1 2015-11-15T00:07:06  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
2 2015-11-15T00:08:10  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3 2015-11-15T00:08:39  <gmaxwell> so at devcore one of the things I talked about was some analysis taken from monitoring miners and mining pools. Someone collected data from all accessible stratum endpoints over several months
4 2015-11-15T00:10:25  <gmaxwell> and from it I can extract data like how much time from the first pool working on extending block X was it until the 2nd, 3rd, ... nth pool.  Taking the time after the first pool to reach half the pools, fit a linear model reasonably well.
5 2015-11-15T00:10:58  <jgarzik> cool
6 2015-11-15T00:11:10  <gmaxwell> oh yea you weren't there when I presented on this.
7 2015-11-15T00:12:24  <gmaxwell> I tried all sorts of different analysis approaches, including including factors for in china or not, pool origin, etc. but there really aren't enough blocks (esp from smaller miners) to say much of statistical significance.  But size, did.
8 2015-11-15T00:12:30  <gmaxwell> Model that R comes up with for that is:
9 2015-11-15T00:12:31  <gmaxwell> 20:40 <gmaxwell> (Intercept) 2.491e+00  2.674e-01   9.318   <2e-16 ***
10 2015-11-15T00:12:31  <gmaxwell> 20:40 <gmaxwell> size        1.106e-05  4.025e-07  27.474   <2e-16 ***
11 2015-11-15T00:13:14  <gmaxwell> which means a 2.491 second constant delay, plus 732kbit/sec. (1/1.106*10^-5*8)
12 2015-11-15T00:15:27  <gmaxwell> interestingly, plugging this into an orphaning calculation vs the subsidy---- suggests that the final byte of the block should have a feerate of ((((e^(-1/600*(2.491+((1000000)/90415.91)))))*25)-(((e^(-1/600*(2.491+((1000001)/90415.91)))))*25))*1000 = .00045054 BTC per 1000 bytes, or otherwise you're losing money just considering the subsidy.
13 2015-11-15T00:15:58  <gmaxwell> Though reality is not that simple, because of hashpower distribution dynamics, large miners don't really care if it takes small miners a long time to get their blocks.
14 2015-11-15T00:17:53  <gmaxwell> so, take with a metric ton of salt, but I thought it was interesting that these figures are in roughly this magnitude.
15 2015-11-15T00:18:56  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16 2015-11-15T00:23:08  <jgarzik> definitely interesting. mostly aligns with my guesstimation of miner+network behavior.
17 2015-11-15T00:26:40  <gmaxwell> This way of looking it has some surprising results, but I think correct-- e.g. if you decrease the fixed delay then you actually want a _higher_ feerate for the last byte of the block for it to break even.  because of the exponentially decreasing slope of the orphaning rate as you move away from 0 latency.  1 byte of extra delay makes more of a difference if your base delay is lower.
18 2015-11-15T00:27:46  *** pmienk_ has quit IRC
19 2015-11-15T00:29:00  <sipa> to reach half the pools... weighted by hashrate?
20 2015-11-15T00:29:21  <gmaxwell> yea, not weighed; thats what I was trying to talk about with my "not that simple"
21 2015-11-15T00:29:29  <sipa> right
22 2015-11-15T00:29:48  <sipa> hard to do with data that spans several months
23 2015-11-15T00:30:29  <gmaxwell> because of that the information is a bit more informative about equality/fairness than it is about the economics of fees.
24 2015-11-15T00:30:58  <gmaxwell> Though it's an interesting question if the network should be relaying transactions with fees so low that only very large hashpower consolidations could mine them except at a loss.
25 2015-11-15T00:31:51  <gmaxwell> also it suggests a framework for setting minimum feerates which are independant of bitcoin's price-- though dependant on communications efficiency, which is perhaps no better. :)
26 2015-11-15T00:38:41  <gmaxwell> The reason I went to go crunch the numbers into a feerate is that I was thinking about what the minimum really should be.
27 2015-11-15T00:39:59  *** pmienk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
28 2015-11-15T00:42:59  <zooko> gmaxwell: I really like what you wrote on -wizards after I parted last time about why people don't treat solo mining as gambling.
29 2015-11-15T00:43:14  <zooko> I really think you are right that it is a user-experience issue, not an economic issue.
30 2015-11-15T00:43:33  <zooko> If some state lottery offered a scheme where you subscribed and then it would run in the background and eventually someday maybe it would pop up and give you money,
31 2015-11-15T00:43:36  <zooko> I think that would be a stinkier.
32 2015-11-15T00:43:39  <zooko> a stinker.
33 2015-11-15T00:43:42  <zooko>  I mean, nobody would play.
34 2015-11-15T00:44:07  <zooko> Instead, you get the build-up-and-anticipation-and-reveal cycle, like scratching off the silver coating to reveal the numbers beneath and find out if you won.
35 2015-11-15T00:44:26  <jgarzik> ...maybe this is -wizards material ;p
36 2015-11-15T00:44:29  <zooko> If that's right, you could add lottery UX on top of mining, by giving people a button that they can push and then it let ....
37 2015-11-15T00:44:31  <zooko> WRONG CHAMN
38 2015-11-15T00:44:47  <zooko> Thanks, jg.
39 2015-11-15T00:45:04  <sipa> that's a contraction of "wrong chan" and "damn" ?
40 2015-11-15T00:45:20  <gmaxwell> Well it's also a bit #bitcoin-core-dev too, in that I think it would be useful if work were done in the GUI to make mining fun, ... but probably more than that is just speculation :)
41 2015-11-15T00:46:42  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
42 2015-11-15T00:46:58  <sipa> hmm, if only we had some sort of hash-within-range unlockable scripts, where a block's coinbase is assigned to, so you can postfacto determine who gets it
43 2015-11-15T00:47:26  <sipa> then you could buy a range of hashes from a miner
44 2015-11-15T01:16:47  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
45 2015-11-15T01:23:45  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
46 2015-11-15T01:35:38  *** Thireus has quit IRC
47 2015-11-15T01:44:37  *** d_t has quit IRC
48 2015-11-15T01:52:33  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
49 2015-11-15T02:24:26  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
50 2015-11-15T02:26:37  <GitHub184> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #7020: Implement helper class for CTxMemPoolEntry constructor (master...EntryHelper) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7020
51 2015-11-15T02:35:47  *** jtimon has quit IRC
52 2015-11-15T02:50:58  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
53 2015-11-15T02:53:11  *** molly has quit IRC
54 2015-11-15T03:01:43  *** jl2012_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
55 2015-11-15T03:02:17  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
56 2015-11-15T03:10:13  <Luke-Jr> sipa: is there a purpose for such a construct?
57 2015-11-15T03:23:56  *** d_t has quit IRC
58 2015-11-15T04:07:32  <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: libpng security firedrill.
59 2015-11-15T04:09:07  <Luke-Jr> was there a real risk for us?
60 2015-11-15T04:10:23  <Luke-Jr> (only PNGs we ever use are our own, right?)
61 2015-11-15T04:11:14  <CodeShark_> are you referring to https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2015-8126/ ?
62 2015-11-15T04:11:45  <gmaxwell> yes, not a risk for us but we'll probably get asked to update when people notice bitcoin-qt links it.
63 2015-11-15T04:12:19  <CodeShark_> we don't use libpng with any user or network supplied data directly, do we?
64 2015-11-15T04:13:32  <gmaxwell> FWIW, I've unsubscribed from bitcoin-dev mailing list.
65 2015-11-15T04:14:46  <Luke-Jr> sigh
66 2015-11-15T04:15:36  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: no biggie, it's just still very low SNR.
67 2015-11-15T04:18:28  <CodeShark_> oh well...I guess the value of the list tanks even further
68 2015-11-15T04:28:17  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
69 2015-11-15T04:42:30  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
70 2015-11-15T04:45:12  *** lecusemble has quit IRC
71 2015-11-15T04:45:12  *** guruvan has quit IRC
72 2015-11-15T04:45:49  *** baldur has quit IRC
73 2015-11-15T04:45:51  *** gavinandresen has quit IRC
74 2015-11-15T04:46:37  *** gavinandresen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
75 2015-11-15T04:46:55  *** lecusemble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
76 2015-11-15T04:48:00  *** PaulCape_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
77 2015-11-15T04:50:29  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
78 2015-11-15T04:52:04  *** guruvan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
79 2015-11-15T04:59:10  *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
80 2015-11-15T05:13:45  <Luke-Jr> FWIW, I figured out why the CLTV tests failed on 0.11.2: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6523#issuecomment-156782660
81 2015-11-15T05:14:24  <Luke-Jr> (Nothing to worry about)
82 2015-11-15T05:26:37  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I think your request translates to "please don't write software in python" :)
83 2015-11-15T05:27:08  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, C++ has most of the same problems in this regard, and the same solutions work in Python
84 2015-11-15T05:27:23  <Luke-Jr> (eg, renaming the function)
85 2015-11-15T05:27:39  <kanzure> not sure python is the cause of the problem here. taking same value type but treating differently seems like sort of thing you would catch while grepping for the callers, or checking whether your function previously had different meaning..
86 2015-11-15T05:27:49  <Luke-Jr> actually, Python has an additional option: it could be made to reject unnamed parameters, so the caller must explicitly specify height=N
87 2015-11-15T05:28:09  <Luke-Jr> kanzure: in this case, it was breaking a backport
88 2015-11-15T05:28:52  <Luke-Jr> kanzure: CLTV tests were written *after* this change, and when I went to use them with 0.11.2, it silently behaved differently
89 2015-11-15T05:29:19  <kanzure> was there a test failure that caught this?
90 2015-11-15T05:30:18  <Luke-Jr> the test failed as a result
91 2015-11-15T05:32:02  * Luke-Jr wonders if he's the only one who tried to run the CLTV tests against 0.11  :x
92 2015-11-15T06:06:35  *** Guest25458 has quit IRC
93 2015-11-15T06:07:40  *** pigeons has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
94 2015-11-15T06:08:03  *** pigeons is now known as Guest95455
95 2015-11-15T06:10:15  *** zooko has quit IRC
96 2015-11-15T07:41:38  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
97 2015-11-15T07:48:07  *** Thireus has quit IRC
98 2015-11-15T07:48:28  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
99 2015-11-15T08:03:38  *** Thireus has quit IRC
100 2015-11-15T08:03:59  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2015-11-15T08:06:20  *** Thireus has quit IRC
102 2015-11-15T08:06:41  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2015-11-15T08:08:09  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2015-11-15T08:13:29  *** Thireus has quit IRC
105 2015-11-15T08:13:49  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2015-11-15T08:37:10  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2015-11-15T08:44:53  *** Thireus has quit IRC
108 2015-11-15T08:45:12  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2015-11-15T08:53:23  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2015-11-15T09:07:13  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2015-11-15T09:23:44  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
112 2015-11-15T09:54:15  *** d_t has quit IRC
113 2015-11-15T10:36:43  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
114 2015-11-15T11:04:28  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2015-11-15T11:06:11  *** jtimon has quit IRC
116 2015-11-15T12:27:24  *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
117 2015-11-15T12:50:29  *** Squidicc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2015-11-15T12:52:56  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
119 2015-11-15T13:44:08  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2015-11-15T14:04:33  <morcos> Luke-Jr: oh interesting. i thought i'd run all the RPC tests, but hadn't noticed that the CLTV tests were not added to the extended tests list.  we should probably add them.
121 2015-11-15T14:04:45  <morcos> (for 0.11 that is)
122 2015-11-15T14:42:20  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2015-11-15T14:51:32  *** jl2012_ has quit IRC
124 2015-11-15T14:52:04  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2015-11-15T14:56:51  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2015-11-15T15:01:07  *** Thireus has quit IRC
127 2015-11-15T15:01:28  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2015-11-15T15:57:50  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2015-11-15T16:24:50  *** zooko has quit IRC
130 2015-11-15T16:35:54  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2015-11-15T18:21:16  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2015-11-15T18:22:00  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2015-11-15T18:36:25  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2015-11-15T18:53:17  *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2015-11-15T19:31:47  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
136 2015-11-15T19:34:59  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2015-11-15T19:35:02  *** Thireus has quit IRC
138 2015-11-15T19:44:46  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
139 2015-11-15T20:08:15  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2015-11-15T20:09:13  <morcos> oh heh, that really is annoying.  turns out this was already broken once in the opposite direction, and sdaftuar fixed it in master 3 weeks ago.
141 2015-11-15T20:10:07  <morcos> but Luke-Jr the version of the cltv rpc test in 0.11 should work with 0.11?  did you manually run the new one against it instead of the one in the branch/tag
142 2015-11-15T20:11:35  <Luke-Jr> morcos: IIRC I was backporting a newer test
143 2015-11-15T20:12:25  *** d_t has quit IRC
144 2015-11-15T20:12:58  <morcos> well either way, at least as of now, the version in 0.11 has the old meaning of the arguments and works, and the version in master has the new meaning and works.
145 2015-11-15T20:22:28  <morcos> Oh so I think I was confused.  sendFreeTransactions is defaulted off for both QT and bitcoind?  those damn QT config settings always confuse me.
146 2015-11-15T20:31:35  *** jgarzik has quit IRC
147 2015-11-15T20:33:19  *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2015-11-15T20:33:34  *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2015-11-15T20:53:28  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2015-11-15T21:03:56  <GitHub64> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #7021: add bip65 tests to rpc-tests.sh -extended (in 0.11 branch) (0.11...11rpcfixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7021
151 2015-11-15T21:10:27  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #7022: Change default block priority size to 0 (master...defaultPrioritySize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7022
152 2015-11-15T21:14:28  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2015-11-15T21:17:11  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: heh, funny, I hadnt even read scrollback and did a similar calculation for the relay network:
154 2015-11-15T21:17:18  <BlueMatt> if you model the relay network as a pipe from the first node to receive any given block to the last node which will receive that block, it has an effective throughput of ~512kbps in the best case
155 2015-11-15T21:17:21  <BlueMatt> so thats about right
156 2015-11-15T22:22:29  *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
157 2015-11-15T22:38:03  *** jtimon has quit IRC
158 2015-11-15T22:50:09  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
159 2015-11-15T22:54:57  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
160 2015-11-15T23:09:49  *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2015-11-15T23:17:40  *** d_t has quit IRC
162 2015-11-15T23:34:37  *** d4de has quit IRC
163 2015-11-15T23:40:08  *** PaulCape_ has quit IRC
164 2015-11-15T23:41:59  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2015-11-15T23:55:25  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev