1 2013-08-24 00:01:25 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2 2013-08-24 00:02:07 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
3 2013-08-24 00:02:17 jicksta has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzzâ¦)
4 2013-08-24 00:03:28 OneFixt has joined
5 2013-08-24 00:04:32 Coincidental has joined
6 2013-08-24 00:05:56 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
7 2013-08-24 00:07:19 BGL has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
8 2013-08-24 00:08:17 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
9 2013-08-24 00:09:28 santoscork has joined
10 2013-08-24 00:12:20 OneFixt_ has joined
11 2013-08-24 00:12:28 devrandom has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
12 2013-08-24 00:12:31 santoscork has quit (Client Quit)
13 2013-08-24 00:12:48 santoscork has joined
14 2013-08-24 00:13:07 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
15 2013-08-24 00:16:39 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
16 2013-08-24 00:18:18 jicksta has joined
17 2013-08-24 00:19:59 agnostic98 has joined
18 2013-08-24 00:20:00 jicksta has quit (Client Quit)
19 2013-08-24 00:25:04 paracyst has joined
20 2013-08-24 00:25:44 OneFixt has joined
21 2013-08-24 00:31:10 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
22 2013-08-24 00:32:14 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
23 2013-08-24 00:33:48 Eiii has joined
24 2013-08-24 00:33:54 BGL has joined
25 2013-08-24 00:34:12 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
26 2013-08-24 00:34:36 Neozonz has joined
27 2013-08-24 00:34:51 AusBitBank_ has joined
28 2013-08-24 00:35:25 AusBitBank has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
29 2013-08-24 00:36:13 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
30 2013-08-24 00:36:38 datagutt has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
31 2013-08-24 00:36:49 agnostic98 has joined
32 2013-08-24 00:40:06 Sunwicked has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
33 2013-08-24 00:41:54 msvb-lab has quit (Quit: msvb-lab)
34 2013-08-24 00:42:00 freewil has joined
35 2013-08-24 00:42:50 jicksta has joined
36 2013-08-24 00:42:52 CodeShark has joined
37 2013-08-24 00:45:11 jicksta has quit (Client Quit)
38 2013-08-24 00:47:34 <warren> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2917 Hi, could more of the core devs please add your opinion to this? It would be helpful to decide one way or the other.
39 2013-08-24 00:47:51 OneFixt_ has joined
40 2013-08-24 00:49:21 devrandom has joined
41 2013-08-24 00:51:28 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
42 2013-08-24 00:52:03 DBordello has quit (Excess Flood)
43 2013-08-24 00:52:48 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
44 2013-08-24 00:53:36 <Cusipzzz> <-- cpu mines sometimes
45 2013-08-24 00:53:53 DBordello has joined
46 2013-08-24 00:57:32 OneFixt_ has joined
47 2013-08-24 00:58:51 ericmuyser has joined
48 2013-08-24 00:59:07 Transisto has quit ()
49 2013-08-24 00:59:28 santoscork has quit (Quit: Quiet while I make like a cat)
50 2013-08-24 01:00:02 splnkr has joined
51 2013-08-24 01:00:13 splnkr has quit (Client Quit)
52 2013-08-24 01:00:57 one_zero has joined
53 2013-08-24 01:01:49 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
54 2013-08-24 01:02:03 G________ has quit (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com)
55 2013-08-24 01:03:20 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
56 2013-08-24 01:03:44 themsay has joined
57 2013-08-24 01:04:43 Transisto has joined
58 2013-08-24 01:05:44 sserrano44 has joined
59 2013-08-24 01:05:49 OneFixt_ has joined
60 2013-08-24 01:06:44 digitalmagus2 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
61 2013-08-24 01:06:52 themsay has quit (Client Quit)
62 2013-08-24 01:07:08 themsay has joined
63 2013-08-24 01:07:32 awishformore has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
64 2013-08-24 01:08:24 themsay has quit (Client Quit)
65 2013-08-24 01:08:57 themsay has joined
66 2013-08-24 01:09:11 themsay has quit (Client Quit)
67 2013-08-24 01:10:28 themsay has joined
68 2013-08-24 01:14:41 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
69 2013-08-24 01:17:08 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
70 2013-08-24 01:22:36 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
71 2013-08-24 01:25:53 Transisto has quit ()
72 2013-08-24 01:27:42 Transisto has joined
73 2013-08-24 01:28:57 OneFixt_ has joined
74 2013-08-24 01:33:22 eoss has joined
75 2013-08-24 01:34:14 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
76 2013-08-24 01:35:44 temptestnick has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
77 2013-08-24 01:37:38 temptestnick has joined
78 2013-08-24 01:38:02 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
79 2013-08-24 01:39:10 paracyst has joined
80 2013-08-24 01:40:08 PrimeStunna has joined
81 2013-08-24 01:41:20 Transisto has quit ()
82 2013-08-24 01:42:46 yubrew_ has joined
83 2013-08-24 01:43:24 Transisto has joined
84 2013-08-24 01:43:34 wei_ has joined
85 2013-08-24 01:44:08 torsthaldo_ has joined
86 2013-08-24 01:44:38 torsthaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
87 2013-08-24 01:47:40 setkeh has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
88 2013-08-24 01:47:40 FlyingLeap has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
89 2013-08-24 01:48:56 PrimeStunna_ has joined
90 2013-08-24 01:49:51 PrimeStunna has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
91 2013-08-24 01:50:43 PrimeStunna has joined
92 2013-08-24 01:53:39 PrimeStunna_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
93 2013-08-24 01:57:23 wei_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
94 2013-08-24 01:59:54 CodeShark has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
95 2013-08-24 02:05:20 <cjd> Lolcust: An Accumulator Based on Bilinear Maps and
96 2013-08-24 02:05:22 <cjd> Efficient Revocation for Anonymous Credentials
97 2013-08-24 02:05:52 <cjd> It doesn't look like it needs trusted setup
98 2013-08-24 02:06:07 <kuzetsa> accumulators are nice
99 2013-08-24 02:06:27 <cjd> if any existed they'd be interesting
100 2013-08-24 02:06:35 <kuzetsa> ?
101 2013-08-24 02:06:36 <cjd> someone gotta write the code :)
102 2013-08-24 02:07:05 FlyingLeap has joined
103 2013-08-24 02:07:05 setkeh has joined
104 2013-08-24 02:07:09 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
105 2013-08-24 02:12:36 OneFixt has joined
106 2013-08-24 02:17:36 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
107 2013-08-24 02:18:26 OneFixt_ has joined
108 2013-08-24 02:18:48 <rubino123> if I compile with upnp support how does that help?
109 2013-08-24 02:20:26 Subo1977 has joined
110 2013-08-24 02:20:53 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
111 2013-08-24 02:23:42 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
112 2013-08-24 02:25:31 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
113 2013-08-24 02:28:18 btcquant has joined
114 2013-08-24 02:28:51 richcollins has joined
115 2013-08-24 02:29:00 OneFixt has joined
116 2013-08-24 02:36:25 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
117 2013-08-24 02:38:23 Namworld has joined
118 2013-08-24 02:39:13 themsay has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
119 2013-08-24 02:42:38 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
120 2013-08-24 02:44:50 OneFixt has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
121 2013-08-24 02:45:03 richcollins has joined
122 2013-08-24 02:49:01 CheckDavid has quit (Quit: Leaving)
123 2013-08-24 02:49:04 OneFixt has joined
124 2013-08-24 02:49:08 AndyOfiesh has joined
125 2013-08-24 02:49:35 neofutur has quit (Quit: leaving)
126 2013-08-24 02:49:46 <AlexNagy> upnp enables the application to tell your router (if your router supports upnp) to open ports without your intervention.
127 2013-08-24 02:50:04 cjd has left ()
128 2013-08-24 02:50:14 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
129 2013-08-24 02:54:02 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
130 2013-08-24 02:54:51 sserrano44 has joined
131 2013-08-24 02:57:51 OneFixt has joined
132 2013-08-24 02:58:22 ne0futur_ has joined
133 2013-08-24 02:59:39 agnostic98 has joined
134 2013-08-24 03:00:10 ne0futur_ has quit (Client Quit)
135 2013-08-24 03:00:39 ne0futur_ has joined
136 2013-08-24 03:02:15 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
137 2013-08-24 03:04:29 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
138 2013-08-24 03:05:25 Pengoo has quit (Quit: the whole world is a stage)
139 2013-08-24 03:05:39 btcquant has left ("Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com")
140 2013-08-24 03:05:59 OneFixt has joined
141 2013-08-24 03:06:31 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
142 2013-08-24 03:06:39 ne0futur_ is now known as neofutur
143 2013-08-24 03:06:44 Pengoo has joined
144 2013-08-24 03:10:24 nsillik has quit (Quit: nsillik)
145 2013-08-24 03:11:28 <AlexNagy> anyway, I'm off to bed for the night! Good night and God bless. (:
146 2013-08-24 03:11:40 AlexNagy has quit (Quit: Leaving)
147 2013-08-24 03:12:48 ne0futur has quit (Quit: leaving)
148 2013-08-24 03:13:27 OneFixt_ has joined
149 2013-08-24 03:15:03 agricocb has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
150 2013-08-24 03:15:13 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
151 2013-08-24 03:17:24 [7] has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
152 2013-08-24 03:17:46 OneFixt_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
153 2013-08-24 03:19:00 <warren> Luke-Jr: it seems key people are against removal of internal miner and others don't care enough to fight for its removal, so it would be most expedient to PR a variant that has -disable-wallet and removes getwork but keeps internal miner.
154 2013-08-24 03:19:36 <warren> Litecoin will continue to have internal miner completely gone.
155 2013-08-24 03:19:44 TheSeven has joined
156 2013-08-24 03:20:04 richcollins has joined
157 2013-08-24 03:20:37 yubrew_ has joined
158 2013-08-24 03:21:01 rubino123 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
159 2013-08-24 03:21:37 OneFixt_ has joined
160 2013-08-24 03:24:34 Application has joined
161 2013-08-24 03:25:05 Applicat_ has joined
162 2013-08-24 03:27:37 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
163 2013-08-24 03:28:45 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
164 2013-08-24 03:30:29 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
165 2013-08-24 03:31:15 OneFixt_ has joined
166 2013-08-24 03:31:36 OneFixt_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
167 2013-08-24 03:35:52 setkeh has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
168 2013-08-24 03:36:15 FlyingLeap has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
169 2013-08-24 03:42:30 OneFixt has joined
170 2013-08-24 03:44:10 AndyOfiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
171 2013-08-24 03:45:00 OneFixt_ has joined
172 2013-08-24 03:47:22 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
173 2013-08-24 03:49:10 temptestnick has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
174 2013-08-24 03:49:40 OneFixt_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
175 2013-08-24 03:51:42 OneFixt_ has joined
176 2013-08-24 03:54:25 OneFixt_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
177 2013-08-24 03:55:00 robocoin_ is now known as robocoin
178 2013-08-24 03:55:08 setkeh has joined
179 2013-08-24 03:55:26 FlyingLeap has joined
180 2013-08-24 03:56:14 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
181 2013-08-24 03:58:37 OneFixt has joined
182 2013-08-24 04:03:41 OneFixt has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
183 2013-08-24 04:08:50 digitalmagus2 has joined
184 2013-08-24 04:09:31 freewil has joined
185 2013-08-24 04:11:09 setkeh has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
186 2013-08-24 04:11:35 setkeh has joined
187 2013-08-24 04:13:42 OneFixt__ has joined
188 2013-08-24 04:16:20 OneFixt__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
189 2013-08-24 04:17:28 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
190 2013-08-24 04:23:56 <Krellan> I'd vote to keep the internal miner, if only for having it as a de facto reference implementation.
191 2013-08-24 04:26:29 Neozonz has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
192 2013-08-24 04:26:51 Neozonz has joined
193 2013-08-24 04:27:02 paybitcoin has joined
194 2013-08-24 04:29:54 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
195 2013-08-24 04:31:16 aspect__ has joined
196 2013-08-24 04:32:38 aspect_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
197 2013-08-24 04:38:16 <gmaxwell> Krellan: it is not a viable reference implementation.
198 2013-08-24 04:38:28 <gmaxwell> No other miner but the internal one can be implemented exactly that way.
199 2013-08-24 04:38:36 <gmaxwell> Thats one of the reasons I wanted to ditch it.
200 2013-08-24 04:38:42 saivann has quit ()
201 2013-08-24 04:45:07 <Krellan> That is strange - does it "cheat" by looking up internal data structures instead of using RPC?
202 2013-08-24 04:45:24 <Krellan> I used the internal CPU miner only as a cheesy benchmarking tool for comparing computers :)
203 2013-08-24 04:46:14 moarrr has joined
204 2013-08-24 04:55:12 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
205 2013-08-24 05:08:37 gfawkes has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
206 2013-08-24 05:09:25 gfawkes has joined
207 2013-08-24 05:09:53 <phantomcircuit> Krellan, exactly what it does
208 2013-08-24 05:09:56 <jgarzik> Krellan, it being an internal miner, it has no need to use RPC
209 2013-08-24 05:11:49 <jgarzik> I'm tired of waiting for TheUni to update the autoconf stuff
210 2013-08-24 05:12:13 * jgarzik wants to create libsatoshi.a in makefile.unix, and dep bitcoind on that
211 2013-08-24 05:13:19 yubrew_ has joined
212 2013-08-24 05:15:20 <jgarzik> hmmm
213 2013-08-24 05:15:57 yubrew has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
214 2013-08-24 05:17:12 <jgarzik> for each module moved to libsatoshi.a: { convert from CClass to namespace bitcoin::class }
215 2013-08-24 05:19:29 <phantomcircuit> watching videos on youtube
216 2013-08-24 05:19:32 <phantomcircuit> something is off
217 2013-08-24 05:19:35 <phantomcircuit> this is gnash
218 2013-08-24 05:19:39 <phantomcircuit> gnash actually works?????
219 2013-08-24 05:20:18 <jgarzik> phantomcircuit, surprising
220 2013-08-24 05:21:12 <phantomcircuit> apparently i spoke too soon
221 2013-08-24 05:21:15 <phantomcircuit> pandora wont load
222 2013-08-24 05:21:18 <phantomcircuit> damn
223 2013-08-24 05:21:39 <phantomcircuit> i wonder how much effort went into making youtube work...
224 2013-08-24 05:22:16 <Krellan> jgarzik: Thanks. Hopefully all the internal structures it used to make mining decisions are available now via RPC.
225 2013-08-24 05:25:20 <jgarzik> Krellan, yes, that happened many eons ago :)
226 2013-08-24 05:26:17 <Krellan> Good to know. Maybe dump the internal structures and have it call the RPC instead, just for cleanliness, isolate the miner out from the code.
227 2013-08-24 05:26:25 <gmaxwell> Krellan: all mining on the actual network happens via rpc... but thats why the internal one isn't a good reference anymore. But it's fine for testing where you're not actually testing the miner.
228 2013-08-24 05:28:30 Namworld has quit ()
229 2013-08-24 05:29:36 OldEnK has joined
230 2013-08-24 05:29:48 cads has joined
231 2013-08-24 05:31:43 cads has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
232 2013-08-24 05:34:06 digitalmagus2 has quit ()
233 2013-08-24 05:34:17 malaimo has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
234 2013-08-24 05:34:40 cads has joined
235 2013-08-24 05:36:13 malaimo has joined
236 2013-08-24 05:40:39 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
237 2013-08-24 05:45:59 oleganza has joined
238 2013-08-24 05:46:36 Neozonz has joined
239 2013-08-24 05:50:24 Neozonz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
240 2013-08-24 05:52:33 <jgarzik> well
241 2013-08-24 05:52:42 <jgarzik> libsatoshi.a was easy, and worked perfectly the first time
242 2013-08-24 05:52:47 <jgarzik> namespace conversionÂ
taking time
243 2013-08-24 05:54:11 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: satoshi is really super dupe awesome, but I would rather not feed the weird cult stuff, so I hope you ultimately pick a different name!
244 2013-08-24 05:54:47 <Diablo-D3> CULT OF SATOSHI
245 2013-08-24 05:56:32 <gmaxwell> "libbtcommodity" perhaps? Both reflecting btc and that it's supposted to be "commodity code" ? :P
246 2013-08-24 05:56:44 <Diablo-D3> libbitneric
247 2013-08-24 05:58:05 <gmaxwell> "libdiablod3" for I care. "We hoped if we named it after him some crazy dictatorship would have him taken out"
248 2013-08-24 06:02:54 JustCoder32 has joined
249 2013-08-24 06:03:23 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, it is a trollname
250 2013-08-24 06:03:38 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, the choices -- libcoin, libbitcoin, have all been taken
251 2013-08-24 06:03:53 <jgarzik> gmaxwell, someone is therefore forced to pick for me, if it matters ;p
252 2013-08-24 06:06:04 yubrew_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
253 2013-08-24 06:06:11 yubrew has joined
254 2013-08-24 06:09:59 BTCOxygen has joined
255 2013-08-24 06:15:19 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
256 2013-08-24 06:16:01 imsaguy_p has joined
257 2013-08-24 06:18:15 imsaguy has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
258 2013-08-24 06:18:15 quijibo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
259 2013-08-24 06:18:15 cads has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
260 2013-08-24 06:18:31 owowo has quit (Quit: dead)
261 2013-08-24 06:18:47 ThomasV has joined
262 2013-08-24 06:19:32 GordonG3kko has joined
263 2013-08-24 06:19:34 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
264 2013-08-24 06:20:01 Neozonz has joined
265 2013-08-24 06:21:36 cads has joined
266 2013-08-24 06:22:16 qeb has joined
267 2013-08-24 06:23:12 <JustCoder32> jgarzik: what are you talking about (libcoin, libbitcoin) ?
268 2013-08-24 06:23:12 <JustCoder32> #bitcoin-dev Cannot send to channel
269 2013-08-24 06:23:38 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: varrious libraries made by other people and not (afaik) widely used for anything.
270 2013-08-24 06:23:56 quijibo has joined
271 2013-08-24 06:25:19 <JustCoder32> aha
272 2013-08-24 06:26:08 <gmaxwell> er JustCoder32 is not jgarzik
273 2013-08-24 06:26:31 <gmaxwell> naming things is hard, so unfortunately people keep giving really confusing names to thing in bitcoinland.
274 2013-08-24 06:27:37 <JustCoder32> when these things get popular and useful the names are not a problem :)
275 2013-08-24 06:28:40 Coincidental has joined
276 2013-08-24 06:30:21 <oleganza> why do OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG drop signatures from scripts? Looks like we never have signatures in scripts in the first place.
277 2013-08-24 06:30:42 JustCoder32 has left ()
278 2013-08-24 06:31:01 toffoo has quit ()
279 2013-08-24 06:31:17 <gmaxwell> oleganza: hm? they consume them.
280 2013-08-24 06:31:24 <oleganza> seems like it's the code from the early time when input and output scripts were actually concatenated instead of being executed separately
281 2013-08-24 06:31:39 <gmaxwell> oleganza: or do you mean the masking?
282 2013-08-24 06:31:45 <gmaxwell> because ... a signature can't sign itself.
283 2013-08-24 06:31:58 <oleganza> i mean :
284 2013-08-24 06:31:58 <oleganza> // Drop the signature, since there's no way for a signature to sign itself
285 2013-08-24 06:31:59 <oleganza> scriptCode.FindAndDelete(CScript(vchSig));
286 2013-08-24 06:32:16 <oleganza> but we never have this signature in the currently executed script anyway
287 2013-08-24 06:32:44 <oleganza> unless one puts OP_CHECKSIG in the *input* script for silly reason
288 2013-08-24 06:33:01 <gmaxwell> right, there is also another consequence of that, yup.
289 2013-08-24 06:33:14 <oleganza> this find and delete makes sense only when input script is actually a part of the currently executed script
290 2013-08-24 06:33:28 <oleganza> which was the case initially, if I understand correctly
291 2013-08-24 06:33:44 <gmaxwell> it was, I think petertodd figured out another application for that, but I don't recall.
292 2013-08-24 06:33:48 <oleganza> but that created some awful security vulnerability
293 2013-08-24 06:34:11 <oleganza> ok then
294 2013-08-24 06:34:29 <oleganza> i ask because i have to document every strange piece of code
295 2013-08-24 06:34:37 <gmaxwell> kinda, the ability to just return true in the scriptsig did, but it was split because it was easier to make sure that was right.
296 2013-08-24 06:36:54 <oleganza> how do you return true? OP_RETURN was not failing the script then?
297 2013-08-24 06:37:03 <gmaxwell> Correct.
298 2013-08-24 06:37:10 <oleganza> nice
299 2013-08-24 06:37:16 <oleganza> when was it exactly?
300 2013-08-24 06:38:12 <gmaxwell> 2010-07
301 2013-08-24 06:38:48 <gmaxwell> it was never used to rob anyone but was demonstrated on testnet.
302 2013-08-24 06:39:49 <oleganza> EvalScript(txin.scriptSig + CScript(OP_CODESEPARATOR) + txout.scriptPubKey, txTo, nIn, nHashType);
303 2013-08-24 06:39:50 <oleganza> wow
304 2013-08-24 06:40:09 <oleganza> so if one was using OP_CODESEPARATOR to concatenate the scripts, why delete the signatures?
305 2013-08-24 06:40:20 <oleganza> this is from 2009
306 2013-08-24 06:40:35 <oleganza> initial commit to current github repo
307 2013-08-24 06:41:33 <oleganza> actually, all this mess is only one more proof that Bitcoin will survive anything including its own bugs
308 2013-08-24 06:42:28 <gmaxwell> 2010 is not now.
309 2013-08-24 06:42:43 <oleganza> you think now it won't survive?
310 2013-08-24 06:42:57 <gmaxwell> I'm just saying the past evidence doesn't generalize.
311 2013-08-24 06:43:11 <oleganza> agreed
312 2013-08-24 06:43:14 <gmaxwell> In any case, I think the idea was that you could use the OP_CODESEPARATORs to have embedded signed data, but I don't think that ever worked.
313 2013-08-24 06:43:56 <oleganza> i wonder what is the use case for having a signature in the output script?
314 2013-08-24 06:44:07 <oleganza> e.g. allowing 1 particular output tx
315 2013-08-24 06:44:13 <oleganza> sounds interesting to me
316 2013-08-24 06:44:48 <oleganza> e.g. we prepare a contract tx with a predefined redeeming tx
317 2013-08-24 06:45:02 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
318 2013-08-24 06:45:12 <oleganza> will think about that
319 2013-08-24 06:45:17 BTCOxygen has joined
320 2013-08-24 06:47:21 <gmaxwell> oleganza: yea, you currently can't do that as far as I can determine. we come very close. See this thread:
321 2013-08-24 06:47:38 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278992.0
322 2013-08-24 06:48:29 <oleganza> great read
323 2013-08-24 06:49:00 <oleganza> i have to finish OP_CHECKMULTISIG implementation, and then i'll check it out
324 2013-08-24 06:50:19 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
325 2013-08-24 07:12:42 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
326 2013-08-24 07:12:50 BTCOxygen has joined
327 2013-08-24 07:12:50 BTCOxygen has quit (Killed (hitchcock.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
328 2013-08-24 07:12:50 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
329 2013-08-24 07:15:38 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
330 2013-08-24 07:20:20 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
331 2013-08-24 07:23:13 ThomasV has joined
332 2013-08-24 07:24:51 Coincidental has joined
333 2013-08-24 07:28:17 CryptoBuck has joined
334 2013-08-24 07:30:24 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
335 2013-08-24 07:31:30 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277470.msg2997291#msg2997291
336 2013-08-24 07:31:32 Anduck has joined
337 2013-08-24 07:31:32 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
338 2013-08-24 07:31:32 Anduck has joined
339 2013-08-24 07:31:54 AusBitBank_ has joined
340 2013-08-24 07:32:45 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: gah, oh ThomasV I wasn't trying to hate on electrum. Though I'l also glad by your post.
341 2013-08-24 07:33:13 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: the user there was already using bitcoin-qt.
342 2013-08-24 07:33:27 <gmaxwell> and was getting hammered on by an electrum fan insisting that it was just as secure.
343 2013-08-24 07:33:34 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: sure, I was asked to answer by some electrum users
344 2013-08-24 07:34:59 sserrano44 has joined
345 2013-08-24 07:39:04 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
346 2013-08-24 07:39:26 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
347 2013-08-24 07:43:14 <gmaxwell> thomasv: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277470.msg2997392#msg2997392 (aww he left)
348 2013-08-24 07:44:08 Coincidental has joined
349 2013-08-24 07:46:37 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
350 2013-08-24 07:46:47 aceat64 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
351 2013-08-24 07:47:34 aceat64 has joined
352 2013-08-24 07:48:02 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
353 2013-08-24 07:52:05 jtimon has joined
354 2013-08-24 07:59:43 agnostic98 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
355 2013-08-24 07:59:59 _flow_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
356 2013-08-24 08:10:39 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
357 2013-08-24 08:17:27 BW^- has joined
358 2013-08-24 08:17:27 BW^- has quit (Changing host)
359 2013-08-24 08:17:27 BW^- has joined
360 2013-08-24 08:17:29 <Krellan> gmaxwell: Hi again, cleaned up my little addrLocal patch.
361 2013-08-24 08:17:45 <Krellan> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2929
362 2013-08-24 08:18:04 <Krellan> Now, it only appears in the output if address is valid (no more garbage).
363 2013-08-24 08:19:04 Coincidental has joined
364 2013-08-24 08:19:05 Coincidental has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
365 2013-08-24 08:19:18 Coincidental has joined
366 2013-08-24 08:20:06 <BW^-> gavinandresen,*: (I will send this kind of thing on the ML in the future.) Saw the discussion about updating transaction fees. Would be great if transaction fees are proportional to the transfered sum, so that also very small purchases can be done effectively with BTC. I.e., transaction fees are so low that it is meaningful to do 0.0001 - 0.0005 BTC transactions (= 0.05â¬, the typical price for a piece of candy, nail, etc.)
367 2013-08-24 08:20:36 <BW^-> perhaps by this reason, having the transaction fee proportional to submitted amount would be something.
368 2013-08-24 08:21:01 <BW^-> i'm sure Lots of people said something similar, just wanted to put this on the ether. thanks.
369 2013-08-24 08:21:37 dusty_ has joined
370 2013-08-24 08:27:21 <BW^-> of course i'm aware that as transactions take blockchain space, there is a lower limit where it would not be worth it for the BTC system to transact such a small BTC amount and it would turn even into a DDOS potential, so I guess question is just what's that limit. very well, will be great to see the outcome. i guess everyone is clear that BTC fees should be so low that you could buy a muffin and alike with it (=0.01BTC), effectively.
371 2013-08-24 08:27:29 <sipa> BW^-: it doesn't work that way
372 2013-08-24 08:27:44 dparrish has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
373 2013-08-24 08:27:50 <sipa> the cost of a transaction to the network is independent of its transferred value
374 2013-08-24 08:28:03 <BW^-> sipa: mm, i'm aware that the transaction size in the blockchain is not proportional to size of transaction in BTC:s, but to the number of input unspent transactions
375 2013-08-24 08:28:21 <sipa> even stronger! the network does not know the transferred value
376 2013-08-24 08:28:41 <BW^-> sipa: doesn't it?? but, blockchain.info lists the transfered value for every trx made??
377 2013-08-24 08:28:47 <sipa> it guesses
378 2013-08-24 08:28:56 <BW^-> sipa: really?? like, how bad a guess? hehe.
379 2013-08-24 08:29:04 <sipa> the network only sees the amount in every output
380 2013-08-24 08:29:15 <sipa> but an output can be change back to yourself
381 2013-08-24 08:29:26 Apexseals has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
382 2013-08-24 08:29:33 dparrish has joined
383 2013-08-24 08:29:33 <gmaxwell> somewhat better than 50/50, hard to know exactly how good it is... depends on your transaction practices.
384 2013-08-24 08:29:48 <BW^-> sipa: if a transaction is made with several outputs, say one to the muffin guy and one back to yourself,
385 2013-08-24 08:29:59 <BW^-> then you can reliably see how much went to the muffin guy and how much to you, right?
386 2013-08-24 08:30:07 agnostic98 has joined
387 2013-08-24 08:30:11 <BW^-> presuming you know their btc addresses/hashes/etc.?
388 2013-08-24 08:30:25 <sipa> yes, but that presumption is wrong
389 2013-08-24 08:30:36 <BW^-> which presumption?
390 2013-08-24 08:30:53 <sipa> that you know actual destination's address
391 2013-08-24 08:30:59 <sipa> of course the sender kbows
392 2013-08-24 08:31:04 <sipa> and the receiver too
393 2013-08-24 08:31:15 <sipa> but hopefully the rest of the network doesn't
394 2013-08-24 08:31:36 <BW^-> sipa: in all cases, this is enough for your "Addrindex" patch to know the amount of unspent transactions connected with each bitcoin address?
395 2013-08-24 08:31:45 <gmaxwell> BW^-: in any case, even once you're past thisâ the network has no motivation to behave in the way you want. The value doesn't have any correlation to the cost of the transaction for the network or the miners.
396 2013-08-24 08:31:47 <BW^-> (presuming only standard transaction types were involved with the respective addr)
397 2013-08-24 08:32:05 <sipa> BW^-: yes, but what is the relevance?
398 2013-08-24 08:32:15 <BW^-> sipa: mm not so much.
399 2013-08-24 08:32:21 <sipa> you cannot reliably know the value transferred
400 2013-08-24 08:32:32 <sipa> and the network does not care about it
401 2013-08-24 08:32:38 <BW^-> gmaxwell,*: anyhow - can't you make a presumption that people's "change" should not be smaller than a certain size so therefore a candy/muffin-size transaction should always occupy at most a certain amount of blockchain space?
402 2013-08-24 08:32:50 <sipa> nor does it impact it in any way
403 2013-08-24 08:33:07 <BW^-> ..small enough to justify a transaction fee small enough to make candy/muffin transaction deliver well?
404 2013-08-24 08:33:15 <BW^-> *-size transactions
405 2013-08-24 08:33:19 <gmaxwell> BW^-: I don't follow what you're saying there.
406 2013-08-24 08:33:20 <sipa> BW^-: depends how cheap a muffin is
407 2013-08-24 08:33:35 <gmaxwell> My muffins are hand crafted on mars.
408 2013-08-24 08:33:45 <BW^-> sipa: muffin 0.005-0.01BTC, candy 0.00007 - 0.0005 BTC
409 2013-08-24 08:33:46 <sipa> at some price, it is simply not economical to do the transaction via the bitcoin blockchain
410 2013-08-24 08:33:56 <BW^-> exactly
411 2013-08-24 08:34:02 <gmaxwell> BW^-: and cannot be.
412 2013-08-24 08:34:09 awishformore has joined
413 2013-08-24 08:34:09 <BW^-> hehe
414 2013-08-24 08:34:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
415 2013-08-24 08:34:16 <gmaxwell> The blockchain is a global consensus system, this implies some fundimental costs.
416 2013-08-24 08:34:17 <sipa> what price that is depends on the economy, the network, and the technology used
417 2013-08-24 08:34:29 <gmaxwell> What exactly they areâ who knowsâ but it's not a cheap way to communicate something.
418 2013-08-24 08:34:29 <BW^-> right.
419 2013-08-24 08:34:38 <BW^-> yeah.
420 2013-08-24 08:34:45 <gmaxwell> You could, of course, use the bitcoin currency... just not in the blockchain.
421 2013-08-24 08:35:02 <BW^-> exactly. hm.
422 2013-08-24 08:35:13 <gmaxwell> deposit one btc with a fast confirmation service and buy all the muffins and candies you want all year long.
423 2013-08-24 08:35:13 <BW^-> sipa,gmaxwell: can we make any presumption about how small transaction fees will remain?
424 2013-08-24 08:35:20 <sipa> imho, no
425 2013-08-24 08:35:23 <gmaxwell> BW^-: we do not know.
426 2013-08-24 08:35:50 <BW^-> interesting. so, we can presume it will be maintained well under $1,
427 2013-08-24 08:35:53 <BW^-> however how much we cannot know?
428 2013-08-24 08:36:09 <gmaxwell> I don't think you can presume anything, it depens on how bitcoin is used in the future.
429 2013-08-24 08:36:18 <sipa> i am certainly not convinced it will stay under $1
430 2013-08-24 08:36:27 <BW^-> interesting.
431 2013-08-24 08:36:27 <sipa> forever
432 2013-08-24 08:36:55 <gmaxwell> If off chain systems become popular and very good then there will be no particular reason for bitcoin txn to be cheap, as the txn will mostly be settlements between other systems.
433 2013-08-24 08:37:10 <BW^-> right. interesting.
434 2013-08-24 08:37:12 <gmaxwell> (or large transactions like buying a house)
435 2013-08-24 08:37:52 <BW^-> yeah. or, escrows so important that the parties want a publicly verifiable information confirming its existence to all involved parties
436 2013-08-24 08:37:57 <sipa> i don't think the "very good" part is a requirement
437 2013-08-24 08:38:01 <sipa> unfortunately
438 2013-08-24 08:38:19 <BW^-> sipa: "very good" re transaction fees? mm, i'm with you.
439 2013-08-24 08:38:29 <sipa> no
440 2013-08-24 08:38:34 <BW^-> ah. very good re what?
441 2013-08-24 08:38:37 <gmaxwell> alternatively, if networks and computers grow very fast (as fast as we can hope and then some) and people can't sort out the issues that make off chain systems complicated, then perhaps a different path will be followed and more txn will be in bitcoin.
442 2013-08-24 08:38:40 <sipa> anything
443 2013-08-24 08:38:51 <gmaxwell> sipa is saying that my "very good" was not a necessary criteria.
444 2013-08-24 08:38:59 <sipa> popular is enough :)
445 2013-08-24 08:39:02 <gmaxwell> I agree, though perhaps its a sufficient one.
446 2013-08-24 08:39:04 <BW^-> aha
447 2013-08-24 08:39:25 <gmaxwell> sipa: you did see my latest moon wankery on using SCIP to tie in off-chain payment systems?
448 2013-08-24 08:39:39 <gmaxwell> ("CoinWitness")
449 2013-08-24 08:39:49 <BW^-> mhm interesting. so i guess then, a goal would just be to get a reliable mechanism for all involved parties to automatically figure out what transaction fee will work, so the current guessing if the network will take it won't be needed
450 2013-08-24 08:39:52 <sipa> i haven't had the time
451 2013-08-24 08:39:59 eoss has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
452 2013-08-24 08:40:32 <gmaxwell> BW^-: yes, that will be important. Also good ways to recover when you guess wrong.
453 2013-08-24 08:40:32 <BW^-> mhm
454 2013-08-24 08:41:01 <BW^-> btw, do you have any thought on how qualitative ZeroCoin can become?
455 2013-08-24 08:41:47 <BW^-> from my reading up on ZeroCoin, they basically say it's experimental, undergoing development, and that it's not unexotic in nature - didn't get a clear picture of if it's robust and may become common-place to use, or if it will remain exotic and experimental in perpetuity
456 2013-08-24 08:41:56 <gmaxwell> sipa: mostly I just point out that if your offchain system is a type that produces a convincing transacript of its operation, you could move coins in and out of bitcoin by paying to a SCIP scriptpubkey and then proving a proper transcript to move them back.
457 2013-08-24 08:42:43 <gmaxwell> sipa: thats all you really need to know, I spent a lot of words on background that you already have, and details you could work out for yourself.
458 2013-08-24 08:43:19 <gmaxwell> BW^-: The technology behind it will likely become non-exotic eventually, but I don't know that we'd ever use it in bitcoin.
459 2013-08-24 08:44:24 <gmaxwell> BW^-: I posted about a privacy preserving transaction style people can use to get simiar (as good? better? not clear) privacy to ZC which needs no novel crypto or mods to the bitcoin network: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0
460 2013-08-24 08:49:18 Apexseals has joined
461 2013-08-24 08:52:24 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
462 2013-08-24 08:52:56 CryptoBuck has joined
463 2013-08-24 08:53:00 <BW^-> noted.
464 2013-08-24 08:53:01 <BW^-> aha
465 2013-08-24 08:53:09 bmcgee has joined
466 2013-08-24 08:54:35 MobGod has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
467 2013-08-24 08:55:08 <gmaxwell> (I should have said "as good? better? worse? not clear" â and the resulting privacy depends on a lot of details and your threat model)
468 2013-08-24 08:58:31 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
469 2013-08-24 09:00:15 qeb has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
470 2013-08-24 09:00:51 knotwork has joined
471 2013-08-24 09:02:54 Eiii has quit ()
472 2013-08-24 09:03:11 c0rw1n has joined
473 2013-08-24 09:03:35 <BW^-> so really, we cannot figure out how *high* the BTC transaction fee *could* become
474 2013-08-24 09:03:40 <BW^-> it could be 1-2BTC at the current value?
475 2013-08-24 09:03:48 <BW^-> i mean, absolutely hypothethically only
476 2013-08-24 09:04:08 <c0rw1n> the fees per block?
477 2013-08-24 09:04:22 <gmaxwell> It could be infinite, given a transaction denying dos attacker.
478 2013-08-24 09:05:14 <BW^-> c0rw1n: yep
479 2013-08-24 09:05:51 <theorbtwo> gmaxwell: As in a large hasher that only creates blocks with no transactions in it? That seems like a somewhat unlikely way of trashing the currency -- the reward for being just a bit faster keeps going up, as more and more transactions are avilable to claim the fees of.
480 2013-08-24 09:06:39 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: he said "i mean, absolutely hypothethically only"
481 2013-08-24 09:06:59 <gmaxwell> theorbtwo: altcoins have been trashed that way.
482 2013-08-24 09:07:18 <gmaxwell> but I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just making an example of why you really can't model far future fees.
483 2013-08-24 09:07:24 <gmaxwell> It depends on too many other things.
484 2013-08-24 09:07:56 <theorbtwo> *nod*
485 2013-08-24 09:08:48 <BW^-> to know what transaction fee per block should be accepted within 60 minutes today, what mechanism would you apply for fee autodetection?
486 2013-08-24 09:08:56 <gmaxwell> (I imagine more altcoins would get trashed that way if there were any good way to communicate and respond to fee requirements.. there is little incentive to try to drive the fees up in stock bitcoin software since doing so just kills the whole currency since people can't really respond)
487 2013-08-24 09:09:23 <gmaxwell> BW^-: I would look to see the highest fee per byte mempool transactions which are not being included.
488 2013-08-24 09:09:24 <BW^-> would you keep a log of all transactions made sorted by transaction fee applied, and measure how long it took them to be included?
489 2013-08-24 09:09:45 <theorbtwo> Personally, for me the big worry is the speed at which the blockchain grows. "We" need to either figure out how to have people not need the full chain to be able to operate as useful nodes, or how to make the chain actually be shorter.
490 2013-08-24 09:09:46 <BW^-> gmaxwell: aha. so, sometihng like this then?
491 2013-08-24 09:09:52 <gmaxwell> looking at what _is_ included can be deceptive. Miners sometimes have external contracts to include some transactions. So it's better to look at what is left out.
492 2013-08-24 09:10:11 abrkn has joined
493 2013-08-24 09:10:32 <BW^-> gmaxwell: aha. so, look at the highest that was left out, and go with a transaction fee 1% higher than that?
494 2013-08-24 09:10:40 <BW^-> or 1 satoshi higher than that? :))
495 2013-08-24 09:10:49 <gmaxwell> BW^-: something like that.
496 2013-08-24 09:11:18 <BW^-> mhm. and, i'd count "not included" as not accepted into a block within 20 minutes - then even if i'd bet one too low and mine wouldn't be accepted in 20min too, within 48hrs someone just must accept it
497 2013-08-24 09:11:26 <gmaxwell> I haven't analyized the problem well enough to suggest an exact strategy, only that I think left out is the good metric to use. "I don't have to outrun the tiger, I have to outrun you"
498 2013-08-24 09:11:43 <BW^-> mm mhm
499 2013-08-24 09:12:33 <theorbtwo> Contrarywise, miners could occasionally broadcast their fee preferences.
500 2013-08-24 09:13:06 <BW^-> theorbtwo: that's a nice idea, though what if they lie? as a ddos thing
501 2013-08-24 09:13:24 <theorbtwo> Or just as a "make more money" problem.
502 2013-08-24 09:13:34 <BW^-> ah yeah
503 2013-08-24 09:13:44 wei_ has joined
504 2013-08-24 09:13:56 <theorbtwo> The miner's motivations are pretty much opisite the normal users's in this case.
505 2013-08-24 09:14:01 PrimeStunna has quit (Quit: PrimeStunna)
506 2013-08-24 09:14:33 sacredchao has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
507 2013-08-24 09:15:17 <gmaxwell> yea, I think the fee broadcasting would be instantly abused.
508 2013-08-24 09:15:19 abrkn has quit ()
509 2013-08-24 09:15:45 <gmaxwell> thats something that I'd probably abuse myself as a miner, and I'm generally not terribly prone to abusing things.
510 2013-08-24 09:16:27 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
511 2013-08-24 09:16:34 <gmaxwell> the nice thing about the highest fee left out is that if a miner wants to raise fees he has to forgo transactions to manipulate that metric. he can't crank it up for free.
512 2013-08-24 09:17:00 <gmaxwell> (by abuse, above, I mean set it higher than I actually accept)
513 2013-08-24 09:17:02 sacredchao has joined
514 2013-08-24 09:18:04 ThomasV has joined
515 2013-08-24 09:18:19 Internet13 has joined
516 2013-08-24 09:19:57 BTCOxygen has joined
517 2013-08-24 09:19:57 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest10897
518 2013-08-24 09:19:57 Guest10897 has quit (Killed (calvino.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
519 2013-08-24 09:19:57 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
520 2013-08-24 09:22:24 Raccoon` has joined
521 2013-08-24 09:23:27 viperhr has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
522 2013-08-24 09:24:22 agnostic98 has joined
523 2013-08-24 09:26:58 Application has joined
524 2013-08-24 09:28:00 <warren> Not fee broadcasting, but fee/delay statistics could give guidance to senders on the market rate for fees. I'm not sure how to guard against collusion and escalation though.
525 2013-08-24 09:28:45 Applicat_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
526 2013-08-24 09:28:52 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
527 2013-08-24 09:30:34 qeb has joined
528 2013-08-24 09:31:05 altamic has joined
529 2013-08-24 09:31:22 altamic has left ()
530 2013-08-24 09:31:41 AusBitBank_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
531 2013-08-24 09:32:00 AusBitBank_ has joined
532 2013-08-24 09:32:51 joepie91 has joined
533 2013-08-24 09:34:14 jtimon has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
534 2013-08-24 09:34:19 <gmaxwell> warren: you don't need collusion, fee bloating is self-coordinating.
535 2013-08-24 09:34:57 <gmaxwell> just raise your floor a little, the cost to you isn't great, and others will see they can raise their floors without much cost, and so on.
536 2013-08-24 09:35:09 <gmaxwell> robots can even to it.
537 2013-08-24 09:35:34 <warren> the current situation is mainly people just don't change defaults?
538 2013-08-24 09:35:41 <warren> or are the pools more sophisticated than that?
539 2013-08-24 09:35:46 <warren> p2pool sure isn't.
540 2013-08-24 09:35:56 <gmaxwell> people don't currently care, but users are also not currently adaptive.
541 2013-08-24 09:36:33 <warren> ah, they can't really be adaptive if they can't see fee/delay easily
542 2013-08-24 09:37:23 <gmaxwell> right. I don't think we have a choice but to help make users more adaptive... but the outcome may be interesting.
543 2013-08-24 09:40:40 Raccoon` has quit (Quit: _UÂçŽ]è°°nÃ
MþëE©ñ¹óé¢åÃ`žÂ~G)
544 2013-08-24 09:40:49 Prattler has joined
545 2013-08-24 09:43:24 oleganza has joined
546 2013-08-24 09:44:32 qeb has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
547 2013-08-24 09:45:58 datagutt has joined
548 2013-08-24 09:46:12 Supa has joined
549 2013-08-24 09:46:16 <Supa> hey ball licker
550 2013-08-24 09:46:19 <Supa> it's my birthday
551 2013-08-24 09:46:32 <Supa> don't ban me you sister fuckin ass monkey
552 2013-08-24 09:47:41 Supa is now known as CrazyRabbi
553 2013-08-24 09:48:30 CrazyRabbi has quit (Client Quit)
554 2013-08-24 09:48:35 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
555 2013-08-24 09:49:03 CrazyRabbi has joined
556 2013-08-24 09:49:17 CrazyRabbi has left ()
557 2013-08-24 09:49:55 qeb has joined
558 2013-08-24 09:50:33 agricocb has joined
559 2013-08-24 09:50:39 agricocb has quit (Changing host)
560 2013-08-24 09:50:39 agricocb has joined
561 2013-08-24 09:53:22 jtimon has joined
562 2013-08-24 09:55:15 Subo1977 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
563 2013-08-24 09:55:18 agnostic98 has joined
564 2013-08-24 09:55:18 Subo1977_ has joined
565 2013-08-24 09:56:46 CheckDavid has joined
566 2013-08-24 09:57:59 _flow_ has joined
567 2013-08-24 09:59:54 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
568 2013-08-24 10:00:59 egis has joined
569 2013-08-24 10:01:57 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
570 2013-08-24 10:02:31 BW^- has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
571 2013-08-24 10:03:44 ericmuyser has joined
572 2013-08-24 10:13:08 Coincide_ has joined
573 2013-08-24 10:15:25 Coincidental has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
574 2013-08-24 10:17:36 qeb has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
575 2013-08-24 10:22:42 asuk has joined
576 2013-08-24 10:23:34 Coincide_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
577 2013-08-24 10:26:13 agnostic98 has joined
578 2013-08-24 10:27:19 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
579 2013-08-24 10:31:14 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
580 2013-08-24 10:31:24 danda has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
581 2013-08-24 10:31:25 danda_ has joined
582 2013-08-24 10:31:54 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
583 2013-08-24 10:34:00 darknyan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
584 2013-08-24 10:34:47 darknyan has joined
585 2013-08-24 10:39:37 qeb has joined
586 2013-08-24 10:52:08 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
587 2013-08-24 10:57:06 agnostic98 has joined
588 2013-08-24 11:01:26 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
589 2013-08-24 11:02:55 abrkn has joined
590 2013-08-24 11:09:37 justusranvier has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
591 2013-08-24 11:14:30 justusranvier has joined
592 2013-08-24 11:17:54 <sipa> hey, upstream leveldb 1.13
593 2013-08-24 11:18:29 <sipa> it seems to add some extra synchronization calls, so perhaps it affects some of the issues we've been seeing
594 2013-08-24 11:18:34 <sipa> do we want it in 0.8.4?
595 2013-08-24 11:18:57 <warren> you mean the mac issue?
596 2013-08-24 11:19:21 <sipa> yes, among others
597 2013-08-24 11:20:08 masso has joined
598 2013-08-24 11:20:32 <warren> what others?
599 2013-08-24 11:20:44 <sipa> well all corruption issues
600 2013-08-24 11:21:27 <sipa> where we actually have no clue whether they're caused by a single bug, or platform-specific issues, or hardware problems, or really just some amount of random bitflips
601 2013-08-24 11:24:49 masso has left (">-<")
602 2013-08-24 11:28:02 agnostic98 has joined
603 2013-08-24 11:32:32 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
604 2013-08-24 11:35:07 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
605 2013-08-24 11:40:00 <oleganza> hey. Here's how to lock savings for the future date without deleting any private keys: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278992.msg2998079#msg2998079
606 2013-08-24 11:41:57 chmod755 has joined
607 2013-08-24 11:42:52 <gmaxwell> oleganza: you cannot do that.
608 2013-08-24 11:43:08 <oleganza> why
609 2013-08-24 11:43:33 <gmaxwell> oleganza: because you cannot change A once B is authored because the hash of A is a TX in in B.
610 2013-08-24 11:43:46 <gmaxwell> and there is no way to mask that.
611 2013-08-24 11:43:50 <oleganza> oh, shit
612 2013-08-24 11:43:51 <oleganza> true
613 2013-08-24 11:43:55 <gmaxwell> (I point this out in my message. :P)
614 2013-08-24 11:44:24 <oleganza> so it's like the same story as with OP_CODESEPARATOR
615 2013-08-24 11:44:31 <oleganza> i'll update my post
616 2013-08-24 11:45:17 Prattler has quit (Read error: Connection timed out)
617 2013-08-24 11:45:45 * nsh is uncaffinated, does this proposal solve timelock https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278992.msg2998079#msg2998079 ?
618 2013-08-24 11:45:59 <nsh> (in a way that would be usable for general encryption)
619 2013-08-24 11:46:10 <gmaxwell> 04:42 < gmaxwell> oleganza: you cannot do that.
620 2013-08-24 11:46:10 <gmaxwell> 04:42 < oleganza> why
621 2013-08-24 11:46:10 <gmaxwell> 04:43 < gmaxwell> oleganza: because you cannot change A once B is authored because the hash of A is a TX in in B.
622 2013-08-24 11:46:13 <gmaxwell> 04:43 < gmaxwell> and there is no way to mask that.
623 2013-08-24 11:46:16 <gmaxwell> 04:43 < oleganza> oh, shit
624 2013-08-24 11:46:17 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: hmm, does that mean the signature removal from scriptPubKey is in fact a noop?
625 2013-08-24 11:46:18 <gmaxwell> 04:43 < oleganza> true
626 2013-08-24 11:46:32 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: to me it seems so
627 2013-08-24 11:47:10 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
628 2013-08-24 11:47:15 <oleganza> post updated
629 2013-08-24 11:47:53 <sipa> Luke-Jr: it's a noop in every meaningful transaction, imho
630 2013-08-24 11:48:11 <Luke-Jr> sipa: is there a non-noop case for non-meaningful transactions?
631 2013-08-24 11:48:17 <oleganza> sipa: my quest is to find those rare txs where the sig removal could be useful
632 2013-08-24 11:48:19 <sipa> Luke-Jr: but it could in theory be used to put a self-signature in a pubkey
633 2013-08-24 11:48:32 MobiusL has joined
634 2013-08-24 11:48:52 <Luke-Jr> sipa: the pubkey is from the previous transaction, though
635 2013-08-24 11:49:01 <Luke-Jr> or is the signature in that one removed as well?
636 2013-08-24 11:49:01 winterblack_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
637 2013-08-24 11:49:05 <sipa> no, this is IN the "previous" transaction
638 2013-08-24 11:49:13 <sipa> before the one spending it exists
639 2013-08-24 11:49:20 nethershaw has joined
640 2013-08-24 11:49:29 <oleganza> thanks, gmaxwell
641 2013-08-24 11:49:31 <sipa> well, you'd need to know the spending one in advance
642 2013-08-24 11:49:56 <sipa> it may just be impossible too
643 2013-08-24 11:51:01 <oleganza> bummer.
644 2013-08-24 11:51:08 <oleganza> time to sell all my btc
645 2013-08-24 11:51:31 <sipa> Luke-Jr: if you find a way to use it in a non-meaningful way, it would be a very interesting pulltester test :)
646 2013-08-24 11:52:07 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: don't you mean "make an altcoin"? :p
647 2013-08-24 11:52:56 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: I don't think altcoins are viable long-term http://blog.oleganza.com/post/54121516413/the-universe-wants-one-money
648 2013-08-24 11:53:08 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: I didn't say they were.
649 2013-08-24 11:53:30 <oleganza> i didn't accuse you :-) i just said why i'm not interested in making my altcoin
650 2013-08-24 11:53:32 <sipa> perhaps (non-alt)coins are not viable long-term either
651 2013-08-24 11:53:47 <oleganza> sipa: you mean BTC or fiat?
652 2013-08-24 11:54:02 <sipa> either
653 2013-08-24 11:54:10 <gmaxwell> the world is a funny place.
654 2013-08-24 11:54:20 <sipa> the distinction between alt and non-alt hardly exists at the technical level
655 2013-08-24 11:54:38 <sipa> the community, economy, scale, ... may differ
656 2013-08-24 11:54:45 <sipa> or the intentions of developers
657 2013-08-24 11:54:49 <oleganza> what would need to happen to replace BTC instead of fixing/extending it?
658 2013-08-24 11:55:00 <sipa> who knows?
659 2013-08-24 11:55:04 Neozonz has quit (Disc!~Neozonz@unaffiliated/neozonz|Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
660 2013-08-24 11:56:16 <oleganza> if we don't have good arguments when BTC cannot be extended to fix problems, we cannot knowingly say that it might not be viable
661 2013-08-24 11:58:46 <oleganza> sipa: what do you think of this idea of mutual insurance deposit without third party? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273539.msg2933633#msg2933633
662 2013-08-24 11:58:58 agnostic98 has joined
663 2013-08-24 11:59:39 porquilho has joined
664 2013-08-24 12:00:23 <oleganza> it'd be cool to have some raw ops for EC point addition/multiplication
665 2013-08-24 12:00:36 <sipa> you mean as RPC?
666 2013-08-24 12:00:44 <oleganza> no, OP_*
667 2013-08-24 12:00:47 <oleganza> but alas
668 2013-08-24 12:00:49 <sipa> oh
669 2013-08-24 12:00:53 <sipa> yes
670 2013-08-24 12:01:06 <sipa> do you have an actual use case?
671 2013-08-24 12:01:40 <oleganza> not really
672 2013-08-24 12:02:24 <Luke-Jr> sipa: I do!
673 2013-08-24 12:02:49 shesek has joined
674 2013-08-24 12:03:07 <Luke-Jr> you could implement a HDW child key deriv in Script, so the redeemer can avoid reusing the same EC pubkey :p
675 2013-08-24 12:03:25 <sipa> well what's the point of that?
676 2013-08-24 12:03:30 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
677 2013-08-24 12:03:39 <sipa> now you're revealing the master pubkey to the world
678 2013-08-24 12:03:47 <Luke-Jr> sipa: workaround idiots doing address reuse against your wishes
679 2013-08-24 12:03:57 <sipa> how is this better than address reuse?
680 2013-08-24 12:04:05 <sipa> it's address reuse at a higher level
681 2013-08-24 12:04:45 <Luke-Jr> maybe it's not.
682 2013-08-24 12:04:58 <sipa> ?
683 2013-08-24 12:05:06 <Luke-Jr> I was thinking "attackers wouldn't know the pubkey", but this only works if you use the pubkey in the scriptPubKey
684 2013-08-24 12:06:47 <oleganza> sorry for getting in again with my bilateral deposit scheme. I've though on how it could help making off-chain micropayments in a novel way.
685 2013-08-24 12:07:20 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
686 2013-08-24 12:07:42 <oleganza> Mike Hearn already suggested a scheme with adjustable transaction where you send a stream of micropayments to your service provider until the deal is closed.
687 2013-08-24 12:07:59 <oleganza> but it does not work for cases where you just pay 10 cents once to someone and never talk to him again
688 2013-08-24 12:08:23 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: I suggested D-transactions a few months ago
689 2013-08-24 12:08:28 <oleganza> link?
690 2013-08-24 12:08:51 <Luke-Jr> https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/5409899
691 2013-08-24 12:09:11 <oleganza> also, even not-very-micropayments like $5 in a cafe would benefit from off-chain scheme to avoid trusting 0-conf txs and paying mining fees (if they get >10 cents in 5 years)
692 2013-08-24 12:10:18 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: its very similar to my idea, but I don't need user id and personal trust
693 2013-08-24 12:10:33 <oleganza> basically, a mesh of nodes that propagate IOUs between each other
694 2013-08-24 12:10:42 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: IOUs need trust.
695 2013-08-24 12:10:44 <oleganza> and all intermediate IOUs are valid only when both endpoints sign it
696 2013-08-24 12:10:48 <oleganza> yes
697 2013-08-24 12:10:57 <oleganza> the question is how to establish that trust
698 2013-08-24 12:11:08 <oleganza> without getting personal
699 2013-08-24 12:11:34 <Luke-Jr> no reason one couldn't set up their tip/donation addresses to "trust up to 1 BTC from anyone"
700 2013-08-24 12:11:34 <oleganza> so my bilateral deposits allow entering in a contract with total strangers that you never know personally.
701 2013-08-24 12:11:47 BTCOxygen has joined
702 2013-08-24 12:11:54 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: what do you mean?
703 2013-08-24 12:12:14 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: there is no real need to settle donations/tips made to me
704 2013-08-24 12:12:27 iddo has quit (Changing host)
705 2013-08-24 12:12:27 iddo has joined
706 2013-08-24 12:12:39 <oleganza> i don't follow you. I'm not talking about donations or tips
707 2013-08-24 12:12:45 <Luke-Jr> if someone hacks their client to double-spend a donation, it's irrelevant to me
708 2013-08-24 12:12:46 <oleganza> i'm talking about real confirmed payments
709 2013-08-24 12:12:56 <Luke-Jr> micropayments are usually donations and tips
710 2013-08-24 12:12:59 <oleganza> when double spending is undesireble
711 2013-08-24 12:13:16 <Luke-Jr> and as long as those exist, there is some flexibility on the network
712 2013-08-24 12:13:43 <Luke-Jr> I can then reassign that debt to anyone who trusts the guy tipping me.
713 2013-08-24 12:13:50 <Luke-Jr> even if they don't know/trust me
714 2013-08-24 12:14:05 <oleganza> but how you establish that trust?
715 2013-08-24 12:14:31 * Luke-Jr shrugs
716 2013-08-24 12:14:46 <Luke-Jr> the point is that only very limited trust is needed
717 2013-08-24 12:15:12 <Luke-Jr> they don't need to trust me, as long as they trust anyone who has ever tipped me, or anyone who has tipped someone who has tipped me, etc
718 2013-08-24 12:15:26 <oleganza> my use case is this: I want to pay $1 for 10 Mb of wifi access in some foreign country and $2 in a cafe. Both wifi station and the cafe don't want to pay relatively high BTC tx fees or trust 0-conf transactions.
719 2013-08-24 12:15:33 <oleganza> yeah, i see
720 2013-08-24 12:15:54 <oleganza> your network's limitation is only in establishing closest "friends" that you need to trust.
721 2013-08-24 12:16:03 <oleganza> AFAIK, ripple works the same way
722 2013-08-24 12:16:14 <oleganza> (but i haven't spent enough time studying ripple)
723 2013-08-24 12:16:14 tsst has joined
724 2013-08-24 12:16:31 <Luke-Jr> perhaps your idea could be combined to make it even more flexible
725 2013-08-24 12:16:41 <oleganza> my idea is to solve this last requirement: to have some personal friends to whom you'll arbitrarily assign some amounts of $ to trust
726 2013-08-24 12:16:46 <oleganza> Yes!
727 2013-08-24 12:16:50 <oleganza> so imagine this
728 2013-08-24 12:17:02 <oleganza> you have this network of IOUs that you already know about
729 2013-08-24 12:17:50 <oleganza> but now in your phone you say something like "use up to 1000 mBTC for micropayments network"
730 2013-08-24 12:18:52 <oleganza> your phone finds some random nodes on the network, like in bitcoin or bittorrent, and establishes with some of them (that accept it) contracts with bilateral deposits of total value < 1000 mBTC
731 2013-08-24 12:19:24 <oleganza> e.g. 200 mBTC with this node, 300 mBTC with another one and 500 mBTC with yet another one
732 2013-08-24 12:19:58 <oleganza> these contracts are real BTC transactions
733 2013-08-24 12:20:00 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
734 2013-08-24 12:20:02 <oleganza> your max amount of debt/credit is set to, say, 30% of the deposit amount.
735 2013-08-24 12:20:22 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
736 2013-08-24 12:20:35 BTCOxygen has joined
737 2013-08-24 12:20:39 BTCOxygen has quit (1!~BTCOxygen@5.63.151.92|Changing host)
738 2013-08-24 12:20:39 BTCOxygen has joined
739 2013-08-24 12:20:39 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
740 2013-08-24 12:20:44 <oleganza> so with the first node you may have up to 60 mBTC in debts. After which point you settle debts using a real BTC tx
741 2013-08-24 12:20:48 <oleganza> and reset the debt
742 2013-08-24 12:21:03 qeb has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
743 2013-08-24 12:21:15 <oleganza> since everything is automated, there is no possibility to personally blackmail another party
744 2013-08-24 12:21:31 <oleganza> if a node does not want to settle the debt, it will simply not get its money back
745 2013-08-24 12:22:38 <edcba> that looks like abuse everywhere
746 2013-08-24 12:22:54 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
747 2013-08-24 12:22:54 <oleganza> irc abuse?
748 2013-08-24 12:23:13 <edcba> abuse of your 'protocol'
749 2013-08-24 12:23:25 <oleganza> how's that?
750 2013-08-24 12:23:25 handle has joined
751 2013-08-24 12:23:59 <oleganza> any node will be able to have as many contracts as it has free money for.
752 2013-08-24 12:24:09 <edcba> if there is trust involved and anonimity there is mass trust violation waiting to happen
753 2013-08-24 12:24:21 <oleganza> So if you want to have 10000 clients with $100 deposits, you'd have to lock up $1M
754 2013-08-24 12:24:43 <oleganza> there's no personal trust, only trust in "nash equilibrium" so to speak
755 2013-08-24 12:24:53 <oleganza> imagine this:
756 2013-08-24 12:24:54 yubrew_ has joined
757 2013-08-24 12:24:54 <edcba> wait i didn't read the beginning of your conversation
758 2013-08-24 12:25:03 <oleganza> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273539.msg2933633#msg2933633
759 2013-08-24 12:25:14 * edcba currently in a country where free wifi is lacking...
760 2013-08-24 12:25:23 <oleganza> edcba: where?
761 2013-08-24 12:26:01 <oleganza> you "trust" strangers only because they locked up the same amount of funds as you. And these funds are noticeably greater than the amount of debt. So it's more interesting to pay the debt and get money unlocked, than to lose your deposit.
762 2013-08-24 12:27:07 <edcba> bitcoin's own alledged country :)
763 2013-08-24 12:28:22 <oleganza> ;-)
764 2013-08-24 12:28:54 NeueWelt has joined
765 2013-08-24 12:29:20 one_zero has quit ()
766 2013-08-24 12:29:51 psychophoniac has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
767 2013-08-24 12:33:17 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
768 2013-08-24 12:33:35 BTCOxygen has joined
769 2013-08-24 12:33:35 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
770 2013-08-24 12:39:37 c0rw1n has joined
771 2013-08-24 12:44:36 Prattler has joined
772 2013-08-24 12:50:00 <porquilho> what
773 2013-08-24 12:50:01 <porquilho> oleganza
774 2013-08-24 12:50:06 GeorgeJ has joined
775 2013-08-24 12:50:13 <oleganza> ?
776 2013-08-24 12:50:16 <porquilho> oleganza, what is a contract?
777 2013-08-24 12:50:27 <porquilho> I dont get the idea
778 2013-08-24 12:50:33 <oleganza> imagine you live in Australia and I live in Russia
779 2013-08-24 12:50:36 <porquilho> ys
780 2013-08-24 12:50:37 <porquilho> yes
781 2013-08-24 12:50:41 <oleganza> and I want to buy your iPod for $100
782 2013-08-24 12:50:44 <porquilho> yes
783 2013-08-24 12:50:51 <oleganza> i don't know you, you don't know me
784 2013-08-24 12:50:57 BTC0xygen has joined
785 2013-08-24 12:50:59 <oleganza> and ebay won't help us
786 2013-08-24 12:51:01 <porquilho> yes
787 2013-08-24 12:51:34 <porquilho> ah i think i know the problem you are trying to solve
788 2013-08-24 12:51:46 <oleganza> because 1) we don't have any reputation 2) expensive 3) iPod is prohibited because of drug-porn-national-security 4) Ebay will never be able to figure out why it was or wasn't delivered across chinese borders
789 2013-08-24 12:51:56 <porquilho> nevermind the ebay
790 2013-08-24 12:52:00 <oleganza> so
791 2013-08-24 12:52:03 <oleganza> we both do this
792 2013-08-24 12:52:30 <oleganza> each of us locks up $300 in a single special transaction that only we together can unlock
793 2013-08-24 12:52:40 <porquilho> yes
794 2013-08-24 12:52:44 <oleganza> we don't give that money to third party and we cannot unilaterally spend it
795 2013-08-24 12:52:54 <porquilho> ok
796 2013-08-24 12:52:56 <oleganza> and each of us has a destruction tx with lock time in a month
797 2013-08-24 12:53:05 <porquilho> tx?
798 2013-08-24 12:53:07 <oleganza> so if someone goes rogue, another one can simply blow up the funds
799 2013-08-24 12:53:08 <porquilho> what is tx
800 2013-08-24 12:53:10 <oleganza> tx = transaction
801 2013-08-24 12:53:13 <porquilho> ok
802 2013-08-24 12:53:18 <oleganza> so
803 2013-08-24 12:53:45 <oleganza> we both locked $300 each.
804 2013-08-24 12:53:53 <oleganza> now you send me your iPod by mail
805 2013-08-24 12:53:56 <oleganza> it goes 2 weeks
806 2013-08-24 12:53:59 <oleganza> and then I get it
807 2013-08-24 12:54:03 <oleganza> now I have a choice
808 2013-08-24 12:54:27 <oleganza> either I send you money, or I start playing "poker" with you
809 2013-08-24 12:54:33 knotwork has joined
810 2013-08-24 12:54:52 <oleganza> e.g. by saying "i won't pay you, but you'd be better off by unlocking the funds"
811 2013-08-24 12:55:03 _ingsoc has joined
812 2013-08-24 12:55:03 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
813 2013-08-24 12:55:08 <porquilho> yes
814 2013-08-24 12:55:17 <oleganza> if I send you the money, e.g. by BTC or wire transfer, we both at some equilibrium
815 2013-08-24 12:55:30 <oleganza> and either of us may try to play another one, or we simply unlock funds and go home
816 2013-08-24 12:55:59 <porquilho> let me see if i get it
817 2013-08-24 12:56:04 <oleganza> but if I got an iPod and start fucking with you, I risk losing my $300 (accounting for iPod, it'll be $200)
818 2013-08-24 12:56:40 <oleganza> because I have no idea how you will behave, your trust in me is zero and you can punish me by blowing up my money so I won't play the trick again in the future
819 2013-08-24 12:56:58 <oleganza> the key here is that we don't have perfect information about other person's possible behaviour
820 2013-08-24 12:57:13 <oleganza> and once anyone tries to be not nice with a counter-party, he risks his deposit
821 2013-08-24 12:57:42 <porquilho> let me think
822 2013-08-24 12:58:00 <oleganza> obviously, no one would enter such a contract with his life savings. So these $300 are most probably not something urgently needed by another person so you can blackmail him
823 2013-08-24 12:58:13 <oleganza> and you never know if he won't try to teach you a lesson
824 2013-08-24 12:58:39 <oleganza> same thing if I send you money first and then you send me iPod.
825 2013-08-24 12:58:45 <oleganza> the deal could be anything
826 2013-08-24 12:58:49 <oleganza> a product, a service, whatever
827 2013-08-24 12:59:20 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
828 2013-08-24 12:59:25 <oleganza> the coolest use cases are when trust is established programmatically without ability to threaten other party
829 2013-08-24 12:59:59 <porquilho> so the locked funds work as a trust measure
830 2013-08-24 13:00:00 <oleganza> I have two cases in mind: 1) automatic bitcoin mixing peer-to-peer with random nodes during the night 2) mesh of IOU payments for off-the-chain transactions
831 2013-08-24 13:00:03 <oleganza> yep
832 2013-08-24 13:00:16 <oleganza> in my article I emphasize the pattern we use in daily life
833 2013-08-24 13:00:24 agnostic98 has joined
834 2013-08-24 13:00:32 <gmaxwell> ...
835 2013-08-24 13:00:35 <oleganza> we trust people only when they demonstrated a heavier investment not worth losing
836 2013-08-24 13:00:42 <porquilho> ofcourse
837 2013-08-24 13:00:44 <gmaxwell> there is no need to use an escrow like transaction for "mixing"
838 2013-08-24 13:00:57 <porquilho> what is 'mixing'
839 2013-08-24 13:01:13 <oleganza> mixing is changing your history of coins for someone else's
840 2013-08-24 13:01:14 <oleganza> gmaxwell: how?
841 2013-08-24 13:01:26 <oleganza> i want mixing to not go through fancy scripts or shared addresses.
842 2013-08-24 13:01:41 <gmaxwell> oleganza: then you certantly don't want escrows involved.
843 2013-08-24 13:01:43 <porquilho> ah you are talking about coding implementations
844 2013-08-24 13:01:52 <porquilho> ok
845 2013-08-24 13:01:52 <gmaxwell> oleganza: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0
846 2013-08-24 13:01:55 <oleganza> best mixing is when all txs look like normal spendings, statistically indistinguishable from how normal txs work in economy
847 2013-08-24 13:02:32 <gmaxwell> oleganza: I'd prever to not use "mixing" it's rapidly conflated with money laundering which isn't the same thing. In any case, read and be happy.
848 2013-08-24 13:02:47 <oleganza> i'm talking about true laundering
849 2013-08-24 13:03:00 <gmaxwell> oleganza: then please get out of here.
850 2013-08-24 13:03:12 <oleganza> laundering != killing and raping.
851 2013-08-24 13:03:15 <oleganza> i'm talking about privacy
852 2013-08-24 13:03:26 <gmaxwell> Money laundering is unlawful in many places. If you don't want to refer to unlawful activity, then don't use the name for it.
853 2013-08-24 13:03:28 <oleganza> e.g. you got a paycheck worth $3000 for a month of work
854 2013-08-24 13:03:35 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
855 2013-08-24 13:03:38 <oleganza> ok, "increasing privacy" then
856 2013-08-24 13:03:42 <oleganza> or "mixing"
857 2013-08-24 13:03:46 <porquilho> i think i like your idea oleganza, although I don't have any idea how to implement it
858 2013-08-24 13:03:54 <porquilho> but i think it wont be hard
859 2013-08-24 13:03:55 <porquilho> at all
860 2013-08-24 13:03:59 <gmaxwell> Thanks! mixing runs into laundering. Go look at my post in any case.
861 2013-08-24 13:04:01 <oleganza> i show how to implement it in my article
862 2013-08-24 13:04:19 <oleganza> gmaxwell: what safe word do you suggest?
863 2013-08-24 13:04:28 <gmaxwell> oleganza: if you think you need an escrow for it then you're going to be pleasently surprised when you _go read my link_
864 2013-08-24 13:04:42 <oleganza> i never said I need an escrow
865 2013-08-24 13:04:51 <oleganza> meaning, 3rd party.
866 2013-08-24 13:04:56 <oleganza> reading your link
867 2013-08-24 13:05:12 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
868 2013-08-24 13:05:31 yubrew_ has joined
869 2013-08-24 13:05:41 <gmaxwell> oleganza: you were referring to escrow transactions, I didn't mean a third party. You don't need an escrow transaction either.
870 2013-08-24 13:06:16 <gmaxwell> (besides, escrow transactions have "hold up risk", .e.g your counterparty could try to play a game of chicken with you)
871 2013-08-24 13:06:23 <oleganza> gmaxwell: my escrow transaction is absolutely separate from actual coins being moved. So it does not need to correlate with the mixed coins in any way
872 2013-08-24 13:07:03 GordonG3kko has joined
873 2013-08-24 13:07:12 * gmaxwell cries
874 2013-08-24 13:07:13 <oleganza> hold up risk is lower when both parties are anonymous nodes without a way to chat together. E.g. by design, protocol may blow up funds after 1 week delay. So another party cannot know if it's safe for it to play chicken
875 2013-08-24 13:07:21 <oleganza> (still reading your link)
876 2013-08-24 13:07:26 <gmaxwell> oleganza: and it's all unnecessary. :P
877 2013-08-24 13:07:34 <oleganza> :-)
878 2013-08-24 13:07:35 nethershaw has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
879 2013-08-24 13:07:43 <oleganza> i'll finish and comment
880 2013-08-24 13:07:47 nethershaw has joined
881 2013-08-24 13:09:24 <oleganza> gmaxwell: "This assumption is incorrect. Usage in a single transaction does not prove common control (though it's currently pretty suggestive)"
882 2013-08-24 13:09:30 <oleganza> you are right
883 2013-08-24 13:09:33 <oleganza> but that's not good enough
884 2013-08-24 13:09:46 <oleganza> this tx shows either of two things:
885 2013-08-24 13:09:58 <oleganza> 1. you control both inputs
886 2013-08-24 13:09:58 <oleganza> 2. you are laundering money with someone else
887 2013-08-24 13:10:33 <oleganza> there are anti money structuring laws (!=AML) that forbid making even legal funds being moved in a fancy way
888 2013-08-24 13:10:48 <oleganza> so by using join txs you sort of show that you are trying to do something fancy
889 2013-08-24 13:10:57 <oleganza> it could be good enough, I admit
890 2013-08-24 13:11:01 <gmaxwell> Performing a joint transaction, which helpfully reduces the transaction sizes and could just be a default behavior of wallet software.
891 2013-08-24 13:11:02 <oleganza> but we could do better
892 2013-08-24 13:11:27 <gmaxwell> oleganza: but I see your proposal too and I think it adds to this ecosystem of ideas.
893 2013-08-24 13:11:35 <oleganza> i think in terms of "histories". Each "coin", so to speak, has a trace.
894 2013-08-24 13:11:44 <oleganza> Join transactions join these traces
895 2013-08-24 13:11:58 <oleganza> But my idea in idealistic form looks like this:
896 2013-08-24 13:12:07 <oleganza> imagine 1024 persons coming together in a circle
897 2013-08-24 13:12:12 <oleganza> each has a single coin
898 2013-08-24 13:12:17 <gmaxwell> I think what I offer here has considerable simplicity, and also will make people stop bothering depending on trying to guess at histories, weather they are valid or not. What you're suggesting obscures the connection entirely, which is interesting.
899 2013-08-24 13:12:22 <oleganza> and a history
900 2013-08-24 13:12:29 <oleganza> each of them splits this coin in two parts and sends to 2 random people
901 2013-08-24 13:12:43 <oleganza> in exchange he gets some other pieces from other random people
902 2013-08-24 13:12:50 <oleganza> that's round 1
903 2013-08-24 13:13:03 <oleganza> then round 2 does the same by splitting existing pieces
904 2013-08-24 13:13:05 <oleganza> and so on
905 2013-08-24 13:13:39 <oleganza> in 7 rounds each of them has 128 different little not-correlated in any way histories
906 2013-08-24 13:13:44 <oleganza> no join transactions etc.
907 2013-08-24 13:13:47 <oleganza> like normal payments
908 2013-08-24 13:13:59 BTCOxygen has joined
909 2013-08-24 13:13:59 BTCOxygen has quit (Killed (pratchett.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
910 2013-08-24 13:13:59 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
911 2013-08-24 13:14:10 <gmaxwell> oleganza: but also a bunch of additioanl non-normal transaction establishing escrows to secure those funds.
912 2013-08-24 13:14:26 <gmaxwell> Which are seperate, I understand.
913 2013-08-24 13:14:30 GeorgeJ has left ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
914 2013-08-24 13:14:49 <gmaxwell> But there is an additional cost there.
915 2013-08-24 13:15:11 <gmaxwell> In any case, I think more ideas only add to the privacy preserving ways to transact.
916 2013-08-24 13:15:46 <oleganza> these escrows could be completely on the side
917 2013-08-24 13:16:17 <oleganza> if you don't pay with money from these escrow (or mix that money before doing so), these escrows never mark your reputation
918 2013-08-24 13:16:45 <gmaxwell> Yea, I get it. It's a neat I hadn't thought of even while simultaniously proposing almost exactly the same thing for something else. (I'll PM)
919 2013-08-24 13:16:55 <oleganza> yes, it's slower and a bit more expensive to establish an escrow, but as a result you can get as clean money as statistically possible
920 2013-08-24 13:17:08 <oleganza> but you don't need it always
921 2013-08-24 13:17:17 <oleganza> you need it only after receiving a paycheck
922 2013-08-24 13:17:25 <oleganza> so you don't advertise how much do you make
923 2013-08-24 13:17:45 <oleganza> and you do the same before paying big sums to avoid connecting all your little payments in one tx
924 2013-08-24 13:17:59 <gmaxwell> yea, things like income privacy are a big problem.
925 2013-08-24 13:18:05 <oleganza> your wallet can do that automatically during the night
926 2013-08-24 13:18:13 <oleganza> the cost is like under $1 for 10 escrows
927 2013-08-24 13:18:40 <gmaxwell> oleganza: what I sent you in PM was an idea I had for using potentially similar transaction patterns, but for inter service transfers.. totally different application.
928 2013-08-24 13:18:42 <oleganza> if it gets popular, this escrow tx can be standard and be processed quicker+cheaper
929 2013-08-24 13:18:43 ericmuyser has joined
930 2013-08-24 13:18:58 <gmaxwell> oleganza: escrow transactions are already standard.
931 2013-08-24 13:19:22 <gmaxwell> multisig will always be somewhat more costly, as they're bigger. alas.
932 2013-08-24 13:19:27 AlexNagy has joined
933 2013-08-24 13:19:27 AlexNagy has quit (Changing host)
934 2013-08-24 13:19:27 AlexNagy has joined
935 2013-08-24 13:19:38 <oleganza> plain multisig is != what I propose
936 2013-08-24 13:19:43 <oleganza> my escrow is mutually atomic
937 2013-08-24 13:19:59 <oleganza> i'll check you PM first
938 2013-08-24 13:20:20 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest61258
939 2013-08-24 13:20:20 BTCOxygen has joined
940 2013-08-24 13:20:20 Guest61258 has quit (Killed (barjavel.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
941 2013-08-24 13:20:20 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
942 2013-08-24 13:20:37 <gmaxwell> oleganza: can you link me to where you described your escrow.
943 2013-08-24 13:20:56 <oleganza> http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties
944 2013-08-24 13:21:07 <oleganza> there's a minor correction to the script: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273539.0
945 2013-08-24 13:21:58 minty has quit (Quit: Leaving)
946 2013-08-24 13:22:13 <gmaxwell> oh, this script may look familar: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91843.msg1011956#msg1011956
947 2013-08-24 13:23:06 <gmaxwell> do you address what happens if alice is hit by a bus?
948 2013-08-24 13:23:48 <Luke-Jr> she dies
949 2013-08-24 13:24:02 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: but is her soul saved?
950 2013-08-24 13:24:20 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: depends on the colour of the bus
951 2013-08-24 13:24:26 <gmaxwell> "no, she didn't use backupwallet"
952 2013-08-24 13:25:49 <oleganza> gmaxwell: bitcoin protocol does have OP_IF for death
953 2013-08-24 13:26:02 <oleganza> gmaxwell: generally people try not to die, so we can trust them on this one
954 2013-08-24 13:26:40 <oleganza> to detect death one needs a 3rd party
955 2013-08-24 13:26:57 <gmaxwell> :-/ kind of a big disadvantage in your protocol though.
956 2013-08-24 13:27:10 <gmaxwell> my disk fails at a bad moment and we both lose our coin.
957 2013-08-24 13:27:22 <oleganza> if you cannot/don't want to have 3rd party, that's the risk
958 2013-08-24 13:27:46 <oleganza> same applies to any btc usage
959 2013-08-24 13:27:49 <gmaxwell> well, or you do what I suggest. But in any case, I think diversity of techniques is good.
960 2013-08-24 13:28:32 <petertodd> oleganza: Really similar underlying mechanism to oracle transactions as well as my one-time-password protected wallet idea.
961 2013-08-24 13:28:56 <oleganza> gmaxwell: you mean conjoin?
962 2013-08-24 13:29:00 <oleganza> *coinjoin
963 2013-08-24 13:29:15 <gmaxwell> oleganza: yes.
964 2013-08-24 13:29:34 <gmaxwell> oleganza: has no risk of losing money if a party goes away...
965 2013-08-24 13:29:39 <oleganza> i'm thinking of these contracts in a broader sense
966 2013-08-24 13:29:50 <oleganza> to establish measurable trust with strangers for whatever reason
967 2013-08-24 13:29:58 bmcgee has quit (Quit: bmcgee)
968 2013-08-24 13:30:03 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: did you publish coinjoin yet?
969 2013-08-24 13:30:21 <oleganza> coinjoin could be good enough for privacy, but it's not good enough for AMS/AML
970 2013-08-24 13:30:28 <oleganza> i mean it.
971 2013-08-24 13:31:05 <oleganza> if we didn't have AML/AMS laws, we'd all just use join txs and then we'd truly never knew what's your history and what's mine
972 2013-08-24 13:31:07 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: yes.
973 2013-08-24 13:31:18 agnostic98 has joined
974 2013-08-24 13:31:20 <oleganza> maybe when Bitcoin gets us to beautiful anarchy, we'd use that
975 2013-08-24 13:31:41 <oleganza> but before, it's better to have as much precaution as possible
976 2013-08-24 13:31:56 <gmaxwell> oleganza: fincen's opinion was that bitcoin _users_ aren't subject to AML/KYC laws. And in any case, you cannot prevent it.
977 2013-08-24 13:32:01 <petertodd> oleganza: Um, my thinking is to make it that using join tx's is the standard thing people do.
978 2013-08-24 13:32:07 <Luke-Jr> oh great, you're one of the anarchist nuts?
979 2013-08-24 13:32:18 <oleganza> fincen will change their opinion any time they want
980 2013-08-24 13:32:27 <gmaxwell> the transactions look every bit like normal ones, and they're pretty prudent to make for non-privacy reasons.
981 2013-08-24 13:32:27 <oleganza> if Bitcoin gets bigger expect bigger invasion
982 2013-08-24 13:32:41 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: i said "maybe"
983 2013-08-24 13:32:49 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Me? Anarchist? Nah, I just want to make sure that when I give the tax authorities my transaction data it's only they who have it.
984 2013-08-24 13:32:56 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: not you :p
985 2013-08-24 13:32:58 <oleganza> i guess it's me
986 2013-08-24 13:33:24 <Luke-Jr> [13:30:55] <oleganza> maybe when Bitcoin gets us to beautiful anarchy, we'd use that
987 2013-08-24 13:33:25 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: I trust my government, but not foreign terrorists and spys trying to get into on my business.
988 2013-08-24 13:33:36 <petertodd> *info on
989 2013-08-24 13:33:40 <oleganza> petertodd: do you trust NSA?
990 2013-08-24 13:34:00 <gmaxwell> Indeed, I don't care to hid _anything_ from a tax authority, og I spend enough time keeping records for them already. But seriously, theieves and other nerdowells are exploiting the lack of privacy in bitcoin today and will do more in the future.
991 2013-08-24 13:34:09 <petertodd> oleganza: Of course I trust the NSA. But unless I use coinjoin on all my transactions I have to trust those communists in China too.
992 2013-08-24 13:34:54 mrkent has joined
993 2013-08-24 13:35:27 <petertodd> I might even need to use coinjoin for HIPAA compliance to ensure that my patients privacy is protected too after all when they pay me for the non-socialist healthcare I provide.
994 2013-08-24 13:35:37 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
995 2013-08-24 13:35:52 <gmaxwell> In any case, time to get some things done. :)
996 2013-08-24 13:35:57 <sipa> hmm, leveldb 1.13 adds a random number generator somewhere
997 2013-08-24 13:36:43 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Heh, all the python-bitcoinlib work I've done recently is for coinjoin stuff. :)
998 2013-08-24 13:36:43 <oleganza> gmaxwell: i agree with your sentiment.
999 2013-08-24 13:37:47 <oleganza> petertodd: why do you trust NSA? They provided you with a service that you are satisfied with?
1000 2013-08-24 13:38:24 <petertodd> oleganza: Maybe my sarcasm didn't quite come through... but I'm serious with the HIPAA example and tax authority example.
1001 2013-08-24 13:38:49 <gmaxwell> sipa: I thought it just added testing for good seed values for an existing one.
1002 2013-08-24 13:38:52 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1003 2013-08-24 13:38:55 <oleganza> what I mean to say is how do we generally establish "trust" and how does that apply to your trust in government?
1004 2013-08-24 13:39:10 <oleganza> i myself have nothing against government. I just would like it to be not against me as well.
1005 2013-08-24 13:39:25 <oleganza> but that's a fuzzy territory
1006 2013-08-24 13:40:17 <oleganza> e.g. I establish trust to Apple by asking advice of friends, watching them investing shitload of money in production, and trying out cheaper products before risking paying for more expensive ones.
1007 2013-08-24 13:40:26 <oleganza> and I can always measure if they are worth the trust.
1008 2013-08-24 13:40:37 <oleganza> if iPhone sucks, i won't buy another one - trust is over.
1009 2013-08-24 13:40:44 ThomasV has joined
1010 2013-08-24 13:40:55 <oleganza> and if I never was interested in iPhones in the first place, I don't need to trust Apple at all
1011 2013-08-24 13:41:06 <oleganza> so i won't have any trust towards them
1012 2013-08-24 13:41:36 <oleganza> with government I never had an opportunity to measure trust because I never ordered anything that I need from them
1013 2013-08-24 13:41:52 <Luke-Jr> you get your security from them
1014 2013-08-24 13:41:57 <oleganza> it was already paid for and given (for anarchists it sucks, for non-anarchists it may not)
1015 2013-08-24 13:42:23 <oleganza> that security is given, not asked for. So even if it's the best of the best, I can never know that and have nothing to compare with
1016 2013-08-24 13:43:02 <oleganza> it's like trusting a lion that it'll eat a zebra. It will do it anyway, without your approval
1017 2013-08-24 13:43:16 <oleganza> or won't, according to his own schedule.
1018 2013-08-24 13:43:56 <oleganza> So while people may enjoy stuff that gov gives them, it's all given and creates no trust. Any day for some good reason people giving you security may deny you it.
1019 2013-08-24 13:44:08 <oleganza> because they didn't establish trust with you, they have no trust to break.
1020 2013-08-24 13:45:00 <oleganza> so if a policeman harms you in some way, he'll get punished not by you, not by your neighbors, but by a government official - his boss, a judge etc. And they may have their own agendas, not correlated with what you have in mind
1021 2013-08-24 13:45:12 <Luke-Jr> should a government cease to serve the common good, it would also cease to be a government and would become a criminal organization
1022 2013-08-24 13:45:51 rodarmor has joined
1023 2013-08-24 13:45:52 <oleganza> i think before forcing people to comply, it's good to peacefully prove that "common good" to those in doubt
1024 2013-08-24 13:46:41 <oleganza> e.g. when I want some privacy from my legitimate source of income, I don't agree with AML/AMS laws. But I cannot avoid them - I'll be beaten no matter what. So my doubts have no power.
1025 2013-08-24 13:47:20 <oleganza> I can vote, but that's just a suggestion to a delegated power. I need to have 90% of people to agree with me on my tiny issue to be protected.
1026 2013-08-24 13:47:46 <oleganza> (not saying i have urgent need to hide some money, just an example)
1027 2013-08-24 13:47:52 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: I didn't say the systems are perfect. Far from it. But we're getting off topic here now.
1028 2013-08-24 13:48:01 <sipa> gmaxwell: it adds a seed to dbimpl, and a random number generator to some iterator code
1029 2013-08-24 13:48:09 <oleganza> well, I was not calling people names by saying "anarchist nut"
1030 2013-08-24 13:48:21 <gmaxwell> sipa: :-/
1031 2013-08-24 13:48:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: seems to be for se random sampling to trigger compactions, in case many deleted keys exist
1032 2013-08-24 13:48:52 saivann has joined
1033 2013-08-24 13:48:54 <oleganza> i know a few anarchists who have good arguments and I wouldn't call them "nuts" for having an opinion. Killing/detaining/forcing people is not in their agenda, so it's safe to talk to them
1034 2013-08-24 13:49:08 <petertodd> oleganza: off topic
1035 2013-08-24 13:49:10 <rodarmor> Question for someone smarter than I: Would it be helpful or harmful to development and testing if I were to create an app or game that integrated testnet coins and testnet chain transactions? I was thinking about a simple gambling game, or a strategy game that used testnet coins as an internal currency.
1036 2013-08-24 13:49:10 <gmaxwell> sipa: I see.
1037 2013-08-24 13:49:31 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: have a blast, make more testnet transactions.
1038 2013-08-24 13:49:38 <Luke-Jr> rodarmor: IMO it might help, simply because it gives testnet more activity
1039 2013-08-24 13:49:47 <Luke-Jr> certainly shouldn't hurt
1040 2013-08-24 13:49:49 <rodarmor> That's what I was thinking.
1041 2013-08-24 13:49:59 <oleganza> petertodd: Ok. Just want to underscore my dislike of calling people names here.
1042 2013-08-24 13:50:05 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: also if your stuff gets more people using testnet, I will buy you your choice of beverage.
1043 2013-08-24 13:50:23 <rodarmor> Although, haven't there been problems in the past when testnet coins somehow gained value and the whole thing had to be reset?
1044 2013-08-24 13:50:26 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: my problem is really when people try to make Bitcoin part of their anarchist agenda.
1045 2013-08-24 13:50:34 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: yea not really a problem now I think.
1046 2013-08-24 13:50:37 <rodarmor> gmaxwell: thanks, I will definitely call that in if this comes of anything :)
1047 2013-08-24 13:50:40 <Luke-Jr> oleganza: which harms Bitcoin
1048 2013-08-24 13:50:46 <gmaxwell> and if it needs to be reset again we can of course.
1049 2013-08-24 13:51:10 <gmaxwell> But I also own like a million testnet btc, so I suspect I can just dump coins to suppress any gain in value.
1050 2013-08-24 13:51:11 <petertodd> rodarmor: Worst comes to worst we'll just add a infinite money generator to testnet, and as gmaxwell said it can be reset on a dime.
1051 2013-08-24 13:51:24 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: when I was mentioning increasing BTC privacy in respect to AML/AMS, it was 100% technically relevant.
1052 2013-08-24 13:51:55 <rodarmor> Good deal. I was also thinking it would be interesting if the game had some notion of an apocalypse event in the narrative, so a test net reset could be integrated into the story :)
1053 2013-08-24 13:52:20 <oleganza> Luke-Jr: just like Bitcoin blockchain does not ask money license to operate. Talking about such design is relevant and can be equally called "an anarchist agenda"
1054 2013-08-24 13:52:31 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: if your game is actually being used we could figure out how to help make such an event easier on you.
1055 2013-08-24 13:52:50 <gmaxwell> oleganza: we're really getting into a political argument here... we could move it to #bitcoin
1056 2013-08-24 13:53:01 <oleganza> gmaxwell: ok
1057 2013-08-24 13:53:07 <petertodd> rodarmor: lol! seriously, make it cool and shiny and something people play with and I'll throw you a btc, the real kind. Best to include an integrated coin faucet, or make the expected return be 100%
1058 2013-08-24 13:53:09 <gmaxwell> (I'd like to respond to some of these points, but I don't want to contribute to it going offtopic more)
1059 2013-08-24 13:53:21 <rodarmor> petertodd: What kind of infinite money generator would be added? Do you mean actually patch the test net code?
1060 2013-08-24 13:53:47 <petertodd> rodarmor: Yes, like max a special txout that can be spent endlessly.
1061 2013-08-24 13:53:51 <petertodd> s/max/make/
1062 2013-08-24 13:54:06 NeueWelt has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1063 2013-08-24 13:54:17 <rodarmor> I like it. It's like pulling the plug out of the bathtub in reverse.
1064 2013-08-24 13:55:44 <petertodd> rodarmor: Yup. Has some issues because it's a special case - we'd rather not have that - and because people could potentially use it to make transactions that actually overflow ints and what not.
1065 2013-08-24 13:56:12 rdymac_ has joined
1066 2013-08-24 13:56:22 <rodarmor> petertodd: How is the test net client code segregated from mainline client code? Does it build from the same sources with some extra flags?
1067 2013-08-24 13:56:44 rdymac has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1068 2013-08-24 13:56:44 rdymac_ is now known as rdymac
1069 2013-08-24 13:57:04 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: it's the same binary.
1070 2013-08-24 13:57:09 <gmaxwell> bitcoind -testnet=1
1071 2013-08-24 13:57:10 <petertodd> rodarmor: Exactly. It's very close to 100% compatible - the one major difference is in testnet if a block has a timestamp > 20 minutes from the previous one, it's allowed to have a difficulty 1 PoW.
1072 2013-08-24 13:58:15 <rodarmor> petertodd: mmm, gotcha, I was wondering how difficulty fluctuations would work
1073 2013-08-24 13:58:27 <rodarmor> gmaxwell: But isn't that kind of dangerous, just because bugs from test net only code could possibly leak into main client code?
1074 2013-08-24 13:58:33 egis has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1075 2013-08-24 13:58:37 <sipa> petertodd: allowed or required?
1076 2013-08-24 13:58:57 <sipa> (just a question; i don't know)
1077 2013-08-24 14:00:14 NeueWelt has joined
1078 2013-08-24 14:00:37 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: there is very little testnet specific code by design. And it neatly fits into little if (fTestnet) boxes.
1079 2013-08-24 14:01:31 <petertodd> sipa: interesting, no it's required for block.nBits to be == nProofOfWorkLimit in that case
1080 2013-08-24 14:02:11 <gmaxwell> petertodd: you can always understate the time.
1081 2013-08-24 14:02:13 agnostic98 has joined
1082 2013-08-24 14:02:14 <petertodd> sipa: The special case is in GetNextWorkRequired(), and the test in AcceptBlock() is block.nBits != GetNextWorkRequired()
1083 2013-08-24 14:02:40 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Of course, point is if you don't do that, nBits *must* be set to the min work.
1084 2013-08-24 14:02:43 <rodarmor> On a somewhat unrelated note, what is the contingency plan in case of a huge drop in hashing power on the main net? For example, if some unknown third party ran a warehouse of ASICs for a while and then turned them off, driving the block generation time up to impractical levels.
1085 2013-08-24 14:03:24 <sipa> rodarmor: the network would be vulnerable anyway in that case
1086 2013-08-24 14:03:27 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: go home? I mean if a single failure causes more than a doubling of block time, it means a single party had >50% hashpower and our security assumptions were already out the window.
1087 2013-08-24 14:03:46 <petertodd> rodarmor: If you think about it in terms of mining == voting all that means is we've got a new voting block and will just have to accept what they want.
1088 2013-08-24 14:03:57 <sipa> the solution would be an altcoin with a different PoW i think :)
1089 2013-08-24 14:04:01 <petertodd> rodarmor: Technically speaking there's very little we can do that's compatible with SPV clients.
1090 2013-08-24 14:04:19 <gmaxwell> anything up to a 4x-ing of interblock time is probably not a horrible thing in any case... and that would imply a 75% consolidation...
1091 2013-08-24 14:05:18 <petertodd> rodarmor: Now as for the actual huge drop plan, listen to gmaxwell. :)
1092 2013-08-24 14:05:25 macboz_ has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1093 2013-08-24 14:06:10 <rodarmor> gmaxwell: Let's imagine a different scenario which is maybe a little simpler. Instead of a single attacker, instead imagine a new company manufactures a whole bunch of ASICs and distributes them to miners all over the world in a timely fashion (breaking with reality here a little bit)
1094 2013-08-24 14:06:31 <petertodd> rodarmor: ...and then they all break.
1095 2013-08-24 14:06:37 <rodarmor> haha, yup!
1096 2013-08-24 14:06:57 <petertodd> rodarmor: We wait.
1097 2013-08-24 14:06:57 <sipa> then we'll have slower blocks for a while
1098 2013-08-24 14:07:06 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1099 2013-08-24 14:07:09 <rodarmor> So, block time is 10x what it should be. Is waiting okay?
1100 2013-08-24 14:07:32 <petertodd> rodarmor: Meh, 10 minutes * big variance is already a big wait.
1101 2013-08-24 14:07:38 <gmaxwell> rodarmor: yea, we'd proposed that as an attack vectorâ that some mining device could be logic bombed against far future blocks.
1102 2013-08-24 14:07:49 <gmaxwell> though I did test my avalons and they at least produce shares with far future blocks.
1103 2013-08-24 14:08:09 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ! did you get compensated for that? I remember you asked for donations...
1104 2013-08-24 14:08:31 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I didn't mine a block, couldn't find anyone that wanted to pay up the full 25 btc to test.
1105 2013-08-24 14:08:40 <gmaxwell> but I did basic testing.
1106 2013-08-24 14:08:48 <petertodd> gmaxwell: Ah, so they could still have been logic bombed to withhold.
1107 2013-08-24 14:08:53 <gmaxwell> yes.
1108 2013-08-24 14:09:23 <petertodd> Reminds me: solutions that solve block withholding for pools also solve block withholding by ASIC implementations.
1109 2013-08-24 14:09:36 <rodarmor> So I guess at low severity just waiting is a reasonable strategy. Although I imagine that at some point, with astronomical wait times some kind of intervention would be necessary.
1110 2013-08-24 14:10:07 <sipa> if the wait time is astronomical, that means a near-entirety of miners was destroyed
1111 2013-08-24 14:10:17 <sipa> i doubt that case is safe anyway
1112 2013-08-24 14:10:17 <gmaxwell> perhaps, but really, these outcomes indicate bigger problems.
1113 2013-08-24 14:11:16 <rodarmor> I don't know if they indicate problems with ASIC dependence, since new generations of ASICs can represent significant contributions to hashing power.
1114 2013-08-24 14:12:04 <rodarmor> Or if they indicate potential problems with CPU mining, where large amounts of conventional computing resources could take up and drop mining bitcoin. (botnets, datacenters, etc.)
1115 2013-08-24 14:13:51 <petertodd> rodarmor: ASIC waves will go down over time as ASICs get closer to the best possible with microchip mfg tech. We're already pretty close to the bleeding edge anyway.
1116 2013-08-24 14:14:58 <rodarmor> petertodd: that's my impression too. 28nm ASICs will be out soon, and that's right about the limit right now.
1117 2013-08-24 14:15:25 <petertodd> rodarmor: Yup, and 60nm vs 28nm isn't even all that big a difference.
1118 2013-08-24 14:16:14 <rodarmor> petertodd: But I've been hearing people talk about an unlimited ASICs arms race, which is certainly possible, although I would expect only linear gains, as opposed to the geometric gains you can get from a die shrink.
1119 2013-08-24 14:17:02 <sipa> once bitcoin asics match cutting edge chip tech, it won't evolve faster than cpu's
1120 2013-08-24 14:17:11 <Luke-Jr> I doubt there will be ASIC arms races
1121 2013-08-24 14:17:19 <Luke-Jr> once difficulty catches up, there won't be any R&D funds
1122 2013-08-24 14:17:20 <petertodd> rodarmor: The only "
1123 2013-08-24 14:17:40 <petertodd> "arms race" will be the inevitable rounds of driving costs down and ASIC mfgs going out of business.
1124 2013-08-24 14:18:05 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: well, at least BFL seems to be getting into hardware wallet market
1125 2013-08-24 14:18:26 <petertodd> Anyway at <=28nm there are very, very few players who have fabs, and they control the production schedules of their fabs.
1126 2013-08-24 14:18:37 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Oh yeah?
1127 2013-08-24 14:18:43 hnz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1128 2013-08-24 14:18:45 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: you missed that? lol
1129 2013-08-24 14:18:54 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: they had it at the Conf
1130 2013-08-24 14:19:36 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: Oh, I didn't realize that was from BFL - that booth was confusing.
1131 2013-08-24 14:19:42 <Luke-Jr> it was
1132 2013-08-24 14:23:00 c0rw1n has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1133 2013-08-24 14:23:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik's salary must have been too high for BitPay to afford their own booth </troll> :p
1134 2013-08-24 14:24:03 hnz has joined
1135 2013-08-24 14:24:07 <gmaxwell> and he deserves every penny of it!
1136 2013-08-24 14:24:11 <Luke-Jr> of course
1137 2013-08-24 14:24:29 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1138 2013-08-24 14:24:44 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: you mean satoshi
1139 2013-08-24 14:24:52 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: BitPay's payroll company is doing Bitcoin now :p
1140 2013-08-24 14:24:54 Neozonz has joined
1141 2013-08-24 14:24:54 Neozonz has quit (Changing host)
1142 2013-08-24 14:24:54 Neozonz has joined
1143 2013-08-24 14:24:56 handle has joined
1144 2013-08-24 14:25:52 chmod755 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1145 2013-08-24 14:26:42 <gmaxwell> need to get rid of the @#$#@$@# address list on the recieve page.
1146 2013-08-24 14:26:44 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=280444.0
1147 2013-08-24 14:29:12 yubrew_ has joined
1148 2013-08-24 14:29:17 rodarmor has quit (Quit: rodarmor)
1149 2013-08-24 14:32:15 _ingsoc has joined
1150 2013-08-24 14:32:36 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1151 2013-08-24 14:33:03 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1152 2013-08-24 14:33:08 agnostic98 has joined
1153 2013-08-24 14:35:54 _ingsoc has joined
1154 2013-08-24 14:36:15 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1155 2013-08-24 14:36:53 _ingsoc has joined
1156 2013-08-24 14:37:17 _ingsoc is now known as Guest93274
1157 2013-08-24 14:37:41 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 251 seconds)
1158 2013-08-24 14:39:05 has quit (Clown|!~clown@unaffiliated/clown/x-0272709|Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1159 2013-08-24 14:39:23 has joined
1160 2013-08-24 14:39:23 has quit (Clown|!Clown@static-87-79-93-140.netcologne.de|Changing host)
1161 2013-08-24 14:39:23 has joined
1162 2013-08-24 14:39:32 Cory has joined
1163 2013-08-24 14:40:39 NeueWelt has quit (Disconnected by services)
1164 2013-08-24 14:41:18 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1165 2013-08-24 14:41:19 qeb has joined
1166 2013-08-24 14:43:09 Guest93274 has quit (Quit: leaving)
1167 2013-08-24 14:43:21 _ingsoc_ has joined
1168 2013-08-24 14:43:23 _ingsoc_ has quit (Client Quit)
1169 2013-08-24 14:43:30 yubrew_ has joined
1170 2013-08-24 14:43:48 moarrr has quit ()
1171 2013-08-24 14:44:59 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1172 2013-08-24 14:45:59 _ingsoc_ has joined
1173 2013-08-24 14:51:47 Subo1977 has joined
1174 2013-08-24 14:53:00 joepie91 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1175 2013-08-24 14:55:14 Subo1977_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1176 2013-08-24 14:55:33 BTCOxygen has joined
1177 2013-08-24 14:55:40 BTCOxygen is now known as Guest7130
1178 2013-08-24 14:55:46 Guest7130 has quit (Killed (calvino.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services)))
1179 2013-08-24 14:55:46 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~BTCOxygen@unaffiliated/oxygen|BTCOxygen
1180 2013-08-24 14:57:32 Prattler has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in)
1181 2013-08-24 14:58:46 qeb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1182 2013-08-24 14:59:41 AndyOfiesh has joined
1183 2013-08-24 15:01:53 CobaltBlueD has joined
1184 2013-08-24 15:03:26 qeb has joined
1185 2013-08-24 15:04:05 agnostic98 has joined
1186 2013-08-24 15:05:51 c0rw1n has joined
1187 2013-08-24 15:06:35 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1188 2013-08-24 15:06:38 CobaltBlueD has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1189 2013-08-24 15:07:55 roconnor has joined
1190 2013-08-24 15:08:21 qeb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1191 2013-08-24 15:08:46 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1192 2013-08-24 15:08:55 CobaltBlueD has joined
1193 2013-08-24 15:11:58 qeb has joined
1194 2013-08-24 15:15:13 qeb has quit (Client Quit)
1195 2013-08-24 15:18:01 btcbtc has joined
1196 2013-08-24 15:18:11 Subo1977 has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1197 2013-08-24 15:18:51 Subo1977 has joined
1198 2013-08-24 15:30:46 nsillik has joined
1199 2013-08-24 15:35:02 agnostic98 has joined
1200 2013-08-24 15:39:58 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1201 2013-08-24 15:40:07 Diapolis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1202 2013-08-24 15:40:15 etotheipi_ has joined
1203 2013-08-24 15:42:24 <jgarzik> wumpus, gavinandresen, sipa, gmaxwell: ACK troll https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2928 Should be zero behavior changes, self-contained, uncontroversial and not negatively impact other pull reqs (though a couple might need rebasing)
1204 2013-08-24 15:44:42 _jps has joined
1205 2013-08-24 15:48:20 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1206 2013-08-24 15:48:34 gst has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1207 2013-08-24 15:50:04 richcollins has joined
1208 2013-08-24 15:51:41 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1209 2013-08-24 15:51:51 porquilho has quit ()
1210 2013-08-24 15:52:23 CryptoBuck has joined
1211 2013-08-24 15:52:29 MobGod has joined
1212 2013-08-24 15:54:00 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: minor nit: CreateNewBlockWithKey could just as well be CreateNewBlock with a different signature
1213 2013-08-24 15:54:12 ThomasV has joined
1214 2013-08-24 15:54:21 <Luke-Jr> it'd save renaming it everywhere
1215 2013-08-24 15:54:48 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, agreed on the latter
1216 2013-08-24 15:55:10 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, but renaming it was intentional. Same name + different signature leads to confusion, I am convinced.
1217 2013-08-24 15:55:22 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, our script.cpp's Solver() is an excellent example
1218 2013-08-24 15:55:49 <Luke-Jr> well, IMO it makes sense when the parameters are basically the same (as it is here) *shrug8
1219 2013-08-24 15:55:50 gst has joined
1220 2013-08-24 15:57:11 wei_ has quit (Quit: wei_)
1221 2013-08-24 15:57:45 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, it helps humans mentally separate the two. one variant requires an active wallet, and cannot be used in no-wallet mode. the other is just fine regardless.
1222 2013-08-24 15:57:58 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, the code is thus self-documenting
1223 2013-08-24 15:58:10 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, use of CreateNewBlockWithKey declares that that code requires a wallet
1224 2013-08-24 15:58:20 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1225 2013-08-24 15:58:38 <jgarzik> mixing different signatures defeats that -- because then grep -w doesn't work as an instant gauge of what capabilities are supported by the code
1226 2013-08-24 15:58:51 <jgarzik> this way, you may see instantly, with a single grep -w, which code requires a wallet
1227 2013-08-24 15:58:57 <Luke-Jr> true
1228 2013-08-24 15:59:15 BTCOxygen has joined
1229 2013-08-24 16:00:07 <Luke-Jr> in that case, it may make sense to put the latter CreateNewBlockWithKey as CWallet::CreateNewBlockFor - but then we have a conflict if we move CNB to CMemPool which probably makes more sense anyway
1230 2013-08-24 16:02:38 CheckDavid has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1231 2013-08-24 16:02:46 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, that can be addressed incrementally in later commits, if desired
1232 2013-08-24 16:03:12 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, this pull req is designed to be small, focused, equivalent-transformation, and not break any compat
1233 2013-08-24 16:03:19 <Luke-Jr> yeah, I just concluded your pullreq makes the best sense for now :p
1234 2013-08-24 16:03:45 eoss has joined
1235 2013-08-24 16:03:52 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, I toyed with outputting both 'coinbasetxn' and 'coinbaseaux' / 'coinbasevalue', but decided against it
1236 2013-08-24 16:04:32 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, IMO coinbasetxn is preferred, and is BIP-22 compliant
1237 2013-08-24 16:04:42 <Luke-Jr> they're both BIP 22 compatible
1238 2013-08-24 16:04:45 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, but I feared breaking software
1239 2013-08-24 16:04:59 <Luke-Jr> including coinbasetxn would indeed break BFGMiner current usage
1240 2013-08-24 16:05:11 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, BIP 22 says "a or b". I would prefer "a and b", i.e. give all infos
1241 2013-08-24 16:05:14 <Luke-Jr> it would ignore the user's provided address
1242 2013-08-24 16:05:29 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, and let software choose what it wants
1243 2013-08-24 16:05:31 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: yes, if it didn't hurt performance, I'd agree
1244 2013-08-24 16:05:40 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, it shouldn't
1245 2013-08-24 16:05:50 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you'd have to remove or change the caching
1246 2013-08-24 16:05:51 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, it's an easy change in bitcoind
1247 2013-08-24 16:05:57 agnostic98 has joined
1248 2013-08-24 16:05:59 <Luke-Jr> right now, it caches the CBlock
1249 2013-08-24 16:06:21 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, that's OK
1250 2013-08-24 16:06:33 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, the goal is to provide more coinbase info than bitcoind does not
1251 2013-08-24 16:06:34 <jgarzik> *now
1252 2013-08-24 16:07:52 <Luke-Jr> I'm not positively opposed to it. Just don't see a need, and do see downsides.
1253 2013-08-24 16:08:26 <jgarzik> the value is in getting full scriptSig not just useless p2sh flag, and other bitcoind defaults
1254 2013-08-24 16:08:38 <jgarzik> then you may change or build upon from there, rather than replace and/or recreate
1255 2013-08-24 16:09:06 <jgarzik> e.g. right now block height in coinbase must be recreated, as it is not transmitted by getblocktemplate and thus lost
1256 2013-08-24 16:09:16 guruvan has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1257 2013-08-24 16:09:39 <jgarzik> That's why I favor the "more information is better" approach, especially when it's an easy change for bitcoind
1258 2013-08-24 16:09:59 wizkid057 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1259 2013-08-24 16:10:18 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it becomes even less easy, when you consider walletless mode
1260 2013-08-24 16:10:26 guruvan has joined
1261 2013-08-24 16:10:39 <Luke-Jr> in that mode, there is no source for the coinbasetxn
1262 2013-08-24 16:10:40 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, no, it remains a trivial change
1263 2013-08-24 16:10:42 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1264 2013-08-24 16:11:22 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1265 2013-08-24 16:11:44 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, CreateNewBlock() builds a full coinbase txn, with only the output 0's scriptPubKey as function input. so, as mentioned, things like preferred scriptSig are captured.
1266 2013-08-24 16:12:03 <jgarzik> that is the source of coinbasetxn -- the coinbase transaction that CreateNewBlock() has always built.
1267 2013-08-24 16:12:32 <jgarzik> getblocktemplate even receives the coinbase txn -- it just intentionally throws away that data
1268 2013-08-24 16:12:45 <jgarzik> it is easy to stop throwing it away
1269 2013-08-24 16:12:57 <jgarzik> works just fine in no-wallet mode.
1270 2013-08-24 16:13:04 <Luke-Jr> right, but without a wallet, you need to call a different function than with
1271 2013-08-24 16:13:14 owowo has joined
1272 2013-08-24 16:13:26 CobaltBlueD has joined
1273 2013-08-24 16:13:52 <Luke-Jr> unless you want to always OP_TRUE GBT, which makes no sense for the miner
1274 2013-08-24 16:14:00 CobaltBlueD has left ()
1275 2013-08-24 16:14:03 <sipa> jgarzik: i have a minor worry about the CReserveKey semantics (which can automatically mark keys as used & stuff)
1276 2013-08-24 16:14:27 <sipa> jgarzik: not saying there's a problem, but i need to look more carefully to know it's ok
1277 2013-08-24 16:14:54 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, that is obviously changed by the miner -- and they have a clear economic incentive to avoid creating anyone-can-spend blocks :)
1278 2013-08-24 16:15:27 <jgarzik> sipa, if I changed semantics, i did something wrong...
1279 2013-08-24 16:15:48 <jgarzik> (sans getblocktemplate as mentioned, which shouldn't need it AFAICS)
1280 2013-08-24 16:16:11 <sipa> aargh stupid e-banking
1281 2013-08-24 16:16:16 <sipa> it only works in windows
1282 2013-08-24 16:16:38 <sipa> so every time i do some payments, i need to wait half an hour for mandatory updates...
1283 2013-08-24 16:16:46 * jgarzik needs to download his bank's online app, so I can make deposits via phone camera
1284 2013-08-24 16:16:54 setkeh has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
1285 2013-08-24 16:17:00 <sipa> they actually do have a linux version
1286 2013-08-24 16:17:06 <sipa> nut it somehow doesn't work
1287 2013-08-24 16:17:09 <sipa> *but
1288 2013-08-24 16:17:21 setkeh has joined
1289 2013-08-24 16:17:43 _jps has quit (Quit: _jps)
1290 2013-08-24 16:23:12 winbtc_moarrr has joined
1291 2013-08-24 16:26:31 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: do you hope to add coinbasetxn in the next 2 months? if so, I should patch BFGMiner now ;P
1292 2013-08-24 16:26:38 wizkid057 has joined
1293 2013-08-24 16:28:32 Eiii has joined
1294 2013-08-24 16:30:18 _jps has joined
1295 2013-08-24 16:30:47 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, I can do it in two seconds -- or not -- was trying to gauge your interest :)
1296 2013-08-24 16:31:02 <jgarzik> it would make a natural addendum to the just-discussed GBT pull req
1297 2013-08-24 16:31:30 execut3 has joined
1298 2013-08-24 16:31:53 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I am not interested in it. But if you want to do it, I will try to patch BFGMiner for tomorrow's release.
1299 2013-08-24 16:31:56 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, mainly my BIP 22 question was: is "A and B" ok? right now it wants "A or B". Where A == coinbaseaux + coinbasevalue and B == coinbasetxn
1300 2013-08-24 16:32:18 shesek has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1301 2013-08-24 16:32:20 <jgarzik> it seems like A-and-B would not break anything
1302 2013-08-24 16:32:21 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it should be ok, but right now BFGMiner won't behave reasonable with it
1303 2013-08-24 16:32:25 <jgarzik> and therefore I shall do it :)
1304 2013-08-24 16:32:42 <Luke-Jr> coinbasetxn will override user-provided address
1305 2013-08-24 16:32:43 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, ok
1306 2013-08-24 16:33:04 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, well let's leave it as-is, then
1307 2013-08-24 16:33:30 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, I think bfgminer might be the only remaining solo miner for bitcoind
1308 2013-08-24 16:33:38 minty has joined
1309 2013-08-24 16:33:43 <Luke-Jr> ok
1310 2013-08-24 16:34:18 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, long term, I think bfgminer would be wise to examine and replace/verify any coinbasetxn supplied outputs
1311 2013-08-24 16:34:44 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, regardless of our actions / pull reqs here
1312 2013-08-24 16:34:55 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: I agree, I'm writing the code for this in any case
1313 2013-08-24 16:35:00 <Luke-Jr> just not going to merge for this release
1314 2013-08-24 16:36:49 _ingsoc_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1315 2013-08-24 16:36:52 agnostic98 has joined
1316 2013-08-24 16:37:23 handle has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1317 2013-08-24 16:38:08 CobaltBlueD has joined
1318 2013-08-24 16:38:44 blaeks has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1319 2013-08-24 16:39:27 patcon has joined
1320 2013-08-24 16:41:43 agnostic98 has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1321 2013-08-24 16:45:00 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1322 2013-08-24 16:45:18 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1323 2013-08-24 16:46:37 handle has joined
1324 2013-08-24 16:46:45 sserrano44 has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
1325 2013-08-24 16:46:52 Diapolis has joined
1326 2013-08-24 16:50:14 _ingsoc has joined
1327 2013-08-24 16:50:39 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1328 2013-08-24 16:50:50 _ingsoc_ has joined
1329 2013-08-24 16:50:52 _ingsoc_ has quit (Client Quit)
1330 2013-08-24 16:51:50 Diapolis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1331 2013-08-24 16:52:16 marco_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1332 2013-08-24 16:52:22 Diapolis has joined
1333 2013-08-24 16:55:37 pablog has joined
1334 2013-08-24 16:55:40 pablog has quit (Changing host)
1335 2013-08-24 16:55:40 pablog has joined
1336 2013-08-24 16:56:39 cads has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1337 2013-08-24 16:57:28 _jps has quit (Quit: _jps)
1338 2013-08-24 17:03:38 tsst has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1339 2013-08-24 17:04:12 marco_ has joined
1340 2013-08-24 17:05:11 Diapolis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1341 2013-08-24 17:05:12 tsst has joined
1342 2013-08-24 17:17:01 abrkn has joined
1343 2013-08-24 17:18:51 CobaltBlueD has joined
1344 2013-08-24 17:21:14 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1345 2013-08-24 17:32:28 _ingsoc_ has joined
1346 2013-08-24 17:32:38 Sunwicked has joined
1347 2013-08-24 17:34:59 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1348 2013-08-24 17:35:51 abrkn has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1349 2013-08-24 17:36:19 <maaku> sipa, jgarzik: i got some invites left for simple.com if you want a cooler app
1350 2013-08-24 17:38:44 <sipa> maaku: can i pay bills with that in switzerland? :o
1351 2013-08-24 17:39:45 <maaku> probably not :P
1352 2013-08-24 17:40:13 <sipa> for all the rest i have debit/creditcard and bitcoins :p
1353 2013-08-24 17:41:05 <sipa> but bills apparently are still payment requests that can only be encoded in dead-tree format, and require manual copying of long sequences of numbers
1354 2013-08-24 17:41:42 <jgarzik> sadly true
1355 2013-08-24 17:42:54 <jgarzik> my natural-gas company accepts electronic ACH payments (which I do not do with many) via their https:// websiteÂ
but to pay with credit/debit card, one must call a third party /telephone number/ and pay an additional bill payment fee of $5
1356 2013-08-24 17:43:04 <jgarzik> logic does not compute.
1357 2013-08-24 17:43:52 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: it does compute
1358 2013-08-24 17:43:59 <Diablo-D3> they aren't doing business with a payment processor
1359 2013-08-24 17:44:11 <Diablo-D3> they're paying another company to do it for them
1360 2013-08-24 17:44:41 <Diablo-D3> the part that "doesnt" compute is why they just dont do business with a payment processor with an online gateway
1361 2013-08-24 17:44:48 <Diablo-D3> they never do
1362 2013-08-24 17:44:51 <Diablo-D3> so its not a big surprise
1363 2013-08-24 17:45:37 jgarzik_ has joined
1364 2013-08-24 17:45:44 OldEnK has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1365 2013-08-24 17:47:04 richcollins has joined
1366 2013-08-24 17:48:22 jgarzik has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1367 2013-08-24 17:52:01 datagutt has quit (Quit: kthxbai)
1368 2013-08-24 17:52:33 _ingsoc_ has quit (Quit: leaving)
1369 2013-08-24 17:52:43 _ingsoc has joined
1370 2013-08-24 17:52:43 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1371 2013-08-24 17:52:48 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1372 2013-08-24 17:53:54 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1373 2013-08-24 17:53:55 i2pRelay has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1374 2013-08-24 17:54:21 _ingsoc has joined
1375 2013-08-24 17:54:21 _ingsoc has quit (Client Quit)
1376 2013-08-24 17:55:03 agricocb has joined
1377 2013-08-24 17:55:08 i2pRelay has joined
1378 2013-08-24 17:55:42 CheckDavid has joined
1379 2013-08-24 17:58:06 _ingsoc has joined
1380 2013-08-24 17:58:34 <_ingsoc> .
1381 2013-08-24 17:58:58 jgarzik_ has quit (Changing host)
1382 2013-08-24 17:58:58 jgarzik_ has joined
1383 2013-08-24 17:59:01 jgarzik_ is now known as jgarzik
1384 2013-08-24 17:59:11 <jgarzik> I love old hardware. It all works under Linux.
1385 2013-08-24 17:59:28 <Diablo-D3> I love old hardware
1386 2013-08-24 17:59:31 <Diablo-D3> it predates linux
1387 2013-08-24 17:59:58 <_ingsoc> How old is old?
1388 2013-08-24 18:00:23 <sipa> 2^30 seconds
1389 2013-08-24 18:01:13 Loggan has joined
1390 2013-08-24 18:01:18 <Diablo-D3> _ingsoc: Im talking about 8 or 16 bit hardware
1391 2013-08-24 18:01:27 <Diablo-D3> or non-traditional stuff like IBM mainframes
1392 2013-08-24 18:01:51 Loggan has left ()
1393 2013-08-24 18:02:10 <_ingsoc> Ah.
1394 2013-08-24 18:02:11 qeb has joined
1395 2013-08-24 18:02:25 <_ingsoc> That's a whole different kind of cool.
1396 2013-08-24 18:02:29 <_ingsoc> :)
1397 2013-08-24 18:02:39 <Diablo-D3> its funny
1398 2013-08-24 18:02:40 <Diablo-D3> the new TI calcs
1399 2013-08-24 18:02:42 <Diablo-D3> that use ARMs
1400 2013-08-24 18:02:46 <Diablo-D3> can run linux
1401 2013-08-24 18:03:27 <sturles> We just threw out a lot of old hardware at work. Very little of it would have worked with Linux, I'm afraid. 8088, Atari 1040ST, ND-5870, to name a few.
1402 2013-08-24 18:03:42 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1403 2013-08-24 18:03:45 <sturles> Hadn't been in use for a while.
1404 2013-08-24 18:03:48 <sipa> i assume ND 5870 is a radeon 5870? :p
1405 2013-08-24 18:03:52 <sipa> *not
1406 2013-08-24 18:03:57 <Diablo-D3> sturles: WTF
1407 2013-08-24 18:04:00 <sturles> A 6250 tape reel..
1408 2013-08-24 18:04:01 <Diablo-D3> YOU DONT THROW OUT AN ATARI ST
1409 2013-08-24 18:04:14 _ingsoc has joined
1410 2013-08-24 18:04:19 <sturles> Actually, I saved that one in the last minute.
1411 2013-08-24 18:04:26 <Diablo-D3> good
1412 2013-08-24 18:04:34 <sturles> Found someone who wanted it.
1413 2013-08-24 18:04:37 <Diablo-D3> atari sts are perfect for music
1414 2013-08-24 18:04:58 PrimeStunna has joined
1415 2013-08-24 18:05:18 tsst has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1416 2013-08-24 18:05:31 <sturles> I don't know much about computer music, but expect there to be better equipment out there now.
1417 2013-08-24 18:06:18 <Diablo-D3> sturles: no man
1418 2013-08-24 18:06:25 <Diablo-D3> if you want classic chiptunes shit
1419 2013-08-24 18:06:28 <Diablo-D3> an atari st is worth having
1420 2013-08-24 18:06:39 <Diablo-D3> especially for the speak and spell-like voice synth
1421 2013-08-24 18:07:23 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1422 2013-08-24 18:08:55 <_ingsoc> Isn't there some stuff out there where people create music out of code?
1423 2013-08-24 18:09:06 <maaku> anyone done research on bitcoin-safe environments for registering a foreign corporation?
1424 2013-08-24 18:09:52 <jgarzik> anyone done research on robot-safe environments for registering and controlling a foreign corporation via autonomous robot?
1425 2013-08-24 18:09:57 <_ingsoc> maaku: Excellent topic.
1426 2013-08-24 18:10:11 <_ingsoc> It's confusing as all hell.
1427 2013-08-24 18:10:26 <_ingsoc> Depends what your entity wants to do.
1428 2013-08-24 18:10:29 <maaku> we're looking at Uruguay, which btcglobal also chose
1429 2013-08-24 18:10:45 <_ingsoc> There's Belize, like LitecoinGlobal.
1430 2013-08-24 18:10:51 MobiusL has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1431 2013-08-24 18:11:13 <_ingsoc> Canada seems very nice to Bitcoin.
1432 2013-08-24 18:11:43 <_ingsoc> Exchanges at least, insofar as MSB is concerned.
1433 2013-08-24 18:11:58 <_ingsoc> jgarzik can tell you all about US jurisdiction!
1434 2013-08-24 18:12:05 datagutt has joined
1435 2013-08-24 18:12:09 MobiusL has joined
1436 2013-08-24 18:13:09 <_ingsoc> You can do anything in the US concerning Bitcoin, but it's going to cost you to set it up properly.
1437 2013-08-24 18:13:18 qeb has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1438 2013-08-24 18:14:03 agnostic98 has joined
1439 2013-08-24 18:14:53 michagogo has joined
1440 2013-08-24 18:17:28 daybyter has joined
1441 2013-08-24 18:19:56 qeb has joined
1442 2013-08-24 18:24:12 ThomasV has joined
1443 2013-08-24 18:26:15 pablog has quit (Quit: pablog)
1444 2013-08-24 18:27:39 Application has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1445 2013-08-24 18:28:07 FabianB has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1446 2013-08-24 18:29:17 MoALTz has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1447 2013-08-24 18:29:36 FabianB has joined
1448 2013-08-24 18:30:10 MoALTz has joined
1449 2013-08-24 18:33:19 GordonG3kko has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1450 2013-08-24 18:33:26 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
1451 2013-08-24 18:34:02 GordonG3kko has joined
1452 2013-08-24 18:38:14 GordonG3kko has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1453 2013-08-24 18:38:28 johnsoft has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1454 2013-08-24 18:38:35 Anduck has joined
1455 2013-08-24 18:38:35 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1456 2013-08-24 18:38:35 Anduck has joined
1457 2013-08-24 18:39:49 GordonG3kko has joined
1458 2013-08-24 18:42:40 aupiff has joined
1459 2013-08-24 18:45:41 agnostic98 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1460 2013-08-24 18:46:07 peetaur2 has joined
1461 2013-08-24 18:47:11 btcbtc has joined
1462 2013-08-24 18:49:50 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1463 2013-08-24 18:50:20 _ingsoc has joined
1464 2013-08-24 18:51:43 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1465 2013-08-24 18:53:25 twobitcoins has joined
1466 2013-08-24 18:56:39 altamic has joined
1467 2013-08-24 18:57:13 altamic has left ()
1468 2013-08-24 18:57:25 <BlueMatt> jgarzik: no, but Im very interested in the result assuming you ask a layer about the topic
1469 2013-08-24 19:09:34 random_cat has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1470 2013-08-24 19:10:34 robocoin has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1471 2013-08-24 19:16:42 random_cat has joined
1472 2013-08-24 19:17:46 Application has joined
1473 2013-08-24 19:18:31 Applicat_ has joined
1474 2013-08-24 19:18:52 <michagogo> Hmm.
1475 2013-08-24 19:18:59 execut3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1476 2013-08-24 19:20:12 michagogo has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1477 2013-08-24 19:20:28 michagogo has joined
1478 2013-08-24 19:21:24 execut3 has joined
1479 2013-08-24 19:22:06 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1480 2013-08-24 19:22:17 patcon has joined
1481 2013-08-24 19:22:55 Squidicuz has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1482 2013-08-24 19:25:10 <midnightmagic> lovely to see pull req 162 necro</sarcasm>
1483 2013-08-24 19:25:17 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1484 2013-08-24 19:26:27 temptestnick has joined
1485 2013-08-24 19:26:41 robocoin has joined
1486 2013-08-24 19:30:00 Squidicuz has joined
1487 2013-08-24 19:30:15 patcon has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1488 2013-08-24 19:30:51 HaltingState has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1489 2013-08-24 19:32:51 Vinnie_win has quit ()
1490 2013-08-24 19:35:37 ericmuyser has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1491 2013-08-24 19:39:53 marco_ has quit (Disconnected by services)
1492 2013-08-24 19:43:02 eian has joined
1493 2013-08-24 19:45:40 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1494 2013-08-24 19:49:55 richcollins has quit (Quit: richcollins)
1495 2013-08-24 19:50:49 btcbtc has joined
1496 2013-08-24 19:51:22 paracyst has joined
1497 2013-08-24 19:52:52 <oleganza> is it considered evil to add funky transactions in the block chain that use up some edge cases for the first time?
1498 2013-08-24 19:53:49 <oleganza> e.g. extra OP_CHECKSIG with prepended (invalid) signature and pubkey, so we *really* have to drop signatures before CheckSig?
1499 2013-08-24 19:54:02 <c0rw1n> do that on testnet
1500 2013-08-24 19:54:22 <BlueMatt> oleganza: do it on testnet, but as long as its spendable (ie not bloating utxo set) its not really considered evil on mainnet
1501 2013-08-24 19:54:24 <oleganza> i don't need to do that at all (btw, if someone does - it's not me)
1502 2013-08-24 19:54:39 <BlueMatt> please do do it on testnet, though
1503 2013-08-24 19:54:45 <BlueMatt> thats actively encouraged
1504 2013-08-24 19:55:01 <oleganza> but this will prevent us removing this "drop sigs" code which currently does nothing
1505 2013-08-24 19:55:45 <BlueMatt> meh, that probably wont be removed anyway
1506 2013-08-24 19:56:06 asuk has joined
1507 2013-08-24 19:58:16 <sipa> not without a "script 2.0"
1508 2013-08-24 19:58:59 <BlueMatt> ooo, lets design script 2.0
1509 2013-08-24 19:59:30 HaltingState has joined
1510 2013-08-24 19:59:31 HaltingState has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1511 2013-08-24 20:02:43 Diapolis has joined
1512 2013-08-24 20:09:39 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
1513 2013-08-24 20:10:39 Diapolis has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1514 2013-08-24 20:11:14 Diapolis has joined
1515 2013-08-24 20:11:44 <michagogo> Hmm
1516 2013-08-24 20:11:58 <michagogo> Found a few weird things with the payment request test
1517 2013-08-24 20:15:21 agnostic98 has joined
1518 2013-08-24 20:22:43 Diapolis has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1519 2013-08-24 20:24:40 c0rw1n has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1520 2013-08-24 20:27:51 shesek has joined
1521 2013-08-24 20:28:43 execut3 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1522 2013-08-24 20:31:05 shesek has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1523 2013-08-24 20:32:31 c0rw1n has joined
1524 2013-08-24 20:33:47 oPen_syLar has joined
1525 2013-08-24 20:33:47 oPen_syLar has quit (Changing host)
1526 2013-08-24 20:33:47 oPen_syLar has joined
1527 2013-08-24 20:35:18 ProfMac has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1528 2013-08-24 20:39:38 yubrew_ has joined
1529 2013-08-24 20:39:55 torsthaldo_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1530 2013-08-24 20:40:03 winbtc_moarrr has quit ()
1531 2013-08-24 20:42:47 Subo1977_ has joined
1532 2013-08-24 20:43:51 Subo1977 has quit (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
1533 2013-08-24 20:46:15 ericmuyser has joined
1534 2013-08-24 20:47:41 shesek has joined
1535 2013-08-24 20:48:39 wiretapped has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1536 2013-08-24 20:51:12 <jouke> michagogo: did you use gavin's latest version?
1537 2013-08-24 20:51:19 ericmuyser has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1538 2013-08-24 20:51:33 <michagogo> jouke: I used the http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/a41d5fe01947f2f878c055670986a165af800f9a/bitcoin/bitcoin-qt.exe
1539 2013-08-24 20:53:56 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1540 2013-08-24 20:54:50 wiretapped has joined
1541 2013-08-24 21:00:10 Vinnie_win has joined
1542 2013-08-24 21:01:49 yubrew_ has joined
1543 2013-08-24 21:08:20 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1544 2013-08-24 21:09:47 paracyst has joined
1545 2013-08-24 21:14:46 mrkent has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1546 2013-08-24 21:16:30 michagogo is now known as ogogahcim
1547 2013-08-24 21:20:33 eian has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1548 2013-08-24 21:21:13 oleganza has quit (Quit: oleganza)
1549 2013-08-24 21:24:05 qeb has quit (Quit: ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"])
1550 2013-08-24 21:25:43 asuk has joined
1551 2013-08-24 21:29:11 ogogahcim is now known as michagogo
1552 2013-08-24 21:29:52 Detritus has joined
1553 2013-08-24 21:30:31 _ingsoc has quit (Quit: leaving)
1554 2013-08-24 21:32:13 johnsoft has joined
1555 2013-08-24 21:32:42 patcon has joined
1556 2013-08-24 21:34:09 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1557 2013-08-24 21:34:16 AusBitBank_ has joined
1558 2013-08-24 21:36:25 patcon has joined
1559 2013-08-24 21:37:07 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1560 2013-08-24 21:41:59 wamatt has quit (Quit: wamatt)
1561 2013-08-24 21:43:13 wamatt has joined
1562 2013-08-24 21:46:45 wamatt has quit (Client Quit)
1563 2013-08-24 21:48:35 danda__ has joined
1564 2013-08-24 21:49:29 darwin_ has joined
1565 2013-08-24 21:50:20 danda_ has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
1566 2013-08-24 21:52:30 michagogo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1567 2013-08-24 21:57:20 oPen_syLar has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1568 2013-08-24 21:58:16 asuk has quit (Quit: asuk)
1569 2013-08-24 21:59:07 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1570 2013-08-24 22:01:36 Sunwicked has quit ()
1571 2013-08-24 22:02:56 btcbtc has quit (Quit: btcbtc)
1572 2013-08-24 22:06:36 Thepok has joined
1573 2013-08-24 22:09:50 Prattler has joined
1574 2013-08-24 22:20:21 sserrano44 has joined
1575 2013-08-24 22:20:45 paracyst has joined
1576 2013-08-24 22:25:55 btcbtc has joined
1577 2013-08-24 22:28:26 Applicat_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1578 2013-08-24 22:30:23 patcon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1579 2013-08-24 22:39:28 CobaltBlueD has joined
1580 2013-08-24 22:40:11 <TheLordOfTime> testnet is still theoretically GPU mineable right, at 301.99.... difficulty?
1581 2013-08-24 22:41:21 DBordello has quit (Excess Flood)
1582 2013-08-24 22:41:49 <gmaxwell> TheLordOfTime: it's minable also because of the 20 min blocks.
1583 2013-08-24 22:43:02 DBordello has joined
1584 2013-08-24 22:43:26 psychophoniac has joined
1585 2013-08-24 22:43:45 <TheLordOfTime> gmaxwell, but that's a yes?
1586 2013-08-24 22:43:57 <TheLordOfTime> (i ask because i'm out of testnet coin again :/)
1587 2013-08-24 22:44:01 <gmaxwell> yes, sure.
1588 2013-08-24 22:44:03 <TheLordOfTime> cool
1589 2013-08-24 22:44:45 <BlueMatt> there are multiple testnet faucets
1590 2013-08-24 22:44:55 <BlueMatt> also, just use regtest-in-a-box
1591 2013-08-24 22:45:40 graingert_ has joined
1592 2013-08-24 22:45:51 graingert_ has quit (Changing host)
1593 2013-08-24 22:45:52 graingert_ has joined
1594 2013-08-24 22:46:19 <Luke-Jr> .. how do you run out of testnet coin? O.o
1595 2013-08-24 22:50:00 yubrew_ has joined
1596 2013-08-24 22:50:36 Application has joined
1597 2013-08-24 22:51:21 Applicat_ has joined
1598 2013-08-24 22:54:03 CryptoBuck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1599 2013-08-24 22:54:50 Application has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1600 2013-08-24 22:55:04 CryptoBuck has joined
1601 2013-08-24 22:56:15 AusBitBank_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1602 2013-08-24 22:58:04 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
1603 2013-08-24 23:01:08 EmLeX has joined
1604 2013-08-24 23:01:37 stalled has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1605 2013-08-24 23:01:55 <TheLordOfTime> Luke-Jr, by... donating to a testnet faucet after using them for my needs?
1606 2013-08-24 23:02:38 <phantomcircuit> has anybody here successfully built multibit recently?
1607 2013-08-24 23:02:38 Anduck has joined
1608 2013-08-24 23:02:39 Anduck has quit (Changing host)
1609 2013-08-24 23:02:39 Anduck has joined
1610 2013-08-24 23:02:53 <phantomcircuit> it's looking for bitcoinj at nexus.bitcoinj.org but there isn't an http server there
1611 2013-08-24 23:02:57 AusBitBank_ has joined
1612 2013-08-24 23:03:04 <Luke-Jr> TheLordOfTime: and it won't give them back? XD
1613 2013-08-24 23:03:16 <phantomcircuit> is maven pointed at the wrong place? or is the http server on the ec2 micro instance offline?
1614 2013-08-24 23:03:22 <TheLordOfTime> Luke-Jr, not in as many as i've donated, looks like someone else drained that faucet or it went offline
1615 2013-08-24 23:03:27 <Luke-Jr> :/
1616 2013-08-24 23:05:59 santoscork has joined
1617 2013-08-24 23:07:01 temptestnick has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
1618 2013-08-24 23:09:39 Anduck has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1619 2013-08-24 23:12:13 stalled has joined
1620 2013-08-24 23:12:15 toffoo has joined
1621 2013-08-24 23:15:35 blaeks has joined
1622 2013-08-24 23:16:15 rodarmor has joined
1623 2013-08-24 23:17:00 rodarmor has quit (Client Quit)
1624 2013-08-24 23:19:54 rodarmor has joined
1625 2013-08-24 23:22:47 yubrew_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1626 2013-08-24 23:26:45 paracyst has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1627 2013-08-24 23:32:52 darkee has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1628 2013-08-24 23:33:28 darkee has joined
1629 2013-08-24 23:35:29 santoscork has quit (Quit: Quiet while I make like a cat)
1630 2013-08-24 23:35:47 juquinha has joined
1631 2013-08-24 23:37:50 PrimeStunna_ has joined
1632 2013-08-24 23:38:06 <juquinha> hi folks, is there any place to discuss software related to btc, but not the core of btc?
1633 2013-08-24 23:38:11 graingert_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat-GNOME)
1634 2013-08-24 23:38:38 CobaltBlueD has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1635 2013-08-24 23:39:26 chorao2 has joined
1636 2013-08-24 23:39:27 chorao has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1637 2013-08-24 23:40:52 PrimeStunna has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1638 2013-08-24 23:40:52 PrimeStunna_ is now known as PrimeStunna
1639 2013-08-24 23:44:22 CobaltBlueD has joined
1640 2013-08-24 23:44:51 <Luke-Jr> juquinha: #bitcoin-wizards and #bitcoin-tech IIRC
1641 2013-08-24 23:46:36 <K1773R> #bitcoin-tech is dead
1642 2013-08-24 23:46:39 Applicat_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
1643 2013-08-24 23:49:12 Application has joined
1644 2013-08-24 23:49:21 <Luke-Jr> oh
1645 2013-08-24 23:54:36 OneFixt has joined
1646 2013-08-24 23:55:49 <juquinha> k
1647 2013-08-24 23:55:52 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1648 2013-08-24 23:57:10 temptestnick has joined
1649 2013-08-24 23:58:22 yubrew_ has joined