--- Log opened Wed Oct 29 00:00:33 2014
00:04 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
00:06 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:12 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:13 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:14 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@2605:6000:1018:c0f5:2439:d5a7:9483:f8b8] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
00:16 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:16 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:16 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
00:16 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:19 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:20 -!- kjj21__000 [~kjj210000@cpe-98-14-121-171.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:21 -!- HaltingState [~HaltingSt@unaffiliated/haltingstate] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:21 -!- kjj21_0000 [~kjj210000@2604:2000:d0e0:5c00:5977:73da:e52:5e0c] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:22 -!- HaltingState [~HaltingSt@unaffiliated/haltingstate] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:29 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:40 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:40 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
00:40 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:05 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:05 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:05  * andy-logbot is logging
01:40 < wumpus> Luke-Jr: another reason why the consensus library is important, when we  can move the consensus critical parts to their own repository it's much easier to keep track of which  code changes have risk of a hardfork
01:41 < Luke-Jr> wumpus: yep
01:44 -!- pen [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:44 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:44 -!- pen [~linker@113.161.87.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:44 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c31-67.i07-8.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:46 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:49 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c31-67.i07-8.onvol.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:49 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
01:50 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c31-67.i07-8.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:50 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c31-67.i07-8.onvol.net] has quit [Client Quit]
01:52 -!- Aquent1 [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:55 -!- vdo [~vdo@unaffiliated/vdo] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:05 -!- OX3_ [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:06 -!- OX3__ [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-183-8-242.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- OX3_ [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:11 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:13 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:14 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:15 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:16 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:34 -!- penny [~linker@113.161.87.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:35 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:35 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:35 -!- penny is now known as Guest91682
02:35 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:36 -!- pen [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
02:48 -!- shesek [~shesek@87.68.93.112] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:55 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:01 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@172.Red-83-42-91.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
03:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:10 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-183-8-242.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:13 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
03:16 -!- chinjai [~yo@173-20-237-20.client.mchsi.com] has quit []
03:49 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:01 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
04:02 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75.101.96.71] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:05 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@158pc208.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
04:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:17 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:18 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:25 -!- tacotime [~mashkeys@198.52.200.63] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
04:30 -!- tacotime [~mashkeys@198.52.200.63] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:38 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
04:39 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c92f:2482:4aa7:da2b] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:51 -!- atgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:52 -!- Rynomster is now known as SDCDev
04:52 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@105-236-244-19.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Changing host]
04:52 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:54 -!- shesek [~shesek@87.68.93.112] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:56 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:03 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:05 -!- dzan [~dzan@78-21-223-140.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:16 -!- Nomos7 [~textual@pool-71-163-233-84.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:22 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f1331f3.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:29 -!- d4de [~d4de@unaffiliated/d4de] has quit [Quit: o 0 8 oo]
05:29 -!- Aquent1 [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:36 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:42 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:48 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
05:51 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:58 -!- Aquent1 is now known as Aquent
06:00 -!- koshii [~0@node-9uo.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:06 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:11 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: fanquake]
06:18 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@186.137.72.20] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us1x.mullvad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:24 -!- kyletorpey [~kyle@c-24-131-0-5.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:27 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:35 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:37 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:39 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:39 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:41 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us1x.mullvad.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:42 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:45 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:48 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
06:49 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:51 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:53 -!- Flyer33 [~f@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:55 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
07:06 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us1x.mullvad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:17 -!- rdponticelli [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/rdponticelli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:17 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:18 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@tmo-102-40.customers.d1-online.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:20 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:20 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@tmo-102-40.customers.d1-online.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:23 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us1x.mullvad.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:23 -!- profreid [~profreid@a88-115-210-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:25 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:25 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:27 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:28 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:28 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
07:28 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:31 -!- jokosh [~sark@37-252-108-40.ip.skylogicnet.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:32 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:37 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:38 -!- Guest91682 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
07:39 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:41 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:41 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:41 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:43 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:52 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
07:54 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:05 -!- Persopolis [~Persopoli@cpc10-haye19-2-0-cust19.17-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:08 -!- NeueWelt [~NeueWelt@136-231.197-178.cust.bluewin.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:35 -!- NeueWelt [~NeueWelt@136-231.197-178.cust.bluewin.ch] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
08:37 -!- mortale [~mortale@gateway/tor-sasl/mortale] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:40 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Quit: Not a fed.]
08:48 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:50 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:56 -!- epscy [~epscy@176.126.241.239] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:00 < Taek> I've been trying to find discussion of this somewhere
09:00 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-190-86-140.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:01 < Taek> but, isn't there an attack possible where a malicious miner releases blocks that are timestamp'd out of bounds for half of the network, which would cause a split?
09:01 < Taek> if you timestamp a block 10 hours in the future, 100% will reject the block and not mine on it
09:02 < Taek> and if you timestamp a block that is current time, 100% will accept the block
09:02 < Taek> since miners don't have perfectly consistent timestamps, there should be a timestamp you can put on a block that will cause ~50% of the network to accept, and 50% of the network to reject
09:03 < Taek> through experimentation, you can find the timestamp that splits the network most evenly, and mine on the larger side, which will increase your expected return per hash
09:03 < MRL-Relay> [surae] Taek yes, Monero is currently working on various "timewarp" attack scenarios, but Monero is different in that there isn't a system time computed from everyone else's time like in Bitcoin
09:04 < sipa> Taek: too high timestamp doesn't make the block invalid
09:04 < sipa> it's just ignored
09:04 < sipa> it can later be resubmitted and accepted
09:04 < MRL-Relay> [surae] I'm not sure if your particular attack route would work, but I know that, for example, by purposely mis-stamping your blocks consistently back-in-time or forward-in-time you could cause drift in folks' perceived time
09:04 < sipa> there's no consensus risk from a too-high timestamp, just reduced propagation
09:05 < sipa> MRL-Relay: network time is not computed from block timestamps
09:05 < MRL-Relay> I am a relay bot linking this channel to the Monero Research Lab
09:05 < sipa> i know
09:05 < Taek> sipa: if the timestamp is ignored by only half of the miners, then half of the miners will mine on your block, and the other half will continue to mine on the parent
09:05 < sipa> yes, and when they announce their next block, everyone will happily switch to the new better chain, including the block they previously didn't accept
09:05 < MRL-Relay> [surae] sipa doesn't that depend on how difficulty is being computed? if the network is expecting blocks to appear every 10 minutes, and someone with a lot of hashing power posts a bunch of blocks a few hours in the future, doesn't it appear as if blocks are taking longer?
09:06 < sipa> MRL-Relay: yes, sure, but that has nothing to do with the network time rule, or acceptance of blocks
09:06 < MRL-Relay> I am a relay bot linking this channel to the Monero Research Lab
09:06 < sipa> I KNOW
09:06 < MRL-Relay> [surae] lol i have no idea why it's doing that
09:07 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-190-86-140.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:07 < tacotime> Sorry, relay has been a bit buggy sometimes. fluffypony your relay is doing weird stuffs.
09:07 < MRL-Relay> [surae] no, but if you are talking about attempting to manipulate difficulty with a disproportionately small amount of hashing power...
09:07 < MRL-Relay> [surae] rather than trying to cause a fork or something funky
09:07 < sipa> that's not what we're talking about
09:08 < Taek> sipa there's no consensus risk, but it does increase the amount of stale mining that happens, which can be abused to increase the expected returns on mining.
09:08 < sipa> you're talking about a validity rule for chains
09:08 < sipa> Taek: sure, you're just silly if you set your blocks' timestamps dangerously high
09:08 < sipa> it means your blocks have a lower chance of being built upon, that's all
09:08 < MRL-Relay> [fluffypony] tacotime: it self-defines if you mention it by name I think - I'll nuke that functionality later
09:09 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:09 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 < Taek> Is the attack not functionally similar to a block discarding attack?
09:10 < MRL-Relay> [surae] yeah now i'm confused (my typical state of being, I guess)
09:10 < sipa> yes, except performed by the sender
09:10 < sipa> it's making your own blocks be discarded...
09:11 < Taek> If you split the network into mining 40% on parent, 60% on high-timestamp child, and you mine on the high-timestamp child, your chain has a very high probability of winning
09:11 < Taek> because the 40% chain needs to make 2 blocks to catch up
09:11 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:12 < MRL-Relay> [surae] so, set aside the discarding bit, because there's another danger, and that's someone with less than 50% hashing power manipulating difficulty in a way that is disproportionate to their hashing power, which concerns me more...
09:13 < Taek> consistently performing this attack increases the amount of stale mining, which will drive down the difficulty
09:13 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@g230139026.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:14 < MRL-Relay> [surae] yeah, that's true, too... my understanding is that hash power is estimated by looking at the number of blocks that have been posted in a period of time. so if somoene is posting a bunch of blocks several hours in the future, the "number of blocks" probably hasn't changed but the "period of time" has been spread out more
09:14 < sipa> there's a limit on how far in the future you can go
09:14 < sipa> max 2 hours
09:14 < MRL-Relay> [surae] ok, so push the envelope to +2 hours
09:14 < sipa> so whatever someone can game, it 's bounded
09:15 < Taek> if there are more stale blocks, the apparent number of blocks created in the same amount of time will be lower
09:15 < sipa> so you can get a 0.6% reduced difficulty from gaming, at the cost of making your blocks less likely to win
09:15 < MRL-Relay> [surae] post all your blocks with +2 hours, if you own 10% of the network, it'll look like rather than getting 1 block every 10 minutes, it looks like you are getting 1 block every 10 minutes across 90% of the network but 1 block every 2 hours across 10% of the network, driving difficulty down
09:16 < sipa> and if they don't win, it doesn't matter
09:16 < MRL-Relay> [surae] why 0.6%?
09:16 < MRL-Relay> [surae] just chose a tiny number or is that an estimate?
09:16 < sipa> 2 hours in 2 weeks
09:16 < sipa> is 0.6%
09:16 < MRL-Relay> [surae] ah
09:17 < MRL-Relay> [surae] that is one benefit of having a large difficulty adjustment period
09:18 < sipa> one of the many benefits :)
09:18 < Taek> you can have a greater impact than 0.6% if the network is consistently mining on 2 chains.
09:18 < sipa> how so?
09:18 < sipa> difficulty is computed per chain
09:18 < Taek> let's say that 10% of the blocks are high-timestamp, such that 50% mine on the child, and 50% mine on the parent
09:18 < tromp> I think what Taek is suggesting is that if say, hash power was split 60%-40 % across the equator, then when announcing your solved block, being able to drop all cross-equator relays would be beneficial for the miner
09:19 < sipa> sure
09:19 < sipa> that's a collusion attack
09:19 < tromp> to drop replay of just that block
09:19 < tromp> relay
09:19 < sipa> but it's a valid one: if you know you can reach 50% of the hashing power quickly, there is no need to relay to others
09:21 < MRL-Relay> [surae] is the +2h cutoff based on the client time or the top block on the blockchain?
09:22 < sipa> network time
09:22 < MRL-Relay> [surae] i.e. local wall clock or the timestamp of the latest block? seems like it has to be local wall clock
09:22 < Taek> it's a collusion attack that can be organized by a single person, taking advantage of the fact that not all miners have synchronized understandings of the network time.
09:22 < MRL-Relay> [surae] oh network time.
09:22 < sipa> which you can game with a sybil attack, but not by mining
09:23 < MRL-Relay> [surae] ah, but let's say I have 10% of hashing power, as in Taek's example, and so 1 in every 10 newly minted blocks are mine. And I'm consistently putting my tiemstamps ahead by +2 hours.
09:23 < MRL-Relay> [surae] about half the network will ignore it, continuing to mine on the parent, and half the network will mine on the +2h child block, right?
09:24 < sipa> Taek: i don't understand
09:24 < sipa> and when someone extends the +2h child block, everyone switches to it
09:25 < Taek> right but until the child block gets extended, only 60% of the network is mining on the chain
09:25 < sipa> so all you accomplish with your +2h time is that half of your blocks don't end up in the main chain
09:25 < sipa> waste of money
09:25 < Taek> much more than 50% of your blocks will make it
09:25 < Taek> because the 40% side needs to make 2 blocks to catch up
09:26 < sipa> right
09:26 < Taek> the result though is that because 40% of the hash power is wasted 10% of the time
09:26 < Taek> the apparent amount of hashing power in the winning chain is 4% lower
09:27 < tromp> Taek: you're also implying that tweaking the 2hour cutoff to, say, 2h+5mi, would be beneficial for miners
09:27 < MRL-Relay> [surae] so i guess the question is: is the attacker trying to make money *right now* by executing some sort of bizarre attack, or are they trying to increase stale-rates, drive down difficulty, to make mining easier next week?
09:27 < MRL-Relay> [surae] tromp actually I think the cutoff time should be shorter if anything, but then you have daylights savings time screwing with everyone
09:27 < Taek> right this attack is a longer term attack
09:28 < MRL-Relay> [surae] a difficulty-drift?
09:28 < sipa> MRL-Relay: network time is UTC; no DST here
09:28 < MRL-Relay> I am a relay bot linking this channel to the Monero Research Lab
09:28 < MRL-Relay> [surae] <--- surae, not the relay.
09:28 < MRL-Relay> [surae] then why even have a +2 hour cutoff? why not make it 45 minutes? or 30 minutes?
09:28 < Taek> surae can I highlight you through the relay?
09:29 < MRL-Relay> [surae] what do you mean? when you mention "surae" the chat line is highlighted
09:29 < sipa> i think 1 minute would be plenty
09:29 < sipa> can't you just use IRC directly...?
09:30 < MRL-Relay> [surae] i suppose... i'm being relayed through MRL so as to maintain a connection with that research group but it's not necessary really...but i have to go right now anyway so it's not like it matters for right now
09:32 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c92f:2482:4aa7:da2b] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
09:32 < MRL-Relay> [surae] it's all immaterial anyway because the bitcoin network is so big... i'm more interested in smaller altcoins and their difficulty adjustment and timestamp handling
09:32 < Taek> tromp: tweaking the cutoff wouldn't help, regardless of where the cutoff is set, there's some timestamp a subversive miner can pick that will have ~50% of the nodes ignoring the block
09:33 < tromp> Taek: by tweaking i mean subversively deviating from the official cutoff
09:33 < Taek> ah
09:33 < tromp> in order to avoid being in the 40% parent-mining group of your example
09:35 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:35 -!- bosma [~bosma@S01067cb21bda6531.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:36 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:36 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:36 -!- mappum [sid43795@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-eqsqskdbpxyrhpaj] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:36 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-190-86-140.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:38 -!- jbenet [sid17552@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-csbginifqzoqtqsc] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:40 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:43 -!- epscy [~epscy@176.126.241.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:43 < tromp> in any case it will be interesting to see the reaction to a major pool setting +2h timestamps
09:45 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:48 -!- zooko [~user@c-67-190-86-140.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:53 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:53 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:53 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:54 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:56 -!- Sangheili [Elite8385@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-nzrtbkoyeydpbqwf] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:57 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:06 -!- lmatteis [uid3300@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cxruljtgqcacfwbz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:07 < stonecoldpat> id be surprised to know how many miner's timestamps are really that out of sync (assuming most connect to an ntp server already) and if it were possible to find a reasonable 50% (or 60-40) cut-off point
10:08 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:12 -!- Guest91682 [~linker@118.69.162.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:12 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@pool-96-250-86-200.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:14 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:20 -!- NeueWelt [~NeueWelt@85-218-26-243.dclient.lsne.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:21 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:21 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:22 -!- NeueWelt [~NeueWelt@85-218-26-243.dclient.lsne.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:29 -!- OX3__ [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
10:30 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
10:33 -!- jbenet [sid17552@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-roodiypflojeygnm] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:34 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:36 -!- Guest89609 [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
10:39 -!- hollandais [~irenacob@li629-190.members.linode.com] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
10:42 -!- hollandais [~irenacob@li629-190.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:42 -!- Pan0ram1x [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:42 -!- Pan0ram1x is now known as Guest3670
10:48 -!- profreid [~profreid@a88-115-210-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Quit: profreid]
10:48 < stonecoldpat> just did a quick check and it does seem the 2 hour boundary has been hit (118 minutes) by comparing previous block time with the latest in the chain, but with a quick eye check most of them are synched quite well (assuming 0-10 minute gap for a new block to be created)
10:49 < stonecoldpat> of course cant check that with time i seen them appear sadly
10:50 < justanotheruser> stonecoldpat: so there was a 118 minute gap between blocks you're saying?
10:51 < sipa> there has been a 1 week gap between blocks...
10:52 < sipa> you need to look at clocktime vs blocktime if you want to know how much the boundary matters
10:52 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:53 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:56 < justanotheruser> sipa: when was there a 1 week gap? 2009?
10:56 < sipa> between block 0 and 1
10:57 < justanotheruser> lol
11:01 -!- mappum [sid43795@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nnwjelfmqqgwtqsm] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:01 -!- MoALTz [~no@user-5-173-75-115.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 -!- Jokosh [~sark@37-252-108-40.ip.skylogicnet.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 < tacotime> on the seventh day, satoshi rested.
11:04 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:05 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:09 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@pool-96-250-86-200.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:09 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has quit [Quit: KingCoin]
11:09 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:13 < ryan-c> phantomcircuit: Is cloudhashing your pool?
11:14 -!- Sangheili [Elite8385@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-yfbqwfxlgoidolmp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:14 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:21 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:21 < gmaxwell> surae: yea, so? it's a 0.5% difficulty hit, one time.
11:21 < gmaxwell> (a two hour advance)
11:23 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:28 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:30 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:31 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
11:37 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:37 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us2x.mullvad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:46 < Taek> gmaxwell: with 1/3 hash power you can lower the difficulty 6.6% while increasing your profits: http://pastebin.com/aqMptxW4
11:46 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:47 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:47 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:49 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Client Quit]
11:55 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
11:59 < gmaxwell> Taek: uh. you seem to be omitting a procedure for selecting timestamps that 1/5 will ignore (and won't stop ignoring seconds later)
12:02 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@186.137.72.20] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
12:08 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:12 < Taek> selecting timestamps could potentially be done by trial and error, especially if nodes won't forward a block that they see as invalid
12:13 < Taek> you have some hidden nodes around the network that pay attention to which nodes are forwarding the high-timestamp blocks you release
12:13 < Taek> you slowly raise the timestamp until ~1/5 of the mining power isn't forwarding your blocks
12:14 < Taek> If the whole network is mostly synchronized, and nodes will start mining on a block as soon as it becomes valid, then the attack isn't effective
12:14 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:15 < Taek> but that would require miners to remember blocks that were in the future, and to re-validate them once they were no longer too far in the future -> not too hard to program but I don't know if this is the current behavior
12:15 -!- skyraider7 [~Adium@65.209.61.114] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:21 < Taek> you probably only need a network skew of 1-2 minutes to make this work, even if nodes do start mining on blocks as soon as they are valid
12:21 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:21 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:26 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:32 < gmaxwell> Taek: your figuring doesn't account for only 1-2 minutes of rejection, however.
12:32 < gmaxwell> It assumes they reject forever, even an hour later.
12:35 -!- Rynomster [~quassel@105-236-244-19.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:36 -!- wfbarks [~wfbarks@38.111.146.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:39 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:40 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:41 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:45 -!- Rynomster [~quassel@105-236-244-19.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
12:46 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:46 -!- NeueWelt [~NeueWelt@85-218-26-243.dclient.lsne.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:46 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:50 -!- wfbarks [~wfbarks@38.111.146.130] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:50 -!- wfbarks_ [~wfbarks@38.111.146.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:51 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-farpmaxjzlnoehqc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:51 -!- skyraider7 [~Adium@65.209.61.114] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
12:53 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
12:54 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c805:c0e1:d2da:fb30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:58 < dgenr8> Taek: now + 2h + avg-block-propagation-time is where you'd start
12:58 < dgenr8> what's interesting about this timestamp split is that it's not happening.  PoW is working as a way to reduce these kinds of games, which are like DoS attacks
13:03 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:05 -!- wfbarks_ [~wfbarks@38.111.146.130] has quit []
13:06 -!- rfreeman_w [~rfreeman@gateway/tor-sasl/rfreemanw] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:06 -!- Dizzle__ [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:09 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:09 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:12 -!- MRL-Relay [~mrl-relay@coreteam.monero.cc] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:12 -!- MRL-Relay [~mrl-relay@coreteam.monero.cc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:13 < fluffypony> MRL-Relay:
13:13 < fluffypony> ok good, all fixed
13:13 < fluffypony> MRL-Relay: now behave.
13:14 < Taek> MRL-Relay is relay bot linking this channel to the Monero Research Lab
13:15 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:16 < fluffypony> Taek: yes - I was just disabling that thing where it explained itself when someone mentioned it by name
13:16 < fluffypony> except now I appear to have broken the relay
13:16 < fluffypony> lol
13:16 < Taek> just poking fun lol
13:17 -!- MRL-Relay [~mrl-relay@coreteam.monero.cc] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:17 < Taek> gmaxwell: tried to adjust the figuring: http://pastebin.com/Zy0YknPR
13:17 -!- MRL-Relay [~mrl-relay@coreteam.monero.cc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:18 < MRL-Relay> [fluffypony] testing 1 2 3
13:18 < fluffypony> there we go, all fixed
13:18 < fluffypony> sorry about it misbehaving earlier, sipa
13:18 < Taek> appears that ~5 minutes of network skew is needed, assuming a linear distribution
13:18 < Taek> as skew reduces, the amount of wasted mining that high-timestamps can introduce goes down substantially
13:18 -!- rfreeman_w [~rfreeman@gateway/tor-sasl/rfreemanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:19 -!- Dizzle__ is now known as Dizzle
13:20 -!- Dizzle__ [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:21 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Disconnected by services]
13:21 -!- koshii_ [~0@node-axz.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:21 -!- Dizzle__ is now known as Dizzle
13:22 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-85.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:22 -!- koshii [~0@node-9uo.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:22 < nsh> Taek, do you have a write-up of the attack class you're discussing yet?
13:22 < nsh> or discussion on the mailing list, or what have you
13:23 < gmaxwell> please don't just take half baked things to the mailing list.
13:23 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:24 < gmaxwell> nsh: he's suggesting that if some miners clocks are slow relative to a supermajority of the network, you could intentionally produce blocks right at the limit where the supermajority would accept, making the slow miners reject, and in those cases where you are successful, leaving them a block behind the supermajority.
13:26 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:26 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:28 < kanzure> raft stuff http://raftconsensus.github.io/ (slightly off-topic)
13:29 < Taek> nsh: All I've got is what I've typed here today. Idk what the clock skew of the network looks like, but it'd need to be pretty large for this attack to make sense, assuming that the attack even works in the first place.
13:30 < Taek> plus the total effects of the attack are a pretty minor difficulty reduction + wasted mining for the miners with slow clocks.
13:30 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@9.Red-81-44-7.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:31 < Taek> *wasted mining for the miners with fast clocks
13:31 < Taek> no wait slow nvm
13:33 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@172.Red-83-42-91.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:34 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:39 < Eliel> Taek: wouldn't that attack cause loss of income for the rest of the network? I'd expect it'd end up fixed rather fast if anyone actually started doing it.
13:40 < Taek> It would cause short term loss of income for everyone, but that'd fix as soon as the difficulty adjusted
13:42 < Eliel> I'd expect the orphan rate to stay high as long as the attack continues. That in itself would motivate fixing.
13:43 < gmaxwell> I'm simulating this any only seeing tiny amounts of orphaning.
13:43 < gmaxwell> the minority gets ahead a pretty large chunk of the time too.
13:44 < nsh> hmmm
13:44 < Eliel> how big is this tiny if calculated in terms of income lost to orphans?
13:45 < Eliel> in percentage
13:55 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:00 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:04 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:04 -!- celticwarrior72 [62dc0f02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.220.15.2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:11 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:15 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:15 -!- gatherc [4e1648f6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.22.72.246] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:16 -!- heath [~ybit@131.252.130.248] has quit [Changing host]
14:16 -!- heath [~ybit@unaffiliated/ybit] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:18 -!- Dizzle__ [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- Dizzle___ [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:21 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:22 -!- kerneloops [~tuomas@12.130.116.26] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:22 -!- Dizzle___ is now known as Dizzle
14:23 -!- Dizzle__ [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
14:27 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:31 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@158pc208.sshunet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
14:32 -!- kerneloops [~tuomas@12.130.116.26] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:33 -!- celticwarrior72 [62dc0f02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.220.15.2] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
14:35 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:35 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:37 < dgenr8> 10 minutes of rejection would be a good figure, since that's when minority would probably get an orphan and request the far-out block again
14:39 < dgenr8> though it would be more than that due to the split
14:40 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f1331f3.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:41 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
14:41 < amiller> https://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf Sidechained Bitcoin Substitutes: a Monetary Commentary
14:43 -!- Persopolis [~Persopoli@cpc10-haye19-2-0-cust19.17-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit []
14:44 < amiller> (haven't seen this posted here or discussed directly but it's 5 days old i guess)
14:46 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:46 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
14:46 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:49 -!- gonedrk [~gonedrk@d40a6497.rev.stofanet.dk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:52 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:53 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:53 -!- Kretchfoop [~Kretchfoo@ppp121-45-226-163.lns20.per1.internode.on.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
14:56 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:57 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:59 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:59 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:05 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:05 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:06 -!- Kretchfoop [~Kretchfoo@ppp121-45-253-42.lns20.per2.internode.on.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:06 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:08 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
15:11 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
15:12 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has quit [Quit: KingCoin]
15:16 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:16 -!- gatherc [4e1648f6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.22.72.246] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
15:18 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:23 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
15:25 -!- Jokosh [~sark@37-252-108-40.ip.skylogicnet.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:25 -!- Jokosh [~sark@37-252-108-40.ip.skylogicnet.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:32 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:36 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:37 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:39 < nsh_> amiller, do they make any valid points?
15:40 < go1111111> amiller: maybe I missed something, but I found that paper to say something very trivial in a very verbose way: the price of sidecoins will likely be discounted to the extent of the risks of having coins on a sidechain, and the movement delay
15:40 < gmaxwell> nsh: the point of it is not invalid, but also I think not very interesting.
15:41 < gmaxwell> what go1111111 said.
15:41 < Eliel> go1111111: surprisingly, it reads the exact same way to me.
15:42 < Eliel> 7 pages to state what you could easily state in a couple of sentences :P
15:42 < nsh_> right, that was my confusion too
15:43 < Eliel> reading it felt like reading the same argument over and over again
15:43 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:43 < Eliel> each time worded a bit differently
15:43 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:45 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:45 < Eliel> I'm baffled as to why someone feels the need to write a 7 page paper to state an obvious fact that can be expressed neatly and concisely in a few sentences.
15:46 < BlueMatt> Eliel: because it makes it seem more important and thought-out
15:47 < BlueMatt> and in bitcoin-land, it makes you look special and like an academic who should be treated with respect
15:47 < gmaxwell> I'm glad people are thinking about things, ... thats just the way some people think.
15:49 < nsh> it's all grist for the mill :)
15:50 < nsh> except when it's sand in your eyes
15:53 -!- lmatteis [uid3300@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cxruljtgqcacfwbz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
15:59 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:10 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:15 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@gateway/tor-sasl/niftyzero1] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:16 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@gateway/tor-sasl/niftyzero1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:16 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
16:26 -!- Nomos7 [~textual@pool-71-163-233-84.washdc.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
16:53 -!- OX3_ [~OX3@cpc69058-oxfd26-2-0-cust984.4-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:53 -!- rdponticelli [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/rdponticelli] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:02 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@158pc208.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:02 -!- OX3_ [~OX3@cpc69058-oxfd26-2-0-cust984.4-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:03 -!- OX3 [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:05 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:05 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:06 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:07 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@us2x.mullvad.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:07 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:07 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@162.245.22.162] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:08 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
17:14 -!- crowex [~crowex@88-106-107-166.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:15 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:17 -!- super3 [~Thunderbi@96-32-185-118.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com] has quit [Quit: super3]
17:30 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@158pc208.sshunet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:35 -!- TurtleBib [~TurtleBib@64.150.208.84] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:36 -!- super3 [~Thunderbi@96-32-185-118.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:39 -!- TurtleBib [~TurtleBib@64.150.208.84] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:40 -!- TurtleBib [~TurtleBib@64.150.208.84] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:43 -!- mkarrer_ [~mkarrer@9.Red-81-44-7.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:45 -!- TurtleBib [~TurtleBib@64.150.208.84] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
17:49 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
17:51 < kanzure> had an out of band conversation with andytoshi in austin at dinner tonight
17:52 < kanzure> we were wondering how to store science papers
17:52 < kanzure> the problem is that nobody has a complete copy of science
17:52 < zooko> Yeah. :-(
17:52 < kanzure> and nobody seeds because altruism or something, and it's 50 TB for the majority of science anyway
17:52 < kanzure> so, besides altruism, it would seem to make sense to pay people to host science
17:53 < nsh> well, maybe we ought to have a reliable and robust shared library storage system before we go about collecting all the science
17:53 < nsh> otherwise there's going to be significant duplication of effort
17:53 -!- OX3 [~OX3@gateway-nat.fmrib.ox.ac.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:53 < kanzure> a centralized operation can exist without hosting the papers centrally
17:53 < nsh> preferably somewhere immune to copythink
17:53  * nsh nods
17:54 < kanzure> there can be a centralized entity that allocates chunks of pdfs (but never entire pdfs) (and never ever single pdfs) to hosting providers
17:54 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:55 < kanzure> readers pay through the centralized arbitrator and the arbitrator acts as a router to known hosts (modulo tor) for those chunks
17:56 < gmaxwell> I'll gladly pay to store a complete copy of science, if someone would provide it to me. (as would archive.org for that matter) :P
17:56 < gmaxwell> kanzure: I have 40TB of storage sitting idle mostly at the moment. (actually cold in in a box)
17:56 < kanzure> unfortunately most people can't store 50 TB
17:56 < kanzure> well, hosting 40 TB is not that difficult really, i mean that you can't publicly do that and provide access
17:57 < kanzure> and most people don't have 40 TB anyway-- they should be able to host a small portion of science in exchange for money.
17:57 < justanotheruser> kanzure: what percentage of science was the aaron swartz leak?
17:57 < kanzure> aaron swartz didn't actually leak anything
17:57 < kanzure> that was gmaxwell
17:58 < kanzure> "leak"
17:58 < justanotheruser> meh
17:58 < justanotheruser> leak let you understand it
17:59 < kanzure> each paper chunk would be signed
17:59 < kanzure> the arbitrator also maintains a merkle root or hash table of all available chunks ...
18:00 < kanzure> all this does right now is proof that i host a chunk, and a merkle root gives us the ability to prove that the chunk is one that the arbitrator approved, and that i am not censoring (but the arbitrator might)
18:00 < kanzure> there really should be proof of retrievability in here somewhere
18:01 < kanzure> arbitrator can provide payment escrow of some sort based on proof of retrievability perhaps.
18:01 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c805:c0e1:d2da:fb30] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:01 < justanotheruser> kanzure: so you want a proof of storage for donors?
18:01 < kanzure> the payment to the science chunk hoster does not have to be instant really. it could take a while if necessary. like for escrow reasons.
18:01 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:01 < kanzure> it's not storage, it's retrievability.
18:02 < justanotheruser> I think this is a non-issue tbh. If someone had all of science plenty of people would host it
18:02 < kanzure> it should be a bitcoin output that can only be redeemed in the event of proof of retrievability or something...
18:02 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c805:c0e1:d2da:fb30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:02 < nsh> i don't think diffused responsibility and fancy crypto will necessarily fend off Elsevier's fleet of flying monkey attack lawyers though
18:02 < justanotheruser> kanzure: I'm not sure you can "prove" retrievability
18:03 < justanotheruser> you can probably invoke trust for it
18:03 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:04 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:04 < kanzure> hmm there may be a dispute between the reader and the hoster... where the reader doesn't rleease something to get the escrower to complete.. hrm.
18:04 < kanzure> oblivious rounds could be useful
18:04 < justanotheruser> you've read this right? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310323.0
18:05 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-farpmaxjzlnoehqc] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
18:05 < kanzure> s/rounds/ram ... -andytoshi
18:05 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:06 < kanzure> im thinking re oblivious ram, to use an oblivious ram protocol with memory lookups replaced by eg onion ouutes -- andy
18:07 < kanzure> the idea being, a transcript of correct oram execution is a proof of transmission that the sender can create
18:07 -!- coryfields [~quassel@2001:4802:7800:1:6fc4:c486:ff20:1fa] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
18:07 -!- coryfields [~quassel@2001:4802:7800:1:6fc4:c486:ff20:1fa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:07 -!- coryfields_ [~quassel@2001:4802:7800:2:be76:4eff:fe20:5aaa] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:09 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:09 < kanzure> as a rule it is important to not rely on altruism for the correct operation of this system
18:09 -!- cfields [~quassel@2001:4802:7800:2:be76:4eff:fe20:5aaa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:13 < kanzure> oracle can look at transcripts between a host and a reader
18:13 < kanzure> similar to otr i guess
18:13 < kanzure> some publicly verifiable system
18:13 < gmaxwell> meh, I mean right now 50TB of storage costs $500/yr on a 5 year hardware refresh cycle. (and hopefully dropping). I think you underestimate what people could pay for.
18:13 < kanzure> the length of the transcript between the two nodes, and every message is signed by both parties, and the host and the reader submits the transcripts to the arbitrator longest one wins
18:13 < kanzure> i'm sure they can pay for it but there are legal reasons why nobody has opened up access to 50 TB
18:14 < gmaxwell> I think thats too vague.
18:14 < gmaxwell> (I mean your protocol stuff)
18:14  * zooko has been reading the conversation with interest.
18:15 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-123.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:15 < kanzure> well the main problem was something about a reader not receiving it... no way to prove a negative.
18:15 < kanzure> s/it/chunks
18:15 < gmaxwell> Sure you can have someone serve the data out and pay them to do this. okay, but this doesn't _control_ access to the information, e.g. prevent extra copies.. without losing the benefit of the redundancy in the first place.
18:15 < kanzure> er, why would control be necessary
18:15 < gmaxwell> Don't assume that paying to send copies (storage and bandwidth) has anything to do with it, it doesn't. If that were it I'd personally make it happen.
18:17 < kanzure> i agree that sending is not the problem
18:17 < kanzure> storage and access is..
18:17 < gmaxwell> It's not. Go drop the control over it and the legal gatekeeping, it'll be all available in as much quantity as anyone cares to copy it three days after it hits my hands.
18:18 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-123.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
18:18 < kanzure> (like the copyright legal risk)
18:18 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@33.Red-79-158-209.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:18 < kanzure> i agree that it's fine if it's available to copy
18:19 < kanzure> er, mayi  ask why you are not already hosting a copy of all of science?
18:19 < gmaxwell> Because I am unable to obtain it.
18:19 < kanzure> btw what we're saying is that the science arbitration oracle does not have to be exposed to legal risk as much as hosting and distributing copies
18:19 < kanzure> oh, well i have it
18:19 < kanzure> i could have told you that ages ago
18:19  * kanzure scratches his head
18:19 < gmaxwell> ha
18:20 < gmaxwell> Ah, oh okay, so I may be misunderstanding what you were talking about.
18:20 < gmaxwell> Hurray for being non-concrete.
18:20 < kanzure> how do you protect against hateful publishers suing the crap out of you
18:21 < gmaxwell> So you propose a system operating without the consent of the publishers, which is immune to surpression by being highly distributed... but is sustainable because it has a model to fund its operation?
18:21 < kanzure> well, my goal was to avoid relying on altruism, so i think yes
18:22 < gmaxwell> (I've mostly just been expecting for the price of storage to reach a point where some anonymous benefactors can just buy 1000 50TB disks, ship them to random people with a note that says they have a moral obligation to replicate and pass on the disk, or at least pass it along to someone who will; a purely offline system has much better robustness properties.)
18:22 < zooko> Gotta go read a bedtime story or ten to my five year old. :-) Hopefully you folks still be solving the world's science-sharing problem when I get back.
18:23 < kanzure> i agree that ridiculously cheap storage would be extremely helpful
18:23 < kanzure> not everyone has to store a full copy
18:23 < gmaxwell> (even better when its self bootable and knows how to copy itself...)
18:24 < kanzure> when you download you end up getting extra chunks of bits of extra papers
18:24 < gmaxwell> kanzure: it's better if the system is offline, because the security model traverses social networks exclusively without being broadly observable, in a way that a network based system is. Also, a full collection can have value that potentially unreliable network access cannot.
18:24 < kanzure> i am not arguing against the existence of full collections
18:25 < gmaxwell> but right fair enough, it's not generally pratical now.
18:25 < gmaxwell> so going back to what you were talking about before, I don't know that reader access is a useful test probe, since you can just creat sybil readers.
18:25 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:25 < kanzure> i agree that it would be bad to rely on some sort of pdf scarcity re: funding model for hosts (or paying the hosts)
18:26 < kanzure> this is entirely a legal risk pricing scheme
18:26 < kanzure> it's not like data storage is particularly novel
18:26 < kanzure> servers sending files is totally not novel at all
18:26 < gmaxwell> yea, sorry, I thought you were trying to address storage and transfer.
18:26 < gmaxwell> I understand that you're not now.
18:27 < kanzure> do you think that transfer is particularly important, like requiring tor
18:27 < gmaxwell> you also have to consider that legal risks are greatly enhanced by commercial gains.
18:27 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
18:27 < Taek> I'm struggling to understand what the core issue is? What's to stop you from putting it on a .onion?
18:28 < kanzure> yes it would be nice if the hosts are anonymous and receiving pseudonymous payments
18:28 < gmaxwell> I mean, elsevier's revenue is on the order of 7 billion a year. This pays for a lot of trouble generation.
18:30 < gmaxwell> Taek: hidden service security is very low, especially for long lived widely known things that move a lot of traffic.
18:31 < Taek> is legal persecution the core problem then?
18:31 < kanzure> dude people have died over this
18:32 < gmaxwell> Taek: there isn't really any other problem; unlike movie and music publishing the widespread copying of academic works doesn't create socially difficult questions like how do you pay the authors. (they're already not paid via the publishing)
18:40 < Taek> thing is movie and music piracy seems to do just fine. you can get pretty much any once-popular movie or album from at least one of a wealth of trackers
18:40 < Taek> what makes science so much harder?
18:41 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:42 < gmaxwell> The coverage of movies is fairly poor, mostly covering only popular things; you just miss how much is missing... and they're massively more interesting the audience for papers is often much smaller.. and there is a benefit from having reliable access that is greater than the sum of the benefits of the indivigual works.
18:43 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:47 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-85.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
18:47 < Taek> on movies: piratebay might not be great but the set of movie private trackers (karagarga, hdbits, tehconnection, passthepopcorn, cinematik) has pretty extensive coverage in my experience. Though you are right even obscure films are probably orders of magnitude more visible than the average scientific paper
18:48 < Taek> probably more visible than the average scientific journal, though I really wouldn't know
18:55 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:55 < GnarSith> academic piracy is also more heavily policed.  you dont see the RIAA suiciding aaron swartz.
18:56 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:c805:c0e1:d2da:fb30] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:57 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:00 -!- MoALTz_ [~no@user-5-173-75-115.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:03 -!- MoALTz [~no@user-5-173-75-115.play-internet.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:05 < Luke-Jr> academic piracy? people are killing researchers?
19:05 < phantomcircuit> lulz
19:06 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:08 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:09 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:10 < AdrianG> idk taek
19:10 < kanzure> i wonder if academic textbooks were overpriced even in the 1800s.
19:11 < AdrianG> some obscure films are very hard to find.
19:11 < AdrianG> academic paper scarcity is just due to paywalls.
19:11 < AdrianG> the only paper i couldnt find immediately in digital format was some endocrine medical journal article from 1950s
19:11 < AdrianG> or possibly early 60s
19:12 < kanzure> it would be interesting if you could claim that ISI web of knowledge is corrupt because it is not publicly verifiable
19:12 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:12 < kanzure> it would be trivial to implement some sort of citation metric system thingy where each paper signs its citations
19:13 < kanzure> and if you find discrepancies (whether in ocr or otherwise) you could claim academic fraud on behalf of isi and use this as a reason to switch to a system with public auditing and really the most basic forms of cryptography...
19:13 < kanzure> oops i meant whether due to ocr or otherwise
19:13 < kanzure> (because at some point certain systemic errors across an entire field is no different from trying to influence citation graphs/ranking/prestige/science funding)
19:14 < kanzure> (a similar argument can be made about ocr and interpretation of foreign-language names and discrimination, if you were feeling ungrateful)
19:14 < kanzure> er i mean ungracious not ungrateful
19:15 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:18 < kanzure> zooko must have like ten five year-olds
19:24 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:27 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:29 -!- davidlatapie [~david__@m83-191-176-91.cust.tele2.ee] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
19:33 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-123.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:34 -!- kyletorpey [~kyle@c-24-131-0-5.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
19:36 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-123.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:38 < justanotheruser> kanzure: I'm not sure how well a trustless payment for "hosting" would work. You then have a big incentive to have the file while not giving it to anyone
19:39 < kanzure> you are not paying for hosting, just for a copy or access or the transfer or the retrieving
19:40 < justanotheruser> kanzure: then you still have a bit of a trust problem.
19:40 < kanzure> why's that
19:40 -!- maaku [~quassel@50-0-37-37.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:40 < justanotheruser> Why do I need to pay you after you send me a file?
19:40 < fenn> gmaxwell: "50TB of storage costs $500/yr" that's $500/mo on amazon glacier, which isnt really hosted storage it's more like off-site backup
19:40 < kanzure> you would pay upfront
19:41 < justanotheruser> There is no enforcement
19:41 < fenn> gmaxwell: why do you have 40TB lying around?
19:41 < justanotheruser> kanzure: why would I need to send you a file?
19:41 < kanzure> justanotheruser: because you want the money
19:41 < justanotheruser> kanzure: but I already have the money
19:41 < kanzure> no, the scheme i elaborated on above does not give the money to the host immediately
19:41 -!- maaku [~quassel@50-0-37-37.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:41 < justanotheruser> kanzure: yes, you had an arbitrator
19:42 < justanotheruser> I mean yes, you are correct, not yes contradicting your "no"
19:42 -!- maaku is now known as Guest26327
19:42 < kanzure> heh
19:42 < justanotheruser> and then that leaves us with the problem of preventing sybil arbitrators.
19:42 < kanzure> there may be a way to use cryptography such that the reader is incentivized to put together multiple chunks and submit some proof to the network to retrieve some money they put into escrow or something
19:43 < justanotheruser> kanzure: putting together multiple chunks locally isn't broadcasting though
19:43 < kanzure> like, maybe each host encodes some value in each of the chunks, such that when multiple hosts send their multiple chunks or whatever to the reader, that the reader can assemble a complete transaction to recover some balance he originally sent into "escrow" that was over and beyond the actual "price"
19:43 < kanzure> he would be incentivized to broadcast to get recovery
19:43 < kanzure> ... maybe.
19:43 < kanzure> (i am making things up)
19:44 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:44 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:44 < justanotheruser> anyways, I hope you can somewhat understand why my thoughts that a few central authorities would be a good idea. It is probably pretty difficult getting everyones incentives aligned for a system like this.
19:45 < kanzure> unfortunately serving files from a central location is specifically counter to the threat model
19:45 < justanotheruser> if it is distributed and in many countries publishers don't have legal power over it is less of a threat.
19:45 < kanzure> why would publishers not attack within their own jurisdictions?
19:46 < justanotheruser> who would they attack?
19:46 -!- Guest26327 [~quassel@50-0-37-37.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:46 < kanzure> hosts, dns, etc.
19:46 < justanotheruser> the hosts would have to be in this other country
19:47 < justanotheruser> re: dns, ask piratebay
19:47 < justanotheruser> whatever domain they're on now :P
19:47 < kanzure> aren't most of the piratebay people undergoing lots of lawsuits right now
19:47 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@2604:2000:e920:d500:1d4:f902:4660:614c] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:48 < justanotheruser> yep.
19:48 < justanotheruser> at least they were
19:48 < justanotheruser> I haven't been keeping up with them
19:49 < kanzure> so the hosts would also have to never travel ever
19:50 < fenn> "serving files from a central location is specifically counter to the threat model" just about sums it up
19:51 < fenn> dont you kids remember napster
19:51 < justanotheruser> kanzure: yep
19:52 < kanzure> it's interesting is that torrent seeders still get sued
19:52 < kanzure> and that people who are seeding partial copies are less often sued (i actually can't cite any relevant case)
19:52 < justanotheruser> fenn: US based
19:53 < phantomcircuit> fenn, glacier is offsite backup for non critical data
19:53 < kanzure> and even though a seeder might never send an entire copy to a leecher, the law has generally looked upon each seeder as if distributing entire copies (even if the leecher only used them for non-contiguous chunks and not the entire file)
19:53 < phantomcircuit> it's lol expensive to actually read from
19:53 < phantomcircuit> iirc it's like quadratic with the rate at which you read
19:53 < fenn> phantomcircuit: yeah my point was that hosting 50TB is a lot more expensive than $500/yr
19:54 < kanzure> er, 50 TB is not outside the realm of a single rack or whatever
19:54 < fenn> you can probably fit it into a 1U or 2U slot
19:55 < phantomcircuit> 50/6 ~= 9
19:55 < phantomcircuit> so yeah 2U
19:55 < phantomcircuit> 1U if they weren't hot swap or it was back to back
19:56 < kanzure> another reason that you will need a science oracle is that there's really no way to "prove" that any random addition to the collection is "science" as far as i know
19:57 < kanzure> and supplementary docs are huge and suddenly you have to consider storing jove.com's video collection or something
19:57 < kanzure> http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/jove.urls.txt
19:57 < justanotheruser> phantomcircuit: quadratic with the rate you read?
19:58 < phantomcircuit> justanotheruser, yeah
19:58 < justanotheruser> I must not be reading that right? Why would it be like that?
19:58 < phantomcircuit> you're assigned some rate under which it's reasonable based on how much you have stored
19:58 < kanzure> there are certain forms of storage where it takes more effort to read than write
19:58 < phantomcircuit> but they dont provide any tools to keep yourself under that rate
19:58 < kanzure> you can make different storage reliability or longevity guarantees in different scenarios
19:59 < phantomcircuit> justanotheruser, im guessing that it's just servers with wake on lan that are powered down almost all of the time
19:59 < phantomcircuit> so they want to batch reads
19:59 < kanzure> (which they wouldn't be able to make to all writable storage on their infrastructure, of course)
19:59 < kanzure> oh that's strange, i would have assumed something more elaborate, like tapes
19:59 < justanotheruser> phantomcircuit: so this is just for "glacier"?
19:59 < phantomcircuit> justanotheruser, yes
19:59 < phantomcircuit> everything else gets cheaper in volume
19:59 < phantomcircuit> kanzure, maybe, it's the same economics
20:00 < kanzure> would the cost of tape retrieval explain their pricing
20:00 < fenn> i dont think they use tapes
20:00 < phantomcircuit> iirc glacier actually reads back data at intervals to ensure data doesn't get corrupt with time
20:00 < phantomcircuit> tapes would make that a supreme nuisance
20:01 < phantomcircuit> i seriously think it's just old power hungry servers which they turn off most of the time
20:01 < fenn> oh my bad "Glacier runs on Spectra T-Finity tape libraries with LTO-6 tapes"
20:01 < fenn> but nobody actually knows?
20:02 < phantomcircuit> fenn, there's a bunch of speculation about it
20:02 < phantomcircuit> but nothing confirmed afaik
20:02 < fenn> let's just assume they use tattooed gnomes
20:03 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:04 < kanzure> there is very little incentive in my scheme for a hoster to not try to figure out what their chunks are
20:05 < kanzure> or, if they track how much they have been uploading versus their income, they could just sybil themselves into a new set of chunks somehow(?) and try to get a set of chunks that pays better
20:05 < kanzure> so the least-often-requested chunks would have to be carefully subsidized by the science oracle
20:05 -!- gonedrk [~gonedrk@d40a6497.rev.stofanet.dk] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:07 -!- bit2017 [~linker@118.69.162.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:07 < kanzure> well, all of the chunks would have to be carefully subsidized i suppose, but particularly those hosts that are unlucky to get a random mix of totally worthless chunks that nobody ever wants
20:07 < fenn> that's what happens in freenet, but the least-requested chunks get lost and disappear
20:07 < kanzure> well, okay, so just do some good chunk mixing and distribution
20:07 < kanzure> isn't freenet anonymity-focused rather than focused on chunk-preserving
20:08 < fenn> initially it was not anonymous but then they messed it all up for i don't know why
20:08 < kanzure> andytoshi and i should go stalk brandon wiley since he's in the area
20:09 < zooko> Oookay. The kids or asleep, or at least feigning it convincingly.
20:09 < zooko> Did we solve the matter of distribution of scientific knowledge yet?
20:09 < fenn> no
20:09 -!- Guest91682 [~linker@118.69.162.9] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
20:09 < kanzure> the millenial science ark is just beginning
20:10 < fenn> how many cubits should it have
20:10 < kanzure> or personally i've been leaning towards strategic science reserve
20:10 < kanzure> but whatever
20:10 < zooko> "<kanzure> zooko must have like ten five year-olds" ← it definitely seems like that sometimes.
20:10 < fenn> what if it's made of gopherwood
20:12 < fenn> ok so i think we can say that storage is not the problem, it's distribution without a central point of failure
20:12 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:12 < fenn> anyone with a gopherwood box can put 50 hard drives in it
20:13 < Taek> and how do you update it? have a new drive for each years worth of science?
20:13 < fenn> yes, there are write-only file systems
20:14 < fenn> and things like git-annex can reorganize the structure without actually touching the bulk of the data
20:14 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:15 < fenn> it seems that IP address is the main vulnerability by which publishers can track down people hosting information
20:15 < kanzure> "oh noes you were storing 20 bytes of data"?
20:16 < kanzure> s/storing/sending
20:17 -!- jedunnig_ [~jedunniga@cpe-72-225-237-141.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:17 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@2604:2000:e920:d500:1d4:f902:4660:614c] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:18 < fenn> tor was discounted for reasons i didn't understand (and cant find in backlog)
20:19 < fenn> kanzure: how do you transmit the data from a throwaway IP without storing it?
20:19 < kanzure> "hidden service security is very low, especially for long lived widely known things that move a lot of traffic."
20:19 < kanzure> in that context what is "you"
20:20 < phantomcircuit> kanzure, that is only true for certain configurations
20:20 < fenn> "you" is an agent with access to the data
20:20 < phantomcircuit> you can copy the private key to multiple systems and make it very hard to identify the hidden service
20:20 < kanzure> fenn: and what are you not storing?
20:20 < fenn> the data
20:20 < phantomcircuit> there's a bunch of gotchas in doing that though
20:21 < kanzure> fenn: storing is not something that people are prosecuted for
20:21 < phantomcircuit> like they fight with the directory servers about whose hidden service descriptor to use
20:22 < kanzure> as far as i can tell nobody has been prosecuted for sending a few bytes but not a complete file
20:22 < kanzure> i know this is a very weak observation
20:22 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:1f5:da32:ff9d:231b] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:22 < zooko> There exists a Tahoe-LAFS storage grid made up entirely of servers which are reachable only as Tor-hidden-services.
20:22 < zooko> So I'm told.
20:22 < fenn> say publisher's crack squad of goons downloads a paper from 1.2.3.4, they email the ISP for that address and demand personally identifying information, then file a lawsuit against whoever that was
20:22 < kanzure> they weren't papers, see above (chunking, never storing a paper on a single server, etc)
20:23 < fenn> what use is a chunk?
20:23 < kanzure> zooko: i was trying to design a system that doesn't rely on altruism..
20:23 < kanzure> fenn: well you would get chunks from multiple sources to assemble a file, possibly using torrenting
20:23 < fenn> ok, goon squad downloads chunks from 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.5
20:23 < fenn> now they have two targets to sue
20:25 < zooko> kanzure: I'm not aware of any parts of the Tahoe-LAFS design that would have to be undone in order to make it agoric.
20:25 -!- petahash [~petahash@d173-183-96-243.bchsia.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:26 < kanzure> zooko: huh? so why isn't everyone storing all would-have-otherwise-been-torrented-but-isn't-because-nobody-wants-to-seed content there?
20:26 < kanzure> wait, i might have misparsed a thing there...
20:27 < zooko> Forgive me if I'm being short, but this is one of those things that I've grown weary of.
20:27 < zooko> Not your fault.
20:27 < kanzure> which part are you particularly weary of?
20:28 < zooko> The thing is, Tahoe-LAFS comprises about 5 or 6 parts. Any system with similar ambitions would be similarly complex. E.g. Freenet, GNUnet, and many others.
20:28 < zooko> And, 90% of it would not need to change at *all* in order to extend it to an agoric system
20:28 < kanzure> ah, i'm not sure that perceived complexity factors strongly into whether or not it is operational
20:29 < zooko> But, well-meaning, educated people like you, come along and say "I want an agoric system!" and then immediately set about reinventing the parts that would *not* need to change.
20:29 < zooko> See my point?
20:29 < kanzure> i'm not sure i am interested in reinventing anything
20:29 < kanzure> for example, above i was strongly opposed to reinventing tor
20:29 < zooko> So maybe your new variant is better in some ways, but the differences from tahoe-lafs are not *necessary* to achieve your stated goals.
20:29 < kanzure> (or that was possibly just in private said to andytoshi)
20:30 < zooko> Like I said, it isn't you that I'm ranting at, it is the half a dozen people who came past just before you and did *that*. That thing that I just complained about.
20:30 < kanzure> whatever, it's valid i'm sure
20:30 < justanotheruser> so what is the decentralization problem with sidechains and mining given that p2pool could split the chain they're evaluating and use fraud proobs
20:30 -!- jedunnig_ [~jedunniga@cpe-72-225-237-141.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:31 < zooko> There are some patches to streamline Tahoe-LAFS integration with Tor that could use code review: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2319
20:31 < fenn> zooko: what is the current bandwidth capacity of this tor-tahoe system?
20:32 < fenn> and how does it scale?
20:32 < kanzure> "Users do rely on storage servers for availability. The ciphertext is erasure-coded into N shares distributed across at least H distinct storage servers (the default value for N is 10 and for H is 7) so that it can be recovered from any K of these servers (the default value of K is 3). Therefore only the failure of H-K+1 (with the defaults, 5) servers can make the data unavailable."
20:33 < kanzure> how would these servers be paid for retrieving the correct data?
20:33 < kanzure> or storing or something.
20:33 < gmaxwell> 19:40 < fenn> gmaxwell: "50TB of storage costs $500/yr" that's $500/mo on amazon glacier, which isnt really hosted storage it's more like off-site backup
20:34 < gmaxwell> fenn: thats what you pay in premium for using a commercial service instead of just buying disks.
20:34 < zooko> fenn: I don't know the capacity of the tor-tahoe grid.
20:34 < zooko> fenn: I guess it probably scales, in terms of number of servers, to hundreds of servers.
20:34 -!- shea256 [~hightorqu@2604:2000:e920:d500:4c55:6b94:d2ff:cdbd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:34 < zooko> (Because there have been tahoe-lafs grids before with hundreds of servers.)
20:34 < zooko> kanzure: I was thinking Bitcoin.
20:36 < kanzure> so you pay bitcoin when?
20:36 < zooko> Well, this is where it gets interesting.
20:37 -!- KingCoin [~KingCoin@unaffiliated/kingcoin] has quit [Quit: KingCoin]
20:37 < zooko> And notice that these questions are exactly the same for tahoe-lafs-agoric as for any related architecture such as the ideas we were kicking around on this channel earlier.
20:37 < kanzure> i believe there are many possible answers, some more correct than others
20:37 < kanzure> and others that are totally insecure and broken
20:37 < zooko> Well, what do you think would be the best answer?
20:38 < kanzure> i would prefer a system that does not pay cheaters
20:38 < kanzure> or a system that does not collapse under the presence of cheaters
20:38 < fenn> what about sliding scale donation
20:38  * zooko thinks.
20:39 < kanzure> aren't donations just another way of saying altruism and begging
20:39 < zooko> Um, so the main expense that I'm thinking about is that of operating a storage server with some storage capacity.
20:39 < fenn> yes, but nobody donates to cheating
20:39 < zooko> A storage server can "cheat" by pretending to store your ciphertexts for you but failing to deliver them later.
20:39 < kanzure> zooko: so we have lots of people that have huge paper archives, colossally huge
20:40 < kanzure> zooko: and the problem is that nobody can really host 12 terabytes of libgen torrents
20:40 < kanzure> zooko: without being subjected to intense legal pressure
20:40 < fenn> (there are numerous ways to cheat, best to be explicit about what sort of cheating)
20:40 < zooko> So, I was thinking maybe pay the storage servers regularly, e.g. monthly, if they pass proof-of-retrievability tests.
20:40 < kanzure> and nobody really wants to host just a portion of science for free or something, because they don't believe everyone else will, and that makes their random chunk less useful
20:40 < kanzure> (who would be making the regular payments?)
20:42 < fenn> i thought we established that storage wasnt the problem
20:42 < kanzure> there are very few people who want to host "Annuals of Geology in Odessa, Texas" compared to whatever their special interest is
20:43 < kanzure> for some reason we haven't seen people making their multi-terabyte collections available over tor for free
20:43 < zooko> kanzure: if nobody wants to host it, or to pay for its hosting, then there is no incentive-compatible means to make it be hosted, so I don't understand your objection.
20:45 < kanzure> earlier i proposed a central oracle that figures out payment routing and making sure enough of science is incentivized to be available or something
20:45 < fenn> kanzure: libgen is already available in the clear from russia; there's no need for them to use tor. is there some other collection that would be using tor?
20:45 < kanzure> where each payment subsidizes the whole thing
20:45 < kanzure> libgen is extremely vulnerable
20:45 < kanzure> fenn: let's put it this way, i think that there are people in each of the major publications that would gladly dump their entire collections into this
20:46 < zooko> kanzure: so you're hypothesizing that there is enough aggregate willingness to pay to fund a big collection, but that if people pick and choose what to support then parts will fall through the cracks entirely.
20:46 < kanzure> let me clarify, there is observable evidence of this
20:46 < kanzure> oh, absolutely, yes
20:46 < kanzure> especially the falling through the cracks part
20:46 < kanzure> that's already happening, in the same way that libraries regret not archiving literally everything almost every day
20:46 < kanzure> s/libraries/academic libraries
20:48 < fenn> why has nobody made a tor worm
20:48 < fenn> makes all computers exit nodes
20:49 < gmaxwell> fenn: this isn't contributing usefully to the discussion here.
20:49 < fenn> okay
20:50 < fenn> i am primarily concerned with how to preserve access to scientific knowledge, not how to pay people for it
20:50 < kanzure> what do you mean by preserve- you don't have access at all
20:50 < kanzure> and paying for it might be how to make it happen
20:56 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
20:56 < fenn> "preserve" in a long now scenario; will papers be available in 100 years, 1000 years? access is more of a short term issue but may contribute to preservation in the long term
20:56 < fenn> the average paper has a low copy number
20:56 < fenn> there aren't very many copies of each paper
20:59 < kanzure> you want to optimize for number of distinct widely-distributed papers that each individually go away in different failure modes or failure scenarios, instead of "1 paper 100 times on a single ssd" etc.
21:08 < zooko> Goodnight folks.
21:09 < kanzure> zooko: don't feel discouraged, it just takes a while for me to read everything
21:09 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
21:09 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:13 -!- zooko [~user@67-6-128-167.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:18 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3AB478.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:20 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3ABF73.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:30 -!- petahash [~petahash@d173-183-96-243.bchsia.telus.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:33 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@cpe-72-182-49-104.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:05 -!- shea256 [~hightorqu@2604:2000:e920:d500:4c55:6b94:d2ff:cdbd] has quit []
22:05 -!- torsthaldo [~torsthald@unaffiliated/torsthaldo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:07 -!- bit2017 [~linker@118.69.162.9] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
22:18 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:19 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:20 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:21 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:37 -!- wiretapped [~wiretappe@gateway/tor-sasl/wiretapped] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:37 -!- bit2017 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:37 -!- wiretapped [~wiretappe@gateway/tor-sasl/wiretapped] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:38 -!- justanotheruser is now known as yukitteru
22:38 -!- yukitteru is now known as justanotheruser
22:41 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3AB478.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:41 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3AB478.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:42 -!- penny [~linker@112.109.91.6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:42 -!- penny is now known as Guest27123
22:43 -!- Guest27123 [~linker@112.109.91.6] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
22:43 -!- bit2017 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
22:45 -!- bit2017 [~linker@112.109.91.6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:46 -!- bit2017 [~linker@112.109.91.6] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
22:47 -!- bit2017 [~linker@112.109.91.6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:49 -!- bit2017 [~linker@112.109.91.6] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
23:02 -!- koshii_ [~0@node-axz.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]
23:04 -!- koshii [~0@node-axz.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:04 -!- koshii [~0@node-axz.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has quit [Client Quit]
23:06 -!- koshii [~0@node-axz.pool-101-108.dynamic.totbb.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:08 -!- bit2017 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:21 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
23:24 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:1f5:da32:ff9d:231b] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:41 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:48 -!- jedunnigan [~jedunniga@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:48 -!- jedunnig_ [~jedunniga@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:52 -!- PaulCape_ [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:52 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
--- Log closed Thu Oct 30 00:00:35 2014