1 2016-01-15 00:15:47 <op_null> Does anyone know who's taking over maintenance of bitcoinj now that mike left?
 2 2016-01-15 00:16:26 <Luke-Jr> op_null: Andreas did IIRC
 3 2016-01-15 00:16:36 <op_null> thanks
 4 2016-01-15 00:17:04 <op_null> I think andreas mentioned he won't support lightning network though, which is unfortunate
 5 2016-01-15 00:17:59 <Luke-Jr> IIRC it was more of won't invest his time in it
 6 2016-01-15 00:18:06 <Luke-Jr> he might still merge a patch by someone else
 7 2016-01-15 00:19:52 <op_null> i'll ping him and see whats up
 8 2016-01-15 01:06:15 <midnightmagic> ... antonopoulos?!
 9 2016-01-15 01:06:26 <midnightmagic> oh. no, the other nicer one.
10 2016-01-15 01:06:41 <midnightmagic> sorry. +1 for andreas. :)
11 2016-01-15 01:08:20 <zookolaptop> Yeah, it was a misleading headline that said Andreas won't support LN.
12 2016-01-15 01:08:35 <zookolaptop> If you read the article under that headline it's clear that he probably will support it in the future.
13 2016-01-15 01:08:49 <alpalp> zookolaptop, clickbait
14 2016-01-15 01:10:11 <zookolaptop> yea
15 2016-01-15 01:10:30 <zookolaptop> Oh, BTW anyone interested in Zerocash, contact me.
16 2016-01-15 01:11:36 <Luke-Jr> zookolaptop: no altcoin spam pls
17 2016-01-15 01:37:37 <melvster> FWIW: mike's rage quit comes across as a rant ... IMHO, if anything it gives more confidence in the core devs, not less ... EOM
18 2016-01-15 01:38:18 <op_null> melvster: I felt the same way
19 2016-01-15 03:32:26 <op_null2> has anyone implemented a sidechain on testnet that has block time < 10 mins  (is it possible?)
20 2016-01-15 03:34:40 <Luke-Jr> op_null2: Elements Alpha is <10min IIRC
21 2016-01-15 03:34:54 <Luke-Jr> op_null2: and there's no real reason why you couldn't fork it and make it every second..
22 2016-01-15 03:35:22 <op_null2> Luke-Jr:  and it would still be merged mined with 1 second blocks?
23 2016-01-15 03:35:40 <Luke-Jr> op_null2: it is not merge-mined at all
24 2016-01-15 03:35:51 <Luke-Jr> blocks are signed by the functionaries
25 2016-01-15 03:35:59 <op_null2> let me rephrase
26 2016-01-15 03:37:18 <op_null2> Can sidechains with a 2way peg to mainnet BTC still be merge mined with the main chain, but also have 5 second blocks?
27 2016-01-15 03:37:39 <Luke-Jr> in theory
28 2016-01-15 03:37:55 <Luke-Jr> note that neither testnet nor mainnet support 2-way pegs yet
29 2016-01-15 03:38:06 <Luke-Jr> unless you count the federated peg
30 2016-01-15 03:59:04 <op_null2> Luke-Jr: what do you expect happens if 100% of coins move from main chain to a side chain? Does the side chain become the defacto main chain?
31 2016-01-15 03:59:16 <Luke-Jr> pretty much
32 2016-01-15 03:59:19 <Luke-Jr> clean hardfork..
33 2016-01-15 04:00:19 <op_null2> I guess that solves a lot of the political problems around here.  Users will vote with their coins
34 2016-01-15 04:21:42 <phantomcircuit> op_null2, i do not think it's a coincidence that the push for a hard fork corresponds very cleanly with an alternative being made possible
35 2016-01-15 06:21:37 <gribble> gmaxwell was last seen in #bitcoin-dev 4 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 11 minutes, and 31 seconds ago: <gmaxwell> That jl2012 can't prpose a fairly straightforward idea without being mobbed is a problem. What exactly is the list for?
36 2016-01-15 06:21:37 <ThomasV> !seen gmaxwell
37 2016-01-15 16:04:45 <gdm85> I've been out of the loop for a while, why is BIP-101 referred as such if - AFAIK - a number is not assigned until approved? another case of misuse?
38 2016-01-15 16:05:24 <gdm85> perhaps it has become common practice to do so? :s
39 2016-01-15 16:41:03 <Luke-Jr> gdm85: numbers are assigned long before any approval
40 2016-01-15 16:41:37 <gavinandresen> read bip 1 for the process
41 2016-01-15 16:42:44 <gavinandresen> ... many bips never make it to "accepted" state, and that's normal and expected (it is a lot like the IETF RFC process)
42 2016-01-15 19:19:22 <BlueMatt> someone was asking me the other day about what happened to the idea of making all p2sh txn IsStandard
43 2016-01-15 19:20:36 <phantomcircuit> i thought that happened
44 2016-01-15 19:20:53 <phantomcircuit> there was a pr for it at least
45 2016-01-15 19:58:08 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: phantomcircuit: pretty sure it did happen
46 2016-01-15 21:44:32 <Chris_Stewart_5> How do you run bitcoind as a daemon on windows?
47 2016-01-15 21:44:35 <Chris_Stewart_5> I've tried the obvious
48 2016-01-15 21:44:41 <Chris_Stewart_5> ./bitcoind -testnet -daemon
49 2016-01-15 21:47:20 <keen2dev> you cant do ./bincoind at windows, that's a linux syntax
50 2016-01-15 21:47:42 <gijensen> This seems like a #bitcoin question
51 2016-01-15 21:51:44 <Chris_Stewart_5> sorry
52 2016-01-15 21:51:48 <Chris_Stewart_5> bitcoind -testnet -daemon
53 2016-01-15 21:53:08 <gijensen> Chris_Steward_5, if you prefix it with "start" does it run fine? I believe that'd fork it to the background
54 2016-01-15 22:03:08 <Chris_Stewart_5> gijensen: Yes that did work. Thanks
55 2016-01-15 23:22:06 <op_null2> Do any devs want to write a rebuttal to Mike Hearn's NYT letter?   I can pass it to a Journalist there.
56 2016-01-15 23:22:34 <op_null2> It's all over mainstream press in multiple countries at this point. So , it's probably worth a statement from the Core devs
57 2016-01-15 23:40:41 <petertodd> op_null2: yeah, not a bad idea
58 2016-01-15 23:48:53 <op_null2> It could express appreciation for mikes contributions, but then could touch on  (i) ensuring decentralization is top priority when considering code changes (ii) dangers of a hard fork  (iii) lightning network for scalability and 0-conf txs (iv)  $6Billion in value should be taken seriously. thats why code changes take time and require a lot of debate. it's no longer an experiment.
59 2016-01-15 23:55:58 <op_null2_> (v) The Scalability roadmap that most Core devs have signed
60 2016-01-15 23:57:48 <Anduck> op_null2_: the problems... how to measure how much decentralization is enough (or measure decentralization at all), maybe address the question of technical decentralization vs overall system decentralization & trade-offs.
61 2016-01-15 23:59:20 <Anduck> some think that bitcoin should work in the future like this: some, maybe 100s to 1000s of full nodes ran by companies / non-profits and people SPV-connect to them. and maybe if one is "rich enough" (maybe can afford to pay $100 a month to run a node) he can run his own node
62 2016-01-15 23:59:50 <Anduck> by enabling "pretty much everyone" to have the ability to run a full node what are the consequences, trade-offs