1 2015-05-31 03:13:02 <warren> Luke-Jr: how do you enforce that?
  2 2015-05-31 03:13:22 <Luke-Jr> warren: moderators, warnings, and a quiet-ban list?
  3 2015-05-31 03:13:47 <Luke-Jr> probably more problems than it solves :/
  4 2015-05-31 03:45:50 <hulkhogan_> probably better to just add text-analysis for mails that come in, and flag ones with obviously spammy phrases
  5 2015-05-31 03:46:10 <hulkhogan_> 'blocksize increase' etc
  6 2015-05-31 03:55:43 <Luke-Jr> lol
  7 2015-05-31 04:23:42 <Cryo> Luke-Jr, since you're around, are you binding on osx for ipv4 and ipv6 by default? I'm still getting no bind on ipv6 after upnp maps the port for ipv4.
  8 2015-05-31 04:29:20 <Luke-Jr> Cryo: sorry, no clue about Mac
  9 2015-05-31 04:29:49 <Cryo> oh, I thought you were the port handler. my bad :)
 10 2015-05-31 04:33:26 <gmaxwell> 6439bfb3de69f6c8ae9bed6af7837bee9e9de300fd97dbf56e0f7fd7fc69fc89
 11 2015-05-31 04:33:40 <gmaxwell> ^ midnightmagic you've timestamped things for me before, can you timestamp that commitment in some way.
 12 2015-05-31 06:06:17 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: sure!
 13 2015-05-31 07:06:37 <Luke-Jr> yay for addressing a PR comment and finding 2 new PRs to make in the process? <.<
 14 2015-05-31 07:22:07 <Sythaeryn> Anyone in the house with the skills to compile a coin (binary/qt) in win/lin/mac? looking to hire someone...
 15 2015-05-31 07:36:14 <Luke-Jr> Sythaeryn: ##altcoin-dev
 16 2015-05-31 08:22:41 <warren> Luke-Jr: too bad coingen isn't up anymore
 17 2015-05-31 08:36:37 <Luke-Jr> this may be a viable idea combined with UTXO creation limits: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37x6m9/block_size_solution_remove_block_size_limit/crqoa2r?context=3
 18 2015-05-31 08:36:39 <Luke-Jr> particularly, allow miners to buy larger blocks somehow.  I'm not sure who they would pay though - next miner seems like a centralising risk, and I don't like burning
 19 2015-05-31 08:51:42 <warren> Luke-Jr: I think gmaxwell's idea about UTXO creation/combining and PoW was interesting
 20 2015-05-31 09:15:21 <jzk> eventually miners are going to have to pay people for storing the data
 21 2015-05-31 09:16:04 <jzk> don't get your panties in a bunch over scalability
 22 2015-05-31 13:02:40 <alfacent> Can someone please tell me if this discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075997.0 would be appropriate for the bitcoin development mailing-list?
 23 2015-05-31 16:04:40 <graingert> afternoon
 24 2015-05-31 16:20:21 <alfacent> hi, graingert !
 25 2015-05-31 17:11:39 <Rozal> hi, alfacent !
 26 2015-05-31 19:28:18 <morcos> Luke-Jr: re: 6201, for all 0.9 and 0.10 nodes, transactions with fee rates >1ksat (and <10ksat) would be relayed and mined fairly effectively.  some wallets have come to depend on that and hardcoded fees in that range.
 27 2015-05-31 19:29:22 <morcos> this pull whould change that so thaose transactions won't be relayed at all unless they are high priority.  i'd say that changes peoples expectations significantly, even if it is a good idea, there should be some discussion
 28 2015-05-31 19:45:12 <Luke-Jr> morcos: that change was not discussed, and wallets should not depend on any specific miner policies
 29 2015-05-31 19:46:31 <Luke-Jr> 0.9 and 0.10 nodes will still be kicking around for a while, so I'm not too worried about the other relay changes; although at some point the mempool ought to be fixed so they can be distinct minimums
 30 2015-05-31 19:47:44 <morcos> sorry i replied to you on PR too.  i'm not arguing against the change, its a setting anyone can change, i'm just arguing we should let people know its going to happen otherwise they will be unpleasantly surprised
 31 2015-05-31 19:48:18 <morcos> anyway, i'm on a plane and about to lose service, so sorry if i stop responding
 32 2015-05-31 19:49:09 <Luke-Jr> ah, so release-notes.md?
 33 2015-05-31 19:50:08 <morcos> well , at least that.  i guess at this point its on IRC and github
 34 2015-05-31 19:50:24 <morcos> anyway, i've said my piece, no further objection
 35 2015-05-31 20:33:09 <cybrNaut> i have BDB 5.1 and 5.3.  I did the install with --with-incompatible-bdb
 36 2015-05-31 20:33:21 <cybrNaut> how do I know which BDB was compiled with it?
 37 2015-05-31 20:33:59 <cybrNaut> config.log doesn't say
 38 2015-05-31 20:42:26 <midnightmagic> Cory!
 39 2015-05-31 21:19:41 <rightrudder> I don't want to see bitcoin limited to 4-7tps
 40 2015-05-31 21:20:14 <rightrudder> that is a limit to how many others can participate
 41 2015-05-31 21:22:28 <rightrudder> we should scale up to the polulation of earth X the number of tx each person will likely need to make
 42 2015-05-31 21:24:50 <Adlai> and we will!
 43 2015-05-31 21:25:29 <Adlai> 7bil × 0 (average bitcoin tps per person) = 0
 44 2015-05-31 21:25:54 <rightrudder> by not increasing block size people start getting excluded due to competition in mining fees
 45 2015-05-31 21:26:08 <rightrudder> bitcoin will remain niche forever
 46 2015-05-31 21:26:31 <Adlai> ok
 47 2015-05-31 21:26:42 <midnightmagic> rightrudder: I highly recommend you write some code, do the performance research, write all the test harnesses, involve plenty of peer review, and push your branch so people can learn how to do it the right way.
 48 2015-05-31 21:27:46 <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: not the most helpful response, but this should probably move to #bitcoin where people can explain that e.g. all the worlds transactions is a beautiful goal but it is not yet feasable in a free, open, decenteralize system.
 49 2015-05-31 21:28:01 <rightrudder> gmaxwell: I want to tell you though ;)
 50 2015-05-31 21:29:53 <gmaxwell> I'm there too. Moreover, you're not telling us anything we don't know ourselves. Everyone wants Bitcoin to have many transactions, no one desires 7tps forever. etc.
 51 2015-05-31 21:30:25 <gmaxwell> But engineering decisions exist in the context of their tradeoffs. I want infinity tps, but only on a system which is secure and free.
 52 2015-05-31 21:30:31 <gmaxwell> (free, as in freedom)
 53 2015-05-31 21:34:23 <Squidicuz> would it be a bad idea to run the branch that has the higher block size, a resulting block would be rejected by the network then, right?
 54 2015-05-31 21:34:48 <warren> rightrudder: any block size increase is still very limited in tps.  No long-term solution can put ALL transactions in the world on the main chain while keeping Bitcoin decentralized.
 55 2015-05-31 21:34:56 <rightrudder> gmaxwell: yes, there are clearly tradeoffs. The catch is if the limit remains then bitcoin can no longer grow.
 56 2015-05-31 21:35:33 <midnightmagic> I'm mostly serious. I don't think people fully recognise that stepping in and telling people a facile two-line solution to the world's problems isn't particularly helpful; and moreover, it is insulting to presume that two lines of demands followed by glib belligerent alpha-male behaviour will somehow turn around people who have been thinking of basically bitcoin fulltime for 5+ years.
 57 2015-05-31 21:35:35 <rightrudder> the big block chain will win because we aren't done growing yet
 58 2015-05-31 21:35:40 <warren> Merely increasing the block size is kicking the can down the road unless you also agree to work on long-term solutions, like sidechains or lightning-like approaches.
 59 2015-05-31 21:35:43 <Adlai> Squidicuz: it's a bad idea to mine on the branch by which fewer of your trade counterparties validate; but this is for #bitcoin
 60 2015-05-31 21:35:44 <xabbix> gmaxwell, Would it be more likely that core devs including you will support an increase to 4MB? Or are you currently against any changes to the block size?
 61 2015-05-31 21:36:05 <Squidicuz> aye, thought so
 62 2015-05-31 21:36:26 <rightrudder> midnightmagic: I have been thinking about btc 24/7 for 3 years. you don't know me or what I have done.
 63 2015-05-31 21:37:04 <Adlai> well now at least we know what you've done
 64 2015-05-31 21:37:16 <midnightmagic> rightrudder: Correct. I don't. I do know comments like this: "The catch is if the limit remains then bitcoin can no longer grow[...]" strongly suggests the opposite.
 65 2015-05-31 21:37:45 <rightrudder> midnightmagic: how will it continue to grow? how will more people fit?
 66 2015-05-31 21:37:59 <gmaxwell> xabbix: People have proposed 2MB, which I thought was more reasonable (only _double_) but that also goes down the route of continually undermining the fee market, which continues to make reaching it worse. My proposal was always just to make small, clearly better than inaction changes, when it was clear that doing so was safer than not (e.g. when congestion demanded it).
 67 2015-05-31 21:38:35 <midnightmagic> rightrudder: Please reconsider having this discussion in here. I strongly recommend you take it to #bitcoin. Everyone who is continuing to be interested in discussing it, is also in #bitcoin.
 68 2015-05-31 21:38:58 <gmaxwell> e.g. kick the can, but only as a last resort, and in small steps that keep from jumping off into unknown regions of operation.
 69 2015-05-31 21:39:20 <xabbix> gmaxwell, I understand, thanks for the response.
 70 2015-05-31 21:42:03 <rightrudder> gmaxwell: have you thought about making the block size smaller?
 71 2015-05-31 21:43:01 <GAit> rightrudder: from his reddit posts he did. He's hoping the lastest scalability changes are enough to manage a sustained full 1 MB blocks
 72 2015-05-31 21:43:42 <warren> rightrudder: why are you asking about making block size smaller?  Do you think there is some kind of conspiracy?
 73 2015-05-31 21:49:34 <gmaxwell> rightrudder: yes, ... but I hope our latest improvements (and the ones in the immediate pipeline) are enought to not have a reason to do such an awful thing.
 74 2015-05-31 21:58:22 <rightrudder> gmaxwell: I don't want to see bitcoin become a tool only for the wealthy. When demand for the blockchain outpaces space then that is what we will have.
 75 2015-05-31 21:59:22 <Squidicuz> ...or there will be a solution?
 76 2015-05-31 22:00:23 <midnightmagic> gmaxwell: he'd already moved to #bitcoin
 77 2015-05-31 22:00:42 <jzk> There is a solution.
 78 2015-05-31 22:04:32 <Krellan> Hi all. Any recommendation on that boost compilation problem I mentioned earlier?
 79 2015-05-31 22:05:20 <Krellan> I'm running Boost 1.52 and it gives error when compiling scheduler.cpp
 80 2015-05-31 22:59:36 <baldur> what sort of trolling bullshit is Gavin writing about, did anyone mention trying to connect with a 56K modem in the middle of the Sahara? Honestly how can anyone expect a reasonable conversation if that's the bullshit he pulls out
 81 2015-05-31 23:03:22 <midnightmagic> baldur: Not the best place for it, in here. #bitcoin or ##bitcoin or #bitcoin-pricetalk
 82 2015-05-31 23:04:00 <baldur> he's writing to the bitcoin-development mailing list, bitcoin-dev seems absolutely the correct place
 83 2015-05-31 23:04:40 <Adlai> he's mostly marketing his fork to reddit, so maybe /r/DevverBitcoin would be correcter
 84 2015-05-31 23:09:35 <Luke-Jr> baldur: someone brought it up in a thread about 1 GB blocks on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37v4v9/reminder_a_1_mb_block_size_limit_means_a_maximum/crqtdws
 85 2015-05-31 23:10:29 <Luke-Jr> (which influenced me to mention it at http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37zsv5/question_does_the_increase_to_20mb_mean_that_tor/crr4gvl so maybe I'm part to blame)
 86 2015-05-31 23:11:35 <baldur> then he should either ignore that nonsense or respond to the reddit comment, it's disingenuous to bring up such strawman points on the mailing list and certainly doesn't try to build consensus.
 87 2015-05-31 23:12:44 <Luke-Jr> maybe. just saying he didn't pull it out of nowhere. (unless the reddit comments were after and inspired by his dev ML post..)
 88 2015-05-31 23:13:52 <midnightmagic> baldur: Venom isn't helpful in -dev. The rest of those channels I mentioned will absorb it.
 89 2015-05-31 23:15:33 <baldur> you're absolutely right, gavin should cut that shit out on the mailing list.
 90 2015-05-31 23:16:51 <midnightmagic> In the possible universe where you're right, don't justify it by doing the same thing. :)
 91 2015-05-31 23:16:58 <Luke-Jr> ^
 92 2015-05-31 23:18:59 <baldur> calling someone out isn't the same thing, but whatever, tribalism is alive and well everywhere you go.
 93 2015-05-31 23:25:47 <Krellan> I don't think block size needs to be increased immediately. The existing bidding market for TX to get into blocks is working as designed.
 94 2015-05-31 23:26:26 <Krellan> What I feel would be more useful is a general mechanism for miners voting on protocol changes (the 75%/95% rule and so forth). Maybe standardize a "vote bit" somewhere in coinbase TX.
 95 2015-05-31 23:26:41 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: well, it's not yet from what I can see - but yesterday's spam showed it probably will when we get there
 96 2015-05-31 23:26:55 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: miners have no say on max block size
 97 2015-05-31 23:27:00 <Luke-Jr> except to decrease it
 98 2015-05-31 23:28:16 <Krellan> If a vote were to be put in, to increase max block size, then miners would certainly have a say on it then, since they would be the voters.
 99 2015-05-31 23:28:51 <Krellan> I see an endgame for Bitcoin as being a backend/general clearing house, with most people not touching blockchain directly.
100 2015-05-31 23:29:16 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: you're missing the point
101 2015-05-31 23:29:51 <Luke-Jr> Krellan: the block size is part of what /defines/ who the miners are.
102 2015-05-31 23:30:07 <Krellan> In this case the pressure for TPS to increase would be off, as most people would perform their TX offchain (at places like Coinbase or Bitpay).
103 2015-05-31 23:30:53 <Krellan> Blockchain would only be used to square-up between the various offchain-TX providers.
104 2015-05-31 23:31:39 <Krellan> But this is getting off topic for -dev so I'll shut up :)
105 2015-05-31 23:31:51 <Luke-Jr> … yeah, was about to say … thanks ☺
106 2015-05-31 23:34:19 <Krellan> Anybody good with Boost who can help with a problem compiling scheduler.cpp? http://pastebin.com/M2KC4Ksi
107 2015-05-31 23:41:10 <ahmed_> petertodd: you around?