--- Day changed Wed Dec 17 2014
00:00 < Emcy> gmaxwell that guy is flapping in #bitcoin again
00:01 < Emcy> jesus i have i havent been logging joins/parts for 4 years
00:01 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: bitpay uses 6 places now
00:02 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I advocated against rounding miner payouts, FWIW. I always found it annoyign as a miner, and actively switched pools to get away from it.
00:02 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@80-218-157-236.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:02 < gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: I don't think anyone ever did it. There were places that had a threshold minimum payout, but not ones that would make numbers round.
00:02 < Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: slush always did when I used it..
00:02 < gmaxwell> (and yes, I recall you wouldn't do it)
00:03 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, why?
00:03 < Luke-Jr> I wish bitpay would use all 8, tbh
00:04 < gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: why did I want it?
00:04 < gmaxwell> Because ending up with tiny dust means you must merge coins which is bad for privacy, or end up with zillions of tiny useless outputs.
00:04 < gmaxwell> (which is bad for the network, and also bad for privacy if you let your wallet ever use them)
00:05 < phantomcircuit> why round numbers, isn't thresholding good enough?
00:05 < Luke-Jr> it's not that often you get paid exactly the same amount you want to pay.
00:05 < op_mul> some wallets seem to use high precision fees too, which is weird.
00:07 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@80-218-157-236.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:09 < gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: because thresholding means you get paid 1.12345678  and since you'll pretty much never spend exactly that amount you eventually end up with a 0.00005678 change. Which is identifying.
00:09 < phantomcircuit> oh
00:09 < phantomcircuit> shrug
00:10 < phantomcircuit> pretty much you'll never end up spending exact amounts
00:12 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:13 < gmaxwell> oh after getting rid of the initial dust, actually things end up quite round.
00:15 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@80-218-157-236.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:15 -!- d1ggy [~d1ggy@dslb-092-077-202-004.092.077.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:24 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
00:26 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, hmm
00:27 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:30 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:31 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:32 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:32 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:35 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
00:35 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
00:37 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@80-218-157-236.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:43 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:43 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:44 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:48 < bramc> A good way to get rid of dust is to do a coinswap with a massive aggregator who collects dust and gives big units change and then takes all the dust they've collected and makes it into a single big utxo in one big transaction
00:51 < gmaxwell> There ist dustbegone which basically just coinjoins dust from many people into a single all-fee (no output) transaction.
00:57 < bramc> Well that isn't terribly useful
00:57 < bramc> The advantage of coinswap is that it can use a vastly larger pool, basically letting the pool pile up until it's collected enough.
00:58 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:59 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
01:02 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:03 -!- Starduster_ [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:04 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:04 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
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
01:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@94.112.242.230.static.b2b.upcbusiness.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@94.112.242.230.static.b2b.upcbusiness.cz] has quit [Changing host]
01:06 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:08 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:09 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:12 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:13 -!- Starduster [~guest@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:13 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:14 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:14 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:18 -!- RoboTedd_ [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:20 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
01:21 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
01:22 -!- RoboTedd_ [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:24 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
01:25 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
01:26 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:29 -!- vmatekol_ [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:34 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:37 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:37 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:40 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-85.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:43 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
01:43 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:44 -!- vmatekol_ [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:44 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Quit: Not a fed.]
01:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:44 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:49 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
01:50 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:50 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:51 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@arcotel154.linznet.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:51 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@arcotel154.linznet.at] has quit [Changing host]
01:51 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:52 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:53 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:56 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
01:57 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:58 -!- lclc [~lclc@opentransactions/monetas/lclc] has quit [Changing host]
01:58 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:59 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:00 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:05 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:07 -!- SubCreative [~SubCreati@unaffiliated/cannacoin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:09 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
02:18 -!- GnarSith [~far@onegrandcircle.com] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
02:19 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:19 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:20 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:22 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@089144220222.atnat0029.highway.webapn.at] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:23 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:24 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:25 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
02:29 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
02:31 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-vmsitctxevaokrms] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:31 -!- nullbyte [WW@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-wdafjdklghriviyp] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:32 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hxpblhryreonmidn] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:33 -!- nullbyte [~WW@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:33 -!- nullbyte [~WW@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Changing host]
02:33 -!- nullbyte [~WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:37 -!- CoinMuncher1 [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:38 -!- nuke__ [~nuke@46-8-207.adsl.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:38 -!- CoinMuncher [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
02:40 -!- GAit [~lnahum@enki.greenaddressit.p3.tiktalik.io] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:40 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@46.198.176.12] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:49 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:54 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:55 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
03:05 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:10 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
03:17 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
03:19 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:25 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-61-11.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:25 -!- lclc_bnc is now known as lclc
03:27 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:29 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@vpn17.hotsplots.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:30 -!- joris [~joris@136.157.24.109.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
03:32 -!- hearn [~mike@77-59-61-11.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:35 -!- hearn [~mike@46.140.0.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:36 < Eliel_> gmaxwell: unless massive coinjoin transactions are organized for cleaning up the dust you don't want to use :P
03:36 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@vpn17.hotsplots.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
03:42 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:43 -!- atgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:02 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
04:02 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:04 -!- cbeams_ [~cbeams@089144220222.atnat0029.highway.webapn.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:06 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:09 -!- fanquake [~anonymous@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: fanquake]
04:11 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:16 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f12ec5a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:23 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:26 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:27 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:28 -!- nuke__ [~nuke@46-8-207.adsl.cyta.gr] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
04:29 -!- nuke__ [~nuke@78-157-5.adsl.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:30 -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@94.112.242.230.static.b2b.upcbusiness.cz] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:32 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:35 -!- pavel_ [~paveljani@94.112.242.230.static.b2b.upcbusiness.cz] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Client Quit]
04:39 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:41 -!- hearn [~mike@46.140.0.41] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
04:42 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:42 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtag@69.23.213.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:42 -!- hashtag [~hashtagg_@69.23.213.3] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:44 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:46 -!- hearn [~mike@46.140.0.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:52 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:56 < nsh> did gmaxwell explain his probabilist payment (re)invention?
04:56 < nsh> -ic
04:57 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:05 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:07 < Emcy> GENTLEMEN
05:07 < op_mul> don't you dare.
05:07 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:07 < Emcy> fuck you im doing it
05:07 < Emcy> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_banknotes_and_coins we start naming major releases of core after world coinage, past and current
05:09 < Emcy> internal codenames i mean
05:10 < Emcy> this is actually a feild of study called numismatics, wow
05:11 -!- arowser [~arowser@106.120.101.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
05:11 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:12 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
05:14 -!- prodatalab [~prodatala@c-69-254-45-177.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:16 -!- nullbyte [~WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:17 < Emcy> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_currencies
05:18 -!- atgreen [~user@TOROON12-1242491862.sdsl.bell.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:18 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:19 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@g225115097.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@g225115097.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Changing host]
05:20 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:21  * nsh does not disapprove, as long as one of them is the Pengo
05:23 -!- lclc is now known as lclc_bnc
05:24 -!- arowser [~arowser@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@152.27.187.81.in-addr.arpa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@152.27.187.81.in-addr.arpa] has quit [Changing host]
05:28 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:32 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:38 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:41 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
05:43 -!- hearn [~mike@46.140.0.41] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:44 -!- coiner [~linker@113.161.87.238] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:45 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:46 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:49 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:51 -!- Aquent [~Aquent@gateway/tor-sasl/aquent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:52 -!- vdo [~vdo@253.45.133.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:52 -!- vdo [~vdo@253.45.133.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:52 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:52 -!- vdo [~vdo@253.45.133.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:53 -!- vdo is now known as vdo_
05:54 -!- vdo_ is now known as vdo
05:54 -!- vdo [~vdo@253.45.133.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Changing host]
05:54 -!- vdo [~vdo@unaffiliated/vdo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:54 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@g226183181.adsl.alicedsl.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:54 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@g226183181.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [Changing host]
05:54 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:54 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Killed (wilhelm.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
05:54 -!- wallet421 is now known as wallet42
05:55 -!- jgarzik [~jgarzik@unaffiliated/jgarzik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:56 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:02 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:07 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood]
06:07 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:08 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:12 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
06:13 -!- Luke-Jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:13 -!- luke-jr_ [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:15 < Eliel_> Does a signed git commit contain enough information that you could use that to generate a bitcoin address that only the committer could generate a private key for?
06:16 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:16 < sipa> if you would sign it using a cryptosystem compatible with secp256k1...
06:16 < sipa> which afaik gpg does not have
06:17 < nsh> heh
06:18 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 < Eliel_> (there's someone here very enthusiastically trying to work out how to create a changetip for git commits)
06:21 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:21 < sipa> i don't believe it is possible
06:22 < nsh> there was a thread earlier this year: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2014-January/028137.html
06:24 < Eliel_> we also played some ball on how worldwide git commits could perhaps be used as a "blockchain" with the commits themselves functioning as proof of work.
06:25 < Eliel_> It wouldn't quite have the same security properties as bitcoin blockchain, but I suspect it'd be very difficult to manipulate without getting caught.
06:25 < sipa> why would it not have the same security?
06:27 < Eliel_> I suspect it'd have better security in some respects. However, I doubt it could be as reliable with just automated verification
06:27 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:27 < sipa> well it's just sha1
06:27 < sipa> but if you don't care about that, there is really no difference
06:27 < sipa> you'd need to restrict yourself to only the leftmost parent or something, as otherwise it forms a dag instead of just a chain
06:28 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:29 < Eliel_> I don't think you should try to make it into a blockchain. Better to keep it as a crosslinked web.
06:30 < sipa> i don't think so either; it would be less efficient
06:30 < sipa> but there's no reason why it couldn't be done
06:30 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
06:30 < Eliel_> it might have slower convergence than bitcoin has though
06:31 < op_mul> Eliel_: have you considered that changetip is actually a negative?
06:31 < Eliel_> op_mul: nope, why's that?
06:32 < op_mul> I find it pretty insulting, really. it's people putting a value on something I've contributed just because I could. there's a big difference between "I wrote this because I could", and "I wrote this and somebody values it to be worth 17c".
06:33 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:33 -!- coiner [~linker@183.80.130.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:34 < sipa> plus it can lead to really skewed incentives (talking about commits specifically, like tip4commit does)... where people end up creating tons of small commits, object against squashing, try to "fix" the tiniest amounts possible
06:34  * nsh nods
06:35 < op_mul> yes, for code it boils everything down to Minimum Viable Tippable Commit.
06:35 < sipa> op_mul: fun nickname, though i hope you don't mean to imply you're disabled :)
06:37 < op_mul> sipa: it's a reference to Mastering Bitcoin, which instructs people getting started in the world of Bitcoin to create scripts without signatures, containing arithmetic using OP_MUL as an example.
06:37 < sipa> hahaha
06:37 -!- vmatekol_ [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:37 < sipa> anyway, my complaint is mostly about automated tips
06:37 < sipa> when humans are involved to decide on tip value, that's not really a problem
06:38 < sipa> it's a cultural thing i guess - tipping is very different around the world
06:38 < hearn> op_mul: doh. who wrote that book?
06:38 < sipa> in some places it mandatory, in some places completely optional, and afaik in some places just insulting
06:38 < sipa> hearn: antanana something
06:38 < sipa> poulos
06:39 < hearn> oh yes. the former blockchain.info security chief :)
06:39 < op_mul> hearn: andreas antonopoulos, published by o'reilly.
06:40 < op_mul> sipa: yes, I can't speak for other cultures but I don't think I've ever tipped a person before. I've been tipped by foreigners (americans) and it was incredibly awkward.
06:40 < sipa> op_mul: where are you from?
06:40 < op_mul> eh, rather not say sorry.
06:40 < sipa> ok
06:40 < sipa> np
06:41 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:41 < fluffypony> "Minimum Viable Tippable Commit"
06:41 < fluffypony> I love that
06:41 < hearn> i think micropayments can be very interesting, but people should opt in to receiving them
06:42 < sipa> here in switzerland it seems mostly normal to let a waiter keep the change or something, but certainly not weird if you don't
06:42 < sipa> agree
06:42 < fluffypony> we decided to stop doing any and all bounties with Monero, much to the chagrin of many, and the reasoning is because bounties most often attract a class of developers who will do the minimum work required to receive the bounty, and then abandon it and never maintain it
06:43 < hearn> one thing i'd like to play with some day is a p2p wallet + rich text editor + doc viewer hybrid, so people can publish interesting articles and essays, with a preview of the first few paragraphs, then there is an "instant buy" button that reveals the article immediately and makes a micropayment in the background
06:43 < hearn> i read tons of news and would absolutely pay for more, if i could impulse buy :)
06:44 < Emcy_> how does that help with the clickbait problem
06:44 < op_mul> it's hard to quantify the value of a change, too. a single line alteration could take days of research, but on the face of it might not be particularly arduous.
06:44 < hearn> don't press buy on articles that start with "I knew pets could be crazy but this will BLOW YOUR MIND"
06:44 < hearn> problem solved
06:44 < sipa> hearn: i should stop reading facebook then? what?
06:45 < fluffypony> op_mul: or the change consists of 45 lines, but then you suddenly realise you can distill those down to 4 lines, and then everyone thinks it was solved in 4 lines :-P
06:45 < hearn> sipa: well, you should stop clicking on news feed items that involve ten weird tricks ;)
06:45 < fluffypony> "number 7 will shock you!"
06:46 < Emcy_> 0heh
06:46 < Emcy_> levity aside clickbait is killing the fabric of society
06:46 < Emcy_> anything that gets away from the page impressions at all costs model has to help with that
06:47 < Emcy_> thats why i consider adblock a moral imperative pretty much
06:47 < Eliel_> op_mul: I find that a weird (to me anyway) way to think about money. Somehow feels like there's some overly complex thinking behind it.
06:48 < sipa> Eliel_: ever seen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc ?
06:49 < Eliel_> sipa: but yes, I've seen that.
06:50 < AdrianG> Emcy_: adblock is a black budget project from google
06:50 < Eliel_> for that reason, I wouldn't ever use really big bounties on code.
06:50 < Emcy_> ok m8
06:50 -!- Guest12706 [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
06:50 < op_mul> Eliel_: that's entirely possible. I can't really assert that my views are sane, I endlessly fail to justify my own use of currency. I think that in the case of change tip, a "thanks" would be a lot easier and a lot better received.
06:50 < AdrianG> Emcy_: think about it. adblock can cement their pole position in search.
06:51 < kanzure> didn't i ban you
06:51 < Emcy_> chemtrails
06:51 < AdrianG> kanzure: you simply dislike my unorthodox ideas and thinking outside the box
06:52 < AdrianG> google could take down adblock any minute from their app store.
06:52 < Emcy_> google isnt in the search business m8. thats the loss leader
06:52 < AdrianG> Emcy_: without their search - they are dead.
06:52 < AdrianG> its just a tool to harvest data and direct ads.
06:52 < AdrianG> relevant ads you will not even consider ads.
06:53 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:53 < Eliel_> op_mul: Well, I do find it very weird to begin with that you'd think getting a donation for your work assigns a value to it.
06:53 < fluffypony> nah, AdBlock is obviously a CIA black ops project
06:53 < fluffypony> duh
06:53 < hearn> ads are a working form of micropayments
06:53 < AdrianG> see, on android it would interfere, and thus was removed
06:53 < AdrianG> https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-removed-from-google-play-store
06:53 < hearn> they aren't related to clickbait.
06:53 < AdrianG> yet, chrome extension is kept in the play store. why?
06:54 < Emcy_> thats different hearn
06:54 < AdrianG> besides. adblock/ads is one thing.
06:54 < Emcy_> with ads the site gets paid even if the content was a pile of shit
06:54 < AdrianG> half of content you see online is pure clickbait
06:55 < AdrianG> "10 reasons why you should never irc"
06:55 < AdrianG> "a list of things you can never do unless..."
06:56 < op_mul> Eliel_: if your neighbour asks you to move some bricks, and they pay you $2 at the end, doesn't that put a value on the work you did? they've qualitatively looked at the situation and decided that value is right given the circumstances.
06:56 < AdrianG> Emcy_: some of that content is comissioned anyway, and ads wouldnt matter
06:56 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:56 < AdrianG> for the right amount of $ you can publish your content almost verbatim on leading blogs.
06:56 < helo> if you build and launch a space shuttle to mars, and someone pays you $2, is that what the work was worth?
06:56 < AdrianG> helo: thats some expensive $2
06:56 -!- Pan0ram1x [~Pan0ram1x@095-096-084-122.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:56 -!- Pan0ram1x is now known as Guest3112
06:56 < Eliel_> op_mul: if the work you did was something they asked for, certainly. However, in the case of a donation, you did it on your own initiative.
06:57 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:57 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
06:57 < Eliel_> op_mul: also, another difference is that in the case of software, your work benefits more than just that one person.
06:58 < op_mul> that's the bit I don't like. I've decided that I will do something for free, for whatever internal reason, and then somebody else has applied a value to it after the fact.
06:59 < helo> they paid you some of what they could based on some emotional motivation
06:59 < Eliel_> op_mul: how do you know they intended to apply value to it? How do you know they didn't just want show you some appreciation?
06:59 < fluffypony> op_mul: so when you have someone round for supper and they bring a bottle of wine as a gift, does that bottle of wine apply value to the meal you've made?
06:59 < AdrianG> sounds like op_mul is against donations. i agree, i think its immoral on some level.
07:00 < sipa> in general, when people give gifts, they are seen as an 'additional reward'; if they give money, it is seen as compensation
07:00 < sipa> for example, in hospitals if you donate blood, they don't pay you, but they may offer drinks/snacks/...
07:00 < op_mul> yes.
07:00 < op_mul> well, the blood bit is so people don't faint as much
07:01 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
07:01 < sipa> if they would pay instead, even a significantly larger amount, people wouldn't do it anymore if the amount wasn't something they would see as 'wage'
07:02 < sipa> though to be honest, commit tips do not have that effect for me
07:03 < hearn> nor me
07:03 < hearn> i like people saying thanks (a lot), but if someone sends me enough money to buy my next cup of tea, i also appreciate that a lot
07:03 < hearn> it's just a social thing. tipping is hard with today's technologies, only cash works really, so most people never receive tips for anything
07:03 < hearn> so it feels weird
07:04 < hearn> bitcoin suddenly makes tipping available for everyone, i think people will get used to it
07:04 < sipa> i've often refused tips after helping people
07:04 < hearn> changetip is nice because it lets people specify amounts in terms of real, useful objects, like coffees or beers
07:04 < hearn> it's easier to appreciate a free beer than a 0.000353 btc tip
07:05 < sipa> how does it know the price of a beer where i live? :D
07:05 < hearn> yeah in switzerland you need to get two beers or two coffees worth of tips :)
07:06 < op_mul> vast majority of changetip transactions I see are for inane amounts like 100 satoshi though.
07:06 < sipa> at least they don't result in individual blockchain transaction (afaik?)
07:07 < hearn> changetip is basically a bank, yes
07:07 < op_mul> no they don't.
07:07 < sipa> that's fine for an application like this, imho
07:07 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:08 < op_mul> sure.
07:09 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:09 < Eliel_> sipa: people really do have strange behaviours when it comes to money that don't really make sense if you take some distance and reduce the situation to it's essential contents.
07:10 -!- instagibbs [32f65962@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.246.89.98] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:11 -!- vmatekol_ [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:11 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:12 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:14 < op_mul> Eliel_: humans are squishy and irrational.
07:14 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:15 < Eliel_> op_mul: I know, I have firsthand experiences about it every day. Yes, even when I'm by myself :P
07:17 < AdrianG> so is changetip gaining traction?
07:17 -!- instagibbs [32f65962@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.246.89.98] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
07:17 < AdrianG> or is it still their viral campaign?
07:19 < kanzure> ask in #bitcoin
07:23 -!- hearn [~mike@185.25.95.132] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
07:23 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:33 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:34 -!- atgreen` [~user@out-on-190.wireless.telus.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:36 -!- atgreen [~user@TOROON12-1242491862.sdsl.bell.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:48 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f12ec5a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
07:53 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:53 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:55 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
07:56 -!- tacotime [~mashkeys@198.52.200.63] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:56 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f12ec5a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:58 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:58 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
07:59 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Excess Flood]
07:59 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:09 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:10 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
08:10 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:12 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
08:12 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:12 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:14 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:14 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
08:14 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:19 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@host-92-19-6-223.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:20 -!- adam3us [~Adium@81.170.118.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
08:26 -!- soundx [~soundx@gateway/tor-sasl/soundx] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:40 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
08:40 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:41 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@host-92-19-6-223.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:45 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:46 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has quit [Quit: Bye]
08:49 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:54 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:59 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
09:04 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:07 -!- treehug88 [~treehug88@66.6.34.255] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:14 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
09:16 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:22 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:26 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
09:36 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:36 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:37 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:40 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
09:40 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:45 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:46 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:48 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:48 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:51 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:53 -!- atgreen` [~user@out-on-190.wireless.telus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
09:54 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:55 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:55 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:58 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:59 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
10:04 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:04 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79-98-72-216.sys-data.com] has quit [Changing host]
10:04 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:05 -!- vdo [~vdo@unaffiliated/vdo] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
10:07 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:08 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:08 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:13 -!- MoALTz [~no@user-46-112-11-86.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:14 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:14 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:14 < kanzure> "Another caveat is that in any anonymity system in which client churn is present AND users maintain long-lived pseudonyms of any kind, client churn can be used by a smart attacker to de-anonymize clients via intersection attacks. This basically means that if you want "the strongest possible" anonymity protection, you basically either have to (a) never maintain pseudonyms or use time-linkable communication sessions at all (difficult!), ...
10:14 < kanzure> ... or (b) eliminate client churn completely (also difficult!). Our Buddies paper explores this tradeoff and the (admittedly limited, so far) practical defenses that we can build against intersection attacks: <http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/papers/buddies-abs>"
10:15 < kanzure> from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8762219
10:15 < kanzure> "Dissent does not specify or care how exactly a group is formed, and the sybil/sockpuppetry attack protection it provides is inevitably only as strong as the group formation mechanism. Dissent's accountability guarantee basically means that - unlike most anonymity protocols - it is not any more vulnerable to sybil or sockpuppetry attacks than (say) an otherwise-comparable group communication protocol offering no anonymity."
10:16 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
10:16 -!- CoinMuncher1 [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:17 -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@109.113.127.236] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:26 < Eliel_> kanzure: couldn't you defend against intersection attacks by preparing some chaff in the form of random messages that will make it look like you're online even though you aren't? At least in certain kinds of systems.
10:26 -!- erasmospunk [~erasmospu@109.113.127.236] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
10:26 < gmaxwell> you can't be online if you have no power.
10:27 < Eliel_> naturally, you'd need to leave them with third parties in such a case
10:27 < gmaxwell> (IOW, your apparent onlineness can never be statistically indpendant of your ability to be online)
10:28 < Eliel_> you don't need to succeed too often at seemingly being online even when you aren't to make analysis orders of magnitude harder
10:31 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
10:44 -!- Dr-G is now known as FBI-Agent
10:45 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:47 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
10:47 -!- op_mul [~op_mul@2a03:b0c0:2:d0::1:6001] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
10:47 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:49 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
10:49 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:49 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2601:9:4680:dd0:80d0:7793:508e:1d4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:55 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
10:59 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
11:02 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:02 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:04 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Client Quit]
11:06 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:08 -!- luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
11:09 -!- heath [~heath@unaffiliated/ybit] has quit [Quit: leaving]
11:10 -!- heath [~heath@131.252.130.250] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:10 -!- heath [~heath@131.252.130.250] has quit [Changing host]
11:10 -!- heath [~heath@unaffiliated/ybit] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:10 -!- heath [~heath@unaffiliated/ybit] has quit [Client Quit]
11:10 -!- arowser [~arowser@106.120.101.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:11 -!- heath [~heath@unaffiliated/ybit] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:12 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:12 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:18 -!- austinhill [~Adium@bas11-montrealak-1177755981.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:20 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:22 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:32 -!- orik [~orik@75.149.169.53] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:36 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:42 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:43 -!- FBI-Agent is now known as Dr-G
11:43 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:46 -!- [\\\] [~\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:47 -!- [\\\] [~\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Excess Flood]
11:48 -!- [\\\] [\\\@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:57 -!- vmatekole [~vmatekole@p5DC47AD7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:00 -!- Tjopper [~Jop@dhcp-077-249-237-229.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:01 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:01 < fluffypony> http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/
12:05 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-229-205-98.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:05 < Taek> I do find it annoying to find threads littered with 10 cent tips. But changetip is already halfway to being a micropayment hub, maybe they can pivot?
12:06 < fluffypony> maybe
12:06 < fluffypony> how much of a need is there for micropayments?
12:07 < fluffypony> catching a minibus taxi here in South Africa costs between R10 - R15
12:07 < fluffypony> which is like $0.90 to $1.40 or so
12:08 < fluffypony> so with BTC, Electrum tells me the fee would be 0.000129 on that transaction
12:08 < fluffypony> so ~5% of an actual micro-transaction in fees
12:12 < tacotime> well, i think the locktime thing from peter todd is supposed to enable them with smaller fees. there's a writeup on it somewhere on BCT iirc.
12:13 < fluffypony> yeah, which I imagine would give changetip less value as a micropayment hub
12:15 < Taek> Also relevent: http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/farewell-dr-dobbs/240169421
12:16 < Taek> imagine paying something like 1 cent to read a blog post. You'd have to be careful about abuse, but it could be superior to ad revenue
12:16 < kanzure> isn't the changetip thing more suitable for #bitcoin
12:16 < Taek> yeah probably
12:16 < tacotime> probably
12:17 < kanzure> as for micropayments, i suspect that the interesting designs there will involve extensions or alternatives to the microchannel hub and spoke model
12:17 < kanzure> rather than individual payments
12:19 < Taek> probably more relevant: if you've got a server that uses micropayments as a primary source of revenue, at what point does repeated signature verification become cumbersome?
12:19 < Taek> If you're serving a 45kb page in return for a signature, will cpu cost start to exceed bandwidth cost?
12:21 < gmaxwell> I have a new scheme for probablistic payments that works in the current network. ::shrugs:: but I think the "theoretical interest" in many of these things is more than the actual interest.
12:23 < kanzure> probabilistic-on-threshold payments may be interesting
12:23 < kanzure> what's probabilistic about your probabilistic payments?
12:23 -!- jtimon [~quassel@145.pool85-53-220.dynamic.orange.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:24 < gmaxwell> It seems to me that people are weirdly spazzy about chance. They'll gamble in one turn, with negative expectation,  but not like their 1 cent micropayment song purchase to be probablistic.
12:24 -!- jtimon [~quassel@wilkins2.static.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:24 < kanzure> probably because they are trying to listen to that specific song?
12:24 < gmaxwell> kanzure: You pay someone, or don't. Unknown to you, only the reciever. With some known odds.  It allows very small average payments with reduced transaction volume.  There have been schemes forever for it in bitcoin, prior ones didn't work in the existing network.
12:25 < gmaxwell> Well you prove you tried. So the seller accepts your attempt as payment.
12:26 < Taek> probabilistic payments might make more sense for something like a bittorrent download
12:26 < kanzure> also, i don't know how important this sort of level of pedanticism is, but mostly you would be buying a license to the song rather than buying a song itself (buying data doesn't work very often)
12:26 < Taek> if you make a payment every 32kb or whatever, but download 3GB, your variance is going to be low
12:26 -!- atgreen [~user@out-pq-160.wireless.telus.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:28 < gmaxwell> kanzure: thats not helpful here. But noted. :P
12:29 < gmaxwell> (and really I didn't even mean the licensing! since you're going to be pedantic, I mean buying the service of sending it to me!)
12:38 < kanzure> well i think the difference does matter, because then you know to look for ways to make payment contingent on receipt or non-reciept of data. not sure.
12:40 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:42 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, probabalistic payments work if im paying for a website paywall
12:43 < phantomcircuit> not so much for minibux taxi in SA
12:43 < phantomcircuit> oops gtg
12:43 < phantomcircuit> 3
12:43 -!- jasonw22 [~jasonw22@208.74.176.33.static.etheric.net] has quit [Quit: Lingo: www.lingoirc.com]
12:48 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:50 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:53 -!- luny [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
12:55 -!- MoALTz [~no@user-46-112-11-86.play-internet.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
12:55 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:56 -!- c0rw1n_ [~c0rw1n@174.179-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit []
12:57 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@174.179-67-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:02 -!- treehug8_ [~treehug88@static-96-239-100-47.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:03 -!- Quanttek [~quassel@ip1f12ec5a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:04 -!- treehug88 [~treehug88@66.6.34.255] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:05 -!- treehug88 [~treehug88@static-96-239-100-47.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:07 -!- treehug8_ [~treehug88@static-96-239-100-47.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:09 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:10 -!- luny [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:10 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:13 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:15 -!- treehug8_ [~treehug88@66.6.34.255] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:16 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:17 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:17 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:18 -!- treehug88 [~treehug88@static-96-239-100-47.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
13:20 -!- NikolaiToryzin_ [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:20 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:21 -!- NikolaiToryzin_ [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has quit [Excess Flood]
13:21 -!- NikolaiToryzin [~stqism@freebsd/user/stqism] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:25 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hxpblhryreonmidn] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:27 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-pukrogigeexayglb] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:29 -!- nuke__ is now known as nuke1989
13:30 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:31 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
13:33 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-pukrogigeexayglb] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:33 -!- Profreid [~Profreitt@81.17.16.170] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:34 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ocgxsvhwlasobbko] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:35 -!- atgreen [~user@out-pq-160.wireless.telus.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:37 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:39 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:40 -!- zooko [~user@c-71-229-205-98.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:41 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ocgxsvhwlasobbko] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:43 -!- gues [~gues@193.138.219.233] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:48 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@197.115.124.24.cm.sunflower.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:48 -!- gues [~gues@193.138.219.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:49 -!- luny` [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:50 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:51 -!- luny [~luny@unaffiliated/luny] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:55 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qylfwdcxjihzuals] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:56 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:57 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:00 -!- tacotime [~mashkeys@198.52.200.63] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
14:00 -!- adam3us1 [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:01 -!- bitbumper [~bitbumper@161.47.143.24.cm.sunflower.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:01 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-qylfwdcxjihzuals] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:03 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-eemlealdiuognxzo] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:05 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
14:06 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:06 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:07 -!- gues [gues@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-eemlealdiuognxzo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:08 -!- cbeams [~cbeams@unaffiliated/cbeams] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:09 -!- bramc [~bram@38.99.42.130] has quit [Client Quit]
14:10 -!- gues [~gues@cpe-66-68-54-206.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:13 -!- moa [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/moa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:16 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:17 -!- luny` is now known as luny
14:23 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2601:9:4680:dd0:80d0:7793:508e:1d4] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
14:23 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:29 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
14:33 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:34 < kanzure> i don't understand this part "Any fork in publication is obvious as it would require different Bitcoin addresses to be used" maybe they are using multiple outputs already, how would i know?
14:34 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:34 < kanzure> (from <http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33161130/>
14:34 < kanzure> s/multiple outputs/different pubkeys
14:35 -!- tacotime [~mashkeys@198.52.200.63] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:37 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:49 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:55 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:00 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@50-0-206-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Quit: leaving]
15:01 -!- shesek [~shesek@77.126.5.17] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:03 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:03 -!- Profreid [~Profreitt@81.17.16.170] has quit [Quit: Profreid]
15:06 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:07 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:08 -!- Tjopper [~Jop@dhcp-077-249-237-229.chello.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:10 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Client Quit]
15:20 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: tlrobinson]
15:21 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:24 -!- treehug8_ [~treehug88@66.6.34.255] has quit []
15:25 -!- Dizzle [~diesel@70.114.207.41] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
15:35 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtagg_@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:37 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: tlrobinson]
15:38 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:40 -!- maraoz [~maraoz@181.29.97.171] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:52 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2600:1010:b100:b2ce:607b:9839:e696:3fea] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:57 -!- orik [~orik@75.149.169.53] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
15:58 -!- Guest22767 [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit []
16:03 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
16:13 -!- bit2017 [~linker@183.80.130.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:17 -!- coiner [~linker@183.80.130.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:19 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:23 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@50-202-79-166-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: tlrobinson]
16:24 -!- Shiftos [~shiftos@gateway/tor-sasl/shiftos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:33 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@162-233-201-112.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:33 -!- devrandom [~devrandom@162-233-201-112.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Client Quit]
16:34 -!- Shiftos [~shiftos@gateway/tor-sasl/shiftos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:34 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:9c6e:bb06:f66:b629] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
16:39 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@78-157-5.adsl.cyta.gr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:40 -!- nuke1989 [~nuke@78-157-5.adsl.cyta.gr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- cpacia [~chis@c-76-118-174-159.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- cpacia [~chis@c-76-118-174-159.hsd1.nh.comcast.net] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
16:46 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:46 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:48 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
16:49 -!- omni [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:50 -!- omni is now known as Guest73638
16:51 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:52 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:52 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:53 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:55 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:56 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:04 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2600:1010:b100:b2ce:607b:9839:e696:3fea] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
17:05 -!- tlrobinson [~tlrobinso@204.14.159.136] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:05 -!- jtimon [~quassel@wilkins2.static.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
17:07 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:08 -!- belcher [~belcher-s@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:10 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:7993:a6c0:5923:b45f] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:15 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2600:1010:b100:b2ce:607b:9839:e696:3fea] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:21 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@2600:1010:b100:b2ce:607b:9839:e696:3fea] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
17:22 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:23 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:37 -!- hearn [~mike@84-75-198-85.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
17:37 -!- DougieBot5000 [~DougieBot@unaffiliated/dougiebot5000] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:38 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/sdcdev] has quit [Changing host]
17:38 -!- SDCDev [~quassel@unaffiliated/rynomster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:48 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:53 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:54 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:55 -!- jb55_ [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:55 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:00 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
18:05 -!- woah [~woah@75-101-111-82.dedicated.static.sonic.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
18:18 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:26 -!- SDCDev is now known as pistoff
18:26 -!- pistoff is now known as pistdov_
18:27 -!- pistdov_ is now known as Nomster
18:34 -!- Dr-G2 [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:38 -!- Dr-G [~Dr-G@gateway/tor-sasl/dr-g] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:38 -!- nullbyte [~WW@unaffiliated/loteriety] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:54 -!- austinhill [~Adium@bas11-montrealak-1177755981.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:55 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:59 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:00 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:00 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:05 -!- jb55 [~jb55@S0106f46d049a0b83.vc.shawcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
19:07 -!- grau [~grau@37.143.74.116] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:24 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:27 -!- RoboTedd_ [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:31 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
19:32 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
19:34 -!- atgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:36 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:37 -!- adlai [~Adlai@gateway/tor-sasl/adlai] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
19:39 -!- woah [~woah@199-241-202-232.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:41 -!- hashtagg [~hashtagg_@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:43 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtagg_@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:46 -!- hashtag_ [~hashtagg_@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:47 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:48 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has quit [Quit: changing servers]
19:49 -!- Iriez [wario@distribution.xbins.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:49 -!- hashtagg [~hashtagg_@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:50 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:50 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:52 -!- atgreen` [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:53 -!- atgreen [~user@CPE687f74122463-CM84948c2e0610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:58 -!- aburan28 [~ubuntu@static-108-45-93-73.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:09 -!- bit2017 [~linker@183.80.130.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
20:16 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:17 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:17 -!- RoboTedd_ [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:17 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:22 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:22 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@173.247.202.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:23 < petertodd> gmaxwell: re: prob payments, writeup? I know people who have use-cases for this
20:24 < petertodd> gmaxwell: also, re: sign-to-contract (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=893898.msg9861102#msg9861102) has anyone implemented this/reviewed the crypto?
20:28 -!- Nomster [~quassel@unaffiliated/rynomster] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
20:30 < bramc> probabilistic payments should be implementable with the oakland lottery trick
20:31 < petertodd> bramc: that soo doesn't turn up any useful google results :)
20:31 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
20:32 < bramc> petertodd, https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/784.pdf
20:34 < bramc> Basically I can gift you a utxo if you can guess the length of a preimage correctly
20:35 < bramc> It might be a few minutes of arrow-drawing to make it so that everything works out correctly and there are literally no transactions committed in the event where you lose
20:35 < petertodd> bramc: oh, that's the guys who did that magic scriptPubKey that actually did something useful with OP_SIZE...
20:35 < gmaxwell> petertodd: no writeup yet.  It's much better IMO than the OP_SIZE trick.
20:36 < bramc> gmaxwell, What's the other trick?
20:36 < gmaxwell> as far as sign to contract. New revelation, so not extensively reviewed yet. Though the security argument is basically that of pay to contract.
20:37 < petertodd> gmaxwell: cool, sign to contract is highly useful for implementing uncensorable embedded consensus schemes conveniently
20:38 < bramc> What is 'sign to contract'?
20:38 < gmaxwell> Yes, I'm excited about it. I think it's finally a scheme where I'd feel happy implementing timestamping as a standard feature in bitcoin-qt. e.g. queue of hashes, whenever you transact it commits to the queue as a side effect of a signature and writes out the proof.
20:38 < petertodd> bramc: make a signature commit to hash
20:39 < bramc> I'm not following
20:39 < petertodd> bramc: so, I want to make a sig, such that it depends on H(msg), such that I can't pretend it depended on H(msg') instead
20:39 < gmaxwell> bramc: I can, as a side effect of a signature, prove some data existed as of a particular time and that it was asscoiated with the transaction.
20:40 < petertodd> bramc: see "Use committed encryption keys for anti-censorship" at the bottom of this: https://github.com/petertodd/uniquebits
20:41 < petertodd> bramc: which incidentally mostly solves adam back's issues with doing hidden encrypted transactions re: miners censoring the revealing of them, as the revealing of those encryption keys can be done lazily (he may have already come up with this - that was a long discussion)
20:41 < gmaxwell> bramc: or see the appendix a in the sidechains whitepaper for a scheme performing such a commitment with the payment pubkey rather than the signature.
20:42 < gmaxwell> petertodd: kinda we always knew it could be revealed later, there just wasn't a way to guarentee that parties ever heard it (unless you go with the 'all the history rides with the payment channel' approach)
20:42 < petertodd> gmaxwell: which is of course what I'm actually implementing
20:42 < gmaxwell> I figured.
20:43 < bramc> How can that be used for probabilistic payment?
20:43 < bramc> I had a crazy idea today
20:43 < petertodd> gmaxwell: (though truncated history based on trusted validator - can swap out miner signature equally well)
20:43 < gmaxwell> there were two seperate questions, PP and sign to contract.
20:43 < gmaxwell> petertodd: yes, reissuance effectively.
20:43 < petertodd> gmaxwell: yup
20:44 < petertodd> gmaxwell: which hilariously looks almost identical to a blockchain...
20:44 < gmaxwell> (though I still think thats only of moderate value, ... have the issuer keep the whole ledger :) )
20:44 < gmaxwell> (I mean the general model of using a blockchain like system when there exist a party that could safely reissue)
20:44 < gmaxwell> but opinions differ and I respect that, I'm not actually sure how little value I think it is.
20:44 < petertodd> gmaxwell: merkle sum everything for trust/fraud-proofing of course
20:45 < gmaxwell> sure sure, though you can make recepit producing purely centeralized systems too.
20:45 < bramc> Would it be possible to cram an IP address into the signature for a coin, and then have client machines use SPV to find the latest thing that coin's been paid to and extract the IP address from the signature, to make a censorship-resistant form of DNS lookup?
20:45 < petertodd> gmaxwell: meh, whatever, issuers demand this stuff and doing the whole nine yards of it gives them operational flexibility
20:45 < bramc> On pay to contract: I see how you can use it as a hack around op_size, but isn't it not supported by current bitcoin opcodes?
20:46 < gmaxwell> bramc: spv in the bitcoin model can't be used for output lookups like that, though it's possible to have a commitment over a search tree that can be.  What you're describing sounds like namecoin (or rather what namecoin should be)
20:47 < gmaxwell> petertodd: yea, I wasn't trying to debate it in any case; as I said, I accept opinions differ. My views on that subject are only strong enough that I feel compelled to mention "blockchains are not pixie dust" whenever it comes up. :)
20:47 -!- bit2017 [~linker@113.161.87.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:48 < gmaxwell> Maybe you have some idea at the number of people I've encountered in the last couple months who want to use blockchains for applications which make _no_ sense to me, which they only can justify with a bunch of handwaving. :)
20:48 < petertodd> gmaxwell: sounds like you haven't seen any of my recent talks... I spend half my professional life saying that
20:48 < moa> hand-waving??
20:48 < gmaxwell> I knoe you do, audience wasn't you there. It's just automatic now. :P  #include <blockchains_are_not_magic.h>    (gah, we've become the new "DHT")
20:49 < gmaxwell> moa: you're not familar with the term? Whats your native language?
20:49 < moa> sign language lol
20:49 < bramc> gmaxwell, This seems like the sort of thing where you would specifically NOT want to start a separate currency, I don't understand what you mean by 'commitment over a search tree' though
20:50 < gmaxwell> moa: haha! well that term might be vaguely insulting then! sorry about that.
20:50 < moa> jk
20:50 < gmaxwell> (I was going to see if google translate would translate the idiom, I assume all languages have an idiom for this.  It just means a deflecting answer, "maybe this, maybe that. Oh look aliens!")
20:51 < moa> yeah i'm more than familiar ... usually in an academic context
20:52 -!- adam3us [~Adium@88-105-16-245.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:53 < gmaxwell> bramc: yea namecoin is an example of the sillyness of a new currency for everything.  It needs some ratelimiting token to prevent flooding though.    A normal hash tree can only prove membership.  In bitcoin SPV the hashtree shows that a block included a transaction. What you cannot prove (in bitcoin today) is that the very next block didn't spend that output and move the name to a new IP; except
20:53 < gmaxwell>  by revealing the whole block.
20:54 < gmaxwell> But any query on any data structure can be converted to an authenticated query with complexity related to the number of bits the non-authenticated version read.  E.g. you can see a normal hash tree as creating an authenicated version of an array lookup.
20:55 < gmaxwell> You could alternatively make a authenicated version of a map (e.g. an authenticated red-black tree), that can support looking up a key and proving the result of the lookup.
20:55 -!- hashtagg_ [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:56 < gmaxwell> which is actually what you need for this application, I wrote about it some way back here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21995.0  ... though the terminology there is kind of odd because that was before we understood these ideas in the more general sense that we understand them now.
20:58 < petertodd> "hearn: For Namecoin this is likely not a big problem. You can just download a signed snapshot of the database from the same place you downloaded the software.
20:58 < petertodd> " <- lol
20:59 -!- hashtag [~hashtag@CPE-69-23-213-3.wi.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:59 < gmaxwell> Yea, ... well at least we know that Mike wasn't corrupted by secret agents after Bitcoin became popular. :)
20:59 < petertodd> re, "the compelxity related" - out of curiosity is that an actual proven statement, or guesswork
20:59 < petertodd> gmaxwell: time machines
20:59 < Guest73638> namecoin?  why wouldn't you want to put a name resolution system onto a blockchain?
20:59 < petertodd> Guest73638: human reasons - people *want* there to be centralized legal systems to audicate disputes
20:59 < kanzure> petertodd: did you reply to the factom email (aka did i miss that)?
21:00 < gmaxwell> petertodd: it's proven, I mean, amiller actually implemented some haskell magic code that lets you write an inductive expression of your algorithim (e.g. recursive) and it makes an authenticated query out of it.
21:00 < Guest73638> petertodd: that's not a sufficient reason *here*, given you can say the same for money.
21:00 < kanzure> petertodd: (i was alarmed by their "Any fork in publication is obvious as it would require different Bitcoin addresses to be used" statement...)
21:00 < gmaxwell> kanzure: well you can make a blockchain system that supports that, and even makes the lines of trust clear.
21:01 < petertodd> kanzure: oh, yeah, I saw that today - want to write up a proper reply given I'm going to be basically saying they're business model is silly
21:01 < kanzure> petertodd: fair enough
21:01 < gmaxwell> kanzure: though the consistency requirements for names is perhaps somewhat lower than e.g. a currency. Because no one ever merges names, and names are inherently not fungible.
21:01 < kanzure> gmaxwell: hm? it sounds like they can just be using multiple addresses already, and you woulnd't be able to detect that
21:01 < kanzure> oh, i am not talking about names
21:01 < kanzure> you have wires crossed
21:01 < gmaxwell> sorry thought you were responding to Guest73638
21:01 < petertodd> Guest73638: well *here* we can just use the secure and globally unique legs of zooko's triangle...
21:02 < kanzure> hehe
21:02 < bramc> gmaxwell, so is the problem that you can't spv asking 'what happened to to coin X'?
21:03 < gmaxwell> anyways, anyone thinking of out namecoining namecoin should have read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/namecoin_that_sucks_less  (actually I should update that to include the pairing crypto p2sh^2 proofs)
21:03 < bramc> Or is it that you can't get proof of that record of what happened to it?
21:03 < gmaxwell> bramc: not in bitcoin today. Its conceptually simple to support that, it just requires additional commitments. For bitcoin it's only of moderate importance, for namecoin it's quite critical.
21:03 < Guest73638> well let's just be honest and admit that we're boohooing namecoin because it detracts from Bitcoin.
21:03 < Guest73638> not that i have a problem with it.
21:04 < gmaxwell> bramc: I can prove to you something happened to it,  but I can't prove to you nothing happened to it. Which means I can lie and say nothing happened.
21:04 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: wtf?
21:04 < Guest73638> oh sorry, i thought that was the case.
21:04 < petertodd> Guest73638: wtf?
21:04 < kanzure> why did you think that
21:04 < bramc> gmaxwell, there's a real question as to whether that sort of attack matters
21:04 < Guest73638> because i don't see a reason why namecoin shouldn't be on a blockchain.
21:05 < bramc> You could also just not answer the question at all
21:05 < moa> namecoin's merge-mining example is a useful contribution
21:05 < kanzure> Guest73638: that's not what i asked
21:05 < Guest73638> i mean, a name resolution system.
21:05 < Guest73638> sorry, what are you asking
21:05 < kanzure> Guest73638: i asked why did you think "well let's just be honest and admit that we're boohooing namecoin because it detracts from Bitcoin"
21:05 < petertodd> Guest73638: point is, the very *idea* of namecoin isn't somehting that has much chance of getting adopted - like I say, people *don't like* decentralized first-come-first-serve naming systems
21:06 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: I suspect I've made more technical proposals that would _improve_ namecoin than anyone else, going back years.  It's development was largely abandoned, and left in a completely insecure state. If you want me to start "boohooing" I'd be glad to, but thats not what anyone was doing.   Right now namecoin _cannot_ support a secure lite mode resolver, resolving names requires having the hu
21:06 < gmaxwell> ge child porn filled blockchain locally, or trusting someone. This is stilly, fixing it isn't technically hard.  I understand there is some active development now, so maybe they'll fix some of these things soon. (could even be in progress for all I know)
21:06 < petertodd> Guest73638: we think they do, but in reality businesses and average people don't because you can't use the legal system to "make things right" - nothing to do with tech
21:06 < gmaxwell> And yea, namecoin has made a useful contribution to the space for sure.
21:06 < gmaxwell> s/stilly/silly/ :)
21:06 < Guest73638> petertodd: but they like decentralized steal-it-if-you-can systems? // kanzure: oh i just thought that was the case, because that's the only reason i can really think of for knocking namecoin per se, for Bitcoin devs.
21:07 < petertodd> Guest73638: no, they like centralized "let the legal system adjudicate" systems, which we've seen over and over again
21:07 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: If that was your response to the _very explicit_ statements about factual technical limitations of the system that anyone redoing it should improve then you have no business in this channel.
21:09 < kanzure> was the sign-to-contract an attempt at preventing private key related bits when signing?
21:09 < gmaxwell> (I am indeed guilty of being unfairly negative about some things sometimes, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tolerate someone making that kind of accusation about a basic, factual, technical discussion)
21:09 < Guest73638> gmaxwell: well, i'm trying to resolve this statement you made: "bramc: yea namecoin is an example of the sillyness of a new currency for everything."
21:09 < kanzure> (you are so far in the clear that it's hilarious)
21:10 < Guest73638> i'm not making any accusation of technical discussion, just wondering what you meant by the above.
21:10 < gmaxwell> kanzure: the purpose of sign to contract is just to get a commitment into a transaction 'for free', no censorship risk, no space added.  After working with it some I realized it also created a degree of sidechannel supression.
21:10 < kanzure> ah okay
21:12 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: naming is a useful service.  Just like washing cars is a useful service.  My local car wash didn't establish a new currency for their business when they opened up, and if they did they likely wouldn't be successful... it's just overhead, and creates risks.  bramc expressed the view that it seems odd to create a whole new system and currency for a functionality that could be accomplish
21:12 < kanzure> as fr the other thing, there's no good reason to think that a key-value store needs a currency
21:12 < petertodd> kanzure: note how sign-to-contract and nSequence share some commonalities in terms of what part of the transaction is signing what, and what you can do with that
21:12 < gmaxwell> ed without a new currency and I agree.
21:13 < bramc> gmaxwell, I would assume/hope that anybody creating a new cryptocurrency from scratch would make the root of a merkle tree of all unspent coins be included in each block. This is possibly hopelessly naive of me...
21:13 < petertodd> bramc: that's like, 500 lines of code, ugh
21:13 < kanzure> dozens of lines
21:13 < petertodd> bramc: brb, gonna find some cute animal pics
21:13 < petertodd> kanzure: ok, dozens + unittests ;)
21:14 < gmaxwell> bramc: yea basically no one has. Also, its more code than you might think if you need it to support arbritary lookups. It also makes the datastructure more normative, so you don't want to be too sloppy about it.
21:15 < petertodd> gmaxwell: note that you can make the rules be that you check validity of it only if it's included, which allows you to later soft-fork out the (U)TXO commitment-like thing
21:15 < bramc> gmaxwell, I'm thinking there should be a way of canonically going from the blockchain to the merkle tree, to keep the number of funky edge cases under control
21:16 < gmaxwell> petertodd: yea but so long as it can be included you have to track its state so you can validate it and enforce that rule, so if keeping track of it is costly, that may not be good.
21:17 < petertodd> gmaxwell: ah, but see, when you soft-fork it out you can ditch all that stuff - you get the best of both worlds by ensuring there's no real disadvantage to the commitment as you have to calculate it anyway, yet you can uprade it later
21:17 < gmaxwell> bramc: yes, well depends on the tree structure used. For example a normal red/black tree changes its geometry depending on the order data was inserted... wherease a partricia trie does not, it's just a determinstic function of the data. lots of little details to worry about in a commited data structure.
21:17 < petertodd> gmaxwell: *no real disadvantage to including the commitment in your blocks
21:17 < bramc> I'm of split mind right now about whether new block chains should worry about scaling from the get go. I'm convinced that it's a good idea to put a hard limit on volume at the beginning the way bitcoin has, so it's really a question of whether possible eventual scaling problems should can in principle be solved via raising a limit or doing some reorg. Either is a hard fork...
21:17 < gmaxwell> petertodd: oh by preventing the old one? I suppose thats true indeed.
21:17 < petertodd> gmaxwell: exactly, and that process can go on forever
21:17 < Guest73638> how about a merkle tree for unspent coins, but not based on UXTO but based on account balances with incrementing account sequence numbers?
21:17 < petertodd> bramc: we don't know how to scale blockchains yet
21:18 < petertodd> bramc: closest thing we have to answering that question is jdillon's proof-of-stake voting scheme, and that's a crazy political hack (though clever)
21:18 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: the sequence number approach results in unprunable data to prevent replay.. also forcing people into consistent accounts breaks the only privacy story bitcoin has.
21:19 < Guest73638> how is it unprunable?  and you wouldn't be forcing them, you could choose to spend all coins all the time.
21:19 < petertodd> bramc: my guess is treechains can scale *non-validating* blockchains, but that's a very, very specific approach and looks nothing like blockchains as we know them
21:19 < gmaxwell> (god knows why people use bitcoin as it is today; it's almost unbelievable that people would use a system where your landlord or a mugger can see your income, or where your competition can see your prices and sales volumes... but I guess this is less of an issue because so much of the activity is just speculation)
21:19 < bramc> petertodd, You'd basically have to enable sharding, which is something which can be planned for but there might be some immediate costs for possible far off benefits
21:19 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: because you can not forget any previously used sequence number ever, if you're to prevent replay.
21:20 < bramc> petertodd, What do you mean by 'non-validating'?
21:20 < petertodd> bramc: sharding is an old idea - I may have actually been one of the first people to propose it actually - and it has some ugly failure modes when parts of the system lie
21:20 < petertodd> bramc: somewhere on bitcointalk is my "ring-of-blockchains" thought experiment
21:21 < petertodd> bramc: http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03307.html
21:22 -!- RoboTeddy [~roboteddy@c-67-188-40-206.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:22 < Guest73638> gmaxwell: interesting.  though if you require the inclusion of the latest-ish block hash, and always keep some blocks unpruned, would work just  as well.
21:22 < bramc> petertodd, Yes, sharding has obvious problems, hence my being convinced that just putting a flat limit is a perfectly fine thing to do to begin with
21:23 < bramc> Currently bitcoin is doing about 1 transaction/second, it has a hard limit at around 40 transactions/second, not anywhere close to being a problem right now
21:23 < petertodd> bramc: 7tx/second you mean? (and that's a kinda bs estimate)
21:24 < Guest73638> sharding seems fine if you get away from 2 way pegging, perhaps even more desirable to have currencies by geographic region and let the market handle the rest.
21:24 < petertodd> Guest73638: splitting up chains reduces security
21:24 < Guest73638> petertodd: oh right, proof-of-work-land.
21:24 < bramc> petertodd, A thing I read the other day said 110k/day
21:25 < bramc> At some point I'll start gathering some data on this directly myself
21:25 < petertodd> bramc: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Maximum_transaction_rate
21:26 < petertodd> bramc: I wrote that, though it doesn't take into account things like multisig
21:26 < moa> it's in the 80-90k/day currently
21:26 < gmaxwell> Guest73638: has nothing to do with proof of work, though your comment suggest you might benefit from reading some of the little papers on the actual properties a DMMS system needs to meet to be useful (the asic faq and proof of stake papers on bitcoin.ninja).
21:27 < petertodd> Guest73638: splitting up chains even in the proof-of-stake model reduces security
21:27 < petertodd> Guest73638: (to the extent you can say it has any at all)
21:27 < bramc> Guest73638, Why would one care about geographic localities?
21:28 -!- thrasher` [~thrasher@27-33-27-140.static.tpgi.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:28 < Guest73638> bramc: because monetary policy is a political issue, and bitcoin's scheme is but one kind.
21:29 < bramc> bitcoin specifically gives no flexibility whatsoever to 'monetary' policy
21:29 < Guest73638> petertodd: not true. you can have security guarantees that cross chain boundaries.
21:29 < Guest73638> bramc: exactly my point.
21:30 < moa> mmm, what does 'policy' even mean in that context I wonder?
21:30 < moa> like what is the monetary policy of copper
21:30 < Guest73638> moa: maybe you want a local government that experiments with some mixture of minimum guaranteed income.  maybe taxes are integrated.  whatever.
21:31 < moa> oh
21:31 < Guest73638> moa: maybe people become dissatisfied with the distribution of the coins, regardless of the merits of its implementation.
21:31 < moa> sounds convoluted and unworkable
21:31 < Guest73638> moa: a human condition
21:31 < moa> probably best left at the door of a technological discussion forum then
21:32 < Guest73638> bramc: also it'd be nice to have a coin that works just fine even in the face of an internet split
21:32 < Luke-Jr> Guest73638: what you describe is inherently centralised, and has no need for a decentralised consensus system
21:32 < Luke-Jr> you can implement it more efficiently just by having the local government run a money server
21:32 < Luke-Jr> like paypal or such
21:33 < Guest73638> luke-jr: how so? it's inherently decentralized, to let people choose or rotate their own system.
21:33 < Guest73638> luke-jr: oh
21:33 < petertodd> Guest73638: off-topic for #wizards...
21:33 < Guest73638> luke-jr: well you can't start a new government if the current one won't let you start one.
21:33 < Guest73638> petertodd: i was answering the question about motivations for multiple blockchains.
21:33 < Luke-Jr> Guest73638: s/government/central bank/
21:33 < Guest73638> government need not be centralized.
21:34 < Luke-Jr> you can't enumerate people with a decentralised system
21:34 < Luke-Jr> Guest73638: centralised government works better
21:34 < petertodd> Guest73638: monetary policy isn't strictly coupled to the blockchain anyway, as people can easily choose to use tokens embedded within it with any policy they desire
21:35 < Guest73638> i gotta run. thanks for the talk.
21:35 < Luke-Jr> actually, what would a "non-centralised government" even mean? I can't make sense of it..
21:35 < Guest73638> :)
21:35 < moa> agoraphobia?
21:35 < Guest73638> dodophobia
21:43 < bramc> petertodd, How much is that improved if regular transactions use scriptkeys just for the hash compression?
21:44 < petertodd> bramc: I accounted fo rthat I think
21:44 < petertodd> bramc: I'm even assuming everyone combines their tx's together with coinjoin
21:44 -!- op_mul [~op_mul@2a03:b0c0:2:d0::1:6001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:45 < bramc> And it's still 322 bytes/transaction?
21:46 < petertodd> bramc: I guess so? do the math yourself :)
21:46 < op_mul> "< gmaxwell> (god knows why people use bitcoin as it is today" the numbers and letters in the address make it confusing. people honestly believe that using Bitcoin they are anonymous, or at least private. when neither is actually true on any level.
21:46 < bramc> I don't know all the numbers, but if a hash is 256 bits, that's 32 bytes, with two inputs and two outputs that's 128 bytes
21:46 < petertodd> op_mul: lets not get too optimistic about Bitcoin's transparency... even just plausible deniability is pretty good
21:46 < petertodd> bramc: wut?
21:47 < bramc> Oh wait those have to be actual signatures on the inputs, 'scuse me
21:47 < op_mul> petertodd: most people don't have that, though. transactions are often painfully obvious due to dust merging.
21:48 < op_mul> bramc: they could be smaller if we used EC pubkey recovery in transactions, like we do for signed messages. or if the encoding was slightly saner.
21:48 -!- ryanxcharles [~ryanxchar@c-67-169-47-156.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:48 < petertodd> op_mul: the amount of third-party records you need to get to deanonymize people isn't trivial at all
21:49 < op_mul> (signatures are needlessly encoded, burning like 6 bytes per signature)
21:49 < op_mul> oh and people still use uncompressed pubkeys, which makes transactions huge.
21:50 < op_mul> petertodd: tyake changetip for example. I can identify almost all of their deposits due to them making the cold storage address public and static. I don't need any private data to be able to work out what goes in and out of their system. there's no plausible deniability there.
21:51 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:51 < petertodd> op_mul: sigh... try figuring  out which *user* that was related too - it's very non-trivial for your average investigator
21:53 < op_mul> petertodd: any task is hard if you assume buffoonery.
21:54 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
21:56 < op_mul> and really, it isn't even that hard. address reuse means that half the time you have a direct person > person link in a transaction.
21:57 -!- bramc [~bram@99-75-88-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:58 < bramc> Even if all the encoding issues were improved, it would probably still be like a 2x improvement
21:58 < petertodd> op_mul: it's not a matter of buffoonery, it's a matter of not having access to the data
21:58 < bramc> op_mul, a reasonable argument can be made that change should always be kept as change until it hits an aggregator like changetip, who should aggregate all they can at once
22:00 < op_mul> bramc: we can't even get wallet developers to use change addresses, let alone do anything interesting. heck, it takes them losing a quarter of a million USD to stop using random EC nonces.
22:02 < bramc> What do you mean by 'change addresses'?
22:02 < bramc> Do wallets mostly just reuse their public keys a lot?
22:03 < op_mul> when you make a transaction you end up with change. that gets sent to a new address. wallets shouldn't ever be reusing addresses, but they do because wallet developers are lazy and inept.
22:04 < bramc> That is, unfortunately, unsurprising
22:05 < op_mul> one of the biggest ones recently lost 800 BTC due to them first of all using a RNG to make their EC nonces, and then breaking the RNG so it only had 8 bits of entropy.
22:06 < bramc> Aren't you supposed to use the hash of the utxo as the nonce?
22:06 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:07 < op_mul> most certainly not. non-random RFC6979 nonces come from the hash of the message and the private key. if it was the hash of the output it was spending, anybody could recover the private key.
22:07 < bramc> Ah, that makes sense
22:08 < bramc> I tried to explain to the libressl developers that mixing private keys into your RNG source is a good idea. They were having none of it, claiming it was 'insecure' without justification
22:09 < op_mul> you get some nice features from not having an RNG at all too. you have have multiple pieces of software sign the same transaction and then compare them to verify they are not leaking information maliciously.
22:10 < adam3us> so bramc is your interest to catchup with bitcoin or to start a bramcoin, just curious :) if you dont mind us asking you a question in return!
22:10 < bramc> adam3us, I'm not announcing anything right now, people are drawing not unreasonable inferences though
22:11 < adam3us> bramc can you give an example of a not unreasonable inference (i am a bit behind on wizarsd backscroll)
22:11 < bramc> There's been some more off the path discussion in ##altcoin-dev where I was talking about how to mix together cuckoo and nonoutsourcable proofs of work
22:12 -!- Guest73638 [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
22:13 < adam3us> so you know, i went through the hmm people seem to know who I am, i could start an altcoin and probably make some pump & dump $ on it, for all of about 15seconds and then i was thinking, no thats antisocial, evil and selfish - its more sensible to work on improving bitcoin.  hence arriving at encrypted values, and interest in sidechains.
22:14 < moa> and possibly more personally beneficial in the long term ...
22:14 < adam3us> bramc: just trying to nudge you through the right exit to that funnel so we dont get another "silver to bitcoins gold" moment (litecoin ref if you werent around for that one).  a) its unlikely to over take bitcoin whatever it is - making it an unethical pyramid; and b) you shouldnt try because if you did it would be destructive of the very concept
22:14 -!- zooko [~user@c-75-70-204-109.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:15 < bramc> I'm not interesting in a pump and dump of an altcoin, but I have a lot of interesting in what the problems in bitcoin really are and how they might be improved. Almost all the really interesting stuff has to do with decentralizing mining (cuckoo, nonoutsourcable proofs of work, enforced wait times)
22:15 < op_mul> " enforced wait times" sounds impossible.
22:15 < bramc> op_mul, Oh but it isn't
22:16 < bramc> op_mul, https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/553.pdf
22:16 < op_mul> unless you have proof of wait up your sleeve
22:16 < adam3us> bramc: so my view is if there is a problem, its very interesting to work on solutions, and then integrate with bitcoin.  if the improvement is marginal however dont be surprised if its not-worth changing.  something has to be a significant improvement to take the risk at core.  sidechains hopefully will allow more experimentation and you could indirectly experiment with pow in a sidechain off a sidechain.
22:16 < bramc> op_mul, that link gives a way of making a proof of wait, and it can be improved on
22:18 < adam3us> bramc: frankly i am personally going to be a little less interested to help you learn about bitcoin and common blockchain fallacies if you're going to turn around and do the #1 fallacy and make yet-another-altcoin.  there are 1200 or so.  the world really doesnt need another one.
22:18 < bramc> adam3us, Like I said I'm still investigating and not announcing anything right now
22:18 < op_mul> bramc: without having to deal with 28 pages of dense math. how does it get around the sybil problem?
22:19 < adam3us> bramc: yes bram but is that code for i am working on alt coin but i'm not going to say it or people wont give me 100s of hours of free strategic advice. then i'm going to go off and do the anti-social thing.
22:19 < bramc> I won't make another coin unless there's a compelling reason why the same functionality couldn't be crammed into bitcoin. If I do start serious plans to do so I'll give you the opportunity to convince me that I should do it on a sidechain instead
22:19 < bramc> Starting with sidechains shipping
22:19 < adam3us> bramc: well ok, thats good.
22:20 < bramc> adam3us, I might directly contribute stuff to bitcoin unrelated to my grander plans, at the moment I'm planning on looking into collaborative generation of ecdsa signatures for coinswap
22:21 < bramc> There aren't all that many things I consider interesting enough to actually work on, but that one seems useful
22:22 < gwillen> win 1043
22:22 < adam3us> bramc my interest started in a similar direction, to see if there is anything i could do to improve or help with crypto or another set of eyes.  (my conclusion actually is bitcoin is barely improvable, seems mostly optimised out once you digest the fallacies).
22:22 < bramc> op_mul, It has to do with its overall API, it's completely non-interactive. Given hash X, I can generate a proof that I performed a series of sequential operations after X was generated, and have a proof of that which you can verify quickly
22:23 < op_mul> bramc: not really proof that you're doing nothing though, isn't that just like peter todds timelock, forcing highly non-concurrent computation?
22:23 < adam3us> bramc: when i realised that its quite hard to make significant changes to bitcoin due to consensus fork risk, i started looking at sidechains.  if you get bored you could look at that - seems to me to be the most promising avenue to enable more rapid innovation on blockchains without the pyramids inherent in altcoins.
22:23 < bramc> adam3us, So far I've gotten through figuring out that trying to improve transaction close times and scaling aren't actually worth banging one's head against
22:24 < bramc> op_mul, If the block chain requires proofs of sequential work between blocks, that's time when everybody just has to sit around and wait
22:25 < bramc> adam3us, I've gotten quite the earful about sidechains on here, I still have many questions though and am waiting for more concrete proposals to even consider actually doing anything with them
22:25 < adam3us> bramc: ie first create a framework for extensions, then go make interesting extensions.  if the extension framework doesnt exist (last year) or is in progress and is complex (now) seems like the most useful place for someone smart enough to make a non-fallacy-repeat contribution would be to basically muck-in, help-out and work with the community.
22:25 < adam3us> bramc: i think its all hanging out there no?  the paper, bitcoin-dev post etc.
22:25 < op_mul> bramc: sounds like a reason for me to get into liquid nitrogen CPU cooling.
22:26 < bramc> adam3us, I found the paper hard to read through (I suck at reading papers) but most of my basic questions have been answered
22:27 < adam3us> btw to be clear i consider asic-hard to be yet another fallacy.  no offence to tromp but that is not the #1 interesting technical problem in blockchains, not even #10.
22:27 -!- HaltingState [~HaltingSt@unaffiliated/haltingstate] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:27 < bramc> op_mul, feel free, it's an interesting experiment to see how well it works. There's no direct payoff to running an honesty server beyond possibly getting more mining time for yourself if you get to it first. Having multiple people who do that just results in the overall work factor going up and they cancel each other out
22:28 < bramc> We might have different definitions of 'interesting'
22:28 < op_mul> quite
22:29 < op_mul> I'm used to working with things in tens of megahertz, not trying to get gigahertz out of a CPU with extreme cooling.
22:29 < bramc> Nobody's asked about how to fix the problem that you only have one measure of whether things are too easy or too hard, time, and there are now two different work factors to adjust for
22:30 < bramc> Trying to combine nonoutsourcability and time gaps is proving to make quite the frankensteinian monster, I'm not entirely sure it can be done well
22:31 < adam3us> bramc: interesting as in achieves something new or significantly better for bitcoin functionality, decentralisation or security.  if the pow is good enough, and evidence is that it is.  changing it to scrypt is worse, changing it to blake2 makes no difference, x11 etc marginally worse.  where worse is slower verification, needless added complexity or higher vulnerability to asic optimisation; usefull better being hugely, massiv
22:32 < op_mul> adam3us: you got snipped at the end there. ended with massive.
22:32 < bramc> adam3us, I view limiting the amount of senseless destruction which goes into mining as a good thing
22:32 < adam3us> usefull better being hugely, massively harder for asic optimisation and bitcoin centralisation at breaking point.
22:33 < adam3us> bramc: its not senseless.  its an economic necessity.  thats an economic fallacy.
22:34 < bramc> adam3us, There's plenty of hardware sitting around depreciating all the time. If the costs of mining were adjusted to be primarily hardware depreciation then the amount of new investment in mining would go down, and it would be relying primarily on sunk costs
22:34 < adam3us> bramc: if coins have a production cost below their value, rational economic actors will spend up to the market value chasing it.  if thats via politics, buying or bribing stake holders (pos) etc
22:35 < adam3us> bramc: i dont think my arguments change.  its economic fundamental of commodity pricing.
22:35 < adam3us> szabo wrote about it, and paul sztorc.
22:36 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:304:cff8:1580:7993:a6c0:5923:b45f] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
22:36 < bramc> adam3us, I have in fact worked through this. If actors are basically proving that they already wasted some money on depreciating hardware, then they aren't going to incur much new costs because the depreciating hardware has already happened
22:37 < op_mul> proof of work is more about the power cost than the hardware cost.
22:37 -!- omni [~omni@75-101-96-71.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:37 < adam3us> bramc: so then their depreciating hardware isnt costing them anything new.  there has to be a separable mining dedicated cost on either hardware or power.  obviously something will shift. eg price of used hardware will rise, or people will make asics for whatever it is.  to think hardware cant win over software is pure fallacy.
22:37 < op_mul> any ASIC you can buy today will use more power than it's own outright cost in a matter of days.
22:38 -!- omni is now known as Guest35159
22:38 < Guest35159> There's a good way to definitively solve the non-prunability of sequence numbered accounts.
22:38 < bramc> op_mul, the interesting question is how to change that. Cuckoo and proofs of time shift things quite a bit
22:38 < bramc> I don't think that the power thing happens in a matter of days, last numbers I saw the power and hardware costs of miners are roughly on par with each other
22:39 < adam3us> bramc: if the cost is the same, and necessarily so, and already work just fine, why is it interesting to engage in creating something different.  different isnt better its just different.  unless you can persuade bitcoin to change, via rational argument its a dead duck.  you could maybe do it on a sidechain via a pow-adaptor sidechain, but still if its no advantage why bother.
22:39 < bramc> adam3us, There's a *lot* of depreciating hardware out there, far more than the amount of bitcoin specific hardware
22:40 < op_mul> the value of the hardware is next to meaningless though
22:40 < op_mul> it's all about the running costs.
22:40 < adam3us> bramc: so what.  it still uses power, and economic systems are dynamic. the price of used hardware will rise.  and anyway within 6-12mo of it being relevant an asic will arise which will decimate it.
22:40 < bramc> adam3us, the political reason is to shift power away from the miners is that they're highly centralized, while people who already have depreciating hardware are highly decentralized
22:41 < bramc> I'm not so sure that an asic can decimate cuckoo. And putting in time gaps hurts it via depreciation quite a lot.
22:41 < adam3us> bramc: decentralisation is something that is interesting, yes.  but i dont think you can imagine depreciating hardware can compete against asics.
22:41 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:42 < bramc> adam3us, Well if your argument is whether the project can succeed that's a different question
22:43 < adam3us> bramc: gmaxwell gave some refs to custom memory research a while back.  this is non-adversarial thinking by software people who dont know about hardware.  we feel smart because we know software. there are people with 20 years experience and near genius iq working in hardware.  we know squat about hw optimisation and our pronouncements about asic hardness would make them chortle.
22:43 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Client Quit]
22:44 < adam3us> bramc: an important design criteria for a pow is that its optimal asic implementation should be simple, and the non-optimal trivial with a smooth scaling in between.  cuckoo fails that and it matters.  that can easily make cuckoo net worse for asic in the same way scrypt was.
22:44 < petertodd> adam3us: +1 I had that exact same conversation with actual hardware people
22:45 < bramc> adam3us, Could be, but I'm unconvinced and think the experiment is worth running
22:46 -!- roidster [~chatzilla@96-41-48-194.dhcp.mtpk.ca.charter.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:46 < bramc> scrypt is a particularly bad choice of proof of work. It's a password hashing function, those are hard to verify by design
22:46 < phantomcircuit> <op_mul> any ASIC you can buy today will use more power than it's own outright cost in a matter of days.
22:46 < phantomcircuit> nah
22:46 -!- roidster is now known as Guest35090
22:47 < op_mul> phantomcircuit: realised after I said it. weeks, probably. lets call it hyperbole and I forget I said it.
22:47 < adam3us> bramc: you probably want to find a real hw wizard before you put time or money into it.
22:47 < phantomcircuit> op_mul, ~ 30 days
22:47 < bramc> adam3us, I know a real hardware wizard who I spoke to about stuff before, I haven't run cuckoo by him yet, most certainly will
22:47 < adam3us> and expect if you make bramcoin or cuckoocoin on the sales pitch of it, rather than a sidechain experiment similar ridicule to litecoin.
22:48 < adam3us> bramc: would be interested in the hw feedback!
22:48 < bramc> He told me a funny thing about litecoin - people are spending more on designing fabs for litecoin than the litecoin total rewards are
22:48 < phantomcircuit> that seems unlikely
22:48 < phantomcircuit> it costs millions
22:48 < adam3us> bramc: yes.  btw what i was saying about litecoin fail i guess you heard the story but it was a like quadruple fail.
22:49 < bramc> I don't know full details about litecoin mining, just that one story
22:49 < op_mul> sick of GPU mining? mine Litecoin, it's CPU only!
22:49 < adam3us> bramc: first it was claimed to be gpu-hard, then (surprise!) someone made a gpu version that was 10x faster decimating break even on cpu. then it was claimed asic hard, and eventually someone made an asic again decimating gpu
22:50 < op_mul> adam3us: hello, trivial tomato.
22:51 < adam3us> bramc: it also had other false claims.  decentralised because of those claims.  well no those claims are false.  when people figured it out they demanded litecoin change pow, leading to a whole-coin design fork.  but charlie lee managed to hold it togehter and say it would break the social contract even tho litecoin self-admittedly failed all of its claimed design criteria.
22:51 < bramc> The hardware expert I spoke to told me that the thing you really want to do is force the asic to use a huge amount of the dye, and that scrypt basically isn't using enough memory
22:51 < phantomcircuit> bramc, die
22:51 < phantomcircuit> :P
22:52 < adam3us> there's another issue. there is an argument that sha256 tends to overheat so you have whitespace or underclock etc for a given process.  scrypto and memory-hard things dont have that problem so gain a bigger advantage over gpus.
22:52 < bramc> That prompted me to come up with my password hashing scheme, which I think is a good thing for password hashing but then I realized that password hashing is a bad fit for proofs of work
22:52 < adam3us> gmaxwell extrapolates from the scrypt asic empirical evidence of this in action.
22:53 < bramc> Here's the post on password hashing. Very interesting in feedback although I don't think it's of much use for cryptocurrencies: http://bramcohen.com/2014/11/18/a-mode-for-password-hashing
22:53 < moa> an evolution algorithm for mining might be asic hard but not sure what that would look like
22:54 < adam3us> scrypt keeps giving: it has smaller block intervals, leading to higher orphan rate (slight), plus propagation delay leads to more bandwidth/low latency centralisation.  the asic is more complex and took longer to design - if someone cared they could centralise litecoin withit instead of selling those asics.
22:55 < adam3us> bramc: basically designing cryptocurrencies is hard.  to boot there is a non-trivial likelihood that litecoin was an outright scam.  the guy who actually designed it (charlie lee did nothing, he just forked someone elses code).. artForz with tenebrix knew extremely well the design criteria for gpu efficiency
22:55 < bramc> My password hashing scheme does a great job of being better than scrypt. Unfortunately to really run it requiring the amount of memory you'd like would require verification times to be uncomfortably high. Unless you made it use one round of AES instead of a full AES at a time. Maybe that would be a good idea.
22:56 < adam3us> artForz coded i think the first gpu implementation of sha256 mining? and/or the first fpga sha256 miner.  so the fact that it turned out to be gpu easy, probably implies he was mining it like crazy as a plausibbly deniable hidden premine.  charlie lees complicity or dupe status is unknown if one takes that story.
22:57 < fluffypony> well Tenebrix was relaunched as Fairbrix without artForz' premine
22:57 < phantomcircuit> adam3us, i dont think that actually happens in practice
22:57 < bramc> Also it's blindingly obvious how to implement my password hashing scheme, so there wouldn't be any big advantage to spending more money on designing a better asic
22:57 < adam3us> bramc: better asic can mean novel memory architecture, cell design or grinding other aspects of the pow.
22:58 < fluffypony> better ASIC can mean more power efficiency
22:58 < phantomcircuit> in practice you should always use the full die area then under clock/volt until you hit the thermal/power limits
22:59 < adam3us> the software implementation is obvious probably (tho take a look at bytecoin's fail with momentum hash which he also thought was clever and simple) that one failed to bloom filters to make a compact but unreliable virtual ram to fit into gpu cache.
22:59 < bramc> adam3us, I highly recommend reading through my password hashing scheme, it's a fun construction, and surprisingly simple, there's hardly anything which can be done do it.
22:59 < op_mul> phantomcircuit: ha, thought for a second you meant use a whole wafer suface as one die. imagine soldering that package :)
22:59 < bramc> phantomcircuit, Yeah the hardware person I spoke to said it's all about blowing the die area
23:00 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: "dont think that happens in practice" sorry lost in threading.. what happens? asic whitespace?
23:00 < bramc> Or should I say, dYe area :-)
23:02 < bramc> fluffypony, I've asked people what operations are likely to be best for ratio of power usage between general purpose CPUs and custom ASICs. Nobody wants to venture a guess, or maybe they figure it's hopeless
23:02 < adam3us> btw about the economic argument that low cost mining being a fallacy, recommend this analysis by economist Paul Szroc http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/ it cuts right through the reasoning and gives the intuition nicely.  at least i found it illuminating :)
23:03 < phantomcircuit> adam3us, in practice i dont think anybody has significant whitespace on their die
23:03 < adam3us> bramc: optimized asics i think it matters to what degree.  custom optimisation by someone who can think laterally is different than running it through normal process.
23:04 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: i guess it comes down to then underclock/undervolt vs typical for the process density?
23:04 < bramc> adam3us, I understand the argument, but have the counter with the sunk cost depreciation argument. I clearly will need to have a very comprehensive argument in favor of this if I decide to try to convince people to play along though.
23:04 < phantomcircuit> you can get the same thermal effects with better performance by dropping the clock/voltage
23:05 < phantomcircuit> and well i have 80 watt chips which are aircooled just fine
23:05 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: ie if you took the transistors in a 5bil transistor ivybridge or whatever and replaced them all with optimized sha256 circuits eg out of spondoolies or whatever then the thing would heat fail instantly.
23:05 < phantomcircuit> oh
23:05 < phantomcircuit> yeah for sure
23:05 < fluffypony> the CryptoNote PoW (CryptoNite) cheats the system by favouring AES-NI instructions, so in theory a CryptoNite ASIC would outstrip a CPU but only by a limited margin, which could quite possibly make it cost-prohibitive to produce
23:06 < fluffypony> Dave Andersen's theorising on it: "Note that GPUs *do* outperform CPUs, of course -- it's just that it's only a factor of two or three.  Which is pretty remarkable.  And an ASIC will likely outperform a GPU, but I'm guessing it will be in the ~5x better range, not huge."
23:06 < phantomcircuit> but to be fair there are people decapping 4970k chips to get better thermal contacts...
23:06 < bramc> fluffypony, Yeah the other thing to do is to rely heavily on AES on the grounds that it's already well optimized. I suggested that for password hashing...
23:07 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: so i think you're right it should be articulated that the point is the toggle rate average is insanely high in mining vs cpus and tolerance to error rates is maybe 6 orders of magnitudes higher.
23:08 < bramc> Yes error rates can be vastly higher, I think that doesn't allow for all that much overclocking though
23:09 < petertodd> bramc: with custom ASICs it does - very different silicon strategies for high-error vs. low-error
23:09 < petertodd> bramc: and what's worse, and since so little silicon can tolerate high error rates, we don't know all of those stateies yet
23:09 < bramc> petertodd, Okay, outside my field
23:10 < bramc> although, umm, actually my password hashing scheme would obliterate anything which ran with high error rates
23:10 < bramc> Maybe that thing isn't as bad as I though, I hate it being expensive to verify though.
23:11 < phantomcircuit> adam3us, well and i suspect you can build scrypt miners without memory by repeating the prng steps
23:11 < petertodd> bramc: you think it would :) don't be so sure - high error rate can also mean low reliability, which can be the right tradeoff too - doesn't just mean high average error rate
23:11 < adam3us> phantomcircuit: yes.  i was presuming the asic does that a little.  i tried asking them what balance they did between recompute vs store but didnt get an answer
23:11 < gmaxwell> petertodd: there is a TMTO in scrypt available though it's fairly modest and has a high computational cost. Doesn't look like the existant hardware is using it from what I can tell.
23:11 < gmaxwell> er that was phantomcircuit directe.d
23:11 < phantomcircuit> petertodd, indeed if you ask fabs about ultra low voltage operation, you will get a blank stare
23:12 < bramc> adam3us, A funny thing about mining is that the amount invested in mining appears to be consistently *more* than the payouts
23:12 < petertodd> bramc: don't make the mistake of assuming payouts == value :)
23:13 < midnightmagic> artforz wrote the first public opencl dsha core. mrb_ wrote the first cal/il raw assembly version. artforz improved on that efficiency by a non-trivial amount, and then went straight to fpga and sasic well before it was a glimmer in anyone else's eye.
23:13 < adam3us> i think the problem is this is such an unusual optimization area, and the normal chips are so optimised for their case that we dont even know how many orders of improvement for mining are lurking.  very few hw people even of hw experts have the expertise to create new optimizations at manual gate layout and clockless design etc.
23:13 < op_mul> gmaxwell: I always expected the hardware would. even GPU miners did.
23:14 < phantomcircuit> adam3us, if you say clockless design you'll 100% get blank stares (or laughs)
23:15 < gmaxwell> op_mul: pipeline issues and a glut of free alu and a lack of memory random access make it more interesting on gpus.
23:15 < midnightmagic> bramc: the amount of profit currently requires an inside edge: people who can do their own chips, or have early, manufacturer/subsidised access to the hardware. Like KnC for example. Their customers bootstrapped and subsidized their own mining, and didn't even know it.
23:15 < bramc> phantomcircuit, There is at least one truly clockless general purpose CPU on the market now, it's used as an embedded chip, for low power
23:15 < midnightmagic> bramc: but, for those people, it *is* and *has always been* profitable.
23:16 < adam3us> bramc: so am i right in reading your pbkdf as optimised for the cache hierarchy of cpus?  seems logical though you could expect on the hostile side asic's mirroring and improving latencies perhaps & mixing in the advantages of the error rate in the design and having no extraneous circuitry.
23:16 < bramc> midnightmagic, I suppose if you're selling mining rigs to suckers and do some mining with them before shipping, that might be profitable
23:16 < gmaxwell> Ex-coworker of mine previously worked on the octasic dsps, which were fully clockless async logic.
23:16 < phantomcircuit> bramc, interesting
23:16 < midnightmagic> bramc: Even if you don't, the profit margin of the retail/oem rates ends up subsidizing your own datacentres.
23:17 < op_mul> bramc: in the case of KNC, their customers funded their chips and PCBs. the stuff they shipped to customers still had all the sockets and hardware that was designed to go in KNCs farm.
23:17 < midnightmagic> (In the case of the scammers who want the public to fund their leapfrog..)
23:18 < bramc> adam3us, Yeah the whole idea is to force lots and lots of unpredictable memory lookups
23:18 < phantomcircuit> op_mul, people understood that risk and part of the purchase price included a guarantee from knc that they would never mine themselves
23:18 < phantomcircuit> so much for that
23:18 < bramc> And to make the amount of memory used roughly proportional to the time spent
23:18 < adam3us> bramc: right. and so do other designs.  but your twist is that you do that at two levels to target the actual cpu memory architecture of cache & main memory.
23:19 < bramc> adam3us, What do you mean by 'at two levels'? My design does a better job than the others of making the lookups non-predictive by having them be data-dependent
23:19 < adam3us> bramc: which seems like a worthwhile change.  btw on kdf's did you see my new idea to have a safely delegatable kdf? via blinding
23:19 < midnightmagic> (just for clarification, when I say artforz wrote the first public opencl impl, I just mean he let other people know about it, and convinced most people he did in fact have it.)
23:20 < adam3us> bramc: i mean if i read it correctly your design has two arrays: one assumed to fit in main memory and one assumed to fit in cache.
23:21 < adam3us> midnightmagic: you know there was a guy who had an opencl hashcash implementation.  he used it to vanity mine a huge hashcash stamp for amusement.  i think it'd have been worth $100k if he focussed on bitcoin.  i guess he wasnt aware of it at the time.
23:21 < bramc> adam3us, My design has two data structures, one of which is way too big to fit in cache and one of which can basically fit in registers. The reason for that second, instead of having it be implicit in a certain part of main memory being 'active', is some highly technical stuff having to do with what's necessary to make the operations be reversible
23:22 < midnightmagic> adam3us: there's a whole community of optimizers in the hpc space who specialize either in opencl cores, or cuda cores, or assembly on standardized hardware. it would have been very amusing if that guy turned out to br mrb_ or artforz.
23:23 < bramc> One thing which may contribute to overinvestment in mining is optics - people run numbers and figure they can make money buying certain things at current hash rates, then by the time they make/acquire the equipment the hash rates have gone up, because of course a lot of other people did the exact same calculations...
23:23 < adam3us> ok.  well anyway it seems logical to me in as far as i also engaged in asic hardness thought experiment back in like 1997 :) that one would if exploring that direction make use of the characteristics of the hw. cache line width, cache sizes, macro instructions (eg fp, aes ni) the execution logic (eg a pow that is a crng set of x86 cpu instructions) etc
23:23 < adam3us> and then i decided screw that, not worth the complexity. kiss etc.
23:24 < op_mul> adam3us: oh that's easy. new intel CPUs will have SHA256 instructions, why not make a PoW based on that!
23:24 < phantomcircuit> haha
23:24 < bramc> adam3us, My thought is that the thing which is already optimized well is AES (or maybe a single round of AES) and I wanted to make a construction which was as general as possible. It turns out that if you just start mashing in data-dependent lookups you open yourself up to all sorts of attacks unless you do the feistel trick of making everything reversible, which proved to be nontrivial
23:25 < adam3us> also i'd have looked pretty silly if i did that as hw characteristics shifted since 1997 :)  eg main memory sizes then are cache sizes now etc.
23:26 < phantomcircuit> bramc, it's easy enough to use aes as a hash function
23:26 < adam3us> bramc: ok so your point is more on non-tmto than targetted at cpu memory architecture.  i misread.
23:26 < phantomcircuit> im actually kind of surprised that nobody has don an aes-in pow alt
23:26 < phantomcircuit> im gonna be rich!
23:26 < bramc> Yeah the idea is to force the existence of 'real' memory
23:27  * phantomcircuit runs off to build such a monstrosety
23:27 < op_mul> phantomcircuit: I have no idea if that's sarcasm or not
23:27 < phantomcircuit> the first part no genuine surprise the second part
23:27 < phantomcircuit> maybe
23:27 < phantomcircuit> i'll never tell
23:28 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@p4FDFA888.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:28 < op_mul> well. anyway there is a AES-NI based PoW.
23:30 < fluffypony> the only downside to it is the relatively expensive verification
23:30 < fluffypony> which is a topic that increasingly comes up when discussing the various PoW algorithsm
23:30 < fluffypony> *algorithms
23:32 < phantomcircuit> op_mul, i think they all try to be memory hard
23:32 < phantomcircuit> which i suspect is a mistake
23:33 < bramc> fluffypony, Yes that's the problem, I like my kdf as a PoW except for the awful verification time
23:33 < op_mul> yep.
23:33 < fluffypony> phantomcircuit: agreed
23:33 < bramc> phantomcircuit, Why do you think that's a mistake?
23:33 < adam3us> hmm altcoin pump & dump gets to court… finally i knew existing laws covered pump & dump pyramid scams!  (sorry off topic)  http://www.coindesk.com/florida-group-faces-fraud-charges-alleged-altcoin-pump-dump/
23:33 < fluffypony> being memory hard is barely a stumbling block for an ASIC developer
23:33 < fluffypony> adam3us: was about time too
23:34 < bramc> fluffypony, The idea is that if it requires 'enough' memory you're better off using 'real' memory
23:34 < phantomcircuit> bramc, because ultimately it doesn't work and you've built something where the cpu -> gpu -> asic jumps are even larger
23:35 < bramc> adam3us, There are extremely specific things about what claims might get you in legal trouble when making a cryptocurrency (as you might guess, I'm familiar with these sorts of issues)
23:36 < bramc> phantomcircuit, Why are the jumps larger?
23:36 < phantomcircuit> because someone like me can put large SRAM cache onto the asic
23:36 < adam3us> bramc: my view (speaking of cryptocurrency only) is that while smarter people might skirt the spirit of the law, and avoid legal problems, the ethical challenges are real and should be discouraged and frowned upon.
23:37 -!- koeppelmann [~koeppelma@p4FDFA888.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:37 < adam3us> bramc: by loose analogy that most bankers avoided jail, didnt make the mortgage fraud inherent in the subprime mortgage crisis any less of a scam with no doubt large amounts of profiteering criminal intent.
23:38 < bramc> I'm now convinced I need to talk to the hardware expert I know again and run everything by him. That's likely to be an extended conversation
23:38 < midnightmagic> adam3us: that's a neat blog article. :)
23:38 < bramc> adam3us, To be clear, I think most of wall street was unambiguously on the wrong side of the law. They just get special treatment because they own the government.
23:38 < adam3us> midnightmagic: paul sztorc - yeah i love it.  asked bluematt to add it to bitcoin.ninja must-read list
23:39 < phantomcircuit> what is it about florida...
23:39 < adam3us> bramc: the problem is i think also that there are hw experts and then there are actual adversarial thinking, hw geniuses.  the latter is harder to find.  sort of like talking to a php programmer vs a gpu asm programmer or something.
23:40 < adam3us> bramc: its hard for us to even distinguish reliably because its not our field.
23:40 < bramc> adam3us, And yes of course I'm very familiar with all the ethical issues and take them seriously. I do promise that if I decide to do an altcoin I'll give you every opportunity to convince me that it can and should be done as a sidechain instead.
23:40 < adam3us> or maybe a closer analogy your average "i can do that" vs an actual cryptographer
23:42 < bramc> adam3us, I believe this contact of mine is actually quite good, but I haven't even run my kdf and cuckoo past him yet, so my direct feedback from any real hardware person at all is nil. I know what he told me before, which was of necessity somewhat general and vague. His feedback was great for coming up with my kdf though.
23:43 < fluffypony> midnightmagic: agreeda
23:43 < bramc> for what it's worth, this person ran over numbers on bitcoin mining with a friend of mine and it came out at very close to break even, so at least his numbers running seems to agree with emperical experience
23:43 < fluffypony> "Is The 2.0-Dev-Community Lazy Or Just Illiterate?" lol
23:46 < phantomcircuit> bramc, if you adjust the inputs a little the numbers change rapidly
23:46 < bramc> The upshot of all this discussion is that I'm still researching PoW-related stuff and I still think the experiment of trying to bust asics may be worth running, given sufficient compelling gizmos
23:46 < midnightmagic> powered by "investors" who want to own the future. the open-source nature of the core product obviates that as a long-term strategy. there's a reason why Linux won.
23:47 < phantomcircuit> it's cool name?
23:47 < midnightmagic> s/cool/unpronounceable/
23:47 < midnightmagic> Hastu...
23:47  * midnightmagic explodes
23:49 -!- nessence [~alexl@178.19.221.38] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:51 -!- damethos [~damethos@unaffiliated/damethos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:55 -!- austinhill [~Adium@bas11-montrealak-1177755981.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:55 < bramc> I came up with the idea of doing PoW using the 4sum problem. Unfortunately custom sorting chips work very well.