1 2013-07-02 00:01:50 <k9quaint> imd23: it was delicious
 2 2013-07-02 00:10:50 <owowo> Is the IP a TX was send from stored in the blockchain? Like when you send from your wallet, the IP gets noted.
 3 2013-07-02 00:12:32 <BTC_Bear> that would be some bad design, these guys wouldn't do that.
 4 2013-07-02 00:13:29 <BTC_Bear> NO is the answer.
 5 2013-07-02 00:13:42 <jchp> owowo: no. however, you must assume that some peers try to promiscuously connect to every node and try to deduce source of transactions and log the IP (blockchain.info does this)
 6 2013-07-02 00:16:37 <owowo> ok
 7 2013-07-02 01:24:09 <imd23> k9quaint: awesome :(
 8 2013-07-02 02:18:08 <stevedekorte> Are there any (dust) restrictions on tx output sizes atm?
 9 2013-07-02 02:19:14 <IanCormac> Isn't it anything less than the cost of using an input? 5400 satoshi or something?
10 2013-07-02 02:19:45 <walch> stevedekorte: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/481d89979457d69da07edd99fba451fd42a47f5c/src/core.h#L146
11 2013-07-02 02:29:05 <sipa> stevedekorte: transaction outputs for which the marginal cost to spend them, according to your own (configurable) relay policy, must be at most 1/3 of the outputs value
12 2013-07-02 02:30:22 <sipa> that translates to 5460 satoshi at the current default settings
13 2013-07-02 02:42:18 <stevedekorte> thanks for the responses
14 2013-07-02 02:45:27 <stevedekorte> sipa: so even if the tx pays an appropriate tx fee, if the tx output is <5460 satoshi, the tx will no be put in a block by most miners?
15 2013-07-02 02:46:03 <gmaxwell> 'appropriate' ??? the approiate fee is paid by increasing the output value(s) up to a point where they aren't so obviously uneconomical to redeem.
16 2013-07-02 02:47:03 <gmaxwell> doing so won't cost more than 5460 satoshi per output, pretty inexpensive as fees go.
17 2013-07-02 02:47:42 <walch> doesn't this introduce cases where the change from another output causes an otherwise acceptable TX to be rejected?
18 2013-07-02 02:48:00 <stevedekorte> gmaxwell: the use case here is for a form of colored coin - so a 1 satoshi output is ok and the system could always using another txin to pay the transfer fee
19 2013-07-02 02:48:15 <gmaxwell> walch: no, because of the loststanding dust fees, client software already had to avoid change under 0.01 BTC.
20 2013-07-02 02:49:09 <gmaxwell> stevedekorte: so make your colored coin 5500 satoshi, and then if its coloration loses value the output is still economical to redeem and won't consume space in the UTXO forever.
21 2013-07-02 02:49:52 <stevedekorte> gmaxwell: yeah, we can work around it - just wondering what the options are
22 2013-07-02 02:51:08 <gmaxwell> You should be careful to not assume a any specific form of transaction will be pratically possible in the far future, or at least as minimially assuming as you can be.
23 2013-07-02 02:52:19 <walch> gmaxwell: ah, I wasn't aware of that one
24 2013-07-02 02:53:22 <gmaxwell> walch: so rather than taking your >5460 change as an output (which you couldn't actually usefully spend) it would just add it as fee.
25 2013-07-02 02:53:43 <gmaxwell> And that was already the case, so no behavior change there.
26 2013-07-02 02:54:49 <walch> that's reasonable.
27 2013-07-02 04:06:46 <PrimeStunna> hey
28 2013-07-02 04:38:43 <PrimeStunna> is anyone good w/ CSS and want to earn a quick 0.1 btc?
29 2013-07-02 04:38:59 <gjs278> PrimeStunna: yes
30 2013-07-02 04:39:07 <PrimeStunna> will PM you
31 2013-07-02 09:45:48 <psychophoniac> hello, i have got a question, why does bitcoin-qt have 100% workload almost all of the time? i am on xubuntu 12.04.2 LTS, 64bits (latest updates), bitcoin-qt version is v0.8.3.0-g40809ae-beta.
32 2013-07-02 09:45:56 <psychophoniac> i remember it was different a few versions ago
33 2013-07-02 09:47:44 <Diablo-D3> gmaxwell: #3 on HN right now: "\tHarry Potter and the Methods of Rationality just got several fascinating updates "
34 2013-07-02 09:47:54 <psychophoniac> back then it had 100% from time to time, but not constantly. strace shows it seems to repeat the same thing over and over:
35 2013-07-02 09:48:02 <SomeoneWeird> Diablo-D3, lmfao
36 2013-07-02 09:48:28 <psychophoniac> http://pastebin.com/sv74fLWN
37 2013-07-02 09:50:00 <nsh> Diablo-D3, ...
38 2013-07-02 09:50:39 <nsh> Eliezer Yudkowsky is possibly the most annoying person on the internet
39 2013-07-02 09:51:11 <nsh> i would probably pull a muscle from kicking him in the groin too many times too vigorously if the opportunity were ever to present itself
40 2013-07-02 09:52:10 <psychophoniac> here is a paste of the thread that belongs to it: http://pastebin.com/WhBaijgR . can someone explain why it does this?
41 2013-07-02 09:52:39 <psychophoniac> (and if it is somewhat strange behavior)?
42 2013-07-02 09:54:13 <Diablo-D3> nsh: I want to beat him just for writing so slowly
43 2013-07-02 09:54:49 <nsh> i just want to beat him.
44 2013-07-02 09:55:05 <nsh> haven't read hpatmor, it might be good
45 2013-07-02 09:55:19 <nsh> anything he's written on AI though deserves a ritual disembowling
46 2013-07-02 09:55:34 <nsh> and the singularity institute is a farce