoon: it is not a place for unfounded personal opinion
222 2011-11-06 19:42:51 <luke-jr> sipa: Bitcoin would be a pyramid scheme if it didn't have potential (due to providing value)
223 2011-11-06 19:42:55 <justmoon> terrytibbs, what exactly did luke write?
224 2011-11-06 19:42:57 <ThomasV> hey, this is the #bitcoin-dev channel, not #shitcoin
225 2011-11-06 19:43:13 <luke-jr> ThomasV: my point exactly
226 2011-11-06 19:43:15 <Edward_Black> cjdelisle - I know - a buddy who knows I am into alt-currencies (full disclosure - NOT litecoins) sent me the wiki link over AIM
227 2011-11-06 19:43:21 <sipa> luke-jr: for it to be a pyramid scheme it has to promise profit to newcomers
228 2011-11-06 19:43:29 <luke-jr> sipa: it does.
229 2011-11-06 19:43:33 <luke-jr> well
230 2011-11-06 19:43:35 <terrytibbs> I quote the full page content, as written by luke-jr: "Litecoin is a scam"
231 2011-11-06 19:43:38 <luke-jr> to an extent
232 2011-11-06 19:43:46 <luke-jr> terrytibbs: I only put that because I couldn't delete the page ;)
233 2011-11-06 19:43:55 <luke-jr> it is in any case off-topic on a Bitcoin wiki
234 2011-11-06 19:43:59 <genjix> that's just vandalism
235 2011-11-06 19:44:09 <genjix> calling it a scam is a weasel word
236 2011-11-06 19:44:19 <justmoon> yeah, I'd have to agree with amir
237 2011-11-06 19:44:25 <luke-jr> you would prefer "pyramid scheme"? :p
238 2011-11-06 19:44:29 <cjdelisle> more like trolling, and rather successful bt the look of the backscroll :)
239 2011-11-06 19:44:30 <sipa> no
240 2011-11-06 19:44:33 <genjix> loaded with many meanings. if you have some disagreements with litecoin then state them why with an explanation
241 2011-11-06 19:44:43 <sipa> i would prefer a short page listing the differences, and its purpose
242 2011-11-06 19:44:47 <genjix> yep
243 2011-11-06 19:44:48 <luke-jr> genjix: the point is that it doesn't belong on the *Bitcoin* wiki
244 2011-11-06 19:44:49 <sipa> objective
245 2011-11-06 19:45:00 <justmoon> it should show the pros and cons of the different pow system primarily
246 2011-11-06 19:45:23 <copumpkin> a comparison against alternatives is perfectly justified on the bitcoin wiki
247 2011-11-06 19:45:29 <sipa> i agree
248 2011-11-06 19:45:32 <Edward_Black> With all due respect, I think that the old version which just linked to offsites and stuff was better
249 2011-11-06 19:46:26 <justmoon> luke-jr, from the litecoin site: "Litecoin is the result of some of us who joined together on IRC in an effort to create a real alternative currency" - sounds to me like it is *intended* to be a currency
250 2011-11-06 19:46:26 <sipa> i have trouble with, as a bitcoin-promoting person, claiming that altenrative attempts are just experiments, while ours is the one true currencies
251 2011-11-06 19:46:35 <sipa> they're just all experiments to me
252 2011-11-06 19:46:39 <luke-jr> justmoon: then it's clearly a scam
253 2011-11-06 19:46:46 <copumpkin> whether they're experiments or not depends on whether you have money in them :)
254 2011-11-06 19:48:08 <justmoon> I think a lot of bitcoin's value comes from being the first of its kind. if another currency is better I can definitely see it taking over - personally I think litecoin is not better, but that's what the wiki page should probably debate
255 2011-11-06 19:48:34 <luke-jr> justmoon: any improvements can be applied to Bitcoin 2.0 when the block chain forks
256 2011-11-06 19:48:44 <terrytibbs> Edward_Black: semantics...
257 2011-11-06 19:48:48 <genjix> bitcoin has a first entrant advantage.
258 2011-11-06 19:48:49 <justmoon> luke-jr, hmm, I see your point
259 2011-11-06 19:49:06 <sipa> the problem is not with objective improvements
260 2011-11-06 19:49:21 <sipa> where ther eis no discussion about
261 2011-11-06 19:49:30 <copumpkin> semantics = meaning
262 2011-11-06 19:49:38 <copumpkin> minutiae :P
263 2011-11-06 19:49:38 <sipa> but if you need the entire community to agree about a change, very few changes will pass
264 2011-11-06 19:49:43 <justmoon> luke-jr, but sometimes improvements aren't obviously improvements. somebody might improve something and we reject it because we think it's a bad idea - then they start their own currency and it turns out to be more popular, eventually taking over
265 2011-11-06 19:49:52 <Edward_Black> terrytibbs nope, but we can continue that in PM if you are interested in going through details (TLDR version: currencies have special trading and use patterns which bitcoin and other coins have not demonstrated so far)
266 2011-11-06 19:49:54 <sipa> justmoon: exactly
267 2011-11-06 19:50:26 <genjix> also i think small problems with bitcoin wouldn't get fixed. there's too much inertia against small changes
268 2011-11-06 19:50:31 <luke-jr> justmoon: that hasn't happened.
269 2011-11-06 19:50:51 <luke-jr> genjix: small problems can be fixed at the same time as big ones
270 2011-11-06 19:50:55 <genjix> it would have to be a huge problem or gain to cause a bitcoin fork to be popular
271 2011-11-06 19:51:01 <sipa> many people feel a higher block frequency would be good
272 2011-11-06 19:51:04 <sipa> i'm not sure myself
273 2011-11-06 19:51:15 <justmoon> well bitcoin itself is kind of like that - I'm sure satoshi would have changed the existing banking system if there was any way to do it
274 2011-11-06 19:51:15 <luke-jr> genjix: we have to increase the block size limit someday. that's a good opportunity to get in 100s of other (well-tested) changes
275 2011-11-06 19:51:17 <genjix> nah that's silly.
276 2011-11-06 19:51:43 <genjix> about higher block frequency i mean.
277 2011-11-06 19:51:43 <luke-jr> sipa: a parallel system for verifying transactions before they hit blocks sounds godo
278 2011-11-06 19:51:44 <luke-jr> good*
279 2011-11-06 19:51:56 <sipa> still, i think blockchain with very short block times are an interesting way to see how viable that idea is
280 2011-11-06 19:52:04 <sipa> luke-jr: maybe
281 2011-11-06 19:52:33 <copumpkin> +t :)
282 2011-11-06 19:52:37 <sipa> or a future where payment processors send txs directly to miners they have deals with, bypassing the tx-propagation system in the p2p protocol completely
283 2011-11-06 19:52:40 <genjix> you can significantly speed up blockchain organisation/storage with a low block frequency as there exists now
284 2011-11-06 19:53:11 <sipa> yes, what we need are payment processors, not a change in the base protocol
285 2011-11-06 19:53:17 <luke-jr> [15:52:38] <sipa> or a future where payment processors send txs directly to miners they have deals with, bypassing the tx-propagation system in the p2p protocol completely <-- already reality
286 2011-11-06 19:53:19 <sipa> those can deliver high tx speed if needed
287 2011-11-06 19:53:23 <sipa> luke-jr: is it?
288 2011-11-06 19:53:31 <luke-jr> sipa: yes
289 2011-11-06 19:53:54 <justmoon> gox does it with eligius, right?
290 2011-11-06 19:53:59 <luke-jr> yep
291 2011-11-06 19:54:01 <genjix> read the EEC SEPA payments paper
292 2011-11-06 19:54:17 <genjix> talks about how the banks work to move funds around quickly.
293 2011-11-06 19:54:28 <genjix> would be a good system to duplicate with bitcoin.
294 2011-11-06 19:55:01 <genjix> short: they use Clearing. Settlements. Manager
295 2011-11-06 19:55:15 <CIA-34> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * r020d99836570 gentoo/ (4 files in 2 dirs): net-p2p/libbitcoin: dependencies fix
296 2011-11-06 19:55:17 <CIA-34> bitcoin: Kamil Domanski * ra55ae77060ff gentoo/app-crypt/subvertx/ (Manifest subvertx-9999.ebuild): added app-crypt/subvertx
297 2011-11-06 19:55:18 <justmoon> genjix, can you point me to the exact paper you're talking about? googling reveals tons of documents
298 2011-11-06 19:55:19 <genjix> Clearing = securities. Settlements = transfer of funds.
299 2011-11-06 19:55:27 <genjix> justmoon: ok one sec
300 2011-11-06 19:55:31 <justmoon> genjix, thx
301 2011-11-06 19:56:00 <genjix> http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/knowledge_bank_download.cfm?file=EPC125-05%20SCT%20RB%20v5.0%20Approved.pdf
302 2011-11-06 19:56:29 <genjix> the diagram on page 11 is good
303 2011-11-06 20:02:20 <justmoon> genjix, for the clearing you need a certain amount of trust though, no? so in the bitcoin world this would be along the lines of instapay (i.e. explicitly trusted senders)?
304 2011-11-06 20:02:37 <genjix> no
305 2011-11-06 20:02:44 <genjix> you have a third party as the CSM
306 2011-11-06 20:03:06 <genjix> the clearing and settlement can be separate parties also but often it's the same party
307 2011-11-06 20:03:44 <justmoon> alright, so let's say I'm an anonymous bitcoin user who has 20 BTC, can I send them instantly to somebody else?
308 2011-11-06 20:04:09 <genjix> only with a bitcoin bank unless you register with a recognised CSM
309 2011-11-06 20:04:33 <justmoon> registering means.. providing my real identity?
310 2011-11-06 20:04:35 <sipa> so, you need a trusted sender (=bank_ who does the transaction for you
311 2011-11-06 20:04:47 <genjix> no
312 2011-11-06 20:05:02 <genjix> the CSM holds a reserve from all the banks to cover cleared transactions
313 2011-11-06 20:05:13 <justmoon> ok I get it
314 2011-11-06 20:05:33 <genjix> when the balances are settled then the reserve is released back to the originator's balance on the CSM
315 2011-11-06 20:05:50 <genjix> however it does require the CSM to be trusted.
316 2011-11-06 20:06:19 <genjix> although with CHECKMULTISIG that trust can be distributed
317 2011-11-06 20:06:33 <genjix> so boom. FPI for bitcoin
318 2011-11-06 20:06:34 <justmoon> the reserves only have to cover the transaction volume for 10 minutes though
319 2011-11-06 20:06:45 <sipa> somewhat more
320 2011-11-06 20:06:49 <justmoon> yeah
321 2011-11-06 20:06:50 <genjix> yeah more
322 2011-11-06 20:06:53 <justmoon> but you get the point
323 2011-11-06 20:07:08 <justmoon> you only have to cover the time until the block chain trustworthiness takes over
324 2011-11-06 20:07:14 <genjix> the csm could do their own heuristics for how many confirms they need
325 2011-11-06 20:07:24 <genjix> yep
326 2011-11-06 20:07:52 <justmoon> cool stuff - let me know if anybody does anything like that - trucoin is working along similar lines
327 2011-11-06 20:08:13 <genjix> so a long term user of the CSM may get less needed confirms
328 2011-11-06 20:08:42 <genjix> heh well it's too early for the bitcoin world.
329 2011-11-06 20:08:49 <sipa> uhu
330 2011-11-06 20:08:54 <genjix> we barely have a coherent toolkit
331 2011-11-06 20:10:11 <justmoon> genjix: we should probably get back to work then :D
332 2011-11-06 20:10:30 <genjix> yep
333 2011-11-06 20:10:31 <genjix> :)
334 2011-11-06 20:13:10 <bodom> Hi there. It looks like the testnet faucet is stuck. Can anoybody please send me some testnet coins?
335 2011-11-06 21:33:13 <sipa> BlueMatt: present?
336 2011-11-06 21:33:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: yea
337 2011-11-06 21:34:29 <sipa> in crypter.h, it says "Wallet Private Keys are then encrypted using AES-256-CBC with the double-sha256 of the private key as the IV, and the master key's key as the encryption key."
338 2011-11-06 21:35:30 <BlueMatt> ok?
339 2011-11-06 21:36:06 <sipa> i think that should be the double-sha256 of the public key
340 2011-11-06 21:36:18 <sipa> and furthermore, i can't find the code for that
341 2011-11-06 21:36:20 <BlueMatt> oh, heh
342 2011-11-06 21:37:00 <BlueMatt> might have changed before commit, one minute...
343 2011-11-06 21:37:06 <sipa> the comments say that chIV is unused, but it seems to be used alright
344 2011-11-06 21:37:18 <sipa> so we're using the same key and the same IV for all wallet keys
345 2011-11-06 21:37:58 <BlueMatt> no, it uses double-sha256 of pubkey
346 2011-11-06 21:38:10 <sipa> i must be reading over it
347 2011-11-06 21:38:25 <BlueMatt> well it was written with that in mind...Im still looking for code
348 2011-11-06 21:39:02 <sipa> i know what it was intended to be, but i really can't find it :)
349 2011-11-06 21:39:24 <BlueMatt> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/keystore.cpp#L97
350 2011-11-06 21:39:33 <BlueMatt> when it adds the key it uses pubkey hash as iv
351 2011-11-06 21:39:42 <sipa> oh right
352 2011-11-06 21:39:48 <sipa> i was just looking in crypter
353 2011-11-06 21:39:52 <BlueMatt> (also see 173)
354 2011-11-06 21:40:00 <sipa> never mind, glad i'm wrong!
355 2011-11-06 21:40:17 <BlueMatt> yea, you scared me a bit there...
356 2011-11-06 21:40:38 <sipa> but it's a bit confusing to see the comment for it in crypter, while the implementation is in a higher layer (keystore)
357 2011-11-06 21:40:50 <BlueMatt> thats true...
358 2011-11-06 21:41:05 <BlueMatt> the comment is also wrong, so it should be fixed either way...
359 2011-11-06 21:41:33 <sipa> i'm doing an add-some-comments commit, so i'll change it along with it
360 2011-11-06 21:41:39 <BlueMatt> thanks
361 2011-11-06 22:49:50 <denisx> so, I ported pushpoold to libevent2
362 2011-11-06 22:50:45 <gmaxwell> denisx: did you fix the fact that it doesn't use async interfaces to speak to the databases?
363 2011-11-06 22:50:53 <denisx> no