<justanotherusr>
it looks like hearn is just stirring up the pot to me
<justanotherusr>
In that same interview he said if miners don't support >1MB blocks he might delegate a central authority to keep consensus
<justanotherusr>
split consensus I should say
<bramc>
There's stirring the pot, and there's being hellbent on cramming disastrous ideas down everybody else's throats
<bramc>
justanotherusr, That's... also an awful idea
nemild has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<justanotherusr>
I don't really know what to say other than that his camp accepting centralization wouldn't be that surprising https://youtu.be/DB9goUDBAR0?t=122
<bramc>
Yeah, umm, he's crazy
<bramc>
The stupid thing is that the supposed crisis which this is all supposedly meant to avert isn't even a real crisis.
<bramc>
Transaction fees might rise above two cents! The sky is falling!
<jcorgan>
suggesting the nuclear option suggests that there is no further common basis for negotiation
ircLuigi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rht__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ircLuigi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
ircLuigi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ircLuigi has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
<leakypat>
it's been eye opening his whole episode
fanquake has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
mhearn's fixation on zeroconf was always bizarre, but this is just unglued.
kgk has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<petertodd>
bramc: the conf I just got back from on blockchain tech was full of financey types looking to use bitcoin for various purposes - e.g. cross-border settlement - who were dumbfounded at how much people were caring at tx fees
<bramc>
petertodd, Transaction fees might climb above two cents! The sky is falling!
<petertodd>
bramc: e.g. one quote was basically "tx fees going up to levels that we can't afford would basically mean fiat is dead"
<petertodd>
bramc: (and they knew damn well about the 1MB limit)
justanotherusr is now known as {`0__0`}
<bramc>
petertodd, Nobody eats there any more. It's too crowded.
<petertodd>
yup!
fanquake1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<leakypat>
Exactly
<petertodd>
equally, it's pretty easy to explain to people why tx fees matter, and we can't rely on the inflation subsidy - at least when those people are looking at things like eris that would only use the bitcoin blockchain for last-resort global consensus
fanquake has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<leakypat>
"Bitcoin transaction fees rise on demand for blockchain space"
<petertodd>
speaking of, anyone looked at replace-by-fee lately? I'm getting nervous because no-one is finding any bugs :P
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nemild has quit [Quit: nemild]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sy5error has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
_biO_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
I wonder how much of gavin and mike's increasing arrogance is driven by thinking they have the chinese miners in their pocket (not like miners have that kind of power anyway)
{`0__0`} is now known as justanotheruser
<bramc>
petertodd, What are the latest replace by fee acceptance heuristics?
<bramc>
Not allowing any new outputs to be added or have their value increased is 'conservative', although at this point I'm feeling like 'fuck zeroconf. Really. Fuck it.'
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<petertodd>
bramc: well, I've written both; I have reasonably firm commitment to implement the conservative option at a reasonably large pool so long as the code can pass peer review
<bramc>
Much as it sounds interesting to work on, I'm not up on the bitcoin codebase and that looks like a serious time sink
<petertodd>
haha, yeah, I can't blame you there
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<petertodd>
though, it's a good way to learn! :P
<bramc>
The biggest potential issues have to do with introducing a transaction which pays x, then x+e, then x+2e, x+3e, etc.
<petertodd>
how so?
the_last has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<petertodd>
oh, you mean e as in epsilon?
<bramc>
It's a way to get the network to waste lots of bandwidth
<bramc>
Yeah, e is epsilon
<petertodd>
it makes sure you pay at least as much in increased fees as the min relay fee, so you're just as better off spamming normal txs
<bramc>
It seems like transaction size should be included in there somewhere
<petertodd>
it is! min relay fee is calculated as feerate * tx size
<bramc>
oh good
<bramc>
There's also potential issues where an attacker gets around that minimum by bumping two transactions back and forth out of the pool
<petertodd>
how would that work?
<the_last>
petertodd: Why not just increase the blocksize to say, 4mb. To postpone all of these issues until Lightning Network is complete?
<petertodd>
the_last: if all you're doing is a small 4x increase, why bother with all that work and risk?
<bramc>
Like, I give you a large transaction which just barely makes it in, then another one which pays epsilon more which bumps that one out, then another one which pays out of the first input which gives another epsilon and pushes that second one out, etc.
<bramc>
Obviously this is dicey to do in practice, but worth considering
<the_last>
petertodd: Prevent the necessary rise of txn fees in the mean time and allowance for low-value txns to continue on the network unimpaired?
<bramc>
the_last, What does that accomplish?
<the_last>
bramc: I'm sure there are companies out there that utilize the blockchain like that (if not, there will be), it would allow them to stay in business.
<petertodd>
bramc: well, it has to pay epsilon = tx_{i+1}_size * min-relay-fee, so at every replacement you're paying for bandwidth roughly speaking (assuming at least one of them will get mined)
<bramc>
petertodd, No there's a loophole: You're using your new transaction to bump out your old transaction, thus saving yourself money
<petertodd>
bramc: nope, the new tx has to pay at least as much in total fees as the old one, as well as for it's own bandwidth
<bramc>
petertodd, I'm not sure where our disconnect is here. My point is that the old transaction will get pushed out, so I don't have to pay for the bandwidth to send it out after all
<bramc>
Say I create a 500k transaction which just barely makes it, wait for it to go everywhere, then make another 500k transaction which just barely bumps out the old one, wait for it to go over the whole network, make a new one, etc.
<bramc>
If the amount of time it takes for these transactions to propagate is short enough I'll have succeeded in sending out a lot of them before a block is minted, and I only have to pay the fee on the last one because the others don't make it
<bramc>
If I'm bouncing back and forth between two inputs I don't even run the risk of having to pay more than double in the end
<justanotheruser>
bramc: what do you mean by "just barely" bumps out the old one?
<petertodd>
ok, so tx1 will pay 500k * min_fee_rate in fees, and tx2 will pay (500k * min_fee_rate) + (500k * min_fee_rate) in fees
Crowley2k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<petertodd>
if tx2 pays less it gets rejected
<petertodd>
replace-by-fee is *not* a mechanism to make mempools come to consensus, just a mechanism to replace transactions
<bramc>
petertodd, Wait, so transactions which get introduced sooner have a big advantage? that seems unfair
SDCDev has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<bramc>
petertodd, To be clear, I'm talking about transactions with different inputs, so they aren't replace by fee, they're bump out the other one
<petertodd>
bramc: what does "unfair" have to do with it?
<bramc>
Maybe this sort of attack is already possible on the existing deployed network
<petertodd>
bramc: the purpose is to be able to replace one transaction with another - there's no "fair" involved as both txs are (basically always) created by the same person
SDCDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<petertodd>
yeah, you've always been able to send multiple txs at once that are mutually incompatible
<bramc>
okay, so let's say the attack I'm talking about doesn't even hit the replace by fee codepath. Is there any defense against it in the replace by fee or existing logic?
<petertodd>
no, nor can there be - that's just a standard zeroconf doublespend
<bramc>
I'm not communicating a critical point here
<bramc>
Let's say I have two coins, A and B
<bramc>
I introduce a huge transaction to spend A, then bump it out with another huge transaction to spend B
<petertodd>
right
<bramc>
At this point, will peers forget about the first transaction completely or simply stop relaying it?
<petertodd>
yeah, they forget about tx #1
<bramc>
So then even if there is no replace by fee logic, I can create a new transaction which spends A which pays epsilon more in fees and use it to bump out the existing spend of B, which will cause everybody to forget about the transaction which spends B...
<petertodd>
(and actually, you have to have *three* coins, because you need a conflict)
<bramc>
Let's say that my transactions are greater than 500k, so any two of them will conflict
<petertodd>
no, w/o replace-by-fee the first tx that spends a given output is the one that is kept
<petertodd>
also, max standard tx is 100k - larger than that won't get relayed
<bramc>
But the first transaction was forgotten completely! The double-spend logic won't even notice that it's a replacement
<bramc>
Also I can use ten 100k transactions, that doesn't fundamentally change the attack
<petertodd>
wait, double-spend logic? what double-spend logic exactly?
<petertodd>
and again, without replace-by-fee, transactions don't get removed from the mempool, except by being mined, or double-spent by a tx in a mined block
<bramc>
In the existing deployed logic, if I get a transaction to spend A, then another transaction to spend A, I ignore the second one. But, if the first transaction got completely bumped out I'll have forgotten about it, so I'll accept a new one
<petertodd>
right
<bramc>
Didn't you just say that if a transaction gets bumped out because its fee is too low it will get forgotten completely?
<petertodd>
so, if I have outputs A, B, C, I can create tx1 that spends A,C, replace it with tx2 that spends B,C, and then broadcast tx3 that spends just A
<petertodd>
what's the exploit exactly?
<bramc>
Oh that's a different kind of bumping out than I was thinking, I was thinking of things getting bumped out because the 1meg limit has been hit
<bramc>
So there's no C. Let me think about using C.
<petertodd>
nah, the mempool knows nothing about the blocksize limit, indeed, the mempool is unlimited in size...
<bramc>
I think your logic will stop the bumping out due to using C just fine
<bramc>
Requiring it step up by a full min relay fee seems a bit hash. Maybe half would be good
<bramc>
harsh I mean, not hash
<bramc>
Ah, so you keep whatever transactions you get but you don't relay them if their fees aren't high enough?
<petertodd>
actually, there's potential issues re: block propagation where the min relay fee might be too low to account for the tx's signatures not being in the sigcache of other nodes
<petertodd>
no, txs that aren't re-relayed aren't kept
Mably has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<bramc>
So say a new block happens, and you have transactions locally which are for inputs which are still unspent, what do you do with them?
<petertodd>
they stay in the mempool; the mempool is only changed by txs either getting mined or double-spent
<Adlai>
(or by having the process restarted!)
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<justanotheruser>
petertodd: I assume the possibility of transactions spending different sets of inputs with different fees leading to a transaction replacing cycle being created has been considered?
Guyver2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<petertodd>
justanotheruser: yup! that is allowed, but the cycle will eventually end due to the rule that fees must always increase on every replacment
<justanotheruser>
petertodd: oh, so even if a 100kb tx is being replaced by 100 1kb transactions, all the 1kb transactions individually must have a greater fee than the 100kb transaction?
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<petertodd>
yes!
<petertodd>
sure, you could try to do better, but that's a rare case so no sense adding complex code to handle it
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
petertodd, How do peers prevent you from making them run out of memory by stuffing them full of extremely low fee transactions?
<petertodd>
bramc: they don't
<petertodd>
bramc: long-standing bug
<bramc>
Come to think of it, you couldn't stuff them full of more than the utxo set's worth of data, which isn't all *that* big
<petertodd>
well... a GB of mempool space requires $2.5k worth of btc
<petertodd>
the attack *is* possible
<bramc>
How are you getting that value?
<petertodd>
work out the minimum relay fee/KB * 1GB * exchange rate
<petertodd>
10uBTC/Kb
<petertodd>
*KB
<bramc>
Isn't the minimum relay fee set based on the other fees being offered, essentially zero if there's less than 1meg worth of transactions total?
<petertodd>
nope! it's hard-coded
<bramc>
Is it already hard-coded or is this new with your new logic?
<petertodd>
it's always been hard-coded
<bramc>
What's the current minimum transaction fee on a standard size transaction?
<petertodd>
10uBTC/KB * 0.2KB or something - it's purely a $/KB calculation
<petertodd>
anyway, go read the code, it'd do you some good :) AcceptToMemory
<petertodd>
*AcceptToMemoryPool() is the relevant function
<bramc>
the_last, hitting the transaction rate limit isn't a disaster, it just means transaction rates go up
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
b_lumenkraft has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Crowley2k has quit [Quit: Leaving]
_biO_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<the_last>
bramc: and when the cost of the transaction outweighs its purpose?
<bramc>
the_last, transaction fees won't exceed the value people are getting out of them
<bramc>
Because if it did, they wouldn't pay it :-P
<the_last>
we won't ever see fees above, say, $1?
<the_last>
i mean, for microtransactions even something like a 20cent fee would be expensive, a 20cent fee for a $1 burger for example
antanst has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<mountaingoat>
minimum bound on tx fee is the cost of mining + margin to make it worth it for a miner (excluding current subsidy), upper bound is whatever people are willing to pay to get their tx into a block faster
<mountaingoat>
otherwise it's a free market, at least in theory, and most people would probably pay market rate the_last
<bramc>
the_last, microtransactions directly on the block chain are a bad idea. There are proposals for enabling microtransactions, most promisingly lightning network, but trying to cram them into the block chain itself is not happening from both a transaction fee and a time to close standpoint
damethos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rht__ has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<the_last>
i see, thanks
<mountaingoat>
trying to keep zero fee txs ad infinitum because block reward subsidy exists is just putting off the necessary migration to a fee market, which i wish would happen sooner than later. of course part of the debate is probably a question of when is the right time, iiuc
gill3s has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<moa>
hey bramc
<bramc>
mountaingoat, More than one core developer has expressed a desire to temporarily and artificially have miners lower the limit to make sure that everything can handle real transaction fees and be able to let it go back up again to the real limit in case there's a serious problem. That of course isn't happening in the current political climate.
<bramc>
Yes moa?
<moa>
what do you think about btc payment channels in a tit-for-tat for bittorrent bandwidth model?
<moa>
btc metered torrenting
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
damethos has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bramc>
moa, bandwidth value doesn't work that way. It isn't a commodity.
<moa>
big pipes are valuable
<mountaingoat>
bramc: limit of free transactions per block??
<mountaingoat>
-?
<bramc>
You can't take bandwidth and stick it on a shelf to use later. You can only offload uploading onto peers who also have the content
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<bramc>
mountaingoat, meaning, have some fraction of miners continue to accept 1meg blocks, but only generate 500k blocks themselves
<bramc>
That way you can test the limit-hitting logic now and not be totally fucked if it fails
<mountaingoat>
ok, i see
<moa>
interesting take
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Mably has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
n0n0_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
_biO_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<fluffypony>
moa: you mean like justusranvier's proposal?
<moa>
yeah, kind of ... but he only ever proposes things
<moa>
would be better if he was implementing to get direct feedback for his concepts i think
<moa>
icbw
_biO_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<fluffypony>
I think the cost of implementing a scheme that doesn't have broad-base support can be exceedingly high for individuals
andy-logbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<fluffypony>
and getting buy-in from others to assist is painful
andy-logbot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
* andy-logbot
is logging
<moa>
yep
spinza has quit [Excess Flood]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Well, I've now written almost 2000 words of vitriol for a post about the subject at hand. Will finish it up and send it off for review tomorrow.
<mountaingoat>
has anybody written about the known milestones of scalability left for bitcoin and what the plan as the project is to achieve them?
rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<mountaingoat>
i'd imagine the tx fee market is one of them, but i wonder what else i don't know about that. i'm also sure there's plenty that wouldn't be known until they're encountered in the wild.
pollux-bts has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<phantomcircuit>
which means implementing net settlement systems which use bitcoin
<mountaingoat>
i'm not sure i follow ... what's net settlement?
<phantomcircuit>
mountaingoat, you pay me 1BTC i pay you 2BTC but instead of doing both i simply send you 1BTC
<leakypat>
mountaingoat: eg. Performing 1000s of small transactions off the blockchain and then netting them out and settling on chain in a single transaction
<phantomcircuit>
that's what micropayment channels and lightning do
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<mountaingoat>
ah right
<mountaingoat>
yeah, that would seem important to adapting rate to the bitcoin blockchain
<bramc>
It's interesting how quickly core devs have come around to seeing lightning network as the future.
<bramc>
The lack of any other serious proposals is probably a big part of it...
<leakypat>
bramc from my understanding it would need a lot of things to happen to make it work
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, lightning is an extension of micropayment channel hubs
<bramc>
leakypat, Depends what you mean by 'a lot'. None of them are crazy.
<phantomcircuit>
micropayment channels in general have been widely understood to be the solution to scaling bitcoin
<phantomcircuit>
for years now
<leakypat>
Even if all the coding is done and it is up and running . It still needs to get enough usage that I can route a payment via existing channels etc.
<leakypat>
(I think)
antanst has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, Fair enough, one can say that lightning network is the finishing details on the concept of micropayment channels
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, as interesting as lightning is i feel pretty confident that even better approaches are not only possible but will come out relatively quickly given actual scaling pressure
<phantomcircuit>
at present there is no real pressure
<bramc>
leakypat, There needs to be an ecosystem of payment intermediaries, but the requirements on how they're set up for the whole thing to work is actually quite loose
<leakypat>
Eg. I don't have a channel open with company x, but company x does with User y and I do with user y
<leakypat>
I have to be able to find a path for my payment
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, What deficiencies in lightning would you like to see addressed?
<bramc>
leakypat, Yeah it supports that
<bramc>
Much larger systems have already been made to work in the wild. BGP, for example.
<bramc>
Well, it's way past my bed-time. Today's bitcoin-induced aneurysm is over. Good night everybody.
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, nobody has yet come up with a mechanism to do net netting
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, lightning supports that just fine
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, in other words it would be nice if the settlement could be safely delayed if both parties agreed
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, no you have to close out the channel eventually
<bramc>
phantomcircuit, No you only have to close out the channel if the balance goes past the deposit amounts
www has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: No route to host]
<phantomcircuit>
bramc, i suspect that in general it wont make a huge difference either way
<phantomcircuit>
most channels will simply go one direction
_biO_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
terpo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
waxwing has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
waxwing has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
gill3s has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gill3s has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CoinMuncher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
antanst has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Tiraspol has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lmatteis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Client Quit]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SDCDev has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Tebbo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tebbo` has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
GAit has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gill3s has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
fanquake1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
darwin_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
darwin_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
rusty has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
darwin_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has joined #bitcoin-wizards
darwin_ has quit []
airbreather has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
darwin_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Sub|afk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SubCreative has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
terpo has quit []
darwin_ has quit []
prodatalab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
JackH has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
melvster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
airbreather has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
n0n0_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
SDCDev has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Xh1pher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi_ has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
rht__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
triazo has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
triazo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
b_lumenkraft has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
eudoxia has joined #bitcoin-wizards
b_lumenkraft has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
fanquake has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fanquake1 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
austinhill has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: No route to host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hearn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrTratta has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
helo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
helo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
temujin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtagg_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|sleep is now known as c0rw1n
nemild has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nemild has quit [Client Quit]
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
fanquake has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
eudoxia_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia_ has quit [Client Quit]
eudoxia has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
helo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
helo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
helo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
helo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
StephenM347 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
www has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
davi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has quit [Excess Flood]
antanst has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MrTratta has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|afk
prodatalab has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SDCDev has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner
prodatalab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lnsybrd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
getplank has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lnsybrd has quit [Quit: lnsybrd]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<hearn>
theymos: did you seriously suggest earlier attempting to break the DNS seeds in order to fuck with bitcoinj based wallets? *eyepop*
<hearn>
(not just bitcoinj. other spv wallets too)
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
nemild has joined #bitcoin-wizards
orperelman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nemild has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
nemild has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CoinMuncher has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
www has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Mably has quit [Quit: Page closed]
devrandom has quit [Quit: leaving]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Excess Flood]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
shaul has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<theymos>
hearn: I didn't suggest breaking them, and not to cause havoc/DoS. I suggested causing them to return only nodes on the correct side of any hardfork, to prevent SPV nodes from blindly going along with a hardfork even if it's supported by miners.
_biO_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dc17523be3 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<jcorgan>
such illustrative differences in demeanor
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<bramc>
That's rich. Hearn just accused someone of trying to 'wreck havoc' for making a proposal to try to contain some of the havoc created by his own proposal.
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
shaul has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"]
shaul has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hulkhogan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
shaul has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"]
shaul has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lnsybrd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
_biO_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hulkhogan_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has quit [Quit: Quit]
lnsybrd has quit [Quit: lnsybrd]
Mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lnsybrd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nsh>
(i pointed out this would happen to kanzure yesterday when he made a similar suggestion. it's not diplomatic to attempt to preempt a failure of consensus update process by proposing a similarly non-bilateral countermeasure. this raises temperature/anxieties and doesn't tend towards amicable resolution)
gill3s has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
nsh, The possibility of an amicable resolution seems to have already been precluded
* nsh
is an optimist
<nsh>
and assumes good faith :)
<GAit>
theymos: i think they shouldn't be implemented until there is code distributed that is preprogrammed to attemp a contentious hard fork, as for discussing possible countermeasures that could be taken in the contentious situation i think it's fair game, hearn loves to discuss hypoteticals and extreme situations in his interviews and talks
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<theymos>
It wouldn't be a bad idea in general for DNS seeds to try and check that peers they recommend are real full nodes that are properly handling blocks. Currently they do only a few basic checks, and could probably be fooled by Sybil attacks.
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<GAit>
theymos: sure but it would be quite hard to detect PseudoNode
<GAit>
well, maybe not, i don't know how
<GAit>
timings and things like that seem flaky
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<theymos>
Yeah. Though Tor directory authorities face similar problems, and they've done basically OK.
b_lumenkraft has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davi has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
orperelman has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
orperelman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
tcrypt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davi_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gill3s has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
eudoxia has joined #bitcoin-wizards
n0n0_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
helo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
helo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rubensayshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
www has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
austinhill has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
davi_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
rht__ has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
maraoz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
c-cex-yuriy has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
www has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lnsybrd has quit [Quit: lnsybrd]
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
execut3 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
Xh1pher has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bramc>
I gave a rousing speech and the people agreed with me! Clearly the rough consensus says I'm right!
<bramc>
The reality is that there is a rough consensus. The rough consensus says he's wrong.
<petertodd>
theymos: until we get DNS seeds to be authenticated with a way to prove they gave you bad results, I'd argue we should go the other way and have them periodically return lies for robustness
<gavinandresen>
bramc : if you have specific technical objections to raising the max block size, I'd love to hear them (via email) if I haven't already addressed them in a gavinandresen.ninja blog post.
<gavinandresen>
bramc : discussion about governance of Bitcoin Core probably belongs in #bitcoin-dev
<gavinandresen>
... and discussion of bitcoin in general probably belongs in #bitcoin
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<bramc>
gavinandresen, You're going to cause a fork. It will not be a simple change. There will be two separate currencies. And it will be a disaster.
<bramc>
gavinandresen, And the problem you're claiming to solve isn't even a problem. Transaction fees might go above two cents! The sky is falling1
dc17523be3 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
dc17523be3 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has quit [Excess Flood]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<temujin>
please fork bitcoin so i can buy during the panic low
<bramc>
Everybody, basic question here: is bip100 a hard fork or not?
<amiller>
some things it doesn't address: how it's any "greener"... if you spend $80 million dollars on hard drives i dont see how that's any better for the environment than $80 million on asics and power
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<ThinThread>
how do i find out exactly when the fork will happen
<kanzure>
amiller: oh no :-( "Our solution to this problem is based on penalizing miners who try to work on more than one branch of the chain."
<kanzure>
amiller: it's really weird how nobody reads -wizards logs
rusty has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
davi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
also it seems to assume that miners don't use unique keys?
<kanzure>
being able to steal rewards from the past is problematic because it might mean a 10k-deep fork, then all the coinbase transactions are stolen later, thus disrupting the .. hrm.
getplank has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
antanst has joined #bitcoin-wizards
antanst has quit [Client Quit]
<fluffypony>
lol
<kanzure>
it's sort of a proof withholding attack
<kanzure>
in addition to all the regular forms of attacks that have been previously discussed
www has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
hearn has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
davi has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<bramc>
amiller, If done properly, proofs of disk can work off the already existent unused disk out there, so the ROI on buying new equipment to do mining would be negative
<bramc>
From the abstract, it appears that the authors have independently reinvented at least some of the ideas I've come up with, although it looks like they're missing some critical points. I'll have to read through it to have a more informed opinion.
gmaxwell has joined #bitcoin-wizards
orperelman has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<gmaxwell>
I was talking to Michael Hamburg (from curves @ modern crypto) and he has a neat method to efficiently factor out the cofactor on twisted edwards curves with cofactor 4 like ed448-goldilocks (but not 8 like ed25519). So you can get a prime order group using the construction.
<bramc>
gmaxwell, What is that construction for?
<bramc>
gmaxwell, You've made some comments about objective metrics on the optimal size of the block chain seemingly indicating that the current limit is too big. What are those metrics?
getplank has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bramc>
Oh yech, the spacecoin paper is using pebbling graphs. The straightforward approach is so much easier. Also they don't seem to have figured out the trick of interleaving proofs of time.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: there are a couple of negative indicators, node counts, business outsouring of processing instead of running nodes, number of VPS offerings that you can even run a node on, hashpower behavior-- explicitly and intentionally consolidating to reduce orhpaning (esp pre-matt's relay network) (also things like miners disabling signature checking, though that may be a fluke). I wrote a better li
<gmaxwell>
st someplace I'll go look in a bit.
<bramc>
by 'consolidating to reduce orphaning' do you mean miners including fewer transactions because the value they get in transaction fees is worth less than the risk that they'll get orphaned?
Sub|afk is now known as SubCreative
SubCreative has quit [Changing host]
SubCreative has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Businesses not running nodes is weird. It would be really nice if wallets ran full nodes themselves.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: wrt construction, people sometimes use EC curves where the group formed doesn't have prime order (ed25519 is one example). You generally need to assure that your points are in a particular subgroup. For things like ECDH this is easy (make your keys a multiple of the cofactor) and not of grave consequence if you get it wrong. For fancier ZK protocols like ZK auth/password based kdf or thin
<gmaxwell>
gs like range proofs it's both harder to assure you're in the right subgroup and more important (as which subgroup you are in leaks data)
<kanzure>
bramc: businesses are often campaigned by certain other businesses that "develoeprs find it hard to use bitcoin core" etc
<helo>
you pretty much need a programmer that understands the fundamentals well to integrate with it
<helo>
vs a service like bitpay that works like paypal
<gmaxwell>
bramc: it's hard to sort out whats a accident of market dynamics vs a fundimental.
<helo>
(i think that is the problem more than the block size or hardware requirements to run a full node)
<bramc>
gmaxwell, Why not use a group of prime order? My recollection of the discussion of ed255 vs. secpk is that ed255 doesn't have odd order and the most recent secpk code is roughly comparable in performance.
<bramc>
It could be that a lot of businesses just don't like running servers
<gmaxwell>
E.g. yes, it would be much healthier if wallets on high power systems always became (pruned) fullnodes in the background; but the software doesn't exist for that currently. So the fact that this hasn't happened may have nothing to do with the blocksize (though obviously it cannot happen for blocksize over _some_ threshold)
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
bramc: yes, thats one reason I like secp256k1-- that it has prime order. Though for curves where this projection trick works, may be just as good. (and perhaps better in some other ways).
<leakypat>
Are you referring to desktop wallets like armory or wallet services with central servers?
<bramc>
gmaxwell, In a very immediate practical sense not breaking heirarchical wallets is a good thing
<gmaxwell>
leakypat: desktop wallets. WRT centeral servers; well that might be some kind of indicator regarding blocksize too but it's really hard to sort out the varrious effects.
<bramc>
Ideally even mobile wallets would be full nodes
<ajweiss>
i've played with running pruned nodes on fairly beefy android phones before
<lmatteis>
to decentralize mining again, was it ever considered to embed P2pool sort of technology inside bitcoin core?
<ajweiss>
it works, but practicality is tbd... also this is with zero optimizations or tweaks
<gmaxwell>
ajweiss: I believe luke was running bitcoin core on his nokia 810 at one point in the past. :P
<bramc>
ajweiss, moore's law is on our side, as long as the size of the block chain doesn't go up :-P
<ajweiss>
the problem is battery life and catching up
<gmaxwell>
bramc: I think mobile wallets could quite plausably be the kind of fraud proofed full security lite nodes that we can't currently do in Bitcoin.
<gmaxwell>
e.g. where it's mostly not checking things except a bit at random, but it can accept and verify proofs hat a block is bad and then reject it.
<ajweiss>
it made me wonder if maybe running your own trusted and authenticated nodes that your thin clients can talk to would make more sense
<ajweiss>
the whole blockchaindataforyou.com vs. running your own node in a business might be solved by some dead simple and well marketed APIs for verifying things that could be used in tandem with the commercial service
<gmaxwell>
part of the difficulty there is that the extra commitments are expensive to maintain (IO cost wise for full nodes)
<gmaxwell>
ajweiss: so I've heard from some commercial service offerings that offer an API which also can talk to a local full node that very-few of their users use it, even with nagging.
<helo>
using your home computer/connection to host services for your mobile phone should really be a thing in general...
<gmaxwell>
helo: what the sandstorm stuff does is creates a generic sandbox where you can 'app market' like install common webapps and they're all isolated from each other.
<gmaxwell>
but who knows thats a movement bigger than bitcoin; though its not unimportant.
<bramc>
Very few companies run their own email servers either
<bramc>
The fraction of all email currently controlled by google is quite alarming.
<ajweiss>
afaik there's no FOSS alternative that's even close yet
<Eliel>
email takes a crapload of administration effort that doesn't really increase with the number of users that much.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: even if you run your own and you're happy, google and hotmail will randomly blacklist you.
<Eliel>
yes, part of it is randomly getting blacklisted :P
<bramc>
gmaxwell, I've been unhappy even with hosted services for the most part
<ajweiss>
and the ongoing spam saga is pretty annoying... especially since it seems most of the development moved from oss to services
<gmaxwell>
This has been a basically constant problem for several orgs I know about that self host mail on coloed servers. (e.g. wikimedia, creative commons).
<helo>
google hosting or... use gmail directly -.-
<gmaxwell>
Of course, for personal mail its almost crazy to use a personal service if you care at all about privacy, since in the US we have crazy legal perspective that you have no expectation of privacy for mail stored by third parties, and so virtually no legal protection for it.
<bramc>
I just use gmail, because the alternatives are a joke. I hope that microsoft gets their offering to be reasonably comparable.
<bramc>
Anyway, the point is that the trend towards centralization is very strong and difficult to counter
<gmaxwell>
Centeralization has inherent efficiencies, as well has incentives simplicity.
<zooko>
I use gmail. It spam-filters mail from Jeff Garzik and Mark S. Miller to me. Always.
<zooko>
Which I think is hilarious.
<ajweiss>
Our email service safeguards user data with strict privacy protections and our secure datacenter facility hidden inside a Swiss granite mountain.
<ajweiss>
zooko: just on list, or in general?
<gmaxwell>
in general.
<gmaxwell>
of course every one of us who uses gmail creates pressure on those people to use it too... due to screwups like that.
<bramc>
One of the few places where centralization is all awful is bandwidth. Hence BitTorrent.
<ajweiss>
weird. that should happen on list because they're using DMARC and the list is breaking the signature... why individual mail would break makes no sense to me...
<gmaxwell>
(nevermind that these people are in my address book and I've emailed them before... to the spamcan with them!)
<Eliel>
I think a lot more companies would run bitcoin core if you could run one bitcoind and then have several wallets on different systems that all use the bitcoin core for their operation. if bitcoin core was zeroconf (and worked instantly) and wallet configuration only needed the ip-address/domain to the bitcoin core.
<bramc>
I've only rarely had spam filtering problems lately, but this is mostly due to hardly using email at all.
<bramc>
Eliel, zeroconf is busted
<gmaxwell>
Eliel: yea wallet/backend seperation would be nice; I've wanted that for a long time. There is motion in a direction which should eventually admit that... but there are so many fires burning.
<helo>
Eliel: that will probably be possible in a few more releases... i think the wallet is moving further and further from bitcoin core center stage, at least
<helo>
then it may be pretty simple to point your various wallets at one node at home
<gmaxwell>
helo: dunno about that; wallet in bitcoin core had no one working on it for some time, though thats not true anymore.
<fluffypony>
that's the architecture we have
<helo>
hopefully we'll be close in a year
<fluffypony>
complete separation between wallet and daemon
<Eliel>
(I'm working on a WIP bitcoinj based wallet software that's partially compatible with bitcoin core wallet RPC.)
<fluffypony>
but then it used RPC, which is messy, so we're moving to 0MQ (pub-sub over the IPC->TCP transport)
<gmaxwell>
fluffypony: yea that seemed like an obviously better design. (not true of everything in monero, but I'm glad it learned something from bitcoin's mistakes! :) )
<fluffypony>
we're still having to go through the same pain as you guys with delicately pulling consensus-critical stuff out into a library of its own, though, so there's that
<Eliel>
the main problem with bitcoin core is that while running it on one server is ok, it's very much not ok if it quadruples the resource requirements for every server you need a wallet on.
<fluffypony>
Eliel: the "quick fix" is to only allow one node on the network external access, and force the rest of the nodes to peer with each other
<fluffypony>
then the resources are all eternal
<kanzure>
could some clarify; is monero using zeromq?
<Eliel>
fluffypony: if bitcoin core had SPV mode, then it'd be usable in that sort of setup.
<fluffypony>
kanzure: not merged into master yet
<kanzure>
fluffypony: waiting on bitcoin to merge zeromq stuff..?
<fluffypony>
still some calls that haven't been completed
<fluffypony>
so PR soon (tm)
<gmaxwell>
Eliel: some of the resorces requirement stuff is just stupid. there is no particular reason for it to be so resource hungry now. The fact that you can't run it in basic tier VPSes has been a huge issue.
n0n0_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
nemild has quit [Quit: nemild]
Mably has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
_biO_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
tcrypt has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
PaulCapestany has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
tcrypt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Cory has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
elastoma has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
elastoma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afdudley has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Cory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
getplank has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
afdudley has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
dEBRUYNE has quit [*.net *.split]
TheSeven has quit [*.net *.split]
d1ggy has quit [*.net *.split]
badmofo has quit [*.net *.split]
rustyn has quit [*.net *.split]
hashtag_ has quit [*.net *.split]
tromp has quit [*.net *.split]
phantomcircuit has quit [*.net *.split]
EasyAt has quit [*.net *.split]
nephyrin has quit [*.net *.split]
kinlo has quit [*.net *.split]
isis has quit [*.net *.split]
StephenM347 has quit []
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d1ggy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
badmofo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nephyrin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
EasyAt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kinlo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
isis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
NewLiberty_ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
temujin has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
nessence has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shaul has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]