1 2015-12-17T00:00:13 <BlueMatt> rusty: ya'll have thick skin, right? :P
2 2015-12-17T00:00:57 <rusty> BlueMatt: there are some species of australian trees which require fire to germinate. I expect to get two more kids out of this...
3 2015-12-17T00:01:32 *** btc_panhandler has quit IRC
4 2015-12-17T00:01:47 *** ghtdak has quit IRC
5 2015-12-17T00:12:10 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
6 2015-12-17T00:14:42 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
7 2015-12-17T00:15:15 *** wallet42 has quit IRC
8 2015-12-17T00:17:27 *** johnsoft has joined #bitcoin-dev
9 2015-12-17T00:20:23 *** WeiJunLi has quit IRC
10 2015-12-17T00:21:24 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
11 2015-12-17T00:22:56 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
12 2015-12-17T00:23:28 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
13 2015-12-17T00:23:55 *** c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
14 2015-12-17T00:23:57 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-dev
15 2015-12-17T00:24:25 *** ghtdak has joined #bitcoin-dev
16 2015-12-17T00:25:36 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
17 2015-12-17T00:27:38 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
18 2015-12-17T00:28:58 *** mehoww has joined #bitcoin-dev
19 2015-12-17T00:30:30 *** hashtag has joined #bitcoin-dev
20 2015-12-17T00:33:04 *** bung_whole has joined #bitcoin-dev
21 2015-12-17T00:34:22 *** T19EL has quit IRC
22 2015-12-17T00:36:38 *** phish has quit IRC
23 2015-12-17T00:37:02 *** ratbanebo has joined #bitcoin-dev
24 2015-12-17T00:41:09 <ghtdak> whois evoskuil
25 2015-12-17T00:44:45 *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-dev
26 2015-12-17T00:46:04 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
27 2015-12-17T00:46:45 *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
28 2015-12-17T00:47:56 *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-dev
29 2015-12-17T00:53:35 *** [1]evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-dev
30 2015-12-17T00:55:46 *** evoskuil has quit IRC
31 2015-12-17T00:55:46 *** [1]evoskuil is now known as evoskuil
32 2015-12-17T00:56:10 *** JackH has quit IRC
33 2015-12-17T00:56:30 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
34 2015-12-17T00:57:38 *** Prattler has joined #bitcoin-dev
35 2015-12-17T01:00:53 *** YoY has quit IRC
36 2015-12-17T01:03:06 *** circuspeanut has quit IRC
37 2015-12-17T01:04:33 *** _yoy_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
38 2015-12-17T01:08:43 *** Raziel has joined #bitcoin-dev
39 2015-12-17T01:09:07 *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
40 2015-12-17T01:10:57 *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-dev
41 2015-12-17T01:11:42 *** roconnor has joined #bitcoin-dev
42 2015-12-17T01:16:00 *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
43 2015-12-17T01:16:31 *** ratbanebo has quit IRC
44 2015-12-17T01:17:18 *** atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
45 2015-12-17T01:17:41 *** Delta_ has quit IRC
46 2015-12-17T01:17:48 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
47 2015-12-17T01:18:27 *** mrkent has quit IRC
48 2015-12-17T01:20:18 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
49 2015-12-17T01:20:22 *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-dev
50 2015-12-17T01:20:49 *** Delta_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
51 2015-12-17T01:22:01 *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
52 2015-12-17T01:23:15 *** zmanian_ has quit IRC
53 2015-12-17T01:25:03 *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-dev
54 2015-12-17T01:25:04 *** nskelsey has quit IRC
55 2015-12-17T01:25:22 *** iinaj has quit IRC
56 2015-12-17T01:25:34 *** zmanian_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
57 2015-12-17T01:25:52 *** nelisky has quit IRC
58 2015-12-17T01:25:56 *** prosody has quit IRC
59 2015-12-17T01:26:05 *** nskelsey has joined #bitcoin-dev
60 2015-12-17T01:26:30 *** webbyz has quit IRC
61 2015-12-17T01:28:06 *** iinaj has joined #bitcoin-dev
62 2015-12-17T01:28:18 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
63 2015-12-17T01:28:29 *** prosody has joined #bitcoin-dev
64 2015-12-17T01:28:56 *** webbyz has joined #bitcoin-dev
65 2015-12-17T01:32:06 *** _yoy_ has quit IRC
66 2015-12-17T01:32:23 *** Cory has quit IRC
67 2015-12-17T01:33:25 <wangchun> Luke-Jr: I think that's a good idea
68 2015-12-17T01:34:22 <Luke-Jr> wangchun: would email list work for this? http://list.pfoe.be/mailman/listinfo/gbt2
69 2015-12-17T01:37:16 *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
70 2015-12-17T01:37:53 *** bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-dev
71 2015-12-17T01:38:42 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
72 2015-12-17T01:40:26 *** gielbier has quit IRC
73 2015-12-17T01:47:32 *** benrcole has quit IRC
74 2015-12-17T01:48:44 *** meZee has joined #bitcoin-dev
75 2015-12-17T01:51:29 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
76 2015-12-17T01:51:35 *** rnvk has quit IRC
77 2015-12-17T01:52:48 *** one_zero has joined #bitcoin-dev
78 2015-12-17T01:53:21 *** rnvk has joined #bitcoin-dev
79 2015-12-17T01:54:22 *** xss has quit IRC
80 2015-12-17T01:54:48 *** Burrito has quit IRC
81 2015-12-17T01:56:32 *** btcdrak has quit IRC
82 2015-12-17T01:58:00 *** wallet42 has quit IRC
83 2015-12-17T01:59:33 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-dev
84 2015-12-17T02:00:25 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-dev
85 2015-12-17T02:00:44 *** tripleslash is now known as Guest68066
86 2015-12-17T02:00:53 *** Guest68066 has quit IRC
87 2015-12-17T02:02:21 *** shaileshg has quit IRC
88 2015-12-17T02:04:02 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
89 2015-12-17T02:05:54 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-dev
90 2015-12-17T02:06:06 *** patcon has quit IRC
91 2015-12-17T02:06:56 *** tachys has quit IRC
92 2015-12-17T02:07:18 *** Quent1 has quit IRC
93 2015-12-17T02:08:15 *** benrcole has quit IRC
94 2015-12-17T02:09:10 *** bitdevsn_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
95 2015-12-17T02:11:17 *** triggerwarning has joined #bitcoin-dev
96 2015-12-17T02:12:35 *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
97 2015-12-17T02:13:06 <Luke-Jr> cfields: https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=8407 FYI
98 2015-12-17T02:13:43 <cfields> neat
99 2015-12-17T02:13:57 <cfields> guix seems a bit.. meh, but maybe some good upstream patches will come out of it :)
100 2015-12-17T02:14:36 *** bendavenport has quit IRC
101 2015-12-17T02:15:16 *** throughnothing has quit IRC
102 2015-12-17T02:17:50 *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-dev
103 2015-12-17T02:22:15 <zookolaptop> cfields: what's meh about it?
104 2015-12-17T02:23:00 *** iv3c has quit IRC
105 2015-12-17T02:23:13 *** antizionist__ has quit IRC
106 2015-12-17T02:25:05 <cfields> zookolaptop: nothing in particular, it just seemed to be a solution to a problem that didn't exist. determinism makes it more interesting, though.
107 2015-12-17T02:33:59 *** atgreen_ has quit IRC
108 2015-12-17T02:34:52 <Luke-Jr> I wonder if it's anywhere near as capable/mature as Gentoo's Portage
109 2015-12-17T02:35:22 <Luke-Jr> it would be nice if we didn't need to have a dedicated build system just for Core
110 2015-12-17T02:39:40 *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-dev
111 2015-12-17T02:40:31 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
112 2015-12-17T02:41:42 <zookolaptop> cfields: *nod*
113 2015-12-17T02:42:47 *** splix has joined #bitcoin-dev
114 2015-12-17T02:50:05 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
115 2015-12-17T02:52:34 *** raedah has quit IRC
116 2015-12-17T02:59:15 *** CheckDavid has quit IRC
117 2015-12-17T02:59:19 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
118 2015-12-17T02:59:47 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
119 2015-12-17T03:00:33 <morcos> jgarzik: Haven't we already had "Fee Events" already? Seems like we've gone 7 days in a row without mempools clearing out. As you pointed out in your defnition, the effect is the same if miners choose to not mine hard limit size blocks.
120 2015-12-17T03:01:07 <Diablo-D3> morcos, jgarzik: well, if bitcoin is "healthy" (in the economic sense), then wouldn't a constant fee storm be the usual thing?
121 2015-12-17T03:01:31 <Diablo-D3> the trend of fee per kb should generally be creeping up
122 2015-12-17T03:01:36 <jgarzik> morcos, a Fee Event that leads to TFM to FFM shift.
123 2015-12-17T03:02:19 <jgarzik> morcos, the oft-mentioned "transition to a healthy fee market" is a major economic change to bitcoin
124 2015-12-17T03:02:23 <morcos> jgarzik: yes, and that happened once already
125 2015-12-17T03:03:02 * Diablo-D3 imagines a fee hurricane
126 2015-12-17T03:03:03 <morcos> it used to be the case that you could get any tx mined in a reasonable amount of time if you at least paid the hard coded min relay rate, and often even if you didn't.
127 2015-12-17T03:03:15 <morcos> that is very different from how txs work now
128 2015-12-17T03:03:24 <morcos> good luck getting a min relay rate tx confirmed.
129 2015-12-17T03:03:26 <Diablo-D3> a maelstrom of fees swirling around a calm zone where blocks are formed
130 2015-12-17T03:03:42 <Diablo-D3> morcos: yeah, but you're saying it happened once already, thats the wrong way of looking at it
131 2015-12-17T03:03:46 <Diablo-D3> it didn't stay at "critical mass"
132 2015-12-17T03:04:00 <morcos> It's not critical mass right now?
133 2015-12-17T03:04:23 <Diablo-D3> Well, is it? I think the argument you're making is it has slid back from that at some point in the past
134 2015-12-17T03:04:35 * Diablo-D3 isn't paying attention to day to day stuff lately, haven't had time
135 2015-12-17T03:04:49 <morcos> My point is that it used to be you didn't have to worry about fee. Any tx would get mined quickly
136 2015-12-17T03:05:05 <morcos> Now regarldes of whether that might sometimes accidentally be the case, you have to always worry about fee.
137 2015-12-17T03:05:07 <Diablo-D3> we cross the line when it _never_ goes back to having to never worry about the fee
138 2015-12-17T03:05:14 <morcos> That's the major economic shift, and I think its already happened
139 2015-12-17T03:05:19 <Diablo-D3> morcos: well
140 2015-12-17T03:05:21 <Diablo-D3> the other side of this is
141 2015-12-17T03:05:26 <Diablo-D3> are blocks always full?
142 2015-12-17T03:06:32 <Diablo-D3> If blocks are always full, then yes, we've finally taken off and we're zooming through the cosmos
143 2015-12-17T03:07:35 <Diablo-D3> morcos: I view it as like, a two stage thing
144 2015-12-17T03:07:47 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
145 2015-12-17T03:08:03 <Diablo-D3> (blocks aren't full, fee storms aren't happening), (blocks aren't full, fee storms are happening), (ITS HAPPENING.gif)
146 2015-12-17T03:08:09 <morcos> i think primarily my point is todays situation is closer to the future, than it is to the past
147 2015-12-17T03:08:41 <Diablo-D3> jgarzik: is there a website keeping track of how many full blocks we've produced? its not a large number right?
148 2015-12-17T03:08:43 *** tachys has quit IRC
149 2015-12-17T03:09:00 *** bitcoin783 has joined #bitcoin-dev
150 2015-12-17T03:10:01 <jgarzik> morcos, On fees, that's today because fees are nothing. They provide very little miner signaling. They provide very little user signaling. They exist mainly for DoS prevention (email #1). Fees are range bound on the low end due to blocks-not-full-on-avg (email #1). As long as fees are range bound at the low end, fee behavior can change and have very little impact on bitcoin economic actors of any note.
151 2015-12-17T03:11:00 <jgarzik> morcos, we have never had blocks-full-on-avg-for-extended-period before. That is uncharted waters. People hope that the system will continue to work, but that is pure theory.
152 2015-12-17T03:11:00 <zookolaptop> Excuse the naive clarifying question:
153 2015-12-17T03:11:06 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
154 2015-12-17T03:11:25 <zookolaptop> How is "blocks-not-full-on-avg" consistent with "mempools not clearing out for 7 days in a row" ?
155 2015-12-17T03:11:42 <jgarzik> mempools never fully clear out
156 2015-12-17T03:11:49 <zookolaptop> With regard to the TFM/FFM.
157 2015-12-17T03:12:04 <zookolaptop> So, it's unclear to naive me if we're currently in day 7 of a TFMâFFM, or not.
158 2015-12-17T03:12:08 <morcos> jgarzik: thats wrong though. before july 2015, mempools completely cleared out frequently
159 2015-12-17T03:12:53 <morcos> since july 2015, there have been extended periods of time where the backlog does not clear out
160 2015-12-17T03:13:11 <jgarzik> morcos, if you turn off anti-spam limits that's the raw network...
161 2015-12-17T03:13:41 <morcos> the low end of usable tx fees is no longer determined by the hard cutoff , its determined by the mkt
162 2015-12-17T03:13:42 <jgarzik> morcos, but yes, I was referring to today, not for-all-time
163 2015-12-17T03:14:01 <jgarzik> morcos, yes that is covered in email #1
164 2015-12-17T03:15:49 <morcos> you seem to be saying the opposite in email 1
165 2015-12-17T03:16:28 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
166 2015-12-17T03:17:11 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
167 2015-12-17T03:17:48 <morcos> My point is only this. Yes there is an economic change between the fee market of 2014 and the future "healthy" fee market.
168 2015-12-17T03:18:04 <morcos> I don't think it's likely that this is a clear dividing line
169 2015-12-17T03:18:12 *** tachys has quit IRC
170 2015-12-17T03:18:28 <morcos> And I think we're already quite a bit closer to the FFM than the 2014 market than you are giving us credit
171 2015-12-17T03:18:41 *** NielsvG has quit IRC
172 2015-12-17T03:19:30 *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
173 2015-12-17T03:20:18 <jgarzik> morcos, the major economic policy change & market chaos happens at blocks-full-on-avg near 1M, not small bursts from which the Users recover.
174 2015-12-17T03:20:25 *** catcow has quit IRC
175 2015-12-17T03:20:26 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
176 2015-12-17T03:20:51 *** stasku_ has quit IRC
177 2015-12-17T03:21:33 <morcos> jgarzik: Yeah I disagree with the premise. I think users at this point have to be assuming full bursts since they might happen at any time, so they are behaving the same way as they would if blocks were full on average near 1M
178 2015-12-17T03:21:35 <jgarzik> morcos, it is just not good policy to let bitcoin drift into that, especially contra to the desires of so many of the userbase. 1M was never meant to be the limit, and it was always the idea to increase it via hard fork when needed.
179 2015-12-17T03:22:16 <morcos> I do agree that as the ratio of tx demand to supply goes up and up, and then fees get higher this will be continuing economic change
180 2015-12-17T03:22:19 <morcos> but its not an "event"
181 2015-12-17T03:22:28 <jgarzik> morcos, Getting stuck here at 1M has severe consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem IME. If you cannot hard fork now, it gets much worse later - possibly in a crisis when people are even more under pressure.
182 2015-12-17T03:23:25 *** stasku_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
183 2015-12-17T03:23:38 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
184 2015-12-17T03:24:26 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
185 2015-12-17T03:25:05 <morcos> IMHO, the problem now is not technical or economic, but political/philosophical.
186 2015-12-17T03:25:37 *** shaileshg has joined #bitcoin-dev
187 2015-12-17T03:26:01 <aj> morcos: but if we wait, the problem will become technical and economic eventually; yes?
188 2015-12-17T03:26:22 <morcos> A subject on which I have no great expertise, and I do wish more people were willing to compromise on what they personally want for the good of staying together as a community.
189 2015-12-17T03:26:34 *** bung_whole has quit IRC
190 2015-12-17T03:27:21 <morcos> I personally don't want to increase block size at all, but am willing to agree to something along the lines of what jgarzik suggests if thats what keeps the community together.
191 2015-12-17T03:28:04 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
192 2015-12-17T03:28:33 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
193 2015-12-17T03:29:06 <morcos> aj: sure, i think i just mean that technically and economically there isn't much difference right now between nothing, segwit, small bump, small bump + segwit
194 2015-12-17T03:30:02 <aj> morcos: ack; wasn't clear if you meant that or "technical/economic issues are clear, it's just philosophy that's left"
195 2015-12-17T03:30:11 *** t7 has quit IRC
196 2015-12-17T03:31:51 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
197 2015-12-17T03:31:52 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
198 2015-12-17T03:34:35 *** benrcole has quit IRC
199 2015-12-17T03:37:30 <kanzure> jgarzik: desires of the userbase are completely irrelevant. they could desire purple unicorns and it still wouldn't matter. desires of the developers also don't matter. i think you would experience far more productive results if you focus on how knowledge works (the total mass of all the people that think a certain opinion, does not actually change whether the idea can be successfully verified).... to say otherwise will mislead people ...
200 2015-12-17T03:37:37 <kanzure> ... about how knowledge works...
201 2015-12-17T03:39:10 <jgarzik> That goes against a core principle of mine in open source software - if you don't listen to the users you shouldn't be impacting users...
202 2015-12-17T03:39:32 <kanzure> listening to users is unrelated to understanding why user-mass doesn't make things right/wrong
203 2015-12-17T03:39:35 <morcos> kanzure: that's not entirely true though. there is no one clear technical answer to what is safe enough for decentralizaiton / security
204 2015-12-17T03:39:58 <kanzure> morcos: whether your statement is correct does *not* modulate whether user-mass increases idea correctness. that's absurd.
205 2015-12-17T03:40:10 <jgarzik> The typical open source method is forking the project to fire the developers. That is key to the health of typical open source projects. Bitcoin is not a typical open source project or obvious consensus reasons.
206 2015-12-17T03:40:20 <jgarzik> *for
207 2015-12-17T03:40:24 <kanzure> are you talking about bitcoin-core?
208 2015-12-17T03:40:31 *** sipa has left #bitcoin-dev
209 2015-12-17T03:40:35 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: open source development doesn't impact users; what does is the users' decision to adopt said software
210 2015-12-17T03:40:50 <kanzure> rules of knowledge seem to have been thrown out the window,
211 2015-12-17T03:40:50 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
212 2015-12-17T03:40:55 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, it does indirectly
213 2015-12-17T03:41:00 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
214 2015-12-17T03:41:01 <kanzure> it's important to specify which rules you consider reasonable (for knowledge) otherwise this is pointless
215 2015-12-17T03:41:13 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: in this case, we have a unique situation that does not exist in other software
216 2015-12-17T03:41:22 <jgarzik> kanzure, Kinda pointless for most of us to work on software that drives away users or has no users :)
217 2015-12-17T03:41:29 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, nod, that's what I just said
218 2015-12-17T03:41:44 <kanzure> jgarzik: that's completely unrelated to what i just wrote.
219 2015-12-17T03:41:56 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you seemed to me, to be trying to make an analogy of established practices; my point is there are no established practices for this situation
220 2015-12-17T03:42:06 *** Subo1977 has joined #bitcoin-dev
221 2015-12-17T03:42:44 <jgarzik> I do wonder if Meni's right that permanent forks are inevitable and wallets should just be updated for that
222 2015-12-17T03:42:45 <kanzure> jgarzik: it is morally wrong for you to characterize "correctness as not necessarily calculated by user-mass" as "driving away users or having no users".
223 2015-12-17T03:42:48 <morcos> Luke-Jr: I completely agree with that
224 2015-12-17T03:42:55 <zookolaptop> jgarzik: +1
225 2015-12-17T03:43:13 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, again, that's what I was saying
226 2015-12-17T03:43:22 <zookolaptop> jgarzik: anything like Bitcoin which is successful enough will experience permanent schisms.
227 2015-12-17T03:43:28 *** splix has quit IRC
228 2015-12-17T03:43:28 <jgarzik> "Bitcoin is not a typical open source project"
229 2015-12-17T03:44:22 <morcos> Yeah the schisms thing is interesting
230 2015-12-17T03:44:30 <Luke-Jr> ok, maybe I misunderstood your position completely then
231 2015-12-17T03:46:03 <kanzure> now that i have established why jgarzik is wrong, what's the next step
232 2015-12-17T03:46:30 *** Delta_ has quit IRC
233 2015-12-17T03:46:49 *** GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
234 2015-12-17T03:46:55 <zookolaptop> lol
235 2015-12-17T03:47:18 <kanzure> sorry, i mean, jgarzik's idea is wrong
236 2015-12-17T03:47:24 <kanzure> nasty short hand habit.....
237 2015-12-17T03:47:25 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
238 2015-12-17T03:47:25 *** GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
239 2015-12-17T03:48:07 <Luke-Jr> kanzure: can I quote you on that anyway? :P
240 2015-12-17T03:48:38 <zookolaptop> A really interesting thing happened at SB/HK, and I wish I had the presence of mind to finish unraveling it on the spot.
241 2015-12-17T03:49:07 <zookolaptop> The thing was: the miners, allegedly representing collectively 90% of the hash power, were each asked in turn for their opinions, preferences about changing the block size.
242 2015-12-17T03:49:27 <zookolaptop> They agreed that they wanted larger blocks. IIRC 8 out of 9 of them said they wanted larger blocks,
243 2015-12-17T03:49:29 <zookolaptop> and 1 abstained.
244 2015-12-17T03:49:49 <Luke-Jr> who abstained btw?
245 2015-12-17T03:49:58 <kanzure> no names rule
246 2015-12-17T03:50:04 <zookolaptop> When pressed for more details by the questions, they all repeatedly insisted that they didn't want to decide how, when, which BIPs, etc.,
247 2015-12-17T03:50:07 <zookolaptop> kanzure: no, they were onstage.
248 2015-12-17T03:50:16 <zookolaptop> Luke-Jr: you can probably find it in a video of the event? I forget.
249 2015-12-17T03:50:23 <zookolaptop> Luke-Jr: I didn't know them by name.
250 2015-12-17T03:50:42 <zookolaptop> Anyway, the miners (at least some/most of them), kept saying: we don't want to decide, we want the core devs to decide.
251 2015-12-17T03:50:59 <zookolaptop> The missed opportunity was that I should have gotten the mic and asked: "Who are the core devs?"
252 2015-12-17T03:51:02 <Luke-Jr> ugh
253 2015-12-17T03:51:10 <zookolaptop> What authority or process do you anticipate following?
254 2015-12-17T03:51:11 <Luke-Jr> it's not up to us either
255 2015-12-17T03:51:27 <kanzure> assuming authority is problematic, you should instead talk about least authority
256 2015-12-17T03:51:34 <zookolaptop> lol
257 2015-12-17T03:51:36 <kanzure> sorta surprised that you would even bother to pose the problem like that
258 2015-12-17T03:51:42 <kanzure> who has replaced zooko
259 2015-12-17T03:51:45 <zookolaptop> kanzure: dude
260 2015-12-17T03:51:48 <kanzure> heh
261 2015-12-17T03:51:50 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
262 2015-12-17T03:51:59 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
263 2015-12-17T03:52:04 *** GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
264 2015-12-17T03:52:46 <zookolaptop> In case anyone else in addition to kanzure is confused about this, what I'm asking is: what did the miners mean when they said they wanted the core devs to decide.
265 2015-12-17T03:53:00 <zookolaptop> Or to put it another way, if X happens, will the miners believe that this means the core devs decided? For various X's.
266 2015-12-17T03:53:14 *** GGuyZ_ has quit IRC
267 2015-12-17T03:53:16 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
268 2015-12-17T03:53:18 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-dev
269 2015-12-17T03:53:29 <kanzure> perhaps they would accept whoever shouts the loudest....
270 2015-12-17T03:53:32 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
271 2015-12-17T03:54:08 *** Soligor has quit IRC
272 2015-12-17T03:54:10 <kanzure> actually i was really hoping you would rant about the positive aspects of the principle of least authority
273 2015-12-17T03:54:34 *** makomk_ has quit IRC
274 2015-12-17T03:54:36 <zookolaptop> lol
275 2015-12-17T03:55:06 <zookolaptop> Okay, enough lol'ing. From now on you can just *assume* that I'm laughing even if I don't say so.
276 2015-12-17T03:55:28 *** makomk has joined #bitcoin-dev
277 2015-12-17T03:57:31 <midnightmagic> humans are bad at dealing with high-pressure situations where they know almost any answer will subject them to attack and/or criminal harassment
278 2015-12-17T03:57:54 *** splix has joined #bitcoin-dev
279 2015-12-17T03:57:59 *** BashCo has quit IRC
280 2015-12-17T03:58:00 <midnightmagic> there is no answer which will be more honest than when they are feeling safe and comfortable again.
281 2015-12-17T03:58:16 <zookolaptop> midnightmagic: you think the miners were feeling threatened when they gave those answers?
282 2015-12-17T03:58:41 *** benrcole has quit IRC
283 2015-12-17T03:59:27 <jgarzik> zookolaptop, I got the impression it was along the lines of "we're not devs, give us a menu of options and explain them well"
284 2015-12-17T03:59:36 <zookolaptop> My sense from having watched it in person and taken notes (i.e. live-tweeting it) is that they were uncomfortable with people asking them to form an opinion about protocol changes.
285 2015-12-17T03:59:43 <jgarzik> nod
286 2015-12-17T03:59:52 <midnightmagic> they are feeling threatened at all times, I am confident. Perhaps they would disagree they *feel* threatened, but most answers they would give *except* delegating to someone else, were probably the only thing they could think would prevent extremists from attacking them.
287 2015-12-17T03:59:59 <zookolaptop> At one point one of them mentioned that they wouldn't be willing to deploy their own source code or their own patches -- devs had to give them the code.
288 2015-12-17T04:00:14 <zookolaptop> Which I was mildly surprised to hear.
289 2015-12-17T04:00:29 <midnightmagic> miners are not devs. not any more.
290 2015-12-17T04:00:36 <kanzure> yes they also felt threatened because of the security-related talks. e.g. they were not used to think adversarially and didn't understand why that was topical.
291 2015-12-17T04:01:03 <kanzure> or, didn't want to display an understanding of why that was topical
292 2015-12-17T04:01:08 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-dev
293 2015-12-17T04:01:17 <jgarzik> That is natural for miners anyway -- they are incentivized to be followers of the herd. They want to be where bitcoin users are. Cannot expect miners to charge ahead on any issue, because that might risk divergence away from bitcoin's network effect. e.g. KNC and Bitfury would never fork away from the mass of bitcoin users.
294 2015-12-17T04:01:20 <kanzure> well, i mean it wasn't the talks themselves that caused that.
295 2015-12-17T04:01:20 <zookolaptop> midnightmagic: that's consistent with what James Vasile said.
296 2015-12-17T04:01:24 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
297 2015-12-17T04:01:41 <zookolaptop> He said that they he heard a lot of people unconvincingly claiming that they had no power.
298 2015-12-17T04:02:06 <zookolaptop> And he said that when you hear that, it's because there's a culture in which there is not a socially acceptable way to exercise power.
299 2015-12-17T04:02:07 <kanzure> zookolaptop: probably unconvincing if there are others claiming that other people have power.
300 2015-12-17T04:02:12 <zookolaptop> I thought that was a very interesting talk he gave.
301 2015-12-17T04:02:14 <zookolaptop> Didn't live-tweet that one.
302 2015-12-17T04:03:05 *** splix has quit IRC
303 2015-12-17T04:05:00 <midnightmagic> zookolaptop: considering a significant number of miners active today formed their seed capital through fraudulent means in the first place, it wouldn't strike me as odd that they would also perceive the threat of retaliation as real too. On top of that, relatively ethically clean people (ignoring short burn-min mainnet mining) have *already* been physicall threatened, followed, attacked, and dis
304 2015-12-17T04:05:06 <midnightmagic> rupted in terms of business ops.. I'm quite surprised as many showed up as did.
305 2015-12-17T04:05:46 *** benrcole has quit IRC
306 2015-12-17T04:05:51 *** Soligor has joined #bitcoin-dev
307 2015-12-17T04:06:00 <zookolaptop> midnightmagic: that is interesting.
308 2015-12-17T04:06:20 *** TheSeven has quit IRC
309 2015-12-17T04:06:30 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
310 2015-12-17T04:07:36 *** TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-dev
311 2015-12-17T04:08:00 *** ThomasV_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
312 2015-12-17T04:08:34 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
313 2015-12-17T04:09:15 *** ChaoticMind has quit IRC
314 2015-12-17T04:09:27 *** bitcoin783 has quit IRC
315 2015-12-17T04:14:15 *** gnnr has joined #bitcoin-dev
316 2015-12-17T04:14:38 *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-dev
317 2015-12-17T04:19:32 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
318 2015-12-17T04:19:36 *** ThomasV_ has quit IRC
319 2015-12-17T04:19:49 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
320 2015-12-17T04:20:03 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
321 2015-12-17T04:21:47 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
322 2015-12-17T04:23:21 <rusty> jgarzik: I think coining "events" is misleading. It's all statistics: at this stage it's how long did my payment get delayed? That's not a single point, but natural variance means any threshold you choose will get crossed and uncrossed multiple times.
323 2015-12-17T04:23:48 *** jtimon has quit IRC
324 2015-12-17T04:25:00 *** xss has joined #bitcoin-dev
325 2015-12-17T04:25:09 *** atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
326 2015-12-17T04:25:10 <rusty> jgarzik: I'm comfortable with how that's playing out, but there's another statistic, which is "network is unusable because fees are too high". We have even less experience with that.
327 2015-12-17T04:26:22 <morcos> Isn't that like "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"
328 2015-12-17T04:26:43 <jgarzik> rusty, In that context I would call "event" a tipping point with much higher than average actor turnover and over velocities, over a timescale long enough to not be considered "temporary" by the economic actors.
329 2015-12-17T04:27:11 <jgarzik> *other stat velocities
330 2015-12-17T04:27:25 <jgarzik> rusty, agree
331 2015-12-17T04:29:15 <zookolaptop> rusty: relatedly, the other phenomenon that jgarzik briefly mentioned in his talk: new projects not-started, or based on something other than Bitcoin.
332 2015-12-17T04:30:29 <rusty> zookolaptop: The margins we're realistically talking about for scaling are tiny; if you need orders of magnitude you're going elsewhere anyway. I don't really buy this one (plus it's really hard to count things that didn't happen for a single reason).
333 2015-12-17T04:30:48 <zookolaptop> I agree it's really hard to measure.
334 2015-12-17T04:30:56 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
335 2015-12-17T04:31:19 <zookolaptop> I don't think I agree with the other thing you just said
336 2015-12-17T04:31:42 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
337 2015-12-17T04:32:40 <rusty> zookolaptop: provide a concrete counter-example, then. I've heard too many "we'd have <cool thing here> if only you'd <something>" in political lobbying to trust it at all, I'm afraif.
338 2015-12-17T04:33:29 <zookolaptop> You mean a thing that didn't get started because Bitcoin was too slow or something/
339 2015-12-17T04:33:45 *** Cryo has quit IRC
340 2015-12-17T04:34:14 <rusty> zookolaptop: no, specifically because they needed <current-bitcoin-scale> * N, where N was > 1 but < 100, say.
341 2015-12-17T04:34:15 *** codice has quit IRC
342 2015-12-17T04:34:42 <zookolaptop> I can think of plenty of examples of things pivoting away from Bitcoin because Bitcoin doesn't have enough users/usage.
343 2015-12-17T04:35:12 <rusty> zookolaptop: sure, more users good, but that's a slightly different argument.
344 2015-12-17T04:35:27 <zookolaptop> Yeah, I didn't exactly mean that other argument.
345 2015-12-17T04:35:45 <zookolaptop> In my experience most people's decision procedure completely leaves out any inputs about the scalability or security of the system,
346 2015-12-17T04:35:58 <zookolaptop> and instead operates by *trying it*, and if it works then building a project on top of that.
347 2015-12-17T04:36:18 <rusty> zookolaptop: I agree.
348 2015-12-17T04:37:35 <rusty> jgarzik: your post referred to 95% full blocks for a week, or something. Despite that that has happened already. I think you were trying to get at some point where "my txs are processed unusably slowly". But that seems like a problem we have to eventually solve, and it seems we're (slowly!) solving it (RBF, fee guestiimation). Which accelerates us towards the second problem point: txs too damn expensive. The latter can't be solved (much)
349 2015-12-17T04:37:40 <zookolaptop> I think a big source of disagreement on this topic may be implicit differing premises about Bitcoin as Store-of-Value vs. as Medium-of-Exchange.
350 2015-12-17T04:38:28 *** chjj_ has quit IRC
351 2015-12-17T04:38:53 <jgarzik> rusty, higher average price point to Users of the Service, which results in a notable permanent turnover of economic actors from set A^1 to set A^2.
352 2015-12-17T04:38:57 <zookolaptop> If you look at Bitcoin today from the perspective of: are people's Bitcoins safe, could they (given enough time and fees) sell them, is the price high, things like that, it looks like a great success.
353 2015-12-17T04:39:22 *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
354 2015-12-17T04:39:30 <zookolaptop> I look at it from the perspective of "Does it have traction in one or more markets, are competitors outstripping it" things like that, and with those lenses I perceive it as teetering on the verge of failure.
355 2015-12-17T04:39:31 <rusty> jgarzik: yeah, the satoshidice transition.
356 2015-12-17T04:39:45 <jgarzik> rusty, there is a patience limit beyond which actors decide the Service disruption (economic, technical, failure, ...) is no longer temporary.
357 2015-12-17T04:39:59 <jgarzik> rusty, can that limit be defined precisely? 14 days?
358 2015-12-17T04:40:21 <rusty> jgarzik: there's no such limit with RBF and CPFP though.
359 2015-12-17T04:40:35 *** bitdevsn_ has quit IRC
360 2015-12-17T04:40:39 <rusty> jgarzik: (and less of a limit with fee estimation)
361 2015-12-17T04:41:00 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
362 2015-12-17T04:41:01 <rusty> jgarzik: instead it collapses to a "too damn expensive" problem.
363 2015-12-17T04:41:15 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
364 2015-12-17T04:41:22 <jgarzik> rusty, yep, which is self correcting in very painful ways
365 2015-12-17T04:41:52 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: btw, how is removing the priority area not an "ECE"?
366 2015-12-17T04:42:53 <rusty> jgarzik: ... so, if we're playing Bitcoin God for a moment, I'd want to keep encouraging RBF & CPFP adoption (since we need it at our endpoint), but avoid the "insane fees" problem. That points to a gradual, rather than sudden ramp up of blocksize.
367 2015-12-17T04:43:13 *** codice has joined #bitcoin-dev
368 2015-12-17T04:44:24 *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-dev
369 2015-12-17T04:44:49 <aj> rusty, jgarzik: what's a value at which fees are "insane"?
370 2015-12-17T04:46:07 <rusty> aj: if we want lightning to bootstrap, it needs to be under a few dollars. If we want lightning decentralized, it needs to be well under a dollar.
371 2015-12-17T04:46:13 *** Quent1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
372 2015-12-17T04:46:59 <aj> rusty: so >$2 is insane, >50c is undersirable?
373 2015-12-17T04:47:13 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, I'm trying to hone in on a good definition of ECE. "Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period." By that definition, removing priority area fits def ECE if events occur such that (a) prices are above-average volatile, (b) set of economic actors changes on a non-short-term basis, (c) over a short term timescal
374 2015-12-17T04:47:13 <jgarzik> e (hours/days/weeks at most).
375 2015-12-17T04:47:18 <rusty> aj: with my Lightning cap on, sure.
376 2015-12-17T04:47:25 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, in laymans terms, you put a bunch of businesses out of business.
377 2015-12-17T04:47:28 *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-dev
378 2015-12-17T04:47:42 <jgarzik> rusty, <grin> Like... say.... 40,000 byte supply increase per diff period.
379 2015-12-17T04:47:47 <aj> rusty: (a lightning cap sounds hair-raising...)
380 2015-12-17T04:48:04 * jgarzik was just building such a beast.
381 2015-12-17T04:49:05 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: did you just say "it's an ECE, if we find out after the fact it meets the criteria of an ECE"? -.-
382 2015-12-17T04:49:10 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
383 2015-12-17T04:49:13 <zookolaptop> rusty: an example of someone pivoting away from Bitcoin due to insufficient users is ChangeTip. I understand, as you said, that it's hard to reason from these scalability and cost factors to "number of users".
384 2015-12-17T04:49:30 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
385 2015-12-17T04:49:44 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
386 2015-12-17T04:50:00 *** supasonic has quit IRC
387 2015-12-17T04:50:25 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
388 2015-12-17T04:50:26 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, It is an attempt to describe and specify the phenomena where prices and makeup of Users changes significant over the short term.
389 2015-12-17T04:50:54 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, the disappearance of SD might qualify as a minor ECE... I would need to know the timescale
390 2015-12-17T04:51:23 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: if you can only discern it after the fact, you can't argue for pre-announcements..
391 2015-12-17T04:51:51 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, the concept of adding more safety margin and gathering data is straightforward
392 2015-12-17T04:52:24 <jgarzik> We are 100% certain the system works at blocks-not-full-on-avg, as paradoxical as that may seem.
393 2015-12-17T04:52:24 <rusty> jgarzik: yeah, or 19 bytes per block: https://github.com/rustyrussell/bitcoin/tree/bip-back-blocksize248
394 2015-12-17T04:53:02 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: not at >1 MB block sizes..
395 2015-12-17T04:53:16 <jgarzik> rusty, After simulating BIP 100 then 101, economics 101 came back to haunt me. small steps spread out over time = less supply shock.
396 2015-12-17T04:53:27 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
397 2015-12-17T04:53:39 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
398 2015-12-17T04:54:08 <rusty> jgarzik: absolutely. Even more fundamentall, when you not sure about what the effects are, *change slowly*.
399 2015-12-17T04:54:39 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
400 2015-12-17T04:54:45 *** GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
401 2015-12-17T04:55:04 <zookolaptop> I also really liked jgarzik's point that confidence about things that will/won't happen the future is an input to current economic decisions.
402 2015-12-17T04:55:41 *** porquilho has quit IRC
403 2015-12-17T04:56:44 <jgarzik> vis "halving day" - definitely painful supply shock btw, but that's too fundamental to touch. it's much -less- worse than people make it out to be (it was mentioned at the SB:HK miner roundtable) because the market prices it in to an extent
404 2015-12-17T04:57:16 <rusty> jgarzik: it's also getting less painful over time (assuming fee market)...
405 2015-12-17T04:57:32 *** JeromeLegoupil has joined #bitcoin-dev
406 2015-12-17T04:57:46 <rusty> zookolaptop: ... and since change is coming eventually, experts should try to disseminate information about their expectation re: timing.
407 2015-12-17T04:58:15 <aj> rusty: 50c transactions at 500B/tx and $400/BTC is just 2.5BTC per MB though
408 2015-12-17T04:58:40 *** GGuyZ_ has quit IRC
409 2015-12-17T04:58:42 <zookolaptop> rusty: I agree! That was one of jgarzik's points that I liked most, from his email post, that experts should be communicating now to people about likely imminent changes, including the changes that result from BIP000.
410 2015-12-17T04:58:44 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
411 2015-12-17T04:59:25 <zookolaptop> aj: so fees would be 10% of reward instead of (as currently) 1% of reward?
412 2015-12-17T04:59:33 <jgarzik> I really do feel like there is a pattern of "Bitcoin must be leader-less, so we cannot appear to be leaders, so we cannot message stuff in advance to users as if we are leaders."
413 2015-12-17T04:59:48 <jgarzik> which creates a shitty User experience, for projecting into the future.
414 2015-12-17T04:59:48 <aj> zookolaptop: (multiplying fees from 5c to 50c per tx would do that, yes :)
415 2015-12-17T04:59:56 <zookolaptop> jgarzik: â¹ I'm afraid that sounds plausible to me.
416 2015-12-17T05:00:01 *** jgarzik has left #bitcoin-dev
417 2015-12-17T05:00:09 <zookolaptop> aj: ok. :-)
418 2015-12-17T05:00:09 *** dermoth has quit IRC
419 2015-12-17T05:00:18 *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-dev
420 2015-12-17T05:00:19 *** jgarzik has quit IRC
421 2015-12-17T05:00:19 *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-dev
422 2015-12-17T05:00:45 <jgarzik> ...which creates a poor User experience of the Service, who wishes to plan for the future.
423 2015-12-17T05:00:50 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-dev
424 2015-12-17T05:01:38 <zookolaptop> *nod*
425 2015-12-17T05:02:14 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
426 2015-12-17T05:02:23 *** ribasushi has quit IRC
427 2015-12-17T05:02:51 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
428 2015-12-17T05:02:58 *** rusty has quit IRC
429 2015-12-17T05:03:27 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
430 2015-12-17T05:03:30 *** TheSeven has quit IRC
431 2015-12-17T05:04:47 *** TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-dev
432 2015-12-17T05:04:47 *** rusty has joined #bitcoin-dev
433 2015-12-17T05:06:35 *** wallet42 has quit IRC
434 2015-12-17T05:07:13 *** benrcole has quit IRC
435 2015-12-17T05:07:46 *** ribasushi has joined #bitcoin-dev
436 2015-12-17T05:08:14 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
437 2015-12-17T05:09:23 <jgarzik> and... I'm in it for the users, man. </California dude> If I thought the mass of users was on board with a SW+no hard fork, you would not hear a peep from me. The inability to move max_block_size - something that was always intended to happen - seems likely to cause a big yucky rift in the community.
438 2015-12-17T05:09:42 <jgarzik> I am all for avoiding that by kicking the can.
439 2015-12-17T05:09:59 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
440 2015-12-17T05:14:16 *** p15x has quit IRC
441 2015-12-17T05:15:13 *** chjj_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
442 2015-12-17T05:16:21 *** theorbtwo has quit IRC
443 2015-12-17T05:17:59 <jgarzik> But hey, maybe I'm completely wrong about that and all is well and I'm just crazy :)
444 2015-12-17T05:22:52 <rusty> jgarzik: If there's rough consensus that the endgame is (some burst capacity) + (some miner voting on blocksize cap), then it's hard to get upset with a simple can-kick with the explicit signalling that it's only to give time for R&D on that.
445 2015-12-17T05:23:22 *** codice has quit IRC
446 2015-12-17T05:23:34 *** supasonic has joined #bitcoin-dev
447 2015-12-17T05:23:52 <rusty> jgarzik: without some such signalling, it risks moral hazard.
448 2015-12-17T05:23:58 <jgarzik> rusty, agree
449 2015-12-17T05:24:52 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: how about SW bundled with a hardfork scheduled for late 2016 or 2017?
450 2015-12-17T05:25:03 *** codice has joined #bitcoin-dev
451 2015-12-17T05:25:31 <Luke-Jr> that way, there is signalling to indicate the softfork, and plenty of time for the fallout to settle before the hardfork
452 2015-12-17T05:25:54 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, late 2016 seems late. I'm happy with SW HF - 100% validation, 100% trustless operation.
453 2015-12-17T05:26:31 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, oh I misunderstood
454 2015-12-17T05:27:02 *** JeromeLegoupil has quit IRC
455 2015-12-17T05:27:31 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, SW - parallel issue to hard fork IMO. SW: hard fork preferred, soft fork meh (weak, over-rideable nak)
456 2015-12-17T05:27:42 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, hard fork mid 2016
457 2015-12-17T05:27:45 * Luke-Jr clarifies: how about (SW) + (hardfork scheduled for late 2016 or 2017)?
458 2015-12-17T05:27:50 *** circuspeanut has joined #bitcoin-dev
459 2015-12-17T05:28:16 <jgarzik> SW via hard fork would be super duper
460 2015-12-17T05:28:16 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: it's not a parallel issue.. SW can get 4 MB block size effectively without a hardfork
461 2015-12-17T05:28:36 <Luke-Jr> that should be more than reasonable until 2020
462 2015-12-17T05:28:48 <aj> Luke-Jr: it's only a 1.6MB-2MB block size for normal transactions
463 2015-12-17T05:28:51 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, I disagree with that, for reasons of rollout pace. SW rollout will be slower than people think - when including layers beyond Bitcoin Core.
464 2015-12-17T05:28:56 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-dev
465 2015-12-17T05:29:14 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, SW will not provide any short term scalability of note for a long time
466 2015-12-17T05:29:21 <Luke-Jr> aj: well, then the hardfork late 2016 would still be early ;)
467 2015-12-17T05:29:25 *** won9 has quit IRC
468 2015-12-17T05:29:29 <jgarzik> presuming successful SW soft fork
469 2015-12-17T05:29:56 <rusty> aj: but it addresses one of my concerns about lightning taking off, so I like it :)
470 2015-12-17T05:32:03 <aj> jgarzik: saying SW won't immediately bump the usable block size by whatever factor is pretty similar to saying that the kick-the-can hard fork block size increases shouldn't be sudden anyway, no?
471 2015-12-17T05:32:21 *** shaileshg has quit IRC
472 2015-12-17T05:32:32 <aj> jgarzik: (ie, increments of x kB per block, rather than x MB per year)
473 2015-12-17T05:33:08 <jgarzik> aj, No not at all - it is speaking strictly towards there will be less extension block use even after rollout
474 2015-12-17T05:33:27 <jgarzik> lots of pressure on the core block still
475 2015-12-17T05:33:28 *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-dev
476 2015-12-17T05:33:42 <aj> (fwiw, 2/4/8 starting in 2016 sometime + SW-soft-fork + fees stuck at 20c or less is my preference)
477 2015-12-17T05:33:42 <jl2012> rusty or other mailing list mod: I have just sent a new post to the mailing list and is still get modded. Would you please whitelist me? Thank you
478 2015-12-17T05:34:10 *** p15x has quit IRC
479 2015-12-17T05:34:26 *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-dev
480 2015-12-17T05:35:10 <Luke-Jr> aj: I like SW with new combined cap of 2/4/8 (doubling each subsidy halving), and a hardfork to remove the old pre-witness limit some year or two off.
481 2015-12-17T05:35:20 <aj> jgarzik: are you proposing "kick-the-can" should immediately bump from 1MB to 2MB when activated, or should increase gradually? if the former, that's a supply shock; if the latter, it doesn't relieve pressure very suddenly
482 2015-12-17T05:35:44 <rusty> jl2012: approved... FWIW we're moderating everyone on these threads, since it's likely to go south fast :(
483 2015-12-17T05:36:27 <jgarzik> This is a taste thing, but at initial SW start the network trusts miners overly much (familiar soft fork security downgrade). Just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Hard fork is just so much stronger a security guarantee. SW soft fork = continue trust-the-miner trend. SW hard fork = full trustless validation at each "full node"
484 2015-12-17T05:37:42 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: hard fork *destroys* security completely
485 2015-12-17T05:37:46 <rusty> jgarzik: pretty sure an ISM soft fork gets loud warning in current bitcoind. Sure, versionbits makes it slightly better.
486 2015-12-17T05:37:49 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, like rusty and I were just talking about, it is nice to avoid big steps - supply shocks. I was poking around with a patch that added +40,000 bytes per 2016 blocks. It sounds like rusty is poking around with something even more gradual (19 bytes/block?)
487 2015-12-17T05:37:59 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: all old nodes are vulnerable to bogus shorter-chain blocks
488 2015-12-17T05:38:29 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, hard fork is a flag day network-must-be-upgraded, with all that entails.
489 2015-12-17T05:38:43 <rusty> jgarzik: yeah, linear 2 - 4 - 8, with 1 year from 1-2 MB, 2 years from 2-4, 2 from 4-8. Where "year" = #halvingblocks / 4.
490 2015-12-17T05:39:04 <Luke-Jr> jgarzik: you can flag day softforks too (but in practice it's not really necessary since everyone sees it coming)
491 2015-12-17T05:39:09 <rusty> damn, gtg.
492 2015-12-17T05:39:20 <Luke-Jr> rusty: doesn't that outpace bandwidth?
493 2015-12-17T05:39:25 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, sure
494 2015-12-17T05:39:26 *** patcon has joined #bitcoin-dev
495 2015-12-17T05:39:39 <jl2012> rusty, ok if it's thread based. Thanks
496 2015-12-17T05:39:48 <Luke-Jr> softfork = old nodes get SPV security
497 2015-12-17T05:39:53 <Luke-Jr> hardfork = old nodes get no security at all
498 2015-12-17T05:40:12 <Luke-Jr> that's basically the only significant difference in this regard..
499 2015-12-17T05:40:16 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
500 2015-12-17T05:41:18 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, yes - you rotate out ancient and leech cells (nodes) off the network. produces a healthier decentralized organism.
501 2015-12-17T05:41:44 <Luke-Jr> you leave them vulnerable; that has no real upsides.
502 2015-12-17T05:41:46 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, they are by definition less secure and inattentive
503 2015-12-17T05:41:48 *** Quent1 has quit IRC
504 2015-12-17T05:42:13 <Luke-Jr> they don't leave the network just because they're vulnerable
505 2015-12-17T05:42:25 <Luke-Jr> and SPV nodes are normative on the network anyway
506 2015-12-17T05:43:00 <jgarzik> which is more important, an individual node or the organism as a whole?
507 2015-12-17T05:43:37 <Luke-Jr> it's not a choice between the two
508 2015-12-17T05:43:42 *** camus has joined #bitcoin-dev
509 2015-12-17T05:43:43 *** rusty has quit IRC
510 2015-12-17T05:44:23 *** tachys has quit IRC
511 2015-12-17T05:47:05 *** camus has left #bitcoin-dev
512 2015-12-17T05:48:13 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, with a clean hardfork (with very few or no miner in the original fork), old nodes will just cease to function
513 2015-12-17T05:48:26 <jl2012> like BIP50
514 2015-12-17T05:48:37 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: that's not correct; they will cease to function, *and* be left insecure
515 2015-12-17T05:49:13 <Luke-Jr> an attacker can mine the old chain up with no competition
516 2015-12-17T05:49:43 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, did it happen after BIP50 fork?
517 2015-12-17T05:50:26 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: presumably
518 2015-12-17T05:50:31 <Luke-Jr> I don't know that anyone tracked it
519 2015-12-17T05:50:40 <midnightmagic> even honest "leech nodes" contribute to the complexity of the edge nodes in the connection graph and make it harder to map/sybil/non-hashrate attack the network's privacy; and depending on the hardfork are also potentially remaining less-validating archival nodes
520 2015-12-17T05:51:10 <midnightmagic> *soft
521 2015-12-17T05:51:10 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-dev
522 2015-12-17T05:52:03 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, and no one complained, either
523 2015-12-17T05:52:43 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: well, it would take a non-updated node getting exploited..
524 2015-12-17T05:52:53 <Luke-Jr> *and* someone who didn't update it noticing
525 2015-12-17T05:54:03 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, so you suggest that some may got exploited in the BIP50 fork, and not even realized that they got exploited
526 2015-12-17T05:54:32 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: whether they did or didn't isn't relevant; the vulnerability is there
527 2015-12-17T05:55:09 <Luke-Jr> why open a vulnerability with a hardfork, if it can be avoided with a softfork?
528 2015-12-17T05:55:56 <midnightmagic> because once a single hardfork is completed, future hardforks presumably would also be easier
529 2015-12-17T05:56:14 *** jrick has quit IRC
530 2015-12-17T05:56:36 <jl2012> midnightmagic: we already had a safe hardfork before
531 2015-12-17T05:57:01 *** jrick has joined #bitcoin-dev
532 2015-12-17T05:57:19 <Luke-Jr> ^
533 2015-12-17T05:58:22 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, I agree with you, but only if SW is scheduled by 1 June
534 2015-12-17T05:59:10 <jl2012> so the softfork will complete before halving
535 2015-12-17T05:59:32 *** patcon has quit IRC
536 2015-12-17T05:59:58 <zookolaptop> Luke-Jr: FWIW, I think hardforks have some advantages over softforks.
537 2015-12-17T06:00:09 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: probably possible; but what's the rush?
538 2015-12-17T06:00:17 <Luke-Jr> zookolaptop: such as?
539 2015-12-17T06:00:46 <zookolaptop> Luke-Jr: the resulting design and implementation is simpler and its rationale clearer, for example with the hardfork SW vs. softfork SW.
540 2015-12-17T06:01:33 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, I have explained in my post: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011975.html
541 2015-12-17T06:02:46 *** circuspeanut has quit IRC
542 2015-12-17T06:03:09 <jl2012> Basically, I agree with jgarzik that this is not yet the suitable time for a radical change in fee
543 2015-12-17T06:04:02 <jl2012> And coupling "full blocks" with "halving" is the worst scenario I could imagine
544 2015-12-17T06:04:24 <Luke-Jr> well, we have no control over fee stuff in this regard period
545 2015-12-17T06:04:27 <zookolaptop> Goodnight, folks.
546 2015-12-17T06:04:34 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
547 2015-12-17T06:04:35 <Luke-Jr> spammers spam. they will always spam.
548 2015-12-17T06:04:57 <Luke-Jr> making the block size limit bigger won't change that
549 2015-12-17T06:05:06 *** digitalmagus has quit IRC
550 2015-12-17T06:05:19 <Luke-Jr> and they could have filled the blocks just as well earlier
551 2015-12-17T06:05:48 *** digitalmagus has joined #bitcoin-dev
552 2015-12-17T06:06:34 <jl2012> Spammers will still spam. But I'm talking about legitimate use
553 2015-12-17T06:07:03 <Luke-Jr> legitimate use isn't even half filling blocks yet
554 2015-12-17T06:07:11 <Luke-Jr> no reason to expect it to before 2017
555 2015-12-17T06:07:22 <Luke-Jr> no reason to expect it to fill 1 MB* before 2017
556 2015-12-17T06:07:27 <jl2012> halving will not lead to more spam, but will lead to more legitimate use
557 2015-12-17T06:08:05 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: that sound awfully speculative; we're going to see triple the legitimate use at the next halving, when it took 6 years to get to ~300k?
558 2015-12-17T06:08:36 *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
559 2015-12-17T06:09:12 *** trixisowned has quit IRC
560 2015-12-17T06:09:39 *** trixisowned has joined #bitcoin-dev
561 2015-12-17T06:09:40 *** benrcole has quit IRC
562 2015-12-17T06:10:27 *** rnvk has quit IRC
563 2015-12-17T06:10:56 *** xss has quit IRC
564 2015-12-17T06:11:16 *** xss has joined #bitcoin-dev
565 2015-12-17T06:11:46 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
566 2015-12-17T06:11:46 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
567 2015-12-17T06:11:57 *** ttttemp_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
568 2015-12-17T06:12:20 *** rnvk has joined #bitcoin-dev
569 2015-12-17T06:12:40 *** nanotube has quit IRC
570 2015-12-17T06:12:41 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
571 2015-12-17T06:12:55 <jgarzik> Luke-Jr, re "no control" - that's not true - you can buy some additional insurance by adding some buffer
572 2015-12-17T06:12:56 <jl2012> this one is better, by removing satoshidice tx
573 2015-12-17T06:13:07 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
574 2015-12-17T06:13:48 *** p15x has quit IRC
575 2015-12-17T06:13:53 <jl2012> it increased by 5x in one year since halving
576 2015-12-17T06:14:06 *** ttttemp has quit IRC
577 2015-12-17T06:15:28 <jl2012> and the volume now is 2.67x of the 2013 bubble, even the price is only at 40%
578 2015-12-17T06:16:27 <jl2012> triple volume around halving is an educated guess
579 2015-12-17T06:17:18 *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-dev
580 2015-12-17T06:18:20 *** sparetire_ has quit IRC
581 2015-12-17T06:18:28 <jl2012> as bitcoin is a young technology, exponential growth is usually a better model
582 2015-12-17T06:20:31 *** _yoy_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
583 2015-12-17T06:20:40 <jl2012> It seems my earlier link was not sent properly: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=
584 2015-12-17T06:21:06 *** nanotube has joined #bitcoin-dev
585 2015-12-17T06:21:10 <Luke-Jr> realistically, most everyone who is willing to adopt Bitcoin with its current state of software is likely to have already done so
586 2015-12-17T06:21:41 <jgarzik> That's self-reducing - I don't agree at all
587 2015-12-17T06:21:55 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, the chart I showed disagree with you
588 2015-12-17T06:22:05 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: as a rule, if it's on blockchain.info, it's bogus
589 2015-12-17T06:22:19 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
590 2015-12-17T06:22:31 <Luke-Jr> jl2012: in particular, 2015 spam hasn't been reusing addresses as much
591 2015-12-17T06:24:33 <jl2012> I agree with the part of less address reuse, but your comment re bc.info is not very constructive on this topic
592 2015-12-17T06:24:49 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
593 2015-12-17T06:25:35 <jl2012> anyway, legitimate tx increased by 5x in one year since last halving. It's more likely to have an increase in 2016 halving
594 2015-12-17T06:26:17 <jl2012> even that's only 2x, we will be very close to the limit
595 2015-12-17T06:26:50 *** tachys has quit IRC
596 2015-12-17T06:26:54 <jl2012> and don't forget mining is a random process, the actual limit is lower than 1MB
597 2015-12-17T06:27:10 <jl2012> and miners mine empty blocks too
598 2015-12-17T06:29:28 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
599 2015-12-17T06:30:18 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
600 2015-12-17T06:34:42 *** tachys has quit IRC
601 2015-12-17T06:34:57 *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-dev
602 2015-12-17T06:37:09 *** xss has quit IRC
603 2015-12-17T06:42:11 *** rnvk1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
604 2015-12-17T06:42:40 *** p15x has quit IRC
605 2015-12-17T06:43:53 *** rnvk has quit IRC
606 2015-12-17T06:44:00 *** pastly has quit IRC
607 2015-12-17T06:45:34 *** pastly has joined #bitcoin-dev
608 2015-12-17T06:50:33 *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-dev
609 2015-12-17T06:51:35 *** [1]AndyOfiesh has joined #bitcoin-dev
610 2015-12-17T06:53:46 *** AndyOfiesh has quit IRC
611 2015-12-17T06:53:46 *** [1]AndyOfiesh is now known as AndyOfiesh
612 2015-12-17T06:57:59 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
613 2015-12-17T07:00:32 <midnightmagic> his comment about bc.i is true; bc.i has proven themselves incompetent in *a multitude* of technical ways in the past. without triangulating evidence, there *is no reason* to believe bc.i is canonically accurate
614 2015-12-17T07:05:19 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
615 2015-12-17T07:05:45 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-dev
616 2015-12-17T07:09:35 *** benrcole has quit IRC
617 2015-12-17T07:10:09 *** neozaru has joined #bitcoin-dev
618 2015-12-17T07:13:57 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
619 2015-12-17T07:14:10 *** triggerwarning has quit IRC
620 2015-12-17T07:16:58 *** Palsson has quit IRC
621 2015-12-17T07:17:43 <jl2012> Let's not be distracted by bc.i
622 2015-12-17T07:18:24 *** tachys has quit IRC
623 2015-12-17T07:18:38 *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
624 2015-12-17T07:22:11 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-dev
625 2015-12-17T07:22:23 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
626 2015-12-17T07:27:56 <Luke-Jr> you're the one throwing that distraction in my face ;)
627 2015-12-17T07:32:17 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
628 2015-12-17T07:37:03 *** tachys has quit IRC
629 2015-12-17T07:44:32 *** grassass has joined #bitcoin-dev
630 2015-12-17T07:52:36 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, midnightmagic: crossed checked with http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ and they match
631 2015-12-17T07:54:06 *** MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-dev
632 2015-12-17T07:55:25 *** p15x has quit IRC
633 2015-12-17T07:56:25 *** Grouver has joined #bitcoin-dev
634 2015-12-17T07:57:25 *** metalcamp has joined #bitcoin-dev
635 2015-12-17T08:06:05 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
636 2015-12-17T08:06:24 *** xegoo has quit IRC
637 2015-12-17T08:08:26 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
638 2015-12-17T08:09:54 *** xegoo has joined #bitcoin-dev
639 2015-12-17T08:11:16 *** benrcole has quit IRC
640 2015-12-17T08:13:35 <jl2012> Luke-Jr, "most everyone who is willing to adopt Bitcoin with its current state of software is likely to have already done so" is just like saying "$100 is insane" in 2012
641 2015-12-17T08:13:57 <Luke-Jr> no
642 2015-12-17T08:14:05 <jl2012> Any data?
643 2015-12-17T08:14:28 <Luke-Jr> bitcoin history since 2012
644 2015-12-17T08:14:43 <jl2012> would you mind elaborate?
645 2015-12-17T08:15:03 <Luke-Jr> busy actually working on things
646 2015-12-17T08:15:12 <jl2012> ok forget it then
647 2015-12-17T08:18:23 *** digitalmagus has quit IRC
648 2015-12-17T08:18:29 <jl2012> Anyway, if SW softfork could be done (including miner upgrade) about 2 months before halving, I prefer it as the solution
649 2015-12-17T08:19:08 *** digitalmagus has joined #bitcoin-dev
650 2015-12-17T08:19:39 <jl2012> the question is how realistic this is and if anyone would make such a promise to the community
651 2015-12-17T08:20:16 *** ribasushi has quit IRC
652 2015-12-17T08:23:48 *** splix has joined #bitcoin-dev
653 2015-12-17T08:25:51 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
654 2015-12-17T08:28:02 *** neozaru has quit IRC
655 2015-12-17T08:28:59 *** ribasushi has joined #bitcoin-dev
656 2015-12-17T08:29:13 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
657 2015-12-17T08:31:26 *** scosant_ has quit IRC
658 2015-12-17T08:33:28 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-dev
659 2015-12-17T08:39:21 *** Quent1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
660 2015-12-17T08:40:26 *** morcos has quit IRC
661 2015-12-17T08:42:24 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-dev
662 2015-12-17T08:43:06 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
663 2015-12-17T08:43:17 *** CubicEar_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
664 2015-12-17T08:43:35 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
665 2015-12-17T08:46:13 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
666 2015-12-17T08:46:14 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
667 2015-12-17T08:47:22 *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
668 2015-12-17T08:48:09 *** Tera2342 has joined #bitcoin-dev
669 2015-12-17T08:49:05 *** 5EXAAIHER has joined #bitcoin-dev
670 2015-12-17T08:50:51 *** metalcamp has quit IRC
671 2015-12-17T08:51:18 <btcdrak> jl2012: gotta lop off those peaks though or apply ema smoothing. It looks a lot more impressive than it really is.
672 2015-12-17T08:52:34 *** metalcamp has joined #bitcoin-dev
673 2015-12-17T08:53:28 *** matsjj has quit IRC
674 2015-12-17T08:53:36 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
675 2015-12-17T08:54:54 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
676 2015-12-17T08:56:14 *** supasonic has quit IRC
677 2015-12-17T08:56:32 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
678 2015-12-17T08:56:58 *** matsjj_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
679 2015-12-17T08:58:35 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
680 2015-12-17T08:58:55 *** catcow has quit IRC
681 2015-12-17T08:59:06 *** matsjj has quit IRC
682 2015-12-17T09:00:04 *** tarantillo_ has quit IRC
683 2015-12-17T09:00:21 *** tarantillo_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
684 2015-12-17T09:01:53 *** matsjj_ has quit IRC
685 2015-12-17T09:01:54 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
686 2015-12-17T09:01:56 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
687 2015-12-17T09:02:20 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
688 2015-12-17T09:03:30 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
689 2015-12-17T09:03:52 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
690 2015-12-17T09:04:37 *** gielbier has quit IRC
691 2015-12-17T09:06:15 *** matsjj_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
692 2015-12-17T09:06:53 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
693 2015-12-17T09:06:54 *** stasku_ has quit IRC
694 2015-12-17T09:08:06 *** morcos has quit IRC
695 2015-12-17T09:09:28 *** catcow has quit IRC
696 2015-12-17T09:09:36 *** matsjj has quit IRC
697 2015-12-17T09:10:03 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-dev
698 2015-12-17T09:10:26 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
699 2015-12-17T09:10:53 *** stasku_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
700 2015-12-17T09:11:15 *** benrcole has quit IRC
701 2015-12-17T09:13:28 *** CubicEar_ has quit IRC
702 2015-12-17T09:14:13 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
703 2015-12-17T09:14:54 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
704 2015-12-17T09:18:26 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
705 2015-12-17T09:18:49 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
706 2015-12-17T09:19:00 *** stasku_ has quit IRC
707 2015-12-17T09:20:17 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-dev
708 2015-12-17T09:23:22 *** won9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
709 2015-12-17T09:29:36 *** kadoban has quit IRC
710 2015-12-17T09:31:56 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
711 2015-12-17T09:37:37 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
712 2015-12-17T09:38:11 *** stasku_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
713 2015-12-17T09:38:20 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
714 2015-12-17T09:42:21 *** matsjj_ has quit IRC
715 2015-12-17T09:42:53 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
716 2015-12-17T09:43:14 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
717 2015-12-17T09:44:00 <jl2012> btcdrak: this is 30-day moving average which should smooth out the outliers: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=30&scale=0&address=
718 2015-12-17T09:44:48 <jl2012> I don't like to quote bc.i too but I can't yet find a similar graph elsewhere
719 2015-12-17T09:45:54 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
720 2015-12-17T09:47:17 *** matsjj has quit IRC
721 2015-12-17T09:48:13 *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-dev
722 2015-12-17T09:48:16 *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-dev
723 2015-12-17T09:52:52 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
724 2015-12-17T09:59:41 *** vmatekole has joined #bitcoin-dev
725 2015-12-17T10:04:05 *** roconnor has quit IRC
726 2015-12-17T10:07:51 *** metalcamp has quit IRC
727 2015-12-17T10:12:51 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
728 2015-12-17T10:21:06 *** KrellanWk has quit IRC
729 2015-12-17T10:21:25 *** KrellanWk has joined #bitcoin-dev
730 2015-12-17T10:23:30 *** pepesza has quit IRC
731 2015-12-17T10:23:51 *** pepesza has joined #bitcoin-dev
732 2015-12-17T10:24:10 *** ChaoticMind has joined #bitcoin-dev
733 2015-12-17T10:27:21 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
734 2015-12-17T10:28:36 *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
735 2015-12-17T10:31:35 *** Tera2342 has quit IRC
736 2015-12-17T10:36:56 *** Yoghur114 has quit IRC
737 2015-12-17T10:39:31 *** Elglobo has quit IRC
738 2015-12-17T10:39:35 *** Elglobonoob has quit IRC
739 2015-12-17T10:39:40 *** Yoghur114 has joined #bitcoin-dev
740 2015-12-17T10:40:30 *** Elglobo has joined #bitcoin-dev
741 2015-12-17T10:52:24 <midnightmagic> jl2012: which event are you defining as a safe hardfork
742 2015-12-17T10:58:43 <jl2012> midnightmagic: the BIP50
743 2015-12-17T11:05:15 <midnightmagic> that wasn't much of a successful, safe hardfork. that was an emergency bugfix to return bitcoin to expected operational status thanks to two badly-handled patches.
744 2015-12-17T11:09:13 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: the May part was a successful hardfork
745 2015-12-17T11:09:18 <Luke-Jr> midnightmagic: removal of the BDB lock limits
746 2015-12-17T11:13:17 <midnightmagic> they were unknown as consensus-critical limits; people expected the software to work as though the limits weren't there. it required no planning, and was a result of a side-effect of a badly-tested patch. if BIP0050 is an example of a hardfork example equivalent to context of actual, planned hardfork activity then bitcoin has experienced multiple implicit hardforks, and multiple explicit hardfor
747 2015-12-17T11:13:24 <midnightmagic> ks, and none of these facts contradict my comment: "some" people think that experiencing a hardfork now will make future hardforks easier both politically and technically.
748 2015-12-17T11:14:55 <midnightmagic> and I would be happy to quote them, but then some douche will just make a reddit post and take my comments out of context again, and the "story" will be used to build a false consciousness echo chamber as an excuse to attack me personally. again.
749 2015-12-17T11:15:12 *** leakypat has joined #bitcoin-dev
750 2015-12-17T11:16:30 *** sinetek_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
751 2015-12-17T11:16:41 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
752 2015-12-17T11:17:17 *** sinetek has quit IRC
753 2015-12-17T11:18:59 *** leakypat has quit IRC
754 2015-12-17T11:20:04 *** hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-dev
755 2015-12-17T11:20:05 *** hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-dev
756 2015-12-17T11:23:46 *** jaclupi has quit IRC
757 2015-12-17T11:27:31 <jl2012> midnightmagic, if an emergency simple hardfork like BIP50 could be successful, a planned simple hardfork like BIP102 supported by supermajority of miners could also be successful
758 2015-12-17T11:29:26 <midnightmagic> That does not follow. There were literally no objections to BIP0050. The objections were of the release engineering that created the problem and complaints about security as people realized they might be able to take advantage of double-spend opportunities.
759 2015-12-17T11:29:26 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
760 2015-12-17T11:29:55 <jl2012> would you please tell me what are those implicit and explicit hardforks? I'm collecting these info for my wiki
761 2015-12-17T11:31:11 *** hdbuck has quit IRC
762 2015-12-17T11:31:21 <jl2012> midnightmagic: so the whole discussion goes back to the threshold of hardfork
763 2015-12-17T11:32:15 <jl2012> 100.000000000%? or 99%? or some other figure?
764 2015-12-17T11:33:14 <midnightmagic> jl2012: people correct me when I mention them as hardforks due to a disagreement about what it means to call something a hardfork.
765 2015-12-17T11:34:05 <midnightmagic> I mean especially if bugfixes count as hardforks, there were many.
766 2015-12-17T11:40:35 *** _yoy_ has quit IRC
767 2015-12-17T11:42:20 *** jaclupi has joined #bitcoin-dev
768 2015-12-17T11:42:51 *** kermit has quit IRC
769 2015-12-17T11:43:16 *** catcow has quit IRC
770 2015-12-17T11:45:25 *** stasku_ has quit IRC
771 2015-12-17T11:46:30 *** metalcamp has joined #bitcoin-dev
772 2015-12-17T11:48:59 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
773 2015-12-17T11:49:24 *** impulse- has quit IRC
774 2015-12-17T11:53:08 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
775 2015-12-17T11:53:16 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
776 2015-12-17T11:55:14 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
777 2015-12-17T11:55:59 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
778 2015-12-17T11:58:04 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
779 2015-12-17T11:59:10 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
780 2015-12-17T12:05:13 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
781 2015-12-17T12:06:35 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
782 2015-12-17T12:09:52 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
783 2015-12-17T12:10:06 *** catcow has quit IRC
784 2015-12-17T12:11:02 *** GAit has quit IRC
785 2015-12-17T12:11:51 *** ProTrader has quit IRC
786 2015-12-17T12:12:11 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
787 2015-12-17T12:12:51 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-dev
788 2015-12-17T12:12:52 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
789 2015-12-17T12:12:52 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-dev
790 2015-12-17T12:13:30 *** won9 has quit IRC
791 2015-12-17T12:15:18 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
792 2015-12-17T12:15:41 *** MoALTz has quit IRC
793 2015-12-17T12:15:54 *** _yoy_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
794 2015-12-17T12:20:24 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
795 2015-12-17T12:21:25 *** cryptapus__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
796 2015-12-17T12:21:26 *** cryptapus__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
797 2015-12-17T12:24:54 *** cryptapus__ is now known as cryptapus_
798 2015-12-17T12:27:34 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
799 2015-12-17T12:29:30 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
800 2015-12-17T12:29:38 *** mehoww has quit IRC
801 2015-12-17T12:29:45 *** mehoww has joined #bitcoin-dev
802 2015-12-17T12:30:08 *** mehoww has joined #bitcoin-dev
803 2015-12-17T12:31:04 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
804 2015-12-17T12:32:42 *** antizionist__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
805 2015-12-17T12:34:32 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
806 2015-12-17T12:37:15 *** one_zero has quit IRC
807 2015-12-17T12:38:44 *** stasku_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
808 2015-12-17T12:40:08 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
809 2015-12-17T12:43:43 *** CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-dev
810 2015-12-17T12:48:21 *** MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-dev
811 2015-12-17T12:48:55 *** nowan has quit IRC
812 2015-12-17T12:58:29 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
813 2015-12-17T13:00:04 *** p15 has quit IRC
814 2015-12-17T13:01:36 *** GAit has quit IRC
815 2015-12-17T13:01:58 *** atgreen_ has quit IRC
816 2015-12-17T13:05:59 *** bung_whole has joined #bitcoin-dev
817 2015-12-17T13:07:03 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
818 2015-12-17T13:08:37 *** jaclupi has quit IRC
819 2015-12-17T13:09:35 *** chjj has quit IRC
820 2015-12-17T13:12:08 *** stasku_ has quit IRC
821 2015-12-17T13:12:29 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
822 2015-12-17T13:12:34 *** odlD2 has quit IRC
823 2015-12-17T13:12:48 *** stasku_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
824 2015-12-17T13:13:57 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
825 2015-12-17T13:14:54 *** nowan has joined #bitcoin-dev
826 2015-12-17T13:15:05 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
827 2015-12-17T13:16:39 *** catcow has quit IRC
828 2015-12-17T13:16:55 *** odlD2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
829 2015-12-17T13:17:03 *** catcow has joined #bitcoin-dev
830 2015-12-17T13:17:51 *** stasku__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
831 2015-12-17T13:19:38 *** catcow_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
832 2015-12-17T13:20:08 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
833 2015-12-17T13:31:47 *** theorbtwo has joined #bitcoin-dev
834 2015-12-17T13:32:57 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
835 2015-12-17T13:35:03 *** benrcole has quit IRC
836 2015-12-17T13:41:56 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
837 2015-12-17T13:42:26 *** tawar has joined #bitcoin-dev
838 2015-12-17T13:47:44 *** brson has joined #bitcoin-dev
839 2015-12-17T13:51:53 <jl2012> midnightmagic: I'm not aware of any other bug fix that would lead to a consensus hardfork
840 2015-12-17T13:54:18 *** GAit has quit IRC
841 2015-12-17T13:54:33 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
842 2015-12-17T13:55:29 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-dev
843 2015-12-17T13:59:55 <instagibbs> average blocksize smoothed over 7 days looks like a bunch of spam spikes. Unsure of how much baseline growth there really is: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=false×pan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=
844 2015-12-17T14:00:25 *** benrcole has quit IRC
845 2015-12-17T14:02:46 *** tantalum has joined #bitcoin-dev
846 2015-12-17T14:03:31 *** jgarzik has quit IRC
847 2015-12-17T14:04:02 *** jaclupi has joined #bitcoin-dev
848 2015-12-17T14:04:37 <aj> instagibbs: base seems to have risen from 0.3 or 0.4 to 0.5 though?
849 2015-12-17T14:05:11 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
850 2015-12-17T14:06:12 *** nelisky has joined #bitcoin-dev
851 2015-12-17T14:06:19 <aj> instagibbs: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address= looks like a massive increase in spam in the past six months though, whatever else is going on...
852 2015-12-17T14:08:51 *** brson has quit IRC
853 2015-12-17T14:08:52 *** atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
854 2015-12-17T14:09:52 *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-dev
855 2015-12-17T14:09:52 *** jgarzik has quit IRC
856 2015-12-17T14:09:52 *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-dev
857 2015-12-17T14:14:36 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-dev
858 2015-12-17T14:18:29 *** Palsson has quit IRC
859 2015-12-17T14:18:31 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
860 2015-12-17T14:18:37 *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-dev
861 2015-12-17T14:22:24 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
862 2015-12-17T14:24:15 *** tawar has quit IRC
863 2015-12-17T14:24:20 *** tawar_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
864 2015-12-17T14:28:28 *** nelisky has quit IRC
865 2015-12-17T14:29:42 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
866 2015-12-17T14:32:15 *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
867 2015-12-17T14:33:59 *** tawar has joined #bitcoin-dev
868 2015-12-17T14:34:39 *** tawar_ has quit IRC
869 2015-12-17T14:46:55 *** tawar has quit IRC
870 2015-12-17T14:49:15 *** CheckDavid has quit IRC
871 2015-12-17T14:50:44 *** iv3c has joined #bitcoin-dev
872 2015-12-17T14:52:59 *** iv3c has quit IRC
873 2015-12-17T14:53:19 *** tawar has joined #bitcoin-dev
874 2015-12-17T14:55:57 *** iv3c has joined #bitcoin-dev
875 2015-12-17T14:56:00 *** iv3c has quit IRC
876 2015-12-17T14:56:32 *** iv3c has joined #bitcoin-dev
877 2015-12-17T14:57:16 *** CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-dev
878 2015-12-17T14:57:19 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
879 2015-12-17T14:59:55 *** stasku__ has quit IRC
880 2015-12-17T14:59:59 *** catcow_ has quit IRC
881 2015-12-17T15:00:15 *** odlD2 has quit IRC
882 2015-12-17T15:07:50 *** roconnor has joined #bitcoin-dev
883 2015-12-17T15:13:02 *** odlD2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
884 2015-12-17T15:18:58 *** benrcole has quit IRC
885 2015-12-17T15:19:16 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
886 2015-12-17T15:28:21 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-dev
887 2015-12-17T15:29:43 *** roconnor has quit IRC
888 2015-12-17T15:30:43 *** TrippySalmon has joined #bitcoin-dev
889 2015-12-17T15:33:05 *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-dev
890 2015-12-17T15:34:30 *** agricocb has quit IRC
891 2015-12-17T15:34:47 *** Cryo has joined #bitcoin-dev
892 2015-12-17T15:34:57 *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
893 2015-12-17T15:39:22 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-dev
894 2015-12-17T15:39:54 *** tawar has quit IRC
895 2015-12-17T15:40:32 *** h3xc0d3r has joined #bitcoin-dev
896 2015-12-17T15:57:59 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
897 2015-12-17T15:58:58 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-dev
898 2015-12-17T15:59:29 *** fewfwe has joined #bitcoin-dev
899 2015-12-17T16:00:34 *** agricocb has quit IRC
900 2015-12-17T16:00:54 *** GAit has quit IRC
901 2015-12-17T16:04:26 *** TrippySalmon has quit IRC
902 2015-12-17T16:11:37 *** benjyz1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
903 2015-12-17T16:11:38 *** IAmNotDorian has quit IRC
904 2015-12-17T16:11:54 <benjyz1> ok. my post to bitcoin-dev got censored
905 2015-12-17T16:12:15 <tripleslash> this is #bitcoin-dev and I see your post.
906 2015-12-17T16:12:24 <benjyz1> apparently this is the correct channel
907 2015-12-17T16:12:38 <benjyz1> to discuss censorship in this supposed open-source project
908 2015-12-17T16:12:50 <aj> benjyz1: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/attachments/20151217/b9957282/attachment.mht presumably?
909 2015-12-17T16:12:56 <jgarzik> benjyz1, Here's the kickoff post for moderation: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html
910 2015-12-17T16:13:25 <jgarzik> benjyz1, in general a lot of noise was turning off contributors, so it was a moderation-or-not-have-useful-people sort of situation
911 2015-12-17T16:13:38 <tripleslash> benjyz1, if you don't believe this project to be opensource, please point me to some closed source that is included in the project.
912 2015-12-17T16:13:53 <tripleslash> I think you need an adjustment to what you define as 'opensource'.
913 2015-12-17T16:13:54 <benjyz1> there is a contributors policy
914 2015-12-17T16:14:18 <benjyz1> I received an email
915 2015-12-17T16:14:19 <benjyz1> "Request to mailing list bitcoin-dev rejected"
916 2015-12-17T16:14:22 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
917 2015-12-17T16:14:23 <aj> benjyz1: (post moderation concerns to -discuss; -dev is for coding)
918 2015-12-17T16:14:33 <benjyz1> I'm not leaving the channel again
919 2015-12-17T16:14:45 <benjyz1> I've been referred to this channel
920 2015-12-17T16:14:46 <wumpus> he's talking about another mailing list not another channel
921 2015-12-17T16:14:47 *** benrcole has quit IRC
922 2015-12-17T16:14:47 <tripleslash> benjyz1, he was referring to the mailing list, not hte hcannels.
923 2015-12-17T16:14:47 <aj> benjyz1: (-discuss the mailing list, not a different irc channel)
924 2015-12-17T16:14:51 <jgarzik> benjyz1, He's referring to the bitcoin-discuss mailing list.
925 2015-12-17T16:14:56 <benjyz1> discuss is empty
926 2015-12-17T16:15:01 <benjyz1> no one is reading it
927 2015-12-17T16:15:05 <aj> benjyz1: (just in case you wanted the answer in triplicate)
928 2015-12-17T16:15:05 <benjyz1> go to /dev/null
929 2015-12-17T16:15:06 <tripleslash> prove it
930 2015-12-17T16:15:27 <tripleslash> aj: triplicate just shows a consensus ;-)
931 2015-12-17T16:15:29 <aj> i read -discuss, though tbf i'm kind of no one...
932 2015-12-17T16:15:40 *** odlD2 has quit IRC
933 2015-12-17T16:15:57 <tripleslash> There's a difference between nobody reading a mailing list and nobody sending to a mailing list.
934 2015-12-17T16:16:03 <tripleslash> Its hard to prove the first.
935 2015-12-17T16:16:29 <benjyz1> whatever. its irrelevant, so this doesn't count
936 2015-12-17T16:16:36 <benjyz1> there is one mailing list
937 2015-12-17T16:16:45 <benjyz1> mentioned in github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
938 2015-12-17T16:17:31 <tripleslash> There are several mailing lists.
939 2015-12-17T16:18:44 <benjyz1> ok, so what is the policy exactly?
940 2015-12-17T16:19:10 <benjyz1> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
941 2015-12-17T16:19:20 <tripleslash> "The developer mailing list should be used to discuss complicated or controversial changes before working on a patch set." There's no claim that anyone/everyone would have access to discuss anything/everything.
942 2015-12-17T16:19:37 <benjyz1> yes
943 2015-12-17T16:19:42 <tripleslash> So what you consider to be topical for the developer mailing list may not necessarily be so.
944 2015-12-17T16:19:52 <benjyz1> yes, that is actually the case
945 2015-12-17T16:19:58 <tripleslash> No, it isn't.
946 2015-12-17T16:20:22 <tripleslash> Show me anywhere where it says you may post anything you want to the mailing list.
947 2015-12-17T16:20:25 <benjyz1> well, surely economics is off-topic e.g.
948 2015-12-17T16:20:31 <benjyz1> because bitcoin has nothing to do with it...
949 2015-12-17T16:20:40 <tripleslash> bitcoin has much to do with economics.
950 2015-12-17T16:20:55 <benjyz1> oh really?
951 2015-12-17T16:21:07 <benjyz1> and how does that affect the moderation policy?
952 2015-12-17T16:21:43 <wumpus> what did you try to post that was rejected and you feel should not have been?
953 2015-12-17T16:21:57 <benjyz1> economics is considered off-topic
954 2015-12-17T16:22:05 <tripleslash> Its a developer list with a high bar right now. For those things not meeting that bar, as defined by the moderator, there is the discuss mailing list.
955 2015-12-17T16:22:07 <benjyz1> PeterR made some posts about fee market
956 2015-12-17T16:22:11 <tripleslash> Its really that simple.
957 2015-12-17T16:22:18 <benjyz1> one of the very things that actually made sense in this area
958 2015-12-17T16:22:18 <wumpus> yes, economics is considered off topic for -dev
959 2015-12-17T16:22:23 <benjyz1> good
960 2015-12-17T16:22:33 <benjyz1> and bitcoin.. is what exactly by your definition?
961 2015-12-17T16:22:39 <instagibbs> benjyz1, open source means you are free to fork, not that you're free to make everyone listen to you. Please keep that in mind and be respectful.
962 2015-12-17T16:23:01 <instagibbs> That said I have no dog in moderation to fight with. :)
963 2015-12-17T16:23:07 <tripleslash> instagibbs: its even simpler than that.. open source means the source is open.
964 2015-12-17T16:23:07 <benjyz1> I got censored - that is the opposite of respec
965 2015-12-17T16:23:22 <jgarzik> tripleslash, yup
966 2015-12-17T16:23:25 <instagibbs> That has nothing to do with this channel
967 2015-12-17T16:23:42 <jgarzik> Some open source is very tightly controlled - one company one copyright, but it's GPL'd and open.
968 2015-12-17T16:24:10 <wumpus> the dev mailing list is meant for serious/novel development proposals (such as BIPs), and factual discussion about them, but it had a lot of ancillary talk, this made the actual developers leave so moderation was necessary
969 2015-12-17T16:24:17 <tripleslash> Expecting anything more from the name 'open source' is just setting yourself up for hurt.
970 2015-12-17T16:24:53 <jl2012> starting from the minutes for the last week's IRC meeting, I'll translate to Chinese and put it on https://8333.info/
971 2015-12-17T16:25:00 <aj> benjyz1: you got moderated, not censored; your mail was still published. it'd have been on-topic for -discuss, imho, if you'd posted it there
972 2015-12-17T16:25:26 <tripleslash> anything moderated off dev goes to discuss anyway, does it now?
973 2015-12-17T16:25:29 <benjyz1> discuss = trash-bin
974 2015-12-17T16:25:32 <tripleslash> not*
975 2015-12-17T16:25:50 <benjyz1> brilliant rhetorical trick
976 2015-12-17T16:26:40 <aj> tripleslash: moderated stuff goes to https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/ which is pretty .. primitive
977 2015-12-17T16:27:01 <tripleslash> thanks aj
978 2015-12-17T16:27:05 *** nelisky has joined #bitcoin-dev
979 2015-12-17T16:27:07 *** koad__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
980 2015-12-17T16:27:55 <benjyz1> ok. and who decided that economics is off-topic for bitcoin development?
981 2015-12-17T16:28:03 <benjyz1> I'd be curious to know the evolution of that idea
982 2015-12-17T16:28:22 *** odlD2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
983 2015-12-17T16:28:33 <aj> benjyz1: moderation is fairly new, and there's been little evolution of it. the place to evolve it is by discussion on -discuss, but no-one's done that yet
984 2015-12-17T16:28:57 <benjyz1> my reading is different
985 2015-12-17T16:30:59 <benjyz1> okay, say I want to discuss mining and incentives
986 2015-12-17T16:31:17 <benjyz1> and have concrete proposals around it
987 2015-12-17T16:31:23 *** fewfwe has quit IRC
988 2015-12-17T16:31:27 <benjyz1> in code.. its still off-topic for bitcoin-dev?
989 2015-12-17T16:32:45 <aj> benjyz1: "say i want to discuss ..." -- then post to -discuss
990 2015-12-17T16:33:01 <aj> benjyz1: concrete proposals with code, -dev
991 2015-12-17T16:33:20 <benjyz1> assumes there is a fine line between the two
992 2015-12-17T16:33:24 <wumpus> if you have concrete proposals and code, espeically if you plan to make a BIP, it's on topic
993 2015-12-17T16:33:26 <benjyz1> turns out.. there isn't
994 2015-12-17T16:34:16 <benjyz1> BIP is not really clear concept. should be protocols, but almost all BIPS are implementation specific
995 2015-12-17T16:34:20 <aj> jl2012: going to post the translations to -discuss/reddit as well? (or just to chinese forums/wechat/whatever?)
996 2015-12-17T16:34:37 <wumpus> but there has been a lot of empty talk about mining and incentives, and things that are completely unrealistic, so it's a difficult area
997 2015-12-17T16:34:52 <jgarzik> The BIPS link to implementations but are not implementation specific.
998 2015-12-17T16:35:33 <wumpus> yes it can be any implementation, as long as people can test / get a feel for it, that generally helps acceptance
999 2015-12-17T16:35:53 *** sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1000 2015-12-17T16:36:43 <jl2012> aj: I don't know if -discuss accepts language other than English (and if anyone is really subscribing it --- I'm not)
1001 2015-12-17T16:36:59 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1002 2015-12-17T16:37:15 <jl2012> same for reddit.
1003 2015-12-17T16:38:49 <jl2012> I've disseminated through the wechat. I expect some Chinese news portal will publish it
1004 2015-12-17T16:39:02 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-dev
1005 2015-12-17T16:39:19 *** tawar has joined #bitcoin-dev
1006 2015-12-17T16:40:02 <benjyz1> interestingly there is no BIP around OP_RETURN
1007 2015-12-17T16:40:41 <jgarzik> benjyz1, That's because support has always been in bitcoin for OP_RETURN
1008 2015-12-17T16:41:06 <benjyz1> why no protocol for it?
1009 2015-12-17T16:41:16 <benjyz1> if BIP's are protocols. that's simply not the case
1010 2015-12-17T16:41:45 <aj> jl2012: could post a link in english, though i'm not sure if that'd actually be useful. translations are cool though, +1 :)
1011 2015-12-17T16:42:12 <benjyz1> so a lot of these policies around delineating development don't make much sense
1012 2015-12-17T16:42:16 <jgarzik> benjyz1, Not sure the question is understood. The bitcoin protocol has always supported OP_RETURN. BIPS started well after bitcoin protocol creation, and only cover recent changes.
1013 2015-12-17T16:42:35 *** bung_whole has quit IRC
1014 2015-12-17T16:42:45 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-dev
1015 2015-12-17T16:42:55 *** moli has quit IRC
1016 2015-12-17T16:43:13 <wumpus> BIPs are required for a) P2P network protocol changes b) consensus changes, for the other changes it's allowed to write an informative BIP but not required
1017 2015-12-17T16:43:58 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1018 2015-12-17T16:44:18 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1019 2015-12-17T16:46:30 <benjyz1> OP_RETURN was introduced without BIP. for external applications its one of the more important changes
1020 2015-12-17T16:47:21 <wumpus> OP_RETURN was never introduced, it has been supported since the beginning
1021 2015-12-17T16:47:44 <wumpus> satoshi never wrote BIPs
1022 2015-12-17T16:48:04 <benjyz1> yes, 0.01 version has OP_RETURN
1023 2015-12-17T16:48:09 <benjyz1> but different semantics
1024 2015-12-17T16:48:30 <jgarzik> benjyz1, no, the semantics have not changed. The evaluation remains the same.
1025 2015-12-17T16:48:41 <benjyz1> OP_RETURN as metadata
1026 2015-12-17T16:48:47 <wumpus> I don't think so? would have been a hard/softfork if so, and I certainly don't remember that
1027 2015-12-17T16:48:58 <wumpus> if anything it's a long time ago
1028 2015-12-17T16:49:00 <jgarzik> benjyz1, That is unchanged. OP_DROP works the same way for per-output.
1029 2015-12-17T16:50:30 <pigeons> nkuttler: nkuttIer 058674cd@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.5.134.116.205 is impersonating you
1030 2015-12-17T16:50:36 <pigeons> oops very sorry wrong window
1031 2015-12-17T16:52:58 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1032 2015-12-17T16:56:50 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1033 2015-12-17T16:58:11 *** Hax0rButter has joined #bitcoin-dev
1034 2015-12-17T17:00:56 <benjyz1> ok, and if Tier Nolan posts
1035 2015-12-17T17:01:02 <benjyz1> Bitcoin is kind of like a republic where there is separation of powers between various groups.
1036 2015-12-17T17:01:02 <benjyz1> The power blocs in the process include
1037 2015-12-17T17:01:02 <benjyz1> - Core Devs
1038 2015-12-17T17:01:04 <benjyz1> - Miners
1039 2015-12-17T17:01:06 <benjyz1> - Exchanges
1040 2015-12-17T17:01:08 <benjyz1> - Merchants
1041 2015-12-17T17:01:10 <benjyz1> - Customers
1042 2015-12-17T17:01:16 <benjyz1> that obviously is on-topic..funny
1043 2015-12-17T17:01:30 *** benjyz1 has left #bitcoin-dev
1044 2015-12-17T17:02:52 *** hazboluah has quit IRC
1045 2015-12-17T17:04:05 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
1046 2015-12-17T17:04:54 *** kermit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1047 2015-12-17T17:05:09 *** 5EXAAIHER has quit IRC
1048 2015-12-17T17:05:27 *** Ahmed90 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1049 2015-12-17T17:06:45 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1050 2015-12-17T17:09:50 *** Quent1 has quit IRC
1051 2015-12-17T17:10:22 *** Quent has joined #bitcoin-dev
1052 2015-12-17T17:12:54 *** porquilho has joined #bitcoin-dev
1053 2015-12-17T17:13:24 *** splix has quit IRC
1054 2015-12-17T17:14:15 *** ggt has joined #bitcoin-dev
1055 2015-12-17T17:15:46 *** Grouver has quit IRC
1056 2015-12-17T17:16:52 *** wraithm has joined #bitcoin-dev
1057 2015-12-17T17:17:26 *** d_t has quit IRC
1058 2015-12-17T17:18:16 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-dev
1059 2015-12-17T17:19:23 *** JeromeLegoupil has joined #bitcoin-dev
1060 2015-12-17T17:22:55 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
1061 2015-12-17T17:24:00 *** supasonic has joined #bitcoin-dev
1062 2015-12-17T17:25:56 *** mstang83 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1063 2015-12-17T17:25:57 *** mstang83 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1064 2015-12-17T17:26:05 *** molz has quit IRC
1065 2015-12-17T17:27:57 *** bendavenport has joined #bitcoin-dev
1066 2015-12-17T17:28:06 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
1067 2015-12-17T17:41:16 *** benrcole has quit IRC
1068 2015-12-17T17:43:38 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-dev
1069 2015-12-17T17:43:39 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
1070 2015-12-17T17:43:39 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-dev
1071 2015-12-17T17:45:07 *** ggt has quit IRC
1072 2015-12-17T17:47:13 *** memymo has joined #bitcoin-dev
1073 2015-12-17T17:47:48 *** K-JEZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1074 2015-12-17T17:50:34 *** circuspeanut has joined #bitcoin-dev
1075 2015-12-17T17:59:23 *** K-JEZ has quit IRC
1076 2015-12-17T18:05:51 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
1077 2015-12-17T18:06:55 *** MaxGuevara has joined #bitcoin-dev
1078 2015-12-17T18:06:59 *** fwfewfew has joined #bitcoin-dev
1079 2015-12-17T18:08:03 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
1080 2015-12-17T18:08:37 *** neozaru has joined #bitcoin-dev
1081 2015-12-17T18:08:37 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
1082 2015-12-17T18:09:37 *** fwfewfew has quit IRC
1083 2015-12-17T18:12:23 *** Elglobonoob has joined #bitcoin-dev
1084 2015-12-17T18:12:49 *** rolandnsharp has quit IRC
1085 2015-12-17T18:13:03 *** rolandnsharp has joined #bitcoin-dev
1086 2015-12-17T18:14:09 *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1087 2015-12-17T18:14:12 *** Elglobo has quit IRC
1088 2015-12-17T18:21:46 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
1089 2015-12-17T18:22:53 *** fgg has joined #bitcoin-dev
1090 2015-12-17T18:23:11 *** t7 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1091 2015-12-17T18:24:45 *** iv3c has quit IRC
1092 2015-12-17T18:28:31 *** blackjid has quit IRC
1093 2015-12-17T18:29:08 *** blackjid has joined #bitcoin-dev
1094 2015-12-17T18:31:40 *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-dev
1095 2015-12-17T18:31:59 *** Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1096 2015-12-17T18:32:08 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
1097 2015-12-17T18:32:25 *** mrkent has quit IRC
1098 2015-12-17T18:32:52 *** tachys has joined #bitcoin-dev
1099 2015-12-17T18:33:05 *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-dev
1100 2015-12-17T18:33:06 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
1101 2015-12-17T18:33:22 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1102 2015-12-17T18:34:30 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
1103 2015-12-17T18:35:10 *** vmatekol_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1104 2015-12-17T18:38:25 *** vmatekole has quit IRC
1105 2015-12-17T18:46:47 *** GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1106 2015-12-17T18:46:48 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
1107 2015-12-17T18:46:48 *** GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
1108 2015-12-17T18:48:01 *** jron has joined #bitcoin-dev
1109 2015-12-17T18:48:42 *** GGuyZ_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1110 2015-12-17T18:48:43 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
1111 2015-12-17T18:48:43 *** GGuyZ_ is now known as GGuyZ
1112 2015-12-17T18:51:49 *** gobiasindustries has joined #bitcoin-dev
1113 2015-12-17T18:52:48 *** fgg has quit IRC
1114 2015-12-17T18:53:13 *** antizionist__ has quit IRC
1115 2015-12-17T18:57:03 *** matsjj_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1116 2015-12-17T18:57:03 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1117 2015-12-17T18:57:53 <kanzure> huh, bitcoin-dev mailing list moderators cannot set modbits on users that have had modbits unset.
1118 2015-12-17T18:57:53 <petertodd> jgarzik: previously OP_RETURN caused the script to succeed, rather than fail
1119 2015-12-17T18:58:45 *** matsjj_ has quit IRC
1120 2015-12-17T18:58:53 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1121 2015-12-17T18:59:08 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-dev
1122 2015-12-17T18:59:13 *** MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-dev
1123 2015-12-17T18:59:32 <sipa> oops, i forgot about the meeting
1124 2015-12-17T18:59:46 <sipa> and my battery will die in a minute
1125 2015-12-17T18:59:52 <petertodd> sipa: I'm at a ski hill right now and I remembered :P
1126 2015-12-17T19:00:05 <petertodd> though I'm two weeks late...
1127 2015-12-17T19:00:19 <sipa> petertodd: time zones are evil
1128 2015-12-17T19:00:32 <sipa> i'm not used to having meetings during daylight
1129 2015-12-17T19:00:36 <petertodd> sipa: ha
1130 2015-12-17T19:00:48 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1131 2015-12-17T19:01:14 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1132 2015-12-17T19:01:23 *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
1133 2015-12-17T19:01:40 *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1134 2015-12-17T19:01:49 <jonasschnelli> meeting?
1135 2015-12-17T19:01:55 <wumpus> #meetingstart
1136 2015-12-17T19:01:58 <wumpus> #startmeeting
1137 2015-12-17T19:01:58 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Dec 17 19:01:58 2015 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
1138 2015-12-17T19:01:58 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
1139 2015-12-17T19:02:13 *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1140 2015-12-17T19:02:13 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1141 2015-12-17T19:02:16 *** raa has joined #bitcoin-dev
1142 2015-12-17T19:02:19 <raa> hey guys
1143 2015-12-17T19:02:31 <raa> alot of people have been complaining about the block size
1144 2015-12-17T19:02:34 <wumpus> anyone have topics to propose?
1145 2015-12-17T19:02:47 <raa> does anyone know why this is such a big deal?
1146 2015-12-17T19:02:48 <jonasschnelli> RBF handling in wallets? Is that a valid topic?
1147 2015-12-17T19:02:52 <raa> like an eli5?
1148 2015-12-17T19:02:53 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: sure
1149 2015-12-17T19:03:06 <jonasschnelli> raa: not here. Please #bitcoin
1150 2015-12-17T19:03:19 <wumpus> #topic RBF handling in wallets
1151 2015-12-17T19:03:24 <raa> jonasschnelli: ah okay, i asked there also. thanks
1152 2015-12-17T19:03:39 <raa> have a nice day everyone
1153 2015-12-17T19:03:42 *** raa has left #bitcoin-dev
1154 2015-12-17T19:03:43 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1155 2015-12-17T19:03:51 <petertodd> wumpus: is the RBFhandling in the v0.12 branch what's going to be released? IE, have we feature frozen?
1156 2015-12-17T19:04:12 <wumpus> yes, we have feature frozen at dec 1
1157 2015-12-17T19:04:20 <petertodd> cool
1158 2015-12-17T19:04:27 *** GAit has quit IRC
1159 2015-12-17T19:04:31 <petertodd> or I should sau, frozen
1160 2015-12-17T19:04:34 <wumpus> but if there is anything simple and pretty important we can make an exception....
1161 2015-12-17T19:04:36 <sdaftuar> i hope 7062 still gets included in 0.12, which fixes prioritisetransaction for RBF and mempool limiting
1162 2015-12-17T19:04:51 <wumpus> just nothing that will add new bugs
1163 2015-12-17T19:04:57 <wumpus> sdaftuar: fixes are always welcome
1164 2015-12-17T19:05:19 <wumpus> it's a feature freeze not a bugfix freeze :-)
1165 2015-12-17T19:05:24 <petertodd> wumpus: lukejr's #7219 almost certainely won't
1166 2015-12-17T19:05:52 <jonasschnelli> How should we allow to RBF a wtx... is best pratice delete/archive the transaction and release the input or something like "altertransaction"?
1167 2015-12-17T19:06:01 *** matsjj_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1168 2015-12-17T19:06:03 <jonasschnelli> *inputs
1169 2015-12-17T19:06:08 * Luke-Jr thinks 7219 should be at least considered for 0.12
1170 2015-12-17T19:06:31 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: seems that this should have similar handling to mutability, in principle
1171 2015-12-17T19:06:32 <wumpus> #action look at #7062 (fixes prioritisetransaction for RBF and mempool limiting) for 0.12
1172 2015-12-17T19:06:55 <wumpus> what is #7219 Luke-Jr?
1173 2015-12-17T19:07:05 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: -replacebyfee option
1174 2015-12-17T19:07:11 <jonasschnelli> 7219 i think has no consensus.
1175 2015-12-17T19:07:43 <wumpus> ah, right, that one
1176 2015-12-17T19:07:54 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: it's a policy option, not a consensus rule; it doesn't need consensus, just users
1177 2015-12-17T19:07:59 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1178 2015-12-17T19:08:08 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: well, devils advocate, I'll still be doing a full-RBF fork with code to make the policy option find similarly policy peers
1179 2015-12-17T19:08:08 <wumpus> I think RBF certainly needs to be supported in the wallet at some point, but it's too late for 0.12 probably
1180 2015-12-17T19:08:41 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: just setting RBF to something locally isn't as useful without like-minded peers
1181 2015-12-17T19:08:53 <jonasschnelli> sure... RBF wallet is something for 0.13. But still,... I'd like to get the grip how this should be handled by wallets.
1182 2015-12-17T19:09:03 <wumpus> sure
1183 2015-12-17T19:09:36 <jonasschnelli> IMO a easy way to alter/increase fees is something that users would like to see.
1184 2015-12-17T19:09:37 <harding> I'm also interested in good ideas for wallet policy for writing documentation about it.
1185 2015-12-17T19:10:05 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: are you thinking just for fee bumping or more than that?
1186 2015-12-17T19:10:16 <jonasschnelli> What if someone alters a wtx, and, in the very same moment, the actual/unaltered one gets mined?
1187 2015-12-17T19:10:35 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: conceptually that seems similar to mutability
1188 2015-12-17T19:10:58 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: as a user, what I care about is who my wallet paid, not how
1189 2015-12-17T19:11:09 <jonasschnelli> petertodd: Somehow people have stuck tx (even in bitcoin-core, but mostly in SPV wallets), how could we indicate a low fee wtx and how would the UI path look like to increase fees.
1190 2015-12-17T19:12:13 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: android wallet does it via a click-to-bump UI (though via CPFP)
1191 2015-12-17T19:12:39 * jonasschnelli needs to look at Schildbachs wallet.
1192 2015-12-17T19:12:57 <Luke-Jr> Schildbachs wallet is nothing to imitate, last I checked.
1193 2015-12-17T19:13:35 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what don't you like about it?
1194 2015-12-17T19:14:45 <Luke-Jr> petertodd: last I checked, it was very buggy; displayed nonsense like "from address", heavily encouraged addr reuse, etc
1195 2015-12-17T19:14:54 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: ah, sure, I agree there
1196 2015-12-17T19:14:57 <jonasschnelli> What if a wtx gets confirmed during the UI process of altering (maybe not just a fee bump, +1in/1ou). What's could be practice in a such case?
1197 2015-12-17T19:14:59 *** airbreather has quit IRC
1198 2015-12-17T19:15:14 <petertodd> Luke-Jr: but just for the UX of bumping a fee, it's a reasonable first attempt, and very simple
1199 2015-12-17T19:15:22 <jonasschnelli> *best practice
1200 2015-12-17T19:15:46 *** airbreather has joined #bitcoin-dev
1201 2015-12-17T19:15:56 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: to support more than fee bumping probably hugely complicates the current wallet
1202 2015-12-17T19:16:15 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: well, do we have the info necessary to determine what the intent of the orig tx was, and if confirmed, simply do nothing?
1203 2015-12-17T19:16:40 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: IE, if orig tx desired payment txout exists, we're done and do nothing
1204 2015-12-17T19:17:14 <jonasschnelli> Hm... do nothing could be a way,.. but might confuse the user. Okay for a fee bump, probably problematic when adding a output/input.
1205 2015-12-17T19:17:44 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: yeah, for adding an output you'd have to handle that by tracking intent - probably a fairly big restructuring of how the wallte works
1206 2015-12-17T19:18:17 <jonasschnelli> The chance is relatively height that during altering the tx gets confirmed (if altering takes 15s, its a 2.5% chance)
1207 2015-12-17T19:18:36 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: indeed
1208 2015-12-17T19:19:03 <Luke-Jr> if you're adding an output B to transaction A, and A gets confirmed without B, you'd want to re-issue B as its own transaction
1209 2015-12-17T19:19:14 <petertodd> yup
1210 2015-12-17T19:19:18 <Luke-Jr> probably without re-prompting for passphrase
1211 2015-12-17T19:19:27 <jonasschnelli> I guess this is a conceptual problem with RBF (you can't say for sure that you can alter a transaction, it could get confirmed during altering).
1212 2015-12-17T19:19:39 <Luke-Jr> so up front, you'd want to prepare a signed tx with A+B, and another signed tx with just B spending from a change output created in A
1213 2015-12-17T19:19:55 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: like I say, we need to track user intent and do what needs to be done by the scenes to insure that the txouts the user wants to exist, exist
1214 2015-12-17T19:20:08 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: that's a very different model than transaction based
1215 2015-12-17T19:20:10 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1216 2015-12-17T19:20:46 *** digitalmagus has quit IRC
1217 2015-12-17T19:20:53 <jonasschnelli> Okay. Fair enought. So a fee bump is the type of RBF action that makes sense for a GUI/users wallet.
1218 2015-12-17T19:20:57 *** digitalmagus has joined #bitcoin-dev
1219 2015-12-17T19:21:22 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: yeah, lets do that first
1220 2015-12-17T19:21:56 <jonasschnelli> I think for 0.13 we like to see a fee bump option and some rawtx commands to alter a wtx.
1221 2015-12-17T19:22:08 <btcdrak> agreed
1222 2015-12-17T19:22:24 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: well, adding outputs also makes sense; it's just very complicated to get there from where we are now
1223 2015-12-17T19:22:40 <jonasschnelli> What about showing incoming RBF opted in txs?
1224 2015-12-17T19:22:42 <Luke-Jr> fee bumping is the easy and more important use
1225 2015-12-17T19:23:01 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: I strongly advise that we don't do that, because that gives users a false sense of confidence
1226 2015-12-17T19:23:07 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: for the average end user, either all or none would be RBF-optin
1227 2015-12-17T19:23:24 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: we don't attempt to warn users about numerous other cases where they're very likely to be double-spent
1228 2015-12-17T19:23:34 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: nor can we
1229 2015-12-17T19:24:22 <jonasschnelli> But, if people start using/opting in RBF, people won't see incoming transactions immediately. Non experience users will think: "something is wrong with my tx".
1230 2015-12-17T19:24:44 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: why wouldn't they see them immediately? rbf txs are propagated normally
1231 2015-12-17T19:25:10 <Luke-Jr> ^
1232 2015-12-17T19:25:21 <jonasschnelli> It would not be visible because we hide RBF (non final) 0confs?
1233 2015-12-17T19:25:33 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: but we don't do that; RBF are final
1234 2015-12-17T19:25:35 <Luke-Jr> that would be a stupid thing to do
1235 2015-12-17T19:25:37 *** benrcole1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1236 2015-12-17T19:25:57 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: I specifically designed the opt-in mechanism to show up on most wallets
1237 2015-12-17T19:25:59 <sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: nSequence is below int_max()-1, but nLocktime will still be met.
1238 2015-12-17T19:26:00 * jonasschnelli is confused.
1239 2015-12-17T19:26:08 <sdaftuar> so it will still be final
1240 2015-12-17T19:26:24 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: having the ability to create opt-in txs easily would help remove some of this confusion I think...
1241 2015-12-17T19:26:54 <jonasschnelli> yeah... need to create some examples and test it in detail...
1242 2015-12-17T19:26:56 <petertodd> so action item, merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7132
1243 2015-12-17T19:27:42 <wumpus> what is #7132?
1244 2015-12-17T19:27:44 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: see https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools/blob/master/sendmany.py
1245 2015-12-17T19:27:54 <petertodd> wumpus: command line flag to opt into rbf on all outgoing txs
1246 2015-12-17T19:28:00 <jonasschnelli> 7132 is very general. Do users want to opt in all wtx or should they decide when they create a new wtx?
1247 2015-12-17T19:28:20 <jonasschnelli> petertodd: thanks. Will check it out.
1248 2015-12-17T19:28:21 <wumpus> #action look at #7132 (command line flag to opt into rbf on all outgoing txs)
1249 2015-12-17T19:28:23 <petertodd> jonasschnelli: I'm sure they'll want to do both, but there is no harm in having a global command line flag
1250 2015-12-17T19:28:33 <sipa> jonasschnelli: rbf 0-conf transactions are just treated as 0-conf
1251 2015-12-17T19:28:34 <jonasschnelli> petertodd: agree
1252 2015-12-17T19:28:52 <sipa> jonasschnelli: bitcoin core always treats incoming 0-conf as unspendable anyway, so it doesn't matter whether they're rbf or not
1253 2015-12-17T19:29:12 <cfields> suggested next topic: c++11 plans for 0.13
1254 2015-12-17T19:29:21 <sipa> ack on topic
1255 2015-12-17T19:29:24 <jonasschnelli> ack
1256 2015-12-17T19:29:36 <wumpus> #topic c++11 plans for 0.13
1257 2015-12-17T19:29:40 <wumpus> (yes please)
1258 2015-12-17T19:29:45 *** benrcole has quit IRC
1259 2015-12-17T19:30:01 <cfields> other than grumbles and api/abi snags, what are the current hold-ups ?
1260 2015-12-17T19:30:01 <sipa> so i've been looking into the alleged ABI/stl problems when linking between c++11 and c++ libs
1261 2015-12-17T19:30:16 <sipa> 1) for releases, we control the entire stack, so not an issue
1262 2015-12-17T19:30:29 <wumpus> indeed, for releases it's not an issue
1263 2015-12-17T19:30:31 <Luke-Jr> for binaries*
1264 2015-12-17T19:30:38 <wumpus> yeah
1265 2015-12-17T19:30:43 <sipa> 2) i expect any of those problems to either cause link problems, or immediate crashes
1266 2015-12-17T19:30:59 <wumpus> from what I've noticed they cause link problems immediately
1267 2015-12-17T19:31:05 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1268 2015-12-17T19:31:06 <sipa> i don't think these are concerns
1269 2015-12-17T19:31:06 <jonasschnelli> I think the advantages of c++11 overweighs the potential risk of leaving "strange" distros in the dark.
1270 2015-12-17T19:31:14 <Luke-Jr> if 2 is correct, that would help significantly
1271 2015-12-17T19:31:32 <sipa> cfields: do you know more about the potential failure scenarios?
1272 2015-12-17T19:31:34 <wumpus> the only risk that would be enough reason to postpone would be if anything used in consensus (that eg uses boost) could become unreliable
1273 2015-12-17T19:31:36 <cfields> sipa: for deps, i would think it would boil down to just boost, in practice?
1274 2015-12-17T19:31:46 <sipa> cfields: Qt?
1275 2015-12-17T19:31:51 <wumpus> eg the unordered_set or multiset
1276 2015-12-17T19:32:02 <wumpus> just boost I think - qt seems wellbehaved in that respect
1277 2015-12-17T19:32:03 <jonasschnelli> Qt works fine with c++11 (just creates a project with Qt and c++11)
1278 2015-12-17T19:32:12 <cfields> sipa: from what i remember, qt isolates itself pretty well
1279 2015-12-17T19:32:13 <sipa> jonasschnelli: not the point
1280 2015-12-17T19:32:24 <wumpus> it turns up with templating etc, qt hardly does that
1281 2015-12-17T19:32:26 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: but the distro is likely compiled in C++98 mode
1282 2015-12-17T19:32:59 <wumpus> and qt isn't consensus critical, boost unfortunately is
1283 2015-12-17T19:33:22 <jonasschnelli> Luke-Jr: yes. This might be a problem. But from what i can tell, c++11 with distro Qt5 worked for me on OSX (brew) Ubuntu 14.04+ and debian7+ (out of the box).
1284 2015-12-17T19:33:24 <cfields> it'd be worth spending some time to try to purposely hit a qt incompatibility
1285 2015-12-17T19:33:27 *** GAit has quit IRC
1286 2015-12-17T19:33:38 <cfields> jonasschnelli: that's libc++ though
1287 2015-12-17T19:33:42 <Luke-Jr> jonasschnelli: C++98 and C++11 mix fine with LLVM, just not GCC
1288 2015-12-17T19:33:52 <sipa> wumpus: after c++11 we can reduce the consensus logic on boost significantly, though :)
1289 2015-12-17T19:33:57 <wumpus> I'm much more worried about boost
1290 2015-12-17T19:33:59 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1291 2015-12-17T19:34:00 <wumpus> sipa: absolutely :)
1292 2015-12-17T19:34:18 <wumpus> yes that's a good point actually
1293 2015-12-17T19:34:19 <cfields> wumpus: for sure. i was just hoping we could narrow it down to _only_ boost, then think in those terms
1294 2015-12-17T19:34:44 <cfields> for ex for boost only, we could probably do some runtime sanity detection
1295 2015-12-17T19:34:50 <cfields> in the case that an incompat build actually linked
1296 2015-12-17T19:34:51 <sipa> from what i read, this always results in link errors
1297 2015-12-17T19:34:56 <wumpus> if we can replace boost usage (at least in consensus before) 0.13 that removes that conern
1298 2015-12-17T19:35:02 <wumpus> sipa: that's also my experience
1299 2015-12-17T19:35:03 <sipa> and only when types are returned across library boundaries
1300 2015-12-17T19:35:13 <cfields> wumpus: +1 to that
1301 2015-12-17T19:35:31 <Luke-Jr> maybe for 0.13, we should at the very least build in C++11 mode by default even if we don't use any of its features? plus one tiny C++11 most-advanced-we-want feature use that can be disabled by configure; and then just watch if anyone complains or gets stuck?
1302 2015-12-17T19:35:42 <wumpus> cfields: the multi indexed set is the only hard thing in that regard IIRC
1303 2015-12-17T19:36:08 <jonasschnelli> atomics!
1304 2015-12-17T19:36:20 <sipa> i would like to preliminarily decide that we'll switch to c++11 for 0.13, and switch the compiler suite in master asap
1305 2015-12-17T19:36:21 <cfields> jonasschnelli: bad starting case :)
1306 2015-12-17T19:36:26 <jonasschnelli> haha
1307 2015-12-17T19:36:28 <sipa> if we encounter no problems with that, we proceed
1308 2015-12-17T19:36:33 <wumpus> me too sipa
1309 2015-12-17T19:36:34 <cfields> jonasschnelli: iirc that's one of the minefields with libstdc++
1310 2015-12-17T19:36:55 <cfields> sipa: sounds fine to me to
1311 2015-12-17T19:37:01 <cfields> wumpus: what are the outstanding build issues?
1312 2015-12-17T19:37:06 <sipa> we wait a few months before actually switching to c++11isms
1313 2015-12-17T19:37:07 <cfields> just depends compat?
1314 2015-12-17T19:37:12 <Luke-Jr> sipa: the risk is that we get entrenched in C++11 irreversibly, and find out when 0.13 is released that a large part of the userbase can't handle it yet
1315 2015-12-17T19:37:14 <sipa> but switch the build env immediately
1316 2015-12-17T19:37:23 <wumpus> cfields: just depends compat, and travis' compiler
1317 2015-12-17T19:37:30 <cfields> ok
1318 2015-12-17T19:37:48 <sipa> how about we only enable c++11 in one of the travis configurations, and for now require compatibility with both c++11 and c++02
1319 2015-12-17T19:37:50 <cfields> there's also the matter of backports, if code starts to diverge too much
1320 2015-12-17T19:37:50 <wumpus> and switching boost in depends to c++11 is pretty easy
1321 2015-12-17T19:37:58 <Luke-Jr> sipa: sgtm
1322 2015-12-17T19:38:07 <sipa> that will teach us about problems
1323 2015-12-17T19:38:09 <wumpus> I've done that. Not tried for qt yet as that didn't seem to be necessary, but probably better to do so just in case
1324 2015-12-17T19:38:34 <cfields> wumpus: may as well for a better representative case.
1325 2015-12-17T19:39:06 <sipa> cfields: what is needed for depends/gitian/travis wrt c++11?
1326 2015-12-17T19:39:28 <wumpus> I think we can start using basic c++11isms immediately, it doesn't matter, release is in half a year no matter what there's enough time
1327 2015-12-17T19:39:42 <cfields> sipa: wumpus has looked into it more recently, but sounds trivial-ish
1328 2015-12-17T19:39:52 <wumpus> as for depends it's easy
1329 2015-12-17T19:39:56 <zookolaptop> FYI, the Zcash team has been building a fork of bitcoind with C++11 for a few months now, and maybe our experiences could be useful.
1330 2015-12-17T19:40:04 <cfields> iirc for travis we can just specify a different compiler version
1331 2015-12-17T19:40:06 <wumpus> I just didn't get it to pass travis
1332 2015-12-17T19:40:08 <sipa> zookolaptop: i read about that; very interesting
1333 2015-12-17T19:40:11 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: "enough time" for what?
1334 2015-12-17T19:40:21 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: to get it working
1335 2015-12-17T19:40:32 <sipa> i don't expect many problems
1336 2015-12-17T19:40:36 <wumpus> if problems turn up we want to see them early as possible in the release cycle
1337 2015-12-17T19:40:49 <sipa> in fact, it may actually improve performance immediately by just switching to it
1338 2015-12-17T19:40:55 *** MoALTz has quit IRC
1339 2015-12-17T19:41:05 <Luke-Jr> that implies it's possible in 6 months time, which sadly doesn't seem conclusive yet
1340 2015-12-17T19:41:09 <sipa> by avoiding some copy constructions where a move is implicitly okay
1341 2015-12-17T19:41:17 <wumpus> what would not be possible in 6 month time?
1342 2015-12-17T19:41:38 <cfields> zookolaptop: any major snags to report?
1343 2015-12-17T19:41:40 <wumpus> I think we can get rid of most of boost in 6 months time
1344 2015-12-17T19:42:07 *** vmatekol_ has quit IRC
1345 2015-12-17T19:42:08 <nwilcox> cfields: We've been unable to link to boost 1.57.0 w/ c++11 mode as described in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7165#issuecomment-165498586
1346 2015-12-17T19:42:09 <cfields> wumpus: what's the plan for container replacement? hand-roll our own?
1347 2015-12-17T19:42:21 *** GAit has quit IRC
1348 2015-12-17T19:42:22 <sipa> container?
1349 2015-12-17T19:42:25 <sipa> you mean gitian?
1350 2015-12-17T19:42:30 <wumpus> cfields: probably, or find some other implementation
1351 2015-12-17T19:42:34 <wumpus> sipa: the multi index monster
1352 2015-12-17T19:42:52 <sipa> it's not used in consensus code afaik
1353 2015-12-17T19:42:54 <wumpus> it's used for the mempool though not consensus
1354 2015-12-17T19:42:56 <wumpus> right
1355 2015-12-17T19:43:03 <sipa> and it's a massive benefit imho
1356 2015-12-17T19:43:05 <wumpus> thought of that one second later
1357 2015-12-17T19:43:13 <sipa> exactly the right tool for the job
1358 2015-12-17T19:43:26 <sipa> writing something hand-rolled is highly nontrivial
1359 2015-12-17T19:43:31 <nwilcox> cfields: See also my notes here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7165#issuecomment-165498136
1360 2015-12-17T19:43:48 <wumpus> there may be some other implementation that is easier to include in the source than boost's though, dunno
1361 2015-12-17T19:43:55 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: getting rid of boost doesn't avoid stdlib issues, does it?
1362 2015-12-17T19:44:20 <cfields> nwilcox: thanks
1363 2015-12-17T19:44:23 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: boost is the worst in that regard, with its heavy use of templating
1364 2015-12-17T19:44:29 <sipa> Luke-Jr: what other libraries-we-use-that-potentially-are-compiled-without-c++11 are you worried about?
1365 2015-12-17T19:44:32 <cfields> wumpus: actually, any chance that's header-only ?
1366 2015-12-17T19:44:33 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: as said I haven't seen issues with qt nor berkeleydb
1367 2015-12-17T19:44:42 <wumpus> cfields: it probably is
1368 2015-12-17T19:44:46 *** pfalleno1 has quit IRC
1369 2015-12-17T19:45:03 <cfields> wumpus: in that case, other than the large dep, it would be c++11 safe
1370 2015-12-17T19:45:24 <wumpus> cfields: indeed
1371 2015-12-17T19:45:33 <cfields> er retrying that: it would be c++11 safe, only issue with it is that it's a large dep
1372 2015-12-17T19:45:45 <Luke-Jr> sipa: if Qt pulls in the old stdlib to the linker, how does that interact with using the new stdlib?
1373 2015-12-17T19:45:49 <jonasschnelli> "get rid of boost": i guess there is no c++11 alternative for boost::filesystem?
1374 2015-12-17T19:45:53 <nwilcox> BTW- enabling c++11 mode "but not using its features" is not always possible w/out code changes.
1375 2015-12-17T19:46:01 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: yeah boost::filesystem is another annoying one
1376 2015-12-17T19:46:07 <sipa> Luke-Jr: the problem only occurs when you're passing stl structures as arguments across lib boundaries afaik
1377 2015-12-17T19:46:09 *** pfallenop has joined #bitcoin-dev
1378 2015-12-17T19:46:29 <nwilcox> eg: throwing exceptions in dtors switches from possible to abort() unless you modify the dtor to add attributes.
1379 2015-12-17T19:47:06 <nwilcox> wumpus: boost::filesystem "appears to work" or at least link (and make check) passes with boost 1.59.0 atop v0.11.2.
1380 2015-12-17T19:47:23 <wumpus> nwilcox: cool
1381 2015-12-17T19:47:50 <cfields> another kinda invasive change would need to be made to drop the boost::interruption stuff too
1382 2015-12-17T19:48:05 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1383 2015-12-17T19:48:08 <wumpus> that's easy to emulate
1384 2015-12-17T19:48:17 <wumpus> the only thing that the interruption stuff does is throw an exception
1385 2015-12-17T19:48:35 <nwilcox> I noiced on ticket #7165 requirements for ensuring C++11 support works on a list of distributions. Are there automated build/make check CI for all of those distros/configs?
1386 2015-12-17T19:48:51 <nwilcox> s/noiced/noticed/
1387 2015-12-17T19:48:53 <Luke-Jr> is there a way to easily test building with C++11 today? --enable-c++11 or something?
1388 2015-12-17T19:49:03 <Luke-Jr> is just throwing -std=c++11 in CXXFLAGS good enough?
1389 2015-12-17T19:49:13 <wumpus> nwilcox: there's no problem as long as your gcc compiler is >=4.8
1390 2015-12-17T19:49:19 <Luke-Jr> nwilcox: there's no realistic way to automate that in Travis :<
1391 2015-12-17T19:49:51 <wumpus> "c++11 support" really isn't anything magical or new anymore at this point
1392 2015-12-17T19:50:02 <nwilcox> Luke-Jr: Hm... we have a fledgling builtbot set up, and it would be worth it to us to have build/test coverage for many different configurations... (but probably not <6 mo time frame).
1393 2015-12-17T19:50:03 <zookolaptop> Luke-Jr: that's one of the main reasons that Zcash switched from Travis to Buildbot.
1394 2015-12-17T19:50:03 <wumpus> many software uses it
1395 2015-12-17T19:50:04 <cfields> we can always add checks to configure as well
1396 2015-12-17T19:50:07 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: I'm not sure 4.8 is sufficient? https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Cxx11AbiCompatibility
1397 2015-12-17T19:50:33 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: well my 4.8 support c++11, depends on what features you use obviously
1398 2015-12-17T19:50:52 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: "maps, sets, and trees" apparently has ABI issues until 4.8.2
1399 2015-12-17T19:50:53 <sipa> afaik no compiler on earth implements all of c++11 :)
1400 2015-12-17T19:50:55 <nwilcox> -so if we start adding build configurations for those platforms, we might be able to setup bitcoin-core build/tests for them.
1401 2015-12-17T19:51:35 <wumpus> I don't think we should add more travis configurations
1402 2015-12-17T19:51:55 <wumpus> the pull tester is already sloow
1403 2015-12-17T19:52:04 <sipa> can we give it more juice?
1404 2015-12-17T19:52:13 <sipa> in the form of money
1405 2015-12-17T19:52:21 <jonasschnelli> add a 2nd free travis alternative to build more confs parallel?
1406 2015-12-17T19:52:24 <cfields> Luke-Jr: those are libstdc++ compatibility issues. eg. linking with a newer version than what's found at runtime
1407 2015-12-17T19:52:38 <zookolaptop> wumpus: I think nwilcox is offering that the Zcash company will set up automated testing for you.
1408 2015-12-17T19:52:39 <wumpus> it used to be bitcoin foundation paying for that but... eh nm
1409 2015-12-17T19:52:47 <jonasschnelli> ;)
1410 2015-12-17T19:52:49 <wumpus> zookolaptop: oh that'd be cool
1411 2015-12-17T19:52:49 <cfields> i pinged them a while back but never heard back. i'll try again.
1412 2015-12-17T19:52:57 <nwilcox> jonasschnelli: That's what I was proposing is *possible* with buildbot. I can't commit to effort at the moment, but we have overlapping needs and could reuse infrastructure.
1413 2015-12-17T19:53:21 <zookolaptop> I concur that bitcoin core and zcash both want automated testing of this stuff on many platforms.
1414 2015-12-17T19:53:24 <wumpus> zookolaptop: I thought he meant adding all those to travis, sure another parallel solution would be great @nwilcox
1415 2015-12-17T19:53:28 <nwilcox> zookolaptop: I'm not offering that yet. Can't commit to it, but it's on my wishlist.
1416 2015-12-17T19:54:21 <cfields> we can also reach out to distros for help. nightly ppa's, ~git versions, etc
1417 2015-12-17T19:54:35 *** gzb has quit IRC
1418 2015-12-17T19:54:41 <nwilcox> cfields: +1
1419 2015-12-17T19:54:52 <nwilcox> So do gitian builds use ./depends? What uses ./depends?
1420 2015-12-17T19:55:01 <cfields> wumpus: so summing up, you're ready to flip the switch on the requirement as soon as travis is building/passing?
1421 2015-12-17T19:55:07 <sipa> nwilcox: travis and gitian use depends
1422 2015-12-17T19:55:08 <cfields> wumpus: or start with one config and don't require it?
1423 2015-12-17T19:55:09 <nwilcox> We've been using it exclusively because we like having more control over transitive dependencies.
1424 2015-12-17T19:55:14 <wumpus> I use depends for cross-compiling to ARM
1425 2015-12-17T19:55:20 <jonasschnelli> cfields: would switching over to travises non-sudo environment speed up building?
1426 2015-12-17T19:55:34 *** gzb has joined #bitcoin-dev
1427 2015-12-17T19:55:38 <wumpus> cfields: yep
1428 2015-12-17T19:55:51 <cfields> wumpus: which? :)
1429 2015-12-17T19:56:01 <jonasschnelli> And we should also include codeship.com to build more confs in less time (in parallel with travis)
1430 2015-12-17T19:56:23 <wumpus> cfields: the first one, switch builds to std=c++11 as soon as travis can do it
1431 2015-12-17T19:56:24 <cfields> jonasschnelli: yes, but we can't atm due to caching requirements
1432 2015-12-17T19:56:44 <sipa> #action switch some builds to c++11?
1433 2015-12-17T19:56:50 <wumpus> I think it's clear that everyone wants c++11, we should just push ahead with it
1434 2015-12-17T19:57:07 <cfields> jonasschnelli: though it's worth re-evaluating the status there. I hacked on that a while back, but shelved it to work on some other stuff
1435 2015-12-17T19:57:13 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-dev
1436 2015-12-17T19:57:14 <jgarzik> +1
1437 2015-12-17T19:57:22 <nwilcox> Does this require upgrading boost requirements? (That was our solution to two issues.)
1438 2015-12-17T19:57:23 <wumpus> and if zookolaptopand nwilcoxcan help with testing that'd be doubly cool
1439 2015-12-17T19:57:27 <petertodd> I'm off, going skiing
1440 2015-12-17T19:57:33 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1441 2015-12-17T19:57:37 <cfields> wumpus: roger. I'll start working on the PRs
1442 2015-12-17T19:57:38 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1443 2015-12-17T19:57:44 <sipa> petertodd: i hope you're on a slippery slope there
1444 2015-12-17T19:57:48 <jonasschnelli> ;)
1445 2015-12-17T19:57:49 <nwilcox> wumpus: I can help by testing builds and reviewing changes to the build system.
1446 2015-12-17T19:57:51 <cfields> nwilcox: boost should already be sufficiently bumped
1447 2015-12-17T19:58:17 <nwilcox> Actually doing the latter will probably help me a lot, since I'm new to autoconf/automake and feel like I'm hacking through a jungle.
1448 2015-12-17T19:58:18 <wumpus> I think our boost is very recent?
1449 2015-12-17T19:58:29 <nwilcox> cfields: Ah... I haven't looked at master.
1450 2015-12-17T19:58:38 *** triggerwarning has joined #bitcoin-dev
1451 2015-12-17T19:58:41 * nwilcox examines a diff between v0.11.2 and master.
1452 2015-12-17T19:58:47 <Luke-Jr> we need to support building with stable distro boosts, not just the one in dependsâ¦
1453 2015-12-17T19:59:09 *** dave4925 has quit IRC
1454 2015-12-17T19:59:10 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: if we can reduce boost usage to just header-only, that's solved
1455 2015-12-17T19:59:18 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: not really.
1456 2015-12-17T19:59:25 <cfields> Luke-Jr: hmm?
1457 2015-12-17T20:00:00 *** develCuy has quit IRC
1458 2015-12-17T20:00:01 <sipa> #DING DONG
1459 2015-12-17T20:00:15 <cfields> heh
1460 2015-12-17T20:00:21 <jonasschnelli> hah
1461 2015-12-17T20:00:36 <wumpus> nwilcox: cfields: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6980 "[Depends] Bump Boost, miniupnpc, ccache & zeromq #6980"
1462 2015-12-17T20:00:39 <wumpus> oh
1463 2015-12-17T20:00:41 <wumpus> #endmeeting
1464 2015-12-17T20:00:41 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Dec 17 20:00:41 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
1465 2015-12-17T20:00:41 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-12-17-19.01.html
1466 2015-12-17T20:00:41 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-12-17-19.01.txt
1467 2015-12-17T20:00:41 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-12-17-19.01.log.html
1468 2015-12-17T20:00:58 * nwilcox didn't realize it was the weekly meeting.
1469 2015-12-17T20:01:13 <nwilcox> wumpus: thanks!
1470 2015-12-17T20:01:14 <cfields> sipa: btw, some miracle? isn't your laptop battery oil burning longer than expected?
1471 2015-12-17T20:01:32 <sipa> cfields: no, arrived at the office, and found a power plug
1472 2015-12-17T20:01:58 <cfields> sipa: ah, the other equally likely possibility.
1473 2015-12-17T20:02:03 <jonasschnelli> hahaha
1474 2015-12-17T20:02:27 <zookolaptop> Wasn't clear to me: was this push to start building with c++11 for 0.12?
1475 2015-12-17T20:02:35 <sipa> zookolaptop: no, 0.13
1476 2015-12-17T20:02:39 <zookolaptop> Thanks.
1477 2015-12-17T20:02:43 <sipa> not going to make such a drastic change in 0.12 anymore
1478 2015-12-17T20:03:04 <jgarzik> 0.12 is frozen
1479 2015-12-17T20:03:11 <zookolaptop> Good.
1480 2015-12-17T20:03:29 <zookolaptop> FYI, zcash has no choice but to use c++11 for at least some of our libs,
1481 2015-12-17T20:03:42 <zookolaptop> and our current approach is to compile the bitcoind-fork code with c++11 as well,
1482 2015-12-17T20:03:51 <zookolaptop> and we hope to rebase on top of bitcoind 0.12 soon,
1483 2015-12-17T20:04:20 <zookolaptop> so all of that means we should have some data for you about how well compiling 0.12 with c++11 works, when this 0.13-era push to adopt c++11 happens.
1484 2015-12-17T20:05:02 *** vmatekole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1485 2015-12-17T20:05:36 <wumpus> compiling 0.12 with c++11 works fine, the only wonder is dependencies
1486 2015-12-17T20:05:57 <wumpus> if your boost is compiled with c++11 - no problem
1487 2015-12-17T20:06:01 *** develCuy has joined #bitcoin-dev
1488 2015-12-17T20:06:17 <zookolaptop> nwilcox: is what wumpus just said consistent with your experience?
1489 2015-12-17T20:06:57 <wumpus> there have been some changes pre-0.12 to make it build with -std=c++11
1490 2015-12-17T20:07:00 <nwilcox> I don't have experience with 0.12 yet.
1491 2015-12-17T20:07:06 <nwilcox> So yes, it is consistent. ;-)
1492 2015-12-17T20:07:18 <zookolaptop> :-)
1493 2015-12-17T20:07:35 <zookolaptop> wumpus: glad to hear it! That removes one concern I have about zcash rebasing onto 0.12.
1494 2015-12-17T20:08:13 <Luke-Jr> indeed, just tried to build Core master with -std=c++11 and it fails :<
1495 2015-12-17T20:08:23 <zookolaptop> *sigh*
1496 2015-12-17T20:08:34 <cfields> Luke-Jr: fails how?
1497 2015-12-17T20:08:36 <wumpus> Luke-Jr: build or link?
1498 2015-12-17T20:08:42 <Luke-Jr> /usr/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp:492: undefined reference to `boost::filesystem::detail::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::copy_option, boost::system::error_code*)'
1499 2015-12-17T20:08:48 <zookolaptop> Which IRC channel is for discussing rewriting all the things in Rust? :-(
1500 2015-12-17T20:09:09 <wumpus> yes, the boost filesystem issue is known, you can get around it by upgrading boost
1501 2015-12-17T20:09:32 <wumpus> I think I actaully mention it in my pull
1502 2015-12-17T20:09:39 <Luke-Jr> IMO that is a blocker, since users should not need to hand-manage their libs
1503 2015-12-17T20:09:43 <wumpus> but it's not a bitcoin core incompatibility
1504 2015-12-17T20:09:48 <wumpus> just a dependency, as I said above
1505 2015-12-17T20:09:51 <Luke-Jr> â¦
1506 2015-12-17T20:10:07 <wumpus> it's probably realistic to remove boost filesystem usage for 0.13
1507 2015-12-17T20:10:17 <Luke-Jr> ok
1508 2015-12-17T20:10:32 <cfields> wumpus: really? again, roll our own?
1509 2015-12-17T20:10:47 <cfields> (i'm not against, just surprised that you'd be supportive of that :)
1510 2015-12-17T20:10:50 <Luke-Jr> IMO step 1: successful build on all mainstream distros (without depends/) with -std=c++11 :P
1511 2015-12-17T20:10:57 <jonasschnelli> What do we really use from boost filesystem? Recursive mkdir?
1512 2015-12-17T20:11:04 <wumpus> cfields: I don't thinkk it is a big deal, we don't use much from it
1513 2015-12-17T20:11:27 <wumpus> cfields: and it'd be nice to get rid of the locale voodoo
1514 2015-12-17T20:11:56 <cfields> indeed. I'd support the drop for sure.
1515 2015-12-17T20:12:09 *** c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
1516 2015-12-17T20:12:28 <jonasschnelli> leveldb also uses boost::filesystem... is guess we need to get rid of that as well?
1517 2015-12-17T20:12:34 <cfields> we can always revert to abstracted behavior when we bump to require c++17 :p
1518 2015-12-17T20:12:39 <jonasschnelli> no.. wait. wrong.
1519 2015-12-17T20:12:42 <cfields> jonasschnelli: eh?
1520 2015-12-17T20:12:42 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: NOOO
1521 2015-12-17T20:13:01 <jonasschnelli> *shocker* ,.. sorry
1522 2015-12-17T20:13:06 <wumpus> hehe you got me
1523 2015-12-17T20:13:14 *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1524 2015-12-17T20:14:03 <jgarzik> removing boost::filesystem is straightforward. the main loss is the code will look less pretty :) You lose the "string" / "string" composition of paths.
1525 2015-12-17T20:14:11 <wumpus> why? just roll your own
1526 2015-12-17T20:14:35 *** mrkent has quit IRC
1527 2015-12-17T20:14:36 <jonasschnelli> "string" + "/" + "string" looks okay?
1528 2015-12-17T20:14:40 <wumpus> that's easy to implement :) concatenate-with-OS-dependent-path-char
1529 2015-12-17T20:14:47 <wumpus> for windows you want "\\"
1530 2015-12-17T20:15:01 <cfields> operator/(string rhs) { return path + rhs; }
1531 2015-12-17T20:15:01 <cfields> :)
1532 2015-12-17T20:15:03 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: IIRC, mingw/windows can handle "/" just fine?
1533 2015-12-17T20:15:07 <wumpus> cfields: yeah that
1534 2015-12-17T20:15:31 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: from what I heard I don't think that's true in all cases, and people expect \ in GUIs etc
1535 2015-12-17T20:15:54 * jonasschnelli curses windows!
1536 2015-12-17T20:15:57 <wumpus> anyhow it's not a big deal
1537 2015-12-17T20:16:01 <jonasschnelli> indeed-
1538 2015-12-17T20:16:20 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I think the problem is if you *mix* / and \ in a path
1539 2015-12-17T20:16:53 <jonasschnelli> replace(<string>, "/", "\")
1540 2015-12-17T20:16:59 <jonasschnelli> *duck*
1541 2015-12-17T20:17:06 <wumpus> hah
1542 2015-12-17T20:17:32 <jonasschnelli> need to leave... nite everyone.
1543 2015-12-17T20:17:39 <zookolaptop> Me too. Bye y'all!
1544 2015-12-17T20:17:51 <wumpus> night
1545 2015-12-17T20:18:49 *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
1546 2015-12-17T20:19:27 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1547 2015-12-17T20:19:27 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1548 2015-12-17T20:23:15 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1549 2015-12-17T20:24:17 *** zookolaptop has quit IRC
1550 2015-12-17T20:29:32 *** MaxGuevara has left #bitcoin-dev
1551 2015-12-17T20:30:12 *** MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-dev
1552 2015-12-17T20:32:45 *** henrikthomasson has joined #bitcoin-dev
1553 2015-12-17T20:34:37 *** benrcole1 has quit IRC
1554 2015-12-17T20:34:55 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1555 2015-12-17T20:35:03 *** vmatekole has quit IRC
1556 2015-12-17T20:35:09 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1557 2015-12-17T20:35:34 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1558 2015-12-17T20:36:18 *** eki5bvu7njh has quit IRC
1559 2015-12-17T20:38:16 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1560 2015-12-17T20:39:13 *** JeromeLegoupil has quit IRC
1561 2015-12-17T20:40:51 *** JeromeLegoupil has joined #bitcoin-dev
1562 2015-12-17T20:40:58 *** eki5bvu7njh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1563 2015-12-17T20:43:27 *** henrikthomasson has quit IRC
1564 2015-12-17T20:44:23 *** triggerwarning has quit IRC
1565 2015-12-17T20:44:23 *** triggerwarning has joined #bitcoin-dev
1566 2015-12-17T20:44:47 *** triggerwarning has joined #bitcoin-dev
1567 2015-12-17T20:51:02 *** kgk has quit IRC
1568 2015-12-17T20:54:55 *** kgk has joined #bitcoin-dev
1569 2015-12-17T20:56:25 *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-dev
1570 2015-12-17T20:56:43 *** Ahmed90 has quit IRC
1571 2015-12-17T20:59:15 *** Cory has quit IRC
1572 2015-12-17T21:00:22 *** gobiasindustries has quit IRC
1573 2015-12-17T21:01:52 *** GAit has quit IRC
1574 2015-12-17T21:04:27 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-dev
1575 2015-12-17T21:04:52 *** xss has joined #bitcoin-dev
1576 2015-12-17T21:05:30 *** Hans-Martin has joined #bitcoin-dev
1577 2015-12-17T21:10:14 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1578 2015-12-17T21:10:26 *** benrcole has quit IRC
1579 2015-12-17T21:12:17 *** justice_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1580 2015-12-17T21:16:36 *** achow101 has quit IRC
1581 2015-12-17T21:18:09 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1582 2015-12-17T21:20:54 *** benrcole has quit IRC
1583 2015-12-17T21:21:13 *** benrcole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1584 2015-12-17T21:24:52 *** afk11 has quit IRC
1585 2015-12-17T21:25:03 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1586 2015-12-17T21:26:07 *** phish has joined #bitcoin-dev
1587 2015-12-17T21:27:57 *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
1588 2015-12-17T21:28:18 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1589 2015-12-17T21:28:19 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1590 2015-12-17T21:31:42 *** JeromeLegoupil has quit IRC
1591 2015-12-17T21:38:38 *** Xaero91 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1592 2015-12-17T21:38:39 *** Xaero91 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1593 2015-12-17T21:42:29 *** bung_whole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1594 2015-12-17T21:42:42 *** gggt_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1595 2015-12-17T21:42:49 *** bung_whole has left #bitcoin-dev
1596 2015-12-17T21:42:53 *** afk11 has quit IRC
1597 2015-12-17T21:43:06 *** bung_whole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1598 2015-12-17T21:47:12 *** benrcole has quit IRC
1599 2015-12-17T21:48:12 *** moa has joined #bitcoin-dev
1600 2015-12-17T21:49:15 *** CheckDavid has quit IRC
1601 2015-12-17T21:57:19 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
1602 2015-12-17T21:57:40 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
1603 2015-12-17T21:58:00 *** Hans-Martin has quit IRC
1604 2015-12-17T21:58:39 *** airbreather has quit IRC
1605 2015-12-17T22:00:51 *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-dev
1606 2015-12-17T22:02:06 *** triggerwarning has left #bitcoin-dev
1607 2015-12-17T22:02:11 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1608 2015-12-17T22:06:25 *** bung_whole has left #bitcoin-dev
1609 2015-12-17T22:07:27 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o midnightmagic
1610 2015-12-17T22:07:53 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1611 2015-12-17T22:07:59 *** ProTrader was kicked by midnightmagic (ProTrader)
1612 2015-12-17T22:08:41 *** risho has joined #bitcoin-dev
1613 2015-12-17T22:10:26 *** mountaingoat has quit IRC
1614 2015-12-17T22:15:11 *** brson has joined #bitcoin-dev
1615 2015-12-17T22:17:53 *** neozaru has quit IRC
1616 2015-12-17T22:18:20 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
1617 2015-12-17T22:18:24 *** memymo has quit IRC
1618 2015-12-17T22:20:32 *** atgreen_ has quit IRC
1619 2015-12-17T22:22:15 *** ChaoticMind has quit IRC
1620 2015-12-17T22:23:59 *** airbreather has joined #bitcoin-dev
1621 2015-12-17T22:24:25 *** gggt_ has quit IRC
1622 2015-12-17T22:26:42 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1623 2015-12-17T22:28:10 *** h3xc0d3r has quit IRC
1624 2015-12-17T22:31:16 *** MrHodl has quit IRC
1625 2015-12-17T22:31:26 *** GGuyZ has quit IRC
1626 2015-12-17T22:33:10 *** GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1627 2015-12-17T22:34:47 *** t7 has quit IRC
1628 2015-12-17T22:37:21 *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-dev
1629 2015-12-17T22:39:17 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
1630 2015-12-17T22:39:53 *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-dev
1631 2015-12-17T22:41:26 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
1632 2015-12-17T22:43:11 *** orbiting has joined #bitcoin-dev
1633 2015-12-17T22:43:31 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
1634 2015-12-17T22:45:23 *** won9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1635 2015-12-17T22:52:57 *** Dizzle_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1636 2015-12-17T22:54:15 *** CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-dev
1637 2015-12-17T22:56:14 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
1638 2015-12-17T22:58:12 *** Yoghur114_2 has quit IRC
1639 2015-12-17T22:59:18 *** orbiting has quit IRC
1640 2015-12-17T22:59:33 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
1641 2015-12-17T23:00:08 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-dev
1642 2015-12-17T23:02:46 *** circuspeanut has quit IRC
1643 2015-12-17T23:06:06 *** eamonnw has joined #bitcoin-dev
1644 2015-12-17T23:14:02 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1645 2015-12-17T23:15:03 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
1646 2015-12-17T23:18:25 *** h3xc0d3r has joined #bitcoin-dev
1647 2015-12-17T23:20:19 *** tawar has quit IRC
1648 2015-12-17T23:21:43 *** BlueMatt has left #bitcoin-dev
1649 2015-12-17T23:31:20 *** xss has quit IRC
1650 2015-12-17T23:31:40 *** xss has joined #bitcoin-dev
1651 2015-12-17T23:32:04 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-dev
1652 2015-12-17T23:32:08 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1653 2015-12-17T23:32:37 *** vmatekole has joined #bitcoin-dev
1654 2015-12-17T23:32:50 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1655 2015-12-17T23:33:00 *** marson has joined #bitcoin-dev
1656 2015-12-17T23:36:49 *** c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
1657 2015-12-17T23:41:10 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
1658 2015-12-17T23:41:46 *** jtoomim has joined #bitcoin-dev
1659 2015-12-17T23:44:12 *** eki5bvu7njh has quit IRC
1660 2015-12-17T23:45:01 *** marson has left #bitcoin-dev
1661 2015-12-17T23:45:06 *** eki5bvu7njh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1662 2015-12-17T23:46:42 *** jtoomim has quit IRC
1663 2015-12-17T23:49:05 *** memymo has joined #bitcoin-dev
1664 2015-12-17T23:49:23 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
1665 2015-12-17T23:52:30 *** afk11 has quit IRC
1666 2015-12-17T23:52:42 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1667 2015-12-17T23:53:40 *** ProTrader was kicked by midnightmagic (ProTrader)
1668 2015-12-17T23:55:39 *** ProTrader has joined #bitcoin-dev
1669 2015-12-17T23:56:21 *** midnightmagic sets mode: +b $j:#bitcoin-global-bans
1670 2015-12-17T23:56:24 *** ProTrader was kicked by midnightmagic (ProTrader)
1671 2015-12-17T23:57:32 *** eki5bvu7njh was kicked by midnightmagic (eki5bvu7njh)
1672 2015-12-17T23:57:53 *** shaileshg has joined #bitcoin-dev
1673 2015-12-17T23:58:21 *** TheAdversary has quit IRC
1674 2015-12-17T23:58:31 *** midnightmagic sets mode: -b $j:#bitcoin-global-bans
1675 2015-12-17T23:58:39 *** midnightmagic sets mode: +b $j:#bitcoin-global-bans$#bitcoin-bans
1676 2015-12-17T23:58:54 *** TheAdversary has joined #bitcoin-dev