1 2012-07-18 00:00:40 <gmaxwell> It's the fake disease you'd make up to scare people, except that it actually exists...
  2 2012-07-18 00:01:05 <jgarzik> hrm.  I could have sworn Finney sent me a PM on the forum, but no record exists.  Maybe he replied to a message of mine somewhere.  /me finds some satoshi PMs in there that I didn't know existed, whee
  3 2012-07-18 00:01:57 <doublec> apparently Hal received the first transaction ever spent on the bitcoin network
  4 2012-07-18 00:02:18 <jgarzik> yep
  5 2012-07-18 00:03:05 <MC-Eeepc> he was diagnosed in 2009 and is in that chair already?
  6 2012-07-18 00:03:34 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: I think thats not actually unusual for ALS. Everyone knows about hawking, but hawking was super unusual.
  7 2012-07-18 00:03:59 <MC-Eeepc> poor bastard
  8 2012-07-18 00:04:12 <gmaxwell> See also, http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ab/dying_outside/
  9 2012-07-18 00:04:58 <MC-Eeepc> long has it annoyed me that really useful people get fucked up or die early or something
 10 2012-07-18 00:05:53 <MC-Eeepc> while some lardass lives to 98 smoking and chugging beers
 11 2012-07-18 00:06:05 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Do you think that Armory actually needs 32bit only, or just needs help finding it?
 12 2012-07-18 00:06:26 <phantomcircuit> lordcirth, im pretty sure it actually needs 64bit
 13 2012-07-18 00:06:32 <phantomcircuit> it loads the entire blockchain into memory
 14 2012-07-18 00:06:44 <phantomcircuit> currently that is approaching the limits of 32bit binaries virtual memory space
 15 2012-07-18 00:07:40 <gmaxwell> Every once in a while I'll encounter someone mentioned in the biography of some long dead awesome person who died prematurely, like Feynman, Asimov, or Sagan and struggle a bit with the dissonance that many of their contemporaries are not dead.
 16 2012-07-18 00:12:05 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Good point. I just linked the file it needed to /usr/lib64/libpython2.7.so
 17 2012-07-18 00:12:40 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: And its now fine. It is of course, giving me other errors now, but they are far more comprehensible
 18 2012-07-18 00:14:17 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: And.. it works!
 19 2012-07-18 00:14:42 <phantomcircuit> i'd be careful that sort of problem is indicative of alpha software
 20 2012-07-18 00:14:49 <phantomcircuit> building bitcoin used to be like that
 21 2012-07-18 00:14:56 <phantomcircuit> now it's only kind of annoying
 22 2012-07-18 00:15:34 <lordcirth> phantomcircuit: Armory is alpha. I couldn't get it working at all on Gentoo
 23 2012-07-18 00:17:48 <zooko> gmaxwell: yeah, it looks horrible because his mouth is hanging open.
 24 2012-07-18 00:18:02 <zooko> But I thought it was better to share that link than not to.
 25 2012-07-18 00:18:08 <MC-Eeepc> damn he is on the books with a cryo company too
 26 2012-07-18 00:18:24 <MC-Eeepc> i was reading a pdf about transhumanism yesterday
 27 2012-07-18 00:18:25 <gmaxwell> zooko: I thought it made it look like he was super excited about everything.
 28 2012-07-18 00:18:33 <zooko> Hal was probably the second person to run the Bitcoin software, assuming Satoshi is only one person.
 29 2012-07-18 00:18:53 <zooko> And, he's the developer of one of Bitcoin's predecessors -- RPoW, I think it was.
 30 2012-07-18 00:19:25 <MC-Eeepc> i just looked at a link for that but it was 404
 31 2012-07-18 00:19:39 <zooko> Maybe I'm confusing two different things. One is Reusable Proof of Work, which I'm pretty sure was Hal Finney, and the other is this way to use IBM Trusted Computing modules to provide clients owned by many different end users with some assurance that the servers are behaving correctly according to some protocol...
 32 2012-07-18 00:19:56 <zooko> And, yeah, old time cypherpunk and major contributor to PGP, too.
 33 2012-07-18 00:20:34 <zooko> gmaxwell: I know what you mean about those biographies.
 34 2012-07-18 00:20:47 <zooko> You know Alan Turing could have easily lived til today.
 35 2012-07-18 00:21:23 <zooko> And I recently heard an interview with Ronald Coase, who was born in 1910.
 36 2012-07-18 00:21:29 <zooko> http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/05/coase_on_extern.html
 37 2012-07-18 00:21:51 <MC-Eeepc> what happened with turing really pissed me off when i found out
 38 2012-07-18 00:22:04 <zooko> Yeah. Fucking dark ages.
 39 2012-07-18 00:22:13 <MC-Eeepc> pretty sure the uk govt only apologised for it in 2009
 40 2012-07-18 00:22:22 <zooko> People who are our contemporaries today -- grandparents, professors, random acquaintances, were born in the fucking dark ages and some of them didn't make it out.
 41 2012-07-18 00:23:05 <MC-Eeepc> makes you wonder what special people got steamrolled into oblivion today, compared to the future
 42 2012-07-18 00:23:05 <zooko> Of course, I'll probably be saying that about the 2010's in a few decades. I hope.
 43 2012-07-18 00:23:49 <MC-Eeepc> hey are you that guy with the triangle thing
 44 2012-07-18 00:24:11 <zooko> Yeah.
 45 2012-07-18 00:24:25 <MC-Eeepc> oh cool
 46 2012-07-18 00:24:32 <MC-Eeepc> sorry we broke your triangle bro
 47 2012-07-18 00:24:37 <zooko> Heh heh heh
 48 2012-07-18 00:24:46 <zooko> Do you contribute to namecoin?
 49 2012-07-18 00:25:40 <MC-Eeepc> na
 50 2012-07-18 00:26:07 <MC-Eeepc> i watch and i bitch about creeping centralisation, thats about what i do
 51 2012-07-18 00:26:09 <zooko> Oh. Well it's not too late to start! Go contribute some docs or something. :
 52 2012-07-18 00:26:37 <galambo_> do you want to contribute to a project
 53 2012-07-18 00:27:04 <MC-Eeepc> me?
 54 2012-07-18 00:28:14 <MC-Eeepc> i think given recent events its obvious something like namecoin is needed
 55 2012-07-18 00:28:23 <MC-Eeepc> but it had some problems last time i heard
 56 2012-07-18 00:28:57 <galambo_> yeah but do you care enough about the bitcoin idea to contribute
 57 2012-07-18 00:29:47 <MC-Eeepc> i dont code
 58 2012-07-18 00:29:56 <MC-Eeepc> i advocate it when i can though
 59 2012-07-18 00:30:00 <galambo_> what centralization are you worried abo9ut then?
 60 2012-07-18 00:30:25 <galambo_> mining pools?
 61 2012-07-18 00:30:33 <MC-Eeepc> for a start
 62 2012-07-18 00:32:38 <galambo_> unfortunately bitcoin seems to be too small to write in features that make life hard for pools
 63 2012-07-18 00:33:01 <MC-Eeepc> i was complaining yesterday about how bitcoin went from running on hardware that has 40 years of widespread dissemination (x86)
 64 2012-07-18 00:33:13 <MC-Eeepc> to hardware that largely doesnt even exist yet
 65 2012-07-18 00:33:36 <galambo_> fpgas have existed for a while
 66 2012-07-18 00:34:05 <MC-Eeepc> the asics
 67 2012-07-18 00:34:06 <galambo_> the largest user of them is the defence industry
 68 2012-07-18 00:34:33 <MC-Eeepc> at the same time its obvious that the move to asic was inevitable and desirable
 69 2012-07-18 00:35:03 <galambo_> what asics?
 70 2012-07-18 00:35:18 <MC-Eeepc> BFLs and stuff
 71 2012-07-18 00:35:45 <MC-Eeepc> i want a small expresscard mining asic i can plug into my laptop
 72 2012-07-18 00:36:29 <galambo_> oh you mean that ones in development by the "mod chip" guy in missouri? the one named in a federal lawsuit vs directv?
 73 2012-07-18 00:36:42 <galambo_> that bfl?
 74 2012-07-18 00:36:58 <MC-Eeepc> dunno
 75 2012-07-18 00:38:13 <lianj> you complain about that direction but want an expresscard mining asic?
 76 2012-07-18 00:39:23 <galambo_> http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=359881&mode=threaded&pid=2335613
 77 2012-07-18 00:39:31 <galambo_> i wonder if this guy is going to figure out how to fab an asic
 78 2012-07-18 00:39:53 <MC-Eeepc> i thought i made it clear i am conflicted
 79 2012-07-18 00:40:26 <MC-Eeepc> i also worry that the number of seperate zero trust copies of the blockchain tends to 1 over time
 80 2012-07-18 00:41:02 <MC-Eeepc> or atleast a small enough set of entities that could conspire or be coerced
 81 2012-07-18 00:41:36 <MC-Eeepc> they might even peer directly with each other and refuse to hand out the blockchain to any unofficial machines
 82 2012-07-18 00:41:43 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: there are varrious ideas that I expect will make those concerns moot.
 83 2012-07-18 00:41:48 <MC-Eeepc> and then we have card networks again
 84 2012-07-18 00:42:17 <MC-Eeepc> i hope so gmaxwell
 85 2012-07-18 00:42:56 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: For example, I can construct a proof of treachery for a given blockchain  I gather up a set of tree fragements which prove two transactions are in the chain at varrious points.. And then I show them to you and you can tell (without trusting me) that they conflict.
 86 2012-07-18 00:43:54 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: If nodes automatically generate, propagate, and accept such proofs then only _one_ honest node needs to have every observed some instance of cheating for all future nodes to potentially discover it. (because the proof is small, and so its existance is hard to stifle)
 87 2012-07-18 00:44:36 <gmaxwell> Likewise trees of unspent transactions will enable full validation by nodes that haven't seen (and don't store) the history.
 88 2012-07-18 00:44:57 <MC-Eeepc> sounds great
 89 2012-07-18 00:45:26 <MC-Eeepc> you need to make a white paper titled proof of treachery for sure
 90 2012-07-18 00:45:58 <gmaxwell> hah
 91 2012-07-18 00:46:48 <MC-Eeepc> doesnt it amount to a form of lossy compression though, i mean someone somewhere must still have the full chain, and it is and can only ever be the ultimate record right
 92 2012-07-18 00:48:01 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: No, no one has to. (though they should and I expect would, especially so long as we don't do moronic things with the maximum block size)
 93 2012-07-18 00:48:48 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: once a transaction is complete you don't need to know about it anymore, except to convince someone who wasn't around in the past that the whole system isn't just lies that the rules were really followed all along.
 94 2012-07-18 00:48:53 <MC-Eeepc> so the chain really does have competely redundant data in it right now, from an absolute zero trust perspective
 95 2012-07-18 00:49:37 <gmaxwell> But the proof-of-trechery stuff should do an adequate job of that for the most part, at least once the system is big enough that people will trust that the proofs would have been created in the past if the rules were ever broken
 96 2012-07-18 00:50:27 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: well at the moment seeing the whole chain is the only way to be confident that the rules weren't broken... if you're not willing to trust that there isn't a massive conspiracy of bitcoin users (or just bugs in the software) already.
 97 2012-07-18 00:51:14 <lordcirth> gmaxwell: But in order for a node to notice, it would have to keep a copy of the latest TX along each path, so it could compare
 98 2012-07-18 00:51:15 <MC-Eeepc> ah so zero trust isnt really zero, just very small
 99 2012-07-18 00:51:36 <MC-Eeepc> this is my problem, i tend to think in absolute terms when it comes to the important stuff
100 2012-07-18 00:51:50 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: You always have to trust something, even if only 2+2=4
101 2012-07-18 00:52:38 <MC-Eeepc> i would sure like it to be mathematically impossible for shenanigans to occur while still keeping every aspiration people have for the systems usability
102 2012-07-18 00:53:02 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: it would have just had to have the unspent txn set
103 2012-07-18 00:53:07 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: I'm afraid we have to settle for "astronomically improbable"
104 2012-07-18 00:53:11 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: e.g. been a full validating node.
105 2012-07-18 00:53:20 <MC-Eeepc> yes lol
106 2012-07-18 00:53:23 <gmaxwell> Which currently takes on the order of 100mbytes storage if fully pruned.
107 2012-07-18 00:53:30 <lordcirth> gmaxwell: well, unspent is what I meant by "latest"
108 2012-07-18 00:54:06 <MC-Eeepc> how compressible is the chain by normal means
109 2012-07-18 00:54:19 <gmaxwell> lordcirth: with respect to trust, it might be better to say "audibility". There is nothing opaque in a full node. Either the source enforces the rules or it doesn't.
110 2012-07-18 00:54:23 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: it's not.
111 2012-07-18 00:54:43 <MC-Eeepc> i thought text was really compressible
112 2012-07-18 00:55:20 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: yes? And?
113 2012-07-18 00:55:25 <lianj> btw, why cant you ask the network for old txs directly? only getdata the block they are in seems to work.
114 2012-07-18 00:55:37 <gmaxwell> oh you've mistaken the 'raw' stuff emitted by blockexporer for something actually raw.
115 2012-07-18 00:56:03 <gmaxwell> No, the blockchain is a binary datastructure. There isn't any text in it (Except little bits people put in the coinbase from time to time)
116 2012-07-18 00:56:14 <MC-Eeepc> coughluke
117 2012-07-18 00:56:41 <gmaxwell> lianj: because if txn are pruned the nodes may not have them.
118 2012-07-18 00:56:51 <MC-Eeepc> so if i went and put my chain thru winrar now i would be disappointed?
119 2012-07-18 00:57:12 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: the index file shrinks a fair bit IIRC, but the chain itself, not much.
120 2012-07-18 00:57:28 <MC-Eeepc> damn
121 2012-07-18 00:57:30 <lianj> gmaxwell: but they send it to me if i aks them for the block they are in
122 2012-07-18 00:57:43 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: You'll be disappointed if u use Winrar for much of anything. Use 7zip
123 2012-07-18 00:57:56 <MC-Eeepc> you cant replicate the chain to a brand new node properly with this pruning stuff can you
124 2012-07-18 00:58:06 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: correct.
125 2012-07-18 00:58:39 <MC-Eeepc> how do new nodes get up to speed then, with mass pruning
126 2012-07-18 00:58:56 <lianj> is pruning new? enabled by default in the client now?
127 2012-07-18 00:59:19 <gmaxwell> lianj: No, it doesn't 'exist' yet. (well there are trial implementations)
128 2012-07-18 00:59:23 <MC-Eeepc> if not from a handful of king nodes with the full chain, who might decide to stop handing it out
129 2012-07-18 00:59:32 <lianj> gmaxwell: ok, thanks
130 2012-07-18 01:00:14 <lianj> gmaxwell: so why doesnt the current client answer for old getdata txs?
131 2012-07-18 01:00:16 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: better keep a copy then!   But more seriously, once tree commitments to unspent transactions are done it won't matter because you'll be able to start a new node midchain.
132 2012-07-18 01:01:01 <gmaxwell> lianj: Because thats just how it works I always 'ass'u'me'd' it was because of the assumption that it shouldn't be expected to work because of eventual pruning.
133 2012-07-18 01:01:01 <MC-Eeepc> i would infact try to maintain a full chain for as long as practicable
134 2012-07-18 01:01:31 <lianj> gmaxwell: oh, ha!
135 2012-07-18 01:01:50 <MC-Eeepc> my mian hope is that HDD capacities start going up again and storage costs can keep up with a full chain in the future
136 2012-07-18 01:02:03 <lordcirth> MC-Eeepc: If home PC's and servers all kept the full chain, and pruning was just for mobile, that would work well
137 2012-07-18 01:02:09 <MC-Eeepc> lazy assholes have been at 3TB for ages
138 2012-07-18 01:02:13 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: well, please stay around to argue against massive increases to the maximum block size then.
139 2012-07-18 01:02:21 <gmaxwell> So long as the maximum size is small it's a non-issue.
140 2012-07-18 01:02:43 <MC-Eeepc> whats the argument for and against that, its 1MB right now right
141 2012-07-18 01:03:31 <gmaxwell> Changing it is a hard fork, it would break the mandatory rules and would have to be adopted by all users.
142 2012-07-18 01:03:38 <MC-Eeepc> block size cap would have to be lifted if txn volume ever demanded it right
143 2012-07-18 01:04:10 <MC-Eeepc> or perhaps the invisible hand would take care of it......
144 2012-07-18 01:04:26 <gmaxwell> The argument for is to increase the maximum rate of confirmed transactions. The argument against is damaging decentralization by increasing the cost of running a full node.  (and if done in advance of real demand increasing dos attack exposure)
145 2012-07-18 01:06:01 <gmaxwell> Also argument against it: if there is no competition for space, there will eventually be nothing to pay for network security. Argument for: If there aren't enough txn processed transactions would have to be rather costly to pay for security. (e.g. the argument there goes both ways)
146 2012-07-18 01:06:02 <MC-Eeepc> one would hope by then the cost of storing and mining 1mb blocks would be so marginal that lifting the cap would be ok
147 2012-07-18 01:06:16 <gmaxwell> Not just storing, but network... validation, etc.
148 2012-07-18 01:06:48 <MC-Eeepc> well morres law affects everything, storage bandwidth cpu etc
149 2012-07-18 01:06:57 <gmaxwell> And sure. Increasing 1MB to ... 2mb .. not too alarming. Increasing it to 1GB? well, I think that would basically make bitcoin a worthless thing because it would remove the decenteralization.  So it's a difficult question.
150 2012-07-18 01:07:09 <MC-Eeepc> everything gets its order of magnitude, its all gravy
151 2012-07-18 01:07:20 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: storage actually grows by a faster law... unfortunately communications bandwidths tend to grow slower.
152 2012-07-18 01:07:51 <MC-Eeepc> yeah
153 2012-07-18 01:08:22 <MC-Eeepc> pressure on ISPs is immense
154 2012-07-18 01:08:42 <MC-Eeepc> i had 150kbit with my first cabble modem
155 2012-07-18 01:08:52 <MC-Eeepc> now its 10024
156 2012-07-18 01:09:21 <MC-Eeepc> and thats 10x slower than the top one
157 2012-07-18 01:10:05 <MC-Eeepc> gigabyte blocks is pretty far out there though, thats basically world txn volume right
158 2012-07-18 01:10:28 <MC-Eeepc> i remember when a megabyte was a lot on 33kbit......
159 2012-07-18 01:11:43 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: right but if you take the cap off, then miners can happily pump the blocksize up to push marginal competition out of business. And we end up with everyone having to use fully SPV nodes, and distributed but nearly centeralized control.
160 2012-07-18 01:11:47 <gmaxwell> So care is required.
161 2012-07-18 01:12:07 <MC-Eeepc> oh yeah for sure
162 2012-07-18 01:12:15 <MC-Eeepc> uncapping the blocks is suicide
163 2012-07-18 01:12:17 <gmaxwell> And a lot of bitcoiners are a bit too over eager, in my view, to rush to scaling bitcoin directly when often we'd be better served by secondary systems.
164 2012-07-18 01:12:39 <MC-Eeepc> bumping the cap up in a sensible manner is ok though
165 2012-07-18 01:12:58 <gmaxwell> E.g. I think people and bitcoin itself would be better served by using bitcoin-backed OpenTransactions or Ripple for small fast transactions.
166 2012-07-18 01:13:15 <gmaxwell> but those things are effectively non-existant today.
167 2012-07-18 01:13:37 <gmaxwell> Easier to crank the size when blocks fill up.
168 2012-07-18 01:13:54 <MC-Eeepc> oh the settlement network argument
169 2012-07-18 01:13:59 <MC-Eeepc> that always makes me a bit sad
170 2012-07-18 01:14:28 <gmaxwell> Why? people want properties bitcoin can't provide.  E.g. you don't want to stand in front of a soda machine for a hour just to get one confirm.
171 2012-07-18 01:14:39 <MC-Eeepc> i know
172 2012-07-18 01:14:53 <gmaxwell> The kind of small increases in maximum size that would be harmless don't cure us of the need of settlement networks in any case.
173 2012-07-18 01:15:26 <MC-Eeepc> just kind of feels like layers of abstraction is what wwe have now with an impenetrable global finacial system
174 2012-07-18 01:15:40 <MC-Eeepc> of which what normal people see is the card reader in the shop
175 2012-07-18 01:15:58 <gmaxwell> Then its important to make smart decisions with those systems too. Fortunately bitcoin provides a good point of comparison.
176 2012-07-18 01:16:17 <gmaxwell> If the payment systems are too untrustworthy use bitcoin directly.
177 2012-07-18 01:16:20 <Diablo-D3> bitcoin was never meant to replace physical in store transactions
178 2012-07-18 01:16:26 <Diablo-D3> it was meant to replace the banking system
179 2012-07-18 01:16:31 <MC-Eeepc> i just have this principle i would like to see which is always endeavouring to keep the edge of the actualy network as close to the user as possible
180 2012-07-18 01:16:40 <MC-Eeepc> maybe its misinformed
181 2012-07-18 01:17:38 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: But the 'network' need not be just one part. I think bitcoin can be the solid foundation behind a broader decenteralized digital currency ecosystem... with other parts filling in the things bitcoin cannot.
182 2012-07-18 01:18:06 <MC-Eeepc> yeah youre right
183 2012-07-18 01:18:21 <MC-Eeepc> im just being absolutist
184 2012-07-18 01:18:27 <gmaxwell> If you insist bitcoin does everything, you'll find we suffer from it not doing it well. Make everyone use bitcoin directly: they'll use web wallets which have worse security and centeralization properties than whatever you'd get from a bitcoin + OT or Ripple.
185 2012-07-18 01:18:35 <MC-Eeepc> just dont want to see bitcoin itself become cloistered
186 2012-07-18 01:19:34 <gmaxwell> I know that I've seen other projects I'm involved with suffer because people crap on them because they can do a broader set of things than the things they do well, and people who want to be critical tend to pick corner usecases.
187 2012-07-18 01:20:30 <MC-Eeepc> do you think zero conf txn could work well for low value sales
188 2012-07-18 01:20:39 <MC-Eeepc> like the proverbal vending machine
189 2012-07-18 01:21:00 <MC-Eeepc> cos mounting a double spend for chocolate seems stupid
190 2012-07-18 01:21:10 <MC-Eeepc> and actual txns propagate almost instantly
191 2012-07-18 01:21:30 <MC-Eeepc> fruad would happen, but hten so does shoplifting and companies factor it into the cost
192 2012-07-18 01:21:32 <gmaxwell> "It depends" .. a vending machine, only if there are cameras or if the markup is great enough that you can trivally pass on any reasonable cost of theft.
193 2012-07-18 01:22:12 <MC-Eeepc> there is always theft and fraud
194 2012-07-18 01:22:20 <gmaxwell> MC-Eeepc: basically you can attempt the attack with every spend... you won't always be successful, but when you are you can get a discount.
195 2012-07-18 01:22:48 <gmaxwell> so there need to be a least _some_ cost put on the attacker risk of a security camera catching them. Just like there is with shoplifting.
196 2012-07-18 01:22:56 <MC-Eeepc> exactly
197 2012-07-18 01:23:18 <gmaxwell> Otherwise some not very criminally minded may do it just for the lulz...
198 2012-07-18 01:23:18 <MC-Eeepc> then for higher value txns, a sliding scale of confirmations comes in
199 2012-07-18 01:23:28 <MC-Eeepc> up to 6 confs for near absolute trust
200 2012-07-18 01:23:41 <gmaxwell> For online things where people could basically automate exploiting you thats perhaps another matter.
201 2012-07-18 01:23:57 <MC-Eeepc> i think there could maybe be a really decent sized economy based on zero confs
202 2012-07-18 01:24:25 <MC-Eeepc> just like there is on CC which has a fraud rate too
203 2012-07-18 01:25:29 <gmaxwell> The bigger problem with that is simply that people won't understand it. E.g. for a vending machine, with security cameras around.. yea, fine.  But you do the same thing on a website accessible from tor... where people can also get change back / withdraws / or refunds in btc... and you'll wake up broke with no recourse.
204 2012-07-18 01:25:54 <MC-Eeepc> yeah nightmare
205 2012-07-18 01:27:01 <gmaxwell> (for the vending machine.. single thefts.. you pass on the costs.. someone empties the machine, you use the security cameras and catch them; or at least the risk of that stops it from happening in the first place)
206 2012-07-18 01:27:09 <MC-Eeepc> how about waiting for confs from a new address at first, but then a trust relationship is built up with that address, which then becomes your "account" with that site, until they let you purchase with zero confs
207 2012-07-18 01:27:36 <MC-Eeepc> fraud will still happen, but greatly reduced prob
208 2012-07-18 01:27:49 <gmaxwell> I'm not fond of systems like that. Past performance does not indicate future results. 'Identity' must be cheap otherwise you intimidate new users.
209 2012-07-18 01:28:08 <MC-Eeepc> im going to use ebay as a counter there
210 2012-07-18 01:28:09 <gmaxwell> So people will just have a farm of maturing identities ... when a new one matures you burn an old one.
211 2012-07-18 01:28:41 <gmaxwell> Ebay makes identity more costly by tying to bank accounts, but people totally do exploit ebay that way and the reversability of CC txns there backstops it...
212 2012-07-18 01:29:48 <MC-Eeepc> hm
213 2012-07-18 01:30:04 <MC-Eeepc> the zero conf problem
214 2012-07-18 01:30:17 <MC-Eeepc> a main barrier to direct commerce with bitcoin
215 2012-07-18 01:30:50 <MC-Eeepc> how about a second merge mined chain with really fast blocks
216 2012-07-18 01:31:02 <MC-Eeepc> like that one with 10 second blocks but with less scammy
217 2012-07-18 01:31:18 <gmaxwell> "We call it p2pool"
218 2012-07-18 01:31:42 <MC-Eeepc> ok maybe doesnt scale to worldwide retail
219 2012-07-18 01:31:52 <MC-Eeepc> fuck this is annoying me
220 2012-07-18 01:32:25 <MC-Eeepc> desperately i try to keep bitcoin touching the actual POS terminal
221 2012-07-18 01:32:44 <gmaxwell> Blockchain proof of non-double spending systems, at least sigular world wide ones, all "don't scale".. because there is no information hiding (By necessity and design!)
222 2012-07-18 01:33:04 <nanotube> you could just use some third-party payment processor for POS...
223 2012-07-18 01:33:11 <gmaxwell> If I have to know about a young boy's soda pop purchase in china.. ell that has limits.
224 2012-07-18 01:33:20 <MC-Eeepc> yeah and then we have fees and shit
225 2012-07-18 01:33:21 <nanotube> though then you're getting back to visa et al.
226 2012-07-18 01:33:27 <MC-Eeepc> doesnt bitpay take like 3%
227 2012-07-18 01:34:05 <MC-Eeepc> all mining will have to be supported from fees in the future, and then you put merchant fees on top
228 2012-07-18 01:34:06 <nanotube> 1% for bitcoins direct, 3% for bitcoins -> usd automatic conversion
229 2012-07-18 01:34:26 <MC-Eeepc> meanwhile paypal and visa drop to 1% because they could have the entire time they just didnt want to
230 2012-07-18 01:34:53 <gmaxwell> "mission accomplished"
231 2012-07-18 01:35:09 <MC-Eeepc> not really
232 2012-07-18 01:35:25 <MC-Eeepc> i dont like bitcoin cos i want my huge store to pay less card fees
233 2012-07-18 01:35:34 <gmaxwell> Keep in mind that bitcoin doesn't exist in a vacuum. It may well be the case that most of the benefit that bitcoin provides to mankind is competative pressure against everything else making them a bit more like bitcoin.
234 2012-07-18 01:35:58 <gmaxwell> competitive*
235 2012-07-18 01:39:44 <MC-Eeepc> that would be something
236 2012-07-18 01:40:05 <MC-Eeepc> one thing visa and paypal and friends is sorely lacking is competition
237 2012-07-18 01:40:17 <gmaxwell> Well there you go.
238 2012-07-18 01:40:42 <gmaxwell> And not just paypal.  The whole idea of goverment sponsored currencies needs competition.
239 2012-07-18 01:40:42 <MC-Eeepc> all the better for it to be an amorphous entity that cannot be sued or legislated inot submission by bought politicians
240 2012-07-18 01:41:16 <gmaxwell> Gold is a piss poor replacement because it can't be used online except via scripts that are less trustworthy than dollars.
241 2012-07-18 01:41:50 <MC-Eeepc> gold was only ever a settlement currency
242 2012-07-18 01:42:24 <MC-Eeepc> was good for backing the paper scrip, but hey not anymore
243 2012-07-18 01:42:33 <MC-Eeepc> just keepa printing
244 2012-07-18 01:43:12 <MC-Eeepc> yes government paper scrip is a mass delusion on the order of religion
245 2012-07-18 01:44:18 <MC-Eeepc> im asspained cos i was shocked at how much my latest weekly grocercy shop cost, i underestimated by like ???20
246 2012-07-18 01:44:39 <MC-Eeepc> and its because things have gone up but also my currency is debased since 2008
247 2012-07-18 01:44:58 <MC-Eeepc> and i cannot save anywhere over the rate of inflation
248 2012-07-18 01:45:17 <MC-Eeepc> my money is losing value, where is that value going
249 2012-07-18 01:47:11 <midnightmagic> Actually Alan Turing may not have been so persecuted nor had such a terrible life after all.
250 2012-07-18 01:47:28 <midnightmagic> And it's possible his death was actually a total, flukey accident.
251 2012-07-18 01:47:41 <MC-Eeepc> you can actually have your money value stolen without it ever being accosted, amazing really
252 2012-07-18 01:48:33 <MC-Eeepc> he was convicted of buggery or something, thats bad enough treatment for me
253 2012-07-18 01:50:13 <midnightmagic> galambo_: Also, re: destroying centralized pools, all that needs to be done is to make mining as, or nearly as, profitable to mine "solo" as it is to mine for a pool. i.e. adding p2pool-like services directly to bitcoind.
254 2012-07-18 01:50:36 <MC-Eeepc> +1
255 2012-07-18 01:51:38 <galambo_> i don't have any complaints about pools i was just wondering what MC-Eeepc's complaint about "increasing centralization" was refering too
256 2012-07-18 01:51:54 <MC-Eeepc> many things
257 2012-07-18 01:52:00 <MC-Eeepc> i just expounded for 2 hours
258 2012-07-18 01:53:50 <midnightmagic> galambo_: What's this about mod chip guy in missouri? Do you know something I don't about Butterfly Labs?
259 2012-07-18 01:58:32 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: paper scrip isn't a mass delusion IMO. Virtual currencies and the willing to accept numbers in a computer as "money" have shown us that people are willing to ascribe money properties to pretty much anything that satisfies some basic money-like properties. (And cell phone time in Africa, and virtual currencies in China and SL and LR and e-gold where you can't even redeem for real gold etc)
260 2012-07-18 01:59:25 <MC-Eeepc> but they have no intristic value at all
261 2012-07-18 01:59:35 <MC-Eeepc> metal backed paper does in theory
262 2012-07-18 01:59:44 <MC-Eeepc> even bitcoins do, mining htem is fucking hard
263 2012-07-18 02:00:07 <MC-Eeepc> paper and digital bank balances can come from nowhere
264 2012-07-18 02:00:33 <midnightmagic> Why must "money" have an instrinsic value? I'm not really sure bitcoin has an intrinsic value in the usual sense of the term..
265 2012-07-18 02:00:40 <MC-Eeepc> and often do, yet they ar ascribed actual value, not just used as tokens, thats delusion
266 2012-07-18 02:01:15 <midnightmagic> You mean paper scrip is ascribed actual instrinsic value?
267 2012-07-18 02:01:19 <MC-Eeepc> well its money as a wealth sotre and money as medium of exchange
268 2012-07-18 02:01:28 <MC-Eeepc> different things
269 2012-07-18 02:02:14 <midnightmagic> Neither of those really describe what my understanding of the term "intrinsic value" is..
270 2012-07-18 02:02:52 <MC-Eeepc> something that is actually worth what it says it is
271 2012-07-18 02:02:57 <midnightmagic> A bitcoin on its own, without a friend nearby with which to use a bitcoin, has no value. It's a "hello world" at best.
272 2012-07-18 02:03:08 <MC-Eeepc> vs something that represents the worth of metal elsewhere that doesnt exist anymore
273 2012-07-18 02:03:14 <midnightmagic> An educational exercise in mathematics..
274 2012-07-18 02:03:49 <lianj> midnightmagic: well said
275 2012-07-18 02:04:15 <MC-Eeepc> well on one hand bitcoins seem to have an actual worth because how hard they are to make
276 2012-07-18 02:04:28 <MC-Eeepc> on the other its just data bits, its not worth shit
277 2012-07-18 02:04:35 <MC-Eeepc> my brain
278 2012-07-18 02:05:32 <MC-Eeepc> maybe intristic value is wrong to say, i mean effort expended in creating a unit of currency i think
279 2012-07-18 02:05:44 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: the key word you're looking for is 'scarcity'
280 2012-07-18 02:05:59 <MC-Eeepc> yeah there we go
281 2012-07-18 02:06:10 <nanotube> they can be really easy to create, but controlled by central authority which promises to exercise discretion.
282 2012-07-18 02:06:13 <midnightmagic> A gold coin can be used as a material for its biologically inert properties when mixed into ceramics, its malleability, its weight, a lump of gold can be melted and used in circuits or electrical connections. Gold as it was in an ancient world had much less of an intrinsic value, and much more of a money-properties value.
283 2012-07-18 02:06:17 <nanotube> like fiat paper money - very easy and cheap to print.
284 2012-07-18 02:06:49 <nanotube> it doesn't have to have 'use value' at all. it just has to be 'easy to transact', 'fungible', and 'scarce'.
285 2012-07-18 02:06:51 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: I believe I understand you re: your use of the term intrinsic.
286 2012-07-18 02:07:08 <MC-Eeepc> yeah i think my use was wrong
287 2012-07-18 02:07:27 <midnightmagic> Not wrong, we just understand the word differently.
288 2012-07-18 02:07:59 <MC-Eeepc> well im probably strictly wrong lol
289 2012-07-18 02:08:22 <midnightmagic> +1 nanotube, properties useful to the human need for money/currency.
290 2012-07-18 02:08:43 <MC-Eeepc> i dont buy the argument that bitcoins are simply fiat though
291 2012-07-18 02:09:03 <MC-Eeepc> they atleast represent n amount of electricity and hardware investment cost
292 2012-07-18 02:09:17 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: care for a recommended reading? :)
293 2012-07-18 02:09:29 <MC-Eeepc> and are backed my maths and not promises of old white men in suits
294 2012-07-18 02:09:32 <midnightmagic> You know these days how I explain it to people? "You ever see Star Trek? Bitcoin is what they call credits." And suddenly everybody gets it.
295 2012-07-18 02:09:39 <nanotube> midnightmagic: haha nice
296 2012-07-18 02:09:50 <MC-Eeepc> lolz
297 2012-07-18 02:10:10 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: yes, the algorithmic control is a great feature. but that is orthogonal to 'fiat'.
298 2012-07-18 02:10:20 <MC-Eeepc> nanotube go for it
299 2012-07-18 02:10:38 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: "money mischief" by milton friedman. :)
300 2012-07-18 02:11:31 <MC-Eeepc> looks cool
301 2012-07-18 02:11:43 <MC-Eeepc> now i can find out exactly how zimbabwe happened
302 2012-07-18 02:11:45 <midnightmagic> MC-Eeepc: Yes, for sure re: electricity and hardware investment cost. That they do, which is why I think bitcoin will never drop below mining cost. Nobody I know of who mines is strictly on the edge of starvation if mining goes south. They can afford to hold out when price drops temporarily below mining costs.
303 2012-07-18 02:11:58 <midnightmagic> not permanently anyway, barring some kind of catastrophy.
304 2012-07-18 02:13:01 <MC-Eeepc> mining is still a sideline for most, even those making bank from it
305 2012-07-18 02:16:13 <MC-Eeepc> Abstruse, theoretical and chiefly for the initiate, the book recycles parts of earlier works by Friedman, who himself suggests here that the general reader might wish to skip a particularly challenging chapter.
306 2012-07-18 02:16:23 <MC-Eeepc> oh damn maybe i am too dumb for this lol
307 2012-07-18 02:21:34 <nanotube> MC-Eeepc: nah it's pretty straightforward.
308 2012-07-18 02:21:50 <nanotube> if you have any questions, you can ask the learned audience on #bitcoin :D
309 2012-07-18 02:23:55 <MC-Eeepc> id rather nail my balls to a plank
310 2012-07-18 02:24:11 <nanotube> heh
311 2012-07-18 02:28:14 <midnightmagic> ha ha
312 2012-07-18 03:37:36 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: Diapolo opened pull request 1607 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1607>
313 2012-07-18 05:45:39 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: runeksvendsen opened pull request 1608 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1608>
314 2012-07-18 06:05:54 <amiller> something has to be doubled somewhere, there's a missing exponential advantage otherwise
315 2012-07-18 06:05:59 <amiller> here's the sort of thing i want to propose
316 2012-07-18 06:06:16 <amiller> it's a different way of comparing two forks to decide which one you prefer
317 2012-07-18 06:06:41 <amiller> you're supposed to start wherever the common forking point is, and take whichever is longer
318 2012-07-18 06:07:03 <amiller> instead, you could see which one is further along on a sequence like this
319 2012-07-18 06:07:51 <amiller> first you count up until you find a block with a hash with 1 extra bit of zero than at the fork
320 2012-07-18 06:08:10 <amiller> then you count up until you see a hash with 2 extra bits
321 2012-07-18 06:08:41 <amiller> and so on, until you get to the end of both forks
322 2012-07-18 06:08:54 <amiller> whichever fork got further along wins
323 2012-07-18 06:09:45 <amiller> it's possible for two forks to be different 'length' but equal, using this comparison
324 2012-07-18 06:13:33 <amiller> someone who wanted to unwind the blockchain would have to pick their fork point, then apply a lot of hash power, and they wouldn't even know how many hashes they'd need because the most uncertainty would be towards the end
325 2012-07-18 06:27:45 <OneEyed> Mmm, armory tells me my transaction keeps getting rejected, although all inputs are 6-confirmed and I even included a 0.02 BTC fee
326 2012-07-18 06:28:48 <OneEyed> (it's only a 5 inputs transaction, 2 outputs including change)
327 2012-07-18 06:28:59 <OneEyed> Any idea of how I can get more information on what's going on?
328 2012-07-18 07:00:39 <epscy> when i do listreceivedbyaddress
329 2012-07-18 07:01:01 <epscy> i see some addresses that i do not recognise, one says it received over 600 btc
330 2012-07-18 07:01:11 <epscy> i have never had 600 btc
331 2012-07-18 07:01:43 <epscy> oh actually nevermind
332 2012-07-18 07:01:50 <epscy> i know what is going on there
333 2012-07-18 07:02:01 <ThomasV> epscy: did you create that wallet?
334 2012-07-18 07:03:14 <epscy> errm yeah, it's my wallet
335 2012-07-18 07:03:26 <epscy> i think it is just where i sent coins to myself
336 2012-07-18 07:19:07 <kinlo> does listreceivedbyaddress show the sent-back coins too?
337 2012-07-18 07:20:32 <kinlo> mmmmz.   that shows my wallet contains much more then it actually contains
338 2012-07-18 07:48:53 <epscy> yeah, it makes sense
339 2012-07-18 07:49:19 <epscy> the whole point is that on the network, you can't tell if two addresses belong to the same wallet
340 2012-07-18 07:51:28 <OneEyed> Armory is trying to include the same input twice in a transaction!
341 2012-07-18 07:52:14 <OneEyed> I now understand why bitcoind keeps rejecting the TX :)
342 2012-07-18 10:49:09 <OneEyed> Patch submitted against armory code, hopefully more transactions will go out now
343 2012-07-18 10:58:35 <OneEyed> I have a transaction that appears on blockchain.info but has not been included in a block for almost 1.5 hours. Any way to resubmit it? http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12562190/d327b10a319a3c8c9f203b24308fca7d574892c6fa6a9f4ca0c44a99d15b122d
344 2012-07-18 10:58:48 <OneEyed> (I have it in armory, so I can get its raw data)
345 2012-07-18 11:08:07 <OneEyed> Oh, need to get bitcoind from git, to get the sendrawtransaction call in
346 2012-07-18 11:28:13 <OneEyed> Yeah, reinjection with sendrawtransaction worked
347 2012-07-18 12:19:58 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: fanquake opened pull request 1609 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1609>
348 2012-07-18 12:43:24 <justmoon> TD: here?
349 2012-07-18 12:44:02 <TD> yep
350 2012-07-18 12:44:11 <justmoon> I finished cross compiling leveldb
351 2012-07-18 12:44:17 <justmoon> gonna try link it to your branch now
352 2012-07-18 12:46:25 <TD> awesome
353 2012-07-18 12:47:27 <jgarzik> TD: did you (or anyone you're aware of) ever do any work on a side chain that could carry data?
354 2012-07-18 12:47:44 <jgarzik> TD: I'm thinking a chain with bitcoin's strength, but separate so that data doesn't crap up the main chain
355 2012-07-18 12:50:07 <gmaxwell> kinlo: have you imported any keys?
356 2012-07-18 12:50:25 <kinlo> gmaxwell: no
357 2012-07-18 12:51:18 <kinlo> gmaxwell: I just don't get the use of the function, I know very well what's in the wallet, and the balances it shows are spent, so this is some kind of error
358 2012-07-18 12:51:27 <kinlo> the wallet is still 0.6.2 tough, haven't upgraded yet
359 2012-07-18 12:52:18 <helo> jgarzik: what would be the incentive (reward) to merge mine the data chain?
360 2012-07-18 12:53:50 <gmaxwell> kinlo: I believe there is a bug there but haven't been able to reproduce it I was wildly speculating it was related to imported keys where there were txn with not all of the inputs were imported or something like that.
361 2012-07-18 12:54:10 <gmaxwell> helo: to deflect crazy bulk storage stuff from bitcoin.
362 2012-07-18 12:54:28 <kinlo> gmaxwell: well, can't give you a copy of the wallet - it's kinda a hot wallet, but if you want me to investigate something for you, feel free to ask
363 2012-07-18 12:55:04 <gmaxwell> kinlo: can you at least make a backup of it now... so that when someone comes up with something to test we have a victim?
364 2012-07-18 12:55:22 <kinlo> gmaxwell: I will do so right now
365 2012-07-18 12:55:51 <helo> gmaxwell: self-interested long term thinking seems pretty scarce... my guess is motivate via greed or gtfo :/
366 2012-07-18 12:56:55 <kinlo> gmaxwell: kinda scary, very important wallet for me
367 2012-07-18 12:57:25 <TD> jgarzik: you mean like https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_Chains ?
368 2012-07-18 12:57:46 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: less blueskys would be just notary service, e.g. see also https://github.com/goblin/chronobit
369 2012-07-18 13:01:54 <helo> a business could maintain a data chain, and pay miners to include its hashes into their blocks?
370 2012-07-18 13:02:12 <gmaxwell> helo: but why?
371 2012-07-18 13:02:50 <gmaxwell> a lot of the demand has jack-squat to do with 'hashes in blocks'  at lot of requests are basically for an anonymous IM network with the same coverage as bitcoin.
372 2012-07-18 13:03:59 <helo> to widely distribute some data (and a proof of its contents) around the internet?
373 2012-07-18 13:04:54 <helo> i dunno... i was just trying to think of what would motivate miners to effectively merge mine something that doesn't pay an associated digital currency
374 2012-07-18 13:05:54 <helo> like a data chain
375 2012-07-18 13:06:21 <sturles> helo: Let each block have a token which can be returned to the business in exchange for bitcoins?
376 2012-07-18 13:06:56 <sturles> helo: Or traded, of course.  The business can pay a guaranteed amount.
377 2012-07-18 13:08:07 <helo> i was thinking the business would send bitcoin to the address receiving the bitcoin block reward if the miner included their data chain's hash
378 2012-07-18 13:08:46 <justmoon> TD: it's running - on windows, no training wheels, downloading the chain - and quick! :D
379 2012-07-18 13:09:14 <helo> i don't understand how the solving miner could have exclusive access to such a token given that they publish the block's contents
380 2012-07-18 13:11:02 <gmaxwell> helo: "data (and a proof of its contents)" are entirely different things. We can timestamp unlimited data at zero cost.
381 2012-07-18 13:15:51 <helo> ahh right... timestamping is cheap.
382 2012-07-18 13:16:24 <helo> so... does a "data" chain really make sense?
383 2012-07-18 13:17:14 <helo> transaction data forms a tree from inputs to outputs, that keeps growing down into latter blocks
384 2012-07-18 13:19:15 <kinlo> gmaxwell: is the data that listreceivedbyaddress returns used to construct new transactions?
385 2012-07-18 13:19:27 <kinlo> gmaxwell: ie: can I be certain that my wallet is still useable?
386 2012-07-18 13:20:31 <gmaxwell> kinlo: I don't think there is a _particular_ reason to be concerned there. The balances aren't used to construct the transactions, just the inputs themselves.
387 2012-07-18 13:20:49 <gmaxwell> helo: I think that what would be more useful is a generic mechenism for POW-payment.
388 2012-07-18 13:21:26 <kinlo> but isn't receivedbyaddress the one that bypasses the balance management?
389 2012-07-18 13:21:44 <kinlo> gmaxwell: also note this wallet has a lot of generation tx'es in it, fwiw
390 2012-07-18 13:23:05 <gmaxwell> helo: for example, I should be able to connect to a full node and say  "My address is 1Beef, give me difficulty .125 work" and it should respond with sign("1beef, here is your .125 getwork--1fullnode")   Then 1fullnode should offer to exchange large numbers of these signed tokens for real bitcoin later.
391 2012-07-18 13:23:53 <gmaxwell> helo: so I could run my website, storage network, whatever.. and use bitcoin-POW for anti-spam/anti-flooding.. and then later redeem a pile of these low value cupons for bitcoins. (or not, if I don't care)
392 2012-07-18 13:24:55 <gmaxwell> kinlo: it just doesn't appear to me to account for generated txn at all.
393 2012-07-18 13:26:41 <kinlo> gmaxwell: listreceivedbyaccount is incorrect too btw
394 2012-07-18 13:28:01 <gmaxwell> yea, I would have told you that one, the generated txn don't show up under accounts.
395 2012-07-18 13:30:21 <kinlo> I don't really use the accounts feature, I just use getinfo to see what's on the wallet, and I use my own database to store the rest
396 2012-07-18 13:30:58 <helo> gmaxwell: nice idea :)
397 2012-07-18 13:39:46 <btc123> how much would it cost in fees to spam the blockchain with a 1MB transaction?
398 2012-07-18 13:41:07 <jgarzik> btc123: given that 1MB is the maximum sized block, a million dollars in computer hardware probably
399 2012-07-18 13:42:01 <btc123> jgarzik,  im talking about just sending a bunch of 1 satoshi transactions over and over
400 2012-07-18 13:42:02 <btc123> thousands of them
401 2012-07-18 13:42:29 <btc123> or millions
402 2012-07-18 13:42:33 <OneEyed> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
403 2012-07-18 13:42:34 <jgarzik> btc123: you said "a 1MB transaction", singular.  Do you now mean many transactions?
404 2012-07-18 13:42:56 <btc123> either or, whatever makes the next block 1MB
405 2012-07-18 13:43:44 <btc123> A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
406 2012-07-18 13:44:04 <OneEyed> 10000 satoshis minimum per transaction if you want a 1 satoshi only transaction to be relayed, not a very good deal
407 2012-07-18 13:44:05 <btc123> what stops me from doing 1 million of these if i have a lot of bitcoins?
408 2012-07-18 13:44:17 <btc123> ok so 0.01 BTC then
409 2012-07-18 13:45:44 <btc123> brb
410 2012-07-18 14:05:34 <btc123> so, any answer?
411 2012-07-18 14:06:08 <btc123> "A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger."
412 2012-07-18 14:06:10 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: fanquake opened pull request 1610 on bitcoin/bitcoin <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1610>
413 2012-07-18 14:06:48 <btc123> how many 0.01BTC transfers can fit in 10kB?
414 2012-07-18 14:09:15 <OneEyed> btc123: around 45 according to armory rough estimations
415 2012-07-18 14:09:21 <btc123> looks like 250 bytes for a basic transaction... so thats 40  0.01 BTC transfers for 10kB.... so 0.4 BTC
416 2012-07-18 14:09:36 <OneEyed> Assuming you start with 0.01 inputs as well, and need no change
417 2012-07-18 14:10:29 <btc123> ok... so i can send a 10kB transfers all day long that add up to 0.4BTC  for no fees? seems like the blockchain can be DoS'd pretty easily
418 2012-07-18 14:11:06 <btc123> yes, i'd need a bunch of 0.1 inputs and outputs..
419 2012-07-18 14:11:41 <nanotube> btc123: it also depneds on input age. see ,,(bc,wiki transaction fees) for fee structure.
420 2012-07-18 14:11:42 <gribble> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees | Jun 10, 2012 ... Transaction fees may be included with any transfer of bitcoins from one address to another. At the moment, many transactions are typically ...
421 2012-07-18 14:11:57 <OneEyed> btc123: don't forget that miners do not have to include every transactions, especially ones without fees
422 2012-07-18 14:12:50 <OneEyed> But indeed, that might DoS other free transactions
423 2012-07-18 14:15:17 <btc123> ok... well what if i send 1 BTC to 1000 addresses?  is that only 0.0005 BTC fee?
424 2012-07-18 14:15:30 <OneEyed> No, transaction size
425 2012-07-18 14:16:29 <btc123> unless its under 10kB?
426 2012-07-18 14:16:48 <btc123> so every 10kB would cost me 0.0005?
427 2012-07-18 14:16:58 <OneEyed> And it will be approximately 180kB
428 2012-07-18 14:18:16 <OneEyed> That is 1.8 BTC in fees alone
429 2012-07-18 14:18:22 <btc123> by my math... 1MB / 10kB = 100... 100*0.0005 = 0.05BTC for 1MB worth of transactions
430 2012-07-18 14:18:45 <OneEyed> Where did you see that it was 0.0005 per kilobyte?
431 2012-07-18 14:18:59 <btc123> A transaction can be sent without fees if both of these conditions are met: It is smaller than 10 (SI) kilobytes (10.000 bytes). All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
432 2012-07-18 14:19:15 <btc123> this is right on the wiki
433 2012-07-18 14:19:52 <OneEyed> You wrote "what if i send 1 BTC to 1000 addresses?"
434 2012-07-18 14:20:18 <OneEyed> So one transaction sending 1 BTC to 1000 addresses (0.001 each) will have a 1.8 BTC fee
435 2012-07-18 14:20:27 <btc123> ok. let me rephrase.  what if i have a transaction that is 10kB and all outputs are 0.01BTC or larger
436 2012-07-18 14:21:54 <OneEyed> You know what? I just realized I'm not interested in this conversation, so I'll pass :)
437 2012-07-18 14:22:18 <btc123> so, basically, its possible to spam the blockchain with that criteria?
438 2012-07-18 14:22:31 <btc123> or either the wiki is wrong
439 2012-07-18 14:22:38 <btc123> which is it?
440 2012-07-18 14:23:29 <btc123> you're just saying it might not be included in the block right?
441 2012-07-18 14:24:48 <btc123> but, don't these pending transactions also take up space on the network?  or do nodes discard them after a while?
442 2012-07-18 14:27:57 <btc123> what if i make 10GB of zero fee transactions using a modified client?   how long will other nodes pass that data around?
443 2012-07-18 14:30:15 <jgarzik> btc123: the transactions won't get relayed or mined after the first few, due to anti-spam rules
444 2012-07-18 14:36:56 <btc123> this block is 250kB, and 0.33BTC in fees.... around 7000BTC in outputs...... if i have enough bitcoins, i can replicate the transactions in this block all day and only pay 0.33 right?
445 2012-07-18 14:37:16 <btc123> http://blockchain.info/block-height/189664
446 2012-07-18 14:38:20 <helo> btc123: coin that hasn't been moved for a long time doesn't need very high fees. so after you moved it once, it would all be new, and would require higher fees
447 2012-07-18 14:38:36 <btc123> thats around 72MB a day, still not much
448 2012-07-18 14:38:52 <btc123> actaully it is alot... 1GB in 2 weeks
449 2012-07-18 14:39:30 <gavinandresen> spam is limited by the limited amount of two resources:  "old" inputs, and bitcoins.
450 2012-07-18 14:39:47 <btc123> helo, right.... so if i have say, 100,000BTC... i'd have enough 'old' coins to not worry about that
451 2012-07-18 14:40:04 <btc123> i guess the question is then... whats the minimum wallet size you need for the attack
452 2012-07-18 14:40:30 <gavinandresen> If you have 100,000 BTC in 100,000 different inputs you could spam 100,000 1 BTC transactions... but how would you get those in the first place?
453 2012-07-18 14:41:21 <btc123> $1 million on mtgox? ;)
454 2012-07-18 14:41:40 <lianj> sure, please go ahead
455 2012-07-18 14:41:54 <gavinandresen> The default rules are at most 27K worth of free transactions per block
456 2012-07-18 14:42:21 <gavinandresen> ... which is about 100 free transactions per block.  So 100,000 of them would take 1,000 blocks (about a week) to get into the chain.
457 2012-07-18 14:42:50 <gavinandresen> You're going to make 100,000 1-btc withdrawals from mt gox?  That'll take a while....
458 2012-07-18 14:42:57 <btc123> gavinandresen:  0.0005 fees aren't a problem
459 2012-07-18 14:43:16 <gavinandresen> btc123: what's your point?  Fees are too low?
460 2012-07-18 14:44:23 <gavinandresen> In any case, fixing fees is high on the priority list; see https://gist.github.com/2961409
461 2012-07-18 14:44:29 <btc123> not at all, just a thought experiment.... im interested in calculating the minimum amount someone would theorietically have to pay to grow the chain by 1GB in a week or two
462 2012-07-18 14:44:53 <btc123> assuming he had a LOT of BTC
463 2012-07-18 14:45:13 <btc123> and could replicate blocks like 189664... which was 0.33BTC for 250kB
464 2012-07-18 14:45:22 <gavinandresen> You can't assume miners won't react; many of the big pools have already changed their fee policies in reaction to SatoshiDice transactions
465 2012-07-18 14:45:28 <drizztbsd> btc123: you can send many btc to satoshidice :P
466 2012-07-18 14:47:44 <OneEyed> Even non-spammy transactions can take a long time, such as my 108 minutes 50 BTC transaction today: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/12562190/d327b10a319a3c8c9f203b24308fca7d574892c6fa6a9f4ca0c44a99d15b122d
467 2012-07-18 14:48:33 <CluckCreek> What's the correct format for addmultisigaddress? I keep getting type mismatch.
468 2012-07-18 14:48:57 <gavinandresen> CluckCreek: unix/mac  ?  or windows?
469 2012-07-18 14:49:12 <CluckCreek> windows
470 2012-07-18 14:49:29 <gavinandresen> no idea, I don't know what the windows quoting rules are
471 2012-07-18 14:49:58 <btc123> sure, but just a fun exercise... according to my math it seems like it would be around 50BTC per day to make every block over 250kB and grow the chain 1GB in a month...
472 2012-07-18 14:50:28 <sturles> One pool (the usual suspect) sabotages by only including 32 transactions per block.  If that pool finds the next block, then your transaction has to wait for the next to be confirmed.  If there is not enough space, it has to wait for longer.  Etc.
473 2012-07-18 14:50:52 <gavinandresen> CluckCreek: you have to get ["key","key"] to bitcoind un-scathed.  Linux/mac you do that by enclosing it in single quotes, don't know on windows....
474 2012-07-18 14:51:10 <btc123> sturles: why wouldn't someone finding a block include as many transactions as possible? is it computationally expensive?
475 2012-07-18 14:51:17 <OneEyed> sturles: what's the point in doing this for Eligius?
476 2012-07-18 14:51:42 <sturles> Because luke-jr thinks his block propagate faster if they are small, or something.
477 2012-07-18 14:52:10 <luke-jr> sturles: don't spread FUD please
478 2012-07-18 14:52:16 <btc123> ahh.. i guess that makes sense
479 2012-07-18 14:52:36 <sturles> luke-jr: What is fud now?
480 2012-07-18 14:52:38 <btc123> a 50kb block will move through nodes faster then a 500kb block
481 2012-07-18 14:52:46 <epscy> btc123: miners have to store the blocks as well
482 2012-07-18 14:52:50 <luke-jr> btc123: yeah, there's an annoying flaw in the way Bitcoin propagates blocks right now; I'm working on trying to fix that, but in the meantime, we can't afford the orphans
483 2012-07-18 14:53:03 <epscy> so don't want the block chain growing at a huge rate
484 2012-07-18 14:53:03 <luke-jr> sturles: claiming it's sabotage
485 2012-07-18 14:53:23 <sturles> Other pools manges with more transactions and still very few orphans.
486 2012-07-18 14:53:26 <btc123> sounds fair to me.... i'd make blocks small as possible if i was mining... no incentive to do otherwise..
487 2012-07-18 14:54:04 <sturles> luke-jr: If everyone kept their blocks to max 32 transactions, transactions would simply not go through.  It would be an effective DOS against Bitcoin.
488 2012-07-18 14:54:14 <OneEyed> But is the speed of propagation of any importance? I thought the total chain difficulty was looked at
489 2012-07-18 14:54:21 <luke-jr> OneEyed: yes
490 2012-07-18 14:54:35 <luke-jr> OneEyed: the longer it takes to propagate, the more likely it's orphaned
491 2012-07-18 14:54:39 <btc123> OneEyed: if two people find a block within 5 seconds of eachother, the smaller one will win and the bigger one will be ophaned...
492 2012-07-18 14:54:42 <gavinandresen> btc123: and then you'd cry when you wanted to actually, you know, spend those bitcoins you mined and they take forever to confirm because everybody is mining 0-transaction blocks?
493 2012-07-18 14:54:44 <btc123> that happens often
494 2012-07-18 14:56:06 <sturles> I can't see that pattern in the list of orphaned blocks.  No obvious relationship between size and orphan-ness.
495 2012-07-18 14:56:27 <OneEyed> That's what I was looking at too. I see no pattern either
496 2012-07-18 14:56:36 <btc123> gavinandresen: thats right... it wouldn't be good for the network as a whole... but the reality is that in the free market, a 50BTC reward is more important to miners then network stability because they assume that 'someone else will do it'
497 2012-07-18 14:56:50 <OneEyed> Look at 189189, where two blocks were orphaned; the largest one of three won for example
498 2012-07-18 14:57:00 <gavinandresen> btc123: if we start to see more few-transaction blocks then I'll be pushing a patch so clients refuse to relay blocks that don't have 'enough' memory-pool transactions in them.
499 2012-07-18 14:57:10 <gavinandresen> ^more^too many
500 2012-07-18 14:58:08 <luke-jr> too bad some people are more interested in spreading FUD and making threats, than trying to actually fix the problem forcing miners to do it
501 2012-07-18 14:58:16 <midnightmagic> isn't it just market forces at work?
502 2012-07-18 14:58:39 <midnightmagic> if it turns out transactions are so expensive, then miners aren't incentivized to mine transactions at current fee schedules.
503 2012-07-18 14:58:45 <OneEyed> luke-jr: but what is the problem? Do you have any evidence that larger blocks are losing more often than not due to the size of the blocks?
504 2012-07-18 14:58:47 <sturles> luke-jr: I don't think anyone else have this problem.
505 2012-07-18 14:58:49 <btc123> OneEyed: interesting example.... im assuming luke-jr has done the analysis and determined smaller blocks don't get orphaned.... otherwise why wouldn't he want to include more transactions?
506 2012-07-18 14:58:57 <luke-jr> OneEyed: yes; look at the long-term statistics
507 2012-07-18 14:58:58 <btc123> *more often the larger ones
508 2012-07-18 14:58:58 <sturles> luke-jr: It is specific to your pool.
509 2012-07-18 14:59:13 <luke-jr> OneEyed: Eligius also had 6 orphans almost in a row because our blocks were too big
510 2012-07-18 14:59:24 <midnightmagic> coding around that should be offering the users a more convenient way to both recognise that they aren't paying enough of a fee to entice miners to include their txn, and to pay that fee.
511 2012-07-18 14:59:39 <sturles> luke-jr: How do you know it was due to their size?
512 2012-07-18 14:59:42 <midnightmagic> if eligius sees a 1BTC txn fee, then.. why not?
513 2012-07-18 15:00:20 <midnightmagic> punishment is the opposite of incentivize :)
514 2012-07-18 15:00:38 <btc123> midnightmagic: 1BTC isn't enough to risk losing 50BTC
515 2012-07-18 15:01:04 <OneEyed> btc123: non-sense, if your risk of losing 50 BTC is smaller than 2%, then it is enough
516 2012-07-18 15:01:06 <midnightmagic> btc123: It depends on whether you're already excluding most of everything else. Also, 1BTC for 1 txn isn't what's going to happen. It'll be 20BTC for 20 txn.
517 2012-07-18 15:01:35 <midnightmagic> and miners' eyes will pop and that douchebag who mines empty blocks will lose out
518 2012-07-18 15:01:50 <midnightmagic> and whoever you are, you are a douchebag, but at least you're confirming older blocks.
519 2012-07-18 15:02:09 <luke-jr> btc123: 1 BTC is enoguh to risk a tiny chance of losing 50 BTC
520 2012-07-18 15:02:43 <luke-jr> I don't see any significant risk to including 32 transactions
521 2012-07-18 15:02:44 <btc123> ok, so as OneEyed said... the chance is less then 2% to get ophaned?
522 2012-07-18 15:03:08 <midnightmagic> btc123: There's no way to calculate it to that level of accuracy.
523 2012-07-18 15:03:18 <midnightmagic> .. currently. maybe amiller could.
524 2012-07-18 15:03:22 <luke-jr> btc123: I'd say it gets to 2% around maybe 128-256 transactions, but as midnightmagic said, there's no good way to calculate it
525 2012-07-18 15:04:15 <OneEyed> Around 1.4% of the blocks have been orphaned recently
526 2012-07-18 15:04:22 <btc123> is there no way to reliably timestamp blocks so the first one just wins ?
527 2012-07-18 15:04:34 <OneEyed> btc123: take a "distributed systems 101" class :)
528 2012-07-18 15:04:42 <midnightmagic> btc123: that would open it up to timestamp futzing.
529 2012-07-18 15:04:45 <luke-jr> btc123: I have a patch (needs testing!) to relay blocks before checking the transactions in them; that helps a little
530 2012-07-18 15:04:54 <midnightmagic> btc123: Or rather, that would 'incentivize' timestamp futzing.
531 2012-07-18 15:05:09 <midnightmagic> luke-jr: Is that in next-test? :-D
532 2012-07-18 15:05:10 <luke-jr> it would be nice to start the relay before the download has finished too
533 2012-07-18 15:05:18 <luke-jr> midnightmagic: no, it needs more testing first :P
534 2012-07-18 15:05:27 <midnightmagic> but that's what next-test is for!
535 2012-07-18 15:05:30 <luke-jr> as in, more than 1 or 2 nodes confirming it works
536 2012-07-18 15:05:33 <luke-jr> maybe
537 2012-07-18 15:05:50 <midnightmagic> lol if we put up with daily crashes, I'm sure we can put up with pre-relay patches.
538 2012-07-18 15:08:15 <btc123> luke-jr: why don't you just run a few hundred nodes in different countries?? push your block to those first and you'll be almost guaranteed to win
539 2012-07-18 15:08:34 <luke-jr> btc123: it doesn't work that way :p
540 2012-07-18 15:08:53 <luke-jr> I already have a relay that connects to every node it can
541 2012-07-18 15:09:53 <btc123> how many nodes? over 50%?
542 2012-07-18 15:11:38 <luke-jr> btc123:     "connections" : 679,
543 2012-07-18 15:12:07 <OneEyed> luke-jr: is it interesting to connect to anyone but to other miners?
544 2012-07-18 15:12:07 <sturles> luke-jr: Perhaps that is your problem?  It takes to long time to get the new block out to that many nodes simultaneously?
545 2012-07-18 15:12:26 <OneEyed> I would have thought that what's important for you is that they start building upon your block to confirm it
546 2012-07-18 15:12:36 <sturles> luke-jr: Tried to just connect to a few, and let the competing pools do the distribution?
547 2012-07-18 15:12:47 <luke-jr> OneEyed: the core peers directly to the major pools
548 2012-07-18 15:13:28 <OneEyed> luke-jr: so what are the others useful for? Getting as many transactions as possible? :-)
549 2012-07-18 15:13:49 <btc123> hah
550 2012-07-18 15:14:01 <luke-jr> OneEyed: more or less :P
551 2012-07-18 15:14:27 <luke-jr> before I had to add the 32-txn cap, Eligius was confirming more transactions than any other pool on average
552 2012-07-18 15:15:05 <d34th> so luke-jr: i used coblee's advice to get gitian working but the voodoo failed and i accidentally summoned ice giants but they seem to know what they are doing
553 2012-07-18 15:15:16 <luke-jr> O.o
554 2012-07-18 15:15:19 <amiller> i'm frustrated, i have a nice way of showing that a 51% can have a very low chance of success with any attack, but it's assuming that you pick your tolerance like 51% or 54% or 70% and then set e.g. the difficulty, but it feels like that's totally irrelevant now
555 2012-07-18 15:15:37 <amiller> it makes no sense to talk of an attack that's like a sustained indefinite effort
556 2012-07-18 15:15:52 <optimo> this old troll?
557 2012-07-18 15:16:11 <btc123> brb
558 2012-07-18 15:16:53 <d34th> luke-jr: turns out ice giants can linux somewhat well
559 2012-07-18 15:17:57 <amiller> i think i'm trying to start now by defining an 'attack' as a one time effort with a goal and a limited amount of hashes to spend, so there's a risk of failing/going broke
560 2012-07-18 15:18:02 <amiller> but this is trickier
561 2012-07-18 15:19:02 <OneEyed> amiller: why? If you have 51% of the computing power, start from the parent of any block you want to cancel, and build your own chain from there. Eventually, you'll get the longest one
562 2012-07-18 15:19:19 <OneEyed> Wouldn't that work?
563 2012-07-18 15:20:52 <amiller> for someone just to 'have' 51% of the computing power, indefinitely, makes no sense, it might be possible to have 51% for a week, or 51% for a day, or 51% for 6 minutes if you could afford a burst somehow
564 2012-07-18 15:22:23 <btc123> hey guys, how likely is it that i can connect to all nodes,  inject a vulnerability, and edit all blockchains simulaneously to change the public key for a large address ? ;)
565 2012-07-18 15:22:55 <OneEyed> amiller: you don't need it indefinitely; the sooner you start after the block you want to cancel appears, the shorter it will take; in those blocks you can insert whatever new-spend you want (a double spend of what you're cancelling), then once you have the longest chain others will start building on your chain
566 2012-07-18 15:23:45 <OneEyed> amiller: the only point is to invalidate the transactions you want to invalidate by spending their inputs (and sending them to yourself if you want) so that they cannot be included again into the new chain
567 2012-07-18 15:25:09 <amiller> OneEyed, right, but we should also assume that people wait 6 or so blocks for confirmations, so an attack would require enough hashes to get 6 blocks, and in a short enough time to beat the network to 6 blocks
568 2012-07-18 15:26:25 <OneEyed> amiller: you don't have to inject your chain right away, that's the beauty of it. You can compute it by your own, and unleash the new chain when it's as long as required.
569 2012-07-18 15:26:47 <amiller> not really, because that's assuming you have infinite bankroll
570 2012-07-18 15:26:55 <OneEyed> Why?
571 2012-07-18 15:28:30 <OneEyed> Let's assume I have 51% now, I start building my own chain right now. I can spend some of my coins, and at the same time include a me->me transaction with those inputs in my alternate chain. When my spends have been confirmed and goods delivered, I release my alternate chain which becomes the longest chain, invalidating all the transactions since I started mining. Most of them will probably get
572 2012-07-18 15:28:31 <OneEyed> reincluded by miners in new blocks based upon my new chain, but mine won't.
573 2012-07-18 15:29:01 <amiller> no you're right about how that works but what i'm saying is what does it mean for you to 'have' 51%
574 2012-07-18 15:29:37 <OneEyed> It means that, for example, for the next 24 hours, I can produce more successive blocks based on the current top of chain than all the other miners together
575 2012-07-18 15:29:39 <amiller> you can't pay your power bill forever working on a secret fork block
576 2012-07-18 15:29:43 <helo> maybe an attacker can afford to spend as much as they will make by rewriting the history?
577 2012-07-18 15:30:21 <helo> not that that's helpful :P
578 2012-07-18 15:31:26 <OneEyed> Note that I may be able to pay electricity by spending BTC in the primary chain, and those transactions will be cancelled afterwards but I'll have payed my bills :) Of course, I need some BTC upfront, but anyone able to gather this computing power will be able to have this BTC or $ cash as well
579 2012-07-18 15:31:28 <amiller> sure you could do that for 24 hours, but if you haven't achieved your attack target in 24 hours, your evil attack investors are going to get anxious
580 2012-07-18 15:32:40 <OneEyed> amiller: if what you're trying to say is that without money upfront you can't launch an attack, sure. But you probabistically don't need an infinite amount of money to do so.
581 2012-07-18 15:32:47 <btc123> i think the only time a 51% attack could possibly happen is within the next year,... ASICS
582 2012-07-18 15:33:16 <OneEyed> amiller: you can even get unlucky and not get in front of the official chain for 10 years if others keep finding blocks while you don't, but the probability of that event if you have more computing power is really low
583 2012-07-18 15:36:51 <amiller> once you begin an attack you're somewhat committed to it, you have to pick a fork point in the past and continue mining at it, otherwise you lose all your work
584 2012-07-18 15:55:39 <sipa> any important things happened the past few days in btcland?
585 2012-07-18 15:55:48 <optimo> hi sipa
586 2012-07-18 15:56:00 <optimo> bitcoinica had another problem last week I think
587 2012-07-18 15:56:05 <copumpkin> sipa: crazy mtgox movements
588 2012-07-18 15:56:37 <optimo> hi copumpkin ;p
589 2012-07-18 15:56:40 <sipa> 9.24 :o
590 2012-07-18 15:56:43 <copumpkin> hey optimo
591 2012-07-18 15:56:54 <optimo> the price movement has brought me back here mwahaha
592 2012-07-18 15:56:59 <copumpkin> sipa: close to 300k volume on one day
593 2012-07-18 15:57:04 <optimo> making monies
594 2012-07-18 15:57:26 <optimo> someone was speculating the stolen bitcoins were being exchanged but who knows
595 2012-07-18 15:59:30 <copumpkin> sipa: say hi to jonsi and bjork
596 2012-07-18 16:13:41 <yellowhat> sipa: you also missed the hackathon, would have been a great even for you
597 2012-07-18 16:23:00 <sipa> copumpkin: ?
598 2012-07-18 16:23:21 <copumpkin> sipa: famous icelandic people!
599 2012-07-18 16:29:37 <optimo> meh
600 2012-07-18 16:32:21 <denisx> yellowhat: you were at the hackathon?
601 2012-07-18 16:36:05 <gmaxwell> sipa: Welcome back. Now go away again until bitcoin is $30 again. ;)
602 2012-07-18 16:37:20 <CluckCreek> Was there any big news item that would make the price increase recently?
603 2012-07-18 16:37:34 <optimo> not that I could find
604 2012-07-18 16:37:35 <denisx> holy fuck, what happend to the BTC exchange rates?
605 2012-07-18 16:37:42 <optimo> it could just be summertime boredom
606 2012-07-18 16:38:20 <optimo> anyway, these aren't dev topics
607 2012-07-18 16:39:11 <gribble> New news from bitcoinrss: genjix opened pull request 46 on bitcoin/bitcoin.org <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/46>
608 2012-07-18 16:42:16 <denisx> sipa: my freebsd client of bitcoin now runs better than the osx version in respect to the 100% problem
609 2012-07-18 16:42:39 <[Tycho]> sipa: hello ?
610 2012-07-18 16:42:54 <lianj> "Confirmed speakers include Richard Stallman, .." ^^
611 2012-07-18 16:42:59 <denisx> [Tycho]: is your name borrowed from the GoT books?
612 2012-07-18 16:43:35 <[Tycho]> What it GoT ?
613 2012-07-18 16:43:46 <denisx> Game of Thrones
614 2012-07-18 16:43:56 <[Tycho]> Didn't saw that.
615 2012-07-18 16:44:22 <[Tycho]> I'd rather say that it's from one epic PC game. And no, it's not "Fallout" :)
616 2012-07-18 16:45:15 <optimo> Tycho Brahe, astronomer
617 2012-07-18 16:45:17 <denisx> The is a Lord called Tycho which is a representator of the Iron Bank ;)
618 2012-07-18 16:45:21 <denisx> there is...
619 2012-07-18 16:45:42 <Joric_> Richard Stallman's going to give a speech about bitcoins? sweet!
620 2012-07-18 16:45:53 <[Tycho]> No, Tycho Brahe is completely different name from another language.
621 2012-07-18 16:46:00 <optimo> :)
622 2012-07-18 16:46:02 <[Tycho]> denisx: funny :)
623 2012-07-18 16:46:11 <denisx> he is called Tycho Nestoris
624 2012-07-18 16:46:41 <denisx> http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tycho_Nestoris
625 2012-07-18 16:46:48 <[Tycho]> That Tycho was a rampant AI.
626 2012-07-18 16:47:05 <lianj> Joric: i doubt he speaks about bitcoin. he speaks about his stuff and tries to pull lines between bitcoin
627 2012-07-18 16:47:19 <[Tycho]> Stallman is evil.
628 2012-07-18 16:47:37 <Diapolo> AFAIK sipa is off a few days? That's the last thing I remember from a recent talk a few days ago.
629 2012-07-18 16:48:22 <[Tycho]> Do anyone knows why the GUI client shows transaction time incorrectly, taking block receive time instead ? Is there some reason for this ?
630 2012-07-18 16:49:05 <luke-jr> dunno, it sounds half bitcoin half libertarian/anarchist :p
631 2012-07-18 16:49:09 <luke-jr> the speaker roster
632 2012-07-18 16:51:08 <gmaxwell> Joric_: hm? what abour RMS and bitcoin?
633 2012-07-18 16:51:44 <Joric> gmaxwell, genjix just posted an update about the bitcoin conference 'Confirmed speakers include Richard Stallman'
634 2012-07-18 16:52:11 <Joric> here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/46
635 2012-07-18 16:52:31 <Joric> not very soon, september 15-16
636 2012-07-18 16:53:41 <optimo> could be an interesting crowd
637 2012-07-18 16:55:16 <Joric> he will be very mad about not using GPLv3 )
638 2012-07-18 17:02:13 <jgarzik> Joric: not really.  Stallman's position for decades has been supportive of MIT/X11 style license, if GPL is not chosen.
639 2012-07-18 17:21:10 <[Tycho]> Is anyone going to attend the Bitcoin conference in Macau, Nov 2012 ?
640 2012-07-18 17:23:06 <lianj> hm now that genjix updated his post, i wonder we he didnt say anything about him leaking his github clone of the sourcecode
641 2012-07-18 18:20:40 <nejucomo> I've started bitcoind for the first time. It's syncing the block chain, and mentions orphan blocks.
642 2012-07-18 18:20:56 <nejucomo> Do nodes store orphan blocks and transmit them? Are they stored indefinitely?
643 2012-07-18 18:21:10 <kinlo> yes and no
644 2012-07-18 18:21:25 <kinlo> nodes store them and afaik they do not purge them
645 2012-07-18 18:21:35 <kinlo> so yes they are (for now) stored indefinitly
646 2012-07-18 18:21:56 <kinlo> but, no they are not transmitted, the clients only transmit the real chain
647 2012-07-18 18:22:29 <nejucomo> Then why would my bitcoind be receiving orphans?
648 2012-07-18 18:22:38 <kinlo> I do believe you can download an orphan block from a peer if you know the blockhash, but the client won't give that to its peers
649 2012-07-18 18:22:40 <OneEyed> luke-jr: did you change the TX limit? :) http://blockchain.info/block-index/250083/00000000000000f7c8682c00e0133bd8a3ec3d727026f57f8bb5c2ec3b98f414
650 2012-07-18 18:22:58 <kinlo> nejucomo: where do you see that?
651 2012-07-18 18:23:05 <luke-jr> OneEyed: ?
652 2012-07-18 18:23:16 <nejucomo> ~/.bitcoin/debug.log
653 2012-07-18 18:23:42 <OneEyed> luke-jr: this is the latest block, it has 0 transactions inside, except the generating one :)
654 2012-07-18 18:23:53 <luke-jr> OneEyed: what about it?
655 2012-07-18 18:24:11 <nejucomo> $ grep -i 'ProcessBlock: ORPHAN BLOCK' ~/.bitcoin/debug.log | wc -l
656 2012-07-18 18:24:11 <OneEyed> It's empty, that's it, not even 32 transactions
657 2012-07-18 18:24:12 <nejucomo> 13324
658 2012-07-18 18:24:22 <OneEyed> It was a joke, but obviously not a very good one
659 2012-07-18 18:24:37 <kinlo> nejucomo: it shouldn't transmit those, but it is possible something is wrong
660 2012-07-18 18:25:15 <nejucomo> kinlo: Is the protocol/mechanism for syncing a block chain in a new node the same as sharing newly mined blocks?
661 2012-07-18 18:25:29 <nejucomo> Could there be a difference in protocol and you are thinking of mining instead of syncing?
662 2012-07-18 18:25:59 <kinlo> there are differences, newly mined blocks are pushed, old blocks are pulled
663 2012-07-18 18:26:32 <nejucomo> Is there a page describing the blockchain sync protocol? How does my fresh node know which blocks to pull?
664 2012-07-18 18:27:28 <luke-jr> OneEyed: it's pretty common
665 2012-07-18 18:27:52 <OneEyed> Yeah, probably, it's the first time I see one (I wasn't interested in bitcoin tech until a few days ago)
666 2012-07-18 18:28:28 <maaku> OneEyed: there's a rather large mining network that is not relaying transactions
667 2012-07-18 18:29:46 <jgarzik> [Tycho]: conference in Macau?  Sounds like fun!  I should find someone to sponsor my plane ticket... ;)
668 2012-07-18 18:30:13 <jgarzik> we should take up a collection and get gavin on a plane to London in September
669 2012-07-18 18:30:18 <maaku> OneEyed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67634.0
670 2012-07-18 18:30:23 <jgarzik> it's a shame that core devs are excluded due to lack of speaker funding
671 2012-07-18 18:30:27 <jgarzik> that's who you'd want to speak
672 2012-07-18 18:30:33 <nejucomo> maaku: Do you have links to evidence? What would be the motivation?
673 2012-07-18 18:30:59 <maaku> nejucomo: motivation? no clue
674 2012-07-18 18:31:07 <OneEyed> maaku: thanks, reading
675 2012-07-18 18:31:43 <nejucomo> That subnetwork still provides consensus service, but transactions take longer. True/False?
676 2012-07-18 18:31:46 <luke-jr> nejucomo: probably to avoid being part of the bitcoin network
677 2012-07-18 18:31:52 <nejucomo> longer to propagate.
678 2012-07-18 18:32:13 <maaku> the going theory was that it's a bot net, but really no one knows
679 2012-07-18 18:32:18 <nejucomo> luke-jr: They must be part of the network to receive and send blocks.
680 2012-07-18 18:34:56 <denisx> there are bitcoins for more then 800 million dollars out there?
681 2012-07-18 18:38:31 <moartr4dez> any plans to change bitcoind to stop allowing empty blocks?
682 2012-07-18 18:38:48 <moartr4dez> just had a nother at 189698
683 2012-07-18 18:42:42 <moartr4dez> guess not
684 2012-07-18 18:42:54 <moartr4dez> seems like there should be some minimum... 100 tx etc...
685 2012-07-18 18:43:13 <luke-jr> moartr4dez: miners being able to freely exclude transactions is a fundamental part of the design
686 2012-07-18 18:43:15 <Karmaon> moartr4dez, what are you thinking?!
687 2012-07-18 18:43:17 <OneEyed> moartr4dez: did you read the thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67634.0 (which is pretty interesting)?
688 2012-07-18 18:43:31 <luke-jr> moartr4dez: and what are miners supposed to do when there's no transactions? twiddle their thumbs
689 2012-07-18 18:43:34 <moartr4dez> heh I started
690 2012-07-18 18:43:53 <moartr4dez> well I guess it won't matter by 2140 (when block reward disappears
691 2012-07-18 18:43:54 <Karmaon> luke-jr, wait for satoshi dice players
692 2012-07-18 18:43:58 <moartr4dez> ... and the TX fees become all important
693 2012-07-18 18:44:02 <moartr4dez> so I won't worry about it heh
694 2012-07-18 18:45:13 <moartr4dez> I guess for the time being then we have to allow leaches like 98.163.231.30
695 2012-07-18 18:45:48 <moartr4dez> err leeches
696 2012-07-18 18:47:17 <denisx> meine adresse: 19c4bA6qHLjnWgYQmS9VuqwHuNT6jR5Atz
697 2012-07-18 18:48:22 <denisx> ops, fc
698 2012-07-18 19:30:26 <midnightmagic> lianj: Is there presentation of evidence somewhere that he did it himself?
699 2012-07-18 19:32:32 <lianj> yes. like 5 in the first 28 pages