API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Feb 4th, 2013
888
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 49.24 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Feb 04 22:27:08 <jurov> BitVPS delivers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76506.msg1503376#msg1503376
  2. Feb 04 22:27:10 <jurov> lmaooooo
  3. Feb 04 22:27:38 <mircea_popescu> im kind of affraid to look
  4. Feb 04 22:28:07 <jurov> send the gal. she'll know what to do
  5. Feb 04 22:29:16 <mircea_popescu> um. so what's the problem with that ?
  6. Feb 04 22:29:42 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: Were you meaning to address me?
  7. Feb 04 22:29:43 <jurov> it's next week. probably.
  8. Feb 04 22:29:52 <mircea_popescu> midnightmagic yeah
  9. Feb 04 22:30:14 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: Which maxblocksize issue are you talking about?
  10. Feb 04 22:30:17 <mircea_popescu> you've not been following the maxblocksize most recent drama ?
  11. Feb 04 22:30:26 * mircea_popescu digs up for a link
  12. Feb 04 22:30:39 <mircea_popescu> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1503099#msg1503099 <
  13. Feb 04 22:30:39 <midnightmagic> i'm on the mailing list. was it there?
  14. Feb 04 22:30:44 <midnightmagic> ah thanks.
  15. Feb 04 22:32:43 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.DICE] 3313 @ 0.007 = 23.191 BTC [+]
  16. Feb 04 22:32:45 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.DICE] 1000 @ 0.00739499 = 7.395 BTC [+]
  17. Feb 04 22:32:46 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.DICE] 8549 @ 0.007395 = 63.2199 BTC [+]
  18. Feb 04 22:34:09 * Jackmaninov has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  19. Feb 04 22:39:08 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 7700 @ 0.00069515 = 5.3527 BTC [+]
  20. Feb 04 22:39:10 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2400 @ 0.00069964 = 1.6791 BTC [+]
  21. Feb 04 22:41:51 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 999 @ 0.00069964 = 0.6989 BTC [+]
  22. Feb 04 22:42:05 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: There an ancillary issue (for miners at least) for txn verification as well. I don't really view the max block size as an issue, since I have no trouble running multi-TB databases, so I, personally, will have no issue remaining a node even if maxblocksize increases massively
  23. Feb 04 22:42:30 <midnightmagic> I do view satoshidice as a particularly pernicious form of evil, for example.
  24. Feb 04 22:42:50 <mircea_popescu> i know.
  25. Feb 04 22:43:04 <gigavps> it's pretty easy to exclude their transactions
  26. Feb 04 22:43:16 <gigavps> i'll be doing that soon ;)
  27. Feb 04 22:43:31 <gigavps> miner revolt against satoshidice
  28. Feb 04 22:43:35 <midnightmagic> We still have to accept blocks that other douches mine SD into..
  29. Feb 04 22:43:45 <midnightmagic> yeah me too, btw.
  30. Feb 04 22:44:00 <mircea_popescu> sokay, they make enough dough to build their own rigs, run you boys outta biz.
  31. Feb 04 22:44:10 <gigavps> lol
  32. Feb 04 22:44:25 <midnightmagic> The issue is that while *we* will save ourselves from mining effort, if it becomes too widely-adopted SD will modify their scheme and it'll be a kind of arms race after that
  33. Feb 04 22:44:50 <mircea_popescu> if you're in the business of mining, trying to save yourself from mining effort seems a little...
  34. Feb 04 22:44:59 <mircea_popescu> you know, like the whore that's trying not to get laid too much.
  35. Feb 04 22:44:59 <Anduck> how should they modify their scheme, midnightmagic??
  36. Feb 04 22:45:03 <mircea_popescu> find a diff line maybe.
  37. Feb 04 22:45:11 <midnightmagic> lol. We outnumber them both in terms of brains, and in overall hashrate. They couldn't afford to directly compete against the long tail. Not yet.
  38. Feb 04 22:45:28 <mircea_popescu> yaya. gl.
  39. Feb 04 22:45:31 <gigavps> mircea_popescu, the idea is to make SD take deposits and not do everything through the block chain
  40. Feb 04 22:45:39 <mircea_popescu> not gonna happen.
  41. Feb 04 22:45:42 <midnightmagic> Anduck: Stop using the blockchain as their own personal database.
  42. Feb 04 22:45:49 <Anduck> huh?
  43. Feb 04 22:45:54 <gigavps> mircea_popescu, it will be their down fall then
  44. Feb 04 22:46:05 <mircea_popescu> and contrary to popular belief, the 700k btc company tells the 50k nominal /2k market value bond people what's what.
  45. Feb 04 22:46:07 <midnightmagic> Anduck: They should modify their scheme to stop using the blockchain as their own personal database.
  46. Feb 04 22:46:11 <Luke-Jr> Anduck: you send to a one-time-use address to deposit, play as much as you like on the site; when you're done, you enter the withdraw address and it sends the balance back; if you don't do anything for 5-10 mins, it sends it back to where it came by default
  47. Feb 04 22:46:24 <mircea_popescu> not gonna happen, you might as well forget it.
  48. Feb 04 22:46:28 <Anduck> welll i like the current system,
  49. Feb 04 22:46:29 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: If you say so. :)
  50. Feb 04 22:46:32 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: then SD can die
  51. Feb 04 22:46:35 <Anduck> think if without nerd goggless
  52. Feb 04 22:46:35 <mircea_popescu> heh.
  53. Feb 04 22:46:39 <gigavps> mircea_popescu is too smart for the rest of us
  54. Feb 04 22:46:47 <mircea_popescu> dudes, it's simple : miners that mine can stick around
  55. Feb 04 22:46:56 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: also, it's hardly a consensus when there's 1 person..
  56. Feb 04 22:46:57 <mircea_popescu> miners that don't mine can find a job in obama's booming economy
  57. Feb 04 22:46:57 <Anduck> for normal gambling man current SD kind of gambling is super
  58. Feb 04 22:46:59 <mircea_popescu> either way.
  59. Feb 04 22:47:07 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: txn that don't DDoS can stick around.
  60. Feb 04 22:47:15 <Anduck> u dont evn need to go to the site to gamble
  61. Feb 04 22:47:16 <mircea_popescu> but i did lol my ass off at amazingrando's sob story.
  62. Feb 04 22:47:24 <mircea_popescu> here you are, a bunch of , as tghe italians say, rotinculo
  63. Feb 04 22:47:28 <mircea_popescu> telling me about who can die ?
  64. Feb 04 22:47:30 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: By the time the block reward is < txn fees, this problem will already have been solved.
  65. Feb 04 22:47:39 <mircea_popescu> go get 9k usd a month to pay for electricity and 40 hours week for free.
  66. Feb 04 22:47:43 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: responsible miners will continue to mine blocks without dice spam
  67. Feb 04 22:47:47 <mircea_popescu> bunch of brains ? i remain unimpressed.
  68. Feb 04 22:47:55 * davout (~davout@unaffiliated/davout) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  69. Feb 04 22:47:57 <mircea_popescu> the responsible miners will mine. the idiots will highfalootin.
  70. Feb 04 22:48:04 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: I wasn't aware we should be impressing you. :)
  71. Feb 04 22:48:10 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: Would you like to be impressed?
  72. Feb 04 22:48:13 <mircea_popescu> i thought that's the point of the exercise.
  73. Feb 04 22:48:44 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: No, the point of the exercise was to make public comments.
  74. Feb 04 22:48:50 <mircea_popescu> ah i c.
  75. Feb 04 22:49:02 <mircea_popescu> well ok, how's this for public comments : all you boys together don't clear 10k btc a month.
  76. Feb 04 22:49:13 <mircea_popescu> and this even if we don't pay you as much as waitresses make
  77. Feb 04 22:49:16 <mircea_popescu> 1.5 an hour or w/e
  78. Feb 04 22:49:22 <mircea_popescu> so, i can understand envy.
  79. Feb 04 22:49:29 <mircea_popescu> i can't understand envy masquerading as "responsibility".
  80. Feb 04 22:49:48 <midnightmagic> mircea_popescu: Trollfail.
  81. Feb 04 22:49:52 * midnightmagic is bored now and wanders off.
  82. Feb 04 22:49:56 <mircea_popescu> laters.
  83. Feb 04 22:50:27 <davout> someone be funny, i'm bored
  84. Feb 04 22:50:42 <mircea_popescu> davout why are you here when you should be fighting your competition!
  85. Feb 04 22:51:09 <davout> i can't
  86. Feb 04 22:51:23 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 8450 @ 0.00069157 = 5.8438 BTC [-]
  87. Feb 04 22:51:25 <davout> he's too legit
  88. Feb 04 22:51:36 <mircea_popescu> lol
  89. Feb 04 22:51:48 <mircea_popescu> he's too legit for his car... too legit... by far
  90. Feb 04 22:52:01 <davout> i sometimes feel bad hitting on mentally retarded people
  91. Feb 04 22:52:18 <mircea_popescu> i never hit on mentally retarded people that mind their own business.
  92. Feb 04 22:52:26 <Luke-Jr> davout: mircea_popescu's problem in this case seems to be he likes to think he's important
  93. Feb 04 22:52:59 <davout> Luke-Jr: i'll count to three in tonal and then *poof* you'll disappear
  94. Feb 04 22:53:01 <mircea_popescu> no luke, you're the one that likes to think you're important.
  95. Feb 04 22:53:03 <mircea_popescu> you're not.
  96. Feb 04 22:53:22 <davout> Luke-Jr: <3
  97. Feb 04 22:53:23 <Luke-Jr> davout: don't do it!
  98. Feb 04 22:53:26 <Luke-Jr> :P
  99. Feb 04 22:53:58 <gigavps> o jesus
  100. Feb 04 22:54:04 <davout> regardless of which of you is the most important, my cock is still the biggest, measured in metric, imperial or tonal
  101. Feb 04 22:54:13 <mircea_popescu> who ever heard of this bullshit even, guy does 2% of the hash, is going to establish whether the one aplication deriving actual use out of bitcoin dies or not.
  102. Feb 04 22:54:26 <mircea_popescu> davout i take it you've not seen pix of mine ?
  103. Feb 04 22:54:51 <davout> mircea_popescu: i couldn't tell them apart, balls were touching
  104. Feb 04 22:54:58 <jcpham> i like what davout said
  105. Feb 04 22:55:14 <mircea_popescu> http://polimedia.us/trilema/2010/nsfw-pula-mea/ read it and weep frenchie.
  106. Feb 04 22:55:22 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 922 @ 0.00069964 = 0.6451 BTC [+]
  107. Feb 04 22:55:24 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4161 @ 0.00069998 = 2.9126 BTC [+]
  108. Feb 04 22:55:25 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2017 @ 0.00069999 = 1.4119 BTC [+]
  109. Feb 04 22:55:30 <dub> so glad I'm at work right now
  110. Feb 04 22:55:55 <mircea_popescu> well tbh it's not safe for home, either.
  111. Feb 04 22:56:12 <davout> it's in romanian, you just made me waste one trilema free article
  112. Feb 04 22:56:41 <mircea_popescu> you can't read pictures either ?
  113. Feb 04 22:56:45 <davout> mirea_popescu: just because i'm poor doesn't mean i know how to read romanian
  114. Feb 04 22:56:55 <mircea_popescu> ahaha good one
  115. Feb 04 22:57:18 <Anduck> true infact
  116. Feb 04 22:57:19 <Anduck> xD
  117. Feb 04 22:57:33 <davout> there are like pictures of a black rod or whatever it is
  118. Feb 04 22:57:55 <mircea_popescu> you've never seen one before i take it ?
  119. Feb 04 22:58:12 <davout> mircea_popescu: well, at least thank you! i'm starting to feel slightly amused :D
  120. Feb 04 22:58:20 <assbot> [HAVELOCK] [SDICE] 1 @ 0.75815152 BTC [-]
  121. Feb 04 22:58:36 <mircea_popescu> it's been my go-to for internet cock competitions for years now
  122. Feb 04 22:58:43 <davout> nah, i kinda feel ok having little experience with black rods
  123. Feb 04 22:58:50 <davout> lol
  124. Feb 04 22:59:36 <mircea_popescu> it's not black. it's just... pigmented.
  125. Feb 04 23:00:18 * luke-jr_ (~luke-jr@2001:470:5:265:222:4dff:fe50:4c49) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  126. Feb 04 23:00:33 <luke-jr_> davout: heh, I didn't say I was important :P
  127. Feb 04 23:00:35 <luke-jr_> davout: I prefer to argue with logic, not "none of you other people matter"
  128. Feb 04 23:00:50 <mircea_popescu> let me hear this logic.
  129. Feb 04 23:01:05 * Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  130. Feb 04 23:01:08 <mircea_popescu> "there is one actual aplication making btc useful. we should act like we matter tho we don't and pretend like we can kill it tho we can't"
  131. Feb 04 23:01:14 <davout> the "none of you other people matter" attitude has one big advantage : you don't really need to justify yourself
  132. Feb 04 23:01:33 <mircea_popescu> o, wait. his logic reminds me of this chick i fired on the 2nd date.
  133. Feb 04 23:01:44 <mircea_popescu> he... left.
  134. Feb 04 23:01:50 <davout> but that only matters IMO if you have the desire to be right
  135. Feb 04 23:02:16 <dub> timely tweet from god himself https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/298536246970552321
  136. Feb 04 23:02:17 <mircea_popescu> i couldn't care less, honestly, but the pompous miner ass is getting on my nerves.
  137. Feb 04 23:02:36 * luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
  138. Feb 04 23:02:45 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11650 @ 0.00069999 = 8.1549 BTC [+]
  139. Feb 04 23:03:04 <mircea_popescu> so anyone actually know how much hash elgius is doing these days ? they don't seem to have it on the main page anywhere.
  140. Feb 04 23:03:41 <davout> bitcoin attrcat people with various kinds of mental disorders, they are an advantage in making it progress, but sometimes they hinder social interaction i beliebe
  141. Feb 04 23:03:53 <davout> I AM A BELIEBER
  142. Feb 04 23:03:59 <mircea_popescu> lol
  143. Feb 04 23:04:50 <mircea_popescu> dude check it out! not one within the past hour! sdice is going to die omg!
  144. Feb 04 23:05:26 <jcpham> bieber nation
  145. Feb 04 23:05:37 * MoneyIsDebt has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  146. Feb 04 23:07:43 <iz> justin 3:16
  147. Feb 04 23:07:53 * copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  148. Feb 04 23:07:56 * Chilca has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  149. Feb 04 23:08:31 * copumpkin (~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  150. Feb 04 23:09:41 <Namworld> why, oh WHY would block size be limited?
  151. Feb 04 23:10:33 <mircea_popescu> Namworld you know those 2gb files on your disk ?
  152. Feb 04 23:11:25 <kakobreklaa> thats a problem of fat32
  153. Feb 04 23:11:30 <davout> word
  154. Feb 04 23:11:34 <kakobreklaa> noone uses that
  155. Feb 04 23:11:42 <kakobreklaa> at least noone relevant
  156. Feb 04 23:11:44 <mircea_popescu> ya well, if i finally buy an asic and start mining 1tb blocks just to be an ass
  157. Feb 04 23:11:46 <davout> lol
  158. Feb 04 23:11:52 <mircea_popescu> you're all stuck buying a new hdd each day
  159. Feb 04 23:11:54 <iz> it's because everyone has a copy of the blockchain
  160. Feb 04 23:11:56 <iz> yeah, exactly
  161. Feb 04 23:12:14 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: SD's DDoS isn't useful at all
  162. Feb 04 23:12:21 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 10089 @ 0.00069999 = 7.0622 BTC [+]
  163. Feb 04 23:12:24 <kakobreklaa> splitting the size of blocks into smaller ones doesnt fix any problem really
  164. Feb 04 23:12:27 <Namworld> If the blockchain can't handle SD
  165. Feb 04 23:12:30 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr its business model is THE ONLY USEFUL THING BITCOIN DOES AT THE MOMENT.
  166. Feb 04 23:12:37 <Namworld> It can't handle anything serious
  167. Feb 04 23:12:50 <Namworld> I don't see the problem
  168. Feb 04 23:12:51 <mircea_popescu> maybe one day it'll do something else, or something more.
  169. Feb 04 23:12:56 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: nonsense
  170. Feb 04 23:12:59 <davout> how much has SD paid in fees atm ?
  171. Feb 04 23:13:00 <mircea_popescu> but so far, the fact that people can s.dice is the only utility btc has.
  172. Feb 04 23:13:07 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: not even VISA handles this kind of attack
  173. Feb 04 23:13:12 <mircea_popescu> davout half of all fees ever paid or something.
  174. Feb 04 23:13:23 <iz> kakobreklaa: it solves the problem of the blockchain growing too fast, by replacing it with the problem of transaction with low transaction fees take significantly longer to process than transactions with larger transaction fees
  175. Feb 04 23:13:29 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: you seem to not know what useful means
  176. Feb 04 23:13:30 <iz> kakobreklaa: which is a much better problem to have
  177. Feb 04 23:13:41 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr no, i know what useful means. that's why i'm on the money side.
  178. Feb 04 23:13:46 <kakobreklaa> iz there is no iniciative for a miner not to accept 1satoshi fee TX
  179. Feb 04 23:13:46 <mircea_popescu> you think you know what right means
  180. Feb 04 23:13:50 <mircea_popescu> but that's always debatable.
  181. Feb 04 23:14:02 <davout> Luke-Jr: i politely beg to differ, it's a feature, not a bug, if you do not want these delicious transaction fees, don't mine the SD txes, *boom* problem solved
  182. Feb 04 23:14:21 <mircea_popescu> davout he thinks this will have any other result than him being pushed out of mining.
  183. Feb 04 23:14:21 <Luke-Jr> kakobreklaa: every transaction increases the risk your block is orphaned
  184. Feb 04 23:14:38 <iz> kakobreklaa: when they start bumping into the blocksize limitation, there will be -- and they will prioritize the transactions with higher transaction fees over the ones that have lower ones, since they get the transaction fees if they solve the block
  185. Feb 04 23:14:49 <Luke-Jr> davout: the risk of orphaned blocks from SD is much greater than any fees they pay
  186. Feb 04 23:14:54 <kakobreklaa> yeah but miners vote
  187. Feb 04 23:14:57 <kakobreklaa> what the blockchain will be
  188. Feb 04 23:15:00 <kakobreklaa> with hashpower
  189. Feb 04 23:15:05 <kakobreklaa> you cant say it will be like so
  190. Feb 04 23:15:08 <mircea_popescu> kakobreklaa that's gavin's proposed solution.
  191. Feb 04 23:15:13 <davout> Luke-Jr: why would a block be orphaned because it includes a SD tx ?
  192. Feb 04 23:15:15 <mircea_popescu> and i think its pretty smart.
  193. Feb 04 23:15:18 <iz> kakobreklaa: but they have the same incentives ala transaction fees
  194. Feb 04 23:15:19 <kakobreklaa> even gavin cant say it will be so
  195. Feb 04 23:15:41 <Luke-Jr> davout: every transaction increases the time it takes to verify the block, which occurs before each node begins relaying it
  196. Feb 04 23:15:45 <kakobreklaa> anyone can fork a more profitable bitcoind
  197. Feb 04 23:15:56 <Luke-Jr> davout: SD-including blocks often take minutes to cross the network
  198. Feb 04 23:16:01 <mircea_popescu> kakobreklaa ya but so far there's not much incentive.
  199. Feb 04 23:16:13 <iz> kakobreklaa: how would you fork a more profitable bitcoind?
  200. Feb 04 23:16:23 <kakobreklaa> by excluding the limit
  201. Feb 04 23:16:29 <davout> Luke-Jr: so miners will have a reduced incentive to mine them. boom, solution is built-in the problem
  202. Feb 04 23:16:32 <iz> but then it wouldn't be bitcoin
  203. Feb 04 23:16:40 <kakobreklaa> as long as majority does it
  204. Feb 04 23:16:41 <iz> and you would be starting where bitcoin started.. at 0
  205. Feb 04 23:16:51 <Namworld> I understand that the blockchain contains all the history of each individual coins?
  206. Feb 04 23:16:51 <iz> kakobreklaa: then it wouldn't be a fork
  207. Feb 04 23:16:51 <Luke-Jr> davout: exactly, that's part of why rational miners block it
  208. Feb 04 23:17:00 <iz> it would be a takeover
  209. Feb 04 23:17:01 <kakobreklaa> for a bitcoind to use blockchain
  210. Feb 04 23:17:04 <kakobreklaa> fork*
  211. Feb 04 23:17:06 <kakobreklaa> no
  212. Feb 04 23:17:09 <kakobreklaa> you can do that now
  213. Feb 04 23:17:15 <davout> Luke-Jr: so what's your point ?
  214. Feb 04 23:17:17 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: not exactly
  215. Feb 04 23:17:18 <mircea_popescu> <Luke-Jr> davout: exactly, that's part of why rational miners block it << this is "no true scotsman"
  216. Feb 04 23:17:19 <iz> sure, but it won't work on the network
  217. Feb 04 23:17:21 <mircea_popescu> idiots block it, atm.
  218. Feb 04 23:17:25 <kakobreklaa> ofc it will be on the net
  219. Feb 04 23:17:35 <Namworld> What kind of history does it keep Luke?
  220. Feb 04 23:17:36 <kakobreklaa> iz there are many nonstandard clients
  221. Feb 04 23:17:39 <davout> wtf does "no true scotsman" mean ?
  222. Feb 04 23:17:44 <mircea_popescu> it's a logical fallacy.
  223. Feb 04 23:17:51 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: transactions
  224. Feb 04 23:17:56 <mircea_popescu> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  225. Feb 04 23:17:56 <iz> kakobreklaa: the non-standard clients still conform to all the bitcoin network rules though
  226. Feb 04 23:17:58 <Luke-Jr> davout: it's a logical fallacy that mircea_popescu doesn't understand
  227. Feb 04 23:18:01 <davout> kakobreklaa: there no non-standard mining clients that i know of
  228. Feb 04 23:18:03 <kakobreklaa> iz to some degree
  229. Feb 04 23:18:08 <iz> to 100%
  230. Feb 04 23:18:11 <kakobreklaa> no
  231. Feb 04 23:18:12 <iz> if they don't they won't work
  232. Feb 04 23:18:14 <mircea_popescu> dude, fact of the matter is, the 99.8% miners that aren't you do mine it.
  233. Feb 04 23:18:17 <kakobreklaa> you are wrong iz
  234. Feb 04 23:18:20 <iz> i'm not
  235. Feb 04 23:18:21 <Namworld> So it strictly tracks x.xx goes from a to b
  236. Feb 04 23:18:26 <mircea_popescu> calling them irrational is exactly the sort of popmassery that you got in trouble for earlier.
  237. Feb 04 23:18:26 <kakobreklaa> yes you are :)
  238. Feb 04 23:18:28 <iz> but check your facts
  239. Feb 04 23:18:29 <Namworld> ?
  240. Feb 04 23:18:33 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: wrong
  241. Feb 04 23:18:46 <iz> i'm not going to argue with you, i'll let you remain ignorant if you so desire
  242. Feb 04 23:18:50 <Namworld> You can't distinguish a satoshi from another?
  243. Feb 04 23:18:50 <assbot> [BTCTC] [BASIC-MINING] 20 @ 0.35 = 7 BTC [+]
  244. Feb 04 23:18:55 <kakobreklaa> its you who is ignorant
  245. Feb 04 23:18:57 <mircea_popescu> ya, i spelled it popmassery. i mean pompassery.
  246. Feb 04 23:19:02 <iz> kakobreklaa: see my prior line
  247. Feb 04 23:19:13 <kakobreklaa> yet you keep posting stuff
  248. Feb 04 23:19:35 <iz> i'll let someone else explain to you where you are wrong
  249. Feb 04 23:19:54 <kakobreklaa> we just had a link not long ago
  250. Feb 04 23:19:57 <mircea_popescu> s.dice did about half of all transactions to date, and paid about half of all fees paid to date.
  251. Feb 04 23:20:02 <davout> kakobreklaa iz what are you arguing about ? may i join in your argument ? i feel bored and would enjoy bitchslapping whichever one of you two is wrong
  252. Feb 04 23:20:07 <mircea_popescu> if you want to empty block mine that's one thing
  253. Feb 04 23:20:07 <kakobreklaa> about nonstandard client making a rand() return 4; call
  254. Feb 04 23:20:15 <mircea_popescu> but what you're calling rational is nonsense.
  255. Feb 04 23:20:16 <kakobreklaa> so dont give me shit iz :)
  256. Feb 04 23:20:31 <iz> kakobreklaa: it's still conforming to the bitcoin network protocol, even if it's not implemented exactly the same
  257. Feb 04 23:20:37 <assbot> [BTCTC] [COGNITIVE] 1 @ 0.3099 BTC [-]
  258. Feb 04 23:20:39 <assbot> [BTCTC] [COGNITIVE] 3 @ 0.3099 = 0.9297 BTC [-]
  259. Feb 04 23:20:39 <Namworld> Luke-JR: ok, suppose someone has 100 BTC in his address and he receives 50 "tainted" coins. He now has 150 BTC. If he then spend part of it, there's no distinction between the two?
  260. Feb 04 23:20:44 <iz> in the same way linux and windows both conform to TCP, even if they aren't implemented exactly the same
  261. Feb 04 23:20:53 <iz> and you can fingerprint differences between them
  262. Feb 04 23:20:59 <mircea_popescu> and when did this chan become an unholy cross between -otc, -mining and -nonsense!
  263. Feb 04 23:21:00 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: spammers did more than half of all emails to date, and paid about the same in bandwidth costs!
  264. Feb 04 23:21:01 <davout> there is no spec for the bitcoin protocol, point = moot
  265. Feb 04 23:21:02 <iz> but the two systems can still communicate with each other
  266. Feb 04 23:21:25 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: Bitcoin does not work with balances either.
  267. Feb 04 23:21:26 <iz> the "spec" is by code, and defined by the current bitcoin client that everyone is running
  268. Feb 04 23:21:26 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr that's possibly the most braindamaged, broken analogy you came up with so far
  269. Feb 04 23:21:31 <mircea_popescu> and you have quite the history of that.
  270. Feb 04 23:21:42 <Namworld> hmm
  271. Feb 04 23:21:43 <davout> iz code != spec
  272. Feb 04 23:21:48 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: nope, it's pretty much exactly equivalent
  273. Feb 04 23:21:57 <mircea_popescu> no dude. there's good email and bad email.
  274. Feb 04 23:21:58 <iz> davout: these are rules like "block reward halving times" and such
  275. Feb 04 23:22:07 <iz> you can't just change those rules to "fork" bitcoin
  276. Feb 04 23:22:07 <mircea_popescu> there's only transactions. not good, not bad, not holy or purple.
  277. Feb 04 23:22:10 <mircea_popescu> bitcoin is tx agnostic.
  278. Feb 04 23:22:15 <iz> and suddenly have a new version of bitcoin that is just "better"
  279. Feb 04 23:22:26 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: no, it isn't.
  280. Feb 04 23:22:32 <mircea_popescu> ya well that's the problem.
  281. Feb 04 23:22:34 <iz> these rules include the block size limitation
  282. Feb 04 23:22:39 <dub> iz: of course you can, with a mining majority
  283. Feb 04 23:22:48 <gigavps> mircea_popescu knows all
  284. Feb 04 23:22:49 <mircea_popescu> we'll never agree, and your choices are either submit or i'll kill you.
  285. Feb 04 23:22:52 <mircea_popescu> so... we can lay it to rest.
  286. Feb 04 23:22:55 <davout> iz: just because there are rules everybody agrees upon doesn't mean there is a proper spec, this has been discussed like a million times, and it is why i wholeheartedly welcome the cbitcoin initiative
  287. Feb 04 23:22:56 <gigavps> no point in arguing
  288. Feb 04 23:23:00 <iz> dub: it's not the miners that matter, it's the bitcoin CLIENTS
  289. Feb 04 23:23:00 <mircea_popescu> exactly.
  290. Feb 04 23:23:07 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: Bitcoin users have agreed to store FINANCIAL TRANSFERS in the blockchain. Not DNS. Not game activity. Not notifications.
  291. Feb 04 23:23:21 * dub sighs and steps away
  292. Feb 04 23:23:29 <Luke-Jr> mircea_popescu: anything other than a direct financial transaction is abusing the communal agreement on what the blockchain is for
  293. Feb 04 23:23:35 <kakobreklaa> dub its hopeless.
  294. Feb 04 23:23:35 <Luke-Jr> gigavps: obviously
  295. Feb 04 23:23:45 <davout> Luke-Jr: please speak for yourself
  296. Feb 04 23:23:51 <iz> dub: under the scenario you described, a mining majority could produce a block that a different majority of bitcoin clients rejects and disagrees with
  297. Feb 04 23:23:58 <dub> kakobreklaa: yeah, I know this too, just cant help myself sometimes.
  298. Feb 04 23:24:09 <Luke-Jr> davout: I did.
  299. Feb 04 23:24:11 <pigeons> "different majority"
  300. Feb 04 23:24:13 <mircea_popescu> davout when you're poor your only practical avenue is to speak "for the community"
  301. Feb 04 23:24:13 <awkorama> Luke-Jr: who told you that bitcoin is money ?
  302. Feb 04 23:24:20 <mircea_popescu> so... he's speaking for the community.
  303. Feb 04 23:24:24 <awkorama> it's all just numbers
  304. Feb 04 23:24:35 <iz> there's a difference between the majority of miners and the majority of bitcoin clients on the p2p network
  305. Feb 04 23:24:47 <iz> or do you think those are the same?
  306. Feb 04 23:24:48 <Luke-Jr> davout: it's not about "one person is okay with using it for FOO", it's about "everyone using it is doing it for FOO"
  307. Feb 04 23:24:49 <davout> Luke-Jr: I was under the impression you put words in my mouth, i don't give a fuck about what goes into the blockchain, be it financial transactions or religious messages if you see what i mean
  308. Feb 04 23:24:50 <awkorama> (so is the universe, btw)
  309. Feb 04 23:24:57 <Namworld> I think every x blocks, there's some milestone achieved?
  310. Feb 04 23:25:03 <Luke-Jr> davout: you're one person.
  311. Feb 04 23:25:12 <davout> Luke-Jr: so are you
  312. Feb 04 23:25:12 <Namworld> I don't see the problem with SD transactions.
  313. Feb 04 23:25:26 <Luke-Jr> 100% of Bitcoin users have agreed to financial transactions. There is no other such agreement in this context.
  314. Feb 04 23:25:37 <mircea_popescu> Namworld simply put, the problem with sd transactions is that sd made 20k last month, in btc. that's 400k usd at going rates.
  315. Feb 04 23:25:44 <mircea_popescu> amazingrando made 9k, of which he paid electricity.
  316. Feb 04 23:25:49 <mircea_popescu> the rest of the miners did about the same
  317. Feb 04 23:25:53 <mircea_popescu> they perceive this is unfair.
  318. Feb 04 23:26:00 <mircea_popescu> it may be unfair, but it is what they signed up for.
  319. Feb 04 23:26:01 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: they're abusing the blockchain for signalling
  320. Feb 04 23:26:11 <mircea_popescu> higher level services always take the cream, commodified supports suck it.
  321. Feb 04 23:26:18 <mircea_popescu> this is why it's better to make ipads than resistors.
  322. Feb 04 23:26:25 <Namworld> blockchain is free to use. For anything.
  323. Feb 04 23:26:44 <dub> this is a religious debate, stop it
  324. Feb 04 23:26:47 <Namworld> This is my opinion of how it should be.
  325. Feb 04 23:26:53 <kakobreklaa> Luke-Jr, are you going to shed tears for us?
  326. Feb 04 23:26:56 * Gregoria_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
  327. Feb 04 23:27:01 <mircea_popescu> kakobreklaa im working on it.
  328. Feb 04 23:27:20 <dub> I'm annoyed at SD too but market forces will prevail
  329. Feb 04 23:27:23 <Namworld> plus we don't need the whole blockchain history to do transactions, do we?
  330. Feb 04 23:27:35 <dub> (because its no longer possible to run a node on the hardware I was running it on)
  331. Feb 04 23:27:43 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: the unanimous bitcoin community does not agree.
  332. Feb 04 23:27:50 <iz> so.. maybe someone can seriously clear something up for me.. when a block is validated by the rest of the bitcoin network.. that's done per bitcoin client on the p2p network, right? not scaled with that client's mining power in H/S
  333. Feb 04 23:27:50 <mircea_popescu> ahaha sweet.
  334. Feb 04 23:27:54 <mircea_popescu> where is this unanimous community ?
  335. Feb 04 23:28:03 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: and yes, the entire blockchain history must be kept forever right now
  336. Feb 04 23:28:15 <Namworld> Yeah, but it could get modified
  337. Feb 04 23:28:24 <awkorama> iz> yes
  338. Feb 04 23:28:33 <mircea_popescu> no srsly, where can i visit the unanimous community ?
  339. Feb 04 23:28:34 <jcpham> i'm not a fan of the 5GB blockchain
  340. Feb 04 23:28:38 <jcpham> that's just me
  341. Feb 04 23:28:39 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: you have a genius idea on how?
  342. Feb 04 23:28:44 <Luke-Jr> /ignore mircea_popescu
  343. Feb 04 23:28:48 <mircea_popescu> jcpham kinda why the maxblocksize is there.
  344. Feb 04 23:28:48 <dub> iz: yes, you are wrong
  345. Feb 04 23:29:00 <iz> so.. if you have a majority of the hashing power, but not a majority of clients.. even if you were to change the bitcoin client rules, you couldn't get these new rules into the block chain
  346. Feb 04 23:29:07 <iz> even if you had a majority of the hashing power
  347. Feb 04 23:29:13 <dub> iz: no, you are wrong
  348. Feb 04 23:29:17 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr stop arguing like a stupid cunt. you say something, stand by it. where is the motherfucking unanymous community!
  349. Feb 04 23:29:20 <iz> how would that work then, dub?
  350. Feb 04 23:29:26 <pigeons> no maxblocksize is not there to keep the size of the blockchain down, i thought it was there so blocks can be verified and propogated sanely
  351. Feb 04 23:29:26 <dub> iz: because bitcoin
  352. Feb 04 23:29:36 <Luke-Jr> dub: iz is correct
  353. Feb 04 23:29:39 <iz> how would the old clients behave via the new rules?
  354. Feb 04 23:29:56 <Namworld> We could probably have a new "balance" block created every 10k blocks lets say, stating all balances per address, and work with 2 or 3 such balance blocks and cut the previous ones as we go on.
  355. Feb 04 23:30:12 <pigeons> there isn't "balances per address"
  356. Feb 04 23:30:28 <mircea_popescu> ya, Namworld, that's not how this thing works.
  357. Feb 04 23:30:28 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: and how will new nodes know to trust that?
  358. Feb 04 23:30:33 <iz> kakobreklaa: please direct further questions about why you are wrong towards luke or someone you might take more seriously than me
  359. Feb 04 23:30:39 <awkorama> Luke-Jr: longest blockchain
  360. Feb 04 23:30:41 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4829 @ 0.00069515 = 3.3569 BTC [-]
  361. Feb 04 23:30:42 <kakobreklaa> what the hell are you babling about, you can mine offline for all we care
  362. Feb 04 23:30:43 <jcpham> the merkles. use the merkles
  363. Feb 04 23:30:51 <Luke-Jr> awkorama: if you delete the history, they're all 1 block long
  364. Feb 04 23:30:59 <awkorama> Luke-Jr: until they are not
  365. Feb 04 23:31:12 <mircea_popescu> it's shocking to see how little understood bitcoin is.
  366. Feb 04 23:31:20 * DeaDTerra1 has quit ()
  367. Feb 04 23:31:37 <awkorama> mircea_popescu: compared to other currencies you mean ?
  368. Feb 04 23:31:45 <jcpham> i doubt anything actually shocks mircea_popescu
  369. Feb 04 23:31:47 <mircea_popescu> heh... you have a point.
  370. Feb 04 23:31:48 <davout> BREAKING NEWS : BITCOIN IS NON-TRIVIAL TECHNOLOGY
  371. Feb 04 23:31:53 <mircea_popescu> BOTH OF YOU OMG
  372. Feb 04 23:32:27 <jcpham> so what exactly is the dicussion
  373. Feb 04 23:32:27 <mircea_popescu> shit. well... meanwhile satoshidice just died
  374. Feb 04 23:32:35 <jcpham> i've been reading for a few minutes and i get lost
  375. Feb 04 23:32:36 <mircea_popescu> because rational miners haven't been including its transactions
  376. Feb 04 23:32:36 <pigeons> NO U
  377. Feb 04 23:32:56 <mircea_popescu> what to do what to do...
  378. Feb 04 23:32:59 <dub> jcpham: were talking about how mircea_popescu's cock is bigger than davout's
  379. Feb 04 23:33:08 <jcpham> oh
  380. Feb 04 23:33:10 <awkorama> ohw is that rational? don't they get transaction fees ?
  381. Feb 04 23:33:10 <mircea_popescu> davout doesn't have a cock, he's a girl.
  382. Feb 04 23:33:13 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5155 @ 0.00069157 = 3.565 BTC [-]
  383. Feb 04 23:33:15 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4321 @ 0.00069003 = 2.9816 BTC [-]
  384. Feb 04 23:33:17 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2674 @ 0.00069003 = 1.8451 BTC [-]
  385. Feb 04 23:33:20 <mircea_popescu> awkorama they get their fees in heaven.
  386. Feb 04 23:33:22 <kakobreklaa> mircea_popescu i think mtgox payes luke to include their txes
  387. Feb 04 23:33:37 <dub> girls cant have cocks too?
  388. Feb 04 23:33:39 <mircea_popescu> kakobreklaa ya, i seem to recall this incident in octomber last year...
  389. Feb 04 23:33:48 <Namworld> We can probably have on those every 10k blocks balance block some hash of the previous blocks inserted, one for each. If someone cares to verify them, download the historical data and check those blocks
  390. Feb 04 23:33:50 <mircea_popescu> dub they can have all the cocks they want
  391. Feb 04 23:33:50 <dub> THEY CAN IF THERE IS CONCESUS
  392. Feb 04 23:33:51 <awkorama> we just switched to random talk here
  393. Feb 04 23:33:55 <jcpham> i think pools and miners should have that option
  394. Feb 04 23:34:09 <jcpham> got could pay for priority txns
  395. Feb 04 23:34:12 <jcpham> *gox
  396. Feb 04 23:34:20 <Ukyo> Diablo-D3: there?
  397. Feb 04 23:34:26 <Namworld> along with its total lenght
  398. Feb 04 23:34:31 <Ukyo> Namworld: too.. pm :)
  399. Feb 04 23:34:33 <jcpham> i'm all for monetizing hashpower
  400. Feb 04 23:34:33 <dub> jcpham: they pay for feeless txns, or did
  401. Feb 04 23:34:45 <Namworld> The idea would be to assume that old data and lenght is accurate
  402. Feb 04 23:34:54 <Namworld> and verify them if you want to
  403. Feb 04 23:35:10 <davout> Namworld: there is no such thing as an address balance, you misunderstand the way transactions work
  404. Feb 04 23:35:10 <Namworld> but regular users could work on the short version
  405. Feb 04 23:35:24 <Namworld> I know there is no address balance currently
  406. Feb 04 23:35:36 <davout> it's not even "currently"
  407. Feb 04 23:35:58 <mircea_popescu> what's a concesus ?
  408. Feb 04 23:35:59 <jcpham> damn where did the 99 users come from
  409. Feb 04 23:36:03 <davout> transactions have scripts, that may or may not be more complex than N addresses output to M addresses with an optional TX fee
  410. Feb 04 23:36:22 <mircea_popescu> jcpham rational irc users.
  411. Feb 04 23:36:31 <jcpham> bitcoin is ruining freenode
  412. Feb 04 23:36:36 <davout> Namworld: this was already discussed back in 2010
  413. Feb 04 23:36:39 <jcpham> :)
  414. Feb 04 23:36:49 <Luke-Jr> awkorama: SD costs miners more than the fees cover
  415. Feb 04 23:37:02 <Luke-Jr> awkorama: it also harms Bitcoin, reducing the value of them
  416. Feb 04 23:37:08 <mircea_popescu> <jcpham> bitcoin is ruining freenode <<< it is a testament to bitcoin's state that this statement is true when everyone knows how fucking ruined freenode was to begin with.
  417. Feb 04 23:37:16 <Namworld> How does SD costs miners?
  418. Feb 04 23:37:23 <dub> lilo ruined freenode
  419. Feb 04 23:37:24 <Namworld> other than verifying the transactions?
  420. Feb 04 23:37:38 <Ukyo> technically, SD is paying miners
  421. Feb 04 23:37:39 <Ukyo> not costing them
  422. Feb 04 23:37:46 <mircea_popescu> dude, srsly. stop with all the rationalization bullshit. just come out clean, say it. they make money , you'd like some, you think it's unfair etc.
  423. Feb 04 23:37:48 <Ukyo> they are or were a large portion of txn fees being paidout
  424. Feb 04 23:37:51 <mircea_popescu> "costs miners".
  425. Feb 04 23:38:07 <Luke-Jr> Namworld: every single node relaying the block needs to verify the transactions before it sends it on, so block propagation time increases and blocks get orphaned
  426. Feb 04 23:38:23 <dub> and dub has to throw away hardware
  427. Feb 04 23:38:27 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: but those fees were never meant to cover the ACTUAL COSTS of mining the transaction
  428. Feb 04 23:38:30 <Namworld> and @davout: Ah well nevermind then. Just a random proposal, would require rewriting of how bitcoin network accepts transactions.
  429. Feb 04 23:38:40 <Ukyo> Then raise the fees
  430. Feb 04 23:38:48 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: they're only there to DISCOURAGE spammers; which doesn't work for SD because it has an unlimited supply of idiot gamblers to cover the expense
  431. Feb 04 23:38:54 <mircea_popescu> lmao
  432. Feb 04 23:38:56 <Ukyo> thts not how I understand it
  433. Feb 04 23:38:58 <mircea_popescu> THEY ARE NOT SPAMMERS
  434. Feb 04 23:39:06 <Ukyo> txn fees are there to replace the BTC as its goes away
  435. Feb 04 23:39:12 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: yes, raising fees is the "obvious" solution
  436. Feb 04 23:39:14 <Ukyo> or else when all coins are mined, no one will mine..
  437. Feb 04 23:39:28 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: problem is, until Bitcoin reaches critical mass, raising fees will kill adoption
  438. Feb 04 23:39:28 <mircea_popescu> raising fees will just mean other miners get it, end of story.
  439. Feb 04 23:39:50 <mircea_popescu> what eats him, basically, is that pretty much no miner cares about what he thinks on the matter.
  440. Feb 04 23:39:54 <jcpham> i was being ironic
  441. Feb 04 23:39:56 <iz> can't SD just raise fees for their transactions?
  442. Feb 04 23:39:58 <jcpham> re: freenode
  443. Feb 04 23:40:15 * JWU_42 (3281faba@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.129.250.186) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  444. Feb 04 23:40:27 <Luke-Jr> iz: yes, miners would be forced to raise fees high enough that the gamblers stopped playing basically
  445. Feb 04 23:40:31 <davout> Luke-Jr: code a forl that doesn't relay sd txes, i'll use it, seriously.
  446. Feb 04 23:40:36 <Luke-Jr> or SD stopped its DDoS
  447. Feb 04 23:40:43 <Luke-Jr> davout: already done
  448. Feb 04 23:40:46 <iz> or better yet, have the fees influence the % of payout slightly
  449. Feb 04 23:40:52 <mircea_popescu> or you got a job doing somethingelse ?
  450. Feb 04 23:40:54 <Ukyo> thats stupid luke
  451. Feb 04 23:41:00 <pigeons> iz: SD can't control what fees their users pay, and the fees would have to be very high to negate the negative effect
  452. Feb 04 23:41:02 <Ukyo> we are already at one half reward
  453. Feb 04 23:41:02 <mircea_popescu> srsly luke. bitcoin isn't for you.
  454. Feb 04 23:41:05 <Ukyo> txn fees should go up
  455. Feb 04 23:41:07 <Ukyo> to account for that
  456. Feb 04 23:41:09 <mircea_popescu> this is for smart people. why do you keep torturing yourself ?
  457. Feb 04 23:41:14 <Ukyo> that was the whole original basis
  458. Feb 04 23:41:17 <mircea_popescu> you can't cope, there's no rule every idiot under the sun has to be involved.
  459. Feb 04 23:41:22 <iz> pigeons: can't they just decide to reject any transactions that have a tx fee below X?
  460. Feb 04 23:41:25 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: the basis was that ADOPTION would bring MORE fees
  461. Feb 04 23:41:27 <pigeons> yeah fees have gone waaay down since the start
  462. Feb 04 23:41:28 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: not that fees would go up
  463. Feb 04 23:41:32 <mircea_popescu> do what cablepair did, focus on delivering rental party equipment or something
  464. Feb 04 23:41:34 <Ukyo> its been how long now
  465. Feb 04 23:41:39 <Luke-Jr> (fees will go up too, but that's not the main method)
  466. Feb 04 23:41:39 <Ukyo> and that basis has failed
  467. Feb 04 23:41:51 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: it hasn't. SD is just forcing it to fail
  468. Feb 04 23:41:58 <Ukyo> 3 years and were getting .1btc per
  469. Feb 04 23:42:01 <iz> all they have to do is reject transactions with tx fees below what they want the new min to be
  470. Feb 04 23:42:05 <Ukyo> make them pay more
  471. Feb 04 23:42:06 <Ukyo> and it will help
  472. Feb 04 23:42:21 <iz> and other mining pools could still use normal lower tx fee, right?
  473. Feb 04 23:42:22 <Ukyo> most ppl dont care about a 0.001 txn fee
  474. Feb 04 23:42:24 <Ukyo> hell
  475. Feb 04 23:42:32 <Ukyo> most ppl pay 0.1 ~1btc on normal fees to other things
  476. Feb 04 23:42:46 <Ukyo> its priority optional anyways
  477. Feb 04 23:42:47 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: low fees is currently a point driving bitcoin adoption
  478. Feb 04 23:42:49 <Ukyo> that was the basiss to get ppl in
  479. Feb 04 23:42:55 <mircea_popescu> i bet you nickles to dollars that increasing the fee would simply increase the % of tx belonging to sd.
  480. Feb 04 23:42:56 <Ukyo> no its not
  481. Feb 04 23:42:59 <Ukyo> has nothing to do with it
  482. Feb 04 23:43:04 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: if you want bitcoin to succeed, increasing fees at this point is not a real option
  483. Feb 04 23:43:05 <Ukyo> bitcoin adoption is being driven by media
  484. Feb 04 23:43:09 <iz> i think part of the issue is that btc is deflationary and can be difficult for new users to get currency for
  485. Feb 04 23:43:21 <mircea_popescu> no, actually... bitcoin adoption is being driven by satoshi dice and mpex, in that order.
  486. Feb 04 23:43:23 <Ukyo> and its anoniminity, etc
  487. Feb 04 23:43:24 <pigeons> yeah i think this artificallhy low fee structure we currently have is unsustainable obviously
  488. Feb 04 23:43:28 <Ukyo> mp : hush you
  489. Feb 04 23:43:30 <mircea_popescu> all the blathering online a very vehehehehery distant third.
  490. Feb 04 23:43:33 <mircea_popescu> well... tis the truth.
  491. Feb 04 23:43:37 <Ukyo> :P
  492. Feb 04 23:43:38 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: Bitcoin isn't anonymous.
  493. Feb 04 23:43:41 <iz> so even though a 0.005 tx fee isn't that much in real currency, it can seem like a lot if you only have 0.1 BTC to your name
  494. Feb 04 23:43:48 <Ukyo> tell that to the media
  495. Feb 04 23:43:50 <Ukyo> which reports it as such
  496. Feb 04 23:43:53 * davout_ (~davout@85-170-28-19.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  497. Feb 04 23:43:58 <Ukyo> ppl sign up daily
  498. Feb 04 23:44:00 <Ukyo> thinking they are anon
  499. Feb 04 23:44:04 <Luke-Jr> davout: anyhow, https://gitorious.org/~Luke-Jr/bitcoin/luke-jr-bitcoin/commits/block_dice
  500. Feb 04 23:44:05 <Ukyo> getting to use bitcoins
  501. Feb 04 23:44:21 <Ukyo> Luke-Jr: : thats rediculas
  502. Feb 04 23:44:30 <Ukyo> your setting a president to encourage ppl to block address
  503. Feb 04 23:44:32 <mircea_popescu> aghahahaha that's cute
  504. Feb 04 23:44:36 <mircea_popescu> he even has code nobody uses!
  505. Feb 04 23:44:36 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: good
  506. Feb 04 23:44:50 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: that also helps bitcoin along
  507. Feb 04 23:45:05 * davout has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
  508. Feb 04 23:45:09 <davout_> well Luke-Jr somehow has a point, as a simple node i really have no interest in relaying SD txes
  509. Feb 04 23:45:14 <Ukyo> luke: i thikn eleigus pool is hurting bitcoin
  510. Feb 04 23:45:17 <dub> Ukyo: this is surprising to you? He has destroyed entire chains by 51% them and blocking all transactions.
  511. Feb 04 23:45:19 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: then you're wrong
  512. Feb 04 23:45:20 <Ukyo> i will ask all the other miners to block it
  513. Feb 04 23:45:30 <Ukyo> and pools
  514. Feb 04 23:45:34 <Ukyo> hey
  515. Feb 04 23:45:46 <Ukyo> you get to push ideas however right/wrong they are
  516. Feb 04 23:45:48 <Ukyo> I can do mine
  517. Feb 04 23:45:49 <iz> oh.. it's cuz of the relaying
  518. Feb 04 23:45:51 <iz> i get it
  519. Feb 04 23:45:51 <davout_> i don't mean to say what other should do, but if i had an easy to way to not relay txes matching certain patterns i'd definitely do it
  520. Feb 04 23:45:55 <mircea_popescu> Ukyo it's possibly hurting, but it's so tiny as to not really matter.
  521. Feb 04 23:46:00 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: well, I only push right ideas.
  522. Feb 04 23:46:07 <mircea_popescu> it's a sort of bitcoin zoo really.
  523. Feb 04 23:46:14 <Ukyo> right by YOU
  524. Feb 04 23:46:17 <Ukyo> its your opinion
  525. Feb 04 23:46:26 <davout_> Luke-Jr: one day you'll understand that "right" and "wrong" are just your imagination
  526. Feb 04 23:46:37 <Ukyo> i mean, everyone else in here seems to be argueing aginst you
  527. Feb 04 23:46:38 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: to a degree. and miners have the freedom to ignore transactions by design.
  528. Feb 04 23:46:43 <Luke-Jr> davout_: nonsense
  529. Feb 04 23:46:44 <Ukyo> so obvously other ppl dont shre your opinion
  530. Feb 04 23:46:45 * davout_ is now known as davout
  531. Feb 04 23:46:46 * davout has quit (Changing host)
  532. Feb 04 23:46:46 * davout (~davout@unaffiliated/davout) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  533. Feb 04 23:47:01 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: well, mostly because not many people here have a clue
  534. Feb 04 23:47:11 <Ukyo> no
  535. Feb 04 23:47:13 <Luke-Jr> and mircea_popescu chases off the people who do
  536. Feb 04 23:47:18 <Ukyo> pp just dont agree that you need low fees to encourage ppl
  537. Feb 04 23:47:25 <mircea_popescu> ahaha! dude. you came here because i'm here.
  538. Feb 04 23:47:36 <Ukyo> mircea_popescu: : no, he lurks everywhere regardles
  539. Feb 04 23:47:37 <mircea_popescu> and also, http://polimedia.us/dtng/c/src/136000991663.jpg
  540. Feb 04 23:47:39 <Ukyo> sorry ego boy ;)
  541. Feb 04 23:47:50 <davout> Luke-Jr: sense, and non-sense are dividing stuff, it's like putting stuff in little boxes, right, wrong, good, bad, white, black small romanian cock, hard french rod, these are all imaginary
  542. Feb 04 23:48:02 <mircea_popescu> Ukyo pfff.
  543. Feb 04 23:48:04 * Ukyo sends mircea_popescu "I'm Bad.mp" by Michael Jackson
  544. Feb 04 23:48:12 <Luke-Jr> I'm even in #litecoin
  545. Feb 04 23:48:20 <Ukyo> mp3*
  546. Feb 04 23:48:22 <pigeons> /j #rucoin
  547. Feb 04 23:48:28 <mircea_popescu> so, Luke-Jr, when can i expect s.dice to be dead ?
  548. Feb 04 23:48:29 <Ukyo> he lurks in my chans even hehe
  549. Feb 04 23:48:33 <davout> mircea_popescu: cute
  550. Feb 04 23:48:37 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 10400 @ 0.00069038 = 7.18 BTC [+]
  551. Feb 04 23:48:39 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 3300 @ 0.00069003 = 2.2771 BTC [-]
  552. Feb 04 23:49:37 <Ukyo> actually
  553. Feb 04 23:49:41 <Ukyo> raising the txn fees, will re-encourage miners
  554. Feb 04 23:49:44 <Ukyo> more miners
  555. Feb 04 23:49:49 <Ukyo> more mining sustainability
  556. Feb 04 23:49:58 <Ukyo> increase more interest in ppl wanting to join bitcoin to mine
  557. Feb 04 23:50:00 <Ukyo> and use it
  558. Feb 04 23:50:00 <mircea_popescu> Ukyo not rly. the exchange rate is high atm, everyone's mining anyway
  559. Feb 04 23:50:07 <jborkl> Holy shit, you know how much crap I read to catch up
  560. Feb 04 23:50:11 <Ukyo> and if blocks paid out higher
  561. Feb 04 23:50:12 <Ukyo> due to txn fees
  562. Feb 04 23:50:17 <mircea_popescu> jborkl lol welcome.
  563. Feb 04 23:50:18 <dub> Ukyo: mining is not the use case for bitcoin
  564. Feb 04 23:50:19 <jborkl> Luke, just buy sdice stock,
  565. Feb 04 23:50:20 <Ukyo> even more ppl would jump
  566. Feb 04 23:50:26 <davout> Luke-Jr: if you want to be actually productive here is my advice : modify your fork so people can filter txes they wish to relay using arbitrary criteria, like regexp on the receiver address for example, make it consensual (that's probably where it's going to be hard for you) enough so it is accepted upstream
  567. Feb 04 23:50:30 <jborkl> for fucks sake
  568. Feb 04 23:50:33 <Ukyo> dub: it maintains the network. its a small use case
  569. Feb 04 23:50:35 <mircea_popescu> jborkl talk is cheaper than buyingstock.
  570. Feb 04 23:50:51 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: btw, to elaborate on the precedent-of-blocking-addresses bit… Bitcoin is only workable if every transaction uses a new address anyway, so discouraging reusable ones is a good thing
  571. Feb 04 23:51:09 <Ukyo> I think txn fees should slowly increase over time, instead of "No more bitcoins generated. so BAM huge txn fee"
  572. Feb 04 23:51:10 <Luke-Jr> davout: that'd make it slower :/
  573. Feb 04 23:51:17 <Ukyo> or you could put in a small txn fee at that time, and most miners wont care...
  574. Feb 04 23:51:18 <Luke-Jr> davout: right now, I'm not even decoding the address
  575. Feb 04 23:51:19 <jborkl> Well I mine- and to make more income I bought sdice ---with blocks from mining
  576. Feb 04 23:51:25 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr that's good sometimes. fixed addresses enhance anonimity and are good for branding purposes.
  577. Feb 04 23:51:28 <mircea_popescu> so, it's a mixed bag.
  578. Feb 04 23:51:36 <pigeons> satoshi always said miners are supposed to decide which transactions to include in blocks
  579. Feb 04 23:51:44 <davout> Luke-Jr: well do, empower people to vote with their relay capability
  580. Feb 04 23:52:01 <Luke-Jr> jborkl: I would advise selling it.
  581. Feb 04 23:52:18 <davout> because atm nodes are rewarded for their hashing power, but not for the relaying
  582. Feb 04 23:52:27 <mircea_popescu> Luke-Jr wanna short it ? :D
  583. Feb 04 23:52:36 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 4026 @ 0.00069003 = 2.7781 BTC [-]
  584. Feb 04 23:52:37 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 5074 @ 0.00069003 = 3.5012 BTC [-]
  585. Feb 04 23:52:40 <davout> it's either going to evolve into "relay gets fees too", or "miners-only" IMHO
  586. Feb 04 23:52:41 <jborkl> No, thanks I will keep it
  587. Feb 04 23:52:55 <mircea_popescu> davout relay isn't gonna get tx fee
  588. Feb 04 23:53:07 <Luke-Jr> davout: I only bother with dice because it hurts me really. not sure I care enough to spend the time on your suggestion, though I'd encourage you to bring it up as a possibility in -dev sometime when more devs are around
  589. Feb 04 23:53:10 <pigeons> let's ask RealSolid what he thinks
  590. Feb 04 23:53:14 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C200T] 2 @ 0.14735296 = 0.2947 BTC [+]
  591. Feb 04 23:53:16 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C200T] 494 @ 0.12990002 = 64.1706 BTC [-]
  592. Feb 04 23:53:17 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C190T] 1 @ 0.16454909 BTC [-]
  593. Feb 04 23:53:19 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C190T] 496 @ 0.14947113 = 74.1377 BTC [-]
  594. Feb 04 23:53:20 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C180T] 496 @ 0.17148704 = 85.0576 BTC [-]
  595. Feb 04 23:53:22 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C170T] 490 @ 0.19578159 = 95.933 BTC [-]
  596. Feb 04 23:53:23 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.C160T] 2 @ 0.22221004 = 0.4444 BTC [-]
  597. Feb 04 23:53:25 <Ukyo> okay
  598. Feb 04 23:53:27 <Luke-Jr> davout: plus, I expect such a potentially-controversial change would go over easier if someone else did it
  599. Feb 04 23:53:29 <Ukyo> now we are getting to it
  600. Feb 04 23:53:31 <assbot> [BTCTC] [RSM] 100 @ 0.01 = 1 BTC [+]
  601. Feb 04 23:53:33 <davout> mircea_popescu: if not we're going to end up with a network made only of miners, and miners won't have an incentive to relay fee-paying txes to their neighbors
  602. Feb 04 23:53:34 <Ukyo> your pool is suffering
  603. Feb 04 23:53:35 <iz> relaying is just the p2p part though, right? even non-mining clients relay transactions?
  604. Feb 04 23:53:41 <iz> or is that incorrect
  605. Feb 04 23:53:45 <Ukyo> so your mad
  606. Feb 04 23:53:47 <Ukyo> and its a personal issue
  607. Feb 04 23:53:51 <mircea_popescu> Ukyo doh
  608. Feb 04 23:53:52 <Luke-Jr> Ukyo: was. until I blcoked dice.
  609. Feb 04 23:53:56 <davout> Luke-Jr: code it and I'll submit it
  610. Feb 04 23:54:04 <Ukyo> then your done, let it be
  611. Feb 04 23:54:09 <Ukyo> moving on to a new subject
  612. Feb 04 23:54:09 <Ukyo> avalons
  613. Feb 04 23:54:11 <Ukyo> are still available
  614. Feb 04 23:54:12 <Luke-Jr> davout: like I said, not really sure it's worth my time :P
  615. Feb 04 23:54:16 <Ukyo> and will be relaunched soon
  616. Feb 04 23:54:24 <Luke-Jr> davout: most big miners and pools can compile.. :P
  617. Feb 04 23:54:24 <Ukyo> there are a great many orders that were placd
  618. Feb 04 23:54:26 * error4733 has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
  619. Feb 04 23:54:27 <Ukyo> and not paid for
  620. Feb 04 23:54:28 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 2437 @ 0.00069003 = 1.6816 BTC [-]
  621. Feb 04 23:54:29 <assbot> [MPEX] [S.MPOE] 11211 @ 0.00069002 = 7.7358 BTC [-]
  622. Feb 04 23:54:33 <Ukyo> and those qty's will become available soon
  623. Feb 04 23:54:47 <davout> Luke-Jr: put your time where your mouth is
  624. Feb 04 23:54:47 * error4733 (error4733@ip-83-134-214-35.dsl.scarlet.be) has joined #bitcoin-assets
  625. Feb 04 23:54:49 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.P200T] 30 @ 0.16714568 = 5.0144 BTC [+]
  626. Feb 04 23:54:50 <assbot> [MPEX] [O.BTCUSD.P200T] 970 @ 0.1706684 = 165.5483 BTC [+]
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!