1 2013-02-21 00:12:14 <gmaxwell> holy crap, sorry guys, but that hardlinking idea was the worst idea ever. It totally breaks windows users little brains.
2 2013-02-21 00:12:46 <gmaxwell> And turns them into belligerent zombies who are furious that bitcoin takes 2x the space.
3 2013-02-21 00:15:04 <SomeoneWeird> why isn't it a softlink?
4 2013-02-21 00:15:12 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Comm problem. Just don't mention hardlinking at all.
5 2013-02-21 00:15:24 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: "delete the extra copy, and all is well"
6 2013-02-21 00:19:16 <gmaxwell> oh here is a clever attack if you've got a LOT of hashpower.
7 2013-02-21 00:19:31 <gmaxwell> You outpace the network with invalid blocks, knocking everyone into safemode
8 2013-02-21 00:19:50 <gmaxwell> Then you mine normally??? you're the only miner until you catch up with yourself.
9 2013-02-21 00:20:24 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure what that accomplishes that a normal supermajority attack doesn't...
10 2013-02-21 00:22:08 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: thanks. Sometimes the simple way is best.
11 2013-02-21 00:25:03 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: i still don't get how that's confusing
12 2013-02-21 00:25:24 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and yet every time the topic comes up there's someone confused by it
13 2013-02-21 00:29:47 <gmaxwell> jrmithdobbs: all the normal windows tools double count the size of hardlinks
14 2013-02-21 00:30:06 <gmaxwell> e.g. the explorer report on the directory reports 13GB instead of 7.
15 2013-02-21 00:31:08 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: it boggles my mind that windows is still dealing with the fat32->ntfs transition
16 2013-02-21 00:31:26 <jrmithdobbs> (because really when it comes down to it, that's what that's a holdover from)
17 2013-02-21 00:32:23 <jrmithdobbs> gmaxwell: and how is such a horrible fs handling/display error not a blocking bug for release? that's crazy
18 2013-02-21 00:36:31 <MC1984> winfs was planned for vista and then scrapped
19 2013-02-21 00:36:35 <MC1984> no sign of it since
20 2013-02-21 00:36:45 <MC1984> assume stuck with ntfs for more decades
21 2013-02-21 00:54:54 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: they've not even finished the fat32->ntfs migration, how can they even think about winfs realistically? (I kind of think this is what was realized internally, tbqh)
22 2013-02-21 00:55:21 <jrmithdobbs> (in addition to the crazy MS internal politics, of course)
23 2013-02-21 00:55:46 <MC1984> sd cards and stuff still come in fat32 by default
24 2013-02-21 00:55:48 <MC1984> lol
25 2013-02-21 00:56:16 <MC1984> i even heard they were gonna update fatx again for some reason
26 2013-02-21 00:56:17 <jrmithdobbs> cause fat makes more sense on nand than ntfs
27 2013-02-21 00:56:27 <jrmithdobbs> a lot more
28 2013-02-21 00:56:57 <jrmithdobbs> (fatx is dumb though, what a stupid reason to allow them to re-file that patent, ugh)
29 2013-02-21 00:57:39 <MC1984> maybe it was exfat
30 2013-02-21 00:57:41 <MC1984> dunno
31 2013-02-21 00:57:51 <MC1984> why is fat better on flash
32 2013-02-21 01:10:36 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: lack of journal and semantics on how updates/writes occur
33 2013-02-21 01:11:01 <jrmithdobbs> MC1984: can be evened out by simpler wear leveling algorithms than busy journals in the same loctian and similar
34 2013-02-21 01:11:37 <MC1984> thought journals were always good
35 2013-02-21 01:12:11 <MC1984> oh well, the 4gb limit is adeal breaker for me
36 2013-02-21 01:59:19 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: around?
37 2013-02-21 02:01:29 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: kinda
38 2013-02-21 02:01:53 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: any chance you want to pop into #stratum to give slush some BIP numbers? :p
39 2013-02-21 02:32:23 <Kireji> ok, WTF here. I just tried to put my old wallet.dat into 0.7.2, and I got "Bitcoin: Error initializing database environment /home/dugan/.bitcoin! To recover, BACKUP THAT DIRECTORY, then remove everything from it except for wallet.dat."
40 2013-02-21 02:33:25 <Kireji> I'm pretty freaked out, as all my bitcoins are in my old wallet file, and it took more than a week to download the 7.2GB of data now in .bitcoin
41 2013-02-21 02:34:09 <gmaxwell> Your bitcoins are probably fine.