1 2017-06-28T00:02:20  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-dev
  2 2017-06-28T00:06:48  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-dev
  3 2017-06-28T00:12:26  *** PRab has quit IRC
  4 2017-06-28T00:13:27  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
  5 2017-06-28T00:21:17  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
  6 2017-06-28T00:37:43  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
  7 2017-06-28T00:40:21  *** Murch has quit IRC
  8 2017-06-28T00:43:53  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
  9 2017-06-28T00:49:32  *** POJO has quit IRC
 10 2017-06-28T01:04:56  *** Nebrod has joined #bitcoin-dev
 11 2017-06-28T01:09:23  *** cyphase has quit IRC
 12 2017-06-28T01:13:07  *** cyphase has joined #bitcoin-dev
 13 2017-06-28T01:17:27  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-dev
 14 2017-06-28T01:19:57  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 15 2017-06-28T01:23:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 16 2017-06-28T01:32:19  *** blackwraith has quit IRC
 17 2017-06-28T01:34:41  *** ogres has joined #bitcoin-dev
 18 2017-06-28T01:38:46  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 19 2017-06-28T01:41:08  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
 20 2017-06-28T01:46:04  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
 21 2017-06-28T02:03:42  *** Char0n has quit IRC
 22 2017-06-28T02:03:52  *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-dev
 23 2017-06-28T02:05:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 24 2017-06-28T02:15:31  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 25 2017-06-28T02:15:48  *** subo has joined #bitcoin-dev
 26 2017-06-28T02:19:56  *** subo_ has quit IRC
 27 2017-06-28T02:26:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 28 2017-06-28T02:27:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 29 2017-06-28T02:29:55  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 30 2017-06-28T02:34:40  *** sdamashek has quit IRC
 31 2017-06-28T02:35:49  *** helo has quit IRC
 32 2017-06-28T02:39:24  *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 33 2017-06-28T02:39:37  *** jn has quit IRC
 34 2017-06-28T02:45:01  *** sdamashek has joined #bitcoin-dev
 35 2017-06-28T02:48:24  *** helo has joined #bitcoin-dev
 36 2017-06-28T02:57:48  *** decentony has joined #bitcoin-dev
 37 2017-06-28T02:59:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 38 2017-06-28T03:03:30  <decentony> here is an idea and feedback appreciated
 39 2017-06-28T03:04:22  <decentony> in order to promote miner decentralization in the light of increasing importance of fees for miner profit
 40 2017-06-28T03:04:52  <decentony> a miner blacklisting feature on the bitcoin wallets
 41 2017-06-28T03:07:10  <decentony> when a user blacklists certain miners this info will be given to a third party service and 3rd party provides a subset of self-identifying miner addresses/ports using a secure channel
 42 2017-06-28T03:07:58  <decentony> size of the subset is proportional with the speed of being included in a block
 43 2017-06-28T03:09:04  <decentony> if a transaction ends up going to the blacklisted miner, the each miner's distrust score in the subset is incremented.
 44 2017-06-28T03:09:27  <decentony> later this score is used for choosing new subsets
 45 2017-06-28T03:10:54  <decentony> i'd expect a high distrust score to indicate cheating miners in this blacklisting.
 46 2017-06-28T03:14:32  <decentony> eventually these 3rd party services would act as a place to estimate miners share in finding the blocks. And 3rd party services are encouraged share their findings with other services; such as miner x, y, z were blacklisted but got the fee based on this subset of miners.
 47 2017-06-28T03:15:38  <decentony> an adversary would prefer dividing their hashrate to identify as separate entities.
 48 2017-06-28T03:16:25  <decentony> * be identified
 49 2017-06-28T03:17:33  <decentony> while this may help them for a while, eventually users would get some idea about the new entity's ownership
 50 2017-06-28T03:18:36  <decentony> end result is blacklisted miner's trying to look much more smaller.
 51 2017-06-28T03:19:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-dev
 52 2017-06-28T03:20:19  <decentony> wallets may have presets like ignore top 3 etc to make it easier and latency estimation to see what the user is giving away to promote latency.
 53 2017-06-28T03:29:38  <decentony> notice this is not direct miner selection or whitelisting which harms small miners.
 54 2017-06-28T03:31:07  <decentony> 3rd parties may prefer asking participitating miner/pool their ideas about future roadmap items such as scaling, fungibility and quantum resistance.
 55 2017-06-28T03:34:14  <decentony> 3rd parties may be obliged to justify their scoring (maybe broadcasting the end result with timestamp proofs and checking the tx was not already in the mempool.
 56 2017-06-28T03:34:19  <decentony> )
 57 2017-06-28T03:43:46  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-dev
 58 2017-06-28T03:51:29  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-dev
 59 2017-06-28T03:51:34  *** chainey has quit IRC
 60 2017-06-28T03:53:23  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 61 2017-06-28T03:57:16  <decentony> * promote decentralization
 62 2017-06-28T03:59:00  *** chainey has joined #bitcoin-dev
 63 2017-06-28T04:00:59  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 64 2017-06-28T04:01:32  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-dev
 65 2017-06-28T04:04:15  *** ogres has quit IRC
 66 2017-06-28T04:07:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 67 2017-06-28T04:09:44  *** iv3c has quit IRC
 68 2017-06-28T04:14:52  *** cyphase has quit IRC
 69 2017-06-28T04:18:28  <adam3us> a problem is mining is anonymous by design.  and that's useful to help with censor resistance.  you cant demand a miner censor a transaction if you dont know which miner mined the block.
 70 2017-06-28T04:19:50  <decentony> in this case owner of the fee is asking a voluntary censorship
 71 2017-06-28T04:20:48  <decentony> tx info will be denied to the blacklisted miner, only the subset receives the info and keep for themselves
 72 2017-06-28T04:20:56  <decentony> nope?
 73 2017-06-28T04:23:09  <adam3us> problem is you cant (easily) blacklist a miner who is anonymous
 74 2017-06-28T04:23:54  <decentony> 3rd party service accepts voluntary miner registration and self identification
 75 2017-06-28T04:24:32  <decentony> a service like coin dance which already recognizes the miner who mined the block
 76 2017-06-28T04:24:53  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
 77 2017-06-28T04:26:17  <decentony> as long as miners keep totally anonymous, no problem. nobody can invite them for a consensus meeting room.
 78 2017-06-28T04:26:28  <Chicago> decentony, How would your centralized service defend against a pool/miner who rewards a new address with each minted block ---  while relaying the new block through a network of proxy daemons?
 79 2017-06-28T04:26:31  *** TheSeven has quit IRC
 80 2017-06-28T04:27:10  *** TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-dev
 81 2017-06-28T04:27:15  <decentony> a new address a new miner you mean?
 82 2017-06-28T04:27:39  <Chicago> Also, why would you punish the users and diminish the utility of the blockchain by making the transactions which are included by a miner be considered invalid since the block would be invalidated.
 83 2017-06-28T04:28:09  <decentony> nothing is invalid
 84 2017-06-28T04:28:51  <decentony> just punished with denying the next blacklisting user's fee next time
 85 2017-06-28T04:29:05  <Chicago> In fact if you introduce a centralized service which causes coin daemons to not relay blocks from specific miners, then you've delayed the user's transactions until they're included in a next block.
 86 2017-06-28T04:29:28  <decentony> blocks are relayed no issue with that
 87 2017-06-28T04:30:13  <decentony> blacklisted miner just can not include the tx in their block since they do not know about the tx
 88 2017-06-28T04:30:14  <Chicago> A proof-of-work solution is a proof-of-work solution any attempt to reduce it to less diminishes the security of the Bitcoin network and introduces great potential for abuse.
 89 2017-06-28T04:30:45  <Chicago> There is no way you can prevent a miner from knowing about a transaction unless you know every single one of the nodes they use to attach to the network.
 90 2017-06-28T04:30:51  <decentony> proof-of-work still works no question on that
 91 2017-06-28T04:31:29  <decentony> if i send the transaction to only one miner
 92 2017-06-28T04:31:43  <decentony> and he does not broadcast to any other node?
 93 2017-06-28T04:31:58  <Chicago> You *could* propose a coalition of miners where transactions are only relayed to them because the transactions were only given to the coalition - but this would be silly because the coalition's mining power would be nowhere near convenient for a user to expect their transaction to be included in a next block.
 94 2017-06-28T04:32:29  <decentony> that's why blacklisting
 95 2017-06-28T04:32:40  <decentony> that's why blacklisting
 96 2017-06-28T04:32:55  <decentony> lets say 20% hashrate is blacklisted, and a subset of 60% selected
 97 2017-06-28T04:32:59  <Chicago> picking winners and losers _IS_ centralization
 98 2017-06-28T04:33:11  <decentony> user experience 40% latency
 99 2017-06-28T04:33:52  <decentony> mining reward is still there given to the one mining the block
100 2017-06-28T04:34:13  <decentony> but the fee belongs to the user, he shall have a choice
101 2017-06-28T04:34:50  <Chicago> This proposal is anti-competitive and violates the ethos of decentralization.
102 2017-06-28T04:35:59  <Chicago> try it
103 2017-06-28T04:36:05  <Chicago> ... see if the miner incentive disappears
104 2017-06-28T04:36:08  <decentony> miners can compete by also improving PR other than their mining tech
105 2017-06-28T04:36:19  <Chicago> ... see if the user's tolerate the delay for no incentive
106 2017-06-28T04:37:22  <decentony> miner incentive consists of reward (their technological investment) and fee (in this design as a result of good PR)
107 2017-06-28T04:37:28  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-dev
108 2017-06-28T04:38:45  <decentony> this also provides a leverage for avoiding a veto against fungibility and quantum resistance.
109 2017-06-28T04:39:45  <Chicago> First it starts by saying some miners are blacklisted... and then it continues by saying their colored coins aren't to be accepted by a merchant... this decreases fungibility and does not increase it.
110 2017-06-28T04:39:47  <decentony> some stake holders may not want those future proposals but possibly users may want and show their support with fees
111 2017-06-28T04:40:44  <decentony> actually this is a step to get fungibility : )
112 2017-06-28T04:41:01  <Chicago>  - so you're suggesting the fee, which would be earned by the good miner is nothing more than a donation -- because it certainly wasn't to get the transaction included in a block any faster
113 2017-06-28T04:41:21  <decentony> otherwise little adversarial thinking reveals fungibility and quantum resistance will possibly face veto
114 2017-06-28T04:42:08  <decentony> fee for playing well in line with the user's opinion
115 2017-06-28T04:43:13  <decentony> since user's are decentralized noone shall claim this will hurt themselves unless they are thinking about users and the system as a whole
116 2017-06-28T04:44:55  *** cyphase has joined #bitcoin-dev
117 2017-06-28T04:45:01  <Chicago> You're telling me -- to only send my transaction to a very small subset of miners and hope it will be included in a block eventually; and suppose this coalition of miners has just 0.5% of the mining power... why would a user wait a few days longer than they ordinarily would to have their transaction confirmed by the network?
118 2017-06-28T04:45:15  <decentony> any technical issue with sending a tx to some miners and their keeping to their own block only?
119 2017-06-28T04:46:06  <decentony> parameters can be find out using some simulation
120 2017-06-28T04:46:14  <decentony> but the subset is not that small
121 2017-06-28T04:46:27  <decentony> you can take a 40% subset
122 2017-06-28T04:46:42  <Chicago> Okay... 40%
123 2017-06-28T04:46:51  <Chicago> ... now we have another very serious centralization issue
124 2017-06-28T04:47:05  <Chicago> The last thing the network needs is a new untrusted player owning 40% of the network hash rate.
125 2017-06-28T04:47:12  <decentony> since this is selected randomly, dishonest miner (one sharing with blacklisted) will score higher
126 2017-06-28T04:47:27  <decentony> no random 40%
127 2017-06-28T04:48:12  <decentony> 0.001 + .1 + .. so on to make 40%
128 2017-06-28T04:48:20  <Belxjander> decentony: given enough computing power and historical records...it IS possible to begin predicting pseudo-random number generator responses...
129 2017-06-28T04:48:28  <decentony> it may involve thousands of miners
130 2017-06-28T04:49:24  <decentony> randomness is not issue here 3rd party is sampling the miners excluding the blacklisted one
131 2017-06-28T04:49:37  <Belxjander> decentony: and on a computer any set of rules to make an RNG is at best Pseudo-Random...maybe you need to rethink how you present this idea since the presentation seems to be showing flaws... and I'm not quite sure what you are trying to "solve" with this kindof "solution" idea?
132 2017-06-28T04:50:27  <Belxjander> decentony: so basically an *optional* service where miners can become blacklisted if they share details with that service ?
133 2017-06-28T04:51:11  <decentony> yes if they do not share they do not get anything from users opting to use blacklisting
134 2017-06-28T04:51:40  <Chicago> decentony, have a look at how the blacklisting patches for spam transactions were received by the community when Gentoo GNU/Linux included them.
135 2017-06-28T04:51:49  <Belxjander> then youi are splitting the userbase andhow miners receive blocks from the new transaction pooling
136 2017-06-28T04:52:30  <Belxjander> Chicago: I remember that ... it went down like a lead balloons halo jump...
137 2017-06-28T04:52:40  <Chicago> yes
138 2017-06-28T04:52:43  <Belxjander> terminal velocity only one way
139 2017-06-28T04:53:12  <decentony> sure i can have a look at that. but this idea relies on the owner of the fee must have a say about where is does not go.
140 2017-06-28T04:54:18  <decentony> and this may be the only way to empower users until millions of users start mining with usb miners expecting no profit
141 2017-06-28T04:54:58  <Chicago> decentony, you are correct.  Essentially, the user has no say unless the user mines the block on their own.
142 2017-06-28T04:55:25  <decentony> is there a way to prevent a miner/pool exceeding 50% hashrate now?
143 2017-06-28T04:55:29  <decentony> nope
144 2017-06-28T04:55:32  <Chicago> sure!
145 2017-06-28T04:55:51  <Chicago> The incentive of total system failure prevention leads miners to abandon such a pool and redistribute their hash rate.
146 2017-06-28T04:56:15  <decentony> such a blacklisting may deny significant percent of income making it unprofitable to maintain that.
147 2017-06-28T04:56:15  <Chicago> If the abuse were pervasive then there would be an emergency correction in one way or another, perhaps by changing the PoW algorithm.
148 2017-06-28T04:56:27  <decentony> yes exactly
149 2017-06-28T04:56:36  <decentony> this is what we need
150 2017-06-28T04:56:59  <decentony> distributing the hashrate until you can not fit more than 50
151 2017-06-28T04:57:04  <decentony> % into a room.
152 2017-06-28T04:57:07  <Chicago> You're proposing a fix to symptoms of a problem and not a fix to the actual problem.
153 2017-06-28T04:58:07  <decentony> with the current consensus system this fix (which can not be blocked by any entity) may stand the only option.
154 2017-06-28T04:58:11  <Chicago> Plus, you cannot have consensus _unless_ you bring along the inherent 51% attack risk.
155 2017-06-28T04:58:52  <decentony> yes they should not come together in a room
156 2017-06-28T04:59:15  <decentony> consensus shall not be reached in a room
157 2017-06-28T04:59:23  <decentony> maybe a stadium better
158 2017-06-28T04:59:36  <decentony> maybe dozens of stadiums
159 2017-06-28T04:59:38  <Chicago> consensus does not come from the miners, consensus comes from network protocol and full nodes
160 2017-06-28T05:00:59  <Belxjander> Chicago: has anyone documented what he essential elements to dealing with the blockchain, and separately what is essential for a "wallet" along with transaction processing in a general sense outside the source code ?
161 2017-06-28T05:01:01  *** DougieBot5000_ is now known as DougieBot5000
162 2017-06-28T05:01:02  <decentony> yes sure, it should come from nodes. but they may be called Sybil then
163 2017-06-28T05:01:38  <Chicago> Belxjander, gosh I don't know.
164 2017-06-28T05:02:01  <Belxjander> ahh okay...
165 2017-06-28T05:02:52  <Chicago> decentony, Please describe the core behaviors of a miner which should be blacklisted.
166 2017-06-28T05:04:12  <decentony> this is not a political discussion users will decide that. some may like democratic pools some may like the pool enforcing an idea
167 2017-06-28T05:05:12  <decentony> some may try avoiding top 3
168 2017-06-28T05:05:16  <Chicago> Your proposal may be more accurately described as a transaction sieve where transactions are to only be sent to a very specific subset of the network.
169 2017-06-28T05:06:06  <decentony> yes something like that
170 2017-06-28T05:06:47  *** O01eg has quit IRC
171 2017-06-28T05:06:48  <decentony>  now anyone can do this no change in protocol, just an additional optional protocol
172 2017-06-28T05:07:22  <Chicago> And what liability would their be for your service if the transaction ends up being broadcast to the greater Bitcoin network and included by a "bad miner" in the next block?
173 2017-06-28T05:07:33  <decentony> better providing a reference for easier adoption, and score broadcasting to other services
174 2017-06-28T05:08:44  <decentony> if blacklisted miner gets the fee by including it in the block, all miners in the subset are incremented with equal distrust score
175 2017-06-28T05:09:25  <Chicago> Also, the law of supply and demand states those miners who are "bad" will not suffer because there is a surplus of transactions to fill a 1MB block already -- and unless you're telling me the users will both pay higher fees _and_ wait a substantial amount of time for their transaction to be included in a block - I cannot see how the bad miners will lose a thing.
176 2017-06-28T05:09:40  <decentony> dishonest one is expected to do it again always collecting and reducing the probability of being selected in the next subset
177 2017-06-28T05:10:08  <Belxjander> Perception bubbles....
178 2017-06-28T05:10:33  <decentony> lets say we have 10k txs
179 2017-06-28T05:10:45  <decentony> half of these people are politically active
180 2017-06-28T05:10:54  <decentony> and have non-urgent txs
181 2017-06-28T05:11:24  <decentony> lets say 80% wants to avoid one miner
182 2017-06-28T05:12:02  <decentony> blacklisted miner loses 40% fees assuming no mempool
183 2017-06-28T05:12:09  <Chicago> problem
184 2017-06-28T05:12:29  <Chicago> blacklisted miner loses nothing -- because there is a surplus of high fee transactions for them to include in the next minted block
185 2017-06-28T05:13:24  <decentony> no mempool
186 2017-06-28T05:13:38  <Belxjander> Chicago: this comes across similart to how people self-select associating with others who agree with a point of view formnig clique bubbles of perception leading towards general ignorance
187 2017-06-28T05:13:41  <decentony> and continuous 40% loss
188 2017-06-28T05:14:17  <Chicago> so
189 2017-06-28T05:14:41  <Chicago> from the other side -- let's say you have a politically aligned miner who is one of the good guys, who formerly mined with a pool earning a steady income
190 2017-06-28T05:14:44  <Belxjander> decentony: only half your 10,000 transaction pool are political and even with 80% (8,000 listing that one miner as please ignore) that miner still has a 2000 transaction pool to pickup and mine
191 2017-06-28T05:14:59  <decentony> and assume mining near empty blocks is not an option due to pending halvings
192 2017-06-28T05:15:26  <Belxjander> decentony: so there is no real loss for the miner at all regardless of generating the next block with or without your idea
193 2017-06-28T05:16:07  <Chicago> You are now asking that miner to forgo the mining incentive and steady rewards because they've now become such an insignificant player in relative terms to the current total network hashrate that their participation in mining may be largely ignored.
194 2017-06-28T05:16:29  <decentony> yes blacklisted makes blocks with 6000 txs, another miner with 10000 txs
195 2017-06-28T05:16:49  *** nazarewk has joined #bitcoin-dev
196 2017-06-28T05:17:02  <Chicago> Also -- let's suppose you are successful in users selecting your option.  At what point will your transaction backlog become so large you choose to start broadcasting them to the rest of the network in an emergency?
197 2017-06-28T05:17:34  <Belxjander> decentony: and is there anything stopping or an incentive for miners to support your idea?
198 2017-06-28T05:17:43  <decentony> wallet can notify the estimated latency and user may delay their political acts
199 2017-06-28T05:18:14  <decentony> an incentive to get political users fees
200 2017-06-28T05:18:47  <Chicago> You will find the blockchain already successfully resists political influence very easily.
201 2017-06-28T05:18:48  <decentony> a miner not so good with users may start a campaign to stop this
202 2017-06-28T05:18:51  <Belxjander> decentony: If I were to do mining I would ignore your service and run anonymous nodes with various settings to make sure I always had a chance to obtain the block reward and not care about your blacklisting
203 2017-06-28T05:19:11  <decentony> if you do that
204 2017-06-28T05:19:56  <decentony> you will not get an invitation to the meetings like hong kong or new york
205 2017-06-28T05:20:17  <Belxjander> decentony: the only produced effect of such selections would be that the mining population would no longer trust the transaction producing wallets in relation to this optional service and therefore the service would have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to validate that they *are*not*lied*to*
206 2017-06-28T05:21:20  <Belxjander> decentony: so what? this is dividing the community of users and miners and leading towards active mistrust, not passive mistrust along with active deceptive practise becoming the normal
207 2017-06-28T05:21:42  <decentony> users already choose one wallet vs another
208 2017-06-28T05:21:49  <decentony> based on their futures
209 2017-06-28T05:21:55  <decentony> * featues
210 2017-06-28T05:22:21  <decentony> nobody knows your political idea
211 2017-06-28T05:22:25  <Belxjander> and all wallets have *extended* features in trying to obtain market mindshare...
212 2017-06-28T05:22:27  <decentony> only you and your wallet
213 2017-06-28T05:22:31  <decentony> no division
214 2017-06-28T05:22:43  <Belxjander> you are pushing that selections into the basic foundations of how bitcoin works and not extra "this might be nice" features
215 2017-06-28T05:22:46  <decentony> only some disappearing miner/pools
216 2017-06-28T05:22:50  <decentony> silently
217 2017-06-28T05:23:30  <Belxjander> fragmentation of the network opening up isolation attacks and critical divisions
218 2017-06-28T05:23:44  <Chicago> so... why not just offer a bitcoin proxy service, where the users who want to opt-in have to go through your gateway and they only send/receive with nodes in your network?
219 2017-06-28T05:23:59  <Chicago> btw, that would be madness because of the filtering and largely destructive.
220 2017-06-28T05:24:33  <Belxjander> isolate / modify and then push *modified* transactions to the larger mining comunity from your isolated groups who can not see by self-selected blindness
221 2017-06-28T05:25:08  <Belxjander> those wallets using this service would become blinded to if they are truly isolated (your proposal here would enable a bad-actor man in the middle isolation)
222 2017-06-28T05:25:30  <decentony> here is the problem geeks can still do this despite some hassle, the value is making this a straight forward feature of wallets
223 2017-06-28T05:25:48  <Chicago> Do not mistake your proposal as a wallet feature.
224 2017-06-28T05:25:55  <Chicago> It is merely a network segment.
225 2017-06-28T05:26:16  <Chicago> You can do this already without one single change to Bitcoin Core.
226 2017-06-28T05:26:28  <Belxjander> basically report different miners as "good" or "bad" based on your search criteria and then cut your bitcoins out of the network... attack the isolated hardware as a target of opportunity...and once your bitcoin wallet keys are obtained... keep you isolated and drain your wallet without your awareness of the network beyond your self-imposed blindness
227 2017-06-28T05:26:35  <decentony> yes exactly no change needed on core
228 2017-06-28T05:27:34  <Belxjander> sigh...
229 2017-06-28T05:27:37  <decentony> good and bad is decided by users
230 2017-06-28T05:27:46  <decentony> wallet does not say anything
231 2017-06-28T05:27:47  <Chicago> no
232 2017-06-28T05:27:54  <Chicago> good and bad must only be decided by network protocol
233 2017-06-28T05:28:01  <Chicago> otherwise there is further potential for political abuse
234 2017-06-28T05:28:11  *** fatalhalt has quit IRC
235 2017-06-28T05:29:00  <Belxjander> decentony: and bad-actor mitm attacks would respond to your search queries... work out what you think is "good" based on your miner selection criteria... and then set themselves up...towards isolateing you from the rest of the network
236 2017-06-28T05:29:18  <Belxjander> once you are isolated... your done
237 2017-06-28T05:29:37  <Chicago> He still hasn't answered how he would defend against an adversary who mines every next block to pay to a unique scriptPub
238 2017-06-28T05:29:38  <decentony> this is just like choosing uber vs lyft, pepsi vs coke. it is your fee you shall be at least able to deny it to someone you oppose politically or just because they are big
239 2017-06-28T05:29:55  <decentony> i anwsered
240 2017-06-28T05:30:21  <decentony> this is already a good thing if the miner pretends like a new miner all the time
241 2017-06-28T05:30:54  <decentony> 1. they need to take to hassle to register again identifying themselves
242 2017-06-28T05:31:27  <Belxjander> decentony: with regards to political or other "objection"s about the miner... that is just being pissy-^assed pedantic and self-isolating within an "everyone I know agrees with this" perception bubble...
243 2017-06-28T05:31:52  <decentony> 2. if they manage to automate this, it will look like another mining = loss of show of power = no invitation to meetings
244 2017-06-28T05:31:56  <Belxjander> once the network becomes segmented in such bubbles it also becomes easier to assualt, divide and destroy
245 2017-06-28T05:32:48  <Chicago> decentony, why not just do what you are proposing the old fashion way by mining your own blocks?
246 2017-06-28T05:32:49  *** fatalhalt has joined #bitcoin-dev
247 2017-06-28T05:32:59  <Belxjander> decentony: if I was a miner...I wouldn't care about your service or the meetings as long as I received transactions and was able to mine enough fees from transactions
248 2017-06-28T05:33:13  <Chicago> ^^ a certainty
249 2017-06-28T05:33:26  <Belxjander> decentony: there is no incentive for your service to be essential
250 2017-06-28T05:34:06  <decentony> users cant be simply miners in large scale but they can choose to deny their fees.
251 2017-06-28T05:34:30  <decentony> can we improve it to make it appealing that
252 2017-06-28T05:34:33  <decentony> then?
253 2017-06-28T05:34:35  <Chicago> "It is hard" is not the same as "cannot".
254 2017-06-28T05:34:46  <decentony> but hopefully you get the idea behind this
255 2017-06-28T05:34:58  <Chicago> Yes, you want aristocoin.
256 2017-06-28T05:35:23  <decentony> user shall be ok with you if you do not go to meetings and reveal your opinion
257 2017-06-28T05:35:35  <Belxjander> decentony: I see it as "I'm X, I want miners who agree with X"... being pushed as an extended attribute into the money system of bitcoin...
258 2017-06-28T05:35:38  <decentony> be a neutral miner then no reason to be blacklisted
259 2017-06-28T05:35:54  <Belxjander> where it is irrelevant, useless and totally meaningless to operational requirements
260 2017-06-28T05:36:08  <Chicago> The core ethos of mining from Satoshi's whitepaper is the miner incentive to earn as much as possible.
261 2017-06-28T05:36:43  <Belxjander> Chicago: exactly...beyond that incentive there is nothing introduced here as a positive net gain for any miner who agrees to the scheme
262 2017-06-28T05:36:46  <Chicago> It doesn't matter if there is an ASIC with a more competitive mathematical method.
263 2017-06-28T05:37:42  <decentony> competitive ASIC will guarantee you mining reward but not the fee without good PR
264 2017-06-28T05:38:22  <decentony> getting political users' fees shall be enough incentive for miners to join this
265 2017-06-28T05:38:29  <Chicago> SO...  you propose acceptance of your organization usurping transaction ingress for the betterment of all Bitcoin?
266 2017-06-28T05:38:58  <decentony> may be not now exactly but after halving it will make more and more sense
267 2017-06-28T05:39:34  <Chicago> After halving, is also irrelevant.  Do you not expect miner's to demand the same payment at that time?
268 2017-06-28T05:40:28  <decentony> yes this looks to be the only way to prevent vetoes against future proposals such as fungibility and quantum resistance
269 2017-06-28T05:41:03  <Belxjander> decentony: this seems more of a veto of consensus being possible as it is now
270 2017-06-28T05:41:05  <Chicago> What are you trying to say exactly, do you think bitcoin are not fungible already or do you have an example of this?
271 2017-06-28T05:41:17  <Belxjander> just a means of fragmenting and destroying bitcoin entirely
272 2017-06-28T05:41:22  <decentony> miners will demand/need for fees right, so good incentive to enroll in this
273 2017-06-28T05:41:46  <decentony> yes they are not fungible
274 2017-06-28T05:42:11  <Belxjander> decentony: WHY? ... *what*incentive*???
275 2017-06-28T05:42:18  <Chicago> so you're saying you would refuse to accept bitcoin which had been partially associated w/ a Silk Road transaction?
276 2017-06-28T05:42:29  <decentony> a hacker stealing btc from an exchange is caught if he exchanges those at another exchange
277 2017-06-28T05:42:42  <decentony> so we know the previous source
278 2017-06-28T05:43:33  <Chicago> Okay -- and suppose some exchange rejects them and another exchange accepts them -- and they are then used by the other exchanges users on withdrawal.  Will you then say those innocent users who obtained bitcoins which were part of a theft 3 transactions in the past are now shit out of luck?
279 2017-06-28T05:43:40  <Chicago> This is why we don't have colored coins.
280 2017-06-28T05:43:42  <Belxjander> decentony: would you refuse to handle any USD paper money that had contact with cocaine?
281 2017-06-28T05:44:49  <decentony> paper money's serial number might have been recorded if thats a setup so no fungibility
282 2017-06-28T05:45:04  <decentony> other than paper money has better fungibility
283 2017-06-28T05:45:31  <decentony> satoshi can not spend his btcs w/o revealing he is satoshi : )
284 2017-06-28T05:45:42  <Chicago> Also... with atomic swaps and decentralized exchange on the horizon, there is no reason to except any bad actor couldn't spend their inputs unless they lose their private key or don't want to be detected on the network.
285 2017-06-28T05:46:55  <decentony> any reason for miners to accept quantum as a danger? acceptance = their miners are bricks
286 2017-06-28T05:47:10  *** zdsjqzrlbo has joined #bitcoin-dev
287 2017-06-28T05:48:36  <Chicago> You could also rephrase the complaint of your users to be "I want to participate in an economy and it is unfair someone profits from it."
288 2017-06-28T05:50:24  <decentony> for the betterment of the consensus/community it may be unfair for someone to profit from it
289 2017-06-28T05:51:21  <Chicago> Transactions being there or not being there do not change the outcome of consensus at the network protocol level.
290 2017-06-28T05:51:35  <decentony> mining reward is fair share of every miner, but fee belongs to user
291 2017-06-28T05:51:49  <Chicago> fees do not belong to the user the moment they broadcast the transaction
292 2017-06-28T05:52:31  <decentony> loss of fee makes pressure on miner to mind the balances
293 2017-06-28T05:53:08  <Chicago> A surplus of transactions means the miner has no pressure other than to continually participate in the arms race and have a higher hashrate.
294 2017-06-28T05:53:18  <Belxjander> decentony: but regardless... there is NOTHING in your proposal where there is any actual loss of fees,...
295 2017-06-28T05:53:43  <Belxjander> no losses and no actual incentive to participate
296 2017-06-28T05:53:55  <Belxjander> so it becomes irrelevant
297 2017-06-28T05:53:59  <Chicago> oh I get it now
298 2017-06-28T05:54:04  <Chicago> It is just virtue signaling.
299 2017-06-28T05:54:10  <decentony> it is hard to see now since still mining near empty blocks makes sense for a rational player
300 2017-06-28T05:54:53  <Chicago> not really decentony, the merkle tree can be assembled from existing waiting transactions well before the hash of the previous block is known
301 2017-06-28T05:55:31  <decentony> 60% fee 40% reward after one or two halving good luck with arms race to compansate the fee loss
302 2017-06-28T05:55:42  <Chicago> there will be no loss
303 2017-06-28T05:56:04  <Chicago> I'm telling you, the halvening simply brings the laws of supply and demand to a focal point where the BTC cost increases.
304 2017-06-28T05:56:26  <Chicago> production cost of BTC remains the same
305 2017-06-28T05:56:46  <decentony> cost same return is same you mean?
306 2017-06-28T05:57:58  <Chicago> At the next halvening, production cost of a bitcoin will remain the same because the cost of electricity and the cost of an ASIC will be approximately the same.  However, because the new supply of bitcoin will be diminished and the demand will dictate the price -- saying 60% fee and 40% reward is only relative in terms of BTC not in terms of fiat.
307 2017-06-28T05:58:10  <decentony> thank you guys for the brainstorming, lets reconsider after mining near full blocks makes more economic sense
308 2017-06-28T05:59:00  <decentony> i appreciate your inputs i will reevaluate my idea as well.
309 2017-06-28T05:59:14  <Chicago> decentony, are you saying this visualization is irrational?  https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
310 2017-06-28T05:59:48  <Chicago> I think the average block size speaks for itself.
311 2017-06-28T06:00:17  <decentony> daily average
312 2017-06-28T06:00:34  <decentony> we have real low data points
313 2017-06-28T06:01:52  <Chicago> You are suggesting every miner is incentivized to ignore transactions entirely to be competitive.  The data does not tell the same story.
314 2017-06-28T06:01:53  *** blackwind_123 has quit IRC
315 2017-06-28T06:03:52  *** cyphase has quit IRC
316 2017-06-28T06:26:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
317 2017-06-28T06:27:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
318 2017-06-28T06:38:09  <sturles> decentony: I haven't read the complete discussion, but it seems you want to promote decentralization by intruducing a centralized service (the 3rd party)?
319 2017-06-28T06:38:24  *** epopt has quit IRC
320 2017-06-28T06:42:33  <decentony> as long as 3rd parties are provided with an open spec to score miners and share their scoring with proofs to sync other 3rd parties
321 2017-06-28T06:42:36  <decentony> why not?
322 2017-06-28T06:43:19  <decentony> a decentralized scoring system may be considered also.
323 2017-06-28T06:48:39  <decentony> decentralized one would work like a smart contract, wallet commits encrypted tx and only non-blacklisted subset is allowed to decrypt is by sharing key with them as opposed to tx
324 2017-06-28T06:49:02  *** cyphase has joined #bitcoin-dev
325 2017-06-28T06:49:55  <decentony> and smart contract performs scoring fairly, the subset selection belongs to wallet in this case
326 2017-06-28T06:50:06  <decentony> getting the score list
327 2017-06-28T06:51:25  <decentony> havent thought of decentralized one but looks promising when i think about it.
328 2017-06-28T06:52:52  <decentony> ( now)
329 2017-06-28T07:00:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
330 2017-06-28T07:00:38  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-dev
331 2017-06-28T07:02:27  <decentony> decentralized one may also accept registration only by locking certain amount of BTC
332 2017-06-28T07:03:08  <decentony> miners are free to keep registering again again as different miners as long as they can afford it.
333 2017-06-28T07:03:31  <Chicago> This fee would be considered extortion by many.
334 2017-06-28T07:04:12  <Chicago> It is essentially "protection money".
335 2017-06-28T07:04:18  <decentony> they can take it back fully after certain time
336 2017-06-28T07:05:30  <decentony> (just brainstorming about this now guys havent thought about this before so it might be completely stupid, i am ready to step back if you can point some issues)
337 2017-06-28T07:05:50  <decentony> yes protection monet
338 2017-06-28T07:06:00  <decentony> in the end miners will follow the money
339 2017-06-28T07:06:17  <decentony> if mempool is not enough to fill in the block
340 2017-06-28T07:06:35  <Chicago> "If you won't pay me then you won't be able to conduct business."  This is extortion.
341 2017-06-28T07:07:03  <decentony> they will know where to look for if they are given some tx key (notice this is not user's private key for sure)
342 2017-06-28T07:07:56  <decentony> nope if you want more fees from politically active users there you are.
343 2017-06-28T07:08:29  <decentony> fee may be good for preventing registering as a new miner for each block
344 2017-06-28T07:08:49  <Chicago> Have a 2016 block waiting period for inclusion, make them wait an entire timespan.
345 2017-06-28T07:09:08  *** cyphase has quit IRC
346 2017-06-28T07:09:15  <decentony> but as i said before it can be waived since miner is decentralizing themselves by identifying as new miner
347 2017-06-28T07:09:37  <decentony> yes this is also possible
348 2017-06-28T07:09:57  <Chicago> Is this just a way for you to collect BTC to trade while they're letting you hold their bitcoin before you return it to them?  We call it a loan.
349 2017-06-28T07:10:06  <decentony> waiting is possible too
350 2017-06-28T07:11:43  <decentony> consider it like the amount equivalent to the amount they would expect to get avoid the blacklisting by identifying themselves as a new miner
351 2017-06-28T07:11:57  <decentony> calculation might be dynamic as well
352 2017-06-28T07:12:31  *** cyphase has joined #bitcoin-dev
353 2017-06-28T07:12:37  <decentony> miner would be sacrificing liquidity
354 2017-06-28T07:12:39  <decentony> only
355 2017-06-28T07:12:55  <decentony> in the they will get it after certain time
356 2017-06-28T07:13:03  <decentony> *in the end
357 2017-06-28T07:24:37  <decentony> 2016 block waiting time sounds good
358 2017-06-28T07:26:25  <decentony> it would be great if the registered miners and their block shares is regarded as only source of truth in determining miner power by the community
359 2017-06-28T07:27:06  <Chicago> except for those who are aligned with other political beliefs in opposition to yours -- who is to say which is right?  (the network protocol)
360 2017-06-28T07:28:55  <decentony> this system does not really care about who is right or wrong, just indicates the wisdom of the crowd having an impact on miners
361 2017-06-28T07:29:28  <decentony> otherwise tons of in-fights on subreddits/twitter etc.
362 2017-06-28T07:31:09  <decentony> miners may expect a loss of income due to a senseless tweet for instance
363 2017-06-28T07:32:06  <decentony> expect to see billboards of pools trying to show how much they love users (even their full nodes) and decentralization : )
364 2017-06-28T07:33:46  *** xenog has joined #bitcoin-dev
365 2017-06-28T07:33:48  <decentony> this creates a feedback loop between users and miners
366 2017-06-28T07:34:55  <decentony> resignations or apologies by pool CEO may be expected to revive their business
367 2017-06-28T07:36:21  <Chicago> What happens when there are no BIPs signaling in version bits or other "controversy"?  At that time what will the users be voting on to show support?
368 2017-06-28T07:36:36  <Chicago> popularity contest?
369 2017-06-28T07:38:39  <decentony> then comes the philosophical choices rather than political
370 2017-06-28T07:38:52  <decentony> avoid top 1 preset
371 2017-06-28T07:38:54  *** czaanja_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
372 2017-06-28T07:38:58  <decentony> avoid top 3 etc
373 2017-06-28T07:39:19  <Chicago> In other words a perpetual attack for the sake of wealth redistribution.
374 2017-06-28T07:39:29  <decentony> sure some users will not forget history
375 2017-06-28T07:39:30  <Chicago> The blockchain and Bitcoin do not need this.
376 2017-06-28T07:40:30  *** POJO has joined #bitcoin-dev
377 2017-06-28T07:40:47  <decentony> sure yours is an idea too, you in this case can blacklist mostly non-blacklisted ones too.
378 2017-06-28T07:41:19  <decentony> to disrupt the user fee power
379 2017-06-28T07:41:46  <decentony> but wisdom of the crowd and collective high fees may be hard to beat
380 2017-06-28T07:45:49  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-dev
381 2017-06-28T07:48:36  *** POJO has quit IRC
382 2017-06-28T07:49:04  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
383 2017-06-28T07:57:36  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
384 2017-06-28T07:57:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-dev
385 2017-06-28T07:58:43  *** blackwind_123 has joined #bitcoin-dev
386 2017-06-28T08:02:03  *** fatalhalt has quit IRC
387 2017-06-28T08:03:53  *** fatalhalt has joined #bitcoin-dev
388 2017-06-28T08:23:49  *** spinza has quit IRC
389 2017-06-28T08:24:43  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
390 2017-06-28T08:32:22  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-dev
391 2017-06-28T09:05:01  *** nazarewk has quit IRC
392 2017-06-28T09:10:15  *** Agro has quit IRC
393 2017-06-28T09:11:09  *** nazarewk has joined #bitcoin-dev
394 2017-06-28T09:21:12  *** graingert is now known as pqnst
395 2017-06-28T09:21:21  *** pqnst is now known as graingert
396 2017-06-28T09:24:20  *** xenog has quit IRC
397 2017-06-28T09:27:28  *** czaanja_ has quit IRC
398 2017-06-28T09:28:53  *** Michail1 has quit IRC
399 2017-06-28T09:43:04  *** decentony has quit IRC
400 2017-06-28T09:45:52  *** Michail1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
401 2017-06-28T09:59:53  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
402 2017-06-28T10:09:36  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
403 2017-06-28T10:22:23  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
404 2017-06-28T10:33:32  *** flyingkiwi has joined #bitcoin-dev
405 2017-06-28T10:33:55  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-dev
406 2017-06-28T10:43:34  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-dev
407 2017-06-28T10:46:07  *** chainey has joined #bitcoin-dev
408 2017-06-28T10:51:09  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
409 2017-06-28T10:54:53  *** |Clown| has quit IRC
410 2017-06-28T10:56:40  *** chainey has quit IRC
411 2017-06-28T11:02:59  *** czaanja_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
412 2017-06-28T11:04:35  *** Mesh has joined #bitcoin-dev
413 2017-06-28T11:08:13  *** nazarewk has quit IRC
414 2017-06-28T11:10:53  *** cybrNaut has quit IRC
415 2017-06-28T11:35:16  *** xenog has joined #bitcoin-dev
416 2017-06-28T11:38:10  *** Diablo-D3 has quit IRC
417 2017-06-28T11:38:55  *** agricocb has quit IRC
418 2017-06-28T11:44:37  *** blackwind_123 has quit IRC
419 2017-06-28T11:45:53  *** Mesh has quit IRC
420 2017-06-28T11:50:28  *** xenog has quit IRC
421 2017-06-28T12:00:51  *** xenog has joined #bitcoin-dev
422 2017-06-28T12:08:14  *** dabura667 has quit IRC
423 2017-06-28T12:09:08  *** blackwind_123 has joined #bitcoin-dev
424 2017-06-28T12:30:44  *** iv3c has joined #bitcoin-dev
425 2017-06-28T12:31:46  *** RBecker has quit IRC
426 2017-06-28T12:32:37  *** RBecker has joined #bitcoin-dev
427 2017-06-28T12:43:07  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
428 2017-06-28T12:43:52  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
429 2017-06-28T12:57:20  *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
430 2017-06-28T12:58:56  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
431 2017-06-28T13:04:40  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
432 2017-06-28T13:05:00  *** czaanja_ has quit IRC
433 2017-06-28T13:15:59  *** cybrNaut has joined #bitcoin-dev
434 2017-06-28T13:27:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-dev
435 2017-06-28T13:30:12  *** Diablo-D3 has joined #bitcoin-dev
436 2017-06-28T13:30:21  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
437 2017-06-28T13:36:30  *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
438 2017-06-28T13:37:16  *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
439 2017-06-28T13:38:17  *** CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-dev
440 2017-06-28T13:47:27  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
441 2017-06-28T13:50:27  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
442 2017-06-28T13:52:42  *** Qatz has quit IRC
443 2017-06-28T13:52:55  *** Qatz has joined #bitcoin-dev
444 2017-06-28T13:55:37  *** Qatz has quit IRC
445 2017-06-28T13:57:03  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
446 2017-06-28T13:57:55  *** Qatz has joined #bitcoin-dev
447 2017-06-28T14:16:39  *** bugs_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
448 2017-06-28T14:29:20  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
449 2017-06-28T14:32:32  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
450 2017-06-28T14:33:09  <xenog> I am working on segwit compatibility for bitcoinJ. I'd like to write tests that will assure that I am counting sigops correctly, is there a way using the RPC interface of Bitcoin Core to get the sigop count of a block?
451 2017-06-28T14:35:02  *** Greybits has left #bitcoin-dev
452 2017-06-28T14:47:06  <wumpus> I don't think that information is in getblock by default, you could add it for testing ofc
453 2017-06-28T14:48:43  *** O01eg has joined #bitcoin-dev
454 2017-06-28T14:52:54  *** epopt has joined #bitcoin-dev
455 2017-06-28T14:58:59  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-dev
456 2017-06-28T15:13:48  *** |Clown| has joined #bitcoin-dev
457 2017-06-28T15:14:57  *** JackH has quit IRC
458 2017-06-28T15:48:28  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
459 2017-06-28T15:52:57  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
460 2017-06-28T16:14:22  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
461 2017-06-28T16:16:58  *** Nebrod has quit IRC
462 2017-06-28T16:19:42  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
463 2017-06-28T16:35:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
464 2017-06-28T16:36:57  *** AlexFreud has quit IRC
465 2017-06-28T16:38:10  *** goatpig has quit IRC
466 2017-06-28T16:51:25  *** chjj has quit IRC
467 2017-06-28T16:54:05  *** POJO has joined #bitcoin-dev
468 2017-06-28T17:04:11  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
469 2017-06-28T17:04:51  *** AlexFreud has joined #bitcoin-dev
470 2017-06-28T17:09:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-dev
471 2017-06-28T17:17:41  <xenog> Thanks wumpus, I found some tests that I can adapt.
472 2017-06-28T17:25:41  *** blackwraith has joined #bitcoin-dev
473 2017-06-28T17:42:16  *** spinza has quit IRC
474 2017-06-28T17:55:47  *** atroxes has quit IRC
475 2017-06-28T17:55:56  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-dev
476 2017-06-28T17:57:15  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-dev
477 2017-06-28T18:04:51  *** janko33 has joined #bitcoin-dev
478 2017-06-28T18:31:14  *** Agro has joined #bitcoin-dev
479 2017-06-28T18:31:31  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
480 2017-06-28T18:35:46  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
481 2017-06-28T18:46:08  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
482 2017-06-28T18:46:08  *** Emcy has quit IRC
483 2017-06-28T18:46:44  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-dev
484 2017-06-28T18:52:19  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
485 2017-06-28T19:01:21  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
486 2017-06-28T19:16:38  *** sausage_factory has joined #bitcoin-dev
487 2017-06-28T19:18:19  *** blackwraith has quit IRC
488 2017-06-28T19:25:41  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-dev
489 2017-06-28T19:41:40  *** |Clown| has quit IRC
490 2017-06-28T19:50:10  *** nakaluna has joined #bitcoin-dev
491 2017-06-28T19:52:02  *** iv3c has quit IRC
492 2017-06-28T19:52:21  *** iv3c has joined #bitcoin-dev
493 2017-06-28T19:53:06  *** |Clown| has joined #bitcoin-dev
494 2017-06-28T19:55:03  *** Logicwax has joined #bitcoin-dev
495 2017-06-28T20:10:14  *** xenog has quit IRC
496 2017-06-28T20:25:52  *** POJO has quit IRC
497 2017-06-28T20:40:48  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-dev
498 2017-06-28T20:47:12  *** nakaluna has quit IRC
499 2017-06-28T20:53:57  *** Murch has quit IRC
500 2017-06-28T20:55:34  *** mol has quit IRC
501 2017-06-28T20:57:00  *** AlexFreud has quit IRC
502 2017-06-28T21:07:38  *** chainey has joined #bitcoin-dev
503 2017-06-28T21:21:10  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
504 2017-06-28T21:23:27  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
505 2017-06-28T21:26:05  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
506 2017-06-28T21:27:09  *** ProfMac_ has quit IRC
507 2017-06-28T21:38:53  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
508 2017-06-28T21:40:46  *** bugs_ has quit IRC
509 2017-06-28T21:45:23  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
510 2017-06-28T21:51:37  *** agricocb has quit IRC
511 2017-06-28T21:56:38  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
512 2017-06-28T22:00:52  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-dev
513 2017-06-28T22:07:29  *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
514 2017-06-28T22:17:13  *** jn has joined #bitcoin-dev
515 2017-06-28T22:20:26  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
516 2017-06-28T22:35:57  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
517 2017-06-28T22:37:46  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
518 2017-06-28T22:46:06  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-dev
519 2017-06-28T23:01:19  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
520 2017-06-28T23:10:25  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
521 2017-06-28T23:11:12  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
522 2017-06-28T23:12:28  *** negatratoron has quit IRC
523 2017-06-28T23:18:43  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-dev
524 2017-06-28T23:38:22  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
525 2017-06-28T23:40:29  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-dev
526 2017-06-28T23:42:21  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
527 2017-06-28T23:44:43  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-dev
528 2017-06-28T23:45:03  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
529 2017-06-28T23:46:22  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
530 2017-06-28T23:55:13  *** Belxjander has quit IRC
531 2017-06-28T23:57:27  *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
532 2017-06-28T23:59:50  *** negatratoron has joined #bitcoin-dev