--- Log opened Tue Jun 02 00:00:29 2015
00:01 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:05 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:08 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:08 -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:09 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:11 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:20 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-178.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:42 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:46 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:46 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:48 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:51 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
00:51 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:57 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:57 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:57 -!- p15 [~p15@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
00:58 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:59 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:00 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:01 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.23] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:01 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rvkqhutsjzlddmgo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:02 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:02 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:03 -!- adam3us [~Adium@37.75.44.217] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:04 -!- adam3us [~Adium@37.75.44.217] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04  * andy-logbot is logging
01:06 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:08 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:13 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:14 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
01:16 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:16 -!- Sub|afk [~SubCreati@c-76-121-19-166.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:17 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
01:18 -!- Sub|afk [~SubCreati@c-76-121-19-166.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:18 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:22 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:25 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:28 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:34 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:36 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:48 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
01:52 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:53 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:55 -!- jae [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:55 -!- jae is now known as Guest25520
01:57 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:59 -!- Guest25520 [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:59 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:04 -!- dabura667 [uid43070@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jkfgernmuaeoapsg] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:05 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:10 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-178.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:13 -!- dabura667 [uid43070@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zmtrecwgzlbdjviq] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:14 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:17 -!- null_radix [Elite7851@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-ygyyoutidpkgvuwd] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
02:18 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-178.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:25 -!- null_radix [Elite7851@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-koakovhmjjzpnkbu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:27 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
02:29 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:29 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:29 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit]
02:29 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:34 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:38 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:56 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:01 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:07 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:07 < moa> are borromean rings linked to trefoil knots?
03:15 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-239-096.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
03:18 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:21 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:22 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:27 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:30 -!- metamarc [~snizysnaz@unaffiliated/agorist000] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:30 -!- metamarc [~snizysnaz@unaffiliated/agorist000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:31 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
03:41 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-188-108-091-002.188.108.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:42 -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:50 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
03:54 -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
04:06 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:06 -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:10 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- dabura667 [uid43070@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zmtrecwgzlbdjviq] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
04:16 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:16 -!- antanst1 [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-233.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:17 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-178.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:17 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:20 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:29 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:29 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
04:29 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:30 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:33 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:38 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:40 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has quit [Quit: Quit]
04:40 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:41 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:45 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:48 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:48 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:51 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:54 < fluffypony> 'The name "Borromean rings" comes from their use in the coat of arms of the aristocratic Borromeo family in Northern Italy.'
04:54 < fluffypony> TIL
04:57 < nsh> .wik Borromean ring
04:57 < yoleaux> "In mathematics, the Borromean rings[a] consist of three topological circles which are linked and form a Brunnian link (i.e., removing any ring results in two unlinked rings). In other words, no two of the three rings are linked with each other as a Hopf link, but nonetheless all three are linked." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borromean_ring
04:59 < nsh> trefoil knots are a single...bit of string --  borromean rings are three disjoint but interlinked... bits of string
04:59 < fluffypony> I'm going to struggle not to pronounce it borrow-mean
05:03 < Jaamg> are there people who think that avg block size approaching max block size is actually desirable?
05:04 -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:05 -!- wizkid057 [wk@unaffiliated/wizkid057] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
05:05 < Taek> jaamg: the bigger problem is the risks that accompany increasing the block size.
05:06 < Jaamg> Taek: that doesn't answer my question though
05:07 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
05:09 -!- wizkid057 [wk@unaffiliated/wizkid057] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:09 < Taek> jaamg: I think everybody philisophically believes that it would be best if the blockchain never ran out of space, though it's uncertain where the block-subsidy will come from long-term if there is no fee structure. That's far enough away to not be an issue for a long while. Other than that, I don't think there's any reason that running out of space is 'desirable'.
05:12 < Jaamg> Taek: I'm hoping "everybody philisophically believes that it would be best if the blockchain never ran out of space" is true. I'm trying to figure out whether it is true and that's why I asked what I asked
05:12 -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
05:13 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.254] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:13 -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:13 < Jaamg> I try to find someone to tell me why it isn't true
05:14 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.254] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:15 < Jaamg> if there is no such people, i think we should accept that as an axiom of some sort
05:17 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:21 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:33 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:35 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:40 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:40 -!- adam3us [~Adium@37.75.44.217] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:41 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:45 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@223-96-17-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:55 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:55 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:58 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:06 -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
06:08 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:17 < fluffypony> Jaamg: nobody here (that I know of) thinks that the size should *never* change (at least not without sidechain / lightning network stuff to provide scalability)
06:17 < Jaamg> fluffypony: that doesn't answer my question though
06:18 < fluffypony> the issue is with *when* the size should change, *how* it should change, *by how much* it should change
06:18 < fluffypony> Jaamg: to answer your very first question, yes
06:18 < Jaamg> fluffypony: what i want to know is: are there people who think that avg block size approaching max block size is desirable
06:18 < Jaamg> fluffypony: why would that be desirable?
06:19 < fluffypony> jtimon, afair, wanted it to happen to observe a fee market and gather real, meaningful data
06:19 < frankenmint> what is a large enough priority for free transactions to be sent?
06:19 < fluffypony> anyway, I'm getting on a plane, so a conversation for another time
06:22 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
06:23 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:24 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:24 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:34 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:35 -!- c0rw|zZz [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Client Quit]
06:37 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:37 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xujdallkbtzxqmhv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:38 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:39 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.26] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:39 -!- p15_ [~p15@111.193.162.64] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:40 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.163] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:41 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.23] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
06:43 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:47 -!- c0rw1n_ [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:48 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:48 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:52 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
06:58  * Jaamg wonders why current data isn't real/meaningful and when will it become real/menaingful
06:59 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:59 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:59 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: there's a graph here: http://bitcoincore.org/smartfee/priority_graph.html
06:59 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:59 < frankenmint> nice that's the first time you've addressed me personally, thanks
07:00 < frankenmint> would you confirm that you potentially plan to work w/ mike hearn on xt if consensus cannot be reached on blocksize?
07:01 < frankenmint> I looked at XT's github page and don't see any sort of references to the larger blocksize being on the roadmap in development
07:01 < gavinandresen> yes, I think diversity and choice is good....
07:02 < zooko> Hi folks.
07:02 < gavinandresen> howdy zooko
07:03 < Taek> jaamg: the data on a fee market wouldn't really be considered valuable today because fees are nearly trivial and free transactions still make it into blocks
07:04 < akstunt600> Bitcoin is like DNA. DNA holds all life in balance with a distibuted ledger like system. If we break bitcoin in 2 pieces will bitcoin have any value as the currency of the future. To me bitcoin is all about putting greed in check, comprimise. I'm not really worried about us coming to consensus. We have a fair amount of time to get our ducks in a row right?
07:05 < frankenmint> what is priority a measure of?  I thought it was perhaps seconds since last spend
07:05 < frankenmint> perhaps milliseconds?
07:07 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: priority is a product of the number of bitcoins in each transaction input times how deep that input is buried in the chain, modified so that transactions that sweep up inputs and reduce the UTXO set size get higher priority
07:08 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: See CCoinsViewCache::GetPriority and CTransaction::ComputerPriority for gory details
07:08 < Jaamg> Taek: why would the fees ever rise in an artificially limited system when people can switch to (more) free system?
07:08 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
07:09 < gavinandresen> Jaamg: ask an economist who knows a lot about pricing of commodities-- convenience, switching costs, security, reliability....
07:09 < gavinandresen> I don't think many economists hang out here in -wizards... (chime in if I'm wrong)
07:10 < stonecoldpat> gavinandresen: i came across your o(1) propragation post earlier today (thx to benjamindees), i'm surprised it hasnt been mentioned yet in the e-mail discussions about blocksize - is there any particular problem with it?
07:10 < frankenmint> Jaamg: creation of artificial barriers to facilitate commerce
07:10 < akstunt600> Honestly i dont think too many economists really understand the mechanics here.
07:10 < frankenmint> I'm speculating here:  21co is working with quallcomm and intel
07:11 < frankenmint> to allow users to trade earned btc for hardware locked overclocking
07:11 < frankenmint> so that continued use of device allows for a sort of 'free upgrade'
07:12 < gavinandresen> stonecoldpat: O(1) depends on mempools being almost identical across the network, and we don't really know if that will be the case long-term. I think if the incentives are to keep your mempool in sync with your neighbors, then they WILL be almost identical
07:12 < gavinandresen> I don't like to bring "but we can just write THIS code to fix the problem" into the debate, because it is speculation whether or not the code will actually work until it is up and running.
07:14 < gavinandresen> I also don't like "what will happen in eleven years..." speculating:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away
07:14 < akstunt600> well satishi kinda hinted that it needs to be popular by that time, right?
07:14 < Taek> gavinandresen: my understanding is that miners will have strong incentives to keep their mempools in sync with at least 51% of the hashing power on the network. Except for instances of collussion, this should lead to the whole network having nearly-identical mempools
07:15 < akstunt600> wehn sub ends
07:15 < frankenmint>   i saw you mention the issue of a dynamic block size w/ a malicious actor throwing in a huge 11gb block for the network to chug on...why not make X previous blocks enforce average accepted block size?
07:15 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way
07:15 < frankenmint> such that larger sizing is required but a sustained increase has a cooldown period after X growth per period
07:16 < akstunt600> yeah kinda stuck to scheduled hard cap increase by blockheight, but that sucks in the case of exponetial growth
07:16 < Jaamg> gavinandresen: yea, convenience, switching costs, security etc. all are valid reasons, but the point I was trying to make was kind of: why would anybody choose Bitcoin with "small blockchain-capacity" if there is Bitcoin with "big blockchain-capacity available in a hard fork situation
07:16 < akstunt600> frankenmint, It has a bias toward smaller blocks that way :-/
07:16 < frankenmint> akstunt600: what event would occur that isn't considered block spam at this point that would be considered such growth?
07:17 < akstunt600> frankenmint, not sure, but not a gamble i am willing to take. Remember PGP is on Facebook now. The times are changing
07:18 < akstunt600> Like i said above Satoshi intends on adoption in large numbers before subsidy issues come into play.
07:19 < frankenmint> basically all serivies that user btc can do so in a seperate closed off chain system with atomicity to overcome the transaction fee limitations
07:19 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:19 < gavinandresen> I really want to get away from making policy decisions about what is, or isn't, "spam" .  That's why I start with "what do we think is a reasonable upper limit cost to running a full node" and want to let all the rest be driven by economics.
07:19 < akstunt600> could yeah
07:19 < akstunt600> but doesnt have security of the main chain
07:19 < stonecoldpat> gavinandresen: cheers, that makes sense then (its not been tried and tested).
07:19 < akstunt600> well not the same level* you know what i mean
07:20 < gavinandresen> in any case, this is all not -wizards-level discussion.
07:20 < kanzure> gavinandresen: "spam" is not just "things that don't get into the blockchain". out of millions of possible transactions it's not surprising that reality can only accomodate some subset.
07:20 < kanzure> or wait, er, "things that don't get into the blockchain" are not always spam
07:20 < kanzure> sorry, i got it backwards
07:21 < Taek> kanzure: I do like the data-agnostic approach. If we come to an agreement on what sort of block size is acceptable, then the highest bidder seems like a fully reasonable way to determine who gets space on the blockchain
07:21 < frankenmint> gavinandresen: when is pruning scheduled to be available on core implementation?
07:21 < priidu> i hope things don't go as far as a serious fork in bitcoin development (i.e. XT vs Core)
07:21 < kanzure> Taek: i believe gavinandresen disagrees with that (although i'm still trying to figure out why)
07:21 < frankenmint> not that this has anything to do w/ trx limits currently
07:22 < priidu> that would make me feel much like a lost child in the midst of a messy divorce
07:22 < zooko> lol
07:22 < frankenmint> priidu: i read that someplace else earlier today from you :)
07:23 < zooko> priidu: thank you for that. I think that's a serious truth for me to remember.
07:23 < akstunt600> kanzure, I hope that is not the case.
07:23 < zooko> We love *both* gavinandresen *and* gmaxwell, and we don't want them to fight!
07:23 < priidu> frankenmint: yes, i think i might have said it once earlier :p
07:23 < gavinandresen> If you DO want to do some -wizards-level work, start at http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners  and work up some theoretical models.
07:23 < akstunt600> no infighting!!! lol
07:23 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: pruning is in the lastes Core release.
07:24 < gavinandresen> I'm not fighting with gmaxwell, I just disagree with him about timing and vision for scaling up.
07:24 < akstunt600> pruning is whicked fast another sync in only 6 hours or so
07:24 < akstunt600> wicked*
07:24 -!- Mably [56401ec5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.197] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:25 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I don't disagree, I just believe blocks should be "as large as practical" (where practical is defined by "doesn't cost an arm and a leg or require a full rack of servers")
07:25 < kanzure> hmm
07:25 < kanzure> okay interesting. you do not in principle disagree with "If we come to an agreement on what sort of block size is acceptable, then the highest bidder seems like a fully reasonable way to determine who gets space on the blockchain".
07:25 < akstunt600> Awesome!
07:25 < gavinandresen> kanzure: absolutely.
07:26 < kanzure> ah right; now i remember. yesterday the concern was more oriented towards "(perhaps perpetually) extremely high fees", not full blocks.
07:26 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I wrote the original fee estimation code for Core (improved upon by Mike Hearn and Alex Morcos) exactly because bidding for space is the right approach
07:28 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:29 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:31 < kanzure> sounds like you're perhaps worried about potential adoption being priced out of the transaction fee market (to the extent that any such fee market exists at the moment, whatever)
07:33 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.202] has quit [Client Quit]
07:33 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 < gavinandresen> kanzure: applications are already driven off-chain because of the transaction fee market.
07:34 < kanzure> that's always going to be true (e.g. there are some applications that will always prefer zero transaction fees, i think)
07:34 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I am more worried that we are failing to be predictable. If I was going to start a business, I'd like to know what the scalability plan was so I could plan accordingly.
07:34 < kanzure> (i mean; they also have to compete with other transactions just on size alone, so...)
07:35 < kanzure> i think we need more words for off-chain and partial-chain tech stuff
07:36 < kanzure> by which i mean names
07:36 < Jaamg> kanzure: perhaps potential adopters are not so much _priced_ out but rather _timed_ out. People get frustrated with hard-to-predict confirmation waiting times and abandon the system -> less pressure for the fees to go up
07:36 < zooko> Heya bramc.
07:37 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:37 -!- temujin [2679a51e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:37 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:37 < gavinandresen> bramc: I enjoyed the Gallus and Simo debate
07:37 < bramc> Hey zooko
07:38 < kanzure> Jaamg: hmm, i'm not sure that all potential bitcoin users are users that also must have transactions in the blockchain that they created- surely they could still have an interest without having a utxo assigned to them.
07:38 < bramc> gavinandresen, Thanks, it was an earnest attempt to engage in technical discussion rather than just rant
07:38 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:38 < gavinandresen> bramc: ... although you lost me at merge-mining....
07:38 < kanzure> Jaamg: i mean, all things being equal i would prefer everyone to have utxos they are interested in, but all things are not particularly equal etc
07:39 < zooko> Where was this earnest discussion posted? May I have a link?
07:39 < gavinandresen> http://bramcohen.com/2015/06/02/gallus-and-simo-debate-whether-the-block-size-limit-should-be-increased
07:39 < helo> gavinandresen: starting a business that is based on bitcoin right now seems pretty ill advised. it's stuck in its highly experimental phase until we see how it functions best with full blocks. (the way it functions will inevitably rule out many business approaches)
07:40 < kanzure> helo: that is hard to deterimne, plus it's not -wizards appropriate :P
07:40 < helo> doh :P
07:40 < bramc> gavinandresen, I might have bungled that a bit - the idea was that if you're doing a hard fork to raise the maximum block size you could allow it to be merge mined at the same time. That might make it harder and forkier, but at least it results in the fork not having such a lousy security parameter when it starts out
07:40 < priidu> helo: still though... it'd be understandable if we already had 20MB and someone was trying to push 200MB blocks
07:41 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:41 < priidu> helo: but 1MB -> 20MB isn't really that bad imho, on the other hand it would give some serious headroom
07:42 < gavinandresen> bramc: I never considered doing that, and I don't think it could work without doubling the money supply (which is an absolute non-starter).  In any case, any hard fork I propose won't happen unless there is a clear super-majority of exchanges, merchants, and miners who have expressed support
07:42 < kanzure> if the money supply is doubled then you might as well do merge mining i think
07:42 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
07:43 < bramc> Some of the high flying Bitcoin companies have business models which don't make any sense unless the value of Bitcoin transactions goes up a couple orders of magnitude. And then there's Bitshare.
07:43 < kanzure> i mean "in the event that the scenario ends up being that the supply has doubled..."
07:43 -!- antanst1 [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-233.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
07:44 < gavinandresen> bramc: Bitshare?  Too many bitcoin companies with 'bit' in their name for me to keep track of....
07:44 < kanzure> he probably means bitshares
07:44 < helo> priidu: all of the headroom just increases how long it takes for the system to begin functioning in its long term steady state (full blocks). the system is totally unpredictable until that has happened.
07:45 < bramc> gavinandresen, Right, the sort of voting which has happened in the past (although those were for soft forks). I think even a supermajority would be problematic, it should be more than 90% to a void a horrible fork. That's for miners though, I don't know how to survey exchanges and merchants.
07:45 < gavinandresen> helo: you just pushed one of my pet peeve buttons...   "totally" unpredictable?  Really? totally?
07:46 < helo> gavinandresen: well, you just lost the moral high ground by ignoring everything but one word :P
07:46 < kanzure> yes at any moment transactions can spontaneously turn into blocks or something. totally unpredictable.
07:46 < kanzure> helo: nah you said "until this happens". but some aspects are predictable before that.
07:46 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 < gavinandresen> helo: I just get frustrated talking repeated about things I've already written about:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/the-myth-of-not-full-blocks
07:47 < akstunt600> ehh, i just realized the fee market is irrelevant until the sub is in the dirt.
07:48 < akstunt600> fee market is critical for long term, but does it really matter right now?
07:48 < gavinandresen> akstunt600: yes, I wrote about that, too:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/block-size-and-miner-fees-again
07:48 < kanzure> sub?
07:48 < akstunt600> subsidy
07:50 < akstunt600> thanks, and well said
07:50 < Jaamg> when "fee market" happens, it means that people are already pissed off by the slow confirmations
07:50 < akstunt600> Im glad that you recognize the important of the exchange rate in all this too
07:50 < akstunt600> importance*
07:51 < kanzure> Jaamg: user expectations should be shaped by system capabilities in many cases
07:51 < kanzure> gavinandresen: i happen to disagree with the following point, but i'm a little surprised i haven't seen anyone argue "something something market price increasing, current node operators with small amounts of BTC will be able to upgrade their hardware to run equipment and more-resource-heavy software".
07:52 < akstunt600> kanzure, LOL, eveyone is too depressed to talk about BTC going to mewn. :p
07:53 < kanzure> that's not what i mean
07:53 < gavinandresen> kanzure: I don't think I make that argument. I do talk about the decline in full nodes here:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized
07:53 < kanzure> i agree that you do not make that argument
07:53 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
07:53 < kanzure> i was stating that i was surprised that i don't see anyone making that argument at all
07:53 -!- Relos1 [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 < akstunt600> yeah kanzure Im saying the small miers, alot of them got down on their spirits and left or sold miners.
07:54 < helo> from the perspective of establishing long term business plan, "totally unpredictable" is a fine characterization at this point in the experiment
07:54 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
07:54 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 < akstunt600> lot of bad information and underperforming asics out there to really drive the point home too
07:55 < priidu> helo: what's "totally predictable" though? only death and taxes
07:55 < akstunt600> Which really really sux IMO, as im still profitable with my old s3+
07:56 < akstunt600> s3+'s
07:56 < gavinandresen> ... trolls in any public forum are also completely predictable....
07:56 < Jaamg> kanzure: I 100% agree that system capabilities shape user expectations. Mike Hearn's crash landing blog post was great description what happens when system capabilities shape user expectations
07:56 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:57 < c0rw1n_> priidu: hang around transhumanist libertarians enough and the unavoidability of those begin to seem like technical problems soon to be solved
07:57 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mwtetmmkvfzswdcz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:58 < kanzure> c0rw1n_: yes
07:58 < kanzure> bramc: someone relayed some commentary and questions about your blog post; near "have little reason" the questions are "why would miners have a goal to avoid or reduce transaction fees?"
07:58 < kanzure> oh i suspect it is a missing word- i think your sentence needs to hvae the word "developers" added to it perhaps?
07:59 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
08:00 < akstunt600> they dont care. they just want to ship the smallest block to help prevent against orphan. Dat .3%
08:00 < helo> the bathysphere hasn't even been exposed to pressures at depth, and we're installing stadium seating </troll>
08:00  * nsh smiles
08:00 < helo> okay, work time... i'll stop being offtopic
08:01 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:01 < akstunt600> trolololol
08:03 < bramc> kanzure, Ah I have a copy editing problem there which makes it look funny
08:04 < bramc> kanzure, It's a point about miners though, there isn't much in it for miners to increase the max block size
08:05 -!- Relos1 [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
08:05 < kanzure> miners can squash out smaller-scale miners that don't have resources for handling larger blocks (significantly larger, mind you).
08:06 < bramc> kanzure, I doubt that block sizes below something like a gigabyte would be a serious issue for anyone actually running a miner
08:06 < kanzure> right, i'd agree with that estimation
08:07 < bramc> gavinandresen, The recently announced bitshares mining chip is a bitcoin mining chip which runs on mobile devices. They seem to have a model where they give the chips out for free and the chips only work with their pool which keeps 75% of the proceeds
08:07 < bramc> gavinandresen, It does not appear to be a parody.
08:08 < bramc> At least, not an *intentional* parody
08:10 -!- antgreen [user@nat/redhat/x-jfdhhuvamskotjdt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:11 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:12 < gavinandresen> kanzure: no, they can't:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners
08:13 < kanzure> everything in that post is completely unrelated to what i was just talking about
08:13 < kanzure> well, perhaps not completely unrelated. the line about "marginal miners" always being priced out of the market is correct, and relevant to what i was saying.
08:14 < gavinandresen> kanzure: yes, and of all the costs that go into mining bandwidth/connectivity is in the noise.  Electricity costs, cost of capital, access to latest mining hardware....
08:15 -!- moarrr [6d9a30c2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.154.48.194] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:15 < gavinandresen> kanzure: if we were talking gigabyte-sized blocks then I would agree costs would get significant.
08:16 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-16-2.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:16 < kanzure> in general i prefer to talk about "in the limit" because that helps inform long-reaching engineering implications somewhat
08:16 < gavinandresen> kanzure: in the limit, we all die....
08:16 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:17 < kanzure> that's only because nobody is trying http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/longevity/
08:17 < gavinandresen> mmm, I suppose we should stop working on this bitcoin thing and all help out with immortality research, more important problem to solve first.....
08:17 < kanzure> aubrey de grey mentioned to me once the secret of the longevity research community is that nobody reads a lot... just reading a few thousand papers a year is enough to accumulate a significant perspective on plausible approaches to not dying.
08:18 < gavinandresen> kanzure: anyway, my perspective on taking the "long term engineering" approach: http://gavinandresen.ninja/when-the-block-reward-goes-away
08:19 < kanzure> well, i have much to say on that topic, although i can't tell if you're being sarcastic in the good or bad way
08:19 -!- Cobra [d0407b82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.208.64.123.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:20 < moarrr> hey gavinandresen, its Daniel Michael Abraham, how are you?
08:20 < moarrr> gavinandresen: /me is 1EW6G5DfewxJtAintR1pwVR6TpEYHFfwdZ
08:23 -!- c0rw1n_ is now known as c0rw1n
08:23 -!- Cobra [d0407b82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.208.64.123.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:24 < temujin> gavinandresen: do you think Peter Todd's O(n^2) argument is invalid in the context of a single node? certainly all nodes verifying all transactions can be expressed as an n^2 complexity problem, but each individual node only needs to verify the entire blockchain once
08:24 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:24 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has quit [Changing host]
08:24 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:25 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:26  * moarrr is concerned about bitcoin's development
08:26 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:26 -!- Artimage [d88b8b32@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.216.139.139.50] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:28 < gavinandresen> temujin: yes, his argument is invalid in the context of a single node. And the scalability vision was never, ever, "every single user validates every single transaction" -- that is a straw-man
08:31 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has quit [Quit: d3vz3r0]
08:36 < akrmn> gavin clearly doesn't care about the O(n^2) problem, which basically means, if you keep increasing the block size, you eventually end up with one NSA-style node monitoring all transactions, and there is no more a transparent blockchain that is easy for everyone to see (which is convenient for government/corporate corruption to hide inside it)
08:37  * gavinandresen reminds himself not to feed trolls.....
08:38 < akrmn> there are ways to solve this problem, but as you will see, try to talk to him, and he will not be interested in the solutions
08:38 < CoinMuncher> respect, Gavin... respect!
08:39 < temujin> akrmn: my question was to make sure i understood correctly that the problem isn't actually a problem, it's just a scary way to say something not quite related to the problem to instill FUD
08:39 < moarrr> gavinandresen: being concerned makes one a troll?
08:39 < akrmn> temujin: How is it not a problem?
08:40 < temujin> i think you're the one making the claim there is a problem, are you not? it is true that the entire network complexity is O(n^2), but no single node has to do anywhere near that many calculations, it's just a "fun fact" more than anything
08:40 < temujin> explain the problem in detail
08:40 < CoinMuncher> From 1MB to 20MB is the same as from my RaspberryPi full node to NSA level of computing power? FUD much?
08:40 < akrmn> Yes each full node has to store O(n^2) unspent outputs as far as I understand
08:40 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:41 < akrmn> in order to validate
08:41 < temujin> wat
08:41 < akrmn> UTXO, someone can correct me if I'm wrong
08:41 < gavinandresen> ah, that might be the last post I haven't linked to today:  http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh
08:41 < CoinMuncher> akrmn: "as far as I understand" first honest words so far
08:42 < akrmn> but basically, each full node has to validate all transactions, so even O(n) is bad (n is the number of transactions on the network)
08:42  * moarrr gives up - Daniel Michael Abraham
08:42 -!- moarrr [6d9a30c2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.154.48.194] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["http://dmabraham.info/"]
08:42 < akrmn> my proposed solution splits the validation up so that not every full node has to verify every transaction
08:42 < c0rw1n> that is what makes it trust-free akrmn, why are you questioning the basic principle of bitcoin
08:43 < temujin> akrmn: UTXO bloat scales at worst _linearly_ with block size, and it's true that this is a problem, however it is understood that this problem should be solved before block sizes are increased
08:43 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:43 < temujin> there are a few easy solutions to that problem, which can be implemented without hard-forking the network
08:43 < gavinandresen> akrmn: yes, the definition of a full node is "validates all transactions" ...  if you don't have the resources to validate all transactions, then you run as an SPV node.  In the future, there might be options to probabalistically validate, and trust your neighbors will alert you if something you didn't validate is invalid.
08:44 < gavinandresen> akrmn: that is obviously not as secure as "I will validate all transactions myself" .  I have proposed that we scale up so the cost of validating all transactions yourself remains modest.
08:45 < akrmn> You can read what I wrote about it on the mailing list (Scaling Bitcoins with Subchains). It's similar to the tree chains idea but solves some problems I think tree chains had, but it's actually quite a simple idea, but I don't want to bother gavin anymore about it. I was planning to ask some people later this week.
08:45 < akstunt600> gavinandresen, there is the same or more of risk to mempool bloat by not increasing the blocksize, in reguards to utxos
08:45 < akstunt600> that argument goes both ways really
08:45 < gavinandresen> akrmn: oh, you're the subchains guy.  Sorry, your idea won't work.
08:45 < akrmn> ok then explain
08:46 < gavinandresen> I send a transaction that is on subchain eleven.  It spends coins from subchains six through fourteen.  How do I validate it?
08:46 < temujin> akstunt600: can you elaborate? how can there be risk of more bloat with smaller block sizes?
08:46 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 < akstunt600> backlogs, if blocks are filled mempool bloat not BS bloat
08:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@89.204.137.173] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@89.204.137.173] has quit [Changing host]
08:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 < akstunt600> i agree with what u said above temujin
08:47 < akrmn> gavinandresen: My restriction (I added it to my reply to the topic) was that only 2 sibling chains at a time can be involved in a transaction
08:48 < akrmn> So I hope that you're not trying to put more at a time
08:49 < CoinMuncher> How do you verify the sibling chain without verifying the next-sibling?
08:49 < gavinandresen> akrmn: how does that help?  I'm validating subchain eleven. I get six hundred transactions, each on a maximum of 2 sibling chains. How do I avoid needed ALL of the sibling chains to validate those 600 transactions?
08:50 < gavinandresen> (... I mean to say:  each SPENDING inputs from a maximum of 2 sibling chains...)
08:51 -!- jae [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:51 -!- jae is now known as Guest59130
08:52 < temujin> akstunt600: i see, i misread your statement. you're right, but i think the fears about mempool bloat are overblown... a greater problem with the mempool "forgetting" backlogged transactions is user experience and logistics (re-broadcasting forgotten transactions). it isn't a strong DOS attack vector
08:52 < akrmn> gavinandresen: The coins have to be on subchain eleven or one other chain to be used (if you want to publish the transaction on 11). Though I have to think because I may be misunderstanding your question.
08:52 < akstunt600> temujin, 100% agree
08:52 < akstunt600> that is actually my greatest concern by FAR
08:53 < temujin> very annoying for businesses and users to have to deal with one more "gotcha", and a potential hurdle to adoption
08:53 < akstunt600> stuck tx are no fun and peter tods tool still would look terrible to "new" users
08:53 < gavinandresen> akrmn: "have to be on subchain eleven to be used" -- if users have to think about what subchains the coins in their wallets are on, then that's absolutely not workable. If you think wallets will just move coins from one subchain to another when needed... then you've just increased the transaction volume. And how does the moving work?
08:53 < akstunt600> yeah i would probably freak out if i were green and my money justy didnt send or dissapeared
08:54  * CoinMuncher wonders if an apology to Gavin is near, after spreading FUD and "gavin clearly doesn't care about the O(n^2) problem" and "but as you will see, try to talk to him, and he will not be interested in the solutions"
08:54 < akstunt600> ^ yes probably
08:54 < akstunt600> IMO
08:54 < akstunt600> i think shit got taken out of context
08:54 < akrmn> gavinandresen: You make sure all your coins are on one path of subchains (or other paths if you want to track other identities)
08:54 < akstunt600> but i only know what i saw
08:54 < temujin> mempool weirdness and edge-cases cause some 3rd party wallets to bug out too
08:55 < akstunt600> yup
08:55 < akstunt600> i broke electrum a few times
08:55 < bramc> The appropriate behavior of a wallet when its transactions don't go through is to increase the fee over time until the transaction goes through.
08:55 < akrmn> Then  you can send to someone whos on another chain. If you want more complex transactions involving multiple sibiling chains, then you have to do multiple transactions (that's ok)
08:56 < gavinandresen> akrmn: who is "you" ?  If I've got coins in my wallet on subchain eleven, and I'm sending them to you but you're only validating subchain thirteen, what happens?
08:56 -!- Populus_ [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-oxrtktvboddfbndx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:56 < akrmn> gavinandresen: I validate that your coins are fine by pulling in the headers of subchain 11
08:57 < frankenmint> akrmn: which software are you using?
08:57 < frankenmint> is it machine level or person level?
08:57 < akrmn> then the transaction gets store on both subchain 11 and 13
08:57 < akrmn> there are duplicates but it's ok
08:57 < gavinandresen> akrmn: That is equivalent to just running an SPV node that stores a random subset of the UTXO and validates what it can.
08:58 < gavinandresen> ... which is fine, but isn't the same as running a fully validating node
08:58 < akrmn> gavinandresen: I run a fully validating node on subchain 13
08:58 -!- Guest59130 [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:58 < akrmn> SPV is risky only because you can have a denial of service (not see transactions)
08:59 < akrmn> but all I need is proof that I received coins on subchain 13
08:59 < frankenmint> gavinandresen: what is the ideal price target to holding a full node and do you have any opinions on the long term storage of chains?  will this ultimately be a utliliatarian system or one that holds value in the consnsus users (the miners and node holders which vote by the sofware they opt to use)
08:59 < akrmn> the fully validating is needed to make sure that I see all transactions on 13 and in that path
08:59 -!- user7779078 [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-nhnplbbgxymqbhme] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xujdallkbtzxqmhv] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:00 < frankenmint> seems like ulitmately a conjunction will come together where one network would be used over the other but that one netowrk (largerblock) would be able to validate both
09:00 < akrmn> this is how distributed computing works. Not everyone does the same task, it is spread.
09:00 < bramc> My understanding from the blockchain people is that they don't mean for subchains to be a scaling solution, at least not by making lots of subchains. With everything merge-mined they wouldn't particularly help anyway.
09:00 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:60bc:e8b1:dece:8609] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:00 < akrmn> though there will be lots of intersection at the top of the tree of chains.
09:00 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: I've said you should be able to run a full node as a hobby. And the average american spends about $50 per month on hobbies, so somewhere in the $20 to $50 per month range seems reasonable to me.
09:00 < frankenmint> gavinandresen: nope, not american - gotta think globally
09:00 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: There are lots of people who would argue "amateur hour is over" and say that's too low....
09:01 < frankenmint> gavinandresen: should be free
09:01 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: ok, if you can find stats on how much the average global citizen spends on hobbies, great.
09:01 < frankenmint> I know that's a really tall order
09:01 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:01 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:01 < kanzure> "amateur hour" is the wrong way to think about this. there are no "experts" when there's no authority anyway.
09:01 < akrmn> I don't care about your chocolate bar purchases on level 8 chains with 10^7 block size equivalent volume, I care only about my chocolate bar purchases, or whoever elses I want to track
09:01 < frankenmint> but ultimately, its about distribution and lowest ease of entry to ensure highest propegation
09:01 < gavinandresen> frankenmint: targeting the free level of Amazon EC2 would be an option. I haven't run the numbers.....
09:01 < akrmn> it gives flexibility, instead of "one size fits all"
09:02 < frankenmint> gavinandresen: the answer is zero
09:02 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:02 < frankenmint> I know that sounds crazy
09:02 < gavinandresen> http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/    ... looks like bandwidth wouldn't be the bottleneck... CPU might...
09:02 < akstunt600> IDK there seems to be an obvious path to resolution here IMO. Add in escalating fees to mempool and a way to kill stuck txs in the GUI, then proceed to looking at scheduled, algo, or hard cap blaocksize.
09:03 < kanzure> frankenmint: perhaps not zero but a good plan towards zero sounds like an interesting strategy to consider
09:03 < akstunt600> basically something to peter todds replacebyfee
09:03 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:03 < akstunt600> s/to/like/
09:04 < Taek> gavinandresen: I disagree with the emphasis on the cost of running a node from a datacenter. A node run from a datacenter means you are trusting the datacenter to run the node correctly.
09:04 < temujin> gavinandresen: I have a $50/month amazon medium server and it's just fine for a full node at the moment
09:04 < gavinandresen> Taek: trusting your ISP is better?
09:05 < akstunt600> heh goog point
09:05 < gavinandresen> Taek: until we have widespread mesh p2p networks you're going to have to trust somebody at least a little bit
09:05 < frankenmint> he means 'your isp'
09:05 < gavinandresen> (now somebody is going to say we shouldn't touch the block size until mesh network are widely deployed)
09:06 < akstunt600> hahhaha fahk, but thats chicken in the egg if you ask me
09:06 < temujin> i'm reminded of a reddit post on /r/bitcoin 2 years ago that went through the logical analysis of trusting each step in the supply chain of connecting to the internet, down to the last point of manufacturing your own silicon chips because there could be a manufacturer backdoor...
09:06 < akstunt600> yeah, that was great
09:07 < Taek> temujin: it's very daunting when you get down to it, especially since governments have been known to intercept computer parts and tamper with them
09:07 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:07 < temujin> Taek: yep, and it's cropped up in my real life, too. *thinks back to Lenovo self-signed cert attack from a few months ago*. good times!
09:08 < temujin> but realistically we can't worry about every little detail of trust, the system has to be decentralized _enough_ to get around any entity's attempt at censorship, which bitcoin is really good at right now
09:09 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:14 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:15 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:15 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-61-104.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:19 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- hearn_ [~mike@77-59-61-104.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:21 -!- stevenroose|BNC is now known as stevenroose
09:22 < dgenr8> SPV network nodes are the path to scalability IMHO
09:24 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-61-104.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:24 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 < akrmn> by the way
09:26 < akrmn> what I said is not equivalent to just storing random subsets, far from it, but I will write more about it
09:27 < dgenr8> but they won't store UTXO's.  You can't prove an output is unspentm, but you can fail to prove it is spent.  To use subsets effectively they can't be random .. they must be routable
09:27 < akrmn> also, an ISP can't fake digital cryptographic signatures if properly implemented, so not sure where that is going
09:29 < akrmn> dgenr8: ok will think about it. One thing you said makes sense.
09:32 -!- Mably [56401ec5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.197] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
09:33 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:34 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:36 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:36 < akrmn> If you have enough headers, you can prove it has valid outputs still unspent...but ya I need to think about other things damnit, this damn block size "surprise attack" is distracting.
09:38 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
09:43 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:50 -!- kmels [~kmels@93.166.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:51 -!- superobserver [~superobse@unaffiliated/superobserver] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:53 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has quit [Quit: d3vz3r0]
09:54 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.139] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- jae [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:c937:c619:6621:2ed1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- jae is now known as Guest36097
10:15 -!- superobserver [~superobse@unaffiliated/superobserver] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:17 -!- Guest36097 [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:c937:c619:6621:2ed1] has quit []
10:18 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:20 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:25 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
10:28 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
10:30 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:30 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@72-48-76-136.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:35 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:35 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:36 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:38 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:41 < temujin> can I have two OP_RETURN outputs in a single transaction on mainnet? i see them on testnet but don't see any on main net.
10:42 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:43 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:44 -!- user7779078 [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-nhnplbbgxymqbhme] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
10:44 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:47 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:49 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
10:49 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:50 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:50 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:50 -!- user7779_ [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ifqzdrduefedidbf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:51 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:52 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.139] has quit [Quit: quitquitquit]
10:54 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
10:54 -!- hearn_ is now known as hearn
10:57 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
10:58 -!- DanielBTC [~Mclare@191.8.83.234] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:59 -!- mengine [~mengine@14.84-234-132.customer.lyse.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:59 -!- DanielBTC is now known as Guest81362
10:59 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:59 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-apjsthfssbnsahjy] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
10:59 -!- mengine [~mengine@14.84-234-132.customer.lyse.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 -!- jae [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:03 -!- jae is now known as Guest10940
11:15 -!- Dizzle_ [~Dizzle@172.56.38.159] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-61-104.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:18 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:18 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@72-48-76-136.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:20 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:21 -!- Dizzle_ is now known as Dizzle
11:22 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:23 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:23 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
11:25 -!- Guest81362 [~Mclare@191.8.83.234] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:32 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:32 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:32 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:34 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
11:35 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:37 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:39 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yrmalpyjqoqrenmh] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:41 -!- user7779_ [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ifqzdrduefedidbf] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:44 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:46 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.139] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:48 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-46-14.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:52 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
11:58 -!- Guest81362 [~Mclare@191.8.83.234] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:04 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-46-14.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:06 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@172.56.38.159] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:07 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.139] has quit [Quit: quitquitquit]
12:16 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:25 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:29 -!- tdryja [~tx@s186.62.229.222.fls.vectant.ne.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:30 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:30 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
12:38 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:39 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:40 -!- tdryja [~tx@s186.62.229.222.fls.vectant.ne.jp] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
12:42 < kanzure> does anyone have a good link to an overview of the current plans regarding formal verification and correctness of bitcoin consensus or at least script implementations?
12:43 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:53 < kanzure> it was something like: libbitcoinconsensus is being slowly converted over to a library that is more easily analyzed by formal verification and for correctness, probably going to be using z3 or coq somehow, and uhh then other node implementations will be strongly encouraged to use this formally verified library instead of relying on novel subtle side effects
12:57 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:58 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xzwutdmnwsjsusvr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:59 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:01 < gmaxwell> kanzure: still infeasable while its written in C++, there are tools to subject C code to formal analysis, but I think it's unlikely to see anything like that for C++ anytime soon, as the language is so much more complex.  But yes, it certantly moves things in that direction.
13:02 < kanzure> so are there any vague plans regarding those directions? rewriting in rust, haskell, c, something? and then is that something that we know anyone is working on at the moment?
13:03 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
13:05 < gmaxwell> Well keep in mind that there are many very different goals of applying formal methods to this code.  One of them is making sure that it does what you expect (e.g. can people steal coins?), another is making sure that it doesn't result in a consensus fault in the system.
13:05 < gmaxwell> E.g. that it's consistent in all implementations, regardless of it doing anything in particular that anyone intended.
13:05 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:06 < gmaxwell> One thing that has been discussed is compiling the code to a bytecode which could be run by a very simple virtual machine (e.g. moxie), and the virtual machine could be very hard to implement wrong (and formally proven correct).
13:06 < gmaxwell> But beyond a bit of expirementation (which resulted in improvements to the moxie instruction set) there isn't a concrete plan with respect to that.
13:07 < gmaxwell> I'd like to do more fomal proving of libsecp256k1, which is written in C and somewhat with formal methods in mind (or at least I have some expirence with formal validation of C code and pushed out most of the things that tend to break it).
13:07 < gmaxwell> Since thats just a much smaller problem than all of libconsensus.
13:08 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:08 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:10 < gmaxwell> Rust is super nice from a software engineering perspective, but it's probably about as far from being itself subjectable to formal methods as C++ is, unfortunately.
13:10 -!- Guest10940 [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:11 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 -!- Populus_ is now known as Populus
13:12 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-oxrtktvboddfbndx] has quit [Changing host]
13:12 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Changing host]
13:12 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-oxrtktvboddfbndx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:13 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:16 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:17 -!- antgreen [user@nat/redhat/x-jfdhhuvamskotjdt] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:17 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:18 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit]
13:20 -!- GibsonA [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:21 -!- user7779_ [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:24 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:25 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:27 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:34 < andytoshi> note tho that rust has a stronger type system and is less likely to have consensus anomalies due to differences in systems. re formal analysis i think it's also a lot closer than C++ but still a loong way from C. but for doing things like contracts/assertions it's actually much better than C because it is designed with annotations (which are accessible to syntax extensions, which are sorta like lisp
13:34 < andytoshi> macros, at compile time)
13:36 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.150] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:37 < bramc> There's a big difference between formally proving the correctness of the codebase and formally proving the correctness of the protocol
13:37 < gmaxwell> andytoshi: yes, I was putting it equal to C++ because its new and not widely used yet, which offsets the relatively small advantages.
13:38 < bramc> You could prove that, say, it only ever accepts valid bitcoin histories and has no buffer overflows, but still have a ruinous bug in the logic to decide which of several forks to accept
13:39 < gmaxwell> Yes, thats also another layer.  The protocol does with you intend, what you intend is what you would intend if you knew everything, the code implements the protocol, and this other code implements the same functionality... are all different problems.
13:39 -!- user7779_ [~user77790@ool-4a5987f1.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:40 < gmaxwell> And when "what you would intend" starts incorporating psychology or economics you start exiting the space where SMT solvers can save you. :)
13:45 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:46 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:46 < bramc> Even before that you get into things like 'Will usually propagate messages across the network with low latency in practice'
13:46 < bramc> Good luck 'proving' anything about that one.
13:47 < kanzure> but that's network stuff
13:47 < bramc> kanzure, The whole point of the codebase is to do network stuff!
13:48 < gmaxwell> bramc: See SEL4 though, they prove all kinds of important behaviors about their small microkernel written in C, including worst case latency.   (obviously you have to approximate the network; which indeed limits the utility... but isn't it nice to know that it won't just spontaniously fail given _known_ network behaviors, or even a perfect network?)
13:49 < bramc> gmaxwell, You can prove things about a well-behaved network with specified behaviors, but the correlation between that and real networks, which behave sort of 'badly' is a bit tenuous
13:49 < bramc> Although yes, better than nothing.
13:53 -!- DrWatto [DrWat@186-106-231-76.baf.movistar.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:55 -!- DrWat [DrWat@186-106-200-119.baf.movistar.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:00 -!- shen_noe2 [shen@155.99.176.228] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:04 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.150] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:07 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
14:10 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-204-106.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:11 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:13 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-170.37.6.217.tellas.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:16 -!- d3vz3r0 [~d3vz3r0@jsr.6502.ws] has quit [Quit: d3vz3r0]
14:17 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- shen_noe2 [shen@155.99.176.228] has quit [Quit: quitquitquit]
14:24 -!- shesek [~shesek@77.127.117.183] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:25 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:27 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@191.sub-70-208-73.myvzw.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:31 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:32 -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:37 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:37 -!- jgarzik_ is now known as jgarzik
14:37 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@104-178-201-106.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Changing host]
14:37 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:44 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:45 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@181.95.185.237] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:45 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:50 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
14:53 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yrmalpyjqoqrenmh] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
14:54 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@162.244.138.37] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
14:58 -!- belcher_ [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:58 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:00 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
15:00 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
15:01 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:35de:1fa8:8bb4:7792] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:02 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:35de:1fa8:8bb4:7792] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:04 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:04 -!- dasource [uid48409@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lntdzbjkaolqwedf] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:05 -!- artifexd [sid28611@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uvffkloshujkdtau] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:05 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@191.sub-70-208-73.myvzw.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:06 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@173.192.187.133-static.reverse.softlayer.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:07 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.81] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:08 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xzwutdmnwsjsusvr] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:09 -!- Muis [sid26074@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hnuamvlolpeazaok] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:10 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:10 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gueatzzjbqeomjwm] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
15:11 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:11 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-oxrtktvboddfbndx] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:12 -!- temujin [2679a51e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.121.165.30] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
15:12 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zkaayfqyhbmmkqkk] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
15:12 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
15:14 -!- kumavis [sid13576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-peusxcroeqkfndfl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:14 -!- mikolalysenko [sid34553@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eccaisljpupqscob] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:19 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
15:21 -!- shesek [~shesek@77.127.117.183] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:24 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
15:26 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:29 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:31 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
15:32 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
15:40 -!- adam3us [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:41 -!- dasource [uid48409@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-benukwilkljocvwc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:41 -!- artifexd [sid28611@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nrbqjggmvmreoayj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:42 -!- shen_noe2 [shen@155.99.176.228] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:42 -!- shen_noe2 [shen@155.99.176.228] has quit [Client Quit]
15:43 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:45 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@198.8.80.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:45 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:46 -!- Muis [sid26074@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wztluvztywomooie] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:49 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-komueryweaulhcel] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:51 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xxipsdkospaijwgt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:52 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@195.82.63.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:55 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xmcpvpkaqhedqkbr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:56 -!- kumavis [uid91096@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wrccgujoiycmhuml] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:57 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@65.115.226.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 -!- mikolalysenko [sid34553@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cqhrkaqbernptuac] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:03 -!- kmels [~kmels@93.166.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:03 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
16:09 -!- Jouke [~jouke@unaffiliated/komkommer] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:09 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
16:12 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:12 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mwtetmmkvfzswdcz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
16:19 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
16:23 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:24 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:26 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has quit [Client Quit]
16:27 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@92.74-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:29 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:30 -!- adam3us [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:31 -!- adam3us [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:36 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has quit []
16:36 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:37 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:37 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:38 -!- Jouke [~jouke@a83-163-42-163.adsl.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:39 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has quit [Quit: nemild]
16:43 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:46 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:47 -!- NewLiberty__ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:50 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
16:52 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:54 -!- Sub|afk is now known as SubCreative
16:54 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@c-76-121-19-166.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
16:54 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:58 -!- nemild [~nemild@65.115.226.27] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
17:05 -!- theymos [~theymos@unaffiliated/theymos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
17:07 -!- theymos [~theymos@unaffiliated/theymos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:09 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:11 -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-052-061.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:11 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:14 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-188-108-091-002.188.108.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:15 < HostFat_> again :)  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38aqt6/nodes_should_prefer_smaller_blocks/
17:17 < gmaxwell> HostFat_: if you know you'll win a race even with a later announcement you should withhold your block, this makes it so the strategic ('selfish') mining has substantial returns starting at 25% hashpower.
17:17 < gmaxwell> (this is a well known problem with any block preference scheme except smaller)
17:18 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:19 < HostFat_> wait, tt depends, if you wait longer, all nodes will still receive the bigger block first
17:19 < HostFat_> it*
17:19 < HostFat_> I don't see it as a win strategy
17:20 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:22 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@65.115.226.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:23 < HostFat_> the smaller blocks only win on the downloading phase, so this is the way to avoid a dos attack from bigger blocks
17:24 < gmaxwell> HostFat_: also, I think you've still failed to grasp a point made the other day... that it doesn't matter if j-random-node does this or that, assuming they don't outright reject them, miners don't care if it takes minutes for a j-random-node to get them.
17:25 < HostFat_> they care if they know that if a smaller block will come after their block, nodes will prefer to download the later one
17:26 < HostFat_> one miner can make a 1 GB block if he wants, and nodes will start do download it ... but if after few seconds it arrives a new block of 1 MB (example), nodes will pause the download of the one of 1 GB, and will give all the bandwitch to download the smaller one
17:26 < HostFat_> the block of 1 GB will be orphan
17:27 < gmaxwell> HostFat_: Again (1) it doesn't matter what random non-mining nodes do. has no influence on miner income unless nodes outright reject the blocks, and (2) if you can construct a block that you _know_ will be prefered even if accepted later, you should do that and selfish mine and win every 'race'; having an advantage on everyone else by the amount of time you keep the 'best' chain secret.
17:27 < gmaxwell> I'm sorry if I'm failing to make these concepts clear enough; they're well understood by many people.-- I have too much else to do right now, perhaps someone else will explain (though #bitcoin might be a better venue).
17:28 < dgenr8> HostFat: to be clear, you DL the smaller one preferentially until you have the samebuffer of both, then download equally, is that what you propose?
17:28 < HostFat_> I mean all the nodes should have these rules, and if a miner wait longer, he will lose the race, even with a smaller block, because all the nodes will have already dowloaded another one
17:29 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@0.Red-83-63-243.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:32 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@65.115.226.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:34 < HostFat_> no, all nodes will download the smaller first, if they receive more than one block
17:35 < HostFat_> it's really risky to wait to release your block, to do selfish mine, because you can lose the race if all the nodes will have already downloaded other blocks
17:35 -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
17:36 < dgenr8> some problems with that. nodes don't know what the size is until they download it. And, the later one isn't smaller, once it's become bigger ;)
17:37 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:38 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
17:39 < HostFat_> maybe this can be arranged by asking the block size first, and then block the IP of the possible liar
17:51 < justanotheruser> HostFat_: blocks don't have IP addresses
17:52 < HostFat_> but the sender yes, and the sender is the only one that maybe has malicious intent
17:53 < HostFat_> to fake size to give more priority to the block that it is sending
17:53 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
17:55 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@65.115.226.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:56 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-komueryweaulhcel] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:58 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
17:59 < justanotheruser> oh, well sending an invalid block already bans you
17:59 < justanotheruser> iirc
17:59 < justanotheruser> at the very least, it increases your ban score
18:00 < justanotheruser> but if you aren't making the blocks invalid, just "unideal" or whatever, it doesn't help
18:08 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:19 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:22 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:23 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:32 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
18:37 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:39 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:40 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@181.95.185.237] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:42 -!- Guest81362 is now known as DanielBTC
18:43 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-50-185-138-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:43 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has quit [Quit: felipelalli]
18:44 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:46 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:56 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@xd9bf749b.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:56 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@xd9bf749b.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Changing host]
18:56 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@unaffiliated/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:57 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:58 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Quit: Reconnecting]
18:58 -!- justanot1eruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:59 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:00 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@x4d08da41.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:00 -!- NewLiberty__ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:02 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
19:04 -!- frankenm_ is now known as frankenmint
19:12 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit []
19:20 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:21 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:22 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:24 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:24 -!- NewLiberty__ [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:25 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:27 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:39 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:40 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:41 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:44 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
19:50 -!- Transisto2 [~Trans@modemcable026.188-59-74.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
20:00 -!- user7779078 [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-kwnybofzfoylvbam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:06 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:06 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:08 < Jaamg> tx fees currently seem to accumulate around 20 BTC / day. if we assume that one day there will be 1000x more blockchain transactions, is there a reason to believe that tx fees will not increase to 20,000 BTC / day?
20:11 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-peikuymibqoxpmid] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:11 < justanot1eruser> yes, we don't know what fees will be in the future
20:12 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-204-106.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:13 -!- p15_ [~p15@111.193.162.64] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:14 -!- p15 [~p15@111.193.162.64] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:19 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:20 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:23 < Jaamg> justanot1eruser: do you perhaps refer to bitcoin value rising which might give downwards pressure to tx fees? if yes, i repeat my question by adding "20,000 BTC / day, measured in today's btc price"
20:24 < Jaamg> or do you refer to something else?
20:24 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:25 < justanot1eruser> I think 1000x more blockchain transactions either will never happen or is too far off to predict
20:26 < Jaamg> justanot1eruser: that was an assumption
20:40 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:41 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:43 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
21:04 -!- NewLiberty__ is now known as NewLiberty
21:10 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:10 -!- jae_ [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:12 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:16 -!- DanielBTC [~Mclare@191.8.83.234] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:20 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:22 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:22 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
21:25 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:43 -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.162.64] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:44 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.26] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
21:56 -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.162.64] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
22:03 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@99-48-178-219.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:09 -!- jcorgan [~jcorgan@unaffiliated/jcorgan] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
22:18 -!- jmcn_ [~jamie@2.24.158.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:21 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:21 -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.84] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
22:22 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:22 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Changing host]
22:22 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-kdvnirlkjgjvhteu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:26 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
22:28 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.245.207.21] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:32 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:33 -!- a5m0 [~a5m0@unaffiliated/a5m0] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:33 -!- a5m0 [~a5m0@unaffiliated/a5m0] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:39 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:41 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:41 -!- justanot1eruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Quit: Reconnecting]
22:45 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@117.136.0.189] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:48 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.245.207.21] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
22:49 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:49 < bramc> Jaamg, The blockchain as it stands currently just plain can't handle 100x as many transactions. It's disallowed as an anti-ddos measure. There's a hard limit on the maximum size of a block. Hence all the discussion about raising that. But in answer to your question, transaction fees are fairly close to zero today because the demand is less than the supply (or rather, parties who have considered writing applications which
22:49 < bramc>  would have dramatically increased the demand have kindly refrained from doing so). If demand goes up to exceed supply transaction fees will jump dramatically. How dramatically depends on how much people care about doing those transactions
22:50 < Jaamg> bramc: "if we assume that one day"
22:50 < bramc> Jaamg, I didn't use that turn of phrase
22:50 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
22:51 < bramc> Jaamg, You can't assume that the transaction rate goes up by 100x. It isn't allowed
22:52 < Jaamg> bramc: i know
22:52 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@117.136.0.189] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:53 -!- user7779078 [user777907@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-kwnybofzfoylvbam] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:53 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:54 < Jaamg> my assumption obviously includes the condition "Blocksize is more than 1MB OR size of an average tx is significantly smaller than today
22:54 < NewLiberty> or rather tx rate can go up 100x but they won't be incl in blocks
22:55 < Jaamg> likely the former
22:57 < Jaamg> but i would still like to hear an answer to original question
22:58 < bramc> Jaamg, If you assume that a 100x transaction rate is achieved by raising the block size to large enough that it has more than enough capacity for that, then no, transaction fees won't have gone up
22:58 < bramc> Jaamg, If you assume that a 100x transaction rate is achieved by raising the block size to 50x what it is now, thus allowing 100x as many transactions as there are currently, but capacity is being met, then transaction fees are likely to be vastly larger.
22:59 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
23:00 < Jaamg> bramc: i'm not talking about fee/tx going up, i'm talking about the sum of all fees going up, because of increased blockchain traffic
23:00 < bramc> Jaamg, My previous comments were about the aggregate fees, not the individual fees
23:02 < bramc> The fees right now are so close to zero that they're more social convention than economic mechanism.
23:04 < Jaamg> bramc: fees are close to zero, but they still accumulate around 20 BTC / day. is there a reason to believe that 1000x blockchain traffic would not increase that number to 20,000 BTC / day?
23:06 < Jaamg> or if that feels to far in the future, we can also talk about 10x traffic and number increasing to 200 BTC / day
23:06 < bramc> Jaamg, If the capacity is continuously increased to stay ahead of demand, there's no reason to expect the per-transaction fee to stay the same as the number of transactions goes up
23:10 < bramc> Current mining rewards, if I recall correctly, are 1800 BTC/day, so transaction fees are around 1%
23:10 < Jaamg> bramc: if we assume that one day blockchain security is provided by scarcity-induced high tx fees, what will happen to network security if blockchain traffic for whatever reason drops?
23:10 < Jaamg> it's 3600 currently
23:12 < bramc> Jaamg, As long as demand exceeds the limit, then the amount of blockchain traffic will remain fixed at the limit, and the fees will fluctuate with demand.
23:12 < bramc> The security parameter of the block chain will vary in linear proportion to the transaction fees (and time, you can always wait longer to have greater security)
23:15 < phantomcircuit> bramc, i think you'll find this interesting http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=500
23:15 < phantomcircuit> bramc, 3600 btc/day
23:15 < phantomcircuit> fyi
23:15 -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-201-233.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:15 < Jaamg> bramc: with security i'm referring to the network hash rate and not to the confirms (if that's what you meant)
23:16 < bramc> Jaamg, It's a bit smoothed out because the costs of buying asics are amortized over time, but to a first approximation the network hash rate is linearly proportional to the mining rewards.
23:17 < bramc> When is the hash rate halving again? I thought it was supposed to earlier this year, but maybe I'm misremembering and it's early next year.
23:18 < bramc> I mean the mining rewards, pardon my freudian typo.
23:18 < Jaamg> http://bitcoinclock.com/
23:19 < bramc> Rusty is working on lightning networks? Are the lightning networks guys employed at blockstream as well?
23:19 < moa> block #420k
23:19 < phantomcircuit> bramc, they're not
23:20 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-73-15-70-156.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:20 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:21 < bramc> When the mining rewards halve again, I'm going to get the local environmentalist groups to organize a celebration
23:21 < phantomcircuit> lol
23:22 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:23 < moa> block #420k should have numerous groups partying
23:23 < bramc> Are things in motion to get a relative timelock opcode added to bitcoin?
23:23 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:23 < moa> bramc: appears to be
23:26 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:26 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
23:27 < phantomcircuit> bramc, yes
23:27 -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:27 < phantomcircuit> lots of review effort is required which realistically translates to lots of time
23:31 < gmaxwell> bramc: there is a proposal for a potential first step in a relative checklocktime verify on the bitcoin-development list (if you can find it amid all the non-development political traffic :) )
23:31 < gmaxwell> in related news, BIP66 is about to activate: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-2k.png
23:31 < gmaxwell> looks like it may activiate in ~1 week.
23:32 < gmaxwell> Overall progress chart: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-50k.png
23:33 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-peikuymibqoxpmid] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
23:38 -!- p15 [~p15@111.193.162.64] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
23:38 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.34] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
23:39 -!- adam3us [~Adium@109.200.45.219] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:42 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.76] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:44 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:45 < petertodd> gmaxwell: all the big pools have transitioned; smaller pools lagging
23:46 < petertodd> gmaxwell: mostly that's because I asked those big pools, directly or indirectly :)
23:46 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
23:48 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:49 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:53 < bramc> What is the 'block version'? Is that what's used for voting? How are you supposed to do voting on a new feature if an old one failed?
23:53 < bramc> gmaxwell, Is it a proposal for relative based on relative block height?
23:56 < petertodd> bramc: it's not a vote; see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki and look at how it's implemented
23:58 < bramc> petertodd, Question still applies. If nVersion failed to get the appropriate threshold to make 3 required, what's the mechanism for giving up? And how would you distinguish acceptance of a new thing from attempted acceptance of the old thing?
23:58 < bramc> Does BIP66 succeed in making signatures fully canonical?
23:59 < petertodd> bramc: in the existing scheme there isn't a mechanism; sipa aims to fix that problem with his new scheme
23:59 < petertodd> bramc: remember that it is *not* a vote
23:59 < bramc> Okay that's a dumb question, obviously it doesn't. Does it succeed in making the simplest types of signatures fully canonical?
--- Log closed Wed Jun 03 00:00:08 2015