1 2012-01-09 00:27:25 <diki> luke-jr:I am waiting...
  2 2012-01-09 00:47:51 <luke-jr> yawn
  3 2012-01-09 00:47:57 <luke-jr> anyone test 0.5.2rc1 yet?
  4 2012-01-09 01:01:21 <k9quaint> too busy typing structured responses to radio static from the upper atmosphere
  5 2012-01-09 01:42:16 <k9quaint> it isn't?
  6 2012-01-09 01:42:36 <k9quaint> #bitcoin sounds like a fun channel, I should join it some time
  7 2012-01-09 01:43:22 <gmaxwell> It's full of (l)users.
  8 2012-01-09 01:46:16 <k9quaint> so I wouldn't fit since it is already full?
  9 2012-01-09 01:46:31 <gmaxwell> heh
 10 2012-01-09 01:48:27 <gmaxwell> Hm. Why isn't there a gui interface to backupwallet yet?
 11 2012-01-09 01:49:10 <k9quaint> GUI's encourage users, and that just causes problems
 12 2012-01-09 01:55:40 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: where are the RCs ?
 13 2012-01-09 01:55:58 <luke-jr> [01:49:10] <BlueMatt> luke-jr: linux build http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1.tar.bz2
 14 2012-01-09 01:55:59 <luke-jr> [02:37:15] <BlueMatt> luke-jr: second one http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29653426/bitcoin-0.5.2rc1-win32.tar.bz2
 15 2012-01-09 02:10:58 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, the progress bar at the bottom should not be relative to the current position
 16 2012-01-09 02:20:06 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: it is... and .. well, it kinda makes sense, I mean after first sync it would always be like 99% even if you're two days behind.
 17 2012-01-09 02:20:33 <luke-jr> http://eligius.st/~artefact2/5/12A5f5isBBcZFrjBnqT8cCoD47iT6q8rDh <-- BitForce Single with cgminer
 18 2012-01-09 02:28:23 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah that's my point, it should start at mostly full
 19 2012-01-09 02:34:11 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I think it shouldn't show any percent at all, but instead give an eta.
 20 2012-01-09 02:34:23 <phantomcircuit> should give both
 21 2012-01-09 02:34:28 <phantomcircuit> there is the room for it
 22 2012-01-09 02:34:36 <luke-jr> phantomcircuit: the % isn't even a %
 23 2012-01-09 02:34:41 <luke-jr> since it doesnt account for block sizes
 24 2012-01-09 02:35:06 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr, yeah well i dont expect to account for that
 25 2012-01-09 02:35:08 <phantomcircuit> but still
 26 2012-01-09 02:35:33 <gmaxwell> the percentage behavior makes people think its broken however.
 27 2012-01-09 02:35:41 <gmaxwell> "it got to xx percent fast and then got stuck!"
 28 2012-01-09 02:39:15 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, true
 29 2012-01-09 02:39:22 <k9quaint> measure it in radians, not percentile
 30 2012-01-09 02:39:28 <k9quaint> nobody bothers to do the conversion
 31 2012-01-09 02:39:31 <phantomcircuit> possibly displaying how many transactions are waiting to be verified as well
 32 2012-01-09 02:40:08 <gmaxwell> "where are you?"  "... umm 1 1/4th ?? ... is that good?"
 33 2012-01-09 02:45:00 <nanotube> heh, i like it
 34 2012-01-09 02:47:30 <roconnor> what is the LTC TX spam attack?
 35 2012-01-09 02:48:02 <gmaxwell> roconnor: boring.
 36 2012-01-09 02:48:19 <gmaxwell> roconnor: someone started sending 1e-8 litecoin to every address they'd seen on the network.
 37 2012-01-09 02:48:34 <gmaxwell> (well they weren't bothering to generate addresses from pay to pubkey)
 38 2012-01-09 02:49:08 <roconnor> why was LTC susceptable at not BTC?
 39 2012-01-09 02:49:16 <gmaxwell> roconnor: over and over and over again.. chain grew like 300 MB in a week or something, and lots of users had trouble sending txn due to coin selection picking a bunch of dust inputs and resulting in txn too big to use.
 40 2012-01-09 02:49:53 <roconnor> ok
 41 2012-01-09 02:50:05 <gmaxwell> roconnor: LTC chain rate 4x faster than bitcoin (so peak growth 4x faster), plus DOS rules unchained relative to the 4x faster rate and 200x (or whatever) less valuable currency.
 42 2012-01-09 02:50:15 <gmaxwell> er unchanged.
 43 2012-01-09 02:50:19 <roconnor> ok
 44 2012-01-09 02:50:40 <gmaxwell> Somewhat amusingly (?) I might have caused this attack. :(
 45 2012-01-09 02:51:10 <roconnor> well this thread blamed you, but I'm more interested in attacks themselves rather than who is responsible.
 46 2012-01-09 02:51:13 <gmaxwell> Because I posted patches equalizing the dos rules against bitcoin, and pointing out it was vulnerable, like two days before they started.
 47 2012-01-09 02:51:22 <gmaxwell> I certantly wasn't performing the attacks.
 48 2012-01-09 02:51:25 <roconnor> pfft
 49 2012-01-09 02:51:32 <roconnor> that isn't your fault at all then.
 50 2012-01-09 02:52:27 <k9quaint> clearly, you are to blame for everything that gavin doesn't hoover up
 51 2012-01-09 02:52:41 <gmaxwell> I didn't think of sending to existing addresses to gum up wallets either, so I can't even claim credit for fully forseeing it.
 52 2012-01-09 02:53:02 <roconnor> I seem to recal a similar attack on bitcoin before
 53 2012-01-09 02:53:05 <roconnor> *recall
 54 2012-01-09 02:53:13 <gmaxwell> bitcoin has been attacked that way in the past though to a lesser degree, thats where the current antidos behavior comes from IIRC.
 55 2012-01-09 02:53:16 <gmaxwell> right.
 56 2012-01-09 02:54:17 <gmaxwell> It was just worse on litecoin because of the faster blockrate. They were also pretty slow to respond, I think because they didn't think it would continue or something. I dunno, it went from seeming like not much to being a lot rather quickly.
 57 2012-01-09 02:54:48 <gmaxwell> roconnor: what thread is blaming me? (I hadn't actually heard anyone blame me for it in any serious way)
 58 2012-01-09 02:55:17 <roconnor> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56791.msg677528#msg677528
 59 2012-01-09 02:55:52 <cjdelisle> caleb's law: the price of bitcoin is inversely purportional to the level of intellegence of the average forum user.
 60 2012-01-09 02:56:01 <roconnor> gmaxwell: I have no respect for bitlane from what I've read so his comments has little infulence on me.
 61 2012-01-09 02:58:47 <luke-jr> looks more like crediting gmaxwell to me :P
 62 2012-01-09 02:59:03 <gmaxwell> roconnor: thanks.
 63 2012-01-09 02:59:30 <gmaxwell> Well, whatever it is, its not credit I deserve. I forsaw the (part of) the attack though didn't carry it out.
 64 2012-01-09 03:24:42 <k9quaint> gmaxwell: you are no longer the litecoin dark pool!
 65 2012-01-09 11:38:53 <Joric> does block contain metainformation eg signature of the miner or something
 66 2012-01-09 11:39:19 <phantomcircuit> Joric, the first transaction is special
 67 2012-01-09 11:39:47 <GMP> there is a field in coinbase transaction which can help to identify the miner
 68 2012-01-09 11:40:19 <GMP> and of course the address receiving 50 btc
 69 2012-01-09 11:41:33 <josephcp> also you can guess by when a peer announces a new block, i think that's how blockchain.info does it
 70 2012-01-09 11:41:43 <josephcp> based on IPs i mean
 71 2012-01-09 11:47:31 <Joric> thanks!
 72 2012-01-09 12:09:25 <dikidera> Just to ask...can bitcoin-qt be compiled under mingw(with the gui as well)?
 73 2012-01-09 12:09:35 <dikidera> bitcoinD can, but not sure about the qt stuff
 74 2012-01-09 12:13:05 <dikidera> And while I am talking about it, can a 64-bit version be compiled assuming I have a working mingw and how would that benefit the bitcoin client?
 75 2012-01-09 12:13:32 <JFK911> dont you want to answer the last question first
 76 2012-01-09 12:16:32 <dikidera> How can I answer my own question?
 77 2012-01-09 12:18:25 <Diablo-D3> dikidera: dunno, the qt code should work under mingw
 78 2012-01-09 12:18:31 <Diablo-D3> I know of qt using projects that work under mingw
 79 2012-01-09 12:18:37 <Diablo-D3> so theoretically it applies to bitcoin as well
 80 2012-01-09 12:18:54 <Diablo-D3> dikidera: I think the official binaries are compiled with mingw, but Im not sure
 81 2012-01-09 12:19:04 <Diablo-D3> also, yes, you can compile a 64 bit version
 82 2012-01-09 12:19:08 <Diablo-D3> I use 64 bit binaries on linux
 83 2012-01-09 12:19:25 <Diablo-D3> there is just no real benefit
 84 2012-01-09 12:19:42 <Diablo-D3> they'd work on win64 only, and surprisingly most windows installs out there arent 64 yet
 85 2012-01-09 13:40:03 <andrew12> anyone around that can explain what exactly FGPA mining is?
 86 2012-01-09 13:40:53 <sipa> it means mining using an FPGA
 87 2012-01-09 13:41:08 <sipa> an FPGA is a programmable hardware device
 88 2012-01-09 13:41:14 <andrew12> oh
 89 2012-01-09 13:41:23 <andrew12> so it's a chip designed specifically for mining bitcoins?
 90 2012-01-09 13:41:37 <sipa> no, that would be an ASIC (which is also being looked into)
 91 2012-01-09 13:41:49 <andrew12> oh, but it's a chip you can program
 92 2012-01-09 13:42:01 <sipa> an FPGA is still programmable, but unlike a normal CPU, you can use 100% of the silicon all the time
 93 2012-01-09 13:42:10 <andrew12> neat
 94 2012-01-09 13:43:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: well, subject to the limitations of the fpga and your design's ability to fill it (e.g. typical miner on the xilinx s6 is far from 100% because it runs out of routing resources)
 95 2012-01-09 13:44:04 <sipa> sure, in practice it's always going to be less
 96 2012-01-09 13:44:19 <sipa> but in theory, you can use everything simultaneously
 97 2012-01-09 13:44:35 <sipa> instead of being bound by the von neumann cycle
 98 2012-01-09 13:49:52 <TD> hey
 99 2012-01-09 13:49:57 <TD> any git experts around?
100 2012-01-09 13:50:00 <TD> devrandom: poke
101 2012-01-09 13:52:47 <sipa> TD: no expert, but some experience at least
102 2012-01-09 13:52:50 <Diablo-D3> [09:42:01] <sipa> an FPGA is still programmable, but unlike a normal CPU, you can use 100% of the silicon all the time
103 2012-01-09 13:52:52 <Diablo-D3> no you cant
104 2012-01-09 13:53:00 <Diablo-D3> they throw like 50% of the fucking chip away
105 2012-01-09 13:53:05 <gavinandresen> morning y'all
106 2012-01-09 13:53:08 <Diablo-D3> due to shit like network interfaces and other shit we dont use
107 2012-01-09 13:57:01 <TD> sipa: i'm trying to figure out where a change went, in a branch.
108 2012-01-09 13:57:15 <TD> sipa: http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/browse/#git%2Fsrc%2Fcom%2Fgoogle%2Fbitcoin%2Fcore
109 2012-01-09 13:57:20 <TD> sipa: there is a class here called AlertMessage
110 2012-01-09 13:57:28 <phantomcircuit> sipa, you merged 735 :)
111 2012-01-09 13:57:31 <TD> on the pending-tx branch, which has been merged with master, it's gone.
112 2012-01-09 13:57:32 <phantomcircuit> <3
113 2012-01-09 13:57:48 <TD> http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/list?name=pending-tx&r=3023f2a4c5dac77875fdbda6cf1f6bcaea158a77&r=464b528175dc421422f91b3c60a6b3cc06a60c93&r=10c936c6019c7c05e4cc30f9c8d0597899b9fc7f&r=075602aafd383229eb364ee7d0a4c93ccaea4066&r=57d26107ded28b8d4ddea010c87683a8e1e1b674
114 2012-01-09 13:57:59 <TD> you can see the commit that added it about half way down
115 2012-01-09 13:58:04 <sipa> TD: git bisect?
116 2012-01-09 13:58:08 <TD> "Support parsing and signature checking of alert messages"
117 2012-01-09 13:58:15 <TD> i'm trying to figure out what happened from the logs first
118 2012-01-09 13:59:41 <TD> i'm worried other changes have been rolled back without me realizing
119 2012-01-09 13:59:57 <TD> at some point master was merged in: http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/detail?r=31d22fc0e76ec7d8eccc0ff4c5d5249d8b90f136&name=pending-tx
120 2012-01-09 14:00:04 <TD> and that file appeared in the "Conflicts:" section
121 2012-01-09 14:00:09 <TD> but it also says no files affected
122 2012-01-09 14:00:22 <TD> so presumably i fudged a merge at some point and now the tree is in some state i don't understand (typical git, this is why i don't like it)
123 2012-01-09 14:01:53 <sipa> TD: as far as i can see, AlertMessage.java is present in the master branch?
124 2012-01-09 14:01:55 <TD> yes
125 2012-01-09 14:01:59 <TD> not in pending-tx branch
126 2012-01-09 14:02:00 <coderrr> TD, can't you just git log on that specific file ?
127 2012-01-09 14:02:15 <TD> how?
128 2012-01-09 14:02:20 <TD> $ git log src/com/google/bitcoin/core/AlertMessage.java
129 2012-01-09 14:02:21 <TD> fatal: ambiguous argument 'src/com/google/bitcoin/core/AlertMessage.java': unknown revision or path not in the working tree.
130 2012-01-09 14:02:31 <TD> which is correct. it's not there anymore.
131 2012-01-09 14:02:46 <coderrr> git log -- path i think
132 2012-01-09 14:02:59 <TD> prints nothing
133 2012-01-09 14:03:26 <TD> ah, adding --follow prints some stuff
134 2012-01-09 14:03:56 <coderrr> oh was a rename involved ?
135 2012-01-09 14:04:14 <TD> hmm
136 2012-01-09 14:04:17 <TD> i don't think so
137 2012-01-09 14:04:31 <TD> ok. if you look here: http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/list?name=pending-tx&r=3023f2a4c5dac77875fdbda6cf1f6bcaea158a77&r=464b528175dc421422f91b3c60a6b3cc06a60c93&r=10c936c6019c7c05e4cc30f9c8d0597899b9fc7f&r=075602aafd383229eb364ee7d0a4c93ccaea4066&r=57d26107ded28b8d4ddea010c87683a8e1e1b674
138 2012-01-09 14:04:38 <TD> the diagram of the merge is a bit confusing
139 2012-01-09 14:04:45 <coderrr> there was some git bug a while ago where files dissapeared on renames during a merge or something
140 2012-01-09 14:04:48 <TD> it seem the same commit somehow got duplicated on two branches with different descriptions
141 2012-01-09 14:05:01 <TD> http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/detail?r=464b528175dc421422f91b3c60a6b3cc06a60c93&name=pending-tx
142 2012-01-09 14:05:03 <TD> http://code.google.com/r/hearn-bitcoinj/source/detail?r=10c936c6019c7c05e4cc30f9c8d0597899b9fc7f&name=pending-tx
143 2012-01-09 14:09:45 <coderrr> yea that looks pretty screwy, i mean the log shows  two creations, and yet the file isnt there
144 2012-01-09 14:10:00 <TD> the entire commit is gone
145 2012-01-09 14:10:16 <TD> i'll wait and see if miron can figure it out
146 2012-01-09 14:10:18 <TD> he knows git better than me
147 2012-01-09 14:10:30 <TD> no more complicated branching from now on, i think ....
148 2012-01-09 14:10:51 <coderrr> what git version have you been using ?
149 2012-01-09 14:11:03 <TD> 1.7.4.1
150 2012-01-09 14:11:17 <coderrr> http://benno.id.au/blog/2011/10/01/git-recursive-merge-broken
151 2012-01-09 14:11:26 <coderrr> that dood says that bug started in 1.7.4
152 2012-01-09 14:11:31 <coderrr> wonder if its related
153 2012-01-09 14:11:59 <TD> oh crap
154 2012-01-09 14:13:46 <TD> ok, i don't think i renamed any of these files
155 2012-01-09 14:13:52 <TD> but this kind of thing doesn't make me trust git
156 2012-01-09 14:15:26 <coderrr> :/
157 2012-01-09 14:21:16 <andrew12> LOL Windows defender detected bitcoin miners as "potentnially harmful or unwanted software"
158 2012-01-09 14:23:08 <JFK911> so?
159 2012-01-09 14:23:15 <JFK911> didnt catch mine
160 2012-01-09 14:25:30 <TD> that's botnet miners unfortunately
161 2012-01-09 14:30:47 <andrew12> lame
162 2012-01-09 14:31:31 <Diablo-D3> yeah, but the botnets ship both DM and cgminer
163 2012-01-09 14:31:32 <Joric> andrew12, that's really bad
164 2012-01-09 14:31:43 <Diablo-D3> kind of ironic
165 2012-01-09 14:31:55 <Diablo-D3> that basically flat out confirms DM and cgminer are the most used.
166 2012-01-09 14:32:13 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt trigger on poclbm or phoenix
167 2012-01-09 14:32:36 <andrew12> taht's what i downloaded when it popped up, DM
168 2012-01-09 14:32:46 <andrew12> which doesn't appear to be working
169 2012-01-09 14:33:26 <andrew12> here, take this: https://gist.github.com/2a921255725715478744
170 2012-01-09 14:33:45 <Diablo-D3> andrew12: make sure you're on newest version of nvidia drivers
171 2012-01-09 14:33:50 <Diablo-D3> because thats clearly a driver bug
172 2012-01-09 14:33:57 <andrew12> ic
173 2012-01-09 14:34:54 <Diablo-D3> what args did you try?
174 2012-01-09 14:35:35 <andrew12> -u <email> -p <pass> -o pit.deepbit.net -g 5
175 2012-01-09 14:35:47 <Diablo-D3> this doesnt effect it, but you dont need -g 5
176 2012-01-09 14:35:55 <Diablo-D3> DM ignores -g on LP pools
177 2012-01-09 14:35:57 <andrew12> it didn't effect it :p
178 2012-01-09 14:36:28 <andrew12> i don't plan to mine for long on here, it's an nvidia card and won't get that much plus it's in a laptop
179 2012-01-09 14:36:31 <andrew12> jw what i can get with it
180 2012-01-09 14:36:42 <Diablo-D3> yeah, I dont even recommend mining on a laptop
181 2012-01-09 14:36:44 <andrew12> but I should update my drivers regardless
182 2012-01-09 14:36:57 <Diablo-D3> the heat output is too much for typical laptop cooling
183 2012-01-09 14:37:04 <Diablo-D3> but yeah, update your drivers and see if you can reproduce it
184 2012-01-09 14:39:59 <andrew12> weird
185 2012-01-09 14:40:06 <andrew12> windows thinks the drivers are up to date
186 2012-01-09 14:40:19 <andrew12> going to try running the installer from nvidia once it finishes downloading anyways though
187 2012-01-09 14:40:41 <andrew12> ;;bc,blocks
188 2012-01-09 14:40:41 <gribble> 161417
189 2012-01-09 14:40:55 <andrew12> vps almost finished downloading le chain
190 2012-01-09 14:41:58 <Diablo-D3> andrew12: microsoft doesnt use the same drivers
191 2012-01-09 14:42:10 <Diablo-D3> they use somewhat out of date specially tested drivers that miss all the features
192 2012-01-09 14:42:16 <Diablo-D3> the only way to get newest is to download them from nvidia
193 2012-01-09 14:42:19 <andrew12> i thought it was something like that
194 2012-01-09 14:43:40 <Diablo-D3> they do it to amd as well
195 2012-01-09 14:43:48 <andrew12> this is a macbook fwiw
196 2012-01-09 14:44:00 <andrew12> mbp
197 2012-01-09 14:44:06 <Diablo-D3> erm
198 2012-01-09 14:44:10 <Diablo-D3> and you're using windows?
199 2012-01-09 14:44:15 <andrew12> yes
200 2012-01-09 14:44:20 <Diablo-D3> thats never going to stop being weird.
201 2012-01-09 14:44:25 <andrew12> lol
202 2012-01-09 14:44:32 <andrew12> i use it for gaming
203 2012-01-09 14:44:38 <andrew12> some games run better in windows and some are only for windows
204 2012-01-09 14:44:48 <sipa> i'm sure minesweeper also exists for OSX
205 2012-01-09 14:45:43 <andrew12> the only game that runs better on os x vs windows for me was minecrat
206 2012-01-09 14:45:46 <andrew12> minecraft
207 2012-01-09 14:45:50 <andrew12> but minecraft sucks, so....
208 2012-01-09 14:46:00 <Diablo-D3> sipa++
209 2012-01-09 14:46:36 <andrew12> i hope these drivers won't broked this
210 2012-01-09 14:46:46 <andrew12> though i don't think they will
211 2012-01-09 14:46:56 <andrew12> but apple is weird
212 2012-01-09 14:47:06 <lfm> diablo will buy you a new laptop if it breaks
213 2012-01-09 14:47:11 <andrew12> lol
214 2012-01-09 14:47:54 <Diablo-D3> I will not.
215 2012-01-09 14:48:18 <Diablo-D3> and he can just reboot windows in safe mode and roll back anyhow
216 2012-01-09 14:50:07 <andrew12> or just reformat windows
217 2012-01-09 14:50:19 <andrew12> but then i'd have to redownload stuff
218 2012-01-09 14:50:26 <andrew12> rollback sounds easier
219 2012-01-09 14:50:52 <andrew12> looks like it's done
220 2012-01-09 14:51:52 <andrew12> woo miner works
221 2012-01-09 14:52:01 <Diablo-D3> yay
222 2012-01-09 14:52:05 <Diablo-D3> enjoy all 8 mhash.
223 2012-01-09 14:52:18 <andrew12> 7
224 2012-01-09 14:52:24 <Diablo-D3> I was close
225 2012-01-09 14:52:37 <andrew12> oh neat
226 2012-01-09 14:52:39 <andrew12> so i go to kill it
227 2012-01-09 14:52:52 <andrew12> then 'display driver stopped responding and has recovered'
228 2012-01-09 14:53:11 <Diablo-D3> yeah, thats a known issue, nvidia is a little jumpy
229 2012-01-09 14:53:15 <Diablo-D3> add like -f 120
230 2012-01-09 14:55:30 <andrew12> that's better
231 2012-01-09 14:56:50 <andrew12> already got a share, heh
232 2012-01-09 14:57:05 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: what thread are you telling people on the forum I split?
233 2012-01-09 14:57:24 <Diablo-D3> didnt you split the eligius thread?
234 2012-01-09 14:57:28 <Diablo-D3> because I know I didnt
235 2012-01-09 14:57:41 <gmaxwell> No. I didn't.
236 2012-01-09 14:57:42 <andrew12> ah
237 2012-01-09 14:57:49 <andrew12> so never ever do -f 0 on nvidia
238 2012-01-09 14:57:54 <andrew12> it freaks out.
239 2012-01-09 14:57:55 <Diablo-D3> andrew12: never do -f 0 ever
240 2012-01-09 14:58:03 <Diablo-D3> it'll increase the size forever until it reaches max
241 2012-01-09 14:58:04 <Diablo-D3> which is bad
242 2012-01-09 14:58:13 <Diablo-D3> I should actually error check for that
243 2012-01-09 14:58:20 <gmaxwell> I won't take any even possible contentious moderation action wrt to that thread because it would be impossible to keep the accusations from flying. I already said this.
244 2012-01-09 14:58:28 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I wonder who did then
245 2012-01-09 14:59:01 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Matt Corallo master * r65c82be / (3 files in 2 dirs): Remove mentions on anonymity in debian folder. ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/65c82be0214c9480f12782284f9404dd7a6c1041
246 2012-01-09 14:59:09 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: well Ive already recommended that goat and SAC be banned.
247 2012-01-09 14:59:21 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r2e55523 / src/qt/forms/transactiondescdialog.ui : Merge pull request #746 from laanwj/tdesc_ro ... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2e555237d304c235b16c9460097703005d68cab0
248 2012-01-09 15:00:08 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: can you toss an Edit: wasn't gmaxwell in there for me? thanks!
249 2012-01-09 15:00:18 <Diablo-D3> already did
250 2012-01-09 15:01:49 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: goat says its tysat
251 2012-01-09 15:02:15 <Diablo-D3> whoever that is
252 2012-01-09 15:06:10 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: thread stays locked until theymos starts banning people.
253 2012-01-09 15:06:30 <Diablo-D3> you'd think they'd wise up after the first one was banned.
254 2012-01-09 15:06:45 <Diablo-D3> their kind is so annoying to deal with
255 2012-01-09 15:19:27 <dikidera> Anyone know how I can include this object file in cgminer? It needs to be included, but it's not
256 2012-01-09 15:20:41 <Diablo-D3> learn how makefiles work
257 2012-01-09 15:21:39 <dikidera> Would this not best be done when I actually do include the object file?
258 2012-01-09 15:21:50 <dikidera> Finish work, learn later
259 2012-01-09 15:21:59 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: Mac 0.5.2rc1 yet?
260 2012-01-09 15:23:10 <dikidera> One suggestion for bitcoin as well
261 2012-01-09 15:23:20 <dikidera> Proper handling of Ctrl+C exiting
262 2012-01-09 15:23:35 <dikidera> the headless version
263 2012-01-09 15:23:47 <helo> i think it does handle it, it just isn't very fast about handling it
264 2012-01-09 15:23:53 <dikidera> It doesn't
265 2012-01-09 15:23:56 <dikidera> causes a crash
266 2012-01-09 15:24:05 <helo> hmm
267 2012-01-09 15:55:25 <BlueMatt> when are the meetings again?
268 2012-01-09 15:55:49 <sipa> BlueMatt: tuesdays 21:00 GMT
269 2012-01-09 16:01:39 <gmaxwell> I normally don't idle in there with @ specifically because of that disruption, fwiw.
270 2012-01-09 16:02:15 <BlueMatt> idle in...?
271 2012-01-09 16:02:22 <sipa> #bitcoin
272 2012-01-09 16:02:55 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 13 on bitcoin/bitcoin.org <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/13>
273 2012-01-09 16:05:39 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: happy?
274 2012-01-09 16:06:46 <gmaxwell> I wasn't complaining, just providing some background there.
275 2012-01-09 16:08:33 <BlueMatt> I dont know why nanotube set my +O, I thought I used to be +o in #bitcoin...
276 2012-01-09 16:11:01 <BlueMatt> oh, jgarzik gave it to me...now why did he do that???
277 2012-01-09 16:18:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: /topic Main: http://bitcoin.org/ | Wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Latest version: 0.5.2 *VERSIONS BEFORE 0.4.1 HARM THE NETWORK AND YOUR SECURITY* | Bitcoin Development - We're here to help develop the Bitcoin system. All related discussions are welcome. | If you have a question, simply ask and wait for a reply. | Main support/discussion chan #bitcoin | Public channel logs: bit.ly/iPFi3X
278 2012-01-09 16:18:27 <JFK911> harms your security
279 2012-01-09 16:18:28 <JFK911> lolz
280 2012-01-09 16:18:38 <dikidera> Now that you guys mentioned it
281 2012-01-09 16:18:47 <luke-jr> JFK911: well, they do
282 2012-01-09 16:18:56 <JFK911> because wallet is not crypted ?
283 2012-01-09 16:18:56 <luke-jr> actually
284 2012-01-09 16:18:57 <dikidera> it was in the suggestion page on freenode that OP status should only be on when you need it
285 2012-01-09 16:19:04 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: /topic Main: http://bitcoin.org/ | Wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Latest version: 0.5.2 *VERSIONS BEFORE 0.4.3 HARM THE NETWORK AND YOUR SECURITY* | Bitcoin Development - We're here to help develop the Bitcoin system. All related discussions are welcome. | If you have a question, simply ask and wait for a reply. | Main support/discussion chan #bitcoin | Public channel logs: bit.ly/iPFi3X
286 2012-01-09 16:19:07 <jrmithdobbs> is current github HEAD fixed with OP_EVAL pulled out and everything?
287 2012-01-09 16:19:22 <luke-jr> JFK911: because there are security bugs
288 2012-01-09 16:19:44 <jrmithdobbs> luke-jr: what security bugs?
289 2012-01-09 16:19:48 <luke-jr> jrmithdobbs: I forget.
290 2012-01-09 16:19:55 <JFK911> it's all clear now.
291 2012-01-09 16:20:27 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Luke Dashjr 0.5.x * r9b53650a455c bitcoind-stable/ (6 files in 4 dirs): Merge branch '0.5.0.x' into 0.5.x http://tinyurl.com/7v5hdfc
292 2012-01-09 16:42:09 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: also, were you going to build 0.4.3 and/or 0.5.0.3 ?
293 2012-01-09 16:42:19 <luke-jr> (between those two, I prefer 0.4.3)
294 2012-01-09 16:46:47 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: you have a bad habit of reminding me when I cant build...ping me again when I get back to my dorm (like 5pm)
295 2012-01-09 16:47:03 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: hehe, ok :
296 2012-01-09 16:47:18 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: /topic Main: http://bitcoin.org/ | Wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Latest version: 0.5.2 *VERSIONS BEFORE 0.4.3 HARM THE NETWORK AND YOUR SECURITY* | Bitcoin Development - We're here to help develop the Bitcoin system. All related discussions are welcome. | If you have a question, simply ask and wait for a reply. | Main support/discussion chan #bitcoin | Public channel logs: bit.ly/iPFi3X
297 2012-01-09 16:47:33 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: also, wait, 5 PM what timezone? ;)
298 2012-01-09 16:47:49 <BlueMatt> est
299 2012-01-09 16:48:20 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: can you update the topic now, or should I wait for the files to be pushed out to sourceforge?
300 2012-01-09 16:48:30 <BlueMatt> 0.5.2?
301 2012-01-09 16:48:32 <luke-jr> yeah
302 2012-01-09 16:48:39 <BlueMatt> wait till the files are out (I thought we were still on rc)?
303 2012-01-09 16:48:50 <luke-jr> no problems with the RC, so it can be renamed
304 2012-01-09 16:49:03 <BlueMatt> ok, well dont reup those tars as-is
305 2012-01-09 16:49:10 <BlueMatt> the sigs need removed (for release)
306 2012-01-09 16:49:11 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: ?
307 2012-01-09 16:49:21 <BlueMatt> check release-process.txt
308 2012-01-09 16:49:30 <BlueMatt> (those tars arent quite in the normal format)
309 2012-01-09 16:49:49 <luke-jr> o
310 2012-01-09 16:49:59 <luke-jr> the tars you sent aren't what go on the site anyway though?
311 2012-01-09 16:50:07 <BlueMatt> correct
312 2012-01-09 16:50:09 <luke-jr> at least the win32 one
313 2012-01-09 16:50:14 <BlueMatt> yea
314 2012-01-09 16:50:24 <BlueMatt> its close, but just check and compare to previous tars
315 2012-01-09 16:50:40 <luke-jr> win32 is exe + zip ;)
316 2012-01-09 16:50:44 <BlueMatt> yea
317 2012-01-09 16:51:18 <luke-jr> anyhow, it's tagged, and I've got announcements written up and a pullreq for .org
318 2012-01-09 16:51:25 <luke-jr> so just a matter of getting the downloads in place
319 2012-01-09 16:51:54 <BlueMatt> ok, nice
320 2012-01-09 16:52:46 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: care to read/ACK the announcemnet? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/13
321 2012-01-09 17:18:54 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: TheBlueMatt opened issue 751 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/751>
322 2012-01-09 17:40:15 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * rc6e3040fa381 /include/bitcoin/utility/threads.hpp: threaded_service will not be deprecated. changed my mind here. http://tinyurl.com/6lnsrwr
323 2012-01-09 18:16:02 <Folklore> I wanna be apart of #bitcoin, but one of the 1000 ops they added there needs to fix the content
324 2012-01-09 18:16:16 <Folklore> what they were just talkin about isn't right, it's not funny, it's sick
325 2012-01-09 18:16:18 <Folklore> and it's illegal
326 2012-01-09 18:17:06 <Folklore> leaving my client and coming back to that kinda stuff isn't cool,anything else idc, but that was taking it too far
327 2012-01-09 18:17:55 <BlueMatt> plus /me doesnt read #bitcoin...its too oft
328 2012-01-09 18:18:24 <Folklore> young children.
329 2012-01-09 18:18:55 <Folklore> it wasn't graphic but even hinting at that kinda stuff isn't ok IMHO
330 2012-01-09 18:21:00 <Folklore> a simple don't talk about this would be nice, coming from an op so I can idle in that channel like before
331 2012-01-09 18:22:40 <BlueMatt> yea, ok thats just wrong...
332 2012-01-09 18:23:55 <dub> dont listen to the troll
333 2012-01-09 18:25:12 <Folklore> and who would be the "troll"
334 2012-01-09 18:25:16 <Folklore> myself?
335 2012-01-09 18:25:29 <Folklore> because keep in mind, logs speak for themselves
336 2012-01-09 18:26:49 <dub> you are the troll
337 2012-01-09 18:27:17 <Folklore> and why is that? because I don't think that kind of sick stuff is amusing?
338 2012-01-09 18:44:03 <PK> what did I miss?
339 2012-01-09 18:50:44 <Folklore> not much
340 2012-01-09 18:51:28 <PK> looks like, I read through the four pages of log and didn't spot anything.
341 2012-01-09 18:53:26 <Folklore> they were trying to mock luke
342 2012-01-09 18:53:36 <Folklore> two of them, just the way they did it wasn't right
343 2012-01-09 18:53:53 <Folklore> like i said it wasn't graphic, thankfully, but even hintin at that is no good
344 2012-01-09 18:54:30 <Folklore> and while dub may think i'm a "troll" for not finding it the least bit amusing, I bet you the 400+ people in #bitcoin didn't come in there for that either
345 2012-01-09 18:55:17 <PK> the part about where luck said he'd never join a large pool?
346 2012-01-09 18:57:07 <Folklore> no him and the boys comment
347 2012-01-09 18:57:34 <Folklore> that two individuals felt the need to joke about, after I asked the first to not talk about that kinda stuff
348 2012-01-09 18:58:01 <Folklore> anyway I don't wanna go on all day about this, I just wish someone else had stepped in and been like don't do that
349 2012-01-09 18:58:04 <Folklore> not here, and moved on
350 2012-01-09 18:58:22 <luke-jr> Folklore: it's mainly 1 person, who hates me because I stopped him from scamming people
351 2012-01-09 19:00:48 <Folklore> well his comments aren't cool, not for the channel or anyone.
352 2012-01-09 19:01:05 <jgarzik> whee, identity theft!
353 2012-01-09 19:01:31 <jgarzik> time to file fraud/police/etc. reports :/
354 2012-01-09 19:02:15 <roconnor> heh, for a bunch of cryptoanarchists, the people on the bitcoin forums do like to talk about going to the police an awful lot.
355 2012-01-09 19:02:44 <chmod755> go to the #bitcoin-police instead
356 2012-01-09 19:03:06 <roconnor> hah, it is real
357 2012-01-09 19:03:33 <chmod755> ofc
358 2012-01-09 19:03:38 <dub> really retarded
359 2012-01-09 19:04:11 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: ouch...that really sucks...
360 2012-01-09 19:04:28 <roconnor> BTW, anyone know where I can find technical details on how namecoin works?
361 2012-01-09 19:05:00 <jgarzik> roconnor: no one would ever confuse me with a cryptoanarchist
362 2012-01-09 19:05:08 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: don't you have ops in #bitcoin ?
363 2012-01-09 19:05:11 <Folklore> roconnor #namecoin may help, I think they have some good stuff on their homesite
364 2012-01-09 19:05:20 <Folklore> www.namecoin.org/
365 2012-01-09 19:05:38 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: and?
366 2012-01-09 19:05:40 <Folklore> wish namecoin creator wasn't so greedy, he wants a lot for .bit's
367 2012-01-09 19:05:49 <Folklore> but I guess if people are willing to pay it
368 2012-01-09 19:05:53 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: and there's a troll cussing random people out for a while now?
369 2012-01-09 19:06:00 <roconnor> jgarzik: ah sorry. I didn't mean to refer to you.
370 2012-01-09 19:06:10 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: I rarely read #bitcoin, plus Im in class...
371 2012-01-09 19:06:17 <luke-jr> i c
372 2012-01-09 19:06:20 <luke-jr> gmaxwell took care of it
373 2012-01-09 19:06:55 <PK> for cryptoanarchists I miss gpg signed posts in the forum... so much about "someone edited my post"
374 2012-01-09 19:07:46 <gmaxwell> PK: :)
375 2012-01-09 19:07:53 <gmaxwell> actually that would be a neat policy.
376 2012-01-09 19:08:02 <gmaxwell> don't sign your messages? free game for amusing editing.
377 2012-01-09 19:08:13 <luke-jr> you know the trolls would post unsigned messages and claim they were edited
378 2012-01-09 19:08:23 <gmaxwell> Sounds like a personal problem.
379 2012-01-09 19:08:27 <luke-jr> :P
380 2012-01-09 19:08:28 <Folklore> BlueMatt do you run a Tor hidden service? sounds like a familiar exit node
381 2012-01-09 19:08:28 <gmaxwell> (if the rule were understood)
382 2012-01-09 19:08:41 <gmaxwell> matt != mage.
383 2012-01-09 19:08:42 <Folklore> or exit node rather, not hidden service
384 2012-01-09 19:09:06 <Folklore> is it bluemage? thought was maggie, no blue
385 2012-01-09 19:09:07 <PK> always quote important parts and never mess with the admins because they can still edit your quoted text :)
386 2012-01-09 19:10:04 <makomk> How would they be able to prove the mods hadn't edited their signed messages and replaced them with unsigned versions, and how would the mods be able to prove they hadn't?
387 2012-01-09 19:10:09 <Folklore> yeah is blutmagie :P
388 2012-01-09 19:11:15 <gmaxwell> makomk: sign everything and make it clear that you always will.
389 2012-01-09 19:12:45 <makomk> It'd basically just come down to trust then - do you trust the person to follow their policy of always signing messages more or less than you trust the mods not to strip out signatures?
390 2012-01-09 19:17:37 <PK> dump that forum and write a new one, p2p forum. Each posts needs to be signed by 10 other peers before it's valid and then unchangable. Link the posts in a chain so no one can remove any. That's what I would execpt of cryptoanarchists
391 2012-01-09 19:18:02 <PK> postcoin or forumcoin if you like.
392 2012-01-09 19:18:30 <Folklore> love to see the size of *that database :p
393 2012-01-09 19:18:34 <gmaxwell> PK: eKafkaForum.
394 2012-01-09 19:18:45 <luke-jr> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57325.0
395 2012-01-09 19:19:09 <Diablo-D3> [03:18:54] <TyGrrGoat> you fail lol fag
396 2012-01-09 19:19:12 <Diablo-D3> _heh_
397 2012-01-09 19:19:15 <luke-jr> PK: how would you get 10 other peers to sign it if they never see it? ;)
398 2012-01-09 19:19:28 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: ssh. don't feed the troll.
399 2012-01-09 19:19:49 <chmod755> PK: and I get rewarded to sort out spam posts?
400 2012-01-09 19:19:53 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: well, he apparently wants me to shove my dick up his ass, and I always feed my dates first.
401 2012-01-09 19:20:16 <CIA-100> libbitcoin: genjix * rf0283f8a8898 / (10 files in 7 dirs): Abstracted away subscription from channel into generic utility. http://tinyurl.com/74efbsl
402 2012-01-09 19:20:59 <lfm> obviously you would stand around the entrance to shops and ask passerby to please sign you message on a clipboard
403 2012-01-09 19:21:01 <PK> luke-jr: they see it as "unverified post"
404 2012-01-09 19:21:16 <luke-jr> PK: I don't get the point.
405 2012-01-09 19:21:28 <luke-jr> PK: a single signature by the author is proof that he wrote it
406 2012-01-09 19:22:47 <PK> luke-jr: true, but then you have to trust the forum operator, like you have to trust the goverment issuing money or the bank storing it for you. I was just pointing out how some people are almost paranoid about their "money" but completely trust other people over their posted threads and reputation.
407 2012-01-09 19:23:36 <PK> luke-jr: I would expect that the same people would be interested in creating a secure form of "forum" that can't be controlled by a single individual.
408 2012-01-09 19:26:42 <chmod755> PK: luke-jr will take it over
409 2012-01-09 19:26:46 <chmod755> lol
410 2012-01-09 19:26:48 <luke-jr> lol
411 2012-01-09 19:29:22 <PK> the more I think about it, the more I like it. Operators can't simply block a p2p forum if they don't like a content, mods can't simply delete posts. It's true freedom of speech.
412 2012-01-09 19:30:11 <chmod755> luke-jr: "The problem is not Luke attacking altcoins but Luke  using his pool for attacking altcoins without his pool users knowing.  This is a breach of trust." << did you use your pool?
413 2012-01-09 19:30:39 <Diablo-D3> chmod755: basically, its a bunch of trolls who wont let it go
414 2012-01-09 19:30:45 <cjdelisle> PK: that distributed forum idea was implemented in one of the i2p based programs
415 2012-01-09 19:30:49 <Diablo-D3> luke went to add all the alt coins, and then all the alt coins crashed and burned
416 2012-01-09 19:30:53 <Diablo-D3> because the diff massively spiked
417 2012-01-09 19:30:55 <cjdelisle> I can't remember what it was called though
418 2012-01-09 19:30:58 <Diablo-D3> and now they blame luke
419 2012-01-09 19:31:00 <Diablo-D3> its hilarious
420 2012-01-09 19:31:02 <chmod755> LOL
421 2012-01-09 19:31:19 <chmod755> "Anyone up for a MM pool that DOS's Rogue Pools on the side???? After all  its in the open and you get the added benefit of protecting  cryptocurrency from D-Bags."
422 2012-01-09 19:31:30 <cjdelisle> basicly it ended because the "forum" got spammed to oblivian
423 2012-01-09 19:32:14 <PK> <reverse-trolling>well done luke-jr, thanks a lot. Use more miners on alt chains. The lowers the difficults on the main chain for me</reverse-trolling>
424 2012-01-09 19:32:27 <chmod755> LOL
425 2012-01-09 19:32:58 <luke-jr> chmod755: Eligius miners were not involved in the CLC nonsense
426 2012-01-09 19:33:42 <chmod755> luke-jr: keep solidcoin 2.0 alive... it's good to get idiots away from bitcoin
427 2012-01-09 19:33:50 <luke-jr> chmod755: sorry
428 2012-01-09 19:34:05 <luke-jr> chmod755: I already filed a DMCA takedown with GitHub, and if SOPA passes I'm going after their domain.
429 2012-01-09 19:34:17 <chmod755> luke-jr: you actually did?
430 2012-01-09 19:34:28 <chmod755> ok, but it's legit
431 2012-01-09 19:34:34 <makomk> chmod755: Eligius was used for the CLC DOS and luke-jr needed its miners to achieve it. Be very careful how you read luke-jr's statements; they're technically true but misleading.
432 2012-01-09 19:34:52 <luke-jr> makomk: please stop spreading FUD
433 2012-01-09 19:35:26 <Diablo-D3> makomk: it never happened.
434 2012-01-09 19:35:34 <Diablo-D3> go away already
435 2012-01-09 19:35:42 <roconnor> ??
436 2012-01-09 19:35:45 <makomk> Diablo-D3: I have CLC blocks that use the same POW as Eligius-mined Bitcoin blocks.
437 2012-01-09 19:35:51 <Diablo-D3> yeah, who cares.
438 2012-01-09 19:35:51 <roconnor> isn't makomk right?
439 2012-01-09 19:36:15 <Diablo-D3> if you dont like the diff spike, then quit trying to be popular.
440 2012-01-09 19:36:50 <cjdelisle> If a chain can be pwnd by recycling unused shares then it really needs to die IMO
441 2012-01-09 19:36:54 <makomk> Diablo-D3: he's refusing to process CLC transactions and ignoring blocks anyone else mines.
442 2012-01-09 19:37:14 <Diablo-D3> good for him.
443 2012-01-09 19:37:21 <Diablo-D3> I still dont want to hear it.
444 2012-01-09 19:37:24 <chmod755> yep
445 2012-01-09 19:37:29 <Diablo-D3> and neither does anyone else
446 2012-01-09 19:37:30 <cjdelisle> anyone could have done that using info gleaned from p2pool
447 2012-01-09 19:37:37 <makomk> Diablo-D3: then stop spreading misinformation.
448 2012-01-09 19:38:07 <Diablo-D3> Im not
449 2012-01-09 19:38:11 <Diablo-D3> there is just zero useful evidence.
450 2012-01-09 19:38:41 <PK> One question: What's bitcoin (and the alt-chains) about? if one! person, luke-jr can (if he actually did) mess with it like that. What could a gov do with the same intention?
451 2012-01-09 19:38:43 <luke-jr> makomk: you're the one spreading misinformation
452 2012-01-09 19:39:02 <makomk> PK: they could shut down Bitcoin for a few million dollars, as I recall.
453 2012-01-09 19:39:04 <luke-jr> PK: bitcoin and the "alt-chains" are two different things
454 2012-01-09 19:39:08 <makomk> That's old news though.
455 2012-01-09 19:39:13 <luke-jr> makomk: I shut down CoiledCoin for free
456 2012-01-09 19:40:05 <PK> luke-jr: so are you and a gov.
457 2012-01-09 19:40:10 <chmod755> point your miners to federalreserve.gov  --> shut down --> PROFIT
458 2012-01-09 19:40:34 <Diablo-D3> makomk: about $250m could shut it down forever, yes.
459 2012-01-09 19:40:38 <Diablo-D3> I would own ALL the hashes
460 2012-01-09 19:40:59 <cjdelisle> an interesting point is that if someone has a chain which is so insecure that waste information from bitcoin can be used to ruin it, at what point does it become fraud through grose neglegence?
461 2012-01-09 19:41:02 <roconnor> luke-jr: but you said Eligius miners were not invovled, but they were involved weren't they?  They were not harmed, but they were involved.
462 2012-01-09 19:41:47 <luke-jr> roconnor: no, they were not involved.
463 2012-01-09 19:41:54 <roconnor> !
464 2012-01-09 19:42:33 <makomk> roconnor: luke-jr's going by the argument that since they didn't know what was going on and it didn't affect them, they weren't involved. I think.
465 2012-01-09 19:43:00 <roconnor> oh sorry; I was under the impression you were MergeMining empty CoiledCoin tranasctions with the Eligius network.
466 2012-01-09 19:43:42 <Diablo-D3> roconnor: no, hes mining by typical pool rules
467 2012-01-09 19:44:00 <Diablo-D3> also, he uses specially designed blocks to send output to people
468 2012-01-09 19:44:04 <makomk> roconnor: he was, the evidence proving it is in the blockchain, he just doesn't consider it relevant to his members.
469 2012-01-09 19:44:06 <PK> legally speaking, if they were "involved" that would imply they knew about it and are also guilty of accompliceship or connivance?
470 2012-01-09 19:44:07 <Diablo-D3> instead of using send TXes, he uses multiple gen txes
471 2012-01-09 19:44:20 <Diablo-D3> it probably isnt inputting alt chain txes right yet
472 2012-01-09 19:45:14 <makomk> Diablo-D3: nope, he intentionally modified the code to (a) not include transactions and (b) ignore others' blocks. We know this because he said he did it, and he said why he did it.
473 2012-01-09 19:45:24 <Diablo-D3> makomk: I wouldnt say intentionally
474 2012-01-09 19:45:28 <roconnor> okay, well anyhow; I have no problem with luke-jr's actions; I just wanted to make sure I had a proper understanding of the situtation.
475 2012-01-09 19:45:30 <Diablo-D3> I would say you got trolled for beliving him
476 2012-01-09 19:45:34 <luke-jr> roconnor: Eligius miners's involvement in the CLC stuff is the same as Eligius's miner's invovlement in arbitrary Bitcoin transactions.
477 2012-01-09 19:45:35 <Diablo-D3> luke just isnt that good of a coder.
478 2012-01-09 19:45:50 <makomk> Diablo-D3: OK, now I know you're trolling.
479 2012-01-09 19:45:53 <luke-jr> makomk: that's out of order, and neither of those violate the protocol rules
480 2012-01-09 19:46:09 <luke-jr> makomk: I ignored others' blocks because they were making my own stale too fast.
481 2012-01-09 19:46:21 <roconnor> luke-jr: okay.
482 2012-01-09 19:46:27 <luke-jr> makomk: and I ignored transactions with low fees because they weren't worth processing
483 2012-01-09 19:46:48 <Ahimoth_> ok, so now that the difficulty is up, are you gonna start accepting outside tx and blocks?
484 2012-01-09 19:47:37 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: why?
485 2012-01-09 19:47:59 <Ahimoth> [12:46:01] <luke-jr> makomk: I ignored others' blocks because they were making my own stale too fast.
486 2012-01-09 19:48:05 <Ahimoth> that is not a problem now right?
487 2012-01-09 19:48:51 <PK> luke-jr: can I ask how much that fun was costing you? You probably paid a lot for bitcoin shares to your miners while making blocks of a now probably quite worthless chain?
488 2012-01-09 19:49:08 <makomk> PK: it's merged mining, the Bitcoin shares were still valid.
489 2012-01-09 19:49:15 <roconnor> PK: merged mining is free
490 2012-01-09 19:49:28 <PK> ah, ok
491 2012-01-09 19:49:39 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: dunno
492 2012-01-09 19:49:53 <luke-jr> PK: it cost me nothing
493 2012-01-09 19:50:07 <luke-jr> PK: except what I could have scammed people out of by selling them all
494 2012-01-09 19:50:22 <luke-jr> but then I wouldn't be stopping the scammers, just replacing them
495 2012-01-09 19:51:11 <PK> the "scammers" were merged mining but their pools only paying the alt coins while keeping the bitcoins?
496 2012-01-09 19:52:43 <luke-jr> PK: no, the scammers were actually solo mining just CLC for some reason
497 2012-01-09 19:52:57 <luke-jr> PK: the problem is the pump-and-dump pyramid scheme
498 2012-01-09 19:53:41 <chmod755> http://qkme.me/35ocgw
499 2012-01-09 19:54:37 <dub> what about i0/ix?
500 2012-01-09 19:55:13 <Ahimoth> I was just mining them at mmpool, and immediately selling them at btc-e
501 2012-01-09 19:55:27 <Ahimoth> I actually made quite a few btc
502 2012-01-09 19:55:40 <Ahimoth> which I immediately sold for SC
503 2012-01-09 19:56:09 <luke-jr> &
504 2012-01-09 19:56:23 <Ahimoth> then luke pops into btc-e chat and says its dead
505 2012-01-09 19:56:26 <luke-jr> [15:55:13] <Ahimoth> I was just mining them at mmpool, and immediately selling them at btc-e [15:55:28] <Ahimoth> I actually made quite a few btc <-- this is because you abused the pump-and-dump system
506 2012-01-09 19:56:37 <Ahimoth> people wanted to buy them
507 2012-01-09 19:56:40 <Ahimoth> I was willign to sell them
508 2012-01-09 19:56:55 <luke-jr> yeah, people want to buy most pyramid schemes at first too
509 2012-01-09 19:57:01 <Ahimoth> I mine btc for the same reason
510 2012-01-09 19:57:04 <Ahimoth> so I can sell em
511 2012-01-09 19:57:10 <luke-jr> that's how they work
512 2012-01-09 19:57:14 <dub> luke-jr: so you're not merged mining io/ix with eligius?
513 2012-01-09 19:57:25 <luke-jr> dub: that is not a benefit Eligius offers.
514 2012-01-09 19:57:28 <dub> and dumping them to destroy value
515 2012-01-09 19:57:34 <Ahimoth> hah check out the i0x and ixc hashrates
516 2012-01-09 19:57:39 <dub> (and line your pocket)
517 2012-01-09 19:57:45 <Ahimoth> they oddly are aextremely close to clc hashrate
518 2012-01-09 19:58:06 <luke-jr> nor do I intend to offer any scamcoins
519 2012-01-09 19:58:17 <Ahimoth> btw, why is this conversation happening in bitcoin-dev?
520 2012-01-09 19:58:19 <dub> luke-jr: remember you started doing this days after I asked you to add mm support for them, and you told me you would destroy them instead
521 2012-01-09 19:58:31 <makomk> Ahimoth: I forget...
522 2012-01-09 19:59:48 <PK> luke-jr: I quite like your way of choosing words :)
523 2012-01-09 19:59:57 <Ahimoth> btw, I should thank you luke, you have sucessfully proven why a system such as Solidcoin2's trust nodes, or as in doublec's concept, checkpoint nodes, is ebenficial
524 2012-01-09 20:01:02 <Ahimoth> although I don't know how doublec's checkpoint system will work out, as the users get to randomly choose any key to trust from a list of advertized checkpoint nodes
525 2012-01-09 20:01:12 <Ahimoth> sounds like a fork nightmare
526 2012-01-09 20:03:27 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: might as well use the Fed
527 2012-01-09 20:03:43 <Ahimoth> I understand the argument
528 2012-01-09 20:05:18 <doublec> Ahimoth: the command line switch to change keys was more to allow miners to adjust if they decide the current key holder is evil, or if it's comprimised
529 2012-01-09 20:05:33 <doublec> Ahimoth: it wouldn't work for multiple nodes with different keys
530 2012-01-09 20:05:49 <doublec> Ahimoth: I'm also unsure quite when the messages should be relayed
531 2012-01-09 20:06:07 <doublec> I was going to have it that nodes don't relay messages that fail signature verification
532 2012-01-09 20:06:27 <doublec> but then changing the key will result in checkpoints never propogating
533 2012-01-09 20:06:40 <Ahimoth> yeah, that would kill the multiple authorized key logic
534 2012-01-09 20:06:41 <doublec> always checking means people can DOS a node by having it check signatures constantly
535 2012-01-09 20:06:48 <doublec> so it needs flood control
536 2012-01-09 20:06:49 <Ahimoth> yep
537 2012-01-09 20:06:54 <doublec> summary is more work needed
538 2012-01-09 20:07:05 <Ahimoth> and not checking them would allow the network to flood itself
539 2012-01-09 20:07:10 <doublec> right
540 2012-01-09 20:07:17 <Ahimoth> yeah, but I see where you are going with it
541 2012-01-09 20:07:29 <doublec> hopefully something interesting will come of it
542 2012-01-09 20:07:34 <doublec> if not, oh well :)
543 2012-01-09 20:07:47 <Ahimoth> I do however think it is far more centralized than SC's trust nodes
544 2012-01-09 20:07:54 <doublec> yes it is
545 2012-01-09 20:07:55 <Ahimoth> , seeing as how the network determines who to trust
546 2012-01-09 20:07:55 <gmaxwell> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161007.html  < bitcoin to become easier to support on RedHat/Fedora, hopefully.
547 2012-01-09 20:08:04 <Ahimoth> and any user could potentially become a trust node
548 2012-01-09 20:08:40 <doublec> right, but it's no different from a developer saying "download new code with built in checkpoint"
549 2012-01-09 20:09:00 <doublec> which is how I justify it in my mind :)
550 2012-01-09 20:09:18 <Ahimoth> true
551 2012-01-09 20:09:35 <Ahimoth> you are correct, it is no worse than Gav issuing a new btc client
552 2012-01-09 20:09:36 <doublec> so really it's a user friendly gavin for alt chains
553 2012-01-09 20:09:41 <Ahimoth> yep
554 2012-01-09 20:09:56 <gmaxwell> doublec: 'developer saying' is a horrific centeralized measure, and it's really only acceptable because there is no actual chain compeition as far back as checkpoints are set.
555 2012-01-09 20:10:25 <Ahimoth> gmaxwell: do you have a better alternative?
556 2012-01-09 20:10:28 <doublec> gmaxwell: I agree it's horrific
557 2012-01-09 20:10:31 <gmaxwell> (and because it's such a slow and lossy measure, it's not that useful for chain selection regardless)
558 2012-01-09 20:10:36 <doublec> gmaxwell: but it's what all the chains do manually
559 2012-01-09 20:10:52 <doublec> something not requiring checkpoints would be awesome
560 2012-01-09 20:11:02 <doublec> hopefully roconnor is doing something about that
561 2012-01-09 20:11:39 <Ahimoth> I see the alt chains as a child... when that are babies, they need a baby-sitter, once they grow up (large and distributed hash power), they can go out on their own
562 2012-01-09 20:11:52 <gmaxwell> doublec: bitcoin's checkpoints have never been set anywhere near a point where a checkpoint could reasonable select a chain, thats not the purpose they're serving in bitcoin. Unless you're expecting attackers with city level electrical consumption. ;)
563 2012-01-09 20:11:57 <roconnor> doublec: I'm pretty satisfied with "it is likely possible" for the time being.
564 2012-01-09 20:12:27 <doublec> gmaxwell: bitcoin doesn't get attacked in the same way other chains do
565 2012-01-09 20:12:47 <gruez> just wondering...
566 2012-01-09 20:13:12 <doublec> gmaxwell: but I do agree it's a horrible solution. nevertheless it's something interesting to try.
567 2012-01-09 20:13:26 <gruez> is there a reason why a transaction is only broadcast through 19 nodes, when i'm connected to 26?
568 2012-01-09 20:13:37 <Ahimoth> and its something that can be disable when the difficulty goes above a certain level
569 2012-01-09 20:13:41 <doublec> yes
570 2012-01-09 20:13:52 <doublec> any node can disable it - it's disabled by default
571 2012-01-09 20:13:54 <gruez> is it because by the time i'm broadcasting to the 20th client, he has already recived the transaction from another person?
572 2012-01-09 20:13:58 <sipa> gruez: some of your peers may be connected to eachother, and have exchanged your tx before you got to them yourself
573 2012-01-09 20:14:02 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: yes I suggested that. ::shrugs::
574 2012-01-09 20:14:20 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: but even more importantly, stop building systems that add nothing and they'll see more rapid investment.
575 2012-01-09 20:14:21 <gruez> ok sipa, makes sense
576 2012-01-09 20:14:30 <gmaxwell> (investment in terms of security resources)
577 2012-01-09 20:14:39 <doublec> gmaxwell: I agree that would be better
578 2012-01-09 20:14:45 <Ahimoth> yeah, have a setpoint in the code.. if the diffiuclty goes above X, permanently disable the auot-checkpointing system
579 2012-01-09 20:14:49 <doublec> gmaxwell: but others will still try and attack it
580 2012-01-09 20:14:58 <doublec> gmaxwell: so even then something would be needed
581 2012-01-09 20:15:09 <Ahimoth> well coild was supposed to test the workability of op_eval
582 2012-01-09 20:15:14 <gmaxwell> doublec: maybe, e.g. merged mining was enough for namecoin which had broad interest.
583 2012-01-09 20:15:26 <luke-jr> makomk: I encourage you to find a solution for CLC, but not by verbal attacks and FUD.
584 2012-01-09 20:15:57 <gruez> another thing: is there a way to force bitcoin to rebroadcast transactions?
585 2012-01-09 20:16:03 <sipa> no
586 2012-01-09 20:16:06 <gruez> let's say you sent a payment, but the internet is down
587 2012-01-09 20:16:14 <gruez> i know it will automatically rebroadcast
588 2012-01-09 20:16:26 <gruez> :/
589 2012-01-09 20:16:32 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: op_eval runs in testnet. Spawning a new 'currency' for every random feature doesn't really scale.
590 2012-01-09 20:16:34 <luke-jr> gruez: patch very welcome
591 2012-01-09 20:16:45 <Ahimoth> doublec: I'm curious, why did you diable clc entirely. I would simply have turned off payouts, but kept mining it in the background.. this way, if another pool or two implemented werged mine over the next few days, they could overthrow luke's monopoly
592 2012-01-09 20:16:58 <doublec> Ahimoth: I did for a while
593 2012-01-09 20:17:12 <Ahimoth> doublec: ahhh I was hoping/assuming you were
594 2012-01-09 20:17:14 <doublec> Ahimoth: but makomk decided not to pursue the chain so no point
595 2012-01-09 20:17:39 <doublec> Ahimoth: and 350 ghash is a lot of hash to find
596 2012-01-09 20:17:46 <Ahimoth> yes it is
597 2012-01-09 20:18:27 <Ahimoth> but I think we might be able to find a few hundred more gh
598 2012-01-09 20:18:55 <Ahimoth> overthrow the opressive tyrant
599 2012-01-09 20:19:00 <gmaxwell> slush or btcguild picking it up would have ended the dispute right quick, but I think sensible bitcoiners aren't just _neutral_ about 'competative' currencies at least ones which are just near duplicates of bitcoin, but somewhat negative.
600 2012-01-09 20:19:01 <luke-jr> tbh, the main reason I'm still mining CLC is in hopes a solution is found ;)
601 2012-01-09 20:19:05 <doublec> I don't think it's worth it - better to a) find a way to solve the issue and/or b) improve the chain such that people don't want to destroy it
602 2012-01-09 20:19:26 <gmaxwell> (at least that's part of my position)
603 2012-01-09 20:19:36 <doublec> gmaxwell: right, even if clc got 300 more ghash what's to stop someone else saying "luke is right" and then adding more to help him
604 2012-01-09 20:19:45 <Ahimoth> well right now all the solutiona have the bitcoiners crying "centralization!!! booo!!!"
605 2012-01-09 20:19:57 <gruez> peer to pool?
606 2012-01-09 20:19:58 <luke-jr> doublec: I've had numerous people contact me asking to help 'next time'
607 2012-01-09 20:20:06 <gruez> best solution :p
608 2012-01-09 20:20:08 <gmaxwell> doublec: right. fundimentally if you're going to build a system which is potentially harmful to the btc ecosystem you simply can't count on bitcoiner's for protection.
609 2012-01-09 20:20:15 <luke-jr> doublec: also, donations are way up
610 2012-01-09 20:20:45 <doublec> luke-jr: evil people often manage to get more money for their actions
611 2012-01-09 20:20:55 <doublec> the world is weird that way
612 2012-01-09 20:20:58 <luke-jr> doublec: true, but not in this case :p
613 2012-01-09 20:21:09 <luke-jr> in this case, I'm stopping the evil people
614 2012-01-09 20:21:21 <gmaxwell> gruez: p2pool is nice but not really a solution. Consider, if there was no pool was mining CLC then there are quite a few solominers who could outpace the CLC advocates.
615 2012-01-09 20:21:31 <Ahimoth> slay the monster by becoming the monster yourself eh?
616 2012-01-09 20:21:45 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: I didn't have to become a monster, though
617 2012-01-09 20:21:48 <gmaxwell> (I mean p2pool isn't a solution to _this_ it's a centeralization solution overall, but the problem here isn't centeralization)
618 2012-01-09 20:21:59 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: everything I'm doing with CLC is valid by the rules
619 2012-01-09 20:22:03 <doublec> anyway this isn't the place for the moral side of the argument, I apologise for bringing it up
620 2012-01-09 20:22:11 <Ahimoth> protocol rules, sure
621 2012-01-09 20:22:20 <Ahimoth> ok, so lets come up with a solution
622 2012-01-09 20:22:24 <luke-jr> sounds good
623 2012-01-09 20:22:52 <Ahimoth> we got auto-checkpoints, we got "trust nodes" (which are basically auto checkpoints every other block)
624 2012-01-09 20:22:55 <gmaxwell> The problem is that new chains are completely valueless, and it costs resources to mine them...  So if people have any negative feelings they'll fall to attack easily.
625 2012-01-09 20:22:57 <Ahimoth> what else we got?
626 2012-01-09 20:23:19 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: do what bitcoin did: be economically savvy.
627 2012-01-09 20:23:25 <doublec> gmaxwell: even something with value is valueless for others - or vulnerable to "just for fun" attacks
628 2012-01-09 20:23:33 <Ahimoth> hahah but bitcoin has the advantage of organic growth
629 2012-01-09 20:23:43 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin resisted attacks in part because cooperating is more worthwhile than defecting.
630 2012-01-09 20:23:52 <gruez> is there a disadvantage to setting the queue in cgminer higher?
631 2012-01-09 20:23:55 <gruez> --queue|-Q <arg>    Minimum number of work items to have queued (0 - 10) (default: 1)
632 2012-01-09 20:24:10 <gruez> it should reduce the amount of "pool not providing work fast enough", right?
633 2012-01-09 20:24:16 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: auto-checkpoints won't help at all
634 2012-01-09 20:24:21 <Ahimoth> oh?
635 2012-01-09 20:24:23 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: trust nodes aren't a good solution
636 2012-01-09 20:24:40 <luke-jr> gruez: yes, it's already absurdly high by default
637 2012-01-09 20:24:53 <luke-jr> gruez: "pool not providing work fast enough" is IIRC a cgminer bug
638 2012-01-09 20:24:59 <Ahimoth> well trust nodes prevent the clc situation
639 2012-01-09 20:25:03 <gruez> luke-jr: so what does it really mean?
640 2012-01-09 20:25:13 <gruez> luke-jr: 1 is absurdly high?
641 2012-01-09 20:25:14 <[Tycho]> "cjdelisle: basicly it ended because the "forum" got spammed to oblivian" - that's what we need POWs for :)
642 2012-01-09 20:25:21 <luke-jr> gruez: you can try my cgminer version, to see if it helps
643 2012-01-09 20:25:26 <Ahimoth> auto-checkpointing would cause many temporary forks
644 2012-01-09 20:25:34 <luke-jr> gruez: --queue is a MINIMUM. in practice, it's always higher :/
645 2012-01-09 20:26:07 <luke-jr> Ahimoth: auto-checkpointing would either cause many permanent forks, or do nothing
646 2012-01-09 20:26:14 <Ahimoth> doublec: have you considere that? the constant forking cause by the auto-checkpoint
647 2012-01-09 20:26:14 <luke-jr> depending on the checkpoint criteria
648 2012-01-09 20:26:16 <gruez> luke-jr: will setting it higher increase stales?
649 2012-01-09 20:26:24 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: he means centeralized control checkpoints.
650 2012-01-09 20:26:34 <luke-jr> gruez: it could. try my cgminer patches :P
651 2012-01-09 20:26:41 <Ahimoth> well in doublec's model, its not so "auto" necessarily
652 2012-01-09 20:26:43 <gruez> luke-jr: link?
653 2012-01-09 20:26:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, that's not auto :P
654 2012-01-09 20:26:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it's auto like SC.
655 2012-01-09 20:27:00 <luke-jr> gruez: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/69
656 2012-01-09 20:27:03 <doublec> Ahimoth: the checkpoits aren't auto, they're manually sent out by a human
657 2012-01-09 20:27:08 <Ahimoth> exactly
658 2012-01-09 20:27:08 <luke-jr> gruez: https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/pull/68 also will get you 0.4% more shares
659 2012-01-09 20:27:12 <doublec> Ahimoth: presumably to values to reduce forking
660 2012-01-09 20:27:33 <luke-jr> doublec: in other words, a human would pick a non-hostile chain?
661 2012-01-09 20:27:47 <Ahimoth> yes, but if you issue a checkpoint, and some 51% attacker accpets the checkpoint and starts another fork from there
662 2012-01-09 20:27:48 <luke-jr> anyhow, that doesn't seem like a real solution to me
663 2012-01-09 20:27:56 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: Call the feature Fed-lock.
664 2012-01-09 20:28:01 <Ahimoth> repeats every time you checkpoint
665 2012-01-09 20:28:08 <doublec> luke-jr: I haven't been considering it as a 'pick a chain' checkpoint, but a no need to constantly send out new clients with checkpoints
666 2012-01-09 20:28:15 <doublec> which i0coin suffers from and it's a drag
667 2012-01-09 20:28:15 <luke-jr> perhaps better would be to try to detect different miners, and when there's a fork, prefer a different miner
668 2012-01-09 20:28:23 <gmaxwell> No, the solution is to have the right overall incentives, and that means providing lasting value rather than dorking bitcoin clones for people to speculate on.
669 2012-01-09 20:28:47 <doublec> but if I was "pick a chain" i'd have a JSON-RPC command that returns the checkpoint and have people know anything beyond that is dangerous
670 2012-01-09 20:28:48 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that's one, but I think a technical solution would be cool too
671 2012-01-09 20:29:02 <gruez> luke-jr: how hard is it to build cgminer?
672 2012-01-09 20:29:05 <Ahimoth> gmaxwell: I think there will always be someone to poop on a project purely for entertainment, if the cost to them is low
673 2012-01-09 20:29:05 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: IIRC you don't think that exists, but it can't hurt for them to try
674 2012-01-09 20:29:08 <luke-jr> gruez: Linux?
675 2012-01-09 20:29:13 <Ahimoth> as it was in the clc case
676 2012-01-09 20:29:14 <gruez> windows
677 2012-01-09 20:29:15 <gruez> :(
678 2012-01-09 20:29:18 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: There isn't one. If you have a decenteralized agreement that works, you could just use it instead of the chain. :)
679 2012-01-09 20:29:20 <luke-jr> gruez: good luck
680 2012-01-09 20:29:22 <gruez> mingw should be ok?
681 2012-01-09 20:29:25 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: if its valuable the cost won't be low.
682 2012-01-09 20:29:38 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: assuming it doesn't depend on the chain
683 2012-01-09 20:29:43 <gmaxwell> and value doesn't just mean an exchange rate, I mean people will work to protect the system.
684 2012-01-09 20:29:51 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: deterministic auto-lockin might work
685 2012-01-09 20:29:55 <Ahimoth> yeah, the value of clc was actually pretty good at launch (for an alt-chain)
686 2012-01-09 20:30:03 <Ahimoth> but it cost luke pretty m,uch nothing to shut it down
687 2012-01-09 20:30:05 <doublec> gmaxwell: a coin with such a solution would have value
688 2012-01-09 20:30:05 <gruez> OH SHIT
689 2012-01-09 20:30:10 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: any such scheme people have suggested is vulnerable to lightcone paritioning.
690 2012-01-09 20:30:10 <gruez> tons of dependencies
691 2012-01-09 20:30:15 <gruez> ???/ragequit
692 2012-01-09 20:30:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ie, if you receive two block 500s within a 10 minute window, stick to the one with the lower hash
693 2012-01-09 20:30:58 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: e.g. you make two forks right at the limits and then annouce them to different parts of the network at the same time.
694 2012-01-09 20:31:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ?
695 2012-01-09 20:31:15 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: then I fork chains by constantly targeting a slightly higher difficulty.
696 2012-01-09 20:31:33 <gruez> gmaxwell: dont you lose some coins?
697 2012-01-09 20:31:34 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I don't mean the 'bits'
698 2012-01-09 20:31:38 <Ahimoth> gmaxwell: doesn't that only work if the p2p network is split?
699 2012-01-09 20:31:39 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I mean the actual block hash
700 2012-01-09 20:31:57 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: No. The speed of light is finite.
701 2012-01-09 20:32:19 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: (and the finiteness of the speed of light is what makes all of this hard)
702 2012-01-09 20:32:32 <Ahimoth> umm maybe I missed something, but won't one half of the network take block A, and the other half take block B, the side with the most hash power will win in short order
703 2012-01-09 20:32:49 <gmaxwell> Ahimoth: 13:29 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: deterministic auto-lockin might work
704 2012-01-09 20:33:02 <Ahimoth> ahhh ther messages were coming in too fast
705 2012-01-09 20:33:41 <makomk> I think RealSolid tried some kind of limit on the size of reorganizations in SC2 and quickly abandoned it, presumably because someone pointed this out.
706 2012-01-09 20:34:13 <gmaxwell> Yes, well it was pointed out and he did it anyways. The later 'fix' was to hide reorgs in the client.
707 2012-01-09 20:34:30 <BlueMatt> ;;seen gavinandresen
708 2012-01-09 20:34:30 <gmaxwell> (e.g. double spent coins vanish instead of showing unconfirmed forever)
709 2012-01-09 20:34:30 <gribble> gavinandresen was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 6 hours, 41 minutes, and 24 seconds ago: <gavinandresen> morning y'all
710 2012-01-09 20:34:32 <Ahimoth> no, I think we ahev it locked to 6
711 2012-01-09 20:35:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: so what was wrong with my solution? :p
712 2012-01-09 20:35:57 <doublec> gmaxwell: IIRC that wasn't done as a 'fix', it was done because he genuinely believes it to be a big to have 0 confirmation transactions that will never resolve and can't be deleted
713 2012-01-09 20:36:02 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: the attacker will just make sure they get a higher hash. e.g. by tossing the loser.. if they are mining in advance, they'll just target higher values so that they still have >50% apparent power.
714 2012-01-09 20:36:05 <doublec> s/big/bug
715 2012-01-09 20:36:41 <gmaxwell> doublec: hm. Showing them as "dead" or "invalid" makes sense to me, vanishing them.. meh.
716 2012-01-09 20:37:01 <gmaxwell> doublec: good to know in any case.
717 2012-01-09 20:37:14 <doublec> yeah I made the point that if dong it his way was normal then I'd never have noticed the double spends on my exchange
718 2012-01-09 20:37:19 <doublec> s/dong/doing
719 2012-01-09 20:37:34 <doublec> since the transactions would be gone
720 2012-01-09 20:37:44 <Ahimoth> well thats a wallet issue
721 2012-01-09 20:37:49 <makomk> Come to think of it, when  pools started finding their blocks were becoming invalid after more confirmations than they should RS just got them to not report the blocks.
722 2012-01-09 20:38:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: they won't get a higher hash all the time&
723 2012-01-09 20:38:39 <Ahimoth> we had a re-org issue with the trust nodes at first
724 2012-01-09 20:38:56 <luke-jr> targetting a higher difficulty will just make it take longer to recover
725 2012-01-09 20:39:01 <Ahimoth> which was part of the reason for the invalids
726 2012-01-09 20:46:08 <Levino> Hey Guys. Anyone set up bitcoinjs and webcoin?
727 2012-01-09 20:59:37 <BlueMatt> does anyone have a copy of the wiki Network page?
728 2012-01-09 20:59:49 <BlueMatt> nevermind, it finally loaded...wtf?
729 2012-01-09 21:02:36 <BlueMatt> goddamit gavin, come back
730 2012-01-09 21:04:33 <sipa> BlueMatt: what you need him for?
731 2012-01-09 21:39:45 <CIA-100> bitcoin: Pieter Wuille master * ra4902c9 / src/wallet.h : Remove unused definition - http://git.io/46kWzg https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a4902c9e7c70ca17d5b6a8c628e0f6e095afb508
732 2012-01-09 21:42:40 <kam1l> hey all, I am trying to tweak the CPU RPC miner to function, it currently makes getwork calls to the pool, but it doesn't send back any shares
733 2012-01-09 21:42:46 <kam1l> is this a known issue?
734 2012-01-09 21:42:59 <sipa> which cpu rpc miner?
735 2012-01-09 21:44:27 <doublec> how long did you wait? Depending on the CPU it might take an hour for it to have a share for the pool
736 2012-01-09 21:44:57 <kam1l> poclbm, and I waited for a few hours for the check
737 2012-01-09 21:45:07 <sipa> which pool?
738 2012-01-09 21:45:12 <kam1l> my own
739 2012-01-09 21:45:19 <sipa> your own bitcoind?
740 2012-01-09 21:45:22 <kam1l> yes
741 2012-01-09 21:45:24 <kam1l> pool is setup properly
742 2012-01-09 21:45:26 <doublec> I thought poclbm was a gpu miner
743 2012-01-09 21:45:29 <kam1l> works perfectly fine with phoenix
744 2012-01-09 21:45:40 <sipa> poclbm is a gpu miner
745 2012-01-09 21:45:42 <kam1l> sec
746 2012-01-09 21:45:59 <sipa> kam1l: are you running pool software, or just directly connecting to bitcoind?
747 2012-01-09 21:48:13 <kam1l> pushpool
748 2012-01-09 21:48:31 <kam1l> along with simplecoin frontend and latest bitcoind, all running fine
749 2012-01-09 21:48:41 <kam1l> ok, it is rpc miner
750 2012-01-09 21:48:44 <kam1l> not poclbm*
751 2012-01-09 21:49:01 <sipa> what hash rate?
752 2012-01-09 21:49:02 <doublec> is that puddinpop's miner? That's the only thing I know called 'rpc miner'
753 2012-01-09 21:49:10 <kam1l> yes
754 2012-01-09 21:49:19 <luke-jr> &
755 2012-01-09 21:49:29 <luke-jr> puddingpop's miners didn't use standard JSON-RPC at all
756 2012-01-09 21:49:30 <doublec> that's pretty old
757 2012-01-09 21:49:40 <doublec> luke-jr: puddinpop released a JSON-RPC series of miners too
758 2012-01-09 21:49:40 <kam1l> good to know luke
759 2012-01-09 21:49:45 <luke-jr> doublec: oh?
760 2012-01-09 21:49:46 <kam1l> I may have to update
761 2012-01-09 21:49:47 <doublec> luke-jr: they were called the RPC miners
762 2012-01-09 21:49:57 <doublec> luke-jr: the other ones were the non-rpc miners
763 2012-01-09 21:50:03 <kam1l> :)
764 2012-01-09 21:50:06 <vsrinivas> non-rpc? how did those work?
765 2012-01-09 21:50:11 <kam1l> this one I do believe built for this
766 2012-01-09 21:50:27 <doublec> vsrinivas: custom pool software and bitcoind - they predated getwork
767 2012-01-09 21:50:47 <sipa> they didn't even use the diff-1 trick used by pool shares now
768 2012-01-09 21:50:54 <doublec> vsrinivas: I used to run a pool using it here: http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/
769 2012-01-09 21:51:01 <luke-jr> sipa: I never understood how they worked&
770 2012-01-09 21:51:30 <vsrinivas> they had a custom bitcoind, you mean?
771 2012-01-09 21:51:48 <sipa> yes
772 2012-01-09 21:51:52 <luke-jr> vsrinivas: pool miners don't talk to bitcoind
773 2012-01-09 21:52:08 <sipa> they can, at least
774 2012-01-09 21:52:09 <vsrinivas> not even ultimately?
775 2012-01-09 21:52:22 <luke-jr> sipa: bitcoind doesn't support what pools require
776 2012-01-09 21:52:36 <luke-jr> vsrinivas: that is implementation-specific
777 2012-01-09 21:52:41 <vsrinivas> ok.
778 2012-01-09 21:52:51 <kam1l> pool miner -> pool json -> bitcoind rpc -> network