--- Day changed Mon Apr 04 2016 00:36 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hkzteexiyinczieh] has joined #lightning-dev 00:38 -!- pepesza [~pepesza@185.83.218.228] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 00:39 -!- p15 [~p15@36.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 00:41 -!- pik0r_ [~pike@x5d862ec6.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 00:41 -!- pik0r [~pike@x5d862ec6.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #lightning-dev 00:42 -!- p15 [~p15@36.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #lightning-dev 00:49 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:58 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #lightning-dev 00:59 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit] 01:05 -!- pepesza [~pepesza@185.83.218.228] has joined #lightning-dev 01:06 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #lightning-dev 01:28 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has joined #lightning-dev 01:35 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Quit: anuanuanu] 01:50 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #lightning-dev 01:51 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit] 01:56 -!- digitsu [~digitsu@198.8.80.147] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 02:22 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has joined #lightning-dev 02:23 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #lightning-dev 02:30 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #lightning-dev 02:52 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt] 02:59 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #lightning-dev 03:06 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has joined #lightning-dev 03:42 -!- jtimon [~quassel@227.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #lightning-dev 04:24 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #lightning-dev 04:38 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 04:38 -!- rusty1 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #lightning-dev 05:15 -!- rusty1 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 05:44 -!- p15 [~p15@36.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 06:52 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:11 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has joined #lightning-dev 07:12 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #lightning-dev 07:14 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #lightning-dev 07:39 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt] 08:30 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 08:31 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has joined #lightning-dev 08:59 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 08:59 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has joined #lightning-dev 09:42 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 09:52 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has joined #lightning-dev 10:34 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 11:05 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Quit: anuanuanu] 11:09 -!- AmikoPay_CJP [~AmikoPay_@a83-163-77-195.adsl.xs4all.nl] has joined #lightning-dev 11:12 < AmikoPay_CJP> There are two kinds of lock times: based on block index and based on timestamp. Which is better for Lightning? If all else is equal, I'd prefer the timestamp, since it works better across different block chains / side chains. 11:41 -!- molz [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:42 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 11:45 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has joined #lightning-dev 12:10 < stonecoldpat> AmikoPay_CJP: If the timestop idea is used (i.e. if blocks are full, we ignore the block as part of the lock time), i'm not sure how well that would work with an actual timestamp, as opposed to just a block height 12:20 < jouke> AmikoPay_CJP: why not both? 12:22 < AmikoPay_CJP> In the short term, because following one convention is always easier coding than following both. 12:23 < AmikoPay_CJP> In the long term, because if you want to use Lightning for fast exchange between different block chains / side chains, you have to translate time-outs on one of them into time-outs on the other. Timestamps are more portable, and hence easier to translate. 12:25 < AmikoPay_CJP> It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do with block indices though, but you have to make the time-out increment between two links large enough to have no risk because of sudden block chain speed-ups / slow-downs. 12:27 < AmikoPay_CJP> "no risk" -> "no significant risk". Block creation is a probabilistic process, so you can not completely eliminate the risk, e.g. that no blocks will be generated in 24 hours. 12:39 < stonecoldpat> AmikoPay_CJP: How timestamps are determined in the different blockchains could also be problematic. From what I remember, Bitcoin uses an approx 2 hour window. 12:40 < AmikoPay_CJP> So it will always be a bit risky to route transactions across block chains? 12:40 < stonecoldpat> A miner changing the time stamp on his Blocks accidently could be harmful i nthat scenario 12:40 < stonecoldpat> I dunno, it is interesting though, I hadn't thought about the time lock issue for cross-chain 12:43 < AmikoPay_CJP> Assuming that 99% of transactions is committed successfully (not even close to time-out), ... 12:43 < AmikoPay_CJP> ... and that 90% of (close to) time-out transactions is settled honestly between neighboring nodes, ... 12:44 < AmikoPay_CJP> ... and that 99% of the remaining transactions experience no time-out issues when resolving conflicts on the block chain ... 12:45 < AmikoPay_CJP> ... the risk can probably be covered by a slightly higher fee on routing across block chains. 12:47 < stonecoldpat> From the top of my head... if you assume that all Blockchains have an 'x hour' window. We take the biggest x_{max} that represents the Blockchain with the biggest window. So as an example, Bitcoin has the largest window of 2 hours. Then when we plan our route - each hop must decrement their lock time by x_{max} + x_{safety}, where x_{safety} is the expected time it takes for the transaction to be confirmed on their local bl 12:49 < stonecoldpat> So if we plan for 2 hours + 1 hour, (bitcoin window, safety window). We start at 3PM, Alice claims at 3PM from Bob, and Bob claims at 6PM from Caroline.... then we assume Alice and Bob are using Bitcoin with the 2 hour window, and Bob and Caroline are using FakeCOin that has a 30 minute window... Then Alice can only claim the bitcoins between 2-4PM, and Caroline can claim the bitcoins between 5:30-6:30pm.... roughly 12:51 < stonecoldpat> I think that might be ok. I need to think about it more. 12:52 < stonecoldpat> (that would also assume miners are trying to interfere with the networks median time, that is used to determine if the time stamp is valid or not... they can only do it within a time window, otherwise network nodes will ignroe their blocks, as the timestamp is too far from their local clock) 12:57 < stonecoldpat> Although,it would actually be x_{max} / 2.... so Bitcoin network time needs to be 70 minutes earlier or later (from memory)... which gives you the 2 hour window... you just need to make sure you are 70 mintues in the future... which is the maximum swing network nodes would accept 13:01 < stonecoldpat> so if what i said is correct, then that is better than block height, as network nodes enforce the time stamp, where they cant enforce a block height 13:01 < stonecoldpat> (or at least, the delay between blocks) 13:09 < stonecoldpat> Sorry.. I mean claim by 3pm* not at 3pm*, the refund becomes available at 3pm for Bob. 13:18 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has joined #lightning-dev 13:34 -!- AmikoPay_CJP [~AmikoPay_@a83-163-77-195.adsl.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 13:45 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #lightning-dev 15:19 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has joined #lightning-dev 15:31 -!- wraithm [~textual@24-148-50-13.c3-0.mart-ubr1.chi-mart.il.cable.rcn.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:43 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #lightning-dev 16:21 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:10 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #lightning-dev 17:21 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hkzteexiyinczieh] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 18:03 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 18:21 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Quit: anuanuanu] 18:22 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton] 18:26 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:27 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #lightning-dev 18:29 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood] 18:32 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #lightning-dev 18:37 -!- ZhibiaoPan [~ZhibiaoPa@static-ip-34-127-134-202.rev.dyxnet.com] has joined #lightning-dev 18:39 -!- pik0r_ [~pike@x5d86386d.dyn.telefonica.de] has joined #lightning-dev 18:42 -!- pik0r [~pike@x5d862ec6.dyn.telefonica.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 19:03 -!- p15 [~p15@131.91.145.64.unassigned.bringover.net] has joined #lightning-dev 19:45 -!- jtimon [~quassel@227.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 19:57 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has joined #lightning-dev 19:59 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lightning-dev 20:00 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 21:54 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lightning-dev 22:09 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton] 22:16 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lightning-dev 22:30 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has joined #lightning-dev 22:34 -!- anuanuanu [~anuanuanu@CPE-124-188-53-123.tqme1.win.bigpond.net.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 22:51 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton] 22:53 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vpohxsuqdskqbace] has joined #lightning-dev 22:59 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #lightning-dev 23:01 -!- proslogion [~proslogio@2.222.73.74] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 23:08 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 23:34 -!- johnwhitton [~johnwhitt@c-71-202-223-50.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: johnwhitton] 23:57 -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 23:59 -!- stonecoldpat [~a9380004@janus-nat-128-240-225-56.ncl.ac.uk] has joined #lightning-dev