| 00:52:53 | amiller: | fwd: fwd: #bitcoin-wizards http://i.imgur.com/Ww1APBo.jpg |
| 00:53:10 | gwillen: | snrk |
| 00:53:36 | phantomcircuit: | amiller, ha |
| 00:58:50 | gmaxwell: | amiller: buring ethylnol vapor off a wet dollar bill? |
| 00:59:10 | amiller: | yeah that's exactly what i thought of first |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | topic is: This channel is not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: andy-logbot waxwing p15 Quanttek Starduster Ursium sipa jaromil_ Guyver2 cym hearn llllllllll RoboTeddy mortale todaystomorrow fanquake Hunger- justanot1eruser adam3us Dr-G HaltingState tromp mapppum TheSeven ebfull eslbaer_ dgenr8 bsm117532 melvster nuke1989 zibbo shesek SDCDev tromp_ koshii fierbuq postpre Graftec mkarrer Alanius Keefe go1111111 copumpkin jchp alferz skinnkavaj pi07r nsh bangsnap wiretapp1d forrestv Luke-Jr jgarzik rfreeman_w |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: OneFixt harrow tacotime Krellan K1773R nsh- phantomcircuit Guest53956 CryptOprah pigeons EasyAt iddo cfields nickler_ gwillen [\\\] grandmaster2 azariah4 samson_ bobke drawingthesun starsoccer midnightmagic mr_burdell Graet HM CodeShark Logicwax maaku Adohgg polyclef Muis LarsLarsen1 Sangheili Anduck xenogis zling_____ michagogo Eliel helo crescendo epscy mmozeiko Guest50253 Transisto [Derek] asoltys berndj-blackout BlueMatt digitalmagus7 sl01 |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: weex Iriez abc56889 espes__ lechuga_ SomeoneWeird bbrittain nanotube rs0 davidlatapie Guest78271 hollandais grishnakh jbenet quackgyver poggy_ TD-Linux gmaxwell Meeh a5m0 BigBitz tjopper spinza catcow amiller Fistful_of_Coins dansmith_btc DoctorBTC danneu2 LaptopZZ_ Dyaheon- burcin optimator_ jcorgan [d__d] ryan-c kanzure petertodd UukGoblin wizkid057 nkuttler wumpus lianj Apocalyptic @ChanServ BrainOverfl0w throughnothing warren artifexd |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | Users on #bitcoin-wizards: pajarillo comboy roasbeef gribble Guest10516 phedny so kinlo |
| 12:37:23 | weber.freenode.net: | [freenode-info] if you're at a conference and other people are having trouble connecting, please mention it to staff: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp |
| 16:09:00 | warren_2: | warren_2 is now known as warren |
| 16:09:28 | BigBitz_: | BigBitz_ is now known as BigBitz |
| 16:10:01 | michagogo_: | michagogo_ is now known as Guest900 |
| 16:10:25 | Muis_: | Muis_ is now known as Muis |
| 16:14:19 | artifexd_: | artifexd_ is now known as artifexd |
| 17:05:28 | o3u: | o3u is now known as Fistful_of_coins |
| 18:26:27 | danneu2: | danneu2 is now known as danneu |
| 19:51:21 | mappppum: | mappppum is now known as mappum |
| 21:15:10 | helo: | helo is now known as james_russel |
| 21:15:44 | james_russel: | james_russel is now known as helo |
| 21:16:53 | Guest900: | Guest900 is now known as michagogo |
| 21:20:44 | ben99: | hello. hwas someone knowledge on GHOST? |
| 21:20:50 | ben99: | *has |
| 21:22:31 | ben99: | or rather: I have some general question on latencies and distribution of latency-skew. anyone studied this? |
| 21:26:06 | pigeons: | standard procedure is to go ahead and ask the question instead of asking if anyone knows about the general topic |
| 21:27:55 | ben99: | well, it's complicated and I'm not going to write an essay if nobody answers... |
| 21:28:30 | nsh: | funfact: you can re-use your detailed explanation of the problem/query when asking elsewhere |
| 21:28:45 | nsh: | there is very little to lose by asking effectively :) |
| 21:30:03 | nsh: | even if you speak into the wind, a clear and thorough formulation will often facilitate your own understanding |
| 21:30:32 | ben99: | ok, I'll try it this way: the idea of GHOST is to have what they call Subtrees. this should violate principle of global view of block-chains. one crucial problem with block-chains is that all nodes have to act on the same information |
| 21:31:23 | ben99: | if nodes can be thought of as a graph with each edge being a physical distance. then the block-time relates to the distances |
| 21:32:11 | ben99: | I haven't seen any study of this, except the original Lamport paper's and Nick Szabo's essay on advances in distributed security (2005) |
| 21:32:23 | ben99: | but is IMO crucial for scaling block-chains |
| 21:33:20 | ben99: | ethereum proposes to use GHOST, which is flawed |
| 21:35:52 | nsh: | how does the block-time relate to the [physical] distances between nodes? |
| 21:36:40 | ben99: | it takes time for information to travel. block-chain solves problem of creating a universal partial order of events (Lamport's partial order) |
| 21:37:08 | ben99: | http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/pubs.html#time-clocks |
| 21:37:09 | nsh: | that means the period between blocks is bounded from below by propagation delays |
| 21:37:09 | nsh: | sure |
| 21:37:15 | nsh: | but that's always going to be the case |
| 21:37:45 | ben99: | yes. TCP/IP latencies has high variance. for example imagine a broad-cast by radio-waves |
| 21:37:51 | nsh: | what you can do is have multiple overlapping regions of consistency is you want to increase the granularity, but that comes at the cost of increased complexity |
| 21:38:22 | nsh: | *if you |
| 21:38:44 | ben99: | ? |
| 21:39:02 | nsh: | jgarzik, i think, proposed some kind of continuous rolling reorg thing involving directed acyclic graphs but i forget the details |
| 21:39:33 | ben99: | as far as I can see the crucial problem is that block-chains are global |
| 21:40:20 | ben99: | so every node has to confirm all transactions. its exponential scaling by default so to speak |
| 21:41:05 | nsh: | local consensus isn't consensus. delegated confirmation isn't decentralized |
| 21:41:37 | nsh: | there are good reasons for bitcoin forsaking scalability to ensure distributed global consensus |
| 21:41:40 | ben99: | yes. not necessarily in principle |
| 21:42:01 | ben99: | say you had N regions, and each region has its own distributed consensus |
| 21:42:21 | ben99: | kind of a tree consensus |
| 21:42:55 | ben99: | where roots is not one node, but a larger number of nodes (100 e.g.) |
| 21:44:38 | ben99: | what confuses me is that some very smart bitcoin people like some of the ethereum people believe you can do local trees |
| 21:44:59 | ben99: | seems therefore some of this is not well understood |
| 21:47:31 | nsh: | andytoshi, are the logs not google indexed? :/ |
| 21:47:44 | nsh: | oh, they're just not hosted on bitcoin.ninja |
| 21:50:03 | nsh: | oh, it was petertodd's idea, not jgarzik's (pardon me, both) |
| 21:50:18 | nsh: | ( http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2013/12/13-12-10.log ) |
| 21:53:41 | gmaxwell: | ben99: I don't think the implications of ghost are not really well understood, when the paper came out I was able to come up with some nasty corner cases involving subtree withholding where you could creating tied forks that persisted for a long time with relatively little hashrate. Amiller had proposed ghost like things a couple years prior with the goal of making interblock times closed loop controlled by orphans, but most people ... |
| 21:53:47 | gmaxwell: | ... didn't seem to consider it very interesting because driving up to minimum latency is a somewhat obviously centeralization pressure. |