1 2017-07-18 14:11:58 <SopaXorzTaker> I have an idea to improve decentralization by preventing pooled mining.
  2 2017-07-18 14:12:35 <SopaXorzTaker> The idea is to add a signature field to the block structure, which would contribute to the Proof-of-Work hash
  3 2017-07-18 14:13:00 <SopaXorzTaker> The miner then would have to sign the block with a public key corresponding to the coinbase address before submitting it.
  4 2017-07-18 14:14:25 <SopaXorzTaker> This would make pooled mining infeasible, as every miner would have to have access to the pool's private key.
  5 2017-07-18 14:15:37 <Emcy> i think that would just make huge private farms supreme
  6 2017-07-18 14:15:40 <SopaXorzTaker> The signature field would contain a standard DER signature and would contribute to the header's hash, thus making PoW require signing the block
  7 2017-07-18 14:16:25 <SopaXorzTaker> This would also thwart ASICs to some degree, and the PoW function would become a bit computationally harder
  8 2017-07-18 14:50:24 <lavenders> what is the difference between segwit2.x and segwit bip9?
  9 2017-07-18 14:51:49 <lavenders> after bip91 activation is HFork on 1.8 possible?
 10 2017-07-18 15:28:35 <goatpig> BIP9 uses a 95% activation threshold, that's reduced to 80% in the process that is part of 2x, after signaling from another bit first.
 11 2017-07-18 15:28:57 <goatpig> not sure what 1.8 refers to
 12 2017-07-18 15:57:24 <Murch> goatpig: probably August 1st.
 13 2017-07-18 15:57:49 <Murch> lavenders: Segwit2x's hardfork is planned for 90 days after segwit activation.
 14 2017-07-18 15:58:56 <Murch> lavenders: The only faction planning a hard fork is the newly announced "Bitcoin Cash" championed by BitcoinABC.
 15 2017-07-18 15:59:16 <Murch> lavenders: I don't expect this to be of significant interest in the greater Bitcoin landscape. :p
 16 2017-07-18 16:01:49 <goatpig> oic, the . got me confused
 17 2017-07-18 16:02:34 <Murch> goatpig: I'm at an advantage, I'm familiar with the German address format (which in full would be 1.8.2017) ;)
 18 2017-07-18 16:02:52 <goatpig> hah, we use / in france!
 19 2017-07-18 16:18:41 <notmike> We should increase bitcoin's transaction capacity.
 20 2017-07-18 16:46:06 <lavenders> Murch, thank you
 21 2017-07-18 16:50:33 <goatpig> Murch: what about UASF forking?
 22 2017-07-18 16:50:58 <Murch> UASF is a soft fork, not a hard fork
 23 2017-07-18 16:51:01 <goatpig> if some portion of the hash rate does not signal SW and the BIP91 gang mines atop of them, UASF would fork
 24 2017-07-18 16:51:11 <goatpig> it will split since it only accepts signaling blocks
 25 2017-07-18 16:51:14 <Murch> yeah, it could introduce a chain split
 26 2017-07-18 16:51:20 <Murch> but that doesn't make it a hard fork
 27 2017-07-18 16:51:34 <goatpig> no it doesn't, but for all intents and purposes, people interchange HF and split
 28 2017-07-18 16:51:50 <Murch> It pains me, because they mean different things.
 29 2017-07-18 16:51:55 <goatpig> indeed
 30 2017-07-18 16:52:35 <Murch> You can lead a horse to water, …
 31 2017-07-18 16:52:36 <Murch> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/30817/5406
 32 2017-07-18 16:54:28 <notmike> If UASF orphans valid blocks, that's a hard fork.
 33 2017-07-18 16:55:34 <goatpig> that sentence is too semantically blurry
 34 2017-07-18 16:55:58 <notmike> Ok, let me get my crayons real qwik
 35 2017-07-18 16:56:22 <goatpig> be my guest
 36 2017-07-18 16:59:11 <notmike> Everybody is on one bitcoin. On Aug 1st UASF will begin orphaning non-bit1 signaling nodes, presumably miners will cooperate. Some time later - perhaps September - miners (80%+ of hash) will hard fork to >2mb blocks. At that point, there will be two mutually exclusive bitcoins. However, prior to this (Aug 2st) UASF
 37 2017-07-18 17:00:02 <notmike> ... will have already split the chain by excluding BIP 91 blocks and anything other than BIP 148 conforming blocks.
 38 2017-07-18 17:01:30 <goatpig> UASF nodes do not reject BIP91 blocks per se
 39 2017-07-18 17:02:15 <goatpig> with the timeframe as outlined by 2x, there would be no more BIP91 signaling by August 1st, they'd already be pushing bit1
 40 2017-07-18 17:03:07 <goatpig> the only instance where UASF splits from the current chain is if the NYA miners do not orphan blocks without bit1 flagged
 41 2017-07-18 17:03:50 <notmike> So, UASF will accept segwit2x and anything else until they produce a non-bit1 signaling or >2mb block?
 42 2017-07-18 17:04:03 <goatpig> not exactly
 43 2017-07-18 17:04:11 <goatpig> if 2x mines a top a non bit1 flagged block
 44 2017-07-18 17:04:14 <goatpig> UASF splits
 45 2017-07-18 17:04:20 <goatpig> if they don't, the split is at 2x
 46 2017-07-18 17:04:28 <goatpig> ie the actual HF
 47 2017-07-18 17:04:36 <notmike> Right, this is all intentionally designed to produce a fork
 48 2017-07-18 17:04:45 <goatpig> a split actually
 49 2017-07-18 17:04:49 <goatpig> the fork is baked in to begin with
 50 2017-07-18 17:05:13 <goatpig> this would create a split before the HF would be more accurate
 51 2017-07-18 17:05:16 <notmike> Split and fork are awfully similar
 52 2017-07-18 17:05:28 <goatpig> not exactly, you can splits during orphan races
 53 2017-07-18 17:05:41 <goatpig> both sides of the split follow the same consensus
 54 2017-07-18 17:05:57 <goatpig> HF imposes a different consensus
 55 2017-07-18 17:06:14 <notmike> I understand that two blocks could be produced at the same time and that those could cause a split
 56 2017-07-18 17:07:00 <goatpig> as for the question is UASF effectively a HF under the current circumstances?
 57 2017-07-18 17:07:10 <goatpig> idk if it can be characterized as such
 58 2017-07-18 17:07:32 <notmike> Right, it's effectively a HF. But not technically because consensus layer is still compatible
 59 2017-07-18 17:07:50 <goatpig> well that distinction is kinda vague to me
 60 2017-07-18 17:08:04 <goatpig> UASF could wipe out the 2x chain if they get more hash rate pre 2x HF
 61 2017-07-18 17:08:14 <notmike> I was discussing this with gmaxwell in the mid-80s. It's a tough question.
 62 2017-07-18 17:08:31 <goatpig> but a HF without wipeout protection, like say BU, is susceptible to the same issue
 63 2017-07-18 17:08:49 <notmike> I don't see any way for UASF to do that. Opponents own 80% of hash!
 64 2017-07-18 17:08:59 <goatpig> hash rate follows the money
 65 2017-07-18 17:09:41 <goatpig> and a minute instance is not useful to a fundamental analysis
 66 2017-07-18 17:09:49 <notmike> That's true. Can LN and sidechains prove their value before miners set the house on fire?
 67 2017-07-18 17:10:08 <goatpig> well the idea of 2x under this schedule is precisely to prevent this
 68 2017-07-18 17:10:20 <goatpig> I would imagine it would take a year for the ecosystem to get really going with LN
 69 2017-07-18 17:10:37 <goatpig> for my part I wouldn't be able to deliver LN functionality in under 3 months starting August
 70 2017-07-18 17:10:54 <notmike> I get it. Politics is what I do. Bitcoin is particularly transparent. The miners are generating an artificial crises.
 71 2017-07-18 17:11:13 <goatpig> it's disruption but with an unclear endgame
 72 2017-07-18 17:11:16 <notmike> But they're also in control of most of the votes
 73 2017-07-18 17:11:31 <goatpig> as long as hash rate votes for forks, that is true
 74 2017-07-18 17:11:31 <notmike> User opinions don't matter in bitcoin
 75 2017-07-18 17:12:00 <goatpig> the network effect matters
 76 2017-07-18 17:12:07 <notmike> I mean, they matter, but I think you're picking up what I'm laying down here.
 77 2017-07-18 17:12:44 <goatpig> if valuation is an indicator, so far the market/users are happy with the status quo
 78 2017-07-18 17:12:48 <notmike> As long as the TXs get confirmed quickly, people will take what they get.
 79 2017-07-18 17:12:57 <goatpig> well that depends
 80 2017-07-18 17:13:00 <goatpig> people like me would never run 2x
 81 2017-07-18 17:13:17 <goatpig> if you lose a huge portion of your technical ecosystem over this kind of take over
 82 2017-07-18 17:13:24 <goatpig> you will be trouble in no time
 83 2017-07-18 17:13:48 <notmike> I don't mine bitcoin, that's crazy!
 84 2017-07-18 17:14:33 <goatpig> a non 2x split can survive just fine
 85 2017-07-18 17:14:40 <goatpig> take a 6-8 weeks of pain for the retarget
 86 2017-07-18 17:14:44 <goatpig> assuming some 20% hashrate
 87 2017-07-18 17:14:48 <goatpig> and you're in the clear
 88 2017-07-18 17:14:57 <goatpig> afterall etc is alive
 89 2017-07-18 17:15:11 <goatpig> and they don't even have the technical community on their side
 90 2017-07-18 17:16:03 <notmike> Nah, man, just set retarget to 288 blocks w/ reset to 2016 48hrs after that, and issue a very public oporder
 91 2017-07-18 17:16:26 <goatpig> sure that's acceptable too
 92 2017-07-18 17:16:37 <goatpig> if you are in the politics of no HF, the wait period is acceptable however
 93 2017-07-18 17:16:50 <goatpig> and you get to enforce some idea of integrity
 94 2017-07-18 17:17:15 <notmike> Yeah, definitely! One problem with bitcoin is everyone wants to rush shit.
 95 2017-07-18 17:17:39 <goatpig> im fine with the status quo really
 96 2017-07-18 17:17:48 <notmike> Need a new lambo!
 97 2017-07-18 17:17:57 <goatpig> there's eth ICOs for that
 98 2017-07-18 17:18:16 <goatpig> let's segregate duties
 99 2017-07-18 17:25:31 <notmike> Do you wanna bed friends now?
100 2017-07-18 17:25:37 <notmike> Be* yikes
101 2017-07-18 18:29:23 <goatpig> i dont care either way?
102 2017-07-18 21:45:54 <notmike> goatpig: well that's just sad
103 2017-07-18 22:09:51 <goatpig> such is life
104 2017-07-18 22:49:48 <eck> what's the convention with these global variables prefixed with f? e.g. fRequestShutdown and fDumpMempoolLater