sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
hashtag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PRab has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 42.0/20151029151421]]
PaulCapestany has quit [Quit: .]
bedeho has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TheSeven has quit [Disconnected by services]
[7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skra has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nanasho has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nanasho>
i have a question regarding OP_DUP3
<nanasho>
does OP_DUP3 also work if there are only 2 are put on the stack beforehand?
<sipa>
#bitcoin
bedeho has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Oizopower has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
skra has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
maraoz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Yoghur114 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
orik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
orik has quit [Client Quit]
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
skra has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
maraoz has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
HoloIRCUser2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
psztorc_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afk11 has quit [Client Quit]
afk11 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roxtrongo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
null_radix has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
metamarc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
metamarc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
null_radix has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
publius1888 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
publius1788 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
sipa_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sipa has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Cyndre_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nanasho has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Guest48051 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Apocalyptic has quit [*.net *.split]
lecusemble has quit [*.net *.split]
c0rw1n has quit [*.net *.split]
Alanius has quit [*.net *.split]
mkarrer has quit [*.net *.split]
guruvan has quit [*.net *.split]
gavinandresen has quit [*.net *.split]
huseby has quit [*.net *.split]
epscy has quit [*.net *.split]
yorick has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Lightsword has quit [Quit: Lightsword]
darmou has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has quit [Changing host]
Alanius_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alanius has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
guruvan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gavinandresen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
huseby has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alanius has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
lecusemble has joined #bitcoin-wizards
epscy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hashtag has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
hashtag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfromknecht has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Running numbers on my clustering is a bit alarming
TBI has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Let's say that 4k is a reasonable block size (is it? I don't know. It depends how much stuff gets cached out at once). Since hashes are 32 bytes, that means a single block will contain 4096 / 32 == 128 terminals. Actually half that because it needs intermediaries. That indicates that you're still likely doing at least one cache miss per change operation under normal usage.
TBI__ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<bramc>
The wikipedia page on it seems to indicate that 32k or 64k is more common/normal, which is a bit less scary
<bramc>
But still, we're talking about one cache miss versus about ten secure hash operations. Not sure which of those is going to be more expensive.
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Client Quit]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Oizopower has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
skyraider has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hashtag has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[7] has quit [Disconnected by services]
TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HoloIRCUser5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
afk11 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
HoloIRCUser2 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
snthsnth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dgenr8 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TBI has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
TBI has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Cyndre_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
_whitelogger has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dave4925 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
p15_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
c-cex-yuriy has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
damethos has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
roxtrongo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
sparetire_ has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
skra has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
roxtrongo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roxtrongo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
markus-k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cluckj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jcluck has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
stonecoldpat has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
stonecoldpat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
hashtag has joined #bitcoin-wizards
toffoo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
lmatteis has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
mably has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
fkhan has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
mably has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has quit [Changing host]
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aburan28 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mably has quit [Quit: Page closed]
irc88 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
hdbuck has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
ThomasV has quit [Quit: Quitte]
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox_ is now known as nwilcox
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
bedeho has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<nwilcox>
How much of a concern is the ability of miners to insert "free" transactions into their own blocks?
<nwilcox>
They can fill out a block with transactions and recoup all of those fees, pushing the cost of transmission, storage, etc... onto the rest of the network.
<zooko>
nwilcox: what's the point of that? A DoS against everyone else?
<zooko>
I've heard that discussed before. I think it might have been by Vitalik in the context of a worse DoS in the context of Ethereum,
<zooko>
Vitalik pointed out that the same thing could be done in the context of Bitcoin, although the costs to everyone else were not as bad.
<sipa>
nwilcox: if people were scared about that, they should pay higher fees :)
rubensayshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<nwilcox>
sipa: that makes sense... except I'm scared of it but I want someone else to pay high fees. ;-)
<sipa>
nwilcox: yeah, that's a bigger issue :)
<nwilcox>
zooko: There might be many incentives for miners to do this.
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
slowing down propagation of blocks may in some cases be advantageous
<nwilcox>
For example, if users select fees based on statistics of mined blocks, miners can always pad out any less-than-full block with their own "fake" fees.
<zooko>
*nod*
<zooko>
nwilcox: I've heard that discussed recently in the context of client-sde fee-selection algorithms.
<nwilcox>
-or if there are any mechanisms based on block fullness.
<zooko>
I've heard that discussed recently in the contexct of block-size-adjustment algorithms.
<zooko>
:-)
* nwilcox
notices that the proposal bramc made in a blog post ignores mined transactions as input to fee selection.
<kanzure>
why is that a problem though?
<nwilcox>
kanzure: Which? Miners "padding blocks" to make the mean/median fees higher?
<sipa>
well, ideally, you look at the mempool only (and how the mempool transactions get confirmed)... mempool+p2prelay+txfees is one closed system for delivering transactions to miners, but there may be other mechanism with other payments that people can use to get transactions to miners
<nwilcox>
Hm. I hadn't thought about how nodes with mempools can notice if txns keep appearing in blocks that they've never seen in their mempool.
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
melvster has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
binaryatrocity has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
nwilcox: miners may for example create very high fee transactions and put them in their own blocks, to make it look like average block fees are higher (of course, this risks losing those fees in case their blocks get reorganized)
<nwilcox>
sipa: Right, this is one example of how miners may be incentivized to do this.
<sipa>
and the more certain they are they won't be reorganized (=the bigger they are), the more reason they could have to do so
<nwilcox>
So this is yet another one of those issues that doesn't seem to present a serious issue today, but it subtly affects many potential designs: do block scaling proposals ever use block size as a metric? do wallets ever use fee statistics in blocks to make fee decisions? etc...
<kanzure>
fee estimation code at the moment usually doesn't exist in any sense beyond fee per kb, afaik
<kanzure>
oh, and priority
nonaTure has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
<nwilcox>
kanzure: Do you say that with a grasp on how many users use which wallet codebases? Is there a wallet market share graph somewhere?
<nwilcox>
I'm pretty unaware of wallet implementations and their market share.
<kanzure>
market share wasn't my concern, just my knowledge of existing implementations
<maaku>
nwilcox: market share based on what measurement?
<maaku>
i don't think that data exists
<kanzure>
market share is irrelevant if no really amazing fee estimation implementation exists anyway :-)
<nwilcox>
maaku: Good point.
<kanzure>
so i can safely say 0% market share
<nwilcox>
hehe...
<nwilcox>
So we're pretty confident there aren't a million users hidden behind a proprietary wallet?
<kanzure>
why are you asking about proprietary wallets, again?
darmou has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
what does proprietary have to do with good schemes for fee estimation...?
<nwilcox>
kanzure: I want to understand the behavior of the system, and I know very little about the user base.
<kanzure>
huh?
<sipa>
kanzure: nothing, but it does have something to do with being observable
<sipa>
to us
<kanzure>
proprietary? nah, all of us are reverse engineering wizards. perhaps closed-source web wallets, but users often spot withdrawal transaction fee stuff...
<nwilcox>
So if any of you said: "Oh, btw, 98% of all transactions go through Coinbase's web wallet" I would nod and say "oh, ok". And then if you said "we don't know it's fee calculation algorithm" then I would say: "Oh, maybe we can look at historical fee data and learn something about it."
<kanzure>
i believe they had a blog post about their transaction fee schedule
<kanzure>
so... i would start there.
<nwilcox>
Ok, so if I take a step back, it sounds like there's not much concern about miners doing anything "funky" to influence fee selection.
<kanzure>
huh? you had those concerns moments ago about bram's proposal.
melvster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
nwilcox: well, if they cared about fees at all, maybe there would be concern. But if they did, it would also be easil fixed by paying more fees :)
<nwilcox>
Ok, that sounds pretty convincing. So I'm not aware of an "systemic disaster" incentive problem, but at worst miners can raise the cost of fees across the network (but only if most fee calculators used this spoofable statistic, which they don't).
<nwilcox>
Just thought I'd check. ;-)
<kanzure>
what's wrong with the spoofing, again?
<kanzure>
the floor is clearly the cost of miners stuffing transaction fees that get taken by other miners, but is that so bad ?
<sipa>
I do think it's something to keep in mind when designing fee estimation or block rules that are influenced by fees/size...
<nwilcox>
kanzure: my general concern is "what if there's some incentive + mechanism whose 'natural bound' is soo extreme that Bitcoin would be destroyed long run."
<zooko>
I haven't studied bramc's proposal, but it seems like it would be a nice property of a fee-selection algorithm for a client, that it did not use any information from historical mined fees (except possibly ones that it itself previously paid).
<nwilcox>
I don't see that in this case.
<nwilcox>
If it's a matter of "spoofing statistics changes the fee market, but the system doesn't crash overall" then it's much less of a concern for me.
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<nwilcox>
Of course, if some particular fee spoofing issue made Bitcoin fees larger than some competition, then that's a kind of secondary concern.
<kanzure>
i'm not sure if you would be capable of detecting fee spoofing anyway
<kanzure>
you could detect lots of small reorgs at the tip of the chain that seem higher than average, plus you could look at which transactions get included in the alternatives
darmou has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
darmou has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HoloIRCUser3 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CoinMuncher has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nullbyte has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<tromp>
bsm1175321: needs a comma after Random Oracle
<bsm1175321>
Thanks tromp, fixed.
<tromp>
you consider centralization of asic manufactoring, but neglect that of cheap power
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
Yep. Don't know what to do about that.
<tromp>
open source renewable power sources:)
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
roxtrongo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roxtrong_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
I've got in mind widely distributed mining chips, like in everyone's cell phones. If everyone has to mine their transactions a little bit in order to submit them, the user is effectively subsidizing his own transactions with his power bill. Because no one is going to balk about an extra $0.50 on their power bill, this pushes the relative cost to a dedicated miner way up.
<tromp>
bsm1175321: if you want to make everyone do some mining, then it should be a more cpu-friendly PoW that benefits little from asics
<bsm1175321>
See my argument in the blog about the "external majority". I disagree.
<bsm1175321>
CPU mining for everyone is only if you want people to mine today, not if you want to achieve a secure network.
roxtrong_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<tromp>
yes, we disagree on that. if a nontrivial fraction of all worldwide cpu power is used for mining, then no-one will control enough to take over
<tromp>
it will be too well decentralized (including many botnets)
<maaku>
it's rather undeniable that the security of the network today is far, far less than the cpu or even gpu mining days of 2010, 2011, 2012
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
I don't think it's reasonable to consider that 50% of all general-purpose CPUs and GPUs will be used for mining.
<maaku>
bsm1175321: doesn't have to be. 0.01% is probably sufficient
<tromp>
no, of course not 50%. non-trivial would be a fraction of a %
<gmaxwell>
I don't agree with the specifics of bsm's argument; but I don't like tromp's either: CPU power is not very uniformly distributed. E.g. google probably has more than all private persons combined.
<bsm1175321>
maaku: Then a single virus, co-opting 0.01% of desktop computers, can 51% attack the network.
<maaku>
gmaxwell: google's not going to shut down their services to attack bitcoin though
<gmaxwell>
As far as bsm1175321's argument; _any_ spare energy is 'dark hashpower' up to some time constants related to how long it takes to you fab chips (which just requires energy, ultimately).
<bsm1175321>
Or a single actor like the NSA, Google, etc owning 0.01% of all computing.
<zooko>
gmaxwell: there's a potentially useful concept of "idle", under-utilized, resources.
<bsm1175321>
gmaxwell: I agree. There still exists a 51% attack, but it requires fabrication. So this is (probably) more secure because reallocating CPUs can be done more quickly and at lower cost.
<zooko>
That's what worked for Bitcoin, at least, in the early days.
<gmaxwell>
maaku: "our system is secure so long as google doesn't decide to attack" isn't really that great of an argument. :)
<zooko>
Although I suppose it was also obscurity.
<zooko>
gmaxwell: "as long as google doesn't decide to expend XYZ $ attacking it", is.
<gmaxwell>
bsm1175321: At best it's a speedbump. Perhaps not worthless, but I think it shouldn't be understated either.
<gmaxwell>
er overstated.
roxtrongo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bsm1175321>
Yep. It's at best a speedbump.
<gmaxwell>
zooko: thats too strict.
<bsm1175321>
So open source hardware. many manufacturers...
<zooko>
gmaxwell: what do you mean?
matsjj_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
implies an economic argument that may not hold, there is probably a single person you can take at gunpoint to comendeer the bulk of google's infrastructure, at least for a limited time.
jorn_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
Or a virus/trojan.
<gmaxwell>
so your XYZ should be that cost, not google's energy and oppturnity cost. :)
<tromp>
as i said before, both cpu-friendly and asic-friendly pows have their strength, and the best system might be spllitting rewards between 2 such pows
<gmaxwell>
tromp: sorry, yes I was only nitpicking what sounded like an assumption about computing power distribution.
<tromp>
gmaxwell: i would still bet that private owned computers outpower all of google's :)
<zooko>
My thinking about this has... mellowed with age. Like fine scotch. And now I think that maybe the
<zooko>
reason my intuitions are guiding me in a certain direction is that I don't think 1005
<zooko>
100% prevention is the sina qua non.
<zooko>
So, the implicit metric of "What gives us the most plausible chance of zero attacks?" is perhaps not my metric.
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kmels has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<tromp>
also note that attacking asics doesn not require expending 51% power, just ability to bribe or coerce the known major pools
<gmaxwell>
tromp: I'm doubtful. keep in mind that technology pace means that any hardware more than about 5 years old is greatly diminished in impact.
<gmaxwell>
tromp: thats orthorgonal to asics, and was true before mining asics existed.
<tromp>
cpu pows can be expected to have more solo mining and pool diversity
<tromp>
since many will mine at a loss anway
<gmaxwell>
That wasn't the case for bitcoin; and isn't the case for monero (for example) which has a no-asic-yet pow.
<zooko>
In general, a 51% attack only costs the mining reward plus epsilon, per Joe Bonneau's "Why buy when you can rent?" argument.
<zooko>
So a 51% attack today costs 25 Bitcoin times the number of blocks you want to roll back, plus a small bribe.
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<zooko>
...for sufficiently correct definitions of "small".
<gmaxwell>
Right. Though having capitol costs for hardware which is otherwise worthless is a (I think weak) counterargument-- will you rent to someone who will diminish the value of your investment?
<zooko>
*nod*
<gmaxwell>
this would be a better form of the argument bsm1175321 was trying to present, I think.
<tromp>
i guess winning a monero block doesn't feel as much like winning the lottery:)
<zooko>
I think "Why buy when you can rent?" paper spent quite a lot of inches trying to answer the important question: why then are people not rolling-back the Bitcoin blockchain?
<zooko>
I think that's the most important, and completely unanswered, question.
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hdbuck_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<zooko>
Unfortunately I have to go (to lunch), and I don't have an IRC client running on a server, so I'll ... I'll try to find the publicly-visible logs of this when I return. Thank you!
<gmaxwell>
tromp: I've spent a lot of time thinking about that; like why don't people solo mine (+ev!) instead of gambling? I've seen more than a few people saying things like "I want to mine on a PPS pool to get stable payments [...] and now I'm sending all my mining income to satoshi dice for big winnings!"
<gmaxwell>
tromp: I think mining in general doesn't trigger the right risk/reward brain defects that encourage gambling; and instead gets evaluated a different way that encourages stable income. E.g. instead of pressing a button and then finding out if you win or lose, the computer has to be constantly running.
hdbuck has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
hdbuck_ is now known as hdbuck
<gmaxwell>
But I'm speculating; ultimately the expectations you have don't seem to be supported by practice. Maybe it's something fundimental or maybe it's inertia or small details that cause that.
<tromp>
i admittedly engage in a fair amount of wishful thinking
<gmaxwell>
I see people wigging out in mining about even small amounts of variance (of the sort that would leave their monthly income +/- 1%).
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<tromp>
it's easier to argue for cpu-friendly pows in the original setting of spam/flood/ddos control than in the setting of competing for monetary rewards
<gmaxwell>
Yes. I agree.
<bsm1175321>
I agree with your points (tromp, gmaxwell). But I think the next major set of attacks on bitcoin will come from state actors with lots of resources, and the speed bump I point out is somewhat useful.
<gmaxwell>
it has its own costs though, state actors have preferential access to the speedbump.
kmels has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<tromp>
going out for a jog while temperatures are nice. afk...
<bsm1175321>
Yep. I'm not sure there's anything that could stop a determined state actor with billions.
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
stevedekorte has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hdbuck has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
stevedekorte has quit [Quit: stevedekorte]
jcluck is now known as cluckj
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
matsjj has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
livegnik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
livegnik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
hdbuck has quit [Quit: hdbuck]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
dEBRUYNE_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TBI has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TBI_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
hdbuck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kgk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jps has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jps has quit [Client Quit]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has quit [Quit: .]
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has quit [Quit: .]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has quit [Quit: .]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bsm1175321 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
snthsnth has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dEBRUYNE_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
dEBRUYNE_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfromkne_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfromkne_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Newyorkadam has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
bsm1175321 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
spinza has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PaulCapestany has quit [Quit: .]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
metamarc has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
PaulCapestany has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
nullbyte has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
nullbyte has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
matsjj has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bitdevsnyc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nwilcox has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
adam3us has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Dizzle has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
STRML has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
STRML has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
bitdevsnyc has quit []
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]