Day changed to 2025-03-01
[05:10] lru: suppose I wanted to start a private bitcoin network internally that did not communicate with anyone else, for testing, and I wanted to start the blockchain from scratch, so I could experiment and experience what the beginning was like... is that possible to do without code changes, or do I need to hack bitcoin itself?
[05:13] jfw: lru: you'd probably need to look at checkpoints.cpp
[05:26] lru: thank you!
[20:56] lru: stumbled across this, and it reminds me of what I've read about Eulora: https://www.townforge.net/
Day changed to 2025-03-02
[18:41] jwm: hey friends
[18:42] nekoluce: hi
[18:43] nekoluce: hi chad !
[18:43] jfw: hey jwm, what's goin' on?
[19:14] caai: hi luz! happy sunday!
[19:16] nekoluce: happpy sunday chad how are you doing ?
[19:23] caai: I am doing well. how about you? did you buy any chocolate worms for the movie with jacob yesterday?
[19:24] nekoluce: no xD
[19:24] nekoluce: we had jacob choco no worms
[19:29] caai: haha. alright
Day changed to 2025-03-03
[22:30] lru: http://trilema.com/2019/thelastpsychiatristcom-can-narcissism-be-cured-adnotated/?b=loss%20%3B%20the%20p&e=%20sad#footnote_2_87379 ", on the other hand, am not particularly intelligent -- I'm just very systematicaly dedicated to not being stupid."
[22:30] lru: does anyone know if he defined that system in one place? besides the glossary
Day changed to 2025-03-05
[14:02] caai: \query jfw
Day changed to 2025-03-07
[16:21] sstacks: Greetings to all
[18:02] dorion: hey sstacks, what's up ?
[18:08] sstacks: how you guys doing?
[18:10] dorion: ok. long time no see.
[18:11] dorion: are you back in the city this week ?
[18:16] sstacks: Yeah, arrived on tuesday.Been catching up with pending topics
[18:17] sstacks: Looking forward to take the edge router next week to jfw.
[18:18] sstacks: Wondering if i could take the online unit in case we need to apply some changes maybe? Dont know.
[18:19] sstacks: dorion im aware your achieved one more year of being born..i sent a whatsapp msg
[18:19] sstacks: congratulating
[18:25] dorion: sstacks, yeah, my bday was last week. thanks. didn't have much of a party this year, family was visiting and we went to the beach.
[18:29] sstacks: sounds good enough my friend. It is indeed important to stay in touch with fam.
[20:33] jfw: roger that, sstacks; I should be around
[20:34] jfw: seems like everybody wants to bring me their ailing computers lately
[20:35] jfw: sstacks: you could bring the node too, sure, I can do a health check and see if there's any new patches available
[20:36] sstacks: jfw: thanks
[20:37] sstacks: ok, how the tagging works? hhaha
[20:42] jfw: like highlighting lines in irc? that's when someone writes your nick
[21:00] sstacks: so you see my msgs to you highlighed when i write your nick?
[21:01] dorion: sstacks, yep.
Day changed to 2025-03-08
[02:35] jfw: lru: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14253 - not a bad find. I'm not aware of any tidy one-liner definition, though the question might serve at least as a reading lens since it permeates much of his writing. there is http://trilema.com/2019/the-road-to-stupidity-part-0/
[02:35] sourcerer: 2025-03-03 22:30:12 (#jwrd) lru: http://trilema.com/2019/thelastpsychiatristcom-can-narcissism-be-cured-adnotated/?b=loss%20%3B%20the%20p&e=%20sad#footnote_2_87379 ", on the other hand, am not particularly intelligent -- I'm just very systematicaly dedicated to not being stupid."
[02:36] jfw: and perhaps something like seeing things for what they are rather than what you might want them to be
[02:45] jfw: !e view-height
[02:45] btcexplorer: block_height: 886774
[02:45] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 243
[02:45] jfw: here we go again - same here, with 274 minutes since last block.
[02:52] jfw: but that weather aside, this new guy is all up to speed.
[02:52] sourcerer: 2025-01-11 06:22:36 (#jwrd) jfw: dorion: I removed the fake-new HDDs for return, along with the SAS RAID card for now since it was no longer serving any purpose. The new EVO 860 1TB SSD is in, bitcoin homedir is migrated and node sync is proceeding from block 461567, doing a good 8 bpm.
[02:52] jfw: (and got the dollars back from the HDD scam, if not the hoped-for terabytes.)
[03:06] jfw: caai: you up for a coffee tomorrow with some others? PM me
[03:28] jfw: !E view-height
[03:28] nzbtcexplorer: block_height: 883682
[03:28] nzbtcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 31533
[03:28] jfw: !e view-height
[03:28] btcexplorer: block_height: 886809
[03:28] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: -23
[14:08] jfw: !E view-height
[14:08] nzbtcexplorer: block_height: 883682
[14:08] nzbtcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 32173
Day changed to 2025-03-09
[00:09] jfw: paging whaack; please to get nzbtcexplorer under control.
[00:10] nekoluce: paging ?
[00:10] jfw: nekoluce: it's an expression, like on a pager or PA system
[00:10] nekoluce: oh okay
[00:10] jfw: calling his attention if he gets to reading
[04:19] lru: jfw: thank you for the links!
[04:49] lru: !w help
[04:49] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[04:49] lru: !w help register
[04:49] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[04:49] lru: !w register
[04:49] wotbot: lru: usage error: give a plain HTTP link to your public key (and nothing more).
[04:52] lru: !w register http://digon.foursquare.net/lru/key.asc
[04:52] wotbot: lru registered with key 2EB8E89F411DD3452F57518D14AC97E46D51691D
[04:53] lru: I'm guessing the rest of the commands are not for me :-)
Day changed to 2025-03-11
[21:29] whaack: jfw: http://ztkfg.com/2025/03/one-bitcoindexplorer-mirror-is-down/ , atm I'm going to retire nzexplorer, and replace it with a collocated machine.
[21:34] whaack: Jfw: how is everything? Sorry I didn't make it to Panama a couple months back
[21:34] whaack: I would like to go sometime this year
[21:37] whaack: I'm getting back into studying math, I wrote it about it briefly on my blog. I'm convinced I need to do a lot of study before I can do any meaningful contribution
[21:38] whaack: Oh wow, I'm seeing the joint parts spam now. I thought the problem was just that the explorer was behind on blocks
[22:05] whaack: goodnight, nzbtcexplorer
[22:41] jfw: ah, thanks for taking care of that whaack.
[22:44] jfw: lru: nice, looks like the help led the way, terse as it is.
[22:44] jfw: you can use some other commands
[22:45] jfw: !w key lru
[22:45] wotbot: lru has key 2EB8E89F411DD3452F57518D14AC97E46D51691D.
[22:45] jfw: !w rated
[22:45] wotbot: jfw: usage error: give the rating target name.
[22:46] jfw: whaack: I expect to be in panama for most though not all of the year so just let me know when things clarify.
[22:47] jfw: and nice bird pics.
Day changed to 2025-03-12
[03:19] lru: !w rated lru
[03:19] wotbot: lru has not rated lru.
[03:19] lru: !w help rated
[03:19] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[03:19] lru: !w help rate
[03:19] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[03:19] lru: !w rate
[03:19] wotbot: lru: usage error: give a name, numeric rating, and (optional) comment.
[03:20] lru: !w up
[03:20] wotbot: lru: usage error: in a channel, you must give the nick to set voice for.
[03:21] lru: thanks :-)
[14:28] whaack: Looks like I replaced my bots spam with my own lol
[22:18] nekoluce: hey cruciform !
Day changed to 2025-03-16
[03:56] jfw: in exceedingly unwelcome interruptions, apparently firefox addons (of the classic XUL ecosystem) come with a builtin time-bomb, that just detonated.
[03:56] jfw: like the signing key expired or something.
[04:01] jfw: to defuse, go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false. except I recall having needed to do that already so not sure why the second round now.
[21:59] lru: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Feb-2025/#14201 So far in my research, it's the complexity and lack of easy verification that has proved to be the weakest link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy-ftVdSa_8
[21:59] sourcerer: 2025-02-11 22:47:41 (#jwrd) jfw: if you do take the time to study the stuff, I'd be curious if you find it worth vouching for or on the contrary worth mining for exploits
Day changed to 2025-03-17
[18:15] nekoluce: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/1jcgvja/inside_look_at_bitfarms_new_bitcoin_mine_in/?tl=es-es guys they are farms of bitcoin here in panama
[18:15] nekoluce: in el interior
[18:15] nekoluce: they are called bitfarms
[18:38] jfw: smoking gun? https://sharylattkisson.com/2025/03/special-investigation-govt-deception-over-thimerosal-in-vaccines-linked-to-neurodevelopmental-harm-in-children/
[18:40] jfw: no specific mention of the supposedly disgraced andrew wakefield study, perhaps that's just a Bernie Sandals strawman.
[18:41] jfw: I got more curious about this after seeing his exploding-head interview of RFK Jr
Day changed to 2025-03-18
[18:10] lru: looking at a bitcoin stats dashboard such as https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/ I see that about 84% of nodes are running version Satoshi 25.0.0 or higher
[18:10] lru: doesn't this mean that the concerns about bc1* addresses are moot? or am I missing something here?
[18:11] jfw: lru, how do you figure?
[18:12] lru: if 84% of the nodes reject spending from an "anyone can spend address" such as 3* or bc1*, then they aren't "anyone can spend" anymore,no?
[18:14] jfw: what power do nodes have? at best they're basically just bots, they can rebroadcast what they saw, or not, but it only takes one to get the message out
[18:15] lru: sure, but that one is standing against all the rest, and will be ignored along with the suspicious block
[18:16] jfw: nodes != hash power != economic power
[18:16] jfw: anyone with an IP address can "be a node"
[18:17] lru: isn't the purpose of a node to verify?
[18:18] lru: all the miners in the world can keep spitting out blocks, but if the nodes reject them, then what?
[18:18] jfw: then those nodes fall behind and can't transact.
[18:20] lru: so we're basically talking a huge fork... the 84% stagnate, and the miners run their own node version and carry on?
[18:22] jfw: it's not even a fork though, if nobody's mining another chain, per your scenario. there's just a bunch of zombie nodes that got wedged, exactly as if they'd ran out of disk space. does nothing to anyone else.
[18:24] jfw: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14344 - she gives the correction that this is paraguay, not panama. unsourced reddit gossip wins again!!
[18:24] sourcerer: 2025-03-17 18:15:06 (#jwrd) nekoluce: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/1jcgvja/inside_look_at_bitfarms_new_bitcoin_mine_in/?tl=es-es guys they are farms of bitcoin here in panama
[18:26] jfw: Panama's grid is too busy falling apart to be the basis for anything innovative
[18:30] lru: per your scenario, 51% of miners would need to run a different version of the node software, and act against the majority of users in order to spend what has come to be considered other people's coins... using this logic, the 3* and bc1* are not even special... rogue miners could make all 1a* addresses as public spend too, just by sheer force
[18:33] lru: and that's an impressive bitfarm, btw :-)
[18:36] jfw: sigh. now you're moving goalposts, what "my scenario" or 51%s. and no, rogue miners can't spend arbitrary coins because they don't have the keys to sign for them.
[18:38] jfw: also don't know how you even define this "majority of users"
[18:38] jfw: are bacteria living on dollar bills "users of the federal reserve" ?
[18:39] lru: I wasn't aware I was moving goalposts... it's not my intention to argue unfairly. But it is my understanding (which could be wrong) that an "anyone can spend" address doesn't need the private key either.
[18:42] jfw: exactly. segwit says "wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of the signatures" (not kidding, that's from its creator sipa). 1-addresses don't.
[18:43] lru: didn't 3* addresses exists from the beginning?
[18:45] jfw: no, they were a gavin softfork.
[18:45] jfw: source on sipa-ism
[18:50] lru: ok, so both 3* and bc1* are new, thanks
[18:51] lru: but the point I'm trying to make is that it's all just software... the node software handles 3 and bc1 differently now, but there's nothing stopping miners from changine the code to handle 1a* addresses special either
[18:51] lru: changing*
[18:52] lru: if the majority of nodes have no weight in validation work, and only miners get a say, then aren't we doomed to the mercy of miners alone?
[18:52] jfw: "nothing" other than it wouldn't be bitcoin anymore and would manifest as a fork and one side or the other would prevail in the market
[18:53] lru: exactly
[18:53] lru: and as far as I can tell, 3* and bc1* are prevailing in the market
[18:54] jfw: it's unfortunate that miners have quite so much power to muddy the waters, but they still answer to coin holders in the end.
[18:54] lru: how do they answer?
[18:54] jfw: per my previous line.
[18:55] lru: ok, so after the earthquake is over, "bitcoin" emerges as where the majority of money followed
[18:57] jfw: (or in somewhat longer form, http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/ )
[18:59] jfw: maybe the zombies overrun the world and they'll redefine words however they want; that still doesn't change that bitcoin is bitcoin and not anything else.
[18:59] lru chuckles
[19:01] lru: I get the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that you don't view latest bitcoin-core as "bitcoin"?
[19:02] jfw: quite so; and that's backed by putting out our own signal against the noise
[19:03] lru: I know that I certainly do not have the resources to mine my way onto my own chosen version of bitcoin....so I'm left stuck watching where the majority of nodes go, and what the software they use actually does.
[19:04] lru: I'm glad that reference version exists
[19:04] jfw: and observe that the reference implementation validates the entire chain, up to 888361 as of now
[19:04] jfw: !e view-height
[19:04] btcexplorer: block_height: 888361
[19:04] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: -27
[19:06] jfw: that is, 'bitcoin core' has still not dared to break with the protocol, despite all prior attempts to do so
[19:16] lru: do you only accept payment from other 1* addresses?
[20:00] lru: 'bitcoin core' hasn't broken the protocol, but it has added to it, and now it has its own backward compatibility to preserve (or not)
[20:07] jfw: no; for payment purposes I don't assign (or recognize) any meaning in the inputs of a btc transaction; if an output is created with the designated address and value, and it gets sufficient block confirmations, that's good enough.
[20:08] jfw: no need to turn down someone else's anyonecanspend if it goes into my lockbox
[20:09] lru: is it feasible today to actually spend someone else's anyonecanspend amount?
[20:09] jfw: but in general I only send payment to 1-addresses, because anything else would mean accepting a change to my software to support those nonstandard output types
[20:10] jfw: no, because of the softforks (miner collusion) holding up thus far
[20:11] lru: I recently tried using electrum as a wallet, and I had to start it with the --nosegwit option (quite hidden!) for it to even generate a 1* address style wallet, but it did do so in the end
[20:11] jfw: and if anyone claims the bounty, it'll presumably be the miners
[20:11] jfw: indeed
[20:13] lru: I still don't see how the miners could do that without leaving 84% of existing nodes in the dust
[20:19] jfw: if you want a better measure of where the crowd is at, looking at total coin holdings by address type would be more informative than node counts.
[20:20] lru: I'd love to,but so far have not found that data online
[20:21] lru: only reason I was watching node counts and software versions was because I believe (believed?) that they had a role in verification
[20:21] jfw: whaack was looking into it at one point, with some gloomy preliminary results (ie a significant percentage jumping ship)
[20:21] jfw: nodes do verify but only for their owner or whoever trusts that particular node
[20:22] jfw: they don't 'vote' or anything
[20:22] lru: right
[20:22] lru: but say, if your node at 888361 sees the next block come in with an invalid signature check on one of the transactions, from a 1* to a 1*.... would your node not reject that block?
[20:24] lru: such rejection seems like the only "vote" a node has...in which case, knowing what versions the majority of nodes are running can be useful info
[20:27] jfw: correct, it would reject the block
[20:29] jfw: however I still don't see the 'majority of nodes' being relevant, especially from experience - the majority *are* nonconforming and as such get auto-banned by my nodes all the time; this occasionally even causes us traditionalists to get partitioned from the miners, but the situation doesn't tend to last for long because all it takes is one good relay chain to circumvent the damage
[20:31] lru: fascinating.... what reasons have you seen for auto-banning by your nodes? other nodes allowing invalid signatures in a block?
[20:32] jfw: no it's a p2p protocol error checking thing
[20:32] lru: I suppose there is enough room on the internet for purposely crafted malicious nodes, just like there would be for vulnerability scanners on websites and services of all types :-)
[20:32] lru: ah ok
[20:34] jfw: asciilifeform introduced the auto-ban, I later gave it a toggle-switch
[20:35] jfw: to help get through such recurring weather
[20:35] sourcerer: 2025-02-02 21:17:36 (#jwrd) jfw: dorion: did you perchance get your node connected again? mine here just got stuck at 881981 for no apparent reason (eg still claims to have peer connections)
[20:35] sourcerer: 2025-03-08 02:45:42 (#jwrd) jfw: here we go again - same here, with 274 minutes since last block.
[20:40] lru: thanks for the discussion! I gotta run for now
[20:40] jfw: you're welcome.
Day changed to 2025-03-20
[02:57] whaack: jfw: I may run the numbers again soon. I am planning to eventually write an article further discussing the game theory involved with taking segwit coins.
[03:00] whaack: The main idea is that at the moment, it is debatable whether or not it's worth it to take the coins. The risk of catastrophic economic consequence given the large number of coins in segwit addresses is non-negligible.
[03:01] whaack: However, if there was some movement of coins back into legacy addresses, then as the number of coins in segwit addresses shrinks that risk also shrinks.
[03:03] whaack: So, if one day people wake up and suddenly have some sense and start moving their coins back into Legacy addresses, and the miners were paying attention, the stragglers (the ones that don't get the memo to move their coins to legacy addresses) could lose their coins.
[03:04] whaack: Maybe 10 mil coins in segwit addresses is to risky to steal from, but 300,000 coins is probably safe.
[03:04] whaack: "steal"
[03:04] whaack: is too* risky
[03:07] whaack: All this said, this theory where people start moving their coins into legacy (aka real p2pkh) addresses and then the miners take the straggler's coins is mostly fantasy. But there are ways to facilitate this safely.
[03:08] whaack: For example, the miners could soft.fork again, with the new rule blocking movement into ( but not out of ) segwit addresses.
[03:10] whaack: And give X amount of time before taking the coins.
[03:12] whaack: Any miner can start excluding legacy->segwit bitcoin txs at any time without any risk other than losing out on tx fees
[03:15] whaack: Another question one might ask on this topic : has any miner already mined a block attempting to snag segwit coins? The evidence of this would be an orphaned block on a bitcoind node. It would be especially interesting if anyone has block .dat files from a bitcoind node that was running at the time of the segwit fork.
[03:16] whaack: It's more likely at that point that pools weren't following the new segwit rules.
[03:18] whaack: night!
Day changed to 2025-03-27
[21:08] cruciform: hey, @dorion @jfw - thinking of coming over sometime in April; you guys around?
[21:22] cruciform: oh, and hi, @nekoluce!
[21:52] jfw: cruciform: yep, I'll be around
Day changed to 2025-03-29
[05:56] caai: hey jfw: i replicated the HUD development environment for testing. i discovered that if i leave the destination directory in the gulpfile.js as 'dist' rather 'public' the tables and graphs populate fine. every time i change the destination directory to 'public', without fail it crashes the dataTables and apexcharts.
Day changed to 2025-03-30
[16:37] jfw: caai: did you see my followups yesterday? the logbot at least had a network outage and missed them.
[17:30] cruciform: @jfw sweet - shall see about booking some flights!
[18:53] caai: jfw: yes, i saw the followups from yesterday. i hadn't responded because now i am not so sure i relayed accurate information. it is the case that i deleted the dist directory on the workstation machine, however, prior to that i had already deployed the dist directory to the server.
[19:00] caai: in turn, when i subsequently deleted the dist directory on my workstation, then did the rebuild, there were no changes to be included in the second deployment to the server. thus, my rebuilt, other than html/php files never made it to the server.
[19:06] caai: i am deducing this because once i started to make more modifications in the 'test environment' to files, and these caused further rebuilts, which affected imported files, the charts stopped working again.
[19:06] caai: so, back to square one
[20:18] jfw: caai: ok, then to me it sounds like the question to focus on for now is whether the code in a pristine unpack of the zip file is in fact able to build correctly on the workstation.
[20:33] caai: alright. i have downloaded the zip file again and unpacked it. it is experiencing the same problem; tables and charts not working
[20:36] jfw: then it sounds again like a clear case of problem exists in the code as shipped.
[21:02] caai: so it seems
[23:58] caai_: SHA-256 checksum for /home/user/Downloads/Screenshot From 2025-03-30 23-56-38.png (remote): b1db5ceb9d6b275f541f833a661c034d66c5ba4d000fbccf89e9523cf4f43c4c
Day changed to 2025-03-31
[00:24] jfw: what's that, caai_ ?
[00:26] caai_: a screenshot you may enjoy
[00:27] jfw: ah, apparently it's hexchat trying to do DCC file transfers.
[00:28] jfw: that's not really a thing, though.
[00:29] jfw: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14459 is the view in the mirror
[00:29] sourcerer: 2025-03-30 23:58:53 (#jwrd) caai_: SHA-256 checksum for /home/user/Downloads/Screenshot From 2025-03-30 23-56-38.png (remote): b1db5ceb9d6b275f541f833a661c034d66c5ba4d000fbccf89e9523cf4f43c4c
[00:32] jfw: I've sometimes contemplated expanding on the paste service to allow binary file sharing, image galleries and whatnot but haven't found it sufficiently needed on it to devote the attention that would be required
[00:33] jfw: strike "on it", not sure how that got in there.
[00:42] jfw: meanwhile, manually ingested: http://jfxpt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/heaviest_objects_universe.png - notbad
[05:10] lru: suppose I wanted to start a private bitcoin network internally that did not communicate with anyone else, for testing, and I wanted to start the blockchain from scratch, so I could experiment and experience what the beginning was like... is that possible to do without code changes, or do I need to hack bitcoin itself?
[05:13] jfw: lru: you'd probably need to look at checkpoints.cpp
[05:26] lru: thank you!
[20:56] lru: stumbled across this, and it reminds me of what I've read about Eulora: https://www.townforge.net/
Day changed to 2025-03-02
[18:41] jwm: hey friends
[18:42] nekoluce: hi
[18:43] nekoluce: hi chad !
[18:43] jfw: hey jwm, what's goin' on?
[19:14] caai: hi luz! happy sunday!
[19:16] nekoluce: happpy sunday chad how are you doing ?
[19:23] caai: I am doing well. how about you? did you buy any chocolate worms for the movie with jacob yesterday?
[19:24] nekoluce: no xD
[19:24] nekoluce: we had jacob choco no worms
[19:29] caai: haha. alright
Day changed to 2025-03-03
[22:30] lru: http://trilema.com/2019/thelastpsychiatristcom-can-narcissism-be-cured-adnotated/?b=loss%20%3B%20the%20p&e=%20sad#footnote_2_87379 ", on the other hand, am not particularly intelligent -- I'm just very systematicaly dedicated to not being stupid."
[22:30] lru: does anyone know if he defined that system in one place? besides the glossary
Day changed to 2025-03-05
[14:02] caai: \query jfw
Day changed to 2025-03-07
[16:21] sstacks: Greetings to all
[18:02] dorion: hey sstacks, what's up ?
[18:08] sstacks: how you guys doing?
[18:10] dorion: ok. long time no see.
[18:11] dorion: are you back in the city this week ?
[18:16] sstacks: Yeah, arrived on tuesday.Been catching up with pending topics
[18:17] sstacks: Looking forward to take the edge router next week to jfw.
[18:18] sstacks: Wondering if i could take the online unit in case we need to apply some changes maybe? Dont know.
[18:19] sstacks: dorion im aware your achieved one more year of being born..i sent a whatsapp msg
[18:19] sstacks: congratulating
[18:25] dorion: sstacks, yeah, my bday was last week. thanks. didn't have much of a party this year, family was visiting and we went to the beach.
[18:29] sstacks: sounds good enough my friend. It is indeed important to stay in touch with fam.
[20:33] jfw: roger that, sstacks; I should be around
[20:34] jfw: seems like everybody wants to bring me their ailing computers lately
[20:35] jfw: sstacks: you could bring the node too, sure, I can do a health check and see if there's any new patches available
[20:36] sstacks: jfw: thanks
[20:37] sstacks: ok, how the tagging works? hhaha
[20:42] jfw: like highlighting lines in irc? that's when someone writes your nick
[21:00] sstacks: so you see my msgs to you highlighed when i write your nick?
[21:01] dorion: sstacks, yep.
Day changed to 2025-03-08
[02:35] jfw: lru: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14253 - not a bad find. I'm not aware of any tidy one-liner definition, though the question might serve at least as a reading lens since it permeates much of his writing. there is http://trilema.com/2019/the-road-to-stupidity-part-0/
[02:35] sourcerer: 2025-03-03 22:30:12 (#jwrd) lru: http://trilema.com/2019/thelastpsychiatristcom-can-narcissism-be-cured-adnotated/?b=loss%20%3B%20the%20p&e=%20sad#footnote_2_87379 ", on the other hand, am not particularly intelligent -- I'm just very systematicaly dedicated to not being stupid."
[02:36] jfw: and perhaps something like seeing things for what they are rather than what you might want them to be
[02:45] jfw: !e view-height
[02:45] btcexplorer: block_height: 886774
[02:45] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 243
[02:45] jfw: here we go again - same here, with 274 minutes since last block.
[02:52] jfw: but that weather aside, this new guy is all up to speed.
[02:52] sourcerer: 2025-01-11 06:22:36 (#jwrd) jfw: dorion: I removed the fake-new HDDs for return, along with the SAS RAID card for now since it was no longer serving any purpose. The new EVO 860 1TB SSD is in, bitcoin homedir is migrated and node sync is proceeding from block 461567, doing a good 8 bpm.
[02:52] jfw: (and got the dollars back from the HDD scam, if not the hoped-for terabytes.)
[03:06] jfw: caai: you up for a coffee tomorrow with some others? PM me
[03:28] jfw: !E view-height
[03:28] nzbtcexplorer: block_height: 883682
[03:28] nzbtcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 31533
[03:28] jfw: !e view-height
[03:28] btcexplorer: block_height: 886809
[03:28] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: -23
[14:08] jfw: !E view-height
[14:08] nzbtcexplorer: block_height: 883682
[14:08] nzbtcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: 32173
Day changed to 2025-03-09
[00:09] jfw: paging whaack; please to get nzbtcexplorer under control.
[00:10] nekoluce: paging ?
[00:10] jfw: nekoluce: it's an expression, like on a pager or PA system
[00:10] nekoluce: oh okay
[00:10] jfw: calling his attention if he gets to reading
[04:19] lru: jfw: thank you for the links!
[04:49] lru: !w help
[04:49] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[04:49] lru: !w help register
[04:49] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[04:49] lru: !w register
[04:49] wotbot: lru: usage error: give a plain HTTP link to your public key (and nothing more).
[04:52] lru: !w register http://digon.foursquare.net/lru/key.asc
[04:52] wotbot: lru registered with key 2EB8E89F411DD3452F57518D14AC97E46D51691D
[04:53] lru: I'm guessing the rest of the commands are not for me :-)
Day changed to 2025-03-11
[21:29] whaack: jfw: http://ztkfg.com/2025/03/one-bitcoindexplorer-mirror-is-down/ , atm I'm going to retire nzexplorer, and replace it with a collocated machine.
[21:34] whaack: Jfw: how is everything? Sorry I didn't make it to Panama a couple months back
[21:34] whaack: I would like to go sometime this year
[21:37] whaack: I'm getting back into studying math, I wrote it about it briefly on my blog. I'm convinced I need to do a lot of study before I can do any meaningful contribution
[21:38] whaack: Oh wow, I'm seeing the joint parts spam now. I thought the problem was just that the explorer was behind on blocks
[22:05] whaack: goodnight, nzbtcexplorer
[22:41] jfw: ah, thanks for taking care of that whaack.
[22:44] jfw: lru: nice, looks like the help led the way, terse as it is.
[22:44] jfw: you can use some other commands
[22:45] jfw: !w key lru
[22:45] wotbot: lru has key 2EB8E89F411DD3452F57518D14AC97E46D51691D.
[22:45] jfw: !w rated
[22:45] wotbot: jfw: usage error: give the rating target name.
[22:46] jfw: whaack: I expect to be in panama for most though not all of the year so just let me know when things clarify.
[22:47] jfw: and nice bird pics.
Day changed to 2025-03-12
[03:19] lru: !w rated lru
[03:19] wotbot: lru has not rated lru.
[03:19] lru: !w help rated
[03:19] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[03:19] lru: !w help rate
[03:19] wotbot: Available commands: hi, help, register, up, down, key, rate, unrate, rated
[03:19] lru: !w rate
[03:19] wotbot: lru: usage error: give a name, numeric rating, and (optional) comment.
[03:20] lru: !w up
[03:20] wotbot: lru: usage error: in a channel, you must give the nick to set voice for.
[03:21] lru: thanks :-)
[14:28] whaack: Looks like I replaced my bots spam with my own lol
[22:18] nekoluce: hey cruciform !
Day changed to 2025-03-16
[03:56] jfw: in exceedingly unwelcome interruptions, apparently firefox addons (of the classic XUL ecosystem) come with a builtin time-bomb, that just detonated.
[03:56] jfw: like the signing key expired or something.
[04:01] jfw: to defuse, go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false. except I recall having needed to do that already so not sure why the second round now.
[21:59] lru: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Feb-2025/#14201 So far in my research, it's the complexity and lack of easy verification that has proved to be the weakest link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy-ftVdSa_8
[21:59] sourcerer: 2025-02-11 22:47:41 (#jwrd) jfw: if you do take the time to study the stuff, I'd be curious if you find it worth vouching for or on the contrary worth mining for exploits
Day changed to 2025-03-17
[18:15] nekoluce: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/1jcgvja/inside_look_at_bitfarms_new_bitcoin_mine_in/?tl=es-es guys they are farms of bitcoin here in panama
[18:15] nekoluce: in el interior
[18:15] nekoluce: they are called bitfarms
[18:38] jfw: smoking gun? https://sharylattkisson.com/2025/03/special-investigation-govt-deception-over-thimerosal-in-vaccines-linked-to-neurodevelopmental-harm-in-children/
[18:40] jfw: no specific mention of the supposedly disgraced andrew wakefield study, perhaps that's just a Bernie Sandals strawman.
[18:41] jfw: I got more curious about this after seeing his exploding-head interview of RFK Jr
Day changed to 2025-03-18
[18:10] lru: looking at a bitcoin stats dashboard such as https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/ I see that about 84% of nodes are running version Satoshi 25.0.0 or higher
[18:10] lru: doesn't this mean that the concerns about bc1* addresses are moot? or am I missing something here?
[18:11] jfw: lru, how do you figure?
[18:12] lru: if 84% of the nodes reject spending from an "anyone can spend address" such as 3* or bc1*, then they aren't "anyone can spend" anymore,no?
[18:14] jfw: what power do nodes have? at best they're basically just bots, they can rebroadcast what they saw, or not, but it only takes one to get the message out
[18:15] lru: sure, but that one is standing against all the rest, and will be ignored along with the suspicious block
[18:16] jfw: nodes != hash power != economic power
[18:16] jfw: anyone with an IP address can "be a node"
[18:17] lru: isn't the purpose of a node to verify?
[18:18] lru: all the miners in the world can keep spitting out blocks, but if the nodes reject them, then what?
[18:18] jfw: then those nodes fall behind and can't transact.
[18:20] lru: so we're basically talking a huge fork... the 84% stagnate, and the miners run their own node version and carry on?
[18:22] jfw: it's not even a fork though, if nobody's mining another chain, per your scenario. there's just a bunch of zombie nodes that got wedged, exactly as if they'd ran out of disk space. does nothing to anyone else.
[18:24] jfw: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14344 - she gives the correction that this is paraguay, not panama. unsourced reddit gossip wins again!!
[18:24] sourcerer: 2025-03-17 18:15:06 (#jwrd) nekoluce: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMining/comments/1jcgvja/inside_look_at_bitfarms_new_bitcoin_mine_in/?tl=es-es guys they are farms of bitcoin here in panama
[18:26] jfw: Panama's grid is too busy falling apart to be the basis for anything innovative
[18:30] lru: per your scenario, 51% of miners would need to run a different version of the node software, and act against the majority of users in order to spend what has come to be considered other people's coins... using this logic, the 3* and bc1* are not even special... rogue miners could make all 1a* addresses as public spend too, just by sheer force
[18:33] lru: and that's an impressive bitfarm, btw :-)
[18:36] jfw: sigh. now you're moving goalposts, what "my scenario" or 51%s. and no, rogue miners can't spend arbitrary coins because they don't have the keys to sign for them.
[18:38] jfw: also don't know how you even define this "majority of users"
[18:38] jfw: are bacteria living on dollar bills "users of the federal reserve" ?
[18:39] lru: I wasn't aware I was moving goalposts... it's not my intention to argue unfairly. But it is my understanding (which could be wrong) that an "anyone can spend" address doesn't need the private key either.
[18:42] jfw: exactly. segwit says "wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of the signatures" (not kidding, that's from its creator sipa). 1-addresses don't.
[18:43] lru: didn't 3* addresses exists from the beginning?
[18:45] jfw: no, they were a gavin softfork.
[18:45] jfw: source on sipa-ism
[18:50] lru: ok, so both 3* and bc1* are new, thanks
[18:51] lru: but the point I'm trying to make is that it's all just software... the node software handles 3 and bc1 differently now, but there's nothing stopping miners from changine the code to handle 1a* addresses special either
[18:51] lru: changing*
[18:52] lru: if the majority of nodes have no weight in validation work, and only miners get a say, then aren't we doomed to the mercy of miners alone?
[18:52] jfw: "nothing" other than it wouldn't be bitcoin anymore and would manifest as a fork and one side or the other would prevail in the market
[18:53] lru: exactly
[18:53] lru: and as far as I can tell, 3* and bc1* are prevailing in the market
[18:54] jfw: it's unfortunate that miners have quite so much power to muddy the waters, but they still answer to coin holders in the end.
[18:54] lru: how do they answer?
[18:54] jfw: per my previous line.
[18:55] lru: ok, so after the earthquake is over, "bitcoin" emerges as where the majority of money followed
[18:57] jfw: (or in somewhat longer form, http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/ )
[18:59] jfw: maybe the zombies overrun the world and they'll redefine words however they want; that still doesn't change that bitcoin is bitcoin and not anything else.
[18:59] lru chuckles
[19:01] lru: I get the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that you don't view latest bitcoin-core as "bitcoin"?
[19:02] jfw: quite so; and that's backed by putting out our own signal against the noise
[19:03] lru: I know that I certainly do not have the resources to mine my way onto my own chosen version of bitcoin....so I'm left stuck watching where the majority of nodes go, and what the software they use actually does.
[19:04] lru: I'm glad that reference version exists
[19:04] jfw: and observe that the reference implementation validates the entire chain, up to 888361 as of now
[19:04] jfw: !e view-height
[19:04] btcexplorer: block_height: 888361
[19:04] btcexplorer: mins_since_last_block: -27
[19:06] jfw: that is, 'bitcoin core' has still not dared to break with the protocol, despite all prior attempts to do so
[19:16] lru: do you only accept payment from other 1* addresses?
[20:00] lru: 'bitcoin core' hasn't broken the protocol, but it has added to it, and now it has its own backward compatibility to preserve (or not)
[20:07] jfw: no; for payment purposes I don't assign (or recognize) any meaning in the inputs of a btc transaction; if an output is created with the designated address and value, and it gets sufficient block confirmations, that's good enough.
[20:08] jfw: no need to turn down someone else's anyonecanspend if it goes into my lockbox
[20:09] lru: is it feasible today to actually spend someone else's anyonecanspend amount?
[20:09] jfw: but in general I only send payment to 1-addresses, because anything else would mean accepting a change to my software to support those nonstandard output types
[20:10] jfw: no, because of the softforks (miner collusion) holding up thus far
[20:11] lru: I recently tried using electrum as a wallet, and I had to start it with the --nosegwit option (quite hidden!) for it to even generate a 1* address style wallet, but it did do so in the end
[20:11] jfw: and if anyone claims the bounty, it'll presumably be the miners
[20:11] jfw: indeed
[20:13] lru: I still don't see how the miners could do that without leaving 84% of existing nodes in the dust
[20:19] jfw: if you want a better measure of where the crowd is at, looking at total coin holdings by address type would be more informative than node counts.
[20:20] lru: I'd love to,but so far have not found that data online
[20:21] lru: only reason I was watching node counts and software versions was because I believe (believed?) that they had a role in verification
[20:21] jfw: whaack was looking into it at one point, with some gloomy preliminary results (ie a significant percentage jumping ship)
[20:21] jfw: nodes do verify but only for their owner or whoever trusts that particular node
[20:22] jfw: they don't 'vote' or anything
[20:22] lru: right
[20:22] lru: but say, if your node at 888361 sees the next block come in with an invalid signature check on one of the transactions, from a 1* to a 1*.... would your node not reject that block?
[20:24] lru: such rejection seems like the only "vote" a node has...in which case, knowing what versions the majority of nodes are running can be useful info
[20:27] jfw: correct, it would reject the block
[20:29] jfw: however I still don't see the 'majority of nodes' being relevant, especially from experience - the majority *are* nonconforming and as such get auto-banned by my nodes all the time; this occasionally even causes us traditionalists to get partitioned from the miners, but the situation doesn't tend to last for long because all it takes is one good relay chain to circumvent the damage
[20:31] lru: fascinating.... what reasons have you seen for auto-banning by your nodes? other nodes allowing invalid signatures in a block?
[20:32] jfw: no it's a p2p protocol error checking thing
[20:32] lru: I suppose there is enough room on the internet for purposely crafted malicious nodes, just like there would be for vulnerability scanners on websites and services of all types :-)
[20:32] lru: ah ok
[20:34] jfw: asciilifeform introduced the auto-ban, I later gave it a toggle-switch
[20:35] jfw: to help get through such recurring weather
[20:35] sourcerer: 2025-02-02 21:17:36 (#jwrd) jfw: dorion: did you perchance get your node connected again? mine here just got stuck at 881981 for no apparent reason (eg still claims to have peer connections)
[20:35] sourcerer: 2025-03-08 02:45:42 (#jwrd) jfw: here we go again - same here, with 274 minutes since last block.
[20:40] lru: thanks for the discussion! I gotta run for now
[20:40] jfw: you're welcome.
Day changed to 2025-03-20
[02:57] whaack: jfw: I may run the numbers again soon. I am planning to eventually write an article further discussing the game theory involved with taking segwit coins.
[03:00] whaack: The main idea is that at the moment, it is debatable whether or not it's worth it to take the coins. The risk of catastrophic economic consequence given the large number of coins in segwit addresses is non-negligible.
[03:01] whaack: However, if there was some movement of coins back into legacy addresses, then as the number of coins in segwit addresses shrinks that risk also shrinks.
[03:03] whaack: So, if one day people wake up and suddenly have some sense and start moving their coins back into Legacy addresses, and the miners were paying attention, the stragglers (the ones that don't get the memo to move their coins to legacy addresses) could lose their coins.
[03:04] whaack: Maybe 10 mil coins in segwit addresses is to risky to steal from, but 300,000 coins is probably safe.
[03:04] whaack: "steal"
[03:04] whaack: is too* risky
[03:07] whaack: All this said, this theory where people start moving their coins into legacy (aka real p2pkh) addresses and then the miners take the straggler's coins is mostly fantasy. But there are ways to facilitate this safely.
[03:08] whaack: For example, the miners could soft.fork again, with the new rule blocking movement into ( but not out of ) segwit addresses.
[03:10] whaack: And give X amount of time before taking the coins.
[03:12] whaack: Any miner can start excluding legacy->segwit bitcoin txs at any time without any risk other than losing out on tx fees
[03:15] whaack: Another question one might ask on this topic : has any miner already mined a block attempting to snag segwit coins? The evidence of this would be an orphaned block on a bitcoind node. It would be especially interesting if anyone has block .dat files from a bitcoind node that was running at the time of the segwit fork.
[03:16] whaack: It's more likely at that point that pools weren't following the new segwit rules.
[03:18] whaack: night!
Day changed to 2025-03-27
[21:08] cruciform: hey, @dorion @jfw - thinking of coming over sometime in April; you guys around?
[21:22] cruciform: oh, and hi, @nekoluce!
[21:52] jfw: cruciform: yep, I'll be around
Day changed to 2025-03-29
[05:56] caai: hey jfw: i replicated the HUD development environment for testing. i discovered that if i leave the destination directory in the gulpfile.js as 'dist' rather 'public' the tables and graphs populate fine. every time i change the destination directory to 'public', without fail it crashes the dataTables and apexcharts.
Day changed to 2025-03-30
[16:37] jfw: caai: did you see my followups yesterday? the logbot at least had a network outage and missed them.
[17:30] cruciform: @jfw sweet - shall see about booking some flights!
[18:53] caai: jfw: yes, i saw the followups from yesterday. i hadn't responded because now i am not so sure i relayed accurate information. it is the case that i deleted the dist directory on the workstation machine, however, prior to that i had already deployed the dist directory to the server.
[19:00] caai: in turn, when i subsequently deleted the dist directory on my workstation, then did the rebuild, there were no changes to be included in the second deployment to the server. thus, my rebuilt, other than html/php files never made it to the server.
[19:06] caai: i am deducing this because once i started to make more modifications in the 'test environment' to files, and these caused further rebuilts, which affected imported files, the charts stopped working again.
[19:06] caai: so, back to square one
[20:18] jfw: caai: ok, then to me it sounds like the question to focus on for now is whether the code in a pristine unpack of the zip file is in fact able to build correctly on the workstation.
[20:33] caai: alright. i have downloaded the zip file again and unpacked it. it is experiencing the same problem; tables and charts not working
[20:36] jfw: then it sounds again like a clear case of problem exists in the code as shipped.
[21:02] caai: so it seems
[23:58] caai_: SHA-256 checksum for /home/user/Downloads/Screenshot From 2025-03-30 23-56-38.png (remote): b1db5ceb9d6b275f541f833a661c034d66c5ba4d000fbccf89e9523cf4f43c4c
Day changed to 2025-03-31
[00:24] jfw: what's that, caai_ ?
[00:26] caai_: a screenshot you may enjoy
[00:27] jfw: ah, apparently it's hexchat trying to do DCC file transfers.
[00:28] jfw: that's not really a thing, though.
[00:29] jfw: http://jfxpt.com/2025/jwrd-logs-for-Mar-2025/#14459 is the view in the mirror
[00:29] sourcerer: 2025-03-30 23:58:53 (#jwrd) caai_: SHA-256 checksum for /home/user/Downloads/Screenshot From 2025-03-30 23-56-38.png (remote): b1db5ceb9d6b275f541f833a661c034d66c5ba4d000fbccf89e9523cf4f43c4c
[00:32] jfw: I've sometimes contemplated expanding on the paste service to allow binary file sharing, image galleries and whatnot but haven't found it sufficiently needed on it to devote the attention that would be required
[00:33] jfw: strike "on it", not sure how that got in there.
[00:42] jfw: meanwhile, manually ingested: http://jfxpt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/heaviest_objects_universe.png - notbad
