1 2013-03-25 00:00:31 <jgarzik> BTW,
2 2013-03-25 00:00:42 <jgarzik> Here is my public bitmessage address: git://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage.git
3 2013-03-25 00:00:48 <jgarzik> grrr
4 2013-03-25 00:00:52 <jgarzik> BM-BcePU5tPiRQyELax43BHV5X6xBN9KR7F
5 2013-03-25 00:01:15 <petertodd> sent
6 2013-03-25 00:01:22 <petertodd> jgarzik: sent
7 2013-03-25 00:04:37 <jgarzik> ACTION waits patiently for bitmessage to stop (and then be restarted). Wanted to log somewhere other than console. Now we are just spinning the NFS server like mad.
8 2013-03-25 00:06:04 <sipa1024> what did i miss?
9 2013-03-25 00:06:07 <jgarzik> petertodd: received
10 2013-03-25 00:06:13 <jgarzik> sipa1024: nothing yet
11 2013-03-25 00:06:22 <jgarzik> playing with bitmessage
12 2013-03-25 00:06:26 <sipa1024> ok
13 2013-03-25 00:06:55 <petertodd> jgarzik: cool, reply!
14 2013-03-25 00:07:18 <doublec> this is mine: BM-BbwusEFHr8ZndbShVXEsbGMbvQ2qBiSh
15 2013-03-25 00:08:26 <sipa> are we half-split?
16 2013-03-25 00:08:26 <sipa> eh
17 2013-03-25 00:08:26 <sipa> my alter ego just saw jgarzik say something
18 2013-03-25 00:08:41 <sipa1024> ha!
19 2013-03-25 00:08:46 <gmaxwell> omg. freenode is forking!
20 2013-03-25 00:09:04 <petertodd> shit, lets gets the pool ops in IRC stat!
21 2013-03-25 00:09:04 <sipa> 02:00:49 <@sipa> eh
22 2013-03-25 00:09:04 <sipa> 02:00:57 <@sipa> are we half-split?
23 2013-03-25 00:09:04 <sipa> 02:01:13 <@sipa> my alter ego just saw jgarzik say something
24 2013-03-25 00:09:12 <sipa> 02:07:46 <@sipa> are we half-split?
25 2013-03-25 00:09:12 <sipa> 02:07:46 <@sipa> eh
26 2013-03-25 00:09:12 <sipa> 02:07:47 <@sipa> my alter ego just saw jgarzik say something
27 2013-03-25 00:09:23 <sipa> ACTION is seeing flashes from the past
28 2013-03-25 00:09:36 <sipa> ACTION wonders whether it was the same cat
29 2013-03-25 00:10:26 <jgarzik> doublec: bitmessage address added :)
30 2013-03-25 00:10:52 <jgarzik> now bitmessage just needs IRC channels
31 2013-03-25 00:11:04 <jgarzik> though I'm not yet convinced I buy their scaling argument
32 2013-03-25 00:11:11 <petertodd> what is their scaling argument?
33 2013-03-25 00:11:12 <jgarzik> it does help hide traffic though
34 2013-03-25 00:11:12 <sipa> which is?
35 2013-03-25 00:11:35 <jgarzik> all nodes broadcast all messages. once a threshold is reached, break into separate streams.
36 2013-03-25 00:11:53 <petertodd> well, it's not crazy...
37 2013-03-25 00:12:00 <petertodd> what's the threshold?
38 2013-03-25 00:12:05 <petertodd> kinda DHT like...
39 2013-03-25 00:12:42 <gmaxwell> The idea is that the POW costs depends on the streams traffic I thought??? so the idea is that you move to smaller anonymity sets because its cheaper.
40 2013-03-25 00:13:03 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ah! I'll admit that's pretty clever.
41 2013-03-25 00:13:47 <gmaxwell> (though without a consensus algorithim to set the POW I dunno how thats actually implemented, perhaps just with priority queues)
42 2013-03-25 00:14:27 <gmaxwell> petertodd: well take care that I'm not accidentally inventing things for them, I read over their paper a while back and that how I understood it.
43 2013-03-25 00:14:44 <jgarzik> oh neat, they just added an API of some sort
44 2013-03-25 00:14:45 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Yeah, I should just read the source.
45 2013-03-25 00:14:45 <sipa1024> must have missed a part
46 2013-03-25 00:14:53 <jgarzik> so, bitmessage could be bot'ified
47 2013-03-25 00:15:07 <sipa1024> ACTION registers botmessage.org
48 2013-03-25 00:15:12 <doublec> the announcements on reddit.com/r/bitmessage tend to describe the new features
49 2013-03-25 00:15:25 <gmaxwell> Is there a reddit gatewaying bot yet?
50 2013-03-25 00:15:52 <jgarzik> https://bitmessage.org/wiki/API_Reference
51 2013-03-25 00:16:01 <gmaxwell> petertodd: some of the things I still don't understand, e.g. why they required a full round trip to send someone a message....
52 2013-03-25 00:16:34 <petertodd> gmaxwell: round trip could be what signals the nodes can delete the message from their databases
53 2013-03-25 00:17:03 <doublec> they need more than one round trip don't they? They need to first request the public key for the address.
54 2013-03-25 00:17:11 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you could have an ack even with a one way send.
55 2013-03-25 00:17:12 <doublec> once they get that they encrypt the message and send that
56 2013-03-25 00:17:15 <doublec> then get a response
57 2013-03-25 00:17:35 <gmaxwell> doublec: yea, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Just use the keys as the addresses. They're the ~same size.
58 2013-03-25 00:17:47 <sipa1024> bitmessage.org -> random page -> The Full Scoop on Dental Implants Learn More
59 2013-03-25 00:17:48 <doublec> if the recipient is offline at the time of the public key request you have to wait for them to go online before the pow can be done. it's a pain.
60 2013-03-25 00:18:34 <gmaxwell> doublec: yea, thats what I'm saying. Not just that, but it facilitates traffic analysis against the reciever. E.g. if I can see what nodes are online .... I send you a request for your key... and then repeat until I can tell what node you are.
61 2013-03-25 00:18:46 <gmaxwell> Any kind of "auto response" is really bad for hiding the user.
62 2013-03-25 00:18:51 <doublec> gmaxwell: right, we're in agreement :)
63 2013-03-25 00:19:07 <gmaxwell> If I whine at them at reddit will they notice?
64 2013-03-25 00:19:16 <doublec> gmaxwell: yes
65 2013-03-25 00:19:25 <doublec> gmaxwell: or you can whine on bitmessage
66 2013-03-25 00:19:30 <gmaxwell> ACTION begins the whining
67 2013-03-25 00:19:38 <gmaxwell> well, can't doesn't seem to work for me at the moment!
68 2013-03-25 00:19:40 <doublec> gmaxwell: there's an address for the dev and a 'general discussion' list on there
69 2013-03-25 00:19:43 <BlueMatt> sorry for the very extended hiatus, but pull-tester is back (Im lazy so Im just reverting the temporary rules for now...)
70 2013-03-25 00:19:47 <doublec> gmaxwell: delete knownnodes.dat
71 2013-03-25 00:20:02 <doublec> gmaxwell: anyother issue is it tries known addresses one by one, waiting for each to time out
72 2013-03-25 00:20:14 <doublec> gmaxwell: and takes *ages* if you have lots of addresses that aren't around anymore
73 2013-03-25 00:20:30 <sipa1024> ha, sounds familiar :)
74 2013-03-25 00:20:34 <gmaxwell> What kind of stupid system would do that!
75 2013-03-25 00:20:37 <doublec> gmaxwell: (in ~/.PyBitmessage)
76 2013-03-25 00:20:39 <sipa1024> we solved that by reducing the timeout :p
77 2013-03-25 00:20:45 <gmaxwell> 'solved'
78 2013-03-25 00:20:48 <doublec> hehe
79 2013-03-25 00:20:48 <gmaxwell> It still stinks on tor.
80 2013-03-25 00:21:15 <gmaxwell> amusingly: my laptop's HS node gets inbound connections faster than it gets an outbound up most of the time.
81 2013-03-25 00:21:15 <sipa1024> gmaxwell: yes, because it's 5s timeout to connect to tor, and then a 60s timeout to notice there's no activity :)
82 2013-03-25 00:23:30 <jgarzik> lockin update: v1:57 v2:943
83 2013-03-25 00:24:40 <sipa1024> ACTION hopes to wake up in a stable v2 block world
84 2013-03-25 00:24:40 <sipa1024> zZzZ!
85 2013-03-25 00:24:40 <sipa1024> zZzZ1
86 2013-03-25 00:24:54 <BlueMatt> sleep well
87 2013-03-25 00:25:10 <jgarzik> version 2
88 2013-03-25 00:25:11 <jgarzik> version 1
89 2013-03-25 00:25:11 <jgarzik> version 2
90 2013-03-25 00:25:13 <jgarzik> version 2
91 2013-03-25 00:25:15 <BlueMatt> ACTION goes to implement block v2 in bitcoinj....(yes it took me this long)
92 2013-03-25 00:25:15 <jgarzik> version 1
93 2013-03-25 00:25:42 <jgarzik> 5 blocks to go, before we knock another v1 block out of history
94 2013-03-25 00:27:00 <jgarzik> 34 blocks to go, before it is -possible- to kick 7 v1 blocks out of history
95 2013-03-25 00:27:53 <jgarzik> assuming all new blocks are v2... another 5.66 hours
96 2013-03-25 00:31:03 <remotemass> Excuse me, can you clarify me on what the capital C as first letter of naming usually means. I guess it is Creation. But could be Critical or something else. Can you pls clarify it?
97 2013-03-25 00:32:07 <gmaxwell> Class
98 2013-03-25 00:32:20 <remotemass> ok, thx
99 2013-03-25 00:37:06 <hasproblem> Hello! My bitcoin qt is not opening after 15+ minutes waiting. Checked error log, see errors. I assume this might be the place to ask for help. Thank you.
100 2013-03-25 00:37:21 <hasproblem> version 0.7
101 2013-03-25 00:37:41 <copumpkin> not very helpful without knowing what the errors are
102 2013-03-25 00:37:57 <hasproblem> one moment
103 2013-03-25 00:38:18 <copumpkin> not that I'm likely to be able to help, myself, but if you post details someone else might :)
104 2013-03-25 00:38:43 <hasproblem> currently at 24000 ms
105 2013-03-25 00:38:47 <hasproblem> for load time
106 2013-03-25 00:40:18 <hasproblem> ERROR: FetchInputs() : 9xxxxxx2 mempool Tx prev not found 8xxxxxxxxxx4 stored orphan tx 9xxxxxxx2 (mapsz 279) ERROR: FetchInputs() : 0xxxxxxb mempool Tx prev not found 2xxxxxxxa stored orphan tx 0xxxxxxxb (mapsz 280)
107 2013-03-25 00:40:19 <hasproblem> a lot of these
108 2013-03-25 00:40:37 <hasproblem> help anyone?
109 2013-03-25 00:41:28 <gmaxwell> hasproblem: those are not actual errors. They're normal when a node isn't synced up or has recently been started.
110 2013-03-25 00:41:28 <hasproblem> i just recently unzipped a compressed wallet inside the roaming appdata folder
111 2013-03-25 00:41:45 <hasproblem> okay
112 2013-03-25 00:41:49 <hasproblem> ill refresh my debug file
113 2013-03-25 00:42:35 <hasproblem> should i be looking at debug or db?
114 2013-03-25 00:42:47 <gmaxwell> debug.log
115 2013-03-25 00:43:03 <gmaxwell> hasproblem: are you sure its not up? maybe its minimized in your tray?
116 2013-03-25 00:43:22 <hasproblem> it has the small wallet icon
117 2013-03-25 00:43:25 <hasproblem> in the middle of the screen
118 2013-03-25 00:43:29 <hasproblem> that typically shows when loading
119 2013-03-25 00:43:37 <hasproblem> but it's been like that for 15 mins
120 2013-03-25 00:45:25 <hasproblem> Bitcoin version v0.7.0-beta (2012-09-12 14:07:22 -0400) Using OpenSSL version OpenSSL 1.0.1b 26 Apr 2012 Startup time: 03/25/13 01:27:15 Default data directory C:\\Users\\A\\AppData\\Roaming\\Bitcoin Used data directory C:\\Users\\A\\AppData\\Roaming\\Bitcoin Bound to [::]:8333 Bound to 0.0.0.0:8333 Loading block index... dbenv.open LogDir=C:\\Users\\A\\AppData\\Roaming\\Bitcoin\\database ErrorFile=C:\\Users\\A\\AppData\\Roaming\\Bitcoin\\db.log L
121 2013-03-25 00:46:11 <hasproblem> 0000006a0be4 height=219420 date=02/03/13 16:37:19 Verifying last 2500 blocks at level 1 block index 24368ms Loading wallet...
122 2013-03-25 00:46:30 <hasproblem> if the 24368ms refers to time spent loading
123 2013-03-25 00:46:38 <hasproblem> it's been saying that number for a while now
124 2013-03-25 00:46:53 <hasproblem> even with log refresh
125 2013-03-25 00:47:23 <hasproblem> i tried stopping it mid-load and restarting it once already
126 2013-03-25 00:49:56 <hasproblem> gmaxwell: i'll restart it
127 2013-03-25 01:21:45 <remotemass> Can anyone please explain a bit about 'Alert system', in alert.h and alert.cpp ?
128 2013-03-25 01:22:12 <gmaxwell> remotemass: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts
129 2013-03-25 01:23:06 <remotemass> cheers mate
130 2013-03-25 01:28:29 <hasproblem> @gmaxwell hello again, i restarted comp and tried again, and it's still hung up after nearly 30 mins
131 2013-03-25 01:31:10 <gmaxwell> hasproblem: you could try backing up your app data directory, and then moving the wallet and or blockchain out of the way.
132 2013-03-25 01:32:54 <hasproblem> gmaxwell: alright, ill try with a new wallet first
133 2013-03-25 01:37:01 <hasproblem> gmaxwell: ok, it loaded in less than a minute when i renamed wallet file something else
134 2013-03-25 01:37:12 <hasproblem> gmaxwell: so i guess my wallet is corrupted
135 2013-03-25 01:37:33 <hasproblem> only had a thousand dollars on there..
136 2013-03-25 01:38:30 <Jere_Jones> only...
137 2013-03-25 01:39:33 <gmaxwell> hasproblem: It's always recoverable.
138 2013-03-25 01:39:47 <gmaxwell> okay, so moving the wallet.dat out makes it startup?
139 2013-03-25 01:40:11 <hasproblem> yes
140 2013-03-25 01:40:25 <hasproblem> and the blockchain seems unaffected
141 2013-03-25 01:40:40 <hasproblem> i was 49 days behind before this started
142 2013-03-25 01:40:43 <hasproblem> and im 49 days behind now
143 2013-03-25 01:40:46 <hasproblem> slowly catching up
144 2013-03-25 01:41:37 <hasproblem> gmaxwell: all i had been doing was organizing some extraneous wallet folders
145 2013-03-25 01:41:56 <hasproblem> perhaps unzipping a 7z file inside the appdata folder is a problem?
146 2013-03-25 01:42:45 <PRab> Did we hit v2 at 95% yet?
147 2013-03-25 01:42:51 <keystroke> not yet
148 2013-03-25 01:43:02 <PRab> ETA?
149 2013-03-25 01:43:08 <keystroke> http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/top.php
150 2013-03-25 01:43:13 <keystroke> 94.3%
151 2013-03-25 01:44:12 <PRab> Oh, cool. Thanks for the link.
152 2013-03-25 01:44:32 <keystroke> np :)
153 2013-03-25 01:44:36 <keystroke> are you just curious?
154 2013-03-25 01:44:58 <keystroke> we should get to 95% at block 227951, unless more v1s come out
155 2013-03-25 01:45:22 <keystroke> it should happen in about 6 hours at the current rate
156 2013-03-25 01:45:29 <PRab> Yep, just wondering.
157 2013-03-25 01:45:41 <keystroke> cool, yea i am having fun following it
158 2013-03-25 01:45:55 <keystroke> dunno why but it is interesting... good test of the network upgrade strategy
159 2013-03-25 01:46:41 <PRab> Exactly. I can see this happening many more times in the future.
160 2013-03-25 02:17:08 <firstworld> could a 51% attacker (in theory) transfer coins out of any wallet? Or are they limited to double spends?
161 2013-03-25 02:18:54 <Ry4an_> limited to double spends. They'd still need the private keys for those accounts to make valid transactions that send from them
162 2013-03-25 02:19:00 <PRab> firstworld: No, a 51% attack cannot initiate the transfer of coins.
163 2013-03-25 02:20:00 <jgarzik> firstworld: what PRab said
164 2013-03-25 02:20:29 <Luke-Jr> 51% allows: double spending, blocking other miners from receiving blocks, and blocking arbitrary transactions from becoming confirmed
165 2013-03-25 02:20:34 <Luke-Jr> I *think* that's a complete list
166 2013-03-25 02:21:08 <Guest5039> Does double spending allow duplication of bitcoins, leading to infinite bitcoins?
167 2013-03-25 02:21:22 <doublec> a 51% could rewind the blockchain causing you to lose coins if they are based on coins created in a block that the 51%er invalidated
168 2013-03-25 02:22:00 <Luke-Jr> Guest5039: yes and no; they could spend it unlimited times if they hold 51% long enough, but only one recipient would end up with the coins
169 2013-03-25 02:22:10 <Luke-Jr> doublec: ah, that too
170 2013-03-25 02:22:22 <Guest5039> Luke-Jr: i see
171 2013-03-25 02:22:24 <PRab> Guest5039: No, even during a 51% attack there is only one longest blockchain.
172 2013-03-25 02:22:37 <PRab> Luke-Jr beat me.
173 2013-03-25 02:23:00 <Luke-Jr> also, while 51% makes it *possible*, it is still very expensive and time consuming for most attacks
174 2013-03-25 02:23:22 <Luke-Jr> the more over 51% they get, the faster/cheaper
175 2013-03-25 02:23:31 <Ry4an> And realistically when everyone notices the blockchain-rewinding-whiplash that's going on they'd stop accepting any coins pretty quickly. So the person would have the ability to re-spend something they'd just made worthless.
176 2013-03-25 02:23:49 <doublec> Ry4an: if they're mining offline you won't notice till too late
177 2013-03-25 02:23:49 <ryan-c> I think with 51% they still have to be somewhat lucky.
178 2013-03-25 02:24:14 <doublec> (for the invalidating past blocks issue. double spends I agree they'd be whiplash)
179 2013-03-25 02:24:23 <Ry4an> doublec: sure, but that trick would work once-ish is what I'm saying. They couldn't keep redoing it and respending the "same" coins.
180 2013-03-25 02:24:59 <gmaxwell> Ry4an: well they can because a lot of software is stupid because smart is hard and you're talking about corner case behavior that almost no sites will ever test.
181 2013-03-25 02:25:10 <Luke-Jr> ryan-c: with 51%, it's only a matter of time
182 2013-03-25 02:25:20 <Ry4an> makes sense.
183 2013-03-25 02:26:03 <gmaxwell> Sometimes the 'matter of time' could be very long.. e.g. to revert 2 years of constant-rate mining with 51% you'd need >20 years working in secret most likely.
184 2013-03-25 02:26:42 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: 20? I'd think more like 1.5
185 2013-03-25 02:27:01 <firstworld> thanks
186 2013-03-25 02:27:15 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: heck no, you'd need an expected 2 years just to catch up to the point you started from. (this is all assuming that hashrate is constant)
187 2013-03-25 02:27:32 <gmaxwell> (well 1% less than two years)
188 2013-03-25 02:27:41 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: considering hashrate was lower where you started..?
189 2013-03-25 02:27:47 <gmaxwell> Yes, in that case its easy.
190 2013-03-25 02:27:48 <firstworld> so it's like the box in Primer
191 2013-03-25 02:27:59 <Ry4an> heh, Primer :)
192 2013-03-25 02:28:07 <gmaxwell> firstworld: well, the box in prime IF hashrate is constant, though it hasn't been lately.
193 2013-03-25 02:28:44 <gmaxwell> So it's like if the boxes speed depended on power, and boxes were tending to get more powerful over time... and.. this analogy is failing.
194 2013-03-25 02:28:55 <firstworld> lol
195 2013-03-25 02:30:54 <gmaxwell> e.g. if our hashrate goes up 730x and you come in with get 51%, then you could revert the prior years history only takes about a day more computation than reverting only a day of history.
196 2013-03-25 02:31:29 <gmaxwell> but hashrate should eventually taper off to a constantish thing.... at least not the crazy increases we've seen from the introduction of mining asics.
197 2013-03-25 02:32:57 <Ry4an> Is there any well reasoned speculation as to what transaction fess will have to be once rewards are zero to keep the miners doing their thing?
198 2013-03-25 02:33:45 <Luke-Jr> Ry4an: I don't think so.
199 2013-03-25 02:33:45 <Ry4an> I guess it mostly depends on how much energy 1BTC buys in thirty years
200 2013-03-25 02:34:01 <Luke-Jr> 30?
201 2013-03-25 02:34:13 <Ry4an> whatever the taper-to-zero time horizon is.
202 2013-03-25 02:34:15 <Luke-Jr> subsidy doesn't reach zero for over another century :P
203 2013-03-25 02:35:17 <Ry4an> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#How_long_will_it_take_to_generate_all_the_coins.3F really?
204 2013-03-25 02:35:30 <Ry4an> ah! I missed 100 :)
205 2013-03-25 02:36:22 <warren> Luke-Jr: we could use an educational video that explains all this
206 2013-03-25 02:36:36 <Luke-Jr> warren: have fun!
207 2013-03-25 02:36:41 <Luke-Jr> (I don't do video production)
208 2013-03-25 02:36:44 <warren> me neither
209 2013-03-25 02:36:56 <warren> Luke-Jr: it's just the devs explain this over and over again
210 2013-03-25 02:37:20 <warren> seems like something the foundation should do
211 2013-03-25 02:37:22 <Luke-Jr> maybe a FAQ entry, "what can a 51% attack do?"
212 2013-03-25 02:37:25 <gmaxwell> 20:33 < Ry4an> I guess it mostly depends on how much energy 1BTC buys in thirty years
213 2013-03-25 02:37:29 <gmaxwell> why does it depend on that?
214 2013-03-25 02:38:00 <gmaxwell> (I think you're making a price follows hashrate fallicy sort of error there, but I'm interested in knowing why you think it)
215 2013-03-25 02:39:20 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: It bugs me that people say 51% attack, as if the 1 matters. :P I've been saying "(near) majority" highlighting that its not the number 51 that matters, it's the majority??? and the fact that a near majority can do it too.. just with lower than 1 success probablity.
216 2013-03-25 02:39:20 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: seems obvious to me.. if 1 BTC pays for the electricity required to mine 1 block, it's sufficient
217 2013-03-25 02:39:34 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: sure but how much electricity is required to mine one block?
218 2013-03-25 02:39:52 <Luke-Jr> that's another factor :p
219 2013-03-25 02:40:04 <gmaxwell> the minimum difficulty is 1??? my watch will be able to handle 10 blocks a minute at diff 1 in a few years. :P
220 2013-03-25 02:40:41 <gmaxwell> I kinda wonder why satoshi didn't make the difficulty only ratchet one way... except for stalling attacks early on.
221 2013-03-25 02:41:40 <doublec> gmaxwell: yeah good point. btcguild isn't at 51% for example but has had 6+ blocks in a row so could double-spend if they were evil.
222 2013-03-25 02:41:42 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: lack of confidence in his own system
223 2013-03-25 02:42:14 <doublec> hopefully people would notice a 6 block reorg
224 2013-03-25 02:43:18 <gmaxwell> one whole leg of the blocksize concern stuff would have been slain if difficulty ratched only up. :(
225 2013-03-25 02:43:45 <gmaxwell> doublec: yea, the bitcoin paper even gives you the code for figuring out the returns...
226 2013-03-25 02:44:19 <firstworld> how could you mine continuously at difficulty 1 without the difficulty adjusting?
227 2013-03-25 02:44:22 <gmaxwell> One of the bummer things about bitcoin is that once the fees are large relative to the subsidy it starts getting attractive to optimize mining to reorg to steal fees.
228 2013-03-25 02:44:29 <firstworld> wouldn't it autoadjust after 2048 blocks or whatever?
229 2013-03-25 02:45:20 <gmaxwell> firstworld: the point there is that there is no specific "energy required to create a block" it's potentially as low as difficulty 1.
230 2013-03-25 02:45:37 <firstworld> right, I thought we were still talking about 51% attacks, my bad
231 2013-03-25 02:46:18 <gmaxwell> It's already more profitable now on some blocks to try to reorg out the last instead of move forward.
232 2013-03-25 02:46:42 <firstworld> how so?
233 2013-03-25 02:49:07 <gmaxwell> firstworld: because sometimes the (coinbase in the last block + extra fees you can stuff in now) * the probablity you'll lose > coinbase in this block
234 2013-03-25 02:50:42 <doublec> oh, there's the so called "time travel" exploit a 51%er could do too - was that ever addressed in bitcoin?
235 2013-03-25 02:51:24 <doublec> most of the alt coins patched it but it's a hard fork fix I think so they were able to do it from the start
236 2013-03-25 02:56:40 <Luke-Jr> doublec: sadly, we didn't take advantage of the upcoming hardfork
237 2013-03-25 02:56:51 <Luke-Jr> at all really
238 2013-03-25 02:57:46 <gmaxwell> doublec: we haven't. It's possible to fix it in a softer way, so that would be preferable.
239 2013-03-25 03:12:21 <gmaxwell> "Building bitcoin as root can cause /dev/null to be removed on some systems" lol
240 2013-03-25 03:16:42 <doublec> gmaxwell: bitmessage dev replied to your query about addresses btw
241 2013-03-25 03:18:36 <gmaxwell> I saw. But I don't buy it.
242 2013-03-25 03:18:49 <gmaxwell> It's not clear to me why they need to use seperate keys for signing and encryption.
243 2013-03-25 03:38:33 <ryan-c> gmaxwell: There have been cryptographic attacks on systems that reused keys for signing and encryption. Even in absence of known attacks it is considered prudent to use different keys.
244 2013-03-25 03:40:02 <gmaxwell> ryan-c: I'm aware of that but ECC is not RSA.
245 2013-03-25 03:41:18 <gmaxwell> if someone is to apply the precautionary principle without a concrete reason, you might then argue that they should be using three distinct asymetric schemes in parallel, just in case. :)
246 2013-03-25 03:41:48 <gmaxwell> And this isn't free here: the round trip required undermines the primary security objective of their system.
247 2013-03-25 03:42:07 <gmaxwell> (immunity to traffic analysis, which they accomplish via flooding)
248 2013-03-25 03:43:19 <doublec> gmaxwell: might be a carry over from when they used rsa
249 2013-03-25 03:46:30 <CodeShar_> 4 more v1 blocks to evict. the sequence is now 3, 10, 14, *18*, 39, 42, 48, 59
250 2013-03-25 03:46:41 <keystroke> sequence?
251 2013-03-25 03:46:51 <keystroke> 39 blocks left hopefully
252 2013-03-25 03:46:59 <keystroke> oh sorry i see
253 2013-03-25 03:47:02 <CodeShar_> yes, 3 more blocks until we get rid of the first, then 10 until we get of the second, etc...
254 2013-03-25 03:47:14 <CodeShar_> I mean 10 (so 3 + 7)
255 2013-03-25 03:47:19 <keystroke> We are currently at 55 out of the latest 1000 blocks on version 1 (5.50%) and 945 out of the latest 1000 blocks on version 2 (94.50%)
256 2013-03-25 03:47:29 <keystroke> perhaps that page doesn't update fast enough?
257 2013-03-25 03:47:46 <CodeShar_> does that site account for block 227912?
258 2013-03-25 03:47:51 <keystroke> we will have to have someone mine a test v1 block
259 2013-03-25 03:48:21 <warren> keystroke: at this rate, we'll see the post-95% rejections naturally
260 2013-03-25 03:48:33 <keystroke> oh they are only at 902
261 2013-03-25 03:48:37 <gmaxwell> woah, avalon switching to difficulty based pricing
262 2013-03-25 03:48:57 <warren> makes sense, now that they've proven it is real.
263 2013-03-25 03:49:01 <keystroke> warren: yes i guess we will just see the orphan
264 2013-03-25 03:49:06 <gmaxwell> The price of each unit is the current mining difficulty which at the time of writing, just got readjusted to about 6,695,826. We take that number and multiply it by two ( predicting the network speed will double. ) and calculate the return in a thirty day window, which is about 75 bitcoins. See this site for more details.
265 2013-03-25 03:49:18 <keystroke> wow
266 2013-03-25 03:49:19 <keystroke> very nice
267 2013-03-25 03:49:29 <aceat64> is bitpay down for anyone else?
268 2013-03-25 03:50:04 <warren> The batch #2 buyers had good timing.
269 2013-03-25 03:50:32 <aceat64> never mind, my browser is being stupid
270 2013-03-25 04:02:35 <nanotube> seems their difficulty prediction is pretty conservative... considering that we're on track for another 50% increase. ,,diffchange
271 2013-03-25 04:02:36 <gribble> Estimated percent change in difficulty this period | 5.60279 % based on data since last change | 15.62573 % based on data for last three days
272 2013-03-25 04:02:46 <nanotube> ok, maybe not 50%
273 2013-03-25 04:02:47 <nanotube> heh
274 2013-03-25 04:17:15 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
275 2013-03-25 04:17:16 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
276 2013-03-25 04:17:26 <Guest5039> I can vouch for this man
277 2013-03-25 04:17:30 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
278 2013-03-25 04:17:31 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
279 2013-03-25 04:17:32 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
280 2013-03-25 04:17:41 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
281 2013-03-25 04:17:42 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
282 2013-03-25 04:17:43 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
283 2013-03-25 04:18:09 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
284 2013-03-25 04:18:45 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
285 2013-03-25 04:18:48 <geagherhre> http://redd.it/1ayie0 buy 50bitcoin free 2 bitcoin only$1199
286 2013-03-25 04:19:10 <gmaxwell> @#$#@$@# chanserv. stupid @#$#@$()#@ scammer. die die die
287 2013-03-25 04:19:58 <aceat64> I can't believe people would fall for that
288 2013-03-25 04:20:10 <gmaxwell> especially not in #bitcoin-dev
289 2013-03-25 04:20:20 <aceat64> at least one would hope
290 2013-03-25 04:20:20 <MC1984_> that shit is getting out of hand
291 2013-03-25 04:20:46 <gmaxwell> but I think that scammers actually don't engage in strategy. Instead the scammer factory just puts out randomly wired scammers, and some surirve .. others starve.
292 2013-03-25 04:20:51 <aceat64> could always got +r
293 2013-03-25 04:20:53 <aceat64> go*
294 2013-03-25 04:21:00 <MC1984_> ok bitcoin.exe 266mb
295 2013-03-25 04:21:04 <gmaxwell> What we're seeing here is an unfit species of scammer who will soon be extinct.
296 2013-03-25 04:21:09 <aceat64> lol
297 2013-03-25 04:21:10 <MC1984_> "commit charge" 880mb of 100
298 2013-03-25 04:21:50 <MC1984_> bitcoin.exe gone, commit charge is now 450
299 2013-03-25 04:21:53 <doublec> heh, my pools last found block was in the top 50 highest hashes
300 2013-03-25 04:22:30 <doublec> or is that lowest hashes
301 2013-03-25 04:22:53 <MC1984_> is that what they call a memory leak?
302 2013-03-25 04:23:44 <aceat64> I plan on doing a bitcoin class in the next few weeks at our hackerspace, any interest in me filming it and putting it up somewhere?
303 2013-03-25 04:36:53 <CodeShark> 3 more v1 blocks to evict. the sequence is now 5, 9, *13*, 34, 37, 43
304 2013-03-25 04:37:22 <jgarzik> v1:53 v2:947
305 2013-03-25 04:38:09 <jgarzik> 14 blocks to go
306 2013-03-25 04:38:14 <jgarzik> presuming no more v1
307 2013-03-25 04:39:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: RE scammers... ROI
308 2013-03-25 04:39:30 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: flooding stupid URLs might not snare anyone in this channel... but it's cheap and might find its way into web crawlers and other secondary targets that live longer
309 2013-03-25 04:39:48 <gmaxwell> yea, but #bitcoin-dev has to have negative ROI. It's cheap to post here, but they'll get nothing and might convince one of us to hunt them down and ... write bots to automatically ban them.
310 2013-03-25 04:39:59 <gmaxwell> hm secondary targets is a point.
311 2013-03-25 04:40:15 <gmaxwell> ACTION goes to get their URL taken down.
312 2013-03-25 04:41:31 <CodeShark> jgarzik, isn't it 13 to go?
313 2013-03-25 04:41:54 <jgarzik> CodeShark: I counted 14 including the last v1 block to be superceded
314 2013-03-25 04:42:10 <CodeShark> v1_blockheight - (lastheight-1000)
315 2013-03-25 04:42:54 <nanotube> aceat64: can't hurt. especially if it's good. :)
316 2013-03-25 04:43:10 <CodeShark> 226930 - (227917-1000) = 13. now it's 12
317 2013-03-25 04:43:17 <aceat64> nanotube: that's a big "if" lol
318 2013-03-25 04:43:23 <CodeShark> since lastheight is 227918
319 2013-03-25 04:43:35 <nanotube> aceat64: well, you won't know til you try :)
320 2013-03-25 04:43:43 <jgarzik> CodeShark: My script records the last N block nVersions, and then the earliest X are counted up to and including the third v1 block
321 2013-03-25 04:43:55 <jgarzik> N=1000
322 2013-03-25 04:44:19 <CodeShark> I'm just doing SET @i=0; SELECT @i := @i+1, `height`-(@b-1000) FROM `blocks` WHERE `in_main_chain` = 1 AND `version` = 1 AND `height` > (@b-1000) ORDER BY `height` LIMIT 20;
323 2013-03-25 04:44:29 <CodeShark> where @b is the last block height
324 2013-03-25 04:45:28 <jgarzik> 13 now, as of height 227918
325 2013-03-25 04:46:42 <keystroke> block 227931 is it?
326 2013-03-25 04:47:36 <aceat64> weeeeee
327 2013-03-25 04:48:05 <CodeShark> say 2 was the last block height and 1 was the lowest height v1 block that needed to be kicked out of the top 2 spots. you need one more block to do it since blocks 2 and 3 will be the top 2 spots, kicking out 1
328 2013-03-25 04:48:21 <CodeShark> so I think my formula is correct
329 2013-03-25 04:48:51 <keystroke> so 12 left?
330 2013-03-25 04:48:54 <keystroke> 930?
331 2013-03-25 04:49:00 <CodeShark> that's my calculation, keystroke
332 2013-03-25 04:49:07 <keystroke> i think that makes sense
333 2013-03-25 04:49:58 <CodeShark> 11 now :)
334 2013-03-25 04:50:02 <keystroke> 11
335 2013-03-25 04:50:03 <keystroke> yes haha
336 2013-03-25 04:50:18 <keystroke> 3, 7, 11
337 2013-03-25 04:50:22 <aceat64> sorry, I'm just getting back into bitcoin after 2 years out, what's all this talk of v1/v2 blocks?
338 2013-03-25 04:50:40 <CodeShark> but from 11 it jumps to 32
339 2013-03-25 04:50:49 <CodeShark> so there still could be someone that spoils the party :p
340 2013-03-25 04:50:52 <keystroke> yea
341 2013-03-25 04:50:59 <keystroke> let the betting begin :P
342 2013-03-25 04:51:07 <keystroke> the blocks are verisoned now, it is a soft fork
343 2013-03-25 04:51:22 <keystroke> and a test of the network upgrade consensus mechanism
344 2013-03-25 04:52:14 <aceat64> ahh, cool
345 2013-03-25 04:52:47 <aceat64> so are you gauging the potential for a fork due to old nodes?
346 2013-03-25 04:53:08 <keystroke> i believe it can't fork because they don't have the speed to keep up
347 2013-03-25 04:53:14 <keystroke> there could be some orphans generated by them
348 2013-03-25 04:53:30 <aceat64> that's the price you pay for not sticking with concensus though
349 2013-03-25 04:53:31 <nanotube> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154521.0 <- aceat64
350 2013-03-25 04:53:33 <keystroke> the upgrade takes place when 95% of the last 1000 blocks ar at v2
351 2013-03-25 04:53:37 <keystroke> are
352 2013-03-25 04:53:49 <aceat64> nanotube: thanks :)
353 2013-03-25 04:53:55 <keystroke> amazing how fast it has happened actually
354 2013-03-25 04:57:01 <CodeShark> 10 now :)
355 2013-03-25 04:57:09 <EvilPete> there's no way that the couple of percent of v1 nodes can sustain a fork. They have to make nearly 2000 more blocks at 6 million difficulty to get a difficulty adjustment.
356 2013-03-25 04:57:09 <keystroke> :D
357 2013-03-25 04:57:38 <keystroke> yea it is not possible
358 2013-03-25 04:57:55 <EvilPete> besides, v2 blocks are acceptable to v1 nodes anyway
359 2013-03-25 04:57:56 <CodeShark> someone could still force us to wait for more than 30 blocks, though :)
360 2013-03-25 04:57:57 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: they won't even try, they'll keep building blocks as stubs on the v2 majority.
361 2013-03-25 04:57:57 <keystroke> now we can switch the ECDSA curve :P
362 2013-03-25 04:58:04 <aceat64> makes sense, since the old nodes still accept the new blocks they'll see the main chain as valid and longer
363 2013-03-25 04:58:04 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: because this change is not a hardfork.
364 2013-03-25 04:58:09 <aceat64> so they can't form their own v1 only fork
365 2013-03-25 04:58:37 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: yeah, the v1/v2 thing is soft, while the may15 is hard
366 2013-03-25 04:58:42 <gmaxwell> keystroke: why? SIPA's code is now in vaguely the same speed class as the ed25519 stuff. The only downside is that it lacks batch validation.
367 2013-03-25 04:58:55 <aceat64> keystroke: is there actually a proposal in play to switch to ECDSA?
368 2013-03-25 04:58:57 <keystroke> oh i was sort of kidding gmaxwell
369 2013-03-25 04:59:07 <aceat64> wouldn't that fuck all the ASIC stuff right now?
370 2013-03-25 04:59:13 <keystroke> it is already ECDSA but there is an alternate more widely used curve
371 2013-03-25 04:59:21 <keystroke> no ASIC is just for the sha256 hash, not signature validation
372 2013-03-25 04:59:27 <aceat64> ahh gotcha
373 2013-03-25 04:59:40 <aceat64> I stopped following bitcoin when GPU was first starting to show up
374 2013-03-25 04:59:46 <aceat64> I have a lot to catch up on
375 2013-03-25 05:00:02 <keystroke> but i think the other curve might be more widely used and thus have more eyes checking it for security... if that is a true concern i don't know
376 2013-03-25 05:00:06 <EvilPete> also, damn it, I wish I had about 40 more btc on hand.
377 2013-03-25 05:00:14 <keystroke> why EvilPete?
378 2013-03-25 05:00:19 <keystroke> sounds like you are catching up pretty quick aceat64 :)
379 2013-03-25 05:01:07 <EvilPete> keystroke: because I don't have enough left of my cheap btc and it looks like avalon's going to be 75 in a few hours.
380 2013-03-25 05:01:14 <aceat64> I should have stuck with my gut and stayed in, looks like you guys have had a lot of fun
381 2013-03-25 05:01:47 <aceat64> interestingly enough, #bitcoin-dev is how I found out about hackerspaces, I've spent the last 2 years running one, only to get back into bitcoin
382 2013-03-25 05:01:53 <keystroke> what have they cost previously EvilPete?
383 2013-03-25 05:02:01 <keystroke> oh neat aceat64, where?
384 2013-03-25 05:02:06 <aceat64> Dallas, TX
385 2013-03-25 05:02:15 <aceat64> we're the Dallas Makerspace
386 2013-03-25 05:02:18 <keystroke> cool
387 2013-03-25 05:03:05 <keystroke> yea this is a great channel for learning new things
388 2013-03-25 05:03:59 <EvilPete> keystroke: and no way I can think of to quickly convert usd -> btc at this point. batch 1 $1299, batch 2 $1499, batch 3 75 btc.
389 2013-03-25 05:04:49 <keystroke> over $5k usd
390 2013-03-25 05:05:04 <EvilPete> CodeShark: do we need 950/1000 or greater than 950/1000?
391 2013-03-25 05:05:09 <keystroke> i haven't followed the avalon progress much since i have ASICMINER shares
392 2013-03-25 05:05:11 <CodeShark> 950/1000
393 2013-03-25 05:05:25 <CodeShark> exactly, if I understand BIP0034 correctly
394 2013-03-25 05:05:35 <EvilPete> yeah but what does the code say? :)
395 2013-03-25 05:05:39 <EvilPete> never mind the text
396 2013-03-25 05:05:40 <keystroke> haha
397 2013-03-25 05:06:05 <aceat64> I'm really tempted to buy into avalon's asic
398 2013-03-25 05:06:23 <aceat64> I've got 12u of colo space just sitting empty right now, would be the perfect place for a rig
399 2013-03-25 05:06:39 <aceat64> since I pay a flat rate for the 20a circuit
400 2013-03-25 05:06:41 <gonffen> EvilPete: localbitcoins.com?
401 2013-03-25 05:06:44 <EvilPete> aceat64: I have the space, power and cash just not enough btc on hand.
402 2013-03-25 05:07:01 <EvilPete> gonffen: yeah, contacting friends now but that's the last resort I guess
403 2013-03-25 05:07:09 <keystroke> how many watts does it draw and what is the hash rate?
404 2013-03-25 05:07:25 <EvilPete> they have a 650W PSU and 60GH
405 2013-03-25 05:07:26 <gonffen> EvilPete: good luck. both in getting coin and with ROI.
406 2013-03-25 05:08:00 <gonffen> I wonder why they're only making 600
407 2013-03-25 05:08:06 <keystroke> with the difficulty skyrocket the ROI might get pretty tight...
408 2013-03-25 05:08:13 <keystroke> ASICMINER has 50 Thash coming online in april
409 2013-03-25 05:08:32 <EvilPete> gonffen: I have 40btc on hand that cost me practically nothing so I woudln't be entirely out of pocket if it tanks. its more a case of 40btc wasted.
410 2013-03-25 05:09:08 <keystroke> 9 more blocks now
411 2013-03-25 05:09:19 <keystroke> 1, 5, 9
412 2013-03-25 05:09:26 <CodeShark> EvilPete: if ((!fTestNet && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, 950, 1000)) ...
413 2013-03-25 05:09:33 <gonffen> EvilPete: it's true but that currently has a value around 2.8k. Just keep to your guns ;)
414 2013-03-25 05:09:37 <nanotube> EvilPete: opportunity cost is a cost nevertheless. :)
415 2013-03-25 05:09:59 <EvilPete> bool CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(int minVersion, const CBlockIndex* pstart, unsigned int nRequired, unsigned int nToCheck)
416 2013-03-25 05:10:03 <EvilPete> return (nFound >= nRequired);
417 2013-03-25 05:10:03 <gonffen> in other words, don't lose your head.
418 2013-03-25 05:10:22 <EvilPete> gonffen: exactly
419 2013-03-25 05:10:39 <gonffen> you seem to have this figured out
420 2013-03-25 05:10:46 <gonffen> I'd probably be feeling a bit squirrely if I were you
421 2013-03-25 05:11:14 <keystroke> how much would 60ghash generate per day?
422 2013-03-25 05:11:38 <keystroke> ???4.51\t?
423 2013-03-25 05:11:39 <nanotube> ;;genrate 60000
424 2013-03-25 05:11:40 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 60000.0 Mhps, given difficulty of 6695826.2826, is 4.50644770523 BTC per day and 0.187768654385 BTC per hour.
425 2013-03-25 05:11:47 <keystroke> thx :)
426 2013-03-25 05:11:49 <keystroke> yea
427 2013-03-25 05:12:01 <nanotube> an avalon is more like 67gh, 70 if a bit OCd. but close enough.
428 2013-03-25 05:12:03 <EvilPete> so yeah, if you could get one today...
429 2013-03-25 05:12:17 <aceat64> keystroke: if they are bringing 50 THASH online, isn't that kind of determental to the community, seeing as that's more then double the network?
430 2013-03-25 05:12:17 <nanotube> and yea, by the time you get your batch3, diff could be in the sky.
431 2013-03-25 05:12:23 <EvilPete> in 2 weeks it'll be 10 mil, in 3 it'll be 15 mil
432 2013-03-25 05:12:39 <EvilPete> err 4 weeks it'll be 15+
433 2013-03-25 05:12:44 <keystroke> aceat64: that is a good point.. but people will be bringing on other hashing power at the same time hopefully
434 2013-03-25 05:13:07 <keystroke> the hashrate is 48.46 at the moment though
435 2013-03-25 05:13:08 <EvilPete> so probably more like 1btc/day at delivery
436 2013-03-25 05:13:15 <keystroke> Thash that is... of course
437 2013-03-25 05:13:24 <keystroke> yea they need to guarantee a delivery date
438 2013-03-25 05:13:27 <EvilPete> and it'll take a while to pay for that
439 2013-03-25 05:13:46 <gonffen> only 75 days :S
440 2013-03-25 05:13:50 <aceat64> I think I'll go for the avalon
441 2013-03-25 05:13:53 <CodeShark> 8 more to go :)
442 2013-03-25 05:14:00 <CodeShark> 4, 8, 29, 32
443 2013-03-25 05:14:01 <EvilPete> the question is whether you care about btc->$usd or not.
444 2013-03-25 05:14:10 <keystroke> i mined with GPU for so long.. the fans started to get annoying.. plus it was 106 degrees in once in my place.. broke the a/c so many times
445 2013-03-25 05:14:16 <keystroke> so it would be fun to run an asic but...
446 2013-03-25 05:14:17 <aceat64> worst case scenario I think it'll pay off eventually, and I've got 75 btc that I mined from 2 years ago
447 2013-03-25 05:14:27 <keystroke> CodeShark: :)
448 2013-03-25 05:14:51 <CodeShark> I got into bitcoin way too late for mining to be interesting - and was reluctant to buy an ASIC from shady people
449 2013-03-25 05:15:03 <aceat64> I remember mining blocks on dual P3s
450 2013-03-25 05:15:06 <aceat64> lol
451 2013-03-25 05:15:11 <keystroke> haha yea
452 2013-03-25 05:15:16 <keystroke> those were the days
453 2013-03-25 05:15:24 <aceat64> now I've got a dual quad that can't do shit
454 2013-03-25 05:15:37 <keystroke> when people could mine two blocks in a minute if they got lucky
455 2013-03-25 05:15:42 <CodeShark> my dual quad couldn't do shit since the first day I got into bitcoin
456 2013-03-25 05:15:43 <aceat64> I cashed out 2500 BTC at $0.10 USD
457 2013-03-25 05:15:44 <CodeShark> :p
458 2013-03-25 05:15:50 <aceat64> should have listened to my gut
459 2013-03-25 05:15:59 <aceat64> but I was broke and the money looked so good
460 2013-03-25 05:15:59 <keystroke> haha ouch
461 2013-03-25 05:16:12 <keystroke> but without you there would be no market now
462 2013-03-25 05:16:15 <keystroke> that stuff had to happen
463 2013-03-25 05:16:19 <aceat64> yup
464 2013-03-25 05:16:19 <EvilPete> I got some btc from a friend who got 20k btc for something like $20. and damn, I can't get hold of him to see what he has left :)
465 2013-03-25 05:16:44 <keystroke> EvilPete: surely they have internet on tropical islands?
466 2013-03-25 05:17:07 <CodeShark> I'm jealous of you guys who actually got to solo mine bitcoin on a CPU
467 2013-03-25 05:17:11 <aceat64> who knows, in a few years we might look at ~$70 USD/BTC and think "wow, I remember when it was that cheap"
468 2013-03-25 05:17:15 <CodeShark> I'll never get that experience :(
469 2013-03-25 05:17:17 <EvilPete> keystroke: no, he cashed most out
470 2013-03-25 05:17:27 <keystroke> ahh ok EvilPete
471 2013-03-25 05:17:45 <keystroke> don't worry, everyone kicks themselves wishing they mined more or did not cash out during the cheaper prices
472 2013-03-25 05:18:03 <CodeShark> oh, I kick myself for neither of those :)
473 2013-03-25 05:18:16 <CodeShark> I've still come out ahead, even if not as much as I could have
474 2013-03-25 05:18:36 <EvilPete> I watched the effects of the last avalon buy. The exchanges were being ddos'ed.. and avalon was cashing out btc.. ever noticed that there's not much depth? lots of btc coming into circulation could tank the exchange rates
475 2013-03-25 05:18:40 <CodeShark> I just would like the experience of solo mining a block on a CPU
476 2013-03-25 05:19:01 <keystroke> haha yes
477 2013-03-25 05:19:05 <keystroke> now that would feel amazing
478 2013-03-25 05:19:36 <keystroke> harder than winning the lottery :P
479 2013-03-25 05:19:49 <CodeShark> the closest I'll ever come is a testnet block :(
480 2013-03-25 05:19:55 <CodeShark> I've mined a few of those
481 2013-03-25 05:19:59 <keystroke> how is testnet diff set?
482 2013-03-25 05:20:03 <keystroke> 7 left
483 2013-03-25 05:20:20 <keystroke> 3 7 28 31
484 2013-03-25 05:20:54 <keystroke> EvilPete: yea the exchange lag has to be fixed...
485 2013-03-25 05:21:21 <CodeShark> keystoke: if no block is found in 20 minutes, the difficulty goes back to minimum
486 2013-03-25 05:21:52 <keystroke> nice
487 2013-03-25 05:22:00 <gmaxwell> well, after 20 minutes a block can be mined at mininim difficulty.
488 2013-03-25 05:22:10 <CodeShark> my quad cores were able to churn out a couple blocks in a few hours
489 2013-03-25 05:22:17 <gmaxwell> It doesn't stay back at the minimum except when a special minimum block happens before a retarget.
490 2013-03-25 05:22:21 <CodeShark> and that's the closest I'll ever come to mining bitcoin solo
491 2013-03-25 05:22:30 <CodeShark> sad :(
492 2013-03-25 05:22:50 <keystroke> special minimum block?
493 2013-03-25 05:22:54 <keystroke> so are there multiple testnets?
494 2013-03-25 05:23:05 <gmaxwell> not really.
495 2013-03-25 05:23:07 <aceat64> CodeShark: just make your own completely incompatible network :)
496 2013-03-25 05:23:16 <keystroke> ive seen reference to a few in the forums... recently when reading about time warp i think, but i could be mistaken
497 2013-03-25 05:23:26 <keystroke> haha aceat64
498 2013-03-25 05:23:32 <CodeShark> 2, 6, 27, 30
499 2013-03-25 05:23:53 <keystroke> btc guild seems to be pretty lucky
500 2013-03-25 05:23:53 <MC-Droid> what are those numbers
501 2013-03-25 05:24:01 <CodeShark> M
502 2013-03-25 05:24:16 <CodeShark> MC-Droid: there are two more v1 blocks in the last 1000
503 2013-03-25 05:24:26 <keystroke> guess the next number in the sequence MC-Droid
504 2013-03-25 05:24:29 <CodeShark> er, 52
505 2013-03-25 05:24:36 <CodeShark> 52 more v1 blocks in the last 1000
506 2013-03-25 05:24:46 <CodeShark> after 2 more blocks, there will only be 51 v1 blocks
507 2013-03-25 05:24:50 <CodeShark> after 6, only 50
508 2013-03-25 05:24:58 <CodeShark> after 27, only 49
509 2013-03-25 05:24:59 <CodeShark> etc...
510 2013-03-25 05:25:28 <MC-Droid> buh
511 2013-03-25 05:25:30 <CodeShark> so if there are no more v1 blocks in the next 6 blocks, we reach 95%
512 2013-03-25 05:25:43 <CodeShark> if there is one, we have to wait 27 more
513 2013-03-25 05:25:58 <CodeShark> 27 from now, that is
514 2013-03-25 05:26:51 <keystroke> not long now
515 2013-03-25 05:29:47 <EvilPete> keystroke: btcguild is lucky because of http://bitcoinchain.com/#start=1364108400&end=1364194200
516 2013-03-25 05:31:43 <keystroke> yea asicminer is running through them
517 2013-03-25 05:32:09 <MC1984_> isnt there a simple countdown cos im too tired to understand that
518 2013-03-25 05:32:23 <keystroke> just wait until block 227930
519 2013-03-25 05:32:24 <MC1984_> 930/1000 whatever
520 2013-03-25 05:32:29 <keystroke> unless a v1 is mined
521 2013-03-25 05:32:36 <EvilPete> Is there any plan to sell just the ASIC themselves and let others build their own units?
522 2013-03-25 05:32:37 <EvilPete> Yes, if you are interested and are ready to purchase 10,000 chips or more. ( the 65Gh/s unit has 240 chips. ) Please contact init.d (at) bitsyn.com for more information.
523 2013-03-25 05:32:41 <EvilPete> hah
524 2013-03-25 05:32:43 <keystroke> hahaha
525 2013-03-25 05:32:46 <jgarzik> heh
526 2013-03-25 05:32:53 <keystroke> oh i only needed 8000 chips
527 2013-03-25 05:32:55 <keystroke> too bad
528 2013-03-25 05:32:59 <keystroke> :P
529 2013-03-25 05:33:03 <jgarzik> On the topic of esoteric, out-of-band ways of distributing blocks,
530 2013-03-25 05:33:09 <jgarzik> someone should be posting them to Usenet
531 2013-03-25 05:33:16 <EvilPete> maybe that's the delay at BFL... waiting for Avalon chips?
532 2013-03-25 05:33:22 <keystroke> what was this satellite block download i noticed?
533 2013-03-25 05:33:24 <jgarzik> alt.binaries.bitcoin.blockchain :)
534 2013-03-25 05:33:35 <jgarzik> keystroke: we do need sat...
535 2013-03-25 05:33:40 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: "I have detected that usenet is not yet spammed to death. This is unacceptable. How can I fix this?"
536 2013-03-25 05:33:45 <EvilPete> jgarzik: not as silly as it might sound
537 2013-03-25 05:33:47 <keystroke> how would that work?
538 2013-03-25 05:33:53 <keystroke> haha gmaxwell
539 2013-03-25 05:33:59 <keystroke> Blockchain over satellite receiver (peak average block chain datarate 14kbit/sec, sat bandwidth isn't that expensive)
540 2013-03-25 05:34:06 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: Usenet has devolved into a binary distribution network :)
541 2013-03-25 05:34:07 <gmaxwell> keystroke: it's pretty easy to rent capacity on existing sat transponders.
542 2013-03-25 05:34:13 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: just echoing its current use
543 2013-03-25 05:34:15 <EvilPete> blockchain on usenet wouldn't make a blip in the traffic
544 2013-03-25 05:34:21 <keystroke> ahhh so broadcast it from satellite always, like GPS?
545 2013-03-25 05:34:33 <jgarzik> keystroke: yep
546 2013-03-25 05:34:38 <keystroke> that would be *awesome*
547 2013-03-25 05:34:49 <keystroke> how would it sync old blocks though?
548 2013-03-25 05:34:53 <gmaxwell> if you're willing to accept an old cband channel (e.g. big dish rx) I already priced this out and more than enough bandwidth would only cost on the order of $100/mo
549 2013-03-25 05:35:06 <MC1984_> oh the rules for this bip32 thing samples less than onve every block so there are arcane conditions for triggering it
550 2013-03-25 05:35:34 <gmaxwell> (and would give you coverage of one zone, e.g. most of north america and the northern parts of south america)
551 2013-03-25 05:35:41 <CodeShark> satellite transmission means centralization
552 2013-03-25 05:35:42 <hbrehbreahr> http://redd.it/1aylx0 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????1??????
553 2013-03-25 05:35:53 <gmaxwell> ;;botsnack
554 2013-03-25 05:35:53 <gribble> Forget the snack, just send me some bitcoins at 1MgD6rah5zUgEGYZnNmdpnXMaDR3itKYzU :)
555 2013-03-25 05:36:11 <EvilPete> Also, dont forget dialup uucp if really desperate
556 2013-03-25 05:36:31 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: no, depending on satellite transmission.. but if its only one mechenism of many then its fine.
557 2013-03-25 05:36:31 <MC1984_> sat wont mean shit unless its our own bird up there
558 2013-03-25 05:36:38 <CodeShark> you'd need at least two noncolluding souces of blocks to make sure you don't end up on a bad fork
559 2013-03-25 05:36:41 <gmaxwell> MC1984_: good luck with that.
560 2013-03-25 05:36:45 <CodeShark> more if possible :)
561 2013-03-25 05:36:49 <MC1984_> yeah
562 2013-03-25 05:37:21 <MC1984_> maybe in 20 years with nanosats and private lift
563 2013-03-25 05:37:27 <keystroke> haha
564 2013-03-25 05:37:33 <keystroke> there are those microsats yea
565 2013-03-25 05:37:47 <CodeShark> one more block to 951/1000
566 2013-03-25 05:37:47 <keystroke> so it would constantly retransmit the blockchain?
567 2013-03-25 05:38:05 <gmaxwell> "Block over TDD Relay operator."
568 2013-03-25 05:38:11 <MC1984_> what if we just built a really stong catapult with an android phone in it
569 2013-03-25 05:38:12 <keystroke> haha TDD
570 2013-03-25 05:38:30 <keystroke> android phone plus solar panel
571 2013-03-25 05:38:41 <gmaxwell> I bet you could send a header that way. :P poor operator.
572 2013-03-25 05:38:42 <MC1984_> yah whateer hippy
573 2013-03-25 05:38:44 <keystroke> now we're thinking... or it's really late
574 2013-03-25 05:39:08 <keystroke> gotta add special checksums for TDD operators
575 2013-03-25 05:39:23 <keystroke> what would the bandwidth be on cband?
576 2013-03-25 05:39:44 <keystroke> are there places you can uplink from?
577 2013-03-25 05:40:39 <gmaxwell> keystroke: whatever you want it to be. IIRC my $100ish figure was for about 100KHz bandpass, you lose some to required guard area. The amount of rate you can get depends on how good you can assume the recivers antennas are...
578 2013-03-25 05:41:28 <gmaxwell> keystroke: "teleport" is the industry jargon. though for only 100KHz you'd need to share space on someone elses uplink. To be totally freestanding you need to get a whole transponder and thats pretty costly, though a lot more bandwidth.
579 2013-03-25 05:41:49 <gmaxwell> DBS does something like a 45mbit/sec stream on single transponder.
580 2013-03-25 05:43:23 <keystroke> nice research gmaxwell
581 2013-03-25 05:43:29 <keystroke> i'd love to see that done one day...
582 2013-03-25 05:47:16 <CodeShark> if you need more than just the satellite source, what good is the satellite source when ground-based sources are so much cheaper?