1 2014-07-08 00:07:16 <ninjashogun> EVERY bitcoin-holder?  And if you can't reach them?
 2 2014-07-08 00:08:46 <kazcw> ninjashogun: determining whether every bitcoin holder agrees can be much easier than you think; just use short-circuit evaluation
 3 2014-07-08 00:09:52 <ninjashogun> kazcw - very funny.  My point is why bother writing that stuff.  You might as well write, "The following can be considered only in case 1 == 0"
 4 2014-07-08 00:10:12 <kazcw> that could be why the paged is named "prohibited changes"
 5 2014-07-08 00:10:15 <ninjashogun> because that's actually more likely than having every single bitcoin-holder's consent.
 6 2014-07-08 00:10:22 <ninjashogun> kazcw, good point.
 7 2014-07-08 00:10:48 <ninjashogun> it's just a red herring.  I can imagine it's meaningful to talk about total consent, but with some "drag-along provisions" (google that phrase)
 8 2014-07-08 00:11:32 <kazcw> not that the wiki is authoritative, but I think it's undeniable that such a change would at best fork us into two networks, where many people refuse to accept the modifications -- making such change totally infeasible
 9 2014-07-08 00:12:22 <kuzetsa> demurrage doesn't sound like it could ever be universally accepted in bitcoin, no.
10 2014-07-08 00:12:44 <kuzetsa> I'd hazard a guess & say more people are against such things than they are in favor
11 2014-07-08 00:13:38 <ninjashogun> it's feasible...  I mean, take the situation where Fork 2 gets much wider adoption (like the us dollar) being inflationary, causing people holding it to want to spend it, (and more people to accept it), new coins introduced as loans into the system, etc.
12 2014-07-08 00:13:51 <ninjashogun> It is very easy to imagine that in this scenario holders of Fork A coins would want to trade for Fork B.
13 2014-07-08 00:13:59 <kuzetsa> ...
14 2014-07-08 00:14:10 <belcher> if that ever happens im buying litecoin
15 2014-07-08 00:14:13 <ninjashogun> Just like people stopped using gold as literal small-coin currency in the wild west, as paper became standard.
16 2014-07-08 00:14:23 <kuzetsa> belcher: lol nice :)
17 2014-07-08 00:14:27 <ryan-c> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-along_right < That. That basically says "majority wins"
18 2014-07-08 00:14:38 <belcher> thats why these alts exist right? to help keep bitcoin honest
19 2014-07-08 00:14:38 <ninjashogun> ryan-c not exactly.  There are exceptions.
20 2014-07-08 00:15:01 <ninjashogun> ryan-c, the major point of drag-along rights is that some 0.005% holder who bought ten shares can't keep your hugely profitable multibillion dollar merger from going through by vetoing it.
21 2014-07-08 00:15:18 <belcher> yeah
22 2014-07-08 00:15:21 <belcher> so 51% is enough
23 2014-07-08 00:15:33 <belcher> like it is in mining, but for adoption you need consensus, the whole 100%
24 2014-07-08 00:15:38 <ninjashogun> well, that question has been lost.  It's already 51% control by one entity at several recent points.
25 2014-07-08 00:15:47 <belcher> for mining, not for nodes
26 2014-07-08 00:15:57 <ninjashogun> I'm really interested in the question of demurrage.
27 2014-07-08 00:16:13 <ryan-c> ninjashogun: Nobody can say with confidence that ghash.io ever had over 50%.
28 2014-07-08 00:16:16 <kuzetsa> why is this talk going on here instead of #bitcoin anyway?
29 2014-07-08 00:16:58 <ninjashogun> I've recently been in talks (I'm a startup founder BTW) with people hoding six-seven figures (fiat) in BTC.  But to consider hte idea of lending it to me for any appreciable time, i would have to cover the deflatoinary costs in my return.  Totally infeasible.  So I can' taccept their bitcoins on all but the shortest terms, to spend in the real world and produce value.  That seems to be a negative for a currency.
30 2014-07-08 00:17:07 <ryan-c> I should do that analysis, actually.
31 2014-07-08 00:17:17 <ninjashogun> ryan-c, go for it!
32 2014-07-08 00:17:27 <ninjashogun> kuzetsa, main reason is that I was interested in demurrage dev plans (if any).
33 2014-07-08 00:18:20 <ryan-c> ninjashogun: I actually have code written that produced mining pool proportions over a block interval with confidence intervals.
34 2014-07-08 00:18:22 <kuzetsa> well I, for one, would jump ship if that ever happened with bitcoin.
35 2014-07-08 00:18:36 <ninjashogun> it would seem an absolute HUGE boon to adoptoin for at least 3 reasons.  (Demurrage = tax on holding, so people likely to spend.  Mechanism can be giving out loans in a centralized/mined way, tha tmust be repaid  - then that can enable real-world value production; thirdly, if people have it and want to spend it (having just received loans for example) others will prop up to accept it.)
36 2014-07-08 00:18:50 <kazcw> demurrage is not a #bitcoin-dev topic
37 2014-07-08 00:19:00 <ninjashogun> okay, moving to bitcoin, anyone welcome to follow this convo there
38 2014-07-08 00:19:04 <ninjashogun> my next sentence there continues:
39 2014-07-08 05:30:01 <whorunit> are there any current proposals/efforts to devise a method of rewarding fullnodes?
40 2014-07-08 05:30:33 <justanotheruser> whorunit: I don't think you can trustlessly verify that someone is running a full node
41 2014-07-08 05:33:58 <whorunit> well using erasure codes you could prove that your node is storing the entire blockchain in a way
42 2014-07-08 05:34:56 <justanotheruser> whorunit: and how do you prevent me from doing this 100000000 times and collecting 10000000 times the reward one blockchain should receive
43 2014-07-08 05:35:18 <justanotheruser> *one blockchain posessor
44 2014-07-08 05:35:33 <whorunit> and also maybe propagation of blocks/txs should be an incentive
45 2014-07-08 05:36:35 <whorunit> TorCoin has a pretty interesting proof of bandwidth concept that could be applied to rewarding fullnodes
46 2014-07-08 05:46:09 <justanotheruser> whorunit: if their idea wasn't centralized, it would be vulnerable to sybil attacks
47 2014-07-08 05:46:34 <justanotheruser> propogation of blocks/txs isn't trustlessly verifiable
48 2014-07-08 05:47:41 <justanotheruser> think about this: the reason we know someone did a certain amount of work based on their block hash is because we have the assumptions that hashes are unpredictable, therefore a certain amount of resource needs to be expended to get that hash.
49 2014-07-08 05:48:08 <justanotheruser> It doesn't require a trusted party, you can verify the hash yourself and it is easy
50 2014-07-08 05:48:52 <justanotheruser> Now, lets think about what happens when someone is running a full node. Basically what we would want to incentivize is block and transaction propogation.
51 2014-07-08 05:49:18 <justanotheruser> How do you prove a piece of data went from your computer to another nodes computer?
52 2014-07-08 05:49:39 <justanotheruser> Well you know it happened. They know it happened. The ISPs in the middle know it happened.
53 2014-07-08 05:50:54 <justanotheruser> So you have to chose one of those parties to trust. If you always trust the sender, the sender could make up 100000000000 imaginary nodes and say "were all full nodes working together and transmitting lots of data, pay us".
54 2014-07-08 06:14:09 <throughnothing> is it possible to have > 1 output of a transaction point to the same address
55 2014-07-08 07:27:18 <sipa> throughnothing: yes
56 2014-07-08 07:28:05 <Hola0123> Hello everybody
57 2014-07-08 07:28:48 <Hola0123> Someone know if is it possible to put our own data in Tradingview ?
58 2014-07-08 07:31:34 <Eliel_> whorunit: I think the best idea is to use a Proof of Work algorithm that works on blockchain data.
59 2014-07-08 07:35:19 <sipa> Hola0123: no clue what you're talking about
60 2014-07-08 07:38:34 <czaanja> Hello, please can anyone help me to convert standard pem certificate to the format bip70 pki_data accepts?