--- Log opened Fri Jul 24 14:59:43 2015
14:59 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has joined #lightning-dev
14:59 -!- Irssi: #lightning-dev: Total of 18 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 18 normal]
14:59 -!- Irssi: Join to #lightning-dev was synced in 2 secs
15:01 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@104.200.154.3] has joined #lightning-dev
15:05 -!- samsamoa [c04ded5f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.192.77.237.95] has joined #lightning-dev
15:17 -!- CoinMuncher1 [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
15:25 < go1111111> I briefly described an idea I had to make LN work both without a malleability fix, and while preserving the outsourcability that you lose with escape transactions. Here's a more detailed description on bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1134319.msg11963141#msg11963141 . feedback appreciated
16:02 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@192.95.51.167] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:07 -!- samsamoa [c04ded5f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.192.77.237.95] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
18:10 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #lightning-dev
18:26 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@ti0128a400-3195.bb.online.no] has joined #lightning-dev
18:34 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:48 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@ti0128a400-3195.bb.online.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:07 < go1111111> ^that should say that I briefly described it in #bitcoin-wizards, in case one wants to look over there before reading the post. it's still the last convo in that channel
21:15 < aj> go1111111: rather than opening a whole new channel, why not send a "Bob pays 2.5 BTC to "Alice_Sig + BobSecret | Bob_Sig + TIMEOUT" and ask Alice to setup an on-channel payment to Bob of 2.5 BTC given BobSecret. Bob reveals BobSecret on the channel, Alice uses BobSecret to claim the on-blockchain 2.5BTC, everyone's square
21:45 < go1111111> aj: cool, that does indeed seem better. what are your thoughts on this the general idea with that improvement? 
21:46 < aj> go1111111: not sure; i think you still need minimal malleability fixes (BIP 62), same as rusty's dual anchor does
21:48 < aj> go1111111: seems like it reduces blockchain fees in the event of failure which would be good; no worse in the event of success i think?
21:49 < go1111111> yeah, if Rusty's solution needs BIP 62 then it seems this would too. I gotta read up on BIP 62 and more of the details of LN..
21:51 < aj> go1111111: i think bip 62 solves malleability as long as none of the signers try re-signing; without bip62 a random miner can break things
22:01 < CodeShark> wasn't the idea of the improvement that it allows outsourceability of anchor escapes?
22:01 < CodeShark> not whether it requires BIP62?
22:02 < aj> ...good point
22:03 < go1111111> yes.. the core idea is just the thing to allow outsourcability. i had been describing it here and on bitcointalk as not needing BIP 62 bc I incorrectly thought it didn't, but that doesn't really matter
22:08 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@chello062178125026.3.13.vie.surfer.at] has joined #lightning-dev
22:09 < aj> go1111111: sure seems like it works
22:09 < CodeShark> neat
22:10 < CodeShark> good job guys :)
22:14 < CodeShark> there's something to be said for making the asymmetry explicit rather than pretending it doesn't exist ;)
22:16 < CodeShark> whereas rusty's proposal tries to impose symmetry from the outset
22:18 < CodeShark> it's using a secret for an anchor escape that makes it not outsourceable - but in this proposal, the secret is revealed in the initial negotiation
22:22 < go1111111> thanks :). first ever contribution to bitcoin (if it stands up to scrutiny). thanks aj for reviewing and improving it. 
22:22 < go1111111> btw how many people are spending significant time working on LN now? and do we know if anyone at companies like coinbase are working on it?
22:22 < go1111111> all i know is Rusty is full time on it..
22:22 < CodeShark> coinbase isn't exactly known for cutting-edge innovation
22:23 < CodeShark> they have a lot of cash...but they seem to be basically grabbing all their insights from outside the company
22:24 < CodeShark> they've done a decent job of essentially reimplementing a paypal that also can plug into cryptos and not just fiat :p
22:27 < CodeShark> it seems that the more funds companies receive in this space, the less they innovate. blockstream seems, so far, to be an exception...although I'm still wondering how they plan to monetize ;)
22:28 < go1111111> well, just implementing what Rusty & others here come up with and throwing some marketing behind it seems like it'd be really good for both their business and bitcoin. 
22:29 < CodeShark> I'm still not sure what the "business" really is. I love basic research and all, don't get me wrong...but wasn't it VCs that funded it? and aren't they looking for an ROI?
22:32 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #lightning-dev
22:32 < aj> hey rusty
22:32 < go1111111> it's perhaps the "the team is the most important thing" theory of VC investing. most likely they're looking toward the ideas that will come later from having all these people in one place
22:33 < rusty> aj: hello...
22:33 < rusty> Hmm, botbot.me still haven't responded to my request to add #lightning-dev...
22:33 < CodeShark> hi rusty
22:37 < rusty> CodeShark: hi!
22:37  * rusty falls behind on his lightning-dev mail...
22:38 < aj> rusty: go111... has an alternative outsourcable malleability-safe (up to bip-62 anyway) anchoring idea
22:40 -!- Janaka-Steph [~Janaka-St@che77-1-82-238-24-26.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #lightning-dev
22:42 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@chello062178125026.3.13.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
22:43 < go1111111> rusty: curious if you can see any flaws. in case you don't have the logs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1134319.0. M
22:56 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:57 -!- akrmn [~akrmn@192.95.51.167] has joined #lightning-dev
23:01 -!- bedeho [~bedeho@ti0128a400-3195.bb.online.no] has joined #lightning-dev