frib 2017-01-17 09:03:30
could bitcoin scalability be solved by simply reducing the average block time ?
frib 2017-01-17 09:04:05
and wouldn't that make bitcoin a faster payment processing system i.e. better for everyone?
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:06:40
No
frib 2017-01-17 09:07:07
because?
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:09:02
Do you want high orphan rates and the network being DoS-ed due to validation time? Because that's how you get both.
frib 2017-01-17 09:13:20
Lauda, doesn't ethereum have very short block times?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:13:23
if you want fast transactions take a look at teechan
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:13:40
We don't talk about shitcoins in here.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:13:42
You can do thousands of transactions per second with it, its a payment channel
JackH 2017-01-17 09:13:47
Teechan is not an altcoin
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:13:54
Nobody was talking to you Jack
frib 2017-01-17 09:13:58
wow
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:14:14
was responding to frib
JackH 2017-01-17 09:14:21
So am I
frib 2017-01-17 09:14:24
I guess we better keep out traps shut then
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:14:37
Okay
JackH 2017-01-17 09:14:39
I am telling him how he can achieve thousands of transactions
JackH 2017-01-17 09:14:47
Something called payment channels in short
frib 2017-01-17 09:14:55
JackH, I am aware of payment channels, thanks
JackH 2017-01-17 09:14:56
That works via something called Teechan
JackH 2017-01-17 09:15:22
Its made by Emin, the professor at Cornell university
JackH 2017-01-17 09:15:25
and his team
JackH 2017-01-17 09:15:49
currently the only payment channel solution that realistic will work regardless of network effect
frib 2017-01-17 09:15:51
and this is supposed to compete with the lightning network?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:09
The lightning network most likely wont be coming to mainnet anytime soon
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:16
It is very unfortunate and sad
grubles 2017-01-17 09:16:23
that's not true
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:16:28
LN is in Alpha stage, what would you expect?
grubles 2017-01-17 09:16:35
i just sent a multihop micropayment, with lightning, on the testnet
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:38
Nah thats not why
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:42
LN works fine as it already is
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:47
its because of a missing feature on mainnet
JackH 2017-01-17 09:16:50
called Segwit
frib 2017-01-17 09:16:58
so i've been told
JackH 2017-01-17 09:17:00
thats the only reason to why we wont get this amazing technology
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:17:00
Wow, you're a genius!
grubles 2017-01-17 09:17:10
lightning can work without segwit
JackH 2017-01-17 09:17:25
Yes grubles , but that is not the version LND are working at right now
JackH 2017-01-17 09:17:30
They assume segwit
grubles 2017-01-17 09:17:30
and it doesn't require an intel cpu with sgx
JackH 2017-01-17 09:17:36
correct
grubles 2017-01-17 09:17:47
nor does it require intel's permission
JackH 2017-01-17 09:17:59
But, here, now, today, teechan has a higher chance of happening
JackH 2017-01-17 09:18:12
teechan for all it mistakes and problems, is still en engineering problem
grubles 2017-01-17 09:18:15
there is no proof that teechan even works
JackH 2017-01-17 09:18:19
LND on mainnet is a consesus problem
JackH 2017-01-17 09:18:40
in theory teechan is a hardware layer on top of BTC
grubles 2017-01-17 09:18:44
we are just supposed to take emin's word that he does 500,000 transactions a day with teechan?
grubles 2017-01-17 09:18:46
yeah right
JackH 2017-01-17 09:18:54
We are not, and I am only thinking theoretically
frib 2017-01-17 09:19:09
isn't 500k a day not a lot
grubles 2017-01-17 09:19:09
to not provide any proof to that is suspect
JackH 2017-01-17 09:19:11
Still using a hardware node that fixed malleability is more safe
JackH 2017-01-17 09:19:21
than not
grubles 2017-01-17 09:19:31
it doesn't fix malleability
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:19:35
Okay so I created this thing called Laudachan. It can process 500k TX per day.
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:19:40
Take my word for it. It's theoretical.
grubles 2017-01-17 09:19:48
Lauda, prove it? oh you can't? shucks.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:19:49
so without segwit, there is no LND, which means we need a different solution, for example a teechan'esque solution
grubles 2017-01-17 09:19:56
no
grubles 2017-01-17 09:19:57
again
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:20:01
grubles I'm only thiking theoretically
grubles 2017-01-17 09:20:02
lighting can work without segwit
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:20:04
:P
JackH 2017-01-17 09:20:10
but they are not working on that version grubles
grubles 2017-01-17 09:20:18
Lauda, no emin literally said he has no ability to prove that teechan works
JackH 2017-01-17 09:20:20
it can, but nobody is working on the non segwit version
grubles 2017-01-17 09:20:21
as it would "dox" him
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:20:23
lol
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:20:33
Horrible excuse
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:01
Eclair is waiting for segwit. So is thunder, and so is LND and Rusty's version of LND
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:07
all are segwit dependant
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:21
a hardware payment channel can go around this
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:21:27
No thank you.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:32
and right now, this is the best option we probably will see deployed
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:21:42
If you want centralized solutions go to Paypal.
frib 2017-01-17 09:21:43
oooh segwit support went up 3% since yesterday
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:49
nobody cares if you use it lauda, but business would probably use it
JackH 2017-01-17 09:21:59
I for one am pushing to get this into our business
grubles 2017-01-17 09:22:04
he also said he plans on creating a company to "steal the juciest customers" of LN
JackH 2017-01-17 09:22:05
As I see no other alternative
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:22:20
Nobody in their right mind cares about centralized businesses.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:22:28
there is no alternative
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:22:34
There is.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:22:40
which is
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:23:02
Any non centralized p.channel implementation.
frib 2017-01-17 09:23:04
grubles, is it true that LND are not working on the non-segwit version of LN?
grubles 2017-01-17 09:23:49
lnd is the name of the daemon
JackH 2017-01-17 09:23:52
but that does not exist Lauda
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:23:54
Reminds me of how a certain subreddit attacks LN for not being *decentralized* but they praise this unproven Teechan thing.
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:23:57
It does exist.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:24:01
nobody is even working on the non segwit version
JackH 2017-01-17 09:24:07
yes but it doesnt work on mainnet
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:24:11
Nobody needs to.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:24:20
so can I use it now on mainnet?
frib 2017-01-17 09:24:22
so it's a finished product?
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:24:41
Irrelevant.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:24:48
why do you say that
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:24:53
The existance of something does not depend on whether you can use it on mainnet or not.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:24:59
ok fine it exists
JackH 2017-01-17 09:25:07
but its not useful to me on mainnet
JackH 2017-01-17 09:25:14
so I cant use it with real Bitcoin payments
frib 2017-01-17 09:25:15
Lauda, i honestly do not know. is non-segwit LN usable atm?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:25:44
it is not
JackH 2017-01-17 09:25:51
they are not even working towards a non segwit version
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:25:51
I think you guys don't understand how segwit impacts LN.
frib 2017-01-17 09:26:01
i'm here to learn
JackH 2017-01-17 09:26:02
yeah we do
JackH 2017-01-17 09:26:05
I do quite well
frib 2017-01-17 09:26:06
i don't
aj 2017-01-17 09:26:06
without segwit, opening a LN channel is vulnerable to malleability so it's not 100% safe to open a channel with a random stranger
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:26:12
I doubt it.
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:26:16
Highly doubt it actually.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:26:32
I compared to you am not blinded by promises all the time though
frib 2017-01-17 09:26:38
aj, so basically what you're saying is using LN as is atm is not practical
JackH 2017-01-17 09:26:40
I see what is here now, and I see lightning will not work on mainnet
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:26:57
All I see is someone wasting our time.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:26:58
so it could not matter less how much it exists and how much you wish for it to be the solution we all should use when it DOES NOT WORK on mainnet
frib 2017-01-17 09:27:02
can someone explain what malleability is please?
aj 2017-01-17 09:27:16
frib: depends. if you're okay with <100% safety (like accepting unconfirmed bitcoin transactions) then it's okay
aj 2017-01-17 09:27:43
frib: malleability is where the details of your transaction get changed inbetween you sending it to bitcoin and it being confirmed in the blockchain
moli_ 2017-01-17 09:27:51
frib you can find plenty of that by googling
grubles 2017-01-17 09:28:02
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/821283751045038080
piqure 2017-01-17 09:28:03
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
grubles 2017-01-17 09:28:09
"Looking at the SGX production license docs, it appears that the Teechan devs can steal BTC from Teechan channels: "
frib 2017-01-17 09:28:29
aj, in my mind an unconfirmed bitcoin transaction with a going fee is totally safe
JackH 2017-01-17 09:28:30
ah yes the nay sayers to any alternative solution
moli_ 2017-01-17 09:28:33
frib, here's one article: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-broke-bitcoin
piqure 2017-01-17 09:28:34
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:28:41
what is teechan
moli_ 2017-01-17 09:28:47
some crap
JackH 2017-01-17 09:28:57
I honestly dont get why people hate alternatives to payment channels when payment channels do not work on mainnet
Cricket_ 2017-01-17 09:29:05
What is the telephone number to bitcoins
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:29:12
Because they don't exist JackH don't be annoying
grubles 2017-01-17 09:29:14
"Even if @el33th4xor can get a SGX license, Teechan can be shutdown by Intel at any time, e.g. due to legal requests."
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:29:16
Until proven it doesn't exist.
grubles 2017-01-17 09:29:30
legal request? like the coinbase IRS blanket request? hm.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:29:36
and neither does lightning on mainnet
JackH 2017-01-17 09:29:49
lightning until miners (95% of them, lol) vote
JackH 2017-01-17 09:29:56
we are in a standstill
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:29:57
TeeChan is not proven to exist at all. LN exists, regardless of where.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:30:01
and thus any alternative is acceptable
JackH 2017-01-17 09:30:12
if segwit fails us we can do whatever we please
aj 2017-01-17 09:30:21
frib: a clever person could screw you over even with a reasonable fee; i think it'd take about the same level of cleverness to screw you over with a non-segwit lightning network
JackH 2017-01-17 09:30:25
it exists outside of Bitcoin mainnet, thus it does not matter
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:30:36
You're avoiding the argument.
grubles 2017-01-17 09:30:38
"Teecan can be shutdown because SGX requires each client to be individually "provisioned" by centralized servers"
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:31:01
That sounds horrible grubles
JackH 2017-01-17 09:31:02
I would rather use Teechan than sit and hope for segwit to activate
frib 2017-01-17 09:31:05
aj, if i broadcast a signed txn to the network right now it is subject to this "malleability" ?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:31:10
since it never will anyway
grubles 2017-01-17 09:31:22
JackH, what exactly would you, personally, use teechan for
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:31:35
Buying r/btc ADs it seems.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:31:49
deploy as wide as possible between the merchants our company is clearing bitcoin payments for
JackH 2017-01-17 09:31:56
so that we become a teechan network
JackH 2017-01-17 09:31:59
on top of bitcoin
JackH 2017-01-17 09:32:03
since we have ZERO alternative
aj 2017-01-17 09:32:04
frib: technically/theoretically yes; in practice i'm not sure if there's a way of doing it that's widely known
grubles 2017-01-17 09:32:15
sigh
JackH 2017-01-17 09:32:31
and I would deploy it in our wallet as well
JackH 2017-01-17 09:32:39
and start doing teechan based tx's
JackH 2017-01-17 09:32:53
so we dont touch the blockchain unless for opening/closing channels
grubles 2017-01-17 09:33:00
there is no proof at all that teechan even works
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:33:10
There needs to be a teechan channel so we don't hear that nonsense in here.
grubles 2017-01-17 09:33:12
point to me some proof
JackH 2017-01-17 09:33:23
true there is no proof yet
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:33:24
yeah reading the paper, sounds really vague. You are supposed to trust an enclave at the others machine? Who arbitrates if something goes wrong
frib 2017-01-17 09:33:25
aj, so does bitcoin as it is have a malleability problem or no?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:33:46
but at least it has a better chance to happen than getting 95% of miners to vote for something they obviously dont care for
frib 2017-01-17 09:33:51
i was under the impression it didn't
grubles 2017-01-17 09:34:12
no it has no chance because it is an abomination
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:34:29
^
JackH 2017-01-17 09:34:34
umm so why has the non abomination not activated yet?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:34:36
ah wait, I know
JackH 2017-01-17 09:34:40
its because core said 95%
JackH 2017-01-17 09:34:47
not 90%, not 80, but 95
frib 2017-01-17 09:34:56
aj, "Note that this just changes the hash; the output of the transaction remains the same and the bitcoins will go to their intended recipient."
JackH 2017-01-17 09:34:59
guess what, it wont happen
grubles 2017-01-17 09:35:02
yes just like practically every other soft fork
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:07
there is already too much resistance forming
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:13
this one is different
grubles 2017-01-17 09:35:15
csv had the same 95% threshold
grubles 2017-01-17 09:35:18
and took months
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:21
r/btc has taken a stance toward this
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:28
they didnt care about those other two soft forks
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:33
segwit was their mayor battle
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:37
and guess what, we lost
grubles 2017-01-17 09:35:39
glad to know you're our little r/btc diplomat
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:35:41
JackH: i think if we get stuck at whatever 80% a new bip will be proposed at some time
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:43
I am not
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:35:43
and we hard fork
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:45
I hate that place
JackH 2017-01-17 09:35:49
its a cesspit
grubles 2017-01-17 09:36:06
then why are you spewing their nonsense here
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:36:13
we hardfork from the people that want a hardfork
JackH 2017-01-17 09:36:24
because it does not automatically mean I agree with something equally obscene as 95% activation
JackH 2017-01-17 09:36:48
if rbtc are clowns then that makes core delusional to believe 95% on something a big portion of poeple want to hate can happen
Lauda 2017-01-17 09:36:58
Beating a dead horse..
zeroleft 2017-01-17 09:37:03
hi guys
grubles 2017-01-17 09:37:06
95% is obscene? wat
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:37:16
JackH: I think 95% is a good initial proposal, see how far it gets.
JackH 2017-01-17 09:37:22
initial?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:37:25
wtf does that mean
aj 2017-01-17 09:37:30
frib: yes, changing the hash messed up the method lightning uses to allow you to recover your funds if the other end of the channel disappears immediately
grubles 2017-01-17 09:37:37
first
JackH 2017-01-17 09:37:38
we wait for a year to see it fail and try again by adjusting it 5% or what?
zeroleft 2017-01-17 09:37:52
guys, i am trying to calculate the outpoint of a transaction. i know it is TXID + index number. is this index number in decimal format?
grubles 2017-01-17 09:37:54
no we deploy it regardless
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:37:56
JackH: yeah well to something higher than that
aj 2017-01-17 09:38:06
JackH: nah, we wait until litecoin activates segwit in a month and all switch to it
JackH 2017-01-17 09:38:17
even that has a better chance of happening
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:38:25
yeah litecoin will really be the thing to watch
JackH 2017-01-17 09:38:39
instead of the stall mate we are put into by whomever the moron to set 95% for activation was
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:38:53
it's a great opportunity for that coin, to show that they are more flexible
grubles 2017-01-17 09:38:59
probably one of the people in this channel right now...
grubles 2017-01-17 09:39:11
>_>
JackH 2017-01-17 09:39:16
probably
grubles 2017-01-17 09:39:37
i'm sure you're more knowledgable about the topic
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:39:39
lnd is gonna start working, all coins that implement it can start to quickly pay through each other's channels
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:39:46
bitcoin has to follow suit once that happens
aj 2017-01-17 09:39:50
there was an open call for input on what the parameters should be, with no real suggestions to deviate from the defaults, so the 95% figure is /everyone's/ responsibility
JackH 2017-01-17 09:40:04
open call when?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:40:05
where?
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:40:06
but it will take more than a year for that infrastructure to really build up
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:40:08
so we have time
JackH 2017-01-17 09:40:23
I never saw this and I tend to think I read pretty much anything on github, the mail list and reddit/bitcoinorg
s7r 2017-01-17 09:40:38
;;nethash
gribble 2017-01-17 09:40:39
2736793504.73
JackH 2017-01-17 09:40:39
ah yes "we"
JackH 2017-01-17 09:40:48
its ok you speak for us all about how we should wait
grubles 2017-01-17 09:40:57
sorry you built your business the wrong way
JackH 2017-01-17 09:41:20
no, because what is instead happening is alternative solutions
JackH 2017-01-17 09:41:24
teechan being one of them
frib 2017-01-17 09:41:28
I think that bitcoin has expanded to the point where the people who really have a say are routinely ignored by people who "Work on bitcoin"
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:41:42
well the more the merrier
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:41:51
if teechan works on the current chain, then good luck to them
frib 2017-01-17 09:41:59
it doesn't matter what people who read reddit and irc chat and are on bitcoin core dev team want
JackH 2017-01-17 09:42:02
exactly my point from the begining
grubles 2017-01-17 09:42:10
how is teechan a solution if it literally only consists of emin tweeting that it works?
frib 2017-01-17 09:42:20
and yet they continually talk about changing bitcoin in terms of this small community
JackH 2017-01-17 09:42:29
it doesnt matter, the point is that alternative solutions appear
grubles 2017-01-17 09:42:30
you complain about segwit and LN but you have no qualms about that fact
JackH 2017-01-17 09:42:40
I complain about the activation threshold
grubles 2017-01-17 09:42:42
no there is no appearance
JackH 2017-01-17 09:42:45
and that it is set high, too high
grubles 2017-01-17 09:42:46
only tweets
JackH 2017-01-17 09:42:58
thats fine
frib 2017-01-17 09:43:09
JackH, couldn't you very easily change the code and release your own version with a lower threshold?
JackH 2017-01-17 09:43:11
it is early days for teechan otoo then
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:43:23
JackH: but what would make any threshold agreeable? We would have to vote on that, and with what threshold do we do that?
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:43:25
this just keeps going
JackH 2017-01-17 09:43:28
51%
JackH 2017-01-17 09:43:35
that would be realistic
JackH 2017-01-17 09:43:38
not 95%
frib 2017-01-17 09:43:40
why not 50.1
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:43:42
best we have is a meritocracy based on good programmers and discussions on reddit/irc
JackH 2017-01-17 09:43:48
yeah, 50.1% works as well
grubles 2017-01-17 09:43:49
bitcoin developers don't really care about gambling site woes
frib 2017-01-17 09:44:01
JackH, please answer question
JackH 2017-01-17 09:44:01
bitcoin developers dont really care, full stop
grubles 2017-01-17 09:44:11
ok now you're just trolling
grubles 2017-01-17 09:44:15
/ignore JackH
JackH 2017-01-17 09:44:30
yeah I guess someone could release a version that had a lower activation frib
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:44:34
JackH: i'm sure they discussed this a lot, 50% is a bad point to start forking
marijnfs 2017-01-17 09:44:41
rather at a good majority
frib 2017-01-17 09:44:45
JackH, isn't that really the point then
frib 2017-01-17 09:45:01
in the end everyone could release a version with their own threshold
