1 2013-03-05 00:01:11 <gmaxwell> rdymac: unless they have non-classical or at least reversable computers, and/or a sprinkling of other breakthroughs, they're not "brute forcing" AES-128 in a datacenter in utah or any other state... and thats irrelevant to Bitcoin development.
2 2013-03-05 00:02:20 <denisx> and if they could they wouldnt say
3 2013-03-05 00:03:47 <muhoo> huh, there's no way to view the foundation forum links here, without a login?
4 2013-03-05 00:04:42 <gavinandresen> no, access to the foundation forums is a member benefit.
5 2013-03-05 00:08:50 <midnightmagic> rdymac: I am fairly confident that the NSA machinery is not a quantum computer, but just a massive TITAN-like supercomputing facility and password-guesses a few orders of magnitude faster.
6 2013-03-05 00:10:45 <midnightmagic> rdymac: This is why direct human-supplied keys to AES are pointless.
7 2013-03-05 00:15:54 <jrmithdobbs> this is also why tech journalists should realize they have a duty to not choose stupid fucking headlines that cause panic (and that headline is like a year old or older)
8 2013-03-05 00:18:03 <Nameface_> what headline?
9 2013-03-05 00:18:32 <Nameface_> Boycott Bitcoin! surprised me today
10 2013-03-05 00:18:33 <Nameface_> http://dailyreckoning.com/boycott-bitcoin/
11 2013-03-05 00:20:44 <jrmithdobbs> Nameface_: "nsa utah datacenter capable of bruteforcing aes128" or w/e
12 2013-03-05 00:20:56 <jrmithdobbs> (it's not, jfyi)
13 2013-03-05 00:36:51 <muhoo> crazy season has arrived
14 2013-03-05 00:37:18 <muhoo> expect the crazy to escalate the more popularity/visibility it gets
15 2013-03-05 00:43:07 <muhoo> is there any way with multi sigs to do a kickstarter kind of thing, where the transaction is only valid if it reaches a certain amount?
16 2013-03-05 00:44:41 <muhoo> i should look to see if there's some way for a script to get the total amount of all inputs. i suspect there isn't.
17 2013-03-05 00:44:44 <gavinandresen> muhoo: you don't need multi sigs, just a regular transaction with SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY should work. I think.
18 2013-03-05 00:45:54 <muhoo> hmm, interesting. i haven't played with exotic sigs yet, still not quite advanced enough, but curious how that'd work
19 2013-03-05 00:45:59 <gavinandresen> ??? just keep adding inputs until you get enough to fund the output. Not really like kickstarter, though, because there's no way to make it greater-than-or-equal-to
20 2013-03-05 00:46:44 <muhoo> just equal to? that might be a benefit
21 2013-03-05 00:46:57 <sipa> equal-to, and anything above becomes a fee :D
22 2013-03-05 00:47:06 <gavinandresen> yup
23 2013-03-05 00:47:40 <muhoo> not quite, then
24 2013-03-05 00:47:50 <DarkGhost-c> hi everyone
25 2013-03-05 00:48:32 <DarkGhost-c> so whats the most secure way doing transactions with bitcoins via websites?
26 2013-03-05 00:48:38 <DarkGhost-c> ex bitzino.com
27 2013-03-05 00:48:39 <DarkGhost-c> bitcoind?
28 2013-03-05 00:49:36 <gavinandresen> pre-generate a bunch of bitcoin addresses on which you accept payment, put them in the web server's database, and run bitcoind on another machine.
29 2013-03-05 00:50:01 <muhoo> and json between them
30 2013-03-05 00:50:09 <DarkGhost-c> okay, so I could do that using json rpc
31 2013-03-05 00:50:23 <DarkGhost-c> and just have the bitcoind only accept commands/addresses from that server?
32 2013-03-05 00:50:24 <gavinandresen> ??? another machine that is in a locked server closet, with only ssh access via public keys, from certain pre-approved IP addresses.
33 2013-03-05 00:50:33 <DarkGhost-c> okay, sounds good.
34 2013-03-05 00:50:40 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: I prefer the "no network connection" setup :p
35 2013-03-05 00:50:52 <gmaxwell> behind a sign that says "beware the jaguar"
36 2013-03-05 00:50:56 <gavinandresen> hard to keep up with the blockchain if you have no network connection
37 2013-03-05 00:50:59 <sipa> gmaxwell: it's a leopard
38 2013-03-05 00:51:04 <DarkGhost-c> json-rpc should do the trick right? with in the .conf for bitcoind only that ip allowing?
39 2013-03-05 00:52:04 <muhoo> DarkGhost-c: if you want to track payments received
40 2013-03-05 00:52:21 <gavinandresen> is the web server initiating payments? If it is, then I'd probably setup a json-rpc proxy that had some logic to restrict the number or amount of payments, in case the web server gets compromised you'll only lose a few BTC
41 2013-03-05 00:52:34 <OneMiner> Armory keeps the keys away from the net.
42 2013-03-05 00:53:04 <DarkGhost-c> everytime someone registers on website, its going to give them an address, and potentially send out payments also
43 2013-03-05 00:53:05 <muhoo> and if the keys swim into the net, they get caught!
44 2013-03-05 00:53:34 <OneMiner> :)
45 2013-03-05 00:53:47 <muhoo> DarkGhost-c: sounds like a web store. try bitpay or multibitmerchant maybe
46 2013-03-05 00:54:24 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: don't need to keep up with privkeys
47 2013-03-05 00:54:28 <muhoo> i'm playing with multibitmerchant atm. it's quite a beast
48 2013-03-05 00:54:58 <muhoo> hell, looks like bitpay even has plugins for zencart, etc
49 2013-03-05 00:55:51 <DarkGhost-c> so how much is everyone agaisnt websites such as satoshidice and bitzino?
50 2013-03-05 00:56:15 <muhoo> and stock photos of smiling people. nothing says "ecommerce" like stock photos
51 2013-03-05 00:56:57 <muhoo> DarkGhost-c: that smells a bit like troll-bait, tbh
52 2013-03-05 00:57:48 <DarkGhost-c> i'm not 100% sure what you mean by troll-bait but I'm sorry, I don't want any trolls.
53 2013-03-05 00:58:54 <OneMiner> hahah we hates SD, precious.
54 2013-03-05 00:59:16 <OneMiner> But it's also no supprise in hindsight, precious.
55 2013-03-05 01:01:53 <OneMiner> At this point I think we just have to eat the extra transactions. They are playing within the rules of the system and I imagine gamblers may be willing to pay higher fees than normal folk. But we can try to squeeze them out anyways.
56 2013-03-05 01:02:46 <jrmithdobbs> the only way to "fix" it really, since they refuse to cooperate, is to use a faster hash function so it's not as debilitating but that's a forking change (excluding things like blacklisting their txns)
57 2013-03-05 01:03:17 <DarkGhost-c> you guys don't support it because of it's spam of blocks or ?
58 2013-03-05 01:03:18 <DarkGhost-c> what
59 2013-03-05 01:03:44 <jrmithdobbs> DarkGhost-c: it's poorly designed and sends way more txns back to the network than it actually needs to
60 2013-03-05 01:03:54 <OneMiner> DarkGhost-c Yes, spam. They seem to do it because it's easy. Spent no time in making a system that works well with bitcoin.
61 2013-03-05 01:03:59 <jrmithdobbs> DarkGhost-c: it could be fixed but the proprieters literally do not care
62 2013-03-05 01:04:14 <DarkGhost-c> 600k/yr
63 2013-03-05 01:04:22 <DarkGhost-c> they mine as well spend some of their free time fixing it
64 2013-03-05 01:04:32 <jrmithdobbs> but they wont
65 2013-03-05 01:04:46 <DarkGhost-c> how could they fix it? use sendmany?
66 2013-03-05 01:04:47 <DarkGhost-c> lol
67 2013-03-05 01:04:47 <OneMiner> About half of the blockchain is SD transaction now, or soon will be. They'll be 75% pretty soon at this rate.
68 2013-03-05 01:04:51 <jrmithdobbs> they've been approached multiple times with solutions and their response is "so fix bitcoin"
69 2013-03-05 01:04:54 <jrmithdobbs> (seriously)
70 2013-03-05 01:05:20 <jrmithdobbs> and then someone let the tard onto the board of the foundation
71 2013-03-05 01:05:25 <jrmithdobbs> ... but i digress
72 2013-03-05 01:05:41 <OneMiner> So, yes, we hate them. A bit. Not like I'd punch any of em.
73 2013-03-05 01:05:50 <jrmithdobbs> I'd consider it.
74 2013-03-05 01:06:15 <jrmithdobbs> but ya, face punching is not a foregone conclusion ;p
75 2013-03-05 01:07:05 <Luke-Jr> OneMiner: they're not playing within the rules
76 2013-03-05 01:07:17 <muhoo> spirit vs letter
77 2013-03-05 01:07:19 <DarkGhost-c> what would they have to do to fix there ways?
78 2013-03-05 01:07:40 <muhoo> they are obeying the letter, violating the spirit, is how i read it
79 2013-03-05 01:07:47 <doublec> jrmithdobbs: I don't see them listed as a board member on the foundation site
80 2013-03-05 01:07:48 <jrmithdobbs> stop sending failure bitdust
81 2013-03-05 01:08:10 <jrmithdobbs> doublec: bitinstant guy, it's convoluted/obscured a bit, but it's there
82 2013-03-05 01:08:18 <OneMiner> Luke-Jr I dig what you say but I see the rules as "whatever you can get away with/will work" because there are no bitcoin police. Just like corporate ethics are not ethics, it's what the cops will or will not arrest you for.
83 2013-03-05 01:08:22 <muhoo> doublec: eric voorhees, IIRC
84 2013-03-05 01:08:26 <jrmithdobbs> ^
85 2013-03-05 01:08:49 <doublec> voorhees isn't listed on the site
86 2013-03-05 01:08:58 <Luke-Jr> just his buddy Matonis
87 2013-03-05 01:09:03 <doublec> the bitinstant member is Charlie Shrem
88 2013-03-05 01:09:10 <Luke-Jr> who is constantly daring governments to ban Bitcoin
89 2013-03-05 01:09:16 <muhoo> the wild west.
90 2013-03-05 01:09:18 <doublec> ah ok
91 2013-03-05 01:09:29 <jrmithdobbs> doublec: they're related financially
92 2013-03-05 01:10:10 <muhoo> i love the technology. feel increasingly dirty about the politics, and the economics too (deflation, meet the new elite, not-quite-the-same as the old elite)
93 2013-03-05 01:10:39 <OneMiner> ACTION suddenly wants music
94 2013-03-05 01:12:22 <muhoo> i wonder once BTC are $300/ea, how soon people start fractionally lending them out at interest :-)
95 2013-03-05 01:13:30 <muhoo> but, such a cool design. intoxicating just learning about it.
96 2013-03-05 01:13:39 <doublec> it'd have to be easier to prosecute people who don't pay back before that becomes viable
97 2013-03-05 01:15:04 <OneMiner> Ya, lending seems DoA unless the person has massive trust and even then it's a bit of a gamble. Gaining enough trust to too high of a bar to get many customers.
98 2013-03-05 01:16:30 <PRab> muhoo: bitfinex.com, currently you can lend as little as .01BTC for about 11% interest.
99 2013-03-05 01:17:49 <Luke-Jr> jrmithdobbs: Charlie at least seems to distance himself from SD
100 2013-03-05 01:30:10 <gwillen> whoooa, the new client is slick
101 2013-03-05 01:30:16 <gwillen> I wish I had upgraded sooner
102 2013-03-05 01:33:51 <gmaxwell> gwillen: why didn't you?
103 2013-03-05 01:34:05 <gwillen> :effort:
104 2013-03-05 01:34:18 <gwillen> I hardly ever use it; I mostly sit on my bitcoins
105 2013-03-05 01:42:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I still haven't upgraded myself :p
106 2013-03-05 01:42:19 <Nameface_> sry what's SD?
107 2013-03-05 01:42:25 <Luke-Jr> Nameface_: SatoshiDice
108 2013-03-05 02:33:18 <yebyen> Hey, I have testnet clients connected and i wiped the blockchain, now I want to add a genesis block and start hashing... is there a guide for this?
109 2013-03-05 02:33:21 <yebyen> can I just download the genesis block from testnet blockexplorer and put it in blk0001.dat?
110 2013-03-05 02:52:12 <gmaxwell> yebyen: uh.. no, the genesis block is built in, and it will download the current chain from the network.
111 2013-03-05 02:52:36 <yebyen> gmaxwell: sorry i'm not clear on what i'm doing, i want to start a private testnet
112 2013-03-05 02:52:40 <yebyen> i have a vpn set up
113 2013-03-05 02:52:44 <yebyen> i'm using testnet-in-a-box
114 2013-03-05 02:53:00 <yebyen> i'm not sure if starting over from the genesis block will allow the difficulty to go down faster
115 2013-03-05 02:53:04 <gmaxwell> ah, well, testnet in a box includes a starter chain and wallet. You can't mine until you have two nodes up.
116 2013-03-05 02:53:18 <yebyen> i have two nodes but it's much too slow for difficulty 1
117 2013-03-05 02:53:25 <yebyen> it's an arm tablet
118 2013-03-05 02:53:33 <gmaxwell> It cannot go under difficulty 1.
119 2013-03-05 02:53:38 <yebyen> oh i thought it could
120 2013-03-05 02:53:49 <yebyen> so, just let it run for a while? :)
121 2013-03-05 02:53:50 <gmaxwell> well, unless IAB has some other patches that I'm not aware of.
122 2013-03-05 02:53:54 <yebyen> can I get one that's not pre-mined?
123 2013-03-05 02:54:08 <gmaxwell> but generally going below 1 breaks lots of software.
124 2013-03-05 02:54:27 <yebyen> i thought you could go below 1, but my friend was telling me about bbqcoin when he said that
125 2013-03-05 02:54:28 <gmaxwell> yebyen: you can throw away the blocks, but then you'll have to mine 100 before you have any you can spend.
126 2013-03-05 02:54:41 <gmaxwell> Bitcoin absolutely cannot go under 1.
127 2013-03-05 02:55:01 <yebyen> gmaxwell: i'm fine with that... i can't just throw away all blk0001.dat and blkindex though, right? i'll need to connect one node with at least a genesis block
128 2013-03-05 02:55:15 <yebyen> open it with bdb editor?
129 2013-03-05 02:58:11 <yebyen> db5.3-util maybe? :)
130 2013-03-05 02:58:33 <yebyen> i tried downloading the testnet genesis from blockexplorer but 'raw' sent it in json format
131 2013-03-05 03:00:56 <yebyen> hmm it looks like a genesis block to me
132 2013-03-05 03:00:57 <gmaxwell> you don't need to connect to one node with the genesis block
133 2013-03-05 03:01:14 <gmaxwell> 19:51 < gmaxwell> yebyen: uh.. no, the genesis block is built in,
134 2013-03-05 03:02:04 <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: I can already sense another coin control patch crashing and burning.
135 2013-03-05 03:03:18 <yebyen> so just set them both generating and wait, then
136 2013-03-05 03:03:28 <yebyen> crashing and burning?
137 2013-03-05 03:03:58 <gmaxwell> yebyen: that was unrelated to your questions, it's with respect to context on github.
138 2013-03-05 03:04:02 <yebyen> i thought it wasn't doing anything because i see hashes per second as zero
139 2013-03-05 03:04:09 <yebyen> gmaxwell: ok, good, i thought I was n00bing it up
140 2013-03-05 03:10:30 <yebyen> gmaxwell: well according to top, neither node is trying very hard to generate the first non-genesis block
141 2013-03-05 03:10:39 <yebyen> same with hashes per second
142 2013-03-05 03:11:00 <gmaxwell> if testnet in a box has a checkpoint you'll need to disable it.
143 2013-03-05 03:11:33 <yebyen> right
144 2013-03-05 03:11:40 <yebyen> compiling time
145 2013-03-05 03:11:51 <gmaxwell> there is a commandline option which should suffice.
146 2013-03-05 03:12:35 <gmaxwell> man, how do people stand using the gui? that ONTOPOFEVERYTHINGGLOWINGWALLETOFDOOM when rescaning is obnoxious.
147 2013-03-05 03:12:36 <yebyen> oh :)
148 2013-03-05 03:14:13 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: you can select another window and it goes away...
149 2013-03-05 03:14:33 <petertodd> yebyen: Say, if you need help generating blocks for your test, I can point my BFL single at your node, that is, I'll do that if you can say why you should be careful accepting that offer.
150 2013-03-05 03:15:03 <BlueMatt> petertodd: ooo, can you mine the block-tester test chain (actually, please mine like 10 copies of it, please?)
151 2013-03-05 03:15:06 <yebyen> are you offering to 51% my network? :)
152 2013-03-05 03:15:24 <petertodd> yebyen: I'm going to 100% your network. :P
153 2013-03-05 03:15:27 <BlueMatt> well, and do something about the one(s) which test timestamps
154 2013-03-05 03:15:28 <BlueMatt> kthx
155 2013-03-05 03:15:28 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Sure
156 2013-03-05 03:15:44 <yebyen> petertodd: what I don't want is to run up the difficulty, obviously
157 2013-03-05 03:15:53 <BlueMatt> not that I couldnt do it at min_diff, but...I dont want to set it up :)
158 2013-03-05 03:16:10 <yebyen> does anyone know the commandline option? i'm using debian 0.7.2 bitcoind
159 2013-03-05 03:16:15 <petertodd> BlueMatt: Seriously, just tell me where to point it and I'll go for it. Basically it'll cost me $3USD/day, so I'm happy to donate.
160 2013-03-05 03:16:18 <yebyen> i think it doesn't have an option to disable checkpoint
161 2013-03-05 03:16:29 <petertodd> yebeyn: You have to edit the source to do that.
162 2013-03-05 03:16:40 <petertodd> yebyen: Re: timestamps, again, easiest thing to do is edit the source.
163 2013-03-05 03:16:59 <gmaxwell> Why are you using 0.7.2?
164 2013-03-05 03:17:12 <yebyen> it's what's packaged in debian
165 2013-03-05 03:17:17 <yebyen> it's newer than testnet3
166 2013-03-05 03:17:40 <BlueMatt> you could manually download the ubuntu packages, its not like its any different
167 2013-03-05 03:17:56 <yebyen> but will i still have to edit the source to disable checkpoints?
168 2013-03-05 03:18:20 <petertodd> yebyen: Yup, and recompile.
169 2013-03-05 03:18:34 <yebyen> so, why not try first with what's packaged
170 2013-03-05 03:18:43 <yebyen> apt-get source; apt-get build-dep
171 2013-03-05 03:18:46 <petertodd> yebyen: yebyen: Oh, actually, I'm out of date on that: -checkpoints=0
172 2013-03-05 03:18:53 <yebyen> oh
173 2013-03-05 03:18:58 <yebyen> then screw compiling
174 2013-03-05 03:19:04 <yebyen> it will take longer than mining the first 100 blocks
175 2013-03-05 03:19:13 <yebyen> this machine is a tegra2 :x
176 2013-03-05 03:19:31 <yebyen> ahh i'm already downloading the dependencies though
177 2013-03-05 03:19:48 <petertodd> yebyen: Yeesh...
178 2013-03-05 03:20:00 <petertodd> yebyen: I dunno how long diff 1 takes to mine, could go either way.
179 2013-03-05 03:20:27 <yebyen> i just want to see hashes per second before i hook it up to my radeon 5970
180 2013-03-05 03:21:38 <yebyen> i guess it would be easier to throw away the coins that come free and make new wallets
181 2013-03-05 03:21:59 <yebyen> if there's no chance of bringing the difficulty down
182 2013-03-05 03:22:13 <muhoo> is gary rowe (of multibitmerchant) around here ever?
183 2013-03-05 03:22:30 <petertodd> yebyen: Testnet has a rule that sets difficulty to 1 if more than 20 minutes have passed since the last block.
184 2013-03-05 03:23:01 <petertodd> yebyen: Easy is to just set your clock forward 20 minutes and you'll be good.
185 2013-03-05 03:23:15 <yebyen> petertodd: so I could really download the latest chain and then isolate my nodes, still just as good
186 2013-03-05 03:23:26 <petertodd> yebyen: Exactly
187 2013-03-05 03:23:43 <petertodd> (sorry, I only caught the tail end of the conversation, I shoul dhave mentioned that earlier)
188 2013-03-05 03:23:59 <yebyen> hey it's not like time is money or anything
189 2013-03-05 03:24:08 <yebyen> i'm learning, you're helping :)
190 2013-03-05 03:24:13 <petertodd> ...with a BFL single it is. :P
191 2013-03-05 03:24:40 <yebyen> my order number at BFL is in the 16000's
192 2013-03-05 03:25:14 <yebyen> i should see my jalapeno by ... well my next of kin could see it by...
193 2013-03-05 03:25:37 <petertodd> Mine is three digits IIRC... my one $150 coffee warmer...
194 2013-03-05 03:25:44 <yebyen> i ordered 2
195 2013-03-05 03:25:48 <petertodd> Nice
196 2013-03-05 03:26:00 <yebyen> with 22.08 bitcoins iirc
197 2013-03-05 03:26:10 <yebyen> could have 5 by now if i had kept them
198 2013-03-05 03:26:20 <petertodd> I bought my single, really because I wanted a cool piece of Bitcoin history, and same logic for the jalapeno; I'm not even trading my single in for an upgrade.
199 2013-03-05 03:27:00 <yebyen> i just don't want to pay student loans anymore!
200 2013-03-05 03:27:10 <yebyen> i have beeminder graphs for bitcoin and for student loans
201 2013-03-05 03:27:23 <yebyen> and for tangents off of gmailzero
202 2013-03-05 03:27:28 <yebyen> (heard of beeminder?)
203 2013-03-05 03:27:41 <petertodd> nope
204 2013-03-05 03:28:17 <yebyen> they make graphs and take your money if you don't follow through on commitments (goals)
205 2013-03-05 03:28:37 <petertodd> Ha, that's hilarious.
206 2013-03-05 03:29:08 <yebyen> you just send them data points and they're actually really nice about resetting the graphs
207 2013-03-05 03:29:20 <yebyen> I ought to commit some of them
208 2013-03-05 03:29:24 <petertodd> One of those totally self-honestly things 'eh?
209 2013-03-05 03:29:34 <yebyen> the first fees are only $5
210 2013-03-05 03:30:02 <yebyen> you should never pay the fees if you are being honest with yourself and paying attention, yeah
211 2013-03-05 03:30:46 <yebyen> the fees double each time you pay them
212 2013-03-05 03:31:14 <petertodd> Ha, something tells me this is a lot more effective than you'd think... people are remarkable honest.
213 2013-03-05 03:31:17 <yebyen> i especially laughed when i found the "exponentially moar money" graph
214 2013-03-05 03:31:50 <petertodd> I wonder how far people actually go down that graph?
215 2013-03-05 03:31:59 <yebyen> beeminder.com/meta
216 2013-03-05 03:32:43 <yebyen> https://www.beeminder.com/meta/goals/revenue
217 2013-03-05 03:32:47 <yebyen> could fail in 3 days
218 2013-03-05 03:33:00 <yebyen> looks good so far
219 2013-03-05 03:33:21 <yebyen> i haven't been watching though so no way to know if they changed the goal before :)
220 2013-03-05 03:33:35 <petertodd> It'd be funny to make a version of that called BTC-minder, where if you go off the path it takes your bitcoins and sarifices them to mining fees.
221 2013-03-05 03:33:54 <gmaxwell> petertodd: sounds like a wallet addon feature. :P
222 2013-03-05 03:34:17 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yes! I mean, it's kinda like, it's testing your fidelity...
223 2013-03-05 03:34:19 <gmaxwell> "enter your private key now so I can sacrifice your coins"
224 2013-03-05 03:34:25 <yebyen> all i know is i had lots of money before but i was drowning in student loan interest
225 2013-03-05 03:34:55 <yebyen> and now i'm getting ahead
226 2013-03-05 03:35:01 <petertodd> yebyen: Good on you!
227 2013-03-05 03:35:04 <yebyen> they mailed me a statement that says $23 due this month
228 2013-03-05 03:35:20 <gmaxwell> "no no, don't pay us so fast!"
229 2013-03-05 03:35:36 <yebyen> exactlly
230 2013-03-05 03:41:47 <yebyen> so what do i comment to disable checkpoints in 0.7.2
231 2013-03-05 03:42:24 <SomeoneWeird> ...why disable them?
232 2013-03-05 03:42:45 <yebyen> CheckBlock should return true
233 2013-03-05 03:42:48 <yebyen> looks like
234 2013-03-05 03:43:06 <yebyen> SomeoneWeird: to mine a local testnet from the genesis block
235 2013-03-05 03:43:27 <SomeoneWeird> testnetinabox?
236 2013-03-05 03:43:55 <yebyen> comes with pre-mined blocks up to the checkpoint
237 2013-03-05 03:43:59 <yebyen> don't want
238 2013-03-05 03:44:15 <gmaxwell> yebyen: why don't you want that?
239 2013-03-05 03:45:54 <yebyen> i want to take N computers and link them up in a vpn testnet to give them all a performance/availability rating
240 2013-03-05 03:46:08 <SomeoneWeird> wut
241 2013-03-05 03:46:12 <yebyen> lol
242 2013-03-05 03:46:17 <yebyen> measured in bitcoins
243 2013-03-05 03:46:25 <yebyen> testcoins
244 2013-03-05 03:47:06 <yebyen> no good reason
245 2013-03-05 03:47:21 <yebyen> wanted to see why i can't, satisfied that I know the reason
246 2013-03-05 03:47:35 <yebyen> going to find out if this compiles
247 2013-03-05 03:48:13 <yebyen> bah, no fakeroot without sysv ipc
248 2013-03-05 03:50:33 <midnightmagic> yebyen: You can do the same thing regardless of whether you mine from genesis or not.
249 2013-03-05 03:51:04 <yebyen> yes but then i have to explain where the coins from the first blocks that I threw away went
250 2013-03-05 03:51:13 <yebyen> when i put it on the graph
251 2013-03-05 03:51:32 <yebyen> and they can be recovered from sourceforge
252 2013-03-05 03:51:45 <midnightmagic> yebyen: startfrom=N where N is the point you start mining at.
253 2013-03-05 03:52:28 <midnightmagic> yebyen: You could just run p2pool on testnet and watch the graphs.
254 2013-03-05 03:52:32 <yebyen> there will still be valid coins that I didn't mine
255 2013-03-05 03:52:37 <midnightmagic> yebyen: Or testnet-in-a-box..
256 2013-03-05 03:52:37 <yebyen> p2pool i hadn't heard of
257 2013-03-05 03:52:40 <yebyen> i will check it out
258 2013-03-05 03:53:05 <midnightmagic> .. yeah but so what?
259 2013-03-05 03:54:27 <yebyen> i'm not making up my own block magic, i did that before
260 2013-03-05 03:54:31 <yebyen> google bitcrapd
261 2013-03-05 03:54:46 <yebyen> they're not for spending so i'm not in a hurry to have mature coins
262 2013-03-05 03:55:15 <SomeoneWeird> :\\
263 2013-03-05 03:57:34 <yebyen> i am interested in working through the issues you have when you recompile a source package on debian in this platform
264 2013-03-05 03:58:13 <yebyen> i just learned about dpkg-source --commit
265 2013-03-05 03:58:45 <yebyen> ubuntu let me build a package with modifications to source without doing that
266 2013-03-05 03:59:02 <yebyen> didn't even suggest it, unless it scrolled by too fast to read
267 2013-03-05 03:59:17 <yebyen> i am glad I know that now
268 2013-03-05 03:59:40 <midnightmagic> p2pool will take smaller-diff solutions and chart the speed of the solves in some nice graphs. If you're seriously just looking for a speed graph, then actual coin rewards isn't what you're looking for. cpuminers are terrible: why do you want to use bitcoin as a speed measure anyway? What is it about bitcoin that is actually special enough to validate it as a means of describing the strength of a machine?
269 2013-03-05 04:00:56 <yebyen> i just made up a reason because I was being interrogated :)
270 2013-03-05 04:01:12 <yebyen> when i do graphs, i will actually be graphing slush api
271 2013-03-05 04:01:37 <midnightmagic> i guessed that part. you are being "interrogated" because usually this sort of question is divorced from the purpose in a sub-optimal way.
272 2013-03-05 04:02:01 <midnightmagic> s/sub-optimal//g
273 2013-03-05 04:02:31 <yebyen> here is a question
274 2013-03-05 04:02:48 <yebyen> why are the testnet coins in testnet-in-a-box not distributed evenly?
275 2013-03-05 04:03:00 <yebyen> node 1 has many more than node 2
276 2013-03-05 04:03:04 <yebyen> how fair is that :)
277 2013-03-05 04:03:08 <midnightmagic> someone probably just snapshotted a real testnet
278 2013-03-05 04:03:18 <yebyen> i thought they would be 50/50
279 2013-03-05 04:03:27 <CodeShark> if all the machines are equal, they should approach 50/50 in the long run
280 2013-03-05 04:03:38 <CodeShark> but in the short term, there's significant variance
281 2013-03-05 04:04:02 <yebyen> i wanted to try a testnet because I wanted to see what would happen when one node controls 51% or more
282 2013-03-05 04:04:24 <CodeShark> the distribution will also approach 51% in the long run
283 2013-03-05 04:04:32 <CodeShark> (ignoring reward halving)
284 2013-03-05 04:04:47 <yebyen> it may have been problems with the branch I used to make bitcrapd
285 2013-03-05 04:05:00 <yebyen> but i occasionally had trouble spending coins I mined on my network
286 2013-03-05 04:05:09 <yebyen> usually toward the end of the coins I was holding
287 2013-03-05 04:05:34 <yebyen> not sure if because not enough tx fee paid, or because of 51%
288 2013-03-05 04:05:43 <CodeShark> what does 51% have to do with anything?
289 2013-03-05 04:05:44 <yebyen> i know some of my nodes were much beefier than others
290 2013-03-05 04:06:15 <yebyen> CodeShark: my understanding (from reading articles, not code mind you) is that if one person controls 51% of the power, that person can block transactions from being published
291 2013-03-05 04:06:29 <yebyen> i have no idea if this is a feature built into the client that happens automatically
292 2013-03-05 04:06:30 <CodeShark> yes, but it requires a deliberate attack
293 2013-03-05 04:06:40 <CodeShark> it won't just happen automatically :p
294 2013-03-05 04:06:41 <yebyen> i've also heard of network going into "defense mode"
295 2013-03-05 04:07:03 <midnightmagic> some of them, some of the time.
296 2013-03-05 04:07:19 <CodeShark> unless you're doing some doublespending or deliberately blocking transactions you won't see any of this
297 2013-03-05 04:07:24 <yebyen> well i have friends that know less than me and I can't really show them a lot of things without a controlled environment
298 2013-03-05 04:08:03 <yebyen> least of which is bitcoin related things
299 2013-03-05 04:08:16 <yebyen> "why should I join your vpn" for instance
300 2013-03-05 04:08:55 <CodeShark> there are plenty of better benchmarks than cpumining :)
301 2013-03-05 04:09:44 <yebyen> sure :) who knows if cpuminer is optimized for armhf/tegra2 either
302 2013-03-05 04:10:00 <yebyen> speaking of which, does anyone have a transformer and run it android-free
303 2013-03-05 04:10:06 <CodeShark> cpuminer is not optimized, period
304 2013-03-05 04:10:07 <yebyen> i have the old TF-101
305 2013-03-05 04:10:11 <CodeShark> cpus suck at mining
306 2013-03-05 04:10:45 <yebyen> would my tegra2 outpace an nvidia onboard chip that does 4mhash/s
307 2013-03-05 04:11:01 <yebyen> does it even do cuda
308 2013-03-05 04:11:36 <CodeShark> nvidia also sucks at mining
309 2013-03-05 04:11:52 <yebyen> too bad ATI isn't in any tablets
310 2013-03-05 04:12:49 <yebyen> all of these experiments i can do without taking down the ATI mining rig in the next room
311 2013-03-05 04:13:27 <yebyen> it's not productive to benchmark fast machines :) unless it can be done while they are pumping out coins
312 2013-03-05 04:13:51 <gmaxwell> Hm. Perhaps SignSignature should be removed from the CreateTransaction loop. Instead it should use conservative estimates of the signature size... any smarter solver would need to in any case. Then it would be easier to have the GUI approve the exact transaction before signing.
313 2013-03-05 05:49:02 <pmknutsen> question about bitcoind and bitcoin-qt on linux: i'm still downloading the initial blockchain. qt was extremely slow. started bitcoind which was faster and completed yday (224k blocks). still, today when i start qt it insist on downloading blocks from where i left it. i.e. all blocks ARE downloaded by qt doesn't seem to register it. anyone with an idea why? i thought qt and bitcoind ran off the same folders/files
314 2013-03-05 05:49:03 <pmknutsen> in ~?
315 2013-03-05 05:49:56 <gmaxwell> pmknutsen: I answered you earlier in another channel.
316 2013-03-05 05:50:14 <pmknutsen> apologies, I didnt see that. let me go back and read that
317 2013-03-05 05:50:21 <gmaxwell> Is there a chance your -qt version is old, e.g. bitcoin 0.7.2? 0.8 and 0.7.2 keep the data in different places.
318 2013-03-05 06:15:24 <muhoo> is there any clean way to get out of "Safe mode: Warning:" ?
319 2013-03-05 06:15:47 <muhoo> other than wiping stuff out and redownloading 6GB?
320 2013-03-05 06:16:57 <Luke-Jr> if it's really corrupt, -reindex
321 2013-03-05 06:18:50 <gmaxwell> muhoo: _why_ are you in safemode?
322 2013-03-05 06:19:14 <gmaxwell> muhoo: go look in the log and see what error its really throwing
323 2013-03-05 06:19:26 <muhoo> gmaxwell: unsure. will look.
324 2013-03-05 06:22:40 <muhoo> hmm, it's complaining that the argument must be a hexadecimal string, but it *is*
325 2013-03-05 06:22:52 <muhoo> i wrapped quotes around it.
326 2013-03-05 06:23:06 <petertodd> what's the argument?
327 2013-03-05 06:23:27 <muhoo> bitcoind decoderawtransaction "0100000005f5d4a0341cb7fbc7f928cfb94f13122c5d978bdbe05487be1317af80716fb87c0100000000fffffffff5f06b5261be2bdb5822f9daf56ee6a5df3eab1714f86b8757f5ddc4d22a26610100000000ffffffff7e07612e3d80ce4370e9de280b89b07bf5ed717c7fb2f6507458bfbe23d9acbf0000000000ffffffff1f3bf78901af985bbad5fd7d755fdb3a46a711e2f84895907d8f01713716df740000000000ffffffff9acc6b6efb21e6b1e6200dd7c271ff3a886bb41bf16b17ef8fc62abe7abf913100000
328 2013-03-05 06:24:30 <muhoo> does that work for you?
329 2013-03-05 06:26:07 <gmaxwell> get rid of the quote.
330 2013-03-05 06:26:18 <muhoo> once i look at the damn thing, i'll sign it and send it back.
331 2013-03-05 06:26:34 <gmaxwell> oh your problem it that you're truncated.
332 2013-03-05 06:26:36 <gmaxwell> the length is odd.
333 2013-03-05 06:26:37 <petertodd> muhoo: it might have been truncated
334 2013-03-05 06:27:14 <petertodd> muhoo: try this http://pastebin.com/dYSEBLUr
335 2013-03-05 06:27:35 <muhoo> oh yeah, it was hella truncated
336 2013-03-05 06:28:24 <petertodd> ha, good thing it was truncated to an odd length...
337 2013-03-05 06:28:44 <gmaxwell> error: {"code":-22,"message":"TX decode failed"}
338 2013-03-05 06:28:44 <gmaxwell> well I added an extra 0 and got
339 2013-03-05 06:29:06 <muhoo> nope, worked perfectly. signing.
340 2013-03-05 06:29:43 <muhoo> heh, what, no 10000BTC outputs?
341 2013-03-05 06:30:17 <petertodd> muhoo: talk to gmaxwell, you seen how many coins that guy has?
342 2013-03-05 06:30:25 <muhoo> hehehe
343 2013-03-05 06:30:29 <muhoo> "has"
344 2013-03-05 06:31:02 <petertodd> what? he sends transactions with like 40kBTC!
345 2013-03-05 06:31:20 <gmaxwell> I need to do a taint analysis to figure out how many adresses 1Gmaxwell is now linked to.
346 2013-03-05 06:31:31 <petertodd> blockchain.info says quite a few...
347 2013-03-05 06:31:34 <muhoo> richest taint in all the land
348 2013-03-05 06:32:09 <petertodd> sigh... I asked Luke if he wanted to share his taint with me, and he didn't even respond :(
349 2013-03-05 06:32:15 <gmaxwell> petertodd: yea but it doesn't give stats like how many btc in txn that "I"'ve done.
350 2013-03-05 06:32:16 <muhoo> hahahaha
351 2013-03-05 06:32:40 <muhoo> maybe tell him it's a way to make SD go away, he'll do it.
352 2013-03-05 06:33:15 <petertodd> gmaxwell: what, are you saying my taint's just too small?
353 2013-03-05 06:37:32 <petertodd> sigh, my trolling trufflz into accepting payment on a 0.7 client has quite failed...
354 2013-03-05 06:37:42 <petertodd> turns out he is just a newb (or a newb scammer)
355 2013-03-05 06:38:04 <gmaxwell> Slight scammer vibes there.
356 2013-03-05 06:38:28 <Skav> can anyone provide me with a little help looking to set btc as a default currency
357 2013-03-05 06:38:32 <Skav> for my store
358 2013-03-05 06:52:45 <Skav> anyone have a idea for me i'm using blockchain.info rpc
359 2013-03-05 06:55:58 <lianj> Skav: thought about using coinbase?
360 2013-03-05 06:56:27 <Skav> why woukld i do that
361 2013-03-05 06:56:29 <Skav> would*
362 2013-03-05 06:57:00 <lianj> using their merchant tools for the store
363 2013-03-05 06:57:07 <Skav> i'm using opencart need to see how i get btc as a default
364 2013-03-05 06:57:26 <lianj> oh, ok.. ignore what i said then
365 2013-03-05 06:57:48 <Acciaio> thats no good
366 2013-03-05 06:57:52 <Acciaio> http://blockchain.info/it/tx-index/58401363
367 2013-03-05 06:59:16 <Skav> for it to update the USD
368 2013-03-05 06:59:18 <petertodd> interesting, tx malliability with a non-satoshidice tx
369 2013-03-05 06:59:22 <Skav> not the other way around
370 2013-03-05 07:00:27 <lianj> petertodd: one 1dice output
371 2013-03-05 07:00:35 <petertodd> oh, never mind, missed it
372 2013-03-05 07:01:04 <Nesetalis> -stares at the price of bitcoins- o.o
373 2013-03-05 07:01:15 <gmaxwell> 1diceaHT4u17eD6ALYNwZfXFvnUsDU9wz - (Non spesi) 0.000075 BTC
374 2013-03-05 07:01:25 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: are you making those bloated up txn?
375 2013-03-05 07:01:43 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: why are you doing that? thats an insane number of tiny outputs.
376 2013-03-05 07:02:09 <Acciaio> gmaxwell it is the output from coinvisitor.com
377 2013-03-05 07:02:45 <Skav> Acciaio: should tell the admin about it
378 2013-03-05 07:02:58 <Skav> gmaxwell: do you have a idea on my problem
379 2013-03-05 07:03:23 <gmaxwell> Skav: no clue about blockchain.info, I normally recommend people not to use it.
380 2013-03-05 07:03:48 <Skav> gmaxwell: what do you suggest than for a store
381 2013-03-05 07:04:20 <Skav> need a payment gateway but also need the store to be in BTC as default currency
382 2013-03-05 07:04:40 <Acciaio> gmaxwell, so now? I asked you many time on how to prevent transaction retransmission but no answer and now??? what can I do?
383 2013-03-05 07:04:43 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure what the latest options are.
384 2013-03-05 07:06:02 <gmaxwell> #bitcoin-dev.log:02:08 < gmaxwell> Acciaio: to recover coins stuck by unconfirmed transactions you must rebuild the wallet. Make a backup and use the salvagewallet option to bitcoin
385 2013-03-05 07:06:06 <gmaxwell> #bitcoin-dev.log:11:02 < gmaxwell> Acciaio: run salvage wallet on the wallet in question (after backing it up).
386 2013-03-05 07:06:10 <gmaxwell> #bitcoin-dev.log:14:28 < gmaxwell> How can I stop Acciaio from retransmitting an answered question?
387 2013-03-05 07:06:27 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: is coinvisitor your site?
388 2013-03-05 07:06:34 <Acciaio> gmaxwell, I can't run this command with an encrypted wallet
389 2013-03-05 07:07:03 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: yea, okay, so need a mildly patched version of bitcoin to run salvagewallet with an encrypted wallet due to some bugs.
390 2013-03-05 07:07:08 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: are you setup to compile bitcoin?
391 2013-03-05 07:07:29 <Acciaio> not on production
392 2013-03-05 07:07:44 <gmaxwell> okay, well, I'll open an issue and try to remember to fix it before the next release.
393 2013-03-05 07:07:53 <Acciaio> but yes I can compile it locally
394 2013-03-05 07:08:15 <Acciaio> thanks
395 2013-03-05 07:10:22 <Acciaio> but I'm a php developer. I can read something written in cpp but not everything
396 2013-03-05 07:11:20 <Acciaio> but now what can I do with that transaction?
397 2013-03-05 07:11:32 <Acciaio> I will triplespend it with an huge fee?
398 2013-03-05 07:15:29 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: the transaction is completed, the only funds you are out is your change.
399 2013-03-05 07:16:06 <gmaxwell> I assume this output: 1DhnKD1ucuXih1Cye8b4fYrYcTmATeFhZW - (Non spesi) 2.51070663 BTC
400 2013-03-05 07:16:18 <gmaxwell> you could dumpprivkey on that one address, and import it into a new wallet.
401 2013-03-05 07:17:05 <Acciaio> yes this is the way I have doublespend the first transaction
402 2013-03-05 07:17:23 <Acciaio> doublespent
403 2013-03-05 07:17:33 <gmaxwell> the first transaction is confirmed you cannot doublespend it. You can just recover the change.. all those patments are made.
404 2013-03-05 07:18:10 <gmaxwell> basically this transaction was 'doublespent' by an almost exact copy of it. The only differences are insiginficant.
405 2013-03-05 07:18:28 <gmaxwell> the only reason it is a proble for you is because it's holding your change hostage.
406 2013-03-05 07:19:12 <Acciaio> the first transaction was dropped as low fee the second one use an higher fee
407 2013-03-05 07:19:41 <Acciaio> no gmaxwell I also would like to understand how to manage a situation like this
408 2013-03-05 07:22:48 <gmaxwell> I don't know what to say, I don't know what you're even doing to generate txn that look like this... it's full of tiny inputs and outputs.
409 2013-03-05 07:23:03 <gmaxwell> If you were not standing here talking to me and I saw this transaction I'd think it was someone trying to break things.
410 2013-03-05 07:24:08 <Acciaio> no coinvisitor.com is an advertising/faucet site made by poor people to poor people
411 2013-03-05 07:24:40 <Acciaio> there are a lot of input and output because I send a transaction/day
412 2013-03-05 07:27:15 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: ah. I see.
413 2013-03-05 07:27:21 <gmaxwell> Okay at least I understand.
414 2013-03-05 07:27:47 <Luke-Jr> Acciaio: it's pretty pointless to send someone smaller than 0.01 BTC even if you can, since they'll need to pay a fee to spend it
415 2013-03-05 07:27:55 <Luke-Jr> (even if there were something that cheap to spend it on O.o)
416 2013-03-05 07:28:17 <Acciaio> not if they use instawallet
417 2013-03-05 07:28:32 <Luke-Jr> why not?
418 2013-03-05 07:29:04 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: because it can do internal trades for any value.
419 2013-03-05 07:29:09 <gmaxwell> I assume.
420 2013-03-05 07:30:02 <Acciaio> and there was the limit but users definetly don't like it
421 2013-03-05 07:31:14 <gmaxwell> Acciaio: instead of sending very tiny amounts you could send larger amounts with low probablity. e.g. intead of 0.001 you send 0.01 with 1/10 chance.
422 2013-03-05 07:32:56 <petertodd> Acciaio: could you maintain an instawallet/easywallet account to send funds off-chain?
423 2013-03-05 07:33:19 <petertodd> ACTION wonders if those ewallets have a "address is on the wallet" feature...
424 2013-03-05 07:33:42 <lianj> "address is on the wallet" ?
425 2013-03-05 07:34:00 <Acciaio> don't know easywallet but instawallet is a little limited for me
426 2013-03-05 07:34:14 <petertodd> yeah, like, can I query instawallet and ask them if I should send the transaction to address 1foo via my instawallet account instead of in a transaction?
427 2013-03-05 07:34:35 <petertodd> even some simple standard to do that would be the beginnings of a more usable off-chain tx system...
428 2013-03-05 07:34:52 <Acciaio> no
429 2013-03-05 07:35:19 <Acciaio> I can't do this with actual instawallet api
430 2013-03-05 07:35:29 <petertodd> I should try talking to instawallet and easy wallet about this...
431 2013-03-05 07:35:55 <petertodd> Acciaio: my big project is off-chain tx systems
432 2013-03-05 07:35:59 <Acciaio> it will be great also for a lot of other site like me
433 2013-03-05 07:36:17 <petertodd> Absolutely, and the tech to do this now wouldn't be too hard.
434 2013-03-05 07:36:48 <petertodd> I mean, auremXchange and MtGox codes and all that stuff already are doing it I think; I haven't investigated how all that works enough.
435 2013-03-05 07:37:22 <lianj> hard to call it still bitcoin then
436 2013-03-05 07:38:01 <petertodd> lianj: like it or not, the way bitcoin works is spectacularly inefficient: telling the whole world every time you buy a 5cent candy doesn't scale
437 2013-03-05 07:38:51 <lianj> true, but doing the off-chain site centered this is just like paypal. balance values changed in a db
438 2013-03-05 07:39:10 <petertodd> sure, that's the easiest way to do it, but you can do much better with crypto
439 2013-03-05 07:39:36 <petertodd> for instance, gmaxwell and I have been talking about systems which inherently allow you to audit the balance books, in particular, to be sure that real btc is backing your balance
440 2013-03-05 07:40:22 <lianj> looking forward to something good there, to get mBTC working again
441 2013-03-05 07:41:29 <petertodd> yeah, I'll be frank, it'll involve more trust than direct, on chain transactions, but it can still be fairly decentralized, and unlike on chain you can have instant tx's and truely private txs
442 2013-03-05 07:43:08 <lianj> please make it somewhat simple though ;)
443 2013-03-05 07:43:29 <petertodd> alright, here, lets solve a problem
444 2013-03-05 07:43:38 <petertodd> so we'll need addresses for this right
445 2013-03-05 07:44:24 <petertodd> so I'm thinking, urls: trustbits:mydomain.com/76a91406f1b6703d3f56427bfcfd372f952d50d04b64bd88ac <- pubkey
446 2013-03-05 07:45:20 <petertodd> could also do it email style too...
447 2013-03-05 07:48:40 <lianj> continue :P
448 2013-03-05 07:49:21 <petertodd> ha, well, you see, basically the issue with all this stuff, is your coins are being held *somewhere*, the key is to make it easy to identify that "somewhere", and your account with them, just like email
449 2013-03-05 07:49:36 <petertodd> although, I think we're maybe better if we hide all that under a payment protocol mostly
450 2013-03-05 07:49:51 <petertodd> like how bitcoin has addresses, but ideally you'd just have a wallet
451 2013-03-05 07:50:14 <petertodd> and like bitcoin, you can start with addresses, and do more complex stuff later
452 2013-03-05 07:52:11 <petertodd> another simple "starter project" would just be an irc bot thing, for say, bitcoin-otc trades to make them instant and private
453 2013-03-05 07:58:06 <FellowTraveler> Easiest OT installation instructions of all time: ?? 1. Install Ubuntu 12.04 ??(I did it using Parallels to test this.)
454 2013-03-05 07:58:14 <FellowTraveler> 2. ??Edit this file: /etc/apt/sources.list ??to add this line: deb http://repo.openwallet.org/ubuntu??precise utils
455 2013-03-05 07:58:19 <FellowTraveler> 3. sudo apt-get install opentxs
456 2013-03-05 07:58:41 <FellowTraveler> also opentxs list, opentxs stat, opentxs showincoming, opentxs sendcheque, etc
457 2013-03-05 07:58:41 <FellowTraveler> From there, OT should be installed. You can run the server using 'otserver' and you can use the client: ??opentxs help
458 2013-03-05 07:59:02 <FellowTraveler> If you prefer to test it using sample data, then grab OT from git: ?? ??git clone git://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions
459 2013-03-05 07:59:02 <FellowTraveler> If you run it with blank data, it will walk you through the process of creating a fresh server
460 2013-03-05 07:59:08 <FellowTraveler> then you can copy the contents of Open-Transactions/sample-data/ot-sample-data into the ~/.ot folder, and test it out using existing sample data.
461 2013-03-05 07:59:18 <FellowTraveler> there are also now test scripts for bash, and python, and php, as well as the opentxs command line tool itself is written in OT script, and thus you can copy sections of it, whenever you need to see how to use the OT API in code.
462 2013-03-05 07:59:19 <FellowTraveler> .
463 2013-03-05 08:00:48 <gwillen> hey FellowTraveler :-)
464 2013-03-05 08:02:01 <FellowTraveler> Hi gwillen, I hope things are well, and that you find these tools useful.
465 2013-03-05 08:02:34 <FellowTraveler> The API is very high level now, as you can see in the sample scripts, and you should be able to do anything you need using OT with very little code.
466 2013-03-05 08:03:29 <gwillen> FellowTraveler: Ripple.com isn't using OT, are they? The thing they're doing with gateways seems really similar.
467 2013-03-05 08:03:59 <FellowTraveler> gwillen I don't know, if they are using it, they haven't asked for any support. So they must be really smart :)
468 2013-03-05 08:04:04 <gwillen> hahahaha
469 2013-03-05 08:04:05 <gwillen> ACTION nods
470 2013-03-05 08:04:25 <FellowTraveler> There are people on #opentransactions who can provide support for various platforms. We have an iOS skeleton project now, and Windows project files, and obviously it builds on UNIX and now any jackass can install it using apt-get
471 2013-03-05 08:04:56 <FellowTraveler> (And probably will.)
472 2013-03-05 08:05:16 <FellowTraveler> Caveat: for experimental purposes only. Ta-ta!
473 2013-03-05 08:43:40 <lianj> "Hope we dont get goxxed." haha
474 2013-03-05 08:55:03 <muhoo> umm, wat? Misbehaving: 68.229.30.229:8333 (0 -> 0)
475 2013-03-05 08:55:13 <muhoo> someone's being naughty, i guess
476 2013-03-05 08:58:01 <lianj> muhoo: just sending too much txs
477 2013-03-05 10:18:22 <muhoo> now i'm getting tons of orphan blocks.
478 2013-03-05 10:18:39 <muhoo> weird
479 2013-03-05 10:18:58 <muhoo> ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK, prev=00000000000003eb2589878d50f38cd80835eac3d5d66ba2cb798a25acf35a94, etc
480 2013-03-05 10:19:03 <sipa> yes, happens
481 2013-03-05 10:20:51 <muhoo> that one looks like it is in the chain tho http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000029983f8d6cc527bf82641063f5c289a027a2a3bddcc020fd102
482 2013-03-05 10:21:11 <muhoo> maybe something went sideways with my sync
483 2013-03-05 10:21:44 <sipa> muhoo: typically it just means you're receiving blocks from a peer out-of-order
484 2013-03-05 10:21:57 <sipa> it happens when a new block is announced while you're already syncing
485 2013-03-05 10:22:03 <muhoo> thanks, that'd make sense. my connectivity died for a minute
486 2013-03-05 10:25:31 <muhoo> i'm guessing this is a pool? http://blockexplorer.com/address/151z2eoe2D9f6cohGNNU96GsKAqLfYP8mN
487 2013-03-05 10:26:50 <muhoo> at $40/BTC, those 50BTC bounties are going to make some wealthy miners
488 2013-03-05 10:37:47 <doublec> muhoo: what 50 btc bounties?
489 2013-03-05 11:19:01 <kriqCoin> Hi,
490 2013-03-05 12:05:11 <HM> wow $40
491 2013-03-05 12:13:36 <MC1984> whats the average across all exchanges
492 2013-03-05 12:39:04 <bitnumus> if i send BTC and it doesnt confirm for like 10 blocks
493 2013-03-05 12:39:08 <bitnumus> what options do i have?
494 2013-03-05 12:39:17 <bitnumus> i wasnt requested to send with a fee by client
495 2013-03-05 12:52:05 <kjj> keep waiting. If it still hasn't been picked up after a day or so, then you can start thinking about ways to redo the transaction
496 2013-03-05 13:04:53 <HM> i've seen people complain about slow transactions for fees both above and below 0.005
497 2013-03-05 13:10:18 <bitnumus> a day or so? lol
498 2013-03-05 13:10:23 <bitnumus> wtf
499 2013-03-05 13:13:19 <gavinandresen> bitnumus: what client sent it? And are you willing to tell us the transaction id?
500 2013-03-05 13:13:49 <Scrat> bitnumus: did you use b.i? because it will use long unconfirmed chains for inputs
501 2013-03-05 13:14:11 <bitnumus> satoshi client
502 2013-03-05 13:14:15 <bitnumus> it went through after 4 hours
503 2013-03-05 13:14:27 <kinlo> bitnumus: keep the client open, it must retransmit from time to time
504 2013-03-05 13:14:42 <bitnumus> kinlo, ill remember that, thanks
505 2013-03-05 13:38:20 <MC1984> b.i uses unconfirmed inputs?
506 2013-03-05 13:38:59 <Scrat> MC1984: yessir
507 2013-03-05 13:39:53 <MC1984> didnt coinbase cause a shitstorm for doing that
508 2013-03-05 13:42:14 <Scrat> bank deposits were involved there so people were upset (understandably so)
509 2013-03-05 13:45:07 <MC1984> its getting hard to run a node on this machine now
510 2013-03-05 13:45:44 <MC1984> i wish my server thing hadnt blown up
511 2013-03-05 13:54:55 <MC1984> i think Qt is quickly becoming non-viable for any single core machines
512 2013-03-05 13:55:40 <MC1984> i suppose thats not far different from sayings bitcoin is non-viable for my 486
513 2013-03-05 13:58:07 <MC1984> i was thinking about the block cap
514 2013-03-05 13:58:44 <MC1984> theres good arguments for raising it, and theres good arguments for why uncapping it would be crazy
515 2013-03-05 13:59:27 <MC1984> if youre looking at having a system that can handle a significant fraction of the worlds value exchange maybe
516 2013-03-05 13:59:55 <MC1984> and recognising that economic activity is linked to number of actual persons aliive
517 2013-03-05 14:00:09 <MC1984> (stongly or weakly i dont know)
518 2013-03-05 14:01:04 <MC1984> what about a fork to raise the block cap, in a controlled manner to avoid sudden and massive centralisation, to a level that takes ccount o the projected maximum human population on this planet
519 2013-03-05 14:01:17 <MC1984> 10 billion individuals or so i think?
520 2013-03-05 14:02:50 <MC1984> that is make some sort of estimate of how many bitcoin txn those people would create with a resonable penetration rate of the system, and slowly raise the cap to that final limit
521 2013-03-05 14:03:24 <MC1984> i know this is vague as fuck btw
522 2013-03-05 14:03:33 <kjj> yes. and your estimates will totally be less arbitrary than 1 MB
523 2013-03-05 14:04:07 <MC1984> is that sarcasm
524 2013-03-05 14:04:24 <MC1984> if there was a rigourous way to make an estimate such as that, it would be less arbitrary
525 2013-03-05 14:06:06 <kjj> if there was a rigourous way to estimate the future, then Einstein would be spinning in his grave. the past is easy to estimate, the future, not so much
526 2013-03-05 14:06:37 <MC1984> also the block cap increase curve should ideally take account of some sort of measure of the average computing/storage power available to a citizen
527 2013-03-05 14:06:42 <MC1984> over time
528 2013-03-05 14:06:50 <MC1984> fffffuck this is so vague
529 2013-03-05 14:07:23 <MC1984> kjj its not that bad
530 2013-03-05 14:07:53 <kjj> you also need to keep in mind that the blockchain has very limited information
531 2013-03-05 14:08:32 <CodeShark> actually, Einstein did believe there was a rigorous way of estimating the future and it was one of the main points of contention he had with Bohr
532 2013-03-05 14:09:33 <kjj> he thought that it was a lack of cleverness on our part that made quantum processes probabalistic
533 2013-03-05 14:10:04 <MC1984> sigh guys
534 2013-03-05 14:10:09 <MC1984> m-my idea....
535 2013-03-05 14:10:49 <Scrat> MC1984: costanza.jpg
536 2013-03-05 14:11:12 <MC1984> bitcoin is a system for use by people, individuals, to other individuals
537 2013-03-05 14:11:39 <MC1984> the block cap has to go somewhere, it cant stay at one extreme of 1mb forever or the other extreme of uncapped
538 2013-03-05 14:11:46 <CodeShark> kjj: either lack of cleverness or real but unmeasurable (hidden) variables
539 2013-03-05 14:11:49 <helo> MC1984: of course it can stay at 1MB forever
540 2013-03-05 14:11:53 <helo> MC1984: why can't it?
541 2013-03-05 14:12:01 <MC1984> so tie its final state to the only variable that matters, the number of people alive?
542 2013-03-05 14:12:09 <kjj> lack of cleverness in unhiding those variables
543 2013-03-05 14:12:15 <Optimo> layers on top of it will exist
544 2013-03-05 14:12:35 <MC1984> helo cos it will stay decentralised as fuck by txn fees will be ruinous
545 2013-03-05 14:12:54 <MC1984> and it will cease to be a system usable by individuals
546 2013-03-05 14:13:01 <helo> MC1984: if the block size is too big, people won't be able to easily boot up a full node
547 2013-03-05 14:13:16 <helo> so they'll have to rely on a trusted 3rd party
548 2013-03-05 14:13:28 <Scrat> if you remove SD spam somehow I'd say 1MB is good for the forseeable future
549 2013-03-05 14:13:29 <Optimo> why are you sure bitcoin mut onyl be used intrapersonally?
550 2013-03-05 14:13:32 <MC1984> who said anything about too big
551 2013-03-05 14:13:50 <helo> MC1984: it's possible that >1MB is too big
552 2013-03-05 14:14:15 <MC1984> i said a gradual increase to a level that can reasonable support the average economic actiity of the maximum projected number of humans on this planet
553 2013-03-05 14:14:40 <MC1984> eventually MOORES LAW should have us home and dry then
554 2013-03-05 14:15:14 <MC1984> i dont think >1mb is too big
555 2013-03-05 14:15:18 <CodeShark> most institutional transactions will probably occur off the block chain
556 2013-03-05 14:15:25 <MC1984> gigabyte blocks today would suck ass though
557 2013-03-05 14:15:53 <Optimo> tehre will be otehr systems built around it. you can have derivitive systems using similar tech with exchanges
558 2013-03-05 14:16:04 <CodeShark> in fact, I'd say most institutional bitcoin transactions already occur off the block chain
559 2013-03-05 14:16:08 <Optimo> visacoin ;)
560 2013-03-05 14:16:10 <CodeShark> or at least a huge portion of them
561 2013-03-05 14:16:17 <helo> i doubt >1MB is too big, but it's ~impossible to know
562 2013-03-05 14:16:41 <CodeShark> nobody should ever need more than 640k
563 2013-03-05 14:16:48 <Optimo> amen
564 2013-03-05 14:17:04 <MC1984> throwing your hands up in the air and saying lol offchain isnt good enough
565 2013-03-05 14:17:32 <MC1984> if there might be a way to keep actual bitcoin accessible to actual people
566 2013-03-05 14:17:40 <Optimo> maybe there wont be
567 2013-03-05 14:17:43 <Optimo> like gold
568 2013-03-05 14:17:51 <MC1984> thats what i mean
569 2013-03-05 14:18:03 <Optimo> that's something for the future to decide
570 2013-03-05 14:18:08 <MC1984> look what happned with gold
571 2013-03-05 14:18:14 <helo> MC1984: i think 1MB would keep bitcoin accessible to actual people
572 2013-03-05 14:18:22 <Optimo> a travesty perhaps, but there wasnt enough gold for everyone to have some
573 2013-03-05 14:18:24 <MC1984> everyone just decided to unlink currency from it one century
574 2013-03-05 14:18:36 <helo> MC1984: there would be a fee, but it would be possible for anyone in the world to sync a full node and send a transaction
575 2013-03-05 14:18:42 <CodeShark> most of the gold mankind has mined is sitting in vaults doing absolutely nothing
576 2013-03-05 14:18:53 <kriqCoin> eat it
577 2013-03-05 14:18:56 <kriqCoin> oh wait
578 2013-03-05 14:19:16 <CodeShark> humans are perhaps the most ironic of all species
579 2013-03-05 14:19:16 <Optimo> I dont see that having another layer of currency usage on top of bitcoin is a bad thing
580 2013-03-05 14:19:17 <MC1984> no i just said txn fees with 1mb blocks and worldwide adoption would make bitcoin an interbank settlement netowrk only
581 2013-03-05 14:19:50 <Optimo> and if you want to buy into another one of these *coin blocks, you can
582 2013-03-05 14:20:05 <MC1984> one extreme of ruinous txn fees, another of ruinous centralisation
583 2013-03-05 14:20:19 <MC1984> or some sort of medium?
584 2013-03-05 14:20:38 <Optimo> the banks could use another blockchain/coin thingy
585 2013-03-05 14:20:48 <MC1984> based upon as i said the only variable i can think of that matters
586 2013-03-05 14:21:03 <Optimo> they only have to convince people to cash out
587 2013-03-05 14:21:11 <helo> "ruinous txn fees" means "very secure against double spend attacks"
588 2013-03-05 14:21:43 <MC1984> it means so secure dont even think about using it yourself citizen
589 2013-03-05 14:21:52 <helo> i suppose there may be a more profitable equilibrium on the curve
590 2013-03-05 14:23:46 <Optimo> inevitably eery wise soul will try to take advantage of these formulae, and there will have to be more and better technology in the future. bitcoin is just a bootstrap into a digital world
591 2013-03-05 14:24:19 <MC1984> i wish i was better at explaining shit
592 2013-03-05 14:24:26 <Optimo> I fully understand you
593 2013-03-05 14:24:28 <MC1984> this is not how to win friends and influence people
594 2013-03-05 14:24:39 <Optimo> I dont agree that bitcoin must remain intrapersonal for it's lifetime
595 2013-03-05 14:24:58 <Optimo> 100 years from now there will be better tech
596 2013-03-05 14:25:03 <MC1984> maybe not must remain
597 2013-03-05 14:25:13 <MC1984> but i think the option must always be there
598 2013-03-05 14:25:22 <MC1984> stupid fees removes the option
599 2013-03-05 14:25:34 <Optimo> I coudl just give you my wallet
600 2013-03-05 14:25:40 <Optimo> barter style
601 2013-03-05 14:25:57 <CodeShark> I accept
602 2013-03-05 14:26:03 <Optimo> maybe every wallet in the future only holds one satoshicoin
603 2013-03-05 14:26:06 <MC1984> maybe it wont cost 3 cents to send a million dollar forever, but if it costs 30,000 then its fucked
604 2013-03-05 14:26:31 <CodeShark> bitcoin is proof-of-concept more than anything
605 2013-03-05 14:26:49 <CodeShark> it demonstrates the viability of a decentralized timestamp protocol
606 2013-03-05 14:26:55 <Optimo> exactly. and other groups can adopt and use it and improve it. I'm still holding out to hear about Visacoin
607 2013-03-05 14:26:57 <helo> bitcoin will definitely (barring unforseen legal or exploit type situations) be in use for a looong with 1MB blocks, and be extremely highly valued
608 2013-03-05 14:27:15 <helo> and anyone will be able to install the client, and get synched up relatively quickly
609 2013-03-05 14:27:23 <MC1984> god dammit every single bitcoin site in my bookmarks uses the same fucking bitcoin logo favicon from 2009
610 2013-03-05 14:27:31 <MC1984> cant find shit
611 2013-03-05 14:27:37 <Optimo> that icon gives a warm feeling
612 2013-03-05 14:28:51 <helo> and they'll be able to send a transaction without even world powers having the ability to stop them
613 2013-03-05 14:29:19 <helo> it seems reasonable that such a trump ability would have significant cost
614 2013-03-05 14:29:28 <Optimo> even if that transaction way in the future is just bartering whole wallets
615 2013-03-05 14:29:39 <CodeShark> impossible to regulate is NOT one of bitcoin's features
616 2013-03-05 14:29:54 <helo> CodeShark: impossible to stop a transaction is
617 2013-03-05 14:29:55 <Optimo> and not having competing tech is not one either
618 2013-03-05 14:30:12 <CodeShark> what good is the transaction if a government can just confiscate your assets?
619 2013-03-05 14:30:56 <CodeShark> or threaten you with prison?
620 2013-03-05 14:31:18 <MC1984> they cant confiscate your coins if youre doing it proprly
621 2013-03-05 14:31:20 <helo> CodeShark: bitcoin isn't designed to protect you from physical threats...
622 2013-03-05 14:31:36 <CodeShark> exactly, helo
623 2013-03-05 14:31:38 <MC1984> anyone can throw you in a cage though, nothing to do with bitcoin
624 2013-03-05 14:31:43 <Optimo> I like it better when people get miffed about the fact that a percentage of bitcoins are 'lost' forever
625 2013-03-05 14:31:51 <CodeShark> it's not even really designed to protect you from fraudsters, scammers, or hackers
626 2013-03-05 14:32:20 <CodeShark> but I digress :)
627 2013-03-05 14:32:54 <Optimo> I should spend to a bunch of future addresses that arent in use yet. anonymous gifting to the future folk
628 2013-03-05 14:33:00 <CodeShark> point is, amongst bitcoin's core design goals, "impossible to regulate" is not one of them
629 2013-03-05 14:33:38 <MC1984> Optimo you dont understand how big the address space is
630 2013-03-05 14:33:56 <CodeShark> 2^160? :)
631 2013-03-05 14:35:40 <CodeShark> even if you were to spend to one address per each grain of sand on earth, chances are still slim you would happen to hit upon an actual future address (unless a crappy random number generator is used)
632 2013-03-05 14:35:49 <MC1984> that number doesnt mean shit to most people
633 2013-03-05 14:36:03 <CodeShark> 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976
634 2013-03-05 14:36:19 <MC1984> i dont think anyone can comprehend what power of 160 really means
635 2013-03-05 14:37:59 <CodeShark> by some estimates, a 70kg human has 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in their body
636 2013-03-05 14:39:15 <CodeShark> we're talking 208,785,948,190,128,963,584 bitcoin addresses for each of the atoms in your body
637 2013-03-05 14:39:20 <CodeShark> lol
638 2013-03-05 14:39:29 <CodeShark> different addresses
639 2013-03-05 14:40:36 <CodeShark> 34,797,658,031 distinct bitcoin addresses for each atom of each person on earth
640 2013-03-05 14:41:16 <CodeShark> 2^160 is a HUGE number :)
641 2013-03-05 14:43:35 <MC1984> somone always ends up comparing it to the number of bed mites in every mattress in the universe or some shit
642 2013-03-05 14:43:46 <CodeShark> lol
643 2013-03-05 14:43:49 <MC1984> doesnt really help someone actually understand how big it is
644 2013-03-05 14:44:00 <MC1984> i dont think a human brain can
645 2013-03-05 14:45:03 <CodeShark> and yet, 160 bits is still considered relatively small in the realm of cryptography :)
646 2013-03-05 14:46:35 <helo> CodeShark: bitcoin's goal is to enable people to send money without having to rely on centralized financial entities
647 2013-03-05 14:46:55 <CodeShark> decentralization is certainly a core design goal
648 2013-03-05 14:47:06 <Scrat> helo: send/store
649 2013-03-05 14:47:15 <CodeShark> but decentralized does not imply impossible to regulate
650 2013-03-05 14:47:27 <helo> ":
651 2013-03-05 14:47:46 <CodeShark> we still have centralization at some level
652 2013-03-05 14:48:06 <CodeShark> whether it be at the exchanges or in paying taxes
653 2013-03-05 14:48:08 <helo> "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" that is all
654 2013-03-05 14:48:50 <CodeShark> yes, that is indeed a stated design goal
655 2013-03-05 15:11:00 <HM> the more i type 'pubkey' the more i think about becoming a landlord
656 2013-03-05 15:11:27 <HM> eh... publican even
657 2013-03-05 15:25:26 <Eliel_> CodeShark: don't worry, we'll sort out the centralization bugs given enough time.
658 2013-03-05 15:30:18 <HM> anyone know a SQLite database GUI that doesn't suck?
659 2013-03-05 15:30:31 <HM> I'm using Sqliteman but it keeps dropping AUTOINCREMENT
660 2013-03-05 16:17:54 <TD> hello
661 2013-03-05 16:18:02 <gavinandresen> howdy!
662 2013-03-05 16:19:12 <TD> this is an interesting paper. it describes an interesting kind of hash function that lets you do similar things to merkle trees, but without the need for log n extra hashes. it can do other things too.
663 2013-03-05 16:19:13 <TD> http://www.cs.stevens.edu/~mdemare/pubs/owa.pdf
664 2013-03-05 16:19:26 <TD> it's an "accumulating hash" where h(a,b,c) == h(a,c,b)
665 2013-03-05 16:27:20 <gmaxwell> TD: yea, but modexp.. not very fast.
666 2013-03-05 16:40:05 <jaakkos> sipa: i checked your blog entry about zfs-fuse. do you still use it or have you migrated to zfsonlinux?
667 2013-03-05 16:41:46 <sipa> jaakkos: my desktop machine still has that setup, but i haven't turned it on in about 2 years :p
668 2013-03-05 16:42:36 <HM> ah commutative hashing
669 2013-03-05 16:42:47 <jaakkos> ok
670 2013-03-05 16:53:17 <amiller> TD, i've been reading a lot about accumulators, one of the problems with the RSA accumulator is that the size of the representation grows with each addition, unlike a normal hash
671 2013-03-05 16:56:38 <freewil> did the path of bitcoin.conf change in 0.8 for testnet
672 2013-03-05 16:57:04 <sipa> no
673 2013-03-05 16:57:31 <freewil> so it still behaves the same, doesnt expect bitcoin.conf in datadir/testnet3/bitcoin.conf
674 2013-03-05 16:57:33 <freewil> ?
675 2013-03-05 16:59:53 <gmaxwell> freewil: testnet reads bitcoin.conf in datadir/ not datadir/testnet3
676 2013-03-05 17:00:06 <sipa> unless you explicitly specify a -datadir
677 2013-03-05 17:01:10 <freewil> i am specifying a datadir
678 2013-03-05 17:01:19 <freewil> trying to run a private testnet
679 2013-03-05 17:01:41 <sipa> in that case, the config in the exact directory you specify is used
680 2013-03-05 17:01:46 <sipa> iirc
681 2013-03-05 17:02:27 <freewil> seems like since upgrading to 0.8 my testnet-box is now connecting to the actual public testnet
682 2013-03-05 17:06:34 <freewil> https://github.com/freewil/bitcoin-testnet-box/blob/master/2/bitcoin.conf
683 2013-03-05 17:06:41 <freewil> https://github.com/freewil/bitcoin-testnet-box/blob/master/1/bitcoin.conf
684 2013-03-05 17:09:14 <freewil> is there a dns bootstrap for testnet?
685 2013-03-05 17:09:27 <freewil> i dont know how it is finding peers if irc=0
686 2013-03-05 17:09:44 <gavinandresen> Did "we" turn on a dns seed for testnet in 0.8? I can't remember...
687 2013-03-05 17:10:13 <gavinandresen> dnsseed=0 irc=0 is a good idea for testnet-in-a-box node. And remove peers.dat before starting.
688 2013-03-05 17:10:37 <gavinandresen> (that is, datadir /testnet3/peers.dat )
689 2013-03-05 17:11:19 <freewil> ah thanks gavinandresen
690 2013-03-05 17:11:29 <freewil> yeah adding dnsseed=0 fixed it
691 2013-03-05 17:12:39 <gavinandresen> I'll fix the testnet-in-a-box bitcoin.conf files
692 2013-03-05 17:21:45 <petertodd> gavinandresen: Yes, and both my testnet seeds have been getting a few hundred hits a day.
693 2013-03-05 17:22:37 <petertodd> Surpising actually; there are usually only about 20 to 30 testnet nodes online.
694 2013-03-05 17:23:46 <sipa> i'm getting around 2.5 DNS requests per second now
695 2013-03-05 17:24:17 <sipa> (mainnet, obviously)
696 2013-03-05 17:24:52 <petertodd> ...implies mainnet has ~400 times more node startups per day than testnet, which seems reasonable.
697 2013-03-05 17:25:01 <petertodd> Probably undercounting too, due to DNS caching.
698 2013-03-05 17:33:43 <sipa> actually, it's closer to 3.5
699 2013-03-05 17:34:35 <petertodd> sipa: that is kinda crazy though: so that's 302k nodes starting up per day, yet bitcoin only does 50k transactions per day
700 2013-03-05 17:35:20 <petertodd> basically if that's accurate most people run a node, yet do well under a tx per day, and that's just your seed too
701 2013-03-05 17:35:37 <gmaxwell> only takes one genus deciding to 'monitor bitcoin' by polling the seed to blow that figure up.
702 2013-03-05 17:35:38 <petertodd> I wonder it's android wallets syncing on startup...
703 2013-03-05 17:35:49 <gmaxwell> Though it makes sense??? I do less than a transaction per day.
704 2013-03-05 17:35:49 <petertodd> *if it's
705 2013-03-05 17:35:59 <petertodd> gmaxwell: same here
706 2013-03-05 17:36:55 <gwillen> petertodd: I almost never do a tx, but I started bitcoin-qt about 5 times yesterday
707 2013-03-05 17:37:07 <gwillen> and I will probabl do it more with 0.8.0, since it doesn't lag the shit out of everything when I start or stop it ;-)
708 2013-03-05 17:37:57 <sipa> petertodd: one client can result in 2 DNS queries (one NS and one A)
709 2013-03-05 17:38:25 <grau> would it not make sense to try last used peers before going to DNS?
710 2013-03-05 17:38:29 <petertodd> sipa: good point
711 2013-03-05 17:38:48 <petertodd> grau: That's what Bitcoin does IIRC
712 2013-03-05 17:39:16 <sipa> it always uses DNS, and the results are fed to the addr manager
713 2013-03-05 17:39:23 <grau> I mean a single peer found could provide further seed without hitting the DNS
714 2013-03-05 17:39:25 <sipa> and the addr manager is used to decide what to connect to
715 2013-03-05 17:39:30 <gmaxwell> It happens in parallel, which hids the latency.
716 2013-03-05 17:39:35 <gmaxwell> er hides*
717 2013-03-05 17:39:51 <petertodd> Ah, I'm corrected. Running DNS seeds is cheap, so that's probably pretty reasonable.
718 2013-03-05 17:40:31 <sipa> my seed is currently serving from a set of over 4000 IPs
719 2013-03-05 17:40:37 <BlueMatt> sipa: a dns query takes waaay more than 2 dns queries for 1 ns and 1 a
720 2013-03-05 17:40:49 <BlueMatt> in the max, in the minimum, its 1 a
721 2013-03-05 17:40:55 <sipa> BlueMatt: 2 DNS queries being _received_ by the seed :)
722 2013-03-05 17:41:07 <BlueMatt> well, for some of them
723 2013-03-05 17:41:15 <BlueMatt> mine+jgarzik's dont
724 2013-03-05 17:41:21 <sipa> hmm?
725 2013-03-05 17:41:27 <BlueMatt> both of ours are hosted
726 2013-03-05 17:41:27 <grau> I would offer to run a further DNS seed, but what is the process to get that into the code base?
727 2013-03-05 17:41:35 <sipa> BlueMatt: how is that relevant?
728 2013-03-05 17:41:51 <petertodd> grau: Cool, basically, just start running it, and add it
729 2013-03-05 17:42:01 <petertodd> grau: I'd suggest testnet myself, I'm the only one.
730 2013-03-05 17:42:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: well the ns just hits the tld registry, then the next request (the a) gets as, not a ns response
731 2013-03-05 17:42:24 <grau> where is the source?
732 2013-03-05 17:42:42 <gmaxwell> grau: You write your own of course. Otherwise we have a DNS seed monoculture. :P
733 2013-03-05 17:42:59 <grau> gmaxwell: point taken :)
734 2013-03-05 17:43:02 <BlueMatt> (with the added requirement that you are a reasonably trusted person in the bitcoin community)
735 2013-03-05 17:43:41 <petertodd> grau: https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin-seeder.git is my branch of sipas seeder, branch testnet has the testnet support
736 2013-03-05 17:43:49 <defunctzombie> what are the /blocks and /database folders for 0.8
737 2013-03-05 17:43:58 <defunctzombie> I only see documentation for /database on the wiki
738 2013-03-05 17:43:59 <BlueMatt> blocks and the database
739 2013-03-05 17:44:00 <gmaxwell> I don't know that we need more dns seeds right now though. Though I'm still sad we don't have a .nz seed.
740 2013-03-05 17:44:07 <sipa> defunctzombie: see doc/files.txt
741 2013-03-05 17:44:12 <defunctzombie> sipa: thank you
742 2013-03-05 17:44:14 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: why is .nz so special?
743 2013-03-05 17:44:31 <grau> ask kimdotcom to host one
744 2013-03-05 17:44:34 <defunctzombie> sipa: If I am running 0.8, can I delete the blocks files?
745 2013-03-05 17:44:50 <defunctzombie> only 0.8 has migrated all the stuff from 0.7?
746 2013-03-05 17:44:51 <sipa> defunctzombie: you can delete blk*, but nothing inside blocks
747 2013-03-05 17:44:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's not so special, but it has held up to political pressure to dork with names.
748 2013-03-05 17:44:56 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I could swing a .au seed...
749 2013-03-05 17:45:05 <sipa> defunctzombie: it's hardlinked though, so it won't save you much disk space
750 2013-03-05 17:45:28 <defunctzombie> sipa: gotcha
751 2013-03-05 17:45:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea...well it would be nice to have more than 1 dnsseed which wasnt hosted/dependent on the us to begin with...
752 2013-03-05 17:45:40 <sipa> defunctzombie: there's a contrib/tidy_datadit.sh script
753 2013-03-05 17:45:47 <defunctzombie> sipa: what will that do?
754 2013-03-05 17:45:57 <sipa> defunctzombie: tidy up your datadir :)
755 2013-03-05 17:46:05 <sipa> (delete obsolete files)
756 2013-03-05 17:46:17 <defunctzombie> sipa: cool
757 2013-03-05 17:47:55 <petertodd> BlueMatt: I could easily do a .ca seed too, in a non-hosted physical datacenter
758 2013-03-05 17:48:16 <petertodd> though .ca might as well be .us...
759 2013-03-05 17:50:42 <gavinandresen> are we running a dns seed on the devteam's server yet? It is in the netherlands....
760 2013-03-05 17:50:50 <BlueMatt> dont think so