1 2012-04-20 00:01:36 <h4ckm3_> even if someone told me to forget it... that'd be nice. i just need some math and some closure
  2 2012-04-20 00:03:49 <h4ckm3_> 6.27710173539e+57
  3 2012-04-20 00:03:54 <h4ckm3_> is my math correct?
  4 2012-04-20 00:19:11 <nanotube> h4ckm3_: 32 random alphanumeric chars - you can forget about it.
  5 2012-04-20 00:19:30 <h4ckm3_> thank you nanotube
  6 2012-04-20 00:19:41 <h4ckm3_> I knew that but I still needed to hear it
  7 2012-04-20 00:19:54 <nanotube> heh
  8 2012-04-20 00:20:04 <nanotube> how much in your wallet?
  9 2012-04-20 00:20:07 <h4ckm3_> how many years would that take?
 10 2012-04-20 00:20:10 <h4ckm3_> like 3k
 11 2012-04-20 00:20:11 <nanotube> do you have any unencrypted backups by any chance?
 12 2012-04-20 00:20:12 <h4ckm3_> USD
 13 2012-04-20 00:20:19 <Cory> Ouch. :(
 14 2012-04-20 00:20:25 <h4ckm3_> indeed
 15 2012-04-20 00:20:27 <h4ckm3_> no
 16 2012-04-20 00:20:45 <nanotube> coin supply just reduced by 600. everyone's coins that much more valuable. news at 11. :)
 17 2012-04-20 00:20:58 <h4ckm3_> lol
 18 2012-04-20 00:21:12 <nanotube> h4ckm3_: not sure how long it'd take, depends on how much processing power you can throw at it...
 19 2012-04-20 00:21:48 <h4ckm3_> i h4ck3d myself
 20 2012-04-20 00:22:10 <h4ckm3_> no idea why the password in the passman isn't working
 21 2012-04-20 00:22:21 <h4ckm3_> I must have saved the wrong one or something
 22 2012-04-20 00:22:57 <nanotube> hm, do you have any backups of your encrypted pw store?
 23 2012-04-20 00:23:04 <nanotube> maybe you accidentally changed the pw at some point
 24 2012-04-20 00:23:13 <nanotube> so if you have backups, you can see if older copies have a different pw
 25 2012-04-20 00:23:40 <nanotube> or maybe you somehow changed the pw on your wallet... in that case, encrypted backups of wallet could also be tried...
 26 2012-04-20 00:23:59 <h4ckm3_> i will look , I fear however that is not the case I checked the password on wallet generation by generating a new address, the address is named passtest
 27 2012-04-20 00:24:11 <h4ckm3_> it worked
 28 2012-04-20 00:24:13 <h4ckm3_> i saved it
 29 2012-04-20 00:24:18 <h4ckm3_> sent coins to it
 30 2012-04-20 00:24:22 <h4ckm3_> now it won't work
 31 2012-04-20 00:24:38 <h4ckm3_> I MUST be at fault, sucks not knowing how
 32 2012-04-20 00:24:59 <da2ce7> h4ckm3: if you remeber _most_ of the password, it shoudn't be too hard to brute-force
 33 2012-04-20 00:25:07 <h4ckm3_> I will double check all of my backups
 34 2012-04-20 00:25:12 <da2ce7> as the entropy will be quite low.
 35 2012-04-20 00:25:22 <h4ckm3_> I only know the length and the charset
 36 2012-04-20 00:25:29 <h4ckm3_> it was generated
 37 2012-04-20 00:25:35 <h4ckm3_> 32 char
 38 2012-04-20 00:25:46 <da2ce7> oh... your fucked.
 39 2012-04-20 00:25:49 <h4ckm3_> indeed
 40 2012-04-20 00:26:13 <h4ckm3_> oversecurity hurts more than it helps i think
 41 2012-04-20 00:27:00 <nanotube> anyone have any idea how many aes256 pws can be tried per second on a modern cpu?
 42 2012-04-20 00:27:18 <seco> there is some weird bug i heard about (already fixed for 0.7, or 0.6.1), where bitcoin crashes if a wrong password is typed in (but only in SOME cases of a wrong password it crashes): Eventually you just hammer always the same -wrong- pass into it, and had a small typo or such?
 43 2012-04-20 00:27:42 <h4ckm3_> i had that error eralier actually
 44 2012-04-20 00:27:47 <h4ckm3_> earlier
 45 2012-04-20 00:27:48 <h4ckm3_> *
 46 2012-04-20 00:27:56 <seco> other wrong passes would lead to errors, but the RIGHT password always lead to success
 47 2012-04-20 00:28:08 <h4ckm3_> well it wasn't right
 48 2012-04-20 00:28:10 <h4ckm3_> ...
 49 2012-04-20 00:28:12 <seco> k, just a guess
 50 2012-04-20 00:28:15 <h4ckm3_> ty
 51 2012-04-20 00:29:08 <h4ckm3_> I have emotionally abandoned hope, I just want to know how long it would take theoretically. to crack
 52 2012-04-20 00:29:29 <h4ckm3_> I can reduce the entropy
 53 2012-04-20 00:29:59 <h4ckm3_> By knowing that it didn't have 000 or any three chars the same in a row
 54 2012-04-20 00:30:10 <h4ckm3_> and that it is in fact 32 char
 55 2012-04-20 00:30:23 <h4ckm3_> and only A-Z a-z 0-9
 56 2012-04-20 00:30:48 <h4ckm3_> but I realize that any chance of success is highly improbable
 57 2012-04-20 00:31:02 <seco> but if you remember facts/details about your pass, you could set limits on the passgenerator for bruteforce, and maybe youre done after a few million tries! - Just start bitcoind like it is, or bitcoin-qt with -server parameter, and write bash script around "walletpassphrase" or "walletpassphrasechange" (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list#Full_list)
 58 2012-04-20 00:31:05 <h4ckm3_> I have many backups of the password
 59 2012-04-20 00:31:11 <h4ckm3_> the password just doesn't work
 60 2012-04-20 00:31:20 <h4ckm3_> the backup was flawed
 61 2012-04-20 00:31:29 <h4ckm3_> I should have checked again before sending to it
 62 2012-04-20 00:31:41 <da2ce7> (2.31 x 10^57)  - (3.73 x 10^55)
 63 2012-04-20 00:31:44 <da2ce7> I think.
 64 2012-04-20 00:32:02 <da2ce7> ;;calc (2.31 x 10^57)  - (3.73 x 10^55)
 65 2012-04-20 00:32:02 <gribble> Error: invalid syntax (<string>, line 1)
 66 2012-04-20 00:32:12 <seco> 2272700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 67 2012-04-20 00:32:13 <seco> :)
 68 2012-04-20 00:32:22 <h4ckm3_> 6.27710173539e+57
 69 2012-04-20 00:32:41 <h4ckm3_> how many tries per second?
 70 2012-04-20 00:34:01 <nanotube> let's even take the best case scenario, 1 pw per cpu instruction (grossly overoptimistic)
 71 2012-04-20 00:34:12 <seco> haha oh yes
 72 2012-04-20 00:34:19 <nanotube> so say on a 3ghz cpu, you then can try 3e9 pws
 73 2012-04-20 00:34:22 <nanotube> per second
 74 2012-04-20 00:34:39 <nanotube> so how many seconds does it take to try 2e57 pws?
 75 2012-04-20 00:34:44 <nanotube> hint: a crapton :)
 76 2012-04-20 00:35:57 <gribble> 24021836255884823903335157332867542095114058786300820979712
 77 2012-04-20 00:35:57 <nanotube> ;;calc 62**32/3*10**9/[seconds 1y]
 78 2012-04-20 00:36:01 <nanotube> that many years.
 79 2012-04-20 00:36:21 <nanotube> that appears to be significantly longer than the age of the universe. :)
 80 2012-04-20 00:36:26 <seco> mhm 6425551437837148091213376 years if my calc doesnt eat itself with the seize of the numbers
 81 2012-04-20 00:36:39 <nanotube> you appear to be missing a lot of years :)
 82 2012-04-20 00:36:39 <seco> haha hmm
 83 2012-04-20 00:36:40 <h4ckm3_> oh jeeze
 84 2012-04-20 00:36:56 <seco> shame on gcalctool 5 :p
 85 2012-04-20 00:36:59 <nanotube> heh
 86 2012-04-20 00:37:06 <gribble> (seconds [<years>y] [<weeks>w] [<days>d] [<hours>h] [<minutes>m] [<seconds>s]) -- Returns the number of seconds in the number of <years>, <weeks>, <days>, <hours>, <minutes>, and <seconds> given. An example usage is "seconds 2h 30m", which would return 9000, which is '3600*2 + 30*60'. Useful for scheduling events at a given number of seconds in the future.
 87 2012-04-20 00:37:06 <nanotube> ;;seconds 1f
 88 2012-04-20 00:37:12 <gribble> 31536000
 89 2012-04-20 00:37:12 <nanotube> ;;seconds 1y
 90 2012-04-20 00:37:14 <nanotube> heh
 91 2012-04-20 00:37:39 <nanotube> i think it appears that even if you harness the the processing power of the entire planet, you're SOL
 92 2012-04-20 00:37:46 <h4ckm3_> ha
 93 2012-04-20 00:38:35 <h4ckm3_> well I do know some things about the password so maybe in a few million years
 94 2012-04-20 00:38:52 <h4ckm3_> and that is just trying AES256?
 95 2012-04-20 00:39:10 <nanotube> h4ckm3_: well, that is assuming it takes one cpu instruction to try a password.
 96 2012-04-20 00:39:42 <nanotube> in reality, the pw generates an aes key, then the aes key is attempted against the data... it takes likely several hundred instructions to do a complete round
 97 2012-04-20 00:39:52 <nanotube> even with the built-in aes instruction set on some cpus.
 98 2012-04-20 00:39:56 <seco> youd be happy if you get even to ram with the whole password in one instruction...not saying anything about the try :p
 99 2012-04-20 00:40:23 <nanotube> but hey, what's a factor of 1e2 or 1e3 between friends, when we are talking about a bajillion years. :)
100 2012-04-20 00:40:26 <h4ckm3_> the math is awesome
101 2012-04-20 00:40:52 <h4ckm3_> so 4096 PGP is crazy then
102 2012-04-20 00:41:16 <seco> i guess so
103 2012-04-20 00:42:03 <da2ce7> h4ckm3: well wait for quantum computers, that should half the number of bits of entropy.
104 2012-04-20 00:42:22 <h4ckm3_> oooo
105 2012-04-20 00:42:38 <nanotube> yea so only half a bajillion.
106 2012-04-20 00:42:51 <h4ckm3_> I think I will just sulk and then get back to work
107 2012-04-20 00:42:55 <h4ckm3_> ty guys
108 2012-04-20 00:43:20 <nanotube> heh well, gl. you can also think about what could have happened, maybe you can figure it out.
109 2012-04-20 00:43:21 <da2ce7> nanotube: no... it woutld not be subtaction but divistion on the difficulty.
110 2012-04-20 00:43:36 <da2ce7> so it would be equiv of a 16 char password insted of a 32
111 2012-04-20 00:43:37 <h4ckm3_> I'll let you knwo
112 2012-04-20 00:43:37 <nanotube> da2ce7: oh yea, sqrt of years.
113 2012-04-20 00:43:38 <seco> just FYI: i always keep a history of passwords on notes of my passmanagers: there is always some restore of a backup of a thing where you say: damn this backup runs with the pass before the current one...and your done :p
114 2012-04-20 00:43:52 <nanotube> h4ckm3_: maybe tomorrow someone can come up with some possibilities...
115 2012-04-20 00:43:57 <nanotube> but yea don't hold your breath.
116 2012-04-20 00:44:21 <h4ckm3_> yea, it's not 50k
117 2012-04-20 00:44:26 <h4ckm3_> or 200k
118 2012-04-20 00:44:36 <nanotube> heh, as it happens, even if it was 200k, the math wouldn't have changed a bit. :)
119 2012-04-20 00:44:44 <h4ckm3_> true
120 2012-04-20 00:44:49 <da2ce7> h4ckm3: once you have setup a less bad password backup procedure, I'll send you 1btc to get your new wallet up and running.
121 2012-04-20 00:44:55 <h4ckm3_> lol
122 2012-04-20 00:45:08 <h4ckm3_> I have a bunch of others that work perfectly well
123 2012-04-20 00:45:32 <k9quaint> I tattoo my passwords on Kim Kardashian's ass
124 2012-04-20 00:45:34 <da2ce7> ok
125 2012-04-20 00:45:37 <luke-jr> da2ce7: quantum computers also break ECDSA, so he wouldn't *need* the keys anymore :P
126 2012-04-20 00:45:38 <h4ckm3_> this one for some reason just didn't work
127 2012-04-20 00:45:41 <da2ce7> lol
128 2012-04-20 00:46:01 <h4ckm3_> I have password backups but they are all wrong
129 2012-04-20 00:46:19 <luke-jr> h4ckm3_: random survey&
130 2012-04-20 00:46:39 <h4ckm3_> either way thanks, and you're welcome for the BTC appreciation
131 2012-04-20 00:46:40 <da2ce7> luke-jr: I guess... he couldn't spend the coins to more secure address before ECDSA gets weak.
132 2012-04-20 00:46:46 <luke-jr> h4ckm3_: if the client gave you the option to allow an 8-of-10 developer keys to unlock your wallet, would you have used it?
133 2012-04-20 00:47:21 <h4ckm3_> hell yes, you guys thinking of developing something like that?
134 2012-04-20 00:47:32 <luke-jr> not afaik, was j/w
135 2012-04-20 00:47:39 <nanotube> luke-jr: i don't think developers would want to have to deal with the inevitable flood of recovery requests.
136 2012-04-20 00:47:45 <nanotube> which have to be authenticated also.
137 2012-04-20 00:47:50 <luke-jr> nanotube: yeah, probably would want a separate group of people
138 2012-04-20 00:47:53 <h4ckm3_> unless they are payed
139 2012-04-20 00:47:54 <da2ce7> luke-jr: that is a neat idea... just include their public keys with the client, and use threshold encription.
140 2012-04-20 00:47:59 <h4ckm3_> which I would have also done
141 2012-04-20 00:48:11 <luke-jr> there's an idea
142 2012-04-20 00:48:11 <nanotube> luke-jr: how can one prove that the wallet is yours, rather than a lifted stolen file from someone else?
143 2012-04-20 00:48:15 <da2ce7> and set it as optional
144 2012-04-20 00:48:29 <luke-jr> nanotube: use the alert broadcast to send a new special alert
145 2012-04-20 00:48:43 <nanotube> and what would it say?
146 2012-04-20 00:48:53 <luke-jr> nanotube: all clients with <address foo> turn red and alert the user that the wallet has been proposed for recovery
147 2012-04-20 00:48:57 <luke-jr> for a week before it's released
148 2012-04-20 00:49:12 <luke-jr> or maybe a month
149 2012-04-20 00:49:24 <h4ckm3_> that sounds solid
150 2012-04-20 00:49:35 <nanotube> hmm... what if it's someone's savings wallet?
151 2012-04-20 00:49:36 <luke-jr> with info on how to contact someone if that's in error
152 2012-04-20 00:49:41 <nanotube> and he doesn't tend to use it much
153 2012-04-20 00:49:44 <luke-jr> nanotube: they should still have a watch-only on it ;)
154 2012-04-20 00:49:49 <nanotube> heh
155 2012-04-20 00:49:51 <nanotube> well, maybe
156 2012-04-20 00:50:02 <nanotube> guess as long as it is optional to enable the feature
157 2012-04-20 00:50:15 <seco> nanotube: then he could still have access on the wallet where he sent the coins to, and could also sign some proof
158 2012-04-20 00:50:29 <nanotube> seco: yes but i mean he wouldn't notice the alert
159 2012-04-20 00:50:34 <nanotube> because his live wallet doesn't have the addresses in question
160 2012-04-20 00:51:00 <seco> no but he has some address from which the coins went to the backup wallet
161 2012-04-20 00:51:40 <nanotube> well, the alert would only trigger on actual addresses in wallet, not to any upstream addresses
162 2012-04-20 00:51:44 <da2ce7> I think that we should intergrated gpg encription for the wallets... just using the localy installed gpg.
163 2012-04-20 00:51:52 <nanotube> otherwise, when dudeX wants a recovery, anyone who's ever sent him money will get the alert.
164 2012-04-20 00:52:05 <seco> so alerting of "x layers" of addresses the coin came from should push enough people to questioned wallet.dat's recovery request
165 2012-04-20 00:52:22 <nanotube> seco: yes, X layers would probably catch like half of all the bitcoin users. :)
166 2012-04-20 00:52:46 <nanotube> for certain values of X. :)
167 2012-04-20 00:53:37 <seco> well yes, if that wallet to recover was one very frequent used, and has hundrets of receiving addresses stored AND ALL ADRESSES are affected by the recovery alert yes
168 2012-04-20 00:54:07 <seco> but if you only pick a few "random ones of interest" out, you could combine
169 2012-04-20 00:54:18 <da2ce7> why don't you just have a public-hash-name for every generated wallet.
170 2012-04-20 00:54:22 <seco> ...with coin-history, and do some "intelligent alert"
171 2012-04-20 00:54:37 <nanotube> mmm
172 2012-04-20 00:54:43 <da2ce7> and the client just checks if the alert matches their wallet, or one of the matching wallets.
173 2012-04-20 00:55:23 <luke-jr> so when I steal your wallet, I just have to change that one public-hash-name? :p
174 2012-04-20 00:55:24 <seco> that doesnt scale down the amount of alerted users, i think it does opposite
175 2012-04-20 00:55:59 <da2ce7> what do you mean, the alert will just show on bitcoin instances that have that particular wallet mentioned.
176 2012-04-20 00:55:59 <seco> but anyway: thats a really cool idea luke :D
177 2012-04-20 00:56:21 <luke-jr> da2ce7: yes, so before I send in the wallet for recovery, I change that wallet-id so the real owner isn't alerted..
178 2012-04-20 00:56:51 <da2ce7> no... have the walletID non-mutable.
179 2012-04-20 00:56:56 <luke-jr> &
180 2012-04-20 00:57:01 <luke-jr> data is always mutable.
181 2012-04-20 00:57:16 <seco> da2ce7: this means you want to alert always all users belonging to a senders-address of a coin in the wallet
182 2012-04-20 00:57:29 <luke-jr> safest to just alert the public keys (both forms!) of any private keys being recovered
183 2012-04-20 00:57:35 <da2ce7> as in, a lower level to the password recovery... original ID is encripted as well to the developers.
184 2012-04-20 00:58:01 <da2ce7> so if you change the walletID... then when the developrers decript it... the will find the ID's not matching
185 2012-04-20 00:58:30 <da2ce7> and the developers will be alreted to the scamer
186 2012-04-20 00:59:06 <luke-jr> da2ce7: ah, so tie the encrypted data to it
187 2012-04-20 00:59:18 <luke-jr> da2ce7: I still think best to alert people with different wallets having imported the key
188 2012-04-20 00:59:51 <da2ce7> ya
189 2012-04-20 01:00:29 <seco> giving responsibility to devs is too large centralisation on that: some trusted usergroup like "30 highest rated OTC members" who would agree in contributing of wallet-recovery in self-organised manner should take care on that
190 2012-04-20 01:01:07 <seco> i mean its p2p system, so push all to the peers :)
191 2012-04-20 01:01:42 <seco> great idea to keep almost dead coins alive!
192 2012-04-20 01:02:14 <luke-jr> so N-of-M not-necessarily-developers, paid a reasonable fee, with a week/month long warning to all clients with the key being recovered :P
193 2012-04-20 01:02:53 <luke-jr> perhaps it can even be plugin-based
194 2012-04-20 01:03:15 <luke-jr> "If you want to use a wallet recovery service, select their key file here:"
195 2012-04-20 01:04:04 <seco> another approach is to just suggest users to print out (some) private keys of a wallet: in case of emergency to be able to recover a whole lost wallet with a bunch of printed keys from the beginning of the wallet-usage
196 2012-04-20 01:05:13 <seco> but it leads to some paradoxon if you regard a encrypted wallet you cannot look in :D
197 2012-04-20 01:06:23 <seco> plugin structure would be in anyway some cool feature: you will wonder what kind of crazy plugins will be written if one just allows such integration through some kind of script language :D
198 2012-04-20 01:06:59 <seco> like browser extensions :)
199 2012-04-20 01:07:11 <luke-jr> seco: that would be terriblre
200 2012-04-20 01:08:28 <seco> opens doors for all kind of fishy adds, but someone could drive a market on that to take care of :p
201 2012-04-20 02:03:20 <echelon> i have upnp=0 and listen=1 set, but for some reason nodes are somehow able to connect to me
202 2012-04-20 02:05:53 <echelon> using bitcoin-qt 0.6.0
203 2012-04-20 05:57:35 <wumpus> echelon: can you check debug.log for UPnP related messages?
204 2012-04-20 06:01:29 <echelon> just a bunch of "UPnP Port Mapping successful." messages
205 2012-04-20 06:03:45 <davout> hey
206 2012-04-20 06:03:56 <echelon> hi
207 2012-04-20 06:04:04 <davout> little question : how do i build bitcoin with full ssl support
208 2012-04-20 06:04:19 <davout> i built it with a transaction/block monitoring patch
209 2012-04-20 06:04:59 <davout> but it complains about not being able to POST notifications to an SSL endpoint since it hasn't been compiled with full SSL support
210 2012-04-20 06:11:20 <wumpus> echelon: then somehow it didn't get your -upnp=0
211 2012-04-20 06:12:17 <wumpus> davout: pass USE_SSL (though this has been deprecated recently, SSL is now required)
212 2012-04-20 06:12:36 <wumpus> in compilation, not in usage
213 2012-04-20 06:13:00 <t7> for rpc?
214 2012-04-20 06:13:06 <t7> oh
215 2012-04-20 06:13:37 <wumpus> t7: you still need to pass -rpcssl to activate it
216 2012-04-20 06:13:51 <echelon> wumpus: could listen=1 have something to do with it?
217 2012-04-20 06:13:58 <davout> wumpus: thanks, found it by googling around
218 2012-04-20 06:14:03 <wumpus> no, those options are orthagonal
219 2012-04-20 06:14:41 <davout> rpcssl is not what i want though, i want the daemon to POST notifications when txes and blocks come in
220 2012-04-20 06:14:46 <wumpus> but the command line parser is really evil (see #1044) make sure that the syntax is 100% correct
221 2012-04-20 06:15:07 <wumpus> I don't think it can do that
222 2012-04-20 06:15:16 <davout> i patched it
223 2012-04-20 06:15:34 <davout> but the odd thing is that i rebased against upstream really recently
224 2012-04-20 06:16:10 <davout> so i don't really get why it wouldn't be built with ssl by default as you mentioned it's not necessary anymore to pass USE_SSL
225 2012-04-20 06:17:09 <wumpus> davout: the message about not compiled with SSL support doesn't even exist anymore
226 2012-04-20 06:17:24 <davout> wut
227 2012-04-20 06:18:30 <davout> oh i see
228 2012-04-20 06:18:41 <davout> the message comes from the patch
229 2012-04-20 06:19:20 <davout> still odd though, i'll see if it works with the compile option
230 2012-04-20 07:36:39 <sipa> echelon: is that not possible?
231 2012-04-20 07:36:59 <sipa> are you behind a NAT?
232 2012-04-20 07:37:32 <sipa> Did you maybe run with upnp on before?
233 2012-04-20 08:52:10 <drizztbsd> hi
234 2012-04-20 08:55:57 <sipa> hello
235 2012-04-20 08:59:40 <occulta> hi, can someone tell me if the 'getinfo' and 'getbalance' switches will show the balance of any unconfirmed transactions ?
236 2012-04-20 09:03:18 <sipa> min 1 confirmations
237 2012-04-20 09:03:36 <occulta> ahhh, how comes on the GUI it will show the transactions?
238 2012-04-20 09:03:41 <occulta> as soon as its sent
239 2012-04-20 09:04:07 <sipa> sent transactions are deducted immediately
240 2012-04-20 09:21:32 <occulta> sipa on my client it says 2 confirms
241 2012-04-20 09:21:42 <occulta> but on my bitcoind wallet there is no balance change
242 2012-04-20 09:22:25 <occulta> would this also happen it the blockchain wasnt complete currently ?
243 2012-04-20 09:22:28 <Habbie> bitcoind might require 10
244 2012-04-20 09:22:35 <Habbie> or some other number
245 2012-04-20 09:22:43 <drizztbsd> luke-jr: I updated my pull request using the .h include files :)
246 2012-04-20 09:22:50 <Habbie> i might be talking out of my ass, please check :)
247 2012-04-20 09:22:59 <occulta> "blocks" : 171130
248 2012-04-20 09:23:09 <occulta> i think thats probably why :P
249 2012-04-20 09:23:15 <occulta> if it requires at least 1, it wont have that block yet
250 2012-04-20 10:52:59 <setkeh> hey guys im trying to get bitcoiner (android app) to connect to my bitcoind im starting bitcoind like so "bitcoind -rpcconnect=192.168.1.8 -rpcport=8332 -rpcuser=user -rpcpassword=password -rpcallowip=* -printtoconsole -gen=0 -listen" but the app still cannot connect any idea's ??
251 2012-04-20 10:56:45 <sipa> why rpcconnect?
252 2012-04-20 10:57:16 <sipa> that's for when you want to run bitcoind in rpc client mode
253 2012-04-20 10:57:33 <setkeh> ahh it was somthing i cont told to try :D
254 2012-04-20 10:57:43 <setkeh> got*
255 2012-04-20 10:58:50 <setkeh> although removing rpcconnect yealds no result
256 2012-04-20 10:59:51 <sipa> what happens?
257 2012-04-20 11:00:09 <sipa> and how do you try to connect to it?
258 2012-04-20 11:00:31 <setkeh> the output from bitcoind seems normal ie no error but my phone says server not reachable
259 2012-04-20 11:00:40 <setkeh> bitcoiner android app
260 2012-04-20 11:02:54 <sipa> via wifi?
261 2012-04-20 11:03:15 <setkeh> yeah for now untill i get it working :D
262 2012-04-20 11:03:24 <sipa> firewall?
263 2012-04-20 11:03:29 <setkeh> nope
264 2012-04-20 11:03:43 <sipa> maybe firewall on the router?
265 2012-04-20 11:04:02 <setkeh> ill throw a port forward in and see :D
266 2012-04-20 11:04:34 <sipa> port forwards don't usually work inside the LAN
267 2012-04-20 11:05:04 <setkeh> well thats the only FW on the router it blocks all traffic exept open ports
268 2012-04-20 11:06:19 <sipa> ok
269 2012-04-20 11:08:43 <setkeh> i can screen shot my botcoind if you like ??
270 2012-04-20 11:45:59 <imsaguy2> ok, I think I just encountered a bug
271 2012-04-20 11:47:35 <imsaguy> my client included a fee without ever prompting
272 2012-04-20 11:47:40 <imsaguy> and it was a weird one
273 2012-04-20 11:48:22 <imsaguy> .00001xxx
274 2012-04-20 11:48:35 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: using bitcoin-qt ?
275 2012-04-20 11:49:09 <gmaxwell> It will throw out change if including change would have required a fee. I'm not sure how that interacts with the prompting in the gui.
276 2012-04-20 11:49:32 <imsaguy> yes, qt
277 2012-04-20 11:50:16 <gmaxwell> E.g. if you're paying someone 1 BTC and you have a 1.000001 BTC input you're going to use, then it could create a txn that has outputs of 1 and 0.000001  but then that would need a 0.0005 fee.
278 2012-04-20 11:50:36 <imsaguy> obviously I'm not terribly concerned other than the UI experience could be improved
279 2012-04-20 11:50:38 <gmaxwell> Since it makes no sense to spend 0.0005 BTC to save 0.000001, it simply makes the 0.000001 into fee and then you only have one output.
280 2012-04-20 11:50:51 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: did this transaction only have one output?
281 2012-04-20 11:50:55 <imsaguy> because now it shows me sending 1.00001xxx without me having typed this in
282 2012-04-20 11:50:59 <imsaguy> a bunch of inputs
283 2012-04-20 11:51:25 <gmaxwell> Right, but number of outputs?
284 2012-04-20 11:51:47 <imsaguy> just 1
285 2012-04-20 11:52:02 <imsaguy> a throw away is still a fee
286 2012-04-20 11:52:12 <gmaxwell> Right okay, so thats what it was doing.
287 2012-04-20 11:52:16 <Eliel_> funny, I was just looking at blockchain.info and the transactions in a random block and thinking about this very thing :D
288 2012-04-20 11:52:28 <imsaguy> because otherwise I would have just sent the full amount to my output
289 2012-04-20 11:53:08 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: Do you think some option to 'allow rounding up' would be useful?
290 2012-04-20 11:53:08 <sipa> it's a fee, but it is less than the fee that would be required if it sent the transaction including a change that was usable
291 2012-04-20 11:53:28 <imsaguy> sipa, Im not disputing it.
292 2012-04-20 11:53:30 <imsaguy> its a UI thing
293 2012-04-20 11:53:34 <sipa> but the UI could certainly be improved, i agree
294 2012-04-20 11:53:35 <imsaguy> let the user think they are in control
295 2012-04-20 11:54:00 <imsaguy> don't just do something that isnt necesarily intuitive
296 2012-04-20 11:54:09 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: what would you do in this case?
297 2012-04-20 11:54:33 <imsaguy> well, a prompt saying a fee of (throwaway amount) will be charged would be perfect
298 2012-04-20 11:54:52 <imsaguy> there are still btc in the wallet, albeit not many
299 2012-04-20 11:55:22 <Eliel> ideally, pick another input that doesn't require throwing coins out. If that's not possible, ask user whether to include that in the payment or set it out as a fee.
300 2012-04-20 11:55:59 <imsaguy> if the throw away had been sent with the single output, would I have gotten the fee message?
301 2012-04-20 11:56:47 <gmaxwell> It's not like retailers notify you that you're trowing away 0.9 cents when your tax has a 0.1 cent fractional part... makes whatever notice we'd do confusing too.
302 2012-04-20 11:57:21 <imsaguy> I believe here the tax rounds down to the nearest cent
303 2012-04-20 11:57:26 <imsaguy> :-/
304 2012-04-20 11:57:29 <imsaguy> but I do see your point
305 2012-04-20 11:58:21 <luke-jr> [09:49:09] <gmaxwell> It will throw out change if including change would have required a fee. I'm not sure how that interacts with the prompting in the gui.
306 2012-04-20 11:58:29 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ^ not since like 0.3.21
307 2012-04-20 11:58:47 <imsaguy> luke-jr, it just did :)
308 2012-04-20 11:59:09 <imsaguy> qt .6.0.6-beta
309 2012-04-20 11:59:24 <luke-jr> imsaguy: how much is in the wallet now?
310 2012-04-20 11:59:29 <imsaguy> .00005
311 2012-04-20 11:59:33 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm pretty sure it still does when the change is lower than the fee that would have been required.
312 2012-04-20 11:59:47 <imsaguy> which goes back to my original question
313 2012-04-20 11:59:54 <imsaguy> if the throw away had been sent with the single output, would I have gotten the fee message?
314 2012-04-20 11:59:57 <luke-jr> imsaguy: OK, then maybe it was unavoidable
315 2012-04-20 12:00:11 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, it adds more inputs to make the change bigger if possible :p
316 2012-04-20 12:00:16 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: I didn't anwer that because it didn't make sense.
317 2012-04-20 12:00:23 <imsaguy> well
318 2012-04-20 12:00:53 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: this was the first thing I fixed in bitcoin codebase ;)
319 2012-04-20 12:00:56 <imsaguy> if I tried to send say 10.05 and it left a throw away of .00001xxx
320 2012-04-20 12:01:07 <imsaguy> then why not just let me send 10.05001000
321 2012-04-20 12:01:44 <imsaguy> if I had know a bit would have been thrown away, I would have included the throw away amount, effectively removing the change
322 2012-04-20 12:02:07 <luke-jr> imsaguy: I had a fix for that, too, but it was rejected
323 2012-04-20 12:02:15 <imsaguy> unless of course, it needed a fee
324 2012-04-20 12:02:22 <gmaxwell> imsaguy: sure, of course.  Thats always why I asked if a round up option would be useful.
325 2012-04-20 12:03:13 <imsaguy> What would you call it that wouldn't confuse the average user?
326 2012-04-20 12:04:44 <Eliel> so, I guess this only happens if there's no other inputs to add to make the change bigger :)
327 2012-04-20 12:05:03 <imsaguy> well, there's still a single input left
328 2012-04-20 12:05:18 <gmaxwell> "Let destination keep up to [ ] BTC change"
329 2012-04-20 12:09:13 <imsaguy> "Round up transactions up to [ ] BTC to avoid fees"
330 2012-04-20 12:09:44 <luke-jr> why encourage users to avoid fees?
331 2012-04-20 12:09:56 <imsaguy> why do something without telling the user?
332 2012-04-20 12:10:07 <luke-jr> imsaguy: well, I still think it should prompt the user
333 2012-04-20 12:10:19 <luke-jr> just only use the standard fee prompt
334 2012-04-20 12:10:31 <luke-jr> let them go back and modify their txn by hand if they want
335 2012-04-20 12:11:12 <imsaguy> thats what I was thinking originally
336 2012-04-20 12:14:41 <gribble> Best bid: 5.14873, Best ask: 5.16345, Bid-ask spread: 0.01472, Last trade: 5.16389, 24 hour volume: 42002, 24 hour low: 5.1, 24 hour high: 5.18
337 2012-04-20 12:14:41 <imsaguy> ;;ticker
338 2012-04-20 12:15:09 <gribble> 0.0001032778
339 2012-04-20 12:15:09 <imsaguy> ;;calc [ticker --last] * .00002
340 2012-04-20 12:15:32 <imsaguy> the amount we're talking really is insignificant
341 2012-04-20 12:19:19 <luke-jr> imsaguy: Date:   Tue Jan 25 23:17:59 2011 -0500
342 2012-04-20 12:21:33 <imsaguy> ?
343 2012-04-20 12:24:15 <luke-jr> imsaguy: when I wrote the fix
344 2012-04-20 12:24:24 <luke-jr> more importantly, it looks like it got merged in another form
345 2012-04-20 12:25:45 <luke-jr> should be fixed since 0.4.0
346 2012-04-20 12:26:27 <imsaguy> :-/
347 2012-04-20 12:26:55 <imsaguy> I wasn't around in Jan 2011, so I didn't even know this existed, so clearly its still around in some form.
348 2012-04-20 12:32:38 <luke-jr> imsaguy: what version do you run?
349 2012-04-20 12:32:52 <imsaguy2> [2012/04/20 08:59:10] <imsaguy> qt .6.0.6-beta
350 2012-04-20 12:33:22 <luke-jr> odd
351 2012-04-20 12:34:18 <sipa> luke-jr: if the input selection chooses coins whose total value is slightly more than the requested payment, it is turned into fee instead of change
352 2012-04-20 12:34:31 <sipa> that is, if there is not enough to create a spendable output
353 2012-04-20 12:35:15 <luke-jr> sipa: yes, but it should still prompt the user
354 2012-04-20 12:36:02 <sipa> i agree
355 2012-04-20 12:36:26 <luke-jr> afaict, you merged code that fixed that in 0.4.0 window
356 2012-04-20 12:36:37 <graingert> yesterday a professor at my university suggested doing a research project on getting JANET-wide multicast working with bitcoin transaction distribution
357 2012-04-20 12:37:15 <Diablo-D3> graingert: what, multicast broadcast traffic?
358 2012-04-20 12:37:32 <Diablo-D3> could work fine
359 2012-04-20 12:37:45 <Diablo-D3> you'd just need bitcoin nodes that understand it and repeat it to non-multicast nodes
360 2012-04-20 12:37:47 <graingert> how much scope for a) possibility b) whether it will be useful (and used) c) science
361 2012-04-20 12:38:13 <graingert> Diablo-D3: does bitcoin-qt even support v6
362 2012-04-20 12:38:21 <sipa> graingert: 0.7 will
363 2012-04-20 12:38:34 <Diablo-D3> yeah what sipa said
364 2012-04-20 12:38:36 <graingert> I was thinking of simply running a fake client on a port
365 2012-04-20 12:38:54 <Diablo-D3> graingert: and just repeats it to a localhost bitcoind?
366 2012-04-20 12:39:05 <graingert> ie you add 127.0.0.1:[port]
367 2012-04-20 12:39:11 <graingert> and it just does multicast
368 2012-04-20 12:39:16 <Diablo-D3> it could work
369 2012-04-20 12:39:20 <Diablo-D3> I mean, the big problem is
370 2012-04-20 12:39:23 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin doesnt use udp
371 2012-04-20 12:39:29 <Diablo-D3> and isnt meant for stateless connections
372 2012-04-20 12:39:36 <Diablo-D3> but building a second deamon that just translates shit is fine
373 2012-04-20 12:39:49 <Diablo-D3> it just repeats everything it hears both directions
374 2012-04-20 12:40:04 <graingert> it would be multi-sender mutli-reciever v6 multicast
375 2012-04-20 12:40:20 <sipa> would be even nicer for blocks
376 2012-04-20 12:40:27 <sipa> but maybe it's hard to do for larger messages?
377 2012-04-20 12:40:28 <graingert> good point
378 2012-04-20 12:40:34 <graingert> or
379 2012-04-20 12:40:41 <graingert> I could just do a multicast backend for
380 2012-04-20 12:40:51 <graingert> http://telehash.org/
381 2012-04-20 12:41:05 <sipa> when you receive a multicast message, do you know its sender?
382 2012-04-20 12:41:10 <graingert> yes
383 2012-04-20 12:41:35 <sipa> so you could use multicast for the "inv" message, and then contact the author for the data
384 2012-04-20 12:41:39 <sipa> instant DDoS!
385 2012-04-20 12:41:47 <sipa> s/author/sender/
386 2012-04-20 12:42:31 <graingert> I don't know what security there is for spoofing sender address
387 2012-04-20 12:42:34 <graingert> on multicast
388 2012-04-20 12:42:49 <Joric> udp hole pinching is not that great
389 2012-04-20 12:42:53 <Joric> there's a lot of ppl with iptables (port restricted NAT) nowadays
390 2012-04-20 12:43:22 <graingert> that's not an issue
391 2012-04-20 12:43:27 <graingert> I'm talking about JANET
392 2012-04-20 12:43:27 <Joric> it's not punchthroughable
393 2012-04-20 12:43:31 <graingert> v6
394 2012-04-20 12:43:56 <graingert> JANET is the closest to "internet wide" multicast
395 2012-04-20 12:43:58 <graingert> in the uk
396 2012-04-20 12:44:34 <graingert> although the only real test was IPTV from oxford to soton
397 2012-04-20 12:45:38 <graingert> it's literally the same state the early internet was in
398 2012-04-20 12:48:38 <graingert> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet#cite_ref-NetValley_9-0
399 2012-04-20 12:49:33 <graingert> anyway it looks like internet wide MC might just be mad enough to work
400 2012-04-20 12:49:40 <luke-jr> imo, should be merged for 0.6.1: 936, 1032, 1122, 1090, 829, 917, 1002, 1124, 1119, 1121; maybe 1128
401 2012-04-20 12:51:45 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: luke-jr opened pull request 1128 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1128>
402 2012-04-20 12:54:19 <sipa> luke-jr: 936 seems like a new feature (but is fine for 0.7 to me), 1090 seems not ready (but i don't care), 829 is included in the IPv6 pullreq (and will be merged in 0.7 i hope)
403 2012-04-20 12:54:34 <sipa> the others i agree with or don't know enough about
404 2012-04-20 12:57:56 <occulta> can someone guide me on using testnet, instead of main network because i want to use small numbers and it keeps charging me!
405 2012-04-20 12:58:08 <occulta> is it just a case of starting bitcoind with -testnet ?
406 2012-04-20 12:58:19 <sipa> yes
407 2012-04-20 12:58:40 <occulta> do i need to backup the main wallet?
408 2012-04-20 12:58:44 <occulta> remove / move anything ?
409 2012-04-20 12:58:44 <sipa> no
410 2012-04-20 12:58:50 <sipa> it uses a different data directory
411 2012-04-20 12:58:53 <occulta> how does it work then
412 2012-04-20 12:58:54 <occulta> ahh
413 2012-04-20 12:59:00 <occulta> different wallet altogether>/
414 2012-04-20 12:59:05 <sipa> (subdirectory testnet/ of the normal one)
415 2012-04-20 12:59:12 <occulta> right,
416 2012-04-20 12:59:21 <sipa> the config file is shared though
417 2012-04-20 12:59:22 <occulta> whats the safe way to stop the daemon ?
418 2012-04-20 12:59:27 <sipa> ./bitcoind stop
419 2012-04-20 13:00:00 <occulta> yea good, as i need to test the JSON RPC
420 2012-04-20 13:00:09 <occulta> what about confirms
421 2012-04-20 13:00:12 <occulta> how does that work on testnet
422 2012-04-20 13:00:16 <sipa> same way
423 2012-04-20 13:00:31 <sipa> only the difficulty policy is a bit different
424 2012-04-20 13:00:49 <occulta> o right
425 2012-04-20 13:00:55 <occulta> people have to mine on it for it to work ?
426 2012-04-20 13:01:00 <sipa> of course
427 2012-04-20 13:01:37 <occulta> i got this error sipa
428 2012-04-20 13:01:38 <occulta> http://pastebin.com/TbdqkHar
429 2012-04-20 13:02:04 <sipa> the old node is probably still running
430 2012-04-20 13:02:13 <occulta> o
431 2012-04-20 13:02:21 <occulta> how can i start the daemon silently?
432 2012-04-20 13:02:25 <occulta> i use -daemon -testnet
433 2012-04-20 13:02:32 <occulta> but it still shows in console
434 2012-04-20 13:02:40 <occulta> i want it to return to CL
435 2012-04-20 13:03:13 <sipa> if it can start up in the background, it will
436 2012-04-20 13:03:25 <sipa> but if it can't, it will show an error and exit
437 2012-04-20 13:03:30 <occulta> well it does, but doesnt return to input
438 2012-04-20 13:03:39 <occulta> i have to pretty cntl + c to get back
439 2012-04-20 13:03:46 <sipa> you don'
440 2012-04-20 13:03:57 <occulta> ok, maybe i didnt wait long enough
441 2012-04-20 13:04:00 <occulta> lets go again
442 2012-04-20 13:04:22 <occulta> now a rreally stupid question
443 2012-04-20 13:04:30 <occulta> how to use the bitcoin-qt  to send to testnet ?
444 2012-04-20 13:04:49 <sipa> bitcoin-qt -testnet
445 2012-04-20 13:05:02 <occulta> lmao
446 2012-04-20 13:05:40 <occulta> bitcoin server starting     >  but just sits cursor flashing line below, doesnt return to input
447 2012-04-20 13:05:49 <Joric> http://experimentiv.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/lol.jpg
448 2012-04-20 13:06:10 <sipa> occulta: type enter
449 2012-04-20 13:06:22 <occulta> ty.
450 2012-04-20 13:06:48 <sipa> occulta: what happens: it returns immediately to the shell, but the output is still done to the terminal
451 2012-04-20 13:06:56 <occulta> right
452 2012-04-20 13:07:02 <sipa> so even though you are already back at your shell, bitcoin puts something on the screen
453 2012-04-20 13:07:04 <occulta> its got to download the whole chain?
454 2012-04-20 13:07:08 <sipa> of course
455 2012-04-20 13:07:13 <occulta> cani download the testnet chain anywhere to save some bandwidth?
456 2012-04-20 13:07:14 <sipa> but the testnet chain is a lot smaller
457 2012-04-20 13:07:23 <sipa> you won't save much
458 2012-04-20 13:07:30 <occulta> o right
459 2012-04-20 13:07:31 <sipa> it's really just downloading
460 2012-04-20 13:07:33 <occulta> how many blocks?
461 2012-04-20 13:07:56 <sipa> unsure
462 2012-04-20 13:09:15 <occulta> ok, just dont want it to be a GB
463 2012-04-20 13:09:19 <occulta> ill google
464 2012-04-20 13:10:01 <sipa> oh, no no no
465 2012-04-20 13:10:04 <sipa> 50 MB or so
466 2012-04-20 13:10:12 <sipa> it's hardly used
467 2012-04-20 13:10:24 <imsaguy2> at least 55k blocks
468 2012-04-20 13:10:24 <sipa> (and kinda broken right now)
469 2012-04-20 13:11:17 <imsaguy2> the android testnet wallets are using bitcoinj which doesn't have the new code yet, so they're stuck at 4 weeks ago
470 2012-04-20 13:36:51 <occulta> ah
471 2012-04-20 13:36:56 <occulta> imsaguy2: lol, how do i get coins?
472 2012-04-20 13:37:18 <gmaxwell> imsaguy2: What do you mean "doesn't have the new code yet" ?
473 2012-04-20 13:37:24 <imsaguy> bitcoin testnet faucet
474 2012-04-20 13:37:30 <gmaxwell> Oh testnet. durr.
475 2012-04-20 13:37:45 <imsaguy> its been checked in, but not everyone uses latest source
476 2012-04-20 13:38:11 <occulta> ah
477 2012-04-20 13:38:15 <luke-jr> I have TN coins
478 2012-04-20 13:38:15 <occulta> faucet only ?
479 2012-04-20 13:38:21 <occulta> 50 is fine, just curious
480 2012-04-20 13:38:24 <imsaguy> occulta: or you mine on it
481 2012-04-20 13:38:25 <luke-jr> addr?
482 2012-04-20 13:38:28 <imsaguy> or you ask someone
483 2012-04-20 13:38:40 <imsaguy> mnwVcGwrUuFbWKBZKUk5zjQycoLk1aQ5tM
484 2012-04-20 13:38:45 <occulta> miskWDA9YnbUWJmn9kCeLr5nsQZn7FDFv1
485 2012-04-20 13:38:51 <imsaguy> 54946 is the latest block
486 2012-04-20 13:39:07 <occulta> yea i got it now imsaguy2, although -qt is still syncing,
487 2012-04-20 13:39:13 <luke-jr> both of you want some?
488 2012-04-20 13:39:13 <occulta> i had this bug before on mainnet
489 2012-04-20 13:39:18 <occulta> normally restarting clears it
490 2012-04-20 13:39:21 <imsaguy> just 25
491 2012-04-20 13:39:26 <imsaguy> I'll send them back
492 2012-04-20 13:39:34 <occulta> luke-jr: i have 0, i am trying to test a new gateway
493 2012-04-20 13:39:43 <occulta> i was paying TX fees lol
494 2012-04-20 13:39:46 <imsaguy> my normal supply is lost in that android wallet
495 2012-04-20 13:40:16 <imsaguy> longer bootstrap?
496 2012-04-20 13:40:50 <gmaxwell> define start?
497 2012-04-20 13:41:00 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: loading block index
498 2012-04-20 13:41:01 <occulta> thanks luke-jr
499 2012-04-20 13:41:15 <luke-jr> moekZy8GH5WyEf1e957MiGwNaigRke7HC2 when you're done with them
500 2012-04-20 13:41:24 <luke-jr> or send them to someone else who needs them
501 2012-04-20 13:41:26 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: stuffed with orphans from the big forks
502 2012-04-20 13:41:29 <luke-jr> I have 5494 TNBTC :p
503 2012-04-20 13:41:36 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: ah
504 2012-04-20 13:42:14 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: imo, should be merged for 0.6.1: 936, 1032, 1122, 1090, 917, 1002, 1124, 1119, 1121; maybe 1128
505 2012-04-20 13:43:17 <occulta> luke-jr: my QT client is still getting blocks, but it has them all?
506 2012-04-20 13:43:25 <occulta> how long we talking for confirms on TN?
507 2012-04-20 13:43:33 <luke-jr> occulta: until soemone mines it
508 2012-04-20 13:43:45 <occulta> mothertrucker
509 2012-04-20 13:43:59 <imsaguy2> heh
510 2012-04-20 13:44:09 <imsaguy2> how many blocks do you have occulta?
511 2012-04-20 13:44:22 <occulta> 54946
512 2012-04-20 13:44:27 <imsaguy2> oh, ok
513 2012-04-20 13:44:31 <occulta> "blocks" : 54946,
514 2012-04-20 13:44:34 <occulta> both ends
515 2012-04-20 13:44:35 <imsaguy2> I have someone connected to me with only 12913
516 2012-04-20 13:44:42 <imsaguy2> so I didn't know if htat was you
517 2012-04-20 13:44:47 <occulta> ah
518 2012-04-20 13:45:04 <luke-jr> occulta: as long as the newest block is over 90 minutes old, it will think it's updating
519 2012-04-20 13:45:16 <imsaguy2> last block is 8 hours, lol
520 2012-04-20 13:45:20 <occulta> ok, thanks for the tip
521 2012-04-20 13:45:21 <imsaguy2> I can throw a gpu on it if you want
522 2012-04-20 13:45:21 <occulta> yes
523 2012-04-20 13:45:24 <occulta> i cant wait 8hours tot est..
524 2012-04-20 13:45:27 <occulta> lol
525 2012-04-20 13:45:34 <occulta> how easy to mine, i have a 6850 ?
526 2012-04-20 13:45:38 <occulta> on this 140 difficulty i mean
527 2012-04-20 13:45:55 <imsaguy2> well, I don't know if it made it in, but there was code to lower diff if there hadn't been a block in a certain period of time
528 2012-04-20 13:46:23 <occulta> hmm
529 2012-04-20 13:46:27 <occulta> my app needs 2 confirms
530 2012-04-20 13:46:30 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 300000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 140, is 2155.34652982 BTC per day and 89.8061054093 BTC per hour.
531 2012-04-20 13:46:30 <imsaguy2> ;;bc,gend 300000 140
532 2012-04-20 13:46:41 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 140, is 33 minutes and 24 seconds
533 2012-04-20 13:46:41 <imsaguy2> ;;bc,calcd 300000 140
534 2012-04-20 13:46:42 <occulta> have to wait over a day in between testing? lol
535 2012-04-20 13:46:51 <imsaguy2> no
536 2012-04-20 13:46:56 <imsaguy2> 33 minutes, 24 seconds
537 2012-04-20 13:46:57 <imsaguy2> ish
538 2012-04-20 13:47:08 <occulta> and after that?
539 2012-04-20 13:47:22 <imsaguy2> on average, your gpu will find a block ever 33 minutes, 24 seconds
540 2012-04-20 13:47:23 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 1, is 14 seconds
541 2012-04-20 13:47:23 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 300000 1
542 2012-04-20 13:47:26 <gribble> The average time to generate a block at 300000 Khps, given the supplied difficulty of 0.25, is 3 seconds
543 2012-04-20 13:47:26 <luke-jr> ;;bc,calcd 300000 0.25
544 2012-04-20 13:47:33 <luke-jr> ^ every 10 minutes, you can mine at diff 0.25
545 2012-04-20 13:47:37 <occulta> hmm
546 2012-04-20 13:47:40 <imsaguy2> ok, that's what it is
547 2012-04-20 13:47:40 <luke-jr> so figure 10 mins per confirm :P
548 2012-04-20 13:47:45 <luke-jr> 20 mins, if you use a CPU miner
549 2012-04-20 13:47:56 <imsaguy2> 20 mins if you use a gpu ;)
550 2012-04-20 13:48:02 <occulta> damn, gna take me a day to figure out how to mine blocks for my own transactions lol
551 2012-04-20 13:48:03 <imsaguy2> 20 mins if you use asic
552 2012-04-20 13:48:16 <imsaguy2> I'll do mine occulta
553 2012-04-20 13:48:30 <occulta> i dont know when ill be testing imsaguy2 but thanks for the offer.
554 2012-04-20 13:48:41 <occulta> guess ill need to do it on my own, any 3 step guides? :P
555 2012-04-20 13:49:04 <imsaguy2> you need to server=1, set the username/password in your config
556 2012-04-20 13:49:06 <luke-jr> occulta: get cgminer from git, and --enable-cpumining
557 2012-04-20 13:49:18 <occulta> what about GPU, i would prefer that
558 2012-04-20 13:49:20 <occulta> wanna save my i7
559 2012-04-20 13:49:36 <occulta> CPU easier to config thats why you said right ?
560 2012-04-20 13:50:09 <luke-jr> then just use your GPU miner
561 2012-04-20 13:50:21 <luke-jr> I said CPU because I'd want to keep my GPU doing Bitcoin
562 2012-04-20 13:50:24 <occulta> i did before, gna take some readin again
563 2012-04-20 13:50:27 <luke-jr> and it's easy enough for CPU
564 2012-04-20 13:50:35 <occulta> i dont mine period
565 2012-04-20 13:50:52 <imsaguy2> occulta: thank you for that.
566 2012-04-20 13:50:56 <occulta> although, i have 4.5GHs on bonds
567 2012-04-20 13:51:09 <occulta> and might get one of those BFL 26GHs
568 2012-04-20 13:51:13 <occulta> :)
569 2012-04-20 13:53:21 <occulta> imsaguy2: could you link me to what script you use to GPU mine ?
570 2012-04-20 13:55:14 <imsaguy2> script?
571 2012-04-20 13:56:09 <occulta> yea isnt it like some python script ?
572 2012-04-20 13:56:51 <luke-jr> &
573 2012-04-20 13:57:00 <occulta> i dont know
574 2012-04-20 13:57:07 <occulta> how do i GPU mine? before i had some scripts etc
575 2012-04-20 13:57:18 <luke-jr> cgminer :P
576 2012-04-20 13:58:44 <occulta> i dont need any of that with CPU?
577 2012-04-20 14:00:43 <luke-jr> &
578 2012-04-20 14:00:49 <luke-jr> cgminer is for either CPU or GPU
579 2012-04-20 14:01:51 <occulta> doesnt the official client mine on its own ?
580 2012-04-20 14:03:58 <occulta> i have ubuntu binary for it, but there is no testnet switch or anything?, sorry im so lost :P
581 2012-04-20 14:05:37 <gmaxwell> occulta: what do you mean that there is not testnet switch?
582 2012-04-20 14:06:12 <occulta> gmaxwell: i am trying to mine on testnet to confirm my transactions, tbh i have no idea what i am doing after my goal lol
583 2012-04-20 14:08:35 <occulta> i need this cgminer at all? i thought i could mine with the official client ?
584 2012-04-20 14:08:53 <luke-jr> -gen=1
585 2012-04-20 14:09:01 <Diablo-D3> occulta: you cant gpu mine with the official client
586 2012-04-20 14:09:01 <luke-jr> but it's SLOW
587 2012-04-20 14:09:06 <occulta> cpu ?
588 2012-04-20 14:09:11 <occulta> ah
589 2012-04-20 14:09:17 <occulta> yea i just used -gen
590 2012-04-20 14:09:18 <Diablo-D3> there are faster cpu miners than the official client as well
591 2012-04-20 14:09:18 <occulta> to test
592 2012-04-20 14:09:50 <occulta> would i use it like this, for testing purposes   bitcoind -testnet -gen
593 2012-04-20 14:10:06 <[Tycho]> Diablo-D3: then you have to buy lots of FPGA miners.
594 2012-04-20 14:10:08 <occulta> i dont have bitcoind install apparently :P
595 2012-04-20 14:14:24 <occulta> ok so cgminer, what switch for simple CPU mining on testnet?
596 2012-04-20 14:15:38 <occulta> do i need to start bitcoind, then run  with   --enable-cpu ? how will it know to mine on testnet though?
597 2012-04-20 14:17:00 <luke-jr> occulta: rtfm? :<
598 2012-04-20 14:17:24 <occulta> well, it was never my plan to mine ym own blocks on TN, i have other things to do
599 2012-04-20 14:17:27 <occulta> i can RTFM
600 2012-04-20 14:18:24 <occulta> spend some hours finding out how to mine on TN , kinda pointless imho
601 2012-04-20 14:18:42 <imsaguy2> "difficulty" : 0.06249911,
602 2012-04-20 14:19:04 <occulta> "difficulty" : 10.27353498
603 2012-04-20 14:19:39 <imsaguy2> sucks to be you :p
604 2012-04-20 14:19:45 <occulta> fu
605 2012-04-20 14:20:00 <imsaguy2> nou
606 2012-04-20 14:20:01 <occulta> luke-jr: fancy pasting me to this huge testnet manual ?
607 2012-04-20 14:20:12 <imsaguy2> you start the daemon
608 2012-04-20 14:20:28 <imsaguy2> then you do setgenerate true -1
609 2012-04-20 14:20:44 <imsaguy2> a little 'bitcoind help' goes a long way
610 2012-04-20 14:20:49 <occulta> i did that
611 2012-04-20 14:20:57 <occulta> setgenerate <generate> [genproclimit]
612 2012-04-20 14:21:03 <occulta> didjnt know what it meant though
613 2012-04-20 14:21:08 <imsaguy2> ...
614 2012-04-20 14:21:10 <imsaguy2> it explains it
615 2012-04-20 14:21:17 <occulta> not to me
616 2012-04-20 14:21:41 <imsaguy2> error: {"code":-1,"message":"setgenerate <generate> [genproclimit]\n<generat
617 2012-04-20 14:21:48 <occulta> and tbh, im still not sure what it doesn?
618 2012-04-20 14:22:25 <occulta> well, i see my 8 cores @ 100% lol
619 2012-04-20 14:22:29 <imsaguy2> good
620 2012-04-20 14:22:30 <imsaguy2> you're mining
621 2012-04-20 14:22:35 <occulta> ty.
622 2012-04-20 14:22:37 <imsaguy2> now sit back and let it work
623 2012-04-20 14:22:44 <imsaguy2> when you're done, bitcoind stop
624 2012-04-20 14:22:47 <occulta> what about on my server?
625 2012-04-20 14:22:52 <occulta> might do it on there
626 2012-04-20 14:22:57 <imsaguy2> that works
627 2012-04-20 14:23:13 <occulta> whats with the difficulty change?
628 2012-04-20 14:23:27 <imsaguy2> "blocks" : 54947,
629 2012-04-20 14:23:27 <imsaguy2> "currentblocksize" : 1226,
630 2012-04-20 14:23:28 <imsaguy2> "genproclimit" : -1,
631 2012-04-20 14:23:42 <imsaguy2> if you do bitcoind getmininginfo
632 2012-04-20 14:23:46 <imsaguy2> you should see the aboce ^
633 2012-04-20 14:23:50 <occulta> yes,
634 2012-04-20 14:23:56 <occulta> but why did it change, from the original 10. *
635 2012-04-20 14:24:10 <occulta> and will this actually make it easier to mine the blocks?
636 2012-04-20 14:24:14 <imsaguy2> because longer than 10 minutes
637 2012-04-20 14:24:24 <imsaguy2> well, diff 1 says you should get it quickly
638 2012-04-20 14:25:41 <occulta> cant open bitcoin-qt at the same time :P
639 2012-04-20 14:26:26 <imsaguy> no, datadir lock
640 2012-04-20 14:26:37 <imsaguy> but you could specify a new data dir for the miner vs the qt
641 2012-04-20 14:27:06 <occulta> i see
642 2012-04-20 14:27:34 <imsaguy2> you make me feel better
643 2012-04-20 14:27:40 <imsaguy2> maybe I'm not as n00b as I sometimes feel
644 2012-04-20 14:27:44 <imsaguy2> :p
645 2012-04-20 14:27:47 <occulta> seriouslyfu
646 2012-04-20 14:27:49 <occulta> :)
647 2012-04-20 14:28:03 <occulta> im sure your are n00b in many things
648 2012-04-20 14:28:16 <occulta> you are always a newbie the first time you do something, kinda of self explainatory
649 2012-04-20 14:28:58 <imsaguy2> some people have perpetual n00b (and I'm not saying you're one of them)
650 2012-04-20 14:29:11 <occulta> last block received 16mins ago
651 2012-04-20 14:29:13 <occulta> no confirms
652 2012-04-20 14:29:23 <luke-jr> occulta: you could also mine with bitcoin-qt
653 2012-04-20 14:29:48 <occulta> luke-jr: thats what i was asking i think originally, imsaguy2 did your coins from luke-jr get confirms with that block ?
654 2012-04-20 14:31:27 <occulta> "hashespersec" : 3873324
655 2012-04-20 14:31:37 <occulta> not bad for CPU?
656 2012-04-20 14:33:10 <luke-jr> could be wore.
657 2012-04-20 14:33:12 <luke-jr> worse*
658 2012-04-20 14:36:20 <occulta> so whats with the diff changing? i dont get that at all, i just mined 2 blocks i think
659 2012-04-20 14:37:24 <sipa> occulta: there's a specifial testnet rule that allows a minimum-difficulty block if it has been more than 20 minutes since the last one
660 2012-04-20 14:37:44 <occulta> thanks.
661 2012-04-20 14:37:56 <occulta> will the diff auto change itself, after this block is mined?
662 2012-04-20 14:38:46 <occulta> ok it worked
663 2012-04-20 14:38:49 <occulta> :)
664 2012-04-20 14:39:04 <occulta> but i do need 2 confirms, shame i cant use that diff for all blocks :(
665 2012-04-20 14:47:57 <wumpus> sipa, luke-jr: let's ack #1122, I resolved all the binary differences
666 2012-04-20 14:50:06 <luke-jr> wumpus: OK
667 2012-04-20 15:01:22 <echelon> sipa: that's part of the problem, for some reason i can't find the upnp forwarded ports
668 2012-04-20 15:01:28 <echelon> on my router
669 2012-04-20 15:13:31 <imsaguy2> there goes another block
670 2012-04-20 15:16:54 <occulta> ah was you helping?
671 2012-04-20 15:17:08 <occulta> so has diff reset, or is it a temp thing?
672 2012-04-20 15:18:20 <occulta> because it says same on my server
673 2012-04-20 15:18:25 <occulta> i thought it was a local thing
674 2012-04-20 16:49:46 <echelon> sipa: you were right, it was probably a stale upnp entry in my router's firewall rules
675 2012-04-20 16:57:14 <Glasswalker> luke-jr: What is the valid hash of the data at http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/earlyshare.json (as-is, no incrimented nonce, no timestamp adjustment)
676 2012-04-20 16:57:30 <luke-jr> Glasswalker: dunno
677 2012-04-20 16:57:40 <Glasswalker> I ask because every language I look at, the SHA256 implementation doesn't allow me to feed in plain 512bit blocks
678 2012-04-20 16:57:52 <Glasswalker> they expect to do the padding themselves
679 2012-04-20 16:57:58 <Glasswalker> but the getwork protocol is pre-padded
680 2012-04-20 16:58:08 <Glasswalker> and endian-flipped
681 2012-04-20 16:59:00 <Glasswalker> it seems no SHA256 I can find supports generating a midstate either. They all support incremental hashing, but not outputting the raw midstate data
682 2012-04-20 17:06:33 <echelon> is there a way to have bitcoin client listen only on localhost?
683 2012-04-20 17:06:51 <echelon> or bind it to a specific ip or interface
684 2012-04-20 17:11:20 <Glasswalker> driving me insane that it's this difficult to test my sha core. All I want to do is verify that a given 512bit input block with a given 256bit midstate results in a given 256bit output hash. But that is proving to be amazingly difficult lol
685 2012-04-20 19:03:52 <forrestv> Glasswalker, p2pool has a sha256 implementation that would let you test that
686 2012-04-20 21:12:26 <ciscoftw> trying to use the wireshark bitcoin dissector, anybody here using 'blueCommand / bitcoin-dissector'... having a problem regarding applying the patch. 'patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input'
687 2012-04-20 21:16:38 <sipa> ciscoftw: link?
688 2012-04-20 21:17:44 <ciscoftw> https://github.com/blueCommand/bitcoin-dissector
689 2012-04-20 21:18:56 <sipa> looks like a normal patchfile to me
690 2012-04-20 21:19:08 <ciscoftw> sipa: im not using the same source as this guy, i did it via svn so my version is newer than his... think that is f'ing me?
691 2012-04-20 21:19:32 <sipa> shouldn't be
692 2012-04-20 21:20:23 <ciscoftw> i also tried putting the 'packet-bitcoin.c' into the /dissectors directory then did a complete compile/install, but it did work -well software compiled and installed but the dissector wasnt there when i launched
693 2012-04-20 21:20:59 <ciscoftw> when i try to apply the patch via a conventional method i just get an error 'patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input.'
694 2012-04-20 21:25:33 <Joric> http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=bitcoind wow how long its been there
695 2012-04-20 21:25:44 <BlueMatt> a /long/ time
696 2012-04-20 21:25:54 <BlueMatt> still doesnt have bitcoin-qt though...
697 2012-04-20 21:26:06 <splatster> Longtime is loooooooooooong.
698 2012-04-20 21:26:20 <splatster> Ya, isn't the version on there pretty old?
699 2012-04-20 21:26:31 <BlueMatt> its debian so...of course
700 2012-04-20 21:26:39 <BlueMatt> its 0.3.24
701 2012-04-20 21:26:39 <splatster> heh
702 2012-04-20 21:27:05 <Joric> veeery old, but veeery stable
703 2012-04-20 21:27:21 <BlueMatt> oorrrr...
704 2012-04-20 21:27:46 <sipa> bah, did a commit --amend while inside a rebase that failed to merge -> accidentally combined two commits while i didn't want to
705 2012-04-20 21:28:10 <sipa> why doesn't rebase work consistently? either always ask to commit it yourself, or always ask to just add changed files to the index
706 2012-04-20 21:28:31 <sipa> but the fact that for a failed merged it just asks to add, and for an edit it asks to amend... confusing
707 2012-04-20 21:32:19 <ciscoftw> bluematt = blueCommand?
708 2012-04-20 22:03:26 <luke-jr> Joric: no, 0.3.24 is not stable.
709 2012-04-20 22:03:50 <luke-jr> in fact, it has known exploits
710 2012-04-20 22:05:45 <dwon> The version in debian testing is old because the automated process to move builds from unstable -> testing requires that it builds properly on all architectures listed in the debian/control file, and it currently breaks on a bunch of platforms.
711 2012-04-20 22:06:06 <dwon> It's completely broken on big-endian architectures, and it's broken on little-endian architectures where char == unsigned char
712 2012-04-20 22:06:07 <luke-jr> dwon: so did the old versions
713 2012-04-20 22:06:16 <sipa> someone was working on that, no?
714 2012-04-20 22:06:22 <dwon> sipa: that was me
715 2012-04-20 22:06:27 <sipa> oh, right!
716 2012-04-20 22:06:31 <luke-jr> not on BE afaik
717 2012-04-20 22:06:37 <luke-jr> that will be a nightmare
718 2012-04-20 22:06:39 <sipa> on BE it simply won't work
719 2012-04-20 22:06:48 <dwon> I submitted a patch to fix the unsigned char thing, and another patch to drop support for BE architectures from the debian/control file
720 2012-04-20 22:07:16 <sipa> i'd like to try adapting it for BE (mostly just get an idea of how much work it is), but i'd need access to a BE system that can build bitcoin
721 2012-04-20 22:07:26 <luke-jr> dwon: I'll have the unsigned char thing backported to 0.4 and 0.5 soonish
722 2012-04-20 22:07:40 <luke-jr> sipa: Raspberry Pi?
723 2012-04-20 22:08:00 <sipa> luke-jr: isn't that LE ARM?
724 2012-04-20 22:08:53 <dwon> luke-jr: cool.  I'm glad you're checking it carefully [luke-jr did an objdump and everything!] because I put that patch together in an afternoon, and without any real understanding of the underlying code.  I *think* I got it right, but it's possible that I didn't.
725 2012-04-20 22:08:59 <luke-jr> sipa: I presume it can run in BE mode?
726 2012-04-20 22:09:13 <sipa> the CPU supports both, but I don't know about the rest of the hardware and OS platforms
727 2012-04-20 22:09:19 <luke-jr> hmm
728 2012-04-20 22:09:20 <dwon> There are some ARM processors that are LE only
729 2012-04-20 22:09:34 <luke-jr> I should have a PowerPC EFIKA somewhere
730 2012-04-20 22:09:38 <luke-jr> not sure I can find it tho
731 2012-04-20 22:09:43 <sipa> luke-jr: also, I don't have a rasberry pi (yet)
732 2012-04-20 22:10:04 <luke-jr> sipa: GNU's compile farm?
733 2012-04-20 22:10:27 <luke-jr> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
734 2012-04-20 22:10:33 <gmaxwell> all the boost/c++ stuff is what makes it annoying.
735 2012-04-20 22:10:42 <gmaxwell> otherwise it would be easy to compile on my solaris box.
736 2012-04-20 22:11:27 <sipa> hmm, that compile farm looks interesting
737 2012-04-20 22:12:32 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: ping
738 2012-04-20 22:12:43 <Diablo-D3> pong
739 2012-04-20 22:12:53 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: can you help me figure out why this is broken? http://paste.pocoo.org/show/584987/
740 2012-04-20 22:13:02 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: it seems to be failing to clear the OCL buffer
741 2012-04-20 22:13:14 <luke-jr> to build: g++ test.c -lOpenCL -std=c++0x
742 2012-04-20 22:14:22 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: dunno, should work fine, but Im not going to go test it
743 2012-04-20 22:14:28 <Diablo-D3> doesnt look too different than mine
744 2012-04-20 22:14:35 <Diablo-D3> its probably something both stupid and subtle
745 2012-04-20 22:14:58 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: you have a C thing?
746 2012-04-20 22:15:02 <Diablo-D3> are you clearing the buffer before executing the kernel for the first time?
747 2012-04-20 22:15:18 <Diablo-D3> the java api I use exposes the C api almost as is
748 2012-04-20 22:15:26 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: that's what seems to be going wrong (I only execute the kernel once)
749 2012-04-20 22:15:28 <Diablo-D3> I wrote DM using the opencl spec
750 2012-04-20 22:15:31 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no idea why it's not clearing
751 2012-04-20 22:15:52 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: I'm trying to put together a test case so the guys in #OpenCL will help me figure out why my GPU is giving me <50% shares
752 2012-04-20 22:15:56 <Diablo-D3> well, your code looks like you clear buffer after kernel execution, which is correct... but are you ever clearing it for the first time?
753 2012-04-20 22:16:03 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: you didnt use the ultimate test case
754 2012-04-20 22:16:08 <Diablo-D3> DM itself.
755 2012-04-20 22:17:02 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: technically that code isn't executing the kernel at all right now, just trying to clear then read it
756 2012-04-20 22:17:22 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: DM is a pain to run, and #OpenCL guys won't support it
757 2012-04-20 22:18:06 <Diablo-D3> no, but Im saying
758 2012-04-20 22:18:07 <Diablo-D3> do it
759 2012-04-20 22:18:14 <Diablo-D3> I know my code works
760 2012-04-20 22:18:19 <Diablo-D3> and I know what my code does
761 2012-04-20 22:18:26 <Diablo-D3> and I know DM has a functioning raw ghash meter.
762 2012-04-20 22:20:51 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: use -dd in DM, generate 10k attempts (not accepts, although something else is wrong if attempts isnt accepts+rejects+hwe), and see how many ghash transpired
763 2012-04-20 22:21:10 <Diablo-D3> if its not 42k ghash, then the bug is where you think it is
764 2012-04-20 22:30:56 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: how do I get it running?
765 2012-04-20 22:31:14 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: read the op post.
766 2012-04-20 22:31:50 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: it doesn't say.
767 2012-04-20 22:31:58 <Diablo-D3> I dont understand your question then
768 2012-04-20 22:32:03 <luke-jr> what dependencies?
769 2012-04-20 22:32:06 <Diablo-D3> java.
770 2012-04-20 22:32:13 <luke-jr> that's all?
771 2012-04-20 22:32:19 <Diablo-D3> a working opencl impl as well.
772 2012-04-20 22:32:27 <Diablo-D3> everything else is in the binary zip
773 2012-04-20 22:32:41 <luke-jr> what package is java?
774 2012-04-20 22:33:10 <Diablo-D3> what os?
775 2012-04-20 22:33:25 <luke-jr> Gentoo
776 2012-04-20 22:33:36 <luke-jr> icedtea-bin work?
777 2012-04-20 22:33:38 <Diablo-D3> dunno, ask #gentoo
778 2012-04-20 22:33:46 <Diablo-D3> that sounds right, though
779 2012-04-20 22:33:58 <sipa> $ java -version
780 2012-04-20 22:34:04 <sipa> that works, afaik
781 2012-04-20 22:34:16 <luke-jr> does it need X support?
782 2012-04-20 22:34:30 <Diablo-D3> yes, you cant use the headless version
783 2012-04-20 22:34:34 <luke-jr> grmbl
784 2012-04-20 22:34:36 <Diablo-D3> and you obviously need X running as well
785 2012-04-20 22:34:51 <luke-jr> Java w/ X is demanding a non-free font