00:01:15jtimon:does this make any sense? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=430705.msg4715291#msg4715291
00:01:39jtimon:isn't getBlock template the same thing as GBT ?
00:03:30sipa:i assume it's a typo, but i've no idea for what
00:25:54andytoshi:;;later tell nsh i did the talk, didn't get to any wizards stuff, it was very boring, sorry
00:25:54gribble:The operation succeeded.
04:10:14tt_away:It's late and I'm tired and going through ProtoShares source code; does PTS only use SHA512 as a hash function? It mentions sCrypt in the white paper, but I'm not seeing it.
04:10:54tt_away:Also these indentations ahhhhhHHHH
05:02:01Luke-Jr:tt_away: this is #Bitcoin-Dev
08:55:32adam3us:tt_away: i believe the momentum pow in the code diverges from what they said in the paper
09:02:30super3:adam3us, how so?
09:04:30super3:while it certainly is better, memory hard doesn't work as intended
10:34:09adam3us:tt_away: in fact momentum was never to my tastes described anywhere clearly and simply. the actual mechanism is simple. compute small hashcash collisions (25-bits i recall?) with a constrained nonce search-space (also 25-bits) to control the maximum amount of memory you can usefully use for it
11:31:39sbbodhtimrj:sbbodhtimrj is now known as jrmithdobbs
11:54:44dlidstrom:dlidstrom has left #bitcoin-wizards
13:00:33gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
14:42:34_ingsoc:_ingsoc is now known as Guest6990
14:51:34tt_away:tt_away is now known as tacotime
15:06:26wavedigit_:hi I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm apparently banned in #bitcoin(-otc)
15:06:44wavedigit_:I need a VPS which accepts BTC, which is not BitVPS
15:07:09wavedigit_:thanks, I'll take a look at that
15:07:52sipa:oh hi, vbuterin
15:08:18vbuterin:hey sipa
15:08:33sipa:nice to see you on irc
15:10:53gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
15:14:49pigeons:wavedigit_: #bitcoin-hosting
15:15:15wavedigit_:thanks pigeons :)
15:31:54wavedigit_:vbuterin: do you perhaps know any good VPS provider with servers in the EU? I also can't find any good information on what kind of processors those VM's run on there.
15:32:15sipa:i have a vps with cloudvps, in .nl
15:34:05wavedigit_:sipa: do they accept BTC?
15:35:04sipa:don't think so
15:38:18wavedigit_:oh hey I found this - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Virtual_private_server and - http://www.exoticvps.com/ (search for bitcoin there)
15:38:31wavedigit_:but I have really no idea which one has a good track record
15:41:30jgarzik:wavedigit_, offtopic for this channel. There are a bunch listed at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade
15:41:47wavedigit_:ah yeah forgot, sorry
15:58:39gavinandresen_:the core dev machine (hosts bitcoincore.org, the pull-tester, and a couple other VMs) is paid for with bitcoin, hosted at snelserver.com…
16:10:23wavedigit_:gavinandresen_: you guys should consider letting them advertise that they accept BTC, also it seems they're doing dedicated stuff only.
16:11:25gavinandresen_:wavedigit_: "letting them advertise" ??? they don't need permission
16:12:26wavedigit_:right, I meant letting them know to place a bitcoin logo or otherwise announce that they accept BTC
16:13:21sipa:that's their business
16:13:27sipa:#bitcoin please
16:21:13TD:gavinandresen_: so, any thoughts on doing the fee drop for a 0.9.1 release? or maybe including it in a rc2? as now we know, 0.9 will ship without smartfees
16:28:29gavinandresen_:I want to get smartfees done for 0.9.1
16:28:48TD:would that not make it a 0.10? :)
16:29:13gavinandresen_:I don't think so… I'd consider smartfees a bugfix, not a new feature
16:29:38gavinandresen_:it is a bug that you can (today) send a free transaction that might take a long time to confirm
16:30:09gavinandresen_:… or you can send a fee-paying transaction that takes a long time to confirm
16:30:28jgarzik:agree with latter
16:30:33TD:i guess i see it as more of a new feature, as i'm still hoping it will add to the p2p protocol so bitcoinj can use it. but there's no reason there can't be a fast turnaround on a 0.10
16:30:48jgarzik:free transactions are always a gamble, depending on network burstiness
16:31:12gavinandresen_:the free transaction threshold is just wrong these days.
16:31:12jgarzik:agree that smartfees are a bugfix
16:31:14TD:i mean the software is working "as designed", right, so it's not a bug in that sense. perhaps a design fault
16:31:24jgarzik:the user experience sucks
16:31:26jgarzik:is the core problem
16:31:27TD:but if smartfees are a bugfix, then is chain pruning a bug fix?
16:31:36TD:jgarzik: lol. you can sum up all of bitcoin that way :)
16:32:02gavinandresen_:sure, chain pruning could be considered a "uses too much disk space" bug fix… the line is fuzzy
16:32:42jgarzik:Two of my years-long wishes for basic bitcoin usability have been: (1) Get fees right 95% of the time, (2) Deterministic lifetime: if user guesses wrong, most nodes forget TX after 24-48 hours
16:33:05jgarzik:I consider those longstanding "bugs"
16:33:13jgarzik:and smartfees gets us a long way towards fixing #1
16:34:25gavinandresen_:I wonder if we should skip 0.10 and go to 0.11… 0.10 looks too much like 1.0
16:34:39gavinandresen_:and eleven is such a nice number
16:34:50jgarzik:you and 11 ;p
16:35:48jgarzik:we could always put an 8 in any version (0.11.8, 0.12.8) because the Chinese consider 8 a lucky number
16:36:22gavinandresen_:Then 88 would be even better
16:37:40jgarzik:Our local Chinese take-out place is named 888 for this reason.
16:37:42TD:you're going to take it to 11?
16:37:56jgarzik:Because 888 is even better than 88. :)
16:44:25gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
17:44:16holyboot:holyboot has left #bitcoin-wizards
19:56:18gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
20:13:46gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
22:59:30gavinandresen:gavinandresen has left #bitcoin-wizards
23:23:10michagogo|cloud:Luke-Jr: No, it's not :P