--- Log opened Fri Jan 01 00:00:52 2016
00:02 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:04 -!- maaku [~quassel@botbot.xen.prgmr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:06 -!- maaku [~quassel@botbot.xen.prgmr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:06 -!- maaku is now known as Guest8396
00:08 -!- Guest8396 is now known as maaku
00:08 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-208-179.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:11 -!- jannes [~jannes@092-111-146-044.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:16 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:18 -!- Jeremy_Rand_2 [~user@ip68-97-45-209.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:19 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:23 -!- melvster1 [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:24 -!- bitcoin-wizards9 [5e09b9c5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.94.9.185.197] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:24 -!- throughnothing [~throughno@2601:646:4001:f3d1:ddde:e78f:a4:fd5d] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
00:25 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
00:28 -!- bitcoin-wizards9 [5e09b9c5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.94.9.185.197] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:32 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:33 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:37 -!- melvster1 [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:41 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
00:45 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-139-55-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
00:48 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:50 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
00:51 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:54 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
00:54 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:54 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
00:54 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:55 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:57 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:01 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:01 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:01 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:02 -!- jannes [~jannes@092-111-146-044.static.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:04 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:06 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:06 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:11 -!- pozitron [~nu@109.201.143.40] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:12 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:12 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:12 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:16 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:17 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Excess Flood]
01:17 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ocnbthvrchebcjdp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:17 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:19 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Excess Flood]
01:19 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:20 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Excess Flood]
01:20 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:21 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:21 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:21 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:23 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Excess Flood]
01:23 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:23 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Excess Flood]
01:24 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:24 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:26 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:28 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:30 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@178-157-152.dynamic.cyta.gr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:32 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:33 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:33 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:33 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:33 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:34 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:43 -!- smk [6dc99a9e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.201.154.158] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
01:49 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:49 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
01:49 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:52 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:59 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
02:05 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:05 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:05 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
02:05 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:13 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-82-178.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:19 -!- bitbyt [~Mutter@94.9.185.197] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:20 -!- bitbyt [~Mutter@94.9.185.197] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
02:20 -!- bitbyt [~Mutter@94.9.185.197] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:24 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:27 -!- bitbyt [~Mutter@94.9.185.197] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:27 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:33 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:35 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:37 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:38 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
02:59 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:01 -!- midnightmagic is now known as midnighitmagic
03:01 -!- midnighitmagic is now known as midnightmagic
03:01 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:02 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:16 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:16 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
03:16 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:18 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:23 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
03:26 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:27 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:29 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:37 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:46 -!- supasonic [~supasonic@172-11-188-117.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:50 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:52 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:57 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:59 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
04:04 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:25 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:55 -!- leakypat [~leakypat@p10201-ipngn2001marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
05:04 -!- ratbanebo [~ratbanebo@2a02:1812:1515:2400:60f8:594:8272:701f] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:05 -!- ratbanebo [~ratbanebo@78-23-10-185.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:10 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:12 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:12 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:25 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:35 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
05:37 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:37 -!- MrHodl [~fuc@91.210.105.101] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:45 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:48 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
05:52 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:54 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:55 -!- oneeman [~oneeman__@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:03 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r186-54-13-81.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:06 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:06 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:10 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:10 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:11 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
06:19 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
06:28 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-208-117.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:41 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
06:48 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:02 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:05 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@228.Red-83-47-126.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:09 -!- mkarrer__ [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:12 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@228.Red-83-47-126.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:17 -!- smk [68eea92f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.238.169.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- smk [68eea92f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.238.169.47] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
07:34 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:35 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
07:38 -!- smk [68eea92f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.238.169.47] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- amiller [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
07:43 -!- smk [68eea92f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.238.169.47] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
07:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
07:46 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:47 -!- Guest97248 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:49 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r186-54-13-81.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:01 -!- smk [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:10 -!- e4xit [~e4xit@cpc92302-cmbg19-2-0-cust1369.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:10 -!- Guest97248 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:11 -!- e4xit [~e4xit@cpc92302-cmbg19-2-0-cust1369.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Client Quit]
08:11 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-208-117.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:14 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:14 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@209.95.51.102] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:16 -!- ozanyurt [~textual@176.233.94.26] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
08:18 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
08:24 -!- oneeman [~oneeman__@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:26 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:29 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@209.95.51.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:30 -!- katu [~kat@lua.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:32 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:33 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@71.68.182.216] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:33 -!- Pasha [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:39 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@71.68.182.216] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
08:40 -!- Pasha [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:43 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qjhcwkxqltxijmnb] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:49 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:54 -!- ratbaneb_ [~ratbanebo@78-23-10-185.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:56 -!- Guest93922 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:57 -!- ratbanebo [~ratbanebo@78-23-10-185.access.telenet.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:57 -!- ratbanebo [~ratbanebo@2a02:1812:1515:2400:60f8:594:8272:701f] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- ratbaneb_ [~ratbanebo@78-23-10-185.access.telenet.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
09:02 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:02 -!- smak [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:03 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:03 -!- smak [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has quit [Changing host]
09:03 -!- smak [2ea6bce2@unaffiliated/smk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:03 -!- smak [2ea6bce2@unaffiliated/smk] has quit [Changing host]
09:03 -!- smak [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:04 -!- smk [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:04 -!- smak is now known as smk
09:06 -!- oneeman [~oneeman__@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:11 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
09:14 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:17 -!- dEBRUYNE_ is now known as dEBRUYNE
09:18 -!- molz is now known as moli
09:31 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:31 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:31 -!- Guest93922 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
09:32 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-34-102-231.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 43.0.1/20151216175450]]
09:36 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:36 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:39 -!- brianhof_ [~brianhoff@pool-173-79-161-229.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:40 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@185.94.28.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:41 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:41 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:44 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:46 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:46 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:51 -!- supasonic [~supasonic@172-11-188-117.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:51 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:51 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:56 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:56 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:57 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
09:58 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:02 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:02 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:03 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:03 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
10:03 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:04 -!- smk [2ea6bce2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.166.188.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:05 -!- smk [a80135e7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.168.1.53.231] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:06 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:07 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:08 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:12 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:16 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:17 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:21 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:22 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:26 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:27 -!- gentoognuhurd [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
10:27 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:31 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:31 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:32 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:36 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:36 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:37 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:37 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:37 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:39 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:40 -!- yosso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:41 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:41 < yosso> Is being soft-forked the same as SPV security?
10:42 -!- nickler [~nickler@185.12.46.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:43 < oneeman> yosso: no, not related
10:45 < alpalp> yosso: it's providing a bit more security but same idea- you see a block that looks valid but the rest of the network will see as invalid.
10:46 < yosso> So that is very similar to how a miner attacks SPV nodes
10:47 < yosso> Why a bit more then?
10:47 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-82-178.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:48 < alpalp> yosso: an unupgraded node will only miss blocks that break the new rule, where spv nodes could miss any rule.
10:50 < yosso> I see, so in adversarial conditions its practiclly the same
10:50 < alpalp> yosso: its easier to fool an SPV node
10:51 < yosso> alpalp: you mean easier hash-rate wise or techniclly?
10:55 < yosso> I picked up an idea on reddit suggesting hard-forks and a mechanism to detect forks and switch to SPV mode. Was that discussed before?
10:57 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@209.95.51.99] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:58 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@209.95.51.99] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
11:00 < alpalp> technically.  There are more ways to full an SPV node.
11:01 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@71.68.182.216] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 < aj> alpalp: full=fool
11:02 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:03 < yosso> Any thoughts on the idea above? It seem to allow cleaner and more flexable changes while keeping a similar security model
11:03 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
11:04 -!- RedEmerald [~RedEmeral@unaffiliated/redemerald] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
11:04 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:10 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:11 -!- RedEmerald [~RedEmeral@216.240.130.109] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:14 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:16 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rkvwrjytmyhyvnuj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:18 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
11:29 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:36 -!- melvster1 [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:39 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:41 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:48 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
11:49 -!- melvster1 [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- bramc [~bram@99.75.88.206] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:58 -!- yosso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:00 < alpalp> yes sorry fool
12:00 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:00 < alpalp> yosso: can you show the actual idea?
12:03 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:03 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:03 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:07 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:08 < tulip> yosso: no, they are not the same. a node which has missed a soft fork update is secure except in the condition where the opcode which has been soft-forked in is intentionally misused. they validate fees, UTXO spending, and subsidiary amounts safely. a SPV validating wallet like BIP37 essentially does no validation of any rule ever.
12:09 < tulip> right they left, that's an irritating misunderstanding.
12:09 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:10 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:12 -!- yosso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:18 < yosso> tulip: but iḿ talking about adversarial conditions, so it is intentionally misused
12:19 < yosso> alpalp: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3yzcnw/in_a_correctly_functioning_bitcoin_network_no/cyidn5g
12:20 < yosso> alpalp: and https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3yzcnw/in_a_correctly_functioning_bitcoin_network_no/cyiayg0
12:20 < tulip> yosso: SPV security is pretty scary, learning some of the properties of it is useful. with a single block you can defraud a basically unlimited number of users by showing them different parts of a single merkle tree of fraudulent transactions. they have no concept of "maximum transactions in a block", so you can make this pay 100BTC to every address ever used in the Bitcoin block chain.
12:22 < alpalp> why would you ever want to drop to SPV if a hard fork is detected?   the author of that post has had some serious misconceptions in the past, and its posted on a forum full of misconceptions, so its hard to take seriously.
12:22 < tulip> yosso: those comments are basically incorrect. a system where nodes validate blocks, and when they see invalid data they just stop validating completely!?
12:23 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:24 < alpalp> tulip: you *could* do that, it just would be stupid, might as well aways run in SPV mode.
12:25 < tulip> alpalp: it's worse than that, it's running software which is able to detect adversarial conditions on the network, and then disabling the detection of these conditions if a fault is ever found.
12:25 < yosso> well, yes, the hardfork is activated after reaching a theshold of course. so in both cases the unupgraded once have similar security, but the change was not limited by competability issues
12:26 < alpalp> yosso: there is no such thing as a hard fork "reaching a threshold".
12:26 < bramc> In the case where both an add and a remove are in the batch update call, I'm changing the behavior to always be no change, because it's (a) what you want in bitcoin for performance reasons, and (b) fairly reasonable behavior.
12:26 < tulip> yosso: that is not correct. a soft fork *does not* reduce a node to SPV security.
12:26 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-82-178.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:27 < yosso> tulip: in the sense that you see valid block that won be included, it is
12:27 < yosso> blocks
12:28 < tulip> "won"?
12:28 < yosso> alpalp: isnt bip 101 a hard fork "reaching a threshold"
12:28 < yosso> tulip: won´t
12:29 < alpalp> yosso: its a meaningless metric.
12:29 < kanzure>  /win 487
12:29 < tulip> kanzure: close some tabs.
12:29 < tulip> yosso: hashrate is not a measure of anything in a hard fork.
12:29 < kanzure> tulip: never
12:30 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
12:30 < alpalp> I highly suggest not getting information from such poor sources as /r/btc, it's almost always ill-informed and incorrect.
12:32 < tulip> yosso: with a hard fork change all participants who wish to continue using the network (other than people not doing full validation, SPV) *must* upgrade their software or be left behind. the amount of hashrate signalling with a version number is unrelated to this, miners are free to create blocks which are invalid in any way they choose- it's a security property of the network that they are not accepted.
12:33 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:35 < tulip> yossso: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/msg/57099593/
12:35 < yossso> tulip: yes. I understand this suggestion as changing ¨left behind¨ to ¨activate spv mode¨
12:35 -!- yosso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:36 < alpalp> yossso: what is the point of validating if you ignore chains that break the rules?
12:37 < tulip> yossso: "left behind" is the consensus system acting as designed in adversarial conditions. nodes *must reject invalid data* as defined by your local software, if you see incoming data which breaks the consensus rules you don't just disable validation.
12:37 < alpalp> suggestions like these break any security assumptions full nodes have and put Bitcoin to trusting miners blindly.
12:39 < yossso> but once you are soft-forked you can validate all you want, still as the blodks you see might not get included
12:39 < kanzure> that is why you have to wait for confirmations
12:39 < kanzure> (there are many other reasons)
12:40 < yossso> thats the same answer for SPV right?
12:40 < tulip> post soft-fork validation is not the same as SPV validation.
12:40 < yossso> (wait for more confirmations)
12:40 < alpalp> yossso: blocks that get included in a bad chain (even if it has a lot of hashpower) are something you *want* to check against.
12:40 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:41 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:44 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Client Quit]
12:44 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:48 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
12:49 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:50 < yossso> tulip: iḿ not saying its the same. but in both cases a miner can make you see a block that will be soon rejected. I thought thatś the main issue with SPV security. I guess there are other issues.
12:51 < yossso> alpalp: i did not understand
12:51 < tulip> yossso: rejected by who?
12:52 < alpalp> yossso:  if you start detecting blocks you would reject when verifying, why would you want to suddenly start accepting them?
12:53 < yossso> tulip: in the case of SPV - by the whole network (assuming for example an invalid tx) in the case of soft-fork, by anyone that upgraded
12:55 < yossso> alpalp: because (maybe) i see they are ahead version wise
12:57 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
12:57 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 < alpalp> yossso: so why are you ever bothering to validate?  If you just assume if you see a long chain it must be valid, there is no point in validating.
12:58 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:59 < tulip> if there's an invalid block which defrauds you and you accept it, it really doesn't matter what happens after that. you've already lost your money.
13:02 -!- flyonwall [4532b36a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.50.179.106] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 < flyonwall> Yossso you are right.  It is more important to track consensus than adhere to rules like block size limit that don't matter.
13:04 < alpalp> Tracking hashpower is not the same as tracking consensus.
13:05 < alpalp> block size limit is a consensus rule just like verifying signatures.
13:05 < flyonwall> If hash power tries to do something you don't like--like double-spend--then you wouldn't track
13:05 < flyonwall> And chain would be orphaned
13:05 < flyonwall> If it is something you approve--like bigger blocks--then you should follow hash power
13:06 < alpalp> flyonwall: then the blocks follow your rules and you don't need to go to SPV mode.
13:06 < tulip> following proof of work blindly basically breaks the system entirely. the reason that Bitcoin is a distributed consensus is that all nodes have exactly the same validation rules.
13:06 < flyonwall> alpalp: right you care about hash power breaking *your* rules
13:07 < instagibbs> Chris has some pretty bizarre views on wallet security. I spent a decent amount of time trying to convince him what I thought were obvious things.
13:07 < flyonwall> If your rules don't include constraint on block size, then you should support hash power
13:07 < instagibbs> He says pre-CLTV full node is worse than bitcoinj...
13:07 < alpalp> unless hashpower decides to mint more coins per block
13:07 < flyonwall> right--if hash power tried to mint more coins--I would not follow them.
13:08 < flyonwall> Hopefully most other would do the same in order to orphan that blocks
13:08 < alpalp> flyonwall: what yossso is saying is you revert to SPV mode if you detected a long chain that minted more coins
13:08 < alpalp> which is silly
13:08 < flyonwall> I thought he was talking about block size limit.
13:09 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:09 < flyonwall> But I agree that I would not follow hash power if they tried to make more coins than agreed
13:10 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
13:10 < tulip> the system can not operate if participants randomly decide which rules to enforce.
13:11 < tulip> that's an exploitable condition, even.
13:12 < flyonwall> There is strong incentive to track consensus.
13:13 < flyonwall> Besides some node already have different rule sets
13:13 < tulip> you can't know what rules other people are validating.
13:13 -!- smk [a80135e7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.168.1.53.231] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
13:13 < alpalp> there is no mechanism to "track consensus" that is reliable.
13:13 < flyonwall> tulip: agreed.  you can't know for sure
13:13 < tulip> you can't know at all.
13:13 < phantomcircuit> flyonwall, please describe a system for obtaining global consensus on which rules are "correct" that is not vulnerable to a sybil attack
13:14 < flyonwall> Nakamoto consensus
13:14 < tulip> the behaviour you just described, following whatever rules you want, violates that system.
13:15 < phantomcircuit> flyonwall, lol try again, that's a system in which the rules are fixed
13:15 < phantomcircuit> http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/64944579.jpg
13:15 < flyonwall> From BU website: "Consensus is therefore an emergent property, objectively represented by the longest proof-of-work chain."
13:15 < alpalp> was waiting until we got proof this was a bitcoin unlimited crank
13:15 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"]
13:15 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+o phantomcircuit] by ChanServ
13:16 < kanzure> flyonwall: are you aware of the refutations of that work?
13:16 <@phantomcircuit> flyonwall, an appeal to authority is lame, especially when that authority is a joke
13:16 < alpalp> phantomcircuit: appeal to unauthority
13:16 < kanzure> appeal to neutral authority
13:16 < flyonwall> Is bitcoin controlled by the code people freely choose to run or not?
13:17 < alpalp> you are free to run whatever altcoin you want.
13:17 < kanzure> you are also free to not use bitcoin
13:17 < flyonwall> Agreed
13:18 < flyonwall> So if people freely decide to permit larger blocks, and if hash power produces larger blocks, then we get larger blocks
13:18 < kanzure> not in bitcoin
13:18 < flyonwall> Semantics
13:18 < kanzure> what?
13:18 < flyonwall> Bitcoin has no block size limit
13:19 <@phantomcircuit> flyonwall, yes it does, if you want to create altcoin without a limit literally nobody will care
13:19 <@phantomcircuit> just dont call it bitcoin
13:20 < flyonwall> You create an alt coin by enforcing a limit--that changes the economic model that bitcoin has operated under since inception
13:20 < alpalp> now hes just trolling
13:20 < kanzure> have you read the source code?
13:20 < flyonwall> Yes
13:20 < kanzure> are you sure
13:20 < flyonwall> The source code is not bitocin
13:21 < flyonwall> There is no evidence that bitcoin can actually even enforce a block size limit
13:21 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:21 < kanzure> bitcoin core does not seek-and-destroy altcoins. it also doesn't claim to do that.
13:21 < kanzure> so i'm not sure why you are bringing that up
13:22 < flyonwall> Bitcoin is more than just code.  It requires the right economic incentives for people to choose to adhere to the whatever rules are implied by the code
13:22 < kanzure> although, i think it bans peers when the peers continue to send it bad data
13:22 < yossso> So if i understnd correctly, the idea of swithing to SPV mode once youŕe hardfored is the same as following haspower no matter what
13:22 < kanzure> but someone who has worked with the peer protocol will have to correct me on that detail
13:22 < tulip> yossso: that's correct.
13:22 < tulip> kanzure: that's correct.
13:23 < yossso> tulip: ok, got it now :)
13:23 < adam3us> did anyone figure out what BU is proposing? peter__r's previous paper seemed to be not usable in practice, not leading to practically usable observations, because he made a starting assumption which was well established & known to be invalid about game theory.
13:23 < flyonwall> yosso: yes if you do it blindy.  no if you do it only for rules that you don't care about
13:23 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+b *!*@*unaffiliated/kanzure] by phantomcircuit
13:23 <@phantomcircuit> er
13:23 <@phantomcircuit> god damn it
13:24 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [-b *!*@*unaffiliated/kanzure] by phantomcircuit
13:24 < fluffypony> lol
13:24 < alpalp> adam3us: it seems very half baked.  Nodes accept anything and follow hashpower but somehow signal to miners what they "prefer".  miners can ignore or not and do whatever they want.
13:24 < alpalp> lol
13:24 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+b *!*@*.69.50.179.106] by phantomcircuit
13:24  * fluffypony gives kanzure a hug
13:24 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qjhcwkxqltxijmnb] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
13:24 < fluffypony> just in case
13:24 < kanzure> adam3us: his invalid assumptions were not about game theory iirc, but rather that mining centralization was impossible or something
13:24 < kanzure> adam3us: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/cy60r4y
13:24 < kanzure> and https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/cyfluso
13:25 < kanzure> more specifically http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
13:25 < adam3us> kanzure: if I recall he had assumed that there is no work around to orphans arising block transfer latency while we know multiple ways that is an invalid assumption: SPV mining, delegating validation to more centralised pools.
13:26 <@phantomcircuit> adam3us, simply delaying selecting a transaction for inclusion by 60 seconds would massively reduce that effect as well
13:27 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit []
13:28 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: when paired with IBLT or weak-blocks you mean?
13:29 <@phantomcircuit> adam3us, the relay network is enough
13:29 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: true.
13:30 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:31 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:32 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:36 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"]
13:38 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
13:42 -!- flyonwall [4532b36a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.50.179.106] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
13:42 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:44 < adam3us> ok so BU seems to have the weak-blocks & IBLT copied from bitcoin core scaling roadmap.
13:44 < adam3us> https://bitco.in/forum/threads/subchains-and-other-applications-of-weak-blocks.584/#post-7246
13:44 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:45 < kanzure> adam3us: he was using weak blocks to support his false fee market unlimited block size conclusions.
13:45 <@phantomcircuit> adam3us, it's pretty hilarious to watch him argue in a circle
13:46 <@phantomcircuit> "orphan risk will limit block size" -> "orphans are bad we need weak-blocks & IBLT" -> "wait what was that about orphans?"
13:46 < kanzure> adam3us: all of the misunderstandings originate from prior to his weak block paper (where he butchered the proposal that greg informed him about)
13:46 < instagibbs> managed to squeeze in a hate-citation though
13:46 < instagibbs> limited room in the biblio i guess
13:46 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [-o phantomcircuit] by ChanServ
13:46 < phantomcircuit> i really want to know who he's paying to do those animations though
13:46 < phantomcircuit> they're really good
13:47 < kanzure> you mean the one where he conflates block size and transaction capacity and market price and adoption?
13:47 < kanzure> btw, trivial to make lots of fancy animations these days with d3 and other javascript libraries
13:48 < phantomcircuit> kanzure, i mean the ones in the forum post adam3us just linked to
13:50 < kanzure> if they ask for "pdf proof" one more time i think i'll just write down a single sentence about the relay network and pipe that into latex :|
13:50 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: i found it because someone had a link and said if Peter__R leaves Bitcoin he'd have a career as a GIF animator
13:50 < instagibbs> woah those are great
13:51 < adam3us> kanzure: I was thinking the same. iddo wrote up a 2 page research note to capture publishing first to an improved fair coin toss. something like that'd do the trick. but this one could be far shorter. a sentence and QED.
13:52 < adam3us> kanzure: maybe you could submit it to the ledger journal :)
13:52 < kanzure> we can throw 30 or something coauthors on it
13:52 < kanzure> would be amusing
13:55 < adam3us> kanzure: apparently there are papers from CERN that have multipage author sheets :)
13:55 -!- Guest25__ [~textual@pool-96-232-179-126.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:57 < kanzure> i wonder where i can find the latex template for that
14:01 -!- amiller [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 < adam3us> one author would be enough i suspect.
14:04 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:09 < adam3us> uh there are downloads on bitcoin-unlimited. what does it do?
14:10 < Eliel_> I guess it's a fork of Bitcoin without a block size limit.
14:12 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
14:12 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
14:12 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:14 -!- amiller [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:16 < alpalp> from what I understand in its current state it basically is command line options to set the block limit independently.
14:16 < alpalp> Gavin did some very basic code review of it and basically said in the nicest manner that it was garbage code
14:16 < alpalp> but its a lot of hand-wavy "the market will decide" stuff
14:17 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:19 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 < bramc> When I first started digging into bitcoin one of my central questions was 'what is there to stop someone from doing a DoS by creating lots of transactions?' The answer, of course, is the block size limit, which is ugly, functional, and completely necessary
14:20 < dgenr8> BU currently has no features, other than what alpalp describes.  the idea seems to be to create an organization, which then creates software as a side-effect. old school.
14:22 < alpalp> in the end, miners will end up limiting blocksize to maximize revenue - right now doesnt matter
14:23 < phantomcircuit> alpalp, i doubt it
14:24 < dgenr8> bramc: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008516.html
14:24 < alpalp> phantomcircuit: very long term when subsidy is low - cartel behavior will dictate a restriction of supply to increase price
14:25 < phantomcircuit> alpalp, that only works if there's pretty extreme centralization in mining
14:26 < alpalp> im not sure thats true if they can signal and soft fork to punish cheaters
14:26 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:27 < alpalp> the problem with cartels is a lack of enforcement against cheaters
14:28 < bramc> alpalp, miners have trouble restricting the supply of transactions because their incentives are very strongly to cheat
14:28 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:28 < alpalp> bramc: I believe you are referring to restricting through a soft limit rather than an orphaning strategy
14:29 < alpalp> with that I agree 100%
14:29 < alpalp> of course much of this depends on the elasticity of price demand
14:29 < bramc> alpalp, In the very long term either transaction fees will go up or bitcoin will fall into obscurity
14:30 < alpalp> bramc: aggregate fees?
14:30 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:30 < bramc> alpalp, Don't know what you're asking
14:30 < alpalp> the total transaction fees collected vs. price.
14:30 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:31 < alpalp> it may be the case that the fee paid today remains constant, # of transactions go up.  Or fee goes up, #transactions constant, or something between.  All would be economically feasible
14:31 < dgenr8> replacing the cheapest tx in a block with a higher fee gives miner benefit = newfee - oldfee.  allowing the extra tx instead gives benefit = oldfee
14:31 < bramc> dgenr8, Let's do a long term permanent reduction in bitcoin's security by a factor of 2! That will fix everything!
14:31 < alpalp> the point is miners can quite easily set an artificial supply limit as a cartel and punish anyone who disobeys through orphaning, so long as they had reason to believe the majority would go along.
14:33 < alpalp> dgner8: except its not isolated that much.  An artificial restriction in space allows for those to pay closer to what they value the transaction being included at, rather than the cost to produce.
14:33 < phantomcircuit> alpalp, as bramc said the incentive to cheat even with a soft fork is very very strong
14:34 < dgenr8> bramc: that assumes facts not in evidence regarding security as a function of blocksize
14:34 < bramc> dgenr8, He's proposing making half of all fees go into the bitbucket, and long term security is directly based off the value of fees
14:35 < alpalp> phantomcircuit: i disagree but there is not much to do other than speculate.  risk of disobeying is high, benefit of including a few extra transactions is on the lower side.  But game theory will dictate it.  If miners can have a high level of confidence in a large amount of agreement (say 75% even), then the orphan risk is significant.
14:35 < alpalp> but game theory in these situations are complex and hard to predict perfectly, i will certainly admit that
14:38 < bramc> dgenr8, I have no idea why he think that would help as an anti-spam measure. In the current system there's a hack in place where the number of active transactions can't be greater than the number of utxos and the priority of each transaction is age * size, which works well enough for now but is a strictly temporary hack
14:39 < dgenr8> bramc: I agree raystonn's solution is not attractive.  i was just highlighting that fees are a general spam deterrent.  De-incentivizing unconfirmed chains somehow is a better way to address miner spam
14:41 < bramc> dgenr8, I've been most public about bluntly stating that mining fees are the one true way of deterring transaction spam, so no need to convince me of that. Not sure what you mean about unconfirmed chains. Of course mining old chains gets you orphaned immediately these days.
14:41 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:43 < alpalp> bramc: unconfirmed chains of transactions.  Z spends Y which spends X which spends W which spends ... A
14:44 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:44 < alpalp> adds a lot to the mempool of nodes
14:45 -!- ratbanebo [~ratbanebo@2a02:1812:1515:2400:60f8:594:8272:701f] has quit []
14:45 < bramc> alpalp, The fix is for mempools to have a fixed size and drop things whose fee/byte is too low. Child pays does complicate that logic a lot.
14:45 < raedah> bramc, when I think of spam I dont think if too many active transactions. I think of low value transactions that are bloating the size of the blockchain and using the collective storage resource.
14:46 < bramc> raedah, That's what I'm referring to as well. Whether the transactions are created out of malice or inconsideration is besides the point.
14:47 < dgenr8> bramc: bingo.  also i like child-alone-pays-for-all-parents. that would really favor not building chains, while still allowing it with higher fees or waiting for parents to confirm
14:47 < phantomcircuit> alpalp, it depends entirely on how large the reduction is of course
14:49 < bramc> phantomcircuit, That's an interesting question: If x% of the network decided to orphan blocks which weren't at least y% small, how big would x have to be for a given y? And once it was globally enforced, could you repeat the pattern again?
14:49 < alpalp> bramc: you still need to get that data at some point to compare, which can be a ddos.
14:49 < bramc> alpalp, What data? I don't know what you're trying to say.
14:49 < raedah> There are two justifications for the blocksize limit, neither of which make sense to me. One, to prevent DoS, but no one has shown what this attack is or why a blocksize limit would prevent it rather then some other measure. Second, to create a fee market, to which I say, why dont miners just create smaller blocks and devs can provide miners with better transaction inclusion algos.
14:49 < alpalp> the transactions to compare to the mempool to see if they have enough fees
14:50 < bramc> phantomcircuit, I'm not going to work out the details though, because evil people don't need any more help.
14:50 < alpalp> phantomcircuit: It depends a lot on the demand curve and elasticity and how long term they are thinking.
14:51 < dgenr8> alpalp: You switched away from the miner perspective. My point is, to maximize total fees, a miner should prefer 1 more tx, rather than a higher fee on the last tx.  Given the choice.
14:51 < bramc> raedah, Better transaction including algorithms, and related ecosystem things like replace by fee, are very much an active area of work.
14:52 < bramc> dgenr8, I haven't thought through all the edge cases of child pays. It sounds migraine inducing.
14:54 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:55 < alpalp> dgenr8: that's incorrect though.  miners have marginal costs and if you can increase the fee everyone pays, that adds up * # of transactions.
14:55 < alpalp> this is econ 101 stuff tho
14:55 < alpalp> peter r might even be competent at that
14:56 < dgenr8> alpalp: econ 101 says you cannot increase the fees everyone pays. only what is paid at the margin.
14:58 < dgenr8> peter r goes the next step, and asks what stops this logic from implying an infinite blocksize
14:58 < raedah> dgenr8, block transfer time obviously
15:00 -!- yossso [~yosso@31.210.188.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:00 < adam3us> raedah no. if miners mine on a pool there is no block-transfer time to themselves
15:01 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:01 < adam3us> raedah: similar if they use SPV mining, which the 4th jul fork showed over 50% were doing
15:01 < raedah> adam3us, the miner would never finish creating the infinite sized block, and would never transfer it to the rest of the bitcoin network.
15:02 < adam3us> raedah: similar for relay network which does network compression and is used by big portion of hashrate today.
15:02 -!- STRML [~STRML@unaffiliated/strml] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:02 < raedah> adam3us, SPV mining, or not validating blocks, is itself a security problem.
15:02 < adam3us> raedah: think somewhere between 1MB and infinite. say 1GB. i dont have to validate blocks i create - i created them.
15:03 < adam3us> raedah: right one with no known solution that unlimited blocks makes catastrophic
15:03 < raedah> adam3us, doesnt matter if the creator doesnt validate. If the rest of the network doesnt accept the block, its irrelevant.
15:04 -!- STRML [~STRML@unaffiliated/strml] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:04 < instagibbs> raedah, why would you not accept the block? everyone else is accepting it. Probably. Maybe phone a friend?
15:04 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:04 < adam3us> raedah: there are two thresholds: tolerable transfer for orphan risk; and tolerable transfer for data center hosted full nodes. the latter can receive the block in 10mins. the former wants it in < 5 seconds.
15:04 < phantomcircuit> instagibbs, lol
15:05 < raedah> instagibbs, yes, thats the directoin I was thinking. Sync up with economic peers on valid chain.
15:05 < instagibbs> I bet bc.i will tell me what the leading block is
15:05 < adam3us> raedah: SPV nodes do not validate blocks. this trend pushes most users to SPV
15:06 < instagibbs> raedah, i was kidding. It kind of devolves into phone-a-friend which is a completely different security model.
15:07 < raedah> adam3us, i thought it was already determined that spv was bad practice for any important node. obivous bad to accept invalid transactions.
15:07 < raedah> instagibbs, the existing protocol already requires peers.  just strangers, not friends.
15:07 < adam3us> raedah: the security fo the network depends on a reasonable proportion of economically dependent full nodes validating
15:08 < instagibbs> raedah, except I have to guess out of band if other people are following a block due to block size/validation vost, versus now.
15:08 < raedah> instagibbs, actually you can define ip connections, but you cant prioritize agreement with their values.
15:08 < adam3us> raedah: evidently > 50% of the network at times is SPV mining. they can do that at any block-size below that which causes even transfer to backup across 10mins.
15:09 < instagibbs> #bitcoin level stuff tbh
15:15 -!- oneeman [~oneeman__@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:15 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:38 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:42 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:43 < kanzure> a46d0242496012179297ec6276865dcb609cfeef5164db95030b76c40cd75cd7
15:44 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:45 < bramc> kanzure, No private keys in the channel please
15:48 < kanzure> nah it's just a hash of an email i sent to george church
15:53 -!- DougieBot5000_ [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:54 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:55 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:56 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Killed (holmes.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
15:56 -!- DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000
15:56 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
15:56 -!- argh_ [~grantsmit@192.99.111.17] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:57 -!- ggreer [~ggreer@unaffiliated/angryparsley] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
15:57 -!- BlueMatt_ [~BlueMatt@mail.bluematt.me] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:57 -!- luke-jr_ [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 -!- kisspunch_ [~za3k@za3k.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
15:58 -!- ggreer [~ggreer@2604:a880:1:20::d:2001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 -!- jlyndon_ [sid10913@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kiaxmgwzjriukscf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:58 -!- lomax___ [sid52157@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fahbzdhxaxovulqy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:59 -!- mhanne_ [~mhanne@static.221.89.251.148.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:59 -!- s1w [~s1w@128.199.100.16] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:59 < brg444> Happy new year to the wizards! Thank you for all the hard work and resilience you've shown throughout last year. I'm hopeful 2016 will prove to everyone how right and just you were in hindsight. Keep cooking the good stuff! Cheers
15:59 -!- s1w is now known as Guest5401
15:59 -!- bitkarma_ [sid124593@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-llkuorxqrguxefmd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- kaptah [kaptah@hilla.kapsi.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- artifexd_ [sid28611@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kfuomngpzzcfktba] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- null_rad- [Elite7851@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-ukjjuladulabefwm] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- s1w- [~s1w@unaffiliated/someoneweird] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- lomax__ [sid52157@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fyqhhdnvncdblpng] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- jlyndon [sid10913@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-etapimwbdnrejcft] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- kisspunch [~za3k@za3k.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-180-214.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- mhanne [~mhanne@static.221.89.251.148.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-poheizepziobufjw] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- tucenaber_ [~tucenaber@o144.231.lokis.net.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- Xzibit17 [sid50165@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gshrtjzqqprwwquz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- bitkarma [sid124593@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wzksljhbfbftsezp] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- artifexd [sid28611@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rifpgxarymdcofrx] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- xaptah [kaptah@hilla.kapsi.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- jl2012 [uid133844@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-trhtorftkbpynnkn] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- null_radix [Elite7851@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-yzhjjkbdekoxhiuh] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- aj [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tdxbvyvvhpdrdsma] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ocnbthvrchebcjdp] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- CodeShark [uid126576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qeenomxiovgfzlky] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- harrow [~harrow@2607:5300:100:200::160d] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- jrayhawk_ [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- PsychoticBoy [sid27029@pdpc/supporter/active/psychoticboy] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- kisspunch_ is now known as kisspunch
16:00 -!- tromp [~tromp@rtc35-246.rentec.com] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
16:00 -!- aj [~aj@106.187.51.212] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has quit [Changing host]
16:00 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sqgczzaoepxroayo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- lomax___ is now known as lomax__
16:00 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-reolowbjuqfxcdck] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- jl2012 [uid133844@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uwixjgxomtvwwowu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- tromp [~tromp@rtc35-246.rentec.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- tucenaber_ [~tucenaber@o144.231.lokis.net.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- bitkarma_ is now known as bitkarma
16:01 -!- mr_burdell [~mr_burdel@unaffiliated/mr-burdell/x-7609603] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:01 -!- jrayhawk [~jrayhawk@unaffiliated/jrayhawk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:02 -!- mr_burdell [~mr_burdel@unaffiliated/mr-burdell/x-7609603] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:02 < bramc> This is only half written and what code is there is horribly buggy, but here you go: https://github.com/bramcohen/MerkleSet
16:02 -!- grantsmith [~grantsmit@unaffiliated/grantsmith] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in]
16:03 < bramc> There's some decent documentation of the data format at the top of the file
16:03 -!- jlyndon_ is now known as jlyndon
16:03 -!- harrow [~harrow@105.ip-167-114-152.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:03 < adam3us> brg444: happy retarget year 2016
16:03 -!- artifexd_ is now known as artifexd
16:03 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
16:04 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:04 -!- CodeShark [uid126576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nglcwhpxelrpqsxg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:04 < adam3us> so are people assuming with weak-blocks that there is any consensus enforceability of the weak blocks?
16:04 < brg444> adam3us thanks! to you as well. also thank you for always being the voice of sanity.
16:05 < bramc> adam3us, enforceability of what? Their acceptance threshold?
16:05 < alpalp> adam3us: i made that mistake the first time
16:05 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:05 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:05 < kanzure> bramc: booga booga?
16:06 < adam3us> bramc: no BU seems to claim weak-blocks improve unconfirm tx security. but it seems to me the strong-block has no obligation to build on a weak block for similar reasons to IBLT being not secure in an adversarial sense
16:06 -!- PsychoticBoy [sid27029@pdpc/supporter/active/psychoticboy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:07 < bramc> adam3us, My inclination is to stop listening at 'unconfirmed transaction security'
16:07 < adam3us> it seems the main use of weak-blocks is to provide a despammed indication of what the network is mining which is in no way a guarantee of what will be in the next full block. eg i could mine one spend in a weak-block and then switch to double-spending it without penalty
16:08 < bramc> kanzure, I always use that for writeme, because it's unambiguously syntactically invalid in Python. I don't know why I've always used that word.
16:08 < adam3us> bramc: well that too. just trying to figure out if their logic makes sense modulo that being very best-effort
16:09 < kanzure> bramc: https://github.com/bramcohen/MerkleSet/pull/1
16:10 -!- raedah [~raedah@172.56.39.215] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
16:10 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ippniklgzbuhhlum] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:10 -!- Xzibit17 [sid50165@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tgmqsbpgjqghkpfd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:12 -!- asyncsrc [~textual@71.68.182.216] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:12 < bramc> kanzure, thanks
16:14 -!- luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
16:16 -!- arowser_ [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:16 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:16 < bramc> adam3us, If you have the logic in place that in the case of two real blocks arriving near each other in time the one with more weak blocks wins then weak blocks do increase the epsilon of security by some percentage
16:16 -!- ggreer [~ggreer@2604:a880:1:20::d:2001] has quit [Changing host]
16:16 -!- ggreer [~ggreer@unaffiliated/angryparsley] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:18 < dgenr8> adam3us: you do have to be a miner, making it similar to a Finney attack
16:18 < adam3us> bramc: that would create progress in proof of work and break level playing field.
16:18 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:19 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:19 < bramc> adam3us, It actually helps in defending against withholding attacks and I think overall makes things better for small miners.
16:19 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:20 < bramc> adam3us, although a strong argument can be made that it should only work as an overrule if one beats the other by too much and they arrive very close in time
16:20 < bramc> Like, if a block arrives 5 seconds after the other but has 2 weak blocks on it then it wins.
16:21 < adam3us> bramc: maybe. its pretty hard to get confidence in correctness of game-theory arising from rearranging or complicating consensus rules. most things end up worse or more complex to insufficient gain.
16:22 < adam3us> bramc: a big miner could withhold weak-blocks more effectively and predictably as it has more hashrate.
16:22 -!- BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
16:22 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@mail.bluematt.me] has quit [Changing host]
16:22 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:23 < bramc> adam3us, Oh yeah, I hadn't thought about that.
16:23 < adam3us> bramc: anyway i guess you are trying to repair something that is probably broken in the BU paper. i dont see such a rule, it's just a non-adversarial "miners are nice and cooperate" kind of argument i think.
16:24 < kanzure> adam3us: surely you have seen the broken transaction fee market paper from the same author?
16:25 -!- Guest25__ [~textual@pool-96-232-179-126.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
16:25 < adam3us> kanzure: i skimmed enough to spot the input assumption mistake.
16:26 < kanzure> ok.
16:35 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-139-55-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:42 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
16:50 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:52 < JackH> I am trying to manually add nodes in bitcoin-qt under the console window, but the addnode "ipaddr" doesnt seem to wrok
16:52 < JackH> any suggestion?
16:53 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- lobito [~lobito@190.177.197.164] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:56 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:57 < JackH> you guys dont have to spam me with suggestions, I need time to read it all
16:57 < JackH> ;)
16:58 < alpalp> jackH: wrong channel, try #bitcoin
16:59 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xjllxcymstuxjmlc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:59 < JackH> ahh wait, this one worked
17:00 < JackH> addnode "ipaddr" "add"
17:01 < JackH> hmm this is odd, the node is added
17:01 < JackH> but it doesnt show up the connected peers list
17:01 < bramc> JackH, Seriously, please ask those things in #bitcoin that's the appropriate channel for such questions
17:18 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-111-106.cablep.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:31 -!- ielo [~ielo@fl-74-4-197-157.dhcp.embarqhsd.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:31 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
17:32 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@185.94.28.254] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:34 -!- brianhof_ [~brianhoff@pool-173-79-161-229.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:39 -!- smk [6dc99aab@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.201.154.171] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:43 -!- smk [6dc99aab@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.201.154.171] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:45 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:59 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@178-157-152.dynamic.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:00 -!- paleh0rse [~opet@108.61.68.151] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:00 -!- paleh0rse [~opet@108.61.68.151] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:24 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:27 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:36 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:37 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:43 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:44 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:47 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
19:22 < kanzure> firm soft-forks, firm hard-forks, extension blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3z0u1b/is_there_a_possible_grand_unified_theory_of/cyikuwy
19:48 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:49 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:49 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:49 < bramc> I continue to maintain that sticking with soft forks is working just fine
19:51 < bramc> My prediction for bitcoin in 2016: Lots of good engineering, continuing sideways movement on consumer adoption
19:54 -!- Guest80587 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:58 -!- lobito [~lobito@190.177.197.164] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:04 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-reolowbjuqfxcdck] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
20:23 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:24 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:26 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:26 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:31 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:33 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:33 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-139-55-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:35 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:37 -!- Pasha [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:44 -!- Pasha is now known as Cory
20:47 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:47 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:09 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:09 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:15 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
21:30 -!- ielo [~ielo@fl-74-4-197-157.dhcp.embarqhsd.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:36 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xjllxcymstuxjmlc] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
21:49 -!- Peter_R_ [187229ce@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.114.41.206] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:50 < Peter_R_> My prediction for 2016: Continued decentralization of development.
22:06 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@pool-100-0-88-99.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:08 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@pool-100-0-88-99.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Client Quit]
22:25 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
22:31 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:99fb:fa01:f88f:b54c] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:41 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:41 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
22:46 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-34-102-231.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:52 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vkkkanddgzkasdcv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:55 -!- Guest80587 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
22:57 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:08 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:30 -!- Peter_R_ [187229ce@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.114.41.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:35 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@178-157-152.dynamic.cyta.gr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:41 -!- pozitrono [~nu@109.201.143.40] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:47 -!- Guest44384 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:59 < midnightmagic> my prediction for that IP address is about to come to pass
--- Log closed Sat Jan 02 00:00:53 2016