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
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
binaryFate has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
coinoperated has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
copumpkin has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
bram__ is now known as bramc
<bramc>
What is this 'bitcoin classic' which people keep referring to? Does this mean anything at all?
<belcher>
theres a github repository and some posts on /r/btc
adam3us has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<belcher>
its bitcoin-xt rebooted basically, slightly different block size ideas, also it has no code written yet
<bramc>
What, if anything, are the ideas?
<belcher>
set the block limit as something between 2mb or 4mb, depending on which post you read
<belcher>
and they might want to reverse the RBF commit
<belcher>
a fairly serious PR issue is they've taken all the companies and institutions who say they're happy with 2mb and spun it as "supporting bitcoin classic", at one point even Luke-Jr was nearly on that list because of some comment he made
PeterR has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<PeterR>
I think the latest thinking is a simple fork to 2 MB.
<PeterR>
An no RBF.
<bsm117532>
Give me 5 minutes and I'll make a fork that changes 1000000 to 2000000. A monkey could do it.
<JackH>
why no RBF?
<PeterR>
That's the point.
<JackH>
what is wrong with RBF?
<belcher>
JackH if you dont believe in a fee market, theres no point bidding for block space ;)
<belcher>
also, a more serious point is that many people rely on zero-conf right now and believe RBF would it even less secure than it already is
<JackH>
but its opt-in
<JackH>
it is a node policy, why cant we have node policies if we want to
<maaku>
RBF was never optional :P
<maaku>
It the endgame you will eventually get no matter what
<belcher>
i think they argue that merchants who have not updated their software to recognise the opt-in will be harmed
<PeterR>
One of the ideas behind Classic is that the community's input should be taken into account. Polling was strongly in favor of removing RBF.
<belcher>
its silly i know, everyone is harmed if they dont update their software
<instagibbs>
Too bad they won't be able to maintain those kind of silly patches while keeping up.
<PeterR>
What do you guys think about replacing an entire *block* be paying enough fees? Say 30 BTC to entice the miners to attempt to orphan the tip?
<bramc>
I'm going to make Bitcoin++ which has the blocksize limit increased by one byte
<r0ach>
Classic arose because price appreciation is only really logical when raw on-chain transaction volume, or average value of each transaction, is increasing. Even if LN solves all scalability problems, it's not ready now, so hitting block limit and not changing it for a long duration of time is essentially giving all investors the middle finger
<belcher>
bramc call it Bitcoin Original
<moa>
Bitcoin Unchained
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<AdrianG>
Bitcoin Remastered
<PeterR>
To retain nodes from migrating to Classic or Unlimited, while still drawing an ideological line at 1 MB, Core could make the block size limit configurable from the command line but default to 1 MB (similar to how the max mined block size presently is).
<PeterR>
Crazy?
<PeterR>
Bitcoin Official
<JackH>
Bitcoin Problem
<instagibbs>
bramc, sorry I only accept 1MB-1byte blocks
<AdrianG>
that's not the lawful and proper blocksize, instagibbs.
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<zookolaptop>
PeterR: “Why Buy When You Can Rent?” by Joe Bonneau; my favorite paper attacking Bitcoin and (???) breaking it
alpalp has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<zookolaptop>
s/Joe/Joseph/
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<PeterR>
Thanks zooko. Interesting.
<zookolaptop>
I find it pretty unsettling, tbh.
<zookolaptop>
Disclosure: J. Bonneau is a member of the Zcash Technical Advisory Board.
<PeterR>
Yes, I met him in Montreal.
raedah has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<PeterR>
Zooko: It is unclear to me how *real* miners will behave in aggregate. To perform a rigorous analyses with math, typically I either model miners as:
<PeterR>
The reality is somewhere in the middle and is difficult to analyze.
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
<AdrianG>
how do you model miners being DDoSed?
<moa>
on mainnet
<PeterR>
I've never tried.
r0ach has quit []
<roconnor>
It'll be nice when bitcoin finally settles on a some mining cartel so they can make a soft fork to require that all blocks be signed by the cartel and then they can drop their power usage. :P
<AdrianG>
roconnor: and then they can also meet every now and then, and decide by how much they lift the limit on total number of coins.
<roconnor>
AdrianG: well that requires a hard-fork, so it is a little more tricky.
<PeterR>
Consider the transaction fee market. Let’s also assume that the marginal cost to add a new TX to a block is zero.
<PeterR>
If #1 applies to miners, than we have a tragedy of the commons scenario. If #2 applies to miners, then they will collude to set the price in order to maximize their profit.
<PeterR>
But both of these are extreme cases. What would happen in reality?
<roconnor>
AdrianG: I used to think it wasn't realistic, but now I'm not sure how much the threat of losing mining power will sway users. maybe.
ilbc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<instagibbs>
PeterR, enforcing collusion may be impossible. Out-of-band refunds being the classic response.
<instagibbs>
the threat of people cheating may be enough to break down the cartel
<PeterR>
Agreed.
<instagibbs>
IANAEconomist
<PeterR>
But then the other extreme--miners being short-term profit maximizing agents--is probably not perfectly correct either.
<alpalp>
agreed. Which is why they don't create a fee market today with a soft-fork block size.
<AdrianG>
roconnor: i think before that talk surfaces, its just a matter of time. if bitcoin becomes successful enough - we will see people proposing such things.
<alpalp>
instagibbs, they collude through an enforced block limit to control prices.
<PeterR>
That is certainly one possibility.
<roconnor>
AdrianG: I heard a rumor that at the last halfing of the reward, so miners continued on a fork maintaining the 50 btc reward.
<roconnor>
maybe they will have better luck next time. :)
<PeterR>
alpalp: That was what we expected to happen if the network ran Bitcoin Unlimited (i.e., through some emergent consensus process, miners would converge on *some* block size limit to increase their revenue somewhat).
<zookolaptop>
There was a presentation about the game theory of DoS attacks on competitor miners at Financial Crypto 2015, IIRC.
koshii has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<zookolaptop>
And an accompanying paper, of course.
<maaku>
PeterR 1MB is no ideological line
<PeterR>
Even better then.
<zookolaptop>
roconnor: pretty sure it would be possible to soft-fork raising the 21M limit...
<zookolaptop>
Not that I know how I would do it. Just a hunch. Don't really care that much...
<maaku>
Everyone who signed the roadmap is approving a 2MB tx, 4MB bandwidth increase, and more when specific milestones are met
<PeterR>
Hypothetically: if support for Classic is sufficient and 1.1 MB blocks are included in the most-work chain, do you think Core will increase the limit to be compatible or not?
<maaku>
I don't and I wouldn't care. I'd have left the building if it came to that
<maaku>
Don't know
<PeterR>
Are you saying that you would stop working on Bitcoin if that happened?
<roconnor>
zookolaptop: really? I don't understand what you are thinking. Soft fork can only make valid block into invalid blocks.
<smooth>
left the building over 100K and you say it isn't ideological?
<alpalp>
roconnor, You could have extra coins created in an extra data structure and people would use that.
<roconnor>
alpalp: and make them fungable?
<smooth>
thats not exactly a soft fork, and a soft fork and __________
<alpalp>
they wouldn't be fungable and unupgraded clients wouldn't be able to see them
<maaku>
PeterR: yes
<roconnor>
alpalp: sounds kinda like merged mining.
<alpalp>
roconnor, in the simplest case, you mine empty blocks with a hash of the "new block" in it.
<smooth>
there might be some way to get spv clients to see them
<maaku>
It would have demonstrated the inevitable failure of bitcoin and I can read writing on the wall.
<alpalp>
which is basically a forced merge mine killing the original coin
<smooth>
sounds ideological to me, but then i dont judge ideological
<roconnor>
alpalp: oh I see what you are saying
<PeterR>
Maaku: do you think the evolution of Bitcoin should be controlled by the code people freely choose to run?
<roconnor>
alpalp: wow
<alpalp>
people are free to run whatever software they want, maaku is free to not participate
<PeterR>
agreed
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<roconnor>
alpalp: "the cartel has decided to halt and censor processing all bitcoins. However, all UTXOs have been copied over to our new awesome chain. Feel free to spend your coins there." -- your friendly miners
<smooth>
im not sure that can really be enforced though
<alpalp>
roconnor, yep, that is possible, and would require a hard fork to turn the miners into heaters
<smooth>
pretty much the same cartel argument as above
<smooth>
it assumes as a premise the existance of a stable cartel
<roconnor>
alpalp: what do you mean by "hard fork to turn the miners into heaters"
<alpalp>
change POW scheme if miners attacked in such a way incompatible with what users wanted. The nuclear option
<roconnor>
right
<smooth>
this doesn't really go nuclear against miners though, it goes nuclear against owners of asic designs
<smooth>
users could also just buy asics and break the cartel
shesek has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<alpalp>
the owner of the miners lose their investment
<AdrianG>
smooth: thats lunacy.
<AdrianG>
you cannot compete with cartels like that.
<smooth>
again, you are assumign the existance of a cartel to begin with
<smooth>
and taht might be possible if asic designers are the onse controlling it
<AdrianG>
i think there is a "soft" cartel already, to some extent.
<smooth>
im not sure it is otherwise. miners who refuse to mine are disadvantaing themselvem and even cartel members may cheat
<AdrianG>
its a group with its own mindset, its own interests, goals.
<AdrianG>
a distinct group. also with considerable influence.
<smooth>
its possible, but not necessarily stable
<roconnor>
how do cartel members cheat on their cartel?
<AdrianG>
smooth: just look at increases in difficulty. and yet proportion of major pools remains the same.
<AdrianG>
i've always found that a little strange.
<smooth>
roconnor: they mine on the side
<smooth>
nobody can prove who is mining with the cartel really
<smooth>
"some of my miners are down, sorry power issues"
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<roconnor>
I guess, but I figured cartel mining would be designed to prefer to mine on their own blocks, making it more profitable to mine with the cartel than outside it.
<smooth>
AdrianG: the pools may be a sham you know. large miners probably just split their hash between pools
<AdrianG>
smooth: sure, but all of them split in the same proportion?
<smooth>
so if a large farm expands some of that hash probably goes to multiple pools
<smooth>
If i mine 30%+30%+20%+20% and I double the size of my farm, no change in the split really
<smooth>
it is tempting to look at a nice pretty pie chart and think you can see something. what if you actually see nothing useful at all?
<AdrianG>
its a possibility there is nothing.
<AdrianG>
but its just a possibility amongst many. idk how to assign weights here.
<AdrianG>
we don't even have water-heater asics yet.
PeterR has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<roconnor>
heh, evey winter I think of buying myself a miner.
<smooth>
and btw when i say users mining i dont necessarily mean joe coffee spv wallet users
<smooth>
you have users who are billion dollar companies like coinbase who dont mine but certainly could if they thought there was a reason to do so
<alpalp>
theres no way coinbase is a "billion dollar company"
<smooth>
alleged valuation
<smooth>
they can (maybe, depends on market conditions) raise funding as if they were
<alpalp>
VC for bitcoin companies are drying up, i doubt it.
<smooth>
probably but who knows later stage companies are a bit of a different market
<AdrianG>
roconnor: water heaters must be on 24/7/365, not just winter.
gocrazy has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<AdrianG>
thankfully due to the recent climate change deal in paris, electricity rates will never go cheaper.
<AdrianG>
coinbase cant possibly be a billion dollar corp.
<AdrianG>
any decent bank can start doing what they are doing with a minimal investment.
<smooth>
they literally raised money at 500 million a year ago
<alpalp>
but do they have 5 billion wallets!?
<smooth>
that is no alleged
meZee has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<smooth>
*not
<AdrianG>
smooth: sort of like square raised at inflated valuation with contracts that assure a certain level profit in any case?
<smooth>
of course it is like that
<smooth>
anyway, that's not the point, the point is that miners are an open set, not a closed set, unles they convince users to switch to a wallet with them signing the blocks
<alpalp>
smooth, do you have a source for the 500 mil valuation?
<IanT_>
Can someone point me to the release notes for RC1, cant seem to find them....
yossso has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
yossso has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has quit [Excess Flood]
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
aem is now known as aem
IanT_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
zookolaptop has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<aj>
erasmospunk: http://azure.erisian.com.au/~aj/tmp/txsizes-summary -- columns are number of transaction, and transaction size rounded down to nearest 100 bytes. only counts transactions in blocks 300,000 until a week ago or so ago
<aj>
erasmospunk: (oh, and excludes coinbase transactions)
<erasmospunk>
aj: Just as I imagined, the vast majority is 200-300 bytes
<aj>
erasmospunk: yeah, no surprise
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<erasmospunk>
I just had an idea about a side chain inside the bitcoin blockchain
<erasmospunk>
as a way to increase the block size in a soft fork manner
IanT__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<erasmospunk>
the side chain data would be kept separate from the 1mb blocks
<erasmospunk>
in order to go from the main chain to the side chain you sent your btc to an address
<instagibbs>
I know we love fork drama, but let's keep Classic/Core stuff in -offtopic
<erasmospunk>
instagibbs: this a channel for exchanging ideas, not politics
<instagibbs>
erasmospunk, I'm speaking of the scrollback about classic/core. We agree.
<erasmospunk>
instagibbs: I apologize if I was unpolite
<maaku>
erasmospunk that is called an extension block
<erasmospunk>
maaku: how they work?
<instagibbs>
erasmospunk, no offense taken
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<maaku>
Exactly like a sidechaim
<erasmospunk>
I heard about them, but didn't dive in yet
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<erasmospunk>
maaku: I mean, technically how it works
<erasmospunk>
are the UTXOs consolidated?
<maaku>
They work technically exactly like a side chain.
<PeterR>
...on another topic: yesterday, maaku said he would quit bitcoin development if the longest chain soon included blocks over 1MB.
<PeterR>
Does anyone else here share that sentiment?
<PeterR>
Imagine in April 2016, there are a few 1.1 MB blocks in the Blockchain. Would anyone else quit?
<zookolaptop>
An alternative to quitting is to run software that rejects such blocks. :-)
<PeterR>
Indeed.
<PeterR>
If the hash power on the shorter chain was small, I suppose difficulty could be reset to keep it alive if necessary.
<MrHodl>
"<maaku7> No one is arguing against an increase in capacity to 2MB. The contention is over the mechanism and by extension what happens next afterwards."
<PeterR>
But that brings up a theoretical question: could two "serious" coins persist over the long term while both sharing the same hashing algorithm?
<MRL-Relay>
[othe] no they can´t :)
<MrHodl>
Thats why hardfork no good unless you reach full consensus.
<erasmospunk>
I agree
<PeterR>
I don't think two forks would persist either. I suspect one chain would win or one chain would change the PoW algorithm (in order to co-exist).
<erasmospunk>
PeterR: there are 3 powers in bitcoin, the users, the miners and the developers
<MrHodl>
imo i dont think ANYONE will be risking to move to a 'new' fork.
<MrHodl>
xt mined 0.00% blocks was it?
<PeterR>
erasmospunk: agreed
<erasmospunk>
the bitcoin is like this: if any of the 3 powers vetoes, then a hard fork cannot happen
<MrHodl>
^
<erasmospunk>
only if all the 3 powers agree the hard fork can happen
<MrHodl>
Thank god satoshi didnt care for the majority.
<PeterR>
Hmm...I'll need to think more about that.
<erasmospunk>
PeterR: agreed
<brg444>
As is stands there is dissent between users and arguably miners. As for the developers it's rather one sided with regards to avoiding a hard fork.... for now.
<erasmospunk>
in fact I am working on the same concept you independently invented
<PeterR>
Cool! Did you do any writing about it that I can read?
<PeterR>
haha
<erasmospunk>
most of the serialization will change I came to a better format
<PeterR>
My subchains paper is under peer review at Ledger currently. From what I've gathered, most people agree with most of my claims yet some disagree regarding the added 0-conf security.
<erasmospunk>
they are wrong
<erasmospunk>
in fact my first version was using a chain, just like yours
<PeterR>
?
<PeterR>
So you agree that subchains can add some measurable security to zero-conf
<erasmospunk>
you did a lot of work on the math side, I respect that
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<erasmospunk>
yes, compared to the current situation
<PeterR>
Thanks, erasmospunk. Some people don't understand how long it takes to put together math like that. That paper was ~120 hours of work.
<PeterR>
(Including the research time)
<erasmospunk>
in a couple of hours I will post an updated version
markus-k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<erasmospunk>
PeterR: I love math
<PeterR>
Cool. I'll be sure to take a look.
<PeterR>
Me too! I was pretty stoked that my integral in Eq. (8) had such an simple closed-form (approximate) solution.
nabu has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
SirJacket has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PeterR has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
MrChrisJ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
oldbrew has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
hazirafel has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<maaku>
PeterR my statement was a bit more nuanced than that but it is probably off topic for here
<PeterR>
Is the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list still a serious place for discussion? My last submission was rejected and I was told to "contact Janet Yellen" (presumably the one from the Federal Reserve) if I wished to dispute.
<erasmospunk>
What is more correct? Coin base or coinbase?
<brg444>
Presumably the seriousness goes as far as the sincerity of the poster goes?
<brg444>
oh he quit
<bsm1175321>
PeterR has some kind of odd drive-by IRC client...he seems to see replies though.
yossso has quit [Read error: Connection timed out]
<bsm1175321>
erasmospunk: I'd say coinbase.
yossso has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<instagibbs>
lol erasmospunk told you to check your terms. you summoned King Troll (although it appears his trolling has slowed down a bit?)
<erasmospunk>
instagibbs: someone should compile a bitcoin wizards and ninjas glossary
<instagibbs>
(if he's still listening) I don't see the 0-conf enhancement. It's a gentleman's agreement only. No way to stop miners from signaling replacement without any orphan risk. That said, I think there is agreement that weak blocks / IBLT are helpful for non-adversarial mining.
<r0ach>
PeterR: Fork isn't political, it's economical, because like I said, it only makes sense for the price to go up if either on-chain volume is increasing or average price per transaction is increasing. If capacity is full and no LN in sight for maybe years, when no change is done, it's the equivalent of giving investors the middle finger.
<r0ach>
So investors will eventually give everyone else the middle finger and rebel
dnaleor has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<adlai>
;;later tell PeterR bitcoin is an opt-in social contract, a nomic-inspired game where those who publish lists of moves can choose to ignore certain moves, effectively rendering them illegal, but can NOT legalize a new move by simply printing it into existence. nakamoto consensus = anti-fiat. doesn't even the US constitution defend every individual against majority tyrrany?
<gribble>
The operation succeeded.
<erasmospunk>
instagibbs: mostly correct, there is an enhancement in security in non-adversarial mining
<erasmospunk>
obviously it is not a match for a 6-conf transaction
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
PeterR has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<PeterR>
erasmospunk: Ledger would love to host such a glossary of terms.
<PeterR>
I was thinking about working on that and including it as an appendix in the journal's Author Guidelines:
<PeterR>
Haha but I have too much to do already
<instagibbs>
erasmospunk, if we assume no one defects, sure.
<adlai>
r0ach: Bitcoin would thrive at full capacity even without a working solution for off-chain/micropayments... it would cost more to add data to the chain, whether transactions or otherwise, and anybody wanting to use Bitcoin would need to buy more of it
<instagibbs>
But the protocol could just be that replacements are fine, and signal those. I wouldn't call that "adversarial" exactly.
<instagibbs>
maybe that's splitting hairs.
<adlai>
PeterR: there's an old mailing list post by sipa where he expresses maaku's view as well
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<PeterR>
instagibbs: the added security for 0-conf with subchains is small--especially at small block sizes--but quantifiable:
<PeterR>
I think I proved this mathematically. Either I made an error in the math, or an error in my assumptions.
<PeterR>
If it's not true that 0-conf security is improved.
<r0ach>
adlai: depends IF you view crypto as a store of value or not. I view the value as a product of the utility it provides, which I believe is the rational viewpoint. Not value through artificial scarcity of coin count.
<instagibbs>
PeterR, I'd need to re-read the paper to get the assumptions/context. I don't doubt the math, I may doubt the assumptions :)
oneeman has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<instagibbs>
Like I said, I don't mind the work. Some sort of scheme will help with miner health in non-adversarial case and that's grea.
conner has quit []
<PeterR>
I'd be interested to learn which assumption you disagreed with. I modelled miners as rational short-term profit maximizing agents.
<instagibbs>
This is assuming the "adding new txns causes orphan risk" thing?
<r0ach>
adlai: the fact that crypto is vulnerable to black swan events that things like gold are not, means it has to make up the difference in increased utility. Crypto doesn't live in a bubble.
<adlai>
eh? everything is vulnerable to black swans, even as unimaginative as insider theft
<brg444>
^
<r0ach>
I'm speaking from a store of value point
<adlai>
bitcoin is useless if nobody views it as a store of value; not everybody is required to, but if nobody does, the incentives get quite funny
<PeterR>
Instagibbs: it assumes that, ceteris paribus, the propagation/verification time increases if more information is propagated/verified.
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<instagibbs>
at block discovery time?
<instagibbs>
or just as a very general statement
<r0ach>
adlai: assuming you achieve decent scalability, you really don't need to view it as a long term store of value because...we use fiat every day and that's exactly how it works
conner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<instagibbs>
cheers, gtg
<PeterR>
Specifically at block verification time. The more *new* information sent at block verification time, the longer on average the new information will take to propagate/verify.
<instagibbs>
Ok in that case: you can signal new txns out-of-band by committing to them in an op_return, so if you hit a weak block just inform your peers about the new txns in the chain.
<adlai>
r0ach: i'm not aware of any research proving Nakamoto Consensus worth validating when the most valuable value-store is not Bitcoin.
<PeterR>
Yes you could do this. But that won't change the added 0-conf security. I think I explain why quite well in my subchains paper.
PeterR has quit [Quit: Page closed]
Guest32325 is now known as roidster
nuke1989 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<r0ach>
adlai: If I'm a business and find Crypto valuable for international transactions for example, but don't even care about it's store of value, I might have tons of it on-hand just as the price of doing business with international customers as a float. That float amount held by many business will prop the market cap up and
<r0ach>
suddenly people can use it as a store of value even if nobody believes it is a store of value...so the chicken and egg scenario is, payment processing (utility) comes first before store of value
<brg444>
^ That's backwards. Read Szabo's paper Schelling Out on the origins
<brg444>
Most forms of money not fiat start off as collectibles. Same for Bitcoin
<brg444>
If no one cares to hold it as a store of value it will be impossible for your business to use it for international transactions.
<r0ach>
well, Bitcoin itself didn't have value until someone bought a pizza, so the ability to buy pizza (utility) was the prime mover
jannes has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<adlai>
practically speaking, Bitcoin's killer app was and always will be gambling. your poker buddies might play for monopoly money, but that neither builds nore topples empires
<adlai>
(mining is gambling too!)
<r0ach>
mining is a subsidized futures contract imo
<brg444>
r0ach no see that is backward because the only reason somebody was able to buy pizza is because the recipient of the btc valued them enough to consider them worthy of holding them
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jannes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<r0ach>
if you assume the initial coin recepient was a rational actor
<brg444>
... huh yes I do assume the guy didn't buy a pizza for someone on the other side of the world for shits and giggles. w/e this is outside the scope of this channel topic
MrHodl has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
erasmospunk has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bramc is now known as Guest12399
dnaleor_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<nsh>
could you express e.g. DES rounds as recurrence relations?
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
r0ach has quit []
sunny has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Erik_dc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kang_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
conner has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Client Quit]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
conner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<nsh>
i think i was probably groping towards Best Affine Approximation attacks
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
markus-k has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<nsh>
(line of thought was using operator calculus on s-boxes or coupled LFSRs in stream ciphers to find approximating polynomials in a kind of laplace domain then solve algebraically and invert back to the discrete operation domain. the BAA corresponds to a differentiation of the approximated function, which becomes a - hopefully more tractable - zero/pole in the continuous complex frequency domain)
Yoghur114_2 has quit [Read error: No route to host]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
memymo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jannes has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
jannes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
sausage_factory has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brg444 has quit [Quit: Page closed]
blackwraith has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
conner has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
conner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
conner has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
Hmmm...braids totally destroy the necessity of SPV mining. While a miner is verifying a new block, he doesn't need to switch to name that block as a parent until it's fully verified. If he mines a block while verifying, his block will be a sibling, but he would still get his same difficulty-weighted coin allocation, and split any fees.
Jeremy_Rand_2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Jeremy_Rand_2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Changing host]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
conner has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Read error: No route to host]
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Changing host]
paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
conner has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
b-itcoinssg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
paveljanik has quit [Quit: Leaving]
dEBRUYNE has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kyletorpey has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
<nsh>
bsm1175321, observe with diagrams and stuff! so we don't have to take it your good word on it, as much as that counts :)
<nsh>
-it
<bsm1175321>
It's coming. Just had that interesting thought and thought I'd share, adding it to my draft...
jl2012 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
sunny has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<nsh>
bsm1175321, awesome
yossso has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yosso has joined #bitcoin-wizards
brg444 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
atgreen has joined #bitcoin-wizards
oldbrew has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adnn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
moa has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|away has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
erasmospunk has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
adnn has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
adnn has joined #bitcoin-wizards
tjader has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
GAit has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has quit [Quit: leaving]
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has quit [Client Quit]
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jannes has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Nightwolf has quit [Client Quit]
DougieBot5000 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Nightwolf has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c0rw|away has joined #bitcoin-wizards
r0ach has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Erik_dc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brg444 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c0rw|away is now known as c0rw1n
zookolaptop has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
T23WS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yosso has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yossso has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Guest12399 has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
b-itcoinssg has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc is now known as Guest8778
dnaleor has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
justanotheruser has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]