58300+ entries in 0.72s
mircea_popescu:
<punkman> gernika, maybe write up your process/mods
<< also a good idea. submit to mail list, now you can.
mircea_popescu:
<punkman> "Después de encontrar una vulnerabilidad grave en el sistema de voto electrónico a #MSA estan allanando mi casa, los de delitos informaticos."
<< in case anyone else missed it, this country is mostly a parody.
mod6:
<+danielpbarron> height=363856
<< your v0.5.3.1ish node has this height?
mircea_popescu: punkman i had problems with, "artichoke does so well here, it actually STAYED GREEN THROUGH WINTER, suppoirting an inch of snow on its upturned broad leaves. meanwhile, magnolia sapplings grow
< 1inch per year and will never flower"
mircea_popescu:
<punkman> wait until you try to debug plants
<< he has a point there. tho in fairness iirc alf debugged mice at some point.
punkman: "A blockchain that does not validate under 0.5.3 is an altcoin blockchain."
<< both forks were valid in 0.5.3, right?
mircea_popescu: ascii_modem where were the daily forks b/w january (?) and now ?
<< costs a little to make one, nobody cared enough. (also lots of manual intervention and general ducttaping at the miner and relayer level - bitcoin is quickly becoming an excellent makework tool, keeping idiots both employed and in a delusion of importance)
mod6:
<+mircea_popescu> here's what's the idea : after botching the soft fork, it seems illogical that the entire bip system should continue at all.
<< Very much agreed. If someone wants to change something they should write to The Foundation's btc-dev mailing list and submit a patch. And if they can't because they're not in the WoT, well they're not in the WoT. They can make a personal appeal here in person.
mircea_popescu:
<trinque> might be able to just rip those bits off from the dep, then cut off the dep
<<< ahahaha you.
mod6:
<+asciilifeform> has anybody as of this moment received a block past 363734 from mircea_popescu's node ?
<< im a day a way or so yet
mod6:
<+phf> apparently gcc doesn't always include all the necessary pthread bits (not just openbsd but other unixes), which results in segfault on launch
<< on my obsd 5.6 on x86-64 that's the same problem i kept running into; segfault at execution time.
mod6:
<+asciilifeform> phf: you may be the first to achieve openbsd build! consider posting recipe
<< please do!
punkman: "Two other male students, both also 17 years old, came forward as victims after Fichter was arrested."
<< lol assholes
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:
<midnightmagic> Once everyone else started, you stopped. How come?
<< hipsters always move on, boss
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
ben_vulpes:
<decimation> why wouldn't we want a static bitcoind that is correct for all time?
<< we do. midnightmagic does not.
mod6:
<+ben_vulpes>
<< this still hurts, every time i see it
<< awe!
decimation: if (block.nVersion
< 2 && IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, consensusParams.nMajorityRejectBlockOutdated, consensusParams))
mod6:
<+ben_vulpes> Bitcoin 0.5.3 is the canonical reference implementation. If a fork occurs and one side validates on the 0.5.3 codebase while the other does not, the chain that validates under 0.5.3 is the only valid chain.
<< I have nothing further to add to this at this time.
mircea_popescu: Bitcoin Core (after 0.10.0) rejects these invalid blocks, but a lot of other stuff doesn't. SPV Bitcoinj wallets do no validation what-so-ever, blindly following the longest chain. blockchain.info doesn't appear to do validation as well; who knows what else?
<< mircea_popescu: BIP66 protocol rule changes have gone active in part thanks to Antpool and F2Pool's support of it - but their pool appears to not actually be enforcing the new rules, and is now mining invalid blocks
<< lulzy.
ben_vulpes: "Except BIP 66 received 95% support from the relevant group (miners). "
<< ehuehuehehueeueueueueueeeee
ben_vulpes: "The majority of hashing power is mining an invalid chain - it's not going to "win" - they're just wasting their effort."
<< euheuheuheuheuheheehueheuheuheehu
ben_vulpes: "However, this also means they're not checking the new BIP66 rule, and are now mining invalid blocks because of it. (another miner happened to create an invalid, non-BIP66 respecting block) If you're not using Bitcoin Core, you might be accepting transactions that won't be on the longest valid chain when all this is fixed."
<< curious to see if 0.5.whatever comes out on top at the end of this
assbot: Logged on 04-07-2015 03:50:47; mircea_popescu:
<asciilifeform> ben_vulpes, mod6, mircea_popescu, et al: anybody interested in multiprocessorizing bitcoin sig check ?
<< i don't see the benefit.
mircea_popescu:
<ben_vulpes> of the active users.
<< well, like a dozen or so people, spent a month in game last month. so like, 2 hrs / day or somesuch
mircea_popescu:
<assbot> Raising Darwin's Consciousness
<< all this "consciousness" bs reads to me like direct pastiche from "class consciousness" or however that nonsense was translated to english
mircea_popescu:
<asciilifeform> ben_vulpes, mod6, mircea_popescu, et al: anybody interested in multiprocessorizing bitcoin sig check ?
<< i don't see the benefit.
☟︎ mircea_popescu:
<asciilifeform> they'd just all happen to be employees of the house.
<< if you only divulge winning tickets you get the natural occurence of winners + extras.
mod6:
<+asciilifeform> mod6, ben_vulpes ^^^ who wants to try
<< i might be able to give it a go later this weekend ... maybe.