1 2013-04-02 00:00:11 <sipa> sheldor: no, i mean excluding the nonce
2 2013-04-02 00:00:14 <gribble> Error: "bc,diff" is not a valid command.
3 2013-04-02 00:00:14 <sipa> ;;bc,diff
4 2013-04-02 00:00:17 <sheldor> okay makes sense
5 2013-04-02 00:00:17 <sipa> ;;diff
6 2013-04-02 00:00:22 <gribble> 6695826.282596251
7 2013-04-02 00:00:36 <gribble> I do not know about 'target', but I do know about these similar topics: 'trade'
8 2013-04-02 00:00:36 <sheldor> ;;target
9 2013-04-02 00:00:43 <sipa> ;;calc [diff]*2**48/65535
10 2013-04-02 00:00:50 <gribble> 28758793727815336
11 2013-04-02 00:01:01 <sipa> ^ sheldor: 1 hash in that many is good
12 2013-04-02 00:01:10 <sheldor> :)
13 2013-04-02 00:01:11 <gmaxwell> sheldor: that question is also indicative of someone who thinks work is conserved. :P It's not??? there is no progress to a solution the more you work on a particular candidate.
14 2013-04-02 00:01:32 <sheldor> gmaxwell: yeah i realized that after you asked how it makes sense
15 2013-04-02 00:02:28 <sheldor> gmaxwell: and that was my initial question. if for example candidates stayed the same across machines and for some time there would be a noition of conservation in that already tried nonces could be skipped in the future
16 2013-04-02 00:02:58 <sheldor> but you told me there isnt
17 2013-04-02 00:03:09 <gmaxwell> well certantly you don't want to try the same one twice, but because work isn't conserved its trivial to arrange it so that you dont- just work on entirely different subspaces.
18 2013-04-02 00:03:20 <sheldor> yeah
19 2013-04-02 00:04:01 <sheldor> so how exactly is the subspace chosen and/or how does a miner acquire his "work units"?
20 2013-04-02 00:04:43 <sheldor> like who does he "ask for more work"?
21 2013-04-02 00:05:06 <gmaxwell> sheldor: it's initially defined by what private key the mining node is paying to
22 2013-04-02 00:05:24 <gmaxwell> and then every time that mining node needs to produce more work he increments a counter.
23 2013-04-02 00:05:27 <sheldor> btw dont you mean public key?
24 2013-04-02 00:05:41 <gmaxwell> sheldor: there is a bijection there.
25 2013-04-02 00:05:52 <gmaxwell> I should have equally just said 'what key'.
26 2013-04-02 00:05:56 <sheldor> yeah but the privkey probably isnt written into the block right?
27 2013-04-02 00:05:59 <sheldor> okay
28 2013-04-02 00:06:03 <gmaxwell> Right.
29 2013-04-02 00:06:06 <sheldor> k
30 2013-04-02 00:06:39 <gmaxwell> (I said private key because I think of what the miner holds and picks. He only needs to remember his private key, and could convert it to a public key on demand... but thats a tangent)
31 2013-04-02 00:06:54 <sheldor> the candidates contain transaction logs right?
32 2013-04-02 00:07:41 <sheldor> or basically transactions are the main contents of candidates/blocks right?
33 2013-04-02 00:07:46 <sheldor> i see gmaxwell
34 2013-04-02 00:08:29 <gmaxwell> sipa: fe_mul 37.32% gej_double 14.60% gej_add 11.02% fe_sqr 8.14% fe_normalize 3.95% gej_add_ge 3.53% gmpn_hgcd2 3.23% gmpz_fdiv_q_2_exp 1.18% _exmult (self) 1.16%
35 2013-04-02 00:08:38 <gmaxwell> sheldor: correct.
36 2013-04-02 00:09:03 <gmaxwell> sipa: so same ranking but somewhat different distribution.
37 2013-04-02 00:09:12 <gmaxwell> or close to the same ranking at least.
38 2013-04-02 00:09:31 <sheldor> gmaxwell: do most (or all) miners share the same set of transactions in their candidates? or does the tansaction subset itself render the candidates unique?
39 2013-04-02 00:11:04 <gmaxwell> sheldor: It's often the same, though not always.
40 2013-04-02 00:11:16 <sheldor> interesting
41 2013-04-02 00:11:23 <gmaxwell> Hm, why?
42 2013-04-02 00:11:24 <jaakkos> using a non-standard tx in a block requires one to mine it themself, and perhaps, so does redeeming the output if it requires a non-standard input script. however, what if 1) the output script is non-standard, but 2) it accepts a standard-form input script, can the tx be redeemed without mining the redeeming tx yourself?
43 2013-04-02 00:11:48 <sheldor> gmaxwell: where exactly do miners get the updates to that set of transactions?
44 2013-04-02 00:11:59 <sipa> jaakkos: inputs are non-standard if they spend a non-standard output
45 2013-04-02 00:12:09 <jaakkos> ok, so the answer is no
46 2013-04-02 00:12:13 <jaakkos> thanks
47 2013-04-02 00:12:21 <sipa> sheldor: the network; transactions are broadcast on it
48 2013-04-02 00:12:29 <sheldor> okay thanks guys!
49 2013-04-02 00:12:36 <gmaxwell> They learn transactions from the network and whenever they build new work they will usually traverse the queue of transactions they're maintaining and decide what they'll include.
50 2013-04-02 00:12:36 <sipa> they validate them, and accept them into their memory pool
51 2013-04-02 00:12:43 <sheldor> wont bother you any further with low level questions
52 2013-04-02 00:12:53 <sheldor> btw what is the fe_mul stuff etc about?
53 2013-04-02 00:13:24 <gmaxwell> sheldor: internal implementation parts of sipa's fast signature validation code.
54 2013-04-02 00:13:32 <sheldor> ah
55 2013-04-02 00:13:36 <gmaxwell> They're functions that do things like multiply very big numbers.
56 2013-04-02 00:13:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: can you guess what gej_add_ge does? :)
57 2013-04-02 00:13:56 <sheldor> nice
58 2013-04-02 00:15:16 <sipa> (that part of the code has no comments... yet)
59 2013-04-02 00:15:32 <sheldor> a last question, does a miner only incorporate transaction updates into its candidates after it has completed a previous candidate successfully?
60 2013-04-02 00:15:56 <sheldor> or does it update the transactions in the candidate whenver there is a new broadcast?
61 2013-04-02 00:16:09 <sipa> sometimes the pool or whatever gives out the work informs the miner actively that there is no work
62 2013-04-02 00:16:11 <gmaxwell> I assume it means group ecc add g something? .. I must admit, the GMP names are a little more intutive than yours.
63 2013-04-02 00:16:16 <sipa> for example when a new block is found
64 2013-04-02 00:16:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: ge is group element, gej is group element in jacobian notation :)
65 2013-04-02 00:17:07 <sheldor> sipa: and does it also inform the miner actively that there are new transactions even though there is still enough work left?
66 2013-04-02 00:17:28 <gmaxwell> sheldor: maybe, it can. thats up to it.
67 2013-04-02 00:17:41 <sheldor> not protocol defined? hm interesting
68 2013-04-02 00:18:22 <sheldor> is there a max limit on the outdatedness of transactions in candidates?
69 2013-04-02 00:18:30 <gmaxwell> updating for every new transaction would create a bunch of bandwidth. Not updating ever would make you miss out on transaction fees.
70 2013-04-02 00:18:32 <sipa> there are several protocols for communication between miners
71 2013-04-02 00:19:02 <gmaxwell> sheldor: when a new block is found on the network you must update your transactions, because some of the ones you were including may now be already in the chain or conflicted.
72 2013-04-02 00:19:13 <gmaxwell> otherwise there is no limit.
73 2013-04-02 00:19:33 <sheldor> oh i see, you get a small reward for every transation included in your block
74 2013-04-02 00:19:36 <sheldor> the fee
75 2013-04-02 00:19:56 <gmaxwell> sheldor: if the transaction has a fee, not all do. But sure.
76 2013-04-02 00:20:04 <sheldor> is there a max or min limit on number of transactions in a candidate?
77 2013-04-02 00:20:09 <sheldor> thanks gmaxwell
78 2013-04-02 00:23:04 <sheldor> btw, if all coins are mined, will transaction fees necessarily rise to at least cover the energy bills of future "miners"? this sounds problematic, either way money flux seems threatened, either by high fees or unprofitable block generation costs
79 2013-04-02 00:23:54 <gmaxwell> sheldor: the difficulty of creating a block is adaptive and not pinned to a particular amount.
80 2013-04-02 00:24:29 <sheldor> oh you mean it can even decrease?
81 2013-04-02 00:24:38 <sipa> it has decreased already
82 2013-04-02 00:24:43 <sheldor> oh
83 2013-04-02 00:24:46 <sheldor> makes sense
84 2013-04-02 00:24:48 <sipa> see http://bitcoin.sipa.be/
85 2013-04-02 00:24:54 <sheldor> thanks
86 2013-04-02 00:24:57 <gmaxwell> "all coins mined" is not quite the right way of thinking about it??? the subsidy (coins from nowhere) decrease geometrically??? presumably they'll be irrelevantly small long before they are 0.
87 2013-04-02 00:25:11 <sipa> ACTION afk
88 2013-04-02 00:25:32 <BlueMatt> well, we got a discussion on cnbc today
89 2013-04-02 00:25:33 <gmaxwell> (they only ever become zero as an artifact of the limited precision... if the precision were infinite they'd come forever but there would still be no more than 21m)
90 2013-04-02 00:25:44 <sheldor> i read the last coin will be mined on January 1st 2140 at 00:00 UTC
91 2013-04-02 00:25:46 <BlueMatt> about as bad as bloomberg's on-air coverage, but...no press is bad press I suppose
92 2013-04-02 00:26:28 <gmaxwell> sheldor: nowhere near that precise, it might be anywhere in a several year range??? and that presuming the precision isn't increased (or if it is increased that things are adjusted to make it still go to zero at that point)
93 2013-04-02 00:26:34 <sheldor> yeah im kidding
94 2013-04-02 00:28:02 <ProfMac> So. Will "the last bitcoin" be a collector's item?
95 2013-04-02 00:28:11 <sheldor> lol
96 2013-04-02 00:28:16 <sheldor> the first one sure is
97 2013-04-02 00:28:23 <gmaxwell> sheldor: first one can't be spent.
98 2013-04-02 00:28:28 <sheldor> oh
99 2013-04-02 00:28:58 <Cory> Why not?
100 2013-04-02 00:29:32 <gmaxwell> Cory: because block 0 is specially created in the code out of thin air, and didn't go through the process that interts its transactions into the database.
101 2013-04-02 00:29:36 <gmaxwell> Making it unspendable.
102 2013-04-02 00:30:07 <lianj> but if a planned hard fork is done, this will be fixed?
103 2013-04-02 00:30:13 <BlueMatt> RFC: " Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication"
104 2013-04-02 00:30:15 <BlueMatt> now thats not bad
105 2013-04-02 00:30:17 <gmaxwell> No, unlikely that we'd bother fixing it.
106 2013-04-02 00:30:20 <Cory> Ah, cool. :)
107 2013-04-02 00:30:24 <sheldor> damn the inventors and early adopters must all be (m|b)illionaires by now
108 2013-04-02 00:30:36 <sheldor> how many of you guys are millionaires because of BTC?
109 2013-04-02 00:31:02 <warren> This question isn't very relevant for -dev.
110 2013-04-02 00:31:03 <gmaxwell> It would be a risky hard forking change, and the fact that it is unspendable is a useful competence test for rapidly evaluating a new implementation. (a mostly harmless 'brown M&M')
111 2013-04-02 00:31:03 <lianj> selling at 0.25$ hardly makes you a millionair
112 2013-04-02 00:31:34 <gmaxwell> sheldor: I doubt there are many in total??? lots of places along the way where selling coin was a great idea.
113 2013-04-02 00:31:47 <sheldor> i see
114 2013-04-02 00:31:51 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: how many alternate implementations got that right the first time?
115 2013-04-02 00:32:33 <gmaxwell> Have any?
116 2013-04-02 00:32:57 <gmaxwell> But ones have gotten it right without being yelled at now, I believe.
117 2013-04-02 00:33:02 <BlueMatt> I dunno, I just know I f'd it up in bitcoinj originally
118 2013-04-02 00:37:56 <jspilman> does the proposed Payment Protocol have a way to include the *redeemScript* if you are making a PaymentRequest to a P2SH?
119 2013-04-02 00:38:25 <gmaxwell> jspilman: Why would you want that?
120 2013-04-02 00:38:38 <gmaxwell> It's not generally any business of the payer what the redeemscript is.
121 2013-04-02 00:39:19 <gmaxwell> (I don't actually know the answer to your question??? having not paid attention to the spec lately, but I don't see a reason to provide it in the payment protocol)
122 2013-04-02 00:39:47 <jspilman> it's not in the spec, I am writing up why I want it there. I just didn't want to go too far out on a limb if somehow I missed it
123 2013-04-02 00:39:54 <jspilman> thanks
124 2013-04-02 00:43:11 <gmaxwell> jspilman: if you want it for address privacy (I think you mentioned that earlier) it can't actually provide that. As the nonce would be disclosed when the transaction was redeemed.
125 2013-04-02 00:43:27 <gmaxwell> Fortunately we have a system for address privacy which doesn't have that weakness.
126 2013-04-02 00:59:23 <jspilman> yeah, P2SH just keeps the signing pubkeys private UNTIL the outputs are spent
127 2013-04-02 01:00:24 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: we do?
128 2013-04-02 01:00:57 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes, type-2 determinstic keys let you generate as many pubkeys for a person as you like and they're unlinkable by third parties.
129 2013-04-02 01:01:49 <gmaxwell> presumably we'll define a serialization for extended pubkeys in the future... and then in an invoice where you expect reoccuring payments you could give someone an extended key.
130 2013-04-02 01:01:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok...so no different (aside from backup/ease of use, etc, etc) from just lots of addresses
131 2013-04-02 01:02:22 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the distinction being that I could give you a single short seralized blob and you could pay me infinite times with a distinct address.
132 2013-04-02 01:02:28 <BlueMatt> yes
133 2013-04-02 01:02:31 <BlueMatt> "ease of use" ;)
134 2013-04-02 01:02:36 <gmaxwell> ha. Okay.
135 2013-04-02 01:03:22 <sydna> the speed of block propagation is fairly impressive. for some reason I expected, you know, 10 seconds of lead time for the block at least.
136 2013-04-02 01:03:30 <sydna> as far as I can see, it's almost instant across the network
137 2013-04-02 01:03:58 <rhett> if I have an old wallet.dat in a .bitcoin directory, will the bitcoin client immediately tell me the balance?
138 2013-04-02 01:04:01 <BlueMatt> Ive seen measurements that disagree, but it really doesnt matter
139 2013-04-02 01:04:01 <rhett> it shows as zero
140 2013-04-02 01:04:11 <gwillen> rhett: it needs to download the blockchain first
141 2013-04-02 01:04:19 <gwillen> rhett: up to at least the point where the transactions were received
142 2013-04-02 01:04:22 <gmaxwell> yes, the order of nodes is quite high. imagine.. you give a block to one peer... it feeds 8 more.. each of those feed 8... The average propagation is fast, the worst case isn't super fast.
143 2013-04-02 01:04:22 <gwillen> that are in your balance
144 2013-04-02 01:04:45 <helo> ACTION wishes he knew if his connection was fast enough to be helpful
145 2013-04-02 01:04:48 <gmaxwell> E.g. back before 0.8 it was easy to time a block taking over a minute to get wide propagation in some cases.
146 2013-04-02 01:04:58 <sydna> BlueMatt: I suspect it's down to what peers you are surveying. I've come across some brutally slow ones (running via tor maybe), but I discounted them as outliers
147 2013-04-02 01:05:08 <rhett> I have like 4 wallet files. what's the fastest way to check them all?
148 2013-04-02 01:05:20 <sydna> gmaxwell: ah, that's awful
149 2013-04-02 01:05:33 <BlueMatt> sydna: yes
150 2013-04-02 01:05:39 <helo> rhett: import all of the private keys into the same one? :)
151 2013-04-02 01:05:53 <rhett> there are 4 .bitcoin dirs in linux
152 2013-04-02 01:05:57 <gmaxwell> fixes in 0.7.x and later 0.8 made things much faster though.
153 2013-04-02 01:07:20 <rhett> if I do cp -r /backup/.bitcoin ~/ and then run the client, it takes a long time to catch up with the blocks
154 2013-04-02 01:08:48 <sydna> ouch, I take back my last statement. for #229230, all the nodes in the US / EC2 responded within 500ms of each other. the australian nodes took 5-10s, and one still hasn't got the block yet.
155 2013-04-02 01:10:27 <gmaxwell> sydna: it's hard to distinguish a node's own low performance from other factors, also??? there are nodes who probably don't relay blocks.
156 2013-04-02 01:11:10 <sydna> you would be extremely unlucky to connect to nodes that don't relay blocks (like mine)
157 2013-04-02 01:12:09 <gmaxwell> sydna: I mean some of the other nodes you are connecting to might be like yours. (naughty you??? sounds like you're using up about 1% of the listening network's capacity for your test?) And so they'll never tell you about it. :P
158 2013-04-02 01:15:03 <sydna> gmaxwell: good point, I hadn't considered other misbehaving nodes. I'm not intending to have too much of an impact - there's some 50+ clients connected to my gigabit nodes anyway.
159 2013-04-02 01:16:09 <gmaxwell> sydna: ::nods:: Yea, just keep an eye on it. Your local connection isn't always the best gauge of overall network health because nodes won't connect twice in the same /16... so there is more pressure on nodes that are all alone in a /16.
160 2013-04-02 01:18:39 <sydna> gmaxwell: oddly enough, I'm the only listening node in the two ranges i have servers in, at least on the default port. when I read about that restriction, I nmapped the whole block looking for other ones.
161 2013-04-02 01:20:47 <gmaxwell> sydna: good!
162 2013-04-02 01:21:52 <BlueMatt> ACTION bets he is one of only a few in his /16
163 2013-04-02 01:22:13 <BlueMatt> except for all the silk road users (too many druggies in college...)
164 2013-04-02 01:22:26 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: they don't need SR for their drugs.
165 2013-04-02 01:22:31 <sydna> BlueMatt: fire up nmap and find out?
166 2013-04-02 01:22:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: nope, that you dont
167 2013-04-02 01:23:05 <BlueMatt> sydna: meh...Im lazy
168 2013-04-02 01:23:18 <BlueMatt> ACTION prefers to do all his work based on guesswork
169 2013-04-02 01:23:23 <BlueMatt> makes life more interesting
170 2013-04-02 01:23:46 <_g> depends on which drugs
171 2013-04-02 01:23:59 <_g> question regarding: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bhky4/i_recovered_my_lost_bitcoins/c96qjn8
172 2013-04-02 01:24:26 <gmaxwell> that post is incorrect.
173 2013-04-02 01:24:28 <_g> 1) is that indeed true, and 2) once a wallet is encrypted, it its then fine to be backed up, right?
174 2013-04-02 01:24:45 <gmaxwell> 2) yes
175 2013-04-02 01:25:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wait, I thought we did clear keypool on encrypt?
176 2013-04-02 01:25:37 <_g> gmaxwell: that post is incorrect.. meaning unused pregenerated change addresses are retained during encryption?
177 2013-04-02 01:26:04 <BlueMatt> they are retained, you still have them
178 2013-04-02 01:26:21 <BlueMatt> but I thought they werent used for the next output
179 2013-04-02 01:26:26 <BlueMatt> I may be wrong
180 2013-04-02 01:37:21 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: 2) yes*
181 2013-04-02 01:37:35 <jgarzik> *plenty of unencrypted data remains, that could potentially compromise privacy
182 2013-04-02 02:00:27 <EvilPete> I'm seeing a lot of this: http://pastebin.com/zkGyn0NA lately - "ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty" Yesterday, one of my 0.8.1 clients banned my other 0.8.1 client for doing this. My home machine did ResendTransactions(), and the public server threw errors like that. After 10 resends my colo machine banned my home machine.
183 2013-04-02 02:00:47 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ^
184 2013-04-02 02:01:09 <EvilPete> I ended up doing a salvagewallet and it stopped.
185 2013-04-02 02:01:23 <jgarzik> EvilPete: release version or git ?
186 2013-04-02 02:01:53 <EvilPete> jgarzik: built from git. But the pastebin above is from an unrelated peer.
187 2013-04-02 02:02:29 <EvilPete> both are 0.8.1 hash 38f8657
188 2013-04-02 02:03:12 <jgarzik> hrm
189 2013-04-02 02:06:05 <EvilPete> I figured it was a local build issue, until I saw it coming from an unrelated third party.
190 2013-04-02 02:09:50 <toffoo> 5 crashes & reindexes since updating to v0.8.1 on Mac ??? fux dat, I'm restoring v0.7.2 from backups now
191 2013-04-02 02:10:28 <toffoo> devs: I strongly suggest you remove the v0.8.* Mac binary and suggest Mac users stick with v0.7.2 until this issue is resolved
192 2013-04-02 02:10:45 <noah_> Hi. Question. I'm working on an idea that would need the most recently completed blocks. Where does a place like satoshidice.com get them?
193 2013-04-02 02:10:46 <sydna> I am running 0.8.1 on OSX, I've had no issues
194 2013-04-02 02:10:56 <EvilPete> toffoo: I'm not a dev, but the 0.8.1 release binary runs fine for me.
195 2013-04-02 02:11:02 <sydna> the proxy settings are broken though
196 2013-04-02 02:11:12 <sydna> and if you close the window you need to restart the client
197 2013-04-02 02:11:12 <toffoo> sydna EvilPete good to hear, I wish I was in the same boat
198 2013-04-02 02:11:25 <toffoo> other users have confirmed these database corruption issues
199 2013-04-02 02:11:34 <sydna> what OSX version?
200 2013-04-02 02:12:01 <toffoo> 10.8.3
201 2013-04-02 02:12:06 <toffoo> the issue: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2435
202 2013-04-02 02:12:22 <jspilman> OK... this took all day to write! https://gist.github.com/jspilman/5287991
203 2013-04-02 02:12:32 <jspilman> Please feel free to tear it apart :-0
204 2013-04-02 02:12:33 <sydna> strange. I wonder what is different between our setups
205 2013-04-02 02:12:49 <toffoo> only thing unusual about my setup is full disk encryption
206 2013-04-02 02:13:00 <jspilman> It's a proposal for some changes to Payment Protocol
207 2013-04-02 02:13:03 <toffoo> but can't imagine why that would cause issue with bitcoin-qt and nothing else
208 2013-04-02 02:13:24 <EvilPete> jgarzik: I'll write it up and gather some more data
209 2013-04-02 02:14:20 <jgarzik> EvilPete: please do
210 2013-04-02 02:19:19 <sydna> there's every chance that it is a balmy FileVault error
211 2013-04-02 02:19:26 <noah_> Anybody have any suggestions?
212 2013-04-02 02:19:26 <sydna> I don't use it for that very reason
213 2013-04-02 02:20:08 <sydna> from bitcoind.
214 2013-04-02 02:22:40 <noah_> what/where is bitcoind?
215 2013-04-02 02:23:03 <sydna> bitcoind is the reference bitcoin client. it's the headless (server) version of bticoin-qt
216 2013-04-02 02:23:45 <noah_> Nice - I'll have to check out that code. Thanks
217 2013-04-02 02:29:02 <sheldor> what is the developer theory regarding the recent price explosion?
218 2013-04-02 02:29:07 <sheldor> whats the reason
219 2013-04-02 02:30:14 <gfawkes> there's more demand than supply?
220 2013-04-02 02:30:28 <jgarzik> They don't pay us enough to theorize. More seriously... #bitcoin material.
221 2013-04-02 02:30:43 <sheldor> jgarzik: but they dont know :(
222 2013-04-02 02:31:00 <gfawkes> why does the price of apple stock go up?
223 2013-04-02 02:31:09 <gfawkes> why does the price of zynga go down?
224 2013-04-02 02:31:09 <sydna> speculation.
225 2013-04-02 02:31:15 <sheldor> gfawkes: the increase in demand for apple products makes sense
226 2013-04-02 02:31:42 <gfawkes> so the increase in demand for bitcoin doesn't make sense?
227 2013-04-02 02:31:54 <sheldor> gfawkes: same for the reduction in demand for zynga
228 2013-04-02 02:32:09 <sheldor> gfawkes: not to me, at all
229 2013-04-02 02:32:15 <noah_> Question: We can see how many transactions there are in a day, but do we have any estimate how many PEOPLE are actually trading bitcions?
230 2013-04-02 02:32:49 <gfawkes> sheldor - then you might be missing something from your picture of bitcoin that others are seeing
231 2013-04-02 02:32:55 <sheldor> gfawkes: we are talking about an explosion, the price probably jumped by another dollar by the time i finished this sentence
232 2013-04-02 02:33:02 <sheldor> gfawkes: hence my question
233 2013-04-02 02:33:29 <gfawkes> without knowing your perspective im not sure anyone can answer your question ;)
234 2013-04-02 02:33:47 <sheldor> gfawkes: well lets start with how it makes sense to you
235 2013-04-02 02:34:49 <gfawkes> sheldor - simple, only 21 million will ever exist for all humans to conduct monetary transactions with
236 2013-04-02 02:34:49 <sheldor> noah_: there is nothing in bitcoin that identifies people
237 2013-04-02 02:35:28 <sheldor> gfawkes: sure but thats been the case since day 0 and we are at like 50% of the max money supply
238 2013-04-02 02:35:32 <noah_> sheldon: I know, but was wondering if we had any rough estimates. It would mean very different things if BTC was just 100 people trading a lot back-and-forth, or 100,000 people actively trading
239 2013-04-02 02:35:48 <sheldor> gfawkes: there is nothing in that that explains the recent explosion
240 2013-04-02 02:36:22 <gfawkes> sheldor - its the simple destruction of "whole" bitcoins due to economic activity
241 2013-04-02 02:36:36 <sheldor> noah_: well you could start with counting same public keys as same people
242 2013-04-02 02:36:45 <gfawkes> sheldor - if you want to send $1M USD in bitcoins, you have to get those bitcoins from somewhere
243 2013-04-02 02:36:52 <sheldor> noah_: but thats still a bad estimate, probably a decent upper bound
244 2013-04-02 02:37:24 <noah_> Sure - that's not a bad upper bound. Is that available somewhere?
245 2013-04-02 02:37:30 <gfawkes> sheldor - as economic activity increases in the network, the price has to go up, it has no choice
246 2013-04-02 02:37:35 <sheldor> gfawkes: still it was a steady growth over months or years, then suddenly, lest month, BAAMM
247 2013-04-02 02:37:54 <noah_> Just looking at the currency market of BTC, it would be an interesting indicator as to the growth rate of people trading in BTC.
248 2013-04-02 02:37:57 <gfawkes> sheldor - we finally got enough deep pockets to start "moving the needle" is all
249 2013-04-02 02:37:59 <sheldor> gfawkes: nothing externally in the economy changed similarly that im aware of
250 2013-04-02 02:38:25 <gfawkes> sheldor - some theorize it was cyprus
251 2013-04-02 02:38:37 <gfawkes> sheldor - the truth is noone really knows
252 2013-04-02 02:38:39 <sheldor> gfawkes: you mean institutional investors and such? also cyprus, euro crisis, etc yeah makes sense
253 2013-04-02 02:38:45 <sheldor> also the recent legislation
254 2013-04-02 02:38:59 <sheldor> but does that really account for the explosion.. not sure
255 2013-04-02 02:39:00 <Luke-Jr> guys, #bitcoin
256 2013-04-02 02:39:12 <sheldor> okay sorry
257 2013-04-02 02:39:17 <noah_> I'm waiting for the day we can walk into Ralph's or Starbucks to spend BTC. Once that's announced in the news, the price will skyrocket.
258 2013-04-02 02:39:38 <sheldor> noah_: apparently there are bitcoin ATMs in cyprus now
259 2013-04-02 02:39:54 <noah_> OK - back to my original query. If I just want the latest signed block, do I have to use the entire bitcoind, or can I just do some basic network operations with a Perl client or something simple?
260 2013-04-02 02:41:12 <jgarzik> sipa:
261 2013-04-02 02:41:13 <jgarzik> field_5x52.c:99:5: error: 'for' loop initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode
262 2013-04-02 02:41:13 <jgarzik> field_5x52.c: In function 'secp256k1_fe_set_b32':
263 2013-04-02 02:41:45 <jgarzik> sipa: bunch of those C++ artifacts. That's the standard gcc "-O2 -Wall -g" invocation. Switching gcc explicitly to C99 should fix.
264 2013-04-02 02:43:57 <jgarzik> field.h:28:13: warning: 'secp256k1_fe_start' declared 'static' but never defined [-Wunused-function]
265 2013-04-02 02:43:57 <jgarzik> field.h:31:13: warning: 'secp256k1_fe_stop' declared 'static' but never defined [-Wunused-function]
266 2013-04-02 02:43:58 <jgarzik> many
267 2013-04-02 02:45:23 <noah_> Anybody?
268 2013-04-02 02:46:31 <SomeoneWeird> noah_, that depends if you can trust a 3rd party service or not
269 2013-04-02 02:46:57 <noah_> I can't trust a third party. Want to go direct to source. Probably multiple sources
270 2013-04-02 02:47:27 <SomeoneWeird> then you need the entire blockchain
271 2013-04-02 02:47:41 <SomeoneWeird> that's the entire point of it :)
272 2013-04-02 02:47:50 <noah_> OK. If I wanted to fetch it directly, where would I go?
273 2013-04-02 02:48:08 <SomeoneWeird> directly from?
274 2013-04-02 02:48:33 <noah_> That's what I need to learn. How does one fetch the block chain from the "cloud"?
275 2013-04-02 02:49:30 <noah_> I assume that the first step is to identify a list of peers, then to request the chain from those peers??
276 2013-04-02 02:49:41 <SomeoneWeird> what language are youo using?
277 2013-04-02 02:50:18 <noah_> Not sure yet. Maybe just start with Perl or something basic
278 2013-04-02 02:50:26 <Luke-Jr> ACTION wonders why GCC doesn't default to C99 yet
279 2013-04-02 02:52:41 <SomeoneWeird> Luke-Jr, litecoin
280 2013-04-02 02:52:44 <SomeoneWeird> it's a conspiracy
281 2013-04-02 02:52:52 <SomeoneWeird> they're not changing ur gcc
282 2013-04-02 02:52:54 <SomeoneWeird> ermergerd
283 2013-04-02 02:59:15 <noah_> SomeoneWeird?
284 2013-04-02 03:09:12 <gmaxwell> 20:24 < _g> gmaxwell: that post is incorrect.. meaning unused pregenerated change addresses are retained during encryption?
285 2013-04-02 03:09:29 <gmaxwell> They're retained, but not used anymore. E.g. you keep them in case someone else sends funds to them.
286 2013-04-02 03:09:41 <gmaxwell> You need to backup again after encrypting, and the software tells you this.
287 2013-04-02 03:10:25 <gmaxwell> And I think I misread the post initially.
288 2013-04-02 03:10:47 <gmaxwell> Encrypting your wallet gives you a new keypool, and you do indeed need to backup again (but it tells you this!)
289 2013-04-02 03:18:45 <gmaxwell> 21:40 <@jgarzik> sipa: bunch of those C++ artifacts. That's the standard gcc "-O2 -Wall -g" invocation. Switching gcc explicitly to C99 should fix.
290 2013-04-02 03:19:41 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: ?
291 2013-04-02 03:20:11 <gmaxwell> this code should probably be made C89 friendly, e.g. build cleanly with -std=c89 -pedantic (+ long long) But I'll submit patches for that.
292 2013-04-02 03:20:42 <gmaxwell> (there are varrious small embedded systems that don't have reasonable C99 compilers)
293 2013-04-02 03:20:56 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: agreed
294 2013-04-02 03:22:11 <Diablo-D3> ACTION no longer supports c89
295 2013-04-02 03:22:17 <Diablo-D3> you've had over ten years, fix your shit already
296 2013-04-02 03:23:34 <gmaxwell> For an application, sure.. For a low level underlying library that might be useful on small microcontrollers, meh. C99 provides no enormous gains there in any case.
297 2013-04-02 03:24:08 <Diablo-D3> well
298 2013-04-02 03:24:09 <gmaxwell> (and the nicest C99 feature is one of the ones you can't use on desktops becuase they're not in MSVC because they're not in C++: var arrays)
299 2013-04-02 03:24:10 <Diablo-D3> to be fair
300 2013-04-02 03:24:13 <Diablo-D3> I AM writing such a library
301 2013-04-02 03:24:20 <Diablo-D3> and I really just need gcc or clang to run on those platforms
302 2013-04-02 03:24:29 <Diablo-D3> they support enough of c99 in older versions to make it work
303 2013-04-02 03:24:35 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: ARG
304 2013-04-02 03:24:36 <Diablo-D3> VAR ARRAYS
305 2013-04-02 03:24:38 <Diablo-D3> NO
306 2013-04-02 03:24:41 <Diablo-D3> BAD GMAXWELL
307 2013-04-02 03:25:26 <kadoban> is there some way i can make testnet-in-a-box run really fast? on any of my dev machines, it still takes kinda forever to mine a block (this is actually in litecoin, but i'll be doing the same in bitcoin soon if it helps)
308 2013-04-02 03:26:04 <gmaxwell> Don't blame me if you can't track your stack utilization without shackles... I suppose you propose forbidding recursion and function pointers, since both of those can make stack usage undecidable too?
309 2013-04-02 03:26:45 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: I try to avoid recursion when I can
310 2013-04-02 03:26:55 <Diablo-D3> and function pointers CAN be typed
311 2013-04-02 05:15:12 <EvilPete> ACTION postpones creating an issue about "ERROR: CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : vin empty; Misbehaving (90 -> 100) DISCONNECTING" between two friendly v0.8 peers.. not enough detail in logs to make a decent report.
312 2013-04-02 05:15:36 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: are these recent git or?
313 2013-04-02 05:16:11 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: between two servers under my control. A public v0.8.1 build from the git source of that tag, and a home v0.8.0 also from the git tag
314 2013-04-02 05:16:42 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: my v0.8.1 was banning my v0.8.0 each time it tried to ResendWalletTransactions()
315 2013-04-02 05:17:40 <EvilPete> then I saw other peers triggering it. eg: http://pastebin.com/zkGyn0NA - not machine
316 2013-04-02 05:17:52 <EvilPete> not my machine
317 2013-04-02 05:18:28 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: but is it the git one that is seeing this?
318 2013-04-02 05:18:44 <gmaxwell> this might be a result of some of the recent buffer management stuff just merged a couple days ago
319 2013-04-02 05:18:50 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: yes, both are built from github checkouts of the tag.
320 2013-04-02 05:19:00 <gmaxwell> oh, of the tag.
321 2013-04-02 05:19:15 <EvilPete> not from master
322 2013-04-02 05:19:58 <EvilPete> I wrote up a report and decided not to file it, because it's a useless report.. I can't give clues how to repeat and I'm wondering if I can trust one of the servers in question
323 2013-04-02 05:21:25 <EvilPete> The v0.8.1 was started from block 1 and did some very bizzare things after it filled.. It was banning peers from all around the world for trying to send it old blocks. A reindex "fixed" it.. but left me with that "wtf?" feeling.
324 2013-04-02 05:31:45 <gmaxwell> EvilPete: that doesn't make a lot of sense.
325 2013-04-02 05:31:52 <gmaxwell> do you have a debug log from that?
326 2013-04-02 05:46:46 <abadr> I'm getting "No information available about transaction" from getrawtransaction, even though I have txindex=1 in my bitcoin.conf. Does that mean I need to reindex again? I thought I already did that.
327 2013-04-02 05:48:33 <gmaxwell> abadr: it means you need to stop querying the first transaction in block 0.
328 2013-04-02 05:48:39 <gmaxwell> :P
329 2013-04-02 05:48:55 <gmaxwell> Leave satoshi some privacy!
330 2013-04-02 05:50:11 <abadr> actually it's dumber than that. i hadn't realized it was still catching up on blocks. :|
331 2013-04-02 05:50:20 <gmaxwell> ah!
332 2013-04-02 05:50:43 <gmaxwell> the txn in block 0 won't return a result just in case you do try that, seems to confuse a few people
333 2013-04-02 05:51:12 <abadr> why is that?
334 2013-04-02 06:17:18 <kermit_> 102
335 2013-04-02 06:18:41 <EvilPete> gmaxwell: I will rebuild the server. I half wonder if something's not been compiled thread-safe that should have been. There's too much weird stuff going on with it.
336 2013-04-02 07:25:27 <abadr> Why is my compiled bitcoind binary so much bigger (46MB) than the download (6MB)?
337 2013-04-02 07:25:48 <abadr> ubuntu 64 bit
338 2013-04-02 07:25:57 <lupine> you didn't compile it statically did you?
339 2013-04-02 07:26:21 <abadr> lupine: whatever's default
340 2013-04-02 07:26:22 <tcatm> abadr: Did you strip it?
341 2013-04-02 07:26:39 <K1773R> abadr, $ strip bitcoind
342 2013-04-02 07:27:04 <abadr> thanks
343 2013-04-02 07:28:35 <djoot> in allocators.h there is a line LockedPageManager::instance.LockRange(.. what does it do and what consequences does omitting to Lock / Unlock have?
344 2013-04-02 07:33:01 <jdnavarro> http://blockexplorer.com is down, anyone knows anything about it?
345 2013-04-02 07:33:36 <jdnavarro> yesterday was also down
346 2013-04-02 07:35:39 <jdnavarro> ACTION wishes blockchain.info included the testnet
347 2013-04-02 07:59:38 <Yulth> Hi everyone? Could anyone give me please some links with documentation about how to use bitcoind server under linux? I mean: how to start and stop the server, and how to send commands to it.
348 2013-04-02 07:59:52 <darsie> hi
349 2013-04-02 08:00:32 <darsie> Bitcoin rose from 5 to 100.
350 2013-04-02 08:00:44 <kermit_> 105
351 2013-04-02 08:01:32 <darsie> How about lowering the minimum fee in bitcoin-qt? Like to 1/10th or 1/20th.
352 2013-04-02 08:02:30 <darsie> I'm paying 30% fee when subscribing to http://btccharts.com for one day.
353 2013-04-02 08:03:33 <darsie> Was the fee lowered before, from 0.01 to 0.0005?
354 2013-04-02 08:05:23 <warren> hmm, commercial charting service
355 2013-04-02 08:05:43 <darsie> yes
356 2013-04-02 08:07:06 <darsie> It's 0.00157 btc/day at current rate.
357 2013-04-02 08:08:23 <warren> hopefully not all their users buy only one day
358 2013-04-02 08:08:28 <darsie> When will the fee be lowered? When it's 0.1 USD? 0.5 USD? 5 USD?
359 2013-04-02 08:08:52 <darsie> I keep buying one day after the other.
360 2013-04-02 08:10:05 <darsie> I should suggest the operator to offer ltc payments, which are more suitable for micropayments.
361 2013-04-02 08:26:35 <sipa> jgarzik: are you building the .c files separately? i haven't benchmarked the difference, but you should only compile secp256k.c bench.c or tests.c - they include the rest of the .c files
362 2013-04-02 08:26:53 <sipa> jgarzik: removing c99 loops should be easy
363 2013-04-02 08:30:28 <XertroV> Is there a resource around to emulate tx scripts?
364 2013-04-02 08:30:44 <sipa> jgarzik: i could move that internal-only code to .h files, if that's more common than including .c files
365 2013-04-02 08:30:50 <XertroV> Allow me to step through it and see the interim data live.
366 2013-04-02 09:05:24 <wallet42> hi have a question about probalility. if the last block was found 20 minutes ago that a block will be found whitin the next minute than if the last block has been found 10 minutes ago?
367 2013-04-02 09:06:02 <jaakkos> wallet42: with default hash rate, the expected time is always the same
368 2013-04-02 09:06:23 <jaakkos> wallet42: even if an hour has expired since the last block, the expected time would still be 10 minutes.
369 2013-04-02 09:06:45 <wallet42> ok so at any point in time, P(whitin next 60 sec) = 1/10
370 2013-04-02 09:07:59 <sipa> no
371 2013-04-02 09:08:00 <wallet42> or like "discoutet to 10th" (logarithmic)
372 2013-04-02 09:08:01 <jaakkos> you need to compute that from cumulative distribution function of the Poisson distribution
373 2013-04-02 09:08:09 <wallet42> kk
374 2013-04-02 09:08:20 <sipa> ;; calc 1-exp(-1/6)
375 2013-04-02 09:08:21 <gribble> 0.153518275109
376 2013-04-02 09:08:27 <sipa> 15.35%
377 2013-04-02 09:08:34 <sipa> oh
378 2013-04-02 09:08:51 <sipa> ;;calc 1-exp(-60/600)
379 2013-04-02 09:08:52 <gribble> 0.095162581964
380 2013-04-02 09:08:54 <wallet42> ;; calc 1-exp(-1/10)
381 2013-04-02 09:08:55 <gribble> 0.095162581964
382 2013-04-02 09:08:57 <wallet42> yeah
383 2013-04-02 09:08:58 <wallet42> ty
384 2013-04-02 09:09:02 <wallet42> :)
385 2013-04-02 09:11:15 <jaakkos> s/poisson/exponential/
386 2013-04-02 09:47:07 <wallet42> hey i heard you love twitter bootstrap
387 2013-04-02 09:47:14 <wallet42> but now every site looks the same
388 2013-04-02 09:47:32 <wallet42> i found a new theme, you should use it for your next project: http://divshot.github.com/geo-bootstrap/
389 2013-04-02 09:47:45 <Scrat> amazing
390 2013-04-02 09:48:23 <t7> cool
391 2013-04-02 09:49:37 <t7> guestbook fuck yeeeee
392 2013-04-02 09:50:44 <sivu> wallet42, theres always http://bootswatch.com/
393 2013-04-02 10:43:04 <bwen> is there a way to have Armory connect to the testnet bitcoin-qt instead of the mainnet?
394 2013-04-02 10:44:32 <Supa> whatcha developing?
395 2013-04-02 10:45:22 <bwen> Nothing really... my friend wants to get in and I though it would be fun to have him practice on the testnet
396 2013-04-02 10:45:36 <bwen> how to handle his wallets, offline. Sign transaction etc...
397 2013-04-02 10:45:49 <Supa> cool
398 2013-04-02 10:46:11 <bwen> since he is not too technical and all
399 2013-04-02 10:46:54 <Supa> I honestly just randomly joined the channel
400 2013-04-02 10:47:01 <Supa> and said whatcha developing? xD
401 2013-04-02 10:47:15 <bwen> oh :p
402 2013-04-02 10:47:24 <Supa> [8:43am] * Set by sipa!~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024 on Wed Mar 27 14:38:19
403 2013-04-02 10:47:24 <Supa> [8:43am] * Topic is 'http://bitcoin.org/ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ | Latest version: 0.8.1 | #bitcoin-dev: Development of the Bitcoin Protocol/clients | Other support/discussion: #bitcoin | Dont ask to ask, just ask | Tell us what you're trying to do, not how you think you need to do it.'
404 2013-04-02 10:47:24 <Supa> > Channel Modes: +Ccnt
405 2013-04-02 10:47:24 <Supa> > Created on Thursday, December 17th, 2009 at 8:52pm
406 2013-04-02 10:47:24 <Supa> > Successfully joined #bitcoin-dev on Tuesday at 8:43am
407 2013-04-02 10:47:25 <Supa> [8:43am] <Supa> whatcha developing?
408 2013-04-02 10:47:25 <Supa> [8:44am] <bwen> Nothing really... my friend wants to get in and I though it would be fun to have him practice on the testnet
409 2013-04-02 10:47:25 <Supa> ???I-n-v-i-s-i-o-n??? Cannot join channel: #bitcoin-police (You are banned)
410 2013-04-02 10:47:26 <Supa> [8:44am] <bwen> how to handle his wallets, offline. Sign transaction etc...
411 2013-04-02 10:47:27 <Supa> [8:45am] <Supa> cool
412 2013-04-02 10:47:40 <Supa> xD
413 2013-04-02 10:47:52 <bwen> spam ??.o
414 2013-04-02 11:12:36 <jgarzik> sipa: that might be part of the problem, yes
415 2013-04-02 11:13:46 <Supa> hey garzik
416 2013-04-02 11:13:48 <Supa> gimme bitcoins
417 2013-04-02 11:13:52 <Supa> k thx bai :D
418 2013-04-02 11:14:08 <Supa> 13DRAm57deBUgUfPAoZfp3cqHsqWkVhWRg
419 2013-04-02 11:14:29 <jgarzik> ;;kban Supa
420 2013-04-02 11:22:41 <graingert> Supa: uh
421 2013-04-02 11:30:08 <graingert> lol
422 2013-04-02 11:41:42 <finway> So, how do devs thiks about mtgox supporting litecoin ?
423 2013-04-02 11:50:50 <bwen> is there a way to have Armory connect to the testnet bitcoin-qt instead?
424 2013-04-02 12:02:16 <helo> finway: they think litecoin has made mistakes that will probably cause big problems down the road
425 2013-04-02 12:02:35 <skinnkavaj> #bitcoin-swe
426 2013-04-02 12:06:32 <finway> helo,what problem? would you mind be more specific ?
427 2013-04-02 12:07:47 <helo> finway: scrypt (causing massive susceptibility to botnets), short inter-block delay (causing more frequent and deeper forks)
428 2013-04-02 12:08:29 <finway> helo, thank you.
429 2013-04-02 12:09:33 <pjorrit_> wait mtgox supports ltc or was that a hypothetical?
430 2013-04-02 12:09:55 <Ry4an> pjorrit_: it was the april fools that wasn't.
431 2013-04-02 12:10:03 <pjorrit_> oh right lol
432 2013-04-02 12:10:27 <Ry4an> really though, they make their money taking a percentage of transactions. If there was a critical market in trading magic cards they'd do it.
433 2013-04-02 12:10:33 <pjorrit_> my impenetrable april fools shield always suddenly fails teh moment we reach 4-2
434 2013-04-02 12:10:46 <BlueMatt> Ry4an: you do realize thats what the name is...
435 2013-04-02 12:10:51 <Ry4an> pjorrit_: no, they actually do litecoin. it wasn't a joke just ill times.
436 2013-04-02 12:10:54 <Ry4an> BlueMatt: I do :)
437 2013-04-02 12:46:04 <Eliel> helo: except, it doesn't look like litecoin is going to really end up that much more susceptible to botnets than bitcoin is.
438 2013-04-02 12:48:27 <helo> Eliel: as far as i know custom hardware is the only way. isn't the choice of scrypt intended to keep mining viable on commodity hardware?
439 2013-04-02 12:49:06 <Eliel> helo: it is, but it doesn't look like it's succeeding too well.
440 2013-04-02 12:50:27 <Eliel> the gap between a CPU and a GPU is a bit smaller but still pretty wide.
441 2013-04-02 12:51:42 <denisx> Committing 36751 changed transactions to coin database...
442 2013-04-02 12:51:46 <denisx> is that normal?
443 2013-04-02 12:52:05 <denisx> got that after block 0000000000000009d5158bdf82d8cb3deb3481d3446b1f6d0106ebcdda8a28bd
444 2013-04-02 12:53:04 <helo> i have "Committing 2293 changed transactions to coin database." for that block
445 2013-04-02 12:54:15 <denisx> strange
446 2013-04-02 12:55:40 <finway> Committing 36751 changed transactions to coin database... How to watch this ?
447 2013-04-02 12:59:13 <helo> it's not something you really have to worry about
448 2013-04-02 13:13:19 <lolant> How can I search for a bitcoin wallet in a harddrive without a filesystem?
449 2013-04-02 13:13:44 <poop_> make a disk image
450 2013-04-02 13:13:59 <poop_> with dd
451 2013-04-02 13:14:11 <lolant> I am doing that now
452 2013-04-02 13:14:18 <lolant> But the filesystem is still b0rked
453 2013-04-02 13:14:18 <poop_> then you can attempt to carve the image
454 2013-04-02 13:14:42 <lolant> how?
455 2013-04-02 13:14:42 <poop_> http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Tools:Data_Recovery#Carving
456 2013-04-02 13:15:14 <lolant> has anyone made a formost signature for wallets?
457 2013-04-02 13:15:24 <poop_> you mean the magic bytes?
458 2013-04-02 13:15:38 <lolant> headers and footers
459 2013-04-02 13:15:56 <poop_> the wallet is a well known format (berkely db? I forget)
460 2013-04-02 13:16:00 <poop_> you should be able to look it up
461 2013-04-02 13:17:15 <HM> why not just recover the filesystem
462 2013-04-02 13:17:32 <poop_> there's a solution
463 2013-04-02 13:17:40 <lolant> rescued: 96734 MB, errsize: 48030 MB, current rate: 0 B/s
464 2013-04-02 13:17:50 <lolant> I think the filesystem stuff is inside those 48gb
465 2013-04-02 13:26:35 <helo> lolant: have you seen https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25091.0 ?
466 2013-04-02 13:26:52 <helo> lolant: was your wallet encrypted?
467 2013-04-02 13:33:10 <lolant> helo: dont think so
468 2013-04-02 13:33:16 <lolant> was back in 2010
469 2013-04-02 13:33:32 <lolant> havin my 160 coins would be swell
470 2013-04-02 13:33:40 <helo> if it wasn't encrypted, the tool on that bitcointalk thread has a good chance of helping
471 2013-04-02 13:33:50 <lolant> does it work on images?
472 2013-04-02 13:33:53 <helo> yes
473 2013-04-02 13:34:55 <helo> be sure to read that top post carefully
474 2013-04-02 13:35:58 <lolant> helo: I am running it on the image now
475 2013-04-02 13:40:32 <helo> don't forget to breathe
476 2013-04-02 13:42:07 <lolant> helo: probably a good idea
477 2013-04-02 13:42:15 <DarkGhost`> is litecoin takin gover?
478 2013-04-02 13:44:08 <rebroad> DarkGhost`, why do you ask that?
479 2013-04-02 13:44:33 <DarkGhost`> I've just been hearing alot of talk that litecoin is better than bitcoin, easier to mine, less gpu/cpu use
480 2013-04-02 13:44:34 <DarkGhost`> and etc
481 2013-04-02 13:45:39 <Luke-Jr> DarkGhost`: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pumpanddump.asp
482 2013-04-02 13:47:15 <helo> Luke-Jr: can't the same be said about bitcoin?
483 2013-04-02 13:47:20 <Luke-Jr> helo: no
484 2013-04-02 13:47:49 <Luke-Jr> helo: what false, misleading, or greatly exaggerated statements do we make to inflate price?
485 2013-04-02 13:48:03 <lupine> Luke-Jr, it's more opportunistic than manufactured, for bitcoin
486 2013-04-02 13:48:18 <lupine> there's enough people talking about it independently, after all
487 2013-04-02 13:48:34 <helo> Luke-Jr: we don't, but the media can't help but hype
488 2013-04-02 13:48:49 <Luke-Jr> lupine: bitcoin experts will generally correct erroneous statements
489 2013-04-02 13:49:01 <lupine> no doubt
490 2013-04-02 13:49:29 <aceat64> I don't think LTC is necessarily pump and dump, it's just not innovative compared to bitcoin
491 2013-04-02 13:49:40 <aceat64> there's no compelling use case
492 2013-04-02 13:49:42 <wumpus> aceat64: exactly
493 2013-04-02 13:49:44 <aceat64> it's not "asic-proof"
494 2013-04-02 13:49:53 <aceat64> it's no longer "gpu proof"
495 2013-04-02 13:49:56 <k9quaint> litecoin is really just a clone of bitcoin with a different hash algorithm and diff adjustment params
496 2013-04-02 13:50:02 <aceat64> fast block times isn't necessarily better
497 2013-04-02 13:50:05 <lupine> eh, scrypt is a better choice than sha256, but that's not a massive difference
498 2013-04-02 13:50:17 <k9quaint> lupine: define better
499 2013-04-02 13:50:21 <darkskiez> and if bitcoin needs to change those things, come the future, an update to the client, if widely deployed, makes it fact.
500 2013-04-02 13:50:32 <aceat64> darkskiez: bingo
501 2013-04-02 13:50:39 <lupine> k9quaint, difficulty can be part of the scheme rather than being tacked onto the end
502 2013-04-02 13:50:40 <aceat64> litecoin is an interesting experiment
503 2013-04-02 13:50:40 <helo> how many times can the initial uptake explosion happen before people don't feel the pull?
504 2013-04-02 13:50:42 <darkskiez> like the 21mil limit can be removed at any point or anything
505 2013-04-02 13:50:44 <lupine> I don't think litecoin do it right, mind
506 2013-04-02 13:50:47 <aceat64> but I treat it the same as the testnet
507 2013-04-02 13:50:59 <lupine> but having an extra difficulty knob is nice
508 2013-04-02 13:51:31 <lupine> still, competition is good
509 2013-04-02 13:51:43 <darkskiez> I suspect that anti-bitcoin forces will try the divide and conquer approach too though
510 2013-04-02 13:51:57 <lupine> and with time, they might even become competitors, rather than mostly-apers
511 2013-04-02 13:52:11 <aceat64> lupine: I agree, but the rhetoric of "litecoin is better!" is wrong
512 2013-04-02 13:52:50 <aceat64> it's a slightly different take on the exact same protocol
513 2013-04-02 13:53:01 <wumpus> there's nothing (that I can see) specifically wrong with LTC, but they're using the same code and same kind of network with *slightly* different rules, it's just another bitcoin
514 2013-04-02 13:53:32 <MWNinja> a handful of smart developers could make litecoin better, but that type of activity isn't occurring, and as such there is no basis for the current LTC price
515 2013-04-02 13:53:46 <lupine> it's a good hedge for if a massive hole in sha256 is found, mind
516 2013-04-02 13:53:55 <wumpus> competition would be nice, but in the form of a genuinly different cryptocurrency (ie, ripple, opentransactions) not another blockchain rehash
517 2013-04-02 13:53:58 <wumpus> but that's just IMO
518 2013-04-02 13:54:09 <lupine> everyone can immediately sell bitcoins for litecoins and everything can continue as before
519 2013-04-02 13:54:23 <aceat64> something like PPCoin is pretty neat, not sure of the utility, but at least they have the right idea of trying a new system
520 2013-04-02 13:54:25 <lupine> that might actually be its ultimate useful function
521 2013-04-02 13:54:39 <wumpus> of all the holes that could be found in bitcoin, I think a double sha256 exploit is least likely
522 2013-04-02 13:54:47 <lupine> it's a very long hedge
523 2013-04-02 13:54:56 <darkskiez> if there are rumours of a sha256 breach, bitcoin can add a secondary hashing algo, and we can just transfer all the old keys to the new ones.
524 2013-04-02 13:55:13 <lupine> you don't want to be playing that game in a hurry with a new algorithm
525 2013-04-02 13:55:52 <darkskiez> no, but its always an option
526 2013-04-02 13:56:07 <gonffen> lupine: you can't sell something that no one will buy. It would still be pretty crushing I'd think.
527 2013-04-02 13:56:44 <darkskiez> i really dont see large scale bitcoin abandonment over any single issue, any issue can be resolved in protocol.
528 2013-04-02 13:57:11 <etotheipi__> that's actually why I thought it would cool to have a new chain that can use "destroyed" coins from the main blockchain as sources for the new blockchain
529 2013-04-02 13:57:45 <darkskiez> destroyed coins ?
530 2013-04-02 13:58:04 <darkskiez> they are transferred to a new block, not destroyed
531 2013-04-02 13:58:06 <etotheipi__> send coins to a script on the main blockchain that is unredeemable
532 2013-04-02 13:58:24 <etotheipi__> they are effectively lost on the main blockchain, because they are unspendable
533 2013-04-02 13:58:27 <helo> why has litecoin seen success while so many other altcoins have not?
534 2013-04-02 13:58:28 <lupine> well, you've got an element of trust right there. how do you verify irredemibility?
535 2013-04-02 13:58:37 <etotheipi__> there would be a specific template
536 2013-04-02 13:58:53 <lupine> I guess you'd have to specify a particular address as being invalid in the protocol
537 2013-04-02 13:58:57 <etotheipi__> OP_FALSE OP_VERIFY
538 2013-04-02 13:59:02 <redeeman> but what if someone lies about that address?
539 2013-04-02 13:59:17 <etotheipi__> that script would fail immediately
540 2013-04-02 13:59:20 <etotheipi__> there's no way to redeem it
541 2013-04-02 13:59:30 <etotheipi__> anything that comes after it is pointless
542 2013-04-02 13:59:41 <helo> so you destroy bitcoin to create altcoin?
543 2013-04-02 13:59:43 <etotheipi__> you put your address of your new-blockchain-address after it
544 2013-04-02 13:59:52 <lupine> ah, a script, not an address