1 2016-02-02 01:54:33 <kanzure> bip-biprevised is good work, thank you
  2 2016-02-02 01:54:40 <kanzure> er, Luke-Jr ^
  3 2016-02-02 02:52:39 <mrkent> anyone got segwit testnet coins?
  4 2016-02-02 02:52:45 <mrkent> greenaddress faucet down
  5 2016-02-02 03:17:57 <bsm1175321> Any testnet coin should do, no?
  6 2016-02-02 03:18:10 <bsm1175321> Then just send it to a segwit address...
  7 2016-02-02 03:20:17 <gevs> can easily watch my boxes network activity using linux? (trying to see bitcoin activity as i have activated my testnet node)
  8 2016-02-02 03:20:42 <gevs> *how can I
  9 2016-02-02 03:21:10 <mrkent_> which branch should I build to test segwit?
 10 2016-02-02 03:23:11 <aj> mrkent_: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/segwit is current i think
 11 2016-02-02 03:23:41 <mrkent_> aj: ty, segwit2 failed on osx
 12 2016-02-02 03:52:07 <mrkent_> wasn't able to build segwit on osx: http://ix.io/o58
 13 2016-02-02 03:55:35 <aj> mrkent_: :(
 14 2016-02-02 03:56:17 <aj> mrkent_: i've copied your comment to #segwit-dev ; you could join that channel if you want to followup further maybe
 15 2016-02-02 03:56:43 <mrkent_> thanks. wasn't aware of that
 16 2016-02-02 05:06:02 <jl2012> Question about this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1526/files#diff-7ec3c68a81efff79b6ca22ac1f1eabbaR1845
 17 2016-02-02 05:07:15 <jl2012> Does the highlighted line mean that the nHeight is prepended by an PUSH opcode?
 18 2016-02-02 05:09:58 <jl2012> In the very very far future, probably after the Sun is dead, it will start with a OP_PUSHDATA1?
 19 2016-02-02 05:13:53 <kefkius> jl2012: It would have to be preceded by a PUSH opcode. So yeah it is technically true that block height will eventually be a number so large it requires a PUSHDATA1
 20 2016-02-02 05:14:41 <jl2012> thanks
 21 2016-02-02 07:19:26 <Luke-Jr> hmm, I wonder if there's a way to get a N-of-20 p2sh multisig by putting the keys outside the serialised script and checking the overall hash..
 22 2016-02-02 07:20:31 <Luke-Jr> sadly, I can't think of a way that doesn't use disabled opcodes
 23 2016-02-02 13:40:34 <instagibbs> bsm1175321, uhh no it's a different testnet :P and not a sidechain
 24 2016-02-02 14:10:20 <wumpus> gevs: what level of detail do you need?
 25 2016-02-02 14:12:17 <wumpus> wireshark and tcpdump are the best tool to get details of every packet, there's tools like ntop that keep statistics, or if yo udon't even need that you could roll a  'ghetto' bandwidth monitoring script that read out and parse  the number of RX/TX bytes from ifconfig
 26 2016-02-02 14:22:21 <gevs> wumpus, tx for wireshark it does what i need :) i simply needed monitoring a little bit to be able to tell the activity
 27 2016-02-02 17:30:01 <jtimon> CodeShark: Luke-Jr: I'm reading the classification in bip123 and I must say that apart from being informational, bip99 intends to be a hardfork as well (see the code section)
 28 2016-02-02 18:15:04 <TD-Linux> is anyone else getting moderated mails out of order?
 29 2016-02-02 18:15:24 <TD-Linux> a couple of times I've seen replies to a mail, which itself only passes moderation hours later
 30 2016-02-02 19:17:48 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: "uncontroversial" doesn't have the same meaning. I don't know a synonym for "consensus" which is a perfect fit.
 31 2016-02-02 19:18:21 <jtimon> Luke-Jr: but do you agree that is problematic that we have one term for 2 concepts?
 32 2016-02-02 19:18:36 <Luke-Jr> well, it is to some extent the same concept
 33 2016-02-02 19:18:51 <jtimon> somhow I feared that
 34 2016-02-02 19:18:51 <Luke-Jr> just used in different contexts
 35 2016-02-02 19:19:19 <jtimon> one consensus is between computer programs, the other is between people
 36 2016-02-02 19:19:58 <jtimon> manetary user base agreement?
 37 2016-02-02 19:20:11 <jtimon> s/manetary/monetary
 38 2016-02-02 19:20:18 <Luke-Jr> the consensus between computer programs is really between people too ;)
 39 2016-02-02 19:21:00 <jtimon> having a single term greatly increases confusion and complicates discussions IMO
 40 2016-02-02 19:25:02 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: perhaps "concord" would work with some rephrasing?
 41 2016-02-02 19:25:47 <Luke-Jr> of course, the trolls will accuse us of something if we try to change to a new term now..
 42 2016-02-02 19:29:04 <kefkius> The trolls will accuse us of deceit if we don't :P
 43 2016-02-02 19:30:25 <jtimon> yep, never mind the trolls, they'll find ways to accuse us anyway
 44 2016-02-02 19:32:49 <jtimon> Luke-Jr: I'm not a native speaker, but concord doesn't sound bad to me
 45 2016-02-02 19:33:29 <Luke-Jr> I'm actually pondering if using "Concord" for the protocol would work better.
 46 2016-02-02 19:33:52 <Luke-Jr> lots of people get confused when we talk about the "consensus rules" or "consensus layer" by thinking they need to actively maintain consensus
 47 2016-02-02 19:34:03 <Luke-Jr> rather than be established by consensus
 48 2016-02-02 19:34:20 <Luke-Jr> so making it the "concord layer/rules" might solve both issues with one change
 49 2016-02-02 19:34:38 <kefkius> With 'concord' you could call any implemented BIP a concordat
 50 2016-02-02 19:34:56 <Luke-Jr> ?
 51 2016-02-02 19:35:00 <Luke-Jr> kefkius: heh
 52 2016-02-02 19:35:32 <jtimon> well I believe changing the term in all the codebases that use it is far more expensive than changing bips
 53 2016-02-02 19:36:30 <Luke-Jr> only 249 lines in Core, most of which are just token names
 54 2016-02-02 19:36:57 <Luke-Jr> even the library could be renamed without disrupting anything at this point
 55 2016-02-02 19:37:02 <jtimon> as said, I'm happy to change bip99's "uncontroversial", unless it is change to consensus (I'm not even sure bip99 would make any sense with such a find-and-replace)
 56 2016-02-02 19:37:39 <jtimon> "only" 249 lines in one project vs how many lines in your bip?
 57 2016-02-02 19:37:55 <Luke-Jr> shrug. point is the cost is low either way
 58 2016-02-02 19:38:09 <Luke-Jr> and changing it in the human side doesn't solve the other problem
 59 2016-02-02 19:38:37 <jtimon> I think you are actually understimating the costs of changing the code
 60 2016-02-02 19:39:35 <jtimon> well, it solves some communication problems I believe
 61 2016-02-02 19:39:58 <jtimon> not sure what problem you mean
 62 2016-02-02 19:40:56 <jtimon> I think it could make your BIP more clear, for example
 63 2016-02-02 19:42:03 <jtimon> "adoption concord"?
 64 2016-02-02 19:47:30 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: also, "concord" is usually used with more concrete things, and consensus usually for less concrete agreement
 65 2016-02-02 19:48:25 <jtimon> s/libbitcoinconsensus/libbitcoinconcord ?
 66 2016-02-02 19:48:34 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: sure
 67 2016-02-02 19:49:07 <Luke-Jr> if we actually had users of the lib, we could even leave a .pc for the old name so it just works (but I don't think we have users yet)
 68 2016-02-02 19:49:19 <jtimon> sure, waste all the promotion of the idea
 69 2016-02-02 19:49:31 <jtimon> we have users of the lib
 70 2016-02-02 19:51:33 <jtimon> tamas told me they call it from one of their java libs, and libbitcoin uses it in its own way: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-consensus
 71 2016-02-02 19:54:24 <jtimon> seriously, definitely not for the code, but I'm liking concord more
 72 2016-02-02 19:55:21 <Luke-Jr> oh well, then we just need to maintain the .pc file for the old name
 73 2016-02-02 19:55:23 <Luke-Jr> no big deal
 74 2016-02-02 19:55:57 <Luke-Jr> of course, segwit is breaking ABI anyway, so might as well drop the old name too maybe
 75 2016-02-02 19:56:15 <jtimon> all the existing technical documentation (papers, posts, mailing list) would be deprecated for such a change
 76 2016-02-02 19:57:13 <jtimon> most of what I've said in the past 2 years would suddenly don't make any sense, for example
 77 2016-02-02 19:58:34 <jtimon> apart from the "only 249 lines" in core, other projects, wip branches like bip68, segwit, libconsensus-p3...
 78 2016-02-02 19:59:06 <jtimon> btw, are you counting renaming all the files in consensus/* to concord/* ?
 79 2016-02-02 19:59:58 <jtimon> no way, I would prefer that you just use a single term in your bip, thanks, I'll keep using consensus/uncontroversial
 80 2016-02-02 20:48:26 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: as if 'consensus' is a new term in my BOP…
 81 2016-02-02 20:48:34 <Luke-Jr> BIP*
 82 2016-02-02 21:07:55 <jtimon> Luke-Jr: you would still need to use 'consensus' in your BIP I think
 83 2016-02-02 21:09:42 <Luke-Jr> just pointing out it wasn't me who proposed changing terminology :pp
 84 2016-02-02 21:10:35 <jtimon> BIPs that propose changes to the consensus rule, must get adoption concord before they can get to the final state
 85 2016-02-02 21:11:40 <jtimon> I'm not sure I was the first one either, I've been trying to do it for a while but I have heard other people try to separate the two concepts
 86 2016-02-02 21:11:47 <Luke-Jr> establed termminology is 'consensus'
 87 2016-02-02 21:12:25 <jtimon> I agree, established terminology for "consensus rules" is "consensus", it seems we concord there :p
 88 2016-02-02 21:13:53 <jtimon> do you want to violate established terminology to talk about "concord rules" in your BIP?
 89 2016-02-02 21:14:15 <jtimon> as said I would prefer that you leave it as it is
 90 2016-02-02 21:16:17 <jtimon> can we at least talk about "consensus rules" and "adoption consensus" ?
 91 2016-02-02 21:37:33 <instagibbs> so did everyone turn off their testnet miners at once
 92 2016-02-02 21:44:34 <shorena> did the hashrate reset or why?
 93 2016-02-02 21:44:46 <shorena> hashrate = difficulty*
 94 2016-02-02 22:07:40 <instagibbs> shorena, well either way we're back
 95 2016-02-02 22:15:33 <kfdsfe43> the best crane in the world after registration gives you Satoshi 10,000 thousand http://bit.ly/FreeBitcoin_key
 96 2016-02-02 23:14:17 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: established terminology for /both/ is "consensus". And "concord" is never a verb
 97 2016-02-02 23:17:15 <jtimon> Luke-Jr: ok, that's exactly what I meant by not being a native speaker, I believe "concord" has a close meaning in latin languages, which means I will feel more confident to missuse it
 98 2016-02-02 23:17:48 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: "concord" is a much better fit for the protocol/rules; it doesn't really make sense for decision-making
 99 2016-02-02 23:18:52 <jtimon> so take my nit as a wild proposal to change the established "consensus" terminoligy only for the social part of it: feel free to ignore, but don't take it as an invitation to change the code's established terminology
100 2016-02-02 23:21:20 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: changing the code's terminology makes much more sense
101 2016-02-02 23:21:59 <jtimon> from a totally selfish perspective, I'd rather not bikeshed s/"consensus"/X in the jtimon/libconsensus-p3 branch I just pushed
102 2016-02-02 23:24:03 <jtimon> s/i'd rather not/I don't think I could maintain my sanity while/
103 2016-02-02 23:24:55 <jtimon> I really don't think you realize how stupidly disruptive this would be
104 2016-02-02 23:26:56 <Luke-Jr> it has nothing to do with any branch
105 2016-02-02 23:27:05 <jtimon> changing it in the "non-code world" is kind of a softfork: nobody is forced to upgrade but anybody can do it at any point after "active"
106 2016-02-02 23:27:27 <Luke-Jr> vice-versa
107 2016-02-02 23:27:32 <Luke-Jr> changing code is easy. changing habits much less so
108 2016-02-02 23:27:57 <midnightmagic> concord, v. Etymology:  Middle English, < French concorde-r < Latin concordāre to be of one mind, < concors , concord- : see concord n.1, obsolete except sense 5: "To rearrange the words of a text in the form of a concordance."
109 2016-02-02 23:28:06 <Luke-Jr> and there are multiple reasons to change the code one; not really for the agreement-style one
110 2016-02-02 23:28:09 <jtimon> yes, it has to do, you're porposing to change my branch and many others, I'm not proposing to change text already published
111 2016-02-02 23:28:23 <Luke-Jr> uh, yes you are
112 2016-02-02 23:28:37 <Luke-Jr> you're proposing we change every single thing that discusses consensus
113 2016-02-02 23:31:18 <jtimon> no, that can't be done, neither for "consensus rules" nor for "acceptance consensus" (or whatever you want to call it)
114 2016-02-02 23:31:42 <Luke-Jr> well, then no reason to use a different term for the latter now either
115 2016-02-02 23:32:15 <jtimon> I offer my help if you want to change the latter, but I don't plan on changing the former in my terminology, I'm afraid is too late for that
116 2016-02-02 23:34:12 <jtimon> that's another possibility for your bip, as said i believe that if I s/uncontroversial/consensus it wouldn't make any sense, because I'm precisely focusing between the two concepts in the infromational part
117 2016-02-02 23:34:39 <jtimon> (in bip99)
118 2016-02-02 23:35:05 <jtimon> it's fine if you don't do anything about my nit
119 2016-02-02 23:38:37 <jtimon> I just wish more people used two separated terms, or at least that some of the people that do tried to unify their terminology
120 2016-02-02 23:40:12 <jtimon> I believe you're the first one I talk with that is open to having two terms but suggests changing "consensus rules" rather "adoption consensus"
121 2016-02-02 23:41:11 <jtimon> but I think I will s/uncontroversial/adoption consensus/ in bip99 for more compatibility with your bip
122 2016-02-02 23:42:08 <jtimon> you never answered that question so I will repeat it: can we at least talk about "consensus rules" and "adoption consensus" ?
123 2016-02-02 23:42:51 <Luke-Jr> maybe. let me see if I can work that into this BIP
124 2016-02-02 23:43:30 <jtimon> Luke-Jr: great, no hurry, I'll gladly review the diff
125 2016-02-02 23:48:41 <Guest15842> fdf
126 2016-02-02 23:49:28 <Guest15842> https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitcoin-dev&uio=d4
127 2016-02-02 23:49:36 <likemob> hi
128 2016-02-02 23:49:39 <Guest15842> the best crane in the world after registration gives you Satoshi 10,000 thousand http://bit.ly/FreeBitcoin_key
129 2016-02-02 23:50:35 <Luke-Jr> !ops
130 2016-02-02 23:54:25 <Luke-Jr> jtimon: "adoption consensus" could work for the hard-fork case, but only in the context of this BIP since it is a post-hoc status update.. it doesn't seem to work in this BIP for the Process BIPs (consensus among devs) nor the soft-fork veto case (economic consensus to reject it)