1 2015-12-15 01:52:52 <jl2012> rusty: I don't see any damage here. There is no big deal for me.
 2 2015-12-15 01:53:46 <jl2012> However, I don't like the idea of moving to another mailing list like bitcoin-discuss. It does not slove the problem
 3 2015-12-15 01:53:49 <rusty> jl2012: hi!  I clearly failed in my attempt to steer the conversation in a more productive direction :(
 4 2015-12-15 01:54:02 <jl2012> no no, that's ok
 5 2015-12-15 01:54:17 <rusty> jl2012: yeah, I agree; it wouldn't solve the problem that people don't read the damn explanation.
 6 2015-12-15 01:54:36 <jl2012> If Bitcoin blockchain is full, does moving to Litecoin slove the problem? I don't think so
 7 2015-12-15 01:55:00 <rusty> jl2012: For example, I just moderated this: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/attachments/20151214/d5938ee4/attachment.mht
 8 2015-12-15 01:56:18 <jl2012> We need a Lightning Network of discussion: allow rapid exchange of idea and ask simple questions
 9 2015-12-15 01:56:49 <rusty> jl2012: almost certainly, since the current broadcast mechanism doesn't scale :(
10 2015-12-15 01:57:02 <jl2012> and let the idea hit the blockchain (bitcoin-dev) only if it is mature enough
11 2015-12-15 01:58:02 <jl2012> a highly moderated section in bitcointalk could be used for this purpose
12 2015-12-15 01:58:57 <jl2012> btcdrak and I also opened a subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinwizards/
13 2015-12-15 01:58:57 <rusty> jl2012: it's hard to bootstrap such a thing though.  Everyone wants to post to -dev because that's where everyone is.  Hence the demand for moderation, and my insistence that bitcoin-discuss exist before moderation began.
14 2015-12-15 01:59:48 <rusty> jl2012: I'm happy for you to post on that thread and suggest people take it to the subreddit.  Your current post came across as pretty upset :(
15 2015-12-15 01:59:50 <jgarzik> jl2012, nifty
16 2015-12-15 02:00:06 <jl2012> rusty: bitcointalk was good. Just serious people are leaving
17 2015-12-15 02:01:13 <rusty> jl2012: I also hope you have the patience of a Maxwell to answer the same questions repeatedly!  I think some people just read your opening "It is a common practice in commercial banks that a dormant account might be confiscated." and didn't get further...
18 2015-12-15 02:02:01 <jl2012> rusty: I won't mind doing it in a forum / reddit setting
19 2015-12-15 02:02:06 <gmaxwell> oh damn, I didn't realize they were getting caught on that.
20 2015-12-15 02:02:08 <jl2012> no in the mailing list
21 2015-12-15 02:02:13 <gmaxwell> Communicating is hard.
22 2015-12-15 02:02:41 <gmaxwell> Really a test audience is needed. Now, I guess we know to not explain it the way jl2012 was.
23 2015-12-15 02:03:00 <rusty> gmaxwell: yes, I went back and re-read when I was trying to figure out why the thread is circling on the same corrections.
24 2015-12-15 02:04:16 <sipa> it was also my impression of the proposal after reading the title and first sentences
25 2015-12-15 02:04:34 <jl2012> rusty: I'm trying to build https://8333.info , partially due to the circling reason
26 2015-12-15 02:05:37 <jl2012> If the wiki is good enough, we could have a central point for people to check all the previous discussion on the topic
27 2015-12-15 02:05:59 <midnightmagic> the subject line suggested it was a choice
28 2015-12-15 02:06:06 <gmaxwell> it only gets good enough via one way.
29 2015-12-15 02:06:37 <gmaxwell> I only read that as the problem it was solving; but I have the context of knowing of this class of solutions already, and also knowing jl2012 is no fool. :)
30 2015-12-15 02:09:16 <rusty> jl2012: an excellent idea; perhaps you should do an FAQ post on this thread, nudging people to the subreddit and mentioning the new wiki?
31 2015-12-15 02:10:40 <gmaxwell> That jl2012 can't prpose a fairly straightforward idea without being mobbed is a problem. What exactly is the list for?
32 2015-12-15 02:50:09 <morcos> is there any benefit to having the rule that seq numbers = ffffffff means nLockTime doesn't apply, or could we just soft fork that out
33 2015-12-15 02:50:30 <morcos> might be a nice simple soft fork to run with version bits to test out simultaneously with something else
34 2015-12-15 03:37:53 <Luke-Jr> morcos: the only way to softfork it out is to forbid seq=ffffffff, which breaks lots of current wallets
35 2015-12-15 03:44:19 <jl2012> Luke-Jr: I don't think so. Currently, it is "if seq=max, do not check nLockTime"; a softfork could be "if seq=max, check nLockTime". Clearly a softfork
36 2015-12-15 03:45:18 <jl2012> Though, I don't agree with this softfork. It doen't make anything better
37 2015-12-15 03:49:19 <btcdrak> morcos: isnt this preserving old behaviour?
38 2015-12-15 03:49:35 <btcdrak> jl2012: right. Seems like fiddling for the sake of it.
39 2015-12-15 03:50:39 <btcdrak> jl2012: nice job on the wiki.
40 2015-12-15 09:05:06 <jl2012> is there any CLTV tx on the blockchain already?
41 2015-12-15 09:06:48 <jl2012> I think there is a page showing all strange scripts on the blockchain
42 2015-12-15 12:03:12 <petertodd> jl2012: yup: c974c3dc7762b4f021e74a699339fbeec72cfe6f271a0e4578359c6366f84e23 <- 5BTC using CLTV (and probably my shitty op-hodl.py demo, which is kinda scary...)
43 2015-12-15 12:04:17 <jl2012> Thanks.
44 2015-12-15 12:06:25 <phantomcircuit> petertodd, lulz
45 2015-12-15 12:07:51 <veggi3> hi
46 2015-12-15 12:08:26 <veggi3> what is going to happen to all of the interenet which has encryption all over, such as with even https and bitcoin, once quantum computing comes about, like maybe as soon as 2020
47 2015-12-15 12:08:46 <petertodd> veggi3: off-topic - take it to #bitcoin
48 2015-12-15 12:09:23 <veggi3> [04:05:27] <jimbrr> I suppose they can just change the scheme used, however these questions are probably best kept for #bitcoin-dev
49 2015-12-15 12:09:31 <veggi3> taht was from ##bitcoin
50 2015-12-15 12:09:49 <petertodd> veggi3: you said "all of the internet" :)
51 2015-12-15 12:10:07 <petertodd> veggi3: anyway, yeah, quantum resistant sig algo's exist - quantum computers probably don't
52 2015-12-15 12:10:21 <petertodd> veggi3: this topic has been discussed to death before and isn't very interesting
53 2015-12-15 12:10:28 <veggi3> yeah, well is bitcoin going to change its algorithm when that comes about then?
54 2015-12-15 14:46:29 <morcos> jl2012: you may be right that its not worth the cost for whatever tiny benefit it has to remove it.  but does it serve any purpose whatsoever?
55 2015-12-15 14:46:56 <morcos> perhaps at some point we could at least make it non-standard so would be easy enough to fork out later
56 2015-12-15 14:48:25 <morcos> the reasoning is that it just makes for cleaner consensus code if a txs validity vis-a-vis the nLockTime field does not depend on this special edge case of all the sequence numbers.  (a minor concern i agree with everything else we need to do)
57 2015-12-15 14:49:51 <jl2012> morcos: even if we want to change the rule, it must be applied only to unknown transaction versions. Otherwise people with un-broadcast  tx may get burnt
58 2015-12-15 14:50:43 <morcos> jl2012: i suppose thats true, or be waiting a very very long time
59 2015-12-15 14:51:12 <jl2012> so you will only make the consensus code more complex, not simple
60 2015-12-15 14:52:16 <morcos> hmm, yes so i guess unlike block version #'s.  old tx versions are always accepted..   that's kind of annoying
61 2015-12-15 14:54:27 <morcos> perhaps there should be some sort of general policy we follow on how long old txs will be valid
62 2015-12-15 14:54:33 <jl2012> and even if you do this, with CLTV, you must not set sequence=max. To remove this rule from CLTV is a hardfork. Or we need CLTV2 which does not check the sequence
63 2015-12-15 14:55:06 <morcos> oh shoot, really...
64 2015-12-15 14:55:41 <morcos> i think thats an argument for cleaning up things like this as we go (even if its too late for this one) so they don't become hopelessly imbedded
65 2015-12-15 14:56:46 <morcos> but certainly old non-standard txs are not always valid in the future.  for instance tx version 2's that were authored a long time ago with accidental sequence locks
66 2015-12-15 14:57:37 <morcos> but the CLTV thing is pretty much a show stopper i guess
67 2015-12-15 14:58:09 <morcos> i should have had this idea yesterday.  :)
68 2015-12-15 15:00:55 <jl2012> no one should use any unknown version or unknown NOP
69 2015-12-15 15:14:34 <jl2012> It seems no v3 block generated since the fork. The softfork is quite clean this time
70 2015-12-15 18:44:24 <btcdrak> jl21012: it's been amazing. I guess that's another falling sky argument out the window +__+
71 2015-12-15 18:46:29 <jouke> jl2012: How would you know that not an other block was mined?
72 2015-12-15 18:48:53 <jouke> Couldn't they just not be forwarded to your nodes?
73 2015-12-15 19:32:59 <mrkent> How large of an address pool can bitcoind hold?
74 2015-12-15 19:33:14 <instagibbs> jouke, I could mine a v3 block right now for yesterday. Impossible to prove when it was made :P
75 2015-12-15 19:35:07 <jouke> instagibbs: whenever I see your name I get a urge to play UT :x