--- Log opened Wed Sep 07 00:00:47 2016
00:02 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:05 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:10 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
00:17 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:30 -!- jediji [6f6338bd@gateway/web/freenode/ip.111.99.56.189] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:33 < jediji> is it just really quiet in here or do I need to join a channel?
00:34 < sipa> stay a few days
00:34 -!- jediji [6f6338bd@gateway/web/freenode/ip.111.99.56.189] has quit [Client Quit]
00:34 < sipa> discussions only happen occasionally
00:35 < fluffypony> oh well if they're just going to leave
00:36 < sipa> ah.
00:36 <@gmaxwell> time to start a discussion then
00:36 <@gmaxwell> only to stop before they join again.
00:36 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.138] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:36 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.138] has quit [Client Quit]
00:36 < sipa> i concur.
00:37 < fluffypony> hah hah
00:38 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:39 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.138] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:40 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@80.215.178.138] has quit [Client Quit]
00:42 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
00:44 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:46 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@host100-24-dynamic.32-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:47 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:01 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:09 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:10 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:13 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:14 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:20 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:22 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:28 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
01:30 -!- Logicwax [~Logicwax@c-76-126-174-152.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:31 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:32 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:34 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:34 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Client Quit]
01:34 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:34 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:35 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:36 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:44 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:49 -!- kyletorpey [~kyle@pool-173-53-94-96.rcmdva.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:56 -!- Guest30579 is now known as [Derek]
01:56 -!- [Derek] [~derek@199.195.250.122] has quit [Changing host]
01:56 -!- [Derek] [~derek@unaffiliated/derek/x-8562683] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:01 -!- aalex_ [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
02:01 -!- aalex_ [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:06 -!- parathon [~parathon@31.223.24.145] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:08 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:10 -!- vega4 [~pc_rafals@user-31-175-254-216.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:10 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:11 -!- assder [2e3b026a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.46.59.2.106] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:16 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:17 -!- vega4 [~pc_rafals@user-31-175-254-216.play-internet.pl] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
02:17 -!- vega4 [~pc_rafals@user-31-175-254-216.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:42 -!- snoopie [~c@114-198-28-61.dyn.iinet.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:47 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:50 -!- snoopie [~c@114-198-28-61.dyn.iinet.net.au] has quit []
02:52 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
02:53 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
02:54 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:54 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:55 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:02 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:04 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:10 -!- Davasny_ [~quassel@195.150.236.122] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:11 -!- parathon [~parathon@31.223.24.145] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
03:13 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
03:15 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:17 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:18 -!- Davasny_ [~quassel@195.150.236.122] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:18 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:21 < sipa> ThomasV: you're giving a talk tonight in zurich?
03:21 < ThomasV> yes
03:21 < sipa> cool
03:21 < ThomasV> hop you'll be there :)
03:21 < sipa> i'll attend
03:22 < ThomasV> cool, great
03:22 < ThomasV> I'm just finishing my slides
03:22 < sipa> are you nearby already?
03:22 < ThomasV> yes
03:38 -!- xissburg [~xissburg@unaffiliated/xissburg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:46 -!- yoleaux [~yoleaux@xn--ht-1ia18f.nonceword.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
03:46 -!- mhanne_ [~mhanne@mail.nonymous.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:00 -!- mhanne [~mhanne@mail.nonymous.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:03 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:05 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:08 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:08 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:09 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:11 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:14 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:14 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:17 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:27 -!- vega4 [~pc_rafals@user-31-175-254-216.play-internet.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:35 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
04:39 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:41 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@77pc231.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:41 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@77pc231.sshunet.nl] has quit [Changing host]
04:41 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:42 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:42 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:46 -!- Samdney [~Samdney@dyn-ant666999.hawo.ipv6.uni-erlangen.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:49 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:51 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:57 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:02 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
05:02 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
05:04 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:05 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
05:09 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:11 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:13 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:15 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:15 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:20 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
05:22 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:23 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
05:25 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@14.169.88.102] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:27 < e0_> Eliel: the 10 BTC payment to the 2-of-2 is not confirmed beforehand. An attacker could doublespend it, be if an attacker doublespends it with 90% probability, then 10% of the time the attacker will lose 10 BTC.
05:30 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:30 < Eliel> e0_: ah, yes, you're right. it isn't profitable on average to do that.
05:30 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:36 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:38 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
05:42 -!- yoleaux [~yoleaux@xn--ht-1ia18f.nonceword.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:42 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:51 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@2a02:aa16:1105:4a80:7131:45fa:b98e:278a] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:09 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:11 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:25 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:27 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:47 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.45.227.40] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:49 -!- Samdney [~Samdney@dyn-ant666999.hawo.ipv6.uni-erlangen.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
06:53 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:57 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:04 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:06 -!- OxADADA_ is now known as OxADADA
07:09 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
07:10 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hvugosnqlpdwmfrq] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:14 -!- aalex_ [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:14 -!- Hunger- [~hunger@prodevops.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:20 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: Iriez, aem, asoltys_, kaaliakahn, liviud, humd1ng3r, wizkid057, superkuh, Cloudflare, go1111111,  (+234 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
07:42 -!- bassguitarman [sid40024@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wvcfgdajneesklbr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- aalex_ [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- Hunger- [~hunger@prodevops.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:42 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Giszmo, Chris_Stewart_5, ThomasV, cdecker, yoleaux, jtimon, edvorg, AaronvanW, moli, copumpkin (+232 more)
07:43 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:45 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:46 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:52 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:53 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:54 -!- maaku [~quassel@173-228-107-141.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
07:55 -!- maaku [~quassel@173-228-107-141.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:57 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:58 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:59 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:59 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:01 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:02 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
08:03 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:05 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:06 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
08:07 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:12 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:21 -!- Samdney [~Samdney@dyn-ant666999.hawo.ipv6.uni-erlangen.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:26 -!- morcos [~morcos@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]
08:30 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:32 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:35 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:41 -!- morcos [~morcos@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:44 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
08:49 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:20 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
09:21 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-104-172-191-85.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:23 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:23 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:24 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:40 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@104.193.169-200.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:45 -!- Aranjedeath [~Aranjedea@unaffiliated/aranjedeath] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:49 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
09:55 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bdcbpcrhiamckezp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:58 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:01 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
10:05 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:07 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:11 < mryandao> whats the status on confidential transactions that's still sitting in the Elements Project?
10:16 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
10:19 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Disconnected by services]
10:19 -!- [7] [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:20 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
10:20 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:28 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:28 -!- Giszmo [~leo@190.45.227.40] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:29 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:29 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:29 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:33 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@14.169.88.102] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:33 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:36  * mryandao waves
10:43 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: reticulating splines]
10:43 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:45 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:47 -!- instagibbs_ [602c9182@gateway/web/freenode/ip.96.44.145.130] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:47 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:48 < instagibbs_> mryandao: it works, what specifically are you wondering about
10:50 -!- AusteritySucks [~Austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:53 < mryandao> the links on the elements project page to confidential addresses is broken
10:55 < kanzure> elementsproject.org links to https://elementsproject.org/elements/confidential-transactions/ which seems to work to me
10:56 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:57 < kanzure> mryandao: besides the page you want doesn't exist at the moment https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.org/blob/94b92363316e9e598afb3044f6db60c86a828e88/source/elements/confidential-transactions/addresses.md
11:00 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:02 -!- AusteritySucks [~Austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:03 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-247-26.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:07 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:08 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:09 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:09 < mryandao> yes that first link works
11:09 < mryandao> its just the hyperlinks in that page that redirects back to the main page
11:13 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:16 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has quit [Changing host]
11:16 -!- gielbier [~giel____@unaffiliated/gielbier] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:24 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:25 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:29 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:39 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:43 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:46 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:48 -!- cyphase [~cyphase@unaffiliated/cyphase] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:49 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:02 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:05 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:12 -!- AusteritySucks [~Austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
12:20 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:24 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:25 -!- AusteritySucks [~Austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:27 -!- Yogh [~Yogh@f36186.upc-f.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:28 -!- Yogh [~Yogh@f36186.upc-f.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:31 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:45 -!- se3000 [~textual@38.125.163.25] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
12:49 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:14 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@host100-24-dynamic.32-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:15 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
13:19 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:23 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:36 -!- JHistone [~JHistone@cpc104808-sgyl39-2-0-cust135.18-2.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:40 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:45 -!- Wazza [~Wazza@2001:41d0:2:2766::1] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:49 -!- CocoBTC [~coco@c-703b71d5.136-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:54 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:59 -!- MoALTz [~no@78-11-247-26.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:02 -!- skyraider [uid41097@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bdcbpcrhiamckezp] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
14:14 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:18 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:18 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:22 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@2a02:aa16:1105:4a80:7131:45fa:b98e:278a] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:25 -!- Starduster [~SD@unaffiliated/starduster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:28 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:33 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
14:34 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@2a02:aa16:1105:4a80:8c99:8bd4:ce43:c5e7] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:41 -!- kyletorpey [~kyle@pool-173-53-94-96.rcmdva.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:49 -!- Lightsword [~Lightswor@2604:a880:1:20::1d3:9001] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
14:50 -!- Lightsword [~Lightswor@2604:a880:1:20::1d3:9001] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:53 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@104.193.169-200.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
14:54 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:56 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:57 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-62-95-247.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:10 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:14 -!- vega4 [~pc_rafals@user-31-175-254-216.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:16 < vega4> I can see there are very different opinions about DASH; can someone tell me why some believe it be a scam? just facts please
15:17 <@gmaxwell> wrong channel.
15:18 < CocoBTC> Ask Junseth on twitter
15:19 < vega4> would you suggest me a better channel? whos Junseth;)
15:20 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:25 < vega4> I checked that guy. Ok I guess it was supposed to be a funny joke
15:26 < fluffypony> vega4: read the channel topic
15:26 < fluffypony> then understand why that topic is inappropriate for this channel
15:28 < CocoBTC> vega4: No kind of actually wasn't, he's one guy who's very skeptical to alt-coins in general, he might could give you an answer.
15:28 <@gmaxwell> as an aside, don't bother asking in public for criticism against altcoins. It's almost never in anyones interest to provide you with any.
15:28 <@gmaxwell> being criticial of some altcoins has gotten people harassed online. Not worth it.
15:29 < fluffypony> gmaxwell: I quote your comment on Ripple criticism all the time
15:29 -!- veleiro [~veleiro@fsf/member/veleiro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:29 -!- idle2dagrave is now known as playat
15:29 <@gmaxwell> fluffypony: which quote is that?
15:30 < fluffypony> gmaxwell: https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3wgcrz/the_ethereum_computer_securing_your_identity_and/cxwdsd0?context=3
15:31 < vega4> I won't bother you here on this channel with an irrelevant subject as you say it is. @gmaxwell, I am not looking for criticism, I am a researcher and I see a lot of pointless criticism on forums suchs as Bitcointalks. I specialise in security cryptography I am looking for facts. For ex. from mathematical, security point of view why a given currency is considered a SCAM by some etc.
15:32 < katu> fluffypony: i like how you were eventually called out on monero, which has a rather less glamorous launch too :)
15:32 <@gmaxwell> Plus the ~worse~ an altcoin is the stronger that rule generally applies. Like if an altcoin is pretty interesting but has some warts, perhaps some thoughtful people will give some (perhaps even constructive-) criticism.  If it's super scammy, then it's even boring to even look at ... and any interaction with it means interacting with scammy people, or worse-- getting scammy people mad at you.
15:32 < katu> oh well, only altcoin should be criticizing altcoins.
15:32 < vega4> the internal workings of Bitcoin are clear and solid to me, various altcoins such as DASH are not.. with their funny proof-of-being-connected to the network etc
15:34 < fluffypony> katu: "less glamorous" sure, but certainly not pre- or instamined by any measure (see the Monero section on https://archive.is/XCxc1)
15:34 < sipa> vega4: claiming that something is a scam requires you're convinced it's intentionally deceiving people
15:34 < sipa> vega4: that's often hard to say
15:35 < sipa> some things may have been started by some people with genuine interest in experimenting with technology, and then pumped by others who are only in it for a quick money
15:36 < fluffypony> vega4: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy?context=3
15:36 < CocoBTC> Well, the _obvious_ scams OneCoin and Swisscoin (or what's it called), and PayCoin back in the days. Others are are just shady
15:36 < fluffypony> there, now we can stop talking about it
15:36 <@gmaxwell> vega4: there are many layers to those questions-- for example a system could be sound technology; but have been created in a sketchy way by dishonest people trying just to enrich themselves.  Or, alternatively, it could be earnestly created but by unqualified parties and throughly unsound as a result (and a really bad thing to use).  or perhaps something could be good by both those measures but b
15:36 <@gmaxwell> y accident of history many of the people promoting it are sketchy and use dishonest means.  Each of those cases is pretty different but people would call something a scam in each of them, with justification.
15:37 < katu> CocoBTC: i'd refrain from calling particular names, because we'd never see end of the day. why not just talk in general, ie motivations of spawning useless clones, what to do about, if anything etc?
15:37 < fluffypony> katu: OneCoin isn't an altcoin.
15:37 < sipa> if you're asking about the technology you're almost certainly not asking about the intentions with which it was created
15:37 <@gmaxwell> sipa: English is complex like that though,  something can be "a scam" without there existing "a scammer"-- becuase "a scam" conventionally can also mean a really bad deal (-EV) deal.
15:38 < vega4> @sipa that is right what you say that in some situations it might be diffcult to say whether something will deceive people in the end. That is why I am looking for technical possibilities, reasons which would even make it possible to deceive people in the end. As far as Bitcoin goes a 51% attack is the only thing I see. In altcoins where funny stuff such as proof-of-stake comes into play things are much less solid I would s
15:38 < vega4> ay
15:38 <@gmaxwell> I think the word's meaning has crept some because you can't really know people's motivations.
15:38 < kanzure> vega4: you could read things like https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/asic-faq.pdf
15:38 < vega4> thank you all for your links
15:38 < sipa> vega4: if you're talking about technical weaknesses, there are many
15:39 < CocoBTC> katu: fair enough
15:39 < sipa> but that does not imply the technology is uninteresting or deceiving
15:40 < sipa> (i personally am not interested in dash, but i also haven't studied it deeply to point at any)
15:40 <@gmaxwell> vega4: there are many altcoins which are basically just impossible to analyize. They make a multitude of vague claims, without being precise enough to analyize or refute them, but it sounds good. Marketing pap, if you will.  That in and of itself is a kind of "meta-unsoundness"-- how can you say a system is reviewed if its presentation has made it unreviewable?  Maybe there is something of merit
15:40 <@gmaxwell> burried there, but in the sea of meritless marketingcoins its not a good use of time for most people to look.
15:40 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@host100-24-dynamic.32-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:40 <@gmaxwell> Doubly so because of the fact that, as I've pointed out, being critial of these things-- even, sometimes, over minor fixable things can cause a really hostile response by unsavory advocates of some of the systems.
15:41 < fluffypony> gmaxwell: they have a vested interest in hiding their failures, so nobody should trust any claims coming from within the system anyway
15:41 < katu> in short, 90% of altcoins lack rigor to remove their opaqueness.
15:41 <@gmaxwell> (This isn't unique to altcoins, though its much worse for some ... --- I've had bitcoin adhearents respond in threatening ways when I pointed out unsolved problems or limitations)
15:41 < fluffypony> katu: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/are-any-altcoins-currenty-useful-no-says-monero-developer-riccardo-spagni-1458743546
15:42 < sipa> monero is one of the few that do actual research, and are honest about limitations imho
15:43 <@gmaxwell> in other domains of intellectual inquiry it's less common for mobs of angry people to respond with such hostility to earnest analysis.  Not unheared of, especially in a few specially politicized areas... but uncommon.
15:43 < fluffypony> sipa: and still people ignore us and overstate what Monero does :/
15:43 < katu> its bound to happen, this is basically area of rabid penny stock marketing
15:43 < sipa> fluffypony: same with bitcoim :)
15:43 <@gmaxwell> fluffypony: welcome to the club.
15:43 < sipa> *coin
15:43 < katu> penny stock marketers in the 90s were very aggresive too
15:43 < fluffypony> lol
15:44 <@gmaxwell> katu: yea, I've pointed out to people that the only place I've seen so much bile as we have in cryptocurrency is on the yahoo stock forums in the late 90s.
15:44 < sipa> how is babby formed?
15:45 <@gmaxwell> SELL SELL SELL
15:45 < CocoBTC> fluffypony: pro-monero people seems to be literally everywhere. It's weird
15:45 < fluffypony> sipa: how girl get pragnent
15:46 <@gmaxwell> fluffypony: the point I make to people is that inherently cryptocurrency has a strong scam vibe to most people. Being frank about limitations while being positive about the future makes many people much more confident in it. Though I can't say that I've really ever turned a foaming advocate of Bitcoin to someone using a more measured advocacy.
15:47 < fluffypony> CocoBTC: if any of them ever spew nonsense link me to it so I can tell them to slow their roll :-P
15:47 < katu> monero is more or less nice, though i wish they were more transparent on their initial AES gambit
15:47 < sipa> also, there is rarely just one identifiable group behind an altcoin
15:47 < katu> not really complaining as i wrote one of the private miners too
15:47 < sipa> there are delopers, and advocates, and marketers, and an ecosystem
15:47 <@gmaxwell> well that was bytecoin's doing, not monero persay. :( pretty unfortunate.
15:48 < fluffypony> katu: that was out of our hands, I didn't even know Monero existed until 6 days after the launch
15:48 < fluffypony> gmaxwell: yeah indeed
15:48 < fluffypony> clever scammers gonna scam
15:48 < kanzure> gmaxwell: so in cryptosystem review, would it be helpful if there was a standard review format where people are asked to state their assumptions very explicitly (such as which of the 'standard' hardness assumptions they are using) in an explicit format? at least then reviewers could easily point out when there's format failure.   unfortunately i think this will fail for cryptosystems that require unusual details that break common ...
15:48 < kanzure> ... formatting choices. i guess, then, those should even be further highlighted, so perhaps this is a good idea.
15:48 < fluffypony> otoh at least we take some dark market / ransomware / etc. heat off Bitcoin ;)
15:48 < kanzure> and by 'explicit format' i mean something that is one-glance gleanable
15:49 < sipa> i wonder whether anyone who isn't using oure pow can even answer that question
15:49 < sipa> *pure
15:50 < kanzure> i was thinking something like "once you can get people to agree about formatting, then you can do exponential backoff of reviewing updates to the same system, because otherwise reviewers are going to be denial-of-service attacked"
15:50 < kanzure> *updates to the same scheme
15:50 < sipa> proof-of-review
15:50 < fluffypony> proof-of-not-being-an-idiot
15:51 < fluffypony> PONBI
15:51 <@gmaxwell> kanzure: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/issues/242
15:51 < CocoBTC> fluffypony: not sure if that's really positive
15:51 < kanzure> well i mean, if you can get someone to cryptographically sign their review for some obviously broken thing, then you can at least use that as evidence that their reviews are worthless
15:51 < katu> speaking, of exotic proof-* ... has there been any serious proposal to eigentrust metric?
15:51 <@gmaxwell> It can get a little complicated when your system has a layered security assumption.
15:51 < fluffypony> CocoBTC: which bit?
15:51 <@gmaxwell> katu: I think there should be a meme image for "when your consensus system can become numerical unstable" :P
15:52 < katu> gmaxwell: :)
15:52 < CocoBTC> if dark net people start using another cryptocurrency because bitcoin doesn't satisfy
15:52 < kanzure> gmaxwell: that's a good start. i definitely agree that these things should be more explicitly documented.
15:53 -!- cjd [~user@2c0f:f930:2:12::] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:53 <@gmaxwell> E.g. I think Bitcoin's security assumption is best described in a layered way, where you talk about a majority hashpower strictly protocol following ('honest'), and it has some properties in that model... and then you can talk about a 2/3 rational 1/3rd honest, and what that looks like.. including the shape of what rational behavior based on the payoff matrix for defecting.
15:53 < kanzure> gmaxwell: specifically my "formatted cryptosystem review-request" idea above is a way to make it possibly worthwhile to do review in public, specifically the value is that it will be possible to accumulate evidence of terrible reviewers and evidence of dubious security writeups and/or rapid design churn
15:54 -!- NewLiberty_ is now known as NewLiberty
15:54 < kanzure> not sure what to do about layering. i was actually thinking of more simple cryptograhpic primitives as a starting point.
15:54 < fluffypony> CocoBTC: I dunno, I think it forces reporters to reconsider whether "privacy enhancing thing X" is inherently bad just because it *can* be used for "criminal activity Y"
15:54 <@gmaxwell> And the layering is really hard for people to deal with, I've encountered people with proposals which they say are _identical_ in security to bitcoin, except they're only working with the strongest supermajority honest assumption, and what they propose is totally brittle, having no security at all outside of the honest majority model. Thats not the same as Bitcoin.
15:55 < kanzure> and a lot of bitcoin security status partly relates to the bootstrapping phase (in weird intertangly ways)
15:55 <@gmaxwell> kanzure: sure, plain crypto primitives are easier to do this for, in part because if they had security as weak as what we're stuck with for consensus, they'd be discarded. :)
15:55 <@gmaxwell> (unless they're multilinear maps, people seem to not do a good job discarding those systems. :P )
15:56 < kanzure> well i mean, look at the marketing for the altcoins and such, i'm sure someone will eventually start applying pressure like that on primitives. so even there it would be good to accumulate signatures of terrible reviewers endorsing stupid shit.
15:56 < katu> gmaxwell: why i'm asking about eigen, tor people had an initial stab at it, but basically can't go beyond current state of eigenspeed as outlined in https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/iptps09/tech/full_papers/snader/snader.pdf
15:57 < katu> numerical instability as such is not really a problem, as tor will probably never become actually decentralized (ie fatal fault mode would be fixed by centrally issued checkpoint)
15:57 < CocoBTC> fluffypony: sure, good point.
15:59 < katu> there's even some mock implementation of it https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5464 ... just trying to picture what an actual p2p consensus would look like
15:59 < kanzure> it would also be useful to ask people for a specific hash of their writeup (or code, sigh) before doing review. hash could be timestamped in public. then, you can show that the flurry of updates should disqualify the design from being considered ready for review -- plus, there can be an actual set of content that is being explicitly reviewed. it would be a good precedent to establish.
16:01 < kanzure> so while the negative impact of doing public criticism is a bunch of online harassment, the positive benefit is the collection of signatures for dumb broken proposals
16:02 < kanzure> (er, of course, it's possible to sign a review saying something looks somewhat secure, and in the future the cryptosystem may no longer be secure.  it might not be uncommon to find a bunch of broken security assumptions that were heavily reviewed as 'good idea' at the time in ancient past....)
16:03 < katu> kanzure: invisible hand to the rescue. make altcoins a reputation market, with futures and bonds.
16:04 <@gmaxwell> katu: likely it wouldn't... in all these systems if you have open admissions (required for true decenteralization) the attacker can almost always behave strategically to eclipse the honest participants. Or, consider the alternative, many actual users could join and _couldn't_ override misbehavior of the initial set there, so it would be a dictatorship.  Bitcoin isn't free of that kind of failure,
16:04 <@gmaxwell>  but at least we can more or less clearly describe what tradeoff its actually making.
16:04  * gmaxwell vomits all over 'reputation market'  ... lemon market.
16:04 < katu> well, target demographic is rabid speculators anyhow; so what difference it makes to them
16:05 <@gmaxwell> in #bitcoin-otc ... one of the larger expirements in meaningful online reputation, highly positive rank in the reputation system is positively correlated with scamming rather than negative.
16:05 < kanzure> these are all lemon markets anyway. aren't they?
16:06 <@gmaxwell> because scammers work the system, while honest people don't have much to gain by jucing their stats (they're making fair trades after all), and participate in much less vigorous way.
16:06 -!- JHistone [~JHistone@cpc104808-sgyl39-2-0-cust135.18-2.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:06 < katu> gmaxwell: yea, though i take research based on advogato data as more fitting. it is definitely possible to scam your way to the top, but it takes a lot of effort to beat pagerank.
16:06 < sipa> my first rating on bitcoin-otc was for "nice graphs"
16:06 < katu> incidentally, that is related to eigentrust too
16:07 < katu> eclipsing edges and clique detection
16:07 <@gmaxwell> katu: advogato rakings lead to bad conclusions, you gained nothing much by high advogato marks.  Dishonest use was largely a waste of time behind vanity.
16:08 -!- CocoBTC [~coco@c-703b71d5.136-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:08 <@gmaxwell> Basically if you measure reputation in contexts where reputation doesn't matter much, you learn little to nothing about the exceptional cases that attackers can drive the systems into... similar to niche altcoins -- "hasn't been attacked yet" isn't much of a security metric.
16:08 < katu> gmaxwell: indeed, definitely a lot less of profit motive and more ... trolling motive? :)
16:09 < kanzure> what
16:09 < kanzure> katu are you a bot
16:10 <@gmaxwell> katu: sure you can have mechnical clique detection (and the tools around otc help people see cliques) -- but attackers just adapt. They don't just form self rating cliques, they make a new identity, make a pile of real at-par trades using that identity.. it's as real as anyone else.  Then they start scamming.
16:10 < kanzure> katu: (the reason i ask is because your responses don't seem to update based on recent past input)
16:13 < katu> kanzure: parsing irony is a hard AGI problem, perhaps you could be more descriptive
16:14 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
16:14 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:17 < kanzure> there is a bug (not irony) somewhere here and i'm not sure how to suss it out, but i'll offer that "profit/trolling" motives don't seem related to .. oh maybe you are talking about eigentrusters.
16:18 <@gmaxwell> no, talking about advogato.
16:18 <@gmaxwell> no real profit motive to juice the stats, but perhaps trolling motive.
16:30 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78-11-193-195.static.ip.netia.com.pl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:33 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
16:48 < vega4> I must say that I feel astounded and perplexed after seeing part of the 'discussion' which was handed to me at https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy?context=3     ;  the guy named fluffyponyza, a dev behind  monero seems rational he asked for a mathematical proof and was confronted with pure chaos in response
16:49 < kanzure> welcome to the abyss.
16:49 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:53 < bsm1175321> There's an agency in every major country tasked with regulating these kinds of scams.  They happened long before the crypto era.  In the US it's called the Howey test -- basically if the buyer doesn't have control over whether he makes money with the asset, then it's a security, and subject to regulation.  The question to ask of any new coin is: does it satisfy the Howey test; are the creators profiting off it; ha
16:53 < bsm1175321> http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey-test.html
16:55 < bsm1175321> If the creators can't be even bothered to know whether they're legal or not...well...caveat emptor.
16:55 < kanzure> you are experiencing message cutoff
16:56 < bsm1175321> The question to ask of any new coin is: does it satisfy the Howey test; are the creators profiting off it; have the creators applied to the appropriate regulatory body?
16:56 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:59 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:00 < bsm1175321> Creating an asset, selling it (caveat emptor) and profiting off it is *illegal* unless done under the correct regulatory framework, and for good reason.
17:01 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:06 < bsm1175321> Back to the topic at hand...I was just watching a talk about IOHK's work on proof of stake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTsL_8mhH1g
17:07 < bsm1175321> He claims that the Lamport 3f+1 result is synonymous with asynchronicity.  I don't think that's true...
17:07 < bsm1175321> (Relevant because a braid is an asynchronous blockchain)
17:15 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:17 < katu> bsm1175321: is there a paper for this somewhere?
17:17 < bsm1175321> katu: Not that I know of.  I know, I can't be bothered with videos either.
17:19 < katu> i just skipped through, but have hard time understading what kind of bond/commitment this actually is. i know that vitalik tried to propose various punishing schemes (for competing forks and such), is this one of those?
17:21 < bsm1175321> It's just Pedersen commitment, as I understood
17:25 < katu> bsm1175321: yes, he does explain pedersen commitments for first 20 minutes i skipped through. i mean 24m onwards.
17:25 < bsm1175321> That's where I got lost.  I twittered Charles to link the other half.
17:26 < bsm1175321> https://twitter.com/IOHK_Charles/status/773674995696279553
17:26 < bsm1175321> two days, he says
17:29 < bsm1175321> I do think he probably has a workable idea, but I also think that any PoS system only works with a PoW bootstrap, and if you dispense with the PoW, then it's a zero sum game and results in monopoly control, at which point profit maximization fails.  A PoS/PoW hybrid can mitigate attacks for large miners having < 51%, as has been shown by others.
17:30 -!- AusteritySucks [~Austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:36 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jbijoaxwxnmxqglc] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:48 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@104.193.169-200.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:57 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:58 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:58 < katu> bsm1175321: to me, costless simulation is a dark dungeon full of traps and circular logic
18:00 < katu> there are crutches to solve some of its problems, of course, like piggybacking NUMS timestamps from other PoW chain, thus making the altchain dependent on it. but even then.
18:07 <@gmaxwell> if you've already got a consensus then having a consensus is easy. what a surprise.
18:08 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@host112-232-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:12 -!- HostFat [~HostFat@host100-24-dynamic.32-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
18:13 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@104.193.169-200.PUBLIC.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
18:13 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:20 -!- gielbier [~giel____@unaffiliated/gielbier] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:20 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:23 < bsm1175321> Yep.
18:38 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:55 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@host112-232-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:02 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:07 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:07 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:09 < midnightmagic> :-D
19:10 -!- Samdney [~Samdney@dyn-ant666999.hawo.ipv6.uni-erlangen.de] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Verlassend"]
19:18 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:28 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:33 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:35 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:57 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-40-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:00 -!- forrestv [forrestv@unaffiliated/forrestv] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
20:13 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:16 -!- N0S4A2 [~weechat@24.35.69.143] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:17 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:17 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ezldzaiguxqaakja] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
20:17 -!- mdavid613 [~Adium@cpe-104-172-191-85.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:18 -!- grubles [~grubles@unaffiliated/grubles] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:21 -!- jtimon [~quassel@38.110.132.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:33 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
20:33 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:55 -!- amiller [~socrates1@unaffiliated/socrates1024] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:17 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:19 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:35 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:37 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:51 -!- maaku [~quassel@173-228-107-141.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
21:52 -!- maaku [~quassel@173-228-107-141.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:59 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:b8e2:1c9c:fe32:8ba2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:04 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:04 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@haskell/developer/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
22:11 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:13 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
22:13 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:22 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:24 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:27 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:30 < Taek> The 2015 paper "On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains" showed that block propagation time was linear with block size for sufficiently large blocks
22:31 < Taek> (about 80kb iirc)
22:31 < Taek> and that the 90% nodes were able to do about 55Kbps throughput
22:31 < Taek> does anybody know if these numbers have gotten better, or what the characteristics of the 10% slow nodes were that made them so slow?
22:31 < Taek> the 50% was >400Kbps, which is obviously a whole lot better
22:36 < Taek> "Moreover, due to lack of pipelining, propagation over multiple overlay
22:36 < Taek> hops introduce delay proportional to the length of the path."
22:36 < Taek> I guess I was misreading the throughput
22:37 < Taek> If the paper is suggesting that pipelining could increase the throughput, that means that the slow nodes in their analysis were not downloading blocks the whole time
22:40 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
22:40 -!- gielbier [~giel____@k14057.upc-k.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
22:49 -!- Newyorkadam [~Newyorkad@wikipedia/Newyorkadam] has quit [Quit: Newyorkadam]
22:50 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:50 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wgsjxxbsndygdrip] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:58 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:00 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:00 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/mc1984] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:06 -!- PeterR [cf5125a7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.207.81.37.167] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:07 < PeterR> Taek: if the experiment were repeated with Xthin-enabled (or CB-enabled) nodes, the "throughput measure" would be significantly better.
23:10 < PeterR> For example, we found that Xthin blocks propagated 5.6X as fast across the normal P2P network, and 9.7X as fast thru the GFC, so I'd expect a corresponding increase in "throughput" as defined by the Cornell paper.
23:10 < PeterR> https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-5145c9648426#.8lmocolkf
23:21 -!- danrobinson [~textual@cpe-68-175-4-89.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:23 < Taek> PeterR: were your experiments performed on a 6000 node network, and does 5.6X as fast apply to the 90 percentile?
23:23 < Taek> e.g., were the slowest 10% of nodes also seeing speedups of 5.6X?
23:24 < Taek> Though I only skimmed it, I don't think your analysis hits nearly the depth that I'm looking for
23:24 < PeterR> Yes, our experiments were performed on main-net over 8000 blocks.
23:24 -!- afdudley [~afdudley@166.84.136.68] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
23:25 < PeterR> It probably doesn't hit the depth you're looking for.  We're only comparing single-hop propagation times between Xthin and standard block propagation.  The Cornell paper is looking at propagation across the entire network.
23:26 -!- ThomasV [~ThomasV@unaffiliated/thomasv] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:26 < PeterR> But clearly improving single-hop times improves network wide propagation times, ceteris paribus.
23:28 < PeterR> I'd love to see a new test on a large number of nodes, where all the nodes support Xthin (or CB).
23:36 < PeterR> Would be interesting to see the improvements over a large node population (rather then just over a large block population).
23:37 -!- danrobinson [~textual@cpe-68-175-4-89.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
23:37 -!- danrobinson [~textual@cpe-68-175-4-89.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- arubi_ [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:39 < Taek> so, hopefully I'm not reading this wrong, but the paper states that throughput begins to dominate latency at a block size of about 80kb, at which point the throughput is 55Kbps
23:39 < Taek> which means that the latency for an 80kb block is about 1.5s total
23:40 < Taek> That number is important to my Scaling Bitcoin proposal, and if it really is that low, it makes my life a lot easier
23:40 < PeterR> Right.  Latency dominates for smaller blocks.
23:40 < Taek> especially b/c it seems like Tor only adds a few seconds of latency
23:40 < Taek> (my proposal is essentially to reduce the blocktime to 1 second)
23:41 < Taek> security is pretty easy to achieve, but at the cost of a high confirmation time
23:41 < Taek> like, 30 minutes
23:41 < PeterR> It's something like time = latency + k * blocksize
23:41 -!- arubi [~ese168@unaffiliated/arubi] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:42 < PeterR> What is the advantage of increasing the confirmation time to 30 min?
23:42 < Taek> well, requires a lot more context
23:42 < Taek> but basically there's a system I'm working that's braids based
23:43 < PeterR> I think braids has a lot potential.
23:43 < Taek> and, as long as an attacker can't reasonably mine X blocks in a row, there will be no orphans on the network period
23:43 < Taek> Simulations are suggesting that X needs to be around 600.
23:43 -!- danrobinson [~textual@cpe-68-175-4-89.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
23:43 < PeterR> Gotcha.
23:44 < Taek> If you bring the blocktime down to 1 second though, to keep pace with the 4MB throughput you end up with blocks that are 6kb each
23:45 < Taek> one huge advantage here though is that throughput is constant instead of bursty
23:45 < Taek> so you get this great pipelining that you just can't do in standard satoshi style consensus
23:46 < Taek> which means that you can potentially push the ratelimit up from 4MB. The paper doesn't really go into enough detail though to suggest what sorts of gains you get from pipelining
23:46 < PeterR> Have you talked to Bob about how he did his modelling?
23:47 < Taek> not in-depth yet
23:47 < Taek> the SB deadline has pushed me  to actually put together proper proofs ha
23:47 < Taek> until now I haven't really been that rigorous, been happy to handwave
23:47 < PeterR> Good!  That's what deadlines are great for.
23:47 -!- btcdrak [uid165369@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-otfglfdrjaqxsnwa] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:48 < PeterR> We've submitted a proposal to present more test results for Xthin, and I'm trying to finish a proposal to present on subchains.
23:50 -!- danrobinson [~danrobins@cpe-68-175-4-89.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:51 < PeterR> Regarding rigorous proofs, Bob was explaining a proof he made regarding the expectation value between confirmations in a Braid.
23:52 < PeterR> Ugh....it seemed quite profound at the time--like it would apply more generally than just to Briads--but I forget the essence of it now.
23:52 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:53 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:55 -!- Mazz_ [~mazznilla@unaffiliated/mazznilla] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:55 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
--- Log closed Thu Sep 08 00:00:48 2016