1 2011-05-20 00:00:03 <rmoriz> Dek: wasting elctricity is not my problem
  2 2011-05-20 00:00:07 <erbs> the sheeple will trudge on under the draconian fees and try to cheer each other up with miley cyrus ringtones
  3 2011-05-20 00:00:15 <Dek> yeah true but it was something you were doing wrong so good to know for you
  4 2011-05-20 00:00:19 <Dek> erbs: doubt it would happen all it would take is 1 person to open a miner with a lower tx fee (not even 0 they still profit) and accept those slowed tx and put them in block chain -- miners would be too greedy to let them get all the blocks
  5 2011-05-20 00:01:41 <C4colo> also, for chains that are longer they will override shorter solutions
  6 2011-05-20 00:01:41 <luke-jr> rmoriz: most users don't do stupid things. if you're having trouble, the first step is to stop doing stupid things, so your use case is comparable to everyone else.
  7 2011-05-20 00:01:47 <C4colo> so those tx will eventually find a block
  8 2011-05-20 00:01:57 <C4colo> and when they do, it will be longer than the blockchain of the mean miners
  9 2011-05-20 00:02:00 <erbs> Dek: exactly.. so those slowed down coins will still be slow forever (by definition a minority of miners only create blocks slowly)
 10 2011-05-20 00:02:01 <rmoriz> Dek: i don't think so. a reasonable comment would have been: bitcoind is a piece of shit, even the very shot wiki pages are full of failiure and nobody cares.
 11 2011-05-20 00:02:27 <jgarzik> heh
 12 2011-05-20 00:02:39 <rmoriz> also, why not develop such things in a test driven way. everyone does TDD nowdays.
 13 2011-05-20 00:02:42 <luke-jr> rmoriz: ok, now you're just trolling
 14 2011-05-20 00:02:51 <erbs> a miner who wanted to buck the prevailing fees and accept cheap tx would be a small minority (so coins rooted in low-fee transactions are still in the "slow bucket")
 15 2011-05-20 00:03:05 <gmaxwell> erbs: I think I pointed out in my post, the solution is to add more hash power (by a union of good miners) until you reach an equlibrium where all the block reward is being spent on mining hardware.
 16 2011-05-20 00:03:05 <rmoriz> i can't find a single test on the github repo :/
 17 2011-05-20 00:03:16 <gmaxwell> At that point taking more TX, even lower fee ones, makes sense.
 18 2011-05-20 00:03:42 <jgarzik> rmoriz: the git repo does include many contributions from others!
 19 2011-05-20 00:03:44 <jgarzik> rmoriz: you could be the first to contribute some tests
 20 2011-05-20 00:03:58 <erbs> gmaxwell: miners who mine out of the goodness of their heart (and not to exploit the fee system) are by definition a minority (under game theoretic assumptions - we assume everyone is out to maximize their gain)
 21 2011-05-20 00:04:23 <jgarzik> miners may mine for reasons other than purely bitcoin output, i.e. a payment processor wants a strong network
 22 2011-05-20 00:04:27 <erbs> so sure, a few good miners will be around to process slow coins indefinitely, but no one will go near those coins because they dont want illiquid assets
 23 2011-05-20 00:04:34 <gmaxwell> erbs: not so, destroying bitcoin is economically bad for people who already have a lot of it.
 24 2011-05-20 00:04:50 <erbs> gmaxwell: its not destroying it, its exploiting the maximal amt of fees from it
 25 2011-05-20 00:04:50 <gmaxwell> and as jgarzik points out, people actually using bitcoin.
 26 2011-05-20 00:05:05 <erbs> ppl still have to use their bitcoins regardless of the fees
 27 2011-05-20 00:05:05 <gmaxwell> erbs: which greatly reduces its attractiveness vs other stuff.
 28 2011-05-20 00:05:20 <EvanR> BlueMatt: should probably ban something similar to ~rob@93-97-219-239.zone5.bethere.co.uk
 29 2011-05-20 00:05:43 <gmaxwell> I think we can safely say that there will always be compeating currencies. miners with high tx fees will push people into them.
 30 2011-05-20 00:05:44 <erbs> id say the model would predict fees increase in proportion to volumes
 31 2011-05-20 00:05:46 <rmoriz> jgarzik: are there any specs? maybe it's correct that bitcoind just throws this error despite straces shows a connect and a response?
 32 2011-05-20 00:06:06 <rmoriz> jgarzik: how should i write tests if I cant be sure that this is an intented behaviour?
 33 2011-05-20 00:06:22 <erbs> minetime
 34 2011-05-20 00:06:54 <jgarzik> rmoriz: that's why it's open source.  everything you need to discover the answer is right there, or in the forums, or in the wiki.
 35 2011-05-20 00:06:55 <gmaxwell> erbs: and I'm not suggesting that they'd operate at a loss, I'm suggesting that the 50BTC buys a lot of hardware they can use to compete. Eventually they are spending all of that on hardware, and then they'll need to accept more tx to get more tx income.
 36 2011-05-20 00:06:56 <erbs> gmaxwell: a currency without fees.. otherwise it will follow the same curve -> build confidence // exploit fees // cash out
 37 2011-05-20 00:07:13 <Optimo> anonymous launderers 'inside' the majority pools could do backend deals for btc ;p
 38 2011-05-20 00:07:33 <gmaxwell> erbs: like the dollar bill?
 39 2011-05-20 00:07:34 <jgarzik> rmoriz: you can also try the spaghetti / strawman approach.  just write a patch, and let people outline in detail how it is wrong or right :)
 40 2011-05-20 00:09:03 <erbs> gmaxwell: the equillibrium would favor high fees.. (the same way it is in credit card processing, where you are a slave to whatever the network owner decides is the fee)
 41 2011-05-20 00:09:31 <rmoriz> this is 1990 style opensource
 42 2011-05-20 00:09:44 <rmoriz> check how the perl/python/ruby/node.js people handle it
 43 2011-05-20 00:10:11 <rmoriz> there's no excuse for missing test anymore.
 44 2011-05-20 00:10:31 <gmaxwell> erbs: not so, once the bonus is gone the users simply have to refuse to pay high fees
 45 2011-05-20 00:10:43 <gmaxwell> erbs: and then the pool which takes the most TX can afford the most hash power.
 46 2011-05-20 00:11:29 <gmaxwell> (by gone I mean actually gone, or being 100% spent on mining costs already)
 47 2011-05-20 00:11:30 <erbs> but they have no incentive to engage in a downward price war
 48 2011-05-20 00:11:45 <erbs> the same reason visa/mc/discover dont lower their fees to a marginal amount above 0
 49 2011-05-20 00:11:52 <gmaxwell> erbs: the miners who want bitcoin healthy for commercial, social, politicial reasons do.
 50 2011-05-20 00:12:33 <erbs> they have more to gain by tacit collusion and keeping fees up - any industry thats controlled by an oligolpoly (opec, credit cards, movies, health insurance) are going to more or less agree on high prices that steadily increase, rather than competing on the lowest price
 51 2011-05-20 00:12:43 <gmaxwell> The system itself will curently pay a compeating union to enter the market, and will do so as long as there is a reward.
 52 2011-05-20 00:13:10 <barf> erbs: most any market will function in that way if unregulated
 53 2011-05-20 00:13:11 <erbs> the barrier to entry is huge... starting a significant pool requires up front costs that aren't paid back for a long time
 54 2011-05-20 00:13:14 <gmaxwell> There is very little to exclude people from mining, except buying hashing power, which the system will currently fund provided good purchasing power.
 55 2011-05-20 00:13:50 <erbs> oligopolies result in tacit collusion (it doesn't have to be coordinated. the models predict they follow a "price leader". when one seller raises his price, the others follow in lockstep)
 56 2011-05-20 00:14:25 <gmaxwell> ::shrugs:: we're deep in speculation, and you're mostly making the argument I made weeks ago.
 57 2011-05-20 00:14:28 <erbs> mining is an ologopoly because they consolidate power into pools and dedicated data centers
 58 2011-05-20 00:14:42 <gmaxwell> We don't know the the system would ever enter that state.
 59 2011-05-20 00:15:05 <erbs> were in it now
 60 2011-05-20 00:15:17 <erbs> <gmaxwell> ::shrugs:: we're deep in speculation <-- yes
 61 2011-05-20 00:15:51 <gmaxwell> Moreover, the more likely outcome is that TX fees won't actually fund keeping the difficulty high, so we'll have to figure out something else for that which will change all these dynamics completely.
 62 2011-05-20 00:16:06 <erbs> mining looks more like opec and insurance companies than it does say, street vendors at a bazaar engaging in pure competition
 63 2011-05-20 00:16:54 <erbs> gmaxwell: the need to buy more hw is actually going to incentivize them to raise fees quicker (rather than lower them in hopes of gaining market share (but then someone else just goes lower) - price wars arent profitable and rarely happen)
 64 2011-05-20 00:17:43 <gmaxwell> the problem will be that to actually achieve a high hash rate may well require really opressive fees.
 65 2011-05-20 00:18:00 <ArtForzZz> that argument has one *tiny* flaw
 66 2011-05-20 00:18:13 <erbs> ppl will stop mining if its not profitable.. so difficulty will go down
 67 2011-05-20 00:18:29 <gmaxwell> erbs: if the required rate isn't high the barrier to entry is low.
 68 2011-05-20 00:18:38 <ArtForzZz> increasing fees while a majority charges lower fees *lowers* profits
 69 2011-05-20 00:19:14 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: well it doesn't matter while there is a 50 or a 25 btc reward. The loss is going to be small relative to that.
 70 2011-05-20 00:19:26 <ArtForzZz> that still doesnt change the fact
 71 2011-05-20 00:19:43 <erbs> "An oligopoly where each firm acts independently tends toward equilibrium at the ideal, but such covert cooperation as price leadership tends toward higher profitability for all, though it is an unstable arrangement. In barometric firm price leadership, the most reliable firm emerges as the best barometer of market conditions"
 72 2011-05-20 00:19:52 <ArtForzZz> nice copypasta
 73 2011-05-20 00:19:59 <gmaxwell> I agree, and said this above. At least at the case where the reward is limited, the parties with lower fees can afford more hashing power.
 74 2011-05-20 00:20:05 <ArtForzZz> yep
 75 2011-05-20 00:20:13 <erbs> if theres pure competition then prices are just above costs.. in an oligopoly, prices increase steadily by everyone following a price leader
 76 2011-05-20 00:20:18 <erbs> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion
 77 2011-05-20 00:20:31 <ArtForzZz> erbs: yes, nice copypasta
 78 2011-05-20 00:20:43 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: one problem is that if the cost of entry is $$$$ at that point, the only standard parties may just cooperate like erbs suggests.
 79 2011-05-20 00:20:54 <gmaxwell> s/standard/standing/
 80 2011-05-20 00:21:00 <gmaxwell> (damn autopilot)
 81 2011-05-20 00:21:03 <ArtForzZz> yes, but thats not a oligopoly, thats active collusion
 82 2011-05-20 00:21:08 <erbs> so.. the level of competition determines whether its an oligopoly or pure competition where prices are as low as possible
 83 2011-05-20 00:21:23 <erbs> price leadership doesn't require coordination - one miner raises his price, the other big ones follow suit
 84 2011-05-20 00:21:30 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: passive collusion is a stable outcome too.
 85 2011-05-20 00:21:31 <erbs> now all their profits increase
 86 2011-05-20 00:21:43 <ArtForzZz> erbs: except why would other miners follow suit? it would *lower* their short term profits
 87 2011-05-20 00:21:49 <ArtForzZz> lower profit = baaad
 88 2011-05-20 00:22:00 <gmaxwell> Because people can thinking for longer terms than a quarter... sometimes.
 89 2011-05-20 00:22:21 <gmaxwell> also if there are few miners.. e.g. if there were only two, the transition would be a no brainer.
 90 2011-05-20 00:22:34 <erbs> ArtForzZz: users would have to pony up more fees pretty quickly to sustain their expected tx speeds.. so they kind of have no choice but to pay higher fees (or mess up their business)
 91 2011-05-20 00:22:42 <ArtForzZz> yep, while the other guy raises his fees, keep your min fee low
 92 2011-05-20 00:22:58 <ArtForzZz> you collect more fees and can expand quicker. guess who wins.
 93 2011-05-20 00:23:09 <Dek> exactly
 94 2011-05-20 00:23:09 <erbs> but you dont
 95 2011-05-20 00:23:09 <gmaxwell> you'll get a chunk of the high fees _and_ you'll get the low fees too.
 96 2011-05-20 00:23:17 <erbs> because another miner simply goes *lower* than your new lower fee
 97 2011-05-20 00:23:27 <erbs> its a price war to the bottom, and oligopolies know that results in 0 profit
 98 2011-05-20 00:23:50 <gmaxwell> moreover, you get groups who realize starving the other guy is good for them to feed you a private feed of their TXNs, so only you can mine their blocks.
 99 2011-05-20 00:24:26 <gmaxwell> erbs: thats the comment I made about the TX fees not keeping the difficulty up, so something potentially needs to be done to solve that.
100 2011-05-20 00:24:37 <ArtForzZz> thats where limited block sizes come in ;)
101 2011-05-20 00:25:08 <gmaxwell> oh, that too. that keeps too low from being that attractive.
102 2011-05-20 00:25:14 <erbs> i dont think its a problem other than extremely theoretical and maybe 20 years in the future :)
103 2011-05-20 00:25:24 <ArtForzZz> yeah
104 2011-05-20 00:25:46 <erbs> because as you said, bitcoin is competing with other currencies and payment methods - fees cant exceed what visa .. or what those thieves at paypal are charging.. there are externally imposed limits
105 2011-05-20 00:26:04 <ArtForzZz> as even if a miner doesnt enforce a min fee, he'll still prioritize by fee
106 2011-05-20 00:26:04 <gmaxwell> Yes.
107 2011-05-20 00:26:16 <Optimo> why can't the code limit the number of hashses by one node?
108 2011-05-20 00:26:26 <ArtForzZz> Optimo: because.
109 2011-05-20 00:26:28 <gmaxwell> Optimo: ... because that node would take out the limit.
110 2011-05-20 00:26:45 <Optimo> or have that scale with the other laws
111 2011-05-20 00:26:52 <ArtForzZz> it doesn't work
112 2011-05-20 00:26:59 <ArtForzZz> how do you determine what "a node" is?
113 2011-05-20 00:27:04 <ArtForzZz> by IP doesn't work
114 2011-05-20 00:27:05 <gmaxwell> Optimo: because that node would adopt multiple identities.
115 2011-05-20 00:27:11 <Optimo> ah
116 2011-05-20 00:27:23 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: I know, they could do a really hard proof of work to create an identity each time!
117 2011-05-20 00:27:29 <ArtForzZz> which is why we use proof-of-work in the first place ;)
118 2011-05-20 00:27:35 <gmaxwell> hehehehe
119 2011-05-20 00:27:51 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: it's proof-of-work all the way down! ;)
120 2011-05-20 00:27:59 <ArtForzZz> or was it turtles ...
121 2011-05-20 00:28:13 <Optimo> it was stones from another island
122 2011-05-20 00:29:06 <XX01XX> palau
123 2011-05-20 00:29:23 <Optimo> rereading EC crypto papers
124 2011-05-20 00:29:23 <XX01XX> I assume we're talking about lapp stone money?
125 2011-05-20 00:29:37 <Optimo> yeah, some video regarding bitcoin mentioned it
126 2011-05-20 00:29:39 <erbs> ArtForzZz is the man
127 2011-05-20 00:29:41 <Optimo> I think it was gavin?
128 2011-05-20 00:29:55 <erbs> pls send me a miningbox
129 2011-05-20 00:30:00 <XX01XX> Link to vidya?
130 2011-05-20 00:33:04 <erbs> if you reduce the difficulty back to levels where simple cpu mining could bring in some nominal bitcoins, then the index will skyrocket - because that is much higher level of user adoption if decent mining is actually possible for the masses
131 2011-05-20 00:33:29 <erbs> (which would mean accelerating the issuance of bitcoin, but who has decades to wait for it all to be issued)
132 2011-05-20 00:34:44 <gmaxwell> erbs: you'd totally ruin all confidence in the predictable behavior of the currency.
133 2011-05-20 00:34:50 <erbs> users who mined bitcoins will find ways to sell them for money
134 2011-05-20 00:34:56 <Optimo> XX01XX, it was on youtube.. dunno
135 2011-05-20 00:34:59 <Dek> the whole point of the system is artificial scarcity to allow certain individuals to profit from the early adopters. That would be ruined if bitcoins were spread widely
136 2011-05-20 00:35:12 <gmaxwell> Who'd buy? "What will those crazy people who are answerable to no one do tomorrow?"
137 2011-05-20 00:35:17 <erbs> gmaxwell: im just saying to adjust the rate of production (which is arbitrarily set at 50 per 10 min)
138 2011-05-20 00:35:30 <ArtForzZz> erbs: why?
139 2011-05-20 00:35:32 <erbs> theres no reason why 50/10 min is better than 50/5 min
140 2011-05-20 00:35:40 <ArtForzZz> yes, there is
141 2011-05-20 00:35:45 <gmaxwell> thems the rules!
142 2011-05-20 00:35:55 <erbs> its not better from an investors point of view. its an arbitrary number
143 2011-05-20 00:36:06 <ArtForzZz> it's better from a technical point of view
144 2011-05-20 00:36:23 <erbs> the reason is simple: you get more users if they can easily mine a few coins with their pc by joining a pool or whatever
145 2011-05-20 00:36:38 <erbs> the bounty size is arbitrary
146 2011-05-20 00:36:39 <ArtForzZz> you can't reduce block interval without increasing natural chain forks
147 2011-05-20 00:36:49 <ArtForzZz> you could get even more users if you just gave em away for free
148 2011-05-20 00:36:58 <erbs> 50/5min is equivalent to increasing bounty to 100/10min
149 2011-05-20 00:37:07 <ArtForzZz> they'd be worthless, but there'd be a lot.
150 2011-05-20 00:37:28 <erbs> theres no reason 50-per block is somehow valuable, but 100 per block isn't
151 2011-05-20 00:37:30 <ArtForzZz> which is the exact same scenatio as we had in the early days of bitcoin
152 2011-05-20 00:37:49 <Optimo> how can I twist this into a counterargument for your inevitable sinister megapools
153 2011-05-20 00:37:52 <ArtForzZz> and then in a few years we'll do the same thing again, devaluation FTW
154 2011-05-20 00:38:10 <erbs> bitcoin is devaluing at 50btc every 10 min now
155 2011-05-20 00:38:15 <ArtForzZz> no it's not
156 2011-05-20 00:38:20 <gmaxwell> the percieved _risk_ of it happening again will drive the price straight to the logical conclusion...
157 2011-05-20 00:38:28 <ArtForzZz> because everyone knew the rules beforehand
158 2011-05-20 00:38:28 <erbs> the supply is increasing, therefore each unit decreases in value
159 2011-05-20 00:38:37 <ArtForzZz> start changing the rules, there goes any trust in the system
160 2011-05-20 00:38:37 <gmaxwell> exactly!
161 2011-05-20 00:38:51 <gmaxwell> that 'devaultation' is baked in the price.
162 2011-05-20 00:39:02 <gmaxwell> it would be regardless of the rules.
163 2011-05-20 00:39:19 <gmaxwell> but if you change the rules people may rationally assume an almost infinite eventual devaulation.
164 2011-05-20 00:39:27 <Dek> "trust" by people who have a vested interest in the status quo, not by new people who gain access to the system
165 2011-05-20 00:39:43 <erbs> im just saying - theres a critical "tipping point" where lots of users will adopt it if they can do some mining on their pc - beyond that adoption is much slower and there are more pitfalls to growth... the question is what is the ideal rate of user adoption and how to achieve it
166 2011-05-20 00:39:55 <ArtForzZz> again, and how will those people know you won't pull the same stunt again in a few months?
167 2011-05-20 00:40:06 <gmaxwell> Dek: more reason to trust them!
168 2011-05-20 00:40:17 <gmaxwell> Dek: trust is about predictability above all else.
169 2011-05-20 00:40:50 <erbs> the users have the belief that bitcoin's maintainers are doing their best to increase the value ($USD) of btc and will adjust the rate of production to maximize value
170 2011-05-20 00:41:11 <gmaxwell> erbs: if so, go convince bitcoin millionares that its in their best interest to operate a stupidly productive at-a-loss shares for cash service.
171 2011-05-20 00:41:25 <erbs> shares for cash?
172 2011-05-20 00:41:35 <gmaxwell> a faucet powered by pow.
173 2011-05-20 00:41:55 <Dek> truth is if people dont spend bitcoins and use bitcoins and spread them out there wont be long term growth in demand
174 2011-05-20 00:42:04 <Dek> so hopefully people who have em are using em
175 2011-05-20 00:42:27 <gmaxwell> Dek: which is why the focus on mining erbs would support is fundimentally bad.
176 2011-05-20 00:42:29 <erbs> the viral hook is the act of mining bitcoin.. remember they called it a "gold rush".. not a "gold trickle"
177 2011-05-20 00:42:49 <gmaxwell> Because it encourages thinking of bitcoin as a make money fast thing rather than a currency.
178 2011-05-20 00:42:56 <Optimo> gold rush also creates a trickle
179 2011-05-20 00:42:59 <ArtForzZz> guess what, it's not a money tree!
180 2011-05-20 00:43:08 <gmaxwell> lots of talk of mining #bitcoin, very few in setting up bitcoin businesses or buying bitcoin things.
181 2011-05-20 00:43:27 <erbs> its a business, ppl are out to make money
182 2011-05-20 00:43:31 <Optimo> smart people will come together
183 2011-05-20 00:43:36 <Optimo> just takes time
184 2011-05-20 00:43:39 <Dek> there isnt a very large market that can pay in bitcoins
185 2011-05-20 00:43:51 <Dek> so hard to run a business like that i would assume
186 2011-05-20 00:44:02 <jlewis> i think it hurt the economy when mtgox allowed easy withdrawal w/ dwolla
187 2011-05-20 00:44:03 <gmaxwell> erbs: we ought to encourage them to make money by buying and selling goods and services, since thats strictly necessary for BTC's success, while nothing else is.
188 2011-05-20 00:44:07 <erbs> very soon decisions will not be based on "keeping in spirit with a non-inflatable currency etc" but how to maximize their pockets
189 2011-05-20 00:44:11 <jlewis> incentived people to play on the exchange more
190 2011-05-20 00:44:13 <Optimo> it's early, you have to be in it for longterm at this time
191 2011-05-20 00:44:14 <jlewis> instead of use it as a currency
192 2011-05-20 00:44:38 <gmaxwell> jlewis: I wonder if the exchange has spread btc to more people or concentrated it more?
193 2011-05-20 00:44:45 <Optimo> everything you mention should not be addressed by changing the code
194 2011-05-20 00:44:49 <Dek> good idea gmaxwell
195 2011-05-20 00:44:59 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: it sure as hell spread my btc
196 2011-05-20 00:45:00 <Optimo> but by building the infrastructure around the commodity
197 2011-05-20 00:45:10 <Dek> art: lol
198 2011-05-20 00:45:10 <jlewis> i'm not sure... i think a ton of people are just speculating, but there are some big sellers like ArtForzZz :p
199 2011-05-20 00:45:24 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: might have all been bought by a single 'investor'
200 2011-05-20 00:45:34 <ArtForzZz> without big exchanges I'd be sitting on several 100kbtc, and buying a *lot* of alpaca socks...
201 2011-05-20 00:45:49 <Dek> lol
202 2011-05-20 00:45:50 <erbs> fact is, bitcoin users are in it for short term gain - no single user has any personal incentive to create an actual USD competitor, but to maximize their short term gains
203 2011-05-20 00:45:51 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: but your video cards keep you warm already.
204 2011-05-20 00:45:55 <erbs> nice ArtForzZz
205 2011-05-20 00:46:04 <gmaxwell> erbs: we need to change that, because thats not sustainable.
206 2011-05-20 00:46:12 <Optimo> erbs, not nobody, some people will
207 2011-05-20 00:46:43 <Optimo> there are also leisure gamblers
208 2011-05-20 00:46:55 <Optimo> and people strictly diversifying
209 2011-05-20 00:47:09 <erbs> as soon as bitcoin has value it turns into a money game, rather than a cool experiment :) ppl generally follow incentives..
210 2011-05-20 00:47:21 <gmaxwell> erbs: where did the weusecoins video come from if no one has an incentive?
211 2011-05-20 00:47:25 <Optimo> dollars is a money game at a level well beyond my tax bracket
212 2011-05-20 00:48:22 <gmaxwell> erbs: and the bounties paid on places accepting coin?
213 2011-05-20 00:48:38 <Optimo> nobody said bitcoin technology has to solve fundamental human conditioning
214 2011-05-20 00:48:41 <erbs> gmaxwell: pump pump pump (the dump)
215 2011-05-20 00:48:48 <ArtForzZz> irrelevant, erbs can't mine enough coins!
216 2011-05-20 00:49:01 <erbs> same reason some bitcoin guys have a faucet :)
217 2011-05-20 00:49:06 <ArtForzZz> so change the system, NOW!
218 2011-05-20 00:49:12 <erbs> lol ArtForzZz!
219 2011-05-20 00:49:34 <gmaxwell> was it erbs that posted on the forms asking if there were any communist pools? :)
220 2011-05-20 00:49:38 <erbs> no im not trying to become a miner.. im looking at how to increase the value of btc by optimizing the adoption rate
221 2011-05-20 00:49:52 <Optimo> get busy making connections in software
222 2011-05-20 00:49:55 <Optimo> adding a layer
223 2011-05-20 00:50:13 <gmaxwell> erbs: there is already inertia. You can make more with addons.
224 2011-05-20 00:50:38 <erbs> you have to admit theres an optimal adoption rate, that maximizes bitcoins viability and value.. im saying it works best when mining becomes a viral thing (rather than something that is no longer practical for most end-users)
225 2011-05-20 00:50:52 <ArtForzZz> yes
226 2011-05-20 00:50:58 <Optimo> send infinite bitcoin fractions to random wallet addresses
227 2011-05-20 00:51:19 <erbs> mining is better than free distribution because ppl dont value things they get for free. but when theyre involved in making it / mining it, they become attached to it
228 2011-05-20 00:51:23 <ArtForzZz> and we had exponential growth for months already
229 2011-05-20 00:51:43 <gmaxwell> e.g. rhett__ complained that fast turnaround TX (<<20minutes) are risky, I countered that there is a business to be made rating and insuring those transactions against reversal. Someone could build it and solve a real if not currently significant risk in the system, without changing anything or risking confidence.
230 2011-05-20 00:51:50 <Optimo> erbs, you think you can see the real scope but you can't tell from inside th trend
231 2011-05-20 00:52:01 <Optimo> you can't see the ramp
232 2011-05-20 00:52:09 <LobsterMan> ;;bc,stats
233 2011-05-20 00:52:13 <gribble> Current Blocks: 125211 | Current Difficulty: 244139.48158254 | Next Difficulty At Block: 127007 | Next Difficulty In: 1796 blocks | Next Difficulty In About: 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 28 minutes, and 40 seconds | Next Difficulty Estimate: 312934.35336843
234 2011-05-20 00:52:16 <erbs> well ive said that there are plausible scenarios where btc reaches $300
235 2011-05-20 00:52:18 <Optimo> 2 and a half years or so is just the start
236 2011-05-20 00:52:21 <gmaxwell> erbs: thats why I said POW faucet earlier, I was thinking free=worthless at the time.
237 2011-05-20 00:52:23 <erbs> based on the merits of the protocol etc
238 2011-05-20 00:52:33 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: you invented the CC company? ;)
239 2011-05-20 00:52:54 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: CC overlay on BTC. Want the old system back? FINE!
240 2011-05-20 00:53:35 <erbs> yeah ppl think free is worthless
241 2011-05-20 00:53:39 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: I actually expect things like that to pop up and work pretty well
242 2011-05-20 00:53:43 <erbs> its a cognitive bias..
243 2011-05-20 00:53:50 <gmaxwell> but really, a TX insurer would be a useful service. With superior network visiblity and priority contracts with miners they could make better risk decisions than you.
244 2011-05-20 00:54:05 <erbs> then again, "Free Shipping" etc is like crack to retail buyers.. they love the very word free
245 2011-05-20 00:54:20 <erbs> (something they usually pay for that is suddently free is like crack cocaine to them!)
246 2011-05-20 00:54:24 <gmaxwell> erbs: you have to first charge for it, then give it away.
247 2011-05-20 00:54:28 <erbs> true
248 2011-05-20 00:54:34 <Optimo> what about coupling another transaction to a very cheap bitcoin tx
249 2011-05-20 00:55:08 <gmaxwell> obviously the payout schedule should have gone hard, easy, hard. ;)
250 2011-05-20 00:55:11 <Optimo> buy this for $ and we will give you x btc
251 2011-05-20 00:55:32 <gmaxwell> ohh. hey
252 2011-05-20 00:55:35 <gmaxwell> thats cute.
253 2011-05-20 00:55:38 <gmaxwell> rebates in bitcoin!
254 2011-05-20 00:55:44 <Optimo> yes
255 2011-05-20 00:55:49 <gmaxwell> plus make them have a wallet to redeem bit rebate.
256 2011-05-20 00:55:49 <Optimo> !
257 2011-05-20 00:55:54 <Optimo> because rebates suck ass
258 2011-05-20 00:55:56 <gmaxwell> s/bit/the/
259 2011-05-20 00:56:01 <Optimo> let's do it
260 2011-05-20 00:56:11 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: isnt someone already doing that for amazon?
261 2011-05-20 00:56:12 <Optimo> you could almost insure against a current rate
262 2011-05-20 00:56:27 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: oh? well awesome for them. Using the referral fees I guess?
263 2011-05-20 00:56:33 <ArtForzZz> yea
264 2011-05-20 00:56:40 <Optimo> mhm'
265 2011-05-20 00:56:53 <Optimo> not a bad idea tho.
266 2011-05-20 00:56:56 <gmaxwell> Optimo: because not everyone will cash in the rebate it becomes cheap to do.
267 2011-05-20 00:57:07 <Optimo> you can hedge on the insurance..
268 2011-05-20 00:57:32 <gmaxwell> Optimo: need people to buy the other sides of the contracts to hedge.
269 2011-05-20 00:57:37 <Optimo> most rebate processors are outsourced anyway
270 2011-05-20 00:57:41 <erbs> anyway bitcoin is fine as it is.. we just need more commerce
271 2011-05-20 00:58:20 <gmaxwell> quid markets for BTC futures yet. I dunno how many people are dying to buy btc risk, or how many are not using btc because they can't sell it.
272 2011-05-20 00:58:20 <Optimo> is the 'suggested fee' related to anything?
273 2011-05-20 00:58:38 <erbs> funny you should mention that gmaxwell
274 2011-05-20 00:59:33 <erbs> interesting linkedin closes at $94.25   +49.25 (109.44%)
275 2011-05-20 00:59:48 <Optimo> wow
276 2011-05-20 00:59:56 <n3t5pLi7> hey guys, i had a quick question.  how long does it take to earn any bitcoins?  i have been running the application almost all day and im still at 0.00 ?
277 2011-05-20 01:00:13 <Raccoon> n3t5pLi7: the client application?
278 2011-05-20 01:00:18 <gmaxwell> need to get the next client version out.. ^ bad user expirence.
279 2011-05-20 01:00:22 <n3t5pLi7> yes
280 2011-05-20 01:00:31 <Raccoon> in windows?
281 2011-05-20 01:00:40 <n3t5pLi7> yes in windows
282 2011-05-20 01:00:40 <Optimo> gmaxwell, what about the 'suggested fee'? ^
283 2011-05-20 01:00:42 <Dek> it could take you years
284 2011-05-20 01:00:45 <Dek> to see a block
285 2011-05-20 01:00:45 <Raccoon> on a laptop?
286 2011-05-20 01:00:51 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: generating coins in the client nowadays is like a lottery with fairly poor odds.
287 2011-05-20 01:00:56 <n3t5pLi7> no im on a quad core 3ghz machine
288 2011-05-20 01:01:02 <Dek> still will take years
289 2011-05-20 01:01:04 <gmaxwell> Optimo: what? the suggested TX fee in the client.
290 2011-05-20 01:01:04 <Raccoon> probably a few years
291 2011-05-20 01:01:08 <Raccoon> less than a decade though
292 2011-05-20 01:01:16 <Optimo> yes, is that realted to any factor?
293 2011-05-20 01:01:18 <Optimo> relateds
294 2011-05-20 01:01:31 <n3t5pLi7> hrm so running the client will not generate bitcoins is what your saying ? lol
295 2011-05-20 01:01:39 <Raccoon> it will
296 2011-05-20 01:01:41 <Dek> you could get very lucky
297 2011-05-20 01:01:43 <gmaxwell> Optimo: size of the TX. Also it'll currently force it if the tx is very low priority (based on value, age of coins, and size)
298 2011-05-20 01:01:45 <n3t5pLi7> how do i earn bitcoins then to start transactions w/ other people
299 2011-05-20 01:01:46 <Dek> but the probability is incredibly small
300 2011-05-20 01:01:50 <Raccoon> actually, chances are that you'll solve one in the next second
301 2011-05-20 01:01:56 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: oh it will. it's just very unlikely.
302 2011-05-20 01:01:58 <Dek> the only way is to buy from someone or provide a service to someone
303 2011-05-20 01:02:13 <Raccoon> people typically buy and sell them for cash
304 2011-05-20 01:02:23 <Raccoon> or they buy specific mining rigs to produce them
305 2011-05-20 01:02:39 <Raccoon> an average mining rig would produce about 4 a day with the previous difficulty
306 2011-05-20 01:02:41 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: if you happen to have a modern ati gpu laying around then that will generate some with the right software.
307 2011-05-20 01:02:42 <n3t5pLi7> but if you buy and sell them for cash, how would the initial people who started to have them have had them to buy from someone else in the first place?
308 2011-05-20 01:03:06 <Raccoon> people who spend about $800 on a dedicated machine for mining
309 2011-05-20 01:03:20 <Raccoon> figuring it'll pay for itsself after 3 or 5 months
310 2011-05-20 01:03:31 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: the difficulty in generating them is adjusted by the system so that 7200 are produced every day on average...
311 2011-05-20 01:03:34 <Raccoon> but that could just as quickly turn into 2 years if too many people start mining
312 2011-05-20 01:03:40 <gmaxwell> proportional to the hashpower of the involved systems.
313 2011-05-20 01:03:49 <n3t5pLi7> my pc is a gaming pc i have sitting dedicated to the cause, 6gig ram dual gpu, quad core 3ghz
314 2011-05-20 01:03:50 <gmaxwell> and the people with GPUs now have all the hashpower.
315 2011-05-20 01:03:58 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: what kind of gpu?
316 2011-05-20 01:04:10 <Raccoon> the quad core won't produce many hashes
317 2011-05-20 01:04:17 <Raccoon> graphics cards are 1000x faster than cpus
318 2011-05-20 01:04:24 <gmaxwell> well ATI cards are.
319 2011-05-20 01:04:26 <ArtForzZz> about 40-100x really
320 2011-05-20 01:04:33 <n3t5pLi7> GeForce GTX 550 Ti
321 2011-05-20 01:04:35 <ArtForzZz> ugh
322 2011-05-20 01:04:37 <gmaxwell> The nvidia stuff is more like 10x faster, alas.
323 2011-05-20 01:04:41 <ArtForzZz> yea
324 2011-05-20 01:05:27 <erbs> hmmmmm
325 2011-05-20 01:05:30 <Raccoon> i have an amish family helping me hash blocks
326 2011-05-20 01:05:41 <gmaxwell> the wiki says the 560 TI does 67MH.
327 2011-05-20 01:05:54 <Raccoon> they're building a custom quilting rig that similates the SHA-256 hashing algo
328 2011-05-20 01:06:00 <ArtForzZz> didnt he say 550Ti ?
329 2011-05-20 01:06:02 <erbs> nice Raccoon
330 2011-05-20 01:06:02 <Optimo> so the suggested TX fee takes into account relative age from the present but not age from epoch
331 2011-05-20 01:06:09 <gmaxwell> not listed, so I dunno.
332 2011-05-20 01:06:10 <Raccoon> so they can quilt me an exact block hash in about 5 minutes
333 2011-05-20 01:06:52 <gmaxwell> Raccoon: I'd love to see how the carries work for the adders.
334 2011-05-20 01:07:01 <ArtForzZz> Raccoon: meh, I only have 5000 hyperactive squirrels
335 2011-05-20 01:07:04 <Raccoon> hehe
336 2011-05-20 01:07:23 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: so lets just assume you could get the 67mh...
337 2011-05-20 01:07:25 <Raccoon> could be done
338 2011-05-20 01:07:29 <gmaxwell> ;;bc,gen 67000
339 2011-05-20 01:07:31 <gribble> The expected generation output, at 67000 Khps, given current difficulty of 244139.48158254 , is 0.276032786923 BTC per day and 0.0115013661218 BTC per hour.
340 2011-05-20 01:07:50 <drhodes> If the US feds allocated huge compute facilities and made it impossible for other people to mine effectively, would this disrupt the project?
341 2011-05-20 01:07:59 <ArtForzZz> drhodes: yes
342 2011-05-20 01:08:13 <gmaxwell> n3t5pLi7: for comparison a ATI 5850 ($150 if you can find them) does on the order of 320MH/s with a really modest overclock.
343 2011-05-20 01:09:00 <gmaxwell> drhodes: also disrupting the project: DDOSing all computers running it, spending money on some really nasty advertising, or jailing/assisinating all the developers.
344 2011-05-20 01:09:14 <ArtForzZz> just nuke it from orbit
345 2011-05-20 01:09:22 <gmaxwell> drhodes: highly visible technical attacks are not the cheapest way to screw with things.
346 2011-05-20 01:09:23 <drhodes> gmaxwell: but those are illegal
347 2011-05-20 01:09:24 <Optimo> and dont forget timetravel and quantum mumbojumbu and joojoo
348 2011-05-20 01:09:25 <gmaxwell> ArtForzZz: only way to be sure.
349 2011-05-20 01:09:45 <ArtForzZz> gmaxwell: yup, how did you know? ;)
350 2011-05-20 01:10:07 <gmaxwell> drhodes: oh, you're suggesting that they continue processing transactions as usual?
351 2011-05-20 01:10:26 <gmaxwell> drhodes: That would be less disruptive than grabbing most of the hash power and not processing transactions.
352 2011-05-20 01:10:32 <drhodes> gmaxwell: I'm not suggesting anything
353 2011-05-20 01:11:09 <gmaxwell> The latter being potentially not legal (or at least people harmed by such an obviously malicious action would have a chance of recovering in civil litigation) while the former probably is.
354 2011-05-20 01:12:10 <gmaxwell> drhodes: in any case, running a smear campaign is perfectly legal.
355 2011-05-20 01:12:15 <gmaxwell> BITCOIN IS THE TERROR DOLLAR.
356 2011-05-20 01:12:21 <da2ce7> we need to fixup https for bitcoin.org!
357 2011-05-20 01:12:22 <da2ce7> :)
358 2011-05-20 01:12:31 <gmaxwell> "We're thinking of outlawing bitcoin."
359 2011-05-20 01:12:45 <n3t5pLi7> how can anyone have enough bitcoins to supply anyone else at this rate if this is said to be a newer service.  Its not really viable to keep any single machine dedicated to the cause if the return is so low
360 2011-05-20 01:12:46 <drhodes> gmaxwell: yep.  or drug dollar, or hired for murder bollar.
361 2011-05-20 01:13:28 <erbs> the way for bitcoin to avoid govt scrutiny is to accept funding from the cia
362 2011-05-20 01:13:31 <gmaxwell> "bitcoin is insecure! blahblahgarblecrap-no-one-will-understand-that-means-nothing"
363 2011-05-20 01:13:55 <n3t5pLi7> from what i was under the impression of, the concept was run the application, and generate bitcoins.. but it wasnt stated that it would be such a low rate its virtually not worth it dollar for dollar to even runt he application if the return is almost nothing
364 2011-05-20 01:14:17 <Optimo> n3t5pLi7, you could buy some hardware and join a pool and make slighlty more than you spend on that and electricity, or make a bigger investment
365 2011-05-20 01:14:22 <Raccoon> n3t5pLi7, all the documentation actually says otherwise.
366 2011-05-20 01:14:59 <erbs> tho i maintain bitcoin is definitely *not* breaking any laws.. there are no laws saying ppl cant trade things with each other, whether those things are alpaca socks, picasso paintings, or numbers on a disk
367 2011-05-20 01:15:01 <Raccoon> the documentation says that mining is done 'mostly for fun' and is 'not very profitable unless you have custom equipment and cheap access to power'