1 2012-10-17 01:05:10 <MC1984> How can we get a writing analysis done on all of Satoshi's written works to see if there is consistency among them? I am becoming more convinced we are dealing with an organization here a la Bavarian Illuminati, who started many of the world's revolutions
  2 2012-10-17 01:05:26 <MC1984> guess the poster
  3 2012-10-17 01:05:50 <Luke-Jr> ???
  4 2012-10-17 01:06:07 <Luke-Jr> please, use quotation marks so I don't associate your name with insanity
  5 2012-10-17 01:07:20 <MC1984> ""
  6 2012-10-17 01:07:36 <graingert> MC1984: is it Bruce Wagner?
  7 2012-10-17 01:07:45 <MC1984> no
  8 2012-10-17 01:08:04 <graingert> whatever happened to him?
  9 2012-10-17 01:09:37 <MC1984> no cheating!
 10 2012-10-17 01:11:06 <graingert> I cheated
 11 2012-10-17 01:11:11 <graingert> or should I say charted
 12 2012-10-17 01:11:15 <graingert> ohhhhhhhh
 13 2012-10-17 01:11:50 <graingert> like as in charted the world
 14 2012-10-17 01:12:04 <graingert> like as in a world map
 15 2012-10-17 01:12:12 <graingert> or like some sort of atlas
 16 2012-10-17 01:13:14 <graingert> MC1984: ^
 17 2012-10-17 01:15:23 <MC1984> thats about as subtle as an air raid graingert
 18 2012-10-17 01:17:09 <amiller> satoshi nakamoto is almost an anagram for "took a shit in nam" hope this helps
 19 2012-10-17 01:17:22 <graingert> MC1984: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuaKlrTAEEE
 20 2012-10-17 01:18:26 <graingert> anagram-solver.net/?q=satoshi%20nakamoto&partial=1
 21 2012-10-17 01:18:31 <graingert> http://anagram-solver.net/?q=satoshi%20nakamoto&partial=1
 22 2012-10-17 01:22:38 <MC1984> "n addition, we isolated all the large transactions in the system, and discovered that almost all of them are closely related to a single large transaction that took place in November 2010, even though the associated users apparently tried to hide this fact with many strange looking long chains and fork-merge structures in the transaction graph."
 23 2012-10-17 01:22:58 <MC1984> that will be an interesting paper to read
 24 2012-10-17 01:23:17 <Diablo-D3> _lol_
 25 2012-10-17 01:23:43 <Diablo-D3> I wonder if they realize that "large transaction" was a major exchange, such as mtgox, moving cold wallets around
 26 2012-10-17 01:24:02 <Diablo-D3> and all the "associated" users are people who bought btc on mtgox and moved it out
 27 2012-10-17 01:24:26 <amiller> unbelievably that paper is coauthored by the S in RSA....
 28 2012-10-17 01:24:34 <amiller> i can't figure out wtf the point of it is though
 29 2012-10-17 01:24:40 <MC1984> http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf here it is
 30 2012-10-17 01:25:13 <graingert> satoshi nakamoto is almost an anagram of A. T. Thomson
 31 2012-10-17 01:25:29 <Diablo-D3> satoshi nakamoto is almost an anagram of my dick
 32 2012-10-17 01:25:42 <Diablo-D3> I mean, lets face it, my dick has a lot of brute force behind it.
 33 2012-10-17 01:27:57 <graingert> !help
 34 2012-10-17 01:27:58 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
 35 2012-10-17 01:28:12 <graingert> ;;help
 36 2012-10-17 01:28:13 <gribble> The bot responds when you start a line with the ! character. A good starting point for exploring the bot is the !facts command. You can also visit the bot's website for a list of help topics and documentation: http://gribble.sourceforge.net/
 37 2012-10-17 01:29:05 <galambo_> satoshi nakamoto is also an anagram for "monkish as aa toot "
 38 2012-10-17 01:29:32 <galambo_> toot means fart for anyone wondering
 39 2012-10-17 01:31:34 <jgarzik> 10/17/12 03:31:27 CTxMemPool::accept() : accepted 1610e138e0 (poolsz 4163)
 40 2012-10-17 01:31:37 <jgarzik> good greif
 41 2012-10-17 01:31:40 <jgarzik> *grief
 42 2012-10-17 01:32:48 <jgarzik> 2 out of 3 recent blocks <100 tx
 43 2012-10-17 01:34:32 <doublec> I found 203637 and that only had 406 transactions using stock bitcoind (no transaction logic changes)
 44 2012-10-17 01:41:00 <galambo_> "This research was supported by the Citi Foundation."
 45 2012-10-17 01:44:43 <galambo_> That makes me feel warm inside.
 46 2012-10-17 01:44:45 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, lol
 47 2012-10-17 01:44:49 <phantomcircuit> "<Diablo-D3> I mean, lets face it, my dick has a lot of brute force behind it."
 48 2012-10-17 01:45:30 <phantomcircuit> Diablo-D3, their analysis completely failed to identify intersango at all
 49 2012-10-17 01:45:48 <phantomcircuit> and there is essentially zero effort put into keeping interango stuff anonymous
 50 2012-10-17 01:48:14 <Diablo-D3> hah
 51 2012-10-17 01:48:16 <Diablo-D3> I didnt even read the pdf
 52 2012-10-17 01:48:22 <Diablo-D3> and I already knew it was bullshit
 53 2012-10-17 01:49:43 <phantomcircuit> i suspect you could do some interesting graph analysis but that it would be massively computationally expensive to do
 54 2012-10-17 01:50:07 <MC1984> the anonymity is still an open question isnt it
 55 2012-10-17 01:50:22 <MC1984> we need more hardcore research papers
 56 2012-10-17 01:50:26 <phantomcircuit> ultimately bitcoins biggest anonymity protection is coming up with mixing schemes that are computationally expensive to detect
 57 2012-10-17 01:50:56 <phantomcircuit> a max master style mixing network would be pretty much anonymous
 58 2012-10-17 01:51:02 <phantomcircuit> but would be massively expensive to operate
 59 2012-10-17 01:51:15 <amiller> this is pretty much the worst paper ever there is like no methodology whatsoever i dunno what else to say
 60 2012-10-17 01:51:35 <weex> what were they talking about in terms of html documents?
 61 2012-10-17 01:51:40 <weex> blockexplorer?
 62 2012-10-17 01:51:45 <phantomcircuit> and would only work on a specific block sizes (ie you'd always transfer a fixed size in every transaction)
 63 2012-10-17 01:51:51 <amiller> weex, they crawled blockexplorer.com
 64 2012-10-17 01:52:00 <weex> wow
 65 2012-10-17 01:52:06 <phantomcircuit> amiller, which explains why it was very slow for a while
 66 2012-10-17 01:52:28 <amiller> they gave the date they did this, may 2012 this year
 67 2012-10-17 01:52:29 <weex> they should have hired amiller as a consultant
 68 2012-10-17 01:52:55 <amiller> regarding anonymity
 69 2012-10-17 01:52:58 <phantomcircuit> they could have hired anybody from the community as a consultant and would have gotten far superior results
 70 2012-10-17 01:53:10 <amiller> that was solved adequatley in the 90s by david chaum, i have no idea why there aren't more mixnets
 71 2012-10-17 01:53:17 <amiller> blindbitcoin.com, while it was around, was a pretty sweet implementation of that
 72 2012-10-17 01:53:34 <amiller> ben laurie implemented chaumian blinding in Lucre, an open source patent-unencumbered version of that algorithm
 73 2012-10-17 01:55:29 <phantomcircuit> amiller, well there are two issues with mix nets
 74 2012-10-17 01:55:45 <phantomcircuit> the most obvious being that operating one is almost certainly illegal in nearly every jurisdiction on the planet
 75 2012-10-17 01:56:02 <phantomcircuit> the more subtle one is that you would not be able to deny you received bitcoins from the mix net
 76 2012-10-17 01:56:09 <phantomcircuit> but would be able to deny where they came from
 77 2012-10-17 01:56:28 <phantomcircuit> in many jurisdictions this doesn't help you at all
 78 2012-10-17 01:56:43 <phantomcircuit> since money laundering is often a worse crime than whatever people are trying to mix them for
 79 2012-10-17 01:57:22 <MC1984> tor mixnet?
 80 2012-10-17 01:57:59 <phantomcircuit> i am surprised there aren't more options for mix master style networks
 81 2012-10-17 01:58:20 <phantomcircuit> theoretically you could have a relatively low latency high anonymity network simply be using a ton of fixed bandwidth
 82 2012-10-17 01:59:08 <phantomcircuit> i guess it's too expensive or something
 83 2012-10-17 01:59:57 <amiller> i guess without any sort of incentive to participate in a mixer it's not too surprising there aren't so many.... it's not fun and exciting like bitcoin mining
 84 2012-10-17 02:00:17 <phantomcircuit> amiller, and yet there are a TON of tor relay nodes
 85 2012-10-17 02:00:23 <phantomcircuit> (not a ton of exit nodes though)
 86 2012-10-17 02:01:16 <phantomcircuit> the main issue with something like that is the clients could reduce their anonymity simply by connecting to the network only when they're actively using it
 87 2012-10-17 02:01:28 <phantomcircuit> but in that case you've simply reduced your anonymity to that of tor today
 88 2012-10-17 02:01:31 <phantomcircuit> so it's not a big deal
 89 2012-10-17 02:02:29 <phantomcircuit> also my attempt at turning this laptop into a 17W space heater has failed
 90 2012-10-17 02:02:47 <MC1984> As can be seen from Table 2, 36% of all owners
 91 2012-10-17 02:02:47 <MC1984> received fewer than one BTC (currently worth about 12 USD) each throughout
 92 2012-10-17 02:02:50 <amiller> i'm still waiting for someone to come out and admit bitcoin is a novel consensus algortihm.
 93 2012-10-17 02:02:52 <phantomcircuit> cpu mining on it isn't causing full load on the cpu
 94 2012-10-17 02:02:59 <MC1984> occypy bitcoin
 95 2012-10-17 02:03:05 <phantomcircuit> amiller, shh you'll spook the users
 96 2012-10-17 02:03:33 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, that's when i realized they had fucked up their analysis
 97 2012-10-17 02:03:43 <phantomcircuit> i seriously doubt most real users have received few than 10 BTC
 98 2012-10-17 02:04:01 <MC1984> why?
 99 2012-10-17 02:04:08 <weex> amiller: someone recently wrote about it as a solution to the byzantine generals problem, is that what you mean?
100 2012-10-17 02:04:33 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, because 10 BTC isn't enough to buy anything and most people trying to get BTC have something specific in mind to buy
101 2012-10-17 02:04:35 <MC1984> faucet is the only easy way to get a pubkey in the chain, but getting 10 btc or more is had
102 2012-10-17 02:04:37 <amiller> weex, yeah that's what i mean. is it on iacr?
103 2012-10-17 02:04:40 <phantomcircuit> i wont venture a guess as to what...
104 2012-10-17 02:04:47 <weex> one sec
105 2012-10-17 02:05:03 <phantomcircuit> weex, heh
106 2012-10-17 02:05:36 <phantomcircuit> i've been trying to solve the byzantine generals problem in a distributed exchange system and have come to a system that works very well and is fast as hell
107 2012-10-17 02:05:39 <phantomcircuit> it's loverly
108 2012-10-17 02:06:06 <phantomcircuit> then i went and implemented it with django and an rpc backend and the average page load time is 500ms to do nothing
109 2012-10-17 02:06:07 <phantomcircuit> :(
110 2012-10-17 02:06:31 <MC1984> why would you design a distribyted exchange when youve got a server based one?
111 2012-10-17 02:06:45 <weex> http://paulbohm.com/articles/bitcoins-value-is-decentralization/ is the one i was thinking of
112 2012-10-17 02:07:02 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, for performance reasons
113 2012-10-17 02:07:28 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, if you're doing margin checks having the accounts be stripped across multiple servers is necessary
114 2012-10-17 02:07:29 <weex> and then of course i realise it's 1.4 years old
115 2012-10-17 02:07:37 <MC1984> oh you mean server clustering
116 2012-10-17 02:07:53 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, yeah i dont mean one of those retarded "fuck the exchanges !" systems
117 2012-10-17 02:07:56 <phantomcircuit> which lol dont work
118 2012-10-17 02:08:19 <phantomcircuit> the people working on those fundamentally dont understand what counter party risk is
119 2012-10-17 02:08:27 <imisor> :>
120 2012-10-17 02:08:38 <weex> exchange bank accounts + AML seem to be the current choke points
121 2012-10-17 02:09:00 <phantomcircuit> unfortunately i now believe bitcoin will likely fail
122 2012-10-17 02:09:04 <phantomcircuit> the timeline is wrong
123 2012-10-17 02:09:21 <imisor> :|
124 2012-10-17 02:09:23 <phantomcircuit> too much regulatory pressure is about to be applied for the existing exchanges to do anything about it
125 2012-10-17 02:09:40 <phantomcircuit> with all the idiots doing illegal things left and right regulators have no choice but to act
126 2012-10-17 02:10:10 <MC1984> you think that will happen
127 2012-10-17 02:10:32 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, yes i do
128 2012-10-17 02:10:47 <imisor> i thought bitcoin is .. somehow for a while "working"
129 2012-10-17 02:10:53 <phantomcircuit> everybody operating in the us with MSB licenses are simply ignoring state money transmitter licensing
130 2012-10-17 02:11:08 <imisor> then it will fail, now it does work but not for long
131 2012-10-17 02:11:08 <phantomcircuit> an MSB license gets you a bank account with fewer hastles
132 2012-10-17 02:11:14 <phantomcircuit> but it doesn't actually mean you're operating legally
133 2012-10-17 02:11:30 <imisor> phantomcircuit, yeah
134 2012-10-17 02:11:33 <imisor> :|
135 2012-10-17 02:11:47 <phantomcircuit> and i suspect european regulators will decide bitcoins are currency for the purposes of licensing
136 2012-10-17 02:11:51 <phantomcircuit> if not now then very soon
137 2012-10-17 02:12:10 <MC1984> you saying the exchenge system is gonna get hit file locker style
138 2012-10-17 02:12:53 <phantomcircuit> yes except none of the exchanges have the resources to fight back
139 2012-10-17 02:12:58 <phantomcircuit> it will simply be game over
140 2012-10-17 02:13:16 <weex> btc price will need to rise before much more can be done on the aml policy/registration front
141 2012-10-17 02:13:27 <MC1984> youre saying youre fucked?
142 2012-10-17 02:13:33 <phantomcircuit> weex, why?
143 2012-10-17 02:13:38 <weex> or a big investor will need to front those costs with vision
144 2012-10-17 02:13:55 <weex> because otherwise there's no way to make back the investment through fees
145 2012-10-17 02:14:04 <imisor> ..
146 2012-10-17 02:14:16 <weex> $120M valuation can it seems support one big exchange
147 2012-10-17 02:14:29 <imisor> sorry 'bout the idling i've been real busy :) yesterday drinking lol but ..
148 2012-10-17 02:14:33 <phantomcircuit> weex, not even close
149 2012-10-17 02:14:35 <weex> or small exchange depending how you see it
150 2012-10-17 02:14:53 <phantomcircuit> weex, the proper licensing in the us would cost roughly 15 million dollars
151 2012-10-17 02:15:06 <weex> phantomcircuit: where do you get that number?
152 2012-10-17 02:15:21 <phantomcircuit> weex, you would need to be registered federally and with each state
153 2012-10-17 02:15:33 <phantomcircuit> the federal registration (MSB w/ fincen) has no bonding requirements
154 2012-10-17 02:15:48 <phantomcircuit> almost all the states have bonding requirements of 3+ million dollars
155 2012-10-17 02:15:53 <imisor> i dunno if those guys are idiots some of them just dont care, they don't have any legal interest and just want money and get out.. or so
156 2012-10-17 02:15:58 <weex> that i understand but 15M seems a bit much...either way btc price will need to rise for it to make sense
157 2012-10-17 02:16:00 <phantomcircuit> typically a bond like that would cost about 3-5% /year
158 2012-10-17 02:16:32 <phantomcircuit> that's ~7.2 million usd/year in just the cost of bonding
159 2012-10-17 02:16:44 <phantomcircuit> weex, well that's my point
160 2012-10-17 02:16:54 <phantomcircuit> if all the current exchanges get shuttered the price will fall
161 2012-10-17 02:16:55 <imisor> who actually cares if its legal as long as it works and everyone is happy :D try to catch 45375123712 account-users
162 2012-10-17 02:17:09 <phantomcircuit> and it will never rise to the point that it's worth the effort of getting licensed properly
163 2012-10-17 02:17:39 <imisor> its like trying to take porn away from inet totally
164 2012-10-17 02:17:44 <imisor> no fkn change lol
165 2012-10-17 02:17:49 <weex> licensing costs can be increased as well
166 2012-10-17 02:18:33 <phantomcircuit> weex, basically if the current exchanges are forced to become licensed in the us properly bitcoin fails
167 2012-10-17 02:18:49 <phantomcircuit> if they continue to operate the way they do now then it succeeds
168 2012-10-17 02:19:12 <phantomcircuit> im guessing there is a roughly 1-2 year window of time in which massive regulatory pressure would destroy bitcoin
169 2012-10-17 02:19:26 <weex> bitcoin will just route around damage
170 2012-10-17 02:19:38 <phantomcircuit> weex, unlikely since that costs money
171 2012-10-17 02:20:14 <weex> imagine mtgox has their accounts frozen, you think everyone throws in the towel?
172 2012-10-17 02:20:22 <phantomcircuit> weex, probably
173 2012-10-17 02:20:27 <phantomcircuit> not everybody
174 2012-10-17 02:20:37 <phantomcircuit> but probably 90% of people just give up
175 2012-10-17 02:20:48 <phantomcircuit> at the very least the price falls dramatically
176 2012-10-17 02:21:00 <weex> defining price is a bit harder then
177 2012-10-17 02:21:28 <phantomcircuit> weex, the real value in terms of what you can get for them would almost certainly plummet
178 2012-10-17 02:21:39 <phantomcircuit> i actually dont see mtgox's accounts getting frozen
179 2012-10-17 02:22:07 <phantomcircuit> but us customers access to mtgox could be dramatically restricted
180 2012-10-17 02:22:34 <MC1984> why so US centric?
181 2012-10-17 02:22:42 <MC1984> whole world out there
182 2012-10-17 02:22:47 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, the vast majority of bitcoin users are in the us
183 2012-10-17 02:22:57 <imisor> mm
184 2012-10-17 02:23:08 <MC1984> yes, that would change if
185 2012-10-17 02:23:11 <phantomcircuit> when intersango had ~90% of the UK market it was just barely making enough money to pay for my time
186 2012-10-17 02:23:16 <MC1984> us regulators went crazy
187 2012-10-17 02:23:20 <phantomcircuit> and wasn't even close to paying for donald and amirs time
188 2012-10-17 02:24:14 <phantomcircuit> the regulatory framework in the us is flexible enough that the regulators can pretty much do whatever they want
189 2012-10-17 02:24:31 <phantomcircuit> there are hundreds of thousands of obscure rules that probably everybody is violating
190 2012-10-17 02:24:43 <phantomcircuit> (and i mean everybody in a very literal sense)
191 2012-10-17 02:24:48 <MC1984> yeah its rigged for tee huge players, we know this
192 2012-10-17 02:24:59 <weex> phantomcircuit: you don't sound optimistic
193 2012-10-17 02:25:11 <phantomcircuit> weex, uh yeah im not super optimistic
194 2012-10-17 02:25:23 <MC1984> is this why you killed usd exchange on sango? fear getting v&?
195 2012-10-17 02:25:31 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, right but my point is more so that bitcoin is attracting far too much attention from regulatory agencies than the major players can withstand
196 2012-10-17 02:25:54 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, well really it doesn't make anything (iirc is made like $50 last month)
197 2012-10-17 02:26:12 <weex> don't spend it all at once place
198 2012-10-17 02:26:15 <phantomcircuit> the fee from the backing bank was like 50% of revenues lol
199 2012-10-17 02:26:35 <phantomcircuit> weex, yeah really
200 2012-10-17 02:27:22 <MC1984> you still getting your uk accounts shut down too?
201 2012-10-17 02:27:25 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, im probably going to close the PLN market also
202 2012-10-17 02:27:38 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, we dont even have a uk account for them to close at this point
203 2012-10-17 02:27:44 <phantomcircuit> nobody does
204 2012-10-17 02:27:48 <phantomcircuit> hint hint
205 2012-10-17 02:27:57 <phantomcircuit> that kind of shit doesn't happen by coincidence
206 2012-10-17 02:28:06 <MC1984> well fuck
207 2012-10-17 02:28:31 <phantomcircuit> mtgox's barclays account was closed without warning on what the 24th?
208 2012-10-17 02:28:58 <phantomcircuit> is mtgox.com not loading or is it just me
209 2012-10-17 02:29:29 <phantomcircuit> yeah the 25th
210 2012-10-17 02:29:33 <MC1984> bit slow
211 2012-10-17 02:29:40 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, our metro account was closed on the 12th
212 2012-10-17 02:29:56 <phantomcircuit> metro bank is a correspondent bank with barclays
213 2012-10-17 02:30:07 <weex> phantomcircuit: no little banks want to take a chance?
214 2012-10-17 02:30:20 <phantomcircuit> there are no little banks in the uk
215 2012-10-17 02:30:23 <MC1984> tried co-op or something?
216 2012-10-17 02:30:29 <weex> you need a veridian credit union like dwolla got
217 2012-10-17 02:30:50 <phantomcircuit> http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/faster_payments/how_to_use_the_faster_payments_service_new/-/page/1948/
218 2012-10-17 02:31:04 <MC1984> so bitcoin was always based on the cooperation of the banks??
219 2012-10-17 02:31:05 <phantomcircuit> those 10 banks are the only options
220 2012-10-17 02:31:14 <MC1984> theres no other way?
221 2012-10-17 02:31:26 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, you can go around trading with people in person
222 2012-10-17 02:31:30 <weex> go get the unbanked!
223 2012-10-17 02:31:34 <phantomcircuit> but until there is critical mass that's a non-starter
224 2012-10-17 02:31:48 <phantomcircuit> every other bank is nothing more than a correspondent of one of those ten
225 2012-10-17 02:32:09 <MC1984> co-operative
226 2012-10-17 02:32:15 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, said no
227 2012-10-17 02:32:22 <MC1984> fuck
228 2012-10-17 02:32:29 <phantomcircuit> i dont know about Clydesdale
229 2012-10-17 02:32:57 <weex> the UK is going lose out big in the Bitcoin economy
230 2012-10-17 02:33:01 <phantomcircuit> barclays/citi/coop/hsbc/lloyds/nationwide/santander all said no
231 2012-10-17 02:33:19 <phantomcircuit> you'll notice that bitinstants uk bank isn't a bank in their name
232 2012-10-17 02:33:32 <phantomcircuit> it's a third party payments processor that im sure has no idea what's going to hit them
233 2012-10-17 02:34:36 <MC1984> what about running a service that facilitates third party excanging
234 2012-10-17 02:35:10 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, you're not just bitcoin.de
235 2012-10-17 02:35:20 <phantomcircuit> or wait wrong one
236 2012-10-17 02:35:25 <phantomcircuit> no yeah right one
237 2012-10-17 02:35:45 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, you're basically ignoring the counter party risk
238 2012-10-17 02:36:00 <phantomcircuit> the value in an exchange is reducing the counter party risk to near zero
239 2012-10-17 02:36:28 <phantomcircuit> it's hard to exchange things when the risk is so massively skewed
240 2012-10-17 02:36:37 <MC1984> well you need to trust the exchange
241 2012-10-17 02:36:56 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, that's the point
242 2012-10-17 02:37:09 <phantomcircuit> it's easier to trust a single entity than it is to trust hundreds of random traders
243 2012-10-17 02:37:18 <phantomcircuit> think about an escrow exchange
244 2012-10-17 02:37:20 <weex> if an exchange can't hold fiat, then all they can do is connect people, provide a reputation system, and do escrow
245 2012-10-17 02:37:24 <phantomcircuit> you want to buy a TON of bitcoins
246 2012-10-17 02:37:40 <phantomcircuit> you're going to have to do hundreds of bank transfers to buy them
247 2012-10-17 02:37:59 <phantomcircuit> with an exchange that's not your problem
248 2012-10-17 02:38:06 <phantomcircuit> you're paying for someone else to do it
249 2012-10-17 02:39:11 <MC1984> so bitcoin may be gacing a financial blockade sitution wikileaks style
250 2012-10-17 02:39:14 <MC1984> wink and nod
251 2012-10-17 02:39:33 <phantomcircuit> pretty much
252 2012-10-17 02:39:44 <phantomcircuit> wikileaks solution was to sue a bunch of people
253 2012-10-17 02:40:00 <phantomcircuit> notice they're still blocked
254 2012-10-17 02:40:22 <MC1984> sooooooooo
255 2012-10-17 02:40:40 <MC1984> the biggest reason why bitcoin exists is the reason why it will fail
256 2012-10-17 02:42:35 <weex> RIP Bitcoin 2012 - A victim of its own success.
257 2012-10-17 02:42:40 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, no the reason it will fail is people being nob heads
258 2012-10-17 02:42:51 <phantomcircuit> there are far too many people being obnoxious
259 2012-10-17 02:43:06 <phantomcircuit> the community is nothing short of vicious
260 2012-10-17 02:43:33 <weex> the same could be said of youtube commenters
261 2012-10-17 02:43:38 <MC1984> well yeah but youre probably biased there
262 2012-10-17 02:44:21 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, i've had a number of people tell me they decided not to accept bitcoins after seeing the forum
263 2012-10-17 02:44:51 <phantomcircuit> and im talking people who could have made a substantial impact on the marketability of bitcoins
264 2012-10-17 02:45:12 <MC1984> bitcoins are irreversible, what do the forum assholes matter?
265 2012-10-17 02:45:40 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, lets say you operate a boring company selling boring things
266 2012-10-17 02:45:43 <phantomcircuit> but you're huge
267 2012-10-17 02:45:51 <phantomcircuit> you have a good reputation
268 2012-10-17 02:45:54 <phantomcircuit> people liek you
269 2012-10-17 02:46:03 <phantomcircuit> you think bitcoins are cool and want to accept them
270 2012-10-17 02:46:19 <phantomcircuit> so you ask yourself, who will the customers be that purchase with bitcoins?
271 2012-10-17 02:46:30 <phantomcircuit> nobody wants to have customers like the people on the forum
272 2012-10-17 02:46:45 <weex> maybe there's a market for therapy
273 2012-10-17 02:46:49 <phantomcircuit> so they decide that the revenue isn't worth the hastle and potential damage to their brand
274 2012-10-17 02:46:55 <phantomcircuit> and they move on with their life
275 2012-10-17 02:47:47 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, take intersango and bitcoinica as an example
276 2012-10-17 02:47:57 <phantomcircuit> they are separate businesses both legally and actually
277 2012-10-17 02:48:07 <phantomcircuit> and yet damage from one is clearly effecting the other
278 2012-10-17 02:48:17 <MC1984> you really think the couple of gundred wingnut on that forum is generally indacative of the bitcoin userbase?
279 2012-10-17 02:48:29 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, actually...
280 2012-10-17 02:48:48 <phantomcircuit> lets put it this way
281 2012-10-17 02:49:15 <phantomcircuit> any service i offer going forward which accepts bitcoins will require registrations to be approved
282 2012-10-17 02:49:32 <phantomcircuit> customer selection will be manual and fairly rigorous
283 2012-10-17 02:49:57 <MC1984> you honestly sound bitter as hell
284 2012-10-17 02:50:00 <MC1984> i could see why
285 2012-10-17 02:50:14 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, im reasonably bitter
286 2012-10-17 02:50:20 <MC1984> maybe your right
287 2012-10-17 02:50:25 <phantomcircuit> that doesn't change that what im saying comes from a significant amount of experience
288 2012-10-17 02:50:52 <MC1984> but that means we need our asses owned by the banks and govt and stuff because people are otherwise savages, and that is almost too much to bear
289 2012-10-17 02:51:13 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, that's not really what im saying though
290 2012-10-17 02:51:29 <phantomcircuit> the bitcoin community is not even close to being indicative of the world at large
291 2012-10-17 02:51:40 <phantomcircuit> most people aren't scammers and assholes
292 2012-10-17 02:51:45 <MC1984> right
293 2012-10-17 02:51:51 <phantomcircuit> the problem is bitcoin is a magnet for people who are
294 2012-10-17 02:52:01 <MC1984> right
295 2012-10-17 02:52:12 <phantomcircuit> like the strongest magnet in the fucking universe
296 2012-10-17 02:52:26 <phantomcircuit> :/
297 2012-10-17 02:52:31 <MC1984> seems that way
298 2012-10-17 02:52:39 <weex> what about litecoin?
299 2012-10-17 02:53:13 <MC1984> that still wort of implies there is truly no other way that government fiat regulated out the ass
300 2012-10-17 02:53:20 <gmaxwell> Superconducting scammer solenoid.
301 2012-10-17 02:53:51 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, what im saying is that bitcoin needed to have gotten much bigger must faster to outrun the scammers and assholes
302 2012-10-17 02:54:10 <phantomcircuit> and to get to the point where properly setup and registered businesses would become economically viable
303 2012-10-17 02:54:13 <gmaxwell> Perhaps if we figure out how to modulate it right we can accelerate the scammers to a large fraction of the speed of light and launch them into the sun?
304 2012-10-17 02:54:15 <phantomcircuit> and it hasn't done that
305 2012-10-17 02:54:27 <phantomcircuit> and i expect a massive amount of regulatory pressure to be just around the corner
306 2012-10-17 02:54:31 <weex> gmaxwell: setup an IPO and I'll invest :P
307 2012-10-17 02:54:53 <MC1984> you make a good argument
308 2012-10-17 02:54:56 <gmaxwell> weex: first we need to buy a 50 km ring of land in nigeria.
309 2012-10-17 02:55:07 <MC1984> perhaps bitcoin will simmer for a few years more
310 2012-10-17 02:55:12 <weex> i think scammers and assholes are quicker than honest folk
311 2012-10-17 02:55:26 <weex> so i don't see speed being a solution
312 2012-10-17 02:55:27 <gmaxwell> But good news: I found an investor with 20 million in highly liquid form there.. they just need 50 btc to solve some customs problems.
313 2012-10-17 02:55:41 <phantomcircuit> given the current market size
314 2012-10-17 02:55:44 <weex> gmaxwell: oh you got my email?
315 2012-10-17 02:55:49 <phantomcircuit> simmer is pretty much a guaranteed way to fail
316 2012-10-17 02:56:19 <MC1984> its probably a gppd testament to the technical competency of bitcoin that it has become swamed in scams so quick
317 2012-10-17 02:56:39 <phantomcircuit> hilariously i would have to agree
318 2012-10-17 02:56:45 <weex> 
ACTION is glad he wasn't around when the axe was invented

319 2012-10-17 02:57:21 <MC1984> then again scammers always exist, i think the rea assholes of bitcoin are the people getting taken in again and again and then hitting the forums about it
320 2012-10-17 02:57:23 <gmaxwell> well at least that with all that hostile attention and people are still the weakest link.
321 2012-10-17 02:58:02 <jgarzik> the forums are really an embarrassing ghetto.  but no good replacement is in sight :(
322 2012-10-17 02:58:31 <weex> probably just the rest of the world will have to overshadow it
323 2012-10-17 02:58:39 <MC1984> weex interestingly enough im watching a docu about the bronze age and the invention of the axe right now
324 2012-10-17 02:58:52 <gmaxwell> I wish atlas hadn't been allowed back. He's really dragged it down in a bunch of places.
325 2012-10-17 02:59:09 <Diablo-D3> 
ACTION shrugs

326 2012-10-17 02:59:13 <MC1984> very quickly people started to make tiny useless little axes that were actually currency
327 2012-10-17 02:59:14 <Diablo-D3> its not like bitcoin is worth caring about
328 2012-10-17 02:59:15 <MC1984> so lol
329 2012-10-17 02:59:32 <MC1984> sl##
330 2012-10-17 02:59:46 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: you know, why the hell isnt there some way to describe concurrency as a currency?
331 2012-10-17 02:59:53 <Diablo-D3> or some sort of other absurd wordplay
332 2012-10-17 02:59:58 <gmaxwell> I mean, bitcoin had pirate recently, USD had zeek rewars. Even our scammers are small taters.
333 2012-10-17 03:00:29 <MC1984> some guy found 400 little axe heads buried in a field in england, obviously a horde
334 2012-10-17 03:00:50 <Diablo-D3> fuck axe, I'm on a horse.
335 2012-10-17 03:01:22 <MC1984> heres the kicker, the bronze axe bubble burst with the invention of iron
336 2012-10-17 03:01:35 <MC1984> nothing ever fucking changes does it lol
337 2012-10-17 03:02:22 <Diablo-D3> Im going to bed
338 2012-10-17 03:02:24 <Diablo-D3> night all
339 2012-10-17 03:03:06 <MC1984> atlas is a total cunt
340 2012-10-17 03:03:26 <MC1984> he does it on purpose and prob has like 20 socls
341 2012-10-17 03:03:29 <MC1984> socks
342 2012-10-17 03:04:33 <jgarzik> allowing blatantly obvious scams on the forums and GLBSE was (a) stupid and (b) a black eye for bitcoin
343 2012-10-17 03:05:27 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: then why are we not lowering our regard for the large number of people who defended many of the scams?
344 2012-10-17 03:06:09 <MC1984> is pirate our madoff?
345 2012-10-17 03:06:19 <jgarzik> time
346 2012-10-17 03:06:20 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, god i hope we are
347 2012-10-17 03:06:33 <phantomcircuit> i certainly have no respect for the people who did
348 2012-10-17 03:07:10 <jgarzik> Nobody has time to run a good forum.  If I deleted the mountain of shit on the forums, I'd get kicked.
349 2012-10-17 03:07:25 <jgarzik> if there was time in the day...  it could be done
350 2012-10-17 03:08:10 <jgarzik> bitcoin, right now, is getting over the crypto-anarchist delusion that pseudonymous entities are trustworthy
351 2012-10-17 03:08:21 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you have no respect for midnightmagic? for copumpkin?
352 2012-10-17 03:08:22 <phantomcircuit> running a forum that isn't shit isn't rocket science
353 2012-10-17 03:08:29 <jgarzik> learning the hard way that trust is required for money
354 2012-10-17 03:08:37 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit: it takes time, not brains
355 2012-10-17 03:08:47 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, for their scam spotting abilities? not really
356 2012-10-17 03:08:54 <phantomcircuit> are they nice people
357 2012-10-17 03:08:56 <phantomcircuit> yes
358 2012-10-17 03:09:25 <phantomcircuit> jgarzik, a lot of time can be saved by requiring any viciously mean shit to be said non-anonymously
359 2012-10-17 03:09:33 <phantomcircuit> all of a sudden nobody says it
360 2012-10-17 03:10:20 <MC1984> thats not very free speech bruh
361 2012-10-17 03:11:37 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, it's actually very free speech
362 2012-10-17 03:11:44 <phantomcircuit> if you've got something to say say it
363 2012-10-17 03:12:29 <MC1984> non anon speech is not truly free
364 2012-10-17 03:13:01 <MC1984> what people do with that power is often annoying
365 2012-10-17 03:13:07 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, if you're afraid to make an accusation as yourself
366 2012-10-17 03:13:14 <phantomcircuit> then possibly you shouldn't be making it
367 2012-10-17 03:14:06 <MC1984> yeah
368 2012-10-17 03:14:17 <MC1984> but there are goos reasons why the opposite is true
369 2012-10-17 03:14:52 <MC1984> cant make an exception for the shitstorm over bitcoinica
370 2012-10-17 03:15:19 <MC1984> as they say the solution to shitty free speech is more speech
371 2012-10-17 03:17:50 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, except it's usually not
372 2012-10-17 03:18:16 <phantomcircuit> people will lie cheat and steal to get ahead
373 2012-10-17 03:18:32 <phantomcircuit> i know for a fact that tihan has multiple forum accounts which he uses to bad mouth me
374 2012-10-17 03:18:39 <phantomcircuit> there is little to nothing i can do about that
375 2012-10-17 03:18:46 <phantomcircuit> and he knows it
376 2012-10-17 03:19:14 <MC1984> i didnt say it always worked
377 2012-10-17 03:19:34 <phantomcircuit> the problem is that it rarely works
378 2012-10-17 03:19:39 <phantomcircuit> as the forums to clearly demonstrate
379 2012-10-17 03:19:54 <phantomcircuit> oppressive censorship of everything is bad
380 2012-10-17 03:20:08 <MC1984> if youre talking about the bitcoinica situation you guys seemed to have gone really quiet after the second hack though
381 2012-10-17 03:20:26 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, there isn't anything to say
382 2012-10-17 03:20:31 <phantomcircuit> it's going to liquidation
383 2012-10-17 03:20:35 <phantomcircuit> it has been since that day
384 2012-10-17 03:20:39 <MC1984> yeah
385 2012-10-17 03:21:06 <phantomcircuit> anybody expecting this to get resolved quickly is out of their mind
386 2012-10-17 03:21:15 <phantomcircuit> the normal world of courts is slow
387 2012-10-17 03:21:31 <phantomcircuit> throw in principles being in multiple time zones and you've got something that is going to take forever
388 2012-10-17 03:22:30 <MC1984> the facts are indeed thus but withdrawing doesnt seem to have helped the speech situation
389 2012-10-17 03:22:42 <MC1984> like u said with tihan shittalking
390 2012-10-17 03:23:09 <MC1984> if the forums ar that important youd have to atleast try to counter the bullshit
391 2012-10-17 03:23:14 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, my words will be very clear and devastating
392 2012-10-17 03:23:29 <phantomcircuit> they will come from the pen (ok keyboard) of very expensive attorneys
393 2012-10-17 03:23:48 <phantomcircuit> various people are going to come away from this with nothing to their name
394 2012-10-17 03:23:56 <vazakl> forums = den of lies
395 2012-10-17 03:24:01 <vazakl> sockpuppet central
396 2012-10-17 03:24:22 <MC1984> oh if youve been advised to not speak about it then thats different
397 2012-10-17 03:25:15 <phantomcircuit> MC1984, my best move legally was to fuck over 90% of the bitcoinica users and walk away
398 2012-10-17 03:25:39 <phantomcircuit> i said i wasn't going to do that and have no at great personal expense got people suing me
399 2012-10-17 03:25:53 <phantomcircuit> no good deal goes unpunished
400 2012-10-17 03:26:41 <phantomcircuit> dead
401 2012-10-17 03:27:02 <phantomcircuit> the fuck
402 2012-10-17 03:27:07 <phantomcircuit> the wifi in this house is retarded
403 2012-10-17 03:27:20 <phantomcircuit> if i move my laptop 2 ft throughput drops from 400 KiB/s to 100 KiB/s
404 2012-10-17 03:27:53 <MC1984> more likely antenna orientation
405 2012-10-17 03:28:17 <phantomcircuit> well it's a british house
406 2012-10-17 03:28:26 <phantomcircuit> the heating system is a steam radiator system
407 2012-10-17 03:28:36 <phantomcircuit> so there's all sorts of weirdness with reflections and things
408 2012-10-17 03:28:58 <MC1984> hahaha welcome to britain
409 2012-10-17 03:29:27 <MC1984> also we dont have mixer taps so your choices are scalding hot or freezing cold
410 2012-10-17 03:30:08 <MC1984> by tap i mean faucet, i think
411 2012-10-17 03:30:34 <phantomcircuit> yeah why the fuck would you do that
412 2012-10-17 03:30:56 <phantomcircuit> yeah i know what you meant
413 2012-10-17 03:31:18 <MC1984> i dont know
414 2012-10-17 03:37:41 <robbak> Hi all. Is there a loopy host somewhere in the testnet? My up to date, current-git clinet is now saying there is 14440 block remaining. I'm at block 33321, which is current according to block explorer.
415 2012-10-17 03:37:54 <robbak> It did this a couple of days ago, too.
416 2012-10-17 03:38:13 <gmaxwell> pastebit getpeerinfo output
417 2012-10-17 03:38:20 <gmaxwell> er pastebin.
418 2012-10-17 03:40:11 <MC1984> i have become significantly better at typing in the dark
419 2012-10-17 03:40:11 <phantomcircuit> 
ACTION goes to register pastebi

420 2012-10-17 03:40:23 <phantomcircuit> *joke about fapping*
421 2012-10-17 03:40:54 <gmaxwell> well, the keys are right next to each other.
422 2012-10-17 03:40:57 <robbak> Here it is: all host seem to be closte to currenthttp://pastebin.com/PAkmJ6ZQ
423 2012-10-17 03:41:46 <robbak> All hosts either seem to be fairly current, or at -1
424 2012-10-17 03:41:54 <gmaxwell> robbak: interesting! the blocks remaining thing is supposted to be a median operation on the starting heights. Sounds like there must be a memory corruption bug or some locking issue.
425 2012-10-17 03:42:27 <robbak> It would be fixed by closing and reopening.
426 2012-10-17 03:42:36 <gmaxwell> robbak: is it?
427 2012-10-17 03:42:53 <gmaxwell> or at least changed?
428 2012-10-17 03:43:09 <robbak> Shal I try? it would prevent any debugging.
429 2012-10-17 03:43:57 <gmaxwell> If you can produce it twice then I assume its reproucable to some extent.
430 2012-10-17 03:45:42 <robbak> OK. Close bitcoin, restart, and it states it is current at 33321. Now there are no old hosts, and none at -1.
431 2012-10-17 03:46:49 <gmaxwell> 47761 sounds like where old testnet was but (1) you shouldn't be able to connect to those, and (2) you had no peers reporting that.
432 2012-10-17 03:47:37 <robbak> I wonder if it was taking the two Ufssoft peers claiming -1, reading that as unsigned, and averaging it too high?
433 2012-10-17 03:47:51 <robbak> Probably not, as you said it was median, non mean.
434 2012-10-17 03:48:17 <gmaxwell> Yea, it's a median, and even if it were a mean.. reading -1 as an unsigned int would be hard to average down to 47761.
435 2012-10-17 03:48:35 <robbak> I'm also running it on FreeBSD, so if anyone might tickle a corner case bug, it'd be me. And: yes, true!
436 2012-10-17 03:49:45 <gmaxwell> did you happen tho have more than 297432 peers? :P
437 2012-10-17 03:50:10 <gmaxwell> (thats what it takes of 33321 hosts to average 2^32-1 down to 47761... :P )
438 2012-10-17 03:52:34 <robbak> Not quite! 19, and two claiming -1.
439 2012-10-17 03:53:08 <robbak> Is starting height the height when my client first saw the host? Does any field tell me what that peer's current height is?
440 2012-10-17 03:55:56 <gmaxwell> nope, no field for current height. We don't know it.
441 2012-10-17 04:00:13 <robbak> Have you had a look at that blockchain? It looks fine to me.
442 2012-10-17 04:02:44 <maaku> The commits of Oct 11-14--are those meant for the 0.7.1 release?
443 2012-10-17 04:13:16 <robbak> There are a couple of these messages in the logs: receive version message: version 60001, blocks=47773, us=127.0.0.1:18333, them=127.0.0.1:18333, peer=86.9.72.154:38081
444 2012-10-17 04:15:22 <gmaxwell> ah that must be it, the disconnect for the mismatched version must be happening _after_ it takes their blockcount foor the median.
445 2012-10-17 04:16:21 <robbak> Other messages list peers 166.137.97.211:46812 and 150.250.112.197:56995 wth wrong blocks= numbers
446 2012-10-17 04:17:00 <gmaxwell> sure, thats testnet2 nodes.
447 2012-10-17 04:17:04 <robbak> Ah. So those ones are running the old testnet!
448 2012-10-17 04:17:26 <gmaxwell> because they have a different protocol version it should disconnect them right away.
449 2012-10-17 04:17:32 <gmaxwell> but apparently not fast enough.
450 2012-10-17 04:19:28 <robbak> My client is still fine; it hasn't happened yet.
451 2012-10-17 04:20:40 <robbak> Those addresses are not in the old pastbin output.
452 2012-10-17 04:20:49 <robbak> Pitty the log file doesn't have timestamps.
453 2012-10-17 04:30:28 <gmaxwell> -logtimestamps=1
454 2012-10-17 04:31:01 <gmaxwell> robbak: they wouldn't be in the pastebin output, getpeetinfo only shows connected peers and those would have been disconnected. right awway.
455 2012-10-17 04:53:42 <robbak> gmaxwell: Yes, that's it. Line 2536 of main.cpp calls cPeerBlockCounts.input(ofrom->nStartingHeight) unconditionally.
456 2012-10-17 04:56:40 <robbak> Should this be protected by an if on pfrom->nVersion, or is it something that really does't matter?
457 2012-10-17 11:06:25 <gavinandresen> * [new tag]         v0.7.1 -> v0.7.1
458 2012-10-17 11:08:37 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: building
459 2012-10-17 11:09:11 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: great, thanks
460 2012-10-17 11:12:25 <gavinandresen> sipa: ultraprune synced nicely for me and ran with no issues overnight. I plan on doing code review on my train trip this afternoon down to NYC
461 2012-10-17 11:13:09 <sipa> gavinandresen: ok, great to hear
462 2012-10-17 11:13:51 <Tykling> is ultraprune a faster way of fetching the blockchain ? anywhere I can read about it ?
463 2012-10-17 11:13:59 <sipa> Tykling: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1677
464 2012-10-17 11:14:35 <sipa> gavinandresen: i edited the first comment on the pullreq page with a list of essential implementation changes
465 2012-10-17 11:15:13 <gavinandresen> sipa: great.  I haven't tested upgrading, does that work properly?
466 2012-10-17 11:16:15 <sipa> there's no upgrade code right now
467 2012-10-17 11:16:41 <gavinandresen> ok, I won't test it then!
468 2012-10-17 11:17:05 <Tykling> sipa: thanks
469 2012-10-17 11:17:48 <sipa> upgrading would be: move block files (perhaps split, but that's not necessary), remove blkindex.dat, do something similar to -reindex
470 2012-10-17 11:17:52 <sipa> but that needs work
471 2012-10-17 11:17:58 <gavinandresen> sipa:  do the simplest possible thing that will work for upgrading-- it is a one-time event, so I don't care if the simplest thing is "remove blk* and start from scratch"
472 2012-10-17 11:18:32 <sipa> -reindex is generally useful, so having that would be nice anyway
473 2012-10-17 11:18:39 <sipa> on top of that, upgrading is very easy
474 2012-10-17 11:18:50 <CrazyMF> yeah hi. I've been reading about getwork extensions and came across a line saying that bitcoind supports rollntime, but does not advertise it. Does it mean that I can safely roll within "sane" values or I need to include some header with my getwork request ?
475 2012-10-17 11:18:57 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: (RE 0.7.1)  yay
476 2012-10-17 11:19:03 <gmaxwell> well reindex doesn't give you the chain storage reorg.
477 2012-10-17 11:19:30 <gavinandresen> sipa: ok.  upgrade --> downgrade  --> upgrade should leave things in a reasonable state, too
478 2012-10-17 11:19:39 <gmaxwell> Another alternative is loadblocking the old chain.
479 2012-10-17 11:19:47 <gavinandresen> (where "reasonable" can mean two sets of block data wasting disk space)
480 2012-10-17 11:19:53 <sipa> gavinandresen: do you really want to leave the old blkindex.dat and block files in state?
481 2012-10-17 11:19:57 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: which is precisely what -reindex does
482 2012-10-17 11:20:22 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: I thought reindex worked in place?
483 2012-10-17 11:20:35 <gavinandresen> sipa:  no, I think upgrading should remove at the very least blkindex.dat.  And probably at the very least move blk000*.dat
484 2012-10-17 11:21:32 <sipa> gavinandresen: agree; but we'll indeed need to make sure that downgrading again keeps working
485 2012-10-17 11:21:33 <jgarzik> why not leave the old database and files, as is?
486 2012-10-17 11:21:49 <sipa> jgarzik: because apparently 4.5 GB of storage is a lot to many people
487 2012-10-17 11:22:21 <jgarzik> I think the "upgrader" should remove the old data
488 2012-10-17 11:22:25 <gmaxwell> chewing up an extra 4 GB kinda stinks but it's not the end of the world. more subtly I'd worry a bit about them self cleaning and deleting their wallets.
489 2012-10-17 11:22:25 <jgarzik> but initial merge shouldn't bother
490 2012-10-17 11:22:29 <gavinandresen> I'd be ok with leaving them as-is-- again, it is a one-time cost that will only affect us early adopters.
491 2012-10-17 11:22:47 <gavinandresen> if bitcoin continues to grow we will have many more new users than old users.
492 2012-10-17 11:22:51 <gmaxwell> (or god knows screwing up bdb for their wallet by deleting them as they're in the same db env)
493 2012-10-17 11:22:51 <jgarzik> initial merge simply ignoring old data should be fine
494 2012-10-17 11:22:57 <jgarzik> upgrade solution can be worked out in-tree, post-merge
495 2012-10-17 11:23:08 <sipa> agree
496 2012-10-17 11:23:12 <gavinandresen> agreed
497 2012-10-17 11:23:32 <gmaxwell> yea, initial merge doesn't matter. and a out of place loadblock is fine.. and we could potentially _ask_ if they want to delete them.
498 2012-10-17 11:24:14 <gmaxwell> "You appear to have old blockchain data. This lets you downgrade. Deleting it will free 4GB space. Delete it?  [Yes] [Screw you] [bug me forever]"
499 2012-10-17 11:24:28 <sipa> also: i already have most of the code for extracting a coinsdb out of the current blkindex.dat... that could be adapted for a faster upgrade, but i'd rather not to (maybe because that's immediately a nice health check)
500 2012-10-17 11:25:07 <sipa> ").fixGrammar();
501 2012-10-17 11:25:15 <gmaxwell> yea... I'd rather not use it, except as a health check.
502 2012-10-17 11:25:39 <gmaxwell> "don't introduce more safty critical rare code paths when it can be avoided"
503 2012-10-17 11:25:50 <helo> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/78-percent-of-bitcoin-currency-stashed-under-digital-mattress-study-finds/
504 2012-10-17 11:26:14 <sipa> gavinandresen: as far as a test plan goes: see my coinhash and ultraprune_coinhash branches: both calculate a hash of the unpacked UTXO data, one from the current database, one from ultraprune
505 2012-10-17 11:26:15 <helo> :/
506 2012-10-17 11:26:42 <sipa> gavinandresen: they must be identical at identical blocks (at least after BIP30)
507 2012-10-17 11:27:05 <sipa> limited testing, including with a -loadblock full of reorgs, shows that it does
508 2012-10-17 11:27:18 <epscy> helo not very surprising
509 2012-10-17 11:27:28 <sipa> helo: and completely flawed analysis
510 2012-10-17 11:27:40 <helo> yeah, pretty bad
511 2012-10-17 11:27:42 <sipa> (which doesn't mean it's untrue, by the way)
512 2012-10-17 11:27:51 <epscy> well some of them will be lost
513 2012-10-17 11:28:00 <epscy> but most will be being hoarded i think
514 2012-10-17 11:28:20 <gavinandresen> "store of value" is one of the primary functions of money...
515 2012-10-17 11:29:04 <epscy> bitcoin's long term ability to store wealth is unproven
516 2012-10-17 11:29:15 <epscy> well techinically it is proven
517 2012-10-17 11:29:19 <epscy> but not economically
518 2012-10-17 11:29:34 <jgarzik> technically it is never proven, and only observable in hindsight ;p
519 2012-10-17 11:30:01 <epscy> true
520 2012-10-17 11:30:17 <epscy> economics can get very philosophical sometimes
521 2012-10-17 11:30:29 <gavinandresen> I made a conscious decision to concentrate on features to support its 'medium of exchange' function, I still wonder if that was a mistake.
522 2012-10-17 11:30:43 <epscy> gavinandresen: i don't think so
523 2012-10-17 11:31:28 <sipa> bitcoin needs to have value before it can function as a storage of value; and its value can only come from what it's good at: transfer
524 2012-10-17 11:31:30 <epscy> bitcoin will only behave like gold long term if it is used fairly widely
525 2012-10-17 11:31:58 <gavinandresen> that was my thinking.  But I'm not sure that is actually true.
526 2012-10-17 11:32:41 <epscy> and while many think the fixed limit is the fundamental property of bitcoin, it's other utility is that it can potentially be a fast, cheap and easy way to move wealth
527 2012-10-17 11:33:38 <CrazyMF> getwork rollntime, anyone? When making a getwork request to bitcoind, do I need to advertise that I will be rolling time ?
528 2012-10-17 11:34:20 <gavinandresen> grrrr.... my kvm gitian-building machine has suddenly decided it doesn't want to run VMs....
529 2012-10-17 11:36:31 <sipa> gavinandresen: if you intend to review code: the first 6 commits just add leveldb (no changes to actual core code), the next 5 add ultraprune's data structures and serialization (no changes to core code), after that follow the actual changes to the core validation, some optimizations, and database changes; finally, switch to leveldb, and new RPCs
530 2012-10-17 11:37:06 <sipa> i tried to keep the commits very standalone, so they can be reviewed separately
531 2012-10-17 11:37:19 <sipa> (but there are too many for that, maybe...)
532 2012-10-17 11:39:09 <gavinandresen> I printed out a complete pretty-printed diff of main.cpp, I'll start by reviewing all the changes there.
533 2012-10-17 11:40:03 <sipa> good luck :)
534 2012-10-17 11:41:16 <jgarzik> just emailed Ars Technica
535 2012-10-17 11:41:37 <jgarzik> 
ACTION bangs his head against this stupid paper

536 2012-10-17 11:41:52 <gavinandresen> jgarzik: I was confusing myself yesterday, the Selgin paper was the one that is an unfinished preprint
537 2012-10-17 11:42:10 <jgarzik> 
ACTION wonders if davout got any response yet

538 2012-10-17 11:42:26 <davout> jgarzik: none
539 2012-10-17 11:42:33 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: since it's a finished paper, we should post a response
540 2012-10-17 11:42:41 <gavinandresen> probably the first author is a masters student who is doing something else now
541 2012-10-17 11:42:49 <jgarzik> Could start with my gist, https://gist.github.com/3901921
542 2012-10-17 11:43:01 <jgarzik> It is confusing... the paper mentions MtGox and hints at web wallets later on
543 2012-10-17 11:43:09 <jgarzik> But their assumption appears to be flawed
544 2012-10-17 11:43:13 <jgarzik> regardless
545 2012-10-17 11:45:22 <gmaxwell> We should mention in the website section that "while it may not be material for the results of this particular study, web block explorers are not authoritative sources for bitcoin data and have sometimes been known to display wildly false infomation"
546 2012-10-17 11:45:37 <gmaxwell> (e.g. as why The Next Paper should not do the same thing)
547 2012-10-17 11:46:55 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: https://gist.github.com/3905598  are my LXC VM's gitian checksums; likely won't match if you're building with kvm
548 2012-10-17 11:48:29 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: thanks, will copy-n-paste that
549 2012-10-17 11:51:18 <jgarzik> 
ACTION posts the gist in the forum thread on the Ron/Shamir paper, trolling for comments and additional ammo

550 2012-10-17 11:51:37 <sipa> gavinandresen: just noticed there is a small TODO left in SetMerkleBranch; will do that soon
551 2012-10-17 11:55:58 <gavinandresen> hmmm... my wimpy kvm machine seems happier if I run gbuild -j 1 .... (it is a single-processor machine)....
552 2012-10-17 12:04:20 <amiller> the first author already has a phd and is research staff at the weizmann university
553 2012-10-17 12:13:41 <gavinandresen> I wonder if people will look at these pictures in 50 years and think "gee, all that computing power now fits in my pocket" : http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2012/10/where-the-internet-lives-the-first-ever-glimpse-inside-googles-data-centers/
554 2012-10-17 12:16:09 <D34TH> its almost like they take the entire thing and use the shrink ray and put it in a small case
555 2012-10-17 12:19:42 <Luke-Jr> 979f645884a7170f25fb3020117ae778ee738eeb4df67fb188c4116252629c83  bitcoin-0.7.1-win32-setup.exe
556 2012-10-17 12:20:09 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: the other EXEs match too
557 2012-10-17 12:28:08 <gavinandresen> LXC and KVM bitcoin-qt linux binaries don't match again:  https://gist.github.com/3905598
558 2012-10-17 12:46:00 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: you're listed as a Transifex bitcoin project maintainer... can you easily get a list of people who contributed translations to the 0.7.* release so I can thank them in the release notes?
559 2012-10-17 12:47:55 <Luke-Jr> hmm
560 2012-10-17 12:47:57 <Luke-Jr> any idea how?
561 2012-10-17 12:49:04 <Luke-Jr> I only see "last updated by" usernames :/
562 2012-10-17 12:51:07 <D34TH> can i change the directory where gitian create its image, my tmp is really size limited
563 2012-10-17 12:53:53 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: I emailed them asking if it was possible to get a list
564 2012-10-17 12:55:04 <gavinandresen> Luke-Jr: thanks.  I don't know nuthin about Transifex...  ( a list of contributers by date would work, it doesn't have to be exact)
565 2012-10-17 12:55:59 <gavinandresen> D34TH: it is easy to see what the gitian scripts do by reading their code
566 2012-10-17 12:56:32 <D34TH> gavinandresen, thanks i was just hoping there was a command line option i could quickly throw in
567 2012-10-17 12:56:52 <gavinandresen> D34TH: might be.  Or they might pay attention to $TMPDIR ...
568 2012-10-17 12:57:34 <jgarzik> sigh.  Ars Technica is hedging mightily.  Paraphrasing:  "even if the study is 100% wrong, our article is still correct"
569 2012-10-17 12:57:43 <jgarzik> (because it says "a study finds..." etc.)
570 2012-10-17 12:57:55 <jgarzik> technically true, but...
571 2012-10-17 12:58:08 <Luke-Jr> lol
572 2012-10-17 12:58:18 <jgarzik> that's like publishing a "sky is green, study finds" article and calling it accurate.
573 2012-10-17 12:58:51 <gavinandresen> D34TH: are you running out of space building the VM images?
574 2012-10-17 12:59:37 <D34TH> yea, i cut down on / because my raid wasnt playing too nice
575 2012-10-17 13:00:09 <gavinandresen> 'man vmbuilder' , which is what make-base-vm uses, says it pays attention to $TMPDIR
576 2012-10-17 13:01:02 <gavinandresen> (it also has a --tmp TMPDIR  option, so you could modify bin/make-base-vm to pass that...)
577 2012-10-17 13:01:13 <D34TH> so for the command its TMPDIR=~/vmtmp LAUNCHCOMMAND
578 2012-10-17 13:02:56 <gavinandresen> ... or   export TMPDIR=~/vmtmp
579 2012-10-17 13:03:05 <gavinandresen> ... then run make_base_vm / etc
580 2012-10-17 13:08:26 <gavinandresen> 0.7.1 binaries uploaded to SourceForge... I just need somebody to gitian-build KVM Linux binaries and I think we're ready to announce.  https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.1/
581 2012-10-17 13:15:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: i'll build this evening
582 2012-10-17 13:15:59 <gavinandresen> sipa: thanks!
583 2012-10-17 13:58:11 <sipa> gavinandresen: also, if you want to review the changes in main.cpp... have a look at main.h too, since it contains most of the comments and is somewhat more organised
584 2012-10-17 14:03:43 <gavinandresen> sipa: will do
585 2012-10-17 14:11:42 <jgarzik> helo: Was that you, in the Ars comments section?  That was a very well reasoned, professional reply.  You should be on a Bitcoin PR team :)
586 2012-10-17 14:13:33 <sipa> jgarzik: link?
587 2012-10-17 14:13:48 <jgarzik> sipa: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/78-percent-of-bitcoin-currency-stashed-under-digital-mattress-study-finds/
588 2012-10-17 14:13:57 <jgarzik> sipa: click on comments at the bottom
589 2012-10-17 14:14:15 <jgarzik> 
ACTION has been emailing back and forth with the reporter

590 2012-10-17 14:15:31 <helo> jgarzik: :D
591 2012-10-17 14:15:43 <jgarzik> perfectly polite conversation, but I still claim it is a bit lame that he thinks qualifying everything with "the research shows" or "the study finds" absolves Ars of any further need for context
592 2012-10-17 14:16:49 <epscy> jgarzik: what is wrong with the study?
593 2012-10-17 14:16:59 <epscy> i only briefly read the article
594 2012-10-17 14:18:24 <jgarzik> epscy: https://gist.github.com/3901921
595 2012-10-17 14:22:27 <helo> so will the next article be titled "Bitcoin developers heavily contest claims in cryptography legend's bitcoin analysis"?
596 2012-10-17 14:26:23 <epscy> jgarzik: ok yeah, there description of the blockchain as html files is lolzy
597 2012-10-17 14:26:43 <jgarzik> helo: dunno.  I'm guessing unlikely ;p
598 2012-10-17 14:30:04 <Luke-Jr> I wonder how long until someone comes out with a Bitcoin debit card so people can convert simply by spending/withdrawing or depositing at ATMs
599 2012-10-17 14:31:41 <gavinandresen> are there prepaid cards where you can deposit with cash at an ATM?
600 2012-10-17 14:31:52 <gavinandresen> (not bitcoin ones, just regular prepaid cards)
601 2012-10-17 14:32:43 <helo> i think a bank would need to get in the business of selling bitcoin :/
602 2012-10-17 14:32:51 <Luke-Jr> I'd assumed so??? looks like Chase came out with one recently
603 2012-10-17 14:32:55 <Luke-Jr> http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/prepaid-debit-cards/chase-liquid-prepaid-yeah-gamechanger/
604 2012-10-17 14:33:25 <Luke-Jr> helo: could just trade on MtGox, I'd think
605 2012-10-17 14:33:50 <Luke-Jr> IMO it'd be pretty important that the conversion happen on use; ie, the card keeps its balance in Bitcoins
606 2012-10-17 14:34:48 <gavinandresen> I wonder how much it costs a bank to process a cash-at-the-ATM deposit....
607 2012-10-17 14:41:48 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr: pynode converted to use function-style print statement
608 2012-10-17 14:42:21 <amiller> i spent about an hour trying to make gevent build with python3 and didn't get it
609 2012-10-17 14:42:27 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, almost nothing
610 2012-10-17 14:42:52 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, the atm keeps the cash you deposit stacked in the order it's put in
611 2012-10-17 14:43:08 <helo> in an envelope
612 2012-10-17 14:43:21 <amiller> phantomcircuit, you mean the atm doesn't merge sort?
613 2012-10-17 14:43:40 <phantomcircuit> amiller, i've heard people suggest they should issue that cash to peopel withdrawaling
614 2012-10-17 14:43:43 <phantomcircuit> which is ridiculous
615 2012-10-17 14:43:44 <phantomcircuit> ness
616 2012-10-17 14:44:08 <phantomcircuit> helo, you dont use envelopes anymore in most of the us
617 2012-10-17 14:44:27 <helo> in my experience it's always deposited inside an envelope... it isn't even counted until they pull it, open it, etc
618 2012-10-17 14:44:32 <phantomcircuit> the atm has automated counterfeit detection which works just the same as the automated counterfeit detection they use inside the bank
619 2012-10-17 14:44:54 <jgarzik> for the providers, the incentives seem tilted towards "just pay cash for another card"
620 2012-10-17 14:45:00 <phantomcircuit> helo, well atms in san francisco where you can deposit cash dont use envelopes anymore
621 2012-10-17 14:45:23 <helo> so at my bank, a max of $100 is made available until the next day
622 2012-10-17 14:45:25 <jgarzik> I doubt they would want to bother with random cash->card
623 2012-10-17 15:34:32 <Matt_von_Mises> Luke-Jr: I'm trying to figure out how to make the 100 blocks in the miner tests and the data I make is this: http://pastebin.com/9UCF0gBN I assumed the miner tests work upon the genesis block.
624 2012-10-17 15:35:28 <Matt_von_Mises> Oh I just realised I'm trying to make the 3rd block...
625 2012-10-17 15:53:45 <Matt_von_Mises> This is it: http://pastebin.com/BDfhiHsd That should be the first block from the miner tests but the hash is bad.
626 2012-10-17 16:01:50 <Matt_von_Mises> I posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=118970.0
627 2012-10-17 16:02:47 <Matt_von_Mises> Is the problem that a zero length script is followed by another zero? I know that was the case elsewhere.
628 2012-10-17 16:03:09 <Matt_von_Mises> "zero length script is followed by another zero" By that I mean the length of the script is followed by zero.
629 2012-10-17 16:05:46 <sipa> Matt_von_Mises: what is the problem, exactly?
630 2012-10-17 16:06:36 <Matt_von_Mises> The hash is not below the target. I'm trying to create the 100 blocks from here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/miner_tests.cpp
631 2012-10-17 16:07:28 <Matt_von_Mises> I guess I could hack the bitcoin testing code and figure it out myself. Might be difficult getting it to work. Guess I'll try a bit later.
632 2012-10-17 16:08:14 <sipa> if the header is the same, the hash should be the same
633 2012-10-17 16:08:21 <sipa> are you sure your block hashing code is correct?
634 2012-10-17 16:09:32 <Matt_von_Mises> "are you sure your block hashing code is correct?" Works perfectly elsewhere.
635 2012-10-17 16:09:47 <Matt_von_Mises> What I'llt ry to do is get the miner testing code to print out the data and then I'll compare it.
636 2012-10-17 16:16:32 <sipa> Matt_von_Mises: that probably means it is correct
637 2012-10-17 16:18:47 <sipa> Matt_von_Mises: in the miner test, do this: CDataStream ss(SER_DISK, CLIENT_VERSION); ss << block; std::vector<unsigned char> vch(ss.begin(), ss.end()); printf("block=%s\\n", HexStr(vch).c_str());
638 2012-10-17 16:19:02 <sipa> that'll print out the block in hex
639 2012-10-17 16:19:18 <Matt_von_Mises> sipa: Okay thanks??? I will do once I'm able to get it to build.
640 2012-10-17 16:19:34 <sipa> you never built bitcoind?
641 2012-10-17 16:20:20 <Matt_von_Mises> Yes but that was on Snow Leopard and I think it's broken now??? I'm figuring it out again.
642 2012-10-17 16:20:58 <sipa> ok
643 2012-10-17 16:32:09 <Matt_von_Mises> It is taking a long time to build but it's working...
644 2012-10-17 16:46:30 <Matt_von_Mises> sipa: Managed to get the data, thanks. It's -> 010000006fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d61900000000001c1f4783a8d03faca6244ec8ef5b090f63885063f7b764292aba882571b5d4272aab5f49ffff001d23e2a3a40101000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffffffff020400ffffffff0100f2052a010000000000000000
645 2012-10-17 16:47:17 <sipa> and do those 80 first bytes match yours?
646 2012-10-17 16:48:08 <Matt_von_Mises> No
647 2012-10-17 16:48:14 <Matt_von_Mises> Merkle root wrong
648 2012-10-17 16:48:20 <Matt_von_Mises> Still looking...
649 2012-10-17 16:50:44 <Matt_von_Mises> I see, the input script is only 2 bytes long
650 2012-10-17 16:50:54 <Matt_von_Mises> I did it 5 bytes
651 2012-10-17 16:51:38 <sipa> right, minimal encoding lenth for numbers
652 2012-10-17 16:52:16 <Matt_von_Mises> That seems to be the only problem. I'll try again..
653 2012-10-17 16:55:52 <Matt_von_Mises> Perfect! Works nicely now.
654 2012-10-17 16:56:07 <sipa> nice
655 2012-10-17 18:16:48 <sipa> gavin_Amtrain: my 0.7.1 build matches yours/luke's
656 2012-10-17 18:17:00 <sipa> but wumpus' linux -qt build doesn't
657 2012-10-17 18:19:07 <gavin_Amtrain> sipa: wumpus built kvm or lxc?
658 2012-10-17 18:19:23 <sipa> no idea
659 2012-10-17 18:19:41 <sipa> you didn't do a win32 build?
660 2012-10-17 18:31:13 <gavin_Amtrain> sipa: I did, did I forget to commit the sigs?
661 2012-10-17 18:31:22 <sipa> so it would seem
662 2012-10-17 18:31:50 <gavin_Amtrain> oops.  Will have to wait until I'm back.
663 2012-10-17 18:33:31 <gmaxwell> "Malware Is 'Rampant' On Medical Devices In Hospitals" http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429616/computer-viruses-are-rampant-on-medical-devices/   feeling doomed yet?
664 2012-10-17 18:34:08 <sipa> "I'm sorry, it seems your MBR was infected..."
665 2012-10-17 18:34:26 <sipa> "We??l have to reboot you"
666 2012-10-17 18:40:27 <_dr> boring
667 2012-10-17 18:40:30 <_dr> http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/17/0325236/researcher-reverse-engineers-pacemaker-transmitter-to-deliver-deadly-shocks :)
668 2012-10-17 18:40:58 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: what, that the average person doesn't understand basic security or that oh...I dont know amazon still hasnt heard of sslstrip?
669 2012-10-17 18:51:10 <sipa> gavin_Amtrain: anyway, my sigs are uploaded
670 2012-10-17 19:32:29 <jgarzik> 
ACTION googles for "BFL josh", and gets a bunch of American football links

671 2012-10-17 19:32:37 <jgarzik> 
ACTION kicks google, adds quotes, and tries again

672 2012-10-17 19:34:03 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: there is a verbatim search in the left sidebar that replaces the now gone "+"
673 2012-10-17 20:41:22 <MC1984> The number 256^2 + 2083 is an illegal prime number because when converted to binary and uncompressed using gzip provides c source code for the DeCSS algorithm that can override a DVDs copy protection in violation of the digital millennium copyright act.
674 2012-10-17 20:41:25 <MC1984> cool
675 2012-10-17 20:42:12 <sipa> heh? no way
676 2012-10-17 20:42:37 <sipa> MC1984: i have a new built of ultraprune, btw
677 2012-10-17 20:42:53 <MC1984> cool
678 2012-10-17 20:42:58 <sipa> http://bitcoin.sipa.be/builds/ultraprune/
679 2012-10-17 20:54:15 <MC1984> sipa can you remind me what the blktree, blocks and coins folders are again?
680 2012-10-17 20:54:33 <sipa> blocks = the former blk000?.dat files, and undo data
681 2012-10-17 20:55:18 <sipa> blktree = leveldb index with information about the block tree (index and metadata for the blocks/ directory), but nothing about the currently active best chain
682 2012-10-17 20:55:43 <sipa> coins = leveldb database that holds the set of currently unspent transaction outputs
683 2012-10-17 20:56:24 <sipa> there were probably some database changes since you last used it, so better start from a clean datadir
684 2012-10-17 20:56:30 <MC1984> ah so this does have leveldb in it
685 2012-10-17 20:56:42 <sipa> yes, bdb is only used for the wallet anymore
686 2012-10-17 20:56:52 <MC1984> yeah i got error loading index
687 2012-10-17 20:57:08 <MC1984> oh well, start from scratch
688 2012-10-17 20:57:28 <sipa> you can use bootstrap.dat
689 2012-10-17 20:58:38 <MC1984> mite b cool
690 2012-10-17 20:58:43 <MC1984> whats the magnet?
691 2012-10-17 21:00:28 <jgarzik> magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0bb0521942f586ed96203c6f4d136324756f8a9a&dn=bootstrap.dat&tr=udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80&tr=udp://tracker.ccc.de:80&tr=udp://tracker.istole.it:80
692 2012-10-17 21:00:31 <sipa> see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117982.0
693 2012-10-17 21:00:54 <MC1984> oh you added trackers
694 2012-10-17 21:01:01 <jgarzik> MC1984: someone else did
695 2012-10-17 21:01:10 <jgarzik> MC1984: if you're using transmission, there's no need
696 2012-10-17 21:01:22 <MC1984> utorrent
697 2012-10-17 21:01:35 <jgarzik> utorrent should DHT fine, too.  got several success reports.
698 2012-10-17 21:02:10 <MC1984> yep its never not worked
699 2012-10-17 21:02:19 <MC1984> dont even bother port forwarding anymore
700 2012-10-17 21:09:11 <MC1984> https://btdigg.org/search?q=bootstrap&p=0&order=2
701 2012-10-17 21:09:45 <sipa> 2.32 GB only?
702 2012-10-17 21:10:35 <MC1984> ye
703 2012-10-17 21:11:52 <sipa> MC1984: what you can also do it take the formet blk000?.dat files, cat them together, and use that as bootstrap.dat
704 2012-10-17 21:12:45 <MC1984> cat?
705 2012-10-17 21:12:49 <sipa> concatenate
706 2012-10-17 21:12:59 <sipa> like the unix tool 'cat' does
707 2012-10-17 21:13:27 <MC1984> unix is alien to me
708 2012-10-17 21:14:07 <sipa> no idea how to do that in windows; i suppose you could try opening both in an editor, and copy-paste the second one at the end of the first :D
709 2012-10-17 21:14:37 <MC1984> 1gb file open in notepad
710 2012-10-17 21:14:37 <sipa> (note: not a serious suggestion - i don't think notepad & co can handle multi-gigabyte files)
711 2012-10-17 21:14:40 <MC1984> ill pass
712 2012-10-17 21:15:11 <rdponticelli> And windows is alien to simple stuff
713 2012-10-17 21:15:14 <rdponticelli> :S
714 2012-10-17 21:15:20 <sipa> you can also use -loadblock=/path/to/old/blk0001.dat -loadblock=/path/to/old/blk0002.dat
715 2012-10-17 21:15:35 <MC1984> you can copy /b file1 + file 2 output in windows i believe and it will glue them together
716 2012-10-17 21:15:53 <MC1984> i used to glue SVCD films into one file like that
717 2012-10-17 21:16:01 <rdponticelli> MC1984: Don't you have cygwin installed at least?
718 2012-10-17 21:16:15 <rdponticelli> You could use cat, if you have it
719 2012-10-17 21:16:18 <MC1984> nope
720 2012-10-17 21:16:59 <MC1984> i only use console when i need to, not because im a neckbeard
721 2012-10-17 21:17:13 <rdponticelli> Well, if it worked for a SVCD, it should work for this...
722 2012-10-17 21:17:28 <sipa> i typically have two programs open: a terminal with several tabs, and a browser :)
723 2012-10-17 21:17:35 <MC1984> i dont even have blk files anymore
724 2012-10-17 21:17:42 <MC1984> thats so mid 2012
725 2012-10-17 21:17:47 <sipa> haha, all this discussion for nothing!
726 2012-10-17 21:18:03 <rdponticelli> lol
727 2012-10-17 21:18:12 <MC1984> welcome to -dev
728 2012-10-17 21:18:33 <sipa> >>/dev/sleep
729 2012-10-17 21:20:06 <lianj> sipa: tabs? tmux windows!
730 2012-10-17 21:20:29 <sipa> lianj: i use xmonad, but have most of the time everything full screen anyway
731 2012-10-17 21:20:49 <sipa> some shells run screen though :)
732 2012-10-17 21:35:06 <MC1984> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cummingtonite
733 2012-10-17 21:35:34 <MC1984> its a real mineral
734 2012-10-17 21:39:43 <jgarzik> -rw-rw-r-- 1 jgarzik jgarzik 3511972446 Oct 17 19:36 blocks.dat
735 2012-10-17 21:39:54 <jgarzik> One Big File sure makes life easier
736 2012-10-17 21:40:19 <jgarzik> let's see if anyone complains, when pynode's blocks.dat exceeds 4G
737 2012-10-17 22:38:18 <MC1984> i thought bootstrap.dat was supposed to work if you just dump it in the datadir
738 2012-10-17 22:39:25 <MC1984> how can i tell its using the file and not the network
739 2012-10-17 22:40:38 <rdponticelli> MC1984: I think that you have to load it with -loadblock
740 2012-10-17 22:41:48 <MC1984> im sure i read you dont have to do that
741 2012-10-17 22:43:52 <MC1984> ok no way to tell if its even using this damn file
742 2012-10-17 22:44:28 <tcatm> MC1984: 0.7.1 will load it automatically, for 0.7.0 -loadblock is needed
743 2012-10-17 22:45:50 <MC1984> would be nice if it said loadin from file or something
744 2012-10-17 23:24:00 <jgarzik> MC1984: $datadir/debug.log indicates that it is processing blocks
745 2012-10-17 23:31:01 <MC1984> doesnt look like it was using the bootstrap file
746 2012-10-17 23:31:48 <MC1984> either 7.1 has a bug or sipas build of 7.1 has a bug or the process fails when the datadir is not in its default location as in my case
747 2012-10-17 23:36:02 <MC1984> well debug.log has things like connecting to x.x.x.x
748 2012-10-17 23:36:13 <MC1984> and then the processblock accepted stuff starts
749 2012-10-17 23:36:18 <MC1984> no mention of bootstrap.dat
750 2012-10-17 23:36:28 <MC1984> so i assume its using the network
751 2012-10-17 23:45:43 <MC1984> bootstrap.dat is also not locked by bitcoin-qt.exe, so i dont know if thats further proof
752 2012-10-17 23:56:54 <maaku> anyone know why a coinbase must be at least two bytes?