--- Log opened Thu Nov 28 00:00:00 2013 --- Day changed Thu Nov 28 2013 05:52 < gmaxwell> nice numbers on my display here: high: 1100.00 low: 1001.00 06:01 < TD> amazing 06:01 < TD> heh. someone sent me a fee-less transaction yesterday. it took about 22 hours to confirm. seems like that's the normal waiting period at the moment. 06:02 < TD> for low-pri transactions (it was a return to sender kind of thing) 06:15 < Luke-Jr> sounds reasonable 06:16 < gwillen> I've been telling people "typically not more than a day", although I imagine that won't stay true forever 06:21 * TD remembers when all transactions were free and confirmed immediately 06:22 < warren> and unicorns were $2.99/lb 06:23 < TD> more evidence bitcoin is taking off in china - the number of emails i'm getting in broken english from chinese people with questions or who are trying to use bitcoinj, up infinity% 06:23 < gmaxwell> ::shrugs:: I did a zero fee transaction last week that confirmed in under two minutes. 06:23 < TD> yeah. priority is a good thing. 07:44 < warren> http://www.coinchoose.com/charts.php 07:44 < warren> what the heck is QRK 07:45 < _ingsoc> That's "Quark Coin", whatever the heck that is. 07:45 < gmaxwell> I would guess something called "quark" 07:46 < _ingsoc> "Quark Coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, with improvements to design and security." 07:46 < _ingsoc> Where have I heard that before? :/ 07:47 < gmaxwell> apparently "more secure" means some @#$@ed up homebrew pow function 07:48 < gmaxwell> ... with 30 second blocks. 07:48 < gmaxwell> so they have a really slow custom pow, and really fast blocks. 07:48 < gmaxwell> and they call this more secure. 07:48 < _ingsoc> And bad grammar, don't forget the grammar! 07:49 < gmaxwell> and ... seem to have no source code? 07:49 < _ingsoc> That's too complicated for the users! 07:49 < gmaxwell> oh there it is. 07:49 < Emcy> legit question, how many 3 letter contractions can there be 07:49 < gmaxwell> almost as hard as finding the bitcoin source. :P 07:49 < Emcy> and can we hope that the tide of altcoins will recede after theyre all taken 07:49 < gmaxwell> lots once you use greek λλλcoin. 07:50 < _ingsoc> Soon we will move to a new suffix, like how Zerocoin will be Zerocash. 07:50 < _ingsoc> Wait, that wonh't change anything. 07:50 < Emcy> gmaxwell fratcoin? 07:50 < Emcy> by bros for bros 07:51 < _ingsoc> Max Keiser said someone should make Keisercoin. 07:51 < _ingsoc> Watch it happen. 07:51 < Emcy> cosbycoin happened 07:51 < gmaxwell> _ingsoc: oh, have they actually made public the zerocash name? 07:51 < _ingsoc> He only said they're thinking about calling it that. 07:51 < _ingsoc> Does he have beef with you guys somehow? 07:52 < gmaxwell> Who? 07:52 < _ingsoc> Matt Green. 07:53 < Emcy> no one exactly shitted on zerocoin v1 did they 07:53 < gmaxwell> Not as far as I know, I had a pleasant conversation with him. He asked me if I'd be willing to work on his thing, I told him I would, after chatting a bit. He said he'd send the paper, hasn't done so. 07:54 < _ingsoc> How do I talk you into something like that? 07:54 < gmaxwell> then he started posting tweeting bragging about it, which I found a little .. unfortunate, because I don't think he's being completely frank about the tradeoffs involved, but I feel a little hand tied because I don't want to go blabbing the details of their system. 07:54 < _ingsoc> Do I need to go get a professorship and a Twitter account? :( 07:56 < gmaxwell> _ingsoc: well, as I said before, I don't think most of the alt ideas are actually interesting. The zero cash stuff is, well, except for some of the limitations. But ignoring them it's a material improvement over what we have in bitcoin. 07:57 < _ingsoc> That's fair enough. In any case, your efforts are very much needed on Bitcoin specifically. 07:57 < gmaxwell> well because of some of the limiations I don't expect the zerocash alt to actually be a long term success, but it would be a useful science project. 07:58 < _ingsoc> There are so many interesting ideas to explore, and it's a pity we can't find more people to do it. The money is there, even though you guys demand a pretty penny nowadays. You just need the right model and you'll attract lots of new people. 07:59 < Emcy> perhaps he thinks the best way to get it implemented in bitcoin is via external market pressure 07:59 < Emcy> rather than try and wade thru the internal politics 08:01 < Emcy> assuming he think s ZCv2 is good to go too, they were pretty triumphant about v1 and it was actually completely impractical right now 08:01 < gmaxwell> not only was ZCv1 impratical, but you see how quickly its being replaced by something much better. 08:05 < Emcy> yeah. If such effeciency gains as 98% as claimed were possible, i wonder why they announced the first time. 08:05 < Emcy> assuming its incremental and not some sort of huge re-innovation 13:10 < n0g> I told all my friends that I hang around the BTC devs.. *so proud* 13:10 < n0g> I love you guys. 13:10 < n0g> :D 13:10 < n0g> You make me a celebrity overnight.. 13:10 < Einz> lol 13:10 < n0g> LOL 13:21 < jrmithdobbs> cfields: I used a one liner and run it. Stuffed service names in an array and used $RANDOM to decide which instance and which signal (stop, cont, term, kill, int) .. It's two lookup tables and sv ${sigtbl[$(($RANDOM % 5)) ]} ${svtable[$(($RANDOM % 6))]} in a sleep $(($RANDOM % 90)) loop 13:22 < jrmithdobbs> cfields: It's zero work using the right tools. ;p 13:23 < jrmithdobbs> If you don't like the lcw/mcw (I forget which bash uses) provided by random you can $(myfunc_that_printfs_dev_random) 13:28 < jrmithdobbs> cfields: Like gmaxwell said though, such tests don't give good coverage/repeat ability even when there's a known issue that test will eventually trigger ... --- Log closed Fri Nov 29 00:00:17 2013