1 2012-04-08 00:00:40 <[Tycho]> They aren't in my pool because they are already mined.
  2 2012-04-08 00:01:17 <asoltys> Hmm ok, thanks...  I'm using "my wallet" at the blockchain.info site though and it's not letting me spend them, says they're unconfirmed :(
  3 2012-04-08 00:01:37 <[Tycho]> Looks like that site is somehow lagging behind.
  4 2012-04-08 00:01:51 <asoltys> Gotcha
  5 2012-04-08 00:02:18 <[Tycho]> sipa: it worked :) http://blockexplorer.com/tx/e5779b9e78f9650debc2893fd9636d827b26b4ddfa6a8172fe8708c924f5c39d
  6 2012-04-08 00:02:20 <asoltys> Thanks for your help, I'm new to this game
  7 2012-04-08 00:07:17 <[Tycho]> Hmm, blockchaininfo wasn't updated for more than 2.5 hours, but still receives new TXes.
  8 2012-04-08 00:10:13 <asoltys> Maybe it's got separate copies of the chain and only one of them is not updating?
  9 2012-04-08 00:44:26 <sethman895> What happens when bitcoins run out?
 10 2012-04-08 00:44:40 <copumpkin> we all go home and play with lego
 11 2012-04-08 00:45:07 <sethman895> lol
 12 2012-04-08 00:53:42 <andytoshi> sethman895: out of curiosity, what do you mean by "run out"?
 13 2012-04-08 00:54:50 <sethman895> When the amount of coins in circulation hits 21 million.
 14 2012-04-08 00:55:43 <andytoshi> then mining will be fee-based
 15 2012-04-08 00:55:59 <andytoshi> or done for free by financial institutions who just need a currency to operate
 16 2012-04-08 00:56:04 <andytoshi> or something
 17 2012-04-08 00:56:12 <andytoshi> it's a hundred years or so away, hard to tell
 18 2012-04-08 00:56:44 <sethman895> Speaking of mineing, have you seen how many companies dedicated to mineing are on the GLBSE?
 19 2012-04-08 00:57:00 <andytoshi> maybe a bunch of conspiracy theorists will be burying miners in the next 50 years
 20 2012-04-08 00:57:07 <andytoshi> nuclear powered, or geothermal
 21 2012-04-08 00:57:15 <andytoshi> which will just quietly run the network forever
 22 2012-04-08 00:57:32 <andytoshi> sethman895: none that i know of
 23 2012-04-08 00:57:55 <Graet> a few, its no garuntee they will succeed tho :)
 24 2012-04-08 00:58:14 <sethman895> How big is the entire block history? (in MB)
 25 2012-04-08 00:59:31 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, 1100
 26 2012-04-08 00:59:35 <andytoshi> blk0001.dat is 1100mb
 27 2012-04-08 00:59:42 <andytoshi> blkindex.dat is 437
 28 2012-04-08 01:00:12 <BlueMatt> you dont actually need index, but without it bitcoin would just run incredibly slow
 29 2012-04-08 01:00:26 <TuxBlackEdo> bitcoin already runs incredibly slow
 30 2012-04-08 01:00:32 <sethman895> I have dial up so I'll have to go  to the library or something like that.
 31 2012-04-08 01:00:38 <BlueMatt> well, imagine it 1000x worse ;)
 32 2012-04-08 01:00:46 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, no way
 33 2012-04-08 01:00:59 <TuxBlackEdo> there are people still with dial up?
 34 2012-04-08 01:01:34 <sethman895> About 10% of the U.S. still has it.
 35 2012-04-08 01:02:10 <andytoshi> are you saying "screw you" to ISP's, or are there none?
 36 2012-04-08 01:02:29 <andytoshi> is this an ideological thing, a luddite thing, or is dial-up really your best option?
 37 2012-04-08 01:02:37 <andytoshi> (don't mean to give you the 3rd degree, just curious)
 38 2012-04-08 01:02:59 <sethman895> I use a localy based (Niagara Falls region) ISP.
 39 2012-04-08 01:03:38 <sethman895> I live at the borderline for cable.
 40 2012-04-08 01:03:48 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, if i were you
 41 2012-04-08 01:03:51 <TuxBlackEdo> this is what i'd do
 42 2012-04-08 01:04:01 <TuxBlackEdo> i'd knock on one of your neighbors doors
 43 2012-04-08 01:04:05 <TuxBlackEdo> set up an AP
 44 2012-04-08 01:04:12 <TuxBlackEdo> with a hyperlink tech antenna
 45 2012-04-08 01:04:36 <TuxBlackEdo> wait let me find the one you want
 46 2012-04-08 01:04:45 <TuxBlackEdo> 2.4ghz parabolic antenna
 47 2012-04-08 01:05:09 <sethman895> The closest neighbor to me uses HughesNet and they have that really small dialy bandwidth allowance.
 48 2012-04-08 01:05:20 <TuxBlackEdo> dude
 49 2012-04-08 01:05:22 <TuxBlackEdo> $35
 50 2012-04-08 01:05:27 <BlueMatt> you dont have to get (too) fancy, you can get wifi to carry a mile or two with a directional antenna
 51 2012-04-08 01:05:41 <gribble> http://www.altala.net/new/
 52 2012-04-08 01:05:41 <TuxBlackEdo> ;;google lucky HG2415EG-NF
 53 2012-04-08 01:05:46 <TuxBlackEdo> wait not that
 54 2012-04-08 01:05:47 <sethman895> Wok-Fi?
 55 2012-04-08 01:06:18 <sethman895> I do have a couple of PrimeStar dishes.
 56 2012-04-08 01:06:20 <TuxBlackEdo> http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6293
 57 2012-04-08 01:06:25 <TuxBlackEdo> get two of those
 58 2012-04-08 01:06:37 <TuxBlackEdo> at least 5 miles with LoS
 59 2012-04-08 01:07:02 <TuxBlackEdo> BlueMatt, do you approve of -> <TuxBlackEdo> http://www.l-com.com/productfamily.aspx?id=6293
 60 2012-04-08 01:07:16 <sethman895> Would distance slow it down?
 61 2012-04-08 01:07:18 <TuxBlackEdo> $35.00
 62 2012-04-08 01:07:23 <luke-jr> I hate dishes.
 63 2012-04-08 01:07:24 <BlueMatt> sethman895: not if its done well
 64 2012-04-08 01:07:40 <sethman895> Latency?
 65 2012-04-08 01:07:41 <BlueMatt> i mean you wouldnt want to game over it
 66 2012-04-08 01:07:48 <BlueMatt> but actual dl speeds should be fine
 67 2012-04-08 01:07:56 <BlueMatt> latency may be the only issue
 68 2012-04-08 01:07:59 <TuxBlackEdo> really?
 69 2012-04-08 01:08:12 <sethman895> I'm a big minecraft player.
 70 2012-04-08 01:08:14 <TuxBlackEdo> how much would a 5 mile link translate to ping times to the router?
 71 2012-04-08 01:08:23 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, and you play on dialup now, right?
 72 2012-04-08 01:08:45 <BlueMatt> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+light+over+5+miles+*+2
 73 2012-04-08 01:08:52 <BlueMatt> 53 microseconds...
 74 2012-04-08 01:09:02 <TuxBlackEdo> thats not even that bad
 75 2012-04-08 01:09:06 <sethman895> Yeah.  Some multi-player servers take forever to load.
 76 2012-04-08 01:09:17 <BlueMatt> but ok, realistically, you probably wont get more than a few ms
 77 2012-04-08 01:09:26 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: erm, what?
 78 2012-04-08 01:09:40 <luke-jr> wifi is like 100ms added even if you're sitting next to the router
 79 2012-04-08 01:09:48 <TuxBlackEdo> haha
 80 2012-04-08 01:09:49 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: on a shitty router/wifi card
 81 2012-04-08 01:09:52 <TuxBlackEdo> oh really luke-jr
 82 2012-04-08 01:09:58 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: normal*
 83 2012-04-08 01:09:58 <sethman895> I love Wolfram Alpha.
 84 2012-04-08 01:10:22 <sethman895> It's like Cha-Cha on steroids.
 85 2012-04-08 01:10:44 <BlueMatt> and those things are damn cheap
 86 2012-04-08 01:11:22 <TuxBlackEdo> luke-jr, i am pinging my router which is in the other corner of the house and I am getting <1ms times
 87 2012-04-08 01:11:40 <luke-jr> WRT54G are also garbage.
 88 2012-04-08 01:11:47 <TuxBlackEdo> i got an e2000
 89 2012-04-08 01:11:52 <BlueMatt> TuxBlackEdo: the problem with wifi, at least in my experience, isnt the best case or average times, but the worse case times
 90 2012-04-08 01:12:17 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: ok, but they still got me 1ms pings and almost perfect theoretical maximum g speeds
 91 2012-04-08 01:12:24 <TuxBlackEdo> I got a 216mbit link to my router
 92 2012-04-08 01:12:28 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: with other wifi networks in the area, and users?
 93 2012-04-08 01:12:51 <luke-jr> (you know, real world scenarios)
 94 2012-04-08 01:13:04 <sethman895> I have consider line of sight.  In rural Niagara County, we do have a lot of trees.
 95 2012-04-08 01:13:06 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895 doesnt need to worry about other wifi networks
 96 2012-04-08 01:13:30 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yea, in my house in a fairly dense neighborhood
 97 2012-04-08 01:13:44 <BlueMatt> (though, to be fair, all the houses were built using concrete blocks for walls...)
 98 2012-04-08 01:13:48 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: are you using legal frequencies? :P
 99 2012-04-08 01:13:50 <luke-jr> o
100 2012-04-08 01:13:52 <BlueMatt> yea
101 2012-04-08 01:13:58 <sethman895> TuxBlackEdo Yeah.  I figured that
102 2012-04-08 01:14:19 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, get two of those $35 antennas
103 2012-04-08 01:14:29 <TuxBlackEdo> and you'll be golden
104 2012-04-08 01:14:34 <BlueMatt> still, if you have good antennas, it wouldnt be unreasonable to see near-perfectly-reliable pings
105 2012-04-08 01:15:02 <BlueMatt> so yea, sethman895 spend some time, find someone with clear los to your house who will share a connection with you, and hack yourself up a fancy wifi rig
106 2012-04-08 01:15:16 <BlueMatt> (and hope it doesnt go out in the rain)
107 2012-04-08 01:15:28 <sethman895> Rain fade.
108 2012-04-08 01:16:17 <TuxBlackEdo> i would accept that problem any day if my alternative were dail up
109 2012-04-08 01:17:49 <sethman895> Going off topic, has anyone tried out Windows 8?
110 2012-04-08 01:22:29 <sethman895> Why did it just go silent?
111 2012-04-08 01:22:49 <BlueMatt> because you changed from off-topic, to off-topic ;)
112 2012-04-08 01:23:09 <BlueMatt> or people around here dont like windows ;)
113 2012-04-08 01:23:30 <TuxBlackEdo> it's the latter
114 2012-04-08 01:23:47 <luke-jr> does anyone here use Windows?
115 2012-04-08 01:24:03 <sethman895> I don't either.  I just use it becuase it is cheaper than a Mac and Linux has no drivers for my modem.
116 2012-04-08 01:24:25 <luke-jr> &
117 2012-04-08 01:24:34 <TuxBlackEdo> no 56k drivers for linux?
118 2012-04-08 01:24:48 <sethman895> Expensive ones.
119 2012-04-08 01:25:33 <sethman895> $25 USD
120 2012-04-08 01:25:34 <sethman895> It's a winmodem.
121 2012-04-08 01:30:28 <Graet> i use windows
122 2012-04-08 01:30:33 <Graet> and linux
123 2012-04-08 01:31:05 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, http://www.ebay.com/itm/140496944097
124 2012-04-08 01:31:06 <BlueMatt> /kick Graet traitor
125 2012-04-08 01:31:12 <Graet> ?
126 2012-04-08 01:31:17 <BlueMatt> <Graet> i use windows
127 2012-04-08 01:31:18 <sethman895> I used to use Linux.  I probably am going to again when Ubuntu 12.04 comes out.
128 2012-04-08 01:31:28 <Graet> i support both, so i helps...
129 2012-04-08 01:31:39 <Graet> it*
130 2012-04-08 01:31:48 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, 5 miles under ideal conditions
131 2012-04-08 01:32:13 <Graet> and whether we like it or not a *lot* of ppl use windows :)
132 2012-04-08 01:32:46 <sethman895> I use Macs when I can.  I love them.  I love that OS X is Unix based too.
133 2012-04-08 01:32:49 <BlueMatt> Graet: ok, to be fair I use windows for gaming and win vms for testing...
134 2012-04-08 01:32:55 <Graet> :)
135 2012-04-08 01:33:14 <Graet> should we just /part together BlueMatt :P
136 2012-04-08 01:33:16 <Graet> lmao
137 2012-04-08 01:33:21 <BlueMatt> probably
138 2012-04-08 01:33:25 <Graet> :P
139 2012-04-08 01:34:11 <sethman895> Why is OpenVMS called OPEN when it isn't?
140 2012-04-08 01:34:26 <Graet> catchy name?
141 2012-04-08 01:35:45 <sethman895> Is there any FreeBSD/Darwin ports of bitcoin?
142 2012-04-08 01:35:47 <luke-jr> tbh, I'd prefer Windows over Mac.
143 2012-04-08 01:35:58 <sethman895> WHY?!?
144 2012-04-08 01:36:03 <luke-jr> Mac is just unusable.
145 2012-04-08 01:36:09 <luke-jr> not to mention more closed.
146 2012-04-08 01:36:25 <TuxBlackEdo> yep
147 2012-04-08 01:36:57 <luke-jr> btw, FreeBSD and Darwin aren't related.
148 2012-04-08 01:37:02 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, check this ebay store out for everything you need (good guy I bought from him before) http://www.ebay.com/sch/simplewifi/m.html
149 2012-04-08 01:37:16 <sethman895> Mac is based on Darwin.  That's based on FreeBSD and the Mach/XNU kernel.
150 2012-04-08 01:37:59 <sethman895> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
151 2012-04-08 01:38:24 <luke-jr> sethman895: no, Darwin is based on NeXT, which was based on BSD (not FreeBSD)
152 2012-04-08 01:38:40 <sethman895> Wikipedia says all three/
153 2012-04-08 01:38:45 <sethman895> .
154 2012-04-08 01:40:50 <Graet> wikipedia is renowned for being 100% accurate :P
155 2012-04-08 01:40:59 <luke-jr> (it also doesn't say that)
156 2012-04-08 01:41:29 <sethman895> Well, Science Magazine says its just as accurate as Encylopedia Britticania.
157 2012-04-08 01:44:49 <sethman895> What are with the releases of OS X being so soon apart?  Lion was released last summer and Mountain Lion will be this summer.
158 2012-04-08 01:45:21 <graingert> Graet: if wikipedia is wrong, it's your fault
159 2012-04-08 01:45:37 <BlueMatt> graingert: its also yours
160 2012-04-08 01:45:44 <graingert> yep
161 2012-04-08 01:45:49 <sethman895> I wish Ubuntu still had ShipIt, with my dial up.
162 2012-04-08 01:45:50 <Diablo-D3> sethman895: each release has less changes than the last
163 2012-04-08 01:45:50 <graingert> send a letter to the editor
164 2012-04-08 01:46:02 <graingert> Diablo-D3: it's closer to getting done
165 2012-04-08 01:46:10 <Diablo-D3> graingert: it'll never be done
166 2012-04-08 01:46:17 <Diablo-D3> honestly, osx needs a top to bottom total rewrite
167 2012-04-08 01:46:25 <Diablo-D3> theres just too much goddamned cruft
168 2012-04-08 01:46:33 <sethman895> Well, Mountain Lion is going to be more iOS-ified.
169 2012-04-08 01:46:44 <Diablo-D3> lion started the iosification
170 2012-04-08 01:46:45 <BlueMatt> theres too much goddamned cruft in every os
171 2012-04-08 01:46:49 <graingert> I'd like to see linux have sandboxing
172 2012-04-08 01:46:51 <BlueMatt> X11 anyone?
173 2012-04-08 01:46:55 <graingert> buh
174 2012-04-08 01:46:59 <graingert> time for wailand
175 2012-04-08 01:47:00 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: x11 was the standard though
176 2012-04-08 01:47:10 <BlueMatt> that doesnt mean its not full of cruft now
177 2012-04-08 01:47:18 <Diablo-D3> eh, its not full of cruft in that sense
178 2012-04-08 01:47:30 <Diablo-D3> its a protocol that doesnt depreciate older features to maintain compatibility
179 2012-04-08 01:47:36 <Diablo-D3> supporting older features on x11 is very damned easy
180 2012-04-08 01:47:39 <sethman895> X11 is not going to be in OS X now.
181 2012-04-08 01:47:41 <BlueMatt> which is the source of all cruft
182 2012-04-08 01:47:42 <Diablo-D3> it doesnt require cruft
183 2012-04-08 01:47:52 <Diablo-D3> sethman895: it "is", you just use the official X builds for it now
184 2012-04-08 01:47:59 <Diablo-D3> apple doesnt bless their own
185 2012-04-08 01:48:01 <Diablo-D3> thats the only change
186 2012-04-08 01:48:03 <BlueMatt> if it werent for backward-compat, windows would be 100x less crufty
187 2012-04-08 01:48:11 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: that I can admit to being true
188 2012-04-08 01:48:17 <Diablo-D3> you've never seen microsoft's prototype OS
189 2012-04-08 01:48:24 <BlueMatt> which one?
190 2012-04-08 01:48:25 <Diablo-D3> its surprisingly well designed for what it is
191 2012-04-08 01:48:29 <sethman895> 10.8 just tells you to check out this XQuartz on Mac OS Forge.
192 2012-04-08 01:48:33 <Diablo-D3> singularity, but it has a different name now
193 2012-04-08 01:48:36 <Diablo-D3> sethman895: exactly.
194 2012-04-08 01:48:40 <sethman895> Midori?
195 2012-04-08 01:48:50 <Diablo-D3> midori is that other thing
196 2012-04-08 01:49:32 <sethman895> Midori is sopused to be the commercial Singularity.
197 2012-04-08 01:49:35 <Diablo-D3> yeah
198 2012-04-08 01:49:44 <Diablo-D3> singularity is a research project that thats all it will ever be
199 2012-04-08 01:49:52 <Diablo-D3> midori is a possible version of windows that uses singularity tech
200 2012-04-08 01:50:06 <Diablo-D3> you know what pisses me off though?
201 2012-04-08 01:50:10 <Diablo-D3> the NT kernel is very well designed
202 2012-04-08 01:50:15 <sethman895> There hasn't been any Singularity releases in awhile.
203 2012-04-08 01:50:18 <Diablo-D3> you know what makes windows a total pile of shit?
204 2012-04-08 01:50:29 <Diablo-D3> the userland.
205 2012-04-08 01:50:32 <Diablo-D3> the win32 userland.
206 2012-04-08 01:50:36 <Diablo-D3> thats what fucks it up
207 2012-04-08 01:50:44 <Diablo-D3> ever use SFU? thats a unix that runs natively on the NT kernel
208 2012-04-08 01:50:48 <Diablo-D3> it uses none of the win32 userland
209 2012-04-08 01:50:51 <Diablo-D3> and its very fucking fast.
210 2012-04-08 01:50:55 <Diablo-D3> absurdly so.
211 2012-04-08 01:51:06 <Diablo-D3> you know who designed the NT kernel? the guy who designed the VMS kernel.
212 2012-04-08 01:51:13 <sethman895> Really?
213 2012-04-08 01:51:20 <Diablo-D3> someone who knows more about OS design than everyone in here combined, me included.
214 2012-04-08 01:51:36 <Diablo-D3> yet they take this rather decent kernel and bolt total fucking shit to it
215 2012-04-08 01:52:20 <sethman895> Microsoft made NT 4 for PowerPC.
216 2012-04-08 01:52:40 <Diablo-D3> and alpha
217 2012-04-08 01:52:43 <sethman895> and MIPS
218 2012-04-08 01:52:48 <Diablo-D3> and mips
219 2012-04-08 01:52:50 <Diablo-D3> heh
220 2012-04-08 01:53:01 <Diablo-D3> now where is that file I wrote
221 2012-04-08 01:53:30 <sethman895> Off topic, I really think Sony is evil.
222 2012-04-08 01:53:33 <Diablo-D3> http://git.atheme.org/libmowgli-2/tree/src/libmowgli/platform/machine.h
223 2012-04-08 01:53:38 <Diablo-D3> bam.
224 2012-04-08 01:54:47 <sethman895> Would you ever try a Windows 8 ARM tablet?
225 2012-04-08 01:55:26 <Diablo-D3> probably not
226 2012-04-08 01:55:42 <Diablo-D3> not that Im saying android is good, mind you
227 2012-04-08 01:56:00 <sethman895> I can't wait for Open webOS.
228 2012-04-08 01:56:03 <Diablo-D3> but windows 8's tablet experience (which is completely overhauled from 7s) just isnt it yet.
229 2012-04-08 01:56:09 <Diablo-D3> webos is already open
230 2012-04-08 01:56:16 <Diablo-D3> webos just isnt particularly the answer either
231 2012-04-08 01:57:26 <sethman895> The TouchPad was only in production for 7 weeks.
232 2012-04-08 01:59:07 <sethman895> What's a good Java compiler?
233 2012-04-08 01:59:16 <Diablo-D3> java.
234 2012-04-08 01:59:26 <sethman895> Yeah.
235 2012-04-08 01:59:37 <Diablo-D3> no, I mean java itself is a good java compiler.
236 2012-04-08 01:59:48 <Diablo-D3> java compilers only parse syntax into bytecode
237 2012-04-08 02:00:07 <Diablo-D3> the jvm itself is what does what most people call compiling, and it does it at runtime and during runtime.
238 2012-04-08 02:01:34 <sethman895> I'll have to try out ReactOS.
239 2012-04-08 02:02:26 <brwyatt> sethman895: You'll have to tell me how that is.
240 2012-04-08 02:03:05 <Diablo-D3> reactos is strange
241 2012-04-08 02:03:11 <Diablo-D3> its sorta like wine as an os. sort of.
242 2012-04-08 02:03:16 <Diablo-D3> wine, natively, as an os.
243 2012-04-08 02:03:20 <Diablo-D3> native wine.
244 2012-04-08 02:03:21 <sethman895> It's an operating system designed to be binary compatible with Windows.
245 2012-04-08 02:03:22 <Diablo-D3> as an os.
246 2012-04-08 02:03:29 <Diablo-D3> its like tripping on lsd.
247 2012-04-08 02:03:35 <brwyatt> In my experience, Wine just... doesn't work.
248 2012-04-08 02:03:35 <sethman895> Open-source too..
249 2012-04-08 02:03:44 <Diablo-D3> wine works pretty damned well actually
250 2012-04-08 02:03:53 <brwyatt> Well... yes.
251 2012-04-08 02:03:55 <Diablo-D3> I played portal 2 in it
252 2012-04-08 02:03:58 <sethman895> CrossOver.
253 2012-04-08 02:04:01 <Diablo-D3> beat the whole game, start to finish
254 2012-04-08 02:04:11 <[Tycho]> BTW, ReactOS project coordinator is in this channel :)
255 2012-04-08 02:04:18 <brwyatt> I can't get portal to launch. I got Steam to at least run.
256 2012-04-08 02:04:18 <Diablo-D3> [Tycho]: I dont doubt it
257 2012-04-08 02:04:23 <Diablo-D3> all sorts of weirdos are in here
258 2012-04-08 02:04:35 <sethman895> There should be steam for linux.
259 2012-04-08 02:04:39 <sethman895> and mac.
260 2012-04-08 02:04:41 <Diablo-D3> sethman895: no there shouldnt.
261 2012-04-08 02:04:44 <brwyatt> sethman895: Yes, there should.
262 2012-04-08 02:04:45 <Diablo-D3> and there is steam for macyou idiot
263 2012-04-08 02:04:51 <Diablo-D3> they officially launched that over a year ago
264 2012-04-08 02:04:54 <Diablo-D3> where were you
265 2012-04-08 02:05:04 <sethman895> Really?
266 2012-04-08 02:05:12 <brwyatt> They even had a cool promo video for it.
267 2012-04-08 02:05:26 <[Tycho]> ReactOS is not "Wine", it's a Windows-compatible OS.
268 2012-04-08 02:05:38 <sethman895> It does use some Wine code.
269 2012-04-08 02:05:47 <Diablo-D3> the promo is lol
270 2012-04-08 02:05:56 <Diablo-D3> <portal turret> hi, Im a mac
271 2012-04-08 02:06:01 <Diablo-D3> <tf2 turret> hi, Im a PC
272 2012-04-08 02:06:02 <[Tycho]> Yes, and Wine uses some code by ReactOS developers.
273 2012-04-08 02:06:09 <Diablo-D3> reactos and wine swap code frequently
274 2012-04-08 02:06:26 <Diablo-D3> its the only way to get the vastly undocumented internal shit fleshed out
275 2012-04-08 02:07:03 <[Tycho]> But Wine is mostly useless, compared to ReactOS.
276 2012-04-08 02:08:22 <luke-jr> &
277 2012-04-08 02:08:40 <luke-jr> WINE is most of the use of ReactOS
278 2012-04-08 02:08:40 <sethman895> ...
279 2012-04-08 02:09:39 <[Tycho]> Yeah, and tonal is most of the use of Bitcoin ? :)
280 2012-04-08 02:09:48 <luke-jr> sure
281 2012-04-08 02:11:03 <sethman895> What if Bitcoin went into the mainstream?
282 2012-04-08 02:11:21 <BlueMatt> then it would be mainstream
283 2012-04-08 02:11:56 <sethman895> MintChip
284 2012-04-08 02:12:27 <sethman895> Maybe that will help us.
285 2012-04-08 02:15:08 <sethman895> Has anyone tried Haiku OS?
286 2012-04-08 02:15:30 <[Tycho]> What for ?
287 2012-04-08 02:16:24 <sethman895> Testing and plain old use.
288 2012-04-08 02:16:53 <[Tycho]> I have some doubts about the available applications.
289 2012-04-08 02:17:17 <sethman895> It has complete compatibility with BeOS apps.
290 2012-04-08 02:17:37 <[Tycho]> That's a lot ?
291 2012-04-08 02:18:12 <sethman895> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BeOS_programs
292 2012-04-08 02:18:24 <sethman895> Probably more than that.
293 2012-04-08 02:19:11 <[Tycho]> What are benefits of using BeOS instead of more usual OSes ?
294 2012-04-08 02:19:54 <sethman895> It's supposed to be more simple than other OSes.
295 2012-04-08 02:20:07 <[Tycho]> What does it means ?
296 2012-04-08 02:20:13 <sethman895> Easy to use, powerful
297 2012-04-08 02:20:37 <[Tycho]> Looks the same for me. How it's easier than windows ?
298 2012-04-08 02:21:25 <sethman895> It isn't.  http://haiku-os.org/
299 2012-04-08 02:22:49 <sethman895> Linux-based distributions stack up software -- the Linux kernel, the X Window System, and various DEs with disparate toolkits such as GTK+ and Qt -- that do not necessarily share the same guidelines and/or goals. This lack of consistency and overall vision manifests itself in increased complexity, insufficient integration, and inefficient solutions, making the use of your computer more complicated than it should actually be.
300 2012-04-08 02:23:04 <sethman895> Instead, Haiku has a single focus on personal computing and is driven by a unified vision for the whole OS. That, we believe, enables Haiku to provide a leaner, cleaner and more efficient system capable of providing a better user experience that is simple and uniform throughout.
301 2012-04-08 02:23:13 <sethman895> from the Haiku FAQ
302 2012-04-08 02:23:23 <[Tycho]> Well, I was not comparing it to Linux.
303 2012-04-08 02:23:38 <sethman895> Forgot.
304 2012-04-08 02:25:38 <sethman895> It's open source.  That's better.
305 2012-04-08 02:25:45 <sethman895> than closed.
306 2012-04-08 02:26:10 <[Tycho]> Normal users (~95+%) don't care about this at all.
307 2012-04-08 02:26:19 <sethman895> Yeah.
308 2012-04-08 02:26:55 <sethman895> Off topic, do you like electronic music?
309 2012-04-08 02:27:10 <[Tycho]> Sometimes. But I'm not THAT Tycho.
310 2012-04-08 02:27:46 <sethman895> I especially like Daft Punk and deadmau5.
311 2012-04-08 02:28:08 <[Tycho]> Never heard about "deadmau5".
312 2012-04-08 02:28:40 <sethman895> He's Canadian.  He has that song Ghosts 'N' Stuff.
313 2012-04-08 02:28:52 <Diablo-D3> deadmas sucks badly
314 2012-04-08 02:29:01 <Diablo-D3> I wish people would quit saying hes good
315 2012-04-08 02:29:07 <Diablo-D3> hes just a poser that wishes he had talent
316 2012-04-08 02:29:17 <sethman895> He's great!
317 2012-04-08 02:30:49 <[Tycho]> Electronic like this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BLFcIwo2Hk
318 2012-04-08 02:31:43 <[Tycho]> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwjL35LG-p4
319 2012-04-08 02:31:49 <sethman895> I have dial up.  Genres like house, Progressive house, minimal
320 2012-04-08 02:32:01 <[Tycho]> Wow. Dialup still exists ?
321 2012-04-08 02:32:03 <[Tycho]> Just wow.
322 2012-04-08 02:32:38 <sethman895> I'm part of that 10% of the U.S. population.
323 2012-04-08 02:33:08 <gmaxwell> Next you're going to tell us people are still using IRC.
324 2012-04-08 02:33:23 <sethman895> LOL
325 2012-04-08 02:35:29 <sethman895> What is with Wikipedia semi protection?
326 2012-04-08 02:36:19 <Diablo-D3> dialup doesnt exist
327 2012-04-08 02:36:29 <sethman895> I wish.
328 2012-04-08 02:36:36 <Diablo-D3> I mean, ignore the fact I used to download anime off dialup
329 2012-04-08 02:37:37 <gmaxwell> sethman895: semi protected pages can only be edited by 'established' accounts.
330 2012-04-08 02:38:32 <TuxBlackEdo> Diablo-D3, hentai*
331 2012-04-08 02:39:18 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: nope, anime
332 2012-04-08 02:39:28 <Diablo-D3> you know, honestly, I dont really care for most hentai
333 2012-04-08 02:43:26 <sethman895> Suddenly, Internet Explorer got better.  IE9 and 10 pass the Acid3 test.
334 2012-04-08 02:44:39 <TuxBlackEdo> sethman895, 24-30dBi 2.4ghz directional parabolic dish antenna
335 2012-04-08 02:44:46 <gmaxwell> sethman895: not really. They make the page say "pass" but they display it wrong.
336 2012-04-08 02:45:32 <gmaxwell> (The acid test requirement isn't just that it says pass...)
337 2012-04-08 02:46:59 <TuxBlackEdo> gmaxwell, the acid3 test doesn't say "pass"
338 2012-04-08 02:47:25 <TuxBlackEdo> the animation it makes has to be smooth and it has to hit 100/100
339 2012-04-08 02:47:34 <gmaxwell> (it says 100/100)
340 2012-04-08 02:48:22 <gmaxwell> TuxBlackEdo: and it has to produce identical output to the reference, Firefox, Safari, Opera do. IE does not.
341 2012-04-08 02:48:26 <gmaxwell> (IIRC)
342 2012-04-08 02:48:41 <TuxBlackEdo> i can get it to work in chrome 50% of the time
343 2012-04-08 02:49:08 <TuxBlackEdo> if i open a brand new chrome window and do the test it works, but if i open it in a new tab it looks weird
344 2012-04-08 02:50:18 <TuxBlackEdo> since i am in a dev channel i guess it wouldn't hurt to ask a question on a project I am doing
345 2012-04-08 02:51:37 <TuxBlackEdo> Is there any way to properly set z-indexes for embedded flash/youtube videos. I have a problem that when I activate certain controls on different instances (e.g. closing a youtube ad) that it brings that flash to the front (rather then keeping the layers that i set in my css/styles)
346 2012-04-08 02:52:25 <TuxBlackEdo> amazingly this behavior only happens in chrome
347 2012-04-08 02:52:34 <TuxBlackEdo> so i should be asking in #chrome i guess
348 2012-04-08 02:53:10 <Diablo-D3> TuxBlackEdo: no
349 2012-04-08 02:53:16 <Diablo-D3> its a linux bug btw
350 2012-04-08 02:53:19 <Diablo-D3> even chrome is effected
351 2012-04-08 02:53:19 <sethman895> I love chrome.
352 2012-04-08 02:53:27 <Diablo-D3> because the way flash works in linux, it just draws all over shit
353 2012-04-08 02:53:35 <TuxBlackEdo> yep :(
354 2012-04-08 02:53:40 <Diablo-D3> the easy way is to just not use flash
355 2012-04-08 02:53:47 <gmaxwell> It's not just linux. In general plugins _can't_ integrate into the browser imaging pipeline.
356 2012-04-08 02:53:54 <gmaxwell> And if they did it would be doubly slow.
357 2012-04-08 02:54:02 <TuxBlackEdo> yes...
358 2012-04-08 02:54:07 <BlueMatt> in general, plugins suck
359 2012-04-08 02:54:18 <sethman895> Yes
360 2012-04-08 02:56:46 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: they could
361 2012-04-08 02:56:49 <Diablo-D3> nsapi doesnt offer it
362 2012-04-08 02:57:45 <Diablo-D3> all you do is just hand them a false gles context and make them do gles context interaction synchronously using a callback called by the browser
363 2012-04-08 02:58:07 <gmaxwell> 21:53 < gmaxwell> And if they did it would be doubly slow.
364 2012-04-08 02:58:17 <Diablo-D3> nothing I said was slow.
365 2012-04-08 02:58:44 <Diablo-D3> plus, flash can offload everything to the browser anyhow
366 2012-04-08 02:58:47 <gmaxwell> copying the output _at least_ two more times as a pure framebuffer will be slow.
367 2012-04-08 02:58:54 <Diablo-D3> it could be reimplemented a javascript plugin that uses <video> and webgl.
368 2012-04-08 02:59:30 <BlueMatt> or we could just all stop using flash and move on
369 2012-04-08 02:59:39 <Diablo-D3> bluematt: thats what I just said.
370 2012-04-08 02:59:48 <gmaxwell> People are constantly bitching about flash and html5 video playback performance vs native players and that slowness comes purely from the couple extra copies that the flash or html (respectively) rendering pipeline needs to make.
371 2012-04-08 03:00:15 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: except thats 100% bullshit
372 2012-04-08 03:00:22 <Diablo-D3> browsers are free to use hardware acceleration to decode
373 2012-04-08 03:00:26 <Diablo-D3> and on many OS, they do
374 2012-04-08 03:00:53 <sethman895> Hey Arnold is on. :)
375 2012-04-08 03:00:55 <gmaxwell> No, they can't not while actually being integrated with the rendering pipeline (which, in particular _requires_ rgb compositing)
376 2012-04-08 03:01:14 <Diablo-D3> firefox on both windows and osx uses hardware decoding for <video>.
377 2012-04-08 03:01:22 <gmaxwell> (well, to be fair GL mode firefox _does_ doe this, but it requires the entire page rendering to be opengl to achieve it)
378 2012-04-08 03:01:39 <Diablo-D3> opengl is the native rendering API of linux, really.
379 2012-04-08 03:02:11 <Diablo-D3> unless firefox wants to build its own gallium renderer, anyways
380 2012-04-08 06:19:54 <SomeoneWeird> lol
381 2012-04-08 08:28:52 <rebroad> Hi.. I'm currently modifying bitcoin to make it download blocks better and not forget what it's doing, as happens with my ISP... I was wondering, would a dedicated thread for dealing with progressing the chain be a good idea?
382 2012-04-08 08:29:19 <rebroad> and perhaps, for limited bandwidth nodes, even suspending other activities during that stage while it catches up?
383 2012-04-08 08:43:50 <blinkbat> not this guy again
384 2012-04-08 08:44:05 <blinkbat> "oh my internet connection sucks so im gonna modify bitcoin to somehow scrape along and not bork out"
385 2012-04-08 08:45:20 <sipa> well, bitcoin certainly could use some improvement about how to manage downloading the blockchain
386 2012-04-08 08:45:34 <sipa> but with his connection it's probably going to suck forever
387 2012-04-08 08:45:56 <TD> i'm kind of surprised the ISP takes the approach of allowing non-web connections then resetting them
388 2012-04-08 08:46:00 <TD> why not just block != 80/443?
389 2012-04-08 08:46:12 <blinkbat> im just wondering, why doesnt he just get a better isp...
390 2012-04-08 08:46:12 <sipa> TD: people would complain
391 2012-04-08 08:46:33 <TD> block chain download management is hard
392 2012-04-08 08:46:46 <TD> i'm planning another overhaul of it for bitcoinj at some point
393 2012-04-08 08:47:07 <sipa> well, if the connection from which the chain was being downloaded goes down, it's almost trivial to just send a getblocks somewhere else
394 2012-04-08 08:47:17 <sipa> but that doesn't happen
395 2012-04-08 08:52:27 <TD> there's down and then there's "very slow"
396 2012-04-08 08:52:47 <TD> there's also "you connected to a peer that got stuck and is way behind other peers" or even worse "you connect to 3 peers and all of them report different chain heights"
397 2012-04-08 08:52:55 <TD> how is the current download peer selected?
398 2012-04-08 08:53:10 <sipa> very simple: just the first established connection
399 2012-04-08 08:53:16 <TD> that's what i thought
400 2012-04-08 08:53:20 <TD> bitcoinj does the same thing
401 2012-04-08 08:53:33 <TD> i got bug reports like, sometimes the download peer is stalled and then the chain never downloads
402 2012-04-08 08:54:01 <TD> transactions are downloaded from every peer though, right. there's no attempt to conserve bandwidth by only fetching once
403 2012-04-08 08:54:26 <sipa> transactions are downloaded from the first that sends you an inv
404 2012-04-08 08:54:37 <TD> ok
405 2012-04-08 09:25:10 <DrHaribo> Is there a way, using bitcoind json-rpc interface, to tell the difference between a tx that isn't presently in the longest chain, and a tx that does not affect my wallet?
406 2012-04-08 09:26:19 <DrHaribo> Looking up an orphaned generation tx with "gettransaction" I get: error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid or non-wallet transaction id"}
407 2012-04-08 09:27:26 <sipa> DrHaribo: there's a patch ready for 0.7 that extends gettransaction to non-wallet transactions
408 2012-04-08 09:29:16 <DrHaribo> But this is a wallet transaction. On testnet I created two blocks at the same height. I can look up both blocks with "getblock", but only one of the generation trasanctions with "gettransaction".
409 2012-04-08 09:29:39 <sipa> huh
410 2012-04-08 09:29:56 <sipa> aah, i see
411 2012-04-08 09:30:31 <DrHaribo> (I used "getmemorypool" to submit two new blocks at the same height)
412 2012-04-08 09:34:05 <DrHaribo> I guess if a block has never been part of the longest chain, you can't look at its transactions.
413 2012-04-08 09:35:02 <sipa> gettransaction only interacts with the wallet, not with the block chain database
414 2012-04-08 09:35:18 <sipa> but i believe coinbases are only added to the wallet after 1 confirmation
415 2012-04-08 09:35:50 <DrHaribo> Ah. The 0.7 patches will likely not change that, right?
416 2012-04-08 09:41:11 <TD> DrHaribo: what are you trying to do? might some other bitcoin implementation work better for you?
417 2012-04-08 09:47:02 <DrHaribo> TD: I'm changing my mining pool backend to keep track of new transactions and how they may change back and forth between being orphaned and not.
418 2012-04-08 09:47:24 <TD> ok
419 2012-04-08 09:47:48 <TD> what's the reason, if you don't mind me asking? i don't know much about pooled mining
420 2012-04-08 09:48:57 <DrHaribo> You need to keep tabs on the generation transactions so you can pay out to miners.
421 2012-04-08 09:49:20 <DrHaribo> If a gen tx is orphaned right now, I can't say "oh it's orphaned, I'll never look at it again."
422 2012-04-08 09:49:34 <DrHaribo> It might become valid 30 minutes later, and I need to pay out those coins.
423 2012-04-08 10:21:10 <luke-jr> sipa: generation transactions don't *exist* until 1 confirm& :p
424 2012-04-08 10:43:34 <blinkbat> im having a bit of trouble with my transaction
425 2012-04-08 10:43:35 <blinkbat> 46a37be388bd0c901640d2c96591dd441b1a914f7aa2997c6224552232c88218
426 2012-04-08 10:44:07 <blinkbat> it was sent about 3 hours ago
427 2012-04-08 10:44:11 <blinkbat> yet no confirms
428 2012-04-08 10:44:23 <blinkbat> another simular transaction made at the same time went through and has like 13 confirms
429 2012-04-08 10:44:26 <blinkbat> whats up??
430 2012-04-08 10:45:15 <luke-jr> not enough fees?
431 2012-04-08 10:46:07 <blinkbat> what can i do about it though?
432 2012-04-08 10:46:11 <blinkbat> i cant undo the transaction can i?
433 2012-04-08 10:46:19 <luke-jr> nope
434 2012-04-08 10:46:23 <luke-jr> how did you send it?
435 2012-04-08 10:46:24 <blinkbat> :/
436 2012-04-08 10:46:27 <blinkbat> blockchain.info wallet
437 2012-04-08 10:46:30 <luke-jr> Bitcoin-Qt doesn't let people send stuff like that
438 2012-04-08 10:46:31 <luke-jr> ah
439 2012-04-08 10:46:39 <blinkbat> like what?
440 2012-04-08 10:47:13 <blinkbat> i dont get this
441 2012-04-08 10:47:21 <blinkbat> why didnt blockchain.info ask me to add a fee?
442 2012-04-08 10:47:32 <luke-jr> no idea
443 2012-04-08 10:47:45 <luke-jr> how much were you trying to send?
444 2012-04-08 10:47:59 <blinkbat> 0.04 in total
445 2012-04-08 10:48:09 <blinkbat> it does wierd things like send the remaining amount in the wallet back to itself
446 2012-04-08 10:48:12 <blinkbat> which is like 6 btc
447 2012-04-08 10:48:44 <blinkbat> luke-jr: what generally happens if a transaction is sent that doesnt have a high enough fee? is the btc lost in the system?
448 2012-04-08 10:49:05 <luke-jr> blinkbat: it just never confirms
449 2012-04-08 10:49:20 <blinkbat> that means the money is lost?
450 2012-04-08 10:49:44 <luke-jr> when you're sending amounts like 0.008663 BTC, you really need to pay a fee
451 2012-04-08 10:49:51 <luke-jr> blinkbat: no, it means it isn't confirmed.
452 2012-04-08 10:50:04 <sipa> blinkbat: not lost technically
453 2012-04-08 10:50:05 <luke-jr> nobody should really be demanding confirmations for such tiny payments anyhow
454 2012-04-08 10:50:09 <blinkbat> luke-jr: if it never confirms, how do you get the btc back?
455 2012-04-08 10:50:15 <luke-jr> blinkbat: you don't.
456 2012-04-08 10:50:18 <luke-jr> you sent it
457 2012-04-08 10:50:22 <blinkbat> ok luke-jr, isnt that a bit flawed?
458 2012-04-08 10:50:31 <blinkbat> the person who received it cant send it until its confirmed
459 2012-04-08 10:50:42 <luke-jr> they *can*&
460 2012-04-08 10:50:53 <blinkbat> how can they? it isnt even in a block?
461 2012-04-08 10:51:02 <luke-jr> it doesn't need to be.
462 2012-04-08 10:51:09 <sipa> blinkbat: there's two views: the client and the protocol
463 2012-04-08 10:51:20 <luke-jr> blinkbat: did blockchain.info charge *you* a fee to send this?
464 2012-04-08 10:51:30 <blinkbat> no
465 2012-04-08 10:52:00 <sipa> blinkbat: for the protocol, if it doesn't confirm, you can just try spending it again; the first that gets mined wins
466 2012-04-08 10:52:22 <blinkbat> oh ok
467 2012-04-08 10:52:35 <luke-jr> blinkbat: if you send 0.01 BTC to 15eqU4vZViDeiB8xAjtZ9xJEETMSfdvKsM , I will confirm it
468 2012-04-08 10:52:48 <blinkbat> :/
469 2012-04-08 10:52:49 <sipa> blinkbat: also, the protocol does not require confirmations before spending (both transactions will have to be mined still)
470 2012-04-08 10:53:26 <sipa> however, the client will not allow spending before confirmation (unless it's a send-to-self)
471 2012-04-08 10:53:46 <sipa> and once sent, the client will not allow spending it again
472 2012-04-08 10:54:04 <luke-jr> blinkbat: if you need the first transaction to go through before you can send the fee, I'll take a promise to do so as sufficient :p
473 2012-04-08 10:54:32 <blinkbat> luke-jr: huh?
474 2012-04-08 10:54:46 <luke-jr> blinkbat: huh what?
475 2012-04-08 10:55:04 <blinkbat> i didnt quite understand what you said
476 2012-04-08 10:55:23 <blinkbat> oh nm, im cool luke-jr
477 2012-04-08 10:55:37 <luke-jr> blinkbat: if you send 0.01 BTC to 15eqU4vZViDeiB8xAjtZ9xJEETMSfdvKsM - or promise to do so as soon as your txn confirms, if you can't right away - I will confirm it
478 2012-04-08 10:55:38 <blinkbat> id rather not pay 0.01 for a transaction thats only 0.04
479 2012-04-08 10:56:07 <luke-jr> well, I can't exactly ask for less& actually, I suppose I could, since I can just confirm that too
480 2012-04-08 10:56:21 <blinkbat> luke-jr: the standard fee is like 0.0005
481 2012-04-08 10:56:21 <luke-jr> blinkbat: how about the standard fee of 0.0005 BTC? :p
482 2012-04-08 10:56:32 <blinkbat> but then id have to pay a fee on the fee
483 2012-04-08 10:56:44 <luke-jr> I thought blockchain.info just let you send less without a fee?
484 2012-04-08 10:56:45 <blinkbat> anyway, its the principal of this
485 2012-04-08 10:56:53 <luke-jr> the principal of this is, you should have paid a fee :p
486 2012-04-08 10:57:04 <blinkbat> if i forget to put a fee in my transaction, i could end up having btc tied up for a long time
487 2012-04-08 10:57:09 <blinkbat> that doesnt seem very good
488 2012-04-08 10:57:20 <luke-jr> that's a problem with blockchain.info's infrastructure
489 2012-04-08 10:57:22 <blinkbat> im lucky it was such a small transaction
490 2012-04-08 10:57:45 <blinkbat> if a newbie is transferring several hundred btc... im pretty sure they wont be happy about this kinda situation
491 2012-04-08 10:57:57 <luke-jr> they should have included a fee too
492 2012-04-08 10:58:19 <luke-jr> it's pretty well-documented that if you want confirmations in a timely manner, you should include a fee.
493 2012-04-08 10:59:05 <blinkbat> well-documented lol
494 2012-04-08 10:59:07 <blinkbat> haha
495 2012-04-08 10:59:13 <blinkbat> where is it well documented?
496 2012-04-08 10:59:52 <blinkbat> is this what its gonna be like in the future when 2-3 pools have a monopoly over mining... "pay us 10% or your transaction aint getting included"
497 2012-04-08 11:00:22 <luke-jr> no
498 2012-04-08 11:00:31 <luke-jr> since it's not really possible for the miner to know how much you're sending
499 2012-04-08 11:00:33 <sipa> blinkbat: there are a few steps necessary
500 2012-04-08 11:00:55 <blinkbat> luke-jr: huh, arent all the transactions published in the blockchain available for anyone to see?
501 2012-04-08 11:01:09 <sipa> first is allowing clients to redo failing transactions
502 2012-04-08 11:01:54 <sipa> blinkbat: yes, but you cannot know (for certain) what the amount being sent is
503 2012-04-08 11:02:21 <blinkbat> ok
504 2012-04-08 11:02:31 <luke-jr> blinkbat: the transactions don't say how much is being transferred
505 2012-04-08 11:02:59 <luke-jr> [08:48:09] <blinkbat> it does wierd things like send the remaining amount in the wallet back to itself <-- that is *required* by the protocol, and there is no way to know which output is the "remaining amount"
506 2012-04-08 11:03:29 <blinkbat> i see, i never noticed that in the official bitcoin client
507 2012-04-08 11:03:32 <blinkbat> but meh, ill accept that
508 2012-04-08 11:03:45 <sipa> it works the same way
509 2012-04-08 11:03:51 <blinkbat> im just a little frustrated at blockchain.info for not even asking me to add a fee
510 2012-04-08 11:04:12 <sipa> you don't send amounts, you combine and split coins, and transfer their ownership
511 2012-04-08 11:04:15 <luke-jr> blinkbat: and they don't have any "add a fee after the fact" or "cancel transaction"?
512 2012-04-08 11:04:29 <blinkbat> i dont beleive so
513 2012-04-08 11:04:43 <luke-jr> blinkbat: so how about just sending the fee now? :P
514 2012-04-08 11:05:02 <blinkbat> to you luke-jr?
515 2012-04-08 11:05:07 <blinkbat> lol
516 2012-04-08 11:06:06 <superjames> what if i sent thousands of 0.00000001 transactions between two clients.  there is protection against this?
517 2012-04-08 11:06:17 <superjames> if i understand this correctly the absence of a fee would just slow it down but all that shit would still need to be processed
518 2012-04-08 11:06:39 <luke-jr> blinkbat: yes
519 2012-04-08 11:06:43 <blinkbat> i understand that fees are neccesary to keep the system running and stop spam superjames
520 2012-04-08 11:06:57 <blinkbat> i just dont like the idea that the transaction will jsut languish if you dont pay the fee
521 2012-04-08 11:07:02 <luke-jr> superjames: as blinkbat is noticing, such low-amount transactions will *never* be processed
522 2012-04-08 11:07:07 <blinkbat> theres no way to undo a transaction... or include a fee afterwards
523 2012-04-08 11:07:25 <blinkbat> i didnt realise 0.04 btc was a low amount
524 2012-04-08 11:07:29 <luke-jr> blinkbat: just send the fee to 15eqU4vZViDeiB8xAjtZ9xJEETMSfdvKsM
525 2012-04-08 11:07:34 <luke-jr> blinkbat: you didn't send 0.04 BTC
526 2012-04-08 11:07:46 <luke-jr> you sent 0.031337 BTC and 0.008663 BTC
527 2012-04-08 11:07:55 <blinkbat> yeh add them up and it makes 0.04
528 2012-04-08 11:08:06 <luke-jr> 0.008663 BTC is a low amount.
529 2012-04-08 11:08:21 <blinkbat> so if any output in a transaction is low, that makes the entire transaction a low amount
530 2012-04-08 11:08:24 <luke-jr> yes
531 2012-04-08 11:08:28 <blinkbat> thats silly
532 2012-04-08 11:08:39 <blinkbat> i could send 50 bitcoins somewhere, and 0.0000001 another place
533 2012-04-08 11:08:46 <blinkbat> and all of a sudden it becomes a low transaction requiring a fee
534 2012-04-08 11:08:49 <luke-jr> so don't do that without a fee.
535 2012-04-08 11:09:26 <blinkbat> luke-jr: your prepared to confirm it with 0.0005 btc ?
536 2012-04-08 11:09:30 <luke-jr> blinkbat: yes
537 2012-04-08 11:09:42 <blinkbat> ok
538 2012-04-08 11:09:43 <luke-jr> you might need to manually tell me the txnid of the fee tho
539 2012-04-08 11:09:55 <blinkbat> ill pay, but im not gonna be happy about it lol
540 2012-04-08 11:10:13 <luke-jr> meh, it's not like I didn't just send you 0.00065536 BTC the other day :P
541 2012-04-08 11:11:11 <blinkbat> 0.0005 sent to 15eqU4vZViDeiB8xAjtZ9xJEETMSfdvKsM -> Sent 3af12b05261c2f20af2b07129889fd15c0cd85c1d3e91abd89dd298456d22eaf
542 2012-04-08 11:11:28 <blinkbat> luke-jr, oh yeh, about that... that transaction didnt make it through
543 2012-04-08 11:11:35 <blinkbat> it disappeared out my wallet for some reason
544 2012-04-08 11:11:36 <luke-jr> blinkbat: it will when yours does
545 2012-04-08 11:12:24 <luke-jr> OK, all 3 transactions are queued for Eligius's next block
546 2012-04-08 11:12:36 <blinkbat> thank you
547 2012-04-08 11:13:02 <luke-jr> 90% likely it will be within the next 11 hours
548 2012-04-08 11:13:27 <blinkbat> 11 hours!
549 2012-04-08 11:13:29 <blinkbat> lol
550 2012-04-08 11:13:34 <blinkbat> i guess its better than nothing
551 2012-04-08 11:13:44 <luke-jr> I expect sooner, but probability is what it is.
552 2012-04-08 11:14:31 <luke-jr> probably 50% chance within 3 hours or so
553 2012-04-08 11:16:26 <blinkbat> im more convinced than ever that bitcoin needs p2pool
554 2012-04-08 11:16:44 <blinkbat> the major pools have way too much power
555 2012-04-08 11:16:57 <t7> yeah!
556 2012-04-08 11:17:06 <t7> down with all that!
557 2012-04-08 11:17:35 <blinkbat> we also needs a decentralised exchange... ala mintchip
558 2012-04-08 11:17:47 <DrHaribo> blinkbat: How would p2pool help in this situation?
559 2012-04-08 11:18:42 <blinkbat> because im betting at least a substantial minority of people will be nice enough to include transactions for no fees
560 2012-04-08 11:18:42 <luke-jr> blinkbat: p2pool is not the only pool that solves this.
561 2012-04-08 11:18:47 <blinkbat> i donno... maybe im wrong
562 2012-04-08 11:18:59 <blinkbat> ozco.in?
563 2012-04-08 11:19:01 <luke-jr> blinkbat: no
564 2012-04-08 11:19:13 <luke-jr> BitPenny, p2pool, and Eligius (in that order of enabling it)
565 2012-04-08 11:19:29 <blinkbat> how do bitpenny and eligius solve it?
566 2012-04-08 11:19:38 <luke-jr> blinkbat: more importantly, no miners on any of those pools allow free transactions with low amounts
567 2012-04-08 11:19:41 <luke-jr> nor should they :p
568 2012-04-08 11:19:58 <DrHaribo> p2pool allows transactions not allowed by bitcoind by default?
569 2012-04-08 11:20:00 <luke-jr> blinkbat: same way p2pool does: the miners run a local server to generate their own work
570 2012-04-08 11:20:05 <luke-jr> DrHaribo: no
571 2012-04-08 11:20:08 <DrHaribo> s/allows/includes/
572 2012-04-08 11:20:15 <DrHaribo> then it doesn't fix it
573 2012-04-08 11:20:38 <luke-jr> DrHaribo: they fix the "pool has too much power over Bitcoin" problem
574 2012-04-08 11:20:43 <blinkbat> im just worried about bitcoin being monopolized by some asswhole, who charges an arm and a leg to do any kinda transaction :P
575 2012-04-08 11:20:45 <DrHaribo> luke-jr could help you because he has a medium size pool rather than a solo miner. With p2pool you would be out of luck.
576 2012-04-08 11:20:53 <luke-jr> they don't fix the "bitcoind maintainers have too much power over Bitcoin" problem
577 2012-04-08 11:21:12 <luke-jr> blinkbat: if anyone monopolizes Bitcoin, it fails pretty much
578 2012-04-08 11:21:14 <DrHaribo> Do you want to ask every single miner on p2pool to include your transaction that doesn't meet bitcoind rules?
579 2012-04-08 11:21:19 <luke-jr> blinkbat: that's *why* mining is hard
580 2012-04-08 11:22:00 <blinkbat> bitcoind maintainers have no power, the people who run it have all the power
581 2012-04-08 11:22:13 <blinkbat> but meh, ive made my point
582 2012-04-08 11:22:15 <blinkbat> ill shutup now
583 2012-04-08 11:23:54 <luke-jr> blinkbat: bitcoind maintainers are the authority that caused your problem today (from the acceptance side).
584 2012-04-08 11:24:08 <luke-jr> not any pools, not p2pool, etc
585 2012-04-08 11:24:39 <luke-jr> the fact is, that right now, bitcoind maintainers determine the fee rules used by 99% of the network
586 2012-04-08 11:25:02 <blinkbat> oh
587 2012-04-08 11:26:16 <sipa> the plan is change that over time, though
588 2012-04-08 11:26:45 <sipa> the fee policy exists because of spam protection currently, not as mining income
589 2012-04-08 11:26:57 <sipa> that will hopefully also change
590 2012-04-08 11:27:19 <blinkbat> lol, tell luke-jr that :P
591 2012-04-08 11:27:28 <blinkbat> he wanted to charge me 0.01 just to authorise a payment of 0.04
592 2012-04-08 11:27:31 <TD> decentralized exchange is hard but do-able
593 2012-04-08 11:27:44 <blinkbat> not even paypal is that bad
594 2012-04-08 11:27:46 <Blitzboom> decentralized exchange sounds like something that will never gain any traction
595 2012-04-08 11:28:15 <DrHaribo> blinkbat: luke-jr used his evil pool power to bend the rules for you. I don't think you should see him as the bad guy here.
596 2012-04-08 11:28:23 <blinkbat> i dont
597 2012-04-08 11:28:26 <blinkbat> i see the system as the bad guy
598 2012-04-08 11:28:42 <blinkbat> and that worries me because with bitcoin i was looking to the future
599 2012-04-08 11:28:48 <blinkbat> im just trying to extrapolate where things are heading
600 2012-04-08 11:28:52 <blinkbat> and they dont look great
601 2012-04-08 11:29:12 <sipa> where do you see a problem?
602 2012-04-08 11:29:22 <DrHaribo> Well, what is the plan for fees? sipa?
603 2012-04-08 11:29:40 <Graet> using blockchain.info's vwallet i see as a problem
604 2012-04-08 11:29:53 <Graet> more trhan a few ppl have had issues
605 2012-04-08 11:29:55 <TD> blinkbat: it's something the market will resolve over time. take the long view. bitcoin is a long term project. personally i don't think most end users of bitcoin will ever pay fees, ever, because network security will be funded by automatically negotiated assurance contracts
606 2012-04-08 11:30:00 <TD> but that's a minority view, i think :)
607 2012-04-08 11:30:14 <sipa> DrHaribo: first allow clients to revert a transaction that conflicts with the blockchain or doesn't seem to confirm
608 2012-04-08 11:30:22 <blinkbat> automatically negotiated assurance contracts?
609 2012-04-08 11:30:52 <sipa> DrHaribo: next step is making the relay/block policy more configurable
610 2012-04-08 11:31:27 <sipa> the hardest part is making the client suggest a reasonable fee, based on network statistics
611 2012-04-08 11:32:32 <DrHaribo> That does look like a good way forward :)
612 2012-04-08 11:32:36 <luke-jr> [09:27:28] <blinkbat> he wanted to charge me 0.01 just to authorise a payment of 0.04 <-- that was because I was seeing 0.01 BTC as the smallest I could ask
613 2012-04-08 11:32:54 <sipa> and in the very long term, i believe a payment protocol on top of bitcoin, where merchants have deals with transaction processors whom clients send their transactions to and insure against double spends, so payers dont see fees at all anymore
614 2012-04-08 11:33:12 <luke-jr> blinkbat: blockchain.info really should negotiate some miner contracts IMO
615 2012-04-08 11:33:17 <sipa> but that is my personal opinion
616 2012-04-08 11:33:30 <blinkbat> im not blaming you luke-jr, its your pool... my point is, in the future, am i gonna be held ransom to whatever pool happens to be dominating bitcoin just to send my bitcoins around the network
617 2012-04-08 11:34:36 <sipa> blinkbat: the only one who cares about the transaction being in the blockchain, is the receiver, and only in the case he does not trust the sender
618 2012-04-08 11:34:37 <luke-jr> blinkbat: I recently wrote a patch to allow miners more control over the fees they require. Combined with decentralized mining (BitPenny, p2pool, Eligius), this moves fee stuff back to miners, without necessarily breaking the existing model either
619 2012-04-08 11:35:14 <luke-jr> blinkbat: also, I believe your txn should be confirmed.
620 2012-04-08 11:35:28 <blinkbat> sipa: thats not the case when theyre trading and the receiver insists on 6 confirms
621 2012-04-08 11:35:35 <blinkbat> sipa: in that case, its in the buyers interest
622 2012-04-08 11:36:32 <sipa> blinkbat: as said before, merchants will just make a deal with miners and/or insurance firms to deal with reversed transactions
623 2012-04-08 11:37:10 <blinkbat> blinkbat: i somehow dont see that working if what your buying is like a house or private jet
624 2012-04-08 11:37:11 <sipa> blinkbat: people don't wait a month to get their food in a restaurant when paying with a credit card either
625 2012-04-08 11:37:35 <blinkbat> how can an insurer insure more than small transactions?
626 2012-04-08 11:37:36 <sipa> for that kind of sum, nobody cares about waiting an hour
627 2012-04-08 11:37:59 <blinkbat> ok
628 2012-04-08 11:38:09 <sipa> but you're right, there are two different problems
629 2012-04-08 11:38:28 <TD> blinkbat: yes. see the wiki.
630 2012-04-08 11:38:51 <TD> blinkbat: a network assurance contract basically says "i will contribute X BTC to network security if other people contribute enough to make it to at least Y BTC"
631 2012-04-08 11:39:12 <TD> blinkbat: the idea here is to solve the free rider problem. if you attach fees to your transactions, other people benefit from the security you pay for even if they attach no fees
632 2012-04-08 11:39:26 <TD> blinkbat: by allowing automatic "clubbing together" there are features in the bitcoin protocol that can solve this issue
633 2012-04-08 11:39:43 <TD> people who care about high network speeds would automatically keep them there. for everyone else it'd be "ok" for them to be free riders as long as blocks don't get enormous
634 2012-04-08 11:39:50 <blinkbat> ok, im so tired right now i dont understand what your trying to say... but it sounds good
635 2012-04-08 11:41:21 <TD> my explanation wasn't very clear
636 2012-04-08 11:41:29 <TD> suffice it to say, i think most normal end users won't typically be attaching fees
637 2012-04-08 11:41:39 <TD> large market makers like mt gox and other merchants will
638 2012-04-08 11:41:45 <TD> so don't worry about the fee issue too much
639 2012-04-08 11:41:55 <blinkbat> ok im cool
640 2012-04-08 12:46:25 <lordcirth> Anyone know why Armory (latest version, Kubuntu) is giving me a seg fault?
641 2012-04-08 12:52:31 <sipa> lordcirth: etotheipi_ may know :)
642 2012-04-08 12:52:57 <lordcirth> sipa: I would hope so, anyway
643 2012-04-08 12:54:23 <lordcirth> /home/lordcirth/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat is 1121.03 MB
644 2012-04-08 12:54:35 <lordcirth> oops
645 2012-04-08 12:57:44 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: ack!
646 2012-04-08 12:57:53 <etotheipi_> whoa OS?
647 2012-04-08 12:57:57 <etotheipi_> what RAM?
648 2012-04-08 12:59:55 <lordcirth> It says: /home/lordcirth/.bitcoin/blk0001.dat is 1121.03 MB
649 2012-04-08 13:00:24 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Then it seg faults
650 2012-04-08 13:00:33 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: what OS and how much RAM?
651 2012-04-08 13:01:42 <etotheipi_> you are the first segfault report!
652 2012-04-08 13:02:01 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Kubuntu 11, 8 GB
653 2012-04-08 13:02:19 <etotheipi_> I assume, 64-bit OS?
654 2012-04-08 13:03:02 <lordcirth> etothepi_:  yes, 64, sry
655 2012-04-08 13:03:18 <etotheipi_> I bet there's something in your blk0001.dat file that is messing it up
656 2012-04-08 13:03:26 <etotheipi_> though, I don't know what that would be
657 2012-04-08 13:03:54 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: does it work in testnet?
658 2012-04-08 13:04:10 <lordcirth> etothepi_:Like what, and how do I fix it?
659 2012-04-08 13:04:40 <lordcirth> etothepi_; I'll check
660 2012-04-08 13:04:53 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Do I have to run bitcoind in testnet, to do that?
661 2012-04-08 13:06:42 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: have you ever run bitcoind on testnet before?
662 2012-04-08 13:07:23 <lordcirth> etothepi_: No, but I just did. Armory boots fine
663 2012-04-08 13:07:58 <lordcirth> etothepi_: I assume its way out of sync tho
664 2012-04-08 13:08:01 <etotheipi_> how big did it say was the blk0001.dat?
665 2012-04-08 13:08:49 <lordcirth> etothepi_: 1121.03 MB
666 2012-04-08 13:09:00 <etotheipi_> not 1121 MB on testnet...
667 2012-04-08 13:09:11 <etotheipi_> wait...
668 2012-04-08 13:09:25 <etotheipi_> you ran Armory the same as before?
669 2012-04-08 13:09:28 <lordcirth> etothepi_: oh, I thought u meant bitcoin
670 2012-04-08 13:09:55 <etotheipi_> is this what you did?  ran bitcoind on testnet, then loaded Armory regularly?  (without --testnet)
671 2012-04-08 13:10:05 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Testnet is still syncing,
672 2012-04-08 13:10:18 <etotheipi_> that's fine... but you reloaded Armory... with or without --testnet?
673 2012-04-08 13:10:46 <lordcirth> etothepi_: No, its still running testnet. bitcoind is still syncing testnet bc I've never done it b4
674 2012-04-08 13:11:14 <lordcirth> etothepi_: I'll try running again w/o testnet
675 2012-04-08 13:13:07 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Segmentation fault
676 2012-04-08 13:13:38 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Should I delete blk001.dat and resync?
677 2012-04-08 13:14:51 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: lordcirth you can run bitcoind in testnet or mainnet, and Armory in testnet or mainnet... I can't tell which combination you did
678 2012-04-08 13:15:39 <etotheipi_> (unfortunately I think it's "-testnet" for bitcoind, and "--testnet" for Armory)
679 2012-04-08 13:15:48 <lordcirth> etothepi_: with both in mainnet, it seg faults. with both in testnet, it works fine. if mismatched, it gives an error popup
680 2012-04-08 13:16:18 <etotheipi_> the error popup is the "do you want offline?" warning message?
681 2012-04-08 13:16:35 <lordcirth> etothepi_: So like u said, it might be choking on something in the blockchain
682 2012-04-08 13:16:42 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Yes
683 2012-04-08 13:16:52 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: if you don't mind, I'm curious if it works if you delete the mainnet blk0001.dat and let it resync
684 2012-04-08 13:17:05 <etotheipi_> though that could take a while... at least it's much faster with 0.6.0 than it used to be
685 2012-04-08 13:17:18 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Couldn;t find Satoshi client, etc
686 2012-04-08 13:17:53 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Ok I'll give it a shot
687 2012-04-08 13:22:05 <lordcirth> etothepi_: It works now! The blockchain hasn't synced much tho, it might die later
688 2012-04-08 13:26:51 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: what I'm afraid of is that somehow the size of the blockchain is the cause, not something in the blk0001.dat
689 2012-04-08 13:27:26 <etotheipi_> though I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 with 16 GB and it works fine...
690 2012-04-08 13:27:33 <sipa> maybe a 32-bit OS?
691 2012-04-08 13:27:38 <etotheipi_> I'll re-sync and retest on some of my reduced-power VMs
692 2012-04-08 13:28:07 <Diablo-D3> what?
693 2012-04-08 13:29:12 <etotheipi_> just issues with mmap'ing the blk0001.dat file
694 2012-04-08 13:32:22 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Would a specific size, say 1024 MB, crash  the code? bc 8 GB RAM should be fine with a 1121 MB blockchain
695 2012-04-08 13:32:36 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: it's more to do with 32-bit vs 64-bit
696 2012-04-08 13:32:55 <etotheipi_> I'm actually suprised that the mmap'ing works in 32-bit linux... it doesn't work in 32-bit Windows
697 2012-04-08 13:33:43 <etotheipi_> I use something called "mmap" which uses virtual memory:  64-bit systems have like 4 billion GB of virtual address space (so it will only fail once the blockchain starts to get that big)
698 2012-04-08 13:34:15 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Well, we're both using 64-bit, right?
699 2012-04-08 13:34:22 <lordcirth> etothepi_: everything works in Linux, if you do it right. lol
700 2012-04-08 13:34:40 <etotheipi_> I'm about to test it on my 32-bit Ubuntu
701 2012-04-08 13:34:57 <lordcirth> etothepi: virtual memory? I don't have swap initialized!
702 2012-04-08 13:35:29 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: you don't have any swap!
703 2012-04-08 13:35:32 <etotheipi_> ?
704 2012-04-08 13:35:34 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Should I initialize swap and retry?
705 2012-04-08 13:36:05 <sipa> lordcirth: how much RAM do you have?
706 2012-04-08 13:36:19 <lordcirth> etothepi: It's formatted, but the installer commented it out of fstab, I believe. 8 GB
707 2012-04-08 13:36:38 <etotheipi_> I mean, one point of using mmap is to use the blk0001.dat file already on disk instead of swap... but it wouldn't surprise me if that had something to do with it
708 2012-04-08 13:36:39 <sipa> 8 GB should be more than enough
709 2012-04-08 13:37:06 <lordcirth> sipa: Exactly, thats why swap is disabled
710 2012-04-08 13:37:36 <lordcirth> etothepi_: I don't think I've ever hit 4GB on any Linux
711 2012-04-08 13:37:38 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: wait until the blockchain syncs again and try it both ways
712 2012-04-08 13:38:16 <etotheipi_> I have 16 GB of RAM... yet my system always seems to be using at aleast a little bit of swap
713 2012-04-08 13:38:22 <Diablo-D3> swap is evil
714 2012-04-08 13:38:25 <Diablo-D3> etotheipi_: well, no
715 2012-04-08 13:38:28 <Diablo-D3> thats not true
716 2012-04-08 13:38:36 <lordcirth> etothepi_: That's what I'm thinking, if armory crashes as it syncs I'll try swap, if not it Dled wrong last time
717 2012-04-08 13:38:37 <Diablo-D3> the system pre-swaps pages to swap
718 2012-04-08 13:38:43 <Diablo-D3> the writing isnt whats bad
719 2012-04-08 13:38:47 <Diablo-D3> its the READING thats bad
720 2012-04-08 13:43:33 <etotheipi_> so it still works on Ubuntu 32-bit with 1 GB of RAM... it successfully maps the whole 1.1 GB file
721 2012-04-08 13:44:04 <etotheipi_> I'm not even sure how it does that!  shouldn't 32-bit OSes have less than 1GB of virtual memory space for stuff like this?
722 2012-04-08 13:44:53 <sipa> each process has a 4GiB address space
723 2012-04-08 13:45:27 <etotheipi_> sipa: that must be unix-specific... because it definitely fails on Windows due to "insufficient memory to complete the operation"
724 2012-04-08 13:46:32 <sipa> windows has a very different memory model, afaik
725 2012-04-08 13:46:49 <sipa> 1G/3G split between kernel and userspace, afaik
726 2012-04-08 13:46:51 <Yearty> will be a good site: www.bitcoinstarter.com/discover.php
727 2012-04-08 13:47:51 <etotheipi_> sipa: so that probably means Armory will stop working on 32-bit Linux once there's more than a combined 3GB of blockchain
728 2012-04-08 13:48:43 <sipa> shouldn't be hard to test whether a +3GiB file can be mmapped.
729 2012-04-08 13:48:59 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: blinkbat:  Did either one of you think to go yell at blockchain.info for allowing users to unwittingly make transactions which will probably never confirm on their own?
730 2012-04-08 13:49:24 <blinkbat> tbh no gmaxwell, not yet
731 2012-04-08 13:49:39 <blinkbat> thats not the only flaw in blockchain.info lol
732 2012-04-08 13:50:22 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: please do that. The mandatory fees for small outputs is not going away otherwise a single commandline could DOS bitcoin into unusuablity. But its especially bad on blockchain.info because unlike a local wallet you can't abort the transaction.
733 2012-04-08 13:50:32 <gmaxwell> (which isn't easy to do locally, but it's possible at least)
734 2012-04-08 13:51:05 <blinkbat> gmaxwell: i dont get why 1 small output in a given transaction makes the entire transaction have a mandatory fee
735 2012-04-08 13:51:17 <blinkbat> i could be sending 10btc to guy a, 20 btc to guy b and 0.0001 btc to guy c
736 2012-04-08 13:51:25 <blinkbat> and all of a sudden its a small transaction that needs fees
737 2012-04-08 13:51:57 <sipa> blinkbat: you could just as well be sending 0.000001 to guy A, and 99.999999 to yourself.
738 2012-04-08 13:52:00 <blinkbat> actually i do get it, but it didnt make sense at the time
739 2012-04-08 13:52:16 <sipa> that would make it very very easy to spam te network
740 2012-04-08 13:52:40 <blinkbat> the problem is, bitcoin sometimes behaves in wierd counter-intuitive ways
741 2012-04-08 13:52:40 <gmaxwell> Yea, unfortunately its a bit hard to understand. The rules make a fair bit of sense, but they aren't obvious without thought.
742 2012-04-08 13:52:45 <blinkbat> and i dont think many of the users fully understand it
743 2012-04-08 13:52:51 <sipa> and the network cannot and should not know which is the payment and which is the change
744 2012-04-08 13:53:44 <gmaxwell> Fortunately the clients can just handle figuring this out for the users.. and anti-dos fees can be quite small (e.g. 0.0005) and still be effective.
745 2012-04-08 13:54:12 <theboos> I haven't opened a bitcoin client in 6 months. Per the motd, is there a known vuln with previous versions?
746 2012-04-08 13:54:45 <blinkbat> theboos: look at the topic
747 2012-04-08 13:54:57 <gmaxwell> The reference client simply won't generate such a transaction it'll avoid having >0.01 change, and it'll add a 0.0005 fee (while telling you) if there are outputs under 0.01  (though it could do better in avoiding fees)
748 2012-04-08 13:55:31 <blinkbat> gmaxwell: so in theory, its possible that the transaction is quite large, but teh change is small and a fee is still generated?
749 2012-04-08 13:55:31 <sipa> theboos: which version is that?
750 2012-04-08 13:55:44 <blinkbat> ie, i have 500.00001 btc and i send 500 to someone else
751 2012-04-08 13:56:09 <blinkbat> s/theory/practice
752 2012-04-08 13:56:15 <theboos> Whichever was current in about June 2011
753 2012-04-08 13:56:18 <gmaxwell> theboos: older versions of bitcoin-qt on windows (and only windows) have a crash bug that might be possible to exploit, though we're no aware of any exploitation in the wild.
754 2012-04-08 13:56:34 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: nope, because it will just not take the change there it'll give up the change as fee.
755 2012-04-08 13:56:46 <sipa> theboos: that would be 0.3.23
756 2012-04-08 13:56:54 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: (and tell you that it's going to pay a 0.00001 fee)
757 2012-04-08 13:57:13 <blinkbat> ok, what if it was 500.0000000001
758 2012-04-08 13:57:18 <blinkbat> that amount of a fee isnt enough
759 2012-04-08 13:57:18 <sipa> same thing
760 2012-04-08 13:57:28 <theboos> Sounds familiar. How does an older client harm the network?
761 2012-04-08 13:57:39 <sipa> blinkbat: it would not create a change, hence no fee would be required
762 2012-04-08 13:57:47 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: sure it is well you have too many zeros, that amount is impossible but what sipa says.
763 2012-04-08 13:58:08 <blinkbat> where does the 0.0000000001 go then?
764 2012-04-08 13:58:12 <gmaxwell> theboos: e.g. versions prior to 0.3.24 randomly hang up on nodes syncing the blockchain.
765 2012-04-08 13:58:15 <sipa> blinkbat: to the fee
766 2012-04-08 13:58:28 <sipa> blinkbat: it would create a fee instead of change
767 2012-04-08 13:58:34 <blinkbat> urgh
768 2012-04-08 13:58:34 <theboos> Ah got it.
769 2012-04-08 13:58:38 <sipa> (but a fee that is not required)
770 2012-04-08 13:58:39 <blinkbat> but thats no fair, im losing money
771 2012-04-08 13:58:45 <blinkbat> i might have wanted my 1 satoshi
772 2012-04-08 13:58:52 <blinkbat> and im sending a perfectly valid transaction which is quite large
773 2012-04-08 13:59:01 <sipa> blinkbat: then find a miner who is willing to accept it
774 2012-04-08 13:59:12 <sipa> or mine it yourself
775 2012-04-08 13:59:15 <blinkbat> lol ok
776 2012-04-08 13:59:17 <sipa> bitcoin is not fee
777 2012-04-08 13:59:19 <sipa> *free
778 2012-04-08 13:59:53 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: but if that were permitted by the system someone with a lot of bitcoin could make free transactions totally unsuable and bloat bitcoin to death, just by constantly sending ~500 btc with 1e-8 'change'
779 2012-04-08 14:00:27 <gmaxwell> blinkbat: do you also freak out when you buy things at a store and the sales-tax or vat causes you to pay a half cent more?
780 2012-04-08 14:01:04 <blinkbat> no
781 2012-04-08 14:01:08 <blinkbat> ok meh nevermind
782 2012-04-08 14:01:15 <gmaxwell> why worry about 0.000004 cents? :)
783 2012-04-08 14:01:56 <gmaxwell> (plus, it's not like the fee is just destroyed it encourages miners to prioritize your transaction over free ones, and it rewards miners for providing security for the network)
784 2012-04-08 14:02:49 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: cut to the chase
785 2012-04-08 14:02:54 <Diablo-D3> in the future, blocks will no longer have rewards
786 2012-04-08 14:02:54 <lordcirth> etothepi: "New Block! : 103000,     Segmentation fault"
787 2012-04-08 14:02:58 <Diablo-D3> it will be fees only
788 2012-04-08 14:03:06 <Diablo-D3> no fees, no bitcoin.
789 2012-04-08 14:03:53 <etotheipi_> lordcirth: don't open Armory until the blockchain is totally sync'd
790 2012-04-08 14:04:08 <lordcirth> etothepi_: Ok
791 2012-04-08 14:04:27 <etotheipi_> luckily, it only reads the blk0001.dat so it couldn't be responsible for corrupting blk0001.dat... but it does make me long for the day I can independent networking implemented
792 2012-04-08 14:04:46 <lordcirth> etothepi_: I look forward to that too
793 2012-04-08 14:05:53 <gmaxwell> Diablo-D3: in my mind at least,  miner imposed/security fees are not the same as anti-ddos fees. We don't have much need for the former now, but we do have as much need for the latter as we'll ever have.
794 2012-04-08 14:06:35 <Diablo-D3> its still money either way
795 2012-04-08 14:13:51 <Joric> are there any shorter addresses?
796 2012-04-08 14:14:23 <sipa> ?
797 2012-04-08 14:14:40 <gmaxwell> Joric: shorter than?  The base58 serialization is not constant length.
798 2012-04-08 14:15:36 <Joric> sipa, oh, check this out, btw, pure js http://goo.gl/MA0lr
799 2012-04-08 14:16:46 <Joric> gmaxwell, don't remember really, there were some starting from 2? no?
800 2012-04-08 14:17:30 <sipa> Joric: BIP13 addresses start with a 3
801 2012-04-08 14:17:37 <sipa> but are no shorter
802 2012-04-08 14:17:41 <sipa> (on average)
803 2012-04-08 14:19:42 <Joric> 'The leading version bytes are chosen so that, after base58 encoding, the leading character is consistent: for the main network, byte 5 becomes the character '3'. For the testnet, byte 196 is encoded into '2''
804 2012-04-08 14:19:48 <Joric> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0013
805 2012-04-08 14:20:03 <Joric> testnet means 2 then
806 2012-04-08 14:20:28 <Joric> still 20 bytes
807 2012-04-08 14:25:58 <Yearty> hi  anyone have screenshots of how coincontrol feature will work?
808 2012-04-08 14:28:22 <Joric> Yearty, it's been available for months https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24784.0, most probably i'll be merged as is
809 2012-04-08 14:29:10 <Joric> https://github.com/coderrr/bitcoin/downloads 0.5.3.1/win32
810 2012-04-08 14:29:33 <Yearty> thanks joric
811 2012-04-08 14:37:34 <UukGoblin> bah, who invented this byte reversals in merkle trees :-/
812 2012-04-08 14:38:03 <Joric> russians
813 2012-04-08 14:39:56 <UukGoblin> the bastards!
814 2012-04-08 14:46:03 <Joric> whoa it IS opensource https://github.com/zootreeves/blockchain.info
815 2012-04-08 14:47:30 <copumpkin> that doesn't appear to be the backend
816 2012-04-08 14:47:41 <Joric> https://github.com/zootreeves/blockchain.info/blob/master/WalletServlet.java
817 2012-04-08 14:49:03 <copumpkin> yeah, there's a lot more
818 2012-04-08 14:49:22 <copumpkin> look at ths piuk.* imports up at the top
819 2012-04-08 14:49:25 <Joric> yeah you're right
820 2012-04-08 14:49:56 <copumpkin> still cool, though
821 2012-04-08 14:50:05 <copumpkin> I kind of want to give him some code suggestions now :P
822 2012-04-08 14:50:09 <copumpkin> since a few things jump out at me
823 2012-04-08 14:50:32 <copumpkin> also, ugh java :)
824 2012-04-08 14:50:32 <Joric> like what?
825 2012-04-08 14:50:56 <copumpkin> he keeps preparing statements every time he uses them, rather than just doing that once
826 2012-04-08 14:51:23 <copumpkin> it doesn't hurt, but you might as well just do it once
827 2012-04-08 14:54:39 <blinkbat> lol
828 2012-04-08 15:01:16 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I did.
829 2012-04-08 15:02:53 <UukGoblin> in MM specs, the aux proof-of-work, the second field - merkle_link - how do I know what I should hash on the left and what on the right?
830 2012-04-08 15:03:09 <UukGoblin> I understand this is meant to link the coinbase transaction up to the block's hash?
831 2012-04-08 15:05:59 <UukGoblin> and how would I use it? I presume I start with double-sha256ing the generation transaction, but then what? And what do I reverse?
832 2012-04-08 15:27:08 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, i would suggest reading the code but that particular piece of code is very academicy
833 2012-04-08 15:31:28 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, well yeah, that'll be the last resort if IRC fails ;-)
834 2012-04-08 15:33:15 <phantomcircuit> UukGoblin, iirc it's
835 2012-04-08 15:33:24 <phantomcircuit> left + right
836 2012-04-08 15:33:28 <phantomcircuit> then builds up
837 2012-04-08 15:33:46 <phantomcircuit> but the code doesn't actually build a merkle tree it just builds the root hash
838 2012-04-08 15:34:10 <phantomcircuit> so it walks the array in the same order you would walk a tree
839 2012-04-08 15:41:29 <nonserviam> anybody here familiar with the mtgox api?
840 2012-04-08 15:42:14 <Graet> #mtgox or ##mtgox-chat would
841 2012-04-08 15:42:33 <nonserviam> @Graet cool, thx
842 2012-04-08 15:42:41 <Graet> :)
843 2012-04-08 15:42:43 <Diablo-D3> and now we will set a bag of dongs on peoples heads to sort them into appropriate frat houses
844 2012-04-08 15:42:56 <Diablo-D3> a talking bag of dongs.
845 2012-04-08 16:14:52 <UukGoblin> phantomcircuit, what I need is to link a coinbase transaction up to a block's hash
846 2012-04-08 16:15:16 <UukGoblin> I thought that's what this merkle_link field is for
847 2012-04-08 16:15:30 <UukGoblin> I may be wrong though
848 2012-04-08 16:38:45 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: cardpuncher opened issue 1061 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1061>
849 2012-04-08 16:54:46 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: cardpuncher opened issue 1062 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1062>
850 2012-04-08 17:10:03 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: cardpuncher opened issue 1063 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1063>
851 2012-04-08 17:20:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: cardpuncher opened issue 1064 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1064>
852 2012-04-08 17:25:20 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: gavinandresen opened issue 1065 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1065>
853 2012-04-08 17:29:49 <Joric> see what you've done
854 2012-04-08 17:29:57 <Joric> <rulssie> restarted now
855 2012-04-08 17:30:27 <[Tycho]> :)))
856 2012-04-08 17:32:57 <Joric> how about implementing headers-only mode in a reference client
857 2012-04-08 17:35:51 <Joric> but seriously, that's how an average user takes it
858 2012-04-08 17:37:04 <sipa> Joric: that's planned
859 2012-04-08 17:38:35 <etotheipi_> unfortunately, that makes it pretty much impossible to import private keys
860 2012-04-08 17:41:30 <Joric> etotheipi_, check this out http://goo.gl/MA0lr bitcoinjs-lib + a few lines of code
861 2012-04-08 17:43:28 <[Tycho]> Amazing, that P2SH trap still works :)
862 2012-04-08 17:43:58 <Joric> [Tycho], keeping MM away?
863 2012-04-08 17:44:22 <[Tycho]> I don't think it's MM, but someone is catching it. http://blockchain.info/tx-index/3618498/4005d6bea3a93fb72f006d23e2685b85069d270cb57d15f0c057ef2d5e3f78d2
864 2012-04-08 17:45:20 <[Tycho]> Last one was 3 min ago
865 2012-04-08 17:47:42 <sturles> ;;bc,stats
866 2012-04-08 17:47:43 <gribble> Current Blocks: 174832 | Current Difficulty: 1626553.4813289 | Next Difficulty At Block: 175391 | Next Difficulty In: 559 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 4 days, 5 hours, 33 minutes, and 6 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 1556295.63182076 | Estimated Percent Change: -4.31943064366
867 2012-04-08 17:48:09 <sturles> Having some impact on difficulty as well. :-)
868 2012-04-08 17:48:22 <[Tycho]> Do anyone knows how p2sh-multisig redeeming works ?
869 2012-04-08 17:54:10 <sipa> [Tycho]: can you be more specific?
870 2012-04-08 17:55:37 <[Tycho]> Pointing to appropriate part of bitcoind source will be enough.
871 2012-04-08 17:56:15 <[Tycho]> Yesterday I tried redeeming normal P2SH and now I'm thinking about P2SH-multisig.