1 2011-10-01 00:00:34 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
   2 2011-10-01 00:01:42 <bitanarchy> I suggest that invalid transactions must still be rejected, but I want to allow blocks that contain transactions based on wrong outcomes of conditions. The miners will have an incentive to ignore those because the corresponding fees are worthless.
   3 2011-10-01 00:06:26 ahbritto has joined
   4 2011-10-01 00:06:51 elkingrey has joined
   5 2011-10-01 00:08:37 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
   6 2011-10-01 00:09:03 zhoutong has joined
   7 2011-10-01 00:10:42 <bitanarchy> I like to see come into existence a decentralized system in which the users are rewarded for investigating the truth of certain statements. The best way to do that is to let these people bet on these statements like a prediction market.
   8 2011-10-01 00:11:02 <elkingrey> Can anybody help me diagnose the problem? I've installed bitcoind on my server but get this error http://pastebin.com/GQfh5p4K
   9 2011-10-01 00:11:31 <bd_> bitanarchy: what kind of conditions?
  10 2011-10-01 00:11:58 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: tail -f ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
  11 2011-10-01 00:12:08 <bitanarchy> bd_: why? does that matter?
  12 2011-10-01 00:12:13 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: bitcoin can take a little time to become responsive after startup.
  13 2011-10-01 00:12:30 <bd_> bitanarchy: Yes, it very much does matter. How will the bitcoin servers evaluate whether your condition is fulfilled, efficiently, and consistently?
  14 2011-10-01 00:12:46 <bd_> As soon as bitcoin transactions rely on non-local information you open a HUGE can of worms, protocol-wise
  15 2011-10-01 00:12:53 Sedra- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  16 2011-10-01 00:13:37 theorb has joined
  17 2011-10-01 00:13:38 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: http://pastebin.com/rtS4pxNF
  18 2011-10-01 00:13:57 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  19 2011-10-01 00:14:24 <bd_> bitanarchy: The only way bitcoin can work is if any bitcoin server can look at the block chain up to point X, plus a transaction, and determine _consistently_, with _only that information_ whether the transaction is valid or not
  20 2011-10-01 00:14:36 <bitanarchy> bd_: scientific statements can be evaluated... but sometimes there is some ambiguity in the interpretation... but that has to be decided by the intersubjective evaluation of the community of users
  21 2011-10-01 00:14:41 theorbtwo has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
  22 2011-10-01 00:14:46 <bd_> bitanarchy: Right. So this is beyond the scope of bitcoin.
  23 2011-10-01 00:14:52 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: looks like its still loading addresses.
  24 2011-10-01 00:14:56 theorb is now known as theorbtwo
  25 2011-10-01 00:15:03 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: What does that mean?
  26 2011-10-01 00:15:05 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: is the tail output actively scrolling?
  27 2011-10-01 00:15:11 <bd_> bitanarchy: You've basically said, "well, someone has to go and say, 'yes, this is valid'". So, why not have that someone just... pay normally when they say yes?
  28 2011-10-01 00:15:19 <bd_> Why does the bitcoin protocol need to get involved?
  29 2011-10-01 00:15:27 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: I don't know what you mean by scrolling, but it is changing, yes
  30 2011-10-01 00:15:36 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  31 2011-10-01 00:15:50 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: then bitcoin itself is working.
  32 2011-10-01 00:16:01 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: did you set an rpc user and password in the configuration?
  33 2011-10-01 00:16:17 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: Yes
  34 2011-10-01 00:16:26 <gmaxwell> Could there be any local firewalling which is preventing it from connecting to itself?
  35 2011-10-01 00:16:42 <elkingrey> Don't think so.
  36 2011-10-01 00:16:51 <gmaxwell> I _think_ that by the time you see add-address scrolling it should be responding to getinfo.
  37 2011-10-01 00:17:03 <bitanarchy> bd_: the decentralized prediction market needs a decentralized contract system/notary and it needs a decentralized currency or value system.
  38 2011-10-01 00:17:21 WakiMiko has joined
  39 2011-10-01 00:17:35 <gmaxwell> bitanarchy: you can use bitcoin for your currency.
  40 2011-10-01 00:17:51 <gmaxwell> Then just condition your bitcoin transactions on events in your system.
  41 2011-10-01 00:17:54 <bd_> bitanarchy: Yeah, but in the end, you need some sort of authority to say whether the prediction came true or not
  42 2011-10-01 00:18:07 <bd_> and this authority would then have to inject a bitcoin transaction
  43 2011-10-01 00:18:26 <gmaxwell> You can do it without a single authority too.
  44 2011-10-01 00:18:54 <bd_> your authority can consist of multiple individuals which need to come to a majority (or other measure) consensus
  45 2011-10-01 00:18:57 <bd_> but it's still an authority
  46 2011-10-01 00:19:07 Turingi has quit (Quit: Leaving)
  47 2011-10-01 00:19:10 soap_ is now known as soap
  48 2011-10-01 00:19:21 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: Stumped?
  49 2011-10-01 00:19:39 <bd_> so for example, you could write a signature-check script on a transaction's txout that requires N out of M signatures
  50 2011-10-01 00:19:49 <bd_> you could then give the keys to M people
  51 2011-10-01 00:19:59 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: on the chance that I'm wrong about when it starts responding, I suggest leaving it go for a while and seeing if it changes. It still should be fetching the blockchain.
  52 2011-10-01 00:20:02 <bd_> and if N of them sign a release transaction, you could release the funds.
  53 2011-10-01 00:20:25 <bd_> But you're still entrusting the decision to the authority (ie, those M individuals)
  54 2011-10-01 00:20:38 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: Bitcoind has been running for a couple of days now. Shouldn't need to fetch the blockchain anymore
  55 2011-10-01 00:20:55 Sedra has joined
  56 2011-10-01 00:21:09 <gmaxwell> whats in your config? just the user/password?
  57 2011-10-01 00:21:27 <gmaxwell> bd_: we really need another kind of signature to really support that. ECDSA doesn't scale well.
  58 2011-10-01 00:21:52 <gmaxwell> There are other kinds of signatures that are ~O(1) in size and support big N/M.
  59 2011-10-01 00:22:07 <bitanarchy> bd_: my idea was that the users themselves will use some list of outcomes corresponding to the list of conditional transactions. Such a list can become very trustworthy... lust like wikipedia
  60 2011-10-01 00:22:09 <bd_> gmaxwell: or you could just do secret sharing
  61 2011-10-01 00:22:22 <gmaxwell> no, because then someone trusted would have to see the secret.
  62 2011-10-01 00:22:34 <bd_> gmaxwell: Generate a normal one-key transaction, then create two release transactions, encrypt them and secret-share the key
  63 2011-10-01 00:22:34 <elkingrey> gmaxwell: No, I copy/pasted the default config given here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin then I modified it the best I could.
  64 2011-10-01 00:22:39 <bd_> gmaxwell: ah, point
  65 2011-10-01 00:22:57 <bd_> bitanarchy: well, you still have to decide which users you trust.
  66 2011-10-01 00:23:01 <bd_> And you have to do so ahead of time.
  67 2011-10-01 00:23:08 <bd_> The 'list of outcomes' really isn't the problem here
  68 2011-10-01 00:24:06 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: thats a sample that turns out a lot of stuff you don't need.  All you need is the (uncommented) rpcuser= and rpcpassword=
  69 2011-10-01 00:24:52 <elkingrey> Do you suggest I delete all but the rpcuser and rpcpassword?
  70 2011-10-01 00:25:01 <gmaxwell> Yes sir, and restart the daemon.
  71 2011-10-01 00:25:47 <gmaxwell> elkingrey: tail -f debug.log it as it comes up.. you should be able to connect after it gets down the the "Loading <foo>" messages.
  72 2011-10-01 00:27:35 <bitanarchy> bd_: well the list of correct outcomes may not be the problem (given enough time)... but I like to keep the outcomes indefinitely open to dispute... so, I want the community to be able to reverse a transaction if the outcomes turns out the be the other way around.
  73 2011-10-01 00:30:43 <bd_> bitanarchy: not possible in bitcoin
  74 2011-10-01 00:30:57 <bd_> once a txn commits, it commits. done. You'd have to ask nicely for people to give the money back.
  75 2011-10-01 00:32:11 gwillen has joined
  76 2011-10-01 00:33:47 WakiMiko_ has joined
  77 2011-10-01 00:34:10 <bitanarchy> bd_: I know... but that is why I like to see a new system like bitcoin that allows certain aspects of the commitment of a transaction (like the evaluation of conditions) to be more soft.
  78 2011-10-01 00:34:43 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  79 2011-10-01 00:35:03 eoss has joined
  80 2011-10-01 00:35:03 eoss has quit (Changing host)
  81 2011-10-01 00:35:03 eoss has joined
  82 2011-10-01 00:36:57 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
  83 2011-10-01 00:39:09 cenuij has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  84 2011-10-01 00:39:24 <bd_> bitanarchy: how can you reverse a txn if it's already spent? :)
  85 2011-10-01 00:39:26 cenuij has joined
  86 2011-10-01 00:39:26 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
  87 2011-10-01 00:39:26 cenuij has joined
  88 2011-10-01 00:40:01 <gmaxwell> bd_: by reversing the child txn too.
  89 2011-10-01 00:40:02 <gmaxwell> :)
  90 2011-10-01 00:40:20 <bd_> gmaxwell: Well, this can't _possibly_ go horribly wrong, now can it? :)
  91 2011-10-01 00:40:59 <gmaxwell> "Bitcoin as imagined by paypal"
  92 2011-10-01 00:41:21 <bitanarchy> bd_: A transaction is reversed when the transaction and all the child transactions are just ignored by the users.
  93 2011-10-01 00:41:39 <sytse> the whole point is that anything 'more soft' than just a simple irreversible transaction would need an arbitrator to take control of the bitcoins for awhile
  94 2011-10-01 00:41:43 <bd_> bitanarchy: so you're proposing to reverse child txns as well? The result of that is that you can never be sure you actually received any money.
  95 2011-10-01 00:41:46 <sytse> and this is possible with bitcoin
  96 2011-10-01 00:41:52 <sytse> and is actually done as well
  97 2011-10-01 00:41:57 <sytse> so I don't see the problem
  98 2011-10-01 00:42:02 <bd_> Sure, you got your 500 units of ReversiCash, but tomorrow they may be gone
  99 2011-10-01 00:42:13 <bitanarchy> bd_: well... you have to rely on the list of outcomes
 100 2011-10-01 00:42:28 <bd_> bitanarchy: You don't know anything about that. You never participated in the prediction service
 101 2011-10-01 00:42:32 <bd_> you just got money from someone who did
 102 2011-10-01 00:42:36 <sytse> bitanarchy: the whole point is, who decides when a transaction should be reversed?
 103 2011-10-01 00:42:40 <bd_> Then you pay your rent with it
 104 2011-10-01 00:42:42 <sytse> bitanarchy: it can't be the sender
 105 2011-10-01 00:42:50 <bd_> Then the prediction service decides to reverse the transaction
 106 2011-10-01 00:42:56 <bd_> and suddenly, your rent was never paid
 107 2011-10-01 00:43:08 <bd_> do you see the problem?
 108 2011-10-01 00:43:16 <bitanarchy> bd_: the prediction service is the whole community
 109 2011-10-01 00:43:33 <sytse> bitanarchy: so it must be the receiver, and he can reverse the transaction in bitcoin by simply sending the money back
 110 2011-10-01 00:43:49 <bd_> bitanarchy: How does this ever materialize to real cash, though? The risk is way too high for me to convert any PredictiCash to any other currency
 111 2011-10-01 00:44:09 <bd_> After all, the 'community' (whatever that means) may decide to reverse the transaction, even if I didn't _directly_ participate in any predictions
 112 2011-10-01 00:44:21 <bd_> I don't even know what the original prediction was.
 113 2011-10-01 00:44:27 <gmaxwell> predictions
 114 2011-10-01 00:44:37 <bd_> All I know is I got 10 PTC, and there's no way in hell I'm converting that to 10 BTC when this PTC may vanish suddenly at any moment
 115 2011-10-01 00:44:38 <gmaxwell> presuming you can merge and split wealth in this system...
 116 2011-10-01 00:44:46 <bitanarchy> bd_: you can see all predictions that parented you predictCash in the block chain
 117 2011-10-01 00:45:27 <bd_> bitanarchy: okay, so now if anyone wants to sell a service based on predictCash, they need to go through all predictions in the block chain whenever receiving any cash, and see if they feel comfortable they won't be reversed, ever
 118 2011-10-01 00:45:38 <sytse> this is all the same as in real life. If you give something to someone, you can only get it back if they give it back, or if you use illegal force or a legal battle. Or if the receiver actually doesn't have it, but a third party does that decides you're the one that's in his right and not the receiving party
 119 2011-10-01 00:45:46 <bd_> This may be a very very very large amount of predictions
 120 2011-10-01 00:45:48 <sytse> that's still true for bitcoin
 121 2011-10-01 00:45:55 <gmaxwell> perhaps some 1 penny bet about the chemical composition of IO's soil is invalidated after a decade of dillution an mixture.. ultimately millions of PTC could depend on that one transaction.
 122 2011-10-01 00:46:30 <bd_> bitanarchy: basically, the problem is if you don't have some sort of cutoff that says, "after this point, no auto-reversals can happen for any reason", it's impossible to trust any currency you receive
 123 2011-10-01 00:46:45 <sytse> try getting your US$ back from someone if you both decide to stay anonymous and you gave it to him in his hand
 124 2011-10-01 00:47:10 <bd_> and every time someone makes a bet, the set of predictions you have to trust grows
 125 2011-10-01 00:47:21 <bitanarchy> bd_: you will need a tool evaluate the risk that is attached to a certain amount of PTC.
 126 2011-10-01 00:47:22 <bd_> so say I win a bet on "General Relativity is valid"
 127 2011-10-01 00:47:38 <bd_> and put the money into "There is no Higgs Boson"
 128 2011-10-01 00:47:42 <bd_> and win that bet
 129 2011-10-01 00:47:54 <bd_> then I use this to pay someone else
 130 2011-10-01 00:48:04 <bd_> this someone else must trust that BOTH bets were resolved properly
 131 2011-10-01 00:48:06 <bd_> and won't be reversed
 132 2011-10-01 00:48:10 <bd_> now, how do you evaluate this risk?
 133 2011-10-01 00:48:23 <gmaxwell> You split the winnings in two and combine your winnings on "can hotdogs float"  to pay your loss on "Elvis was a sexy dude"
 134 2011-10-01 00:48:29 <bd_> you can't assign a probability to the event "Everything we know about physics will be overturned"
 135 2011-10-01 00:48:46 <bd_> how does this 'tool' magically figure out "Oh, this PTC has risk factor 0.16"
 136 2011-10-01 00:48:55 <bd_> Moreover, even if I decide I know the risk, it's still useless
 137 2011-10-01 00:49:08 <bd_> because if I combine two low-risk PTCs, I get a higher risk PTC
 138 2011-10-01 00:49:11 <freewil> this sounds highly unstable - something like unbacked, highly leveraged derivatives
 139 2011-10-01 00:49:13 m00p has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 140 2011-10-01 00:49:25 <bd_> because if either PTC is reversed, the compound one will also be reversed
 141 2011-10-01 00:49:33 <bd_> so every PTC will very rapidly have extremely high risk
 142 2011-10-01 00:49:38 <bitanarchy> bd_: you should NOT get involved in predictions that have such uncertain outcomes
 143 2011-10-01 00:49:56 <bd_> bitanarchy: Well, someone else did. And now they're paying me those PTCs.
 144 2011-10-01 00:49:56 WakiMiko_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 145 2011-10-01 00:49:57 <gmaxwell> freewil: actually there you go, it's a CDO..
 146 2011-10-01 00:49:57 Blitzboom has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 147 2011-10-01 00:50:17 <bitanarchy> bd_: you accepted them knowing about the underlying predictions
 148 2011-10-01 00:50:21 <bd_> What do I do? Ask for a less risky PTC? They're saying their PTC isn't risky at all and by the way we had a contract specifying payment in PTCs so you'd better accept them
 149 2011-10-01 00:50:33 <freewil> gmaxwell: lol exactly, its like well if we make the right package its essentially "zero risk"
 150 2011-10-01 00:50:38 <gmaxwell> You just need to break your predictions into tiers   "General Relativity is valid" "General Relativity is mostly valid" "General Relativity is mostly invalid" "General Relativity is a drug fuled dream"
 151 2011-10-01 00:50:49 <bd_> bitanarchy: The thing is, in a system like this, the list of 'underlying predictions' grows _exponentially_ every time PTC changes hands
 152 2011-10-01 00:51:16 <bd_> bitanarchy: So very soon, there's a list of predictions too long to reasonably evaluate - and even if each individual prediction is low-risk, the PTC as a whole becomes high risk after a small number of generations
 153 2011-10-01 00:51:17 <gmaxwell> then you just sell shares of the first while buying shares of the last. PROFIT!!!
 154 2011-10-01 00:51:36 <bitanarchy> bd_: well am happy to receive PTC based on very establised events.
 155 2011-10-01 00:51:59 <bd_> bitanarchy: The thing is, all of this adds way too much risk to PTC
 156 2011-10-01 00:52:06 <bd_> you'll NEVER have an automated PTC-to-other-currency exchange
 157 2011-10-01 00:52:11 <bd_> because computers can't evaluate this risk
 158 2011-10-01 00:52:20 <bd_> You'll NEVER have ANY kind of automated PTC payment system
 159 2011-10-01 00:52:28 <gmaxwell> I for one welcome the CDO-PTC future!
 160 2011-10-01 00:52:39 <freewil> the economic PhDs will create a model for "no-risk PTC"
 161 2011-10-01 00:52:50 <freewil> and then it will all blow up when the model fails
 162 2011-10-01 00:52:57 Blitzboom has joined
 163 2011-10-01 00:52:58 <bd_> so what value do these PTCs really have?
 164 2011-10-01 00:53:11 <bd_> do you really think people will take all this risk and manually exchange PTCs for other forms of value?
 165 2011-10-01 00:53:27 <bd_> or take on all this risk PLUS the risk that PTCs may be illiquid and barter?
 166 2011-10-01 00:53:36 <gmaxwell> freewil: obviously we need ratings agencies to rate the PTCs.
 167 2011-10-01 00:53:42 <bd_> PTCs aren't even fungible, I don't see how they can possibly be liquid.
 168 2011-10-01 00:53:45 <gmaxwell> freewil: I nominate scottlad for the job.
 169 2011-10-01 00:54:04 <bd_> bitanarchy: Anyway, my conclusion is that this is a terrible idea unless there's a cutoff for reversal
 170 2011-10-01 00:54:10 <freewil> lol
 171 2011-10-01 00:54:22 <freewil> it would be a gambling tool more than a currency
 172 2011-10-01 00:54:23 <bd_> or, better yet, a maturation date after which there is no reversal, and before which there is no usage
 173 2011-10-01 00:54:35 <bitanarchy> bd_: In a libertarian society... if you did business with someone who goes backrupt because of damages... you will also be consulted for the damages because you did business with him...
 174 2011-10-01 00:54:41 <bd_> freewil: Well, yeah, that's the point. But the thing is, I can't see any safe way to attach this to real values
 175 2011-10-01 00:54:54 <bd_> bitanarchy: Huh?
 176 2011-10-01 00:55:04 <freewil> bd_, there is no safe way - its gambling
 177 2011-10-01 00:55:10 <gmaxwell> bd_: hush! hush!
 178 2011-10-01 00:55:29 <bd_> freewil: Right, but my point is the risk doesn't stop at the gambler. It extends to the house as well. EVERYONE has to take on the risk of the prediction.
 179 2011-10-01 00:55:33 <gmaxwell> bd_: you, my friend, and I are going to get rich off bitanarchy's system becase apparently we're the only ones who understand it.
 180 2011-10-01 00:55:45 <bd_> gmaxwell: The only way to get rich off this system is to not use it :)
 181 2011-10-01 00:56:19 <gmaxwell> bd_: Thats what people said about subprime mortagages!
 182 2011-10-01 00:56:22 <bitanarchy> bd_: established events are no risk
 183 2011-10-01 00:56:36 <bd_> freewil: To put it another way, in a sensible gambling system, you'd exchange some outside source of value - say BTC - for gambling tokens. You'd then do your bet etc, and once you have got your winnings, you exchange them back for BTC
 184 2011-10-01 00:56:48 <bd_> the key thing is there's nothing to yank the winnings back from the house and put it in someone else's hands
 185 2011-10-01 00:56:52 <bd_> otherwise the house is out BTC
 186 2011-10-01 00:57:01 <bd_> why would the house want to share in your risk? it's bad business
 187 2011-10-01 00:57:23 <bd_> And it's also a lot of work to decide if all these free-form bets are 'established' enough to count
 188 2011-10-01 00:57:29 Cusipzzz has joined
 189 2011-10-01 00:57:35 <gmaxwell> Because they have to temporarily hold PTC in order to combine them into meta-PTC that seperates the risk of sub-PTC.
 190 2011-10-01 00:57:39 osmosis has joined
 191 2011-10-01 00:57:40 <bd_> And it adds risk for the gambler that nobody will accept their winnings for exchange because they're super high risk
 192 2011-10-01 00:58:06 <bd_> AND the risk never goes away. The house (exchange) will sell these PTC off to some other sorry sod who now starts off with the risk of gambler A, PLUS their own new risk
 193 2011-10-01 00:58:15 <Diablo-D3> so all you're doing is re-creating the modern stock market.
 194 2011-10-01 00:58:17 <bd_> Even if it's all 'established' events this gets really risky really fast
 195 2011-10-01 00:58:24 <Diablo-D3> using risky assets to back risky assets
 196 2011-10-01 00:58:29 <bd_> Diablo-D3: No, because the stock market doesn't have reversals without limitations
 197 2011-10-01 00:58:36 <Diablo-D3> bd_: says who
 198 2011-10-01 00:58:39 <bd_> This is MORE RISKY than any financial derivatives market
 199 2011-10-01 00:58:39 <gmaxwell> bd_: for example, if you have 100 outstanding PTC obligations of similar value, I can buy them from you and bundled them into four meta PTC: One that takes the first 50% of the losses, the next that takes the next 26%, then another 25% then, the last 1%.
 200 2011-10-01 00:58:50 <Diablo-D3> bd_: depends how you define "more risky"
 201 2011-10-01 00:58:57 <gmaxwell> bd_: That final meta-PTC will be effectively risk free!
 202 2011-10-01 00:58:59 <bd_> gmaxwell: This sounds somehow familiar.... ;)
 203 2011-10-01 00:59:02 <Diablo-D3> infinity + 1 isnt more risky than infinity, they're both maximum risky
 204 2011-10-01 00:59:09 <bd_> Diablo-D3: Let there be some probability of reversal P
 205 2011-10-01 00:59:21 <bd_> Let's say we're only talking about established events where the probability of reversal is super small
 206 2011-10-01 00:59:23 <Diablo-D3> this whole idea sounds stupid, honestly.
 207 2011-10-01 00:59:25 <bd_> say, P = 0.000000000001
 208 2011-10-01 00:59:28 <gmaxwell> And if people don't want to buy the first meta-PTC we can just take a bunch of those and _repeat the process_!
 209 2011-10-01 01:00:03 <bd_> Make that 0.0000001, probably more realistic
 210 2011-10-01 01:00:24 <bd_> hold on a sec, getting my math wrong here
 211 2011-10-01 01:00:44 <freewil> ptc would have to be non-reversible somehow after a given point
 212 2011-10-01 01:00:54 <bd_> After 100,000 transactions, that's up to P=0.01 of reversal
 213 2011-10-01 01:00:59 <bd_> And that's just with one transaction
 214 2011-10-01 01:01:07 <bd_> If we assume each PTC-coin is made of on average two others
 215 2011-10-01 01:01:11 t3a has joined
 216 2011-10-01 01:01:30 <bd_> Now it's P=0.02 of reversal
 217 2011-10-01 01:01:49 <bd_> And this is with a one-ten-millionth-in-one probability of reversal per prediction
 218 2011-10-01 01:01:58 <bd_> in reality we'll see lots of predictions with higher probability
 219 2011-10-01 01:02:07 <bd_> After all, why else would we have this whole reversal scheme if it's not being used?
 220 2011-10-01 01:02:17 <bd_> So let's say 1 in 10,000 txns gets reversed
 221 2011-10-01 01:02:48 <freewil> what if there is a prediction for X to happen on date D - and by D + n every node has voted on whether X happened
 222 2011-10-01 01:02:49 <gmaxwell> bd_: it would be fun to select a random old coinbase that has been redeemed and figure out how many txn would die if it vanished.
 223 2011-10-01 01:02:49 <bd_> After 100 txns, that's a 1 in 50 chance of reversal (assuming merging 2 txns per prediction)
 224 2011-10-01 01:02:56 <freewil> after D + n it wouldnt be able to be reversed
 225 2011-10-01 01:03:14 <bd_> freewil: Sure. What happens if a node refuses to vote?
 226 2011-10-01 01:03:22 <bd_> How do you decide which nodes have voting rights, anyway?
 227 2011-10-01 01:03:24 <freewil> bd_, they dont count?
 228 2011-10-01 01:03:33 <freewil> bd_, everyone does?
 229 2011-10-01 01:03:35 <gmaxwell> I bet we can find that there exists a single coinbase that contributed to a quarter of the transactions. :)
 230 2011-10-01 01:03:49 <bd_> freewil: Okay, so I'll launch a sybil attack on an old PTC coinbase and reverse EVERY TRANSACTION EVER
 231 2011-10-01 01:04:26 <bd_> freewil: my point is, if you want "every node has voted on whether X happened"
 232 2011-10-01 01:04:31 <bd_> I can prevent that condition from ever happening
 233 2011-10-01 01:04:37 <bd_> it's easy - I just add a node, and tell it not to vote
 234 2011-10-01 01:04:44 <bd_> now we never get to "every node has voted"
 235 2011-10-01 01:05:01 <bd_> better yet, I can add K nodes, where K > how many nodes don't belong to me
 236 2011-10-01 01:05:02 <freewil> bd_, you use a time, you dont wait until every node has voted
 237 2011-10-01 01:05:04 <bd_> and then control predictions
 238 2011-10-01 01:05:09 <bd_> freewil: Who decides what time it is?
 239 2011-10-01 01:05:20 <freewil> bd_, the network does?
 240 2011-10-01 01:05:29 <bd_> freewil: I own over half the network, so I guess I do?
 241 2011-10-01 01:05:43 <freewil> uh yeah isnt that the same with bitcoin?
 242 2011-10-01 01:05:55 <bd_> Sure. But with bitcoin your control is more limited
 243 2011-10-01 01:06:00 <bd_> bitcoin doesn't give you voting rights
 244 2011-10-01 01:06:06 t3a_ has joined
 245 2011-10-01 01:06:08 <gmaxwell> bitcoin miners have very very little power at all.
 246 2011-10-01 01:06:16 <bd_> So, you can build your prediction market where CPU power = control = votes
 247 2011-10-01 01:06:17 <bitanarchy> bd_: why would you want to pile up 100 000 predictions... they can also be used as currency
 248 2011-10-01 01:06:22 <freewil> bd_, isnt your hashing power your votes?
 249 2011-10-01 01:06:34 <bd_> at which point the people with the biggest CPUs have control over the market
 250 2011-10-01 01:06:40 <bd_> with bitcoin, all they can do is slow down txns
 251 2011-10-01 01:06:42 <gmaxwell> freewil: But all you're ever really voting on is the time. :)
 252 2011-10-01 01:06:47 <bd_> they can't reverse txns, they can't really stop txns
 253 2011-10-01 01:06:56 <bd_> If you give them votes on bets
 254 2011-10-01 01:07:01 <bd_> now they can reverse transactions. Easily.
 255 2011-10-01 01:07:02 <gmaxwell> They can't take anyone elses txns.
 256 2011-10-01 01:07:11 <gmaxwell> They can't change txns to instead benefit them.
 257 2011-10-01 01:07:15 <bd_> bitanarchy: No, you can't use them as currency. That's my point.
 258 2011-10-01 01:07:29 <gmaxwell> They don't have the essential properties of money.
 259 2011-10-01 01:07:30 <bd_> bitanarchy: After they change hands 100,000 times, you already have a VERY VERY HIGH chance that they're totally worthless.
 260 2011-10-01 01:07:41 <gmaxwell> They aren't funigble, they aren't liquid, they aren't trivially negoiatiable.
 261 2011-10-01 01:07:46 <gmaxwell> They aren't durable.
 262 2011-10-01 01:07:50 <bd_> gmaxwell: yeah, they're basically an anticurrency
 263 2011-10-01 01:07:55 <bd_> They're everything that a currency _isn't_
 264 2011-10-01 01:07:55 <gmaxwell> (due to the high reversal risk)
 265 2011-10-01 01:08:00 <gmaxwell> bd_++
 266 2011-10-01 01:08:06 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 267 2011-10-01 01:08:21 <freewil> gmaxwell, what is the 51% attack then, i thought that was essentially controlling the network, and overtaking the blockchain
 268 2011-10-01 01:08:35 <bd_> freewil: The thing is, with a prediction market, you don't need 51%
 269 2011-10-01 01:08:40 <bd_> you just need enough to tip the scales
 270 2011-10-01 01:08:55 <bd_> say there's some event where the vote was close
 271 2011-10-01 01:09:05 genjix has left ()
 272 2011-10-01 01:09:20 <gmaxwell> freewil: 51%+ attacks allows the attacker to DOS attack bitcoin (by not processing other people's txns) and it also allows them to reverse their own txn, at least over limited times.
 273 2011-10-01 01:09:21 <bd_> 39-50, say
 274 2011-10-01 01:09:25 <gmaxwell> But thats pretty much it.
 275 2011-10-01 01:09:32 <bd_> er, 39-45 even
 276 2011-10-01 01:09:35 <bd_> now you put in your 6%
 277 2011-10-01 01:09:43 <bd_> and you've just undone countless transactions
 278 2011-10-01 01:09:57 <bd_> this is considerably more powerful than bitcoin
 279 2011-10-01 01:10:09 <bd_> also: there's the question of how you implement this
 280 2011-10-01 01:10:16 <bd_> bitcoin does this all probalistically
 281 2011-10-01 01:10:25 <bd_> anyone might spit out a block
 282 2011-10-01 01:10:30 <bd_> at any time
 283 2011-10-01 01:10:42 <bd_> But there's no guarentee that everyone will be equally represented in any given timeframe
 284 2011-10-01 01:10:51 <bd_> How do you count these votes safely, then?
 285 2011-10-01 01:11:11 <bd_> Do you have super-fine-grained blocks? That'd produce a lot of block collisions and network traffic
 286 2011-10-01 01:11:17 <freewil> gmaxwell, what is the limited time and how is this enforced? is this related to the checkpoints in the official client?
 287 2011-10-01 01:11:18 <bitanarchy> bd_: you are actually advocating an immoral system of trade... because every real trade is based on a condition... the idea of libertarianism is that scamming should always be revisible.
 288 2011-10-01 01:11:36 <bd_> bitanarchy: The problem with scamming being reversible is that then someone can use a scam as a meta-scam
 289 2011-10-01 01:11:59 <bd_> Consider this: A scams B. A pays C. B then turns himself in; both A->C and B->A are reversed.
 290 2011-10-01 01:12:04 TD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 291 2011-10-01 01:12:10 WakiMiko has joined
 292 2011-10-01 01:12:13 <bd_> A then pawns off the gold watch he bought off C and splits the proceeds with B
 293 2011-10-01 01:12:32 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 294 2011-10-01 01:12:35 <bd_> Oops, gold watch purchases can't really be reversed all that easily, can they?
 295 2011-10-01 01:12:53 Zarutian has quit (Quit: Zarutian)
 296 2011-10-01 01:13:02 <bd_> correction: A turns himself in
 297 2011-10-01 01:13:23 <bd_> bitanarchy: point is, you can't have currency unless you can trust that this $1 is the same as any other $1
 298 2011-10-01 01:14:22 <bd_> when you have to consider the entire history of every $1 you come across, and investigate every event on it (" 'Amazon will reveal their tablet to be named the Kindle Flame on Aud 28 2011'... was it the Flame or the Fire? I forget...")
 299 2011-10-01 01:14:35 <bd_> AND compute the cumulative probability of ANY ONE of those events being reversed
 300 2011-10-01 01:14:40 <bd_> (including fradulent reversals!)
 301 2011-10-01 01:15:08 <bd_> you quickly get to the point where the opportunity cost of computing all of this is WAY WAY HIGHER than the value you come up with (which is very tiny because it's super-risky to use these things)
 302 2011-10-01 01:15:16 <bd_> and so it fails as a medium of trade
 303 2011-10-01 01:15:22 <bd_> It's also, by definition, not a currency.
 304 2011-10-01 01:15:28 <bd_> This is because a currency is:
 305 2011-10-01 01:15:40 <freewil> do bitcoin blocks have some sort of timestamp?
 306 2011-10-01 01:15:42 <bd_> a) Fungible (ie, every unit is equivalent to every other unit of the same denomination)
 307 2011-10-01 01:15:58 <bd_> b) Liquid (ie, it's easy to buy and sell them - not so much when the buyer needs to do a background check on your money)
 308 2011-10-01 01:16:15 <bd_> c) Durable (they don't fall apart as they're being used - not so much when the risk goes up every time it's used!)
 309 2011-10-01 01:16:28 <bd_> Your proposed system is none of these.
 310 2011-10-01 01:16:31 <bd_> It is not a currency.
 311 2011-10-01 01:16:51 <bd_> It is, to put it lightly, _worthless_
 312 2011-10-01 01:16:59 <bd_> freewil: and yes, but it's not used for anything very important
 313 2011-10-01 01:17:08 <bd_> and shouldn't be
 314 2011-10-01 01:17:16 <bd_> nodes can manipulate it to an extent
 315 2011-10-01 01:17:35 <bd_> all it controls is difficulty recalculation, and there's only so much you can do to influence that before your blocks start being rejected
 316 2011-10-01 01:18:03 <bitanarchy> bd_: background checks would be externalized (rating agencies) in a libertarian world
 317 2011-10-01 01:18:15 <bd_> bitanarchy: It doesn't matter who does them
 318 2011-10-01 01:18:19 <bd_> What matters is it's a lot of work
 319 2011-10-01 01:18:23 <bd_> it's a tax on every transaction
 320 2011-10-01 01:18:25 <bd_> and a very high tax too
 321 2011-10-01 01:18:30 <bd_> probably more than 100% tax
 322 2011-10-01 01:18:39 <bitanarchy> bd_: well background checks are required if you want to live a moral life
 323 2011-10-01 01:19:06 <luke-jr> bitanarchy: uh, why?
 324 2011-10-01 01:19:27 <bd_> bitanarchy: I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about practicality.
 325 2011-10-01 01:19:39 <bd_> bitanarchy: In your world, every time I go to buy something - anything -
 326 2011-10-01 01:19:43 <bd_> there would be a background check on my money
 327 2011-10-01 01:19:44 <bitanarchy> luke-jr: if you do business with someone who sells stolen goods... you are helping a thief...
 328 2011-10-01 01:19:45 <bd_> On the spot.
 329 2011-10-01 01:19:49 <bd_> One that requires human judgement.
 330 2011-10-01 01:19:56 <bd_> And investigation of historical events.
 331 2011-10-01 01:19:59 <bd_> This requires time.
 332 2011-10-01 01:20:04 <bd_> It requires human effort.
 333 2011-10-01 01:20:09 <luke-jr> bitanarchy: if you don't know it, you're innocent
 334 2011-10-01 01:20:18 <bd_> It holds up the transaction, and you need to pay this poor clerk for looking up every bet ever made on this money.
 335 2011-10-01 01:20:34 WakiMiko_ has joined
 336 2011-10-01 01:20:49 <bd_> AND you need to have him background-check the money you use to pay him!
 337 2011-10-01 01:21:19 <bd_> Can you see how this is unscalable?
 338 2011-10-01 01:21:29 <bd_> Every time the money passes through a bet, it becomes more complex to background check it
 339 2011-10-01 01:21:41 <bd_> Every time you combine two PTCs, you merge the list of bets to be checked.
 340 2011-10-01 01:21:49 <bd_> Every time you use a PTC, it must be background-checked.
 341 2011-10-01 01:21:52 Daniel0108 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 342 2011-10-01 01:22:07 <bd_> You can't call a PTC just by denomination. You have to list the bets it's comprised of.
 343 2011-10-01 01:22:09 <bitanarchy> luke-jr: you may be innocent, but you will have to at least give back the goods and maybe pay compensation.
 344 2011-10-01 01:22:36 <bd_> eg, PTC 10@(WTC,NYD,KTP,ADJ,SJW,mWE,KQWQ,SDKW,SDOK,SKAA,ZAKS,DKDK,DEOK,.......)
 345 2011-10-01 01:22:48 <bd_> This gets to be a very long list.
 346 2011-10-01 01:22:59 <luke-jr> bitanarchy: that doesn't make you less moral (and the bit about pay compensation is bs)
 347 2011-10-01 01:22:59 <bd_> And to top it all off, there's no agreement on value.
 348 2011-10-01 01:23:08 <bd_> I might feel that SDOK has a very very high probability of reversal
 349 2011-10-01 01:23:12 <bd_> while you feel it's solid by now
 350 2011-10-01 01:23:33 <bd_> bitanarchy: Are you considering the practical side of this _at all_?
 351 2011-10-01 01:23:39 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 352 2011-10-01 01:23:50 <bd_> Morality is all fine and good, but if it's impossible to implement you're not going to get anywhere with this.
 353 2011-10-01 01:24:04 <bd_> bitanarchy: I feel it's immoral to push a gambler's risk onto third parties like this.
 354 2011-10-01 01:24:22 <bd_> The risk should be borne by the gamblers. This includes the risk that the community may make the wrong decision.
 355 2011-10-01 01:24:41 <bd_> If you remove the reversal, and the community makes the wrong decision, the 'winning' side loses.
 356 2011-10-01 01:24:49 <bd_> But if we reword the bet like so:
 357 2011-10-01 01:25:00 <bitanarchy> luke-jr: well, I think you have to do some reasonable investigation... if you deliverately try to stay in the unknown...
 358 2011-10-01 01:25:04 <bd_> "XXXXX event will happen and the community will make the right choice for how to resolve this bet"
 359 2011-10-01 01:25:11 <bd_> Now there's no need to reverse.
 360 2011-10-01 01:25:16 <bd_> The risk is borne by the gamblers.
 361 2011-10-01 01:25:19 <bd_> And the first decision holds.
 362 2011-10-01 01:25:52 <bd_> and because there's no reversal, your PTC or BTC or whatever can actually be a currency
 363 2011-10-01 01:25:53 <freewil> im wondering if there is someway to devise a system like bitcoin where the unixtime can be tracked. Then I think something like PTC could work if the transactions werent reversible after a given point
 364 2011-10-01 01:25:54 <bitanarchy> bd_: the condition does not need to be a gamble... it can be the a trade condition.. like delivering goods.
 365 2011-10-01 01:26:00 <bd_> bitanarchy: All trade is a gamble
 366 2011-10-01 01:26:15 <bd_> it's just that the probabilities are stacked very high in one direction
 367 2011-10-01 01:26:23 <bd_> bitanarchy: Say I buy 100 bushels of grain from you.
 368 2011-10-01 01:26:31 <bd_> Immediately after taking delivery my truck might catch on fire.
 369 2011-10-01 01:26:37 <bd_> That's a risk I take. It's a gamble.
 370 2011-10-01 01:27:09 <bd_> It's also a quantifiable risk, so I can have it insured. The insurance company gambles for me, so I don't have the shoulder the risk.
 371 2011-10-01 01:27:25 <bd_> Same thing about any other issue in the system. If the risk can be quantified, I can get insurance
 372 2011-10-01 01:27:34 <luke-jr> I don't think that fits the definition of gamble
 373 2011-10-01 01:27:48 <bd_> luke-jr: It does. It's just a very low-risk gamble, so we don't usually call it that.
 374 2011-10-01 01:27:53 <bd_> The problem with infinite reversal is the risk can't be quantified. It just keeps going up.
 375 2011-10-01 01:28:06 <luke-jr> also, jzknight sez to watch Inside Job
 376 2011-10-01 01:29:37 <bd_> bitanarchy: To put it another way - you don't want trade to be a gamble. But any transaction with an infinitely-reversable instrument _is_ a gamble.
 377 2011-10-01 01:29:42 <bd_> One with very poor odds after a few generations.
 378 2011-10-01 01:30:24 <bitanarchy> bd_: a trade is only a gamble because there are limits to our dispute resolution system.
 379 2011-10-01 01:30:43 <bd_> bitanarchy: If there are no limits it becomes even more of a gamble
 380 2011-10-01 01:30:54 <bd_> Sure, the first person on the chain will do just fine.
 381 2011-10-01 01:31:00 <bd_> But think about everyone else _after_ the reversal
 382 2011-10-01 01:31:08 <bd_> they're already exchanged goods for PTC
 383 2011-10-01 01:31:11 <bd_> and now the PTC went back
 384 2011-10-01 01:31:15 <bd_> Do they need to take the goods back?
 385 2011-10-01 01:31:20 <bd_> What if the goods no longer exist?
 386 2011-10-01 01:31:49 <bd_> If I buy food with PTC, and eat it, and the PTC is reversed - do I give a quarter-pound of my flesh to mcdonalds to reverse my end of the transaction?
 387 2011-10-01 01:31:55 <luke-jr> bd_: why does more than one transaction need to be reversed?
 388 2011-10-01 01:32:01 <bitanarchy> bd_: maybe there should be a time limit for reversibility... real dispute resolution systems also have that I suppose.
 389 2011-10-01 01:32:07 <bd_> luke-jr: because otherwise you just made money out of thin air
 390 2011-10-01 01:32:15 <luke-jr> bd_: people do that all the time
 391 2011-10-01 01:32:19 <bd_> bitanarchy: Exactly. And now everyone will refuse to accept PTC that hasn't reached the time limit yet.
 392 2011-10-01 01:32:20 <luke-jr> and not necessarily
 393 2011-10-01 01:32:26 <bd_> luke-jr: Yeah, but not on this scale.
 394 2011-10-01 01:32:37 <luke-jr> bd_: on a much larger scale
 395 2011-10-01 01:32:49 <luke-jr> in any case, you arrest the criminal and make him work it off
 396 2011-10-01 01:33:08 <bd_> luke-jr: If the reversal was only one level deep, I'd put a VERY VERY LARGE bet both on and against something likely to be reversed, then buy BTC (or something) with it
 397 2011-10-01 01:33:18 <bd_> when it's reversed, I get my money back, so I buy more BTC with it
 398 2011-10-01 01:33:24 <bd_> I've just doubled my money.
 399 2011-10-01 01:33:28 <bd_> At which point I repeat.
 400 2011-10-01 01:33:45 <luke-jr> that makes no sense
 401 2011-10-01 01:33:46 <bd_> If you indirect around a bit you don't even need to go through BTC - I can double my money within the PTC system like this
 402 2011-10-01 01:34:14 <bd_> luke-jr: Sure it does. Transaction 1: Bet 10 PTC on A. Transaction 2: Bet 10 PTC on not-A. Transaction 3: A resolved to true. I get 10 PTC and send them to Charlie.
 403 2011-10-01 01:34:45 <bd_> Transaction 4: A reversed; now false. I have to give 10 PTC back to A, but I can't, because I have no PTC. Meanwhile, A is false now, so I win 10 PTC. I give this to charlie as well
 404 2011-10-01 01:34:52 <bd_> Now Charlie (who is secretly me) gives me 20 PTC
 405 2011-10-01 01:35:28 <bd_> Now, in a real legal system, the courts will say, "Hey, you're really in cahoots with Charlie, so he has to give the money back too"
 406 2011-10-01 01:35:35 <bd_> But an automatic system can't make this determination
 407 2011-10-01 01:35:43 <luke-jr> no
 408 2011-10-01 01:35:52 <luke-jr> Txn 4: you end with negative 10 PTC
 409 2011-10-01 01:36:05 <bd_> luke-jr: Do I have to spell this out? I did the two bets under two aliases.
 410 2011-10-01 01:36:12 <luke-jr> who said anything about automatic?
 411 2011-10-01 01:36:15 <bd_> So at the end of the day I have one alias with -10 PTC and one with +20 PTC
 412 2011-10-01 01:36:20 <bd_> I throw away the -10 PTC alias.
 413 2011-10-01 01:36:29 <bd_> and now I just have a +20 alias
 414 2011-10-01 01:36:45 <bd_> and I can repeat this of course
 415 2011-10-01 01:36:47 <luke-jr> bd_: you don't get an alias
 416 2011-10-01 01:36:53 <luke-jr> bd_: you go to jail until you pay up
 417 2011-10-01 01:37:09 <bd_> luke-jr: Okay, so why does the PTC network need a reversal system now?
 418 2011-10-01 01:37:14 <bd_> We can just use the courts.
 419 2011-10-01 01:37:24 <luke-jr> exactly my point
 420 2011-10-01 01:37:41 <bd_> But this is still way too risky. I can never spend PTC because I never know when this system will come back and say "Actually, we changed our mind and you never won those 500000 PTC. Give them back or we'll sue."
 421 2011-10-01 01:37:58 <bd_> So there _needs_ to be a statute of limitations.
 422 2011-10-01 01:38:13 <bd_> At which point nobody will ever use PTC before they exceed this time.
 423 2011-10-01 01:38:21 <bd_> At which point why not just use a maturation date like sane systems? :|
 424 2011-10-01 01:39:31 <freewil> this is what i was asking before...
 425 2011-10-01 01:39:44 <freewil> how would you know when a maturation date occurs
 426 2011-10-01 01:39:48 <bd_> Exactly.
 427 2011-10-01 01:39:59 <bd_> Which also brings us to the discussion of authorities
 428 2011-10-01 01:40:13 <freewil> is there someway to track a timestamp in a decentralized way through the network?
 429 2011-10-01 01:40:14 <bd_> You have to be able to say, "Okay, this finite set of people get to decide what bets end up how."
 430 2011-10-01 01:40:25 <bd_> freewil: Well, that's basically what bitcoin is
 431 2011-10-01 01:40:35 <bd_> with a good bit of noise however
 432 2011-10-01 01:40:46 <bd_> it's not really connected to real-world time very strongly
 433 2011-10-01 01:40:59 <bd_> but even if you have a timestamp system, you have to decide who gets how many votes
 434 2011-10-01 01:41:05 <bd_> and basing this on CPU power is dangerous
 435 2011-10-01 01:41:34 <bitanarchy> bd_: people speculate all the time... how can you say that people will not use PTC before the time exceeds.
 436 2011-10-01 01:41:36 <bd_> in bitcoin having high CPU power gives you some limited options for txn reversal, but the important thing is it's a threshold function
 437 2011-10-01 01:41:56 <bd_> bitanarchy: People will refuse to _accept_ it before the limit, I should say
 438 2011-10-01 01:42:12 <bd_> anyway, in bitcoin, if you have 49% of the network's CPU power, you're essentially powerless
 439 2011-10-01 01:42:19 <bd_> you can delay txns an average of 10 minutes. Big whoop.
 440 2011-10-01 01:42:26 <bitanarchy> bd_: not the people who want to speculate..... the ones who buy predictions
 441 2011-10-01 01:42:47 <bd_> bitanarchy: Perhaps internally some people will stack risk like that, as a sort of leverage.
 442 2011-10-01 01:42:53 <bd_> But it's super-risky
 443 2011-10-01 01:43:04 <bd_> anyway, if you base votes on CPU%
 444 2011-10-01 01:43:04 <freewil> what if you think of each hash/sec of power as a raffle ticket as a chance to solve a block
 445 2011-10-01 01:43:14 <bd_> now you have a linear function of CPU% - voting power
 446 2011-10-01 01:43:22 <bd_> so if you can find a contested bet
 447 2011-10-01 01:43:35 <bd_> you can very easily vote in there
 448 2011-10-01 01:43:41 <luke-jr> bd_: nothing stops scammers from suing you.
 449 2011-10-01 01:43:42 <bd_> the other problem is a large amount of abstention
 450 2011-10-01 01:44:05 <bd_> why would miners (or whatever the prediction market has as an equivalent) want to bother evaluating all these predictions?
 451 2011-10-01 01:44:22 ahihi2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 452 2011-10-01 01:44:30 <bd_> Joe Miner has a 20000-GPU array to tend, he doesn't have time to investigate whether it rained yesterday in Omaha!
 453 2011-10-01 01:44:39 <bd_> So he doesn't vote. Even though he has 20% of the votes.
 454 2011-10-01 01:44:47 <bd_> Now what happens if all the high-CPU miners do this?
 455 2011-10-01 01:44:52 <bd_> You have >90% abstaining
 456 2011-10-01 01:44:58 <freewil> bd_, ok im starting to understand
 457 2011-10-01 01:45:00 <bd_> so when Joe Miner decides, oh, actually I _will_ vote this time
 458 2011-10-01 01:45:06 <bd_> now he controls the outcome
 459 2011-10-01 01:45:14 <bd_> His one vote determines how the vote will turn out
 460 2011-10-01 01:45:38 <bd_> Now think - what happens then if he actually put a bet on that Omaha weather? :)
 461 2011-10-01 01:45:48 <freewil> what if you have to place some sort of wager in order to bet
 462 2011-10-01 01:45:54 <freewil> or vote
 463 2011-10-01 01:45:58 <bd_> freewil: Well, he knows he'll win, because he controls the result.
 464 2011-10-01 01:46:03 <bd_> So he has no problem wagering.
 465 2011-10-01 01:46:28 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 466 2011-10-01 01:46:41 <bd_> You see, the problem is you need to pick a disinterested third party to control the outcome
 467 2011-10-01 01:46:48 irf has joined
 468 2011-10-01 01:46:48 <bd_> the keyword here is disinterested
 469 2011-10-01 01:46:51 <bd_> no automatic metric can do this
 470 2011-10-01 01:47:33 <bitanarchy> bd_: Miners do not have to investigate the predictions, since I propose it is not mandatory. Miners will be interested in fees... if the fees are payed with PTC... the miner is willing to investgate the predictions.
 471 2011-10-01 01:47:55 <bd_> bitanarchy: They don't have to, sure.
 472 2011-10-01 01:48:06 <bd_> But Joe Miner just put a 2000 PTC bet on "It will rain in Omaha tomorrow"
 473 2011-10-01 01:48:10 <bd_> and it turned out sunny
 474 2011-10-01 01:48:15 <bd_> so he's going to go vote that it rained
 475 2011-10-01 01:48:44 <bd_> and because he's the only miner who bothered to investigate, and has more votes than anyone else, well, I guess Omaha rained, and he gets 4000 PTC in winnings
 476 2011-10-01 01:48:58 <freewil> bd_, i see
 477 2011-10-01 01:49:07 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: lrzip saved less than 100 MB more than xz out of a 20 GB text file, and took MUCH longer
 478 2011-10-01 01:49:18 <bd_> You have to make sure people can't vote if they have a stake
 479 2011-10-01 01:49:21 <Diablo-D3> yeah, it trades speed for compressability
 480 2011-10-01 01:49:25 <bd_> And you have to give some incentive to judge these bets
 481 2011-10-01 01:49:31 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: btw, it has more options you can fiddle with
 482 2011-10-01 01:49:39 elkingrey has left ("Leaving")
 483 2011-10-01 01:49:42 <bd_> And you have to give an incentive to _actually_ judge rather than clicking at random
 484 2011-10-01 01:49:44 ahihi2 has joined
 485 2011-10-01 01:49:51 <bd_> And this is all not possible to do automatically
 486 2011-10-01 01:49:58 <bd_> It's a social problem. It can't be solved by technology alone.
 487 2011-10-01 01:50:52 <freewil> doesnt mean it couldnt be done
 488 2011-10-01 01:50:56 <freewil> so voters need an incentive
 489 2011-10-01 01:51:02 <bd_> No, it can't be done by technology, period.
 490 2011-10-01 01:51:04 <freewil> they get a percentage or a fee per vote?
 491 2011-10-01 01:51:15 <bd_> we can pay them to vote, so they'll vote at random.
 492 2011-10-01 01:51:24 <bd_> Or always vote yes. Or something.
 493 2011-10-01 01:51:32 <freewil> some sort of trust system
 494 2011-10-01 01:51:39 <freewil> where if you vote on the losing side you get negative karma
 495 2011-10-01 01:51:41 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: you mean, it takes DAYS of speed for a slightly smaller file
 496 2011-10-01 01:51:45 <bd_> It's not a problem you can solve with just technology. You have to pick someone you trust (the computer can't tell you who) and give them a fee and say "Hey, judge this."
 497 2011-10-01 01:51:50 * luke-jr sticks to xz
 498 2011-10-01 01:51:53 <bd_> And if they judge wrong you sue them or something.
 499 2011-10-01 01:52:04 <bd_> A network protocol cannot do this for you.
 500 2011-10-01 01:52:41 <freewil> i understand there would be human invervention
 501 2011-10-01 01:52:44 <freewil> actually doing the voting
 502 2011-10-01 01:53:08 tcoppi has joined
 503 2011-10-01 01:53:10 <bd_> freewil: See, if you automate the process of selecting judges, you have a number of problems:
 504 2011-10-01 01:53:14 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr: dude, you just own a slow ass machine
 505 2011-10-01 01:53:16 <bd_> a) Sybil attacks
 506 2011-10-01 01:53:19 <bd_> b) Conflicts of interest
 507 2011-10-01 01:53:20 <Diablo-D3> go troll somewhere else
 508 2011-10-01 01:53:27 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: no u
 509 2011-10-01 01:53:29 <bd_> c) Lack of incentive to actually investiate
 510 2011-10-01 01:53:40 <bd_> d) Possibility of gaming the incentive system you put in to fix (c)
 511 2011-10-01 01:53:48 <Diablo-D3> luke-jr; seriously, I'll let you suck my dick if you just shut up already. Thats all you catholics are good for anyways.
 512 2011-10-01 01:54:11 <bd_> (b) and (c) really can't be solved with a computer. They're social problems. They cannot be expressed as an algorithm.
 513 2011-10-01 01:54:13 <bitanarchy> bd_: A miner can force a false-condition transaction into the blockchain and the block will not be rejected... but the transaction will be ignored, because everyone know the condition was wrong.
 514 2011-10-01 01:54:29 <freewil> bd_, im thinking outside the box here
 515 2011-10-01 01:54:43 <freewil> yes you cant make a freakin algorithm with this type of system
 516 2011-10-01 01:54:44 <bd_> bitanarchy: I'm too lazy to actually check the conditions for all the bets that I'm not directly involved in, so my node won't be rejecting that transaction.
 517 2011-10-01 01:54:56 <bd_> bitanarchy: Now, how does the system handle things is most people are like me?
 518 2011-10-01 01:55:45 <bitanarchy> bd_: At some point miners do not get the block reward... but only the fees.
 519 2011-10-01 01:56:12 <bd_> bitanarchy: I don't see how that fixes anything at all whatsoever.
 520 2011-10-01 01:56:36 <bd_> actually it makes things quite a lot worse in an infinitely-reversible system, but I digress
 521 2011-10-01 01:56:54 <bd_> bitanarchy: Let's say I run a miner with 20% of the CPU capacity of the system. I don't care about bets and voting and all that crap, I just want my fees.
 522 2011-10-01 01:56:59 <luke-jr> Diablo-D3: now I definitely won't
 523 2011-10-01 01:57:06 <bd_> bitanarchy: As such, I never blacklist transactions. Ever. Even if they're obviously wrong.
 524 2011-10-01 01:57:13 <bd_> bitanarchy: Now what?
 525 2011-10-01 01:58:09 <Diablo-D3> brb, jerking off to nun porn
 526 2011-10-01 01:58:47 <bitanarchy> bd_: I was thinking that people would not pay to insert obviously wrong transactions
 527 2011-10-01 01:59:07 <bd_> bitanarchy: they would if there was something in it for them!
 528 2011-10-01 01:59:22 <bd_> And it's more like, say someone makes a bet "It will be rainy tomorrow in Omaha"
 529 2011-10-01 01:59:36 <bd_> Now, in fact, it rained on half of Omaha and the other half was sunny
 530 2011-10-01 02:00:01 <bd_> and people aren't sure how to vote - so the vote keeps changing. Hard to handle. Will people blacklist different conditions?
 531 2011-10-01 02:00:09 <bd_> Will people even bother to blacklist _at all_?
 532 2011-10-01 02:00:14 <bd_> Who can be trusted to vote?
 533 2011-10-01 02:00:15 <bd_> How many times?
 534 2011-10-01 02:00:20 Firefly007 has joined
 535 2011-10-01 02:00:45 <bitanarchy> bd_: Well, then that kind of transactions just suck...
 536 2011-10-01 02:01:09 <bd_> bitanarchy: anyway, apparently you haven't been reading any of this discussion, so I'm done arguing. Suffice it to say, the system you describe is too risky for actual use, and is also easily prone to abuse (particularly on the part of miners).
 537 2011-10-01 02:01:27 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 538 2011-10-01 02:02:50 <bitanarchy> bd_: people will categorize conditions, I expect.... like definitely true, definitely false, and still under dispute
 539 2011-10-01 02:03:04 <bitanarchy> anyway
 540 2011-10-01 02:03:11 <bitanarchy> thx for the brainstorm
 541 2011-10-01 02:03:18 ahihi2 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 542 2011-10-01 02:03:20 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 543 2011-10-01 02:03:31 tcoppi has joined
 544 2011-10-01 02:05:57 ahihi2 has joined
 545 2011-10-01 02:07:40 tcoppi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 546 2011-10-01 02:08:05 bitanarchy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 547 2011-10-01 02:08:42 tcoppi has joined
 548 2011-10-01 02:09:55 tcoppi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 549 2011-10-01 02:11:22 cronopio has quit (Quit: leaving)
 550 2011-10-01 02:12:55 tcoppi has joined
 551 2011-10-01 02:13:12 tcoppi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 552 2011-10-01 02:13:27 elkingrey has joined
 553 2011-10-01 02:13:31 elkingrey has left ()
 554 2011-10-01 02:20:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 555 2011-10-01 02:21:03 zhoutong has joined
 556 2011-10-01 02:23:39 tcoppi has joined
 557 2011-10-01 02:27:48 tcoppi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 558 2011-10-01 02:28:36 crazy_imp has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 559 2011-10-01 02:28:37 Cablesaurus has joined
 560 2011-10-01 02:28:37 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
 561 2011-10-01 02:28:37 Cablesaurus has joined
 562 2011-10-01 02:28:39 tcoppi has joined
 563 2011-10-01 02:28:59 Cusipzzz has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.1.1 Equilibrium http://www.kvirc.net/)
 564 2011-10-01 02:32:30 crazy_imp has joined
 565 2011-10-01 02:32:35 t3a has joined
 566 2011-10-01 02:34:51 t3a__ has joined
 567 2011-10-01 02:35:40 t3a_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 568 2011-10-01 02:37:08 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 569 2011-10-01 02:39:45 shockdiode has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 570 2011-10-01 02:39:58 shockdiode has joined
 571 2011-10-01 02:41:29 t3a__ is now known as t3a
 572 2011-10-01 02:48:17 <t3a> who are transactions sent to when they happen? all of your peers?
 573 2011-10-01 02:51:53 <Diablo-D3> your mom.
 574 2011-10-01 02:51:57 <shockdiode> nodes you're connected to
 575 2011-10-01 02:52:00 <shockdiode> and your mom, yes
 576 2011-10-01 02:52:27 drewn has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 577 2011-10-01 02:52:44 drewn has joined
 578 2011-10-01 02:54:27 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 579 2011-10-01 02:55:09 <t3a> are nodes the people running the bitcoin client?
 580 2011-10-01 02:55:32 <luke-jr> and your mom
 581 2011-10-01 02:55:32 zhoutong has joined
 582 2011-10-01 02:56:25 <t3a> what happens if those people lie about a transaction happening? is that possible?
 583 2011-10-01 02:58:27 <luke-jr> no
 584 2011-10-01 02:58:37 <luke-jr> we trust your mom
 585 2011-10-01 03:01:11 <t3a> could i get a real answer?
 586 2011-10-01 03:02:02 <lfm> nodes are computers, not people
 587 2011-10-01 03:02:17 <t3a> i know
 588 2011-10-01 03:02:26 <t3a> im using people to make it simpler
 589 2011-10-01 03:02:28 <t3a> for you lfm
 590 2011-10-01 03:02:57 <lfm> node are computers running the bitcoin program and connected to the internet
 591 2011-10-01 03:03:10 <t3a> what happens if the nodes im connecting to are using a modified client that doesn't tell others the correct transaction information
 592 2011-10-01 03:03:17 <t3a> for you lfm
 593 2011-10-01 03:03:54 minimoose has joined
 594 2011-10-01 03:04:12 <lfm> then the unmodified programs will reject those transactions or blocks if they dont check out properly according to the protocols
 595 2011-10-01 03:05:40 LightRider has joined
 596 2011-10-01 03:15:33 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 597 2011-10-01 03:21:12 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 598 2011-10-01 03:22:32 <Diablo-D3> ;;bc,mtgox
 599 2011-10-01 03:22:32 <gribble> {"ticker":{"high":5.35,"low":4.801,"avg":5.044275394,"vwap":5.049081151,"vol":38345,"last":5.0393,"buy":5.00303,"sell":5.0392}}
 600 2011-10-01 03:25:37 <luke-jr> lfm: wanna bet Bitcoins in Amidakuji?
 601 2011-10-01 03:26:14 irf has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 602 2011-10-01 03:30:29 Kolky has quit (Quit: Bye bye!)
 603 2011-10-01 03:34:50 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 604 2011-10-01 03:35:42 zhoutong has joined
 605 2011-10-01 03:39:30 b4epoche_ has joined
 606 2011-10-01 03:42:10 vorlov has joined
 607 2011-10-01 03:42:40 t3a_ has joined
 608 2011-10-01 03:45:23 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 609 2011-10-01 03:48:28 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 610 2011-10-01 03:55:22 plutonic has joined
 611 2011-10-01 03:56:34 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 612 2011-10-01 03:57:37 zhoutong has joined
 613 2011-10-01 04:01:08 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r886540655ebe /src/util/serializer.cpp: BUGFIX: big endian system should reverse byte ordering that we want.
 614 2011-10-01 04:01:09 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r74f44cb5b6ca / (3 files in 3 dirs): Split execution of input/output scripts but share same stack.
 615 2011-10-01 04:01:11 <CIA-101> libbitcoin: genjix * r12a9f1d1fd4a / (12 files in 4 dirs): ConnectInputs() without checking for double spends.
 616 2011-10-01 04:01:51 darkskiez has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 617 2011-10-01 04:01:55 Sthebig has quit (Quit: /quit)
 618 2011-10-01 04:02:53 niekie has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 619 2011-10-01 04:03:17 darkskiez has joined
 620 2011-10-01 04:04:29 niekie has joined
 621 2011-10-01 04:09:00 Sthebig has joined
 622 2011-10-01 04:09:59 t3a_ is now known as t4a
 623 2011-10-01 04:10:07 t4a is now known as t5a
 624 2011-10-01 04:10:14 t5a is now known as t6a
 625 2011-10-01 04:10:19 t6a is now known as t3a
 626 2011-10-01 04:13:41 plutonic has quit (Quit: plutonic)
 627 2011-10-01 04:14:02 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 628 2011-10-01 04:27:15 wayne has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 629 2011-10-01 04:27:25 SomeoneWeirdzzzz is now known as SomeoneWeird
 630 2011-10-01 04:38:30 vorlov has quit (Quit: vorlov)
 631 2011-10-01 04:43:08 WakiMiko_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 632 2011-10-01 04:46:05 WakiMiko has joined
 633 2011-10-01 04:48:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 634 2011-10-01 04:48:39 zhoutong has joined
 635 2011-10-01 04:51:45 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 636 2011-10-01 04:57:26 t3a_ has joined
 637 2011-10-01 05:00:10 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 638 2011-10-01 05:08:54 da2ce7_ has joined
 639 2011-10-01 05:08:54 da2ce7 has quit (Disconnected by services)
 640 2011-10-01 05:08:58 da2ce7_ is now known as da2ce7
 641 2011-10-01 05:09:24 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 642 2011-10-01 05:13:45 BurtyB has joined
 643 2011-10-01 05:14:53 minimoose has joined
 644 2011-10-01 05:17:07 noagendamarket has joined
 645 2011-10-01 05:18:03 t3a_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 646 2011-10-01 05:19:29 minimoose has quit (Client Quit)
 647 2011-10-01 05:19:45 RazielZ has joined
 648 2011-10-01 05:19:47 minimoose has joined
 649 2011-10-01 05:24:01 imnichol has joined
 650 2011-10-01 05:25:02 imnichol has left ()
 651 2011-10-01 05:36:36 c00w has joined
 652 2011-10-01 05:52:36 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 653 2011-10-01 05:53:04 zhoutong has joined
 654 2011-10-01 05:54:49 enquirer has quit (Quit: back soon)
 655 2011-10-01 06:01:08 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 656 2011-10-01 06:02:14 zhoutong has joined
 657 2011-10-01 06:09:29 sacarlson has joined
 658 2011-10-01 06:16:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 659 2011-10-01 06:16:54 zhoutong has joined
 660 2011-10-01 06:18:06 Tuxavant has quit (Quit: Disconnecting from stoned server.)
 661 2011-10-01 06:18:19 Tuxavant has joined
 662 2011-10-01 06:18:54 ahbritto_ has joined
 663 2011-10-01 06:19:27 Beremat has joined
 664 2011-10-01 06:23:53 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 665 2011-10-01 06:27:23 ThomasV has joined
 666 2011-10-01 06:27:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 667 2011-10-01 06:27:51 zhoutong has joined
 668 2011-10-01 06:37:58 minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
 669 2011-10-01 06:39:27 gjs278 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 670 2011-10-01 06:44:01 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 671 2011-10-01 06:52:19 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 672 2011-10-01 06:53:17 abragin has joined
 673 2011-10-01 06:53:17 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 674 2011-10-01 06:53:17 abragin has joined
 675 2011-10-01 07:05:59 Sedra- has joined
 676 2011-10-01 07:07:37 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 677 2011-10-01 07:08:31 zhoutong has joined
 678 2011-10-01 07:08:52 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 679 2011-10-01 07:10:31 Diablo-D3 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 680 2011-10-01 07:15:52 Lopuz has joined
 681 2011-10-01 07:26:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 682 2011-10-01 07:27:00 zhoutong has joined
 683 2011-10-01 07:28:43 osmosis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 684 2011-10-01 07:32:13 <casascius> Got my VeriFone POS machine printing QR codes
 685 2011-10-01 07:42:51 louigi has joined
 686 2011-10-01 07:42:58 <louigi> luke-jr, yo
 687 2011-10-01 07:43:06 <louigi> got the link?
 688 2011-10-01 07:46:11 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 689 2011-10-01 07:46:34 TransistOrg has joined
 690 2011-10-01 07:47:04 thoughtpolice is now known as tp-freenode
 691 2011-10-01 07:55:19 tp-freenode is now known as thoughtpolice
 692 2011-10-01 07:55:39 gjs278 has joined
 693 2011-10-01 07:58:11 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 694 2011-10-01 08:04:14 AStove has joined
 695 2011-10-01 08:16:57 paul0 has quit (Quit: paul0)
 696 2011-10-01 08:19:30 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 697 2011-10-01 08:20:01 Lexa has joined
 698 2011-10-01 08:20:21 zhoutong has joined
 699 2011-10-01 08:26:10 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 700 2011-10-01 08:26:57 zhoutong has joined
 701 2011-10-01 08:33:35 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 702 2011-10-01 08:34:01 copumpkin has joined
 703 2011-10-01 08:35:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 704 2011-10-01 08:35:59 jimb0 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 705 2011-10-01 08:36:12 zhoutong has joined
 706 2011-10-01 08:38:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 707 2011-10-01 08:38:18 Burgundy has joined
 708 2011-10-01 08:39:07 zhoutong has joined
 709 2011-10-01 08:39:19 louigi has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 710 2011-10-01 08:39:50 Kolky has joined
 711 2011-10-01 08:46:14 noagenda_ has joined
 712 2011-10-01 08:47:50 jimb0 has joined
 713 2011-10-01 08:52:56 louigi has joined
 714 2011-10-01 08:55:50 louigi has quit (Client Quit)
 715 2011-10-01 08:57:24 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 716 2011-10-01 08:58:27 zhoutong has joined
 717 2011-10-01 08:58:46 pensan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 718 2011-10-01 09:03:30 pensan has joined
 719 2011-10-01 09:03:33 devrandom has quit (Quit: leaving)
 720 2011-10-01 09:06:24 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 721 2011-10-01 09:06:43 TransistOrg has joined
 722 2011-10-01 09:09:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 723 2011-10-01 09:10:01 zhoutong has joined
 724 2011-10-01 09:12:07 shockdiode has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 725 2011-10-01 09:14:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 726 2011-10-01 09:15:33 zhoutong has joined
 727 2011-10-01 09:16:28 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 728 2011-10-01 09:16:42 TransistOrg has joined
 729 2011-10-01 09:17:55 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 730 2011-10-01 09:18:17 mmoya has joined
 731 2011-10-01 09:18:52 zhoutong has joined
 732 2011-10-01 09:26:43 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 733 2011-10-01 09:27:46 zhoutong has joined
 734 2011-10-01 09:29:44 ThomasV has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 735 2011-10-01 09:32:43 iocor has joined
 736 2011-10-01 09:48:41 noagendamarket has quit (Disconnected by services)
 737 2011-10-01 09:48:48 noagenda_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 738 2011-10-01 09:48:59 noagendamarket has joined
 739 2011-10-01 09:49:12 noagenda_ has joined
 740 2011-10-01 09:51:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 741 2011-10-01 09:52:12 zhoutong has joined
 742 2011-10-01 09:53:03 noagendamarket has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 743 2011-10-01 09:53:09 noagendamarket has joined
 744 2011-10-01 09:53:14 noagendamarket has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 745 2011-10-01 09:53:19 noagendamarket has joined
 746 2011-10-01 09:55:23 huk has quit ()
 747 2011-10-01 10:00:56 mosimo has joined
 748 2011-10-01 10:02:16 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 749 2011-10-01 10:03:06 zhoutong has joined
 750 2011-10-01 10:05:28 RobinPKR_ has joined
 751 2011-10-01 10:06:58 LightRider has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 752 2011-10-01 10:07:57 KwisatzHaderach is now known as kish
 753 2011-10-01 10:08:05 RobinPKR has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 754 2011-10-01 10:08:05 RobinPKR_ is now known as RobinPKR
 755 2011-10-01 10:13:35 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 756 2011-10-01 10:14:40 zhoutong has joined
 757 2011-10-01 10:16:13 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 758 2011-10-01 10:17:06 Raccoon has joined
 759 2011-10-01 10:17:44 zhoutong has joined
 760 2011-10-01 10:20:05 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 761 2011-10-01 10:20:25 zhoutong has joined
 762 2011-10-01 10:21:10 gjs278 has joined
 763 2011-10-01 10:23:42 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 764 2011-10-01 10:24:52 zhoutong has joined
 765 2011-10-01 10:27:18 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 766 2011-10-01 10:28:00 zhoutong has joined
 767 2011-10-01 10:31:53 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 768 2011-10-01 10:32:51 zhoutong has joined
 769 2011-10-01 10:35:29 AStove has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 770 2011-10-01 10:35:40 AStove has joined
 771 2011-10-01 10:43:40 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 772 2011-10-01 10:46:49 RazielZ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 773 2011-10-01 10:47:54 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 774 2011-10-01 10:48:38 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 775 2011-10-01 10:48:56 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 776 2011-10-01 10:49:03 zhoutong has joined
 777 2011-10-01 11:00:32 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 778 2011-10-01 11:00:59 zhoutong has joined
 779 2011-10-01 11:03:40 riush has joined
 780 2011-10-01 11:05:09 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 781 2011-10-01 11:06:07 zhoutong has joined
 782 2011-10-01 11:10:30 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 783 2011-10-01 11:11:28 zhoutong has joined
 784 2011-10-01 11:12:11 baz has joined
 785 2011-10-01 11:13:49 t3a has joined
 786 2011-10-01 11:17:37 datagutt has joined
 787 2011-10-01 11:18:19 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 788 2011-10-01 11:19:38 Tracker has joined
 789 2011-10-01 11:19:38 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 790 2011-10-01 11:19:40 RazielZ has joined
 791 2011-10-01 11:20:35 zhoutong has joined
 792 2011-10-01 11:21:21 Tracker- has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 793 2011-10-01 11:27:11 Raziel_ has joined
 794 2011-10-01 11:29:45 RazielZ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 795 2011-10-01 11:36:36 Daniel0108 has joined
 796 2011-10-01 11:36:47 rdponticelli has joined
 797 2011-10-01 11:37:56 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 798 2011-10-01 11:38:56 zhoutong has joined
 799 2011-10-01 11:41:01 MrTiggrAFK is now known as MrTiggr
 800 2011-10-01 11:41:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 801 2011-10-01 11:41:19 zhoutong has joined
 802 2011-10-01 11:42:13 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 803 2011-10-01 11:42:24 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 804 2011-10-01 11:42:27 Burgundy has joined
 805 2011-10-01 11:42:39 copumpkin has joined
 806 2011-10-01 11:43:22 _Burgundy has joined
 807 2011-10-01 11:47:00 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 808 2011-10-01 11:48:57 MobiusL has joined
 809 2011-10-01 11:48:57 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
 810 2011-10-01 11:48:57 MobiusL has joined
 811 2011-10-01 11:50:42 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 812 2011-10-01 11:51:37 zhoutong has joined
 813 2011-10-01 11:52:16 noagenda_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 814 2011-10-01 11:52:21 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 815 2011-10-01 11:53:21 Raccoon has joined
 816 2011-10-01 11:54:53 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 817 2011-10-01 11:55:57 zhoutong has joined
 818 2011-10-01 11:57:54 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 819 2011-10-01 11:58:11 zhoutong has joined
 820 2011-10-01 12:04:25 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 821 2011-10-01 12:05:33 zhoutong has joined
 822 2011-10-01 12:09:05 erus` has joined
 823 2011-10-01 12:10:34 marf_away has joined
 824 2011-10-01 12:20:34 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 825 2011-10-01 12:21:26 zhoutong has joined
 826 2011-10-01 12:23:48 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 827 2011-10-01 12:24:29 zhoutong has joined
 828 2011-10-01 12:25:41 asherkin has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 829 2011-10-01 12:29:09 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 830 2011-10-01 12:29:53 zhoutong has joined
 831 2011-10-01 12:32:08 baz has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 832 2011-10-01 12:32:28 b4epoche_ has joined
 833 2011-10-01 12:38:17 mmoya has joined
 834 2011-10-01 12:38:17 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 835 2011-10-01 12:39:23 zhoutong has joined
 836 2011-10-01 12:40:26 DontMindMe has joined
 837 2011-10-01 12:41:27 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 838 2011-10-01 12:43:22 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 839 2011-10-01 12:43:38 dvide has joined
 840 2011-10-01 12:43:55 zhoutong has joined
 841 2011-10-01 12:46:15 ThomasV has joined
 842 2011-10-01 12:46:21 gjs278 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 843 2011-10-01 12:48:31 _Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 844 2011-10-01 12:51:31 gjs278 has joined
 845 2011-10-01 12:53:32 wolfspraul has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 846 2011-10-01 12:54:06 wolfspraul has joined
 847 2011-10-01 12:56:52 Daniel0108 has quit (Quit: Did I really quit? :o)
 848 2011-10-01 12:57:07 Daniel0108 has joined
 849 2011-10-01 12:57:17 terrytibbs has joined
 850 2011-10-01 12:57:58 Daniel0108 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 851 2011-10-01 12:59:44 terrytibbs has quit (Client Quit)
 852 2011-10-01 12:59:50 terrytibbs has joined
 853 2011-10-01 13:00:22 K0lky has joined
 854 2011-10-01 13:00:46 Kolky has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 855 2011-10-01 13:01:40 Daniel0108 has joined
 856 2011-10-01 13:02:52 terrytibbs has left ()
 857 2011-10-01 13:03:19 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 858 2011-10-01 13:03:25 terrytibbs has joined
 859 2011-10-01 13:05:53 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 860 2011-10-01 13:06:07 b4epoche_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 861 2011-10-01 13:07:18 zhoutong has joined
 862 2011-10-01 13:08:24 da2ce7 has joined
 863 2011-10-01 13:09:33 b4epoche_ has joined
 864 2011-10-01 13:25:36 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 865 2011-10-01 13:26:23 zhoutong has joined
 866 2011-10-01 13:30:23 p0s has joined
 867 2011-10-01 13:37:57 p0s has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 868 2011-10-01 13:40:58 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 869 2011-10-01 13:42:20 zhoutong has joined
 870 2011-10-01 13:48:32 Burgundy has joined
 871 2011-10-01 13:48:33 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 872 2011-10-01 13:49:33 zhoutong has joined
 873 2011-10-01 13:54:56 mosimo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 874 2011-10-01 14:01:29 p0s has joined
 875 2011-10-01 14:04:27 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 876 2011-10-01 14:04:54 <ThomasV> casascius: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_card_wallet  <-- homework for you
 877 2011-10-01 14:05:10 asherkin has joined
 878 2011-10-01 14:09:55 Baksch has joined
 879 2011-10-01 14:10:35 ViciousMalicious has joined
 880 2011-10-01 14:10:50 <ViciousMalicious> Hello, I like the new bitcoin.org design and was wondering if you could point me at the gfx/web designer who did the job.
 881 2011-10-01 14:11:36 <terrytibbs> It uses the Bootstrap framework by Twitter.
 882 2011-10-01 14:11:37 mmoya has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 883 2011-10-01 14:11:48 <terrytibbs> http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/
 884 2011-10-01 14:12:19 <terrytibbs> I'd advise against using it right out of the box, however.
 885 2011-10-01 14:12:24 <terrytibbs> Customize it!
 886 2011-10-01 14:12:42 <ViciousMalicious> terrytibbs: Thanks! What's wrong with it out of the box?
 887 2011-10-01 14:13:01 p0s has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 888 2011-10-01 14:13:14 <ViciousMalicious> I only like the looks. I don't expect to use javascript.
 889 2011-10-01 14:13:25 <tcatm> ViciousMalicious: I made the re-desig
 890 2011-10-01 14:13:27 <tcatm> +n
 891 2011-10-01 14:13:47 <terrytibbs> ViciousMalicious: Personal opinion, but it's a shame seeing people not using the power of LESS to extend it.
 892 2011-10-01 14:14:39 <ViciousMalicious> tcatm: Nice touches.
 893 2011-10-01 14:14:59 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 894 2011-10-01 14:15:32 <ViciousMalicious> terrytibbs: I'll keep it in mind for other projects. For now, I'm just looking for a simplistic theme & happened to check bitcoin.org & saw their theme.
 895 2011-10-01 14:15:48 wolfspraul has joined
 896 2011-10-01 14:20:22 fnord0 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 897 2011-10-01 14:21:12 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 898 2011-10-01 14:21:33 <ViciousMalicious> tcatm: Can I have a word with you in private?
 899 2011-10-01 14:22:09 fnord0 has joined
 900 2011-10-01 14:22:25 pensan has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 901 2011-10-01 14:23:36 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdAFK
 902 2011-10-01 14:23:53 paul0 has joined
 903 2011-10-01 14:31:11 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 904 2011-10-01 14:32:10 zhoutong has joined
 905 2011-10-01 14:32:56 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 906 2011-10-01 14:33:39 wolfspraul has joined
 907 2011-10-01 14:38:16 Turingi has joined
 908 2011-10-01 14:38:17 Turingi has quit (Changing host)
 909 2011-10-01 14:38:17 Turingi has joined
 910 2011-10-01 14:38:17 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 911 2011-10-01 14:38:52 zhoutong has joined
 912 2011-10-01 14:41:06 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 913 2011-10-01 14:41:45 Baksch has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 914 2011-10-01 14:41:53 zhoutong has joined
 915 2011-10-01 14:43:21 ViciousMalicious has left ()
 916 2011-10-01 14:48:12 larsivi has joined
 917 2011-10-01 14:50:09 minimoose has joined
 918 2011-10-01 14:50:26 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 919 2011-10-01 14:51:25 wolfspraul has joined
 920 2011-10-01 14:54:23 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 921 2011-10-01 14:55:32 zhoutong has joined
 922 2011-10-01 14:57:10 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 923 2011-10-01 14:57:50 zhoutong has joined
 924 2011-10-01 14:58:42 da2ce7 has joined
 925 2011-10-01 14:59:08 jine_ is now known as jine
 926 2011-10-01 14:59:55 amtal has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 927 2011-10-01 15:01:52 amtal has joined
 928 2011-10-01 15:07:20 karnac has joined
 929 2011-10-01 15:07:46 Zarutian has joined
 930 2011-10-01 15:10:00 c00w has joined
 931 2011-10-01 15:13:25 SuprTiggr has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 932 2011-10-01 15:13:25 SuprTiggr has joined
 933 2011-10-01 15:13:45 eoss has joined
 934 2011-10-01 15:13:45 eoss has quit (Changing host)
 935 2011-10-01 15:13:45 eoss has joined
 936 2011-10-01 15:15:50 Sedra- has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 937 2011-10-01 15:16:03 Sedra has joined
 938 2011-10-01 15:17:04 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 939 2011-10-01 15:22:08 wasabi1 has joined
 940 2011-10-01 15:23:31 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 941 2011-10-01 15:23:39 Internet13 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 942 2011-10-01 15:24:19 c00w has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 943 2011-10-01 15:29:37 SomeoneWeirdAFK is now known as SomeoneWeird
 944 2011-10-01 15:30:42 Internet13 has joined
 945 2011-10-01 15:30:55 t3a has joined
 946 2011-10-01 15:31:26 Lopuz has joined
 947 2011-10-01 15:32:03 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 948 2011-10-01 15:33:58 abragin has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 949 2011-10-01 15:33:59 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 950 2011-10-01 15:34:16 zhoutong has joined
 951 2011-10-01 15:34:25 abragin has joined
 952 2011-10-01 15:34:25 abragin has quit (Changing host)
 953 2011-10-01 15:34:26 abragin has joined
 954 2011-10-01 15:35:35 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 955 2011-10-01 15:36:40 zhoutong has joined
 956 2011-10-01 15:36:43 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 957 2011-10-01 15:38:37 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 958 2011-10-01 15:39:45 zhoutong has joined
 959 2011-10-01 15:44:29 cenuij has joined
 960 2011-10-01 15:44:30 cenuij has quit (Changing host)
 961 2011-10-01 15:44:30 cenuij has joined
 962 2011-10-01 15:48:26 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 963 2011-10-01 15:49:36 zhoutong has joined
 964 2011-10-01 15:53:45 wasabi2 has joined
 965 2011-10-01 15:54:46 wpl has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 966 2011-10-01 15:55:24 wasabi1 has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
 967 2011-10-01 15:56:50 wpl has joined
 968 2011-10-01 15:59:15 wasabi1 has joined
 969 2011-10-01 16:00:25 wasabi2 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 970 2011-10-01 16:02:04 Raccoon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 971 2011-10-01 16:04:35 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 972 2011-10-01 16:05:20 zhoutong has joined
 973 2011-10-01 16:05:46 karnac has quit (Quit: karnac)
 974 2011-10-01 16:07:41 t3a has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
 975 2011-10-01 16:08:46 Raccoon has joined
 976 2011-10-01 16:08:46 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 977 2011-10-01 16:10:16 zhoutong has joined
 978 2011-10-01 16:10:26 Diablo-D3 has joined
 979 2011-10-01 16:15:40 tyn has joined
 980 2011-10-01 16:16:28 devrandom has joined
 981 2011-10-01 16:19:10 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 982 2011-10-01 16:19:16 da2ce7 has joined
 983 2011-10-01 16:19:40 zhoutong has joined
 984 2011-10-01 16:22:10 TheAncientGoat has joined
 985 2011-10-01 16:28:50 skeledrew has joined
 986 2011-10-01 16:30:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 987 2011-10-01 16:31:04 zhoutong has joined
 988 2011-10-01 16:33:36 zertam has joined
 989 2011-10-01 16:34:39 NickelBot has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 990 2011-10-01 16:35:12 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 991 2011-10-01 16:38:03 darksk1ez has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 992 2011-10-01 16:40:50 marf_away2 has joined
 993 2011-10-01 16:41:28 zertam has quit (Quit: zertam)
 994 2011-10-01 16:41:49 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 995 2011-10-01 16:46:34 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 996 2011-10-01 16:47:08 zhoutong has joined
 997 2011-10-01 16:47:32 marf_away2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 998 2011-10-01 16:49:01 marf_away has joined
 999 2011-10-01 16:54:02 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1000 2011-10-01 16:54:23 zhoutong has joined
1001 2011-10-01 16:58:43 Raziel_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1002 2011-10-01 16:59:00 RazielZ has joined
1003 2011-10-01 17:00:22 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1004 2011-10-01 17:01:16 zhoutong has joined
1005 2011-10-01 17:06:08 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1006 2011-10-01 17:06:59 zhoutong has joined
1007 2011-10-01 17:08:14 Cusipzzz has joined
1008 2011-10-01 17:11:19 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1009 2011-10-01 17:11:52 zhoutong has joined
1010 2011-10-01 17:16:55 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1011 2011-10-01 17:17:07 da2ce7_ has joined
1012 2011-10-01 17:18:51 localhost has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1013 2011-10-01 17:19:07 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1014 2011-10-01 17:19:28 MobiusL has joined
1015 2011-10-01 17:19:29 MobiusL has quit (Changing host)
1016 2011-10-01 17:19:29 MobiusL has joined
1017 2011-10-01 17:19:59 SomeoneWeird is now known as SomeoneWeirdz
1018 2011-10-01 17:20:00 SomeoneWeirdz is now known as SomeoneWeirdzzzz
1019 2011-10-01 17:21:01 rdponticelli has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1020 2011-10-01 17:21:51 tyn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1021 2011-10-01 17:22:25 localhost has joined
1022 2011-10-01 17:22:44 phedny has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1023 2011-10-01 17:25:59 da2ce7_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1024 2011-10-01 17:26:21 T_X has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1025 2011-10-01 17:29:17 Cusipzzz has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1026 2011-10-01 17:30:58 cenuij has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1027 2011-10-01 17:37:28 da2ce7 has joined
1028 2011-10-01 17:39:50 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1029 2011-10-01 17:40:22 MC1984 has joined
1030 2011-10-01 17:43:49 phedny has joined
1031 2011-10-01 17:51:57 WildSoil has joined
1032 2011-10-01 17:53:03 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1033 2011-10-01 17:53:49 kjj has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1034 2011-10-01 17:54:32 zhoutong has joined
1035 2011-10-01 17:57:01 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1036 2011-10-01 17:57:18 zhoutong has joined
1037 2011-10-01 17:59:11 MC1984 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1038 2011-10-01 17:59:24 MC1984 has joined
1039 2011-10-01 18:00:13 kjj has joined
1040 2011-10-01 18:12:17 wolfspraul has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1041 2011-10-01 18:12:18 T_X has joined
1042 2011-10-01 18:13:27 hippich has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1043 2011-10-01 18:14:03 huk has joined
1044 2011-10-01 18:15:35 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1045 2011-10-01 18:16:42 groffer has joined
1046 2011-10-01 18:17:07 <tcatm> Could someone point GPU to myusername:mypass@188.138.101.169:18332 for a few minutes?
1047 2011-10-01 18:17:11 pickett has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1048 2011-10-01 18:17:20 <tcatm> s/GPU/a GPU/
1049 2011-10-01 18:17:26 da2ce7 has joined
1050 2011-10-01 18:19:19 Tuxavant has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1051 2011-10-01 18:19:19 wolfspraul has joined
1052 2011-10-01 18:19:53 pickett has joined
1053 2011-10-01 18:19:55 Tuxavant has joined
1054 2011-10-01 18:21:59 hippich has joined
1055 2011-10-01 18:24:29 Burgundy has joined
1056 2011-10-01 18:30:11 shockdiode has joined
1057 2011-10-01 18:30:32 ThomasV has joined
1058 2011-10-01 18:31:48 <ThomasV> tcatm: there was an exchange listed at bitcoinchart, I forgot its name. it's older than mtgox, it had data for most of 2010. you still have it?
1059 2011-10-01 18:32:11 <tcatm> ThomasV: bitcoinmarket? yes, it's still there
1060 2011-10-01 18:32:38 <ThomasV> oh, yes
1061 2011-10-01 18:32:55 <ThomasV> it was abbreviated as bcm, if i remember well
1062 2011-10-01 18:33:22 <tcatm> yep
1063 2011-10-01 18:33:57 c00w has joined
1064 2011-10-01 18:34:02 <ThomasV> it's not in the list anymore; is it no longer active?
1065 2011-10-01 18:34:46 <tcatm> They didn't upgrade their API a few months ago so I can't fetch new trades from them anymore.
1066 2011-10-01 18:35:05 <ThomasV> oh
1067 2011-10-01 18:35:27 <ThomasV> and can I access the page where their old data is ?
1068 2011-10-01 18:35:50 <tcatm> Not sure. I'll check :)
1069 2011-10-01 18:37:24 <ThomasV> it's nice to see that lots of the new exchange are actually doing well, and volumes are increasing
1070 2011-10-01 18:39:43 T_X has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1071 2011-10-01 18:39:46 <tcatm> bcm* should be visibile now (probably at the bottom of the page)
1072 2011-10-01 18:40:49 <ThomasV> yes, thanks
1073 2011-10-01 18:44:05 c00w has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1074 2011-10-01 18:45:39 <ThomasV> apparently that exchange is dead now
1075 2011-10-01 18:46:29 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1076 2011-10-01 18:47:35 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1077 2011-10-01 18:47:57 erle- has joined
1078 2011-10-01 18:48:11 <ThomasV> but it has the best logarithmic chart of btc value ever: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bcmPPUSD#vzlztgSzm1g10zm2g25
1079 2011-10-01 18:50:18 <lfm> except it ends in june
1080 2011-10-01 18:51:33 <tcatm> Just after the peak ;)
1081 2011-10-01 18:52:09 <midnightmagic> All old versions harm the network and my security?
1082 2011-10-01 18:52:18 <lfm> oh he means best as in most optimistic
1083 2011-10-01 18:52:38 <imsaguy> yes midnightmagic
1084 2011-10-01 18:52:50 <imsaguy> old versions hang up on each other
1085 2011-10-01 18:53:23 <midnightmagic> So..  0.4.0 won't talk to any 0.3.x?
1086 2011-10-01 18:53:43 <lfm> not exactly
1087 2011-10-01 18:53:46 <tcatm> It'll work, but it's better to upgrade.
1088 2011-10-01 18:54:07 <midnightmagic> isn't there a couple of people still running like 0.3.19 in here?
1089 2011-10-01 18:54:51 <lfm> you never know, some people run heavily customized versions
1090 2011-10-01 18:55:27 <tcatm> It's not that critical for 0.3 > 0.4 but 0.5 will accept and forward new kinds of transactions that 0.4 and older would reject.
1091 2011-10-01 18:55:45 <midnightmagic> I see..  wallet encryption, some deadlock fixes, slightly faster database writes in the changes-from-0.3.x log.
1092 2011-10-01 18:57:44 <midnightmagic> still using sourceforge for release downloads i see..
1093 2011-10-01 18:58:17 <tcatm> there were some problems with using github for downloads
1094 2011-10-01 18:58:39 T_X has joined
1095 2011-10-01 18:58:39 T_X has quit (Changing host)
1096 2011-10-01 18:58:39 T_X has joined
1097 2011-10-01 19:00:23 makomk has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1098 2011-10-01 19:01:23 <midnightmagic> geez lookit all that osx and qt crap. :(
1099 2011-10-01 19:01:54 <midnightmagic> er..  and by crap I just mean, "Stuff I personally am not interested in."
1100 2011-10-01 19:02:00 <midnightmagic> no judgement on code or anything
1101 2011-10-01 19:02:13 <tcatm> you can compile only bitcoind then
1102 2011-10-01 19:02:24 <lfm> hehe and not saying Apple is bad or anything huh?
1103 2011-10-01 19:02:40 <midnightmagic> I recommend everyone who asks me what kind of computer to buy, to buy a mac.
1104 2011-10-01 19:02:49 <midnightmagic> =]
1105 2011-10-01 19:03:22 knotwork has joined
1106 2011-10-01 19:03:23 knotwork has quit (Changing host)
1107 2011-10-01 19:03:23 knotwork has joined
1108 2011-10-01 19:03:25 <lfm> Ya, buy an Apple and let the Geniuses help you cuz I dont know anything about Apple.
1109 2011-10-01 19:03:26 TheSeven has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1110 2011-10-01 19:03:55 <midnightmagic> mostly everything they want to do they can figure out themselves..  apple does know how to do intuitive guis that's for sure.
1111 2011-10-01 19:03:57 <b4epoche> you can call the osx stuff crap…  I know well that it /is/ crap ;-)
1112 2011-10-01 19:04:35 <midnightmagic> Typically the conversations go like this, "Hey man, I want to burn a DVD and I have.. oh here it is, thanks bye!"
1113 2011-10-01 19:05:10 NickelBot has joined
1114 2011-10-01 19:05:42 * b4epoche gave up supporting friends with Windows and Unix long ago...
1115 2011-10-01 19:05:55 <phantomcircuit> lol
1116 2011-10-01 19:06:08 <phantomcircuit> buy normal hardware that will work in a mac desktop
1117 2011-10-01 19:06:18 <phantomcircuit> sell it as MAC COMPATIBLE
1118 2011-10-01 19:06:19 <phantomcircuit> ???
1119 2011-10-01 19:06:20 <phantomcircuit> profit
1120 2011-10-01 19:06:29 <midnightmagic> I don't mind supporting Linux. Those conversations go something like, "Oh hey I want to burn a DVD and I..  oh are you logged in? Hey the DVD burner program just popped up..  Is it burning already? Thanks bye!"
1121 2011-10-01 19:06:30 <phantomcircuit> (that is an actually profitable business model fyi)
1122 2011-10-01 19:06:31 <lfm> Apple will sue you to death
1123 2011-10-01 19:06:45 TheSeven has joined
1124 2011-10-01 19:06:53 <phantomcircuit> lfm, people do it small time on ebay all the time
1125 2011-10-01 19:07:08 <midnightmagic> Hackintosh I hear is still a little messy but works.
1126 2011-10-01 19:07:16 <b4epoche> selling 'normal' stuff at Windows 7 compatible is the same profitable business
1127 2011-10-01 19:07:40 <b4epoche> I think Optimo is a hackintosh user
1128 2011-10-01 19:07:51 <midnightmagic> cool beans. :)
1129 2011-10-01 19:08:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Forrest Voight master * r074d584 / (src/bitcoinrpc.cpp src/main.cpp src/main.h): (log message trimmed)
1130 2011-10-01 19:08:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Added RPC call 'getmemorypool' that provides everything needed to construct a block with a custom generation transaction and submit a solution
1131 2011-10-01 19:08:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: getmemorypool [data]
1132 2011-10-01 19:08:25 <CIA-101> bitcoin: If [data] is not specified, returns data needed to construct a block to work on:
1133 2011-10-01 19:08:26 <CIA-101> bitcoin:  "version" : block version
1134 2011-10-01 19:08:26 <CIA-101> bitcoin:  "previousblockhash" : hash of current highest block
1135 2011-10-01 19:08:27 * b4epoche learned a long time ago that he just wants his computer to work, but still be able to mess under the hood when /he/ wants
1136 2011-10-01 19:08:27 <CIA-101> bitcoin:  "transactions" : contents of non-coinbase transactions that should be included in the next block
1137 2011-10-01 19:08:28 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * rad9ceec / (src/bitcoinrpc.cpp src/main.cpp src/main.h):
1138 2011-10-01 19:08:28 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #476 from forrestv/getmemorypool
1139 2011-10-01 19:08:29 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Added RPC call 'getmemorypool' for p2p mining pools - http://git.io/gZgsnQ
1140 2011-10-01 19:09:00 <midnightmagic> hey lookit that, getmemorypool made it in!
1141 2011-10-01 19:09:41 * b4epoche gave up on Unix/Linux/Windows a long time ago
1142 2011-10-01 19:09:50 <forrestv> :)
1143 2011-10-01 19:10:00 <midnightmagic> I would still be on NetBSD if I could get OpenCL working on it.
1144 2011-10-01 19:10:04 <midnightmagic> oh well
1145 2011-10-01 19:10:15 <midnightmagic> everything that doesn't need OpenCL is all netbsd.
1146 2011-10-01 19:10:43 <lfm> ever tried OpenBsd?
1147 2011-10-01 19:11:01 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Gavin Andresen master * r1ff3583 / (4 files in 2 dirs):
1148 2011-10-01 19:11:01 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Merge pull request #543 from laanwj/utiltests
1149 2011-10-01 19:11:01 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Remove possibility of 63 bit overflow in ParseMoney - http://git.io/UUgoEw
1150 2011-10-01 19:11:02 <midnightmagic> most of everything in openbsd is usually merged back into netbsd..
1151 2011-10-01 19:11:14 Cablesaurus has quit (Quit: Pull the pin and count to what?)
1152 2011-10-01 19:11:23 <midnightmagic> but yes, all the time. And every time I get miserable performance numbers I switch back.
1153 2011-10-01 19:11:43 <tcatm> 0.5 is going to be a rather big release :)
1154 2011-10-01 19:12:20 makomk has joined
1155 2011-10-01 19:12:33 <b4epoche> miserable performance?  for what?
1156 2011-10-01 19:12:38 <midnightmagic> for openbsd.
1157 2011-10-01 19:12:44 <b4epoche> doing what?
1158 2011-10-01 19:12:47 <midnightmagic> anything.
1159 2011-10-01 19:13:03 <b4epoche> nice
1160 2011-10-01 19:13:39 <midnightmagic> it's quite enraging because The0 refuses to merge netbsd performance patches back. Or he used to refuse anyway.
1161 2011-10-01 19:15:55 <midnightmagic> hey lookit that, strlcpy made it into netbsd
1162 2011-10-01 19:16:00 <midnightmagic> yay
1163 2011-10-01 19:16:31 <ThomasV> lfm: yes, I meant optimistic for the chart
1164 2011-10-01 19:16:57 <lfm> right, are you a salesman?
1165 2011-10-01 19:17:10 Guest91993 has quit (Quit: Guest91993)
1166 2011-10-01 19:17:11 <ThomasV> lol no
1167 2011-10-01 19:17:36 num1 has joined
1168 2011-10-01 19:21:07 da2ce7 has joined
1169 2011-10-01 19:22:49 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1170 2011-10-01 19:23:29 amtal has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1171 2011-10-01 19:23:44 zhoutong has joined
1172 2011-10-01 19:25:12 Burgundy has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1173 2011-10-01 19:25:13 _Burgundy has joined
1174 2011-10-01 19:26:31 temp has joined
1175 2011-10-01 19:28:37 Beremat has joined
1176 2011-10-01 19:33:38 erle- has quit (Quit: CETERVM•AVTEM•CENSEO•FDP•ESSE•DELENDVM)
1177 2011-10-01 19:34:53 temp has quit (Quit: Page closed)
1178 2011-10-01 19:39:06 <freewil> can anyone clue me into why the details property is an array in gettransaction <txid> ?
1179 2011-10-01 19:43:37 <tcatm> freewil: transaction can have multiple outputs
1180 2011-10-01 19:44:29 <freewil> tcatm, like would sendmany be an example?
1181 2011-10-01 19:46:07 <tcatm> yes
1182 2011-10-01 19:46:23 <freewil> tcatm, what about a 'receive' transaction
1183 2011-10-01 19:46:32 <freewil> would the array ever have a size > 1 ?
1184 2011-10-01 19:47:03 gavinandresen has joined
1185 2011-10-01 19:48:08 <tcatm> freewil: yes. imagine a sendmany sending you bitcoins to two of your addresses
1186 2011-10-01 19:49:28 <freewil> hmm i see
1187 2011-10-01 19:49:33 <freewil> thanks for the info
1188 2011-10-01 19:51:54 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1189 2011-10-01 19:52:49 AlexWaters has joined
1190 2011-10-01 19:55:29 WakiMiko has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1191 2011-10-01 19:57:14 WakiMiko has joined
1192 2011-10-01 20:00:25 <midnightmagic> great. Luke made a change incompatible with the merged-mining patches.
1193 2011-10-01 20:00:44 <imsaguy> typical
1194 2011-10-01 20:01:23 <midnightmagic> gee I wonder which patch I'm gonna stick with.
1195 2011-10-01 20:01:31 <terrytibbs> revolt!
1196 2011-10-01 20:01:37 <imsaguy> off with his head!
1197 2011-10-01 20:01:52 AlexWaters has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1198 2011-10-01 20:02:23 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1199 2011-10-01 20:02:35 <imsaguy> Why does the client list address first then the address book name (if there is one) for received transactions, but on sending, it lists the address book name then the address?
1200 2011-10-01 20:02:45 AlexWaters has joined
1201 2011-10-01 20:03:33 <imsaguy> the address book name is in parentheses for receiving and not in parentheses for sending
1202 2011-10-01 20:03:57 <imsaguy> It would seem to be slightly inconsistent
1203 2011-10-01 20:04:33 <tcatm> imsaguy: qt or wx?
1204 2011-10-01 20:04:45 <midnightmagic> fuck, extensive patch. Where's the reasoning for changing the IncrementExtraNonce stuff for the unique_coinbase? was there a discussion of this somewhere?
1205 2011-10-01 20:05:14 <imsaguy> tcatm, this is the windows version 3.24
1206 2011-10-01 20:05:20 <imsaguy> so you tell me
1207 2011-10-01 20:05:21 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1208 2011-10-01 20:05:26 <tcatm> imsaguy: wx
1209 2011-10-01 20:05:31 <imsaguy> ok
1210 2011-10-01 20:05:51 <tcatm> I think it's fixed in 0.5 with the QT gui
1211 2011-10-01 20:05:57 Sedra has joined
1212 2011-10-01 20:06:13 <tcatm> yep, fixed.
1213 2011-10-01 20:06:17 wboy1 has joined
1214 2011-10-01 20:06:19 <imsaguy> beautiful
1215 2011-10-01 20:06:51 <D0han_> if i click settings > encrypt wallet > cancel i get error msg (in 0.4)
1216 2011-10-01 20:06:55 <D0han_> is it known bug?
1217 2011-10-01 20:07:32 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: it was discussed on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, if I recall correctly
1218 2011-10-01 20:08:04 <gavinandresen> D0han_: error message about an empty passphrase?  If so, then yes, that's known.
1219 2011-10-01 20:08:18 <D0han_> k
1220 2011-10-01 20:09:10 <D0han_> i also wonder why its not downloading blocks (10 connections, 141370 blocks)
1221 2011-10-01 20:09:14 <D0han_> its just sitting there
1222 2011-10-01 20:09:38 <D0han_> nah, nvm
1223 2011-10-01 20:10:04 TheAncientGoat has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1224 2011-10-01 20:10:07 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: ... fix was for a possible duplicate coinbase in an edge case with wallet encryption ... yeah, that's right:  if your wallet is encrypted, mining might have to re-use a key if it can't generate a new keypair (because encrypted wallet is locked)
1225 2011-10-01 20:11:01 <terrytibbs> discussion: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/482
1226 2011-10-01 20:11:09 <terrytibbs> or wait
1227 2011-10-01 20:11:09 <tcatm> what was the reason for Sleep(2000); at the end of CheckWork()? Giving network thread time to broadcast the block?
1228 2011-10-01 20:11:35 <gavinandresen> tcatm: no idea, I was looking at that code myself this afternoon
1229 2011-10-01 20:13:03 <tcatm> actually grep Sleep * -r finds quite a lot of those :/
1230 2011-10-01 20:13:03 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
1231 2011-10-01 20:13:47 <gavinandresen> tcatm: yes, the shutdown code is particularly bad.
1232 2011-10-01 20:14:31 erus` has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1233 2011-10-01 20:15:01 <tcatm> btw, was removing IRC support discussed anywhere?
1234 2011-10-01 20:15:12 <midnightmagic> damn..  tough decision..
1235 2011-10-01 20:15:33 <midnightmagic> the getaux* stuff directly depends on all that, I guess it needs to be updated.
1236 2011-10-01 20:15:45 Sedra has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1237 2011-10-01 20:15:55 Sedra has joined
1238 2011-10-01 20:16:13 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I wasn't part of any remove IRC discussion.
1239 2011-10-01 20:17:09 <gavinandresen> tcatm: we'd need testnet dnsseeds and/or hard-coded nodes before removing IRC, otherwise it'd be impossible to find testnet peers....
1240 2011-10-01 20:17:54 <tcatm> good point...
1241 2011-10-01 20:18:31 <gmaxwell> I don't think it should be removed— at least not anytime soon. Turning it off by default would be reasonable.
1242 2011-10-01 20:19:48 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1243 2011-10-01 20:20:45 zhoutong has joined
1244 2011-10-01 20:20:54 <phantomcircuit> eh
1245 2011-10-01 20:20:59 <phantomcircuit> it doesn't really matter
1246 2011-10-01 20:21:04 <phantomcircuit> just leave it enabled
1247 2011-10-01 20:22:11 <freewil> what if someone hijacked the irc server?
1248 2011-10-01 20:23:00 <tcatm> there's not much he could do
1249 2011-10-01 20:24:27 <freewil> would the hijacker be able to control what nodes any new nodes could connect to?
1250 2011-10-01 20:24:45 <phantomcircuit> no
1251 2011-10-01 20:24:47 <midnightmagic> only for those that connect to the irc channel.
1252 2011-10-01 20:24:56 <midnightmagic> you don't have to connect, esp. if you have an established node.
1253 2011-10-01 20:25:22 <freewil> how does the initial peer discovery work currently
1254 2011-10-01 20:25:29 <freewil> does it just use the hardcoded nodes
1255 2011-10-01 20:26:11 <gavinandresen> it only uses the hardcoded nodes if both dns seeding and IRC connecting fail
1256 2011-10-01 20:26:35 <gavinandresen> ... and the addr.dat database is empty (you're starting up for the first time)
1257 2011-10-01 20:26:53 <freewil> how does dns seeding work
1258 2011-10-01 20:27:16 <tcatm> gavinandresen: btw, did you know bitcoin would read an addr.txt from it's datadir with a list of IPs?
1259 2011-10-01 20:28:34 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: well, the IRC actually gets people yelled at for running bitcoin because it's commonly mistaken for a botnet.
1260 2011-10-01 20:28:59 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I heard somebody mention that before...  don't remember reading that in the code, but I'm not surprised it is in there (networking stuff isn't my strong suit, so I haven't gone through net.cpp with a fine-tooth-comb)
1261 2011-10-01 20:30:03 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: it also provides some weird ways for attackers to bias peer selection which are probably not good.
1262 2011-10-01 20:30:40 <phantomcircuit> well
1263 2011-10-01 20:30:47 <phantomcircuit> to be fiar it isn't REALL irc
1264 2011-10-01 20:30:53 <phantomcircuit> there's only one server
1265 2011-10-01 20:31:09 <gmaxwell> (peers are selected in a semi-randomized most recently seen order with hold off, and IRC join messages promote the joining node to seen no worse than 2 hours ago)
1266 2011-10-01 20:31:14 <phantomcircuit> and the protocol that's supported is only vaguely irc
1267 2011-10-01 20:31:28 <midnightmagic> lol yeah whatever. a botnet with a public channel on which no communication ever takes place.
1268 2011-10-01 20:31:50 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: that looks pretty much just like a regular botnet control channel does.
1269 2011-10-01 20:31:55 <tcatm> gavinandresen: do you think we should keep that code? If so I'm going to make a pull request that moves it from LoadAddreses() to init.cpp as it's a quite unexpected side effect of that function.
1270 2011-10-01 20:32:01 <gmaxwell> A bunch of nodes with random names sitting there doing nothing.
1271 2011-10-01 20:32:14 <gmaxwell> (waiting for the botnet master to give an order)
1272 2011-10-01 20:32:35 <midnightmagic> not the ones I've been in watching. often there's something in there when dcc isn't possible.  and if you follow the naming scheme you should get at least a ping/helo
1273 2011-10-01 20:32:51 <midnightmagic> ah..
1274 2011-10-01 20:32:58 <midnightmagic> but master never shows.
1275 2011-10-01 20:33:11 erus` has joined
1276 2011-10-01 20:33:17 <gavinandresen> tcatm: no, I think reading from addr.txt duplicates the addnode functionality of bitcoin.conf.  I say get rid of it
1277 2011-10-01 20:33:40 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: sure, it's not like people look for more than a second. They see the IRC connection, connect to the server, hit a channel with thousands of bots... and shut down the customer's port.
1278 2011-10-01 20:33:59 <phantomcircuit> actually i think implementing some of the same strategies that the most successful botnets use wouldn't be a bad idea
1279 2011-10-01 20:34:09 <midnightmagic> no curiosity these days.. no investigation.
1280 2011-10-01 20:34:24 <phantomcircuit> such as generating domain names to check every hour
1281 2011-10-01 20:34:32 sacarlson has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1282 2011-10-01 20:34:35 <phantomcircuit> and just assigning them lower priority than other methods
1283 2011-10-01 20:34:57 <midnightmagic> generating domain names?
1284 2011-10-01 20:35:02 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: if you're worried about blocking resistance, it would be better to improve the tor hidden service support.
1285 2011-10-01 20:35:13 <gmaxwell> (and then leave all that hard stuff to the tor people)
1286 2011-10-01 20:35:23 <phantomcircuit> true
1287 2011-10-01 20:35:38 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1288 2011-10-01 20:35:54 TransistOrg has joined
1289 2011-10-01 20:36:03 <gmaxwell> E.g. someone should write support for the onioncat mapping that converts hidden service addresses into IPv6, so bitcoin nodes can rumor hidden service addresses.
1290 2011-10-01 20:36:46 <gmaxwell> It should also be possible to run a node in a dual internet+tor mode where it can connect to hidden services (learned via rumor) as well as the internet at once.
1291 2011-10-01 20:38:07 <gmaxwell> In any case, the goal of the blocking resistance shouldn't exactly be blocking resistance, since I don't think bitcoin can really withstand a real political attack for non-technical reasons— but just generally to increase robusness and to discourage bits of sillyness.
1292 2011-10-01 20:38:08 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1293 2011-10-01 20:38:25 Xunie has joined
1294 2011-10-01 20:39:03 zhoutong has joined
1295 2011-10-01 20:40:03 laetus has joined
1296 2011-10-01 20:48:37 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1297 2011-10-01 20:49:46 marf_away has joined
1298 2011-10-01 20:50:13 sacarlson has joined
1299 2011-10-01 20:52:36 shockdiode has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1300 2011-10-01 20:52:52 shockdiode has joined
1301 2011-10-01 20:54:26 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1302 2011-10-01 20:55:48 amtal has joined
1303 2011-10-01 20:58:32 <gavinandresen> Anybody have some brain cells available to help me think through a "discourage blocks" patch I'm working on?
1304 2011-10-01 20:58:32 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1305 2011-10-01 20:58:52 <midnightmagic> what's it do?
1306 2011-10-01 20:59:31 <gavinandresen> It modifies the code to not relay or build on blocks that are 'bad' in some way-- but not bad enough to be outright not accepted
1307 2011-10-01 20:59:35 zhoutong has joined
1308 2011-10-01 20:59:52 pensan has joined
1309 2011-10-01 21:00:03 <gavinandresen> E.g. a block with just a single coinbase transaction might be considered bad if there are lots of high-priority transactions waiting in the txn memory pool
1310 2011-10-01 21:00:46 <midnightmagic> lol punish the interlopers!
1311 2011-10-01 21:02:38 <tcatm> how would that patch work?
1312 2011-10-01 21:02:46 <midnightmagic> except the work done to find the block helps us protect the chain..  what happens when there are two of them in a row?
1313 2011-10-01 21:03:29 <gavinandresen> midnightmagic: if a discouraged block gets built on then that's OK-- it is as if it is no longer discouraged
1314 2011-10-01 21:03:56 <phantomcircuit> gavinandresen, so basically if there are 2 block chains of equal height figure out which one to prefer?
1315 2011-10-01 21:04:00 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I hope the patch will work very well... I'm testing it right now with three testnet-in-a-box nodes that are discouraging each other's blocks
1316 2011-10-01 21:04:35 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: yes.  If one ends in a discouraged block, and the other one doesn't, then pick the non-discouraged.
1317 2011-10-01 21:04:43 <gavinandresen> (otherwise use current rules-- first one you see wins)
1318 2011-10-01 21:05:04 <phantomcircuit> i dont see why you'd use the current rules
1319 2011-10-01 21:05:18 <phantomcircuit> just come up with a formula for which is preferred
1320 2011-10-01 21:05:24 <phantomcircuit> include the time it was seen
1321 2011-10-01 21:06:45 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: not relaying discouraged blocks is key (as gmaxwell pointed out on the bitcoin-dev list)
1322 2011-10-01 21:07:21 <gavinandresen> phantomcircuit: ... so before there are two chains of equal length you need to see if a block is discouraged, and if it is, decide not to relay it to your peers
1323 2011-10-01 21:07:35 <phantomcircuit> that seems like a bad idea
1324 2011-10-01 21:08:27 <gavinandresen> Two reasons to do it:  there can be tragedies-of-the-commons that benefit miners but make life miserable for everybody else (the I'll only include the coinbase because it means less coding for me case)
1325 2011-10-01 21:08:59 <gavinandresen> And second:  it is a softer alternative to blockchain-splitting changes that should still be powerful enough to change network-wide behavior
1326 2011-10-01 21:09:03 <phantomcircuit> eh i doubt either will be a significant issue
1327 2011-10-01 21:09:56 <phantomcircuit> miners pretty much have incentive to include all transactions upto the block maximum size
1328 2011-10-01 21:10:06 <phantomcircuit> there is very little incentive not to
1329 2011-10-01 21:10:18 osmosis has joined
1330 2011-10-01 21:11:13 ircuser-6 has quit (Quit: ircuser-6)
1331 2011-10-01 21:11:52 <gavinandresen> Well, it would help make doing things like removing the MAX_BLOCKSIZE constant easier.  Instead, blocks that were "a lot bigger than we think they should be" would just be discouraged.
1332 2011-10-01 21:12:30 ThomasV has joined
1333 2011-10-01 21:12:39 <gavinandresen> We could also try to discourage Finney attacks-- discourage blocks that contain transactions that we never saw broadcast.
1334 2011-10-01 21:13:39 larsivi has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1335 2011-10-01 21:14:17 <gavinandresen> Discouraging blocks with duplicate coinbase transactions would also prevent heartache for boneheaded miners.....
1336 2011-10-01 21:14:32 <phantomcircuit> lol
1337 2011-10-01 21:15:13 noagendamarket has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1338 2011-10-01 21:18:17 <tcatm> would the patch ignore the block or save it somewhere in case it gets build upon?
1339 2011-10-01 21:19:20 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1340 2011-10-01 21:19:41 <gavinandresen> tcatm: it saves it, and accepts it as best block, it just sets an fDiscouraged flag and does two things:  1) Doesn't relay it to peers  (but if the peers ask for it, it will be sent)
1341 2011-10-01 21:20:04 <gavinandresen> 2) when mining, builds on the previous block
1342 2011-10-01 21:20:32 <forrestv> p2pool does something like this - in order to punish shares that are stale (previous_block != current highest block hash), a node builds on that share's parent
1343 2011-10-01 21:20:33 zhoutong has joined
1344 2011-10-01 21:20:38 <tcatm> is that flag stored in blkindex.dat or is it memory only?
1345 2011-10-01 21:20:46 <gavinandresen> tcatm: memory only
1346 2011-10-01 21:21:07 <forrestv> and other nodes prefer shares referencing higher blocks, to the new share overrides the previous one (even though it's at the same height)
1347 2011-10-01 21:22:23 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: the problem with Finney attack resistance is that it would be too sensitive. E.g. if you wanted to make sure that you heard at least x% of the txn in the block, then that would be okay.. but it's not enough to stop the Finney attack.
1348 2011-10-01 21:23:17 <gmaxwell> By too sensitive I mean that propagation time and difference of forwarding rules will cause occasional surprise transactions with no malice.
1349 2011-10-01 21:23:43 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: if it was a threshold for "value of transactions that I haven't seen broadcast" instead of x% it might work
1350 2011-10-01 21:23:51 <gmaxwell> Hm!
1351 2011-10-01 21:24:16 <tcatm> what happens with the transactions in discouraged blocks? i.e. will it trigger a re-org?
1352 2011-10-01 21:24:20 <gmaxwell> Yes, that might work. Although as a miner I might learn of that and say "fuck that, I'll include zero transactions to avoid getting discouraged"
1353 2011-10-01 21:24:46 <gmaxwell> (e.g. it needs to be really easy to reilably avoid any discouragement)
1354 2011-10-01 21:24:52 EPiSKiNG- has joined
1355 2011-10-01 21:24:54 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: ... and you'll trip into the "you didn't include enough high priority memory pool transactions" discourage code....
1356 2011-10-01 21:25:18 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: Yes, then I think those would have to exist as a pair.
1357 2011-10-01 21:25:25 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1358 2011-10-01 21:25:27 <gavinandresen> tcatm: if the discouraged block is built on, then the transactions stay where they are.  Otherwise it is like any other block race
1359 2011-10-01 21:25:40 TransistOrg has joined
1360 2011-10-01 21:26:17 <gavinandresen> My hidden motive for this is a potential attack that I don't want to talk about, but that can be prevented by discouraging blocks that are... weird.. in a certain way
1361 2011-10-01 21:26:20 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1362 2011-10-01 21:26:25 <gmaxwell> Right.
1363 2011-10-01 21:26:41 <tcatm> hrm, in case you build upon the previous block you might want to include (and probably even broadcast) all valid transactions from the discouraged block that the node hasn't seen yet
1364 2011-10-01 21:27:00 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)
1365 2011-10-01 21:27:04 <gmaxwell> I'd originally suggested this as a tool against block bloating attacks— as a way to encourage miners to have anti-spam rules, it's a really general tool that helps align mining incentives with network health.
1366 2011-10-01 21:27:33 <gmaxwell> tcatm: I'd think you'd add them to your memory pool and handle them as if you'd just heard them over the network.
1367 2011-10-01 21:27:45 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: yup.   My plan is to submit a do-nothing patch that just puts the framework in place and has a -discourageall flag for testing
1368 2011-10-01 21:27:46 <gmaxwell> (e.g. if you would normally have mined them— you will)
1369 2011-10-01 21:28:23 <gavinandresen> tcatm: what gmaxwell said.  (does the code currently take never-broadcast transactions from orphan blocks and broadcast them?  If not, might be a good idea....)
1370 2011-10-01 21:28:32 <gavinandresen> (or might be a really bad idea)
1371 2011-10-01 21:28:53 <gmaxwell> gavinandresen: there needs to be come kind of functionality that allows larger miners with many bitcoinds to never discourage themselves— or at least there does if there is a non-trivial risk of this.
1372 2011-10-01 21:29:14 Diablo-D3 has joined
1373 2011-10-01 21:29:51 <gavinandresen> gmaxwell: a -discouragenone flag would be easy, and if the bitcoinds are connected to a central bitcoind hub that filters block/transaction traffic....
1374 2011-10-01 21:30:10 <gavinandresen> ... then running all the spokes with -discouragenone would work nicely
1375 2011-10-01 21:30:15 pickett has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1376 2011-10-01 21:30:26 <gmaxwell> There you go.
1377 2011-10-01 21:30:32 amiller has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1378 2011-10-01 21:31:27 amiller has joined
1379 2011-10-01 21:36:32 Fnar has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1380 2011-10-01 21:38:46 rdponticelli has joined
1381 2011-10-01 21:39:08 mmoya has joined
1382 2011-10-01 21:39:27 <gavinandresen> Infrastructure for discourage blocks:   https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/69945318d1130045f5e0424a6e0e5511c0c76d5e
1383 2011-10-01 21:39:43 marf_away2 has joined
1384 2011-10-01 21:40:21 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1385 2011-10-01 21:41:46 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1386 2011-10-01 21:42:50 zhoutong has joined
1387 2011-10-01 21:42:51 pickett has joined
1388 2011-10-01 21:45:00 ThomasV has joined
1389 2011-10-01 21:48:38 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I hope that crap stays off mainline.
1390 2011-10-01 21:48:56 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: why
1391 2011-10-01 21:49:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I can't think of any legitimate use
1392 2011-10-01 21:49:35 <gavinandresen> ... if you're going to say Miners should Make All the Rules then we'll have to agree to disagree
1393 2011-10-01 21:49:55 <luke-jr> the rules are already fixed in the protocol
1394 2011-10-01 21:50:00 datagutt has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1395 2011-10-01 21:50:28 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: now if you want to argue for infra to prefer one block over another (ie, a relative comparison), that might make sense
1396 2011-10-01 21:50:32 <gavinandresen> Right, and there are some rules that "we" might want to nudge people to accept.
1397 2011-10-01 21:50:37 <luke-jr> ie, prefer the block with more transactions
1398 2011-10-01 21:51:11 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: excellent idea.
1399 2011-10-01 21:51:33 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: also, your patch there has a vulnerability that I prefer not to disclose because I oppose it in general
1400 2011-10-01 21:51:57 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: ... although thinking twice about that, that could have unintended consequences
1401 2011-10-01 21:52:18 <luke-jr> indeed. probably best to not play stupid games at all
1402 2011-10-01 21:52:34 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: so PM me.  If you say "there is a vulnerability I'm not going to tell you about" then I'm going to assume that you're just bullshitting because you dont' like the idea
1403 2011-10-01 21:52:58 <luke-jr> assume what you like. worst case I reverse-patch this out of Eligius so I'm not affected.
1404 2011-10-01 21:53:07 zapnap has joined
1405 2011-10-01 21:53:17 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: don't be a jerk, please
1406 2011-10-01 21:53:45 <gavinandresen> (you can do whatever you like with Eligius, but keeping potential vulnerabilities to yourself is being a jer)
1407 2011-10-01 21:54:34 <makomk> gavinandresen: of course, if miners include the change you're proposing, surely it'll increase the risk that their blocks will become invalid?
1408 2011-10-01 21:54:51 <makomk> So they'll have a disincentive to play along with your change.
1409 2011-10-01 21:55:01 <gavinandresen> makomk: yup.
1410 2011-10-01 21:55:34 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: the vulnerability is of the nature that miners who DO use this patch will get a higher rate of invalids
1411 2011-10-01 21:55:35 <gavinandresen> makomk: I'm assuming that all the other nodes on the network will decide they do want to play along, because the rules will be good for them
1412 2011-10-01 21:55:48 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: ie, it won't compromise security, just profits
1413 2011-10-01 21:56:09 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: how?  the patch I posted always returns false for ShouldDiscourage.....
1414 2011-10-01 21:56:23 <gavinandresen> Or, in other words:  you're bullshitting.
1415 2011-10-01 21:56:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm assuming this code is enabled.
1416 2011-10-01 21:56:27 <makomk> gavinandresen: well, I guess it'd give the miners an incentive to peer with each other...
1417 2011-10-01 21:56:28 <gavinandresen> What code?
1418 2011-10-01 21:56:29 <luke-jr> at some point
1419 2011-10-01 21:56:34 <luke-jr> the patch you posted
1420 2011-10-01 21:57:13 <gavinandresen> That is the code that always returns false.....    I am not proposing discouraging any blocks yet.  I'm just proposing the infrastructure to do it in the future.
1421 2011-10-01 21:57:55 <makomk> (Also, I wonder what happens if someone codes a change to "discourage" transactions that move stolen coins...)
1422 2011-10-01 21:58:10 <luke-jr> so assuming the infrastructure is ever enabled, the profit-loss vuln applies
1423 2011-10-01 21:58:37 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes.  I assume lots of miners will run with -discouragenone  to completely disable discouraging blocks.
1424 2011-10-01 21:59:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: in which case, miners who don't know to use that will run a high risk of invalids
1425 2011-10-01 21:59:43 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:  how so?  The standard code should never create blocks that trigger the discourage code
1426 2011-10-01 21:59:49 <luke-jr> in any case, it should be comparing BlockA with BlockB, not replacing BlockA regardless of BlockB's condition
1427 2011-10-01 22:00:21 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: not relaying blocks that you find offensive in some way is a key part of the idea.
1428 2011-10-01 22:00:24 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: I'm fine with miners who discourage blocks losing profits.
1429 2011-10-01 22:00:36 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: you know, like maybe blocks that contain swear-words in the coinbase... or something.....
1430 2011-10-01 22:00:57 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: too subjective, and can happen randomly
1431 2011-10-01 22:01:06 <gavinandresen> makomk: .... or blocks that contain transactions that you know spend stolen coins... yes, that might be possible....
1432 2011-10-01 22:01:31 <luke-jr> yeah, let's punish miners who don't trust CentralAuthority's "stolen money" report
1433 2011-10-01 22:02:30 <gavinandresen> I don't think mainline would ever include a discourage-based-on-a-central-authority
1434 2011-10-01 22:03:12 <makomk> Also, miners lose out not because they produce blocks that trigger discourages, but because if anyone else does, the miners using the discourage code will lose out every time they generate a block at the same time as miners who are a block ahead due to not using discourage.
1435 2011-10-01 22:03:14 <gavinandresen> ... but I could imagine a -shuntransaction=TXID  command-line / bitcoin.conf option, and people could decentrally decide to add....
1436 2011-10-01 22:03:59 <makomk> Or even if they generate a block *before* the miners not using discourage.
1437 2011-10-01 22:04:50 <tcatm> so spending stolen coins involves having enough mining power to bury those tx a few blocks deep into the chain?
1438 2011-10-01 22:04:55 <gavinandresen> Yes, discouraging is a double-edge sword. Miners will have a strong incentive to try to be in the majority.
1439 2011-10-01 22:05:07 vegard has joined
1440 2011-10-01 22:05:39 <gavinandresen> tcatm: I don't think discourage code will be an effective way of handling stolen coins....
1441 2011-10-01 22:05:47 <makomk> Not exactly; as far as I can tell the losses due to using discourage ar a lot higher than the losses due to not using it.
1442 2011-10-01 22:05:53 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1443 2011-10-01 22:06:26 <makomk> If a miner uses discourage, they lose out every time a discouraged block happens and they fail to mine two blocks before the miners not using it mine one.
1444 2011-10-01 22:06:49 pensan has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1445 2011-10-01 22:06:54 Beremat has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1446 2011-10-01 22:06:56 <gavinandresen> makomk: like I said, I think most miners will likely -discouragenone, but will try to follow the discourage rules for their own blocks so they get relayed quickly and widely
1447 2011-10-01 22:07:00 <makomk> If a miner doesn't, they only lose out if the miners using it mine two blocks before the miners not using it mine one.
1448 2011-10-01 22:07:20 <makomk> Yeah, that probably makes more sense... unless it doesn't.
1449 2011-10-01 22:08:12 <cjdelisle> Assuming: 1. Miners are all connected together.  2. Nobody wants to mine a discouraged block.  doesn't trivial game theory dictate that the function will never have any effect?
1450 2011-10-01 22:09:00 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: assuming that all miners are directly connected seems like a bad assumption.
1451 2011-10-01 22:09:46 <cjdelisle> luke-jr: ?   I assumed they wanted to be connected because that's the way to get new blocks as fast as possible
1452 2011-10-01 22:09:52 <gavinandresen> I suppose this might give miners an incentive to directly connect to each other.  That wouldn't be a bad thing....
1453 2011-10-01 22:09:57 <makomk> It's possible that not mining discouraged blocks might actually cost miners in some circumstances, if all other miners accept them and they can be communicated efficiently to all other miners - and there are incentives to ensure that anyway.
1454 2011-10-01 22:10:13 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1455 2011-10-01 22:10:21 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1456 2011-10-01 22:11:12 <cjdelisle> I think that incentive already exists because nobody wants to be mining on an old block after a new one is found.
1457 2011-10-01 22:11:46 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: most pools don't cooperate
1458 2011-10-01 22:12:12 <makomk> For the entire time period between a new block and the pool sending out work, all mining effort is wasted, so the shorter that interval is the better - and one way to do that is to send empty blocks that risk being discouraged.
1459 2011-10-01 22:14:23 dvide has quit ()
1460 2011-10-01 22:14:35 <cjdelisle> Every miner wants to have blocks asap so it stands to reason that they would have a crapton of connections. If every miner has a lot of connections then they will probably be connected to other miners and if not directly, at least connected many times over with single non-miner nodes in between.
1461 2011-10-01 22:14:43 <cjdelisle> No explicit cooperation is necessary.
1462 2011-10-01 22:15:47 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1463 2011-10-01 22:16:07 <cjdelisle> thus discourage is basicly introducing damage into a self-healing network
1464 2011-10-01 22:16:38 Cablesaurus has joined
1465 2011-10-01 22:16:38 Cablesaurus has quit (Changing host)
1466 2011-10-01 22:16:38 Cablesaurus has joined
1467 2011-10-01 22:16:52 zhoutong has joined
1468 2011-10-01 22:17:06 Cusipzzz has joined
1469 2011-10-01 22:18:52 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: Here's the case I care about:   There is broad consensus that a rule change is needed, even among miners.  But we don't want to split the block chain, and don't want to wait the year or two it will take to schedule a smooth upgrade.  Solution:  discourage blocks that don't follow the rule.
1470 2011-10-01 22:20:36 <cjdelisle> indeed. If there is a security vuln then it's definiely in the miners interest not to mine blocks containing the exploit.
1471 2011-10-01 22:21:40 <cjdelisle> Perhaps there should be some means for miners to subscribe to a mailing list type thing where signed regexes can be published and transactions matching those regexes will be dropped?
1472 2011-10-01 22:21:47 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: exactly.  It gives us a way of fixing potential problems in a way that isn't as brittle as "everybody needs to upgrade RIGHT NOW"
1473 2011-10-01 22:22:37 <cjdelisle> Is it something that a matcher can detect and drop exploit transactions?
1474 2011-10-01 22:24:10 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: sure... although I'm just looking at discouraging blocks, not individual transactions at the moment
1475 2011-10-01 22:24:34 <gavinandresen> (could mark transactions as discouraged, then discourage any blocks that contained any discouraged transactions....)
1476 2011-10-01 22:24:58 TransistOrg has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1477 2011-10-01 22:25:11 TransistOrg has joined
1478 2011-10-01 22:25:29 <cjdelisle> k so someone might solo-mine a block containing evil and if that block is not dropped then hell breaks loose, gotchya
1479 2011-10-01 22:27:33 <cjdelisle> some kind of a pub/sub system would be necessary to make this work since there will eventually be a 0day which is discovered when it's attacked.
1480 2011-10-01 22:27:34 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1481 2011-10-01 22:27:47 Sedra- has joined
1482 2011-10-01 22:28:00 Sedra has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1483 2011-10-01 22:28:11 ThomasV has joined
1484 2011-10-01 22:28:57 zhoutong has joined
1485 2011-10-01 22:29:42 zapnap has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1486 2011-10-01 22:29:55 <gavinandresen> cjdelisle: no, pub/sub means centralized, I don't think that is the right way to go...
1487 2011-10-01 22:30:46 <cjdelisle> it's true but at least you could put the chosen central authority into a conf file or disable it by default
1488 2011-10-01 22:30:59 <cjdelisle> miners know what they're doing and they will know who to trust
1489 2011-10-01 22:33:44 marf_away2 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1490 2011-10-01 22:34:02 marf_away has joined
1491 2011-10-01 22:36:16 <cjdelisle> if, for instance, someone mines a block with a virus signature in a transaction and it makes all of the AV software go nuts, that's something you want the big miners all to reject ASAP, if you wait a day then nobody is going to want to give up all of the blocks between then and now and you can't just patch that block out.
1492 2011-10-01 22:37:28 <cjdelisle> Also it's a difficult attack to predict what it will look like since AV databases are huge
1493 2011-10-01 22:40:14 <cjdelisle> but yea, I hear ya re central authority. The power to say "kill <sha256>" is really abusable
1494 2011-10-01 22:41:06 Sedra- has quit (Quit: ( Quit ))
1495 2011-10-01 22:41:39 <freewil> i cant wait until mt gox publishes it's blacklist :)
1496 2011-10-01 22:41:41 <cjdelisle> and the only real defense is letting people have a list of trusted authorities in their .conf file and easily add and remove them.
1497 2011-10-01 22:43:40 glitch-mod has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1498 2011-10-01 22:44:00 glitch-mod has joined
1499 2011-10-01 22:44:04 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: you really are biased against people who won't submit to GitHub's ToS, aren't you? :|
1500 2011-10-01 22:44:20 <luke-jr> coinbaser is a better solution than getmemorypool, has had much more testing, etc :P
1501 2011-10-01 22:45:27 stalled has joined
1502 2011-10-01 22:45:32 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: yes, I am biased against people who won't use github because of what I think is an irrational fear that they'll be sued by github
1503 2011-10-01 22:45:54 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: it's not irrational, it's clearly provided for in their ToS
1504 2011-10-01 22:46:19 <freewil> luke-jr, what it's your problem with the ToS
1505 2011-10-01 22:47:12 <luke-jr> freewil: 1) it can be changed at will with no notice, 2) it creates an infinite financial liability if someone just makes a mere unfounded legal threat
1506 2011-10-01 22:48:16 <diki> luke, did i ever tell you the definition of insanity?
1507 2011-10-01 22:48:26 <luke-jr> diki: you demonstrate it constantly
1508 2011-10-01 22:48:32 <diki> ah
1509 2011-10-01 22:49:50 <gavinandresen> .... so what incentive does github have to change their TOS in a way that would piss off all their customers?  And same questions RE: infinite financial liability...
1510 2011-10-01 22:49:59 abragin has quit ()
1511 2011-10-01 22:50:23 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: people who don't pay them aren't customers
1512 2011-10-01 22:50:40 <luke-jr> and it doesn't matter if they have incentive or not
1513 2011-10-01 22:50:43 <gavinandresen> I think you're being silly worrying about things that ain't never going to happen
1514 2011-10-01 22:50:49 <luke-jr> agreeing to it is stupid
1515 2011-10-01 22:51:25 <luke-jr> furthermore, even if their ToS were reasonable, I would object because it's proprietary.
1516 2011-10-01 22:51:36 <gavinandresen> whatever.... I should just learn to stop arguing with you because you're always right.
1517 2011-10-01 22:52:08 <diki> gavinandresen:link to mentioned change?
1518 2011-10-01 22:52:11 DontMindMe has quit (Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de)
1519 2011-10-01 22:52:16 <luke-jr> anyhow
1520 2011-10-01 22:52:18 <luke-jr>     if (strWhole.size() > 10) // guard against 63 bit overflow
1521 2011-10-01 22:52:20 <luke-jr> this line makes no sense
1522 2011-10-01 22:52:21 <gavinandresen> diki: there's no TOS change
1523 2011-10-01 22:52:34 <gavinandresen> diki: luke-jr is just worried that maybe in the future there WILL be a change
1524 2011-10-01 22:52:47 <diki> ...right..
1525 2011-10-01 22:52:58 <diki> then i am going to refer to my previous post about insanity
1526 2011-10-01 22:53:00 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: their demand you accept that possibility is good reason to believe there will be
1527 2011-10-01 22:53:07 <freewil> luke-jr, well i was wondering why you were using gitortious, because github is 10x better
1528 2011-10-01 22:53:21 <freewil> but to be fair they do promise to give 30 day notice of ToS changes
1529 2011-10-01 22:53:23 <luke-jr> Gitorious has reasonable ToS and is free software
1530 2011-10-01 22:53:31 <gavinandresen> (what is 10x in tonal?)
1531 2011-10-01 22:53:34 <luke-jr> freewil: GitHub doesn't, unless that changed.
1532 2011-10-01 22:53:42 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: 9x
1533 2011-10-01 22:53:49 <gavinandresen> right!
1534 2011-10-01 22:54:30 <luke-jr> freewil: "GitHub reserves the right to update and change the Terms of Service from time to time without notice."
1535 2011-10-01 22:54:53 <luke-jr> hmm
1536 2011-10-01 22:54:59 <freewil> luke-jr, i know, im saying Gitorious gives you 30 day notice
1537 2011-10-01 22:55:02 <luke-jr> otoh… "Violation of any of the terms below will result in the termination of your Account."
1538 2011-10-01 22:55:36 <luke-jr> but then, they could just change *that* term without notice too :/
1539 2011-10-01 22:55:53 <diki> unless they are paypal they wont
1540 2011-10-01 22:55:57 <freewil> so you're worried they just terminate your account without notice?
1541 2011-10-01 22:56:05 <cjdelisle> luke-jr: you do know that the right to contract is not absolute, right?
1542 2011-10-01 22:56:16 <luke-jr> freewil: no, agreeing to GitHub's ToS is like signing a blank contract
1543 2011-10-01 22:56:25 <diki> and what about your ToS luke
1544 2011-10-01 22:56:29 <cjdelisle> If they change the contract to say you have to give them a million dollars, that's invalid, a judge would call it fraud.
1545 2011-10-01 22:56:30 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: legal enforcability is a separate matter of honouring my word
1546 2011-10-01 22:56:30 <diki> you can add one without us knowing
1547 2011-10-01 22:56:34 <diki> and keep our coins
1548 2011-10-01 22:57:05 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: plus, their *current* ToS says that, except without an exact $ figure
1549 2011-10-01 22:57:31 AStove has quit ()
1550 2011-10-01 22:57:51 <luke-jr> hmm
1551 2011-10-01 22:58:04 <freewil> luke-jr, ToS agreements are mostly legal BS to protect companies from one crazy individual, but i do see your point - respect
1552 2011-10-01 22:58:09 <cjdelisle> I admire your fixation on honering your word, however if they are using trickery and fraud in their contract then you are doing nothing wrong if you find yourself in violation.
1553 2011-10-01 22:58:24 <luke-jr> technically speaking, I only have to agree to the ToS to sign up; if someone else wants to make me an account, I can change the password and use it without a problem I think :p
1554 2011-10-01 22:58:39 <diki> in other words luke, if something bad happens, you can always give your coins to me
1555 2011-10-01 22:59:22 <luke-jr> (if so, my email for this purpose would be luke_github@dashjr.org)
1556 2011-10-01 23:00:16 <cjdelisle> The skype contract is quite a bit worse than that but really there is no obligation, legal or moral, to uphold a fraudulent contract.
1557 2011-10-01 23:00:47 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: there is a moral obligation to not promise what one will not hold to, I thin
1558 2011-10-01 23:01:19 <luke-jr> +    if (strWhole.size() > 10) // guard against 63 bit overflow
1559 2011-10-01 23:01:22 <cjdelisle> I agree with you there but those things are (often intentionally) vague and hard to understand.
1560 2011-10-01 23:01:29 <luke-jr> since when is 62 or 63 bit 10 digits?
1561 2011-10-01 23:01:38 <gavinandresen> luke-jr: did you read the pull request?
1562 2011-10-01 23:01:45 <luke-jr> cjdelisle: for better or worse, I did confirm my interpretation of the ToS with GitHub ☹
1563 2011-10-01 23:01:52 <luke-jr> gavinandresen: probably at some point, why?
1564 2011-10-01 23:02:02 <cjdelisle> hehe
1565 2011-10-01 23:02:02 <luke-jr> oh, for that 63-bit thing, no
1566 2011-10-01 23:02:35 <gavinandresen> luke-jr:   I can dig it out... there was an issue with size() > 14 resulting in an int64 overflow
1567 2011-10-01 23:03:10 <gavinandresen> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/543
1568 2011-10-01 23:03:41 <cjdelisle> And if those things go to court, the vagueness comes in to play when they say "oh that's not what we meant" and/or "oh the person who you confirmed it with is mistaken" AKA tricks to prevent them from being found guilty of contract fraud.
1569 2011-10-01 23:04:04 <luke-jr> oh, I get it
1570 2011-10-01 23:04:16 <cjdelisle> And I don't like it any more than you do, believe me.
1571 2011-10-01 23:04:31 <freewil> the contract isnt really vague, it says we can do whatever we want
1572 2011-10-01 23:04:35 <freewil> its bullshit
1573 2011-10-01 23:04:43 <freewil> but thats what it says
1574 2011-10-01 23:05:16 <cjdelisle> I don't have a driver's license anymore because I can't stand to contract with the state.
1575 2011-10-01 23:05:56 <freewil> cjdelisle, im assuming you've seen this: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/05/update-fl-libertarian-party-chairman-surrenders-driver%E2%80%99s-license-in-real-id-protest-notifies-police/
1576 2011-10-01 23:06:03 <cjdelisle> so I do happen to know a thing or two about shadey (semi)legal tricks
1577 2011-10-01 23:06:21 shockdiode has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1578 2011-10-01 23:07:35 <cjdelisle> hmm
1579 2011-10-01 23:07:42 * cjdelisle is too chicken to drive with no license
1580 2011-10-01 23:08:07 <gmaxwell> Get a license from some random far away state.
1581 2011-10-01 23:08:36 <gmaxwell> Presumably someone has figured out what the state with the slimmest residency requirements are.
1582 2011-10-01 23:08:47 <cjdelisle> ahh
1583 2011-10-01 23:09:07 <freewil> gmaxwell, slimmest or most free?
1584 2011-10-01 23:09:40 <terrytibbs> most free, you would presume, no?
1585 2011-10-01 23:09:47 <cjdelisle> meh I want to feel good about myself and playing a semifraudulent game doesn't make me any better than them.
1586 2011-10-01 23:09:55 <gmaxwell> ::shrugs::
1587 2011-10-01 23:09:59 <cjdelisle> yea
1588 2011-10-01 23:10:05 <freewil> if i remember correctly, that guy was essentially daring the police to pull him over for no driver license so he could challenge the law
1589 2011-10-01 23:10:08 <freewil> they never did though
1590 2011-10-01 23:10:19 <gmaxwell> Actually driving without a license will go just ducky for a long time, but eventually you'll get pulled over and have a terrible weekend.
1591 2011-10-01 23:10:46 <gmaxwell> Get sealand to issue you a drivers license.
1592 2011-10-01 23:10:53 <cjdelisle> not a long time if you don't have a plate...
1593 2011-10-01 23:10:56 marf_away has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1594 2011-10-01 23:11:02 <terrytibbs> sealand burned to the ground
1595 2011-10-01 23:11:05 <terrytibbs> or something
1596 2011-10-01 23:11:05 <gmaxwell> So?
1597 2011-10-01 23:11:28 <cjdelisle> attaching plates -> fraud != feeling good about self
1598 2011-10-01 23:11:32 <gmaxwell> Bad weekend prevention probably requires that you just have _something_ that a cop can write down on his paperwork.
1599 2011-10-01 23:11:43 <freewil> "Peter Thiel, the billionaire Paypal founder and venture capitalist, has invested in a plan to create a floating island utopia that is not governed by the rules of any country."
1600 2011-10-01 23:11:46 <gmaxwell> cjdelisle: I'd assumed you'd use someone elses car, yea, I have no solution to that.
1601 2011-10-01 23:11:58 <cjdelisle> if I didn't care I'd just go to the registry and get a license
1602 2011-10-01 23:12:52 <luke-jr> freewil: dystopia*
1603 2011-10-01 23:13:10 <freewil> is that what that is?
1604 2011-10-01 23:13:17 <gmaxwell> Oh, I just noticed the channel.. this is way offtopic.
1605 2011-10-01 23:13:34 * cjdelisle lives the life he made for himself, blames noone else.
1606 2011-10-01 23:14:14 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1607 2011-10-01 23:16:45 <luke-jr> so just so I know, is anyone going to create a GitHub account in my name? :P
1608 2011-10-01 23:19:00 vegard has quit (Quit: leaving)
1609 2011-10-01 23:19:01 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1610 2011-10-01 23:19:17 <CIA-101> bitcoin: Wladimir J. van der Laan 0.4.x * r20cff2ade4d6 bitcoind-stable/src/util.cpp: remove possibility of 63 bit overflow in ParseMoney
1611 2011-10-01 23:19:57 zhoutong has joined
1612 2011-10-01 23:24:22 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1613 2011-10-01 23:25:29 zhoutong has joined
1614 2011-10-01 23:26:46 Lopuz has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1615 2011-10-01 23:29:37 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1616 2011-10-01 23:29:47 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1617 2011-10-01 23:29:56 zhoutong has joined
1618 2011-10-01 23:31:15 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1619 2011-10-01 23:32:10 zhoutong has joined
1620 2011-10-01 23:34:43 gavinandresen has quit (Quit: gavinandresen)
1621 2011-10-01 23:35:58 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1622 2011-10-01 23:36:48 ahbritto has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1623 2011-10-01 23:37:03 zhoutong has joined
1624 2011-10-01 23:39:01 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1625 2011-10-01 23:39:15 zhoutong has joined
1626 2011-10-01 23:39:16 Xunie has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
1627 2011-10-01 23:43:14 zhoutong has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1628 2011-10-01 23:44:11 zhoutong has joined
1629 2011-10-01 23:45:36 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1630 2011-10-01 23:46:02 copumpkin has joined
1631 2011-10-01 23:46:26 clr_ has joined
1632 2011-10-01 23:47:01 gjs278 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1633 2011-10-01 23:52:07 Xunie has joined
1634 2011-10-01 23:54:21 gjs278 has joined
1635 2011-10-01 23:58:18 Diablo-D3 has quit (Quit: do coders dream of sheep()?)