--- Day changed Tue Oct 09 2018
00:08 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has joined #joinmarket     
01:04 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.2]     
04:05 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #joinmarket     
04:09 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
04:11 -!- reallll is now known as belcher     
04:28 -!- d3spwn [~Jimmy@a83-161-157-200.adsl.xs4all.nl] has joined #joinmarket     
06:14 < waxwing> belcher, so `importaddress` 2nd param is now transparently label, right. that's why there's no change in how we make that rpc call. in #186 i mean ofc
06:14 < waxwing> i'll just drop a note that there's a stale log message there.
07:55 < waxwing> working but behaving a bit weird belcher (see thread comments)
08:02 < waxwing> i guess it's related to iterating over the set of all transactions related to addresses imported in my Core wallet, rather than just for the account concerned? (but i'm just guessing now, i'd need to study it)
08:29 -!- lnostdal [~lnostdal@77.70.119.51] has joined #joinmarket     
08:34 < belcher> do you really have 45000 transactions in your wallet
08:35 < belcher> i am impressed
08:35 < belcher> i guess you kept the same joinmarket wallet since 2015?
08:35 < belcher> or rather the same wallet.dat
08:35 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has joined #joinmarket     
08:38 < belcher> replied to the PR thread
08:38 < waxwing> yeah i think that's it. it's not the same machine, nor ofc same JM wallet, but as you say same wallet.dat
08:38 < waxwing> joinmarket wallet of theseus :)
08:40 < belcher> i think i remember back in 2016 saying my wallet had 5000 transactions and you called me an amature xD
08:40 < waxwing> btw please don't tell the maximalist hodlers, they will crucify me
08:41 < belcher> joinmarket yield generator counts as hodling :D
08:41 < waxwing> yeah was just joking about that on mastodon. some guy was complaining everyone upvotes wasabi wallet on twitter but none of them actually use it.
08:42 < waxwing> indeed, one would hope the hodl brigade allows coinjoin, but sometimes i wonder :)
08:42 < belcher> wait until you tell them that their full node has no influence unless they receive transactions
08:43 < belcher> hodling only has influence if you're one of those dollar-cost-average investors who regularly buy bitcoin to save
08:43 < belcher> (there might be something like second-order influence, where indirectly it has influence)
08:44 < waxwing> sure, i don't mean to imply the 'hodl' meme is 100% wrong, of course potential to act is important; but it's all this 'oh only an idiot spends bitcoin' stuff that actually slightly annoys me ...
08:44 < waxwing> anyway i'll confine my grumbling to elsewhere :)
08:45 < belcher> apply sturgeon's law, 90% of everything people say can be ignored :p
08:45 < belcher> even better than hodling bitcoin would be to get paid in it i imagine... and if you get paid in it then its natural to spend it
08:49 < belcher> maybe the people saying that perceive higher velocity as short-term negative for the price, so they're trying to encourage lower velocity
09:01 < waxwing> part of what makes me grumble is 'not using it' effectively means (a) only buying and selling at exchanges and/or (b)only spending it "via" some third party -> VISA card type thing, and in that scenario all privacy efforts are a waste of time
09:02 < waxwing> if literally nobody ever used it then nobody could get paid in it for example (totally agree that's like the best possible scenario - but it requires a payer!)
09:02 -!- stoner19 [stoner19@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/stoner19] has quit [Excess Flood]     
09:02 < waxwing> but i mean goods and services as well as labor could actually make it work in terms of privacy, *much* better than people assume today. at least for some 'pocket' of economic activity.
09:03 < undeath> if only our blocks weren't constantly full :(
09:03 < undeath> lightning will hopefully fix that soon enough
09:04 < waxwing> undeath, did you drop an </s> there? :)
09:05 < undeath> no :P
09:05 < waxwing> 'full' blocks? bit of a moving target, but there's basically zero fee pressure and it's been like that all year
09:06 < undeath> I mean if adoption were to take on
09:06 < waxwing> oh yeah, well fair enough
09:06 < undeath> it's just enough right now to cope with what we have
09:07 < waxwing> nah i disagree strongly on that; there's significant slack
09:07 < waxwing> 'just enough' is what we saw in early 2017; if you remember the system literally used to flush at weekends
09:07 < undeath> during that time we already had plenty tx being abandoned
09:07 < waxwing> to be fair, antpool blocks are full already when they have only the coinbase tx, so it's kind of a fuzzy concept :)
09:08 < undeath> lol     
09:08 < waxwing> right yeah shifts in usage pattern, it's very true. but the argument 'let's not use bitcoin for casual txs because we can't sustain that use case in a sanely small blockchain' is very different from the position i'm grumbling about
09:09 < waxwing> 'don't use bitcoin for your coffee' is reasonable indeed ... and as you say, LN is one of a couple of plausible ways to address that.
09:09 < undeath> true
09:09 < waxwing> but that's a bit different really. still, fair point to raise.
09:10 < qubenix> we need layer 3 to make it rain
09:11 < waxwing> is it going to be 7 layers like OSI? :)
09:17 < belcher> on the topic of spending, this interview with the bitrefill CEO seems interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9mok8s/ceo_of_bitrefillcom_discusses_lighting/
09:38 < undeath> I don't like the new readme text on the old joinmarket repo
09:38 < undeath> i've seen way more legacy cjs since that was changed
09:38 < undeath> it should more strongly discourage using the old version
09:40 < belcher> yeah..
09:41 < belcher> "please consider glancing over there." sounds way too polite IMO
09:54 < waxwing> adlai, wtf?
09:55 < waxwing> revert that adlai ... that repo hasn't even been touched for a year and a half. i mean if you were going to maintain it, that'd be different.
09:56 < waxwing> and you didn't tell anyone that you'd made that comment change.
10:03 < belcher> i agree with waxwing, that text doesnt really make sense, all the development is on jm-clientserver
10:03 < belcher> the commit in question for the lazy :p https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket/commit/29966137b17e686d06019a8cc24820be4881e4c2
10:04 < belcher> id say we just revert it now ourselves, since adlai might be away/busy and theres no point waiting if we can do it ourselves
10:05 < waxwing> agreed.
10:05 -!- stoner19 [stoner19@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/stoner19] has joined #joinmarket     
10:17 < waxwing> what's the 'best' way to revert? i can force push, as my current state is exactly the previous commit, but just wondering
10:18 < belcher> hmm, i dont know
10:18 < undeath> i think the only "git" way to revert is to push a revert commit
10:18 < belcher> that would be the equivalent of deleting
10:19 < belcher> its better to leave some history, just deleting stuff seems wrong somehow :p
10:22 < undeath> I'd say force-pushing to the master branch should generally not be done
10:22 < undeath> it can mess up everyone's local repository
10:25 < waxwing> right; i've done it as a revert. it's signed.
10:26 < waxwing> we should still move everything of course ... well i think so, anyway, but it's a complete pain. at some point i was hoping for some more feedback about it, then i decided i should go ahead anyway, then i decided not to bother and looked at other things.
10:26 < waxwing> hard to say really.
10:27 < undeath> I personally think the redirect is the best way
10:28 < undeath> just maybe make the message a bit bigger and possibly a litte more verbose
10:28 < belcher> big letters
10:29 < belcher> this is fine
10:29 < belcher> in terms of moving, i dont know how, maybe a little later ill try searching the web a bit to see if people have ever done similar
10:36 < waxwing> oh and btw belcher it would have been better if you'd done that revert, come to think of it ...
10:36 < waxwing> that's what stopped me doing it for a long time. shouldn't be all me.
10:37 < waxwing> sorry 'doing it' = writing that message.
10:37 < belcher> ok     
10:37 < belcher> yes, sorry it ends up being you for a lot of things
16:07 -!- undeath [~undeath@hashcat/team/undeath] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.2]     
18:38 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: deafboy, johnhmay, Anduck, qubenix, trotski2000, @ChanServ, lnostdal, takinbo, instagibbs, beIcher,  (+28 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
18:44 -!- Netsplit over, joins: beIcher, arubi, Cory, cryptocat, trotski2000, johnhmay, puddinpop, M1, lnostdal, deafboy
18:47 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Xeha, pigeons, emzy, belcher, StopAndDecrypt, waxwing, takinbo, nsh, technonerd, so (+9 more)
18:47 -!- Netsplit over, joins: @ChanServ
18:50 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Lightsword, nkuttler
18:50 -!- so [~so@unaffiliated/so] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
18:52 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nanotube
18:54 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Anduck
19:13 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #joinmarket     
19:27 < adlai> ugh. waxwing, belcher - i do owe an apology for what appears now to be "commitsfromlastnight"-level editing; sorry for that. at the very least that bad idea should've died as an argument about version deprecation.
19:27  * adlai notes to self: github's "edit" button is a stupid temptation.
19:30 < adlai> that said, if i'm really the only (vocal?) person who still seems to care about "joinmarket classic", then i do think we/you(s) should think about formalizing this, sooner rather than later, with repo renamings (or a major version change that replaces the v2 client with the client+server code)
19:46 -!- so [~so@unaffiliated/so] has joined #joinmarket     
21:02 -!- technonerd [~techno@unaffiliated/technonerd] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.2]     
21:02 -!- technonerd [~techno@unaffiliated/technonerd] has joined #joinmarket     
21:12 -!- stoner19 [stoner19@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/stoner19] has joined #joinmarket