1 2017-11-27 08:12:27 <midnightmagic> garit: incorrect. premise wrong. conclusion wrong. Pointless FUD.
  2 2017-11-27 08:14:05 <garit> And what is right?
  3 2017-11-27 08:24:56 <midnightmagic> garit: Eliminating the idea that it is a waste from your thoughts to begin with. :-/
  4 2017-11-27 08:25:15 <garit> What is a waste?
  5 2017-11-27 08:25:46 <garit> I need to know to what context you are referring to =)
  6 2017-11-27 08:26:06 <midnightmagic> you were complaining about the expense in terms of energy
  7 2017-11-27 08:26:07 <garit> Last convo was about mempool flush
  8 2017-11-27 08:26:14 <midnightmagic> ah
  9 2017-11-27 08:27:09 <garit> midnightmagic: lets consider visa - tx cost is about 0.1$, btc tx cost is 10$, difference is a waste
 10 2017-11-27 08:27:33 <garit> (as if - can be done better, not as if totally useless)
 11 2017-11-27 08:27:56 <midnightmagic> garit: Also, the idea that spreading the elctricity usage to the transactions on a per-transaction basis is a misleading notion. It is not per-tx. It is per-block. And the security is ensured via that electricity consumption.
 12 2017-11-27 08:28:32 <garit> midnightmagic: block is limited in capacity. So i can do this, because block capacity is unlikely to change any time soon
 13 2017-11-27 08:29:50 <midnightmagic> garit: No, because it focuses on something for which the electricity is not being consumed and misleads people into thinking about it in terms of transactions instead of **blocks**.
 14 2017-11-27 08:30:12 <garit> about security: bitcoin give X^1 security. Its even worse than the merkle puzzles with X^2 security. So, that having spent 10 units of energy opponent needs to spend 10 units of energy. In merkle puzzles (worst crypto i can imagine) for 10 spent units of power opponent would spend 100
 15 2017-11-27 08:30:33 <garit> midnightmagic: transactions are meaningless without blocks anyway
 16 2017-11-27 08:30:36 <midnightmagic> uh.
 17 2017-11-27 08:30:39 <midnightmagic> no.
 18 2017-11-27 08:31:05 <garit> Uh. Yes. Thats how transactions properly occur with double spending protection
 19 2017-11-27 08:31:05 <midnightmagic> but, meh, I guess marinate in your misconceptions..?
 20 2017-11-27 08:31:51 <midnightmagic> I'm, saying "no" to earlier comments.
 21 2017-11-27 08:32:31 <garit> Block capacity? I was reading that miners are against in increase in size
 22 2017-11-27 08:32:36 <garit> it increase*
 23 2017-11-27 08:33:05 <midnightmagic> no.  your insistence of ignoring the block when considering the elecrticity consumption
 24 2017-11-27 08:33:32 <garit> Any example when counting energy per tx is misleading?
 25 2017-11-27 08:33:51 <rubensayshi> I dont think it's misleading, it's incorrect to compare it to visa though
 26 2017-11-27 08:34:15 <midnightmagic> Yes; both because a tx is variable size; and because it misleads new users who don't know what you're talking about.
 27 2017-11-27 08:34:19 <rubensayshi> "bitcoin is about making the transaction they dont want you to make"
 28 2017-11-27 08:34:20 <garit> rubensayshi: we dont have many working alternative money system to select from, though
 29 2017-11-27 08:34:40 <rubensayshi> different properties, different purposes, so different costs
 30 2017-11-27 08:34:54 <midnightmagic> Also, that is not what Bitcoin is about. :-/
 31 2017-11-27 08:35:02 <garit> midnightmagic: average tx is like that. And especially for new users,to not to deal with blocks , per tx is easier
 32 2017-11-27 08:35:02 <midnightmagic> Brutal.
 33 2017-11-27 08:35:11 <rubensayshi> the price to do a trustless USD payment is ... infinite because it's impossible
 34 2017-11-27 08:35:41 <garit> rubensayshi: you need it at the btc-fiat transfer anyway
 35 2017-11-27 08:35:42 <rubensayshi> digital that is, cash works fine :P
 36 2017-11-27 08:35:54 <midnightmagic> garit: Average tx over a long time tends towards X. But some jerks like Ver make huge tx for political purposes which have nothing to do with average; neither is the segwit capacity being cleanly utilized right now.
 37 2017-11-27 08:36:55 <midnightmagic> so again, no point in considering it since the number is off right now from where it might be. we have to wait until the SW becomes standard in all wallets.
 38 2017-11-27 08:37:17 <rubensayshi> weak argument
 39 2017-11-27 08:37:25 <rubensayshi> atm the bitcoin network processes X txs per second
 40 2017-11-27 08:37:27 <garit> It wont change the situation more than 4 times (sigwit), afaik
 41 2017-11-27 08:37:31 <rubensayshi> which means we send X power per second
 42 2017-11-27 08:37:38 <rubensayshi> power / TXs = power per TX
 43 2017-11-27 08:38:11 <rubensayshi> you can't weight in future improvements xD
 44 2017-11-27 08:38:23 <garit> afaik btc works at about 300MWt and at 4 tx/sec
 45 2017-11-27 08:41:43 <garit> midnightmagic: problem is, energy cost per tx is more dependant on btc cost (volatile in hundred times) than on sigwit (improves 4 times)
 46 2017-11-27 08:42:30 <garit> if btc will rise in price in 100 times, miners will buy more hardware and use everything they can, rising energy consumption by about the same factor
 47 2017-11-27 08:42:56 <rubensayshi> which means bitcoin will be more resistant to attacks
 48 2017-11-27 08:43:28 <garit> at the cost of dying planet, using x^1 security level
 49 2017-11-27 08:44:27 <rubensayshi> most power used for bitcoin mining is cheap / otherwise unused hydro power
 50 2017-11-27 08:44:48 <rubensayshi> but yea, security comes at a price
 51 2017-11-27 08:44:49 <garit> rubensayshi: btc already uses about 0.1% of world's energy. It can only rise 100-1000 times more, until all the energy will be used for it
 52 2017-11-27 08:45:29 <rubensayshi> if the market thinks that is worth it, why not xD
 53 2017-11-27 08:46:04 <rubensayshi> none of us can predict the future
 54 2017-11-27 08:46:09 <midnightmagic> The weak argument is the nature of the implication of X watts per tx. The premise ignores basically the entire purpose of the energy consiumption to begin with and fails to even compare it with other, extremely wasteful industries, fails to consider the actual carbon footprint of the energy consumed; fails to consider basically any of the actually interesting arguments.
 55 2017-11-27 08:46:20 <rubensayshi> maybe combined with the 1000x power increase someone else in the world also finds an awesome new power source :P
 56 2017-11-27 08:46:36 <rubensayshi> no mindnight, he's right in that sense
 57 2017-11-27 08:46:46 <rubensayshi> we burn X power to process Y transactions per second
 58 2017-11-27 08:47:02 <rubensayshi> it makes sense to divide the power by how many TXs we're processing
 59 2017-11-27 08:47:19 <garit> midnightmagic: 75% of miners are in china. China uses 40% world's coal. So i can assume that heavy-on-coal country uses coal for this too
 60 2017-11-27 08:47:24 <midnightmagic> It is a misleading premise. It ignores the other stuff; the other stuff is more important.
 61 2017-11-27 08:47:30 <midnightmagic> garit: No, even that logic is a fail.
 62 2017-11-27 08:48:08 <garit> midnightmagic: fine. I dpnt even discuss co2. Just kwh
 63 2017-11-27 08:48:22 <rubensayshi> what it ignores is that bitcoin shouldn't be compared to visa, it's decentralized, it will always be a lesser version of visa if you're simply comparing by the properties of fiat
 64 2017-11-27 08:48:30 <garit> system uses X power. And makes Y tx
 65 2017-11-27 08:48:43 <midnightmagic> Uh..  No, discuss CO2. I'm saying you're wrong becase you don't know where all the mines are located so you don't know what's hydroelectric.
 66 2017-11-27 08:49:22 <garit> midnightmagic: i can simply say 'i dont know where hydros are in china'
 67 2017-11-27 08:49:36 <garit> this wont make your side of argument better either
 68 2017-11-27 08:49:40 <rubensayshi> I've only visisted 1 mine in my life, but it was hydro, 100% score ;)
 69 2017-11-27 08:50:03 <garit> yay, big statistical collection of data =)
 70 2017-11-27 08:50:20 <rubensayshi> but in all seriousness, cheap electricity is generally found where there is excess of power
 71 2017-11-27 08:51:03 <garit> Or lack of environmental control
 72 2017-11-27 08:51:42 <garit> anyway, for now btc's energy usage is okay
 73 2017-11-27 08:51:51 <garit> but it won't be if price will be higher
 74 2017-11-27 08:53:35 <garit> If btc would contain all earth's money, it would also need all earths energy. There should be a better way than this
 75 2017-11-27 08:54:51 <rubensayshi> but it doesnt make sense for bitcoin to contain all earth's money
 76 2017-11-27 08:55:00 <rubensayshi> it's not designed to be
 77 2017-11-27 08:55:56 <garit> What is it designed for?
 78 2017-11-27 08:56:01 <midnightmagic> i'm not going to help you refine your rationale about it anymore.
 79 2017-11-27 08:56:18 <garit> because some people take it seriously as if btc is a new gold suitable for mass use
 80 2017-11-27 08:57:33 <garit> midnightmagic: my position isnt unique i suppose. Helping me you would also help btc to be seen in a proper way.
 81 2017-11-27 08:58:25 <rubensayshi> garit: why would you want to buy your groceries with BTC instead of fiat?
 82 2017-11-27 08:58:38 <rubensayshi> excluding vanity reasons
 83 2017-11-27 08:58:46 <garit> rubensayshi: because btc-to-fiat is always a pain
 84 2017-11-27 08:59:04 <rubensayshi> then don't convert all your fiat to BTC to begin with xD
 85 2017-11-27 08:59:32 <garit> But muh investments!!111
 86 2017-11-27 08:59:59 <rubensayshi> buying groceries with your investments is a bit weird isn't it ?
 87 2017-11-27 09:00:11 <garit> (people do buy btc expecting growth and consider this 'an investment')
 88 2017-11-27 09:00:27 <rubensayshi> maybe you're a special case, but I think most ppl seperate their investments from their day to day spendings
 89 2017-11-27 09:00:44 <midnightmagic> The ultimate solution is that the question is invalid. :-(  The counter-argument is to simply find a comparable industry and calculate its wastage.
 90 2017-11-27 09:01:13 <garit> rubensayshi: even with just 1 tx per day, btc can support a million people or so
 91 2017-11-27 09:01:34 <garit> groceries level lf currency would need 10 tx/day per person i suppose
 92 2017-11-27 09:02:32 <garit> s/ if / of /
 93 2017-11-27 09:02:37 <rubensayshi> my point is, there's no reason to use BTC (which comes at a price, both for you as for the world as you've been trying to point out) over fiat for such a thing
 94 2017-11-27 09:03:33 <rubensayshi> BTC is for when you want to make TXs that you are not allowed to make
 95 2017-11-27 09:04:23 <rubensayshi> or that are just very hard to make through fiat systems
 96 2017-11-27 09:04:31 <garit> Ah, okay. That could be much less often
 97 2017-11-27 09:04:39 <rubensayshi> but there's no reason why it would replace groceries
 98 2017-11-27 09:05:03 <rubensayshi> so when a currency has a different purpose it needs different properties and it will have different costs
 99 2017-11-27 09:05:04 <garit> Not even about groceries, but stuff like salary (once a month)
100 2017-11-27 09:05:31 <garit> or bonds/pension/dividents
101 2017-11-27 09:06:18 <midnightmagic> The benefit of the BTC is the reason why the energy expenditure is justifiable, even where it is using less-than-carbon-neutral production methods.
102 2017-11-27 17:30:41 <garit> Hi. Bitcoin core wallet client did use password encrypted wallets and used many iteration of encryption (about 1 million), I suspect that's why i cant open this wallet. Any ideas what client can still do it? (Version was about 8, of client)
103 2017-11-27 19:15:49 <mlz> garit, you're using bitcoin core version 8?
104 2017-11-27 19:42:56 <garit> I think that was last version i did use with a wallet
105 2017-11-27 19:43:50 <garit> wallet was encrypted, with ~1second time and ~300k iterations. New wallets dont ask for password when i replace ~/.bitcoin/wallet.dat
106 2017-11-27 20:59:21 <eck> are there any wireshark modules that know how to parse the bitcoin peer-to-peer protocol?
107 2017-11-27 21:37:31 <eck> ah, i fixed my encoding, and now it's working
108 2017-11-27 21:37:39 <eck> neat