--- Day changed Mon Oct 03 2016 00:43 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has quit [Excess Flood] 00:48 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has joined #joinmarket 01:23 -!- megaddin [aladdin@gateway/shell/fnordserver.eu/x-xgxsupitzulxkyox] has joined #joinmarket 02:40 -!- Einherjer [~einherjer@69.64.40.177] has joined #joinmarket 03:31 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #joinmarket 03:34 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 04:22 < waxwing> btw electrum rc 2.7 was released yesterday, should have the bugfix for the coinjoin-preventing bug i found a few months back 04:43 < waxwing> grubles: looking more carefully, un?fortunately, it isn't such a simple mistake. commitments are not added to the "used" list if the utxo fails the age/size check; that's pre-filtered out before adding to the "used" list. 04:43 < waxwing> so with the current symptom description, i'm still struggling to find a logical reason for it. 04:43 < waxwing> what i understood you to say was: (1) create new wallet (2) fund with (1?) payment (3) try several times and always get "commitments could not be created error". 04:44 < waxwing> the key word in the above (to me) is "always". i can't find a path in the code that would allow that to happen. still looking. 04:58 < waxwing> someone just posted an offer with a non-integer number of satoshis, interesting :) 05:13 < waxwing> grubles: i'll need to ask a few more Qs to get to the bottom of it, ping me when you're around. 05:29 < waxwing> so merkle trees can give proof of set-membership; is there a similar construct that can prove set intersection? 05:31 < waxwing> reason i ask is, one could imagine makers posting a value in their offers that represents a commitment to their utxo set, which on offer filling can be opened. thus avoiding the "multiple bots off same set of utxos" problem. 05:31 < waxwing> gmaxwell: if you have a chance, any thoughts on that? 05:43 < waxwing> i guess you'd really need proof of set non-membership which from a quick google search looks a bit sci-fi. 06:14 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 06:59 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #joinmarket 08:03 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 08:03 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x4db24a6c.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 08:07 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db24225.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 08:51 -!- twokun [~two@213.152.161.165] has joined #joinmarket 08:55 < grubles> waxwing, yeah i'm fairly sure i got the commitments error every time 08:56 < waxwing> grubles: ok. what OS? and sanity check what commit you're running off? 08:56 < grubles> gentoo 08:57 < grubles> i'm at the latest commit, i believe 08:57 < grubles> git pull: Already up-to-date. 08:58 < waxwing> ok, other question: does your commitments.json file (the one you maybe backed up) have anything in the "used" section? if so, how many? 08:58 < waxwing> i guess it must, although at this point i can't make much sense of it. 08:58 -!- ajvpot [~ajvpot@rhythm.derphost.com] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in] 08:59 -!- ajvpot [~ajvpot@rhythm.derphost.com] has joined #joinmarket 08:59 < grubles> yes it does. there are 3. 08:59 < waxwing> ok, this will presumably be three attempts for the new wallet, from one funding utxo (is that correct, one?) 09:00 < grubles> yes 09:00 < waxwing> ok, so how sure are you that your bot didn't send a !fill message to the pit the first few times? 09:00 < waxwing> the log files of the sendpayment runs will still be there, although obviously it's a bit tricky figuring out which is which 09:01 < grubles> oh i'm not sure lol 09:01 < grubles> i would assume it did send a !fill 09:01 < waxwing> but tbh that doesn't seem likely either, as then it'd have to be the case that the utxo passed both age and size checks, and then was sent to the pit, and rejected for some reason. 09:02 < grubles> is there something i can grep from the logs? 09:02 < grubles> like grep !fill ? 09:02 < waxwing> yeah i was just looking :) 09:02 < waxwing> i think ">>pubmsg !orderbook" 09:02 < waxwing> oh no sorry that's not what you need :) 09:02 < grubles> cat *.log | grep fill 09:02 < grubles> ? 09:02 < waxwing> that helped me find my sendpayments, you have lots of them 09:02 -!- ajvpot [~ajvpot@rhythm.derphost.com] has quit [Client Quit] 09:03 < grubles> that results in some privmsgs, but we're looking for pubmsgs right? 09:03 -!- ajvpot [~ajvpot@rhythm.derphost.com] has joined #joinmarket 09:03 < waxwing> "cmd=fill" could do it 09:03 < waxwing> also "Generated PoDLE" but that's kind of a derived piece of logic, i think "cmd=fill" as long as you're only searching sendpayment bots should show whether it actually tried to fill or not. 09:04 < grubles> >>privmsg cmd=fill 09:04 < grubles> i have a few of those ^ 09:04 < grubles> in my logs, i mean 09:04 < waxwing> right, maybe via timestamp you can see if they are the first few, and how many there are (how many bots that contain it) 09:05 < waxwing> yeah if this logs/ directory has yigens it'll be full of it 09:05 < grubles> hm no my first .log is earlier than those messages 09:06 < waxwing> is this a new joinmarket directory? does your logs/ directory contain other logs not related to this? 09:07 < grubles> depends on what you mean by new 09:07 < grubles> cloned the repo 09:07 < grubles> generated a new wallet in order to have joinmarket generate joinmarket.cfg 09:08 < waxwing> i was just trying to establish whether the logs for this run of sendpayments is isolated, or whether there are also logs from earlier times, so we can make deductions based on which files contain certain strings. 09:08 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #joinmarket 09:08 < grubles> oh no this is a brand new instance of joinmarket 09:09 < waxwing> so when you said "i have a few of those" and "no my first .log is earlier than those messages", we can make deductions on that as long as we're just looking at the set of .logs for this sequence of sendpayment attempts that we're analyzing 09:09 < grubles> right 09:10 < waxwing> right as in, they are isolated? 09:11 < grubles> correct 09:11 < waxwing> ok, just as a sanity check can you grep for "Generated PoDLE" and see if it appears in the same files as "cmd=fill" ? 09:12 < waxwing> i guess there'll be three such files 09:17 < grubles> one sec 09:18 < grubles> yeah it looks like "Generated PoDLE" appears in the same logs 09:18 < grubles> it appears 3 times 09:18 < waxwing> ok, search for "Authorisation failed" in the first of those logs 09:19 < waxwing> it'll either be that, or the transaction failed to complete for some other non-commitment related reason 09:19 < grubles> nope theres no "Authorisation failed" 09:19 < waxwing> ok, interesting, looking through the log, can you see an error/tx failure reason? 09:21 < grubles> ERROR not enough liquidity in the orderbook 09:21 < waxwing> as you describe it, it's what would make the most sense: 3 attempts, valid commitments, but 3 failures. 09:21 < waxwing> ah.. 09:22 < waxwing> but that's interesting, you sent the fills. non-responsive bots perhaps. hmm. 09:23 < grubles> then after that attempt 09:24 < grubles> [ThrottleThre] [DEBUG] failed to send on socket 09:24 < waxwing> the timestamps might give clues, or if there are connection failures to the pit. but this is a good example of where it helps to follow the "sendtomany" advice. 09:24 < grubles> then it crashes 09:24 < waxwing> yeah that's another clue :) connection issues. 09:25 < grubles> yeah seems like it 09:25 < waxwing> btw agora is up now, so there are 2 servers in the default config on current develop. 09:26 < waxwing> there's only about 12 maker bots on there now, but it'll grow over time hopefully. 09:26 < waxwing> our logging needs to be cleaned up, though, that's another issue that just hasn't been addressed although we've known about it for ages. 09:27 < waxwing> although it's more about the terminal; in the debug log it's good to have everything. 09:27 < grubles> should i scrub the logs and send them to you? 09:27 < waxwing> it seems to me we've figured it out now. nothing you described sounds wrong to me. 09:28 < waxwing> although it does seem rather unlucky if you got connection problems 3 times in a row? 09:28 < waxwing> are the other two the same pattern? 09:28 < grubles> no one is ERROR not enough liquidity in the orderbook, then [ThrottleThre] [DEBUG] failed to send on socket 09:29 < grubles> and the 3rd is.... 09:30 < waxwing> you can try scrub-log that would be useful, i don't think anyone's tried it for the new version. it occurs to me that it won't scrub the podle generation data, so it will expose at least one utxo. 09:30 < grubles> i think i just hit 'n' there because i figured it wouldn't work 09:30 < grubles> hm 09:31 < waxwing> if you hit 'n' after send with these orders? then it wouldn't use up a commitment. 09:32 < grubles> no i just hit 'n' there because every other time it would give me the commitment error 09:33 < grubles> that was the only time i hit 'n', i mean :) 09:33 < waxwing> well, it's only the 3 cases where cmd=fill occurs that matters. 09:33 < grubles> ok 09:34 < waxwing> it's like, the code is assuming that once you get that far (choosing to send the fill), the commitment will be "used"; although it will only be technically "used" once it reaches at least one bot in the pit, who will then broadcast it to everyone. 09:35 < waxwing> so if there's a connection failure it won't be; perhaps it can be clever than that, but it isn't for now. 09:35 < grubles> should i delete commitments.json and try sendpayment.py? 09:36 < waxwing> i'd say yes (or back it up, but if it only has those 3 then delete is OK), except i'd want to be sure that all 3 times was a connection failure; and also why are you getting such a consistent connection failure? 09:36 < waxwing> it's particularly weird because the connection must have been "up" to receive the orderbook 09:37 < grubles> well the connection failure was only once 09:37 < waxwing> right, so what actually happened the other two times? 09:37 < waxwing> no "Authorisation failed"? if not, what errors are there? 09:38 < grubles> nope no "Authorisation failed" 09:38 < waxwing> "not enough liquidity"? 09:38 < grubles> yes that occured 09:39 < waxwing> is there a "cmd=fill" (i think you said so, just checking) 09:39 < grubles> yes there is 09:39 < waxwing> i have to think about this. why is it sending !fill if it can't find liquidity? 09:40 < waxwing> oh, does it re-try; do you see ignored_makers list get added to? 09:40 < grubles> yes i do 09:40 < grubles> about 8 times 09:40 < grubles> out of the 20-30 .log files 09:41 < waxwing> 8 times in 8 files? i thought we only had to deal with 3 :) 09:48 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 09:49 < waxwing> one reasonable scenario is that you had non-responsive counterparties once or twice and it was enough to use up your 3 tries. best might be to use add-utxo.py to add external commitments. 09:50 < waxwing> and don't delete commitments.json 09:51 < waxwing> basically, never delete that, sorry if i gave contrary advice (backup is fine of course). although it can only cause inconvenience, it can cause a lot of it. 09:52 < grubles> there are 25-30 .log files 09:52 < grubles> cmd=fill occurs 8 times in them 09:52 < grubles> "Generated PoDLE" occurs 3 times 09:52 < waxwing> 8 times in 8 files, or in how many? 09:53 < grubles> er...sorry. ignored_makers occurs 8 times 09:53 < waxwing> ok, in how many files tho'? 09:53 < grubles> by the timestamps, i think it occurs 4 times in 2 .logs 09:54 < waxwing> right, that more or less adds up i think. 09:54 < grubles> 4 times each 09:55 < waxwing> right, it seems you've just used up your 3 chances with that one utxo. it'd have been 9 if you'd done the sendtomany thing. you need to follow this section: https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket/wiki/Sourcing-commitments-for-joins#sourcing-external-commitments 09:57 < waxwing> when i was working on testnet i used this a few times, if you have JM yg wallet it's easier, you can grab them from that wallet directly, else you can get them from another wallet as long as you can access the WIF key. 09:57 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:00 < grubles> i see 10:03 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-85-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #joinmarket 10:52 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590e51bc.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 10:56 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x4db24a6c.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 11:14 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x4db032a9.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 11:16 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590e51bc.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 11:36 -!- Logicgate [~Logicgate@lgse.com] has joined #joinmarket 11:37 < Logicgate> Hey guys 11:37 < Logicgate> can someone give me a rough example of how much BTC one can make running a JM node? 11:38 < nkuttler> depends on how much btc you put into it 11:39 < Logicgate> Let's say I was to provide 10 BTC 11:41 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-85-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 11:44 < nkuttler> speaking of which, my wallet-tool.py tells me ImportError: cannot import name create_wallet_file 11:55 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #joinmarket 12:43 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db017cd.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 12:46 < waxwing> nkuttler: did you include the .json? 12:46 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x4db032a9.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 12:55 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590cccff.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 12:57 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db017cd.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:00 < nkuttler> waxwing: yeah, i can't find any definitino of create_wallet_file anywhere in the code.. currently on 8fed0da3ed1e84b15fd2b8a843ebc7ab4e8831ec 13:01 < waxwing> nkuttler: sec 13:01 < nkuttler> mh, should probably be on stable? 13:01 < nkuttler> mh, looks like a local branch 13:02 < nkuttler> never mind, my tree is unclean 13:03 < waxwing> yeah i don't remember a create_wallet_file offhand 13:11 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590cccff.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:12 -!- fqtw [~me@x590cccff.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 13:38 -!- twokun [~two@213.152.161.165] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:50 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590c2f81.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 13:53 -!- fqtw [~me@x590cccff.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 13:55 < waxwing> adlai is up first on saturday i see :) 13:56 < adlai> i what? 13:56 < waxwing> https://scalingbitcoin.org/event/milan2016#schedule 14:00 < grubles> oh nice there's going to be a stream 14:03 < adlai> wonderful, i wonder if they offer alarm clock services 14:09 < grubles> is something wrong when sendpayment.py repeatedly asks me y/n? after i've answered 'y'? 14:09 < adlai> maybe some of your initially-chosen counterparties had an error, and you need to choose new ones? 14:10 < waxwing> -P needs that? did you choose that option? 14:10 < adlai> (if you have new counterparties, you also have a different fee, so you need to confirm again) 14:10 < waxwing> no,sorry that's not y/n 14:11 < grubles> hm it finally spat out: Exception: Could not find orders to complete transaction. 14:11 < grubles> wait it's still running 14:12 < waxwing> so this is sweep. 14:12 < grubles> yeah 14:12 < grubles> i'm trying to sweet the 0th mixdepth 14:12 < grubles> i sent to 3 external addresses in the 0th mixdepth this time 14:12 < waxwing> there is that 356 thing; if the number of available counterparties is not significantly higher than the number requested, it can sometimes simply not succeed in choosing a valid set. 14:13 < grubles> the default counterparties is 3 right? 14:13 < waxwing> i think it's now random between something like 3 and 6 14:14 < grubles> ah i see 14:14 * grubles needs to read up 14:14 < grubles> this is similar to what was happening yesterday 14:14 < waxwing> interesting. (it's default 4 and 6 actually) 14:16 < waxwing> you said "wait it's still running", but it would have given up at that point right? just threads shutting down. 14:17 < Logicgate> So, how much can one make running a yield generator with around 10 BTC 14:17 < Logicgate> 1% a year? 14:17 < waxwing> in that scenario you can safely try again, if your cj amount is such that there are few available counterparties, try reducing -N 14:18 < waxwing> Logicgate: yeah perhaps, something in that ballpark 14:18 < Logicgate> that's not a lot! hot damn. 14:18 < waxwing> Logicgate: ultra low risk, ultra low reward 14:19 < waxwing> grubles: i'm about to head off, what's the situation? 14:21 < Logicgate> waxwing, makes sense. Now what would be some higher risk, higher reward options? Day trading? 14:21 < adlai> Logicgate: lending on bitfinex/poloniex 14:21 < adlai> note that bitfinex lenders recently lost ~35% due to counterparty risk 14:22 < Logicgate> lol that's a terrible salespitch adlai! 14:22 * Logicgate is promptly signing up to bitfinex 14:23 < adlai> uh, it's a sales pitch for joinmarket :D 14:23 < Logicgate> I know, I was just being fecetious. 14:23 < Logicgate> We should come up with an ultra-low risk, high reward program. 14:27 < adlai> i believe that's what pirateat40 tried 14:27 < adlai> or was that M. Licinius Crassus? 14:29 < Logicgate> Lol 14:29 < Logicgate> pirateat40 had a ponzi going. 14:32 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has joined #joinmarket 14:33 < adlai> low risk contradicts high reward 14:35 < midnightmagic> actually, in private pirate had a perfectly consistent, internally-distributed-only story for his high returns which was completely plausible, lol. 14:38 < midnightmagic> it's also one which he *appears* to be continuing to maintain 14:39 < midnightmagic> (minus the consistency part, the language he's using now is different than what he used originally) 14:42 < adlai> midnightmagic: care to share? 14:42 * adlai doesn't quite see why a dead scam's correspondence privacy should be honored, although... you may disagree 14:43 < adlai> dead scam /= dead scammer, of course 14:43 < midnightmagic> adlai: well it's no secret, really. his trading at a loss on mtgox was something he explicitly did to modulate potential losses in his "lending" business. 14:44 < adlai> so he claimed to be making >7% ~weekly~ by lending... bitcoins? 14:44 < midnightmagic> he kept a float from the people who let him use their bitcoins, and the size of the float was how many bitcoins he could short-term lend to people who had a high need for rapid access to bitcoins in person.. 14:44 < adlai> there is zero need for rapid access to bitcoins. ever. 14:45 < twokun> cryptoware 14:45 < adlai> i mean, how is this not a red flag. 14:45 < twokun> ransomware 14:45 < midnightmagic> really it was a purchasing thing. He sent them bitcoins, they paid him back in money. And then he used the money in turn to replenish the float on mtgox. The people who were buying large numbers of bitcoins from him would do so at a premium. 14:45 < midnightmagic> if price went up too quickly, then obviously he was eating more of a loss. 14:45 < adlai> ehhhh... alright. but is ransomware a sustainable loan business? and iirc, pirate predated ransomware. 14:45 < midnightmagic> so he also used the float to depress mtgox prices. 14:46 < midnightmagic> no, had nothingt o do with ransomware. that was mostly unheard of back then. 14:46 < twokun> ah ransomware been around since a long time... just not using bitcoin 14:46 < midnightmagic> everyone assumed he was selling bitcoins to naughty people, but since *his* side of things was clean-ish, and he didn't ask any questions, idea was his business was legitimate. 14:46 < Logicgate> That's what I should do 14:46 < Logicgate> Ransomware 14:46 < twokun> and its big enough business if you were doing the hacking and selling it would be viable lol 14:47 < Logicgate> Encrypt people's drive with AES-256 14:47 < midnightmagic> ransomware got the idea's start back at least as early as the idea for the book Cryptovirology, published in .. like 2005 or so. 14:47 < Logicgate> And a nice splash screen: "1.5 BTC to decrypt your shit" 14:47 < midnightmagic> That was an academic thesis describing in great detail the nature of it, and how it worked. 14:48 < twokun> Logicgate: I can do that myself - dont need anyone else to look me out of shit 14:48 < Logicgate> lol 14:48 < midnightmagic> The entire idea is one huge anti-closed-source-cryptography selling point. 14:48 < midnightmagic> adlai: You're right, pirate predated ransomware, at least ransomware using bitcoin on any significant scale. 14:49 * fluffypony thought we were talking about ZCash for a second 14:49 < fluffypony> the ransomware authors just want a founder's reward :-P 14:50 < midnightmagic> adlai: Near the end, pirate said there was a huge sale, and since one of his customers was hooked into the "business" and had his finger on the pulse of the "lenders" and knew that they were getting skittish, this huge customer bought up every bitcoin he could and then.. just refused to pay. 14:50 < adlai> fluffypony: do you have any criticisms of zcash beyond the "realtime premine" and potential infinite infation? 14:50 < fluffypony> adlai: trusted setup 14:50 * adlai is collecting such criticisms, since all his irl bitcoin friends have gone full ztard recently 14:50 < adlai> "trusted setup" == potential infinite inflation 14:51 < fluffypony> which I guess is infinite inflation 14:51 < fluffypony> ^^ 14:51 < fluffypony> lol 14:51 < fluffypony> adlai: I guess "generally stupid" falls into my list of criticisms 14:51 < midnightmagic> I think the infinite inflation problem was addressed wasn't it. 14:51 < fluffypony> needs 8gb+ RAM 14:51 < adlai> oh, there's also the criticism of "altcoin", but this also applies to your scam. i mean project :) 14:51 < fluffypony> joinsplits take 1 minute on a Xeon 14:51 < fluffypony> also a single joinsplit is trivially trackable, so you need to do like 3 14:52 < adlai> how is it trivially trackable? 14:52 < adlai> is there a PoC for tracking single joinsplits on their testnet? 14:52 < fluffypony> adlai: I'm quoting them 14:52 < adlai> aha 14:52 < fluffypony> I don't do much beyond reading Github issues 14:52 < midnightmagic> adlai: One of the larger lenders (people whose bitcoins pirate had "borrowed" jokingly offered to send a nunzio/guido type over to encourage payment, and he said that this guy *was* a guido/nunzio type who drove a bulletproof escalade around. Or something. 14:52 < midnightmagic> adlai: And then things went pretty much downhill from there. 14:53 < adlai> unfortunately i think the bulk of ZCash excitement is people who want to mine it for the inflation rewards 14:53 < midnightmagic> adlai: He specifically said to me that the process of the bankruptcy was a huge opportunity to make a pile of cash. 14:53 < fluffypony> adlai: agreed 14:54 < midnightmagic> Really I shouldn't just gotten in on the bet. But Since I didn't know and therefore didn't viscerally care (Ilost nothing on pirate) I was sitting there just observing and guessing. 14:54 < adlai> fluffypony: incidentally - have you seen a tangible increase in monero activity since those two markets implemented it? 14:54 < fluffypony> adlai: http://weuse.cash/2016/06/09/btc-xmr-zcash/ <- that's my normal go-to 14:54 < fluffypony> adlai: orders of magnitude increases in tx count 14:54 < midnightmagic> *should've 14:54 < adlai> "This article was republished on steemit.com on 2016-07-12" << i'm almost gonna stop reading right here ^_^ 14:55 < adlai> why do you have to say something was REpublished 14:55 < fluffypony> significantly huge bump in contributors, MyMonero users, social media subscribers 14:55 < fluffypony> lol 14:55 < adlai> steemit should be apologizing for plagiarizing, or however you call this 14:55 < adlai> ah right. "publishing", 14:55 < fluffypony> adlai: I think it's because there have been bots re-posting to steemit, so original authors have to clarify when they do 14:55 < fluffypony> so they can gets paidz in the steem dollahz 14:55 < adlai> yeah i guess it's hard to tell the difference between usage for commerce and just general hype-usage 14:56 * adlai wishes he could ask the operators of those markets what ratio of deposits they get in xmr vs btc 14:56 < fluffypony> pretty sure XMR adoption even there is still tiny 14:56 < midnightmagic> adlai: that answer your question? 14:56 < midnightmagic> :-P 14:56 < adlai> midnightmagic: yeah, thank you 14:57 < adlai> why do you say you "got in on the bet" if you didn't lose money? 14:57 < fluffypony> http://moneroblocks.info/stats/transactions/m/30 14:57 < fluffypony> http://moneroblocks.info/stats/transactions/d/30 14:59 < midnightmagic> adlai: There was a bet worth 10,000 BTC between .. hrm. I forgot his name now, and pirate, that pirate would not be able to fulfill his debt obligations by such-and-such date. nanotube presided over it. 14:59 < adlai> "Zooko reached out to me to point out he didn???t start the zerocoin/zerocash project. He became involved at a later point in time" << this is pritty shitty. "Mark pointed out that he didn't start LiveJournal, he only got involved with social media at a later point in time" 14:59 < fluffypony> lol 14:59 < midnightmagic> adlai: v* sent 5050 BTC to nanotube. pirate sent 5050 BTC to nanotube. (might've been 5025 each) and agreed on terms of the bet. 15:00 < adlai> "v*" ? 15:00 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:00 < midnightmagic> adlai: And of course pirate lost. It turns out that v* wasn't actually just one person. He was a whole bunch of people, which in my mind opens up the possibility that it was just lenders themselves trying to recoup potential losses, with the possible collaboration of pirate himself. 15:01 < midnightmagic> adlai: I forgot his name. vanderoi or something. 15:01 < fluffypony> v for vendetta 15:01 < grubles> oh yeah vanderoi sounds close 15:01 < adlai> all this interesting prehistory will someday be etched in the blockchain, for children to learn in middle school economics 15:02 < midnightmagic> I mean if pirate knew he couldn't fulfill his debts and this customer of his wasn't paying, then why lose such a huge remaining sum like that? It was ridiculous. 15:02 < adlai> madness knows no method 15:02 < midnightmagic> Originally I thought it was just one guy, and one day not so long ago I congratulated v* on winning the bet and presaging The End. And he told me it was a bunch of people, not just him. 15:02 < grubles> pirate also said he got cluster headaches and that he spoke with DPR 15:03 < midnightmagic> .. plus a whole bunch of stuff at that vegas meeting. 15:03 < midnightmagic> glad I never went to that, after all. hooray procrastination saves me again. 15:03 < adlai> saying you get cluster headaches is a brilliant idea, someday they'll hand out LSD for that 15:04 < grubles> i didn't want to go because >vegas 15:04 < adlai> although by then it'll probably be bromo-LSD... 15:07 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has joined #joinmarket 15:07 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x590dfcf6.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 15:10 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590c2f81.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 15:29 < belcher> interesting chatlog you all 15:30 < belcher> so milan has an opening party at 19:30 which looks like ill miss as i get there later, but ill see you all on the saturday morning 15:32 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:33 < belcher> this schedule looks great im so psyched 15:35 * grubles too 15:36 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db27b4e.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 15:36 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x590dfcf6.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:38 < belcher> ill be getting into my airbnb about 10-11pm then ill phone someone (waxwing probably) and see if the welcome party is still going and then walk to the college 15:40 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@unaffiliated/mryandao] has joined #joinmarket 15:43 -!- fqtw [~me@x590c51cb.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 15:43 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db27b4e.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:03 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has joined #joinmarket 16:29 -!- twokun [~two@46.19.137.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 16:35 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@159.red-83-47-122.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #joinmarket 17:17 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590d5295.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 17:20 -!- fqtw [~me@x590c51cb.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 17:29 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@unaffiliated/mryandao] has left #joinmarket [] 18:20 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@159.red-83-47-122.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #joinmarket 18:23 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@159.red-83-47-122.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:02 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db0fe4a.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 19:05 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x590d5295.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 19:37 -!- plinss [h@wowana.me] has joined #joinmarket 19:39 < plinss> 🍁 wow so i finally found that issue wrt the new irc servers 🍂 19:39 < plinss> . 19:40 < plinss> https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket/issues/619 19:40 < plinss> QuakeNet. Seems to support Tor but was told "they discourage it"or something by someone. Haven't tested or looked into it further. 19:40 < plinss> i said something about quake but not that "they discourage it" 19:40 < plinss> just that quite a few larger channels dont take kindly to tor users and theyre ready to ban them 19:40 < plinss> idk if that would hold true to the entire network should enough abuse arise from it 19:40 < plinss> like idk if theyre more lenient than oftc 19:43 < plinss> > I haven't been able to successfully connect to OFTC, Cryto, nor Quakenet via tor. 19:43 < plinss> oh there goes my thing 19:43 < plinss> i havent tried quakenet over tor in a while 19:43 < plinss> > Both malwaretech.com, and internetz.me are stable and open to tor last I checked, but I haven't look into bot policies or other incompatibilities yet. 19:43 < plinss> internetz.me may allow tor atm but one of the opers there is temperamental as hell 19:43 < adlai> plinss: ok, thank you for reporting this 19:43 < plinss> np 19:43 < plinss> im still reading through the issue 19:43 < adlai> plinss: what's your APR 19:44 < plinss> 02 44 00 zerosec - defiler: No such nick/channel 19:44 < plinss> wait they may have split 19:44 < adlai> that's not an apr 19:44 < plinss> apr? 19:44 < adlai> annual percentage return 19:45 < plinss> how is it useful in this context 20:00 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #joinmarket 20:11 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db26b13.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 20:14 -!- fqtw [~me@x4db0fe4a.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 22:30 -!- fqtw__ [~me@x590d14ef.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #joinmarket 22:30 -!- fqtw_ [~me@x4db26b13.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]