1 2017-01-31 00:40:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #9654: Add jtimon pgp keys for commit sigs and future gitian builds (06master...06jtimon-key-gpg) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9654
 2 2017-01-31 06:33:18	0|luke-jr|what would others think of a feature where you can sign a message using the UTXO set to show you probably run a full node?
 3 2017-01-31 06:56:37	0|jl2012|you could outsource this, I suppose
 4 2017-01-31 07:13:22	0|sipa|if you do it as a challenge-response, and require a response within not-much-more-than-ping-time, you'd at least prove you're close to a full node
 5 2017-01-31 07:15:59	0|luke-jr|jl2012: yes, it won't be 100% reliable, but it might be handy
 6 2017-01-31 07:16:25	0|luke-jr|sipa: that sounds much more complicated (can't really integrate with a browser) :/
 7 2017-01-31 07:16:52	0|luke-jr|it would also exclude those who have remote full nodes under their own control
 8 2017-01-31 07:17:07	0|luke-jr|depending on implementation I guess
 9 2017-01-31 07:17:38	0|luke-jr|I suppose the node can contact the webpage directly, but that seems like not the best idea for security
10 2017-01-31 07:21:59	0|sipa|webpage?
11 2017-01-31 07:22:35	0|sipa|maybe you have a very different use case in mind than me
12 2017-01-31 08:01:20	0|luke-jr|sipa: I was thinking for polling users
13 2017-01-31 08:07:24	0|TD-Linux|that makes no sense if you're trying to make 1 vote per user
14 2017-01-31 08:40:46	0|CubicEarth|luke-jr: you are interested in poll results, 1 vote per-full node?
15 2017-01-31 08:41:13	0|luke-jr|CubicEarth: that's up to the polling website to figure out weights
16 2017-01-31 08:41:42	0|luke-jr|eg, one might use a combination of full-node-signature plus coin-control-signature to weigh by coins controlled
17 2017-01-31 08:42:42	0|CubicEarth|luke-jr: Nice! Anything with coin-weights is near and dear to my heart
18 2017-01-31 08:44:59	0|CubicEarth|luke-jr: any what are you trying to limit by wanting the full-node signature in addition to coin control proof?
19 2017-01-31 08:46:07	0|luke-jr|gauging interest and possible consent in protocol change ideas
20 2017-01-31 08:47:13	0|CubicEarth|I guessed that part.... but my question stands
21 2017-01-31 08:53:56	0|CubicEarth|I could see the benefit in giving coins more weight if someone can prove a node as well, but I can't see a point to giving the same amount of coins more weight if two nodes were proved
22 2017-01-31 08:57:38	0|luke-jr|I'm not even sure what you're asking about there
23 2017-01-31 08:59:07	0|CubicEarth|If you are interested in proof-of-full-node as a voting concept, and if so, curious as to why sybil wouldn't be an issue
24 2017-01-31 09:00:02	0|CubicEarth|So, that's why I said I could see it being binary: do the coins that are voting also have a node.... that wouldn't have sybil issues
25 2017-01-31 09:00:41	0|CubicEarth|maybe I missed something about the discussion
26 2017-01-31 12:47:08	0|jl2012|luke-jr: wouldn't it be very cheap to run one full node, and pretend to be 100 using 100 ip addresses?
27 2017-01-31 13:18:57	0|jl2012|if proof of full node is remotely possible, we don't need pow
28 2017-01-31 13:20:15	0|jl2012|finally, people will just invest on resources (e.g. ip addresses), that do not have anything to do with the security of bitcoin
29 2017-01-31 13:24:38	0|CubicEarth|I could see a small use case: If someone has a bunch of coins they want to vote with, they could also need to prove they have a full node. There would be no limit to the coins that one node could enable to vote.
30 2017-01-31 13:24:48	0|CubicEarth|What would that show?
31 2017-01-31 13:25:06	0|CubicEarth|That someone who wanted to vote was able to create a full node
32 2017-01-31 13:25:29	0|CubicEarth|I don't know if that would be important to anyone....
33 2017-01-31 14:04:56	0|gmaxwell|sipa: no you don't, I can artifically increase my ping time.
34 2017-01-31 14:25:26	0|Eliel_|jl2012: isn't it reasonably easy to construct a challenge you can use to verify a full node? There have been ideas for mining algorithms that'd make mining impossible if you don't have the full blockchain available.
35 2017-01-31 14:26:23	0|Eliel_|although, the only way to verify that two different looking nodes aren't the same one would be to challenge them both at the same time.
36 2017-01-31 14:26:24	0|jl2012|yes, but luke-jr is suggesting a voting system based on that
37 2017-01-31 14:26:53	0|jl2012|and that's outsourceable
38 2017-01-31 14:26:56	0|Eliel_|I guess I'd better read the backlog
39 2017-01-31 14:27:19	0|jl2012|even for the purpose of mining, that's outsourceable
40 2017-01-31 14:30:26	0|jonasschnelli|If I create a bloom filter (block filter) of all the COutPoints and inputs scriptSigs of a recent block, it will get pretty big,... It often hits around 15'000 elememts, so, roughly 15kb per block = 2.1MB of filters per day... Any idea how to improve that?
41 2017-01-31 15:25:39	0|sipa|gmaxwell: sure, but then you have a higher ping time
42 2017-01-31 20:10:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift closed pull request #9581: [pep-8] Prefer "foo is None" to "foo == None". Prefer "foo not in bar" to "not foo in bar". (06master...06test-for-membership) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9581
43 2017-01-31 20:56:00	0|BlueMatt|wtf travis
44 2017-01-31 20:56:01	0|BlueMatt|https://travis-ci.org/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/jobs/197083388#L5456
45 2017-01-31 20:56:08	0|BlueMatt|"The command "if [ "$RUN_TESTS" = "true" -a "$TRAVIS_REPO_SLUG" = "TheBlueMatt/bitcoin" -a "$TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST" = "false" ]; then contrib/verify-commits/verify-commits.sh; fi" exited with 127."
46 2017-01-31 20:56:11	0|BlueMatt|but it keps turnning......
47 2017-01-31 20:56:30	0|BlueMatt|oh, it did mark failure, ok
48 2017-01-31 20:59:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9656: Add Marko's Key to verify-commits and check verify-commits on pushes to master (06master...062017-01-fix-verify-commits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9656
49 2017-01-31 21:00:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #9657: Improve rpc-tests.py (06master...06improvepytests2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9657
50 2017-01-31 22:10:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15isle2983 opened pull request #9658: Add clang_format.py to help automate code style analysis (06master...06PR-clang-format) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9658
51 2017-01-31 22:51:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #9659: Net: Turn some methods and params/variables const (06master...060.14-net-more-const) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9659
52 2017-01-31 23:27:17	0|dgenr8|to conduct a poll by coins you can make a hard-forking client with limited ways to "spend" coins to vote (none of which create txes valid on mainnet). has similar drawbacks as bitcoinocracy