--- Log opened Mon Jun 01 00:00:28 2015
00:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:02 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
00:05 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:05 -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
00:07 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:09 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:10 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.46] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:17 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:17 < waxwing>  www.anagram.com/jcrap/Volume_8/leakage.pdf
00:17 < waxwing> references Chicken so probably worth a look
00:18 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:19 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@pro75-5-88-162-202-99.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:20 < justanotheruser> Is there some significance to the word leakage?
00:20 < fluffypony> justanotheruser: yes
00:21 < fluffypony> from the seminal presentation on it
00:21 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:21 < fluffypony> "Leakage: leakage leakage; leakage, & leakage"
00:21 < fluffypony> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89K3j_Rsbco
00:21 < justanotheruser> is there some trend of information leakage papers being nonsensical?
00:22 < fluffypony> nah I think they were just taking the piss out of the Chicken thing
00:23 < justanotheruser> isn't that the same guy from the chicken paper?
00:23 < justanotheruser> s/paper/presentation/
00:24 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:26 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:46 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
00:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
00:49 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.4] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
00:52 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.26] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04  * andy-logbot is logging
01:05 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:08 -!- vonzipper_ [sid77971@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-upbzqkbosahfqnrv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:08 -!- jbenet_ [sid17552@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zrsvzyxycuxhjetk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:09 -!- vonzipper [sid77971@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jeepakvhsdfpojtm] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:09 -!- jbenet [sid17552@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nubngpipgdtjjwsl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:09 < gmaxwell> does the leakage paper encode another paper in typesetting modulation?
01:09 -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has quit [Quit: Got root?]
01:09 -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:10 -!- vonzipper_ is now known as vonzipper
01:10 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:10 -!- jbenet_ is now known as jbenet
01:14 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:21 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:28  * nsh smiles
01:34 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:38 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:39 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.46] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
01:40 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.46] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:43 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:47 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:47 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:05 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:08 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:12 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:14 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:17 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:18 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@162.244.138.37] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:18 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:18 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
02:18 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:18 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Killed (verne.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
02:18 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
02:18 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
02:26 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
02:34 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:38 < waxwing> justanotheruser: the author is of course our lord and saviour: https://twitter.com/dchest/status/604410816675323904
02:39 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
02:42 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:42 -!- veox [~veox@shinji.veox.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:48 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:48 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
02:48 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:48 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Killed (wilhelm.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
02:48 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
02:48 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:52 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood]
02:53 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:55 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
03:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:06  * nsh chants Djah-b, Cryptofari!
03:08 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:14 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:16 -!- luny` [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:16 -!- hearn_ [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:17 -!- rustyn_ [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:18 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Disconnected by services]
03:18 -!- rustyn_ is now known as rustyn
03:18 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
03:20 -!- _mm_1 [~malte0@bnc33.nitrado.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:20 -!- mm_1 [bnc33@bnc33.nitrado.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- luny [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:20 -!- _mm_1 is now known as mm_1
03:21 -!- veox [~veox@shinji.veox.pw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:23 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:24 -!- cryptowe- [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:25 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:27 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:29 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:36 -!- hearn_ is now known as hearn
03:38 -!- Starduster_ [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:39 -!- DrWatto [~DrWat@186.107.102.255] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:40 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:41 -!- Rynomster [~quassel@unaffiliated/rynomster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:41 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:41 -!- helo_ [~helo@unaffiliated/helo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:42 -!- stonecoldpat [~Paddy@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- helo [~helo@unaffiliated/helo] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- DrWat [DrWat@186.107.102.255] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- Starduster [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:42 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:43 -!- stonecoldpat [~Paddy@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:43 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:44 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:46 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:46 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@pro75-5-88-162-202-99.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
03:50 -!- stonecoldpat [~Paddy@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit []
03:51 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:51 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
03:58 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:01 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:08 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@pro75-5-88-162-202-99.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:12 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:12 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:12 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:13 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.104.178.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:20 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:21 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Killed (hobana.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
04:21 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
04:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
04:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:22 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wtnfycruviabahaa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:23 -!- Populus [~Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:23 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:26 -!- CodeShark [~textual@cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:27 -!- Populus [~Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
04:27 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:27 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Changing host]
04:27 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-fmmxyemdpwemguci] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:28 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:30 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:31 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:31 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:34 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.104.178.47] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:35 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:35 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:35 -!- luny` is now known as luny
04:37 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:42 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:44 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit []
04:48 -!- sneak [~sneak@unaffiliated/sneak] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:48 -!- sneak [~sneak@unaffiliated/sneak] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:10 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.26] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:11 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:14 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:14 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:17 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:20 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:20 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.3] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:21 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:24 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:29 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:30 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
05:36 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:41 -!- lmatteis [~lmatteis@lmatteis.redi.uniroma1.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:43 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:46 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:47 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:49 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-178.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:56 -!- hashtagg [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:58 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:01 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:02 -!- hashtagg [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
06:06 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:12 -!- afk11 [~thomas@46.7.4.219] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:14 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:16 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@195.138.228.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:16 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:17 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:18 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.104.178.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:26 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:33 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wtnfycruviabahaa] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
06:38 -!- fript [~fr1pt@li578-62.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:38 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
06:42 -!- adam3us2 [~Adium@37.75.34.153] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:45 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@195.138.228.4] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:48 -!- helo_ is now known as helo
06:53 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:54 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:04 -!- nessence [~alexl@151.54.253.84.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:11 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:13 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:15 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
07:17 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:19 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:20 -!- p15_ [~p15@111.193.181.125] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:21 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.46] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:31 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:35 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.44] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:40 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:41 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:47 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:49 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
07:50 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:52 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:54 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:05 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:06 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ewerghqgwidltxzs] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
08:10 -!- nessence [~alexl@213.55.184.183] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:12 -!- nessence [~alexl@213.55.184.183] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:22 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:24 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:27 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
08:27 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:27 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:30 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:31 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:34 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@pro75-5-88-162-202-99.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
08:36 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:37 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
08:37 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:39 -!- Rynomster [~quassel@unaffiliated/rynomster] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:40 -!- sausage_factory [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:42 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:42 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
08:42 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:43 -!- p15_ [~p15@111.193.181.125] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:44 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:44 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.44] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:45 -!- sausage_factory [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:50 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
08:53 -!- DrWat [DrWat@186-106-200-119.baf.movistar.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:53 -!- DrWatto [~DrWat@186.107.102.255] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:57 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:02 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:03 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.184.203] has quit [Excess Flood]
09:05 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:08 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.184.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:11 -!- adam3us2 [~Adium@37.75.34.153] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:17 -!- adam3us [~Adium@37.75.44.217] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rcchrxgqyflmbbnt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:21 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:24 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
09:26 -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
09:28 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:29 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
09:31 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:34 -!- Guest47933 [~guest@5ED11658.cm-7-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:37 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
09:37 -!- Starduster_ [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:42 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:43 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:44 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:49 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:49 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:50 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:59 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
10:01 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:08 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- hearn [~mike@178.197.231.47] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
10:11 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:12 -!- blackwraith is now known as priidu
10:13 -!- Guest58038 [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:19 < StephenM347> The main argument against a simple vote to increase block size (one vote per block solve), is that miners would form cartels to cut smaller miners out, right?
10:20 < StephenM347> Miners could already do this, though. If together they have >50% of the mining power, they just agree to only mine on each others blocks.
10:21 < StephenM347> It seems like a simple vote doesn't add any assumptions about miners that aren't already in place.
10:22 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:22 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has quit [Changing host]
10:22 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:22 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:23 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:23 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:23 < andytoshi> StephenM347: miner incentives are not aligned with the incentives of any other party in the network, at least re blocksize
10:24 < andytoshi> since they are directly rewarded for larger blocks while everyone else sees only increased validation/bandwidth costs (tho potentially lower network fees i suppose)
10:26 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:26 < andytoshi> bottom of page 11 says this in https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf ... as i recall there are actually alts out there with adaptive blocksizes who have seen this problem, but i apparently did not write about them :/
10:26 -!- jae [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:26 -!- jae is now known as Guest89542
10:27 -!- nessence [~alexl@213.55.184.183] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:29 < StephenM347> andytoshi: I see what you're saying, that may be just an inherent flaw. Probably not one we can't live with, though.
10:29 < StephenM347> No matter what happens, miners are going to have to be involved in order to change the block size limit.
10:30 < StephenM347> So why not give it to them within the protocol?
10:30 < StephenM347> Rather than debating for aeons and then still requiring miners' approval.
10:31 < andytoshi> StephenM347: because if you put blocksize adjustments into the protocol, only miners' consent is then needed to change it. but if changing it means changing consensus rules, then everybody needs to agree
10:32 < andytoshi> miners have very little power to effect hardforks, basically enough of them need to collude to plausibly threaten to attack the portion of the network that doesn't agree with them
10:33 < andytoshi> otherwise if they fork, they're just wasting power generating coins that nobody else recognizes
10:34 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
10:34 < StephenM347> andytoshi: requiring only miners' consent does seem to be a downside.
10:35 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:35 < StephenM347> and it's awfully hard to get the votes of users' included into a decentralized protocol
10:35 < tromp_> andytoshi: larger blocks could lead to lower avg fee per tx
10:35 < kanzure> votes are a completely wrong mechanism for that
10:36 < kanzure> andytoshi: they can effect hardforks by threatening to attack other chains, depending on their size
10:37 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:37 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:73f:f6e4:e23f:49ff:fe47:9364] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:39 -!- ortutay [~marcell@208.74.176.67.static.etheric.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:40 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:43 < StephenM347> andytoshi: I think I understand the dilemma more now. Thanks. Keeping complete control out of miners' hands is actually a benefit, even though it makes our lives difficult in times like these.
10:44 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:44 -!- nessence [~alexl@213.55.184.183] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:46 -!- user7779_ [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:48 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:48 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:49 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:54 < andytoshi> StephenM347: can you clarify "makes our lives difficult in times like these"? to the best of my knowledge there is no pressing need for any forking changes, and certainly no need for minorities to have unilateral power to change the network rules for everyone else
10:55 < andytoshi> StephenM347: the point of a decentalized consensus system is that nobody can force their will on others; so no "tyranny of miners" nor "tyranny of the majority" nor "tyranny of several corps' PR departments" etc
11:01 < andytoshi> (i don't mean to be rude here; i'm well aware of what's being said on reddit and in the press; but this "either nothing changes forever or RIGHT NOW we must do something drastic" meme is hysterical at best .. and seems to be pushed by people who are not interested in decentralization and in fact seem willing to act deliberately against it. it's tiring.)
11:03 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:03 < StephenM347> andytoshi: I didn't take it as rude. I want to maintain decentralization, but I think an increase in the block size limit is necessary simply to buy us some time to develop systems such as lightning network.
11:04 < wumpus> andytoshi: "but this "either nothing changes forever or RIGHT NOW we must do something drastic" the tyranny of imagined necessity
11:04 < StephenM347> By times like these, I simply mean times when everyone is debating about changing a core characteristic of the bitcoin system
11:05 < andytoshi> StephenM347: well, lightning can work today with 1Mb blocks. it would need to see significant usage (and weird events where lots of transactions are simultaneously unwound/committed at the same time) before we saw constraints due to lightning
11:06 < andytoshi> but it is certainly true that in the future we will likely want a blocksize increase. but there is no evidence that that time is now, and there's a lot of engineering work re network scalability that ought to be done before that
11:06 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
11:07 < gmaxwell> StephenM347: right now, however, the network isn't full-- and we are not yet seeing a functioning fee market even. If there were some emergency situation with transactions backlogged for days; ---- then indeed a modest bump would be the least of the available evils. Fortunately doing that is technically trivial.
11:07 < gmaxwell> Especially since SPV clients cannot see the blocksize.
11:07 < StephenM347> andytoshi: Right, but since no such solution is currently available, we may need to keep using fully on-chain transactions for the immediate future. For this purpose, I do think increasing the max block size should be done as a temporary solution.
11:08 < gmaxwell> StephenM347: technically most transactions involving bitcoin are already off the chain, via centeralized services (in exchanges) for better or worse.
11:08 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:08 < gmaxwell> Not becuase of a lack of space but because of things like instant confirmation.
11:08 < StephenM347> gmaxwell: True. And we have ~500 kb blocks and many miners leave the limit to the default 750 kb. We're not quite full yet, but we're not too far away.
11:08 < andytoshi> StephenM347: i'm not sure what you mean? lightning could be implemented today and be working; it would only be affected by blocksize limitations given (a) a lot of usage and (b) a "perfect storm" of commits to the blockchain
11:09 < gmaxwell> StephenM347: Sure, but we're not there yet, don't know how long it'll take to be there yet; and continually bumping the limits ahead of demand has resulted in almost all wallet software being varrious degrees of broken (unable to handle a fee market enviroment smoothly)
11:10 < gmaxwell> (also it has resulted in the network being moderately broken, in that we do not have CPFP or (safe-mode)RBF universally deployed)
11:11 < zooko> clear
11:11 < zooko> oops
11:12 -!- pollux-bts [uid52270@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yzicokrouawpfdmk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:12 < StephenM347> andytoshi: The lightning network could (mostly) be implemented today, aside from some malleability fixes that need to be implemented. I was just trying to say that increasing the max block size is an unfortunate, but possibly necessary, temporary solution
11:13 < wumpus> it's not a temporary solution, a hardfork takes a long time to deploy and I doubt it will ever be reverted. We all know that kind of temporary measures...
11:13 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@108-94-37-10.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.165.224] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:14 < StephenM347> temporary in the sense that it buys us time, not in the sense that it will ever need to be reverted
11:14 < gmaxwell> StephenM347: it also could have been implemented in 2013; https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Aakselrod/Draft  but absent actual pressure, these areas are not the most pressing concerns and they do not get investment.  We also have seen this with CPFP and RBF... CPFP was actually written up and RBF was invented back at the beginnning of 2013 when blocks were full (relative to the soft limit) and then
11:14 < wumpus> more pressure may be better to actually get solutions out there
11:14 < gmaxwell>  went dead once the limits were bumped.
11:15 < hulkhogan_> adam3us posted a very interesting proposal to the mailing list about the possiblilty of using opt-in blocks as another method. the notes he left made the scheme seem fairly complex to implement but it was compelling in the dimension of new considerations.
11:15 < wumpus> yes, all interest in them went away
11:16 < gmaxwell> hulkhogan_: I'm not a huge fan of extension blocks myself (and had previously been somewhat negative about proposing it); mostly because they have 90% of the negatives of just having a larger block-- and the people who are agressively demanding larger blocks wouldn't support them, because they're more complex and the argument for larger blocks begins with dismissing the negatives.
11:18 < gmaxwell> hulkhogan_: (and, in fact) the sidechains paper basically calls out 'a sidechain might turn into an extension block' as one of the risk factors of sidechains.
11:18 < StephenM347> gmaxwell: What do you mean by wallet software being 'unable to handle a fee market enviroment smoothly'? Are you saying wallet software should be more dynamic in its' fee calculation, looking at recent blocks to see what gets processed and what doesn't?
11:19 < wumpus> StephenM347: yes - this is what bitcoin core's wallet has done for a while
11:19 < hulkhogan_> gmaxwell: hm, i don't contextually undetstand all the implementation details of extension blocks, so maybe it was just because it was the first time i had seen the idea, but i should re-read adam's post to understand what security assumptions are gained/lost
11:19 < gmaxwell> StephenM347: two fold, that (right now most wallet software just sets static fees-- ones which are unrelated to the transaction size-- which makes very little sense; and causes both massive over and under payment)...  and wallet software (including bitcoin core) has no graceful way to recover when you've paid a fee that is too small.
11:19 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eucfevenuvfcfixx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:20 < gmaxwell> gracefully*
11:21 < gmaxwell> handling the latter really well may require something like safe-mode RBF in the behavior of miners and the relay network. (making easier to add fees to a transaction after the fact)
11:22 < gavinandresen> gmaxwell: there really isn't a way to handle "transaction won't confirm because insufficient fee paid" gracefully in a lock-wallet and/or multisig world.
11:23 < kanzure> you could do child-pays-for-parent there
11:23 < kanzure> without having to have everyone re-sign
11:23 < gavinandresen> gmaxwell: End-user wallets should probably target paying above-average fees to work around that. The high-volume-transaction uses of the blockchain are services (faucets, gambling, tumblers) not people, so that's OK.
11:24 < gmaxwell> gavinandresen: In cases where reissuing has greater costs, or CPFP isn't available-- one should be paying more fees upfront. Indeed.  Paying more in those cases is seems quite reasonable to me.
11:26  * gmaxwell bbiab
11:26 < gavinandresen> gmaxwell: given that a majority of miners are running with default block size, do you think we could run the same experiment with "what happens if transaction volume ramps up" by simply leaving the default block size at 750K?
11:26 < kanzure> same as what?
11:27 < gavinandresen> The "what happens when blocks are full" experiment.
11:27 < gavinandresen> Max size and size miners are choosing to create are not the same
11:27 < hearn> we know what happens already. it would be a waste of time.
11:27 < gavinandresen> hearn: I'm just trying to find consensus here.....
11:27 < hearn> we've hit soft limits before
11:28 < hearn> what happened is lots of users came and complained and me and andreas because their payments didn't work. then i had to go around asking miners to raise their limits. then we raised the defaults. big time sink, don't want that to happen again. fee market = nice name for picking losers.
11:29 < gavinandresen> By the way... I don't like the "no pressure to solve the problem" arguments, because same argument could be used by either side ("No pressure to handle increasing fees"  or "No pressure to work on optmizing for larger blocks")
11:30 < hearn> i don't like it because it assumes my time is free and that i have nothing better to do with it than work around self inflicted wounds :-)
11:31 < hearn> where by "my time" i mean "time of wallet developers around the world" of course
11:31 < gavinandresen> andytoshi: why do you think increasing the max block size will increase centralization to any significant degree? I've written a couple of blog posts on why I think it won't...
11:32 < kanzure> so the concern about increasingly higher average transaction fees is not related to the network failing to continue networking
11:32 < kanzure> i don't think that's relevant; the problems related to increasingly higher fees are other problems. they are still problems or concerns of course.
11:34 < andytoshi> gavinandresen: the same reasons that have been posted on reddit and elsewhere by gmax et al. i don't have anything new to say (and would rather not use -wizards scrollback rehashing this)
11:36 -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:39 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:40 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:41 < hearn> andytoshi: then they have been addressed already
11:41 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:41 -!- user7779_ [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:42 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xkvnijspewnlyjld] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:46 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:50 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:50 -!- elastoma [~elastoma@162.248.160.175] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:51 -!- elastoma [~elastoma@162.248.160.175] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:54 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-fmmxyemdpwemguci] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:56 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:57 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.165.224] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:57 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.165.224] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:59 < kanzure> gavinandresen: could you describe a worst-case scenario that you could imagine for extremely high average transaction fees?
12:01 < Relos> wouldn't high transaction fees mean practically no privacy?
12:02 < kanzure> go on?
12:02 < Relos> well, you wouldn't be able to use mixing
12:03 < Relos> unless you pay some very high cost
12:04 < Relos> you wouldn't be able to use a new address, etc
12:04 < Relos> thus everyone would or could know how much you own etc and where you spend it, which is terrible
12:05 < kanzure> why would you be unable to use a new address?
12:05 < Relos> because high fee
12:05 < kanzure> can you be more specific?
12:05 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:05 < hulkhogan_> Relos: if a fee market enabled greater innovation in off-chain processing, then the privacy could even be increased because of settlement scenarios
12:06 < Relos> let us suppose we have lightning networks, and I have not looked into it, but if I have some bitcoins and the onchain transactions are super high
12:06 < Relos> then how do I use mixing?
12:06 < kanzure> presumably they would continue working the same way, except you would type in a higher value for the transaction fee.
12:06 < Relos> yes, so pay a lot of money for privacy
12:07 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:07 < gavinandresen> RE: lightning and scalability or privacy: good discussion on the recent LTB podcast: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-joseph-poon-and-tadge-dryja-scalability-and-the-lightning-network
12:07  * hulkhogan_ is reminded to go over the lightning paper again
12:08 < Relos> and its not just privacy
12:08 < Relos> why would more people run a node than currently under a lightning network?
12:08 < gavinandresen> kanzure: worst case for high fees?  Bitcoin dies a slow death as people abandon it for better options.
12:09 < kanzure> don't you think the average transaction fee would go down if there are zero transactions?
12:09 < gavinandresen> kanzure: ... where better is lower fee, more convenient (no unlocking your wallet three times to send one transaction because the first two didn't confirm), etc.
12:09 < kanzure> (like that seems related to the definition of average)
12:09 < GAit> do we know of better options of bitcoin? last i checked the alts coins are not really better nor can scale better than bitcoin
12:09 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.165.224] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:09 < Relos> presumably, considering that there are estimated to be some 2-5 million bitcoin users and only 5,000 nodes, the people who currently run a node do so only because they have to or are hobbyists, or researchers, etc
12:10 < kanzure> gavinandresen: unlocking your private key multiple times seems to be related to poor fee estimate, not the other thing
12:10 < GAit> gavinandresen: it wouldn't lock if we had RBF without limiter
12:10 < kanzure> whoops sorry i mean poor fee estimation
12:10 < Relos> therefore, the only way to increase node count is by increasing the number of people who have to run a node
12:11 < Relos> the only way you can do that is by allowing businesses to find new applications for the blockchain, by increasing the number of businesses, users, etc
12:12 < Relos> so, to be honest, personally I think a higher size is more likely to lead to decentralisation rather than centralisation, if its a size that is currently easily affordable such as say 8 - or 11mb plus some % yearly increase in line with the average increase in bandwith speed
12:13 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:13 < kanzure> gavinandresen: so it sounds like you are very interested in permanently low fees
12:13 < Relos> at 1mb I can see us loosing both privacy and decentralisation
12:14 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I have no opinion on how high or low fees should be, I think we need to be neutral and let it sort itself out.
12:14 < kanzure> gavinandresen: that sounds like a good and neutral statement, but you stated previously a few minutes ago that better is lower fees, and i'm trying to reconcile this in my head
12:14 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I think artificially limiting the block size in an attempt to ... what? maximize miner revenue?  is a bad idea.
12:15 < hulkhogan_> relos, i think it makes more sense to understand why the node count has dropped recently. ex; if its the hdd constraints (30gb) then larger block size would exacerbate the problem. not saying that is the reason, just offering another line of thinking- hopes/wishes for node count to magically increase seems odd
12:16 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:16 < hulkhogan_> the reason to run a node is for self-verification/trustlessness, if it makes more sense for biz to outsource that function, they'd do that
12:16 < Relos> I'm just logically inferring and I may be wrong in my inference, but running a node currently is pretty much free, yet almost no one does so, because it is voluntary, they don't have to
12:17 < gavinandresen> Does anybody think that, given the choice between a full node processing 1MB blocks, a full node processing 20MB blocks, and an SPV wallet a significant fraction of users would choose either of the full node solutions over the lightweight SPV solution?
12:17 < Relos> so, I think, the only way to increase the node count is to increase the number of persons who have to run a node
12:17 < hulkhogan_> not voluntary, but resource unfriendly (is myu take)
12:17 < Relos> its inconvenient and people won't do something inconvenient if they have the choice
12:17 < Relos> as we can currently see
12:18 < gavinandresen> Relos: how do you think you can force somebody to run a full node?
12:18 < kanzure> gavinandresen: it is hard to predict how users will choose software, but i suspect that a full node can be made that can run on limited resources in an appealing way, with enough force perhaps
12:18 < hulkhogan_> well Relos, nobody 'has' to run a node, everyone can go SPV and trust the 1-2 nodes in our VISA-cryptodystopia, but they do it so they dont need to rely on others for blockchain/payment verfication
12:18 < Relos> hulkhogan_: I am not talking about any utopia, I am referring to the current situation
12:18 < kanzure> gavinandresen: so i think neutrality is a good strategy, but again you said above "Bitcoin dies a slow death as people abandon it for better options, where better is lower fee, [and other properties]"
12:19 < hulkhogan_> Relos: ex. i run a in-home node for verification of all my transactions, because i dont need to trust anyone else to know when my payments have succeeded.
12:19 < Relos> runnin a node currently is practically free, yet out of some 2 million users only 5,000 do so
12:19 < kanzure> gavinandresen: and i think it would be helpful to me (and others) to reconcile this somehow
12:19 < Relos> I think from that we can inferre that only people who need to run a node do so
12:19 < gavinandresen> kanzure: sure. If bitcoin transactions were $100 apiece, do you think there would be any interest?  Would you be interested?  At what point do you become un-interested?
12:19 < hulkhogan_> Relos: its not free, it takes 30+GB (cheap, not free) plus bandwith and compute
12:19 < Relos> thus, in regards to the question of decentralisation, we need to figure out how to increase the number of people who need to run a node
12:19 < kanzure> gavinandresen: my interests are very unusual and should not be relied on :-)
12:20 < kanzure> oh sorry
12:20 < Relos> and the only way I can think of doing so is by increasing the number of ways the blockchain can be used, the number of businesses, users, etc
12:20 < kanzure> you asked if there would be any interest
12:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:20 < hulkhogan_> Relos: i think getting others to run their own node helps autonomy in payment verification, but its only one aspect of decentralization that bitcoin offers
12:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:20 < kanzure> gavinandresen: yes, i think that by definition if transactions are paying those, then someone is paying those fees..
12:20 < Relos> a 1mb limit wont do anything for node count anyway if my assumption is correct that only people who need to run a node do so and some hobyists
12:21 < Relos> hulkhogan_: it certainly does, but most people, as we can see from the numbers, seem not to value highly that aspect to run their own node even currently when doing so is almost free
12:21 < hulkhogan_> curious as to where the assumption is coming from
12:22 < Relos> from the numbers
12:22 < hulkhogan_> Relos: perhaps they prefer the flexibility of SPV, perhaps self-verification is not as highly valued for some, its hard to say, but making resource constraints lower might help the node count, maybe
12:22 < Relos> out of some estimated 5 million bitcoiners there are only 5,000 nodes
12:23 < Relos> I don't think so
12:23 < kanzure> gavinandresen: i think that ultimately all transactions have to be selected over other possible transactions. i could create many potential transactions every second of every day, but i forego this because i have limited resources. i suspect the same is true of everyone and every transaction system.
12:23 < Relos> running a node is already pretty easy and as I say almost free
12:23 < Relos> people just don't want to do so because it is inconvenient
12:23 < gavinandresen> I think I'm lost in this discussion. I think Bitcoin will be more valuable with bigger blocks, so I want bigger blocks. I don't think 20MB blocks increase or decrease centralization of either number of full nodes or mining to any significant degree.
12:23 < Relos> why would anyone do something inconvenient, however slight, if they dont have to?
12:24 < binaryatrocity> free for you is not free for everyone though, even the assumption that the internet connection is "free" because it's already there is false for most of the world.
12:24 < kanzure> gavinandresen: yeah i think the Relos conversation started out a little flakey; seems like an unconnected rant (but still meaningful in its own sense i'm sure)
12:24 < hulkhogan_> Relos: right, but forcing it on people doesn't seem like it would make things much smoother
12:24 < gavinandresen> I think if we want more people to run full nodes (and I don't know why we would want that, we have plenty of full nodes) then finishing pruning and creating a fast way to bootstrap the chainstate are the right ways to fix that problem.
12:24 < hulkhogan_> Relos: it would burden the user which might hamper adoption, usabilty
12:24 < kanzure> gavinandresen: my own interest was querying you about your understanding of high-fee-pressure scenarios. you do seem to think that high-fee-scenarios will be associated with people abandoning bitcoin.
12:24 < GAit> gavinandresen: do you expect the node count to go up or down with bigger blocks and how would that impact SPV nodes and less descriptors available?
12:24 < skyraider> why would bitcoin be more valuable with bigger block? it can be argued that we don't need decentralized consensus for high-volume transactions; we need it for settlement; that's where technical problems lie in today's financial infrastructure
12:25 < Relos> that burden being $6 per month which is less than a netflix subscription
12:25 < skyraider> blocks*
12:25 < gavinandresen> I also think that many people have a very limited view of "decentralization" -- number of full nodes is not the only relevant metric.
12:25 < kanzure> yes, you have mentioned "payment decentralization" before, e.g. "not using off-chain services or partial-chain services" i think
12:25 < binaryatrocity> Relos: where does your $6 a month estimate come from?
12:25 < GAit> number of full nodes is one of the metrics though and it has big impacts on SPV wallets too
12:25 < hulkhogan_> heh, its more than some are willing to pay.. depending on the thinking of the person 6/mo is more expensive than trusting mcdonalds to provide a node for them (or whoever, in the case of SPV)
12:26 < Relos> hulkhogan_: running a node is already "expensive" to some people
12:26  * hulkhogan_ forgets if mycelium wallet supports SPV
12:26 < GAit> hulkhogan_: i don't think so
12:26 < Relos> thats why i started the discussion by enquiring who is currently motivated to run a node?
12:26 < skyraider> Relos: regulated companies
12:26 < GAit> last i checked it connects directly to their servers
12:27 < Relos> obviously it is a tiny minority of all bitcoin users
12:27 < GAit> (or via tor)
12:27 < Relos> who are these node runners?
12:27 < Relos> probably miners
12:27 < Relos> probably businesses
12:27 < kanzure> skyraider: if companies are the only entities running bitcoin nodes, then law enforcement can comple them to hardfork the network and use rules that are more centralized
12:27 < GAit> Relos: i run a few nodes in different continents
12:27 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:27 < kanzure> compel
12:27 < Relos> probably individuals who have to  run a node
12:27 < Relos> or hobyists
12:28 < gavinandresen> kanzure: please stop arguing the "only companies can run" straw-man:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized
12:28 < Relos> I cant see any of them being disuaded by $6 per month or $20 because by definition they have to run a node
12:28 < kanzure> gavinandresen: i did not say that only companies can run nodes
12:28 < Relos> thus to increase decentralisation, either under 1mb or 20mb or whatever cap, you have to increase the number of entities who have to run a node
12:28 < Relos> node decentralisation* I should say
12:29 < kanzure> gavinandresen: i think though that if we want to scale to 10e12 transactions per second, centralization is the key
12:29 < GAit> gavinandresen: i thought the discussion with chinese miner on the bitcoin dev mailing list demonstrated that it could increase centralization of mining by increasing advantages/disadvantages
12:29 < hulkhogan_> Relos i'm wondering how you would compel people to spin up a VPS at all :)
12:30 < skyraider> kanzure: indeed.. unless they are in different jurisdictions, perhaps. but this shows the importance of keeping the cost of running a node low. node cost can be estimated and possibly help serve as an objective metric for increasing vs not increasing block size
12:30 < kanzure> skyraider: i think gavinandresen's traditional argument here is something like, "bigger blocks mean more transactions which means potentially more people able to get transactions into the blockchain, so more participation makes the currency more valuable"
12:30 < gavinandresen> GAit: did you read the whole discussion? 20MB blocks would cost him something like $2 per day, hardly a crippling cost.
12:30 < kanzure> (to answer your "why would bigger blocks make bitcoin more valuable" question)
12:30 < gavinandresen> kanzure: yes, systems get more valuable the more people who use them.
12:31 < gavinandresen> .... if designed correctly, they get more robust, too...
12:31 < kanzure> well my ability to remember your statements has never been in question, you know :-)
12:31 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:32 < GAit> gavinandresen: it can only decrease node counts, that's for sure right?
12:32 < Relos> hulkhogan_: how is anyone compelled to run a node currently? Considering that there are only 6,000 of them, some tiny minority, it is probably reasonable to assume that the persons who currently run a node are either miners, businesses who need it to validate, hobbyists, researchers...
12:33 < kanzure> gavinandresen: so i am not talking about 20 megabyte blocks, but in general i think that centralized systems are a better design if the goal is to handle 1e9 transactions per second
12:33 < skyraider> kanzure: Bitcoin has a lot of very interesting advantages in settlement and clearing. also, quickly settling assets is not currently possible, and the ability to do so would be hugely innovative in financial markets. consumer payments already work out in the economy, but it'd be very interesting to have credit card companies settle through the blockchain,
12:33 < skyraider> too.
12:33 < gavinandresen> GAit: if bigger blocks inspire more work on making it easier to run a full node (like finishing pruning or implementing a fast low-trust bootstrap) then no, bigger blocks could increase node counts.
12:33 < Relos> I can't see those individuals, who by definition have to run a node because they need to in order to perform their function being in any way disuaded by such hugely modest costs such as less than they spend on a netflix subscription
12:34 < hulkhogan_> Relos: yes so, to the regular user who only needs to verify their payment goes through (confirms, best chain) how do you ask those persons to move their SPV client to point to an in-house node, email campaigning?
12:34 < skyraider> off-chain transactions make a lot of sense for massive volumes
12:34 < gavinandresen> GAit: ... or if more people are attracted to Bitcoin because it is the obvious scalable solution for the future then node counts might go up with bigger blocks....
12:34 < gavinandresen> GAit: If you want me to say "Yes, absolutely, node counts will do THIS in the future" then sorry, I'll have to disappoint you. I have no idea what will happen with full-node counts.
12:35 < GAit> gavinandresen: we already have as is a lot of people taking and wasting space on the blockchain and you want to increase this process? yes it may speed up pruning work or implementing a fast low trust bootstrap but at the same time it doesn't bode well for bitcoin decentralization and we can't joke around with its social contract as it gets harder to decentralize later
12:35 < hulkhogan_> Relos: think of it this way, regular users care about accessibility and usability, you're proposing making it more difficult in some way to use bitcoin (although i dont think a email campaign is a terrible idea, either)
12:35 < Relos> how so?
12:35 < Relos> I'm describing the current situation
12:35 < Relos> or, at least I think I am
12:36 < hulkhogan_> well, i suppose i'm not sure, proposing we add some coercive measures to make those regular users run VPS' with bitcoind? (sorry if im missing the point)
12:36 < GAit> all i am saying is that intuitively you would think that a potential 2000% increase would cause nodes to go offline as they can't handle the disk or ram or network
12:36 -!- Guest89542 [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:36 < Relos> which users?
12:36 < Relos> the persons who already only run a node because they have to?
12:36 < hulkhogan_> lets say SPV users, who are probably relying on 3rd parties for verification
12:36 < Relos> if they have to run a node they will run a node....
12:37 < Relos> spv users wouldnt be affected by the blocksize
12:37 < gavinandresen> GAit: ok. I think that big an increase in transaction volume would be a good problem to have. Scaling problems are always good problems to have, they mean your system is successful and not dying.
12:37 < GAit> Relos: if common users have to necessarily run a node to use bitcoin they'll just not use bitcoin
12:37 < hulkhogan_> ok, i thought we were addressing node count, oops
12:37 < Relos> I meant full nodes of course, sorry
12:37 < Relos> I wasn't referring to spv users
12:38 < hulkhogan_> yea full nodes would be affected by blocksize increase in that resource requirements go up (if you believe the argument resource requirements are the reason node count is going down)
12:38 < Relos> I think my point was fairly simple
12:39 < hulkhogan_> i dont know how to quanitfy the other half of your statement above, that businesses would be incentivized to start more nodes because of increases to business
12:39 < Relos> I think that the people who currently run a node do so only because they have to
12:39 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.104.178.47] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:39 < Relos> they either miners
12:39 < Relos> businesses
12:39 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.184.203] has quit [Excess Flood]
12:39 < hulkhogan_> ya
12:39 < Relos> hobbyists, researchers, etc... people who basically don't mind the "inconvenience" or have to deal with it
12:40 < Relos> they will have to run a node under a cost of $6 per month too or 20 per month whatever
12:40 < kanzure> gavinandresen: i think that some users are going to be misled into thinking that bitcoin will eventually handle high transaction rates (like 1e9/sec), whereas we could otherwise focus on areas where bitcoin is already better and unique. having a bunch of users that eventually learn that 1e9/sec isn't going to happen on-chain might be detrimental when they flip the bits in their head.
12:40 < GAit> gavinandresen: blocks are not full as is and there's practically no fee market. Even at 20MB you still have to handle blocks being full, there are other means we can achive better tx per second without impacting its centralization and those should be incentivized. Bitcoin is not famous for being best at tx/s, is famous for being decentralized
12:40 < Relos> thus the only way to increase node decentralisation is to increase the number of people who have to run a node
12:40 < Relos> I can't see such increase under 1mb
12:40 < gavinandresen> GAit: http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
12:41 < hulkhogan_> Relos: well why would the situation change with 20mb
12:41 < Relos> but I can see it under a higher limit as more businesses use the blockchain for more applications thus more businesses have to run a node etc
12:41 < hulkhogan_> [erhaps ive missed that
12:41 < GAit> gavinandresen: some wallets already support smartfee and even during peak traffic transaction work as smoothly as ever
12:42 < GAit> and you have to handle full blocks even at 20MB
12:42 < kanzure> this is all way too low signal for my taste
12:42 < hulkhogan_> Relos what if i started some business that offers bitcoin-node-as-a-service? wouldnt node count still decrease? it would be a more convenient alternative to running a node (which requires administration, physical/virtual assets to manage)
12:43 < Relos> we already have those businesses
12:43 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.184.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:43 < hulkhogan_> i suppose i don't quite see how higher limit -> more buisness -> (confusing part) more businesses 'have to' run a node
12:44 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-chebyhlfcwcnmttv] has quit [Quit: quit]
12:44 < wumpus> people should be able to run their *own* nodes, that's the point of bitcoin, a third party running a node for you is no longer trustless (many examples; from blockchain.info to chain and other APIs)
12:45 < Relos> wumpus the problem is people don't want to run their own node even currently
12:45 < hulkhogan_> so wouldnt demand for those services go up? not too good at economics forecasts
12:45 < wumpus> Relos: if people don't want to run full nodes that's their own problem
12:45 < wumpus> Relos: it's about being able to.
12:46 < Relos> hulkhogan_ who do you think currently runs a node even under the current 1mb size?
12:46 < kanzure> wumpus: yes, forcing them to run nodes is just going to grow aminosity heh
12:46 < Relos> and bear in mind there are only 6k of them while there are 5 million users or so...
12:46 < wumpus> people that value privacy, security and trustlessness
12:46 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:46 < Relos> yes thats one part of them
12:47 < Relos> bot mostly it is probably miners
12:47 < Relos> who have to run a node
12:47 < Relos> who dont have a choice
12:47 < wumpus> I strongly doubt that most of them are miners, remember that most miners use pools so don't have to run their own node
12:47 < Relos> because as far as voluntarily choosing the data clearly seem to say people would, if they have the choice, rather not run a node, even as things stand
12:47 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:48 < wumpus> Relos: that's only because not enough disasters have happened with centralized services yet, people will learn
12:48 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@pool-71-163-146-6.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:49 < Relos> thus an extra $6 per month, $10 or $20 I don't see how it will disuade any current node runner
12:49 -!- jae [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:49 < hulkhogan_> Relos: same folks you mentioned, most likely
12:49 < Relos> while under 1mb I don't see how bitcoin users can keep their privacy when mixing is so expensive due to high fees
12:50 -!- jae is now known as Guest88589
12:50 < Relos> and I don't see why anyone would run a node under 1mb when most transactions are in hubs
12:50 < wumpus> I don't think it's realistic to expect most runners of nodes to spend those kinds of money just to keep running one
12:51 < Relos> they already spending something on it......
12:51 < Relos> why makes you think they would be disuaded by a netflix subscription?
12:51 < wumpus> bandwidth is quite expensive in some countries
12:51 < Relos> what*
12:51 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:51 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:51 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has quit [Changing host]
12:51 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:51 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Killed (wilhelm.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
12:51 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
12:51 < wumpus> not everyone has a netflix subscription either (and that's something different anyway - it directly brings entertainment)
12:52 < Relos> not everyone can afford to eat lol
12:52 < Relos> what's your point
12:52 < wumpus> ... ok, bye
12:53 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:54 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:55 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rcchrxgqyflmbbnt] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
12:55 -!- GreenIsMyPepper [~GreenIsMy@altcoins.are-on-my.ignorelist.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:56 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
12:56 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 -!- huseby [~huseby@unaffiliated/huseby] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
12:57 -!- espes [~espes@205.185.120.132] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:57 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@108-94-37-10.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:58  * hulkhogan_ thinks there should be a #bitcoin-privacy chan
12:58 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:59 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:59 -!- GreenIsMyPepper [~GreenIsMy@altcoins.are-on-my.ignorelist.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:01 < Relos> I'm curious to know what other devs would do if it comes to an actual hardfork, would they follow the longest chain or...?
13:01 -!- Guest47933 [~guest@5ED11658.cm-7-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:02 < helo> without consensus, it would boil down to a PR battle and an eventual (fatal?) stubborn fork
13:02 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- espes [~espes@205.185.120.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:03 < Relos> yes, but lets say XT wins, will gmaxwell and jgarzik then go with the longest chain
13:03 < Relos> or will they move onto other things?
13:04 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:04 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:04 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:05 < maaku> Relos: the "longest" chain doesn't matter
13:06 < maaku> in that scenario XT would be a totally different altcoin that happened to have more mining power than bitcoin
13:06 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:06 < Relos> and users, so core would be the altcoin
13:06 < Relos> and businesses, etc
13:07 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@208.37-191-147.fiber.lynet.no] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:08 < maaku> it would be better if this debate did not happen on -wizards
13:09 < wumpus> create a #bitcoin-blocksize chan or so, or just move it to #bitcoin
13:11 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
13:12 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:12 -!- huseby [~huseby@unaffiliated/huseby] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:13 < Relos> yes....... ignore the debate right, because nothing needs to be done
13:13 < maaku> Relos: no one is ignoring anything. this is just not the right channel
13:14 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:14 < hulkhogan_> Relos I'll see you in #bitcoin-blocksize .. ;)
13:15 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-jsvmdobkmabbafbw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:15 < wumpus> whether something needs to be done or not, contentless 'debate' doesn't move anything forward, and indeed this is not the place
13:16 < Relos> sure, i said what I wanted to say anyway in regards to actually analysisng the nodes, why anyone runs them, and how they may be increased, so yeah, no point cluttering up the place
13:16 < Relos> wish gavinandresen could continue saying what he was
13:17 -!- kmels [~kmels@93.166.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:18 -!- Cobra [d0407b82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.208.64.123.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:23 < warren> Relos: you seem to be missing the point that nobody is in favor of forever sticking to 1MB.  The disagreement is how exactly to safely increase it, when, and if it will be something more future proofed than merely making the limit bigger once (guaranteeing more hardforks in the future).
13:28 -!- Cobra [d0407b82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.208.64.123.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:34 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
13:35 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:37 -!- fanquake1 [~fanquake@221.121.151.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:44 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit []
13:44 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:45 -!- ortutay [~marcell@208.74.176.67.static.etheric.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
13:45 -!- ortutay [~marcell@208.74.176.67.static.etheric.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:45 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:48 -!- Guest88589 [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:53 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@200.61.163.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:53 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:73f:f6e4:e23f:49ff:fe47:9364] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:55 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:57 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@24.27.227.0] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:59 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-136-72.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:09 -!- jessepollak [~jessepoll@104.131.138.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:11 -!- jessepollak [~jessepoll@104.131.138.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:12 < binaryFate> #bitcoin-fungibility
14:12 < binaryFate> oups sorry
14:13 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:14 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-tasxfdzbbgyyddqu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:14 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@208.37-191-147.fiber.lynet.no] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
14:14 -!- jae [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:14 -!- jae is now known as Guest13900
14:17 -!- davout [~david@unaffiliated/davout] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:18 -!- davout [~david@unaffiliated/davout] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:20 -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
14:25 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@c-98-229-86-2.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:25 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-tasxfdzbbgyyddqu] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
14:30 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@c-98-229-86-2.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit []
14:35 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:38 -!- user7779_ [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hqxipfsyauktjeev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:39 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:41 -!- Meeh [~meeeeeeh@meeh.sigterm.no] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:41 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:07 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:10 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:17 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@24.27.227.0] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
15:20 -!- MoALTz_ [~no@78.11.179.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:20 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-136-72.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:21 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:21 -!- Mably_ [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:22 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:22 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:22 -!- koshii [~w@c-68-58-151-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:23 -!- MoALTz [~no@78.11.179.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:23 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:24 -!- amiller [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:24 -!- cosmo [~james@unaffiliated/cosmo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:24 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:25 -!- koshii [~w@c-68-58-151-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:25 -!- Guest77051 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:25 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:26 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:29 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:29 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:30 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:31 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:33 -!- Mably_ [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
15:35 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:36 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@200.61.163.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:44 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:46 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:46 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
15:49 -!- Guest13900 [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:50 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:50 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@c-73-222-117-45.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:50 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-136-72.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:52 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
15:52 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
15:56 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-136-72.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:57 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:59 -!- Guest77051 is now known as amiller_
16:00 -!- amiller_ [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Changing host]
16:00 -!- amiller_ [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- amiller_ is now known as amiller
16:01 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
16:01 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Killed (wolfe.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
16:01 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
16:10 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@c-73-222-117-45.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:16 -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-126-100.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:18 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
16:18 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:19 -!- kmels [~kmels@93.166.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:23 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:28 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:33 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:35 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:39 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@223-96-17-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:43 -!- fanquake1 [~fanquake@221.121.151.237] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:44 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
16:44 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:46 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@223-96-17-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:54 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:57 -!- fanquake1 [~fanquake@221.121.151.237] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:57 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:58 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has quit []
17:02 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eucfevenuvfcfixx] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:03 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:09 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:12 -!- Sub|afk [~SubCreati@c-76-121-19-166.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:15 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
17:16 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:25 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:27 -!- yorick [~yorick@oftn/member/yorick] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:27 -!- yorick [~yorick@oftn/member/yorick] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:31 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:38 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.56.59.206] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:42 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:50 -!- cosmo [~james@unaffiliated/cosmo] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:02 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:02 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:4c1a:f3d4:1f72:ef2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:10 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:12 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
18:17 -!- ortutay [~marcell@208.74.176.67.static.etheric.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
18:17 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:31 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:31 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
18:34 -!- Muis [sid26074@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-folwczqhxbxjgfyi] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:34 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bfpqahupbrkhnent] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:34 -!- catcow [sid62269@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fizunwtfvgpuqztv] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
18:34 -!- CryptOprah [sid32688@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xpeljysymgyupwpj] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:34 -!- Oizopower [sid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wdwshblsbuerdidi] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:34 -!- CryptoGoon [sid44280@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pjoxeibshvdbrnuo] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:34 -!- platinuum [sid21283@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bkhysxuiuxttjbfm] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:34 -!- yrashk [sid1568@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hzlsrhppmehikyfl] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:35 -!- btcdrak [uid52049@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-algdanbpjxvrwwus] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:35 -!- kumavis [sid13576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ljiwntylcpmgkvry] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:35 -!- mariorz [sid490@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-squcfxjuqzfdwdrj] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:35 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sicipawhsmockgpy] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
18:37 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gueatzzjbqeomjwm] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 -!- Muis [sid26074@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hnuamvlolpeazaok] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 -!- catcow [sid62269@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ygjvtwtgqennexcg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:38 -!- CryptOprah [sid32688@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tedtbadrynejyymo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:39 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zkaayfqyhbmmkqkk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:39 -!- kumavis [sid13576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-peusxcroeqkfndfl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 -!- Oizopower [sid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abkgzcgzqvyjkvxw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 -!- platinuum [sid21283@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zhwyazodynivwyew] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:42 -!- CryptoGoon [sid44280@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uximusnbpkhmaacc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:45 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
18:46 -!- btcdrak [uid52049@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xdttoivqblgtyhac] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:46 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
18:48 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:51 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:51 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:51 < bramc> Hey everybody
18:51 < bramc> I just published this: http://bramcohen.com/2015/06/02/gallus-and-simo-debate-whether-the-block-size-limit-should-be-increased
18:51 < gmaxwell> bramc: HI
18:52 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
18:53 < bramc> We'll see whether it proves to be controversial or ignored
18:53 -!- mariorz [sid490@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gooweywncrkosbmw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:53 < bramc> Hey gmaxwell
18:53  * sipa guesses: both (without actually reading the linked document)
18:53 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:53 < sipa> (also: hello, i'm back from vacation)
18:54 -!- yrashk [sid1568@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cbrduzgacqfiguxp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:54 < bramc> sipa, I was looking for names to debate with Gallus, and since variants on 'maxwell' were all awkward, I looked into variants on 'sipa', and realized that Sippas is probably the root of your name and a little too close.
18:55 < sipa> bramc: the origin of my nickname is an abbreviation of an abbreviation of a concatenation of childhood friends of mine, none of which you've ever heard about :)
18:56 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@unaffiliated/dr-g] has quit [Disconnected by services]
18:56 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@x4d08da41.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:56 < bramc> In this particular case I'm trying to explain the reasoning for and against increasing the block limit, throwing in some original observations and ideas and overall coming in against it.
18:58 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:59 < kanzure> "Protecting privacy with electronic cash" hal finney 1993 http://fennetic.net/irc/extropy/ext10_1.pdf
19:02 < bramc> Any feedback on my post would be much appreciated
19:04 < kanzure> bramc: well, this argument is certainly novel to me "The wallet codebases are poorly written and maintained and can’t be realistically expected to be made to handle real transaction fees."
19:04 < bramc> kanzure, I've definitely seen that presented in total seriousness somewhere
19:04 < kanzure> on the other hand, i could imagine this being true "There aren’t any good way to handle transaction fees." for some definitions of good :-)
19:05 < bramc> With 'somewhere' being not on this irc channel obviously
19:05 < kanzure> bramc: i think it would be prudent to include more speculation about disaster scenarios regarding hardforks (there is a document baking somewhere about forks in general but it's not ready)
19:06 < kanzure> or at least, not quite disasters at first but at least stating various obvious consequences
19:06 < bramc> kanzure, The ones which I gave seem bad enough. I'm sure there are others, but (a) they didn't occur to me and (b) it was already getting fairly long
19:07 < bramc> It took me several hours to write that post today, even starting from extensive notes.
19:07 < dgenr8> bramc: thanks, now all my reddit-avoiding is for nothing
19:08 < kanzure> bramc: i happen to think transaction fees are a good idea, take a look at http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-06-01.log starting near "slow death"
19:08 < bramc> This post makes claims about things being too hard for wallets to handle. It's emphasizing payment channels, but the same counter-arguments apply: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e
19:09 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
19:09 -!- user7779_ [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hqxipfsyauktjeev] has quit []
19:09 < kanzure> i could imagine transaction fee estimation being something that might be construed as non-trivial, but surely that's an argument for just using a library that you trust in your wallet?
19:09 < bramc> kanzure, I think transaction fees are a good idea as well, I was just trying to give most of the basic points a fair shake
19:09 < kanzure> bramc: sure, i was just trying to preface my link and (poor substitute for a) link anchor
19:10 < dgenr8> assertion. please refute: miner can create and transmit a 32MB block today.  everybody will download it because they don't know how big it is until they receive it.
19:11 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:11 < kanzure> everybody wont download it because the p2p graph is not fully saturated or something
19:11 < kanzure> insert appropriate graph theory term
19:13 < bramc> dgenr8, I don't off the top of my head know if that's true but it will get rejected. That would be a spam DDOS attack, and not a very good one.
19:14 < kanzure> bramc: so the claim from the g man is that everyone will abandon bitcoin once anyone starts making lots of high-fee transactions
19:14 < gwillen> kanzure: fully-connected
19:14 < dgenr8> a node that downloads the whole thing will reject it because it's bigger than 1MB, or so it looks to me
19:14 < kanzure> gwillen: that's way too esoteric for me to remember
19:14 < sipa> dgenr8: bitcoin core master today will disconnect before the whole message is received in memory
19:15 < sipa> iirc 0.10.2 will do the same
19:15 < bramc> kanzure, Nobody goes there any more, the lines are too long
19:15 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:15 < kanzure> bramc: i mean from the logs and the locatio ni nthe logs that i pointed you at
19:15 < dgenr8> sipa: welcome back.  so that's in the deserializer then?
19:15 < sipa> this is in the network code
19:15 < sipa> long before we even try to deserialize
19:16 < bramc> I would view fees of $10 as a serious problem to be dealt with. Fees of $0.01 are not.
19:16 < kanzure> bramc: $10 average fees are a problem why?
19:16 < kanzure> how else are you going to pick transactoins for inclusion?
19:17 < gwillen> kanzure: or 'complete'
19:17 < bramc> kanzure, At that price probably some totally reasonable transactions are getting held up.
19:17 < kanzure> gwillen: i'm just joshing you, yes that's correct terminology :-)
19:17 < dgenr8> sipa: ah, looks like 2MiB
19:17 < gwillen> kanzure: haha, sorry, it's hard to read tone of voice on IRC :-)
19:17 < kanzure> bramc: well there are many possible potentially reasonable transactoins, far more than bitcoin will ever be capable of handling at any scale
19:18 < d3vz3r0> what would be considered a ‘reasonable’ max transaction fee?
19:18 < kanzure> bramc: i mean we could trivially imagine billions of transactions per second that might be completely legitimate, in a large-enough civilization
19:18 < d3vz3r0> and what criteria would be for determining that transaction fee?
19:18 < bramc> kanzure, The next question would be, what should you do if the price hits $10? I'd argue that (a) that's really getting ahead of ourselves at this point (b) you can probably wait for whoever's doing a DOS to run out of money, (c) the best approach is to get a jump on implementing lightning network
19:18 < kanzure> d3vz3r0: users and wallets choose the transaction fee
19:19 < kanzure> bramc: i think that a lot of the current block size talk is motivated by concerns about eventually increasing transaction fees
19:19 < d3vz3r0> yes , Iknow that, but I’m really just asking the question in terms of what it means to be ‘too large’
19:19 < bramc> kanzure, Yes that's clearly the subtext
19:19 < kanzure> hooray i am capable of reading
19:20 < kanzure> i think that more thought should be put into thinking about high-transaction-fee scenarios and what would be good or bad about them
19:20 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:20 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:20 < kanzure> (or neutral about them)
19:20 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:21 < bramc> d3vz3r0, I'd argue that if a transaction gets abandoned because of a 1 cent fee then that isn't much of any loss to society. If it gets abandoned because of a $10 fee then maybe it was worth something nontrivial and it not happening is a loss
19:21 < kanzure> well, there are many potentially good transactions that wont happen because fees are too high (always)
19:21 < bramc> Of course, if there are functioning payment channels then maybe that $10 transaction was abandoned in favor of a $0.01 channel transaction, which isn't any loss at all.
19:21 < kanzure> the only exception is when fees are literally-zero. but then what's the point of fees?
19:22 < d3vz3r0> I guess I’m wondering if there’s some formal way to determine what a ‘proper’ fee is
19:22 < d3vz3r0> and what are the economics behind how that fee should be selected
19:22 < bramc> d3vz3r0, I'm making a completely subjective statement about when I personally would start worrying
19:22 < kanzure> bramc: i think that partial-chain and off-chain solutions definitely give conduit for significantly lower fees, but that it is also useful to talk about the other limits of the system (not really "in their absence", but just so we know how the blockchain might be operating anyway)
19:22 < d3vz3r0> I could potentially see cases where a 10$ fee is proper, and a .01$ fee is proper
19:23 < d3vz3r0> in the ‘normal’ world this is usually a percentage of the transaction value, ie 3% or something for visa
19:23 < kanzure> d3vz3r0: well, practically speaking, wallets should look at recent transactions from their mempool, then look at which transactions got into a block, then decide which transaction fee might be accepted
19:23 < bramc> d3vz3r0, The way *miners* select fees is a straightforward auction: They look at the available transactions, sort by largest fee per byte, and go with the most worthwile until they're full
19:23 < kanzure> there are also other complicated and boring "ask a miner for a fee estimation" schemes, but those get kinda wacky i think
19:24 < kanzure> bramc: er, is that currently implemented behavior? for all of them?
19:24 < bramc> (it's more complicated because of child pays, but that's the basic idea)
19:24 < d3vz3r0> a ‘fee bid’ market or some such thing
19:24 < bramc> kanzure, Probably not, but I'm being idealistic
19:24 < kanzure> alright
19:25 < bramc> The way wallets *should* behave is dependent on your assumption of whether it's receiver pays or sender pays
19:25 < kanzure> well for the moment let's assume receiver pays and child pays works
19:26 < bramc> If it's receiver pays then the sender sends it and forgets about it while the receiver starts with a low fee and slowly increases it until the transaction goes through. If it's sender pays then the sender starts with a very low fee and increases it using malleability until it goes through.
19:26 < bramc> By 'receiver pays' I mean 'child pays'
19:27 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:27 < d3vz3r0> so it’s really just about fishing for miners
19:27 < d3vz3r0> at this point anyway.. .set the bait (fee) and hope that someone grabs yours before the others
19:28 < bramc> d3vz3r0, It's a general technique called escalator, nothing weird about it
19:28 < d3vz3r0> sure, I get the mechanism, but there’s not formal way of determining the proper fee for a transaction
19:28 < d3vz3r0> unless I’m completely missing something
19:29 < bramc> Right, it needs to be discovered empirically. There's an information gathering component of market systems which can't be done if they aren't running.
19:29 < sipa> d3vz3r0: you're not; "reasonable" in this context was a completely subjective, and presumably context and time-dependent assessment
19:30 < d3vz3r0> ah sure, “reasonable” means that historically that’s what  has worked
19:31 < d3vz3r0> but what happens as the cost of operating a mining rig goes up significantly.. ie: bandwidth costs for a larger block size
19:31 < d3vz3r0> I guess that’s really where my interest lies in the fees arena
19:31 < d3vz3r0> does the ‘fee market’ naturally reset
19:31 < d3vz3r0> ie: miners start rejecting every transaction with fees under 1$ for example
19:32 < bramc> d3vz3r0, The fees are determined by the max block size, not how expensive it is to run a miner
19:32 < d3vz3r0> this is all just speculation and thought expiraments
19:32 < moa> bramc: currently
19:32 < kanzure> the fees are determined by max block size, demand for transaction inclusion, other transaction fees, other transactions, higher priority transactions, etc. etc..
19:32 < d3vz3r0> how are the fees determined by max block size?
19:33 < sipa> they are depetermined by available block space
19:33 < sipa> sorry, influenced by, not determined by
19:33 < kanzure> bramc: so i think that if partial-chain solutions (payment channels, sidechains, whatever) can accept low fee transactions, then what's wrong with $10 or higher fee transactions in the blockchain? does a $0.0001 transaction really need permanent recording in the ledger?
19:33 < sipa> and available block space is a miner's decision, but it is also influence by the max block size consensus rules
19:34 < moa> kanzure: as reward goes away fees will be the incentive to secure the chain also
19:35 < kanzure>  /win 2
19:35 < kanzure> gah, fail :(
19:35 < sipa>  /loose 2
19:35 < kanzure> (lose)
19:36 < bramc> kanzure, Yes if partial chain solutions are in place and widespread a $10 fee wouldn't be very worrisome. I'm just saying that $10 is around the point where I'd take the claim that it was maybe a bit high somewhat seriously, as opposed to 10 cents, at which point I'd just laugh at anybody who made that claim, regardless of what else was going on
19:37 < kanzure> bramc: i think it would be interesting to run simulations like, "how long could a very wealthy bitcoiner spam the blockchain and clog blocks with high-fee transactions" given 1 MB blocks versus much larger.
19:37 < kanzure> er, not simulations in this case; this just requires arithmetic.
19:37 < bramc> kanzure, The arithmetic is pretty simple, and right now it doesn't have to do with fees, just amounts to be fronted
19:38 < bramc> In that post I do the math on the current system. It's a bit sad.
19:38 < kanzure> i suppose there might be a situation where the blockchain could get stuck in a loop where the wealthy bitcoiner is also the miner?
19:39 < bramc> Miners can run up transaction fees by accepting fewer of them, although they can make more money as individuals by accepting as many as they can but screwing over other miners later
19:40 < kanzure> oh wait, it's easier to just mine zero-sized blocks instead
19:40 < bramc> Perhaps once mining rewards go away then inevitably the block limit will fall down to an amount which results in significant transaction fees as all the big miners collude
19:40 < kanzure> well, i guess they might be interested in taking up hard drive space
19:41 < moa> interesting that all lot of miners are in china where they really do have bandwidth limitations
19:42 < bramc> kanzure, Reading through that log, Gavin seems to just keep repeating that transaction fees will go up and that that's bad.
19:44 < bramc> There are about 100,000 seconds in a day, so if you wanted to force transaction fees to $1 and nobody else was willing to pay that much it would cost you $400,000/day. Probably less in practice as others upped their fees.
19:44 < moa> bramc: the thinking seems to be that it is bad if that happens before rewards drop ... and free block space is a "loss leader"
19:45 -!- Guest82874 [~Mclare@187.56.59.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
19:45 < bramc> moa, It's also bad if nobody gets ready to make it happen before rewards drop because there's no need to
19:45 < kanzure> bramc: right.. i think he wants lots of consumer adoption.
19:45 < kanzure> and believes that consumer adoption is incompatible with the other parts of bitcoin
19:45 < d3vz3r0> consumer adoption occurs due to low transactions fees is the assumption there?
19:46 < moa> bramc: quite
19:47 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:48 < bramc> I would argue that if person A wants to send money to person B a $1 transaction fee would be of no consequence because it's lower than the fees they spend getting money into and out of the system
19:49 < d3vz3r0> but if the money never leaves the system, it’s potentially a lot
19:49 < bramc> If someone's business is critically dependent on transaction fees being less than a penny then you have to seriously wonder whether they're doing anything of value
19:49 < moa> bramc: but if you wanted to perform 100's of mixing transactions then 100x$1 would be a consequence
19:50 < bramc> This is an argument in favor of taxes on real world financial transactions, by the way. It turns out that having transaction taxes can actually save money for the bona fide participants because it puts the people who front run trades out of business.
19:51 < bramc> moa, We already have perfectly good technology for making mixing vastly better than that
19:52 < bramc> And when you're mixing you should burn some amount of your coin in transaction fees just so the exact amount is less of an identifying piece of information anyway.
19:52 < moa> maybe I'm just pointing out where the volume of tx are coming from presently, not to mention http://cryptograffiti.info/ that maybe influenced by fees
19:53 < moa> but i think you make a good point about the guy who is going into btc not be influenced by $1 fee
19:59 < kanzure> bramc: i suspect (but i don't entirely believe yet) that transaction fees are somewhat focusing, and allow people to figure out which out of all the potential transactions they could be doing, which ones happen to be the most important to them. instead of, you know, just doing all of them.
20:00 < bramc> kanzure, Yes, market based mechanisms are good for making everyone figure out the most valuable thing. Hence the proposals here in California that we should deal with our water problems by having the state just plain auction it off.
20:01 < kanzure> bramc: would the local cities be bidding?
20:01 < kanzure> (for residential water user)
20:01 < bramc> Oddly, that proposal is viewed as extremist by people on both sides of the political aisle.
20:01 < kanzure> *water use
20:01 < kanzure> (actually i'm not sure how california municipal water is configured. i assume city-based.)
20:02 < bramc> kanzure, Politically you'd probably have to earmark some for home use, but that's a small fraction of all of california water use. 80% of it goes to agriculture.
20:02 < kanzure> indeed
20:02 < kanzure> right, home use is something like 2%. perhaps they wouldn't be auctioning that off.
20:02 < bramc> It's a giant mess of 100 year old regulations involving the federal government, the city government, landowners, hereditary water rights owners, and consumers.
20:03 < moa> pray for rain
20:03 -!- superobserver [~superobse@unaffiliated/superobserver] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:03 < bramc> moa, a modest reduction in agricultural usage and our water problems would be gone
20:03 < kanzure> i could understand some disagreements related to not pitting citizens versus agriculture companies, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening according to your summary.
20:03 < moa> some food items too no doubt
20:03 -!- superobserver [~superobse@unaffiliated/superobserver] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:04 < bramc> Everybody assumes that if water prices went up to a reasonable amount then we'd stop producing alfalfa, but the truth is we don't know.
20:04 < kanzure> i suppose those are similar to concerns about bitcoin transaction fees ("there's no way that individuals can compete against companies that are willing to pay large fees to record transactions")
20:04 < d3vz3r0> the price of alfalfa would just go up
20:04 < d3vz3r0> to a point
20:04 < bramc> Right now farmers are paying less for water to grow grass in the desert than city residents are paying for the water they drink. This is a bit messed up.
20:05 < bramc> kanzure, Yeah it's all the same stuff
20:05 < kanzure> do you mean city water price, or do you mean price of water from restuarants?
20:05 < bramc> I mean the retail price
20:05 < ggreer> https://twitter.com/DLin71/status/601068631854813185
20:05 < bramc> Er, the price from your faucet, not the price of bottled water
20:05 < kanzure> .tw
20:05 < yoleaux> “WAGE AND PRICE DISTORTIONS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES” - California politicians (@DLin71)
20:05 < kanzure> wise words.
20:06 < moa> alfalfa is great stuff that keeps animals fed and highly nutritious too
20:06 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
20:06 < moa> bottled water seems extravagant by comparison
20:07 < kanzure> bramc: i suspect that if companies are hogging all the block space with high-fee transactions that at least a few of those will be related to consolidating partial-chain or off-chain low-fee transactions.
20:07 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:07 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:08 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:08 < kanzure> i suppose there's a concern related to whether the transaction relay network will be maintained if every transaction is high fee. ("why would i want to relay transactions when i'm not able to get a transaction included on my own?")
20:08 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:08 < kanzure> (er, this is for fees significantly higher than $100 of course.)
20:09 < d3vz3r0> or it creates a market for transaction brokers
20:10 < kanzure> brokers that would do "matchmaking" to combine fees and transactions?
20:10 < d3vz3r0> yea, something like that
20:10 < kanzure> i don't know which one but there's at least one mixing network proposal that operates like that
20:10 < d3vz3r0> consolidating partial-chain or off-chain transactions for lower-fees
20:10 -!- hulkhogan_ [WW@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-tzvjeawdnkgrzjak] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
20:12 < kanzure> d3vz3r0: well the mechanism of consolidation has to happen before the transaction is created, because otherwise you have an immutable signed transaction, but yes.
20:12 < kanzure> whoops i mean before it is signed
20:12 < d3vz3r0> yea, before it’s signed
20:13 < NewLiberty> More likely on alt-coins or side chains than brokers imp
20:14 < kanzure> altcoins aren't very likely; currency tends to be winner-takes-all.
20:14 < kanzure> however, you could easily argue that many bitcoin-powered sidechains can harbor altcoins, in which case i'll cede.
20:17 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has quit [Quit: d3vz3r0]
20:19 < NewLiberty> Thus the block size debate is one of the intersections of conflict of interest between Blockstream and Bitcoin.  Fortunately the individuals involved are much more ethical than typical.
20:19 < sipa> god please stop saying that
20:19 < sipa> for everything blockstream wants to do, larger blocks would make things easier
20:20 < NewLiberty> I don't disagree.
20:20 < kanzure> sipa: it creates a conflict of interest because they are incentivized to respond to millions of conflict of interest claims, instead of working on bitcoin they are busy defending their decisions
20:20 < kanzure> </snark> (and not the fun kind)
20:25 < kanzure> .title http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1217.html
20:25 < yoleaux> RFC 1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (RFC1217)
20:35 -!- Starduster [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:46 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has quit []
20:47 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:47 < bramc> No response to my post so far. Maybe I'd get more response if I take out just the rant about zeroconf and title it 'zeroconf advocates should get over it'
20:48 < bramc> Or the following rant and entitle it 'How to block all bitcoin transactions of less than $10 using only $25,000'
20:49 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:50 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
20:55 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:00 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@223-96-17-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:28 -!- hulkhogan_ [~WW@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:28 -!- hulkhogan_ [~WW@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Changing host]
21:28 -!- hulkhogan_ [~WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:33 -!- hulkhogan_ [~WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
21:34 -!- hulkhogan_ [WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:34 -!- hulkhogan_ [WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has quit [Changing host]
21:34 -!- hulkhogan_ [WW@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-frcwxhyhftvpfurp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:47 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
21:50 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@87.sub-70-193-128.myvzw.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:50 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@87.sub-70-193-128.myvzw.com] has quit [Changing host]
21:50 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:04 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
22:17 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:17 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
22:18 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:30 -!- jgarzik_ [~jgarzik@104-178-201-106.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:32 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
22:33 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:36 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:39 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:40 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:41 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:42 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
22:44 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:47 -!- leishman [62ea3208@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.234.50.8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:48 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:49 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
22:50 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:51 < gmaxwell> Hey all-- there may be some interest in this draft publication on a new ring signature construction that we've created: https://github.com/Blockstream/borromean_paper/raw/master/borromean_draft_0.01_58a5cbc.pdf
22:51 < gmaxwell> This ring signature is a building block for a much bigger cryptosystem which I'll be publishing soon.
22:51 < gmaxwell> (also with code implementing whats in that paper too.)
22:53 < gmaxwell> This new ring-signature is asymptotically 2x more efficient than the one used in Monero/Bytecoin: It needs pubkey+1 field elements in the signature instead of 2*pubkeys. In particular, it retains that 2x efficiency when doing an AND of many smaller rings, because the +1 gets amortized across all of them.
22:53 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:53 < jcorgan> gmaxwell: will be a nice read, and a welcome change from all the politics recently. thanks.
22:54 -!- robogoat [~robogoat@c-24-126-240-124.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
22:55 < akrmn> can this be softforked into bitcoin? And what are the applications? More anonymity?
22:56 < gmaxwell> It also describes a new way to think about ring signatures; which might be helpful to anyone whos looked at them before and found them confusing. (If we were successful, you'll think the new construction was so simple that it was obvious; I can assure you it was not... fortunately andytoshi came up with an especially good way to explain it. :) :P )
22:57 < gmaxwell> akrmn: The application is that it is a building block for a larger cryptosystem which is yet to be disclosed. (If you guess what it is, you'll guess wrong. :) )
22:57 < akrmn> gmaxwell: I don't like too much the idea of secret projects being worked on that will in the end benefit everyone. But maybe I'm wrong.
22:57 < gmaxwell> [I think it would be a bit impolite to publish a new cryptosystem, itself built from new cryptosystems, all at once; plus this was ready now.]
22:57 < andytoshi> akrmn: having said that, in principle, yes we could softfork this into bitcoin, but there are no plans for this (and won't be -- any features that might be perceived as increasing anonymity are too political)
22:58 < andytoshi> plus this doesn't even improve anonymity, it just has "ring signature" in the name so people'll think it does :)
22:58 < gmaxwell> akrmn: every project is secret until its first published, besides I'm tired of being flamed for vaporware; so at the moment I'm only publishing things that are done. I mean if you're going to complain I can take it back. :)
22:59 < gmaxwell> well "done", as in actually usable. Nothing is ever really done.
22:59 < akrmn> Well ya it's good to wait until you are sure of something before you publish
22:59 < leishman> gmaxwell: thanks for sharing. looking forward to reading it
22:59 < gmaxwell> And have something that actually makes sense. Communicating is very hard, making good software is very hard, etc.
23:00 < amiller> this is fun
23:01 < moa> like rain on a hot day
23:16 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
23:19 < amiller> on first glance, it seems like you would get the same thing by applying one of the generic zkpok compilers that works on groups like that http://www.trust.rub.de/media/trust/veroeffentlichungen/2010/06/10/ESORICS10_CertifyingZKCompiler.pdf
23:22 < midnightmagic> To publish early is unethical anyway.
23:22 < andytoshi> that's pretty close to "so simple it's obvious" :)
23:22 < andytoshi> amiller: ^
23:22 -!- robogoat [~robogoat@c-24-126-240-124.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:22 < andytoshi> but i'm not sure it's true, mainly because i didn't see a generic way to do AND proofs (tho maybe there is and i'm just being daft), i actually was stuck with this disjunctive-normal-form requirement
23:22 < midnightmagic> ... highly unethical, in some cases. It doesn't make sense to complain about work being done privately.
23:25 < andytoshi> amiller: in particular, that paper gives you the monero-style rings i think (see page 7 "boolean composition") where you have a bunch of hashes that are supposed to sum to a random-oracle output
23:26 < gmaxwell> amiller: according to 2.4 in that paper it constructs the OR proofs in the non-chained manner, e.g. two elements per pubkey.
23:28 < gmaxwell> (last paragraph of the boolean composition section).  It would be great news to find someone had constructed exactly what we're describing before though.
23:28 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:29 -!- leishman [62ea3208@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.234.50.8] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
23:30 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:32 < gmaxwell> Paper updated with a citation that fell out, https://github.com/Blockstream/borromean_paper/raw/master/borromean_draft_0.01_34241bb.pdf
23:33 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:36 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-apjsthfssbnsahjy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:37 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:37 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:39 -!- dabura667 [uid43070@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jkfgernmuaeoapsg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:40 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:42 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@176.219.164.4] has quit [Client Quit]
23:52 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:53 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ortutay]
23:53 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:53 -!- ortutay [~marcell@c-98-248-47-197.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
23:57 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-jsvmdobkmabbafbw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:58 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-239-096.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
--- Log closed Tue Jun 02 00:00:29 2015