[Bitcoin-development] please check my debug.log

2014-04-29 Thread Eugen Leitl
I've put up some bitcoind nodes after the network is in need of some, and would like some feedback in that the nodes are fully operational and doing something useful. Please check the logs and tell me whether I'm doing good. debug.log from a node that has been running for a day: 2014-04-29

Re: [Bitcoin-development] please check my debug.log

2014-04-29 Thread Mike Hearn
Looks good to me! You're not in the DNS seeds yet. If you leave your nodes up for a while then you'll start getting traffic from bitcoinj clients too. On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: I've put up some bitcoind nodes after the network is in need of some,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Mike Hearn
I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so. Every time miners and nodes ignore a block that creates formula() coins that's a majority vote on a controversial political matter, as evidenced by the

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: It only works if the majority of hashpower is controlled by attackers, in which case Bitcoin is already doomed. So it doesn't matter at that point. These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers— nor would many

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Mike Hearn
These parties wouldn't generally consider themselves attackers Of course not, attackers rarely do :) But they are miners who are taking part in malicious double spending. That makes them attackers. If miners don't exist to stop double spending, what do they exist for? I mean, this is

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-29 Thread Jouke Hofman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We have BIP70 already in use (over a hundred paid requests). Could you elaborate on why this needs changing? On 28-04-14 14:39, Gavin Andresen wrote: There is a discussion about clarifying how BIP70 signs payment requests here:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to change payment protocol signing

2014-04-29 Thread Gavin
Consensus is the spec should be clarified to match current behavior, so it won't change. -- Gavin Andresen On Apr 29, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Jouke Hofman jo...@bitonic.nl wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We have BIP70 already in use (over a hundred paid requests).

[Bitcoin-development] GBT 2.0 wishlist

2014-04-29 Thread Luke-Jr
Let's try to get GBT 2.0 off the ground finally.. :) Here's some wishlist items/ideas: - Extremely low bandwidth use (binary protocol, with compression support) - UDP-based transport protocol? (so message order need not be preserved at the expense of latency) - Ability to instruct miners to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Coinbase reallocation to discourage Finney attacks

2014-04-29 Thread Justus Ranvier
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/29/2014 02:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: I do think we need to move beyond this idea of Bitcoin being some kind of elegant embodiment of natural mathematical law. It just ain't so. I think everybody understands that Bitcoin has a positive net