--- Log opened Sun Nov 08 00:00:19 2015
00:03 -!- nessence_ [~alexl@109.174.174.90] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:03 -!- nessence [~alexl@109.174.174.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:08 -!- nessence [~alexl@109.174.174.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:10 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:14 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:29 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:33 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iqfqhukhcsjcvxaw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:42 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:42 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Client Quit]
00:47 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:48 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:49 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-57-192.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:51 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA0F36F7384FE049A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:55 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA0F36F7384FE049A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:59 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:12 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:15 -!- Tenhi_ [~tenhi@178.18.241.180] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:15 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
01:16 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:20 -!- jtimon [~quassel@74.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:40 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:45 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
02:16 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@50-202-37-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:46 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:46 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:56 -!- pozitron [~nu@85.159.237.52] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:12 -!- jtimon [~quassel@74.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:13 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:17 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:28 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:39 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0422.uvt.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:40 < kanzure> so what's the timeline for the migration to #bitcoin-jedi
03:43 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
03:44 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:44 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:45 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:45 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
03:45 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:46 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:47 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:47 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:48 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:58 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
03:58 -!- kyuupichan [~Neil@ae053102.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0422.uvt.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:09 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@2a01:4f8:200:7025::2] has quit [Changing host]
04:09 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@unaffiliated/jonasschnelli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:10 -!- melvster [~melvster@ip-86-49-18-198.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:16 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:16 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:24 -!- LeMiner2 [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:27 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:41 -!- kumavis [sid13576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-babcjazcuchtmitw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:44 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:45 -!- runeks [sid21167@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nreqllgenwiwufpg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:50 -!- p15 [~p15@93.186.169.203] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:52 -!- artifexd [sid28611@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lxchpasqhzainqgo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:56 -!- mikolalysenko [sid34553@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-akkobvzzwutsdpmu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:00 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mviuajaetxzbskdd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:07 -!- jtimon [~quassel@74.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:09 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
05:16 -!- wpalczynski [sid55851@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fuhfwfwzmisfxetq] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:22 -!- kyuupichan [~Neil@ae053102.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:26 -!- pozitrono [~nu@94.242.243.250] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:28 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dfkhnvnuyxixdyzk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-svizuorjkqyjumop] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:32 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0405.uvt.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:35 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
05:47 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:52 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
05:59 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:03 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-36-133-241-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:08 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:08 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:10 -!- LeMiner2 [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
06:18 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:27 < nsh> .t https://twitter.com/veorq/status/663361269676797952
06:27 < yoleaux> nsh: Sorry, I don't know what timezone that is. If in doubt, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tz_database_time_zones for a list of options.
06:27 < nsh> .tw https://twitter.com/veorq/status/663361269676797952
06:27 < yoleaux> how many qubits to break RSA-2048? "Current estimates range from tens of millions to a billion physical qubits." http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1075.pdf (@veorq)
06:27 < nsh> seems off to me, but what do i know...
06:27 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:27 < nsh> i suppose time-space tradeoffs don't work the same in quantum algorithms because of the difference in nature of intermediary state
06:28 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:28 < nsh> (superpositions cannot be an output used an an input to another subcalculation, unlike in classical algorithmics)
06:28 < nsh> *as an
06:28 < nsh> s/superpositions/correlations/
06:31 -!- Keefe [~Keefe@unaffiliated/keefe] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:31 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:31 -!- Keefe [~Keefe@unaffiliated/keefe] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:32 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
06:32 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:47 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:54 -!- jojva [~joris@cha92-12-88-162-171-45.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:15 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:20 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:25 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:25 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
07:25 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA9B4D78F5EB3B6BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:31 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
07:43 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:44 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:44 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
07:46 < kanzure> gavinandresen: "disappointed you don't mention the tradeoff at "the other end of the bathtub" -- Key-holder versus Validator decentralization balance"
07:46 < kanzure> gavinandresen: just to clarify, do you mean "the number of transactions that key-holders make" or do you mean "the absolute number of key-holders"?
07:49 -!- nessence [~alexl@109.174.174.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:50 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:51 < kanzure> anyone can get a private key, and anyone can be given BTC; you can even argue for complex child-pays-for-parent schemes. if you have a private key that is assigned BTC through a complex series of lightning network transactions, does that count towards "key-holder decentralization" even if not yet committed? (note that the working assumption is lightning network commitment transaction did indeed get into the blockchain somewhere)
07:52 -!- nessence [~alexl@109.174.174.90] has quit [Client Quit]
07:52 -!- TBI [~TBI@20.84-48-195.nextgentel.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
07:54 < kanzure> and also, if there's a bunch of merge-mined sidechains that store BTC-pegged amounts, where transaction fees are possibly lower, accessible via lightning network payment routing, would that count as "key-holder decentralization" or no...? not sure what your preferences are with these definitions and boundaries.
07:54 -!- TBI_ [~TBI@20.84-48-195.nextgentel.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
07:56 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:00 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:08 -!- kyuupichan [~Neil@ae053102.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:10 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:25 < kanzure> "I'd like to take a second to submit a new argument in favor of transaction fees. I suspect the other arguments are much stronger and more comprehensive, but here's a new one. All transactions have priority; they indicate some transfer that you have preferred rather than some other transaction. There is an opportunity cost to every single transaction that anyone makes for any reason. The real transaction fee that a user is willing to ...
08:25 < kanzure> ... pay must be non-zero. There may be scenarios where most reasonable transaction fees are sub-satoshi amounts, but still some non-zero amount, even 1/1000th of a satoshi BTC. (At some point you hit limits to where tracking a billionth of a satoshi has negative economic value, even though the amount is still positive, but I haven't looked at what that amount actually is, I doubt it's 1 satoshi BTC exactly at the moment!)."
08:28 < kanzure> unconfirmed transactions are sadly a liquidity lock of some kind, and anything that can mitigate or minimize the effects of liquidity lock are v. good (lightning qualifies)
08:29 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:30 < Taek> conversation about oracles vs arbiters:
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> for arbiter vs oracle
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> i reject the use of 'oracle' as it is in cryptocurrency
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> oracle is kind of an abstract thing used in computer science, it kind of refers to an over idealized thing
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> in cryptocurrency it usually means an actual trusted party, that is there in the actual thing!
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> so we chose arbiter as a specific role
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> parties filling the role of arbiter are subject to incentives and possible corruptions same as other parties
08:30 < Taek> <amiller_> so... a little bit pedantic and grumpy
08:30 < Taek> <Taek> yeah iirc 'Oracles' are traditionally infallible
08:31 < kanzure> "escrowacle"
08:38 < kanzure> besides the size of the transaction backlog itself existing outside of consensus, you cannot rely on unconfirmed transaction presence in backlog to figure out user priorities, because zero-fee unconfirmed transactions could be generated by anyone for any reason (even malicious miners that are trying to DOS the network, or other malcontents, who knows)- you must select by fee. this is quite similar to the other kinds of sybil resistance ...
08:38 < kanzure> ... in bitcoin.
08:42 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:46 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:48 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:50 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:07 -!- jojva [~joris@cha92-12-88-162-171-45.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:07 -!- Doge_Funnie [~Doge_Funn@unaffiliated/doge-funnie/x-0003093] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:17 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:22 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:24 -!- c0rw|zZz is now known as c0rw1n
10:03 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@50-202-37-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:04 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:05 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:09 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:09 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:11 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@108.193-241-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit []
10:11 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@108.193-241-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:19 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:24 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:46 -!- Yoghur114 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:50 -!- Yoghur114 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
10:53 -!- pozitrono [~nu@94.242.243.250] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:54 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:55 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:07 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
11:11 -!- Yoghur114 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:11 -!- cluckj [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:12 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:12 -!- pozitron [nu@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-zdirbcuhuynnbcdq] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust996.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
11:13 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:14 -!- hashtag_ [cjmedia@cpe-98-157-223-81.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:15 -!- hashtag [cjmedia@cpe-98-157-223-81.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:16 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA9B4D78F5EB3B6BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:17 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
11:18 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:22 -!- the`doct1r [~matt@162.211.151.91] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:22 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:22 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
11:23 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:27 -!- the`doct1r [~matt@162.211.151.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:27 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:33 -!- onetime [~onetime@c-68-56-130-168.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:36 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:44 -!- hdbuck [~hdbuck@unaffiliated/hdbuck] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:52 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:54 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:03 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:05 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:08 -!- jojva [~joris@cha92-12-88-162-171-45.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:09 -!- the`doctor [~matt@162.211.151.91] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
12:09 < rusty> Luke-Jr: Do you have a draft for SW?  I'm trying to figure out exactly what the benefits are, and I haven't had coffee yet this morning.
12:10 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:10 < sipa> rusty: i'm working on a segregated witness implementation
12:12 -!- prosodyvVC is now known as prosodyvVerreabC
12:13 < sipa> benefits: prunability of signatures (you don't need to download them if you're not going to verify them), opt-in solving of malleability (though it require all non-confirmed inputs to be SW), increased scale (because old consensus rules do not count the witness data as part of blocks)
12:14 < gmaxwell> The specific construction we've been working on also carries some other benefits, e.g. radically simplifying script soft-forks (my making it easier to make new things soft-fork safe).
12:15 -!- pozitron [nu@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-zdirbcuhuynnbcdq] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:15 < sipa> and being P2SH compatible
12:16 < rusty> sipa: the prunability is nice, though UTXO set commitment offers a more finegrained solution.  Malleability is a win.  But scale argument seems disingenous: most arguments are about bandwidth,  not how hard it is to remove the 1MB limit.
12:16 < kanzure> description of segregated witness can be found in http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/
12:16 < gmaxwell> and it has the above benefits (e.g. the elimination of malleability) without imposing long term costs like increasing the utxo set size by 20%.
12:16 < sipa> rusty: IMHO utxo commitments are completely orthogonal
12:16 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA9B4D78F5EB3B6BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:17 < rusty> sipa: yes, but if you're interested in partial validation, they're much more powerful.
12:17 < kanzure> for utxo commitments https://github.com/DavidVorick/knosys/blob/master/Utxo%20Commitments.md
12:17 < gmaxwell> rusty: To the extent that bandwidth is about catch up and not tip, it answers that.
12:17 < sipa> rusty: it would be coupled with a new rule that counts the witness size as part of the block size still
12:18 < sipa> rusty: or whatever the cost limit becomes
12:18 < sipa> but it can offer a discount
12:18 < gmaxwell> rusty: not if the desired result is continued validation moving forward, and so far the runtime costs have not been addressed. (e.g. the naieve contstruction for utxo commitments is a 10++ fold IO cost in validation, which now dominates validation costs already)
12:18 < gmaxwell> (the not if is a response to 'utxo commitments are much more powerful')
12:19 < rusty> gmaxwell: are you suggesting you'd race to the tip then go back downloading witness for old blocks?  That's the only way I can see a bw saving?
12:19 < gmaxwell> An additional benefit is that SPV proofs of transaction membership are ~1/3rd the size for SW transactions.
12:20 < gmaxwell> rusty: Yes, you can sync immediate and then handle back validation on whatever time scale you want (including not performing it, or performing it only probablistically, sufficiently far in the past)
12:20 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p20030089EA2EE21AA9B4D78F5EB3B6BF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:22 < rusty> gmaxwell: am not convinced on SPV proof size?  It's the 12 32-byte SHAs that dominate?
12:24 < rusty> And where is the "real" output script stored in the softfork variant?  Do I need a separate SPV proof for that?
12:24 < gmaxwell> rusty: Exact figures depends on the size of the transaction and how many you're revealing at a time. The transaction itself is 1/3rd the size on typical transactions.
12:24 < gmaxwell> rusty: the outputs are where they've always been.
12:26 < rusty> gmaxwell: that seems odd to me (the outputs in the tx).  Why not separate them too?
12:26 < gmaxwell> You mean the signatures? In the construction we're using you can choose which tree you traverse to get either transactions or transactions+witnesses. In the soft-fork case that commitment is in the coinbase txn, but will propose moving the commitment to the top of the tree in a bitcoinj compatible hardfork as well.
12:27 < gmaxwell> rusty: ... because they're the actual functional action of the transaction!
12:27 < sipa> rusty: the outputs contain the actual redeemscript or a hash of it... the redeemscript can move to the scriptSig (P2SH) or to the witness itself
12:28 -!- smk [9e557647@gateway/web/freenode/ip.158.85.118.71] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:28 < rusty> gmaxwell: OK, I guess P2SH has kind of done that separate already.
12:29 < sipa> you need the transaction data to commit to the output scripts... directly or indirectly
12:29  * rusty repeats what sipa said.
12:29 < rusty> sipa: OK, so you have added new seg-p2sh opcode/patttern?
12:29 < sipa> rusty: i'm just experimenting now, but that's the idea, yes
12:30 < gmaxwell> Which is backwards compatible with the existing p2sh addresses too.
12:35 < rusty> gmaxwell: I'm confused on that one (backwards compatible).  If you give me a P2Sh address today, doesn't that imply you I shouldn't use a seg-p2sh on it tomorrow?
12:36 < rusty> s/you I/I/
12:36 < gmaxwell> rusty: you put a segwitness call in the p2sh redeemscript, then the only thing in the transaction signature is the p2sh redeemscript.
12:36 < gmaxwell> It lets people immediately begin using SW without anyone else having to accept a new address type.
12:37 < rusty> gmaxwell: ah, nice.
12:38 < gmaxwell> (since we know for history that address types take a long time to deploy due to chicken and egg problems)
12:39 < rusty> gmaxwell: OK, so you said it simplifies soft fork deployment.  That's not obvious to me, can you unpack that a little?
12:41 < gmaxwell> rusty: segwittness 'redeemscripts' will begin with a version identifer byte. If it's unknown to you, it means return true.
12:41 < sipa> rusty: basically, we introduce a new language "witness-enabled script", which consists of a 1-byte version number (which can by 0 + actual script, and input taken from witness; or can be 1 + hash of script, and script + input taken from witness)
12:41 < sipa> rusty: when the version number is something unknown, it is anyone can spend
12:43 < gmaxwell> The 1-byteness isn't limiting, since e.g. 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xff can be later defined as 2,3,4 byte non-overlapping IDs.
12:43 < sipa> or turned into bitvectors even
12:43 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:44 < gmaxwell> The result is that new features added using a new version number would not be required to themselves be soft-fork safe (e.g. the way that CLTV cannot modify the stack), since older nodes will simply ignore pubkey entirely.
12:45 < rusty> gmaxwell: ah, that's kind of orthogonal, but I appreciate taking the opportunity presented.
12:45 < gmaxwell> yea, it's orthrgonal, but it was a good oppturnity, and I hoped that it would avoid any furhter pressure to stuff in additional changes given the opportunity.
12:45 < gmaxwell> Basically it takes the oppturnity given now and preserves it.
12:46 < gmaxwell> otherwise there is a pressure to do MAST, and schnorr-checksig and ... all at once, which would be unmanagable.
12:46 < gmaxwell> Thats what I meant above though by "the specific construction"-- not something fundimental to SFSW but its cheap and easy to pick that up now, so we do.
12:50 < rusty> sipa: I look fwd to reviewing your implementation :)  I think I found a logo, too: https://instagram.com/p/9zuxttAaR6/
12:51 -!- onetime [~onetime@c-68-56-130-168.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit []
12:52 < sipa> rusty: forks kill?
12:52 -!- fkhan [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ghdxmcfiadssqrnd] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:52 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:54 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:55 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has quit [Client Quit]
12:56 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:56 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:57 -!- fkhan [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-urggymssigpspxaw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 -!- fkhan [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-urggymssigpspxaw] has quit [Changing host]
12:57 -!- fkhan [weechat@unaffiliated/loteriety] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 -!- fkhan [weechat@unaffiliated/loteriety] has quit [Changing host]
12:57 -!- fkhan [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-urggymssigpspxaw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:59 < rusty> sipa: I don't understand it, but I'm sure it's relevant.
13:08 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@40.135.239.174] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:09 < fluffypony> rusty: "No Pitchforks Allowed"
13:13 -!- trippysalmon [rob@2001:984:6466:0:51d:b5ab:ab61:bed8] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:14 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@4.35.70.123] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:21 -!- devrando1 is now known as devrandom
13:29 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@4.35.70.123] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:37 -!- jojva [~joris@cha92-12-88-162-171-45.fbx.proxad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:46 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:50 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:56 -!- jtimon [~quassel@74.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:59 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:00 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:15 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:15 -!- CodeShark_ [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:17 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:20 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:23 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:24 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:26 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
14:34 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:40 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
14:54 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@vp0405.uvt.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:54 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:59 -!- _alp_ [~alp@104-54-235-28.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:59 < _alp_> join #bitcoin-core-dev
15:00 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
15:02 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:10 < so> isn't proof of work already proof of time?
15:11 < tromp> no, PoW has exponential distribution. PoT only depends on hardware speed
15:25 < nsh> (these don't read like contrasting descriptions)
15:27 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:32 -!- PRab_ [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:c49b:a2dc:3cab:6419] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:33 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:33 -!- hdbuck [~hdbuck@unaffiliated/hdbuck] has quit [Quit: hdbuck]
15:34 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@2601:40a:8000:8f9b:d59b:22a1:99bf:deb1] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:34 -!- PRab_ is now known as PRab
15:35 -!- alex__ [~alex@c-73-231-188-118.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:38 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:40 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:40 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:44 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
15:46 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:49 -!- Drykon [~Drykon@c-98-251-23-203.hsd1.ga.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:56 -!- c0rw1n is now known as GreenBat
15:57 -!- GreenBat is now known as c0rw1n
15:59 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.46.41] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:03 -!- pozitrono [~nu@85.159.237.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:13 -!- jojva [~joris@cha92-12-88-162-171-45.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:15 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f11db5b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:20 < jojva> Hi. In his AMA, Mike Hearn said sidechains are not composable. Is this something desirable? And second, the first thing that pops up in my head is that there would be obviously compatible features (e.g. faster blocks + bigger blocksize + anonymity), incompatible features (e.g. current bitcoin economy + demurrage), others probably more subtle than that. Is there work I can read somewhere about how different consensus rules woul
16:20 < jojva> d be mergeable or not? Has work been done on that?
16:22 < kanzure> "mergeable" into what?
16:22 < jojva> between themselves. Like a git merge.
16:22 < sipa> from the "feature" point of view they are completely independent
16:22 < sipa> every blockchain has its own consensus rules
16:23 < jojva> sipa: what if consensus rules are compatible?
16:23 < sipa> you can create a new one with rules composed of things from two other ones
16:23 < sipa> not sure what you mean
16:25 < jojva> sipa: I'm thinking about ways to determine whether 2 or more features are mergeable (read: compatible) or not. An interesting thing I could imagine with sidechains would be choosing several features as a user for your transaction. Like plugins on Firefox.
16:26 < sipa> if you're talking about script features, that's usually trivally
16:26 < sipa> if you don't want to use a feature, dob't use it in the scripts you create/hand out
16:26 < sipa> but they still need to be rules enforced by the consensus system
16:27 < sipa> adding new rules requires soft ot hard forks, just as with bitcoin itself
16:27 < sipa> or
16:27 < jojva> i understand
16:28 < sipa> it's not so much that sidechains are easier to change
16:28 < sipa> they're mostly easier to create and adopt, and switch between
16:28 < jojva> I was wondering if creating a new sidechain could be automated by somehow selecting from a set of proposed feature.
16:29 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:29 < jojva> sipa: are you sure about that?
16:29 < sipa> i don't believe that building a new interesting cryptosystem from scratch will ever be easy
16:29 < jojva> i mean, the adoption part. Once a userbase is established, why would they switch? the inertia could get big
16:29 < sipa> if we're able to create a new chain and easily pick from features A B and C... why don't we just create a single chain that has all thoae features, and use it instead?
16:30 < sipa> jojva: as opposed to adopting an altcoin
16:30 < sipa> there is of course still inertia
16:31 < sipa> what sidechains allow are more easy experimentation with features of a consensus system without needing to first beat a currency's network effect
16:31 < jojva> sipa: I guess I'm dreaming a bit. I'm wondering if it's possible to have *some* features, not all
16:31 < sipa> why would you not want all?
16:31 < sipa> ... apart from political disagreements
16:31 < jojva> hmm
16:32 -!- alex__ [~alex@c-73-231-188-118.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:32 < jojva> You have that great experimental feature
16:32 < sipa> i guess if you're talking about introducing features that have high cost for some users of the system
16:32 < jojva> it's not ready to be pushed into production
16:32 < jojva> yep
16:32 < sipa> but those are imho more appropriate for private deployments
16:32 < jojva> i guess so
16:33 < jojva> so we would basically have master, develop and topic sidechains
16:34 < sipa> yes :)
16:35 < jojva> Well that was quick and enlightening. Thanks :) I guess the answer is sidechain composition is not really useful.
16:35 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:38 -!- dEBRUYNE_ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
16:39 < sipa> they're just one tool
16:39 < sipa> they're not a solution to all problems related to feature changes
16:39 < sipa> in particular, a large proportion of feature are easily softforked into bitcoin itself
16:39 < jojva> like what?
16:39 < jojva> so?
16:41 -!- TBI_ [~TBI@20.84-48-195.nextgentel.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 < gmaxwell> Any script related features which do not have high verification costs, for example.
16:42 < jojva> I have to admit I see the future of sidechains as more than testing. They could be used to play with real BTC money with features that would never be merged into Core (for political reasons as you said)
16:42 < gmaxwell> Elements alpha has several script related features, and one of them is about to be soft-forked into the bitcoin network (CLTV), and several others are in the pipeline at varrious stages.
16:43 < gmaxwell> Other than the external costs of verification someone's script related features are no one elses business-- users should decide how they control their own coins.
16:43 -!- TBI [~TBI@20.84-48-195.nextgentel.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:43 < gmaxwell> P2SH set up the standard for that where, without coperation by the reciever, a sender can't even tell what the specific rules a reciever of funds will be using to control their spending.
16:44 -!- Keefe [~Keefe@unaffiliated/keefe] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:44 < jojva> i'm not very well versed in the scripting system..
16:45 < jojva> i'll have to read about it a bit more
16:45 -!- spinza [~spin@197.89.46.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:45 < jojva> It's a shame because it seems to be 90% of a feature's implementation :p
16:46 < jojva> Gotta go to bed. Thanks for the clarifications.
16:46 < sipa> yw
16:50 -!- CodeShark [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:51 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
16:51 -!- CodeShark [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has quit [Client Quit]
16:51 -!- CodeShark [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@50-202-37-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:55 -!- pozitrono [~nu@85.159.237.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:04 < jgarzik> jojva, Creating a new sidechain can certainly be automated with a point and click.  That's the easy part.  The difficult part is rolling out _validation_ of new features -- the checks-and-balances where everybody checks everybody else's work, to make sure there are no shenanigans.
17:04 < jgarzik> jojva, Some side chains will indeed be temporary - created one day, then collapsed/composed/merged back into the bitcoin main chain at the end of the week.
17:05 < jgarzik> There will be chain analogues to git repo branching and merging.
17:10 -!- prosodyvVerreabC [sid32673@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-urmnaqxzhrvxxhuo] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:12 -!- CodeShark [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has quit [Quit: AndroIRC - Android IRC Client ( http://www.androirc.com )]
17:12 -!- CodeShark [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:13 -!- CodeShark_ [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:13 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
17:14 -!- CodeShark is now known as Guest88917
17:14 -!- CodeShark_ [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has quit [Client Quit]
17:14 -!- Guest88917 [~CodeShark@2600:380:477f:a98c:ef40:2e55:154b:4d21] has quit [Client Quit]
17:15 < phantomcircuit> jgarzik, agreed (also insert OP_X86 joke)
17:17 -!- snthsnth [~snthsnth@c-98-207-208-241.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:18 < jgarzik> In RE the original purpose of side chains...
17:18 < jgarzik> I would like to see a cross-vendor side chain with experimental features being tested
17:18 < phantomcircuit> as in constructed by multiple groups or run by multiple groups?
17:18 < jgarzik> M-of-N as in Liquid is cheesy but easy to implement
17:18 < jgarzik> run by multiple independent orgs
17:19 < jgarzik> s/run/validated/
17:19 < phantomcircuit> jgarzik, elements alpha is sort of already like that, everybody who runs a signer is running it as an individual
17:19 < jgarzik> I would like to participate in some 1-of-N agreements with other bitcoin companies
17:19 < phantomcircuit> (something something testnet)
17:19 -!- dEBRUYNE__ [~dEBRUYNE@56-197-ftth.onsbrabantnet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:21 < phantomcircuit> jgarzik, 1 of n?
17:25 < jgarzik> phantomcircuit, my org joins with N other orgs, where no org holds more than 1 validation vote/node/trust nexus
17:26 < jgarzik> similar to Liquid IIUC
17:27 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@71-222-120-198.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:28 -!- p15 [~p15@93.186.169.204] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:30 -!- Yoghur114 [~jorn@g227014.upc-g.chello.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:33 < phantomcircuit> jgarzik, oh i was thinking you meant the signing threshold would be 1/n which provides no security over 1/1
17:33 < phantomcircuit> so i was confused
17:34 < bramc> In new working on a merkle set data structure I figured out that it's a good idea at each node to give the values of both children locally, because that reduces cache misses on invalidation because you don't have to look up sibling values because they're always local
17:41 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
17:44 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iqfqhukhcsjcvxaw] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:59 -!- prosodyvVerreabC [uid32673@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wyscimmlwzybfiup] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:01 < bramc> Rather than special case this for exits from blocks I'm propagating it through everything. It's a lot cleaner that way.
18:02 < bramc> Leads to the actual hash root of everything having to be a special variable.
18:06 < jgarzik> phantomcircuit, yeah 1-of-N from my org's PoV, M of N from user's PoV
18:07 < jgarzik> Also want to research some more egalitarian validation schemes...  can PoS (BTC CLTV) be employed as alternative to M-of-N?
18:08 -!- digitalmagus [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:08 < jgarzik> (ok, maybe egalitarian is not the best word for PoS... looking for a less permissioned entry/exit system)
18:08 < jgarzik> All this is strictly within the context of a BTC sidechain
18:09 -!- digitalmagus8 [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:14 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@75-175-68-227.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:18 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@75-175-72-226.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:19 -!- digitalmagus8 [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:20 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@75-175-68-227.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
18:21 -!- digitalmagus [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:22 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:23 -!- SwedFTP [~SwedFTP@unaffiliated/swedftp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:25 -!- archobserver [~archobser@unaffiliated/superobserver] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:27 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
18:33 -!- archobserver [~archobser@unaffiliated/superobserver] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@75-175-72-226.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:28 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
19:38 < bsm117532> Reading the Bitcoin-NG paper again.  What prevents someone from discovering the current leader, and DDoSing them off the network?  Then discovering the next one, and DDoSing them of the network...rinse lather repeat.
19:39 < bsm117532> Seems to me you can shut down the entire network this way, where with bitcoin you'd have to DDoS every single mining node since you don't know where the next one is coming from.  (Ignoring mining centralization problems for the moment)
19:41 -!- roxtrongo [~roxtrongo@190-22-210-57.baf.movistar.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:44 -!- archobserver [~archobser@unaffiliated/superobserver] has quit [Quit: :(){ :|: &};:]
20:02 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-141-3.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:09 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:18 < phantomcircuit> bsm117532, you can make it hard to identify the leader by ip address
20:18 < phantomcircuit> (but yes that would almost certainly turn into a problem)
20:18 < bsm117532> I can identify him by looking at my own peers and who sent me the last block.
20:19 < bsm117532> And work my way up the tree...
20:19 < bsm117532> The not-knowing-who-makes-the-next-block is really important to Bitcoin's byzantine resiliency, it seems to me...
20:20 < phantomcircuit> bsm117532, im actually constantly surprised that miners aren't ddos'ing each other and taking out large chunks of the internet
20:21 < bsm117532> I'm surprised too.  We really have to fix the miner centralization problem.  Sooner or later someone will start DDoSing competing miners.
20:24 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:24 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:25 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:25 < rusty> bsm117532, phantomcircuit: my understanding was that it happens on a regular basis, at least to pools.
20:27 < bsm117532> Yes I'm aware of a couple attacks...
20:28 < bsm117532> e.g. http://www.wired.com/2014/08/isp-bitcoin-theft/
20:28 -!- kgk [~kgk@173-167-115-138-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:28 -!- roxtrongo [~roxtrongo@190-22-210-57.baf.movistar.cl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:32 < phantomcircuit> rusty, it's happened multiple times but isn't the norm
20:33 < kanzure> jgarzik: current m-of-n fedpeg implementation is sorta buggy and needs eyelooking
20:39 < kanzure> er, at least for networking reasons
20:45 < phantomcircuit> kanzure, replace the zmq stuff with something else and it wouldn't be too bad
20:47 < kanzure> zeromq isn't that bad :-)
20:47 < kanzure> just needs some parameter tweaks
20:47 < kanzure> set highwater line parameter (HWM or something)
20:48 < phantomcircuit> ehhhh
20:51 -!- roxtrongo [~roxtrongo@190-22-210-57.baf.movistar.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:51 -!- binaryatrocity [~quassel@unaffiliated/br4n] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
20:54 < bramc> After posting to the bitcoin-dev list my post on transaction fees has gotten some more coverage, mostly positive. The negative responses have mostly been from people not understanding that monopoly pricing is higher than efficient pricing.
20:55 < bramc> Thanks kanzure for asking me to post there
20:55 < kanzure> yeah was figuring would be good to send where people would know to look for such a thing
20:56  * bsm117532 reads...
20:58 < bramc> Notably none of the people being dismissive of what I proposed actually suggested a concrete algorithm to use instead. Going through the exercise of trying to do that makes the problems come to the surface.
20:59 < kanzure> would there be any utility to manually working examples of expected scenarios?
20:59 < bsm117532> Anyone ever suggesting a concrete algorithm is a rare thing in the bitcoin world.  :-/
21:00 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:01 < kanzure> also; miners will tend to use simple (good) software if made easily available, so eventually writing good transaction pickers would also be a good thing to do
21:01 -!- sparetire_ [~sparetire@unaffiliated/sparetire] has quit [Quit: sparetire_]
21:01 < kanzure> from the miner angle it's more of an integration detail rather than algorithmic, of course...
21:02 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@50-202-37-133-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:02 < bsm117532> You know, I posted my same complaint about Bitcoin-NG to bitcoin-dev 3 weeks ago and no one replied (I just re-had the thought while re-reading the paper).  We've got a pretty serious communications breakdown in this community.  :-/ Bram not being on the mailing list too... :-/
21:04 < bramc> kanzure, The lack of a reference wallet in core is a big problem.
21:10 < bramc> bsm117532 I haven't evaluated bitcoin-ng but my general thought is that we should simply assume that there's a scaling limit for bitcoin and plan appropriately.
21:10 < bsm117532> Their analysis is quite good.  Question is: What's the plan?  ;-)
21:12 < bramc> I'm not on the mailing list because (a) I'm not on mailing lists generally, as a productivity thing (b) there's a lot of humdrum bitcoin dev work which involves stuff which I haven't touched and have no plans to touch, and (c) I'm still a bit of a tourist in cryptocurrency space and don't want to make a pretense otherwise
21:12 -!- p15 [~p15@93.186.169.204] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
21:14 < bsm117532> bramc: I can understand that, I wasn't trying to single you out personally.  You're only a tourist if you want to be.  I *really* want to know more about how you're implementing Merkle sets.  ;-)
21:15 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-36-133-241-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:17 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:20 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
21:29 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
21:30 < bramc> bsm117532 That will be forthcoming. It will be easier to simply read my code than a human language explanation of it.
21:46 -!- CodeShark [~androirc@cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:03 -!- digitalmagus [~digitalma@s173-180-44-168.bc.hsia.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:03 -!- digitalmagus [~digitalma@s173-180-44-168.bc.hsia.telus.net] has quit [Changing host]
22:03 -!- digitalmagus [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:03 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@75-175-72-226.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:05 -!- digitalmagus8 [~digitalma@unaffiliated/digitalmagus] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:10 -!- Keefe [~Keefe@unaffiliated/keefe] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:22 -!- kyuupichan [~Neil@ae053102.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:25 -!- chmod755 [~chmod755@unaffiliated/chmod755] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:35 -!- p15 [~p15@93.186.169.213] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:43 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:55 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
22:56 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-macuigubwwfjmatj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:58 -!- snthsnth [~snthsnth@c-98-207-208-241.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:03 < fluffypony> bramc: I don't think that very specific criticism, or finding a flaw in the fundamentals, necessarily has to be accompanied by a suggestion
23:04 < fluffypony> but if they're just generally being dismissive that's unhelpful
23:07 < bramc> fluffypony, The criticism is mostly 'using past price information to set prices now immediately is faster'
23:08 < bramc> If the claim is that there's something better, then that supposedly better thing should be suggested.
23:11 < fluffypony> yeah that's needless
23:12 -!- NLNico [~NLNico@unaffiliated/nlnico] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:46 -!- mjerr [~mjerr@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:51 -!- matsjj [~matsjj@p5B209AC3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:55 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
23:55 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
23:58 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
--- Log closed Mon Nov 09 00:00:20 2015