--- Log opened Thu Feb 16 00:00:34 2017
00:02 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:21 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qfrmvgbibvfsobkk] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
00:28 -!- MaxSan [~one@91.214.169.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
00:29 -!- MaxSan [~one@91.214.169.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:53 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@42.117.66.72] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:53 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-165-227-45-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:03 -!- saintromuald [~saintromu@dynamic-acs-24-239-99-170.zoominternet.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:13 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yllnfdngzdfxxgjs] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:13 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:17 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:21 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:33 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
01:34 -!- MoALTz [~no@77-254-9-16.adsl.inetia.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:40 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@wpsoftware.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
01:46 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:48 -!- andytoshi [~apoelstra@wpsoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:52 -!- JackH [~laptop@79-73-188-131.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:03 -!- MoALTz [~no@77-254-9-16.adsl.inetia.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:04 -!- Oizopower [uid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kwszkrcelpivzgga] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:05 -!- MoALTz_ [~no@77-254-9-16.adsl.inetia.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:08 -!- MoALTz [~no@77-254-9-16.adsl.inetia.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:11 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:27 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:40 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:43 -!- MaxSan [~one@91.214.169.69] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
02:47 -!- fibonacci [uid136497@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xggsxxplyopqqlkj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
02:55 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:58 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:04 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:09 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:10 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
03:20 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:28 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:34 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:34 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
03:36 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:54 -!- mountaingoat [~mountaing@unaffiliated/mountaingoat] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:56 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:01 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yllnfdngzdfxxgjs] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
04:02 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:02 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:02 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
04:05 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:13 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
04:34 -!- gielbier [~michiel@unaffiliated/gielbier] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
04:43 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/developer/sn0wmonster] has quit [Quit: ?\_(?)_/?]
04:55 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:55 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@42.117.138.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:08 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:14 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:15 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:16 -!- CheckDavid [uid14990@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-klxzshfhvmewccko] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:27 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:32 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/developer/sn0wmonster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:33 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
05:40 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:45 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:46 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/developer/sn0wmonster] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
05:50 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has quit [Excess Flood]
05:51 -!- WungFu [~WungFu@unaffiliated/wungfu] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
05:51 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:53 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:53 -!- pedrovian_ [~pedrovian@8.27.210.16] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:56 -!- pedrovian1 [~pedrovian@8.27.210.16] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:57 -!- schmidty [~schmidty@unaffiliated/schmidty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:04 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mcwlvhhhzhjdxugw] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
06:04 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/developer/sn0wmonster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:20 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:21 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@unaffiliated/kanzure] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:23 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:34 -!- priidu [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:39 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:54 -!- neha [~narula@tbilisi.csail.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:00 -!- gielbier [~michiel@unaffiliated/gielbier] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:10 < tromp_> downside of replacing difficulty by cumulative version is that you need full 256 bit precision
07:10 < andytoshi> i think this is true
07:11 < tromp_> but that is small price to pay. and gives less worries about frequent more fine grained difficulty adjustments
07:11 < andytoshi> 128 bits is probably fine, or 64 even
07:12 < tromp_> yes, depending on how much hash power could scale over lifetime
07:12 < andytoshi> regarding your successors-commit-to-successors scheme, does this mean basically each block in the compact chain has two headers?
07:12 < andytoshi> the "real" one and then its predecessor which has all the work
07:13 < tromp_> yes, to witness the whole compact chain, you'll get a sequence of header pairs
07:13 < andytoshi> does this create an attack wherein i take any high-work block from any part of any chain and build on that?
07:14 < tromp_> the first in each pair has the lucky pow, and the second the commitment to both the first and the previous pair
07:15 < andytoshi> right, but the first doesn't commit to anything verifiable
07:15 < tromp_> that attack wld work similarly on your merkle tree
07:15 < tromp_> wouldnt it?
07:15 < andytoshi> it doesn't, because with the merkle tree the big work is committing to the predecessor
07:16 < tromp_> but the commit of the successor also commits to the whole history
07:16 < andytoshi> here you're just taking arbitrary work that you didn't have to do yourself (you could have found it anywhere) and then using that as a ticket to skip
07:17 < tromp_> in both cases there is a compact chain that is commited to
07:17 < andytoshi> yes, but in my scheme the compact chain has a ton of work committing to each link
07:17 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
07:17 < andytoshi> here you have little work which commits (a) to the compact chain, and (b) to a bunch of work
07:18 < tromp_> but (a) directly commits to (b)
07:19 < andytoshi> that's fine, but unless (b) commits to the compact chain, its work doesn't prove anything about the compact chain
07:19 < tromp_> hmm, this is a little mind spinning. let me ponder it some more
07:20 < andytoshi> heh, yeah, it took me way longer than i'd expected to convince myself that the merkle tree thing worked the way that i'd handwaved it to
07:22 < tromp_> you're saying you could take a compact chain (b) and fake all the successors forming (a), which does indeed seem to be a problem:(
07:23 < tromp_> or take any set of high pow blocks as (b)
07:23 < andytoshi> yeah, potentially even from other chains
07:25 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
07:25 -!- MoALTz_ is now known as MoALTz
07:26 < tromp_> btw, your effective difficulties are just sums of difficulties of partitioning block ranges, right?
07:28 < andytoshi> if i'm understanding you correctly, yes
07:29 < bsm117532> tromp if I understand correctly, you want to commit to the luckiest block in history, and the most recent block as a pair?
07:31 < bsm117532> If instead you commit to a log(height) sized list of blocks representing the luckiest blocks in each range, you've committed to the whole history and the PoW in a verifiable way.  Truncating log(height) to 2 seems to introduce problems...
07:31 < bsm117532> (or as discussed yesterday, some subset of the luckiest blocks in each range -- to reduce variance)
07:34 < bsm117532> e.g. at height 1153 = 0b10010000001 you'd commit to the luckiest 3 blocks in the first 1024, the luckiest 2 blocks in the next 128, and the most recent block, where the numbers 3 and 2 need to be tuned kill attacks that take advantage of variance.
07:35 < tromp_> these are all variations of the high value hash highway proposed years ago, but andrew's formulation is the cleanest so far
07:36 < bsm117532> That's new to me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98986.0
07:37 -!- edvorg [~edvorg@42.117.138.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
07:37 < bsm117532> Andrew's formulation certainly works AFAICT.  My complaint about it is that the PoW cannot be verified without the entire history, and I think there's a way to reformulate it into a log(height) sized list per block, which allows direct verification of the PoW -- thus allowing clients to drop history.
07:39 < bsm117532> e.g. given a merging rule (d1+d2, hash(h1+h2)), there's no way to verify that the combined difficulties d1+d2 corresponds to hash(h1+h2) unless you have the leaves.
07:40 < tromp_> we imagine using this for pows with large witnesses (100s of bytes instead of just a nonce), in which case a selfcontained powopow would be too big
07:40 < bsm117532> the merging rule (min(d1,d2), hash corresponding to min(d1,d2)) does allow for direct verification.
07:41 < bsm117532> tromp_ can you elaborate?  I'm not sure what you mean...
07:42 < tromp_> your disire to drop history sounded to me like you want to have self-contained powopow that dont need to query early blocks
07:42 < bsm117532> correct.
07:42 < tromp_> so you want to include logarithmic number of proofs in each block?
07:42 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:43 < tromp_> or just commitment to them?
07:43 < bsm117532> Just commitments to them.
07:43 < bsm117532> Full nodes can then feed this log list to light clients.
07:43 < tromp_> this might suffer from same problem that my compact successor chain had...
07:44 < uiuc-slack> <amiller> i think you are reinventing the scheme in the popow paper
07:45 < bsm117532> that is, I could take lucky hashes from anywhere, construct a fake commitment, and feed it to light clients?
07:45 < bsm117532> amiller: I most certainly am.  I'm too lazy to read.
07:45 < uiuc-slack> <amiller> ok, fair enough, keep going then :slightly_smiling_face:
07:45 < bsm117532> ;-)
07:48 < bsm117532> tromp_ fake commitments like that would only work if the light client has no history at all.  If the light client queries for the latest block on a semi-regular basis, the oldest lucky blocks will remain the same.
07:48 < bsm117532> Also, by including <n> lucky blocks from the oldest range to reduce variance, some of those lucky blocks will still be lucky when the next power of 2 rolls around in log_2(height).
07:49 < tromp_> so a blockchain design might end up using two block merkle trees; one for all blocks, and one for dominating blocks (what i wld call blocks in compact chain)
07:49 < bsm117532> Ah yes, the "hash highway" is a Merkle skip list...amiller showed me that a while ago...
07:50 < tromp_> yes bsm117532 yes, but we shld prefer foolproof solutions over ones that are probably secure with enough extra chceking
07:50 < bsm117532> tromp_ of course.  I'm brainstorming. ;-)
07:51 < tromp_> to witness the compact chain within a merkle tree on all blocks, you'd need a size log^2(n) proof of witness paths
07:52 < tromp_> so the separate merkle tree seems worth the effort
07:52 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:55 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:55 < bsm117532> Wait...let me define V(n) to be the number of lucky hashes presented at height 2^n to reduce variance.  Assuming V(n) < V(n+1), ALL of the lucky hashes will already have been seen by a light client updating his wallet.
07:56 < tromp_> btw, there is some small but non-trivial chance that at some point the compact chain consists of only 3 nodes; genesis, an extrememly lucky pow, and its successor witnessing the luck
07:56 < bsm117532> In the event there's a new lucky hash since the last block header update, the light client could directly query for the log(n) list of lucky hashes at that height.
07:57 < bsm117532> tromp_ In your scheme that would happen any time height = 2^n for integer n.
07:57 < bsm117532> And at those points you'd have maximal variance...
07:59 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:06 < tromp_> i'm sorry bsm117532; i'm too happy with andrew's powow design to seriously study variance based alternatives:(
08:06 < bsm117532> heheee I need to study that more carefully.
08:07 -!- Guest37379 [~quassel@78.10.231.191] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:07 -!- Guest37379 is now known as Davasny
08:09 < tromp_> btw, andytoshi, it seems that the compact chain witnesses at least half of the cumulative difficulty of the entire chain, correct?
08:10 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:13 < kanzure> wasn't this written up in http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/bitcoin/mimblewimble-andytoshi-draft-2016-10-20.pdf
08:16 < tromp_> i was trying to remember if the compact chain witnesses all of the work or just the majority. guess i need to read those theorems in detail to see which statement is more correct
08:17 < tromp_> btw, andytoshi, is that the most up-to-date version of your paper?
08:42 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
08:48 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vpkuyqoquabnzqlw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
08:54 -!- CheckDavid [uid14990@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-klxzshfhvmewccko] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
09:06 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:18 -!- reginaldo [~reginaldo@177.72.115.108] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:19 -!- reginaldo [~reginaldo@177.72.115.108] has quit [Client Quit]
09:19 -!- reginaldo_ [~reginaldo@177.72.115.108] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:22 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-123-27.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:25 -!- baarvader [~baarvader@ip545302a9.speed.planet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:25 < tromp_> andytoshi, i think your lemma 2 is false
09:26 < tromp_> expected #blocks to achieve sum-of-difficulty >= D is less than D
09:28 < tromp_> but expected #blocks to find *first* block of difficulty >= D is D
09:29 < tromp_> here i use difficulty=hashspacesize/hash
09:30 < tromp_> or maybe i misunderstood the statement...
09:34 < andytoshi> tromp_: "expected #blocks to find *first* block of difficulty >= D is D" seems meaningless
09:34 < andytoshi> how are you counting blocks?
09:34 < andytoshi> the lemma doesn't seem to talk about counting blocks at all
09:34 < tromp_> i mean hash attempts
09:35 < andytoshi> oh i see. let me think about this, i still think i'm correct here
09:35 < tromp_> i'm just considering successive hash attempts and ignoring minimum required difficulty
09:36 < andytoshi> yep understood
09:36 < tromp_> for instance it takes expected 6 die throws to get a 6
09:37 < tromp_> but getting sum difficulty to be 6 required fewer throws
09:38 < andytoshi> the claim is that rolling three evens should take as much time as rolling one six
09:38 < andytoshi> and those both have expected 6 rolls
09:38 < andytoshi> because there are 3 times as many evens as there are sixes on a die
09:39 < tromp_> that is true
09:39 < tromp_> but in lemma 2, every failed attempts still contributes to sum
09:40 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> Has anyone proposed/investigated the idea of a merge-mined chain in which the child chain is re-orged if and only if the parent chain is re-orged?  (I.e. the block headers of the parent chain are used to decide the most-work rule of the child chain.)
09:40 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> It seems like an obvious enough idea that I assume someone has thought of it
09:40 < andytoshi> tromp_: ah i see
09:41 < andytoshi> if i ask you to show me "3 evens or one six" that'll take you less than 6 tries?
09:41 < andytoshi> i guess so
09:42 < tromp_> sure
09:42 < andytoshi> interesting
09:43 < tromp_> just like with coin flipping, two anything or one head takes expected less than 2 tries
09:44 < andytoshi> hmmm
09:44 < tromp_> oops
09:44 < tromp_> that is not correct analogy
09:44 < tromp_> since anything has difficulty 0
09:45 -!- atgreen [~green@CPE10da438ecb59-CM00fc8d24cab0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:45 < tromp_> but expected 6 throws for 1st six includes many events with more than 3 evens
09:46 < tromp_> so stopping on 3 evens has to lower expectancy
09:46 < andytoshi> yeah, it will take 5 tries on average
09:47 < tromp_> 3 state markov chain:)
09:47 < andytoshi> (easier to think about stopping on sixes; then if you roll five dice without sixes, each has 3/5 chance of being even and there you go)
09:47 < andytoshi> i'd bet if you built the markov chain and played it forward you'd get the same result with a lot more work :P
09:48 < andytoshi> so this is shitty. what is the real expected number of attempts here?
09:48 < andytoshi> if it's something nice like "twice as many" or "e times as many" then *shrug*, but if it squares them or something awful i'm going to be sad
09:50 < tromp_> hmm, it doesn't seem to be 5
09:51 < andytoshi> oh, i was calculating "if you roll 5 dice with no sixes, what is the expected number of evens?" to which the answer is 3, but i guess that's not right
09:52 < tromp_> anyway, seems Lemma 2 needs to have different outcome for expected #attempts to achieve some total eff. difficulty
09:52 < tromp_> it's going to be somwhere between D/2 and D
09:53 < tromp_> presumably
09:53 < tromp_> afk to dr's appt...
09:56 < andytoshi> np i've also gotta take off for a couple hours
09:57 < andytoshi> but you're saying i'm wrong by at worst a factor of 2?
09:58 < tromp_> the way you compute compact chain, you leave out at most half the sum-difficultyu
10:00 < andytoshi> great, so if my compact chain is twice as long i'm still ok?
10:00 < andytoshi> i have size 2log instead of log
10:01 < tromp_> you alrd picked the luckiest blocks, you cannot pick another same size set that's as lucky
10:03 < tromp_> i think perhaps the best you can do is a O(log(n)) sized subchain that proves 1-eps of the work
10:07 < andytoshi> that sucks
10:07 < andytoshi> sure i can't just define "effective difficulty" as 1/2 its current definition?
10:12 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:15 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@52.119.113.96] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 < bsm117532> "the claim is that rolling three evens should take as much time as rolling one six" -- that's not true.  The former has a probability P=1/2 to roll an even, three rolls has probability P^3=1/8 to get all evens while one six has probability 1/6.
10:20 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:36 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:40 -!- reginaldo_ [~reginaldo@177.72.115.108] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:54 -!- sausage_factory [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:55 -!- blackwraith [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:56 -!- reginaldo_ [~reginaldo@191.241.232.178] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:05 -!- none [~none@2601:647:c803:21a0:7970:be1:be5e:e1dc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:05 -!- none is now known as Guest58074
11:06 -!- Aranjedeath [~Aranjedea@unaffiliated/aranjedeath] has quit [Quit: Three sheets to the wind]
11:10 -!- MaxSan [~one@185.156.175.35] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
11:13 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 -!- Aranjedeath [~Aranjedea@unaffiliated/aranjedeath] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:17 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:20 -!- reginaldo_ [~reginaldo@191.241.232.178] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
11:24 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:34 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:34 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:41 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:49 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:52 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:55 -!- fibonacci [uid136497@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lejkjofytesxhoun] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- fibonacci is now known as Guest20395
11:56 -!- Guest20395 is now known as fibonaccicoin
11:57 -!- fibonaccicoin [uid136497@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lejkjofytesxhoun] has quit [Changing host]
11:57 -!- fibonaccicoin [uid136497@unaffiliated/goldenangle] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:57 -!- fibonaccicoin [uid136497@unaffiliated/goldenangle] has quit [Changing host]
11:57 -!- fibonaccicoin [uid136497@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lejkjofytesxhoun] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:57 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:04 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:18 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:22 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qnimdhxhxojeiynj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:28 -!- Buckyy [buckowski@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-thmaslyojvrwornz] has quit [Quit: ereet]
12:29 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:33 -!- buckowski [buckowski@gateway/shell/elitebnc/x-mfuoyengrkuhjnes] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:35 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:48 -!- JHistone [~JHistone@cpc102320-sgyl38-2-0-cust380.18-2.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:48 -!- JHistone [~JHistone@cpc102320-sgyl38-2-0-cust380.18-2.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Client Quit]
13:12 -!- pero [~pero@unaffiliated/pero] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:16 < maaku> Jeremy_Rand[m]: isn't that how merged mining works, generally?
13:16 -!- sausage_factory [~priidu@unaffiliated/priidu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:16 < maaku> "the block headers of the parent chain are used to decide the most-work rule of the child chain" <-- as far as I'm aware, this is vanilla merge mining
13:33 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:41 -!- zephyrbtc [041057a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:50 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:59 -!- aj_ is now known as aj
14:05 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:13 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:14 -!- pero [~pero@unaffiliated/pero] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:15 -!- pero [~pero@unaffiliated/pero] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:18 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:19 -!- meZee [SwedFTP@unaffiliated/swedftp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:22 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:39 < tromp_> bsm11753 expected #rolls to get k evens = 2k
14:39 < tromp_> so for k=3 that is indeed identical to the expected #throws to get a 6
14:41 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:46 -!- baarvader [~baarvader@ip545302a9.speed.planet.nl] has quit []
14:56 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:07 -!- zephyrbtc [041057a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:09 -!- face [~face@mail.hmel.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
15:11 -!- face [~face@mail.hmel.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:16 -!- Davasny [~quassel@78.10.231.191] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:24 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:26 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]
15:33 -!- zephyrbtc [041057a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:36 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:40 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:44 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:45 -!- dnaleor [~dnaleor@78-23-74-78.access.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:47 -!- fibonaccicoin [uid136497@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lejkjofytesxhoun] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
15:50 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:53 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc34f.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:53 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc34f.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:56 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-31-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:07 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:12 < bsm117532> Ah you're correct.  I thought you were just multiplying expectation values...but it turns out to be correct in this case.
16:24 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:32 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:33 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:33 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:37 -!- molz_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:38 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:42 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:48 -!- zephyrbtc [041057a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:49 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:57 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
17:01 -!- deadalnix [~deadalnix@21.242.97.84.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:04 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> maaku: I was unclear in my wording, let me try again.  With standard merged mining, the parent and child chains can re-org independently, because the parent chain's headers aren't validated via SPV, they're only used to validate that the individual child block headers have valid PoW.
17:05 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> I'm asking about the idea of a merged mining system where re-orging the parent chain necessarily causes the child chain to re-org, because the child chain's most-work rule is based on SPV validation of the parent chain's block headers.
17:06 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> The rough idea I had for implementation of the logic is that, in the event of a fork in the child chain, the side of the fork that includes an earlier-height block in the longest parent chain would win
17:07 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> s/includes/is commit to by
17:07 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> committed*
17:07  * Jeremy_Rand[m] fails at typing this evening
17:16 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> The motivation for my inquiry is the idea of building a merge-mined chain that can't be 51% attacked without also 51%-attacking the parent chain.  Which would resolve one of the major security weaknesses of merge-mined chains (they can be attacked independently of their parent).
17:21 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:22 -!- JackH [~laptop@79-73-188-131.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:25 < bsm1175321> Jeremy_Rand[m]: @sdlerner's Lumio is just such a pair of merge-mined chains.  Should be out soon https://twitter.com/SDLerner/status/830911111209824256
17:27 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: oh cool, thank you.  Great to hear that this idea is being worked on and that I'm not the first one to think of it.  Is sdlerner the first person to propose this?
17:29 < bsm1175321> I'm not finished reading his draft, but it's not so different from many other ideas floating out there.
17:30 < bsm1175321> I'm not really convinced... if one of the two chains provides a scaling (or some other) advantage...why do you need the other one?  The motivation seems to be that this could be a way to extend Bitcoin without requiring changes to Bitcoin.  Where "extend" = "atomically trade into a merge-mined altcoin".
17:31 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: I assume the benefit would be the ability to experiment with new chain validation rules without the risk of easy 51% attacks against the experimental chain?
17:32 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> (Some of which might have to do with scaling)
17:33 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> Anyway, I'm giving a talk in a few weeks, and this concept is going to be briefly mentioned, and I'd like to know whom I should credit for coming up with it before I did.  (I would feel horrible if I inadvertently failed to credit someone for their work.)
17:33 < bsm1175321> ...which is the same motivation behind Elements Alpha, but no one has a truly acceptable way to trade in and out of the chain, hence the Elements federated peg.
17:34 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Atomic cross chain trades without a fixed exchange rate rule are totally okay for some use cases.  Although I agree that 2-way pegs are better if they can be done safely.
17:34 < bsm1175321> See also "drivechains"
17:35 < bsm1175321> These ideas are floating around, but I'd say none of them has really picked up much steam.  (Much less steam than say, segwit, and we see how that's going)
17:36 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: if, hypothetically, there were a proposal that had considerably better security than standard merged mining in the case where the child chain has a low USD per block reward, it's plausible that Namecoin would at least consider adopting it.
17:37 < bsm1175321> The issue is in convincing enough miners to do the merge mining.
17:37 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: and thanks for the drivechains reference, will Google around for that
17:38 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Namecoin has sufficient hashpower that that's not a problem (we're about half of Bitcoin), the much bigger issue is that our exchange rate is so much lower than Bitcoin that it would be cheap to bribe miners to attack us
17:38 -!- Hunger| [r00t@zer0days.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:39 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> Obviously I wish our hashrate were higher too
17:39 < bsm1175321> There's another way to think about the whole thing...make an "extension block" and a soft fork to move funds into it.
17:40 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: the extension block proposals require post-softfork full nodes to validate the extension blocks, right?  Or have I missed something?
17:40 < bsm1175321> There's really only one economic asset, and that's the brute-forced hash.  Putting two tradeable assets on the same chain is silly, IMHO.
17:40 < bsm1175321> Jeremy_Rand[m]: correct.  It's not so different from segwit, where the witness block is an extension block of sorts.
17:40 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:41 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: I'm not sure I follow what proposal you're referring to with "putting 2 tradeable assets on the same chain"?
17:41 < bsm1175321> Merge mined coins have only one economic asset: the brute forced hash, but two "coins".
17:41 -!- Hunger- [r00t@zer0days.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:42 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: for things like Namecoin, it's desirable (in some senses) for Bitcoin nodes to not validate Namecoin blocks, because making Bitcoin nodes parse/store name data violates the social contract of Bitcoin (i.e. that nodes store financial data in order to gain access to a currency)
17:42 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> (I realize that not everyone agrees with that particular social contract.)
17:43 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> So merged mining is useful, but would be more useful if re-orging Namecoin required also re-orging Bitcoin.
17:43 < bsm1175321> I'm just speaking in purely economic terms...not complaining about Namecoin in particular.  Frankly I think an identity layer MUST be merge-mined with the asset, or you introduce counterparty risk to an otherwise perfect cryptographic system.
17:43 < bsm1175321> (but it's not a separate asset, it's identity)
17:44 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vpkuyqoquabnzqlw] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:46 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Any idea when sdlerner's paper will be made public?  Like, say, in the next 2 weeks?  Would be cool if there's something concrete for me to cite.
17:46 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> (If not, I'm happy to just cite him by name)
17:47 -!- pero [~pero@unaffiliated/pero] has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
17:47 < bsm1175321> Well he's circulating a ~25 page draft to a few people, and I've invited him to talk about it at BitDevs in NYC on March 2, so hopefully he makes it public before then!
17:48 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Ah good!  My talk is circa a week after that.
17:48 < bsm1175321> Where/what is your talk?
17:49 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: I'm speaking at QCon London in the blockchain track; my talk is mostly a case study of Namecoin and Monero, but I'm trying to work in various alternate approaches to the issues they try to solve
17:49 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> So alternate approaches to merged mining are totally on topic
17:50 < bsm1175321> I'm sure you know about keybase and blockstack/onename on the identity front.
17:51 < bsm1175321> My company is working on identity in a different way than onename/namecoin -- re-using your spent bitcoin keys for identification purposes...
17:52 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Yes, I'm familiar with Blockstack.  Keybase isn't really blockchain related so I'm not planning to cover it.
17:52 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> (I do plan to cover Blockstack)
17:53 < bsm1175321> Keybase is similar to some certificate transparency efforts, in that they hash&smash commitments to keys, IIRC.
17:54 < bsm1175321> Ooops...hash&smash = put Merkle roots in OP_RETURN.
17:54 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: I'd be interested in learning more about your company's work.  Is much info public at this point?
17:54 < bsm1175321> No, virtually nothing is public yet.
17:55 < Jeremy_Rand[m]> bsm1175321: Okay.  When the info becomes public I look forward to reading up on it.  :)
17:59 -!- Kexkey [~kexkey@23.227.207.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:14 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@52.119.113.96] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
18:21 -!- Giszmo1 [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:24 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-31-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:33 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:36 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:37 -!- HostFat__ [~HostFat@87.19.33.23] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:40 -!- HostFat_ [~HostFat@host127-247-dynamic.16-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:45 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
18:49 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:06 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:07 -!- kankles [~kankles@104.200.154.4] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:22 -!- kenshi84_ is now known as kenshi84
19:26 -!- kankles [~kankles@104.200.154.4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:32 -!- deepbook5broo [~gk.1wm.su@2a03:4a80:2:2d4:2d4:e830:6db2:a7d4] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:32 -!- deepbook5broo [~gk.1wm.su@2a03:4a80:2:2d4:2d4:e830:6db2:a7d4] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
19:33 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-62-95-247.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:33 -!- Giszmo1 [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
19:35 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit []
19:39 -!- NemosCene21 [70c649de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.112.198.73.222] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:39 -!- Noldorin [~noldorin@unaffiliated/noldorin] has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz...]
19:41 < NemosCene21> hey guys and gals! I'm new to bitcoin, can I ask for tips to start earning some?
19:44 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:45 -!- NemosCene21 [70c649de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.112.198.73.222] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:49 -!- uiuc-slack [~uiuc-slac@li175-104.members.linode.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:49 -!- uiuc-slack [~uiuc-slac@li175-104.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:52 -!- rusty2 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
21:00 -!- legogris [~legogris@128.199.205.238] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:00 -!- legogris [~legogris@128.199.205.238] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:03 -!- psztorc__ [~psztorc@ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:05 -!- Guest58074 is now known as todaystomorrow
21:05 < todaystomorrow> NemosCene21 I
21:06 < todaystomorrow> will tell you about it in ##bitcoin, they answer more basic questions
21:06 < todaystomorrow> but basically nemoscene21 step 1) find people with bitcoins
21:06 < todaystomorrow> 2) convince them to give you bitcoins
21:07 < bsm1175321> I so wish I had ops.
21:07 -!- psztorc_ [~psztorc@ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:08 -!- cluckj [~cluckj@pool-173-49-237-221.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:12 -!- cluckj [~cluckj@static-98-114-125-87.phlapa.ftas.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:13 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:19 -!- psztorc__ [~psztorc@ool-4575fa8d.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:39 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:c092:439b:71e3:67d1] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:41 -!- NemosCene21 [~GeekEndz@112.198.118.129] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:41 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qnimdhxhxojeiynj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
21:44 -!- NemosCene21 [~GeekEndz@112.198.118.129] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
21:56 -!- katu [kane@router-kralovicka-nat-e.pilsfree.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
21:57 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:57 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:57 -!- katu [~katlogic@router-kralovicka-nat.pilsfree.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:04 -!- jtimon [~quassel@245.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
22:07 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:20 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:20 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:21 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:21 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:28 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
22:30 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit []
22:31 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:32 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Client Quit]
22:32 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:32 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
22:33 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:34 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Client Quit]
22:34 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:34 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Client Quit]
22:35 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:35 -!- mrkent [~textual@unaffiliated/mrkent] has quit [Client Quit]
22:38 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:39 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: oleganza]
22:43 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
22:46 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:49 -!- oleganza [~oleganza@c-73-170-224-149.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
23:15 -!- Aranjedeath [~Aranjedea@unaffiliated/aranjedeath] has quit [Quit: Three sheets to the wind]
23:19 -!- CrazyLoaf [uid67551@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cuqtwtcasgxshoxk] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:20 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:33 -!- katu [~katlogic@router-kralovicka-nat.pilsfree.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
23:37 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-khwwrgxnmwawglkj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:38 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:59 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
--- Log closed Fri Feb 17 00:00:35 2017