1 2015-12-24 04:21:11 <Guest58> hi - i'm trying to run 'bitcoind -daemon' on my Mac OS - i get a message saying "bitcoin server starting" but nothing else
 2 2015-12-24 04:21:40 <Guest58> then when i try and run any bitcoin-cli commands i get an error messaging saying 'couldn't connect to server'
 3 2015-12-24 05:11:52 <Taek> Can someone confirm:
 4 2015-12-24 05:12:12 <Taek> my understanding is that most softforks have been deployed in such a way that non-upgraded miners are still able to mine valid blocks
 5 2015-12-24 05:12:45 <Taek> and this is achieved because the miners won't put invalid transactions into their blocks thanks to IsStandard rules on their mempool
 6 2015-12-24 05:15:18 <katu> Taek: soft fork means the older clients will accept blocks produced by newer clients, but new clients might reject blocks from old clients.
 7 2015-12-24 05:16:39 <Taek> right, but my understanding was that, thanks to IsStandard rules, miners on old clients typically weren't at risk of including now-invalid transactions into blocks that they built
 8 2015-12-24 05:16:41 <katu> Taek: hard means usually the opposite. new clients will reject old client blocks.
 9 2015-12-24 05:17:12 <katu> risho: isstandard is just implementation detail, ultimately it depends what each side accepts.
10 2015-12-24 05:17:18 <katu> Taek: ^
11 2015-12-24 05:18:07 <katu> also, isstandard is just tx-choice rule, not necessarily validity rule? i'm not well versed in exact details.
12 2015-12-24 05:18:31 <Taek> katu: miners can pick any set of IsStandard rules that they want, because they aren't enforced by consensus
13 2015-12-24 05:19:03 <katu> Taek: yes, in case its just tx choice and not enforced, its not really a fork.
14 2015-12-24 05:19:08 <Taek> I'm just wondering if historically there have been issues where non-upgraded miners have started mining invalid blocks, or if generally they have been protected
15 2015-12-24 05:19:53 <katu> yes, several soft forks (like 3?) happened in the past, and perhaps one hard fork for the overflow bug.
16 2015-12-24 05:22:09 <katu> Taek: only hard forks are at risk of not converging to a winning branch, if thats what you mean. these definitions are all muddy, consensus issues should be judged on case on case.
17 2015-12-24 05:24:50 <Taek> katu: my question is stritcly regarding soft forks, and whether miners who haven't upgraded have historically lost money from mining invalid blocks. I do remember the bip66 fork, where some non-upgraded miner did mine an invalid block and impacted a bunch of spv mining as well
18 2015-12-24 05:25:47 <katu> Taek: yes, soft fork will cause temporary competition and ultimately an orphan
19 2015-12-24 05:25:51 <katu> whose work will be lost.
20 2015-12-24 05:25:56 <katu> so they'll "lose money" there
21 2015-12-24 05:32:40 <midnightmagic> Taek: i believe the form of the older clients' blocks will not be accepted by new miners. i think the block version has changed.
22 2015-12-24 05:33:14 <Taek> once the block version changes, old versions are rejected?
23 2015-12-24 05:33:45 <midnightmagic> if it is part of the mining-enforced softfork, yeah i think so.
24 2015-12-24 05:37:24 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: actually, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case with SegWit
25 2015-12-24 05:37:38 <Luke-Jr> but old miners might accept an invalid blockchain, so it's not a good idea..
26 2015-12-24 05:38:04 <Luke-Jr> Taek: note also that IsStandard is extremely relaxed nowadays
27 2015-12-24 05:38:43 <Luke-Jr> but yes, historically, old miners have been prevented from working outright
28 2015-12-24 05:40:02 <Taek> Luke-Jr: Thanks, exactly the info I was looking for
29 2015-12-24 05:41:32 <midnightmagic> Luke-Jr: oh, is he talking about segwit? I thought it was a generic "old node" q.
30 2015-12-24 05:42:17 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: apparently; but in theory it could apply to the last two or so softforks if we had wanted it to
31 2015-12-24 05:45:23 <midnightmagic> I don't know enough about segwit to be able to say anything about old miner compatibility
32 2015-12-24 09:58:57 <nkuttler> i think https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8e4578a prevents me from sending a tx when my local blockchain isn't fully synced? shouldn't i be able to override that?
33 2015-12-24 09:59:58 <nkuttler> i'm trying to spend cltv locked coins
34 2015-12-24 10:02:32 <nkuttler> actually, never mind
35 2015-12-24 19:06:02 <phantomcircuit> Taek, historically miners who failed to implement softfork logic have lost money after the fork triggered