326300+ entries in 2.005s
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: btw, to elaborate on the precedent-of-blocking-addresses bit… Bitcoin is only workable if every transaction uses
a new address anyway, so discouraging reusable ones is
a good thing
Ukyo: dub: it maintains the network. its
a small use case
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: well, mostly because not many people here have
a clue
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: to
a degree. and miners have the freedom to ignore transactions by design.
davout_: well Luke-Jr somehow has
a point, as
a simple node i really have no interest in relaying SD txes
Ukyo: your setting
a president to encourage ppl to block address
iz: so even though
a 0.005 tx fee isn't that much in real currency, it can seem like
a lot if you only have 0.1 BTC to your name
mircea_popescu: all the blathering online
a very vehehehehery distant third.
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: if you want bitcoin to succeed, increasing fees at this point is not
a real option
Luke-Jr: Ukyo: low fees is currently
a point driving bitcoin adoption
Ukyo: most ppl dont care about
a 0.001 txn fee
iz: pigeons: can't they just decide to reject any transactions that have
a tx fee below X?
davout: Luke-Jr: code
a forl that doesn't relay sd txes, i'll use it, seriously.
Namworld: and @davout: Ah well nevermind then. Just
a random proposal, would require rewriting of how bitcoin network accepts transactions.
Ukyo: they are or were
a large portion of txn fees being paidout
mircea_popescu: <jcpham> bitcoin is ruining freenode <<< it is
a testament to bitcoin's state that this statement is true when everyone knows how fucking ruined freenode was to begin with.
jcpham: i've been reading for
a few minutes and i get lost
Namworld: We could probably have
a new "balance" block created every 10k blocks lets say, stating all balances per address, and work with 2 or 3 such balance blocks and cut the previous ones as we go on.
mircea_popescu: Luke-Jr stop arguing like
a stupid cunt. you say something, stand by it. where is the motherfucking unanymous community!
iz: even if you had
a majority of the hashing power
iz: so.. if you have
a majority of the hashing power, but not
a majority of clients.. even if you were to change the bitcoin client rules, you couldn't get these new rules into the block chain
Luke-Jr: Namworld: you have
a genius idea on how?
jcpham: i'm not
a fan of the 5GB blockchain
iz: so.. maybe someone can seriously clear something up for me.. when
a block is validated by the rest of the bitcoin network.. that's done per bitcoin client on the p2p network, right? not scaled with that client's mining power in H/S
dub: (because its no longer possible to run
a node on the hardware I was running it on)
dub: this is
a religious debate, stop it
davout: Luke-Jr: I was under the impression you put words in my mouth, i don't give
a fuck about what goes into the blockchain, be it financial transactions or religious messages if you see what i mean
iz: there's
a difference between the majority of miners and the majority of bitcoin clients on the p2p network
iz: dub: under the scenario you described,
a mining majority could produce
a block that
a different majority of bitcoin clients rejects and disagrees with
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: anything other than
a direct financial transaction is abusing the communal agreement on what the blockchain is for
davout: iz: just because there are rules everybody agrees upon doesn't mean there is
a proper spec, this has been discussed like
a million times, and it is why i wholeheartedly welcome the cbitcoin initiative
dub: iz: of course you can, with
a mining majority
iz: and suddenly have
a new version of bitcoin that is just "better"
kakobreklaa: about nonstandard client making
a rand() return 4; call
Namworld: You can't distinguish
a satoshi from another?
Namworld: So it strictly tracks x.xx goes from
a to b
Luke-Jr: davout: it's
a logical fallacy that mircea_popescu doesn't understand
iz: it would be
a takeover
iz: kakobreklaa: then it wouldn't be
a fork
davout: Luke-Jr: so miners will have
a reduced incentive to mine them. boom, solution is built-in the problem
iz: kakobreklaa: how would you fork
a more profitable bitcoind?
kakobreklaa: anyone can fork
a more profitable bitcoind
davout: Luke-Jr: why would
a block be orphaned because it includes
a SD tx ?
davout: Luke-Jr: i politely beg to differ, it's
a feature, not
a bug, if you do not want these delicious transaction fees, don't mine the SD txes, *boom* problem solved
kakobreklaa: iz there is no iniciative for
a miner not to accept 1satoshi fee TX
iz: kakobreklaa: which is
a much better problem to have
iz: it's because everyone has
a copy of the blockchain
davout: there are like pictures of
a black rod or whatever it is
mircea_popescu: well ok, how's this for public comments : all you boys together don't clear 10k btc
a month.
mircea_popescu: go get 9k usd
a month to pay for electricity and 40 hours week for free.
mircea_popescu: here you are,
a bunch of , as tghe italians say, rotinculo
mircea_popescu: miners that don't mine can find
a job in obama's booming economy
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: also, it's hardly
a consensus when there's 1 person..
Luke-Jr: Anduck: you send to
a one-time-use address to deposit, play as much as you like on the site; when you're done, you enter the withdraw address and it sends the balance back; if you don't do anything for 5-10 mins, it sends it back to where it came by default
mircea_popescu: if you're in the business of mining, trying to save yourself from mining effort seems
a little...
midnightmagic: The issue is that while *we* will save ourselves from mining effort, if it becomes too widely-adopted SD will modify their scheme and it'll be
a kind of arms race after that
midnightmagic: I do view satoshidice as
a particularly pernicious form of evil, for example.
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: There an ancillary issue (for miners at least) for txn verification as well. I don't really view the max block size as an issue, since I have no trouble running multi-TB databases, so I, personally, will have no issue remaining
a node even if maxblocksize increases massively
smickles: i think i recall someone keeping
a log
gesell: is there
a log of the satoshidice secrets (not the hash's of, but the secrets that are published after their use is over)
Bugpowder: someone bot the JUNs for 8995. Not
a believer.
jurov: i've got
a joke for you: "now that we have paid bitcoin devs, they can perhaps make such things simpler"
JWU_42: hrm - so it seems Avalon batch #2 orders was
a fiasco
mircea_popescu: on mpex, yes. there's passthroughs on bitfunder, havelock and btctc, and there's brokers (like coinbr.com, as
a site, like smickles as aperson) that can also help you
j1717: i ave
a bit coin wallet but it is trying to charge
a fee i thought that this was free
mircea_popescu: rthen prolly should take
a little time and learn about it all
thestringpuller: because it's in romanian and I don't have
a translator on dis computer
mircea_popescu:
a ferw months later, "sorry fuck you and here's our site pls to give us jooce"
jurov: yea, and emir kusturic will make
a documentary about mircea
thestringpuller: you need
a better paywall, since now I'm just using proxies to scramble the outbound ip :P
thestringpuller: silk road dope dealers never seemed to get busted despite the dea purportedly having
a budget just for that investigation
thestringpuller: the seller didn't get nabbed so it's kind of
a moot point, since he can't really snitch
mircea_popescu: also prevent people from selling at
a loss/buying at
a risk.
mircea_popescu: the old vwap was just replaced with
a new, much faster, lighter version