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
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
TBI has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gocrazy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TBI_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
syriven has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<syriven>
I'm working on a virtual marketplace server for IoT. Not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but I'd love to share the source if anyone is interested in this kind of project.
<syriven>
Basically, it's a server that processes marketplace-appropriate actions. Because the activity is off-chain, $0.01 of BTC pays for thousands or even millions of commands, depending on the exact nature of the usage
<syriven>
if Bitcoin is the money for the IoT, this project (which I'm calling netvend) aims to be the marketplace.
phantomcircuit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<kanzure>
that sounds like a topic more appropriate for #bitcoin
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<syriven>
gotcha, thanks
syriven has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<dgenr8>
Taek: I think your idea would work with a sufficiently conservative gap paremeter, and have proposed exactly the same thing for transactions. a <10% minority of mining can economically dis-incentivize anything it likes. if the "thing" is socially positive, others would likely jump on board.
phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Giszmo has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer_ has quit [Changing host]
ggreer_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ggreer_ is now known as ggreer
wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Killed (adams.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet421 is now known as wallet42
wallet42 has quit [Changing host]
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
fabianfabian has quit [Quit: why]
RoboTedd_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTedd_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
eudoxia has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Quanttek has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
GGuyZ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand is now known as Jeremy_Rand_
Jeremy_Rand_ is now known as Jeremy_Rand__
Jeremy_Rand__ is now known as Jeremy_Rand
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<bramc>
What's the url for the github of the proof of space implementation?
<jannes__>
bramc: is that actually a thing now, Proof of Space? Or is it still in the same category as PoStake?
<Tiraspol>
bramc thanks for bittorent i love u long time
GGuyZ has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
andytoshi has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<CautiousNarwhal>
what is proof-of-space? how many proof-of's are there?
<bramc>
jannes__, Proofs of space are a 'real' thing in that there's a coherent goal which makes sense. It's very technical though and the practical question of its viability is very much an open question. It isn't like proof of stake where on top of a zillion technical issues even the goal isn't that compelling.
<jannes__>
bramc: cool. thx.
<bramc>
CautiousNarwhal, Proof of space is a proof which requires memory/disk be allocated and proves those resources were taken up but requires only minimal time and power for the proof to be generated
<bramc>
CautiousNarwhal, All non-resource proofs are referred to as proof of stake. The resource based proofs are -work (meaning power) -space and -time
<bramc>
There are also proofs which combine multiple resources, they're generally still referred to as proofs of work
andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
"To continue with my theme about the bias towards action, I would note the following. Suppose that one periodically samples a random variable to decide whether the correct action is to leave some situation alone, or to intervene. Assuming that one continues sampling after getting back "do nothing", but that an "intervene" decision is final, it should be clear that "intervene" will always win eventually, if the random variable has ...
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
... even a tiny probability of coming up "intervene", even if the vast majority of the probability mass is on "do nothing". So in light of that, if one is going to continue to stand around and talk about intervening, one should probably bias further and further away from intervening as time passes, to account for the fact that eventually the coin will come up "intervene" through bad luck no matter what the correct decision is."
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
shesek has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
funkenstein_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bramc>
kanzure, That is true, but what are you quoting from?
<kanzure>
gwillen
<bramc>
This is also a basic concept in UX, that if you want people to do something you should make it easy to do but not un-do and repeatedly remind them of the possibility of doing it.
<gwillen>
bramc: yes, it's a great dark pattern in forcing people to upgrade things against their will
<bramc>
This is also a big factor in why many people have children.
<gwillen>
it's a great dark pattern in a lot of things, honestly, which was sort of bubbling to the surface when I wrote that comment
<gwillen>
hah! I hadn't thought about that.
<gwillen>
Having children also shares (with the dark UX pattern) that it's easy to do by accident if you're not careful.
<bramc>
There are a lot of dark patterns involved in people having children. Including that whole sex being fun thing. It's there to trick you.
<gwillen>
Heh.
<gwillen>
kanzure: I'm glad you liked my comment enough to quote it, that makes me feel more like it was worth the time to write :-)
<bramc>
There was a big of dialogue on the Larry Sander show once: "This was an accident!" "So what you're saying is that you tripped and your penis slid into her vagina?"
<kanzure>
gwillen: really i'm just excited that the site is dying.
<gwillen>
hahahahaha.
<sipa>
what site?
<gwillen>
lesswrong.com
<gwillen>
that's where I left the comment that kanzure is quoting
<kanzure>
hopefully my friends will stop wasting time there and move on to more productive things
<gwillen>
hah
<gwillen>
I don't know that the second part follows from the first part
<gwillen>
they might just move to the slatestarcodex comment section instead; that's pretty much what I've done
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<kanzure>
yes but at least slatestarcodex doesn't mistake itself for something else
<bramc>
What's happening with lesswrong? Its front page doesn't say it's shutting down.
<kanzure>
bramc: slow death.
<kanzure>
theoretically the reason for the site was that they were going to create a number of people that were strong with reasoning and engineering ability and go forth and do good things in the world, but i am not convinced of the results. instead we got a bunch of hpmor fans and endless rationalization. anyway, this is starting to venture into off-topic...
<gwillen>
it's a bit offtopic, yeah
funkenstein_ has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
atgreen_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<CautiousNarwhal>
you guys are all over the place
<amiller>
has anyone gotten el33th4x0r's message to bitcoin-dev to compile
<amiller>
i think it might be in remorse4ever
<kanzure>
i don't see anything in the moderation queue
atgreen_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TD--Linux is now known as TD-Linux
TD-Linux has quit [Changing host]
TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arowser has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
arowser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
<Taek>
gmaxwell: at some point you gave a presentation exploring different types of signatures. There was ecdsa + ecdsa multisig, schnorr multisig, and then some type of polynomial signature?
<Taek>
I'm having trouble finding that presentation
ratbanebo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Taek>
I seem to remember that schnorr, while having the best compression, don't have a way to tell you who signed a thing
<Taek>
but the other type of signature offered decent compression and also allowed you to learn who participated in signing
<CubicEarth>
I think the least controversial way to go about it would be to only archive UTXOs starting after some future block. That way it wouldn't be retroactive.
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: I don't see why.
<gmaxwell>
and getting rid of the gigabyte of deadweight is probably more important than anything else.
<gmaxwell>
Petertodd actually proposed basically the same idea to litecoin a couple years ago and was supposted to get paid to do it, but decided to drop the contract to focus on other things.
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mrkent has quit []
<tulip>
CubicEarth: a reasonable portion of the UTXO today is junk, heuristically there's a huge amount of outputs which are likely just ASCII text.
<jl2012>
CubicEarth: my proposal makes sure all spendable UTXO are still spendable, even if the signature was made before the softfork. All they need is an archive node to complete the membership proof
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jl2012>
tulip: also those "you lose" outputs from SatoshiDice
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: Only because when a utxo is created today, it is with the assumption that it can be spent in a certain way, which is by creating a transaction of a certain type
raver_edm has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: that doesn't change. (well the p2p protocol changes, has changed many times, and will change)
TBI_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
TBI has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: under the proposal, a sender of a dormant utxo has to include - in my own words here - a merkle "map" of where to find utxo in blockchain so that it can be readily found and verified. That's an extra requirement. But let me just be clear: The extra step doesn't bother me at all... I was just trying to anticipate criticism from the more ideological people in the community.
<gmaxwell>
It's not actually an extra requirement though.
<gmaxwell>
Consider, say you have a private key. Can you create a transaction using that? No. You need a map to the coins assigned to it.
<gmaxwell>
Can you get that map from a p2p bitcoin node? No.
<gmaxwell>
You have to either run a full node yourself, or consult some special public index.
<gmaxwell>
Which is exactly the same thing jl2012's writeup needs... just it would send a bit more data.
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: What's a p2p node that isn't a full node?
<CubicEarth>
spv?
<CubicEarth>
or...?
<CodeShark>
we need new terminology :)
<CodeShark>
the concept of a "full node" is becoming less and less meaningful
<tulip>
in the original Satoshi code a "node" is one which is mining.
<tulip>
"To support the network by running a node, select: Options->Generate Coins"
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: where did you get "isn't a full node"?
<CodeShark>
we have at least two orthogonal dimensions here: full/partial validation and complete/pruned history
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: no node speaking the bitcoin protocol will act as a blockchain index server.
<CodeShark>
and mining was pulled out of nodes a long time ago
<tulip>
2015-12-13 08:42:57 BitcoinMiner started
<tulip>
2015-12-13 08:42:57 Running BitcoinMiner with 7 transactions in block (5305 bytes)
<CodeShark>
tulip: Bitcoin Core still has a built-in miner...but it's only really useful for testnet and regtest
<moa>
it's a natural splintering into specialised layers what the original prototype client did wholistically
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: I thought you were contrasting a "p2p bitcoin node" with a "full node", but I might have misunderstood.
<CubicEarth>
moa: yes. It's great to watch.
<CodeShark>
satoshi's model consisted of two types of nodes - full nodes and SPV nodes...and only the details for the former were really spelled out - and it served its purpose...it was a great proof-of-concept using simplifying assumptions
<CodeShark>
but it was really a prototype :)
<CodeShark>
now we need to drop some of the simplifying assumptions and work more towards a layered architecture
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: you misunderstood. :)
Erik_dc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<CodeShark>
in the end, a "full bitcoin node" makes about as much sense as a "full Internet node"
<CodeShark>
in particular, the word "full" is superfluous at best and inaccurate at worst, depending on interpretation ;)
<CubicEarth>
We need a nomenclature committee
<CodeShark>
it's interesting to note that in the satoshi white paper, the term "full network node" is only used once...in the SPV section
<gmaxwell>
this is all a tangent.
<gmaxwell>
because, even the fullest of full nodes, won't provide over the network the service cubicearth's assumptions required of them.
Jeremy_Rand has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<CodeShark>
I'm not familiar with CubicEarth's assumptions, but in any case the terminology is confusing
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: gmaxwell: I'm not sure I am familiar with my own assumptions, to be honest
<gmaxwell>
heh
Jeremy_Rand has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Client Quit]
<CodeShark>
if I could redesign Bitcoin from scratch with the benefit of hindsight, I'd define the consensus layer solely by cryptographic commitment structures independent of network messages and network serializations
<CodeShark>
with the objective of enabling short, efficient proofs
<CodeShark>
and allow for potentially more than one network protocol for message propagation and synchronization
<CodeShark>
i.e. with git you can use http, ftp, ssh, etc...
<tulip>
you can definitely understand why Bitcoins P2P network is built the way it is though, it evolved rather than being defined.
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
Jeremy_Rand is now known as Jeremy_Rand_2
Jeremy_Rand_2 is now known as Jeremy_Rand
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: would say the relaynetwork is an example of an "network protocol for message propagation and synchronization"?
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
sure, why not?
<tulip>
it was pretty late in the design that the block header gained a version for example, they used to be 76 bytes long.
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: I agree.
<CodeShark>
bitcoin started out as an academic proof-of-concept...and academic project implementations tend to largely ignore long-term extensibility and maintainability concerns because they are really designed to demonstrate an abstract idea
<CodeShark>
not to build a platform upon which an entire global industry can operate
<CodeShark>
usually, if the idea works, later on other people figure out how to implement it in more practical ways - problem with Bitcoin is it can't simply be restarted without disenfranchising early adopters
<CodeShark>
and now it's even more complicated because any such attempt is likely to splinter the effort
<CodeShark>
it's a prototype aircraft that must be upgraded while in flight and can never land
<tulip>
I don't think it is presented like that, the first unreleased version maybe, but later on it is clearly designed to be a real-world system.
<CodeShark>
"presented to be" yes - "designed to be" not so much
<CodeShark>
the catch is that to demonstrate this idea a real currency had to be created
<CodeShark>
which de facto turned it into a real-world system
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
Well in some respects, yes it was, considering the address space, the number of satoshis, were very generous in their resolution. But in other respects I can see your point.
<tulip>
CubicEarth: in the 2008 source code there's considerably less precision.
<CubicEarth>
Oh yeah?
<gmaxwell>
yes it was originally cent resolution.
<gmaxwell>
the 21e6 bitcoin limit comes from the size of a signed integer.
Jeremy_Rand has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Konversation terminated!"]
<gmaxwell>
It's the limit arising from highest 'round number' of coin per block reward that will fit into an unsigned int with cent resolution.
<aj>
gmaxwell: you mean a signed int?
<gmaxwell>
I said it right the first time. :P
<tulip>
aj: it's signed, that's why an underflow of the value created billions of coins in 2009.
<aj>
gmaxwell: ahh, taking a bet both ways. clever!
<gmaxwell>
"spread spectrum"
<gmaxwell>
I've noticed when talking lately I've said one when I meant the other.
<gmaxwell>
but when coding, I don't think I've ever made an error like that. werid.
<CodeShark>
I think satoshi was the other way around :p
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: what is/was the absolute highest value of that signed int?
<CodeShark>
2^63 - 1
<tulip>
CubicEarth: unsigned.
<gmaxwell>
int, not long. :) 2^31 -1 :)
<aj>
2^31-1 gives 21.47483648 *100 million
<aj>
gmaxwell: int, not long long ym :)
<gmaxwell>
(LP64 forever!)
<CodeShark>
lol - even the C language has its design flaws :p
<CodeShark>
mixing application level stuff with hardware-specific stuff
<aj>
they're not flaws, they're implementation defined features
<CodeShark>
in principle, an "int" should be whatever integer datatype is best supported natively by the architecture, IMO...and we should be specific when we require a certain width
<gmaxwell>
(2^31-1) implies 51.1305 coins per block, if there is cent resolution, with bitcoin's inflation schedule.
<CodeShark>
we should not rely on "int" being a specific width
<CubicEarth>
I had though the 21-Million had to do with the exponentially decreasing reward series. But the series was 'targeted' at 21 million after the fact, it seems by setting the having every 210,000 blocks.
<CodeShark>
unless we are writing specifically for a certain architecture and portability is not really a concern
<CubicEarth>
having every 190,000 blocks would probably yield 19,000,000 coins, i'm guessing
<aj>
CodeShark: int being "whatever's fast" makes sense if you're recompiling code on new hardware and living with whatever the hardware's limits are, not so much if you want programs on different hardware to interoperate
<CodeShark>
right - as long as you're well below the overflow...or for things like pointer arithmetic...it makes sense to just use ints. but if your datatype specifically requires n bits it is bad style to rely on the hardware specs, IMO...and it's far better to have a library of datatypes of specific width implemented optimally for the specific hardware
<CubicEarth>
A formal specification would help a lot. Maybe there should be two - an economic specification, and a technical one
<CodeShark>
CubicEarth: Σ τ(ri * 2^(-k)), k = [0, ∞
<CodeShark>
CubicEarth: Σ τ(ri * 2^(-k)), k = [0, ∞)
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: Nice!
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: in this space specifications are mostly useful as retorical tools.
<CodeShark>
where ri is the initial block reward and τ is the halving integral
<CodeShark>
err
<CodeShark>
halving interval
<gmaxwell>
Because at the end of the day what _counts_ is what the network does; not what some dirty woodpulp says.
<gmaxwell>
And if something is right to do, it's right to do on its own merits; not because some dirty woodpulp says so.
<gmaxwell>
Or wrong to do.
<gmaxwell>
Now specs can be useful to help level set-- but _documentation_ in general does that, and we have a bunch of that (though need much more)
<CodeShark>
it's sorta funny looking at that document in light of the events of the last several months
<CodeShark>
changes that affect costs of running nodes also have economic impact
<Luke-Jr>
CodeShark: it's a wiki, update it ;)
<CubicEarth>
something like that, but I was imagining something much more formalized. It's be interesting to see just how widespread the agreement would be around such a document, and how to measure such agreement.
<CodeShark>
arguably even more short-term economic impact than, say, increasing the asymptotic limit of issued bitcoins
RoboTedd_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
It would be from the users perspective... what they want and expect in their financial system.
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
and the goal of the tech would be to serve those interests
<gmaxwell>
codeshark: yea, a change to subsidy = max(subsidy, 1.0 btc) would have no direct effect for a great many years... but woah would it have an effect now.
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CodeShark>
I think more important than the enduser's perspective are the economic and security properties of the system and how well the system can be maintained and improved
<CodeShark>
if done right, endusers shouldn't even have to know anything ;)
RoboTedd_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<CodeShark>
i.e. if the system cannot be self-sustaining economically...or can be subverted by hostile entities...it's probably not a good thing :)
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: You could almost say that about the current financial system... most end users don't know anything about it, yet they are getting deceived and ripped off by a very sophisticated financial apparatus
<moa>
they perceive a net benefit or they would disengage
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
Benefits come in many shapes and sizes.
* gmaxwell
points to the existance of smokers: a product that provably kills its users, but slowly enough that its still widely used
<CodeShark>
gmaxwell: makes a salient point...bitcoin should be designed such that failures are immediate and containable :)
<CubicEarth>
moa: in the current financial system there isn't much of an alternative, yet :) , and in monopoly situations there isn't much choice. As for disengaging with bitcoin, currently bitcoin has many benefits to offer relative to its surroundings, but as the system matures, it will have to adopt finer-grained social optimizations to keep it's standing or to grow very very large.
<CubicEarth>
moa: I'm not disagreeing though
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
runeks has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
runeks has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
Think about a body of law (the kind a state has, written with words) that centered around the Bitcoin economic model. There is clearly an economic theory the white paper and code point. What would it sound like to have that formalized, in English (or other) and with equations. Not with computer code.
<CubicEarth>
"The total number of Bitcoins shall not exceed 21,000,000"
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
"A Bitcoin is composed of 100 million subunits"
<gmaxwell>
wait, what if we the people want to increase the precision?
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
They could change the spec
<CubicEarth>
(and then the code)
<gmaxwell>
but the spec would mostly be used as a retorical device to argue for or against changes. thats like ... all it would actually be used for. :)
kumavis has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
btcdrak has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
corb is now known as JackH
ibrightly has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Toxodont_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
licnep has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
Yes. It would be helpful for non-technical people to understand the basis for their money. A large institution could hire a technical person and ask them if the code did what the spec sheet said.
mikolalysenko has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dasource has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Xzibit17 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
artifexd has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<gmaxwell>
I'm just saying, writing in details that aren't actually important would only create drama.
runeks has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
Yes, retorical in the sense that people would use it to communicate with each other to gain a better understanding of the world around them :)
alexkuck_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
zmanian_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
prosody has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<gmaxwell>
I think the precision is a technical detail, which better not matter economically.
adams__ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
Maybe the spec sheet should say
<CubicEarth>
...
<CubicEarth>
"And each bitcoin shall have enough units too do x....."
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
CodeShark has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bitkarma has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
People like things to read
mariorz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
Helps them to understand stuff
jbenet has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
PsychoticBoy has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
Or to help answer this question
robmyers has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<CubicEarth>
"As a user, what can I expect from bitcoin?" (sorry I keep hitting return by accident between lines)
lomax__ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
bassguitarman has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SheffieldCrypto_ has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
artifexd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: "nothing. it's an experiment."
wpalczynski has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Toxodont_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
artifexd has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jlyndon has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<jannes__>
I sent an email to dev mailing list the other day about Segregated IBLT. Kalle Rosenbaum politely pointed to the flaw in my thinking. The idea was to save a few bytes by reducing the redundancy slightly for only the signatures but not the naked transactions.
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes__>
Would it make sense to use k=3 for naked transaction slices, but k=2 for signatuture slices? (k being number of hashes performed on each slice)
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: That's either a tounge-in-cheek or cynical
<CubicEarth>
I can't tell
Toxodont_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<CubicEarth>
Unless you consider everything to be an experiment, at some point Bitcoin will stop being experimental and become 'normal' or 'stable' or whatever you want to call something when it is no longer experimental.
<jannes__>
CubicEarth: I've never seen him non-serious.
mariorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bitkarma has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: at some point, Bitcoin *may* stop being experimental; but we're far from that point today still
<Luke-Jr>
jannes__: I'm quite often less than 100% serious ;)
licnep has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: That may be true, but that does not mean users should expect 'nothing'
PsychoticBoy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mappum has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
perhaps it would be better to ask app developers rather than users
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: what exactly do you think they can expect? there are no guarantees. everything is an experiment available as-is.
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: Everything, or bitcoin as it is today
<CubicEarth>
?
kumavis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
robmyers has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jbenet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
runeks has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: I wouldn't even promise 0.12.0 won't have a bug that loses all its users' bitcoins
Xzibit17 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes__>
Luke-Jr: my conclusion came from lack of data. :)
<Luke-Jr>
I mean, it's unlikely.. but it's not impossible.
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
alexkuck_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dasource has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: It's not even about any software that you may or may not write. The can expect there to be a limit of 21m coins, for instance, with the software they have today. That is not an expectation of you.
ibrightly has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes__>
CubicEarth: It would probably be better if they would expect 'nothing'. Judging by the trolling on reddit and forums, a lot of them already expect to be millionaires before 2016 is out.
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: okay, I concede that expectation is reasonable.
mikolalysenko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
prosody has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: Are there any other reasonable expectations? Or is that the only one?
zmanian_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bassguitarman has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adams__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lomax__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SheffieldCrypto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
it's a rather superficial expectation, IMHO, from the perspective of an end user - it's just an arbitrary number. a more profound expectation is something along the lines of "nobody can unilaterally decide to inflate the money supply nor counterfeit coins"
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: not adding things like demurrage seems like a reasonable expectation also - but I don't know if it's a good one
jlyndon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Toxodont_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
artifexd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
btcdrak_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
btcdrak_ is now known as btcdrak
btcdrak has quit [Client Quit]
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: do you think that demurrage could be a more efficient way to pay for security in the future?
<Luke-Jr>
CubicEarth: it also means UTXOs effectively pay rent on their database entry
<Luke-Jr>
right now that's no cost
<CubicEarth>
Luke-Jr: yes.
<CodeShark>
they should pay rent by the square foot…not by how much gold rests atop that square foot :)
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: Yes.
<Luke-Jr>
but someone did recently post an alternate idea to the dev ML that can make them no longer no-cost, without demurrage
<CubicEarth>
CodeShark: so by the square foot, not the CubicFoot
btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
convert to your unit of choice :p
<Luke-Jr>
CodeShark: it's harder to figure logic for that
<CodeShark>
Luke-Jr: yes, the mechanism is tricky but the incentive structure is better :)
<CubicEarth>
The idea that "no one should be able to freeze a users funds" is an interesting one.
<CodeShark>
that one requires qualification in light of multiuser scripts ;)
<CubicEarth>
jannes__: Yes. It is a simple, seemingly solid plan.
<gmaxwell>
jl2012's scheme is a reinvention of Petertodd's STXO, I must remind.
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jannes__>
gmaxwell: yeah you mentioned that there :)
<CodeShark>
did the STXO proposal specifically mention only requiring this for outputs that are at least of some particular age?
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CodeShark>
if so I hadn't heard of that part
<jannes__>
gmaxwell: BTW respect for how much patience you have with trolls. It's good for other readers, even if the trolls refuse to want to understand. Too bad that the downvoting hides so much of it.
<gmaxwell>
jannes__: thanks; that's why I do it.
justice has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<gmaxwell>
Good to hear that it's helpful from someone.
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<CodeShark>
gmaxwell: at risk of repeating myself too many times, you really should publish more well-edited stuff in places that are easier for people to find so that those who are interested don't have to read through all the trollage to find it ;)
<jannes__>
gmaxwell: Yeah absolutely is. I learn from it too. And I upvote where I can. The 1st few times you talked about quitting Bitcoin if XT takes over my heart skipped a few beats. But I totally agree with you. Please PM me, so I can sell the few coins I have. :)
<CodeShark>
so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems petertodd's innovation is placing the burden of proving existence/unspentness on the sender by committing to a TXO tree…and jl2012's innovation is only making this a requirement for outputs beyond a certain age
<gmaxwell>
CodeShark: petertodd also proposed having a size limited utxo.
<gmaxwell>
jl2012 suggests age, PT was suggesting that it just be FIFO and a fixed size.
<CubicEarth>
gmaxwell: utxo or utxo set?
<gmaxwell>
CubicEarth: always assume the thing that makes some sense? :) (the latter)
<jannes__>
gmaxwell: In light of what CodeShark just said. I saw you mentioning StackExchange the other day and you didn't seem eager to join. Is that some (non) open source/wikipedia experience reason? Or just not interested in yet another account? I must say I find it one of the best resources for FAQs. Mostly because it's indexed so well by google.
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<CodeShark>
gmaxwell: the FIFO thing makes the UTXO size constant…but it incurs more overhead in commitments (although perhaps amortizing this cost along the lines of what bramc has proposed could make it significantly less costly)
<gmaxwell>
well, it could always be 'quantized fifo'... e.g. expire a big chunk at a time.
<gmaxwell>
But if the size is small, the commitment scheme is cheap.
<CodeShark>
the other problem I see with it is that it makes it harder for thin nodes to know when the full proof is required
<CodeShark>
I suppose blocks could commit to the UTXO delta or something
<CodeShark>
that is, how many net UTXO were created by the block
<gmaxwell>
well, you could always just commit to how high (block height) the UTXO covers.
<CodeShark>
yes, that too
<CodeShark>
but that's essentially jl2012's proposal using a dynamic min age
<Luke-Jr>
I wonder if there's a way to do STXO without consensus rules determining when they are required
<Luke-Jr>
eg, make that a matter of policy
<CodeShark>
it could be done - relay nodes could be queried to see whether they have a utxo…one more roundtrip in i/o
<CodeShark>
but then we need the TXO commitment tree to always be current
<gmaxwell>
Luke-Jr: well technically the utxo depth could be peer to peer negoiated.
<gmaxwell>
e.g. if you have a small utxo, and a proof, but I have a big one, you clould just not send the proof to me.
<gmaxwell>
But going the other direction requires generating a proof, which needs extra data.
<CodeShark>
also, the negotiation isn't necessarily transitive :)
<CodeShark>
what if the relay requires multiple hops?
<CodeShark>
that would mean the higher utxo node would have to construct a proof
<CodeShark>
and the incentive structure starts to get more complex
<CodeShark>
for relay, the node could just use the policy of the smallest utxo node it is connected to, I suppose
<CodeShark>
the sender has a clear incentive to get the tx propagated…but the relayer might require a fee in order to add a proof
<gmaxwell>
If it always had the data to construct the proof then it would be no big deal.
<gmaxwell>
Alas, thats extra data.
<gmaxwell>
I suppose though someone who has all the data you could at least omit them.
Yoghur114_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ttttemp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
s1w- has quit [Changing host]
s1w- has joined #bitcoin-wizards
s1w- is now known as s1w
<CodeShark>
in principle I like making these kinds of things a matter of policy…but in practice we need a way to provide direct monetary incentives, I think
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<CodeShark>
there should be direct incentives for storing a large utxo as it cuts down on bandwidth requirements
<CodeShark>
but it shouldn't be a requirement to run a relay node
ttttemp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<CodeShark>
however, it's not just a bandwidth/space tradeoff…such proofs also allow for greater granularity in partial validation
<CodeShark>
you could get security between SPV and full validation
<CodeShark>
i.e. nodes that are only interested in relaying certain kinds of transactions…or only interested in monitoring certain transactions
<moa>
gold stars and a jelly bean if there's no tears
<moa>
oops
<gmaxwell>
CodeShark: I tihnk it would be super useful to communicate your minrelayfee.
<gmaxwell>
like, why are people spamming you with crap you're just going to drop.
SgtStroopwafel has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Terry4 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<gmaxwell>
I was thinking about how that could be handled transitively.. but the schemes I came up with all suffered from any cycles in the graph pinning state.
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<gmaxwell>
e.g. what a node says it will relay is the max(self,min(other peers will relay)).
SgtStroopwafel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
moa has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<CodeShark>
if the sender sends directly to the recipient and it's the recipient's responsibility to get it propagated, there could be other interesting types of negotiation
<CodeShark>
i.e. someone who receives a large number of transactions might have an incentive to store a large utxo
Terry4 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jannes__ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<CodeShark>
in general, senders only really need to maintain proofs for their own utxos assuming they are ok with less-than-full-validator security
<CodeShark>
regardless of incentive structure specifics, it's a good idea to design the commitment structures to afford a lot of flexibility in these matters
<CodeShark>
the incentive structures can arise over time…especially as we improve upon 2nd layer protocols
tulip has quit [Quit: tulip]
LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dasource has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Quanttek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
licnep has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
fkhan has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
spinza has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
spinza has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
tripleslash has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
CodeShark has quit [Quit: Goodbye]
CodeShark_ is now known as CodeShark
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
fkhan has quit [Changing host]
fkhan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
davec has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
LeMiner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roconnor has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ttttemp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ttttemp_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Myagui has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jcorgan|away is now known as jcorgan
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
seg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
MoALTz_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mjerr has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MoALTz_ is now known as MoALTz
matsjj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
matsjj has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
ManfredMacx has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Quent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent>
Not sure if this is the right chan, but I couldn't find a better one. I was wondering whether there is any concrete reason why no one has tried forking the bitcoin chain with the aim of creating a concurrent chain, rather than creating a new coin with a new genesis block.
tromp has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
coinoperated_tv has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<alpalp>
Quent: I believe that has happened on some alt-coins.
<Quent>
there have been tons of altcoins and everyone seems to have tried plenty of things, but did no one think to just fork bitcoin itself (prob quite unlikely) or am I missing something?
<Quent>
and how did that go alpalp ?
<alpalp>
IIRC Feathercoin did it from litecoin
<Quent>
yeah, I haven't looked much into feathercoin, but it still "lives", I think, so I suppose there isn't anything technically or fundamentally wrong in the sense that it would make algochanged forking unworkable?
<Quent>
so then why did everyone decide to start with a new genesis block and not one with a forked chain?
<smk>
where is the profit in forking if you cant scoup up any premine
<alpalp>
Quent: since the vast majority of altcoins are just get rich schemes, that doesn't work well if you can't premine a bunch and sell to rubes.
<Quent>
was litecoin pre-mined?
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] Quent: Google "NameCoin"
<smk>
bitcoin client is open source so you can (and many do) run versions with patched and subtle changes to their wallets
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<Quent>
you'd think that any fork of bitcoin would be far superior to litecoin due to the in-built network effects, so making it worth quite a bit early on, but also easily minable, ergo profits
<Quent>
problem is obviously current btc holders can sell it to death...
<Quent>
I mean, it would be free money
<alpalp>
Quent: you are assuming alt-coins are created for reasons other than trying to get free money.
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] NameCoin was the first blockchain that was merge-mined with Bitcoin and one of the earliest alt coins too.
TBI has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smak has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] alpalp: Yeah, Satoshi had a good model.
<Quent>
alpalp, some altcoins seem to have unique propositions, such as faster tx times (regardless of the merits) and higher privacy such as monero etc
<Quent>
a forked bitcoinchain would basically be a sidechain but with no ability to go back
<sipa>
Quent: an altcoin by definition resets the network effect... why does it matter whether you fork bitcoin or something else (there are good reasons for using bitcoin's codebase, but network effect seems.to be not one of them)
<alpalp>
Quent: Agreed, but if you can create one where you can benefit, or other people benefit, which are you going to create?
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
TBI_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<alpalp>
sipa: if you can distribute coins to a wider number of people in a "fair" way, it may trigger usage. PayPal gave away free money to get going for example.
<Quent>
alpalp, if it was my choice, I'd prob want bitcoin's network effect
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
smak is now known as smk
<Quent>
obviously that network effect would diminish every day the fork goes on, but I just find it curious no one has even tried, making me wonder whether the idea itself is unworkable
<alpalp>
Quent: that would assume Bitcoin users would find it useful, and the initial dump phase might make that an issue.
<alpalp>
Quent: If someone did that, I would dump my free alt-coins for whatever price I could get. I imagine quite a lot of others do the same.
<Quent>
well, it would depend wouldn't it
<Quent>
if the forkcoin is clearly a looser then sure, but if it has at least one decent ups you'd expect the vast majority to hold out
<Quent>
there would be some complex games for sure, but my point is why has no one even tried
<alpalp>
It would depend if it were superior money or not. Thats the only thing I would judge it on. And I find it highly unlikely that it would be superior, and even if it were, its changes would have to be made in a way it would be completely incompatible with Bitcoin and could not be merged in.
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] Quent: Forking the blockchain/reusing the UTXO set has happened too, see Peter R's spinoffs (BCT) or Stellar.
<Quent>
I was just reading that thread MRL-Relay, haven't finished it yet
<Quent>
but, for example, zerocoin could be a fork of bitcoin...
<Quent>
rather than a new genesis, if it s possible for it to be a fork of course
<Quent>
in that situation I don't think you'd just sell it because you would not know of it's value, so probably the vast majority would hold out
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] That's basically the logic between the sidechains series of alt coins, except using a new blockchain and pegging to tokens.
<alpalp>
Quent: The value would almost always be 0, and anyone paying more would be giving me free money
<Quent>
feathercoin isn't valued at 0
<alpalp>
If you gave me feathercoin, I would sell all of it as fast as I could.
<Quent>
but yeah, there is a free money aspect
<Quent>
I mean, in many ways it is a huge pre-mine
<alpalp>
so as long as someone will pay me anything for it
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] (this is more #cryptocurrency)
<Quent>
but I wouldn't sell a zeroforcoin for example
<Quent>
and MRL-Relay, I don't think so, it isn't much different than sidechains
<alpalp>
sidechains can come back home
<Quent>
except that sidechains allow you to go back
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] No I mean, this channel is usually for discussion of papers or math
<Quent>
yeah
<Quent>
well, no other discussion is happening right now...
<alpalp>
That doesn't mean we should discuss the score of some football games going on in here.
<Quent>
it does mean you can just ignore and not take part in the discussion as would be the case if the discussion was score games
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<Quent>
but, anyway
<Quent>
if you want to go back to dead chan that's cool
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] Quent: s/n is tried to be kept high here because a number of the people reading scrollback work in the field and try to keep up with everything going on from an academic perspective, it's hard when it gets cluttered
<Quent>
I just thought it was an interesting topic
<Quent>
for the wizzards
<alpalp>
And you are being told repeatedly its off topic for this chan.
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
wangchun has quit [Quit: leaving]
gwillen is now known as gwillen|testing
gwillen|testing is now known as gwillen
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wangchun has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gwillen is now known as gwillen|testing
gwillen|testing is now known as gwillen
gwillen is now known as gwillen-testing
gwillen-testing is now known as gwillen
_whitelogger_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
mappum_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adams___ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wangchun_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
argh_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
_whitelogger has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mappum has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dignork has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
seg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
CodeShark has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
katu has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
adams__ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
s1w has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
binaryFateCloud has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
TBI has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
phantomcircuit has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
JackH has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Monthrect has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
wangchun has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ttttemp_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
binaryFateCloud has joined #bitcoin-wizards
s1w has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark_ is now known as CodeShark
null_radix has quit [Excess Flood]
mappum_ is now known as mappum
ManfredMacx has quit [Quit: Leaving]
JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grantsmith has joined #bitcoin-wizards
seg_ is now known as seg
adams___ is now known as adams__
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
null_radix has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
ttttemp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
binaryFateCloud has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
s1w has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
binaryFateCloud has joined #bitcoin-wizards
s1w- has joined #bitcoin-wizards
q-biq has joined #bitcoin-wizards
binaryFateCloud has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Monthrect has joined #bitcoin-wizards
binaryFateCloud has joined #bitcoin-wizards
katu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
q-biq has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com"]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
Erik_dc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CautiousNarwhal has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rustyn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<lmatteis>
guys i've been having this idea and i'd be interested in learning whether it's not just mumbo jumbo but rather something interesting.
<lmatteis>
imagine a blockchain (outside of bitcoin) which is only used as a timestamp server; no transactions. every 60 minutes a block is found which essentially contains the "top news of that latest hour" - an ordered set of items.
<lmatteis>
the miner that wins the pow, and finds the block, chains it with the latest one, and can decide the contents of the latest hot news
<sipa>
what is the incentive?
<sipa>
why do you need a consensus system for this?
<bsm117532>
It's already being done with different kinds of data on top of bitcoin in OP_RETURN. What's the point of "latest hot news"?
<sipa>
what is wrong with a website that aggregates upvotes instead?
<lmatteis>
as the difficulty increases, users can coalesce in p2p mining pools such as p2pool, and instead of deciding on the % for their payout (bitcoin), they decide on what their news item should be and where it would be ranked in the block (the power CPU, the highest it could be)
<sipa>
bitcoin's value is essential for providing the economic incentive for the blockchain to converge
<lmatteis>
Miners have the incentive to participate in the system as they are given the chance to decide on the content of the block
<sipa>
what problem are you trying to solve?
<lmatteis>
ok, so the goal would be to create a news system that is totally unbiased
<sipa>
why would tue result be unbiased?
<bsm117532>
I can see an iteration of that idea being useful to pay news content providers. After-the-fact payment would be better than the clickbait bullshit we have going on now.
<sipa>
there is no incentive to participate in your system, and pay for the pow expenses
<lmatteis>
well, the idea is that since the ranking of the items in the block is decided by the participants, via their CPU power, it could be less biased than regular news outlets
spinza has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<sipa>
i thonk it would quickly degenerate into a system where advertizers pay to get their content included
<lmatteis>
sorry, "totally unbiased" might be impossible - goal is to make it less biased than current centralized systems
<sipa>
i think it's far worse
<sipa>
there is no reputation for miners to uohold
<bsm117532>
lmatteis: I don't see the use of PoW here. You might have a look at the prediction market ideas and apply them to news.
<lmatteis>
bsm117532: PoW is only used to achieve consensus
<lmatteis>
sipa: right i see
<bsm117532>
But this is an opinion poll. Consensus isn't required.
<bsm117532>
OTOH prediction markets force users to commit resources to their "bets", and may be more relevant for you.
<lmatteis>
hrm i don't really know what and how prediction markets are
<lmatteis>
sipa: well you have to imagine that the pow expenses only increase with interest. so in the beginning, it'll be easy to mine with basic hardware
<lmatteis>
my interest is simply to have a "news page" every 30-60 minutes or so, which contents and order is decided by the amount of pow given by users. i think the results could be interesting at first; users could dedicate some of their CPU time towards specific news items they want to see at the top
<lmatteis>
however, i do of course see that it could degenerate; advertisers could outpace the regular users and promote their own content
<sipa>
lmatteis: cpu time can be bought; ultimately you are providing anhorribly inefficient pay-for-distribution scheme
<sipa>
at least reddit requires solving some captchas :)
<lmatteis>
with you still have to trust reddit admins
tromp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<sipa>
you can still turn it into a distributed system... use something like a WoT identities where users vote on interesting stories etc
justice_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<lmatteis>
you still need someone central to verify WoT identities are valid (not bots)
<bsm117532>
lmatteis: All you really need is people to commit resources to their vote, doesn't have to be PoW resource, it could be bitcoin instead. Also then you don't care about bots. If someone wants to pay for bots to falsely upvote something, let them. Someone else profits from it.
tromp has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<bsm117532>
The Scientologists have been doing this for years, buying out copies of Dianetics at bookstores to keep it on bestseller lists.
<bsm117532>
(At a loss to them though)
wangchun_ has quit [Quit: leaving]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wangchun has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
dignork has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gocrazy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
giel__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gocrazy has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has quit [*.net *.split]
lclc has quit [*.net *.split]
OxADADA has quit [*.net *.split]
grubles has quit [*.net *.split]
guruvan has quit [*.net *.split]
mm_1 has quit [*.net *.split]
Keefe has quit [*.net *.split]
epscy has quit [*.net *.split]
pigeons has quit [*.net *.split]
petertodd has quit [*.net *.split]
dansmith_btc has quit [*.net *.split]
wumpus has quit [*.net *.split]
azariah has quit [*.net *.split]
Fistful_of_Coins has quit [*.net *.split]
otoburb has quit [*.net *.split]
devrandom has quit [*.net *.split]
jaromil has quit [*.net *.split]
weex_ has quit [*.net *.split]
CodeArtix has quit [*.net *.split]
d9b4bef9 has quit [*.net *.split]
jlrubin has quit [*.net *.split]
ryan-c has quit [*.net *.split]
comboy has quit [*.net *.split]
larraboj has quit [*.net *.split]
sparetire has quit [*.net *.split]
Guyver2 has quit [*.net *.split]
indolering has quit [*.net *.split]
grandmaster2 has quit [*.net *.split]
livegnik has quit [*.net *.split]
catlasshrugged_ has quit [*.net *.split]
waxwing has quit [*.net *.split]
so has quit [*.net *.split]
gribble has quit [*.net *.split]
Tenhi has quit [*.net *.split]
brand0 has quit [*.net *.split]
myeagleflies has quit [*.net *.split]
gmaxwell has quit [*.net *.split]
isis has quit [*.net *.split]
iddo has quit [*.net *.split]
BananaLotus has quit [*.net *.split]
roasbeef has quit [*.net *.split]
[ace] has quit [*.net *.split]
keus has quit [*.net *.split]
brand0 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
OxADADA has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
indolering has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gmaxwell has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grandmaster2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
grubles has joined #bitcoin-wizards
myeagleflies has joined #bitcoin-wizards
guruvan has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lclc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
waxwing has joined #bitcoin-wizards
catlasshrugged_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Starduster has joined #bitcoin-wizards
livegnik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
so has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sparetire has joined #bitcoin-wizards
larraboj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
comboy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ryan-c has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jlrubin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeArtix has joined #bitcoin-wizards
weex_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
devrandom has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaromil has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fistful_of_Coins has joined #bitcoin-wizards
otoburb has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wumpus has joined #bitcoin-wizards
petertodd has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dansmith_btc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
azariah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
pigeons has joined #bitcoin-wizards
epscy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Keefe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mm_1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tenhi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
isis has joined #bitcoin-wizards
BananaLotus has joined #bitcoin-wizards
iddo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-wizards
[ace] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
keus has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bobke_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
digitalmagus8 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bobke has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
lomax__ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
zmachine has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
digitalmagus8 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
lomax__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jouke_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
jouke has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zmachine has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dave4925 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dave4925 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
so has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
gribble has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mrkent has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
smk has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
mrkent has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
RoboTeddy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mrkent has quit []
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
smk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
luigi1111w has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Guest43031 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
so has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Changing host]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jtimon has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Emcy has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Emcy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nubbins` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
maaku has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]