Głosowanie za BIP16 i 17 w Bitcoin

[Przemo]

Mógłby ktoś to wyjaśnić: http://blockchain.info/p2sh ?
Rozumiem, że powstał jakiś pomysł przeniesienia odpowiedzialności za bitcoiny z odbiorcy na nadawcę bitcoinów, inaczej mówiąc do tej pory oddawało się bitcoiny razem z kluczem prywatnym i adresem a teraz będzie się tylko zezwalało danemu adresowi na wydanie przekazanych pieniędzy.
Dobrze rozumuję?

Mają być dłuższe adresy i opłatę za transakcje będzie ponosił odbiorca?

[Przemo]

Sam już nie wiem, mój angielski wymięka przy takich niuansach. Rozumiem, że powstał problem iż przy 20k transakcji w blokach system zacznie siadać, dlatego trzeba coś zrobić i albo BIP16 albo BIP17, jedno i drugie rozwiązanie ma wady, jedno długie adresy a drugie to, że kod programu będzie nieelegancki (nie do końca profesjonalne rozwiązanie techniczne) a co się z tym wiąże, potencjalne problemy w przyszłości.
Prywatnie uważam, że ten cały pomysł na głosowanie w blokach przez kopalnie jest trochę dziwny... niby to jest naturalny sposób decydowania w tej sieci - kto ma większy power, ale wiadome, że za kopalnia stoi jedna osoba, która może się mylić. Poza tym jak czytam ich dyskusje to cos mi sie wydaje, że jest jakis problem wśród developerów, zarówno techniczny jak i organizacyjny czy tez interpersonalny.
Nie powinno się wywlekać takich niuansów technicznych na forum publiczne, ludzie nie mają wiedzy technicznej aby decydować, tutaj nie chodzi o jakies implikacje ekonomiczne gdzie mógłby decydowac ogól tylko o implikacje techniczne a o takich powinni decydowac tylko developerzy. Skoro nie potrafią to znaczy, że maja problemy z pracą w grupie... albo są zupełnie bezradni w kwestii technicznej. Jedno i drugie nie wróży dobrze.

Tu jeszcze dyskusja developerów (ale już nie mam siły czytać):

21:31 < genjix> gmaxwell, roconnor: i'm putting this out tomorrow if you want to give some thoughts on this: http://privatepaste.com/c8b40edb00
21:31 < occulta> also that wiki is very old, relating to client 0.3 *
21:31 < BlueMatt> "minimum TX fee for new transactions reduced to 0.0005 BTC."
21:31 < BlueMatt> its still true
21:31 < genjix> whether it captures the entirety of the EVAL, P2SH, CHV discussion
21:32 < gmaxwell> genjix: ugh. that makes me feel sick. Representing it as a vote is simply misleading.
21:32 < gmaxwell> It's not that kind of 'vote'.
21:32 < genjix> what would you call it then?
21:32 < gmaxwell> I give up.
21:32 < genjix> it basically is, and this is informing the voters to ensure they make a better decision
21:33 < gmaxwell> This process is all broken.
21:33 < gmaxwell> No, it's pissing all over the walls.
21:34 < gmaxwell> genjix: The reason for the coinbase tags is _NOT_ to conduct a vote (if it were, I suppose the software would also tally the result) but simply because there needs to be a hash power measurement because the new rules are only safe if the majority of all future hashpower enforces them.
21:34 < gmaxwell> genjix: there is also no way this is going active on Feb 15th now. So the representation of that is creating false urgency. Though I suppose its up to gavin to announce moving that back.
21:35 < gmaxwell> genjix: you're also characterizing this as gavin vs luke, which is a complete load of rubbish.
21:35 < Joric> are there any pure-python parsers for berkeley db? my google skills are failing me
21:35 < Joric> or at least format documentation
21:36 < BlueMatt> bdb parsers are impossibly hard to find
21:36 < genjix> i asked for feedback to write a better article and you're simply attacking me
21:36 < Joric> yeah )
21:36 < BlueMatt> there may be a bdb wrapper
21:36 < genjix> Joric: pybsbdb
21:36 < Joric> want to get rid of bsddb dependency, gae doesn't have it
21:36 < genjix> it is a good bdb wrapper
21:36 < BlueMatt> genjix: his feedback is that there should be no article
21:36 < BlueMatt> (and I agree)
21:37 < genjix> yes let the mere users fester in ignorance
21:37 < gmaxwell> genjix: sorry. This whole "dispute" thing has basically pushed my interest in contributing to bitcoin technically negative.
21:37 < Joric> etotheipi_, do you need pure python bdb parser aswell?
21:37 -!- graingert [~graingert@unaffiliated/graingert] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:37 < genjix> i'm only trying to inform people how bitcoin works (if you look at my past articles)
21:38 < gmaxwell> And I'm irate because I feel like I've invested time in something that now has net negative return (it stresses me out). I shouldn't be taking that out on you.
21:38 < Diablo-D3> [04:35:13] <gmaxwell> genjix: you're also characterizing this as gavin vs luke, which is a complete load of rubbish.
21:38 < Diablo-D3> yes really
21:38 < Diablo-D3> because if there was some sort of cage match between the two
21:38 < Diablo-D3> gavin would be going in dry.
21:38 * BlueMatt suggests you leave authors out of the article
21:38 < gmaxwell> genjix: explaining what the P2SH stuff does is fantastic. People seemed to like it when I explained it in #bitcoin-mining the other day.
21:38 < BlueMatt> (as its irrelevant)
21:39 -!- Ahimoth_ [~Ahimoth@75.80.19.176] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:39 -!- Ahimoth [~Ahimoth@75.80.19.176] has quit [Disconnected by services]
21:39 -!- Ahimoth_ is now known as Ahimoth
21:39 < gmaxwell> genjix: inviting people into taking positions over technical minutia which they won't be qualified to really have an opinion on without a lot more understanding than you can put into the article... meh.
21:40 < BlueMatt> esp when their opinion wont have any effect on the outcome aside from making the pissing match bigger
21:40 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: exactly.
21:40 < BlueMatt> (kinda doubt any will switch pools)
21:40 -!- wirehead [~a@154.5.144.145] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:41 < gmaxwell> The solution to this needs to be consensus of the interested and compentent. Not a bigger dispute decided by whomever can convince more people to come to their side.
21:41 < genjix> i'd rather people have a say in the matter even if it makes life tougher for developers to explain their decisions.
21:41 -!- erle- [~m@g225119098.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:41 < gmaxwell> The latter case has no winners.
21:41 < genjix> these kinds of decisions should always be deliberately difficult and hard
21:41 < BlueMatt> what?
21:41 < BlueMatt> we should make all of our decisions harder?
21:42 < genjix> no big decisions to the protocol or system
21:42 < genjix> implementation decisions - fine.
21:42 < BlueMatt> but we should make the big decisions harder on ourselves?
21:42 < gmaxwell> genjix: So what, some statemen with a prominant website gets people all upset over their half understandings of some technical details and they go against the decisions of the people who are actually spending time to work on the software? You know what the outcome of that is? The people working on it _leave_, and the only people left to make additions are the people who are either too clueless or lazy to contribute now, and luke.
21:43 < BlueMatt> by making the decisions into huge pissing matches where politics takes on more importance than technical arguments?
21:43 < genjix> umm hello?
21:43 < genjix> it's already that way
21:43 < gmaxwell> genjix: when we had the discussion about what would become BIP16 the discussion ended without anyone objecting to that decision. (except luke, who'd left early)
21:44 < genjix> sure. but i feel a bit apprehensive about telling our users this is how it will be, you have no say and then giving them the finger
21:44 < BlueMatt> if they feel like really getting involved, great
21:44 < BlueMatt> they can come in here and chat, and post on the forum
21:45 < BlueMatt> s/forum/mailing list/
21:45 < gmaxwell> genjix: your article is also full of factual errors. For example, the maximum recusion depth was always part of OP_EVAL. roconnor's important contribution was realizing that the implementation was buggy and the limit didn't work.
21:45 < BlueMatt> (freudian slip)
21:45 < gmaxwell> genjix: I don't think any user would be opposed to P2SH as it is— when I explained it in bitcoin-mining the other day people were very excited about it.
21:46 < gmaxwell> genjix: the reason to oppose it is just the risk of unknown bugs— a very important concern, but not one that causual users are qualified to reason about, unfortunately.
21:47 -!- graingert [~graingert@unaffiliated/graingert] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:47 < gmaxwell> genjix: if you think this needs to be delayed in order to address that, then great— but where is the plan that converts extra time into extra software quality?
21:47 < genjix> i dont have a viewpoint on this.
21:47 < genjix> if p2sh, chv or none comes along then i'll implement them.
21:47 < BlueMatt> so why are you encouraging others to make one?
21:48 -!- b4epoche_ [~textual@dssl.mne.psu.edu] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:48 < genjix> my experience is in software architecture not protocols, so i'm not commenting
21:48 -!- b4epoche [~textual@dssl.mne.psu.edu] has quit [Read error: Operation timed out]
21:48 -!- b4epoche_ is now known as b4epoche
21:48 < genjix> BlueMatt: because i like people to have choice and freedom
21:48 < genjix> it is not harmful to give people choice or information
21:49 < BlueMatt> they do, if they actually want to come and reason about the issues, there is always someone here to discuss with
21:49 < BlueMatt> but they dont have choice
21:49 < BlueMatt> and unless they all switch to p2pool overnight, they wont get one
21:50 -!- shazooun [~shazooun@70-90-104-13-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
21:50 < gmaxwell> genjix: there can't be choice and freedom without understanding. People don't bother even switching pools when their pools cost them money.
21:51 -!- shazooun [~shazooun@70-90-104-13-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:51 < genjix> my worry is someday bitcoin becomes corrupted. see this extra scrutiny as an opportunity to build a culture of openness
21:51 < genjix> it is not at all bad.
21:51 < tcatm> it's not so much about having a choice but discovering "the best" way to implement more complex transactions types...
21:51 < gmaxwell> genjix: if you're concerned about the ecosystem why aren't you out there figuring out why people are paying 110%-115% PPS for secret mining projects? and telling the people who are contributing who don't currently know where their hash power is going.
21:52 < genjix> gmaxwell: i am writing an article on that
21:52 < gmaxwell> Oh. Smiley
21:52 < roconnor> genjix: s/Both BIP 0017 and BIP 0018 are/Both BIP 0016 and BIP 0017 are/
21:52 < genjix> but i have never mined a block so a lot of this is news to me.
21:52 < roconnor> PPS?
21:52 < genjix> like proportional mining being a scam and understanding the various statistical measures.
21:53 < gmaxwell> roconnor: pay per share.
21:53 < genjix> pay per share
21:53 < genjix> thanks roconnor
21:53 < gmaxwell> roconnor: people are being given a signficant premium on mining above the expected rewards, with ~zero payout variance.
21:54 < roconnor> gmaxwell: paid it bitcoin?
21:54 < roconnor> *in
21:54 < gmaxwell> roconnor: yes. If it were paid in USD it would be completely sensible.
21:54 < gmaxwell> roconnor: paid in bitcoin daily too.
21:55 < roconnor> that doesn't sound sustainable
21:55 < gmaxwell> roconnor: if it were being used to promote a new mining pool, for example, it would also be sensible... but this is for private projects with no published hash rates, so it doesn't have promotional value.
21:56 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: link?
21:56 < gmaxwell> My best theory is that they're doing something useful with merged mining, next best is that they've got some idiot money laundering scheme (e.g. give miners dirty silkroad coins), worst outcome is that it's for some idiot attack. Sad
21:57 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54467.0
21:57 < gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61117.0
21:57 < gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55819.0 (A meta service to aggregate these offers into a bidding market)
21:57 < gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61570.0
21:58 < BlueMatt> now thats just weird
21:58 < gmaxwell> There are more... there are at least a half dozen people doing this all of a sudden.
21:58 -!- wirehead [~a@154.5.144.145] has joined #bitcoin-dev
21:58 < roconnor> gmaxwell: I don't really see how it could be used to launder money
21:59 < gmaxwell> roconnor: I said idiot for a reason! Smiley
21:59 < roconnor> ah
21:59 < BTC_Bear> gmaxwell: quick question as to this:
21:59 < BTC_Bear> the checkpoints are there to keep from overtaking the blockchain, or at least it is a side benefit. gmaxwell would know more than I. But I believe, I am correct.
22:00 < roconnor> BTC_Bear: it is there to stop DOS attacks by sending you long but low work chains.
22:00 < gmaxwell> BTC_Bear: nah, not really— the checkpoints do that as a side effect but they're so far back that you couldn't realistically overtake even with a good multiple of the hash power for a short window.
22:00 < CIA-97> bitcoin: jedi95 * rec8af03cfdf7 Phoenix-Miner/minerutil/RPCProtocol.py: Fixed expire= for X-Roll-Ntime http://tinyurl.com/7xwchtb
22:00 < BTC_Bear> thanx
22:00 < gmaxwell> what roconnor said, they avoid some stupid DOS attacks.
22:00 < JFK911> where can I get 115%
22:01 < gmaxwell> I guess the risk of a new checkpoint being set does discourage someone from working in secret on a very long overtaking fork, but thats also some speculative side benefit.
22:01 < BlueMatt> as a sidenote, we need a new checkpoint for 0.6
22:02 < BlueMatt> s/for/before/
22:04 -!- dr_win [~dr_win@147.32.31.193] has joined #bitcoin-dev
22:06 < roconnor> genjix: gavin knew about the looping behaviour in OP_EVAL well before december.
22:06 < roconnor> genjix: the maximum iteration code was there from the beginning
22:06 < genjix> roconnor: i've corrected that

[Prze_koles]

Ja nie wiem czemu oni tak szybko to wprowadzają. Takie zmiany powinny być robione najpierw na testnecie i przez długie miesiące testowane.
Poza tym, zachęcam wszystkich do rzucenia w pizdu wszystkie te centralne poole i przeniesienie się na P2Pool