1 2017-12-31 00:07:31 <phantomcircuit> SmashShock, a utxo can be spent a total of 1 time
 2 2017-12-31 00:07:39 <phantomcircuit> there's no balance
 3 2017-12-31 00:07:43 <phantomcircuit> simple yes or no
 4 2017-12-31 00:08:36 <SmashShock> How so? If a UTXO has a value of 25btc, and I only want to spend 10btc, how does this split?
 5 2017-12-31 00:08:46 <SmashShock> Legitimately curious. Haha
 6 2017-12-31 00:10:56 <SmashShock> Or is a transaction spent in full, and there can be multiple outputs?
 7 2017-12-31 00:11:03 <SmashShock> Oh god, that's what it is, isn't it
 8 2017-12-31 00:11:58 <SmashShock> So the input is a UTXO, and the output is two UTXO's, one for the recipient, one for change?
 9 2017-12-31 00:25:31 <SmashShock> Okay, well here's a hypothetical
10 2017-12-31 00:25:56 <SmashShock> Would there be anything wrong with a system that has UTXO's that can be spent multiple times?
11 2017-12-31 00:26:12 <SmashShock> And once they hit 0, they are pruned from the UTXO db
12 2017-12-31 00:26:24 <SmashShock> (but are still in the BLOCKDB, of course)
13 2017-12-31 00:26:41 <SmashShock> phantomcircuit:
14 2017-12-31 00:27:28 <SmashShock> And then a client just keeps a list of the UTXOs that belong to them, and they can spend them accordingly
15 2017-12-31 00:32:47 <phantomcircuit> SmashShock, you dont split, you spend the full 25 and then have an output which pays to yourself
16 2017-12-31 00:33:10 <phantomcircuit> an unspent transaction output can be spent a total of 1 time
17 2017-12-31 00:33:51 <phantomcircuit> SmashShock, there are privacy issues with a system like that as well as practical issues
18 2017-12-31 00:34:05 <phantomcircuit> (not to say privacy isn't a practical issue, but you get what im saying i think)
19 2017-12-31 00:35:23 <SmashShock> Yeah, I suppose, if you don't have a system for multiple inputs, "coin chunks" can only get smaller, and eventually 25000000 coins in one transaction would become 25000000 different UTXOs
20 2017-12-31 00:35:50 <phantomcircuit> SmashShock, but of course the system does allow for multiple inputs
21 2017-12-31 00:35:54 <phantomcircuit> cause well
22 2017-12-31 00:36:00 <phantomcircuit> otherwise things fail quite rapidly
23 2017-12-31 00:37:00 <SmashShock> Hmm. Okay. I've been writing a cryptocurrency from the ground up, just to learn how they work https://github.com/ihatecsv/DrakeCoin
24 2017-12-31 00:37:15 <SmashShock> Switching to that transaction model will take quite the rewrite. Haha
25 2017-12-31 00:38:04 <SmashShock> But if it's necessary, I suppose I'll give it a shot!
26 2017-12-31 08:03:08 <drTrololo> good morning
27 2017-12-31 08:06:14 <drTrololo> happy to be here. im grapfics designer, blockchain researcher, coder and my english not good.
28 2017-12-31 08:08:18 <drTrololo> how i can help and made something useful for bitcoin? which best step for noobie?
29 2017-12-31 21:34:41 <parco> AndBobsYourUncle: eevblog fan?
30 2017-12-31 21:36:45 <parco> Is there any source of data on this earth that is truly random, while also being tamper resistant?
31 2017-12-31 21:37:03 <parco> and able to be verified globally
32 2017-12-31 21:42:02 <arubi> cosmic microwave background?
33 2017-12-31 21:58:12 <parco> arubi: is that data available to everyone around the world
34 2017-12-31 21:58:34 <parco> and can't be forged/tampered with?
35 2017-12-31 22:00:01 <arubi> it's coming from the edge of the universe so it's pretty hard to mess with..  I was only half joking about using that :)
36 2017-12-31 22:00:30 <parco> i'm half serious about this idea
37 2017-12-31 22:01:08 <parco> is it possible to have a PoW algorithm, that takes a random salt, that would require a completely new ASIC every time that salt changes?
38 2017-12-31 22:02:02 <arubi> not sure about that.  I don't really know what you're trying to solve
39 2017-12-31 22:02:32 <parco> Miner centralization
40 2017-12-31 22:02:48 <arubi> how would it help to have a convoluted mining algorithm?
41 2017-12-31 22:03:17 <arubi> isn't a very easy and straight forward algo is better?  one's that very cheap and easy to implement on asics
42 2017-12-31 22:03:43 <parco> it takes millions of dollars to spin up an ASIC chip for a specific algorithm. If that algorithm changes every blocks, it would discourage anybody from making ASICs
43 2017-12-31 22:04:06 <arubi> they'll just make an asic for all possible algorithms
44 2017-12-31 22:04:26 <parco> is that possible?
45 2017-12-31 22:04:34 <arubi> sure why not?
46 2017-12-31 22:04:40 <parco> All possible algo's are known?
47 2017-12-31 22:04:58 <arubi> can you program something unknown?  maybe I'm missing something
48 2017-12-31 22:05:21 <parco> if it was created from scratch, and agreed upon
49 2017-12-31 22:06:01 <arubi> parco, whatever you come up with, folks can build a chip that does the work
50 2017-12-31 22:06:42 <parco> you might be right, any laws that prove this so I can save some time
51 2017-12-31 22:07:06 <parco> I felt like a true source of randomness would be the savior here
52 2017-12-31 22:07:15 <arubi> randomness isn't the issue
53 2017-12-31 22:07:34 <arubi> the issue is that some mining corporations have an edge on other miners
54 2017-12-31 22:08:08 <arubi> so no matter what the algo is, centralization is better for small miners
55 2017-12-31 22:09:55 <parco> I see. Do you know of any existing efforts being done to mitigate miner centralization?
56 2017-12-31 22:10:08 <parco> I feel it's a serious problem at the moment, do you agree?
57 2017-12-31 22:10:49 <arubi> I agree.  I don't know what can be done about it really