1 2015-12-18 01:40:50 <veggi3> gmaxwell left bitcoin development because of galvin not being a team player?
 2 2015-12-18 01:50:56 <phantomcircuit> veggi3: less "not being a team player" more "actively attempting to make everybody else's lives hell"
 3 2015-12-18 01:52:35 <sipa> off topic
 4 2015-12-18 02:29:30 <Luke-Jr> Anything I could have explained better here? https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3x55i7/pieter_wuille_deciding_consensus_rules_not_in_our/cy2ypjz?context=2
 5 2015-12-18 02:36:26 <justanotheruser> Luke-Jr: it won't make sense to them unless you prefix it with "XT is really a good idea and the core developers are evil"
 6 2015-12-18 03:57:09 <CodeShark> stop wasting time on trolls
 7 2015-12-18 03:57:25 <CodeShark> or idiots (but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt)
 8 2015-12-18 04:00:56 <CodeShark> haters are gonna hate - the way to win isn't to try to convince them but to make sure they don't get any real power
 9 2015-12-18 04:05:55 <CodeShark> explain to the crowd, not to the heckler
10 2015-12-18 04:06:39 <CodeShark> win the crowd and the crowd will take care of the heckler problem for you
11 2015-12-18 04:11:11 <Luke-Jr> CodeShark: it looked like a legit honest confusion to me, in that case
12 2015-12-18 04:15:23 <CodeShark> it might have been - but the apparent attitude this person shows doesn't look too promising as far as time investment into trying to convince them individually
13 2015-12-18 04:15:46 <CodeShark> it would be far better to write up a good explanation and publish it somewhere where a lot of people will read it without having to dredge through mounds of trollage
14 2015-12-18 04:18:13 <midnightmagic> and he gets dogpile downvoted anyway
15 2015-12-18 04:21:27 <CodeShark> anyhow, this isn't #bitcoin-dev...it's #bitcoin-pr...so I'll leave it at that
16 2015-12-18 04:37:57 <jl2012> sipa: do  you have a BIP draft for segwit? If no, I'm interested to draft one
17 2015-12-18 04:38:17 <CodeShark> I started working on one
18 2015-12-18 05:06:29 <jl2012> In the design of segwit, should be follow Satoshi to use double SHA256 everywhere, or just single SHA256 is enough? What is difference in performance?
19 2015-12-18 05:17:16 <CodeShark> I don't think sha256 is a bottleneck anywhere except in PoW
20 2015-12-18 05:18:35 <CodeShark> double sha256 is less than twice the number of operations for single sha256 if implemented optimally...but I think the main concern here is security, not performance
21 2015-12-18 05:18:53 <CodeShark> and secondarily, consistency and ease of documentation
22 2015-12-18 05:21:20 <Luke-Jr> double sha256 is less than twice the number of operations for single sha256 if implemented optimally… <-- is it?
23 2015-12-18 05:21:37 <Luke-Jr> for mining, yes, but only because you're repeating the same hash over and over..
24 2015-12-18 05:22:01 <CodeShark> in any case, I don't think it really matters here
25 2015-12-18 05:22:14 <sipa> Luke-Jr: for any message over 56 bytes, yes
26 2015-12-18 05:22:34 <sipa> as the second hash application only needs one run of the compression function
27 2015-12-18 05:28:08 <Luke-Jr> oh, that's a point
28 2015-12-18 05:30:19 <CodeShark> perhaps single sha256 is slightly more susceptible to collision attacks (albeit still astronomically difficult)
29 2015-12-18 06:17:02 <jl2012> for the v1 witness programme (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011962.html), should use dSHA256 as people may want to keep the money untouched for years
30 2015-12-18 06:44:43 <arioBarzan> anyone have used CLTV on mainchain so far?
31 2015-12-18 07:57:11 <jl2012> arioBarzan: c974c3dc7762b4f021e74a699339fbeec72cfe6f271a0e4578359c6366f84e23
32 2015-12-18 08:18:36 <jl2012> is the CastToBool function in interpreter.cpp determines whether a value is true or false?
33 2015-12-18 08:20:29 <jl2012> so all the followings are false? empty string,  0x00, 0x0000, 0x80, 0x0080, 0x000080, right?
34 2015-12-18 09:19:52 <CodeShark> it sure looks that way, jl2012. according to the implementation, as long as all the bytes before the last one are 0x00 and the last one is either 0x00 or 0x80 it should return false
35 2015-12-18 09:21:40 <CodeShark> why are we not using two's complement?
36 2015-12-18 09:24:05 <jl2012> I don't really know C++ but I'm trying to read sipa 's segwit code. If the scriptPubKey is a single push of 0x0000, it is a valid version 0 witness program, but it is an invalid script since the scriprtSig must be empty
37 2015-12-18 09:25:07 <jl2012> unless there is an additional check for the script with original semantic, it becomes a hardfork
38 2015-12-18 09:25:51 <CodeShark> can you link to the source file, jl2012?
39 2015-12-18 09:26:07 <jl2012> https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/de67f6071fb376172c63a999e39760ff023e74a8
40 2015-12-18 09:26:46 <benjyz1> how reliable is metadata on the basis of op_return ?
41 2015-12-18 09:27:11 <benjyz1> as far as I'm aware there is no standard for ColoredCoins
42 2015-12-18 09:29:00 <CodeShark> jl2012: you mean if the scriptSig is a single push of 0x0000?
43 2015-12-18 09:29:08 <CodeShark> or if the redeemscript, rather
44 2015-12-18 09:29:08 <jl2012> yes
45 2015-12-18 09:29:16 <jl2012> either
46 2015-12-18 09:29:31 <jl2012> i think it's just the same problem
47 2015-12-18 09:31:25 <jl2012> either a scriptPubKey of a single push of 0x0000, or a P2SH redeemscript of a single push of 0x0000
48 2015-12-18 09:32:50 <jl2012> oh wait...
49 2015-12-18 09:33:35 <jl2012> 0x0000 as witness program is also unspendable
50 2015-12-18 09:35:55 <jl2012> ok, false alarm. If the witness program is any form of 0, it must also be provably unspendable
51 2015-12-18 15:02:16 <dif3> hi
52 2015-12-18 15:20:52 <Lightsword> heh, someone mined a v3 block https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/c7ca6bdd698ac0e7a50ead5ad38391eaf461a387280c61bd34dc903f41468932
53 2015-12-18 15:25:31 <arubi> tagged by "myBTCcoin Pool", if blocktrail isn't wrong about that..
54 2015-12-18 15:31:39 <arubi> the statistics on their website say they mined that v3 block.
55 2015-12-18 15:47:15 <Lightsword> arubi, yeah should be right, I’ve actually been tagging most pools myself by decoding generation transactions from stratum
56 2015-12-18 15:48:18 <arubi> sounds useful
57 2015-12-18 16:08:05 <benjyzz> so my critical post about SW was deleted. is this the new standard?
58 2015-12-18 16:10:00 <midnightmagic> whine elsewhere.
59 2015-12-18 16:10:16 <benjyzz> ...
60 2015-12-18 16:10:39 <benjyzz> so censorship is basically accepted in this community now. what a shame
61 2015-12-18 16:13:26 <midnightmagic> you want to a platform where you can whine, go make one yourself.
62 2015-12-18 16:14:16 <midnightmagic> certainly, this channel is not it.
63 2015-12-18 16:14:24 <benjyzz> who are you?
64 2015-12-18 16:14:56 <midnightmagic> I'm the guy who's tired of walking on eggshells because someone like you thinks he's entitled to everyone holding the ladder to the soapbox for him.
65 2015-12-18 16:15:02 <benjyzz> ^^
66 2015-12-18 16:15:13 <benjyzz> no, just you're just an ass
67 2015-12-18 16:15:59 <instagibbs> midnightmagic, no need to feed him
68 2015-12-18 16:16:04 <instagibbs> he'll eventually get tired
69 2015-12-18 16:16:28 <instagibbs> eh good enough
70 2015-12-18 20:29:59 <kanzure> random throw-away proposal: since nobody seems to move their discussion to bitcoin-discuss mailing list, what about a phase-in period where emails get rejected if they do not cc both bitcoin-dev and bitcoin-discuss. then after a few weeks we will just blatantly reject the stuff still going to bitcoin-dev.
71 2015-12-18 21:22:28 <jl2012> kanzure: moving to -discuss is just like moving to Litecoin when the Bitcoin blockchain is full. It doesn't solve the problem
72 2015-12-18 21:23:05 <sipa> agree
73 2015-12-18 21:30:37 <kanzure> jl2012: could you be more specific?
74 2015-12-18 21:30:56 <kanzure> email mailing list topicality is not at all like transaction capacity.....
75 2015-12-18 21:43:03 <harding> From various bad movies, I'm given to understand that the mafia has a system where new members are added my invitation from current members---but if you invite someone, you're also responsible for them and you share in any punishments applied to them.  Could the list be run on that basic model?  Posting by invitation only, and if you invite someone and they get banned, you get banned too (at least for a time)?