1 2015-08-28 00:00:02 <Luke-Jr> Adlai: I am convinced Mike Hearn is not being at all honest in his blog posts. There's just too many blatant lies.
 2 2015-08-28 00:00:10 <BlueMatt> in any case, the same could be said for, I believe, every single soft fork we've done
 3 2015-08-28 00:00:14 <Adlai> Luke-Jr: but this is a very subtle one! :)
 4 2015-08-28 00:00:24 <BlueMatt> there are little quirks we should have fixed in every one, afaiu
 5 2015-08-28 00:00:56 <BlueMatt> eg block height-in-coinbse....we burned an entire version bit in block version we cant get back without a hardfork :/
 6 2015-08-28 00:01:02 <Luke-Jr> also FWIW, I still think OP_EVAL would have been better than BIP16 :p
 7 2015-08-28 00:01:24 <btcdrak> Adlai: Mike was being clever making comparision between OP_EVAL and P2SH, when the real travesty was between bip16 and 17. So as presented, Mike is right, but dig a little deeper and his own example damns him.
 8 2015-08-28 00:01:26 <Adlai> too bad satoshi broke the undo button
 9 2015-08-28 00:01:41 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: ironically, XT's "hardfork" doesn't fix any of the simple fixes we'd want in a hardfork!
10 2015-08-28 00:01:52 <BlueMatt> Luke-Jr: well, thats debateable, but, ok
11 2015-08-28 00:02:14 <BlueMatt> Adlai: if only we had a regular update cycle with hardforks every 6 months!
12 2015-08-28 00:02:20 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: for example, P2SH still has the N-of-15 limitation bug
13 2015-08-28 00:02:22 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: don't agree about superficial ways; it's superior in that it provides actual privacy, immunity from the tx censorship vulnerability, and probably lower server load.
14 2015-08-28 00:02:35 <gmaxwell> But it's also not mature and not something we could just use instead yet.
15 2015-08-28 00:02:42 <Adlai> BlueMatt: if only satoshi's last message was "i'll crash the market if you ever hardfork again"!
16 2015-08-28 00:02:56 <Luke-Jr> Adlai: that'd be insane
17 2015-08-28 00:03:18 <Adlai> he'd be insane to do it when the need was obvious, or so we'd have to argue. but it'd change the debate a little
18 2015-08-28 00:03:20 <btcdrak> Luke-Jr: creator's privilege
19 2015-08-28 00:03:36 <gmaxwell> thats predicated on misinformation.
20 2015-08-28 00:03:56 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: huh? I'm unclear as to how bip 16/17 have different privacy/censoship properties
21 2015-08-28 00:04:04 <gmaxwell> (e.g. that anyone actually knows if the system's creator owns .. well, any bitcoins at all)
22 2015-08-28 00:04:12 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: sorry I was commenting on bloom.
23 2015-08-28 00:04:20 <dcousens> right, had me confused there too gm
24 2015-08-28 00:04:25 <BlueMatt> ahh, yes, well the bloom stuff was fail in WAY more than superficial ways
25 2015-08-28 00:04:36 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: BIP17 actually was much better, though we only thought the differnces were not important at the time. For example it didn't have the 510 byte limit.
26 2015-08-28 00:05:32 <BlueMatt> oh, yes, 510 bytes is annoying, though.....meh
27 2015-08-28 00:05:32 <petertodd> gmaxwell: I'd clarify and say "differences not noticed at the time" in the case of the 510 byte limit
28 2015-08-28 00:05:34 <Adlai> gmaxwell: had I been a lone Satoshi, in control of all private keys, I wouldn't have done that, myself. but hypotheticals are a beautiful part of speech...
29 2015-08-28 00:05:48 <gmaxwell> Also several reimplmentors (advisable or not) have gotten things wrong in ways that seem less likely for BIP17, though...  E.g BC.i had a serious vulnerability related to this.
30 2015-08-28 00:05:49 <dcousens> could always add 1 and remove the other after 10000 blocks of no use? right? right? :P
31 2015-08-28 00:06:29 <petertodd> also, the P2SH address standard was pretty ugly, and made it hard to upgrade script later by not defining a way to replace the opcodes
32 2015-08-28 00:06:43 <gmaxwell> (vulnerability was that if I paid to P2SH with hash-160 from your p2pkh address, and the payment confirmed, you'd see a completed, confirmed, payment in your wallet and in the explorer... 0_o)
33 2015-08-28 00:07:17 <gmaxwell> It was a little ugly, but it saved a byte. Without anyone raising some of the other issues that didn't sound like an awful tradeoff.
34 2015-08-28 00:07:26 <erasmospunk> Hey guys, sorry for the off-topic. Was there any discussion about address requests from a wallet i.e. a website wants to pay a user?
35 2015-08-28 00:07:36 <dcousens> gmaxwell: a byte?  the OPCODE_SEP ?
36 2015-08-28 00:07:41 <Adlai> erasmospunk: there's a protocol for payment requests
37 2015-08-28 00:07:42 <gmaxwell> Opinions at the time were: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes
38 2015-08-28 00:07:54 <erasmospunk> Adlai: BIP70?
39 2015-08-28 00:07:54 <phantomcircuit> erasmospunk, see bip 70
40 2015-08-28 00:07:58 <phantomcircuit> actually that reminds me
41 2015-08-28 00:08:02 <phantomcircuit> bip 70 should be reviewed...
42 2015-08-28 00:08:15 <erasmospunk> this is when a user wants to pay a service
43 2015-08-28 00:08:31 <erasmospunk> what about the opposite?
44 2015-08-28 00:08:34 <dcousens> why wasn't gavinandresen: "not willing to consider as an option" BIP17?
45 2015-08-28 00:08:35 <Adlai> on the blockchain, nobody knows you're a user!
46 2015-08-28 00:08:44 <dcousens> why was*
47 2015-08-28 00:08:58 <erasmospunk> Adlai: hehe true
48 2015-08-28 00:09:34 <erasmospunk> thinking something like bitcoin:?req-addressrequest=https%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org
49 2015-08-28 00:10:06 <erasmospunk> so a wallet will call https://bitcoin.org?address=1XXXX
50 2015-08-28 00:10:31 <erasmospunk> after it requests permission from the user
51 2015-08-28 00:11:34 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: because he made up his mind at a dev meeting and refused to change it for any reason, IIRC
52 2015-08-28 00:11:36 <gmaxwell> dcousens: because BIP16 had already been proposed, and he did not see BIP17 as adding anything of value.
53 2015-08-28 00:12:24 <gmaxwell> To be fair, the reasons that I currently consider 16 a mistake vs 17 were reasons that were not known to any of us at the time (I think not luke either, if so-- it wasn't successfully communicated)
54 2015-08-28 00:12:30 <Adlai> and "one should make his decision within the space of seven breaths"
55 2015-08-28 00:12:57 <gmaxwell> I prefered 16 at the time purely because the encoding was shorter and otherwise viewed the proposals as equivilent in the ways that mattered.
56 2015-08-28 00:15:18 <dcousens> I wonder if bitcoin would ever have a 'cleanup' hardfork, lets assume it reaches its peak, whenever/whatever that is,  I wonder if consensus would reach "lets finally fix the broken things, or things that we regret or always annoyed us"
57 2015-08-28 00:15:54 <Luke-Jr> dcousens: it'd be much easier if we could flip the chain (UTXO commitments)
58 2015-08-28 00:16:10 <Luke-Jr> until we have that, we'd need to maintain the old rules :/
59 2015-08-28 00:16:22 <Adlai> well BIP17 redefines a NOPcode, couldn't p2sh be improved someday in the future, when we're all out of bugs and looking for softforks to while the blocks away?
60 2015-08-28 00:16:25 <Luke-Jr> I do consider BIP17's failure to be partly my fault for missing the P2SH meeting.
61 2015-08-28 00:16:47 <Adlai> no, it's the meeting's fault for insufficient devil's advocation