Price goes up, more coins circulate. Surprise Surprise.

There are certainly many coins lost.  How many? no one knows, and no one's guesses are likely to be worth much.

Many coins haven't moved recently but will still move again in the future.

Some coins that are stationary on the blockchain are, in fact, rapidly circulating... as physical bitcoins,  amounts in exchange accounts,  or in payment channels.

Someday we might even have coins that are moving on the blockchain, but which are effectively lost and essentially out of circulation!

Did you know it wasn't originally called Bitcointalk?  Learn more about the history of the name change by reading the discussions that drove it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5203621.0

I realized I missed the earlier part of the discussion. If you read the logs earlier and found them interesting, go back to the top!

Theymos, thanks for the example-- I felt a little uneasy about being specific about some of the more crazy stuff that was posted early on, your example using Ross' announcement of silk road is a great example.

The problem you have with that is that an unacceptably high number of people who end up incarcerated ... kinda suck.  Certainly not all, and I don't mean to suggest that they deserve to be in jail because of it. But a lot of people are addicted, stupid, or just dysfunctional in various difficult or impossible to cure ways that contribute to them making the sort of bad decisions which predictably end up with them in jail.

The military doesn't want those folks: Even as cannon fodder-- if you can ignore the moral problems with ever using a human that way-- they can be more trouble than they're worth.

Already one of the serious moral problems with the military is that participation to is isn't particularly voluntary for many people:  Many people feel forced into service because their economic situation leaves them justifyably feeling they have few other options. Beyond the ethical issues of forcing people into life threatening situations, a non-voluntary participant has an even weaker position to stand up against abuses of military power. A penal participant would be far worse.

And then there is the question of incentives:  If prisoners frequently go into the military to avoid sitting in a cell that creates a powerful incentive for the state to create more prisoners.

I think it should probably be considered a human rights abuse to make any use of prisoners which doesn't benefit the prisoner (or at most their fellow prisoners) primarily such as education, therapy, or employment like activities *at market rates* where all the proceeds would go to them when they leave prison. Perhaps it would be okay for them to defray their incarceration costs up to whatever they'd be spending for housing/food outside of prison, but I think even that is sketchy. They certainly shouldn't be performing public service as a prisoner (though I think limited amounts of public service is an alternative to incarceration). I think this should hold even where the prisoner would voluntarily agree otherwise just like how someone can't consensually enter into slavery. -- it isn't as if an incarcerated person can ever actually consent in any case: Consent under duress isn't consent.  Anything else has too much risk of bad incentives, and when it comes to locking people up-- that isn't a place where society should be tolerant of bad incentives.

I didn't mean to give the impression that anything I mentioned is a fix-- they're all just incremental steps. The way I look at it, attacks are a question of incentives so even if we can just increase the cost a little or the effectiveness a little, or even just the uncertainty of the effectiveness, we're making it less likely that an attack is even attempted.

w/ Taproot you reveal only the clause you are executing, but not any of the other independent clauses.  So, for example, if your use case is only distinguishable by the sum total of the options from other activity-- then taproot hides it.  For example: if your spending possibilities might be "Cooperation" or "fallback A" or "fallback B"  and each of these options occurs separately as options in other kinds of transaction that miners wouldn't want to block, then yours can't be distinguished because all the miners see is the one option you used.

Just the fact that cooperation is indistinguishable from a boring spend is valuable on its own however--- for example,  the fact that miners could collude to make a particular fallback branch unreliable but users could still cooperate means that they couldn't e.g. straightforwardly freeze all funds that had been setup for use with that particular contract--  only those funds that were AND where cooperation wasn't possible.

I probably should have also mentioned P2SH as a big advance in this area (since it prevents block outputs with a specific script structure),  also scriptless scripts as useful ongoing research work along these same lines.

Edit: I found an earlier conversation that gave more context which I was a part of, so I tagged that on the top-- and now it no longer looks like I didn't agree with the move.

For transparency sake, since I wasn't a part of that particular discussion, at least in public-- it might look like I didn't agree with the move, but I did.

See, for example, this later discussion:

2011-06-28 18:00:33 <ius>   What's moving the forums going to help by the way? Afraid you'll end up with the same clutter soon enough. Policies, policies, or something
2011-06-28 18:00:57 <luke-jr>   ius: forum mod refuses to censor illegal activity
2011-06-28 18:01:20 <jgarzik>   ius: well one goal is to get forum off of *.bitcoin.org, to make it "less official", in part due to reasons luke-jr just stated
2011-06-28 18:01:30 <jgarzik>   ius: and de-link from front page, hopefully
2011-06-28 18:01:31 <gmaxwell>   Not just 'refuses to censor illegal activity' but won't even make people be subtle about it.
2011-06-28 18:02:05 <gmaxwell>   Even if you don't care about illegality, it's tacky.


Someone should remind me sometime and I'll write about when I was offered stewardship of the bitcoin.org domain and how glad I am I didn't accept it.

Bitcointalk was originally a forum under www.bitcoin.org/smf/ and then later on a subdomain at forums.bitcoin.org but it isn't anymore.

Here is the 2011 announcement, but it doesn't give the backstory.

It seems like people have been systematically nuking logs of Bitcoin's history off the Internet for whatever reason, so many of you who weren't personally there and involved in 2011 probably have not seen this bit of history.

I'll just let the chat logs tell the story of why it was moved and how it got the name bitcointalk.

(I've trimmed out some irrelevant cross-talk and bolded a few lines for interesting events)


2011-06-12 01:47:41 <ArtForz>   gaah, I'm gone for 3 days and someone lets the trolls on the forums?
2011-06-12 01:51:52 <noagendamarket>   the trolls are really bad
2011-06-12 01:51:57 <ArtForz>   yup
2011-06-12 01:52:13 <ArtForz>   are the forum mods on vacation or something?
2011-06-12 01:52:21 <noagendamarket>   anyone would think they unleashed the troll army
2011-06-12 01:53:13 <noagendamarket>   It feels like world of warcraft
2011-06-12 01:54:55 <jgarzik>   ArtForz: sigh
2011-06-12 01:55:08 <jgarzik>   ArtForz: current email discussion between devs + prominent bitcoiners, about that.
2011-06-12 01:55:26 <jgarzik>   ArtForz: we have concluded the forums are totally useless.  Gavin just created bitcoin-development mailing list.
2011-06-12 01:55:39 <jgarzik>   ArtForz: current forum mods are "anti censorship"
2011-06-12 01:56:10 <MC1984>   still trying to stir fud
2011-06-12 01:56:13 <gjs278>   where is the list
2011-06-12 01:56:45 <jgarzik>   ArtForz: Long term, one proposal is to swap weusecoins forum with current forum, and enforce "business professional" code of conduct on the new forum
2011-06-12 01:56:49 <jgarzik>   gjs278: sourceforge
2011-06-12 01:57:03 <gjs278>   ok
2011-06-12 01:57:23 <ArtForz>   jgarzik: soudns good
2011-06-12 01:58:14 <ArtForz>   trying to read up in the general and mining forums... ugh.
2011-06-12 01:58:18 <jgarzik>   indeed
2011-06-12 02:00:00 <dirtyfilthy>   i think somethingawful good squad has been deployed
2011-06-12 02:00:05 <noagendamarket>   yep
2011-06-12 02:00:20 <noagendamarket>   someone paid a bounty to have their site hacked
2011-06-12 02:00:26 <noagendamarket>   lol
2011-06-12 02:01:27 <jgarzik>   anyway, until the forum swap, we need triage
2011-06-12 02:01:36 <jgarzik>   either "no newbie posts" or "newbies cannot create threads" or somesuch
2011-06-12 02:01:47 <ArtForz>   how about "nuke it from orbit" ?
2011-06-12 02:01:58 <ArtForz>   j/k
2011-06-12 02:02:07 <ArtForz>   well, it's the only way to be sure...
2011-06-12 02:02:09 <jgarzik>   
...
2011-06-12 02:16:50 <MC1984>   wow the bitcoin forums are irredeemable
2011-06-12 02:31:39 <jgarzik>   MC1984: yes
2011-06-12 02:37:04 <brocktice>   MC1984: Yeah I haven't delved in  much lately, I hear it's troll central?
2011-06-12 02:38:16 <noagendamarket>   the forums hit a trollberg
2011-06-12 02:40:43 <Diablo-D3>   the bitcoin forums are just too high traffic
2011-06-12 02:40:48 <theymos>   Who here uses the forum a lot and wants to be a mod?
2011-06-12 02:40:49 <Diablo-D3>   I dont read any of it except very specific threads
2011-06-12 02:40:54 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: me.
2011-06-12 02:41:04 <Diablo-D3>   I just want mod powers on the mining part
2011-06-12 02:41:37 <jgarzik>   theymos: will you give me permission to lock just about even damn thread?    or prevent newbies from creating new threads?
2011-06-12 02:41:38 <theymos>   Your account is "DiabloD3"?
2011-06-12 02:41:42 <jgarzik>   *every
2011-06-12 02:41:54 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: yes
2011-06-12 02:41:57 <theymos>   No point in locking them -- just delete troll threads.
2011-06-12 02:42:05 <jgarzik>   that works too
2011-06-12 02:42:14 <noagendamarket>   lock them unless you have certain post levels
2011-06-12 02:42:30 <theymos>   They're all backed up in case of false positives. There's too much junk. Lots needs to be deleted.
2011-06-12 02:42:37 <jgarzik>   yep
2011-06-12 02:42:57 <jgarzik>   theymos: and _please_ don't post a "moved" or "deleted" thread, for each one...
2011-06-12 02:42:58 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: you can set it so only established users can start threads
2011-06-12 02:43:00 <jgarzik>   shades of Kiba
2011-06-12 02:43:22 <theymos>   I'm going to prevent non-established posters from posting at all for a while.
2011-06-12 02:43:46 <Diablo-D3>   why not just turn registrations off for awhile
2011-06-12 02:43:52 <Diablo-D3>   OOH
2011-06-12 02:43:53 <Diablo-D3>   I KNOW
2011-06-12 02:43:55 <Diablo-D3>   HEY THEYMOS
2011-06-12 02:44:03 <Diablo-D3>   MAKE PEOPLE PAY BTC FOR NEW ACCOUNT
2011-06-12 02:44:13 <theymos>   jgarzik and Diablo are now global moderators (for now). Please only delete spam and trolling.
2011-06-12 02:44:33 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: how do I sticky threads?
2011-06-12 02:44:39 <theymos>   Don't sticky threads.
...
2011-06-12 03:07:07 <jgarzik>   theymos: how/where do I delete an entire thread?
2011-06-12 03:07:25 <jgarzik>   theymos: I see 'Delete' beside each post, but not at top where I would expect
2011-06-12 03:07:28 <theymos>   jgarzik: Bottom of the thread, "remove topic".
2011-06-12 03:08:26 <jgarzik>   theymos: tnx
2011-06-12 03:09:13 <theymos>   SMF is really not good for fighting trolls. It's too much work to take any administrative action. I used to moderate on a site where moderation was so easy a single person could fight an active invasion of twice this size or more. Probably I'll make modifications in this area once I get time.
2011-06-12 03:13:10 <jgarzik>   theymos: ugh
2011-06-12 03:13:17 <jgarzik>   theymos: fscking impossible, with the forum so slow
2011-06-12 03:13:19 <jgarzik>   I give up
2011-06-12 03:13:29 <theymos>   It seems pretty fast to me.
2011-06-12 03:14:07 <jgarzik>   theymos: deleting 1,001 troll threads one at a time is... tedious, even if it only takes ~10-20 seconds per thread
2011-06-12 03:14:27 <theymos>   jgarzik: enable quick-moderation in your profile settings. You'll get checkboxes for threads.
2011-06-12 03:15:14 <theymos>   Here's the page with the setting: https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35;sa=theme . It's near the bottom.
2011-06-12 03:15:24 <noagendamarket>   can we get a proper forum software ffs
2011-06-12 03:15:29 <jgarzik>   theymos: that helps
2011-06-12 03:15:34 <genewitch>   theymos: i've been posting all day... it just blocked me out after 6 hours
2011-06-12 03:15:42 <theymos>   genewitch: I just changed the policy.
2011-06-12 03:16:38 <jgarzik>   theymos: can we disable animated images?
2011-06-12 03:16:40 <theymos>   genewitch: I will whitelist you. Just a moment.
2011-06-12 03:16:44 <genewitch>   Thank you sir.
2011-06-12 03:16:48 <jgarzik>   theymos: image spam drowns out a lot of threads, too
2011-06-12 03:16:49 <genewitch>   or ma'am
2011-06-12 03:17:44 <Diablo-D3>   dear lord
2011-06-12 03:17:48 <Diablo-D3>   the rest of the forum
2011-06-12 03:17:51 <Diablo-D3>   is whacko bullshit
2011-06-12 03:17:57 <theymos>   Delete it all.
2011-06-12 03:18:03 <luke-jr>   theymos: what will it take to split the dev/mining forums appropriately?
2011-06-12 03:18:04 <Diablo-D3>   http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15351.msg204817
2011-06-12 03:18:08 <Diablo-D3>   this thread for one
2011-06-12 03:18:42 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: think I should nuke it? its troll vs troll vs troll cagematch kinda shit
2011-06-12 03:19:05 <theymos>   I locked it because there seemed to be some OK responses. But I dont' really care.
2011-06-12 03:19:27 <Diablo-D3>   so I can nuke it? I dont think we really need this shit even readable
2011-06-12 03:19:34 <theymos>   Sure.
2011-06-12 03:19:42 <luke-jr>   eek, does Diablo-D3 have mod access? :>   
2011-06-12 03:19:44 <genewitch>   I didn't notice much spam on the devel boards
2011-06-12 03:19:55 <luke-jr>   genewitch: it could use categorization though
2011-06-12 03:19:59 <Diablo-D3>   15_year_old_blonde probably should be banned too
2011-06-12 03:20:07 <theymos>   Diablo-D3: Already done.
2011-06-12 03:20:13 <luke-jr>   genewitch: for the many different softwares or at least types of software
2011-06-12 03:20:34 <genewitch>   do i have to delete a cookie to get my "reply" button back?
2011-06-12 03:20:55 <theymos>   genewitch: Are you able to post now?
2011-06-12 03:21:52 <genewitch>   theymos: no, not in the Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Project Development
2011-06-12 03:21:55 <genewitch>   threads
2011-06-12 03:21:58 <theymos>   genewitch: Oh, wait. It didn't work. It might take me a bit to figure this out.
...
2011-06-12 03:31:03 <luke-jr>   theymos: why the heck is Diablo-D3 a mod? he's a freaking troll
2011-06-12 03:31:56 <theymos>   luke-jr: Maybe that will help him to identify other trolls.
...
2011-06-12 03:33:19 <theymos>   Global mods made tonight are probably temporary. This mess just needs to be cleaned up. Though DiabloD3 will probably stay at least a local mod of mining, since he is a long-time community member with expertise in this area.
...
2011-06-12 04:02:40 <jgarzik>   theymos: is there any way to make someone read-only (disable posting)?  Atlas isn't too happy about the animated image thing
2011-06-12 04:03:25 <jgarzik>   theymos: I don't want to ban him, though
2011-06-12 04:03:27 <theymos>   jgarzik: What animated image thing?
2011-06-12 04:03:28 <genewitch>   jgarzik: not here, and there's no errors whatsoever :-/ but clients can connect to it, and bitcoind hands out work just fine, and the frontend is assigning passwords and stuff
2011-06-12 04:03:35 <jgarzik>   theymos: animated image signature
2011-06-12 04:03:59 <theymos>   Are you deleting all of his posts because he has an animated signature?
2011-06-12 04:04:19 <jgarzik>   Diablo-D3: I don't want to ban him permanently
2011-06-12 04:04:24 <jgarzik>   theymos: damn right I am
2011-06-12 04:04:33 <luke-jr>   ………….
2011-06-12 04:04:33 <Diablo-D3>   jgarzik: well, give him a warning
2011-06-12 04:04:37 <Diablo-D3>   be an annoying fucker again
2011-06-12 04:04:38 <Diablo-D3>   its perm
2011-06-12 04:04:44 <theymos>   That's not cool. He has lots of good posts. I'll just remove his signature.
2011-06-12 04:04:45 <jgarzik>   Diablo-D3: already done -- and already ignored
2011-06-12 04:05:10 <jgarzik>   <shrug> he refuses to change his sig.  making a personal stand.  I presume he will just change his sig back.
2011-06-12 04:05:13 <Diablo-D3>   images shouldnt be allowed in sigs
2011-06-12 04:05:20 <jgarzik>   Diablo-D3: 1000% agreed
2011-06-12 04:06:10 <jgarzik>   theymos: whatever makes his sig stop appearing, that's fine
2011-06-12 04:12:51 <theymos>   jgarzik is no longer a moderator because I now have to restore like 50 of Atlas's posts...
2011-06-12 04:21:11 <jgarzik>   theymos: <rolls eyes>
2011-06-12 04:21:21 <jgarzik>   Just confirms that the forum is toast
2011-06-12 04:21:29 <Diablo-D3>   the forum has too much fucking traffic
2011-06-12 04:21:33 <Diablo-D3>   but I think I saved the mining forum
2011-06-12 04:21:37 <Diablo-D3>   er, section
2011-06-12 04:21:45 <gmaxwell>   :-/
2011-06-12 04:21:50 <gmaxwell>   The forum is a cesspool.
2011-06-12 04:21:51 <jgarzik>   Diablo-D3: bitcoin-development list was just created @ SF by Gavin
2011-06-12 04:21:56 <jgarzik>   devs agree
2011-06-12 04:22:08 <gmaxwell>   I don't know what posts that jgarzik moderated, but I find it hard to believe that it wasn't crap.
2011-06-12 04:22:09 <Diablo-D3>   jgarzik: url?
2011-06-12 04:22:16 <jgarzik>   and it's utterly impossible to show forum to reporters or business professionals
2011-06-12 04:22:50 <jgarzik>   Diablo-D3: https://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=244765
2011-06-12 04:23:31 <theymos>   The forum is more than just Bitcoin development. It is (supposed to be) a good, low-moderation forum for discussion of many topics. Moderation needs to be increased when there is a ton of trolls, however.
2011-06-12 04:23:44 <gmaxwell>   What jgarzik said. I'm embarassed to tell friends about bitcoin for fear that they'll load the forums and find a wall of dickhead blabbering on about black helicopters and prediction markets for killing babies or whatever.
2011-06-12 04:24:28 <Diablo-D3>   yeah
2011-06-12 04:24:34 <jgarzik>   discussion among devs + major exchange ops + major pool ops seems to lean towards swapping weusecoins forum with current forum
2011-06-12 04:24:45 <jgarzik>   and then pushing for "business professional" conduct
2011-06-12 04:25:14 <Graet>   i like that
2011-06-12 04:25:50 <Graet>   is there somwhere small/new pool owners can join to observe (apart from in here?)
2011-06-12 04:25:58 <gmaxwell>   I do too. I'm not really too concerned with people being rude as I am about people being crazy. But asking people to behave professional is probable adequate.
2011-06-12 04:26:31 <noagendamarket>   jgarzik that sounds like an excellent idea
2011-06-12 04:26:36 <genewitch>   people who own fast video cards generally aren't professional
2011-06-12 04:26:41 <genewitch>   i'm just throwing that out there.
2011-06-12 04:27:32 <jgarzik>   genewitch: and they can stay on the "old" forum after the switch...
2011-06-12 04:27:38 <jgarzik>   genewitch: you're not wrong, though
2011-06-12 04:28:13 <theymos>   A separate professional forum is fine, but I like the "unprofessional" forum.
2011-06-12 04:28:58 <gmaxwell>   genewitch: Even most 14 year olds can behave if required to. I don't see the problem there.
2011-06-12 04:29:07 <jgarzik>   theymos: it needs to move away from *.bitcoin.org
2011-06-12 04:29:19 <noagendamarket>   just make the current forum nsfw/unregulated as a section in the new forum
2011-06-12 04:29:34 <jgarzik>   noagendamarket: no, that just leads downhill quickly
2011-06-12 04:29:46 <genewitch>   e.g. 4chan
2011-06-12 04:29:51 <jgarzik>   yes
2011-06-12 04:29:58 <gmaxwell>   theymos: sure, there should be a forum to shitcan the nutbags into so they can talk about buying babymulching with bitcon without bothering everyone else.
2011-06-12 04:30:25 <gmaxwell>   genewitch: "the letter b means bitcoin, go post over there"
2011-06-12 04:30:25 <theymos>   I happen to like 4chan...
2011-06-12 04:30:33 <Netsniper>   you can buy babymulchers with bitcoins?
2011-06-12 04:31:00 <nanotube>   theymos: what about making a mod queue, assuming we can get enough reasonable people to be mods? before post goes live, has to be approved?
2011-06-12 04:31:13 <gmaxwell>   Netsniper: dunno but if so you'd expect to learn all about it in graphic detail on the bitcoin forums.
2011-06-12 04:31:37 <nanotube>   theymos: can mark certain users as perma-ok, so only need to do this on new people. good way to thwart trollwaves?
2011-06-12 04:31:54 <gmaxwell>   nanotube:  I think theymos already commented on what he thought about reasonable moderation above when he commented on jgarzik moderating.
2011-06-12 04:32:35 <theymos>   nanotube: I'd be OK with that (for new users). Maybe only enabled when there are lots of trolls.
2011-06-12 04:32:46 <nanotube>   theymos: right, a 'panic mode'
2011-06-12 04:32:52 <theymos>   Yes.
2011-06-12 04:32:54 <noagendamarket>   heh
2011-06-12 04:32:57 <nanotube>   gmaxwell:
2011-06-12 04:33:12 <theymos>   I increased required time between posts to 5 minutes. I bet that'll help.
2011-06-12 04:33:31 <nanotube>   how hard would it be to implement? does that come built into smf, the mod-queue bits?
2011-06-12 04:33:46 <gmaxwell>   That will just annoy normal users and the crapflooders who don't know how to select tor exits, no?
2011-06-12 04:33:55 <nanotube>   Graet: cheers
2011-06-12 04:34:01 <Graet>   
2011-06-12 04:34:03 <theymos>   nanotube: It doesn't come built in.
2011-06-12 04:34:11 <nanotube>   gmaxwell: based on user accounts, not ips.
2011-06-12 04:34:24 <nanotube>   gmaxwell: and based on account age
2011-06-12 04:34:44 <nanotube>   so 'normal users' who are not made-this-week, won't see any changes, ideally.
2011-06-12 04:34:48 <theymos>   I would totally redesign the forum system if I had time. The current moderation scheme is very bad.
2011-06-12 04:35:09 <nanotube>   theymos: well, how about phpbb's system? that seems to be the most popular forum sw
2011-06-12 04:35:19 <nanotube>   though i can't say i have experience with it myself
2011-06-12 04:35:23 <theymos>   That's just about the same, IIRC.
2011-06-12 04:35:28 <jgarzik>   [ANN] New bitcoin development mailing list - http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15527.0
2011-06-12 04:35:31 <nanotube>   theymos: iow, also shitty?
2011-06-12 04:35:50 <nanotube>   jgarzik: who controls who's allowed to post? hope that's moderated.
2011-06-12 04:36:47 <gmaxwell>   nanotube: usually unmoderating new users on the first good post, and then kicking off people who are complete idiots is more than enough.
2011-06-12 04:37:04 <gmaxwell>   I think most of the problems on the forums are a few jerks plus an overall stupid culture.
2011-06-12 04:37:12 <Diablo-D3>   theymos: so, lets see if my plan cuts down on the absolute bullshit that is the miner section
2011-06-12 04:37:15 <Diablo-D3>   gmaxwell: dude
2011-06-12 04:37:18 <Diablo-D3>   90% of people
2011-06-12 04:37:20 <Diablo-D3>   suck dick
2011-06-12 04:37:40 <Diablo-D3>   hitler was wrong... why kill jews when you can ground stupid people up for cat food?
2011-06-12 04:37:42 <gmaxwell>   Diablo-D3: most people can pretend to be reasonable if they know that its required and expected.
2011-06-12 04:37:50 <Diablo-D3>   gmaxwell: bullshit
2011-06-12 04:38:03 <nanotube>   gmaxwell: that'd work just as well. as long as there's /some/ barrier to entry, in addition to just creating an account.
2011-06-12 04:38:06 <Diablo-D3>   do I have to go find the commercial from that one movie theatre that bans text messages?
2011-06-12 04:38:28 <gmaxwell>   I mean, I assume you have a job and such— and that you don't act like you do on IRC everywhere else…
2011-06-12 04:38:31 <gmaxwell>   
2011-06-12 04:39:57 <jgarzik>   nanotube: unmoderated... we'll see what happens
2011-06-12 04:40:10 <theymos>   Anyone want to be a mod for the newbie section? It's going too fast for me to handle.
2011-06-12 04:40:18 <jgarzik>   nanotube: I doubt 4chan people know what email is
2011-06-12 04:40:38 <nanotube>   jgarzik: haha they can probably read wikipedia about it and figure it out, given sufficient time, though.
2011-06-12 04:40:41 <theymos>   You know, there are plenty of very good discussions on 4chan outside of /b/...
2011-06-12 04:40:45 <Diablo-D3>   gmaxwell: nope, I pretty much wont stand for bullshit anywhere
2011-06-12 04:41:19 <nanotube>   theymos: what's the newbie section? must be new? is it "people with accounts < 1week old can only post here" board? or some such?
2011-06-12 04:41:20 <gmaxwell>   nanotube: if it gets too bad require new users pay 1btc to the faucet to join.
2011-06-12 04:41:21 <genewitch>   i may be biased but as i mentioned earlier xkcd forums sort of automod anyone that posts pictures, links, etc in the first 10 posts, and usually require the first post to be in a huge newbie introduction thread.
2011-06-12 04:41:35 <genewitch>   it's a tiny barrier to entry, that will shuffle out all but the most anal of trolls
2011-06-12 04:42:02 <gmaxwell>   genewitch: barriers to entry usually toss more good users than trolls... you only notice the troll reduction.
2011-06-12 04:42:05 <theymos>   nanotube: Yes, though it's based on post counts since SMF doesn't support age restrictions (or at least not both age+post, which is necessary).
2011-06-12 04:42:08 <nanotube>   gmaxwell: haha indeed, that'd be cool.
2011-06-12 04:42:47 <nanotube>   theymos: ah i see. well, the ability to pump up post count by spamming the newbie section seems... counterproductive.
2011-06-12 04:42:51 <gmaxwell>   genewitch: a troll is trying to cause trouble and is burning effort to do it. A good person is probably instead trying to do _you_ a favor. Making it cost more to do you good isn't a good tradeoff.
2011-06-12 04:43:01 <theymos>   nanotube: That's why mods are needed.
2011-06-12 04:43:23 <nanotube>   so is that section auto-moderated? i.e., post doesn't make it through before mod lets it?
2011-06-12 04:43:26 <genewitch>   i would mod if i had time
2011-06-12 04:43:36 <theymos>   nanotube: Nope, SMF doesn't support that, either.
...
2011-06-14 17:59:54 <topi`>   jgarzik: what's your issue with drugs, anywys?
2011-06-14 18:00:18 <topi`>   of course drugs ought to be mentioned whenever somebody mentions bitcoin
2011-06-14 18:00:35 <sipa>   ...
2011-06-14 18:00:43 <topi`>   it's just unfortunate that drugs are not mentioned whenever people talk about plain chas.
2011-06-14 18:00:46 <topi`>   cash.
2011-06-14 18:00:54 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: only if you want to give schumer and his ilk more ammo ...
2011-06-14 18:01:02 <topi`>   sorry to come in the discussion too late wife needed help with homework
2011-06-14 18:01:22 <topi`>   jrmithdobbs: I regard that as a problem internal to the USA
2011-06-14 18:01:46 <topi`>   although I'm losing faith that something as stupid would not happen in european politics.
2011-06-14 18:01:58 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: whether you like or not us legislation against bitcoin will have global consequences
2011-06-14 18:02:11 <topi`>   jrmithdobbs: that remains to be seen (I don't believe that personally)
2011-06-14 18:02:30 <topi`>   some african countries will find out that they benefit immensely from things like bitcoin
2011-06-14 18:02:35 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: just like anti-internet-gambling laws, KYC, etc haven't had global implications *rolleyes*
2011-06-14 18:02:38 <topi`>   of course Mugabe will try to ban it
2011-06-14 18:03:03 <jrmithdobbs>   (if you don't catch the sarcasm they ... they very obviously have)
2011-06-14 18:03:21 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: or the DMCA etc, the list goes on
2011-06-14 18:03:44 <topi`>   yep, it all started with DMCA
2011-06-14 18:03:51 <topi`>   I think it was already back in 2000
2011-06-14 18:04:10 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: point was, us legislation against is detrimental no matter what you think of the US and it's foreign policy
2011-06-14 18:04:20 <topi`>   but I have funded EFF, for what it's worth, in order to fight these things
2011-06-14 18:04:28 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: therefore distancing official stances from LOL DRUGS LOL and silkroad is beneficial.
2011-06-14 18:04:30 <TD>   well, the EFF didn't want your donations, it turns out
2011-06-14 18:04:41 <TD>   they're giving the funding back, perhaps to the faucet
2011-06-14 18:04:49 <TD>   (i mean the bitcoin funding)
2011-06-14 18:05:01 <jrmithdobbs>   TD: they couldn't figure out how to tax it / etc
2011-06-14 18:05:18 <cosurgi>   forum is slashdotted?
2011-06-14 18:05:28 <TD>   topi`: anyway the people actually doing work don't tend to agree with you
2011-06-14 18:05:36 <jrmithdobbs>   diki: "patterns" always emerge to those looking for them. they're usually false patterns.
2011-06-14 18:05:47 <TD>   topi`: if you think it's a good idea to heavily promote criminal behavior as a use case for bitcoin, you need to familiarize yourself with the eGold case
2011-06-14 18:05:50 <topi`>   TD: what kind of work?
2011-06-14 18:05:50 <diki>   i sincerely hope
2011-06-14 18:05:55 <diki>   that you are not right
2011-06-14 18:05:58 <TD>   topi`: writing code. running exchanges, etc
2011-06-14 18:06:06 <topi`>   TD: drugs aren't criminal things in some countries
2011-06-14 18:06:12 <TD>   no, but they are in many
2011-06-14 18:06:17 <topi`>   alcohol is a drug, for what it's worth
2011-06-14 18:06:17 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: doesn't matter
2011-06-14 18:06:18 <TD>   like the countries where developers live
2011-06-14 18:06:32 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: all the actual work on bitcoin and related software is verifiably being done in places where they are illegal
2011-06-14 18:06:53 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: you realise that anti-bitcoin legislation would make jgarzik and gavin criminals defacto, right?
2011-06-14 18:06:59 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: you understand why this is bad, right?
2011-06-14 18:07:11 <TD>   sadly a lot of people jumping on the bitcoin bandwagon, apparently don't understand that
2011-06-14 18:07:32 <jrmithdobbs>   topi`: if the lead devs can no longer contribute because of legal hassles it will come tumbling down
2011-06-14 18:07:50 <jeremias>   hmm
2011-06-14 18:08:02 <jeremias>   isn't bitcoin software pretty stable currently
2011-06-14 18:08:09 <TD>   it needs constant work to keep up with the network scaling
2011-06-14 18:08:18 <TD>   not having devs is not an option. the system is already creaking under the load
...
2011-06-14 18:10:04 <TD>   anyway, bitcoin has no future as a purely black market currency, because you need to be able to exchange with existing currencies
2011-06-14 18:14:14 <TD>   anyway. to get back "on topic", public service announcement:   do not promote drugs or other criminal activity as a legitimate use case of bitcoin
...
2011-06-15 03:29:06 <jgarzik>   theymos: what's the status on moving the forums to another domain?
2011-06-15 03:29:42 <theymos>   I don't like the idea, so I'm not going to do it. Sirius can do it if he wants.
2011-06-15 03:31:59 <jgarzik>   rather unilateral, for a decentralized project
...
2011-06-15 03:35:29 <jgarzik>   genewitch: no, pretty much the entire dev team, major pool operators, major exchange ops, and lots of users think the forums have become a ghetto, and are becoming an embarrassment to the bitcoin project
2011-06-15 03:35:44 <jgarzik>   one person disagrees
2011-06-15 03:35:55 <genewitch>   jgarzik: ask moot to make a /bc/ topic
2011-06-15 03:36:02 <jgarzik>   rofl
2011-06-15 03:36:22 <genewitch>   i only see the dev forums and the pool forums sometimes, so i don't see the ghetto.
2011-06-15 03:37:09 <genewitch>   jgarzik: so the dev team and pool operators want a seperate more professional forum?
2011-06-15 03:37:41 <jgarzik>   genewitch: a more professional forum, yes, but more importantly stop presenting the current forum as "The Official Bitcoin Project Forum"
2011-06-15 03:38:04 <jgarzik>   which it's not, with so many major peeps abandoning it
2011-06-15 03:38:14 <theymos>   I'm in support of not presenting it as the official forum. I just don't want to move it from bitcoin.org.
2011-06-15 03:38:29 <jgarzik>   theymos: anything on bitcoin.org is clearly official
2011-06-15 03:38:49 <theymos>   Let's change that perception.
2011-06-15 03:39:03 <genewitch>   jgarzik: you want the "good" forums on forum.bitcoin.org and the current forums on a different domain?
2011-06-15 03:39:10 <jgarzik>   theymos: show me _one_ other person who actually thinks that is possible.  just one.
2011-06-15 03:39:26 <theymos>   I'm sure I could find someone if I asked around.
2011-06-15 03:39:42 <jgarzik>   bitcoin.org was started by satoshi, and it's all over the print media, online media, search engines and ... duh .. it matches the project's name.
2011-06-15 03:39:45 <genewitch>   does that mean like drop database and start over with forum.bitcoin.org?
2011-06-15 03:39:50 <jgarzik>   nobody thinks that is realistic
2011-06-15 03:39:53 <jgarzik>   genewitch: no!
2011-06-15 03:39:55 <theymos>   The weusecoins guy reacted positively to my idea.
2011-06-15 03:39:58 <cacheson>   theymos: people are naturally going to assume that subdomains of bitcoin are official, there's nothing you can really do about that
2011-06-15 03:40:09 <cacheson>   er, subdomains of bitcoin.org
2011-06-15 03:40:27 <jgarzik>   genewitch: no one is proposing deleting or turning off anything
2011-06-15 03:40:31 <jgarzik>   genewitch: just moving away from *.bitcoin.org
2011-06-15 03:40:36 <theymos>   Not very "decentralized" of you to demand that any website be "official" at all. I argue that there should be no official websites.
2011-06-15 03:40:47 <genewitch>   except mine
2011-06-15 03:40:49 <genewitch>   mine is official
2011-06-15 03:40:52 <jgarzik>   theymos: then let's not have -any- forum on bitcoin.org
2011-06-15 03:41:11 <jgarzik>   theymos: ceasing use of bitcoin.org would be fine
2011-06-15 03:41:12 <genewitch>   jgarzik: the wiki can link to forums for bitcoin users
2011-06-15 03:41:53 <jgarzik>   theymos: you cannot have it both ways.   if you truly want "no official websites" then let's stop using bitcoin.org altogether.
2011-06-15 03:41:56 <genewitch>   hey you guys remember webrings? we should bring that back.
2011-06-15 03:42:06 <thallium205>   hahaha
2011-06-15 03:42:38 <theymos>   Why is bitcoin.org necessarily official? It's not linked anywhere in the program. No development takes place there. No developers own it.
2011-06-15 03:42:54 <cacheson>   genewitch: for stuff like "my super-awesome geocities bitcoin homepage"?  
2011-06-15 03:43:08 <gjs278>   I'm highly opposed to how crappy bitcoin.org is
2011-06-15 03:43:09 <genewitch>   cacheson: exactly
2011-06-15 03:43:12 <mrb_>   one more thing to consider is that using different domains makes it (a bit) harder for a government to go through the redtape to block access to all domains
2011-06-15 03:43:14 <gjs278>   I was very vocal about this like two months ago
2011-06-15 03:43:25 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: bitcoin.org doesn't have any claim of "official" IMO
2011-06-15 03:43:39 <theymos>   Ha! There's one person who agrees with me.
2011-06-15 03:43:40 <mrb_>   (thinking of The Great Firewall and other repressive countries)
2011-06-15 03:43:42 <luke-jr>   theymos: the program isn't official either
2011-06-15 03:43:42 <gjs278>   it's the title of our channel
2011-06-15 03:43:48 <gjs278>   if it's not official take it out
2011-06-15 03:43:49 <cacheson>   theymos: eh, bitcoin.org is a decent place for the mainline client
2011-06-15 03:43:59 <cacheson>   theymos: it's like getting openoffice from openoffice.org, etc.
2011-06-15 03:44:10 <genewitch>   luke-jr: maybe not "officially" if you'll pardon me for a second here but as mentioned when someone mentions bitcoin in the media it references bitcoin.org, hence it becomes the defacto official server.
2011-06-15 03:44:12 <luke-jr>   IMO, bitcoin.org should be like weusecoins.com
2011-06-15 03:44:26 <jgarzik>   should be... but isn't
2011-06-15 03:44:37 <theymos>   luke-jr: That's exactly my position.
2011-06-15 03:44:40 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: I would be fine with that
2011-06-15 03:44:48 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: as long as the forums aren't on there
2011-06-15 03:45:09 <luke-jr>   if you guys don't think a forum is appropriate, I'd be welcome to have something on bitgit.org (or whatever TLD I ended up with)
2011-06-15 03:45:10 <thallium205>   bittorrent is highly decentralized, but there still exists bittorrent.com (and it has community forums)
2011-06-15 03:45:21 <jgarzik>   there is not a single forum linked on weusecoins.com
2011-06-15 03:45:22 <genewitch>   can't the devs and powerusers switch to a bugzilla/regular forum format and let the community host the user forums?
2011-06-15 03:45:24 <gjs278>   bittorrent.com is nowhere near as official as bitcoin.org tries to be
2011-06-15 03:45:36 <luke-jr>   which I had planned to be a hosting site for Bitcoin-related projects (incl bug tracker, git, etc)
2011-06-15 03:45:39 <gjs278>   but that's due to there being hundreds of clients
2011-06-15 03:46:02 <luke-jr>   gjs278: forums in general are irregular
2011-06-15 03:46:10 <gjs278>   they are
2011-06-15 03:46:47 <genewitch>   basically what i am hearing here is that we wish there were an opensource way for people to collaborate and ask questions on the internet semi anonymously?
2011-06-15 03:46:50 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: so you actively support illegal activity?
2011-06-15 03:46:51 <gjs278>   if bitcoin.org is the officlal website, it should be in a public repo the same as the "official client"
2011-06-15 03:46:58 <genewitch>   Where nodes could come on and drop off and not really affect the whole?
2011-06-15 03:47:01 <genewitch>   I think this exists.
2011-06-15 03:47:12 <genewitch>   hold on i have to google the name
2011-06-15 03:47:13 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: what? no
2011-06-15 03:47:25 <theymos>   I support some types of illegal activity. Free trade, for example.
2011-06-15 03:47:26 <luke-jr>   gjs278: there is no official
2011-06-15 03:47:40 <gjs278>   bitcoin.org is in our title, we give the impression away that it is official
2011-06-15 03:47:47 <genewitch>   oh i found it! It's called IRC!
2011-06-15 03:47:53 <theymos>   Why is bitcoin.it not official?
2011-06-15 03:48:05 <genewitch>   theymos: cause who's ever heard of .it
2011-06-15 03:48:05 <luke-jr>   gjs278: this channel isn't official either. there is no official, or Bitcoin becomes the Fed
2011-06-15 03:48:09 <gjs278>   the sourceforge page should be linked here, not bitcoin.org
2011-06-15 03:48:17 <jgarzik>   um, satoshi did not register bitcoin.it.  the press does not link to bitcoin.it.
2011-06-15 03:48:29 <jgarzik>   ...as "official bitcoin website"
2011-06-15 03:48:33 <genewitch>   defacto "official" the media have to link somewhere
2011-06-15 03:48:57 <genewitch>   jgarzik: you mean "just google it" isn't a valid way to get users to the community?
2011-06-15 03:50:12 <luke-jr>   I propose Bitcoin.org be a general repository of links to community resources, laid out for newbies
2011-06-15 03:50:32 <luke-jr>   ie, download page links to most popular client at the time
2011-06-15 03:50:35 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: sounds great
2011-06-15 03:50:37 <luke-jr>   maybe to be voted in every year
2011-06-15 03:50:38 <genewitch>   luke-jr: can it have animated balls and marquees?
2011-06-15 03:50:41 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: like weusecoins.com...
2011-06-15 03:50:41 <luke-jr>   or month, if it gets competitive
2011-06-15 03:50:59 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: yeah, maybe bitcoin.org should just forward there
2011-06-15 03:51:00 <gjs278>   it's all up to whoever owns the site to do that
2011-06-15 03:51:10 <luke-jr>   sirius-m does IIRC
2011-06-15 03:51:24 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: RE illegal activity:  people are actively soliticing illegal activity on the forums.  "bitcoin.org as official website" passes the layperson's obviousness test, and that's a major problem.  bitcoinj might end due to that, for example.
2011-06-15 03:51:29 <jgarzik>   it's become a serious problem
2011-06-15 03:51:46 <genewitch>   jgarzik: more active policing
2011-06-15 03:51:49 <jgarzik>   trying to convince businesses to accept bitcoins under those conditions is... difficult
2011-06-15 03:51:50 <genewitch>   jgarzik: pay in BTC
2011-06-15 03:51:55 <jgarzik>   genewitch: theymos is the police
2011-06-15 03:52:05 <jgarzik>   genewitch: centralized administrator by fiat
2011-06-15 03:52:09 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: ok, good reason to (re)move the fourms from bitcoin.org :p
2011-06-15 03:52:13 <genewitch>   he needs to deputize peopl
2011-06-15 03:52:16 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: yes
2011-06-15 03:52:29 <gjs278>   good reason to not use bitcoin.org because one guy has complete control over it
2011-06-15 03:52:31 <jgarzik>   genewitch: anybody who tries to delete signs of illegal activity has their mod powers yanked
2011-06-15 03:52:44 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: srsly?
2011-06-15 03:52:45 <jgarzik>   gjs278: unfortunately we cannot tell the press nor google that
2011-06-15 03:52:49 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: yes
2011-06-15 03:52:52 <luke-jr>   
2011-06-15 03:52:59 <genewitch>   businesses don't know how to use BTC. also the "it's used for illict activity" is a silly excuse. Every American $20 has more cocaine on it than ink.
2011-06-15 03:53:03 <gjs278>   yeah it is a little late now
2011-06-15 03:53:07 <genewitch>   er don't know how to use forums*
2011-06-15 03:53:09 <theymos>   That's not true at all. I've never removed a moderator. And I'm not the only administrator: Gavin was the one who made me an admin.
2011-06-15 03:53:16 <luke-jr>   my worthless vote goes to moving forums off bitcoin.org, and censoring them heavily
2011-06-15 03:53:30 <jgarzik>   theymos: blatant lie.  you removed my mod powers.
2011-06-15 03:53:31 <luke-jr>   and splitting the subforums more
2011-06-15 03:53:37 <luke-jr>   …
2011-06-15 03:53:40 <gjs278>   force everyone to gpg auth to forum post
2011-06-15 03:53:53 <genewitch>   gjs278: screw that gpg is annoying
2011-06-15 03:53:54 <theymos>   That modship was only temporary. I said it at the time.
2011-06-15 03:53:58 <gjs278>   exactly
2011-06-15 03:53:59 <jgarzik>   uh huh
2011-06-15 03:54:02 <luke-jr>   jgarzik: he did say it was for 24 hours..
2011-06-15 03:54:11 <jgarzik>   luke-jr: it lasted < 60 minutes
2011-06-15 03:54:15 <luke-jr>   O.o
2011-06-15 03:54:31 <gjs278>   I would trust the cbs interview man to fairly moderate the bitcoin.org forums
2011-06-15 03:54:36 <luke-jr>   well, I think everyone agrees forums shouldn't be on bitcoin.org at least? XD
2011-06-15 03:54:42 <jgarzik>   theymos: will you make me moderator again, and permit me to delete posts encouraging illegal activity?
2011-06-15 03:54:53 <gjs278>   ;;ident jgarzik
2011-06-15 03:54:54 <gribble>   Nick 'jgarzik', with hostmask 'jgarzik!~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik', is not identified.
2011-06-15 03:54:55 <cacheson>   luke-jr: theymos doesn't, hence the argument
2011-06-15 03:55:11 <theymos>   No. It is the policy of the forum to allow such discussions. Sirius owns the server, so he can change the policy if he's worried about legal action.
2011-06-15 03:55:11 <gjs278>   I'm not convinced this is the real jgarzik, don't mod him yet
2011-06-15 03:55:48 <genewitch>   i know how to tell
2011-06-15 03:56:02 <genewitch>   jgarzik: pushpoold is not updating my hashrate in the database, what up with that
2011-06-15 03:56:19 <jgarzik>   ;;ident
2011-06-15 03:56:19 <gribble>   You are identified as user jgarzik, with GPG key id DA1DC20F2DBF0CA8, and key fingerprint 60B00235B3355D84BF2A4E35DA1DC20F2DBF0CA8.
2011-06-15 03:56:22 <jgarzik>   Now I'm me
2011-06-15 03:56:26 <gjs278>   mod this man
2011-06-15 03:56:39 <luke-jr>   sounds like nothing will get accomplished without sirius-m in the discussion
2011-06-15 03:57:32 <genewitch>   well, i mean there are ways of preventing users from accessing something
2011-06-15 03:57:53 <luke-jr>   genewitch: you're not implying we DDoS the forums I hope? :/
2011-06-15 03:57:58 <genewitch>   no never
2011-06-15 03:58:10 <genewitch>   i meant ask nicely
2011-06-15 03:58:42 <jgarzik>   official website bitcoin.org points to the forums on forums.bitcoin.org.  new users are essentially automatically directed there.
2011-06-15 03:59:01 <theymos>   I'd be fine with removing the link.
2011-06-15 03:59:40 <jgarzik>   it needs to move away from the satoshi's domain
2011-06-15 03:59:58 <genewitch>   jgarzik: well, i mean, a comprimise sounds good for this instant
2011-06-15 04:00:15 <genewitch>   we might see less influx of complete idiots if there's no link on the quote official unquote page
2011-06-15 04:00:19 <luke-jr>   yep, nothing is going to change significant without sirius-m
2011-06-15 04:00:38 <jgarzik>   hooray for centralized control of a decentralized project...
2011-06-15 04:01:32 <genewitch>   jgarzik: there should be an official wiki, with a committe
2011-06-15 04:01:35 <jgarzik>   the forums have changed hostnames before, and it was not a big deal
2011-06-15 04:01:42 <jgarzik>   genewitch: hehe
2011-06-15 04:02:08 <genewitch>   well i mean that's how most FOSS projects are run, commitee, LINUX "penguin pee" TORVALDS excepted, of course.
2011-06-15 04:02:16 <theymos>   Centralization is an effective management technique as long as there are many centralized organizations to compete.
2011-06-15 04:03:01 <cacheson>   theymos: right, so splitting the forums off from bitcoin.org furthers that
2011-06-15 04:03:27 <cacheson>   theymos: makes the forums and the development stuff into two visibly separate organizations
2011-06-15 04:03:46 <jgarzik>   indeed
2011-06-15 04:03:58 <cacheson>   that way you can let people talk about what they want to on the forums without the developers getting (as much) flak about it
2011-06-15 04:04:24 <jgarzik>   being under "bitcoin.org" the domain that satoshi created, and that search engines and press link to, obviously heavily favors "bitcoin.org" over any other domain
2011-06-15 04:04:44 <genewitch>   jgarzik: bitcoin.blogspot.com is a close second though
2011-06-15 04:04:45 <luke-jr>   cacheson: "development staff" is too vague too
2011-06-15 04:05:00 <luke-jr>   bitcoin.org shouldn't be biased to any one project
2011-06-15 04:05:25 <luke-jr>   besides a "default" by popularity
2011-06-15 04:05:28 <cacheson>   luke-jr: I don't see anything terribly wrong with it being associated with the mainline client
2011-06-15 04:05:45 <luke-jr>   cacheson: because there's multiple mainline clients
2011-06-15 04:05:53 <genewitch>   luke-jr: who gets to decide what goes on the main page though? group editing of a website... hey we can patent that and call it something cool
2011-06-15 04:05:56 <genewitch>   like
2011-06-15 04:05:57 <cacheson>   luke-jr: uh... no?
2011-06-15 04:06:00 <genewitch>   wiky
2011-06-15 04:06:14 <genewitch>   yeah wiky, and we can make an encyclopedia
2011-06-15 04:06:41 <luke-jr>   genewitch: popular vote
2011-06-15 04:06:54 <genewitch>   luke-jr: it works so well for prom king
2011-06-15 04:06:57 <cacheson>   this is just like bittorrent, openoffice, etc.
2011-06-15 04:07:02 <luke-jr>   cacheson: no
2011-06-15 04:07:10 <jgarzik>   I'll even purchase the domain (bitcointalk.org?) for 10 years, register w/ privacy enhanced domain registrar, and transfer it to theymos  or whomever wants it


In these logs "TD" is Mike Hearn, none of the others strike me as people posters here probably know under other names.

Also see the Mailing list discussion at the time. (John Smith is Wladimir)

From today's perspective where Bitcoin itself appears to be safe in most of the world and where not much too shocking goes happens on the forums this all might seem like an over-reaction.

But back then it was far from crystal clear that Bitcoin itself was legal in jurisdictions where many of us were, and there was some scarry noises from the US goverment-- every ounce of additional negative attention was an additional threat that people who already felt exposed working on Bitcoin didn't want to deal with.

The forums themselves were a lot more wild and crazy then they are today-- from the infamous incident of one well known party offering to sell nudes of their 16-year-old sister, to other things that at least sounded like outright human trafficking. Some of the crazier stuff was almost certantly fake, but it still showed up and many people weren't sure how real any of it was.

Bitcoin was this crazy new thing and just seemed pregnant with possibilities: Could it really be that underage stripper assisan slaves could be purchased anonymously for a mere few-thousand Bitcoin with the press of a button or is that just some sick fantasy?  Well, for all of us decentetralized digital money was just a fantasy a few years before.  It was impossible to be excited about the potential without being aware that there were also potential downsides.

As usual, Theymos was pretty prescient ... with his remarks about the importance of avoiding any site as being an official anything.

I think it all worked out okay.

A majority of hashpower can add softforks.  They don't even have to publish software that are compatible with them, but they could.

For all we know-- there are some of these active now, invisible to us. -- though probably not.

The way carlton described it up thread-- it's not obvious why it could even be a problem.  If it was just some new transaction feature and it was useful and not bothering anyone else... then it might well be not a problem.  But it can take other forms where it clearly is a problem.

This has been raised as a weakness in Bitcoin's history-- and some have looked to solve it.  Usually the context it discusses is softforks that block a particular user (e.g. Bad Guy Bob) or style of transactions (e.g. Lightning payments).   Sometimes people have been concerned with fluffyforks-- ones where the rule will be bypassed if a violating chain gets ahead.

But it appears to be fundamentally hard to solve because a miner imposing a soft-fork is indistinguishable from an unmodified miner operating behind a network filter that hides certain transactions/blocks from it.  You could make sure they weren't getting filtered if there was some consensus about their inputs ... yo dawg I hurd u like blockchains.

There is obviously the nuclear option: If a majority hashpower is disruptive enough the users of Bitcoin will take some extreme action like changing to a new POW ...  But not only would that path be dangerous and disruptive (making it a less potent threat), it's unlikely to work if the attack is only harming a few users ("so sad Wikileaks can't move their funds, but not my problem").

So the open questions are: Are their less extreme defences than the nuclear option, is there a way to amplify attacks so that any amount of attacking will trigger the political will to fight back, can malicious softforks be stopped?

There has been advancement in a number of these dimensions.

Detection:   now that the network is operating against the weight limit most of the time there is little reason to have valid transactions rejected (except for forward compatibility reasons)--- transactions really should be being accepted in a fee-rate sensible order, and if they're not thats clear and detectable. So if it started happening at any scale, we could probably see it.

Amplification:  Coinjoins and sendmanys  link together the spends of multiple users, you can't block one input in a transaction without blocking them all.  More researchy right now, but non-interactive aggregate signatures have the property of building transaction bundles that cannot be unlinked. Both result in disruption amplification and additional fee income loss for miners that censor.

Indistinguishably:  Taproot should make different kinds of transactions much more indistinguishable (and an older technology, the coinswap transform can have similar indistinguishability benefits without taproot), and if usage types can't be distinguished they can't be targeted.  Similarly, privacy improving practices (avoiding reuse, coinjoins, swaps, anti-network-monitoring, p2p encryption)  can get in the way of censoring based on who's transacting.

Anonymous mining:  The system's existing incentives discourage leaving out any economical transactions -- after all, you'll miss out on their fees. But external pressures might make you act in ways that aren't rational within the system.  Tech like compact blocks, satellite block transmission, and not bloating the hell out of the maximum block size preserves the at least the threat that a lot of mining could go dark.

Mining distribution/security:  These attacks assume a majority hashrate is colluding against user interests. That's easier if mining is more centrally controlled. Betterhash/stratum2 make some steps in the direction of improving that.  There is probably a lot more to do to further decentralize mining control-- and this area has probably the least progress and some of the most importance for this issue.

In any case,  -- I hope this is some food for thought.

I had forgotten that this apology existed.

Do you intend to make one apologizing for backing Craig Wright's false claims of being Satoshi?  For demanding that Bitcoin developers obey him?

I think one is very much needed. Wright's fraud is still causing people's harm and it can be reduced by his victims speaking up.

I think don't hire that electrician again. Putting 240v/30a service on Nema 5 is _crazy_.  Forget the fact that it's a code violation: it's actually dangerous because some equipment will fail catastrophically (e.g. become electrified, burst into flames) when plugged into 240v.

The only reason I can think of that an electrician would do that is if he was just clueless.. and e.g. didn't know that you could easily pick up 240v outlets at the hardware store or that appropriate cables to hook IEC connectored equipment (like computer/miner PSUs) are easily available.

Sure _you_ know to only plug 240v stuff into it, but what happens when you have someone in to do some repairs in the room and they need to plug in some tools?  What happens if you're out of town and some family member needs to plug in a shopvac to clean up?  What happens if you're stumbling around in the dark and forget?

Also, something like this is bad enough that it might be used by an insurer to screw you over if there is a fire.

All my 240v stuff is either NEMA 6 twistlocks or IEC 60320.

Non-twistlock NEMA6 is more common in US residential as well as NEMA14 'dryer plugs'... but I prefer twistlock because it locks so you don't accidentally yank it out or leave it half-pluged making a poor connection, plus it's commonly used on data-center equipment, so there is a lot of surplus data-center stuff that just works against it.  (See the picture here.)

I suggest you stop reading, right now, and go make a "danger 240v do not connect normal devices!" sign right now and stick it on it. That's the bare minimum. Then come back.

I would also be pretty dubious about having a 15a rated socket on a 30amp service especially with >15 amps of load.  I've had NEMA 5  15amps outlets char up when just running with a near but under 15a load for an extended period.

Residential targeted electrical equipment doesn't seem to have a lot of safety margin:  it seems to be mostly built expecting that you're going to have an intermittent high usage load (like a vacuum, blender, etc)... it'll survive a sustained load at the rated level but not with a lot of room to spare.  Running a sustained 25a through a fixture specified for 15a seems actually likely to fail to me.  Keep in mind, that damage from running it too hot can increase resistance by oxidizing the connectors... and the higher resistance means more current... which means more heat, and you get a run-away until it fails.

It's very easy to replace an outlet. You can get a NEMA 6 outlet that fits into the same wall box and will receive 10gauge wire. (I'm kinda surprised he got 10gauge to fit on a regular 5-15 outlet, they're really made to take 12gauge max normally). Turn off the breaker, remove a few screws, swap in the replacement, reinstall screws.. done. There are videos on youtube.  Get a little IEC connector power strip rated for enough amps that plugs into your nema 6 outlet and can feed your miners using [ur=https://www.infinitecables.com/power-cables/iec-power-cords/c13-to-c14-power-cords/c13-to-c14-16awg-power-cords-black/iec-c13-to-iec-c14-power-cable-16awg-sjt/]IEC to IEC cables[/url]-- they're often inexpensive if you look some place that sells datacenter surplus (including ebay).

If the breaker is 30amps then I believe by the rules _all_ downstream wire must be at least 10ga (for copper, larger for aluminium).   The purpose of the breaker is to prevent the wires from catching fire, and in theory any one wire downstream of the breaker could carry the entire 30a load. Though I know power cords are often sized way lower than their supporting breakers (like 18-gague wires connected to 20a circuits)... so I guess that rule doesn't apply to power cords.

That wouldn't wouldn't worry me too much in any case, a 14ga cable should be okay with a 15a load. Though if your cable runs aren't really short you might prefer to use a larger gage for the bulk of the run, because 15-amps over 14ga has a non-negligible loss (about 1.3% loss for 20feet).


Huh, I've only seen/used the splitting in order to make one outlet switched e.g. so that a floorlamp can be controlled by a lightswitch.  I'd feel a little sketchy running both phases on one outlet with how close together the two hot nuts would be. A short there if it's just a lamp circuit would be mostly harmless, rather than fireworks.

Yes, well kinda. For most softforks no remotely recent mining software will provoke a hardfork.

I believe that someone to erroneously mine a segwit invalid block with unmodified I think would have required they use software from 2012. ... cleanstack was added later than that, but before cleanstack there were rules to only allow standard transactions.

But they could also do it intentionally and the non-upgraded hashrate would follow them. Having a high hashrate guarantees that any such fork will be short... which protects non-upgraded users and spv wallets from seeing a big reorg. If there won't be a big reorg then there isn't much incentive to do it intentionally.

The definition of a soft-fork is pretty widely spread and firmly established, so I don't think it can really be changed.

Also the safer subset that Bitcoin does in practice is much harder to define precisely.  For one, many softforks have been unsafe with respect to sufficiently old code that no one is using anymore-- particularly, before 'standardness' was introduced, nodes would relay and mine arbitrary scripts including explicit forward extension stuff,  ... a long time ago nodes would also mine transactions with arbitrary version numbers, etc.

Besides, the term softfork stinks because there isn't even necessarily any fork at all. ... particularly in the case of the safer ones.

There is confusion about terms because "soft fork" just means that the blocks under the new behaviour will still be accepted by old nodes. Under that definition mining with pre-softfork behaviour wouldn't necessarily work.

Yet the development community prefers a much stricter set of criteria-- perhaps call it "safe soft-forks", where at least no widely used or recent software prior to the fork will inadvertently initiate a fork which is invalid with respect to the new rule. These "safe soft-forks" also have other properties like great care taken to avoid inadvertently depriving users from access to their funds (unless they were doing something absurd like using policy prohibited extension opcodes or version numbers).   Unless it's impossible to avoid, you should expect "safe softforks" to always be used.

Per the question, per consensus rules you can mine bitcoin blocks without the segwit coinbase commitment even with transactions -- just not any segwit ones.  However, all the mining interfaces in current bitcoind mandate that you use segwit to avoid misconfiguration where miners accidentally don't and then miss out on a ton of fees (and cause nuisance delays to users). Bitcoin nodes also don't fetch blocks from non-witness capable peers and so on.

The effort to add the witness commitment is pretty trivial,  probably smaller than the effort of working around all the ways that the rest of the software expects you to have it. Plus the fees you miss by not having transactions are a couple grand per block -- a good 2% of the mining income right now.

wwzsocki please lock this thread and create a self moderated thread,  the subforum mods here are clearly too busy to deal with the constant derailments.

Is it Tuesday again?  Another week, another worthless piece of crap Satoshi impersonator. Another scammer wasting everyone's time.

Bitcointalk should gain a feature where if you ever write  "I have met the real Satoshi Nakamoto" or similar, your account is locked and all your posts are hidden, and you just get a message box that pops up asking for a signature from the genesis block key of the message "please unban <account name>".

That is that case, honest miners would turn off ... which also means that it would be more profitable to attack.

(Though just turning off alone is absolutely a problem too-- because it means that the chain temporarily stops gaining security, and it's advantage vs a lower hashrate attacker which simply doesn't stop is reduced).

Reduced block variance is bad too: the convergence of the bitcoin consensus algorithm comes purely from variance, the fact that when there is a chain split even if the hashrates are equal on each side eventually one side will get lucky relative to the other and get decisively ahead from the perspective of every node even given propagation delays.  Lower variance, higher reorg length. If lower variance were acceptable due to fast propagation and/or tolerance of reorgs, then it would be much better to simply reduce the interblock interval than have mining randomly come in synchronized bursts as soon as enough fees show up.

Higher block density I agree could be useful, depending on if the system is more limited by peak traffic compared to overall volume. Both sorts of limits exist in the system, e.g. strength against selfish-mining like attacks care about maximum block propagation delays in the face of adversarially constructed blocks ... while catchup/IBD costs care about overall volume.  To the extent that the latter is limiting it would be good to have a daily swing in capacity.

Unfortunately... People like centralized systems,-- they have lots of nice usability properties, people are willing to ignore their flaws/risks, they are easy to develop, and *critically* they are easy to monetize.

By contrast, smart contracts are essentially cryptographic protocols themselves-- inheriting the extreme difficulty and risk that normally comes with making a novel cryptographic protocol. They also inherit the development and usability challenges of distributed systems, and they're difficult or impossible to monetize-- which reduces the incentive to engage in the extraordinary amount of work needed to create them.

As a result even most things that hype "smart contracts" are pure pretext and misdirection. Mostly just borderline or outright scam tokens traded on promises which will never be met (if they're even possible to meet).  Or you get insanity like Ethereum's operators going and editing the blockchain state to take funds they personally lost due to a bug in some goofy contract they were participants in and then everyone involved trying to pretend that this wasn't an example of centralization that totally mooted any purpose for a smart contract in the first place ...

But there are many things possible, much more than even the simple example imagined by Satoshi, and the prospects seem tantalizing... but because of the lack of incentive and the risk of loss (other than for the operators of centralized systems where the funds can just be clawed back) it's a bit slow going.

Thought Bitcoin's history there have been a number of other just-for-fun smart contracting examples, e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293382.0 but a much smaller number of actual production uses.

There are some interesting smart contract things going on-- for example lightning protocol in Bitcoin is an example of using smart contracts for an actually useful purpose which isn't really just a cover for centralization or a ponzi scheme.

And most people don't even realize that it's Bitcoin smart contracts that power lightning-- maybe we should expect that when a smart contract system works people won't realize it's a smart contract at all.

Another important advance for smart contracts is, in my opinion, the taproot proposal in Bitcoin:   With taproot the common case of cooperating participants in a smart contract becomes indistinguishable from an ordinary boring payment. The full cost of public contract execution is then only needed if the contract participants try to cheat.  This makes smart contract usage much more cost efficient, censorship resistant, and private.  They doesn't make them less difficult to develop but it means they don't need to necessarily have a high operating cost.

There is ongoing research going into new tools for building smart contract languages which provide for a firm theoretical grounding to them, which should make it possible for stronger analysis of smart contracts which will ultimately make it easier to author them and be confident that they'll behave like you expect.

IIRC you cannot set zero without modifying the software (as that would make for some accidental DOS vulnerabilities), you can however set the relay fee to an arbitrarily low non-zero value... I think the lowest is 1 sat per 1000 vb.

Receiving all unconfirmed txn without witnesses is 1.6kbyte/s or less.

Sitting logged into many websites more bandwidth than that.

The proposed protocol seems like it uses a pretty significant fraction of the bandwidth as sending the transaction. It also requires hashing the transactions in the mempool to do the 'short id matching'.

The BIP text is also underspecified in that that BIP152 hashing scheme is salted with the block hash, and there is no block hash for unconfirmed transactions. Without an attacker unpredictable salt BIP152's short hashes are particularly vulnerable to collision.

Unconfirmed transactions are generally a major vulnerability in lite wallets:  A number of years ago there were a bunch of nodes on the network that generated fake 21 million btc payments to every recently used address and handed them to lite wallets that connected to them, causing them to display enormous fake unconfirmed transations-- and for some software like android wallet, it made them almost completely unable to make payments until you restored the wallet from a backup. Not to mention the hiding issue.

Is there really a particular reason to filter unconfirmed transactions at the expense of privacy--since what txn you fetch is still visible?  With BIP 157 when a block matches the user fetches the entire block, at least somewhat preserving the anonymity set.

Aside, the graph should show getblocktxn not blocktxn.  I believe the 'getcfproof' message could also work by index instead of txid like getblocktxn does, for a massive bandwidth reduction.

I doubt there will be much appetite for any commitment structure that requires recomputing the commitment any time the txn list in the block is changed. Particularly any that involves doing it for 5 different kinds of filters and which will go out of date as scriptpubkey types change.  The BIP157 design being completely agnostic to the content of the scriptpubkey was an intentional design to conserve storage and optimize for the possibility of eventually turning it into a viable commitment.

Really bad example.  GHash.IO performed a finney attack, claimed they were hacked. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0