--- Log opened Mon Aug 29 00:00:39 2016
00:04 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:20 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:22 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:25 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:28 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:28 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:33 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:45 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@171.250.113.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:49 -!- lvns [~lvns@pool-100-38-50-26.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:53 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@171.250.113.144] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:57 -!- lvns [~lvns@pool-100-38-50-26.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:15 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@171.250.113.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:25 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:27 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@171.250.113.144] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
02:16 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:e54b:59:9dce:c509] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
02:17 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:20 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:29 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:31 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:31 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:52 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
02:55 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:57 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-momiiruobuddtrlp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:58 -!- daddinuz [~daddinuz@212.91.77.78] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:03 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:17 -!- daddinuz [~daddinuz@212.91.77.78] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
03:32 < JackH> any plans for BIP's that would allow for special wallets that can function as credit cards so that funds can also be "pulled" ?
03:33 < JackH> is very useful for recurring payments and for monthly payments
03:33 < JackH> something we dont have with Bitcoin
03:34 < belcher> how would that work JackH ?
03:35 < sipa> JackH: that's already possible with a 1-of-2 muktisig
03:35 < belcher> fwiw you could also do recurring payment as a standing order, where the user configures their wallet to send an amount of coins every month(or whatever)
03:36 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:36 < sipa> but in general that seems like a function a payment processor should handle, not the currency
03:38 < JackH> yes but how can we do that if the wallets themselves are not supported on a protocol level? We cant pull funds, unless we integrate with each and every wallet that is out there and gets build in the future
03:39 < JackH> that is a monumental task and wont happen
03:39 < JackH> if it was down to each user to add funds to a credit account for recurring payments it would be a different story
03:40 < JackH> I also paid for my phone yesterday over the phone, via a robot, that asked me to enter card details. After I was done I realized this would not be possible with Bitcoin either
03:41 < JackH> and now that card is registered, and next time it either pulls or I call back and press some number to get the funds pulled from the same card
03:41 < JackH> With Bitcoin this would require I go online....well you know
03:41 < buZz> imho, 'voice card details' are practically the most insecure method
03:41 < buZz> anyone listening in gets all details for future transactions
03:42 < sipa> the largest problem is that you can't do this onchain without leaking the details of who is allowed to pull funds
03:42 < JackH> yes yes, we all know, but consumers just want to pay
03:42 < sipa> well bitfoin is a currency
03:42 < JackH> hmm
03:42 < sipa> it's a tertible payment system
03:42 < sipa> *bitcoin
03:42 < buZz> creditcards arent a currency, indeed
03:42 < JackH> so how would we build on top of it as an example?
03:42 < buZz> JackH: what about, just using a btc backed creditcards
03:42 < JackH> lets for the sake of conversation say we even have lightning, would that help?
03:42 < buZz> those things are practically free nowadays
03:43 < JackH> yeah but isnt the point that we build our own payment rails eventually?
03:43 < JackH> without interfacing with legacy product
03:43 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:44 < sipa> i think we should each piece of technology where it is appropriate
03:44 < buZz> JackH: that doesnt work with the payment methods you describe
03:45 < sipa> bitcoin is better at being a currency IMHo than current systems
03:45 < buZz> JackH: which have been shaped by having the most leaky shit standard ever
03:45 < sipa> for most use casez, it is not currently better than other digital payment methods (it think credit cards are pretty horrible, though)
03:45 < buZz> JackH: nations where creditcards arent common (like netherlands) dont use similar systems
03:45 < JackH> Yep I know they all use iDeal there
03:45 < buZz> -no- payment possible over the phone by voice
03:45 < buZz> as in literally zero methods
03:46 < sipa> in the uk i can pay by tapping my card against a terminal
03:46 < JackH> but iDeal allows for recurring payments
03:46 < buZz> no it doesnt
03:46 < buZz> iDeal is 1time only
03:46 < JackH> I can setup a pull order, no?
03:46 < buZz> no
03:46 < buZz> not with iDeal
03:46 < JackH> so how do people pay their bills+
03:46 < buZz> with banking interfaces
03:46 < JackH> manually every month, for every bill?
03:47 < buZz> you can setup a withdrawl with a company (machtiging, NOT through iDeal)
03:47 < JackH> ok
03:47 < buZz> so company can just charge you whatever and you autopay
03:47 < buZz> but, cant do that over the phone (legally)
03:47 < JackH> still, my point in general is that the current payment system is heavily depending on recurring payments
03:47 < buZz> ah, you made it sound like the phone part was part of your question
03:48 < belcher> JackH much of it is done with standing orders in banks, i.e. instruct your bank to transfer X amount to another account on a regular basis, rent payments often work like this
03:48 < belcher> and it would be trivial to add this feature to a bitcoin wallet
03:48 < buZz> JackH: bitcoin-cli + crontab
03:48 < buZz> boom, recurring payment
03:48 < JackH> hmm
03:49 < JackH> so what would I have done yesterday when I was waiting outside of my home, decided to call and pay my phone, over the phone, as an alternative?
03:49 < buZz> stop using phones
03:49 < buZz> they arent secure and only exist as 'option' to allow voluntary tracking of masses
03:49 < belcher> pay over the web with a smartphone
03:50 < JackH> ok so, you wont get ALL people to do that, can we please agree to that we cant change EVERY single thing as we want adoption?
03:50 < buZz> ;)
03:50 < buZz> i dont want to change all people
03:50 < JackH> you need to serve people, not change everything about them, because its naive to think it will happen
03:50 < belcher> id say we focus first on the areas bitcoin has a clear advantage over legacy systems
03:50 < JackH> in any case, we dont have this option, which bothers me
03:51 < buZz> i'm still kinda vague on what option you are talking about
03:51 < buZz> a) paying over phone
03:51 < JackH> a pull functionality
03:52 < buZz> b) consumer initiated recurring payments
03:52 < buZz> ah so c)
03:52 < buZz> c) business initiated payments
03:52 < buZz> i will be very happy to never ever see that happen
03:52 < JackH> if you can pull from a special Bitcoin address for example, you can build a layer on top of it to give it a 10 digit code for example, that you can give out to vendors, over the phone, or where ever else
03:52 < belcher> JackH what about 1-of-2 multisig ?
03:52 < JackH> explain more belcher
03:54 < belcher> 1of2 multisig can be used to implement pull functionality
03:55 < JackH> how would you do it?
03:56 -!- riclas [~riclas@bl6-5-65.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:57 < belcher> 1 key is held by the business you're allowing to pull from you (amazon.com for example), the other key is held by you
03:57 < belcher> when you click "buy now" on amazon it takes money from you
03:57 -!- ratoder [~ratoder@static.111.19.201.138.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:57 < belcher> and its all done by bip32 keys to stop address reuse
03:58 < sipa> when you click 'buy now' you don't need a pull
03:58 < sipa> as you're are the side initiating the payment
03:58 < sipa> you can just send
04:00 < belcher> i was thinking of the patented one-click-ordering button :p
04:01 -!- Yogh [~Yogh@f36186.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:02 < buZz> belcher: consumer initiated payments work fine
04:02 < buZz> this is the 'company decides you owe them money so they just grab it'
04:03 < JackH> can multisig be made as 2 out of 3 and make a rule that 2 out of 3 is required to pull, any amount any time?
04:03 < buZz> which is 'normal' but imho not desirable in any way
04:03 < JackH> and third key is to block everything
04:03 < JackH> that consumer holds
04:03 < JackH> or block "everything" for a specific merchant
04:04 < Yogh> JackH: The functionality you are looking for can be found in a custodian. ie. a bank
04:05 < JackH> yes but question is if the bank of the future can do this via Bitcoin, without having to make a deal with every wallet provider
04:07 < Eliel_> JackH: Payment channels sounds like a perfect match for this use case.
04:07 < sipa> payment channels still don't let you pull money from someone else
04:08 < sipa> that's generally not a functionality you want without some party enforcing a policy; whether it's you or a custodian
04:09 < sipa> nobody should ever be allowed to just take all my money
04:10 < JackH> could a pull function also be build to have the chargeback mechanism build in?
04:10 < JackH> so if someone takes all your money, someone else can go in and retake them
04:11 < sipa> so you're basically saying that you want exactly the properties of the existing banking system, but not banks?
04:12 < JackH> from a feature point of view, and from a customer service point of view, it works and is widely used, and I think a superior system, should do some extend have the capabilities
04:12 < sipa> somehow if it's on top of bitcoin, it's all fine, even if it has all the flaws of what already exists? :)
04:12 < sipa> i think most of that is just warped perspective by the lack of alternatives
04:13 < sipa> i don't understnad why creditcards are still a thing in this century, for example
04:13 < Yogh> "[...] so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
04:13 < buZz> sipa: agreed
04:13 < sipa> they were created because there was no means of instantaneously communicate with a bank to authorize a payment
04:13 < buZz> Yogh: and agreed :D
04:14 < sipa> and now through monoculture and reward programs, we've somehow created an entire ecosystem that is dependent on them
04:15 < sipa> even though they're incredibly inconvenient (especially in the US... i have to f*cking sign a piece of paper, wtf?)
04:19 < JackH> I wont be the last person to ask for this
04:19 < JackH> heck, I been asked many times myself
04:19 < JackH> it should be seen as a feature, rather than: Viva la resistance, we will change everything, credit cards suck, we do everything different
04:20 < sipa> i don't think "we" plan to do everything dfferently, or at least, we should not do things differently because they're different
04:20 < waxwing> the concept of "pull" payments like direct debits works on a higher level, where there is a trusted third party. you can build layers like that above bitcoin. current pull payments are predicated on TTP, they would not work with bearer instruments ("exit scam" and so on)
04:20 < sipa> we should use technology where it is appropriate
04:21 < sipa> and i think that for the use case you describe, the existing technology is more appropriate than what we know how to do differently
04:21 < JackH> what I am trying to say is that, it should be possible, somehow (I dont know, you guys are the experts), without relying on that layers on top do it, and are not compatible out of the box with every wallet
04:22 < sipa> you're describing features that make sense in a world where money is held by custodians with reversible transactions
04:22 < sipa> so use a custodian
04:22 < sipa> don't hack a custodian into a system that is designed for control over your own money
04:22 < JackH> I think we can imagine a number of people will rely on having their money stored with a custodian, and if I am not wrong a lot of people already do that
04:22 < Yogh> JackH: I think you're confusing a feature with a bug
04:22 < sipa> JackH: and that's perfectly fine
04:22 < JackH> yes sipa
04:23 < sipa> so wait until there are credit cards denominated in btc
04:23 < sipa> and you'll have every feature you're asking for
04:23 < JackH> but that still requires everyone that wants to pull to integrate with the card provider
04:23 < sipa> they already do
04:24 < JackH> redoing the whole planet can take quite some time unless Visa/MC picks up the technology
04:24 < sipa> yes, that's what imean
04:24 < sipa> the feature you're describing required trusted credit card providers anyway
04:25 < sipa> the alternative is that i let everyone just steal my money
04:25 < JackH> or everyone that ascribes to X, Y, Z, whatever that might be?
04:25 < sipa> ?
04:26 < JackH> what I am saying is that it would be great if I from Bitcoin-QT had a "credit" account
04:26 < JackH> instead of creating a wallet with Visa Blockchain wallet, heh
04:27 < sipa> well, i'm sorry, we don't know how to do that
04:27 < sipa> not without both losing your privacy and letting people steal my money
04:28 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Quit: null]
04:28 < JackH> maybe payment channels? that would work too
04:28 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:29 < sipa> they'll still need one side with keys to act in your behalf and automatically accept certain payment requests
04:31 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:42 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:48 -!- laurentmt1 [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:50 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:50 -!- laurentmt1 is now known as laurentmt
05:02 -!- tromp_ [~tromp@rtc35-082.rentec.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:04 -!- gielbier [~gielbier@2001:981:9573:1:2844:2c10:68fc:93c5] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
05:05 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:09 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
05:09 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:11 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:14 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:14 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:16 -!- othe [~othe@coreteam.getmonero.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:17 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:27 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:35 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:49 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Quit: Quitte]
05:58 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.2]
06:02 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:10 -!- daddinuz [~daddinuz@212.91.77.78] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:14 -!- musalbas [~musalbas@2001:bc8:30c2:ff00::] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
06:17 -!- musalbas [~musalbas@2001:bc8:30c2:ff00::] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:18 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:24 -!- tromp [~tromp@rtc35-082.rentec.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:31 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:e54b:59:9dce:c509] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:35 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:44 -!- superkuh [~superkuh@unaffiliated/superkuh] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:46 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-109-19.cablep.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:54 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:57 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:05 -!- daddinuz [~daddinuz@212.91.77.78] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
07:11 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:11 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@104-178-201-106.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:11 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@104-178-201-106.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Changing host]
07:11 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:14 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:16 -!- GAit [~GAit@212.91.77.39] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:21 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:25 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:25 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:26 -!- superkuh [~superkuh@unaffiliated/superkuh] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:28 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:34 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:37 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
07:40 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 < e0_> New version of TumbelBit out. Paper completely rewritten to be easier to read and focus on anonymizing payment channels in Bitcoin: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/575
07:45 < e0_> While not identified in the paper as such, TumbleBit introduces a new primative unlinkable/anonymous HTLCs which can pulled into micropayment channels to increase anonymity.
08:00 -!- [\\\] [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:02 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:06 -!- lvns [~lvns@pool-100-38-50-26.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:08 -!- superkuh [~superkuh@unaffiliated/superkuh] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:12 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:23 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:24 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:26 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:29 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:40 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:54 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:59 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- murch [~murch@p4FDB670E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:01 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:02 -!- othe [~othe@coreteam.getmonero.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:03 -!- svdb64 [~weechat@unaffiliated/svdb64] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:05 -!- GAit [~GAit@212.91.77.39] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:09 < andytoshi> e0_: do you know tumblebit well enough to say how it might interact with mimblewimble?/
09:09 -!- MRL-Relay [~mrlrelay@coreteam.getmonero.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 < andytoshi> oh, are you one of the authors?
09:12 < e0_> andytoshi: I am one of the authors of tumblebit.
09:13 < andytoshi> oh, ok, sorry :) i don't  have any real person associated to your nick in my head. can you say (i'm reading now..) what script features of bitcoin this uses?
09:13 < e0_> We use OP_HASH160
09:13 < e0_> and then standard multisig
09:14 < andytoshi> oh damn .. hash160 is hard for MW
09:14 < e0_> we performed a mix of 800 addresses on mainnet blockchain
09:15 < andytoshi> that's really slick. you mention you had a server in NY and you were using it from boston -- is this server something that could be usable in production?
09:16 < andytoshi> like could you setup a joinmarket-like community today?
09:16 < e0_> My understand of MW is that is requires major protocol changes to Bitcoin. TumbleBits whole design is to be compatiable today's Bitcoin. If we could make changes like MW, we do much more.
09:16 -!- c0rw1n_ [~c0rw1n@91.181.6.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:16 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has quit [Quit: peace out, A town]
09:16 -!- othe [~othe@coreteam.getmonero.org] has quit [Quit: kthxbye]
09:17 < e0_> Yes, it could be usable in protection, we have proof of concept code on github and we are currently writting a production quality TumbleBit server (but it will take time).
09:17 < andytoshi> e0_: well MW does its magic (which is primarily scaling) by making everything way more fragile. it's tricky to do much of anything beyond multisig with it (similar to monero, script interacts badly with the privacy tech)
09:18 < andytoshi> awesome! i'll read this paper asap
09:19 -!- fluffypony [~fluffypon@unaffiliated/fluffypony] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- othe [~othe@coreteam.getmonero.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:21 < e0_> I think one of the benefits is that we can now build HTLCs that are unlinkable even if everyone but the sender and receiver collude and these HTLCs work in Bitcoin today. It could provide lightning network privacy benefits. I believe current lightning network privacy schemes require at least one honest intermediary.
09:21 -!- lextt [~lextt@95.215.44.99] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:22 < e0_> andytoshi: interesting, I had not realized that MW had that drawback but thinking about how MW works, it makes sense.
09:23 -!- svdb64 [~weechat@unaffiliated/svdb64] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.5]
09:24 < andytoshi> this is also very interesting to me because it's much less ambitious than LN on the scaling front -- like this makes sense in a model where there's a bunch of scattered hubs that are more-or-less advertised as providing anonymity, and the scaling is bonus
09:24 < andytoshi> whereas LN is designed to be run with a bunch of interconnected payment channels, which from an engineering perspective will take a lot longer to get off the ground
09:25 -!- mirko [~mirko@212.91.77.78] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 -!- mirko is now known as Guest15999
09:26 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:27 -!- Guest15999 is now known as fcracker79
09:27 < fcracker79>  /msg NickServ identify sys64738
09:28 < fcracker79> Hi all
09:28 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.98] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
09:28 < fcracker79> Is there any colored coin-specific channel or I can ask questions related to it here?
09:28 < waxwing> fcracker79: may want to change that password
09:28 < belcher> i just tried it and its the wrong password
09:28 < e0_> right, one big payment hub running tumblebit provided the greatest anonymity, engineering simplicity and scalability. Centralization isn't as big of a risk if hubs do not need to be trusted and unlinkability can be maintained even against a malicious hub.
09:29 -!- c0rw1n_ [~c0rw1n@91.181.6.103] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:30 -!- c0rw1n_ is now known as c0rw1n
09:30 -!- Oizopower [uid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vklmrrrztopcjttw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:31 < fcracker79> waxwing: thank you, password changed
09:33 < fcracker79> I am having some troubles with colored coins
09:33 < fcracker79> How can info hash transfer transaction work, since the hash may end up in a redeem script and it is not known beforehand?
09:37 -!- fcracker79 [~mirko@212.91.77.78] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:38 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@91.181.6.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
09:38 < e0_> I should amend my statement "in tumblebit, one big payment hub provides the greatest anonymity", I'm not saying that there is no system which provides more anonymity than tumblebit.
09:42 < belcher> thanks for linking the paper e0_
09:43 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has quit [Quit: obs]
09:43 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:43 -!- [\\\] is now known as tripleslash
09:43 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:43 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:44 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:e54b:59:9dce:c509] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
09:44 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:44 < waxwing> e0_: ref 32 is this right: https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/079.pdf
09:45 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
09:49 -!- chestnutpie [~chestnutp@46.227.67.173] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:49 -!- chestnutpie [~chestnutp@46.227.67.173] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
09:49 -!- chestnutpie [~chestnutp@46.227.67.173] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:52 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@65.158-246-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:12 -!- lvns [~lvns@18265b68.cst.lightpath.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@18265b68.cst.lightpath.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:16 -!- lvns [~lvns@18265b68.cst.lightpath.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:38 < e0_> waxwing: yes. Our method is different from 32 but we acheive similar security.
10:42 -!- plaguedoctor [~pd0021@x1-6-4c-60-de-95-ef-6a.cpe.webspeed.dk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:43 -!- plaguedoctor [~pd0021@x1-6-4c-60-de-95-ef-6a.cpe.webspeed.dk] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
10:46 < e0_> waxwing: This is the page cite 32 points at, but versions of it are avaliable in different places: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00145-015-9198-0
10:47 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:58 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:07 -!- fcracker79 [~mirko@93-33-106-24.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:08 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:08 < JackH> this sounds really amazing e0_
11:08 < JackH> I just read all that
11:09 < JackH> are you saying it solves the route and hub finding?
11:12 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:12 -!- GAit1 [~GAit@net-5-94-135-81.cust.dsl.vodafone.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:13 < e0_> JackH We don't solve hub finding, but since our scheme proposes a simple hub, so routing is easy (one hop to hub, one hop to dest).
11:14 < JackH> e0_,  how would 3 hubs connect in case two of them did not know of each other?
11:15 -!- brg444 [415ce2de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.226.222] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 < e0_> Like Bolt the scheme in the paper only assumes one hub which are parties are escrowed with. Interhub payments are probably possible but we wanted to lockdown and solve the simplist case first.
11:17 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-183-124.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 < JackH> sounds resoable! Is it based on the same type of deferral layer as Lightning/Thunder would be working? ie. HTLC's?
11:18 < waxwing> JackH: it's principally a protocol for mixing payments trustlessly, rather than just general payments, from what i can see. but i'll let the author answer :)
11:19 < e0_> We use blinded HTLCs so it could be plugged into the lightning network but unlike most HTLCs anonymity schemes TumbleBits blinded HTLCs are unlinkable even the intermediary colludes.
11:19 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:19 -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@79.98.72.216] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:20 < JackH> wait, now you confuse me a bit. You make it sounds like its not a payment hub on its own, and yet it is, but it can also be used as a plugin to Lightning, the other payment hub?
11:21 < e0_> Within a payment hub where A's pay B's all the hub learns is when A paid someone, but no who A paided and the hub only learns the aggregative payments B received when B closes the channel.
11:22 < waxwing> would the interactivity of the protocol not be a substantial performance hit at scale though?
11:22 -!- fcracker79 [~mirko@93-33-106-24.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
11:22 < e0_> In the paper we build a complete system and for analysis purposes we focus on that system, but our components can be reused in other systems such as LN.
11:24 < e0_> waxwing  the performance costs of roughly 0.5 seconds of CPU time per payment are low enough that they can be used for most payments.
11:25 < e0_> there is actually less interactivity between the hub and B than in a standard payment channel
11:25 < brg444> to what extent could the RSA-puzzle protocol be implemented natively in Lightning?
11:25 < JackH> can the system run without the anonymity portion to it, but yet do the A to B payments?
11:25 < e0_> B can actually accept many payments without talking to the hub once the channel is created
11:25 < waxwing> e0_: by less interactivity you mean less rounds right? but these are RSA operations, so there's that too i guess.
11:25 < e0_> JackH why would you run it without anonymity?
11:25 < Taek> e0_: there are lots of applications where that's undesirable. For example on Sia we will be making multiple payments per second to 20+ hosts concurrently, 0.5 seconds of CPU time each payment would not be fast enough for us
11:26 < Taek> not to say that there aren't plenty of great use cases which can tolerate 0.5 seconds of CPU time
11:26 < JackH> e0_, same problem as Taek, its about speed more than anonymity in most cases
11:26 < JackH> anonymity is good for certain things, but for mass consumption speed takes priority
11:27 < andytoshi> JackH: lightning's main innovation is routing and interconnectedness .. the mechanism by which peers are connected (payment channels) are almost an implementation detail. they could be replaced with other sorts of payment channels (like e0_'s which provide anonymity)
11:27 < waxwing> JackH: this is a protocol for unlinkable payments, that's it's purpose. it is called "tumblebit" after all :)
11:27 < andytoshi> if you want speed without anonymity you just use the bog-standard payment channels
11:27 < e0_> Taek Certainly, it would be better if it used 0.001 seconds than 0.5 seconds of CPU time. It does handle most current bitcoin usecases and we think we have ways of making it more efficent.
11:27 < andytoshi> but the routing and stuff is not the point of this proposal, and it'd be redundant if it spent a lot of time developing that
11:28 -!- GAit1 [~GAit@net-5-94-135-81.cust.dsl.vodafone.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
11:28 < e0_> brg444 What do you mean natively in LN?
11:29 < brg444> well the way I see it LN nodes could leverage the protocol to reinforce the anonymity of their payments, no?
11:29 < e0_> yes, especially when going through a chokepoke that is likely to be an privacy risk
11:33 < e0_> TumbleBit can used as a tumbler to move Bitcoins to addresses which are hard to link to a users long term bitcoin identity. We do a mix of 800 input addresses on mainnet. TB as classic tumbler doesn't have the hard scalability limits as coinjoin based protocols allowing much larger anonymity sets.
11:33 < e0_> https://blockchain.info/tx/fd51bd844202ef050f1fbe0563e3babd2df3c3694b61af39ac811ad14f52b233
11:34 < waxwing> it occurs to me that what was previously considered not really relevant (NP completeness of subset sum problem in say coinjoin) might actually be relevant here; becaues you're not limited to 1 tx, you can create > 500 outputs such that it might be computationally infeasible to link inputs to outputs that way. am i right?
11:34 < waxwing> i suspect in practice, not, but, not sure
11:35 < andytoshi> waxwing: this isn't true of coinjoin even with huge mix sets because you can "peel off" individual transactions, which will be very small, as you infer them
11:35 < waxwing> andytoshi: interesting; wouldn't that apply to any subset-sum solving though?
11:36 < brg444> e0_ have you considered presenting your idea at Scaling Bitcoin Milan :) ?
11:36 -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@79.98.72.216] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
11:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:36 < andytoshi> e0_: i second brg444's suggestion
11:36 < andytoshi> waxwing: i think so ... i think that subset-sum is actually not that hard unless you really have uniformly random data
11:37 < waxwing> i'm just musing that, with much larger sets, maybe there is some middle ground between "all must be equal for unlinkability" and "not controlled sizes leads to trivial linkability".
11:38 < waxwing> because equal denominations is a bit of a limitation. but maybe, there is nothing there, not sure.
11:38 < e0_> Coinjoin is limited to an anonymity set of roughly ~500 due to max transaction size, but even beyond that getting 200+ users to perform a coinshuffle requires quite a bit of communication (communication costs scale x^2 for the user and x^3 for the coordination mechanism).
11:39 < waxwing> yes, this scales better with the blinding and central counterparty
11:39 < e0_> our analysis assumes same donomination
11:39 < waxwing> e0_: sure, understood, that's what i'm musing about, it adds some practical difficulties, albeit i completely understand that it's natural to consider it a requirement.
11:40 < andytoshi> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=752260.0 "byzantine cycle mode" is relevant to the same-denomination problem
11:40 < andytoshi> ..lol, i think this is another anonymous paper, i'd forgotten about this one..
11:41 < e0_> Its less of a problem in the payment hub, since you can aggregate single denomiation payments .
11:42 < e0_> andytoshi  thanks for sending. This looks really interesting. So much good work on bitcoin-talk.
11:43 < andytoshi> yeah, this one seemed like a big deal to me. at the time there was no working coinjoin implementation (i think joinmarket was still several months away) and i think it got sorta buried..
11:44 < waxwing> i love the analogy with block cipher modes, i remember thinking about that a while ago too :)
11:45 < andytoshi> basically what BCM does is gives a round-efficient way for people to basically reshuffle transactions into pairs of equal-denomination ones, which can then be coinjoined (or tumblebitted, or cross-chain swapped, or ...)
11:46 < andytoshi> if you page through the words to the pictures you'll get a good high-level idea of it
11:46 < andytoshi> oh oops, it does more than just pairs
11:46 < e0_> oh neat! TumbleBit is good for unlinkable atomic cross-chain swaps as well.
11:47 < andytoshi> :D
11:47 < e0_> I'm going to start using the phase tumblebitted thanks to you
11:47 < andytoshi> :D
11:47 < waxwing> tumblewumble?
11:48 <@gmaxwell> <> e0_> Coinjoin is limited to an anonymity set of roughly ~500 due to max transaction size,  < no it isn't-- you can scale coinjoin to any size by building a switching network.
11:48 < e0_> ha! Good next for the version.
11:48 < e0_> are you talking about combining coinjoins?
11:48 <@gmaxwell> I described this in the CJ post,
11:49 <@gmaxwell> "In particular, if you have can build transactions with m participants per transaction you can create a sequence of m*3 transactions which form a three-stage switching network that permits any of m^2 final outputs to have come from any of m^2 original inputs (e.g. using three stages of 32 transactions with 32 inputs each 1024 users can be joined with a total of 96 transactions).  This allows the
11:49 <@gmaxwell> anonymity set to be any size, limited only by participation."
11:49 < e0_> I would call that a system built on top of coinjoin.
11:51 <@gmaxwell> I would call that semantics. If it's "on top" or just a native construction would depend on your particular CJ implementation.
11:55 < e0_> It gets confusing if we use coinjoin both to mean the core primitive of a single transaction and a more complicated switching network or other mode of operation which uses that core primitive.
11:57 <@gmaxwell> I would call the core primitivate a joint transaction.
12:00 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:01 <@gmaxwell> from the very first message about coinjoin, at least, I was using it to describe the 'end effect' of joint transactions for privacy.
12:02 <@gmaxwell> and from the perspective of end users, they don't care if their coinjoin is taking the form of some switching network of transactions.
12:03 -!- giel___ [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:06 < e0_> A switching network has different benefits and limitations to a joint transaction. To communicate these differences I use the term coinjoin as I typical and see it being used. Do you object to the refering to it as a "single transaction coinjoin"?
12:07 < brg444> e0_: i attempted a very low level introduction to your idea for the reddit people. let me know if there's inaccuracies :) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/506cp6/tumblebit_chaumian_ecash_for_bitcoin_using/d71jrz7
12:08 -!- fcracker79 [~mirko@93-33-106-24.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:08 <@gmaxwell> e0_: no objection.
12:09 < fcracker79> Hi there
12:09 < fcracker79> Is there a channel where I can ask about colored coins?
12:09 < e0_> Thanks for pointing that out by the way, I will fix it in the next update to the paper.
12:09 < fcracker79> This one does not seem to be the right one
12:09 < fcracker79> Thanks
12:10 <@gmaxwell> e0_: just to be clear, it's not switching network vs joint transaction,  it's a switching nework of joint transactions vs a single joint transaction.
12:12 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
12:12 <@gmaxwell> e0_: The only disadvantages I'm aware of is that coordinating multiple joint transactions may not be possible in some coinjoin negoiation schemes, and that if a participant drops out early in a switching network, it may force an abort and not achieve perfect anonymity... and the modest increase in transaction data, of course.
12:13 -!- alfas [~alfas@37.97.24.226] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:14 < alfas> killerstorm on reddit might be able ot help you fcracker79
12:14 < fcracker79> alfas: thank you so much!
12:15 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has quit [Changing host]
12:15 -!- gielbier [~giel____@unaffiliated/gielbier] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:15 -!- alfas [~alfas@37.97.24.226] has quit [Client Quit]
12:15 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:18 -!- pero [~pero@unaffiliated/pero] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:18 < e0_> gmaxwell  I'd be very interested in seeing coinshuffle++ use a switching network. I played around with the idea.
12:23 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:24 < e0_> brg444  thanks for the reddit post and summary.
12:26 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:30 <@gmaxwell> re the 'TumbleBit' name, thats an unfortunate connection with money laundering-- which is unfortunate, because these basic privacy tools are basically the opposite of what someone performing money laundering needs.  (the purpose of money laundering is to give an apparently lawful origin for unlawful gains)
12:35 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:44 < e0_> Do you object to refering to Bitcoin tumblers as tumblers? Is because washing machines have a tumble dry setting? Bitcoin tumblers are sometimes called mix services but there is movement away from calling them that do a name collision with Chaumian mixers. What name do you prefer?
12:47 < JackH> Le Mix
12:47 < Taek> maybe joining?
12:48 < Taek> or merging if we don't want conflict with coinjoin, but I think 'join' is a pretty unloaded word
12:50 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
12:52 < e0_> JumbleMergle?
12:53 < kanzure> mumble-bloviation be-your-own-ivory-tower edition
12:54 < kanzure> (naming things is one of those hard problems)
12:56 < instagibbs> any good harry potter terms we could use here
13:00 < e0_> Muffliato
13:00 < kanzure> i fear for what has been unleashed here :)
13:00 -!- brg444 [415ce2de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.226.222] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:04 -!- fcracker79 [~mirko@93-33-106-24.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat]
13:05 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.216] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.216] has quit [Changing host]
13:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Client Quit]
13:06 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:10 < fluffypony> e0_: can't be worse than "ShufflePuff"
13:10 < fluffypony> it's really hard to force people to think of it as "privacy" and not "anonymity for buying drugs"
13:10 < fluffypony> but I agree with gmaxwell, the subtle implication is important
13:11 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:12 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 < Eliel_> haha, ShufflePuff would actually work as a name for that :D
13:13 < andytoshi> is that used for something already? it actually does have the connotations you want, hufflepuff was the house of hardworking people who were not interested in doing reckless or evil things
13:14 < e0_> =)
13:14 < fluffypony> andytoshi: yes
13:14 < fluffypony> it's used for Mycellium's CoinShuffle implementation
13:14 < fluffypony> why they needed to give it a name besides "CoinShuffle" is beyond me
13:15 < andytoshi> damn, it's good
13:18 < e0_> Really excited for shufflepuff, might try running it over the weekend.
13:34 < kanzure> oh there is source code available https://github.com/BUSEC/TumbleBit
13:36 < othe> none of that fixes the main issue, all you do is trading tainted drug coins with each other
13:37 < kanzure> main issue of what?
13:38 < othe> fungibility, if u have whatevertainted coins and get back whatevertainted coins from mixing... whats the point?
13:41 < Taek> an recent estimation pulled straight from my butt suggests that 90% of all mixed/shuffled/wimble'd coins are associated with crime.
13:41 < Taek> e.g. your anonymity set is garbage
13:42 < othe> right... why would a normal user that just mined or bought his coins at coinbase or whatever switch them against coins from drugmarkets
13:43 < othe> same reason i consider sidechains as useless for privacy.
13:43 < kanzure> because some people understand the concept of not expecting instantaneous fungibility improvements to be immediately delivered :)
13:43 < instagibbs> newly minted coins, probably not, but why wouldn't you mix coinbase funds?
13:43 < instagibbs> capital C coinbase
13:44 < belcher> coinbase.com :)
13:44 < belcher> in joinmarket you've got greedy-rational investors allowing anyone to mix with their coins
13:44 < othe> because coinbase runs chainanalysis so does poloniex and co, so coins you buy there won´t give you problems.
13:44 < belcher> although its not really a crypto scheme like tumblebit, its just coinjoin with some economic reasoning and lots of code
13:45 < instagibbs> unless you think Coinbase is the problem
13:45 < instagibbs> well, the regulatory hurdles the must leap when tracking outflow
13:46  * instagibbs not blaming exchanges for wanting to stay in business
13:46 < Taek> I would definitely mix any coins coming out of Coinbase, if the tools were easier  to use.
13:46 < Taek> mostly because I don't need Coinbase to know what I spend my money on
13:46 < instagibbs> +1
13:46 < Taek> whether it's food, electronics, etc etc etc etc they don't need to know
13:48 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:58 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:58 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@18265b68.cst.lightpath.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:59 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 -!- juscamarena [~jus@68.237.168.189] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 -!- obs [~obs@246.54.150.83.ftth.ewwwb.as8758.net] has quit [Quit: obs]
14:03 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.188.90.109] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:06 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:20 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.5]
14:24 < belcher> someone on reddit suggested TumbleDore
14:27 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-183-124.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:28 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:31 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
14:34 -!- andytoshi [~andytoshi@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:41 -!- chestnutpie [~chestnutp@46.227.67.173] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:50 -!- lvns [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:52 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:52 -!- lvns [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:53 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.188.90.109] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:53 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:54 -!- lvns [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:55 -!- lvns [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:55 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:57 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:05 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.188.64.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:12 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
15:17 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:28 -!- lvns_ [~lvns@cpe-108-182-22-95.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:35 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
15:41 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.188.64.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:50 -!- isis_ is now known as isis
15:55 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.189.80.170] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:00 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.189.80.170] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:00 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.189.80.170] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:04 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:10 -!- isis is now known as isis_
16:23 -!- isis_ is now known as isis
16:30 -!- mkarrer [~mkarrer@159.red-83-47-122.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit []
16:50 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:57 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:06 -!- lvns [~lvns@pool-100-38-50-26.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:11 -!- lvns [~lvns@pool-100-38-50-26.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:12 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:24 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:e54b:59:9dce:c509] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:30 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:30 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:31 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:33 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:34 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:39 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:41 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:43 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:46 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:54 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:56 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:05 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:07 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:12 -!- riclas [~riclas@bl6-5-65.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:16 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:31 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:32 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:33 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:33 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-172-251-161-231.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit]
18:37 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
18:49 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:51 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
19:02 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:03 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:04 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:05 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-momiiruobuddtrlp] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
19:12 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
19:15 -!- murch1 [~murch@p4FE3B6CB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:17 -!- murch [~murch@p4FDB670E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:17 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:20 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:36 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:38 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:45 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:45 -!- draynium [~d@45.63.97.181] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:48 -!- draynium [~d@45.63.97.181] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:57 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Quit: http://i.imgur.com/sDs0Qar.gifv]
20:12 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@188.189.80.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
20:17 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:19 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:05 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:06 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtagg_@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:10 -!- hashtagg [~hashtagg_@cpe-174-97-254-80.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
21:17 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:19 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:24 -!- FNinTak [~jonhbit@2601:600:8c01:6ab0:ee1a:59ff:fec0:acd6] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:27 < FNinTak> Introduction to an entirely new cryptosystem based on finite fields and braids, intended for implementation on low-power hardware
21:27 < FNinTak> http://www.securerf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WP-An-Introduction-to-the-Algebraic-Eraser.pdf
21:27 < FNinTak> More in-depth version here:
21:28 < FNinTak> http://www.securerf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SecureRF-Technical-White-Paper-06-with-Appendix-A-B.pdf
21:28 < FNinTak> Many other related papers (including some cryptanalyses) here:
21:28 < FNinTak> http://www.securerf.com/technology/papers/
21:37 <@gmaxwell> FNinTak: the communications complexity of this stuff, even assuming you believe the security claims, doesn't look attractive compared to secc.
21:39 < othe> and it´s patented -> http://www.securerf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SecureRF_Awarded_Patent_for_Secure_Communication_Method.pdf
21:50 < FNinTak> gmaxwell: referencing the end of Section 3 (bottom of page 5)? or assignment of subgroups? or elsewhere
21:55 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-34-16.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:01 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:03 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:22 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:24 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:27 -!- FNinTak [~jonhbit@2601:600:8c01:6ab0:ee1a:59ff:fec0:acd6] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
22:40 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@65.158-246-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:40 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@65.158-246-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:58 -!- tom3 [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:04 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@172.56.17.152] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:05 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:08 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:e54b:59:9dce:c509] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:18 -!- humd1ng3r [~humd1ng3r@ec2-52-1-133-74.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:21 -!- humd1ng3r [~humd1ng3r@ec2-52-1-133-74.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
23:39 -!- licnep [uid4387@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dbmapphvmaioyccl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:41 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:41 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:44 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:51 -!- Joseph__ [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:dc6b:6c2e:8bc1:49db] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:54 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:55 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@172.56.17.152] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
--- Log closed Tue Aug 30 00:00:40 2016