1 2013-03-16 00:00:08 <gavinandresen> The mismatch between mining policy and client policy is just because I haven't had time to fix the client policy....
2 2013-03-16 00:03:05 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: de facto there is, due to relay policy
3 2013-03-16 00:03:32 <gavinandresen> true, relay policy needs to change...
4 2013-03-16 00:03:41 <jgarzik> gavinandresen: to permit more dust???
5 2013-03-16 00:04:25 <gavinandresen> no, dust should be non-standard and therefore not relayed: where dust == 1/10'th fee or something
6 2013-03-16 00:08:01 <ryan_> ^????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
7 2013-03-16 00:08:21 <Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: who's fee?
8 2013-03-16 00:09:00 <Luke-Jr> miners do not all use the same fee schedule, note
9 2013-03-16 00:25:12 <randy-waterhouse> bitcoin, the system, gets its feedback from the real world about hashpower via block solve times
10 2013-03-16 00:25:22 <randy-waterhouse> and makes difficulty adjustments
11 2013-03-16 00:26:05 <randy-waterhouse> right now there is no such feedback mechanism from the real world regards blockchain resources
12 2013-03-16 00:27:16 <randy-waterhouse> in regards to haspower it adjusts whether there are 50 guys on alaptop running miners or thousands of guys with asics/gpus
13 2013-03-16 00:27:41 <sipa> it doesn't make a difference either
14 2013-03-16 00:27:48 <randy-waterhouse> right
15 2013-03-16 00:28:04 <sipa> the blockchain cannot grow more or less easy whether there is little or much hashpower
16 2013-03-16 00:28:23 <randy-waterhouse> no the two are mostly unrelated
17 2013-03-16 00:28:31 <sipa> it can grow more easily when the computer systems of full validation nodes increase in power
18 2013-03-16 00:28:58 <randy-waterhouse> but it has no way of knowing if that is the case or not ... whereas with difficulty and solve times it does
19 2013-03-16 00:31:14 <randy-waterhouse> it needs another parameter fed into, analogous to solve time, but for blockchain resources available and adjust the incentive to add or decrease
20 2013-03-16 00:49:41 <jgarzik> It is disappointing that zero-txout transactions are not permitted
21 2013-03-16 00:49:49 <jgarzik> i.e. a "burn money, all fee" transaction
22 2013-03-16 00:50:14 <jgarzik> further, with zero-value outputs non-standard, that means you have to create change, in order to burn money
23 2013-03-16 00:50:15 <jgarzik> not optimal
24 2013-03-16 00:54:19 <jgarzik> (changing topics)
25 2013-03-16 00:54:25 <jgarzik> Interesting SD figures: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1515541#msg1515541
26 2013-03-16 00:54:43 <jgarzik> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1555528#msg1555528
27 2013-03-16 01:46:39 <Vinnie_win> sup
28 2013-03-16 01:47:13 <Vinnie_win> What did I miss, some juicy SatoshiDice gossip?
29 2013-03-16 02:19:02 <warren> jgarzik: the COIN_DUST and fee change achieves the same policy goal as my pollution tax suggestion. So bravo.
30 2013-03-16 02:19:16 <warren> jgarzik: I'm glad how simple your version is.
31 2013-03-16 02:20:16 <warren> oh wait, it isn't exactly ... an improvement though.
32 2013-03-16 03:44:01 <gritcoin> Is "The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions." on pg. 2 of the bitcoin paper a broad assertion or is it referring to bitcoin-esque systems only? Because it seems like a very strong assertion if the first.
33 2013-03-16 03:44:58 <andytoshi> gritcoin: this is true of any system, but is only really meaningful in the decentralized case
34 2013-03-16 03:47:49 <gritcoin> I guess it depends on the meaning of "be aware of"; because surely there are models in which the absence of a transaction can be determined by inspection of a sufficient subset of all transactions.
35 2013-03-16 03:48:17 <gritcoin> (if there is inter-transaction information dependency of the proper form)
36 2013-03-16 03:49:51 <andytoshi> gritcoin: a "sufficient subset" would have to be everything, if you didn't know anything about the missing transaction, no?
37 2013-03-16 03:50:48 <gritcoin> Well, if it is a transaction you care about the absence of, you know something about it, or you wouldn't care.
38 2013-03-16 03:53:39 <gritcoin> For instance in a system in which all units of currency were assigned unique prime identifiers, and every transaction with a given "coin" involved multiplying some master number by that id, the number of factors of that id in the master number that had accumulated would tell you the number of transactions that had occurred with that coin, which might be zero, and you could check that without knowing about any other transactions
39 2013-03-16 03:54:45 <gritcoin> (impractical system yes). Anyway it's not terribly important - just trying to think about the introductory matter in the paper more deeply. But probably drifting OT
40 2013-03-16 04:05:19 <jgarzik_> boy
41 2013-03-16 04:05:21 <jgarzik_> a flood of this,
42 2013-03-16 04:05:23 <jgarzik_> 2013-03-16 05:02:07 ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : inputs already spent
43 2013-03-16 04:05:23 <jgarzik_> 2013-03-16 05:02:07 Misbehaving: 173.170.142.26:8333 (0 -> 0)
44 2013-03-16 04:05:53 <jgarzik_> I wonder if we could get sipa's crawler to exclude addresses that have been noted as misbehaving
45 2013-03-16 05:05:07 <sam_> hi
46 2013-03-16 05:06:06 <sam_> i want to use bitcoin in my website it is asp.net c# but i dont how can i use that please help me :)
47 2013-03-16 05:11:20 <sam_> anybody is here can help me please
48 2013-03-16 05:15:43 <Eneerge> uhm okay
49 2013-03-16 05:15:49 <Eneerge> set up iis
50 2013-03-16 05:28:17 <midnightmagic> hah, cool. PrimeCoin(tm)
51 2013-03-16 05:31:07 <warren> good luck getting anyone to use your alt coin if you trademark it.
52 2013-03-16 05:43:45 <midnightmagic> warren: .. hm?
53 2013-03-16 05:44:21 <warren> I need to ban myself from IRC when I'm stressed out and tired.
54 2013-03-16 05:44:28 <warren> bb tomorrow
55 2013-03-16 05:58:34 <jgarzik_> Hrm. All cloudflare sites seem broken.
56 2013-03-16 05:58:47 <jgarzik_> ACTION bets it is IPv6, and sixxs<->cloudflare
57 2013-03-16 05:58:55 <jgarzik_> filtering out proxying, or whatnot
58 2013-03-16 06:10:16 <DeeBG> aloha all
59 2013-03-16 06:18:51 <_g> do i have to trust blockchain.info's wallet service, or is it all clientside js?
60 2013-03-16 06:22:51 <DeeBG> its clientside, the important stuff anyway
61 2013-03-16 06:23:10 <DeeBG> all based in your browser/cellphone
62 2013-03-16 06:25:33 <_g> DeeBG: thanks.
63 2013-03-16 06:27:04 <DeeBG> np
64 2013-03-16 06:27:04 <_g> another question i have, are there any SD like competitors that act as a mixing service? so that you can send them an output address but make similar types of "bets" that SD does?
65 2013-03-16 06:28:00 <DeeBG> The other services I have seen use only use a deposit/withdrawl method.
66 2013-03-16 06:30:02 <_g> DeeBG: that would be fine, really. if they had enough traffic it seems like that would be a relatively effective mixing service just by accident
67 2013-03-16 06:30:48 <_g> but i suppose thats really true for any service that holds bitcoin balances and is using bitcoind
68 2013-03-16 06:32:27 <DeeBG> heh yeah, although I don't think the big names would be effective for that purpose as they don't have consistant "instant raffles"
69 2013-03-16 06:32:54 <DeeBG> I don't know how sealswithclubs is setup but peerbet doesn't even use bitcoind
70 2013-03-16 08:02:39 <_g> do change addresses get conslidated automatically?
71 2013-03-16 08:04:53 <_g> that is, if i send 1 btc from address 1zx that has 1.5 btc and also send 1btc from 1zy that has 1.4 btc; does the .4 and .5 change get merged into a single address, ever, by bitcoind?
72 2013-03-16 09:51:54 <o-p> Is there any C/C++ code out there that returns the balance associated with an address or public key (not necessarily in wallet) by locally querying the blockchain (no internet connection)?
73 2013-03-16 09:52:06 <jouke> o-p: yes
74 2013-03-16 09:52:45 <jouke> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88584.0
75 2013-03-16 09:52:55 <flyingkiwiguy> gavinandresen: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts_mailing_list
76 2013-03-16 09:53:07 <o-p> Nice, I will look at it
77 2013-03-16 09:53:19 <o-p> thanks jouke
78 2013-03-16 10:42:55 <Xeno-Genesis> I'm sorry, I'd like to know what's the criteria for being banned from this channel
79 2013-03-16 10:43:27 <Xeno-Genesis> I found myself banned awhile ago for no apparent reason, except perhaps that I was connecting to Freenode through Mullvad VPN service
80 2013-03-16 10:44:44 <Xeno-Genesis> I must add that I was using SASL as well
81 2013-03-16 10:49:52 <Scrat> Xeno-Genesis: spammers/abusers
82 2013-03-16 10:50:26 <Scrat> sometimes a ban is wide enough to include legitimate users, in that case pm an op
83 2013-03-16 10:51:28 <iwilcox> That, plus you're Irish.
84 2013-03-16 10:51:44 <Xeno-Genesis> Scrat, thanks, I believe there may be abusers using Mullvad VPN, so I switched to Tor for connecting to IRC
85 2013-03-16 10:51:52 <Xeno-Genesis> iwilcox, I'm in Ireland, but I'm not Irish :)
86 2013-03-16 10:52:00 <iwilcox> Oh, heh
87 2013-03-16 10:52:20 <Scrat> mullvad is not banned
88 2013-03-16 10:52:22 <Scrat> [13:34] * Hashdog (~jan@nl4x.mullvad.net) has joined #bitcoin-dev
89 2013-03-16 10:52:35 <Xeno-Genesis> Scrat, that's pretty weird
90 2013-03-16 10:52:58 <Xeno-Genesis> I usually connect, I just got banned awhile ago
91 2013-03-16 10:54:45 <flyingkiwiguy> Eddy's in the space-time continuum, maybe?
92 2013-03-16 10:55:51 <Scrat> there are quite a few C class and isp wide bans in the banlist
93 2013-03-16 11:17:31 <bitnumus> can someone tell me why bitcoin-qt shows a grey box for the transfaction indicator ?.
94 2013-03-16 11:17:44 <bitnumus> i get this quite alot.
95 2013-03-16 11:17:45 <bitnumus> Status: 0/offline, has not been successfully broadcast yet
96 2013-03-16 11:17:52 <bitnumus> i have to restart the client
97 2013-03-16 11:19:24 <iwilcox> What does the debug log say about it?
98 2013-03-16 11:19:25 <Happzz> for the what?
99 2013-03-16 11:29:32 <zechiel> Are the criteria for unspendable outputs (dust) the same on testnet as on the main network?
100 2013-03-16 11:31:51 <bitnumus> iwilcox, what do you mean?
101 2013-03-16 11:32:02 <bitnumus> it happens quite alot
102 2013-03-16 11:32:09 <bitnumus> Status: 0/offline, has not been successfully broadcast yet
103 2013-03-16 11:32:16 <bitnumus> as soon as i restart client, it transmits
104 2013-03-16 11:32:55 <iwilcox> I mean if there's something stopping the tx send, the logfile will probably say why.
105 2013-03-16 11:33:05 <iwilcox> ~/.bitcoin/debug.log or wherever
106 2013-03-16 11:34:09 <bitnumus> Misbehaving:
107 2013-03-16 11:34:20 <bitnumus> ERROR: ProcessBlock() : already have block 220158 000000000000019620d778f3ca8ccd646ed618382d583a55421a61f8e024c362
108 2013-03-16 11:34:44 <bitnumus> looks like i have 1000s of these errors.
109 2013-03-16 11:36:46 <iwilcox> You might have one or two bad peers saved I guess.
110 2013-03-16 11:37:09 <iwilcox> I'd expect something explicitly about the send though; AIUI what you've pasted is about receiving.
111 2013-03-16 12:40:00 <chmod755> if there are two alerts with the same attributes and both are active - does the last incoming alert overwrite the error message?
112 2013-03-16 12:40:18 <flyingkiwiguy> good q chmod755
113 2013-03-16 12:40:35 <flyingkiwiguy> I was going to ask gavinandresen on alert persistance in general
114 2013-03-16 12:40:53 <chmod755> i'd like to see all active alerts for different versions
115 2013-03-16 12:41:04 <flyingkiwiguy> and why there was no alert for Monday's fun 'n' games
116 2013-03-16 12:41:31 <flyingkiwiguy> chmod755: does the Bitcoin protocal have a version?
117 2013-03-16 12:41:46 <flyingkiwiguy> ahh, v1, v2
118 2013-03-16 12:45:08 <chmod755> :o eCardOne is a Bitcoin Foundation member?
119 2013-03-16 12:53:02 <sturles> Why not?
120 2013-03-16 12:53:42 <chmod755> sturles, uhm it doesn't look like they're using bitcoin (so far?)
121 2013-03-16 12:54:34 <chmod755> oh wait
122 2013-03-16 12:54:46 <chmod755> 2013-02-19 Bitcoin
123 2013-03-16 12:54:46 <chmod755> eCardone supports Bitcoin. Revolutionary internet currency called Bitcoin is now available in your eCardOne account.
124 2013-03-16 12:54:48 <sturles> Thye have been using bitcoin for a month.
125 2013-03-16 12:55:01 <chmod755> didn't see it
126 2013-03-16 13:40:21 <Ogig> Hi guys. Anybody knows if it's technically possible to create a gpu opengl mining webpage?
127 2013-03-16 13:41:09 <HM2> https://www.khronos.org/webcl/
128 2013-03-16 13:49:47 <Ogig> Thanks HM2, but webcl implementation status is at a very early stage. No chances of making it with webgl alone? excuse if the question is stupid, i don't know how miners work exactly yet.
129 2013-03-16 13:50:08 <sipa> webgl is for drawing fancy 3d things
130 2013-03-16 13:52:37 <CodeShark> the kind of math required for 3D graphics doesn't easily translate to greater mining power :)
131 2013-03-16 13:52:50 <Ogig>
132 2013-03-16 13:52:51 <Luke-Jr> pretty sure someone made a WebGL miner once
133 2013-03-16 13:52:55 <CodeShark> lol
134 2013-03-16 13:53:21 <CodeShark> just as a nerd project? or is it actually useful?
135 2013-03-16 13:53:54 <sipa> can webgl even do integer math?
136 2013-03-16 13:54:00 <Ogig> i see. could be said that webgl and webcl are providing access to the same hardware but in a different way/for a different purpose?
137 2013-03-16 13:54:29 <CodeShark> javascript can't do integer math, sipa :p
138 2013-03-16 13:54:51 <HM2> the newer revisions of js have 32bit ints
139 2013-03-16 13:54:53 <HM2> i think
140 2013-03-16 13:54:55 <Ogig> yea
141 2013-03-16 13:55:05 <CodeShark> really, HM2?
142 2013-03-16 13:55:16 <CodeShark> JS is dynamically typed - how does that work?
143 2013-03-16 13:55:29 <CodeShark> I guess it's a runtime engine optimization
144 2013-03-16 13:55:32 <HM2> var magic = new Int32();
145 2013-03-16 13:55:32 <sipa> CodeShark: python is also dynamically typed
146 2013-03-16 13:55:35 <HM2> or some such thing
147 2013-03-16 13:55:37 <sipa> it can also do integer math...
148 2013-03-16 13:55:41 <HM2> my awareness is limited, i hate webdev
149 2013-03-16 13:55:45 <iwilcox> 16 bits should be enough for anybody.
150 2013-03-16 13:55:57 <sipa> hell, javascript has a ^ operator for XOR
151 2013-03-16 13:56:06 <sipa> how do you do that without integers?
152 2013-03-16 13:56:15 <Ogig> javascript wont be the limitation, that's for sure.
153 2013-03-16 13:56:18 <HM2> in any case, i'm pretty sure even older ecmascript specifies double precision, so you have +/- ~50 bits integer arithmetic
154 2013-03-16 13:56:22 <CodeShark> sipa: my understanding is that javascript converts floats to an internal int and then converts back to float
155 2013-03-16 13:56:28 <CodeShark> but perhaps I'm wrong
156 2013-03-16 13:56:46 <sipa> CodeShark: could be, but if that conversion is transparent, it doesn't matter right?
157 2013-03-16 13:56:53 <CodeShark> well, it matters for performance
158 2013-03-16 13:56:53 <sipa> semantically, it does integer math
159 2013-03-16 13:57:00 <sipa> i'm sure that gets optimized away
160 2013-03-16 13:57:14 <iwilcox> Ogig: You've got actual hardware, then the OS, then processes in general, then the browser, then the sandbox within the browser; at each level fewer and fewer resources are available to you, kind of on purpose. Mining really needs resources.
161 2013-03-16 13:57:14 <sipa> recent javascript engines even infer datatypes afaik
162 2013-03-16 13:57:49 <Ogig> iwilcox, yea, that sounds very reasonable, the browser is a hell of layers away
163 2013-03-16 13:57:55 <HM2> sipa: the js standard itself specifies that numerics in js are double precision floats
164 2013-03-16 13:58:05 <Ogig> still it sounds like a good idea to have a mining pool as easy to use as "connect to this webpage"
165 2013-03-16 13:58:05 <sipa> cool
166 2013-03-16 13:58:12 <sipa> well, stupid, actually
167 2013-03-16 13:58:16 <CodeShark> lol
168 2013-03-16 13:58:18 <sipa> but hey - it's for the web!
169 2013-03-16 13:58:28 <CodeShark> javascript is a funny language
170 2013-03-16 13:58:40 <HM2> it is stupid. scripting languages for the web should default to arbitrary precision ints imho
171 2013-03-16 13:58:41 <CodeShark> it has some really powerful deep stuff but a bunch of really stupid things
172 2013-03-16 13:58:54 <iwilcox> Ogig: Well, you can, for fun, but it'd be so inefficient as to be a massive net loss.
173 2013-03-16 13:59:04 <HM2> Lua is the same btw. no integer type -_-
174 2013-03-16 14:00:15 <CodeShark> javascript was developed to make it stupid simple to add clientside logic to webpages but evolved into a sophisticated prototypal language
175 2013-03-16 14:00:38 <iwilcox> *splutter*
176 2013-03-16 14:00:46 <CodeShark> so it kept a bunch of its idiotic things that make writing two-line scripts easy but 10,000 line programs hard
177 2013-03-16 14:01:01 <Ogig> iwilcox, then it wouldn't be that much fun ;) thanks for the input.
178 2013-03-16 14:01:57 <iwilcox> Ogig: You're welcome. Stay creative, though.
179 2013-03-16 14:02:06 <CodeShark> javascript is also probably one of the most stylistically abused languages
180 2013-03-16 14:02:47 <HM2> There's no joy like JS on the frontend, PHP on the backend and HTTP inbetween
181 2013-03-16 14:02:56 <iwilcox> Threesome!
182 2013-03-16 14:03:13 <CodeShark> JS is actually pretty powerful once you start thinking more like a LISP programmer and less like a C programmer :p
183 2013-03-16 14:03:36 <HM2> Lisp programmers are overrated
184 2013-03-16 14:03:37 <lianj> HM2: no joy like or no joy in
185 2013-03-16 14:03:51 <CodeShark> it's not about one being rated better than the other, HM2
186 2013-03-16 14:04:14 <CodeShark> it's just that javascript's sophisticated features bear little resemblance to C or classical OOLs like C++ and Java other than the superficial syntax
187 2013-03-16 14:04:34 <iwilcox> Written much LISP then, CodeShark?
188 2013-03-16 14:04:39 <CodeShark> no
189 2013-03-16 14:04:40 <HM2> sorry, i thought you were being a supremacist what with the whole "C programmer", "LISP programmer" tagging
190 2013-03-16 14:04:41 <CodeShark> lol
191 2013-03-16 14:04:56 <CodeShark> I'm much more at home in the "classical" OOP world, iwilcox
192 2013-03-16 14:05:23 <iwilcox> Me too, just that that old article by Paul Graham on "The LISP Advantage" has me interested.
193 2013-03-16 14:05:58 <HM2> anyone would think you can't do functional programming in C++
194 2013-03-16 14:06:07 <HM2> I hate a friend who keeps banging on about map and reduce
195 2013-03-16 14:06:25 <HM2> it's not like they are alien concepts in C++, they're std algorithms
196 2013-03-16 14:06:29 <iwilcox> Hate, have, or both, HM2?
197 2013-03-16 14:06:44 <HM2> lol, good typo
198 2013-03-16 14:07:22 <iwilcox> I'd recommend a read of http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html if/when you have time, HM2. Has me intrigued.
199 2013-03-16 14:07:30 <HM2> i've read it
200 2013-03-16 14:09:37 <iwilcox> It's the bit on macros that gets me.
201 2013-03-16 14:10:20 <CodeShark> I'm certainly NOT a LISP supremacist, HM2 :p
202 2013-03-16 14:10:25 <iwilcox> 25% of some bit of software using a feature I've never even learned about seems interesting.
203 2013-03-16 14:10:32 <CodeShark> I suck at LISP, actually
204 2013-03-16 14:10:40 <lianj> just sad that lots learned from lisp can't be used in other langs
205 2013-03-16 14:10:51 <HM2> iwilcox: yeah everyone bangs on about the power of lisp macros. but go find 5 practical examples of where they make your code more coherent and understandable
206 2013-03-16 14:11:06 <HM2> (or more performant, for that matter)
207 2013-03-16 14:11:21 <iwilcox> I doubt anyone uses Lisp where performance matters.
208 2013-03-16 14:12:23 <iwilcox> I guess if you use them every day they become more readable and expressive and practically useful.
209 2013-03-16 14:12:24 <CodeShark> it's easier to write code than to read it - and I think that applies even moreso to LISP than other languages :p
210 2013-03-16 14:12:46 <sipa> afk
211 2013-03-16 14:13:05 <rebroad> has bitcoind been modified now so that mining stops if a block can't be processed but isn't invalid?
212 2013-03-16 14:13:25 <CodeShark> if it can't be processed how can you tell it's valid?
213 2013-03-16 14:13:49 <rebroad> has bitcoind been modified now so that mining stops if a block can't be processed?
214 2013-03-16 14:14:06 <rebroad> (even if it might be valid)
215 2013-03-16 14:14:31 <rebroad> if it did this, the hard fork wouldn't have happened...
216 2013-03-16 14:14:54 <CodeShark> if it did that it would be possible to do denial of service attacks on miners
217 2013-03-16 14:15:13 <rebroad> that'd be better than a hard fork
218 2013-03-16 14:15:23 <CodeShark> erm, it wouldn't stop a fork
219 2013-03-16 14:15:39 <rebroad> it would stop the sort that happened a few days ago
220 2013-03-16 14:16:28 <rebroad> bitcoind shouldn't REJECT a block that's valid.. if it continues mining on a block previous to a valid block, it's effectively REJECTING that block
221 2013-03-16 14:16:56 <rebroad> it's better if it stops awaiting operator intervention
222 2013-03-16 14:17:18 <CodeShark> are you asking whether database exceptions should cause the miner to alert the user and stop mining? I would tend to agree
223 2013-03-16 14:17:26 <iwilcox> A distributed, heterogenous system is allowed to vary in opinion on what's valid. That's a good and a bad thing.
224 2013-03-16 14:17:26 <rebroad> at least, if you prefer less forks...
225 2013-03-16 14:17:53 <rebroad> CodeShark, ah, ok. so it seems we agree..
226 2013-03-16 14:18:01 <CodeShark> it depends on the type of error
227 2013-03-16 14:18:13 <rebroad> iwilcox, I agree
228 2013-03-16 14:18:57 <HM2> I've been thinking quite a bit about Bitcoin forks atm
229 2013-03-16 14:19:00 <CodeShark> in any case, the fundamental problem was not that bitcoind didn't stop mining - but that the database had a limit that was overlooked
230 2013-03-16 14:19:13 <rebroad> so... has this change been done, or are we at risk of more hardforks when database exceptions occur?
231 2013-03-16 14:19:54 <rebroad> CodeShark, what do you suggest as a solution to that?
232 2013-03-16 14:20:50 <iwilcox> Fix the newer version to not feed oversize blocks to old clients?
233 2013-03-16 14:21:00 <iwilcox> s/clients/peers/
234 2013-03-16 14:21:08 <iwilcox> Just guessing. Dunno what the actual plan is.
235 2013-03-16 14:21:09 <CodeShark> short-term, yes, iwilcox
236 2013-03-16 14:21:16 <lianj> CodeShark: if it did then the .8 chain had won and every version below .8 would be usable since then
237 2013-03-16 14:21:27 <CodeShark> long-term, make sure a supermajority of enduser/merchant nodes have upgraded to a version that is more permissive or has higher limits before pushing the version out to miners
238 2013-03-16 14:21:29 <lianj> s/version/installed version/
239 2013-03-16 14:21:29 <rebroad> iwilcox, huh? How will that stop a fork?
240 2013-03-16 14:21:47 <CodeShark> test more restrictive rules on miner nodes, more permissive ones on merchant/enduser nodes
241 2013-03-16 14:21:57 <iwilcox> rebroad: You can't outright prevent a fork. It's the nature of the network that it's allowed to fork.
242 2013-03-16 14:22:08 <rebroad> iwilcox, I know
243 2013-03-16 14:22:18 <rebroad> iwilcox, but you can code to reduce their likeliness
244 2013-03-16 14:22:46 <rebroad> my suggestion does that
245 2013-03-16 14:22:47 <CodeShark> also, cross-verify blocks on multiple versions
246 2013-03-16 14:23:08 <rebroad> CodeShark, cross-verify...?
247 2013-03-16 14:23:23 <rebroad> ah.. I get it.. nice idea..
248 2013-03-16 14:23:28 <gmaxwell> rebroad: what does "can't process" even mean?
249 2013-03-16 14:23:29 <CodeShark> well, make sure the block is valid on multiple versions before trying to mine it
250 2013-03-16 14:23:36 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: eligius does this already.
251 2013-03-16 14:23:45 <CodeShark> yes, I know, gmaxwell
252 2013-03-16 14:23:50 <rebroad> gmaxwell, it means unable to complete the necessary checks..
253 2013-03-16 14:23:58 <CodeShark> I seem to be one of the only people here who really takes his idea seriously :p
254 2013-03-16 14:24:24 <gmaxwell> rebroad: how do you distinguish unable to complete from failed? and if you can??? why not just fix it so it is able?
255 2013-03-16 14:24:32 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr and I had been talking about it well before the fork
256 2013-03-16 14:24:54 <rebroad> gmaxwell, they are the same thing in my semantics... only reject a block if it's invalid.
257 2013-03-16 14:25:01 <rebroad> gmaxwell, depends what you mean by failed
258 2013-03-16 14:25:10 <rebroad> gmaxwell, failed the test or failed to complete the test?
259 2013-03-16 14:26:03 <rebroad> if it fails the test it's invalid, if it fails to complete the test, it's unable to be processed and no further mining should occur
260 2013-03-16 14:26:38 <iwilcox> But that comes back to CodeShark's DoS point.
261 2013-03-16 14:26:46 <rebroad> I understand what I'm saying, but you do often seem to have trouble understanding me I'm saddened to observe, gmaxwell
262 2013-03-16 14:27:29 <rebroad> (or I have trouble being understood by you)
263 2013-03-16 14:28:52 <rebroad> ACTION is doing a 7 day detox at present which seems to be affecting his diplomacy skills...!
264 2013-03-16 14:28:54 <CodeShark> database exceptions should be better handled - but whether or not to stop mining should depend on the type of error
265 2013-03-16 14:29:19 <rebroad> CodeShark, of course...
266 2013-03-16 14:29:33 <Luke-Jr> rebroad: are you familiar with BIP 23 Proposals?
267 2013-03-16 14:29:53 <iwilcox> You can't tell whether you're in the wrong being unable to parse the block or they're in the wrong for sending you a bullshit bloc.
268 2013-03-16 14:29:56 <iwilcox> +k
269 2013-03-16 14:29:57 <rebroad> but I still maintain that a mining node certainly shouldn't mine on the non-latest block unless it's SURE it was invalid..
270 2013-03-16 14:30:14 <rebroad> Luke-Jr, no... I'll have a look.. thanks.
271 2013-03-16 14:30:17 <HM2> If there was a deliberate 50/50 hard fork it's likely atm that the majority of bitcoin businesses would side with the chain picked by the developers here
272 2013-03-16 14:30:56 <Luke-Jr> HM2: I disagree. Everyone would side with MtGox.
273 2013-03-16 14:31:03 <HM2> True
274 2013-03-16 14:31:17 <HM2> Do MtGox develop their own bitcoin software, or just exchange though?
275 2013-03-16 14:31:27 <RBecker> they're just an exchange
276 2013-03-16 14:31:32 <Luke-Jr> HM2: custom
277 2013-03-16 14:31:41 <Luke-Jr> HM2: not public code tho
278 2013-03-16 14:31:48 <HM2> Damn, shame
279 2013-03-16 14:31:51 <iwilcox> Written in Brainfuck
280 2013-03-16 14:32:19 <CodeShark> they have their own validation engine?
281 2013-03-16 14:32:22 <CodeShark> doubtful
282 2013-03-16 14:32:38 <rebroad> iwilcox, hmmmm..
283 2013-03-16 14:32:47 <rebroad> iwilcox, what do you mean by parse?
284 2013-03-16 14:32:51 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: no doubt it's based on QBitcoin Core
285 2013-03-16 14:33:06 <rebroad> iwilcox, if it's obviously junk it's invalid... I'm talking about errors such as errors in the processing of it.
286 2013-03-16 14:33:25 <rebroad> iwilcox, I know those sound very similar to each other..
287 2013-03-16 14:33:35 <iwilcox> No, I get that.
288 2013-03-16 14:33:39 <rebroad> iwilcox, but I don't think they are.
289 2013-03-16 14:33:47 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: you're newer here, but MagicalTux was a pretty active developer before getting tied up with MtGox work
290 2013-03-16 14:34:30 <rebroad> Luke-Jr, I thought about that (the siding with mtgox).. I don't agree though...
291 2013-03-16 14:34:41 <rebroad> or rather - it depends..
292 2013-03-16 14:35:07 <HM2> Well someone once said MtGox own the trademark "Bitcoin"
293 2013-03-16 14:35:24 <rebroad> mtgox should go into safe mode (I expect) if there's a longer fork than the one they're following..
294 2013-03-16 14:35:25 <iwilcox> I think they pursued trademarking in countries where it wasn't yet.
295 2013-03-16 14:35:32 <Luke-Jr> MagicalTux: btw, have you given any though to the immediate need of a hardfork yet?
296 2013-03-16 14:35:40 <rebroad> so they'd shut down their exchange... people siding with mtgox in that case would be irrelevant..
297 2013-03-16 14:35:43 <CodeShark> not saying they are incompetent at writing software, Luke-Jr...although it would be nice if they immediately showed me when my deposits are first seen (even if they are not available for trading until 6 confirms) :p
298 2013-03-16 14:36:11 <iwilcox> The order execution lag is really, really bad.
299 2013-03-16 14:36:15 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: just saying, MT had his own Bitcoin implementation even before MtGox :P
300 2013-03-16 14:36:29 <HM2> Bitpay are pretty powerful these days. Seem to be the merchant of choice
301 2013-03-16 14:36:34 <HM2> payment processor, whatever
302 2013-03-16 14:36:45 <Luke-Jr> HM2: yes, but I bet they use MtGox :p
303 2013-03-16 14:37:01 <rebroad> I think bitcoind also needs to enter a safer-mode if it sees another chain catching up with the current one...
304 2013-03-16 14:38:05 <HM2> rebroad: i floated the same idea more or less
305 2013-03-16 14:38:32 <HM2> as i'm sure others have
306 2013-03-16 14:38:34 <rebroad> this would have helped protect okpay from their double-spend
307 2013-03-16 14:38:52 <rebroad> (depending on the time it occured)
308 2013-03-16 14:40:05 <iwilcox> OK, all miners that can't judge a block valid on invalid (by their own criteria for valid) stop mining. What next?
309 2013-03-16 14:40:21 <iwilcox> s/on/or/
310 2013-03-16 14:41:44 <HM2> the overall length from tip->fork point of 2 parallel chains should be considered
311 2013-03-16 14:42:10 <rebroad> iwilcox, so it's decided then?!
312 2013-03-16 14:42:21 <HM2> clearly if you have 2 chains that are of lengths n and n+1 but they share ancestry 50 blocks ago you have a problem
313 2013-03-16 14:42:32 <MagicalTux> [00:35:00] <Luke-Jr> MagicalTux: btw, have you given any though to the immediate need of a hardfork yet? <- MtGox will side with decisions taken that are confirmed by Gavin, and that makes sense
314 2013-03-16 14:42:37 <rebroad> HM2, not so
315 2013-03-16 14:42:45 <iwilcox> rebroad: Heh, no, I'm nobody and that wasn't a decision :)
316 2013-03-16 14:42:47 <rebroad> n+2 maybe...
317 2013-03-16 14:43:07 <HM2> you don't think 2 chains that split 50 blocks ago but are the same length is a problem?
318 2013-03-16 14:43:18 <rebroad> n+1's occur whenever two miners find the same block. one is always orphaned
319 2013-03-16 14:43:44 <rebroad> ah, you meant "only 50 blocks ago"
320 2013-03-16 14:44:23 <rebroad> or rather "not until 50 blocks ago"
321 2013-03-16 14:44:35 <HM2> if people generally wait for 6 confirmations, then any 2 chains that split more than 6 blocks ago are potentially problematic, right?
322 2013-03-16 14:44:49 <rebroad> I'd say so yes
323 2013-03-16 14:44:53 <iwilcox> 6 is arbitrary
324 2013-03-16 14:44:54 <MagicalTux> HM2: our system will stop importing if a fork is too long until one is 6 blocks longer than the other, however if it doesn't happen after more than a defined number of blocks (we set it at 10), the system will fully halt and require someone to check
325 2013-03-16 14:45:06 <rebroad> iwilcox, yes.. I agree
326 2013-03-16 14:45:13 <rebroad> well, minimum of 6 maybe..
327 2013-03-16 14:45:14 <HM2> iwilcox: not entirely
328 2013-03-16 14:45:24 <rebroad> max(6, length of longest fork)
329 2013-03-16 14:45:54 <HM2> MagicalTux: "your system" = ?
330 2013-03-16 14:45:57 <rebroad> or something like that
331 2013-03-16 14:46:04 <MagicalTux> HM2: the bitcoin client in use for MtGox
332 2013-03-16 14:46:10 <HM2> oh cool beans
333 2013-03-16 14:46:57 <iwilcox> MagicalTux: Sorry if there's a MtGox support I should be asking, but why is order matching so slow, and what's the plan for speeding it up?
334 2013-03-16 14:47:21 <MagicalTux> iwilcox: are you reffering to the lag we had last week ?
335 2013-03-16 14:47:25 <MagicalTux> iwilcox: if so, it's been fixed
336 2013-03-16 14:47:51 <MagicalTux> (we are still aiming at making the trading engine faster than that, and will be switching to a better engine in a couple of monthsd)
337 2013-03-16 14:47:53 <iwilcox> I guess I'm referring to anything taking the lag over about 30s on a regular basis.
338 2013-03-16 14:48:30 <iwilcox> OK, thanks.
339 2013-03-16 14:48:49 <MagicalTux> there was no increase of lag of more than a couple of seconds since we did some changes last week
340 2013-03-16 14:49:19 <iwilcox> My bad then. It's something I've been meaning to start charting but haven't, so your more recent numbers are reassuring.
341 2013-03-16 14:49:50 <HM2> MagicalTux: does your system do best execution?
342 2013-03-16 14:49:57 <HM2> (i've never actually traded at mtgox)
343 2013-03-16 14:50:28 <rebroad> ahem... OT #mtgox for mtgox specific chat...?
344 2013-03-16 14:50:43 <HM2> lol sorry
345 2013-03-16 14:55:09 <rebroad> Luke-Jr, I looked at BIP23.. is it related to my suggestion to help reduce hard forks?
346 2013-03-16 14:56:00 <Luke-Jr> rebroad: the Block Proposals part
347 2013-03-16 14:56:34 <CodeShark> Luke-Jr: may I suggest adding to the motivations of BIP0023 the ability to detect early rule discrepancies between different versions?
348 2013-03-16 14:57:34 <CodeShark> it helps not only in the case of malicious entities trying to control too much of the network - but also in the case of stupid bugs :p
349 2013-03-16 14:58:50 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: feel free
350 2013-03-16 15:01:23 <CodeShark> if you ever needed the political capital to push this proposal forward, Luke-Jr, I think the march 11 event just gave it to you :)
351 2013-03-16 15:01:28 <[Tycho]> Hmm, sometimes I notice "In queue" status for tens of seconds.
352 2013-03-16 15:02:40 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: unless Gavin ends up reimbursing pools that lost blocks in the fork XD
353 2013-03-16 15:03:16 <Luke-Jr> [Tycho]: what's in queue?
354 2013-03-16 15:04:00 <[Tycho]> Luke-Jr: that's about MtGox delay.
355 2013-03-16 15:04:53 <ProfMac> MagicalTux, do you roll your own matching engine?
356 2013-03-16 15:23:07 <VoteGoat> What are you guys thoughts on the twitter bitcoin tipper?
357 2013-03-16 15:24:30 <aethero> Excellent idea they got from me.
358 2013-03-16 15:24:38 <aethero> ;-)
359 2013-03-16 15:24:57 <VoteGoat> lol
360 2013-03-16 15:25:18 <VoteGoat> What do you think about their charge of 1%?
361 2013-03-16 15:26:11 <aethero> Good idea.
362 2013-03-16 15:26:51 <warren> good luck anyone using it
363 2013-03-16 15:27:24 <VoteGoat> why do you say that?
364 2013-03-16 15:46:44 <rebroad> Do miners currently build upon blocks which have ignored all transactions?
365 2013-03-16 15:53:39 <sturles> Yes.
366 2013-03-16 17:05:18 <Ant0> hello
367 2013-03-16 17:05:50 <Happzz> [17:48] <+MagicalTux> there was no increase of lag of more than a couple of seconds since we did some changes last week
368 2013-03-16 17:05:52 <gribble> 0 seconds
369 2013-03-16 17:05:52 <Happzz> ;;goxlag
370 2013-03-16 17:06:02 <Happzz> was 100 secs just a moment ago
371 2013-03-16 17:06:19 <Ant0> I couldnt confirm this for sure right now... but I was getting on the blockchain iphone app about 0,087Xxxxx bitcoin. I have restarted now and it shows, 0,07XXXXX and the received small payment seems to be missing :S im going to update the bitcoin app to confirm
372 2013-03-16 17:06:38 <Ant0> the missing payment had about 9 confirmations or so
373 2013-03-16 17:28:43 <gmaxwell> rebroad: what I was trying to say earlier before I had to run was that the system should only consists of test which cannot fail to complete??? tests should return pass or fail and thats it. If you figure out one that could fail to complete you should fix so that it can't, not craft a response to that case.
374 2013-03-16 17:35:31 <amiller> is there something like a tutorial on making a bot/program/script that accepts bitcoins and does something
375 2013-03-16 17:35:40 <amiller> like setting up a shopping cart script is closely related i guess
376 2013-03-16 17:36:12 <amiller> ah i found a merchant howto on the wiki
377 2013-03-16 17:36:44 <vellest> amiller: hey, if you find that, please share!
378 2013-03-16 17:36:56 <amiller> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merchant_Howto#Automated
379 2013-03-16 17:37:40 <vellest> amiller: nah??? I've seen this already, I need something a bit more friendly, sort a step-by-step, my code is not strong
380 2013-03-16 17:39:59 <amiller> agreed... a step by step tutorial would be what i'd want
381 2013-03-16 19:00:18 <gavinandresen> tcatm BlueMatt : can one of you kick the code that copies to bitcoin.github.com ? I just committed a change that I need to go to bitcoin.org
382 2013-03-16 19:03:30 <etotheipi_> continuing the conversation from the other day about cleaning up dust: would it be reasonable for miners to do a "negative fee", where transactions that reduce the UTXO set substantially, the miner can add that source as an extra 0.005 BTC output of the coinbase transaction... or something like that?
383 2013-03-16 19:04:21 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: interesting idea! Yeah, that would work.
384 2013-03-16 19:04:30 <etotheipi_> it would really just be a merging of the two ideas talked about already: adjusting the fees for long term benefit
385 2013-03-16 19:05:08 <iwilcox> Don't we then end up with >21M BTC?
386 2013-03-16 19:05:22 <gavinandresen> no
387 2013-03-16 19:05:30 <etotheipi_> iwilcox: no, the miner would be paying the person out of the generation they would otherwise receive
388 2013-03-16 19:05:40 <etotheipi_> so the miner only gets 24.995
389 2013-03-16 19:05:52 <gavinandresen> it requires generous or public-spiritied miners
390 2013-03-16 19:05:58 <etotheipi_> it wouldn't be a network rule... it would be up to the miner to decide if that's worth it, or how to calibrate it
391 2013-03-16 19:06:00 <iwilcox> Ah.
392 2013-03-16 19:06:56 <etotheipi_> is it "generous"? you're just extending the getFee(tx) function into the negative range, too
393 2013-03-16 19:07:10 <etotheipi_> and apps/wallets could add that possibility to their optimization
394 2013-03-16 19:07:51 <etotheipi_> or rather, it could be viewed as a continuous function... just with a wider range than we have now
395 2013-03-16 19:07:56 <gavinandresen> a self-interested miner will keep all the fees/subsidy they can. Why would they do anything else?
396 2013-03-16 19:08:10 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: because they want people to clean up UTXOs
397 2013-03-16 19:08:26 <etotheipi_> and the users/wallets won't do it without incentive
398 2013-03-16 19:08:35 <etotheipi_> that makes all these "uneconomical" outputs, economical
399 2013-03-16 19:08:44 <gavinandresen> etotheipi_: mmm. that is the public-spirited part. Cleaning up UTXO benefits everybody???
400 2013-03-16 19:09:20 <gavinandresen> ??? but a purely short-term-self-interested miner can defect and just take all the fees/subsidy.
401 2013-03-16 19:10:10 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: sure... game theory suggests "I don't need to do this, someone else will"
402 2013-03-16 19:10:17 <gavinandresen> right
403 2013-03-16 19:10:34 <jrmithdobbs> etotheipi_: i think you underestimate how popular a patched version of any wallet software that removed that logic is going to be with certain people :(
404 2013-03-16 19:11:02 <etotheipi_> jrmithdobbs: this is just a thought experiment
405 2013-03-16 19:11:17 <etotheipi_> I didn't intend it to be forced on miners... but that some miners might consider it because they're "generous"
406 2013-03-16 19:11:30 <etotheipi_> and it benefits themselves (even if it also benefits everyone else)
407 2013-03-16 19:12:30 <gavinandresen> I like it as an idea??? I might even like it enough to write code to implement it.
408 2013-03-16 19:12:50 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: cool
409 2013-03-16 19:12:57 <etotheipi_> although I just thought of one "problem"
410 2013-03-16 19:13:06 <gavinandresen> I can imagine mining pools running it and advertising "We give 1% of fees back to the network to clean it up...."
411 2013-03-16 19:13:09 <etotheipi_> random person using a wallet, new to bitcoin
412 2013-03-16 19:13:20 <etotheipi_> sends a transaction, and suddenly they receive a small payment
413 2013-03-16 19:13:28 <etotheipi_> I guess the apps can be designed to recognize it and explain it
414 2013-03-16 19:13:46 <etotheipi_> thought it might be difficult to deconflict from a P2Pool tx, or something else non-standard
415 2013-03-16 19:13:55 <gavinandresen> oh, we can't roll out that feature before dust outputs are non-standard, or we'll just have people creating dust on purpose to try to get the reward
416 2013-03-16 19:14:14 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: I still think there's fee policies that would avoid that cobra effect
417 2013-03-16 19:14:19 <etotheipi_> I just haven't done the calculation yet
418 2013-03-16 19:24:16 <gavinandresen> Version 0.8.1 pull request; it won't be pulled into git HEAD, will be pulled onto a separate branch. But done as a pull request for review: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2373
419 2013-03-16 19:27:01 <denisx> gavinandresen: but if someone creates a block with 4501 txs all 0.8.1 clients are out and 0.7 still handles that?
420 2013-03-16 19:27:50 <gmaxwell> denisx: it's fine to _add_ restrictions, so long as a majority of hashpower agrees with them. (called a soft forking change)
421 2013-03-16 19:28:22 <denisx> gmaxwell: but what will be the majority in the future?
422 2013-03-16 19:28:53 <gavinandresen> we will get a majority of pools to implement the short-term fix.
423 2013-03-16 19:29:16 <denisx> gavinandresen: ah, ok. that makes sense
424 2013-03-16 19:29:20 <gavinandresen> we can be pretty sure what the majority is for the next two months
425 2013-03-16 19:33:42 <grau> did SD stop dusting or is blockchain.info no longer precise in that ?
426 2013-03-16 19:33:52 <grau> hi, by the way
427 2013-03-16 19:37:22 <gavinandresen> grau: I believe they increased the amount they send back on a losing bet, so they're not creating un-economic outputs.
428 2013-03-16 19:38:24 <grau> gavinandresen: I think it is even better than that. They first increased to 0.0005 or so , no I do not see small outputs at all
429 2013-03-16 19:38:34 <grau> s/no/now/
430 2013-03-16 19:39:36 <gavinandresen> maybe they decided their players trust them enough to know that "no transction back" == lost ??? I dunno, you could ask them.
431 2013-03-16 19:41:04 <grau> do no know Eric in person, but it seems that is the case.
432 2013-03-16 19:41:46 <etotheipi_> gavinandresen: I'm fairly certain that's not true
433 2013-03-16 19:42:04 <etotheipi_> it makes it tough to distinguish "delayed payout" vs "loss"
434 2013-03-16 19:42:38 <grau> There was however a worse dust disperser today 43f6ede123d10fd1581ae5ef2aa6ff7159e61b083934f75126d6d8a2ffdc11cf
435 2013-03-16 19:42:45 <etotheipi_> it would be totally be anti-Bitcoin, but having those tx propagate but not actually be mined solves all that, though we don't want the network to be used as a messaging system
436 2013-03-16 19:42:48 <grau> I hope this is not a new beginning
437 2013-03-16 19:43:42 <grau> 1041 new dust outputs in a single tx
438 2013-03-16 19:44:06 <etotheipi_> ew, 0.166 split into 1000 UTXOs
439 2013-03-16 19:44:48 <etotheipi_> perhaps one of the issues is not that "a transaction with dust requires 0.0005 fee", it is "each dust output should add 0.0005 fee"
440 2013-03-16 19:45:35 <grau> rather a tx with dust output not relayed at all, no matter if it has other outputs.
441 2013-03-16 19:46:17 <etotheipi_> grau, I don't think you can really say it shouldn't be relayed... there's still reasons for these transactions to go throuhg... the sender should pay a hefty fee for it, though
442 2013-03-16 19:47:19 <etotheipi_> it should require spending more per dust output than any dust output could be worth as BTC (but might be worth it as colored coins or something)...
443 2013-03-16 19:47:29 <grau> Ok, but then make that fee exponential in number of dust output per tx.
444 2013-03-16 19:48:18 <lianj> always thought fees only get popular when the reward is way down. sad to see it now already to fight spam. 0.0005 is 2 cents already
445 2013-03-16 19:48:56 <grau> etotheipi_ : even for colored coins you can scale them that no output is less than dust.
446 2013-03-16 19:49:37 <grau> etotheipi_: you could say a ticket is 100000 satoshi and not 1 satoshi
447 2013-03-16 20:09:50 <flyingkiwiguy> gavinandresen: are alerts persistent, or only posted in one block?
448 2013-03-16 20:10:45 <sipa> alerts are independent from blocks or transactions
449 2013-03-16 20:11:07 <flyingkiwiguy> so they are persistent until cancelled?
450 2013-03-16 20:11:18 <flyingkiwiguy> or cleared
451 2013-03-16 20:11:49 <lianj> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#alert see fields
452 2013-03-16 20:12:33 <fiesh> hmm, there was this discussion about using GMP recently... any chance this is a good alternative? http://www.ttmath.org
453 2013-03-16 20:12:37 <fiesh> purely template based
454 2013-03-16 20:12:49 <fiesh> and boost uses it, so I'd assume it's fairly high quality
455 2013-03-16 20:12:54 <fiesh> (or rather, boost can use it)
456 2013-03-16 20:13:17 <flyingkiwiguy> ty lianj, seems they are transient
457 2013-03-16 20:13:49 <crashoveride4> hey got a ?...I have v0.7.1-beta and my receive coin address's are all gone except for 1...so where did those addy's go?
458 2013-03-16 20:13:52 <sipa> they have a timeout
459 2013-03-16 20:13:55 <flyingkiwiguy> one possible issue is that they are in-band signalling
460 2013-03-16 20:16:26 <flyingkiwiguy> was there an intentional decision not to use the alert system for Monday's problem?
461 2013-03-16 20:17:08 <lianj> flyingkiwiguy: it was used
462 2013-03-16 20:18:54 <flyingkiwiguy> ok, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts needs updating
463 2013-03-16 20:20:35 <flyingkiwiguy> anyone have a log of alerts?
464 2013-03-16 20:25:43 <Hawkix> why is wallet tied to bitcoind even if that node just acts as transaction network node?
465 2013-03-16 20:25:54 <Hell304> Is it ok to use the 0.8 client for dealing with bitcoins?
466 2013-03-16 20:27:43 <sipa> Hell304: yes
467 2013-03-16 20:27:53 <sipa> Hawkix: historic reasons, mistly
468 2013-03-16 20:27:55 <sipa> mostly
469 2013-03-16 20:35:37 <randy-waterhouse> so is there any merit in the idea of making mintxfee a variable that gets set every 2016 (or XXX of blocks) based on calculation of how much demand there is for blockspace during the last period ... average blocksize or something similar?
470 2013-03-16 20:35:43 <flyingkiwiguy> ty sipa - how does this look - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts_mailing_list
471 2013-03-16 20:37:08 <gavinandresen> flyingkiwiguy: unless you're running a hacked bitcoind, you won't see all alerts because alerts are version-specific
472 2013-03-16 20:38:43 <gavinandresen> flyingkiwiguy: hacking bitcoind to show all alerts in getinfo should be pretty easy, though: just make CAlert::AppliesToMe() always return true.
473 2013-03-16 20:39:09 <Hawkix> With the future ultrapruning nodes, shouldn't be the fee based on the unpruned result, ie. on the storage space benefit/deficit of that transaction? So even big TX which will prune some data will get a "discount" on fee?
474 2013-03-16 20:40:18 <gavinandresen> Hawkix: you're going to make me dig up that "curious task" Hayek quote again....
475 2013-03-16 20:41:14 <randy-waterhouse> gavinandresen: it gives great heart to know that you know quotes of Hayek at all ...
476 2013-03-16 20:42:41 <randy-waterhouse> so how about closing the loop and letting the market "sort it out" ?
477 2013-03-16 20:43:37 <gavinandresen> randy-waterhouse: ?closing the loop? We're in the process of letting the market sort it out. And we'll ALWAYS be in that process...
478 2013-03-16 20:44:23 <randy-waterhouse> i.e. make mintxfee and paytxfee variables that get fed back into the system ... like difficulty is
479 2013-03-16 20:45:42 <gavinandresen> there is no paytxfee on the mining side, as of a couple releases ago. They just sort by fee, and take highest fee-per-kb first.
480 2013-03-16 20:46:08 <gavinandresen> There is a minfee, and I agree that should go away. "patches welcome"
481 2013-03-16 20:47:05 <gavinandresen> Client code needs to catch up, but that will happen: client developers get to compete to give their customers the best user experience with respect to fees. We're all doing a lousy job of that righ tnow.
482 2013-03-16 20:47:22 <randy-waterhouse> so no philosophical reasons why not ... ? (before spending time on analysis/coding)
483 2013-03-16 20:47:33 <gavinandresen> why not what?
484 2013-03-16 20:47:56 <randy-waterhouse> so is there any merit in the idea of making mintxfee a variable that gets set every 2016 (or XXX of blocks) based on calculation of how much demand there is for blockspace during the last period ... average blocksize or something similar?
485 2013-03-16 20:48:16 <gavinandresen> mintxfee for miners or clients?
486 2013-03-16 20:48:48 <gavinandresen> mintxfee for miners is just used so you can't send a 0.0000001 BTC fee and expect to be sorted in with the fee-paying transactions
487 2013-03-16 20:49:05 <randy-waterhouse> right
488 2013-03-16 20:49:51 <Hawkix> if the miners choose the fee, there must be some talkback to my client to say me "pay more" if the fee is insufficient, IMHO
489 2013-03-16 20:50:42 <MJR_> which miner hawkix?
490 2013-03-16 20:50:57 <MJR_> everyone gets the transaction
491 2013-03-16 20:51:53 <egecko> is there an API command to get market depth summary data rather than the actual depth list? in particular i am looking for a count of bidders vs sellers but i don't necessarily care about their actual ask/bid data (asked on #mtgox already, it's kinda dead over there today)
492 2013-03-16 20:51:54 <sipa> your transaction's effects are not only enforced by miners
493 2013-03-16 20:52:17 <Hawkix> MJR_: that miner who refused to include my TX in block
494 2013-03-16 20:52:51 <gavinandresen> ACTION is getting tired of the fee conversation repeating itself....
495 2013-03-16 20:56:14 <MJR_> Hawkix: two points...one) most miners will prob run the same settings, so you would get rejects from possibly 1000's of miners rejecting your order two) what do I care if one miner rejects the order UNLESS he is the miner who got the block
496 2013-03-16 20:58:37 <Hawkix> MJR_: so how could client hint user the fee .. without knowing the "situation at the market"? The *suggested* fee could be kinda voted consensus of the miners on the network .. automatically determined ..
497 2013-03-16 20:59:02 <Hawkix> (and apologize all if this was discussed before)
498 2013-03-16 21:02:00 <KipIngram> Are there any "installable" pool mining apps for Ubuntu (12.10)? Everything I've found online so far seems to require a complex installation process.