1 2014-08-16 00:03:26 <andytoshi> yes, thx CScript::IsPayToScriptHash() in script.cpp says this
 2 2014-08-16 00:05:30 <alferz> hey andy, any idea of tools that can parse the blockchain including orphans?
 3 2014-08-16 00:06:26 <andytoshi> alferz: 'fraid not, i don't know anything about bitcoind's serialization
 4 2014-08-16 00:44:00 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: could you please avoid setting slush off?
 5 2014-08-16 00:45:05 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: Go make it right.
 6 2014-08-16 00:47:25 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: there is nothing to make right. he's essentially trying to abuse his position to force scamcoins into the BIP repository.
 7 2014-08-16 00:48:42 <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: We would like his participation, right?  Sometimes that means accomidating things which we're pretty sure is the other person being foolish.  In this case, the fact that _one_ person has opposed it isn't a reason for him to pull out, but he feels like it is and that should be fixed.
 8 2014-08-16 00:48:45 <jgarzik> some of the BIPs clearly apply to other cryptocurrencies, and there is little harm and much benefit to avoid colliding on a few things
 9 2014-08-16 00:49:38 <BlueMatt> but explicitly allocating a coin type for litecoin is not ideal
10 2014-08-16 00:49:49 <gmaxwell> and on that point, while I agree non-bitcoin things shouldn't generally be in BIPs we benefit on not colliding. You can imagine it as a "dont use this because litecoin is" perhaps?   but whatever, maybe it's ultimately decided to not include it, we still don't want the outcome where slush pulls out in a huff.
11 2014-08-16 00:50:26 <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I agree the community is better off with his participation, but I don't think it should entitle him to doing this.
12 2014-08-16 00:50:34 <gmaxwell> So it would be helpful if you go show him that you do value his participation even though you don't agree on this point.
13 2014-08-16 00:51:05 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes, I think we should have a "here, these numbers are reserved for non-bitcoin uses"
14 2014-08-16 00:51:11 <BlueMatt> but not "this one number is reserved for litecoin"
15 2014-08-16 00:51:44 <gmaxwell> See, thats a cooperative alternative. (I'm not giving favor to it, I haven't thought about it really) but had you instead proposed that perhaps he wouldn't have had such an adverse reaction.
16 2014-08-16 00:52:02 <gmaxwell> (I'm not even saying this to chide you, I'm being utilitarian here.)
17 2014-08-16 01:00:30 <gmaxwell> warren: are there any litcoin registries for specs and assignments?
18 2014-08-16 02:56:00 <petertodd> alferz: python-bitcoinlib can do that; see the examples/ directory for some code that creates blocks in the block format. should be easy enough to change that to extract blocks. also, if you get anywhere doing that, please consider sending me some/all of that code so we can add it to the examples/ directory
19 2014-08-16 02:57:07 <petertodd> alferz: oh, I see amiller answered you
20 2014-08-16 02:58:12 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: come up with a reasonable solution for address prefixes when we start  needing to allocate them for sidechains...
21 2014-08-16 02:59:32 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: ?
22 2014-08-16 03:00:24 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: we'll want to have the concept of an address for various sidechain uses I can guarantee you
23 2014-08-16 03:00:35 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: e.g. imagine a zerocash sidechain
24 2014-08-16 03:00:43 <dsnrk> I should do a BIP writeup about my alternate to base58 encoding. instead of a human readable character set, we use all zero-width unicode characters. lot higher information density, and would lead to less thefts as nobody could ever write code to properly handle UTF16.
25 2014-08-16 03:01:05 <Luke-Jr> dsnrk: ._.
26 2014-08-16 03:01:20 <petertodd> dsnrk: <insert unicode joke here>
27 2014-08-16 03:01:26 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: why not payment protocol?
28 2014-08-16 03:01:52 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: exactly same issue...
29 2014-08-16 03:02:02 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: not exactly, no.
30 2014-08-16 03:02:32 <petertodd> anyway, as stealth shows, interactive payment protocols are frequently not appropriate, never mind debugging and other low-level usage
31 2014-08-16 03:02:54 <dsnrk> in all seriousness altcoins have completely exhausted the address byte space. at my last count there's over 10 altcoins per byte. even Litecoin collides with Bitcoin's version byte for P2SH.
32 2014-08-16 03:03:14 <Luke-Jr> dsnrk: they can be ignored. the version byte is for Bitcoin versions.
33 2014-08-16 03:03:21 <Luke-Jr> Bitcoin address versions*
34 2014-08-16 03:03:42 <petertodd> dsnrk: IMO the whole idea of different version bytes for different alts is probably suspect anyway, just do btc:<addr>, ltc:<addr> etc.
35 2014-08-16 03:03:48 <Luke-Jr> that being said, there may be other reasons to replace base58 anyway
36 2014-08-16 03:03:52 <dsnrk> Luke-Jr: I know, but that doesn't stop the immediate problem that Litecoin and Bitcoin P2SH addresses look the exact same.
37 2014-08-16 03:04:36 <dsnrk> people are used to identifying them visually, while that is probably a bad idea people still do it.
38 2014-08-16 03:04:40 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: please explain how defining standards for Litecoin is any way improves Bitcoin. BIPs had a clear policy against defining altcoin things until now.
39 2014-08-16 03:04:46 <Luke-Jr> in any way*
40 2014-08-16 03:08:48 <dsnrk> Luke-Jr: what would you rather see in place of bip58?
41 2014-08-16 03:11:22 <Luke-Jr> dsnrk: a while back, I wrote https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/30850922/ - I think gmaxwell had some ideas to improve on it
42 2014-08-16 03:11:58 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, popular field use, like it or not
43 2014-08-16 03:12:09 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: hm?
44 2014-08-16 03:13:17 <dsnrk> Luke-Jr: how do you tell apart Y and y on a 7 segment display?