1 2017-09-09 01:32:10 <mr_burdell> anyone know what's up with testnet? I'm seeing a block every few seconds
 2 2017-09-09 01:37:39 <Emcy> asic trolling
 3 2017-09-09 01:40:33 <phantomcircuit> Emcy, no there's a bug in the difficulty calculation for testnet (only tesntet)
 4 2017-09-09 14:12:24 <esotericnonsense> has anyone figured out a pattern to this mempool weirdness? fee estimation having weird stepping? abuse? leaning towards the latter
 5 2017-09-09 14:13:04 <esotericnonsense> https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2h check out the size graph at the bottom (by kB), also seeing this on my node
 6 2017-09-09 14:13:35 <esotericnonsense> ~constant linear increase in 10sat/b for 10 minutes, then flattening out for a few minutes, etc, looks really artificial
 7 2017-09-09 14:14:05 <esotericnonsense> would be interested to know if the tx have actually identical fees and some pattern to them
 8 2017-09-09 14:18:45 <wxxs> tx fee has been closing in on BCH for two weeks and is going to be equal soon http://fork.lol/tx/fee
 9 2017-09-09 14:20:08 <esotericnonsense> wxxs: if i'm not missing something that chart is comparing btc sat to bch sat, makes no sense, the two differ in value
10 2017-09-09 14:20:17 <esotericnonsense> it's pretty bonkers that bch has any tx fees at all though
11 2017-09-09 14:23:02 <wxxs> you're right, it would have to be adjusted with the price ratio to be able to compare
12 2017-09-09 14:24:17 <wxxs> without fees I would start backing up my laptop to the BCH chain
13 2017-09-09 14:36:24 <wxxs> esotericnonense, 0-5 sat/byte tx has a steep inorganic increase at 14:30 GMT, 5-10 sat/byte at 15:00 GMT
14 2017-09-09 14:37:48 <esotericnonsense> wxxs: yes, indeed, it's like someone flicked a switch to slowly feed in tx ;)
15 2017-09-09 14:38:30 <wxxs> then we might see the same at 10-20 sat/byte right about now...
16 2017-09-09 14:40:15 <esotericnonsense> if i'm not mistaken it's basically showing that centralization of mining allows for fee abuse :/
17 2017-09-09 14:41:34 <esotericnonsense> math check: if you can add 10MB at 5sat/b, and that results in 1MB of 200sat/b appearing from others, if you have 25% of hashrate you're at breakeven
18 2017-09-09 14:41:44 <esotericnonsense> (with variance of course if others get those fees)
19 2017-09-09 14:43:31 <esotericnonsense> in fact i guess it's better than that because you're going to get 25% of the 5sat/b back on average as well
20 2017-09-09 14:49:03 <wxxs> still a big gamble if luck is against you
21 2017-09-09 14:50:22 <wxxs> the only pools with more than 10% are BTC.com, ViaBTC, AntPool and BTC.top - do any of these get to keep the fees?
22 2017-09-09 21:47:14 <JackH> where are the hashes of the bitcoin core binaries posted for the latest versions?
23 2017-09-09 22:02:29 <esotericnonsense> JackH: there are signatures up
24 2017-09-09 22:02:53 <esotericnonsense> and hashes in the release folders on bitcoin.org/bin
25 2017-09-09 22:03:21 <esotericnonsense> the tags are also signed on github
26 2017-09-09 22:03:59 <esotericnonsense> e.g. https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.14.2/
27 2017-09-09 22:04:03 <esotericnonsense> SHA256SUMS.asc
28 2017-09-09 22:21:21 <JackH> thx esotericnonsense
29 2017-09-09 22:21:35 <esotericnonsense> np
30 2017-09-09 22:32:05 <JackH> this is a weird one
31 2017-09-09 22:32:12 <JackH> sha256sum: WARNING: 20 lines are improperly formatted
32 2017-09-09 22:32:21 <JackH> sha256sum: WARNING: 10 listed files could not be read
33 2017-09-09 22:32:30 <JackH> bitcoin-0.14.2-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz: OK
34 2017-09-09 22:38:21 <esotericnonsense> the former is it moaning about the signature (did you check it? :P)
35 2017-09-09 22:38:34 <esotericnonsense> the latter is just that it can't find the windows build, the linux 32bit build, etc
36 2017-09-09 22:40:02 <JackH> yeah output is weird
37 2017-09-09 22:40:22 <JackH> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
38 2017-09-09 22:40:33 <JackH> I assumed wladimirs key was in a trusted repo
39 2017-09-09 22:41:40 <esotericnonsense> google for pgp web of trust
40 2017-09-09 22:42:08 <esotericnonsense> it means that you have not 'trusted' his key, (which makes sense unless you have met him in person or similar and verified it)
41 2017-09-09 22:42:47 <JackH> ahh alright