--- Log opened Mon Oct 28 00:00:49 2019
00:26 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:32 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.162.104] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:03 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.162.104] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:07 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.202.107.10] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:50 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.202.107.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:58 < elichai2> Arghh I think it's time to start writing examples :/ https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1/issues/171
04:58 < elichai2> Altough this might just be a case of someone really new to rust who decided that using secp is a good way to learn
05:31 < elichai2> BlueMatt: I think we should maintain a list of allowed warnings at the top of the crate, this will let us easily manage differences with latest rust, and will prevent future PRs from "fixing" those (and be easier on your eyes hehe)
05:37 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #rust-bitcoin
06:56 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:05 -!- mryandao [~mryandao@gateway/tor-sasl/mryandao] has joined #rust-bitcoin
07:21 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:46 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:50 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-121-126.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:52 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-121-126.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #rust-bitcoin
11:57 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
12:01 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
12:12 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@unaffiliated/andytoshi] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
12:13 < BlueMatt> elichai2: yes, well if you saw the r/rust thread I literally did not see the thing that tells you how the fuck to allow ... and no-dyn cause its pretty well hidden for (real) rust crates
12:13 < BlueMatt> but, yes, I plan on pr'ing things to hide ... and no-dyn to all our crates today
12:14 -!- reallll is now known as belcher
12:14 < elichai2> BlueMatt: yeah, and the docs for it are pretty outdated (https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/lints/listing/allowed-by-default.html)
12:15 < elichai2> ha. apperantly you can run`rustc -Whelp` to list all the possible lint and their defaults (allow/warn/deny)
12:15 < BlueMatt> elichai2: no, the compiler tells you what the allow(THING) is, but it only does for the first case
12:15 < BlueMatt> so, for, like, real crates, you will literally never see it
12:15 < elichai2> BlueMatt: yeah saw that, that's unhelpful :/
12:15 < BlueMatt> I had to have a rustc dev tell me this
12:15 < BlueMatt> so, apparently it is useless
12:16 < elichai2> In the past I googled warnings to check their lint name, never new the compiler tell me the lint name lol
12:16 < elichai2> (the lint name so I can allow/deny)
12:30 < BlueMatt> ok, I opened PRs for lightning and secp and in bitcoin_hashes and rust-bitcoin I added a commit to the "drop byteorder" prs
12:31 < BlueMatt> so that should clean things up nicely
13:28 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:28 < BlueMatt> elichai2: can we do a release of rust-secp with the rand-std feature? would have to be a major bump but I don't really want to maintain a patch for the core integration stuff
13:33 < elichai2> BlueMatt: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1/pull/176/files
13:33 < BlueMatt> oh, nice
13:35 < elichai2> BlueMatt: btw, I had a meeting with Prof. Eli Ben Sason today (STARK+SNARK inventor) so I'm trying to brainstorm ideas for products they can build on Bitcoin so they'll stop doing stuff for shitty DeXs (I know that's not 100% your playground but worth asking you too :) )
13:36 < BlueMatt> can we also maybe add a feaure for not removing the context_create thing?
13:36 < elichai2> arghh that's harder
13:36 < elichai2> it requires adding a macro to the C
13:36 < BlueMatt> not hugely? you dont have to modify the C stuff, I dont need that
13:36 < elichai2> oh, you don't want the C part
13:37 < elichai2> just remove the rust because you're linking with core, gotcha
13:37 < BlueMatt> elichai2: build a sidechain that bitcoin can verify the sidechain is valid on the mainchain in a very light weight way :p
13:38 < BlueMatt> elichai2: rightright
13:38 < elichai2> hmm andytoshi isn't here to weigh in, It's really easy to make that feature but I don't see a huge benefit for doing it
13:39 < elichai2> BlueMatt: yeah but that's requires a federation/it's own mining. I was thinking in the lines of light wallets without SPV assumption. i.e. full blockchain proofs
13:39 < BlueMatt> well it helps get rust-secp into core, I think thats reason enough
13:39 < BlueMatt> but you can text hi and ask :)
13:39 < BlueMatt> elichai2: even then, it would be cool
13:39 < BlueMatt> specifically, it would limit the types of misbehavior the federation could do
13:39 < elichai2> BlueMatt: don't have his number :)
13:39 < elichai2> BlueMatt: yeah, so maybe into liquid
13:40 < BlueMatt> the federation would be limited to reorgs, but never actually be able to steal coins without a once-valid path
13:40 < elichai2> or maybe accelerate IBD. hmmm. as an alternative to assumeUTXO
13:40 < BlueMatt> its less interesting in liquid imo
13:40 < BlueMatt> cause its designed to be a centralized only-10-parties-use-it, 10-parties-are-functionaries system
13:40 < BlueMatt> more interesting for eg rsk or so
13:40 < elichai2> BlueMatt: how can't they steal the coins?
13:41 < elichai2> you can't make a STARK prover in bitcoin script. so you need another machanism for transfering money across chains
13:41 < BlueMatt> you'd need a) a super, duper, incredibly light-weight snark verifier in bitcoin script (soft fork or so), b) a chain that can be effeciently proved to such a verifier
13:42 < BlueMatt> then you'd verify the incoming deposit, the history of those coins within the sidechain, then the withdraw
13:42 < elichai2> *stark. all stark verifiers are pretty light-weight (i.e. they're poly-log time)
13:42 < BlueMatt> I mean in real-world time, not academic time :p
13:42 < BlueMatt> so the federation could reorg and steal any coins which they held at some point in the past, but never steal a coin they never held
13:43 < BlueMatt> lol
13:43 < BlueMatt> 1 MIN AGO
13:43 < BlueMatt> you can give elichai my number
13:43 < BlueMatt> 1 MIN AGO
13:43 < BlueMatt> and yeah sure you can feature-gate context creation
13:43 < BlueMatt> 1 MIN AGO
13:43 < BlueMatt> ehh, this was easier :)
13:43 < BlueMatt> 1 MIN AGO
13:43 < BlueMatt> though you cant really use the library without it..
13:43 < BlueMatt> 1 MIN AGO
13:43 < BlueMatt> right, but I dont want to, I want to link it against upstream libsecp :)
13:44 < elichai2> BlueMatt: you think it's vaiable to add modular arithmetic to bitcoin script? (to make a multiplicative group)
13:44 < elichai2> (for the stark verifier)
13:44 < elichai2> k. i'll open a PR and feel free to send me his number in signal :)
13:46 < elichai2> BlueMatt: what about `secp256k1_default_illegal_callback_fn`?
13:46 < BlueMatt> I mean I dunno, if you can make it actually, super, duper cheap (like, say, maybe the cost of 10x a regular 10KB tx)
13:46 < elichai2> are you building with `USE_EXTERNAL_DEFAULT_CALLBACKS=1`?
13:46 < BlueMatt> as long as its no slower to validate than a 100KB transaction we can just charge 100KB in fees, and problem solved :)
13:46 < BlueMatt> I dunno? whatever core does
13:46 < BlueMatt> it seems to have linked :
13:47 < elichai2> Pretty sure core dosen't define it so i'll feature gate these too
13:47 < elichai2> wait, hmm that might be a problems arghh
13:47 < BlueMatt> also plz2ack https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/bitcoin_hashes/pull/65
13:47 < elichai2> without these rust-secp won't workperiod
13:48 < elichai2> maybe i'll feature gate the macro definition in build.rs
13:48 < elichai2> k
13:55 < elichai2> BlueMatt: what do you think about the opposite? i.e a special feature to *disable* these symbols
13:55 < elichai2> (instead of a default feature to enable)
13:55 < elichai2> that seems better for "dumb users"
13:55 < BlueMatt> yes, that sounds better
13:55 < BlueMatt> and I think its better if they're still built in C
13:56 < BlueMatt> ie implying it wont even link/build right if you build it with cargo and that feature
13:56 < BlueMatt> thus its hard to shoot yourself in the foot
14:00 < elichai2> https://pastebin.com/vvU7sznD LOOOL. that's what happens when I accidentally use `` in a git commit hehe
14:06 < BlueMatt> wtfffffff
14:06 < BlueMatt> lol what did you hve on your clipboard
14:06 < BlueMatt> terminals are frightening places
14:07 < elichai2> BlueMatt: that's just this lool https://github.com/hkbakke/bash-insulter
14:07 < BlueMatt> that seems....demoralizing to have installed
14:14 < harding> I use the command `sl` for discouraging me from typing `ls` wrong.
14:14 < harding> It displays an animated steam locomotive for 5 seconds that you can't C-c kill.
14:15 < BlueMatt> lololol
14:15 < elichai2> BlueMatt: it's funny lol, especially the german stuff hehe
14:16 < elichai2> arghh it seems that slice->LE with the for loop and everything isn't optimized well in godbolt, but honestly who cares at this point
14:18 < BlueMatt> elichai2: oh? you mean running it in a loop? I'd think it would be reasonably optimized at least if you have a const-length slice
14:18 < BlueMatt> hence the #[inline]
14:18 < elichai2> no, the fact that the shift+or is in a loop instead of line by line. but that's stupid idk
14:26 < BlueMatt> huh? I tested all the convert-one-thing-into-an-int macros and godbolt always said "load, bswap"
14:33 < elichai2> Weird. It didn't seem to do that if I don't hard code a specific value but just make it a public function
14:34 < elichai2> (where if you do use a specific slice/int it will inline and optimize the fuck out of it lol(to the point of just doing `ret X` hehe)
18:30 < BlueMatt> hey, looks like travis got fixed on rust-bitcoin, dunno who did that........
18:30 < BlueMatt> anyway, can I get acks on https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/337?
18:30 < BlueMatt> elichai2: note that we use the github permission stuff so if you're gonna ack, please do it via the github "approve" review tool shit
18:41 < BlueMatt> elichai2: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1/pull/176 needs rebase now :)
18:46 < BlueMatt> oops, also need a fix for https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1/issues/168 for linking to core in theory, though with lto on i think its fine without
--- Log closed Tue Oct 29 00:00:48 2019