· 9 years ago · Feb 03, 2017, 05:52 AM
1T 1486091235 22* Topic for 22#BtcNegotiate set by 26Riiume (24Thu Feb 2 20:22:23 2017)
2T 1486091255 18<ETH-Contract18> Hard numbers: look at the current mempool stats
3T 1486091264 18<runnerman118> Please how can prove the financial impact of something that does not exist
4T 1486091265 20<banjomanjo>30 I have arrived, the negotiations may commence/s
5T 1486091266 18<Riiume18> I ask the same of the Blockstream side, although they have done a bit in this direction (Testnet, although it's play money so lacking the real financial incentives that govern Bitcoin)
6T 1486091286 20<banjomanjo>30 on a serious note though, is there anywhere previous discussions here are posted?
7T 1486091305 20<banjomanjo>30 (nm)
8T 1486091309 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, by modeling it. I don't have to shoot myself to create a simulation of the effects and see that it doesn't work out well for me
9T 1486091319 18<Riiume18> yes, logs
10T 1486091322 18<Riiume18> https://notebin.cc/1kdbou2efi8
11T 1486091334 20<banjomanjo>30 thanks
12T 1486091360 18<runnerman118> I dont even know what to do, I'm not a "professional bitcoiner"
13T 1486091428 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, yea it's difficult. Basically the various interest groups need to come together and fund studies proving/disproving their beliefs regarding the financial impact of taking Bitcoin one way or the other
14T 1486091450 18<Riiume18> Start a funding campaign to pay some academics to carry out the study, e.g.
15T 1486091504 18<psztorc18> Hi Riiume, I actually published some way of measuring something like that: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/win-win-blocksize/
16T 1486091513 18<Riiume18> ahh, sweet! checking it out!
17T 1486091515 18<psztorc18> However, I think there is something more important to talk about
18T 1486091526 18<psztorc18> which is: "What do you think the miners want?"
19T 1486091560 18<Riiume18> Complete control of Bitcoin, without actually destroying Bitcoin's value
20T 1486091567 18<psztorc18> because they said they wanted a 2 MB blocksize around ~Dec 2015, and that's what they sort've got with segwit.
21T 1486091584 18<psztorc18> Well, are they going to get "Complete control of Bitcoin"?
22T 1486091601 23* gwillen (~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen23) has joined
23T 1486091624 18<Riiume18> No, if they remain persistent, the prediction markets say they get a hard fork, and there hasn't been much analysis of what occurs past that point
24T 1486091626 18<runnerman118> Of course miners are in control of bitcoin, it should always be that way
25T 1486091636 24* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero24) has left ("Leaving")
26T 1486091640 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, Full nodes wield substantial influence too
27T 1486091642 18<ETH-Contract18> Where is Adam the individual?
28T 1486091664 20<banjomanjo>30 alpalp, before doing that, I'm proposing we study it; create a simulation of Bitcoin forking in the near future and attempt to accurately model the economic effects
29T 1486091667 20<banjomanjo>30 who said that ^
30T 1486091670 18<runnerman118> Nope not as much as miners
31T 1486091672 20<banjomanjo>30 log structure is not clear
32T 1486091693 20<banjomanjo>30 but that is literally impossible, if you could do that you could model markets accurately, and that would have profound effects for the economy as a whole
33T 1486091697 18<psztorc18> Miners will not get "Complete control of Bitcoin", because no one can give that to them (or to themselves).
34T 1486091715 19<runnerman1> @banjomanjo exactly
35T 1486091719 18<psztorc18> So it seems that, according to you, they want something that they can't have.
36T 1486091723 23* jwinterm (~quassel@unaffiliated/jwinterm23) has joined
37T 1486091789 23* awfulcrawler (~awfulcraw@122-57-26-40.jetstream.xtra.co.nz23) has joined
38T 1486091791 18<runnerman118> @psztorc what are you talking about. Miners pretty much dictate what bitcoin is
39T 1486091799 19<Riiume> @banjomanjo, study doesn't have to have perfect predictivity; Correlations and extrapolations are always within some confidence interval
40T 1486091813 18<runnerman118> If all miners decide to stop mining we have no bitcoin.
41T 1486091822 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, if "Miners dictate what bitcoin is" and "miners want a 2MB hard fork", then why don't the miners have the 2mb fork they wanted?
42T 1486091830 20<banjomanjo>30 [21:41] Point is the whole reason for this blocksize debate is political. If LN gets activated those fees will be going directly to Blockstream.
43T 1486091832 20<banjomanjo>30 and who said that
44T 1486091836 20<banjomanjo>30 that is also incorrect
45T 1486091848 18<runnerman118> If miners decide tomorrow to run a client that give everyone 50 million bitcoin, that what we will have
46T 1486091857 20<banjomanjo>30 Riome, you are not going to accurately model a market composed of 4-10 million people anywhere close to accurately
47T 1486091862 20<banjomanjo>30 the data from that would be useless/garbage
48T 1486091872 18<Riiume18> psztorc, hehe I like where you're going. So what DO the miners want then? Or are they actually irrational?
49T 1486091876 20<banjomanjo>30 and runnerman1...no...
50T 1486091879 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not how that works
51T 1486091897 20<banjomanjo>30 if the exchanges and economy don't support that, all miners are oding is wasting electricity mining worthless coins no one else will buy
52T 1486091918 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, do you consider Litecoin blocks to be Bitcoin blocks?
53T 1486091932 18<runnerman118> Oh course...the price will immedially crash lol
54T 1486091954 24* dongcarl has quit (Quit: leaving)
55T 1486091956 20<banjomanjo>30 thats just your speculation
56T 1486091966 20<banjomanjo>30 many would have said that about a BU block being minted at > 1 MB
57T 1486091969 18<ETH-Contract18> How can a miner will not be incentivized to settle on-chain the current mempool (and get the reward) with a simple upgrade to a today's technologically-possible 4MB max blocksize limit
58T 1486091970 20<banjomanjo>30 that happened, the price didn't crash
59T 1486091998 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, If miners decide tomorrow to run a client that gives everyone 50 million litecoin, will Bitcoin be equal to a client that gives everyone 50 million litecoin?
60T 1486092062 18<runnerman118> What?? Litecoin and bitcoin are two different things
61T 1486092081 18<psztorc18> By what criterion?
62T 1486092109 20<banjomanjo>30 what is with all the repetition of LN fees going to Blockstream?
63T 1486092114 20<banjomanjo>30 that is completely untrue
64T 1486092139 20<banjomanjo>30 fees go to whoever is facilitating payments, i.e. everyone in the middle of a path through a set of channels
65T 1486092142 18<runnerman118> Oh were are the fees going to then?
66T 1486092148 20<banjomanjo>30 which requires locking coins up
67T 1486092161 20<banjomanjo>30 which if you actually sit and think for a minute, benefits the miners most out of anyone
68T 1486092184 20<banjomanjo>30 they as a group have both the largest stash of coins to provide liquidity with, and as miners can use their own blockspace to guarantee smooth channel closures and openings
69T 1486092195 20<banjomanjo>30 LN would allow miners to suck up most of those fees, not Blockstream
70T 1486092207 18<ETH-Contract18> i don't want my transaction to be processed by a set of middle mans through a set of channel, I just want my transaction to be settle on-chain in the next 10 minutes, simple
71T 1486092219 20<banjomanjo>30 then you don't have to use LN
72T 1486092219 18<runnerman118> ^
73T 1486092223 18<psztorc18> It is possible that LN will decrease on-chain fees. And it is possible that Blockstream will run a LN hub that will attract customers.
74T 1486092224 20<banjomanjo>30 have fun
75T 1486092235 18<psztorc18> runnerman1, Are you avoiding my questions?
76T 1486092238 20<banjomanjo>30 I on the other hand will use it if it makes sense at the time and is cost effective
77T 1486092248 18<runnerman118> which question
78T 1486092253 18<runnerman118> I might of missed it
79T 1486092267 18<psztorc18> I see.
80T 1486092325 18<runnerman118> The criterion one? They are different because the clients/node the miners are running are different
81T 1486092325 18<psztorc18> @Riiume, I think I know what the miners want. But you can't broker a compromise unless you give them what they want, and you probably can't do that unless you know what they want.
82T 1486092328 23* iopools (b53ea498@gateway/web/freenode/ip.181.62.164.15223) has joined
83T 1486092335 23* amiller (~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates102423) has joined
84T 1486092351 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, what do you mean "sidechains will be able to affect the main blockchain willy nilly" ?
85T 1486092353 18<Riiume18> psztorc, please give us your view on what they want!
86T 1486092372 18<ETH-Contract18> explain that please
87T 1486092374 18<jwinterm18> I bet it's hookers and blow
88T 1486092386 18<runnerman118> Who knows, everyone wants something different
89T 1486092411 18<gwillen18> I am curious what this channel is expectd to accomplish
90T 1486092418 18<gwillen18> and whether anybody is moderating it with that goal in mind
91T 1486092430 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, That isn't true, because sometimes when the miners run a different client we still call it Bitcoin, and other times we don't.
92T 1486092472 18<Riiume18> Folks, sorry to interject, but I want to move us to a focal point
93T 1486092497 18<Riiume18> There are many great side-discussions to be had, and I encourage people to pursue those (possibly by spawning additional chans)
94T 1486092525 18<Riiume18> Our goal is to find a compromise palatable to both sides
95T 1486092529 18<Riiume18> Segwit and big blockers
96T 1486092548 18<Riiume18> psztorc has raised an intersting question: what does each side want?
97T 1486092565 20<banjomanjo>30 I think that is a red herring
98T 1486092569 18<Riiume18> I say we now attempt to answer this, as it will lead us more directly along our agenda
99T 1486092586 20<banjomanjo>30 its quite clear what they what on both sides, a functional, secure, scalable bitcoin
100T 1486092593 20<banjomanjo>30 its not the what thats the matter of contension
101T 1486092594 20<banjomanjo>30 its the how
102T 1486092602 18<runnerman118> I think the best solution is Segwit as a hardfork and BU
103T 1486092610 20<banjomanjo>30 why?
104T 1486092621 20<banjomanjo>30 segwit as a hardfork changes absolutely nothing except one piece of data
105T 1486092630 19<jwinterm> well, considering 50% of the miners don't appear to want either segwit or BU/8 MB blocks, I tend to agree with banjomanjo
106T 1486092631 18<ETH-Contract18> One side want a market controlled blocksize, the other want a Core/Blockstream controlled blocksize with high fee policy
107T 1486092633 18<jwinterm18> it's a red herring
108T 1486092636 20<banjomanjo>30 and BU is untested, and in my opinion fundamentally flawed
109T 1486092638 18<runnerman118> let miners decide thier blocksize ,and segwit can fix mallebility issues
110T 1486092644 18<jwinterm18> to even consider that there are only two sides is a false dichotomy
111T 1486092655 20<banjomanjo>30 ^^
112T 1486092660 18<runnerman118> I'm running a BU, it work, not flawed
113T 1486092668 18<gwillen18> I think it's worth keeping in mind that there are surely more than two sides, and probably casting it as two sides directly opposed to each other is ... the opposite of a best practice for creating common ground among disagreeing people :-)
114T 1486092668 20<banjomanjo>30 it is flawed runnerman
115T 1486092668 18<amiller18> how about agreeing on, what are the underlying differences in values or assumptions/premises that lead to such a difference in opinion on how to go forward?
116T 1486092673 18<runnerman118> How
117T 1486092696 23* wingman2 (~wingman2@web.innestech.net23) has joined
118T 1486092704 20<banjomanjo>30 every single time the blocksize is raised will either result in 1) complete chaos as reorganizations happen, and people WILL lose money
119T 1486092723 20<banjomanjo>30 or 2) economic activity will grind to a halt everytime miners announce an attempt at raising it to prevent that
120T 1486092735 20<banjomanjo>30 thats ridiculous, that is completely throwing out security guarantees and the promise of 100% uptime
121T 1486092742 20<banjomanjo>30 and as far as segwit as a hardfork
122T 1486092750 18<runnerman118> You know miners can change the blocksize what that want now
123T 1486092751 20<banjomanjo>30 that changes _absolutely nothing_ except the witness committment
124T 1486092757 20<banjomanjo>30 it moves from the coinbase TX to the blockheader
125T 1486092760 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, be that as it may, our job is to arrive at an agreement, distasteful/stupid as it may seem to us
126T 1486092765 20<banjomanjo>30 that is a beyond irrelevant matter
127T 1486092775 18<psztorc18> I agree with maaku7 that this is unlikely to help. I just thought I would stop by. : )
128T 1486092790 18<psztorc18> To compromise, two sides must get what they want.
129T 1486092805 18<wingman218> neither side
130T 1486092812 20<banjomanjo>30 there are alot more than 2 sides
131T 1486092828 18<runnerman118> Classic and XT are pretty mmuch dead
132T 1486092830 20<banjomanjo>30 some users do not want _anything_ changed in bitcoin ever
133T 1486092831 19<Riiume> banjomanjo the political reality is only 2 sides wield significant capital and public support.
134T 1486092834 20<banjomanjo>30 some do not ever want hardforks
135T 1486092841 20<banjomanjo>30 some want a hardfork for feature x, some for feature y
136T 1486092850 20<banjomanjo>30 saying "two sides" is beyond over simplifying
137T 1486092858 20<banjomanjo>30 its like calling all races of people on Earth "black, or white"
138T 1486092869 18<runnerman118> What are your solutions to this blocksize issue?
139T 1486092870 18<jwinterm18> Riiume: what of the 45% of miners that signal neither segwit or BU/8MB?
140T 1486092872 18<gwillen18> psztorc: I'm curious to see whether it could help, but I agree it is unlikely to solve anything by itself. But I'd like to at least hear what people have to say.
141T 1486092874 18<jwinterm18> which side are they on?
142T 1486092875 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, you can't know that
143T 1486092892 20<banjomanjo>30 the amount of objective information available to speculate that with is not even close to make a definitive statement like that
144T 1486092894 19<psztorc> banjomanjo, I didn't say there were two sides.
145T 1486092894 18<gwillen18> psztorc: but I do think that casting it as 'two sides' is going to obscure things more than enlighten
146T 1486092897 18<jwinterm18> or is 45% of the network not significant capital?
147T 1486092908 20<banjomanjo>30 (was more a general statement than singling you out psztorc )
148T 1486092915 18<psztorc18> Reading comprehension is low.
149T 1486092917 18<Riiume18> jwinterm: They might be waiting for one side to assume a position of dominance before casting their vote, to avoid ending up in a conflict with the winner
150T 1486092922 18<iopools18> the solution is the hardfork, if you think a 1MB chain is better than a dynamic one, then don't worry, everybody will dismiss the dynamic blocksize chain
151T 1486092930 18<psztorc18> Anyways, good luck everyone. I'll be around.
152T 1486092956 18<Riiume18> psztorcs, peace, thanks for your time
153T 1486092962 18<runnerman118> cya
154T 1486093039 18<runnerman118> New season of The 100, gonna head out too
155T 1486093050 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, later, thank you for your thoughts!
156T 1486093055 18<ETH-Contract18> LAST 1000 BLOCKS: Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 220 ( 22% ) Bitcoin Classic blocks: 10 ( 1% ) SegWit blocks: 238 ( 23.8% )
157T 1486093062 18<runnerman118> I'll stop by later
158T 1486093064 18<runnerman118> bye
159T 1486093067 24* runnerman1 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
160T 1486093086 18<wingman218> geeze thats close
161T 1486093091 24* iopools has quit (Quit: Page closed)
162T 1486093098 18<Riiume18> Let me put this question forward and everyone please answer...
163T 1486093110 18<Riiume18> What do you believe would be a workable compromise that over 95% of miners would accept?
164T 1486093130 18<wingman218> nothing
165T 1486093149 18<jwinterm18> not sure it exists, but maybe something along the lines of your proposal on reddit
166T 1486093164 18<jwinterm18> segwit plus hf to 2,4,8 MB block
167T 1486093209 23* BobBarker (~null@2607:5300:60:1c3f::23) has joined
168T 1486093227 18<BobBarker18> I'm negotiating on behalf on monero
169T 1486093250 18<gwillen18> Riiume: I'm not sure you're asking the right question
170T 1486093254 18<amiller18> do you think miners would be more active in signalling, without necessarily a full upgrade or a complicated code change, if they were asked more questions and had some way of responding to a survey? like reaching 95% to a non-binding resolution expressing support for a compromise of some kind?
171T 1486093255 23* elusive_vxn (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
172T 1486093286 18<ETH-Contract18> what about BU+FlexibleTransactions+XThinBlocks (plus no devs will interfere in the market decision for the max blocksize limit)
173T 1486093287 18<gwillen18> I think there are a lot of hard feelings right now that are going to make it difficult to get people to agree to proposals that might have been acceptable to them before this turned into a big fight
174T 1486093312 18<gwillen18> and that the hard feelings that the people who feel they have been disrespected are going to have to be tackled by engaging with people and getting their input
175T 1486093320 18<jwinterm18> ETH-Contract: seems unlikely
176T 1486093361 18<Riiume18> amiller, gwillen So an intermediate step, a commitment to enter a compromise process of some sort might be beneficial? Well, it's actionable at least.
177T 1486093381 18<gwillen18> well
178T 1486093390 18<wingman218> it don't like this 95% thing
179T 1486093391 23* NLNico (~NLNico@unaffiliated/nlnico23) has joined
180T 1486093395 18<gwillen18> as I think someone mentioned on the reddit thread, there have been attempts before
181T 1486093396 18<ETH-Contract18> who knows, the competition is open, no miner is obligated to use a particular software of any company
182T 1486093408 18<gwillen18> there was scaling, and some other stuff, where people were going to come to the table and talk, and they did
183T 1486093409 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH-Contract, flextrans doesn't even have working code
184T 1486093422 18<gwillen18> I was at the first scaling, there were some good conversations while people were face-to-face
185T 1486093431 18<gwillen18> most of which didn't seem to survive once people were back home
186T 1486093471 18<gwillen18> which suggests to me, among other things, that if you really want people to see eye-to-eye you need to get them in the same room rather than talking to each other in text through computers.
187T 1486093480 18<gwillen18> (This may be extra challenging when some of them don't speak the same language.)
188T 1486093499 18<elusive_vxn18> we all speak the universal language of shoe on head
189T 1486093506 20<banjomanjo>30 there are alot more than two sides here, compromising between two sides doesn't matter at all if you cannot accomplish the compromise without using a hardfork
190T 1486093512 18<gwillen18> There was supposedly some kind of "agreement" about scaling once before
191T 1486093524 20<banjomanjo>30 use of a hardfork requires unanimity, not just agreement between two parties
192T 1486093525 18<gwillen18> except immediately afterwards various people disagreed about who had agreed to what
193T 1486093535 20<banjomanjo>30 I have seen multiple people here just continue proposing hardforks
194T 1486093537 18<Riiume18> Would it be possible to make a new agreement that's binding, for instance...
195T 1486093551 18<Riiume18> All parties must put a substantial sum of money on deposit with some trusted counterparty
196T 1486093556 18<gwillen18> I'm going to have to duck out, I'm missing dinner
197T 1486093557 20<banjomanjo>30 no
198T 1486093560 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, just no
199T 1486093564 18<Riiume18> and they don't get it back until a consensus is achieved and executed on the Bitcoin network
200T 1486093581 18<gwillen18> I think this is interesting and will continue to keep an eye in this general direction
201T 1486093621 18<wingman218> So what number of hardforks are you personally willing to accept?
202T 1486093631 20<banjomanjo>30 doesn't matter
203T 1486093637 20<banjomanjo>30 hardforks require EVERYONE to agree
204T 1486093645 20<banjomanjo>30 you can't just ultimatum me with a hardfork
205T 1486093649 20<banjomanjo>30 or ultimatum developers
206T 1486093654 20<banjomanjo>30 that is completely out of any individual's hands
207T 1486093657 18<wingman218> no they don't
208T 1486093661 20<banjomanjo>30 yes they do
209T 1486093671 18<amiller18> i'm happy to see any nicely moderated discussion with a pleasant/open tone, thanks for the effort and good luck!
210T 1486093679 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, hard forks occur when one group of people packs up their toys and leaves the blockchain
211T 1486093683 20<banjomanjo>30 without that, you are not hardforking an upgrade, you are making an altcoin that is predistributed
212T 1486093690 18<wingman218> anyone can hardfork
213T 1486093701 19<Riiume> banjomanjo hardfork/altcoin is semantics
214T 1486093703 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, and without everyone, EVERYONE, going along, that is not an upgrade
215T 1486093708 20<banjomanjo>30 that is creating an alternative chain
216T 1486093715 18<wingman218> at any time
217T 1486093742 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: oh sorry I wasn't talking about an upgrade
218T 1486093745 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, and like I said, without the entire rest of the network following you, that irrelevant
219T 1486093748 20<banjomanjo>30 its creating an altcoin
220T 1486093760 20<banjomanjo>30 that will completely undermine Bitcoins function as a stable store of value
221T 1486093769 20<banjomanjo>30 its essentially counterfeiting the entire supply of Bitcoin
222T 1486093770 18<elusive_vxn18> excuse me, is this chat for roleplaying?
223T 1486093775 23* fvcxza (68c89a4b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.200.154.7523) has joined
224T 1486093778 18<wingman218> maybe but it is a hardfork
225T 1486093787 23* boob_barker (62d400f4@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.212.0.24423) has joined
226T 1486093789 18<boob_barker18> hello
227T 1486093797 18<boob_barker18> im boob barker
228T 1486093821 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18boob_barker*!*@*
229T 1486093821 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18boob_barker from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
230T 1486093826 18<BobBarker18> that man is an imposter
231T 1486093845 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, but again, how does that in anyway help or offer something constructive?
232T 1486093847 23* bobbiest_barker (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
233T 1486093880 18<bobbiest_barker18> I am the real Bob Barker, BobBarker is the real imposter
234T 1486093957 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, the entire point of this is to avoid a contentious hardfork yes/
235T 1486093965 20<banjomanjo>30 how does pointing out that one is possible help achieve that?
236T 1486094012 18<awfulcrawler18> you can't stop people from forking if they want to
237T 1486094019 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not an aggressive act
238T 1486094019 23* BobLivesMatter (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
239T 1486094024 18<ETH-Contract18> what if a majority wants a contentious hardfork, just to settle more faster their transactions currently stuck in the mempool??
240T 1486094041 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It doesn't, I was just saying you were wrong about a hard fork needing everyone
241T 1486094042 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, 1) yes depending on the size and intent, it very well can be aggressive
242T 1486094048 18<awfulcrawler18> it isn't
243T 1486094052 20<banjomanjo>30 again, *how does that help avoid that, which is the whole purpose of this channel?*
244T 1486094065 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It doesn't, I was just saying you were wrong about a hard fork needing everyone
245T 1486094065 20<banjomanjo>30 it does to be a successful upgrade wingman2
246T 1486094069 20<banjomanjo>30 otherwise its just breaking things
247T 1486094080 18<awfulcrawler18> it leaves the original project unchanged and branches off and does its own thing
248T 1486094116 18<BobLivesMatter18> Are Bobs welcome here?
249T 1486094149 18<ETH-Contract18> Only you Bob send Alice some btc in the Lightning Network
250T 1486094185 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18BobLivesMatter!*@*
251T 1486094185 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18BobLivesMatter from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
252T 1486094191 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18bobbiest_barker!*@*
253T 1486094191 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18bobbiest_barker from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
254T 1486094206 18<elusive_vxn18> that was brutal..
255T 1486094224 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, its not that simple
256T 1486094241 18<awfulcrawler18> it is exactly that simple.
257T 1486094245 20<banjomanjo>30 it forks off, counterfeiting the distribution of coin supply, and introduces an incentive to attack or defend one or the other
258T 1486094258 20<banjomanjo>30 that is most definitely a hostile situation/action in the majority of cases
259T 1486094269 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH/ETC was the only example of a large chain having a contentious forks
260T 1486094273 18<elusive_vxn18> >hostile
261T 1486094276 18<awfulcrawler18> it doesn't counterfeit anything... it's a copy of a ledger
262T 1486094276 20<banjomanjo>30 there were speculative attacks, mining attacks, PR attacks
263T 1486094284 20<banjomanjo>30 i.e. a counterfeit
264T 1486094305 19<Riiume> Whether banjomanjo is exactly correct in his description of hard forks doesn't matter:
265T 1486094310 18<awfulcrawler18> not a counterfeit at all
266T 1486094311 20<banjomanjo>30 it is duplicating coins that cost money and energy to produce and essentially producing them for zero cost
267T 1486094311 18<Riiume18> our group is by definition opposed to a hard fork
268T 1486094314 20<banjomanjo>30 that is counterfeiting
269T 1486094331 18<elusive_vxn18> is anyone here in a position of negotiating, or is this roleplay?
270T 1486094337 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not duplicating coins but rather saying your 'score' at company B is the same as at company A
271T 1486094340 18<Riiume18> paul sztorc was here
272T 1486094344 18<Riiume18> also, Maaku7 chimed in
273T 1486094348 18<Riiume18> (bitcoin core dev)
274T 1486094359 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, no, its duplicating tokens for free, that cost money to initially produce
275T 1486094369 20<banjomanjo>30 but again, lets move on
276T 1486094378 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, awfulcrawler, sorry to interrupt, but yea, you can continue in a private chan if you wish
277T 1486094382 18<Riiume18> the point is
278T 1486094383 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not dupicating tokens because they aren't being represented as the same thing
279T 1486094383 20<banjomanjo>30 someone said earlier they want Segwit as a hardfork
280T 1486094386 18<elusive_vxn18> so ka.
281T 1486094387 20<banjomanjo>30 why?
282T 1486094391 18<Riiume18> we don't want a hardfork, that's the point of our group
283T 1486094394 18<Riiume18> sorry
284T 1486094397 18<wingman218> Riiume: thats fine, you can choose not to hardfork
285T 1486094399 18<Riiume18> we don't want a DISPUTED hard fork
286T 1486094404 20<banjomanjo>30 ^^
287T 1486094412 18<Riiume18> right, so back to the main thread...
288T 1486094418 18<Riiume18> several ideas have been floated
289T 1486094424 18<Riiume18> 1) doing nothing (status quo)
290T 1486094450 18<Riiume18> 2) Soliciting a commitment from all miners to enter a "process of consensus", and somehow make it binding
291T 1486094467 18<Riiume18> (e.g. by placing their money in escrow until they implement their consensus)
292T 1486094500 18<Riiume18> 3) segwit + hf to either 2, 4, or 8 MB blocks
293T 1486094502 18<elusive_vxn18> > implying miners care about anything other than profit + security
294T 1486094537 18<Riiume18> elusive_vxn, we might use incentives and blackmail to compel them to enter the consensus process
295T 1486094539 20<banjomanjo>30 yeah they do elusive_vxn
296T 1486094546 20<banjomanjo>30 keeping in line with the desires of users
297T 1486094553 20<banjomanjo>30 otherwise they don't make profit
298T 1486094573 18<ETH-Contract18> @Riiume how do you know the network can handle 2, 4 o 8MB blocks?
299T 1486094586 18<Riiume18> Eth, I don't, that was someone else's idea\
300T 1486094605 18<ETH-Contract18> Do you think the miners and the full nodes can know that?
301T 1486094612 18<wingman218> Riiume: any more?
302T 1486094627 18<awfulcrawler18> both sides agree that the network can handle 4MB blocks
303T 1486094629 20<banjomanjo>30 Cornell put the upper bounds of safe blocksize at 4 MB a yearish ago
304T 1486094636 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not both sides agreeing awfulcrawler
305T 1486094641 20<banjomanjo>30 thats the result of an academic study
306T 1486094641 18<Riiume18> ETH-Contract, jwinterm proposed it, I believe
307T 1486094647 18<awfulcrawler18> segwit results in max 4MB blocksize
308T 1486094650 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, link to study?
309T 1486094654 20<banjomanjo>30 max _potential_ blocksize
310T 1486094657 18<awfulcrawler18> so both sides agree
311T 1486094686 18<awfulcrawler18> if 4MB were not ok then there would be extra restrictions in segwit
312T 1486094686 18<jwinterm18> I believe the study estimated that at 4 MB around 10% of nodes would drop off the network
313T 1486094714 20<banjomanjo>30 http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
314T 1486094733 18<Riiume18> So then we need more information, i.e. what are the effects of a 10% loss of nodes on long term market cap prospects for Bitcoin?
315T 1486094747 18<Riiume18> I suggest somebody (maybe me?) fund that study
316T 1486094748 20<banjomanjo>30 4 MB is dependent on certai conditions awfulcrawler
317T 1486094764 20<banjomanjo>30 to achieve a 4 MB block the entire block would have to be stuffed with just multisig transactions
318T 1486094782 18<awfulcrawler18> And both sides agree that this is allowable
319T 1486094798 20<banjomanjo>30 block weight alots 1 MB of space for TX data(inputs, outputs, legacy TX), and 3 MB for witness data(segwit signatures)
320T 1486094827 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, I linked the study: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
321T 1486094841 18<Riiume18> banjomajo, thx
322T 1486094845 18<Riiume18> reading
323T 1486094899 23* BobBorker (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
324T 1486094953 24* elusive_vxn has quit (Quit: Page closed)
325T 1486094953 18<ETH-Contract18> which chain will have a greater market cap: a 1MB chain with high confirmation times or a 2/4/8MB chain with lower confirmation times?
326T 1486094965 24* BobBorker has quit (Client Quit)
327T 1486094981 18<wingman218> Riiume: so why is the BU style limit not one of the options
328T 1486095022 20<banjomanjo>30 it is contentious, completely untested, and unstable
329T 1486095040 20<banjomanjo>30 it has absolutely zero defense against sybil attacks as well
330T 1486095055 18<Riiume18> wingman2, nobody has suggested it, but I think because they are of the belieft that there is no way to convince BitFury+BTCC+FullNodeOperators to accept it
331T 1486095066 18<wingman218> so you will never agree to it?
332T 1486095070 20<banjomanjo>30 no
333T 1486095082 18<Riiume18> wingman2, I would, but the groups I mentioned would not
334T 1486095085 20<banjomanjo>30 it removes any promise of predictably in the growth curve of costs for operaitng my node
335T 1486095092 20<banjomanjo>30 I would not accept that under any circumstances at all
336T 1486095101 20<banjomanjo>30 unless free quantum computers start raining from the sky
337T 1486095143 18<Riiume18> Interesting sidenote, BTC is more resistant to quantum annealing methods than Cryptonight
338T 1486095214 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: so you want to be able to run a node above all else?
339T 1486095242 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, that is non-negotiable
340T 1486095251 18<jwinterm18> I like the idea of a dynamic blocksize, but I think BU is not a good idea
341T 1486095257 20<banjomanjo>30 if I am not verifying the blockchain, bitcoin is not trustless(or trustminimized, whatever you want to say)
342T 1486095260 18<ETH-Contract18> LAST 1000 BLOCKS === Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 220 ( 22% ) Bitcoin Classic blocks: 10 ( 1% ) SegWit blocks: 238 ( 23.8% ) ===
343T 1486095273 20<banjomanjo>30 I will not support any form of bitcoin that loses that trustless property
344T 1486095292 20<banjomanjo>30 that makes it no different than Paypal or a network of Banks
345T 1486095323 18<ETH-Contract18> interesting debate good night everyone
346T 1486095326 24* ETH-Contract has quit (Quit: Page closed)
347T 1486095432 18<wingman218> interesting i want to be able to send a transaction above all else
348T 1486095447 20<banjomanjo>30 well, I'm the one who has to pay to store it
349T 1486095457 18<wingman218> so do i
350T 1486095460 20<banjomanjo>30 I actually pay for your transaction forever
351T 1486095462 20<banjomanjo>30 you pay for it once
352T 1486095478 18<wingman218> i run a node
353T 1486095519 20<banjomanjo>30 and you have clearly just stated doing that is low on your priority list
354T 1486095529 20<banjomanjo>30 I came here for trustless, not a new Paypal
355T 1486095539 20<banjomanjo>30 as did from what I see most of the people in Bitcoin
356T 1486095570 18<awfulcrawler18> you run a node of your own free will you don't get to guilt btc users about it
357T 1486095581 18<wingman218> i wanted machine to machine transactions
358T 1486095661 20<banjomanjo>30 my running a node is what guarantees the rules of the network are enforced
359T 1486095667 20<banjomanjo>30 its not just an optional thing I do because I want to
360T 1486095685 20<banjomanjo>30 it is the only fully secure way to use Bitcoin, and it reinforces the lessened security for those who do not run a node
361T 1486095694 20<banjomanjo>30 it is not just a "thing I do", so do not trivialize it as such
362T 1486095716 18<awfulcrawler18> you aren't a hero so stop portaying yourself as such. Lots of people run nodes dude
363T 1486095722 20<banjomanjo>30 Bitcoin doesn't just magically keep its rules in force just cause
364T 1486095727 20<banjomanjo>30 it does because of the large number of nodes running
365T 1486095743 20<banjomanjo>30 the less nodes running, the more the guarantee of core rules staying the same is lessened
366T 1486095752 23* adam3us (~adam3us@unaffiliated/adam3us23) has joined
367T 1486095773 20<banjomanjo>30 I didn't portray myself as anything, I stated why I run a node and why it is important for the security of my money
368T 1486095780 20<banjomanjo>30 and how it helps reinforce that security for others
369T 1486095876 23* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero23) has joined
370T 1486095905 18<adam3us18> here's a peterotodd concept: bitcoin security depends on censor-resistant bandwidth, not raw bandwidth.
371T 1486095922 20<banjomanjo>30 hmm...
372T 1486095934 18<wingman218> That's interesting
373T 1486096013 20<banjomanjo>30 Yeah, I think thats a very succinct way of pointing out throughput alone is not the main value prospective
374T 1486096129 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, you said you wanted machine to machine transactions as if they are not possible?
375T 1486096168 19<wingman2> 12:18 < banjomanjo> I came here for trustless, not a new Paypal
376T 1486096185 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, but you said that as if machine to machine payments are not possible
377T 1486096187 20<banjomanjo>30 they are
378T 1486096310 18<wingman218> its what i was interest in bitcoin for
379T 1486096330 18<wingman218> *interested
380T 1486096335 20<banjomanjo>30 well then it seems the two chief reasons we are here are not mutually exclusive by anymeans
381T 1486096351 20<banjomanjo>30 and in fact I would argue machine to machine payments it dependent on bitcoin staying trustless as well
382T 1486096372 18<wingman218> not really
383T 1486096387 20<banjomanjo>30 well thats good to have established, a tiny step of progress :)
384T 1486096447 18<wingman218> also i don't do them
385T 1486096509 18<wingman218> The idea of driving down the highway and negotiating with all of the access points for internet is not really possible
386T 1486096549 20<banjomanjo>30 O.o
387T 1486096552 20<banjomanjo>30 why not?
388T 1486096572 20<banjomanjo>30 your phone is pinging back and forth with every WAP in range of it all day
389T 1486096662 18<wingman218> I mean it wasn't possible until the idea of lightning networks came out
390T 1486096693 20<banjomanjo>30 yes it was, just not as efficiently
391T 1486096702 20<banjomanjo>30 Satoshi has capacity for one way payment channels built in since day one
392T 1486096722 20<banjomanjo>30 and even discussed how the economics of the system would make it unviable for microtransactions to stay on chain forever
393T 1486096748 20<banjomanjo>30 had*
394T 1486096839 24* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero24) has left ("Leaving")
395T 1486096890 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It would be super inefficient for each car to create a new transaction every hundred meters with a node it has never seen before and may never see again
396T 1486096994 18<wingman218> Anyway it's why I was originally excited about bitcoin, but that was dashed pretty early
397T 1486097173 18<wingman218> i will never get what i orginally wanted from bitcoin
398T 1486097183 20<banjomanjo>30 yes you will :)
399T 1486097228 18<wingman218> i might get it from lightning
400T 1486097254 18<wingman218> which i support
401T 1486097291 18<Riiume18> wingman2, we have our preferences but... remember our task is to achieve consensus, regardless of what we personally would want
402T 1486097304 18<wingman218> and i support segwit
403T 1486097328 18<Riiume18> Then you must present a strategy by which SegWit can obtain consensus
404T 1486097358 18<Riiume18> I want our group to stay focused on that
405T 1486097365 18<wingman218> Riiume: we don't acheive consensus
406T 1486097384 18<wingman218> bitcoin acheives consensus
407T 1486097399 18<Riiume18> wingman2, correct... well let me be more precise...
408T 1486097418 18<Riiume18> We want over 95% of the hashpower on the existing protocol to accept the consensus
409T 1486097431 18<wingman218> we can't
410T 1486097448 18<wingman218> won't happen
411T 1486097453 18<Riiume18> i disagree
412T 1486097479 18<Riiume18> if I agreed with that, I wouldn't have formed this channel to begin with
413T 1486097510 18<wingman218> "12:50 < Riiume> i disagree "and thats why it won't happen
414T 1486097524 18<wingman218> "i disagree"
415T 1486097623 18<wingman218> you can't have consensus when "i disagree"
416T 1486097625 20<banjomanjo>30 guys, I think you are severely underestimating the support Segwit has
417T 1486097640 18<jwinterm18> consensus != unanimous consensus
418T 1486097643 20<banjomanjo>30 60% of the visible broadcasting nodes are upgraded to enforce it
419T 1486097664 20<banjomanjo>30 almost every major business in the space is onboard, either having completed code updates, in process with them, or intending to
420T 1486097688 24* fvcxza has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
421T 1486097689 20<banjomanjo>30 do you really think it is rational in the long term for miners to ignore pretty much the vast majority of the entire rest of the ecosystem?
422T 1486097701 20<banjomanjo>30 that eventually will directly conflict with their motive to turn a profit
423T 1486097724 20<banjomanjo>30 the network is not just the miners, and the miners don't make money without everyone else
424T 1486097728 18<wingman218> we have 10 months
425T 1486097734 20* banjomanjo 30shrugs
426T 1486097743 20<banjomanjo>30 softforks have taken longer than this to roll out before
427T 1486097801 18<wingman218> We have 10 months and then everyone has to upgrade to start signaling segwit again
428T 1486097901 18<wingman218> So that we don't run out of flags because of people not upgrading their software
429T 1486097910 18<Riiume18> <Hey all, I'm going afk, please keep the conversation directed towards the stated goal with an eye towards actionable plans.>
430T 1486097923 18* Riiume goes afk
431T 1486097952 18<awfulcrawler18> Would a 2MB hardfork be an acceptable compromise?
432T 1486097998 20<banjomanjo>30 instead of segwit, no
433T 1486098012 20<banjomanjo>30 potentially down the line if there is consensus for it, I wouldn't be opposed in practice
434T 1486098015 18<awfulcrawler18> 2MB + segwit?
435T 1486098018 20<banjomanjo>30 but that is entirely dependent on segwit
436T 1486098022 20<banjomanjo>30 not immediately after, no
437T 1486098025 20<banjomanjo>30 that wouldn't be safe
438T 1486098039 20<banjomanjo>30 I'd want Schnorr signatures + OWAS first
439T 1486098046 20<banjomanjo>30 and again, it would be entirely dependent on consensus
440T 1486098056 20<banjomanjo>30 if everyone is onboard, fine, but if there is contention over it no
441T 1486098080 20<banjomanjo>30 a hardfork without unanimity over a puny 1 MB increase that does nothing in the longrun is an insane risk to me
442T 1486098104 18<wingman218> Actually, about that, core should change the end date for segwit activation to five years in the future.
443T 1486098116 18<awfulcrawler18> 1MB increase either does nothing or is an insane risk...
444T 1486098129 18<awfulcrawler18> if it 'does nothing' how can it be risky?
445T 1486098143 24* NLNico has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
446T 1486098160 20<banjomanjo>30 because of the risk of consensus failure if its not unanimous
447T 1486098175 20<banjomanjo>30 1 MB increase in the long term is just a bandaid that will not last long at all
448T 1486098197 20<banjomanjo>30 not worth risking a failed hardfork over a bandaid that is in no way even close to a permenant solution
449T 1486098249 18<wingman218> I don't like the idea of 2mb, But I don't have a problem with a failed hard fork
450T 1486098268 24* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4824) has left
451T 1486098273 18<awfulcrawler18> consensus isn't 100% of people agreeing to do the same thing
452T 1486098274 23* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4823) has joined
453T 1486098276 20<banjomanjo>30 well then I think you are miscalculating the security model of the network enormously wingman2
454T 1486098284 24* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4824) has left
455T 1486098286 18<awfulcrawler18> the ETH / ETC fork was a form of consensus as well
456T 1486098290 20<banjomanjo>30 when it comes to a hardfork, yes it is awfulcrawler
457T 1486098299 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH/ETC was not a form of consensus
458T 1486098302 20<banjomanjo>30 it was a consensus failure
459T 1486098312 18<awfulcrawler18> no it is an emergent property of the decentralized system
460T 1486098316 20<banjomanjo>30 and it resulted in two separate chains to the economic detriment of both
461T 1486098324 20<banjomanjo>30 no it wasn't, it was a consensus failure
462T 1486098329 18<awfulcrawler18> there is no 'failure', there is just the state of the system
463T 1486098330 20<banjomanjo>30 "emergent property" is a vague buzzword
464T 1486098336 20<banjomanjo>30 that means "anything that happens" essentially
465T 1486098340 18<awfulcrawler18> just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it's a failure
466T 1486098340 20<banjomanjo>30 thats nonsense
467T 1486098350 18<awfulcrawler18> 'consensus' as you use it is a vague buzzword
468T 1486098367 20<banjomanjo>30 no it is not, it is the network maintaining enforcement of the same consensus rules
469T 1486098376 20<banjomanjo>30 the network diverging is a failure of consensus
470T 1486098393 18<awfulcrawler18> Network A ----> Network A + network B
471T 1486098397 18<awfulcrawler18> Network A still exists
472T 1486098402 18<awfulcrawler18> diverging isfine
473T 1486098408 20<banjomanjo>30 no it is not
474T 1486098414 20<banjomanjo>30 it resulted in a loss of value for both chains
475T 1486098427 18<wingman218> i don't have a problem with that
476T 1486098428 20<banjomanjo>30 the loss of money on both sides due to the technical shortcomings not modeling diverging forks
477T 1486098430 20<banjomanjo>30 double spends
478T 1486098439 20<banjomanjo>30 well guess what wingman2, almost everyone else does
479T 1486098441 20<banjomanjo>30 this is money
480T 1486098442 18<awfulcrawler18> that's something you personally have a problem with. Code doesn't care
481T 1486098450 20<banjomanjo>30 if you don't care about your money maintaining its value, guess what, you are in the wrong place
482T 1486098473 18<wingman218> no i'm not
483T 1486098480 18<awfulcrawler18> If you want to compromise you have to accept that you'll have less than 100% agreement
484T 1486098482 20<banjomanjo>30 I came here in good faith to discuss
485T 1486098496 20<banjomanjo>30 and so far have been met with nothing but ultimatums for hardforks
486T 1486098505 20<banjomanjo>30 and a complete dismissal of factual aspects of how this system functions
487T 1486098525 20<banjomanjo>30 no I don't awfulcrawler
488T 1486098530 20<banjomanjo>30 if we don't get agree, status quo it is
489T 1486098545 18<wingman218> nothing but ultimatums for hardforks no hardforks
490T 1486098564 18<awfulcrawler18> yeah you don't want to compromise. Topic is 'compromise to avoid contentious hardfork'
491T 1486098572 18<jwinterm18> no ultimatum, no ultimatum, you're the ultimatum
492T 1486098573 18<awfulcrawler18> good luck
493T 1486098588 20<banjomanjo>30 no where did I say no hardforks
494T 1486098597 20<banjomanjo>30 and I literally *just* laid out the conditions under which I would accept one
495T 1486098623 20<banjomanjo>30 that was unbelievably disingenuous of you to say
496T 1486098656 18<jwinterm18> if every node and 100% of hash power agrees with hardfork?
497T 1486098663 18<jwinterm18> that seems...unlikely
498T 1486098668 20* banjomanjo 30shrugs
499T 1486098673 18<awfulcrawler18> did I say you said 'no hardforks'...(because I didn't)
500T 1486098690 20<banjomanjo>30 kicking people off the network they bought into is a complete betrayal of the social contract of bitcoin in my mind
501T 1486098720 18<awfulcrawler18> forking doesn't kick people off though
502T 1486098736 20<banjomanjo>30 yes it does, again, you act like the value of a token is irrelevant
503T 1486098737 20<banjomanjo>30 its not
504T 1486098754 18<awfulcrawler18> uh...it doesn't. Fork = network A -> network A + network B
505T 1486098758 18<awfulcrawler18> network A still exists
506T 1486098762 18<awfulcrawler18> stay on network A
507T 1486098773 20<banjomanjo>30 you are kicking people off the network in terms of economic network effect
508T 1486098783 20<banjomanjo>30 effectively the same thing
509T 1486098785 18<wingman218> yes
510T 1486098785 18<awfulcrawler18> no people optionally move from A to B
511T 1486098816 20<banjomanjo>30 and again, I've been over this, its not that simple
512T 1486098824 20<banjomanjo>30 you ridiculously oversimplify things
513T 1486098835 20<banjomanjo>30 a diverging fork is counterfeiting a token and its distribution
514T 1486098842 20<banjomanjo>30 those tokens cost electricity and energy to produce
515T 1486098851 20<banjomanjo>30 and they are being replicated for essentially free to speculate on
516T 1486098854 20<banjomanjo>30 i.e. counterfeiting
517T 1486098901 18<awfulcrawler18> I will launch a new blockchain called dollaridoodle and give all btc holders one dollaridoodle for every bitcoin they have. Have I counterfeited anything?
518T 1486098969 20<banjomanjo>30 that is not a rational argument, that is a description of a totally different thing
519T 1486098982 20<banjomanjo>30 its a new token, it is not a diverging fork claiming to be the original network and token
520T 1486098991 20<banjomanjo>30 that is a wild conflation of two different things
521T 1486098994 18<awfulcrawler18> it's a thought experiment which describes the same thing as a PoW fork
522T 1486099000 20<banjomanjo>30 no it doesn't
523T 1486099001 20<banjomanjo>30 at all
524T 1486099009 18<awfulcrawler18> it does...exactly
525T 1486099013 20<banjomanjo>30 no it doesn't
526T 1486099019 18<awfulcrawler18> this is brick-wall stuff
527T 1486099024 18<awfulcrawler18> I'll shut up now don't worry
528T 1486099026 20<banjomanjo>30 its describes a network that results in the same distribution
529T 1486099028 20<banjomanjo>30 it is not the same thing
530T 1486099038 20<banjomanjo>30 dude, you are the brick wall here
531T 1486099046 20<banjomanjo>30 I am actually explaining reasoning behind what I say
532T 1486099051 20<banjomanjo>30 you just keep asserting things
533T 1486099058 20<banjomanjo>30 and do not provide any rationalization for it
534T 1486099085 18<wingman218> anyway
535T 1486099106 18<wingman218> 12:58 < Riiume> <Hey all, I'm going afk, please keep the conversation directed towards the stated goal with an eye towards
536T 1486099109 18<wingman218> actionable plans.>
537T 1486099114 18<wingman218> so
538T 1486099217 19<wingman2> you like hard forks or not awfulcrawler and banjomanjo doesn't matter. what can we do to make this go smoothly
539T 1486099238 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for segwit activation to five years in the future.
540T 1486099247 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not how that works
541T 1486099253 18<wingman218> what do you think
542T 1486099255 20<banjomanjo>30 that in itself would require a softfork I believe
543T 1486099340 20<banjomanjo>30 core can't just "change things"
544T 1486099347 20<banjomanjo>30 people have to choose to run their updated software
545T 1486099353 20<banjomanjo>30 they have no control whatsoever beyond writing code
546T 1486099358 20<banjomanjo>30 the rest is entirely up to the users
547T 1486099372 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for the possibility of a segwit activation to five years in the future. not the ~10 months it is now.
548T 1486099380 20<banjomanjo>30 they can't do that!
549T 1486099389 20<banjomanjo>30 1) people would have to update their clients
550T 1486099398 20<banjomanjo>30 2) miners would have to softfork to modify BIP9
551T 1486099405 20<banjomanjo>30 they can't just change shit
552T 1486099447 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for the possibility of a segwit activation to five years in the future *with a new flag*. not the ~10 months it is now.
553T 1486099528 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/812714fd80e96e28cd288c553c83838cecbfc2d9/src/chainparams.cpp#L97
554T 1486099599 18<wingman218> We have to start everything again after November 15th, 2017.
555T 1486099615 18<wingman218> Everyone has to start signaling again.
556T 1486099726 20<banjomanjo>30 this is ridiculous
557T 1486099734 20<banjomanjo>30 you want a "compromise" to avoid a contentious hardfork
558T 1486099750 20<banjomanjo>30 but you want to take the SF solution to things right now, and set it up to hopefully take longer?
559T 1486099805 20<banjomanjo>30 thats effing ridiculous
560T 1486099808 18<wingman218> no That's not what that
561T 1486099831 18<wingman218> It's literally the date segwit dies
562T 1486099834 20<banjomanjo>30 no its not
563T 1486099842 20<banjomanjo>30 its the date the bit has to be reset
564T 1486099852 18<wingman218> well yes
565T 1486099868 18<wingman218> And then it has to be done all over again
566T 1486099897 18<wingman218> everyone has to upgrade again
567T 1486100023 20<banjomanjo>30 so?
568T 1486100032 18<wingman218> Without that end date, the slow march of time will get us segwit
569T 1486100033 20<banjomanjo>30 you're suggestion requires updating again anyway
570T 1486100036 20<banjomanjo>30 wait til then
571T 1486100093 18<wingman218> Just by everyone and eventually having to upgrade
572T 1486100104 18<wingman218> *Just by everyone eventually having to upgrade
573T 1486100220 18<jwinterm18> thread got scrubbed: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5rqvwc/btcnegotiate_on_freenode_a_working_group_to/
574T 1486100231 18<jwinterm18> imagine that
575T 1486100241 18<wingman218> bu will die over time if they start having problems keeping up with security fixes and such
576T 1486100348 18<adam3us18> bitcoin is going through updates anyway, 0.14 is coming in a few months.
577T 1486100448 18<wingman218> i really don't like that end date
578T 1486100811 23* vogelito (~Adium@fixed-190-149-187-190-149-151.iusacell.net23) has joined
579T 1486100899 18<vogelito18> Good night. It would be nice if the logs included the nick, otherwise pretty hard to readT 1486091235 22* Topic for 22#BtcNegotiate set by 26Riiume (24Thu Feb 2 20:22:23 2017)
580T 1486091255 18<ETH-Contract18> Hard numbers: look at the current mempool stats
581T 1486091264 18<runnerman118> Please how can prove the financial impact of something that does not exist
582T 1486091265 20<banjomanjo>30 I have arrived, the negotiations may commence/s
583T 1486091266 18<Riiume18> I ask the same of the Blockstream side, although they have done a bit in this direction (Testnet, although it's play money so lacking the real financial incentives that govern Bitcoin)
584T 1486091286 20<banjomanjo>30 on a serious note though, is there anywhere previous discussions here are posted?
585T 1486091305 20<banjomanjo>30 (nm)
586T 1486091309 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, by modeling it. I don't have to shoot myself to create a simulation of the effects and see that it doesn't work out well for me
587T 1486091319 18<Riiume18> yes, logs
588T 1486091322 18<Riiume18> https://notebin.cc/1kdbou2efi8
589T 1486091334 20<banjomanjo>30 thanks
590T 1486091360 18<runnerman118> I dont even know what to do, I'm not a "professional bitcoiner"
591T 1486091428 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, yea it's difficult. Basically the various interest groups need to come together and fund studies proving/disproving their beliefs regarding the financial impact of taking Bitcoin one way or the other
592T 1486091450 18<Riiume18> Start a funding campaign to pay some academics to carry out the study, e.g.
593T 1486091504 18<psztorc18> Hi Riiume, I actually published some way of measuring something like that: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/win-win-blocksize/
594T 1486091513 18<Riiume18> ahh, sweet! checking it out!
595T 1486091515 18<psztorc18> However, I think there is something more important to talk about
596T 1486091526 18<psztorc18> which is: "What do you think the miners want?"
597T 1486091560 18<Riiume18> Complete control of Bitcoin, without actually destroying Bitcoin's value
598T 1486091567 18<psztorc18> because they said they wanted a 2 MB blocksize around ~Dec 2015, and that's what they sort've got with segwit.
599T 1486091584 18<psztorc18> Well, are they going to get "Complete control of Bitcoin"?
600T 1486091601 23* gwillen (~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen23) has joined
601T 1486091624 18<Riiume18> No, if they remain persistent, the prediction markets say they get a hard fork, and there hasn't been much analysis of what occurs past that point
602T 1486091626 18<runnerman118> Of course miners are in control of bitcoin, it should always be that way
603T 1486091636 24* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero24) has left ("Leaving")
604T 1486091640 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, Full nodes wield substantial influence too
605T 1486091642 18<ETH-Contract18> Where is Adam the individual?
606T 1486091664 20<banjomanjo>30 alpalp, before doing that, I'm proposing we study it; create a simulation of Bitcoin forking in the near future and attempt to accurately model the economic effects
607T 1486091667 20<banjomanjo>30 who said that ^
608T 1486091670 18<runnerman118> Nope not as much as miners
609T 1486091672 20<banjomanjo>30 log structure is not clear
610T 1486091693 20<banjomanjo>30 but that is literally impossible, if you could do that you could model markets accurately, and that would have profound effects for the economy as a whole
611T 1486091697 18<psztorc18> Miners will not get "Complete control of Bitcoin", because no one can give that to them (or to themselves).
612T 1486091715 19<runnerman1> @banjomanjo exactly
613T 1486091719 18<psztorc18> So it seems that, according to you, they want something that they can't have.
614T 1486091723 23* jwinterm (~quassel@unaffiliated/jwinterm23) has joined
615T 1486091789 23* awfulcrawler (~awfulcraw@122-57-26-40.jetstream.xtra.co.nz23) has joined
616T 1486091791 18<runnerman118> @psztorc what are you talking about. Miners pretty much dictate what bitcoin is
617T 1486091799 19<Riiume> @banjomanjo, study doesn't have to have perfect predictivity; Correlations and extrapolations are always within some confidence interval
618T 1486091813 18<runnerman118> If all miners decide to stop mining we have no bitcoin.
619T 1486091822 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, if "Miners dictate what bitcoin is" and "miners want a 2MB hard fork", then why don't the miners have the 2mb fork they wanted?
620T 1486091830 20<banjomanjo>30 [21:41] Point is the whole reason for this blocksize debate is political. If LN gets activated those fees will be going directly to Blockstream.
621T 1486091832 20<banjomanjo>30 and who said that
622T 1486091836 20<banjomanjo>30 that is also incorrect
623T 1486091848 18<runnerman118> If miners decide tomorrow to run a client that give everyone 50 million bitcoin, that what we will have
624T 1486091857 20<banjomanjo>30 Riome, you are not going to accurately model a market composed of 4-10 million people anywhere close to accurately
625T 1486091862 20<banjomanjo>30 the data from that would be useless/garbage
626T 1486091872 18<Riiume18> psztorc, hehe I like where you're going. So what DO the miners want then? Or are they actually irrational?
627T 1486091876 20<banjomanjo>30 and runnerman1...no...
628T 1486091879 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not how that works
629T 1486091897 20<banjomanjo>30 if the exchanges and economy don't support that, all miners are oding is wasting electricity mining worthless coins no one else will buy
630T 1486091918 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, do you consider Litecoin blocks to be Bitcoin blocks?
631T 1486091932 18<runnerman118> Oh course...the price will immedially crash lol
632T 1486091954 24* dongcarl has quit (Quit: leaving)
633T 1486091956 20<banjomanjo>30 thats just your speculation
634T 1486091966 20<banjomanjo>30 many would have said that about a BU block being minted at > 1 MB
635T 1486091969 18<ETH-Contract18> How can a miner will not be incentivized to settle on-chain the current mempool (and get the reward) with a simple upgrade to a today's technologically-possible 4MB max blocksize limit
636T 1486091970 20<banjomanjo>30 that happened, the price didn't crash
637T 1486091998 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, If miners decide tomorrow to run a client that gives everyone 50 million litecoin, will Bitcoin be equal to a client that gives everyone 50 million litecoin?
638T 1486092062 18<runnerman118> What?? Litecoin and bitcoin are two different things
639T 1486092081 18<psztorc18> By what criterion?
640T 1486092109 20<banjomanjo>30 what is with all the repetition of LN fees going to Blockstream?
641T 1486092114 20<banjomanjo>30 that is completely untrue
642T 1486092139 20<banjomanjo>30 fees go to whoever is facilitating payments, i.e. everyone in the middle of a path through a set of channels
643T 1486092142 18<runnerman118> Oh were are the fees going to then?
644T 1486092148 20<banjomanjo>30 which requires locking coins up
645T 1486092161 20<banjomanjo>30 which if you actually sit and think for a minute, benefits the miners most out of anyone
646T 1486092184 20<banjomanjo>30 they as a group have both the largest stash of coins to provide liquidity with, and as miners can use their own blockspace to guarantee smooth channel closures and openings
647T 1486092195 20<banjomanjo>30 LN would allow miners to suck up most of those fees, not Blockstream
648T 1486092207 18<ETH-Contract18> i don't want my transaction to be processed by a set of middle mans through a set of channel, I just want my transaction to be settle on-chain in the next 10 minutes, simple
649T 1486092219 20<banjomanjo>30 then you don't have to use LN
650T 1486092219 18<runnerman118> ^
651T 1486092223 18<psztorc18> It is possible that LN will decrease on-chain fees. And it is possible that Blockstream will run a LN hub that will attract customers.
652T 1486092224 20<banjomanjo>30 have fun
653T 1486092235 18<psztorc18> runnerman1, Are you avoiding my questions?
654T 1486092238 20<banjomanjo>30 I on the other hand will use it if it makes sense at the time and is cost effective
655T 1486092248 18<runnerman118> which question
656T 1486092253 18<runnerman118> I might of missed it
657T 1486092267 18<psztorc18> I see.
658T 1486092325 18<runnerman118> The criterion one? They are different because the clients/node the miners are running are different
659T 1486092325 18<psztorc18> @Riiume, I think I know what the miners want. But you can't broker a compromise unless you give them what they want, and you probably can't do that unless you know what they want.
660T 1486092328 23* iopools (b53ea498@gateway/web/freenode/ip.181.62.164.15223) has joined
661T 1486092335 23* amiller (~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates102423) has joined
662T 1486092351 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, what do you mean "sidechains will be able to affect the main blockchain willy nilly" ?
663T 1486092353 18<Riiume18> psztorc, please give us your view on what they want!
664T 1486092372 18<ETH-Contract18> explain that please
665T 1486092374 18<jwinterm18> I bet it's hookers and blow
666T 1486092386 18<runnerman118> Who knows, everyone wants something different
667T 1486092411 18<gwillen18> I am curious what this channel is expectd to accomplish
668T 1486092418 18<gwillen18> and whether anybody is moderating it with that goal in mind
669T 1486092430 18<psztorc18> @runnerman1, That isn't true, because sometimes when the miners run a different client we still call it Bitcoin, and other times we don't.
670T 1486092472 18<Riiume18> Folks, sorry to interject, but I want to move us to a focal point
671T 1486092497 18<Riiume18> There are many great side-discussions to be had, and I encourage people to pursue those (possibly by spawning additional chans)
672T 1486092525 18<Riiume18> Our goal is to find a compromise palatable to both sides
673T 1486092529 18<Riiume18> Segwit and big blockers
674T 1486092548 18<Riiume18> psztorc has raised an intersting question: what does each side want?
675T 1486092565 20<banjomanjo>30 I think that is a red herring
676T 1486092569 18<Riiume18> I say we now attempt to answer this, as it will lead us more directly along our agenda
677T 1486092586 20<banjomanjo>30 its quite clear what they what on both sides, a functional, secure, scalable bitcoin
678T 1486092593 20<banjomanjo>30 its not the what thats the matter of contension
679T 1486092594 20<banjomanjo>30 its the how
680T 1486092602 18<runnerman118> I think the best solution is Segwit as a hardfork and BU
681T 1486092610 20<banjomanjo>30 why?
682T 1486092621 20<banjomanjo>30 segwit as a hardfork changes absolutely nothing except one piece of data
683T 1486092630 19<jwinterm> well, considering 50% of the miners don't appear to want either segwit or BU/8 MB blocks, I tend to agree with banjomanjo
684T 1486092631 18<ETH-Contract18> One side want a market controlled blocksize, the other want a Core/Blockstream controlled blocksize with high fee policy
685T 1486092633 18<jwinterm18> it's a red herring
686T 1486092636 20<banjomanjo>30 and BU is untested, and in my opinion fundamentally flawed
687T 1486092638 18<runnerman118> let miners decide thier blocksize ,and segwit can fix mallebility issues
688T 1486092644 18<jwinterm18> to even consider that there are only two sides is a false dichotomy
689T 1486092655 20<banjomanjo>30 ^^
690T 1486092660 18<runnerman118> I'm running a BU, it work, not flawed
691T 1486092668 18<gwillen18> I think it's worth keeping in mind that there are surely more than two sides, and probably casting it as two sides directly opposed to each other is ... the opposite of a best practice for creating common ground among disagreeing people :-)
692T 1486092668 20<banjomanjo>30 it is flawed runnerman
693T 1486092668 18<amiller18> how about agreeing on, what are the underlying differences in values or assumptions/premises that lead to such a difference in opinion on how to go forward?
694T 1486092673 18<runnerman118> How
695T 1486092696 23* wingman2 (~wingman2@web.innestech.net23) has joined
696T 1486092704 20<banjomanjo>30 every single time the blocksize is raised will either result in 1) complete chaos as reorganizations happen, and people WILL lose money
697T 1486092723 20<banjomanjo>30 or 2) economic activity will grind to a halt everytime miners announce an attempt at raising it to prevent that
698T 1486092735 20<banjomanjo>30 thats ridiculous, that is completely throwing out security guarantees and the promise of 100% uptime
699T 1486092742 20<banjomanjo>30 and as far as segwit as a hardfork
700T 1486092750 18<runnerman118> You know miners can change the blocksize what that want now
701T 1486092751 20<banjomanjo>30 that changes _absolutely nothing_ except the witness committment
702T 1486092757 20<banjomanjo>30 it moves from the coinbase TX to the blockheader
703T 1486092760 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, be that as it may, our job is to arrive at an agreement, distasteful/stupid as it may seem to us
704T 1486092765 20<banjomanjo>30 that is a beyond irrelevant matter
705T 1486092775 18<psztorc18> I agree with maaku7 that this is unlikely to help. I just thought I would stop by. : )
706T 1486092790 18<psztorc18> To compromise, two sides must get what they want.
707T 1486092805 18<wingman218> neither side
708T 1486092812 20<banjomanjo>30 there are alot more than 2 sides
709T 1486092828 18<runnerman118> Classic and XT are pretty mmuch dead
710T 1486092830 20<banjomanjo>30 some users do not want _anything_ changed in bitcoin ever
711T 1486092831 19<Riiume> banjomanjo the political reality is only 2 sides wield significant capital and public support.
712T 1486092834 20<banjomanjo>30 some do not ever want hardforks
713T 1486092841 20<banjomanjo>30 some want a hardfork for feature x, some for feature y
714T 1486092850 20<banjomanjo>30 saying "two sides" is beyond over simplifying
715T 1486092858 20<banjomanjo>30 its like calling all races of people on Earth "black, or white"
716T 1486092869 18<runnerman118> What are your solutions to this blocksize issue?
717T 1486092870 18<jwinterm18> Riiume: what of the 45% of miners that signal neither segwit or BU/8MB?
718T 1486092872 18<gwillen18> psztorc: I'm curious to see whether it could help, but I agree it is unlikely to solve anything by itself. But I'd like to at least hear what people have to say.
719T 1486092874 18<jwinterm18> which side are they on?
720T 1486092875 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, you can't know that
721T 1486092892 20<banjomanjo>30 the amount of objective information available to speculate that with is not even close to make a definitive statement like that
722T 1486092894 19<psztorc> banjomanjo, I didn't say there were two sides.
723T 1486092894 18<gwillen18> psztorc: but I do think that casting it as 'two sides' is going to obscure things more than enlighten
724T 1486092897 18<jwinterm18> or is 45% of the network not significant capital?
725T 1486092908 20<banjomanjo>30 (was more a general statement than singling you out psztorc )
726T 1486092915 18<psztorc18> Reading comprehension is low.
727T 1486092917 18<Riiume18> jwinterm: They might be waiting for one side to assume a position of dominance before casting their vote, to avoid ending up in a conflict with the winner
728T 1486092922 18<iopools18> the solution is the hardfork, if you think a 1MB chain is better than a dynamic one, then don't worry, everybody will dismiss the dynamic blocksize chain
729T 1486092930 18<psztorc18> Anyways, good luck everyone. I'll be around.
730T 1486092956 18<Riiume18> psztorcs, peace, thanks for your time
731T 1486092962 18<runnerman118> cya
732T 1486093039 18<runnerman118> New season of The 100, gonna head out too
733T 1486093050 18<Riiume18> runnerman1, later, thank you for your thoughts!
734T 1486093055 18<ETH-Contract18> LAST 1000 BLOCKS: Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 220 ( 22% ) Bitcoin Classic blocks: 10 ( 1% ) SegWit blocks: 238 ( 23.8% )
735T 1486093062 18<runnerman118> I'll stop by later
736T 1486093064 18<runnerman118> bye
737T 1486093067 24* runnerman1 has quit (Quit: Page closed)
738T 1486093086 18<wingman218> geeze thats close
739T 1486093091 24* iopools has quit (Quit: Page closed)
740T 1486093098 18<Riiume18> Let me put this question forward and everyone please answer...
741T 1486093110 18<Riiume18> What do you believe would be a workable compromise that over 95% of miners would accept?
742T 1486093130 18<wingman218> nothing
743T 1486093149 18<jwinterm18> not sure it exists, but maybe something along the lines of your proposal on reddit
744T 1486093164 18<jwinterm18> segwit plus hf to 2,4,8 MB block
745T 1486093209 23* BobBarker (~null@2607:5300:60:1c3f::23) has joined
746T 1486093227 18<BobBarker18> I'm negotiating on behalf on monero
747T 1486093250 18<gwillen18> Riiume: I'm not sure you're asking the right question
748T 1486093254 18<amiller18> do you think miners would be more active in signalling, without necessarily a full upgrade or a complicated code change, if they were asked more questions and had some way of responding to a survey? like reaching 95% to a non-binding resolution expressing support for a compromise of some kind?
749T 1486093255 23* elusive_vxn (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
750T 1486093286 18<ETH-Contract18> what about BU+FlexibleTransactions+XThinBlocks (plus no devs will interfere in the market decision for the max blocksize limit)
751T 1486093287 18<gwillen18> I think there are a lot of hard feelings right now that are going to make it difficult to get people to agree to proposals that might have been acceptable to them before this turned into a big fight
752T 1486093312 18<gwillen18> and that the hard feelings that the people who feel they have been disrespected are going to have to be tackled by engaging with people and getting their input
753T 1486093320 18<jwinterm18> ETH-Contract: seems unlikely
754T 1486093361 18<Riiume18> amiller, gwillen So an intermediate step, a commitment to enter a compromise process of some sort might be beneficial? Well, it's actionable at least.
755T 1486093381 18<gwillen18> well
756T 1486093390 18<wingman218> it don't like this 95% thing
757T 1486093391 23* NLNico (~NLNico@unaffiliated/nlnico23) has joined
758T 1486093395 18<gwillen18> as I think someone mentioned on the reddit thread, there have been attempts before
759T 1486093396 18<ETH-Contract18> who knows, the competition is open, no miner is obligated to use a particular software of any company
760T 1486093408 18<gwillen18> there was scaling, and some other stuff, where people were going to come to the table and talk, and they did
761T 1486093409 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH-Contract, flextrans doesn't even have working code
762T 1486093422 18<gwillen18> I was at the first scaling, there were some good conversations while people were face-to-face
763T 1486093431 18<gwillen18> most of which didn't seem to survive once people were back home
764T 1486093471 18<gwillen18> which suggests to me, among other things, that if you really want people to see eye-to-eye you need to get them in the same room rather than talking to each other in text through computers.
765T 1486093480 18<gwillen18> (This may be extra challenging when some of them don't speak the same language.)
766T 1486093499 18<elusive_vxn18> we all speak the universal language of shoe on head
767T 1486093506 20<banjomanjo>30 there are alot more than two sides here, compromising between two sides doesn't matter at all if you cannot accomplish the compromise without using a hardfork
768T 1486093512 18<gwillen18> There was supposedly some kind of "agreement" about scaling once before
769T 1486093524 20<banjomanjo>30 use of a hardfork requires unanimity, not just agreement between two parties
770T 1486093525 18<gwillen18> except immediately afterwards various people disagreed about who had agreed to what
771T 1486093535 20<banjomanjo>30 I have seen multiple people here just continue proposing hardforks
772T 1486093537 18<Riiume18> Would it be possible to make a new agreement that's binding, for instance...
773T 1486093551 18<Riiume18> All parties must put a substantial sum of money on deposit with some trusted counterparty
774T 1486093556 18<gwillen18> I'm going to have to duck out, I'm missing dinner
775T 1486093557 20<banjomanjo>30 no
776T 1486093560 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, just no
777T 1486093564 18<Riiume18> and they don't get it back until a consensus is achieved and executed on the Bitcoin network
778T 1486093581 18<gwillen18> I think this is interesting and will continue to keep an eye in this general direction
779T 1486093621 18<wingman218> So what number of hardforks are you personally willing to accept?
780T 1486093631 20<banjomanjo>30 doesn't matter
781T 1486093637 20<banjomanjo>30 hardforks require EVERYONE to agree
782T 1486093645 20<banjomanjo>30 you can't just ultimatum me with a hardfork
783T 1486093649 20<banjomanjo>30 or ultimatum developers
784T 1486093654 20<banjomanjo>30 that is completely out of any individual's hands
785T 1486093657 18<wingman218> no they don't
786T 1486093661 20<banjomanjo>30 yes they do
787T 1486093671 18<amiller18> i'm happy to see any nicely moderated discussion with a pleasant/open tone, thanks for the effort and good luck!
788T 1486093679 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, hard forks occur when one group of people packs up their toys and leaves the blockchain
789T 1486093683 20<banjomanjo>30 without that, you are not hardforking an upgrade, you are making an altcoin that is predistributed
790T 1486093690 18<wingman218> anyone can hardfork
791T 1486093701 19<Riiume> banjomanjo hardfork/altcoin is semantics
792T 1486093703 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, and without everyone, EVERYONE, going along, that is not an upgrade
793T 1486093708 20<banjomanjo>30 that is creating an alternative chain
794T 1486093715 18<wingman218> at any time
795T 1486093742 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: oh sorry I wasn't talking about an upgrade
796T 1486093745 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, and like I said, without the entire rest of the network following you, that irrelevant
797T 1486093748 20<banjomanjo>30 its creating an altcoin
798T 1486093760 20<banjomanjo>30 that will completely undermine Bitcoins function as a stable store of value
799T 1486093769 20<banjomanjo>30 its essentially counterfeiting the entire supply of Bitcoin
800T 1486093770 18<elusive_vxn18> excuse me, is this chat for roleplaying?
801T 1486093775 23* fvcxza (68c89a4b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.200.154.7523) has joined
802T 1486093778 18<wingman218> maybe but it is a hardfork
803T 1486093787 23* boob_barker (62d400f4@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.212.0.24423) has joined
804T 1486093789 18<boob_barker18> hello
805T 1486093797 18<boob_barker18> im boob barker
806T 1486093821 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18boob_barker*!*@*
807T 1486093821 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18boob_barker from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
808T 1486093826 18<BobBarker18> that man is an imposter
809T 1486093845 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, but again, how does that in anyway help or offer something constructive?
810T 1486093847 23* bobbiest_barker (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
811T 1486093880 18<bobbiest_barker18> I am the real Bob Barker, BobBarker is the real imposter
812T 1486093957 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, the entire point of this is to avoid a contentious hardfork yes/
813T 1486093965 20<banjomanjo>30 how does pointing out that one is possible help achieve that?
814T 1486094012 18<awfulcrawler18> you can't stop people from forking if they want to
815T 1486094019 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not an aggressive act
816T 1486094019 23* BobLivesMatter (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
817T 1486094024 18<ETH-Contract18> what if a majority wants a contentious hardfork, just to settle more faster their transactions currently stuck in the mempool??
818T 1486094041 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It doesn't, I was just saying you were wrong about a hard fork needing everyone
819T 1486094042 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, 1) yes depending on the size and intent, it very well can be aggressive
820T 1486094048 18<awfulcrawler18> it isn't
821T 1486094052 20<banjomanjo>30 again, *how does that help avoid that, which is the whole purpose of this channel?*
822T 1486094065 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It doesn't, I was just saying you were wrong about a hard fork needing everyone
823T 1486094065 20<banjomanjo>30 it does to be a successful upgrade wingman2
824T 1486094069 20<banjomanjo>30 otherwise its just breaking things
825T 1486094080 18<awfulcrawler18> it leaves the original project unchanged and branches off and does its own thing
826T 1486094116 18<BobLivesMatter18> Are Bobs welcome here?
827T 1486094149 18<ETH-Contract18> Only you Bob send Alice some btc in the Lightning Network
828T 1486094185 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18BobLivesMatter!*@*
829T 1486094185 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18BobLivesMatter from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
830T 1486094191 22* 26ChanServ sets ban on 18bobbiest_barker!*@*
831T 1486094191 22* 26ChanServ has kicked 18bobbiest_barker from 22#BtcNegotiate (24User is banned from this channel)
832T 1486094206 18<elusive_vxn18> that was brutal..
833T 1486094224 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, its not that simple
834T 1486094241 18<awfulcrawler18> it is exactly that simple.
835T 1486094245 20<banjomanjo>30 it forks off, counterfeiting the distribution of coin supply, and introduces an incentive to attack or defend one or the other
836T 1486094258 20<banjomanjo>30 that is most definitely a hostile situation/action in the majority of cases
837T 1486094269 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH/ETC was the only example of a large chain having a contentious forks
838T 1486094273 18<elusive_vxn18> >hostile
839T 1486094276 18<awfulcrawler18> it doesn't counterfeit anything... it's a copy of a ledger
840T 1486094276 20<banjomanjo>30 there were speculative attacks, mining attacks, PR attacks
841T 1486094284 20<banjomanjo>30 i.e. a counterfeit
842T 1486094305 19<Riiume> Whether banjomanjo is exactly correct in his description of hard forks doesn't matter:
843T 1486094310 18<awfulcrawler18> not a counterfeit at all
844T 1486094311 20<banjomanjo>30 it is duplicating coins that cost money and energy to produce and essentially producing them for zero cost
845T 1486094311 18<Riiume18> our group is by definition opposed to a hard fork
846T 1486094314 20<banjomanjo>30 that is counterfeiting
847T 1486094331 18<elusive_vxn18> is anyone here in a position of negotiating, or is this roleplay?
848T 1486094337 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not duplicating coins but rather saying your 'score' at company B is the same as at company A
849T 1486094340 18<Riiume18> paul sztorc was here
850T 1486094344 18<Riiume18> also, Maaku7 chimed in
851T 1486094348 18<Riiume18> (bitcoin core dev)
852T 1486094359 20<banjomanjo>30 awfulcrawler, no, its duplicating tokens for free, that cost money to initially produce
853T 1486094369 20<banjomanjo>30 but again, lets move on
854T 1486094378 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, awfulcrawler, sorry to interrupt, but yea, you can continue in a private chan if you wish
855T 1486094382 18<Riiume18> the point is
856T 1486094383 18<awfulcrawler18> it's not dupicating tokens because they aren't being represented as the same thing
857T 1486094383 20<banjomanjo>30 someone said earlier they want Segwit as a hardfork
858T 1486094386 18<elusive_vxn18> so ka.
859T 1486094387 20<banjomanjo>30 why?
860T 1486094391 18<Riiume18> we don't want a hardfork, that's the point of our group
861T 1486094394 18<Riiume18> sorry
862T 1486094397 18<wingman218> Riiume: thats fine, you can choose not to hardfork
863T 1486094399 18<Riiume18> we don't want a DISPUTED hard fork
864T 1486094404 20<banjomanjo>30 ^^
865T 1486094412 18<Riiume18> right, so back to the main thread...
866T 1486094418 18<Riiume18> several ideas have been floated
867T 1486094424 18<Riiume18> 1) doing nothing (status quo)
868T 1486094450 18<Riiume18> 2) Soliciting a commitment from all miners to enter a "process of consensus", and somehow make it binding
869T 1486094467 18<Riiume18> (e.g. by placing their money in escrow until they implement their consensus)
870T 1486094500 18<Riiume18> 3) segwit + hf to either 2, 4, or 8 MB blocks
871T 1486094502 18<elusive_vxn18> > implying miners care about anything other than profit + security
872T 1486094537 18<Riiume18> elusive_vxn, we might use incentives and blackmail to compel them to enter the consensus process
873T 1486094539 20<banjomanjo>30 yeah they do elusive_vxn
874T 1486094546 20<banjomanjo>30 keeping in line with the desires of users
875T 1486094553 20<banjomanjo>30 otherwise they don't make profit
876T 1486094573 18<ETH-Contract18> @Riiume how do you know the network can handle 2, 4 o 8MB blocks?
877T 1486094586 18<Riiume18> Eth, I don't, that was someone else's idea\
878T 1486094605 18<ETH-Contract18> Do you think the miners and the full nodes can know that?
879T 1486094612 18<wingman218> Riiume: any more?
880T 1486094627 18<awfulcrawler18> both sides agree that the network can handle 4MB blocks
881T 1486094629 20<banjomanjo>30 Cornell put the upper bounds of safe blocksize at 4 MB a yearish ago
882T 1486094636 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not both sides agreeing awfulcrawler
883T 1486094641 20<banjomanjo>30 thats the result of an academic study
884T 1486094641 18<Riiume18> ETH-Contract, jwinterm proposed it, I believe
885T 1486094647 18<awfulcrawler18> segwit results in max 4MB blocksize
886T 1486094650 19<Riiume> banjomanjo, link to study?
887T 1486094654 20<banjomanjo>30 max _potential_ blocksize
888T 1486094657 18<awfulcrawler18> so both sides agree
889T 1486094686 18<awfulcrawler18> if 4MB were not ok then there would be extra restrictions in segwit
890T 1486094686 18<jwinterm18> I believe the study estimated that at 4 MB around 10% of nodes would drop off the network
891T 1486094714 20<banjomanjo>30 http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
892T 1486094733 18<Riiume18> So then we need more information, i.e. what are the effects of a 10% loss of nodes on long term market cap prospects for Bitcoin?
893T 1486094747 18<Riiume18> I suggest somebody (maybe me?) fund that study
894T 1486094748 20<banjomanjo>30 4 MB is dependent on certai conditions awfulcrawler
895T 1486094764 20<banjomanjo>30 to achieve a 4 MB block the entire block would have to be stuffed with just multisig transactions
896T 1486094782 18<awfulcrawler18> And both sides agree that this is allowable
897T 1486094798 20<banjomanjo>30 block weight alots 1 MB of space for TX data(inputs, outputs, legacy TX), and 3 MB for witness data(segwit signatures)
898T 1486094827 20<banjomanjo>30 Riiume, I linked the study: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf
899T 1486094841 18<Riiume18> banjomajo, thx
900T 1486094845 18<Riiume18> reading
901T 1486094899 23* BobBorker (8f9ff401@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.159.244.123) has joined
902T 1486094953 24* elusive_vxn has quit (Quit: Page closed)
903T 1486094953 18<ETH-Contract18> which chain will have a greater market cap: a 1MB chain with high confirmation times or a 2/4/8MB chain with lower confirmation times?
904T 1486094965 24* BobBorker has quit (Client Quit)
905T 1486094981 18<wingman218> Riiume: so why is the BU style limit not one of the options
906T 1486095022 20<banjomanjo>30 it is contentious, completely untested, and unstable
907T 1486095040 20<banjomanjo>30 it has absolutely zero defense against sybil attacks as well
908T 1486095055 18<Riiume18> wingman2, nobody has suggested it, but I think because they are of the belieft that there is no way to convince BitFury+BTCC+FullNodeOperators to accept it
909T 1486095066 18<wingman218> so you will never agree to it?
910T 1486095070 20<banjomanjo>30 no
911T 1486095082 18<Riiume18> wingman2, I would, but the groups I mentioned would not
912T 1486095085 20<banjomanjo>30 it removes any promise of predictably in the growth curve of costs for operaitng my node
913T 1486095092 20<banjomanjo>30 I would not accept that under any circumstances at all
914T 1486095101 20<banjomanjo>30 unless free quantum computers start raining from the sky
915T 1486095143 18<Riiume18> Interesting sidenote, BTC is more resistant to quantum annealing methods than Cryptonight
916T 1486095214 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: so you want to be able to run a node above all else?
917T 1486095242 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, that is non-negotiable
918T 1486095251 18<jwinterm18> I like the idea of a dynamic blocksize, but I think BU is not a good idea
919T 1486095257 20<banjomanjo>30 if I am not verifying the blockchain, bitcoin is not trustless(or trustminimized, whatever you want to say)
920T 1486095260 18<ETH-Contract18> LAST 1000 BLOCKS === Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 220 ( 22% ) Bitcoin Classic blocks: 10 ( 1% ) SegWit blocks: 238 ( 23.8% ) ===
921T 1486095273 20<banjomanjo>30 I will not support any form of bitcoin that loses that trustless property
922T 1486095292 20<banjomanjo>30 that makes it no different than Paypal or a network of Banks
923T 1486095323 18<ETH-Contract18> interesting debate good night everyone
924T 1486095326 24* ETH-Contract has quit (Quit: Page closed)
925T 1486095432 18<wingman218> interesting i want to be able to send a transaction above all else
926T 1486095447 20<banjomanjo>30 well, I'm the one who has to pay to store it
927T 1486095457 18<wingman218> so do i
928T 1486095460 20<banjomanjo>30 I actually pay for your transaction forever
929T 1486095462 20<banjomanjo>30 you pay for it once
930T 1486095478 18<wingman218> i run a node
931T 1486095519 20<banjomanjo>30 and you have clearly just stated doing that is low on your priority list
932T 1486095529 20<banjomanjo>30 I came here for trustless, not a new Paypal
933T 1486095539 20<banjomanjo>30 as did from what I see most of the people in Bitcoin
934T 1486095570 18<awfulcrawler18> you run a node of your own free will you don't get to guilt btc users about it
935T 1486095581 18<wingman218> i wanted machine to machine transactions
936T 1486095661 20<banjomanjo>30 my running a node is what guarantees the rules of the network are enforced
937T 1486095667 20<banjomanjo>30 its not just an optional thing I do because I want to
938T 1486095685 20<banjomanjo>30 it is the only fully secure way to use Bitcoin, and it reinforces the lessened security for those who do not run a node
939T 1486095694 20<banjomanjo>30 it is not just a "thing I do", so do not trivialize it as such
940T 1486095716 18<awfulcrawler18> you aren't a hero so stop portaying yourself as such. Lots of people run nodes dude
941T 1486095722 20<banjomanjo>30 Bitcoin doesn't just magically keep its rules in force just cause
942T 1486095727 20<banjomanjo>30 it does because of the large number of nodes running
943T 1486095743 20<banjomanjo>30 the less nodes running, the more the guarantee of core rules staying the same is lessened
944T 1486095752 23* adam3us (~adam3us@unaffiliated/adam3us23) has joined
945T 1486095773 20<banjomanjo>30 I didn't portray myself as anything, I stated why I run a node and why it is important for the security of my money
946T 1486095780 20<banjomanjo>30 and how it helps reinforce that security for others
947T 1486095876 23* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero23) has joined
948T 1486095905 18<adam3us18> here's a peterotodd concept: bitcoin security depends on censor-resistant bandwidth, not raw bandwidth.
949T 1486095922 20<banjomanjo>30 hmm...
950T 1486095934 18<wingman218> That's interesting
951T 1486096013 20<banjomanjo>30 Yeah, I think thats a very succinct way of pointing out throughput alone is not the main value prospective
952T 1486096129 20<banjomanjo>30 wingman2, you said you wanted machine to machine transactions as if they are not possible?
953T 1486096168 19<wingman2> 12:18 < banjomanjo> I came here for trustless, not a new Paypal
954T 1486096185 20<banjomanjo>30 yes, but you said that as if machine to machine payments are not possible
955T 1486096187 20<banjomanjo>30 they are
956T 1486096310 18<wingman218> its what i was interest in bitcoin for
957T 1486096330 18<wingman218> *interested
958T 1486096335 20<banjomanjo>30 well then it seems the two chief reasons we are here are not mutually exclusive by anymeans
959T 1486096351 20<banjomanjo>30 and in fact I would argue machine to machine payments it dependent on bitcoin staying trustless as well
960T 1486096372 18<wingman218> not really
961T 1486096387 20<banjomanjo>30 well thats good to have established, a tiny step of progress :)
962T 1486096447 18<wingman218> also i don't do them
963T 1486096509 18<wingman218> The idea of driving down the highway and negotiating with all of the access points for internet is not really possible
964T 1486096549 20<banjomanjo>30 O.o
965T 1486096552 20<banjomanjo>30 why not?
966T 1486096572 20<banjomanjo>30 your phone is pinging back and forth with every WAP in range of it all day
967T 1486096662 18<wingman218> I mean it wasn't possible until the idea of lightning networks came out
968T 1486096693 20<banjomanjo>30 yes it was, just not as efficiently
969T 1486096702 20<banjomanjo>30 Satoshi has capacity for one way payment channels built in since day one
970T 1486096722 20<banjomanjo>30 and even discussed how the economics of the system would make it unviable for microtransactions to stay on chain forever
971T 1486096748 20<banjomanjo>30 had*
972T 1486096839 24* pero (~pero@unaffiliated/pero24) has left ("Leaving")
973T 1486096890 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: It would be super inefficient for each car to create a new transaction every hundred meters with a node it has never seen before and may never see again
974T 1486096994 18<wingman218> Anyway it's why I was originally excited about bitcoin, but that was dashed pretty early
975T 1486097173 18<wingman218> i will never get what i orginally wanted from bitcoin
976T 1486097183 20<banjomanjo>30 yes you will :)
977T 1486097228 18<wingman218> i might get it from lightning
978T 1486097254 18<wingman218> which i support
979T 1486097291 18<Riiume18> wingman2, we have our preferences but... remember our task is to achieve consensus, regardless of what we personally would want
980T 1486097304 18<wingman218> and i support segwit
981T 1486097328 18<Riiume18> Then you must present a strategy by which SegWit can obtain consensus
982T 1486097358 18<Riiume18> I want our group to stay focused on that
983T 1486097365 18<wingman218> Riiume: we don't acheive consensus
984T 1486097384 18<wingman218> bitcoin acheives consensus
985T 1486097399 18<Riiume18> wingman2, correct... well let me be more precise...
986T 1486097418 18<Riiume18> We want over 95% of the hashpower on the existing protocol to accept the consensus
987T 1486097431 18<wingman218> we can't
988T 1486097448 18<wingman218> won't happen
989T 1486097453 18<Riiume18> i disagree
990T 1486097479 18<Riiume18> if I agreed with that, I wouldn't have formed this channel to begin with
991T 1486097510 18<wingman218> "12:50 < Riiume> i disagree "and thats why it won't happen
992T 1486097524 18<wingman218> "i disagree"
993T 1486097623 18<wingman218> you can't have consensus when "i disagree"
994T 1486097625 20<banjomanjo>30 guys, I think you are severely underestimating the support Segwit has
995T 1486097640 18<jwinterm18> consensus != unanimous consensus
996T 1486097643 20<banjomanjo>30 60% of the visible broadcasting nodes are upgraded to enforce it
997T 1486097664 20<banjomanjo>30 almost every major business in the space is onboard, either having completed code updates, in process with them, or intending to
998T 1486097688 24* fvcxza has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
999T 1486097689 20<banjomanjo>30 do you really think it is rational in the long term for miners to ignore pretty much the vast majority of the entire rest of the ecosystem?
1000T 1486097701 20<banjomanjo>30 that eventually will directly conflict with their motive to turn a profit
1001T 1486097724 20<banjomanjo>30 the network is not just the miners, and the miners don't make money without everyone else
1002T 1486097728 18<wingman218> we have 10 months
1003T 1486097734 20* banjomanjo 30shrugs
1004T 1486097743 20<banjomanjo>30 softforks have taken longer than this to roll out before
1005T 1486097801 18<wingman218> We have 10 months and then everyone has to upgrade to start signaling segwit again
1006T 1486097901 18<wingman218> So that we don't run out of flags because of people not upgrading their software
1007T 1486097910 18<Riiume18> <Hey all, I'm going afk, please keep the conversation directed towards the stated goal with an eye towards actionable plans.>
1008T 1486097923 18* Riiume goes afk
1009T 1486097952 18<awfulcrawler18> Would a 2MB hardfork be an acceptable compromise?
1010T 1486097998 20<banjomanjo>30 instead of segwit, no
1011T 1486098012 20<banjomanjo>30 potentially down the line if there is consensus for it, I wouldn't be opposed in practice
1012T 1486098015 18<awfulcrawler18> 2MB + segwit?
1013T 1486098018 20<banjomanjo>30 but that is entirely dependent on segwit
1014T 1486098022 20<banjomanjo>30 not immediately after, no
1015T 1486098025 20<banjomanjo>30 that wouldn't be safe
1016T 1486098039 20<banjomanjo>30 I'd want Schnorr signatures + OWAS first
1017T 1486098046 20<banjomanjo>30 and again, it would be entirely dependent on consensus
1018T 1486098056 20<banjomanjo>30 if everyone is onboard, fine, but if there is contention over it no
1019T 1486098080 20<banjomanjo>30 a hardfork without unanimity over a puny 1 MB increase that does nothing in the longrun is an insane risk to me
1020T 1486098104 18<wingman218> Actually, about that, core should change the end date for segwit activation to five years in the future.
1021T 1486098116 18<awfulcrawler18> 1MB increase either does nothing or is an insane risk...
1022T 1486098129 18<awfulcrawler18> if it 'does nothing' how can it be risky?
1023T 1486098143 24* NLNico has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1024T 1486098160 20<banjomanjo>30 because of the risk of consensus failure if its not unanimous
1025T 1486098175 20<banjomanjo>30 1 MB increase in the long term is just a bandaid that will not last long at all
1026T 1486098197 20<banjomanjo>30 not worth risking a failed hardfork over a bandaid that is in no way even close to a permenant solution
1027T 1486098249 18<wingman218> I don't like the idea of 2mb, But I don't have a problem with a failed hard fork
1028T 1486098268 24* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4824) has left
1029T 1486098273 18<awfulcrawler18> consensus isn't 100% of people agreeing to do the same thing
1030T 1486098274 23* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4823) has joined
1031T 1486098276 20<banjomanjo>30 well then I think you are miscalculating the security model of the network enormously wingman2
1032T 1486098284 24* Riiume (446a9f30@gateway/web/freenode/ip.68.106.159.4824) has left
1033T 1486098286 18<awfulcrawler18> the ETH / ETC fork was a form of consensus as well
1034T 1486098290 20<banjomanjo>30 when it comes to a hardfork, yes it is awfulcrawler
1035T 1486098299 20<banjomanjo>30 ETH/ETC was not a form of consensus
1036T 1486098302 20<banjomanjo>30 it was a consensus failure
1037T 1486098312 18<awfulcrawler18> no it is an emergent property of the decentralized system
1038T 1486098316 20<banjomanjo>30 and it resulted in two separate chains to the economic detriment of both
1039T 1486098324 20<banjomanjo>30 no it wasn't, it was a consensus failure
1040T 1486098329 18<awfulcrawler18> there is no 'failure', there is just the state of the system
1041T 1486098330 20<banjomanjo>30 "emergent property" is a vague buzzword
1042T 1486098336 20<banjomanjo>30 that means "anything that happens" essentially
1043T 1486098340 18<awfulcrawler18> just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean it's a failure
1044T 1486098340 20<banjomanjo>30 thats nonsense
1045T 1486098350 18<awfulcrawler18> 'consensus' as you use it is a vague buzzword
1046T 1486098367 20<banjomanjo>30 no it is not, it is the network maintaining enforcement of the same consensus rules
1047T 1486098376 20<banjomanjo>30 the network diverging is a failure of consensus
1048T 1486098393 18<awfulcrawler18> Network A ----> Network A + network B
1049T 1486098397 18<awfulcrawler18> Network A still exists
1050T 1486098402 18<awfulcrawler18> diverging isfine
1051T 1486098408 20<banjomanjo>30 no it is not
1052T 1486098414 20<banjomanjo>30 it resulted in a loss of value for both chains
1053T 1486098427 18<wingman218> i don't have a problem with that
1054T 1486098428 20<banjomanjo>30 the loss of money on both sides due to the technical shortcomings not modeling diverging forks
1055T 1486098430 20<banjomanjo>30 double spends
1056T 1486098439 20<banjomanjo>30 well guess what wingman2, almost everyone else does
1057T 1486098441 20<banjomanjo>30 this is money
1058T 1486098442 18<awfulcrawler18> that's something you personally have a problem with. Code doesn't care
1059T 1486098450 20<banjomanjo>30 if you don't care about your money maintaining its value, guess what, you are in the wrong place
1060T 1486098473 18<wingman218> no i'm not
1061T 1486098480 18<awfulcrawler18> If you want to compromise you have to accept that you'll have less than 100% agreement
1062T 1486098482 20<banjomanjo>30 I came here in good faith to discuss
1063T 1486098496 20<banjomanjo>30 and so far have been met with nothing but ultimatums for hardforks
1064T 1486098505 20<banjomanjo>30 and a complete dismissal of factual aspects of how this system functions
1065T 1486098525 20<banjomanjo>30 no I don't awfulcrawler
1066T 1486098530 20<banjomanjo>30 if we don't get agree, status quo it is
1067T 1486098545 18<wingman218> nothing but ultimatums for hardforks no hardforks
1068T 1486098564 18<awfulcrawler18> yeah you don't want to compromise. Topic is 'compromise to avoid contentious hardfork'
1069T 1486098572 18<jwinterm18> no ultimatum, no ultimatum, you're the ultimatum
1070T 1486098573 18<awfulcrawler18> good luck
1071T 1486098588 20<banjomanjo>30 no where did I say no hardforks
1072T 1486098597 20<banjomanjo>30 and I literally *just* laid out the conditions under which I would accept one
1073T 1486098623 20<banjomanjo>30 that was unbelievably disingenuous of you to say
1074T 1486098656 18<jwinterm18> if every node and 100% of hash power agrees with hardfork?
1075T 1486098663 18<jwinterm18> that seems...unlikely
1076T 1486098668 20* banjomanjo 30shrugs
1077T 1486098673 18<awfulcrawler18> did I say you said 'no hardforks'...(because I didn't)
1078T 1486098690 20<banjomanjo>30 kicking people off the network they bought into is a complete betrayal of the social contract of bitcoin in my mind
1079T 1486098720 18<awfulcrawler18> forking doesn't kick people off though
1080T 1486098736 20<banjomanjo>30 yes it does, again, you act like the value of a token is irrelevant
1081T 1486098737 20<banjomanjo>30 its not
1082T 1486098754 18<awfulcrawler18> uh...it doesn't. Fork = network A -> network A + network B
1083T 1486098758 18<awfulcrawler18> network A still exists
1084T 1486098762 18<awfulcrawler18> stay on network A
1085T 1486098773 20<banjomanjo>30 you are kicking people off the network in terms of economic network effect
1086T 1486098783 20<banjomanjo>30 effectively the same thing
1087T 1486098785 18<wingman218> yes
1088T 1486098785 18<awfulcrawler18> no people optionally move from A to B
1089T 1486098816 20<banjomanjo>30 and again, I've been over this, its not that simple
1090T 1486098824 20<banjomanjo>30 you ridiculously oversimplify things
1091T 1486098835 20<banjomanjo>30 a diverging fork is counterfeiting a token and its distribution
1092T 1486098842 20<banjomanjo>30 those tokens cost electricity and energy to produce
1093T 1486098851 20<banjomanjo>30 and they are being replicated for essentially free to speculate on
1094T 1486098854 20<banjomanjo>30 i.e. counterfeiting
1095T 1486098901 18<awfulcrawler18> I will launch a new blockchain called dollaridoodle and give all btc holders one dollaridoodle for every bitcoin they have. Have I counterfeited anything?
1096T 1486098969 20<banjomanjo>30 that is not a rational argument, that is a description of a totally different thing
1097T 1486098982 20<banjomanjo>30 its a new token, it is not a diverging fork claiming to be the original network and token
1098T 1486098991 20<banjomanjo>30 that is a wild conflation of two different things
1099T 1486098994 18<awfulcrawler18> it's a thought experiment which describes the same thing as a PoW fork
1100T 1486099000 20<banjomanjo>30 no it doesn't
1101T 1486099001 20<banjomanjo>30 at all
1102T 1486099009 18<awfulcrawler18> it does...exactly
1103T 1486099013 20<banjomanjo>30 no it doesn't
1104T 1486099019 18<awfulcrawler18> this is brick-wall stuff
1105T 1486099024 18<awfulcrawler18> I'll shut up now don't worry
1106T 1486099026 20<banjomanjo>30 its describes a network that results in the same distribution
1107T 1486099028 20<banjomanjo>30 it is not the same thing
1108T 1486099038 20<banjomanjo>30 dude, you are the brick wall here
1109T 1486099046 20<banjomanjo>30 I am actually explaining reasoning behind what I say
1110T 1486099051 20<banjomanjo>30 you just keep asserting things
1111T 1486099058 20<banjomanjo>30 and do not provide any rationalization for it
1112T 1486099085 18<wingman218> anyway
1113T 1486099106 18<wingman218> 12:58 < Riiume> <Hey all, I'm going afk, please keep the conversation directed towards the stated goal with an eye towards
1114T 1486099109 18<wingman218> actionable plans.>
1115T 1486099114 18<wingman218> so
1116T 1486099217 19<wingman2> you like hard forks or not awfulcrawler and banjomanjo doesn't matter. what can we do to make this go smoothly
1117T 1486099238 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for segwit activation to five years in the future.
1118T 1486099247 20<banjomanjo>30 thats not how that works
1119T 1486099253 18<wingman218> what do you think
1120T 1486099255 20<banjomanjo>30 that in itself would require a softfork I believe
1121T 1486099340 20<banjomanjo>30 core can't just "change things"
1122T 1486099347 20<banjomanjo>30 people have to choose to run their updated software
1123T 1486099353 20<banjomanjo>30 they have no control whatsoever beyond writing code
1124T 1486099358 20<banjomanjo>30 the rest is entirely up to the users
1125T 1486099372 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for the possibility of a segwit activation to five years in the future. not the ~10 months it is now.
1126T 1486099380 20<banjomanjo>30 they can't do that!
1127T 1486099389 20<banjomanjo>30 1) people would have to update their clients
1128T 1486099398 20<banjomanjo>30 2) miners would have to softfork to modify BIP9
1129T 1486099405 20<banjomanjo>30 they can't just change shit
1130T 1486099447 18<wingman218> core should change the end date for the possibility of a segwit activation to five years in the future *with a new flag*. not the ~10 months it is now.
1131T 1486099528 19<wingman2> banjomanjo: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/812714fd80e96e28cd288c553c83838cecbfc2d9/src/chainparams.cpp#L97
1132T 1486099599 18<wingman218> We have to start everything again after November 15th, 2017.
1133T 1486099615 18<wingman218> Everyone has to start signaling again.
1134T 1486099726 20<banjomanjo>30 this is ridiculous
1135T 1486099734 20<banjomanjo>30 you want a "compromise" to avoid a contentious hardfork
1136T 1486099750 20<banjomanjo>30 but you want to take the SF solution to things right now, and set it up to hopefully take longer?
1137T 1486099805 20<banjomanjo>30 thats effing ridiculous
1138T 1486099808 18<wingman218> no That's not what that
1139T 1486099831 18<wingman218> It's literally the date segwit dies
1140T 1486099834 20<banjomanjo>30 no its not
1141T 1486099842 20<banjomanjo>30 its the date the bit has to be reset
1142T 1486099852 18<wingman218> well yes
1143T 1486099868 18<wingman218> And then it has to be done all over again
1144T 1486099897 18<wingman218> everyone has to upgrade again
1145T 1486100023 20<banjomanjo>30 so?
1146T 1486100032 18<wingman218> Without that end date, the slow march of time will get us segwit
1147T 1486100033 20<banjomanjo>30 you're suggestion requires updating again anyway
1148T 1486100036 20<banjomanjo>30 wait til then
1149T 1486100093 18<wingman218> Just by everyone and eventually having to upgrade
1150T 1486100104 18<wingman218> *Just by everyone eventually having to upgrade
1151T 1486100220 18<jwinterm18> thread got scrubbed: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5rqvwc/btcnegotiate_on_freenode_a_working_group_to/
1152T 1486100231 18<jwinterm18> imagine that
1153T 1486100241 18<wingman218> bu will die over time if they start having problems keeping up with security fixes and such
1154T 1486100348 18<adam3us18> bitcoin is going through updates anyway, 0.14 is coming in a few months.
1155T 1486100448 18<wingman218> i really don't like that end date
1156T 1486100811 23* vogelito (~Adium@fixed-190-149-187-190-149-151.iusacell.net23) has joined
1157T 1486100899 18<vogelito18> Good night. It would be nice if the logs included the nick, otherwise pretty hard to read