--- Log opened Fri Jun 12 00:00:39 2015
00:01 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:04 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:06 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:09 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:11 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:15 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:18 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:19 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:20 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
00:20 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:23 -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cenajqityqrudcdn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:29 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ceqwprdzeaucgxiz] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:31 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-znuugdzblzsufyju] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:44 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Killed (hobana.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
00:44 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
00:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
00:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:46 -!- antanst [~Adium@athedsl-338410.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:48 -!- bliljerk101 [~bliljerk1@pool-74-109-193-20.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:53 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:54 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:03 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:03 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04  * andy-logbot is logging
01:18 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-znuugdzblzsufyju] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:19 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-myilkxjhanophyui] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:20 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:25 -!- rustyn_ is now known as rustyn
01:29 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:31 -!- adam3us [~Adium@195.138.228.14] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
01:33 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:40 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:44 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
01:50 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:50 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:50 -!- hearn [~mike@1.231.197.178.dynamic.wless.zhbmb00p-cgnat.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:50 -!- gnusha [~gnusha@unaffiliated/kanzure/bot/gnusha] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
02:04 -!- gnusha [~gnusha@unaffiliated/kanzure/bot/gnusha] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:04 -!- Topic for #bitcoin-wizards: This channel is not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
02:04 -!- Topic set by andytoshi [~andytoshi@unaffiliated/andytoshi] [Fri Aug 22 14:51:37 2014]
02:04 [Users #bitcoin-wizards]
02:04 [@ChanServ      ] [ CodeShark       ] [ gill3s         ] [ Krellan      ] [ OneFixt       ] [ stevenroose    ] 
02:04 [ [ace]         ] [ comboy          ] [ gnusha         ] [ kumavis      ] [ optimator     ] [ stonecoldpat   ] 
02:04 [ [d__d]        ] [ copumpkin       ] [ go1111111      ] [ kyuupichan   ] [ otoburb       ] [ STRML          ] 
02:04 [ _whitelogger  ] [ cornusammonis   ] [ Graet          ] [ larraboj     ] [ p15           ] [ sturles        ] 
02:04 [ a5m0          ] [ Cory            ] [ GreenIsMyPepper] [ lclc         ] [ p15x          ] [ SubCreative    ] 
02:04 [ adam3us       ] [ coryfields      ] [ gribble        ] [ leakypat     ] [ PaulCapestany ] [ superobserver  ] 
02:04 [ adams__       ] [ cosmo           ] [ Guest2862      ] [ LeMiner      ] [ petertodd     ] [ SwedFTP        ] 
02:04 [ AdrianG       ] [ crescend1       ] [ guruvan        ] [ livegnik     ] [ phantomcircuit] [ Taek           ] 
02:04 [ afdudley      ] [ CryptoGoon      ] [ gwillen        ] [ lmacken      ] [ pigeons       ] [ TD-Linux       ] 
02:04 [ ajweiss       ] [ CryptOprah      ] [ harrigan       ] [ lmatteis     ] [ platinuum     ] [ temujin        ] 
02:04 [ akrmn         ] [ cryptowest_     ] [ harrow         ] [ lnovy        ] [ poggy         ] [ TheSeven       ] 
02:04 [ akstunt600    ] [ d1ggy_          ] [ hashtag        ] [ Logicwax     ] [ PRab          ] [ theymos        ] 
02:04 [ Alanius       ] [ d9b4bef9        ] [ hayek          ] [ luny         ] [ priidu        ] [ ThomasV        ] 
02:04 [ AlexStraunoff ] [ dansmith_btc    ] [ hearn          ] [ maaku        ] [ prosodyContext] [ thrasher`      ] 
02:04 [ amiller       ] [ dasource        ] [ heath          ] [ Mably        ] [ qawap         ] [ throughnothing_] 
02:04 [ Anduck        ] [ davout          ] [ helo           ] [ Madars       ] [ Quanttek      ] [ triazo         ] 
02:04 [ andy-logbot   ] [ dc17523be3      ] [ hktud0         ] [ mappum       ] [ rasengan      ] [ tromp          ] 
02:04 [ andytoshi     ] [ dEBRUYNE        ] [ HM             ] [ mariorz      ] [ Relos         ] [ tromp_         ] 
02:04 [ antanst       ] [ devrandom       ] [ huseby         ] [ Meeh         ] [ rht__         ] [ ttttemp        ] 
02:04 [ Apocalyptic   ] [ dgenr8          ] [ iddo           ] [ melvster     ] [ richardus     ] [ tucenaber      ] 
02:04 [ artifexd      ] [ dignork         ] [ indolering     ] [ mengine      ] [ roasbeef      ] [ veox           ] 
02:04 [ arubi_        ] [ Dr-G            ] [ Iriez          ] [ merlincorey  ] [ robogoat      ] [ vonzipper      ] 
02:04 [ azariah       ] [ droidr          ] [ isis           ] [ metamarc     ] [ runeks        ] [ warptangent    ] 
02:04 [ b_lumenkraft  ] [ EasyAt          ] [ Jaamg          ] [ michagogo    ] [ rustyn        ] [ warren         ] 
02:04 [ BananaLotus   ] [ ebfull          ] [ jaromil        ] [ midnightmagic] [ ryan-c        ] [ waxwing        ] 
02:04 [ bedeho        ] [ elastoma        ] [ jbenet         ] [ mikolalysenko] [ s1w           ] [ weex           ] 
02:04 [ berndj        ] [ Eliel           ] [ jessepollak    ] [ mm_1         ] [ sadoshi       ] [ wiz            ] 
02:04 [ binaryatrocity] [ Emcy            ] [ jgarzik        ] [ MoALTz       ] [ scoria        ] [ wizkid057      ] 
02:04 [ BlueMatt      ] [ epscy           ] [ jmcn_          ] [ morcos       ] [ sdaftuar      ] [ wumpus         ] 
02:04 [ bosma         ] [ eric            ] [ joecool        ] [ mountaingoat ] [ shen_noe      ] [ www            ] 
02:04 [ BrainOverfl0w ] [ espes           ] [ jonasschnelli  ] [ mr_burdell   ] [ sl01          ] [ xabbix         ] 
02:04 [ brand0        ] [ fanquake        ] [ jouke          ] [ Muis         ] [ smooth        ] [ Xzibit17       ] 
02:04 [ bsm117532     ] [ fenn            ] [ jrayhawk       ] [ nanotube     ] [ sneak         ] [ yoleaux        ] 
02:04 [ btcdrak       ] [ Fistful_of_Coins] [ justanotheruser] [ narwh4l      ] [ so            ] [ yorick         ] 
02:04 [ c0rw|zZz      ] [ fluffypony      ] [ K1773R         ] [ nephyrin     ] [ sparetire     ] [ yrashk         ] 
02:04 [ catcow        ] [ forrestv        ] [ kanzure        ] [ NewLiberty   ] [ sparetire_    ] [ zmachine       ] 
02:04 [ catlasshrugged] [ gavinandresen   ] [ Keefe          ] [ nickler      ] [ spinza        ] [ zooko          ] 
02:04 [ cdecker       ] [ ggreer          ] [ kinlo          ] [ nsh          ] [ Starduster_   ] [ Zouppen        ] 
02:04 [ cfields       ] [ gielbier        ] [ koshii         ] [ null_radix   ] [ starsoccer    ] 
02:04 -!- Irssi: #bitcoin-wizards: Total of 233 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 232 normal]
02:04 -!- Channel #bitcoin-wizards created Mon Feb 25 23:24:47 2013
02:05 -!- Irssi: Join to #bitcoin-wizards was synced in 17 secs
02:09 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- hearn [~mike@1.231.197.178.dynamic.wless.zhbmb00p-cgnat.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
02:12 -!- bliljerk101 [~bliljerk1@pool-74-109-193-20.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:15 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:15 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Changing host]
02:15 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:17 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:19 -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:21 -!- droidr [~droidr@ppp118-209-131-152.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
02:22 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
02:32 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:38 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
02:40 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
02:42 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:42 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:46 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:47 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-myilkxjhanophyui] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
02:48 -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cenajqityqrudcdn] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:49 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:49 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:51 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:51 -!- Populus [~Populus@81-237-234-41-no48.tbcn.telia.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:51 -!- Populus [~Populus@81-237-234-41-no48.tbcn.telia.com] has quit [Changing host]
02:51 -!- Populus [~Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:55 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
02:56 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
02:56 -!- Populus [~Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:56 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
02:57 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-frvungazsjyhbkmv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:00 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:02 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:05 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:08 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:08 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:08 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@82.245.143.153] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:13 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:13 -!- fenn [~fenn@unaffiliated/fenn] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:14 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:14 -!- fenn [~fenn@unaffiliated/fenn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:14 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:15 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:16 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:18 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:20 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@82.245.143.153] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:20 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:21 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-frvungazsjyhbkmv] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
03:21 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:22 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
03:22 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:23 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:23 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:26 -!- gielbier [~giel@f142219.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:31 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:32 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@193.138.219.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:34 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:35 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:38 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:39 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:39 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:39 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:40 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
03:40 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:41 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:43 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:48 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:53 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
03:54 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xdtqxefzqafinsur] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:55 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EB3B1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:57 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:04 -!- face [~face@mail.hmel.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:10 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EB3B1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:11 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EB3B1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:20 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:22 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:23 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:23 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:8c90:e381:3edb:af95] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:25 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xdtqxefzqafinsur] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:26 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:26 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qipewqbtubbisnbv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:32 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:37 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:37 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:40 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
04:41 -!- jtimon [~quassel@95.131.169.246] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:50 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:51 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qipewqbtubbisnbv] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:51 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:52 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-jxpwznmhruprghof] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:01 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
05:02 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:09 -!- justanotheruser is now known as sunna
05:09 -!- sunna is now known as justanotheruser
05:12 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:12 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:14 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:17 -!- www [~v3@p4FFB0745.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:26 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:27 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:28 -!- joecool [~joecool@no-sources/joecool] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:28 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:32 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:34 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:36 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:37 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:37 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:38 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
05:46 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:50 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-171-243.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:51 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@111.193.191.234] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:52 -!- p15_ [~p15@182.50.108.52] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:53 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.248.213.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:53 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.27] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:54 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-jxpwznmhruprghof] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
05:55 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-uainwswzlaizbaeh] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:56 -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:59 -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:08 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:22 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:30 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:34 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
06:34 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:37 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:40 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
06:41 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:42 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:46 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-181-114-39.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:49 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:51 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
06:56 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:57 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:00 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-uainwswzlaizbaeh] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
07:02 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.23.167] has quit [Excess Flood]
07:03 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.23.167] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:06 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:07 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:13 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:18 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
07:20 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:21 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:28 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:30 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
07:32 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- zooko [~user@c-24-9-63-159.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:36 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:36 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Changing host]
07:36 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:38 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:41 -!- Zooko-phone [~androirc@c-24-9-63-159.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 -!- zookog-phone2 [~androirc@226.sub-70-196-210.myvzw.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
07:47 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:48 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:48 -!- zooko [~user@c-24-9-63-159.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:49 -!- Zooko-phone [~androirc@c-24-9-63-159.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:49 -!- darwin__ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:49 -!- zooko-phone4 [~androirc@208.186.248.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:50 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:53 -!- zookog-phone2 [~androirc@226.sub-70-196-210.myvzw.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
07:53 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- antgreen [~user@69.38.132.3] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-nogdncveusmjqqqo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:55 -!- zooko-phone4 [~androirc@208.186.248.116] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:00 -!- jae [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:00 -!- jae is now known as Guest5208
08:01 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:04 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:12 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@111.193.191.234] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:13 -!- p15_ [~p15@182.50.108.52] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:15 -!- p15 [~p15@111.193.171.192] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:29 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
08:31 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:40 -!- Guest5208 [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:44 -!- _biO_ [~biO_@ip-37-24-195-112.hsi14.unitymediagroup.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:46 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
08:47 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:48 -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-crjsynzlvkmigvub] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:53 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
09:00 -!- antanst [~Adium@athedsl-338410.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:02 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
09:07 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:09 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 < bramc> There seems to be some grumbling about whether full nodes which can't accept incoming connections really count
09:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 < bramc> It would be possible to make them mostly count using uTP and the DHT
09:11 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:12 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
09:13 -!- adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:13 < gavinandresen> bramc : nifty idea. I've been saying for years I'd like to see more diversity in the network protocols that are used to relay bitcoin transactions/blocks
09:13 < gavinandresen> ... and doing that doesn't require any sort of fork at all...
09:14 < sipa> bramc: define "make them count" ?
09:14 < bramc> gavinandresen, uTP is basically a swap-in replacement for TCP. It wouldn't change things all that much except to make NAT traversal easier
09:15 < bramc> sipa, Apparently the graph showing a huge drop in full node count *might* be caused by a change in methodology where they stopped counting nodes which can't accept incoming connections, which might be most of them
09:16 < sipa> bramc: there are two ways in which full nodes "count", one is towards the network (which requires them to be reachable, have bandwidth, serve and relay blocks, ...), another is towards the decentralization of validation (which requires people to pay attention to what they're doing, using them to validate their transactions or connect other bitcoin software to it)
09:16 < bramc> speaking of which someone asked me where that data came from and I have no idea. If anybody knows the original source I'll pass that info along.
09:16 < sipa> bramc: of the first afaik, we have plenty
09:16 < sipa> bramc: the second however is not measurable
09:17 < bramc> https://imgur.com/EL0zHRe
09:18 < sipa> bramc: more protocols in which nodes can talk to eachother are welcome, of course
09:18 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:19 < bramc> The other dumb question is, uh, does bitcoin core pull in miniupnp? That makes a big difference in how likely something is to be reachable.
09:19 < hearn> yes it does
09:22 < nubbins`> quick question
09:22 < nubbins`> why do we pretend that there are less than 6,000 nodes when that's actually the number of nodes running 0.8.x or higher?
09:22 < bramc> nubbins`, Do you have info about where these stats come from?
09:23 < nubbins`> bramc bitnodes.com footer states explicitly
09:23 < nubbins`> just wondering why nobody cares how many nodes there /actually/ are.
09:23 < nubbins`> er bitnodes.io, whatever it is
09:23 < nubbins`> "Bitnodes uses Bitcoin protocol version 70001 (i.e. >= /Satoshi:0.8.x/), so nodes running an older protocol version will be skipped"
09:23 < sipa> my seeder counts around 4300 well-reachable one, a historically low number
09:25 < nubbins`> sipa: you wanna see historically low numbers, check how many of the nodes in the hard-coded seed list are still alive :D
09:25 < nubbins`> (for those of you playing at home: about a half-dozen)
09:26 < sipa> nubbins`: that list is updated every year or so
09:26 < sipa> and node IP mobility does not mean a decreasing number
09:26 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 < nubbins`> ah. maybe once a year is a bit long.
09:27 < nubbins`> we're talking 1% of hard-coded nodes being reachable here
09:27 < hearn> well, that's why there are dns seeds too
09:28 < hearn> the hard coded list is meant as a kind of nuclear bomb shelter in case of some kind of big DoS attack/disaster
09:28 < wumpus> yes, the hard-coded node list still needs to be updated for 0.11
09:28 < hearn> but sure more frequent refreshes would be good
09:28 < nubbins`> agreed, not much of a bomb shelter atm :)
09:29 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:30 -!- adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
09:32 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
09:34 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:37 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:40 -!- sy5error [~sy5error@unaffiliated/sy5error] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:47 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:50 -!- face [~face@mail.hmel.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
09:57 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:59 -!- n0n0 [~n0n0___@x5f77c659.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- jposner [~jposner@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/jposner] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:01 -!- antgreen [~user@69.38.132.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
10:01 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:02 -!- goregrind [~goregrind@unaffiliated/goregrind] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:03 -!- BitcoinErrorLog [~ThickAsTh@c-71-203-187-87.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:05 -!- badmofo [~umbra_@c-71-204-151-228.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:07 -!- darwin__ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:07 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:09 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:09 < bramc> nubbins`, I don't know the answer to your original question, but the answer is likely some combination of 'there are very few nodes that old and we didn't feel like supporting it' and 'nodes on that old of a protocol are so poor performing they're doing more harm than good'
10:10 < nubbins`> bramc i'm not so sure those are the reasons, and i'd love to see the numbers on how many total nodes there are.
10:11 < sipa> total nodes?
10:11 < sipa> including spv nodes?
10:11 < sipa> including unreachable nodes?
10:11 < sipa> including versions that are not useful to new clients?
10:11 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
10:11 < nubbins`> would you like some pedantry with your fries?
10:11 < hearn> bramc: i think there is a min protocol version, no?
10:12 < nubbins`> hearn, somewhere around 0.5.x
10:12 < nubbins`> any earlier than that and you'll have problems
10:13 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Client Quit]
10:13 < nubbins`> the cynical part of me thinks that ignoring pre-0.8.x nodes is part of a greater push for getting rid of nodes that don't want to play nicely with newer "features" being rolled out
10:14 < nubbins`> but that's probably silly
10:14 < nubbins`> after all, why would anyone want to use something like bitcoin to further their own personal objectives?
10:14 < BitcoinErrorLog> probably not, thats likely to happen even as just apassive influence
10:15 < nubbins`> hopefully i'll have popcorn handy when the block size thing gets pushed out
10:15 < nubbins`> then we'll really see how many nodes there are, and what they're running :D
10:16 < bramc> *if* the block size thing gets pushed out, then there *will* be a fork
10:16 < bramc> And two competing blockchains which different peers are constantly arguing about which is the newer one
10:17 < bramc> As a practical matter, peers will soon have to identify whether they're on the fork or not, to make the networks be physically distinct and stop them from DDOSing each other.
10:17 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:17 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 < hearn> no, old peers will ignore the >1mb chain completely and follow the pre-fork chain even if it's shorter
10:18 < nubbins`> ^
10:18 -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 < nubbins`> they'll also spin up a new node and send some coins out in a >1mb block to cover their bases.
10:18 < nubbins`> should be fun
10:18 < hearn> new peers would follow whatever the hardest valid chain is according to their new rules, which as those rules wouldn't kick in until a majority of miners supported them, should be the >1mb chain
10:19 -!- badmofo [~umbra_@c-71-204-151-228.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
10:19 < nubbins`> when was the last fork, anyone have the date or version # handy
10:20 < bramc> nubbins`, There's never been a hard fork
10:20  * nubbins` claps softly
10:21 < nubbins`> an immeasurable number of people claim differently
10:21 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-25.79.107.179.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:21 < bramc> hearn, Old peers would continue to make progress on the <1mb chain, resulting in a literal fork of the two chains
10:22 < hearn> old miners, yes
10:22 < nubbins`> surely large mining operations are running the latest phoundation release ;p
10:23 < bramc> nubbins`, I said 'hard' fork, there have been many 'soft' forks, which means extensions which older nodes would accept but not themselves create. To date, the current block chain would have been accepted by the very first version of bitcoin ever released.
10:23 < bramc> hearn, Also new miners who think the >1mb block is bullshit
10:23 < nubbins`> bramc you'd (maybe not) be surprised at how many people think, say, 0.8.0 was a hard fork.
10:24 < bramc> nubbins`, There's also a difference between an incompatibility of the blockchain and an incompatibility of the peer protocol. I don't know if that second one has ever happened.
10:24 < BitcoinErrorLog> wasnt 0.8.0 the almost-fork that had to be handled actively after the fact?
10:24 < bramc> nubbins`, It's certainly the case that peer efficiency has been improved enough that an original codebase peer would be doing more harm than good in the current network even if it could talk to anything.
10:25 < hearn> the soft vs hard fork distinction is deeply questionable. you really don't want "backwards compatibility" when auditing things
10:25 -!- jae [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:25 < BitcoinErrorLog> :/
10:25 < bramc> hearn, What?
10:25 -!- jae is now known as Guest43254
10:25 < bramc> BitcoinErrorLog, How so? (I'm honestly asking, I don't know what bit of history)
10:25 < fluffypony> precisely what hearn is saying is why we're doing this: https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and-technical/303/a-formal-approach-towards-better-hard-fork-management
10:26 < hearn> let me try an analogy. think of a full node as like a human auditor checking the books. now imagine some clever trader somewhere else in the company who wants to execute a clever trade, but knows that the auditors will reject it
10:26 < fluffypony> it would be a more monumental challenge, but I would be interested in Bitcoin adopting a similar periodical fork
10:26 < hearn> so the trader goes to his colleague and says, hey bob. how about we come to an arrangement. when i send you money and put in the notes field that this is a trade for a ton of coal, i want you to interpret that as actually being a ton of gold
10:26 < BitcoinErrorLog> I forget the details bramc, wasnt it a Berkdb issue? i remember all the miners having emerggency meeting with devs to revert and stop the fork from happening
10:27 < nubbins`> BitcoinErrorLog yes
10:27 < hearn> bob says, "uh why alice"? and alice says, well, if we put in "ton of gold" the auditors will flag it as a bad transaction. we could go all through the process to get this type of trade accepted, but it's quicker if we just bypass them
10:27 < hearn> call it backwards compatibility
10:27 < nubbins`> it's just a config  update ;/
10:27 < bramc> BitcoinErrorLog, Oh right, the result of that one was that the implicit restriction of the older shittier nodes was accepted
10:27 < fluffypony> nubbins`: no
10:27 < fluffypony> well
10:27 < fluffypony> it was a BerkeleyDB issue, but not BerkeleyDB vs. LevelDB
10:27 < hearn> now - would this be accepted in a real company? hopefully not. though maybe given the behaviour in the last few years.....
10:27 < fluffypony> it was BerkeleyDB (bad) vs. BerkeleyDB (good) & LevelDB
10:28 < hearn> as the goal of the auditors is to fully understand the transactions and check the ledger. if people are fooling them with clever tricks, that audit is being undermined.
10:28 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:28 < hearn> do you see this argument?
10:28 < bramc> So there was a temporary fork and it was fixed by rolling back to the pre-fork protocol
10:28 < bramc> hearn, I have no idea what you're saying. Are you arguing against backwards compatibility as a goal?
10:28 < hearn> when it comes to consensus systems? yes
10:29 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:29 < hearn> obviously in most software systems backwards compatibility is highly desirable
10:29 < bramc> hearn, You're on crack
10:29 < hearn> as it is for things like bitcoin p2p protocol, etc
10:29 < nubbins`> <fluffypony>	 it was BerkeleyDB (bad) vs. BerkeleyDB (good) & LevelDB << +1
10:29 < fluffypony> I 100% agree with bramc
10:29 < fluffypony> erk
10:29 < hearn> bramc: that argument is "not excellent" :)
10:29 < fluffypony> I mean
10:29 < fluffypony> I 100% agree with hearn
10:29 < fluffypony> you don't know "who" is running a node
10:29 < hearn> hehe :)
10:29 < fluffypony> you can't communicate with them directly
10:29 < nubbins`> hell, even i could be running one
10:29 < nubbins`> or six, or w/e
10:29 < fluffypony> so the only thing you can do is drop them off the network if they don't upgrade
10:30 < hearn> well, there is a middle path
10:30 < hearn> nodes that can't fully audit the ledger any more can still be useful - for serving and filtering the chain for others
10:30 < hearn> if there was a way to have a hard fork trigger a shutdown of the RPC interface, for example, and maybe flagging somehow (~NODE_NETWORK?) that it's now in a kind of 95%-SPV mode, it may still be a reasonable thing to do
10:31 < hearn> as SPV clients could still benefit
10:31 < hearn> however, businesses relying on the quality of the audit ..... well, if they want to opt-in to pseudo-spv mode, that's fine by me.
10:31 < hearn> but it should be something they knowingly accept
10:31 < hearn> anyway this is why the whole argument for soft forks has never convinced me
10:31 < bramc> There's a fundamental difference between forking the block chain and dropping support for old versions of the peer protocol
10:32 < fluffypony> bramc you're not forking the network
10:32 < fluffypony> the network is moving forward and outdated participants are left for dead
10:32 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:32 < fluffypony> that some of them may have a tip of their own is largely irrelevant to the main herd ;)
10:33 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:33 < bramc> There's a reason why HTTP has moved forward while DNS has not
10:33 < kanzure> isn't dns a consensus system of some kind
10:34 < fluffypony> it's a poor comparison, though - protocols are mostly governed by committees
10:34 < fluffypony> when did they seek public input on whether SPDY should be part of the protocol?
10:34 < hearn> HTTP/2 is the equivalent of a "hard fork", so ...... not sure it's a great suggestion. it's totally incompatible with HTTP/1 except at a high semantic level
10:34 < kanzure> i think the bitgo person submitted a spdy ietf rfc.. if that's what you mean?
10:35 < fluffypony> kanzure: I mean that the userbase "at large" don't care about changes to SNMP, TCP/IP, DNS, or anything else
10:36 < fluffypony> even companies heavily invested in a particular protocol tend to care very little
10:36 < kanzure> (perhaps the user base would be better not using bitcoin if they don't care about its features (even if it may be objectively safer for them to use, i don't know about forcing them))
10:37 < bramc> hearn, No you aren't getting it. DNS is a database, HTTP is not. Hence incompatible changes to HTTP can be made much more frequently than can incompatible changes to DNS, which happen essentially never.
10:38 < hearn> sigh. DNS is not a consensus system. my argument applies to consensus systems. where you want to audit every last change.
10:38 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:39 < fluffypony> DNS also went through a period of retardation where they added idiotic record types, like GPOS and SPF
10:39 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:40 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
10:42 < bramc> Looking over things right now, I think the most likely thing with the block size increase is that it gets dropped. The next most likely thing is that it gets forced out and either fails or, worse, mostly fails, and the partisans who have been pushing it so hard wind up not being involved in bitcoin development any more.
10:44 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-181-114-84.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:44 < fluffypony> bramc: dropped as in no longer discussed and remains unchanged, or dropped as in it gets unilaterally removed?
10:45 < nubbins`> heh
10:45 < bramc> fluffypony, As in the people pushing it give up and drop the subject
10:45 < nubbins`> fuck the partisans
10:45 < nubbins`> the amount of astroturfing and obvious shilling re: block size increase is pretty lel-worthy
10:46 < fluffypony> yeah the Reddit hivemind stuff is a little annoying, hard for some people to see the wood for the trees
10:47 < bramc> It isn't a mystery who's behind the push for the block size increase, they're in this channel with us now.
10:47 < hearn> there is zero chance of that. even if me and gavin vanished in a puff of smoke, other people would do it instead.
10:47 < hearn> (as was made clear to us by the number of people asking when the new XT will be ready)
10:48 < bramc> By 'other people' you mean people on reddit who don't understand the subject but have gotten whipped up into a fury about it because they like having causes to rant about.
10:48 < fluffypony> bramc: quite
10:48 < hearn> not at all
10:48 < hearn> but believe that if you like
10:49 < BitcoinErrorLog> anecdotal observations nonetheless
10:49 < jposner> bramc: the issue isn't just being pushed by "people," it's being pushed by circumstances. stuffed blocks, whether that results in transaction delays or fee increases, is not going to be ignored.
10:49  * fluffypony hugs BitcoinErrorLog 
10:49 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:50 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:51 < bramc> The actual players in bitcoin have overwhelmingly made it clear that they don't like the idea. Whipping up a mob isn't convincing any of them.
10:51 < BitcoinErrorLog> honestly the mob is what has heightened my skepticism and brought me here
10:52 < bramc> jposner, There's overwhelming support for building support for real transaction fees
10:52 < bramc> jposner, which doesn't require a fork at all
10:53 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:53 < nubbins`> bramc i doubt many actual players read reddit ;p
10:54 < bramc> nubbins`, reddit is on the pro-increase side. It's the whipped up mob.
10:54 < nubbins`> you got that right
10:55 < nubbins`> but then again, reddit is generally broke kids w/ dreams that their 0.5 btc is gonna make them a jillionaire
10:56 < Relos> that sounds pretty elitist
10:57 < jposner> dismissing the proponents of increasing the block size as a "mob" or with ad hominem is not very convincing. those arguments could just as easily be made against those who would rather keep the 1MB limit.
10:57 < nubbins`> Relos ?
10:57 < nubbins`> jposner oh absolutely
10:57 < Relos> I can hear mary antoinette saying: "let them eat cake"
10:58 < nubbins`> what can you hear marie antoinette saying?
10:58 -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-crjsynzlvkmigvub] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
10:58 < nubbins`> 8)
10:58 < bramc> Relos, The attempt to unilaterally make an incompatible change to the protocol using a magic number which somebody pulled out of their butt is what's elitist
10:58 < nubbins`> anyway. jposner i'm dismissing redditards based on general behaviour patterns, not their response to this one thing
10:59 < Relos> I said enough, I just switched to the tab and saw your comment, I don't know if there was a real discussion ongoing and I wouldn't want to in anyway take up its space
10:59 -!- zooko` [~user@c-73-181-114-84.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:59 < jposner> nubbins': I think it's more productive not to focus on the "retards" in the debate, but rather the best arguments on each side
11:00 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:00 < nubbins`> jposner oh, undoubtedly
11:00 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:00 < bramc> jposner, A survey of bitcoin developers and people who run major bitcoin services indicates that they overwhelmingly don't want to make the change
11:01 < nubbins`> i've yet to see a good argument for >1mb blocks other than "it'll help the people who want to take away the average person's ability to run a full node"
11:01 < nubbins`> which is actually a REALLY good argument
11:01 < bramc> The push for it can be traced directly to Gavin's full frontal PR campaign
11:01 < nubbins`> just, y'know...
11:01 < nubbins`> not a thing that i want
11:01 < BitcoinErrorLog> nubbins i see no problem classism in bitcoin anyway
11:01 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-181-114-84.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:01 < nubbins`> o.O
11:01 < BitcoinErrorLog> with
11:02 < maaku> guys please this is all way OT
11:02 < maaku> take it to #bitcoin-blocksize
11:02 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:02 < nubbins`> bramc remember when the NSA totally wasn't reading everyone's emails until it turned out they definitely were?
11:02 < BitcoinErrorLog> worst spam is moderation spam, with that i'll shut up
11:03 < nubbins`> bramc this gavin-pushing-for-big-blocks thing reminds me of that
11:07 < nickler> sipa: Do you think the different prediction between your simulator and Gavin's simulator is purely because you are also modelling fees? See my graph for well vs. poorly connected nodes in Gavin's simulation https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jonasnick/bitcoin_miningsim/master/analysis/plots/poorly_connected_big_blocks.png
11:09 < nickler> so does the smaller group have a lower orphan rate when the big group creates 20mb blocks?
11:09 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
11:10 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:10 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:11 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 < nickler> wait, my link was for the smaller group creating bigger blocks. This is the actual graph: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jonasnick/bitcoin_miningsim/master/analysis/plots/poorly_connected_small_blocks.png
11:16 < nickler> and when you say that they 'are only connected to each other through a slow 2 Mbit/s
11:16 < nickler> link', does this mean both groups are only connected via one link or is the network fully connectd?
11:20 -!- antanst1 [~Adium@adsl-44.37.6.216.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:21 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:21 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:23 < maaku> both groups are only connected via one link
11:24 < maaku> a link whose parameters happen to match the great firewall
11:24 < maaku> (or, roughly, Tor)
11:24 -!- zooko` [~user@c-73-181-114-84.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:24 < maaku> (but that would have a different connectivity graph)
11:24 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-25.79.107.179.tellas.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:27 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:27 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:27 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
11:27 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:27 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
11:28 < nickler> ah thanks, seems to be a fairly strong assumption. I'll see if there's the same effect with Gavin's simulation.
11:29 < bramc> Do bitcoin nodes drop connections if the peer sends them too much garbage?
11:31 -!- pollux-bts [uid52270@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zpsubigifatycxis] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:31 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:32 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:33 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:34 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:35 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:35 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:38 -!- jmcn_ [~jamie@2.24.158.88] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:39 -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.88] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:42 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:42 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:42 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:43 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:43 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
11:48 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:48 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
11:49 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:49 -!- Populus [Populus@unaffiliated/populus] has quit [Changing host]
11:49 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qszttuuotqzaflet] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:49 -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:52 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:53 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:53 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:58 -!- Guest2862 [greg@mf4-xiph.osuosl.org] has quit [Changing host]
11:58 -!- Guest2862 [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:58 -!- Guest2862 is now known as gmaxwell
12:02 -!- BitcoinErrorLog [~ThickAsTh@c-71-203-187-87.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit []
12:03 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:04 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:06 -!- zooko [~user@sta-207-174-117-102.rockynet.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:10 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
12:11 -!- www [~v3@p4FFB0745.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:13 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:14 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:20 -!- tucenaber [~tucenaber@unaffiliated/tucenaber] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:20 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
12:24 -!- nejucomo [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:24 -!- nejucomo [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has quit [Client Quit]
12:25 -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:32 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:37 < waxwing> in 3.3.1 of Borromean, step 2c, it seems like the range of j indices is wrong. should start at j_i* + 1 i think.
12:38 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
12:39 -!- zooko [~user@sta-207-174-117-102.rockynet.com] has quit [Quit: bbiab]
12:46 < waxwing> the notation for step 3 there also seems to be wrong?
12:47 -!- antanst1 [~Adium@adsl-44.37.6.216.tellas.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
12:49 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:50 < andytoshi> waxwing: i think 3.3.1 is correct
12:50 -!- jposner [~jposner@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/jposner] has quit []
12:50 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:50 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:50 < andytoshi> notation of step 3 is wrong, good catch, says m_j but should be m_i
12:51 < andytoshi> actually those i's should be 1's
12:51 < waxwing> yeah that one, but even then, it's m_i-1 is the last index
12:51 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:51 < waxwing> i couldn't find any way of making step 3 look right. but, it's not as if the basic idea isn't obvious.
12:51 < waxwing> just seems that the notation is off.
12:51 < andytoshi> yup
12:52 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Client Quit]
12:52 < andytoshi> waxwing: there are two sG - eP phrases; the first should have {1, m_0 - 1} as its subscript, the last should have {n, m_n - 1}
12:52 < andytoshi> i think that fixes it
12:53 < waxwing> right
12:53 < waxwing> that was what i was hoping
12:55 < waxwing> andytoshi: so shouldn't it start at j_i* + 1 in 2c?
12:55 < andytoshi> waxwing: it is always assigning to j+1, so i think that covers it
12:56 < andytoshi> i'm pretty sure i copied the code directly for that line, so i hope it's not wrong :)
12:56 < waxwing> andytoshi: but in (b) you already set e_{i,j_i^* + 1}
12:57 < waxwing> heh
12:57 < andytoshi> oh, hmm, shit
12:57 < waxwing> a few bitcoins here there, no big deal :)
12:57 < andytoshi> lol
12:58 < andytoshi> if there is a corresponding bug in the code it'd completely break the sigs, i'm not too worried .. i'm sure i transcribed it wrong
12:58 < waxwing> yeah i know. much of our security is based on this principle. "If it had any bugs it woulda crashed by now" :)
12:59 < andytoshi> hehehe #notactuallyfunny
12:59 < waxwing> sorry bit cheeky, just jking
13:00 < andytoshi> it's cool, i don't mean #notactuallyfunny like it's a bad joke, i mean that it's totally true..
13:00 < andytoshi> and very dangerous
13:00 -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:00 < andytoshi> in any case, yeah, i transcribed it wrong, the code has the loop offset in a weird way so that step (b) is absorbed into (c)
13:00 < andytoshi> so you are correct, i will fix the range in the doc
13:01 < waxwing> andytoshi: somehow reminds me of that old fallacy: "well, if you can decrypt it, it must be the right key, so it's authenticated, right?"
13:01 < waxwing> (not this particular case, just the general idea)
13:01 < andytoshi> i'm actually laughing out loud, but still shouldn't be funny..
13:02 < gmaxwell> whats weird is that I thought I checked the agreement with the writeup there.
13:02 < gmaxwell> verification is hard because of confirmation bias. :(
13:03 < andytoshi> gmaxwell: the range in the writeup is the same as the range in the loop; difference is what part of the loop tmp is assigned (where `tmp` is the input to the hash function)
13:03 < gmaxwell> it doesn't help that the software and the paper use pretty different nomenclature I guess, maybe I should have updated the software after the document to agree with the markup.
13:03 < andytoshi> it's a pretty subtle thing, one of us Should Have Caught It but i'm not too suprised it got thruogh
13:03 < andytoshi> well, the paper can just say H(some algebraic formula), the code needs to have temporary variables and stuff, i don't think you can force them to match
13:03 < gmaxwell> and indeed, there are classes of mistake that I probably do not look for because if they're made they are just guarenteed to not work at all.
13:04 < andytoshi> without adding a bunch of temp variables to the writeup that'd leave it unreadable
13:04 < gmaxwell> andytoshi: e.g. the code can line by line reference the writeup even where they don't exactly match.
13:04 < andytoshi> ah, right
13:04 < waxwing> i wouldn't pay much attention to this kind of thing; there is a certain flexibility in interpretation of notation like that, and the preceding section of the doc makes it pretty obvious how it *should* work. no matter what you happen to call the various indices.
13:05 < waxwing> i mean yeah fix it but it's not like someone's going to "accidentally" code it wrong.
13:05 < gmaxwell> sure sure, but, you know.. advancing the art. I wouldn't want to waste a second of anyone's time on stuff like this.
13:05 < andytoshi> waxwing: welll, the hope is that you can reimplement from the writeup, if you need to look at our code that seems like we're wasting future programmers' time
13:05 < gmaxwell> so they might not actually ship something wrong they may waste a while trying to get it right.
13:06 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: koshii, Starduster_, Logicwax, gill3s, lclc, kyuupichan, akstunt600, STRML, sl01, nubbins`,  (+4 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
13:06 < waxwing> yeah good point. try to make it ultra clear, but it's difficult with these multidimensional array scenarios.
13:06 < waxwing> it's always ugly even when it's right :)
13:06 -!- kanzure_ [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:06 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Starduster_, sl01
13:06 < andytoshi> it's always uglier when it's right ;)
13:06 < gmaxwell> It's also important because some pepole will never in a million years review code. (which is sad and makes the world worse off; but I'd still want to benefit from their understanding)
13:06 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:07 -!- Netsplit over, joins: gill3s
13:07 -!- Netsplit over, joins: akstunt600
13:07 < gmaxwell> andytoshi: funny you say that, when I first wrote the verification code, it was so clean relative to my expectation that I thought it had to be wrong.
13:07 -!- Netsplit over, joins: catlasshrugged
13:07 < andytoshi> lol, yeah, verification is funny in this case, i was impressed too
13:07 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-237-051.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:07 < andytoshi> i will try to submit a PR at some point today which adds comments to both sign and verify which reference the writeup..
13:07 -!- Netsplit over, joins: kyuupichan
13:08 < gmaxwell> The signing implementation is also much cleaner than I _expected_ it would need to be, but uh. well. still pretty twisty.
13:08 < waxwing> gmaxwell: i have been having the code open while going through it
13:08 -!- Netsplit over, joins: STRML, Logicwax
13:08 < waxwing> but it's slow going for me, i'm not used to the bitcoin codebase
13:08 < waxwing> i found myself sidetracked into reading about jacobian form or whatever :)
13:08 < gmaxwell> haha
13:09 < waxwing> just trying to plod through and write the algo in Python to make sure i understood it
13:09 < andytoshi> waxwing: :) unfortunately you need to do that to understand basically any part of libsecp256k1
13:09 < andytoshi> waxwing: if you want some intuition and it'd help to have a voice you can call me
13:10 < waxwing> andytoshi: very kind; but this kind of support is already amazing...
13:10 -!- koshii [~w@c-68-58-151-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:10 < gmaxwell> waxwing: cost of an optimized implementation is a bit more complexity. OTOH, .. less for the ringsig, but very much for the range proofs-- building an optimized first implementation prevented me from making some pretty severe design errors that would have greatly hurt performance.
13:11 < gmaxwell> so I can't say I regret doing that instead of e.g. making a super simplistic python implementation.
13:11 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:11 < waxwing> gmaxwell: yes the thing it made me think about was whether it's possible to somehow split things like (prevent timing attacks) from (program logic). i guess maybe it isn't.
13:11 < andytoshi> waxwing: the kind of support where you do free in-depth review for us and we answer questions that (should be) at the front of our minds anyway? yeah, we are saints ;)
13:12 < andytoshi> this is seriously really helpful, most projects of this algebraic complexity do not get any review
13:12 < Mably> gmaxwell
13:12 < gmaxwell> (wrt performance, in the range proof, I avoid the ringsig commiting to all the derrived points; which means they don't ever need to be converted back to affine corrids, which is a non-trivial performance impact)
13:12 < Mably> may be you already answered, but have you studied Sumcoin compact confidential transactions?
13:13 < andytoshi> Mably: i am in the process of studying it, don't have anything more to say than "cautiously optimistic", sorry
13:13 < andytoshi> (at this point)
13:13 < gmaxwell> waxwing: yea, making a constant time and uniform memory prover-- one which was constant both for secret keys _and_ the ring membership, for this would sadly have really high overhead.
13:13 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:13 < gmaxwell> I believe my implementation is private for the keys though, or close to it. It hasn't been carefully reviewed for that (as in CT it doesn't matter much).
13:13 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:14 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-44.37.6.216.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:14 < waxwing> yeah i saw the comment about privacy leaks vs key leaks
13:14 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-44.37.6.216.tellas.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
13:14 < gmaxwell> Mably: I've talked to the author some. I'm very excited about it.
13:15 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
13:17 < Mably> gmaxwell: so it significantly improves current solution?
13:17 < Mably> that's some great news then
13:19 < andytoshi> waxwing: updated writeup at https://github.com/ElementsProject/borromean-signatures-writeup with the two errors you found
13:20 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:24 < kanzure_> wasn't there also a repo on the blockstream github account, and is that confusing
13:24 < andytoshi> kanzure_: i don't think so .. one sec
13:24 < kanzure_> https://github.com/Blockstream/borromean_paper
13:24 < waxwing> yeah i also found that confusing, there is one for the contracthashtool and paper
13:24 < waxwing> yeah that one
13:24 < andytoshi> kanzure_: oh, right, that one .. it only has binaries .. we created that before the source code was public
13:25 < kanzure_> it's too bad that hosting pdfs has to be so ridiculous
13:25 < waxwing> github recently allow pdf embedding. or i think it was recent.
13:25 < andytoshi> yeah. it is confusing, but i don't wanna take the PDF one down to avoid breaking links and i don't really want binaries in the source repo
13:26 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-161-139-15.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:26 -!- jrayhawk [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:33 -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:35 < Adlai> can't github host binaries separately?
13:35 -!- kanzure_ is now known as kanzure
13:35 -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:35 < maaku> Adlai: not anymore
13:37 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-161-139-15.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:38 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:38 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EB3B1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:39 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
13:39 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:41 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
13:41 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-nogdncveusmjqqqo] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:43 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:44 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:47 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Client Quit]
13:48 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:49 < fluffypony> maaku: not even as part of a tagged release?
13:50 < maaku> fluffypony: you tag a release and it just makes a tarball of the source code...
13:50 < fluffypony> nuh uh
13:51 < fluffypony> you can add binaries
13:51 < fluffypony> here
13:51 < fluffypony> maaku: http://i.imgur.com/8GHErSE.png
13:52 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:54 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:59 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:59 -!- Guest78558 [~guest@5ED11658.cm-7-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:02 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
14:03 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:03 -!- Starduster_ [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:03 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:04 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:04 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-171-243.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:05 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has quit []
14:05 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-trylmvrzlhyqrwdp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:07 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
14:07 -!- hearn_ [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:09 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:11 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:13 -!- metamarc [~snizysnaz@unaffiliated/agorist000] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:16 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
14:17 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
14:18 -!- Guest78558 [~guest@5ED11658.cm-7-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:18 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:18 -!- hulkhogan_ [WW@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-pmcghtfioilvruxh] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:20 -!- hearn_ [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
14:20 -!- Starduster [~sd@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:20 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:22 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:30 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:30 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:36 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:39 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:39 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:39 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:41 -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
14:55 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:58 -!- metamarc [~snizysnaz@unaffiliated/agorist000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:00 < mrkent> Regarding all this debate about block size recently, does anyone else think there isn't enough debate about the fact that we're trying to *change the rules*?
15:00 < mrkent> The rules that everyone agreed to to begin with
15:01 -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qszttuuotqzaflet] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:01 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:02 < mrkent> When we approach 21m BTC and miners complain about fees, what's to say the 21m can't be changed?
15:03 < mrkent> I feel like it sets dangerous precedence.
15:04 < gmaxwell> mrkent: I know sipa has repeadily over and over raised the concern about making hardforks in the face of controversy.
15:04 < gmaxwell> It concerns me greatly.
15:05 < PRab> To me is an "I wish I had a time machine" topic.
15:06 < gmaxwell> mrkent: I think that the rules change in and of itself is not the gravest concern, if you imagine a change that is necessary for the survival of the system and that everyone (or very very nearly so) agress with, I don't see a /huge/ cause for concern there.
15:06 < gmaxwell> Ideally the system could never change but, mistakes are made... we can't engineer something so perfect.
15:06 < mrkent> gmaxwell: I mean if you feel strongly about this, maybe you should redirect debate this very different question
15:07 < gmaxwell> mrkent: I'm unable. I've tried.  At least on reddit people are very much might makes right.
15:07 < mrkent> Well, what were your points?
15:08 < gmaxwell> In any case, if you look at the history of soft forks you'll see there have been many backwards compatible rules changes that were completely uncontroversial.  These things don't worry me.
15:09 < brand0> I thought consensus was forming around 8mb
15:09 < gmaxwell> brand0: 0_o
15:09 < mrkent> brand0: yes the last big reddit post was 8mb
15:09 < bramc> mrkent, I brought up the bad precedent argument, along with many others. Highly technical argumentation doesn't get the same kind of popular response as righteous ranting unfortunately: http://bramcohen.com/2015/06/02/gallus-and-simo-debate-whether-the-block-size-limit-should-be-increased
15:10 < bramc> We can probably get consensus around 1mb :-P
15:10 < gmaxwell> mrkent: That the value of the system is that it's resistant to change, and that if you're fine with a system ruled by political whim you should stick with the fiat of a major democracy.  That with bitcoin we hope to approximate cryptographic security, where your control of your funds is autotonymous and as free from other people's choices as possible. And that changing the system in ways detrimen
15:10 < gmaxwell> tal to their interest out from under a substantial minority of users is a taking, that its unethical, and that it undermines the primary value proposition of the system, even for the majority. ::shrugs::
15:10 < mrkent> I mean the fact that there are is debate over arbitrary #s is insane
15:11 < gmaxwell> mrkent: yea, specific values aren't so much of a concern for me. Thats really not the point of the concern.
15:11 < bramc> mrkent, It's become clear that the hard fork would really and truly result in a fork, with effectively two bitcoins which have to be treated independently.
15:12 < mrkent> bramc: I think personal blogs won't do as well as a self.post or medium post or something
15:12 < gmaxwell> Concerns are the implications of forcful changes to the rules of the system, long term security incentives, short term market incentives between miners, preserving the system's decenteralized properties, and missing out on the pressure to actually improve things. that kinda stuff.  2MB is about as good as 1Mb is about as good as 500k, actual numbers aren't critical.
15:13 < bramc> mrkent, Are self posts considered more confidence inspiring than personal blog posts now?
15:13 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
15:13 < mrkent> gmaxwell: ya agreed, i was just about to write something on this, and decided to come ask here first.
15:13 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:14 < bramc> Maybe I should make a medium post entitled 'How to steal from anyone accepting zeroconf'
15:14 < gmaxwell> I'm also concerned with this recent event that it completely bypassed the normal process. No Bip, no PR, no bitcoin-development post.. just a straight call to the largely uninformed public with a one sided argument,  and when that wasn't overwhelming, it was followed up with a threat to fork the network in some kind of insane king solomon's trial.
15:14 < mrkent> I think perhaps the way to say this is: 1. why don't we also increase the 21m limit while we're at it? 2. or inflate btc relative to economic growth?
15:14 < gmaxwell> an interesting thing I learned is that lots of redditors think there existing a huge network partition is no big deal! like, they think thats its (likely to be) a recoverable faulure!
15:14 < bramc> gmaxwell, And a flooding 'experiment' which demonstrated nothing whatsoever.
15:15 < gmaxwell> mrkent: I made that point, actually had a very interesting discussion with one person where he argued miners should control the block limit, and I said well why not also the 21m cap.  And delightfully, he responded saying they probably should control that too!
15:15 < brand0> gmaxwell, crazy!
15:15 < gmaxwell> I thought that was like the best discussion ever, because at least his position was logically consistent!
15:15 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
15:16 < bramc> Let's also let miners decide whether bitcoin is a PoW or a PoS system
15:16 < mrkent> I feel like a lot of this comes from fear of BTC not scaling thus bitcoiner's investment does not go up
15:16 < gmaxwell> It's not completely crazy to say miners should control the 21m cap... its just that the reason the rules exist even against miners is that we use the rules to keep miners incentive aligned, we don't "trust" miners except at arms length.  But if your mental model is that miners are trusted by definition, why not let them control all the things?
15:17 -!- www1 [~v3@p4FFB1CD2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:17 < gmaxwell> mrkent: some people on reddit were quite specific that they are very concerned with driving up the value of their bitcoins. But it's hopeless to try to guess everyone's motivations.
15:18 < mrkent> I mean which one of us doesn't want the price to go up
15:18 < mrkent> but we're risking all that makes bitcoin special in the process
15:19 < bramc> mrkent, The price of bitcoin right now mostly is indicative of the amount of electricity which is burned mining. I for one view it going up as a bad thing in and of itself.
15:19 < brand0> I was happy with a $1 BTC
15:19 -!- www [~v3@p4FFB0745.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:19 < mrkent> You're on point in that if public opinion determines economic policy, then stick with fiat (already 100% adoption)
15:19 < gmaxwell> mrkent: sure, absolutely. but different time horizons. But I can't draw any seperating lines, it's not like all the people with one perspective fit into one box.
15:20 < gmaxwell> yea, fiat has huge advantages if you don't care about the few things bitcoin does uniquely better.
15:20 -!- justanotheruser is now known as justanother
15:20 -!- justanother is now known as justanotherusr
15:20 < bramc> The undermining of the integrity of the bitcoin ecosystem implied by a fork is likely to hurt the value of BTC more than whatever value increase could be had from the modifications anyway.
15:21 < gmaxwell> (I get seriously downvoted on reddit for saying things like that)
15:21 < bramc> gmaxwell, But fiat currency is TEH DEVIL!
15:21 < bramc> It's a funny thing in the bitcoin community that the biggest doubters are the core devs. Everybody's surprised when I tell them that.
15:22 < gmaxwell> bramc: maybe not-- at least until it happens, because strangely (*!@#*! many people on reddit think that persistant network forks are no big deal!
15:22 < mrkent> gmaxwell: well, not everyone knows your reddit username so there isn't as much weight behind that guy
15:22 < bramc> gmaxwell, That's a lesson not worth learning the hard way!
15:23 < bramc> Most redditors probably know the name 'Gavin' and that's about it on the dev side.
15:23 < brand0> What *do* you guys think is the right process forward here? (I've heard tons about what's wrong)
15:23 < gmaxwell> Well there are very important reasons that you do not want to be well known.
15:23 < Adlai> they know other names from targeted ad-hominem shilling
15:24 < bramc> brand0, The right process is to do nothing to the block chain, work on making everything support real transaction fees
15:24 < gmaxwell> brand0: there are several proposals that fix some of the ugly incentive problems and would likely make larger blocks safer. Those need to mature and be explored.
15:24 < bramc> gmaxwell, Thanks for the warning, I'll take every step necessary to avoid ever being well known.
15:24 < gmaxwell> oops
15:25 < gmaxwell> brand0: And yep, as bramc, says, actual scaling tools need to be developed so that whole subject is not a redicilous false tradeoff.
15:25 < mrkent> So what are the most likely outcomes at the current time?
15:26 -!- zmachine [~ROCK_@pool-173-58-228-34.lsanca.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Bye!]
15:26 < mrkent> I don't actually read into the debates much...
15:26 -!- Guest43254 [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:26 < kanzure> mrkent: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08183.html
15:27 < bramc> mrkent, Do you mean outcomes for block size increases or outcomes for scaling the block chain as a whole?
15:28 < mrkent> bramc: or not do anything, or something else..
15:28 < bramc> Unfortunately doing actual work can get you labelled TEH DEVIL. For example Peter Todd's work on malleability. I have some issues with Peter Todd. His work on malleability is most definitely NOT one of them.
15:28 < gmaxwell> brand0: We know with almost absoute certanty that we can scale-out bitcoin into complete centeralization at some level (no consensus exactly where and how) it's no longer viable as a decenteralized system (no consensus on how you define decenteralized).    But at the same time, no certanty that any particular blocksize will accomimdate any particular new application space.
15:28 < mrkent> Any sort of hardforking change
15:28 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:29 < bramc> mrkent, Most likely outcome is probably that a hard fork never happens. Next most likely is that a hard fork happens but fails. Next after that is that a hardfork happens, only half fails, the shit hits the fan, and wallets have to support the new reality of two incompatible block chains.
15:29 < gmaxwell> brand0: there are varriosu proposals (e.g. lightning being the newest and most advanced) to achieve actual scalablity for Bitcoin which need to mature, and I think these are the only way we can address actual massive scale use cases.
15:29 < kanzure> as much as i don't want a centralized system design, it would be prudent to have backup plans for orderly wind-downs into centralized systems so that there isn't too much murder
15:30 < bramc> kanzure, The solution to the shit hitting the fan from one fork is not another fork
15:30 < mrkent> Accounting for the "politics" of it all. e.g. If Gavin pushed new code that hardforks, is it likely that more than 50% will just go with it?
15:30 < kanzure> bramc: nah, i was speaking more long-term
15:30 < gmaxwell> if the users of the system choose to keep craking the limit up to avoid any fees, rather than developing and adoptiong things that actually scale, then the system will likely fail (though maybe in a way that doesn't cause massive monetary losses for its users, e.g. it could just become a new popular centerally administered fiat)
15:30 < kanzure> mrkent: depends on what 50% you are asking about
15:31 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:32 < kanzure> gmaxwell: if that is what happens (an actual centralization many years down the line, conversion into visa-like system, etc...), there will be much in-fighting between different groups trying to grab control...
15:32 < bramc> mrkent, Depends on how it's rolled out. If there's a vote amongst miners as to whether to accept it it will likely fail. If there's a vote amongst miners and it passes the vote it will likely half-fail. If there's no vote amongst miners and it's just unilateral then it will either fail of half-fail, hard to guess which
15:32 < mrkent> kanzure: I think just 50% of the people?
15:32 < gmaxwell> kanzure: who says that you're not seeing that already?
15:32 < gmaxwell> mrkent: well of what people? probably 99% of bitcoin users don't run node softare at all.
15:32 < mrkent> I don'
15:32 < kanzure> mrkent: the bitcoin system has no way of counting people, so no
15:33 < bramc> Whether what's being proposed is an adoption vote like the soft forks of the past I'm unclear on.
15:33 < kanzure> gmaxwell: because i also don't see any proposals for safe wind-down into a centralized system. it should not be bloody, if that's what $whoever really wants.
15:34 < gmaxwell> kanzure: you can't preprepare that without both a fight over who would be the reciever of it, AND without creating an incentive to cause that outcome.
15:34 < mrkent> kanzure: Miners tend to be pretty centralized (via pools). If miners say no, but everyone else who actually transacts say yes, then miners are not going to mine their fork that no one will recognize
15:34 < Adlai> bramc: iiuc, mrkent is asking "what happens to the winners and losers after an intentional hardfork occurs"
15:34 < kanzure> gmaxwell: hm not sure i understand your incentive comment there
15:34 < kanzure> gmaxwell: i guess it would flag the people that would be willing to support that proposal?
15:34 < kanzure> but wouldn't that be useful for those who want to keep things decentralized?
15:34 < gmaxwell> kanzure: if I get to be the king of bitcoin if bitcoin becomes centeralized; that might be a pretty good reason for me to make sure it becomes centeralized?
15:35 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:35 < gmaxwell> (if I were an idiot at least, you really do not want to be king of bitcoin)
15:35 < kanzure> yes, but nobody can centralize it without lots of bloodshed i think- at least not without proposals.
15:35 < kanzure> right
15:35 < bramc> gmaxwell, The king of bitcoin gets all the concubines
15:35 < gmaxwell> bramc: who has time for that?
15:35 -!- Tebbo [~Jerry`@ip72-211-88-176.no.no.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:36 < kanzure> well anyway; it might be helpful to identify those who are interested in that direction, which can help assign various weights to how much we know to be thorough when checking their analyses on other topics.
15:36 < kanzure> gmaxwell: i was wondering if you would be kind enough to brain dump about all the missing things from my list here http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08183.html
15:36 < gmaxwell> kanzure: well it already has, exact number right now is hard to estimate, alarge supermajority of hashpower is in the hands of a half dozen or so.  E.g. someone could rationally argue that in that sense, at the moment, bitcoin is less decenteralized that the ludriciriously centeralized federated consensus in alpha. :(
15:37 < kanzure> i have read your fedpeg python source code and i am not amused :-)
15:38 < bramc> I'm going to be giving a talk at the bitcoin-dev meeting on the 22nd. The title will be 'Removing the waste from cryptocurrencies: Challenges and more challenges'
15:38 < gmaxwell> kanzure: typesafty is for fusses. who doesn't like floats being used to index lists.  :)  in any case, that stuff is throwaway, and for good reason. :) And yet, works fine.
15:39 < kanzure> gmaxwell: well what i would be most worried about is others using that code for non-testnet things. i was thinking about making a client/library instead..
15:39 < bramc> gmaxwell, My mining ideas on paper look great for maintaining decentralization. They're still very much in the crazy out their ideas category though.
15:40 < gmaxwell> kanzure: well kinda self correcting there! (doh),  I do think we really adequately warned people not to do that.
15:41 < kanzure> bramc: i'm not sure even your proof of sequential work could allow the system to withstand users switching out rules and degrading behavior
15:42 < bramc> kanzure, Not sure what you mean by that
15:43 < kanzure> the problems that we are encountering with centralization pressure at the moment are not just the number of mining nodes, but also apparently people wanting to change critical parameters in ways that further degrade those system properties
15:43 -!- robogoat [~robogoat@c-24-126-240-124.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:43 < kanzure> or er, not just the (decentralizedish) distribution of mining hashrate
15:43 < bramc> Do you mean hard forks or soft forks or something else?
15:43 < kanzure> hard forks.
15:44 < kanzure> oh right; never allowing a hardfork fixes this.
15:44 < bramc> There's only so much which can be done against hard forks. If the whole world forgets about a system and does something unrelated no amount of rulesmaking in the old system can do anything about it.
15:44 < kanzure> it's not just that though
15:45 < kanzure> it's that even if a small chunk of users hardforks, you still get degraded system performance anyway
15:45 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:45 -!- _biO_ [~biO_@ip-37-24-195-112.hsi14.unitymediagroup.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:46 < kanzure> (depending on which chunk of the network that was)
15:47 < bramc> podpot mining allows miners to mine on multiple cryptocurrencies and forks simultaneously with very little overhead. This is both good and bad.
15:47 < gmaxwell> bramc: no system can be immune to the users rewriting the rules, but it surely can resist them... and bitcoin does, thus this drama. :)
15:47 < kanzure> perhaps there's a way to use extension blocks here to prevent that sort of behavior, a sort of nuclear "i'll just soft-fork all of you into using the same set of extension blocks" plan or something
15:48 < mrkent> this whole thing feels like a bailout, actually kinda depressing
15:49 -!- robogoat [~robogoat@c-24-126-240-124.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:56 < bramc> mrkent, The cap increase is sort of a bailout in the sense that it's meant to avoid transaction fees. It isn't clear that that's a necessary or even desirable thing to do though.
15:57 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-153-50.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 < mrkent> It's also a bailout in the sense that if people really wanted a bigger blocks sizes, they should just switch to an altcoin or BIGcoin that has bigger blocks, rather than altering agreements they've already made with the bitcoin network
15:58 < kanzure> er, i don't think that explains the bail part there?
15:58 < mrkent> ah sorry, msg got too long forgot where i was going
15:59 < mrkent> No one wants the risk of a new altcoin
15:59 < mrkent> they want Gavin to increase value of BTC without having much downside
16:00 < mrkent> or "oh shit, i bought this coin that has a low blocksize thus cannot scale to be valuable, please change rule so it's not the case"
16:00 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 < kanzure> bramc: did you look at the extension block proposals?
16:01 -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:02 < mrkent> If this can be turned into a tabular form for easy reddit digestion, i think it would do a lot of good for public opinion
16:03 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:05 < mrkent> Can someone remind me why we can't have no-limit blocksize and let miners determine themselves?
16:06 < kanzure> runaway effects
16:06 < mrkent> kanzure: like?
16:07 < gmaxwell> mrkent: please go read jeff's bip100 document, it talks reasonably enough about many of these things.
16:07 < gmaxwell> I'm worn out after the 1001st repetition.
16:07 -!- temujin [2679a51e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.121.165.30] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
16:07 < kanzure> is there a good link for fedpeg vs extension blocks
16:07 < gmaxwell> (jeff's document isn't comprehensive, but I thought it more useful to point you to something I didn't write)
16:07 < kanzure> unfortunately the only one i'm aware of is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M which is not a document
16:08  * gmaxwell is really not a fan of extension blocks.
16:08  * gmaxwell discouraged adam from publishing anything on them for basically months, until people started talking about similar stuff anyways.
16:08 < kanzure> yeah my eyes sort of went wide when i read that email
16:10 -!- www1 [~v3@p4FFB1CD2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:11 < zooko> kanzure: what email?
16:12 < kanzure> zooko: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08183.html
16:12 -!- trstovall [uid81706@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pwswjdskhvyhxdts] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:12 < kanzure> whoops
16:12 < kanzure> zooko: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07937.html
16:12 < gmaxwell> really the extension block stuff has 90% of the disadavantages of a larger block. but the disadvantages may be less clear to people.  We specifically called out soft-forking-in-a-sidechain as a risk in the sidechain whitepaper.
16:13 < kanzure> but i don't have to process it
16:13 < mrkent> gmaxwell: I read it this morning and just took a look again
16:13 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:13 -!- gwillen [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:14 -!- gwillen is now known as Guest33644
16:14 < mrkent> It basically says it is a constraint that incentivizes efficiency and conservation and avoids spam
16:15 < mrkent> Market (miners) can determine the supply (blocksize), so I don't buy that argument
16:15 < gmaxwell> maybe he dropped that part.
16:16 -!- jrayhawk [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:16 -!- Guest33644 [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has quit [Client Quit]
16:16 < gmaxwell> mrkent: there are several issues, one is that miners and the rest of the network have interests at odds. Miners get paid to make their block bigger (free monies!), and everyone else has to swollow the block-- its an externality.
16:16 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:17 < gmaxwell> The next is that larger blocks favor bigger more centeralized miners in several ways, e.g. if your bandwidth and validation costs are macrosopic, then the most centeralized pool is the most profitable, and since mining is an equalibrium that seeks zero average profits, you'll be mining at a loss unless you use that pool.
16:19 < gmaxwell> The next is, assuming multiple miners still exist,  if there is no limit on size it will always be locally in your best interest to take all the transactions you can, even very low fee ones. -- let someone else turn up their nose and delay very low fee transactions to create anti-spam and market pressures to increase fees. Absent a limit there the rational equlibrium fee should be very low, and a
16:19 < gmaxwell> ll of that fee should be paying for the verification, which enjoys perfect centeralization gains.
16:19 < gmaxwell> (and none of it going to POW, which provides security, but is a free parameter and can basically adapt to 0)
16:21 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:21 < gmaxwell> mrkent: does this stuff convince you that its not quite as simple as "do whatever you want?"
16:21 < kanzure> was there ever a thing in here discussed about compression proof-images to make commitments about large quantities of transactions instead of just lists of transactions or instead of just transaction commitments.
16:21 < kanzure> or was i dreaming that
16:22 -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@68.233.157.2] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:22 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-30-13.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:23 < mrkent> gmaxwell: some of those do and some don'tt
16:23 < kanzure> i don't think that providing ways for people to move coins out of the system will keep them from trying to hardfork the main chain
16:24 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:24 -!- laurentmt [~chatzilla@89-93-129-41.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:25 < kanzure> i suppose one argument is, "well if you hardfork successfully, then you *really* should have considered using an extension block or sidechain or some other bitcoin teleportation technique, because now you will have to do that anyway with the forked utxos"
16:25 < mrkent> I mean centralization is bound to occur to some degree
16:25 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-153-50.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:26 < gmaxwell> sure, but it already has. Right now you could freely rewrite the chain at the tipe by coercing or kidnapping less than a half dozen people. What degree is acceptable?
16:26 < mrkent> Realistically speaking, it's likely as adoption grows, more people will use services like coinbase than send blockchain transactions
16:27 < gmaxwell> mrkent: sure, but when that happens its at the edges and people opt into it, and they takes the risks that come with it and they can choose it.
16:27 < gmaxwell> vs when centeralization happens at the center its forced onto you and you can't 'opt out' except by abandoning bitcoin.
16:28 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has quit [Quit: leaving]
16:30 < mrkent> I get that, but larger pools are always going to be favorable, so it is only logical that there is 1 pool on which everyone mines for 0 profit (regardless of the blocksize)
16:31 < mrkent> > Absent a limit there the rational equlibrium fee should be very low
16:32 < bramc> kanzure, I hadn't seen extension blocks. That would be less bad than a hard fork
16:33 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:33 < mrkent> not sure if that's obvious (fee being low)
16:33 < gmaxwell> mrkent: uh? "larger pools are always going to be favorable, " what?! no.
16:34 < gmaxwell> please don't tell me you're in this channel without the most basic understanding of how mining works?
16:34 < bramc> Although I'd like to point out that the non-extended part of extension blocks would still be subject to having transaction fees when it's transacted within or when coin is moved into or out of it
16:34 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:34 < kanzure> bramc: sure, yes
16:34 < mrkent> gmaxwell: I mean in terms of efficieny
16:34 < gmaxwell> mrkent: explain what you're thinking further?
16:34 -!- AaronvanW_ [~ewout@vpn19.hotsplots.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:35 < mrkent> Well, the guy that invests $10m into a minging farm vs guy at home will always make more money
16:35 < bramc> Gavin's rebuttal to extension blocks is... weird https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07938.html
16:35 < gmaxwell> mrkent: thats not correct.
16:36 < mrkent> So at 0 profit, the only guys that can mine are the big scale ones
16:36 < kanzure> bramc: yes
16:36 < mrkent> So we have a small number of mega miners
16:36 < gmaxwell> mrkent: mining is a _lottery_ not a race.  You win proportionally to your hashrate (ignoring issues around propagation). The process is linear, and there isn't a large scaling advantage (and there are a few scaling disadvantages, e.g. heat dissapation is harder at larger scales)
16:36 < mrkent> So, when we get to 21m BTC, these guys are only going to make money off fees
16:37 < gmaxwell> mrkent: long before then, effectively.
16:37 < gmaxwell> (because of the geometric behavior)
16:38 < mrkent> So if they accept very low fees like you claim, why would anyone pay more that that low amount?
16:38 < gmaxwell> right. They wouldn't.
16:38 < bramc> mrkent, It's a regular supply and demand thing. Once the demand has exceeded the supply, which in this case is set by the block size limit, then the price will go up
16:39 < gmaxwell> It's like asking how carbon cap and trade would work... without the cap. :)
16:40 < bramc> gmaxwell, exactly
16:40 < mrkent> effectively, mining becomes, how soon do I get next block (thus how much fee I charge * # of txns)
16:40 < bramc> mrkent, You don't get to decide on the fee, each transaction says what its fee is, so you take the transactions with the highest fee/byte and include them
16:41 < mrkent> so in order to secure the network to the degree that people want, I need to charge at least fee of x satoshi...
16:41 < kanzure> "charge"
16:41 < brand0> Can anyone point me to code/documentation/whitepaper on which transaction scheme they think would scale best?
16:43 < gmaxwell> mrkent: huh? you take all that you get and you put the result in your pocket. nothing makes you spend it on security.
16:43 < bramc> brand0, The lightning network paper isn't quite ready yet, there will be a presentation at Stanford on monday https://crypto.stanford.edu/seclab/sem-14-15/poon.html
16:44 < mrkent> gmaxwell: I'm not sure I understand what you mean there
16:44 < bramc> kanzure, If the big proposal right now was for 20mb extension blocks there would be a lot of controversy but not half the amount of bitter vitriol going on right now.
16:45 < brand0> bramc, thank you
16:45 < gmaxwell> mrkent: there is no "charge" mechenism. transactions have a fee they pay. You take it or you leave it.
16:46 < gmaxwell> you can choose to produce a smaller block, leaving fees on the floor that you could have otherwise earned, and other miners will earn them if they break rank with you and accept the transactions you turned up.
16:46 < mrkent> Yes but miners don't have to accept them
16:46 < bramc> brand0, The super-quick summary of lightning network is that it uses net settlement where there's no need for anything to hit the chain until the net goes past the deposit amount, and then that's just a single transaction. It requires a relative timelock opcode to work properly, for reasons which are very technical and interesting.
16:47 < gmaxwell> right, now saw you accept at some cutoff. you'll make less. Someone else accepts them, they'll make more than you, and yet they'll still benefit from your design to reject since it delays the transactions somewhat.
16:47 < gmaxwell> but you never increase your income by rejecting, not unless almost everyone else does too.
16:47 < gmaxwell> and everyone can make more right now by not rejecting.
16:48 < gmaxwell> Then once you've made whatever you've made, you can just put that in your pocket. It doesn't go to pay for security, only your competition with other miners can result in that.
16:48 < akrmn> There's many different forms of extension blocks. No one has still provided any fundamental flaw in my "subchains" idea, which is a form of extension blocks.
16:49 < jgarzik> gmaxwell, never say never ;p
16:49 < jgarzik> gmaxwell, if e.g. your orphan rate decreases due to block minimalism.  there are other incentives besides fees... IMO that's a big part of PoW is that some real world externalities salt the system versus PoS.
16:51 < gmaxwell> well I'm disregarding orphan rates there, because they are prefectly solvable via another simpler means: pool centeralization. It basically never makes sense to lower your blocksize to lower orphan rates, see pieters simulation results. If orphaning is an issue due to bandwidth you centeralize pooling.
16:51 < gmaxwell> Which is what people were doing some months ago which is much of how we ended up with half the hashrate under a single parties control.  Fortunately the block relay protocol reduced the incentive to do that, at least for a bit.
16:51 < mrkent> There may be some other strategies a miner can employ to get higher pay
16:52 < mrkent> Like perhaps some block withholding tactic
16:53 < mrkent> Or like partnership with payment providers or something
16:53 < gmaxwell> sure, miners with more than about a third of the hashpower can get a large advantage by withholding.
16:53 < mrkent> like visa POS wants BTC confirmed immediately, so they pay the 1 asshole miner who charge 2x everyone else
16:54 < jgarzik> still might take 60 wall clock minutes even at highest fees
16:55 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
16:55 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Killed (barjavel.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
16:55 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
16:55 < gmaxwell> mrkent: that still doesn't get you anything close to immediately though.
16:55 < mrkent> sure, i mean ASAP i suppose
16:55 -!- jrayhawk [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:56 < gmaxwell> mrkent: and again, externality: everyone else still gets paid from people doing that. and the person with the too high bar will operate at a loss while his conservativism subsidizes everyone else.
16:57 < mrkent> Ultimately, it'll boil down to some equilibrium point at which miners collect fee based on how much value they provide to the network
16:57 < mrkent> certainly more transactions = more value they provide right?
16:57 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:57 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Changing host]
16:57 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:57 -!- wallet42 is now known as Guest18833
16:57 -!- Guest18833 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Killed (hobana.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
16:57 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
16:58 -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
16:58 < mrkent> oh shit did i anger him?
17:00 -!- www [~v3@p4FFB1CD2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:01 -!- jrayhawk [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:02 -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslc-082-082-199-035.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:03 < bramc> mrkent, frequently gmaxwell walks off because he has work to do. These sorts of discussions are things he's a bit sick of so they take low priority
17:03 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:03 -!- n0n0 [~n0n0___@x5f77c659.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:03 < bramc> mrkent, Giving a high transaction fee on your transaction is exactly the same thing as 'paying off' a miner to take it faster.
17:04 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has quit [Client Quit]
17:06 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-237-051.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:07 < mrkent> bramc: heh, ya i know. was kidding
17:09 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
17:11 < mrkent> my final point does stand though if anyone else interested: Higher transaction count network is more valuable than lower transaction count network, thus miners would be compensated higher in the high value network.
17:12 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:13 -!- gwillen [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:13 -!- gwillen is now known as Guest57539
17:14 -!- Guest57539 [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has quit [Client Quit]
17:14 < bramc> mrkent, That's completely dependent on the number of potential buyers and how much they're willing to pay. It's regular monopoly pricing stuff http://econpage.com/201/handouts/pricing/
17:15 -!- www [~v3@p4FFB1CD2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
17:15 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:16 < mrkent> In what scenario is a low transaction limit network more valuable than a high one?
17:16 -!- psgs_ [~psgs@CPE-58-174-37-49.mjcz1.woo.bigpond.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:16 -!- laurentmt [~chatzilla@89-93-129-41.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 [Firefox 38.0.5/20150525141253]]
17:17 -!- psgs_ is now known as psgs
17:17 < bramc> mrkent, If there's one person who's willing to pay $1 million for a transaction, and 99 others who are willing to pay $1 each, then if you set the number of transactions at 100 you get $100 but if you set it at one you get $1 million
17:18 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@li450-236.members.linode.com] has quit [Changing host]
17:18 -!- gwollon [~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:19 < mrkent> why wouldnt u get 1m + 100 at 100 txs
17:19 < mrkent> And why would that guy pay $1m when everyone else is paying $1? It's a transparent marketplace
17:23 < bramc> mrkent, Because it's an iterated game where everyone doing transactions can see the market price, so they'll all wind up paying about the same amount
17:23 < bramc> Oh you said that already, sorry. If you only let one transaction through then it isn't the case that everybody else is paying $1, what happens is that 'everybody else' is paying $1 million, because there aren't any other everybody elses
17:24 < bramc> Maybe I should have included an additional person willing to pay $1 million to avoid a fencepost error, because an auction is second price instead of first price.
17:25 -!- gwollon is now known as gwillen
17:26 < phantomcircuit> <bramc> We can probably get consensus around 1mb :-P
17:26 < mrkent> Right, so question of block size is really to answer where this supply/demand curve cross
17:26 < phantomcircuit> ++
17:27 < bramc> mrkent, The supply curve is flat, it's the block size
17:28 < phantomcircuit> mrkent, the question is fundamentally very simple really, how decentralized should the system be?
17:29 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:29 < phantomcircuit> if your answer is very then basic math says large blocks are a folly
17:30 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:31 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:31 < phantomcircuit> the economic value of your transaction must equal or exceed the networks total cost to process and store your transaction
17:31 < phantomcircuit> the most direct indication of the value of the transaction is the fees
17:32 < phantomcircuit> if fees are essentially zero (the inevitable result of continuously increasing the blocksize limits to meet demand) then the network almost certainly collapses to a small set of nodes which find economic value in bitcoin existing itself
17:33 < phantomcircuit> ie only exchanges run nodes
17:33 < phantomcircuit> that's pretty clearly not a desired outcome
17:36 < bramc> Only exchanges running nodes would probably result in the cost of BTC plummeting
17:42 < dgenr8> hihoo
17:52 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:59 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
17:59 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:59 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-30-13.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:01 -!- jtimon [~quassel@240.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:02 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
18:23 -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:23 < gmaxwell> kanzure: I thought this link was good as general frame setting https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/what-is-bitcoin-s-value-proposition-b7309be442e3
18:39 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 -!- MoALTz_ [~no@78.11.179.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:44 -!- MoALTz [~no@78.11.179.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
18:45 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:45 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:46 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
18:48 -!- psgs [~psgs@CPE-58-174-37-49.mjcz1.woo.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:49 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:49 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:49 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
18:55 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:57 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@unaffiliated/dr-g] has quit [Disconnected by services]
18:57 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@x4d08a3b2.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:01 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:08 -!- badmofo [~badmofo@btc.alpha61.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:14 < kanzure> typetypetype
19:14 < kanzure> transcripts incoming
19:17 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
19:29 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
19:31 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
19:32 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:36 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
19:37 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:38 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit]
19:39 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:39 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit]
19:41 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
19:43 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:44 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
19:48 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:49 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit]
19:50 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:51 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:55 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["WeeChat 1.1.1"]
19:55 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has quit [Quit: xcthulhu]
19:58 -!- xcthulhu [~mpwd@pine.noqsi.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:03 -!- jtimon [~quassel@240.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
20:08 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:23 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:23 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
20:31 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:8c90:e381:3edb:af95] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:36 -!- trstovall [uid81706@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pwswjdskhvyhxdts] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
20:52 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:52 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:53 -!- badmofo [~badmofo@btc.alpha61.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:56 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
21:10 < gmaxwell> Anyone have a good suggestion for getting transactions signed with fancy scripts that solver doesn't know how to sign? (I mean suggestions simpler than teaching the solver to sign for them)
21:11 -!- p15_ [~p15@182.50.108.39] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:11 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@114.244.158.120] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:12 -!- cosmo [~james@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cosmo] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:12 -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:12 -!- p15 [~p15@111.193.171.192] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
21:14 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:16 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit]
21:20 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:23 -!- PRab_ [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:ed5a:7b56:d036:5b1b] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:25 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:4:4502:dc5f:f972:81a0:2f3b:207b] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:25 -!- PRab_ is now known as PRab
21:27 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:36 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
21:45 -!- _biO_ [~biO_@ip-37-24-195-112.hsi14.unitymediagroup.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:08 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EB3B1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:09 -!- pollux-bts [uid52270@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zpsubigifatycxis] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
22:17 < kanzure> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-sidechains-unchained-epicenter-adam3us-gmaxwell/
22:18 < gmaxwell> oh wow, oh yea, adam talked about extension blocks in that somewhat.
22:18 < kanzure> just finished typing
22:19 < kanzure> (i had a break)
22:26 < kanzure> i was especially intrigued by the idea of locking down even soft-forks, that's quite the card to play
22:29 < gmaxwell> IMO it's more of a philosphical statement than a pratical one. I agree with its as a philosphy. there is also more to that that I think wasn't in the interview.
22:30 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-181-114-39.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:30 < gmaxwell> which is this idea we were calling evil forks at the time, and were intentionally not proposing (though they've since been independantly invented twice so I don't see any point in being quiet about them now)
22:30 < kanzure> i see; yeah i mean crippling our ability to do soft-forks is probably a lot of foot shooting, but is good philosophy.
22:30 < gmaxwell> which is that you can basically build a soft fork which makes a hardfork extension via an extension block but denies all other transactions.
22:30 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:31 < gmaxwell> which sort of highlights why at least at the limits softforks are bad too.
22:31 < kanzure> would it be too impossibly insane to require rule changes to also require sha256 variations
22:31 < kanzure> er.. uh..
22:32 < kanzure> hm nevermind
22:32 < kanzure> the answer is yes
22:32 < gmaxwell> you can't really deny softforks in any case, not without heroic non-realistic crypto and such. or at least we've not though of a pratical way to.
22:35 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:36 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@172.56.16.88] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:37 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@172.56.16.88] has quit [Client Quit]
22:48 -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@172.56.16.88] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:52 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:58 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'm still somewhat planning a proposal for that; if for nothing other than merge-mining (doesn't need to touch block sizes - though it can if there's consensus for that)
22:59 < Luke-Jr> need to get a reference implementation done and make sure the wording is right first though
22:59 < Luke-Jr> (including a plan for solving people trying to activate it without consensus)
23:00 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
23:02 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:02 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:12 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:13 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:19 -!- cryptowest_ [~cryptowes@191.101.1.104] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:23 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:23 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:33 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:34 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:36 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-188-108-249-105.188.108.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:37 -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslc-082-082-199-035.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
23:44 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:44 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:47 -!- p15x [~p15x@114.244.152.201] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:48 -!- p15 [~p15@182.50.108.26] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:49 -!- sy5error [~sy5error@unaffiliated/sy5error] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:49 -!- p15_ [~p15@182.50.108.39] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:49 -!- p15x_ [~p15x@114.244.158.120] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:54 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:55 -!- darwin_ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
--- Log closed Sat Jun 13 00:00:40 2015