--- Log opened Sun May 28 00:00:06 2017
00:07 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.80] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:10 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@37.157.223.80] has quit [Changing host]
00:10 -!- Alina-malina [~Alina-mal@unaffiliated/alina-malina] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:42 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:49 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:52 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kzbdpzwjxwsusdkb] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
00:52 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:03 -!- Giszmo1 [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:25 -!- v20100 [~20100@modemcable072.203-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:34 -!- execute [~execute@52.68.0.151] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
01:58 -!- str4d [~str4d@27.110.123.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:05 -!- v20100 [~20100@modemcable072.203-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:12 -!- _whitelogger [~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:13 -!- _whitelogger [~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:18 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:20 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:35 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:38 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:45 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/lead/sn0wmonster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
02:49 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Quit: Cheers...]
02:52 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/lead/sn0wmonster] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:54 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:03 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:06 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:28 -!- sn0wmonster [~yeti@taskhive/lead/sn0wmonster] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:39 -!- sn0w [~yeti@2a00:f440:0:3001:216:3eff:fecf:8283] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:40 -!- sn0w [~yeti@2a00:f440:0:3001:216:3eff:fecf:8283] has quit [Quit: ?\_(?)_/?]
03:42 -!- Oizopower [uid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-oiknfmfkuhlhtysd] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:47 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
03:59 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Quit: Cheers...]
04:03 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:07 -!- binaryatrocity [~quassel@unaffiliated/br4n] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:13 -!- madacol_ [~madacol@190-199-58-88.dyn.dsl.cantv.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
04:16 -!- madacol_ [~madacol@190-199-58-88.dyn.dsl.cantv.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:16 -!- n1ce [~n1ce@unaffiliated/n1ce] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:21 -!- madacol_ [~madacol@190-199-58-88.dyn.dsl.cantv.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
04:28 -!- madacol_ [~madacol@190-199-58-88.dyn.dsl.cantv.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:29 < waxwing> so looking at the cryptonote ring sig again (after reading nickler 's article, thanks!), i'm sitting here wondering, would it break the algo. to use a NUMS point instead of Hash(pubkey point) as the basepoint for each of the key image equations?
04:32 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Quit: Cheers...]
04:33 -!- deusexbeer [~deusexbee@093-092-179-139-dynamic-pool-adsl.wbt.ru] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:46 -!- Guest1887 is now known as teslax
04:52 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
04:58 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Quit: Cheers...]
05:16 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
05:47 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
05:50 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.3.9] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:55 < waxwing> so is www.ledgerjournal.org/ojs/index.php/ledger/article/download/34/61 the latest on RingCT or has it been updated since?
06:00 < stevenroose> bsm1175322, you here?  I read Brahms, have a quick question: it heavily relies on limited push capabilities by peers.  Apart from the BIP154 proposal, that's not how bitcoin works, so I guess it's not very useful now, right?
06:02 < stevenroose> Also, I didn't fully grasp their concept of "push requests".  At first, I thought a push was just a relay of a new node, so cfr an inadvertent addr of a new peer.  But then it turns out their pushes only allows peers to push their own id.  Since a "push request" is sent to a peer by it's id, I don't get how it adds any value
06:02 < stevenroose> Apart from that, do you think the sampling part (so without the gossip protocol with limited pushes) would be useful on itself?
06:03 < stevenroose> for reference: "Brahms: Byzantine Resilient Random Membership Sampling" https://people.csail.mit.edu/idish/ftp/Brahms-PODC.pdf
06:04 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:06 < bsm1175322> stevenroose: I think you've read the paper more carefully than me now.
06:06 < bsm1175322> It does seem reasonable though, if you accept (1) node ids and (2) this centralized "membership service"
06:07 < stevenroose> what centralized membership service?
06:07 < bsm1175322> Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Is it only per-node sampling?
06:07 < stevenroose> btw, do you, or anyone else here, know how core does peer selection and/or know a reference to it?
06:08 < stevenroose> bsm1175322, yes it's per-node. Every node maintains it's own small local view and a set of samplers that are used to create a uniform sample over the local view
06:09 < bsm1175322> I know a little bit about peer selection, but it's constantly changing since it's not consensus critical and has other pressures, like finding fast relay nodes, compact block peers, or segwit peers.
06:11 < stevenroose> bsm1175322, I suppose there have been studies to it's resilience to partitioning attacks, right?
06:11 < bsm1175322> Oh yes, I remember now.  I pasted this paper but stopped reading when I hit this statement: "Nodes are not allowed to use multiple ids, which rules out massive Sybil attacks [12]".
06:14 < bsm1175322> stevenroose: yes, several.  There's a recent one showing that segwit nodes accidentally partition themselves from non-segwit due to preferential peering with segwit nodes.
06:15 < stevenroose> bsm1175322, yeah that's also a red flag that I struck.  However if you have a good rate limiting system (i.e. PoW), I think that constraint is no longer needed
06:15 < bsm1175322> That thought just occurred to me too.  Perhaps I should give this paper a second chance...
06:17 < stevenroose> Well, they heavily emphasize that they depend on the gossip protocol to have a system for limiting pushes
06:17 < stevenroose> but since a push apparently is only advertising yourself to another node, I guess BIP154 is exactly that
06:18 < stevenroose> (do bitcoin nodes currently push inadvertent addr's to other nodes? no, right?)
06:19 < bsm1175322> What do you mean "inadvertent"?
06:19 < stevenroose> without it being a reply to getaddr
06:20 < bsm1175322> I don't know.
06:21 < bsm1175322> So this to say, getaddr/addr is "pull" (and subject to poisoning) where they're proposing a "push" based mechansim?
06:22 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:24 < bsm1175322> Oh I see, they treat "push" and "pull" as two different sampling mechanisms, and use that to reduce bias in their peer list.
06:24 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]
06:25 < bsm1175322> Combined with BIP154, this seems like a very reasonable idea for Bitcoin.
06:26 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@2604:2d80:4433:e22f:b574:b447:7a22:3345] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
06:41 < kanzure> .title https://lists.launchpad.net/mimblewimble/msg00125.html
06:41 < yoleaux> Integrating ValueShuffle into the Mimblewimble protocol : Mailing list archive : mimblewimble team in Launchpad
06:49 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:00 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:02 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:18 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
07:18 < andytoshi> waxwing: no, it would not break the protocol
07:18 < andytoshi> waxwing: however, the attack jonas published would still work
07:55 < waxwing> andytoshi: oh yes, no doubt about that
07:56 < waxwing> i just found myself wondering what the point was in having distinct points for each element in the ring .. or even each tx come to that
07:56 < waxwing> since a distinct pubkey is enforced for each tx iiuc
08:04 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@32.106-241-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
08:10 < andytoshi> waxwing: no idea. this occurred to me when i was first comparing the bytecoin ringsigs to the LWW ones (which are also 50% the size), i believe it's a holdover from the ringsigs' applicability to voting schemes
08:10 < andytoshi> where you want one key image per election, rather than one period
08:18 < runeks> Has research been done into using AES, instead of SHA256, as a proof-of-work function? Since AES is used in TLS, I figure the current hardware implementations should already be fairly efficient. Plus, I know newer Intel CPUs come with an AES instruction, meaning a relatively efficient and widespread hardware implementation would exist from the get-go.
08:22 < runeks> I'm not sure exactly how it should be used. But probably either by using e.g. a hash of the previous block as the private key, and appending a nonce to the plaintext; or by keeping the plaintext constant and varying the private key (both until the ciphertext is of sufficient "difficulty").
08:25 -!- goatturner [~Beatrootg@2a02:c7d:12e:100:4093:7245:b577:3bfa] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:28 < runeks> The important point is that an efficient AES implementation should exist in virtually all mobile devices already, since they need to encrypt data using TLS, and are highly power-constrained. This makes it much more decentralized than SHA256, since there's practically no need for a high-throughput hashing mechanism for anything but Bitcoin (and password
08:28 < runeks> cracking).
08:29 < kanzure> runeks: even if your claims of no remaining hardware optimizations of AES were true,  it's trivial to spin up botnets to do AES-- it falls victim to the same problem as other pow changes.
08:31 < kanzure> hence breaking your decentralization claim
08:31 < runeks> I'm not claiming there are no remaining optimizations. I'm claiming that there is a use case for efficient AES already: TLS, meaning there's plenty of reason for companies not involved in Bitcoin to improve efficiency.
08:32 < kanzure> arguably pow functions get optimized much more quickly than anything else due to the direct payout from mining.
08:32 < kanzure> aes efficiency is not so strongly optimized by the industry.
08:32 < runeks> kanzure: I'm not sure what your point about botnets is. Proof-of-work is proof-of-work.
08:32 < kanzure> your point was about decentralization; botnet is not decentralized.
08:32 < runeks> I'm not saying it's perfect. Just better than the current situation.
08:33 < renlord> why AES, why not cuckoo cycles?
08:33 < runeks> The hardware exists in decentralized form.
08:34 < runeks> The more money a botnet can make from mining, the more money people can make from mining themselves. Just another incentive to run secure software.
08:34 < kanzure> people generally run operations smaller than botnets, even if you look at people in aggregate
08:36 < runeks> renlord: I'm not that familiar with how widespread symmetric encryption functions in hardware are. The important properties are soundness (AES has been tested a lot) and how widespread and efficient hardware implementations are.
08:37 < renlord> runeks: if you use AES, you're effectively discriminating against the ARM architecture.
08:37 < kanzure> at most you could argue that there's a temporary benefit from some people having existing aes hardware implementations, but that benefit gets stripped away pretty fast as botnets get spun up, or bitcoin asic manufacturers optimize their own implementation (aes hardware does not really do highly parallel stuff like a bitcoin asic manufacturer would choose to do).
08:38 < renlord> iirc, x86 implements the AES instruction set to make AES functions more performant.
08:40 < runeks> kanzure: That's the crux of it, I guess: how efficient are existing AES hardware implementations versus how efficient a dedicated ASIC miner can make it. I figure mobile chip makers have a pretty strong incentive to make efficient HW implementations already.
08:40 < renlord> furthermore, the main issue with centralisation has little to do with ASIC, its the cost of power. It is simply cheaper to have many machines plugged directly to a hydro power station next door. Its economics.
08:42 < runeks> renlord: I disagree. There are plenty of ways to produce cheap power, but very few companies, if any, besides TSMC that can produce efficient mining hardware.
08:46 < renlord> runeks: there's also the issue of economies of scale. It is simply cheaper to run many dedicated hardware from a central location.
08:48 < kanzure> if anything that's an argument for regular secret pow changes (but who gets in on the secret?); without pre-optimization you end up with botnet farmers earning the most revenue which is ungood and gets us back to miners-as-thugs.
08:48 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:49 < runeks> "Secret pow changes" goes against everything Bitcoin stands for.
08:50 < kanzure> well, possibly.  if you want to get widely distributed hardware in a 'fair' way first-- it would have to be secret; otherwise someone is going to optimize the hell out of their own asic.
08:50 < kanzure> similarly, handing over bitcoin mining to botnet operators is also against bitcoin ethos :)
08:50 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:51 < runeks> Also, I don't agree that poor software security makes proof-of-work problematic. If people are running insecure software then that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed.
08:51 < kanzure> what is that a reply to
08:52 < runeks> That Bitcoin mining botnets are a problem of Bitcoin.
08:52 < kanzure> i'm talking about the pre-existing non-bitcoin botnets
08:52 < kanzure> they have many millions of machines.
08:52 < runeks> I know
08:53 < kanzure> these botnets are controlled by usually very small groups (probably one guy per large botnet)
08:54 < kanzure> the decentralization in that scenario would be worse than current attempt at decentralization, i think.
08:55 < kanzure> proof-of-work itself is only for the sake of decentralization, there's nothing about PoW that enforces bitcoin rules or anything-- so if you have like one guy running all the hardware you might as well just use a signature scheme to sign blocks.
09:10 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:10 < kanzure> runeks: one thing you could argue to me, which would be interesting, would be that the relative prevalence of ransomware is actually quite low compared to the total amount of botnet malware.   so perhaps the rate of integration of a new bitcoin pow function into botnets would be as low as the prevalence of ransomware.  (although those that do implement either ransomware/mining will probably ...
09:10 < kanzure> ...over time receive a selection effect advantage.. so over time it will be more prominent anyway.)
09:15 < Eliel_> do we have any data about botnets mining altcoins?
09:17 < renlord> why is it a bitcoin issue to address botnets mining coins?
09:17 < Eliel_> renlord: it affects the overall network security properties
09:18 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:19 < kanzure> malware operators vs large businesses with regulatory oversight you pick :P
09:20 < renlord> its a permission-less consensus network, it does not discriminate.
09:20 < renlord> @.@
09:21 < Eliel_> renlord: precisely. Hence, it's important to pay attention to which parties the choice of PoW function favors.
09:24 < benthamshead> <stonecoldpat> I would side with renlord, but argue that choosing a pow should not provide any party a starting advantage. If it benefits established businesses or botnets then that isn't a great start.
09:25 < kanzure> the argument for secret pow change is that the secrecy time gives an opportunity to widely deploy the hardware. unfortunately there are theoreitcal problems with how to prove fairness after secrecy period is over.
09:26 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:38 < renlord> frankly, I don't see any problems with mining centralisation as is right now so as long as there exist a vastly superior number of independent nodes doing the verification.
09:38 < renlord> it'd be impossible to beat economies of scale and force mining decentralisation.
09:41 -!- sudoScience [kc@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hefgvwoqtzyhrpsg] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
09:42 < sudoScience> okay im confused by something and i admit its probably im underinformed and ignorant but i want to understand. it sounds like a UASF is actually a User Activated (Hard) Fork. okay, so i dont think a hard fork is a good idea because i dont think a chain split is a good idea. i was against a hard fork for any reason, even to increase block size which we so desperately need. segwit increases the blocksize without having to hardf
09:42 < sudoScience> , therefore its a good thing. however isnt it shooting ourselves in the foot if we hardfork to segwit, as that's what segwit was postponing anyways?
09:42 < sudoScience> not really asking a question specifically or anything, just looking to see what you guys have to say
09:42 < sudoScience> its my understanding that a soft fork is a fork that does not break backwards compatibility, and isnt that the exact and only purpose of a UASF?
09:44 < sudoScience> ---^I posted this earlier in the bitcoin channel and didnt get much discussion.dont want to spam but just asking for opinions. doesnt anyone else think this UASF is risky business?
09:45 < sudoScience>  i also accept that i might be ignorant on the subject
09:54 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@2604:2d80:4433:e22f:b574:b447:7a22:3345] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
09:58 < belcher> sudoScience segwit is a soft fork not a hard fork
09:58 < belcher> perhaps the phrase you're looking for is "chain split", which can happen as a result of soft forks (see the bip66 example)
09:59 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has quit []
10:04 < sudoScience> belcher: okay thank you for that. that is helpful
10:05 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:05 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has quit [Changing host]
10:05 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:07 < sudoScience> youre right chain split is the big concern. so if there is a chain split am i correct to understand that the economic pressures to shrivel up and the leak value to the segwit chain will be what kills the legacy chain?
10:13 < Eliel_> sudoScience: also note that the splitting risk is higher in BIP148 than what would usually be meant by UASF
10:16 < Eliel_> a normal UASF only splits if a miner deliberately makes it happen (and the miners wanting to make it happen have 50+% of mining power). BIP148, however, splits if less than 50% of miners have chosen to signal for segwit by the activation time.
10:18 -!- crypt0kraken [~crypt0kra@2001:690:2100:19:5d17:f3e4:4f20:2cd3] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:18 -!- crypt0kraken [~crypt0kra@2001:690:2100:19:5d17:f3e4:4f20:2cd3] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
10:21 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
10:26 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:56 -!- v20100 [~20100@modemcable072.203-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:08 -!- rusty1 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:10 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:13 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:17 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:30 -!- flandero [~xxwa@94.177.176.239] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:30 -!- flandero is now known as mn3monic
11:30 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:30 -!- mn3monic [~xxwa@94.177.176.239] has quit [Changing host]
11:30 -!- mn3monic [~xxwa@unaffiliated/mn3monic] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:44 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:48 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:49 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
11:49 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:51 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
11:56 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
12:02 < stevenroose> if I test scriptPubKeys and corresponding scriptSigs and they work as intended, I can assume that they can also be used in P2SH and P2WSH, right? Without any precautionary measures?
12:06 < sipa> the redeemscript in P2SH is at most 520 bytes
12:06 < sipa> and the scriptSig must be push only
12:31 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:37 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:45 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit []
12:46 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
12:46 < stevenroose> sipa, wait, in traditional terms (at least I think because that's how I think they used to be), you have
12:46 < stevenroose> scriptPutKey - the script on the output; and
12:46 < stevenroose> scriptSig - the script on the input, right?
12:46 < sipa> yes
12:47 < stevenroose> I guess those names have different meaning in p2sh context
12:47 < sipa> and to P2SH-ify it, you turn the scriptSig into scriptSig + push of scriptPubKey
12:47 < stevenroose> ah you mean scriptSig only push because the while script is a push?
12:47 < stevenroose> whole*
12:47 < stevenroose> okk got it
12:47 < sipa> no, every operation in the resulting scriptSig has to be a push
12:47 < sipa> which is not a requirement for non-P2SH (but it is a standardness rule)
12:48 < stevenroose> yeah I mean the previous scriptPubKey is encoded in a push on the scriptSig now
12:48 < gmaxwell> P2WSH has the additional restriction that keys must be compressed.
12:48 < sipa> yes
12:48 < sipa> but i'm not talking about that :)
12:48 < stevenroose> srry was a bit confused
12:49 < stevenroose> got it now
12:49 < sipa> the redeemscript is the actually executed script
12:49 < sipa> so the thing that is pushed at the end of the scriptSig is the redeemscript
12:49 < stevenroose> ah ok, didnt know that term
12:49 < stevenroose> so I get lost when the redeemscript contains checksigs
12:50 < stevenroose> oh actually I don't, think I get it
12:50 < stevenroose> the signature only depends on the outputs of the whole new tx (in case of sighash_all)
12:50 < sipa> the redeemscript can contain a checksig... that's very normal
12:50 < stevenroose> right?
12:50 < sipa> yes, and on the scriptcode
12:51 < stevenroose> yeah I mean when migrating a normal scriptPubKey into a redeemscript, the signatures obviously chcange
12:51 < stevenroose> but you can generate them just as easily
12:51 < sipa> yes
12:51 < stevenroose> weell, "easily", let's say in the same way
12:51 < stevenroose> great, thanks
12:52 < stevenroose> I just drafted this script based on a lightning htlc, didnt vet or test yet, but do you see any obviosu red flags?
12:53 < stevenroose> goal is for the initiator to send the money to counterparty only when it provides the preimage and otherwise refund it after timeout
12:53 < stevenroose> it's like a simplified htlc I guess
12:57 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:00 < arubi> stevenroose, you should check out zero knowledge contingent payments
13:03 < stevenroose> arubi, you have a reference maybe?
13:04 < sipa> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/
13:04 < arubi> I don't actually.. I read about it on the bitcoin wiki and some random interesting threads, but never tried applying it myself
13:04 < arubi> ah and this :)
13:05 < stevenroose> I struggled a bit with the fact that CHECKLOCKTIME does not exist (without VERIFY)
13:06 < stevenroose> I'd prefer the case that it's also impossible to spend wth the preimage after the timeout
13:06 < sipa> yeah, not going to happen :)
13:06 < arubi> it has to either do nothing or fail, else it wouldn't be a nopp'ed soft fork
13:06 < sipa> arubi: no
13:06 < stevenroose> sipa, ah that tx is exactly mine lol
13:06 < sipa> it could still be a softfork while doing what stevenroose asks for
13:06 < arubi> oh? enlighten please
13:07 < stevenroose> ah no it has an OP_DROP
13:07 < stevenroose> hmm
13:07 < sipa> but it would be monotonicity of transaction validity
13:07 < sipa> *break
13:07 < stevenroose> oh yeah the verify doesnt drop the locktime value
13:07 < sipa> meaning you'd need to re-evaluate every transaction for every block
13:07 < arubi> oh I see!
13:07 < arubi> yep, understood
13:07 < sipa> and wallet receivers wouldn't know for certain if an unconfirmed transaction could really ever confirm
13:08 < stevenroose> sipa is there a workaround that accomplishes that?
13:08 < stevenroose> like do an if-else based on locktime
13:08 < sipa> you can't branch on locktime, but you don't have to
13:09 < sipa> just create two branches, one that demands a certain locktime and one that doesn't
13:10 < stevenroose> yeah but say (in the script I linked you), the initiator wants to refund using the locktime branch because the timeout passed and he get's boycotted by a miner so that the counterparty wins the race
13:10 < stevenroose> solution is to set the real-world timeout sufficiently after the on-chain timeout
13:11 < stevenroose> but still the counterparty can win a race
13:11 < stevenroose> wait that solution doesnt work at all
13:12 -!- c0rw1n [~c0rw1n@32.106-241-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:13 < stevenroose> (gtg, back in an hour or so. thanks already anyways :) )
13:22 < kanzure> Eliel_: i think it's a good question. maybe fluffypony or someone will have info on botnets + altcoin mining.
13:23 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:26 -!- goatturner [~Beatrootg@2a02:c7d:12e:100:1c91:72c3:e21e:aec2] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:28 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:34 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
13:34 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:02 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:02 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:03 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
14:20 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@bzq-79-178-62-206.red.bezeqint.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:27 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@bzq-79-178-62-206.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Quit: Cheers...]
14:28 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:41 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:53 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:57 -!- moneyattracts [68f492fa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.244.146.250] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:58 < moneyattracts> can   someone  please help
14:58 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
14:59 -!- moneyattracts_ [68f492fa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.244.146.250] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
14:59 < moneyattracts_> please help
15:00 < stevenroose> moneyattracts_, I guess #bitcoin is a better place for general Bitcoin related support :)
15:03 < moneyattracts_> I dont  know  what  to do I thought  was in the  right  place
15:04 < sipa> moneyattracts_: 1) don't ask to ask, just state your question
15:04 < sipa> 2) this channel is not about anything that exists in bitcoin today, but for long term research
15:08 < moneyattracts> I have  a  transaction thats been in Blockchain   sin ce  like  the 12th of  May    was sent  back by  the network  to start over  again  sent  to Polo  address right and  eveything
15:08 < sipa> totally off topic here, try #bitcoin or stackexchange
15:09 < moneyattracts> I tried  the    excelerater over at  vita
15:12 -!- skeuomorf [~skeuomorf@unaffiliated/skeuomorf] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:14 -!- moneyattracts [68f492fa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.244.146.250] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
15:14 -!- moneyattracts_ [68f492fa@gateway/web/freenode/ip.104.244.146.250] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
15:22 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:29 -!- sinahab [4a473b08@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.71.59.8] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:30 -!- sinahab [4a473b08@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.71.59.8] has quit [Client Quit]
15:40 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
15:45 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:48 -!- smk [4ad8c7ae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.216.199.174] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:01 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:c06a:b1d7:a298:6140] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:07 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:c06a:b1d7:a298:6140] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:10 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:14 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit []
16:18 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
16:32 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:42 -!- smk [4ad8c7ae@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.216.199.174] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:44 -!- airbreather [~airbreath@d149-67-99-43.nap.wideopenwest.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:44 -!- mn3monic [~xxwa@unaffiliated/mn3monic] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
16:47 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:49 -!- instagibbs_ [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:51 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:52 -!- bubbly_farts [67f07d45@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.103.240.125.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:53 < bubbly_farts> who can help me with bitcoin?
16:53 < sipa> #bitcoin
16:54 < bubbly_farts> thanks
16:57 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:57 -!- q4 [~q4@user-94-254-235-31.play-internet.pl] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
16:57 -!- bubbly_farts [67f07d45@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.103.240.125.69] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
16:58 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kzbdpzwjxwsusdkb] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
16:59 -!- bubbly_farts [67f07d45@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.103.240.125.69] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:04 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:05 -!- bubbly_farts [67f07d45@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.103.240.125.69] has left #bitcoin-wizards []
17:16 < gmaxwell> why are people coming in here and asking for tech support?
17:16 < kanzure> perhaps there's more of them, so even a fractional percent end up asking questions in weird places
17:17 < gmaxwell> I just wonder how they find it?
17:17 < kanzure> also, #bitcoin-wizards is at the end of the list, so if you look at the list in alphabetical order you might see it
17:18 < gmaxwell> can you actually get a list of channels from freenode? I thought most big irc networks disabled lists?
17:18 < kanzure> /list -YES (but don't do this you'll die)
17:20 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has quit [Quit: Saliendo]
17:20 -!- mode/#bitcoin-wizards [+s] by ChanServ
17:20 < midnightmagic> Yeah you can get a list of channels. You can even limit it to just the big ones.
17:20 < gmaxwell> there, I've dropped it out of lists.
17:21 < gmaxwell> On the basis that it's not likely to be useful to almost anyone that finds it via a list.
17:28 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:32 -!- q4 [~q4@user-94-254-235-31.play-internet.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
17:32 -!- rusty1 [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:32 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:32 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:39 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:49 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:c1b8:123c:a1cd:ae3] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:53 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:55 -!- Belkaar_ [~Belkaar@xdsl-81-173-136-214.netcologne.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:57 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:c1b8:123c:a1cd:ae3] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:57 -!- Belkaar [~Belkaar@xdsl-78-34-243-137.netcologne.de] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:57 -!- Belkaar [~Belkaar@xdsl-78-34-243-137.netcologne.de] has quit [Changing host]
17:57 -!- Belkaar [~Belkaar@unaffiliated/belkaar] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
17:59 -!- pro [~pro@unaffiliated/pro] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:00 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:00 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:05 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:22 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:26 -!- Oizopower [uid19103@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-oiknfmfkuhlhtysd] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
18:32 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
18:33 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]
18:47 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:27 -!- bsm1175322 [~mcelrath@static-100-38-216-231.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:47 -!- bsm117532 [~mcelrath@static-100-38-216-231.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:48 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:48 -!- goatturneer [~Beatrootg@2.126.80.59] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
19:51 -!- goatturner [~Beatrootg@2a02:c7d:12e:100:1c91:72c3:e21e:aec2] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
19:56 -!- skeuomorf [~skeuomorf@unaffiliated/skeuomorf] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:08 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz...]
20:09 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:216e:2cbf:74a8:89e0] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:23 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
20:24 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:216e:2cbf:74a8:89e0] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:40 -!- rusty [~rusty@203.0.153.9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:41 -!- rusty [~rusty@203.0.153.9] has quit [Changing host]
20:41 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:41 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Client Quit]
20:42 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:45 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
20:46 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
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
21:09 -!- _whitelogger [~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:10 -!- _whitelogger [~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:31 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:33 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
21:34 -!- TheSeven [~quassel@rockbox/developer/TheSeven] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:41 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
21:44 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
21:45 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:54 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:56 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:01 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:05 -!- rusty [~rusty@pdpc/supporter/bronze/rusty] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
22:05 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:09 -!- RubenSomsen [~RubenSoms@1.217.138.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
22:26 -!- tiny [~ivob@unaffiliated/tiny] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:27 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:39 -!- bsm117532 [~mcelrath@static-100-38-216-231.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:43 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:f4d6:aa75:7035:52b9] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:54 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:57 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:57 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:58 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
22:59 -!- tromp [~tromp@ool-944bc443.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:03 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bsqjfmegubbmlhfr] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:04 -!- kmels [~kmels@142.63.151.186.static.intelnet.net.gt] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
23:07 -!- rmwb [~rmwb@2001:df0:ce:1080:f4d6:aa75:7035:52b9] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:08 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
23:09 -!- alferz [~alferz@unaffiliated/alfer] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
23:33 -!- v20100 [~20100@modemcable072.203-130-66.mc.videotron.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
23:44 -!- nephyrin` [~neph@nemu.pointysoftware.net] has quit [Quit: ... besides, it was hot]
23:47 -!- nephyrin [~neph@nemu.pointysoftware.net] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:53 -!- Storyteller [~Storytell@176.13.249.161] has joined #bitcoin-wizards
23:56 -!- rilos [~rilos@unaffiliated/rilos] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz...]
23:57 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
--- Log closed Mon May 29 00:00:07 2017