--- Log opened Tue May 26 00:00:11 2015
--- Day changed Tue May 26 2015
00:00 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@162.244.138.37] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:01 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:02 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:03 -!- Mably [56401ec5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.197] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:05 -!- hktud0 [ncidsk@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:06 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:07 -!- hktud0 [wq@unaffiliated/fluffybunny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:13 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:14 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:16 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:26 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
00:31 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
00:31 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:32 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:32 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:38 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
00:40 -!- kgk [~kgk@76.14.85.43] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
00:40 -!- Pan0ram1x [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
00:40 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:46 -!- Pan0ram1x [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:55 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lalkfqdgindlztbu] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
01:03 < heath> http://www.jbonneau.com/doc/BFGKN14-bitcoin_bribery.pdf
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:04 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04  * andy-logbot is logging
01:04 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:07 -!- ttttemp_ [~ttttemp@pc-10236.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:09 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:09 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:10 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:17 -!- b_lumenkraft_ [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:17 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:17 -!- b_lumenkraft_ is now known as b_lumenkraft
01:20 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:20 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
01:22 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@2601:6:8000:4a8:18a8:b455:f920:4f7b] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:34 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:35 -!- llllllllll [~lllllllll@6d482698.ftth.concepts.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:37 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:40 -!- Krellan_ is now known as Krellan
01:49 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
01:54 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:02 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:02 -!- GAit [~lnahum@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:04 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:08 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-mekmnnnezznbgppl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
02:09 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:12 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:21 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:30 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:34 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
02:34 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:49 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
02:59 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:17 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
03:30 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
03:32 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:34 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:36 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:38 -!- GAit [~lnahum@212.91.77.37] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:38 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
03:39 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:40 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Client Quit]
03:41 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
03:45 -!- ttttemp_ [~ttttemp@pc-10236.ethz.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:46 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@pc-5305.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:49 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:51 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:52 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:55 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:07 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
04:12 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:17 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@188.27.91.240] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:28 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:30 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@188.27.91.240] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:38 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@e120-pool-d89a7f80.brdbnd.voicenetwork.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:39 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@e120-pool-d89a6194.brdbnd.voicenetwork.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:43 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:43 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:46 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:51 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:07 -!- GAit [~lnahum@212.91.77.37] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:09 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:09 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@188.27.91.240] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:18 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:19 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
05:31 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0119.uvt.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:35 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:35 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:38 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
05:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@195.175.52.6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:48 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:49 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@195.175.52.6] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:57 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:59 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@176.92.30.167] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:59 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@195.175.52.6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:59 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:05 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
06:10 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@195.175.52.6] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
06:12 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@2601:6:1783:7e5b:417d:2a59:bdf1:5783] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:12 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:13 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@73.219.207.0] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:15 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:18 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:20 -!- CoinMuncher1 [~jannes@ip54544d54.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 -!- yr4xd7cfy [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:22 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:22 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:22 -!- CoinMuncher2 [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:22 -!- yr4xd7cfy [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has quit [Client Quit]
06:23 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@188.27.91.240] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:24 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:25 -!- CoinMuncher1 [~jannes@ip54544d54.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
06:29 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:30 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:31 -!- nessence [~alexl@95.90.238.232] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:37 -!- Relos [~Relos@unaffiliated/relos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:44 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
06:45 -!- temujin [2679a51e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.121.165.30] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:45 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@2601:6:8000:4a8:c102:4c8:7298:8f43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:45 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:46 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@2601:6:1783:7e5b:417d:2a59:bdf1:5783] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
06:49 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:50 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
06:52 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:52 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:54 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:56 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:57 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:57 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:58 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
06:58 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:01 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:02 < kanzure> "Bitcoin and Beyond: A Technical Survey on Decentralized Digital Currencies" https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/464.pdf abstract-only at https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/464
07:07 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:09 < kanzure> eh nevermind. not particularly thorough analysis.
07:11 < kanzure> i was expecting more like http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/Research%20perspectives%20and%20challenges%20for%20Bitcoin%20and%20cryptocurrencies.pdf
07:14 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:14 -!- davispuh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:15 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:16 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:24 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:34 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:39 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:40 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:41 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit []
07:41 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@230.85-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:41 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 -!- mpmcsweeney [~mpmcsween@73.219.207.0] has quit []
07:48 -!- b_lumenkraft_ [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:48 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:48 -!- b_lumenkraft_ is now known as b_lumenkraft
07:48 < nsh> what was unthorough about it, kanzure?
07:51 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0119.uvt.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:51 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0119.uvt.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:52 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
07:52 < kanzure> nsh: well based on its analysis of proof of stake (and only one reference?) ....
07:53  * nsh nods
07:53 -!- davispuh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:53 -!- davispuhh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 -!- antanst [~Adium@athedsl-340249.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
07:55 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
07:55 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kxvatfpwdlppspeq] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:56 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
07:56 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:01 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:04 -!- dEBRUYNE_ is now known as dEBRUYNE
08:05 -!- nessence [~alexl@82.113.98.23] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:06 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:08 -!- nessence [~alexl@82.113.98.23] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:11 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-136-219.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:13 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:14 -!- LeMiner [~LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:17 -!- antgreen [user@nat/redhat/x-fhlkxkqvlkralcdy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:18 -!- ttttemp_ [~ttttemp@nb-10350.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:19 -!- ttttemp [~ttttemp@pc-5305.ethz.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:19 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:24 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:25 -!- davispuhh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:25 -!- davispuh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:29 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:29 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:30 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-136-219.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:32 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
08:34 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:52 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:52 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@vp0119.uvt.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:52 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:53 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
08:55 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:01 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:04 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
09:07 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:07 -!- Zooko-phone [~androirc@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
09:11 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:15 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
09:17 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.10.214] has quit [Excess Flood]
09:17 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
09:18 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:18 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
09:19 -!- Zooko-phone [~androirc@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:20 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.10.214] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:22 -!- PaulCape_ [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
09:23 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:23 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@43-161-16-190.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:27 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:33 -!- Mably [56401ec5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.64.30.197] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
09:39 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
09:40 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:41 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
09:47 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
09:52 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:54 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:54 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-136-219.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:02 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
10:04 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
10:08 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
10:08 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:13 -!- CoinMuncher2 [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:23 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:30 -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:31 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:31 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:33 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:33 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:37 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
10:42 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:46 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:50 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-62.109.242.92.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:51 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:59 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:59 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
10:59 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:00 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
11:06 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:10 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
11:16 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@91.206.81.13] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:17 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:b99a:ee5e:4433:e3bf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:29 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@55-215-250-178.ftth.cust.kwaoo.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:30 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@55-215-250-178.ftth.cust.kwaoo.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:31 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:32 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@2601:6:1783:7e5b:3119:16ee:3a72:5769] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:35 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:37 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
11:39 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-62.109.242.92.tellas.gr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
11:40 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:41 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
11:46 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-62.109.242.92.tellas.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:53 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:54 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
11:56 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:11 -!- davispuh [~quassel@212.93.100.203] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:17 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@2601:6:1783:7e5b:3119:16ee:3a72:5769] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
12:17 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
12:18 -!- Adlai [~Adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:19 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:25 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:27 -!- luigi1111 [~luigi1111@unaffiliated/luigi1111] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
12:28 -!- luigi1111 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:28 -!- luigi1111 is now known as Guest95228
12:29 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:33 -!- DrWat [DrWat@186-106-243-246.baf.movistar.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:34 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Client Quit]
12:36 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:38 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:42 < mrkent> Why does these two testnet block explorers have different blocks? http://tbtc.blockr.io/block/info/427652 http://explorer.chain.com/blocks/427652
12:42 < Taek> https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/37bnbv/important_fork_update/
12:43 < Taek> ethereum learns that running implementations of consensus code in multiple languages can lead to hardforks
12:43 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-196-136-219.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:46 < hulkhogan_> i sort of don't understand why they had to reimplement it three or more times just to launch it
12:46 -!- antanst [~Adium@adsl-62.109.242.92.tellas.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
12:46 < Adlai> it was lonely without all the python and C++ clients
12:46 -!- Hunger- [hunger@proactivesec.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:52 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:58 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@76-255-129-88.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:00 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:02 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@64.124.157.148] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:05 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:08 < Eliel> maybe they want to avoid getting locked into a single implementation by diversifying early?
13:08 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:14 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:15 < gmaxwell> Eliel: unavoidable; certantly good to have multiple implementations to help _expose_ issues; but that doesn't itself remove the consensus risk from it.
13:19 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:22 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:22 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:23 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:36 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:37 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:41 -!- jmcn [~jamie@2.24.158.84] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:44 -!- jmcn_ [~jamie@2.24.158.83] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:49 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:49 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:52 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:54 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f10af17.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:56 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:02 -!- kheplo_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 -!- felipelalli [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/felipelalli] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:04 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
14:04 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:07 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:13 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
14:16 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has quit []
14:16 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has quit [Quit: b_lumenkraft]
14:18 -!- rustyn [~rustyn@unaffiliated/rustyn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:18 -!- zz_lnovy is now known as lnovy
14:20 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@5ec18b49.skybroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:20 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@5ec18b49.skybroadband.com] has quit [Changing host]
14:20 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:21 -!- antgreen [user@nat/redhat/x-fhlkxkqvlkralcdy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:22 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:28 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:28 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:34 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:39 < GGuyZ> Not really bitcoin but perhaps someone could help :)
14:39 < GGuyZ> I'm trying to prove that a given set of shares cannot reconstruct a valid degree t polynomial. The verifier should at most know a commitment of these shares, but not the shares themselves. Any idea how to solve this? I'm thinking SNARKs but not sure if that's a good fit.
14:40 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:41 < GGuyZ> G*
14:41 < gmaxwell> join #btcd
14:41 < gmaxwell> oops
14:42 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:43 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
14:45 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:49 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:52 -!- temujin [2679a51e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.121.165.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
14:52 < GGuyZ> Actually I have a solution
14:53 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: sorry just saw your question.  Your question is insufficently clear to me.
14:53 < gmaxwell> Soemone can always know more shares that they leave out of the proof.
15:05 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:18 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:21 -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:21 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:21 -!- kheplo_ [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:21 < GGuyZ> Thanks,
15:21 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:21 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:24 < GGuyZ> I'll try to be more clear if the line of thinking I'm trying doesn't work out. Tried to keep my question brief but I see why it lacks substance that way.
15:26 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
15:26 -!- adam3us [~Adium@host-92-19-93-69.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:26 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:29 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:30 -!- zooko [~user@2600:100e:b019:db03:d77:793f:56a5:9d28] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:32 < gmaxwell> yea, understood. Sometimes it's just hard to tell what you're trying to accomplish. I'm guessing you want some commitment X and then prove that x,y,z,C(q),C(r)  where x,y,z are shares of X and C(q), R(r) are commitments to shares of x.
15:32 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:33 < gmaxwell> (where X = C(x))  and some verifier wants to know that the shares agree with C(x).
15:33 < gmaxwell> So long as your commitment scheme is additively homorphic you should just be able to take the shares and the commited shares and interpoate the commitment to x.
15:34 < gmaxwell> and if you have all the shares (in either direct or commited form) then you can just try every interpolation.
15:34 < gmaxwell> (uh, I made some variable name screwups above; so ignoring those...)
15:37 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:47 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:49 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:49 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:50 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:54 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:59 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:08 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
16:09 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:11 < andytoshi> GGuyZ: ignoring concerns about what your goal is (and if it can be subverted by simply hiding information, say), it's unlikely you can prove anything about polynomial construct
16:11 < andytoshi> constructibility without something as powerful as multilinear maps
16:14 < HostFat> I've wrote my opinion about the block size debate https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37du43/market_of_blocks
16:16 < andytoshi> well, if you are OK with having large proofs, you can prove that a bunch of points G, xG, x^2G, x^3G, etc are constructed honestly with simultaneous schnorr signatures, cf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.5343 which does something similar. then you can prove linear equations in x, x^2, x^3, etc using standard discrete log techniques
16:21 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:24 < gmaxwell> HostFat: Your post is uninformed with respect to how block propagation works.
16:25 -!- zooko [~user@2600:100e:b019:db03:d77:793f:56a5:9d28] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
16:25 < gmaxwell> HostFat: most large miners (and anyone who wants) use the block relay protocol for relaying blocks, it transmits blocks with time which is essentially unrelated to the size of the blocks.
16:25 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
16:25 < gmaxwell> (it's technically linear but with a very small constant)
16:26 < HostFat> do you mean transmitting to other miners or to all nodes?
16:26 < gmaxwell> HostFat: To whatever extent the size/time relation is consequential thats a pressure to centeralize in and of itself, since the more centeralized party isn't harmed by those costs.
16:27 < gmaxwell> HostFat: to anyone interested in recieving them efficiently; though transmitting to other nodes isn't time critical in terms of miners incomes or incentives.
16:28 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@239-196-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:28 < HostFat> so there is something that I don't know and/or missing. Can a miner release a 100 MB block all the time and still arrive before miners that release blocks of 1 MB?
16:29 < gmaxwell> HostFat: Yes.
16:29 < HostFat> woha!
16:30 < gmaxwell> HostFat: Almost all (or all, if you just avoid adding very new txn to your blocks) the transactions are already communicated and verified; and don't need to be transmitted again.
16:31 < gmaxwell> HostFat: The block relay protocol just sends a list of two byte indexes to previously communicted txids/txn; technically is possible to build protocols even more efficient than that using set reconcilation; but at two bytes per transaction you can specify all the transactions for a block hundreds of megs in size without a round trip; and its already widely deployed. Future protocols that just sen
16:31 < gmaxwell> d the discrepency between the block and an implied mempool would be even more efficient but because of cpu costs aren't likely a win without really gigantic blocks.
16:31 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-94-32.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:32 < gmaxwell> But even if we ignore this, and pretend the block relay protocol didn't exist and wasn't widely used-- go with your original knoweldge: lets say it is proportional. In that world miners could immediately make more income by moving to a bigger pool, which can produce bigger blocks for a given amount of orphaning risk; as the pool will not orphan itself.
16:35 < HostFat> hmm, but smaller pools/miners will still able to arrive to more nodes than the bigger pool, and even if there are two bigger pools, they will compete each other to arrive to the majority of nodes (if we still think that tis relay protocol doesn't exist)
16:36 < HostFat> by making smaller blocks
16:36 -!- StephenM347 [~stephenm3@static-64-223-246-218.port.east.myfairpoint.net] has quit []
16:37 < gmaxwell> HostFat: if you imagine it doesn't exist, thats true but you can always increase your competitiveness by either increasing centeralization or decreasing blocksize.  And if you are more centeralized than someone else you can use a larger block size (more fee income), meaning that if mining is at an equlibrium you might be making 0.1% more (say) and turning a profit, while the less centeralized min
16:37 < gmaxwell> er is losing money.
16:38 < gmaxwell> Block relay protocol was created to try to mitigate some of that centeralization pressure that was pushing the network to only one or two pools last year-ish.
16:39 < HostFat> so the block relay protocol is enabled for all nodes currently, right?
16:41 -!- se3000 [~SE@38.125.163.25] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
16:41 < gmaxwell> HostFat: it's something you download seperately. I think all major miners use it (they'd be foolish not to!) but there is no way to tell for sure. In any case, since anyone can trivially install it and we know that most of the hashpower uses it, it more or less moots your argument about some kind of market force there. (since the thing you'd do isn't decrease your blocksize, you'd install the blo
16:41 < gmaxwell> ck relay network client)
16:41 < HostFat> ok
16:42 < phantomcircuit> HostFat, it's almost important to note that larger miners can afford significantly more bandwidth than smaller decentralized miners
16:42 < phantomcircuit> to give you an idea i had a 10gbps line pushing blocks out in addition to the relay network
16:42 < phantomcircuit> (even the 10gbps line wasn't enough, to get really good propagation i was proposing 10x that)
16:43 < HostFat> that its true, but I don't see this as a problem, if it spread in a good way to all the nodes, than it's ok.
16:43 < gmaxwell> HostFat: There is another bit to consider there. Technically as a miner your income is optimized if only half the hashrate (including yourself) hears your block quickly; it's preferable that the rest takes a while to hear it (as it increases their orphaning rate).
16:43 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.64.110.122] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
16:44 < HostFat> the example of the 56k is good explain this I think
16:44 < gmaxwell> I don't believe anyone substantive is acting so strategically now; but if you want to terms about income maximizing behavior and market forces, it's something to consider; esp since the system self adapts towards zero profits. Meaning that it's possible that anyone who doesn't engage in that behavior may end up operating at a loss.
16:46 < HostFat> "it's something you download seperately. I think all major miners use it" so the majority of nodes aren't using it
16:47 < gmaxwell> (and the selfish mining paper argues that the above also means that if a pool mines selfishly they only want it to be heard by a third (themselves included), and if so additional participants will make more if they join their pool vs some other one... e.g. arguing the marginal return on centeralizating instead of the direct effect shifts the threshold to 1/3rd instead of 1/2.)
16:48 < gmaxwell> HostFat: They're not-- but it doesn't matter to miners what non-miners are using for that.  (presumably they'll someday use it: it _halves_ the amount of bandwidth staying in sync with the blockchain takes; it just hasn't been a priority to formalize the protocol for use in Bitcoin Core)
16:49 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:49 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:50 < HostFat> so if there will be the block relay protocol on all the nodes, than it will be more likely a CPU problem than a bandwitch problem, right?
16:51 < gmaxwell> HostFat: accepting a block is neglible CPU, because again, the transactions are almots all (or all if miners delay accepting txn into blocks) already verified and relayed. They don't get verified a second time.
16:52 < gmaxwell> So the only cpu thats technically needed at accept time is verifying the hash agreement. And a boring desktop cpu can do on the order of 24 million sha256() compression calls in a second.
16:53 < gmaxwell> Before all the caching and such some miners had taken to just disabling validation on their nodes. :(  (we recently had a problem with a miner with 1-2%-ish of the hashrate running with all signature validation disabled; causing them to mine transactions that were non-standard and had some risk of forking the network)
16:54 < HostFat> so now in this future case (block relay protocol on all the nodes), I'm missing the problem for bigger blocks ...
16:54 < gmaxwell> Presumably because you misunderstood the problem in the first place? :)
16:54 < HostFat> probably :)
16:55 < HostFat> I thought that it was a bandwitch problem
16:55 < gmaxwell> None of this reduces the cost of verifying the network (except by constant factors), it only takes it out of the critical path of accepting a block.
16:55 < HostFat> and by what I'm understanding about the block relay protocol, it seems fixing it
16:55 < HostFat> hmm
16:56 < gmaxwell> It's a one time halving of bandwidth costs, but you still must recive, verify, and potentially store the transactoin data.
17:00 < gmaxwell> If your limit is bandwidth vs CPU depends on how much bandwidth you can tolerate the node using. OpenSSL can process signatures at about IIRC 11MBit-of-transaction-data/sec. libsecp256k1, once we can deploy it, increases that about 5-6x-- assuming you have a 3.2GHz quad core cpu dedicated to verifying transactions; and that you never go offline or fall behind (because if the offered load is actua
17:00 < gmaxwell> lly that great you can never catch up if you fall behind).
17:00 < gmaxwell> Also assuming that we never deploy new features that shift the cost per byte processed up at all. E.g. no cryptographic confidentiality for transactions.  If we do then that twizzles those numbers around.
17:06 < HostFat> by this way it seems that the problem are the tx that can be too many ... and the blocks are used to limit them on the network, to limit the CPU works on nodes ...
17:06 < HostFat> work*
17:08 < HostFat> it's late here, I'll think about it more tomorrow
17:10 < akrmn> andytoshi: I read most  of the sidechains paper (I was talking to you on Saturday). Is a waiting period really necessary? If you force all miners mining on a subchain to also mine on the parent chain, and always take priority of what the parent chain says (in case of conflicts), then I don't see what the problem is. The miners on the parent chain can decide themselves whether to accept a transaction from a child chain, and then the
17:11 < gmaxwell> "if you force";  yes no waiting is required if you eliminate the isolation between the networks (and the system becomes one security domain). Loss of isolation is explicitly called out as a risk in the sidechains whitepaper; because the motivation for the design is to allow a seperation of concerns.
17:12 < akrmn> gmaxwell: But what is the risk to the top chain?
17:12 < gmaxwell> Otherwise it's isomorphic to just softforking in the sidechain into the main chain. Which is what it is. (e.g. brings up the problem that bad software or resource usage causes harm)
17:12 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-197-78.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
17:13 < gmaxwell> akrmn: in that model you cannot mine it (know that it is valid) without validing the data below it, exposing you to the costs and risks asscoiated with doing so.
17:14 < akrmn> gmaxwell: The top chain miners don't have to mine the subchains
17:14 < akrmn> Just the other way around
17:15 < akrmn> Well ya, you can validate the bottom transactions, but it's your choice, and you will get fees if you do, so there's an incentive
17:16 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:16 < akrmn> o ok, ya I guess you have to validate
17:16 < akrmn> but if someone pays for a transaction, I don't see any problem with validating it, or any risk, but maybe I'm missing something.
17:17 -!- llllllllll [~lllllllll@6d482698.ftth.concepts.nl] has quit []
17:17 < gmaxwell> akrmn: "if someone pays" -- they emphatically do not pay, and cannot pay.  Every verifier in the network takes the cost of verifying data. Only the miner choosing to admit a transaction can get paid.
17:18 < gmaxwell> So e.g. one party accepts the transaction, gets paid, and 100,000 nodes take a cost. (plus all the future nodes who haven't even joined yet)
17:19 < GGuyZ> gmaxwell: Thanks. I'm actually doing just that, but I also wanted to allow some amount of public verification without sending the entire transcript of commitments and operations (should have been more clear about succinctness).
17:19 < akrmn> well I'll think about it
17:20 < GGuyZ> Anyway, I basically solved it by creating a commitment to the final output (blinding it) and have those shares publicly verifiable (everyone can reconstruct). Then, the entire transcript can also be inspected but only if something seems suspicious.
17:21 < nsh> \o/
17:22 < GGuyZ> And it is additively homomorphic (simple Shamir's scheme) with multiplication solved using beaver triplets, so it should work.
17:22 < GGuyZ> andytoshi: Thanks as well! Will look into it out of curiosity, though I don't think it's the best fit for my use case.
17:22 < nsh> .wik Beaver triplets cryptography
17:22 < yoleaux> "" — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tompw/Books/Mathematics
17:24 < nsh> (not on wikipedia at all, sadly)
17:24 < GGuyZ> Yeah, it's hard to come by but pretty a pretty common optimization
17:24 < GGuyZ> http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-46766-1_34#page-1
17:25 < GGuyZ> ^. Unfortunately, it's not open access.
17:25 < nsh> [Beaver and Feigenbaum '00]?
17:26 < nsh> oh, no, more recent
17:26 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
17:26 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-178-003-117-029.178.003.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:26 < GGuyZ> The link I posted
17:26 < GGuyZ> Actually it's older
17:27 < GGuyZ> But became more commonly used in recent years AFAIK.
17:27 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:27 < GGuyZ> It's a variation of BGW multiplication protocol
17:29  * nsh nods
17:29 -!- d1ggy_ [~d1ggy@dslb-188-108-091-191.188.108.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
17:29 < nsh> ah, i recall the BWG honesty bounds
17:29 < nsh> *BGW
17:30 < nsh> ( proved here:  https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/136.pdf )
17:31  * gmaxwell hits the words "semi-honest" and closes the window
17:31 < gmaxwell> :P
17:32 < gmaxwell> (not really, just so frustrated by the focus on the useless semi-honest moderl; I do see that that paper (atypically) goes beyond that toy model)
17:34 < GGuyZ> :D
17:34 < GGuyZ> Semi-honest is a great starting point. It just can't be the finish line.
17:35 < petertodd> GGuyZ: semi-honest is a great starting point, in the same way that kindergarden is a solid foundation for a phd
17:35 < GGuyZ> nsh: Yeah, the full proof is surprisingly recent. I even remember reading somewhere that they've been working on it for years.
17:35 < GGuyZ> petertodd: can't argue with that :)
17:36 < GGuyZ> I might actually steal that ;)
17:36 < petertodd> GGuyZ: hehe, go it; I want credit :)
17:37 < GGuyZ> Will be rightfully attributed
17:38 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:40 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: depends on what you're doing, but I usually encounter things where semi-honest is very nearly worthless and where the protocols to boost semi-honest to malicious security dwarf the complexity/assumptions.  I think this is actually a serious problem for cryptosystem research which has contributed to the near total lack of industrial deployment.
17:41 < gmaxwell> ... because the research keeps coping up with constructs that engineers respond to "wait, I have to assume they'll follow the protocol? Why don't I just assume they don't keep logs too", and the like.
17:41 < GGuyZ> http://i.imgur.com/q8XPe4s.png?1 <-- petertodd
17:42 < jcorgan> Spherical Cow Syndrome
17:43 < GGuyZ> gmaxwell: I'm inclined to agree. I'd argue that there's a positive change in attitude in recent years (Bitcoin is some sort of a catalyst).
17:43 -!- adam3us [~Adium@host-92-19-93-69.as13285.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
17:44 < gmaxwell> Well at least with Bitcoin I can tell people with complete confidence "I _will_ use this, if it's secure in the malicious model, and won't consider it otherwise."  wherease pre-bitcoin it was more like "Maybe I'll use it someday."
17:44 < petertodd> GGuyZ: haha, amazing
17:44 < GGuyZ> I was in SP15 last week and you can see a more realistic attitude in general
17:44 < petertodd> GGuyZ: maybe make my name a shade lighter :P
17:44 < gmaxwell>  There are a lot of ZK protocols where the semi-honest is so complex that its complexity alone is a serious impediment to any deployment.
17:45 < GGuyZ> petertodd: Blame those cheap online generators :). Don't worry, if it's ever in my presentation it will be in shining gold :D
17:45 < petertodd> GGuyZ: heh
17:46 < GGuyZ> gmaxwell: Got an example? Anyway, I think part of the problem is the modeling of the assumptions.
17:47 < GGuyZ> They are either too strict for proving correctness or too light like semi-honest. In any case, they tend to become so detached from real-world assumptions that they stay within the community
17:47 < GGuyZ> research community that is, but are never deployed.
17:49 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: well people also like showing properties that are needlessly strong.  Like, there is a huge emphasis on standard model assumptions, because you can break some random oracle secure protocols in a completely contrived setup. Or some domains focus on information theoretic privacy, which is basically never pratical (any implementation will use a CSPRNG).. and sometimes those decisions force th
17:49 < gmaxwell> ings into a weaker (e.g. semi-honest model).
17:50 < GGuyZ> Exactly, but this is obviously a spectrum. For example, it doesn't make sense to focus on the standard model and I.T security, and then assume semi-honesty.
17:51 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: I think, in general, that anything more complex than a schnorr signature is complex enough that it risks no one being willing to implement it. You can see this in the wild-- there are basically no implementations for more complex protocols.  It's not a bright line, but the space of people willing to implement drops of spectacularly; at about that complexity.  (There are exceptions, e.g. pe
17:51 < gmaxwell> rcy++ implements a bunch of non-trivial PIR:   But I know of _no_ publically available usable implementations of, say even a simple polynomial private set intersection)
17:51 < GGuyZ> Better to make some realistic model assumptions (random oracle, computational security, CRS, etc ...) and not assume that everyone's following the rules
17:52  * nsh is mentally trying to compare gmaxwell's progress-pace frustrations with how people (or himself, at least)  felt about the semantic web that never happened
17:52 < nsh> i'd say you're making stellar progress, comparatively
17:53 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: except people go and do that. They prove in the standard model, and then the lack of a RO ends up needing a trusted setup or a n honest verifier or whatever; which implies semi-honest of some kind.  If they instead took an RO assumption, then perhaps the semi-honest falls away.  Schnorr ID protocol is an example of this. It's HVZK, but if you repliace the verifier challenge with a random o
17:53 < gmaxwell> racle, you get a schnorr signature and it's secure against a malicious challenger.
17:53 -!- bosma is now known as pennies
17:53 -!- pennies is now known as bosma
17:54 < GGuyZ> You're preaching to the choir :).
17:54 < GGuyZ> I'm a bit optimistic because there are some (not the majority) that are trying to change that.
17:54 < GGuyZ> Which is something that started less than a decade ago
17:55 < GGuyZ> (and it will probably take some more time before we see things really change in practice)
18:01 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@cpe-69-23-213-3.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:03 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryan@64.124.157.148] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
18:09 -!- dc17523be3 [~unknown@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:09 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
18:10 -!- Guest95228 [~luigi1111@client-66-116-12-86.consolidated.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:10 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xtgtwveqwiikxsjo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:11 -!- wonk_unit [~leon@2.123.49.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
18:12 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:21 -!- tromp_ [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:21 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@2601:6:8000:4a8:c102:4c8:7298:8f43] has quit []
18:22 -!- antgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:23 -!- wonk_unit [~leon@94.6.162.198] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:35 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kxvatfpwdlppspeq] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
18:41 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@adsl-ull-164-108.42-151.net24.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:45 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
18:49 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|zZz
18:51 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:52 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Client Quit]
18:58 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@unaffiliated/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:59 -!- DrWat [DrWat@186-106-243-246.baf.movistar.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
19:00 -!- lnovy is now known as zz_lnovy
19:01 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@xd9ba117a.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:07 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:08 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Client Quit]
19:11  * nsh rewatches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1TxCiOuoYY
19:11 < nsh> .t
19:11 < yoleaux> Wed, 27 May 2015 02:12:45 UTC
19:11 < nsh> .title
19:11 < yoleaux> nsh: Sorry, that command (.title) crashed.
19:12 < nsh> (Winter School on Cryptography: Fully Homomorphic Encryption - Craig Gentry)
19:12 < nsh> inspired by GGuyZ :)
19:12 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@176.92.30.167] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:12 < nsh> (and other things)
19:13 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:14 < GGuyZ> :D
19:14 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:17 < nsh> maybe homomorphic encryption and langsec complexity-reduced programming languages will meet in the middle
19:17 < nsh> and we'll have nice things
19:18 < nsh> ( Crema: A Sub-Turing Programming Language -- https://github.com/ainfosec/crema  -- http://spw15.langsec.org/slides/torrey-crema-slides.pdf -- http://spw15.langsec.org/papers/torrey-crema.pdf
19:18 < nsh> )
19:18 < nsh> well, this isn't even a maybe
19:18 < GGuyZ> Hmm
19:19 < GGuyZ> Too bad I missed it
19:19 < GGuyZ> Was presented last week
19:19 < nsh> yeah, i'd have loved to go to that conf. but USA still off-limits for me indefinitely for silly reasons
19:20 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:20 < nsh> i'll try and coerce them into having one in europe soon
19:20 < zooko> Hm.
19:21  * zooko looks at crema.
19:21 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Client Quit]
19:21 < GGuyZ> I think they mentioned something about having EURO S&P next year
19:21 < GGuyZ> It may have been just a proposal though
19:21  * zooko casts Summon Daira.
19:22 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:22 < zooko> Hiya tromp!
19:22 -!- daira2 [~daira@149.254.181.186] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:22 < daira2> hello
19:23 < gmaxwell> nsh: interesting link, will read.  My frustration is that it appears that to subset far enough to make program _equivilence_ decidable, you have to be very limited. And man, decidablity of equivilence would be really nice.
19:23 < tromp__> hi, Zooko
19:23 < zooko> Hello daira! Sub-Turing proglang for langsec!
19:23 < zooko> /msg daira <nsh> ( Crema: A Sub-Turing Programming Language --
19:23 < zooko>       https://github.com/ainfosec/crema  --
19:23 < zooko>       http://spw15.langsec.org/slides/torrey-crema-slides.pdf --
19:23 < zooko>       http://spw15.langsec.org/papers/torrey-crema.pdf
19:23 < zooko> ha.
19:23  * zooko fails at IRC.
19:23 < daira2> thanks!
19:23 < GGuyZ> lol
19:25 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:25 < gmaxwell> roconnor ^ the crema links above may be to your interest.
19:26 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:4:4502:dc5f:e4ce:4e76:987b:e041] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:26 < daira2> "Whereas traditional verification problems implicitly assume that the underlying computational model of the code they target cannot be substantially simplified, LangSec posits that such simplification can and should be considered for input-parsing routines—as an important step toward security assurance."
19:27 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:4:4502:dc5f:e4ce:4e76:987b:e041] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:27 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:27 < daira2> btw I think that conventional wisdom about needing Turing-complete languages for most tasks, is entirely wrong...
19:28 < daira2> not just for parsing or input validation, but in general
19:28 < zooko> +1
19:28  * daira2 continues reading
19:28 < bsm117532> Can anyone provide a one-sentence description of how they break turing completeness?  I'm at the end of their talk and don't see a concise statement.
19:29 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:29 < gmaxwell> daira2: it's trivially probably wrong in the context of Bitcoin Script. The task of bitcoin script is to decide that certian (arbritarily complex) conditions are met for permitting a transaction.  _Verification_ of the truth of an NP statement which the prover has a witness to is a task in _P_ itself, not NP. Q.E.D.
19:30 < daira2> actually you need more than a Turing a-machine in many cases (for interaction with an environment and nondeterminism), and less in other cases
19:30 < tromp__> bsm117532:  i think they forbid revisiting TM machine states already visited
19:30 < gmaxwell> But that kind of argument isn't constructive, so it doesn't guide e.g. what shape a language should have for optimal expression of the kinds of tests which are useful for transactions.
19:30 < GGuyZ> daira2: +2
19:32 < daira2> gmaxwell: are you aware of total functional programming? it seems like a good fit here
19:32 < gmaxwell> daira2: I am! this was also maaku's suggestion.
19:32 < GGuyZ> gmaxwell: Could still do a lot more then verifying NP statements. Plenty other problems in P that don't require TC :)
19:33 < bsm117532> tromp__: Is that enough to solve the halting problem?
19:33 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: I know, I just mean that there is litterally nothing that anyone could ever _require_ of bitcoin script that requires NP; because what bitcoin script is doing is fundimentally verification not computation.
19:34 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:34 < tromp__> it would seem to limit runtime to the number of finite control states
19:34 < bsm117532> Revisiting a previously visited state is an indication of an infinite loop.  But I can also just write integers to the tape, increasing its length...also doesn't halt.  But perhaps it enables provable termination?
19:34 < midnightmagic> hi daira2 I believe this is the first time I've seen you talk in here except for a 'nod' back in december 2013. :) yay welcome.
19:34 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
19:35 < daira2> hi midnightmagic :-)
19:35 < zooko> :-)
19:35 < GGuyZ> Yes yes, I understand. I'm just pointing out the irony of people claiming you need TC for computation.
19:35 < bsm117532> Is daira2 Satoshi!??!!
19:35 < daira2> that would be telling
19:36 < GGuyZ> (for all serious computation that is. For some, that's true)
19:36 < gmaxwell> (I'm mostly making noise because it's a peeve of mine that people talk about turing complete script as if it added capability; ... or as if it were even possible in a pedantic sense (the nodes are time and storage bounded); or as if Bitcoin script were not already equivilent powerful as a particular-time-space-bounded universal turing machine (it has controlled swap, after all)).
19:37 < GGuyZ> Agreed,
19:37 < daira2> so, you probably don't need (and don't want, for security reasons) a very complicated termination prover for Bitcoin scripts
19:37 < GGuyZ> and on another note total functional programming looks cool.
19:38 < daira2> you probably don't even need recursion
19:38 < gmaxwell> And mostly that irritation is because it makes people ignore the really interesting questions that lead to real advancement,  like how can we make script more succinct in verification?  Or how can a Bitcoin Script be constructed so as to make it most expressive while almost easy to rigorously statically analyize. "Can this contract be executed in a way I don't expect?"
19:38 < bsm117532> gmaxwell: I've long been bothered that the Halting Problem halted serious research into provably-correct code.
19:39 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
19:39 < bsm117532> See also the Godel Incompleteness theorem and all of mathematics throwing their hands up.
19:39 < GGuyZ> If you pay per instruction or some other discrete measure, TC in any case is irrelevant, since that limits the computations anyway
19:39 < gmaxwell> bsm117532: yea, for many things-- esp things like analyizing a smart contract just returning "I cannot tell" is a fine and highly useful result (do not use contracts your tools can't reason about!).
19:39 < daira2> right, static analyzability is really important here
19:40 < daira2> bsm117532: +1!
19:40 < gmaxwell> bsm117532: the interesting thing is how much language design results in sanely constructed ordinary programs returning "I cannot tell"... and I believe that there is a huge potential for impact there.
19:41 < gmaxwell> (er, results in analysis on sanely constructed...)
19:41 < daira2> termination proving is not hard if you require programmers to give loop variants
19:41 < GGuyZ> Isn't there research on bounded provably correct code?
19:42 < bsm117532> Provable complexity tied to a calculated tx fee by static analysis would be way better than Ethereum's "gas" (and having it run out on non-halting TC code)
19:42 < gmaxwell> plus human factors considerations, IMO Bitcoin script is actually really readable with a bit of practice (e.g. if you're already comfortable with HP calculators and RPL); but type ambiguity makes it harder to reason about formally.
19:43 < tromp__> the simply typed lambda calculus is strongly normalizing (i.e. total) but still has no reasonable bound on reduction length
19:43 < daira2> anyway, you don't just want termination for this application, you want bounded runtime
19:43 < gmaxwell> bsm117532: I dunno about that, I mean, network consensus normative static analysis sounds like "box of dragons"
19:43 < bsm117532> Indeed.  Just a thought.
19:44 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:45 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Client Quit]
19:45 < daira2> let's see, I seem to remember reading some research on that topic (bounding runtime)
19:46  * daira2 googles
19:46 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:46 < bsm117532> I've got a plan brewing to build sidechains with different consensus rules implemented by a virtual machine.
19:47 < bsm117532> It would be very cool if that virtual machine was not turing complete.  You don't want to accidentally discover that your consensus rules do not halt.
19:47 < daira2> oh, Lustre and QDDC
19:49 < daira2> but they're more expressive than needed here
19:50 < daira2> we don't need concurrency
19:50  * daira2 looks for something simpler
19:52 < daira2> actually I'm too tired right now, will look tomorrow
19:53 < daira2> 'night all
19:54 < daira2> oh, while I remember...
19:55 < daira2> I think it doors make sense to use something similar to Ethereum's gas for dynamic enforcement of a bound on runtime...
19:56 < daira2> s/doors/does/
19:56 < GGuyZ> The problem is fire and forget.
19:57 < GGuyZ> You need to gamble on how many steps your computation will take
19:57 < daira2> but *also* to statically prove that the runtime check will not fail...
19:58 < daira2> because that way, the consensus rules don't have to be dependent on the static prover
19:59 < daira2> the parties to a contract can agree on a prover independently of anyone else
19:59 < GGuyZ> You mean having a prover that's not the signer of the tx?
20:02 < daira2> probably there would be some library of available provers, and the parties to a smart contract would just pick one that was powerful enough to prove that that particular contract will not run out of gas
20:03 < zooko> gotta run you awesome folks.
20:03 < daira2> but a bug in one of those provers wouldn't be disastrous, it would only affect contracts that has relied on it (and most contracts would use a simple one)
20:03 < daira2> s/has/had/
20:04 < daira2> OK, I need to sleep
20:04 < GGuyZ> That's actually a very interesting idea
20:04 < GGuyZ> g'night
20:05 < GGuyZ> I'm off too.
20:07 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-217-94-32.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
20:07 < daira2> (that idea doesn't just apply to runtime, it could be used for any similar property)
20:09 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
20:10 -!- jae_ [~jae@2601:9:7b80:a7b:b99a:ee5e:4433:e3bf] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:13 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
20:14 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:15 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:27 -!- kgk [~kgk@76.14.85.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:28 -!- rht_ [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iubdgqtbjvrpkzsk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:32 -!- wawawah [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:32 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-18be0b4d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:34 < gmaxwell> GGuyZ: what you want, when speficying a contract, is a proof that the witness size/complexity will unconditionally be below some cost tolerance bound.
20:35 < gmaxwell> In Bitcoin Script, as it is today, it's trivial to completely sure of that.
20:38 < gmaxwell> I think total functional languages would also, generally, make it fairly straight forward to reason about the maximum witness size.
20:40 < gmaxwell> As far as resource counters go, there isn't anything fundimentally ugly about them; other than if there is a limit and you don't have the above mentioned analysis, some trickster could get you to agree to a contract where some satisfaction you were counting on (e.g. refund if the counterparty cheats) has an infeasably huge size.
20:41 < gmaxwell> There are pratical challenges with cost metrics in that the correct costing is implementation specific, but the cost behavior is network normative.
20:42 < gmaxwell> (this applies no less to what bitcoin does-- bitcoin already costs out script: just by charging for size; but as the OP_CHECKSIG attacks show, getting the cost weights wrong can have consequences!)
20:43 < gmaxwell> E.g. an example of this is we will eventually deploy improvements to OP_CHECKSIG that make it 6x+ faster.  Had it been costed out assuming that it cost 3000x more than a OP_SHA256 after that improvement the costs would be wildly out of whack.
20:44 -!- jae [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:45 -!- jae is now known as Guest42529
20:51 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:52 -!- kgk [~kgk@76.14.85.43] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
20:53 -!- nemild [~nemild@104.207.195.34] has quit [Quit: nemild]
20:59 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.151.61.184] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:00 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
21:00 -!- kgk [~kgk@76.14.85.43] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:03 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:05 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:07 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@e120-pool-d89a6194.brdbnd.voicenetwork.ca] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
21:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-185-201-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:17 -!- Artimage [6c36a43d@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.108.54.164.61] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
21:22 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:23 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
21:24 -!- Tiraspol [~Tiraspol3@unaffiliated/tiraspol] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:38 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:46 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:49 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:50 -!- o84wb76g [~086f7g5hi@86.124.192.160] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:54 -!- nemild [~nemild@cpe-72-225-229-25.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: nemild]
21:56 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:02 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:04 -!- genecyber [6327d5ca@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.99.39.213.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:05 -!- zooko` [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:06 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
22:09 -!- ggreer [~ggreer@unaffiliated/angryparsley] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:12 -!- Guest42529 [~jae@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:12 -!- genecyber is now known as ShannonCode
22:27 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:30 -!- GGuyZ [~GGuyZ@c-50-177-80-125.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: GGuyZ]
22:35 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@85.100.40.253] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:49 -!- wawawah [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
22:51 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@c-24-22-67-17.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
22:55 -!- theymos [~theymos@unaffiliated/theymos] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:01 -!- wawawah [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-90.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:02 -!- kgk [~kgk@76.14.85.43] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
23:04 -!- Mably [~Mably@unaffiliated/mably] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:13 -!- zooko`` [~user@67-6-157-56.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:13 -!- kmels [~kmels@186.151.61.184] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
23:14 -!- zooko` [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:15 -!- prosodyContext [sid32673@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nehzyobxhaoiunxj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:19 -!- lclc_ [~lucas@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:22 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-xtgtwveqwiikxsjo] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
23:23 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-aldjhwjfsxpmoaha] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:25 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:28 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-aldjhwjfsxpmoaha] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:29 -!- dc17523be3 [unknown@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-zixxtqvgabfeyzvz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:30 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
23:45 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:49 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:50 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
23:50 -!- b_lumenkraft [~b_lumenkr@unaffiliated/b-lumenkraft/x-4457406] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:53 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.10.214] has quit [Excess Flood]
23:53 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.10.214] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:54 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:54 -!- gill3s [~gill3s@pat35-3-82-245-143-153.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
--- Log closed Wed May 27 00:00:23 2015