448000+ entries in 0.286s
midnightmagic: Maybe my appraisal is just wrong. Could be. Seems
to me
they're just
taking a breather
to set up
the schism.
ben_vulpes: <midnightmagic> ben_vulpes: Dude man, with
the shit you guys say in here, I have no idea when you're ribbing someone, or promising a spear in
the gut. :( <<
the ambiguity has
to be completely intolerable
ben_vulpes: anyways, chickens run around with
their heads cut off for minutes. what of it?
they still lost
to
the butcher.
midnightmagic: ben_vulpes: Dude man, with
the shit you guys say in here, I have no idea when you're ribbing someone, or promising a spear in
the gut. :(
decimation: why not solidify
the questionable openssl code first, before lightly restricting certain signature forms?
☟︎ ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: re #trollfail it's supposed
to be lighthearted elbows-in-ribs
decimation: with respect
to bip 66 in particular, it's not a
terrible idea, but it strikes me as backwards
decimation: all I can say, for myself, is
that folks write stuff on
this channel, I would read; comment - as would others
ben_vulpes: why bang on about points
that are already settled?
decimation: umm, why would we give a shit about what
they are saying otherwise? I donno bro, you're
the one accusing here.
ben_vulpes: moreover, if
the decisions made here
trickle down
to "bitcoin core", why should we pursue
them further?
decimation: if bitcoin core devs agree with what people here are writing, why don't
they venture here
to make
their case?
trinque: gonna let
this run for a while,
then I'll share
the results
trinque: gcovr outputs a nice html version of
the gcov output
midnightmagic: I presumed your head would explode if I mentioned forbes (due
to its primary bitcoin author being a douchebag), or mainstream media.
ben_vulpes: so we won, and you want
to 3/10
troll on
the
topic?
midnightmagic: You guys *heads* were exploding in here, and
then when "the rest" of
the bitcoin-core devs
took up
the flag you all went quiet again. wtf?
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: reddit?
twitter? d'you want
to roll medium and perhaps bitcointalk.org into
that as well?
midnightmagic: And here
they are, going on little half-drunken joke-rants about how maybe
they should just remove everyone else's commit access and unilaterally
take control again.
decimation: I don't really read reddit or
twitter, but I recall
that gavin captiulated, more or less
midnightmagic: Unless you are implying people outside
the bitcoin world are voracious readers of
the -ass logs, as far as I can
tell in all
the articles, reddit posts,
twitter feeds, etc, I don't see more
than a passing mention. But even if
that weren't so, really I'm a little disappointed
the wind all went out of your sails, as it were.
☟︎ ben_vulpes: <midnightmagic> Yeah, I mean aside from
the grumbling in here which nobody but people *in here* seems
to read. << how could you possible know
decimation: he did a few
times, rather unimpressively
decimation: well, it wasn't me doing any of
this stuff
midnightmagic: For a while you were writing reddit posts and qntra articles and all sorts of stuff. Half
the
time you got Gavin himself "derping" as you put it, in your comments.
midnightmagic: Yeah, I mean aside from
the grumbling in here which nobody but people *in here* seems
to read.
decimation: gavin is mentioned on here from
time
to
time
midnightmagic: it's all a question of how much you
trust your ability
to make code
that converges on consensus. are you so awesome you can either sit on an old openssl, or write your own replacements? are you so godlike you can write
testcases for every corner-case, bugs and all? I know I'm not. Maybe you guys are. I dunno.
☟︎ decimation: start
there and iterate
the code
toward perfection
decimation: his code sucks, I don't deny, but it's
the closest
thing
to a spec
that we have
ben_vulpes: it's all well and good
to say "strip out
the components", i just don't buy
that
that's possible.
midnightmagic: .. which appears
to have been a gavin/hearn originated bug.
midnightmagic: ehh. satoshi's code, bugs and all. we could also stick with bdb and accept
the quirks like
the old accidental fork post-leveldb.
decimation: again, nobody is forcing anybody use a version of openssl
they don't want
to use.
midnightmagic: because, like I said, I
think some people in
there appear
to be adding exploitable code with absurd frequency.
☟︎ midnightmagic: or, do what sipa did and write a secp256k1 lib because
the openssl people don't give a shit
they're wrecking dependencies.
midnightmagic: I'm not pretending
that; I'm explicitly saying, divergence implies
there is no reason
to even *use* openssl at
that point. strip out
the components, use
them, skip openssl entirely, and, I guess,
trust in your ability
to monitor
the progenitor of your codebase for bugs
that *explicitly affect your consensus-critical code*.
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: no less wrong
than what now?
ben_vulpes: decimation: no but you see we need
to slurp
the spitoon because if we don't something
terrifying
that we can't reason about won't happen!
decimation: pretending like others are
there
to solve your problems seems like a poor approach
decimation: understand
the code, make sure it doesn't happen
midnightmagic: well,
then we have
the forking risk I mentioned above: what happens when
the openssl people make a fix or
the internet finds a bug in
the component
that we depend on? If we sit on 0.9.8 or whatever
the version was before
those idiots got
their hands on it and started adding malicious exploits, what happens?
☟︎ ben_vulpes: <decimation> why wouldn't we want a static bitcoind
that is correct for all
time? << we do. midnightmagic does not.
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: you were probably just on
the cusp of killing hitler
too.
decimation: why wouldn't we want a static bitcoind
that is correct for all
time?
decimation: midnightmagic:
the cure
to
that problem is not forcing changes of an uncertain nature, but
to gain certainty in
the codebase
midnightmagic: lol. No, it's not news
to me. Yes, I already knew
that.
midnightmagic: decimation: Nobody, of course.
Then we go back
to static builds and what happens when an actual bug hits and
the fork is so old
that
the fix doesn't backport? How divergent are we willing
to accept?
decimation: why isn't anyone seriously attempting
to extract
the open-ssl code paths used by bitcoin?
☟︎ midnightmagic: I'm familiar with
the DER-encoding change
they made, and I'm aware of, if not familiar with, every major bug in openssl since 2001 or so. Could I draw a line between releases
that had bugs and releases
that fixed
them? No. Not even close.
☟︎ decimation: midnightmagic: who is holding a gun
to your head, requiring you
to update openssl?
decimation: you are subjugating human judgement
to unthinking machinery -
this can never be reasonable
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: art
thou familiar with
the 1.0.1g issue?
midnightmagic: Thus, backing up further,
there is
the legitimacy of BIP66 at all. If it is not legitimate, we have a consensus code failure every
time openssl decides
they want
to change behaviour.
ben_vulpes: just
the network.
that, only
that, no more, no less.
midnightmagic: ben_vulpes: On
that at least, we agree. I agree with
that:
the current hashrate is as illegitimate as a vote of private keys would be in determining a softfork. What else is
there?
midnightmagic: Correct. I am saying your complaint about it being unreasonable is illogical by any measure of
the mining work done:
there *is* no other meaningful window, or measurement, of
the bitcoin network without shifting
to PoS or DPoS. But if you want
to do
that, fork bitshares.
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic: you make
this mistake of letting
the plants control
the conversation. "what's
the right magic number of blocks
to signal fork acceptance?" answer:
there isn't.
there is only
the long-term behavior of
the network.
decimation: nor does
this argument hold for 1000, because
the same argument can be made for 50000
midnightmagic: Regardless, a 1000-block window is not unreasonable if one accepts
that mining hashpower is
the vote
that counts.
ben_vulpes: y'ever hear
the line: "don't feed
the
trolls"?
midnightmagic: ben_vulpes: You would call a bite any response.
That is
the fundamental nature of #trollfail.
midnightmagic: ben_vulpes: #trollfail.
That sort of
thing doesn't work on me, especially when it comes from someone like you.
decimation: no, but it is for profitability in
the face of non-zero electric rates
decimation: unless someone can
tell me exactly how
they are going
to 'get efficient'
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic is ready
to work more student exercises?
decimation: I
think it's likely
to level out in
the coming year or
two, maybe longer
ben_vulpes: decimation is ready
to bet against diff increases?
decimation: also, your argument would also be
true if nMajorityWindow=10000 or 100000
midnightmagic: that is
the inverse of what will happen as more-efficient mining equipment arrives.
☟︎ decimation: also, it's probably not going
to be
true in a year or
two as 14 nm asics fan out and become barely economic
decimation: midnightmagic:
the "amount of work" argument utterly fails
to impress
ben_vulpes: midnightmagic:
this is a basic feature of integrals and curves.
midnightmagic: i'm just saying
that it sounds like a little bit in comparison
to both
time, and integerial block height, but actual work-wise it a significant chunk. again, very unfortunately.
decimation: at any rate, it's not like you couldn't jam it by changing nversion
to an arbitrary value
midnightmagic: decimation: 1000 blocks is a couple percent of all work done ever on
the entire blockchain since inception, and
the current hashrate could rewrite
the entire history up
to something like august 2014 in somewhere close
to
the span of
time
that non-vote
took place over,
times a very small number. :( unfortunately.
assbot: Transition
to requiring block height in block coinbases by gavinandresen · Pull Request #1526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub ... (
http://bit.ly/1LNKrVs )
decimation: one week out of years of doing
things a certain way
decimation: which amounts
to one week of 'voting window'
decimation: hardly 'consensus' in view of
the 363000 block history of bitcoin
decimation: I would also note
that
the bitcoind github commits and comments lie about
the IsSuperMajority machine.
They say
that
the mandatory rejection won't
take effect until 95% of
the blocks are incremented - but in fact it's only 950
☟︎ mod6: i put it out
there on derp-media
too
decimation: as more
than 950 blocks have passed since
the first instance of
the IsSuperMajority machine being used
decimation: I'm fairly certain
that if 0.5.3.1 were used
to mine a block with nVerion=1 it would be rejected
decimation: at any rate
this whole rejection machine can be permanantly jammed by setting nversion
to MAX_INT
☟︎ ben_vulpes: those hafta be
the 2 derpiest
typos of my life.
mod6: yeah, i should have just pointed him
to your blog.
ben_vulpes: "reasons" being
that i wrote a blog post saying "i don't
think much happened after
this"
mod6: anyway, you
think i should have just called him out instead of saying "reasons"?
decimation: where did
this consensus shit enter into
the code base?
mod6: <+ben_vulpes> <<
this still hurts, every
time i see it << awe!
mod6: ok mp says he can see signing
that statement ben_vulpes. go ahead, he'll even sign later when he gets on his other box.