--- Day changed Fri Jan 17 2020
01:58 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:58 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined ##miniscript     
02:06 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
02:26 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@194.230.155.171] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
02:57 -!- jonatack [~jon@82.102.27.163] has joined ##miniscript     
05:06 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@170.204.90.212.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined ##miniscript     
05:15 -!- jonatack [~jon@82.102.27.163] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
05:16 < digi_james> > but even counting them can't be done efficiently in general
05:17 < digi_james> andytoshi: Ah ... I was wondering that, lifting the non-canonical sat/dsats seemed especially very inefficient to implement.
05:19 < digi_james> In particular because lifting from a mixture of canonical and non-canonical child sats result  in a   noncanonical parent satisfaction ...
05:21 < digi_james> So when lifting, I iterate through all possible child sat/dsat permutations where at least one "used" child (d)sat is non canonical, which seemed excessive at first.
06:47 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.148.7] has joined ##miniscript     
07:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.148.7] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
08:26 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@170.204.90.212.static.wline.lns.sme.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
08:58 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined ##miniscript     
09:29 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@93-39-245-228.ip78.fastwebnet.it] has joined ##miniscript     
09:34 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@93-39-245-228.ip78.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
09:53 < andytoshi> yeah, i wouldn't count noncanonical sats
09:53 < andytoshi> even assuming that all fragments have a unique sat/dissat, it's still hard to count
10:08 < sipa> the number of satisfactions to a *policy* is easy i think
10:08 < sipa> for an or, you add the subsatisfactions; for an and you multiply them
10:09 < sipa> for thresholds there is some combinatorics
10:09 < sipa> ah, but you still want the constraint of only counting satisfactions that include a signature
10:09 < sipa> hmm.
10:15 -!- ghost43_ is now known as ghost43     
10:28 < andytoshi> yeah i don't think it's easy for policies
10:28 < andytoshi> i don't even know if it's np-hard or not. feels like it -shouldn't- be
10:29 < sipa> hmm, is it?
10:29 < sipa> you can count the number of solutions, and the number of signed solutions for each leaf
10:30 < sipa> and express each of the combinators' counts in terms of their child counts
10:30 < andytoshi> does "express each ... in terms of" mean an explicit sum?
10:30 < andytoshi> if not, is there a more compact way to do it?
10:30 < andytoshi> like, if i have a 10-of-15 threshold, then i have 15 choose 10 different subsets, and for each of those subsets i have to multiply all the childrens' numbers of solutions
10:40 < sipa> yep     
10:40 < sipa> i don't think there is a simpler formula for thresholds
13:51 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@194.230.155.171] has joined ##miniscript     
13:56 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@194.230.155.171] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
18:33 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ujprzhctynzlzsgm] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
18:35 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cukzvhrxdqeboqmk] has joined ##miniscript