1 2012-09-30 00:36:13 <BlueMattBot> Yippie, build fixed!
2 2012-09-30 00:36:14 <BlueMattBot> Project Bitcoin build #87: FIXED in 7 hr 11 min: http://jenkins.bluematt.me/job/Bitcoin/87/
3 2012-09-30 01:30:43 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: you know if that poker guy ever, you know, wrote in english how his shuffle alrgorithm worked? cause looking at that java code hurts my head too much to keep doing to figure out what he's actually doing
4 2012-09-30 01:33:00 <EvanR2> classic shuffle, for each card in the deck, swap it with a randomly picked card *after* the current position
5 2012-09-30 01:33:23 <EvanR2> swapping with anything will give a skewed distribution
6 2012-09-30 01:35:16 <gmaxwell> see knuth shuffle.
7 2012-09-30 01:35:29 <gmaxwell> it's easy to screw up your random numbers in that though.
8 2012-09-30 01:35:44 <gmaxwell> e.g. using % to restrict the range.
9 2012-09-30 01:36:21 <EvanR2> thats a problem any time you try to pick a random item from a list
10 2012-09-30 01:36:40 <EvanR2> theres even more problems
11 2012-09-30 01:37:04 <EvanR2> theres 52 factorial permutations, crap rng cant handle that
12 2012-09-30 01:37:13 <gmaxwell> It's a 'problem' any time you need a random number from a range that is coprime to your initial range. ... I'm just mentioning that people often get it wrong in that case.
13 2012-09-30 01:37:18 <EvanR2> and good rngs will fail for some N where N! is huge
14 2012-09-30 01:38:07 <gmaxwell> EvanR2: any csprng better be able to handle it.. and if you can prove it doesn't??? or take advantage of the fact that it can't reach all states??? you have an attack worth publishing. :P
15 2012-09-30 01:38:49 <gmaxwell> (and 52! is only about 220 bits or so???)
16 2012-09-30 01:38:56 <EvanR2> you dont typically have mission critical requirements that order 100 permutation is picked uniformly
17 2012-09-30 01:39:09 <EvanR2> gmaxwell: ya but the state for rand() is not 220 bits
18 2012-09-30 01:39:10 <gmaxwell> EvanR2: you mean like every private key we use?
19 2012-09-30 01:39:19 <gmaxwell> of course, wtf, you wouldn't use rand() for that.
20 2012-09-30 01:39:29 <gmaxwell> Besides, rand is often a LCG.
21 2012-09-30 01:39:36 <EvanR2> 'crap rng'
22 2012-09-30 01:39:41 <EvanR2> technical jargon
23 2012-09-30 01:40:14 <EvanR2> choosing a random N bit key is not the same problem choosing uniformly from the set of permutations of something
24 2012-09-30 01:40:27 <EvanR2> its choosing uniformly from a set way smaller
25 2012-09-30 01:40:28 <gmaxwell> In fact, it is.
26 2012-09-30 01:41:10 <gmaxwell> If you have a uniform unmber of at least log2(52!) bits you can losslessly convert the uniform random number to and from the permutation.
27 2012-09-30 01:41:29 <gmaxwell> (well losslessly save that it's not quite an integer number of bits, but you reroll your uniform number if you land in that range)
28 2012-09-30 01:41:48 <EvanR2> im not saying 52 cards is a problem for a normal rng (non crap)
29 2012-09-30 01:42:06 <gmaxwell> EvanR2: jrmithdobbs is asking about a cryptographic poker game.
30 2012-09-30 01:42:39 <EvanR2> ok i was just on a rant about random problems with shuffling
31 2012-09-30 01:42:42 <gmaxwell> The idea that someone would have an LCG in that didn't occur to me; though I've seen bitcoin gambling sites screw up their uniformity by just using mod.
32 2012-09-30 01:43:04 <gmaxwell> (and .. also getting all their random numbers via http from random.org ...)
33 2012-09-30 01:43:20 <EvanR2> wut -_-
34 2012-09-30 01:43:23 <EvanR2> lol
35 2012-09-30 01:44:00 <gmaxwell> I kid you not.
36 2012-09-30 01:44:24 <EvanR2> im tired of stdlibs not coming with ways to pick a random item from a list, and shuffle a list
37 2012-09-30 01:44:43 <EvanR2> its not something you should be reinventing every time
38 2012-09-30 01:45:01 <EvanR2> might as well not come with rngs at all
39 2012-09-30 01:45:47 <gmaxwell> python random module does the reasonable and expected things.
40 2012-09-30 01:46:08 <gmaxwell> (well not for cryptographically secure applications; but basic random selections at least)
41 2012-09-30 01:50:02 <EvanR2> who knows what javascript uses
42 2012-09-30 01:50:08 <EvanR2> for its rng
43 2012-09-30 05:47:09 <bonks> Oh I just tried sending coins to myself in -qt for the first time. Does it have to be of type "Payment to yourself"? Couldn't it have appeared as two transactions in my wallet?
44 2012-09-30 05:47:43 <bonks> Just curious because I wanted some entries for bookkeeping purposes and it didn't turn out how I expected :x
45 2012-09-30 06:01:33 <Luke-Jr> bonks: JSON-RPC interface shows it as multiple send/receive
46 2012-09-30 06:13:30 <Impaler_> Hey Luke-Jr, my friend maaku says he was talking to you about the Freicoin project earlier
47 2012-09-30 06:14:03 <Luke-Jr> ?
48 2012-09-30 06:14:19 <Luke-Jr> I talk about so many things, but I don't recall Freicoin by name
49 2012-09-30 06:14:25 <Luke-Jr> I do recognize maaku :p
50 2012-09-30 06:14:46 <Impaler_> its the coin chain with a carrying cost for coins called demurrage
51 2012-09-30 06:15:18 <Luke-Jr> i c
52 2012-09-30 06:15:19 <Impaler_> still in development though, I've volunteered to help him with it
53 2012-09-30 06:15:59 <Impaler_> will try to do a little UI which I've done before (though not Qt, but hey what's another interface middleware to learn)
54 2012-09-30 06:16:40 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: I would encourage you to contribute to Bitcoin instead, wherever it isn't something specific to the altcoin (ie, anything not demurrage-related)
55 2012-09-30 06:17:36 <Impaler_> we actually had several ideas that could be ported over, but were focusing on getting the core demurrage thing done first
56 2012-09-30 06:18:00 <bonks> Luke-Jr: Oh interesting so it's just a display feature. Thanks
57 2012-09-30 06:18:48 <Impaler_> for example maaku and I were discussing the fact that Bitcoin might be throttled by ISPs so it would be a good idea to try to prevent the packets from being sniffed
58 2012-09-30 06:20:20 <Impaler_> so much focus is put on this 51% attack vector no ones seems to have considered that ISP's could silence the whole thing without ever entering the network
59 2012-09-30 06:20:51 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: that would be virtually impossible.
60 2012-09-30 06:20:56 <wumpus> preventing filtering by ISPs is heavily getting into tor's territory
61 2012-09-30 06:21:07 <wumpus> please leave it to smart guys such as ioerror
62 2012-09-30 06:21:35 <Impaler_> Indeed, I'm no Tor expert, but the point is that its by far the more likely attack
63 2012-09-30 06:22:12 <midnightmagic> that's.. one of the first times I've ever heard luke refer to an unidentified altcoin as an altcoin rather than a scamcoin.
64 2012-09-30 06:22:37 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: It's not the most likely attack. :)
65 2012-09-30 06:22:58 <Impaler_> how do you figure midnight?
66 2012-09-30 06:23:07 <wumpus> and even they have trouble preventing the latest filtering attacks by the chinese govt, they currently have some dynamic obfuscation proxy to work around it. It's just not something that we want to pull into bitcoin... just use it over TOR if you're concerned.
67 2012-09-30 06:23:15 <Luke-Jr> bonks: pretty much everything you see is just display
68 2012-09-30 06:23:37 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: It would require global coordination for questionable gain, and the workaround would be trivial, and the ISPs know this.
69 2012-09-30 06:24:07 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: economic changes are the only real excuse I can see for a parallel blockchain
70 2012-09-30 06:24:28 <midnightmagic> ioerror has stated that Tor does not want to get into a rapidly-escalating arms race.
71 2012-09-30 06:25:02 <wumpus> neither do we
72 2012-09-30 06:25:20 <Impaler_> global coordination is unessary, locally suppressing bitcoin packets would effectivly cut off large populations from transactions
73 2012-09-30 06:25:20 <midnightmagic> they deliberately leave Tor to be easy-to-block so they don't start out with their best ideas all at once, and can slowly roll them out as needed.
74 2012-09-30 06:25:57 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: Great, so one ISP does it. What about the 99% rest of the planet, and those local users who are happy to run vpn or a collective darknet?
75 2012-09-30 06:26:03 <Impaler_> say if China used its firewall to block bitcoin packets
76 2012-09-30 06:26:09 <wumpus> it's always possible to route and encapsulate things over other things, filtering is one of the last things I'm concerned about really
77 2012-09-30 06:26:33 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: And bitcoin does not consume much data. So why QoS it too?
78 2012-09-30 06:27:02 <midnightmagic> What's the incentive for an ISP to even contemplate this?
79 2012-09-30 06:27:03 <wumpus> well then someone does bitcoin-over-http et voila... thre only has to be one leak in the "wall" for it to be completely ineffective
80 2012-09-30 06:27:07 <Impaler_> obviously the motivation would originate with the financial sector thats lossing possible buisness
81 2012-09-30 06:27:17 <wumpus> after all it's a gossip network
82 2012-09-30 06:27:19 <midnightmagic> Why would an ISP care about that?
83 2012-09-30 06:27:46 <Impaler_> ISP's wouldn't care, but the financial sector can dictate to the ISPs
84 2012-09-30 06:28:06 <Impaler_> or more likely financial sector dictates to goverment that then dictates to ISPs
85 2012-09-30 06:28:08 <midnightmagic> How do you figure?
86 2012-09-30 06:28:20 <wumpus> or just use some setup over radio...
87 2012-09-30 06:28:29 <midnightmagic> Ah, well then it's not ISP at that point, it's a government-source legal attack.
88 2012-09-30 06:29:01 <midnightmagic> And I don't know how they could craft a law which targets bitcoin but not every other non-USD currency.
89 2012-09-30 06:29:04 <Impaler_> I mean its not like Youtube 'cares' about illegal uploads of copyrighted videos, but they sure are coerced into removing them by the interests that do care
90 2012-09-30 06:29:24 <midnightmagic> That's because sharing copyrighted material which is not yours is already illegal.
91 2012-09-30 06:29:28 <lianj> wumpus: "reading new blocks of the hours: 10110010101110???"
92 2012-09-30 06:29:29 <midnightmagic> So, still a government attack.
93 2012-09-30 06:29:37 <wumpus> hehe
94 2012-09-30 06:29:42 <Impaler_> yes basically, ISPs would just be the agents
95 2012-09-30 06:30:21 <midnightmagic> Well see you're no longer talking about an ISP filtering attack. You're talking legal attack. And it still requires worldwide collaboration and treaties.
96 2012-09-30 06:30:34 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: Youtube *doesn't* remove illegal content
97 2012-09-30 06:30:52 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: and if Bitcoin is illegal, people shouldn't use it. the end.
98 2012-09-30 06:31:33 <Impaler_> I'm not saying its illegal but what would you do if it laws were passed to make it such?
99 2012-09-30 06:31:44 <lianj> vpn it
100 2012-09-30 06:32:12 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: stop using it
101 2012-09-30 06:32:18 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: In my country? I fail to see how they could target it specifically in such a way that collateral economic damage is not done.
102 2012-09-30 06:34:25 <Impaler_> ISP's should be able to selectivly block or slow packets that look like they are coming from bitcoin, they would not need to cause internetwide shutdowns, that's Egypt level cludge
103 2012-09-30 06:39:45 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: Just read this instead https://plus.google.com/u/0/108313527900507320366/posts/49UmonRzuQb
104 2012-09-30 06:40:33 <midnightmagic> and esp. comment #5
105 2012-09-30 06:46:10 <midnightmagic> arrrgh steve martin please stop wearing mascara
106 2012-09-30 06:49:00 <Impaler_> not bad thats a big list but It dosn't include the ISP throttling while it dose to a lot of other stuff that will be 'messy'
107 2012-09-30 06:50:12 <Impaler_> the ISP attack while it dosnt eliminate Bitcoin 'all over the world' could certainly sterilize a national internat
108 2012-09-30 06:50:18 <midnightmagic> That's because ISP throttling is not a threat.
109 2012-09-30 06:51:03 <Impaler_> and if the financial system was the motivation then eliminationg competition within a nation is still a huge win for them
110 2012-09-30 06:52:03 <midnightmagic> bitcoin is not competition when you have a licence to print money
111 2012-09-30 06:52:12 <midnightmagic> and can steal as much of it in the process, as you want to.
112 2012-09-30 06:52:47 <Impaler_> only if people are partisipating in the financial system
113 2012-09-30 06:53:11 <midnightmagic> how can they keep from doing that when the government only accepts taxes in the form of its own currency?
114 2012-09-30 06:53:15 <Impaler_> for example if merchants accept bitcoins then VISA can't extract its huge transaction fees
115 2012-09-30 06:53:59 <midnightmagic> VISA != a bank though, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge.
116 2012-09-30 06:54:43 <Impaler_> when have I ever limited my statements to 'bank', I've been talking financial system which VISA certainly is part of
117 2012-09-30 06:55:25 <Impaler_> by definitial all financial transactions happening outside of the corporate system are lost profits for it
118 2012-09-30 06:55:42 <midnightmagic> I know you haven't: I'm referring to my own statements re: printing money. VISA on the other hand is not really a payment processor. their business is the financial enslavement of humans.
119 2012-09-30 06:56:13 <Impaler_> ok and your not afraid of them?
120 2012-09-30 06:56:42 <midnightmagic> no, because they haven't enslaved me.
121 2012-09-30 06:57:05 <midnightmagic> also, there's bitcoin.
122 2012-09-30 06:58:02 <Impaler_> ok but thats my point, they would see bitcoin, hell any viable cryptocurrency as a threat and act to suppress it
123 2012-09-30 06:59:41 <Impaler_> Everyone is worried about bitcoin suppression, but seem to think an ISP throttle is somehow impossible
124 2012-09-30 06:59:49 <midnightmagic> what does visa care? by the time we're an actual threat (assuming we've survived that long) it'll be too late. and in the meanwhile, an obscure little cryptocoin with a few million in stored value, cannibalizing itself to build mining infrastructure, will never be taken seriously by the global monopolies.
125 2012-09-30 07:01:11 <Impaler_> I'm confused it will be 'too late' for whom and for what?
126 2012-09-30 07:01:48 <midnightmagic> it'll be so pervasive and far-flung that stopping it will be virtually impossible by the time they'll even bother to take notice.
127 2012-09-30 07:01:49 <Impaler_> you think bitcoin might be too popular with the public to be taken away?
128 2012-09-30 07:03:18 <Impaler_> or it will just be technically infeasable to suppress?
129 2012-09-30 07:05:36 <midnightmagic> #2, plus there will be too much stored value in it, too much taxable economic activity.
130 2012-09-30 07:06:21 <Impaler_> what taxes are currently being payed in the bitcoin economy?
131 2012-09-30 07:07:00 <midnightmagic> everyone who declares their income as a result of bitcoin activity?
132 2012-09-30 07:07:16 <midnightmagic> and as far as I can tell, that's everyone who's not an idiot. :)
133 2012-09-30 07:07:38 <Luke-Jr> ACTION is like 5 years behind on filing taxes <.<
134 2012-09-30 07:08:13 <midnightmagic> ACTION is above cheap shots like that.
135 2012-09-30 07:08:17 <midnightmagic> :-D
136 2012-09-30 07:08:28 <Luke-Jr> well, I'm not required to file
137 2012-09-30 07:08:36 <Luke-Jr> at least, I wasn't 6 years ago <.<
138 2012-09-30 07:08:37 <Impaler_> indeed any miner who didn't report his mining income would be asking for it
139 2012-09-30 07:08:44 <Luke-Jr> ACTION should probably reevaluate
140 2012-09-30 07:09:03 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: I suspect many miners are in the red at the moment
141 2012-09-30 07:09:06 <Impaler_> I guess you havent made any income untill you exchange though
142 2012-09-30 07:09:15 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Whoah you think
143 2012-09-30 07:09:19 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: no, the IRS considers it income even before it's USD
144 2012-09-30 07:09:46 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: I dobut the FPGAs have paid for themselves yet
145 2012-09-30 07:09:51 <Impaler_> how do you accuratly value it when exchange fluctuates?
146 2012-09-30 07:09:56 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: and a lot of people were still buyign GPUs too late
147 2012-09-30 07:10:07 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: generally the fair market value when you get it
148 2012-09-30 07:10:24 <Luke-Jr> thank God for bitcoincharts.com + block times :D
149 2012-09-30 07:10:28 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: anyone who mined early and bought fpga, the mining operation paid for its own fpga growth with the combined hashrate.
150 2012-09-30 07:10:53 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: how many miners "mined early", and didn't lose out on GPUs?
151 2012-09-30 07:10:54 <Impaler_> humm seems reasonable but thats a big incentive to hoard the coins and sell later so your actual profits are higher then your reported taxes
152 2012-09-30 07:11:16 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: anyone who started <= feb 2011 at least.
153 2012-09-30 07:11:22 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: I'm sure the IRS has some tax for value improvement
154 2012-09-30 07:11:36 <Impaler_> capitol gains?
155 2012-09-30 07:11:38 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: sure, I know I'm not in the red ;p
156 2012-09-30 07:12:11 <Impaler_> you exchange immediatly and just pay on that income?
157 2012-09-30 07:12:11 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: put it this way: the IRS has a tax for stolen property (you pay on the fair market value of it unless it's returned within the year)
158 2012-09-30 07:12:11 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Going *into* the red is very very bad. If one is going *into* the red, then something is horrible wrong with the process.
159 2012-09-30 07:12:30 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: my first GPU was by definition going into the red.
160 2012-09-30 07:13:05 <Impaler_> if your mining is a buisness you could deduct all your hardware as a buisness expense
161 2012-09-30 07:13:22 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: I'm talking transition, not initial investment. I personally think the people doing an initial investment at this point are at such a severe disadvantage they probably shouldn't bother.
162 2012-09-30 07:13:24 <Impaler_> then not owe any taxes untill your turning a profit
163 2012-09-30 07:13:43 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: nevertheless, people are doing it
164 2012-09-30 07:13:55 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: right, my point exactly
165 2012-09-30 07:13:57 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: Fools! lol
166 2012-09-30 07:14:09 <Impaler_> The foolish fools!
167 2012-09-30 07:14:26 <Luke-Jr> I'm pretty sure I didn't need to file for 2011 since the bubble pop had some serious capitol losses for me
168 2012-09-30 07:14:36 <midnightmagic> Hardware can't be straight deducted: depreciation expenses don't work like that on capital hardware type stuff, far as I'm aware.
169 2012-09-30 07:14:48 <Impaler_> well their is that block rewared halfing in what 2 months?
170 2012-09-30 07:15:07 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: I don't think that should have any relevance to the IRS
171 2012-09-30 07:15:25 <Impaler_> without knowing how thats going to change valuation now would be a risky time to buy a mining rig
172 2012-09-30 07:15:43 <Luke-Jr> sure
173 2012-09-30 07:15:44 <Impaler_> regardless of anything else
174 2012-09-30 07:15:53 <Luke-Jr> I only bought as much ASICs as I could be certain I'd get in the first shipment
175 2012-09-30 07:17:06 <Impaler_> midnight: I think small buisnesses get different deductions and can count it all from the start
176 2012-09-30 07:17:38 <Luke-Jr> I know I'm going to have to hire some kind of accountant when I do get to doing taxes
177 2012-09-30 07:17:57 <Luke-Jr> ACTION ponders if any of repute accept Bitcoins
178 2012-09-30 07:18:14 <Impaler_> If I start a hotdog stand I wouldnt need to depressiate the cart over 20 years
179 2012-09-30 07:20:47 <midnightmagic> I'm not sure that's true, but I don't feel confident in this comment.
180 2012-09-30 07:21:02 <midnightmagic> redundant man is redundant..
181 2012-09-30 07:23:19 <Impaler_> So Luke-Jr you have any other questions or concerns about demurrage I can answer for ya? Same for anyone else
182 2012-09-30 07:23:30 <tcatm_> Was there ever any discussion about automatically backing up the wallet whenever the keypool changes and keeping a few recent versions?
183 2012-09-30 07:24:07 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: yeah! how many users are using it, and are they all miners or not?
184 2012-09-30 07:24:42 <Impaler_> midnight: we havent launched yet, so far were still in beta
185 2012-09-30 07:25:29 <Impaler_> hopefully some of the bigger pools will merge-mine it but we don't know yet
186 2012-09-30 07:25:30 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: do you plan to support merged mining?
187 2012-09-30 07:25:33 <Luke-Jr> ah
188 2012-09-30 07:25:48 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: current MM system, p2pool-like, or both?
189 2012-09-30 07:25:56 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: please tell me you took a chainid that isn't the same as namecoin. :)
190 2012-09-30 07:26:12 <Impaler_> maaku is working on the code for this, I'm not up too speed on any of it
191 2012-09-30 07:27:16 <Impaler_> I'm far more knowlegable on the economic arguments in favor of demurrage
192 2012-09-30 07:27:27 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: perhaps you should involve some of the regular dev community (got an IRC channel?) so we can help you deal with stupid mistakes in advance? :D
193 2012-09-30 07:27:46 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: AFAIK, demurrage is just an overcomplicated inflation
194 2012-09-30 07:27:55 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: Can I mine on it right now?
195 2012-09-30 07:28:26 <Impaler_> I can give ya the beta link and show ya the github if you like
196 2012-09-30 07:28:27 <midnightmagic> demurrage's purpose is incentivizing use, correct?
197 2012-09-30 07:28:37 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: I can build from source?
198 2012-09-30 07:28:51 <midnightmagic> like a giant game of hot potato?
199 2012-09-30 07:29:03 <Impaler_> should be able too yes, here let me get the link
200 2012-09-30 07:29:20 <midnightmagic> Impaler_: after beta is over, will the mined coins still be active?
201 2012-09-30 07:29:31 <Impaler_> https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin
202 2012-09-30 07:29:44 <Impaler_> no beta coins will be abandoned
203 2012-09-30 07:30:14 <midnightmagic> so we can mm on it right now?
204 2012-09-30 07:30:26 <midnightmagic> lol crap man why didn't you say so
205 2012-09-30 07:30:28 <Impaler_> the final release will be like Litecoin, public open, no premining
206 2012-09-30 07:30:38 <midnightmagic> except for the beta?
207 2012-09-30 07:30:41 <Luke-Jr> https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin/commit/b0e4268250fcafcbb9064699cf6fe668732ebf65 O.o
208 2012-09-30 07:31:43 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: is there IRC?
209 2012-09-30 07:32:06 <Impaler_> the betas are just for internal testing, thats why were destroying all the coins made in beta
210 2012-09-30 07:32:24 <Impaler_> oh yea were using #freicoin as the chat
211 2012-09-30 07:32:54 <midnightmagic> 02:29 < Impaler_> no beta coins will be abandoned <-- you forgot a comma didn't you
212 2012-09-30 07:33:01 <midnightmagic> ACTION shakes his fist
213 2012-09-30 07:33:15 <Luke-Jr> 393 files changed, 107685 insertions(+), 96438 deletions(-)
214 2012-09-30 07:33:18 <Impaler_> :P yea
215 2012-09-30 07:33:32 <midnightmagic> lol you suck. :)
216 2012-09-30 07:33:37 <Impaler_> all the work so far is maaku
217 2012-09-30 07:33:40 <midnightmagic> ACTION drops the build on the floor.
218 2012-09-30 07:33:44 <midnightmagic> when is planned release?
219 2012-09-30 07:33:58 <Impaler_> not for a few more weeks I think
220 2012-09-30 07:34:19 <Impaler_> maaku wants to get more of the supporting services set up
221 2012-09-30 07:34:28 <midnightmagic> don't surprise us okay like some of the others have. announce it so early miners don't have a luck-based advantage.
222 2012-09-30 07:34:58 <Impaler_> like I said their is a plan for a totally unbiased launch
223 2012-09-30 07:35:16 <Luke-Jr> 329 files changed, 13605 insertions(+), 2358 deletions(-)
224 2012-09-30 07:35:18 <CvRoques> I'm using emacs and it kept using tabs for indentation and my preferred intentation style. Both are not what I want when working with bitcoin because I want to adhere to the established code style. Thus I added a .dir-locals.el to the top-dir, but carrying along local changes is a bit cumbersome.
225 2012-09-30 07:35:43 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: I'm going to push for a lower diff 1
226 2012-09-30 07:36:03 <Impaler_> I used vi back in the day, sorry
227 2012-09-30 07:36:15 <Luke-Jr> ie, frei diff 1 being equivalent to bitcoin diff 65k or something
228 2012-09-30 07:37:46 <Impaler_> so as for demurrage and the 'hot potato' concept, yes it dose do that a bit but were not aiming for a rediculus level
229 2012-09-30 07:38:02 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: really! to what end?
230 2012-09-30 07:38:11 <Impaler_> 5% per year is what were looking at
231 2012-09-30 07:38:11 <midnightmagic> oh a lower target
232 2012-09-30 07:38:21 <midnightmagic> nevermind that makes sense.
233 2012-09-30 07:38:41 <mammique> Hi all, I just compiled bitcoin from source (github) and I no longer find the bitoind binary after compilation, only bitcoin-qt is there. Is that normal? Did it moved somewhere?
234 2012-09-30 07:38:47 <Impaler_> so if you have $1000 coin balance for a year your paying ~1 per week
235 2012-09-30 07:38:56 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: so 1 block per 10 mins is only with minimum 260 Gh/s
236 2012-09-30 07:39:24 <Impaler_> 5% is the historical 'basic interest' rate
237 2012-09-30 07:39:31 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: i understand. i think it's better that way.
238 2012-09-30 07:40:38 <Impaler_> according to Gesell's theory this is roughly the liquidity value of money, the value that it has because of its ability to be spent at any time
239 2012-09-30 07:41:15 <Luke-Jr> Impaler_: #freicoin
240 2012-09-30 07:44:20 <ThomasV> "rediculus"
241 2012-09-30 07:44:36 <ThomasV> I like that spelling
242 2012-09-30 07:45:38 <Joric> too much harry potter
243 2012-09-30 07:49:52 <ThomasV> are there spelling errors in harry potter?
244 2012-09-30 07:50:17 <Joric> there was a spell
245 2012-09-30 07:50:32 <ThomasV> never read it
246 2012-09-30 07:50:52 <Arnavion> mammique cd src; make -f makefile.unix;
247 2012-09-30 07:50:59 <Arnavion> If you make from the root it builds bitcoin-qt
248 2012-09-30 07:51:44 <Arnavion> You'll then find bitcoind under src/
249 2012-09-30 08:08:51 <mammique> Arnavion, thanks, I give a try right now :-)
250 2012-09-30 08:23:24 <mammique> Arnavion, it worked! Thanks.
251 2012-09-30 08:23:32 <Arnavion> np
252 2012-09-30 08:23:46 <Arnavion> It's there in src/README actually
253 2012-09-30 08:23:57 <Arnavion> docs/README I mean
254 2012-09-30 09:15:25 <denisx> sipa: hi
255 2012-09-30 09:15:54 <denisx> sipa: I started my bitcoin on osx again and needed 7 minutes with 100% load for two days
256 2012-09-30 09:16:40 <sipa> denisx: does ultraprune have the same problem?
257 2012-09-30 09:16:54 <denisx> sipa: I have no ultraprune on osx
258 2012-09-30 09:17:23 <sipa> denisx: can you build it?
259 2012-09-30 09:18:09 <denisx> no easily
260 2012-09-30 09:18:11 <denisx> not
261 2012-09-30 09:18:25 <sipa> ok
262 2012-09-30 09:18:36 <sipa> but the CPU load disappeared after syncing?
263 2012-09-30 09:18:41 <denisx> yes
264 2012-09-30 09:19:04 <sipa> this is 0.7?
265 2012-09-30 09:19:17 <denisx> yes
266 2012-09-30 09:19:26 <sipa> did previous versions have the same problem?
267 2012-09-30 09:20:03 <denisx> hmm, I would say yes
268 2012-09-30 09:20:29 <denisx> I start ultraprune on freebsd now with data from 11.9.
269 2012-09-30 09:24:02 <denisx> sipa: maybe it really needs that much of cpu, Iam not sure
270 2012-09-30 09:24:25 <sipa> well, i'm not sure
271 2012-09-30 09:24:39 <sipa> it sounds like a lot, but not orders of magnitude off the scale
272 2012-09-30 09:25:08 <sipa> on my i7 CPU, at 3GHz something, i can do a few blocks per second
273 2012-09-30 09:34:01 <denisx> ultraprune on freebsd needs now ca. 5 seconds for one block
274 2012-09-30 09:34:10 <denisx> and bitcoin-msghand is on 100% all the time
275 2012-09-30 09:38:25 <sipa> i wonder where it's spending its time
276 2012-09-30 09:38:40 <denisx> looping! ;)
277 2012-09-30 09:40:06 <sipa> what you say sounds like a factor 10 slower than expected
278 2012-09-30 09:41:09 <denisx> yeah, and I see that sometimes it handles several blocks in a second
279 2012-09-30 09:41:13 <denisx> so it is capable
280 2012-09-30 09:41:25 <denisx> but then for a long time nothing but the handler still has 100%
281 2012-09-30 09:41:37 <sipa> well, some blocks are significantly easier than others
282 2012-09-30 09:41:58 <sipa> and if it's really just spending CPU on signature verification, msghand is where i would expect to see it
283 2012-09-30 09:42:44 <denisx> it has now handled ca. 250 blocks in 20 minutes
284 2012-09-30 09:43:00 <denisx> but this is on an dual atom
285 2012-09-30 09:43:16 <sipa> on an atom that's not too surprising, i guess
286 2012-09-30 09:56:56 <denisx> sipa: I updated the ultraprune code and now the load is between 60 and 90%
287 2012-09-30 09:57:01 <denisx> this sounds more reasonable
288 2012-09-30 10:22:46 <erlehmann> oh hai
289 2012-09-30 10:22:53 <erlehmann> some familier names here
290 2012-09-30 10:22:56 <erlehmann> familiar
291 2012-09-30 10:24:40 <erlehmann> so i recently met someone introducing himself as travis goodspeed and he told me he and dan kaminsky had put a len sassaman tribute and a picture of ben bernanke into the blockchain
292 2012-09-30 10:25:29 <erlehmann> what exactly prevents someone from inserting operating thetan, harry potter books or child pornography?
293 2012-09-30 10:27:39 <sipa> cost?
294 2012-09-30 10:28:24 <erlehmann> sipa, so what is the cost for inserting a payload?
295 2012-09-30 10:29:50 <sipa> depends how
296 2012-09-30 10:30:21 <erlehmann> if i understood that crazy guy, a payload is a public key, possibly in base58
297 2012-09-30 10:30:21 <sipa> but all except using the coinbase to store a hash i would consider abusive
298 2012-09-30 10:31:11 <sipa> everything more than a few bytes will need non-standard transactions
299 2012-09-30 10:31:38 <sipa> which are only accepted by some miners, and for a price
300 2012-09-30 10:32:19 <erlehmann> non-standard means what?
301 2012-09-30 10:32:39 <sipa> when you broadcast a transaction, you hope it will be picked up by a miner to be placed in the blockchain
302 2012-09-30 10:33:01 <sipa> however, each miner uses some policy to decide what is accepted and what isn't
303 2012-09-30 10:33:17 <sipa> most use more or less standard software, which has a default policy built-in
304 2012-09-30 10:34:04 <sipa> this policy defines a few classes of standard transactions, and anything that doesn't fit those, will not get accepted
305 2012-09-30 10:34:31 <sipa> but that doesn't mean those are invalid; if some other miner does accept them, they have to follow
306 2012-09-30 10:35:40 <erlehmann> intredasting
307 2012-09-30 10:36:30 <erlehmann> sipa, so what else was inserted into the blockchain? any overview?
308 2012-09-30 10:36:47 <sipa> the blockchain is a chain of blocks, each referring to one previous block
309 2012-09-30 10:37:18 <sipa> inside a block, there is a header (with a timestamp, a nonce, a version number, the id of the previous block) and a list of transactions
310 2012-09-30 10:38:47 <sipa> a transaction consists of inputs and outputs; inputs refer to previous transactions' outputs + a cryptographic signature; outputs consist of an amount + a public key
311 2012-09-30 10:39:03 <erlehmann> sipa, so can i order the list of transactions?
312 2012-09-30 10:39:26 <erlehmann> a public key of what length?
313 2012-09-30 10:39:36 <sipa> yes, that's the basic purpose of the blockchain: creating a globally-agreed-upon ordered list of transactions
314 2012-09-30 10:39:48 <sipa> in practice it's a hash of a public key; 20 bytes
315 2012-09-30 10:40:40 <erlehmann> so that is the payload packet size i assume
316 2012-09-30 10:40:54 <sipa> iirc dan used data encoded inside the public key to store his tribute
317 2012-09-30 10:41:14 <sipa> but there are other ways
318 2012-09-30 10:42:16 <sipa> oh, one more thing: the first transaction in a block is special; it has no real inputs,but instead a "coinbase"
319 2012-09-30 10:42:39 <erlehmann> sipa, other more efficient ways that allow for a bigger payload?
320 2012-09-30 10:42:49 <sipa> this coinbase is used as extra nonce for block generation (its contents is effectively ignored), and can contain up to 100 bytes of arbitrary data
321 2012-09-30 10:43:29 <erlehmann> if i calculate correctly, the payload of sassaman and bernanke is ~1500 bytes, right?
322 2012-09-30 10:43:42 <sipa> note that creating a block results in a payout of 50 BTC, so the cost for creating one tends to be close to 50 BTC as well
323 2012-09-30 10:44:15 <sipa> BUT the trick is that you can have multiple items of data, hash them together (via a merkle tree) and just put that root hash in the coinbase
324 2012-09-30 10:44:41 <sipa> that way you can prove (by giving the path of hashes along the tree) that a the block was created in a way that commits to that piece of data
325 2012-09-30 10:45:27 <sipa> and that's the only way of storing data in the blockchain that i consider not abusive, as it supports arbitrary amounts of data without bloating anything
326 2012-09-30 10:46:13 <erlehmann> sipa, is there any measure to ???abusive??? that the software recognizes?
327 2012-09-30 10:46:25 <sipa> that's the problem - no
328 2012-09-30 10:46:40 <sipa> you can always try to make arbitrary data look like financial transactions
329 2012-09-30 10:47:06 <sipa> why are you so interested in this?
330 2012-09-30 10:47:24 <erlehmann> hacking mindset
331 2012-09-30 10:48:22 <sipa> anyway, just to be clear: the blockchain is not intended as a communication medium
332 2012-09-30 10:48:47 <erlehmann> also, if you can put arbitrary files into the blockchain ???, child pornography for example would make a point regarding bad laws.
333 2012-09-30 10:49:28 <erlehmann> and even the church of happyology could not remove operating thetan from the block chain if someone desired to save it there
334 2012-09-30 10:49:30 <erlehmann> sure that is abusive
335 2012-09-30 10:49:46 <erlehmann> but i am interested in the moral and legal implications
336 2012-09-30 10:49:57 <sipa> i don't think that in the future most nodes will store the blockchain at all
337 2012-09-30 10:50:15 <sipa> some obviously will have to
338 2012-09-30 10:50:25 <erlehmann> travis told me that even today most don't check everything
339 2012-09-30 10:51:10 <sipa> full nodes check everything, except signatures in very old blocks
340 2012-09-30 10:51:34 <sipa> but they do check for double-spending, proof-of-work, and 100s of other validity rules
341 2012-09-30 10:53:30 <erlehmann> sipa, so what do you think bitcoin will converge to?
342 2012-09-30 10:53:49 <sipa> how do you mean?
343 2012-09-30 10:54:08 <sipa> i assume 3.14159265358979 isn't a good answer here?
344 2012-09-30 10:54:30 <erlehmann> well, some architecture involving supernodes that store the blockchain?
345 2012-09-30 10:54:50 <sipa> archive nodes, validation nodes, SPV nodes
346 2012-09-30 10:55:10 <jgarzik> sipa: speaking of abusive... I was looking at pchMessageStart code, and after looking, concluded that we do not punish nodes for flooding garbage
347 2012-09-30 10:55:13 <sipa> full nodes right now do archiving + validation, but in my opinion those can be separate
348 2012-09-30 10:55:42 <jgarzik> sipa: ie. no pchMessageStart boundaries at all, much less a message checksum
349 2012-09-30 10:56:10 <sipa> really?
350 2012-09-30 10:56:34 <jgarzik> sipa: yeah it just loops to the next message (or next chunk of buffer bytes)
351 2012-09-30 10:56:45 <sipa> just tried: nc localhost 8333 </dev/urandom
352 2012-09-30 10:56:50 <sipa> no disconnect indeed
353 2012-09-30 10:57:23 <jgarzik> sipa: valid message + failing checksum == "continue;"
354 2012-09-30 10:57:33 <sipa> looks like it should trigger DoS()
355 2012-09-30 10:57:36 <jgarzik> yep
356 2012-09-30 11:03:53 <sipa> denisx: load between 60% and 90%... but is it faster?
357 2012-09-30 11:03:59 <denisx> sipa: no
358 2012-09-30 11:04:05 <sipa> well that's a deterioration
359 2012-09-30 11:04:20 <sipa> cpu usage should be as high as possible
360 2012-09-30 11:04:25 <denisx> that was only at the beginning, now it is also always at 100%
361 2012-09-30 11:04:29 <sipa> ok
362 2012-09-30 11:04:30 <Luke-Jr> sipa: packet corruption should trigger DoS()?
363 2012-09-30 11:04:51 <Luke-Jr> or maybe DoS with < 100 makes sense
364 2012-09-30 11:05:09 <sipa> meh, packet corruption should be handled at the network layer
365 2012-09-30 11:05:19 <Luke-Jr> sure, but in practice it isn't.
366 2012-09-30 11:05:21 <sipa> but if it's an issue, DoS < 100 is certainly an option
367 2012-09-30 11:16:20 <jgarzik> sipa: Unfortunately TCP's 16-bit checksum really sucks ;p
368 2012-09-30 11:16:47 <jgarzik> Seems like two cases will trigger this: malicious construction or software bug
369 2012-09-30 11:17:17 <jgarzik> either way, I do not see why we should continue to keep a connection open, wasting CPU to process garbage
370 2012-09-30 11:17:55 <jgarzik> Network layer (even, alas 16 bit csum) protects you 99.5% of the time or so
371 2012-09-30 11:18:19 <jgarzik> network layer will cut you off though ;p
372 2012-09-30 11:18:21 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: well
373 2012-09-30 11:18:28 <Diablo-D3> you CAN offload ip checksumming to hardware
374 2012-09-30 11:18:48 <Diablo-D3> but you'd be better off just making your own streaming protocol on top of udp
375 2012-09-30 11:23:57 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: a lot of networking seems to ignore checksums
376 2012-09-30 11:46:35 <kjj_> ok, so... if I want to add something to someone else's pull request, am I better off making my own pull request against master, or do I fork his fork and make the pull request against his branch, then have him figure out how to merge it before his stuff gets merged?
377 2012-09-30 11:47:36 <Luke-Jr> kjj_: fork master
378 2012-09-30 11:47:37 <sipa> unfortunately, github does not allow forking from two different forks with the same name
379 2012-09-30 11:47:42 <Luke-Jr> or ask him to do it
380 2012-09-30 11:47:58 <sipa> so unless the other person renamed their fork to not be called "bitcoin", there's no way to do so
381 2012-09-30 11:48:17 <kjj_> ok. this is on issue 1884, the warnings to re-backup after encryption. I figure there should be one in the RPC call too
382 2012-09-30 11:48:49 <sipa> it should certainly be documenten, but we shouldn't patronize RPC users, imho
383 2012-09-30 11:49:12 <kjj_> oh, it won't
384 2012-09-30 11:50:21 <kjj_> I'm just adding: The keypool has been flushed, you need to make a new backup.
385 2012-09-30 11:51:48 <Luke-Jr> speaking of that
386 2012-09-30 11:52:02 <Luke-Jr> does the GUI pullreq prompt to make a backup immediately, or just suggest it? O.o
387 2012-09-30 11:52:35 <kjj_> just suggest. it changes the message box text only
388 2012-09-30 11:55:31 <kjj_> hmm. if you call the backupwallet RPC command with a relative path, what is it relative to?
389 2012-09-30 11:56:01 <sipa> relative to the cwd of the bitcoind server
390 2012-09-30 11:56:25 <kjj_> is that likely to be the datadir?
391 2012-09-30 11:56:40 <sipa> don't think so
392 2012-09-30 11:59:19 <kjj_> would it be a good idea if the encryption triggers (UI and RPC) automatically called BackupWallet with GetDataDir() / "encryptionbackup.dat" ?
393 2012-09-30 11:59:28 <wumpus> relative paths with backupwallet should be avoided
394 2012-09-30 11:59:47 <sipa> kjj_: certainly not for RPC; imho it's a user's responsability to make backups
395 2012-09-30 12:00:06 <wumpus> not really... that'd defeat the encryption by writing an unencrypted copy
396 2012-09-30 12:00:30 <kjj_> no, after the encryption do the backup
397 2012-09-30 12:00:37 <wumpus> good if you make a backup, but please do it on an usb stick or something
398 2012-09-30 12:00:58 <wumpus> oh, right, but in that case it doesn't protect against encryption mess-up at all
399 2012-09-30 12:01:45 <kjj_> looks like the default error handling in the encryption routine is "die" so if there is an encryption mess-up, it should never get there
400 2012-09-30 12:05:14 <Luke-Jr> kjj_: it doesn't make (much) sense to backup to the same device as the original, and users might get the wrong idea if we did it
401 2012-09-30 12:05:48 <Luke-Jr> as far as relative paths, I almost wonder if backupwallet should just refuse to work with them
402 2012-09-30 12:06:08 <kjj_> drive crash isn't the only failure mode.
403 2012-09-30 12:07:17 <tcatm_> Luke-Jr: Nah, one might start bitcoind in a specific directory and use backupwallet with relative paths just fine. Does backupwallet return the real path where the backup was written?
404 2012-09-30 12:09:54 <kjj_> well... here's the funny thing, "bitcoind backupwallet ./backup.dat" does NOT do what you expect it to do. how about we translate the path before sending the command?
405 2012-09-30 12:10:29 <kjj_> people writing their own RPC interfaces will just have to deal with it in their own way
406 2012-09-30 12:11:30 <tcatm_> How would you translate the path when you are on a remote system?
407 2012-09-30 12:12:13 <kjj_> ugh. stuff the wallet into a BLOB in the RPC response?
408 2012-09-30 12:12:30 <tcatm_> That would solve the relative path problem, too.
409 2012-09-30 12:12:51 <tcatm_> However, that would require at least SSL
410 2012-09-30 12:13:12 <kjj_> only if the wallet isn't encrypted
411 2012-09-30 12:13:53 <kjj_> and you could just refuse to perform the command unless at least one of those security measures is active
412 2012-09-30 12:13:54 <tcatm_> Even if it's encrypted you wouldn't want to send it across a network just like that as only the private keys are encrypted.
413 2012-09-30 12:14:15 <kjj_> meh. only the private keys are secret
414 2012-09-30 12:15:10 <tcatm_> Great, care to tell me all your bitcoin public keys in your wallet including their labels?
415 2012-09-30 12:15:42 <kjj_> no thank you, but if you manage to sniff them out of my network or ISP, I won't cry about it.
416 2012-09-30 12:17:29 <tcatm_> I heard of similar attacks happening on exchanges. If an attacker can't get the wallet, he might just as well be interested in modifying a backup so in case it gets restored (and backups should be restored regularly just to make sure they work) one of his public addresses is used instead.
417 2012-09-30 12:20:39 <kjj_> gmm. I think you are arguing for signing the backup file...
418 2012-09-30 12:21:55 <tcatm_> If you sign it you could just as well encrypt it, too.
419 2012-09-30 12:22:04 <tcatm_> But yes, signatures on backups are a good idea.
420 2012-09-30 14:27:50 <gmaxwell> sipa: fwiw, I've analyized vlad's (person on that encryption keypool warning thread), and I'm reasonably confident that his loss is unrelated to keypool behavior.
421 2012-09-30 14:27:58 <gmaxwell> we analyized vlad's wallets.
422 2012-09-30 14:28:10 <gmaxwell> er s/we/I've/
423 2012-09-30 14:28:13 <phantomcircuit> have a vhd vm image
424 2012-09-30 14:28:16 <phantomcircuit> mount with xmount
425 2012-09-30 14:28:30 <phantomcircuit> file in mounted directory has identical checksum to original image
426 2012-09-30 14:28:31 <phantomcircuit> wat
427 2012-09-30 14:29:16 <gmaxwell> sipa: in one wallet most of his funds left via a transaction which he still has the change for. In the other it left in a one output transaction. Both backups were also already encrypted.
428 2012-09-30 14:30:31 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is the keypool encrypted?
429 2012-09-30 14:31:34 <sipa> phantomcircuit: the keypool is just a list of pubkeys
430 2012-09-30 14:31:50 <sipa> phantomcircuit: the corresponding private keys are stored like any other
431 2012-09-30 14:31:59 <sipa> in case of an encrypted wallet, encrypted
432 2012-09-30 14:32:56 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: what we do when you encrypt is mark all the keypool keys as used and then refill the keypool. So there is a possiblity that you backup + encrypt + do txn (without another backup) and lose all your coins.
433 2012-09-30 14:33:07 <gmaxwell> if you instead encrypt+backup+do txn you're fine.
434 2012-09-30 14:34:01 <phantomcircuit> oh
435 2012-09-30 14:34:11 <gmaxwell> Someone commenting on the issue for this thought it hit him, but I think either he got robbed or has just forgotten that he sent his coins someplace else.
436 2012-09-30 14:34:34 <gmaxwell> (his encryption key was utterly trivial; so I don't think the wallet encryption actually afforded him any protection)
437 2012-09-30 14:34:39 <phantomcircuit> crap this is all screwed up
438 2012-09-30 14:34:48 <phantomcircuit> Error: Can't have a partition outside the disk!
439 2012-09-30 14:34:49 <phantomcircuit> :/
440 2012-09-30 14:35:37 <kjj_> gmaxwell: it didn't make any sense to me either. I kinda think he is remembering the sequence of events wrong
441 2012-09-30 14:36:22 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I was like 65% sure one person I tried to help recover a "corrupt" wallet was actually trying to crack it instead, at one point
442 2012-09-30 14:37:07 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ie, he hit the "crash on wrong passphrase" bug we used to have and thought he'd hit a gold mine if only it didn't crash
443 2012-09-30 14:40:41 <sipa> ;;bc,gen 1017000
444 2012-09-30 14:40:43 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 1017000 Khps, given current difficulty of 2864140.507811 , is 0.357149888515 BTC per day and 0.0148812453548 BTC per hour.
445 2012-09-30 14:43:50 <Luke-Jr> apparently bitcointalk decided it's my turn to deal with the trolls??? just started notifying me about posts today XD
446 2012-09-30 14:44:32 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, ignore: *
447 2012-09-30 14:44:58 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: ???
448 2012-09-30 14:45:19 <phantomcircuit> the forums are completely and totally useless at this point
449 2012-09-30 14:45:30 <phantomcircuit> it's trolls and con men
450 2012-09-30 14:48:00 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: I kinda wish BitcoinScene hadn't died off
451 2012-09-30 14:49:37 <Diablo-D3> phantomcircuit: yeah but
452 2012-09-30 14:49:47 <Diablo-D3> why did all the trolls attack the single and only legitimate company of bitcoin
453 2012-09-30 14:50:08 <Luke-Jr> of course, Diablo-D3 is half the problem with the forums, backing up the trolls with mod powerz
454 2012-09-30 15:02:55 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, that's simple they're often the same person
455 2012-09-30 15:03:02 <phantomcircuit> hint most of the trolls have like ten accounts
456 2012-09-30 15:03:25 <phantomcircuit> and who you think is posting on behalf of certain accounts isn't who it really is
457 2012-09-30 15:03:41 <phantomcircuit> posts by zhoutong could be either tihan seale or zhoutong
458 2012-09-30 15:09:06 <Diablo-D3> well
459 2012-09-30 15:09:13 <Diablo-D3> I dont think eskimobob and atlas are the same guy
460 2012-09-30 15:14:49 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, no but atlas has several accounts
461 2012-09-30 15:14:54 <phantomcircuit> as does phinwhatever
462 2012-09-30 15:15:13 <Diablo-D3> whos puppet?
463 2012-09-30 15:15:17 <Diablo-D3> I know hes obviously a puppet
464 2012-09-30 15:15:21 <Diablo-D3> but I dont know who he really is
465 2012-09-30 15:16:50 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, no idea
466 2012-09-30 15:16:57 <phantomcircuit> i would make a map but i honestly dont care anymore
467 2012-09-30 15:17:21 <Diablo-D3> well, trolls instigated nefario locking my glbse account
468 2012-09-30 15:17:33 <Diablo-D3> which nefario finally unlocked after a month after realizing I didnt do anything
469 2012-09-30 15:21:29 <jaxtr> thats nuts Diablo-D3
470 2012-09-30 15:21:55 <jaxtr> DMC is a trusted brand name
471 2012-09-30 15:22:18 <Diablo-D3> ...
472 2012-09-30 15:23:12 <jaxtr> how can one of the most trust listings be locked
473 2012-09-30 15:23:14 <jaxtr> makes no sense
474 2012-09-30 15:23:34 <Diablo-D3> you're trolling, right?
475 2012-09-30 15:23:47 <jaxtr> ?
476 2012-09-30 15:24:06 <Luke-Jr> jaxtr: apparnetly even Diablo-D3 doesn't have a good impression of DMC >_<
477 2012-09-30 15:24:14 <Diablo-D3> the only thing trusted about DMC is its mine.
478 2012-09-30 15:25:28 <jaxtr> Diablo-D3: i mean youve been around since the start and have contributed a lot to bitcoin. if someone with such high rep can be locked for no reason that's crazy...
479 2012-09-30 15:26:58 <Diablo-D3> jaxtr: yeah, and nefario has been around forever too
480 2012-09-30 15:27:04 <Diablo-D3> so Im not sure what went wrong
481 2012-09-30 15:28:43 <galambo__> id imagine that the trust ratings are about to be shut down because theymos doesn't want to be seen as promoting/endorsing any frauds
482 2012-09-30 15:30:26 <pjorrit> there's trust ratings?
483 2012-09-30 15:30:45 <galambo__> never mind i dont understand what you're talking about
484 2012-09-30 15:31:28 <galambo__> that atlas guy should be banned again though imo
485 2012-09-30 15:32:10 <Diablo-D3> galambo__: okay, so, Im the great almighty Diablo, right? Ive been here since the dawn of Bitcoin
486 2012-09-30 15:32:25 <Diablo-D3> I have a company named Diablo Mining Company, its listed on GLBSE
487 2012-09-30 15:32:54 <Diablo-D3> nefario locked it because trolls said I was stealing from my own company
488 2012-09-30 15:35:11 <jaxtr> hmm trolls spreading FUD
489 2012-09-30 15:35:20 <Diablo-D3> yup
490 2012-09-30 15:35:39 <Joric> pfft absurd you can't steal from your own company, you own it for gods sake
491 2012-09-30 15:35:55 <sipa> i disagree
492 2012-09-30 15:36:09 <phantomcircuit> Joric, that's hilariously wrong
493 2012-09-30 15:36:14 <Diablo-D3> Joric: no, shareholders own it
494 2012-09-30 15:36:18 <Diablo-D3> even if Im founder and ceo
495 2012-09-30 15:36:26 <Diablo-D3> now, Im also a shareholder, but thats besides the point
496 2012-09-30 15:36:57 <phantomcircuit> Joric, go ahead and treat the company bank account as your personal account
497 2012-09-30 15:37:09 <phantomcircuit> the company will no longer be a company and will instead simply become your alias
498 2012-09-30 15:37:42 <galambo__> "alter ego"
499 2012-09-30 15:38:36 <galambo__> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
500 2012-09-30 15:38:50 <Diablo-D3> the worst part is, they purchased a lot of shares cheaply and then drove the price down to below a tenth of its value
501 2012-09-30 15:39:26 <Luke-Jr> phantomcircuit: and you can't pull that if you have shareholders
502 2012-09-30 15:39:52 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, if you have shareholders then it's just embezzlement
503 2012-09-30 15:40:08 <Luke-Jr> "just"
504 2012-09-30 15:40:49 <phantomcircuit> Luke-Jr, s/just/simply/
505 2012-09-30 15:41:00 <Diablo-D3> although I fucked their shit and bought almost half the shares out there back
506 2012-09-30 15:41:16 <Diablo-D3> I wonder how much money those trolls lost trying to fight the market
507 2012-09-30 15:43:58 <ThomasV> which company are you guys talking about?
508 2012-09-30 15:44:38 <Diablo-D3> ThomasV: mine, DMC
509 2012-09-30 15:44:58 <Joric> Delorian Motor Company?
510 2012-09-30 15:45:06 <Joric> cool, dude
511 2012-09-30 15:45:18 <Diablo-D3> Joric: you know better
512 2012-09-30 15:45:36 <ThomasV> is it an officialy registered company?
513 2012-09-30 15:46:43 <Diablo-D3> ThomasV: no, I was saving that when a) we could afford it, b) we actually had physical assets to protect
514 2012-09-30 15:47:05 <Diablo-D3> nefario has pushed that back awhile =/
515 2012-09-30 15:47:47 <ThomasV> ok, so in that case I guess you can't steal from it
516 2012-09-30 15:47:58 <sipa> ;;bc,gen 270000
517 2012-09-30 15:48:00 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 270000 Khps, given current difficulty of 2864140.507811 , is 0.0948185544729 BTC per day and 0.00395077310304 BTC per hour.
518 2012-09-30 15:48:52 <Diablo-D3> ThomasV: yes, everything DMC has is _on_ glbse
519 2012-09-30 15:49:02 <ThomasV> oh
520 2012-09-30 16:22:19 <Luke-Jr> ThomasV: DMC has investors.
521 2012-09-30 16:26:37 <kjj_> is that a 1:10 split on the chart?
522 2012-09-30 17:18:43 <Luke-Jr> sigh
523 2012-09-30 17:19:06 <Luke-Jr> ACTION hits the "stop emailing me" link
524 2012-09-30 17:19:27 <sipa> haha
525 2012-09-30 17:20:49 <Luke-Jr> amazingly, these trolls seem worse than the ones I get :|
526 2012-09-30 17:22:21 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: whats this where?
527 2012-09-30 17:22:22 <Eliel> Luke-Jr: what trolls are you referring to?
528 2012-09-30 17:22:32 <Luke-Jr> the Bitcoin Foundation thread
529 2012-09-30 17:22:35 <Eliel> :D
530 2012-09-30 17:22:41 <gmaxwell> oh. yea.
531 2012-09-30 17:22:54 <jgarzik> ACTION gave up on that thread
532 2012-09-30 17:23:07 <jgarzik> troll energy is always greater that one's own
533 2012-09-30 17:23:09 <Eliel> I read it to the last page two days ago.
534 2012-09-30 17:23:21 <jgarzik> if we could harness the energy of trolls, forget about nuke or solar power
535 2012-09-30 17:23:26 <sipa> i really should he resisted replying to Atlas :S
536 2012-09-30 17:23:27 <Eliel> then I decided it's most likely not going to contain anything worth reading
537 2012-09-30 17:23:30 <Luke-Jr> I just started getting emails for it this morning for some reason
538 2012-09-30 17:23:42 <Eliel> and haven't looked at it since
539 2012-09-30 17:23:45 <sipa> jgarzik: it's like herding lolcats :)
540 2012-09-30 17:23:49 <Luke-Jr> lol
541 2012-09-30 17:23:50 <gmaxwell> Everyone notice that since ngzhang announced his avalon stuff, BFL and 'basic' people have simply increased their performance numbers to match
542 2012-09-30 17:23:52 <jgarzik> hehehe
543 2012-09-30 17:24:18 <gmaxwell> Because you know.. when you're engineering something, changing the speed is as simple as turning the knob on the easy-bake-asic-oven to 11.
544 2012-09-30 17:24:34 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'll build you one that goes to 12
545 2012-09-30 17:24:43 <Eliel> gmaxwell: my guess, the margins are wide enough to allow for that.
546 2012-09-30 17:24:47 <jgarzik> gotta love Chinese competition
547 2012-09-30 17:24:55 <jgarzik> it would be the height of hilarity if these were -all- scams
548 2012-09-30 17:24:56 <Eliel> to add more chips if needed to match the competitor
549 2012-09-30 17:25:04 <jgarzik> and thus the "competition" was purely virtual
550 2012-09-30 17:25:04 <sipa> people are really assuming they'll soon have 100s of GH/s each
551 2012-09-30 17:25:11 <gmaxwell> Eliel: sure, but er, adding chips requires a board redesign most likely.
552 2012-09-30 17:25:34 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: board redesign is probably a lot cheaper than ASIC design?
553 2012-09-30 17:25:40 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: we'll know that if in three weeks they're all advertising 100PH/s boxes.
554 2012-09-30 17:25:47 <jgarzik> <grin>
555 2012-09-30 17:25:53 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: oh sure, absolutely. It's not impossible but??? still a little boggling.
556 2012-09-30 17:26:00 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: actually, both bASIC and BFL claim they are just "updating" specs they underestimated initially
557 2012-09-30 17:26:05 <sipa> gmaxwell: you mean you haven't ordered the EH/s boxes yet?
558 2012-09-30 17:26:24 <jgarzik> Full disclosure: in the interests of having one of _something_, I sent bitcoins to buy one ASIC product from each
559 2012-09-30 17:26:26 <Diablo-D3> ooh ooh
560 2012-09-30 17:26:34 <Diablo-D3> Im going to advertise a 1EH box
561 2012-09-30 17:26:34 <jgarzik> ACTION needs to hook up w/ [Tycho] and buy one of those
562 2012-09-30 17:26:42 <Diablo-D3> available 2 years from now
563 2012-09-30 17:26:56 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: It is good marketing. The tape company "Exabyte" was thinking ahead, when it formed with that name ;-)
564 2012-09-30 17:26:58 <Eliel> jgarzik: yes, I agree, it'd be hilarious if all of them turn out to be scams :P
565 2012-09-30 17:27:01 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: considering BFL's history, and the drastic performance gains, it does make sense they'd be very conservative with estimates
566 2012-09-30 17:27:35 <sipa> jgarzik: you'll see they'll all just have some 5W ARM chip in it that does several kH/s each :)
567 2012-09-30 17:27:41 <Eliel> jgarzik: even considering that I'd lose what I invested if so.
568 2012-09-30 17:27:43 <Luke-Jr> (history = under expected specs for FPGA Singles, and adapting FPGA MiniRigs card count to match quoted specs)
569 2012-09-30 17:27:45 <jgarzik> ACTION is a bit leery of the [Tycho] method of buying ASICs though...
570 2012-09-30 17:27:48 <jgarzik> where you buy a "bond"
571 2012-09-30 17:27:57 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: thats preorders
572 2012-09-30 17:28:00 <jgarzik> yes
573 2012-09-30 17:28:03 <Diablo-D3> you can buy them straight out when he has them
574 2012-09-30 17:28:16 <jgarzik> then why not just straight preorders?
575 2012-09-30 17:28:24 <jgarzik> direct payment
576 2012-09-30 17:28:46 <jgarzik> signing up to an exchange, just to preorder is strange
577 2012-09-30 17:29:26 <jgarzik> sure, the others might be scams, but does one really need a trading account just to preorder hardware?
578 2012-09-30 17:29:31 <Luke-Jr> unless he's trying to sell the exchange?
579 2012-09-30 17:29:35 <jgarzik> with all the validation that entails
580 2012-09-30 17:29:36 <kjj_> he probably did that so that he didn't have to bother with setting up a store
581 2012-09-30 17:29:43 <jgarzik> indeed
582 2012-09-30 17:29:44 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: deepbit is invested in that exchange, btw
583 2012-09-30 17:30:06 <jgarzik> Diablo-D3: thank you Captain Obvious
584 2012-09-30 17:32:19 <Diablo-D3> its not obvious at all
585 2012-09-30 18:09:20 <apekee> Hey what's goin on? Anyone know if there's Bitcoin markets similar to options markets?
586 2012-09-30 18:10:07 <kjj_> like MPEX?
587 2012-09-30 18:19:32 <apekee> have u used this?
588 2012-09-30 18:20:03 <kjj_> not the options part, no. I've used the exchange to buy stocks and bonds though
589 2012-09-30 18:21:22 <apekee> hows that worked out for u?
590 2012-09-30 18:22:27 <kjj_> works just fine for me.
591 2012-09-30 18:22:41 <kjj_> I think that bitcoin-otc might have options too
592 2012-09-30 18:23:26 <apekee> u kno if there are ones where i could use virtual currency to practice
593 2012-09-30 18:23:31 <apekee> thanks for your help btw
594 2012-09-30 18:25:35 <kjj_> I have no idea about testing. there may be general trade simulators that could be used for testing algorithms
595 2012-09-30 18:26:58 <kjj_> I know Gox has test servers for their APIs, but they don't do securities, just bitcoin <-> fiat
596 2012-09-30 18:28:51 <kjj_> I would look into OTC first
597 2012-09-30 18:30:44 <dusty_> hi all
598 2012-09-30 18:32:00 <dusty_> anyone has 5 minute to spare to help me on a problem evaluating a bip16 script?
599 2012-09-30 18:33:06 <dusty_> It's about tx B3C19D78B4953B694717A47D9852F8EA1CCD4CF93A45BA2E43A0F97D7CDB2655 of testnet3 network, block 394
600 2012-09-30 18:35:23 <dusty_> the bip16 script there is "OP_1 02ca2a810ab17249b6033a038de563983881b4069270183f3c0aba945653e44216 OP_1 OP_CHECKMULTISIG"
601 2012-09-30 18:36:11 <dusty_> and I can't understand how it can execute correctly, so I was thinking: is that bip16 validation must be done only after a certain date?
602 2012-09-30 18:36:31 <dusty_> (even in testnet3?)
603 2012-09-30 18:38:36 <kjj_> OP_CHECKMULTISIG pops one more element than it should
604 2012-09-30 18:39:09 <lianj> dusty_: % grep -i bip16 -r src
605 2012-09-30 18:39:11 <lianj> src/main.cpp: int64 nBIP16SwitchTime = 1333238400;
606 2012-09-30 18:39:17 <dusty_> kjj_: yes, for that reason the script can't be validated, and the transaction should be invalid
607 2012-09-30 18:39:38 <dusty_> lianj: ok, so while that's a script, it should not be evaluated?
608 2012-09-30 18:40:09 <lianj> its not the full script
609 2012-09-30 18:40:38 <dusty_> lianj: what do you mean?
610 2012-09-30 18:48:21 <lianj> dusty_: oh, the inner script is really "1 02ca2a810ab17249b6033a038de563983881b4069270183f3c0aba945653e44216 1 OP_CHECKMULTISIG" so its a broken checkmultisig
611 2012-09-30 18:48:49 <kjj_> lianj: right, but it was redeemed.
612 2012-09-30 18:48:52 <lianj> but its from 2011-02-03, so ignore it. the nodes at that time didnt eval or know about the inner script
613 2012-09-30 18:49:22 <lianj> kjj_: was accepted due to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016#Backwards_Compatibility
614 2012-09-30 18:49:48 <kjj_> bah. I just assumed that blockexplorer.com/testnet/ was showing testnet 3
615 2012-09-30 18:49:56 <sipa> kjj_: it should be
616 2012-09-30 18:50:19 <kjj_> I thought it was just recently reset
617 2012-09-30 18:51:11 <lianj> kjj_: i have this one for the mainnet as an exception for example. because its the only invalid inner script before the switch over date
618 2012-09-30 18:52:19 <dusty_> someone should explain me how is possible that a chain reset happened in 2012 (testnet) has blocks dated 2011...
619 2012-09-30 18:52:34 <dusty_> (I meant testnet3, not testnet, sorry)
620 2012-09-30 19:29:13 <sipa> wow, i didn't check the wallet that held my forum donation address for months
621 2012-09-30 19:29:26 <sipa> suddenly it has almost 32 BTC :s
622 2012-09-30 19:36:42 <dusty_> sipa: :)
623 2012-09-30 19:37:11 <dusty_> kjj, liank: thanks for the help, I implemented the skipping of the validation
624 2012-09-30 19:37:14 <Luke-Jr> sipa: nice
625 2012-09-30 20:37:00 <jgarzik> occasionally I wish there was a no-account mode
626 2012-09-30 20:37:36 <jgarzik> IMO the account system sometimes craps up the wallet, and gets in the way
627 2012-09-30 20:38:05 <kjj_> they are easy enough to ignore.
628 2012-09-30 20:38:18 <kjj_> what do you mean by crapping up the wallet?
629 2012-09-30 20:44:19 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, lol
630 2012-09-30 20:44:24 <phantomcircuit> always use default account only
631 2012-09-30 20:44:26 <phantomcircuit> :|
632 2012-09-30 20:46:24 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: still creates more data than a theoretical account-free design
633 2012-09-30 20:47:00 <jgarzik> and for picky quoting reasons, the "default account" is harder to use than it should be
634 2012-09-30 20:47:23 <jgarzik> default account should be an arbitrary name, like git's "master"
635 2012-09-30 20:47:43 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, yeah i know
636 2012-09-30 20:48:32 <jgarzik> git's "master" is just a convention, hardcoded in the absolute bare minimum number of a places. A default policy, but one you are free to delete, rename or ignore as you choose.
637 2012-09-30 20:48:46 <jgarzik> None of this hardcoded empty-string-is-a-special-case stuff all over the place
638 2012-09-30 22:15:22 <jgarzik> heh, BFL ads on bitcoinwatch.com
639 2012-09-30 22:15:29 <jgarzik> marketing blitz *= 2
640 2012-09-30 23:23:12 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: oh i know there are ways, i just couldn't figure out what particular implementation was doing (the original conversation i had with him i was mostly pointing out that he was assuming a lot of things that you can't, and he didn't like that so took his ball and went home) ... he even explained comittments to me (poorly) before doing so after i had brought them up, ha