| --- Log opened Mon Jun 22 00:00:48 2015 | ||
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 00:09 | |
| -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] | 00:09 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 00:11 | |
| -!- n0n0_ [~n0n0___@x5f7687b6.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 00:19 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 00:26 | |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 00:27 | |
| -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hbtnhrnlcydjzjwl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 00:46 | |
| -!- jtimon [~quassel@69.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 00:58 | |
| -!- Aquentin [~Aquentin@cpc13-walt14-2-0-cust31.13-2.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 00:59 | |
| -!- Aquentin is now known as Guest86574 | 00:59 | |
| -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 01:03 | |
| -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:03 | |
| * andy-logbot is logging | 01:03 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:06 | |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-206-246.home.otenet.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 01:07 | |
| -!- jcluck [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 01:08 | |
| -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 01:08 | |
| -!- jcluck [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:08 | |
| -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:08 | |
| -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@148.Red-88-8-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:09 | |
| -!- Guest86574 [~Aquentin@cpc13-walt14-2-0-cust31.13-2.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 01:09 | |
| -!- darwin__ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:09 | |
| -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:10 | |
| -!- phantomcircuit [~phantomci@smartcontracts.us] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 01:12 | |
| -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 01:12 | |
| -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:13 | |
| -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:13 | |
| -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 01:15 | |
| -!- yossef [~androirc@114.121.154.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 01:15 | |
| -!- phantomcircuit [~phantomci@smartcontracts.us] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:16 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 01:18 | |
| phantomcircuit | <phantomcircuit> petertodd, note that micropayment channels make leaking of the change address significantly less of an issue | 01:18 |
|---|---|---|
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:18 | |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:31 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:36 | |
| -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:40 | |
| -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:41 | |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 01:47 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 01:49 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:49 | |
| -!- JackH [~Jack@host81-154-202-222.range81-154.btcentralplus.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:50 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@109.67.207.175] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:53 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte] | 01:53 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 01:54 | |
| CodeShark | how far along are you with the segregated witness thing, sipa? | 01:55 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:55 | |
| CodeShark | is there anything I can help you with? :) | 01:55 |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 01:57 | |
| sipa | no, it was trivial to implement, it works | 01:58 |
| sipa | we need tests :) | 01:58 |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 02:00 | |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:02 | |
| CodeShark | so you essentially added an extra hash method | 02:03 |
| CodeShark | you have four hashes now | 02:03 |
| CodeShark | hash, hashWitness, hashFull, hashBitcoin | 02:04 |
| sipa | the last one is for compatibility reasons | 02:05 |
| sipa | but essentially, txid = hash of everything except witness data | 02:05 |
| sipa | txidwitness = hash of just witness data | 02:05 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 02:05 | |
| sipa | blocks commit to txidfull = H(txid || txidwitness) | 02:05 |
| sipa | but everything else just uses txid | 02:06 |
| -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 02:06 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:06 | |
| sipa | witness data is scriptsigs, but also the range proofs needed for confidential transactions | 02:06 |
| sipa | they don't change the effect of a transaction, only theit validity | 02:07 |
| -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:73f:f6e4:e23f:49ff:fe47:9364] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:07 | |
| CodeShark | right | 02:08 |
| -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:08 | |
| sipa | and since the range proofs are huge, this makes a large difference in the amount of data you need to download | 02:09 |
| sipa | if you do not care for signature validation | 02:09 |
| CodeShark | yeah, for sure | 02:09 |
| CodeShark | we'll eventually want to move to a model where not everyone has to validate everything :) | 02:10 |
| CodeShark | but something that actually works, unlike SPV | 02:10 |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:10 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:12 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 02:12 | |
| CodeShark | and something where you CAN validate what's important to you without having to trust the prover | 02:13 |
| CodeShark | so what you should do then is use H(txid || H(txidwitness)) | 02:14 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, tree of hashes of all the things in the transaction | 02:14 |
| CodeShark | yeah | 02:14 |
| phantomcircuit | download/validate only what you care about | 02:14 |
| CodeShark | exactly | 02:15 |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:15 | |
| CodeShark | I've also been thinking about how to reduce the reorg fragility if we ever want to move to a model where even miners might not validate everything | 02:19 |
| -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_] | 02:19 | |
| CodeShark | in principle, we don't need to revert an entire block just because of one bad transaction | 02:19 |
| CodeShark | we can still use the block for PoW | 02:19 |
| CodeShark | but just revert all the dependencies of that transaction | 02:19 |
| sipa | amiller had a model a long time ago, where a block could commit to multiple parents, but only one counted for effects; the rest only for pow | 02:20 |
| sipa | and the system's difficulty aimed for a constant not-on-main-chain rate, rather then constant block rate | 02:21 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:22 | |
| CodeShark | what do you mean by not-on-main-chain rate? | 02:22 |
| sipa | it measures the recent percentage of blocks that are in such secondary parents | 02:22 |
| CodeShark | are we still talking a single blockchain? or multiple blockchains? | 02:23 |
| sipa | one dag | 02:23 |
| sipa | which defines a chain by following only primary parents | 02:23 |
| -!- Mably [56401ec5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.197] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 02:24 | |
| CodeShark | still not sure I fully get it - so the same block is used for both effects and pow but is inserted in multiple parents of this dag? | 02:25 |
| -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:26 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 02:27 | |
| CodeShark | so if the block turns out to be invalid, it is still used for PoW but the effects are voided? | 02:27 |
| CodeShark | or two separate blocks entirely - one only used for PoW and the other used only for effects? | 02:28 |
| sipa | no | 02:29 |
| sipa | every block has two parents | 02:29 |
| sipa | one from which it inherits utxo state and pow | 02:29 |
| sipa | another from which it only inheritd pow | 02:29 |
| sipa | the best-pow one with only valid first-parents wins | 02:30 |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 02:30 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:30 | |
| sipa | the utxo set is defined by purely following the first parents up, and these need to be valid | 02:30 |
| sipa | the blocks reachable through non-first parents count for pow, but are otherwise not validated | 02:31 |
| CodeShark | ah, so the objective is to allow miners to create usable blocks without having to validate anything? | 02:31 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:31 | |
| CodeShark | do these PoW-only parents have parents as well? | 02:32 |
| CodeShark | still not sure I'm getting it p | 02:32 |
| sipa | they are just blocks | 02:32 |
| sipa | and miners still have to validate everything | 02:33 |
| sipa | it is just blocks that would have beenbreorged out in bitcoin | 02:33 |
| CodeShark | oh, so something more akin to GHOST, in a sense | 02:33 |
| amiller | its not a lot different than GHOST | 02:33 |
| sipa | now become linked into the chain again as such a second parent | 02:33 |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 02:33 | |
| CodeShark | ok :) | 02:33 |
| sipa | lol | 02:33 |
| CodeShark | the pow parents are what some are calling "uncles" | 02:34 |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:35 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 02:35 | |
| amiller | yes | 02:36 |
| amiller | so the difference is | 02:36 |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@82.130.102.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:36 | |
| amiller | GHOST has some proposed incentive policy about how much reward the uncles get | 02:36 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 02:36 | |
| amiller | it's kind of a loose parameter IMO, they don't justify that choice too well.. i think they have an exponential decay thing | 02:36 |
| amiller | also, in every GHOST proposal I know of, including ethereum's, there's still a fixed minimum-time parameter | 02:37 |
| amiller | so... retrofitting that idea as an extension to GHOST, the point of this thing is to use the GHOST incentives to *tune* the block arrival rate. | 02:38 |
| amiller | no more magic block time number! hooray! defeating a magic parameter is its own reward | 02:38 |
| CodeShark | so basically narrowing the variance | 02:39 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:39 | |
| CodeShark | and not wasting PoW in side chains | 02:39 |
| amiller | yes | 02:40 |
| amiller | i still think thats a good idea but i didn't finish it | 02:40 |
| amiller | also why should there be any particular fixed fraction | 02:41 |
| CodeShark | if you can incorporate pooled mining into it as well somehow, even more horray! :) | 02:42 |
| -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 02:43 | |
| amiller | basically i think people should spam their partial proofs of work as far as they can | 02:43 |
| CodeShark | yeah | 02:43 |
| amiller | somehow those shares should tolerate a "lossy" network | 02:44 |
| amiller | like, it's okay if not everyone gets all of those | 02:44 |
| -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:44 | |
| amiller | the things that are currently really | 02:44 |
| amiller | infrequent, and worth thousands of dollars, should still propagate everywhere | 02:45 |
| -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:45 | |
| amiller | i think this is about as well thought out as treechains :O | 02:45 |
| -!- Tiraspol_ [~Tiraspol3@x5ce0998c.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 02:46 | |
| CodeShark | it's a good start of something :) | 02:47 |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@82.130.102.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 02:50 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 02:51 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:52 | |
| -!- bedeho [~bedeho@195.159.234.190] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 02:53 | |
| CodeShark | have you gotten as far as modeling anything, amiller? | 02:53 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 02:57 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 02:58 | |
| -!- bedeho [~bedeho@195.159.234.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:00 | |
| amiller | uh, i remember trying to cram it into the pretty limited set of byzantine generals problem things i knew about, and it didn't work very well | 03:00 |
| amiller | since then, some actual people who know what they're doing in that field modeled the "backbone protocol", and i've also learned to use more abstract tools to talk to cryptographers, like Fblockchain | 03:03 |
| CodeShark | fblockchain - not sure I'm familiar with that one | 03:04 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 277 seconds] | 03:05 | |
| CodeShark | who are some of these actual people, btw? :) | 03:05 |
| amiller | its kind of an overidealized "proof of publication"... it's a "simulation based definition" | 03:05 |
| amiller | https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/765 | 03:06 |
| -!- btcdrak [uid52049@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nabfjrkamedlfrit] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:06 | |
| amiller | .title | 03:06 |
| yoleaux | Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2014/765 | 03:06 |
| amiller | oh well: The Bitcoin Backbone Protocol: Analysis and Applications. Juan Garay and Aggelos Kiayias and Nikos Leonardos | 03:06 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:08 | |
| stonecoldpat | CodeShark: for f_{blockchain}, i'm guessing amiller is using the terminology that his supervisor used during a presentation to describe the blockchain as a function, https://youtu.be/FQ6Hii69b5U?t=268 | 03:14 |
| CodeShark | ah, I see | 03:15 |
| -!- afk11 [~thomas@46.7.4.219] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:15 | |
| amiller | yes! :D also we will release a preprint of that in a couple days or something | 03:15 |
| -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-lenzbkcyfmpxthsf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:16 | |
| -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslc-082-082-155-231.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:16 | |
| -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-120-184.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 03:19 | |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:19 | |
| CodeShark | sipa: no new genesis block for elements alpha? | 03:23 |
| sipa | eh yes there is | 03:24 |
| sipa | the format for blocks is even different | 03:24 |
| CodeShark | so then it must be somewhere other than chainparams.cpp | 03:24 |
| sipa | no? | 03:25 |
| -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@14.150.broadband14.iol.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:25 | |
| CodeShark | because in there I only see the familiar one | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | or the familiar two, I should say :p | 03:25 |
| sipa | are you looking in the ElementsProject/elements, branch alpha? | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | oh, branch alpha | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | yes | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | I am | 03:25 |
| CodeShark | https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/blob/alpha/src/chainparams.cpp | 03:25 |
| stonecoldpat | amiller: awesome looking forward to it | 03:26 |
| -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@14.150.broadband14.iol.cz] has quit [Client Quit] | 03:26 | |
| sipa | CodeShark: perhaps the message wasn't changed | 03:27 |
| sipa | but the serialized format of blocks is different | 03:27 |
| sipa | as it has signatures instead of pow | 03:27 |
| CodeShark | but the hash is the same, too :) | 03:27 |
| CodeShark | 0x000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f | 03:27 |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 03:28 | |
| CodeShark | did you break sha256, sipa? :) | 03:28 |
| sipa | heh | 03:31 |
| sipa | what are you looking at? | 03:31 |
| CodeShark | chainparams.cpp | 03:31 |
| CodeShark | class CMainParams | 03:32 |
| CodeShark | it looks a little bit too familiar ;) | 03:32 |
| sipa | look at testnet | 03:37 |
| sipa | there is no alpha mainnet | 03:38 |
| sipa | but we probably did not remove it from chainparams | 03:38 |
| CodeShark | ok, yeah - CTestNetParams does look a little different | 03:39 |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:40 | |
| -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:577:5919:1b9c:af13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:40 | |
| CodeShark | so when it runs it just uses testnet...and the --testnet option does nothing? | 03:40 |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: cfields | 03:41 | |
| -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: ThinThread, rasengan, afk11, adams__, null_rad-, Jaamg, lnovy, Zouppen, Taek, jonasschnelli, (+4 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them) | 03:41 | |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: lnovy | 03:41 | |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: rasengan | 03:42 | |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: afk11 | 03:42 | |
| -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:42 | |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: Luke-Jr | 03:42 | |
| -!- Netsplit over, joins: Taek | 03:42 | |
| CodeShark | the default datadir needs to be changed as well | 03:45 |
| -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-crnvejqpkuszikbh] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:45 | |
| CodeShark | and the pid | 03:45 |
| -!- catcow [sid62269@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-chpuajbjcwkdnyow] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:46 | |
| -!- null_radix [Elite7851@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-zcjbwsuouzbugkvr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:47 | |
| -!- huseby [~huseby@unaffiliated/huseby] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:48 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 03:48 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:49 | |
| -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@2a01:4f8:200:7025::2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:51 | |
| -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@195.138.228.37] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 03:55 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@109.67.207.175] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 03:56 | |
| -!- adam3us [~Adium@c3-219.i07-1.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:57 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 03:58 | |
| sipa | CodeShark: you can run --notestnet, but it will fail if you fo | 04:05 |
| sipa | the datadir should be ~/.bitcoin/alphatestnet3 | 04:05 |
| CodeShark | oh, hmmm | 04:06 |
| CodeShark | I was thinking perhaps it would be a good idea to move it into an entirely separate directory | 04:07 |
| CodeShark | makes it harder to corrupt an existing bitcoind installation | 04:07 |
| CodeShark | the two databases are diverging quickly, after all - and will be less and less mutually compatible :p | 04:09 |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 04:11 | |
| CodeShark | and then https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/blob/alpha/src/util.cpp#L480 | 04:11 |
| -!- _biO_ [~biO_@80.156.183.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:13 | |
| -!- jrayhawk_ is now known as jrayhawk | 04:14 | |
| -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:17 | |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 04:21 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:27 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Read error: No route to host] | 04:28 | |
| CodeShark | time for bed - I'll continue checking it out tomorrow, sipa | 04:29 |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:30 | |
| -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n | 04:32 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.] | 04:38 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:38 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 04:41 | |
| sipa | CodeShark: 'diverging' ? | 04:43 |
| sipa | they're entirely separate, all the time | 04:43 |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:46 | |
| -!- bliljerk101 [~bliljerk1@pool-74-109-193-20.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] | 04:47 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 04:50 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 04:51 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 04:55 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 04:57 | |
| -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:02 | |
| -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] | 05:06 | |
| -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:07 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 05:10 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:11 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:18 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Client Quit] | 05:18 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:22 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 05:22 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.169.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:24 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:27 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.169.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 05:28 | |
| -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 05:29 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.144.66] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:39 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 05:47 | |
| -!- instagibbs [32f65962@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.246.89.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:48 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 05:53 | |
| -!- droark [~droark@209-6-53-207.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 05:59 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 275 seconds] | 06:06 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:06 | |
| -!- pollux-bts [uid52270@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hcjzxsdttbtkpezw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:09 | |
| -!- instagibbs [32f65962@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.246.89.98] has quit [Quit: Page closed] | 06:12 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 06:14 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.35] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:16 | |
| -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:19 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.35] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 06:21 | |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-206-246.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:21 | |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@ppp-2-86-206-246.home.otenet.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 06:21 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-170-84.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:22 | |
| -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has quit [Client Quit] | 06:23 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:23 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:30 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:32 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.144.66] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 06:34 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:36 | |
| -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:38 | |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:40 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 06:42 | |
| -!- Aquentin [~Aquentin@unaffiliated/aquentin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:45 | |
| -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.107] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:47 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@182.50.108.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 06:49 | |
| -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:49 | |
| -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 06:50 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 06:59 | |
| -!- AndroUser2 [~androirc@180.252.72.109] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:01 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:02 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Client Quit] | 07:03 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 07:03 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:05 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 07:06 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:06 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 07:06 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:07 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:10 | |
| -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:11 | |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 07:11 | |
| -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 07:11 | |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:16 | |
| -!- Madars [~null@unaffiliated/madars] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 07:17 | |
| -!- Madars [~null@unaffiliated/madars] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:18 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 277 seconds] | 07:19 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:19 | |
| -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:21 | |
| -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 07:22 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:22 | |
| -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:23 | |
| -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:23 | |
| -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 07:23 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-170-84.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 07:25 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:26 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 07:28 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:28 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 07:29 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:29 | |
| -!- davi [~davi@gnu/davi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:30 | |
| -!- p15x_ [~p15x@182.50.108.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 07:30 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.161.178] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:30 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 07:35 | |
| -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 07:37 | |
| -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:38 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 07:43 | |
| -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:45 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has quit [Quit: temujin] | 07:46 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:46 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:47 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 07:49 | |
| bramc | Because the subject hasn't been done to death already: https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f | 07:58 |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] | 07:58 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 07:59 | |
| chmod755 | "principles on which Bitcoin was founded"......... | 08:00 |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:02 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:02 | |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.39.101] has quit [Excess Flood] | 08:04 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:05 | |
| -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 08:06 | |
| -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:07 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 08:07 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:08 | |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.39.101] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:09 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000_ [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:09 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Killed (wolfe.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))] | 08:10 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000 | 08:10 | |
| -!- zooko [~user@2601:281:8101:3c71:40d1:c44c:ba43:df6b] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:10 | |
| -!- austinhill [~Adium@bas1-montreal43-1177755675.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:11 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 08:11 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:17 | |
| -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Read error: Connection timed out] | 08:18 | |
| -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:19 | |
| -!- ThinThread [~far@onegrandcircle.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:21 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 08:23 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:24 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:24 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has quit [Client Quit] | 08:26 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:26 | |
| -!- fragzle [~fr4ggs@li578-62.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:27 | |
| -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|away | 08:28 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] | 08:29 | |
| -!- _biO__ [~biO_@ip-37-24-195-112.hsi14.unitymediagroup.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:29 | |
| -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 08:31 | |
| -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 08:33 | |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@c-24-5-125-31.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 08:37 | |
| -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:38 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 08:40 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:40 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:41 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:42 | |
| -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:42 | |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 08:44 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 08:46 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:48 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 08:52 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 08:56 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:56 | |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@37.6.195.164] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 08:56 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2.228.102.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:04 | |
| -!- davi [~davi@gnu/davi] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 09:05 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 09:06 | |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.39.101] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 09:06 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2.228.102.98] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 09:13 | |
| -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:13 | |
| -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Changing host] | 09:13 | |
| -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:13 | |
| -!- wallet42 is now known as Guest9149 | 09:13 | |
| -!- Guest9149 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Killed (sendak.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))] | 09:13 | |
| -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42 | 09:13 | |
| -!- MrTratta [~MrTratta@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:13 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:15 | |
| -!- davi [~davi@gnu/davi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:17 | |
| -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 09:19 | |
| -!- sy5error [~sy5error@unaffiliated/sy5error] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:20 | |
| -!- Pasha [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:20 | |
| -!- AndroUser2 [~androirc@180.252.72.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 09:21 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@82.130.102.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:24 | |
| -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:25 | |
| -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 09:27 | |
| -!- Pasha is now known as Cory | 09:27 | |
| -!- JackH [~Jack@host81-154-202-222.range81-154.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 09:27 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has quit [Quit: lnsybrd] | 09:32 | |
| -!- Mably [56401ec3@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.195] has quit [Quit: Page closed] | 09:32 | |
| -!- blablaa [~st4fdds@unaffiliated/blablaa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:34 | |
| blablaa | are there some altcoins working entirely using tx fees? | 09:35 |
| sipa | did you use 'altcoins' and 'working' in the same sentence? | 09:35 |
| blablaa | sipa, well yes... | 09:36 |
| sipa | there are a few who have done interesting development, but they are a very small minority | 09:36 |
| sipa | also, offtopic here | 09:36 |
| blablaa | sipa, it's related to bitcoin because bitcoin as it is is supposed to be funded by tx fees in the future | 09:37 |
| sipa | blablaa: that is a controversial position | 09:37 |
| blablaa | sipa, i'm wondering if fees will stay sufficiently high without a strict cap on block size. i know all this is controversial, but it's also interesting, so i'm throwing the question here. | 09:39 |
| zooko | blablaa: I think your question is a good one. | 09:40 |
| zooko | blablaa: I think the answer to it is: the evidence from altcoins so far doesn't tell us. | 09:40 |
| sipa | agree with zooko | 09:40 |
| -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:41 | |
| -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:41 | |
| -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:42 | |
| -!- Emcy_ [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host] | 09:42 | |
| -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:42 | |
| blablaa | zooko, ok, thx for your answer, i'll wait for more answers :) | 09:43 |
| -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 09:45 | |
| bramc | The current transaction rate in altcoins seems unlikely to be able to keep things stable based on transaction fees alone | 09:46 |
| sipa | yes, you need a simulation of an economy for that | 09:47 |
| sipa | blablaa: also, apologies, i thought we were on #bitcoin-dev | 09:47 |
| zooko | sipa: Oh, I was wondering about that. So this topic *is* on topic here? | 09:47 |
| sipa | i would say so | 09:47 |
| zooko | Cool. | 09:47 |
| sipa | people talk about (interesting) changes to bitcoin all the time here, including those implemented in altcoins | 09:48 |
| tromp_ | this could be called bitcoin-fantasies :) | 09:48 |
| zooko | lol | 09:48 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 09:48 | |
| -!- elastoma [~elastoma@162.248.160.175] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 09:49 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:49 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 09:49 | |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye] | 09:50 | |
| -!- tucenaber [~tucenaber@unaffiliated/tucenaber] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 09:51 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@72.44.238.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:51 | |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Quit: ttm] | 09:54 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:54 | |
| -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 09:55 | |
| adam3us | bramc: note in your medium post gavin's latest proposal ses blocks auto-growing from 8MB to 8GB in 2x increments on a biennial schedule. | 09:56 |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:56 | |
| kanzure | "Eventually the two currencies will be completely separated and peacefully coexist," this is not always going to be the outcome, especially if people lose tremendous amounts of BTC during the transition (or when software is spending to the wrong addresses on the worng blockchains, etc.) | 09:57 |
| adam3us | bramc: not that that is necessarily any better. effect i shard to predict but if understand the intent is to subsidise fees to something approximating effectively free fees for foreseeable future | 09:58 |
| -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 09:58 | |
| adam3us | bramc: wow that text got mangled some how! | 09:58 |
| bramc | adam3us, I'm trying to word what I'm saying carefully to not be accused of misrepresenting what somebody else says. I included some comments about gavin's latest proposal being even more extreme and him saying specifically that he's doing it because of people arguing with him originally but removed them because it sounded a bit personal | 09:59 |
| adam3us | bramc: try again. not that that is necessarily any better. the effect is hard to predict, but if understand Gavin's intent, he aims to subsidise fees so that there are effectively free fees for the foreseeable future | 09:59 |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 09:59 | |
| bramc | adam3us, I'm going to write another essay later about the long term effects of all this stuff, I'll include all that thinking in there | 10:00 |
| adam3us | bramc: fair enough. thanks for writing anyway - for some reason the tech news seems to focus on some confusion that industry wants this or that gavin is lead developer and other things. | 10:00 |
| bramc | (because, apparently, there isn't enough stress in my life, so I'm proactively delving into bitcoin) | 10:00 |
| -!- goregrind [~goregrind@unaffiliated/goregrind] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 10:00 | |
| bramc | Thanks for the props, adam3us | 10:00 |
| -!- nwilcox_ [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:01 | |
| bramc | I've gotta run now, laters everybody | 10:01 |
| -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 10:01 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 10:02 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:02 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 10:04 | |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 10:04 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:06 | |
| -!- nwilcox_ [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 10:06 | |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:07 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:08 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Client Quit] | 10:09 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:10 | |
| -!- elastoma [~elastoma@162.248.160.175] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:11 | |
| -!- bliljerk101 [~bliljerk1@pool-74-109-193-20.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:11 | |
| -!- n0n0_ [~n0n0___@x5f7687b6.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 10:12 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Client Quit] | 10:13 | |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:16 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:16 | |
| -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 10:16 | |
| -!- goregrind [~goregrind@89.137.127.229] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:17 | |
| -!- goregrind [~goregrind@89.137.127.229] has quit [Changing host] | 10:17 | |
| -!- goregrind [~goregrind@unaffiliated/goregrind] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:17 | |
| -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:18 | |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 10:20 | |
| -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 10:24 | |
| -!- binaryFate [~binaryFat@94.139.57.106] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 10:27 | |
| -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:28 | |
| -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host] | 10:28 | |
| -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:28 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 10:29 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:30 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 10:31 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:33 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 10:34 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:34 | |
| -!- blablaa [~st4fdds@unaffiliated/blablaa] has quit [Quit: Sto andando via] | 10:35 | |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:35 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 10:36 | |
| -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-142-154.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:37 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:38 | |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:39 | |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Quit: ttm] | 10:41 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:41 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 10:42 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:43 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@72.44.238.238] has quit [Quit: lnsybrd] | 10:43 | |
| -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:43 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@79.108.199.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] | 10:46 | |
| -!- jaekwon [~jae@2601:645:8001:f5c8:dcd4:830:a4df:e259] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Client Quit] | 10:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:47 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 275 seconds] | 10:47 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@82.130.102.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 275 seconds] | 10:47 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:47 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 10:47 | |
| heath | did discussion die down in the mailing list or all the messages ping requests / test messages | 10:48 |
| heath | or +are all the... | 10:48 |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:48 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@72.44.238.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:51 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:52 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.219.239] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 10:53 | |
| -!- hashtag_ [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:54 | |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@37.6.195.164] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 10:55 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] | 10:56 | |
| -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 10:56 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 10:57 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Client Quit] | 10:57 | |
| -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 10:58 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 11:00 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:01 | |
| -!- adam3us [~Adium@c3-219.i07-1.onvol.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 11:01 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@74-95-207-205-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] | 11:04 | |
| -!- jcluck [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 11:04 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.161.178] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded] | 11:09 | |
| -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.161.178] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:10 | |
| -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:16 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 11:18 | |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.24.164] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:22 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@72.44.238.238] has quit [Quit: lnsybrd] | 11:22 | |
| -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 11:22 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 11:30 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:30 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@207.140.24.78] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:32 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@207.140.24.78] has quit [Changing host] | 11:32 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:32 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] | 11:35 | |
| * heath finally sees acitivity beyond ping requests \o/ | 11:35 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv66.quikefall.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:37 | |
| -!- cosmo [~james@unaffiliated/cosmo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:41 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 11:42 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:42 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:42 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 11:42 | |
| -!- getplank [~getplank@65.88.88.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:44 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv66.quikefall.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 11:45 | |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:45 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv66.quikefall.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:45 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 11:46 | |
| -!- Xh1pher [~Xh1pher@pD9E38632.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 11:46 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv66.quikefall.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 11:50 | |
| -!- davi [~davi@gnu/davi] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 11:55 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 277 seconds] | 11:57 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:03 | |
| -!- qawap_ is now known as qawap | 12:05 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Write error: Broken pipe] | 12:11 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:12 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 12:17 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:20 | |
| -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hbtnhrnlcydjzjwl] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] | 12:28 | |
| -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:31 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 12:33 | |
| -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] | 12:35 | |
| StephenM347 | "Your membership in the mailing list Bitcoin-development has been disabled due to excessive bounces..." | 12:36 |
| StephenM347 | Anyone else get this? | 12:36 |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:36 | |
| kanzure | yep | 12:37 |
| kanzure | check #bitcoin-dev irc logs | 12:37 |
| StephenM347 | kanzure: thanks, will do | 12:37 |
| StephenM347 | kanzure: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/ doesn't seem to offer a search? | 12:41 |
| kanzure | brutal... hmm. | 12:43 |
| kanzure | well, one of the emails to bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net mentioned this, so perhaps view that email thread | 12:43 |
| -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 12:46 | |
| -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:46 | |
| -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Excess Flood] | 12:50 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 12:50 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 12:51 | |
| -!- _biO__ [~biO_@ip-37-24-195-112.hsi14.unitymediagroup.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 12:54 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has quit [Quit: lnsybrd] | 13:01 | |
| -!- nessence_ [~alexl@c-68-51-194-2.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [] | 13:06 | |
| -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:08 | |
| -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:08 | |
| -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-57-17-47.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 13:13 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:14 | |
| -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 13:17 | |
| -!- zooko [~user@2601:281:8101:3c71:40d1:c44c:ba43:df6b] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 13:19 | |
| -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:73f:f6e4:e23f:49ff:fe47:9364] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 13:20 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:26 | |
| -!- adam3us [~Adium@c3-219.i07-1.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:29 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 13:29 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:29 | |
| -!- nessence [~alexl@162.17.137.27] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:32 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 13:33 | |
| -!- zooko [~user@2601:281:8101:3c71:1952:c3a0:6717:7d18] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:35 | |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@12.226.88.52] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:36 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@c-24-23-245-115.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:40 | |
| -!- justanotherusr [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 13:40 | |
| -!- justanotherusr [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:42 | |
| -!- lnsybrd_ [~lnsybrd@jsr.6502.ws] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:51 | |
| -!- UllrSkis [~UllrSkis@c-66-41-201-92.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:51 | |
| -!- justanotherusr [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 13:51 | |
| -!- justanotherusr [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:52 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@fwsm-io-azp-dmz.phx1.ip.io.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 13:52 | |
| -!- lnsybrd_ is now known as lnsybrd | 13:52 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 13:54 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:54 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:55 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 13:57 | |
| -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-142-154.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 14:03 | |
| -!- lnsybrd [~lnsybrd@jsr.6502.ws] has quit [Quit: lnsybrd] | 14:03 | |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 14:08 | |
| -!- Populus [Populus@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-lenzbkcyfmpxthsf] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 14:14 | |
| -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft] | 14:17 | |
| -!- tucenaber [~tucenaber@unaffiliated/tucenaber] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:23 | |
| -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)] | 14:24 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.225.11] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:25 | |
| -!- Tebbo [~Jerry`@ip72-211-88-176.no.no.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 14:38 | |
| -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zwbthifqrbevlaks] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:38 | |
| -!- Tebbo [~Jerry`@ip72-211-88-176.no.no.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:38 | |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 14:39 | |
| -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood] | 14:39 | |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:39 | |
| -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:39 | |
| -!- AnoAnon [~AnoAnon@197.39.199.200] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:43 | |
| -!- AnoAnon [~AnoAnon@197.39.199.200] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded] | 14:43 | |
| -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@88.229.225.11] has quit [Killed (sinisalo.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))] | 14:46 | |
| -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42 | 14:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has quit [Changing host] | 14:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:46 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 14:47 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:47 | |
| -!- gnusha [~gnusha@unaffiliated/kanzure/bot/gnusha] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:53 | |
| -!- Topic for #bitcoin-wizards: This channel is not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja | 14:53 | |
| -!- Topic set by andytoshi [~andytoshi@unaffiliated/andytoshi] [Fri Aug 22 14:51:37 2014] | 14:53 | |
| [Users #bitcoin-wizards] | 14:53 | |
| [@ChanServ ] [ catlasshrugged ] [ Giszmo ] [ kanzure ] [ nwilcox ] [ stevenroose ] | 14:53 | |
| [ [ace] ] [ cdecker ] [ gnusha ] [ kinlo ] [ OneFixt ] [ STRML ] | 14:53 | |
| [ [d__d] ] [ cfields ] [ go1111111 ] [ koshii ] [ optimator ] [ sturles ] | 14:53 | |
| [ _biO_ ] [ chmod755 ] [ goregrind ] [ Krellan ] [ otoburb ] [ SubCreative ] | 14:53 | |
| [ _whitelogger ] [ CodeShark ] [ Graet ] [ kumavis ] [ p15x ] [ sundance ] | 14:53 | |
| [ a5m0_ ] [ comboy ] [ grandmaster ] [ kyuupichan ] [ paveljanik ] [ superobserver ] | 14:53 | |
| [ AaronvanW ] [ copumpkin ] [ GreenIsMyPepper] [ larraboj_ ] [ petertodd ] [ SwedFTP ] | 14:53 | |
| [ adam3us ] [ Cory ] [ gribble ] [ lclc ] [ phantomcircuit ] [ sy5error ] | 14:53 | |
| [ adams__ ] [ coryfields_ ] [ grubles ] [ leakypat ] [ pigeons ] [ Taek ] | 14:53 | |
| [ AdrianG ] [ cosmo ] [ Guest68586 ] [ LeMiner ] [ platinuum ] [ tcrypt ] | 14:53 | |
| [ afdudley0 ] [ crescendo ] [ guruvan ] [ livegnik ] [ poggy ] [ TD-Linux ] | 14:53 | |
| [ afk11 ] [ CryptoGoon ] [ gwillen ] [ lmatteis ] [ pollux-bts ] [ Tebbo ] | 14:53 | |
| [ ajweiss ] [ cryptowe- ] [ harrigan ] [ lnovy ] [ PRab_ ] [ temujin ] | 14:53 | |
| [ akrmn ] [ d1ggy ] [ harrow ] [ Logicwax ] [ priidu ] [ TheSeven ] | 14:53 | |
| [ akstunt600 ] [ dansmith_ ] [ hashtag_ ] [ Luke-Jr ] [ prodatalab ] [ theymos ] | 14:53 | |
| [ Alanius_ ] [ darwin__ ] [ hashtagg_ ] [ luny` ] [ prosodyContext_] [ ThinThread ] | 14:53 | |
| [ AlexStraunoff ] [ dasource ] [ hearn ] [ maaku ] [ qawap ] [ thrasher` ] | 14:53 | |
| [ amiller ] [ davout ] [ heath ] [ Mably ] [ rasengan ] [ throughnothing] | 14:53 | |
| [ Anduck ] [ dc17523be3 ] [ helo ] [ Madars ] [ rht__ ] [ Tiraspol ] | 14:53 | |
| [ andy-logbot ] [ dEBRUYNE ] [ HM ] [ mappum ] [ richardus ] [ triazo ] | 14:53 | |
| [ andytoshi ] [ dgenr8 ] [ hulkhogan_ ] [ mariorz ] [ roasbeef ] [ tromp ] | 14:53 | |
| [ Apocalyptic ] [ dignork ] [ huseby ] [ Meeh_ ] [ runeks ] [ tromp_ ] | 14:53 | |
| [ Aquentin ] [ DougieBot5000 ] [ iddo ] [ melvster1 ] [ rustyn ] [ ttttemp ] | 14:53 | |
| [ artifexd ] [ Dr-G ] [ indolering ] [ mengine ] [ ryan-c ] [ tucenaber ] | 14:53 | |
| [ arubi_ ] [ droark ] [ Iriez ] [ merlincorey ] [ s1w ] [ veox ] | 14:53 | |
| [ austinhill ] [ EasyAt ] [ isis ] [ michagogo ] [ sadoshi ] [ vonzipper ] | 14:53 | |
| [ azariah_ ] [ ebfull ] [ JackH ] [ midnightmagic] [ scoria ] [ wallet42 ] | 14:53 | |
| [ badmofo ] [ elastoma ] [ jaekwon ] [ mikolalysenko] [ sdaftuar ] [ warptangent ] | 14:53 | |
| [ BananaLotus ] [ Eliel ] [ jaromil ] [ mkarrer ] [ shen_noe ] [ warren ] | 14:53 | |
| [ bedeho ] [ Emcy ] [ jb55 ] [ mm_1 ] [ shesek ] [ waxwing ] | 14:53 | |
| [ berndj ] [ epscy ] [ jbenet ] [ MoALTz ] [ sipa ] [ weex ] | 14:53 | |
| [ binaryatrocity_] [ eric ] [ jcorgan ] [ morcos ] [ sl01 ] [ wiz ] | 14:53 | |
| [ bliljerk101 ] [ face ] [ jessepollak ] [ mountaingoat ] [ smooth ] [ wizkid057 ] | 14:53 | |
| [ BlueMatt ] [ fenn ] [ jgarzik ] [ MrTratta ] [ sneak ] [ wumpus ] | 14:53 | |
| [ BrainOverfl0w ] [ Fistful_of_Coins] [ jmcn ] [ Muis ] [ so ] [ xabbix ] | 14:53 | |
| [ brand0 ] [ fluffypony ] [ jonasschnelli ] [ nanotube ] [ sparetire ] [ Xzibit17 ] | 14:53 | |
| [ bsm117532 ] [ fragzle ] [ jouke ] [ nephyrin` ] [ sparetire_ ] [ yoleaux ] | 14:53 | |
| [ btcdrak ] [ GAit ] [ jrayhawk ] [ nessence ] [ spinza ] [ yorick ] | 14:53 | |
| [ Burrito ] [ gavinand1esen ] [ jtimon ] [ nickler_ ] [ Starduster ] [ yrashk ] | 14:53 | |
| [ c0rw|away ] [ ggreer ] [ justanotherusr ] [ nsh ] [ starsoccer ] [ zmanian ] | 14:53 | |
| [ catcow ] [ gielbier ] [ K1773R ] [ null_radix ] [ StephenM347 ] [ zooko ] | 14:53 | |
| -!- Irssi: #bitcoin-wizards: Total of 246 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 245 normal] | 14:53 | |
| -!- Channel #bitcoin-wizards created Mon Feb 25 23:24:47 2013 | 14:53 | |
| -!- Irssi: Join to #bitcoin-wizards was synced in 16 secs | 14:53 | |
| -!- espes [~espes@205.185.120.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:53 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 14:54 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:56 | |
| -!- UllrSkis [~UllrSkis@c-66-41-201-92.hsd1.mn.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:58 | |
| -!- forrestv [forrestv@unaffiliated/forrestv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 14:59 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:02 | |
| -!- temujin [~temujin@38.121.165.30] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 15:06 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:07 | |
| -!- ruby32 [~ruby32@38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:07 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:09 | |
| -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:10 | |
| -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@c3-219.i07-1.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:10 | |
| -!- adam3us [~Adium@c3-219.i07-1.onvol.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 15:12 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@c-24-23-245-115.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] | 15:14 | |
| -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has quit [] | 15:16 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:22 | |
| -!- droark [~droark@209-6-53-207.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: Later.] | 15:23 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:23 | |
| -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:29 | |
| -!- droark [~droark@209-6-53-207.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:30 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:30 | |
| -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 15:32 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 15:33 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:34 | |
| -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:34 | |
| -!- zooko [~user@2601:281:8101:3c71:1952:c3a0:6717:7d18] has quit [Quit: BATTLE FOR WESNOTH!!!] | 15:35 | |
| -!- jmcn_ [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:36 | |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has quit [Client Quit] | 15:37 | |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@c-76-103-245-13.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:38 | |
| -!- blazes816 [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:39 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 275 seconds] | 15:39 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 15:41 | |
| -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:42 | |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 15:42 | |
| -!- blazes816 [~tylersmit@173.247.206.110] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:43 | |
| -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:46 | |
| -!- PRab_ [~chatzilla@c-68-34-102-231.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 [Firefox 38.0.5/20150525141253]] | 15:46 | |
| -!- darwin__ [~darwin@88-103-255-166.jes.cz] has quit [] | 15:47 | |
| -!- ruby32 [~ruby32@38.121.165.30] has quit [Quit: ruby32] | 15:47 | |
| -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:51 | |
| -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 15:54 | |
| -!- jmcn_ [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 15:55 | |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:56 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 15:57 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 15:58 | |
| -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Client Quit] | 16:00 | |
| -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-142-154.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 16:01 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep] | 16:01 | |
| -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:04 | |
| -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] | 16:19 | |
| -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:21 | |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 16:21 | |
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:25 | |
| -!- Tebbo [~Jerry`@ip72-211-88-176.no.no.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 16:29 | |
| -!- Tebbo [~Jerry`@ip72-211-88-176.no.no.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:30 | |
| -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 16:32 | |
| -!- lnovy [~lnovy@2002:4d57:f055::1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:33 | |
| -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 16:35 | |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@12.226.88.52] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 16:36 | |
| -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:37 | |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@12.226.88.52] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:40 | |
| -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:43 | |
| -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:959b:96b6:9b51:62f5] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 16:43 | |
| -!- melvster1 [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 16:45 | |
| CodeShark | is it possible to create an efficient accumulator that can be used to validate an entire transaction graph? | 16:46 |
| gmaxwell | nwilcox: I think we identified some time ago what additional commitments are needed to efficiently randomly verify all rules (or at least most of them). Indeed, that could have some nice properties; but we're left with a couple issues: | 16:46 |
| -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 16:47 | |
| gmaxwell | one is that the additional commiments are expensive to maintain (e.g. vaguely a 20 fold increase in IO costs for full nodes) which is a bit unfortunate but perhaps surmountable, more problematic is the issue of censorship, how do you avoid the case where everyone just plays dumb about some invalidity to prevent you from detecting it? | 16:48 |
| gmaxwell | That latter issue makes it less exciting. | 16:48 |
| nwilcox | CodeShark: I'm curious if an "accumulator" is also possible... | 16:49 |
| nwilcox | gmaxwell: Are these additional comments merkle paths to block header for each txin? | 16:49 |
| nwilcox | s/comments/commitments/ | 16:50 |
| -!- c0rw|away is now known as c0rw1n | 16:50 | |
| CodeShark | recent results on zkSNARKs give proofs that do not depend on the size of the program nor input...but constructing the proof still is expensive | 16:51 |
| gmaxwell | nwilcox: no, that wouldn't be sufficient because it can't be used to efficiently show the absense of a double spend. State commitments ("an accumulator" as you note) are sufficient (and I think necessary). https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/features#Proofs is the circa 2011/2012 stuff. IIRC there was something else that needed to be commited to that I forget now that isn't there. (kinda | 16:51 |
| gmaxwell | stopped updating it when 99% of the effect it was having was feeding plagerism) | 16:51 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: the proof in that space isn't 'recent results' it was always the case that the proofs were constant size, the name even means that ('Succinct' argument of knoweldge). :) | 16:52 |
| CodeShark | right, well I only encountered it recently...so I'm a little behind :p | 16:53 |
| CodeShark | if the cost of proofs are moved over to the sender, it could be conceivably made to scale | 16:53 |
| CodeShark | the sender would only have to incorporate one more witness into the proof they got from each of their inputs | 16:54 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: you still need publicaiton unfortunately, proving that a block is valid is fine, but if no one but the block author had the updated accumulator state then only they can produce more blocks. :( | 16:54 |
| CodeShark | why would only the block author have the updated accumulator state? | 16:56 |
| nwilcox | gmaxwell: (I haven't read the wiki link yet...) I was imagining SPV-style PoW verification as a "strong bet" against double spends, so I don't quite follow your comment. | 16:58 |
| CodeShark | wouldn't it be sufficient for a sender to prove that the output they've created has witnesses all the way back to valid coinbase transactions? | 16:58 |
| * nwilcox skims wiki page. | 16:58 | |
| -!- zooko [~user@2601:281:8101:3c71:9422:f2cb:c0e2:3299] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:00 | |
| -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:02 | |
| gmaxwell | nwilcox: if you're trusting the hashpower then you can stop at just whats in bitcoin today. No more is needed. But _why_ trust the hashpower? it's a necessarily anonymous self-selecting group (you hope) of parties. :P There is a hope that the hashpower is economically incentivized to conform to the protocol because if they don't they'll get caught and their blocks ignored; but there needs to be | 17:02 |
| gmaxwell | a mechenism for that to actually happen. :P | 17:02 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: no because that doesn't show the absense of a double spend. | 17:03 |
| nwilcox | gmaxwell: Well, yes, removing the reliance on PoW assumptions would be awesome. I wasn't considering that. | 17:04 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 17:05 | |
| gmaxwell | K. well if you're willing to make them, then bitcoin's SPV ought to be enough. | 17:05 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:05 | |
| nwilcox | CodeShark: That sounds sufficient to me *iff* you assume PoW validation protects against double spends, right? | 17:05 |
| gmaxwell | it's totally wasteful though, because you don't have to do that at all if you're trusting pow, just check the initial membership. Also I suggest traversing the graph of some coins sometime, for a great many you are rapidly casually connected to a signficant fraction of all transactions. :) | 17:06 |
| gmaxwell | (thanks betting sites. :) ) | 17:07 |
| nwilcox | I blame non-hoarders for tightly interweaving the transaction graph. | 17:09 |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:09 | |
| gmaxwell | nwilcox: there have been a number of on-blockchain betting services that their specific design required them to jointly spend coins from multiple sources that are atypically good at comingling histories, esp since moast of the transactions to them are numerous tiny amounts.. | 17:10 |
| gmaxwell | er most | 17:10 |
| -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslb-088-070-161-193.088.070.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:15 | |
| -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslc-082-082-155-231.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 17:18 | |
| CodeShark | gmaxwell: what about schemes that incentivize demonstration of double-spend proofs? | 17:19 |
| CodeShark | point is construction of the proof could be offloaded to specialists who make it their business to detect them | 17:20 |
| CodeShark | yes, there could be a conspiracy to withhold them | 17:20 |
| CodeShark | but assuming the incentives are not misplaced and the system is sufficiently decentralized, can't it be made at least extremely difficult to enforce withholding? | 17:21 |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/erasmospunk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 17:21 | |
| CodeShark | actually...if you were to keep track of the total amount of existing coins on the network, wouldn't that also be a way to track double-spends? | 17:23 |
| CodeShark | or detect them, rather | 17:23 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: I am disappoint at your lack of reading sometimes, it makes talking with you a lot less fun. | 17:23 |
| CodeShark | what should I read? | 17:23 |
| gmaxwell | What I said in the discussion here (and #bitcoin-dev!) if I say something you don't get please ask me to cliarify. State commitments are sufficent to make the checks efficient (maybe necessary, not quite sure, e.g. commitments to a hashtree over the utxo set. | 17:24 |
| gmaxwell | Then there are compact proofs for both double spending and spending a non-existing coin. | 17:24 |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@c-67-169-17-114.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 17:25 | |
| -!- tcrypt [~tylersmit@c-67-169-17-114.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 17:25 | |
| CodeShark | the thing you seemed to be concerned about was withholding attacks | 17:26 |
| CodeShark | everyone playing dumb | 17:26 |
| CodeShark | and I, admittedly, hadn't clicked on your proofs link | 17:27 |
| gmaxwell | it's okay, it's just that you seem to be reinventing this I'd just mentioned! :) | 17:28 |
| CodeShark | so then what's the downside to state commitments? | 17:29 |
| CodeShark | :) | 17:29 |
| nwilcox | miner overhead? | 17:30 |
| CodeShark | presumably we need a scheme that does not require even miners to perform full validation | 17:30 |
| CodeShark | so asymptotically, it would actually reduce miner overhead | 17:30 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: it's a large overhead for verifiying, because now you have to verify that the stat updates are faithful, which needs a bunch more random IO. | 17:31 |
| gmaxwell | "asymptotically" is a good way to talk yourself into a lala land of irrelevance though. :) | 17:31 |
| CodeShark | well, even for finite systems that are growing exponentially :) | 17:32 |
| dgenr8 | i don't read either. what stops somebody from presenting a perfectly good UTXO proof from two years ago when it was spent an hour ago? | 17:32 |
| gmaxwell | basically with the right commitment sets you can avoid having anyone store the state, but then you end up carrying around membership and update proofs for each input (hashtree fragments) and for our current utxo set size they end up being a couple kilobytes. | 17:32 |
| gmaxwell | "so great, you've saved a $1 one time disk space cost for a $50/mo bandwidth cost. :P (or what have you, random numbers -- the point I'm making is that asymptotics can be misleading) | 17:33 |
| CodeShark | I'm talking about a model that can survive exponential growth in usage (at least for a while) | 17:34 |
| CodeShark | if the usage were to remain constant, then yes, it's silly | 17:35 |
| dgenr8 | CodeShark: with full-node security, or SPV? | 17:35 |
| CodeShark | with something a lot better than SPV - but not necessarily deterministic | 17:35 |
| CodeShark | let's say with negligible failure rate | 17:35 |
| CodeShark | or with mitigated failure | 17:36 |
| dgenr8 | CodeShark: akin to SPV with arbitrarily many peers? | 17:36 |
| gmaxwell | as I said, these are not new ideas; you are _years_ behind on this, please go actually crunch the numbers on what it looks like and you'll see the tradeoffs are not attractive at least anywhere within the realm of reasonable loads (e.g. supportable on today's hardware) | 17:37 |
| nwilcox | "CodeShark> presumably we need a scheme that does not require even miners to perform full validation" Woah... so, relaxing global consensus? | 17:37 |
| CodeShark | gmaxwell: forgive me for being behind - I have not seen the literature with these numbers and can't possibly follow all the forums and mailing lists and read everything back to the beginning of time | 17:37 |
| gmaxwell | dgenr8: SPV security is not really improved by 'arbitrarily many peers'. | 17:37 |
| CodeShark | so if you have some good literature with a summary it would be greatly appreciated | 17:38 |
| dgenr8 | gmaxwell: no? if an SPV node connects to the entire network, how does withholding work? | 17:39 |
| nwilcox | +1 for literature summaries for people catching up (if you can afford the effort/time). | 17:39 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: you're forgiven, there is no great one stop shop to catch up in an instant; thats not what I'm barking about. But actually following the links I give in context would be good. | 17:40 |
| gmaxwell | The key words in this space are "txo commitments" "stxo commitments" "utxo commitments" and "stateless mining". | 17:41 |
| CodeShark | I usually do - I got interrupted by a phone call in this instance | 17:41 |
| gmaxwell | :) | 17:41 |
| gmaxwell | dgenr8: withholding _what_? | 17:41 |
| CodeShark | believe me, gmaxwell, there's nothing I'd rather be working on more than solving these exact issues...unfortunately I also have a bunch of other stuff to attend to :p | 17:42 |
| CodeShark | so if you can help me catch up so I can usefully contribute it would be very much appreciated | 17:42 |
| -!- jtimon [~quassel@69.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 17:42 | |
| gmaxwell | Will do. (But I don't have the time to do so right this second, but indeed collecting pointers on this would be very useful; since it seems a few new people have shown up) | 17:43 |
| dgenr8 | gmaxwell: spentness | 17:43 |
| CodeShark | I think a bunch of people are essentially trying to invent the same thing here...and there isn't the best amount of communication | 17:43 |
| gmaxwell | CodeShark: there was a ton of communication this litterally 100s of posts, mailing lists entries, presentations, wiki articles, implementations. | 17:44 |
| CodeShark | please point :) | 17:45 |
| CodeShark | most of the stuff on these things is noise | 17:45 |
| gmaxwell | As I mentioned at the top, enthusasim has waned in part because of those two technical issues. | 17:45 |
| CodeShark | and I just can't go through all of it | 17:45 |
| phantomcircuit | Emcy, IPC is roughly irrelevant for bitcoin validation speed | 17:45 |
| phantomcircuit | Emcy, i would be entirely surprised if intel is holding back on raw processing speed | 17:45 |
| Emcy | what about moar coars | 17:45 |
| phantomcircuit | probably the only way to significantly increase validation speed would be ops specifically intended for it | 17:45 |
| hulkhogan_ | CodeShark, grep ;p | 17:46 |
| gmaxwell | dgenr8: what if no one at all knows? CodeShark's premise was that there are not full nodes at all, not even miners. So what if you create an invalid block and then just plead ignornace? | 17:46 |
| Emcy | thye prob would put EC hardware in the cpu eventually but very liekly not the curve bitcoin uses | 17:46 |
| gmaxwell | "oh, you want to test this part of it.. oh nope, don't know anything about that part" | 17:46 |
| Emcy | EC is getting some widespread use now i think | 17:46 |
| Emcy | though something bothers me about a CPU having all this hardware for very specific functions | 17:47 |
| gmaxwell | Emcy: intel IPC has actually increased tremendously in recent parts.. count the actual cores. | 17:47 |
| gmaxwell | they now ship 18 core parts... | 17:48 |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 17:49 | |
| dgenr8 | gmaxwell: the interesting question is how to serve a couple billion SPV nodes. for that, the network should not need to be all full nodes. miners though, they need full node security afaict | 17:50 |
| -!- Aquentin [~Aquentin@unaffiliated/aquentin] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] | 17:50 | |
| CodeShark | the only thing useful about the SPV concept is the hash tree - everything else I'd be totally happy scrapping :p | 17:51 |
| gmaxwell | dgenr8: then you're talking about something different from codeshark. | 17:51 |
| Emcy | 18 cores damn | 17:52 |
| Emcy | not consumer though | 17:52 |
| gmaxwell | Emcy: right because consumers would have no clue what to do with it, unfortunately. | 17:52 |
| gmaxwell | applications have not scaled well to multicore in general, and consumers are (as we've noticed) now been conditioned to believe that fully using a core for more than a fraction of a second means the software broken. :( | 17:53 |
| Emcy | how do we make sure bitcoin wont end up only runnable on server market parts | 17:53 |
| jgarzik | throttle adoption | 17:54 |
| gmaxwell | Emcy: non-server market seems mostly to be optimizing for power usage and size right now. | 17:54 |
| leakypat | jgarzik: +1 | 17:54 |
| -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 17:54 | |
| -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz | 17:54 | |
| gmaxwell | disagree that throttle adoption is necessary or sufficient. | 17:55 |
| gmaxwell | A single person could drive bitcoin to require a 18 core server cpu to keep up with absent limits, behold the power of "while true"; mean while the overwhleming majority of bitcoin denominated transactions happen without perturbing the blockchain (inside exchanges.). | 17:56 |
| leakypat | To clarify, I mean adoption of blockchain written transactions | 17:56 |
| -!- nwilcox [~nwilcox@c-76-103-245-13.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] | 17:57 | |
| gmaxwell | leakypat: yea, with that context I agree more! | 17:57 |
| -!- nessence [~alexl@162.17.137.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 17:57 | |
| dgenr8 | a UTXO set is a performance enhancement for a full node. since "everyone playing dumb" is a problem, it's probably just as well to skip the whole exercise of trying to prove unspentness... | 17:58 |
| dgenr8 | ...and just directly distribute the exercise of proving spentness. which just requires a tx index, not a summary database. | 17:58 |
| -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 17:58 | |
| dgenr8 | ...and allows individual nodes to have less than the full blockchain. ie they are capable of proving spentness for a certain part of the space | 17:59 |
| CodeShark | what about an incentives model? | 18:00 |
| CodeShark | why would they be interested in proving it? | 18:00 |
| Emcy | it seems the only consumer hardware still going for raw power is gfx cards | 18:00 |
| Emcy | so bitcoin has to better utilise those right | 18:00 |
| dgenr8 | CodeShark: well when resource requirements were lower, I hear there were 350K nodes | 18:01 |
| Emcy | amd is pretty good at the gpu compute stuff right | 18:01 |
| CodeShark | dgenr8: but generally, yes - incentives for proofs of spentness seems like a promising approach | 18:02 |
| phantomcircuit | Emcy, even gpu's aren't designed for continuous load | 18:03 |
| Emcy | well bitcoin isnt continuous | 18:04 |
| -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zwbthifqrbevlaks] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] | 18:08 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:08 | |
| dgenr8 | CodeShark: suppose you had both. if you ask about a txout, and you get both an "unspent proof" and a "spent proof", guess which one wins ;) | 18:09 |
| CodeShark | unspent proof seems a lot harder | 18:09 |
| dgenr8 | lack of an unspent proof is a lousy substitute for a spent proof. lack of a spent proof gets more interesting the larger the set who fail to provide it | 18:13 |
| CodeShark | the only person who might perhaps have the proper incentives to provide unspent proofs are the spenders | 18:14 |
| CodeShark | *is the spender | 18:15 |
| CodeShark | for anyone else it | 18:15 |
| CodeShark | it's too expensive | 18:15 |
| CodeShark | not worth it | 18:15 |
| CodeShark | however spent proofs are relatively cheap | 18:16 |
| -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 18:17 | |
| -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:18 | |
| CodeShark | presumably if you got a spent and an unspent proof something broke :p | 18:18 |
| dgenr8 | CodeShark: unspent is fleeting. spent is forever (modulo reorgs) | 18:19 |
| CodeShark | right - the unspent proof would only say "unspent within this particular chain" | 18:20 |
| CodeShark | once the chain grows or changes, all bets are off | 18:21 |
| CodeShark | so if a spender were to want to provide a proof of unspent, they'd have to continue updating the proof as the chain grew | 18:22 |
| -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] | 18:22 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv194.quikefall.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:23 | |
| dgenr8 | i'm not sure that's harder than keeping a txindex, but the logical properties of an sxto query seem superior | 18:23 |
| CodeShark | well, it's also difficult because the witness must be compressed | 18:23 |
| CodeShark | it must use some SNARG or SNARK of some sort | 18:24 |
| CodeShark | whereas proof-of-spent can be easily accomplished with a single witness...the transaction that spends it | 18:24 |
| dgenr8 | yes. the other stuff is reading-list material for me ;) | 18:25 |
| -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:25 | |
| phantomcircuit | Emcy, IBD is continuous load | 18:25 |
| bramc | There seems to be a law of commenting on bitcoin online: No matter what you say, somebody will accuse you of being a socialist | 18:25 |
| CodeShark | pinko! | 18:26 |
| CodeShark | hmm, not sure I've gotten that accusation from bitcoin specifically, bramc | 18:27 |
| zooko | bramc: I'm just saving up my favorite Bram Cohen quote about Bitcoin for the right moment. | 18:27 |
| Emcy | yes but not forever | 18:27 |
| Emcy | cards are coming with stock waterloop snow anyway | 18:27 |
| bramc | zooko, Huh? | 18:29 |
| Emcy | >mfw "If there is hope, it lies with the gamers" | 18:30 |
| -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 18:30 | |
| Emcy | socialism is ok | 18:31 |
| Emcy | it saved my nans life a few months back after a series of 4 minor strokes | 18:31 |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] | 18:32 | |
| -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:32 | |
| bramc | Emcy, My own economic outlook isn't so simplistic, I'm just confuzzled that people are accusing me of being a socialist for wanting to have prices set by market demand instead of subsidizing them to be zero | 18:33 |
| bramc | supply and demand I mean | 18:33 |
| zooko | bramc: I was just reminded of my favorite quote by Bram Cohen about how stupid Bitcoin is. | 18:33 |
| zooko | bramc: I was teasingly claiming that I'm waiting for the worst possible moment to quote you on it. | 18:33 |
| bramc | zooko, Using bitcoin as a 'store of value' continues to be ridiculous | 18:33 |
| * zooko cackles gleefully | 18:33 | |
| Emcy | subsidising the fees? | 18:34 |
| bramc | zooko, People are quoting me on it to attack me now, I don't care. I will happily remind people about the track record of bitcoin to date in terms of what's it's done to people who have bought into it | 18:34 |
| Emcy | what you described seems the opposite of socialism | 18:35 |
| bramc | Emcy, subsidizing the transaction costs I mean. I just finished driving for two hours and am not wording good | 18:35 |
| bramc | Emcy, Hence my being confuzzled! | 18:36 |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@lw.serv194.quikefall.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 18:36 | |
| Emcy | except if it counts as corporate socialism to the miners, which is the only kind of socialism people seem to be blind to heh | 18:36 |
| zooko | bramc: wait, they're already quoting you from when you said something like "Bitcoin is just digital goldbuggery, which is even more idiotic than normal goldbuggery" ? Damn, there goes my chance to embarass you in public. | 18:42 |
| bramc | zooko, It's golbuggism not goldbuggery, and yes they are | 18:42 |
| amiller | rofl goldbuggery | 18:42 |
| bramc | And I've always said, and continue to say, that getting excited about bitcoin because the value is going up is stupid, and saying it's a failure because the value is going down only marginally less so. | 18:43 |
| Emcy | >goldbuggery | 18:43 |
| Emcy | it seems it is you who has provided a quote for the ages zooko | 18:43 |
| zooko | lol | 18:44 |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@12.226.88.52] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 18:44 | |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 18:52 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.144.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:52 | |
| -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@unaffiliated/dr-g] has quit [Disconnected by services] | 18:52 | |
| -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@xd9bf77f7.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:52 | |
| -!- Dazik [~Dazik@2607:fcc8:bd85:fa00:44d9:c7ff:a324:29df] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 18:54 | |
| -!- jaekwon [~jae@2601:645:8001:f5c8:dcd4:830:a4df:e259] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 19:03 | |
| -!- nessence [~alexl@c-68-51-194-2.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 19:11 | |
| -!- airbreather_ [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 19:13 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@179.43.144.98] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 19:19 | |
| -!- cosmo [~james@unaffiliated/cosmo] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 19:23 | |
| -!- Dazik [~Dazik@2607:fcc8:bd85:fa00:44d9:c7ff:a324:29df] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] | 19:42 | |
| -!- Dazik [~Dazik@2607:fcc8:bd85:fa00:9977:2873:8a6f:97cf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 19:44 | |
| -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:959b:96b6:9b51:62f5] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 [Firefox 38.0.5/20150525141253]] | 19:49 | |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@46-198-64-31.adsl.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 19:50 | |
| bramc | Aaand Gavin's proposed BIP uses nlocktime instead of block height for rollout dates. The whole subject is horribly depressing. | 19:54 |
| Dazik | join #warez | 19:58 |
| -!- Dazik [~Dazik@2607:fcc8:bd85:fa00:9977:2873:8a6f:97cf] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"] | 19:58 | |
| -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@2602:306:ceef:a750:577:5919:1b9c:af13] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] | 20:05 | |
| -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:959b:96b6:9b51:62f5] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 20:27 | |
| -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [] | 20:32 | |
| -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 20:35 | |
| CodeShark | bramc: you mean block_timestamp, not nlocktime (I hope) :) | 20:35 |
| CodeShark | although block_timestamp is almost as bad :p | 20:36 |
| jgarzik | indeed, it is block_timestamp | 20:36 |
| jgarzik | median time has been suggested on the list | 20:37 |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@104.238.169.23] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 20:37 | |
| bramc | If you want to be more precise about future time, you can have block_timestamp be used at some point to determine an amount of extra height before things kick in | 20:38 |
| bramc | That would be a few minutes noisy but not have weird reorg problems | 20:39 |
| CodeShark | I don't quite get the rationale for not using block_height either - I mean, I can understand that block height doesn't accurately predict a moment in time...but the rationale given is that the block height isn't available in the block header. | 20:39 |
| CodeShark | two things: you still need to calculate block height to validate difficulty | 20:39 |
| CodeShark | and...if we're going to hard-fork, might as well move the block height into the header rather than using that ridiculous coinbase hack | 20:40 |
| -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@46-198-64-31.adsl.cyta.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 20:41 | |
| CodeShark | and let's add an extra arbitrary 256 field to the header to allow for future extensions | 20:41 |
| CodeShark | oh, right...that breaks miners | 20:41 |
| CodeShark | also, if we can't hack around the coinbase data issue, we could have a way of requesting only the merkle tree for the coinbase transaction | 20:42 |
| -!- erasmosp_ [~erasmospu@104.238.169.23] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 20:45 | |
| -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] | 20:45 | |
| CodeShark | still is an utterly rube-goldbergish hack...but at least it can be easily encapsulated so we never have to ever look at it in our code again | 20:46 |
| CodeShark | I can already imagine miners creating coinbase transactions with a zillion outputs just to piss us off :p | 20:48 |
| -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 20:50 | |
| CodeShark | so someone please explain to me the use case for "not needing to know the block height when doing validation" ? | 20:52 |
| CodeShark | it is quite depressing, bramc... | 21:06 |
| CodeShark | ah...I see Gavin's real reason in the ML | 21:08 |
| CodeShark | it was easier for him to hack up something that only requires the timestamp :p | 21:09 |
| CodeShark | grabbing the block height was apparently too much work | 21:09 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, the block height is not suitable because it can be +- the network hashrate growth from the expected day | 21:09 |
| phantomcircuit | ie you calculate the expected height in 6 months | 21:09 |
| phantomcircuit | price goes up and the hashrate goes up | 21:09 |
| CodeShark | it's not particularly accurate - but it's very well-defined | 21:09 |
| CodeShark | same thing goes for block reward halving | 21:10 |
| phantomcircuit | and the difficulty retarget lag causes that block height to be reached x% earlier | 21:10 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, using the timestamp is reasonable, the way it's being used is comically absurd | 21:10 |
| bramc | It could be set to the first block with a timestamp greater than X plus a certain amount of height | 21:13 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, and we have a winner! | 21:14 |
| CodeShark | :) | 21:14 |
| bramc | That would be fairly easy to hack up, and not have so many headaches. | 21:14 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, it's really silly either way though | 21:15 |
| phantomcircuit | if you actually have a majority consensus you merely need to switch the nodes version of reality permanently | 21:15 |
| phantomcircuit | all the non believers be damned | 21:15 |
| CodeShark | the question is whether the reality really switched | 21:16 |
| -!- Jaamg [jhpiloma@gateway/shell/tkk.fi/x-dhmfxcvcjxhrvrul] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:16 | |
| CodeShark | if you can | 21:16 |
| bramc | Might as well move around some utxos while you're at it. Get rid of all the really old unspent mining rewards, maybe eliminate the ones known to have been seized my mt. gox. | 21:17 |
| CodeShark | lol | 21:17 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, that's the great joke | 21:17 |
| phantomcircuit | what miners vote for is meaningless | 21:18 |
| phantomcircuit | using that as the switch over criteria shows a fundamental failure to understand the matter | 21:18 |
| CodeShark | we lack any other objective metrics besides hashing power that can't easily be games | 21:18 |
| CodeShark | *gamed | 21:18 |
| justanotherusr | I think the idea is to assume everyone already switched over manually.. | 21:18 |
| CodeShark | that's the unfortunate truth | 21:19 |
| justanotherusr | the miner vote is just to get miners to agree with each other before they risk wasting moneey | 21:19 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, the only metric that matters is user adoption | 21:19 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, which cannot be reliably measured | 21:19 |
| phantomcircuit | there is no safe way to hard fork | 21:19 |
| CodeShark | phantomcircuit: precisely | 21:19 |
| phantomcircuit | tada | 21:19 |
| bramc | phantomcircuit, Miner buy-in for compatible extensions works fine | 21:19 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, yes for a soft fork it's fine | 21:20 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, since it's essentially the miners colluding to censor transactions which violate the new rules | 21:21 |
| bramc | phantomcircuit, That's part of it, but it's also them agreeing that they'll all understand the extensions and deciding when to start issuing them | 21:21 |
| -!- sundance30203 [6abc6be8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.106.188.107.232] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:23 | |
| bramc | technically a soft fork where the miners all agreed to censor certain utxos and make them unspendable would also work | 21:23 |
| bramc | Although that... would be a bad idea | 21:23 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, shh dont tell them | 21:24 |
| CodeShark | for a hardfork, if the vast majority of users are still on the old fork it just means miners waste their hashing power securing nothing | 21:24 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, correct | 21:24 |
| bramc | CodeShark, The result of a hardfork doesn't tend towards one side or the other winning, it tends to mining hashpower going to the two sides proportionately to what their mining rewards are trading at on exchanges | 21:25 |
| -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p578EAB34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:25 | |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, thus it being almost certainly a disaster unless you can achieve near universal consensus first | 21:25 |
| bramc | Just like they're two completely unrelated altcoins, which basically they are | 21:25 |
| CodeShark | bramc: yes, but I would think that's highly correlated with the proportion of actual users | 21:25 |
| CodeShark | the price at exchanges, that is | 21:26 |
| bramc | phantomcircuit, Yes exactly | 21:26 |
| bramc | CodeShark, There aren't very many exchanges, they're the ones who have the greater say | 21:26 |
| CodeShark | the exchanges will go with what they think is in their own economic self interest | 21:26 |
| CodeShark | higher volume of trading would generally be seen as better for their bottom line | 21:27 |
| CodeShark | however...I don't think this forked ledger is a stable situation :p | 21:27 |
| CodeShark | I think the ultimate outcome is both lose | 21:27 |
| CodeShark | either one wins overwhelmingly...or both lose | 21:27 |
| CodeShark | and the longer the fork carries on without an overwhelming victor, the more likely they'll both lose | 21:29 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, except a bunch of them are planning to do centralized offchain transactions also | 21:29 |
| phantomcircuit | so whose to say? | 21:30 |
| CodeShark | I don't quite follow | 21:30 |
| CodeShark | was that meant sarcastically? :) | 21:30 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, lots of them have -- as part of their business model -- operating trusted off chain transaction systems | 21:30 |
| phantomcircuit | which mucks up the question about rational actors | 21:31 |
| CodeShark | sure - that's fine for internal trades. the issue only applies to on-chain deposits and withdrawals | 21:31 |
| CodeShark | but if it's easier for someone to get into and out of positions, they're more likely to want to trade | 21:31 |
| jgarzik | a longstanding forked ledger is incredibly unlikely | 21:31 |
| jgarzik | c.f. "50 BTC or die" folks :) | 21:32 |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, at a 75% switch over it's practically guaranteed to happen for some period of time exceeding a week | 21:32 |
| phantomcircuit | there's a fairly substantial amount of mining infrastructure that's entirely on autopilot | 21:33 |
| phantomcircuit | nobody would even notice | 21:33 |
| -!- sundance30203_ [6abc6be8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.106.188.107.232] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:34 | |
| phantomcircuit | hell even if 1% stays | 21:34 |
| phantomcircuit | that's 1 block/day | 21:34 |
| jgarzik | c.f. P2SH :) | 21:35 |
| CodeShark | and not only do both forks lose in this scenario - any potential future cryptocoin loses as well | 21:35 |
| jgarzik | That's perfectly OK... miners are allowed to piss money away | 21:35 |
| CodeShark | confidence in the whole idea suffers | 21:35 |
| -!- sundance30203 [6abc6be8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.106.188.107.232] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] | 21:35 | |
| CodeShark | if a few miners are the only ones left behind I don't think anyone will shed a tear | 21:36 |
| jgarzik | a few miners + MP | 21:37 |
| jgarzik | ;p | 21:37 |
| jgarzik | hmmmmm. Now I like forking even more ;p | 21:37 |
| CodeShark | lol | 21:37 |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, soft fork experience is meaningless | 21:40 |
| CodeShark | the march 11th fork is actually a great example of user adoption did defeat hashing power adoption...but only by human intervention | 21:40 |
| CodeShark | and willing cooperation from said miners | 21:41 |
| -!- rht__ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-admfuxeqydaiinex] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:41 | |
| moa | bramc: " it tends to mining hashpower going to the two sides proportionately to what their mining rewards are trading at on exchanges" | 21:42 |
| moa | this is exactly what happened in early days of namecoin | 21:42 |
| moa | and viiolent oscillations bettwen value and hashpower shifts | 21:42 |
| CodeShark | are you talking about miners who mined both bitcoin and namecoin? not sure how this example fits in | 21:43 |
| phantomcircuit | moa, and now namecoin is worthless | 21:44 |
| phantomcircuit | so historical precedent is not good | 21:44 |
| CodeShark | two merge-mined distinct ledgers is a whole lot better than one fork-mined ledger :p | 21:44 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, namecoin forked a bunch of times | 21:44 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, which resulted in diffent exchanges trading different forks | 21:45 |
| CodeShark | ah | 21:45 |
| CodeShark | that must have been a few weeks before I came into this space | 21:46 |
| moa | CodeShark: this was before merge mining | 21:47 |
| CodeShark | merged mining is perhaps namecoin's most significant legacy. unfortunately, namecoin's merged mining implementation is just about the worst possible way it can be done :p | 21:48 |
| moa | depending on points in the cycle it was more profitable to mine namecoin or bitcoin, with same hashpower | 21:49 |
| CodeShark | I missed out on all that mining fun - I never got to do any bitcoin mining | 21:50 |
| moa | so hashpower was jumping back and forward between ... and exchange rate and difficulty oscillating wildly | 21:50 |
| moa | which was partly the incentive to implement merge mining | 21:51 |
| CodeShark | when I came into this space, GPU mining probably at its peak | 21:51 |
| moa | hurredly admittably ... but hey | 21:51 |
| moa | it works right | 21:51 |
| CodeShark | it actually explains a bunch, moa | 21:51 |
| -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@78.179.116.60] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 21:51 | |
| moa | lesson being you do NOT want the sha(256) hash power to split and start competing against each other | 21:54 |
| moa | it's like a dragon eating it's own tail | 21:54 |
| CodeShark | switching between different coins is not nearly as bad as switching between different ledgers of the same coin :p | 21:56 |
| CodeShark | during the march 11th fork, the recommended policy for merchants and exchanges was to stop all transactions until the fork is resolved | 21:57 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, which is the only rational behavior during a hard fork | 22:00 |
| phantomcircuit | which means there's no rational way to decide which side to goto as a user/miner | 22:00 |
| phantomcircuit | and tada | 22:00 |
| phantomcircuit | systemic collaprse | 22:00 |
| CodeShark | there could be a rational reason to back one fork rather than the other if you strongly believe it will ultimately prevail | 22:01 |
| CodeShark | as a miner, that is | 22:01 |
| CodeShark | as a user, I think the rational thing to do is wait :) | 22:02 |
| CodeShark | barring criminal intent, of course | 22:02 |
| CodeShark | as a miner, the only real downside to backing one side and losing, really, is cost of electricity and a few missed blocks | 22:03 |
| CodeShark | so one could even argue that it's more rational to mine on either fork (even without having any idea which will prevail) than not mining at all | 22:04 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, the rational decision for miners is to turn off their equipment | 22:07 |
| phantomcircuit | fun right? | 22:07 |
| CodeShark | so the conclusion is 75% of hashing power is an extremely poor metric to use here :p | 22:08 |
| CodeShark | but any other metric likely requires some level of human intervention | 22:08 |
| jgarzik | miners follow users after a hard fork | 22:10 |
| jgarzik | except the ones on autopilot that get ignored | 22:10 |
| CodeShark | jgarzik: that only happened on march 11th because of pressure applied on a few big pool operators | 22:11 |
| CodeShark | had that not been done, they might not have noticed for a while :) | 22:11 |
| CodeShark | autopilot definitely favored the minority fork in that situation | 22:12 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, i believe it is actually the worst possible | 22:14 |
| phantomcircuit | it's high enough that the uninformed will believe it's meaningful | 22:14 |
| phantomcircuit | will also being a useless metric | 22:14 |
| phantomcircuit | AND basically gurantees a true network split | 22:14 |
| CodeShark | can't we conduct a poll somehow and decide based on that? (yes, I know polls can be sybilled...but let's not be such geeks for a moment and think practically) | 22:15 |
| -!- sy5error [~sy5error@unaffiliated/sy5error] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] | 22:15 | |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, you really have no way of knowing that, the march fork had an entirely clear course of action once it became clear what was happening | 22:15 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, no because sybil | 22:15 |
| CodeShark | lol | 22:15 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, the polls people have put up are actually being attacked in this manner | 22:16 |
| CodeShark | we don't just place an online questionaire up for anonymous responses - we'd have to have the process monitored by actual people...and yes, it can get political | 22:16 |
| jgarzik | phantomcircuit, outside of hyperventilating wizards, the near unanimous majority I hear wants the network to continue to scale. If the network hard forks to 2MB in 6 months, the network will not fall over. Hard forks include big risks, but it is being blown way out of proportion -- on here & by Mike Hearn both. Mountains are being made out of molehills. | 22:19 |
| jgarzik | As a result, when the block limit is higher and there is truly a danger to decentralization, the wizards will get ignored because they squawked too loudly, too early. | 22:19 |
| jgarzik | On the conservative side there is a noted lack of proposals, which leads to difficulty in taking that side seriously. At least Adam has his thinking cap on. | 22:20 |
| CodeShark | I don't think we're only talking about this block size issue, jgarzik - I think this applies generally to having any sort of hard fork process | 22:20 |
| CodeShark | it's not about people wanting the network to scale, ultimately...that's a red herring | 22:21 |
| jgarzik | CodeShark, perhaps - the context is unavoidable. _This_ hard fork is not going to end the world. | 22:21 |
| CodeShark | it's about one group of developers wanting control over the network vs. another | 22:21 |
| jgarzik | and painting is thusly is disengenuous | 22:21 |
| CodeShark | that's really what it will come down to | 22:21 |
| CodeShark | let's not be naive here | 22:22 |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@athedsl-341422.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:22 | |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, i've heard things from "what the fuck" to "i want bigger blocks without a hard fork" | 22:22 |
| jgarzik | leave the cloister | 22:22 |
| jgarzik | and get out into the world | 22:22 |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, i've yet to speak to anybody who both wanted larger blocks and understood that they required a hard fork | 22:22 |
| phantomcircuit | "your sample size is small and you should feel bad!" | 22:23 |
| jgarzik | I've literally been flying all over the world taking samples ;p | 22:24 |
| CodeShark | also, the block size increase push has a lot more to do with avoiding fee pressures than scaling | 22:25 |
| CodeShark | let's also not be naive about that one :) | 22:25 |
| leakypat | I couldn't find anyone at my meet up who didn't want to raise the block limit, some wanted it removed with no limit | 22:26 |
| phantomcircuit | jgarzik, i suspect your samples are strongly biased | 22:26 |
| jgarzik | CodeShark, yes - and they go hand in hand. To review, the _years long_ policy has been avoiding fee pressure. That is the market expectation. It is a major - and conscious - market shift to change that. | 22:26 |
| jgarzik | That is not a judgement of good/bad, just a statement of fact. | 22:26 |
| phantomcircuit | either way | 22:26 |
| phantomcircuit | nobody will be happen when shit explodes | 22:26 |
| jgarzik | Maybe you want fee pressure, maybe you don't. | 22:27 |
| jgarzik | either way, it is a delta | 22:27 |
| phantomcircuit | note: i personally will divest entirely before the fork date... | 22:27 |
| jgarzik | to argue to _begin_ fee pressure is a market change | 22:27 |
| leakypat | Most people I talk to aren't aware that fees are subsidized | 22:27 |
| jgarzik | and an economic policy change | 22:27 |
| moa | just a little fee pressure then? | 22:27 |
| bramc | jgarzik, 'Leave things be' as a proposal is hard to take seriously? | 22:27 |
| Luke-Jr | jgarzik: we have had fee pressure before | 22:27 |
| jgarzik | bramc, No semantics will get around the fact that it is an change in economic policy to introduce consistent fee pressure. | 22:28 |
| jgarzik | Luke-Jr, not consistently, http://hashingit.com/analysis/39-the-myth-of-the-megabyte-bitcoin-block | 22:28 |
| bramc | jgarzik, arguably the market expectation has been that the rules which everyone has bought into by participating in the system will continue to be followed | 22:28 |
| Luke-Jr | jgarzik: also, it's becoming more and more apparent that we will have fee pressure no matter what very soon: "stress test" spammers are going to be filling blocks as much as they can. | 22:29 |
| -!- shen_noe [~shen_noe@wired042.math.utah.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:29 | |
| Luke-Jr | jgarzik: I'm not sure what the link is meant to suggest. | 22:29 |
| bramc | jgarzik, Is a balloon at the end of a mortgage schedule a sudden change in policy? | 22:29 |
| jgarzik | bramc, If you want to argue for economic change, that's fine | 22:29 |
| jgarzik | bramc, but be honest and admit that it is different from current policy | 22:29 |
| Luke-Jr | jgarzik: we haven't consistently had no-fee-pressure either | 22:29 |
| -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 22:30 | |
| jgarzik | Luke-Jr, on average yes we have. each time the situation arises, Hearn lobbies miners to increase their block size soft limit, and/or Bitcoin Core increases default miner soft limit. | 22:30 |
| jgarzik | the history is quite clear. | 22:30 |
| bramc | jgarzik, I am arguing for economic change, but it's also coming right on schedule, as everyone paying attention has been aware of for years | 22:30 |
| -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] | 22:30 | |
| jgarzik | the numbers are quite clear. | 22:30 |
| jgarzik | bursts of fee pressure are inevitable and natural. the long run average is low pressure / subsidized however. | 22:31 |
| moa | full nodes could be incentivised to pay miners for smaller blocks I suppose | 22:32 |
| dgenr8 | people keep saying that word "subsidized". i dont think it means what they think it means | 22:32 |
| gwillen | dgenr8: transactions are secured by miners, but miners are paid by inflation right now, not by transactions. | 22:32 |
| gwillen | So the security of transactions is subsidized. | 22:32 |
| bramc | gwillen, Also subsidized by full nodes | 22:33 |
| -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:33 | |
| dgenr8 | that makes all kinds of assumptions about the future economic value of the block reward | 22:33 |
| moa | hearn is a good lobbyist, it has to be said ... the bitcoin foundation could have used him | 22:34 |
| bramc | dgenr8, Some members of the ecosystem are taking on significant costs to avoid those costs hitting others. 'subsidized' is a close enough word. | 22:34 |
| dgenr8 | the exhg rate since the last halving pays for the next 3 halvings. | 22:34 |
| bramc | the bitcoin foundation seems to be a collection of the sketchiest people you'll ever meet | 22:34 |
| dgenr8 | so lets not get too up in arms about it | 22:35 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 22:35 | |
| jgarzik | moa: hehehehe I dunno I think hearn isn't so great as a lobbyist, he's angering everyone with this contentious fork stuff | 22:35 |
| bramc | dgenr8, Nobody is suggesting getting rid of the halving! | 22:35 |
| jgarzik | maybe he is a lobbyist for keeping it at 1MB :) | 22:35 |
| -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:35 | |
| dgenr8 | read what i wrote again | 22:35 |
| dgenr8 | exchange rate is up 10x since 2012 halving | 22:35 |
| dgenr8 | gavin is right that this is the number miners should care about | 22:36 |
| CodeShark | there seem to be two main interests behind the fee pressure avoidance policy: 1) bitcoin maximalists who think if we only were able to convince more people to use bitcoin the network would magically be able to suddenly support hundreds of millions of new users. 2) lazy developers who don't want to try to figure out a good solution to fee bidding | 22:36 |
| bramc | I like fee bidding as a subject. I wish we were discussing that. | 22:37 |
| jgarzik | CodeShark, now who's being naive ;p | 22:37 |
| CodeShark | I said "seem" :p | 22:37 |
| gwillen | bramc: I was interested to see that fee estimation is more widely deployed than I realized | 22:38 |
| -!- droark [~droark@209-6-53-207.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: ZZZzzz…] | 22:38 | |
| bramc | gwillen, Where? How? | 22:38 |
| gwillen | that plus safe-RBF (or CPFP) sort of gives you fee bidding | 22:38 |
| gwillen | bramc: let me see if I can find where I read that | 22:38 |
| bramc | safe-rbf is something but it sucks. It directly reduces the potential throughput of the system as a whole, driving up prices even more | 22:39 |
| jgarzik | CodeShark, software & market are not prepared for consistent fee pressure. c.f. economic policy change. | 22:39 |
| -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] | 22:39 | |
| jgarzik | "Let's change economic policies without preparing the ecosystem!" is not a responsible position. | 22:39 |
| gwillen | bramc: https://gist.github.com/petertodd/8e87c782bdf342ef18fb | 22:39 |
| jgarzik | sorry bramc | 22:39 |
| gwillen | bramc: "As of v0.10.0 Bitcoin Core estimates fees for you based on the supply and demand observed on the network. By default it tries to pay a sufficiently large fee to get into the next block, so as demand increases it pays higher fees to compensate." | 22:39 |
| gwillen | jgarzik: it's clearly a chicken-and-egg problem | 22:39 |
| gwillen | jgarzik: nobody puts in engineering effort to fix problems that don't exist yet | 22:40 |
| moa | maybe we could have full nodes into a pool for assurance contracts that pays miners automatically when they produce smaller blocks ... and run it on lighthouse? | 22:40 |
| bramc | gwillen, *cringe* there are some control theory problems with that | 22:40 |
| gwillen | bramc: oh sure, but it's a first attempt at least | 22:40 |
| gwillen | it's better than _not_ doing it | 22:40 |
| gwillen | it at least gives a better starting point for RBF than just guessing blindly | 22:40 |
| -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 22:40 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:41 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has quit [Changing host] | 22:41 | |
| -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:41 | |
| gwillen | you're right that a real auction would be better economically, but I'm not even sure how you'd begin to do that | 22:41 |
| -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:41 | |
| CodeShark | it clearly is chicken-and-egg...we need to push the envelope...and can't expect things to always be economically smooth | 22:41 |
| bramc | jgarzik, I very much want to discuss economic preparation, but the conversation is all getting derailed by talk about a hard fork and rbf not being supported and things which are generally sabotaging forward progress :-P | 22:41 |
| CodeShark | we need to be faced with the problem to motivate us to find a solution - and it's arguably easier to solve it now rather than later...while blocks are still mostly subsidized by reward | 22:41 |
| bramc | I've also talked with the lightning network guys and am trying to help with that as I can | 22:42 |
| gwillen | jgarzik: do you follow rusty's blog at all? http://rusty.ozlabs.org/ | 22:42 |
| gwillen | jgarzik: he has good posts recently about (1) what gets crowded out if blocks fill, and (2) what happens to latency if blocks grow. (Both simulations based on guesses, obviously.) | 22:43 |
| bramc | gwillen, Miner algorithms for what to accept are *mostly* straightforward, it's the clients deciding on fees which is hard. | 22:44 |
| gwillen | bramc: agree on that, yes | 22:44 |
| bramc | Come to think of it, a lot of people not cringing about the suggested fee estimation techniques is because they don't have much experience with control theory. I have, uh, a lot more experience than I ever cared to with control theory. | 22:45 |
| gwillen | When you talk about control theory, is the issue that you can't reason adequately about what fees are required based on the data you have? Or that a bunch of clients trying to naively do so at the same time will interact badly with each other? | 22:46 |
| gwillen | I.e. fees will oscillate wildly or something? | 22:46 |
| moa | bramc ... multivariate problem requiring LQR, perhaps with LQE thrown in? | 22:47 |
| gwillen | Because I could imagine both of these being an issue although it seems like both of them _could_ be fine in practice. | 22:47 |
| -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 22:48 | |
| bramc | gwillen, oscillation is one example of a problem. The issue is that if you have some algorithm for setting prices, and everybody's using it, then prices will be set based on what the previous prices were... which were also set by algorithm | 22:48 |
| gwillen | That's not inherently bad... but I agree that it could be | 22:48 |
| bramc | moa, unfortunately each participant only does things very sporadically, so those kinds of information-heavy approaches don't even apply | 22:49 |
| bramc | I believe that no matter what your general approach to price setting is, you always want to make an attempt to lowball early and only raise the price if it fails | 22:50 |
| bramc | Otherwise prices have a tendency to get high and get stuck there for no particular reason | 22:50 |
| gwillen | well, this particular problem doesn't seem too likely to get stuck there | 22:51 |
| gwillen | depends on how the estimator works I guess, but the marginal price to get into a block is just above the minimum price of any transaction in that block | 22:52 |
| gwillen | and if a block is literally full of transactions above a given price, it's hard to imagine the fair price being below that | 22:52 |
| CodeShark | gwillen, miners could fake them | 22:52 |
| gwillen | mmmmmm, true | 22:52 |
| bramc | gwillen, Yes, but if everybody assumes that they need to offer that same amount to get into the next block then it may happen, even if it's untrue | 22:53 |
| gwillen | bramc: if everybody is _willing_ to offer that amount to get into the next block, it can't be untrue | 22:53 |
| CodeShark | unfortunately, without listening to the network gossip it seems very difficult to accurately assess fees... | 22:53 |
| gwillen | the only way the true price could be lower is if people are letting the fee estimator pay money it's not actually worth to them, because they're asleep at the switch | 22:53 |
| bramc | gwillen, maybe it looks like it's true because the miners fill up the extra space with self-payments | 22:54 |
| CodeShark | just looking at past blocks is not enough | 22:54 |
| gwillen | yes, miner cheating could do it | 22:54 |
| gwillen | although you'd need a minimum hashrate fraction or a cartel, to make it profitable | 22:54 |
| gwillen | I don't know what that fraction would be | 22:54 |
| gwillen | otherwise you'd be bleeding fake fees to other miners | 22:54 |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.24.164] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] | 22:55 | |
| gwillen | (oh, that's a lie, nevermind.... of course you only mine your fake fees into your own blocks) | 22:55 |
| bramc | Also it could be that the fees on the next block will be dramatically lower than the last one, so maybe offering the same amount is a bad idea because you're paying too much. | 22:55 |
| CodeShark | in principle, if miners are checked by sufficient parties, recent blocks would tend to be a fairly good guide...but I think bramc's claim of the "stuck" phenomenon is clients that aren't smart enough to figure out when miners start cheating | 22:55 |
| gwillen | right, although that can be counteracted by looking at multiple past blocks, and looking at the mempool | 22:55 |
| gwillen | yeah, miner cheating is the only serious issue I'm seeing here, but it's pretty serious | 22:55 |
| bramc | Looking at the mempool can help, although it's fraught with danger | 22:56 |
| bramc | And it requires new logic to get that info, and whoever you're talking to might lie about it if you're on spf... | 22:56 |
| gwillen | the mempool can be full of lies but if you're smart you can't be fooled for long | 22:56 |
| phantomcircuit | i doubt very much that there is a general solution to the problem that doesn't as it's first step assume that miners are ordering transactions on a feerate priority basis | 22:56 |
| gwillen | phantomcircuit: that's fine, they largely do... | 22:57 |
| bramc | phantomcircuit, Yes we all agree on that | 22:57 |
| CodeShark | and they are more likely to do so even more if we have a real fee market | 22:57 |
| CodeShark | assuming perfect transparency, it's the economically rational strategy | 22:57 |
| bramc | As a general rule, there will always be some tradeoff between time for transactions to complete and fee paid | 22:59 |
| CodeShark | of course, off-chain mining contracts might screw up even that assumption, though :) | 22:59 |
| bramc | At the extremes there will undoubtedly be daily and weekly cycles | 22:59 |
| bramc | So if there's a situation where, for example, there's fee pressure during peak times but none at all at other times, which will most likely happen for a while, you have to make a choice about how much you care about speed vs. fee | 23:00 |
| phantomcircuit | gwillen, in that case it's as simple as sorting the mempool using some f(feerate, age) priority basis | 23:00 |
| phantomcircuit | (age being a proxy for whatever other policies miners might have in place) | 23:01 |
| CodeShark | the communication complexity (especially for thin clients) is significant for mempool stuff | 23:01 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, there's no way around that | 23:02 |
| phantomcircuit | thin clients need to have a mempool | 23:02 |
| bramc | CodeShark, the easy thing to do is for thin clients to simply ask the going rate. This has an obvious and horrific attack... | 23:02 |
| phantomcircuit | although maybe it's not unreasonable to outsource fee estimation | 23:03 |
| phantomcircuit | (on a strict fee rate basis) | 23:03 |
| zooko | second-price auction | 23:03 |
| -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.24.164] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:03 | |
| CodeShark | fee market makers :p | 23:03 |
| bramc | phantomcircuit, There aren't many full nodes out there - it would be trivial for miners to run them just to lie to spf clients about how big the fees are | 23:04 |
| moa | thin clients having a mempool (or sample of) is an intriguing idea | 23:04 |
| zooko | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction | 23:04 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, i was actually thinking an authenticated trusted source | 23:04 |
| bramc | This is all making my 'conservative' approach sound like a good idea | 23:04 |
| phantomcircuit | the alternative is for thin clients to receive all transactions | 23:04 |
| bramc | zooko, Yes we've all agreed to assume that the miners follow the obvious algorithm | 23:04 |
| -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:05 | |
| moa | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction | 23:05 |
| bramc | zooko, In principle you could require that the fees charged to all transactions be the same but, well, that would allow miner stuffing, and Bitcoin Doesn't Work That Way | 23:05 |
| zooko | I didn't mean that -- I meant some vague generalization/extension that maintains the Vickrey property of true preference revelation. | 23:06 |
| zooko | Maybe when I wake up from this sleep I'll have an idea how that could actually work. Probably not. Goodnight! | 23:06 |
| zooko | (P.S. there's a thing called Generalized Second-Price Auction, used for keyword ad sales...) | 23:07 |
| bramc | My conservative idea, for those who haven't seen me talk about it already, is that clients don't do any of this mempool or historical lookup stuff at all. They start at a nominal fee, maybe the minimum allowed, add a random amount between 0 and 10%, and for each block where their transaction isn't accepted add another 10% compounding | 23:08 |
| phantomcircuit | bramc, that's probably a good general solution if replace by fee is available | 23:09 |
| phantomcircuit | (and no not the ffs version...) | 23:09 |
| bramc | This has the advantage of being completely trustless and easy to implement. It has the disadvantages that it requires real rbf, and makes transactions take longer | 23:09 |
| bramc | The extreme amount of noise in the capacity rate due the the stochastic nature of mining blocks doesn't help anything | 23:11 |
| bramc | For that reason alone being willing to wait a bit longer will get you lower fees | 23:12 |
| CodeShark | perhaps that issue will be remedied with some of the proposals out there for reducing block time variance | 23:12 |
| CodeShark | eventually | 23:12 |
| bramc | CodeShark, reducing block time variance comes with its own problems, like increasing the amount of orphan blocks | 23:13 |
| CodeShark | not if you also use them for PoW | 23:13 |
| bramc | It's probably best to assume that there will be fee/time tradeoffs as part of the new normal | 23:14 |
| CodeShark | but obviously such a change is unlikely in the very near term on the Bitcoin network... | 23:14 |
| leakypat | If you have a transaction in the memory pool with a high fee and then you get a number of blocks in quick succession that clear down the pool but miss your transaction , there is no way to lower your fee | 23:15 |
| bramc | You can also do a hybrid approach, where you figure out an expected fee based on recent history or mempools or something, then lowball it and slowly raise | 23:15 |
| CodeShark | I think the fee/time tradeoff is inherent - the only question is how to optimize this for particular use cases and automate it as much as possible | 23:15 |
| leakypat | As miners would always mine the one with the highest fee | 23:15 |
| -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 23:16 | |
| bramc | leakypat, Yes yet another reason to start low | 23:16 |
| CodeShark | right, the "stuck" phenomenon doesn't even require cheating miners - just a bunch of dumb clients :) | 23:16 |
| bramc | If the fees go down right after your transaction goes through then, well, you should have been wiling to raise your fee slower. | 23:16 |
| bramc | mempool has the other problem that it could potentially get fairly washed out, so you might be looking at only a fraction of what will eventually go into the block | 23:18 |
| CodeShark | being able to listen to the network gossip will almost certainly help you estimate more accurately more quickly | 23:19 |
| CodeShark | so those devices that have access to this should certainly make use of that information if they can | 23:20 |
| CodeShark | there's also the communication complexity/decentralization tradeoff | 23:21 |
| bramc | The day/night cycle should be taken seriously. That's likely to be dominant at first | 23:22 |
| CodeShark | I sort of like the model of fee market makers - where you can pay a fee to someone who guarantees inclusion within a certain number of blocks or you get a refund | 23:24 |
| CodeShark | and they then work their complex algorithms using reliable broadband connections | 23:24 |
| CodeShark | as long as there are enough of these out there | 23:25 |
| CodeShark | if there's only one or two, it's dangerous :) | 23:25 |
| CodeShark | it's a decentralized fee estimation model that still supports thin clients | 23:26 |
| leakypat | Wallets could probably provide that as a service | 23:27 |
| bramc | Another thing a wallet can do is use the last fee it successfully used as a starting point for the next one | 23:27 |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@c-24-5-125-31.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:28 | |
| leakypat | From its pool of users (if a centralized wallet) | 23:29 |
| leakypat | Possibly could abstract fees completely , and charge per month or something for confirmation within n blocks guaranteed | 23:30 |
| -!- antanst [~Adium@athedsl-341422.home.otenet.gr] has left #bitcoin-wizards [] | 23:31 | |
| * leakypat ponders if that could be done trustless and seamlessly | 23:31 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] | 23:32 | |
| -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:33 | |
| leakypat | The wallet service that broadcasts the transaction can have its own pool of inputs to use for attaching inputs for fee escalation | 23:33 |
| phantomcircuit | <CodeShark> perhaps that issue will be remedied with some of the proposals out there for reducing block time variance | 23:34 |
| phantomcircuit | im not aware of any such proposals | 23:34 |
| phantomcircuit | indeed i dont believe they're possible... | 23:34 |
| CodeShark | phantomcircuit: mostly the GHOST-like ideas | 23:34 |
| CodeShark | amiller had such a proposal, too | 23:35 |
| phantomcircuit | CodeShark, iirc amiller's proposal was to prevent pooling right? | 23:36 |
| CodeShark | that's another potential benefit | 23:37 |
| phantomcircuit | the problem there is that it... prevents pooling! | 23:37 |
| CodeShark | well, ultimately what you want is for pooling to be incorporated into the protocol itself | 23:37 |
| CodeShark | you can mine at lower difficulty and still have your work count towards the most difficult chain | 23:37 |
| * phantomcircuit looks around for petertodd to say treechains | 23:38 | |
| CodeShark | lol | 23:38 |
| -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 23:38 | |
| amiller | phantomcircuit, no the point wasn't to prevent pooling | 23:39 |
| amiller | phantomcircuit, the point of that proposal (which predates ghost by a long time!) was to remove the block time magic setting | 23:39 |
| -!- zmanian [~zmanian@c-24-5-125-31.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] | 23:41 | |
| phantomcircuit | amiller, can you elaborate? | 23:42 |
| amiller | im not sure this is the best motivation for it now, so i can tell you what i thought the point was | 23:43 |
| amiller | the point was just to get rid of the hardcoded 10 minute block time and replace it with an automatically adjusting mechanism | 23:44 |
| phantomcircuit | amiller, based on...? | 23:44 |
| amiller | it should increase the target difficulty when the network is losing too much stale work | 23:44 |
| amiller | it should lower the target difficulty as much as possible until it starts losing stale work | 23:45 |
| amiller | the simple idea is to fix a desired 'target' for stale blocks | 23:45 |
| amiller | the last time i asked i think it was 2%, maybe you should target 20% or 50% | 23:45 |
| -!- orperelman [~orperelma@bzq-109-67-207-175.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:45 | |
| phantomcircuit | amiller, that's neat but probably fails to account for miners estimating costs | 23:46 |
| amiller | phantomcircuit, what do you mean | 23:46 |
| amiller | one thing i didn't pursue but now makes sense given ghost | 23:47 |
| amiller | is whether you should give some rewards to the stale blocks or punish them | 23:47 |
| amiller | ghost gives them some discount factor, maybe they should be given full credit i dont know | 23:47 |
| phantomcircuit | amiller, it's currently fairly easy for a miner to calculate their revenues for the month | 23:49 |
| phantomcircuit | it seems like it would be difficult to implement something like this without changing that | 23:49 |
| amiller | ok this shouldn't make that any worse (i think it would be a useful idea to *prevent* large miners from doing that anyway) | 23:49 |
| amiller | (or to put it another way, i think it would be a good idea to tempt large miners to gamble on an even bigger reward but more uncertainty) | 23:49 |
| phantomcircuit | yeah that's probably true | 23:50 |
| -!- p15 [~p15@111.193.161.178] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:50 | |
| -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards | 23:51 | |
| -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving] | 23:52 | |
| amiller | but i dont have any good idea for how to set the target time | 23:53 |
| amiller | er the target 'stale' blocks | 23:53 |
| amiller | i dont know how to attach it to any market mechanism | 23:53 |
| amiller | maybe there's a way to solve the lbocksize problem this way | 23:54 |
| amiller | sdlerner wanted to decrease the block time rather than tinker with blocksize | 23:54 |
| amiller | so i dunno maybe there's some way to let the average txes in a block or txfees determine a target stale blocks rate, and then use that to set difficulty | 23:55 |
| CodeShark | we cannot assume that the tx fees are not the miners themselves if the model gives them any incentive to do so | 23:56 |
| amiller | yeah | 23:57 |
| CodeShark | also, variable block times has another potential danger...people need to understand that the security level is not proportional to the number of confirmations | 23:57 |
| amiller | thats true but i wouldn't let such a concern about presentation to users narrow my options at this point | 23:58 |
| CodeShark | the security level is given by how hard it is for someone to reverse the transaction - so this is what must be quantified | 23:58 |
| --- Log closed Tue Jun 23 00:00:31 2015 | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.0.dev0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!