--- Log opened Thu Nov 20 00:00:56 2014
00:08 -!- xabbix [~orw@unaffiliated/xabbix] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:10 -!- xabbix [~orw@bzq-79-177-186-73.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:11 -!- Hunger- [hunger@proactivesec.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:13 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:15 -!- askmike [~askmike@83.162.194.88] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:15 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:ed5c:4c2a:e03b:abd9] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
00:17 -!- Hunger- [hunger@proactivesec.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:17 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:22 -!- LarsLarsen [~lars@50.161.197.33] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:23 -!- LarsLarsen [~lars@50.161.197.33] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:23 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
00:28 -!- go1111111 [~go@162.244.138.37] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:33 -!- LarsLarsen [~lars@50.161.197.33] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
00:34 -!- LarsLarsen [~lars@50.161.197.33] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:57 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:59 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:01 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:03 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:05 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:05 -!- andy-logbot [~bitcoin--@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:05  * andy-logbot is logging
01:13 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
01:19 -!- toffoo [~tof@186.205.188.251] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- toffoo [~tof@186.205.188.251] has quit []
01:36 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
01:37 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
01:40 -!- ebfull [~ebfull@c-76-120-40-34.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:45 -!- coinheavy [~coinheavy@2602:306:ce9f:f5b0:25bb:69cd:7c62:a37b] has quit []
01:45 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:47 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:48 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:57 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-124-253.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:01 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-122-114.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:02 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:03 < OP_NULL> it actually looks like DarkCoin will become a nice study of incentives, though I doubt they intend it to be. their "masternode" setup slowly absorbed more and more of the block reward as time goes on. https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1399-1428
02:06 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:07 < rabbit2> is it possible to have a security model where a 51% attack requires performing not just 51% of the work going on right now
02:08 < rabbit2> but instead 51% of the work ever performed throughout the blockchain history
02:08 < sipa> how would that work?
02:08 < rabbit2> suppose that miners submit a hash right now
02:08 -!- yoleaux [~yoleaux@xn--ht-1ia18f.nonceword.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:08 < rabbit2> and then this hash allows them to create a 'virtual hashing machine'
02:09 < rabbit2> the 'virtual hashing machine' operates as if it is performing hashes in perpetuity
02:09 < rabbit2> the owner of the virtual hashing machine hold it's private key
02:09 < rabbit2> and signs blocks using this private key
02:09 < rabbit2> the virtual hashing machines are non-transferable
02:10 < sipa> you're handwaving
02:10 < sipa> "as if" doesn't work in practice; you need to know how to do that
02:10 < OP_NULL> that's got some weird properties as well. you can't measure hashrate from a single hash. if I'm the person who solved a more than 80 bit block hash, that means I would control most of the networks "hashrate", right?
02:10 < rabbit2> okay, it's actually not that complicate
02:10 -!- jaekwon_ [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 < sipa> rabbit2: it gets complicated if you actually try to solve the problems you're handwaving over
02:11 < rabbit2> you hash once and this creates a unit of non-transferable stake that exists in perpetuity
02:11 < rabbit2> you then select a unit of non-transferable stake at random to mine a block
02:11 < rabbit2> the total hashing power available at any one point in time = all hashes performed since the creation of the blockchain
02:11 < sipa> this seems vulnerable to the nothing at stake problem
02:12 < OP_NULL> go back to the bit where the miner makes the hash. how do you know what speed they were mining at? we don't even know what the speed of the network is today.
02:12 < rabbit2> you would need to have a constant level of difficulty
02:12 < sipa> rabbit2: have you heard about the nothing at stake problem?
02:13 < rabbit2> yes, I don't think it is an issue here.
02:13 < rabbit2> You can't credibly trade stake to someone else
02:13 < rabbit2> Whoever created the stake by performing the hash will control it in perpetuity
02:13 < OP_NULL> ah. yeah that doesn't work. if you had the same difficulty today as you had in 2009, you'd be making 288,000,000,000,000,000 hashes a second which you would need to store.
02:14 < rabbit2> OP_NULL: True enough, but let's ignore that problem for the time-being
02:15 < rabbit2> sipa: could you explain why you think nothing at stake would apply here?
02:15 -!- drawingthesun [~drawingth@106-68-72-107.dyn.iinet.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:15 < sipa> rabbit2: you can't prevent using the stake on two competing chains simultaneously
02:15 < OP_NULL> rabbit2: the fact remains that you can't measure absolute hashpower of a miner
02:16 < sipa> that's the essential thing necessary for convergence: you need to force people to expend something, which they lose even if they vote wrong
02:16 < rabbit2> yes, I see what you are saying sipa
02:16 -!- drawingthesun [~drawingth@106-68-72-107.dyn.iinet.net.au] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:16 < sipa> if the thing you are expending is defined by the chain itself, it doesn't work, as it exists in equal amounts in other chains
02:16 < sipa> hashing is expending something (calculation power)
02:17 < sipa> spending tokens that are defined by the chain itself don't
02:17 < rabbit2> it is not quite defined by the chain itself because it is actual
02:17 < rabbit2> work
02:17 < sipa> it used to be
02:17 < sipa> you can't use your tokens further back than the point where the hash was created, true
02:17 -!- drawingthesun [~drawingth@106-68-72-107.dyn.iinet.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:17 < rabbit2> to make someone expend something you would need to also require a contemporaneous work input to extend a chain
02:18 < rabbit2> That would provide a sufficient incentive not to mine 2 chains at once.
02:18 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-124-253.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:19 < sipa> if you can use the rest simultaneously, it doesn't add anythin
02:19 < rabbit2> They would need to enter as separate inputs.
02:20 < sipa> it's not really about incentive... there is no cost to using pre-held stake an infinite number of times, and you don't lose anything by doing so
02:20 < rabbit2> You would have to pay a cost in current work to use your pre-held stake
02:20 < sipa> which cost?
02:20 < sipa> coins?
02:20 < sipa> defined by your chain itself again?
02:20 < rabbit2> No
02:20 < sipa> or dollars?
02:21 < rabbit2> You would need to submit novel work in conjunction with your tokens in order to extend a chain.
02:21 < sipa> how do they interact?
02:21 < rabbit2> The amount of novel work you need to submit could be quite small
02:21 < sipa> i have X tokens and H hashes, how much is it worth?
02:21 < rabbit2> It could be some version of proof of activity for example
02:21 < sipa> if the amount of novel work is small, then you have the same problem again
02:22 < sipa> because it is cheap to reuse the same tokens in different chains
02:22 < rabbit2> The problem is just discouraging regular miners from mining multiple chains.
02:22 < sipa> you're not discouraging anyone
02:23 < sipa> the measure you use to judge different chains must be proportional to what was lost in creating them
02:23 < rabbit2> Yes, you can reuse the same tokens on different chains. But if each use is costly in terms of current work, you won't want to.
02:23 < sipa> so the PoW is not small
02:23 < sipa> then what do you need the tokens for still?
02:23 < rabbit2> i.e. you would stand a better chance of using all of your current work on the main chain, instead of allocating it to an alternate chain that is less likely to be extended
02:24 < rabbit2> Someone would need the tokens to complete a 51% attack.
02:24 < sipa> if the bottleneck is the proof-of-work, everyone will have plenty of tokens
02:24 < sipa> if the bottleneck is the tokens, you suffer from nothing at stake
02:24 < rabbit2> There doesn't have to be one bottleneck
02:24 < sipa> then stop handwaving :)
02:24 < rabbit2> You can combine two valuable resources
02:25 < rabbit2> Okay, just think of your effective difficulty for current work as 1/(tokens used)^0.5
02:25 < sipa> that still means you've made hashing on multiple chains cheaper
02:25 < rabbit2> Yes.
02:26 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-124-253.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:26 < sipa> which is the problem we're trying to solve
02:26 < rabbit2> Yes, it is a half-baked idea.
02:26 < rabbit2> I just came up with it a few minutes ago.
02:26 < sipa> ok
02:26 < rabbit2> It solves part of the problem.
02:26 < rabbit2> Anyways nice talking to you I will think more
02:27 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
02:48 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@208.37-191-147.fiber.lynet.no] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:52 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:00 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust615.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:00 -!- Emcy [~MC@cpc3-swan1-0-0-cust615.7-3.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Changing host]
03:00 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:05 -!- rdponticelli [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/rdponticelli] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:12 -!- jtimon [~quassel@c51-71.i07-13.onvol.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:43 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
03:51 < hearn> does anyone happen to know a simple/quick reference for zero knowledge proofs of the correctness of a homomorphic-cryptosystem decryption? like a zkp that a paillier ciphertext was properly decrypted
03:51  * hearn suspects gmaxwell would know
03:52 -!- lmatteis [uid3300@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cmdkfnnczprllsrt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:56 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:ed5c:4c2a:e03b:abd9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:56 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:59 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:ed5c:4c2a:e03b:abd9] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:10 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:16 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:21 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:d00:870:b86f:ca8d:9dc3:c04d] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:23 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-218.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:25 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-124-253.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:30 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
04:31 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:40 < Alanius> hearn: what is it precisely you're trying to prove? "this plaintext encrypts to this ciphertext" or "I know a plaintext that encrypts to this ciphertext"?
04:41 < hearn> the latter. this post seems relevant and the technique seems simple: http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/6743
04:41 < hearn> or no sorry
04:41 < hearn> the former.
04:41 < Alanius> then why not release the plaintext and the randomness?
04:41 < hearn> i have a ciphertext that resulted from adding some other ciphertexts together. here is the cleartext sum, and the proof that i did it correctly (Well you can just add the numbers yourself to get the final ciphertext)
04:42 < hearn> yes that's what the linked answer says, pretty much
04:42 < hearn> i didn't realise it would be that simple
04:44 < Alanius> in the case of paillier it's not possible to release the randomness that matches a ciphertext that was produced from homomorphically adding
04:44 < Alanius> because that would require taking discrete logs
04:45 < Alanius> however, you there is a proof saying "I raised this number to the correct exponent and the result is this"
04:45 < Alanius> I think it's called the Damgård-Jurik proof, let me find it for a sec
04:46 < Alanius> it will be in here: ftp://ftp.cs.au.dk/BRICS/Reports/RS/00/45/BRICS-RS-00-45.pdf
04:47 < sipa> oh, hi Alanius!
04:48 < Alanius> hey
04:48 < sipa> didn't realize you found the way here :)
04:48 < hearn> Alanius: yes i've seen reference to that kind of proof. need to research it.
04:49 < Alanius> got to go no, good luck
04:49 < Alanius> now*
04:49 < hearn> thanks
04:49 < hearn> i'm not quite sure how being able to prove that statement helps me, though ...
04:49 < hearn> it doesn't have to be paillier
04:50 < hearn> any additively homomorphic scheme works
04:50 < hearn> exponential elgamal is one i saw referenced as perhaps better suited to this task
05:02 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-98-209-139-209.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:08 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
05:23 -!- bit2017 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
05:34 -!- torsthaldo [~torsthald@unaffiliated/torsthaldo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:35 -!- askmike [~askmike@83.162.194.88] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:35 -!- askmike_ [~askmike@83.162.194.88] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:36 -!- zooko` [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:37 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:43 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:45 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-218.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:46 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-218.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:59 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:00 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:00 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
06:00 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:05 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47A54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:15 -!- OP_NULL [~OP_NULL@178.62.133.216] has quit [Quit: leaving]
06:16 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
06:19 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
06:19 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:26 -!- rasengan [rasengan@pdpc/corporate-sponsor/privateinternetaccess.com/rasengan] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:26 -!- zooko` [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
06:28 -!- rasengan [rasengan@pdpc/corporate-sponsor/privateinternetaccess.com/rasengan] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:49 -!- op_null [~op_null@178.62.133.216] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:10 -!- s7z7g7 [~s7z7g7@cpe-70-94-46-51.kc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:20 -!- coiner [~linker@113.23.8.112] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:35 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:37 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:40 -!- zooko` [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:41 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-177-159-207.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:45 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|away
07:47 -!- jaekwon [~Adium@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
07:48 -!- jaekwon [~Adium@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:50 -!- op_null [~op_null@178.62.133.216] has quit [Quit: leaving]
07:52 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:696c:56b6:f707:fbdf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:52 -!- jaekwon [~Adium@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:54 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
08:01 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:09 -!- OneNomos [~OneNomos@pool-71-163-228-125.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:14 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-177-159-207.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:16 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
08:16 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
08:22 -!- xmk3 [~xmk3@unaffiliated/xmk3] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:34 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:39 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:50 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2601:9:4680:dd0:e84c:ae8f:58a2:ef7b] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
08:59 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
09:02 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:09 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:17 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
09:20 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
09:21 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:22 -!- zooko` is now known as zooko
09:22 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:22 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@162.245.22.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:25 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
09:26 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
09:30 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:33 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
09:34 -!- s7z7g7 [~s7z7g7@cpe-70-94-46-51.kc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:35 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:41 -!- askmike_ [~askmike@83.162.194.88] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:43 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:50 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47A54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:53 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47A54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:54 -!- profreid [~profreid@a88-115-210-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:02 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47A54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:03 -!- hearn [~mike@195-170.62-188.cust.bluewin.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:04 -!- hearn [~mike@195-170.62-188.cust.bluewin.ch] has quit [Client Quit]
10:12 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:13 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- hearn [~mike@195-170.62-188.cust.bluewin.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:22 -!- orik [~orik@remote.snococpa.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:27 -!- luny` [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:30 -!- luny [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:39 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:40 -!- torsthaldo [~torsthald@unaffiliated/torsthaldo] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
10:40 -!- torsthaldo [~torsthald@unaffiliated/torsthaldo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:41 -!- dansmith_btc [~dansmith@85.25.117.24] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:41 -!- zwischenzug [~zwischenz@33.Red-79-158-209.staticIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:42 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-177-159-207.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:43 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:43 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Client Quit]
10:48 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:48 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:49 -!- eslbaer [~eslbaer@p548A4032.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:49 -!- iddo [~idddo@csm.cs.technion.ac.il] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:52 -!- askmike [~askmike@ip241-209-210-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:53 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:54 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:54 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:56 -!- askmike [~askmike@ip241-209-210-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
10:58 -!- orik [~orik@remote.snococpa.com] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
11:03 -!- nuke_ [~nuke@130.43.1.211.dsl.dyn.forthnet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:04 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@ppp-2-87-148-81.home.otenet.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:10 -!- Grishnakh [~grishnakh@dsl-espbrasgw1-50dfb6-218.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:14 -!- orik [~orik@remote.snococpa.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:24 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:26 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:30 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:34 -!- llllllllll [~lllllllll@37-251-2-42.FTTH.ispfabriek.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:43 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:43 -!- lmatteis [uid3300@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cmdkfnnczprllsrt] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
11:48 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:52 -!- altoz [~altoz@cpe-24-55-38-141.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:55 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@gateway/tor-sasl/niftyzero1] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:57 -!- altoz [~altoz@cpe-24-55-38-141.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:58 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
12:04 -!- luny` is now known as luny
12:13 -!- askmike [~askmike@ip241-209-210-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:14 -!- orperelman [~wboy@bzq-79-177-159-207.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:18 -!- epscy [~epscy@176.126.241.239] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:18 -!- nuke_ [~nuke@130.43.1.211.dsl.dyn.forthnet.gr] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:22 -!- orik [~orik@remote.snococpa.com] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
12:27 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:28 -!- hearn [~mike@195-170.62-188.cust.bluewin.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
12:29 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
12:29 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:32 -!- wyager [~wyager@nat-128-62-66-201.public.utexas.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:33 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@12.130.116.11] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:34 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
12:45 -!- wyager [~wyager@nat-128-62-66-201.public.utexas.edu] has quit [Quit: wyager]
12:46 -!- wyager [~wyager@nat-128-62-66-201.public.utexas.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:48 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:52 -!- profreid [~profreid@a88-115-210-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Quit: profreid]
12:54 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@12.130.116.11] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:54 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:57 -!- paulpasc_ [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:59 -!- paulpasc_ [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Client Quit]
13:01 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:03 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:03 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:05 -!- eslbaer_ [~eslbaer@p579E8948.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:05 -!- eslbaer [~eslbaer@p548A4032.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:07 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:07 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:08 -!- altoz_ [~altoz@cpe-24-55-38-141.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:08 -!- wheninrome [~wheninrom@46.163.53.217] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:08 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:09 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:10 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Client Quit]
13:11 -!- altoz [~altoz@cpe-24-55-38-141.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:11 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:12 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:12 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:18 < HM> sipa, anyone. what's the EC equivalent of g^b - kg^x  in terms of point operations?
13:19 < HM> it's just B - kxG right
13:19 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:19 < HM> yeah, nm, i'm going dappy
13:23 < HM> wait...
13:23 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:37 -!- wheninrome [~wheninrom@46.163.53.217] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
13:47 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:49 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@ppp-2-87-148-81.home.otenet.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:50 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:51 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@206.223.168.190] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:51 < kanzure> would it be feasible or desirable to include in the bitcoin transaction serialization a blockhash (covered by the signature) that states which blockhash must be in the history of the blockchain for this transaction to be accepted or considered valid?
13:52 < kanzure> one of the reasons i'm thinking about that is because it would allow certain transactions to be issued only conditionally based on some prior transactions included in previous blocks
13:53 -!- JeremieDeNoob [~jeremiede@modemcable026.213-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:53 < kanzure> (such that the transaction can't be included in a history that does not have that prior block)
13:55 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:57 < kanzure> also, this would be neat because you don't have to reference the immediately preceding block hash, or the exact block hash of some transaction that you want to depend on but rather any block after that point and you'll get mostly the desired effect
13:57 < kanzure> and choosing different blockheights more specifically can occur based on your risk appetite or something.
14:01 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@cpe-98-157-219-44.ma.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:02 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:02 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@ip-64-134-148-27.public.wayport.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:02 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:03 -!- drawingthesun [~drawingth@106-68-72-107.dyn.iinet.net.au] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:05 -!- wyager [~wyager@nat-128-62-66-201.public.utexas.edu] has quit [Quit: wyager]
14:05 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:06 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:09 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:10 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:15 -!- epscy [~epscy@176.126.241.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:15 -!- jaekwon [~Adium@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.191] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:24 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:29 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.191] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:30 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.212] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:32 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@CPE0021594f2445-CM001371144618.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:34 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.212] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
14:37 -!- paulpaschos [~paul@CPE0021594f2445-CM001371144618.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
14:41 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.235] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:44 -!- eslbaer_ [~eslbaer@p579E8948.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Bye]
14:51 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@2a02:8108:d00:870:b86f:ca8d:9dc3:c04d] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:54 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@e180206175.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:58 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@ip-64-134-148-27.public.wayport.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
15:02 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:03 < sipa> kanzure: gmaxwell proposed that before, actually :)
15:04 < sipa> HM: yes
15:04 < gmaxwell> kanzure: it's on the altwishlist page of mine, I called it transaction checkpoints.
15:04 < kanzure> could that be done by an opcode?
15:05 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@se5x.mullvad.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
15:05 < sipa> in theory, sure
15:06 < kanzure> i mean in a way that does not fork the blockchain
15:08 < sipa> yes
15:09 -!- Grishnakh [~grishnakh@dsl-espbrasgw1-50dfb6-218.dhcp.inet.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
15:10 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:10 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:11 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:12 < gmaxwell> kanzure: what I'd suggested there was no so much that it mandated the chain but it only let you collect the fees if it agreed. I suppose a bit could be used to signal stronger behavior... though there is a fungiblity hit if you have it so huge transaction graphs can't be confirmed.
15:16 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:16 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:17 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:17 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@62.205.214.125] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:21 -!- c0rw|away is now known as c0rw|timetravel
15:24 -!- c0rw|timetravel is now known as c0rw1n
15:31 -!- altoz_ is now known as altoz
15:34 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:37 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:39 -!- askmike [~askmike@ip241-209-210-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:45 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:54 -!- AnoAnon [~AnoAnon@197.37.113.112] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:54 -!- AnoAnon [~AnoAnon@197.37.113.112] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
15:54 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:08 -!- AdrianG [~User@unaffiliated/amphetamine] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:09 -!- AdrianG [~User@unaffiliated/amphetamine] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:12 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:13 -!- Hunger- [hunger@proactivesec.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:15 -!- Hunger- [hunger@proactivesec.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:20 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:20 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:25 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:25 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
16:25 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
16:26 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:29 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:30 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-98-209-139-209.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:46 -!- jtimon [~quassel@c51-71.i07-13.onvol.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:53 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:56 -!- JeremieDeNoob [~jeremiede@modemcable026.213-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has quit []
17:01 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:02 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:06 -!- coinheavy [~coinheavy@2602:306:ce9f:f5b0:dc24:c0c1:cfa3:eee] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:10 -!- elliot_ [~elliot@162.244.138.37] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:10 -!- elliot_ [~elliot@162.244.138.37] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:11 -!- llllllllll [~lllllllll@37-251-2-42.FTTH.ispfabriek.nl] has quit []
17:13 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@162.245.22.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:15 -!- torsthaldo [~torsthald@unaffiliated/torsthaldo] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
17:18 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:33 -!- jb55 [~jb55@24.244.23.235] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:34 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:35 -!- OneNomos [~OneNomos@pool-71-163-228-125.washdc.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
17:41 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:41 -!- todays_tomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-218.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
17:45 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@255pc208.sshunet.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:59 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
18:00 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:06 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:09 -!- user7779078 [~user77790@ool-4354b720.dyn.optonline.net] has quit []
18:28 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:28 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:29 < rabbit2> sipa here?
18:29 < rabbit2> we were discussing shifting the 51% attack from need all of current hashing power
18:29 < rabbit2> to all hashing power ever used in the history of the network
18:30 < rabbit2> anyone feel like shooting my idea on this down?
18:32 < rabbit2> I had conceded there was a nothing-at-stake problem with the idea.
18:32 < rabbit2> This is not correct.
18:32 < rabbit2> There is no nothing-at-stake problem.
18:33 < rabbit2> Any nothing-at-stake fanatic want to take this on?
18:33 < rabbit2> no then?
18:33 < rabbit2> okay, I'll try again another time.
18:37 < kanzure> uh?
18:37 < rabbit2> uh
18:37 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 < rabbit2> are you requesting an explanation?
18:37 < kanzure> no, i think you are being silly
18:38 < kanzure> why would you assume that your network agrees about history?
18:38 < kanzure> that's the whole problem
18:38 < rabbit2> the network just has to agree about the amount of total work performed throughout history
18:38 < rabbit2> this is verifiable
18:39 < rabbit2> of course you don't observe work directly, but you can measure it based on all historical hash submissions
18:39 < rabbit2> I submit work in the form of a txn
18:39 < kanzure> the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
18:40 < rabbit2> why don't we discuss specifics instead of platitudes?
18:40 < rabbit2> I submit work in the form of a txn below the current difficulty level
18:41 < rabbit2> In this txn I submit a novel public key associated with this work
18:41 -!- Dr-G3 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:41 < rabbit2> This public key owns a unit of historical work for the indefinite future
18:41 < Luke-Jr> [02:38:52] <rabbit2> the network just has to agree about the amount of total work performed throughout history <-- this is ALREADY the case
18:41 < rabbit2> I know
18:42 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:42 < rabbit2> The point is that you can turn historical work into a commodity
18:42 < Luke-Jr> …
18:42 < rabbit2> Mining power does not need to be based on work currently performed as is presently the case
18:42 < rabbit2> It could be based on all work performed throughout history
18:42 < kanzure> yeah you could include a hash of previous work or something
18:43 < rabbit2> So, I have this public key that is associated with the previous work I did
18:43 < rabbit2> In each block, we draw a unit of historical work and select this unit of work as a block minter
18:43 < rabbit2> The public key associated with the historical work signs the block.
18:44 < rabbit2> You cannot transfer ownership of historical work on the chain.
18:44 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:44 < rabbit2> So we can assume that the guy who did the work originally also controls the public key right now.
18:44 < rabbit2> Someone could attempt to sign two competing chains with the same historical work
18:45 < rabbit2> However, this is observable. If we see two contradictory chains signed with the same historical work, we can identify the offender
18:45 < rabbit2> and include proof that he has signed two historical forks in the blockchain
18:46 < rabbit2> based on this proof, the chain can confiscate his historical work, removing him from the lottery
18:46 < rabbit2> he would lose a perpetual stream of txn fees due to his bad behavior
18:46 < kanzure> lots of people have had that idea, are you aware of why they were broken
18:46 < kanzure> (have you studied why they were broken)
18:46 < rabbit2> no, I don't think so. But why don't you explain why it is broken?
18:46 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:47 < kanzure> because my time is valuable and i am bored by you?
18:47 < rabbit2> yes, I have studied a lot of this stuff
18:47 < kanzure> i am simply informing you that you have a ready source of material to work from
18:47 < rabbit2> and contributed to papers on it
18:47 < rabbit2> could you explain why it is broken, please?
18:48 < kanzure> i just said no, why are you asking so soon
18:48 < kanzure> *asking again
18:48 < rabbit2> there is no nothing-at-stake problem here
18:48 < rabbit2> ...
18:48 < rabbit2> Wow
18:49 < kanzure> i would start by grepping https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/
18:49 < rabbit2> I have been over a lot of that quite thoroughly
18:49 < rabbit2> ...
18:50 < rabbit2> Could you please be specific? Instead of saying, somewhere in 10000 pages of text is an explanation of why you are wrong.
18:50 < rabbit2> Do you understand the nothing-at-stake problem?
18:50 < rabbit2> Because I don't think you do.
18:51 < kanzure> based on what evidence?
18:51 < rabbit2> I am assuming that you think what I am suggesting couldn't work due to the nothing-at-stake problem
18:51 < rabbit2> is this correct?
18:52 < rabbit2> Or is there some other problem you are referring to?
18:52 < rabbit2> in your exceptionally vague reference to 10000 pages of text
18:52 < kanzure> okay, so based on no evidence
18:52 < rabbit2> can you simply answer, yes or no?
18:53 < rabbit2> Or are you going to continue to say "I won't tell you what I think is wrong with your idea" even in the vaguest possible terms
18:53 < rabbit2> however, I will continue to maintain that it is wrong
18:53 -!- roidster [~chatzilla@71-95-216-43.static.mtpk.ca.charter.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:53 < kanzure> do you genuinely think that there are no alternative interpretations of my messages? i fully intend you to interpret my messages literally.
18:53 -!- roidster is now known as Guest62329
18:53 < rabbit2> Enough
18:54 < kanzure> i haven't even made a statement about whether or not i think your idea is bad, and you have gone off into an extremely weird conversation based on zero evidence
18:56 < rabbit2> you said, "lots of people have had that idea"
18:56 < rabbit2> "are you aware why that idea is broken"
18:57 < rabbit2> I asked for a reference to support "lots of people have had that idea"
18:57 < rabbit2> to start out with
18:57 < rabbit2> even a name would be helpful here
18:57 < rabbit2> without a name or any other specifics, I have to guess at what you might mean
18:59 < rabbit2> anyways "are you aware why that idea is broken" seems to indicate a "statement about whether or not I think your idea is bad"
18:59 < rabbit2> if it doesn't and I misunderstood you then I apologize
19:01 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@50.23.131.235] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:02 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:02 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:03 -!- zooko [~user@174-16-237-135.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:03 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
19:05 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:07 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:10 -!- rdponticelli [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/rdponticelli] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
19:11 < kanzure> well you can choose to believe either that i am maliciously throwing you on a wild goose chase or that i genuinely believe that if you look in the logs that you will find previous proposals very similar to your "just know all competing histories" idea.
19:11 < kanzure> (and attacks against same)
19:12 < rabbit2> the attacks assume that it is possible to transfer ownership in the past
19:13 < rabbit2> if it is not possible to transfer ownership on the chain, the attacks do not work anymore
19:13 < kanzure> hmm, so i grepped the logs a bit and the oke0_ person seems to have your same idea
19:13 < kanzure> go read the replies to his statements in the logs
19:13 < rabbit2> thanks I will check it out
19:13 < kanzure> (now why couldn't you have done that on your own? sigh)
19:16 < rabbit2> could you provide a link
19:16 < kanzure> no
19:16 < kanzure> just https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/
19:17 < kanzure> nsh asked for a pointer from the logbot, you're in luck http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2014-05-29.txt
19:18 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@50.23.131.235] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:18 < tromp_> .txt -> .html
19:19 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:20 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@12.130.116.19] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:23 -!- Dizzle [~Dizzle@12.130.116.19] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:25 < kanzure> another one was the zack-truthcoin person
19:25 < kanzure> "< zack-truthcoin> if they are caught signing onto competing forks, then they lose all money."
19:25 < kanzure> just keeps happening again and again
19:25 < kanzure> it's almost criminal to have no context at this point
19:26 < fenn> when they outlaw having no context, only criminals will be context-free
19:27 < kanzure> except context is freely available and hugely useful
19:27 < kanzure> if you are trying to design an alternative system of byzantine agreement it would be a good idea to check the -wizards logs
19:28 < rabbit2> yes oke_ does have the exact same idea, (except that he wants to use some form of inflation)
19:29 < rabbit2> to compare historical work to current work, I believe that could create problems
19:29 < rabbit2> I don't see any critical objection raised to the idea in that thread
19:29 < kanzure> keep reading
19:30 < kanzure> there were many objections
19:30 < rabbit2> But you are completely right that the idea has been proposed before
19:30 < rabbit2> I read the entire thread
19:30 < rabbit2> _oke addressed them all
19:30 -!- weex_ [~weex@99-6-135-18.lightspeed.snmtca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:30 < kanzure> well try the truthcoin person next, ugh
19:30 < rabbit2> He is right that you can't sell information
19:30 < kanzure> this should be your job, not mine
19:30 < rabbit2> that you can stil use
19:30 < rabbit2> truthcoin person is whom?
19:30 < rabbit2> you are making my job much easier thank you
19:30 < kanzure> his name has "truthcoin" in it, just grep for that
19:30 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:31 -!- weex [~weex@fsf/member/weex] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:31 < kanzure> or grep for "caught" in the logs
19:31 < kanzure> haha:
19:31 < kanzure> 15:34 < gmaxwell> mr_burdell: but the absense of time travel can prevent that.
19:32 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
19:32 < kanzure> also make sure you read the part that goes like "15:36 < gmaxwell> zack-truthcoin: In the situation I setup Alice allows her coins to...."
19:34 < gmaxwell> perhaps the POS document needs some additional elaboration on this particular 'improvement'. I think it was andytoshi's hope that the document gave a general enough argument that people would stop getting snowed by "improvements" that didn't fix the fundimentals, but this one still seems to be popular.
19:34 < kanzure> what i hate most is remembering any of it
19:35 < kanzure> it's like a mental index of irc trolls or something. totally wasted space.
19:35 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:696c:56b6:f707:fbdf] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:35 < gmaxwell> kanzure: have you ever read neal stephenson's anathem?  ... in the book the society of scholars has a punishment system which involves having to memorize from a book of subtly wrong proofs. ...  sometimes dealing with the altcoin stuff feels like that.
19:36 < rabbit2> 15:36 <gmaxwell> doesn't apply to coke_0's idea because there is no expiration
19:36 < rabbit2> the <zack_truthcoin> idea differs because the stake can expire
19:37 < rabbit2> inflation is also a problem with coke_0's idea (depending on what he means by this) because it is also a form of expiration
19:37 < rabbit2> you would not want to inflate at all, so that all historical work is equivalent regardless of when it was performed
19:37 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: the perpetual bonds things have been proposed several times before, they suffer many problems. For one, they still really do expire, e.g. when you've used them long enough to get their initial value back, then they're economically expired. (if they _never_ do, then you have an incentives problem).  It also seems deeply impossible to prevent transferability in the face of rules-adversarial users.
19:37 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:38 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@50.23.113.236-static.reverse.softlayer.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:38 < rabbit2> you can't prevent transferability through rules, but users have an economic incentive not to perform transfers
19:39 < rabbit2> they're economically expired only after the work contained in them is so small that it is negligible
19:39 < gmaxwell> For example, here is how you make a non-transferable key transferable:  Instead of generating the key myself, I ask a smart card to do it. Then I transfer the smartcard to you. While maybe I tampered with the smartcard's security, it's likely good enough and it retains most of its value.
19:40 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: there is no "work contained", because the history can be rewritten to the point where they have full work. This is the essance of a nothing at stake attack. Please don't jump ahead without understanding the argument.
19:40 < rabbit2> I'm assuming the smartcard doesn't exist.
19:41 < gmaxwell> they already do exist.
19:41 < kanzure> maybe the term "nothing-at-stake" doesn't sound cool enough to be considered or something
19:42 < rabbit2> I don't understand what you mean by this "rabbit2: there is no "work contained", because the history can be rewritten to the point where they have full work. This is the essance of a nothing at stake attack. Please don't jump ahead without understanding the argument. "
19:43 < gmaxwell> and if you would prefer a transferability solution without tamper resistand hardware. ... it can work purely in softward, e.g. for any elgammel-group signature system,  I ask three non-cooperating parties to generate pubkeys A,B,C and I compute a composite pubkey Q = A+B+C+D (d is my pubkey).   Q is the key I register in the system, and A+B+C help me sign. later I can ask a,b,c to transfer their signing helping to another party.  Now ...
19:43 < gmaxwell> ... I can't cheat them on the trasfer without the collusion of A+B+C.
19:43 < rabbit2> Yes, but I could collude with them...
19:43 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:43 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: Yes, it's clear that you don't. Have you read pos.pdf?
19:44 < rabbit2> The value of the expected value of the key after transfer will always be < the expected value of the key before transfer
19:44 < rabbit2> so there are never economic incentives for transfer
19:44 < rabbit2> if you do transfer a key, you would want to do so in a legal environment where you can go after people in meatspace
19:45 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: sure, and? in bitcoin people are perfectly happy to trust their mining to mining pools who can secretly rob them. In practice for some threshold the key generators will be quite secure, and they make your bond much more valuable because they make it mostly tradable.
19:45 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: how are they going to go after anyone? ... so you're now assuming that all participants in the system have some kind of identity? attested to by whom?
19:45 < rabbit2> all participants don't have to have some kind of identity
19:46 < rabbit2> however if you are going to go around transferring keys, then you would only want to do so among
19:46 -!- c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|sleep
19:46 < rabbit2> the set of participants that has strong identity in meatspace
19:46 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:46 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: the transfer is preferable in some cases because of a time preference for money, money years from now is worth less than money today to many people much of the time.
19:46 < rabbit2> you would obtain a higher price in this setting because you could go after people for cheating
19:46 < gmaxwell> (ever heard of a loan? people pay some pretty remarkable interest...)
19:47 < rabbit2> I have to go, but thanks for the discussion.
19:47 < gmaxwell> But this tangent is irrelevant until you've even understood the _MOST BASIC_ problems with pos.
19:47 < jaekwon> you can solve the nothing at stake problem… put it at stake for short range forks.  http://tendermint.com/posts/security-of-cryptocurrency-protocols/
19:48 < jaekwon> you don't need to solve the long range fork problem.  done.
19:48 < rabbit2> right
19:48 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:48 < gmaxwell> rabbit2: please don't come back until you've read pos.pdf and believe you can explain in your own terms what nothing at stake means in that context. :)
19:48 < rabbit2> this is just applying the same logic to long-range forks by making a special form of stake that is nontransferable
19:48 -!- kristofferR [~kristoffe@208.37-191-147.fiber.lynet.no] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
19:48 < rabbit2> anyways, really have to go
19:48 < rabbit2> I've read it already
19:48 < rabbit2> I understand what it means
19:49 < rabbit2> goodbye
19:49 -!- rabbit2 [8984d58f@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.137.132.213.143] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
19:49 < gmaxwell> Apparently not, because you believe that the expiration of a bond works.
19:49 < kanzure> hmm.
19:49 < kanzure> where do these people come from?
19:50 < gmaxwell> kanzure: there are some pretty strong monetary incentives to believe in varrious schemes right now.
19:50 -!- c0rw|sle_ [~c0rw1n@102.79-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:51 < kanzure> does that factor losing everything by choosing a bad implementation/idea?
19:51 < gmaxwell> no, because you can externalize those costs.
19:51 < fenn> according to gmaxwell's time preference for money, it doesn't matter (now) if it all comes crashing down (later)
19:51 < gmaxwell> (plus, also keep in mind, that thats a 'tail' risk, ... if not an unlikely one, at least something outside of the now)
19:52 < gmaxwell> fenn: yep.
19:52 -!- c0rw|sleep [~c0rw1n@56.76-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:52 < fenn> mumble mumble hyperbolic discounting cognitive bias
19:53 < kanzure> "proof-of-work 2, now even proofier" (use different greek symbols)
19:53 < jaekwon> with all due respect… I think the entire proof-of-work camp is on the same boat.
19:53 < kanzure> it's not a camp
19:53 < kanzure> or a boat for that matter
19:54 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:54 < fenn> what you guys don't have an ephemerisle camp
19:54 < gmaxwell> I mean, the world is full of people that do things which are effectively long-shots, with high risk of failure, even if they don't realize it or even know how to estimate the risks. (90% of startups fail pre series-b and yet droves of (mostly young) people continue to work at them for long hours at below market pay)
19:54 < kanzure> right, it's certainly true that people make bad decisions
19:55 < kanzure> i think the plan should be to try not to encounter them as much as possible
19:55 < andytoshi> "X => we can assume the guy who did the work originally also controls the public key right now" if this is true then X is false by contrapositive
19:57 < kanzure> (and i don't mean tests or barriers to entry. i don't agree with those.)
19:57 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
19:57 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@50.23.113.236-static.reverse.softlayer.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
19:57 -!- nubbins` [~leel@unaffiliated/nubbins] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:59 < andytoshi> jaekwon: have you updaded the tendermint stuff to reflect that the security model is totally different from bitcoin's (and significantly weaker)
19:59 < gmaxwell> kanzure: some people from around here have gone off to create a private channel. I disagree with doing that, so I don't join it.
19:59 < jaekwon> andytoshi: it's not weaker, andytoshi.
19:59 < andytoshi> saying "you can solve the nothing at stake problem" is pretty misleading even if you follow it with "you don't need to solve the long range fork problem"
19:59 < andytoshi> sigh
19:59 < jaekwon> andytoshi: it's stronger. read this post. http://tendermint.com/posts/security-of-cryptocurrency-protocols/
20:00 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's basically silent anyway
20:00 < jaekwon> and sigh all you want, i'm sorry there's a ton of cracks out here.
20:00 < jaekwon> *cranks.
20:00 < jaekwon> i'm sighing too. :/
20:00 < jaekwon> and yes, the whitepaper has been updated. worth a new read.
20:01 < gmaxwell> kanzure: I've thought things could perhaps be a bit more productive if there were a test of a really low bar to get voice; so time saved on pure noise stuff could be spent on the less interesting things that still pass the bar... but I fear any cost is too high. People with valuable things to say don't need to prove anything to anyone...
20:01 < jaekwon> it's much clearer, is the feedback i've got.
20:01 < gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: it's quieter in here in the past because some of us have stopped participating in here partially from frustration. (myself included at times)
20:01 < jaekwon> gmaxwell: here's a test…. have you implemented your protocol from scratch?
20:01 < jaekwon> to completion?  because you learn what's wrong with your algo as you implement it, usually.
20:01 < jaekwon> and if you haven't, then you can be sure that you've missed errors.
20:02 < kanzure> gmaxwell: yeah i strongly discourage the use of tests for that. i can see why you have thought of it, and i don't have an alternative yet, but i'm still cooking up some ideas...
20:02 < Taek> you never know, the things you've been saying to rabbit2 might get through, 3 years from now he could be a valuable contributor
20:02 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:03 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, if it's going to reduce the signal in the channel, I'd rather we just get stricter about the noise
20:03 < andytoshi> Taek: the problem is that none of us have the time to be professors
20:03 < kanzure> Luke-Jr: yeah maybe it would help to just ban quickly and indiscriminately
20:03 < kanzure> or at least +q
20:03 < gmaxwell> kanzure: e.g. a test can be created with a bar so low that basically only cohearence and simple background is required. But yes, things like that would have a non-trivial probablity of excluding e.g. me, just do to time constraints... so :(
20:03 < andytoshi> it's a bit unfair, because years ago we were able to ask really basic questions (because nobody knew the answers back then), and now we're getting annoyed at new people for doing the same thing
20:03 < kanzure> well, there's irc logs to read
20:04 < kanzure> those sorts of documents did not exist back then
20:04 < Taek> logs are difficult to parse, especially if you're not familiar with tools like grep
20:04 < nubbins`> if there's one thing noobs hate doing, it's reading logs
20:04 < kanzure> and some of this is just obvious if you think about it long enough
20:04 < kanzure> and it is wrong to demand that people teach you the correct modes of thought over irc
20:04 < andytoshi> sure, but it's hard to read logs because you can't step in to ask stuff, you're missing context, you don't know people, the timing and cadence are off, etc
20:04 < Taek> but things like asic.pdf and pos.pdf are a huge benefit to everyone
20:04 < kanzure> thought-transfer just doesn't work very well that way
20:04 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: well, if we +q people who say stupid things, then people with time constraints aren't affected
20:04 < gmaxwell> kanzure: some people in here have been opposed to that in the past. (in particular, amiller took issue with me punting some stuff I considered kooky).  He expressed the view that he thought this channel should be a safe space to express ideas. And I can agree with that, it's really only the repetition that drives me nuts.
20:04 < kanzure> you are not going to learn how to emulate the bitcoin network in your head by reading two or three lines of irc messages
20:05 < Luke-Jr> andytoshi: I don't get annoyed with basic questions in #bitcoin
20:05 < gmaxwell> but it's often not the indivigual person's direct fault, e.g. that their the 101th person with the same proposal.
20:05 < kanzure> it is their fault for not checking
20:05 < kanzure> or asking
20:05 < andytoshi> Luke-Jr: this is true. maybe there should be a -wizards-help channel or something for people who are trying to understand nothing-at-stake
20:05 < kanzure> if they posed it as a question, i would be less hateful
20:05 < gmaxwell> well increasingly so, now that andytoshi has written up some stuff.
20:06 < Luke-Jr> maybe we can have a bot that makes bookmarks
20:06 < gmaxwell> but there is a lot of writing that hasn't been done yet.
20:06 < andytoshi> kanzure is the archival bot :)
20:06 < Luke-Jr> eg !tag nothing-at-stake 30m ago
20:06 < kanzure> beep boop
20:06 < andytoshi> Luke-Jr: that's a neat idea
20:06 < kanzure> i am quickly climbing back to my previous ~50,000 bookmarks
20:06 < Luke-Jr> then have a list of "bookmarks" we can link to
20:06 < gmaxwell> uh.. so there also seems to be some amount of information that exists only in some kind of special secret shared form.
20:06 < kanzure> https://github.com/davidlazar/jotmuch
20:06 < kanzure> oh there's a secret forum?
20:06 < kanzure> someone should dump that
20:07 < gmaxwell> In that I've noticed that long timers around here have certian understandings which are very clearly held and identically structured, and yet they've _never_ been explicitly discussed.
20:07 < fenn> he means implicit knowledge
20:07 < kanzure> well good ideas tend to gain momentum or something
20:07 < kanzure> you can't build castles on top of crap
20:07 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2601:9:4680:dd0:44fa:3cfd:f8a7:3926] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:07 < kanzure> well, you can try...
20:08 < kanzure> Luke-Jr: i think that's a good idea
20:08 < gmaxwell> Yes, implicit knoweldge. It's just a product of to understand X you must also understand Y thats it's based on... and in talking about X we'll manage to teach everyone Y without ever mentioning it.
20:08 < Luke-Jr> kanzure: up your alley to implement? :>
20:08 < gmaxwell> Which actually makes citing things from common understanding hard.
20:08 < kanzure> Luke-Jr: i'd rather just pay someone to implement it, i have better things to be pretending to do
20:08 < Taek> repetition really helps. The 12th time you explain nothing-at-stake to someone, you can still manage to get an increased understanding of how it's broken
20:09 < kanzure> gmaxwell: it seems that the most useful types of people are those that have lots of experience doing implicit-intuitive-mental-calculus already
20:10 < kanzure> or at least the ones that are least damaging to signal/noise
20:10 < kanzure> actually i don't know if it's experience
20:10 < gmaxwell> (I have this expirence when I meet with bitcoiners sometimes where I explain my perspective on things and get a bunch of "yes, yes, exactly that!", and I think some of this is where there is latent understanding, a kind of zen-of-bitcoin-technology and all I'm doing is plucking on it.  ... but a lot of this stuff is not well documented.)
20:11 < gmaxwell> since we can have these nice conversations where all that is implicit and so we never disclose it where newcomers can easily absorb it. :(
20:11 < kanzure> zen-of-byzantine-agreement-and-problems-of-distributed-systems
20:12 < fenn> so nobody answered my question earlier: does it make sense to set up a "bitcoin university" with teachers, peer review, research programs
20:12 < andytoshi> fenn: who would teach?
20:12 < kanzure> no, because there would be no teachers
20:12 < gmaxwell> you all type too fast.
20:13 < kanzure> http://www.seanwrona.com/typeracer/profile.php?username=kanzure
20:13 < andytoshi> kanzure is wrecking the average
20:13 < andytoshi> the rest of us are 15 wpm
20:13 < gmaxwell> fenn: well worse, I don't think we yet know how to teach this subject. (not that we really know how to teach anything all that well...)
20:13 < amiller> wow kanzure you are faster than me http://www.seanwrona.com/typeracer/profile.php?username=socrates
20:13 < kanzure> i cracked a keyboard the other day, true story
20:14 < Taek> the old 4chan mantra of "lurk m0ar" comes to mind. just idling in the channel is hugely beneficial.
20:14 < Luke-Jr> fenn: where are you going to get the teachers?
20:14 < kanzure> ah, so we should implement 4chan-style harassment
20:14 < Luke-Jr> fenn: the problem is bootstrapping newbies IMO
20:14 < fenn> tbh i have no idea what most of you do all day
20:14 < Luke-Jr> ok, I'm being redundant *catches up*
20:14 < kanzure> mostly i complain over irc
20:15 < kanzure> (and write code)
20:15 < fenn> so "nobody has time to teach" doesn't really make sense, because obviously you're wasting time dealing with random people like rabbit2
20:15 < kanzure> i also send out lots of email, that too...
20:15 < kanzure> well, isn't that teaching, fenn??
20:15 < gmaxwell> Taek: I believe before I'd made any comment in bitcoin tech stuff I'd lurked several months, and also read the complete source code, mined a block (well ... not so easy anymore), and started making software changes locally.
20:15 < kanzure> oops only one "?" was intended
20:15 < Luke-Jr> fenn: I spend basically the whole day coding, to the near-neglect of my family :/
20:15 < kanzure> gmaxwell: having people read the bitcoin source code might be interesting....
20:16 < andytoshi> fenn: i read things far about 14 hours each day most days. i can have a convo like this because it requires no brain cycles
20:16 < kanzure> that's how all of the original knowledge was derived anyway
20:16 < kanzure> so it seems only natural to ask others to do the same
20:16 < Luke-Jr> the *complete* source code might be a bit much, but generally yes
20:16 < gmaxwell> it's somewhat larger than it was originally. ... Though hopefully we'll improve readability more in upcoming refactorings.
20:16 < gmaxwell> well you can skip qt/ for example.
20:17 < Luke-Jr> "find a consensus error in an alt implementation before you speak"
20:17 < Luke-Jr> :P
20:17 -!- Burrito [~Burrito@unaffiliated/burrito] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:17 < gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I'd love to say that, except eventually you run out.
20:17 < kanzure> today i found myself tracing SyncTransaction because i hadn't read it before :(
20:17 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: nah, the smart people will just do an alt impl themselves to find an error in
20:17 < Luke-Jr> :P
20:17 < Taek> gmaxwell: that's probably an order of magnatude more than the average person. Idk how you'd build that culture though without shutting people out. +q doesn't seem like an awful idea though
20:17 < kanzure> +q is pretty rude, heh
20:18 < gmaxwell> After matt did bitcoinj full node and found a dozen known-to-no-human behaviors I really wanted to say "any altimp that hasn't found at least one of those is worthless" ... but sadly eventually there are none left and the bar is unfair and you never know if thats where you are.
20:18 < Luke-Jr> kanzure: well, we don't want to stop them from learning
20:18 < gmaxwell> I normally _hate_ +q. Generally I'd rather ban people.
20:18 < kanzure> yes, asking for original bugs is bad
20:19 < gmaxwell> kanzure: not just bugs but "oh... this is probably surprising to everyone"
20:19 < gmaxwell> "hey guys, did you know X did Y?!"  turns out that there are a lot of surprising things in bitcoin, only some of which you could call bugs.
20:19 < kanzure> also, i would emphasize to pow-haters that right now it is vastly more beneficial to read source code than any number of white papers
20:20 < Taek> gmaxwell: can you explain that more? I think I'd rather be +q'd than banned, though I'd probably feel pretty miserable about either
20:20 < Luke-Jr> like OP_SIZE ;)
20:20 < Luke-Jr> Taek: agreed fwiw
20:20 < kanzure> +q is often not represented in irc clients and you don't really know that you're on global ignore or w/e
20:20 < gmaxwell> In bitcoin-dev I +q almost univerally because I think there are transparency considerations.  But generally if someone is behaving you want to keep them equal and respected as members of your community, and if they're not able to behave... you don't want them simmering and hating you, you want them to _leave_ and move on with their lives.. and +q is not good for achieving that.
20:21 < Taek> that's very fatherly lol
20:22 < gmaxwell> some people don't simmer and so +q would probably be fine, but a third party can't tell in advance. :)
20:22 < kanzure> i actually thought that rabbit2 was just one of the other users coming back with a different nick
20:23 < gmaxwell> kanzure: so ... yea, there have been people on IRC engaging in very elaborate trolling.  I don't know that this knoweldge is actually useful.
20:23 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:23 < kanzure> thanks that's just going to make me more paranoid
20:23 < kanzure> there was this one person who genuinely thought that i had enough knowledge of cryonics to revive his mother from the dead (well, from cryonic storage)
20:23 < kanzure> (on irc)
20:24 < gmaxwell> E.g. for a long time there was a many nicked regular in #bitcoin who would start the most complex technical arguments, and it was very clear that he was pasting lines from IRC into goggle and that rapidly converting whatever came out into an argument.
20:24 < fenn> is it time for realtime deanonymization algorithms?
20:25 < kanzure> right, drop a link to a site with a js tracking library i guess
20:25 < fenn> just ngram frequency analysis
20:25 < gmaxwell> I only know this for sure because he was really good at driving me nuts, because the arguments would start off pretty sane and then it would become clear that he didn't know what the #@#$ he was talking about... eventually I got the hypothesis he was basically performing some kind of search madlibs and I gave him some techno jibberish only to get a response clearly constructed from the google result for it.
20:27 < fenn> was it xmj
20:27 < gmaxwell> realizing that this guy (in his multitude of identities) was one person was a material improvement to my mental well being (e.g. after that I went back through the logs and picked up the common subnet and common quit messages, and felt much saner).  I don't think knowing that he was doing some kind of crazy google madlibs actually improved anything for me.
20:27 < fenn> oops i mean mosasaur
20:28 < gmaxwell> For as willing as I am to argue with folks online, ... I don't actually enjoy doing it much.
20:28 < kanzure> hmm. there has to be a better way to do this.
20:29 < kanzure> so i suppose it could just be "try to figure out teaching" but i don't think that's a good use of time here....
20:30 < gmaxwell> kanzure: well step 1 is andytoshi's whitepapers... we could be doing more of that.
20:30 < fenn> sometimes "read the source" is misinterpreted as "go away" instead of its literal denotation
20:30 < kanzure> almost everyone in here is more valuable providing scarce programming than the immediate benefits of poor attempts at educating others
20:31 < gmaxwell> kanzure: well not exclusive. most people cannot be coding all the time. the level of engagement required here is usually pretty low.
20:31 < kanzure> personally my rule is "always be coding", but i sometimes stop coding by accident
20:32 < kanzure> (planning and thinking counts as coding)
20:32 < gmaxwell> hm. this is probably a good policy.
20:32 < fenn> "tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge possessed only by an individual and difficult to communicate to others via words and symbols. Therefore, an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices, for example, work with their mentors and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation, and practice."
20:32 -!- GnarSith [~far@onegrandcircle.com] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
20:33 < fenn> seems inefficient but i don't have any better ideas
20:33 < kanzure> well there's certainly a craftsmanship aspect to coding
20:34 < gmaxwell> fenn: I've expressed the notion before that communicating a complex idea is like building a ship in a bottle. You want to build this complex edifice in the mind of another person, but you've got to stuff everything through a little cylinder with tongs.
20:34 < Taek> fenn: I don't think it's inefficient at all. Having your code reviewed by someone much better than you teaches you things that would take ages to figure out on your own, even with books and such
20:35 < kanzure> that's inefficient for the code reviewer
20:35 < gmaxwell> so good education is an engineering challenge of breaking the complex idea down into parts that fit through the channel and yet snap themselves togeather once they get to the other side.
20:35 < fenn> Taek: sure, for the student it's great, but the teacher has to do that N times
20:35 < gmaxwell> kanzure: review generally scales better than coding however.
20:35 < kanzure> seems to be breaking on irc :)
20:36 < Taek> log(n)  if the students help each other out
20:36 < kanzure> hmm
20:36 < Taek> (log(n) might be too optimistic, but a lot less than n)
20:36 < Luke-Jr> it's somewhat efficient to code, read a page of IRC, respond, code
20:36 < Luke-Jr> drives some people nuts though
20:37 < gmaxwell> kanzure: there is a school of thought in some large development orgs. that your most expirenced coders should be spending most of their time reviewing the code of less expirenced folks. That basically most coding is time-fill boring stuff, and expirenced reviewers can rapidly cut through that, multiplying their effectiveness. I've seen enough of it that I think the idea has merit.
20:37 < kanzure> works for me. although i'm the multi-tasking 500-tabs-open watching-movies hacking-on-twenty-git-repos type of programmer.
20:38 < fenn> there's another school of thought that says if most of your coding is boilerplate boring stuff you should be using a more powerful language
20:39 < kanzure> gmaxwell: on a related note, i have been thinking about how to allocate attention/resources on large projects and stumbled into this: "So there's this well-known thing in quality engineering where getting bugs out earlier is easier, and this other well-known thing in programming where doing projects beginning-to-end gives you foresight about kinds of problems that might happen and makes the earlier designs bug-free and more efficient and ...
20:39 < kanzure> ... such. The right way to think about how projects get completed is as a dependency graph. A useful heuristic here is "How would I prove this is impossible as quickly as possible?". You want to prove the total task will work even if the subtasks fail, and otherwise abandon it. Then you want to prove each subtask is impossible, and replace it appropriately and re-plan integration as quickly as possible (etc etc). It's not as big a deal to ...
20:39 < kanzure> ... structure things perfectly if you have infinite resources and can parallelize everything, which is how the space shuttle and particle colliders are built. The big danger is doing the non-failfast steps first with one person. If one component has a major problem, that means one node is unexpectedly big. In practice, people replace that component with another component rather than delay, or engineer around it, or just accept the delay. ...
20:39 < kanzure> ... But the overall delay is not due to delay along a specific path--it's due to multiple delays, some on every critical path."
20:39 < kanzure> (actally i think that applies to all kinds of thought, not just engineering projects)
20:39  * kanzure polishes his keyboard
20:40 < gmaxwell> well that bumps into general "planning fallacy" there.
20:40 < kanzure> but there's evidence of things like entire particle colliders with millions of engineering components that don't get fully considered at the beginning and yet somehow still work at the end
20:41 < kanzure> (without reviewing every excruciating detail upfront)
20:42 -!- todaystomorrow [~me@d114-78-115-218.bla803.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:42 < gmaxwell> well, if you look at biology there is never an overall architecture. Instead you have lots of parts which are responsive to their enviroment, and solve local problems.  While on the overall level evolution achieves some global design, but at the nuts and bolts level almost all effects are local. So it's not surprising that the LHC works.
20:42 < gmaxwell> It's another question if things built that way can be efficient, most of biology certantly isn't.
20:43 < kanzure> there was some weak connection from that i was supposed to make regarding code review and imparting implicit knowledge
20:44 < kanzure> oh right, something about convining people to work from that general sort of plan of bounding their errors
20:44 < kanzure> or, at code review time, that appears as particularly defensive coding etc
20:45 < kanzure> .wik defensive programming
20:45 < yoleaux> "Defensive programming is a form of defensive design intended to ensure the continuing function of a piece of software under unforeseen circumstances. The idea can be viewed as reducing or eliminating the prospect of Finagle's law having effect. Defensive programming techniques are used especially when a piece of software could be misused." — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_programming
20:45 < gmaxwell> I attended a nice lecture by sussman once on building computer systems that were weakly coupled and worked more like biology that was interesting, maybe in 2007 or so?  perhaps there is a copy of it online.
20:46 < gmaxwell> though I'm continually humbled at how hard a problm building robust systems actually is.
20:46 < kanzure> my favorite quote about biology is from jrayhawk, "... there is no source, the bytecode has multiple reentrent abstractions, is unstable and has a very low signal to noise ratio, the runtime is unbootstrappable, the execution is nondeterministic, it tries to randomly integrate and execute code from other computers... multiple reentrant and self-modifying abstractions. absolutely everything has subtle side effects."
20:46 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:46 < kanzure> (i spent time working in a molecular biology lab and then a plant physiology lab. also diybio stuff.)
20:47 < fenn> .title http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.945/readings/robust-systems.pdf
20:47 < yoleaux> fenn: Sorry, that doesn't appear to be an HTML page.
20:47 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:47 < gmaxwell> fenn: hot damn, thanks.
20:48 < fenn> i ran across that before, i forget how
20:49 < fenn> i also think http://langsec.org is relevant
20:49 < gmaxwell> fenn: I'm surprised I knew the year. Well I knew "pre-bitcoin".
20:49 < gmaxwell> in any case, the more time I spend on Bitcoin the further away I think we are from conquering these problems. Even basic directions are not obvious.
20:51 < Taek> conquering which problems?
20:51 < gmaxwell> building strongly robust systems.
20:53 < gmaxwell> For example, I was talking to sipa earlier about GMP in libsecp256k1. Someday we'd like to use the very fast libsecp256k1 in consensus critical code. At the moment libsecp256k1 depends on gmp though the only non-trivial thing it uses from libgmp is the modular inversion.  The libgmp modular inversion is mystical number theory voodoo magic stuff, that does an inverse in sub-quadratic time, which seems impossible. It's much faster than ...
20:53 < gmaxwell> ... a normal fast implementation, I think maybe 10x faster than the one in openssl. Hundreds of times faster than a totally stupid implementation.  For non-batch ecdsa verification that inverse is basically the largest thing in the profile.
20:54 < gmaxwell> Now, this mystery voodo inverse is a hurestic algorithim that automatically switches between several approaches. It is plausable that gmp contains bugs and there exist some numbers for which it computes incorrect inverses.  In a simpler implementation it's more likely to be mostly wrong or all correct.
20:55 < gmaxwell> This is concerning for consensus critical usage, since if many nodes will miscompute the inverse of even a single number that you can find, you can construct a signature the uses that number, and fork the network.  Moreover, GMP has several times replaced and retuned the algorithim (and probably will in the future), it also tunes it differently on different architectures.
20:55 < fenn> isn't it trivial to verify an inverse?
20:55 < gmaxwell> fenn: not when you care about speed.
20:56 < gmaxwell> I mean the whole goal is fast verification, going and multiplying out to check the inverse ... well switching to a simpler implementation is also an option.
20:57 < kanzure> yes, well, good luck comparing 1000 different implementation choices in an n-dimensional problem space. maybe make nsh do it, he's good at weird things like that.
20:58 < gmaxwell> One though I had was ... well, at initilization one could compute blinding constants, and it's very cheap to randomize the inverses. Actually the whole verification path can be pretty cheaply randomized. And so if there were a numerical problem, instead of a large cluster failing the same... some random fraction of hosts would fork off.   .... Would this be an improvement?  It's not clear at all.
20:58 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:58 < kanzure> (where has he been, anyway? did they finally arrest him?)
20:59 < fenn> idle 8 hours
20:59 < kanzure> ( http://mashable.com/2014/02/27/federal-reserve-hack/ )
20:59 < gmaxwell> kanzure: nothing recent in google news for lauri love.
20:59 < kanzure> good. i can rest tonight.
21:00 < gmaxwell> So in this case here I have some idea thats reasonably cheap, and maybe gives the system more biological-like robustness. ... and it's not at all clear if its a horrible idea or a great one.
21:01 < gmaxwell> I think what sipa prefers is to not randomize it, and internalize the inverse (I prefer to do that too), and then get everyone on exactly the same code.
21:02 < Taek> say you randomize it, and then have each node do 2-3 computations. If there are any disagreements the node realizes it needs to run a lot more code and figure out what's going on
21:02 < gmaxwell> pratically that latter goal seems unreachable because it has a prerequsite that people understand the difficulties of consensus critical code in the same way that he or I do.
21:02 -!- roidster [~chatzilla@71-95-216-43.static.mtpk.ca.charter.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:02 -!- roidster is now known as Guest38539
21:02 < gmaxwell> Taek: but then again do 2-3 computations is at odds with performance.
21:02 < Taek> how much faster is libsecp256k1?
21:03 < gmaxwell> more than 6x faster than openssl.
21:03 < Taek> so even @ 3 computations, you've still got a huge speedup
21:04 < gmaxwell> there is a straight up trade-off between decenteralization and scale. So every bit of performance we get improves one or both of those.
21:04 -!- Guest62329 [~chatzilla@71-95-216-43.static.mtpk.ca.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:04 < gmaxwell> If we weren't in a situation where the full node code is falling, I might buy that we have obvious breathing room and could give up a factor of N for a speculative robustness increase.
21:06 < Taek> thinking about biological systems... it's interesting to imagine a global consensus system that can tolerate some threshold of imprecision
21:07 < gmaxwell> libsecp256k1 is currently still somewhat better than half the speed of the ed25519 verifier, though it's all hand written simd assembly and secp256k1 is straight C  (well, there is non-simd asm for the filed ops on x86_64 but its only about 3% faster than the current straight C code), plus ed25519 is schnorr, which is cheaper to verify (doesn't need that annoying inverse)... In theory I expect an equally optimized secp256k1 to be faster.
21:07 < gmaxwell> Taek: well consensus does tolerate some imprecision. ... uh. e.g. your own host can be faulty and everything (except you) keeps ticking.
21:08 < gmaxwell> There are a couple of places where blinding approaches can be applied which _may_ turn some synchronized failures into randomized ones. But it's unclear how much that can actually work.  I've suggested several ideas now in this space, but I think none of them would have solved an actual problem that we've encountered in the past.
21:09 < gmaxwell> unfortunately it seems really hard to do if you're unwilling to take an interger factor slowdown.
21:09 < Taek> I wonder if we could do better though (not that I have suggestions). Imagine that *every* host is faulty by some epsilon (but randomly so) and yet the whole network manages to tick forward with stability
21:10 < kanzure> "assume that every host is malicious"
21:11 < gmaxwell> Taek: I have an intutive impression that there is likely a tradeoff between accepting honest-faulty and tolerating malicious hosts.
21:11 < kanzure> if malicious hosts are acceptable then are they really malicious?
21:11 < gmaxwell> Like the more tolerance you have the exponentially less secure to malice you become, but I'm waving my hands here.
21:11 < kanzure> etc
21:11 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:12 < gmaxwell> without a formal statement of what we're computing in the first place, the whole concept of faulty is a bit circular.
21:12 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:13 -!- Guest38539 [~chatzilla@71-95-216-43.static.mtpk.ca.charter.com] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [SeaMonkey 2.22.1/20131113180422]]
21:16 -!- weex_ [~weex@99-6-135-18.lightspeed.snmtca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
21:16 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:16 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:22 -!- Stalker_I [~nam@118.68.26.144] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:33 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2601:9:4680:dd0:44fa:3cfd:f8a7:3926] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
21:38 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:48 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@173.192.170.80-static.reverse.softlayer.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:05 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:13 < go1111111> on the topic of what to do about repetitive questions from uneducated people in this channel: it would be really unfortunate if this made you the legitimate wizards retreat to some private channel, or type less in here
22:13 < go1111111> as someone trying to learn, i find these logs super valuable
22:20 < go1111111> my suggestion for preserving the sanity of wizards, and the "wizards talking to each other" vibe: write up some doc on #bitcoin-wizards etiquette. remind people of the doc if they are wasting your time, and be liberal with bans that expire in a day or two. back to lurking..
22:21 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
22:22 < jaekwon> I'll be more than happy to moderate a subforum on proof-of-stake and related algorithms and tear the proposal apart.  It's what I do now anyways.
22:23 < jaekwon> *by subforum i mean irc channel.  could be #tendermint or something else
22:25 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:696c:56b6:f707:fbdf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:32 -!- eristisk [~eristisk@gateway/tor-sasl/eristisk] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
22:32 < jaekwon> You can point them my way and I'll be sure they don't come back here until they've been re-educated.  Just point them to #tendermint. :)
22:34 -!- Grishnakh [~grishnakh@dsl-espbrasgw1-50dfb6-218.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:39 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@173.192.170.80-static.reverse.softlayer.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:42 -!- mortale [~mortale@gateway/tor-sasl/mortale] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
22:44 < Taek> gmaxwell, you could probably do a lot better than run every signature 3 ways. If we know that ~99/100 are going to verify correctly, and we SPV-style assume that the longest chain is also accurate, you only verify something multiple times if it unexpectedly fails.
22:44 < Taek> the only risk then is verifying something that you shouldn't verify
22:45 < Taek> but if you apply some randomness to each of the verifications, an attacker has little to no ability to intentionally mess you up
22:45 < Taek> plus everyone else is going to reject the fork and pick something else
22:47 < Taek> :< but say an attacker releases a block with 10,000 verifications, knowing that nodes mess up 1% of the time. The majority of nodes will accept some bad transactions and consensus will break =/
22:48 < Taek> oh wait no that's not a problem, because they'll reject the other 9000 bad transactions, and the block as a whole will be rejected
22:52 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@162.244.138.37] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:57 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:01 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:01 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:01 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has quit [Changing host]
23:01 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:01 -!- mortale [~mortale@gateway/tor-sasl/mortale] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:01 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:05 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
23:11 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:12 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:13 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:13 -!- moribund112 [~textual@cpe-50-113-9-40.hawaii.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:21 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@chello084114181075.1.15.vie.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:22 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:30 -!- moribund112 is now known as moribund112[away
23:30 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:42 -!- moribund112[away is now known as moribund112
23:54 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:55 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:58 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@e180206175.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:59 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
--- Log closed Fri Nov 21 00:00:57 2014