--- Log opened Thu Mar 10 00:00:55 2016
00:02 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:04 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:18 -!- phiche [~Adium@193.89.191.214] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:18 -!- phiche [~Adium@193.89.191.209] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:19 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
00:30 -!- Fornax96 [~Fornaxf@31.160.176.209] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:34 -!- mihar_ [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:35 -!- MiniDevil [~MiniDevil@c-71-224-91-240.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:35 -!- ibrightly [sid113387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zrjpujtphdfdsqln] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:36 -!- alexkuck__ [sid117875@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-phzphtbprfuoojtc] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- robmyers [sid75499@gnu/social/robmyers] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- zmanian__ [sid113594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-phgxcstrpdwjlhus] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
00:36 -!- SheffieldCrypto_ [sid28532@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tehquwifmfscqzpo] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- binns [sid105317@21/bitcoin/binns] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mzajkrzekmseiyqu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qxntunounrvjimyi] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- whiteunicorn [sid139385@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-krkwfcckywelzyhw] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- CodeShark [sid126576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yrgoubinsswtnauf] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
00:36 -!- mikolalysenko [sid34553@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-immdgsuamhwkhhcn] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- SirJacket [sid58039@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dnztzfxjcnaewuaw] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- mappum [sid43795@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ybfrkiktoztrlryq] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- jtremback [sid67723@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-slwhoorfgzbrvjhh] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:36 -!- mihar [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:39 -!- ibrightly [sid113387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ivpcunvxydutizey] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:40 -!- whiteunicorn [uid139385@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xykfhljodugqtvwv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:40 -!- SheffieldCrypto_ [sid28532@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yzkltreifrtrmdht] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:40 -!- mappum [sid43795@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-amvkgpsganmwbmjd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:41 -!- zmanian__ [sid113594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vjccyxmljydosypa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:42 -!- voxelot [~voxelot@2605:e000:1525:802f:2f31:fc98:c9b5:8658] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
00:42 -!- robmyers [sid75499@gnu/social/robmyers] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:44 -!- alexkuck__ [sid117875@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-abjhyawqrmisbloe] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:48 -!- CodeShark [sid126576@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mryabbrtgwhzoqmj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:50 -!- binns [sid105317@21/bitcoin/binns] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:54 -!- adams__ [sid73416@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-djxfbkylttuzvfbq] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:54 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kwwvhlanufqimjqt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:57 -!- jtremback [sid67723@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ejdddkicrpscovgp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:58 -!- mikolalysenko [sid34553@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-iuznamexcuxxjmit] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:58 -!- SirJacket [sid58039@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xkooibhxrktqmgpr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:58 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:02 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:03 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:03 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:06 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:07 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p54AE71A7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:17 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:22 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:40 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:43 -!- [Derek] [~derek@unaffiliated/derek/x-8562683] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:46 -!- [Derek] [~derek@2605:6400:10:3c9:dfd3:3e96:2608:98a7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:46 -!- [Derek] is now known as Guest12198
01:53 -!- jtimon [~quassel@35.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:59 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:00 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yaqziixenfofqmei] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:02 -!- adlai1 [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:03 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
02:04 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Disconnected by services]
02:04 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-251-2.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:04 -!- adlai1 is now known as adlai
02:07 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:09 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.4]
02:10 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:11 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Client Quit]
02:12 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:14 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:22 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Quit: nomailing]
02:24 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:25 -!- _rht [uid86914@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fvwgkshixrjakixt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:32 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@unaffiliated/debruyne] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:34 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
02:35 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:36 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
02:39 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Quit: nomailing]
02:50 -!- crossing-styx [~crossing-@c-67-165-86-109.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
02:50 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:55 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:00 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:04 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
03:38 -!- cluckj [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
03:48 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@unaffiliated/debruyne] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
03:53 -!- bit2017 [~linker@115.79.55.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:01 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:05 -!- p15 [~p15@131.91.145.64.unassigned.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
04:06 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:08 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:12 -!- MiniDevil [~MiniDevil@c-71-224-91-240.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- p15x [~p15x@151.91.145.64.unassigned.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:28 -!- bit2017 [~linker@171.232.61.61] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:31 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
04:35 -!- sneak [~sneak@unaffiliated/sneak] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:36 -!- cluckj [~cluckj@pool-108-16-231-242.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:36 -!- blkdb [~blkdb@2a01:4f8:140:1407::2] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:36 -!- sneak [~sneak@unaffiliated/sneak] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:36 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
04:36 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:37 -!- blkdb [~blkdb@2a01:4f8:140:1407::2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:01 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:06 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:13 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
05:13 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:15 -!- Joseph__ [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
05:18 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-122-14-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
05:31 < kanzure> bank of england's "rscoin" http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/G.Danezis/papers/ndss16currencies.pdf
05:40 < lmatteis> kanzure: interesting
05:41 < lmatteis> if the supply is controlled, i'd guess this was done before
05:41 < lmatteis> such a field of "transparent databases" maybe? :)
05:42 < lmatteis> it's funny how everything fin-tech nowadays is tied to bitcoin related technology
05:42 < lmatteis> even if it's basically using something else
05:49 -!- hybridsole [~hybridsol@c-67-177-114-112.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:00 -!- p15x [~p15x@151.91.145.64.unassigned.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:02 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:02 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:03 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:06 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
06:06 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:12 < jonasschnelli> Hmm... coinbase transactions use UINT32_MAX for prevout n? Right?
06:12 < jonasschnelli> I don't get this line then: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.12/src/primitives/transaction.h#L33
06:13 < jonasschnelli> n == (uint32_t) -1)
06:17 < aj> jonasschnelli: (uint32_t) -1 is UINT32_MAX
06:18 < jonasschnelli> ah. damit,.. right 0-1 = MAX!
06:18 < jonasschnelli> thanks ak
06:18 < jonasschnelli> aj
06:18 < aj> jonasschnelli: no worries :)
06:24 -!- Monthrect is now known as Piper-Off
06:31 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-20-169.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:31 -!- atgreen [~green@38.104.156.251] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:40 -!- Piper-Off is now known as Monthrect
07:02 -!- veridium is now known as veridium_
07:03 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:07 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-251-157.dyn.295.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:07 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
07:08 -!- Joseph__ [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:09 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-251-157.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Client Quit]
07:09 -!- coins123 [~coins123@unaffiliated/coins123] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:12 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@46-86-125.adsl.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:19 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:24 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:3422:a7b8:2bf0:3ea8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:29 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-14-173-69.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
07:48 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:3422:a7b8:2bf0:3ea8] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
07:52 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
08:01 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:04 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:06 -!- voxelot [~voxelot@remote.digitalmoneycorp.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:08 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:20 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:21 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:21 -!- jtimon [~quassel@35.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:21 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
08:24 -!- Erik_dc [~erik@ip-83-101-2-215.customer.schedom-europe.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:27 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust916.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:27 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust916.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
08:27 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:27 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:28 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
08:30 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:32 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@unaffiliated/debruyne] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:35 -!- Fornax96 [~Fornaxf@31.160.176.209] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:38 -!- hybridsole [~hybridsol@c-67-177-114-112.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:40 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:41 -!- hybridsole [~hybridsol@c-67-177-114-112.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:51 -!- everyBloc [~everybloc@c-73-158-140-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:52 -!- everyBloc [~everybloc@c-73-158-140-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:52 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:54 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-20-169.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:56 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:57 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:57 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- phiche [~Adium@193.89.191.209] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
09:04 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:05 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
09:08 -!- Don_John [~Don@251-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:09 -!- everyBloc [~everybloc@c-73-158-140-36.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:09 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:13 -!- throughnothing [~throughno@162.217.73.10] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:14 -!- Don_John [~Don@251-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
09:16 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:17 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
09:18 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:19 -!- Don_John [~Don@251-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:30 -!- throughn_ [~throughno@162.217.73.10] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:32 -!- throughnothing [~throughno@162.217.73.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:38 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:39 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-20-169.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:44 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:44 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
09:46 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
09:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-110-85.cablep.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:50 -!- throughn_ is now known as throughnothing
09:50 -!- Don_John [~Don@251-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:52 -!- Don_John [~Don@251-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:55 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:57 -!- funkenstein_ [~user@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:58 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:00 -!- throughnothing [~throughno@162.217.73.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:02 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-110-85.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:03 -!- Joseph__ is now known as NewLiberty
10:05 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:05 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
10:06 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:10 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:11 < funkenstein_> * gribble has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)  <-- removes hat
10:13 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:14 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qhhryptwdfxknbga] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
10:15 -!- Adiabat [~tx@rrcs-67-251-193-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
10:17 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:19 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-vfcciijtrnqbbmay] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:20 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-qfcperrgtzlmyoka] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:24 -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-135-142.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:24 -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-135-142.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:24 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-14-173-69.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:24 -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-135-142.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:24 -!- eudoxia [~eudoxia@r167-56-20-169.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:25 -!- grandmaster [dansmith3@gateway/shell/bnc4free/x-qfcperrgtzlmyoka] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:27 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:27 -!- eudoxia_ [~eudoxia@r167-57-135-142.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Client Quit]
10:32 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:33 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:41 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:50 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:53 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:54 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-14-173-69.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:59 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:01 -!- mm_1 [bnc33@bnc33.nitrado.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:05 -!- Jeremy_Rand_2 [~user@ip68-97-35-223.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:06 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:08 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:10 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:11 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
11:15 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-14-173-69.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:22 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:25 -!- cocoBTC [~cocoBTC__@c-d73a71d5.136-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:25 -!- N0S4A2_ [~weechat@216-243-38-141.users.condointernet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:29 -!- nomailing [~Thunderbi@ip5f5ae12e.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Quit: nomailing]
11:29 -!- bramc [26632a82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.99.42.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:42 -!- bramc [26632a82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.99.42.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:47 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
11:55 -!- phiche [~Adium@37.250.161.114.bredband.tre.se] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- mm_1 [bnc33@bnc33.nitrado.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:02 -!- SirJacket is now known as ckgmooo
12:03 -!- ckgmooo is now known as SirJacket
12:07 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:11 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:11 -!- e4xit [~e4xit@cpc92302-cmbg19-2-0-cust1369.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: Right I'm out!]
12:12 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@37.37-191-175.fiber.lynet.no] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:19 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:19 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@37.37-191-175.fiber.lynet.no] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
12:27 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
12:31 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:43 -!- Eliel [~jojkaart@91-159-8-128.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:46 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
12:47 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hprorqmlojyxxglg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:47 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:53 -!- Eliel [~jojkaart@91-159-8-128.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:54 -!- bildramer [~bildramer@ppp-94-68-85-68.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:54 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@220.sub-70-193-164.myvzw.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:54 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@220.sub-70-193-164.myvzw.com] has quit [Changing host]
12:54 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:56 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:59 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- atgreen [~green@38.104.156.251] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:07 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:12 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
13:18 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:23 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epfzvuubnpmbkfal] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:25 -!- Guest12198 is now known as [Derek]
13:25 -!- [Derek] [~derek@2605:6400:10:3c9:dfd3:3e96:2608:98a7] has quit [Changing host]
13:25 -!- [Derek] [~derek@unaffiliated/derek/x-8562683] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:43 -!- phiche [~Adium@37.250.161.114.bredband.tre.se] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
13:57 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:00 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.33.83] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 -!- bramc [26632a82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.99.42.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:02 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
14:04 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:08 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.33.83] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:08 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:12 -!- mrkent_ [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:12 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:14 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:17 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:18 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:21 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:23 -!- AndroUser [~androirc@178.151.220.246] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:24 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:33 < bramc> Hey everybody. I don't remember if I've previously explained my improved idea for using proofs of time to stop withholding attacks in a proofs of space or proofs of steak system, so here it is:
14:34 < bramc> (note that this is separate from the use of proofs of time to stop remining since genesis attacks. That's orthogonal and a good idea in its own right)
14:35 < bramc> As a point of comparison, a paper on proofs of space suggested having the challenge for each block be based off the block 100 below it. So block 100 has a challenge derived from zero, 101 from 1, 102 from 2, etc.
14:36 -!- unlord [unlord@mf4-xiph.osuosl.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:36 -!- AndroUser [~androirc@178.151.220.246] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Сообщение"]
14:37 -!- unlord [unlord@mf4-xiph.osuosl.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:40 < funkenstein_> attachment missing?
14:40 < bramc> A method of improving that approach to prevent withholding attacks would be to make it so that the challenge for block N isn't directly from block N-100 but from a proof of time which takes 20 blocks worth of time to calculate. Obviously this does a great job of obliterating withholding attacks, because the attacker has no way of knowing what their challenge will be before they have to publish it so they have no way of selectin
14:40 < bramc> Sorry I can only think and type so fast, bear with me.
14:42 < bramc> This is a great improvement, except it's a huge amount of proofs of time, especially for the not so great proofs of time we have right now, and the 100 blocks thing makes grinding work across the next 100 blocks at once. That isn't anywhere near lethal, but I'd like that constant factor to be a bit lower.
14:45 < bramc> Note that these proofs of time need to be canonical, which is the exact same requirement as proofs of time need to fix mining since genesis attacks. Same caveats apply about the current state of best known ones, and same lament about how there's no deep reason known why there can't be vastly better ones so somebody please find them.
14:47 -!- zooko [~user@50.141.119.23] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:47 < bramc> My new idea is basically an optimization on this technique to require vastly less proofs of time. Now blocks come in batches, 0-31, 32-63, 64-95, etc. Each of those batches has all of their challenges derived from a single block. For 0-31 it's genesis, 32-63 it's 0, 64-95 it's 32, etc.
14:50 < bramc> Where the proofs of time come in is that instead of the challenges coming off the one block, they're based off a proof of time which is 8 times as long as the average time it takes to generate a block. Again there's no way to apply withholding attacks because you have no idea what your challenge actually is when you publish your block, but now the multiplier on proofs of time vs. real time passed is 1/4 instead of 100, which is
14:50 < funkenstein_> i thought the block withholding attack was not a thing anyway, being overall a loss to one who tries to use it
14:52 < bramc> funkenstein_: Block withholding attacks are a serious problem in proofs of space and proofs of steak systems because an attacker can immediately tell whether a particular block will advantage them in the future, which isn't the case for a proofs of work based system.
14:53 < funkenstein_> ah ok thanks
14:54 < bramc> My reasoning behind the constant factors given is that a factor of 8 will nearly always be longer than the time to finish the very next block, and 32 will nearly always be greater than the time to finish the 8. Maybe 8 is a bit aggressive because 2^8 = 256 which isn't all that huge, maybe 10 and 40 is a bit safer. I don't know a simple closed form way of calculating how often the second one overruns, but that's easy enough to w
14:55 -!- lahwran is now known as lauren
14:56 < bramc> So that's my latest trick. Hopefully somebody reading this understands it.
14:57 < funkenstein_> its still unclear to me that that advantage (knowing how a found block could help in the future) would outweigh the disadvantage of having someone else broadcast a solution first
15:00 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@104-6-36-162.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
15:02 -!- Erik_dc [~erik@ip-83-101-2-215.customer.schedom-europe.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:02 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE687f74122463-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
15:04 < bramc> The problem is that if you have a large enough fraction of all mining power, you sometimes have not only the best but also the second best block, and have a choice of which one to broadcast, and can advantage yourself by picking the one which will be better in the future, which causes a very strong advantage for larger pools.
15:05 -!- mihar [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:07 < lmatteis> like selfish mining?
15:08 < funkenstein_> i can see that, but when you find the first of those two blocks - there is a time period in which you have not yet found the second - and you must decide to broadcast or not.  How do you decide?
15:08 -!- mihar_ [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:09 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:10 < bramc> lmatteis: This is selfish mining
15:10 < bramc> funkenstein_: That's the problem. In proofs of space and steak there is no such time lag.
15:12 -!- mihar [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:12 -!- mihar [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:12 < lmatteis> there are so many different stake implementations so it's hard to follow your reasoning. anyway i don't quite understand how it solve the double-spending problem. surely you'll run into the 'nothing at stake' problem
15:13 < bramc> This doesn't fix the nothing at stake problem. Proofs of steak have a lot of problems :-)
15:14 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
15:14 < funkenstein_> bramc, no time lag between block?
15:15 -!- Adiabat [~tx@rrcs-67-251-193-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:15 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:16 < bramc> funkenstein_: No time lag between when you find your first, second, third, etc. best responses to the last challenge. They all happen instantly, as a fundamental result of the property that mining doesn't require work.
15:17 < bramc> Bitcoin mining requires work, so it doesn't have these problems (although it does have more selfish mining problems than people think.)
15:18 < funkenstein_> excuse my ignorance on steak and space systems
15:18 < funkenstein_> there must be a mechanism to control block rates?
15:20 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:21 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:21 < funkenstein_> http://rxiv.org/abs/1504.0072 <-- related
15:23 < lmatteis> depends on implementation really
15:23 < lmatteis> funkenstein_: to be honest, not much data shown in that paper.
15:24 < bramc> funkenstein_: Techniques for controlling the rate vary a lot. I'm mostly glossing over that detail but assuming that the actual rate is stochastic with a target like in bitcoin.
15:25 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:26 < bramc> The details of my new trick are heavily dependent on those other details of the system.
15:26 < bramc> btw when I say proofs of steak I mean cow systems where everybody votes based on their proportion of the cow, or their 'steak'. People usually call these proofs of stake, I'm being caustic.
15:27 < funkenstein_> lol
15:27 < lmatteis> ah so you're not typoing
15:29 < bramc> Proofs of steak have the fundamental problem that they need to pick a threshold fraction of all outstanding steak which is capable of generating a quorum. If there are two different histories both of which exceed that threshold, there's no way of determining which one is the 'real' one. The lower that threshold is the easier the system is to attack. The higher it is the more likely the system is to spontaneously die.
15:30 < lmatteis> then why bother at all :)
15:30 -!- crossing-styx [~crossing-@c-67-165-86-109.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:31 < funkenstein_> you are referring to a maximum depth of reorganization?
15:31 < bramc> There's a long list of other technical problems they have but I'm not terribly interested in solving them because the fundamental limitations make cow systems not terribly interesting. Mostly when I describe things which apply to cows it's because they're techniques which I came up with for proofs of space systems, which I do find interesting, which also happen to apply to cows.
15:32 < bramc> funkenstein_: Having a maximum depth of a reorg is a hack which helps a little but is implicitly accepting checkpointing.
15:34 < funkenstein_> burst coin
15:34 < lmatteis> without it anybody can create chains as they see fit with random transactions and there would be now way to know which is the right chain
15:35 -!- mihar [~mihar@4.16.87.162] has quit []
15:35 < lmatteis> proof of stake systems simply lack formal guarantees of system convergence
15:35 < funkenstein_> lmatteis, i thought all byzantine consensus lacks formal guarantee
15:37 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:37 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@46-86-125.adsl.cyta.gr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:37 < funkenstein_> i think we have just barely caught up to the intro of bramc's idea :)
15:38 < lmatteis> not when the guarantees are outside the system itself. such as energy
15:48 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:48 -!- bowler [~bowler@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:49 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
15:49 -!- bowler [~bowler@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has quit [Client Quit]
15:50 -!- funkenstein_ is now known as Guest64709
15:50 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:50 -!- funkenstein_ [~bowler@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:55 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:55 -!- Guest64709 [~user@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:02 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:05 -!- cocoBTC [~cocoBTC__@c-d73a71d5.136-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:07 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:07 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
16:09 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:10 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:15 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:17 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:23 -!- Xet [~Xet@189.122.246.213] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:24 -!- Xet [~Xet@189.122.246.213] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
16:25 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:26 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
16:27 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:28 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:29 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:32 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Quit: Reconnecting]
16:32 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:37 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:40 -!- bramc [26632a82@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.99.42.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:47 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-34-102-231.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 44.0.2/20160210153822]]
16:48 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:48 -!- bit2017 [~linker@171.232.61.61] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
16:59 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:01 -!- voxelot [~voxelot@remote.digitalmoneycorp.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:07 -!- zooko [~user@50.141.119.23] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:10 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
17:10 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:11 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:15 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
17:30 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:32 -!- bit2017 [~linker@115.79.55.177] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:47 < gmaxwell> I wonder if this is how Bitcoin will die; https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/143/files  with implementations competing for how much they can quietly compromise security in for the sake a few percent differences in average case performance.
17:48 < TD-Linux> gmaxwell, why do small incremental losses when you can just drop it all with SPV wallets
17:48 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:49 < gmaxwell> But thats part of the problem; the existance of alternative security models was one of the reasons I didn't historically worry much that Bitcoin's security could be eroded by short term 'optimization' like that.
17:50 < gmaxwell> (especially really ill-advised ones like letting a block itself tell you if you should verify it or not via the timestamp which is controlled by the block author)
17:51 -!- bramc [a6b1f97b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.166.177.249.123] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:51 -!- p15 [~p15@6.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:52 < bramc> gmaxwell: If the actors in bitcoin start making less than 5% margins or so and expect to continue making such narrow margins until the end of time everything goes to hell in a handbasket very quickly
17:53 < gmaxwell> bramc: well assuming the system rules aren't changed, doing signature validation or not of the historic chain shouldn't really impact your margins.
17:53 < gmaxwell> but yes, there are other places to 'optimize' where the wheels come off.
17:54 < gmaxwell> TD-Linux: In any case, the reason to implement such a thing is for straight PR reasons. Security is complex to sell compared to "X% faster than core!".
17:54 < bramc> gmaxwell: The new tricks I've been coming up with have little 1% advantage here 2% advantage there kind of things. One of the nice things about proofs of space is that everybody's using otherwise wasted space, meaning they aren't dependent on it and the returns are so lousy that it isn't really worth optimizing.
17:54 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:54 < gmaxwell> people 'optimize' for reasons other than returns however; personal glory, marketing. etc. :)
17:55 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:55 < gmaxwell> NIH.
17:55 < aj> BlueMatt: http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/stats.html doesn't seem to have any data? is that fixable?
17:56 < gmaxwell> aj: you can also get compression stats from lightsword if thats all you're looking for.
17:56 < bramc> Yes there are those things. And also undermining the system as a whole can be bad for one's individual future returns. But if actors were facing an immediate defect or go under tomorrow choice they'd be defecting en masse.
17:56 < TD-Linux> gmaxwell, well I guess it's more like you will have to start selling security, whereas you didn't really have to before
17:56 < adlai> bitcoin is not incentive-compatible with an economy where bitcoins are not the most desirable asset, for the economic majority of bitcoin holders... which is a circular definition that has let bitcoin lurk through its limbo with quite a lot of not-dead-yet liveliness
17:56 < BlueMatt> aj: not today, fixable in a few days when i get home
17:57 < gmaxwell> TD-Linux: security is largely a lemon market, so thats bad news.
17:57 < gmaxwell> TD-Linux: being insecure has no cost until you're exploited; which is a prime condition for creating systemic risk.
17:59 < bramc> gmaxwell: I'd like to actually write a BIP for a 'not valid after' extension for transactions. You mentioned this is easy with segwit...
17:59 -!- dEBRUYNE [~dEBRUYNE@unaffiliated/debruyne] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:59 < kanzure> as long as confusion still exists regarding whether spv mode "works" or "exists at all" then i think these problems will continue.
18:00 < aj> BlueMatt: cool; enjoy your travels
18:00 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:00 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:00 -!- CubicEar_ [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:00 < kanzure> the question has never been "can we make accounting and transactions work?" but rather "is it secure?"-- most programmers can do basic accounting tech.
18:00 < aj> gmaxwell: does lightsword have a working url? :)
18:00 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:00 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:00 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rxylxvosbtclpvch] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
18:01 < Lightsword> just logs I can grep
18:01 < aj> kanzure: ("most programmers can do basic accounting tech" seems optimistic)
18:01 < bramc> I'm happy to learn how BIPs are written and write one up including reasoning and theory but need some help from someone with immediate experience with the bitcoin codebase for the exact details of the extension format and code patching.
18:01 < kanzure> aj: hush :P
18:01 < kanzure> bramc: bips are written according to the words written at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki
18:01 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:01 < aj> Lightsword: grep and pipe to email to aj@erisian.com.au for me? :)
18:01 < adlai> kanzure: in my experience, correcting misuse of the term "SPV" just leads to its redefinition for the purpose of the specific discussion to mean "whatever lesser security model this software provides"
18:01 < bramc> Thanks kanzure
18:02 < kanzure> adlai: bitcoin does not exist outside of that security model
18:02 < kanzure> unless you have an off-chain security model, which has many different assumptions
18:02 < bramc> In principle I could do all those details myself but that would be a severe violation of comparative advantage
18:02 < adlai> kanzure: my point is, who are you trying to convince, and of what? the nitpicking over whether "SPV" exists is probably only helpful during choir-preaching
18:03 < kanzure> adlai: i am trying to convince developers that appeasing spv advocates is a failing strategy
18:03 < gmaxwell> kanzure: most programmers cannot sucessfully write a correct bisection search; don't dismiss accounting as easy. :)
18:03 < kanzure> the requirements for holding bitcoin are to have your own private keys and to run a fully-validating node (which is often not mentioned)
18:04 < bramc> Although it's really looking like the actual writing of said BIP won't happen unless I do it. I've been hoping that it would be simple and uncontroversial enough that someone else would take interest, but that apparently isn't the case, and I'm getting very worried about time frame on it.
18:04 < bramc> It's very encouraging that gmaxwell said that segwit makes it a simple extension.
18:04 < gmaxwell> kanzure: I don't agree, to the extent that there are cases where security is not really that important (real or imagined requirements) those requirements should be met, if for no other reason than to avoid pressure to undermine the security of things that are supposted to be secure.
18:04 -!- yorick [~yorick@oftn/oswg-member/yorick] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:04 -!- CubicEar_ [~cubiceart@50.141.32.136] has quit [Client Quit]
18:04 < adlai> kanzure: so encouraging people to pay for the funding of bitcoin to private keys they control, without encouraging them to validate independently, is roughly equivalent to encouraging them to voluntarily disenfranchise
18:05 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
18:05 < gmaxwell> bramc: yes, the not valid after itself isn't hard; dealing with the potential fungibility loss and such in a coherent way is hard.
18:05 < kanzure> bramc: if you are talking about your proof-of-space work and using the extension format, then i believe that is a correct and good direction to pursue.
18:05 < kanzure> oh, "not valid after"
18:06 < bramc> gmaxwell: I have good arguments about that, that's the part I'm happy to explain and justify
18:06 < kanzure> well now you owe me a proof-of-space bip :)
18:06 < bramc> gmaxwell: The central idea is 'This can be dealt with in a variety of ways later, and which methods are picked don't affect the not valid after format'
18:07 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:08 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:08 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has quit [Client Quit]
18:08 < bramc> Proof of space is, ahem, an extremely hard fork. But I'm also working on much more immediate block and tackle stuff, and not valid after is by far the easiest win.
18:09 < gmaxwell> bramc: well I think the ideal thing to do is to trace how deep the last point of non-fungiblity is for every input, and then every transaction is the max of those)... so when you get a coin you'll know exactly how reorg safe it is.
18:10 < adlai> bramc: it's not a hardfork if the proofs are required in addition to current work proofs
18:11 < bramc> Maybe I'll write up a draft of the BIP in advance of having the exact details because the higher level semantics are clear
18:11 < bramc> gmaxwell: Good point about tracing back not just the last transaction but its inputs. Can SPV retrieve that history?
18:11  * adlai suspects that this workflow is how most BIPs have ended up being fluffier than the average Medium post
18:11 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:12 < adlai> what's SPV? :P
18:12 < kanzure> bramc: bip1 specifies (recommends) that authors should definitely write high-level overviews before investing significant efforts, and then pinging community people with the drafts and summaries first before exerting effort that might otherwise be wasted. usually this is done by emailing the mailing list, but harassing people on irc could probably also work.
18:12 < adlai> today, to crawl back through tx inputs, you either need your own indexed blockchain, or to trust 3rd party nodes
18:13 < gmaxwell> adlai: right, that why I was suggesting the forward bubbling information be required.
18:13 < bramc> SPV or an extension of it should be able to prove that a particular utxo was created in a particular historical block fairly straightforwardly
18:13 < bramc> Actually, it doesn't even have to come from SPV, it can be sent from the payer to the payee
18:14 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:14 < kanzure> out-of-band transaction history stuff has been proposed on a few occassions, like "coin history linearization"
18:14 -!- yorick [~yorick@ip51cd0513.speed.planet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:14 -!- yorick [~yorick@ip51cd0513.speed.planet.nl] has quit [Changing host]
18:14 -!- yorick [~yorick@oftn/oswg-member/yorick] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:14 < kanzure> like https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011817.html
18:15 < kanzure> and http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log
18:15 < bramc> This is all good stuff, I will make sure to include.
18:16 < kanzure> coin history linearization also mentioned at https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3u1m36/why_arent_we_as_a_community_talking_about/cxbamhn
18:16 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:16 < adlai> gmaxwell: i see. you're describing an SPV-compatible strategy which can only answer for the parts of the utxo set generated after it came online?
18:17 -!- N0S4A2 [~weechat@216-243-38-141.users.condointernet.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:19 < adlai> history-linearilazion-as-work-proof always seems to me the least-obvious-now-but-most-in-retrospect idea on hardfork wishlists
18:19 < bramc> adlai: Requiring both the current proof of work and a proof of space as well would unfortunately get the worst of both
18:20 -!- N0S4A2 [~weechat@216-243-38-141.users.condointernet.net] has quit [Client Quit]
18:21 -!- N0S4A2 [~weechat@216-243-38-141.users.condointernet.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:24 -!- bramc [a6b1f97b@gateway/web/freenode/ip.166.177.249.123] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:24  * adlai wonders what a rational time window is, within which current miners would be willing to make their hardware useless. this could probably be calculated in a manner similar to current mining hardware obsolescence, although the process does introduce an "obsolescence cliff"
18:29 < coinoperated_tv> adlai:  vaild observation; it's getting hard to tell what people mean when they say SPV any more, it's becoming a vaguely derogatory epithet applied to anything the speaker thinks is a weak security model
18:29 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
18:33 < adlai> it's a shame that it's become another Term Considered Harmful, because (like the others) it does have an actual meaning
18:33 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:36 < Lightsword> aj, how much history are you looking for? http://0bin.net/paste/iNgNFR1bhqwXjo1w#+usIPIq1j+AgjQd4RDaCgXl1X1u-P1EDH3rpsAd7QCp
18:36 < Lightsword> more than that?
18:38 < aj> Lightsword: a week or so would be nice if it's handy? if not, thanks :)
18:39 < Lightsword> aj, ok ill get that in a little, I just have to pull from the compressed logs
18:48 -!- mrkent_ [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit []
18:54 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:03 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:03 < bsm1175321> bramc: responding to your messages starting about 4.5 hours ago: It seems to me that your "proof of time" is actually "proof of work" assuming the global work available doesn't increase faster than X.  Assuming increasing work is probably not a good idea, and in fact we will sometimes see decreasing work.  Also assuming it can't increase faster than a certain rate is easy to violate by hoarding ASICs...  If we cou
19:04 < bsm1175321> This is fundamentally unlike proof-of-space in which you can fill your disk with junk and generate a proof from it.  You can't fill time with junk and generate a proof...
19:09 < kanzure> bsm1175321: you have cutoff at "hoarding ASICS.... If we cou"
19:09 < bsm1175321> *sigh*
19:09 < bsm1175321> Also assuming it can't increase faster than a certain rate is easy to violate by hoarding ASICs...  If we could prove the passage of time, this whole mining thing would be moot, but I really don't think it's possible.
19:10 < bsm1175321> I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
19:10 < gmaxwell> wow. gavin is actually defending that "ignore scriptvalidation on blocks with timestamps >24 hours old" patch.
19:12 < kanzure> *attempting to defend
19:12 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:12 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.236] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:14 -!- zooko [~user@50.141.118.215] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:17 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:19 -!- voxelot [~voxelot@2605:e000:1525:802f:2f31:fc98:c9b5:8658] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:20 -!- nivah [~linker@115.79.55.177] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:21 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:24 -!- wangchun_ [~wangchun@li414-193.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:27 -!- wump [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:30 -!- bit2017 [~linker@115.79.55.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- ebfull [~sean@73.34.119.0] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- wangchun [~wangchun@li414-193.members.linode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:30 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:33 < bsm1175321> Can someone explain the considerations on that one?
19:34 < midnightmagic> fascinating.
19:38 -!- jarret [~jarret@162.216.46.151] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:39 < bsm1175321>  midnightmagic: elaborate?
19:40 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.32.236] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:41 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
19:43 < midnightmagic> gmax's comment, two or three lines ago
19:43 < bsm1175321> FWIW if you want to ignore the classic trolls, I don't blame you.  But It's worthwhile to make coherent, logical arguments against these things, and if you don't have the time, I'll do it on your behalf, with or without citation.  (And I don't understand the 24h comments, honestly)
19:44 < bsm1175321> Also I don't see where gavin is defending them so I'm obviously not reading the right thing.
19:46 < maaku> kanzure : a suitable goal for AGI: play 'Myst' better than a human
19:46 < midnightmagic> bsm1175321: check his twitter feed.
19:47 < bsm1175321> There is nothing worth reading on the twatter.
19:47 < midnightmagic> also the github pullrwq I think
19:47 < bsm1175321> I can't make a cohesive argument in 140 characters, and neither can anyone else.
19:50 -!- jarret [~jarret@162.216.46.151] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:51 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:52 < kanzure> bsm1175321: their argument is that nobody is able to mine for 24 hours or something
19:52 -!- zooko` [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:53 < bsm1175321> I thought of that.  I thought maybe there was something deeper.
19:53 < gmaxwell> bsm1175321: even most of the people concerned about this are thinking too narrowly. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/49v808/peter_todd_on_twitter_tldr_bitcoin_classic_is/d0vkd49?context=1
19:53 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:53 < kanzure> and timestamps etc
19:53 < gmaxwell> they're getting caught up "oh but would miners really make a 24 hour reorg"-- well they might well, but none is required for exploitation of this vulnerability.
19:54 -!- zooko [~user@50.141.118.215] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:55 < bsm1175321> Props to you folks with the patience to read roddit and twatter.  They make my eyeballs bleed.
19:55 < MRL-Relay> [tacotime] you really think someone would just go on the internet and tell lies?
19:56 < gmaxwell> What interesting to me is that related misbehaivor was accidentally introduced in Bitcoin Core in the 0.8 timeframe;  and when it was discovered and reported it was treated as a serious vulnerability and handled quietly and fixed.
19:56 < gmaxwell> breaking change: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/b14bd4df58171454c2aa580ffad94982943483f5
19:57 < gmaxwell> See why that code doesn't do what it seemed to do:
19:57 < gmaxwell> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/blob/b14bd4df58171454c2aa580ffad94982943483f5/src/main.cpp#L736
19:58 < bsm1175321> So, this is pretty similar to a conversation happening in Ethereum space, which boils down to the argument: everyone knows what the correct chain is, just check your favorite local block explorer.
19:58 < bsm1175321> And is obviously not exploitable by anyone for anything.
19:58 < bsm1175321> </sarcasm> in case it's not obvious.
19:59 < kanzure> aka "average case vs adversarial case"
19:59 < bsm1175321> exactamundo
20:00 -!- bramc [634b58ce@gateway/web/freenode/ip.99.75.88.206] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:00 -!- funkenstein_ [~bowler@unaffiliated/funkenstein] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:00 < gmaxwell> bsm1175321: yea, in the "wait why do we have this system at all" case.
20:00 < bsm1175321> kanzure: this is a good argument.  "average case vs. adversarial case".  I've had to make this kind of argument repeatedly in recent weeks...
20:01 < smooth> None of this is very surprising. Bitcoin was revoluationary, but the natural marketing response to this is to try things that are sorta-like-Bitcoin even if watered down and no longer revolutionary to see if that is actually what people want
20:01 < bramc> bsm1175321: A proof of time is a very, very different animal from a proof of work. It's a proof of sequential work, demonstrating that some amount of time passed between when the challenge was generated and when the proof of time calculation was completed
20:02 < smooth> like when the iphone was a hit, the first thing people did was not to create competing smart phones with powerful operating systems, it was feature phones with touch screens
20:02 < bsm1175321> bramc: Glad you reappeared.  Can you explain proof-of-time as distinct from proof-of-work with a bound on maximum-increase-in-work?
20:04 < bramc> So, here's my proposal: If you trace back all the parents, grandparents, etc. of the payment you're receiving up to 100 blocks ago, and all of them have the property that their not valid after date is more than 100 blocks after the one they were entered into, then the payment is 'safe' and you can accept it after only a few blocks have been built on top. Otherwise you have to wait for 100 blocks to pass after the transaction wh
20:04 < amiller_> bsm1175321, suppose a million people all try to start solving a proof-of-time at once. it still takes the same amount of time. because it requires a fixed amount of sequential work one step after another, so parallel resources don't help at all
20:05 < kanzure> bramc: you have cutoff near "100 blocks to pass after the transaction wh"
20:05 < gmaxwell> "Energy traders would never intentionally overbook transmission links, creating massive outages, in order to create shortages that made their futures contracts profitable; and cause many tens of billions of dollars in harm to the public"
20:05 < bramc> I believe that approach is 'conservative', which is not to say that it's exactly what one should do, just that it demonstrates that a conservative approach is possible and can be settled on client side later with 'reasonable' assumptions about payers sending proofs to payees or an extension to spv
20:06 < kanzure> bramc, there are irc client extensions that can fix line length cutoff problems
20:06 < bramc> 100 blocks to pass after the transaction which was a 'near miss'.
20:06 < bramc> kanzure: I'm using freenode's webchat, which one would think would handle that properly
20:07 < kanzure> lately i have found that having expectations is suboptimal
20:07 < bsm1175321> amiller_: Your argument is still proof-of-work.  hash-of-hash-of-hash-of-hash-of... is an obvious way to implement it but cannot be quickly validated, and is bounded by todays silicon CPUs and their ~4GHz limit, but that will not last forever.
20:08 < bsm1175321> So, it's not proof of time except if you assume we can never develop a faster sequential computation technology.
20:08 < kanzure> wasn't "time" one of those things that could only be measured by having movement between reference frames or something
20:08 < amiller_> bsm1175321, there are a variety of ways to implement it with fast verification
20:08 < bsm1175321> amiller_: 3 seconds of thought and I didn't come up with one, but I don't doubt you.
20:09 < amiller_> bsm1175321, but that's orthogonal to the definition of time = sequential work.... yes it depends on assuming no faster sequential computation technology. so yes it's only about "time" indirectly in some sense. i think we're on the same page though
20:09 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@c-98-234-63-169.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:09 < bsm1175321> Let's assume validation is O(1).  Doesn't change the fact that proof-of-work is being used as a proxy for proof-of-time here.
20:10 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:6406:9818:8fd9:530e] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:10 < bramc> bsm1175321: The proof of time difficulty needs a work reset function as well. Getting that right is a matter of considerable subtlety.
20:10 < gmaxwell> bsm1175321: it's still not the same as the embarassingly parallel kind of proof of work that is normally used.
20:10 < bsm1175321> I like where this is going.
20:11 < gmaxwell> bsm1175321: it's maybe an unanswered question as to exactly how different it really is... but it isn't the same thing.  It might be helpful if people erased proof of time from their vocab and said SPOW (sequential pow).
20:11 < bsm1175321> Now I want to see the fast validation algorithm...
20:11 < kanzure> gmaxwell: how do you reconcile "'why do we have this at all' case" with your earlier "cases where security is not really that important (real or imagined requirements) those requirements should be met, if for no other reason than to avoid pressure to undermine said security of things supposedly secure".
20:12 < amiller_> bsm1175321, there are at least 3 options... option 1) use snarks, ya dingus
20:12 < bsm1175321> OTOH a SPOW algo puts all power into the hands of the entity with the fastest processor.  That sucks in other ways.
20:12 < amiller_> bsm1175321, no no no no that's not how anyone is proposing to use SPOW
20:13 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:14 < amiller_> no one is advocating using it as just a drop-in replacement for pow... what bram has in mind is a litle more subtle and involving using SPOW tactically in combination with some other variations, it does not make it so whoever is fastest always wins
20:14 < gmaxwell> bsm1175321: bramc's design interleaves SPOW with a running cost 'free' mining function, 'proof of space'  (you could also imagine schemes that interleave SPOW with POS)
20:14 < bsm1175321> This is new to me...go on. ;-)
20:15 < amiller_> bsm1175321, for fast verification option 2), there is this paper, i can explain an intuition in a couple of lines but its tricky https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~mohammad/files/papers/15%20TimeStamp.pdf
20:16 < bramc> amiller_: Both of those options you present are malleable or near-malleable, and hence can't be used for this use case. The second one is close to a (much dumber) approach which is acceptable though.
20:18 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
20:20 < bramc> bsm1175321: It's analogous to work = force time distance. A block is complete when it has a proof of time added to it such that the number of generations in the proof of time is equal to the current work difficulty divided by the quality of the proof of space
20:20 < bramc> With the quality of proof of space being selected uniformly in the range (0, 1)
20:20 < bsm1175321> Very very interesting, thanks all.  Just to be clear, this *does* always depend on sequential processing, and therefore, measurement of time is really related to the recent stall in CPU clock rate manufacturing near ~3-4 GHz.
20:21 < bramc> er, being the reciprocal of that I mean
20:21 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-34-102-231.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:22 < bsm1175321> bramc: understood
20:22 < bramc> bsm1175321: Most definitely yes, a proof of time isn't proving time per se, it's proving a certain number of generations of hashing or some equivalent. Because you're multiplying together the proofs of space and time, a single reset on the combined difficulty based on how long the last cycle took will suffice
20:23 < bsm1175321> So in the event of a tech leap (quantum computing, GaAs processors, etc) this requires a difficulty reset?
20:23 < bramc> bsm1175321: The advantage of this approach is that it completely fixed the problem of somebody re-mining since genesis when the work difficulty now is much greater than it used to be. There doesn't appear to be any other way of fixing that problem.
20:23 < bsm1175321> But until then, who wins?  That one guy with the overclocked, nitrogen-cooled processor?
20:24 < bsm1175321> bramc: I definitely like that aspect.
20:24 < smooth> bramc: how does it fix that if sequential hashing becomes vastly faster?
20:24 < bramc> bsm1175321: The difficulty is reset every 1000 generation just like normal. The beauty of it is that improving either the amount of space or the speed of time by X will result in the next 1000 cycles having their time to finish getting divided by X, so the style of difficulty reset in Bitcoin can be carried over verbatim and still works.
20:25 < bsm1175321> It seems to me that it changes the perverse incentive from housing 10000 miners with cheap power to liquid-nitrogen cooling a smaller batch of processors.
20:26 < bsm1175321> It seems to me that the block reward always goes to one.  :-/  There's no statistical variance anymore in who gets it...
20:26 < bramc> Oh that's another aspect of it: There's zero zip nada reward for doing the proof of time calculation. You can't even tell who did it, it's 100% canonical. After a previous challenge is completed everybody communicates the best next block they know of and everybody who has superfast proof of time servers builds the proofs of time with it and whoever finishes first publishes. They wind up keeping each other honest via competition
20:28 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
20:28 < bsm1175321> A better reward schedule, for SPOW would be to pay the losers too.  Maybe a dutch auction...the reward goes to the *second* person to solve it...
20:28 -!- zooko` [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
20:28 < bsm1175321> Hmmm...I would love to see a formal proposal involving SPOW.  Are there any
20:28 < bsm1175321> ?
20:31 < bsm1175321> I've been devoting a lot of time to proof-of-space in the context of proof-of-holding-subset-of-UTXO-space.  SPOW would be a lovely addition.
20:32 < bsm1175321> I can't say I'm a big fan of wasting HDD space as a method to secure a crypto-currency.  But holding UTXO data is absolutely valuable, and should be explicitly rewarded.
20:39 < bramc> bsm1175321: No it's like Bitcoin. Blocks at the same height are all worth exactly the same amount both in terms of preference and rewards (except immediately after a work difficulty reset). The tiebreak of who wins is whoever finishes it first.
20:40 < bramc> bsm1175321: Both the proofs of space and the proofs of time are by design completely wasteful. I'll explain how they work in a minute, doing too many things at once at the moment.
20:43 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p54AE71A7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
20:55 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:6406:9818:8fd9:530e] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:58 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:6406:9818:8fd9:530e] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:00 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epfzvuubnpmbkfal] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
21:13 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:16 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:17 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:18 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:19 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:22 < bsm1175321> bramc: This gives all the coins to the single actor with the fastest sequential computation rig (e.g. LN2 cooled craziness) and zero to the second place winner.
21:22 < bsm1175321> A better reward algorithm is needed...
21:22 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
21:24 < bramc> bsm1175321: No the idea is that whoever the fastest proof of time server on the network as a whole is does the proof of time. Everybody publishes their best proof of space, and whoever's running a proof of time server does a proof of time on the best proof of space they know of as fast as they can. The incentive to do this is to keep everybody else honest.
21:26 < bramc> Trying to reward the making of proofs of time directly creates lots of problems (although it's trivial for proof of space miners to pay them by including transactions which do that).
21:30 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-122-14-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:38 < bramc> One thing which might happen is that there are multiple proof of time servers and the miners pay them based on how fast the proof of time servers are and how good the particular proof is, resulting in some amount of risk that a faster server will finish a worse proof faster.
21:38 < bramc> Since the delta between time server speeds is likely to be small, the fees should be very low.
21:46 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:46 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
21:47 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.34.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:48 < moa> so to convert between proof of space and proof of time we use speed of light?
21:49 < moa> and i?
21:49 -!- bildramer [~bildramer@ppp-94-68-85-68.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
21:49 -!- jtimon [~quassel@35.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
21:50 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
21:50 -!- bildramer [~bildramer@ppp-94-68-85-68.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:51 -!- MiniDevil [~MiniDevil@c-71-224-91-240.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
21:51 -!- MiniDevil [~MiniDevil@c-71-224-91-240.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:53 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
21:53 -!- adlai [~adlai@unaffiliated/adlai] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:56 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: huseby, adams__, yorick, CodeShark, SheffieldCrypto_, voxelot, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
22:02 -!- Netsplit over, joins: yorick, voxelot, adams__, CodeShark, SheffieldCrypto_, huseby, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
22:10 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qhhryptwdfxknbga] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
22:10 -!- wump is now known as wumpus
22:14 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:15 -!- jaekwon [~jaekwon@2601:645:c001:263a:6406:9818:8fd9:530e] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:18 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fajigjviqncsybke] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:19 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
22:26 -!- phiche [~Adium@2.69.192.156.mobile.tre.se] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:46 -!- teslax [~teslax@mail.werk1.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:52 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3AAF26.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:57 -!- phiche [~Adium@2.69.192.156.mobile.tre.se] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
23:04 -!- phiche [~Adium@193.89.191.209] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:06 -!- berndj [~berndj@azna.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:10 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: huseby, adams__, CrazyTruthYakDDS, yorick, SheffieldCrypto_, CodeShark, voxelot, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
23:11 < bramc> moa: What? No, proofs of space and proofs of time are very different beasts, but they can work fairly well together.
23:12 -!- c-cex-yuriy [uid76808@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hprorqmlojyxxglg] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
23:13 < bramc> Anyway, the two primitives needed are proofs of space and proofs of time, which I will now describe.
23:13 -!- berndj [~berndj@azna.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:13 < bramc> The elegant but busted proof of space is to make it so that the response to a challenge is a public key, and the quality of that public key is the difference between its hash and the challenge
23:14 < bramc> (non-malleability is very important all over the place here, by the way, but I won't get into the excruciating details.)
23:15 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:16 < bramc> So to prepare to respond to a challenge, a node fills their whole hard drive with public keys (well, salts for them anyway) then sorts them in place. When they want to respond to a challenge, they look at the appropriate spot on their hard drive and find the closest value they have.
23:17 < bramc> This also has the property that the distribution of quality of responses is the exact same exponential decay as how long it takes to find a block in Bitcoin.
23:18 < bramc> Unfortunately this technique is busted. For fairly nontrivial algorithmic reasons it's possible to do time space tradeoffs. The somewhat awkward sounding proof of space I described earlier today is meant to fix this one.
23:18 < bramc> There are very different proofs of space based on pebbling, but they're malleable, huge, and generally awful.
23:19 < bramc> For canonical proofs of time, there are two different known workable-ish approaches. They both kind of suck in different ways.
23:20 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:20 < bramc> ZK doesn't work at all because it's malleable.
23:21 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:21 -!- Netsplit over, joins: yorick, voxelot, adams__, CodeShark, SheffieldCrypto_, huseby, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
23:21 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has quit [Changing host]
23:21 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pudulcvjfvfuplos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:22 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ivufepvsjhzxwlar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:25 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 < gmaxwell> kanzure: re how to I reconcile it, simple.
23:39 < bramc> The mathy version is to do modular square roots. From Fermat's little theorem we know that a^p == a (mod p) so a^(p/2) is the modular square root of a. The ratio between the time it will take to verify that square root and the time it will take to calculate it is linear on the length of p's binary representation.
23:39 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:40 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:40 < gmaxwell> kanzure: lets imagine. You have bitcoin. You have it because it is sound money, autonoymous, censorship resistant, etc. You value it greatly.  I sell sprokets. I couldn't give a shit about bitcoin. But I can sell bitcoin for sproketglue, so I'm happy enough to accept it.  I don't want to take any costs to accept it, heck, you don't want me taking costs to accept it (I'll just demand higher bitcoi
23:40 < gmaxwell> n prices or not accept it at all). You want me on a SPV node.
23:41 < bramc> It isn't clear whether the amount of time it takes to calculate should be assumed to be linear or quadratic on the length of p. I suspect it's possible to do some very clever stuff to make multiplication algorithms very well parallelized albeit inefficient. The numbers work fine as long as you assume regular CPUs and algorithms, but if you assume custom hardware and clever algorithms the p has to get so big that the
23:42 < bramc> network bandwidth necessary to transmit the proofs becomes problematic. Also the time necessary for a regular CPU to verify may become problematic.
23:42 < bramc> Basically the asymptotic or the ratio here isn't very good. It works-ish, but I'm hoping some clever person can find something better.
23:43 < gmaxwell> kanzure: okay maybe you might really prefer I take bitcoin into my heart and care about all the things you care about and run my own node. ... But you also want a pony.
23:43 < bramc> (it is a fun construction though)
23:44 < bramc> gmaxwell: Have you been following the stuff I've been babbling about in here about stopping block withholding attacks and fixing proofs of space?
23:44 < gmaxwell> kanzure: what you don't want me doing is refusing to use it at all, or demanding full node security be reduced to accomidate me. And you'd probably prefer I run SPV or at least have an option to rather than being stuck with a centeralized webwallet; lest you lose the censorship resistant property becuase I won't take payments from you wnaymore.
23:44 < gmaxwell> bramc: no just tuned back in seconds ago.
23:45 < gmaxwell> bramc: standard solution to stop withholding is to make the POW two stage... and the second stage requires a comitted secret..
23:45 < bramc> gmaxwell: Earlier today I described an improved version of the 'fixed' proof of space technique I described to you in meatspace and also a neat trick for stopping block withholding attacks efficiently
23:47 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: huseby, adams__, CrazyTruthYakDDS, yorick, SheffieldCrypto_, CodeShark, voxelot, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
23:48 < bramc> gmaxwell: Not sure what you meat by a committed secret but the general idea is the same. The idea is that the challenges for blocks [N*40, (N+1)*40) are all derived from a proof of time on top of block (N-1)*40 which requires 10 blocks worth of time to calculate
23:49 < gmaxwell> what do you gain from the delay and the commitment being public like that?
23:50 < gmaxwell> one problem is that it would decrease the variance of block races, which would harm convergence.
23:50 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.34.202] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:50 < bramc> gmaxwell: For the proof of space the response to a challenge is a public key and a k value, plus two strings of length k such that the first k+2 bits of both of them matches the challenge. Quality of the response is its hash right shifter k bits
23:50 < gmaxwell> like you and I both have candidate blocks, then we get the SPOW and are now in a race when we otherwise wouldn't be in one.
23:51 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:53 < bramc> The reason for the multiple block stack is that it makes it no that whoever publishes block (N-1)*40 has to publish it to let others build on it before they know if its challenges favor themselves. The reason for it being a stack of 10 worth when the groups are 40 is to make it so there's way excessive headroom so you almost never block on waiting to find out what the new challenges are when the time to build using them rolls a
23:54 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@50.141.34.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:54 -!- CrazyTruthYakDDS [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mnwwhylxsqqlhcrt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:54 -!- Netsplit over, joins: yorick, voxelot, adams__, CodeShark, SheffieldCrypto_, huseby, cfields_, aem, Jaamg
23:54 < bramc> Switching back for a second, for those of you who don't know the other approach to proofs of time is to do repeated hashing. If you add in checkpoints to the proof then the individual bits can be checked in parallel. If you make it so the start of each section is to hash together all of the proof so far then spot check is quite effective
23:55 < bramc> It's obviously impractical to have all peers check everything, but since proofs of fraud are trivial to find and verify: 'check bit X, dumbass' that's okay-ish
23:58 < bramc> So on the whole the second approach is workable while the first one isn't, but I'm hoping that somebody comes out with a mathy approach with a better asymptotic so there's no need to rely on fraud proofs
23:59 < bramc> I garbled my explanation of the fixed proofs of space, that should have said 'the first k+2 bits of the hashes of the challenge plus each of them'
--- Log closed Fri Mar 11 00:00:24 2016