1 2012-08-21 00:01:42 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell TD, the reason I didnt think through the merkleBlock.vtx[0]).size() check is that the comment in bitcoinj was incorrectly pointing out a more efficient way of handling the tree edge, fixed now
2 2012-08-21 00:01:43 <gribble> Error: "0" is not a valid command.
3 2012-08-21 00:01:51 <BlueMatt> ;;later tell TD the reason I didnt think through the merkleBlock.vtx[0]).size() check is that the comment in bitcoinj was incorrectly pointing out a more efficient way of handling the tree edge, fixed now
4 2012-08-21 00:01:51 <gribble> Error: "0" is not a valid command.
5 2012-08-21 00:02:08 <BlueMatt> nanotube: whats up?
6 2012-08-21 00:02:58 <SnapSnap> It's pretty big
7 2012-08-21 00:05:17 <SnapSnap> gmaxwell, the site is still uploading it
8 2012-08-21 00:07:07 <SnapSnap> It's 10.2 MB. Is that normal?
9 2012-08-21 00:07:24 <SnapSnap> Only had this particular wallet a couple days
10 2012-08-21 00:07:45 <gmaxwell> it's not abnormal.
11 2012-08-21 00:26:30 <SnapSnap> gmaxwell, wouldn't upload on pastebin. Figured out a solution: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B25-dSIaJwdJLWczNC1RTm1FcjA
12 2012-08-21 00:32:29 <amiller> HAH!
13 2012-08-21 00:33:13 <amiller> (log M) is bounded by 50.
14 2012-08-21 00:33:39 <amiller> that's how many satoshis there are, and we can't have more than one UTXO per satoshi
15 2012-08-21 00:37:36 <amiller> this ratio is important, too, because at some point you're able to birthday-attack UTXOs efficiently.
16 2012-08-21 00:38:02 <amiller> (logM) < 50x5 < 256 = k
17 2012-08-21 00:44:22 <SnapSnap> gmaxwell, any ideas?
18 2012-08-21 00:46:55 <nanotube> BlueMatt: [] is syntax for nested commands. to avoid parsing quote the message in double quotes.
19 2012-08-21 00:47:13 <BlueMatt> nanotube: oh, heh dur I knew that...sorry
20 2012-08-21 00:47:48 <cjd> ACTION waves to nano
21 2012-08-21 00:49:08 <nanotube> BlueMatt: :)
22 2012-08-21 00:49:12 <nanotube> cjd: hey ltns!
23 2012-08-21 00:49:17 <cjd> indeed
24 2012-08-21 00:50:16 <cjd> joined to ask around and see if anyone knew what happened to cia.vc.. found out the conference in London is upon us so trying to figure out if it'll work to go..
25 2012-08-21 00:55:09 <gmaxwell> amiller: yes we can, have more UTXO than satoshi. :( but thats idiotcy that should be fixed.
26 2012-08-21 00:55:25 <amiller> lol how
27 2012-08-21 00:55:27 <gmaxwell> sneak: that link gives me not found.
28 2012-08-21 01:10:04 <jgarzik> 'getwork' RPC for pynode pushed
29 2012-08-21 01:10:20 <jgarzik> incompatible with existing mining software, but that will be fixed shortly
30 2012-08-21 01:11:33 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: why incompatible?
31 2012-08-21 01:11:49 <jgarzik> easier
32 2012-08-21 01:12:02 <Luke-Jr> you know only DiabloMiner requires midstate/hash1 now?
33 2012-08-21 01:12:32 <Luke-Jr> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Getwork_support
34 2012-08-21 01:17:45 <MC-Eeepc> why are people still not using p2pool
35 2012-08-21 01:17:51 <MC-Eeepc> lazyness?
36 2012-08-21 01:18:34 <MC-Eeepc> dont pools get dossed all the time
37 2012-08-21 01:18:41 <MC-Eeepc> arnt people get sick of that shit
38 2012-08-21 01:19:07 <cjd> community
39 2012-08-21 01:19:17 <cjd> the reason why people mine in pools
40 2012-08-21 01:19:34 <cjd> same reason bittorrent "won out" over other protocols
41 2012-08-21 01:20:19 <MC-Eeepc> private p2pools can be made though
42 2012-08-21 01:21:36 <MC-Eeepc> well atleast deepbit is waning
43 2012-08-21 01:21:59 <MC-Eeepc> but it looks like someone could control a huge amount of the new hashpower
44 2012-08-21 01:22:02 <MC-Eeepc> asics and shit
45 2012-08-21 01:27:30 <Luke-Jr> MC-Eeepc: p2pool is just another pool, and more vulnerable to DDoSs
46 2012-08-21 01:27:55 <Luke-Jr> the p2p aspect to it is in many ways a bad thing
47 2012-08-21 01:28:57 <jgarzik> you forgot </heavy bias> tag
48 2012-08-21 01:29:10 <MC-Eeepc> trolling
49 2012-08-21 01:35:34 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: no bias there
50 2012-08-21 01:36:06 <Luke-Jr> the bias was MC-Eeepc's original comments
51 2012-08-21 01:36:12 <cjd> hey Luke, any idea what happened to cia.vc?
52 2012-08-21 01:36:32 <doublec> doesn't eligius have some form of decentralized mining?
53 2012-08-21 01:36:53 <Diablo-D3> cia.vc is down due to ip renumbering
54 2012-08-21 01:37:01 <Luke-Jr> cjd: apparently the maintainer doesn't consider it a priority; #cia suggests it might be up soon tho
55 2012-08-21 01:37:07 <Luke-Jr> doublec: yes
56 2012-08-21 01:37:11 <gmaxwell> Centeralized payout, quasi solo work generation.
57 2012-08-21 01:37:16 <Diablo-D3> or rather, its down for you
58 2012-08-21 01:37:17 <cjd> ahh cool, thanks
59 2012-08-21 01:37:21 <gmaxwell> Which is not a bad thing.
60 2012-08-21 01:37:24 <Diablo-D3> unlike luke, I actually talk to the right people
61 2012-08-21 01:37:41 <cjd> down for github is the problem
62 2012-08-21 01:37:41 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: it's not up until IRC gets project commits
63 2012-08-21 01:37:47 <Diablo-D3> btw, its the same reason why predictinator was down
64 2012-08-21 01:39:37 <Diablo-D3> Luke-Jr: the bots are up though
65 2012-08-21 01:40:16 <Diablo-D3> [11:40:12] --- [CIA-1] (cia@198.71.88.9) : CIA Bot (http://cia.vc)
66 2012-08-21 01:40:17 <Diablo-D3> [11:40:12] --- [CIA-1] calvino.freenode.net :Milan, IT
67 2012-08-21 01:40:57 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: but they're completely silent
68 2012-08-21 01:42:40 <Diablo-D3> ACTION shrugs
69 2012-08-21 01:42:42 <Diablo-D3> not my problem
70 2012-08-21 01:42:45 <Diablo-D3> blame the guys who invented DNS
71 2012-08-21 01:42:48 <cjd> just have to wait till github's http requestor can reach the domain they post to
72 2012-08-21 01:42:48 <jgarzik> ACTION reviews his own pyminer code
73 2012-08-21 01:42:52 <Diablo-D3> scanlime updated the dns
74 2012-08-21 01:42:56 <jgarzik> this byte-reversing in getwork is just stupid
75 2012-08-21 01:43:00 <jgarzik> one more reason to hate getwork
76 2012-08-21 01:43:10 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: no fucking shit
77 2012-08-21 01:43:13 <Diablo-D3> it took me a fucking hour to figure out why it didnt work
78 2012-08-21 01:43:19 <Diablo-D3> NETWORK ORDER IS BIG ENDIAN, FAGGOTS
79 2012-08-21 01:43:23 <jgarzik> ACTION hasn't done a deep-dive in this area of code in ~12 months
80 2012-08-21 01:43:24 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: you want blaming DNS, how about the stupid .st TLD being down for a day?
81 2012-08-21 01:43:34 <Diablo-D3> Luke-Jr: lol voo.st
82 2012-08-21 01:43:40 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: all satoshi needed to do was return the first 80 bytes, serialized. sigh.
83 2012-08-21 01:43:40 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: eligius.st too
84 2012-08-21 01:43:41 <Diablo-D3> faggot was bitching on HN about that
85 2012-08-21 01:43:54 <Diablo-D3> this is why you dont use fancy two letter domains
86 2012-08-21 01:43:55 <jgarzik> we already have a fixed byte order thanks to serialization
87 2012-08-21 01:44:00 <Diablo-D3> they might have a regime change like bit.ly ;)
88 2012-08-21 01:44:16 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: BUT THAT'D BE TOO MUCH FU.....
89 2012-08-21 01:44:17 <Diablo-D3> er
90 2012-08-21 01:44:18 <Diablo-D3> dude
91 2012-08-21 01:44:22 <Diablo-D3> satoshi didnt write getwork
92 2012-08-21 01:44:28 <Luke-Jr> he didn't?
93 2012-08-21 01:44:31 <Diablo-D3> no
94 2012-08-21 01:44:38 <Diablo-D3> that was created for poclbm
95 2012-08-21 01:44:50 <jgarzik> Bzzt. Yes, he did. Satoshi took poclbm's getwork patch and rewrote it.
96 2012-08-21 01:44:53 <jgarzik> compare the two
97 2012-08-21 01:44:58 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: 776d0f34595fd616129d4816a337662ff39de7c6 Author: s_nakamoto <s_nakamoto@1a98c847-1fd6-4fd8-948a-caf3550aa51b>
98 2012-08-21 01:44:59 <Diablo-D3> satoshi didnt merge it though
99 2012-08-21 01:45:07 <Diablo-D3> erm
100 2012-08-21 01:45:12 <Diablo-D3> then theres something rather funny
101 2012-08-21 01:45:18 <Diablo-D3> because I remember someone saying they merged it
102 2012-08-21 01:45:29 <Diablo-D3> and satoshi has never been on irc
103 2012-08-21 01:46:06 <copumpkin> not under that name, anyway!
104 2012-08-21 01:46:06 <Diablo-D3> and yes, I know what was merged was not the patch written for poclbm
105 2012-08-21 01:46:12 <Diablo-D3> I had to change DM's code to compensate
106 2012-08-21 01:46:29 <Diablo-D3> copumpkin: yeah, but its someone whos still here
107 2012-08-21 01:46:33 <Diablo-D3> I just cant remember who
108 2012-08-21 01:46:47 <Luke-Jr> Diablo-D3: so are you going to implement midstate so DM works with jgarzik's pynode? :P
109 2012-08-21 01:46:57 <Diablo-D3> Luke-Jr: sure, when someone sends me the patch
110 2012-08-21 01:47:02 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: ignore Luke-Jr
111 2012-08-21 01:47:17 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: but its so fun to troll his fake religion
112 2012-08-21 01:47:22 <jgarzik> ;)
113 2012-08-21 01:47:28 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: why? you want DM to not be compatible? O.o
114 2012-08-21 01:48:03 <cjd> ACTION remembers why he left.. too much lols == no work ever getting done
115 2012-08-21 01:48:07 <jgarzik> <jgarzik> incompatible with existing mining software, but that will be fixed shortly
116 2012-08-21 01:48:13 <jgarzik> re-read second half of compound sentence
117 2012-08-21 01:48:23 <Luke-Jr> OH, you meant you were adding hash1/midstate?
118 2012-08-21 01:48:37 <Luke-Jr> I took it to mean you were going to email all miner maintainers <.<
119 2012-08-21 01:49:00 <Diablo-D3> seriously, I will merge a patch that ignores midstate
120 2012-08-21 01:49:06 <Diablo-D3> its like 10 lines
121 2012-08-21 01:49:36 <jgarzik> I need to update cpuminer. the base pkg still requires midstate and hash1 :/
122 2012-08-21 01:49:36 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: are you going to implement SHA256 in Python, or use the midstate C module?
123 2012-08-21 01:49:59 <jgarzik> poclbm already implemented sha256 in python
124 2012-08-21 01:50:03 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I think pooler calls his fork "cpuminer" 2.x.y
125 2012-08-21 01:50:07 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: fwiw
126 2012-08-21 01:51:37 <jgarzik> ACTION wonders if p2pool works with testnet.
127 2012-08-21 01:51:50 <jgarzik> that would permit testing of getblocktemplate + pynode
128 2012-08-21 01:52:13 <Luke-Jr> it works with litecoin at least
129 2012-08-21 02:06:28 <forrestv> jgarzik, p2pool works with bitcoin testnet
130 2012-08-21 02:06:32 <forrestv> run p2pool with the --testnet flag
131 2012-08-21 02:07:13 <jgarzik> forrestv: sweet, thanks. any plans for updating it to work with the new 'getblocktemplate' RPC?
132 2012-08-21 02:07:34 <forrestv> you mean BIP 0022?
133 2012-08-21 02:07:45 <forrestv> the version of p2pool in git already has support
134 2012-08-21 02:09:23 <jgarzik> forrestv: yep, BIP 22. Just double-checking, because BIP 22 changed in recent weeks.
135 2012-08-21 02:13:13 <jgarzik> I think I am going to add getblocktemplate and "getworkhdr". "getworkhdr" is simply target + data[80]
136 2012-08-21 02:13:22 <jgarzik> i.e. what getwork should have been
137 2012-08-21 02:21:48 <jgarzik> forrestv: what do you think about getblocktemplate's dual mode of (a) submitting work or (b) getting work?
138 2012-08-21 02:22:19 <jgarzik> forrestv: seems like it would be nice to have a separate submitwork RPC, and getblocktemplate only does the mode=template stuff
139 2012-08-21 02:22:31 <midnightmagic> hey luke, have you used next-test-201208xx to rebuild the blk* databases?
140 2012-08-21 02:22:35 <amiller> hah. so i think it works out that it's safe to bet on two blockchains at once, even if you havent finished validating either of them
141 2012-08-21 02:22:36 <jgarzik> simplifies the implementation
142 2012-08-21 02:22:37 <midnightmagic> er.. Luke-Jr ^^
143 2012-08-21 02:23:12 <amiller> the reason why is that if you spend equal time validating both, eventually you'll eventually find it, and when you do, at most half of your work went on an invalid chain
144 2012-08-21 02:23:45 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: BIP22 originally had separate RPC calls, but some bitcoind dev (I forget who) insisted on combining them
145 2012-08-21 02:23:49 <midnightmagic> jgarzik: p2pool works with testnet3 if you change the magic string in the p2pool p2p objects, as how testnet3 changed its magic string.
146 2012-08-21 02:24:00 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: ?
147 2012-08-21 02:25:27 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: also, it's a bit ambiguous which RPC call proposals would fall under; something to consider if you want to push to split it up again
148 2012-08-21 02:25:56 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: I'm reconstructing blk* and next-test-20120813 can't get past 192468 (so, 192469, a block stuffed with satoshidice, refuses to load into a fresh blk* set)
149 2012-08-21 02:26:17 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: debug.log?
150 2012-08-21 02:26:40 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: there should be a separate "putwork <serialized data>" call, and that functionality removed from getblocktemplate
151 2012-08-21 02:27:16 <gmaxwell> er... hey..
152 2012-08-21 02:27:16 <jgarzik> (and yes, I'm happy to implement this in bitcoind)
153 2012-08-21 02:27:48 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it was called submitblock; and that doesn't clarify where proposals go :p
154 2012-08-21 02:28:03 <jgarzik> getblocktemplate and getwork code looks like this: if (switch) { do one thing } else { do something wholly and totally different }
155 2012-08-21 02:28:05 <gmaxwell> okay 192468 isn't where anyone else appears to have been stuck.
156 2012-08-21 02:28:46 <jgarzik> 08/21/12 04:19:51 receive version message: version 60001, blocks=194128, us=99.4
157 2012-08-21 02:29:11 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: I noticed the above just now when reconnecting w/ git HEAD... remote stuck at #194128 perhaps?
158 2012-08-21 02:29:35 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: stuck or just still downloading...
159 2012-08-21 02:29:35 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr, gmaxwell: here http://pastebin.com/vRt5A7XT
160 2012-08-21 02:29:39 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: submitblock or submitwork is fine with me
161 2012-08-21 02:29:53 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: doesn't seem to be requesting from me, at least (not that that means much)
162 2012-08-21 02:30:05 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: note, this is luke's next-test-20120813 branch with all the extra features in it.
163 2012-08-21 02:30:14 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: it won't until a new block happens on the network.
164 2012-08-21 02:30:19 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: note that the remote end is the prior next-test-201207xx
165 2012-08-21 02:30:37 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: a node won't pull from you unless you're the first it connects to, or if its not currently pulling, you feed it a new block first.
166 2012-08-21 02:30:54 <gmaxwell> (and it could be pulling from someone else right now, no way to tell if its height is advancing)
167 2012-08-21 02:31:14 <Luke-Jr> 08/21/12 03:33:03 ERROR: CheckBlock() : hashMerkleRoot mismatch
168 2012-08-21 02:31:15 <Luke-Jr> hmm