--- Log opened Sat Jan 02 00:00:53 2016
00:02 < fluffypony> midnightmagic: what was the prediction?
00:10 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-180-214.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:15 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:16 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:26 -!- Guest44384 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:37 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:99fb:fa01:f88f:b54c] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:44 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:05 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:10 -!- pozitrono [~nu@109.201.143.40] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:14 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:24 -!- p15 [~p15@34.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:27 -!- Guest44327 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:32 -!- Guest44327 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
01:36 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ZZZzzz…]
01:37 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:38 -!- bramc [~bram@99.75.88.206] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
01:40 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:45 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: leaving]
01:45 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:52 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rkvwrjytmyhyvnuj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
01:53 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:53 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:02 < eamonnw> im guessing censorship
02:03 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:11 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:14 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vkkkanddgzkasdcv] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:36 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:37 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:37 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
02:42 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fefgykkmgmgbihln] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:43 -!- arowser_ [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
02:44 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:52 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@178-157-152.dynamic.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:53 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:58 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
02:59 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:02 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@f055170050.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:03 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@f055170050.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Changing host]
03:03 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:03 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Client Quit]
03:03 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:09 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:47 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gzudhrvoyumzjjph] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:47 -!- Guest33826 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:59 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:10 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
04:15 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:15 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:99fb:fa01:f88f:b54c] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:21 -!- Guest33826 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:26 -!- Guest88082 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:38 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:39 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:55 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
05:06 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
05:18 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:22 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:22 -!- brg444 [18257df2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.37.125.242] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:35 -!- SgtStroopwafel [~Chuck@s5597aba6.adsl.online.nl] has quit [Quit: Fuck, SgtStroopwafel is down!]
05:46 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:51 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:55 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:56 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:56 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
06:07 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kztjkotjfihddbwi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
06:24 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:27 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
06:29 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:31 -!- satoshifanclub [6d4f1bb1@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.79.27.177] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:34 -!- p15 [~p15@34.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:38 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
06:38 -!- skyraider [6c4b4069@gateway/web/freenode/ip.108.75.64.105] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:40 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:40 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Client Quit]
06:47 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:49 -!- Guest88082 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:49 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:00 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:16 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:17 -!- satoshifanclub [6d4f1bb1@gateway/web/freenode/ip.109.79.27.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
07:28 -!- skyraider [6c4b4069@gateway/web/freenode/ip.108.75.64.105] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
07:32 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:43 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
07:47 -!- amiller [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:47 -!- amiller is now known as Guest80305
07:54 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:56 -!- SgtStroopwafel [~Chuck@s5597aba6.adsl.online.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:56 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:00 -!- AndChat|361524 [~AndChat36@104-54-235-28.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:01 -!- AndChat|361524 [~AndChat36@104-54-235-28.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit]
08:04 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gzudhrvoyumzjjph] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
08:04 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@pool-173-73-105-60.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:05 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gyrivhsmjlyiijxu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:10 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@pool-173-73-105-60.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:11 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@pool-173-73-105-60.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:16 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kztjkotjfihddbwi] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
08:21 -!- Guest80305 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
08:25 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
08:25 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:32 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
08:42 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:42 -!- dignork [~dignork@unaffiliated/dignork] has quit [Quit: gone]
08:45 -!- dignork [~dignork@unaffiliated/dignork] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:47 -!- ielo [~ielo@fl-74-4-197-157.dhcp.embarqhsd.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:52 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
08:54 -!- ielo [~ielo@fl-74-4-197-157.dhcp.embarqhsd.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:09 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:12 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
09:12 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-139-55-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:16 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qollzjycfhidwbwf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:23 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@pool-173-73-105-60.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:32 -!- Guest27263 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:43 -!- Guest27263 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:47 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:47 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:47 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:50 -!- giel__ [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:53 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
09:53 -!- giel__ is now known as gielbier
09:53 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Changing host]
09:53 -!- gielbier [~giel____@unaffiliated/gielbier] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:58 -!- el33th4x0r [68e5aa14@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.104.229.170.20] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:02 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:02 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xjxhgxeqbqsikclw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:17 -!- Quent1 [~Quent@unaffiliated/quent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:17 < Quent1> test
10:18 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 < Quent1> we can discus here too adam3us, although I would have preferred a forum where the discussion does not fleet away as on irc
10:19 < Quent1> maybe you are now much aware about bitcointalk, but they do censor and feverishly unfortunately, that is why other forums had to be created, such as bitco.in/forum
10:19 < Quent1> it is unfortunate that in 2015 we have had so much, but never in a forum, accessible, space, where the conversation can continue and the points narrowed down so reaching a public agreement
10:19 < Quent1> I think it is time we do so...
10:21 < Quent1> unless you'd rather continue with twitter propaganda or feel safe only in censored spaces adam3us
10:22 < Taek> This channel is logged, all discussion persists. Please refrain from being inflammatory
10:23 < Quent1> and there you go...
10:23 < Quent1> threat of censorship before the discussion has even began...
10:24 < Quent1> if you are honest adam3us and not only engaging in propaganda come to an open, uncensored, free and accessible space, make a thread on bitco.in/forum and we can tackle all the issues in regards to the blocksize question in one continuous conversation, rather than politicking on tweeter or censored spaces
10:25 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:27 < Quent1> you can't refuse it... you know what that would say to all, including your supporters
10:28 -!- kyluke [~kyluke@8ta-150-2-55.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:28 < Taek> Quent1: if you wish to discuss about theoretical ideas with regards to cryptocurrencies, please state the ideas and elaborate on them. Everything you have said so far is off topic.
10:29 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:29 < Quent1> Taek, adam3us invited me here, mind putting down your hammer?
10:30 < Quent1> and not threaten me...
10:30 < Quent1> anyway
10:30 < brg444> I kept track of the discussion. AFAIK he invited you to discuss technical matters wrt BU
10:30 -!- giel__ [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:30 < Taek> you are welcome here, just stay on topic. I have no administrative power here
10:32 -!- kyluke [~kyluke@8ta-150-2-55.telkomadsl.co.za] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:32 < adam3us> Quent1: see also https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.new#new
10:32 < Quent1> yes, the censored space...
10:33 -!- gielbier [~giel____@unaffiliated/gielbier] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:33 < Quent1> it is run by theymos afterall, I am not sure what you think your choice of posting a thread there tells everyone adam3us
10:34 < kanzure> can you elaborate why you think your complaints about "censorship" are likely to improve the technical quality of discussion about BU here?
10:34 < Quent1> especially when theymos has already invoked power in an academic debate
10:34 < adam3us> Quent1: stop talking about censorship real or perceived, and talk about how BU works.
10:35 < kanzure> do you think that "censorship" for some reason modulates the integrity of refutations? in particular, which integrity violation are you thinking of?
10:35 < Quent1> if you worried about security, game theory, etc, then lets discuss this in an uncensored, free and accessible forum, where the discussion continues beyond 10 minutes or just one day...
10:36 < Quent1> adam3us, I'm not going to talk in soundbites. Irc is not the right place for indepth discussion of complex matters, nor is reddit, nor is irc, nor is bitcointalk because it is censored
10:36 < adam3us> then use https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.new#new i believe gmaxwell is the moderator and he's not going to delete a tech discussion for sure.
10:36 < kanzure> to be more specific, it is more useful and productive to provide details rather than inflammation. if you are unwilling to do this then why are you here at all? :-)
10:36 < Quent1> hence my invite to come to bitco.in/forum
10:36 < Quent1> not sure why you scared to do so?
10:36 < Quent1> anyone can sign up...
10:36 < Quent1> it's open to all and NO one will be censored
10:36 < Quent1> unless obvious spam etc
10:37 < adam3us> Quent1: i am hesitant to participate in that forum for reasons given on bitcointalk.
10:37 < kanzure> irc is perfectly fine for complex topic discussion. happens all the time.
10:37 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:37 < adam3us> if you want to say that gmaxwell would censor a technical discussion, I do not believe you.
10:37 < adam3us> actually many highly complex things were invented on this channel.
10:37 < Quent1> I don't think your thread on bitcointalk gives any explenation as to why you hesitate to come to bitco.in/forum
10:38 < kanzure> Quent1: because he doesn't need to give a reason.
10:38 < Quent1> it instead expresses a somewhat confused understanding of BU
10:38 < adam3us> Quent1: "The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out."
10:38 < brg444> Quent1 clear it up for us!
10:38 < Quent1> adam3us, the blocksize question is not only technical
10:39 < adam3us> "Perhaps they could start by explaining what it is & how it works.  This might include unimplemented ideas, and a summary of what the code currently for download on the manifesto page does."
10:39 < Quent1> it is also echonomical
10:39 < Quent1> I want an open space accessible to all...
10:39 < Quent1> an interdisciplinary approach
10:39 < adam3us> ofc, go faster - people on here are bitcoin wizards - tech details pls.
10:39 < Quent1> bitcoin is cash, that's economics, not just some code
10:39 < Quent1> alright
10:39 < Quent1> I'll just have to publicly call you to there on reddit...
10:40 < Quent1> it seems clear you are somewhat scared to engage
10:40 < Quent1> so...
10:40 < kanzure> so no tech details are forthcoming in this conversation?
10:40 < Quent1> maybe you can publicly refuse
10:40 < adam3us> Quent1: are you going to post something technical or what?
10:40 < brg444> welp
10:40 < Quent1> fleeting irc is not a place to discuss what we have been discussing for 6 months
10:40 < adam3us> Quent1: why is it such a redline for you that i should volunteer my time to help you and i have to do it on your terms on your forum so you can control the narrative and pick the audience?
10:40 < Quent1> I don't want to go on an endless loop...
10:41 < brg444> Clearly BU is based on economical motives but can we make an attempt to verify if it does what it claims on a technical basis?
10:41 < kanzure> btw, i think that phantomcircuit nailed the nail on the head yesterday with his statement regarding no method of coming to consensus regarding consensus rules themselves (e.g. especially because of lack of sybil resistance for deciding consensus rules for sybil resistance in the first place). but i think that other network effects are still productive here.
10:41 < Quent1> I want full considerations of the matter, in an accesible manner to all and where the debate does not just die in 10 minutes or 1 day and we just repeat what we said yesterday
10:41 < Quent1> a forum is the place for that
10:41 < brg444> Does it take several days for people to get a grasp of BU?
10:41 < Quent1> bitcointalk is censored... hence not the right forum
10:41 < kanzure> tech details are correct/incorrect independent of the forum or medium they are posted in
10:41 < adam3us> Quent1: people quote IRC wizards logs years later because it is where things are often invented
10:42 < kanzure> economics is not a special case
10:42 < Quent1> bitco.in/forum is not censored, thus we can have a rational, academic, interdisciplinary approach, between coders, economists, etc, and continue the debate, until we reach the end point
10:42 < adam3us> Quent1: either post on bitcointalk or here but you've kind of got us in suspense here
10:42 < Quent1> I will to only explain what BU is
10:43 < kanzure> how about this, quent1 can post his tech details on bitco.in, then he can link us to his posts (or he can copy/paste). that way, if he is "censored", his content is still available through the medium he prefers.
10:43 < adam3us> Quent1: we dont want an advertisement for a project forum - you wanted review, so lets get to it
10:43 < Quent1> Bitcoin Unlimited is an interdisciplinary approach to the blocksize question, it is bottom up, after taking into consideration the many points that have been raised in 2015 and it brings an insight
10:43 < Quent1> miners do not want too high a limit
10:43 < adam3us> Quent1: please understand it is extremely common in projects that people make their own forum so they can control the narrative.
10:43 < Quent1> the economy does not want too low a limit
10:43 < kanzure> the economy wants a lot of things :-)
10:44 < Quent1> thus the limit should be just above demand, but demand moves, so the limit should be movable too
10:44 -!- coinoperated [~coinopera@c-73-163-103-87.hsd1.dc.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:44 < Quent1> we propose a way whereby consensus can be reached by all participants without an interveening third party
10:44 < Quent1> and without any centralised controll or suggestion
10:44 < adam3us> Quent1: nullc	proposed this a while back - have you read the flex-cap proposal as written up by maaku he presented on it at scaling bitcoin HK
10:44 < Quent1> by moving the limit from the centralised protocol layer to the transport layer
10:45 < Quent1> the miners therefore can communicate the limit of the blocks they will accept
10:45 < kanzure> Quent1: believe it or not, consensus among "all known participants" is not a hard problem. it's also not the problem that bitcoin solves.
10:45 < Quent1> according to game theory, the miners will rally around focal points
10:45 < Quent1> currently that focal point is 2mbs
10:45 < alpalp> they have rallied around focal points: experts of Bitcoin :)
10:45 < Quent1> therefore the miners start by signing their blocks with will accept blocks only up to 2mb
10:46 < Quent1> once some 95% of them so sign their blocks
10:46 < Quent1> all miners know it is safe to create a 1.1mb block for example
10:46 < adam3us> Quent1: they wouldnt really need to sign as the PoW is a signature
10:46 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:46 < Quent1> yes, they just communicating it
10:46 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@67-5-247-11.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:46 < Quent1> telling others, so others know what the limit the accept is...
10:47 < kanzure> if bitcoin consensus would have worked without a coordination protocol then there's no reason to bother with bitcoin software at all
10:47 < Quent1> now common sense would say miners would keep their limit just above actual demand or thereabout
10:47 < Quent1> now for example the limit would be 2mb - so they just gui menu configure the option from 1mb to 2mb
10:47 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:47 < Quent1> once demand picks up
10:47 < alpalp> Quent1: can you define what you mean by "actual demand"?
10:47 < Quent1> then the miners increase it to 3mb,
10:47 < adam3us> Quent1: how is this different from bip 100?
10:47 < Quent1> and so on
10:47 < Quent1> bip100 limited the choice to miners alone
10:48 < Quent1> BU includes the economy
10:48 < brg444> right, I thought it had to do with individual nodes?
10:48 < Quent1> as in all node operators set their own limit
10:48 < Quent1> miners therefore can not play games
10:48 < brg444> and then... miners pick a number?
10:48 < Quent1> because they have to consider not only what limit other miners accept
10:48 < adam3us> Quent1: but node operators are not miners and so their vote is not securely communicable
10:48 < Quent1> but also what limit the businesses accept
10:48 < alpalp> Quent1: So if I kick off 5000 nodes and say I want maximum 100KB blocks, miners see that somehow?
10:48 < Quent1> adam3us, by node operators I meant miners
10:49 < Quent1> that's the basics of BU
10:49 < Quent1> it is difficult for us to project what the blocksize should be
10:49 < adam3us> Quent1: so how is that including the economy? (vs addition to bip 100 including only miners)
10:49 < brg444> Are you sure of that? Peter R seems to propose it empowers individual node owners, as in -not- miners
10:49 < Quent1> should it be 8mb in 4 years? how do we know
10:49 < Quent1> should it be 8gb in 20 years? we have no clue
10:49 < kanzure> brg444: better to use his name (rizun)
10:50 < Quent1> should it be 1mb right now? well there is unanimous agreement that it should not
10:50 < Quent1> BU just brings the choice to the free market
10:50 < Quent1> but in such a way as to perserve consensus
10:50 < Quent1> and security
10:50 < brg444> Wait a minute
10:50 < kanzure> but you just said that it was miners only
10:50 < brg444> Let's backtrack things up a bit. You just said miners only decide
10:50 < brg444> how is that the free market?
10:50 < Quent1> now, adam3us, come to bitco.in forum and lets have a real, academic, discussion
10:50 < kanzure> brg444: it's the free market for those particular miner's block space :P
10:50 < adam3us> Quent1: are you familiar with BIP 100?
10:50 < Quent1> I invite all others to do so too
10:51 < Quent1> we need to stop this politiking
10:51 < Quent1> we need to bridge the gaps that have been created
10:51 < Quent1> and move forward as one
10:51 < kanzure> instead of responding to our objections you are politicking
10:51 < brg444> ... says the guy trying to have a one way discussion
10:51 < adam3us> Quent1: i am not joining that forum. if you want to have a discussion bitcointalk is fine.
10:51 < Quent1> the only way we can do so it by a public discussion in an appropriate manner
10:51 < Quent1> lmao
10:51 < Quent1> adam3us, why you not joinging that forum?
10:51 < adam3us> Quent1: this is a public, logged channel.
10:51 < kanzure> why would we want to have a discussion with someone who does not respond to objections?
10:51 < Quent1> your friends can come too...
10:51 < brg444> Quent1 do you intend on helping us figure it out? maybe you can invite Peter Rizun if you need help?
10:52 < Quent1> no one stoping kazure
10:52 < Quent1> or brg44 from joining too
10:52 < Quent1> or gmax
10:52 < Quent1> or anyone
10:52 < adam3us> Quent1: i said above "The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out." and on bitcointalk
10:52 < Quent1> its a 2second thing to register
10:52 < Quent1> this is not a forum
10:52 < Quent1> this is a chat
10:52 < Quent1> we quickly talking here
10:52 < adam3us> Quent1: please. is this a request for review or an advertisement for a project forum? do you know how many coin forums there are?
10:52 < Quent1> a forum is essay writting considered stuff
10:52 < Quent1> r/bitcoin is not that
10:53 < Quent1> tweeter is defo not that
10:53 < Quent1> a forum is that...
10:53 < kanzure> you can request elaboration from us if there is something you don't understand, but no we're not going to write more words than necessary
10:53 < Quent1> adam3us, I did not request a review
10:53 < Quent1> I requested a rational debate...
10:53 < kanzure> debate is not a productive way to communicate reason or respond to objections.
10:54 < Quent1> I didn't ask you to create a forum post about BU
10:54 < Quent1> I asked you to create a forum post about what you were saying on tweeter
10:54 < Quent1> you know, how apparently only certain ppl are experts
10:54 < Quent1> how apparently only certain people are aviator braintrusts or whatever it was
10:54 < Quent1> how we need to be careful with security and game theory etc
10:55 < kanzure> are you going to respond to any of our above objections?
10:55 < adam3us> actually you did https://twitter.com/Aquentys/status/683339510537654272 "properly discuss the issues in a rational, academic, accessible, manner. Perhaps you can start of a thread."
10:55 < Quent1> and how lightning is meant to function in a real life
10:55 < Quent1> yes
10:55 < Quent1> the issues you were talking about
10:55 < Quent1> I don't think I mentioned BU once...
10:55 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
10:56 < Quent1> anyway, it seems you are not interested in actual debate
10:56 < adam3us> hmm you replied to this https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/683321835610574848 "can discuss tech any day on bitcoin IRC or reddit or bitcointalk. I would be interested to see BU survive peer review on wizards"
10:56 < kanzure> okay, so just to keep things in line- we have heard your messages, we have read them and responded to them, and now you are stating a disinterest in continuing to talk about the details.
10:56 < Quent1> yes, you brought it up...
10:56 < Quent1> which is fine..
10:56 < Quent1> I gave my concept of BU
10:57 < Quent1> so let the wizards review it...
10:57 < brg444> It seemed pretty confused :/
10:57 < Quent1> where is the hole?
10:57 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:57 < kanzure> besides the ones we pointed out?
10:57 < Quent1> oh, see adam3us, I can't expect people to come on the spot with answers to what are difficult questions
10:57 < Quent1> hence the need for a forum
10:58 < Quent1> where the answers can be contemplated
10:58 < Quent1> developed fully and articulated
10:58 < Quent1> now,
10:58 < Quent1> why you refuse adam3us ?
10:58 < kanzure> which answers of ours do you think have not been articulated well?
10:58 < adam3us> trust us, we think we can break it real time. go ahead :)
10:58 < kanzure> was it the one about miners not substantiating an economic majority? was that not articulated well?
10:59 < brg444> Quent1 Difficult question? It seemed pretty straight forward: how do you reconcile your claim that BU addressed the demand of the free markets by having miners only pick the size of the blocks?
10:59 < Quent1> why you refuse adam3us ?
10:59 < adam3us> wizards have short attention spans - go faster. are the nodes influencing size or only miners? if only miners how is it different from 100 and have you answered the know critiques of BIP 100?
10:59 < Quent1> what is worrying you adam3us ?
10:59 < maaku> #bitcoin-wizards-offtopic
10:59 < Quent1> it's just a forum...
10:59 < maaku> please leave comms channels open for their intended purpose
10:59 < Quent1> sorry maaku, your boss thought it was the right place
11:00 < Quent1> and keeps insisting on it...
11:00 < alpalp> Quent1: it would if you spent time on topic instead of whining about censorship
11:00 < kanzure> he was correct that it's the right place, but he was wrong that you would be willing to discuss details
11:00 < Quent1> I just explained BU...
11:00 < Quent1> not heard a point yet
11:00 < kanzure> what have you heard, then?
11:00 < adam3us> Quent1: give details for review
11:01 < adam3us> Quent1: "are the nodes influencing size or only miners? if only miners how is it different from 100 and have you answered the know critiques of BIP 100?"
11:01 < kanzure> if anything this shows that adam3us is a hopeless optimist
11:01 < Quent1> what you scared of adam3us ? why won't you come to a forum where the issues can be properly discussed?
11:01 < adam3us> Quent1: it is ok if you dont know, that just means you need to go fetch someone who does.
11:01 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
11:01 < maaku> Quent1: BU does not achieve consensus. your view of the chain tip depends on what parameters you set. that would be utter mayhem in a real economy
11:01 < Quent1> adam3us, it is different because the business nodes have a say too...
11:02 < kanzure> have a say in what?
11:02 < Quent1> alright
11:02 < maaku> the only stable solution is to set parameters to infinity, so stable-BU truly is unlimited
11:02 < Quent1> I'll have to make a reddit thread I'm afraid
11:02 < Quent1> you can't just refuse to discuss in an uncensored space
11:02 < kanzure> maaku: yes but to that i have been saying "it's obvious that we can already achieve consensus with a central PoW node anyway"
11:02 < kanzure> maaku: so that's not a very interesting result from a bitcoin perspective :-)
11:02 < brg444> go, right ahead, provide a link too just so people realize how dense you are ;)
11:02 < alpalp> Quent1: actually, thats exactly what he did.
11:02 < Quent1> where the matters can be thoroughly discussed
11:02 < Quent1> not in 5 second chats as here
11:02 < Quent1> which foster quick snap answers
11:03 < maaku> kanzure: to many people it sadly not obvious that unlimited-size blocks would be centralizing :\
11:03 < Quent1> the blocksize limit is not a quick snap answers question adam3us
11:03 < kanzure> Quent1: do you think you would understand questions about bip100 and consensus if it took you 10x longer to understand?
11:03 < Taek> maaku: it forces you to use social mechanisms to figure out what set of parameters are being accepted by the network. You can figure out parameters that are legal, but you're probably going to have to ask bc.i or coinbase, or whatever other powerful entities are forced to pick parameters together
11:03 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:03 < adam3us> Taek: yes it seems like consensus via human coordination.
11:04 < Taek> I believe you could have a reasonably stable system where the strongest economic powers are picking the parameters and telling everybody else to go along
11:04 < kanzure> Taek: there are no existing social mechanisms that are sybil resistant for picking a max block size limit
11:04 < maaku> Taek: the only setting that would guarantee I'm not on a lesser-work, unsafe fork would be MAX_INT
11:04 < brg444> Taek like central banks :) ?
11:04 < kanzure> yes centralized ledgers could trivially be "stable"
11:04 < maaku> no social consensus required
11:05 < Taek> It's not a system I would want to participate in. I would feel like I had no guarantees that the validation costs would stay within my own reach
11:05 < kanzure> so since this log is going to be linked on reddit, let's at least point out the original existing peter rizun criticisms
11:05 < kanzure> here is where peter rizun admitted that his assumptions in his "fee market" paper were totally broken: http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
11:05 < kanzure> this pastebin paste was made by the same person too
11:06 -!- Pasha [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:06 < kanzure> here is some basic argumentation about big blocks and how increasing resource requirements kick off low-resource participants https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yvkep/devs_are_strongly_against_increasing_the/cyhv7ev
11:06 < adam3us> ok well that was disappointing. he took off and didnt provide information - i hoped he would know how they think it might work.
11:07 < kanzure> here is why it doesn't matter if transaction fees can pay for big block orphan risk: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/cyfluso
11:07 < kanzure> here is why peter rizun's unhealthy fee market doesn't actually control block size https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/cy60r4y
11:08 < kanzure> here is why it is uninteresting to have a bunch of high-bandwidth miners having consensus just among themselves https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ycizh/decentralizing_development_can_we_make_bitcoins/cycex9t
11:09 < kanzure> here is a roadmap for bitcoin core scalability increases that bitcoin core developers have been working on http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
11:09 < kanzure> in particular for frequently asked questions see https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq
11:09 < kanzure> am i forgetting anything?
11:11 < adam3us> it could also be noted that if only miners vote they could keep the consensus enforced block-cap artificially small to drive up fees. modulo their intrinsic 51% ability to do similar by censoring large blocks.
11:12 < brg444> I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack is also something to consider for BU enthusiasts
11:13 -!- Pasha is now known as Cory
11:21 -!- psztorc [ac3ad84f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.172.58.216.79] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:22 -!- psztorc is now known as Guest59187
11:23 -!- Guest59187 [ac3ad84f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.172.58.216.79] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
11:23 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:26 -!- _psztorc [ac3ad84f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.172.58.216.79] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:26 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:27 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:30 -!- giel__ [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:31 -!- gielbier [~giel____@a149043.upc-a.chello.nl] has quit [Client Quit]
11:31 -!- _psztorc [ac3ad84f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.172.58.216.79] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
11:34 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:39 < stonecoldpat> "bip100 limited the choice to miners alone, BU includes the economy, as in all node operators set their own limit, by node operators i meant miners", i cant see the difference between his comment and bip100, except bip100 is more concrete
11:40 -!- pozitron [~nu@109.201.143.40] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:42 < alpalp> stonecoldpat: I've tried to get to the bottom of it, and the best I could get was non-mining nodes try to communicate their preference, and miners can honor it or not.  Basically BIP100 with a suggestion box.
11:42 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:46 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:46 -!- b_lumenkraft_ [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:47 < stonecoldpat> alpalp: ah ok thank you
11:47 < alpalp> though theres no code, just a lot of handwaving and rhetoric, so hard to really know.
11:48 < alpalp> I don't think its any kind of serious proposal, simply the Donald Trump of cryptocurrencies - says a lot of stuff to rile people up
11:54 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:58 -!- pozitron [~nu@109.201.143.40] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:58 < Quent1> lol, sorry, just reading back the log
11:58 < Quent1> it's not miners only...
11:58 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.3]
11:59 < Quent1> I mean you guys seem keen to look at holes which is good, but, BU does have a website.. bitcoinunlimited.info
11:59 < Quent1> maybe read it?
11:59 < Quent1> all node operators can decide their own limit
11:59 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:59 < Quent1> but it is of corse only node miners who actually generate blocks adam3us
11:59 < alpalp> Quent1: what does it mean to "decide a limit"?
11:59 < Quent1> so the limit, as far as generation and acceptance is concerned, matters to node miners only in the first instance
12:00 < Quent1> BU is about reaching consensus, not about *what* consensus is or should be
12:00 < brg444> right....
12:00 < brg444> so how does it go about doing this?
12:00 < Quent1> the way to reach consensus in a decentralised fashion is by node miners communicating in their blocks the limit they accept
12:00 < alpalp> brg444: by making pretty pdfs
12:00 < Quent1> right now that would be say 2mb
12:00 < Quent1> and once say 95% of miner nodes so communicate, then the limit is effectively 2mb
12:01 < Quent1> the business miners of course can see these communications
12:01 < brg444> you propose that individual non mining nodes somehow have a way to signal their "acceptable" limit, correct?
12:01 < Quent1> so they set the limit to 2mb too...
12:01 < Quent1> ergo, consensus
12:01 < Quent1> with no intermediate, no central player
12:01 < alpalp> Quent1: slow down for a second.  What does it mean for a non-mining node to "decide" a limit?
12:01 < Quent1> pure free market, fully decentralised
12:01 < brg444> business miners/miner nodes
12:01 < Quent1> and what is better, local
12:01 < brg444> what is the difference?
12:01 < Quent1> we can't know what the limit should be in 1 year, let alone 4 years
12:01 < Quent1> only the free market can
12:02 < brg444> right
12:02 < brg444> but you propose that only miners decide...?
12:02 < brg444> the miners != free market
12:02 < Quent1> seems I miscommunicated earlier adam3us when I said by node operator I meant miner node...
12:02 < Quent1> which strengthens my point that this place is not the right space
12:02 < Quent1> to have such discussions
12:02 < alpalp> so non-mining users basically have no block limit?
12:03 < Quent1> they can choose what they want
12:03 < alpalp> Suppose I set my limit as 100KB, what does that mean for me?
12:03 < Quent1> bitcoin is based on incentives and rational acts
12:03 < Quent1> because 51%
12:03 < alpalp> a bunch of miners send me 1MB blocks, i reject them?
12:03 < Quent1> alpalp depands what you are
12:03 < Quent1> if you a miner it means you go bankrupt because you are too stupid
12:03 < Quent1> and so deserve it
12:03 < Quent1> if you are a business same thing
12:04 < alpalp> Quent1: I am only talking about non-miners, the miner case is already covered in BIP100
12:04 < alpalp> I can "set a limit", what does the limit that a non-mining node does?
12:04 < Quent1> there are only two nodes that matter as far as the network is concerned
12:04 < Quent1> miner nodes
12:04 < brg444> Quent1 Forget about the miners, business. Where does the individual who run nodes come in?
12:04 < Quent1> and business nodes
12:04 < brg444> uh
12:04 < Quent1> the rest are of benefit only to the individual who runs it and have no effect on the network as a whole
12:05 < Quent1> that is why there is no direct incentive to run a node
12:05 < brg444> that's not true :/ there are privacy and network decentralization incentives
12:05 < alpalp> what is a business node?
12:05 < Quent1> coinbase's nodes...
12:05 < Quent1> business.. you know.. the trading ppl
12:05 < alpalp> How do I distinguish a business node from a non-business non-mining node?
12:05 < Quent1> why do you want to?
12:05 < pigeons> ]another useful channel ruined by this nonsense
12:06 < alpalp> apparently you are distinguishing them, so I am trying to understand that.
12:06 < belcher> pigeons +1
12:06 < Quent1> exactly pigeons
12:06 < Quent1> this place is not the right space for this discussion
12:06 < Quent1> adam3us, should make a forum thread, laying out his points, and we can have a proper discussion
12:06 < belcher> how about we all go to ##bitcoin to carry on
12:06 < Quent1> not in fleeting irc
12:07 < Quent1> or soundbite propaganda tweeter
12:07 < Quent1> or 1day attention span reddit.....
12:07 < brg444> So I can go on record on reddit : "BU proponent propose that individuals' right to run a node does not matter"?
12:07 < alpalp> Quent1: good discussion was going, lets take it to ##bitcoin, I'll make a summary of it even!
12:07 < Quent1> I'm banned there belcher
12:07 < TD-Linux> yes it's not. BU has already been discussed to death aelsewhere
12:07 < Quent1> censorship everywhere!
12:07 < Quent1> no wonder adam3us is scared to discuss in daylight
12:07 < pigeons> lol he is such a troll he is banned from ##bitcoin
12:07 < Quent1> he hides behind censorship
12:08 < Quent1> as if people can't see it
12:08 < Quent1> even his own supporters can see it...
12:08 < Quent1> anyway
12:08 < Quent1> I just wanted to clarify that node point...
12:09 < Quent1> all nodes choose their own limits
12:09 < Quent1> but cus game theory emerging consensus
12:09 < Quent1> it's simple... almost childlishly simple
12:09 < alpalp> Quent1: go to #bitcoin-unlimited-super-awesome-fun-time-uncensored
12:10 < alpalp> we can talk there, Im not scared.
12:10 < TD-Linux> alpalp, don't feed the troll.
12:10 < belcher> channel name too long, i suggest #bitcoin-unlimited
12:10 < alpalp> unfortunately he was specifically invited to discuss this
12:11 < kanzure> "game theory emerging consensus" is not a suitable answer. we already know that a bunch of miners can agree to deprecate the bitcoin system in favor of a more centralized system. but wouldn't it be more productive to do this in a way independent of whether there is a block size limitation?
12:11 < Quent1> and how you propose that is done?
12:11 < Quent1> by a centralised committee?
12:11 < kanzure> first, describe the ideal scenario you want
12:11 < Quent1> the blocksize is a living, breathing, thing...
12:12 < Quent1> it responds to demand, technology, etc...
12:12 < kanzure> no, i mean the ultimate scenario you want for bitcoin. forget about block size.
12:12 < Quent1> no committee can be better placed to decide what it should be than the individuals most affected
12:12 < Quent1> the ideal scenario I want is a limit just above demand
12:12 < kanzure> demand for what?
12:12 < alpalp> quent1: what do you mean by "demand"?
12:13 < Quent1> as in, a limit to protect from attacks... not a limit to limit demand
12:13 < kanzure> attacks against what?
12:13 < Quent1> lol
12:13 < kanzure> your lack of clarity should not be amusing
12:13 < alpalp> Quent1: demand is a curve, not a fixed point.  Which point in the curve?
12:13 < Quent1> sorry wizards for disturbing your channel
12:13 < Quent1> it was adam3us who invited
12:13 < Quent1> I'm out
12:13 < alpalp> well, bye
12:13 < Quent1> if you guys are honest, the place for discussion is uncensored forums
12:14 < Quent1> if you want to continue with 140 characters tweeter propaganda then go ahead...
12:14 < kanzure> irc does not have a 140 character limitation
12:14 < kanzure> btw, multiple times now you have said you are leaving, but you have not.
12:14 < Quent1> it does have idiots who ask what is demand however
12:15 < brg444> ...
12:15 < kanzure> we are asking you because we want you to realize that you can't answer the question
12:15 < alpalp> Quent1: We are trying to understand what you are talking about.
12:15 < coinoperated> @kanzure every single discussion about bitcoin should lead with a statement about discussants' opinion on bitcoin's ultimate direction.  most of the S/N ratio problems in this community come from everyone talking at cross purposes and being coy about why they want the changes they want.
12:15 < Quent1> well exactly kanzure
12:15 < Quent1> I can't answer the question
12:15 < Quent1> the free market can
12:15 < Quent1> that defeats your own point of choosing the blockzise by comittee
12:15 < kanzure> what committee?
12:16 < Quent1> there are only two ways
12:16 < Quent1> decentralised decision making - free market
12:16 < Quent1> or centralised decision making - committees
12:16 < Quent1> a committee can not know what demand is
12:16 < kanzure> if you are unable to answer questions regarding the security guarantees of a protocol, why would you want to use the protocol?
12:16 < adam3us> Quent1: you are extremely vague in the way you answer so it is very hard to determine what the design of BU actually is. is there someone else you have who can explain or join bitcointalk ?
12:16 < Quent1> or what the blocksize should be
12:16 < Quent1> bitcointalk is censored
12:17 < Quent1> not sure why you keep condoning it...
12:17 < Quent1> what did you mean by reddit moderator policy adam3us ?
12:17 < Quent1> that you were respecting it
12:17 < Quent1> what reddit moderator policy are you respecting?
12:17 < kanzure> this is unrelated to bitcoin technical details
12:17 < kanzure> can we focus please?
12:17 < Quent1> sorry
12:17 < Quent1> you gone censor?
12:18 < adam3us> in my several years of using bitcointalk i have never once seen gmaxwell who is the dev moderator delete a technical post.
12:18 < Quent1> am I limited on what I can say in a debate?
12:18 < kanzure> this is not a debate
12:18 < Quent1> mind laying your barriers kanzure ?
12:18 < alpalp> Quent1: Can you explain what you mean by "supply always above demand"?  Does this mean if someone wishes to backup their harddrive for 1 penny, there is demand?
12:18 < Quent1> well then shut up and stop telling me what is on or off topic
12:18 < coinoperated> Quent1 why don't you seem concerned that the "variable" block size aspect being gamed to force it into a range that prevents a given class of actors from participating?  IoW Why won't those with access to gargantuan bandwidth realize they can monopolize the network by installing hashpower on their connections and advertising ever-larger blocks
12:18 < Quent1> ive said this is the wrong space...
12:18 < Quent1> you guys insisit...
12:18 < kanzure> this is the correct space for technical discussion regarding theoretical ideas with respect to cryptocurrencies
12:18 < Quent1> if you insist then don't tell me what I can or can not say
12:19 < Quent1> bitcoin is not just technical
12:19 < pigeons> but this channel s
12:19 < Quent1> its cash
12:19 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+o gwillen] by ChanServ
12:19 < Quent1> cash is economics
12:19 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+b *!*@unaffiliated/quent] by gwillen
12:19 -!- Quent1 was kicked from #bitcoin-wizards by gwillen [Quent1]
12:19 <@gwillen> problem now solved
12:19 < pigeons> sure wasnt going anywehre useful
12:19 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:19 < belcher> thanks
12:20 < belcher> even 4chan is moderated.... or censored if you prefer
12:20 <@gwillen> as far as I know that guy is banned from every bitcoin channel
12:20 <@gwillen> not sure how he snuck in here
12:21 < coinoperated> is he the same as the reddit poster aquent?
12:21 < alpalp> yes
12:21 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:21 <@gwillen> yeah, same guy
12:21 <@gwillen> he used to be aquent on here
12:21 < coinoperated> ah.
12:21 <@gwillen> but that nick is banned so he switched
12:21 <@gwillen> I thought he was banned as quent, also
12:21 <@gwillen> might be why he went to 'quent1'
12:21 < kanzure> is this aquentin?
12:21 < alpalp> kanzure: yes
12:21 < coinoperated> seems so
12:22 -!- joesmoe- [~joesmoe@76.73.18.156] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:22 <@gwillen> yeah, it's all the same guy
12:22 <@gwillen> he just keeps switching names because he gets banned places
12:22 < alpalp> Also Aquentys on twitter
12:23 < kanzure> yep i have written lots of text to him on reddit, he seems to remember none of it, so therefore it seems utterly pointless to keep talking with him
12:23 < alpalp> kanzure: he is more interested than writing than reading
12:23 < coinoperated> if its aquentin then he may be thinking "business" = "day trader" or service for day traders.
12:25 < coinoperated> for a userbase of supposedly 1m+,  you sure see a lot of the same faces over and over in bitcoin
12:26 < adam3us> sorry about that i had assumed he would know how BU worked as he wanted to discuss it. it seems likely that he doesnt know.
12:27 < pigeons> peter r alleges that he knows how it works
12:27 < pigeons> but i doubt the conversation would be any more fruitful
12:27 < alpalp> adam3us: I don't think anyone knows.
12:28 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
12:28 < coinoperated> you can pick your nodes, and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friend's nodes
12:28 < kanzure> afaik there is no good way to estimate the value of the economy that you might be removing from the network by increasing the minimum resource requirements too high
12:29 <@gwillen> coinoperated: rofl.
12:29 < coinoperated> there's no agreed upon metric for valuing "decentralization", it's pretty subjective
12:30 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:30 < kanzure> also, when increasing the minimum resource requirements, you are effectively increasing the minimum cost to participate in the bitcoin system. as a consequence this should ultimately override any concerns about increases in minimum transaction fees, because even if transaction fees are zero you might have an extremely unusably high minimum resource requirement for participating in p2p bitcoin.
12:31 -!- b_lumenkraft_ [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft_]
12:32 < coinoperated> kanzure,  mfw people talk about bitcoin like there are two or three bounding parameters to the contour of the network, when it's really dozens
12:32 < coinoperated> block size debate is rather like opposing parties trying to gerrymander a voting district to ensure that each side stays elected
12:33 < kanzure> characterizing it as a debate is silly... debate is for legislations and assemblies and committees.
12:33 < coinoperated> don't underestimate soft power
12:33 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:33 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Client Quit]
12:33 -!- GGuyZ_ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:35 < coinoperated> https://twitter.com/CoinOperatedTV/status/634519748693372929
12:36 < kanzure> also, bitcoin resource requirement growth (due to linear blockchain growth) can be seen as a random walk of some kind. ideally the rate of technology development and cheapning better tech keeps up with the linear blockchain growth rate. however, if the blockchain linear grwoth was to ever catch up to that technology development rate, then we would have lots more problems for decentralization. important to let optimizations and scaling ...
12:36 < kanzure> ... and capacity increases accrue in favor of being able to tolerate random walk encroachments on higher resource requirements.
12:36 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:36 -!- GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
12:39 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: there are metrics that capture some of the centralization-related concerns
12:39 < coinoperated> like abnormal orphan rate?
12:40 < el33th4x0r> that's perhaps one.
12:40 < el33th4x0r> fairness is a decent one.
12:41 < el33th4x0r> consensus delay is a good one
12:41 < el33th4x0r> time to prune is a good one.
12:41 < el33th4x0r> for definitions of these metrics, see Section 6 here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.02037v2.pdf
12:42 < coinoperated> can you clarify consensus delay?  time for graph to converge?
12:42 < coinoperated> oh you read my mind
12:42 < kanzure> .tw https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/683239357050949633
12:42 < yoleaux> .@olivierjanss there are literally more smart-people with interesting question-hours per year than core developer hours. that is a problem. (@adam3us, in reply to tw:683239060895363072)
12:44 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
12:45 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:46 < el33th4x0r> The blocksize debate needs much more quantitative metrics. Quent wasn't making his case well, but I also have not seen the countercase made quantitatively.
12:46 < brg444> ^ that's quite the understatement (re: quent)
12:46 < el33th4x0r> :-)
12:47 < el33th4x0r> I didn't bother to read the whole mess, so I'll understate.
12:47 < el33th4x0r> it got strange towards the end
12:49 < coinoperated> I am starting to think that "troll", in the local bitcoin dialect, means something like "one who asks the right kinds of questions, but gives the wrong kinds of answers"
12:50 < el33th4x0r> sadly, that word has been rendered useless by the typical Bitcoin usage of "you raise points that I cannot rebut with what I can parrot from Andreas"
12:50 < el33th4x0r> Every bitcoin discussion seems to end with a trolling accusation. It's like Godwin's Law, but with trolls.
12:51 < el33th4x0r> On the more germane topic: we are building a measurement testbed at Cornell with 500 nodes, 4000 cores.
12:51 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@185.94.28.254] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:51 < el33th4x0r> The idea is to recreate an exact replica of the Bitcoin network, one sim node for every real node out there.
12:51 < coinoperated> you got someone to do a bc-themed diss?
12:51 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@185.94.28.254] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:52 < el33th4x0r> We are not quite there yet in terms of deployment and calibration, but we'd be happy to work with various different groups who want to evaluate ideas.
12:52 < coinoperated> how will you model latency
12:52 < fluffypony> el33th4x0r: eugh, such FUD
12:52 < fluffypony> /s
12:52 < fluffypony> :-P
12:53 < el33th4x0r> by configuring network links with measured latency and bw parameters.
12:54 < MRL-Relay> [othe] do you know shadow (https://shadow.github.io/) ? tor, i2p etc use it for network simulations
12:55 < el33th4x0r> shadow looks cool, thanks for the pointer.
12:55 < MRL-Relay> [othe] theres a bitcoin plugin for it
12:56 < el33th4x0r> it looks like it emulates the app, simulates the network.
12:56 < el33th4x0r> we run a full emulation.
12:56 < el33th4x0r> so we cannot do identically reproducible runs like they can.
12:56 < el33th4x0r> but we can run much faster at higher scale
12:57 -!- brianhoffman [~brianhoff@185.94.28.254] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
12:57 < el33th4x0r> (i.e. that's what I'd expect, not what I have compared and measured)
12:57 -!- mkarrer__ [~mkarrer@110.Red-88-1-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit []
12:57 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
12:57 < coinoperated> el33th4x0r:   someone may have beat you to it:  http://bitsim.beepboopbitcoin.com/
12:58 < coinoperated> /s
12:59 < MRL-Relay> [othe] https://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/shadow-bitcoin.pdf seems amiller played with it before
13:00 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:00 < el33th4x0r> ah, I knew it sounded similar to Andrew's work, but I was confused because the paper they had on their website didn't have his name on it.
13:00 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:02 < el33th4x0r> Yes, we're very familiar with this. Excellent work. Our focus is on a much faster emulation-only platform that can run large batches of experiments fast.
13:02 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: that is by far the best game I played last year.
13:03 -!- isis [~isis@abulafia.patternsinthevoid.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:10 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: "bc-themed diss" = "bitcoin/blockchain-themed dissertation"!
13:10 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: indeed, we have quite a few students doing their theses on related topics.
13:10 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: http://initc3.org has a partial lineup.
13:11 -!- isis [~isis@abulafia.patternsinthevoid.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:20 -!- nibbler_ [~quassel@geekbox.info] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:20 < coinoperated> el33th4x0r:  $3m NSF,  nice work!  the space needs more academic attention for sure.
13:27 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:27 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:31 -!- Guest76880 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:36 -!- Guest76880 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:41 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
13:58 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 < bramc> A funny thing with bitcoin, I haven't had much urge to run simulations. Everything is so dominated by asymptotics that there doesn't seem to be much need.
14:02 < kanzure> well, testnet
14:02 < kanzure> and regtest
14:02 < bramc> There might be a parallel with my earlier work. BitTorrent had no simulations at all, just the occasional real-world test to see what kind of grotty stuff turns up. My newer p2p live streaming the very first thing I did was write an emulation environment and start using it to great effect right off the bat.
14:10 -!- brg444 [18257df2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.37.125.242] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
14:18 < kanzure> why does bittorrent not suffer from constant protocol invalidity and brokenness? or why aren't there other people writing backwards-incompatible protocols?
14:19 < kanzure> oops i mean backwards-incompatible variants of the protocol
14:21 < bramc> kanzure, Because there aren't any compelling fixes which that could achieve
14:21 < kanzure> pfft
14:22 < bramc> BitTorrent does one thing, does it well, and its performance is dominated by asymptotics. Bitcoin does one thing, does it badly, and its performance is dominated by all kinds of garbage.
14:23 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:25 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:30 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
14:33 < TD-Linux> kanzure, bitcoin does have multiple incompatible protocols
14:33 < TD-Linux> err bittorrent
14:33 < coinoperated> what is the one thing bitcoin does?
14:33 < TD-Linux> most bittorrent modes implement multiple protocols.
14:34 < TD-Linux> *nodes, wow I can't type
14:34 -!- Guest50709 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:38 < bramc> TD-Linux, What are those protocols?
14:39 < bramc> Technically speaking bittorrent has had a hard fork because the DHT is basically required now
14:39 < bramc> coinoperated, Maintain a database of balances
14:39 < bsm1175321> I'm going to quote bramc on this: "BitTorrent does one thing, does it well, and its performance is dominated by asymptotics. Bitcoin does one thing, does it badly, and its performance is dominated by all kinds of garbage."
14:39 < TD-Linux> bramc, the traditional TCP one and the UDP based uTP one
14:40 < TD-Linux> oh, and yeah there are several tracker protocols in addition to DHT
14:41 < AdrianG> monero is planned to become a bitcoin sidechain?
14:42 < bramc> TD-Linux, There's fallback to TCP for everything supporting utp. The things which would make an original bittorrent client not work on a current torrent have to do with the tracker protocols, which there are, uh, three.
14:43 < bramc> And also the 'compact' flag, which at some point became mandatory, because duh.
14:43 < coinoperated> bramc: why would you say it does it badly?  Sorry for the dumb sounding questions, but my working assumption is that Bitcoin has to be inefficient, it's the price of decentralization. But "badly" could mean a lot of other things than "inefficiency", thus the question..
14:43 < bramc> coinoperated, There are some good-ish reasons for it doing it badly. It still does it badly.
14:44 < bramc> Also almost all the details can be improved on, including stuff fixed by p2sh, segwit, maybe a new peer protocol...
14:45 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:46 < coinoperated> so badly means kludgey, for absolute values of bad
14:46 < bramc> kludgey and with high latency and inefficiency
14:47 < AdrianG> and probably will never be fixed
14:47 < bramc> Basically for every benchmark of how well a payment system works, if bitcoin were a centralized one it would get an F
14:47 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: Bitcoin doesn't need to be inefficient.  But we are all noobs at making efficient decentralized systems.
14:48 < bramc> AdrianG, Some of them are getting fixed, some of them can be fixed, and a great big central thing might be completely unfixable.
14:48 < AdrianG> latency is getting fixed?
14:48 < bsm1175321> There are three things we need to get bitcoin to O(1) scaling and decentralization and I detailed them here: http://blog.sldx.com/three-challenges-for-scaling-bitcoin/
14:49 < bsm1175321> (1) Get rid of orphans (2) move mining to the edges (mining decenralization) and (3) sharding.
14:49 < bramc> AdrianG, some aspects of latency can be fixed. Depending on what latency you're talking about weak blocks, a new peer protocol, and micro channels can all bring dramatic improvements.
14:49 < coinoperated> at the risk of an offtopic warning from kanzure, much of this seems to depend on the eye of the beholder.  if you want a decentralized SWIFT (which is already decentralized but ehh...) then 12 hours to confirm an OP is a step up.
14:51 < AdrianG> swift is decentralized?
14:51 < bramc> bsm117532 I disagree with you about the desirability of sharding. Orphan rates can definitely be reduced. Mining decentralization seems unlikely to happen because mining centralization seems to mostly come from there being places where there are otherwise fairly useless sources of power
14:52 < bsm1175321> bramc: By sharding I mean that each node keeps only a fraction of the blockchain.
14:52 < bsm1175321> why would you disagree with that?
14:52 < bsm1175321> Or fraction of the UTXO or Address space...
14:52 < bramc> bsm117532 Yes I know what sharding is. I think it only adds an order of magnitude or two to scaling at best and introduces massive potential attack surfaces
14:52 < bsm1175321> (There has been some argument as to what sharding means...)
14:53 < bsm1175321> bramc: It certainly introduces new attacks and must be approached carefully.  But I'd kill for a couple of orders of magnitude of scaling.  Also it makes scaling easier by just adding nodes, which more people would do if it were easier.
14:53 < bramc> I view micro channels enabling net settlement as a much better way to go for scaling.
14:53 < bsm1175321> bramc: I think we need both.
14:53 < AdrianG> bsm1175321: nobody would add nodes just like that. there are no incentives.
14:53 < coinoperated> AdrianG  SWIFT  is a protocol of shared numbering and coding systems
14:54 < el33th4x0r> AdrianG: on the latency front, NG offers latencies proportional to network diameter (a few seconds), with security better than 0-conf.
14:54 < bsm1175321> The estimations from the Lightning network folks indicate that their upper limit is well below what is needed to make Bitcoin a global payment system.
14:54 < bramc> We call them 'micro' channels because they support large amounts of transactions. Like how we call it 'slow' start because it's fast.
14:54 < bsm1175321> el33th4x0r: So would braids...
14:54 < coinoperated> a bunch of lookup tables sort of like BGP,  but much more manual.  There's no central hub that things go through, it's old school p2p
14:55 < AdrianG> bsm1175321: i dont see why everyone expects bitcoin to become the sole global payment network
14:55 < AdrianG> that is a simply mind-boggling expectation.
14:55 < coinoperated> el33thax0r  is  latency to network diameter best case or usual case?
14:55 < bsm1175321> el33th4x0r: One thing I learned at Scaling Bitcoin is that most of the mining hardware is targeted to the 10m block interval. (Which is braindead engineering IMHO)
14:56 < el33th4x0r> yes, we're talking to bob mcelrath about evaluating the braids idea
14:56 < AdrianG> there is nothing wrong with centralized payment services here and there.
14:56 < bsm1175321> AdrianG: If it isn't bitcoin, then I will switch to working on something that can become a global payment network, and watch bitcoin slowly die.
14:56 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: usual case.
14:57 < el33th4x0r> coinoperated: worst case is back to 10min latency, if a miner crashes.
14:58 < el33th4x0r> bsm1175321: NG builds on the current mining hardware. absolutely no changes necessary. minimal changes to the protocol.
14:58 < coinoperated> el33th4x0r:  thats as good as we're going to get if so.  Unless sharding/braiding/making-more-than-one-blockchain-but-using-a-clever-name-ing
14:58 < bsm1175321> el33th4x0r: Yep I see that.
14:59 < bsm1175321> The actual physical limit is the radius of the network, so we're talking ~second at worst.  10m is a very large factor to slow the thing down because of a bad design.
15:00 < bsm1175321> Then to have mining hardware designed so you can't reset it except every ~minute even though it's running at ~GHz is mind boggling...
15:01 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:01 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:02 < coinoperated> bsm1175321:   radius of the network isn't a point to point affair though
15:02 < bramc> bsm117532 Mining hardware is basically disposable. It's made as quickly and cheaply as possible because it becomes worthless after a year or so
15:03 < bsm1175321> bramc: I know.  I want to incentivize the creation of faster mining hardware, so we can make a faster network.  Otherwise the fundamental settlement time can't decrease...
15:03 < coinoperated> diameter of the network (* 2 for RT, which i think would be the minimum flight time for a signal to be validated)
15:04 < bramc> bsm117532 Mining hardware will always follow the incentives, no point in trying to do things the other way around
15:04 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: A better optimized p2p network with links and hubs (rather than random connections) could bring it a lot closer to the ideal.
15:04 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:04 < bsm1175321> bramc: It's the incentives that create consensus, and we have to ensure those incentives aren't perverse.
15:05 < bramc> bsm117532 The overall design of the network is secondary to much messier protocol issues when it comes to latency
15:05 < coinoperated> bsm1175321:   But Bitcoin isn't p2p its 51% to 51%,  just notifying an endpoint isn't enough.  Everyone else in between needs to know and ACK as well.  Bitcoin is a chatty protocol, maybe the chattiest one ever designed
15:06 < bsm1175321> bramc: i'll defer to your expertise there.  However direct measurements indicate that the fundamental latency of distributing information to all nodes is ~1s.
15:06 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:07 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:07 < bramc> The fundamental limits are probably somewhere around there. Right now it's down to a few seconds because of the relay network. It should be possible to get it down to a few seconds with a real p2p protocol.
15:07 < bsm1175321> I'm arguing that we don't fundamentally need the extra factor of 600, not trying to get it down to ~200ms which is the p2p theoretical minimum...
15:09 < coinoperated> bsm1175321:  I don't understand how fundamental latency can be ~1s, this is only true for a 2-node network on opposite sides of the planet, with a single link between the two, no?  In reality things are much messier and suboptimally connected
15:09 < el33th4x0r> bramc: right on about the depreciation curves for mining hardware. it turns completely over every 1.5 years
15:09 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:09 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/
15:09 < bsm1175321> 90th percentile with existing bitcoin network is ~5-10s.
15:10 < bsm1175321> p2p optimizations could certainly bring that down to 1s.
15:10 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
15:10 < bsm1175321> 600s is large.
15:11 < coinoperated> bsm1175321:  those are tidy blocks space 10m apart.  if you had to confirm each and every Tx individually the total for a block's worth of Tx would be much greater than 10-15s,  each one would take at minumum 1-2s
15:12 < bramc> coinoperated, Making 'reasonable' assumptions about having to pass data between multiple nodes brings latency from ~250ms (the distance from new zealand to spain) to ~1000ms
15:13 < bramc> Assuming you don't bother optimizing peer connections for their physical location and that you need some failover gets you to around 5 seconds, maybe 10 if you're trying to optimize for bandwidth.
15:13 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: So with an optimal p2p network and 6 confirmations, the confirmation time could theoretical be brought down to the realm of 10s instead of 3600s.  Bitcoin is slower than necessary by 2-3 orders of magnitude.
15:13 < bramc> For context the p2p live video streaming thing I made gets end to end latencies of around 5 seconds at scale
15:14 < bramc> But that is, ahem, a bit of an outlier.
15:14 -!- c-cex-finch [uid120855@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qollzjycfhidwbwf] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
15:14 -!- el33th4x0r [68e5aa14@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.104.229.170.20] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
15:14 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:14 < bsm1175321> This slowness manifests itself as orphans, which create perverse incentives like selfish mining.
15:14 < coinoperated> bramc: this is per message right?   so if the message to be propagated is a block of say 1000 Tx,  assuming sufficient bandwidth at all nodes it can be propagated to all of them in ~1000ms
15:15 < bramc> bsm117532 orphans can be avoided by special casing complete blocks to be spammed out to everybody. Weak blocks can fairly easily get them down to 1-2 seconds
15:15 < coinoperated> if the message is, OTOH,  a single Tx,  the propagation time would still be ~1000ms, right?
15:16 < bramc> coinoperated, Not sure what you're saying. Trying to have real congestion control throws a monkey wrench into everything.
15:16 < bsm1175321> bramc: Orphans are a fundamental consequence of causality.  Two miners on opposite sides of the globe cannot possibly know about each other.  Therefore they cannot possibly be removed.  So, we should accept them and remove the associated perverse incentives (e.g. allowing one of the miners to "win" and deny the other profit).
15:17 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: yes. ~1ms for a single tx with an optimal network.
15:17 < bramc> bsm117532 Yes I know you're preferred approach to fixing that issue. For the time being we're working on just getting the latencies down.
15:17 < coinoperated> I'm trying to understand why blocks exist at all, I thought they were created as a way to quiesce the set of Tx that needed to be confirmed.  Like a 10 minute settlement window to make sure all miners are working from the same mempool.
15:18 < bsm1175321> bramc: One thing at a time.  Reducing latencies is good.
15:18 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:18 < tulip> <  bsm117532> One thing I learned at Scaling Bitcoin is that most of the mining hardware is targeted to the 10m block interval. (Which is braindead engineering IMHO)
15:18 < bramc> coinoperated, Mining is there to create real security on top of zeroconf/bitpeso
15:18 < tulip> that doesn't sound right. no hardware I know of has hardcoded difficulty limits.
15:19 < bsm1175321> coinoperated: Blocks are not necessary.  We could mine tx's instead.  This would move mining to the edges of the network, but everyone would have to buy ASIC's to participate, or pay someone with an ASIC to broadcast their tx.
15:19 -!- hopey [1000@valtio.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:19 < bsm1175321> tulip: Not difficulty limit, reset time.  (load a new work unit)
15:20 < bsm1175321> tulip: I really need some numbers on this and have bought some hardware for testing.  But if others have numbers I'd be happy to hear.
15:21 < tulip> bsm1175321: all current hardware has a latency of milliseconds flushing new work.
15:22 < bsm1175321> tulip: That's what I would have expected, but I've heard that Antminers in particular are much worse than that?
15:22 < tulip> I don't think so.
15:23 < tulip> remember a piece of hardware like the Antminer S7 needs new midstates at tens of kilohertz.
15:23 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:23 < bsm1175321> tulip: I've been trying to understand specifically why everyone thinks they're loosing money on p2pool. AFAICT it's some combination of a misunderstanding of how it works and some hardware taking a long time to flush work.
15:26 < bsm1175321> tulip: I've been unable to find specific data to back this up. I'm working on a proposal which specifically incentivizes fast block creation and fast transmission.
15:26 < tulip> bsm1175321: no, that's not correct. the software configuration is the problem. by default they use cgminer with an option which cases it to discard valid work. in normal operation the mode is supposed to drop all found shares once they see a new highest block on the network rather than submitting things that will be rejected by the pool. on p2pool the share chain advances every 30 seconds, a stale p2pool share can be a valid Bitcoin block, which
15:26 < tulip>  will be thrown out because it's "stale" in respect with the pool.
15:27 < bsm1175321> tulip: Do you mind if we take this to #p2pool?
15:27 < tulip> bsm1175321: I've got other things I need to be doing. it's a well known property that's discussed in the p2pool thread on bitcointalk.org.
15:28 < bsm1175321> tulip: Ok thanks, I'll look it up!
15:28 < tulip> bsm1175321: good search term is "--no-submit-stale"
15:28 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:31 -!- gentoognuhurd [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:31 < tulip> coinoperated: Bitcoin makes zero assumptions about peoples mempool contents. realistically you don't need to have a mempool, it's a historical appendage from a time where every Bitcoin node was a miner.
15:34 -!- tulip [~tulip@unaffiliated/tulip] has quit []
15:36 < bramc> Widely distributing transactions is a useful service
15:41 -!- RedEmerald [~RedEmeral@216.240.130.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:44 < coinoperated> @tulip:  I am thinking in terms of mining nodes only, from my understanding there are few if any reasons for full nodes to exist in a future highly-adopted Bitcoin ecosystem.  Only mining nodes and SPV clients, as there are few economically rational reasons to run a full node that doesn't mine (there are altrustic reasons for doing so though)
15:44 -!- RedEmerald [~RedEmeral@216.240.130.109] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:46 < coinoperated> i mean, full nodes that don't mine.  All the baggage of decentralization, with very little of its incentives other than ideological satisfaction, which is hard to put a price on.
15:48 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:48 -!- adam3us [~Adium@141.8.72.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:49 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:51 < pigeons> coinoperated: but still you dont need mempool agreement if all full nodes are miners
15:52 < pigeons> and not being lied to and defrauded is sometimes an economically rational reason to run a full node
15:56 < bramc> Running a mempool is also a good way to get full blocks at lower latency, because you'll already have downloaded a portion of them.
15:59 -!- Guest50709 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:00 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:04 -!- Guest51007 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:18 < phantomcircuit> <coinoperated> ... there are few if any reasons for full nodes to exist in a future highly-adopted Bitcoin ecosystem ...
16:18 < phantomcircuit> that is absolutely and completely false
16:19 < phantomcircuit> bitcoins security model relies strongly on the users of the system checking that miners have followed the rules of the system
16:19 < phantomcircuit> that reliance is indeed so strong that you are only a user of the system if you are operating a full verifying node
16:20 < phantomcircuit> the spv clients which exist today are absolutely insecure
16:26 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:38 -!- gentoognuhurd is now known as justanotheruser
16:46 -!- Guest51007 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:50 < bramc> phantomcircuit, They could be made a lot more secure with utxo commitments
16:51 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:52 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gyrivhsmjlyiijxu] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
16:53 < maaku> what would be the justification for utxo commitments after backlinks are added, however?
16:54 -!- amiller_ [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:54 < bramc> maaku, What do you mean by 'backlinks'?
16:55 < bramc> utxo commitments can both demonstrate that a txo is current and that it isn't
17:20 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:21 -!- windsok [~windsok@ec2-52-64-26-60.ap-southeast-2.compute.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:24 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fefgykkmgmgbihln] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:29 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:36 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
17:46 -!- cheetah2 [~cheetah2@172.242.102.144] has quit []
17:51 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:52 -!- Yoghur114_2 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:55 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
17:59 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:22 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
18:23 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:27 -!- joesmoe [~joesmoe@76.73.18.156] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:29 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@i121-117-83-230.s41.a013.ap.plala.or.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:44 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:47 -!- amiller_ [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:49 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
18:53 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:14 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@178-157-152.dynamic.cyta.gr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:21 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-fgvzvpcisbnqjtpl] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:23 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-141.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:35 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-svlcfofillvgycwm] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:03 < phantomcircuit> maaku, utxo commitments are less reliant on fraud proofs than backrefs are
20:03 < phantomcircuit> or maybe not actually
20:03 < phantomcircuit> hmm
20:11 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:13 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:13 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xglsmgexempuwpxz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:14 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
20:16 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:16 < coinoperated> phantomcircuit:  I would lump those reasons under altruism or ideology.  Today, we can expect the small pool of mostly sophisticated users to be fully educated about the significance of having a fully validating node.  Most people aren't going to understand this, and the Bitcoin of the future has to be compatible with "most people." Unless something changes wrt blockchain initial sync time (at very least, other UX
20:16 < coinoperated> problems abound) there's no reason to expect a highly adopted Bitcoin to consist of mostly full nodes.
20:18 < phantomcircuit> coinoperated, then bitcoin will fail and we can all go home
20:19 < coinoperated> absent a large and widely disseminated education campaign to sell people on the abstract benefits of decentralization, people are just going to use the quickest, simplest onramp which right now is web wallets like the horrible BCI
20:20 < Eliel_> coinoperated: well, you can of course, outsource the verification of transactions to someone else, but the fact still remains that running your own full node is the only way to be sure no-one is feeding you incorrect data about incoming transactions.
20:22 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
20:25 < coinoperated> Elie1_  not disagreeing at all, my own wallet is the stock Qt.  But I also realize I am here partly for the front seat view to a revolution and will discount the suboptimal UX as part of the price of admission.  But there is no doubt that part of the scalbility problem is finding wider and wider markets to scale into, and those markets won't come to Bitcoin, Bitcoin has to come to them.
20:26 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:29 < Eliel_> coinoperated: many SPV wallets support a mode where they only connect to a certain defined bitcoind node. In the case that node is trustworthy, your SPV wallet will be as secure as a full node. I suspect reasonably many people might want to run a full node in an UTXO only mode for that purpose.
20:30 < coinoperated> bsm1175321: < We could mine tx's instead.  This would move mining to the edges of the network, but everyone would have to buy ASIC's to participate>  Is this where the 21 gadget is going (after a few refinement iterations)?
20:30 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
20:32 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:38 -!- CoolerMaster [~IceChat9@c-98-253-133-175.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:39 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:41 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, unfortunately none of those things have authenticated connections
20:42 < Eliel_> phantomcircuit: ah, yes, that's a problem...
20:43 < Eliel_> ... is someone working on adding an authenticated protocol for that sort of connections?
20:43 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:43 -!- Guest25458 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:43 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, not that im aware of
20:44 < AdrianG> coinoperated: 21co is supposedly trying to get ppl to convert wall socket electricity to coins, instead of putting up with KYC/AML/DHS/DVD/CD/PHD/MTV
20:44 < AdrianG> i guess an easier way to buy coins to spend.
20:46 < Eliel_> would probably be enough to have the full node sign transactions and/or blocks with a specific key and share those signatures when the other party requests them. Then you could just input the public key of the full node to your wallet in addition to the IP address.
20:46 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, just the headers is enough
20:46 < phantomcircuit> actually just the last header is enough
20:47 < Eliel_> phantomcircuit: you mean block header.
20:47 < phantomcircuit> yes
20:47 < phantomcircuit> if you have a signature on a header from a trusted full node you have the same security as the full node
20:47 < phantomcircuit> well sort of
20:47 < Eliel_> unconfirmed transactions could benefit from signatures too.
20:47 < phantomcircuit> you're not guaranteed to have all of the utxo entires that you can spend
20:48 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, not necessary
20:48 < phantomcircuit> they're unconfirmed remember? zero security
20:48 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:48 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:49 < Eliel_> phantomcircuit: it's an improvement over what the SPV node can do itself.
20:50 < Eliel_> as far as I'm aware, you could currently send an SPV node a complete garbage transaction that spends imaginary outputs and it would have no way to tell.
20:50 < Eliel_> with signatures, you could at least tell that the transaction has a chance to be mined.
20:51 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, "meh"
20:52 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
20:56 < Eliel_> also, if the signatures included timestamps, it might provide nice instrumentation for analyzing propagation behauviour.
21:02 < Eliel_> it wouldn't be much use from a security point of view, but it'd help the SPV wallet keep it's transaction list clean. If something is double spent, that it can detect and remove from it's list but for pure garbage it doesn't have a good way to clean, other than waiting for X number of blocks for timeout removal.
21:02 < Eliel_> helps prevent some confused user attacks
21:17 < phantomcircuit> Eliel_, eh just connecting to the one bitcoind would be enough for that
21:17 < phantomcircuit> no need to sign them
21:18 < Eliel_> well, I suppose if it's an encrypted connection, just signing the blocks is enough
21:18 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@104.232.116.217] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
21:19 < Eliel_> but encrypted connection is not needed if it's all signed.
21:22 -!- Guest25458 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
21:25 -!- Guest56234 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:27 -!- GGuyZ_ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:27 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:27 -!- GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
21:30 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:32 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@104.200.154.72] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:36 -!- oneeman [~oneeman@ip48-68-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:40 -!- Guest56234 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
21:41 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:43 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:53 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
21:55 -!- Cory [~C@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:02 < bramc> Again, my question is, what are backrefs? And my point is, that if you have utxo commitments then an spv server can actually prove to an spv client that a particular utxo is or is not included.
22:06 < bramc> Assuming an extension to spv to include those proofs of course.
22:10 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@216-15-125-203.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
22:11 -!- el33th4x0r [68e5aa14@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.104.229.170.20] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:13 < el33th4x0r> are there any segwit experts online for a quick question?
22:13 < el33th4x0r> sipa?
22:22 < jl2012> el33th4x0r just ask. People will answer if they know
22:23 < el33th4x0r> ok, i looked through the two early BIPs and the draft of the third, and I'm confused by the great variety of claims made around segwit.
22:24 < el33th4x0r> the BIPs outline a conservative approach that rearranges block contents, but the segregated witness is nevertheless an integral part of a block.
22:24 < el33th4x0r> the operational description says that the peers fetch the block in whole, with the witness.
22:25 < el33th4x0r> Greg has been very careful, in describing segwit benefits, that segwit improves malleability, allows discarding old witnesses, etc etc. but he does NOT say that it improves block transmission speeds.
22:25 < el33th4x0r> yet a lot of people online believe that segwit is a technique to "effectively increase block size"
22:26 < jl2012> what's you question?
22:26 < el33th4x0r> so the question is, what does that claim really mean?
22:26 < jl2012> which claim?
22:26 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:26 < jl2012> I'm co-author of the BIP
22:26 < smooth> el33th4x0r: it effectively increases the hard cap, but does nothing to influence the factors that motivate the cap
22:27 < el33th4x0r> how does segwit effectively increase block size?
22:27 < el33th4x0r> does block size refer to  (the number of bytes to be transmitted from one peer to another during block propagation)
22:27 < jl2012> if effectively increases the hard cap ---> yes
22:27 < el33th4x0r> how does it do that?
22:27 < smooth> el33th4x0r> how does segwit effectively increase block size? <= because the transcations over which the blocks size is calculated will be smaller
22:28 < smooth> (by the existing code)
22:28 < el33th4x0r> ah, i get it -- it's one of the benefits of the soft fork trick
22:29 < jl2012> it does NOT improve block transmission speed: yes, if you are talking about full nodes to full nodes
22:29 < el33th4x0r> jl2012, smooth: thanks, that was very helpful.
22:30 < jl2012> welcomed
22:34 < jl2012> but it does improve tx transmission from full to SPV nodes
22:35 < el33th4x0r> right.
22:36 < moli> el33th4x0r: have you watched sipa explain it in HK:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fst1IK_mrng&feature=youtu.be&t=2156
22:37 < el33th4x0r> moli: yes, but my uptake from videos is limited. it's all sorted out now.
22:49 -!- Guest55894 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:49 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-139-55-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:55 -!- el33th4x0r [68e5aa14@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.104.229.170.20] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
22:58 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:58 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
23:00 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:03 -!- Guest55894 [~socrates1@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:03 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
23:05 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
23:06 < jl2012> my SW testnet node based on 0.12 keeps saying socket recv error Connection reset by peer (104) , what does it mean?
23:06 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:10 -!- CoolerMaster [~IceChat9@c-98-253-133-175.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
23:12 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xglsmgexempuwpxz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
23:17 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:19 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:27 -!- jcorgan [~jcorgan@unaffiliated/jcorgan] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:37 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:57 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
--- Log closed Sun Jan 03 00:00:54 2016